A DESCNPTN‘E STU’QY; BY Rfifiéfiélfi‘f ARI? SEQ
C}? THE: EKESHMAN STUDEE‘éTS FCEEE W53 A?
ii‘fifl‘iEGAM STATE UNIVERSWY {3N $§LEsZTEfi

CHARACTERESTEQS

Thesis far We 15:29ch cf 23:2. D.
MlCH‘tGAN STEELE UNEVERSH’Y
Larry has $05M:

W52

 

I.
U‘
.

P'C

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY, BY RESIDENCY AND SEX,

OF THE FRESHMAN SNDENTS FOR 1958
AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
ON SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS
presented by

Larry Loo Foster

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

.Eth. degree inMon

’t I, "\
1 J. I 7 «I x
4%? *1/11. / '/,.-j“z ’ {2. 1‘ "\V {x
/ /5 filajorjéofessor
/

3 I. {I} '/ "t /
/ ,' . » /

I , / r-l) ".-

Date A; 7" ‘-

/

0-169

 

  

LI B RAE
Michigan 3
Universit

 
    

.—.....---‘

ABSTRACT

A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY. BY RESIDENCY AND SEX,
OF THE FRESHMAN STUDENTS FOR 1958
AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
ON SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS

by Larry Lee Foster

The purpose of the first phase of this descriptive
study was to compare the male and female nonresident freshman
students in terms of attitudes. values, abilities. academic
achievement. retention tendencies, and selected biographical
characteristics. These students enrolled at Michigan State
University for the first time in the fall term of 1958 and
were from the forty-nine states other than Michigan.

The second phase of this study had as its purpose the
comparison of the findings of the first phase concerning the
nonresident students with similar data compiled on the resident
freshman students who enrolled at Michigan State in the same
year. .

To conduct these comparative analyses, data were
gathered on each of the 2,710 students (618 nonresidents and
2,092 residents) from a number of sources. During Freshman
Orientation Week, September, l958,wthe following instruments
were administered to the studentss cihgflntentorz 2;,Beliefs.
1933; L (measures stereotYPYl: Rokeach's— matism m. 22.29.
§,(measures dogmatism): Differential values Inventorz (measures
traditional values); Michigan §£2§g_Universitz Reading 3333
(measures abilities); College Qualification Igg£_(measures
abilities); and the Biographical 2232'§232£’(identifies

biographical characteristics). Additional data on each

Larry Lee Foster

student, including state of origin and grade-point average for
the fresMan year. were obtained from the Registrar's Office
at Michigan State University.

In each of the two phases, three separate stages were
used to analyze the data. he three stages and the statistical
techniques used were:

Stage 1. The comparison and analysis of the biographical
characteristics of the students were made by compiling per-
centages and conducting Chi-square tests.

Stage 2. A two by two analysis of variance was used to
examine the over-all differences in the mean scores of the
various groups of students on the tests identified.

Stage 3. The 3 test was used to measure the significant
differences in the mean scores obtained by the students on the
tests investigated and according to the biographical charac-
teristics identified.

Major findings of the study were:

£13523 293: (Nonresident FresMan Males versus Non-
resident Freshman Females)

l. The females, in relation to the males, tended: to
be younger. to have fathers with higher educational levels and
more prestigious occupations; to graduate more often in the
upper third of their high school classes: to come from smaller
communities: to major in different colleges of the university;
to be less desirous of graduate or professional schooling; and
to receive their major source of financial support more often

from their parents.

Larry Lee Foster

2. The females tended to be more flexible, adaptive,
and non-stereotypic in their beliefs than the males. Con-
versely, the males tended to be more dogmatic than the females.

3. There were no essential differences between the
males and females in withdrawal rates, values, reading abili-
ties, academic aptitude, or academic achievement in 1958.

m 11:12: (Nonresident Freshman Students versus
Resident Freshman Students)

1. The nonresident students, in relation to the resi-
dent students, tended: to be younger; to have fathers with
higher educational levels and more prestigious occupations;
to come from parochial high schools more often; to graduate
from larger high school classes; to rank in the upper third
of their high school classes less often; to be of the Jewish
religion more often; and to come from larger communities.

2. ‘Ihere were no essential differences in the with-
drawal rates, attitudes of stereotypy, or reading abilities of
the nonresident and resident freshxnan students in 1958.

3. The resident freshman students were found to be
more dogmatic in their attitudes than the nonresident fresh-
man students. They also tended to regard more highly such
traditional values as puritan morality, individualism, and an
emphasis on the future. Conversely, the nonresident students
tended to regard more highly the values of sociability, con-
formity, and an emphasis on the present rather than the future.

it. The nonresident freshman students were found to have
significantly higher academic abilities and correspondingly
higher freshman grade-point averages (achievement) than the

resident freshman students at Michigan State in 1958.

A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY, BY RESIDENCY AND SEX,
OF THE FRESHMAN STUDENTS FOR 1958
AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
ON SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS

BY

Larry Lee Foster

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

College of Education
1962

r' ._ 3.2L.

. a
“2:: “a” :4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer wishes to express his sincere appreciation
to those many persons who assisted in the completion of this
study. It would have been virtually impossible to develop
this work into its present form without their cooperation.
Special gratitude is due Professor John X. Jamrich, Assistant
Dean, College of Education, for his wise and patient counsel
as Chairman of the Doctoral Committee and under whose direc-
tion this investigation was planned and conducted. He is also
appreciative of the assistance given by the other members of
his Doctoral Committee: Professor Walter F. Johnson, Direc-
tor of Faculty Development, College of Education; Associate
Professor Richard L. Featherstone, Assistant Dean, College
of Education; and Associate Professor Edwin Prephet (Deceased),
Department of Geography.

The writer is deeply indebted to Professor Paul L.
Dressel, Director of the Office of Institutional Research,
Michigan State University, for granting permission to use a
portion of the data originally compiled for the larger study
entitled, Critical Thinking, Attitudes, 22.4 Values _i_._n_ Higher
Education, sponsored by the Office of Education, United
States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and
Michigan State University. The assistance and advice of
Assistant Professor Irvin J. Lehmann, Evaluation Services,
in procuring the data from the larger study in a workable
form was especially appreciated.

Finally, the writer wishes to express his grateful
appreciation to his wife, Marlene, for the many hours spent
in editing and typing the manuscript.

**********

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(DUUPTER
Ie'mEPROBLELIeeeeeeeeeeee

Introduction . . . . .
Statement of the Problem .
Importance of the Problem.
State Governments. .
Higher Education Institut 0
Purpose of the Study . . .
Rationale of the Study
The Hypotheses . . . .
Phase One. . . . . .
Phasa’IVOeeeeee
Definition of Terms. . .
Restrictions of the Study.
Development of the Remainde

oeeeeeeeaeeeo

i
r

II. REVIEW OFT‘HELITERATURE . . . . 0

Student Migrations as Related to
141611188“ 0 e e e e e e 0

Student Migrations as Related to
State University . . . . . . .

summary. 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0

III. THE METHOD OF INVESTIGATION. e e .

Definition of the Population .
PhaSOOne.....e..e.
PhaseTVO..........

Instruments of Measurement . .
I. Biographical Characterist

II. Other Selected Characteri

III. Attitudes. . . . . . . .

IV. valuQSQQe
V. Academic Ability

Collection of the Data

Methods of Analysis. .

summaryeeeeeeee

eeeeeeuH-eeeo

0 O O O O
O O O O O
0 O O O C
O O O O 0

‘IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA: PHASE ONE

Introduction . . . . . .

Hypothesis I . . . . .
A. State of Origin. .
Be Age. 0 e e e e
C. Marital Status . .
D. Nativity of Parents

iii

0 C O O O O O O O O O O

the State
Michigan

c
t c

eeeeeel-I-meeee
eeeeeemeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeee

of

22

25
28

29

29
31
32
33

38
#0
#1

Mb
“5
1&8
148
“9
51

52
52

TABLE OF CONTENTS--Continuod

CHAPTER

V.

E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.

P.

Q.

Summary of Hypothesis I. . . . .
HYPOthOSis II. o e e e e e e 0
Summary of Hypothesis II . . . .
Hypothesis III . . . . .

A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.

Summary of Hypothesis III. . . . .

Father's Education . .
Mother's Education . .
Father's Occupation. .
Mother' 3 Occupation. .
Type of High School Attended
Size of High School Graduating
Rank in High School Graduating
Size of Home Community . . . .
Religious Preference . . . . . .
curricUIEr Major e e e e e 0
Amount of College Education Desired.
Living Accommodations at Michigan

State UniverSi-ty e e e e e e e e
Source of Major Financial Support.

QOeeeee
raw
pfleeeee
mm
eeemmeeeee

The Inventory of Beliefs .
Rokeach s Dogmatism Scale.
Differential Values Invento oz

ad

gfieeeee
eeeeeee

College Qualification Test . .
Grade-Point Averages . . . . .

ANALYSIS OF DATA: PMSE No 0 e e e e e e 0

Introduction . . .
Hypothesis IV.

A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
0.
P.

Q.

Summary of Hypothesis IV . . . . . . .
HYPOthOSiSVeeeeeeeeeeeee

59:. e e e 0
Age. e 0
Marital Status
Nativity of Parents.
Father' 3 Education .
Mother's Education .
Father' 8 Occupation.
Mother' 5 Occupation. .
Type of High School Attended
Size of High School Graduating
Rank in High School Graduating
Size of Home Community . . . .
Religious Preference . . . . . .
Curricular Major 0 e e e e e e e 0
Amount of College Education Desired
Living Accommodations at Michigan
State univer51ty e e e e e e 0
Source of Financial Support.

Hrs
{DUI

eooeeeeeeeeeee
epweeeeeeeeeee

e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
S
S
e
e
C
e

iv

eeefl-eeeeeeeee

Michigan State UniversitzR ingT

Page

53
5h

55

57
58
59

61
62+

TABLE OF CONTENTS-~Continued

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER Page
Summary Of IIyPOth351S V. e e e e e e e e e e 107
Hypothesis VI. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

A. The Inventory of Beliefs . . . . . . . 110
B. Rokeach's Doomatism Scale. . . . . . . 119
C. Differential Values Inventory. . . . . 123
D. Michigan State University Reading Test 126
E. Collgge Qualification Test . . . . . . 133
F. Grade-Point Averages . . . . . . . . . 135
Summary of Hypothesis VI . . . . . . . . . . 1&0
VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . 1h”
The PrObleme e e e e e e e e e e e 0 11““
Definition of the Population . . . . . . . . lnh
Collection of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . 1&5
Hypothesis, Methods Used for Testing, and
Findings 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 IRS
Phase onee e e e e e e ‘e e e e e e e e e e 11"6
Phase mo. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 152
Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Phase one. C O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O 162
Pllase NO. e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 163
Suggestions {Or Further StUdy. e e e e e e e 1614

BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE

2.1 Summary of the In- and Out-Migration of College
Students, State of Michigan, Fall 1958 . . . . .

2.2 Nonresident Student Enrollments at Michigan State
University for 19h1, 1951, and 1961, by State
OfOr‘igin...................‘.

3.1 Restrictions of the Working Population . . . . .

3.2 Identification of the Sub-populations and Groups
Used in the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“.1 State of Origin of the Male and Female Nonresi-
dent Freshman Students at Michigan State Univer-

51tYeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

b.2 Age Groups of the Male and Female Nonresident
Fresman Students 0 O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O

h.3 Marital Status of the Male and Female Nonresident
FI'OShmanStudents................

h.h Nativity of the Parents of the Male and Female
Nonresident Freshman Students. . . . . . . . . .

h.5 Educational Level of the Fathers of the Male and
Female Nonresident Freshman Students . . . . . .

h.6 Educational Level of the Mothers of the Male and
Female Nonresident Freshman Students . . . . . .

h.7 Occupations of the Fathers of the Male and Female
Nonresident Freshman Students. . . . . . . . . .

h.8 Occupations of the Mothers of the Male and Female
Nonresident Freshman Students. . . . . . . . . .

h.9 Type of High School Attended by the Male and
Female Nonresident Freshman Students . . . . . .

b.10 Size of the High School Graduating Class for the
Male and Female Nonresident Freshman Students. .

b.11 Rank in High School Graduating Class for the
Male and Female Nonresident Freshman Students. .

vi

Page

2%

27

30

31

50

52

52

53

5h

55

56

57

58

59

6O

LIST‘OF TABLES--Continued

TABLE Page

h.12 Size of Home Community of the Male and Female
Nonresident Freshman Students. . . . . . . . . . 61

b.13 Religious Preference of the Male and Female
Nonresident Freshman Students. . . . . . . . . . 62

b.1h Curricular Major of the Male and Female Non-
resident Freshman Students . . . . . . . . . . . 63

b.15 Amount of College Education Desired by the Male
and Female Nonresident Freshman Students . . . . 6h

b.16 Living Accommodations of the Male and Female Non-
resident Freshman Students at Michigan State
univer51ty O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 65

b.17 Source of Major Financial Support for the Male
and Female Nonresident Freshman Students . . . . 66

b.18 Withdrawal Rates of the Male and Female Non-
resident Freshman Students at Michigan State
univer81ty O O O C O O O O O C C O O C O O C O 0 7o

h.l9 Results of the Significance by t Test on The
Inventory of Beliefs, Form I Mean Scores for the
Male and Female Nonresident- Freshman Students
from $31.90th States 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e 714

b.20 Results of the Significance by t Test on Rokeach' s
Deggatism Scale, Form E Mean Scores for the Male
and Female Nonresident— Freshman Students from
selected States. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 75

4.21 Results of the Significance by‘g Test on the
Differential Values Inventogy Mean Scores for the
Male and Female Nonresident Freshman Students
from Selected States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

b.22 Results of the Significance by‘g Test on the
Michigan State Universit Reading Test Mean
Scores for the MaIe and Female Nonresident
Freshman Students from Selected States . . . . . 78

h.23 Results of the Significance by‘g Test on the
College Qualification Test Mean Scores for the
Ma e and Female Nonresident Freshman Students
fromSBIOCtOdStatOSeeeeeeeeeeeeee 79

n.2u Results of the Significance by‘g Test on the
Grade-Point Averages for the Male and Female
Nonresident Freshman Students frOm Selected
States 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O 82

vii

LIST OF TABLES--Continued

TABLE

5.1

5.2

Sex of the Resident and Nonresident Freshman
Studentseeeeeoeeeooeooooooee

Age Groups of the Resident and Nonresident Fresh-

‘ man Students O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O

5.3

5J4

5.5

5.6

5.7

5.9

5-10

5.11

5.12

5.13

5.1h

5-15

5.16

Marital Status of the Resident and Nonresident
Freshman Students. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nativity of the Parents of the Resident and Non-
resident Freshman Students . . . . . . . . . . .

Educational Level of the Fathers of the Resident
and Nonresident Freshman Students. . . . . . . .

Educational Level of the Mothers of the Resident
and Nonresident Freshman Students. . . . . . . .

Occupations of the Fathers of the Resident and
Nonresident Freshman Students. . . . . . . . . .

Occupations of the Mothers of the Resident and
Nonresident Freshman Students. . . . . . . . . .

Type of High School Attended by the Resident and
Nonresident Freshman Students. . . . . . . . . .

Size of the High School Graduating Class for the
Resident and Nonresident Freshman Students . . .

Rank in High School Graduating Class for the
Resident and Nonresident Freshman Students . . .

Size of Home Community of the Resident and Non-
resident Freshman Students . . . . . . . . . . .

Religious Preference of Resident and Nonresident
FreshxnanStudents......-..........

Curricular Major of the Resident and Nonresident
FresmnaHStUdentSeeoooeeeeeoeeeeo

Amount of College Education Desired by the Resi-
dent and Nonresident Freshman Students . . . . .

Living Accommodations of the Resident and Non-

resident Freshman Students at Michigan State
univerSity O O O . O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

viii

Page

87

88

88

89

9O

91

92

93

9h

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

LIST OF TABLES--Continued

TABLE Page

5.17 Source of Major Financial Support for the Resi-
dent and Nonresident Freshman Students . . . . . 102

5.18 Withdrawal Rates of the Resident and Nonresident
Freshman Students at Michigan State University . 106

5.19 Group Mean Scores on The Inventory_g£’Beliefs. . 111

5.20 Analysis of Variance for Egg-nggnggzy.gf
Be—Imfi.......00000000000000111

5.21 Results of the Significance by 5.1bst on Egg.
Inventory 2;,Beliefs, Fe '1 Mean Scores for
the Resident {Michigan and Nonresident Fresh-
man Students from Selected States, by Sex. . . . 113

5.22 Summary of the Results of the Significance by't
Test on the Various Mean Test Scores for the
Resident and Nonresident Freshman Students.
According to Selected Biographical Characteristics
and sex. 0 O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 115

5.23 Group Mean Scores on Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale . 119

5.2h Analysis of Variance for Rokeach's Dogmatism
Scale......................120

5.25 Results of the Significance by £.Test on Rokeach's
Dogmatism Scale, Form §,Mean Scores for the
Resident (Michigan, and Nonresident Freshman
Students from Selected States, by Sex. . . . . . 121

5.26 Group Mean Scores on the Differential Values
InvantOE:Zoeeeeeoeeeeeeeooeee0123

5.27 Analysis of Variance for the Differential Values
W. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 121‘

5.28 Results of the Significance by 2,Test on the
Differential Values Inventor Mean Scores for
the Resident (Michigan, and Nonresident Fresh-
man Students from Selected States, by Sex. . . . 125

5.29 Group Mean Scores on the Michigan State Univer-
sltzReadingTest................127

5.30 Analysis of Variance for the Michigan State
Univer31t Randi“? T0517. 0 e e e e e e e e e o e 127

w

ix

LIST‘OF TABLES--Continucd

TABLE

5.31

5.32

5.33

5.3”

5.35

5.36

5.37

5.38

7.1

7.3

7.b

Page

Results of the Significance by'g Test on the
Michigan State gniversity Readin Test Mean
Scores for the Resident (M chigan) and Non- ‘
resident Freshman Students from Selected States.

bysexeeeeooeeoeeeoeeoeeeeo128

Summary of the Results of the Significance bylg

Test on the Various Mean Test Scores for the
Resident and Nonresident Freshman Students.

According to Selected Biographical Character-

iStics and sex 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 129

Group Moan Scores on the College Qualification
TOSt 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 131‘

Analysis of Variance for the College Qualification
TOSteeoeeeoeeeoooeoeeoeeee13h

Results of the Significance by £_Test on the

College ualification Test Mean Scores for the
Resident Michigan) and Nonresident Freshman

Students from Selected States, by Sex. . . . . . 135

 

 

Group Mean Scores on the Measure of Achievement
(GPA). O O O 0 I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 137

Analysis of Variance for the Measure of Achieve-
ment(GPA)oeeeeoeeeeeoeeeeeee138

Results of the Significance by ghTest on the

Grade-Point Averages for the Resident (Michigan)
and Nonresident Freshman Students from Selected
States,bySex.................139-

Origins, by State, of the Nonresident Freshman
Students at Michigan State University, Fall
Tom 1958. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O 0 17h

Biographical and Other Selected Characteristics

of the Nonresident Freshman Students (Regular and
Withdrawal) at Michigan State University. Fall

1958 O O O O C O O C O O O O O O C O O O O C O O 176

Biographical and Other Selected Characteristics
of the Resident Freshman Students (Regular and
Withdrawal) at Michigan State University, Fall
1958 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 182

Numbers. Means, Standard Deviations, and the
Results of the Significance by £.Test on The

~Inventogy of Beliefs, Form I Mean Scores for the

Resident :33 Nonresident Students, by Sex. . . . 188
x

LIST OF TABLES--Continued

TABLE

7-5

7.6

7-7

7.8

7-9

Page

Numbers, Means, Standard Deviations, and the

Results of the Significance by t Test on

Rokeach' s Dogmatism Scale, Form -E Mean Scores

for the Resident and Nonresident -Students. by
$010....00000000000000.000197

Numbers, Means, Standard Deviations, and the
Results of the Significance by t Test on

the Differential Values Inventogz Mean Scores

for the Resident and Nonresident Students, by

sex. 0 e e e e e e o e e e e e e e o e e e e e 0 206

Numbers, Means, Standard Deviations, and the

Results of the Significance by £,Test on the
Michigan State University Reading Test Mean

Scores for the Resident and Nonresident Students,
bYSOXoeeeeeeeooeeoeee00000215

Numbers, Means, Standard Deviations, and the

Results of the Significance by £_Test on the

College Qualification Test Mean Scores for the
Resident and Nonresident Students, by Sex. . . . 22h

Numbers, Means, Standard Deviations, and the

Results of the Significance by t Test on the
Freshman Year Grade-Point Averages for the

Resident and Nonresident Students, by Sex. . . . 233

xi

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

LIST.OFAAPPENDICES

Page

Au-Origins, by State, of the Nonresident
Freshman Students at Michigan State Univer-
Sity. F311T°m1958000000000.0171,

B--Biographical and Other Selected Charac-
teristics of the Nonresident Freshman
Students (Regular and Withdrawal) at
Michigan State University, Fall 1958 . . . 176

C--Biographical and Other Selected Charac-
teristics of the Resident Freshman Stu-
dents (Regular and Withdrawal) at Michigan
State University, Fall 1958. . . . . . . . 182

D--Numbers, Means, Standard Deviations, and
the Results of the Significance by 3 Test
on 132.1nventory Lf Beliefs, Form I Mean
Scores for the Resident and Nonresident
Students, by Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

 

E--Numbers, Means, Standard Deviations, and
the Results of the Significance by t
Test on Rokeach's Dagmatism Scale, Fer
E Mean Scores for the Resident and Non-
resident Students, by Sex. . . . . . . . . 197

F--Numbers, Means, Standard Deviations, and the
Results of the Significance by t Test on
the Differential Values InventoEy Mean
Scores for the Resident and Nonresident
Students, by Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206

G--Numbers, Ieans, Standard Deviations, and
the Results of the Significance by t
Test on the Michigan State University
Reading Test Mean Scores for the Resident
and NonreSi-dent StUdents. by Sex 0 e e o e 215

H--Numbers, Means, Standard Deviations, and
the Results of the Significance by t
Test on the College Qualification _’_I‘__:__est Mean
Scores for the Resident and Nonresident
Students, by Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22h

I--Numbers, Means, Standard Deviations, and
the Results of the Significance by‘g Test
on the Freshman Year Grade-Point Averages
for the Resident and Nonresident Students,
by sex 0 O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 233

__O.l

CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM

Introduction

One of the significant developments in higher education
in the United States in recent years has been the unparallelled
increases in enrollments. While these enrollments have grown
steadily during the whole history of our country. only in the
last few decades have they created what many authorities
consider as our most crucial problem in higher education
today.

In the fall term of 1961, there were 3,610,000 stu-
dents attending colleges and universities in the United States.1
At least one reliable source has predicted that this number
will continue to increase to a minimum of six million stu-
dents by 1970.2

Almost any other industry in this country would re5pond
with enthusiasm to a guarantee that its volume of business

would double in less than ten years. But the leaders of most

higher education.institutions are far more worried than

I

1"Fall Enrollment in Higher Educational Institutions,"
IE;_World Almanac, L262, (New York: New York World Telegram

 

2C. C. Furnas and Raymond Ewell, "The Role of Research
in the Economics of Universities," Financing Higher Education,
1260-10 (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1959 . p. 35.

jubilant by this prospect, and with good reason, for theirs
is a peculiar industry with many unique problems.3

I To face intelligently these rapidly emerging problems,
there is a great need for more facts, more rigorous analysis.
and more general understanding of the needs and processes of
higher education. It is appalling how little we as a nation
know about such a large, expensive, so critically important
an enterprise as higher education. Moreover, the techniques
of reporting basic data which have been developed in such
fields as government, agriculture, and business must now be
adapted to higher education in the interest of determining
which direction to move and how to do better.”

~ Without a doubt, the most important problem resulting

from increasing enrollments which, because of its very prac-
tical and pressing nature, has received the most attention in
recent years, is that of providing the necessary financial
support. In the first place, these large increases in enroll-
ments, occurring at a time when the purchasing power of the
dollar is continuing to suffer a marked decline, necessitate
greatly augmented expenditures merely to preserve the previous
scope and efficiency of our institutions. In addition to this,
however, recent decades have witnessed a growing demand on

the part of those charged with the administration of our

3Philip H. Coombs, "An Economist's Overview of Higher
Education," Financing Higher Education,1260-ZO (New York:
MOGraw-Hiil Book Company, 1959). p. 12.

“Ibid., p. 13.

wt.

a..-

colleges and universities to broaden and enrich the offer-
ings of their institutions, secure faculty with better train-
ing, and to provide more and improved buildings and equipment,
all of which require greater expenditures. Such demands have
only served to render the problem still more urgent, and it
has been practically impossible to secure funds from student
fees, state legislatures, philanthrOpists, and the federal
government, in amounts which most higher education adminis-
trators have regarded as necessary to meet the demands of the
times.

As the public higher education institutions plan for
the expansion of their staff and facilities to meet these
demands, the state legislatures are becoming increasingly
concerned with the mounting expenditures. Two of the sugges-
ions that always arise--with respect to reducing expenditures
within states--are to reduce the number of nonresident5 stu-
dents or to set nonresident tuition rates at higher and higher
levels on the general premise that "Why should state A,provide
higher educational opportunity for students from states g, Q,
and.23" This is a very simple question yet one that is
extremely difficult to answer, especially when little has
been done, if anything, to identify and analyze more speci-
fically the numbers, educational levels, and characteristics
of the nonresident students attending a particular institution,
or to explore fully the many advantages and disadvantages of

Permitting such students to migrate from state to state.

x

5The term nonresident, as used in this study, is defined
°n Page 18 . "I

A number of legislatures have gone so far as to ask
their state colleges and universities to set nonresident
tuition at the "cest of education" in an effort to dis-
courage, insofar as possible, student migrations from other
states. Usually such decisions have been made on the basis
of national studies which indicate only the total number-of
college students entering and leaving a given state for the
purposes of an education.6 These studies were not designed
to answer the more relevant questions as to why these students
migrate, what they contribute to a state in terms of social,
intellectual, and economic value, or where they go upon
graduation. The answers to such questions are extremely
important in understanding and resolving the larger problem,
but few institutions or state legislatures have made an
effort to secure this type of information before making their
decisions.

The real tragedy of state governments or higher edu-
cation institutions arbitrarily building fences around them-
selves by raising nonresident tuition or'establishing pro-
hibitive academic barriers is that it is not likely to help
the problem as a whole. As such barriers are erected and
become effective, there is being destroyed a very valuable

asPect,which most educators agree is important; namelx.that

every student body should be leavened with students from all

v
~

“ 6Home State and Migration 23 American Collegg Students,
.Séi; 1253 (Washington, D. 0.: American Association of Colle-
giate Registrars and Admissions Officers, March 1959).

sections of the country and from foreign countries. Similarxm
states, as a whole, run the grave risk of becoming creatures
of their own limited environments and regional locales which
could, in time, seriously affect long-term growth and develOp-
ment.

From this brief introduction, then, it should be
readily apparent that, among the many needs in the years ahead,
state legislatures and public colleges and universities will
need a more rational basis for determining whether the ratio
of nonresident students should be increased, decreased, or
maintained at about the present level, and under what
conditions.

The present study was conducted, therefore, with the
broad purpose of identifying and analyzing a number of
selected characteristics of a group of nonresident freshman
students at Michigan State University. The results of this
study should be helpful, eSpecially when integrated with
complementary studies, in determining a rational solution to
this very important problem as it relates generally to the
state of Michigan and more specifically to Michigan State

University.

Statement 2;; 3313 m
Since World War II, an increasing number of systematic
inStitutional research studies in higher education have been
directed in various ways toward.determining a better perspec-
tive Of'college students, especially new freshman students.

in terms of their abilities, achievements, attitudes, values.

6

retention tendencies, and background characteristics. Rarely,
however, have the nonresident students been treated separately
in these analyses. Why the nonresident students have not been
studied more thoroughly until this time is only a matter of
conjecture, but at least one reason can be suggested. Resi-
dent students have always constituted the large majority of
new freshman classes at most of the public higher education
institutions, while the nonresident students have been recog—
nized as a very small minority. Trends in student enrollments
in recent years have been changing this ratio considerably.
The nonresident freshman students have gradually become a
larger segment, both totally and proportionately, of the new
freshman population at Michigan State University, and similarly,
at other public higher education institutions. This interest-
ing trend in enrollments, resulting from increased student
migration or mobility, should be recognized as a common
characteristic of our American society today.

It logically follows, then, if the Michigan State
Legislature and the Board of Trustees of Michigan State
University are to make intelligent decisions in the years
immediately ahead in regard to this whole problem of non-
resident enrollments, a great deal more will need to be known
about these nonresident students in terms of their origins,
backgrounds, abilities, achievements, objectives, attitudes.
values, retention tendencies, and type and location of employ-
ment upon graduation. Perhaps even more important than

knowing the nonresident students in terms of these specific

characteristics and the interrelationships therein, will be
that of having a clearer understanding of the significant
ways in which these students are similar or dissimilar to the
resident student papulation.

The research reported herein, therefore, was directed
toward identifying and analyzing relevant data which in the
first phase were devoted to characterizing the nonresident
freshman students (males compared with females) at Michigan
State University in terms of their abilities, academic
achievement, attitudes, values, retention tendencies, and
selected background characteristics.

In the second phase, the findings of the first phase
were compared with similar data compiled on all resident
freshman students at Michigan State University in order to
determine whether there were any significant differences be-
tween the resident and nonresident freshman students at this
institution in terms of the selected characteristics identified

for consideration in this study.

wmmm

The importance of this type of study of nonresident
and resident students is perhaps best illustrated through a
consideration of the general implications for state governments
and higher education institutions. The identification of
5°me of the implications to these two institutions does not
1“Ply in any way that this problem is unimportant to business,
1"dustry,parents, or to the students themselves, but that
thBSG parties have only an indirect relationship to the prob-

lem! as identified.

éEEEE Governments.

It is possible to suggest only a few of the implications
increased knowledge of students, especially nonresident stu-
dents, can have for state governments. In its totality such
knowledge can provide a more rational basis for making decisions
regarding the desirability of increasing, decreasing, or
maintaining at the present ratios, the enrollment of these
students in the state higher education institutions.

An understanding of the nonresident students' social-
economic backgrounds can give some indication of the amount
of money they bring into a state as well as their relative
ability to pay increased tuition fees. Similarly, knowledge
of their attitudes and values can give some indication of the
possible influence they have upon the resident students for
which the state is morally and legally responsible.

Knowledge of the nonresident students' abilities,
academic achievement, and retention tendencies relative to
those of the resident students can, and should, have a direct
‘bearing upon a state government's decision to expend large
sums of money to educate them. For example, if it were deter-
ruined conclusively that a large percentage of nonresident
students were poor achievers or had a much higher drop-out
rate than resident students, then there would be some reason-
.able justification for revising the admissions standards or
:restricting the enrollment of these nonresident students in

.1319 public higher education institutions of the state.

Finally, knowledge of where the nonresident students
locate upon graduation (within the state or in other states)
can be of great importance to state legislatures in weighing
the many possible advantages and disadvantages of educating

these students in the state's colleges and universities.

Higher Education Institutions,
It is not possible to completely segregate the impli-

cations of this problem between state governments and higher
education institutions, but there are a few which are more
directly relevant to this latter institution than the former
one. For example, the whole admissions program of a higher
education institution must be built around some decision as to
how many and.what types of nonresident students are to be
Permitted to enroll in that particular institution. It
follows, therefore, that only through a complete understanding
0f the nonresident students in terms of their backgrounds,
abilities, and probable impact on the institution and student
bOdy as a whole, can appropriate admissions standards be
<levelOped and implemented.

Nonresident tuition fees must be established by an
instzitution only after careful consideration of many factors.
Among these factors is an evaluation of the social-economic
backgrounds of the students and their ability to pay and their
Willingness to pay in order to enjoythe privilege of attend-
5h¥§ that institution. In setting such fees, the institution

m“3t ‘Je very careful that it does not exclude a large number

10

of students for purely economic reasons, who would otherwise
be great assets to the institution and the state.

Insofar as pregrams are built around the abilities and
needs of students, it is necessary for the institution to know
what these abilities and needs are. Similarly, teachers
should know about the students with whom they are working if
they are to plan and teach courses and direct counseling
activities in ways which are of greatest benefit to the
particular students involved. Hence, if institutions and
teachers are to effect any changes in attitudes, values and
achievement of their students, they must know in the beginning
at what levels of SOphistication these factors are already
deve10ped.

Another implication of great importance to the insti-
tution is that of providing housing and educational facilities
for nonresident students. Willingness or unwillingness to do
so is directly related to a clear understanding of these
students' abilities, achievement, retention tendencies, and
their relative value to the institution as a whole.

In the final analysis, if nonresident students at a
ggrven institution are presumed to be dissimilar to the resi-
«dent student papulation, then these differences should be
idenmified, weighed, and in light of the evidence, approPriate

taction taken by the institution affected.

Purpose 2£.the Study

The purpose of this descriptive survey, broadly stated,

is; to contribute to a more complete understanding of the

11

nonresident freshman students at Michigan State University,
and to determine in what significant ways they are similar

and/or dissimilar to the resident freshman students in terms

of selected criteria.

More specifically, in Phase One, inquiries were made
into the abilities, academic achievement, attitudes, values,
retention tendencies, and other background characteristics of.
the nonresident freshman students admitted to Michigan State
University in the fall term of 1958. To accomplish this,
data were collected and analyzed in terms of:7

I. Biographical Characteristics.
A. State of origin.
B. Sex.
C. Age.
D. Marital status.
E. Nativity of parents.
F. Father's education.
3. Mother's education.
H. Father's occupation.
I. Mother's occupation.
J. Type of high school attended.
K. Size of high school graduating class.
In Rank in high school graduating class.
B4. Size of home community.
.N; Religious preference.

II. Other Selected flaracteristics.

 

 

A. Academic major.

E3. Amount of education desired.

C3. Living accommodations at Michigan State University.
13. Source of financial support.

III- Attitudes.
Measured through the use of the following tests:

A. The Inventory g§,Beliefs, Form I,
B. Rokeach s Dogmatism Scale, Form‘g.

\

me 7The various characteristics and instruments of
C asurement, listed below, are defined and discussed in
hapter III.

12

IV. Values.
Measured through the use of the following test:

A. Differential Values Inventory--Traditional.
1. Future time.
2. Individualism.
3. Puritan morality.
h. Work success.

5. Sociability.
6. Conformity.
7. Relativism.
8. Present time.

V. Abilitiejs.
Measured through the use of the following tests:

A. Michigan State University Reading Test.

B. College Qualification Test.
1. Vocabulary.

2. Information.
3. Numerical.
VI. Academic Achievement.
A. Based on the grade-point averages for the freshman
year (three quarters).

In addition to identifying the above responses
numerically, it is the purpose of this study to identify and
test statistically some of the more significant relationships
that exist between the various test scores, measures of
achievement, and selected background characteristics, such
.as father's education, curricular major, type and size of
high school attended, religious preference, and state of origin.

It is the purpose in Phase Two to compare the findings
of Phase One with similar data compiled on all resident
freshman students admitted to Michigan State University in
the fall term of 1958. From these analyses of abilities,
achievement, attitudes, values, retention tendencies, and

background characteristics, it was expected that a clearer

ixuiication of some of the more pronounced similarities and

 

13

differences of the resident and nonresident freshman students

at Michigan State University would result.

Rationale .9; 2132 M

Researchers have for a number of years explored the
hypothesis that college students with differing backgrounds
vary greatly in their attitudes, values, abilities, achieve-
ment, and retention tendencies. These findings have indicated
that such characteristics are inseparably related both to
hereditary differences and to differences in environment and
personal experiences prior to entering college.

How a student turns out, then, at the end of his
college experience-~the degree of his success from his own
point of view, or that of the college--depends both upon what
he was in terms of background and ability at the time of
admission and upon the influences of the college on him
during his attendance.f Colleges usually attempt to attend
to the former in their admissions programs and the latter in
their'educational programs. Moreover, such programs are always
related.in accordance with some kind of implicit or explicit
leducational theory. Students are supposed to be "ready for
Icollege," or so constituted that they can benefit from the
jparticular institution's program.

There has been, therefore, a growing interest in
recent years in the significance of congruence between the
student's characteristics and needs, on the one hand, and the
ruiture, demands, and character of the college on the other.

The relationship between the two is not a simple one. Most

1h

institutions are more of a constellation of subgroups than a
homogeneous whole. This is more likely to be true of the
large, complex university, than of the small college, but the
latter, too, often contains distinct subgroups.. A minimal
program of assessment, including academic ability and
achievement, social-economic background, and relevant per-
sonality characteristics will provide a meaningful description
of the student body as a whole, and of the student subgroups
found on most campuses. From such studies a determination can
be made of what the Optimal student "mix" should be at a
particular institution.

Evidence is accumulating from a variety of sources
that colleges are becoming differentially selective or
attractive, not only with respect to academic aptitude and
achievement, but also with regard to social-economic back-
grounds and significant aspects of personality--intellectual
bents, attitudes, and values. At the undergraduate level,
at least, the students themselves are tending to find their
own intellectual level, to seek an education among their
social-economic peers, in the diverse maze of colleges and
universities.8 Despite this tendency for students of common
abilities and backgrounds to be attracted to specific insti-

tutions, and since each student will always remain a unique

 

8J. G. Darley, "Diversification in American Higher
JEducation," In NASPA, Proceedings--28th Anniversary Con-
ference‘gf the National Association 2;,Student Personngl
lumpinistrators (Lawrence, Kansas: NASPA, 1953).

15

individual, diversity of some degree is inescapable on every
campus. It then becomes not a question of whether diversity
shall be permitted at a given institution, but what kind and
how much.

In the final analysis, all predominant student abilities,
achievement, attitudes and values, retention tendencies, and
background characteristics may be counted upon to produce a
distinctive atmosphere and to lend a decided cast to a colle-
giate community. It has been suggested, and rightly so, that
the distinction of a college depends less on what it does to
students than on the students to whom it does it.9 A fruit-
ful hypothesis, then, would seem to be that the efficacy of a
college is the product of the conjunction of Optimal student
'characteristics' (comprising all student subgroups) and the

demands and objectives of the particular institution.

Thglfiypotheses
Following directly from the previously stated purposes
and rationale of the study, the subsequent null hypotheses
were formulated: I
mm

Hypothesis I, There are no important differ-
ences between the male and female nonresident
freshman students at Michigan State University in
any one of the followin biographical subgroups:
(A) state of origin; (8? age; (C) marital status;
(D) nativity of parents; (E) father's education;
(F) mother's education; (G) father's occupation;

 

9T. R. McConnell and Paul Heist, "Do Students Make the
College?" College and University, Volume 29, 1959. p. Uhj.

16

(H) mother's occupation; (I) type of high school
attended; (J) size of high school graduating class;
(K) rank in high school graduating class; (L) size

of home community; (M) religious preference;

(N) curricular major; (0) amount of education de-
sired; (P) living accommodations at Michigan State
University; or, (Q) source of major financial support.

Hypothesis II: There is no significant differ-
ence in the withdrawal rates between the male and
female nonresident freshman students at Michigan
State University.

Hypothesis III.10 There are no significant
differences between the male and female non-
resident freshman students at Michigan State Uni-
versity in:11 attitudes of stereotypy and dog-
matism as measured by (A) Th3}Inventoryg§_Beliefs,
Form I, and (B) Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale, Form g,
respectively; values as measured by the (C) Differ-
ential.Values Inventory; abilities as measured by
the (D) Michigan State University Reading Test, and
the (E) College ualification Test; or, achievement
as measured by the F grade-point averages for the
freshman year‘.12 ' .

 

10The statistical analysis used for this hypothesis
involved the comparison of the males with the females from each
of the ten states which contributed the largest number of
nonresident freshman students to the enrollment at Michigan
State during the fall term of 1958. These ten states were:
Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey,
New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin. The
total number of students from these ten states constituted 85
per cent of all the nonresident freshman students (as defined
in this study) enrolled during this term.

11Even though the instruments of measurement (A) through
(F) are included in this hypothesis, they were treated in the
analysis of the data as though they were six separate hypoth-
esis. Hence, Hypothesis III was not accepted or rejected as
a whole, but individually by each of the six instruments of
measurement identified.

12Throughout the remainder of this study, students'
attitudes of stereotypy will be those measured by The Inventory
2; Beliefs, Form 3 (IB); dogmatism by Rokeachig Dogmatism
Scale, Form §.(RDS); values by the Differential Values Inven-
tory (DVI); abilities by the Michigan State University Read-
igg|Test (RT), and the College Egalification Test (car); and,
achievement by combining the grade-point averages (GPA) for
the freshman year (three quarters) into a composite average.
These various instruments are defined and discussed in greater
detail in Chapter III.

 

1?

Phase Two

gyppthesis 2X. There are no important differ-
ences between the resident (male and female)
freshman students and the nonresident (male and
female) freshman students at Michigan State Uni-
versity in any one of the following biographical
categories: (A) sex (percentages of males and
females); (B) age; (C) marital status; (D) nativity
of parents; (E) father's education; (F) mother's
education;(G) father's occupation;(H) mother's
occupation; (I) type of high school attended;
(J) size of high school graduating class; (K) rank
in high school graduating class; (L) size of home
community; (H) religious preference; (N) curricular
major; (0) amount of education desired; (P) living
accommodations at Michigan State; or, (Q) source
of major financial support.

Hypothesis E, There is no significant differ-
ence in the withdrawal rates between the resident
freshman students and the nonresident freshman
students at Michigan State University.

Hypothesis £2.13 There are no significant
differences between the resident (male and female)
freshman students and the nonresident (male and
female) freshman students at Michigan State Uni-
versity in: attitudes as measured by (A) 222
Inventory 2£.Beliefs, Form I, and (B) Rokeachig
Dggmatism Scale, Form g, respectively; values as
measured by the (C) Differential Values Inventory;
abilities as measured by the (D) Michivan State
University Reading Test, and the (E) College

Qualification Test; or, achievement as measured by
the F grade-point averages for the freshman year.

 

13Three separate stages of analysis were used with each
' of the instruments of measurement identified in (A) through
(F) below. The three stages were: (Stage 1) the comparison
of the total mean scores of the resident students with the
total mean scores of the nonresident students; (Stage 2) the
comparison of the scores of the Michigan male and female
students with the scores of the male and female students,
respectively, from each of the ten states identified in
Hypothesis III; and,(Stage 3) the comparison of the scores of
the resident students with the scores of the nonresident
students in each of the biographical subgroups identified

in the sub-hypothesis. As in Hypothesis III, this hypothesis
was not accepted or rejected as a whole, but was accepted

or rejected in each of the stages of the six instruments of
measurement investigated.

18

Sub-Hypothesis:

There are no significant differences--in the
characteristics as measured by the instruflments (A)
through (P) above--between the resident (male and
female) freshman students and the nonresident (male
and female

1.

9.
10.

11.

students whose parents are native- or foreign-
born.

students whose fathers completed grade school,
high school, college, or graduate (or pro-
fessional)school.

students whose mothers completed grade school,
high school, college, or graduate (or pro-
fessional) school.

students whose fathers are business owners,
white-collar workers, farm owners, teachers,
skilled laborers, semiskilled laborers, low
or unskilled laborers, public service workers,
professional (doctors, lawyers, etc.% or
executives and managers.

students who attended a public, private, or
parochial high school.

students who graduated from a high school
class of less than 25; 25-99; 100-199; 200-399;
too-999; or, 1,000 and over.

students who ranked in the lower third, middle
third, or upper third of their high school
graduating classes.

students who lived most of their lives on
farms; in villages (250-2, 500 population);

in towns (2, 500-25,000 population); in small
cities (25, 000-100, 000 population); or, in
large cities (over 100, 000 population).
students who are Protestants, Catholics, or
Jews.

students with different curricular majors in
college.

students whose major source of support is
parents, part-time jobs, athletic scholar-
ships, loans, G. I. Bill, or academic
scholarships.

nginition gEITermslu

lgpnresident Student. The term nonresident student, as

used.;ir; this study, refers to those students (male and female)

w
h° Unlcwrated to the state of Michigan from the other forty-

\

DOPUIa—t
PreSent

luAdditional definitions, including those of the sub-
ions,
ed.in Chapter III.

groups, and instruments used in this study, are

19

nine states and Puerto Rice for the eXplicit purpose of
attending college. The term was further-restricted in this
study to include only those students who enrolled at Michigan
State University as fresMen in the fall term of 1958, and
who were at the time of their initial enrollment classified
for tuition purposes as nonresident or out:of-itate students.
The. term as defined here excludes all foreign students. Table
7.1 presents the numbers. and origins, by states, of all the
nonresident students used in this study.

Resident Student. In this study, the term resident
student included all freshman students (male and female) who
were classified as Michigan residents for tuition purposes at
the time of their initial enrollment at Michigan State University
in the fall term of 1958.

Withdrawal Student. The students included under this
heading were at the time of their initial enrollment at
Michigan State University, in the fall term of 1958, clas-
Sified. as either nonresident or resident students as indicated
ab°Ve . If, at some time during the academic year of 1958-59
the? firithdrew from the university, for any reason, they were
classified as withdrawal students in this study. If they
With(illz‘ew and subsequently re-enrolled at Michigan State all
within this same academic year, they were still classified as
WithCl-I‘amal students. Summaries of the number and characteristics
or the nonresident and resident withdrawal students identified

1“ this study are presented in Tables 7.2 and 7.3. respectively.

Restrictions 2;; 32g m

This study, appropriately defined as a descriptive
survey, was designed to be relatively broad in scape. Hence,
a wide variety of biographical characteristics and test scores
were obtained and subsequently compiled in tabular form. An
attempt was then made to interrelate these test scores with
some of the more important biographical characteristics of the
various resident and nonresident student subgroups. Because
of the volume of data to be used and the many possible inter-
relationships involved, only those relationships deemed most,
pertinent to the objectives of this study were actually
tested statistically and/or discussed in this report. In
conclusion, then, the data to be presented in the appendices
of this report could, in all probability, be combined, compared,
and tested in many different ways than was physically possible

to do within the defined limits of this particular study.

pceyvelopment _o_f_ _t_h_g Remainder 9}; 3113 m

In the preceding sections, the background and statement
of the problem, importance of the study, the basic goals and
objectives, and specific hypotheses have been set forth. In
the following chapter a review of the literature directly
related to this particular problem will be reported and
summarized.

