ABSTRACT

A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF MARITAL STATUS TO SELECTED

CHARACTERISTICS OF MALE UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS

AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

by Norman T. Oppelt

Problem

The general problem.of this study was to determine whether

or not significant relationships exist between the marital status of

full—time,male undergraduates at Michigan State University and the

following types of characteristics and activities.

1.

General descriptive characteristics, age, residence,
college major, etc.

Home and high school educational backgrounds
Financial conditions in college

Participation in University and off-campus extra-
curricular activities

Utilization of selected University student personnel

services

The study also provides a comprehensive description of

married male undergraduates.

Methods and Techniques

The population under study included all of the full-time,male

undergraduates enrolled at Michigan State University during spring

term, 1960.

The samples used were 5% random samples of married and

unmarried male undergraduates.

Norman T. Oppelt

Data were collected by the use of a questionnaire constructed
for the study and from the records of several offices and services
at Michigan State University. The questionnaire was pre—tested to
determine the clarity and reliability of the items. A group of
expert judges evaluated the items for the final questionnaire. The
questionnaires were mailed to the samples of 200 married and 200
unmarried male undergraduates. Eighty-four per cent of the 400
questionnaires were returned in usable condition.

The chi-square test of independence was used to determine if
marital status was significantly related to the variables under study.
The relationship of the age of married male undergraduates to selected
characteristics was also investigated. The frequencies of the
responses were analyzed to determine the direction of the significant
relationships. Marriage was not concluded to be necessarily the

cause of the relationships uncovered.

Majgr Findings

It was found that the average married male undergraduate had
been married for three years and had one child. Very few wives of
the married.male students were making substantial progress toward a
college degree. The average married male undergraduate was signifi-
cantly older and.more likely to be a veteran, transfer, Protestant,
and live on campus than was the unmarried male. The married male
students did not differ significantly from the unmarried students
in the number who were enrolled in the different colleges of the

University.

Norman T. Oppelt

Financial conditions were the greatest source of problems
for the married male undergraduate. The major sources of income for
married male students were his own part-time work, his wife's work,
and the "G.I. Bill." Only the younger married male undergraduates
received much financial aid from their parents.

The high school backgrounds and home towns of the married and
unmarried male undergraduates were similar in the majority of the
variables studied.

The average married male undergraduate participated less than
the unmarried male in all types of Michigan State University extra—
curricular activities except student organizations. In several types
of extra-curricular activities the younger married male undergraduates
participated significantly more than the older'married.males. The
married.male students also participated less in two of the four types
of off-campus activities studied. The average married male undergrad-
uate was as well or better satisfied with his opportunities to attend
most extra-curricular activities as was the unmarried male undergrad-
uate. The general satisfaction of both married and unmarried male
undergraduates with their opportunities to attend extra-curricular
activities was high.

The married male undergraduates studied had used the Univer-
sity Counseling Center and Olin Health Center less than the unmarried
male undergraduates. Marital status was not related to use by male
undergraduates of the other personnel services studied. Married and
unmarried male undergraduates did not differ significantly in their

satisfaction with the services of the personnel services under study.

A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF MARITAL STATUS TO SELECTED
CHARACTERISTICS OF MALE UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS

AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

By

I.
L' ‘3‘

c
00

e
Norman T3 Oppelt

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

College of Education

1962

ACKN OE'JLEDCEEI‘J TS

The author wishes to express gratitude to the students at
Michigan State University who cooperated by providing the question-
naire data for this study. Thanks are also given to the administra-
tors of the student personnel services studied for allowing the
author the use of their records.

The assistance of the personnel of the Men's Division at
Michigan State University was greatly appreciated. Dr. Eldon R.
Nonnamaker and Dr. John W. Truitt were particularly helpful in
planning and carrying out the research. Members of the author's
guidance committee, Dr. James w; Costar, Dr. Buford Stefflre and
Dr. Bill L. Kell, each gave helpful assistance. Dr. walter F.
Johnson, chairman of the committee, and Dr. John X. Jamrich deserve
special thanks for their helpful suggestions and the time they
spent reading the preliminary questionnaire and early drafts of the
thesis.

Finally, the author would like to express his gratitude to
his wife and colleagues at Colorado State College without whose

faithful encouragement this study might not have been completed.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDCE‘ENTS.......................

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter
I.

II.

III C

Tm PROBLEIM'. O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Introduction

Statement of the Problem
Hypotheses to Be Tested

Importance of the Problem
Definitions of Terms

Limitations and Scope of the Study
Outline of the Study

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction

Research on Participation in Student
Activities by Married Students

Research Concerning the Problems of Married
Students

Research on the Finances of Married Students

Research on the Academic Achievement of
Married Students

Research on Various Characteristics of
Married Students

Popular Magazine Articles Concerning Married
Students

Summary of the Review of Related Research

DESIGN AND PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . .

Population

The Sample

Collection of Data

The Questionnaire
Validity of the Questionnaire
Pre-Test of the Questionnaire
Reliability of the Questionnaire
Administration of the Questionnaire

iii

Page
ii

xiii

31

Chapter Page
III. DESIGN AND PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY (CONTINUED)

Tabulation of the Data
Data Collected from Records
Methods of Analysis
Summary

IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

General Descriptive Characteristics of Married
Male Undergraduates

Relationship of Marital Status to Selected
Descriptive Characteristics of Male
Undergraduates

Relationship of Marital Status to the
Financial Conditions of Male Undergraduates

Relationship of Marital Status to Selected
Home and Educational Background
Characteristics of Male Undergraduates

Relationship of Participation in Extra-
curricular Activities to Marital Status

Relationship of Marital Status to the
Utilization of Selected Student Personnel
Services

v. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOBQEENDATIONS o o o o o o o o o o e o o o o o O 77

Summary
Findings
Conclusions
Conclusions Concerning the Relationship of
Marital Status to Selected General
Descriptive Characteristics of Male
Undergraduates
Conclusions Concerning the Relationship of
Marital Status to the Financial Conditions
of Male Undergraduates
Conclusions Concerning the Relationship of
Marital Status to Home and Educational
Background Characteristics of Male
Undergraduates
Conclusions Concerning the Relationship of
Iarital Status to the High School and Home
Town Backgrounds of Male Undergraduates
Conclusions Concerning the Relationship of
Marital Status to Participation in.Midhigan
State University Extra-curricular Activities
by Male Undergraduates

iv

Chapter Page

v. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMENDATIONS (CONTINUED)

Conclusions Concerning the Relationship of
Marital Status to Utilization of Selected
Student Personnel Services by Male
Undergraduates

Description of the Married Male Undergraduate
at Michigan State University

Recommendations

Recommendations for Providing for the Needs
of Married Male Undergraduates at Michigan
State University

Recommendations for Further Research
Concerning the Married College Student

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9A

APPMDIX I O O O 0 I O O O I O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O 100

APPENDIX II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

Letter of Transmittal
Married Student Questionnaire
Unmarried Student Questionnaire

10.

ll.

13.

APPENDIX I

Length of marriage of married male undergraduates
by college class. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Term hours of course work taken by wives of
married.male undergraduates . . . . . . . . . .

Formal higher education of wives of married male
undergraduates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Number of children of married.male undergraduates
by college class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Formal education of the fathers of married and
unmarried male undergraduates . . . . . . . . .

Occupations of the fathers of married and
unmarried male undergraduates . . . . . . . .

Total yearly income of the parents of married and
unmarried.male undergraduates . . . . . . . . .

Population of the home towns of married.and

unmarried.male undergraduates . . . . . . . . . .

Degree of encouragement to attend college by
parents of married and unmarried male
undergraduates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Geographical location of the home towns of
married and unmarried male undergraduates . . .

High school curriculum pursued by married and
unmarried male undergraduates . . . . . . . . .

Number of persons in the high school graduating
classes of married and unmarried male
undergraduates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Participation in high school extra—curricular
activities by married and unmarried male
undergraduates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page

101

102

102

103

10k

105

106

107

107

108

108

109

109

Table Page
APPENDIX I (CONTINUED)

1A. Amount of dating in high school by married and

unmarried male undergraduates . . . . . . . . . . . 110
15. Sources of one-fourth or more of the income of

married and unmarried male undergraduates . . . . . 111
16. Hours worked per week by married and unmarried

male undergraduates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
1?. Automobile ownership among married and

unmarried male undergraduates . . . . . . . . . . . 112

18. Number of persons at least fifty per cent
dependent upon.married and unmarried male
undergraduates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

19. Total expenditures for winter term.l960 by

married and unmarried male undergraduates . . . . . 114
20. Indebtedness of married and unmarried male

undergraduates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
21. Earnings expected, ten years after graduation,

by married and unmarried male undergraduates . . . 115
22. Areas ranked as the greatest source of problems

by married and unmarried male undergraduates . . . 116
23. Average number of hours worked each week by wives

of male married undergraduates . . . . . . . . . . 116
24. Number of wives of married male undergraduates

who worked at home for pay . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
25. Composite frequencies of attendance at six.types

of University cultural-intellectual activities

of married and unmarried.male undergraduates . . . 117

26. University cultural-intellectual activities which
married and unmarried.male undergraduates would

like to attend more frequently . . . . . . . . . . 118
27. Frequencies of reasons married and unmarried.ma1e

undergraduates do not attend more University

cultural-intellectual activities . . . . . . . . . 119

Table Page
APPENDIX I (CONTINUED)

28. Satisfaction of married and unmarried male
undergraduates with their Opportunity to attend
University cultural-intellectual activities . . . . 119

29. Composite frequencies of attendance at six types
of off-campus cultural-intellectual activities
by married and unmarried.ma1e undergraduates . . . 120

30. Composite frequencies of attendance at eight types
of University social-recreational activities by
married and unmarried male undergraduates . . . . . 120

31. University social-recreational activities which
married and unmarried.male undergraduates would
like to attendlnore frequently . . . . . . . . . . 121

32. Frequencies of reasons married and unmarried male
undergraduates do not attend more University
SOCial-I‘ecreational aCtiVitieS o O o o o o o o e o 1.22

33. Satisfaction of married and unmarried male
undergraduates with their Opportunity to attend
University social-recreational activities . . . . . 122

3A. Composite frequencies of attendance at eight types
of off-campus social—recreational activities by
married and unmarried.male undergraduates . . . . . 123

35. Number of male married undergraduates who purchased
University activity books for their wives . . . . . 123

36. Composite frequency of participation in eleven
types of University student organizations by
married and unmarried male undergraduates . . . . . 124

37. University student organizations in which married
and unmarried male undergraduates would like
to have more participation . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

38. Frequencies of reasons married and unmarried male
undergraduates do not participate more in
student organizations in which they wanted to
participate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

viii

Table Page
APPENDIX I (CONTINUED)

39. Satisfaction of married and unmarried male
undergraduates with their opportunities to
participate in University student organizations . . 126

A0. Degree of participation in eight types of
off-campus organizations by married and
unmarried male undergraduates . . . . . . . . . . . 127

A1. Religious preference of married and unmarried
male undergraduates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

AZ. Composite frequency of participation in seven
religious activities by married and unmarried
male undergraduates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

43. Degree of satisfaction with opportunities to attend
University religious activities among married
and unmarried male undergraduates . . . . . . . . . 128

44. Composite frequencies of attendance at fourteen
types of intercollegiate athletic events by
married and unmarried male undergraduates . . . . . 129

A5. Season of the year married and unmarried male
undergraduates would like to attend more
intercollegiate athletic events . . . . . . . . . . 129

A6. Frequencies of reasons married and unmarried
male undergraduates do not attend more
intercollegiate athletic events . . . . . . . . . . 130

A7. Satisfaction of married and unmarried male
undergraduates with their opportunity to
attend intercollegiate athletic events . . . . . 130

A8. Participation in leisure time athletic activities,
to at least some extent, by married and
unmarried male undergraduates . . . . . . . . . . . 131

49. Use of the University Counseling Center by
married and unmarried male undergraduates . . . . . 131

50. Degree of satisfaction with the University
Counseling Center among married and unmarried
male undergraduates who have made use of its
services at some time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

Table Page
APPENDIX I (CONTINUED)
51. Satisfaction with and reputation of the services
of the University Counseling Center among

married and unmarried male undergraduates . . . . . 132

52. Use of the University Financial Aids Office by

married and unmarried male undergraduates . . . . . 133
53. Satisfaction with and reputation of the services

of the University Financial Aids Office among

married and unmarried.ma1e undergraduates . . . . . 133

54. Use of the University Scholarship Office by

married and unmarried.male undergraduates . . . . . 134
55. Satisfaction with and reputation of the services

of the University Scholarship Office among

married and unmarried.male undergraduates . . . . . 134

56. Use of the University Health Center by married
and unmarried male undergraduates . . . . . . . . . 135

57. Satisfaction with the University Health Center
by married and unmarried male undergraduates
who had used its services . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

58. Type of health insurance held by married and
unmarried male undergraduates . . . . . . . . . . . 136

59. Use of the University Placement Bureau to seek
part-time work by married and unmarried male
undergraduates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

60. Part-time positions secured through the use of
the University Placement Bureau by married
and unmarried male undergraduates . . . . . . . . . 137

61. Satisfaction with and reputation of the services
of the University Placement Bureau among
married and unmarried male undergraduates . . . . . 137

62. Knowledge among married male undergraduates that
wives of married students are eligible to use
the University Counseling Center . . . . . . . . . 138

63. Knowledge that wives of married students may use
the University Placement Bureau to secure
part "’t 11118 anployment o o o o o o o o e o o o o o o 13 8

Table Page
APPENDIX I (CONTINUED)

64. Relationship of age to father's occupation
among married male undergraduates . . . . . . . . . 139

65. Relationship of age to formal education of the
fathers of married.male undergraduates . . . . . . 140

66. Relationship of age to the high school

curriculum of married male undergraduates . . . . . 140
67. Relationship of age to hours worked each week

by married male undergraduates . . . . . . . . . . 141
68. Relationship of age to the sources of one-fourth

or more of the income of married male

und ergraduates O C O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O 0 M2
69. Relationship of age to major sources of problems

among married male undergraduates . . . . . . . . . 143
70. Relationship of age to attendance at University

cultural-intellectual activities among

married male undergraduates . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

71. Relationship of age to attendance at off-campus
cultural-intellectual activities among
married.male undergraduates . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

72. Relationship of age to attendance at University
social-recreational activities among male

married undergraduates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
73. Relationship of age to membership in University

student organizations among male married

undergraduates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

74. Relationship of age to participation in religious
activities among married male undergraduates . . . 145

75. Relationship of age to attendance at
intercollegiate athletic events among married

male undergraduates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
76. Relationship of age to participation in

University leisure time athletics among

male married undergraduates . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

Table

APPENDIX I (CONTINUED)

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

Relationship of age to utilization of the
University Counseling Center among married
male undergraduates . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Relationship of age to the utilization of the
University Health Center by male married
mdergraduates C O C O O O I 0 O O O O O O 0

Use of the University Counseling Center by
married and unmarried male undergraduates
according to records of the Counseling Center

Primary problem areas of counseling interviews
of married and unmarried male undergraduates
as classified by the counselors . . . . . . .

Cognitive-attitudinal emphasis in the counseling
interviews of married and unmarried male
undergraduates as classified by the counselors

Married and unmarried male undergraduates who

applied for financial aid at the University
Financial Aids Office according to the records

xii

Page
1L»?
. 147

. . . 148
. . 148
.. 149
.. 149

Table

1.

LIST OF TABLES

Distribution of age of married and unmarried
full-time, male, undergraduates,
Spring tem 1960 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

Frequencies and percentages of married and
unmarried male undergraduates living on and
Off-campus o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

Frequencies and percentages of married and
unmarried male undergraduates who are native
or transfer students . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Frequencies and percentages of married and
unmarried male undergraduates who are and
are not veterans of the armed forces . . . .

Frequencies and percentages of married and
unmarried male undergraduate students who
are in upper or lower college . . . . . . . . .

Distribution of colleges of the University in
which married and unmarried male
undergraduates major . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The relationship of marital status to selected
descriptive characteristics of male
undergraduates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The relationship of marital status to financial
conditions and problems of male undergraduates

The relationship of age to selected characteristics

of married male undergraduates . . . . . . . .

The relationship of marital status to selected
home and educational background characteristics
of male undergraduates . . . . . . . . . . . .

The relationship of marital status to attendance

at or participation in extra-curricular
actiVitieS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O

xiii

Page

34

35

36

36

37

38'

56
58

59

61

65

Table

12.

13.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

The relationship of age to attendance at or
participation in extra-curricular activities
by married male undergraduates . . . . . . . . . .

The relationship of marital status to satisfaction
with the Opportunity to attend or participate
in University extra-curricular activities . . . . .

Ranking of five types of student activities by the
satisfaction male undergraduates expressed with
their opportunities to attend or participate in
these activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The relationship of marital status to the desire
for more participation in or attendance at University
extra-curricular activities . . . . . . . . . . . .

The relationship of marital status to different
reasons for not attending University student
actiVitj-es O O I C C O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O

The relationship of marital status to utilization
of selected University student personnel services
by male undergraduates . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The relationship of marital status to the utilization
of selected University student personnel services
as indicated by the records of these offices . . .

The relationship of age to utilization of selected
University student personnel services by married
male undergraduates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The relationship of marital status to satisfaction
with selected University student personnel
services among male undergraduates . . . . . . . .

Page

66

68

69

70

71

73

7h

74

76

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

Introduction

 

One of the major changes that has taken place in U. S. higher
education within the last two decades has been the increase in numbers
of married students attending colleges and universities. Recent
national enrollment statistics show that 30% of a11.male college
students including both the graduate and undergraduate levels are
married. Among the full-time,male students 18.1% are married (8:3).
In a 1959 study, Smith found that 19% of all undergraduates at
Michigan State University, the University of Michigan, the University
of Detroit, and wayne State University were married (48:19).

Prior to WOrld war II there were very few'married students
attending institutions of higher learning at the undergraduate level.
Reimer's study at the University of washington in the fall of 1941
showed that only 7.3% of all male students, graduate and undergraduate,
were married (42:804).

Many colleges and universities had regulations forbidding
undergraduate marriages on penalty of dismissal. In a well publicized
incident in 1925, an All-American football player was dismissed from
Yale University for violating the regulation forbidding undergraduate

marriages (28:92). In addition to institutional regulations regarding

2

marriage in college, there were strong social and economic deterrents
to undergraduate matrimony. Socially it was considered inadvisable
for a young man to marry;before he had graduated and found a steady
job. Economically the depression of the 1930's made it very difficult
for a young man to take on the reSponsibility of a wife while he was
attending college.

Great impetus was given to the college attendance of married
students by the social and economic conditions during and immediately
after WOrld War 11. Large numbers of armed service veterans who had
become married during or soon after the war enrolled in institutions
of higher learning bringing with them their wives and children.
Several factors encouraged these veterans to begin or continue col-
lege. Financial assistance was provided by Public Law 16 of the well
known "G. I. Bill of Rights" for all veterans in collegiate and other
types of educational programs. The increased demand for college
trained men also encouraged the married veteran to pursue a college
degree. It was becoming evident to these men that in order to achieve
maximum.advancement in most occupations a college education was a
necessity. Finally, the social and economic changes brought about by
the war*made it easier for the students and their wives to find employ;
ment while they were attending college.

The large numbers of married veterans were rapidly integrated
into the student bodies and the colleges made some changes to meet the
needs peculiar to these students. Veteran's counselors were installed
at most schools and temporary married student housing was hastily

constructed. Most educators believed the large number of married

3

students was a temporary phenomenon and as soon as the veterans
graduated, the student population would return to a pre-war proportion
of married students. For several reasons this did not occur. Princi-
pal among the events causing the continuance of large numbers of
married students was the Korean war, 1950-1953. This war brought
about a new influx of veterans just as the WOrld war II veterans were
finishing their college programs. A new bill, Public Law 550, was
passed to provide financial assistance for>men who served in the armed
forces during the Korean hostilities. At the time this study was
undertaken there were still some Korean Veterans attending college
but not enough to account solely for the large numbers of married
students enrolled. Another possible reason for the continued large
numbers of married college students was the lack of employment Oppor-
tunity for men without a college education. In Chapter III the
literature concerning the reasons for the persistence of the married
students in college is reviewed.

A sizable proportion of the married undergraduates in colleges
at the time of this study were not veterans of the armed forces.
These married students in the same age group as their unmarried con-
temporaries reflect a trend toward younger*marriages in the general
population of the United States. In a few years all of the Korean
Veterans will have completed their college programs, but if the
present increase in early marriages continues there will still be
considerable numbers of young married undergraduates.

Administrators in higher education should now realize that the

married undergraduate is a permanent part of the student population

4

and begin, as some institutions have, to provide permanent facilities
and services for this group of students. Married students pose par-
ticularly important problems for the student personnel administration
who are responsible for providing for the non-instructional needs of
all the students.

This study is designed to describe the married.male undergrad-
uate student at Michigan State University in terms of his educational
and home background, general descriptive characteristics, financial
condition, participation in extra-curricular activities, and utiliza-
tion of student personnel services and to compare him with his

unmarried contemporary.

Statement of the Problem

 

The general problem of this study is to determine whether or
not significant relationships exist between the marital status of
full-time,ma1e undergraduates at Michigan State University and the
following characteristics and activities.

A. General descriptive characteristics

B. Home and educational backgrounds

C. Financial conditions while attending college

D. Participation in extra-curricular activities

E. Utilization of selected Michigan State University

student personnel services.

An inseparable secondary objective is to provide a comprehen-
sive description of the married male undergraduate at Michigan State
University.

The general problem is divided into the following sub-problems.

l.

5

What is characteristic of the full-time,married male

undergraduate at Michigan State University concerning

the following factors?

Is

Length of marriage

Number of children

Wife's higher education

Wife's employment

Knowledge of student personnel services available
to wives of married students

there a significant relationship between the marital

status of full-time,ma1e undergraduates and the following?

a.

b.

g.
h.

Age

Transfer status (transfer or native student)
College residence (on or off-campus)

Veteran status

Class in college

College major

Religious preference

Major sources of problems

13 there a significant relationship between the marital

status of full-time,ma1e undergraduates and their

financial conditions while attending Michigan State

University?

Is there a significant relationship between the marital

status of full-time,male undergraduates and their socio-

economic family backgrounds?

6

Is there a significant relationship between the marital
status of full-time,ma1e undergraduates and their high
school curricular and extra-curricular backgrounds?

Is there a significant relationship between the marital
status of full-time,male undergraduates and the frequency
of their participation in and their satisfaction with
their opportunities to take part in selected Michigan
State University and off-campus extra-curricular
activities?

Is there a significant relationship between the marital
status of full-time, male undergraduates and their
utilization of and their satisfaction with selected

Michigan State University student personnel services?

Hypotheses to be Tested

The general hypothesis to be tested is that:

There is a significant relationship between the marital

status of full—time,male undergraduates at Michigan State

University and their general descriptive characteristics,

financial conditions, home and educational backgrounds,

participation in student activities, and utilization of

selected Michigan State University student personnel services.

The Specific sub-hypotheses to be tested are:

1.

There is a significant relationship between the marital
status of full-time,ma1e undergraduates and the following.
a. Age

b. Transfer status (native or transfer student)

7

c. College residence (on or off-campus)

d. Veteran status

e. Class in college

f. College major

g. Religious preference

h. Major sources of problems.

There is a significant relationship between the marital
status of full-time,male undergraduates and their
financial conditions while attending Michigan State
University.

There is a significant relationship between the marital
status of full-time,ma1e undergraduates and their family
socio-economic and religious backgrounds.

There is a significant relationship between the high
school and home town backgrounds of full-time,ma1e
undergraduates and their marital status.

There is a significant relationship between the marital
status of full-time,ma1e undergraduates and the frequency
of their participation in and their satisfaction with
their opportunities to attend or participate in the
following types of extra-curricular activities at Michigan
State University.

a. Cultural-intellectual activities

b. Social-recreational activities

0. Student organizations

d. Intercollegiate athletic events

e.

8

Leisure-time athletics.

6. There is a significant relationship between the marital

status of full-time,ma1e undergraduates and the frequency

of their participation in or their attendance at the

following types of off-campus activities.

8..

b.

C.

d.

Cultural—intellectual activities
Social-recreational activities
Organizations

Religious activities.

7. There is a significant relationship between the marital

status of full-time undergraduates and their utilization

of and their satisfaction with the following selected

Michigan State University student personnel services.

a.

Counseling Center

Olin Health Center

Financial Aids Office

Scholarship Office

Placement Bureau

Student Health Insurance (sold by the All-University

Student Government).

Importance of the Problem

 

The student personnel point of view holds, in part, that a

college or university should be concerned with the total educational

 

9BEirqgmgnblgf_the_students (53:1). The student personnel services

are designed to meet the responsibility of providing for the out-of-

class needs of the student as the instructional part of the university

provides for the academic needs.

One of several ways to study the out-of-class needs of
students is to describe their characteristic behavior in this area
and determine their satisfaction with the present program. Any major
change in the character of the student body of a university may cause
resultant changes in the extra-curricular needs of at least part of
the students. These changes in needs would then require a reappraisal
of the services and activities being provided.

The present program of student services and activities at
Michigan State University, like those in most colleges and universi-
ties, was originally designed for a student body which included very
fewwmarried undergraduates. Since the enrollment of large numbers of
married students there have been a number of changes made to better
provide for the married students. The outstanding change has been
the development of the married housing program from a few temporary
barrack-type buildings to the present 2000 permanent one and two
bedroom apartments. This is the largest married student housing
development in the country. Nursery facilities have been provided
for the children of these married students. The University has also
considered the needs and wants of the student wives by permitting them
to buy student tickets to many of the activities and allowing them
to use the Counseling Center and the Placement Bureau if they desire
part-time employment. They also have an organization known as Spartan
Wives which is a social—service group.

Some of the churches in the East Lansing area have provided

activities for married students.

10

Other than these services and facilities, which might
generally be considered to be better than those of most institutions,
little has been done in the areas of counseling, financial advisement,
social activities, and student organizations specifically for married
students. There is a need to study the undergraduate married students
in order to determine what additional services might be advisable.

During the Spring term of 1960, there were 8213 full-time,
male undergraduates enrolled at Michigan State, 1460 or 17.7 per cent
of whom were married. If the part-time and graduate males were
included, the proportion of married students would be even greater.
Since over one-sixth of the population under study in this investiga-
tion were married, this is a large enough proportion to be considered
in future planning of student personnel services.

The following quotation from a Speech by John A. Hannah,
present president of Michigan State University, in 1957, indicates
the attitude of the administration toward married students:

‘We believe that the married student is not a liability, as was
once believed, but an asset which lends quality, stability, and
admirable strength of purpose to the student body as a whole.
(28:92)

In the light of the above statement and the indirect encour-
agement to marriages and enrollment of married students through the
construction of married housing and other facilities, it would seem
important to study the characteristics of the married student.

Not everyone believes that marriage is conducive to educa-
tional development in college. Margaret Mead, the noted anthropolo-
gist, in a recent widely publicized article condemns undergraduate

marriages as ". . . a premature imprisonment of young people." (29)

11

She believes that marriage prevents students from.taking full
advantage of their educational Opportunities through exploration of
many fields of knowledge and through participation in a variety of
activities. It is not the purpose of this study to judge the wisdom
of undergraduate marriage but it will provide some information to
help understand the married student in hopes that through this
understanding we can improve the educational program.for these
students.

There has been no comprehensive study done of the differences
between married and Single undergraduates at Michigan State University.

The importance of this study rests on the need to knOW'more
about the large proportion of married undergraduates and the possi-

vibility that these students may differ significantly from single

students on the variables previously mentioned. Any differences that
are uncovered will provide information which may indicate changes in
services and facilities to meet the needs peculiar to married under-

graduates at Michigan State University.

Definitions of Terms

Full-time student - a student enrolled for twelve or more
term hours.

Transfer status — for the purposes of this study students in
the sample are separated into two categories: those who
began their college work at Michigan State University and
those who transferred from another college or university.

College residence - this term refers to a dichotomy of living

on or off campus. The married students who live in

3.2 V! ,5 ~
J/ '

college owned married housing are considered to be
living on-campus and all others are off-campus. In the
case of the unmarried students, those who live in the
residence halls are on-campus and all others off—campus.

Veteran status - all male students in the sample are separated
in veterans or non-veterans on the basis of whether or
not they had served 90 days or more in the armed forces
at the time the data were gathered.

