(’ \_\ A ABSTRACT A COMPARISON OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF MARRIED STUDENTS , UNIVERSITY HOUSING ADMINISTRATORS AND STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATORS CONCERNING THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE UNIVERSITY TOWARD PROGRAMS AND SERVICES FOR MARRIED STUDENTS By Edwin King Reuling The general purpose of this research project was two-fold: first, to determine the perceptions of selected University community members toward the need for certain programs and services for married students attending Michigan State University and second , to determine the degree of responsibility that the University should take in carrying out these programs and services . The populations studied were married students attending the University and administrators employed by the University. The entire populations of married students attending the University full-time, 35145, was separated into four stratified randomly selected comparison groups. The groups (N = 80) were: (1) undergraduate married students living off-campus , (2) graduate married students living off- campus, (3) undergraduate married students living on-campus , and (14) graduate married students living on- campus . 'Im comparison groups of administrators were selected. One group, (N = MO), came from those administrators employed by the Vice President for Business and Finance and were identified as having direct decision- maJdng responsibility in the area of on-campus married housing. The other Edwin King Reuling group, (N = 1+0), was chosen from those administrators employed by the Vice President for Student Affairs and were identified as student personnel administrators having direct decision maldng responsibility in the area of programs and services for all married students. The method used to collect data was a mailed questionnaire. The questionnaire contained a total of 58 different suggestions for programs and services which were separated for analysis purposes into six categories: (1) student governance, (2) health care, (3) child care, (it) recreation and entertainment, (5) University and administrative services, and (6) co-ops and community services. These six topic categories were the dependent variables in the study. A one-way analysis of variance was the statistical tool used on each of the six dependent variables to determine if there were significant differences of perceptions among the six comparison groups . It was found that married students generally agreed with each other on the need factor for programs and services and the degree of University responsibility for carrying out the program or service. The exception to this agreement was off—campus graduate students . Their perceptions were more closely aligned with the two administrator groups. Age, length of marriage, independence, and comnunity adj ustment could have set these people apart from the rest of the students. It was also found that the two administrator groups were closely aligned in their thinking. Significant differences of perceptions did occur, however, when the perceptions of all administrators were compared to the perceptions of all students. Significant differences were found in two of the six dependent variables, health care and University and administrative services. In the area of health care it was found that Edwin King Reuling university housing administrators differed from students to a greater degree than did student personnel administrators. This was most likely due to the greater awareness of fiscal concerns on the part of the housing administra- tors. On the other hand, the two administrator groups were closely aligned when the University and administrative service variable was under study. In this area all of the groups had either strong Opinions concerning the need and responsibility factors or no opinion at all, leading to the sig- nificant differences between students and administrators and the close alignment of administrators. The lack of significant differences of perceptions of the feur remain-' ing dependent variables did not detract from the results on individual items contained within these variables. As an example, a total of 33 programs or services were seen as needed by either the students and/or>administrators. FUrther, the health care variable, where significant differences in per- ceptions existed, and the child care variable, where there were no signi— ficant differences in perceptions, yielded more than 50% of all the pro- grams perceived as needed by the groups. Throughout the study the University housing administrator group per- ception was most divergent from the total mean score of all groups. This led to the conclusion that since this was the group most responsible for major policy decisions with regard to programs and services for married students, University housing administrators should include representative students and student personnel administrators in their fcrmalized decision- making structure. This would accomplish two things. One, university housing administrators would be better informed of the needs of groups affected by their decisions and two, married students and student personnel administrators would understand to a greater degree why certain decisions Edwin King Reul ing have to be made thus eliminating possible conflict between groups at a later point in time. As a result of the study several recomnendations were offered . In brief form they are as follows: (1) Student personnel administrators and married students should be given a more formalized role in the decision-making process for married student programming; (2) The off- campus married students , especially the undergraduates , should be I included in the programs and services offered to married students; (3) Implement a consumer information program; (1+) Establish a clearing house for disseminating information and handling of complaints; (5) Provide University personnel to work with married students in setting up cOOperative service programs and; (6) Work with the surrounding conmunities to develop orientation programs and materials for new families. Comments written at the end of each questionnaire were generally supportive of the findings and recommendations of the study . 47 .A COMPARISON OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF MARRIED STUDENTS, UNIVERSITY HOUSING ADMINISTRATORS AND STUDENT PERSONNEL.ADMINISTRATORS CONCERNING THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE UNIVERSITY TOWARD PROGRAMS AND SERVICES FOR MARRIED STUDENTS By Edwin King Reuling {A THESIS Submitted to MiChigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements fOr the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1971 Cepyr‘ight by Edwin King Reuling 1971 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Sincere appreciation is expressed to Dr. Eldon R. NOnnamaker, Dr. waiter F. Johnson and Dr. James B. MCKee for their helpful c00peration as members of the Guidance Committee. Particularly to Dr. NOnnamaker who has been a constant source of inSpiration and counsel fOr many years. Dr. Vandel C. Johnson, Chairman of the Guidance Committee, has been an inspiration in many ways. Dr. Johnson has worked closely and carefully with the writer fOr the completion of the thesis. Further, he has given of his valuable time to motivate and challenge me to do my best. Mention.mmst be given to the Office of Research Consultation and speci— fically to Linda.Allal whose Special knowledge in research techniques enabled this writer to complete the thesis in a much shorter period of time. A.special type of appreciation, the kind reserved for very special people, goes to Lou and Delores Bender without whose faithful encourage— ment and skills in editing this study might not have been completed. Tb my mother, Irene Reuling, goes a debt of gratitude. It would have been impossible to reach this goal without her love and assistance throughout my college years. Most of all, my wife Pam deserves all the praise the writer can give for her patience and understanding. Few people will ever know the love, devotion and sacrifices she gave on behalf of our children, Brad, Mark and Anne and to the writer in an effort to complete our doctoral program” ii Chapter I. II. III. IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS m PROBLm O O O O O C O O O O O O O O 0 Introduction Purpose of the Study Definition of Terms Theory Hypothesis Scope and.Ldndtations of the Study Significance of the Study Organization of the Study REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . Introduction Pre-Wbrld war II Literature Post-WOrld war II Literature Modern Literature A” Married Student Participation in University Activities B. Problems of the Married College Student C. Academic Achievement of Married Students D. Housing Review of Non-scientific Literature Summary DESIGN AND PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY Introduction The Populations, Samples, and Method of Selection Design of Instrument and Collection of the Data Procedure fer Analyzing the Data Summary ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Introduction Testing of the Hypothesis by Statistical Analysis Hypothesis 1a Hypothesis lb Hypothesis lo iii Page LOGDQU'I-CwNH 10 10 ll 12 12 12 15 16 17 18 19 22 22 22 26 30 32 33 33 33 35 36 39 Chapter Page Hypothesis 1d HO Hypothesis 1e #0 Hypothesis If an Analysis of the Data Parenthetical to the Hypothesis HS Sunnauyr 58 V. SUMMARY, DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . 59 Purpose and Procedure . 59 Design 59 findings 60 Hypothesis La 60 Hypothesis lb 60 Hypothesis 1c 61 Hypothesis 1d 61 Hypothesis 1e 61 Hypothesis 1f 62 Additional Data 62 Discussions and Conclusions 63 Fmrrmnxnriations 67 Implications for FUrther Study 69 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..... . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . 73 APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . . . 79 A, written Comments from Respondents 79 B. Letter of Transmittal to Married Students 100 Memo of Transmittal to Administrators 101 Questionnaire 102 iv Table 3.1 3.2 3.3 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 LIST OF TABLES Married Student Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sample Question with Accompanying Response swes O O O O O O O O O O O O O I I O O O O O O O O 0 Responses to Questionnaire: The Numbers and Percentages of Responses by Subgroups . . . . . . Group Weighted Mean Score Values for the Six Dependent Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Variance on the Dependent Variable Student Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Variance on the Dependent variable Health Care . . . . . . . . Major Post Hoc Contrasts on the Dependent Variable Health Care . . . . . . . . . . . Secondary Post Hoc Contrasts on the Dependent Variable Health Care . . . . . . Analysis of Variance on Dependent Variable Child Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Variance on the Dependent Variable Recreation and Entertainment . Analysis of Variance on the Dependent Variable university and Administrative Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Major Post Hoc Contrasts on the Dependent Variable university and Administrative Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Secondary Post Hoc Contrasts on the Dependent Variable University and AdministrativeServices............... Analysis of Variance for the Dependent Variable Cooperatives and Community Services . . . . . . . . . . V Page 23 27 31 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 41 43 an Table Page 4.12 Within Cell Coorelation Matrix for the Six Dependent Variable Scales . . . . . . . . 45 4.13 Discriminant FUnction.Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 4.14 Mean Score Responses Comparing All Administrators with All Students by Item 0 O O C O C I C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C 1+ 7 4.15 Degree of Perceived Need for Programs and Services Perceived as Needed or Strongly Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 All Off-Campus, undergraduate Married Students Responses to the Open—End Que St ion I O I O I I I O O O I O O O O O O O I O O O O 7 g .A.2 Off-Campus, Graduate Married Students Responses to the Open-End Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 A.3 On-Campus, undergraduate Married Students Responses to the Open-End we St ion D O O I O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O 8 8 A.4 On—Campus, Graduate Married Students Responses to the Open—End Quest ion 0 O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 g 2 A.5 university Heusing Administrators Responses to the Open-End Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 A.6 Student Personnel Administrators Responses to the Open-End Question ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 vi CHAPTERI The Problem Compared with the length of time that single student housing has been a part of American colleges and universities, married student housing is a new phenomenon. It has been developed in the relatively few years since the end of Wbrld war'II when significant numbers of married students began attending institutions of higher education. College housing programs have fluctuated over the years depending on the philosophy of the institution, the economics of the times, the number of students enrolled, and the number of student units available on and off campus. (8) (69) The primary recipient of services, however, has always been the single student. Although a 1969 U.S. Census Bureau publication (10:24) showed that 22.8 percent of college students are married, American colleges and universities have done little to respond to the needs of this segment of the student population. Several factors have fostered this attitude. First is the notion that married students are more responsible in handling their affairs and do not need university services to the same degree as do single students. Marriage seems to confer an aura of enfbrced independence. A second factor demonstrating higher education's response to married students is the phenomenal proliferation of single student housing in the middle and late 1960's. In MiChigan between 1962 and 1965 there was a 24 percent increase in the number of students attending institutions of higher education. (13) The Midhigan Coordinating Council of Higher Education accurately predicted a 74 percent increase by 1970 (13). In response, college and university commmities initiated massive on—campus single student residence hall building projects and off-campus apartment construction programs. Universities placed maj or emphasis on servicing and staffing residence halls. Married students went unnoticed while their numbers increased at a rate equal to single students' . A third consideration is that colleges and universities no longer standing .13 loco parentis are unlikely to inaugurate services to a segment of the university community that has received little consideration up to now. The fourth and most significant factor is the almost complete lack of research in the married student housing area. There has been no signi- ficant study since Oppelt's 1962 dissertation (58). There has been no investigation of the attitudes of individuals responsible for providing housing and programming for married students. Consequently there has been no attempt to determine the specific responsibilities the university has to the married student and his needs . Purpose of the Study The preceding identifies a need for educational administrators to evaluate the university' 5 role and its responsibility to the married students population. This study compared the perceptions of married students, university housing administrators , and student personnel administrators concerning the need for various programs and services for married students. The purpose of this study was to analyze the opinions of the abovementioned individuals with the intent being to give direction and support to programming endeavors in this area. Definition of Terms For purpose of this study the following definitions were used: Married Student - A full-time student who is married, male or female, United States citizen, freshman, sophomore , junior, senior or graduate class standing and attending classes on the East Lansing campus of Michigan State University. Full-time student status was defined as those students carrying twelve or more credits per quarter at the undergraduate level, nine or more credits per quarter at the masters level and six or more credits per quarter at the doctoral level . University Housing Administrator - A full-time professional staff member employed by the Office of the Vice President for Business and Finance who 7 is directly involved with the management of Michigan State University ' s on-campus housing operation. His/her responsibilities include planning, financing, construction, occupancy , food service , maintenance , and all other business aspects of university-owned residence buildings. Student Personnel Administrator - A full—time professional central staff member, (excluding residence hall head advisors) , employed by the Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs. The administrator is directly involved in carrying out one or more of the following student personnel functions; financial aids, intramural athletics, health services , volunteer services , student governance , residence hall programs , judicial programs , counseling, off campus housing and general dean of student administrative responsibilities. University Responsibility - The responsibility perceived as Michigan State University' 3 in developing and implementing projects and programs which enhance the educational process of the married student . Theory Role theory is basic in a study of perceptions of related groups. Brookover (7); Gross, Mason, and McEachern (31); Neiman and Hughes (54); Newcomb (55); Nonnamaker (56); and Sarbin (72) have established variations on the role theory concept. These authors did not all agree in their concept of role theory; however, the theory is broad enough to encompass the differences. Nonnamaker defined role as "the expectations which others have for any actor in a particular position or the expectations that any actor may have for his own position." (56:21) Newccnb defined role in terms of position. "The ways of behaving which are expected of any individual who occupies a certain position constitute the role associated with that position. A position . . . 