In the third chapter an account of the methodology of
.the study is presented, including a description of the popu-
lation, the instrumentation, the processing of the data, and

the analysis procedure.

21

In the fourth and fifth chapters an analysis of the
results of Phase One and Phase Two are reported, respectively.
A summary of the purposes, the procedures, and the findings
of the study, as well as the conclusions and implications to

be drawn from the study, is presented in the sixth and final

chapter.

 

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Although there has been a considerable amount of time
and effort devoted in recent years to studying the abilities,
achievements, attitudes, values, retention tendencies, and
background characteristics of college students, in general,
little has been done, either at the institutional or state
level, to identify these characteristics specifically in
nonresident students. Similarly, a thorough search of the
literature of the past fifteen years failed to uncover any
evidence of major studies being conducted for the explicit
purpose of determining whether or not there were any signifi-
cant differences between resident and nonresident college
students in terms of these or similar characteristics.

Therefore, rather than review in this chapter a large
number of studies which have, at best, only indirect relevance
to the problem as identified in this study, only two were
selected for review. The two studies selected, however,
provide additional background information on the whole problem
of nonresident student migrations as it relates to the state

of Michigan and Michigan State University, respectively.

Student Migrations as Related
£2.the State 2; Michigan

In March, 1959, the American Association of Collegiate

Registrars and Admissions Officers published a study of student

22

"r

23

migrations entitled, §2g3,§£g£g.ggg Migration gg American
College Students, Egll_;22§.1 As a source document, the
report contained tabulations of the home state of college
students attending institutions in the United States, both
public and private, and the location by state of the insti-
tutions they attended.

Table 2.1 presents a summary of these student migrations
as they related to the state of Michigan in 1958. By sheer
numbers, without weighing the many advantages and disadvantages
accruing to the state as a result of the student migrations,
it can be observed that the state of Michigan had a net in-
migration of nearly 7,000 students, or a little ever 3 1/2
per cent of the total college enrollment of the state in that
year.

It is also evident in Table 2.1 that a large per-
centage of the students leaving Michigan were enrolling in
private institutions, while the nonresident students entering
Michigan were enrolling at a ratio of 3 to l in the public
institutions.

It should be noted. however, that over 70 per cent of
the public institutions' net in-migration was at the under-
graduate level, where costs of educating a student per year

are much less than at the graduate or professional levels.

 

1Home State and Migration 2g American College Students,
Fall.112§§ (Washington, D. 0.: American Association of Colleg-
iate Registrars and Admissions Officers, March 1959).

 

2h

TABLE 2.1. Summary of the In- and Out-Migration of College
Students, State of Michigan, Fall 19582

 

 

 

f

v" V—— J - v_._

 

 

Total Students 'Net
Enrolled in Migration
All Inst. In- Out- +In
ofggtate Mi ration Mi ration -0ut
Undergraduate
Students:3
1. Public Inst. 10,72h 3,01% +7.723
2. Private Inst. 8 8,12 -2,5 8
A11 Institutions 122,22h 18,352 11,1 7 +5,205
Professional
Students:

1. Public Inst. 979 80 +899
2. Private Inst. 22” 1,222 -l 0
All Institutions “.98“ 1,233 1,373 -l&0

Graduate
Students:c
1. Public Inst. 3,266 768 +2,h98
2. Private Inst. be 80h -§80
A11 Institutions 17,52h 3,590 1,572 +1,91

All Students:d
""1. "Pu"""b1i"c' Inst. 15,029 3,859 +11,17o

2. Private Inst. . 6 0h6 10 2 -h 18
A11 Institutions 1131777'3'2' 21,075 113,092" ' 1.3.933:

 

 

2Compiled from: The American Association of Collegiate
Registrars and Admissions Officers, 5 Supplement t_g the Home
State Lnd Migration of American College Students, Fal____l_._ 1253,
December 1959.

a. Undergraduate Students, pp. 7 and 9.

b. Professional Students, pp. 11 and 13.

c. Graduate Students, pp. 15 and 17.

d. All Students, pp. 19 and 21.

 

25

In this same year, the state of Michigan had a not out-
migration of professional students (see Table 2.1). While
the number of professional students leaving the state was
comparatively small, student for student, the dollars involved
were, in all probability, several times that of educating the
in-migrating undergraduate student. 1

By way of comparison, the state of Michigan in 1958
ranked forty-seventh among the states of the United States in
the percentage of out-migrating students, as compared to the
total number of students attending college in the state.3 On
the other hand, Michigan ranked forty-second among the states
in the percentage of in-migrating students as compared to the

total number of students attending college within the state.“

Student Migrations pg Related
52 Michigan State Universitz

Nonresident enrollments at Michigan State University
have had, during the last twenty years, not only an absolute
increase comparable to the increase in resident enrollments,
but also a preportional one as well. For example, in 19u1
the nonresident enrollment constituted about 16.“ per cent5

0f the total student enrollment at Michigan State University.

31b; e, p. 320
1maid" p. 33.
5"Report of the Registrar," Eightieth Annual Report 23

.Eflg,§ecretagz of the State Board‘pg Agriculture 2; the State
9.1; Etchigan. Tiansing, Michigan: Michigan State College
P“blication, l9h1). PP. 30 and 3“-

 

 

26

By 1951, this percentage had risen gradually to 18.7 per
cent.6 During the decade from 1951 to 1961, the nonresident
student population rose to 20.6 per cent7 of the total enroll-
ment at this institution.

While the rank of the various states contributing
students to the enrollment at Michigan State has not changed
substantially over the last twenty years, the relative pro-
portion of students contributed by each state has changed
considerably in a few instances. For example, in 1951 New
York and Illinois contributed very nearly the same number and
percentage of students to the total enrollment at Michigan
State University. By 1961, however, New York was contributing
almost twice as many students as was Illinois to the total
institutional enrollment (see Table 2.2).

In keeping with the increases in the total enrollment
at Michigan State University during the period 19h1-1961,
Table 2.2 indicates that nearly all the states had an absolute
increase between l9hl and 1951 and again between 1951 and
1961. In 19hl, the three states of New York, Illinois, and
Ohio were contributing 6&8 students or approximately 55 per

cent of the total nonresident enrollment at Michigan State.

 

,

0"Report of the Registrar," Ninetieth Annual Report
of the State Board p£_Agricu1ture pghppg State pgyMichigan
Tiansing, Michigan: Michigan State College Publication, May,
195“). PI?- 131‘ and 138.

7Annual Report, 1 60-61. (Michigan State University:
Office of the Registrar}. pp. 1 and 16. (Mimeographed.).

Tl

 

 

3?

TABLE 2.2. Nonresident Student Enrollments at Michigan State
University for 19h1, 1951, and 1961, by tate of
Origin (From various "Reports of the Registrar")

 

 

 

 

 

Year[1 19M 1351 L 1961
STATES Total g%’ Total _% Total
Alabama 2 .1 13 .5— 19 .3
Arizona 1 .1 5 .1 u .1
Arkansas 2 .l 8 .3 13 .3
California 12 1.1 38 1.3 86 1.9
Colorado H .3 8 .3 18 .3
Connecticut 2h 2.1 #1 .h 83 1.9
Delaware 1 .1 h .1 7 .2
Dist. of C01. 6 .5 1h .5 21 .4
Florida 11 1.0 28 1.0 U2 .9
Georgia 0 .0 8 .3 h .1
Idaho 1 .1 3 .1 7 .2
Illinois 193 12.2 56” 20.0 690 15.1
Indiana 85 7.2 199 7.1 325‘ 7.1
Iowa 15 1.3 18 .7 30 .6
Kansas 2 .1 10 .b 22 .h
Kentucky 7 .6 19 .7 18 .3
Louisiana 0 .0 7 - .2 20 .0
Maine 7 .6 15 .5 26 .5
Maryland 11 1.0 23 .8 h? 1.1
Massachusetts #1 3.5 109 3.8 169 3.6
Minnesota 16 1.b 3% 1.3 #5 1.0
Mississippi 0 .O 6 .2 7 .2
Missouri 1h 1.3 28 .9 57 1.2
Montana h .3 3 .1 7 .2
Nebraska 5 .1} l8 .7 12 .2
Nevada 0 .0 0 .0 5 .1
New Hampshire 3 .3 7 .2 l6 .3
New Jersey‘ 60 5.1 139 “.9 315 6.8
New Mexico 1 .1 ~l .l h .1
New York 396 33.8 610 21.6 1.303 28.7
Ii. Carolina 5 .h 9 .h 2“ .5
North.Dakota 8 .7 10 .h 6 .1
Ohio 108 9.2 338 11.9 11191 9.2
Oklahoma 13 1.2 15 .6 25 .5
Oregon 3 .3 8 .3 5 .1
Pennsylvania 1+5 3.8 116 5.3 ' 232 5.0
IUhode Island h .3 1h .5 1h .3
S. Carolina 1 .l 8 .3 8 .2
South Dakota 1; .3 9 .h 8 .2
Tennessee 3 .3 12 .1; 29 .6
’Texas 6 .5 18 .7 #2 .9
Utah 1. .3 6 .2 10 .2
Vermont 5 J4 15 .6 18 .3
Virginia 7 .6 30 1.1 51 1.1
Washington 1 .1 7 .2 18 .3
W. Virginia 1’4 1.3 21 .8 l9 .3
Wisconsin 63 5.1; 1142 5.1 125 1+.8
WyOnling 1 .1 3 .1 2 .1
Alaska 0 .0 2 ,1 2 .1
Ha‘Vai-i o e0 3: 102 36 01
fetal 14164 100.0 2.821; 100.0 ‘5.515 100.0

 

 

 

28

By 1961, these same three states were contributing 9,515
students or about 58 per cent of the total nonresident
enrollment at this institution. Hence, these three states
combined had a large absolute increase, but a small relative

decrease during this twenty-year period. 1!

Summary

From the reports briefly reviewed in this chapter, it
can be recognized that the nonresident student migration issue
is a real and growing one in Michigan and one which must be
resolved generally by all the higher education institutions
of the state, and more specifically, by the public higher
education institutions like Michigan State University.

While these two reports again underscore the growing
problem of nonresident migrations to the state of Michigan,
they do little in the way of suggesting any rational solution
to the problem. It becomes imperative, therefore, that a
great deal of additional study be initiated for the purpose
of determining who these nonresident students are, where they
come from, and why they migrate. Only after a number of
these studies have been completed and carefully evaluated can
aixnore rational solution to this problem be realized for this
institution and/or state.

In the following chapter the population, instruments,

axui methods used in this study are identified and discussed.

CHAPTER III
THE METHOD OF INVESTIGATION

Definition 2; the Popp;ggion

The original population selected for this study was
comprised of 3,216 freshman students who entered Michigan.
State University in the fall term of 1958. In an effort to
obtain a working pepulation which would best achieve the
objectives of this study, however, it was necessary to exclude
from the original pepulation the following types of students:
(1) those who had transferred to Michigan State University
after having attended another college or university; (2) those
who were classified as foreign students at the time of admis-
sion to the university; (3) those enrolled during the fall
term of 1958 for less than 12 (quarter)credit hours of study;
and, (b) those who had incomplete or unusable test and/or
biographical data.

After the above deletions were made, the actual working
poPulation of the study consisted of 2,710 first-term
freshman students, including 1,b15 males (52.2 per cent) and
1,292 females (”7.8 per cent). This working number repre-
sented about 814 per cent of the original p0pulation (see
Table 3.1).

For the purposes of this study the working population

was composed of two separate and distinct sub-populations

29

.I lie} ill:

. \

 

in! I6. lillliiv \

30

or samples.1 The first sub-population was composed of 618
nonresident freshman students, including 3#0 males (55 per
cent) and 278 females (#5 per cent). The second sub-population
was composed of 2,092 resident freshman students, including
1,075 males (51 per cent) and 1,017 females (#5 per cent).

Both of these sub-pepulations are summarized and delineated

further into additional study groups in Table 3.2.

TABLE 3.1. Restrictions of the Working Population

 

 

 

N _jé

Original population-~freshman students

who entered Michigan State University

in the fall term of 1958. . . . . . . . . 3,216 100

Students eliminated by incomplete or

unusable test and/or biographical

datae e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e -227 ‘7

Students eliminated by selective criteria

(transfers, foreign, etc.). . . . . . . . '-2#3 -8

Students eliminated as a result of their

enrollment for less than 12 (quarter)

credit hours Of StUdy e e e e e e e e e e -36 “'1
Total Working Population 2,729 8#

 

1Since there were a large number of groups, subgroups,
and/or samples in the study, these two separate and distinct
resident and nonresident groups will be referred to as sub-
populations in this study.

4. 1‘

TABLE3.2.

31

Groups Used in the Study

Identification of the Sub-populations and

 

 

Study Groups

A Regular Non-

B

residents

Nonresident
Withdrawals

Total Non-
residents
(See gibelow)

M;;e

302

38

5’0

89

11.

Female

to
\a
O

3%

90

10

Total

552

66

89

11

(W

Regular
Residents

Resident
Withdrawals

Total
Residents
(See E below)

Total
Nonresidents
(A + B)

Total
Residents
(D + E)

1,017

79

2,092

77

 

Total Working

Population

Phase One
"CI-l...

The comparison of the male and female nonresident

1.29:

100

#7.8

2,710

129.

100

freshman students on selected'biographical characteristics

'were accomplished in Hypothesis I through the use of sub-
pepulation _g in Table 3.2.

of a total of 618 (3#0 males and 278 females) nonresident

This sub-population was composed

v42

freshman students who enrolled at Michigan State University
in the fall term of 1958.

The difference in withdrawal rates between the male
and female nonresident freshman students was determined in
Hypothesis II through the use of group §,in Table 3.2. This
group was composed of a total of 66 (38 males and 28 females)
nonresident freshman students who withdrew from Michigan State
University during the academic year 1958-59.

The comparison of the male and female nonresident
freshman students on selected test scores were accomplished
in Hypothesis III through the use of the males and females from
each of the ten states which contributed the largest number of
students to the freshman enrollment at Michigan State during
the fall term of 1958. The ten states were: Connecticut,
Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin. The number of males
and females from each of these states is presented in Table
7.1. The students included herein were extracted from sub-
population g’in Table 3.2.

Since the students who withdrew from college during
their freshman year did not have grade-point averages regis-
tered for the entire year, only those students identified in
group §_in Table 3.2 were included in the achievement analysis

in Hypothesis III.

Phase Two
The comparison.of the nonresident (male and female)

freshman students with the resident (male and female) freshman

I ...v ]“l) is I‘ll

33

students on selected biographical characteristics were
accomplished in Hypothesis IV through the use of sub-populations
g and §,in Table 3.2. The total number of students included

in each of these sub-populations was 618 and 2,092, respectively.

The difference in withdrawal rates between the non-
resident (male and female) freshman students and the resident
(male and female) freshman students in terms of withdrawal
rates was determined in Hypothesis V through the use of study
groups §_and §.in Table 3.2. The total number of withdrawal
students in each of these two groups was 66 and 251, respec-
tively.

The comparison of the nonresident (male and female)
freshman students with the resident (male and female) fresh-
man students on specific test scores and selected biograph-
ical characteristics were accomplished in Hypothesis VI through
the use of sub-populations §_and E’in Table 3.2, or repre-
sentative parts thereof.2

As in Hypothesis III, all withdrawal students were

excluded from the achievement analysis in Hypothesis VI.

Instruments p£_Measurement
A number of different instruments were used to identify
the background and other selected characteristics, and to

measure the attitudes, values, and academic aptitudes of the

 

2The second stage of this analysis involved the compar-
ison of the test scores of the Michigan (residents) male and
female students with the male and female students from each
of the ten states (nonresidents) first identified in Hypoth-
esis III.

3#

freshman students identified in the resident and nonresident
sub-populations.

After grouping and listing the instruments selected
to measure the characteristics noted above, the instruments
are described in the subsequent paragraphs. Where Specific
tests were used, emphasis was given to describing their
origins, purposes, and other relevant characteristics.

I. Biographical Characteristics.

A. Biopra hical Data Sheet, (Michigan State
University).
B. Registrar's Serial Run, Fall 12§8, (Michigan

State University).

II. Other Selected Characteristics.

A. Bio ra hical Data Sheet, (Michigan State
University).

III. Attitudes.
A. The Inventorz p£_Beliefs, Form E, (American
Council on Education .
B. Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale, Form g, (Professor
Milton Rokeach, Michigan State University).
IV. Values.

A. The Differential Values Inventor , (Richard
Prince, University of Chicago .

V. Academic Ability.
A. Michigan State Universitngeadin Test,
(Michigan State University).
B. The College Qualification Tgst, (Psychological
Corporation).
_1_[_. Biographical Characteristics .
In order to achieve the specific purposes of the study,

it was necessary to identify a number of biographical charac-

teristics in the sub-populations and their various subgroups.

 

35

The first characteristic, or state of origin, was obtained

for each student from the Registrar's Serial 323, gall‘lgjé.
The remainder of the biographical characteristics were derived
from the Biographical Qata Sheet, which was completed by each
student during Freshman Orientation Week in September, 1958.
The specific study subgroups for which data were compiled and
analyzed are presented below.

Stagg'gg Origin. Every student in the working popu-
lation was classified as a resident or nonresident of the
state of Michigan on the basis of enrollment data reported
for the fall term of 1958 by the Registrar's Office at Michigan
State University.

In addition to the above, the specific state of origin
of each student (at the time of his initial enrollment at
Michigan State University in September, 1958) was derived by
interpreting the prep-school code listed in the Registrar's
Serial 322* 23;; fl.

S25, The total working population as indicated in
Table 3.2, consisted of l,hl§ males (52.2 per cent) and 1,295
females (#7.8 per cent). The two sub-populations, resident
and nonresident, were similarly broken down by sex. These
totals are also given in Table 3.2.

552- Age was based on the last birthday before enroll-
ing at Michigan.State University in September of 1958. 'Dhe
five forced-choice categories used were: (1) Under 18;

02) 18; (3) 19: (h) 20 or over: and, (5) No response.

H

Elm-1

 

 

36

Marital Statgg, The five categories used for identi-
fying marital status were: (1) Single; (2) Married; (3) Di-
vorced; (U) Widowed; and, (5) No response.

Nativity 23 Parents. The nativity of parents was
determined by combining the nativity of the mother and father
in the following possible responses: (1) Mother native-born
and father foreign-born; (2) Father native-born and mother

foreign-born; (3) Both foreign-born; (h) Both native-born;

.. -)—~. (4 -_1‘ ‘ 67' ’tvm't .9"

and, (5) No response.

Parental Education. The attained educational level
of both the mother and father of each student in the working
population was classified according to the following cate-
gories: (1) Attended, but did not complete grade school;
(2) Completed grade school through grade eight; (3) Attended,
but did not cemplete high school; (h) Graduated from high
school or grade twelve; (5) Attended college, but did not
graduate; (6) Graduated frOm four-year college; (7) Attended
graduate or professional school, but did not receive a grad-
uate or professional degree; (8) Completed a graduate or
professional degree; and, (9) No response.

Parental Occupations. Data regarding the fathers' and
mothers' occupations were compiled by asking each student to
describe in a few lines what his father and/or mother did for
a living. These written occupational descriptions were then
classified in the following categories: (1) Business owner;
(2) Professional (primarily doctors and lawyers); (3) White-

collar (primarily office and sales workers); (h) Farm owner;

3?

(5) Teacher (even though teachers are usually regarded as

being in the professional category, they were considered as

a separate group in this study); (6) Skilled laborer; (7) Semi-
skilled laborer; (8) Low or unskilled laborer; (9) Public
service employee; (10) Executive or managerial (not the owner
of the enterprise in which he works); (11) Deceased or retired;
and,(12) No response.

An additional category identified as "Housewife" was
used in classifying the mothers' occupations. From the
students' written occupational descriptions, it was deter-
mined that over 80 per cent of the 2,710 mothers should be
preperly classified in this category.

2222.23.5252 School Attended. Three major types of
high schools were identified for the purposes of this study.
They were: (1) Public (usually organized under a school dis-
trict of the state, administered by public officials, supported
by tax revenues, and open to all); (2) Private (commonly
identified as schools which have neither public or church
support and/or control); and, (3) Parochial (supported and
controlled by a church for the purpose of serving the children
of its members).

§l£2.2£.§lflfl Schgg; Graduating Elééén Six sizes of
jhigh.school graduating classes arbitrarily established for
use in this study were: (1) Under 25; (2) 25-99; (3) 100-199;
(h) 200-399; (5) too-999; (6) Over 1,000; and, (7) No response.

M y; High School Graduating 2133.3. The students

were asked to indicate in which third of their high school

a”

38

graduation class they stood with respect to grades. Hence,
the possible responses were: (1) Lower third; (2) Middle
third; (3) Upper third; and, (b) No response.

[Slag p£,§ppg_Communitz. While the categories estab-
lished for determining the size of the home communities of
the students were not exactly identical to the classification
used by the Bureau of Census in 1960, they were very similar.
The categories used were: (1) Farm; (2) Village (250—2,500
population); (3) Town (2,500-25,000 pepulation); (h) Small
city (25,000-lO0,000 population); (5) Large city (over 100,000
population); and, (6) No response.

Religious preference. The students were asked to
indicate their religious preference. The six categories
established for this purpose were: (1) Catholic; (2) Jewish;
(3) Protestant; (h) None (no preference); (5) Other (another

religion not listed); and, (6) No response.

£3. Qggp£_5e1ected Characteristics.

The characteristics identified under this heading of
the study pertained to the student after he arrived on-campus,
as contrasted to the characteristics identified in the previous
section, which were related primarily to the student's back-
ground before he arrived on campus.

Academic 3212;. .After obtaining the specific academic
major of each student from the Biographical 22£p_§ppgp, it
was decided that, if these preferences were grouped according
to the nine colleges in existence at Michigan State University

in 1958, they would best serve the purposes of this study.

 

 

 

 

a 112...... an

39

The responses of the students were then grouped in the
following college categories: (1) Agriculture; (2) Business
and Public Service; (3) Engineering; (b) Home Economics;

(5) Science and Arts; (6) Veterinary Medicine; (7) Education
(elementary); (8) Communication Arts; and, (9) No preference
'(none chosen).

Amount 2; Education Desired. The students were asked
to answer how much college education they would $152 to have,
considering the circumstances at the time of answering. The
possible responses were: (1) One year of college; (2) Two
years of college; (3) Three years of college; (h) Four years
of college (Bachelor's Degree); (5) Graduate or professional
school; and, (6) No response.

Living Accommodations g£.Michigan Spgpg‘University.
While it was to be expected that most freshmen, because of
university regulations lived in dormitories during their first
year at Michigan State, it was felt important, for the purposes
of this study, to determine more precisely just how many
resident and nonresident freshman students (primarily because
of age, marital status, and living with families) were living
in facilities other than dormitories at this institution. The
types of living accommodations identified were: (1) Dormitory;
(2) Apartment; (3) Roaming House; (h) Fraternity/Sorority
House; (5) Living with immediate family or relatives; and,

(5) No response.
Source pg Financial Support. The students were asked

to indicate what their principal source of support would be

#0

while they were enrolled at Michigan State. Principal sources
included: (1) Parents; (2) Job (full- or part-time); (3) Ath-
letic scholarship or grant; (h) Loans; (5) G. I. Bill;

(6) Academic scholarship; and, (7) No response.

_I__;:_. Attitudes.

Egg Inventory p§,Beliefs, gppp,L, Egg Inventory 2;
Beliefs, 3252 I, which was develOped by the Inter-College
Committee on Attitudes, Values, and Personal Adjustment of
the Cooperative Study of Evaluation in General Education,3
consists of 120 pseudo-rational, cliche-like statements to
which the students are asked to respond by means of a four-
element scale: strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly
.disagree. Each student's score is determined by the number
of statements with which he indicates disagreement or strong
disagreement. Possible scores range from 0-120.

Students who reject a majority of the statements on
the test, thus obtaining a high score, are considered to be
nonstereotypic, flexible, and adaptive in their beliefs.
Conversely, students who accept a large number of the state-
:nents, thus obtaining low scores, are considered to be stereo-
typic in their beliefs, with tendencies towards being rigid,
defensive, and authoritarian.

Rokeach's ngmatism Scale, Eggpflg. Milton J. Rokeach,

“an: developed this scale, has defined degmatism in the

 

3Paul L. Dressel and Lewis B. Mayhew, General Education:
Ex;210rations pg Evaluation (Washington, D. C.: American
Council on Education, 1951:).

bl

following way:

Dogmatism represents a total ideological de-
fense against threat and at the same time a cog-
nitive framework for satisfying one's need to
know and comprehend the world one lives in. In
other words, dogmatic thinking and believing
makes it possible to ward off threatening aspects
of reality and at the same time gives one the
satisfaction of feeling that one understands it.“

The scale itself is a measure of general authoritar-

ianism. It consists of #0 degmatic statements with which

the student is asked to respond on a six-point scale ranging
from 'agree very much' to 'disagree very much.’ Possible
scores range from hO-280. The lower a student's score, the
less degmatic he is considered to be. Conversely, the higher
his score, the more dogmatic he is considered to be. Students

with scores in excess of 2&0, are judged to be highly dog-

matic in their beliefs.

£1. Values.

gifferential Values Inventory. Richard Prince5
developed the Differential Values Inventory at the University
of Chicago in 1957, for the express purpose of measuring the
'traditional' and 'emergent' values which had been previously

identified by George Spindler in 1953.6

 

”Milton J. Rokeach, "Political and Religious Dog-
matism: An Alternative to Authoritarian Personality," Psz-
chological Monggraphs, Volume 70, Number b25, 1956. p. 5.

5Richard Prince, A Study_ of the Relationship Between
Individual Values and Administrative Effectiveness in the
School Situation. _TUnpublished doctoral dissertation, the
University of Chicago, 1957).

6George Spindler, "Education in a Transforming American
Culture," Harvard Educational Review, Volume 25, Summer 1953.

4.,

#2

By integrating a few of Spindler's original value
categories, Prince was able to formulate four 'traditional'
value categories and four 'emergent' value categories. The
'traditional' categories included puritan morality, individ-
ualism, work-success ethic, and future-time orientation;
and the 'emergent' categories included sociability, conformity,
relativistic moral attitudes, and present-time orientation.
These eight categories combined constituted the pifferential
Values Inventory. 1

The scale consists of 6% pairs of forced-choice items.
In each pair of items there is a traditional value alternative
and a contrasting emergent value alternative. The student is
forced to make a choice between one of these two alternatives.
In addition to obtaining a traditional score with a range
from O-6h, which was used in this study, it is possible to
obtain eight subscores--one for each of the value areas
measured, with each having a score range from 0-16.

A student is said to have high traditional values if
he tends to regard more highly the values of puritan morality
or personal respectability, individualism, hard work and
responsibility, self-denial, and thrift. Such a student is
oriented to the future to the extent that he believes present
needs should be sacrificed for future satisfactions and rewards.7

Conversely, a student is said to have low traditional

values, (or high emergent values), if he tends to regard highly

 

7Prince, 22. cit., p. #2.

#3

such values as conformity, sociability, (getting along with
others), relativistic moral attitude, and places emphasis on

the present rather than the future.8

1. Academic Ability.

Michigan giggg‘University Reading 2233. This #S-item
reading test was developed by the Office of Evaluation Services
at Michigan State University. It was developed in the belief
that the ability to read is closely related to the ability to
do college work successfully. Hence, the items on the test
were designed to measure the ability of students to comprehend
thoughts expressed in reading passages which were representative
of textual materials found in several academic areas.

The reliability of the Michigan §32£2.University Regg:
igg_$g§£.has been determined on several occasions by the Office
of Evaluation Services at Michigan State to be in the area
of .80,

College Egalification lggg. The College Qualification
Iggg'was designed to measure verbal ability, skill in handling
numerical concepts, and general information. The subscores
on these three ability tests can be combined into a composite
or total score.9

The verbal test, which has a time limit of fifteen

minutes, consists of 75 vocabulary items, 50 of which require

 

8Prince, 22, cit., p. #2.

9George E. Bennett, Marjorie G. Bennett, Winburn L.

Wallace, and Alexander G. Wesman, College ualification Tests,
Manual, 1252. (The Psychological Corporation, 19575.

"W

#4

identification of synonyms and the remaining 25 which require
identification of antonyms. The numerical ability test, which
has a time limit of thirty-five minutes, contains 50 items
which are designed to measure numerical concepts in arithmetic,
algebra, and geometry. The third and last test, which has a
time limit of thirty minutes, is designed to measure general
information. This test is composed of 75 items, half of

which deal with physical and bi010gical sciences, and the

other half with social studies, such as geOgraphy, economics,

and history.

Collection 23: 3.1.2. Eggs
During Freshman Orientation Week, September 21-26, 1958,
the following instruments were administered to the working
pepulation of 2,710 students in a special session: 12;
Inventory giDBeliefs, §2£g_;; Rokeach's Dogmatism Sgglg, 2223

g; Differential Values Inventory; Michigan State University

 

Reading Test; The College Qualification Test; and, the Bio-

graphical Data Sheet.10

‘ Most of the additional data used in the study were
obtained in a variety of forms from the Registrar's Office at
Michigan State University. For example, the state of origin

of each student was derived from the Registrarig Serial Run,

Fall 1258.

 

10These various instruments will be referred to here-
after in the study as IB, RDS, DVI, RT, CQT, and EDS, respec-

tively.

The grade-point averages for each student for the
freshman year (three quarters) were obtained from the regis-
trar's cumulative grade records. Those students without
grade-point averages constituted the 'withdrawal group'
referred to from time to time in the study and identified as
groups §_and'§'in Table 3.2.

The scores of the students on the various test instru-
ments, the responses on the Biographical 2233 Sheet, the
states of origin, and the freshman year grade-point averages,
were all key punched and recorded on International Business

Machine Cards, using a separate card for each student in the

study.

Methods 2§,Analysis

Since it was proposed in this descriptive survey that
a wide range of data be identified and analyzed in order to
determine whether or not there were any significant differ-
ences between various groups of resident and nonresident
freshman students at Michigan State University in selected
characteristics, it was concluded that no single statistical
design could appropriately test all the hypotheses submitted.
Therefore, after careful consideration, three major types of
designs were selected as most applicable for the purposes of
this study. These designs are discussed briefly in the follow-
ing paragraphs. ‘

In view of the fact that Hypotheses I and IV were sub-

rmitted primarily for the purpose of providing a means for

#6

characterizing the resident and nonresident students in terms
of their biographical characteristics, Chi-square test of
independence was selected as appropriate for identifying the
important biographical differences between the students in
each of the study subgroups. After a number of random Chi-
square tests, however, and because numbers and percentages
are much easier to read and comprehend, it was concluded (for
the purposes of these descriptive hypotheses) that a difference
of at least five percentage points in the responses of the
male and female, or the resident and nonresident, students
in a particular biographical subgroup would be sufficient
evidence that an important difference did, in fact, exist
in that subgroup. This generalized approach not only simpli-
fied the descriptive analysis of the biographical characteristics
in the various subgroups but it also provided a reasonably
good basis for accepting or rejecting each of the hypotheses.
Chi-square was also prOposed for use in Hypotheses II
and V, but after arranging the raw data in tabular form, it
'was feund by rational observation that there were no essential
differences in the withdrawal rates between the various groups
of students being investigated. Therefore, further statistical
analysis of these two relatively simple hypotheses was not
necessary.
A t test, assuming equal standard deviations, was
used in Hypothesis III to determine the significance of the
differences between the mean scores obtained by the male and
female nonresident students from the ten selected states, on

the six instruments of measurement identified.

47

In Hypothesis VI, two major statistical designs were
used. In the first stage, a two by two analysis of variance
for unequal frequencies was used to determine the over-all
significance of the differences between the mean test scores
obtained by the resident and nonresident students (by sex) on
the six tests identified. In stages two (comparison of
Michigan students with those from selected other states) and
three (comparison by residency and sex according to major
biographical characteristics), a t test was used, as in
Hypothesis III, to determine the significance of the mean
scores obtained on the six tests identified.

In the various analyses in Hypotheses III and VI, only .
those values which were found to be at least beyond the .05
level of confidence were considered to be significant. This
means that there are only five chances in one hundred that a

given value would be that large by chance.

Summary
This chapter has presented the definitions, methods,

and.procedures used in conducting this investigation. It
has defined and described the sub-populations, groups, sub-
1groups, biographical characteristics, and tests studied. It
Ihas also noted the sources and the general procedures followed
in compiling and analyzing the data.

The results of the analyses of the data in Phase One,
or Hypotheses I, II, and III, are presented in the following
chapter; and, those for Phase Two, or Hypotheses IV, V, and

TKI, are presented in Chapter V.

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF DATA: PHASE ONE

Introduction
This chapter includes an analysis of the data relative
to the attitudes, values, abilities, achievements, retention
tendencies, and background characteristics of the male and
female nonresident freshman students who enrolled at Michigan

State University in the fall term of 1958.
The analysis of the data is presented in three parts,

corresponding to the sequence of the hypotheses submitted for

Phase One in Chapter I.

Hypothesis,;

‘There are no important differences between the
male and female nonresident freshman students at
Michigan State University in any one of the follow-
ing biographical subgroups: (A) state of origin;
(B) age; (C) marital status; (D) nativity of parents;
(E) father's education; (F) mother's education;

(G) father's occupation; (H) mother's occupation;
(I) type of high school attended; (J) size of
high school graduating class; (K) rank in high
school graduating class; (L) size of home
community; (M) religious preference; (N) curri-
cular major; (0) amount of education desired;

(P) living accommodations at Michigan State
University; or. (Q) source of major financial

support.

The general procedure used in analyzing the data
relative to this hypothesis entailed the compilation of the
nonresident students' responses (and respective percentages
for each category) into tabular form. After conducting a

#8

1*9

number of random Chi-square tests of independence, it was
determined that (for descriptive purposes) a difference of
five percentage points in the relative percentage of responses
between the males and females in a particular biographical
category would be sufficient evidence that an important
difference did exist between the sexes in that category. Each
such category, 50 identified, is marked with a double aster-
isk (**) between the male and female columns in the respective
tables.

A. ,étggg’gg Origin. Over 85 per cent of the non-
resident freshman students, who enrolled at Michigan State
University in the fall term of 1958, came from ten states.

As might have been expected, nearly all these states either
bordered the state of Michigan or were classified as New
England states by the Census Bureau (see Table h.1).

It can be observed in Table “.1 that three states--
Illinois, New York, and 0hio--contributed in excess of 61 per
cent of the nonresident freshman students attending Michigan
State in 1958. This percentage corresponds very closely to
the Super cent figure presented in Chapter II, which
represented the total number of nonresident students con-
tributed by these states to Michigan State's total enrollment
in 1961. It is also important to note that while Ohio con-
tributed about an equal number of males and females, New York
contributed a larger number of males, and Illinois a larger
number of females.

The totals for all nonresident states combined (see

50

Table h.1) indicate that there were a larger number (and
percentage) of male nonresident freshman students (55 Per
cent) enrolled at Michigan State in 1958, than there were
females (#5 per cent). These percentages correspond very
closely to those for the entire freshman class in that year
which were 52 and U8 per cent for the males and females,
respectively.

'TABLE h.1. State of Origin of the Male and Female Non-
resident Freshman Students at Michigan State

 

 

 

 

 

 

Universityl
Males __Fema1es Combined

___ State N % N .27 N ;%I
Connecticut 9 12 i b l 13 2
Illinois - 62 10 78 12 inc 22
Indiana 2% h lb 2 38 6
Massachusetts 6 l 3 0 9 1
New’Jersey 12 2 16 3 28
Nebf‘York 83 13 75 12 _158 25
Ohio ’43 7 ’41 7 8’4 1’4
Pennsylvania 16 3 ll 2 27 5
Virginia 6 1 u 1 10 2
Eisconsin <11 2 6 l 17 3
Igtais 212 an 252 #1 _52h 85
Totals for -
__a11 States 3&0 <_§5 278 Nagy, 618 100

 

19nly'the top ten states are presented here. Individual
flgures for other states can be found in Table 7.1.

2All percentages in this table are based on the total numbe
0f nonresident students in the study, or 618.

r

By comparing the total number of nonresident freshman

Students with the total number of nonresident students at
Michigan state (Tables ’4.1 and 2.2), it is evident that the

former constitute only about 15 per cent of the latter in

51

most years. Hence, a considerable prOportion of the non-
resident students attending Michigan State either attend
college near their homes initially, then transfer to this
institution in their junior or senior years, or they enroll
in a graduate program at this institution after receiving a
bachelor's degree from a non-Michigan college or university.

In the final analysis, Table “.1 indicates that the
percentage of males contributed by each state in 1958 was
not much different from the percentage of females contributed
by each state, respectively.

a, gag. ‘While over half of both the male and female
nonresident students were 18 years of age, it is evident from
observing Table h.2 that the males tended to be older than

the females. For example, about 35 per cent of the females
were 18 years old or under, whereas, only 25 per cent of the
males were in this age group. Conversely, 11 per cent of the
males were over 20 years of age as contrasted to only 1 per
cent of the females. Hence, one can conclude that nonresident
freshman males tended to be a little older than the nonresident
fresMan females at‘Michigan State in 1958.

A number of possible reasons could be submitted for
theserelationships, but perhaps the most likely one lies in
thetfect that a large number of the male students were older
as a result of having completed their military obligations

before entering college.

TABLE ”.2. Age Groups of the Male and Female Nonresident
Freshman Students

 

 

 

 

 

FF Males F» FEmalesw» —' ' Combined
Age Group, N 12, FN $7 N #5
Under 18 85 25 *t 98 35 183 30
18 190 56 ** 172 62 362 59
19 27 8 ** 5 2 32 5
20 or over 37 ll ** 3 1. no 6
No Response 1 O 0 O l 0
Totals _gyo loo ‘ 278 100 618 100

 

** Indicates those categories in which there was at least a
5 per cent difference between the relative percentages of
males and females represented.

g, Marital Status. As expected, over 98 per cent of
both the males and females were single (see Table H.3). The
only difference of any consequence between the two groups
was that about h per cent of the males were married, as con-
trasted to only 1 per cent of the females.

TABLE b.3. Marital Status of the Male and Female Nonresident
Freshman Students

1 r
T r‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

Males _7 Ft Females __ Combined
Marital Status N 975 _ N f N 13..
Single 328 96 275 99 603 98
Married 10 u 2 1 12 2
Divorced 1 0 1 0 2 0
Widowed 1 O 0 0 1 0
_gtals __ _3uo 100 278 _, 100 618 _190

 

‘Q. Nativitngg Parents. Nearly 85 per cent of the
parents of the nonresident students (male and female) were
native-born Americans (see Table h.h). This percentage was

quite high, but not as high as might have been exPected. The

53

remaining 15 per cent included students with one or both
parents who were foreign-born.

An important contrast was found between the two study
categories which had one parent native-born and the other
one foreign-born. There were, for example, almost four times
as many students (both male and female) from families in
which the father was the foreign-born parent, as compared to
those families in which the mother was the foreign-born parent.
The contrast was greater in the case of the females where the
ratio was 19:3.

TABLE h.b. Nativity of the Parents of the Male and Female
Nonresident Freshman Students

 

_—

 

 

 

 

 

 

. _LA Males t_Fgmales fitmbinedfi
Nativity of Parents N 6%_ N ;o g; _, 5?
Mother native-born,
father foreign-born 21 6 l9 7 no 7
Father native-born,
mother foreign~born 9 2 3 l 12 2
Both foreign-born 21 7 12 8 33 5
Both native-born 286 8h 2&2 87 528 85
No response 3 '1' 2 l 5 1
Totals 3&0 100 218 100 618 100

 

About 5 per cent of all nonresident freshman students
at Michigan State in 1958 had parents who were both foreign-
born. It is important to note, however, that while one or
both of a student's parents were classified for purposes of
this study as being foreign-born, practically all were Ameri-
can citizens.

E. Father's Education. By far the greatest percentage

of male nonresident students came from families in which the

54

highest formal education of the father was high school, while
the females tended to come from families in which the father
had completed college (see Table h.5).

TABLE b.5. Educational Level of the Fathers of the Male and
Female Nonresident Freshman Students

 

 

 

 

 

Males ——' Females CBEbined
Father's Education N 4% N fi_ N _iL
Some grade school 22 6 7 3 29 5
Completed grade school 32 10 ** ll 8 b5 7
Some high school 28 8 2h 9 52 8
Completed high school 97 29 ** 58 21 155 25
Some college #2 12 ** 55 20 97 16
Completed college 68 20 6h 23 132 22
Some prof. or grad.
school 9 3 11 h 20 3
Completed prof. or
grad. school 38 11 ** #8 17 86 1“
No Response 2 l O 0 2 0
Totals 390 100 218 100 518 100

 

 

** Indicates those categories in which there was at least a
5 per cent difference between the relative percentages of
males and females represented.

One can conclude from observing Table “.5 that the
female nonresident students tended to have-fathers with
higher levels of formal education than did their male counter-
parts.

2. Mother's Education. The educational level of the
mothers of the nonresident (both male and female) students
was generally below that of the fathers mentioned above (see
Table h.6). Like the fathers, however, the mothers of the
male students tended to have a lower educational attainment

level than did the mothers of the female students.

55

TABLE ”.6. Educational Level of the Mothers of the Male
and Female Nonresident Freshman Students

Males 8’ F males ‘r' Combined
Mother's Education N §_ N g N E

 

 

 

 

 

Some grade school 9 . h 2 l 11 2
Completed grade school 18 5 9 3 27 b
Some high school 39 11 25 9 6h 10
Completed high school 1M3 #2 105 38 2&8 to
Some college 39 ll** 53 19 92 15
Completed college 69 20 56 20 125 20
Some prof. or grad.

school 5 2 8 3 13 2
Completed prof. or

grad. school 15 H 19 7 3h 6
No Response 3 1 1 O u 1
Totals 3&0 100 278 100 618 100

 

** Indicates a category in which there was at least a 5 per
cent difference between the relative percentages of males and
females represented.

Q. Father's Occupation. It is evident from observing
Table h.7 that the fathers of the nonresident students (both
male and female) were engaged in what are often considered to
be the "higher" occupations. For example, 85 per cent of the
fathers were classified in the five occupational groups of
business owner. professional, white-collar. skilled labor, and
executive or managerial.

It is important to note that only a small percentage
0f the nonresident students came from families in which.the
father's occupation was classified as farm owner. It seems
OVident, therefore, that most of the nonresident students,
°V°n those from such agricultural states as Ohio, Indiana,
Illinois, and Wisconsin, generally came from towns and cities

ratherthan farms. This particular point is considered in

56

greater detail later in this chapter.

TABLE h.7. Occupations of the Fathers of the Male and
Female Nonresident Freshman Students

L.—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MalEEfii Females ‘2 Combined
Father's Occupation N fifi:§f fl?» N 5% N Ji:§
Business owner 62 18 5h 19 116 19
Professional 53 15 5h 19 107 17
White-collar #8 1h 98 17 96 16
Farm owner 7 2 2 1 9 1
Teacher ’ 9 3 10 h 19 3
Skilled laborer 55 16 ** 29 10 8h lh
Semiskilled laborer 17 5 . 2 1 19 3
Low or unskilled 2 1 1 O , 3 0
Public service 9 3 2 1 11 2
Executive or ‘
managerial 50 15 *‘ 65 2b 115 19
Deceased or retired l8 5 9 3 27 b
No Response 10 3 2 1 12 2
Totals 450 100 278, 100 618 100

 

** Indicates those categories in which there was at least a
.5 per cent difference between the relative percentages of
males and females represented.

There were two categories in which the males and females
differed more than 5 per cent. In the first instance, a
higher percentage of males than females had fathers who were
classified as skilled laborers. Conversely, there was a
considerably higher percentage of females than males with
fathers who were classified as executives or managers.

fl, Mother's Occupation. The major occupation of the
znothers of the nonresident students was that of housewife (see
’Table 9.8). In fact, over 7% per cent of the mothers were
' assigned to this occupational category, followed by those of

'white-collar and teacher, respectively. The number of mothers

57

in other occupational categories was either small or non-

existent.

TABLE h.8. Occupations of the Mothers of the Male and
Female Nonresident Freshman Students

 

 

 

 

 

Males Females Combined
Mother's Occupation N 42' N g% _N .41
Business owner 3 1 2 l 5 1
Professional 10 3 6 2 16 2
White-collar 32 9 25 9 57 9
Farm owner 0 0 0 0 O 0
Teacher 17 5 21 8 38 6
Skilled laborer 2 1 3 l 5 1
Semiskilled laborer 6 2 2 1 0 1
Low or unskilled b l 0 0 h 1
Public service 0 O O 0 0 0
Executive or
managerial 6 2 h 1 10 2
Housewife 2H6 72 211 76 #57 7h
No Response 1“ h h l 18 3
Totals g_2to 100 218 100 618 100

 

I, lng_ f gggh_5chool Attended. Over 87 per cent of
the nonresident students attended a public high school (see
Table h.9). The percentage was a little higher than this
figure for females and a little lower for males.

Although a higher percentage of the nonresident stu-
dents attended a parochial high school (8 per cent) than
attended a private high school (5 Per cent), it was somewhat
surprising to find such a close relationship between these
two types. While it was not the purpose of this study to
determine from which states these various groups of students
came, it is assumed that a large proportion of the students,
who attended a private high school, came from the East,

especially from New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut.

58

TABLE 9.9. Type of High School Attended by the Male and
Female Nonresident Freshman Students

 

 

 

 

 

Type of High SEhoolfi#' Males 887* Females Combined

Attended ' N j: N i
Public 287 85 247 89 53“ 87
Private 20 6 12 h 32 5
Parochial 32 9 19 7 51 8
No Response 1 0 0 0 l 0
Totals 51m 100 373__ 100 _ 618 100

 

g. Iii}; _o_: 11% School Graduating 93333. Even though
there is usually a direct relationship between the size of a
studenfls graduating class and the size of his home community,
the former provides some important information which cannot
always be obtained through the use of the latter. For example,
it is possible for a student to live in an extremely large
city, but still attend and graduate from a relatively small
1high.school. Conversely, students from a predominantly rural
community could, and often do, attend a larger consolidated
high school.