Marital status - this term refers to a dichotomy of whether
a male student was married or unmarried at the time
the data were gathered.

Student-personnel services - all the services, excluding
instruction, provided by Michigan State University to

meet the needs of the students.

Limitations and Scope of the Study

This study is limited to the married male undergraduate
students enrolled at Michigan State University during Spring term
1960 and to the services and activities provided by the University
during the 1959-1960 academic year. All of the data and conclusions
refer to the population under study during the above period.

The purpose of this study is not primarily to evaluate the
activities of married students and the services provided for them by
the university but to describe these students by comparing them to
similar single students.

It should be pointed out that marriage cannot be concluded

to be the cause of any differences found between married and single

13
students because the design of the study does not include the

necessary control of the sample.

Outline of the Study

Chapter II includes a review of the literature pertaining to
married students with Special emphasis on research concerning their
extra-curricular activities.

Chapter III is a description of the design, methods, and
procedure of the study. The instrument used is described and the
population and the sample are defined.

Chapter IV is an analysis of all of the data gathered for the
study. The significant relationships are indicated and the inter-
relationships of the data are presented. Tables of all of the
chi-square values are included in this chapter.

Chapter V, the final chapter, contains a summary of the study,
findings, conclusions, and recommendations for further study. Emplica—
tions for Michigan State University are also included in this chapter.

Appendix I includes all of the tables of frequencies and per-
centages of the data gathered from.the Questionnaires and the Michigan
State University records. Tables 1—64 present the data from the
Questionnaires and are arranged in the order in which the questions
appear in the Questionnaires. Tables 65-78 include the data for the
relationship of age to selected variables under study among the
1narried.ma1e undergraduates.

Appendix.II contains a copy of the Married Student Question-
rniire, the Unmarried Student Questionnaire, and the letter of trans-

mittal .

CHAPTER 11
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Introduction

Literature pertaining directly to the married college student
is rather scarce. This can probably partially be explained by the
comparatively few years that married students have attended colleges
in significant numbers. It has only been fifteen years Since married
students became common among the undergraduate students.

It is noteworthy that only one of the general textbooks in
student personnel work gives more than passing mention to married
students. In this text, Mueller (33) seriously questions the advisa-
bility of undergraduate marriages. She believes that if we cannOt
financially afford to provide personnel services for all students,
married students may be the most expendable (33:442).

‘Mueller‘s discussion of married college students is one of the
most complete treatments of this subject now available. She indicates
the importance of study of the married student as follows: "In 1955,
of eleven midwestern state universities with a total of 160,000
students, 21 per cent were married, and a figure amounting to 23 - 35
;per cent was expected by 1965"(33:430).

In addition to the numbers of students she discusses living

conditions, finances, and pros and cons of early marriage. She

14

15

states that participation in extra-curricular activities among married

students is at a.minimum and thattmarriage forces students to be too

practical in their educationl(33:434). She concludes with the impli-

cations of student marriages for women, society, and the personnel

worker.

Mueller includes the following as major factors favorable to

early student marriages:

1.

Current prOSperity and the time-payment philosophy of
finances

Mobility and anonymity of our culture

Current marriage customs and the general trend toward
early'marriages

More women working

Availability of scholarships and loans

Inexpensive married student housing

Availability of part-time jobs for college students
Permissive twentieth century attitude toward sex and
dating

The example set by the married veterans after NOrld

war II (33:h29-30)

Mueller's chapter appears to be a valid discussion of student

marriages.

She includes several problems which pertain directly to

the investigation of the present study and are referred to in later

chapters.

This chapter in Mueller‘s book closely follows her article

iJI College and University (34).

16

The periodical articles pertaining to married college students
can be divided into two general classifications: descriptive research
studies in professional journals and general descriptive discussions
in popular magazines. The former provide valuable data, but the
latter are primarily based on unverified opinions of the authors.
Chronologically, these articles can be grouped in three periods. A
few articles from the pre4WOr1d War II period, 1930 to 1941; the
post-war period, 1946-1948; and the past six.years, 1955-1960. With
one exception, the pre-war literature consists of magazine articles
based on the opinions of the authors concerning the advisability of
student marriages.
The one exception to this is the study by Riemer (42) at
washington State University in 1941. This was the first systematic
study exclusively concerned with married college students. Although
Riemer's study concerns the last of the pre-war students, and does
not distinguish between undergraduate and graduate students, it
provides some helpful information which can be used for comparison
with later studies. The major conclusions drawn by Riemer concerning
male married students at washington in the fall of 1941 were:
1. Seven and three-tenths per cent of the total male
enrollment was married (42:804).

2. Married students were disproportionately represented by
larger numbers among the upperclassmen and graduate
students (42:804).

3. The more advanced age groups were strongly represented

among the married men. The median age for all male

17
students was in the range from twenty to twenty-four
years. In contrast, the median of the married students
was in the twenty-five to twenty-nine years age range
(h2:804)-

4. Among all.married students, male and female, a larger
proportion was not affiliated with a particular church
(42:806).

5. Among the married men, 85 per cent of the students were
wholly self-supporting as compared to 34 per cent of all
the male students (42:806).

6. The Colleges of Science and Arts, Education, and Law
enroll a disproportionately large number of married
students (42:807).

7. Campus marriages are relatively free from observable
marital maladjustments (42 : 814) .

8. Economic strains are unavoidable among married students

(42:814).

The married students do not fit into the normal campus

social life and must arrange their activities on an

individual basis (42:810).

‘10. Riemer predicts a large increase of married students
after WOrld War II (42:815).
\\il. Universities should provide curricular and extra-
curricular activities designed to include the married
students (42:815).

The studies and articles published during the post-war period,

18

1946—1948, were concerned almost entirely with veterans who were much
older and not typical of current married students. Therefore, it is
difficult to make comparisons between the data of these studies and
the pOpulation of the present study.

One group of studies pertaining Specifically to housing of
married students has been purposely omitted from this review because
of its lack of direct relevance to this investigation.

Research on Participation in Student Activities
by'Married Students

Several studies have included an investigation of the degree
to which married students participate in extra-curricular activities.

Rogers' study at Iowa State College in 1956 yields some data
pertinent to the present study (43). The population apparently
includes men and women of undergraduate and graduate standing. It
was concluded, on the basis of a questionnaire study, that married
students participated less than single students in three areas of
activity. The three areas studied were participation in college
activities, attendance at athletic events, and attendance at social
events. Married students with children were found to participate
less than childless couples (43:195). The data on participation by
students who married before entering college as compared to those
married after enrolling leads Rogers to conclude thatharriage
actually causes less participation rather than selecting low partici-
pant§](h3:l97). The lack of control and description of the sample
Inakes this conclusion questionable. Rogers concludes by stating that

lit would be desirable to have further research concerning the married

19
students because of the increase in numbers and lack of accurate
information (1+3 :199).
In a 1952 study at Kansas State College, Marchand and
FL ngford found that both men and women married students participate
less in activities (26:114). They also concluded that couples with
Lchildren participated less than those without families (26:114).

Bailey found in a study of the State Colleges of Wisconsin
that married students often attended dances, plays, and concerts, but
he made no comparisons to single students (2:12). The most common
social activity among married students contacted was visiting friends
for an evening (2:12). These married students rarely attended motion
pictures. This study indicates the opinion of William D. McIntyre,
Chairman of the Coordinating Committee for Higher Education in Wis—
consin, concerning the need for facilities for married students in
the following quotation: L"If the trend for undergraduates to mix
marriage and education is established, as it seems to be in Wisconsin
and the Nation, then it becomes the obligation of educational insti-
tutions to provide facilities to meet the needsfij(2:12).

An investigation of 155 coeducational liberal arts colleges
and universities of the North Central Association of Colleges and
Secondary Schools by Kamm and wrenn indicates there is little differ-
ence between veterans and non-veterans in participation in school
activities (22:92). They do not state what proportion of the
“veterans were married nor present any data to support their conclusion.

In the most comprehensive study of participation in college

lactivities, Williamson, Layton, and Snoke (52) of the University of

20

Minnesota wrote as follows:

The marital status of men students was also Significantly
related to participation. Single male students tended to partic-
ipate more than did married students. A total of 69 per cent of
the single men and 57 per cent of the married men were partici-
pants. This difference was significant at the l per cent level
of probability, with a contingency coefficient of .12 (52:47).

The population studied was all of the male students enrolled
at the University of Minnesota during 1949 and the participation was
based on a dichotomy of participant and non—participant (52:4). Con-
cerning participation in activities in general, their data indicated
that no single factor or set of factors related highly with partici-
pation but a number of variables were mildly related (52:71).
Williamson, et al, also found that married.men with children
participate less than.married men without children but the difference
was not significantly different (52:47).

The study by Brown in 1937, which the Williamson study
followed up, made no mention of married students (7). This is
probably due to the small proportion of married students enrolled in
1937.

In a study at the Santa Barbara branch of the University of
California in 1959, Lantagne concluded that married students partic-
ipate less than single students in student activities and that they
are interested in different types of activities (24:90). The con-
clusions in this study seem to be too broad in relation to the
methods of gathering the data.

In an opinion survey of deans of students of nineteen colleges

and universities in 1960, Altman and.McFarlane found the consensus

concerningtmarried students and student activities to be that married

21

students are too isolated from college activities to contribute to
campus lifezl The deans also believed that Lmarried students lost some
of the intangible benefits of informal associations during the college
year§j(1:51).

The preceding articles are the few that have based their
conclusions concerning the participation of married students in

activities on at least some objective data.

Research Concerning the Problems of Married Students

 

Investigations concerning the major problems of married
students agree that the primaryisourceiof_problems_isifinancesl
Bailey (2:51), Altman and McFarlane (1:51), Cushing, Phillips, and
Stevenson (11:26), Donnelly (12:3h), Harry (17:78), Lantagne (24:87),
and Riemer (42:814) gllmgonglpgedwfggmgtheir data that insufficient

financial support is the greateatlilnaw Ciaroblems for.

 

 

 

 

married college students.

 

 

Harry also found the related problems of living conditions
and employment to be major sources of concern to the married students
at Michigan College of Mining and Technology (17:234).

Jones revealed that married students at Indiana University
were mgre_concerned over present problems while single students'
problems were more often related to their futures (21:128). In this
study, unmarried students expressed.more problems than married
students. Concerning the student's ability to deal with problems,
Jones concludes: "Thus it appears thatharried undergraduate college

students are better able to cope with emotional problems and tensions

22

than unmarried students as determined by self rating techniques".1
(21:128). Jones' study has a better design than most of the studies
in this review and therefore more faith can be put in his conclusions.

The expressed problems of married women students appear to
differ some from those of the men. Lee, in a study of married women
students at Indiana State Teachers College, concluded that time
pressures were the source of the most problems. Concerning finances,
she found 85 per cent of the women contacted said their funds were
adequate (25:119).

Mueller believes that 90 per cent of all.marriediatudents

 

live under constant financial_stress. On the basis of the previous
studies cited, this seems to be a reasonable estimate. Concerning
the problems of married student life She says: LyThe 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 reSponsibilitiesQJ(33:433).
In his pre-war study Riemer concluded that married students
externalize their personal problems because of the necessity of
working extremely hard to overcome the burden of their financial and
educational reSponsibilities. He believed that the unusual lack of
personal.marital problems might be due to the emphasis placed on

working together toward an educational goal (42:813).

Research on the Finances of Married Students
In addition to the influence of finances as the major source

of problems, other pertinent data have been gathered concerning the

23
financial conditions of married students. The evidence does not
support the popular belief that most student marriages are primarily
supported by subsidization of one or both sets of parents.

Married students do not expect aid from their parents
according to Cushing, Phillips, and Stevenson (11:26).

The proportion of students indicating they received financial

support from their parents in several studies were as follows:
Bailey, 12.7 per cent (2:11); Perry, 12.5 per cent (37:767); Rogers,,
13 per cent (h3:l95)3 Lantagne, 6 per cent (24:87); and Riemer,
15 per cent (42:806). [In contrast, 60 per cent of the single stu-
dents in Rogers' study and 66 per cent Of those in Riemer's sample
received financial aid from their parents. Mueller estimates that
less than 10 per cent of all married students are well financed by
their parents (33:432):j

)Many'married students work full or part-time while attending
collegej Bailey's study indicated that 56.9 per cent of the married
students in his sample worked part-time and 12.7 per cent worked
full-time (2:11). In Rogers' sample, 40 per cent of the married
students were working in contrast to 26 per cent of the single
students (43:19h). Perry's sample worked twenty to thirty—three
hours per week (37:767), and Lantagne found the average married
student worked 21.4 hours a week (24:90).

Although it is not mentioned in several of the studies, "G.I.
Bill" benefits were a source of income for 69.1 per cent of the 732
married students in Bailey's research (2:11). Rogers indicated 66

per cent of the married students in his sample were veterans and only

24

11 per cent of the single students had served in the armed forces
(43:194). He does not indicate how many of the veterans were receiv-
ing G. I. benefits. Apparently the "Gal. Bill" is still a major
source of financial income for male married students. Mueller
believes that when Public Laws 550 and 894 expire there will be a
decrease in married students (33:432).

In 1948 Cushing, Phillips, and Stevenson determined that the
combined average income of married couples was $277 per month and the
majority of the couples owned no real estate or car and had a combined
savings of less than $1000 (11:26).

Perry, in 1960, determined the average monthly expenses were
$310 (37:76) compared with $200 per month average expenses in Bailey's
1957 research (2:11). Lantagne's sample had an average total income
of $256 and average total expenses of $228 per month (24:88). Thus,
three studies between 1957 and 1960 indicate that the average monthly
expenses of married couples on three different campuses are between
$200 and $310.

Recent studies indicate that an overwhelming majority of the
married students own automobiles. In Perry's sample of sixteen
couples, 100 per cent owned cars (37:768), and 95 Per cent of the
732 married students in Bailey's study owned such vehicles (2:11).
Rogers' married students owned cars in the proportion of 91 per cent
in contrast to 38 per cent of his Single students (43:194). The
difference between these percentages and the less than 50 per cent
of Cushing's sample who owned cars may be explained by the fact that

Cushing's study was done in 1948 while the others were 1957 to 1960.

25

The majority of the married students owned refrigerators and
television sets according to Bailey (2:11).
Research on the Academic Achievement
of Married Studentg

The present study is not directly concerned with academic
achievement of married students, but it seems advisable to mention
the results of some of the research in this area.

It is generally believed that marriage improves a student's
grades, but research does not entirely support this belief. Two
studies, Bailey (2:11) and Lantagne (24:87), revealed that 80 per
cent and 62 per cent reSpectively of the male students showed a rise
in their grades after marriage. Bailey's research showed that 3.5
per cent of the students experienced a drop in grades after marriage,
and Lantagne had 8 per cent in this category. The major shortcoming
of these two studies is the lack of a control group of single students
with which to compare these rises in grade point averages. It may be
that the increase in grade average may be due to the fact that, on
the average, all students' grade averages increase as they progress
through college. There are probably other uncontrolled factors which
may be influencing the grades of these students.

Two studies using matched pairs of married and single students
indicated no significant differences in their grades. Jensen and A
Clark used thirty—six pairs of married and single male students
matched on age and ability and the data revealed there were no
significant differences in their grade point averages for four years

at Brigham YOung University (20:125). Lee matched fifty-six.pairs of

26

full-time undergraduate married and single women and found no signifi-
cant differences in academic achievement as represented by grade
averages (25:119).

Altman and.McFar1ane's survey of the opinions of deans of
students showed that most of the deans believed marriage has a
stabilizing effect upon studies (1:50).

Margaret Mead, in a previously mentioned article (29), holds
that undergraduate marriages have the effect of discouraging students
from exploring different majors and taking part in broadening activi-
ties. She refers to the responsibilities of marriage which prevent
students from enjoying the intellectual freedom which is a valuable
part of the college years. Overemphasis on vocational aspects of a
college education are also the result of marriage on the undergraduate
level (29:196). Morton also believes that the increase in married
students has injected an element of "super practicality" that can be
harmful (32:625).

Blood in an answer to Mead gives the advantages and positive
values of marriage for students. He says if students are psycholog-
ically ready for marriage, have the financial support, and are willing
to postpone parenthood, there is no good reason for them to wait until
after graduation (6:202). He says married students get better grades.

Mead's, Morton's, and Blood's articles are not based entirely
upon research but are mentioned to illustrate the sharp contrast in
current opinions concerning the advisability of student marriages.

The present study gives some data relative to these Opinions.

27

Research on Various Characteristics
of Married Students

 

Two studies indicate that the majority of the student
marriages have the approval of the couple's parents. Bailey's study
shows that 91.6 per cent of the brides' parents approved and 92.2 per
cent of the grooms' parents were in favor of the match (2:11).
Cushing, Phillips, and Stevenson's data indicates that 89 per cent
of the parents approved of the marriages in their sample (11:25).
Eighteen months was the average length of the courtship among Bailey's
sample and 83.7 per cent of the weddings took place in a church (2:11).

Cushing, Phillips, and Stevenson found the age at the time of
marriage was twenty-one to twenty-four years (11:25), and the average
ages in Perry's sample were 23.5 and 21.5 years for men and women
reSpectively (37:767). In Lantagne's investigation, the average age
of the men at marriage was 22.6 years (24:85).

Jensen and Clark used the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory to study personality differences between married and Single
men who attended B. Y. U. There were no significant differences
except on the MF scale on which the single students were significantly
higher. This led to the conclusion that single students Show a higher
degree of feminine interests as measured by the M3M.P.I. (20:125).

In an international conference on mental health in 1959, the
participants made two recommendations relating directly to married
students:

13. The married student poses a number of important psycho—

logical problems. Special attention and study of the needs of

this group are of particular importance in any mental health
program.(9:426).

28

14. Proper housing and other environmental needs of students
should be adequately met. Such problems are particularly acute
for young married couples (9:426).

ngul r Magazine Articles Concerning
Married Students

 

A number of articles in popular magazines have considered
different aspects of the married college student. Although these
articles certainly cannot be used to draw scientifically accurate
conclusions concerning married students, they are worth considering
briefly. These articles provide broad descriptions of married
students' activities, problems, and other characteristics.

One of the more objective articles, by Havemann, lists a
number of reasons for student marriages (18:154-56). The reasons
listed in this article are similar to those in Mueller's book
(33:429). Havemann's article is apparently based upon informal
research findings.

Six pre4WOrld War II writers discuss the advantages and dis-
advantages of married student life-~Halle (15), Parkhurst (35),
Popenoe (40), Stevens (49), Taylor (50), and WOod (55). These
articles tend toward the opinion that student marriages are not
undesirable, if the students are mature individuals and can cope
with their financial problems.

More recent articles are descriptive of the lives of married
male students and their families-Ball (3), Beatty (4), Beetle (5),
Clifton (10), Hansen (11), Morris (31), Pickard (38), Reyher (41),
Ross (44), Wilcox (51). The majority of these articles were written

soon after WOrld war II when.married students with families were

29

still somewhat of a novelty on college campuses. The articles by
Ball, Beetle, Clifton, and Wilcox are primarily concerned with the
lives of student wives. Wilcox.describes the many activities and
organizations of the student wives on the Michigan State University
Campus (51:43-49) -

Perhaps the only conclusion that can be drawn from.these nine
descriptions is that the married students included seem to be satis-
fied with their conditions and are willing to sacrifice for a few
years in hopes that a college education will enable them to reach

their future goals.

Summary of the Review of Related Research

 

A review of the research concerning married students leads to
the following major findings which are pertinent to the present study.

1. Married student participate less in extra-curricular
activities than do unmarried students.

2. Research shows that the greatest single source of prob-
lems, as expressed by married students, is financial need.

3. Research does not support the popular belief that many
married student couples are financially subsidized by
their parents.

4. Part-time work by the student or his spouse is the major
source of financial support.

5. Although there is some disagreement among the studies,
research tends to Show that there is no significant

relationship between marriage and academic achievement.

30

There is considerable disagreement among authors con-
cerning the advisability of undergraduate marriages.
There is no single comprehensive scientific study of the
characteristics of undergraduate male married students,
and there are few real research studies on any aspect of
student marriage.
The studies and the opinions of the authors indicate a
need for further study of the married student.
There is little evidence on the relationship of
personality characteristics to marital status among
college students, but two studies have found significant
relationships in this area as follows:
a. Single students were significantly higher on the MF
scale of the MMPI than were matched married students.
b. Married students express fewer problems than single
students and are better able to cope with emotional
problems and tensions than are unmarried students as

determined by self-ratings.

CHAPTER III
DESIGN AND PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY

This study is designed to investigate the relationship betweei
marital status and family and educational backgrounds, participation
in student activities, and utilization of selected student personnel
services among full—time, male undergraduates at Michigan State
University.

The seven sub-hypotheses to be tested are presented in

Chapter I.

Population

The total population under study includes all of the full-time
male undergraduates enrolled during Spring term 1960 at Michigan State
University. Descriptive characteristics of this population obtained
from the Tabulating orrioe and Housing Office at Michigan State are
reported in Tables 1-6.

The primary population from which inferences are drawn in
this research is the married male, full-time undergraduates; however,
the unmarried males are included in the general population in order
to provide a group with which to compare the married males. This
study, incidentally, provides information concerning unmarried.male
undergraduates, although this is not the primary purpose.

The population was limited to full-time, male undergraduates

31

32
because it was decided that including part-time, female, and graduate
students would confuse the reporting of the analysis of the data and
the conclusions to be drawn. The conclusions drawn to this population
will be more easily understood and meaningful than to a more hetero-

geneous group.

The Sample

 

The sample used in this research is an approximate 5 per cent
random sample, stratified to include equal numbers of married and
single male undergraduates. The sample was stratified on the basis
of marital status to insure the inclusion of a sufficiently large
number of married students for the statistical analysis. The total
sample is 400 male undergraduates divided equally into strata of 200
married and 200 single students. After careful consideration, this
size of sample was selected because it would provide large enough
sub-groups for study but would not be too large to study with the
time and resources available (36:294).

The sample was randomly selected by the use of the I.B.M.
equipment in the Tabulating Office at Michigan State. The total
population of cards was first sorted from.all of the students enrolled
during Spring term, 1960. This population consisted of 8,213 full-
time, male undergraduate students of which 1,460 or 17.7 per cent
were married and the remaining 6,753 or 82.3 Per cent single. The
married and single groups were separated and sorted into alphabetical
order. In order to obtain random samples of 200 from.each of these

groups every thirty-fourth and seventh card was selected from the

33

single and married groups respectively. This alphabetical listing
and method of selection, although not strictly random, closely
approximates randomness and is acceptable for the purposes of this

study (36:268).

Collection of Data

 

Data were collected by two methods for this study. The
descriptive data in Tables 1—6 and the information concerning the
utilization of the student services were obtained from the official
trecords of several offices at Michigan State University. The majority
of the data, including that which was related to educational and home
background, financial conditions, participation in and satisfaction
with student activities, and data on the wives of the married students
were collected by use of the Student Questionnaire constructed for
this investigation.

The mail questionnaire method was selected because it was the
only feasible way to collect the large amount of data desired from a
sufficiently large sample. The alternative was to obtain this infor-
mation by an interview with each person in the sample and wou1d not
have been feasible for a single investigator in the time period
available for contacting the sample involved.

The data in Tables 1-6 indicate that the sample does not differ
significantly from the pOpulation on the variables of age, college
residence, transfer status, veteran status, class in college, or
college major. These data were obtained from the records of the

Tabulating and Housing Offices at Michigan State University. The

34

TABLE l.-—Distribution of age of married and unmarried full-time,
male, undergraduates, Spring term 1960

 

Age

Married

Unmarried

 

Popu-
lation

: Sample

: Returns :

Popu-
lation

: Sample

: Returns

 

 

Under19 :
l9 :
202

21 2

22

23

25
26

272

28

292
302
Over 30 2

Total

N2%2N2%:N2%2N2%2N2%2N2%
02 0.0: 02 0.02 02 0.021972 3.52 42 2.02 32 1.8

1702

2 1692

2 1192

222

812

1652

742
392
1062

.24
1.62
5.52
13.42
10.42
11.0:
11.62
11.62
11.32
8.1:
5.12

2.72

7.3

: 10:

142
232
222
272
252
212
282
162

92

22

.52
1.02
7.02

11.52
11.02
13.52
12.52
10.52
14.02
8.02
4.52
1.02

5.02

21;
162
212
212
172
282
132

72
3?

12.52
10.1:
16.7:
7.72
4.22
1.82

4.22

492

2 21.72
19.12
18.12
16.12
7.72
3.92
3.22
2.32
1.72
1.22
.42
.42
.27

422
332
282
20:

152

0:

21.02
22.02
16.52
14.02
10.02
7.52
1.52
2.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
.52
0.02

382
352

262
252

182

12:

2:

H

l:

O:

22.6
20.8
15.5
14.9
10.7
7.1
1.2
1.8
1.2
1.2
.6
.6

0.0

 

214592100.0:2002100.02168:100.0267522100.022002100.021682100.0

 

Mean=

225.13 m.225.17 yrs.2

Mean=

Mean=

Mean-
:21.33 yrs.;21.25 yrs.

 

35

TABLE 2.-Frequencies and percentages of married and unmarried.male
undergraduates living on and off-campus

Married Students

 

 

O. O.
O.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Population : Sample 2 Returns
Residence 2 . 2 . 2
: N : % : N : % 3 N - %
Married Housing: 886 2 60.72 129 2 64.52 113 2 67.3
Off-Campus : 574 : 39.3: 71 : 35.5: 55 : 32.7
Total : 1460 : 100.0 2 200 2 100.0 2 168 2 100.0
Unmarried Students
: Population : Sample 2 Returns
Residence f . : :
N : % : N : % . N : %
Residence Halls2 3244 2 48.1 2 98 2 49.0 2 85 2 50.6
Off-Campus : 3508 - 51.9 2 102 2 51.0 2 83 2 49.4
Total : 6752 : 100.0 2 200 2 100.0 2 168 2 100.0

 

36

TABLE 3.--Frequencies and percentages of married and unmarried male
undergraduates who are native or transfer students

 

 

Married Single

 

Popu— :
lation : Sample

N f % f N f % f N f % f N f % 3 N f % f N f %

Popu-
lation

O. O. O. O.
O. CO
0. O. .0 0.

Returns ; Sample 2 Returns

 

Transfer 7592 52.021012 50.52 8'72 51.8217362 25.72 502 25.02 392 23.2
Nom- . . . . . . . . . . .

Transfer 7012 48.02 992 49.52 812 48.225017:2 74.321502 75.021292 76.8

 

Total 1460:100.0:200:lO0.0:168:lO0.0:6753:lO0.0:200:lO0.0:168:10043

 

TABLE h.--Frequencies and percentages of married and unmarried male
undergraduates who are and are not veterans of the armed forces

 

 

Married ‘ Single

P°Pu' 3 = Popu- : :
lation : Sample : Returns : lation : Sample : Returns

NE%ENE%ENE%3NE%EN3%ENE%

Veterans 2 5242 35.82 652 32.52 562 33.32 5542 8.22 122 6.02 102 6.0

 

Non— 2 : 2 2 : : : 2 2 2 2 2
Vehnans: 936: 6h.2:135: 67.5:112: 66.7:6199: 91.8:188: 9h.0:158: 9h.0
Total 214602100.022002100.021682100.0267532100.022002100.021682100.0

 

37

TABLE 5.—-Frequencies and percentages of married and unmarried.ma1e
undergraduate students who are in upper or lower college

 

 

 

 

 

: Married : Single
2 Popu- 2 Sample 2 Returns 2 Popu— 2 Sample 2 Returns
2 lation' : I I lation : I
: N : % : N - % : N : % ' N : % : N : % : N : %
Upper : : : : : : : 2 2 2 2 2
College:1219: 83.4:161: 80.5:137: 81.5:3184: 47.1: 90: 45.0: 82: 48K)

Lower 2 2 2 2 2 2 : : : : : :
College: 240: 16.6: 39: 19.5: 31: 18.5:3567: 52.9:110: 55.0: 86: 5142

Total :1459le0.0:200:100.0:1682100.0267512100.022002100.0216821000

38

TABLE 6.--Distribution of colleges of the University in which married
and unmarried.male undergraduates major

 

 

 

: Married Single
2 Popue 2 Sam le 2 Returns 2 Popu- 2 Sam 1e - Returns
: lation 2 p ' : lation ’ p ’

2 N 2 %

 

: N :

%

2 N 2 % 2 N 2 %

: N :

%2N2%

 

No pref- :
erence :

Agri-
culture

432 2.92 32

2 1912 13.12 262

limineas&n

Public :

Service

Engineer-
ing

Home Econ.