18 some- thing static; it is a place in the structure recognized by members of the society and accorded by them to one or more individuals. A role, on the other hand, is some- thing dynamic; it refers to the behavior of the occupants of a position, not all their behavior, as persons , but what they do as occupants of the position." (54:280) Brookover described role in terms of status and status situations . He identified seven elements of role theory: General stamsnothers' expectations of any actor in a broadly defined position i. e. teacher. Status in situation-~others' expectations of any actor in a particular situation. Role-others' expectation of a particular actor in a particular situation. Actorh-the individual as he enters the situation with his previous experience in related situations , personality needs , and the meaning of the situation for him. Self involvement--actor' 5 image of the ends anticipated from participation in the status as he projected his self image in the role. Definition--actor's definition of what he thinks others expect of fin in the role. Behavior in interaction--actor' s behavior in interaction with others . This is determined by definition and role but also continually redefines them. (7:3) For purposes of this study , the interpretation of role theory advanced by Gross, Mason and McEachern was used. They defined role as "a set of expectations applied to an incumbent of a particular position. " Position was defined as the "location of an actor or class of actors in a system of social relationships. " The theory suggested that "the greater the homogeneity armng or between position incumbents the more consensus they will have on expectations for their own and others' positions." (31:60) This interpretation of role theory was used because it was considered to have best incorporated the tenets of the other three stated interpre- tations. In addition, it is this writer's opinion that this interpretation best lent itself to the methodology employed in the study. Hypothesis The hypothesis of this study is that the various groups of students and administrators sampled will differ in their perceptions of the need for specific services and in their opinions on the degree of University responsibility for providing the services. A six-part research hypothesis, each part dealing with a distinct program area or service area, was for- mulated : Research Hypothesis la There will be differences among the perceptions of the six experi- mental groupsl regarding Michigan State University's responsibility for selected married student governance programs and services . Research Hypothesis lb There will be differences among the perceptions of the six experi- mental groups regarding Michigan State University' 5 responsibility for selected married student health programs and services. Research Hypothesis 1c There will be differences among the perceptions of the six experi- mental groups regarding Michigan State University's responsibility for selected married student child care programs and services . Research Hypothesis 1d There will be differences among the perceptions of the six experi- mental groups regarding Michigan State University's responsibility for selected married student recreation and entertainment programs and services . Research Hypothesis 1e There will be differences among the perceptions of the six experi- mental groups regarding Michigan State University' s responsibility for selected University and administrative programs and services for married students . lMarried students were divided into four subgroups: off-campus undergraduates , off-campus graduates , on-campus undergraduates , and on- campus graduates . The university housing administrators and the student personnel administrators each constituted separate comparison groups . Research Hypothesis 1f There will be differences among the perceptions of the six experi- mental groups regarding Michigan State University's responsibility for selected married student cooperatives and community programs and services . Each of the six comparison groups in the study occupies a different position in the University community and , according to role theory should differ in perceptions from the other comparison groups . There is , however, a degree of homogeniety among the members of the married student groups in that all are married students enrolled for academic classes. Typically they are younger, less educated and experienced, and less stable financially than the members of the two administrator groups. (49:6) The University community is, in many cases, the first place in which married students have lived as married couples . (53:433) This factor alone presents the students with a unique set of problems that administrators generally do not share but must assist in resolving. Scope and Limitations of the Study The populations involved in this study are limited to all married students enrolled at Michigan State University for Spring Term 1971 , and all university housing and student personnel administrators eIployed by Michigan State University during Spring Term 1971. All of the data and conclusions refer only to those populations . It should be elphasized that marriage cannot be causally related with any variable in this study, since marriage itself is not a variable here . This study is further limited by those factors inherent in the use of any questionnaire: errors in tabulation , cooperation of respondents , and validity of returns . The respondent may have completed the question- naire alone or by conferring with his or her spouse; this variable is uncontrolled. The major delimitation of this study is that it is based entirely on data gathered at Michigan State University during Spring Quarter 19 71. Significance of the Study Research in the area of this study may very well have value to those concerned with the problems of married students . University administrators involved in service to married students may benefit by knowledge of how mmried students and fellow administrators view the responsibility of the University to the married student's living environment. In addition, it should be useful in 1) providing an impetus for further research concerning the married student's living situation, 2) providing a foundation on which future policy formulation can be based to best serve the married student, 3) providing ideas for other institutions who want to review the married student living situation on their campuses, and 4) evaluating our present position regarding married student programs and services at Michigan State University. It is hoped that this research may help students, faculty, administrators , and other interested members of the University community to clarify what the responsibility of the University should be as it relates to the married student and his or her family in terms of the changing climate of higher education today. It is only when the University's responsibility is understood that our energies and facilities can be best used to the betterment of students in higher education . Organization of the Study For the purpose of convenience and systematic consideration , this study is reported in five chapters . Chapter I presents an introduction of the study, the purpose of the study, the theory behind the study, the hypothesis to be tested, and the limitations and significance of the study. Chapter II includes a review of the pertinent literature . Chapter III consists of a report of the populations under study, a description of the samples and the sampling procedures , the questionnaire design, and the methods used in analyzing the data. The analysis of the data and resulting findings of the study are reported in Chapter IV. A summary of the findings , conclusions , implications , recommendations , and suggestions for further study are presented in Chapter V. CHAPTERII Review of Related Literature The traditional function of college administrators has been to provide activities and services for single undergraduate students . The interests and activity patterns of young married and adult students have been the subject of limited research. 1. "Following the conclusion of World War II . . . " (28:328) 2 . "The return of the veteran to college in the years immediately following World War II . . . " (19:178) 3. "Married students and their families appeared on college campuses in the late 1940's . . . " (24:1) The above phrases typify topic sentences in most of the articles, papers, and studies written on the subject of married college students. As the three statements suggest, the married college student is a new pheno- menon. World War II veterans returned to the carpus with a strong desire for a college education, financial support from the government (GI Bill), and, often, a wife. Colleges and universities opened their doors to these students and initiated some services: marriage counseling , part-time study , special financial aids , and adult vocational counseling. It is significant that only one of the generally used textbooks in student personnel education makes even a passing mention of married students . Mueller (53) questioned the advisability of undergraduate marriages and argued that if we cannot afford to provide personnel services to all students , married students may be the most expendable . She 10 11 discusses the number of married college students, their living conditions and finances, the pros and cons of early marriage , the role of the student wife , and concludes that "personnel workers should be prepared to evaluate all aspects of this problem." (53:442) But these words were written a decade ago. The most recent student personnel textbook, by Fitzgerald, Johnson, and Norris, discourses briefly on married students. They present Oppelt' 5 study as the most recent done on married students and student personnel services. (28:329) Many life style changes have occurred since Oppelt's data were collected in 1960 , yet there is little evidence of change or innovation in approach to the situation. Other literature pertaining to married students is of three types: descriptive research studies reported in professional journals, unpublished doctoral dissertations from several universities , and human interest discussions in popular periodicals . The latter will be surveyed later in this chapter; the former two types, which provide usable scientific data, will be presented chronologically, by period: pre-World War II (1930-1941), post-World War II (1946-1954), and modern (1955-1971). Pre—World War II Literature Prewar literature consists mainly of magazine articles questioning the new concept of college student marriage . There is one notable ex- ception, a study by Riemer at Washington State University . His was the first recorded systematic study concerned exclusively with married college students. (65) Among the major conclusions dram concerning married male graduate and undergraduate students at Washington in the fall of 1941 were the following: 12 1. Married students did not fit into the normal campus social life and tended to arrange their activities on an individual basis. (65:810) 2. The number of married students would increase after World War II. (65:815) 3. Universities should provide curricular and extra- curricular activities designed to include married students. (65:815) Rierer's other findings were demographic: age, religion, financial position, and academic major. (65:804-7) Post-World War II Literature The literature of the postwar period described the veteran who was much older and not at all typical of today's married student. However, the married veteran of World War II was the primary stimulus for whatever programs and services that are offered by colleges and universities for married students today. (59:2, 18) Modern Literature Studies in this latest period can be categorized into four general areas: married student participation in university activities; problems of married students; academic achievement of married students; and housing. Housing is, of course, a variable in the first three topics. A. Married Student Participation in University Activities Married student participation in university activities has been better researched than most facets of married student life. Oppelt summarized the studies that had been done before 1960. (59:14) Following is a discussion of the literature from 1960 to 1971. Dressel (24) reported in 1963 on personnel services offered to married smdents at Indiana University. His study consisted of a population 13 of all married students enrolled with no distinction of sex or class level. The four topic areas in the study were living unit activities , canpus— wide activities, counseling, and financial aid. The data collected by the interview method concluded that married students: 1. were satisfied with the status quo in each of the four areas; 2 . desired programs of social activities both in their living units and on an all-campus basis; 3 . felt that printed material describing typical problers of married students and some possible solutions might be helpful; 4 . thought that a program of emergency loans would be useful. (24:128) However, Dressel reported in another study on married student interest in college- sponsored activities that over 70 percent of the students polled (including the spouse as well as the student) were not satisfied with the degree of their participation in campus activities . Finances and lack of time were two major reasons voiced for not participating as much as desired. Subjects indicated a preference for social activities rather than non-vocational instruction or recreation. Fifty-five percent indicated willingness to participate in social activities designed for married students only. Married students were not highly interested in campus activities with a boy-meets—girl atmosphere , a variable no longer paramount in their social lives. (25:920-4) Eshleran, in a study done at Western Michigan University in 1967, reported that married students perceived participation to be- less frequent than desired and further perceived the campus social structure to be designed specifically to exclude them and their families. (26:11) Haun, in a study of problems of married college students at the 48 land grand colleges in 1967, included among his findings the following recamendations of significance to this study: l4 1. Married student families should be made more aware of services offered by the university. 2. Inexpensive activity programs should be initiated in.married housing units. 3. Programs should be designed to include the whole family, not just the student. 4. Married student participation in activities should be encouraged. 5. Programming should include learning experiences of use to the student when he or she graduates and enters another community. 6. Provision Should be made to give wives opport- unities outside the confines of home to release daily tensions. .An activity center would provide this means of diversion. (34:86-8) In a 1969 study of married student involvement in the campus community, Hutter concluded that a major factor accounting for differences in extracurricular commitment was the individual's "social-psychological involvement with his commmity." One's priorities--family, studies, and social life--dictate the degree to whiCh one becomes active in university- sponsored activities. A student who spends time in planning and organizing an activity is very likely to attend it. (37:128) Brigl, in a 1970 study of Indiana University married students' leisure interests, found that married students had much free time, yet: 1. 85 percent said Indiana University was unimportant in their lives; 2. student participation in extracurricular activities decreased after enrollment at Indiana university; and 3. the primary location fer activity was at home. (6:140) The results of this study are someWhat questionable. Questionnaires were sent to a random sample of 1,000 married students. Only 482 usable returns were shown in the results. This means that less than 50 percent of those asked to respond did so. No explanation was given which leaves the reader with some doubt as to the validity of the study. In a study of married students at Oklahoma State University in 1970, King concluded that their participation in extracurricular activities was 15 Imhrumal. Students questioned felt that their needs were not being met by currently offered services and activities , but were undecided on what suggested programs would be of value. (40:114) B. Prdblems of the Married College Student Recent investigations indicate that the primary source of difficulty continues to be finances. This is supported.by Bailey (5:51), Altman and McFarlane (3:51), Cushing, Phillips, and Stevenson (18:26), Donnelly (22:34), Harry (33:78), Lantagne (42:87), and Riener (65:814). The fellowing researChers feund insufficient financial support to be the greatest single source of married student problems: Mueller (53:431), Dressel (25:923), Oppelt (59:60), Haun (34:84), and King (40:109). Mneller‘s report is particularly poignant: 90 percent of all married students live under constant financial stress . "The personal and emotional satisfactions and stability which his married status offers him.are often offSet by the personal and emotional stress and the time taken from his study by his other responsibilities." (53:433) One significant aspect of the married student's financial situation is the amount of full-time or part-time work necessary. Most of the studies in this area focus on the student member of the family. Bailey (5 :11) indicated the 56 percent of married students work part time and 12.7 percent work full time; Rogers (68:199), Perry (62:767), Lantagne (42:90), and Oppelt (59:59) all indicated that a majority of .married students work twenty to forty hours per week. Oppelt expanded this point by stating that, in order of decreasing proportion financial support for the married student came frommwork, spouse's work, financial aid (including the GI Bill), and parental contribution. Age seemed to make a significant difference in the major source of income: younger 16 couples received more support from both sets of parents and from financial aids. (60:35?) A related factor of interest is that research shows an overwhelming majority of married students own automobiles. Perry's study showed 100 percent owned cars (62:768), 95 percent in Bailey's study owned cars (5:194), and 97 percent of Oppelt's subjects owned cars (59:59). C. Academic Achievement of Married Students A.recurrent theme in the literature on married student problems is the drive for academic achievement. This study is not concerned with mauried students' grades but it seems advisable to mention briefly the results of some research to enable the reader to understand more fully the impact of the total educational environment on the married student. It is generally believed that marriage significantly improves grades. Research does not support this belief but shows that grades usually improve with progress through school. Recent studies (1965-71) are void of any figures relating to grade point averages. Starting in 1950 with Nygreen's study (57), there has been no significant difference demonstrated in married and unmarried student grade point averages. Lantagne (42:87) and Aller (2:14) reported grade point averages were higher because of marriage, however, Jensen and Clark (38:124), Lee (43:119), Chilman and Meyer (12:75), Cohen, King, and Nelson (15:99), Samenfink and Millikan (70:226), and Falk (27:208) all found that marriage had no significant effect on academic achievement. Hansen (32:98) fhrther expands this point by suggesting that men's grades are positively affected by marriage and Children but that the arrival of children has an adverse affect on the ability to stay in school. 