In this particular group of nonresident students, about
one—third attended a high school in which the graduating class
.had.from 200-399 students (see Table 9.10). Of the remaining
students, 23 per cent came from high schools with graduation
classes of too-999, with few in the 1,000 and over category.
Over'h3 per cent were in graduating classes of less than 200
students, but few graduated in classes of less than 25 stu-

dents. There were no important differences between the sexes

in any of the subgroup categories.

59

TABLE h.10. Size of the High School Graduating Class for
the Male and Female Nonresident Freshman

 

 

 

 

 

 

Students

Size—3f High—SdHool Males Females gw— Comgingd
Graduating Class N __% N _% N flip
Under 25 8 2 8 3 l6 2
25-99 63 19 #6 17 109 17
100-199 79 23 55 2h 1H5 2“
200-399 96 28 9O 32 185 31
noo-999 79 23 6b 23 1&3 23
1,000 and over 13 h h l 17 3
No Response 2 1 0 0 2 0
Totals guo 100 _'__278 190 618 100

 

 

_IS. 3331; 2.3 M School Graduating 91511;. One of the
best indicators of college success in recent years has been
rank in the high school graduating class. Therefore, a large .
number of the colleges and universities in this country have
been giving a great deal of weight to this fact in their
admissions programs.

In 1958, there was little apparent difference between
the admissions standards for the resident and nonresident
students at Michigan State University. Since 1958, however.
increasing enrollments have forced.the university to estab-
lish additional admissions requirements for nonresident stu-
dents. One of the requirements, considering all other factors
being equal, is that the nonresident students must be in the
upper third of their high school graduating classes. Hence,

a Study undertaken on the nonresident freshman students who
enroflfiled at this institution in 1961, would undoubtedly result

1" findings somewhat different than those in Table 14.11.

60

Two important facts should be noted about the findings
in Table “.11. First, nearly 60 per cent of all nanresident
freshman students were ranked in the upper third of their
high school graduating classes. Secondly, a higher percentage
of the females than the males tended to be in the upper third
of their classes, with the corresponding result that a higher
percentage of males than females tended to be in the middle
third of their high school graduating classes.

TABLE “.11. Rank in High School Graduating Class for the
Male and Female Nonresident Freshman Students

 

 

 

 

 

Rank in High ’s't‘hool Males Females Combined
Gradu at ing Clas s N 96 N _ 95 N

Lower third 19 5 7 3 26 “

Middle third 1“5 “3 ** 78 28 223 36

Upper third 172 51 u 192 69 361» 59
No Response “ l 1 0 5 1

Totals 3“0 100 278 100 618 100

 

** Indicates those categories in which there was at least a
5 per cent difference between the relative percentages of
males and females represented.

11. §_i_§_e_ .93; MCommunitz. It is significant to note
that almost 55 per cent of the nonresident students came from
communities with pepulations in excess of 25.000 (see Table
“.12). While 3“ per cent of the students came from large
cities over 100,000 population, such as New York City and
Chicago, only 3 per cent came from farms.

There appeared to be few differences between the sexes

in the size of home communities. One exception was that a

61

higher percentage of females than males came from towns

(2,500-25,000 population).

TABLE “.12. Size of Home Community of the Male and Female
Nonresident Freshman Students

 

 

 

 

 

 

Males Fzmales Combined
Size of Home Community N % N 4_% N TE
Farm 13 “ 5 2 18 3
Village (250-2,500) 28 8 18 7 “6 8
Town (2,500-25,000) 105 31 *9 10b 37 209 3t
City (25.000-100.000) 75 22 56 20 131 21
City over 100,000 119 35 92 33 211 3“
No Response 0 0 3 1 3 0
Totals 3“0 100 4278 100 618 100

 

** Indicates a category in which there was at least a 5 per
cent difference between the relative percentages of males and
females represented.

fl. Religious Preference. Data compiled on the reli-
gious preference of the nonresident students (see Table “.13)
indicated that approximately 60 per cent of them were Protes-
tant (57 per cent of the males and 66 per cent of the females).
Of the remainder of the students, a larger percentage of the
males than females were Catholic. Conversely, a higher per-
centage of the females were Jewish. This latter influence
came primarily from the East, especially New York City.

It is important to note that over 8 per cent of the
males either didn't respond or didn't have any religious
preference. The comparable percentage for the females was
0, where only one student failed to respond to the question-

naire.

TABLE “.13. Religious Preference of the Male and Female
Nonresident Freshman Students

 

 

Males Females Combined
Religious Preference N‘__ i N % N ‘éé
Catholic 73 21 ** “1 15 11“ 19
Jewish 37 ll ** 51 18 88 l“
Protestant 195 59 ** 182 66 377 61
None 1“ “ 0 0 l“ 2
Other 9 3 3 1 12 2
No Response 12 “ l 0 13 2
Totalsv__ 3&0 100 .278 100 618 100

 

 

** Indicates those categories in which there was at least a
5 per cent difference behween the relative percentages of
males and females represented.

N, Curricular £3125. About one-fourth of all the non-
resident freshman students in 1958 chose to major in the College
of Business and Public Services (see Table “.1“). Another 20
per cent chose the College of Science and Arts. The remainder
of the students were spread rather evenly in the six other
colleges of the university. Perhaps a somewhat surprising
figure was the small percentage of students choosing agricul-
ture, but after one considers that a large majority of these
students came from cities, this small percentage is under-
standable.

There were a number of expected differences between
the majors chosen by the males as compared to those chosen
by the females. For example, there were no males who chose
home economics as a major. Conversely, there was only one
female in each of the areas of agriculture and engineering.

Other differences included a much higher percentage

of males than females in business and a higher percentage

63

of females than males in science and arts, education (elemen-

tary), and communication arts.

TABLE “.1“. Curricular Major of the Male and Female
Nonresident Freshman Students

 

 

w.— _— v—va—

 

 

 

 

 

 

Males FemaleE _V—fi Combined
Curricular Majorgv N 7% _. N 3 N .9
Agriculture “5 13 ** 1 0 “6 8
Business and Public
Services 108 32 ** 37 13 1“5 2“
Engineering 79 23 ** l 0 80 13
Home Economics 0 O ** “6 17 “6 8
Science and Arts 53 15 ** 65 23 118 19
Veterinar Medicine3 16 5 l5 6 31 5
Education 9 3 ** 52 19 61 10
Communication Arts 8 3 ** 28 10 36 5
No Preference
(none chosen) 22 6 33 2 55 8
Totals 3110 _jlpoo 278 _erO 618 100

 

** Indicates those categories in Which there was at least a
5 per cent difference between the relative percentages of
males and females represented.

3The majority of these females were preparing to be Medical
Techn010gists.

”These were Elementary Education majors.

Only a small percentage (8 per cent) of the nonresident
students (males and females combined) had not chosen a major
at the time they initially enrolled at Michigan State. Hence,
most of them apparently knew what course of study they wanted
to pursue before enrolling at this institution.

2, Amount g£_College Education Desiged. While it is
reCOgnized that freshmen often have a tendency to select
college educational goals which are unrealistic in relation

to their abilities and financial means, the findings in this

6“

study were very interesting. For example, over two-thirds
of the nonresident students wanted to complete four years of
college, and most of the remaining one-third wanted some
graduate or professional school training (see Table “.15).

The aspiration levels were generally higher for the
males than they were for the females. It is important to note
that only one per cent of all the nonresident students wanted
or desired less than four years of college, and this one per
cent was composed primarily of females.

TABLE “.15. Amount of College Education Desired by the Male
and Female Nonresident Freshman Students

 

 

 

 

 

Amount offiCollege Males Females Combined
Education Desired- N' §L_ N 7% N _p
One year 0 0 2 1 2 0
Two years 1 0 7 3 8 1
Three years 0 O 3 l 3 0
Four years 19“ 57 ** 210 75 “O“ 66
Grad. or prof. school l“0 “l ** 56 20 196 32
No Response 5 2 O 0 5 1
’Totals 3“0 100 278 100 618 100

 

 

** Indicates those categories in which there was at least a
5 per cent difference between the relative percentages of
males and females represented.

2, Living Accommodations 23 Michigan State University.

Since most freshmen were required to live in the dormitories
at this institution in 1958, it was not surprising to find

that about 96 per cent of the nonresident students lived in
these quarters. Those few students who lived elsewhere were
either married or lived with relatives. The results of this

inquiry are presented in Table “.16.

65

TABLE “.16. Living Accommodations of the Male and Female
Nonresident Freshman Students at Michigan
State University

 

—-——

 

 

 

 

Living Accommoaations at Males ’Ffimales Combined
Michigan State Univeggity_, N g%’ Nfi' if N 5
Dormitory 318 93 269 97 587 96
Apartment 8 3 1 0 9 1
Roaming House 7 2 0 0 7 l
Fraternity/Sorority o 0 0 o o 0
At home with family 2 1 6. 2 8 1
No Response 5 l 2 1 7 1

Totals 3“0 100 278 100 618 100

T
1
1

,Q. Source 2£_§212g Financial Support. Nearly 80 per
cent of the nonresident freshman students were receiving the
major portion of their financial support from their parents
in 1958 (see Table “.17). The remainder were obtaining support
from part-time jobs (6 per cent), athletic scholarships (“ per
cent), G. I. Bill (“ per cent), and academic scholarships
(5 per cent). Only five students in 618 were receiving their
major support from personal loans.

A much larger percentage of the females than the males
'were receiving their major support from their parents. In
place of parental support, about 30 per cent of the males
‘were working at part-time jobs, using the G. I. Bill, or

receiving athletic or academic scholarship incomes.

Ch
0\

TABLE $.17. Sources of Major Financial Support for the
Male and Female Nonresident Freshman Students

 

 

 

 

 

Sourpe‘Kf‘MajKr Males WTemgles Cdmbined
Financial Suppogg, N __;§ N §_ N _fi
Parents 229 67 ** 260 9b #89 79
Part-time job 37 ll -** 5 2 hZ 6
Athletic scholarship 23 7 ** 0 O 23 h
Loan 5 2 o o 5 1
G. I. Bill 19 5 ** 1 0 18 3
Academic Scholarship 25 7 9 3 3h 5
No Response 2 1 3 1 5 1
Totals _330 , 100 278 100 518 100

 

 

 

—._v

** Indicates those categories in which there was at least a
5 per cent difference between the relative percentages of
males and females represented.

Summagz 2;,Hzpothesis 1

Comparative profiles of the male and female nonresident
freshman students, who enrolled at Michigan State University
in the fall term of 1958, are presented below. In these
profiles, the major differences between the two sexes in
biographical characteristics are summarized from.Tables h.l
through h.l7. It should be emphasized that these are not
complete descriptions of the male and female nonresident
freshman students at Michigan State, but only summary pro-
files based on the highest recorded percentages in the various

subgroup categories just reviewed.

Males Females
THmese students came from New These students came from
‘York, Illinois, and Ohio, and Illinois, New York, and Ohio,
in that order. and.in that order.

5?

Males

Most of these students were
18 years of age or younger,
but they tended to be older
than their female counter-
parts.

Most of these students were
single, but four per cent
were married.

Most of the mothers and
fathers of these students were
both native-born, or they were
both foreign-born.

Most of the fathers of these
students had completed high
school, but they were gener-
ally below the educational
level of the females’ fathers.

The major occupations of the
fathers of these students

were, in order: business
owner, skilled laborer, and
professional.

Most of these students at-
tended public high schools.
but a higher percentage at—
tended private and parochial
schools than was true for the
females.

These students generally grad-
uated from high school classes
with 200-399 students.

Most of these students grad-
uated in the upper third of
their high school classes.

‘These students tended to come
from cities with populations
in excess of 100,000 persons.

Females

Most of these students were
18 years of age or younger.

Most of these students were
single, and only one per cent
was married.

Most of the mothers and fathers
of these students were both
native-born, or the mothers
were native-born and the
fathers foreign-born.

Most of the fathers of these
students had completed college,
and in many cases graduate

or professional school.

The major occupations of the
fathers of these students
were, in order: executive-
managerial, business owner,
and professional.

Most of these students attended
public high schools.

These students generally
graduated from high school
classes with 200-399 students.

A higher percentage of these
students graduated in the
upper third of their high
school classes than was true
for the male students.

These students tended to come
from towns with populations
between 2,500 and 25,000
persons.

handles

1t 57 per cent of these
ients were Protestants,
21 per cent were Cathol-

se students chose to major
the Colleges of Business
L Public Services, Engi-
aring. and Science and Arts,
:1 in that order. '

arly all these students

mted at least four years
6 college, and 1&1 per cent
anted additional graduate
r professional schooling.

\bout 93 per cent of these
students lived in dormi-
tories, and 3 per cent lived
in apartments.

Major sources of financial
support for these students
were, in order: parents,
part-time jobs, academic
scholarships, and athletic
scholarships.

Females

About 66 per cent of these
students were Protestants,
and.18 per cent were Jewish.

These students chose to major
in the Colleges of Science

and Arts, Education, and Home
Economics, and in that order.

Nearly all these students

wanted at least four years
of college, but they were

less desirous of graduate

or professional schooling

than were the males.

Over 97 per cent of these
students lived in dormi-
tories, and 2 per cent
lived with relatives.

Major sources of financial
support for these students
were, in order: parents,
academic scholarships, and
part-time jobs.

By reviewing the biographical characteristics delin-

eated in Tables Ml through 15.17, and summarized in the pro-

files above, it can be observed that no less than ten of the

biographical subgroups had categories in which the relative

percentage of responses between the male and female students

differed by at least five percentage points.

Hence, it seems

reasonable to conclude that a number of important differences

in blagraphical characteristics did, in fact, exist between

the male and female nonresident fresrunan students who initially

enrolled at Michigan State University in the fall term of

1958.

69

gypothesisIII

There is no significant difference in the

withdrawal rates of the male and female nonresi-
dent freshman students at Michigan State Uni-
versity.

The data relevant to this hypothesis on nonresident
(male and female) withdrawal students were compiled in tabular
form from information obtained from the Registrar's Office at
Michigan State University. The complete breakdown of the
numbers and percentages of withdrawal students, according to
major biographical characteristics, is presented in Table
7.2. Data included in this table were obtained from the
Biographical gagg‘ghggt completed by each student upon his
initial enrollment at Michigan State in the fall term of 1958.

Table n.18, which is a summary of the data in Table
7.2, revealed that 11 per cent of the nonresident males and
10 per cent of the females withdrew from Michigan State
University during their freshman year (academic year of 1958-
59). Hence, these rates indicate that there was no essential
difference between the relative percentages of nonresident
males and females who withdrew from Michigan State sometime
during their freshman year.

Even though there was no important difference in the
over-all withdrawal rates, it is of interest to note that
there were a number of differences between the sexes according
to selected biographical characteristics. Since the identi-
fication of these biographical differences was not necessary

in the testing of this hypothesis, the following statements

70

should be recognized as having resulted from rational obser-

vations of the data presented in Table 7.2. Hence, the

validity of these statements has not been proven statistically.

The statements are as follows:

1.

TABLE “.18.

Female students, whose mothers were native-
born and fathers were foreign-born, had a
higher withdrawal rate than did the male
students with the same type of parents.

Male students, whose fathers completed only
grade school, had a higher withdrawal rate
than the female students in this category.

Female students, whose fathers had completed
only grade school, had a higher withdrawal
rate than the female students in this category.

Female students, whose fathers were business
owners, had a higher withdrawal rate than
their male counterparts.

Male students, whose fathers were employed in
white-collar occupations, had a higher with-
drawal rate than did the female students with
fathers in these occupations.

Female students from small villages tended
to withdraw from college more often than
the male students from these communities.

Catholic males and Jewish females tended to
withdraw from college more often than did
the Catholic females and Jewish males,
respectively.

Withdrawal Rates of the Male and Female Non-
resident Freshman Students at Michigan State
University

 

Males Females Combined

szes of Students N jg N 3; N _%
Regular students 302 89 250 90 552 89

 

Withdrawal students 38 11 28 10 66 ll

 

Totals

BUG 100 228 100 618 100

 

71

Summary 9}; Hypgthesis I;

While a number of differences in the biographical

characteristics of the male and female withdrawal students

were apparent from observing the data in Table 7.2, it was

the over-all comparison of the withdrawal rates of the male

and female nonresident students to which this hypothesis was

specifically directed.
The evidence presented in Table “.18 clearly indicates

that there was no important difference in the withdrawal rates
of the male and female nonresident fresMan students at Michi-

gan State University during the academic year of 1958-59.

Hypothesis III

There are no significant differences between
the male and female nonresident freshman students

at Michigan State University in: attitudes of
stereotypy and dogmatism as measured by (A) The
Inventory 9_f_ Beliefs, Form 3;, and (B) Rokeach-r;
Dogmatism Scale, Form B, reSpectively; values as

measured by the (0) Differential Values Inventory:
Michioan State

abilities as measured by the (D)
University Reading Test, and the (E) College Quali-
achievement as measured by the

fication Test; or,
(F) grade-point averages for the freshman year.

 

The analysis of the above hypothesis involved the
emparison of the males with the females (from each of the ten
tates which contributed the largest number of nonresident
reshman students to the enrollment at Michigan State University

[ring the fall term of 1958),5 on the six tests identified.6

 

E—*

5The ten states used in this analysis are presented in

ble “.19.
6This hypothesis was not accepted or rejected as a

ole, but individually by each of the six instruments of
isurement identified for investigation.

72

The total of 5215 students from these ten states, which was
composed of 272 males and 252 females, constituted 85 per

cent of all the nonresident freshman students (as defined in

this study) enrolled during this term.

The _t_ test, assuming equal standard deviations, was
used to statistically test the significance between the mean
scores of the males and females from each of these states.

The state of Michigan was included on the six tables for

c omparis on purpos as only.

While the results of each test will be discussed, as
presented, a general summary of all the tests used in this

hypothesis will follow the last analysis on academic achieve-
ment (GPA's).

Th; Inventory gfiBeliefs
There was evidence in this analysis that the females
from three of the ten states investigated were significantly
(at .05 level of confidence) more stereotypic in their beliefs
than were the males from these states (see Table h.19). The

three states in which the females were significantly more

stereotypic in their beliefs were Connecticut, Indiana, and
Wisconsin. Since these states are geographically distant

from each other, the findings of stereotypy in this analysis

would not appear to be related directly to any one geographical
region of the country.

From observing the mean scores in Table 4.19, it is

evident that the female students had higher scores than the

males in every state investigated, including Michigan.

73

ierefore, one can generally conclude that the females from
1686 eleven states tended to be more flexible and adaptive
1 their beliefs, while the males tended to be more rigid,

efensive, and authoritarian in their beliefs.

Rokeach's Doegatism §_e_e_i_g

The evidence in this analysis served to further prove
.he conclusions drawn under the last section on Th2,lnventogy
L£_Beliefs. For example, the low scores of the males on the
B (indicating that they were rigid and authoritarian) corre-
spond to the high scores of the males found in this analysis
>n the RDS (indicating they were more dogmatic than the
females).

Significant differences in the RDS mean scores between
the males and females were found in the same three states as
in the IB analysis; namely, Connecticut, Indiana and Wisconsin
(see Table b.20). As indicated in the first paragraph, however,
the male students had higher scores on this test than the
female students. Two exceptions were the states of New Jersey
and Virginia where the females tended to be slightly more

dogmatic in their beliefs than the males.

! .
In the final analysis, it can be generally concluded

that the male students .in these ten states had a tendency to

be more dagmatic in their beliefs than the female students.

Differential Values Inventory
From observing the results of the analysis of the data

hilhble‘h.21, it is immediately apparent that there were few

TABLE “.19.

Results of the Significance by £,Test on The

Inventory 2£_Beliefs, Form I’Mean Scores for
the Male and Female Nonresident Freshman
Students from Selected States

 

 

 

Signif-
States Males Females icance
Connecticut. . N=9 N-b F‘>M
M-60.56 M-73.25 at .01
SD=12.53 SDs5.93
Illinois. N-62 N=78 n.s.
M=61.98 n-6h.77
SD-12.78 sn-12.ho
Indiana. N=2h N-lh F >M
M-5h.75 M-65.71 at .05
SD-12.82 50-13.”?
Massachusetts. N-6 N-3 FI>M
M-62.83 M-71.67 at .10
SD-13.71 SD-12.28
New Jersey. N-12 N-16 n.s.
14.63075 M-Gu.00
SD-lh.68 SD-10.55
New York. N-83 N-75 n.s.
H.60012 M-6ue60
sn-1h.77 sn-13.u2
Ohio 0 N'hB N-ul n e S e
M'6leo7 M363e’46
SD-13.8h SD-12.1h
Pennsylvania. N-l6 N-ll n.s.
M-50.56 M-57-35
SD-12.H6 SD=12.55
Virginia. N-6 N-h n.s.
M-65.00 M-70.00
SD-10.h5 SD-11.67
Wisconsin. Null Nan-6 F >M
M-57.09 M-75.67 at .01
SD-lh.67 SD-17.15
fii'é'h'fg'a'n'.’ " " " -N:1-,-076 """"" N 317013" " " " " " "6.27."
H.63eu6 MB6’4.7’+
SD-13.92, SD-12.8#

 

7While those cells found to be significant at the
confidence were noted,

or below, were considered in this hypothesis.

.10 level of

only those at .05 level of confidence,

SLEILZO.

Results of the Significance by 5 Test on

Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale, Form E Mean
Scores for the Male and FemaIe Nonresident

Freshman Students

7'1-

W

from Selected States

 

I:
I:

 

 

 

Signif-
Cgtates Males Females icance’
unecticut. N-9 N-h MJ>F
M-173.33 M-l38.25 at .01
SD:2H.35 SD-21.51
inois. N-62 N-78 M1>F
M-l69.11 M-155.59 at .10
SD-23.9h SD32he79
iana. N-Zh Nulu M >F
M-177e71 “-163.29 at 005
SD-23.01 SD-25.06
sachusetts. N-6 N-3 n.s.
M-173.50 M-176.67
SD-35.25 SD-29.80
Jersey. N-12 N-16 n.s.
M-167.75 M-175.31
SD-28.8H SD-29.15
York. N-83 N-75 .n.s.
M-168.30 M-163.55
SD=26.21 SD-20.9h
'e NauB Nah]. nose
M-163.81 M-150.90
sn-26.61 sn-25.37
.sylvania. N-16 N-ll n.s.
M-172.63 M=167.82
SD=27.78 sn=21.06
inia. N-6 N-b n.s.
“$157.83 ”13160.75
SD-18.89 SD=21.38
one in. N=ll N=6 M >F
24.169018 M'150.00 at .02
SD-2#.l7 SD-31.63
i'an'l' " "' "' ”N217076" "' " " " "N'Ii’j'o'i'é’ "' "" " "’ " 'nTs'.’
M-l68.05 M-16u.01
SD-2h.86 SD=26.01
F a1: .01 means: males greater than females at .01 level

onfidence.

 

 

76

differences in the values held by the male and female students
from the states identified. In only one state, Massachusetts,
was there a statistically significant difference between the
mean scores of the male and female students on the DVI. Here
the females (higher scores) tended to regard more highly such
traditional values as puritan morality, individualism, and

an emphasis on the future. The males (lower scores), on the
other hand, tended to regard more highly such emergent values
as sociability, conformity, and an emphasis on the present
rather than the future.

In the other states, no distinct pattern of values was
evident. Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude from
this analysis that there was no essential difference in the
pattern of values between the male and female students from

the states identified.

Michigan‘gggyg‘Universit Reading 2233

While the findings in Table h.22 suggest that the
female students tended to have slightly higher reading abil-
ities (as evidencalby the higher mean scores) than the male
students, no statistically significant difference was found
‘between the-mean scores, by sex, in the ten states investigated.

From this analysis, then, it can be concluded that
there were no significant differences in the reading abilities

of the male and female students from the states identified.

77

TABLE l$.21. Results of the Significance by 3 Test on the
Differential Values Inventory Mean Scores for
the Male and Female Nonresident Freshman

tudents from Selected States

 

 

 

 

Signif-
States _Males Female; icance “
Connecticut. N-9 N21} n.s. A «
M-29.56 M-3h.00 . f“);
SD-7.lh SDah.O6 ;
IllinOiS. N-52 N378 neSe '
m-33.63 u-33.6u '
sn-6.u1 SD=7.21
humane. stu Nalu n.s.
M-33.67 M=32.21 ‘
50:6.n0 SDa7.63
Massachusetts. N=6 N==3 F >M
M-31.l7 Ms39.00 at .02
sn=h.5o snau.32 .
New Jersey. N=12 N-l6 n.s.
M837.83 M-32.hh
sn=6.8u SD-6.85
New York. N-83 N-75 n.s.
Ma3h.00 M~32.19
SD-7.l9 SD=7.21
'hiO. Nil-t3 N‘h’l nos.
M-Bh.h7 M-31.98
SD-6.ot sn-6.73
nnsylvania. N=l6 Null n.s.
Maau.19 M=29.35
SD-Gelu SD'7011
ginia. Ne6 Nah M >F
M-37.50 M-32.25 at .10
SD91}. 68 SD82 . 38
onsin. N-ll N=6 n.s.
“.35082 M33906?
SD25.25 SDa6.h8
'i'g'a’n" "' "" " ”N317076" "' "‘ " "' ”N31To'i'6 """"""" n Ts'.’
M'3u089 M'33083
.; m- 5.936 o 99 SD86 . 88
M at . 02 means: females greather than males at .02 level

onfidence .

 

78

TABLE b.22. Results of the Signifcance by 5 Test on the
Michigan State University Reading Test Mean
Scores for the Male and Female Nonresident
Freshman Students from Selected States

 

 

 

Signif-
States Males Females icance"
Connecticut. N-9 N-h n . s . a;
M-Z7.89 M.30.25
sn-5.52 sn-u.96 g
IlliUOiSQ N362 N-78 no 5 e
Man-28.31} M-28.53
SDI-5.10 513-6087
Indiana. N-zlt N-lh ' n.s .
M-25.92 M826.00
SD86.99 SD-7.08
Massachusetts. Na6 N-3 n.s.
M-37 o 33 14-25 . 33
SD-h.00 SDI-1.75
New Jersey. N-12 N-16 n.s.
' M-30.00 M-29.25
sn-h.67 SD87.25
New York. N-83 N-75 nose
M-28.lh M'30039
sn=6.1o sn-6.06
lIlia. Iii-1‘3 N-ul nos.
H.25.30 M-Z7.80
SD85.81 SD-5.70
nnsylvania. N-l6 N-ll n.s.
“-26.13 14.27000
SD-7.h2 SD-7.26
ginia. N36 N-u nose
M-28.l7 M-31.25
so=5.85 sn-6.95
onsin . Nall Na6 F >M
M323.82 M-29.17 at .10
SD-5.58 SD82.57
i‘g’é’n" "‘ "’ " ”N217076" " "' "’ " ”N31To'i'6 ””””””””
M-26.92 ' M-28.0h
sn-6.47 sn-6931

 

 

TM at .10 means: females greater than males at .10 level
onfidence.

.Elh23. Results of the Significance by £_Test on the
College Qualification Tgst Mean Scores for the
Male and Female Nonresident Freshman Students

from Selected States

W

 

 

Signif-
ftates Males Females icance*
ecticut. N-9 N-h n.s.

M=l2h.56 M-129.25
sna26.67 sn-27.27
nois. N-62 N-73 n.s.
”-131.53 M=120.68 .
SD'Zue 02 513.2”. 06
ina. N-2h N-lh n.s.
M-123.36 M=117.35
SD-33.63 SD-23.71
:chusetts. N-6 N-3 n.s.
M-117.50 M-125.33
SD-22.53 SD-9.22
'ersey. Na12 N-l6 n.s.
M-l32.17 M=130.75
SD-31.02 SD-29.27
’ork. N-83 N-75 n.s.
M8136.72 M=129.88
SD-27.12 SD-21.u2
N‘ua Nah]. no 5 e
M8120.77 M3118.85
50323-37 SD-23.93
rlvania. N-l6 N-ll n.s.
MIth.00 M-126.00
sn-zb.3h SD=30.57
:ia. N-6 Nat M >F
M-135.00 M-122.25 at .10
SD-Bh.h0 SD-20.75
.sin. N211 N=6 n.s.
sn=2t.28 sn=21.60
En """"" N 217076 """" r 4:170'1'6 """""" n Ts?
M-125.77 M-llu.68
SD-25.55 SD-ZQLBO
a1: .10 means: males greater than females at .10 level

fidence.

80

College Qualification Test

The results of the .1; tests in Table 4.23 suggest that
here was no significant difference in the academic aptitude
f the male and female students from each of the ten states
tudied. While the mean scores did vary slightly between
1e sexes from state to state, no distinct pattern by geOgraph-
:al region was evident. For example, in New York the mean
:ore of the males was higher than that for the females, while
two bordering states, Connecticut and Pennsylvania, the
an scores of the females were higher than those for the
les.

It is important to note that the findings in this
llYSiS correSpond generally with those found in the analysis
reading abilities. There was not, however, a direct
respondence in the mean scores in each state. A good
nple is the state of New York where the mean score of
males on the RT (see Table (4.22) was less than that of
females, while on the CQT (see Table 14.23) the mean
'e of males was considerably higher than that of the
les.

In summary, no statistically significant difference
found to exist in the COT mean scores between the male

female students from the ten states investigated.

Grade-Point Aveyages
In this analysis of the grade-point averages (freshxnan
for the male and female students from the ten selected

5, it was found that only in Wisconsin was there a

81

;nificant difference, by sex, in the GPA's obtained. In
Loonsin the females obtained significantly (at .01 level
confidence) higher GPA's than the males. It should be
:hasized, however, that the number of students involved
. rather small.

It was interesting to companathe CQT mean scores (in
ple h.23) of the various groups of students with their
:ual achievement as indicated by their grade-point averages
I Table b.2h) for the freshman year. In the states of
.inois, Indiana, New York, Ohio, Virginia, and Michigan the
.e students had higher mean scores on the CQT than the
male students, but when it came to achievement, the males
’m these same states obtained poorer grade-point averages
Ln the females.

From the findings in Table n.2u. there appeared to be
important patterns in grade-point averages obtained, by
:, or according to major geographical regions.

From this analysis, it can be generally concluded that
significant differences in academic achievement, as measured
the grade-point averages for the freshman year, occurred

;ween the male and female students from the states identified.

 

fihflEILZR. Results of the Significance by £.Test on the
GradenPoint Averages for the Male and Female
Nonresident Freshman Students from Selected

 

 

 

States
i . ’““' fifiéignif—
;States Males Females _ icance*
onnecticut. N=8 Nah n.s .
M-2.lh M-2.2h
SD'071 SD‘057
llinois. N-57 N371 n.s.
M-2039 “-20%
$133.56 SD=055
[diana. N-20 N212 F >M
M=2.21 M-2.uu at .10
$133.62 313-073
ssachusetts. N=6 N=3 n.s.
M-2.36 M-2.h9
SD=.5M SD=.17
v Jersey. N-lz N=13 n.s.
M=2.52 M-2.50
SD.053 SD-065
York. N877 'N-69 n.s.
H-2.33 M=2.h7
SD-.6l SD-.56
9. N-35 N=37 F >M
M=2.2h M-2.h3 at .10
SD‘059 SD3058
rsylvania. N-ls N=9 M >F
M-2.28 M-2.05 at .10
SD-.66 sD-.7o
jJ1131 N26 Nab n.s.
M-2.37 M=2.h9
sn=.66 sn-.6u
ensin. N-lo N-6 F >M
M62.1U M32.5u at .01
SD=.’45 SD'OB?
ZJEEnT-C_ —'—'_N:9§7 ——————— N:9Th ———————— nTsT
M-2.27 M32036

 

if at .10 means:
nfidence.

females greater

than males

at .10 level

33

Summagz 2£_Hypothesis III

From the six analyses just reviewed, the following

tements summarize the respective findings:

1.

While the females from all the states
studied in this hypothesis tended to be
more flexible, adaptive, and non-stereotypic
in their beliefs than the males, there were
only three states-~Connecticut, Indiana,
and Wisconsin—-in which the mean scores of
the females on 222 Inventogz 2§_Beliefs
were significantly higher than those for
the males. Compared to the females, the
males in each state could be described as
being stereotypic, rigid, defensive, and
authoritarian in their beliefs.

Corresponding closely with the results of
The Inventory g£,Beliefs, the males were
found to generally have higher mean scores
than the females on Rokeach's Dogmatism
Scale. Hence, the males tended to be more
degmatic in their beliefs than the females.
There were, however, only three states--
Connecticut, Indiana, and Hisconsin--in
which the difference in mean scores, by
sex, were found to be statistically sig-
nificant beyond the .05 level of confidence.

The results of the analysis of the mean
scores obtained on the Differential Values
Inventory revealed that there were gener-
ally no significant differences in value
between the sexes in each state. Only in
Massachusetts, where the females had a
significantly higher mean score than the
males, was a difference in values between
the sexes evident. Here the females tended
to regard traditional values more highly
than the males.

No significant differences were found in
reading ability, as measured by the Michigan
State University Reading Test, between the
male and female students in each of the states
investigated.

No significant differences were found to
exist in academic aptitude, as measured
by the College Qualification Test, between
the sexes in each of the states identified
in this hypothesis.

 

 

M41 .11.. 4.1.... 13...... x

6.

Only in the state of Wisconsin was a
significant difference in academic achieve-
ment, as measured by the grade-point aver-
ages for the freshman year, found to exist
between the sexes. Here, the achievement
of the female students was significantly
greater than the male students. In the
remainder of the states, no significant
patterns or differences in achievement
(GPA's) were apparent between the sexes.

CHAPTER V
ANALYSIS OF DATA: PHASE TWO

Introduction
‘Whereas Chapter IV, or Phase One, was devoted primarily
characterizing and comparing the male and female nonresident
eShman students at Michigan State University in terms of
air attitudes, values, abilities, achievements, retention
ndencies, and background characteristics, this chapter, or
ase Two, has as its purpose the comparison of the nonresident

eshman students with the resident freshman students in terms

‘ these same characteristics.

As in Chapter IV, the analysis of the data in this
.apter will be presented in three parts, corresponding to

Le sequence of the hypothesis submitted for Phase Two in

lapter I.

Hypothesis 2!

There are no important differences between the
resident (male and female) freshman students and
the nonresident (male and female) freshman students
at Michigan State University in any one of the
following biographical categories: (A) sex (per-
centages of males and females); (8) age; (C) mari-
tal status: (D) nativity of parents; (E) father's
education (F) mother's education; (G) father's
occupation; (H) mother's occupation; (I) type of
high.school attended; (J) size of high school
graduating class; (K) rank in high school grad-
uating class; (L) size of home community;

(M) religious preference; (N) curricular major:
(0) amount of education desired: (P) living
accommodations at Michigan State; or, (Q) source
of major financial support.

85

86

The data relevant to this hypothesis were analyzed by
:ompiling in tabular form the responses (numbers-and per-
=entages), for the various resident and nonresident biographical
ubgroups as identified on the Biographigal 221:; M. After
onducting a number of random Chi-square tests of independence,
t was determined that (for descriptive purposes) a difference
P five percentage points in the relative percentage of responses
atween the residents and nonresidents in a particular bio-
~aphica1 category would be sufficient evidence that an impor-
.nt difference did exist between the two sub-populations in
at category. Each such category, so identified, is marked
th a double asterisk (**) between the resident and nonresident
lumns in the respective tables.

In this analysis, the males and females in the resident
d nonresident sub-populations, respectively, were combined.
:omplete delineation, however, by sex and residency status
r the various study subgroups is presented in Tables 7.2 and

h

5. £95. The freshman class at Michigan State in the
1 term of 1958 (excluding those students eliminated from
study in Chapter I) was composed of 52.2 per cent males
117.8 per cent females (see Table 5.1). Included in this
9.1 were 2,092 resident freshmen composed of 51.14' per cent
as and 118.6 per cent females. Differing slightly were the

nonresident freshmen with 55.0 and 115.0 per cent males and

Lles , respectively.

87

TABLE 5.1. Sex of the Resident and Nonresident Freshman

 

 

 

 

 

 

Students
P Residents 1‘“ Nonresidents Combined
. Sex N 997: L i N ’E
[ales 1,075 51.14 3110 55.0 1,1515 52.2
emales 1,017 148.6 278 145.0 1,295 117.8
was 2.092 prom 618 ‘ 100.0 24710 100.0

 

 

It is apparent from observing Table 5.1 that there
re 10 per cent more male than female nonresident students
1958. While this difference was relatively small, it
:ourages the asking of one very broad but important question:
.t factors were operative in making Michigan State University
'e attractive to the nonresident males, than females, in
8? Possible factors that might have been reSponsible in-
ie curricula, finances, and athletics.

Q. Age. The age distributims of the resident and
'esident sub-populations were very similar (see Table 5.2).
only apparent difference was that the nonresident students
ed to be slightly younger than their resident counterparts.
‘emales in both sub-pepulations tended to be younger than

.ales .

 

 

88

ABLEfib2. Age Groups of the Resident and Nonresident
Freshman Students

 

 

L
l‘“

 

 

 

 

Residents Nonresidents Combined
F__Age N j? N _E. N j§_
nder 18 571 27 183 30 7511 28
3 1.32u 63 362 59 1,686 62
9 92 5 32 5 12a 5
) or over 105 5 1&0 6 1145 5
> Response 0 0 1 O 1 0
.tals 2LQ92 100 618 100 21710 100

 

2, Marital Status. There was essentially no differ-

 

ce between the resident and nonresident students in marital
atus (see Table 5.3). About 98 per cent of both groups

re classified as single, while the remaining 2 per cent in
:h case represented married students. Even though there

re a few in each group who were divorced or widowed the per-
ntage was so small as to be negligible. In both groups,

.re was a slightly higher percentage of males than females

. were married.

LE 5.3. Marital Status of the Resident and Nonresident
Freshman Students

 

 

' m ‘-

 

 

 

 

3; ‘Residents—W Nonresidents Combined _J
ital Status N N N

gle 2, 01.1 98 603 98 2 .6111. 98
tied. an 2 12 2 56 2
)rced. 2 O 2 0 h 0
rwed. 3 0 1 O h 0
Response 2 O O O 2 O
gls 2,092 100 618 100 24710 100

 

 

 

89

2. Nativity _o_; Parents. The resident and nonresident
zb-populations were almost identical in reference to the
LthitY of parents. About 85 per cent of the students in
.9 two groups reported that both their parents were native-
irn (see Table 5.11).

It is important to note that in both sub-populations a
gher percentage of students came from families in which
a father was foreign-born and the mother native-born than

3 true when the situation was just reversed.

 

51E 5.“. Nativity of the Parents of the Resident and
Nonresident Freshman Students

 

Residents Nonresidents Combined

 

 

 

Lativity of {agents N 3? N 3? N

her native-born,

ather foreign-born 134 7 no 7 17“ 6
her native-born,

other foreign-born 70 3 12 2 82 3
n foreign-born 86 h 33 5 119 h
1 native-born 1,792 86 528 85 2,320 86
Response 10 0 5 1 l5 1
515 2.932 100 618 100 2,710 100

 

3;. Father's Education. While there were a number of
larities between the resident and nonresident sub-populations
egard to father's education, there were some important
rvable differences. It is evident from observing Table
that, on the whole, the fathers of the nonresident stu-

5 had attained a higher formal educational level than had
:‘athers of the resident students. For example, nearly 1+0

:ent of the fathers of the nonresident students had

90

ompleted college (and 1’4 per cent graduate or professional
chool), as contrasted to only 25 per cent of the fathers of
me resident students (with only 9 per cent having completed
raduate or professional school).

LBLE 5.5. Educational Level of the Fathers of the Resident
and Nonresident Freshman Students

 

v——v

 

 

 

Residents Nonresidents Combined
gather's Educatign N _% N g% N %
‘me grade school 92 5 29 5 121 5
mpleted grade sch. 276 13 ** M5 7 321 12
me high school 272 13 n 52 8 321. 12
mpleted high sch. 568 27 155 25 723 27
me college 30“ 15 97 16 #01 15
mpleted college 321 15 ** 132 22 #53 17
me prof. or grad.
school #6 2 20 3 66 3
npleted prof. or
grad. school 199 9 ** 86 1h 185 8
Response 1h 1 2 0 16 1
:Egls 2.092 goo 618 100 2.710 100

 

Indicates those categories in which there was at least a
>er cent difference between the relative percentages of
:idents and nonresidents represented.

,2. Mother's Education. Similar to the fathers, the
ihers of the nonresident students tended to have a higher
aained educational level than did the mothers of the resi-
t students (see Table 5.6). For example, about h per cent
a of the mothers of the nonresident students had completed
lege, as compared to the mothers of the resident students.

The mothers of female students in both the resident
nonresident sub-populations tended to have a higher
zined formal educational level than the mothers of male

lents.

 

 

 

Illlllllr‘il . io.-eu
Jfl 4 . . .1
o

91

ABLE 5.6. Educational Level of the Mothers of the Resident
and Nonresident Freshman Students

r ' #6::Residhnts TNonresidents Combined

Eggther's Education N_7 i N i N EL_

 

ome grade school 5% 3 ll 2 65 3
ompleted grade sch. 179 8 27 h 206 8
ome high school 2&3 12 6b 10 308 ll
ompleted high sch. 8%9 #1 2&8 to 1,097 to
ome college 252 12 92 15 Bub 13
ompleted college 339 16 125 20 h6h 17
ome prof. or grad.

school #8 2 13 2 . 61 3
ampleted prof. or

grad. school 119 6 3h 6 153 5
a Response 8 0 h 1 12 0
gtals 2,092 100 618 100 2,710 100

 

IQ. Father's Occupation. It is evident from observing
Lble 5.7, that the fathers of the nonresident students were
ngaged in "higher" or more prestigious occupations than were
Le fathers of the resident students. Hence, a much higher
.rcentage of the fathers of nonresident students, as compared
. the fathers of resident students, were engaged in the
»llowing occupations: (1) business owner; (2) professional;
1d, (3) executive or managerial. Conversely, a higher per-
:ntage of the fathers of resident students, as compared to
.e fathers of nonresident students, were engaged in the
llowing occupations: (1) farm owner; (2) skilled laborer;
d (3) semiskilled laborer.

While Tables 7.2 and 7.3 indicate that there were
fferences by sex in the percentage of fathers in each of

e occupational categories, it is important to note that this

fluence was almost identical in both sub-populations. Hence,

 

92

the fathers of females tended to be in the "higher” occupations,
such as professional or executive-managerial, while the fathers
of the males tended to be skilled laborers and farm owners.

TABLE 5.7. Occupations of the Fathers of the Resident and
Nonresident Freshman Students '

 

r‘_ ——__

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Residents 8—iNonresidents Combined

‘ather's Occmtion N % N :75 N 10

usiness owner 293 11} ** 116 19 1409 15
rpfessional 25h 12 ** 107 17 361 13
hite-collar 320 15 96 16 1416 15
arm owner 188 9 ** 9 l 197 7
aacher 72 3 l9 3 91 3
tilled laborer 395 19 ** 8h lb h79 18
1miskilled laborer 137 7 19 3 156 6
.w or unskilled 21 1 3 0 2h 1
Lblic service 37 2 11 2 #8 2
ecutive or

managerial 203 10 ** 115 19 318 12
ceased or retired 137 6 27 b 168 6
Re8ponse 35 2 12 2 b7 2
:als . 2,092 100 518 100 2,710 100

 

 

Indicates those categories in which there was at least a
»er cent difference between the relative percentages of
idents and nonresidents represented.

21. Mgtgevg's Occupatigg. It is clearly evident in
Le 5.8 that a considerably higher percentage of the mothers
:onresident students, as contrasted to the mothers of
dent students, were classified occupationally as house-
5. Hence, a smaller percentage of the mothers of the
esident students were gainfully employed outside the home.
fact seems reasonable since the fathers, as indicated
1, were generally engaged in higher-income occupations than

the fathers of the resident students.

 

 

93

0f the resident and nonresident mothers who were gain-
fully employed outside the home, 12 per cent of the former
and 9 per cent of the latter were employed in white-collar
occupations.

The percentage distribution of the mothers among the
>ccupationa1 categories for the nonresident males and females
rere very nearly the same as for the resident males and females,
'espectively.

ABLE 5.8. Occupations of the Mothers of the Resident and
Nonresident Freshrnan Students

 

[-
:—

 

 

 

 

Residents Nonreéidents Combined
:ther's Occgpation N % N 4_% N j?
siness owner 23 1 5 l 28 1
ofessional h? 2 16 2 63 3
its-collar 251 12 57 9 308 11
an owner 1 0 0 0 l 0
icher 1U5 7 38 6 183 7
Llled laborer l9 1 5 1 2h 1
:iskilled laborer 55 3 8 1 63 3
. or unskilled 31 1 h l 35 1
110 service 3 0 0 0 3 0
cutive or
anagerial 23 1 10 2 33 1
sewife 1,395 67 ** #57 7h 1,852 68
Response 99 .5 18 3 117 in
:15 2,992 100 518 100 2,710 100

 

ndicates a category in which there was at least a 5 per
difference between the relative percentages of residents
nonresidents represented.
2;. Type _o_; 11ng School Attended. It was of particular
'est to find (as indicated in Table 5.9) that less than 1
ent of the resident students had attended a parochial

school, while over 8 per cent of the nonresident students

ttended such a school.

 

9’4

Another significant fact, as indicated by the findings
in Table 5.9. was that a higher percentage of resident stu-
dents than nonresident students had attended a private high
school. With such a large number of students from the East,
where the private school system is traditionally more prev-
alent than in the Middle West, one would normally expect that
1 larger percentage of the nonresident students would have
.ttended private high schools.