Science
& Arts

Vet. Med.2 562 3.82 72 3.52

Education2 1052 7.22 152 7.52

Comm.
Arts

Unclass. :

2 4772 32.72 592

2 2532 17.32 392

2 2732 18.72 422

492 3.42 82

132 .9: 12

1.52
13.02
29.52

19.52

21.02

4.02
.52

32 1.82 7772
232 13.72 7342
502 29.8220392

322 19.02 9152

.2 . . 2 12
312 18.5215692
62 3.62 1662
152 8.82 2622

72 4.22 2732
12 .62 172

11.52

10.8:

30.12

13.62

.0:

23.22
2.42
3.82

4.02
.22

192
212
642

342

A9

\J‘t
O. O. O

U"!
‘0 O. O.

9.52 162

10.5: 20:

32.02 512 30.4

17.02 282 16.7

2 24.52 432 25.6

2.52 3.0

.6

U1
0 O. O.

1.52 12

2M4
OJ)

2.52

0.0:

O

 

Total :1460:100.0:2002100.021682100.0267532100.02200

2100.021682100.0

 

39

relationship of marital status to each of these variables is analyzed

in Chapter IV.

The Questionnaire

Because the questionnaire was so important to this study,
considerable effort and.money were expended to make it as effective
as possible. The primary drawback in the use of mailed questionnaires
is the usually low proportion of returns from a large random sample.
If a large enough proportion of the questionnaires mailed are returned,
most of the objections to mailed questionnaires can be overcome. It
was decided by the writer and the members of his doctoral committee
that 80 per cent of the questionnaires would be the minimum satis-
factory return from the sample. In order to attain this goal the
following measures were taken to increase the proportion of returned
questionnaires.

l. The Student Questionnaire was made as short as possible
by exclusion of all but the essential items.

2. The Questionnaire was printed by a commercial off set
printer to make it appear shorter and more appealing to
the students.

3. All but a few items were constructed so they could be
answered by placing a check in a box.

4. Instructions were made as simple as possible.

5. A stamped return envelope was included with each
Questionnaire.

6. A letter of transmittal was included to explain the

40
purpose of the study, assure the student of the confiden-
tiality of his answers, and encourage him.to return his
Questionnaire.
Addresses of the sample were carefully checked and a
return address was placed on the envelopes in which the
Questionnaires were mailed to ensure the return of the
undelivered ones.
The Questionnaire was pre-tested on a sample of the
population to be studied in order to decrease ambiguity
of the questions and to eliminate questions students
could not answer.
An intensive followhup by telephone and.mail was made of
the individuals who did not return their Questionnaires

to persuade them to cooperate.

The preliminary items for the Questionnaire were selected

from the literature related to student activities and services,
studies of married students, previous studies at Michigan State, and
the suggestions of students, faculty, and student personnel workers.
The study done at the University of Minnesota by Williamson, Sayton,
and Snake was particularly useful in the selection of the activity
areas for study and scaled reSponses to the items. The items for

the first draft of the Questionnaire were selected from this pool of

Validity of the Questionnaire

 

One of the major problems of any instrument is whether or not

41

it is valid. The validity of the Questionnaire cannot be empirically
detenmbned because there are no criterion.measures against which it
can be validated. The validity can, however, be logically determined
on the basis of the method of construction. The first draft of the
Questionnaire was submitted to three members of the faculty of the
College of Education who have extensive training and/or experience in
student personnel services and one member of the Men's Division of
Student Affairs at Michigan State who is the director of most of the
men's student activities at the University. These four persons made
corrections, additions, and deletions in order to improve the Question-
naire and develop its content to cover the areas under study. The
major criticisms of the Questionnaire were that it was too long and
that some of the directions were confusing.

In the first revision of the Questionnaire an effort was made
to shorten and clarify the instrument by eliminating and combining
items and reorganizing the format. Many of the items were reworded
to make them.more easily understood. Some items were eliminated as
unnecessary or because the editors did not believe the students would
have the information to answer them. The revised Questionnaire was
returned to two of the previously mentioned persons who examined it
and made a few additional suggestions. This method of construction
permits the assumption of logical content validity for the instrument.
The items making up the Questionnaire can be considered to be a
logically representative sample of all of the items concerning the
areas under consideration. The following description of the pre-test

of the instrument gives additional support to the validity of the

42

content and indicates how face validity was achieved.

Pre-Test of the Questionnaigg

 

The second revision was pre-tested on a selected sample of
twenty married students from the University Village married housing
area and twenty single male students from the men's residence halls
at Michigan State University. This pre-test was mandatory because
the Questionnaire was new and this was the only way to find out how
students would react to it and how reliable the items were. Parten
(36), in her book on surveys and polls, mentions that research shows
the value of pre-testing questionnaires (47:200). Each member of the
pre-test sample filled out the Questionnaire in the presence of the
writer who solicited any comments the student might have concerning
ambiguity of the items, inability to answer or any other difficulty
they experienced. The students were timed and the mean time for
completing the Questionnaire including the interSpersed comments was
thirty-two minutes. The pre-test group made a number of suggestions
which were incorporated in the final Questionnaire. The more impor-
tant of these suggestions were:

1. Shortening the Questionnaire, if possible, by eliminating

some items.

2. Lengthening the range of reSponses on several items.

3. Adding reSponses to clarify items.

4. Removing items that did not pertain to them from the

married students' Questionnaire.

5. Rewording items to make them less ambiguous.

1+3

There was a considerable amount of interest expressed by the
married pre-test group concerning the results of the study and several
asked if they might obtain summaries of the conclusions of the study.
Both the married and single students said that if the changes they
suggested were made, the Questionnaire would be a reasonably accurate
representation of their activities, backgrounds, and use of the
student personnel services listed. Two of the married students said
they thought the items relating to their financial conditions were
too personal. Although they were told they did not have to answer
any item they did not want to, they did not refuse to answer the ones
they objected to. The pre-test group was given the same directions
as the final sample except that they were told their answers would
not be analyzed in the report.

The responses of the married and single pre-test groups and
the implementation of their suggestions lead to the conclusion that
the resulting Questionnaire appears to measure what it purports to

measure or in other words has face validity.

Reliability of the_Questionnaire

Two weeks after the first administration of the Questionnaire
to the pre-test group each member of the group was mailed a slightly
revised Questionnaire and asked to complete and return it. Thirty-
six of the pre-test group returned their Questionnaires. The
responses of each person's first and second Questionnaires were
compared to determine whether or not they were consistent. Probably

because the information requested is primarily objective and not too

44

personal, only a few reSponses were changed on the second administra-
tion. The items on which four or more persons changed their responses
were disregarded or changed to logically make them.more reliable. As
would be expected, the items which were the most unreliable were those
which asked for the individual's degree of satisfaction with a type of
activity or service. Even on these items 75 per cent to 80 per cent
of the group gave the same responses each time. It was impossible to
compute a coefficient of correlation between the first and second
administrations of the total Questionnaire because there is no summary
score for this instrument. A few items which have questionable
reliability were retained because of their importance to the study.
The directions for these items were changed in an attempt to make them
more reliable. The evidence on the agreement between the responses

on the items on the first and second administration indicates that

the Questionnaire is sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this
study.

The final Questionnaire was slightly over nine typewritten
pages and contained fifty-eight items for the unmarried students and
sixtybseven items for the married students. The Questionnaire was
printed by’a commercial.printer in a six page form. Printing was
used rather than another form of reproduction because it was felt
that the printed form.would look shorter and more professional, and,
therefore, tend to increase the proportion of returns. It is
impossible to determine whether or not the added expense of printing
was justified in increased returns although one research study has

found this to be the case (47:199). It was necessary to have two

45

forms of the Student Questionnaire because there were several items
for the married students which were not applicable to the single
students. The printed Married and Unmarried Student Questionnaires
appear in Appendix II.

A.mimeographed letter of transmittal was included with each
Questionnaire to explain the purpose of the study, assure confiden~
tiality of the reSponses, and encourage the student to cooperate.
Although most writers state that it is best to use the letterhead
of an institution in order to give the study status and thus encourage
returns, this was not done in this study. The letter was mimeographed
on plain paper. The letterhead of the College of Education was not
used because it was thought that because of the nature of the informa-
tion desired, students might be more frank if they knew the Question-
naires were going to a student rather than to the University. An
appeal was also made to help a fellow student who was not receiving
financial help from the University or other institutions. A copy of

this letter appears in Appendix II.

Administration of the Questionnaire

During the eighth week of Spring Term.l960 the 200 married
and 200 single male undergraduates were each mailed a Married Student
Questionnaire or an Unmarried Student Questionnaire.

The local addresses to which these Questionnaires were sent
were obtained from the Tabulating Office and the Menfls Division of
Student Affairs. A letter of transmittal and a stamped return

envelope accompanied each Questionnaire. Return addresses were

46

placed on the envelopes in which the Questionnaires were sent to
ensure the return of undelivered Questionnaires. Five of the
Questionnaires were returned because of incorrect addresses and
these were corrected and remailed. Only one of these Questionnaires
was returned from.this second mailing so it can be assumed that a
very high proportion of them were delivered to the addressee.

Two weeks after the original.mailing, 259 or 64.7 per cent of
the Questionnaires had been returned. On June 10, 1960, the writer
and an assistant began telephoning the individuals who had not
returned their Questionnaires. These persons were asked if they had
received a Questionnaire and, if so, they were encouraged to complete
and return it. If an individual said he had lost or not received a
Questionnaire, he was asked if he would be willing to fill one out if
it were sent to him. This also enabled the writer to make sure the
addresses were correct for those who claimed they had not received a
Questionnaire. 0f the 141 subjects who did not respond within the
first two weeks, 121 or 85.8 per cent were contacted by telephone.
Only 7 or 5.8 per cent of the persons contacted by telephone refused
to cOOperate by indicating they would not be willing to return the
Questionnaire they received. The most common reason for not reSpond-
ing was lack of time. By the end of Spring Term, a total of 308 or
77 per cent of the Questionnaires had been returned.

During the first two weeks of Summer Term 1960 another
attempt was made to followhup the non-respondents. All of the
persons who had agreed to send in their Questionnaires when previously

called but had not done so were mailed another Questionnaire as a

47

reminder. These persons were also called again if they were still in
the Lansing, Michigan area. The use of the telephone may, under some
circumstances, bias the returns from.a sample because not as many
non-telephone subscribers are included. This was not a problem in
this study because almost all of the students had a telephone in
their residence or had the use of one.

The final number of Questionnaires returned was 341 or 85.25
per cent of the total sample of 400. Five of these reSponses were
not usable because they did not have names on them. Thus, the final
usable returns equalled 336 or 84 per cent of the total sample.
Coincidentally, exactly 168 married and 168 single students returned
usable Questionnaires.

A return of 84 per cent from a random sample of this size on
a questionnaire this long is considered to be a good return (36:250)
(452241).

Tables 1 - 6 compare descriptive characteristics of the
returns with the same characteristics of the population and the
sample. The percentages in these tables show that the sample returns
are not significantly different from.the population with the followimg
two exceptions:

1. 0f the married students who reside in married housing,

6.6 per cent more returned their Questionnaires than the
percentage of these students in the population. This is
possibly due to their greater interest in student life
because of their proximity to the campus and other

students.

48
2. For inexplicable reasons a larger percentage of students
twenty-seven years old and a smaller percentage of those
over twenty-eight years of age returned their Question-
naires than the percentages of these age groups in the
population.

This representativeness on these variables is important
because these characteristics have been shown to be related to
participation in activities and therefore might logically bias the
results if they were not proportionally represented in the sample
returns.

The 16 per cent of the sample which did not return usable
Questionnaires, and, therefore, are not represented in this study,
may differ significantly from the ones who did respond in some
characteristic other than those in Tables 1 - 6. These character-
istics may be significantly related to the variables under study, but
if this is taken into consideration, it need not invalidate the con-

clusions of the research.

Tabulation of the Data
The reSponses to the items were transferred directly from the
Questionnaires to tally sheets containing the names of all the stu-
dents who reSponded. Questions not answered or answered illegibly
were tallied as "no reSponse" and are indicated as such in the tables.
The responses of each member of the sample return were punched into

I.B.M. cards to facilitate analysis of the data.

49

Data Collected from Records

 

The descriptive characteristics of the full-time,married
male undergraduates were taken from.the records in the Tabulating
Office and Housing Office at Michigan State. These data include age,
residence, transfer status, veteran status, upper or lower college,
and major college.

The data relating to the use of the Counseling Center were
taken from the official records of the Center. The appointment cards
in the Counseling Center were examined by the writer to determine the
number of interviews each student had had during the 1959-1960 school
year and the character of his problem as perceived by the counselor.
0n the appointment cards the problems of the counselees are broken
down into five categories: administrative, academic-achievement,
personal-social, educational-vocational, and other.

The data on the individuals in the sample returns who
utilized the services of the Financial Aids Office were gathered by
the writer from the official records of the Men's Division of Student
Affairs.

The data collected from the official records of these
Michigan State University Offices are assumed to be accurate to such

a degree that they can be considered reliable.

iethods of Analysis
The descriptive data are reported in frequencies and per-
centages of married students in the categories of the variables.
Since the primary purpose of the study is to determine the

relationship between marital status and the variables under study, it

50

is necessary to use methods of analysis which will indicate the
presence or absence of such relationships.

One statistic was used to test these relationships. Because
the data were gathered in discrete categories and could not be
assumed to be continuous and taken from a normally distributed
population the statistic used was chi~square. The test of relation-
ship was the chi-square test of independence (46:104). Chi-square
is a measure of discrepancy between observed and expected frequencies.
The chi-square test of independency is used to test whether or not
one characteristic is dependent on another. In this study it is
used to determine whether or not backgrounds, activities, and use of
student personnel services are independent of marital status among
full-time, male undergraduates. A computed chi-square can be trans-
lated into a probability value to determine to what extent differences
between observed and expected frequencies can be attributed to chance
variation. The probability value selected as significant for this
study was .05. This means that there are only five chances in one
hundred that a chi-square value this large could result frdm chance
variation. If a chi-square is significant at the l per cent level of
confidence, it is termed very significant. The computed chi-square
does not indicate the direction of the differences, only their
presence; therefore, it is necessary to analyze the data rationally
to uncover the direction of the differences.

In some questions categories of answers were combined to
provide at least 20 per cent of the cells with expectancies of five

and no cell with an expected frequency of zero. If it was not

51

feasible to combine categories, it was necessary to omit categories
in which the expected frequencies were too small (46:110).

The tables containing the chi-square values were included in
Chapter IV because they indicate the significance of the relationships
of marital status to the variables under study. The 64 tables of
frequencies and percentages of reSponses to the items were included
in Appendix I because the inclusion of these tables in the body of
the dissertation would have made Chapter IV too long and awkward to
read. The tables in Appendix I were placed in the same order as the
questions in the Questionnaires to enable the reader to find readily
the responses to any item in the Questionnaires. Tables 65-82 in
Appendix I are the frequencies and percentages of responses of the
married students of different age groups. The analysis of the

relationship of age to selected variables is included in Chapter IV.

Summggy
The population and sample have been described and defined.
The development, administration, and followhup of the Student
Questionnaire were explained in some detail. The sample returns
were characterized and the proportion of usable Questionnaires was
stated as 84 per cent of the total sample. The sources and methods

of collection of data from Michigan State University records have

been given.

Percentages and means are the statistics used to describe the

married male undergraduates. The statistical test used to test the

52

relationship between marital status and the variables under study is
the chi-square test of independence.

Because this is an exploratory study, the 5 per cent level
has been established as the point at which the hypothesis will be

accepted. The next chapter contains the analyses of the data.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

General Descriptive Characteristics of
Married Male Undergraduates

 

The following data were gathered to provide a general
description of the married male undergraduate in order to establish
a background for later comparisons with unmarried male students.
These data are not the primary objective of the study but are of
value because they help in understanding the married male student
at Michigan State University.

The average length of marriage of the married males in the
sample was 3.16 years and the range was from one month to 18 years
as indicated in Table 1, Appendix I. This indicates that the average
marriage is mature and that there is a wide variance in the length of
these marriages. Table 1, Appendix I also shows that the average
length of marriage was shortest for the seniors and longest for the
sophomores.

Table 4, Appendix I includes the data for the number of
children of each married student. The average married student had
.96 or almost one child but 37.12% were childless at the time of the
study. This indicates that 62.88% of the married male undergraduates
had at least three members in their families. This is a larger

prOportion than Donnelly found in her 1956 study (11:36). Only one

53

54

man had five or more children.

The seniors averaged .86 children per couple and the juniors
1.11 children. The class with the highest average number of children
was the sophomores with an average of 1.27 children. The compara-
tively low'mean number of children among the seniors was probably
related to the shorter average length of marriage of seniors in
comparison to the other three classes. Many seniors had been married
less than one year and had not had time to start a family. This is
indicated by the fact that 43.14% of the seniors were childless in
comparison to only 29.54% of the juniors. Other previous studies
cited in Chapter II neglect to indicate the number of children so it
is impossible to determine a trend concerning the number of children
of married students.

During the three terms of the 1959-1960 school year 83.73%
of the wives of married male undergraduates were not enrolled for any
course work. Wives enrolled as full-time students, 12 or more hours,
equaled 9.13% and 7.14% were enrolled for a partial load of from
1-11 term hours. These data are presented in Table 2, Appendix I.

The median number of hours of formal higher education
completed by the wives of the married students was in the range of
from l-46 term hours. Almost two-fifths, 38.55%, had no formal
college education and one-fifth were college graduates. The
frequencies and percentages of the educational progress of the
wives in this study are presented in Table 3, Appendix I.

The lack of educational progress is understandable when the

data in Tables 23 and 24, Appendix I, are examined. These data show

55

that 65.26% of the wives of married students worked outside the home
for pay during the 1959-1960 school year. The median number of hours
worked per week was 30 or almost a full-time job. In addition to
work outside the home 79.64% of the wives did some type of work in
their home for pay during the year the data were gathered. These
data relative to the amount of work done by the wives of married
students substantially agree with Perry's research (37:767) and
Mueller's statements in her book (33:432). A study by Cushing,
Phillips, and Stevenson in 1946 at the State College of washington
showed that at that time a larger proportion of wives of married
students were attending college, 22%, and.a smaller proportion were
working, 58% (10:25).
Relationship of Marital Status to Selected
Descriptive Characteristics of
Male Undergraduates

Table 7 contains the chi-square values for the relationship
of marital status to the selected descriptive characteristics
mentioned in Chapter III.

A very significant relationship was found between a student's
marital status and all of the characteristics listed except the
college of the University in which he was majoring. InSpections of
Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Chapter III, lead to the conclusion that
.male married undergraduates are older and more likely to be upper-
classmen, veterans, transfers, and live on-campus than are unmarried

male undergraduates.

56

TABLE 7.--The relationship of marital status to selected descriptive
characteristics of male undergraduates

 

 

x2

 

Characteristic :
Age : 168.88a
College residence (on or off-campus) : 9.17a
Transfer status (transfer or native student) : 6.65a
Veteran status : 43.49a
Class in college (upper or lower classman) : 52.413
College of major study : 10.44

aSignificant at the 1% level of confidence.

The mean difference in age between the married and unmarried
males is almost four years and is one of the most significant differ-
ences found in the study. Although this is a logically expected
difference its magnitude is not indicated in previous studies. The
significance in more veterans, transfers, and upperclassmen is
logically directly related to the married student's significantly
greater age.

Because a previous study by Williamson, Layton, and Snoke
indicated that the age of a student was significantly related to his
participation in college extra-curricular activities (53:70) it was
advisable to study the relationship of selected variables to the age
of the married.male undergraduates in the sample. Where a significant
relationship was found between marital status and a variable the
relationship of this variable to the age of the married male under-
graduates was also studied. The data for these relationships of age

to selected variables are reported in the chi-square values in Tables

57

9, 12, and 19; the frequencies and percentages are in Tables 65 - 82,
Appendix I. The purpose of these analyses was to determine if some
of the significant relationships between marital status and the
variables under study could have been related to the significant
differences in age between the samples of married and unmarried male
undergraduates.

The finding that significantly more of the married male
students live on campus in comparison to the unmarried male students
apparently indicates an unusual situation peculiar to Michigan State
University. This condition is a result of the unusually large amount ‘
of married housing available at Michigan State. A national study of
college enrollments in 1958 indicated that only a very small propor-
tion of married students live in college housing (8:12).

As Table 7 indicates, there is no significant relationship
between marital status and the college of the University in which a
student is majoring. The relationship of this finding to other
studies is included in the conclusions in Chapter V.

Relationship of Marital Status to the Financial
Conditions of Male Undergraduates

 

As would be expected, married male students have significantly
greater financial responsibilities than do unmarried.males. Table 8
contains the chi-square values for the relationship of marital status
to the financial variables studies. All of the chi-squares are
significant with the exception of the earnings the students expected
ten years after graduation. There is no significant relationship

between what a student expected to be earning and his marital status.

58

TABLE 8.--The relationship of marital status to financial conditions
and problems of male undergraduates

 

‘_‘ -‘.".

 

1:2

Characteristic

Major sources of income 95.92a
Automobile ownership - 125.35a
Number of dependents : 150.87a

Total indebtedness 2 32.783L
Expenditures for winter term, 1960 : 120.12a
Hours worked each week : 34.39a
Expected earnings, ten years after graduation : 2.88a
Major source of problems : 13.06

 

aSignificant at the 1% level of confidence.

The figures in Table 15, Appendix 1, indicate that married
male students depend.more upon working and the "G. 1. Bill" for 2
financial support than do the unmarried males. A.much larger
proportion of the unmarried male undergraduates receive one-fourth
or*mbre of their financial aid from their parents. Almost twice as
many unmarried males received substantial aid from.scholarships as
did the married males. An examination of Table 68, Appendix I, shows
that age is significantly related to the major sources of income.
The younger:married couples received a larger proportion of their
incomes from the husband's and wife's parents and the wife's work and
less from the "G. I. Bill" than did the older couples. The amount of
part-time work of the married male undergraduate is not significantly
related to his age. These relationships of age to sources of income
when coupled with the fact that the married male undergraduates are
significantly older than unmarried males leads to this conclusion.

Youth is related to the greater dependence upon the support of a

59

student's parents and the lack of aid from the "G. 1. Bill" among
unmarried males.

Table 9 contains the chi-square values for the relationship
of age to selected financial and background characteristics.

TABLE 9.--The relationship of age to selected characteristics of
married male undergraduates

 

 

 

Characteristic : X?
Major sources of income : 44.54a
Hours worked each week : 29.92a
Major source of problems : 6.62b
High school curriculum : 9.30
Father's occupation : 22.02
Father's formal education : 16.02

aSignificant at the 1% level of confidence.

bSignificant at the 5% level of confidence.

Married undergraduates had.much greater financial reSponsi-
bilities than did the unmarried males. Ninety-seven per cent of the
married.male undergraduates owned or were buying an automobile in
comparison to 42.86% of the unmarried males. Automobile payments
were being made by 29.95% of the married males but by only'3.57% of
their single classmates. The average married.male had significantly
more persons dependent upon him, greater debts, and naturally spent
much more per term than his unmarried counterpart. The frequency
data for these characteristics are presented in Tables l7, l8, l9,
and 20, Appendix I.

In agreement with the data on the sources of income the data

60

on the number of hours worked per week presented in Table 16,

Appendix I, show that married male undergraduates worked significantly
more each week than did the unmarried males. Married students worked, ;/
a median number of 11 - 20 hours per week but more than half of the
unmarried males did no work. Table 9 shows that the number of hours
worked each week by married students is significantly related to

their age. Inspection of Table 67, Appendix I, indicates that older
married male undergraduates worked more than the younger married

males. This increased work was not reflected in the data on major
sources of income as they are related to age.

Finally, the data from the questionnaires concerning the major
sources of problems substantiate the findings that married male
undergraduates considered finances to be a significantly greater
source of problems than did unmarried male undergraduates. The data
in Table 22, Appendix I, show finances to be considered the greatest
source of problems by married male undergraduates. Unmarried males
rated the personal-social area as a much greater source of problems
than did the married males. Although this is a rather rough way to
rate problems the data agree with the conclusions of other researchers
as stated in Chapter 11, page 21 of the present study. The chi—mpuue
value in Table 9 is not significant for the relationship of age to
major source of problems among married male undergraduates. Therefore
the significant difference in age between the married and unmarried

samples is not significantly related to the sources of problems.

61

Relationship of Marital Status to Selected Home
and Educational Background Characteristics
of Male Undergraduates
The chi-square values indicating the relationship of marital
status to selected home and educational background characteristics
are shown in Table 10.

TABLE lO.—-The relationship of marital status to selected home and
educational background characteristics of male undergraduates

 

 

12

Characteristic

 

Population of home town : 7.96
Location of home town : 5.50
Participation in high school extracurricular acthdties : 3.90
Frequency of high school dating : 3.20
Size of high school graduating class : 5.30
High school curriculum 2 11.36a
Father's occupation : 29.02a
Father's formal education : 1.3.06a
Parent's total income : 8.90
Parent's encouragement to attend college : 12.18:
Religious preference : 13.83

 

aSignificant at the 1% level of confidence.

The chi-square values in Table 10 show there was no signifi-
cant relationship between marital status and size or location of a
student's home town. A student's participation in high school extra-
curricular activities, the frequency of dating in high school, and
the size of his high school class were not significantly related to
his marital status in college. The data for these characteristics
are presented in Tables 10, 12, 13, and 14, Appendix I. The only
educational background characteristic significantly related to

marital status was the curriculum pursued in high school by the male

62

undergraduates. Significantly fewer*married male undergraduates
followed a college preparatory program and more took a general
program in comparison to the sample of unmarried.male students.

The chi-square value in Table 9 indicates that a married
male undergraduate's high school curriculum was significantly related
to his age. The frequencies in Table 66, Appendix I, reveal that
more of the older married students took a general program than did
the younger ones. This is logical because there has been an increas-
ing interest in the college preparatory curriculum during the last
fifteen years. Therefore the younger students would have been more
likely to have taken a college preparatory than a general program.
Considering that the sample of married male students was significantly
older than the unmarried.males it is probable that the difference in
high school curriculum is related to the age factor.

The data in Table 10 concerning the relationship of a stu-
dent's marital status to his socio-economic background is not entirely
consistent. Two of the factors, father's occupation and education,
indicate that married male undergraduates came from lower socio-
economic backgrounds than did unmarried male undergraduates as shown
by the data in Tables 5 and 6, Appendix I. The chi-square values in
Table 9 show that there was no significant relationship between a
married.male's age and his father's occupation or education. There-
fore the significant relationship cannot be explained by the differ-
ence in age of the married and single male undergraduates. The third
socio-economic factor, parent's total income, does not agree with the

other two in that marital status was not significantly related to

63

this characteristic. Perhaps including the wife's income has obscured
the relationship that would be expected on the basis of the differences
in the level of occupation.

Because of the importance of the parent's attitude to a
student's college attendance the relationship of this factor to
marital status was investigated. The chi-square value in Table 10
and the frequencies in Table 9, Appendix I, lead to the conclusion
that married male undergraduates received significantly less
encouragement to attend college than did the unmarried students.

This agrees with the significantly lower socio-economic level of the
married students' parents as shown by the variables of father's
occupation and education.

A comparison of the religious preferences is made in the data
in Table 40, Appendix I. There were more Protestants and fewer
Catholics and other religious among the married male undergraduates.
A chi-square value of 13.83 in Table 10 indicates that religious
preference was related to the marital status of male undergraduates.
This characteristic was distinct and cannot validly be compared to
other characteristics in this study except the attendance at
religious activities. Apparently previous researchers have not
studied the relationship of marital status to religious preference.