17 D. HOusing "Any good student personnel program for married undergraduates at a residential college must be centered in student housing. To take full advantage of this natural environment for learning and to implenent a program providing educational opportunities for married undergraduate students which is equal to that established for single students , professionally educated student personnel workers are needed." Green (30:198) "Colleges and universities have no business being in the housing business , but they do have grave responsibility to be effective, economical educational institutions. If a student's residence has a significant educational contribution to make , colleges have an obligation to organize and admin- ister housing to achieve the maximum possible educational benefits. This is a vastly different concept than just being in the housing business." Shaffer (73:121) These two statements verify the importance of housing programs for married students. Housing is not simply shelter. It sets the style of life and affects the interactions of its occupants. The lessons of life learned here influence the quality of commitment the residents will have in other communities. (37:131), (25:924) Research in the area of married student housing is primarily concerned with economics and design. Articles have appeared on occasion in Architectural Record (46:119), (20:141); Architectural Forum (81:99), (61:110); and College and University Business (77:64). Moore (50) presented a study in 1970 of married housing at seventy- nine institutions. General information regarding characteristics of the institutions and their married housing facilities and progrars was gathered. It was fournd that building programs for married student housing doubled after 1955, with two-bedroom apartments being as popular as all the other types combined. Fifty-six respondent institutions had plans for further 18 construction. One alarming finding of the study was the apparent lack of reliance on any form of organized research in design of married housing. Only 20 of the 79 institutions had even atterpted to research the matter. The guiding principle for all was low cost. Studies on other related topics usually imply or directly state that housing is a major problem facing young married students. (19:184), (82:184), (14:426) Review of Non-scientific Literature Articles in popular magazines have featured different aspects of the life of married college students. Although those articles make little use of scientific data to draw conclusions , they should be considered from the point of view of their impact on the readers of these magazines. These articles provide broad descriptions of married student activities , characteristics , and problems . Oppelt (59 :28) reviewed six pre-World War II writers who discussed the advantages and disadvantages of married student life. He cites the conclusion of these writers that student marriages are not undesireable if the individuals involved are mature and financially prepared. More recently, Hill (36:58), O'Neil (58:6), and Newsweek (79:105) have drawn the same conclus ion. Three articles describing married women students, Gary (29:290), Copeland (17:18), and Asbell (4:136) , cite acceptance by professors, students, and administrators of the wife-and-student role as a major factor in the adjustment and academic success of married women students. As in the research articles , the financial aspect gets much attention. A letter published in Readers Digest (64:56) from a father to his daughter eloquently states the thoughts and concerns of a parent regarding early 19 marriage . The major disadvantage mentioned is lack of ability to generate enough income to prepare adequately for earning a greater amount later. This point of view is supported by Mace (M326) and further expanded by an article in McCalls (83:67) which discusses couples who depend on financial support from parents . With the money comes the undesireable variable of outside control. As a final presentation of research in the area of married college students , it is appropriate to quote a Newsweek article on the divorce rate of college student marriages: "The failure rate is even higher than the shockingly high national average." (79 : 105) The author estimates that one of every three marriages occuring while one or both spouses are in college will end in divorce; nationally , for every four marriages there is one divorce. (79:105) The problem is far from inconsequential when it is considered that nearly one-quarter of all college students are married. The major conclusions to be drawn from these articles are that married students will continue to be part of the campus scene and that they possess a unique set of problems which they are willing to endure to achieve their future goals. Summary of the Review of Related Literature 1. There have been few valuable research studies on any aspect of college student marriages. 2. There has been no single comprehensive study specifically designed to discover what married students perceive their needs to be with regard to university sponsored programs and services. 10. 11. 12. 13. 20 There has been no single comprehensive study concerning the perceptions of university personnel on the married student's need for programs and services . There has been no single ccmprehens ive study comparing perceptions of married students and involved administrators on the relative need for various programs and services . The divorce rate of married college students is considerably higher than the national rate. There is no difference in academic achievement between single and married students . There is considerable agreement among authors on the pros and cons of student marriages . There is unanimity in the descriptive studies regarding the demographic background data on married students . The greatest some of problems for married students is financial need. Pull-time and part-time work are the major source of income for married students. Married students are less active than single students in university sponsored activities . The studies and opinions of the authors reviewed clearly indicate a need for more research regarding the married student. The studies and authors' opinions suggest that colleges and universities should begin to respond to married students in more educational ways in an effort to enhance these couples' chances of success in other communities later in life. 21 11}. Housing and financial problems are common topics in all of the litera- ture on married college students . In the next chapter, the description and methodology of the study will be discussed. CHAPTER III Design and Procedures of the Study This study was designed to compare the perceptions of married students, University housing administrators , and student personnel administrators with regard to the need for selected programs and services and the University's responsibility for the implementation of these same programs and services. The following defines the populations studied and the method of selecting the sample. A description of the instrument and of the procedures used in obtaining the data, and a review of the analysis technique are included . The Populations , Samples and Method of Selection The population for this study consisted of: 1) all full-time undergraduate and graduate married U.S. citizens enrolled at Michigan State University Spring Term 1971; 2) all University housing administrators with continuing appointments employed Spring Term 1971 by the Office of the Vice President for Business and Finance; and 3) all student personnel administrators with continuing appointments employed Spring Term , 1971 by the Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs. The married student population was selected using the Michigan State University local address card each student fills out at registration each term. This card lists the student's local address, phone number, level, curriculum, class, student number, sex, marital status, and a residence classification code. From the Winter Term 1971 local address 22 23 card, 3,5N5 married students meeting the above established criteria were identified. This population was then separated into four comparison groups: offscampus undergraduate, on-campus undergraduate, off-campus graduate, and on—campus graduate. The married student population from WhiCh four proportional samples were drawn is shown in Table 3.1. Table 3.1 Married Student Population Classification Undergraduate Graduate Total Offecampus 16u7 780 2H2? On-campus 569 5H9 1118 Total 2216 1329 35u5 From this population, a stratified random sample was selected by breaking down the married students into the fcur comparison.groups and randomly picking 80 students in each group. The number 80 for each group was pidked so as to make the total sample large enough to measure accurately statistically and also to make eaCh comparison group large enough to measure stastically in and of itself. The stratified random sample was obtained by using a table of random.numbers to select subjects fcr each of the fOur comparison.groups. Thus the total married student sample was made up of 320 subjects. The remaining two administrator sample groups were selected in a purposive faShion and not in a random.fashion. The decision to compare purposive samples and random samples was based on the fact that the most effective way to compare the perceptions of these groups would be to obtain the most representative sample from eaCh area. (23:119) Here 2'4 the most representative samples could not be selected in a random way as some of the responsibilities of individuals represented in both groups had no bearing whatsoever on the married student . Thus job responsibilities were used as the criteria rather than random selection. ‘ The sample of University housing administrators was generated from population of 115 full-time administrators employed by the Office of the Vice President for Business and Finance. Forty administrators were identified from this list as having the most important decision-making responsibilities regarding the on-campus married housing program. The decision-makers varied in areas of responsibility for married housing: from janitorial services, maintenance, grounds , policy formulation, financial administration, to future expansion. From a population of 72 full-time student personnel administrators employed by the Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs, 1&0 administrators were identified as having the most important decis ion- making responsibilities regarding the programs and services provided for Michigan State University' s married students. The selected administrators included assistant directors, area directors, assistant deans, associate deans , dean, and vice president. Residence hall head advisors , although they are full-time personnel, were not included in the sample as they work strictly with single students. The total sample then consisted of 320 married students and 80 administrators. Well in advance of selecting the appropriate samples for this study, a decision had been made to analyze the data that was to be collected by a relatively strong statistical test called Planned Comparisons. (35) Among the requirements set forth for the use of this statistical tool were that the sample sizes had to be exactly the same size or mmlltiples 25 of each other and that only a prearranged number of comparisons could be tested. Prom.this decision, arose the decision to make the married student comparison group a size of 80 and as a consequence the administrator group sizes either had to equal 80 or equal a multiple of this number. As mentioned above, the total population of the University housing administrator group equaled 115 and the total population of the student personnel administrator group equaled 72. Thus, due to the relatively small population sizes of these two administrator comparison groups, it was decided to select a sample size equal to one-half of the student group size or ”0 administrators in each group. After'the decision on sample sizes had been made, enough further evidence appeared regarding the types of topics to be studied so as to change the type of analysis to be employed in the study. This fUrther evidence caused the researcher to greatly expand the types of programs and services to be placed under investigation. This changed the emphasis from.prearranged planned comparisons of perceptions of the groups on a limited number of topics to an investigation of the perceptions of the comparison groups on a mudh broader subject range of programs and services. Thus a switch had to be made in the type of data analysis to be used in the study. It was determined that the best way to analyze the statistical data yielded by a questionnaire was the Analysis of Variance: Fixed Effects Pbdel, followed by Scheffe's Post Hoc Comparisons. (35) ANOVA determined whether there were any differences among the groups; the Post HOc Come parisons isolated these differences fer interpretation. The major subgroups examined for differences were all administrators versus all students, all University housing administrators versus all student personnel administrators, 26 all on-campus students versus all offecampus students, and all graduate students versus all undergraduate students. Design of Instrument and Collection of Data The mailed questionnaire was selected as the most feasible method of l was developed in the data collection. The final 58-item.questionnaire following manner. One hundred two items were initially suggested for possible use in the study by personnel representing several different segments of the university community. Those people included student personnel administrators, University housing officials, faculty, and married students at Michigan State University. In addition, several meetings were attended by the researdher Where the married student was the topic of discussion. In this way, twenty-seven items were added to the original list, bringing the total to 129 items. After combining some items, rewriting others, and eliminating still others, a list of 79 items was deve10ped. A two-part response scale was then designed to allow eadh respondent to indicate in Part A_whether the suggested program or service was needed and in Part B who should assume responsibility for carrying out the suggested program or service. A sample question with response scales appears in Table 3.2. Eadh response was weighted to facilitate uniformlrecording of the responses for analytical purposes. Using the 79 items and the response scale, a questionnaire was developed and presented to selected faculty, administrators, and married 1See Appendix B. 27 438 mpfiofim u m new no.8: $5an u a £995 u m .90 «m: reggae: u m 9.3.0.5 fiamfimxéco u H "omvgwwmz mums m Em aw mcoavao gun.“ mam @882 #02 u o was 8862 u H 6882 358% u N "Erasmus 8m: < ”Ema fi 8038 ofifi 9E s35 m L563... 8g 93 nos 28 6.an ,5 8min: swam.» pom ago m. “.5:ng paw moam>mm doom .mmmm .Qmmm wfimfim .Qmmm dmwm omommz omomoz omommz HEB. 8.82 8:85pm so mm: 3.8. #02 samcpbm qumogm wvamofim w .325 .325 $ch . 8:85pm Bag 90 bungmxwfis wmoEmm c8 :8.»on mowomw: mflfi. .Hom bflafimcommmm m5. 9H3 p.305 0:3 mofifimm c8 Emfiwopm mg mH mowamm so gone mm gm H< gm mmdmom mmcoowmm gang fies 838:0 395m N . m mafia. 28 students for their comments on the content, clarity, and purpose of the questionnaire. The questionnaire was submitted to William.Farquhar, Professor, Counseling and Personnel Services, for technical criticismland refining. To further test the instrument, two pilot studies were conducted. The questionnaire was administered to groups of married students living on and off campus and to university administrators. Comments were solicited after eaCh session, and on the basis of these and Dr. Parquhar's suggestions, 21 items were then deleted. The resulting 58 items were then separated into six general categories. The categories, with the number of items in eaCh scale, were: governance, 13; health, 9; Child care, 11; recreation and entertainment, 8; University and administrative services, 10; and cooperatives and community services, 7. The values assigned to the three responses in Part.A and to the five responses in Part B were designed to enable the researcher to multiply Part A and Part B of eaCh item, thus obtaining a weighted score that would contribute to a weighted mean score value. (These values used for weighting are given in Table 3.2.) The value of zero for the "not needed" response in Part'A was chosen to eliminate those responses from inclusion in the weighted score when computing the mean score values for ANOVA. It is only meaningful to measure responsibility for programs and services the subjects thought were needed. From all of the subjects' responses to each of the six areas was derived a group weighted mean score value fOr eaCh area, in the fOllowing manner: each subject's responses to Parts A.and B of eaCh item were multiplied together'yielding a weighted score fOr each item. All the weighted scores in each area.were added, and this 29 total was divided by the number of items in each area. The result was a weighted mean score value for each of the six areas for each respondent. The overall effect of weighting the responses in this manner was to generate data that could be consistently analyzed and compared with every other scale in the study. The final draft of the questionnaire was approved by the Chairman of the researcher's Doctoral Guidance Committee. During the second week of Spring Term 19 71, the questionnaire with detailed instructions and a personal cover letter were mailed to the members of each sample group. The questionnaires had been coded for purposes of identifying subgroup membership and non—respondents. A stamped, self-addressed envelope was enclosed to encourage prompt return. TWO weeks were allowed for completion and return of the questionnaire before a follow-up letter and questionnaire were sent to all student non- respondents. Administrators responded promptly and in numbers sufficient to preclude the need for any follow—up technique. In addition, con- siderable time was spent telephoning non-respondent students to ask if they had received the questionnaire and if a return could be expected. The telephone was also used to correct the sample: it was discovered that 32 of the individuals sampled were no longer students. Financial problems , divorce , military service, and graduation were reasons given for loss of student status. Instead of selecting replacements to return each sub- group to the original number of 80, the researcher was advised by the Office of Research Consultation that, since the samples were orginally random and the final number of respondents in each group was large enough for accurate statistical analysis, there was no need to resample more 30 subjects. The resulting number of returns and the percentages of responses for each subgroup are summarized in Table 3.3, page 31. Procedure for Analyzing the Data For statistical analysis the research hypothesis stated in Chapter I was reformulated to be a six-part null hypothesis: Hypothesis la: There will be no differences of perceptions among the six experimental groups' percep- tions of Michigan State University's re- sponsibility toward suggested married student governance programs and services . Hypothesis lb: There will be no differences of perceptions arong the six experimental groups' percep- tions of Michigan State University's re- sponsibility toward suggested married student health care programs and services. Hypothesis 1c: There will be no differences of perceptions along the six experimental groups' percep- tions of Michigan State University's re- sponsibility toward suggested married student child care programs and services. Hypothesis 1d: There will be no differences of perceptions arong the six experimental groups' percep- tions of Michigan State University's re- sponsibility toward suggested married student recreation and entertainment programs and services. Hypothesis 1e: There will be no differences of perceptions among the six experimental groups' percep- tions of Michigan State University's re- sponsibility toward suggested married student University and administrative services. Hypothesis 1f: There will be no differences of perceptions along the six experimental groups ' percep- tions of Michigan State University's re- sponsibility toward suggested married student cooperatives and community services. A one-way Analysis of Variance: Fixed Effects Model was performed on each of the six groups' weighted mean score values, to determine 31 Table 3.3 Responses to Questionnaire: The Numbers and Percentages of Responses by Subgroups. Original Final Number in Number in Number>of % of Follow- Sample Sample* Responses** Responses up undergradur ate on campus 80 72 58 80.5% Yes Graduate on campus 80 65 55 83% Yes Undergradu- ate off campus 80 69 58 8u% Yes Graduate off campus 80 66 5a 81.8% Yes Student Personnel Administrators HO HO no 100% No University HOusing Administrators HO H0 35 87.5% No Total MOO 352 300 8a.9% *After subtraction of'ncn-students from.the original sample. **Sixteen returned questionnaires could not be identified with any subgroup, due to missing code numbers, and were eliminated.from1the analysis. 32 support or non-support for each part of the null hypothesis and Scheffe's Post Hoc Comparisons were performed when the ANOVA _F_ ratio was signi- ficant (p (.01). In addition to thus testing the hypothesis , the weighted score for each item was reported in a separate Table, H.114 page '45, to allow corparison of all administrators' with all students' perceptions of the need for each program or service and of where responsibility for carrying out the program or service should lie. Summary This chapter has presented descriptions of the populations and of the satple, described the instrument and the collection of the data, presented the null hypothesis generated by the purposes of the study, and reviewed the procedures used in the data analysis. The next part of this study, Chapter IV, will be the analysis of the findings followed by a summary and conclusions in Chapter V. CHAPTER IV Analysis of the Data This chapter describes the testing of the hypothesis by statistical analyses and reports the analyses of data parenthetical to the hypothesis. The fOllowing schemata.were devised to assist the reader in Chapter IV's graphic presentations: Subgroups Group 1 -- Off-campus undergraduate married students Group 2 —- Offecampus graduate married students Group 3 -- On-campus undergraduate married students Group u -- On-campus graduate married students Group 5 —- University housing administrators Group 6 - Student personnel administrators Dependent Variables Govern -— Governance Health -- Health Care Child -- Child Care RecEnt -- Recreation and Entertainment U A.Ser. -- University and Administrative Services Co-ops -- COOperatives and Community Services Testing of the Hypothesis by Statistical Analyses Table H.l presents the weighted mean score values for eaCh group for eaCh of the six dependent variables. 