ABLE 5.9. Type of High School Attended by the Resident and
Nonresident Freshman Students

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

713.. 6? High School ' Residents Nonresidents-m 'Combined
:Attended N N _“_N 12
:bric 1,913 92 ** 53b 87 2.uu7 . 91
ivate 138 7 32 5 170 ‘ 6
rochial 31 l ** 51 8 82 3
Response 10 0 1 0 ll 0
gals 2,092 109 618 100 2410 100

 

Indicates those categories in which there was at least a
>er cent difference between the relative percentages of
idents and nonresidents represented.

g. _S__i_._2_e_ 9_i_‘_ £128.13. School Graduatigg 9.1933. Table 5.10
rs very clearly that the nonresident students in 1958 tended
ome from larger high school graduating classes than did
resident students. For example, about 57 per cent of the
asident' students graduated from a high school class of
than 200 students. The comparable figure for the resident
rnts was only about 39 per cent.

Nearly 33 per cent of the resident students and 19

ent of the nonresident students graduated from high

I

 

“.1114. 1.....é

 

 

 

school classes of less than 100 students. The higher per-
centage of the former reflects the basically rural character
of the state of Michigan, while the latter reflects the migra-
tion of a large number of nonresident students from towns and
cities of varying size.

TABLE 5.10. Size of the High School Graduating Class for
the Resident and Nonresident Freshman Students

 

 

i.

 

 

 

 

 

Size of High School Residents Nogggsidents Combined

Gradgating Class N 4_%' N 4% N

Under 25 5& 3 16 2 70 3
25-99 622 30 ** 109 17 731 27
100-199 58& 28 1&5 2& 729 27
200-399 has 21 ** 186 31 631 23
&00-999 356 17 ** 1&3 23 &99 18
1,000 and over 27 1 17 3 && 2
No Response & 0 2 0 6 0
Totals 21092 100 618 100 2,710 100

 

** Indicates those categories in which there was at least a
5 per cent difference between the relative percentages of
residents and nonresidents represented.

The males in both sub-populations tended to come from
slightly smaller high school graduating classes than did the
females (see Tables 7.2 and 7.3).

_I_{_. 3921; £13 £131; School graduating 93.233. Contrary to
expectations, there was a higher percentage of resident stu-
dents (68 per cent), as compared to nonresident students,

(59 per cent), who graduated in the upper third of their high
school graduating classes (see Table 5.11). Of the remaining
students,only & per cent in each of the two sub-populations
were in the lower third of their high school graduating

classes.

96

It should be emphasized again, however, that since 1958
the requirements for admission to Michigan State University
have been modified for the nonresident students. A similar
study on the most recent freshman class at this institution
would probably reveal that a considerably larger percentage
of the nonresident students, as compared to the resident
students, would rank in the upper third of their high school
graduating classes.

In both sub-pepulations, there was a higher percentage
of females than males who graduated in the upper third of
their high school classes.

TABLE 5.11. Rank in High School Graduating Class for the
Resident and Nonresident Freshman Students

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

===========:;_ __i ‘:::r~
Rank in High School Residents Ngnresidents Combined
Graduating Class 1. N ~ér N ¥ AL

Lower third 76 h 26 h 102 h
Middle third 589 28 ** 223 36 812 30
Upper third 1,315 68 ** 36h 59 1,780 55
No Response 11 0 5 l 16 1
Totals - gigng 100 618 100 2,710 100

** Indicates those categories in which there was at least a
5 per cent difference between the relative percentages of
residents and nonresidents represented.

‘g. Size g£_Home Community. Similar to the analysis.
of the data regarding size of high school class and parents'
occupations, the nonresident students (as indicated in Table
5.12) came from communities which were generally larger than

those of the resident students. For example, about 28 per

cent of the resident students came from farms and villages

‘W

 

. i

 

97

.while only 11 per cent of the nonresident students came from
these two types of communities. Conversely, 3h per cent of
the nonresident students, as compared to 2b per cent of the
resident students, came from cities with pepulations in excess
of 100,000 persons.

It is apparent from observing Table 7.2 and 7.3 that
there was a greater tendency for nonresident males and resident
females to come from larger communities than their counter-
parts; namely, nonresident females and resident males.

TABLE 5.12. Size of Home Community of the Resident and
Nonresident Freshman Students

 

 

 

 

 

 

Size of Rome RbsidEnts Nonresidents wCmeined
Community ;_ N ‘g* N %£“_ NL _;;m

Farm 318 15*‘ 18 3 335 12
Village (250-2,500) 267 13** U6 8 213 8
Town (2,500-25,ooo) 531 25** 209. 3b 7&0 27
City (25,000-100,000) U79 23 131 21 610 23
City over 100,000 #95 2h‘* 211 3“ 806 30
No Response 2' O 3 0 5 0
Totals 2,992 100 618 100 24210 100

 

** Indicates those categories in which there was at least a
5 per cent difference between the relative percentages of
residents and nonresidents represented.

5. Religious Preference. While the percentages of
resident and nonresident Catholics were about equal, the
percentage of nonresident Jewish students (1” per cent) far
exceeded the percentage of resident Jewish students (h per
cent). This overbalance was compensated for by a higher per;

centage of resident Protestant students (73 Per cent), than

nonresident Protestant students (6l per cent).

98

Sex differences between the two sub-populations were
minimal. The major differences resulted from the Jewish-
Protestant reversal between the nonresident and resident sub-
pepulations as mentioned above.

TABLE 5.13. Religious Preferences of Resident and Nonresident
Freshman Students

 

 

 

 

 

Religious Residents ‘Ngnresidents—— Combined

Preference N 7% N _37 N ;%
Catholic 37h 18 ' 11a 19 #88 18
Jewish 76 h #* 88 lb 16h 6
Protestant 1,539 73 ** 377 61 1,916 71
None 5“ 3 In 2 68 3
Other 21 1 12 2 33 1
No Response 28 l 13 2 #1 1
Totals 24092 100 618 100 2,710 100

 

** Indicates those categories in which there was at least a
5 per cent difference between the relative percentages of
residents and nonresidents represented.

N. Curricular £2125. A significantly higher percentage
of nonresident students than resident students chose to major
in the College of Business and Public Services (see Table 5.1b).
A similar, but smaller, difference was prevalent in the choice
of major by the nonresident students in the Colleges of Agri-
cultunaand Home Economics. Conversely, a higher percentage
of resident students chose the College of Engineering or were
classified as 'No Preference”, meaning they had not chosen a ‘
major as of the time the questionnaires were completed.

By observing Tables 7.2 and 7.3. it is apparent that

the nonresident male students had a much lower percentage of

students in the 'No Preference' category than did the resident

99

male students. This difference may have been a result of
the nonresident students' knowing more precisely what they
wanted to study before enrolling at Michigan State.

It is also evident from these two tables that a higher
percentage of nonresident females, as compared to resident
females, chose to major in the Colleges of Home Economics and
Communication Arts.

TABLE 5.1&. Curricular Major of the Resident and Nonresident
Freshman Students

 

 

 

Residents Nonresidents Combined
Curricular Major N .% N .p N 3
Agriculture 133 6 &6 8 179 7
Business and Public
Service 3&& 16 ** 1&5 2& &89 18
Engineering 3&0 16 80 13 &20 16
Home Economics 127 6 &6 8 173 6
Science and Arts &06 20 118 19 52& 19
Veterinary Medicine 7& & 31 5 105 &
Education 235 ll 61 10 296 11
Communication Arts 106 5 36 5 1&2 5
No Preference
(none chosen) 327 16 ** 55 8 382 1&
’Totals 2,092 100 618 100 2,710 100

 

** Indicates those categories in which there was at least a
5 per cent difference between the relative percentages of
residents and nonresidents represented.

9, Amount 2; College Education Desired. While the
'validity of the responses to an inquiry of this nature are
recognized as being very questionable, it is interesting to
note that the two sub-populations reSponded. in an alm03t

identical pattern. In each of the two sub-pepulations, approx-

:hnately'two-thirds of the students were desirous of obtaining

 

100

a four-year college education, while the remaining one-third
of the students wanted additional graduate or professional
schooling (see Table 5.15). Hence, the aspiration levels
(education) of the resident and nonresident freshmen of 1958

were nearly identical.

TABLE 5.15. Amount of College Education Desired by the
Resident and Nonresident Freshman Students

 

 

 

 

 

Amount of College Residents Nonresidents Combine
Education Desired N Z Nah—'%fi N 4%
One year 12 l 2 O 1& 1
Two years 65 3 8 l 73 3
Three years 6 0 3 0 9 0
Four years 1,&08 68 &0& 66 1,812 67
Grad. or prof.

school 1.593 28 196 32 789 29
No Response 8 O 5 1 13 0
Totals 2,992 100 618 100 2.710 100

 

‘2. Living Accommodations 23 Michigan State University.
The only important difference between the resident and non-
resident sub-populations in terms of living accommodations at
Michigan State was that 17 per cent of the resident students
versus 1 per cent of the nonresident students were living with
their families (or relatives) rather than in the university
dormitories.

Contrary to common belief, it would appear that Michi—
gan State University is not attracting a large number of non-
resident married students at the freshman level as evidenced
by the findings in Table 5.16. Here it can be observed that
only 9 students (assumed to be married) out of a total of 618

were living in apartment accommodations.

101

TABLE 5.16. Living Accommodations of the Resident and
Nonresident Freshman Students

 

 

 

 

 

Living _Eesidents Nonresidents (CEmbined
__Accommodations N 3: N N .g:
Dormitory 1,6&O 78 ** 587 96 2,227 82
Apartment 5h 3 9 l 63 3
Rooming house 26 l 7 1 33 l
.Fraternity/Sorority u o o o u 0
At home with family 3&9 l7 ** 8 1 357 13
No Response 19 1 7 1 26 1
Totals 2LQ92 100 618 100 2,710 100

 

** Indicates those categories in which there was at least a
5 per cent difference between the relative percentages of
residents and nonresidents represented.

,3. Source g§_Mglg£ Financial Support. While the par-
ents provided the major source of support for nearly three-
fourths of the students in the two sub-populations in this
study, a larger percentage of the nonresident students (79
jper cent), as compared to the resident students (72 per cent),
received their major support from this source (see Table 5.17).
Similarly, a higher percentage of the nonresident students
received their major support from athletic scholarships.

0n the other hand, a higher percentage of the resident
students, as compared to the nonresident students, received
their major source of support from part-time jobs and academic
scholarships.

In both sub-populations, a larger percentage of the
male students received their major support from part-time

jobs and less from parents than did the female students.

 

102

TABLE 5.17. Source of Major Financial Support for the
Resident and Nonresident Freshman Students

Source of Major Resigents Nonresidents Combingd

 

 

 

Financial Support N £7 N % N pp
Parents 1.505 72 ‘* “89 79 1.995 7&
Part-time job 297 1& ** &2 6 339 12
Athletic scholarship 18 l 23 & &1 2
Loan 18 1 5 1 23 1
G. I. Bill 55 3 20 & 75 3
Academic scholarship 172 8 3& 5 206 7
No Response 26 l 5 1 31 1
Totals 2,092 100 618 100 24710 100

 

** Indicates those categories in which there was at least a
5 per cent difference between the relative percentages of
residents and nonresidents represented.

Summagz 2£.Hzpothesis IX,

In order to summarize the major likenesses and differ-
ences of the resident and nonresident freshman students who
enrolled at Michigan State University in the fall term of
1958, simplified profiles of each are presented below. These
(Hnuparative comments are derived from Tables 5.1 through 5.17.
lrt should be emphasized, however, that these are not complete
biographical descriptions of the resident and nonresident
freshman students at Michigan State. but only summary profiles
based on the highest recorded percentages in the various sub-

group categories just reviewed.

Residents Nonresidents
There was a slightly higher There were 10 per cent more
percentage of males than males than there were females.

females.

Most. of these students were 18 Most of these students were
years of age or under. 18 years of age or under. A
higher percentage of these

 

103

Residents

Nearly all these students
were single, and only a few
were married.

Most of these students had par-
ents who were both native-born.
A few had mothers who were
native-born and fathers who
were foreign-born.

Most of the fathers of these
students had completed high
school, but-they were gen-
erally below the earned educ-
ational level of the fathers
of the nonresident students.

The major occupations of the
fathers of these students
were, in order: skilled
laborer, white-collar worker,
and business owner.

Most of these students attended
public high schools, but a
Ihigher percentage attended
private high schools than was
true of the nonresident stu-
dents. ‘

Most of these students
graduated from high school
classes with 25-99 students.

Over'68 per cent of these
students ranked in the upper
third of their high school
graduating classes.

'nhese students came pri-
marily from farms, villages,
and towns with populations of
less 33213 25,000 persons.

EEEEEEESEEEE.
students tended to be under
18 than was true for the
resident students.

Nearly all these students
were single, and only a few
were married.

Most of these students had
parents who were both native-
born. A higher percentage

of these students, as com-
pared to the resident stu-
dents, had parents who were
both foreign-born.

Most of the fathers of these
students had some college,
and a large number had grad-
uated. Nearly 15 per cent
had completed graduate or
professional school.

The major occupations of the
fathers of these students '
were, in order: business :
owner, executive-managerial,
and professional.

Most of these students
attended public high schools,
but a_higher percentage
attended parochial high
schools than was true of the
resident students.

Most of.these.students grad-
uated from high school classes
with 200-399 students.

About 59 per cent of these
students were in the upper
third of their-high school
graduating classes.

These students tended to come
from towns and cities with.
populations 3.31 excess 2;;
25,000 persons.

10&

Residents

About 73 per cent of these
students were Protestants, and
18 per cent were Catholics.

These students chose to major
in the Colleges of Science and
and Arts, Business and Public
Services, and Engineering, and
in that order. Over 16 per
cent had not chosen a major.

Nearly all these students
wanted at least four years of
college, and.28 per cent
wanted graduate or profes-
sional schooling.

About 78 per cent of these
students lived in dormitories,
17 per cent with families, and
3 per cent in apartments.

Major sources of financial
support for these students
were, in order: parents,
partptime jobs, academic
scholarships, and the G. I.
Bill. ‘

Nonresidentg

About 61 per cent of these
students were Protestants,
19 per cent were Cath01ics,
and l& per cent were Jewish.

These students chose to
major in the Colleges of
Business and Public Services,
Science and Arts, and Engi-
neering, and in that order.
Only 8 per cent had not
chosen a major.

Nearly all these students
wanted at least four years
of college, and 32 per cent
wanted graduate or profes-
sional schooling.

Over 96 per cent of these
students lived in dormitories,
and only 1 per cent lived

in apartments.

Major sources of financial
support for these students
were, in order: parents,
part-time jobs, academic
scholarships, and athletic
scholarships. -

By reviewing the biographical characteristics presented

in Tables 5.1 through 5.17, and summarized in the profiles as

listed above,

it can be observed that no less than eleven of

the seventeen biographical subgroups had one or more cate-

gories in which the relative percentage of responses between

the resident and nonresident students differed by at least

five percentage points.

Hence,

it seems reasonable to

conclude that a number of important differences in biographical

characteristics did, in fact,

exist between the resident

and nonresident freshman students who initially enrolled at

Michigan State University in the fall term of 1958.

105

hypothesis‘z

There is no significant difference in the

withdrawal rates of the resident and nonresident
freshman students at Michigan State University.

The data pertinent to this hypothesis on resident and
nonresident withdrawal students were compiled in tabular
form from information obtained from the Registrar's Office
at Michigan State University. The complete breakdown of
the numbers and percentages of withdrawal students, accord-
ing to major biographical characteristics, is presented in
Tables 7.2 and 7.3. A large proportion of the biographical
data in this latter table was obtained from the BiOgraphical
‘Qg£g_§ggg£,completed by each student upon his initial enroll-
ment at Michigan State in the fall tenm of 1958.

. Table 5.18, which is a summary of the data in Tables
7.2 and 7.3. revealed that 11 per cent of the nonresident
students and 12 per cent of the resident students withdrew
from Michigan State University during their freshman year
(academic year of 1958-59). Hence, these rates indicate that
there was no essential difference between the relative per-
centages of resident and nonresident freshman students who

‘withdxew from Michigan State sometime during their freshman

year.

1’

106

TABLE 5.18. Withdrawal Rates of the Resident and Non-
resident Freshman Students at Michigan
State University

 

 

 

 

Males Females Combined
szes of Students N ; N 4_% N #3;
Regular students 302 89 250 90 552 89
Withdrawal students 38 ll 28' 10 66 11
Totals g3&0 100 278 _100 618 100

Even though there was no important difference in the
over-all withdrawal rates of the resident and nonresident
students, it is of note to observe that there were a number
of apparent differences between the two groups of withdrawal
students in terms of selected biographical characteristics.
Since the identification of these biographical differences
was not essential in the testing of this hypothesis, the
following statements should be recognized as having resulted
from rational observations of the data presented in Tables
7.2 and.7.3. Hence, the validity of these statements has not
‘been proven statistically.

3 l. A considerably higher percentage of the
resident freshman students over 20 years
of age withdrew from college than was true
for the nonresident freshman students in
this age group.

2. Nonresident students, whose fathers were

native-born and mothers were foreign-born.
had a much higher withdrawal rate than did
the resident students with the same type
of parents.

3. Nonresident students, whose fathers were

engaged in professional occupations, had
a higher withdrawal rate than did the

resident students with fathers employed
in these same occupations.

107

h. Nonresident students who graduated from
high school classes with less than 25
students had a higher withdrawal rate
than did the resident students in this
category.

5. Resident students who ranked in the lower
third of their high school graduating
classes had a much higher withdrawal rate
than did the nonresident students in this
same category.

6. Resident students with majors in agriculture,
business, engineering, and communication arts
had higher withdrawal rates than the non-
resident students majoring in these areas.

7. The nonresident students majoring in veter-
inary medicine and education had higher
withdrawal rates than did the resident

students majoring in these fields of
study.

Summary .9; Hypothesis _Y_
While a number of differences in the biOgraphical

characteristics of the nonresident and resident withdrawal
students were apparent from observing the data in Tables 7.2
and 7.3. it was the over-all comparison of the withdrawal
rates of the resident and nonresident students to which this
hypothesis was specifically directed.

The evidence presented in Table 5.18 clearly indicates
that there was no important difference in the withdrawal rates
of the resident and nonresident freshman students at Michigan

State University during the academic year of 1958-59.

Hypothesis 1;

There are no significant differences between
the resident (male and female) freshman students
and.the nonresident (male and female) freshman
students at Michigan State University in: atti-
tudes as measured by (A) TE; Inventory p§_Beliefs,

 

-A_1}

108

Form I, and (B) Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale, Form
E, respectively; values as measured by the C
Differential Values Inventory; abilities as
measured by the (D) Michigan State University

Rgading Test, and the E College ualification

Test;

or achievement as measured by the F grade-

point averages for the freshman year.

Sub-Hypothesis:

There are no significant differences-~in the
characteristics as measured by the instruments
(A) through (F) above--between the nonresident
(male and female) freshman students and the
resident (male and female)

1.

2.

9.
10.

11.

students whose parents are native- or
foreign-born.

students whose fathers completed grade
school, high school, college, or graduate
(or professional) school.

students whose mothers completed grade
school, high school, college, or graduate
(or professional) school.

students whose fathers are business owners,
white-collar workers, farm owners, teachers,
skilled laborers, semiskilled laborers, low
or unskilled laborers, public service workers,
professional (doctors, lawyers, etc.L or
executives and managers.

students who attended a public, private, or
parochial high school.

students who graduated from a high school
class of less than 25; 25-99; loo-199; 200-
399; MOO-999; or, 1,000 and over.

students who ranked in the lower third,
middle third, or upper third of their

high school graduating classes.

students who lived most of their lives

on farms; in villa es (250-2,500 papu-
lation); in towns f2,500-25,000 population);
in small cities (25,000-100,000 pepulation);
or, in large cities (over 100,000 population).
students who are Protestants, Catholics, or
Jews.

students with different curricular majors in
college.

students whose major source of support is
parents, part-time jobs, athletic scholar-
ships, loans, G. I. Bill, or academic schol-
arships.

109

The analysis of the above hypothesis was accomplished
in three separate stages for 2222;0f the tests (§_through
3) presented.1 These successive stages were as follows:

giggp I. In order to determine whether there

were any significant over-all differences between
the resident (2,092 males and females) and non-
resident (618 malesand females) freshman students
in the characteristics measured by the instruments
‘5 through §,above, a two by two analysis of variance
for unequal frequencies design was used to analyze
the data.2

§£§§§.§, This stage of the investigation was

undertaken to determine whether there were any
significant differences between the resident male

and female students and the nonresident male and
female students from selected states,3 respectively,
in the characteristics measured by the tests g'thrcugh

§|in Hypothesis VI. The £_test, assuming equal

 

1This hypothesis was not accepted or rejected asja
whole, but was accepted or rejected in each of the stages of
the six instruments of measurement investigated.

2These analyses were performed in accordance with the
procedures described in: .

Walker, Helen, and Lev, Joseph, Statistical Inference,
New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1953), pp. 381- 2..

3The selected states included: Connecticut, Illinois,
Indiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania,(hiq
Virginia, and Wisconsin. These were the ten states which
contributed the largest number of nonresident students to
the freshman class at Michigan State University in the fall
term of 1958.

110

standard deviations, was used to measure the sig-'
nificance between the scores obtained by the var-
ious groups of students on the six tests identified.”
§£§gg‘2. An attempt was made in this stage to
identify the significant differences between the
resident and nonresident students (male and female,
respectively) in the characteristics as measured by
the tests A.through{§ in Hypothesis VI, and accord-
ing to the biOgraphical characteristics submitted
in the sub-hypothesis. The‘p test, assuming equal
standard deviations, was used to identify signifi-
cant differences in the various biographical sub-
groups.
At the conclusion of these analyses, a general summary
'will be presented which will include the significant findings
for the three stages of each of the six tests submitted in

Hypothesis VI.

Egg Inventory p£_Be1iefs

§£§gg,;, Through the use of a two by two analysis of
variance design, a test was made to determine whether there
was any significant difference in The Inventory _o_t; Beliefs
xneam: scores between the resident and nonresident freshman
students. The findings revealed that there was no statisti-

cally significant difference in the 113 mean scores of these

two groups of students (see Tables 5.19 and 5.20).

 

”The analyses of academic achievement excluded the
'withdrawal students' as defined and discussed in Chapters
I and III, respectively.

111

It is important to note, however, that there was a
significant difference at the .01 level of confidence between
the males and females (combined resident and nonresident
students). Hence, it is possible to infer from these find-
ings that the male students were slightly more stereotypic
(rigid, defensive and authoritarian) in their beliefs than

were the females .

TABLE 5.19. Group Mean Scores on The Inventory _o_f_ Beliefs5
W

 

Males femalgs Total_
Residents ip63.h5 §e6h.73 in6b.09

N-l,076 N-l,Ol6 N-2,092
Nonresidents 35.60.83 f-6h.73 {-62.78

N.3uo N=278 N-618
Total 2.62.114 i-Gu.73

N-1,u16 N-1,29u

 

5Lower scores indicate more stereotypic in beliefs.

TABLE 5.20. Analysis of Variance for The Inventory _9_f_‘_
Beliefs

 

 

 

Source of Variation d;_f. Mean Sguare F P
Residency6 l 1.72 1.56 n.s.*
Sex 1 6.71 6.09 .01 **
Interaction 1 1.72 1.56 n.s.*
Within Groups 2,706 1.10

 

6Resident students versus Nonresident students.
* Not significant.
IM‘significant beyond the .01 level of confidence.

112

In summary, the findings in Tables 5.19 and 5.20
clearly indicate that there was no significant difference
between the resident and the nonresident students in stereo-
typy as measured by 2&2 Inventory p£_Beliefs.

§5233_g. In this analysis, 222 Inventory p£.Beliefs
mean scores of the Michigan (resident) male and female stu-
dents were matched with those of the male and female students,
respectively, from each of the ten states identified in Table
5.21. The 3 test was used to statistically measure the
significance between these mean scores.

From observing Table 5.21, it is apparent that there
were only three instances in which a significant difference
(at the minimal .05 level of confidence) was found to exist
between the scores obtained by the Michigan students and
those obtained by the students from the selected states.
These three were:}

1. Michigan males tended to be more stereotypic

in their beliefs than the male students
from Pennsylvania.

2. Connecticut females tended to be more stereo-

typic in their beliefs than the Michigan
females.

3. Female students from Wisconsin tended to be

more stereotypic in their beliefs than the
females from Michigan.

The findings in this analysis indicated,with few

exceptions, that there were no essential differences in

113

TABLE 5.21. Results of the Significance by _t_ Test on The
Inventory p_f_ Beliefs, Form I Mean Scores for

the Resident (MichiganT'andfiNonresident

Freshman Students from Selected States, by Sex

 

 

Signif- Signif-
States Males icance* Females icance‘
MICHIGAN N=l,076 N-l,016
M-63.h6 M=6h.7b
SD=13.93 SD-12.8h
Connecticut N29 n.s. Nab C >M
M360.56 M-73.25 at 005
SD-12.53 SD-5.93
Illinois N-62 n.s. N-78 n.s.
M-61.98 M-éh.77
SD=12.78 sn-12.ho
Indiana N-ZH MI>I N-lh n.s.
Ma5u,75 at .10 Ma65.7l
sn-12.82 sn-13.h7
Massachusetts N=6 n.s. N=3 n.s.
M-62.83 M=7l.67
SD-13.7l SD812.28
New Jersey N312 n.s. N-16 n.s.
M-63.75 M-6u.oo
sn-1t.68 sn-10.65
New York N=83 n.s. N-75 n.s.
M860.12 M864.60
sn-1h.77 sn=13.h2
Ohio Na’43 n.s. N-bl n.s.
M-61.07 M-53.h6
SD-13.8h SD=lZ.1b
Pennsylvania N-16 M >P N-ll n.s.
M=50.56 at .02 n-57.36
SD-12.h6 50:12.65
Virginia N-5 n.s. N-li n.s.
M-65.00 M=70.00
sn=10.u5 sn-11.67
Wisconsin N-ll n.s. N=6 W >M
M'57-09 M-75-57 at .05
SD-lh.67 SD=17.15

 

*C >M at .05 means: Connecticut greater than Michigan at .05
level of confidence.

 

|)||lllgll

Id...|.,...,1.|.. 1.31,... 13!.

11h

stereotypy between the resident (Michigan) students and
students from each of the ten states identified in this
hypothesis. Hence, these findings correspond to the findings
in Stage 1.

§£2gg‘2. The resident and nonresident students were r
compared in this analysis to determine whether there were any
significant differences between the two sub-populations in
attitudes of stereotypy, according to major biographical
characteristics.

The attitudes of stereotypy were measured by the scores
obtained on :32 Inventory g£,Beliefs. The £.test was then
used to identify those biographical categories in which
significant differences in stereotypy between the two sub-
populations were apparent.

The complete results of this analysis are presented
in Table 5.22. Only those categories which had at least
four students and a significance level of .05 were considered
in this hypothesis. These are underscored in Table 5.22.

The other categories noted either had small numbers of stu-
dents or the significance level was .10, which was beyond
the linuts established for this hypothesis.

0f the biographical categories tested, 68 for males
and 68 for females, there were only eight in which signifi-
cant ddfferences in stereotypy were found. In every instance,
the resident students were found to be less stereotypic in

tduyir beliefs than the nonresident students (see Table 5.22).

115

.peCwHuocss no: one .HobcH 0H. be undouumcmfln no
.mecepsum know and» beach new: mHHeo omonh .Uecaauepss can .mpcopsum know can» once we: use
.oocepamcoo he acted no. can finches peach one: mooccaeuhww uncoamdcmHn scan: :a maaoc seesaw

.meflesom acopamouco: one no meaoom on»
new: vehemSoo coon e>s£ meaeth ucepwmou on» he menace on» .Aflueafiawm .moadfi acetamouco:
on» he mouoom one new: ponooefilsoon shun moans ucepfimou on» he menace eflWisumeu nose hopcpk

HoquNm .uoosom .peam

. so .uoaa peuoaaaoo

.Hoonom .mcam

no .moua eacm

.cmoHHoo veneamaoo

o m z No.VzAm .cmeHHoo 080m

.Scm nmfia popoHQSoo

.Hoonom Swan caom

.Som epehm pepoaaaco

oa.\mA z .Hoonom cpmaw eEom
.cOfiusospw m.wozuem

 

.cuon1e>wpe: nuom
.cucnlcwfleaew seem
OH .\mA 2 wwo . VzA m .caonlnmfloacm Menace
.caontcbapd: Heaven
.cuonlcwaeuom kenbeh
.caonuebwue: acnuoz
.nucouaa_wm Nua>auaz

 

 

 

meamaem Jleoaez meassem mead: moasEom moaez Qflmsmme>
.>:H mesaeb .mufln caeom .mon n.:odexom wheuaem he .>aH

LII

 

meow use mowenflaoeoeaeno fleesaaeumOflm pouceaom on
mambaooc< .mucoesbm sesnmowm anomamekcoz use pcepwmem on» new meuoom umoF

see: msoeue> one so ence u an eosaoaefiswam on» he unnamed one no hudfisdm .Nm.n mqmdu

116

S.\zAm

3.\mA z

no.\mA z

meadfiom

.eabtu was» no omen pmkfiu one :o maonakm on» Me :oflpmceaaac on» com

3.szm

modes

mmqwmmnm

wOQZA m

S.\mA z
Ho.\mA z

8.\mA z

3.\zA m

oH.\mA z

3.?A 2
HoimA z
SKEA z

oH.\mA z

oH.\zA m

Ho.mzAm

oH.\mAz

3 .EA 2
8. \mA 2
mo .\zA m

3.\mA z

.8.\2Am

oH.\zAm

 

mo. \2A a
3. EA a

oH.\zAm

.Hda3009dm
.ouebaum
.onansi
.eoecoeua

 

macaw sum mic cam»

.peaflueu no pomeooon
.Heahomecea no .cowm
.cOflbhom oaansm
.peanwxmcs he :04
.neaonea peaaaxmeom
.heaonca poaawxm
.uencsoh

.th30 Each
.beHaOOIouana
.ascowmmcuoam

.uezzo mnczflmsm

“euoz

 

.soaumMSOOO m.aonuem

.Hoonom .psum
no .houa veuoaaaoo
.Hoonow .vcum
no .mcua eSom
.oMeHHoo pououasoo
.omoaaoo esom
.Som Swan UeueHQEoo
.Hconom Swan eEom
.nom cumum peuoHano
.Hoonom oteum osom

 

.:0flumospm m.aonuoz

 

 

mchEem

nemmm

meHeEem

meme:

 

canaeae>

 

[abcH‘me:He> endow dMon n noeexom .>:H

.uuwn mkeflaom he
nflflHHflHHflHflHHHflflHHHHHHflHHHHHHHHflHflHHWflflHHflflflflflflflflflflflflHflHHHHflHflHflMHHHHflflflflflflflflflflflflflflflflflflflflflfl"

«pezcflpcoov .NN.n mdmdfl

117

 

 

.eaneu man» he omen emuwm can so mHonEam one he sonueseaawo on» com "euoz

Ho m z

wommmnnz

35K 2

wmqummwm .mmqwmmwm

oH.\zA m

Ho. 2

NOQZA m

.uosuo
.ocoz
.psepmouowm
.Snwzoh
.onsosumo

 

.eoceueueum mSonHHem

.ooo.ooH no>o acne

..ooo.oo~uooo.nmv sane
.Aooo.nmuoon.m sacs
..oon.mnom~. o e-«>

.ausm

 

 

.Nuwcsaaoo oaom.mm eufim

.eunsp some:

.euns» oases:

.eussp noses
.nmeno_ummmmmmmmm
season 3 mum seem

 

 

 

.ucbo pas ooo.n

.mmmloo:

.mmmuoom

.mmauooa

.mmunm

.mm woven

.nmeao mcwuemwmum
Hocnow mug: mo cswm

 

 

 

 

modesom mead:

.bsH mosam>

 

.thn

nmweaom moan:

caeom .Mcn mrnoeoxom

mmflMth
Mwmfldom

caneeua>

 

Ill

 

.eoscsecoov .mm.n m4m<e

118

 

.oHQeu was» no omen umumm,ene :o mHonshm one he cowuecmaaNo on» com ”eucz

.awamhnaonom OHEeveo<
no.\zAm .35 .H .e
aoanAz Wo.>HAm .534
.afiamueaonom cascaded
.non oesunpnam
.musouem
.ukommsm Hewocesfim
honex MN condom

 

 

 

.somono
osocv concneheua oz
0H .\mA z .3 .\2A m .muhu :owudoacsasoo
CH.\zA m .cowueospm

.e:«0dees Andamaeue>
.mpue use cocoaom
.mowsocooo esom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oH.\zA m . S.\mA z .mcnsoofimcm
. .>hom .D:& was mnocdmmm
o . .OHSudflowH d
“O \“A 2 can HQHflOfihH—ao
. x} L caneeue>
l - 1.3%: Es . ...”..111mm . mm: H
1mOHdEOM mOHWwM 04.390 .WOQ w-HaOdOMOfl \l 1 WM fl “(T1111 - :11.“ 3349

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

33.): . 41131 ..» aégi‘

119

Rokeach's Dogmatism _S_c_a_l_._g

Stage 1. While Rokeach's Domatism m is theo-
ically similar to that of 111; Inventory gt; Beliefs, it is
:sible .tojmake a distinction between dogmatism and stereo-
>y. Thus, the correlation coefficient of .59 between RDS
i the IB would accomodate this assumed distinction.9

The findings in the analysis of variance, as pre-
nted in Tables 5.21 and 5.22, indicate that there was a

:atistically significant difference in the mean dogmatism

 

:ores between the resident and nonresident students. There
is not, however, any significant difference between the sexes

n this characteristic, nor was the interaction significant.

‘ABLE 5.23. Group Mean Scores on Rokeach's Dogpatism Scale]-0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

r_ Ma_l__e_s Females Total
Residents 55468.31 f-iéh.01 35-166. 16
N-l,076 N-l,016 n.2,092
Nonresidents 56-168.?5 35-161. 05 551615.90
”.3110 N-278 N .6 18
Total 33-168 .53 L162 .53
N-1,315 R-1,29u

_L

lonigher scores indicate more dogmatism.

 

9Irvin J. LeMannand Stanley 0. Ikenberry. Critical
Thinking, Attitudes, and Values _ip Rigor Education: A
Preliminagy Report. (Paul L. Dressel, Principal Investigator).
East Lansing, Michigan: Office of Evaluation Services, Mich-
igan State University, 1959. p. 1&9.

120

TABLE 5.21}. Analysis of Variance for Rokeach's Dogatism

 

 

 

 

£29.19.
Sougce of Variation f d. f. Mean Square F P
Residency l l . 12 l . 12 . 01* *
Sex 1 36.00 25.39 n.s.‘
IDtOraCtion 1 ’2089 2001‘ neSe*
Vithin Groups 2 , 706 1 .b2

 

* Not significant.
MlSignificant beyond the .01 level of confidence.

In summary, the results of this analysis indicated
that the resident freshman students at Michigan State in
1958 were significantly more dogmatic in their attitudes than
were the nonresident freshman students.

§§_ag_e_ _2_. From observing Table 5.25, it is apparent
that there were no significant differences in dogmatism be-
tween the Michigan male students and the male students from
mob of the ten selected states.

In only one instance, in the case of the females
Michigan versus Connecticut), was a significant difference
>und in the mean scores. Here the Michigan females (more
>gmatic) had a mean score which was significantly higher
an that of the females from Connecticut (less dogmatic).

The analysis of the scores in the other states did

reveal any significant differences in dogmatism between

resident and nonresident students. This appears to be
trary to the findings in Stage 1 where a residency differ-
: was evident. Hence, the states not represented in Table

must have had enough students with low scores on

 

 

121

TABLE 5.25. Results of the Significance by t Test on
Rokeach's Do atism Scale, Form —E Mean
Scores for the Resident (Michigan) and
Nonresident Freshman Students from

Selected States, by Sex

 

 

Signif— Signif-
States Help; F, _ icance* Females icagce*
MICHIGAN N-1,o76 N-l,016
M3168.05 M-16b.01
SD-Zu.86 SD-25.01
Connecticut N-9 n. s. N-h M )0
M-173.33 M.138.25 at .01
SD-Zu.35 SD-21.51
Illinois N=62 n.s. N-78 n.s.
M-l69.1l ”=155-59
SD-23.92 SD-ZU.79
Indiana N-2b n.s. N-lh n.s.
M-l77.7l . M-l63.29
SD-23.0l SD-25.06
Massachusetts N-6 n.s. -N-3 MaZ>M
M-173.50 M-176.67 at .10
SD-35.25 SD-29.80
New Jersey N-12 n.s. N-16 n.s.
SD-28.8h SD-29.15
flew York N-83 n.s. N-75 n.s.
M-168.30 M-163.55
SD-26021 SD.2009""
)hio N-hB n.s. N-bl n.s.
M-153.81 M-150.90
SD-26.61 SD-25.37
’ennsylvania N-16 n.s. N-ll n.s.
M-172.63 M-157.82
SD-27.78 SD-21.05
'irginia N-6 n.s. N-h n.s.
M-l57.83 M-160.75
SD818.89 SD-21.38
'isconsin N-ll n.s. N-6 M >11!
M-169.18 M-l50.00 at .10
SD-Zh.l7 SD-31.53
M 50 at .01 means: Michigan greater than Connecticut at

01 level of confidence.

 

122

Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale (low level of dogmatism) to create

a significant difference in the over-all statistical analysis

of mean scores in Stage 1.
In summary, the results of the _t; tests in Table 5.25

revealed that there were no significant differences in dog- P“?

matism between the Michigan male and female students and the

male and female students, respectively, from the ten states 1
identified for study in Hypothesis VI. One exception was that f
the Michigan females tended to be more dogmatic in their
beliefs than the Connecticut females. I

Stge 2. In this analysis, in which the mean scores

of the resident and nonresident students on Rokeacp's 935:
matism §9_a__l_e_ were compared to determine if there were any
significant differences in dogmatism according to major
biographical characteristics, it was found that many of the
categories (where a significant difference was found) were

the same ones that were found in the analysis of m Inventog
2;; Beliefs. Hence, a low score on ’I__‘l_1_e_ Inventory _o_f_ Beliefs
(which indicated the students were stereotypic, defensive,
and authoritarian) was very similar to a high score on
Rokeach's Doggatism M (which indicated the students were

rery degmatic in their beliefs).
In summary, of the eleven biographical categories in

'hich significant differences in dogmatism were found, five

f them were directly complementary to the findings in fI_‘_h_g

nventory p_i_‘ Beliefs (see Table 5.22). In four of the remain-

ng six categories, the resident students were found to be

 

123

more dogmatic in their beliefs than the nonresident stu-

dents.
Differential Values Inventopy
Stage ;, A statistically significant difference at

the .01 level of confidence was found in the Differential

values Inventory traditional scores obtained by the resident
and.ncnresident freshman students enrolled at Michigan State

in the fall term of 1958. Significant differences were also

found in sex and interaction at the .01 level of confidence.

Thus, the total mean scores indicated that the resi-

dent students tended to be more traditional in their values
(puritan morality, personal respectability, hard work, and
responsibility) than the nonresident students who tended to

be more emergent in their value system (sociability, con-

formity, and relativism). Similarly, the total mean score,

by sex, showed that the pattern of values of the males tended

to be traditionally oriented, while the pattern of the females

tended to be more emergent.
Group Mean Scores on the Differential Values

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 5 . 26 .
Inventory11
r. Males Femalgs Total
Resident 3 75-35 .21 ' 35-33 . 83 Y-Bb.52
N-l,076 N-1,016 N-2,092
lonres idents 51-31:. 00 35-31 . 60 55.32 . 80
n.3no N-278 N-618
at al “if-31:50 75.32.71
M-1,u16 M-1,29u

 

1higher scores indicate a more traditional value system and
ewer scores indicate a more emergent value system.

 

12h

TABLE 5.27. Analysis of Variance for the Differential
Values Inventory

 

T— *7
— ..w. F— fifiw ——— .w— T

 

 

Source of Variation d. f;_ Mean Sguare F P
Residency l 2.9b 20.60 .01**
Sex 1 3.57 2h.98 .01u
Interaction l 2.66 18.26 .01**
Within Groups 2,706 .lb

 

*# Significant beyond the .01 level of confidence.

In summary, the findings in this analysis clearly

 

indicated that there was a statistically significant differ-
ence between the resident and nonresident students in their
respective value systems.

§£§52,£, The results of the significance by £_test
on the Differential Values Inventory mean scores between the
Michigan male and female students and the male and female
students, respectively, from each of the ten states identi-
fied, revealed that no statistically significant differences
in values were evident in any of the cells studied.

It is apparent from observing Table 5.28, that the
mean scores of the students from the various states fell
within a relatively limited range, and with little difference
between the sexes.

From this analysis it can be concluded that there
were no significant differences in values as measured by the
DVI between the Michigan male and female students and the
nonresident male and female students, respectively, from the

ten states identified.

TABLE 5.28.

125

Results of the Significance by £_Test on the

Differential Values Inventory Mean Scores for

the Resident (Michigan and Nonresident
Freshman Students from Selected States, by Sex

 

 

 

 

 

'— Signif4fi' §1253?2'
Statg§_ Males icance Females icance
MICHIGAN N-1,076 N-l,016 ,flg
M-3h.89 M-33.83 E 1
SD85.99 SD-5.88 I
Connecticut N-9 n.s. N-h n.s. §
M-29.56 M-Bu.00 7
sn-7.1t SD-u.05
Illinois N-62 n.s. N-78 n.s.
".33063 “.33 .6” _
SD-6.h1 SD-7.21
Indiana N-Zh n.s. N-lh n.s.
M-33.67 M-32.21
SD‘Geuo SD'? .63
Massachusetts N-6 n.s. N-3 n.s.
“.310 17 M-39000
SDI-(4.50 SDI-“.32
New Jersey N-12 n.s. N-16 n.s.
M-37.83 M-32.Uh
SD-5.85 SD-5.85
New York N-83 n.s. N-75 n.s.
M-33.00 M-32.19
SD-7.19 SD-7.21
Ohio N-h3 n.s. N-hl n.s.
111-315.147 M-31e98
sn-6.0h sn-6.73
Pennsylvania N-l6 n.s. N-ll n.s.
M-3h.19 M829.36
SD'G. 1“ SD‘?. 11
Virginia N-6 n.s. N-h n.s.
M'37-50 M'32025
SD-h.68 SD-2.38
Wisconsin N-ll n.s. N-6 n.s.
M-35.82 M-39.67
SD-5.25 SD-G.“8

126

Stage 2. From a total of 136 p testsyused to deter-
mine the significant differences in values between the

resident and nonresident students according to major bio-

graphical characteristics, there was not a single biographical

category found to be significant at the .05 level of con-
one can conclude that

fidence (see Table 5.22). Therefore.

there were no essential differences in values as measured by
the DVI, between these resident and nonresident freshman

students according to major biographical characteristics.

Michigan State University Reading Test

Stage _1_. The findings in this analysis indicated that

there was no significant difference in reading ability as

measured by the Michigan State University Reading Test,

between the resident and nonresident students. There was,

however, a statistically significant difference in reading

ability between the males and females at the .01 level of

confidence. Hence, the females with a mean score of 28.32
:ended to have significantly higher reading abilities than

:he males with mean scores of 27.15. Tables 5.29 and 5.30

resent the various group means and the analysis of variance

ata.

 

 

127

 

 

 

 

TABLE 5.29. Group Mean Scores on the Michigan State Univer-
sity Reading Test

Males Females TotaL
Residents SEE-26.95 “ii-28.03 f-27.u9

N-l,706 N-l,016 N-2,092
Nonresidents fan-27.31} fin-28.60 ifs-27.97
Total £27.15 $28.32

N-1,316 N-1.29h

 

TABLE 5.30. Analysis of Variance for the Michigan State
University Reading Test

 

 

 

Source of Variation d. fL Mean Square 4 P
Residency l .23 2.62 n.s.*
Sex 1 1.37 15.55 .01 **
Interaction l .01 .10 11.8."
Within Groups 2,706 .09

 

* Not significant.
**Significant beyond the .01 level of confidence.

In summary, the results of this analysis suggest that
there was no significant difference in the readingabilities
of the resident and nonresident freshman students enrolled
at Michigan State in the fall term of 1958.

§_§_a_gg 3.- Corresponding to the findings in Stage 1,
.t was found in this analysis that there were no significant

Lifferences in the mean scores obtained on the Michigap State

niversity Reading Test by the Michigan and nonresident (by

hates) male and female students, respectively. Hence, the

sading abilities of the resident and nonresident students

pro very similar.