Relationship of Participation in Extra-curricular
Activities to Marital Status

In this section the total samples of married and unmarried

male undergraduates were compared on the basis of participation in,

satisfaction with, and desire for more participation in selected

64

extra—curricular activities at Michigan State University. The tables
in Appendix I give the composite frequencies of attendance at or
participation in the groups of activities in each area covered in the
Questionnaire. The reader is directed to the Questionnaire, Appendix
II, to determine the specific activities studied in each area of
extra-curricular activities. Since the frequencies of attendance at
or participation in Specific activities were added together for the
total composite the assumption must be made that participation in any
one activity in the group was equal to the same degree of participa-
tion in any other activity. If this assumption were not made it
would be mathematically incorrect to add these different activities
to form the composite total. In addition to the frequencies the mean
number of activities is included for each degree of participation.
Thus in Table 25, Appendix I, the value 3.13 under the category
"never" for the married males means that of the six types of cultural-
intellectual activities under study the average married male never
attended 3.13 or over half of these activities. The means are
included in order to provide an indication of the degree of partici-
pation of the married and unmarried male undergraduates in the
activities studied. A total score is also included but this is not
representative of the male undergraduate student body because it
contains a disproportionately large number of married male under-
graduates.

Table 11 contains the chi-square values for the relationship
of marital status to participation in five types of campus and four

types of off-campus activities.

65

TABLE ll.--The relationship of marital status to attendance at or
participation in extra-curricular activities

 

 

 

Activity 2 x2
Michigan State University Extra-curricular Activities: :
Cultural - intellectual : 46.03:
Social - recreational : 164.35
Student organizations : 3.71
Intercollegiate athletic events : 110.59a
Participation in leisure time athletics 2 9.87b
Off-Campus Extra-curricular Activities: : a
Cultural - intellectual : 59.11
Social - recreational : 2.80
Organizations : .063
Religious activities : 20.05

 

aSignificant at the 1% level of confidence.

bSignificant at the 5% level of confidence.

The values in this table ShOW'a significant relationship
between marital status and participation in all types of campus
activities except student organizations. Inspection of Tables 25,
30, 44, and 48, Appendix I, show that the significant differences are
all in the direction of less participation by the married male under-
graduates. It is noteworthy that there was no significant relation-
ship between a student's marital status and his participation in
student organizations. Table 36, Appendix 1, indicates that partici-
pation by both married and unmarried males in student organizations
was very low; The average married and unmarried male student only
participated to any degree in 1.13 and1.32 of the eleven types of

student organizations studied.

66

There was no significant relationship between marital status
and participation in off-campus social—recreational activities or
organizations. The married male undergraduates attended fewer off-
campus cultural-intellectual and religious activities than did the
unmarried.males. The data for these activities are presented in
Tables 29 and 36, Appendix I. The significance of these relation-
ships is indicated by the chi-square values in Table 11. The larger
number of Catholics among the unmarried students probably is one
factor influencing the greater attendance at religious activities
since Catholics are usually more conscientious about attending church.

The relationship of age to participation in extra-curricular
activities is indicated by the chi-square values in Table 12.

TABLE 12.-The relationship of age to attendance at or participation
in extra-curricular activities by married male undergraduates

x2

 

 

Activity

 

 

fi ‘2...-

Michigan State University Extra-curricular Activities

Cultural — intellectual : 2.71
Social - recreational : 10.66a
Student organizations : .97
Intercollegiate athletic events : 25.33a
Participation in leisure-time athletics : 12.26a
Off-Campus Extra-curricular Activities :
Cultural - intellectual : 2.34
Religious activities : 1.86

 

aSignificant at the 1% level of confidence.

The chi-square values in Table 12 show that age is signifi—

cantly related to participation in three of the seven types of extra-

67

curricular activities. These activities are social—recreational,
attendance at intercollegiate athletics, and participation in leisure
athletics. InSpection of Tables 72, 75, and 76, Appendix I, indi—
cates that in all three types of activities the younger married male
students participated more than the older ones.

As was previously mentioned, participation in these three
types of activity is significantly related to age. In fact the
chi-squares in Table 11 show that two of these types of activities
are very significantly related to marriage. Apparently age was an
important factor in relationship to the lack of participation among
the married male undergraduates in comparison to the younger
unmarried.males. In four of the types of activity in which marital
status was significantly related to participation the data in Table
12 indicate that age was insignificant.

Considering that the relationships of marital status and age
to participation in extra-curricular activities have been established
it is logical to find out whether or not married students are less
satisfied with their opportunities to take part in these activities.

Table 13 contains the chi-square values for the relationship
of marital status to the satisfaction of a male undergraduate student
with his opportunities to attend or participate in Michigan State
University extra-curricular activities.

The values in this Table show that there was a very significant
relationship between whether or not a student was married and his
satisfaction with his opportunity to attend cultural-intellectual and

intercollegiate athletic events. Upon inspection of the data in

68

TABLE 13.-The relationship of marital status to satisfaction with
the opportunity to attend or participate in University extra-
curricular activities

 

 

x2

 

Activity
Cultural - intellectual activities : 7.35a
Social - recreational activities : 1.85
Student organizations : 1.72
Intercollegiate athletic events : 10.36a
Religious activities : .98

 

 

c—--» ..- -- .

aSignificant at the 1% level of confidence.

Table 28, Appendix I, it becomes evident that married.male undergrad-
uates were significantly better satisfied with their opportunities to
attend campus cultural intellectual activities than were unmarried
males. The reverse was true in relationship to attendance at inter-
collegiate athletic events. The frequencies in Table 47, Appendix 1,
indicate that married male students were significantly less satisfied
with their opportunities to attend athletic events than unmarried
males. Evidently married students attend fewer cultural intellectual
activities but are better satisfied with their opportunities than
the unmarried students are with theirs. In the case of the athletic
events male married students attended fewer events than their
unmarried contemporaries and were less satisfied with their
opportunities to attend these events.

In social-recreational activities, student organizations, and
religious activities there were no significant relationships between
marital status and a student's satisfaction with his opportunities to

attend or participate.

69

The satisfaction of a composite sample of married and
unmarried male undergraduates is presented in Table 14. The types
of activities are ranked in order with the activity in which the
composite sample indicated the greatest satisfaction of Opportunity
listed first.

TABLE l4.--Ranking of five types of student activities by the satis-

faction.male undergraduates expressed with their opportunities to
attend or participate in these activities

 

 

Percentage of Students

 

Type of Michigan State

 

Rank : University Activity gziil;r : Some:::; or
E satisfactory I unsatisfactory
1. : Cultural - intellectual : 92.47 : 7.53
2. : Religious : 89.79 : 10.21
3. : Social - recreational : 88.79 : 11.21
4. : Student organizations : 84.47 : 15.53
5. : Intercollegiate athletics : 84.29 : 15.71

 

The data in Table 14 show that in a composite sample of equal
numbers of married and unmarried male undergraduates 92.47% of the
students felt their opportunities to attend cultural-intellectual
activities were very or fairly satisfactory. The type of activity
with which the male undergraduates expressed the least satisfaction
with their opportunity to attend was the intercollegiate athletic
events. In general, the students in the study were well satisfied
with their opportunity to attend extra-curricular activities at
Michigan State University. The composite group in Table 14 cannot
be considered representative of the full-time undergraduate males at

Michigan State University because it contains a disproportionately

70

large number of married.males.

The chi-square values in Table 15 are all insignificant.
This means there was no significant relationship between marital
status and a student's desire to attend more cultural-intellectual
activities, social-recreational activities, student organizations,
or intercollegiate athletic events at Michigan State University. The
frequencies for the specific activities presented in Tables 31, 37,
and 45, Appendix I, were too small to compute chi-squares; therefore
the chi-squares in Table 15 were computed on the dichotomy of wanting
or not wanting more attendance at or participation in any one of
these types of activities. InSpection of the data in Table 26,
Appendix I, shows that married male undergraduates were slightly more
interested in attending all types of cultural-intellectual activities
than were unmarried males but the differences were not significant.
Table 37, Appendix I, shows that married.males were somewhat more
interested in participating in professional groups, Veterans Club,
and religious organizations and less interested in student government
and fraternities than were unmarried male undergraduates. Iarried
male students had more desire for more attendance at fall athletic

events than did unmarried males.

TABLE 15.—-The relationship of marital status to the desire for
more participation in or attendance at University extra-curricular

 

 

 

activities
Activity : X?
Cultural - intellectual 2 5.27
Social - recreational : .01
Student organizations : 1.45

Intercollegiate athletic events : .34

71
There is a significant relationship between marital status
and the different reasons male undergraduates did not attend more
activities they would like to have attended in all four types of
activities in Table 16.

TABLE l6.-The relationship of marital status to different reasons
for not attending University student activities

 

 

 

Activity 2 1:2
Cultural - intellectual 2 12.12aL
Social - recreational . : 15.18a
Student organizations : 12.66a
Intercollegiate athletic events : 14.11a

 

aSignificant at the 1% level of confidence.

InSpection of Tables 27, 32, 38, and 46, Appendix I, indicates
several general relationships of marital status to the reasons stu-
dents did not attend more activities. In all four types of activities
the married male undergraduates indicated that "lack of time" was a
more frequent reason for non-attendance than did the unmarried.male
students. In two areas, cultural-intellectual and athletic, the
married students gave_fl1ack of money? as a more frequent reason for
non—attendance but in the social-recreational activities more single
students than married ones gave "lack of money“ as a reason. It is
important to point out that in the one area, athletic events, in
which the married males felt less satisfied with their opportunity to
attend they gave "lack of time" and "lack of money" as more frequent

reasons for less attendance than did the unmarried male students.

72

"Lack of information" was given less frequently by married.males as a
reason for not attending in all four types of activities. Evidently
the married students felt they were adequately informed concerning
the extra-curricular activities. Considering both the married and
unmarried male students, "lack of time" was by far the reason most
frequently given for not attending all types of extra-curricular
activities at Michigan State University.

Relationship of Marital Status_to the Utilization

of Selected Student Personnel Services

The data in this section were gathered from the Student
Questionnaires and the records of several student personnel offices
at Michigan State University. As in the previous sections of this
chapter, the relationship of age to utilization of selected student
personnel services is analyzed.

The chi-square values in Table 17 indicate a significant
relationship between marital status and the utilization of the
Counseling Center and the Olin Health Center at Michigan State
University as indicated by Student Questionnaires. Examination of
Tables 49 and 56, Appendix I, shows that in the case of both of these
services there was less use by married than by unmarried male under-
graduates. There were no significant relationships between a studente
marital status and his use of the Financial Aids Office, Scholarship

Office, or Placement Bureau at Michigan State University.

73

TABLE l7.--The relationship of marital status to utilization of
selected University student personnel services by male undergraduates

 

 

12

Student Personnel Service

 

Counseling Center : 8.58a
Olin Health Center : 4.24b
Financial Aids Office : 1.63
Scholarship Office : 2.11
Placement Bureau : ~93
Acquired part-time job through Placement Bureau : 1.00
Type of Health Insurance held : 32.05a

 

aSignificant at the 1% level of confidence.

bSignificant at the 5% level of confidence.

The chi-square values in Table 18 give the relationship
of marital status to use of two personnel services based upon the
records of these services at Michigan State University. The data
in Table 79, Appendix I, corroborate the findings based on the
Student Questionnaires concerning the significantly greater use of
the Counseling Center by the unmarried male students. Unfortunately
the data from the 01in Health Center were not available in time to

be included in the study.

This table also shows there is no significant relationship
between marital status and reception of financial aid through the

services of the Financial Aids Office.

74

TABLE l8.-The relationship of marital status to the utilization of
selected University student personnel services as indicated by the
records of these offices

 

 

2220

Student Personnel Service

 

Counseling Center : 14.42a
Problem areas of counseling interviews : 4.38
Level of emphasis counseling interviews : 2.78

Received aid through Financial Aids Office : .08

 

aSignificant at the 1% level of confidence.

The age of a married.male undergraduate was not significantly
related to his utilization of the Counseling Center or Olin Health
Center. This lack of relationship is shown in the chi-square values
in Table 19.

TABLE l9.--The relationship of age to utilization of selected
University student personnel services by married male undergraduates

 

 

1:2

Student Personnel Service

 

Counseling Center 5.12
Olin Health Center 3.57

 

This lack of relationship between age and utilization of
the Counseling Center and Olin Health Center indicates that the
significant relationship between marital status and utilization of
these services is not related to the differences in age of the
married.male undergraduates.

Significantly fewer married male undergraduates purchased

75

the Student Health Insurance sold by the All-University Student
Government during the 1959-1960 school year. Also slightly.more
married than unmarried male undergraduates had no health insurance
during this period as the data in Table 58, Appendix I, show. The
significance of the relationship of marital status to the type of
health insurance held by male undergraduates is shown by a chi-square
of 32.05 in Table 17. A 1946 study by Cushing, Phillips, and
Stevenson at the State College of washington indicated that 75% of
the married students had no health insurance (10:2).

The Contact Cards used in the Counseling Center at Michigan
State University contain an indication of the level of cognitive-
attitudinal emphasis and different problem areas as judged by the
counselors. The author examined the cards of the married and
unmarried students in the sample and tabulated the results for the
levels of emphasis and the problem.areas. Unfortunately the problem
areas did not include finances as a category. It would have been
valuable to have been able to check this type of data against the
prevalence of financial problems expressed by the married males in
the Student Questionnaire. The data from the Contact Cards are
presented in Tables 80 and 81, Appendix I. The chi—square values in
Table 18 show that no significant relationship was found between
marital status and the problem areas or levels of emphasis in the
counseling interviews.

In the Student Questionnaire the students were asked to give
their degree of satisfaction with the services of the five student

personnel services under study. The chi-square values in Table 20

76
show there was no significant relationship between.marital status and
male undergraduates' satisfaction with the services of the Counseling
Center, Financial Aids Office, Scholarship Office, Health Center, or
Placement Bureau at Michigan State University.
TABLE 20.-The relationship of marital status to satisfaction with

selected University student personnel services among male
undergraduates

 

 

 

 

 

Student Personnel Service : X?
Counseling Center : 6.42
Olin Health Center : 4.14
Financial Aids Office : 5.93
Scholarship Office : 2.11
Placement Bureau : 1.89

 

Only 22.64% of the married male undergraduates were aware
that even though their wives were not students they could use the
services of the Michigan State University Counseling Center. Forty-
eight per cent of the married.males were aware of the fact that their
wives could use the Placement Bureau to seek part-time employment.
The data for these statements are presented in Tables 62 and 63,
Appendix I.

The relationships of the data in this chapter to previous
studies and the conclusions to be drawn from these data are included

in the final chapter.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summagy

The purpose of this study was to analyze the relationship
between marital status and selected characteristics and activities
of male undergraduates at Michigan State University.

The population under study was the full-time, male under-
graduates enrolled during Spring Term, 1960 at Michigan State
University. Two samples of 200 subjects were selected at random
from the full-time married and unmarried.male undergraduates
reSpectively.

Data were gathered from carefully constructed Student
Questionnaires which were mailed to the subjects and the records of
several offices at Michigan State University. Eighty-four per cent
of the Student Questionnaires were returned in usable condition.

The data were tabulated in tables of frequencies and percentages
which are included in Appendix I. The chi-square statistic was used
to determine where significant relationships existed between marital
status and the variables under study. The tables of these chi-square
values are included in Chapter IV. If the chi-square exceeded the

5% level of confidence the relationship was considered significant.

Because of the significant differences in the ages of the samples of

77

78
married and unmarried.male undergraduates the relationship of age to
some of the significant characteristics was analyzed.

Literature pertaining to the married student was carefully
and systematically reviewed in Chapter II. The major conclusions
from these previous researches were summarized.

In this, the final chapter, the findings and conclusions
based on the hypotheses and the analyzed data are presented. Recom-
mendations for changes in the student personnel program at Michigan
State University and for further research in this area are stated.

It should be mentioned again that the conclusions in this
chapter do not imply a causal relationship between marriage and the

differences found in the variables studied.

Findings

1. The average full-time,married male undergraduate at
Michigan State University during the Spring Term, 1960
had been married three years and had one child. Three
years is a somewhat longer mean length of marriage than
has been found in previous studies and may be indicative
of a trend toward students marrying earlier in their
college careers.

2. A large proportion, 84%, of the wives of married male
undergraduates did not take any course work during the
1959-1960 academic year. Only 9% of the wives were
attending college on a full-time basis. This substan-

tially agrees with Mueller's statement that only one out

79

of ten wives is in the classroom (33:437). Thus it can
be concluded that only a small proportion of the wives of
married male undergraduates are making appreciable prog-
ress toward a college degree.

There was a large variance in the amount of formal
education completed by the wives of male undergraduates
at the time of this study. One-fifth of the wives were
college graduates in contrast to almost two-fifths who
had no college education. The remaining two—fifths were
predominantly underclassmen. Considering the amount of
education the wives had completed and the few that were
making progress toward a degree it seems highly probable
that over one-half of the wives of students in this study
will never graduate from college. Assuming that the
majority of the married.males in the sample graduate,
there will be a large average difference between the
educations of these students and their wives.

Two-thirds of the wives of the married males worked
outside the home for pay during the 1959-1960 school year.
The median number of hours worked was almost equal to a
full-time job. It might therefore be concluded that the
wife's income is a major source of revenue forlnost
married couples at Michigan State University. This is in
agreement with Perry's research (37:76?) and.Mueller's

statement in her book on student personnel work (33:342).

80

Conclusions

 

Conclusions Concerning the Relationship
of Marital Status to Selected General
Descriptive Characteristics of Male
Undergraduates

l. Hypothesis 1, Chapter I can be accepted for all
characteristics except the college of the University in which a
male undergraduate was majoring.

It can be concluded that married male undergraduates are
significantly older and more likely to be transfer students, veter-
ans, upperclassmen, Protestants, and live on-campus than are their
unmarried contemporaries.

The significant difference in age does not agree with
Mueller's statement that the average age of married and unmarried
students is "about the same" (33:431-32). The importance of this
age difference is included in later conclusions.

The frequency of veterans, upperclassmen, and transfer
students among the married male undergraduates was directly related
to the fact that these students are older.

The finding that there are significantly more Protestants and
fewer Catholics and other religions among the married males cannot be
related to other data in this study or previous studies.

The significantly larger number of married male undergraduates
living on-campus in comparison to the unmarried males is a result of
the unusually large number of college owned married housing units at
Midhigan State University. As was previously mentioned this is an

unusual condition in that at most institutions of higher learning

81

there would be significantly more unmarried than married students
living on campus (8:12).

There was no significant relationship between marital status
and the college within the University in which alnale undergraduate
student was majoring. Although further study needs to be done to
determine the Specific majors within each college, this evidence does
not tend to support Mead's (29:4) and Mueller's (34:156) statements
that the majority of the male married students specialize in the
strongly vocationally oriented fields of study.

Conclusions Concerning_the Relationship
of Marital Status to the Financial
Conditions of Male Undergraduates

2. Hypothesis 2, Chapter I can be accepted since a signifi-
cant relationship was found between a student's marital status and
his financial conditions.

As would logically be expected, married male undergraduates
had significantly more financial responsibilities and spent more time
working than did unmarried male students. This conclusion agrees
with the summary of previous research in Chapter II of the present
study.

The major sources of income for'married male undergraduates
in order of importance were student's part-time work, wife's work,
”G. 1. Bill," and aid from husband's and wife's parents. In contrast
the unmarried.male undergraduate's three major sources of income in
order of importance were parent's aid, part-time work, and scholar-

ship aid. Therefore it can be concluded that married.male students

82

receive less financial aid from their parents than do unmarried male
students.

Age was significantly related to the major sources of income
among married male undergraduates. Younger married.male undergradu-
ates were more likely to be receiving aid from their parents and less
likely to be working than were the older students.

It can be concluded that finances are a significantly more
frequent source of problems for the married.male undergraduates than
for the unmarried.males. The data from the Student Questionnaire
show that married male undergraduates listed finances as the area
that caused them the most concern. Unmarried.ma1e undergraduates
indicated that both education and vocation were more important
sources of problems than finances. The data in the present study
and previous studies substantiate the importance of financial
problems for'married male undergraduates.

It can be concluded that the expectations for the amount of
financial earnings ten years after graduation are not significantly
related to the marital status of male undergraduates at Michigan
State University.

Conclusions Concerning the Relationship of
Marital Status to Home and Educational
Background Characteristics of Male
Undergraduates

3. Hypothesis 3 can be accepted on the basis of two out of
the three measures of socio-economic level indicating a relationship
between marital status and socio-economic level of the home.

The characteristics of father's occupation and formal

83

education lead to the conclusion that married male undergraduates
come from.homes of lower socio-economic level than do unmarried male
undergraduates. Age is not significantly related to the occupation
or education of the fathers of married.male undergraduates. The
third measure of socio-economic level of the student's family,
parent's total income, was not significantly related to the marital
status of full-time male undergraduates at Michigan State University.
It can also be concluded from the data that married male undergradu-
ates received significantly less encouragement by their parents to
attend college than did unmarried.male undergraduates.

There were significantly more Protestants and fewer Catholics,
"others," and students having no religious affiliation among the
married male undergraduates than the unmarried male undergraduates.
Conclusions Concerningpthe Relationship
of Marital Status to the High School

and Home Town Backgrounds of
Male Undergraduates

 

 

4. Hypothesis 4, Chapter I must be rejected with the one
exception that there was a significant relationship between marital
status and the type of high school curriculum followed by male
undergraduates.

There was no significant relationship between a male under—
graduate's marital status and the pOpulation or location of his home
town, the size of his high school, or his high school participation
in extra-curricular activities or dating. On the basis of the above
mentioned variables the educational and home town backgrounds of

married and unmarried male undergraduates can be concluded to have

84
been similar.

Significantly fewerlnarried than unmarried male undergradu-
ates indicated they followed a college preparatory curriculum in high
school. More married students indicated they followed a general
program. It was discovered that a student's age was significantly
related to his high school curriculum. Older students were more
likely to have taken a general rather than a college preparatory
program. Therefore it can be concluded that the differences between
married and unmarried male undergraduates in their high school
curriculums is related to the married.males being significantly
older. This is logical since college preparatory programs have
become increasingly popular over the past fifteen years. This
variable may also have been influenced by the lesser encouragement
~given to married male undergraduates by their parents to attend
college.

Conclusions Concerning the Relationship
of Marital Status to Participation

in Michigan State University
Extra-curricular Activities

by Male Undergraduates

5. Hypothesis 5, Chapter I can be accepted concerning the
portion pertaining to frequency of participation in or attendance at
four of the five types of Michigan State University extra-curricular
activities studied.

It can be concluded that there was less participation in or
attendance at the following Michigan State University extra-curricular

activities by married than unmarried.male undergraduates.

85

(l) Cultural-intellectual activities

(2) Social-recreational activities

(3) Attendance at Intercollegiate athletic events
(4) Participation in leisure time athletics

In activities 2, 3, and 4 above, younger married students
were significantly more likely to have participated than older ones.
This indicates that the lack of participation in these activities by
married male undergraduates may have been influenced by their being
older than the unmarried.male undergraduates. The conclusion of less
participation by married students agrees with the previous studies
summarized in Chapter II of this study. The one exception to
Hypothesis 5 is that there was no significant relationship between a
student's participation in student organizations and his marital
status. Participation by both married and unmarried male undergradu—
ates was very light.

6. Hypothesis 6, Chapter I can be accepted for off-campus
cultural-intellectual and religious activities, but must be rejected
for off-campus social-recreational activities and organizations.

It can be concluded that there is less attendance by married
than unmarried male undergraduates at off-campus cultural-intellectual
and religious activities and that age is not related to attendance
at these types of activities. Marital status is not significantly
related to participation in off-campus social-recreational activities
or organizations. The participation.among both married and unmarried
male undergraduates in off-campus organizations was very light. It

can be concluded that marital status is not significantly related to

86

a male undergraduate's satisfaction with his opportunities to attend
social-recreational activities, religious activities,or student
organizations at Michigan State University. Married.male students
were less satisfied with their opportunities to attend intercollegrne
athletic events than were unmarried males. In the case of cultural—
intellectual activities at Michigan State University the married male
undergraduates were better satisfied with their opportunities to
attend than were the unmarried males. The general conclusion con-
cerning the relationship of marital status to a male undergraduate's
satisfaction with his opportunity to attend extra—curricular activi-
ties is that married students are as well or better satisfied as
single students in all areas except attendance at intercollegiate
athletic events.

It can also be concluded that the level of satisfaction of a
composite sample of married and unmarried male undergraduates with
their opportunities to attend or participate in extra-curricular
activities at Michigan State University is high. The satisfaction
of this group is highest in relation to cultural-intellectual
activities and lowest in relation to attendance at intercollegiate
athletic events.

Analyses of the data in Chapter IV lead to the conclusion
that there was no significant relationship between male undergradu-
ates' marital status and their desire to attend or'participate more
in any of the following types of Michigan State University activities.

2(1) Cultural-intellectual activities

(2) Social-recreational activities

87

(3) Student organizations
(4) Intercollegiate athletic events
It can be concluded that married male students have different

reasons from those of unmarried males for not attending more extra-
curricular activities. "Lack of time" was given as a more common
reason for nonattendance by married than unmarried male undergraduauns
in regard to all types of student activities. In two areas of
activity, cultural-intellectual and intercollegiate athletic events,

married students indicated Flack of money" as a more frequent cause

7 W...
"" .... _

of nonattendance than did unmarried.males. This is important because
intercollegiate athletic events was the one type of activity in which
the married male undergraduates indicated significantly less satis-
faction with their opportunities for attendance. The conclusion can
be reached that married male undergraduates feel relatively well
informed concerning student activities since they gave "lack of
information" as a less frequent reason for nonattendance than did
single males in regard to all types of activities. Among both
married and unmarried.male undergraduates "lack of time" was by far
the most common reason for not attending or’participating more in all
types of Michigan State University student activities.

Conclusions Concgrpipg_the Relationship

of Marital Status to Utilization of

Selected Student Personnel Services
by Male Undergraduates

 

 

7. Hypothesis 7, Chapter I must be rejected in relation to
Financial Aids Office, Scholarship Office, and Placement Bureau at

Michigan State University because no significant relationship was

88

found between the use of these services and a student's marital
status.

In relation to the Counseling Center and the Olin Health
Center Hypothesis 7 can be accepted. In the case of both of these
services, it was found that the married male undergraduates had
used these services significantly less than the unmarried males.
Considering the age of a student it can be stated that there was
no significant relationship between a married student's age and
utilization of either the Counseling Center or Olin Health Center.
Significantly fewer married male undergraduates purchased the Student
Health Insurance sold by the student government at Michigan State
University than did the unmarried.male undergraduates. Slightly more
married males had no health insurance of any kind in comparison to
unmarried males.

Concerning the use of the Counseling Center by married and
unmarried.male undergraduates the records of the Center indicate the
following conclusion. There were no significant differences between
married and unmarried males in relation to the level of cognitive-
attitudinal emphasis or the problem areas of the interview as judged
by the counselors who saw these students.

It can be concluded that there were no significant relation—
ships between the marital status of a male undergraduate and his
satisfaction with the services of the five personnel services under
study. This agrees with Form's finding that there were no signifi-
cant differences between married and unmarried students in their

favorableness of attitude toward the Counseling Center (12:272).

89
Only one—fifth and one-half of the married male undergradu-
ates reSpectively were aware that their wives were eligible to use
the Counseling Center and the Placement Bureau at Michigan State
University.
Description of the Married Male

Undergraduate at Michigan
State Universipy

 

 

The average married male undergraduate had been married for
three years and had one child. His wife was working almost full-time
and had earned only enough college credits to be a freshman. His
wife was not making substantial progress toward a college degree.

The average married male undergraduate was older and more
likely to be a veteran, Protestant, and live on campus than was his
unmarried male contemporary. The married.male students did not
differ significantly from the unmarried male students in the numbers
who were enrolled in the different colleges of the University.

Financial conditions were the greatest source of problems
for the married male undergraduate as indicated by his statements
and the considerable amount of financial responsibility he listed.
His major sources of income were his own part-time work, his wife's
work, and the "G. I. Bill." He did not receive much financial aid
from his parents unless he was among the younger married students.

The high school background of the married male undergraduate
differed only slightly from that of the unmarried male. It was more
likely that the married student would have taken a general program

in high school and the unmarried a college preparatory curriculum.

90

The older married students were more likely to have taken a general
than a college preparatory curriculum in high school.

The average married male student came from a lower socio-
economic level than did the unmarried.ma1e and received less
encouragement at home to attend college.

The home town of the married undergraduate male was similar
in size and location to that of the unmarried male. In general the
background of the married male undergraduate was similar to that of
his unmarried contemporary except for his socio—economic level.