33 34 Table 4.1 Group weighted Mean Score Values for the Six Dependent Variables Group Govern Health Child RecEnt U A Ser. Co-ops Average Mean Group 1 2.8106 1.9108 2.7566 2.7084 2.4609 3.1245 2.6286 Group 2 2.9951 2.2252 2.9184 2.8791 2.6376 3.2742 2.8216 Group 3 2.9836 1.9907 2.7421 2.6737 2.4006 3.1362 2.6545 Group 4 3.0134 2.0267 2.7242 2.6485 2.5509 3.0008 2.6608 Group 5 2.9379 2.7965 3.3678 3.2461 3.0527 3.2491 3.1084 Group 6 3.0650 2.4725 2.9333 2.8281 3.0435 3.5341 2.9461 Total 2.9734 2.1912 2.8822 2.8103 2.6547 3.2129 2.7555 Each of the six parts of the null hypothesis was tested using a univariate One hay'Analysis of Variance: Fixed Effects Model. (35:35?) Rejection of any of the parts was followed by SCheffe's Post Hoc Compari- sons. (35:484) In addition, a multivariate ANOVA was perfOrmed to ascertain whether there were internal differences between groups when the vectors of the 6 means of eaCh group were compared. ANOVA was used because it is the best available method of testing fOr differences where there are more than two groups of differing cell size, when the data is of an ordinal level or:higher. As discussed in Chapter III, page 22, the original decision to have equal cell sizes was altered in an effort to considerably broaden the scope of the study. This decision, in turn, Changed the type of analysis to be used from the prearranged Planned Comparison Mbdel to a One way Analysis of Variance: Fixed Effects Model. This enabled the researcher to then compensate for the differing cell sizes. To maintain an overall significance level (i.e., experimentawise error rate) of alpha equal to .05, eaCh analysis of variance was performed at the .01 level of significance. If the 35 individual alpha levels had been greater than .01, the risk of Type 1 error would exceed . 05 for the entire study , thus weakening the overall confidence level. The analyses of variance were performed using the FINN Program (80) on the CDC 3600 Computer at Michigan State University. The Post Hoc Comparisons were performed manually. The description of the testing of each of the six parts of the null hypothesis is presented separately: Null Hypothesis la: There will be no differences of perceptions among Groups 1 through 6 with respect to Michigan State University's responsibility toward suggested married student governance programs and services . Table 4.2 Analysis of Variance on the Dependent Variable Student Governance (N=300) Source df SS MS F P Decision Between Groups 5 2.0050 0.4010 0.8630 0.5064 N.S. Within Groups 294 136.6218 0. 4647 Total 299 138.6268 The student governance variable did not meet the required p < . 01 level of significance. Thus Null Hypothesis la was not rejected. A check of the directionality of the six groups' mean scores of the dependent variable, Table 4. 1, shows all groups were extremely close to the average mean score (2.9734). 36 Null Hypothesis lb: There will be no differences of perceptions anng Groups 1 through 6 with respect to Michigan State University's responsibility toward suggested married student health programs and services . Table 4.3 Analysis of Variance on the Dependent Variable Health Care (N=300) Source df SS MS F P Decision Between Groups 5 24.4095 4.8819 7.4818 0.0001 Significant Within Groups _2_9_u_ 191.8350 0.6525 Total 299 216.2445 The _F_ ratio for Null Hypothesis lb is significant, p(.0001. A significant F ratio indicates significant differences between two or more groups. (35:459-469) To identify these differences, it was necessary to carry out Post Hoc Comparisons arong means. Since no specific differences were hypothesized, Scheffe's Post Hoc Comparisons were computed for this purpose:L The results appear in Table 4.4 on the following page. The contrasts in Table 4.4 identified major group differences in the perceptions of health care. Contrast 1 identified a significant difference in perceptions between administrators and married students with regard to the dependent variable health care. lThe Scheffe technique was used for this study because there were unequal cell sizes and because multiple complex comparisons were performed. (35:484) Scheffe's comparisons ere performed at the .01 alpha level, with 5 and 294 df, using the formmlafiism (35:484) 37 Table 4.4 Major Post Hoc Contrast on the Dependent Variable Health Care (N=300) Groups Contrasted Value Confidence Interval" Decision 1. 5 and 6 versus 1, 2, 3 and 4 4.7692 : 3.3546 Significant 2. 5 versus 6 .3244 _+_ .7258 N.S. 3. l and 2 versus 3 and 4 .1185 i .8358 N.S. 4. l and 3 versus 2 and 4 .3504 i .8358 N.S. *If the confidence interval for a given contrast contains 0 , the contrast is 3321:. significant. Contrast 2 was found to be not significant. This non-significance indicated that the two administrator groups were similar in their percep— tions of health services and programs . Contrasts 3 and 4 were also found to be not significant, indicating that married students , when compared either as undergraduate versus graduate or as living on caIpus versus living off carpus , appeared to be similar in their perceptions of married student health services and prograzs - When these four contrasts were combined the result showed that University administrators did perceive health services and programs differs ently than did married students. However, along administrators there were no differences in perceptions and arong students there were no differences in perceptions . An attempt to further clarify the above information is presented in Table 4.5. It can be seen that the contrasts start with number 5 which is done to supply continuity with Table 4 . 4 where the primary contrasts were reported. Secondary Post Hoc Comparisons were corputed using a 38 Table 4.5 Secondary Post Hoc Contrasts on the Dependent Variable Health Care (N2300) Groups Contrasted Value Confidence Interval Decision 5. 1 versus 2 -.3144 i .5918 N.S. 6. 1 versus 3 .0800 + .5813 N.S. 7. 1 versus 4 .1159 T .5354 N.S. 8. 2 versus 3 .2345 T .5381 N.S. 9. 2 versus 4 .1985 T .5991 N.S. 10. 3 versus 4 .0360 T .5918 N.S. 11. 5 versus 1 .8858 I .6706 Sig. l2. 5 versus 2 .5713 Z .6796 N.S. 13. 5 versus 1 and 2 1.4571 + 1.2150 Sig. l4. 5 versus 3 .8058 T .6706 Sig. 15. 5 versus 4 .7698 T .6796 Sig. 16. 5 versus 3 and 4 1.5756 T 1.2150 Sig. 17. 5 versus 1 and 3 1.6915 E: 1.2092 Sig. 18. 5 versus 2 and 4 1.3411 + 1.2181 Sig. 19. 5 versus 1, 2, 3 and 4 3.0327 T 2.2805 Sig. 20. 6 versus 1 .5617 T .5852 N.S. 21. 6 versus 2 .2473 E .5941 N.S. 22. 6 versus 1 and 2 .8091 + 1.5560 N.S. 23. 6 versus 3 .4818 '+— .5852 N.S. 24. 6 versus 4 .4458 E .5918 N.S. 25. 6 versus 3 and 4 .9276 + 1.1536 N.S. 26. 6 versus 1 and 3 1.0435 E 1.1498 N.S. 27. 6 versus 2 and 4 .6931 1 1.1595 N.S. 28. 6 versus 1, 2, 3 and 4 1.7367 i 2.1538 N.S. 29. 5 and 6 versus 1 1.4474 1 1.0973 Sig. 30. 5 and 6 versus 2 .8186 1 1.1198 N.S. 31. 5 and 6 versus 1 and 2 1.1331 1 .9372 Sig. 32. 5 and 6 versus 3 1.2872 :_ .9974 Sig. 33. 5 and 6 versus 4 1.2156 1 .6749 Sig. 34. 5 and 6 versus 3 and 4 1.2516 :_ .9372 Sig. 35. 5 and 6 versus 1 and 3 1.3672 :_ .9298 Sig. 36. 5 and 6 versus 2 and 4 1.0171 1 .9434 Sig. 39 variety of contrasts with respect to perceptions of the various groups toward the dependent variable health care. The significant difference reported for Contrast 1 in Table 4.4 is attributed by Table 4 . 5 primarily to University housing administrators , Group 5. The perceptions of student personnel administrators, Group 6, were not significantly different fronteither student perceptions (Contrast 28) or University housing administrator perceptions. (Contrast 2, Table 4.4) Hewever, the University housing administrator perceptions differed sig- nificantly from student perceptions. (Contrast 19) One other Post Hoc Comparison appears to have some value for purposes of this study. When Group 5 and Group 6 were compared with Group 2 , (Contrasts 12, 21 and 30), they showed indications of similarity. This suggests that the graduate students living off campus tended to perceive health care programs and services in a way similar to University housing administrators and student personnel administrators . Null Hypothesis 1c: There will be no differences of perceptions among (h'oups 1 through 6 with respect to Michigan State University's responsibility toward suggested married student child care programs and services. Table 4.6 Analysis of Variance on the Dependent Variable Child Care (N=300) Source df 88 MS F P Decision Betweer Groups 5 11.8245 2.3649 2.6680 0.0224 N.S. Within Groups 294 260.6016 0.8864 Total 299 272. 4261 40 The child care variable did not meet the required p<.01 level of significance. Thus Null Hypothesis 1c was not rejected, with qualifica- tion: A slightly larger sarple would likely produce a significant _F__ ratio, since the p value is so near the selected alpha value. (48:85) Only the Group 5 mean (3.3678) differed in directionality from the overall mean (2.8822). Null Hypothesis 1d: There will be no differences of perceptions among Group 1 through 6 with respect to Michigan State University's responsibility toward suggested married student recreation and entertainment programs and services . Table 4.7 Analysis of Variance on the Dependent Variable Recreation and Entertainment (N=300) Source df SS MS F P Decision Between Groups 5 10.0110 2.0022 1.5416 0.1768 N.S. Within Groups 2% 381. 8472 l. 2988 Total 299 391. 8582 The recreation and entertainment variable did not meet the required p (.01 level of significance. Thus Null Hypothesis 1d was not rejected. Again , the only group differing in directionality from the overall mean (2.8103) was Group 5 (3.2461). Null Hypothesis 1e: There will be no differences of perceptions arong Groups 1 through 6 with respect to Michigan State University's responsibility toward suggested University and administrative programs and services for married students . 41 Table 4. 8 Analysis of Variance on the Dependent Variable University and Administrative Services (N=300) Som'ce df SS MS F P Decision Between Groups 5 18.0880 3.6176 6.7129 0.0001 Significant Within Groups 29_4 158.4366 0.5389 Total 299 176 . 5246 The F ratio for Null Hypothesis le was significant. Again this ratio only signifies one or more significant differences anong the six groups. Post Hoc Comparisons were applied to identify these differences. The results appear in Table 4.9. Table 4.9 Major Post Hoc Contrasts on the Dependent Variable University and Administrative Services (N=300) Groups Contrasted Value Confidence Interval" Decision 1. 5 and 6 versus 1, 2, 3 and 4 2.1424 1 1.5228 Significant 2. 5 versus 6 .0092 i .6594 N.S. 3. 1 and 2 versus 3 and 4 .1470 i .7592 N.S. 4. l and 3 versus 2 and 4 .3270 i .7592 N.S. *If the confidence interval for a given contrast when either added to or subtracted from the given value contains 0 , the contrast is not significant. (23:126) The Post Hoc Comparisons for the dependent variable University and administrative services show a pattern similar to the Post Hoc Comparisons for the dependent variable health care. (See Tables 4.4 and 4.9) . 42 Contrast 1 indicated significant differences in perceptions between administrators and married students with respect to the University's responsibility toward suggested University and administrative services for married students. Contrast 2 , not significant , indicated that both University housing administrators and student personnel administrators have similar percep- tions with regard to the dependent variable University and administrative services. Contrasts 3 and 4 were not significant, indicating that all married student groups appeared to be similar in their perceptions of this area. When all four contrasts in Table 4. 9 were combined it was concluded that the two administrator groups differed significantly from the four married student groups with respect to their perceptions of University and administrative services for married students (Contrast 1), but perceptions 31°28. administrators and gang students were similar. Table 4.10, on the following page, presents a further analysis of group contrasts with respect to Null Hypothesis 1e. Table 4.10, unlike Table 4.5, shows a significant difference between the perceptions of student personnel administrators and those of all students . University housing administrators , whose perceptions had differed from those of students with respect to health care, are joined by the student personnel administrators in significant perceptual differences from those of students with respect to University and ad- ministrative services . Both groups of administrators , separately or grouped together, when contrasted with students , individually or collectively , perceived the dependent variable University and administrative services alike. 43 Table 4.10 Secondary Post Hoc Contrasts on the Dependent Variable University and Administrative Services (N=300) Groups Contrasted Value Confidence Interval Decision 5. 1 versus 2 -.1767 + .5831 N.S. 6. 1 versus 3 .0603 T .1360 N.S. 7. 1 versus 4 .0900 Z .5354 N.S. 8. 2 versus 3 .2370 i .5381 N.S. 9. 2 versus 4 .0867 + .5451 N.S. 10. 3 versus 4 -.1503 I .5354 N.S. 11. 5 versus 1 .5918 7|: .6092 N.S. 12. 5 versus 2 .4151 T .6178 N.S. 13. 5 versus 1 and 1.0069 7 1.1035 N.S. l4. 5 versus 3 .6521 T .6092 Sig. 15. 5 versus 4 .5018 T .6155 N.S. 16. 5 versus 3 and 4 1.1539 :‘ 1.1024 Sig. l7. 5 versus 1 and 3 1.1925 I 1.0989 Sig. 18. 5 versus 2 and 4 .9169 T 1.2181 N.S. 19. 5 versus 1, 2, 3 2.1608 '47 2.0722 Sig. 20. 6 versus 1 .5826 I .5852 N.S. 21. 6 versus 2 .4059 7+- .5941 N.S. 22. 6 versus 1 and .9885 T 1.0503 N.S. 23. 6 versus 3 .6429 r .5852 Sig. 24. 6 versus 4 .4926 I .5918 N.S. 25. 6 versus 3 and 4 1.1355 1 1.0491 Sig. 26. 6 versus 1 and 3 1.2255 T 1.0452 Sig. 27. 5 versus 2 and 4 .8985 1' 1.0538 N.S. 28. 5 versus 1, 2, 3 2.1240 3: 1.9572 Sig. 29. 5 and 6 versus 1 1.1744 _+_ .9974 Sig. 30. 5 and 6 versus 2 .8210 : 1.1198 N.S. 31. 5 and 6 versus 1 .9977 i .8509 Sig. 32. 5 and 6 versus 3 1.2950 :_ .9974 Sig. 33. 5 and 6 versus 4 .9944 i .6749 Sig. 34. 5 and 6 versus 3 4 1.1447 _+_ .8494 Sig. 35. 5 and 6 versus 1 3 1.2347 1 .8447 Sig. 36. 5 and 6 versus 2 4 .9077 + .8556 Sig. 37. 5 and 6 versus 1 3 and 4 2.1424 3 1.5228 Sig. 44 Among students, off-campus graduates, as in the health care area, most nearly approached the two administrative groups perceptually . Null Hypothesis 1f: There will be no differences of perceptions among Group 1 through 6 with regard to Michigan State University's responsibility toward suggested married student cooperatives and community programs and services. Table 4 . 11 Analysis of Variance for the Dependent Variable Cooperatives and Community Services (N=300) Source df 88 MS F P Decision Between Groups 5 7.5965 1.5193 1.2930 0.2669 N.S. Within Groups 294 345.4500 1.1750 Total 299 353. 0465 The cooperatives and community services variable did not meet the required p (.01 level of significance. Thus Null Hypothesis 1f was not rejected. The average mean score for this variable (3.2129) is considerably higher than all the others . The result of the multivariate ANOVA using all six groups simul- taneously was 2.7445 with 30 and 1158 degrees of freedom. This F ratio proved significant beyond the p <. 0001 level. This test showed that differences do exist among the groups. The result is consistant with the results of the urnivariate analyses of variance. 45 Analyses of Data Parenthetical to the Hypothesis The within-cell correlation matrix for the six dependent variables appears in Table 4. 12. The average within—group correlation ranged from a low of .2865 to a high of .4988. Table 4.12 Within Cell Correlation Matrix for the Six Dependent Variable Scales (N=300) Govern Health Child RecEnt U A Ser. Co-ops Govern 1.0000 Health .4988 1.0000 Child Care .4341 .4021 1.0000 RecEnt . 4189 . 3375 . 4698 U A Ser. .4879 .4053 .4556 Co-ops .4120 .2865 .3782 1.0000 .3658 1.0000 .3234 .4005 1.0000 A discriminant function analysis was performed on the data to determine which dependent variables best discriminated among the groups. The results are shown in Table 4.13. Table 4.13 Discriminant Function Analysis Variable Standardized Discriminant Function Weights Governance Health Child Care Recreation and Entertainment University and Administrative Services Co-ops -0.6996 0.7557 0.1054 0.0755 0.6483 -0.0547 46 The results supported those of the analysis of variance: the health care and the University and administrative services variables best discriminated among groups. The means on each item were calculated separately for Part A and for Part B for all administrators and for all students. Table 4.14 is an item-by—item comparison of the mean scores of administrators and the mean scores of students. Table 4.14, on the following page, presents student and administrator group perceptions of their need for particular programs and indicates to what degree each feels the University should be responsible for them. For purposes of interpretation, a group mean score of 0.97 or higher in Part A was used to decide if a program or service is needed. Thirty-two different programs and services were perceived by either or both students and administrators as needed. The mean scores for the perceptions of administrators indicated that 17 programs were needed. Both agreed on the need for 15 programs. Of these 15, five were in the area of health care, four in governance, four in child care, and two in University and administrative services. There was no common agreement that any program in the areas of recreation and entertainment or co-ops and community services was needed. From Table 4.14, it was determined that the strongest perceptions of need for programs and services was in the area of health care, in which, of nine suggested programs , administrators felt five were needed and students felt seven were needed. The area with the next greatest appeal was child care in which, of 11 suggestions, administrators indicated five were needed and students felt nine were needed. These two areas accounted for over fifty percent of the programs perceived by both students and administrators as needed. 47 Lawsosmsm asses esmesem u m .seeflesflmeosmmm esmesem comma n .speaes u m .fiwfloflwcoommm garages: 90mm: u N .mpflaflmcoommm Hmvoe 33.63:: n H ”musing mamom m PHmom seemmz sameosem u N .smemoz u H .ememmz 502 n o "mssds> masom <.ussiH s .seefiesemsoemem ssssm seemes>ess see mesmesem we.m om. mo.H NH. meeemaseoo new ”813.950me 90% mmoom weapons .5 mm.m em. mm.o we. sueHOi msemsom 995015 .862?“pr ado ooam>md .m No.3 Hm. mmé oz. coaCD 3.5th m. wuafimmso .m 8.: 3. $6 as. omfimamsmz €8me amass: .: mH.m so. mm.H Ho. _sssmosi coavmfioefi smeBmcoo mot/09m .m 36 ma. mmé ma. mvcwpgm omega pow #66355 mwmsmomm .m mm.m mm. mm.o so. pggow pcmoopm newness memnmsmm smflasmemm .H moamsumxoo pompfim povgm escape, pcmofim powgmwcdsoa. 53H 800m cum: 800m :82 300m amp: 800m com: mm gm eweH an emeH mesmesem HH< sees assesseseeesu<_aa< meassseoc mmmsosmmm msoom sum: in . : 3”an 48 8A 9.; 84 8. 28685 c.8938: so mHHmo mmdom mocmmpmem .mH mo.m mm.m mm.H so. pads mfiaooz coaemmfioceaH mow>cnm .mH mo.m mm.m sm.H mm. ooa>pmm zmmnmo ooa>osm .JH spammm mm.m HH.N :m.H ma. msmcoapapcoo Lfl< mo mm: pom sowaom .mH as as 84 8. 55m 85E use 8.538 daemoom mooemonco whoa moa>osm .NH 86. as one a. 8326mm 623 5 88am onmom capmaasm mpmcwppooo .HH sm.m mm.m OH.H ms. wnmeoozoz 8. 633580 328 .3 as mus 8.0 a. snag 83888 was 5285mm .m m:.m m:.m :m.o ms. was: poop mo ooymcappooo mm mfimcmnomso zoom CH comsmm moo .w wcmpovm novmnvmacaep<. Pompopm powmnvmacfleo< .ewwH macaw cum: whoom coo: whoom cum: mnoom cum: m Hmooo .Hm sm.m ms.m am.o me.o .ooo .o.> .mseeoeo .omso< memo sou oeseao oooz resume Hoeooom .om mN.N mo.m sm.H HH.H season sou ssfio assume o>emeoeooaeoo .mH No.m sm.m s:.fi so.H sfleemi sou osso spasms sosomooem .mH mH.