 

128

 

 

 

 

TABLE 5.31. Results of the Significance by 3 Test on the
Michigan State Universit Reading Test Mean
Scores for the Resident Michigan) and
Nonresident Freshman Students from Selected
States, by Sex
F8 “ tIénir- 'F__ Signif-
States Males icance Females icapce
MICHIGAN N-l . 076 N-l , 016
M-25.92 M-28.0u
SD-6.H7 SDa6.31
Connecticut N-9 n.s. N-lb n.s.
M327989 M‘Boezs
SD.5.52 SDI-(4.96
Illinois N-62 n.s. N-78 n.s.
SD-5.lO SD-G.87
Indiana N-Zb n.s. N-llb n.s.
M-25.92 M-Z5.00
SD-6.99 SD-7.08
Massachusetts N-6 n.s. N-3 n.s.
H.27e33 M.26033
SD-u.00 SD'1075
New Jersey N-12 n.s. N-16 n.s.
M330.00 “-29.25
SD-U.67 SD-7.25
New York N-83 n.s. N-75 n.s.
111-28.114 ”4.30039
SD-5.10 SD-6.06
Ohio N-u3 n.s. N-lll n.s.
SDI-5.81 SD35e7o
Pennsylvania Nun-16 n. s . N-ll n. s .
M826.13 M-27.00
sn-7.t2 sn-7.26
'irginia N-6 n.s. N-h n.s.
M-28.17 M-31.25
sn-s.85 SD-6.95
is'consin N-ll n.s. N-6 n.s.
M-23.82 M-29.l7
SDI-5.58 30.2.57

 

 

 

.Uennanevca no: one .HebcH 0H. an uCMCAMBQMnm no
.meceUSem neon can» neaen new: nHHeo anode .peCHHnepns one .meCCUSem naou and» ones and use
.eocopnnsoc no Hobea no. one pachen punch one: neocenemme undonMnSMnm.£0nn3 an nHHoo enonhmn

.meHeEen usepnmenCe: one no monoom can
can: poneaaoo seen obs: meHeEeu usepnmen one no menoom one .theHnEnm -.neasa unceneenso:

one no nonoom one man: Cascade seen been means usepnmen one no menoom one .umou nose neeCDNH

.Hooncn .menm
no .Mona peueamsoo
wo.VmAz .3 m z No.\mnz .Hocnom .penm

- no .monm eEom
.eMeaHoo pepedaeCo
.emeHHoo esom
:18 see: 33328
.Hconom Sun: esom
Ho m z HoummAnz .SCm,epenm meueaasoo
.Hoonom evenm esom
.scnedospm n.ne£uea

 

129

 

 

.nnonle>nenc Seem
o zAm .cnonlcmHenon Seem
Ho.\zAm o. m z 0H.\mAz .cnonlcwnenon nenuos
.cnonlebnunc noneem
Ho.VmA z nHHo.\mA z .cnon—ICMnenon nonuen
.cnonlebnuec nesflmz
.mecenem.Mfl hedbaudz

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
  

 

 

 

 

nonason none: noneaon eanMmQ umuweamwm om moaez canmwnm> 11:
nHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHMH til . mt,d Dim z
Onv WCHUHOOOd eWDF—O v NHNOW Uflfi wOanWfiHO OMB ) I1 111 I“
ado: W30flkfl> QManum-Dcwfimomrw IUCGUHMGHCOZ 5:593:1'Mnmmbpflud0flfinmdruwcwm #9090949)

0
3
1

 

«SEA z

no.\mAz
ne.\sA z
no.\zA m

on.\zA m
ne.\zA m

wo_mmmmz

on.\mA z

no.VmAm

.oaneu was» no owed ennnn one so naanhn one no conversaawo one oom

Ho.Wsz.
o mAnz

ne.\sA z

HoGzAm

35x2

HOJZAK

gumlz

a

me.\sAz
.8.\zAm

no.\sA z

on.\mA_ z

HoummAz

 

3

O z m
c mfinz

3.\mAz

on.\zA m
on.\zAm

on.\mA z

"oeoz

.Honnoonem
.ouebdnm
.onnssa
63mm»:
noosom madam no am

 

 

.eonneon no monsooen
.Honnoweses no .oowm
.oonbnon onunsm
.voannxncs no seq
.nononea moannxenaom
.nononea vonanxm
.nenoeee

.nosae finch
.neHHcoIeennz
.Hesonnneuonm

.nosao unecnmsm

.condeSCOO n.nonvom

no.\zAm

 

.Heenon .penm

no .nona vouodmaoo

.Hoonon .ponm

no .nona eaom

.omoaaoo poeoHano

.omonaoo 050m

58 see: secondaoo

.Hocnon swan oaom

.non openm poeoaaaoo

.Hoofion open» osem
..conuoospm m.noneez

 

 

 

 

noHeEeh

 

muuonea¢ ennomIepenu

no a:

 

 

 

 

moHeEom moan: oanewne>

 

. 3.8. .2: o 38 ii 38. «cwwaéilflmi

1111’)

 

ill \ IILJ 'vl .
f . . .. .u .

 

131

m0 dho

‘1

 

.muedlez.

on.\mAz

MonumA 2

Ho mAz

ne.\mA z

OH.\mA z

HOGZA m

 

 

>4 panomlopenm

 

.ouneu and» no omen ennan one so naoaahe

0 AZ

wOGm—A z

3.di z
on.\sA a

3

Ho mAz

NO mAz

 

 

on.\mA z

 

m o_.nea.1len . I. Im|o_.H_. e. z

o 0.300

memnaom moasz wt
swan . 53cm 9

esmLWe nonesseaawo one cow "eeo

 
 

.nonao

.osoz

.eseeneeonm

.nnnaen

. 0:238
.oocononenm_mmMMMflflmm

 

.ooo.eon nope sane
..eoe.eenueoe.n~. sane
.Aoee.nmneen.~ neon
..oon.~uen~. o and»
.enen

cg eaom Md onam

 

 

6.35 sodas

.23» 033s

.33... :33
.330 3
Hanson mug mm. scam

 

 

 

.nobo use ooo.n

.mmmnoo:

.mmnuoom

.mmnnoon

.mmunm

.nm noes:

.nnoHo uflnefimmnno
Hoonom man: no ounm

 

 

 

 

03mg;

 
 

m.z

 

)IIH'v

 

132

 

S.\mA z
ne.\zA a

do m z

on.\mAz
no a z

3.}.A z
mo.\aAm

.eanee ennu1~o omen emnnn one so muonahn

an m I

do NA“!

HOGMA z

ne.\mA a

Ho 2

Ho m z

3.\mA z
ne.\zA m

 

 

 

HO m 2

no.\mA 2

one Mo coneeaonano can con

 

.annnneaonom onaoveo<
.Hsnm .H .m

.seoq

.annmnesonon cascaded
.non ease-anew
.nesenem

.mmmmmxm aenocendm

 

 

wondr.wm connom

..sonono
econ. eccenenenm oz
.nene soneeonssaaou

.coneeosem

.oCnonpoa knecnnoeob
.nene one eccenom
.ecnaocooe oaom
.mcdnoecnmcm

.hnon .nsn use uncannnm

.onsessonnMK

4Mddmm nensonnnso

 

Edam

node:

n OHdEO ..m

nose: eundmmw>

 

klwnme .Has o onnoo

 

anon unease: is at»:

 

 

I

me am: acnemfloaaae

1

”one!

133

Table 5.31 clearly shows that the results of the g
tests indicated no significant differences in reading abil-
ities according to residency.

§£§gg_2, .Following the pattern of the first two
stages, this analysis revealed that there were no major
'hiographical categories in which the resident and nonresident
students differed significantly in reading abilities, as

measured by the MSU Reading‘Test (see Table 5.32).

College Qualification Tpgp

§£§gg_;, In this analysis, a significant difference
'Was found to exist in academic aptitude, as measured by the
College Qualification Tpég, between the resident and non-
resident freshman students enrolled at Michigan State in
tame fall term of 1958. The mean score for the residents was
120.30, while the mean score for the nonresidents was sig-
nif'icantly larger at 125.51.

It is important to note that the male students (resi-
dents and nonresidents combined) tended to have higher ace-
demdc aptitude than the females from the two sub-pepulations.
‘Fhere was also a significant interaction at the .01 level of
confidence (see Tables 5.33 and 5.3b).

In summary, it is evident from this analysis that there
was a significant difference in the academic aptitude of the
resident and nonresident freshman students (the latter greater

than the former) at this institution in 1958.

13%

TABLE 5.33. Group Mean Scores on the College Qualification
Test

m

 

 

Males Females Total
Residents ihiz5.92 iki1u.68 it12o.3o
N-1,o76 N-l,016 N-2,092
Nonresidents it127.96 i;123.06 21125.51
Neguo N-278 N-618
Total i;126.9u i}118.87
N81,u16 N-1.29u

 

TABLE 5.3“. Analysis of Variance for the College Quali-
fication Test

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source of Variation d, f. Mgan-Sguare F a,_ PA
Residency- 1 A 27.1u 18.83 1 .01**
Sex 1 65.0t u5.13 ' .01**
Interaction l 10.13 - 7.03 .01**

Within Groups 2,706 1.uu

—._‘

**Significant beyond the .01 level of confidence.

§£§gg,§, No significanm differences were found in the
academic aptitude, as measured by the mean scores on the
College Qualification 3233, between the Michigan male stu-
dents and the male students from each of the ten states
identified for study in Hypothesis VI (see Table 5.35).

Contrasted somewhat with the above findings, the
.females from three states-~Connecticut, New Jersey, and New
York--had significantly higher scores (at .05 level of con-
fidence) than did the females from Michigan. While these
were the only three states that had significantly higher

scores, it is important to note that the females from all

135

 

 

 

 

 

.05 level of

TABLE 5.35. Results of the Significance by £.Test on the
College ualification Test Mean Scores for
the Resident (Michigan) and Nonresident
Freshman Students from Selected States, by Sex
w—f FF? Signif- Signif:
States Males icance"I Females icance*
MICHIGAN. N-l,076 N-l,016
M-125.77 M-llh.68
SD-25.55 SD-2h.30
Connecticut N-9 n.s. N-lt C )1!
M-lzh.56 M-129.25 at .05
50:26.67 SD-27.27
M-l3l.63 M-120.68
Indiana N-Zb n.s. N-lh n.s.
bit-123.146 M.117e36
sn-3u.63 sn-23.71
Massachusetts N-6 n.s. N-3 Ma >M
M-ll7.50 M-125.33 at .10
SD-22.58 SD-9.22
New Jersey N-12 n.s. N-16 NJ >M
M-132.17 M-130.75 at .05
SD-31.02 SD-29.27
New York N-83 n.s. N-75 NY>M
M-136.72 M-129.88 at .05
SD-27.12 SD-21.h2
Ohio N'hB nos. N'ul nos.
H.120e77 “-118e85
80-23.37 SD-23.93
Pennsylvania N-16 n.s. N-ll n.s.
M-lzh.00 M-126.00
SD-2h.3h SD'30057
Virginia N-6 n.s. Nah n.s.
M-135.00 M-122.25
SD-3b.h0 SD-20.75
Wisconsin N-ll n.s. N-6 WZ>M
n-116.27 M-126.67 at .10
SD-2b.28 SD-21.6O
* CZ>M at .05 means: Connecticut greater than Michigan at“

confidence.

136

ten states had higher mean scores on the CQT (higher academic
aptitude) than did the Michigan females.

In summary, there were no significant differences in
the mean CQT scores obtained by the males from Michigan and
the males from each of the ten states studied. The non-
resident females, however, from Connecticut, New Jersey, and
New York, had significantly higher academic aptitudes, as
measured.by the COT, than did the Michigan females.

Spggg,2, From a total of 136 £_tests used to identify
the biographical categories in which significant differences
in academic aptitude were present between the resident and
nonresident students, there were eighteen instances.in which
significant differences at the .05 level of confidence were
found. It is interesting to note that at least one signif-
icant difference was identified in every biographical sub-
group except the one on religious preference (see Table 5.32).
In seventeen of the eighteen categories, the nonresident
students had significantly higher academic aptitudes than

the resident students.

Grade-Point Averages
§£§gg'l. Corresponding to the analysis of academic
aptitude (CQT in Table 5.3M) which revealed a significant
difference in the resident and nonresident students (latter
greater than the former) in this characteristic, it was found
in this analysis of achievement (as measured by the grade-

point averages for the freshman year), that the nonresident

137

students obtained significantly higher grade-point averages
than the resident students (see Tables 5.36 and 5.37). This
difference in achievement (GPA) was found to be significant
beyond the .02 level of confidence.

Of particular interest, however, were the significantly
higher grade-point averages obtained by the females (residents
and nonresidents combined) over the males from these two sub-
populations, respectively. These differences in achievement
were significant beyond the .01 level of confidence. .Hence,
while the males had the higher academic abilities, it was
the females who made the highest achievement during the

freshman year. Interaction was not significant.

TABLE 5.36. Group Mean Scores on the Measure of Achievement

 

 

 

(Gpa)1h

Males Females Total
Residents 35-2 .2615 56-2 .36 35-2 .31

N-927 N-91b N-1,8t1
Nonresidents §e2.3h §;2.h3 £92.38

N-302 N-250 N-552
Total $2.30 35-2 .39

N-l,229 N-1,16n

 

1""Grade---Point Average.

15These scores are rounded off to two places.

138

TABLE 5.37. Analysis of Variance for the Measure of
Achievement (GPA)

 

 

 

Source of Variation d, f, Mean Sguare F P
Residency l 51.86 5.95 .O2***
501 1 86.69 9e9u ‘ 001**
Interaction l .72 .08 n.s.
.Within Groups 2,389 8.72

 

* Not significant.
** Significant beyond the .01 level of confidence.
*** Significant beyond the .02 level of confidence.

In summary, the findings in this analysis revealed
that the achievement of the nonresident students, as measured
by grade-point averages for the freshman year, was signif-
icantly greater than that of the resident students.

§£§gg‘§. With only two exceptions, this analysis of
achievement revealed that there were no significant differ-
ences between the Michigan male and female students and the
nonresident male and female students from the ten states
identified in Hypothesis VI (see Table 5.38). The two
exceptions were:

1. The male students from New Jersey had sig-
nificantly higher achievement during their
freshman year than did the male students
from Michigan.

2. The Michigan female students had signif-
icantly higher achievement than did the
female students from Pennsylvania during

their freshman year at Michigan State.

139

 

 

 

TABLE 5.38. Results of the Significance by t Test on the
Grade-Point Averages for the Resident (Michigan)
and Nonresident Freshman Students from Selected
States, by Sex

_r 'Signif- Signif-
States Males icance* Females icance*
MICHIGAN N-927 N-9lb
. M-2.27 M-2.36
sn-.59 sn-.60
Connecticut N-8 n.s. N-h n.s.
M-2.lh M-2.2h
SD-.7l SD-.57
Illinois N-57 n.s. N-7l n.s.
M-2.39 M-2.b6
SD.056 SD-OSS
Indiana N-ZO n.s. N-12 n.s.
Massachusetts N-6 n.s. N-3 n.s.
M.2e36 1132.149
New Jersey N-lz NJ3>M N-13 n.s.
M-2.52 at .02 M-2.5O
SD.053 SD.065
New York N-77 n.s. N-69 n.s.
M-2.33 M-2.h7
SD-.61 SD-.56
Ohio N'BS nos. N-37 n.s.
SD.059 SD.058
Pennsylvania N-15 n.s. N-9 M >P
M-2e28 "-2005 at .01
SD-966 SD'e7O
Virginia N-6 n.s. N-h n.s.
M-2.37 M-2.h9
SD-.66 SD-.6h
Wisconsin N-lO n.s. N-6 W>M
SD-JFS SD'037

 

 

*NJ >M at .572 means:

.02 level of confidence.

New Jersey greater than Michigan at

Inc

On the whole, one can conclude that there were few
essential differences in the achievement of the Michigan
male and female students as compared with the male and
female students, respectively, from each of the ten states
studied.

§£gggflz. The findings in this analysis (resident
students versus nonresident students in achievement accord-
ing.to biographical characteristics) were very closely
related to those revealed for the College Qualification 22§£°
For example, of the eighteen biographical categories in
which significant differences were found in the analysis
of the CQT, twelve of the same categories were found to be
significant in this analysis on grade-point averages (see
Table 5.32). Of the twenty-six biographical categories in
which significant differences were found, there were only
two cells in which the resident students had significantly
higher grade-point averages than the nonresident students

for the freshman year.

Summary 2£_Hzpothesis 1;

Inventory 2;,Beliefs.

§£gggfll. There was no significant over-all difference
.inistereotypy between the resident and nonresident freshman
students at Michigan State in 1958.

Stagg‘g. There were only three instances in which
significant differences in stereotypy were found to exist

between the Michigan male and female students and the male

lhl

and female students, respectively, from the ten states inves-
tigated. These were: (1) Michigan males were more stereo-
typic than males from Pennsylvania; (2) Connecticut females
were more stereotypic than Michigan females; and, (3) Wis-
consin females were more stereotypic in their beliefs than
the Michigan females.

gtggglz. Of the 136 titests used in identifying the
biographical categories in which significant differences in
attitudes of stereotypy were present between the resident
and nonresident students, there were only eight categories
in which significant differences in stereotypy were found.
In each of these categories, the resident students were
found to be less stereotypic in their attitudes than the

nonresident students.

Rokeach' s Doggati sm w.

gtggg‘l. The resident students were found to be
significantly more dogmatic in their attitudes than were the
nonresident students.

§£232,§, The analysis comparing Michigan freshman
students with the students from the ten selected nonresident
states revealed only one instance in which there was a sig-
nificant difference in dogmatism. Here the Michigan females
were found to be more dagmatic in their attitudes (at .01
level of confidence) than the females from Connecticut.

Stage 2, In eleven of the biOgraphical categories
in which significant differences in dogmatism were found,

nearly half revealed the same findings as under The Inventor:

1&2

g; Beliefs; namely, that the nonresident students tended to
be more dOgmatic in their attitudes than the resident stu-

dents.

Differential Palues Inventory.

§£gggll. The resident students were found to regard
more highly the traditional values of puritan morality,
individualism, and an emphasis on the future, while the non-
resident students tended to regard more highly the values of
sociability, conformity, and an emphasis on the present
rather than the future.

§£gggflg. No significant differences were found to
exist, by sex, in values between the Michigan students and
the students from each of the ten states investigated in
this hypothesis.

§£252‘2. No significant differences were found in
values, as measured by the Differential Values Inventory,
between the resident and nonresident freshman students at

Michigan State according to major biographical characteristics.

Michigan State University Reading Test.
Stage'l. No significant differences were found in

the reading abilities of the resident and nonresident students
at Michigan State.

§£§gg‘§. No significant differences were found in
reading abilities between the Michigan male and female
students and the male and female students, respectively,

from the ten states identified.

1153

Stage 2, Following the pattern of the first two
stages, no significant differences were found in the reading
abilities between the resident and nonresident students

according to major biographical characteristics.

College Qualification Eggs.

§23g2,;. The nonresident students were found to have
significantly higher academic aptitudes than the resident
students.

§gggg_§. No significant differences were found to
exist in academic aptitude between the Michigan male students
and the male students frOm each of the ten states investigated.
The nonresident females from Connecticut, New Jersey, and
New York all had significantly higher academic aptitudes,
as measured by the CQT, than did the female students from
Michigan. I

§gggg_2, In seventeen of the eighteen biographical
categories in which significant differences in academic
aptitude were identified, the nonresident students were
found to have significantly higher academic aptitudes than

the resident students.

Grade-Point Averages.

Stage ;. Corresponding to their greater academic
aptitude, the nonresident students were found to have
significantly higher academic achievement (as measured by
freshman year grade-point averages) than the resident

students.

11:3

§£ggg g, The analysis of achievement, which compared
Michigan students, by sex, with the students from the ten
selected nonresident states, revealed only two cells in
which significant differences were present. They were:
(1) the male students from New Jersey had significantly
higher achievement than the male students from Michigan;
and, (2) the Michigan female students had significantly
higher achievement than the female students from Pennsylvania.
8 §£ggg,2, The findings in this analysis of achieve-
ment revealed that of the twenty-six biographical categories
in which significant differences in achievement were found,
there were twenty-four in which the nonresident students
had significantly higher grade-point averages than the
resident students for the freshman year. Twelve of these
categories were identical to those found significant in
the analysis of academic aptitude, as measured by the College

Qualification Test.

CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

In this final chapter, the organization and the
findings of the study are summarized, general conclusions

are drawn, and recommendations for further study are made.

:22 Problem

The first phase of this research study had as its
purpose the c0mparison of the nonresident (freshman) male
students with the nonresident (freshman) female students at
Michigan State University in terms of their attitudes, values,
abilities, achievement, retention tendencies, and selected
background characteristics.

The second phase of this study had as its purpose
the comparison of the findings--test scores, withdrawal
rates, and biographical characteristics--of the first phase
(nonresident students) with similar data compiled on the
resident freshman students who first enrolled at Michigan

State University in the fall term of 1958.

Definition 25.222 Population
The original papulation selected for this study was
comprised of 3,216 freshman students. To achieve the objec-
tives of the study, the following students were excluded:
transfer, foreign, those enrolled for less than 12 (quarter)

credit hours of study, and those with unusable test and/or

lbb

ins

biographical data. The working population consisted of 2,710
students (1,075 male and 1,017 female resident students; and
3&0 male and 278 female nonresident students).

The students used in the analysis of the various
hypotheses were clearly defined in each instance as an inte-

gral segment of this total working population.

Collection 2;; 5313 931:3
During Freshman Orientation Week, September, 1958,
the following instruments were administered to the working
population in a special test session: 33: Inventogz g;

Beliefs, Form I; Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale, Form g; Differ-

ential Values Inventogz; Michigan State Universit! Reading

Test; College Qualification Test; and the Biographical Data
Shoat e

 

 

Additional data were obtained from a variety of sources.
For example, the state of origin and grade-point averages for
each student for the freshman year were obtained from the
Registrar's Serial gag, £2ll.l22§ and the registrar's cumula-

tive grade records, respectively.

Hzpotheses, Methods Used for Testing,

and Findings

Following are brief versions of the six hypotheses of
the study as set forth in Chapter I, a summary of the methods
used to investigate each as submitted in Chapter III, and the

findings:

1H6

sesame:

Hypothesis I, This hypothesis stated that there were
no important differences between the male and female non-
resident freshman students at Michigan State University in
any one of seventeen biographical characteristics identified.

Method.2£:Analzsis. The responses of the 618 male
and female nonresident students to the Biograghical 2333
§h32£ were coded and tabulated in the appropriate categories1
of the seventeen biographical subgroups used in the study.

The representative percentages for the responses in each

category were then calculated. A comparison of the relative
percentage of responses in each category for the male and

female students, respectively, was determined by the statistic
Chi-square. After a number of random tests, it was determined
that a difference of five percentage points, between the rela-
tive percentage of responses of the male and female students

in each category, would be sufficient for determining that an
important difference did, in fact, exist between the two

groups of students in that particular biographical characteristic.

Findings.

1. There was no important difference in the relative
percentage of males, as compared with the females, from each
of the ten states contributing the largest number of fresh-

man students to Michigan State in the fall term of 1958.

 

T

1There were a total of 122 biographical categories
identified in this analysis.

1a?

The three states contributing the largest number of freshman
students to Michigan State in the fall term of 1958 were New
York, Illinois, and Ohio. (Table u.1).

2. The female students tended to be younger than
the male students; 97 per cent of the females and 81 per cent
of the males were 18 years of age or under. (Table h.2).

3. There was no important difference between the sexes
in terms of marital status or nativity of parents. (Tables
h.) and u.u).

h. The educational level of the fathers of the female
students tended to be higher than for the fathers of the male
students. (Table h.5).

5. There was only one minor difference between the
sexes in terms of mother's educational level. A higher per-
centage of the females had mothers with some college train-
ing. (Table 5.6).

6. A higher percentage of the females came from fami-
lies in which the father was classified occupationally as an
executive or manager. The fathers of the males were most
often classified as business owners or skilled laborers.
(Table u.7).

7. There was no important difference between the
sexes in mother's occupation, type of high school attended,
or size of high school graduating class. (Tables “.8, n.9,
and b.10). .

8. The female students tended to rank in the upper
third of their high school graduating classes more often than

did the male students. (Table b.11).

1&8

9. The male students tended to come from slightly
larger communities than did the female students, but the
difference here was not great. (Table b.12).

10. Both sexes were predominantly Protestant. The
males tended more often to be Catholic than the females.
Conversely, the females were more often Jewish than the
males. (Table b.13).

11. The male students tended to major in the Colleges
of Business and Public Services, Engineering, and Science and
Arts, while the females tended to choose Science and Arts,
Communication Arts, and Home Economics. (Table b.1b).

12. The males tended to have aspirations for graduate
or professional schooling more often than did the females.
(Table “.15).

13. There was no essential difference in the living
accommodations of the male and female students. (Table “.16).

1h. Over 9h per cent of the females and 67 per cent
of the males were receiving their major financial support
from their parents. A higher percentage of the males, as
compared to the females, however, were receiving their major
support from part-time Jobs, athletic scholarships, and the
G. I. 3111. (Table n.17).

The findings above warrant the rejection of the null
hypothesis.

Hypothesis II. 'This hypothesis was introduced in the
study in order to determine whether there was any significant

difference in the withdrawal rates of the male and female

1H9

nonresident freshman students at Michigan State University.

Method p£.Analzsis. The names and student numbers of
those freshman students who withdrew during the academic year
1958-59 were derived from records of the Registrar's Office
at Michigan State. The numbers, by sex, which withdrew were
figured against the numbers originally enrolled, respectively.
The resulting percentages represented withdrawal rates for
the two sexes.

Findings. From an original total of 3&0 males, 38
withdrew from college during their freshman year. This pro-
vided a withdrawal rate of 11 per cent. Similarly, from a
total of 278 females, 28 withdrew during their initial year
at Michigan State. The resulting withdrawal rate for the
female students was 10 per cent. Hence, these findings
clearly indicated that there was no essential difference in
the withdrawal rates of the male and female nonresident
freshman students at Michigan State during the academic year
1958-59. (Table 3.18).

The findings above warrant the acceptance of the null
hypothesis.

Hzpothesis 33;. This hypothesis stated, in brief,
that there were no significant differences between the male
and female nonresident freshman students at Michigan State
University in attitudes of stereotypy and dogmatism as
measured by :22 Inventory p§,Beliefs and Rokeach's 22g;
matism S2313, respectively; values as measured by the

Differential Values Inventorz; abilities as measured by the

150

Michigan Spgpngniversity Reading 2235 and the College 322;;
ification 1235; or achievement as measured by the grade-point
averages for the freshman year.2

Method 25 Analysis. To test this hypothesis, the male
and female students from each of the ten states which con-
tributed the largest number of nonresident freshman students
to the enrollment at Michigan State during the fall term of
1958 were compared on the various characteristics through the
use of the scores derived from the instruments of measurement
identified. Hence, the statistical significance between the
mean scores obtained by the male and female students (from
each of the states) on the various measures was determined
through the use of the p,test, assuming equal standard devi-
.ations.

Findings.

1. While the females from all the states studied
tended to be more flexible, adaptive, and nonstereotypic in
their beliefs than the males, there were only three states--
Connecticut, Indiana, and Wisconsin-~1n which the females, as
evidenced by the mean scores obtained on pg; Inventory 2;
Beliefs, were significantly less stereotypic than the males.
(Table 4.19).

The findings above warrant the rejection of the null

hypothesis.

2This hypothesis was not accepted or rejected as a
whole, but individually by each of the instruments of measure-
ment identified for investigation.

151

2. The males tended to be more dogmatic in their
attitudes than the females, but the difference in the mean
scores between the sexes on Rokeach's Dogmatism Spglgiwere
found to be statistically significant only in the three
states of Connecticut, Indiana, and Wisconsin. (Table n.20).

The findings above warrant the rejection of the null
hypothesis.

3. There were no significant differences in values as
measured by the Differential Values Inventorz between the
male and female nonresident students in the various states
studied,except for Massachusetts. Here the females tended
to regard traditional values more highly than the males. (“.21).

The findings above warrant the rejection of the null
hypothesis.

h. No significant differences were found in reading
ability, as measured by the Egg Reading 3233, between the
male and female students in each of the states studied. (9.22).

The findings above warrant the acceptance of the null
hypothesis.

5. No significant differences were found in academic
aptitude, as measured by the College gpalification Test,
between the sexes in each of the states identified in this
hypothesis. (Table n.23).

The findings above warrant the acceptance of the null
hypothesis.

6. Only in the state of Wisconsin was a significant

difference in achievement, as measured by the grade-point

152

averages for the freshman year, found to exist. In the
remainder of the states no significant differences in achieve-
ment (GPA's) between the sexes were found. (Table b.2hi

The findings above warrant the rejection of the null

hypothesis.

312.19. 22.9.:
Hzpothesis $1. This null hypothesis stated that there
were no important differences between the resident and non-
resident freshman students at Michigan State University in
any one of seventeen biographical characteristics identified.
Method p£,Analzsis. The responses and respective
percentages of the 618 nonresident students and the 2,092
resident students to the Biographical Qgpg'gpggp were coded
and tabulated in the apprOpriate categories of the seventeen
biographical subgroups used in the study. Similar to Hypoth-
esis I, Chi-square was used to determine whether there was
any important difference in the pattern of responses of these
two sub-pepulations (residents and nonresidents) in each of
the biographical subgroups and their respective categories.
From a number of random Chi-square tests, it was concluded
that a difference of five percentage points, between the
relative percentage of responses of the resident and non-
resident students in each category, would be sufficient
evidence for declaring that an important difference did exist
between the sub-pOpulations in that particular biographical

characteristic.

153

Findings.
1. While there was found to be a higher percentage

of males than females in each of the sub-populations, there
was no important difference in the relative percentages of
males and females in the two groups. (Table 5.1).

2. There were no essential differences in the ages,
marital status, or nativity of parents of the resident and
nonresident students. Over 90 per cent of both sub-populations
were 18 years of age or less. and 98 per cent of both sub-
populations were classified as being single. About lb per
cent of the students in both groups had at least one parent
who was foreign-born. (Tables 5.2. 5.3 and 5.3).

3. The nonresident students tended to have fathers
with higher attained educational levels than did the resident
students. There was not, however, any essential difference
between the two sub-populations in terms of mother's educ-
ation. (Tables 5.5 and 5.6).

b. The occupations of the fathers of the nonresident
students tended to be executive-managerial, business owner,
and professional. The fathers of the resident students
tended to be in the slightly less prestigious occupational
categories of skilled labor, white-collar. and business
owner. (Table u.7).

5. The mothers of the resident students tended to be
employed outside the home more often than the mothers of the

nonresident students. (Table 5.8).

15b

6. While the largest proportion of the students from
both sub-populations tended to come from public high schools,
a considerably higher percentage of the nonresident students.
as compared to the resident students, came from parochial
high schools in 1958. (Table 5.9).

7. The nonresident students tended to graduate from Fr 1
larger high school classes than did the resident students. i :
(Table 5.10). g

8. A higher percentage of the resident students (68 !
per cent), as compared to the nonresident students (59 per 1
cent), graduated in the upper third of their high school
classes. (Table 5.11).

9. There was a tendency for the nonresident students

to come from larger communities than the resident students.
A larger percentage of the former came from cities of 100,000
population and over. while the latter tended to come more
often from towns. villages, and farms under 25,000 population.
(Table 5.12).

10. In religious preference, a considerably higher
percentage of the nonresident students, as compared to the
resident students, were Jewish. (Table 5.13).

11. Only two minor differences in the choice of
curricular major were found to exist between the two sub-
populations. A slightly higher percentage of the nonresident
students, as compared to the resident students. chose to major
in the College of Business and Public Services. Conversely.

a higher percentage of the resident students had not chosen

155

a major before enrolling at Michigan State. (Table 5.11)).

12. There was no essential difference between the two
sub-pepulations in the amount of college education desired;
or in the living accommodaions at Michigan State. except that
in the.latter case. a higher percentage of the resident stu-
dents were living at home or with relatives. (Tables 5.15
and 5.16).

13. A higher percentage of the nonresident students,
as compared to the resident students. received the major
preportion of their support from their parents. Conversely,
a higher percentage of the resident students received their
major support from part-time jobs. (Table 5.17).

The findings above warrant the rejection of the
hypothesis.

Hypothesis 1. This null hypothesis stated that there
was no significant difference in the withdrawal rates of
the resident and nonresident freshman students at Michigan
State University.

Method 9}: Analysis. From information obtained from
the registrar's Office at Michigan State. the number of

freshman students (resident and nonresident, respectively)

vho withdrew during the academic year of 1958-59 were matched

against the total number in each group originally enrolled.
The resulting percentages represented withdrawal rates for
:he two sub-pepulations.

Findings. From an original total of 2,092 resident

tudents, 251 withdrew from college during their freshman

‘1- 7Mw—x... r- anabfiao' F171
\ 1. .
. 7'

156

year. This resulted in a withdrawal rate of 12 per cent.
Similarly, the nonresident group had 66 withdrawals out of
an original number of 618 students. This resulted in an 11
per cent rate of withdrawal. Hence. these findings clearly
indicate that there was no essential difference in the with-
drawal rates of the resident and nonresident freshman stu-
dents at Michigan State during the academic year of 1958-59.
(Table 5.18).

The findings above warrant the acceptance of the null

hypothesis.

Hypothesis 1;.3 This null hypothesis stated. in brief,

that there were no significant differences between the resi-
dent and nonresident freshman students at Michigan State
Jniversity in attitudes of stereotypy and dogmatism as meas-

1red by The Inventogz 2£_Beliefs and Rokeach's Dogmatism

Scale, respectively; values as measured by the Differential

ralues Inventory; abilities as measured by the Michigan State

[niversity_Reading Test and the Collegg Qualification Test;

’r achievement as measured by the grade-point averages for

:he freshman year.

Sub-Hypothesis. This sub-hypothesis stated there were

.0 significant differences in the mean scores between the

esident and nonresident students on the instruments identi-

ied in Hypothesis VI above, and according to eleven major

iographical characteristics.

3This hypothesis was not accepted or rejected as a
hole, but was judged separately in each stage of the six
nstruments of measurement identified for investigation.

7?}.F1
l
. \

__..-_. .—
u .

 

157

Method g£_Analzsis. The analysis of this hypothesis
was accomplished in three separate stages. These stages were:
Stage 1. A two by two analysisof variance for
unequal frequencies design was used to determine whether
there were any significant over-all differences between the
resident and nonresident students in the six major charac-
teristics measured by the instruments indicated in Hypofihesis
VI.

Stage II. The‘g test, assuming equal standard devi-
ations. was used to determine whether there were any signif-

icant differences between the Michigan male and female stu-

dents and the male and female students. respectively. from ten

selected states. in the six major characteristics measured by
the instruments identified in Hypothesis VI.

Stage III. The £,test, assuming equal standard devi-
ations. was used to identify the significant differences in
the characteristics measured by the six instruments pre-
sented in Hypothesis VI (and according to the biographical
:haracteristics submitted in the sub-hypothesis) between the
resident and nonresident students, by sex.

Findiggs.

Inventory 23: Beliefs:

1. There was no significant over-all difference in
:tereotypy between the resident and nonresident freshman stu-
Lents at Michigan State in 1958. (Tables 5.19 and 5.20).

The findings above warrant the acceptance of the null

ypothesis.

u 11

,J

1

‘.:M4_sw vemli'

...——

v.
x...

158

2. There were three instances, out of a possible
twenty, in which significant differences in stereotypy were
found to exist between the Michigan male and female students
and the male and female students, respectively. from the ten

states investigated. (Table 5.21).

The findings above warrant the rejection of the null
hypothesis.

3. There were only eight, out of a possible 136
biographical categories, in which significant differences in

attitudes of stereotypy were present betumen the resident

__ _._____ t‘ “HI“
.I1 LADp‘u'h ‘5‘.» - _ ‘s~ '. .- . II

and nonresident students. (Table 5.22).

The findings above warrant the rejection of the null
hypothesis.

Rokeach's Domatism §_9_e_t_1_e_:

l. The resident students were found to be signif-
icantly more dogmatic in their attitudes than were the non-
resident students. (Tables 5.23 and 5.2”).

The findings above warrant the rejection of the null
typothesis.

2. The Michigan female students were found to be
ignificantly more dogmatic in their attitudes than the
emale students from Connecticut. (Table 5.25).

The findings above warrant the rejection of the null
ypothesis.

3. In a number of biographical categories, the non-
asident students. in each case. tended to be more dogmatic

: their attitudes than the resident students (Table 5.22).

l"

y.
.‘j _. '
‘3

159

The findings above warrant the rejection of the null
hypothesis.

Differential Values Inventog:

l. The resident students were found to regard more
highly the traditional values of puritan morality. individu-
alism, and an emphasis on the future. while the nonresident
students tended to regard more highly the values of socia-
bility, conformity, and an emphasis on the present rather than
the future. (Tables 5.26 and 5.27).

The findings above warrant the rejection of the null
hypothesis.

2. No significant differences were found to exist,

by sex. in values between the Michigan students and the stu-
dents from each of the ten states, investigated. (Table 5.28).

The findings above warrant the acceptance of the null
hypothesis.

3. No significant differences were found in the values.
is measured by the DVI, between the resident and nonresident
'reshman students at Michigan State according to major
iographical characteristics. (Table 5.22).

The findings above warrant the acceptance of the null
ypothesis.

Michigan m University Readigg M:

1. No significant differences in reading abilities
re found to exist between the resident and nonresident in
y of the three stages investigated. (Tables 5.29 through
32).

I. WT—V‘TJ—T": ‘52?“ “a.“

I}.

160

The findings above warrant acceptance of the null

hypothesis.

College Qualification Test:‘

1. The nonresident students were found to have sig-

 

nificantly higher academic aptitudes than the nonresident
students. (Tables 5.33 and 5.3h). {Law
The findings above warrant the rejection of the null k

hypothesis.

2. No significant difference was found to exist in

J‘s” “‘4‘.“ 1.

academic aptitude between the Michigan male students and the

ti 4;.

male students from each of the ten states investigated. The
nonresident females from Connecticut, New Jersey, and New
York all had significantly higher academic aptitudes. as
measured by the CQT, than did the female students from
Michigan.(Table 5.35).

The findings above warrant the rejection of the null
hypothesis.

3. In seventeen of the eighteen biographical categories
in which significant differences in academic aptitude were
identified. the nonresident students were found to have
significantly higher academic aptitudes than the resident
students. (Table 5.32).

The findings above warrant the rejection of the null
hypothesis.

gigde-Point Averages:

1. Corresponding to their greater academic aptitude.

the nonresident students were found to have significantly

161

higher academic achievement (as measured by freshman year
grade-point averages) than the resident students. (Tables
5.36 and 5.37).

The findings above warrant the rejection of the null
hypothesis.

2. The analysis of achievement, which compared
Michigan students. by sex. with the students from the ten
selected nonresident states, revealed only two cells out of
a possible twenty in which significant differences were

present. (Table 5.38).

The findings above warrant the rejection of the null
hypothesis.

3. The findings in this analysis of achievement
revealed that of the twenty-six biographical categories in
which significant differences in achievement were found. there
were twenty-four in which the nonresident students had sig-
nificantly higher grade-point averages than the resident
students for the freshman year. (Table 5.32).

The findings above warrant the rejection of the null

hypothesis.

Conclusions
Some of the specific conclusions reached as a result
of this study have previously been stated immediately follow-

ing the analysis of the data relevant to each hypothesis in

Chapters IV and V. General conclusions which seem apparent

from this study are listed below:

‘ oils—‘3' WWW- ”‘1

‘S

__ ‘i
15...;

162

Phase 93:

1. There were a number of important differences in
the biographical and other selected characteristics of the
male and female nonresident freshman students enrolled at
Michigan State in the fall term of 1958. The nonresident

female students, in relation to the nonresident male students.

 

tended: to be younger; to have fathers with higher educational i
levels and more prestigious occupations; to graduate more [
often in the upper third of their high school classes: to come I
from smaller communities; to be of the Jewish religion more
often; to major in different colleges of the university; to
be less desirous of graduate or professional schooling: and,
to receive their major source of financial support more often
from their parents.

2. There was no significant difference in the with-
drawal rates of the male and female nonresident freshrnan stu-
ients at Michigan State during the academic year 1958-59.

3. The nonresident females tended to be more flexible.
iaptive, and nonstereotypic in their beliefs (IB) than the
»nresident males. Correspondingly. the nonresident males
nded to be slightly-more dogmatic in their attitudes (RDS)
in the nonresident females.

I}. There were no essential differences between the male
female nonresident freshman students at Michigan State in
3 in values (DVI). reading ability (RT), academic aptitude

‘), or academic achievement (GPA's).

163

Phase 33.9.3
1. There were a number of important differences in

the biographical and other selected characteristics of the

resident and nonresident freshman students enrolled at Mich-

igan State in the fall term of 1958. The nonresident stu-

dents, in relation to the resident students, tended: to be

younger; to have more often one or both parents who were

foreign-born; to have fathers with higher educational levels
and more prestigious occupations; to come from parochial

high schools more often; to graduate from larger high school

classes: to rank in the upper third of their high school

classes less often; to be of the Jewish religion more often;

and, to come from larger communities.

2. There was no significant difference in the with-

drawal rates of the resident and nonresident freshxnan stu-

dents at Michigan State during the academic year of 1958-59.
3. Differences in stereotypy, while statistically
significant in a. limited number of states and biographical

:ategories, tended to be relatively unimportant between the

esident and nonresident freshman students in 1958.

it. The resident fresMan students were found to be

Lgnificantly more dogmatic in their attitudes than the non-

nsident fresMan students.

5. The resident fresmnan students were found to regard

re highly such traditional values as puritan morality,

iividualism, and an emphasis on the future. Conversely,

D nonresident fresMan students tended to regard more

.‘

1"3139' '. F’
a
.1

t"

d

‘ . gwei'afla L x

16h

highly the values of sociability, conformity, and an emphasis
on the present rather than the future. These differences did
.not appear. however, in the comparison of the resident and
nonresident students by individual states or selected bio-

graphical categories .

6. No significant differences were found in the read- rye]
é

ing abilities of the resident and nonresident freshxnan stu- } “a
L

dents at Michigan State in 1958.

7. The nonresident fresMan students were found to ,.

 

have significantly higher academic aptitudes than the resident
fresMan students. This difference was much greater between
the females than the males.

8. Corresponding to their greater academic aptitude.
the nonresident freshman students were found to have sig-
nificantly higher academic achievement (as measured by the
freshman year grade-point average) than the resident fresMan
students. While the females of both groups were judged to be
>oorer in academic aptitude than the males, they proved to.
ave higher academic achievement than the males by the end

f their freshrnan year at Michigan State University.

Suggestions for Further Study
Throughout this investigation, it has been suggested

at additional complementary studies would be necessary
:‘ore a valid solution to the growing problem of student
:rations from other states, as they affect the state of
higan and Michigan State University, respectively, could
311:. Therefore. a number of suggestions for further study

presented below:

165

1. A study might be undertaken to determine more
specifically the reasons why the nonresident students choose
to migrate to the state of Michigan and why they select
certain institutions, as opposed to others.

2. Since this study involved only the fresMan stu-

dents at Michigan State University in 1958, similar studies

 

might be made of the fresMan students for other years at
this institution. Similarly, such studies could be enlarged

to include all the nonresident students enrolled at'Michigan

F
ii
I,
i
S.

State in a given year. The findings in these studies could 5,,

then be campared by levels (lower division, upper division,
and graduate) and by years to identify the important similar-
ities, differences, and changes that were prevalent.

3. _ The findings in this study might also be compared,
as a whole or in part, with similar characteristics identified
in studies of students at other higher education institutions
in Michigan or in other geographical regions of the country.
the results of these comparative studies might give some
ndication of the unique drawing appeal, and resulting stu-
ent bodies, of Michigan State University, as compared to
bher selected institutions in the United States.

b. A follow-up study of the resident and nonresident
udents in this study could be conducted to identify the
Lative changes in attitudes, values, and achievement that
urred on the part of these students during their four

rs at Michigan State University.

166

5. An investigation could be made to determine how
many of the resident and nonresident students in this study
withdrew from Michigan State before completing their four-
year degree. From such an inquiry, some determination of
when and why these students withdrew from college could be
made. r1
6. Since the admissions requirements for nonresident (
fresMan students at Michigan State have been modified some- i
what from those in existence in 1958, a study might be made i
to determine in what important ways these changes have affected L
the quality and character of the nonresident students being
admitted to this institution at the present time.
7. A comprehensive study might be conducted to deter-
mine the economic value of nonresident students to the state
of Michigan. to specific geographical regions, or to individual
higher education institutions. Such studies could include an
investigation of the amount of money these students spend (as
compared to the resident students). where they spend it, and
their relative ability and willingness to pay higher tuition
rates.
8. A study might be made to determine whether the
onresident students were responsible for certain expenditures
y higher education institutions, which without their presence
>uld not be necessary. For example. a study could be made
. determine whether certain classes were scheduled or physi-
1 facilities maintained which were primarily or solely for

e benefit of nonresident students.

167

5% Since any decision to educate nonresident stu-
dents in the public higher education institutions in Michigan
is directly dependent upon the economic and social contribu-
tions these students can make to the state, a follow-up study
might be made to determine how many of these students locate
in the state after graduation from Michigan colleges and
universities. The types of employment secured and the length
of time they continued to live in the state would be important

factors to be investigated in such a study.

3'—

< ‘6': hi

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The American Association of Collegiate Registrars and
.Admissions Officers. Home State and Migration pf
.American.College Students, Fall 1258. Washington.

D. C.: American Association of Collegiate Registrars
and Admissions Officers, March, 1959.

. A supplement to the Home State and Migration 2;
American College Students, Fall 1238:. Washington.

D. C.: American Association of Collegiate Registrars
and Admissions Officers. December. 1959.

\

Annual Report, 1260-6 . Michigan State University: Office
of the Registrar. pp. 1 and 16 (Mimeographed).

r . .M‘; *wa-_ - a _Pld-xmmm
.
_jp-ljj
..
I

Bennett, George K.. Marjorie G. Bennett, Winburn L. Wallace,

and Alexander G. Wesman. College Qualification Tests.
Manual. $251, New York: The Psychological Corporation,
1957.

Berdie, Ralph F. After Higp School - What? Minneapolis:
The University of Minnesota Press, l95h. ’

Coombs, Philip H. "An Economist's Overview of Higher Educa-

tion." Financing Higper Education, 1260-20. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1959.

Cooperative Study of Evaluation in General Education, Paul
L. Dressel, Director. Instructor's Manual for The
Inventory‘ggiBeliefs. The American Council on

Education, Committee on Measurement and Evaluation,
1953. (Mimeographed).

Darley, J. G. "Diversification in American Higher Education."
In NASPA, Proceedings--28th.Annivepsary Conference‘pg

W

the National Association p£.Studen Personnel Adminis-
itrators. Lawrence, Kansas: MKSPK, 1956. pp. 55-63.

Dressel, Paul L. and Lewis B. Mayhews General Education:
Explorations pp,Evaluation. Washington, D. C.:
American Council on Education, 195“.

"Fall Enrollment in Higher Education Institutions," The World

Almanac, 1262. New Yerk: New York World Telegram

FisMan, J. A. "Unsolved Criterion Problems in the Selection

of College Students,” Harvard Educational Review,
28:3“0-3U9, 1958.

168

169

icke, Benno G. "How Colleges Should Pick Their Students,"
College Board Review, 311:17-22, Winter. 1958.