The average married male undergraduate participatesless than
the unmarried male in all types of campus extra-curricular activities
except student organizations. In several types of activities the
married student's greater age was evidently related to his lack of
participation. His participation was also less in most types of,
off-campus activities. In Spite of his less frequent attendance, the
average married male undergraduate was as well or better satisfied
with his opportunities to attend.most student activities as was the
unmarried male student. The general satisfaction of both married and
unmarried male undergraduates with their opportunities to attend
extra-curricular activities was high. The average married.male
undergraduate had no more desire to attend more extra-curricular
activities than did the average unmarried male. "Lack of money" was
indicated as a frequent reason that married male undergraduates did

not attend.more student activities. "Lack of time" was the most

common reason both married and unmarried male undergraduates did not

91

attend more extra—curricular activities.

The average married male undergraduate was less likely to
have used the University Counseling Center and the 01in Health Center
than the unmarried.male undergraduate. A married male undergraduate's
age was not related to his use of these two services.

The average married male undergraduate was unaware that

several of the student personnel services were available to his wife.

Recommendations

 

Recommendations for Providinggfor the Needs
of MarriedgMale Undergraduates at
Michigan State University

 

Most of the needs of married students included in this study
are evidently being well met at Michigan State University. However,
the conclusions from the data of this study do indicate some
desirable changes which could be made.

1. Since finances are the major source of problems the
student personnel administrators should consider the
following recommendations which might help alleviate
this source of problems.

(a) Employment of a person as an advisor to married
students whose primary duty would be to help married
students plan their finances and advise them con-
cerning possible ways to supplement their incomes.

(b) Devise ways to disseminate information concerning
sources of financial aid and University services

available to married students and their wives.

92

(c) The financial advisor should encourage the fiancees

and wives of students to continue their educations.
The Counseling Center should consider employing at least
one counselor with interest, experience, and training in
marital counseling; particularly the pro-marital counsel-
ing would be helpful in enabling students considering
marriage to avoid some common problems of student
marriages.
Marital and preemarital health counseling might be
instituted and publicized as a regular part of the
services of the Olin Health Center in order better to
serve the health needs of the engaged and married students.
The administrator of the Health Center might also investi-
gate the possibility of advising the married students
concerning health insurance.
Considering the satisfaction of married students with
their opportunities to attend student activities it is not
suggested that major changes be made in the present pro-
gram. However, ways should be considered to help married
male students to attend specific activities in which
they indicate an interest, particularly intercollegiate
athletic events. It would also seem advisable to investi—
gate the possibility of instituting new types of activi—

ties specifically designed for married.male students.

93

Recommendations for Further Research
Concerning_the Married Collegg

Student

This study has uncovered several important unanswered

questions concerning the married college student. Following are

the suggestions for further research which were brought to mind by

the present study and the review of related research.

1.

A study of the effect of living in college owned.married
housing on the activities and scholastic achievement of
married college students.

A study of Specialized student activities and facilities
for married students in conjunction with the married
student housing programs

A follow up study of male and female students who drop
out after a college marriage.

An exploration of the need for pre-marital counseling at
Michigan State University.

A study of the causes of less use of the Counseling
Center and Olin Health Center at Michigan State Universihy
by married than unmarried undergraduates.fi

A study of the academic programs and achievement of
undergraduate students prior to and after marriage.

An investigation of different methods of aiding married
students with their financial problems.

A study of the psychological and sociological consequences
of significant differences in formal education between

college graduates and their wives.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

’10.

ll.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Altman, Sophie, and McFarlane, Dorothy, "Bridal Suites in the
Ivory Tower," Overview, Vol. 1,(September, 1960),
PP- 50-51.

Bailey, Richard P., "Do You Take This Coed . . . ?" Wisconsin
Journal of Education, Vol. 90, (October, 1957 ,
pp. 11-12 .

 

Ball, Beryl V., "Group Activities for Veterans' lives," National
Association of Dgans of Women Journal, Vol. 10,
(October, 1946), p. 38.

 

Beaty, Joanne K., "we Sweat Out Our Campus Marriage," Saturday
Evening Post, Vol. 228, (April 14, 1956), pp. 58-59.

 

Beetle, David H., "Go-Carts on the Campus," New York Times
Ma azine, (September 22, 1946), pp. 22-23.

 

Blood, Robert 0., ". . . No Academic or Marital Hazards," Egg
Michigan Alumnus, Vol. LXVI, (February 13, 1960),
pp. ZOO-202.

Brown, Clara M., "A Social Activities Survey," Journal for
Higher Education, Vol. 8, (May, 1937), pp. 257-65.

 

Bureau of the Census, United States Department of Commerce,
Current Population Rpports, Population Characteristics,
School Enrollment: 1958, No. 93, Series P-20,
(March 27, 1959).

Clifton, Paul, "Challenge of Cambridge," Christian Science
Monitor Weekly Magazine Section, (November 26, 1949),
p. 7.

 

Cushing, Hazel M., Phillips, Velma, and Stevenson, Ailcie,
"Economic Status of Married College Students," Journal
of Home Economics, Vol. 40, (January, 1948), pp. 25-26.

Donnelly, Ruth N., "Planning for Married Students," College and
University Business, Vol. 21, No. 5, (November, 1956),
pp. 33-56.

 

95

12.

13.

15.

16.

17.

2 l8.

19.

20.

21.

23.

24.

96

Form, Arnold L., "Student Attitudes Toward Counselors and the
Counseling Center at Michigan State College," Unpub-
lished Ph.D. Thesis, Michigan State College, (1952).

Funkenstein, Daniel H., (ed.), The Student and Mental Health:
An International View, International Conference on
Student Mental Health, Riverside, Cambridge Press,

(1959).

 

 

Guilford, John P., Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and
Education, McGraweHill Book Company, New York, (1956).

 

Halle, Rita S., "Marriages Made in College," Good Hpusekeeping,
Vol. XCII, (April, 1931), pp. 26-27.

Hansen, Jeanette, "How we Combine Education and Marriage,"
Journal of Home Economics, Vol. 51, (November, 1959),
pp. 7862‘7. I

Harry, Ormsby L., "A Study of the Student Personnel Services at
Michigan College of Mining & Tech.," Unpublished
doctoral thesis at Michigan State University, (1960).

Havemann, Ernest, I'To Love, Obey . . . and Study," Life,
Vol. 38, (May 23, 1955), pp. 152-66.

Henningsen, Charles G1, Moxx, Ronald C., and Everett, M. Rogers,
Participation in Campus Life, Iowa State College Book-
store, Ames, Iowa, (1956).

Jensen, Vern H., and Clark, Monroe H., "Married and Unmarried
College Students: Achievement, Ability, and Personalityj'
Personnel and Guidance Journal, Vol. 37, (October, 1958),
pp. 123-25.

Jones, Wbrth R., "Affective Tolerance and Typical Problems of
Married and Unmarried College Students," Personnel and
Guidance Journal, Vol. 37, (October, 1958), pp. 126928.

 

Kamm, Robert B., and wrenn, C. Gilbert, "Current Developments in
Student Personnel Program and the Needs of the Veteran,"
School and Society, (1947), pp. 89-92.

Kirkendall, Lester A., "Campus Marriages: Are They Practicable?"
Junior College Journal, Vol. 28, (November, 1957),
pp . 160—62.

Lantagne, Joseph E., "Do Married Men Succeed in College?
College Marriage Inventory," Journal of School Health,
Vol. 29, (February, 1959), pp. 81-90.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

320

33.

342

35.

36.

37.

38.

97

Lee, Anne M., "Study of Married WCmen College Students at
Indiana State Teachers College," Teachers College
Journal, Vol. 31, (March, 1960), pp. 118—19.

Marchand, J., and Langford, L., "Adjustments of Married
Students," Journal of Home Economics, Vol. 44,
(February, 1952), pp. 113-14.

Married Student: A General Discussion in Conference on the
Present Status and Prospective Trends of Research on
the Education of WCmen, Education of women, New York,

(1957), Pp. 75-81.

"The Married Student," Newsweek, (March 4, 1957), pp. 92-93.

 

Mead, Margaret, ". . . A Premature Imprisonment of Young
People," Michigan Alumnus, Vol. 66, (February, 1960),
p- 3-

 

Medsker, Leland L., The Junior College: Progress and PrOSpect,
McGraerill, New York, (1960).

 

Morris, John, "Married Students Take Over the Campus," Ladiep
Home Journal, Vol. 63, (October, 1946), pp. 32539.

Morton, Richard K., "College Training and the Married Student,"
Association of American Colleges Bulletin, Vol. 44,
(December, 1958), pp. 624-27.

Mueller, Kate Hevner, Student Personnel work in Higher Education,
Houghton Mifflin Company, NeW'York, (1961).

Mueller, Kate Hevner, "The Married Students on the Campus,"
College and University, Vol. 35, (Winter, 1960),
pp- 155-64.

Parkhurst, Genevieve, "Shall Marriage Be Subsidized?" Harpers
Ma azine, Vol. 175, (November, 1937).

Parten, Mildred, Surveys, Polls, and Samples, Harper & Brothers,
New Yerk, (1950).

Perry, Beryl, "Marriage in College," Journal of Home Economics,
Vol. 52, (November, 1960), pp. 767468.

Pickard, Elizabeth W., "Reversal of the Natural Order; College
After Marriage," Journal of Home Economics, Vol. 52,
(December, 1960), pp. 850-51.

39.

40.

41.

432

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

98

Pierson, Rowland R., "Age Versus Academic Success in College
Students," School and Society, Vol. 68, (1948),

PP- 94-952 2

 

Popenoe, Paul, "Should College Students Marry?" Parents Magazine,
Vol. 13, (July, 1938), pp. 18-19.

Reyher, Rebecca H., "All for Love," Mademoiselle, Vol. 42,
(February. 1956), pp- 188-89.

 

Riemer, Svend, "Marriage on the Campus of the University of
washington," American Sociological Review, Vol. 7,
(December, 1942): pp. 802-15.

 

Rogers, Everett M., "The Effect of Campus Marriages on College
Life," Collegegand University, Vol. 33, No. 2, (Winter,
1958): pp. 193-99-

Ross, Sid, and Kiester, Edward, "College Marriages-~Good or Bad?"
Parade Magazine, (June 5, 1960), pp. 6-7. .

 

Sellitz, C., Jahoda, Marie, Deutsch, Morton, and Cook, Stuart,
Research Methods in Social Relations, Henry Holt and
Company, (1959).

Siegel, Sidney, Non-Parametric Statistics, McGraerill Book
Company, New York, (1956).

Sletto, Raymond F., "Pretesting of Questionnaires," American
Sociological Review, Vol. 5, (April, 1940), pp. 193-200.

Smith, Margaret R., "The Age and Marital Status of Michigan
Collegiate Students," The Journal of College Student
Personnel, Vol. 3, (October, 1961), pp. 17-19.

 

Stevens, Emily'W., "The Conjugal Ph.D.‘s," North American Review,
Vol. 234, (November, 1932), pp. 440-47.

 

Taylor, Katherine Wt, Do Adolescents Need Parents? New York:
D. Appleton-Century, (1938). ,

Wilcox, R., "Spartan Wives on the Campus of Michigan State
College," Ladies Home Journal, Vol. 64, (October, 1947),
PP- 43-49-

Williamson, E. G. (ed.), Trends in Student Personnel Werk,
University of Minnesota Press, (1949).

99

53. Williamson, E. G., Layton, W. L., and Snoke, M. L., A Study oi
Participation in College Activities, University of
Minnesota Press, (1954).

 

54. Williamson, Edmund G., The Student Personnel Point of View,
American Council on Education, washington, D.C.,
Vol. 13, (September, 1949).

 

55. ‘Wood, Barton, "Why the Student Marries," Educational Forum,
Vol. 1, (January, 1937), pp. 217-220.

 

APPENDIX I

101

H n omooomoh oz

 

2 ..I... .‘I-

 

 

mo cameos
sees

00 oo o. l. 0' 0. °°

 

 

 

name»
m no>o

name»

mud

memo»

elm

memo»
mrN

name» use» a

some onto

fleece

‘Y
r4

2
O. I. O. O. O. O. .0. O.
I
9
b2

 

owownpmz mo newcoq

mowao

pa.m "oo.ooauubauum.ma “pm “mu.oa “ma "ma.oa and ”mm.mm “mm “mm.mm “on ">>.ba ”mm " moooooom HH<
m>.N "8.0013 “00.3 «a “00.0.” “H u n “o "00.3 “m u I “0 “00.0m ”m u coenmoam
ma.m “oo.ooaama ”8.3 "m amm.m “a a 2 no “mm.mm as amm.mm "a a u no a oaoecsmom
mm.m ”oo.ooaum¢ “m>.>H “m www.mm "0H "Ha.aa “m “mm.ma up “NN.NN “0H "Ha.HH “m a mosque
o¢.m “oo.ooauooauoo.ea "SH “00.0 up uoo.ma ”NH u09mm “mm u09mm ”mm u00.0.0. now “ nowcom

m u z u m u u z u m u z u R u z u R u z u R u z “

omofiaaoz " u u u u u u u u u u u u

 

 

mmmHo omoaaoo an mopodomamaopoo mama demands mo ommfihpms mo npmooqll.a mamaa

102

TABLE 2.--Term hours of course work taken by wives of married.male
undergraduates

 

 

:12 or More : 7-11 Term: 1-6 Term. :
:Term Hours : Hours : Hours
Tenn : : -

None Total

 

' 90-”- .--o

 

 

 

2 N : % : N : % : N : % : N : % : N : %
Fall Term 2 15 2 8.93 2 2 2 1.19 2 10 2 5.95 2 141 283.932 168 2100
winter Term 2 15 2 8.93 2 5 2 2.98 2 8 2 4.76 2 140 283.332 168 2100
Spring Term.2 16 2 9.52 2 2 2 1.19 2 9 2 5.36 2 141 283.932 168 2100
Total 2 46 2 9.13 2 9 2 1.78 2 27 2 5.36 2 422 283.732 504 2100

 

No reSponse = 0

TABLE 3.--Formal higher education of wives of married male
undergraduates

 

 

 

 

2 l - 46 2 47 - 922 93 - l3820ver 1382 2
None : Term : Term : Term : Term :0011938: Total
: Hours : Hours : Hours : Hours : Graduate:
N : % : N : % 2 N : % 2 N 2 % 2 N 2 % 2 N : % 2 N 2 %
64:38.55: 22213.252 1428.442 19211.452 1327.832 34220.482 1662100.00

 

Median - l - 46 term hours

No response = 2

TABLE 4.-Number of children of married.male undergraduates by college class

 

 

Number of Children

 

Number

Number

2 2

5
or More

 

of
Children

of
Children :

Z

Z

Z

Z

2

Z

.0

 

.863

88

34.312 19

o. co
m
m

43-14
29.54

44

13

nior

Se

103

1.111

49

a
N

O
N

6.82:

3

8: 18.18

43.18

19

.0

unlor

J

1.273
1.000

0.;
O
O\

18.18

2

00 00
In
Ln

0
d
m

\0

18.18:

2

Sophomore

O.

10

O

: 10.00:

1

: 10.00:

1

O
O

5: 50.00

3: 30.00:

Freshman

O.

 

.964

O. O.

161

.60

622 37.122 652 39.162 302 17.96

Total

 

No reSponse - l

104

TABLE 5.--Formal education of the fathers of married and unmarried
male undergraduates

 

 

 

: . High : : Grad. :
. 0-8 : Y9—12 : School : C3328 :Coléeg: :or Prof.: Total
: Years : ears :Graduate: 0 ege:Gra ua e: Degree:
: N: % : N: % ° N: % : N: % : N: % : N: % : N : %

 

Married “56 33.3 “30 :17. 862  30 17. 862 25: 214. 882 13:2 7. 742 14: 28 33: ”168 .100

Unmarried: 37: 222. 02: 23 213. 692 44: 226 19: 23 :13. 69:2 28: 216. 672 13: 27. 74: ”168 100

Total '93 27. 682 53 215. 77:  72 22. 022  28 14. 292 412 12. 202 27:28. 04:  336 100

 

No response - O

105

d u mmcommop oz

 

oodoaummmuqu.m “ma

OQSHumoauom.m

O\

8.03 " 3H “ 3 . m

om.wH

na.¢aun¢

O
O

o¢.¢N“Hm

N
N

8.0

ow.mmuo¢

oo.mmuad

m

Mm.m mm.m

\O
H

an

[x
H

um.oa

>©.maumo
N©.Nmumm
Ho.¢Hu4N

till" I

oo.mH”Om

mo.NHu04 oo.mnma

om.vaumm Hm.HH

O
N

and

Hw.NHuHN ON.NH

fleece

vofinhmapp

emappmz

 

O\

R
Z

0. o. 00 on o. 00 00 00 o. o. 00

BQ
Z

R
z

0
1* <2
.0 O '3 .0 O.

on 00 o. .0 <5; 00 00 0 O
01

BR
2

 

pmxpoz
Umaaflxm
In:

Hence

0. .0 O. O. .0 O. O. .. 0. O. O. O. .0 O. I. .0

1"

Umaaflxm
Iflamm

nmxgoz
omaaflxm

Auoczov
nmsumm

on 00 o. 00 00 o. o. no to on on so 00 o. o. to
o. oo o. to 00 00 o. 00 00 no no 00 I. o. o. o.
o. 00 co .0 00 o. I. 00 on o. no 00 00 o. o. o.

pmaaoo
opfisz

mmmcflmdm
Hamam

HmGOflm
Immmohm

mmmCHmsm
mmnmq

o. o. 00 o. 00 00 00 00 00 o. o. o. 00 o. .0 00
.0 00 00 o. 00 00 o. 0. so 00 to 00 00 .0 to no
on on to 00 co o. o. 00 on o. no o. o. o. o. o.

 

mopddowumuoocs

mama Umflghmaqz can voflhmme mo

whonywm

exp mo mcoflmeSOOOIl.w mgm<9

106

ma u omcommoa oz

 

00.03u mmmumméa

oo.oodnmodumo.ma

00.810010m . SH

00

mm

mm

mm.oa 4m

mm.NH
4H.m

Hm
ma

mm.mauo¢

:m.maumm
om.m «ma

om.haumm

0:.mauom

Om.naumm

no.0a mm

Jm.ma mm

m>.wa om

mm.wauoq

bm.muwa

mm.muma Hopes

0.3
m.b“NH

oo.HHumH no.mum cmfinuoecp

ooo

ma.mauam NH.m.mH emanpmz

 

 

muzum 2 R z muz wuz m z Ruzmuzmuz
Hence . one: no 000.040 000.0H0 000.00 000.00 000.m0 000.00 000.00
. 000.0H0 -000.0H0 u000.00 -000.00 .000.00 u000.00 -000.ma -0

00 00 00 00 o. o. 00 00 00 no a. to o. o. o.

00 o. o. 00 .0 Q. o. 00 no on o. 00 00 o. o.

00 O. 00 O. O. 00 00 00 00 00 no .0 .0 no .0
O. O. O. .0 O. Q. .0 O. O. O. Q. .0 O. c. .0
00 o. 00 00 00 00 O. 00 O. .0 00 00 o- 0. 00
.0 O. O. .0 .0 O. I. O. I. O. I. O. .0 O. O.

 

 

mmpmdvmnmumvzs mama_umfiypmaad and omfiupma mo mpcmpwa

esp mo maoonfl hanmoh Hmpoatl.> m4m<a

107

TABLE 8.-Popu1ation of the home towns of married and unmarried male
undergraduates

 

 

5,000- : 25,000- : 100,000

 

 

:

: Under : T t 1
: Farm’ : 5,000 : 25,000 :100,000 : and More: 0 a
N : % : N : % : N : % : N : % : N : % : N : %

Married : 25:14.88: 36:: 21. 44.: #1: :24 AO: 31:.-18. #5: 35:20 83: 168: 100. 00
Unmarried: lh: 8.33% 28:16 67.3 39: :23. 21% 34: E20. 2h: 53::31. 55:3168::100. 00

Total

39:11.61: 6h:19.05: 80:23.81: 65:19.35: 88:52.38:336:100.00

O
O

No response = 0

TABLE 9.--Degree of encouragement to attend college by parents of
married and unmarried.male undergraduates

 

 

 

r...

 

 

 

: : : Neither : - :

:Strgngly : En— :Encouraged: Dis- :Stgongly : T t 1

: n- :couraged : or Dis- :couraged : 13' : o a
couraged : :couraged : :couraged :

: N : % : N : % : N : % : N : % : N : % : N : %

Married 77:46.12: 52:31.13: 36:21.55: 1 . .60: ”167 100.00

0

O\
O
I-‘

 

Unmarried:102:60.71: 48:28.57; 15; 8.93: 3 Q 1.79; 0 Q - :168.100.00
Total 179 53 #32100: 29 85:: 51§15.23; A Q 1.19; 1 E .30§335;100.00

 

No response = 1

108

TABLE lO.--Geographica1 location of the home towns of married and
unmarried male undergraduates

 

 

 

 

 

: g , , ;In Michigan: :

: Within 5 : Within : But More : Outside :

: Miles of : 35 Niles : Than 35 : of : Total

:E. Lansing: Of E§St :Miles From : Michigan :

: : Lanszmg :E. Lansing :

: N : % : N : % : N : % : N : % : N : %
Married 2 14 Q 8.33; 6 Q 3.58; 109 :64.88: 39 :23.21: 168 : 100.00
Unmarried 2 20 E11.90§ 9 § 5.36; 88 ;52.38; 51 :30.36: 168 : 100.00

Total 2 31 £10.12; 15 Q 4.462 197 ;58.63: 90 :26.79: 336 : 100.00

 

No response = 0

TABLE ll.--High school curriculum pursued by married and

male undergraduates

unmarried

 

 

Married
Unmarried

Total

:Preparatory,

2
3%
z

111 266.07; 49
. 138 ;82.14; 26

(301ng6 : General :Technical:

0 O
O O
O
O

: z : N % N

2.98; 3

£29.17; 5

;15.48;_3 : 1.78; 1

00 o. O. O. 00

Business
or
: :Clerical

%

O. O. O. .0 0. O. C. O.

1.78; 168

060: 168

Total

739.

100.00

100.00

0 C. O. O. .0 O.

 

219 £74.10; 75

£22.33; 8 Q 2.38; 4

1.19; 336

: 100.00

 

No

response = O

109

TABLE 12.--Number of persons in the high school graduating classes of
married and unmarried.male undergraduates

 

 

Mau-

: Under : 50- : 200— : 300- : 400— : 500 or: T tal
- 50 : 200 : 300 : 400 : 500 Q More : °

 

2
33

Q NQ % Q N Q 8 Q NQ % Q NQ % : NQ % Q NQ % .

Married :i34 20. 36% 71:A1. 92:: 24:.14.36:-18:.10 78: 7::4.19:a14 8 39: a168 lOO

Unmarried:: 20:: ll. 90: 7h: AA 05: E26: 15 #9::20:ll. 90:12:7.14:H16 9. 52:  168 100

Total Q54Q16.08Q145Q43.11:50Q14.88Q38Q11.32Q19Q5.65Q30Q8.93Q336Q100

 

No response = 0

TABLE 13.-Participation in high school extra-curricular activities by
married and unmarried male undergraduates

 

 

O. O.

 

 

 

.
Married Q 72 : h3.6h : 66 : A0.00 : 27 : 16.36 : 165 : 100.00
Unmarried ; 88 g 52.38 i 63 E 37.50 : 17 g 10.12 : 168 : 100.00
Total E 160 ; h8.05 ; 129 g 38.74 ; Ah ; 13.21 : 333 : 100.00

 

No response . 3

110

TABLE 14.-Amount of dating in high school by married and unmarried
male undergraduates

 

 

~o- -—

 

 

 

323::

g % g 75
Married : A6 : 27.55 : 91 : 5h.49 : 30 : 17.96 i 167 : 100.00
Unmarried ; 38 g 22.75 g 86 g 51.50 : #3 : 25.75 : 167 : 100.00
Total E 84 g 25.15 E 177 g 52.99 g 73 g 21.86 g 334 : 100.00

 

H
N

No response

lll

.mohdom mac qwnp whoa Scum oaoocfi vm>fimomp mpcmwdpm pmoE 0mzwoon OOH prop p0: ow mmmmpCmopwmm

o u mmcommmh oz

 

 

 

 

 

 

0mm “ “m“ "4H" "ma“ ”4H“ "mm" "mm“ . . u. .u. . u..u “mom“ ”40H“ Haves
mod "Hm.¢umumm.dub "ma.cuoauom.>umauma.o ”oauam.mmummu . . u. .u. . u..“mw.mmuom "No.mbuomauvmflhpmacz
mod n I nonma.¢uu "mu.duw "ON.H"N ”H>.m¢uMbumm.aauomubq.mouooaumm.mnmaqu.wouaaauom.omném u umfingmz
mm m” u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u "
nwm « R “z“ R "z u R “z u R "z “ fi “2 u R “z u R u z u w “z u m u z u m u z «
Hmpoeu.omflz " smog ”mmcwbmm” xyoB u zaawm ” mflnm u gap; “mpcmpmmu xnoz ” mpcmnmm “
n u " «nmaasm u .H.u= ”nngosom“ a.mmfiz "m.QMfi3.“mafipnppmmum_pcmuspmu

 

wmmpmscwpwpwwcs mama Umflpnmaqs and vowupms mo maoocfi map mo whosnno Spudomloco mo mmohsomln.ma mqmde

112

TABLE l6.—-Hours worked per week by married and

undergraduat

es

unmarried male

 

 

 

:_ i ._Ez.Oorf
None : l 10 : ll 20 2 21 3O 31 40 : More 2 Total
: N : % : N: % : N: % N: % : N: % : N: % : N : %

 

Married “56 33. 53: 28 il6. 77: .35: 2Q 96: 27 316. 17:12 7 18: 9: 5. 39°. :167: 100

Unmarried:: 86: 51 19: 93A 20. 2h: 39 :23. 21; 6: 3. 57% O:

.OO. 3.1.79.168.100

Total :142:42.39:62:l8.51:7h:22.09:33: 9.85:12:3.58;12:3.58:335;100

 

No reSponse a 1

TABLE l7.--Automobile ownership among married and unmarried male

 

 

 

 

 

undergraduates
: No : Buying an ; Own an :
: Automobile : Automobile : Automobile : Total
2 N ° % 2 N . % E N E % 2 N . %
Married E 5 2 2.99 § 50 2 29.95 E 112 § 67.06 Q 167 § 100.00
Unmarried Q 96 2 57.14 E 6 Q 3.57 2 66 2 39.29 E 168 § 100.00
Total Q 1 E 30.15 2 56 E 16.72 2 178 § 53.13 ; 335 § 100.00

 

No reSponse = l

113

TABLE l8.--Number of persons at least fifty per cent dependent upon
married and unmarried male undergraduates

 

 

 

 

 

F
H

ISor

 

 

Married

3 None E l E 2 - 3 . h I More E Total
2N; z 2N2 % 2N2 % 2N2 % 2N2 % :N: géniz

AA: 26 35:16: 9. 58:32:19 16:64 26 35: 23: 13 77

8: 4 79: 167: 100

0:. . .168.lOO

O: . .

Unmarried: 121: 72. O2: 45: 26 75: 2: 1.19: O. . .

O O
: : O : 0

Total 3165: .L9 25:61:18. 21: 34 10 15: 44 13 13: 23: 6. 87: 8 2. 39:  335 :100

O O
: : : O O : : : :

No reSponse = l

m u omcommmu oz

hmmuao.

mm.muma

bmudw.NH

00.00H 04.dmuomumm.0mumm

N
(v

0
H
44‘

mw.d N4

\0
H

0N.w od.ma dd Hmpoa

 

114

doauoo.0

m0.mum “44.N
Hm.dum ”0m.>

dm.maummudm.oduob
db.mmummuaa.daumm

00.00H

O

00.0
mq.m

O
4:

dd.N
HH.4H

4 "mo.m mm.om umflunmaca

° 3

00.00H.m0H“MN.H

N
41

mmumo.NN 00.00 voflhhmz

 

2

R
z

R
.‘Z‘.