~ ss.m am.H mm.o aaegso sou memo eeasom.usasmom .eH EooBm 58.ng5 esoofim 80.ng 5E 800m some: 800m cum: 800m cum: 800m now: mgm a.gm 79583 :H.: magma. 50 mm.m sw.m we.o mm.o seas onusoo zH oseesmoo .em Hm.m mm.m No.0 em.o soapsoooom oouesumoo pow Poweawoom @905 mongoose .mm ss.m em.m mo.H No.0 moeeeaeosu cowpmmpomm yaoo< macs ooaw>ma .zm vcmechFhmvcm w sewpmonomm NH.m m:.m oe.o mm.o mHooe messes ooe>ooo .mm ms.m sH.m NH.H mm.o ooe>mom oomosmo someone osmoxm .Nm em.m mH.m mm.o ee.o ooe>oom ousosso oouusem seamsoemmouooe ooe>ooe .Hm mm.m mm.m so.H em.o ooespom oomosso oouoo museumoo .om as.m em.m mH.H em.o sosoaeeu pom momma Kauai filomocmm 869nm .mm eH.m mm.m oo.H mm.o mommufio pauses pompoooxm muesmwoo .mm ms.m se.m mo.H oH.H moapeaeosa guesses oe exoz mmws< swam :wncmocmm mocmcww .sm poooBm. 9838555. esoofim 98ng 5: whoom coo: whoom coo: mpoom cum: mnoom com: m Hmhmm moo/figmefieoe. w Basso/HE: Ham sum is 8.0 03.8 8H ooooobo 888.5 A: as 3.: 13.0 was wooed 68% 888.5 as mam 9...: as 25 stoosoo 23 828.5 .mm 8a are as a; oflooz x8m s soc/8e .mm as as as 2.0 fleas 6.1.”: 88$ mfisofimo s amassed .sm opossum 58ng eooofim 80.ng 55H 800m com: 800m sow: 800m Com: 200m com: m HmHo>CH .m: mod mm.m She $6 35090 scam -888 meet/How 538s beam .2 Es sms sms 2s moqoofim “088...: Mo gonzo. now 30.5 98.3. .m: pfiofim 98ng EooBm 98ng 58 980m Goo: opoom coo: 880m now: 800m com: m gm .5. BE A.U.PCOOV :fi 3: mHnHMH. 53 sss 3.: ass Es Emacs owsmoxm x8848 ss 8.: 8.: is ses Emacs omcosoxm_%ehooosm HoQOwgom .sm was as 84 sss . 38% soon wfiseueoo fi mesoofim 0.88.5. .8 :ss 2.: as ::s 688.1 9883 soon 53¢ moo/8o so as mas ass as mesoofim powonoz mom sovcoo mamaoo .am EooBm 58888828. 0.595 50.888828. 6.: 800m coo: 800m Goo: 800m Goo: osoom :ooz m baa < Ea A.o.Pcoov :H.: oHooB 54 Part B of Table 4.14 permits one to compare the perceptions of responsibility of administrators and students with respect to each item” The health care items all contributed to the significant overall student—administrator difference in this area. Students perceived every health care suggestion to be more needed and more the University's responsibility than did administrators, who perceived the programs and services to be not as needed and the responsibility as most prOperly shared. The other significant difference—-in the University and administrative services area--resu1ted largely from four of the ten items. TWo of these are perceived as needed and the University's responsibility by both students and administrators; the other two are perceived by students to be their need and their responsibility. In the nearly-significant child care area ten of 11 items contributed significantly to the mean score. All groups felt responsibility for these programs and services should be shared. Only slight differences in administratorzstudent perceptions were noted in the remaining three areas' items. The largest single—item difference was a mere 1.18. Of 31 programs perceived by students as needed only four were like- wise perceived as the re5ponsibility of students, while fOr 16 programs major or total responsibility was perceived as the University's. Administrators perceived the University as responsible for 11 of the 15 programs they perceived as needed. Table 4.15, on the fbllowing page, presents a compilation of the 32 programs and services perceived as needed or strongly needed by either or both the students and administrators. Responses to an open-ended question are reported in Appendix.A. 55 .oooooc mos more/pom so Eoomoso powwowWZm o5. ma ongovoo 8. com: mos o>onHo 90 800.0. some 3.0 oo mm .H s .H 58888 8588 889$ occofio>ow oncoomom psocBm omcoomom poyobmHfisoa. EoPH £00m coo: 8.60m zoo: govgchHao< schooo mpcoogm use pooooz mHmcfim .Ho oooooz mo owe/ago wooEom ado mfioswopm H mH . : oHAoB 56 NH.H mo.H mH.H oo.H mo.H No.0 HH.H mo.H mH.H mo.H :N.H 5:.H mm.o mm.o um.o mm.o oH.H hm.o ©O.H mo.H :m.o om.o HH.H :o.H wofi>hmm mgmozmm pcmmmgm vcmaxm moa>hmm mhmomma monoo mmflcmmgo c8320 98 mam/2 38 £682?” 8cmfim mmmmmao #cmhmm pampomaxm mnwcmwgo S53 8 #me «,me ~63 fiémocfl 8:95 awhwogm mmcmguxm w ycmemflsvm znmm wfipwoa wooficwham 8:qu maonoo mcfippflwznmm whoa muflcmmgo UMQHHU UHflno Hamz m Lmflanmymm mnmo UHMLU gflmm fificwwa 639$ mod/Ba 3%.“ ,H8 53 fifiwm mfimcmnfiguoo >Hflamm pom mhmo Lpfimmm zucmmpmsm .mm .om .mm .mm .bm .mm .mm .:m .mm .mm .mH .mH mmcoammm wcwwspm whoom ammz mmcoammm novmhpmwcflev< whoom cwmz 53H A.v.Pcoov mH.: mHAMB 57 mo.H 55.0 mmcmgoxm xoonyxme .mm mo.H om.o masmpm woom wcficflmpno ca mpcmuzpm pmfiwm< .mm HO.H 33.0 smgwopa gmxooa woo» amnoyw .mm mH.H 50.0 ao.oo wcflxsm coop .mm :H.H mm.o mouoo mmm gum mocmcmpcflmz.gmo .mm 83?me bflgfimou Ucm waouoo w:.H mo.H mmxmfigaoo mafimzom UmeHmz msaEmonco canvas wfimfimnm OUMEOB mUH>OcE .3 N: 8.0 95-8 8323 E0 mm: ow cofiao .8 hm.fi mm.o m0fi>n< wam mocmpmflmm< Hmmmq mwfi>ogm .m: mo.H mm.o mnsao pmmgmch Hafiomam mwficmmgo .m: wmow>hmm m>flymfib mwg< w 3% 895mg: No.H No.0 mmfipflaflomg cowpmmgomm pasu< mpoe aoam>mm .zm pcme:HMppmpcm w :oflpmmgomm wmcoammm pnmvfim mmcommmm (Hourgmflg/w Em: 9.80m :82 m€8an 5m: Afilcoov ma .: magma. 58 Summary This chapter has presented the results of the statistical analyses performed on the data collected for this study. Results isolated significant differences among the six groups for two out of the six parts of the tested hypothesis. Differences in perceptions of the variable health care were much greater than those of any of the others. Most statistically significant differences were between all University administrators and all students rather than between subgroups . Students generally perceived need for a greater number of programs and services than did administrators, but were willing to take responsibility for the implementation of fewer. A summary of the findings along with conclusions and implications for further study are found in Chapter V. CHAPTER V Summary, Discussion, and Conclusions Purpose and Procedure The primary purpose of this study was to compare the perceptions of married students and University administrators with respect to the need for, and the University's responsibility toward, programs and services for married students. The six sample groups were 1) 80 off-campus married undergraduate students, 2) 80 off-campus married graduate students , 3) 80 on-campus married undergraduate students , ‘4) 80 on-campus married graduate students, 5) MD University housing administrators, and 6) 1+0 student personnel administrators . The study was conducted at Michigan State University during Spring Term 1971. At that time, questionnaires were mailed to the sample popu- lations. Responses from the sample groups ranged from 80.5 percent to 100 percent, with a total sample return of 85 percent. Design The 58-item questionnaire, based on programs and services suggested for married college students, was designed to obtain individual percep— tions. 'Ihe items were divided and assigned to six functionally defined areas which were used as the dependent variables in the study. These variables were 1) Governance, 2) Health Care, 3) Child Care, 1+) Recreation and Entertainment, 5) University and Administrative Services, and 6) Cooperatives and Community Services. The respondents 59 60 were asked to give two responses to each item. In Part A they were asked to indicate whether a particular program or service was needed or not needed , and in Part B they were asked to indicate who should take the responsibility for implementing the program or service: the University, the married students , or a combination of the two. One-way analyses of variance were performed on the data and the .05 level of sigmificance was used to reject or not reject the null hypothesis. In instances where sigmificant differences in perceptions were found, Scheffe's Post Hoc Comparisons were performed to isolate the differences. Findings The hypothesis was tested in six parts: Hypothesis la considered the differences of perceptions among the six groups toward University responsibility for programs and services regarding the dependent variable , student governance . Results indicated that there were no simple differences among the groups. This was interpreted to mean that all six groups involved in the study perceived married student governance programs and services in a similar way. The mean scores for each of the six groups were extremely close to the average mean score . Hypothesis lb was tested to assess the differences of perceptions among the six groups on the dependent variable, health care. Sig- nificant differences of perceptions did exist among the groups. To identify these differences , a series of Post Hoc Comparisons was performed. The results indicated that Group 5 , University housing administrators , differed from the student groups to a much greater degree than did Group 6 , student personnel administrators . The comparisons showed that Groups 5 and 6 did not differ significantly from each other. Further I III II. I I'll \II I . ll 11'. l, I 61 comparisons showed that the four married student groups did not differ sigiificantly from each other. Therefore , the results indicated that administrators, when taken as a total group, differed sigiificantly from the students in their perception of health care programs and services with the housing administrators making the greatest contribution toward this difference. Of further interest to this study was the comparison of Group 2, off-campus graduate students, with Groups 5 and 6. The results here indicated that no significant difference existed. This was interpreted to mean that off-campus graduate students tended to perceive health care programs and services as did University administrators in contrast to the perceptions of the other student groups . Hypothesis 1c considered the dependent variable , child care. The results indicated that there were no significant differences of perceptions among the six groups. This was interpreted to mean that all six groups had similar perceptions concerning child care programs and services for married students . These perceptions are evaluated in the Discussion and Conclusions section of this chapter. Hypothesis 1d appraised the data for the dependent variable , recreation and entertainment. As in hypothesis parts la and 1c the results indicated no sigrificant differences existed among the six groups. It was concluded that all groups had similar perceptions toward recreational and entertain- ment programs and services for married students. Hypothesis 1e dealt with possible differences of perceptions among the six groups with respect to the dependent variable , University and administrative services. The _‘r: ratio for this test proved significant, indicating that differences in perceptions did exist among the six groups. Post Hoc Comparisons were then performed on the data to identify the exact l.]“.lvllll!| 62 differences. It was found that all of the student groups perceived the University's responsibility for programs and services in this area in a similar way. The two administrative groups were also alike in their perceptions . However, when both administrator groups were contrasted with the four student groups , differences appeared. Groups 5 and 6 were very closely aligied here which was a shift from hypothesis part lb where they had divergent perceptions . Moreover, Group 2 ' s perceptions were again aligIed with the administrative groups ' rather than with the other student groups' perceptions . Hypothesis lf considered the possible differences in perceptions among the six groups on the dependent variable, cooperatives and ccmmmunity services. The null hypothesis was not rejected which was interpreted to mean that the six groups were in general agreement on the need for programs and on the University's responsibility toward the dependent variable cooperatives and comrmmity services . Several supportive computations were performed on the data to strengthen the results of the univariate analysis of variance. A dis- criminate fmction analysis showed the two dependent variables with the greatest discriminating power to be health care and University and administative services which supported the results of the ANOVA test. Further, a multivariate test of equality of mean vectors was performed on the data and yielded a significant 3 ratio which again supported the ANOVA test indicating that differences did exist among the groups. Additional Data A comparison of the mean scores of the two administrator groups versus the four student groups on all items done separately for Part A 63 and Part B revealed that of the 58 suggested programs and services, 32 were perceived by one or both groups as needed. General agreement existed arong all groups on who should take the responsibility for the program or service . Discussion and Conclusions The results of this study generally supported the theory that people who occupy different positions and perform different roles within the same community do have different perceptions of the same thing when presented with the sane set of facts. Administrators differed significantly from students on two of the six variables tested. Each individual group differed from the others to some degree depending on the variable being tested and on the degree of involvement the group had with the particular service or program under investigation . For instance , University housing administrators and student personnel administrators differed somewhat when they were asked to perceive the health care variable and yet were very closely aligned when the University and administrative services variable was under study. One possible explanation would be that each group has a different level of respornsibility for programs and services in each of these two areas. Another example is the insignificant contribution Group 2 , off-campus graduate students , made to the overall differences between students and administrators. In most instances, this group was more closely aligned with administrators than with fellow students . Age , length of marriage , independence, and community adjustment may have set these students apart . Thus they may not have perceived the suggested programs and services to be as acutely needed as did the other student groups . 6'4 A.close look at the reasons for the significant §_ratio for the health care variable reveals that all of the items contributed to the difference. Administrators and students generally agreed on the nine suggestions, howeverg the directionality of this agreement was such that, in all cases, administrators saW'less of a need for a program than did students. On all items administrators scored closer to the "share" choice in Part B than did students, who scored closer to the "University Major" choice. In contrast, the overall ANOVA difference in the university and administrative variable was contributed to by all groups' stronger perceptions of need for only fOur of the 10 suggested programs. Administrators and students both appeared to be more firmnin.their perceptions of programs in this area. A possible explanation for this is that the programs and services suggested in this area either appealed a great deal to the respondent or they did not appeal at all. Considerable emphasis has been placed on the differences among the six.groups and in particular the differences between administrators and students. Little has been mentioned concerning similarities between the groups. No significant differences in perceptions were discovered in the remaining four variables tested: governance, child care, recreation and entertainment, and cooperatives and community services. For these four variables students and administrators generally agree on the program or service need factor and on the University responsibility factor. The results for the individual items showed that all groups agreed that some pmegrams.and services were needed in the governance and Child care areas. In these cases, an insignificant area §_ratio should not lead one to ignore the desire for programs and services. For instance, the results of the student governance variable showed that administrators and students agreed 65 that fOur of the thirteen programs were needed. 'i.e.' Although the ANOVA test indicated that there was no significant differences among the groups for this variable, particular attention should still be given to the four programs perceived as needed. Either'students or administrators or both indicated nine of eleven programs in the child care area were needed. A possible explanation for the insignificance of the l: ratio is that a large number of students and administrators alike had Children. On-campus married housing at MiChigan State University has 0.9 Children per couple. (1) This suggests a significant commonality anong the groups. Couples with children would most likely agree with eaCh other rather than differ, and couples without Children probably would tend to empathize with the situation, particularly if those couples have Children in their near fUtures. Thus there are children in married student housing, and the University community appears willing to respond to their'needs. There was no evidence in the datato dispute this notion and every evidence that all groups did not differ significantly on either the need for child care programs and services or the University responsibility factor in this area. Further support: for this contention can be derived from the data on the health care variable: most of the items perceived as needed included or implied service to the family rather than to only the student. There were inconclusive results fOr two variables: recreation and entertainment, and cooperatives and community services. It appears that the University community is generally satisfied with the recreation and entertainment available in the University community. However, the same cannot be said for cooperatives and community services . Students perceived a need for five of seven suggested cooperatives and community services I. . IIII .1 ]III .II] 66 whereas administrators did not perceive a need for any. This suggests a possibility for student organization of desired programs. The data fnmther verifies this trend by showing student indication of willingness to share or assume major responsibility for program implementation. Responses to open—ended questions reported in Appendix A yield statements of support for this finding. All groups were generally in agreement in choice of response to Part B of each item. This evidence of common perception should help to alleviate the traditional reluctuance of administrators to include other involved parties in the process of program planning. The data demonstrated a number of group differences with respect to perception of need for specific services. This indicates that cross-group support for the initiation of new programs or services cannot generally be expected. But once a decision has been made to initiate a new program or service, agreement on where responsibility should lie is likely. The group with the most decision-making authority in the area of married housing, University housing administrators , had a higher average group mean score value (Table Lkl) than the other five groups. A possible explanation for this is that fiscal considerations involved in the implementation of a chosen program or service where a stronger variable for Group 5, most of whose members' work is financially-oriented. It is suggested that if the other groups shared in the decision-making process, they might become more aware of the costs involved. The converse of this is also likely: University housing administrators might realize a higher rate of recipient satisfaction by gauging receptiveness for a program or service before its initiation. 67 The phrase "student personnel point of view" has been used by some authors to describe a behaviorialist approach to meeting the needs of students. (77:13), (52:6H—69) Some evidence of this approach was demonstrated by this study. Group 6 , student personnel administrators, was generally more closely aligned in perceptions with the student groups than was Group 5, the housing administrators. One possible explanation is that student personnel administrators work on programming and services for students as a major priority whereas this function for University housing administrators is minor. This being the case, a definite need arises for inclusion of the "student personnel point of view" in planning programs and services for married students. Recommendations Many of the needs of the married students surveyed in this study are evidently being met. However, the conclusions from the data do indicate the need for some different approaches in married student services. 