Lrnas, C. C. and Raymond Ewell. "The Role of Research in
the Economics of Universities." Financing High_er
Education, 1260-20. New York: McGraw-Hill Book.
Company. 1959.

oldsen, Rose K.. et a1. What College Students Think.
Princeton. New Jersey: Van Nostrand 00.. Inc.. 1960.

   

iced, Carter V.. ed. Dictionau of Education. New York:

McGraw-Hill Book 00.. Inc.. 1959.

Hancock, J. W. and C. 0. Carter. "Student Personality Traits
and Curriculae of Enrollment,” Journal p_f_‘_ Educational
Research, 148:225-227, 1951‘.

-A a... _‘l—u-I

. _ ..- A . ‘ . l-
I
I.‘

“M-
.4

Haveman, Ernest and Patricia 5. West. They Went t College.
New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co.. 1952.

Havighurst, Robert J. American Higper Education Lt; the
1260's. Columbus: Ohio State University Press. 1960.

Heist, Paul. "Diversity in College Student Characteristics,"
Journal.p£,Educational Sociology. 33:279-291, 1960.

. “Implications from Recent Research on College
Students." Journal g£_the National Association of
Women Deans and Counselors, 32:116-125. 1959.

and Harold Webster. "Differential Characteristics

of Student Bodies--Implications for Selection and

Study of Undergraduates." In Selection 2512 Educational
Differentiation. Berkeley, California: Center or

the Study of Higher Education, 1960. pp. 91-106.

Holland, J. L. "Student Explanations of College Choice and
Their Relation to College Popularity, College Pro-

ductivity, and Sex Differences," College and Univer-
LLEZ. 33. 3:313-320. 1958. .

Hollinshead, Byron 3. Who Should Q3 t_o_ College. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1952.

Hovde, F. I... "Need for Out-of-State Students." In Asso-
ciationof Governing Boards of State Universities and
Allied Institutions, Proceedin s, 1955, pp. 89-95.

Howard, 1.. B. "Exploration of the Residence Problem," “1
College and Universit , 33:172-177. Winter. 1958. '

 

170

oyt, Donald P. "Size of High School and College Grades,"

Personnel 2232 Guidance Journal, 37:569-573. April,
1959.

.ummel, Errett E. "Problems in Selective Enrollment." In

Northwest Association of Secondary and Higher Schools,
Proceedings, 1956, pp. 55-62.

[ffert, Robert E. Retention 22d Withdrawal 2; College Stu-
dents. U. S. Department of Health, Education. and
Welfare. Office of Education Bulletin. 1958, No. 1.
Washington: Government Printing Office. 1957.

Ikenberry, Stanley 0. "A Multivariate Analysis of the
Relationship of Academic Aptitude, Social Background,
Attitudes, and Values to Collegiate Persistence."
Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, 1960.

Jacob, Philip E. Changing Values _i_n_ College. New Haven:
The Edward W. Hazen Foundation, 1957.

Lehmann, Irvin J. and Stanley 0. Ikenberry. Critical Think-
;pg, Attitudes. and Values Ln Higher Education: A

Egaliminary Report. (Paul L. Dressel, Principal '-
Investigator East Lansing, Michigan: Office of

Evaluation Services, Michigan State University, 1959.

Lins, L. J. and Hy Pitt. "The 'Staying Power' and Rate of

Progress of University of Wisconsin Freshmen." College
and University, 29:86-99. 1953.

McConnell. Thomas R. "Problems of Distributing Students
Ameng Institutions with Varying Characteristics,"

North Central Association Quarterly. 35:226-238. 1961.

and Paul A. Heist. "Do Students Make the College?"
College and Universit , 3h:h1&5, 1959.

 

McCreary. W. H. "Registration of Nonresident Students in
State Universities," Journal of Annerican Association

9_t_‘_ Collegiate Registrars, 17:161-168. January. 1952.

Mulligan, Ramond A. "Socioeconomic Background and College

Enrollment." Amcrican Sociological Review, 16:188-196.
April. 1951-

Murphy, Lois and Esther Raushenbusch, eds. Achievement .i_:_l_
t_hp College Years. New York: Harper Bros.. 1960.

Pace. C. Robert. "Five College Environments," College Board
Review, 151:214-28, 1960.

F

' MM’ ”up: 4'5 . W. as" '—

7L

171

Tyne, Isabelle K. "The Relationship Between Attitudes and
Values and Selected Background Characteristics."
Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. Michigan State
University, East Lansing, 1961.

lant, Walter T., Edward W. Minium, and Celestine Myers.

Analysis of the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale Used with a

Sample of American College Students." (A paper read

at the Annual Meeting of the Western Psychological

Association, San Diego, California, April 16-18, 1959)
(Mime ographed) .

"An

Prince, Richard. "A Study of the Relationship Between Indi-
vidual Values and Administrative Effectiveness in the

School Situation." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation.
The University of Chicago, Chicago, 1957.

"Report of the Registrar." Eightieth Annual Report _o_f t
Secretary 9__f the State Board _o_f Agricultureo of
State of Michigan. Lansing, Michigan: Michi igan
State College Publication, l9b9, pp. 30 and 3h.

he
.22.

"Report of the Registrar," Ninetieth Annual Report of the

State Board 2; ggriculture _o_f t__l_l__e State of Michi an.
Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State College Publication,
"3?. 195“. pp. 13% and 138.

 

Rokeach, Milton. "The Nature and Meaning of Dogmatism,"
Psychological Review. 61. 3:19’4-201}, 195i}.

. "Political and Religious Dogmatism:
to Authoritarian Personality,"

Volume 70, Number 1‘25, 1956.

An Alternative
Psychological Monographs,
p. 5.

Ruml, Beardsley. Memo _t_o a College Trustee.

New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1959.
Sanford, Nevit, ed. The American Collegg. New York: John
Wiley and Sons, 1962.
Schmitz, H.

"Implications of Geographic Restrictions on

Enrollments in State Colleges and Universities,"
Rigor Education, 3:1-3, March 15. 19117.

Slocum, W. L. "Social Factors Involved in Academic Mortality,"
College and University, 32:53-61}, 1956.

Spindler. George. "Education in a Transforming American
Culture," Harvard Educational Review, 25:156-163.
September. 1953.

Story, Robert C. Residence and Migration _o_f Colle e Students,

4 *
l2h2-EO. United States *Office of Education Bulletin
No. 1 . Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office.
1951.

 

g

172

Washburne, Norman F. "Socio-economic Status, Urbanism and
Academic Performance in College," Journal p_f_ Educa-
tional Research. 53:130-137. December. 1959.

Walker, Helen and Joseph Lev. Statistical Inference. New
' York: Henry Holt and Company. 1953.

Wise, William Max. They Come for the Best 931 Reasons:
College Students Today. Washington, D. C.: American
Council on Education, 1958.

“F

J

‘ P—c—sa—‘cqi til-Uh". ..“-
'\
.

ND Hhuhbilfi) u... E. «1".1unell. u

APPENDICES

173

 

 

3H

MN
Ha

NH
JWDGDFH3F*H
N‘n <3

H
(WV)H:?

rdocvrjmrdrlflffiwDOCDCDHCDF4N94030<DFLQUDFH3C>O
N

namdmnndowmaammmmmmam

ram 2 .mw, z

manpofi moamEom

oeseeaoo mecoossm Hesmmdaees

 

madam :stSOez pm musopsum smanmoam esopemoacoz one he .oumem he

OH

OH
ma

Hkomv-‘l

VM3

aw

WOHGZ

z

 

ma mm
mm

O‘AQD
N
C\
H

.4-4ocv
NCfirhfi

0'
H

mm 2

monEom
necoesem

< Xanmmm<

cowoko

mEondeo
. canes
mcfiHOHMU smhoz

xuo? 302a
hemhmh 3oz;
chasmaamm 302
mxmmhnoz
msmscoz
“known“:
maomOCCe:
muuomsfiomnmmzt
pcmahudz
ocfimz
sandmanoq
Axosucez
mmmnmz

oon

mcmeCHa
maeCHHHHa
mfimuoow
mpeuoam

.o.n .coomcehnos
asofiuoo::00e
opmaoaoo
mentomflamo
mmmcoxad
madnmad

F1
5‘

N
Fib-

"\N

0(301HffiFiHr40\bu4C>OW4C>O(fi94HCDr4rh3‘fi94NCD
Pg

rdvimHWODQhfiJib-OCQF4FiN'4F4V3N43F401NWQP~N‘AF4

as mm
hm

moan: swmduo no madam
hdHfiMom

nGOH.HHm& .huwmh0>H:D

17h

175

 

.man 90 Show HHmm 0:» :H huHmhobHsp madam :de£0Hz em mmmHo cdfinmoau as» on
menopaun unopHnoaso: mo hopes: unomudH on» pouanuucoo SOHsa mousse so» one and sneak a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ooH oHa.N ooH HmH ooH mmH ooH :mH.H ooH mNN.H Hoeoe canto :oHooHsaom
NH, «wo.m mm moH om. mew ANN» ‘me1utJWN mm. H.soesclmHoeoe ecooenom
mm mHmn mm jmw om jam, Hm mam \ww mom nHoeoe ecocenoesoz

u>m4229m
ooH mam ooH ANN ooH an, oqwlmem ooH.mwwmw, nHeeoe ttotanoecoz
H n H m H m esteem
c H o H msman
m NH n H N m m 0H :HmcoomHza
H m m H H N mHCHmuH> ewe:
o H o H coumcHnmmz
m 0H m a m m easemee>.
H a o H H m usoeuo>
o H m H Sn»:
0 N n H o H money
0 N n H o H commocsoh
o H o H mpoxdn Spsom
o N m H o H pcmHnH oposm
o H o H OOHm echosm
: 5N m N m H a m m nH chmthmccomt
mmlrz Hm z.«wmw, z {a z m, z . sHmHao co oeomm

mHmpoa. tr mOHmEom _monE monaoa moHdz

 

attendee

 
 

 

nesoosem Hoseeeaees

 

nusopsum umHsmom

.H.a mqm<e

AposcHucoov

,I f-
} I

. 4
erLPIIlI-uoi. «III. (Irv: I»; t r:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

boHImHmIIIIpoHINMImoHINMIIIIomHIwmmIIII NoMIIIIIIIIII Ifldkow

H n o o o o H N H N .oncomnom oz

mm mNn mm :N Na mm mm mHN HmN .caonuotHeo: seem

m mm o o o o n NH HN .ceonuthoeoc seem

N NH m H m m H N m .ceohacmHoaoc testes
.cuonlo>Humc honudm

a 0: HH m o o m mH HN .caonucmHoeoc teapot
.CHonIo>Hec: hence:
.mpsoumm MM NHH>Humz

new Isms... .. .. .. pom. use... .. mew ..em .. I .. use... we...“ .. Mom .. .. I .. .. I .. I .. .. lemon

0 o o o o o o o o .ousomeom oz

0 H o o o o o o H .pozopH3

o N a H o o o o H .Uoouo>HQ

N NH 0 o m H H N m .poHuumz

mm mow mm 5N um mm mm de HmN .onch (Hm

.nseNem HoeHae=.l

mom. Immml I I I pom. Imm I pom. Imm I I I IoIHI new... I Mom. I I I I I I I I I I Imwdmow

o H o o o o o o H .onzomnom oz

w o: o 0 MH m H m NM fume-O .Ho 0N

m Nu m N m m H m 3N .mH

an Nmm so wH mm NN Nm :mH mmH .mH

om mmH mm m HN m mm om mm .mH not:

elolmnlqe
IN 2 mm 2 a 2 mu 2 z
mHmeoH nonEom monz nOHsEom IMMHNS moHanadb
poaHDEoo menopaum Hmzmupnqu mucopsum kaamcm

 

 

mmmH HHea .aeHmeocha totem temmson to leseaesoHs one noHsmom. mmtowsen . . .
cmenmoam psopHmoucoz on» mo mOHanaeuomamno poeoeHom nonuo use HcOHnomuton N a mqmaa

m XHszanHHH

177

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

pom. Imwel I I I pom. Imm I oo.H. Imm. I I I IoIHI pal I IobHI Mom I I I I I I I I I I Immamow
H s o o .N H o H H N .onsomnom oz
e an N N o o N NH n mH .Hooaon .cetm
no .moam poponSoo
N H a H o o m N H n .Hooson
.pmum Ho .uoha 080m
oN mNH :H d HN m HN Nn oN Hm .oNoHHoo coeoHasoo
mH Nm mN N n N NH m: NH Nm .omoHHoo teem
o: msN mm HH n: NH mm em N: mNH .Hooson smHa coeoHaaoo
oH :m N N NH N m mN HH Nn .Hooson smHs oaom
: NN : H n N m m n mH .Hooson ocean coeoHasoo
N HH o o n H H N m m .Hooson totem osom
.noHemospm m.ao£eo:
bow Imwml I I I new Imm I cow Imm I I I IobHI mam I IopHI mom I I I I I I I I I I I emit“
o N o o .w H o o o H .oncomnom oz
:H mm :H s 0H 3 NH 3: HH an .Hconom .pmam
no .moug oeuonEoo
m oN : H o o s 0H m m .Hooson
.Umhm ho .uoum oEom
NN NnH mN m m m NN mm NN mm .omoHHoo coeoHasoo
mH Nm HN m «H n oN ms NH Nn .omoHHoo oaom
nN an mN N mN HH HN Hm mN mm .Hoosom smHn coeoHQEoo
N Na 3 H m m m mN m nN .Hooaon ans oaom
N n: o o HN m a HH m mN .Hooson totem eoeoHasoo
n mN : H m m N m m mH .Hooson totem oaoMII
.COHudOSUm n.ho£udm
1» Is. on: 2
.4w z INMII .m NBnoHesz .oneaom sooHos moHnoHtt>
1338 I at”: asses“; Ideas;
pocHnEoo mason um AcoscHeccoc .N.N mHm<H

 

 

‘I
‘II‘

178

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SHQEIIIIQHBMIBHQMIIIBBIRWIEBI%mIIIIIIIIII Iflfifi
N NH 0 o N N N s 1H NH .omaomnom oz
:N Na: mm :N we mN mN NmH mN oNN .ocHzonsom
N- OH O o m H N a N m .HmHuomccmE no .oowm
o o o o o o o o o o ..00H>kom cHHflsm
H a o o o o o o H : .coHHHmwcs so on
H m o o o o H N N m .uoaohoH coHHHansom
H n o o n N H m o o .aoaonoH coHHme
m mm m H m N w 0N n mH .Honomoh
o o o o o o o o o o .aocso seem
a Nn HH m m m m NN m mN .acHHoeIoean
N mH o o m H N m m m .HdflOHthkohm
H n o o m H H N H N .quZo mnocanm

- .ceHummmooo m.uo£eoz

bow Imwml I I I new Imm I com. Imm. I I I IowHI pmnN. I IopHI Mom. I I I I I I I I I I Iflemom
N NH o o _w N H N m m .on:dMoom oz
: NN o o n N e m n mH .coaHeoa no consoooq
mH nHH nN N mH n mN mm «H a: .Hthowocda no .oonm
N HH 0 . o n N H N N N .oOthom OHHnnm
o m .o o o o o H H N .coHHHxncs so soH
m mH m H HH 2 o H 2 MH .HouonnH UoHHHanSom
:H em HH m m m 0H mN NH Nm .aoaoeoH poHHme
m mH o o o o d 0H m m .hmfludoH
H m o o m m H N H d .358 suds
mH mm :H 3 NH m mH a: :H N .aoHHoouoeHsz
NH NoH mH m mH m oN m: mH m: .HecoHnnocotm
mH mHH mN m mH m NH m: mH mm .aoczo mnochsm

.COHHCWSOOO mehmfiudh

H 0‘ mm .2 I|
s z N. e If a. as...” I
IImHepoe neHesoN esmawseHz necoesem aoHsuom Hunuuuuuuuuuuuummw
III . . on. NIH
eeeHHEeo eeseesem H loosteotooe N

 

 

 

‘l

179

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

new INMNI I I I new INm I Now Imm I I I IopHI mum I IopHI Now I I I I I I I I I I ImHNMom
H m 2 H N H o o H. N .omcomnom oz
mm NNN on :H :2 NH HN NNH Hn mmH .NeHso Home:
Nm NNN N: NH on NH NN NN N: NNH .eaHse oHeeHa
: NN : H N H N N N NH .oaHhe aech
. - .mdeU {EHNHNSUNHO

HoonoN nNHm mm scam

wow INHNI I I I new INm I Now INm I I I IopHI bum I IobHI Mom I I I I I I I I I I IdeMom
o N o o N H o o o H .oncomnom oz
m NH N N o o H N 2 NH .uoto tcs ooo.H
NN m:H mN N NN NH NN Nn NN mm .mmmuoo:
Hm NNH mm oH Nm NH Nm oN NN :N .mmmxooN
2N neH NH n :N m :N HN mN oN .mmHuooH
NH NoH : H NH 3 NH n: oN mm .mmnmN
N NH HH n n N N n N N .nN pecan
.meHU QCfiOdfifidN—G

Hoosom smHm MN osHN

new INHNI I I I pow INm I mow INm I I I IopHI wnm I lemHI Mum I I I I I I I I I I ImMHWow
o H o o o o o o o H .omcommom oz
N Hm N N m H N NH oH Hm .HeHsooatN
n Nm 2 H NH 2 a HH N NH .oeotHnm
NN dmn NN NN NN mm NN NNN 2N :nN .oHHssm
.poccoeus

Hoodom mwmm MM MNNH

) .4 3 2 GM 74 WTHDNHHGKP
. mchEcm
,. t . H WUEQUSUW .HdHHHtom .H.
NHMMWWN messesem Hssstess.s Atosfiotoo. .N.N sued
Hes.

 

““11!

180

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
  
  

 

    

 

 

 

 
 

poIH. INHNI I I I mom. INN I mom. INm I I I IopHI new I IomHI Nom. I I I I I I I I I InHfiuoe
w “W HH Al N m NH on m NH nflcomoso ecosq oocououoamlcz.l
m mm N N m H oH NN N N .neae coHoeoHcsaaoo
NH HN HN N m N NH N: N N .coHetoscm
n Hm N N N m m NH 2 NH .otHoHoos Naothoeos
NH NHH HN N NH m :N mm NH N: .ueed can oocoHoN
N N: NH n o o NH H: o o .moHaocooo osom
NH oN o o NH n o H “N :N .thaoosHacm
:N ndH NH a Na NH NH. mm Nm mm .taon .nsa one mnocHnsm
N N: o 0 NH N o H NH NN .onseHsoHema
..H0 “ME .HNHHHOHhh—HU
pow IN.H..NI I I I new INm I oo.H.. INM I I I IoIHI bum. I IobHI Mom. I I I I I I I I I I Immawfit.
N «H o o .N H o H a HH .omcommom oz
N NH 3 H m N H N N N .eoseo
N :H o o N n o o a HH .ocoz
HN NNN N: NH N: NH NN NNH an NNH .eceemoeoam
:H NN N: NH N N NH an HH an . .sNHson
NH NHH N N NN HH NH mm oN NN .oHHosedu
.OOCOHCMOHm mfloHMHHQm
bow INHNI I I I new ININ. I new INM I I I IopHI cum I IopHI Mom. I I I I I I I I I I ImMNWotw
o N o o o o H _N o o .oncomwom oz
an HHN mm oH on NH mm NN :m 20H .ooo.ooH ee>o NeHo
HN HNH HN N HN N oN on NN NN .Hooo.ooHIooo.NNc NeHo
an moN mm N HN N Nm mm Nm Nm .Hooo.NNIoon.N sate
N N: HH n N m N “H N NN ..oon.NuonNc otoHHH>
3.5”“
m mH o o OH 3 N m m m ..HW.CSEEOO oEom ...HIm. OMHm
I a zII
ow 2 mm 2 . WOHmEom . Feeds: II noHDded>
1% z N 31% a» .HaHsmom
III 0% mOHmEom h :pHr mason m .N.N mqmdh

cocHQENO

181

NHHOHHp mNaanmflo

ordcnocvrflo

O
IH

C
IH

I\

O\

\OMO
IH

(I)
H
\O

.fll’fll"
-

“.1...qu .

F laaitlvi , .

O
[H

I
oaoooaom
m
m
\A
m

COONKONQCDHO

IN

0
IO
t-I

Naoooaop
manomoo
:moooma
zzooawwo

O\
m
N

(‘1

O
[H
0
H

mooooom
IN

lo
I.“
IN

o<3c>o<3cno
«\
{\CDOCDOIH
Hr4c>oxonl

O
. H
N

In
IN

oooxoaolg
IH

:w&:rmHACHo
mu“ O
[H
I
FIHr4V\O<D
FIH

IO
....

\O

0
lo
H

MMNOHH
m

I
NmNom3m

EdmuoB
.MNGOMWQKI oz

.QNSNHNHOSON owEoUdod

.HHHm .H .0

.:dod

.mfinmhmfionom owponud

.non oeHuuuumN

.mpcoumm

it .3
HNHocmch MMHMfl_MN connom

 

 

mddBom
.oNCQMNOmI oz
.NHHENN anz macs a<
.Nuwhouom\huH:uoudum
.omao: wcHEoom
.uCoEvummd
.hhouHEhoa
HMHmhobHCD madam .SOHE

pd NCOHumUoEEooo< ucH>HH

0
km

00
N

 

 

 

 

@44808
.omcqmmoml oz

.moug ho .Umuw
.mhmoh know
.mummN amuse
.muaoh 03g
.nmoh one
..UouHmon :OHuNosvm
oumHHoo mo undead

NPN.
w
HNH
NNH
o
H

.Hooaom

 

 

 

 

W
a».

L

z
deuoH

vocHQSoo

IN. 2 g z

moHdEom monz
Nucovnwm Hazauuanz

moHanm

moHnNHua>

mead:

mucovsvm uszwom

Avaschcoov .N.N NHNNN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mom. INmOhNI I I new INN.HI .o.o.H.. INHHI I I IobHI NH.N.. I IobHI NIN. I I I I I I I I I I Immfiow
o oH o o o o H .w H .omcomwom oz
NN NNN.H NN HN HN NNH :N HNN NN :NN .cuonuo>Hpmc spam
m NW N N H N 2 mm m Hm .cuomucmHouoN zoom
0 H H H H d H .chonlccHouow nonuoe
.chonlo>Huac honvam
N NNH N N N oH N NN N NN .cuonacNHNNoN Nonuuu
.cuonlobHum: yoguox
.mucchwm Md.NuH>Hudz
wow IN.N..oINI I I pom. INIHI bow INHHHI I I IopHI .mHN. I IobHI MNI I I I I I I I I I I Immfiow
o N o o o o o o o N .omcqmmom 02
o N o o o o o o o N .uozoqu
o N o o o o o N o o .uoouo>Ha
N a: a a N N H a N NN .uoHuuaz
NN Hao.N NN NN NN HNH NN NoN NN NNN .oHNcHN
.mspNuN HNuHuaz
pom. INIoINI I I new INpHI MPH. INHHHI I I IobHI .mHN. I IowHI MN.N.. I I I I I I I I I I INHfionH.
o o o o o o o o o o .omcqumom oz
N NoH : 2 NH NH H N N NN .uo>o no oN
N NN N N N NH N HN N :N .NH
NN :NN.H oN HN NN NN NN ooN NN oNN I .NH
NN HNN HN NN NH NN HN NNN :N NNN .NH nova:
o0b_<
IIIIIoW Z R Z IIIwM 2 am 2 mm} 2 II III
WHMDOF MOHGEONH ”OHfiz III 0.
vocHnEoo Mucowam_wm&duU£uH3 moMMNQWSum A ondz moanwwha>

   
 
 

'I. Ill- '
J'II'

mmmH HHdm .NuHmho>H
. .C 0
Cdgmflhrfl HCOUflWQNH D

182

183

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wow INMNhNI I I MPH. INN.HI mow INmHI I I IoNIHI NH.N. I IopHI mNM I I I I I I I I I I Immflom
o w o o H H H _w o N .omcomWom 02
N mHH m m a N N mm 2 mm .Hoonom .vmum
ho .monm wouonaoo
N N: 2 2 H H N NN . N NH .Hoosom
.vahm no .Noum oEom
NH NNN 0H 0H NH NH NH oNH NH HNH .oNoHHoo woNoHNEON
NH NNN NH NH 0H NH NH NNH oH NN .oNoHHoo 050N
H: NNN 2N NN N: NN NN NNN N: No: .Hoonom :NHn uopoHNEoo
NH NNN NH NH NH NH HH NoH NH NoH .Hoonom nNHa oaom
N NNH N N 0H NH _ N oN N NN .Hoonom ovauN uopoHNEON
N :N N N N CH N NH N :N .Hooaom oNNuN osom
.20Huaosum m.uo£uoz
wow IN.N.o....NI I I bow INmHI mom. INuHI I I IopHI NHN. I IomHI mNm I I I I I I I I I I Immfiow
H NH N N H N H _w H .omcomwam oz
m mmH m m a N 3H :NH N ow .Hooaom .UNAM
no .woum UmponEoo
N N: N N H H N :N N NH .Hoonom
.Umum no .moua oEom
NH HNN 0H 0H NH NH N oNH NH NNH .oNoHHoo umuonaoo
NH :oN NH NH NH NH NH NNH NH NNH JoNoHHoo oEoN
NN NNN NN oN oN N: NN :HN oN NNN .Hoozom aNHn wouoHNEoo
NH NNN NH NH NH NN NH NHH NH NHH .Hoonom nNHn oaoN
NH NNN NH NH NH NN oH :N NH HNH .Hoonom aumuN voponaoo
N NN N N N NH N NH N NN .Hoonom oumum «Eom
.cowwfi0§fim m.ko£udh
II~ J oH 2 IINIIIloN Z HHN».
1%. z I, w z GNUNoHsz moHNEoN mon2.II moHnm. >
INNHSPH 2:52 2323:: 3.33pm gamma I.
III! 0 0 Hum-HELP
NocHNEON mucouspm AvoscHucoo. N N

18h

 

‘1 allfi‘y , I I II I . I‘lul
. . III

F It I.I...IL Iwawra»... lilhmu N

 

 

 

 

 

8H NNo.N ooH NoHI com. INNHHI I I IomHI .N.H.N.. I IomHI mNM I I I I I I I I N458

w I INN I I I I w I INI w NH N HN N N .mmmommmNIom I

NN NNN.H oN NN HN NoH NN HNN NN NoN ..oNHzomsom

H NN N N H H H N N NH .HmHuoNacNe uo .omnm

o N o o o o c N o H .ooH>uom oHHnsm

H HN N N H N H N N NH .uoHHmecs No seq

N NN N N N N N oN N NN .uouoan NoHHmeHEoN

H NH N N H N o N H NH .umuoan voHHHxN

N NNH N N N N N oN N NN .uonoaop

o H o o o o o o o H .uoczo Baum

NH. HNN HH HH N NH NH NNH HH :oH .umHHoouopHns

N N: N N o o N NN N oN .HmconmoNoam

H NN o o H H N NH H N .uoczo mmochsm
.COHonwooo m.uonuoz

NNH NNohNI I I oo.H.. INN.HI ooIH. INHHI I I IoN.HI .mH..N. I IomHI N.N. I I I I I I I I I I INHNNLNVH.

N I.I N N N N H N N H .omcommom oz

N NNH N N N oH N NN N NN .vmuHuou no vomaooon

NH NNN NH :H N 0H HH HoH N NN .HNHumNacme No .ooum

N NN H H N N N NH N NH .ooHpuom oHHnsa

H HN o o H N H N N NH .NoHHmeca uo seq

N NNH : a N NH N NN N NN .uouoan NoHHmeHeQN

NH NNN NH NH HN NN NH NNH HN NNH .uouoan voHHHxN

N NN N N N N : NN : 3N .uonoaoy

m mmH w m NH mm N mw 0H ma .uoczo Sham

NH NNN NH NH NH NH NH NNH NH NNH .umHHooIouHaz

NH :NN N N N N NH NNH N NN .HmconmoNouN

NH NNN NH N NH NN NH NNH NH NHH .ucczo mmochzm -
.COHummmdoo m.uo£umm

NW 2 ImI 2 MI 2 INWI z Imw z

IINHmuoP NQHNSON moHdz NOHNEob III mownz NOHQNHHN>

vocHnEoo mucous%m,HN3¢MU£uflD .IMNCstpm umHawom

 

 

 

AvoscHucoov .N.N NHN<N

185

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mow IN.N.o....NI I I NNN.H. INNIHI pow INuHI I I IopHI MHM I IopHI .NN.N. I I I I I I I I I I Imméow
0 HH 0 o H H H N o : .omnqmmam oz
NN NH:.H NN NN N: NN NN NHN HN NNN .Nan» Noam:
NN NNN :N NN N: NN oN NNH :N NHN .NanN oHNNHz
: NN N N N NH H NH N a: .NanN nosoH
.mmmHo mwaumsfimko

HooNoN swam mm xcam

bow IN..N.o....NI I I .N.N.H. INN.HI wow INHHI I I IomHI .NIHM I IobHI mNIN. I I I I I I I I I I NHEovH.
o z o o o o o N o N .omcqmnum 02
H NN N N H N H N N NH .uo>o New ooo.H
NH NNN oN 0N :H HN oN oNH 2H NNH .NNNuoo:
HN Na: 2N :N NH :N 2N HNN NH NNH .NNNIooN
NN :NN :N NN NN H: NN NNN NN NNN .NNHnooH
oN NNN :N NN NN NN NN NNN NN NoN I .NNINN
N :N N N N N N NH N NN .NN pommm
.mmaHoImwNNNSUth

Hoosom NNNN Mm oNHN

mom. INNNohNI I I new INNIHI pom. INHHI I I IobHI .N.H.N. I Io.o.HI wN.N.. I IIIII I I I I Immfiow
o oH o o o o H N o : .omcomwom oz
H HN N N H H N NH N HH .HNHNooumN
N NNH N N N N N NN N . NN .oua>HuN
NN NHN.H oN NN :N oNH HN NNN HN NNN .oNHnsN
.NevzoNNN

HooNoN :NHm mm.omNN

NM 2 IIN IIz NI 2 INN z INII z
mdduofi moamsom mead: MOHMEOQ monE moHndefl>
vacflnaoo mucovflwm Hd3akvfiua3 mucovzum hdazmom .

 

 

AcoscHucoov .N.N NNNNN

186

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oo.H. INNo. NI I I 2: INOHI mom INNHHI I I IoN.HI NHN I IIomH N.N.I 350m.
NH NNN! .NHI lmH HH NH NH NJH NH 2H Acomono o:o:%.oo:0MoMoMmlozl
N NoH 0H NH N a N NN N 0N .mpua :oHNNoHcsasoo
HH NNN NH NH H N NN ooN N NH .coHuNosNN
: :N N N a N 2 NN : NN .ocHoHNos NumcHuoNo>
om . No: NH oN NH ON NN NNN NH NNH .mpnm Nun cocoHoN
N NNH HH HH H H NH :HH o .moHsocooo osom
NH ozN o o NN on H N HN NNN .NcHuoocHNcN
NH NNN NN NN NN NN NH NNH NH NNH .>uom .nsa Nca mmochsm
N NNH o o NH NN o N HH NoH .ousuHsoHuNN

..HOn.dZ .HmHSOfiHhHHO

NNN.H. IN.N..o...NI .N.N.H. INpHI com. INNHHI I I IomH mHm I IoN.HI wNI I I I I I I I I 358
H NN H H _N a H N N .H .mmmqmmle oz
H HN H H H H H oH H N .uoapo
N :N N N N N N NH N NN .ocoz
NN NNN.H NN NN NN NoH :N NNN :N NNN .pcmamououm
2 NN 0H NH N a : NN N :N .smHzoN
NH NNN NN NN NH NN NH NNH NH NNH .oHHospao

.oocohomonm m=OHMHHom

poH IN.N.oINI I I oo.H. NbHI pom. INhHI I I IoN.HI ..N.H.N. I IooHI MN I I I I I I I I I I Immacuw
o N o o o o o N o .omcomwom oz
2N NNN oN HN oN NN 2N NNN NN HHN .ooo.ooH uo>o NNHN
NN NNN NN NN NH :N NN NNN NH NNH ..ooo.ooHuooo.NNV NNHN
NN HNN NN NN HN HN NN NNN NN NNN .Aooo.NNuooN.Nv :309
NH NNN 0H NH NH NN NH NoH NH NNH .AooN.NIoNNV NNNHHH>
NH NHN HH HH NN NN HH NN NH HNH hmuam

.NMHc:EEoo 060: Mo ouHm

INH. 2 N, z .MN, 2 N, z N. z
deuoP NOHNEOQ monz moHafimm monz moandth>
vOCHQEOU .mwcovflum HaSMHUSHH3 mucofiflum hdHfiMom .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I.IIIII

 

l

ANNschcoov .N.N NHNNN

187

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N.o.H. INNNhNI I I N.o.H. INN.HI NN.H. INwHI I I IoN.HI NHN. I IoN.HI mNN. I I I I I I I I I I Iflfiom
H NN o o N N H oH N . H .omcomwomlom
N NNH N N N N N NN N NN .mHnmumHonom ngocao<
N NN o o N N H N N a: .HHHN .H .u
H NH H H N N H N .H N .ca04
H NH o o H N o o N NH .mHnmumHonom oHNoHnud
:H NNN NH NH oN :: N oN oN oNH .Non aeHuapumN
NN NoN.H oN NN NN NN mm NNN NN NNN .mucoumm
.uhommHHm
HNHOGNGHN handz_Mm cousom
NNH IN.N.o....NI I I MPH. INN.HI mom. IMNHI I I IoN.HI ..N.HN. I IoN.HI wNN. I I I I I I I I I I Iflfiow
H NH N N N o N N NH .omcomwom 02
NH NNN oN oN NN N: NH HNH NH NNH .NHHeaN NNH: 05o: «N
o a o o o o o o o : NuHuouom\NuchoumuN
H NN o o H H H N N NH .omson.N:Hsoom
N :N H H a N H N a NN .Ncoauumm<
NN oaN.H NN NN :N NN NN NNN :N NNN .NaopHeuca
.Nmeua>Hca cumum .Non
MM mCOHquoEEoood mcH>HH
NNH INNN...NI I I NNH INpHI NNH INwHI I I IoN.HI ..N.H.N. I IopHI NNN. I I I I I I I I I I Imufiom
o N o o H H o H H N .omcomwom oz
NN NNN NH NH :N HN NH NNH o: HNN .Hoonom .Noum no .uauw
NN No:.H HN NN oN oN NN NNN NN NNN .muaoN “:0N
o N o o H H o a o H .mumoN Nouns
N NN NH NH N N N N: o N .mumoN 0:9
H N H H H N H N o N .umoN oco
.UOHHmOQ Bowudosvm
oNOHHoo MM vasoE<
my 2 NNH z .NN z NMI, 2 MN. 2
mHmuOP mOHdEOh mOme mOHdEom III MQHGZ mOHQdth>
JWocHnEoo mpcousum HmzmuunuH3 mucovaum hdHfiMNM

 

 

30:23.83 .N.N 39.9

.Ho>oH Ho.

as unmoHNHcNHm ..

“Ho>oH No.

um ucaoHNHcNHm .

“NSOHHOM ma voxhaa mum coummaoo
oho3 Non» £0H£3 nuHa mHHoo onu saga houa¢um NHHCNOHuchHm 0&03 noHaz mHHoo omofik

.AmoHdEou

unoUHmohco: 29H: monEom unmUHmwh omHN. moHNS unovaohcoc man no omonu nuHa Humep My

UonQEoo who: monE pcavaou 0:» mo mohoom cams 0:9

.COHudH>oU Uhmvcmum 0:» .am .ohoom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:Nos onu,.z mucousum mot Hosea: on» .2 "can HHoo node :H Nausea: on» mo mcHCNos one "ouoz
ow. NHINN NN. NI. am NN.NH.nm :NeNHIam
NN.NNI2 :N. :an N:.NN-z HH.NNuz
:Nuz NNuz HNHuz NNuz .HaconmoNouN
NN.NHanm :N.NHINN No.NHIaN NN.:HINN
NN.HNI2 No.oNI= NN.NNuz NH.NNuz
:Naz NNuz :NHIz NNHIz .uoczo mmochsm
.GOvamdooo m.uo£umm
NN.NHunm NN.:HINN NN.NHuam No.2Hunm
NN.:Nuz HN.oNuz. NN.:NIz No.NNIz
NaNIz NNNuz HNNuz HNNuz .cuooIo>Humc :uom
HN.HHIan NN.NHunm NN.:Hunm HN.NHunm
NH.NNI2 2H.HNuz NN.HNI2 NN.NNI2
NHuz .IHNIz Nauz Nauz .cuoNIcmHouoN spam
HN. NN mam NN.NHaam NN.:Hunm NN.NHunm
NN. NN.: NN.:an NN.NNuz NN.:Nuz .cuonI.uoN uonuos
an Nuz NNuz* Nan .cuonuo>Hpac nonuam.
NN.NHInm NH.oHanm HN.:HINN HH.NHINN
NN.NN.2 No.HNIz :NqNNIz NN.:NIz .cuonI.uoN nonpam
NHIz HNIz NNuz NNIz .:Nonuo>Hpmm Nonpoz
.mucohmm no NquHumz
mOHMEO@ mOHmZ MOHdEom MOHdZ OHn—MWIHIMNH
mucafldmohfioz muCOUHmom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now Na .mucovaum acoUHmoucoz

 

 

Una ucouHmmm Nap.uom mouoom ado: H such .mmoHHcm No Nuouco>cH «:9 co umoh M
Na oOCNOHuHcmHm «a» mo muHamom as» was .m20Hpmeon Uumvcmum 6:“

n XHszmmd

.mhoDESZ .:.n mqmdfi

188

189

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.mHnNu mHn» ho owmm pthh 03» no mHonENm fied muonasc 0:» mo COHuacamec on» com ”opoz
NN.NHInm NN.NHuaN :N.NHINN NH.:Hunm
NN.NNuz NN.oNux NN.:NIz NN.:NIz
NNuz onuz NHHuz quz .HNHummdcmE ho .omxm
oN.Nunm NN.Nnnm NH.oHuam N:.HHINN
oN.NNuz NN.NNuz 32.:NI2 NN.NNI2
Nuz** muz NHuz Han* .00H>uom OHHnsm
oo.uan oo.NIaN NN.Nunm No.NHnnm
oo.NN-z oo.Nan oo.NNux No.NNuz
Huz** Nuz Nuz NHuz .UoHHmezs no 304
oN.qun N:.NHnaN NN.NHINN NN.HHunm
oN.NNuz HN.Nan NN.NNaz NN.NNI2
an NHIz NNI2» oNuz .uononaH NoHHHNmHEoN
NN.NHINN no.NHInm No.Nanm NN.:HunN
oo.Nan HN.oNuz NH.:Nuz NH.NNI2
NNuz NNuz NNHuz NNNuz .uoaoan NoHHme
NN.NHINN No.Nunm NN.NHINN NN.NHINN
oo.Nan NN.HNuz N:.NN.2 NN.NNIz
oHaz Naz NNIz Nan .uosoawe
oo.unm ::.NHuam NN.NHunm NH.NHInm
oo.HNI: HN.NNI2 NN.NNuz oH.oN.z
an Nuz HNuz NHHaz .Noczo sham
2N.NHnnm N:.NHINN NN.NHINN N:.:Huam
NH.NNaz NH.HNuz N:.NNu: N:.NNn: HMNHHooIoanz
Nauz mzmz NNHaz HmHuz H.u:oopucoHuN 3000 m Nonpmm
moHNEom monz NOHdEom monz .ddnddudfik.
mucoUHmuhcoz mwcovaom

 

“NascHucoov mmoHHom

h
illyl

 

.MM Nuouco>CH NSF

.d.n udmdh

190

 

 

 

 

 

 

.oHndu mHnu 90 Oman uthu on» :0 mHoseNm Uca muonezc as» ho GOHHNCNHQHO on» com “ouoz
NN.NHINN NH.NHu:m NN.NHunN ::.:HINN
NN.:NI: N3.:an am.NNuz HN.Nan .Hoonom .vdum ho
Nauz NNIz NNHaz NNIz HaconmoNoam vopoHNsoo
NN.N.NN HN.NH-nm HN.NHInm NN.HHIam
Hm.HNuz NN.NNI£ md.NNuz Nn.mnuz .Hoonom .vaum ho
Han muz man mHuz HNcOHmmowoum oEow
No.NHunm :H.NHanm No.NHunm oN.:Huam
No.NNIz NN.:an NN.NNuz NN.NNIz
NNaz NNIz oNH-z HNHIz .oNoHHoo NopoHNsoo
NN.NHInm NN.NHnnm 0:.NHuam :H.:Hunm
NN.HNIz NN.:NIz oN.Nan NN.NNI:
NNIZ Nauz NNH.z Hanz* .oNoHHoo «sow
NN.HHunm NN.NHInm HN.HHnnm NN.NHunm
NN.NNuz No.HNIz NN.NNI2 NN.NNu2
NNIz NNIz :aNuz :NNuz .Hoosom NNH: NopoHNaoo
NN.NHINN Ho.NHInm NN.HHunm N:.NHIaN
NN.HNI2 NN.oN.z NN.:Nuz NN.oN.x
:NIz NNuz HNH-z HaHuz .HooNom :NHa esom
No.NHunm NN.NHInn NH.NH.nm NN.NHunm
NN.NN.z HN.NN-z :N.NNuz 2N.HNIz
HHIz NNaz NoHIz NNHIz .HooNom onmum vouoHNEON
NN.NHINN 2N.NHINN HN.oHInm NN.NHInm
2H.NNuz No.NNIz No.HN.x NN.:NIz
st NNIz NNuz oNuz .Hoonom oNNNN oaom
. CO H um 036m m Pkofivdrm
WGHQEONH mOHQZ mafia—nah mOHMZ GHdehdb
mucovaohcoz MucoUHmom

 

 

 

Avochucoo. mNoHHom

 

MW Nuouco>cH 039

.:.m mdmdh

191

 

 

 

 

 

 

.OHnNu man mo omam uthh man no mHonENm Una muonssc on» No GOHumcmmem on» cam "oucz
No.HHIam NN.NHunm No.NHInm N2.NHnnm
2N.NN.: No.:Nuz NH.:NI: No.NNu: .Hoonom .uaum no
NHuz NHIz NNIz Nauz HaconmoNoum Nouonaoo
HN.oH-am N:.HHanm HN.NHInm NH.NHIam
NN.oNuz oN.NNIz NN.NNIz NN.:an .Hoosom .Naum No
Nuz Nuz HNIz NHuz HaconmoNouN oaom
o:.NHuoN NN.NHunN HN.NHnam N:.NHunm
oN.NNuz oN.HNu: NN.NNI= NN.:an
Nmuz mNuz mNan ONHIz .omoHHoo wouoHQEoo
HN.:HIQN NN.NHInm HN.NHunm No.NHunm
NN.NNI2 NN.NNuz :N.NNuz No.NNuz
NNIz NNuz NNH-z oHHuz .oNoHHoo osom
oN.NHuam NN.:HIQN NN.NHunm NH.:Hunm
NN.:Nuz NN.HNIz HN.:NIz No.NNuz
NoHIz NNHuz NNNaz NNN-z .HooNom :NH: wouoHNEoo
NN.:Hanm N:.NHunm NN.oHnnm N:.NHuam
NN.NNI: NN.NN.: NH.NNuz oo.NNIz
NNIz NNIZ NHHuz NNHuz .HooNom :NH: oaom
NN.NINN NN.NHINN HN.HHnnm NN.:HINN
NN.NN-z NN.NNIz NN.NNu2 NN.NNuz
Nuz NHIz NNuz HoHIz .Hoosom ovmum wouonaoo
oN.NuaN NN.NHnnm oN.NHunm :H.:Hunm
0N.NNuz NN.NNIz NN.NNaz oo.NNuz
Nuz Nuz oNaz.. :Nuz .Hoosom ouaum oaom
.COHumosum mkmonuoz
moHdEom mmme moH580m mode OHQNHHab
mucouHmounoz mucmvaom

 

 

.Noschcoo. mNoHHoN

 

 

MM Nuouco>CH 029

.:.n MHmdB

192

.oHnau NHN» No ommm amuHN

may no mHonENm Una

 

 

muonesc Na» mo coHudcmHmHo 0:» 00m "0902

 

 

 

 

 

NN.:HINN No.NHInm ::.NHuam NN.HHINN
HH.:NIz NN.NNuz NN.oNu: NH.NNI2
NHIz NNIz NHuz NHIz .HaHnoopmm
NN.Nunm NN.oHnnm NN.HHunm NN.HHunm
NN.HNuz oN.NNIz NN.NNI: HN.NN.2
NHIz oNuz NNuz NNuz .onapHuN
HH.NHunN NN.:HunN NN.NHInm 2N.NHInm
NN.:Nuz ::.HNuz HN.NN.2 HH.:N-:
NHN-z NNan NNN-z NNN-z .owwnsm
.uovcoNNN Hoonom suH: No omne
NN.OHunm NN.NH.om 2:.oH-nm 2N.NHunm
NN.NNux oo.NNuz NN.oNaz oN.:Nuz
nnz mlz HHIZ OHI2** .kofiuo
ounm :N.NHInm oN.HHunm No.NHuaN
on: HN.NNI: HN.:Nuz N:.HN-z
ouz :Huz NHuz NNIz .ocoz
:N.NHInm Ho.nHunm NN.NHInm NN.NH.am
o:.NNu2 NN.NNuz oN.NNIz NN.NNIz
NNan NNHIz Nanz NNNuz .ucaumououm
NH.NHunN N:.NHInm HN.NH.nm NN.NHInm
:N.NNIx No.2Nu: No.NNuz NN.NNIz
HNIz NNIz Nanz NNuz .anzoN
No.oHunm NN.NH-am oo.NHunN NH.NHunm
HN.NNI2 NN.:NIz N:.oNuz :N.NNI2
Hauz NNIz NNan NNH-z .oHHonpao
.oocouomohm mSOHmHHmm
moHNEom monz moHNEON moHa: oHnaHhm> .II
mucovaoucoz Mucovaom

 

 

 