R z

Z

8%

Z

w z

N
Z

B2

on g. o. o. o. o. o. on on 00 no
00 Q. 00 00 00 00 o. o. o. no I.
00 00 on on no 00 a. 00 on 0. on
o. 00 00 o. 00 00 o. 00 o. o. no
.0 00 o. o. 00 00 a. o. .0 o. o.
00 O. 00 00 0. co .0 on so I. 00

R
O. é. .0 0

YR

 

 

N

a:
oom.afi

coo.awu 00¢.Hw“ oom.aa
uoo¢«awuuoom.awuuooo.aw

E;
00

0\
H
«39:

ooo.aw
noomw

coma
nooow

000%
uooqw

Hmpos

4

nooofiaw

2%
<2-
:3¢%

noun

0. 00 o. 00 o. g. o. to no 00 0. 00 o. o. o.
no go no 00 O. o. oo o. o. co .0 o. o. o. to
o. 00 00 on no no 00 o. oo o. 00 00 o. to no
no no 00 o. no 00 00 00 00 o. 00 O. .0 co no
on 00 00 do a. I. a. on O. Q. on 00 o. 00 g.

.0 O. o. I. .0 o. .0 O.
00 o. .0 00 o. 00 0' O
O. O. 00 I. I. O. 00

 

mmpmsumnmgouad mama voflhpmac: wad vmfiupma an coma snow nmpcfiz pom mmhdpwucogxo proell.ma mqm<a

115

TABLE 20.—-Indebtedness of married and unmarried.male undergraduates

 

I
1 ‘7‘—

3 _ 3 $50— 3 $100— 3 $300— 3 $500 or f t
g 0 $50 2 $100 ; $300 ; $500 ; More ' T° a1

 

 

: N i g i N : z i N i z i N i z i N i z i N 2 %

 

Married E 70§42.68§ 6§3. 66§18 210. 97; 1529.15; 56§34.15§164§ 100.00

Unmarried§115E7o.55§ 7. A 29.15 9. 203 523.08; 21;12.88;163; 100.00

 

Total 2185§56.57§ 13 3.97:33 :10.09: 20§6.12§ 77§23.55§327§ 100.00

 

No response - 9

TABLE 21.--Earnings expected, ten years after graduation, by married
and unmarried:male undergraduates

 

 

$3000- $5000-: $7000-: $9,000-2N11,000-;$13,000 2 t 1
$5000 $7000: $9000 :$11,000 :313,000 :or More ; T° a

 

 

Married 1:; .60: 13 :7. 83: 038 22. 89: 48 E28. 91: 28 :16. 87: 038 22. 89::166:.100

Unmarried: 1:: .60: fllh f8. 38: :44: E26. 35. 046 ;27. 54: 33 :19. 76: 29 :17. 37: 0167 100

 

Total : 2:.60:27:8.ll:82:24.63:9h:28.23:6l:18.32:67:20.12:333:100

 

No reSponse =

116

TABLE 22.-~Areas ranked as the greatest source of problems by married
and unmarried.male undergraduates

 

:-n'low- “...—*-

.Persona1-:

: Social Health 3 Total

EEducation Vocation :Finances

 

: N : % : N : % : N : % : N : % : N : %

O O
O

2
3%

 

Married § 52.32 30; 9; 5. 59:: 13:: 8. 07: 81: 50 31:; 6 E2. 99.161.100. 00

Unmarried: 61: 38 36; 28: 17 61:: 17:: 10. 69:: 51: 32. 08:: 2 :1. 26: :159: 100 00

Total i113:35.31: 37:11.56: 30: 9.38:132ih1.25: 8 :2.5o:3202100.00

 

No response =‘16

TABLE 23.-Average number of hours worked each week by wives of male
married undergraduates

 

 

31-40 : Over 40 :

 

 

 

: 1—10 : 11-20 : 21-30 :
None : Hours : Hours : Hours : Hours : Hours : Total
N : % : N : % : N : % : N : % : N : % : N : % : N : %

58 :.31 72+; 9 :.:539: 10 25.99: 5 22.99; 61 :38 32: 21 :12.:571:67 100

No reSponse = 1

Median hours of work = 30 hours

117

TABLE 2h.--Number of wives of married.male undergraduates who worked
at home for pay

 

—v HM—-m --

 

 

worked at Home : Did Not werk at Home . Total
N : % : N : % : N : %
3A 20.36 : 133 : 79.64 : 167 : 100.00

 

No response = 1

TABLE 25.-Composite frequencies of attendance at six types of
University cultural-intellectual activities of married and unmarried
male undergraduates

 

 

: Never : Rarely . Occasion- . Often or

 

 

. . 2 t
: : : ally‘ :Regularly : To al
i f i i . i i i i i EImfi-
Q N ; M : N’ : M I N I M 2 N I M I N :vflhmfls
Married : 520 : 3.13: 252 1.52; 193 1.17; 33 Q .19; 998; 166

.hl: 1002 168

.0 I. 00 00 co
0. 00 o. 00 co

Unmarried: 392 : 2.33; 288 1.71; 254 1.51; 68

1.34 101 .30; 2000; 334

Total Q 912 Q 2.73; 540 Q 1.63; 447

No response : 2

118

.thCmdUmhm whoa hpfifipom

oqo nmnp oAOpHUnoppm 0p oopcmz mgdopfipm oEOm omsmoon mooa prop won ow nomencoopmmw

ma u oncommop oz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mum SR «$6.: mmfimm.m “ om 6a.? 5 3&6 “ mm “mmému mp 339 Sankara“ om ” H38.
00H “wmm ”Om.>4u on ”mm.c “ 0H uoo.mu m ”mo.m “ m “Om.>au mm "um.mmu mo “mN.HNu am “weakness:
mofi “mmm “mm.dmu cm “0N.NH“ om "mm.mu m "om.mau om “mm.mmu >4 ”mm.amu 4m “mm.mmu 04 « voflnnms
mamsvfl>u u u M u n n u u u u u u u u u
-aamzmamzufzmamamamzmamamamzmamf
" " mmmammflm “ enemas umpfipflnxm u acofiposc “ mmfiuom “ “
Hence « ocoz " u . . . u " loam u mphmozoo " mhmfim “
u " oocoflom “ D m z “ pp< u cams: “ umASQomA “ u

 

 

whapcodwoum ononnucoppm oa oxfla case: mopwdpmpm

lumen: mama_pofiuudaqs pom Uofinpma moan: mofipfi>flpom Hddpooaaopqfllawpsgado Apfimho>flspll.om mqm¢e

119

TABLE 27.-~Frequencies of reasons married and unmarried.male under-
graduates do not attend more University cultural-intellectual

 

 

 

activities
: Lack of : Lack of : Lack of : Not : t l
: Money : Time :Information:Interested: To a
O : : : . : E i E f Indi-
f N %. : N I % I N . % . N . % . N :viduals

 

Married : 25 £15.12; 1N2 r88.75; 11 6.87; 13 § 8.13; 191 2 160

Unmarried; 8 Q 5.16; 137 £88.39; 19 $12.26; 11

7.10;.175 ; 155

 

30 r 9.52; 24 Q 7.62; 366 § 315

Total

00 00 O. 0

33 Q10.48; 279 £88.57;

No reSponse = 21

aPercentages do not total 100% because some students gave
more than one reason for not attending more activities.

TABLE 28.-~Satisfaction of married and unmarried.male undergraduates
with their opportunity to attend University cultural-intellectual

 

 

 

 

: %

 

activities
: Very : , :Somewhat Un-: Very Un- :3
:Satisfactory:satleaCtory:satisfactory:satisfactory: Total
: N % : N : % : N : % : N : N %

Married : 83

50.30; 76

46.06; 5 . 3.03; 1 : .61 £165§1oo

44.31; 15 I 2.40 E167§1oo

Unmarried: 7h

00
O

\O
(I)
.t.‘

44.31; 74

O. O. O. I. O. O. O. u .0

Total 2 157 : u7.29§ 150 § 45.18; 20 E 6.02: 5 E 1.51 £332§1oo

No reSponse = A

120

TABLE 29.-Composite frequencies of attendance at six types of off-
campus cultural-intellectual activities by married and unmarried male

 

 

 

 

 

undergraduates
: Never : Rarely : 00:::;on— Qgiéiiagin Total
3 i f f . f . f I . flmfi-
; N ; M . N ; M ; N ; M. . N I M.; N ;viduals
Married Q 635 Q 3.87Q 202 Q 1.23Q 127 Q .77Q 17 Q .10Q 981 Q 164
Unmarried; 489 Q 2.95Q 243 Q 1.46Q 222 Q 1.34Q 42 Q .25Q 996 Q 166
Total :1124 Q 3.41Q 445 Q 1.35Q 349 Q 1.06Q 59 Q .18Q1977 Q 330

 

No response = 6

TABLE 30.--Composite frequencies of attendance at eight types of
University social-recreational activities by married and unmarried
male undergraduates

 

 

 

 

 

Q Q ; Occasion-Q Often or Q
: Never : Rarely : ally :Regularly : Total
: N Q MQ N Q MQ N Q MQ N Q MQ N thfi'
3 3 3 3 3 o 3 3 ' 3 “duals
Married Q 733Q4.39Q 275 Q1.64Q 257 Q1.55Q 73 Q .44Q 1338 Q 167
Unmarried; 456Q2.71Q 305 Q1.81Q 375 Q2.23Q 209 Q1.24Q 1345 Q 168
Total Q 1189Q Q 580 Q Q 632 Q Q 282 Q Q 2683 Q 335

 

ll
|._.I

No response

121

.hapnodvoam whoa
hpfl>fl¢om mao swap whoa oqoppw 0p woven: mpcoUSQm meow omsmoon Rooa Hmpop pom op mommpcoopomw

mN u ownedmoh oz

 

JN.N">

HmumN.H

Hm.muoa

HNHJm.OH

mam mN.H>

m
m
m

em.oa

E3

ow.H om.m

q-

26 mm Hoots

mm.N«¢

mauwm.m

mHuoo.o

oa.mum

mma Hm manom.NH

no

H©.Hb
44.05

E

Q. Q. .0 O. .0 C. O. O. O. O. .0 O. O. O. O. I. O.

H

ma

.1
\O
O

mmé and 3.3 8238::

mma m ”mH.m

.7

O. O. O. O. O. I. O. O. O. O. O. O. I. O. O. O. O.

Hm.m

E?

mm.NH NM.HH

O
N

mmoaum mm.H vowhhwz

 

00 o. 00 o. 00 00 o. o. o. 00 .0
I. g. o. to o. o. o. 00 00 00 on
o. o. 00 co .0 o. o. 00 no a. 00
a. .0 O. .0 O. .0 O. I. O. O. O.
.0 .0 .0 I. 0. .0 O. o. o. O. o.
.0 o. .0 .0 00 O. o. O. 00 a. 00
.0 O. O. O. 0. I. .0 .0 O. O. .0
I. O. O. O. I. O. O. O. .0 O. O.

 

o "0N.H“N

00 on 00 00 o. 00 o. no 00 00 00 o. 00 00 co co to

C. O. O. O. O. I. O. .0 O. O. .0 O. O. .0 O. O. .0
.. Q. 0. I. .0 .0 .0 O. O. I. .0 O. .0 O. C. C. O.

aide m m m m
IHUGH z m 2 R z m .2 R z & z . m 2 fl .2 R z . R z
mofio moap ”hpasomm " mofip mean u
HmpOB GQOZ mUhmO IH>HPodulfi>flu104 uflgfié mafia.” IH>..B. IH>HPO< mmfighwm « mmofidQ
meflofl sods “Hoaooam 3.532 Yea do? .32 "
pooUSpm” u Hmfioom "moconnmfiulpopmnm u

 

 

whapcmnwmum egos ocoppw op oxfla vase:
mopmdompmpoocz mama uoflaawaq: vow voflhpma gown: mofipfl>flpom HmcowpmouoonlawfioOm hpwmao>ficall.am mgmda

122

TABLE 32.-Frequencies of reasons married and unmarried male
undergraduates do not attend more University social-recreational
activitiesa

 

 

 

 

: : : Lack of: Not .
LaCk Of : LaCk 0f : NOt : Inform. : Inter— : Total
Money : Time : Invited: mation : ested :
. N Q % : N : % : N : : N : % = N 3 % t N :viggals

Married

Total

:

24: 15. 69: 114: 73 87:

2Q1. 65Q

9: 5 88; 23:15 03: 172 153
unmarried. 30Q18. 99:: 92: 58. 23.: 14: 2 53.: 11: 6 92: 12Q 7 59: 159 148

O. .0

54:  17.36 206 :66. 24: 16: .1 93: 20: :6. A3: 35: ill. 25:  331 301

 

No response = 35

8‘Percentages do not equal 100% because some students gave
more than one reason for non attendance.

TABLE 33.-Satisfaction.of married and unmarried.male undergraduates
with their opportunity to attend University social-recreational
activities

 

 

O O
O O

: Very :

Fairly

:Somewhat Un-:
:Satisfactory: Satisfactory. satisfactory: satisfactory:

Very Un- :

Total

 

 

 

N:%:N:%N %N % Q
Married Q 62 Q 38.04Q 86 Q 52.76Q 11 Q 6.75 Q 4 Q 2.45 Q163Q100
Unmarried; 67 Q 40.12Q 78 Q 46.71Q 15 Q 8.98 Q 7 Q 4.19 Q167Q100

Total QR R9: 39 09Q 164 Q 49.70Q 26 Q 7.88 Q 11 Q 3.33 Q330Q100

 

No reSponse = 6

123

TABLE 34.-Composite frequencies of attendance at eight types of off-
campus social-recreational activities by married and unmarried male
undergraduates

 

 

Occasion—: Often or :

ally : Regularly: Total

Never : Rarely

O

 

 

f f .3 5 f 3 -f f ,f Zlmfl-

I N I H.: N : M . N . M . N : h . N :viduals
Married Q 323 £1.95; 350 Q2.11Q 434 Q2.61Q 22o Q1.3zQ 1327 Q 166
Unmarried E 296 ;l.78; 364 £2.19; 462 £2.78; 205 £1.23; 1327 2 166
Total Q 619 £1.84; 714 Q2.15§ 896 £2.70; 425 21.28; 2654 Q 332

 

No response = 6

TABLE 35.-Number of male married undergraduates who purchased
University activity books for their wives

 

 

Fall Tenn ; Winter and : :
1959 : Spring 1960 : None : Total

: : : : : d : Indi- : Activity
N : % : N : % : N : p 3 viduals : Book

 

N
O\
l—'
\n
O

O\
O\

95 . 57.23 I 55 E 33.13 2 166 E 121

 

No reSponse = 2

121+

TABLE 36.-~Composite frequency of participation in eleven types of
University student organizations by married and unmarried male
undergraduates

 

 

Non Member in Partic1- :Officer or:

Member I Name Only 523:2? 3023::ttee

O O
O I

Total

0.
O. O. I. O.

M : N: M - N-Jhfi’

N : M : N . . .
: - . . . . ,viduals

z
2:

 

O O

 

Married Q 1630; 9.88; 67 .41 Q 83 Q .50 Q 36 Q .22 ;1816; 165
Unmarried; 1624; 9.67; 85 .51 2 101 Q .60 Q 35 § .21 Q18a5§ 168

TOtal all-6 : 18L} 2 055

325h; 9.772 152

71 .21 236612 333

O.

z
0

response = 3

125

TABLE 37. -University student organizations in which.married and

unmarried male undergraduates would like to have more participationCL

_‘A—-A

 

 

° Service :
Honorary :Political; Organi-

;E‘1~aternity; Club :zation :

f Student ‘
' Govt.

;Dramatic

:Fraternity: 'Groups

 

 

Married Q 6 Q3. 75Q 1 Q .62Q 9 Q5.63Q 8 Q5.ooQ A Q2.50Q 3 Q1.87
unmarried 11 Q7. 01:: 16 °Q10 19:: 9 Q5.73Q 5 Q3.18Q 7 Q4.16Q 5 Q3.18

Total 17 Q5.36Q 17 Q 5.36Q 18 Q5.68Q 13 Q4.10Q 11 Q3.t7Q 8 Q2.52

TABLE 37.--(Continued)

 

 

 

 

QSpecial Profes- . . QRehg' ious: :
:Interest: sional :gpeech :Végififist Organi-: None

: Groups : Groups : roups : : zation : :

: : : : ' : ' . : ' ° : =Indi-
: N: % : N: % : N: % : N : % : N : % : N : % :vid-
: : : : : : : : ° ' : ° :uals

Married ”31 19. 38: 16Q lO. OOQ 5: 3. 12Q 14: 8 75Q lAQ 8. 75: 95.Q 59. 37: 160

UnmarriedQ29Ql8.h7Q 6Q 3.82Q 9Q5.73Q 5Q3.18Q 7: h 46Q 90Q 57. 32Q 157

Total Q60Q18.93Q22Q 6.91Q11Q1.12Q 19Q5.99Q 21Q6.62Q185Q58.36Q 317

No response = 19

3'Percentages do not total 100% because some students wanted
to participate more in more than one type of organization.

126

TABLE 38. --Frequencies of reasons married and unmarried male under-
graduates do not participate more in organizations in which they
wanted to participatea

 

 

_:_v ‘
L :-

 

0 O O O O
O O O O O
O
0

Lack : : : Not Not : :
- of ° Lack Of NOt : Qual- : Inter-: Other: Total

 

 

: Money : Time :Invited: ified : ested : :

° : : : ° : : : : : : ‘Indi~
'N:%:N.7o:N:%°N:%:N:%:N:%:N:vildu-
' : : ' : : : : ' : : ‘3 5

Married 12:7. 32E122::7h. 39: 5:3 05: l: .61: 28:17 07: :3 1.83: 171:: 164

Unmarried: 10: 6 10:115: 70.12: 8:h. 88:14:8 5h: 29: 17. 68: 5: :3 05: 8181: 164

O :
: z : : O : : g : : :
”fiv—

Total :22: i6 71: 237 j72. 26: .13: :3. 96: 15: :h- 57: 57: jl7. 38: i8 2. 44: 8352 328

No response = 8

a'Percentages do not equal 100% because some students gave
more than one reason.

TABLE 39.--Satisfaction of married and unmarried male undergraduates
with their opportunities to participate in University student
organizations

 

 

: Total

Very : Fairly :Somewhat Un-: Very Un-
:Satisfactory: Satisfactory: satisfactory: satisfactory:

 

 

 

 

Married : 65 : h1.14: 68 : 43.04: 19 : 12.03: 6 i 3.80 :158:100

Unmarried; 57 g 34.76; 82 g 50.00; 20 : 12.19: 5 i 3.05 :164:100

Total ; 122 g 37.89; 150 ; A6.58; 39 : 12.11: 11 : 3.h2 :322:100
No reSponse : 14

127

TABLE 40.-Degree of participation in eight types of off-campus
organizations by married and unmarried.male undergraduates

 

 

 

 

 

° : , . : Partici- :Officer or:

:, NO , : Member in : pating :Committee : Total

:Membership : Name Only‘: Member : Chainmmn :

Q N ; M. ; N . M Q N E M Q N : M. : N : ¥ndi‘

. . . . . . . . . ,v1duals
Married :ll73: 7.11 z 73 : .44 : 63 : .38 : ll : .07 :1320: 165
Unmarried:ll80: 7.06 : 75 : .45 : 73 : .44 : ll : .06 :1339: 167

Total :2353: 7.08 2 148 : .44 Q 136 Q .41 2 22 E .07 22659; 332

 

No response = 4

TABLE 41.--Religious preference of.married and unmarried male under-
graduates

 

 

 

 

:Catholic:Protestant: Jewish : Other : None : Total
: N: % : N : % : N: z : N : % : N: % : N : %

Married 225§15.06; 125E73.3o: 2; 1.20; 3 : 1.81:11: 6.63Q166:1oo.oo

 

Unmarried:46:27.38: 89:52.98; 6} 3.57; 9 ; 5.3621821o.71§168§1oo.00
Total :71:21.26; 214264.07; 8: 2.40212 § 3.59229; 8.68:334;100.00

 

No response = 2

128

TABLE 42.-Composite frequency of participation in seven religious
activities by married and unmarried male undergraduates

 

 

 

o o—t- .. .

 

: : : Occasion—: Often or :
: Never : Rarely : any : Regularly : Total

: N: M: N : M: N : M: N : M.: N :¥mfi-
. = : : : 3 . : :Vlduals
Married : 731:4.38: 120 : .72: 146 :

Unmarried: 660:3.95: 191 :1.16: 117 :

.87: 162 .97: 1159 167

.88: 173 . 1.03: 1171

167

O. O. O. O. .0

 

Total E139126.17§ 311 Q .96: 293 2 .88: 335

. 1.00: 2330 : 334

 

No response = 2

TABLE 43.--Degree of satisfaction with opportunities to attend
University religious activities among married and unmarried male
undergraduates

 

 

: Very : Fairly :Somewhat Un-: Very Un- :

:Satisfactory:Satisfactory:satisfactory:satisfactory: Total

 

 

Q N 2 z 2 N 2 z 2 N E 3 E N Q 3 Q N 2 8
Married : 91 2 56.52: 51 : 31.68: 13 E 8.07 2 6 Z 3.73 :161:100
Unmarried: 92 : .

56.79: 56

w
:-
\n
‘1
\o

. 5.55 : 5 : 3.09 :l62:lOO

Total 183 : 56.66: 107

\JO
KO
0

C3
N
N

Z 6.81 : 11 : 3.40 2323:100

 

No response = 13

129

TABLE 44.~—Composite frequencies of attendance at fourteen types of
intercollegiate athletic events by married and unmarried male
undergraduates

:Occasion-: Often or:

Never ; Rarely ally :Regularly: Total

 

Q N : M : N : M : N : M : N : M.: N : ¥ndi’
- - . . . . . , ,v1duals

 

166

Married Q 1683 Q10.14Q 245 . 1.48Q 193Q1.16Q 193Q1.16Q 2314

Unmarried: 1320 Q 8.15Q 333 Q 2.05Q 324Q2.00Q 291Q1.80Q 2268 Q 162

 

Total : 3003 Q 9.16Q 578

328

1.77: 517Q1.58Q 484Q1.48Q 4582

No response = 8

TABLE 45.-Season of the year married and unmarried male undergradu-
ates would like to attend more intercollegiate athletic events8

 

 

 

 

: Fall : Winter : Spring : None : Total
I i i i i i i i i QImu-
: N : % o N o z o N o g : N o % : N :Vid J

Married

. 43 Q26.00Q 73 Q44.20Q 59 Q35.70Q 72 Q43.64Q 247 Q

C

Unmarried: 31 Q19.62Q 67 Q42.40Q 54 Q34.18Q 75 Q47.47Q 227 Q 158

Total

74 222.91Q 140 243.34Q 113 Q34.98Q 147 Q45.51Q 474 Q 323

No response = 13

aPercentages do not equal 100% because some students wanted
to attend more events more than one season.

130

TABLE 46.-—Frequencies of reasons married and unmarried male under-
graduates do not attend more intercollegiate athletic events8

 

 

4

Lack of:No One: Not

J

 

 

 

QLackQLack: :
: of : of : Infor-: to Go: Inter- : Misc.: Total
: Money : Time : mation:‘With : ested : :
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q a Q Q Q Q Q Q Indi—
;N; 7‘3“; 75 ;N; 55;“; ”:“I 7‘ N :“am
Married Q12Q8 .27Q135Q81.32Q 4Q 2.76Q 2. :1.38Q26Q :15 66: Q1Q .60Q180Q 166
Unmarried: 6Q 3 59: 115 Q68 86Q 15 8. 98Q 3Q- 1. 8oQ 31Q Q18. 56Q 7Q 4. 19: Q177Q 167
Total Q18Q5.40Q250Q75.07Q19Q5.71Q5Q1.50Q57Q17.12Q8Q2.40Q357Q 333

: : : : : : : : : : : : :
No response . 3

aPercentages do not equal 100% because some students gave
more than one reason for non-attendance.

TABLE 47.--Satisfaction of married and unmarried male undergraduates
‘with their opportunity to attend intercollegiate athletic events

 

Very : Fairly :Somewhat Un-: Very Un-

atisfactory:° Satisfactory: satisfactory satisfactory Total

U)

 

 

 

Q N Q 5 Q N Q' 3 Q N Q 5 Q N Q 3 Q N Q 5
Married Q 85 Q 51.83Q 43 Q 26.22Q 29 Q 17.68Q 7 Q 4.27 Q 64Qloo
Unmarried; 107 Q 64.07Q 44 Q 26.35Q 12 Q 7.19Q 4 Q 2.39 Q 67Q100
Total Q 192 Q 58.01Q 87 Q 26.28Q 41 Q 12.39Q 11 Q 3.32 Q331Q100
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

 

No response I S

131

TABLE 48.-~Participation in leisure time athletic activities, to at
least some extent, by married and unmarried male undergraduates

 

 

Attend : Partici- : Partici— : Use :
:Intramurals: pate in : pate in : University:

as a : Organized : Informal . Athletic : TOtal
Spectator :Intramurals: Athletics : Facilities:

0
I

 

 

 

QNQzQNQgQNQ2QNQzQNQ¥ndi'
. . . . . . . . . .viduals
Married Q 56 Q33.33Q 39 Q23.21Q 103Q61. 31Q 114 QQ67. 86Q312Q- 168
Unmarried: 103 Q62. osQ 102  61.44Q 149 Q90. 96.Q 155 QQ94. 56Q 509 166
Total : Q

159 Q47.60Q 141 42.21Q 252 Q76.05Q 269 Q81.14Q821Q 334

 

No reSponse = 2

aPercentages do not equal 100% because many students
participate in more than one athletic activity.

TABLE 49.--Use of the University Counseling Center by married and
unmarried male undergraduates

 

 

 

 

 

: Used Q Did Not Use Q Total
. . . s N
Married Q 30 Q 18.75 Q 130 Q 81.25 Q 160 Q 100.00
Unmarried; 45 E 28.85 Q 111 E 71.15 Q 156 Q 100.00
Total Q 75 Q 23.73 Q 241 Q 76.27 Q 316 2 100.00

C O O O O
I O O O O

 

20

No response

132

TABLE 50.-Degree of satisfaction with the University Counseling
Center among married and unmarried male undergraduates who have made
use of its services at some time

.——-

: Somewhat :

 

: Fairly Very
Very Sat-z Satis- : Unsatis- : Unsatis-: Total
isfactory: factory : factory : factory :
N:%:N: :N:%:N:%:N:Re5ponses

 

Married

 

30 231.25; 41 242.71; 17 §17.712 8

 

 

: 8.33; 96 144

Unmarried; 18 218.95; 57 ;60.00; 15 Q15.79; 5 § 5.26; 95 E 148

Total 2 48 £25.13; 98 £51.31; 32 £16.75Q13 2 6.81; 191 E 292
No reSponse = A4

TABLE Sl.-—Satisfaction with and reputation of the services of the
University Counseling Center among married and unmarried undergradu-

 

 

 

 

 

 

ates
: : Fairly : Somewhat : Very :
: Very Sat-: Satis- : Unsatis- : Unsatis-: Total
: isfactory: factory : factory : factory :
: N : % : N : : N : % : N : % : N : %
Married : 36 :25.00: 75 :52.08: 23 ;15.98; 10 £6.94; 144 2 100.00
unmarried: 27 :18.24: 86 :58.12: 29 :19.59: 6 :4.05: 1A8 Q 100.00
Total : 63 :21.58: 161 :55.14: 52 :l7.81: 16 :5.h8: 292 : 100.00
No response = Ah

133

TABLE 52.—-Use of the University Financial Aids Office by married and
unmarried male undergraduates

 

 

 

 

; Used : Did Not Use : Total
N : % : N : % : N . %

Married 30_ 2 18.63 2 131 : 81.37 : 161 : 100.00

0. C. O. O. O.

Unmarried : 18 : 11.61

 

137 E 88.39 E 155 2 100.00

Total

#8 2 15.19

268 § 84.81 E 316 § 100.00

No reSponse = 20

TABLE 53.-Satisfaction with and reputation of the services of the
University Financial Aids Office among married and unmarried.male
undergraduates

 

 

Fairly : Somewhat : Very
Satis- : Unsatis- : Unsatis-: Total
factory : factory : factory :

Very Sat—,
, isfactory:

 

 

: N Q g E N E 8 S N E g N E % 2 N E 8
Married 2 5o Q37.31§ 58 £13.28; 22 £16.42; A ;2.98; 131 2 100.00

Unmarried; 16 £34.07; 75 E55.55§ 10 2 7.11; a E2.96§ 135 : 100.00

0

100.00

Total 2 96 £35.69; 133 £49.14; 32 Q11.90§ 8 £2.97; 269

No response = 67

1341

TABLE 5h.-—Use of the University Scholarship Office by married and
unmarried.male undergraduates

 

 

 

 

; Used Q Did Not Use : Total
: N : % : N : % : N : %
Married ° 11 - 6.79 : 151 : 93.21 : 162 : 100.00

Unmarried Q 21 : 13.55 : 134 Q 86.45 155 : 100.00

Total

32 Q 10.09 : 285 Q 89.91 Q 317 Q 100.00

 

No reSponse = 19

TABLE 55.-Satisfaction with and reputation of the services of the
University Scholarship Office among married and unmarried male under-
graduates

 

 

Fairly : Somewhat : Very
Satis- : Unsatis- : Unsatis—: Total
factory factory : factory :

Q Very Sat-:
, isfactory,

 

% : N : %

R
Z
3%.