1. It can be recalled that the University housing adrinistrators differed to a greater degree from the average mean score than did the other groups. This being the case and since the main differences of perceptions among groups concerned what specific programs or services were needed, it is suggested that in addition to the traditional University married housing policy-makers , student personnel administrators and married students be given a more formalized role in the decision-making process for married student programming. Although this would probably lengthen the time required to reach decisions , the result could be programs 68 and services that have a more significant value to the entire Universiq/cxmmunity. Many of the programs and services discussed were designed for married students living on campus. It must be noted, however, that the results of the data showed evidence of dependence on University services by married undergraduates living off campus. They perceived the items in the study muCh the same as did the married students living on campus. Consideration should be given this group when planning programs and services. On the other hand, the married graduate students living off campus demonstrated a high degree of independence and showed muCh less of a desire to be included in.most planned service and program.areas. .All groups in the study felt communication was a problem.and all demonstrated willingness to accept responsibility for imple- .menting solutions. The administrators and the married students both agreed that two of the items specifically related this problem were needed. First, a desire for a consumer information program was indicated. This could easily become a.regular service handled by an organized married student activities group. Second, a perceived need for the establishment of a clearing house for infOrmation and ‘ complaints was also indicated. Responsibility for implementation of the former'suggestion.was perceived as the student's; responsibility for the lattervwas perceived as shared. .A further examination of the types of programs and services perceived as needed by the participants in this study (Table H.15 p.p. 55-7) indicates a need for some type of University 69 coordinated communication between University officials and the married student community. It is recommended that an official liaison committee be formed that includes representatives of the University administrative group , the student personnel group and the married student community both on campus and off campus. They should be charged with facilitating communication , programming, and the settling of any disputes or complaints. ll. Responses in the cooperatives and community services area indicated a definite desire on the part of married student surveyed to have many of the suggested items implemented. It is recommended that University personnel be assigned to assist students in organizing cooperative service programs. The investment in time and money on the part of the University would be minimal and would yield significant economic and educational benefits for students . The experience gained in developing this area, by both students and administrators , would be of value to the entire University community. - 5. Further, this study revealed a definite need for orientation programs for couples and/or families new to the area. It is recommended that the University administration work closely with the surrounding commmities and with married students to develop orientation programs and materials for these families . Implications for Further Study This study was concerned with married students and administrators at Michigan State University. Similar studies done on the same topic at other colleges and universities would be useful additions to the body of research I. III. I! I) ]l 70 available on the married student. Differences based on the institutions' educational philosophy, composition of the student body, sources of funding, and geographical location would become apparent. ‘With the continued expansion of community and junior colleges throughout the country, a comparison between two-year and fourhyear institutions might be revealing with respect to the expectations of'both the married students and involved administrators. .A study using inadepth interviews of selected married students and adhinistrators to gain insight into the causes of differences in perceptions would be helpful in fhrther understanding the complexities of married student life in a university community. The influences of the total college environment offer'many opportunities fbr learning‘what married students consider important in their total education. A.systematic method of investigating or describing these influences to ascertain the positive and negative effects of peer-group culture Should be developed. Once these influences are identified on the university campus, many facets of decision-making should be affected. Communication of the importance of married student needs appears to be at best selective. The informal and formal communication channels relating to the goals of an institution and of individuals directly effect behavior. The entire system of communication as it relates to married student goal formulation or decision-making is an important area for further'researCh. More attention slould be given to replicating some of the already completed researCh on.married students. Each year dramatic Changes take place in approaChes to services and programs. It is important to discover and understand the impact of these changes. The collection of demographic 71 data and its corparison with earlier studies is also important in the effort to keep pace with the changing types of students universities are serving. Considering the divorce rate statistic reported in Chapter II, a followeup study of college-related marriages would be helpful. What variables contribute to a.strong relationship and what variables tend to separate the family need to be known if colleges are to provide an.atmos— phere that fOSters successful college marriages. It would be helpful if an institution using the same sample groups used in this study would carry on a logitudinal study over a period of years and compare the results to see if any Changes in perceptions take place. A.broader study might be conducted utilizing the total student community, i.e. single students living in residence halls, fraternities, sororities, cooperatives, apartments and houses off campus. It might prove helpful to know What differences exist between married and single students and what differences the administrators have in perceptions of these two groups of students. One area specifically eliminated from consideration is this study was the topic of foreign students and their needs relating to the university community. A study identifying the many varied needs of these students would be helpful by enabling university personnel to more clearly understand.what they could do to better facilitate these types of students and their families in adjusting to their new community. All of the above variations on this study would be valuable in the effbrt to understand the expectations single students, married students, university housing administrators, and student personnel administrators 72 have for the University with respect to programs and services for the married student community . BIBLIOGRAPHY 10. 12. BIBLIOGRAPHY "A Description of the Married Student Population Enrolled During Spring 1969, MiChigan State University." Unpublished University Health Committee Report, Michigan State University 1969. Aller, Florence C. , "Some Factors in Marital Adjustment and Academic Achievement of Married Students." Personnel and Guidance Journal 1+1 (March 1963) pp. 609—16. Altman, Sophie and McFarlane , Dorothy, "Bridal Suites in the Ivory Tower," Overview Vol. 1, (Sept. 1969), pp. 50-1. Asbell, B., "Housewives on Canpus: I feel Alive Again." McCalls, V01. 91, (NOV. 1963), p0 136‘70 Bailey, Richard P., "Do You Take This Coed . . . ?" Wisconsin Journal of Education Vol. 90, (Oct. 1957), pp. 11-12. Brigl, Clemens, Analysis of leisure Interests and Desires of Indiana University Married Students. Unpublished Re.D thesis Indiana University 1970. Brookover, W. B. , "Research in Teacher and Administrator Roles." Journal of Educational Sociologl. 29: 2-13, 1955. Brubacher 8 Rudy , Higher Education in Trasition. New York, Harper and Row 1958 . Burchard, M. , "New Urban Pattern: Married Student Housing." Architectural Forum, Vol. 116, (March 1962), pp. 98-101. Bureau of the Census, United States Department of Commerce, Current Population Rgports , Population Characteristics , School Efirollment. 1969 p. 2 8 p. 214. Clnambliss, R. , "Married Student at a State University." Journal of Educational Sociology, Vol. 31}, (May 1961) pp. l+09-16. Chilman , Catherine and Meyer, Donald , "Educational Achievement and Aspirations of Undergraduate Married Students as Compared to Undergraduate Unmarried Students , With Analysis of Certain Associated Variables," Journal of Marriage and Family. vor. 28, No. 1 (Feb. 1966) p. 75. 73 13. ll}. 15. 16. 17. 18. lg. 20. 21. 22. 23. 2k. 25. 26. 7” Citizens Committee on Higher Education, Remember the "War Babies"? Report of the Michigan Coordinating Council for Public Higher Education . Michigan Citizens Committee on Higher Education. 1963. Clifton, Paul, "Challenge of Cambridge," Clnristian Science Monitor Weekly Magazine Section, (Nov. 26, 191+97, p. 7. Cohen, David G., King, F. J ., and Nelson, Willard H., "Academic Achievement of College Students Before and After Marriage," Marriage and Family Living, Vol. 25, (February 1963), pp. 98-99. "College and University Residence Facilities" , American Schools and Universities. 1959 pp. 165-91}. Copeland, 8., "On Canpus Student Wives." Mademoiselle, Vol. 69, (July 1969). p. 18. Cushing, Hazel M. , Phillips, Velma, and Stevenson, Ailcie, "Economic Status of Married College Students," Journal of Home Economics, Vol. '40, (January 19%), pp. 25-6. D'Amito, Louis A. , "Changes in Number of Married Students in Indiana Universities: 1956-7 to 1965-66," College and University (Winter 1968) pp. 178-814. "Designing with a Difference: Married Student Housing at M. I. T." Architectural Record, Vol. 133, (March 1963) pp. lNO-l. Division of Student Activities , Vice President for Student Affairs Office. University Housipg Rgport on Student HousiLng for Fall Term 1970. Report of the Off-Campus Housing Office, Michigan State University. 1970. Donnelly, Ruth N. , "Flaming for Married Students," College and University Business, Vol. 21, No. 5, (Nov. 1956) pp. 33.330 Downie, N. M. and Heath, R. W. , Basic Statistical Methods. New York: Harper and Row 2nd Ed. 1965. Dressel, F. B. , An Evaluation of Selected Personnel Services Offered to Married Students at Indiana University . Unpublished FED. Thesis, Indiana Gniversity 1963. Dressel, F. B. , "logic, Research and the Married Student" Personnel and Guidance Journal, Vol. '43, (May 1965) pp. 920-14. Eshleman, J. Ross, "The Influence of Social Class and Children on Participation Patterns of Married College Students ," Family Life Coordinator, Vol. 16, (Jan. - April 1962) pp. 5-12. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 31+. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 1+0. '75 Falk, Laurence L. , "A Comparative Study of Problems of Married and Single Students", Journal of Marriage and the Family, 26 (May 1961+), p. 207-8. Fitzgerald, Laurine, Johnson, Walter, Norris, Willa, Ed. , College Student Personnel. (Readings and Bibliographies) Boston, Houghton, Mifflin Co. 1970. Gary, B., "Bride in Boystown." Mademoiselle, Vol. 57, (Aug. 1963) pp. 290-1. Green, Margaret Ann, The Married Undepgraduate Student and the Student Personnel Program. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Columfiznia University, New York 1965. Quote on Housing 198. Gross, Neal C., Ward 8. Mason, and A. W. McEacheen, Ebcplanations in Role Analysis. New York: Wiley, 1958. Hansen, Russell W., A Study of Role Conflict: The Case of the Married College Student. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Washington State University, 1970. Harry, Ormsby L. , A Study of Student Personnel Services at Michigan College of Mining and Technology, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis at Michigan State University, 1960. Haun, James F. , The Problems of the Married College Student and Possible Approaches to their Solution. Unpublished Ed.D. Thesis, Oregon State University 1967. Hays, William L. , Statistics. New York, Rinehart and Whinton, Inc. , 1963. Hill, B. "How Successful are College Marriages?" Redbook, Vol. 123, (May 1961+) pp. 58-9. Hutter, Mark, Campus Housing and Identity of Married Students. UnpublishecTPhJ. Thesis. University of Minnesota 1969. Jensen, Vern H. And Clark, Monroe H. , "Married and Unmarried College Students: Achievement, Ability and Personality," Personnel and Guidance Journal 36, (October 1958) pp. 123-5. Jones, R. M., "Housing for Married Students at the University of Arkansas." American Schools and Universities Vol. 31+, June 1962. King, Donald N. , A Corparative and Descriptive Stugl of Married Students at Oklahoma State University. UnpublishecTEdJ. Thesis, Oklahoma State University, 1970. 41. H2. H3. m4. 1+5. H6. ”7. ”8. I49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 76 King, Donald N. and Fess, Fredrick B., "A Pilot Program for Married Students", The Journal of College Student Personnel Vol. 10, #5, Sept. 1969 pp. 32u-327. Kansas State University Pilot Pregnant Lantagne, Joseph B., "College Marriages," Journal of College Student Personnel, (1962) pp. 98-105. lee, Anne M., "A Study of Married WCmen College Students," National Association of women Deans and Counselors, 2% (April 1960) pp. 132-37; Mace, D. R., "Many Costs of a Campus Marriage." McCalls. Vol. 89, (Jan. 1962), p. 126. MacNab, M; M. "Financial Management," Journal of Home Economics. V01. 53, (Dec. 1961), pp. 832-”. "Married Students Housing - University of Georgia." ArChitectural Record, Vol. 138, (August 1965), pp. 119. Marshall H. 8 King,.M. P., "Undergraduate Student Marriage: A Compilation of ResearCh Findings." Journal of Marriage 8 Family. 1966. pp. 3u9-59. MCNemar, Quinn, PsyChological Statistics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962. Melcer et. a1. Married Student Service Center at M. S. U. -.A Prcpgsal. Presented to the MiChigan State University 0 Trustees. Jan. 1970. Mohr, S. "College Marriages," Journal of Home Economics, Vol. 57, (JUne 1965), pp. “61-2. MOOre, Patricia B., Institutional Evaluations of Married Student Heusing Facilities. Unpublished Ed.D. Thesis, Columbia University,_New YOrk 1970. Mueller, Kate Hevner, "The Married Students on the Campus." College and university, Vol. 35, (Winter 1960), pp. 155-6”. Mueller, Kate Hevner, Student Personnel Wbrk in Higher Education. Boston: HoughtonAMifflin Company, 1961. Neiman, Lu J., and Hughes, J. W., "Problems of the Concept of Role - A.Resurvey of the Literature." Social Forces. 30:1“1-99, 1951. Newcomb, T. M., Social Psychology. New York: Dryden Press, 1950. Nonnamaker, Eldon Ray, The Role of the Enrollment Offices at Michigan State University. iUnpublished PhTD. Thesis, MiChigan State University, East Lansing, 1959. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 61+. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 77 Nygreen, Glen T., Marital Adjustment in the University of washington Student Community. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of washington, l95H. O'Neil, B., "I Went Back to College." Redbook, Vol. 122, (Nov. 1963), p. 6. Oppelt, N. T., A.Study of Relationships of Marital Status to Selected Characteristics of Male Undergraduate Students at MiChigan State Uhiversity. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1962. Oppelt, N. T., "Characteristics and.Activities of Married College Students," Journal of College Student Personnel, Vol. 6, #H, (JUne 1965), pp. 228-231. "Parklike Living for Married Students," Architectural Forum. Vol. 115, (July 1961), pp. 110-11. Perry, Beryl, "Marriage in College," Journal of Home Economics. VOlo 52, (NOvember 1960), pp. 767-680 Pickard, E. W., "Reversal of the National Order - College After Marriage," JOurnal of Home Economics. Vol. 52, (Dec. 1960), pp. 850—1. "Please Postpone the Wedding," Readers Digest. Vol. 93, (Nov. 68), pp. 56-60. Reimer, Svend, "Marriage on the Campus of the University of washington," American Sociological Review, Vol. 7, (Dec. 19H2), pp. 802-815. Riker, Harold C., College Students Live Here: A Study of College Housigg. New York: Educational Facilities Laboratories, men, 1961 pp. 23-2”. Riley,‘William L., A Comparison of Perceptions of the University, Environment by Undergraduate Married and Single Male Students. UhpdbliShed Ph.D. Thesis, Uniyersity of Missouri, Columbia. 1970. Rogers, Everett M. "The Effect of Campus Marriage on College Life." College and University, Vol. 33, No. 2, (Winter 1958), pp. 193:99. Rudolph, Frederick, The American College 8 University. .A History. New York, Random House. 1962. Samenfink, J. Anthony, and Milliken, Robert L. "Marital Status and Academic Success: A Reconsideration," Marriage and Family Livigg. Vol. 23, (August 1961), pp. 22647} 71. 72. 73. 7H. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 78 Sanford, Nevitt Ed., The American College: A PsyChological and Social Interpretation ofithe Higher Learning. Neinork: John'Wiley and Sons, Inc. 41963. Sarbin, T. R., "Role Theory", Handbook of Social Psychology. Vol. I. G. Lindzey, editor. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison— Wesley, 195H. pp. 223—258. Shaffer, R. H., "Colleges Have No Business Being in the Housing Business", National Association of Student Personnel Administrators Journal. Vol. 7 (Oct. 1969). pp. 121-2. Siegel, Sidney, Non—Parmetric Statistics. McGraw-Hill, New Ybrk. 1956. Smith, Patrick B., A Comparison of Perceptions of Students, Parents, Faculty, Student Personnel Administrators andeApartment Owners Concerning the Responsibilities of the UniverSify» waard’the Students Off Campus—Housing_Living Situations. UhpublishediEdlD. Thesis, MichiganiState University, East Lansing, 1968. Stroup, Herbert, Toward a Philosophy of Organized Student Activities. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press , 196”. . "Towne House Clusters Put Style into Married Student HOusing," College and University Business (Oct. 1969), pp. 62-H. Williamson, E. G., Student Personnel Services in Colleges and Universities. New7York, McGraw Hill, 1961. womble, Dale L., "Divorce, College Style", Newsweek LXV (June 1H, 1965), p. 105. Wright, David J., "Jeremy D. Finn's Multivariate - Univariate and Multivariate Analysis of Variance and Covariance: A Fortran Program," Occasional Paper #9. Office of Research Consultation, School fer Advanced Studies, College of Education, Michigan State University, March 1970. "Yale University, A New Urban Pattern", Architectural Fbrum. (March 1962), p. 99. Yamamota, K., "Married Students and Leisure", College and University. Vol. H0, (Winter 1965), pp. 175—8H. "YOung Marriages. What Happens When Parents Pay the Bills?" MCCalls, Vol. 9H, (April 1967), p. 67. APPENDICES APPENDIX.A Written Comments from Respondents 79 .Pcmpcoommh vcmnmwwwp m mo mpcmseoo mnp mvcmmmgomp cammwmmmo nomm .zp39m many ca pm: m>ms pcmfle mycmpcoomms may #mzp coevmmso smasoflpnmo >cm ow mCOflPommp.so mpcmeeoo HMCOflpflppm .mcowcflao may mo COfipmafloeoo m we waged .>Hflemm mo po>mm CH mPMCHEflLUme panes wmoo Hudom pm memo Hmsom maflemm DamUSpw pmflghmz .Emnp pamoom vm5EHHMPHQmom .mHHmo mmoop mxme 0p mQOpOOp mhoE cusp moaaoo no pm>flpp mocmadnem cm mafia 0p m>wmcmoxm mmmq .maamo mmso: mo pmmmeH pampopw pmflmhme pom memo mocmwpmem m>ww .cfi Emnp mcflpn paw mpchSPm mHmCHm a: Moan moflaom .HMpHamon smepo 0p nmmmh cmnv cflao ca zocmmpmem pmmne .mocmgmmmwp mmdpado mo mmsmomn wemacoaa mNHcmoomh Op mHAm me Aupmxomgo cflxm I thHOpoEQmp .maoemxmv mvcmpsvm cmfimpom pom >HHMflomamm mpmeHMHomam pmmz I zmonmo .mmwpflaflomm mcwmson Umflhsme mooemo co apes QMHHflEmm poo Em H mmsmomc mew AmHAMOfiHoo< pozv .