AcoscHucoov mNoHHNN mm Nuopco>cH one. .N.N NHNNN

193

.oHnmu mHsu No oNaN NmuHN

 

0:» :o mHonENm flaw mkonesc 03» mo COHHNcmHmKo «a» com

"ovoz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oN.NHunm NN.:Huam N:.NHINN NN.NHINN
HN.NNI2 N:.NNuz :o.NNuz NN.NNIz
NNan NNHuz NNN-z oaNuz .uan» Noam:
HH.NHnam HN.NHINN HN.:HINN NH.:HINN
NH.NNuz NN.NNIz :N.NNuz NN.NN.2
NNuz NNHuz :HNIz NNN-z .uanp oHuqu
oN.NInm NN.NHINN NN.HHunm oN.NHunm
NN.NN-z NH.NNIz NN.:NIz oo.NNuz
Nuz NHuz oNuz NNuz* .NNHSN Noon
.mdeo wdHuastuu
Hoonom anm.mm Nada
oN.NHuaN HN.NH.NN No.NHucm NN.:Hunm
NN.NN.2 NN.NN.2 N:.:Nuz NN.NNIz
NN.z NHH-z NNNuz oaNIz .ooo.ooH uopo NuHo
No.HHuam NH.NHunm NN.NHunm NN.NHINN
NH.NN.z 0N.HNI2 oN.NNIz NN.NN-z
NNuz Nan NNNuz NoNuz .Nooo.ooHIooo.NNv NNHo
NN.NHuaN oN.NHunm NN.NHInm NN.:Hunm
HN.NNaz HN.HNn: 2N.NNI: :N.NNuz
:oHIz NNHuz NNNuz NNNIz .Hooo.NNIooN.N. czoe
NH.oHunm N:.NHunm No.NHunm NN.:HInm
oo.Han NN.:an NN.NNI= NH.:Nuz
Nan NNIz NHHuz NaHuz .AooN.NIoNNV oNaHHH>
NN.NHuam NN.NH.nm NN.:HINN NN.NH.nm
oN.HN.z HN.NNuz NN.NNux oN.oNaz
Nuz NHIz NoHIz HHN-z “mmam
.NuHGSBEoo osom ho ouHm
meddfiorm mOHdE mOHmEorm mOHdE oHDdew>
mufloflHWOHCOZ muflmfidmom

 

 

 

.uoacHucoov «NoHHom

 

 

.NN wwoucobcH 038

.:.n mqmdh

19H

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.OHadu mHnu ho omwa pmuHh on» no mHonENm Una muonezc as» ho :oHuacmexo as» com ”ouoz
oo.anm NH.:Hnnm oN.N-aN oN.NH.mm
oo.NNuz NH.NNIz oN.:Nuz oo.Nan
Huz Nanz Nuz HNHaz .aaawwNoHuN<
..Hon. .92 HdHSOHhhHHD
NN.NHqu NN.oHunm :N.Nunm oN.:Huam
NN.HNIz HN.HNI2 oN.:Nuz NN.NNI:
:az NHuz oH.z** NHuz .uo>o New ooo.H
HH.NHInm . HN.:HInm NN.NHInm NH.NHInm
oN.NN.z NH.oNaz :H.NNaz NH.:Nuz
:Nuz NNuz ooNuz NNH-z .NNNIoo:
2N.NHunm N:.NHunm NN.NHInm :H.:Hunm
NN.NNIz NN.HNIx HN.NNI2 oN.NNuz
oN-z NNuz NaNuz ooNuz .NNNIooN
oN.NHunm Ho.NHuam NH.NHInm HN.:Hunm
NN.NNuz NN.NNI2 NN.NNIz NN.Nan
NN-z NNuz NNNIz NoNuz .NNHIooH
HN.NHuam NN.NHunm :o.NHnam NN.NHnoN
oN.NNuz NN.HNI: NN.:Nuz NN.HNuz
Nauz NNuz NNNuz NNNuz .NNINN
HN.NHanm NN.oH.nm NN.NHunm :N.:HINN
oo.NNuz NN.NNuz N:.oNaz NN.HNI:
Naz Nuz :Nuz oN-z .NN News:
.mmmHo Mdemsumhw
Hoonom nNHN mm onwm
mmHmaom monz NOHdaoh monz oHnaHuN>
mucovaoucoz a If
.II III “HI
Avochacoov mmoHHom.Mm MucucobcH 038 .:.N mqde

195

 

 

 

 

 

 

.oHndu mHsu ho omdm umuHm on» :o mHonENm find muonssc on» go COHuacmHmuo Gnu com "ouoz
NN.HHunm NN.HHunm H:.NHnnm NN.NHInm
NN.Nan NN.NN.2 NN.Nan NN.NNuz ..cmmozo
mmnz . mmnz NNHuz HNHuz ococv.oocokomoum oz
HN.oHINN 2:.Nunm :o.NHunm NN.:HINN
oo.oNuz NN.:Nuz No.NNaz ::.oNuz
wmuz muz Nunz :muz** .wuud SOHNNOHCSEEOD
NN.:HINN No.HHunm NN.NHunm N:.NHaam
HN.Nan ::.oNu: N:.NNI2 NN.Nan
NNuz Nuz NHan NHIz .coHpaosz
2N.NHunm NN.NHINN NN.:HINN NN.:HINN
NN.NN.2 oN.NNuz NN.oNuz NN.HNuz
Nan NHuz NNuz NNuz .ocHoHvoa NuacHumuo>
HH.NHInm NN.:Hnnm NN.NHunm No.NHInm
N:.NNI2 NN.NNu: NN.NNIz NN.NN.2 .
NNIz NNuz NNNuz NNHIz .muum New oocoHom
ON.HHInm ounm NN.NHuam :N.Nunm
NH.NNuz on: HN.Han oN.Nan
Nduz ouz NNHuz Nuz .NOHEocooo oEom
oo.uam Ho.NHuam no.NHnaN NN.NHunm
oo.NNuz NH.oNuz N:.NNuz HN.NNI2
Huz** mmaz muz manlz .mcHhoochnm
No.NHnnm 0H.NHnnm NN.NHuam NN.NHIam
NN.NNI2 NH.NNuz NN.NNn: oo.Nan .ooH>uow
NNIZ NoHIz NNH-z HoNuz oHHnsm New mmochzm
.bwucoov .HOHNE HNH30Huuso
moHanm NOHNZ moHNaom mon: oHanhm>
mucoUHmoucoz mucoUHmom

 

 

 

Avoschcoo. mNoHHom_Mm awouco>cH one .N.N NHNNN

196

.oHna» NHN»

mo omdm umuHm

on» no mHonSNm wad

muonssc as» mo COHumcmHmHo as» com "opoz

 

 

 

 

 

HN.HHINN NN.:HINN NN.NH.nm HN.:Hnnm
NN.oNuz NH.NNI2 HN.NNI= NN.NNuz
Naz NNuz Nan NNuz .mHsmuaHonom oHaonoN
oo..nm No.NHunm NN.zanm NN.:HINN
oo.NNuz NN.NNI2 oo.NNuz NN.NNn=
Huz Nan Nuz Nauz .HHHm .H .N
ouam H:.oNnnm HN.Nunm NN.NHInm
on: oN.NN-z NH.NNuz o:.NNI=
onz Nuz an oHIz* .caoH
onnm NN.NH.nm ounm :N.oHInN
on: oo.NNuz on: NN.:NIz
onz NN.z ouz NHIz .mHnmuaHoNom oHuoHNNN
oN.N.nm oN.:HInm OH.:HINN NN.NH-nm
oo.HNI= NN.HNuz No.:Nuz HN.NN.z
Nuz .NN»: NNIz NNNuz .Non oaHuuupaN
NH.NHInm oN.NHuam NN.NHunm NN.NHanm
NN.:NIz No.Han NN.:Nuz H:.Nan
oNNuz NNNIz NNan HNan .mucouam
. DHONMHHm
HNHocach Hanan MM mousom
mOHdEOrA mOHd: MOHQEGNH wGHmZ OHQMHHd>
mHCOUNWOHr—oz muCOUHmOm

 

 

 

 

Avoschcoov mNoHHom_wm HuoucobsH one .N.N NHN<H

.HoboH Ho.

pm pcaoHNHcmHm **

“HopoH No.

pa ucuoHNHcmHN *

"mBOHHom mm onums cud wouamsoo
09w: Non» SOHSB nuH: mHHoo as» can» kopdaum NHHGNOHuHcmHm ouoa noH£3 mHHoo omone

.Amonacu

unoUHmouco: nuH3 moHdEom unoUHwOQ odev moHNE ucwvaOHcoc onv no omen» nuHB Humou_Mv

UoHNQEOO who: moHda acoUHwou can no mohoom c605 ase

.QOHpaHboU ded:¢um ofip .nm "ouoom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gama: OS» .2 “mucoUH—um MO .HGDEHHC OS“ .2 "9H4... HHGO flown SN mkoDEH—C 0S0 ho QSNGGOE ONE. "0902
NH.NNunm NN.NNINN HN.NNunm Ho.NNunm
NN.HNHuz HN.HNHI2 NN.NNHI2 HN.NNHIz
:an NNaz HNH-z NNuz .Hm20HmmoNouN
N:.oNuam :N.NNuam NN.NNunm No.NNuam
NN.NNHux NN.NNHI2 NN.NNHn: N:.HNHn:
inlz lez JWHIZ thuz ..HOCBO mwOflHmflm
.:0Hudasooo m.uo£umm
HN.NNunm HN.NNunm N:.NNunN N:.NNuam
N:.HNHI2 NN.NNHIz NN.:NHuz NN.NNan
NaNuz NNNuz HNN-z HNNIz .cuonco>Hpac spam
HH.NNINN NN.NHINN n:.NNunm NN.NNINN
N:.HNH-z NN.oNHIz HN.NNHI2 NN.NNH-z
NHuz Han mdnz nénz .cuonlcmHouou nvom
N:.NNunm N:.NNIQN No.NNaom NN.NNINN
NN.NNH.2 NN.oNan NN.NNHI2 NH.NNHIz .cnonI.uou honuoe
N-z Nuz NNIz NNIz .cuonno>HNac Nonpam
H:.NNunm NN.NNIam 3N.HN.nm NN.NNInm
N:.NNH.2 NN.NNHI: N:.NNHIz :H.NNHIz .cuonu.uom panama
NHuz HNIz NNuz NNuz .nuoNIo>Hpmm nonuoz
.mucohdm ho NquHumz
mOHdEOrA mOHHwS mOHdEorA mOHd: OHn—dHRMNH
mvflofiflmokcoz muflofiflmofl

 

 

 

_I How kn .mucmvzum unoUHmoucoz vcm
acovaom m£u pom wouoom ado: m Show .oHaom EmHudaman m.noaoxom :o umoH M
N2 cond0HMHcmHm on» no muHSmom ms» New .m:0HudH>on Undvndpm .mcmoz .muonasz

 

 

 

.N.N NHN<H

m XHszmmd

197

198

 

 

 

 

 

AWHnau mHSu mo cmdm umuHm on» :o mHonfiNm New muonssc as» No COHNdcmHaxo osu mom "cuoz
H:.NNanm :N.NN-nm 2N.NNnnm NN.NNINN
N:.NNHuz NN.:NHIz H:.NNH-z NN.:NHu:
Nan omlz NHan mmuz .HdeoQNCNE ho .ooum
oN.Nunm NN.:HIQN NN.NNIam NN.NNuaN
oN.NNan :2.NNHI2 NH.NNHuz oH.NNHn=
Nuz N-z.. NHIz HN-z .ooH>uow oHHnsm
oo.anm oN..nn oN.NInm 0H.NH.NN
oo.HNHIx oN.NNan oN.N:HIz oo.HNHIz
le** Naz** NIZ NHIz .UOHHmeca Ho 304
oN.NHInm oN.NHIam oN.:Nnnm NN.NNInm
oN.HNHIz NH.NNan NN.NNan NN.NNHuz
Nuz** NH-z NNuz omuz .uouoaaH uoHHmeHsom
NH.:Nunm NN.NNuam NN. N-nN NN.NNunm
:H.:NHuz oo.NNH-z NN.NNan N:.NNHIz
NNuz Nan NNHaz NNN-z .uouonaH coHHHNN
2N.NNIQN NN.NN-nm NN.NNINN NN.NNunN
oN.NNHuz NN.NNHI: NN.ONHI: No.NNHu:
oHuz Nuz NNIz NNIz .quomoe
oo.unm NN.NNuam HN.NNInm NN.:Nnnm
oo.oNHIz N:.NNHIz NN.oNHn: NN.HNHuz
an§* 5:2 Hmnz NHHIZ .90630 Ekah
NN.NNunm NN.NNInN NN.NNIam NH.NNnnm
NH.:NH.= No.oNH-: NN.NNH.z HN.NNHuz
Nauz Nanz NNH-z HNHIz .uaHHooIoanz
Ih.p:oov.:0Hudmwooo m.ho£umh
monEom NOHNS moHdscm onmz OHDQHHN>
mucouHmou:oz mucoUHmam

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Avochucouv oHNom

 

 

 

SNHuwsmOn n.soaoxom

 

 

 

 

 

.N.N mqmde

199

mo mmwm umuHm on»

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.oHnmu mHnu co mHonENm can muonazc can he GOHuacaHaxo on» com “opoz
N. Nunm oN.NNunm N:.NNIQN HN.:Nuam
mm.0NHn: 2m.NNHuz mm.ONHuz :N.HNHuz .Hoonom .Uaum no
wduz mmnz NMHuz Nan HdCOHmmomoum NouonEoo
NH.:Nunm oN.NNunm NN.:NINN NN.oNINN
:N.HNHIz ::.anuz #H.NNHuz mm.NNHuz .Hoozom .Umhm ho
Han muz mmuz mH|z** HacoHNNQMOAQ oaom
NN.:NINN NN.NNInN NN.NNnnm HN.NNnnm
NH.oNHIz HN.:NHuz N:.oNHuz N:.NNan
:Nuz NNuz NNHIz HaHuz .oNoHHoo NopoHNEoo
NN.chnm NN.NNnaN 0N.NNnnm No.NNInm
NN.NNan o:.NNHuz No.3NHaz NN.NNHuz
NNuz Nauz* NNHuz HNHuz .oNoHHoo esom
NN.NNINN N:.NN-nm NN.:Nunm NN.:NINN
NN.NNHaz NN.NNHuz N:.NNHuz do.NNHIz
NNuz NNuz NNN-z NNN-z .Hooaom nNH: uoNonaoo
HN.NNINN NN.NNuaN NN.:NINN 2H.NNuam
NH.oNHI: NN.:NHIz NN.NNHuz NN.NNHu2
aNuz NNuz HNHuz HaHuz .Hoonom nNH: oaom
NN.oNInm NN.HN-nm NH.NNINN NN.NNInm
NH.HNHI: NN.oNHuz oN.NNHuz NN.HNHuz
HHIz nNuz NNH-z NNHIz Hoonom cumum NoNoHacoo
NN.:NINN NN. NINN NN.HNunm NN.NN.QN
HN.NNH-z oN.HNHI= NN.:Nan oN.NNH.z
N-z NNuz NNuz oNuz .Hoonom cumuu esom
.COHHdosvm m.ho£udm
NOHdEom NOHdz moHanm mOHNE OHQNHHN>
mucoUHmounoz mucoUHmom

 

 

AvoscHucoov oHaom EmHuNEwdn m.nomoxom

 

 

.N.N NHNNP

200

.oHna» mHn»

go omam pmuHu one

:o mHonENm Una

muonenc 0:» mo

:oHumcmHfimo.N£u mom “ouoz

 

 

 

 

NN.NNnnm oo.NNuaN 02.:Nuqm NN.NNuam
NH.:NHuz No.NNHuz oH.NNHuz o:.NNHuz .Hoonom .Udum no
NHIz NHIz Nan Nauz HNcOHmmoNoum wouoHNEoo
NN.NHINN NN.HHINN No.NNunm NN.NHINN
NN.N:H.z oN.NNHu= NN.NNH.: NH.NNH-z .HooNom .NNNN No
muz nuz Hmuz Nan HNCOHmmohoun maom
NN.NNunm NH.:NINN HH.NN-nm oN.NNunN
NN.NNHI2 NN.HNHa: No.NNHIz No.NNHu:
NNaz NNuz NNHIz oNHIz ..oNoHHoo NoNonaoo
Ho.NNInm NN.NNunm NH.NNnnm NN.NNINN
NN.NNHI2 NN.NNHIz :N.NNH-z NN.:NHuz
NNuz NNIz NNHIz oHHIz .oNoHHoo oaom
NN.NNnnm N:.NNInn NN.NNunm H:.NNInm
No.NNHI: NN.NNHIz NN.:NH-z NN.NNHIz
NOan mnHuz NNmuz mmnuz .Hoosom ann UoNOHmsoo
NN.NNunm No.NN-nm :H.:Nunm NN.NNunm .
NN.oNHuz NN.NNH-z oN.NNHuz NN.NNH.z
NNuz NNuz NHHuz NNHIz .HooNOm NNH: osom
:N.NHINN NN.NN.nm NN.:NINN NN.NNInm
NN.HNHIz NN.NNHIz NN.oNHIz oN.NNHu: .
muz man wNuz** HOHIz .Hoosom ovaum douwHQEoo
oo.Hnnm NN.NNINN NN.NNnnN HN.NNINN
oo.HNHuz :N.oNHuz NN.oNHIz NN.NNHI:
an Nuz oNuz :Nuz .HooNom mummm oEoN
I. II .III .COHuNosvm m.uo£poz
mOHanm mmHaz moHdEmm NOHNZ oHndHhm>
mucoUHmmmmmz mucoUHmflm

Ll.

 

%

AvoscHNCOOV OHNom EmHuasmon m.noaoxom .N.N mHde

 

201

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.oHnau mHfiu mo ommm umuHu mfip no mHonahm Una muonssc 0:» no COHHNGNHQHQ ofip com "0902
NN.NNuam NH.Nmnam Hm.mmnnm mm.mmnnm
NN.NNHI2 NN.NNHI2 N:.NNHuz NN.NNHuz
mHuz Nmuz mHuz NHuz .HNHaooudm
NN.:NINN oN.NHuam 0N.NNunm NN.NNunN
wo.mNan N0.NNHuz HH.NNan NH.mNHuz
NHuz omnz NNuz* NNuz .oua>Hum
mm.mmnnm NH.NNuam NN.NNIam mw.:mnnm
NN.0NHIE Nm.NNHuz Hm.NNan ao.NNHuz
Ndmuz Nmmuz Nwmnz Nwmnz .OHHnsm
. Umvmwu pd
Hoonom nan no omNH
NN.onunm Hm.NNnnm Nm.NHnom No.Nmunm
NN.0NHuz HH.NNan Hm.mNan OH.NdHn:
Nuz Nuz** HHuz oHuz .ponuo
ouam H:.omuam NH.OMInm 0:.NNuam
on: 0N.HNan NN.N:Huz NN.NNHuz
ouz :Huz NHuz NNuz .ocoz
NN.NNunm NN.:Nnnm N.NNuom NN.:NINN
:N.NNHuS No.mNHn: mm.MNHuz mm.NNHuz
NNHIz NNHuz Nnan NNN-z .unapmopoum
NN.NNnnm NN.mNunm Nm.mmunm NN.NNIQm
Nm.NNHu2 NN.HNHu2 NN.HNHuz om.mNHuz
HNIZ* mmnz mduz mNIz .SmHBOH
0N.mmunm Hm.mmnnw mm.NNuam mo.NNnam
HN.NNHI: NN.NNHI2 NN.oNHu: :N.NNHaz
Hauz NNIz NNHIz NNH-z .oHHonuNo
II .oocouohohm mmmwmwflmm
moHdEoN NQHNZ moHNEom moHaz OHQNHm¢>
mucoUHmou:oz mucovamm.
AvonnHucou. aHaom EmHumaMon MHJONoxom .N.N m4m<9

202

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.oHnN» man no omdm umuHm on» so mHonENm find whosssc on» Mo GOHudcmHmKo on» mom "muoz
NN.NNINN NN.NNunm NN.NNInN NN.:Nunm
N:.oNHu: NN.NNHaz NNHNNHu: oN.NNHIz
NNHuz NNHuz ,; NNNuz ozNuz .uanp Noam:
NN.NNInN oN.NNunm . .NN.NNunN NN.NNunm
NN.NNHaz NN.NNHa: NoHNNHuz :N.NNHuz
NNuz NaHuz NHNIz NNNuz .NpHau oHNNHz
NN.NHnnm NN.oNunm NN.NN.nN NN.NNanm
oo.oNan :N.NNan NN.NNHI2 N:.NNHI2
an NHIz* oan* NNuz .uanp noon
.mdeo Mdedsvduw
Hoonom smHm.mm Nana
HN.:NINN NN.NNunm NN.NNInm :N.NNunm
NN.aNHIz H:.oNHIz HHJNNHaz NN.NNHI: ,
Nan NHHIz NNNIz ozNuz .ooo.ooH no>o NpHo
NN.NNIam N:.NNnnN NH.NNINN H:.NNunm
H:.NNHuz HN.NNHuz NN.NNHIz NN.NNHuz
NNIz NNIz . NNNIz NoNuz .Hooo.ooHIcoo.NNv NpHo
NN.NNunm NN.:NINN NH.:NINN NN.NNInm
:H.oNHI2 0:.NNHuz NN.NNHIz NN.NNHI:
:oHuz NoH-z NNNIz NNNIz .Hooo.NNIooN.NV cane
NN.:NINN No.NNInN NN.:NIQN NN.:Nnnm
HH.oNHI: NN.NNH.2 NN.NNHI2 No.NNHu2
NHIz NNuz NHHIz NHHIz .HooN.NIoNNN onHHH>
oH.HN.nm No.HNIaN no.NNunm NN.:NIQN
oN.:NHaz NN.NNH-z NN.oNH-z N:.HNHI:
Nuz NHuz NoHIz HHNuz .euam
.HuHCSEEoo 050m Mm oNHm
II.lonNEom moHaz moHanm NOHNZ OHQNNHN>
mwcovaoucoz mucovaom

 

 

4“

 

awoacHucoov oHNum EmHudEmon mHSONONOm .N.N mqmae

203

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.mHnmu mHnu no Oman pthu on» :o mHonfihm wad mmmnasc on» Mo COHumcmHmHo on» com ”0902
oo.nam HN.NNuqm oo.NunN NN.NNunN
oo.NNHuz HN.NNHuz oo.NNHuz N:.oNHuz
Huz NNN-z Nuz HNan .ousuHsoHuNN
.AOHNZ udHSOHuuzo
NH.NIQN NH.NNunm HN.:NINN HN.NN1QN
NN.NNHI: NH.:NHuz oo.NNHuz NH.NNHI:
:uz NHuz oHuz NHaz .uo>o uca ooo.H
N:.NNunN NN.:NINN NH.NNINN NN.:NIQN
HN.NNHuz No.NNHIz NN.HNHuz oN.NNHuz
:Naz NNIz ooNuz NNHuz .NNNIoo:
NN.HNunN NH.NN-cm No.NNInm NN.:NIQN
NN.:NHIz :N.NNHI: HN.NNHI: 2N.NNHI2
oan NNaz NNN-z ooNIz .NNNIooN
NN.NNuaN NN.oNuaN NN.:Nunm NN.NNanm
N:.NNHI: N:.NNHaz No.:NHIz No.NNHuz
NNuz Nan NNan NoNuz .NNHIOOH
NN.NNnnm NN.NNnaN N:.NNInN N:.NNnnm
:N.HNHuz :N.NNHI: NN.NNHuz NN.oNHIz
Nauz NNuz NNNuz NNNIz .NNINN
No.NNunm No.NNunm HN.oNInm No.NNInm
oN.NNHuz 0N.NNHuz NN.NNHI2 No.HNHIz
Nuz Nuz :an oan .NN Noun:
.mdeo mcHNNSUth
Hoonom zmHm mm oNHN
NQHNEQN mmHmz moHNEON moHdz OHQNHHN>
mucovaoucoz mucoUHmum II
AvoszHucooV OHNom EmHuaawoa m.£omoxom .N.N mqbce

20h

 

 

 

 

 

.oHndu anu mo ovum NNAHN can so mHofimMm find muonssc 0:» mo COHpscdeMo 0:; com "ouoz
NN.NN.QN NN.Nounn HN.:Nunm Ho.NNunm
NN.NNHuz NN.:NHuz NN.HNHuz NH.NNHI: Anemone
mmuz mmnz NNan HNHuz ococv.oocouououm oz
NN.:NINN HH.NHINN N:.NNINN :N.NNINN
NN.NNHI: NN.NNHuz N:.oNHn: NN.HNHuz ,
mmuz mnz mmuz :muz .mpun :OHNNOHCSEEOU
2:.NNINN NN.oNuam NN.Nounm oN.:NINN
NN.NNHI2 oo.NNHuz NN.NNH.z oo.NNH.:
NNIZ Nuz NHNuz Nan .coHuaosvm
NN.NNunm oN.NNanm NN.NNINN NN.NNINN
NN.NNHuz NH.:Nan N:.HNHIz NN.ONHuz
NHIz NHuz Nan NNuz .ocHoHNos NuacHuouo>
oN.NNunm No.NNnom NN.:Nunm NN.NNunm
2H.NNHuz HN.NNHuz N:.HNHuz NN.:Nan
NNIz NNaz NaNuz NNH-z .muna New oocoHoN
N:.oNuqm ounm NN.NN.NN ONLNHINN
NN.NNHu: on: NN.NNan oN.NNHu2
N:uz onz NNHuz muz .mOHEocooo oEom
oo.uam NN.NNnnm NN.NNuaN NN.NNInN
oo.:NHuz N:.NNan oo.oNHuz NN.NNHuz
Huz NNuz Nuz, NNNIz .NcHueachzm
oo.NNunn HN.NNINN NN.NNINN NH.NN.nm
No.NNHu: HN.ONan NN.NNHuz NH.NNHuz .ooH>uom
NNuz NOHIz NNHIN HNNIA oHanz Nca mmochsm
hwocoov.hQWNz ANH30Hhuso
moHNENN mmHmz II NOHNEom moHaz oHaaHud> .II
mucmemwm2oz mpcovaom

 

 

 

 

 

AcoscHucoov oHdom EMHpaEmon m.£omozom .N.N @4249

205

.oHnau mHnu

mo omam umka 03»

co mHonENm Una mhunss: as» ho

 

=0Hum:deHo oau com "muoz

 

 

 

 

NN.NHInm 2N.NNunm NN. Nnnm :N.2Nunm
::.NNHuz oN.NNHIz HN.NNHuz .NN.NNHuz
an NNIz NNIz NNuz .NHnmumHonom OHENNaoN
oo.unm NH.NHuqm .NN.NHunm NN.NNINN
oo.NNHuz NN.HNHuz NH.NNHuz NN.NNHuz
Huz NHIz Nu2. Nanz .HHHN .H .N
onnm NN.:ouaN NN.NHIam N:.Nqum
ouz o:.oNan NH.NNHu: 0N.NNHI:
onz Nuz** an oan .caoH
ounm No.NNnnm onnm 23.:Nunm
on: NN.:NHuz on: NN.NNan
ouz NNuz onz NHuz .NHNNNaHoNON oHNoHSNN
NN.NNunm HN.NNunm N.NNunm NN.NNINN
oN.NNHIz NN.HNHuz :N.NNHI: NN.NNHuz
Nuz NN-z NNIz NNNIz .Qon oaHNIpuaN
NN.:Nuam NN.NNINN NN.NNunN NN.:NINN
NN.oNHuz NN.oNHuz oN.:NHI: N:.NNHIz
ONNuz NNan NNNIz HNNIz .mpcmnaN
.uhommsm
HNHocchm Acnmz MM wou30m
NOHmEom mem: moHaEmN moHaz .IIII OHDNHHN> I
mummvaoucoz mucoUHmom III

 

Ill

 

 

 

AvoscHuzoov 0Hmom EmHudEMdm m.n0doxom .N.N admdh

 

Ho. as unaoHNHnNHN **
Non» £0Hn3 anz mHHoo on» ads» uoomwuw NHuCNOHchmHm ohm: SOHSB mHHoo omonk

uH¢>oH No.

Na ucaoHNHcmHN *

.Ho>0H

"monHON ma onume oua woudmaoo ohm:

.AmonEou

ucovawuco: nuH3 monEom acoUHmou omHaV moHaa unoUHmQHCOG any mo omcnu nqu Humou_mv

Nonamaoo 0&0? NOHNE acoUHmou on» mo mohoom caoa one
:Noe on» .2 "mucovsum mo umm£=:.WMH .z

.:0HudH>oU Uumvcaum on»
“mum HHoo node :H muonsfic on» No msHCNoa 0:8.Inouoz

.nw “whoow

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NN.Nuam HN.Nunm NN.Nunm NH.NInm
No.mmuz n:.:mnz NN.Nmaz om.mm|=
:nuz nulz HNHuz mmuz .HNCOHNNOMOHM
NN.NINN HN.NINN NN.Nunm N:.Nunm
HN.Nmuz Nm.mmuz Nw.mmuz ON.mmnz
:Nuz man :NHuz mmHuz .uoczo mmochsm
.COHummdooo m.uo£umm
NH.Nunm NN.Nunm NN.NIaN oH.Nnnm
NN.NNuz NN.Nan NN.Nan No.NNuz
Namlz NNN-z HNmnz Hnmnz .:uonIo>Hum: npom
N:.Nunm ::.Nnnm NN.Nnnm mm.Nnnm
0N.Nmuz NN.:mnz mm.mma2 HN.:NIZ
NHuz HNIz Nzuz NNIZ .cuonncmHoNoN spam
Ho.Nunm NN.Nunm NN.NINN NN.NInm
NN.NNI2 NN.NNIz NH.NN-z NN.NNIz .caoNI.aoN pospos
Naz Nuz NNIz NNuz .cuonIo>Hpa: nonuum
NN.Nunm 2N.Nunm NN.NIam NN.NIam
N0.mmnz NN.Nmuz :w.nmnz NH.JMIZ .:honl.qu honuam
NHuz HNIz NNIz. NNIz .cuoNIo>Humm nonpoz
.muconmm mo NMHbHudz
moHaaom monz mOHdEom moHaz oHnNHmo>
mucovaounoz II, manoUHmmmI II
me Na .mvcovaam psoUHmuh:oz was
pcovaom one you mohoom :ao:_NmmmmmMmM moaHm> HdHucmquMHn on» no pmoh.m
Na cond0HMHanm on» mo manmom on» and m20HuaHbon Undvcavm .mcaoz .muonszz .N.N m40¢8

h XHszmm¢

206

207

 

 

 

 

 

.aHnmu mHnu No onQ uthm on» :o mHoDENm dam muonasc on» go GOHNNCNHMKQ on» cowl ”ouoz
NH.NunN NN.Nuam NN.NInm Ho.Nnnm
oo.NN-z oN.NNuz NN.NNuz HN.:Nuz
NNIz oNIz NHH-z NNuz .HNHNNNacas no .ooum
0N.Nunm :H.Nunm o:.N-nm NN.Nunm
oN.NNuz NN.NNI: NN.NN-z NN.NNI2
Nuz mnz NHuz Hmnz .opouom OHHnsm
oo.nnm oo.unm NH.Nnnm oN.Nunm
oo.oNuz oo.NNIz o:.NNuz NN.:Nuz
an an mnz** NHIz UoHHmecs Ho 304
oo.Hunm NH.Nuam N:.N.qm No.NInm
oo.:N-z :N.NNI2 NN.NNI2 HH.NNI2
an NHuz NNuz oan .uouonaH NoHHmeHsom
NN.Nunm N:.Nuam NN.Nunw NN.Nuam
NN.:an so.NNIz NN.:NIz NN.:N-z
NNuz NNuz NNan NNNuz .nouonaH NoHHme
NH.NInm N:.Nunm N:.Nunm NN.Nuam
oo.NNuz NN.:Nuz NN.NNuz NN.:NI:
OHIz muz nnnz Nmnz .HonoaoH
oo.uam NN.NIam NN.N-nm 2N.Nunm.
oo.H:n: NN.NN.z NN.NNuz NN.NNuz
an an Han NHHIz .uoczo 89am
NN.NIam NN.NINN NN.NIqm HN.NuaN
NN.NN-= N:.NN.2 H:.NNuz NN.:Nuz
manz wanz NNHuz HNan .hhmHHOOIooHna
Ih.»:oflv .COHummwooo mruonumh
moHNth moHaz meaamw NQHNZ OHDNHMdb
mucomwmoucoz mucoUHmom

 

 

il

 

 

 

 

 

AuoscHucoov NuoumemH

 

 

 

 

 

mosHm> HaHacouoNNHn

 

.N.N mdmdh

208

 

.oHnmu mHsu mo Oman pmuHm on» no mHanNm was muonaac as» mo COHpacmHmHo on» new

 

 

 

:H.Nunm oN.N.nm NN.Nunm HH.NINN
NN.HN.2 NN.:NIz HNHNNIz . NN.NNI: .HooNom .Naum no
wzuz Nmuz NMHIZ NNuz HanOHmmohoum vouonEoo
NN.:.NN NN.:Inm NN.N.nm NN.Nunm
HN.HNuz NN.NNIz NN.NN.z HH.:NIz .Hoonom .NauN no
HHuz mlz mNuz NHIz HNCOHNNGMOHQ oEom
NN.NINN NH.Nunm. NN.NINN No.NanN
NN.HNIz HN.NNuz No.NNIs NN.NNuz
:Nuz NN.z oNHIz HaHuz .oNoHHoo NoNoHNsoo
NN.NINN :N.N.am HN.N-nm 0:.Nuam
NN.NN.z NH.NN.2 oN.NN.z NN.:an
NNIz Nanz NNHIz HaHuz .oNoHHoo osom
HN.NINN NN.N.nm NN.N-nm HN.N-nm
NH.:N.z NN.:Nuz NN.:NIz NN.:NIz
NNuz NNuz azNuz :NNuz Hoonom NNH: NouoHNsoo
HN.Nunm so.N-am No.Nnam :N.Nunm
N:.oNuz HH.NNa: :N.annz NN.NN.2
:NIz NN-z HNHuz HaHuz .Hoonom NNH: oaom
NN.Nnnm NN.Nuam NN.NInm NN.NINN
NN.NN.z NN.:Nuz NN.NNI: HN.NNI:
HHIz :NIz NoHIz NNH-z .Hoonom cumum NoumHmsoo
NN.N.nm NH.NIam HN.NINN ::.Nunm
oo.NNIz oN.:NIz NN.NNI: NN.NNuz
Nuz NNIz NNIz oNIz .Hoonom ovaum osom
.cOHuaozum n.9onudm
monEom m¢sz moHNEom moHaz OHQNHuN>
mucouwmwhcoz mucmWHmwm

 

 

 

Auochonoov hwoucobcH mmsz> HNHpnohohmHn .N.N mqmde

 

 

I

209

.oHnm» NHN»

ho omam pmuHh

on» no mHonaNm New

muonfinc 0:» mo

:oHomcdHQNo any owm "muoz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NN.Nunm NN.Nunm NN.N-nm NN.NINN
HH.Hmuz o:.Nmuz Nm.mmnz NN.nmnz .Hoonom .kuw no
man Nan nmuz Ndlz HNCOHmmoMoum UOHOHQEOO
NH.NIam NN.Nunm No.Nunm N:.Nuam
NN.Nmuz om.:mu= NN.:muz H:.:mnz .Hoonom .Uauw no
Nuz an HNuz NHIz HmconmoNoum osom
NN.NInm No.N-nm NN.Nuam NN.NInm
NN.NNIz NN.NNuz NN.Nan HN.:Nuz
Nmuz man NNH-z omHuz .NMoHHoo UQHOHQEOU
NH.Nunm No.Nunm :N.Nnnm Ho.NInN
HN.NNI2 ::.Nan NN.NNI: HN.:Nuz
NNIz NNuz NNH-z oHHIz .oNoHHoo oEom
HN.Nunm :H.Nunm oN.NInm NN.Nuam
oN.Nan NN.:N-z 2N.NNaz NN.:NI:
NoHIz NaHuz NNNuz . NNauz .Hoonom NNH: vopoHNaoo
NN.NInm NN.NInm NH.Nunm NN.NINN
oo.NN-2 NN.:Nuz NN.:N-z NN.NNI=
Nan NNuz NHH-z NNHuz .HooNom NNH: osom
NN.Nnnm NH.NIam :N.Nuam No.Nunm
NN.NNuz NN.:NIz NN.NNI: No.NNuz
Nuz NHuz NNIz HoHuz .Hoonom.ouaum NopoHNEoo
oN.NuaN N:.Nuam N:.Nunm NH.Nncm
oN.N:nz NN.Nan oH.:Nuz No.NNuz
N.z* Nuz oNIz aNuz .Hoosom ouauN osom
II .coH N :IIIIIII
moHanm mOHuz mcHwEmh moaaz II II .E
” mHCOUflmGHF—OZ mutuOUHmmm candflkd>

335333 g 2

o
33 g

210

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.oHnau mHap ho ovum umuHm as» no «Honskm van muonesc onw,mo COHunmmmeo on» com "09oz
HN.:INN NN.N.nm NN.NInm NN.:anm
NN.NNI: oo.NNuz NN.NNI: NN.NNI=
NHIz NNIz NHIz NH-z .HaHnoouaN
No.Nanm NN.N-nm NH.Nanm NN.N.nm
NN.NNIz oN.NNuz oN.NNu= NN.NNI:
NHuz oNuz NNuz NNuz .oud>HuN
NN.N-nN HN.NINN oN.N-nm so.Nunm
:N.NNuz NN.NNux NN.NNIz NN.:Nuz
Naan NNNIz NNNuz NNan .oHHnsm
.voucoupd
Hoonom :mHm_mm omwe
NN.Huam oN.N.am NN.N-nm NN.Nuam
NN.NNI: NN.NN-z N:.NNuz o:.NNu:
Nuz Nuz HHIz oHIz .uonuo
onnm NN.Nuam NN.N-nm :N.Nanm
on: NN.NNI= NN.oNuz oN.NNI=
onz :Huz NHuz NNaz .ocoz
NN.NInm NN.N-:m :N.Nunm NN.NInm
No.NN.z NN.NNuz NN.NN-z NN.:NIz
NNHIz NNHIz NzNuz NNan .ucmpmououm
Ho.NInm NN.Nnnm NN.NInm NN.NunN
oN.oNIz HN.oNIz NN.oNuz :N.NNI=
- Han NNIz Nanz NNIz .amHzoN
0N.Nuam NH.NInm NN.NInm NN.Nunm
NN.:NIz NN.NNI: NN.NNIz oN.NNuz
Hauz NNIz NNan NNHuz I. .oHHonuao
.oHaeoWIImmGN 3282 62.88on msfimfldm
MDCOUN 0 mmfld I I
.I m .HGWZ Ill-I'llwucod,...nmom_ S oaQMde>

 

 

       

’1'!
’IIIIIIIII
'0’

I

ma -
flfld> 3

.NNSQN

211

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.oHndp mHnu mo omam pmkHw man no mHonENm Una muonssc on» ho :oHHNCNHmHN can owm "wuoz
N:.Nuam NN.NuaN NN.NIqm No.N.nm
2N.NN.2 N:.:N.: NN.:NIz NN.NNIz
NNHIz NNHuz NNN-z oaan .NNHNN gamma
N:.Nunm NN.NINN HN.NInm NN.N.nm
NN.oNuz NN.NNIz NN.NNIz HN.:Nuz
NNIz NNH-z :HNuz NNN-z .NNHNN oHNNHz
NN.NINN N=.Nuom NN.NInm NN.Nnnm
NN.HN.z NN.NN-2 oN.:Nuz NN.:NIz
N.z NHIz oN-z NNIz .uuHs» uo3oH
.mmaHUIdeudsvduo
Hoosom a HNH» xcmm
NH.N.pN NN.NInm NN.Nuam oo.Nunm
N:.NN.2 NH.NN.z oN.NNI= N:.NNI:
NN.z NHHIz NNNIz NNN-z .ooo.ooH uo>o NuHo
NN.NINN NN.N-nm :H.Nuam NN.NINN
NN.HNI= HN.:NI: NN.NNuz NN.:NI:
NNuz Nan NNNIz NoNIz .Hooo.ooHIooo.NNV NuHo
NN.Nunm HN.Nunm N:.Nunm :N.Nanm
NN.NNuz NN.:NIz oN.:NIz NN.:NIz
:oHuz NoHuz NNNIz NNNuz .Aooo.NNIooN.N. mace
N:.Nnnm NN.N.nm NN.NInm NN.Nnnm
2N.HNuz NN.NNI: :N.NNI2 NN.:NIz
NHaz NNIz NHH-z NaHuz .HooN.NIoNN. oNaHHH>
NN.Nunm oo.NInm H:.Nnnm NN.NunN
oN.NNIz NN.NN.2 NH.NNI: NN.NNIz
an NH.z NOHIz HHNuz “NNNN
H N .NuchEEoo oaom mo NNHm
W0 .050 “OH“: . I I I
MMVOUHMOHEOZ mOHdEOMpGoUHmom mOHdS GHdehm>

 

Afloachcoov NHOpno>CH

III,
moaHNNHprconoNNHa

owom mgmdP

212

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.oHndu mHsu ho omnm.umkHM 0:» cc mHonEhm find muon83: can No COdecaHmNo on» com ”ouoz
oo.unm 2N.Nuam oN.Nuam NH.N.nm
oo.N:I: NN.:Naz oN.oNu: oo.NNIz
Huz. Nauz N-z HNHIz .aazuHsoHuN4
.uOunz uwHaoHuuso
NN.NInm oo.NInw NN.Nunm No.NunN
NN.NNu: :N.NNI: oN.NNuz NN.oNIz
3.2 Nan oHuz NHIz .No>o uca ooo.H
NN.NINN No.Nunm NN.Nuom NN.NaaN
No.NNI: NH.Nan NN.Nan NH.:NIz
:Nuz NNIz ooNuz NNHuz .NNNIoo:
NN.N.NN .NN.NInm NN.NInm NN.Nunm
NH.HNuz NH.:NI2 NN.NNuz NN.:Nuz
oNuz NNIz _ Nale ooNIz .NNNIoON
NN.Nnam NH.Nunm NN.NInN ON.Nnnm
NN.NNuz HN.:N-z NN.NNI2 NN.:NI:
NN-z NNIz NNN-z NoNuz .NNHIooH
no.Nunm o:.Nunm NN.Nunm HN.Nunm
:N.:an No.2Nuz Ho.NNIz o:.NNIz
Nana NNuz NNNIz NNNuz .NNINN
NN.:unm NN.NInm NN.NInm NN.NInm
NN.NNIz NH.NNIx HN.NNn: NN.NNuz
muz mnz :mu omnz .NN nodes
.mmaHo McHuNmmNuw
m Hooaow :NH: No NNHw
0H080M :0 H ”OH“: WQ.H.W~.—.—°rm m0 I . .
u Hy . wwknoz -3 H62 OHfldwkd>

  

213

 

 

 

 

 

.GHan mHnu no omdm umHHm any so wHonSNm U26 muonazc as» mo.mmHuacmHQNo on» flmm "ouoz
No.wuam mm.Nuam NN.Nnnm 0N.Nuam
oN.NNIz :o.NNuz oN.NNu: NN.NNI2 Anemone
mmuz mmnz NNan HNan ozocvooocouomoka oz
NN.N.NN NN.NIaN NN.N.nm m:.NInm
NN.Nan oN.HNuz oH.NN.: NN.:NI:
mmuz mnz NNuz amnz .muua QOHDNOH::E§oo
NN.N.NN NN.:unm NN.NINN NN.Nuqm
oH.oNnx NN.HNu2 NN.NNn: NN.:N-z
NNuz muz NHNuz Nan .COHumosum
NN.Nunm NN.:uaN H:.Nanm HN.N.nm
N:.o:nz NH.NNuz :N.:an NN.NNI2
NHuz NHuz NNuz NNuz .ocHoHNoa NuacHuouo>
N:.Nnam NN.Nunm No.NnaN :N.Nunm
oo.NNuz c:.Nan 2N.:Naz NN.Nan
NNIz NNuz NNN-z NNHuz .muum Nan cocoHoN
0N.Nuqm onam 0N.Nuqm No.NHnnm
NH.:NI: ouz NN.:Nc: oo.NNuz
Ndnz onz NNHIZ an .NOHEocooo oEo:
oo.ucm mm.Nuam on.muam N0.Nunm
oo.Han oN.NNI: :H.:NI: NN.Nan
Huz NNIz Nuz NNNuz .NcHuoochcm
HN.Nnnm NH.NnnN oN.Nuam NN.NunN
NN.NNuz NN.NNuz :N.NNuz NH.:NI: .ooH>uom
Nmuz NOHIz .m3an Homnz OHHnam Una mmoch5m
A.ucoop.h0nfim,umH30Huhao
moHNEmm moHdz moHNEom moHdz QHndHuN>
. mucoUHmoucoz mucoUHmom

 

AvoanHucoov Nuouco>CH

 

mosHa> HaHpcouoNNHa

 

.N.N mdmdfi

21H

 

 

 

 

 

 

.OHnau man ho omda umuHm on» :o mHonENm was muonenc on» he COHuacdeKo on» com “ouoz
NN.Nunm NN.Nunm HH.Nunm :N.Nunm
NN.NNuz NN.NNuz NN.NNuz HH.NNuz
Nuz nmnz mmnz Nmuz .QHamhdHoaom OHENUmod
oo.nnm H2.Nunm NN.Nanm :H.Nnnm
oo.HN.z NN.NNI2 NN.NNIz oo.NNuz
Huz NHuz Naz Nauz .HHHm .H .o
ounw N:.N.nm HN.N.NN HN.N.NN
on: om.nm:x mm.mnuz om.nmnz
ouz an Nuz oHuz .cNoH
ouam 2N.Nnam ouam NN.NINN
on: NN.NNI: on: ::.NNuz
ouz mmnz ouz Nan .mHzmhdHozom OHuoHsud
:H.Nnnm NN.Nan mm.Nunm NN.Nnnm
om.:muz HH.:MIZ NN.:MIZ mm.mmnz
Nuz NNuz NNuz NNNIz .NoH NEHNINNNN
NH.Nunm NN.Nunm NN.N-nm NN.Nunm
NN.Nan oN.NNaz NN.NNaz NH.:Nu:
ONan mNan Namuz HNNIZ .mucokdm
.pkommam
HmHocwch honaz_Mm condom
NQHNEQN moHaz NOHNEom monz oHQNHuN>
macoUHmNACOZ mucovaom

 

 

AvoacHucoov huoucobcH moaHm> HNHucoquMHn

 

 

 

.N.N MHmdh

.Ho>oH Ho.

pa pcmoHNHcmHm .*

"Ho>0H no.