N : %

Married 27 Q21 09-Q 74 57 82:: 16 .12. soQQ 11 Q8. 59Q 128

100.00

Unmarried; 33 Q21.41Q 78 Q57 78Q 18.Q13.33Q 6 Q4.14:Q 135 : 100.00

Total 60 :22.81: 152 :57.79: 3A :12.94: 17 ;6.46: 263

100.00

 

No reSponse = 73

135

TABLE 56.--Use of the University Health Center by married and unmar-
ried male undergraduates

 

 

 

 

: Used : Did Not Use Q Total
Married : 93 : 58.49 66 : Al.51 159 100.00
Unmarried : 107 Q 69.03 48 Q 30.97 155 100.00
Total : 200 : 63.69 114 E 36.31 314 100.00

 

No response = 22

TABLE 57.--Satisfaction with the University Health Center by'married
and unmarried male undergraduates who had used its services

 

 

 

 

 

 

; Rfifly QSwmet; me :
: Very Sat-: Satis— : Unsatis- : Unsatis-: Total
: isfactory: factory : factory : factory :
: N : % : N % : N : % : N : % : N : %
Married : 44 :34.37: 41 :32.03: 29 :22.66: 14:10.94Q 128 Q 100.00
Unmarried: 29 :23.20: 51 :40.80: 30 :24.00: 15:12.00: 125 : 100.00
Total : 73 :28.85: 92 :36.36Q 59 :23.32Q 29Q11.47Q 253 Q 100.00
No response = 83

136

TABLE 58.--Type of health insurance held by married and unmarried
male undergraduatesa

 

v—T— ‘—_‘ ”vd _

 

O.
O.

 

 

 

:M.S.U. Student: : :

: Health : Other Health : None : Total

: Insurance Insurance :

f f . f . f f f Indi-

:N:%:N:%:N:%: :viduals
Married Q 21 Q 13.29 Q 105 Q 66.45 Q 36 Q 22.78 Q 162 Q 158
Unmarried: 69 Q 44.80 : 76 : 49.35 ; 25 : 16.23 : 170 : 154

Total 2 90 : 28.85 Q 181 Q 58.01 Q 61 Q 19.55 Q 332 Q 312

 

No reSponse = 24

8‘Percentages do not equal 100% because some students had two
types of health insurance.

TABLE 59.--Use of the University Placement Bureau to seek part-time
work by married and unmarried male undergraduates

*3- :— :- J
L I T -

 

 

: Used : Did Not Use : Total
N z % : N . % ° N : %

 

Married ; 57 Q 35.62

103 Q 64.38 Q 160 : 100.00

unmarried : 46

29.87 Q 108 Q 70.13 : 151

100.00

Total 67.20 314 : 100.00

103 Q 32.80 : 211

O.
O. O. O.

No reSponse = 22

137

TABLE 60.-Part-time positions secured through the use of the Univer~
sity Placement Bureau by married and unmarried male undergraduates

 

 

Did Not

 

 

 

 

E Secured a Job : Secure a Job Total
: N : % Q N % N : %
Married Q 26 Q 16.25 : 134 83.75 160 : 100.00
unmarried Q 18 Q 11.69 Q 136 88.31 154 : 100.00
Total Q 44 14.01 Q 270 85.99 314 : 100.00
No response = 22

TABLE 61.—-Satisfaction with and reputation of the services of the
University Placement Bureau among married and unmarried.male under—

 

 

 

 

graduates
: : Fairly : Somewhat : Very
: Very Sat-: Satis- : Unsatis- : Unsatis-: Total
: isfactory: factory : factory : factory :
: N : % : N : % : N : % : N : % : N : %
Married Q 48 :33.80: 69 :48.59: 18 :12.68: 7 Q4.93Q 142 Q 100.00

Unmarried:

Total

2
O

47 Q33.57Q

74 Q52.86Q 16 Q11.43Q 3

:2.l4: 140 : 100.00

 

95 Q33.68Q

response =

143 Q50.71Q 34 Q12.06Q 10

54

100.00

Q3.55Q 282

138

TABLE 62.-Knowledge among married.male undergraduates that wives of
married students are eligible to use the University Counseling Center

 

 

 

 

Knew This : Did Not Know This : Total
N Q % Q N Q 2 Q N Q g
36 Q 22.64 Q 123 Q 77.36 Q 159 Q 100.00

 

No response = 9

TABLE 63.--Knowledge that wives of married students may use the
University Placement Bureau to secure part-time employment

 

 

 

 

Knew This : Did Not Know This Q Total
N : % : N : % : N : %
77 Q 48.12 Q 83 Q 51.88 160 ° 100.00

 

No reSponse = 8

139

¢ u mmsommmp oz

 

 

 

 

oo.ooa.4aa.~a.a “Ha ”68.6H new .oo.mm “Hr .mm.oa “ma “am.ma "mm .om.~a “Hm “om.ma "Hm . H8669
oo.ooaumm .mo.m “a "60.6 "N "am.am “NH “mo.m “H .6H.ma “m “em.am “m .ma.ma "a ”aamaaoa no mm
oo.ooa.am “Ha.m "m "m6.am um .ma.ma “a .Hm.ma "m .mm.ea “a “Hm.ma “m "Ha.m “m ”enema am 1 mm
oo.ooaumm .mm.» .m .ma.ma “a .ma.mm "a .86.m ”a “ma.ma .6 “mm.oa “a “mo.Hm "m “aaaaa rm Q mm
oo.ooa.6m “ma.e “a “am.aa “OH "Hm.mm "ma .46.aa ”Ha .m~.¢a “m .mH.a ”a “Ha.oa “a . aaeao 66 em
m u z u R u z u R u z u R u z u R u z u R u z u m u z u m u z u
m m ...... m m m m m m ...
.48.. ...... “an... " an... “an. -..... mm“.
u . “ IHEmm u . u u . n u u

 

 

 

1
I

1000‘1l1‘}

 

mmpmuvmhwhmocd made vofihpms macaw coapmmfiooo m_hm£pmm op

0mm mo QHSchfipwHomll.do mum<e

140

TABLE 65.-~Relationship of age to formal education of the fathers of
married male undergraduates

 

 

Age

Some :
:College or:
: Graduate :

High
School
: Graduate

9 - 12

Y are Total
e

.
--o--~-—-—-

 

 

>—O-—-»-. -. .

 

p... n.

01
,0

g N Q N N Q g Q N Q

 

27 or older

N
\O

Q50.00:

25 — 26 years:

23 - 24 years:

Q24.32Q

22 or younger: :22.86:

Q 56

Total

No reSponse

TABLE 66.--Relationship of

Q24.32Q 10

Q 30 Q Q

8 9 Q15.52Q 12 Q20.69Q 58 Q100.00

7 Q18.92Q

Q13.79Q

9 Q24.32Q 12 Q32.44Q 37
11 Q29.73Q 37

16 Q45.71Q 35

Q100.00

Q27.03Q 7 Q18.92Q Q100.00

3 Q 8.57Q 8 Q22.86Q Q100.00

Q167 Q

C O O O O O O
0

age to the high school curriculum of

married.male‘undergraduates

 

 

College
: Preparatory

-

General

:B sin 35 r
: u e 0 Total

Technical

 

in 76

o. no 0. O.

: 29
— 26 yearsQ 27

27 or older
25
23

22

— 24 yearsQ 27 Q

or youngerQ 28

: 54.72 :
§ 71.05 i
. 77.14 Q
Q 70.00 Q

3%

N :

53 Q 100.00
38 Q 100.00
35 Q 100.00

%

N
4.00..

O. D. C. .0 D. O. O. O.

O. ’0. O. .0 O.

Q 45.28 : . . Q . . .Q
Q 21.06 Q : 7.89Q
: 22.86 Q . . Q . . .Q
17.50 g 5

Q

Q 12.50Q 40 Q 100.00

 

O
O

Q111 Q

Total

47 Q Q Q 166 Q

 

No reSponse 2

TABLE 67.-Relationship of age to hours worked each week by married
male undergraduates

 

 

 

 

Q T l - 20 Q 20 or More Q
: None Hours : Hours : Total
Age : ° :
: N : % : N : % : N ° % : N : %
27 or older : 13 : 22.41 : 25 : 43.10 : 20 : 34.49 : 58 : 100.00

I:

25 - 26 yearsQ 18 Q 47.37 Q 9 Q 23.68 . Q 28.95 Q 38 Q 100.00

23 - 24 yearsQ 14

O
O

22 or younger: 12

37.84 Q 13 Q 35.13 Q 10 Q 27.03 Q 37 Q 100.00
36.36 Q 14 42.42 Q 7

O. 0.
I. O. 00

21.22 : 33 : 100.00

 

Total Q 47

61

O. O. O. O. O. U.
C

Q 48 Q Q 166

 

No response = 2

.oohsom
moo comp mpoE_Eopm msoosfl po>fioooh mpsmuspm meE omdmomn ROOH Hw¢0p po: 06 mowNpCoohomd

H u omcommon oz

 

 

 

 

era 4 men n a on a a ma 4 . 60H. 2 ma . . cad. . em “ Hapoe
mm 2 ea ”or.mm . m "om.m . H "ma.ae . mm "mm.aa . m “me.ae . mm "afl.am . ma “ammaaoa 66 mm
am . om .mo.em . OH .ma.am . m .6H.N6 . mm .mm.oa “ a .am.oe . om .mo.am . m “aaaoa em Q mm
am . mm “Nada . a “8.8. . am "8:3 " rm uohm “ H "65.8 " Hm .mmém “ a “269” am Q 3.
mm “ mud “3.8 4 NH "Sumo ” em “No.3 4 am "Sun a m ”N93 4 mm “8.0 a a u .836 .8 am
m a: H>u “ u u n u u u u u u u u “
Ham... :1. cf. .1. ”a”. :... m...
. m u u u u u “ mm¢
" mwsfi>mm " u x963 “ m u u u
. . . . . I “ eschew “ xhoz “ mesonmm “
H369 mmwwhwafiwwmmada H mam 3%..me . 6.63.4 a 25.47648 . 6.6.83.5 .

 

 

i
:

.wmmpmsvmnmnqu:
mama Umfinpma mo oaoocfl one mo whoa no sundownmco mo mmOASOm amp on own mo QHSmCOHpmHomII.mo mqmde

143

TABLE 69.-~Relationship of age to major sources of problems among
married.male undergraduates

 

 

: Educa- :Persona1-: Voca- : Finan-:

: tional : Social : tional : cial : Health: Total

Age

 

 

Q NQ % Q N Q % Q NQ % Q NQ % Q NQ % Q N Q %
27 or older Q21Q36.85Q 5 Q 8.77Q 5Q 8.77Q23Q40.35Q 3Q5.26Q 57Q100.00
25 — 26 yearsQ15Q40.54Q 1 Q 2.70Q 1Q 2.70Q19Q51.35Q 1Q2.70Q 37Q100.00
23 — 24 yearsQ10Q27.78Q 1 Q 2.78Q 6Q16.67Q17Q47.22Q 2Q5.55Q 36Q100.00
22 or youngerQ 6Q20.00Q 2 Q 6.67Q 1Q 3.33Q21Q70.00Q..Q. . Q 30Q100.00

 

O. .0 O. .0

Total Q52: : 9 : :13Q Q80

Q 6Q Q160Q

No response = 8

TABLE 70.-Relationship of age to attendance at University cultural-
intellectual activities among married male undergraduates

 

 

. Never : Rarely to Often
Age i . . . I
: N : % : N % : N

Total

 

N

 

41 : 100.00

.0 O. O. I.
O C. O. O.

27 or older Q 21 Q 51.22 20 Q 48.78
25 - 26 years Q 19 Q 57.58 Q 14 Q 42.42 Q 33 Q 100.00
23 - 24 years Q 10 Q 37.04 Q 17 Q 62.96 Q 27 Q 100.00

22 or younger Q 16 Q 53.33 Q 14 Q 46.67 Q 30 Q 100.00

Total Q 66 Q Q 65 Q Q 131

No response = 37

144

TABLE 71.-~Re1ationship of age to attendance at off-campus cultural-
intellectual activities among married male undergraduates

 

 

 

 

 

Never Q Rarely to Often Q Total
Age Q ° Q : Q :
: N : % : N . % : N : %

27 or older Q 37 Q 75.51 Q 12 24.49 Q 49 100.00
25 — 26 years Q 24 Q 72.73 Q 9 27.27 Q 33 100.00
23 — 24 years Q 20 Q 60.61 Q 13 39.39 Q 33 100.00
22 or younger Q 20 Q 66.67 Q 10 33.33 Q 30 100.00

Total Q 101 Q Q 44 Q 145

 

No response - 23

TABLE 72.-~Re1ationship of age to attendance at University social-
recreational activities among male married undergraduates

 

 

 

 

 

Never : Rarely t0 Often : Total
Age 3 . f . f .
: N : % : N : % : N : %
27 or older Q 33 57.89 Q 24 Q 42.11 Q 57 . 100.00
25 - 26 years Q 23 60.53 Q 15 Q 39.47 Q 38 ° 100.00
23 - 24 years Q 11 30.55 Q 25 Q 69.45 Q 36 100.00
22 or younger Q 13 37.14 Q 22 Q 62.85 Q 35 100.00
Total 80 86 Q Q 166

 

No reSponse = 2

145

TABLE 73.-~Re1ationship of age to membership in University student
organizations among male married undergraduates

 

 

: Nonemember Member : Total

 

Age

27 or older Q 24 Q 42.86 Q 32 Q 57.14 Q 56 Q 100.00
25 — 26 years Q 14 Q 35.90 Q 25 Q 64.10 Q 39 Q 100.00

36 Q 100.00

23-24yearsQ 12 Q 33.33Q 24 Q 66.67

 

22 or younger Q 13 Q 39.39 Q 20 Q 60.61 Q 33 Q 100.00
Total Q 63 Q Q 101 Q Q 164 Q

 

No response = 4

TABLE 74.--Relationship of age to participation in religious activi-
ties among married male undergraduates

 

 

Below Average Above Average

Participation : Participation Total

Age

 

N : % : N : % : N : %

 

27 or older Q 41 Q 70.69 Q 17 Q 29.31 Q 58 Q 100.00
25 - 26 years Q 29 Q 74.36 Q 10 Q 25.64 Q 39 Q 100.00
23 — 24 years Q 23 Q 62.16 Q 14 Q 37.84 Q 37 Q 100.00

22 or younger : 24 : 75.00 Q 8 Q 25.00 Q 32 Q 100.00

 

Total Q 117 49 166

O. C. O. O.
O.

.0 .0 .0 O.

O. O. .0

O. O. .0 O.

No reSponse = 2

146

TABLE 75.--Re1ati0nship of age to attendance at intercollegiate
athletic events among married male undergraduates

 

 

: Low Attendance : High Attendance : Total

 

Age : . : : :
N : % : N : % : N : %

 

27 or older Q 47 Q 81.03 Q 11 Q 18.97 Q 58 Q 100.00
25 _ 26 years Q 31 Q 81.58 Q 7 Q 18.42 Q 38 Q 100.00
23 - 24 years Q 15 Q 42.86 Q 20 Q 57.14 Q 35 Q 100.00

22 or younger Q 15 Q 44.12 Q 19 Q 55.87 Q 34 Q 100.00

 

Total Q 108 Q Q 57 Q Q 165

No response = 3

TABLE 76.-~Relationship of age to participation in University leisure
time athletics among male married undergraduates

 

 

. Low Q High Q
Participation : Participation Total
Age : :

 

N

N Q 5 Q N Q % Q N

27 or older Q 44 Q 77.19 Q 13 Q 22.81 Q 57 Q 100.00

25 - 26 years Q 28 Q 73.68 Q 10 Q 26.32 38 Q 100.00
23 — 24 years Q 21 Q 55.26 Q 17 Q 44.74 Q 38 Q 100.00

22 or younger Q 16 Q 45.71 Q 19 Q 54.29 Q 35 Q 100.00

 

Total Q 109 : Q 59 168 Q

 

No reSponse = 0

147

TABLE 77.--Re1ationship of age to utilization of the University
Counseling Center among married male undergraduates

 

 

O. .9
0.

Used : Did Not Use : Total

 

 

27 or older Q 8 Q 14.81 100.00

46 Q 85.19 Q 54
25 - 26 years Q 5 Q 13.16 Q 33

86.84 Q 38 Q 100.00

00

23 - 24 years 22.22 Q 28 Q 77.78 Q 36 Q 100.00

22 or younger Q 10 Q 32.26 Q 21 Q 67.74 Q 31 Q 100.00

Total Q 31 Q Q 128 Q Q 159

 

No reSponse = 9

TABLE 78.-—Re1ationship of age to the utilization of the University
Health Center by male married undergraduates

 

: Used : Did Not Use Total

 

Age

 

27 or older Q 32 60.38

0 O. O

21 Q 39.62 Q 53 Q 100.00

25 — 26 years Q 17 Q 44.74 Q 21 Q 55.26 Q 38 Q 100.00

K;

23 - 24 years 22 Q 64.70 Q 35.30 Q 34 Q 100.00

22 or younger 20 Q 60.61 Q 13 Q 39.39 Q 33 Q 100.00

 

Total 158 Q

.0 O. O. O.

91 Q - 67

No response = 10

148

TABLE 79.-Use of the University Counseling Center by married and
unmarried male undergraduates according to records of the Counseling
Center

Used Did Not Use Total

 

 

2'.
N

168
168

Unmarried 26.19 124 73.81 100.00

Total 62 18.45 274 81.55 336 100.00

.0 O. o. 00 o. 00 00 I. o. .0 o. o. 00 O.
O. O. O. O. .0 O. O. 00 O. 0. O.
O. I. O. O. O. O. O. 00 O. O. O. O. O. O.
00 00 00 00 00 o. o. 00 o. o. no
0. O. O. O. I. O. O. O. O. o. I.

 

TABLE 80.--Primary problem areas of counseling interviews of married
and unmarried male undergraduates as classified by the counselors

 

 

: , , Educa- :
:Adm1213' Academic tional- :Personal- Other Total
:tratlve Vocationah Soc1a1

 

N

Z
N
39.
2.."

O. O. O. 00
BR
2

O. O. O.
N
Z

.0 O. .0 0.
b8.

0 O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O.

. 8 .
Married 6:33.33 2:11.11 4:22.22 5:27.78 1:5.56 18:100.00
Unmarried 14Q31.82 4Q 9.09 20Q45.46 4Q 9.09 2Q4.S4 44Q100.00

 

20Q32.26

24Q38.71

9Q14.51

62:100.00

ON»
CD

.0 O. O. O. O. O. .0 O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. 0.

Total 9.

O. Q. I. O. O. O. O. .0 O. O. O. O. O. O. .0 O.
O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O.

O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. I. O. O.
O. I. O. O. .0 O. O. .0 I. O. O. .0

O\
O. .0 O. O

3Q4.84

 

149

TABLE 81.-—Cognitive-attitudinal emphasis in the counseling inter-
views of married and unmarried.male undergraduates as classified by
the counselors

 

o ”..5, ...--J

“Any

 

 

 

 

: C : CA : AC : A : Total
: N : % : N : % : N : % : N : : N : %
Married : 11 : 61.11: 3 : 16.67: 4 : 22.22:. .: : l8 : 100.00
Unmarried : 26 : 59.09: 14 : 31.82: 3 : 6.82: 1 : 2.27: 44 : 100.00
Total : 37 : 59.68: 17 : 27.42: 7 : 11.29: 1 : 1.61: 62 : 100.00
C = cognitive or informational level
CA = both cognitive and attitudinal, cognitive predominant
AC : both cognitive and attitudinal, attitudinal predominant
A = primarily attitudinal

TABLE 82.-4Married and unmarried male undergraduates who applied for
financial aid at the University Financial Aids Office according to
the records

 

 

 

 

 

i Received Aid 3 Regigvgoiid : Total
Married Q 18 Q 52.94 Q 16 Q 47.06 Q 34 Q 100.00
Unmarried Q 9 Q 45.00 Q 11 Q 55.00 Q 20 Q 100.00
Total Q 27 Q 50.00 Q 27 Q 50.00 Q 54 : 100.00

 

APPENDIX 11

Dear Student:

This questionnaire is part of a research study designed to
determine to what extent students at Michigan State University
participate in out-of-class activities and utilize selected
services provided for them, The results of this study will be
reported to the appropriate administrators in hopes that the
implications for improvement will be followed.

The information you give on this questionnaire will be
reported in conjunction with the responses of similar students.
Your answers will be confidential and no one except the writer
will know your name. It is, however, necessary for you to give
your name so I can determine which students have returned their
questionnaires. Filling out this questionnaire does not Obligate
you to any further participation in this study.

Because most of the questions require no writing, it should
not take long to complete this questionnaire. Please read each
question carefully and answer it as accurately and frankly as
possible. Answer all of the questions even though you may have
to make a rough estimate on some of them.

 

In a study of this type, it is very important to get a large
proportion of the questionnaires returned. This information is
very important to me as it comprises part of the data for my
doctoral dissertation. I am hoping you will be willing to cooperate
by completing this questionnaire as soon as you can and returning it
in the enclosed stamped envelope.

Thank you for'your c00peration.
Sincerely yours,

Norman T. Oppelt
Graduate Student
College of Education

151

llllilllllllllfll.hllllvllli1lalignibllllliilll!

' ' l52 " . . . . ' . \
STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE (Married; Students) ‘

Directions: Please answer the following questions by PRINTING the information on the line indicated or selecting the ONE
correct response by checking the apropriate box or line. PLEASE ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS EVEN THOUGH YOU
MAY HAVE TO MAKE A ROUGH ESTIMATE ON SOME OF THEM.

BIOGRAPHICAL DATA

 

 

 

 

1. Name .
Last First Middle Student No.
2. Local address
Street or box City
3. Home address
Street City State
4. How long have you been married to your present wife?
Years Months
5. Place a check in the box opposite the number of term hours your wife has taken during each term this year.
Fall 1959 Winter 1960 Spring 1960 Fall 1959 Winter 1960 Spring 1960
Not enrolled E] E] C] Enrolled for 7-11 hours E] C] D
Enrolled for 1-6 hours E] Cl C] Enrolled for 12 or more hours E] E] E]
6. How much college education does your wife have? Check one. [:1 None

El 146 term hours [I 47-92 term hours I] 93-138 term hours E] Over 138 term hours E] College graduate

7. How many children do you and your wife have? Check one.
D None 1:] One [3 Two [3 Three [:1 Four E] Five or more

FAMILY BACKGROUND

1. How much formal education did your father have? Check one.
[:1 None El 1-8 years [:1 9-12 years [:1 High school graduate

I. C] Some college [:1 College graduate [j Post-graduate or professional degree

 

2. What is (was) your father’s principal occupation? (Write the name of the occupation.)

3. What is (was) your mother’s principal occupation?

 

4. As closely as you can estimate, what is you parent’s total yearly income? Check one.

D $042999 C] $3000-$3999 El $4000—$4999 El $5000-$5999
D $6000—$7999 C] $8000-$9999, E] $10,000-$11,999 E] $12,000 and up

5. What is the population of the town in which you lived while attending high school? Check one.
[:1 Farm C] Under 5000 persons E] 5000-25,000 persons [325,000-100,000 persons [I over 100,000 persons

6. What was your parents’ attitude toward your attending college? Check one. C] Strongly encouraged me to attend college.
C] Encouraged me to attend college. ' [:1 Neither encouraged nor discouraged me.
E] Somewhat discouraged me from attending college. [I Strongly discouraged me from attending college.

7. Geographically, where is the town you lived 'in while attending high school located? Check one.
. . [3 Within a 5 mile radius 03M.S.U. E] Within a 35 mile radius of M.S.U.
[I In Michigan but more than 35 miles from M.S.U. L'] Outside the state of Michigan.

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

1. What type of high school program did you follow? Check one.
D College preparatory D General program C] Technical or trade E] Business or clerical

2. How many persons were in your high school graduating class ? Check one.
[:1 Under 50 C] 50-199 [I 200-299 D 300-399 C] 400-499 C] 500-599 E] 600 or more

l

3.

4.

.153

In comparison to others'in your high school, how much do you think you participated in high school extra-curricular ac-

' fivihe's?‘ Check one. J: .' .', [3 Above average [I Average E] Below average
a . .. . ,

In comparison to others in your high school, how frequently did you have dates with girls?
E] Above average [I Average C] Below average

FINANCIAL INFORMATION

1.

10.

11.

What proportion have the sources listed below contributed toward paying your expenses? This includes all the expenses
of you, your wife, and any children, during the current school year. (If you haven’t been enrolled or married the entire
year, base your answer on the part of the year you have been enrolled and married.) Check the box under the approximate
proportion.

 

None 54 1,5 94 all None 14 $9 94 all

Your parent’s support Cl C] E] El [:1 Scholarship aid (all types) [I] [j [j E] C]
Your part-time work C] [:1 E] Cl C] GI. Bill C] C] [j E] I]
Wife’s parent’s support I] D E] D D Other (Specify)
Wife’s work C] E] E] E] E] e El E1 [:1 D E]
How many hours per week have you averaged working (for pay) during the current school year? Check one.
C] None C] 1-10 hours C] 11-20 hours [:1 21-30 hours C] 31-40 hours [1 Over 40 hours
Check the terms during this school year that you worked for your board and/or room.

Did not work Worked Did not work Worked Did not work Worked
Fall 1959 E] E] Winter 1960 E] [3 Spring 1960 E] 1:]

Check the statement which describes your ownership of an automobile.
C] I do not own nor am I buying an automobile. [:1 I am buying an automobile on time payments. [:1 I own an automobile.

How many persons, including yourself, are at least 50% financially dependent upon you? Check one.
[3 None B One 1:] Two [3 Three [:1 Four E] Five or more

How much money did you and your wife spend for your total expenses during last term (Winter term 1960) ? If you
weren’t married all of last term, try to estimate what the term would have cost on the basis of what you spent for a
proportion of the term or what you are spending this term. Please answer this question even though you have to make
a rough estimate. Check one.

C] Less than $600 [:1 $600-$799 [2] $800-$999 [:1 $1000—$1199

[1 $1200-$1399 C] $1400-$1599 [:1 $1600-$1799 I] 51800-31999 E] Over $2000

What is your present financial indebtedness? Check one. .
C] $0-$50 E] $50-$100 C] $100-$300 E] $300-$500 C] Over $500

How much money do you expect to be earning 10 years after graduation? Check one.
CI 3300044999 [I 35000-36999 I] WOOD-$8999 C] $9000-$10,999 E] $11,000-$12,999 D $13,000 or more

Rate the following possible sources of problems by placing a number 1 opposite the area which has been the greatest
source of problems to you during the current school year. Place a 2 opposite the second greatest source of problems, a
3 by the t 'rd, etc., until you reach 5 which will be the area of least problems during the past year.

C] Educational C] Personal-social [3 Vocational [J Financial E] Health

How many hours per week has your wife averaged working outside your home for pay during the current school year?
If you haven’t been married all of this year, answer by giving the average for the time you have been married. Check

one.
[:1 None [Z] 1-10 hours [:1 11-20 hours I] 21-30 hours C] 31-40 hours [3 Over 40 hours

Has your wife done any type of part-time work for pay at home (baby sitting, ironing, etc.) at any time during the
current school year? Check one. C] Yes 1:] No

M.S.U. STUDENT ACTIVITIES

Directions: This section is concerned with the frequency with which you have attended certain activities during the current
school year. Place a check in the box under the response that best describes your attendance at each of the activities listed.

M.S.U. Cultural-Intellectual Activities

1.