<.z pmxmme mmmsm mmone .pmcowpcme mmofl>hmm wooenm> mew cw amasm>o meow we mnmga .mm> wconpw mhm> m we pmsmcm mne wpmpmmc mcwmdoa pmflomme mace mH "soapmmoo pmpmmc pmoE may mcwxmm poonpfiz wcfimson moosmouco cw mpcmpsvm pom pmcwflmmp >HHMp0p pmoeam we mnemccoewwmso mane .xaom amadmmh mxHH pmdm mafinpmnm>m 90% 2mm op moma me pasonm hmcv Aconom ca mnm zmsp mafia: zgnme ow mmoono >m£p MH .pmpfl>ona me you paoonm mpcmpdpm pmflphma_nom mmow>hmm HMCOflpfipo< mpcmeeoo COflpmmoo pawlcmoo may 0v mmmcommmm mvcmpsvm pmfighmz mypgpmhmnmpcs .momemolmmo H H.< mafia 8O .mCOHHmHLoomCMCu mHCmHHm>m 950 mm poow mm >HC0 mCm mEMCwOCm mmme m: Ho ummh me Com .mmeHHHomm >pHmCm>HCD CH mCH>HH mHCmpSPm pmHnge va Ho Co>mm CH pmprHm3 mHmemexm mH use mHMmoooao pCmHHmUXm mEOm mMC >pspm mHCH .chmHHm>m mEMCMOCm 0C CHHz meHHHHomw.mmmm CH m>HH ow Cmnp ..opm .pCmC Com >mCoE mCoe poo poo pCm msaemo HHo m>HH ow mmono m3 Cm>m30m .msmemo Co pm>HH m>mn pHdoz H UCm mHH3.%E mHCmpspm pmHCCms mHH Com memgmopm pCm mmeHHHomm Cmppmc pm: pmn.sz HH >HHMC0mCmm .>HHmCm>HCD mppym CmmHCon pm mpCmpon pmHCCme Ho mmCHmmp nCm mommC mCH CH pmmmmpaxm mCHmc pmmCmHCH mEOm mmm ow >HHmmCm mE mmmmmHo pH .mHCmpspm mam mpCmCma mCmgz wCHCam mmo COH mHHHmCmC me 0p pCmmmC CH m>HHomoowo HE mmemso mHmHHCHHmU mHCp 0m >HHEMH m m>mn HOC 0p m3 .COHHprm CH .MCHmCon mpHmCm>HCD CH mCH>HH mpCmpspm pmHCCME_CHH3.pomeoo mePHH >Cm> pm; m>mn pCm mdoemonmmo mCH>HH.Em H mm mE Op mHoam HOC mmOp wHCp Ho Hmoz .mzmH> Coo mam mmme mm CmCHOCm 90 km: mCo me 09 moCmCmmme QC mmme 9H .CH 5Com mHCH “Cmm p.Cpms H zoCx 50> UHU .msoezCoCm mCm mmCHMCCOHHmmCU mmme HH .3om .UCHE he memHCm pmsm prCOCHA< .mHQomm mCCHCH COH pmmCMCo ma UHdoCm mHCH .mOHOCo CHmCH pm >HC0 mCm mCsoC moHHHo .mCOmmmHopa pCm .mdoemo Ho pCm memnpxm mCP Hm hHCo memHHo mH wCHmea .HmCHxCoz mCm ms Ho PmoE CmCBV zmo me mCHCzp memmmo mCm mmmmMHo .mpCmpovm mdgemouCo mEHpuHHsm Com memmm HHm mam mmHCmeUm mCB .mooemo Co mmeHCspLomoo pCm .mpcwHC .memmwopm 0H mm pmprHHm mCHmc mam mpCmpopm mernHHdm 90 99mm HHm HMCH HmmH op m3 .mHCmpspm AmooamonCov pmHCCma POC mam m3.Cw30CvH< .mHCmpopm pmHCCME Com wCHmsoC thmCm>HCD CH Cm>mpmgs pmmCmHCH QC m>mn HulpmmMHn_Em H >HmCOH>eo .poo Comp 0H 30% mOCOH pHsoo Cpoov mmmomnm Cm .m.H .hHHEMH pom onHoa mhmo CHHmmCfiECEHCHE_>COmHCoeoo .mEmHCOCo mam COHHMPCoamCMCH pCm mmOCmCmmHHp >CMHme .mwMSwCMH aEmHAOCa mCm COH CHHo 0p 30HH<_ .pCmmm nghmmm9_smmaoc MCHCmmHo mCmo CpHmmm .mmeHCCEEOO H.Cmo UCm mCo 0C m>mn HmCH .mHCmpCpm CmHmCom Com moH>Cmm CHHmmC >pHmCm>HCD mCoz mHCmEEoo A.U.PCOOV H.<.mHAMB 81 .memmwogm mnp an UmpomHHm Ho CHHz CMHHHEMH HOC mam m3 moCHm mmmCoommC mmmCu Ho mEOm CH pmpsHoCH me HOC UHCOCm mCoEmo Hmo m>HH ngp mpCmpspm mCH .mpseaoo oCm msoemo HHO m>HH mHCmpspm pmHCCME me mo ACME mHHCB .zHCo mCHmSOC pmthme Com mememp mam zmnv mm soCCMC OOH mH mEMCmOCm mmmCy Ho mooom mCu HMCH Hmmm OmHm H .mCHmCOC pmHC uCME Ho manpooppm HMUHmHCa me mCH>oggEH pm pmaflm wH CUHC3 mCo wH pmoE UmpmmC mH puny EMHwOCa map MCHCH H .mE 0p >Homm POC mmom .xCMHA pHmH Cmmn m>mn >mCH .mEmHH mmOCH Co vaeeoo ow pmHHHHmoo HOC mCm m3 msoamo HMO m>HH m3 mmsmomm .mpCmpopm msgemolCo 0H zHCo mHmom mempH me mo msz .930 pmw pCm mCoE zma ow >ommn mm: H .pmc om mp3 AmdoemolCov mCHwCOC pmHCsz .mpmmC CHmCH 0H mCHCHMHCmo mCOHpmmso CmBmCm Op HHCOHHHHU mH pH pCm CmeHHCo hCm m>MC HQC 00 H omH< .mCm mommC CHme pmgs Co m>MC thp memHQOCo mCP zoCx HQC on >HHMmC H puny pCm wooemo Co MCHmooC pCmpspm pmHCCME CH p0C_Em H pmzp ppm ow va3 H .msz memHnono me Ho meow HMCS Op mm mmmsm m mxmu zHCo pHsoo H .mMMHHH> me Csz op ow Ups >HHmoHHHomom mCOHpmmso may Ho mEOm UCm..mmMHHH> CMpCmmm CH m>HH HOC 0p H UCm pCmnmzC he m< .mpCmpon HHm Com ma pHdoCm xmnp mmomomn mHCmpdpw pmHCCme Com :pmpmmC HQC: mEOm mmogemo Hmo m>HH mmsmomc mCHmCOC pmHCCma Cm3mCm hHmHMCompm H.Cmo 433..“ch HE 8H... Em? 333 Ev H 823 sewage mmonp =mHHCECpLoz: HHMCOCHm mm pmxnme H .moCMHmem CHme >HHmem 0H mpCmpCpm CmsoCm ow HMHUHHmCmc me Em? Emsofi H sewage .8... ..mHHnEEoz.. 9... Bin: 56. H = . mHEEflo}. E 80369 H .888: BED. COHpgeommm mew CmpCC.< whom pmxnme mpommCme m>mz H .mHHCSCpCoz m>onm pHsozxemCH Ho meow away Hmmm cm H .Cm>msom eEva pmmC 90C on H pmmmH pm 90 .pmpmmC mCm mempmono mm mmme Ho mCm pmnp Hmmm uOC 0p H mmCCHMEEH mHCp mHCmpspm UmHCCma mC< .Czo CHme Co mdoemo HHo m>HH pCm pmHCCme mam 0C3 mHH3.zE oCm HHmmmE mxHH HCmnspm m Com Covomm moCm>mHmC >Cm Ho 99mm HHmem m Ho mum mCovamso mmmCH mpCmsEoo A.U.HCOOV H.<.mHCMB ”H.0pm HCHmov mCOHHMCHmHHm Coomp CH BoommCH mHoE UCm H moH>Cmm moCMCmHCAME Cmppmn 90H mommC mCm mmonom Cop m> m3 mCHCH man may HMCH mEmmm Ha pom .mmmeqeoo A v . . . . . . mnp CH mEchopa HHmCH CHHB CMHHHEMH HOC mCm m3 mm mCOHuwmao mmmnp Ho meow szmCm 0H m: COH CHM; mH pH .mmeHoo HMCH CH mCmCommp mCCHCH mew ow moCmHCmaxm m>Hm pHoo3 HH .COHHmospm Ho mmmHHoo mCH Cwsognu pmHoCmn mp pHsoo CmeHHCo COH Howdy mCH .wCHmCOC pmHCCme CH wCH>HH .Comme.>9m>m pmoEHm SUCH mmpMpHpCmo HMCOHUOU Co mampmme me pmga mCmCB .mHCm upcmamp CHmCH UCm mpCmpspm COH mCHCOHCH mpH>OCa pHsoo 0C3 mogamo Co mHooma Co mmHoCmmm >Cme mCm mHmCH .chmHHm>m mH ngz Ho_MUMCp ammx ow zHHEmH msgemo HHo mCH COH HHCOHHHHU mH pH .pCmpsHm pmHCCme mCH 0H memmm CmpHmHmsz HHCHCQE m m>MC 0H mOHC ma pHsoz pH .mxmmz OH mnm>m mm 90H m: MMOm ow m>mc H.C03 >m£p 0m msoemo 0v CmmOHo CH HOH HmHQEEoo mew Ham HmCH H.C0p he: 0mH<_ mHoonom pmmnw m £05m ma 0H mwooodm mHH .mHmC HOC mes szmCm>HCD meHCon Cpmpmmz Hm mHCP 0p mmCB .mmmhsoo Hm>mH oo: pCm oom may CH mmmmmHo HCmHC mpH>OCm UHCOCm szmCm>HCD n2 mCH .md Op CHMqua HOC 0p mCOvamJo mmmCH Ho szComme mew 0m .mCHmCOC pmHCCme CH m>HH H.C0p m3 8 .mvmww pHoo .HEECHU mHCH m>mmH pCm :Hmmmm.Ho momHm.Cdo “mm: OH Hsz Hmom m3 .Hmszm pmeHHHmHCH Cm m>Hm HHHmwm ow :mCQEmo Co: psonm CmSOCm zoCx H.Cmo m3 pCm ms womHHm v.COU Hmnp mOCHm .mmCHCH mmmCH Ho HmoE psonm mmmH mCmo mHHmmH pHsoo UCM HHHm pH Ho psov mogamo HHo mam m3 302 . . . Cmmh m Cm>o Ho pmHH mCHHHmz m mp3 mCmCH Hon .mHMHm Ho #50 ECCH mCHaoo .msoemo Co m>HH op meCmHmCa m>mn pHdoz m3 “me 8 838m @338 Ba. 2 am H HmmmeH m: onHm Op HHSH oov mH MCHmooC mdgemouCo HHCMH 950 HH mHV .mdgamo Co mmonv mm mmmH pCm COHHHCH mEMm me mCHzmo mh.m3 mnmmmd usonm HMCB ”mmmH mCmo H.CpHvoo =3: mCH pCm mmzm mmHfiE ooo.m me pHdOblmmmHCCme wdoamonHHo Hon .mHOCa >Cma_>c ACO Czop pmMOOH HOV vaHmmm pmHMCHEHCome mCm mpCmpspm pmHCCme HHm puny UCHH oCm meCoE m Pdonm pmHCCme Cmmn m>MC H meCmosvm msgemolHHo Hdonm ngz mHCmEEoo A.U.HCOOV H.<.mHAMB 83 .CmpCmo mmmo>MU 3m: may wCHwCMCCm CH mHCmUSHm pmHCCME sze pmmHmC mm; muHmCm>HCD 93 Maps HHBHfiHmp H .meHCmemw CdHo mCH pCm mEmaopm HMCOHHmmCUmC me mNHmeCo 0H wCHmHmC.>n mHHH mdoamo map Op CmmOHo HmmH HHHCCEEOO pmHCCma.mCH QHmC HCMHE mpHmCm>HCD me HMCH HmmH H HMCmCmm CH .mCHmson mpHmCm>HCd CH m>HH HQC 0p H mmdmomn mCOHHmmCU mmme Ho meow szmCm OH me COH HHCOHHHHU mammm pH mpCmeeoo AU.PCOOV H.<.mHQMH 8H .pCmpCoommC HCmCmHHHp m Ho mPCmeeoo may mHCmmmCamC ComCmMHmo Comm .mpspm mHCH CH pm: m>mn HCmHE mpCmpCoommC mew pmnp COHHmmCo CMHsoHpCmm sz ow mCOHHommC Ho mHCmEEoo HMCoHpprm .mCOHCHoo me Ho COHHMHHQEOO m mH mHCBH .mCOU me Cmo pH.Hmm .zms mmmm me HQC m.pH .pm>HmomC m>.m3 pmgz COH pmxmoz m>m3Hm m>ms m3 .mCMHHmz mCoE mMHH ms ow xOOH mEmaOCa mmmzp Ho hsz .HCmmmCm um zvaOOm Coo mpm>Cmm ov.emmm CUHCR mEMCwOCa :zmzmm>Hm pmmnw: may CH m>mHHmn H.C0p m3 .HooCow mumspmnw CwCOCCp mmz Cso wCHxCoz.3oC mam m3 .HooCOm mpmspmanmpCs CmCOCCH mzmz mpmamamm Coo pmxpoa m3 .mCme m>HH Cm>mC UHdos m3.C0mmmH mCo mH mHCH .wCHmCOC pmHCCME CH mCmHHmCm OUMCCOH COH pmmC may 0H mHmmanm ppm ow mxHH p.H NmCoHpm>Cmmco pCm mmCHHmmH HMCOmem Co Hngdo momma mam mCOHCHQo mmmCH .mCHmCOC pmHCHmE_CH mpHmmC HQC 0p m3 moCHm .mEmHCOCa wCHpmem mmosm 0H pmHHHHmoo HQC em 0m .wCHmCOC HHHmCm>HCD zmoooo HOC 0p H .pmmd Cmmn m>mc pHooCm meMHc Ho CmnesC Cm>m CmunwmmCoommH :umon me Ho menHEs Cone 00H COH pm30HHm Com omH<. .mCHCmmCom HCQCHHB mCHMCCOHHmmJo mHCH CH pmpCHHm pCm COHmmmm szHEConCHmHC: m.EOCH HCWHC memv me 09 pmemmm mCOHHmmso mCH Ho pmoz .pCMpCCme me 0H pmmmmmom mCOHpmmoo HCMZ .mHmOm COHmCmCmCamm OHHMEmCom m mm £05m xCoszMHH CMHHHENH mHoE m pmms m>mn UHCoCm oCm .zxpgozz mmmH .CmHmHCC Cmmc m>mn pHdOCm #mmp mHCH .wCHommHmHE >Cm> me Op MCHom zHCMCOCQ mam .pmmc pm .mpHsmmnuupmpmmmea HQC mp3 pH Homomsm H .mCHMCCOHpmmso Coon mnm> m mm: mHCH .wCHmdoC pmHCCME mpHmCm>HCD CH pm>HH Cm>mC m>MC m3 .mmMHCLME 930 HO mCmmm mmCCp pmmH mCH HOH mpCmpsym Cmme m>mn H pCm nCmnmCC aE_CHon CwCOCHH< émHH 9383513 mfi 38mg 3 $3288..“ \mmHoCmmm mCHHmem mam mnmeu HmmH H .momam :pmpmmC HOC= mCH pmxomCo m>.H mhmgz mmmmo may Ho pmoE.CH mHCmsEoo COHmeso CCMICmoo me ow mmmCommmm mpCmoopm pmHCsz mumspmgw .wsoamolHHo H N.<.mHANH 111i III. II 85 .mCHmSQC mquompm pCHH ow aHmC mH HmnpnnmPMHm Ho #50 EQCH mCmC mCH>Qe mCm 0C3 mHoomo ow CHmC Ho pHm mace pmmC mzunomH< .HonHmC >Cm> mn UHCQS mCCCooCn m wempwoga HHHCCEEQQ pCm maouoo Co H CQHHmmoo Com 38 HHHsHmHom ~35me BEE: mdmamouCo 0H pmHHEHH me pCm mCHMCCoHHmmJU mHCH HQ HHCmmC m mm pmpspHHmCH moH>Cmp BmC sz pH3031|CoHHmmso .mHoCZ m mm HHHCCEEOQ HCmpCHm pmHCCma mCH COH HCMHHQQEH HmQE mCH mCm memgwonm @0100 UCm mpmo CpHmmC mCHCCmoCQQ mCmHHME .mCmemam HHHMCmme .HHHmCmn HHHz Hme CQH .mmoH>Cmm CQCm mCHmmp 053 HCmpspm He HHmHom Cm>o meMH me pHCQCm pmpmmC HQC mgms HHmH H CQHC3 mmmnm pmNHHMHomam meCH .mpHHHeHmCoammC HMHQH m>mn pHsQCm mpHmCm>HCD mCH mHmCB meMHo QC mam mCmCH mmHomem CQH mmCMCoxm Moon pme m CMCH HCMHCOQEH mCoe Cone mH ANHI moCMCCm>omv mCoHHao wCHmsoC msgemo Co "pmmC Ho mmmpmmp HCmmCm>Hp HHmsz Ho mEmHH meMHo m>mn H :pmpmmC: <.CmpCs mmHCommHmo m may CHCHHz uanmmm HQC mmop >m>pdm Ho CQHHOCQ Commstnmsmamo HHQ m>HH m3 .owm mHmm> m wCHmCQC mpHmCm>HCD CH m>HH pHp m3 .mCHmsoC szmCm>HCD CH m>HH HQC on H pCm mHHB A: .mvapsym pmHCnma o. mmnm CH mComHmm HMQHUmE mCHHwam pCm HHHmCm>HCD an CQHHmnmpHmCoo HmHomom A. pmHCCmev HCmpopm Ho mpmmC HCMHCQQEH «MCmemCm mpMHmeEH mHmoHpCH mxomCo mHedoa .mHCmpsym CQH mCHCHm&Cmn m>HpomHHoo CH amHo mmzp pHso3 mHQQ pmgz omHmC m>mn mpCmpCpm pHsoz moHo> m Ho Coaarzom omCoHpmmso meQHpCmE HHm Ho HOCHCQQ madman OH HCm3_>mCH pHsoz .mCmC mCQHHQCCH CHmCH pCm mCoHCso .pmpmmC CQHHMCMmem mad: .mH CQHHmmCU Hoonm mCCm HQCAE< .HmHH poom >Cm> .mHnm pCm wCHHHHB mCm HmQE mhzm Em H .HPHHHQHmCoammC meHHH m meCmn mpCmUCHm mmmCH Hm; .mpHo 9mm» m CQH gemo CmEESm m wCHNHcmmCQ mam 50> mxHH mpCSOm pH mHCmseoo A.U.HCQQV m.<_mHAMB fl. ll I‘lll ¢l||lf ll till Iii Ill Illlllll "|.l 'l. llllllllllil 86 .0m 90 .QE\mm Ho mQCmCmHHHp mOHCm emHHemwmm mmHm Ho pHdoew HHm .wmohmo mme wHCC mCo HH .68 may: new 8808 fi Em: 9:38 m 9,2 p993 HHS mfi>HH 5mm .pmooHoCH QHCwMHeUHmo .momemHmmm :mmCm: Hmmem>HCC meme pHdoz CQmCmm\mmH ommnmmmuememo ememe ow meH> CQH mmmH Cowoop 0C me pHCQem mCmew m>mHHme Huuememm .mmoH>pmm ememe HmEHCm owpswm COH wmwmp mewme m>me pHooem Hooeom HCMCHmem> meHnn COHwHCw mwmwmuHonCo oCm CQOH .wcmp wCHzma meHm mCmme Coo peozme edge e3\oo.mmm UCHH H .mmwmp pmosomn szmma wm woe ompmmC wH memozmauu .mmHCm pmmC mew pHdoem HmemC mogemo HHo mew CQH momemHmmm HmmmH .QmH< .wmonomem wCHowC momemo HHQ CH memw wmmhmeH memmew m mmm ow mxHH UHCQBII .mempswm pmHCCME mogemo HHQ wooem somlnmemUCwm pmHCCME mdgamo Co ewH3 memp mCHMCConmmso mew Ho CQHwLoo HMHowwwedm_< .>HpmpCmemHmCHm mmoH>me 05m oon>mp ow .HMZhCm UCHE ma CH .mHem me woC HHHB mm Hmm memuowm .mememonm mmmew whoaasm ow mmz HCQ mew mH >meCm>HCD mew pCm mempswm pmHCCME mew Cmmzwme CQmeemmooo wmew nCm mmomhom mew ppmzow pmemEmHgEH UCm pmwmmeu >Hm>HwomHHm me Cmo memewopa wmew HmmH H .mempswm mew COH >mCQE.wCH>mm ow pmmemC HHwomCHp mam eoHeB mmoew mCm pmpmmC meCoeww mm pmeomeo H eoHe3 mm0H>Cmm mmoeH .mpmmC C50 Co Ummme 3mH> Ho wCHoa Coo HHHCMEHCQ wH mHeB .wCHmCQe pmHngE Ho memHeoea mew mNHHmmH w.Cop pCm mempswm msaemo HHo mCm m3 wmew wQMH mew Co mConHomp HE Ho meComme mew pmmme H pCm mHHB he ewH3.ConMCHpCooo CH mCHMCConmmao mHew pmpmszm H .mdgamo Co m>HH w.Cop m3 .memHeOCa mew Ho mCme m>Hom ow Cmewmmow xeoz mempswm pmHCCME mew pCm memCm>HCD mew wmew HmeHogEH mH wH xCHew H .>m>HCm mHew CH memHHo mm mmoH>me eozm emdoeew pmpH>oCa Cmme m>me hue eoHe3 mMCHew Ho xQMH COH moHHHComm HMComCmQ wmmew Ho mmEHw emsoeew om msmemo Co m>HH on oez mpCmHCH poom Cmmm m>me m3 .mConmmmw5m mwmew Ho meme HQH nmmC wmmnw mew mmm Cmo m3 .mooemo Co m>HH woC 0p H new nCmemCe aa.ewsoewH< memeaou A.U.wCQQV m.<.mHAMH 87 .owECCm>om HQ :mwmwm mHmHHmzz m pmmC m3 Cmew mCQEHCm :szmem>HCC memHHmzz m pmmC wQC on ma .owm .memo ememe .wCHmsoe mmpCHoCH mHeH .>wHHHeHmCoemmC HCMEHCQ w.>meCm>HCD mew woC mH mHew wseuumCHH HwHHHeHmCoemmH mHew mCHECmmm CH Emew memmm Cmo >meCm>HCD mew HH .om 0p ow HmeCm>HCD mew Com: ownCmemp me woC oCm mCMHHms mCHow eHmew CQH mCmmE mHeB .>HHEMH CHmew CQH meHHeHwCoomme wemoom pHooem mempswm pmHehme m>mHHme H .mmoH>Cmm pmHHmouom meoa ewH3.>wHC:E neoo owpswm mew MCHmmmHe ow pmmoeeo meew ow momememm HmmmH mpH>oee ow wmweoH w.Cop woe mpHm zemmeQE Cmewo QC woe hHdHeHme me wemHE moCmpHsm HmmmH Cow eCmez new .memez .wmez mpHomp_Emew me .mCHemeOm owz mempdwm mew HH .Conmmqo HMCHwHCo Coca ow xomm .pmHeCmaan me HH Cm>m .mCHewoC m mH owoswm mew mmHzpmewo .memw me ow >mCQEHewH3.mComEom mm owpswm mew 3mH> HwHCdEEOQ Hmwmmem mew CH mmeHow mwmeoeeoo Cmewo .mmoH>emm owpswm HCME me UCm .mem mwmwm mCHmCme wmmm mew HQH wemoxm .AmmEHw wm mwedop he m>me H .Hmem me.:o> .mmwv mmHzemewo Co pmHCCME .mempswm Ho mCHm> mew HQIuHmonHHom nCm .HmmmH .mmmCHmCenumeCoaeoo HmooH mew mCHECOHCH m>Ho>CH pHdQB xeoz m.mmwwHEEoo mHew Ho wemm .mmmwwHEEOQ mCQE sz Ho owEemHHemwmm mew ow>mCe ow mmwstEoo m emHHemwmm .HCHeHme me ownemes>HHmmC 30% HH .mmem mfimCS A8 86.8% 93 CH 8338 $589. mfi ..m.H .mempswthoC ow wCHseoom .meHmCme mew Ho mxmweme ow mHem me pHdoem pCm mmxmw awe HHme m3 woe . 3888...... B Ewan m3 8333,... Hug Hog mm: H3398 .Ho BfiHEflmm we 8. wmfifi m6. H0 H85 #5 .wcmeH 950% was eodm HH .zHaEH ow memmm mpeos mmmew Ho mm: 950% .memwm .emHHemwwm .QOHm>mp mpH>oem .meCQHCe emHe mm pmpemmme mam momemHmmm HMQHUmE ow wCHHMHme mConmqu meH .mConmmao mCme ow CQHwMHmC CH mwpmHzoCx pCmepnConm >HCQ mConCmew nCm HHCQ wCH>HH msgemo HHQ Ho mHmme mew Co pmmeeeoo mH ECOH mew wmew poowmemoCs me pHsoem wH .eQCE oow mHHH ma womHHm AHHmmC woC mmop mHHH mseemo new .wseemo Co m>HH woC Qp H .mwmo 35 CH HHeem woC on mCQmemav mmmew Ho 3mH m me50 wamEEoo A.U.wCoov N.<.mHeMB 88 .owpCoemme owemHHHp m Ho memeeoo mew memmmCeme eemewmeme eomm .zpowm mHew CH pme m>me wewHE mempCoommC mew wmew CQmemoU CMHoonhme mCm ow mConomme Co memEEoo HMConprm .mCQHCHeo mew Ho CQHwMHHoEoo m mH mHeHH .mpCmemp eoo CH mHeeoe mewHH m me mo me om .owCmepme me ow owmE Cm>mC mp3 meme mmwm Coo pCm meoe wcmCmeeme m me ow ow E Cm>mC mm: mfimson 3H 89,2: . 3898 m5 :sz H89 egos... cmaHHfi .90 Ho fimemm Em wfiBHHmz mfi 8H meHHeHmCoemme mew wmew >Mm ow mxHH omHm pHooz H .mEmHeoem Coo mCH>HQw CH HmeCm>HCD mew ECCH mwoo nnCme woC :mOmemHmmm= emmm pHerm m3 wmew pCm mEmHeoee moUHCo m>me 0p mempowm pmHeCme.wmew HmmH H m8 5&6? CH mmHCmoeoo szHHwo hCME mxHH meHoe wewHH woo meCoe CQH mememUMHeme mpH>oeo szmCm>HCo w.Cmo mezuu .pmmo MCHme mmeHHHwo 0C ewH3 mewCQE mum mwgem mH owewemam Coo> Cmez CQHwoopme owe m wooem scent .Czo Cook mmo ow ooh onHm Co emew HHmm remew owh Hmeme oCm mCmConHnCoo CHM Ho CQHwMHHmwaH HQH ACOQU mew m>oem momeemev momem mpH>oee HmeCm>HCo mew w.Cmo mezwl mmCmo CQH wLOHHm mCHHohomC m wooem 30$ mmCHCCoe pCm Homoeme emmew wooem wmezwl ”mmpH wmmew m mH >m>eom mHeB wmemHeoee mono .memeoxm xooewxmw .mCHHmmCooo HQCMCwmee_EmHeoee .MCHeowow wCHHHmmp owpoww m Ho mowmwm Hmee 5 mew moCmemHHHp wmez .mooeoHpoH mH pmHCCMETCoC pCm pmHeCmE Cmmzwme mCHwMHowCmHHHp oCm mempowm QOH CmewoCm Co >M3 mCo CH wme wCHme memzmpmmC: mmmew Ho sz5 0m .Cmeeom mew CH HHHMHQmomm mpHx ewH3.mmHeooo eoeH mwmememm m>HH ow mHem me pHooem mpHx onewH3 mmHeooo pmHesz .emeHz mew CH meowmemoamw E0 886. 833mm» op 29... mfimp Em .mficoHHHBB 9.8.. 98 HR .383 838.6 588.. . 95% mfi. ewH3 ewe ow mo w.CmH wmom wCHmer pmHeHME .m.H ”mmoH>emm pm>oeeEH CQH mCQE hoe >HmeCHHmp pHooz mHeomm memEEoo HConmmoo oCthmoo mew ow mmmCoemmm mempowm UmHeCm: mwmopmememoCD moeemolCo m.<.mHeme 89 .meomew .m .mv mwmeem>o Cm pCm ememem m mem mmmHHH> meemem CH ompmmC meHew CHmE meH eEHe eoH mpH>oee 0w szmem>HCD mew womexm woC pCm mmmHeemE_ewH3.meoo wmew mmeHHHeHmCoemme mew wemoom 0w mHem me oHerm memoowm omHeemE memmm wH .m>oem mew Ho memo 0m 0w H30C mem mmew mm mewHH mmv mpCoH memem>HCD mmo 0w emHHooH mH wH xCHew H . .owmexmnCQC mem meme mmeHHHomH ememm .mmeH>Hwom m .owoowm omHeemE ow pmeHem me pHooem zmo m3 mmxmw owooww 0mH< .wmoE_m mH mmem mHew CH memo pHHeo m>HmCmemeH .moCmemoe mm HHm3 mm CmepHHeo m>me m3 memes mCme zeemeo CH meme moew >HHmHomemm mH mHeH .omeEHH mH mEHw eHmew mm emew He ommo me wQC oHooz mHemHHm>m HH Cm>m mmeHHHomH szE oCm mempowm eoH m>HmCmexm 00w mH m0H>emm memozme .Amemewoee 3va emew eoH pmom me pHooo mem oCm eHH zmw mm eoom :m0H>emm= eOH one wmxmw mew pmmewHCH me 0w mem mememoee m>HmCmexm >Cm HH .mempowm eooe mem mempowm pmHeemz .CmepHHeo Ho mmemm eoH mHHme eHmwm C0 mCHoCmH moH>oemuu .owewemem Ho sooe wCH>HH wCoeH CH mCmememo mpH>oemnn .memewemem mpHmwoo momem mwmeowm HmopH>HoCH meoe ommZII ”mmwme pmmmmeoCH mCmmE wH HH Cm>m mmoH>emm moe emwwmm .mCHmooe pmHeemE.H0 CHwHeO mew ewHS >meem>HCD mew He pmemHHemwmm Cmme m>me pHooem mmew mmomome HHHmOHmme wmQETIHmeem>HCD mew aoeH meoo wmoE MCHoCmCHH .BmH >em> m eOH womoxm .moeoomme oCm memeHOHweme eoH HmCCQmeme oCm CQHwomHHoo >mCQE szmem>HCD mmo ow ommC mempowm omHeemz .womaEH m>me wmoE_ConmoHoneme wmew oCmnumempowm pmHeemE_me CQmeowEmHeEH oCm wCHCCmHm CH CQmeeHOHwemo .eoEmeE Cmme 0w poowmemoCo me ww E szHHeHmCoemme owpowm Hmwow omme wQC om eoHe3.mmmCoemme HH< .mE_ewH3.wmmC0e me w.Cmo :0» HH wHew wCHemHCHH mmm w.Cmo H mmeHmCCQmemoo mew wCHCeowme wooem mmEHw m pmHHmo m3 memz zez mpmpoo wQC mem meHmCConmmoo mmmew wmew m>mHHme 0w me womexm oox on .eHme ow mCHow w.CmH mHeowo HmHoHHHwem m.3mz .wQC HH .mamHeoee C30 eHmew woo xeoz ow 28 8 328m 38me mmmHH8 Ho EH88: 9C. .898 meHMHoom 8%. HHm Ho Emsofi 93 map... f8 H memEEQu A.U.wCQOV m.<.mHemB 90 .HHm mo ewmmmm map eom meQEoo wCHmsoe UmHBHmn mew CHewH3 mememem ovfibeow mUH>oem BHmem>Hes mew owweomEH wmoE mH wH . OmHm HdmmHme me U303 S53 emew0C< . EHSCEOO thmem>HCD mew CH w. Cmemv wEw memvame HMOOH “Ho UmmmeH mmeHHHomnH 553 mew mm: ow memUCwm >._..Co 30HH< .UCdoem Cesw >mew mEHw §>m :wnHMfi: mew mCwamm ow wmmmesm hem> mem BmCx e0 392 H memUCwm Cmeeom wmoz .owm .memEmmemBeM wCH>oE nmmHermememE eom mmOHem Uoow mCwamw Ho mmmem CH .EwCsoo mCH>mmH Cme3 >HHMHomamm 5m: wm meme mmwm eHmew wCHeCU mmemmemwm HMHomaw nmmC memvam CmHmepm . . . eom mUH>oem ow emsocm mCOHCmmCH meH.v mHmsvH>HEHH UmHBHm: wmoz .owm mva COHwHCw .mmmwm eom UmUmmC mH >mCQE me.H. . mmeH>meHv eMHdeeesomeuXm mHVH>oea ow mHooean ow mmHUHmesm mmmmemCH weanoHHm owE uCegom mew 98 30C ew50Cm mwmom mmmHHoo =.UmvmmC w .CmH began wH mmCoE mwmoo wH HH: .mH endew Ho mHHe < .COmeemeCHafim 3m: mew wQC ammmH>emm emsw wCHemeU mmdoem e0 HMCUH>HQCH mew “Ho bHHHAHmCoamme mew memv HmmvaE UCm mmwemenvxm . monoo UHHem . mmCmesmCH mm e03 mEme .Emew meHmmv oe3 mCOmemm mew eom .mwm wedHo .mmemem .mCHHmmesom CH ewCOCm Cmew meg mmUH>Oea am: vaHmoCom Em H mm em.« 2 . vmwmmC szwgmmmmeu wememem ovmfiow Ode a mmCmedmCH mem memo HMOHUmE m>HmCmemeano . mmeHHHomH owmmem “Ho owEm>oemfiH vemzow COHwom Ho mmeme mEOm zoemul .meQDHmam CH mmeswvnHm wewHH meg wmmznn . owEmHHdUme qumd Ho eOHom mew ewH3 mmzm can: memCEBm 2w CH mummene m wmm ow mHeHmmOQCH >HH§HFH> wH mmvaE meQPHmam Ho wsomme .mH wH mm mmmHm e0 mmemHU emmB .veooo ow mHeHmmoaCH wmofium m.wH .mm; anonm--ngz cow enmmgHm me pawn emery ”memmmmom: won wan moH: ma oHsoz wHunHH* memo nHng memEEoo A.U.wCoov m.< mHeflH. 