Never Rarely Occasionally 19:33:31;
A. Plays and other dramatic productions C] [:1 D D
B. Lecture-Concert Series CI [3 Cl C]
C. Musical presentations Cl C] D D
D. Visit Kresge Art Center [:1 Cl E] C]
E. Visit M.S.U. Museum E] " E] Cl C]
F. Visit science displays on campus E] D C] E]

1511
2. If there are any of the cultural- intellectual activities listed above which you would have liked to have attended: more ‘
frequently, list them below. If there are none, check “none”.

s ‘ ~-
\ , . C _
I ‘ ' ~ . .—_. - ""

 

 

 

C] None

3. What was the major factor preventing you from attending more cultuial- intellectual activities? (If you desired to do so,
check the major factor.)

. .0 Lack of money [I Lack of time E] Lack of information about” time, place, etc. C] Other (specify)

 

4. 'In relation to your own attitudes and interests, how would you rate the provisions at M.S.U. for the cultural-intellectual
activities listed in question 1? Check one.

.0 Very satisfactory [j Fairly satisfactory E] Somewhat unsatisfactory E] Very unsatisfactory
5. Attendance at Off-Campus Cultural-Intellectual Events and Facilities

Place a check in the box under the response that best describes your attendance at the off-campus events and facilities,
,‘listed below, during the current school year.

Often or Often or

Never Rarely Occasionally Regularly Never Rarely Occasionally Regularly
.A. Theatrical productions C] [j E] C] D. Visit art displays Cl C] E] D
B. Musical productions D [j E] D E. Lectures or formal discussions [I E] D [I
- ..d. Visit museums [j [:1 E] C] F. Art or educational films [:1 Cl Cl C]
I

M.S.U. SOCIAL-RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES

1. Using the scale at the right below, place a check in the box under the response that best describes the frequency with

which you attended these M.S.U. actvities.
Often
Never Rarely Occasionally Regulafi;

A. M.S.U. All-University dances (J-Hop, Senior Ball, etc.)

B. Parties with other students

C; "Fraternity social events

D.‘ Residence Hall social functions

E. Social activities with faculty members
‘I‘If', Special campus activities (International Festival, Spartacade, Water Carnival, etc.)
‘ G. Student Union social-recreational facilities (Grill, lounges, game rooms, etc.)

H. Play cards or similar games with other students

:1, Spend an evening with another married student couple, talking, playing cards, etc.

UDDDDDUDU
UDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDUD
UDDDDDDDE}

2 If there are any °f the activities listed above that you WOUId like to have attended more frequently list them in order of
_ *' “preference below. If there are none check the word “none”.

 

f —_‘: [3 None

3-‘.-What was the major factor preventing you from attending more social-recreational activities if you desire to do so?

one. 9
U Lack of money [3 Lack of time C] Not invited
- [:1 Lack of information concerning time, place, etc. [3 Other (Specify)

 

O

4 In relation to your own interests and attitudes, how would you rate the recreational-social activities and facilities at
M. S ..U ? Consider only those activities listed in question 1. Check one. - . ' . ._

U Very satisfactory I] Fairly satisfactory ' E] Somewhat unsatisfactory D Very unsatisfactory

155 . .

5. 'u-NON MICHIGAN STATE SOCIAL-RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES. Place a check in the box the response that
best- -hscr1bes your participation in or attendance at the following activities during the currentmc 001 year.
.. ‘ ' . ' ~ . Never Rarely Occasionally 19:21:13;
A. Non-Michigan State dances D E] El ' ‘ U
B. Parties with friends other than students E] E] Cl C]
C. Visit parents or other relatives E] Cl C] C]
D. Visit friends who are not students for
an evening of cards, conversation, etc. I] [:1 C] C]
E. Watch television E Cl E] El
_ F. Attend off-campus movies E] C] E] C]
G. Go to local taverns, bars, etc. [:1 E] E] D
H. Go to Kewpees, Short Course, or similar places D E] C] U
"1. Other (Specify) U U Cl C]
6. If your wife isn’t a student, check the terms you purchased a M. S. U. Activity book for her.
D Fall 1959 C] Winter and Spring 1960
CAMPUS ORGANIZATIONS ' .

1. Place a check in the box under the response that best describes the degree to which you participated in each of the

following types of organizations during the current school year.
No membership Member in Participating Ollieer or

or participation name only Member Committee chair.
A. All-Univ. Student Govt. (all branches) [3 D E] C]
B. Social fraternity Cl Cl E] C]
C. Honorary fraternity Cl E] C] D
D. Campus political groups E] E] E] C]
E. Service organizations E] Cl C] E]
F. Dramatics groups C] D C] C]
G. Special interest groups (Ski Club, Rifle Club, etc.) ' C] C] D E]
H. Professional Fraternity or Club [3 El E] E]
I. Speech groups C] E] Cl [3
J. Veteran’s club E] E] Cl C]
K. Campus Religious groups E] E] Cl C]

v

' If there are any of the above types of organizations you would have liked to join or participate in more durin this school

year, list them in order of preference below. (If you did not want to participate more than you did, chec the word

“none”. )

 

 

E] None

 

If you would have liked to participate more in some campus organization, what was the major factor preventing you from
doing so? Check one.

C] Lack of money [:1 Lack of time [:1 Not invited
[I] Not qualified El Other (Specify)

 

«On the basis of your own interests and attitudes, how would you rate your Opportunities to participate in campus organ-

izations of your choice at M. S. U. ? Check one.

~ El Very satisfactory E] Fairly satisfactory E] Somewhat unsatisfactory ‘ C] Very unsatisfactory

OFF-CAMPUS ORGANIZATIONS

' D. Political groups
'1'}. Labor union " " 1

.Place a check in the box under the response that best describes your degree of participation in the following off-campus

organizations durin the current school ear.
8' y No membership Member in Participating Ofleer or
or participation name only Member Committee chain.

A. Lodge or fraternal order
B. Veteran’s organization
C- Professional organization

‘

DDD-DUUDU

F. Service organization (Lions, Rotary, etc.)
G. Special interest groups (camera club, garden club, etc.)
If Religious organizations

DDDDDDDD
UUUDDDDD
DDDDQDDD

156

RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES

O 1

1. What‘ is your religious preference? Check one. - ' _, .,. .

C] Catholic [I] Protestant E] Jewish [:1 Other E] None

Place a check in the box under the response that best describes the frequency with which you participate in the follow-
ing activities.

Never Rarely Occasionally 13233;
A. Church attendance Cl Cl C1 C1
B. Attend M.S.U. Memorial Chapel services E! E] D E]
C. Attend young people’s church group E] El E] U
D. Attend church social activities E] E] El D
E. Attend Sunday school or adult classes [:1 E] El [:1
F. Give financial aid to the church E] D E] U
G. Attend religious student centers [:1 E] El [:1

On the basis of your own interests and needs, how would you rate the provisions for religious activities and facilities at
M. S. U. Check one.

El Very satisfactory [j Fairly satisfactory E] Somewhat unsatisfactory [:1 Very unsatisfactory

ATHLETIC ACTIVITIES

1.

97!

Place a check under the response that best describes your attendance at M.S.U. inter-collegiate athletic events during the
current school year.

Fall term 1959 Never Rarely Occasionally 3:31:31; Never Rarely Occasionally ge‘gtfill‘afi;
A. Football [:1 Cl C] C] E. Indoor track [:1 Cl C] .U.
B. Cross country track [:1 E] E] C] F. Swimming D E] Cl C]
C. Soccer [:1 [j [:1 [I G. Wrestling E] E] C] C]

Winter term 1960 Spring term 1960
A. Basketball E] [I] [:1 E] A. Baseball E] [I] [:1 E]

- B. Fencing Cl E] D C] B. Golf Cl E] [:1 Cl
C. Gymnastics [:1 E] ' [:1 [j C. Tennis Cl C] D E]
D. Hockey [I C] E] E] D. Track D [I] E] C]

If there are any of the above athletic events you would have liked to have attended more frequently than you did during
the school year, list them in your order of preference below. If there are none you wanted to attend more frequently,
check the word “none”.

 

 

D None

 

If goghwcfiuld have liked to attend athletic events more frequently, what was the major factor preventing you from doing
so ec one.

1:] Lack of money E] Lack of time E] Lack of information concerning time, place, etc.
C] No one to go with [j Other (Specify)

 

In relation to your interests, how would you rate your opportunity to attend M.S.U.’s intercollegiate athletic events?
Check one.
C] Very satisfactory D Fairly satisfactory E] Somewhat unsatisfactory E] Very unsatisfactory

Place a check in the box under the response that best describes your participation in each of the following athletic
activities during the current school year. ,

Never . Rarely Occasionally 35:11:31;
A. Attend intramural athletic events as a spectator. [j E] E] D
B. Participate in organized intramural athletics. E] C] C] E]
C. Participate in informal leisure-time athletics. E] El Cl C!
D. Utilize the athletic facilities 5.5M: S:U. ‘ . . "
. (Men’ 8 Intramural Bldg. ., Golf Course, etc.) C] D D . Cl

I ill .1 '1. I S 1'" III I IV I I [III I‘ ’01., I

I ,
STUDENT SERVICES - ' 157

The purpose of this section is to determine whether or not you have used certain. services provided for students at M. S. U
during the current school year and how well you were satisfied with these services. Check the response that best indicates
your use of or satisfaction with the service during the 1959- 60 school year. Please answer all questions. IF YOU HAVE NOT
PERSONALLY USED A SERVICE, ANSWER ON THE BASIS OF WHAT KNOWLEDGE YOU HAVE OR WHAT
OTHER STUDENTS HAVE SAID CONCERNING THEIR SATISFACTION. in

COUNSELING CENTER (2nd floor of Student Services Building)

8

L Have you been to the M. S..U Counseling Center during this school year to talk to a counselor? D Yes D No

2. How satisfactory do you feel the M. S.U. Counseling Center is in helping students solve their problems or giving them
advice? (Circle your choice if you are answering on the basis of another student's experience?) Check one.

D Very satisfactory D Fairly satisfactory D Somewhat unsatisfactory D Very unsatisfactory

3. Did you know that even though your wife may not be a student, she can go to the M. S. U. Counseling Center if she desires
counseling? Check one. D Yes ' D No

FINANCIAL AIDS OFFICE

1. Have you sought financial aid from the Financial Aids Office in the Men’s Division on the first floor of the Student Sela,
'- Vices Building during the current school year? Check one. - C] Yes C] N0

e .

2. How would you rate the services provided by the Financial Aids Office? Check one. (If you are answering on the basis of
another student’s experiences, circle your choice.) .

EFVery satisfactory D Fairly satisfactory D Somewhat unsatisfactory D Very unsatisfactory

SCHOLARSHIP OFFICE ‘

1. Have you sought financial aid through the services of the Scholarship Oifice,o on the second floor of the Student Services
Building, during the current school year? Check one. C] Yes D N0

2. How would you rate the services provided by the Scholarship Office? Check one. (If you are answering on the basis of
another student’s experience, circle your choice.)

'D'Very satisfactory D Fairly satisfactory D Somewhat unsatisfactory D Very unsatisfactory

OLIN HEALTH CENTER

1. vHave you been to Olin Health Center for medical care or advice during the current school year? Check fine.
D Yes D No

2. How would you rate the services of the Olin Health Center? Check one. (If you are answering on the basis of another
.. Student’s experience, circle your choice.)

D Very satisfactory D Fairly' satisfactory D Somewhat unsatisfactory D Very unsdtisfactory

3. What type(s) of accident or sickness insurance do you have?
D M.S.U. Student Insurance D Other medical insurance (Blue Cross, etc.) D None

M. S. U._' PLACEMENT BUREAU (lst floor of the Student Services Building)

1. Have you used the services of the M. S. U. Placement Bureau to seek part-time employment during the current school year?
(This includes the job listings in the Placement Bureau.) Check one. D Yes D No

2.« Have you secured part-time employment this year through the aid of the Placement Bureau? (Aid includes the use of
job. listing or any other assistance you received.) D Yes D N o
g .

3. How would you rate the part-time employment services of the M.S.U. Placement Bureau? (If you are answering on the
basis of other student’s experience circle your choice.) Check one.

D Very satisfactory , D Fairly satisfactory D Somewhat unsatisfactory D Very unsatisfactory
, 4‘ 3 3' "'1 ‘1' e .
4. Did you know that even’though your wife may not be a student: she can use the M. S.U._ Placement Bureau to fi;d- 5art-
time employment? Check one. D Yes “ l] N

III-Y... l I I ‘l' I III III . [III ibI.‘ III.

‘ . _ 158 ,. _ . . _
STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE (unmarried Student) "

. I. .‘f ‘ “1“ .’ ....fih.‘ _.,‘ ‘ ,‘-.. : ....
Directions: Please answer the following questions by PRINTING the" infofiiiation on the line indicated or selecting the ONE

correct response by checking the apropriate box or line. PLEASE ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS EVEN THOUGH YOU
MAY HAVE TO MAKE A ROUGH ESTIMATE ON SOME OF THEM.

BIOGRAPHICAL DATA

 

 

 

1. Name
Last First Middle Student No.
2. Local addresL
Street or box City
3. Home address
- : Street City State

FAMILY BACKGROUND

1.

How much formal education did your father have ? Check one.
D None D 1-8 years D 9-12 years D High school graduate

D Some college D College graduate D Post-graduate or professional degree

EDUCATION AI: BACKGROUND

1.

What is (was) your father’s principal occupation? (Write the name of the occupation.)

 

 

What is (was) your mother’s principal occupation?

As closely as you can estimate, what is you parent’s total yearly income? Check one.
D 30-32999 D 33000-33999 D 34000-34999 D 35000-35999
D 36000-37999 D 38000-39999 D 310,000-311,999 D 312,000 and up

What. is the population Of the town in which you lived while attending high school? Check one.
D Farm D Under 5000 persons D 5000-25,000 persons D25,000-100,000 persons D over 100,000 persons

What was your parents’ attitude toward your attending college ? Check one. D Strongly encouraged me to attend college.
D Encouraged me to attend college. D Neither encouraged nor discouraged me.
D Somewhat discouraged me from attending college. D Strongly discouraged me from attending college.

Geographically, where is the town you lived in while attending high school located? Check one.
D Within a 5 mile radius of M.S.U. D Within a 35 mile radius of M.S.U.
D In Michigan but more than 35 miles from M.S.U. D Outside the state Of Michigan.

*-

What type of high school program did you follow? Check one. ‘
D College preparatory D General program D Technical or trade D Business or clerical

HOW many persons were in your high school graduating class ? Check one.
[3 Under 50 ‘ D 50-199 D 200-299 Cl 300-899 D 400-499 D 500-599 D 600 or more

159

3. In comparison to others in your high school, how much do you think you participated in high school extra-curricular ac-

eg‘. _

tivities? Check one. , . ,3 D Above average I , D Average . ' '. ,, D Below average

4. In comparison to others in your high school, how frequently did you have dates with girls?

FINANCIAL IN FORMATION

1.

D Above average D Average D Below average

_ 6
C

What proportion have the sources below contributed toward paying your total expenses during this school year? (If. you
haven’t been here for the full year, answer on the basis Of the terms you have been enrolled.) Check the closest propor-
tion for each Of the sources.

None 34 34 9% all None 1/4 1,4 64 all
Parent’s support [:1 Cl [:1 [:1 El GI. Bill El 1:] E] [:1 " [:1
Part-time Work D D D D D Other (Specify)
Scholarship aid (all types) D D D D D

 

E] E] El E] El

How many hours per week have you averaged working (for pay) during the current school year? Check one.
D None D 1-10 hours D 11-20 hours D 21-30 hours D 31-40 hours D Over 40 hours
Check the terms during this school year that you worked for your board and/or room.

Did not work Worked Did not work Worked Did not work oWorked

F1111 1959 [:1 [:1 Winter 1960 [:1 a Spring 1960 [3 1:]

Check the statement which describes your ownership Of an automobile.

D.1 I do not own nor am I buying an automobile. D I am buying an automobile on time payments. D I own an automobile.

Iiow many persons, including yourself, are at least 50% financially dependent upon you? Check one.
D None D One D Two D Three D Four D Five or more

i

‘3

How much money did you spend for all Of your expenses including tuition, board, room, books, social activities, automobile,
clothes, etc., during Winter term 1960? (If you don’t have any accurate way to determine this, make an estimate);

U Under 3400 D 3400-3599 D 3600-3799 D 3800-3999 D 31000-31199 D 31200-31399 D 31400 or more

What is your present financial indebtedness? Check one.
D $0.350 D 350-3100 D 3100-3300 D 3300-3500 D Over 3500

How much money do you expect to be earning 10 years after graduation? Check one.
D 33000-34999 D 35000-36999 D 37000-38999 D 39000—310,999 D 311,000-312,999 D 313,000 or more

Rate the following possible sources of problems by placing a number 1 Opposite the area which has been the greatest.
source of roblems to you during the current school year. Place a 2 opposite the second greatest source of problems, a
8 by the third, etc., until you reach 5 which will be the area of least problems during the past year.

D Educational D Personal-social D Vocational ‘ D Financial D Health

M.S.U. STUDENT ACTIVITIES

Directions: This section is concerned with the frequency with which you have attended certain activities during the current
school year. Place a check in the box under the response that best descr1bes your attendance at each Of the activities listed.

M.S.U. Cultural-Intellectual Activities ‘-
1: Never Rarely Occasionally 3:33.31;
i-‘A. Plays and other-dramatic productions E] Cl C! D
'B. Lecture-Concert Series Cl [3 C] D
I. C. Musical presentations C] D D D
D. Visit Kresge Art Center E] D C] E]
E. Visit M.S.U. Museum .. El ' D [:I E]
F. Visit science displays on campus ' D D D D

160

2. If there are any Of the cultural-intellectual activities listed above which you would have liked to have attended more
frequently, list them below. If there are none, check “none”.

 

 

D None

 

3. What was the major factor preventing you from attending more cultural-intellectual activities? (If you desired to do so,
check the major factor.)

D Lack of money D Lack of time D Lack of information about time, place, etc. D Other (specify)

 

4. In relation to your own attitudes and interests, how would you rate the provisions at M.S.U. for the cultural-intellectual
activities listed in question 1? Check one.

D Very satisfactory D Fairly satisfactory D Somewhat unsatisfactory D=rVery unsatisfactory

5. Attendance at Off-Campus Cultural-Intellectual Events and Facilities

Place a check in the box under the response that best describes your attendance at the Off-campus events and facilities,
listed below, during the current school year.

Ofte ten or Often or

Never Rarely Occasionally Regularly Never Rarely Occasionally Regularly
A. Theatrical productions D D D D D. Visit art displays E] E] Cl C]
B. Musical productions D D D D E. Lectures or formal discussions D D D D

. C. Visit museums D D D D F. Art or educational films D D D D

M.S.U. SOCIAL-RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES

1. Using the scale at the right below, place a check in the box under the response that best describes the frequency with

which you attended these M. S. U. actvities.
Of
Never Rarely Occasionally Regina;

A. M.S.U. All-University dances (J -Hop, Senior Ball, etc.)

B. Parties with other students

C. Fraternity social events

D. Residence Hall social functions

E. ,Social activities with faculty members

F. Special campus activities (International Festival, Spartacade, Water Carnival, etc.)

G. Student Union social-recreational facilities (Grill, lounges, game rooms, etc.)

DUDUDDUD
DDDDDDDD
UDDDDDUD
DDDDDDDD

H. Play cards or similar games with other students

‘1-
2.- If there are any of the activities listed above that you would like to have attended more frequently list them in order of
preference below. If there are none check the word “none”.

O

 

 

D None

 

3. What was the major factor preventing you from attending more social-recreational activities if you desire to do so?
Check one.

D Lack of money D Lack Of time D Not invited
D Lack Of information concerning time, place, etc. D Other (Specify)

 

4. In relation to your Own interests and attitudes, how would you rate the recreational-social activities and facilities at
M.S.U.? Consider only those activities listed in question 1. Check one.

"T-"'~'"‘:‘*'* ‘ . 1 .
D Very satisfactory D Fairly satisfactdry ' a" --.D Somewhat unsatisfactory , D Very unsatisfactory

161

5. NON-MICHIGAN STATE SOCIAL-RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES. Place a check in the box under the response that
best describes your participation in or attendance at the following activities during the current school year. ,

, . Often or

. . ' Never ' ‘ ; Rarely _ Occasionally Regularly
A. Non-Michigan State dances D D ‘ D D
B. Parties with friends other than students D D D D
C. Visit parents or other relatives D D D D

_‘ D. Visit friends who are not students for

an evening of cards, conversation, etc. D D D D
E. Watch television D D D D
F. Attend Off-campus movies D D ‘ D D
- G. GO to local taverns, bars, etc. D D D D
H._ GO to Kewpees, Short Course, or similar places D D D D
I. _Other (Specify) D D D D

s
D

CAMPTIS ORGANIZATIONS

1. P i e a check in the box under the response that best describes the degree to which you participated in each of the
fa Owing types Of organizations during the current school year.

No membership Member in Participating Oficer or
or participation name only Member Committee chair.
A. All-Univ. Student Govt. (all branches) D D [:1 D
B. Social fraternity D D D D
C. Honorary fraternity D D D D
1). Campus political groups D D D D
. E. Service organizations D D D D
F. Dramatics groups D D D D
- G. Special interest groups (Ski Club, Rifle Club, etc.) D D D D
H. Professional Fraternity or Club D D D D
I. Speech groups D D D D
J. Veteran’s club D D D D
K. campus Religious groups D D D D

2. If there are any Of the above types of organizations you would have liked to join or participate in more durin this school
year, ’list them in order of preference below. (If you did not want to participate more than you did, chec the word
“none ’ '

 

 

 

D None

3. If you would have liked to participate more in some campus organization, what was the major factor preventing you from
doing so. ? Check one.

0 D Lack Of money D Lack of time D Not invited
”D Not qualified D Other (Specify) '

 

4. 5’ On the basis Of your own interests and attitudes, how would you rate your Opportunities to participate in campus organ-
. izations of your choice at M. S. U. ? Check one.

. D Very satisfactory D Fairly satisfactory D Somewhat unsatisfactory D Very unsatisfactory

OFF-CAMPUS ORGANIZATIONS

Place a check in the box under the response that best describes your degree of participation in the following Off-campus
organizations during the current school year.

No membership Member in Participating Oflcer or
or participation name only Member Committee chair.

Lodge or fraternal order

Veteran’s organization

Professional organization

Political groups

Labor union

Service organization (Lions, Rotary, etc.)

Special interest groups (camera club, garden club, etc.)
Religious organizations

Scarves?
unmanana
auammuuu
.muuuuuun
DDDDDDDD

‘ 162
RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES

1. What is your religious preference? Check one. , ‘
D Catholic ‘ ‘;- D Protestant -~ D Jewish D Other D None

o.’

2. Place a check in the box under the response that best describes the frequency with which you participate in the follow-
ing activities.

Never Rarely Occasionally Iaitfil‘ar‘l;
A. Church attendance D D D D
B. Attend M.S.U. Memorial Chapel services D D D D
C. Attend young people’s church group D D D D‘
D. Attend church social activities D D D D
E. Attend Sunday school or adult classes D D D D
F. Give financial aid to the church ‘ D D D D
G. Attend religious student centers D D D D

3. On the basis of your OWn interests and needs, how .would you rate the provisions for religious activities and facilities at
M.S.U. Check one.

D Very satisfactory D Fairly satisfactory D Somewhat unsatisfactory D Very unsatisfactory

ATHLETIC ACTIVITIES

1. Place a check under the response that best describes your attendance at M.S.U. inter-collegiate athletic events during the
current school year.

Fall term 1959 Never Rarely Occasionally 193mg; Never Rarely Occasionally 1933.31;
A. Football D D D D E. Indoor track D D D D
B. Cross country track D D D D F. Swimming D D D D
C. Soccer D D D D G. Wrestling D D D D

Winter term 1960 Spring term 1960
A. Basketball D D D D A. Baseball D D D D
B. Fencing D D D D B. Golf D D D D
C. Gymnastics D D D D C. Tennis D D D D
D. Hockey D D D D D. Track D D D D

2. If there are any Of the above athletic events you would have liked to have attended more frequently than you did during
ctlfie ichgol yeas, list them in your order Of preference below. If there are none you wanted tO attend more frequently,
ec t e wo “none”. ‘

 

 

D None

 

3. If goghwauld have liked to attend athletic events more frequently, what was the major factor preventing you from doing
so . ec one.

D Lack of money D Lack of time D Lack Of information concerning time, place, etc.
D No one to go with D Other (Specify)

 

4. In relation to your interests, how would you rate your opportunity to 'attend M.S.U.'s intercollegiate athletic events?
Check one.

D Very satisfactory D Fairly satisfactory D Somewhat unsatisfactory D Very unsatisfactory

5. Place a check in the box under the response that best describes your participation in each Of the following athletic
activities during the current school year.

Never Rarely Occasionally 19:35::1;
A. Attend intramural athletic events as a spectator. D D D D
B. Participate in organized intramural athletics. D D D D
C. Participate in informal leisure-time athletics. D D D D
D. Utilize the athletic facilities at M.S.U. '
(Men’s Intramural Bldg., Golf Course, etc.) D D D D

STUDENT SERVICES 163 - ' .-

The purpose of this section is to determine whether or not you have used certain services provided for students at M.S.U.
during the current school year and how well you were satisfied with these services. Check the response that best indicates
your use of or satisfaction with the service during the 1959-60 school year. Please answer all questions. IF YOU HAVE NOT
PERSONALLY USED A SERVICE, ANSWER ON THE BASIS OF WHAT KNOWLEDGE YOU HAVE OR WHAT
OTHER STUDENTS HAVE SAID CONCERNING THEIR SATISFACTION.

COUNSELING CENTER (2nd floor of Student Services Building)
1. Have you been to the M.S.U. Counseling Center during this school year to talk to a counselor? D Yes D NO

2. How satisfactory do you feel the M.S.U. Counseling Center is in helping students solve their problems or giving them
advice? (Circle your choice if you are answering on the basis Of another student’s experience.) Check one.

D Very satisfactory D Fairly satisfactory D Somewhat unsatisfactory D Very unsatisfactory

3. Did you know that even though your wife may not be a student, she can go to the M.S.U. Counseling Center if She desires
counseling? Check one. D Yes D No

FINANCIAL AIDS OFFICE

1. Have you sought financial aid from the Financial Aids Office in the Men’s Division on the first floor of the Student Ser-
vices Building during the current school year? Check one. D Yes D N0

2. How would you rate the services provided by the Financial Aids Office? Check one. (If you are answering on the basis of
another student’s experiences, circle your choice.)

D Very satisfactory D Fairly satisfactory D Somewhat unsatisfactory D Very unsatisfactory

SCHOLARSHIP OFFICE

1. Have you sought financial aid through the services of the Scholarship Office, on the second floor Of the Student Services
Building, during the current school year? Check one. D Yes ‘ D N0

2. How would you rate the services provided by the Scholarship Office? Check one. (If you are answering on the basis of
another student’s experience, circle your choice.)

D Very satisfactory D Fairly satisfactory D Somewhat- unsatisfactory D Very unsatisfactory

OLIN HEALTH CENTER

1. Have you been to Olin Health Center for medical care or advice during the current school year? Check one.
D Yes D NO

2. How would you rate the services Of the Olin Health Center? Check one. (If you are answering on the basis Of another
student’s experience, circle your choice.)

D Very satisfactory D Fairly satisfactory D Somewhat unsatisfactory D Very unsatisfactory

3. What type(s) Of accident or sickness insurance do you have?
D M.S.U. Student Insurance D Other medical insurance (Blue Cross, etc.) D [None

.-

M.S.U. PLACEMENT BUREAU (lst floor of the Student Services Building)

1. Have you used the services Of the M.S.U. Placement Bureau to seek part-time employment during the current school year?
(This includes the job listings in the Placement Bureau.) Check one. D Yes D NO

2. Have you secured part-time employment this year through the aid Of the Placement Bureau? (Aid includes the use Of
job listing or any other assistance you received.) D Yes D NO

3. HOW would you‘ rate the part-time employment services Of the M.S.U. Placement Bureau? (If you are answering on the
basis of other student’s experience circle your choice.) Check one.

D Very satisfactory", D Fairly satisfactory D Somewhat unsatisfactory D Very unsatisfactory

4. Did you know that even though yOUr wife may not be a student, she can use the M.S.U. Placement Bureau to find part-
time employment? Check one. D Yes D NO

1,.
, /’

   

”'lllllllfilulflfljllltfllfllfllfllflllflflfllflllllfl