91 .meHew Cze wQC CemmH ow mew; mew m3 . :ofisfificoo 83 ow umedfie B 38%, 3968 go aofimae oflema wcmufim 98 he 83?: 93 B 8:95:00 535 U 8 385 88:83 Em EEC .5: Ho mm: mfi $35 :02: mg 9e .A:UmvmmC >HmCoewm: ememev wmom mo mmmHvemwme wmvmmC mem Hmem>mm nCm wmom HMCOHwHUUm mewHH wm mmoeCOmme owmmem_Ecem memo GHCOO m>oem mew mo Hmem>mm .meOE wmm ow meCE mwmoo fl wmfi 84%ng $532 8 H gas 08 we? :93 ow 8?. m CH 888 mem 622 mmfifi has mam. mane .vmwMHomemmm UCm Umms HHm3 me UHCoz mmmem wCHmCoe UmHeems mew UCCoem nmwmm0H mmHemw mHCOHm esz mHHHew .CmeUHHem mew eom meMmmmomC mem mmmem zmHm emmmm nCm emwwme .mecz memEEUo A.U.wCoov me<.mHemH 92 .owUCoamme owemHHHU m we memEEOm mew memmmeame eamewmema emmm .mwdwm mHew CH Ume m>me wemHE memnCoamme mew wmew COmemsv emHsonemm mCm ow mCOmemme e0 memEEOm HMCOHvaum .mCOHCHao mew mo COHwMHHgECo m mH mHeBH eEmHeoem mew m>H0m ow weommm Cm CH meeoewdm me wemxm ow memem>HCD mew eom mEHw mH wH .wmma mew CH medmme emwmme nme m>me mweommm owwswm .meomew mew mo COHwHUCoo mew wmmmH wm Cmew .mCHmew mo >mCmsUmem mew wOC HHnnmCQEmm mew UCm mMMHHH> meemam Cmmzwme.EmHeoem CHmew mew wdoem mCOU me wm E wCHemeom .UmHvswm UCm Umwmmemm>CH me HHHS mCOmemmmdm va meHmHgECo HH mCOHwHCCom mCH>HH m>oemEH ow mCOU me Cmm ems: .CH wmm ow eMCOCm AmwMCsweomCC eov mwMCCweom mH mCo mmCo vmmH>emmsm >Heooa mem meC: mCHmsom .Umeeoz zmew zoe UCm Ummexm >mew wmew 3mCe mHaoma meQE HH umm: sz>memmmm meQE me vHsoo mamemoea mem: .m>memmeo ecmma_m me UHdoem mamemoea mHeMHHm>m >Howmmem Ho memU: m seomCH OB .wa>Hwom Umnnm emmm wm mCHOCMCHH mew wCHCemOCoo Cmemw me UHsoem xmw m Co mwo> OHHHommm m .memm UHHeo .w.m .mmeH>Hwom emewo eon .wmoo wmnum mew eom nmmmmmmm >memeHw me UHdoem emm: mew .memCOHwHUCoo eHm mo mm: .w.m .owUCwm ovlothHmz CHECComm meOE mew he mm: HMCOmemm ow vmwMHme szomeHU mm0H>emm 3mC eom .aHme e038 w.Cmem3 mHHmme oe3 ammwwHEEOO mmeam mew Co mHmomm ow vmeemmme wow m3 vaHmHQECo m5 Ho mEOm Cmez nCm mCH>MHm mem: CmeUHHem meme: .wCHCem3 QC ewH3.mwMHHH> >meem>HCD CH vmmmenm szmem>HCD mew emm3 wmme .mem3OHH wCMHm ow mUMHm 0C mH memeH .wmmw oow e025 seew om memo qu mmmsm .meme mCmaame wmez em>o HoewCom meQE m>me MCHmsoe UmHeeME mo memUHmme mmm ow mxHH H .HHm pm $388 “:53 En 63% 902 58.: m were E E E 8:ng oz .H8a men 93 pom Eggsge 23% :8 ow $95 mew “mew .mUHx mmm Hooeom eom mmeHHHmmm mCHEEHZm ow mmmoo< .memmMCmmw nCm Cmmwumem eow mememoea UmmC mHmeCHHmQ memEEOU Conmmso UCMICon mew ow mmmComwmm memoswm vaeemz mwm:©mew msmEMOICo H :.< mHemH 93 .emm> emm 00.0mm I .xm I mmHea mHeMCommme m wm nmeme me vHsoem memeooH mew wmew HmmH OmHm H wse emMUOH mew mCHCCse eom mHeHmCommme me UHsoem memem>HCD mew wmew HmmH H weoamsm mew ow m< .Uoow 0m wQC mH >wHHmsv mew wse 30C wHom CH mCo owe m3 .mHew wdoem >HmCoewm meCU HmmH H I mmmeowm woom CmNoem . Xmu. :me= m emmmea UHsoz H I memUCwm UmHeeme eom >HHm0HmHmmam vamemU mm0H>emm Co xmw owUswm UmHeeMEHHMHoQO .emeHB mew CH meme vmonm mwOH mCHeema mew wmw .owewemam ewmm emm mCerma UmaHmmm wmw .mHemCmexeoz emwwme ewH3.mmm>0HgEm memem>HCD wmw mHeHmmom .meowmemCHOCH ow UCm Cm mmw ow meHH UHsoz .meCwHCeCH C20 MCHm: meHH mHHMHommmm H .mwoo e0 szm< meHH COHwMNHCmmeo Cm owCH wH wem>Com ow Cmew UmNHmeeo >Hmw00H me mCHmsoe UmHeeME me ow emwwme me UHsoz wH .AowweDV meHHmmm AUmeemEm Cm Cue nCm mmmH>emw eowoov emmHo UHCoem am: .mwMHHH> meemmm CH zmwm ow mo wwH wmew 30H 0m mem mnvo mmm Cmew UCm >vswm m eo>mm H .MCHemeUm UHHse e0 .mHMm meCd mmeHH> meMHomU ememe .meHsmHUHe meCmeesmIImwMHHH> meemam CH COHwMCme OGMCCOB .mm0H>emm wCHUH>oea mmmesoo eom Cm>Hm me UHsoem wHUmeo .mwm nmOHEOCoom meme .mOHEOComm aHMOHUmEImem .mCHmeCC .om<..C0meo:vm .owEQOHm>mU UHHeo "mm emdm mwmmewemmmv me wmvH>oem me UHCoo meme nmmeH mmmH>emm mew Ho meow .COmeosfim szmem>HCD m CH mCHxUMH om mH wmew mOCmHemmxm mHHHIHmme .HMOHwomea esz memvfiwm mew wCHUH>oem mCeB .owEwemmmU memem>HCD mwMHeaoemmm mew emzoeew nmemeem me UHdoo vmvmmC mem wmew mamewoem mew HQ >sz .UmvmmC szCoewm mem 3mm >em> .mCOHdoHUHe mem meow .m>me ow mOHC me UHdoz mmoH>emm mmmew Ho meow .mE Ho =memo mxmw= ow memem>HCD mew owz woC on H .mmHOCmHoHHHmCH Umeemsmmege nCm .mHemCMEeeoz zuvoem .mCJeIem>o wmom Ho memm memem>HCD Hmsms mew woC UCm eom zma H wmez wmw UCm umUH>oea wmoo mew mmm ow wCHHHH3_Em H wmew mH MCHHmmH HMComemm >2 .mmCQE wmoo HHHz >meem>HCD mew He memweme: me UHCoem UmwMOHuCH m>me H emHeB mEme mew .HMm ow mmmHummz memEEOU A.U.wC00v :e< mHeMH llallllllllll‘llnllll‘lll' [it‘ll 9U: . mummC owcHeCm Hmme eom memo mew memmz mHCo U303 mHew on ow mmCHm n\anCHECEom mCHmCme wmmm mew he UmvH>oem me 3”ng deoem emHeB ch 3mm m >HCO ow HmHOHHmCme mchv eOHez mamemoea mmgw wCHemBQ cHo>m equ >ew mvmmC bHCEEOO mHHe3eweg >HHmme owmmemme Umwmmwmsm mfiwereQ mew “Ho mEom moCHm . m: Cones mH emHCBm mm COOm emeomme me UHdoem COHmHomu m emwwma 0C wsm . >wHHHeHmCoamme Hmwow m . owUCwm mew me e m>mfl3 H :93 3853 Be an as €22 wmexm mmcoflencoo new CH .Bpflomfiam 8 H38 4?: mew CH wane me nmmC mmew HH . mwmoo Umemfi “Ho Emewoeg UmCmHmmU anHHowm m mCew HHms mew CH memCOHwHwCoo HHHH.V mew “Ho COmeHHmmeH owemeema mew mwmemmmomC wewHE CmemU BOUCHz wde Homemm mew Com: mHmeHow HHmm wOC UHCQem hedge” m>HmCmme Cm emsm . memCOHwHUCoo cHHm wsoesz mHeHmmomEH mem m,Hme meme—Em meH. memEEou A.U.wCooV :.< mHemH. 95 .ownCommme owemHHHo m Ho memeeoo mew memmmemme enmewmema eomm .>Uswm mHew CH Ume m>me wewHe wamUCOQmme mew wmew COmemdv emadonema >Cm ow mCOHwomme eo mpCmeeoo HMConHUUM .mCOHCHao mew Ho.COmeHngoo m wH mHeHaH .55 ow mHemHHmzm mmfifi wsoem :20: 93 www: whom wfimsoe aneeme CH mmoew mmmeemm .msgemo Co mexm memmeHm mm0H>emm eo mememoea mHeHmmoa omeo Ho >Cme om .memm> m>HH eom MCHmCoe UmHeeme 3m: CH vm>HH H .Cog: owemmodm mwmm Cmo H mCHewmeom woe mH mmH>©m eo memmm ow COmewHHeo HMCmmo m Cmew meoe m>me aHme wemHe wmew memewemmmU szmem>HCD emewo emewmez .mUH>oea ow mmeemmxm eo >mCoe mew ememeC mme wH memmw oweaHsvm eo mmeHHHomH mH> weoaasm ow umwommxm eo Como vaHmo memo wH owewemamU mCHmCoe omHeeme mew womamsm H wmedbm :UmmHCooam: 30C m3 on wzHHemm qu HHmmeHe eom mHeHmCommme mmz oez COmema mew ow nmCmamme em>mwme3 .megeoo wCHmsoe vaeeme mew CH mememem onmeeow mUH>oem ow mHeHmmmH wOC mH wH .UeOHUCMH m mm mHCo COHwOCCH VHdoem >meem>HCD meh .AmemUCwmICOC mm mEva IImm>Hmmemew eom mHeHmCoamme me ow m>me oeB mHmomm mem hmewIIwamUCwm mem >mew wmmeom m3 meHw mH wH .memm> meswem CH COHwHwoa emwwme m CH me HHH3.>HHemm mew wmew om COmeosvm Cm eom szdeeoaao mew eweoz HHmzva mHHH CH mmCHew emCHH mew Ho mOHHHeomm meow .CmeUHHeo 03w oCm mHH3.ze ew 31emew CH owmm H meHw mew eom mmoHea mHAMCOmmme szemewxm wm HHm3_zem> mmoaesm mew vm>emm memeweQO mew wmew meH H .mHeHmmoa moHem wmm3oH mew wm memwem:v mHemweomeoo wCHUH>er UCohme ow ow memem>HCD mew womaxm woC nCm hHHemm wmew eom mCHUH>oem UCm wCHemo Ho meHHeHmCommme mew wamoom wmqeozmew .Hooeom wCHemHCHH ow eOHeQ >HHemm m wemwm oCm UmHeeme wmw mHmomQ mCsom Cme3 .meme Hmem>mm Co mwmqvaMCH mem wameeoo COmemso UCmICmmo mew ow mmmCommmm meowmemeCHee< MCHmsom >meem>HCD H m.<.mHAMH 96 .meme UmwmmwMCm mem wmew mmeHHHeHmmoa mew Ho meme mew UCm mCOmemqv mew Ho medwosewm mew ewH3 umCemoCoo me oHCoz eo:e_>em> H .UmHHmmm me zme wH memes Ho mmmHvemmme .wmeswmooea OCM mnoewme CH mmmCmeo Ho mmeHHHeHmmom eo\UCm mmoH>emm Ho COHmCmgxm emewesm eom mHmme m mm Umms me ow UmCmemU me deoz eo mH mHew HH nem>mzom .owHoHHHCm wH UCHH H .mmomedm 0Hemvmom Cm eom wommoea m Co eomoeagm HmCComemmeCmvam m eom zHCo now: mH meHMCCOmemsd mHew HH .HMOHwomem wOC mem mmeHHHeHmCommme UCm mummC mew Ho meow .owUCwm meeeme m em>mC mm: oe3 em>emmeo monwso Cm Ho wCOHCHao HMCOmemm meoHewm mem memszm m>oe< memeeoo A.U.wCoov me< mHemH 97 .memUCoamme owemHHHU m Ho wameeoo mew memmmeame eamemmemm eomm .>wam mHew CH vme m>me wemHe memUCoamme mew wmew COmemsv eMHsonema mCm ow mCOHwomme eo memeeoo HMCOHwHUGm amCOHCHnHo mew Ho COmeHHmeoo m mH mHeHH .mUmmC :hHCo memUCwm UmHeeme: mew Ho me0m Ho owmHCwoo mm Cmme m>me wOC >me mCo .UCme emewo mew Co .:>HCo memcdwm omHeeme= eom emewoea mwmemmmm m wCHwemwm mNHHmsmH> wOC 0U H vmnmmC wCHme mm mHew Umeomeo H ewdoeme COmeosUm wsefi .m.H .mCHeCHew ze CH memUCwm UmHeeme mwmemmmm m>m3Hm wOC ow H wmew nmem>oomHo OmHm H .AmemUHmme mmmew me UHCoem m>Hwomamemm mew wmew mHmeH >HHM0HHHommw woe UHHV mCOHwomeHU e305 . memonme mCHmCoe UmHBeHe meem>HCD Ho umeCoo mew CH >HCo vmememngH me Cmo mCOmeo mew Ho meow .wCHmsoe omUH>oem memem>HCD CH mCH>HH mmoew Cmew emewo amemUCwm omHeeme HHm Ho m>Hwomamema m eoew UmUCommme mCo HH mmoem mCOmemCU mmmew mCHemszm CH szsoHHHHU eomme_< .23 mfi w8m 38% Be meme/Ha: Be a memo fiHmme “.8 $88 mew fl 338399 wan .mHeHmmom em>meme3 wmew UCm .ommC >mew HmmH memonm mew mmoH>emm mmoew mvH>oem ow memUCwm ewHB eeo: UHCoem szmem>HCD mew wmew how UHsoz H .Hmemme CH .UmmC mmew HmmH mmHHHemm owUCwm UmHeeme mm0H>emm eo mememoem wme3_30Ce w.C0U H mmsmome emszm ow deoHHHHo mH meHMCCOmemsv mHeH .mHew mH oweeoo HHCo z: .memHeoem owemwMCme szoe ewHB mmHHHEMH memmm ow.ememoem m emHHemwmm .moH>emm mew eom szHHeHmCoamme memem>HCD hngH ow emmm deoz =CMHonmea am: %e mHHmo mmsoe mUH>oem= ..m.m sessCHwCoo thHHeHmCoamme mew Ho emewo mew eo mUHm mCo Co mmCommme m mmeCme ow emmm mmoH>emm eo memewoea meow .mmoH>emw wCmeme ewsoeew me wCHme woC mem va vaHCC wmeBmeom me >me.eoHe3 mommC mmoew mUH>oea ow owweOQEH mH wH .em>mzom .memUswm UmHeeme ow mHeHmmmoom me zvmmeHm kme wmew mm0H>emm UCm mmeHHHomm mUH>oea w.Cow m3 wmew Hammemo me ow nmmC m3 .zoswm ow mUMHQ m UCHH ow mdgemo ow Ceswme ow mme owoswm mmHzemewo .mHmeemo zvswm ewH3 mCHvHHse mesu MIwmommC eoCe >em> CmeoHHeo esz memUCwm eom momam hvdwm .mmHHHemm CMOHeme< wCmeme CH mHme vmmC wamoswm aneeme Cmeeom memeeoo COmemso UCMICmmo mew ow mmmCommmm meowmemeCHEU< HmCCowemm owUCwm H mé flame 98 mew mH wH wmew eo a.owm .moHCon nmmoCmo mCHNHCmmeo mm eosm .UHeo3 HmHoom m.owUowm mew ewH3_Um>Ho>CH wmm .8 339me 8 Bedflmcoamme m .bememfic: mew we we page 9638 won ow H .mmeHHHomH memo e28: emew ow mHeMHHm5m m>me CmeUHHeo mmmew wmew mmm ow >wHHHeHmCoamme me0m mme szmem>HCD mew wmew m>mHHme omHm H .mCHmsoe UmHeeme CH mCH>HH memonwm Ho CmeUHHeo mew Ho mCme ow Cm>Hm memo ememe mwmsvmomeH mew Ho mmomomm .m>HH ow eoHe3 CH thCseeoo m>Hwomewwm Cm mHew meme ow weoHHm >em>m meme oHdoem 33,835 mew wEw Em meflmmoa mm meemfioeoo mm Em m>Hwomfipm mm me 02H 330% $3398 mmmew wmew xfifi H . 832$ eHmew Em Sew ow 3988 98 830393 29% 990.3 623 mmeHHHomH 39va MCHmsoe omHeeme CH wCH>HH memodwm moH>oea ow >wHHHeHmCoamme m.memem>HCD mew mH wH wmew m>mHHme H .memszm mmmew mCHQOHm>mU CH heQOmOHHeQ wCHonHom mew Umms H wmew mmNHHmme me HH mCOmemSU m>oem mew ow Cm>Hw memszm mew Ho mCHUmememoCs emwwme m m>me oHCoz emBmH>me mew eCHew H .mCH>HH mm: >HHemm mew em>meme3 emHHEHw me oHdoz eoHeB owea0Hm>mo UHHeo UCm wCHHmmCdoo HHHemm Ho mmmem mwm>Hea mmmew CH mHoe mHeHwHmeC ememmmmH m m>me UHsoem >meem>HCD meH .msgemo Co MCH>HH Ho mmsmome omommC mem wmew mmoH>emm mmmew ewH3 omUH>oem me zHHemH oCm owoswm UmHeeme mew wmew mH Cemoeoo he .hHmwmsvmum hHmmemeoo mHew szmCm ow memHeoee eHmew oCm mCOHwHoCoo wCH>HH owoswm omHeeme ewH3 emCOCm eMHHHemH em H wmew mesm woC_em H .wwHSmme eso> memzm >Hm30Hme H .m>me mommeHm m3 COHwMOHHQCU mew Ho eone mwMCHeHHm ow m>oe m.wme .weoaadm emsoeew wamoxm mw>Ho>CH me UmmC szmem>HCD eo wamUwa ememeC .om HHIIoow mmoH>emm meCdeeoo ow mmmoom m>me Hmew wmew mesmmm HIImemUCwm omHeeme me omommC mem mmoH>emw mew Ho sz2 .oweeoo ow mEHw meoe mem3 memew emHz H .UmommC mH emwwMH mew .omommC wOC mH emeeom mew xCHew H .esHo eo momem MCHwMCHeroo eoem memHHHU moCmCem>oo I H% .asoew wmew ow vaHC: mH UmmC mew meme3 >HCo mwMHeaoeagm memonw umHeeme eom mmoH>emm HMHomam eo mwmemmmm .owemmosm m MCHx e eom mHmme OCIImwmoHoCH ow omnme H <.wemm CH meme mCme ow mmCoamme Ho xome wameeoo A.U.wCoov w.<.mHeMH 99 .m>meHwHCH C30 mHe me UmHHmemm me UHsoem mommC HMHoOm mHe 0C0 >wHCdee0o memem>HCD Hmwow mew Ho wemm me UHsoem owUCwm UmHeeme one 6953 e38: EEK/8m CH new 3988 mm meemfioIEB mm meme mLcmuBm 93 mg 90C pamoxm .wommoea >Cm CH.emew memmm ow emmeSHo> HHH3 oe3 memeeme HHmwm oCm meComm Ho emeECC m UCHH HHH3 hmew .emew ow mmeme eoHe3 memHeoea HMHoOm UCm Hmeeme nmmseo mmsomHo ow mmHemm meswomH m eom ommC mew HmmH memonm omHeeme HH wmew owUHHCoo.em H .meCdeeoo oHemomom mew Ho wmme mew eoem owoswm omHeeme mew mwmemamm ow ome oHooz eoHe3 mCOmeNHCmmeo emHHemwmm ow memem>HCD mew eom mHemeHmmUC: wH wmew eCHew H semewoem mweomm HmedemewCH mew CH wema meow oCm .mmeHHomm hemeeHH mew mm: .m>MHm .mwemoCoo omewm ow_EHe mmmesooCm new memem>HCD wCHowCo mew Ho wema m Hmmm owoswm omHeeme mew meme ow mome me UHdoem weommm >em>m wmew m>mHHme ow nmCHHoCH_em H .memoswm omHeeme eom mCo emewOCm emHHemwmm ow zemmmmomC wOC mH wH 0C0 .30C_emwm>m HMHoHUCH mwMCUmnm Cm mme thmem>HCD meH .mHemmeHmmo me Hue memoswm mew he omemHHemwmm COmeNHCmmeo HmeeOHCH Cm aem>m30e maeMmmmomC mH oweeem>om owUCwm UmNHCwoome mommeHm eoew mwmemamm oweeem>ow Ho mmzw Hmeeom m wmew xCHew w0C 00 H .memUswm mmmew Ho moCMCem>om mew CH .owm .memo oHHeo .wCwaHmheme wooem omCemoCoo me ow meHHeHmCoamme m.>meem>HCD wameeoo A.U.wCooV m.HCD meH. .H “memBmem mmwmmwmdm 3V m>HH mew Ho mCo emUCd X en?» xeszIm gm CH "mem UmU wmvz Uwflmmz Umvmwz woz eHmcobm "memzmem Umwmmmmsm Amy mmeew mew “Ho mCo emHVC: x .99» xeszI< gm CH coflmmsm eumm woe ammo Hum H33 83% mfizofloe ma. .mmHézoEmmso “EH. szm .82 on mméne m>me >2 50> mmComwme .HMHCOHuemQ >Cm ©HHm5U 50% eHme ow eo memano HMCOHwHUUm eom 0m0H>0ee me HHH3 mwmm vflme mew Co COmemseo UCmICmao C< .58 50% mm mHvEmew mm mCOmemzv HHm em3mC< .moHEmm e0 age Umwmmwm3m mew wso gheemo CH mHOe gm mew wmmoom UHsoem eoHe3 owConHeOo wmewIImm vaHHmU wCHme mm thdHeHmCommme Ho eCHew .emewemfl .memConHBo Umwmmwwsm 03w mew >HCO emHonCoo mmmmHa mmmoaea e90 eow .em>m30e . mmoH?Hmm UCm memewofie atmo eow meHHeHmCoamme m>me wewHe meEeEoo mew CH .meomemv emewo .msew mH wH SHHEmm owmswm mew AN 98 memem>HCD mew AH "memCoaeoo 03w HHCo wCH>me mm >wHHHeHm8mmme Ho eeHew wHHmHEOmemsv mHew CH .m gm CH UmUH>oem memes wH HH meHHeHmCommme mew m>me UHsoem oe3 39.2 ow mxHH HHme UHzos H .Um0H>oee me w0C 332m gene e0 mOH?Hmm mHew Hmmm 30% HH Cm>m SHHEMH owoswm mew eo meegfiS mewIImoH>emm eo saga mmwmmmmsm mew eom szHHe .3598 m6. memo. 35% on: wwwmoeofi 623 .m baa woe .8395 am $86 528% .fieH .8an me 8E3 e0 emewoeg mew evenew 50> .IHH wmwmoHeEH eoHe3 .< gm eom em3mCm em mmooeo .BmmHm .COmemsd eoMm Co mmCmee 03w meme mem >Hstwemo COmemwmdm eoMm 08m . mmoHPHmm eo\UCm wage mHeHmmoa mm Ho fioow>CH Cm mH mHeH. . mem3mCm wCoez e0 wemHe 0C mem gmew . mCOHwamoeme eCQA Ho >m>ezm m mH mHew mmsmomm mZOHHDDEmZH 103 .moHPHmm me wso wCHenbemo eonH >wHHHeHmC0Qmme Hmwow mvaw 3.32m owmem 2w . .m. H .IIm wemm CH >wHHHe IHmCoammm ._..mwo.H. owmswm emUC: UCm mmUmmC mH moHEmm mHew . ..m H II< wemm CH Bommz emmC: Umeeme C0mema mHeH. C0meemewme x x emwo> maemoICo mmH>Oem .mmmm .awmm .mmmm .mem .Hmmm mmmmmz Umvmmz Ummmmz .2on ~82: memew 38a 52: .298. woz 388m owmswm owmswm Iswm w .>HCD .>HCD .>HCD mmemmswm mmHeemz eo 3H8m>HCD mmoHEmm e0 Emewoem wmmmmmz moH>emm mHfi eom thHHeHmCoamme mew memw mHsoem 0e: e0 Emewoene me wH moHPHmm e0 emewoem m Pemm < ”Ema 3% .moH>emm e0 Emewoeg mmwmmmwdm emHsoHuIHma mHew wso Ego eow \meHHeHwCoamme Hmwow mew mvaw memmsww mmw wse H5933 emeb e0 meHHomw m mmH>0ea ow m>me >me memem>HCD met IImHeH mConHmme HHmwow me mHsoem mwemmswm mmHSHmE me.H. a.mHoe EomHZUm Cm CH mwom meem>d5 meew .BHHHeHmCawg eo.nme m>me memUCwm mmHeeme meH. .bHHHflmcoamme mew Hem: 82m 38% mwfiafim 9335 Ba 338%5 we. TmHoe he8H>mm Cm CH mwom owmswm mes ..AwHHHeHmCoamme eo.nme memw UHdoem memem>HCD meH. a... NCOZI'LO 101+ moHHom uCHmsoe mmHeemE msoamoICo HHmem>o emmeCHefim Em 90Hm>mn . COHe: mwemme m mNHHHmweo . chwmem3mC thCQEOo mmHBHmé m mmH>oem . page mmHsm memamgem m eo\mCm C0mefieowCH gmfinxu GUflE . memmsww Egan 8.. Sofie mwmemomm m emHHemwmm . oweeem>ow owmswm mmHeeme mwmemmmm m mNquweo . E .99 game swam 8mm dame .ammm @8me BBQ 98% .299 «02: Bumefim Mag .59.. 0.02 3chme wfiefim wfiufim a $2: .35 $2: _ mmemmswm mmHeemz e0 thme>HH5 mmoHPHmm e0 30.3 $5 8m fieflflmcfimfi st 93 28% QE muemm mmmmmmz moH>emm e0 Emewoem mHew mH Qem emewoem 838:8 mem m emHHanm wHC: 3w H0 owemmNHmn mew mmeH Iveooo mem .COmeoHCQEUo Em mwfimeeao mesa; . mEmeerQ mwmeHmeooo ow wCHwHOe BHE mdanmo CO CH mHmemeomsv eomm quHmHano mem COmeE 1.8qu eow mwsoe mCHemmHo BE mmwficflm mmHBemz e0 thmem>HCD mmoH>emm eo emewoem mHfi 8H BHHHflmcoammp mfi £8. 38% 23 muemm . .Hmmm .|nHmmm .Hmem menaem .mem .mmmm mmmmmz mmmmmz mmmmmz .32. ~82: 359% ~82: .58 0.02 395% owmswm wemonwm w . >HCD . >HCD . >HCD momvmmz mOHPHmm e0 eweaoem me mH emm e0 emewoem 106 i 3H5 m . owmswm mmHeeme mew 8H 88 fiHmme Bess I>HCd emdswme eouH Emewoea m owEmHm—CHH mem QOHm>mQ mcmeoemsfi Be .3 $1.0 mmsoe moCmmemEm mmH>oem wHC: mHHeQH moHEmm onOHoomC>w ESE mwemePemam mRHCHmoICo CH memCOHmeHOo eHm ..Ho mm: mew fond #5 >038 m 93,8 Towm .mCmeCm PH. Hmeowo .HmmoamHo mwmeemm .mwma Ham .m.: 8039 H389 Ho 939% 9C3 ow 30> mHemCm 3303 moHea owe HmHomnHm m g mCOHwnHo mCHmaoe mSQHmoICo aon>mQ COHwQNHEe-CH Cm mmH>0em . Em Hmoehmwmao 898m . .mH .NH .mmmm .mmmm .Hmmm memew .nHmmm .nHmmm 4&8 ~82: mwfiefim ~82: .52. £33m wficflm w 5?: SHE 5H5 Hmwfigm mmHeemz e0 thmem>HCD mmoH>emm e0 Emewoem 9.5 How 3333898 m5 93 352m 23 m Em _A H0882 EH82 88% 0.02 3398 mmmmmz moH>emm e0 EOE me wH emm e0 gem 107 H8. ~82: wwficfim mouse .289 wficfim wfiofim w :65 5H5 .35 mmemmnwm 8H5 e0 thmem>HCD wmoH>emm e0 aaoem were 9.8 fiHHHflmcoamme m6. 93 352m 23 muhmm moH>emm Hmeemmme hog: Immeg emHeoea m mmH>0em . moCchmCH HBHBE 398a «025$ . mmmmmHm Hmm.emCm> mCm . wmsem ..Ho mm: .HoeBHm Ho mm: .mCHeQHm @553 mm @5395 e02m ewH3 Hmmm ow moHCHHo 8m: fiHmme H389 93,3 . CmHa moCmeSmCH HmoHUmE hHHEmH m>HmCmeme950 m “HQ—”m>me . same m . owmswm mmHeeme 3w eon m.Hmo ememe rmemem>HCs OmeemEm eow emewoea m wememHaEH mem QOHm>mQ . woz 339me mmmmmz moH>emm e0 eHmerem mHew mH mHQ CH ImmoCmH CHmweo ow ememoem m weOQQSm >HHmHoCmCHm . mMCmeoxm wCHewOHo mCm 88888 38 m £8338 . ememoea mooe Iowemm mmCCmHm m mmH>oem . maoIoo wCwaHm>eme meoe mNHCmmeo . HCme IUHHeo HHm3 eom mmoH>emm oHememmm .m.HV oHCHHo 280 H83 m 838me . mmHCD .>HC: .>HCS mmemmswm mmHeemz e0 .>HCD wmoHPemm e0 emnwoem mg 98 $388888 em. 33 388 on: m wemm 8882 88% 8882 woz emaoflm mmmmmmz moH>emm e0_emew0em mHew mH <.wemm moH>emm e0 emewoem 109 CmemHHeo eow mHooa wCHUm3 mmH>oem memmm m ow mewCoe w mmmm HooeomImea HHm m>emm ow moH>emm memo >mm msaemo ICo owmm a e50 UCmmxm m0H>emm memo zmm mmwmmwm mHHmCOHmmmmoem meoe mmH>0em moH>emm memo mmm :QOIoo: meoe mNHCmmeo 388388 .9853 ow wme Cmew emewov Cme ImHHeo eow mmmem >mHm CH InmoCmH CHmweo ow_emewoee m weoaesm mHHmHoCmCHm . mmHCD .>HCD .>HC: mmemmswm mmHeemz e0 .>HCD mmoH>emm e0 emewoem met. mom fieHHflmcoammH m5. 88 388 9e m wemm 8882 8882 88% 0.02 emcobm mummmmz moH>emm e0 emewoem mHew mH < wemm moH>emm e0 emewoem 110 memUswm emerge...e 8H 48% m 5H: .momHm wCHemewmm m ewHHemwmm . AmmmmmC mm emoo e0 mHmE nmHmemHV mmHa C0memeome mmNHmeeo eom owemHsvm Ho mm: C0memeome IIIII IIIII IIII. III! .III! .IIII stnm mmNHCmmeo eow AmeHmHH HHme .mweeoo .wm BzmzzH0em . mammmH HmezemewCH mNHCmmeo . mmeHoeooo mCm mmmeoesm . mmeHHHomw meoe QOHm>mQ . .mmmm .mwmm .Qmmm memew .mwmm .emmm mmmmmz ummmmz mmmmmz .2on 82: B888 82: .298 0.02 >chobm owmswm owmswm w .>HCD .>HC: .>HCD wmemUswm mmHeemzneo memem>HCD wmoH>emm e0.emew0em wmmmmmz moH>emm me eouH thHHeHmCommme mew mvaw UHdoem 0e3 e0 eHmewOem me mH m>H>emm e0 Eamoem m wemm i <_Pemm I‘ll-ll 111 mwemoswm mmHeHme H0 ememHHeo 2w eow memaoenH eowsw mNHemmeo .m memmswm mmHeeme mew. eom memewoee eowsw mNHmeeo .: II ..II. III III mmHHHfimH gem owmswm mmHBeme eow mmCMHmmm demo HHHHomnHm moH>emw eow hma 0w 25%er wCHmHme 95% e0 :53 xmw owmswm mmHeemE HmHomnHm m owEmHQBH . m III .III III momemHmmm 8m 888 H82 8808 .N I. III II! III! III. III. Hogom CH wOC mmmdoam wm mmwowHHmIImewH>Hwom mCm mmmmmHo . wASHoIIwmgmeH HmHoQO meg mNHmeeo . H meH>~HmHm m>HH<~HHmHZHHfi< w EEHZD eCHe moH eoomwoo mNHmeeo . m ESE w ZOHHRmmUmm .nHmmm .Qmmm .Qmmm g .mem .Qmmm Umvmmz Umvmmz Umcmmz .58 mos: mwfiefim ”822 .298 woz 389nm owmdwm owmswm w . >HCD . >HC: . >HCD m. mwcmmswm mmHBeaz e0 memem>HCD mmoH>emm e0 emewoem mmmmmmz moH>emm mHeuw eow rmeHHeHmConHmme mew mvaw mHsoeuw oe3 e0 EOE mHew mH moH>emm e0 Emewoewm m “Emma 0em . oH mCHmsoe manemo CO CH mePwHCrgm C30 ezom mm: ow Conao Cm moH>oem .m wCHHmmCsoo owEoHeCm Hmeeme mmH>oem . m HmoCm Imemmm xmw meooCH .meow ImeHEooo C0memeome . mmHm mcHemmmw .m.Ho mmHHHemH mmHBeme eohH mEmewOene CH memmm 0w memmswm emmwesHo> 3m: m>H0>CH . H 399% C0HmmsomH0 wCH>Hom emHeQem HHHEmH mNHCmueo . m mMUH>mmm EgmHg w EHmmmSHZD . ammm . emmm . ammm memem . mmmm . emmm 45.8. moHdz memoswm moms; 4&2. owmnwm owmem w . >HCD . >HCD . >HCD Hmwammswm UmHfiemz e0 szmeQ/HCD mmoHPHmm eo Ememoem weep mom ewHHHmHmmoamme mew mxmw mHsoem 0:3 mwemm mmmmmz mmmmmz mmmmmz woz NHHmcoam Hemmmmz moH>emm e0 5.80.5 me mH emm e0 Eamoem 113 "3358 H8988 ememoen memeoxm eooewxmw m QOHm>mQ A.owm .wmomemwm .wmewOHo .meszCe: V ememoem memeoxm mwemaoea HmCOmemQ_m QOHm>mQ meemwm moow 88.830 5 mmfimfim wmmmfim £888 888 emewoem emeo0H mmmeowm moom Cmnoem m emHHemwmm memHeoen memmswm mmHeumeanmCme ow ememo meHeo m emHHemwmm m0Ioo 3&3 8H m 828me e0Ioo 0mm mCm moCmcmeH e emo m ewHHemwmm .5 .m .m .3 .N .H mzHCD .>HCD .>HCD mmemmswm UmHeemzfleo memem>HCD wmoH>emm e0_emewoem 85 8H EHHHflmmoamB mew meme 358m 23 m wemm 88mz 882 88% woz HHwaoflm mmmmmmz moH>emm e0.emew0em mHew mH moH>emm e0_emewoem