»N ucaoHNHcNHm .

"monHom mm voxuaa mud Uohamsoo
ago: has» £0H£3_nuH3 mHHmo Gnu can» Houdoum NHquOHuHcmHm one? QOHSB mHHoo omofih

.ANOHdEom

ucofiHmOHco: 29H? mOHdaoh unoUHmou omHmv moHdE unoUHmohco: on» No owes: aqu Avm09_wv

wouamsoo who: moHdE acaUHmou as» no makoom came one

.nOHumeov UANUCNum on“ .Qm “whoom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

came as» .2 “mucodaum No amass: osthz ”oudIHHoo Scam CH muonesc on» no mcmndoa one "0902
oN.Nunm No.qum NN.Nnam NH.NINN
No.oNuz N:.NNuz NN.NNI: NH.NNI2
:Nuz Nan HNHuz NNuz .HacOHmmoNouN
No.Nn:N HN.Nunm NN.Nunm NN.Nunm
:N.NNaz No.NNuz NN.NNuz NN.NNuz
:Nuz NNuz :NHIz NNHaz .uocao mummHmsm
.QOHummdooo m.uo£pdm
:N.Nunm :H.Nunm NN.Nanm HN.NInm
N:.NNI2 No.NNuz No.NNI: NN.NNuz
Naan NNNuz HNNuz HNNuz .zuonao>Hudc spam
NN.Nuam NN.Nunm NH.Nnnm NH.NINNI
NN.NNIz :H.NNuz ::.NNuz NN.NNuz
NHuz HNuz Nanz Nauz .cuonucmHouoN spam
NN.Nanm NN.Nunm N:.Nunm .N.Nunm
NN.:Nuz NN.NNuz NN.NNIz H:.NNuz .cuonI.uoN nosuos
Nuz Nuz NNuz NNaz .cuonnm>Hpa: Nonpam
NN.Nunn No.Nunm NN.Nunm HN.Nunm
NN.ONuz NN.NNu: NN.Nan N:.NNu2 .cuonI.uoN nozumm
NHIz HNuz NNuz Nan .cuonIo>Hymm Nonuoz
.munoumm No NwH>Huaz
NOHdEoN mdez moHNBoh Non: onwHud>
muflodwmokcoz vaGUHwofi

 

 

Mom 53 .mocoUSNm ucava0hcoz Una ucmemom
03a you mouoom :moz umoe mcHUdom NuHmho>Hcs madam :dMHSOHz as» no umoH.M
An OOCNOHNHGNHN any mo mpHamom on» Ucm m:OdeH>on NHNUCNHN .NCNQZ .mhonssz

 

 

.N.N mqmde
N NHNNNNNN

215

216

.oHnau mHnu mo onN NNNHN

omw co mHomem and

muonasc one we

COdecNHmHo on» com "ouoz

 

 

 

 

NN.NINN NN.Nunm NN.NINN NN.N.nm
NN.NNI2 NN.NNuz NN.NN.: N:.Nan
NNuz omuz NHan Nmuz .HaHhomach ho .ooxm
oo.Nuam No.Nnnm 0N.NINN NN.N.NN
oo.HNuz NN.Nan No.NNu= NN.NN.z
Naz Naz NHIz HNuz .ooH>uom OHHnsN
oo.uam oo.unm NN.:INN No.NumN
oo.NNuz oo.NNuz oo.oNuz oN.NNuz
Huz Nuz Nuz NHuz .NoHHHumcs no 20H
oo.Hunm NN.NINN NN.NInm No.Nunm
oo.NHuz NN.:NIz HN.NNI2 NN.NNuz
Nuz NHIz NNuz.* NNIN .uouonaH voHHHzmHsom
N:.NuaN NN.N.NN No.Nunm NN.NINN
NN.NN-z NN.NNuz NN.NNu: 2H.NNuz
NN.z NNuz NNan NNNIz .uouonaH NoHHHNN
2N.Nunm NN.Nuam No.Nunm HN.Nunm
oN.oNu2 NN.NNIz :H.oan NN.oNIz
oHuz Nuz NNIz NNuz .nonoace
oo.unm 0N.Nuam NH.Nnnm NN.NINN
oo.HNuz oo.:Nuz No.NNuz oH.NNuz
Huz an HNuz NHHuz .uocao ENNN
HH.NunN NN.NnaN NN.NINN NN.NInm
NN.NNuz NN.NNuz NH.NN.z NN.NNuz
Nznz Nana NNH-z HNHuz .aaHHooucpHsz
II .I,.hnucomv .cOHpfimsoooImPnoaudm
moHNENN NOHN: monEmm «Ham OHQdHud>
manoUHmoucqm .I.mu:owHwom

 

 

 

Avoanucoo. pace ucHNmoN

 

 

 

pHmuo>ch opaum :NNHaon .N.N mHmde

217

 

 

 

 

 

 

.mmnmu mHnu mo ommm umuHu on» no mHonENm van «hoses: on» mo nOHchmeNo on» oom "ouoz
HN.NunN Ho.N-nm NN.Nunm 2N.Nunm
NN.NN.2 NN.NNIx oH.NN.: HN.NNIz .Hoonom .NmuN No
Nauz NNuz NNHuz NNIz HaconmoNoum mouonsoo
NN.Nunm HN.:INN NN.Nunm NN.NINN
:N.oN.z NN.NNI2 NN.NN.: NN.NNIz .Hoonom .NNNN go
HHuz an NNIz NHuz HmconmoNoum oEom
:N.Nuam NN.Nunm :H.Nunm Ho.Nanm
NN.NNI2 NN.NNI: NN.NNaz NH.NNuz
:an wNuz owHIz Hdan .omoHHoo douonaoo
NN.N.nm N:.Nunm NN.NInm :N.Nuqm
NN.NNI2 NN.NN.z No.NNuz NN.NNIz
NNuz Nauz NNH-z HNH-z .oNoHHoo esom
NN.N.NN No.NIam NN.Nunm NN.Nnnm
NH.NNI: o:.NNuz No.NNIz NH.NNI2
Nan NNIz NzNuz NNN-z .Hoonom NNH: NoNOHNsoo
NN.Nunm HN.Nuam HN.NInm oH.Nunm
do.NNuz HH.NNIz No.Nan oN.NNI:
:Nuz Nan HNH-z HaHaz .Hoonom sNHn osom
NN.Nnnm :N.Nnnm N:.Nnam N:.NINN
NN.NNI: NH.NNuz NN.NNuz :N.NNa:
HHIz :Naz NoHuz NNHuz .HooNom ocauN NoNoHNEoo
N:.Nunm N:.Nunm NN.NINN No.NIam
NN.NNI2 No.2NIz NN.NNIz NN.NNI:
Nuz Nan NNIz 0Nuz .Hoosom ovaum osom
II .I .cOdeosvm m.ko£u¢h
NQHdEom NOHNZ .I.II. moHdEom moHaz OHQNHmmw
masovaaucqm NHQNWNNom

 

 

303.353 umoe Magnum. 3H9;

 

 

 

III.

I I, ' .

III

 

find 33% caNEOHz

.N.N .539

218

 

 

 

 

 

.oHnap mHsp mo omam omuHN may :0 mHonEhm Una muonssc may go COHudcaHmMo esp mom “ouoz
NN.:unm NN.:uaN NN.Nunm oN.Nuam
NN.NNIz oo.NNuz N:.NNu2 NN.NNIz .Hoozom .uaum no
NHuz NHuz NNuz NNIz HaconmoNoua vouoHNEoo
NN.NInm NN.Nunm NN.Nunm oN.NIam
NN.NNI= NN.:NIZ oH.NNuz NN.NNI2 .Hoonom .NNNN No
Nuz Nuz Hmuz NHuz HNCOHmmououm oaon
HN.NINN NN.Nunm NN.NINN NN.NINN
NN.NNIz NN.NN.z NN.NNI: NN.NNIz
NNIz NNaz NNHuz oNH.z .oNoHHoo NopoHNEoo
No.Nnnm HN.Nuam NH.NInm HN.N.aN
NN.NNuz NN.NNI: NH.NN.z NN.NNuz
NNaz NNuz NnHuz oHHuz .oNoHHoo oaom
NN.Nunm HN.N.NN NH.Nunm :N.Nunm
No.NNIz NN.NN.2 oN.NNu: NN.NN«z
NOHIz NNHIz NNan NNNIz .Hoonom :NHn wouoHNEoo
HN.Nunm :N.N.nm N.Nunm oN.NIam
NN.NNI: NH.NNIz NN.NNI: N:.NNI:
NNuz NNuz NHHuz NNHuz .Hoosom NNH: oaom
NH.Nunm oN.NIaN :N.Nuam NN.Nnam
HH.NNI2 NN.NNuz HN.NNIz N:.NNIz
Naz NHIz NNuz HoHaz .Hoonom ouaum NopoHNEON
No.NHnaN 0N.Nunm NN.NINN H:.N.am
oo.NNax NN.NNaz NN.:NIz ::.NNI2
Nuz N-z oNuz aNuz .Hoonom ouaum aeom
.GOHpaoaUm Mkhonaoz
moHasom moHd: moHdawmI moHaz OHQNHHN>
mucovaoncoz mucoUHmom

 

 

AvoficHucoov mmwe.wwmeom NHHmno>Hca

 

 

 

NNNNN :NNHNOHN .N.N NNN/H

219

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.mHnmu mHnu no omwm umuHm on» :o mHanNm.th mhfimesc can no COHHNCNHmNo on» com "ouoz
NN.:uaN N:.Nunm NN.:uam H2.Nuam
:N.NN-z NN.NNuz NN.NNI: NN.:NIz
Nan NNIz NHaz NHIz .HmHnooumN
NN.:IQN 0N.Nunm NN.Nuam HN.Nunm
No.NNuz NN.NNuz oN.NNIz NN.Nan
Nan oNuz NNuz NNuz .opapHuN
NN.Nunm NN.NInN NN.NINN N:.Nunm
NN.NNI2 N:.NNI2 NN.NNI: oo.NNu:
NHNuz NNan NNNuz NNNuz .oHanm
.Nowcouud
HooNoN :mHm_mm «mus
HH.Nunm HN.NInm Ho.:Inm oo.Nunm
NN.NNI2 ::.NNuz NN.Nan oN.oNu:
Nuz an HHuz oHuz .uonuo
onam NN.Nuam NN.:unm oN.NInm
on: NN.HNaz NH.oNuz NN.Nan
ouz :Huz NHuz Nan .ocoz
NN.NInm oo.Nunm :N.Nnnm N:.Nuam
NN.NNuz NN.NNuz NN.NNuz HN.NNI2
NNan NNHIz NaNuz NNN-z .ucaumopoum
oN.Nnnm NN.NIQN :N.Nunm NN.NINN
oN.NN.z NN.NNuz NH.NNI= oN.NNuz
HNuz Nan Nauz NN-z .NmHzoN
HN.NIam NN.Nuam NN.N-nm N:.Nunm
H:.NNIz :N.NNuz Ho.NNuz NN.NNuz
Hauz NNuz NNH-z NNHuz .oHHonpmo
o OOGORQHGHHH macaw. .NH om
moHaEQNII monz moHNEON moHdz IIoHndHhakI
munwfidmmhcoz mpcmfidmom

 

I
III III '1
I‘ll

 

 

!

302.323 :8 mfiufim 3283:: 33m 3&3: .N.N BN3.

 

220

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.oHnmp mHau mo omdm pmuHm on» no NHOQENN Una muonfisc on» no GOHNdcdHQMn.0:u can "ouoz
NN.NnaN NN.NIaN NN.NanN oh.NINN
oN.NNuz NH.NNI: No.NNuz No.Nan
NNHuz NNHuz NNNuz ozNuz .Nanu gonna
NN.NINN NN.Nunm NN.Nunm NN.NINN
N:.Nan HN.NN.2 NN.:an N:.NNuz
NNuz NaHuz :HNuz NNNaz .NuHau oHNcHz
HN.Nunm NH.Nuam NH.Nnnm NN.NINN
NH.NNuz NN.NNIz oH.:an 2N.2an
an Nan oNuA NNuz .uquu Noon
.mmNHo.MdHuN=dduU
Hooaom awwm mm.xcmm
N:.Nuam NN.NInN NN.NIQN NN.Nunm
NN.NNu2 NN.Nan :o.NNI: :N.NNuz
NNIz NHHuz NNNIN ozNuz .ooo.ooH no>o NpHo
HN.NnnN NN.NINN NN.NINN oH.Nunm
NN.oNuz HN.Nan NN.NNIz NN.Nonz
Nmuz NNIZ NNNIz NoNuz .Nooo.00HIooo.NNv .NNHN
N.Nunm NN.NINN NN.Nunm N.Nuam
NN.NNIz oN.NNuz ON.NNuz NN.NNuz
:oan Noan NNcuz NNNuz ..ooo.NNIOON.Nv .czoe
NN.NIQN NN.:INN :N.Nunm NN.Nuam
ON.NNI: NH.NN.z NN.Nan NN.NNuz
NHIZ Nan NHan NNHuz .HOON.NI0NNV .oNaHHH>
NN.:INN NN.NuaN NN.Nunm NN.Nnnm
o:.NNuz NN.Nan NN.NNuz NN.NNuz
N-z Nan Noan HHN-z hmmam
. .NpHcsflfiou 050m Mo ouHm
moHanm mOHdz moHaEmm II. moHdz oHcaHud>
muCOUHNOHCOZ wNCOUHmom

 

AvoscHucoov mmoh Mdemom NuHmuobHcs

ll

 

 

1‘

cumum GNMHQOHZ .N.N mqmde

221

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.oHnaH mHnu no Oman umuHm on» no mHonEhm USN muonea: as» No COHudcmHmHm Ono com "0002
oo.unm NN.NunN oo.nnm HN.NunN
oo.NNI: NN.NNuz oo.NNu= NN.NNuz
Huz NNIZ Nuz HNHuz .opsuHsoHuNN
.hondz hdHflOHuuso
NN.NInN NN.:unm NN.Nunm 0N.Nunm
oo.oNuz .NN.Nan oN.NNuz NN.NN.=
:Iz NHIz oHuz NHuz .uo>o New ooo.H
NN.NINN NN.Nunm HN.Nunm NN.NIQN
HN.NNI: NN. Nu: NN.NN.z NN.NN-z
:NIz NN.z oONuz NNHuz .NNNIoo:
NH.NInm NN.Nanm NN.NInm Ho.Nunm
NN.NN.z N:.NNI2 NH.NN.: N:.NN.:
oNuz NNuz NaNuz ooNuz .NNNIooN
HN.NIaN NN.N-nm NH.Nunm N:.Nunm
:N.NNuz NH.NNa= :H.NNuz NH.NNu:
NNuz NNaz NNNIz NoNuz .NNHIOOH
oN.Nanm NN.NunN HN.NINN N:.Nunm
NN.NNu: NN.NNI: HN.NNu: NN.NNuz
Nanz NNuz NNNuz NNN-z .NNINN
N:.Nunm NN.:Inm NN.:unm NN.NINN
NN.NNIz NN.NNuz No.NNuz oN.NNn2
muz muz :an omnz .NN News:
.mdeo meumdUdpo
Hoozom :mHm.Mm ouHm
mcHNEcN moHdz .III moHNSNN NOHNS oHDmHud>
mucofiflmmukfioz mucmfiflmmm

 

 

 

 

 

 

Adoschcoov umoh.mmHwam Nmeuo>Hca ovapm :de50Hfl

.N.N flqmde

222

.oHnmp mHn»

mo NNNQ umun on»

no mHonENm New muwaascImfip no

COHuNCNHQKo on» com "0902.

 

 

 

 

NN.Nunm NN.NunN NN.Nunm NN.Nunm
NN.Nan NN.NNI2 NN.NNuz NN.NNI: Anemone
nunz mmuz NNan HNHuz ozocv.oo:ouowoum oz
NN.NInm N:.Nunm NN.NInN HN.NINN
HN.oNIz NH.oNuz oN.NNuz NN.NNI=
wmnz muz Nunz amuz .muhd COHudOHCSEEoo
NN.Nuam NN.Nunm oN.NnnN NN.NaaN
NN.Nan HH.Nan NN.Nouz NN.NNuz
NNuz Nuz NHNuz NHuz .coHHNosvm
H:.N.am NN.:unm oN.Nunm N:.Nunm
0N.NNuz NN.NNI: NN.NNuz NH.NNIz
NHIz NHuz NNIz NNuz .ocHoHNoa NumzHuouo>
NN.NINN NN.Nunm so.Nunm NN.Nunm
NN.NNI2 NN.NNaz HN.NNI: NN.NNuz
NNIz NNuz NNNIz NNHuz .muua nca oocoHom
0N.Nunm onNm 2N.Nanm oN.NInN
oo.NNuz on: NN.NNuz 0N.NHuz
Ndaz onz NNan Nuz .NOHEosooo «Eon
oo.nnm NH.N«NN NN.HuaN NN.Nanm
oo.NNuz NN.Nouz NN.HNuz NN.NNI:
Huz*. Nan Nuz NNNuz .NcHuoochcm
NN.Nunm NN.NInm N:.Nunm :N.Nnom
mo.mmuz Nn.mmn= mm.Nan MN.nmuz .00H>kom
NNIz NoHuz NaHIz Hoan oHHnsN New mmochsm
h.u200~ .AOHNE MNHSOHdeo
monEmh moHdz moHasum moHdz OHQdHud>
MWdoUHmoHCOZ munovaom

 

 

 

AvoscHHCOOV pmoBIMwdeom NMHmuobHcD opdpm CQMH£0HZ

 

 

. N. N 3N3.

223

 

 

 

 

 

 

.oHnau mHnu No ommm umuHm on» no mHonENm Una muonezc on» No GOHumcmHmMo on» mom "ouoz
NN.:nam Ho.Nnnm mm.Nunm NN.Nuam
oo.NNIz oN.oN.z oN.Han No.oNaz
muz mmlz anz Nmnz .QHSNHNHOSON OHEovmod
oo.nnm NN.Nnnm HH.Nunm NN.N-nm
oo.:N-z NN.Nan NN.NNI2 No.Nan
Huz mHuz Nuz mauz .HHHm .H .0
onnm mo.Nunm mn.nanm mo.NInm
on: oo.mmuz mm.HNuz 0N.NNIZ
ouz an muz OHIZ .caoH
ounm NH.NInm ounm :m.Nunm
on: 30.:an on: HH.Nan
ouz mmuz 032 anz .QHnmuNHonow OHuOan<
Hn.Nunm mN.Nunm oo.Nunm 0H.N|nm
oN.oNuz NN.NNIz No.NNuz N:.NNI2 .
an NNIz NNuz NNNIz .noH osHuuuaam
NN.N.NN NN.NInm 0N.Nunm HN.NnaN
NN.NNI2 NN.NNI2 :N.NNI2 NN.NN.2
oNNIz NNNuz NzNuz HNNuz .mpcoumm
.upommsm
HaHocach honaz MM oopsom
monEom mmHNz monEom .I monz oHflmHhmb .II
mucouHmoucom. mpcovaom II.I

 

 

AflmscHucoov amok deUd m NHHmumbHca madam :dMHAMHz

 

 

 

 

.N.N 5N3.

.HopoH Ho.

um pcaoHNHcmHm **

“Ho>oH No. on unmoHNHcmHm .
0A0: N0nu 50H£3 aqu mHHoo onu can» Q0000Aw NHundoHMHcmHm 0H0: n0Hn3 mHHoo amaze

"mBOHHON m0 voxuas 0am cohamEoo

.Amonsou

ucofiHmokco: squ moHdaoh psovaou omHav moHda acovaohco: on» mo 0mo£u naHE Aum09.MV

doummaoo 0H0: mona ucova0h 0s» mo mouoom 2008 0&9

.GOHpNHbou Uhdvcaum 0s» .nm "ouoom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

dea 0.3» .2 "muflofifipm ho MODES—u 0.2.... .2 “aka HHOO £0.60 c.“ thDESG 0gp ,wo MGHCdoE ONE. “0002
NN.NNINN :H.NNanm NN.HNunm HN.NNnnm
NN.NNH.2 oN.:NHuz :N.NHHI: oN.oNan
:Nuz NNuz HNHIz NNuz .HaconmoNoum
NN.HNu:m oN.:NInm NN.NN-nm NN.NNanm
NN.NHHI2 HN.NNH-z NN.NoH.z NN.NNHuz
:an NNuz :Nan NNH-z .umcao mmMMMmam
.SOHummdooo m.u0£udm
NN.:Nnnm NN.NNuom NN.:Nuom NN.NN.nm
No.NNHIz NH.NNH.2 NN.:HHuz NN.NNHI:
Namuz NNNuz HNNuz HNNuz .cuoNIo>Humc spam
NN.NNnaN NN.NNINN NN.NNINN No.NNuam
oo.:NHIz NN.NNHI2 N:.NHHIz oN.NNHuz
NHuz HNuz Nauz Nauz .cuonIcmHouoN spam
No.NHunm NN.NNuam NN.NHunm N:.NNINN
NN.:NHI: NN.:NHux NN.NHH-z NN.oNHuz .cuonI.uoN nonuos
Nuz Nuz NNuz NNuz .cuonIo>Hum: unsumm
NN.NNInm NN.HNInm No.NNInm :N.NNunm
NH.NNHIz NN.NNHIz :N.HHHI: . NN.NNan .cuonI.aoN nonuau
NHIz.. HNuz NNuz NNuz .cuoNIo>Humm nonuoz
. .mucohmm mo NHH>H902
moneoh monz .measom nmmmz 0HndHud>
mufloUNkaCNZ mvfiofiflmom

 

 

x0m an .mucovaum 0:06H00hcoz 6:0
unovaom on» you mouoom :00: 9009 :OHNNOHMHHN: 0M0HHoo on» no umoh.m
Nn ooGNOHthmHm 03» No muH3m0m on» New mcoHume0n UHNU20um .mcdoz .muonssz

 

 

.N.N NHNNN

: Nanmmmd

22h

225

 

 

 

 

 

.0Hnmu mHnu ho 0mmm umHHm 0:» co mHanNm Una muoneac 0:» Mo COHuNCNmeo 0:0 00m "0002
No.NNuaN NN.:Nanm NN.:Nuom No.NNunm
:N.HNHuz :N.NNHI2 oN.NHHa2 NN.NNHIz
NNIz oNaz. NHHIz NNuz .HaHuommcas go .ooum
oN.:HuaN oN.NNIam NN.:Nunm N:.NN-nm
oN.NNHIz :=.:NHuz NN.NHHIz NN.NNHI:
N.z* Nuz NHuz HNuz .ooH>uom oHHnsm
oo.IaN oo.Hunm NN.NHIam HN.NNInm
oo.NNHuz oo.::H.z oN.NNHIz oo.NHHIz
Huz Nuz.* Nuz NHIz .coHHHchs No 20H
HN.Nnnn NN.NNuam No.NNnom .NN.NNInm
oN.NNIz HN.NoH.= :o.NHHuz NH.NHHIz
Nuz NHIz Nan.* oNuz .uononaH NoHHmeHENN
HN.HNunm NN.NNInm NH.:Nuom H:.NNuam
N:.HNHuz No.NNan :o.HHHI: oN.NNHIz
NNaz Nan NNHuz NNNIz .uouonaH NoHHme
oN.NNunm NN.NNunm NN.:NINN NN.NNINN
oN.NNHuz NN.NNHI2 oN.NNHu2 NN.H:HIz
oHaz Nuz NNIz Nan .uonoamN
oo.aam NH.NHunm oN.NNInm NN.NNINN
oo.N:HI: NN.oHHI: NN.NHHI2 No.NNHu2
Huz** Nuz HNuz NHan .uocso sham
HN.NN.NN oN.NNuaN N:.NNanm No.NNInm
NN.NNH.: NN.NNHI2 :N.NHHI2 NN.NNan
N:Iz Nana NNHIz HNH-z .amHHooIoanz
. II hwp:o&PH:0Hummdooo mrm0£u0m
monsom m0H0: m0H080m monz 0H90Hha>
manofiHmoucoz mucovaom

 

 

VI

 

 

 

NuoscHucoo. name :oHuaoHNHHamN oNNHHNN

l
I.I

 

.N.N. ""329

226

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.0Hnmu mHna mo onwm umuHu 0:» co mHonENm dam whocezc 0:» no COHHNCNHQN0 0:» 00m “ouoz
NN.HNINN NN.NN.NN NN.NNINN NN.oN.nm
No.NNH.z NN.NNH.z NN.NHHIz N:.NNH.2 .Hoonom .uaum no
mauz wmuz NNH-z NNuz HNCOHm00m0Am U090HmEoo
NN.NH.nm NN.NN.qm oN.NNunm No.NN.nm
NH.:NHu2 2:.NNan 30.:NHIZ NN.NMHI: .Hoonom .vdum ho
HHIz N.z* NNIZ Nan HmconmoNoum 050m
NN.NNINN NN.NN.nm NN.:NINN No.NNunm
NN.NNHIz NN.:NHuz NH.NHH-z No.NNHIz
:Nuz NNIz oNHuz HzHuz .onHHoo NouoHNEoo
NN.NNunm NN.NNunm NN.NNINN NN.NNInm
NN.HNH.z NN.NNH.2 No.NHHIz NN.NNHI:
NN.z N:.z NNH-z HzHuz .oNoHHoo egom
NN.NNIam NN.NNINN NN.NN.nm NN.NNIam
oo.:NHaz NN.NNHIz HN.:HHIz oN.:NHaz
NNIz NNIz NNN-z NNNIz .Hoonom zNH: uoaoHNEoo
oN.NN.nm NN.NNInm NN.:NINN NN.NN.nm
HN.NHHI2 HH.oNHuz N:.NHHI: NN.:NHI:
:Nuz mmnz HNHuz HzHuz .Hoonom SNHS 080m
HH.:Nuam HN.NNunm NN.:Nunw Ho.NNInm
N:.NNH-z :N.HNH.2 NN.NHHI: No.oNHI:
HHIz*. :Nuz NNH-z NNHIz .Hoonom ovauN NoNonaoo
HN.NNInm NN.NNuaN NN.:NINN :N.NNINN
NN.HHH.2 NN.NHHI2 NN.oHHu= 2N.oNHIz
Nuz NNuz NNIz oNIz .HooNom ovaum agom
II .COHuwosvm m.h0£pam
00H080m monz m0H060m moHdz 0H90Hu0>
mwcova0ucoz mpc0UHm0m
AvoscHucoov pace :oHpaoHNHHa: omoHHoo .N.N mHmde

 

227

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.0Hnma mHnu no 0m0m umuHm 03» no mHonENm UC0 muonsac 0:» ho :onmcdHauo can 00m “0uoz
HN.oNIoN HN.NNINN N:.NNuam HN.NNuaN
HN.NNH.2 oN.NNH.z NN.NoHuz NN.NNHI: .Hoonom .Naum no
Nan NHuz NNuz Nauz HaconmoNonm NopoHNsoo
o:.NHunm NN.NN-nm NN.NNnnm NN.:Nanm
NN.oNH.2 oo.NNHIz NN.:HHIz N:.NNHI= .Hoonom .umum no
muz Nuz Hmuz NHuz HNCOHmmomoum 080m
NN.NNInN NH.NNIam HN.NNINN :N.NNINN
NN.NNHI2 NN.oNHuz NN.NHHIz NN.NNHI2
NNIZ NNuz NNH.z oNHuz .oNoHHoo wouoHNsoo
o:.NNInm NN.:NINN :N.:Nunm NN.aNnaN
no.3NHuz NN.NNHIz oN.NHHI= :N.NNHuz
NNuz NNuz NaHuz oHHIz .oNoHHoo esom
NN.:NINN NN.NNInm H:.NNInm NN.:NINN
oN.HNH.z HN.NNHIz NN.:HHuz. NN.aNHuz
NoHIz NzHaz NNN-z NNN-z .Hoosom nNH: NouoHNEoo
NN.NNINN NN.NNInm NN.aNInm No.NNunm
NN.NHH.z NN.oNHus NN.HHHIz No.NNH.z
NNIz NN-z NHHuz NNH-z .Hoonom :NHn oEom
NN.NNu:m NN.0Nucm NN.:NINN. NN.NN-om
NN.HNH.z oN.:HH-z oN.NoHuz NN.NHHI:
Nuz** NHIz NNIz HoHuz .Hoonom cumum voponaoo
oN.NNIam NN.:NINN oo.NN.nm NN.oN.nm
oN.HHan oo.oNH.z oN.:oH-z ::.NHH.2
Nuz Nuz ONIz NNIz .Hoosom ovaum osom
II .cOHpmosum mrfionvoz
m0H080m monz m0H080m 00H02 0H£0Hh0>
mucovaoucoz II Imvcodeom II
amok :cHuaoHNHHas omoHHoo .N.N NHNNN

Avoanchoov

 

228

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.0Hnau mHSp ho 0m0m pmuHh one no mHoQEhm 6cm muonasc can mo COHpNCNHQN0 0S9 00m "ouoz
NN.NH.aN No.NNINN oN.NNnam NN.NN.NN
NN.:NHI: NN.:Nan NN.NoHuz NN.:HHuz
NHIz. NNuz NHIz NHuz .HmHnooNNN
NN.NHIom NH.NH.nm NN.NNInm NN.:Nuam
No.NHH.z oH.NNan NN.NoHuz :o.NHan
NHIz oNuz NNIz NNIz .oua>Hum
:N.NN.nn HN.NN.nm NH.:Nuqm oN.NNunm
N.NNH.2 oN.NNHuz o:.NHHaz 0:.NNH-z
NNNIz NNNuz NNan NNNIz .oHHnsN
63.2534
HooSom :NHN No omxe
NN.N:nnm NN.:NINN No.NNInm NN.NNuaN
oo.NNHuz NN.NNHI2 NN.NNHIz oN.oNan
Nuz N-z HHuz oHIz .uonpo
oanm NN.oNuam NN.NNInm NN.:NINN
on: oN.NNHI: NN.NHHIz NH.NNHu:
0.2 aan NHuz NNuz .ocoz
NN.NNuaN NN.NNunm NN.NNunm N:.NNuqm
NN.:NHIz NN.NNH-z :N.NHHu: NN.NNHI:
NNH-z NNHIz NNNuz NNNuz .pcaumoaouN
o:.NNnnm N.NNnnN NN.0NIaN :N.NNunm
NH.NHH.: NN.NNHI2 :N.NoHuz HN.NNHI2
HNIz mnnz wdnz wmuz .an30h
NN.oNunm :N.NNInm NN.NNunm NN.NNunm
N:.NNan oN.NHH-z 2:.oHHIz :N.NNH-z
Hanz NNIz NNHIz NNH-z .oHHoNNNN
.0ocok090um m=OHMHH0m
m0H080m .II m0sz m0H080m m0Hdz 0HnaHh0>
mucovaohcoz mucouHmom .I
AvoscHucoov away :OHpaoHNHHNmm omoHHoo .N.N mHmNH

229

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.0Hn0u mHnu mo ovum amuHm 029 no mHonfihm 6:0 muonadc 059 Mo COHHNCNHmwo 0S0 00m "ouoz
NN.:Nunm NN.NNINN HN.NNInm NN.NNunm
HN.NNHuz NN.NNHu= oN.NHHuz N:.HNHI=
NmHuz NNHIz Nmuuz odNuz .UHHSH u0mms
NN.NHnaN NN.NNuam HH.oNInm NN.NN.NN
NN.oHHIz HN.NHHuz NN.ooHuz NN.NHHI:
NNuz Naan NHN-z NNNuz .NuHsu oHNvH:
No.NNINN H:.oNInN NN.oNuam NN.:NINN
NN.HHan :N.NHHuz oN.NNuz NN.:HH-z
mlz** man ONIZ Nmuz .UHHnu 90304
.mdeo wwHudsvauw
Hoonom anm_mm xcam
NN.NNunm NN.NNInm :N.NN-nm NN.NNINN
NN.NHHI2 NN.NNHI2 NN.NHHI2 :N.NNHI:
NNuz NHan NNNIz oaNuz .ooo.OOH uo>o NuHo
NN.NNunm HN.NNInm No.NNanm NN.NNINN
:o.HNHIz NN.:NHu: oN.NHHIz No.NNHu:
NN.z* NN.z NNNuz NoNuz .Nooo.ooHIooo.NNV.NpHo
NN.:NIQN N:.NNunm HN.NNuam NH.:Nunm
NN.NNH.2 NN.oNHu: NN.NHHuz No.NNHuz
:oHaz Noan NNNIz NNN-z .Hooo.NNIooN.Nv.czoa
HN.NNunm oo.NNunm NH.:Nuom NN.NNnnm
NN.NHHuz NN.NNHI2 2N.NHHI: oN.NNan
NHIz NN-z NHHIz NaHuz .AoON.NIoNN..oNaHHH>
NN.NNInm NN.NNuam NN.NNInm :N.NNunm
oN.NNHIz NN.NNHu2 NH.NHH-z NN.oNHuz
Nuz*. NHuz NoHuz HHN-z hmmam
.NwHGSEEoo 0803 hoIWNHm
WOHMHHQQ mGHQZ mOHMEvm moHdZ oHdekd>
.I.I mucovaohcoz mgcovaom
Auosszzoov umoh coHuaoHNHHaad oNoHHoo .N.N NHNNH

230

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.OHDMQ mHHwIW .wo onwdnm umhfih 959 CO mHODENnm Ufim mHODEH—c 0n» ho COHHdeHmHo 030 com «0902
oo.unm NH.NNINN oo.Nnnm oH.NNunm
oo.NHHuz N:.oNHux oo.::Huz No.NoHI2
Huz Nanz.. Nuz* HNH-z .onzuHsoHuNN
.90n0z hNHSOHAnso
NN.NNInm N:.NNunm H:.NNnnm NN.NN.NN
oo.NNHaz NN.NNH.z oN.:N.= NN.NHH.2
:.z** NHIz oan NHIz .uo>o Nam coo.H
NN.NNInm oN.NNuam NN.:NINN HN.NNInm
NN.oNH.z oo.NNHIx NN.:HHI: N:.NNHI2
:N-z Nan ooNIz NNHIz .NNNIoo:
NN.NNINN oN.NNINN oN.NNaoN No.NNINN
NN.oNH.z No.2NHIz NN.NHHuz oN.oNHIz
NNuz NNaz NNN-z ooan .NNNIooN
NN.NNnam N:.HNunm NN.:NINN NN.NNINm
NN.NNHuz NN.NNH.2 NN.:HHIz oo.NNan
NNIZ NNIz NNN-z NoNuz .NNHIooH
NN.NNIom NN.NNIQN NN.NNunm NN.NNInm
NN.oNHI: NN.NNHIz NN.NHHI= 2N.HNHI:
Nauz. NNIz NNNuz NNNIz .NNINN
HN.:N-nm N:.HNnnm NN.NHINN N:.NNINN
NN.NNI2 oN.NNHu= oN.NoHIz NH.:NHIx
an an :an ONIz .NN have:
.mmNHo MEHHNSUNHG
I. Hoonom.mNH=.wm ouHN
00H080m moHaz m0H080h monz 0Hanu0>
mpc0UHmohcoz II -mucochom
.uoscHucoo..mqu :oHuaoHNHHaa _Nmmmmmm .N.N mHm<H

231

 

 

 

 

 

 

.0Hn0p mHnu mo 0N0: ummHm 0:» :o wHonENm 6:0 whoafiz: 0:0 mo :OHumcmHmN0 0:» 00m ”0902
NN.:Nuam 2N.NNucm oN.NNuom N:.:Nunm
N:.NNHax om.NNan No.NHHux N3.:Nan Acomono
.mmuz nmuz NNHuz HNHuz 0:o:v.0o:0u0uoam oz
NN.NHuam No.oNunm NN.NNnnN oN.HNuam
NN.NNHuz oo.NNHuz HN.NHHn: No.HNHuz
wmnz muz Nmnz anuz .mpud :OHHNOHcsssoo
N:.oNnnm NN.NHuaN oH.NNunm No.HNunm
Nm.:Han mm.Hmnz mm.NoHI: 00.30Huz
Nan muz NHNuz anz* .:0Humo:6m
mm.HNunm om.NNunm Hm.mmunm :N.mmnnm
NN.oNHux NN.HNH-z No.oNHuz NN.:NHIz
NH.z** NHIz NNuz NNuz .oaHoHNoa NumcHuoNo>
m:.mmlnm mm.mmuam NN.:NInm NN.NNunm
mw.mNan m:.N:HI2 2N.MNHIZ NN.NMHuz
NNuz Nmuz mdwnz NNHIZ .muua 6:0 00:0How
mm.:Nlnm clam om.mmunm oo.H|Qm
0N.ONHI£ on: 0H.:HHIZ oo.Nmn2
Nduz ouz NNH-z muz .m0H80:000 080:
oo..nm 03.:NINN NN.NHunN NN.NNIQN
00.0NHIE HN.mMHu£ 3H.::Huz NH.JMHIE
Huz** mnuz mnz mmmuz .m:H:00:Hm:m
NN.:NuQn NN.mNunw mm.mmanm :N.Nmunm
om.:HHuz _ NM.NHHIS 0H.NOHuz 2N.mHan .00H>h00
mmuz NOHuz MdHuz Homuz 0HHazm 6:0 mMW:Hm:D
..H:oo~.hofiaz uNHSOHHhso
monaom moHdz m0H080m 00H02 0H90Hu0>
mu:06Hm0k:oz mu:06HmmM. .I

 

 

 

 

A60::Hp:oov pmoH :OHHNOHMHHNSM 0u0HHoo

.N.N NHNNH

232

 

 

 

 

 

 

.0Hn0u 0H:p m0 0M0: uthN 0:0 :0 mHonENm 6:0 0:0:55: 0:» m0 :0Hu0:0H:M0 0:: oom "0002
NN.NHunn N:.NNI0N NN.NNI0N NN.NNINN
NN.HNHuz 0N.::Huz N0.0NHuz NN.N:Huz
Nuz** Nan NNuz NNuz .mHamuaHozom OHEOcaoN
00.nam :H.0Nunm NN.Nn:m NN.NHIQN
00.N:Hux HN.HNHuz NM.NNHuz H:.:NHu:
Huz** NHuz . Nuz Nsnz .HHHm .H .0
ounm H0.NN.0N NN.NNI0N N:.HNunN
on: om.aHan mm.Nmnz 00.:NHuS
onz nnz wnz oHuz .2004
onnm 2H.wmunm ounm mN.mmn:m
on: NN.NOH.z on: NN.NOH.z
0.2 NNuz 0.2 NHuz .mHnmumHonom 0H00H0u4
H:.NHnam No.NNu:m 0H.NNunm NN.NNI:m
0N.o:Huz NN.0NHuz NN.NHHI2 N0.HNHI2
an.. NNuz ‘ NNuz NNN.z .noH osHpIpuNN
NN.:NINN NN.NNINN NN.NNI0N :N.:Nunm
NN.HNHIz HN.0Nan NN.NHHuz NN.NNan
0Nan NNNuz NzNuz HNNuz .mpcouam
. ..H. ...Hio ”muslm
II.I II. H0Ho:0:Hm uondz Mm oohsom
m0H050N 00H0z I. .II, m0H080N m0H02 0HQ0HH0>
mu:06Hmoh:oz 00:06Hmom

 

A60::Hu:0ov

l

 

.pmme coHuaoHNHHmad mmoHHoo

.N.N m4m<9

.Ho>oH H0.

pa ucaoHNHcNHN **

“Ho>oH No.

pa anaoHNHcNHm *

"030HH0N 00 60::06 0:0 60h0mfioo
0:03 N0:» :OH:3 :»H3 NHHoo 0:» :0:» h0»00:N NH»:00HMH:NHN 0903 :OH:3 mHHoo 000:8
»:06H00::0: :»H3 00H080N »:06Hm0u 00H0v m0H0E »:06H00::0: 0:» 90 000:» :»H3 A»m0»_wv

60:0:800 0:03 m0H0E »:06Hmou 0:» mo 00:000 0008 0:9 .:0H»0H>06 6:06:0»m 0:» .am “0:000 :00:

.AmoHdfiou

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0:» .2 «m»:06:»m m0 panes: 0:» .2 "0:0 HH00 :000 :H 0:0:53: 0:» 90 mchmoe 0:8
NN.u0N NN.:QN NN.I0N NN.I0m
m:.muz Nn.mn: :m.muz om.muz
mauz* Nana mmHuz nmnz .H0conm0m0uL
m:.uam NN.unm NN.uam 0N.a:m
N:.an NN.mnz nm.mnz Nm.mnz
Nauz NNuz :nHuz NHan .u0:30 mmo:Hmsm
.:0H»0mdooo m.u0:»0m
HN.unm 0N.nnm mm.unm NN.»:m
H:.Nuz mn.muz Nm.muz NN.mnz
mHmnz Hnmuz ONan Nman .::0:I0>H»0: :»0:
N:.uqn NN..0N NN.u0m NN.a:m
0N.Nuz 0 .Nu: 2:.Nuz HN.Nuz
Nan Han 03.2 Hauz* .cuonucmHoNON spam
H:.u:m mm.nnm HN.n:m HN.uam
NH.N.z 0:.Nuz 2:.Nuz NH.NI: .cuonI.uoN nuance
mnz an* mmuz** Hmuz .::0:I0>H»0: u0:»0m
m:.unm N:.unm MN.uQm HN.nam
NN.N.2 NN.NI: NN.NIz NN.NI2 .cuoNI.uoN 000000
NHuz** HNIz NN.: NNuz .cuonuo>Hpmm yoguoz
.m»:0h0m m0 NwH>H»0z
00H0E0m mmw0£ 00H0Euw m0wmz 0H:0H:0>
m»:QmHm0::02 m»:06H00m

nHHHHHHHHHHflflHHHflIIImIIIIIImmmIIIflIIIImIIIIIImIIIflIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII"

 

Now N: .m»:06s»m »:06Hmoucoz
6:0 »:06Hmom 0:» how m0m0ho>¢ »:H0mI060uu “00> :0E:m0:m 0:» :0 »00H M
N: 00:00HNH:mHm 0:» M0 m»H500m 0:» 6:0.0:0H00H>0Q 6h06:0»m .m:002 .0902532 .m.N mHQNP

.H fiHszmmd

3

23

23h

 

 

 

 

 

.0H:0» 0H:» m0 0mm: »thk 0:» :0 mHonfihm 6:0 0:0:53: 0:» m0 :0H»0:0HQK0 0:» 00m "0»02
NN.unm NN.u0m NN.-0N NN.nam
NN.an N:.Nuz NN.NI2 0N.NI:
NNuz Nzuz. HoHuz NNuz .HaHuoNacaa no .ooum
NH.u0m Ha.unm 0N.uam NN.-am
HH.an NN.Nuz N:.Nuz NN.NIz
muz** an NHuz mHuz .00H>H00 0HHnnm
00.n00 NN.-0m NN.-am 0N.u0m
HN.NI2 NN.Naz Nn.Nuz HN.NIz
Huz** Nuz** Nuz :Huz .NoHHmeca no 30H
00.n0m H:.unm NN.anm NN.Inm
N:.Hu: NN.Nuz N:.Nuz NH.NI=
Huz NHIz Nan.. Nan .uouonNH NoHHmeHsom
NN.u0m NN.a0m 0N.I0m NN.u0m
NN.NI2 NN.Nuz NN.NI NN.N.z
NNuz N.Iz aaHuz NNH-z .uouonaH NNHHHNN
:N.nnm 0:.n0m NN.-0N NN.INN
NN.Nuz :0.Nux NN.Nuz NN.Nuz
0Huz Nuz NNuz :Nuz** .uoNomoN
00.nqm NN.unm HN.-am NN.unm
HN.Nuz NN.N-z N:.Nux 0N.Nu=
Huz :Iz MNIZN mmlz .h0:30 Ek0m
NN.-0m HN.I0m NN.I00 NN.Inm
::.Nuz NN.NIz NN.NI: NN.NIz
03:2 Nauz NzHuz NaHuz .uaHHooIopan
.h.»:0wv,.:0H»0mdooo m»:0:»0h
00H080N 00H0S 00H0S0m 00H0z 0H:0H:0>
m»:06H00u:0z m»:06Hmom

 

 

A60::H»:0ov 00M0u0>< »:H0mI060km

 

.N.N QHNNN

235

 

 

 

 

 

.0H:0» 0H:» ho 0M0: »thm 0:» :0 mHo:ENm 6:0 muonesc 0:» m0 :0H»0:0HQN0 0:» 00m “0»02
NN.umm NN.unm NN.n0m NN.u0m
Nm.mn: H:.mnz N:.Nuz Na.muz .H00:om .60nm :0
adnz :muz :mHuz ONuz H0:0Hmmomohm 60»0Hmaoo
NN.unm 2N.u0m NN.u0N HN.unm
NN.Naz NN.an NN.NI2 N:.an .HooNom .vaum :0
oan* Nuz*. NN.: NHuz Haconmomou: esom
NN..0N .0N.Inm NN.-am NN.uom
NN.NI2 N:.Nux NN.NIz NN.Nu2
NNIz NNuz 0Nan NNH-z .oNoHHoo 00»0Hmsoo
NN.anm 0N.uam 0N.I0m NN.I00
N:.Nuz NN.Nuz NN.an NN.Nuz
Nauz NNIz Naan :NHuz .oNoHHoo meow
HN.u0m NN..0N NN.-mm NN.u0N
NN.an 0N.Nuz NN.Nuz NN.Nu2
HNuz NN.: :Han NNNIZ .Hooaom :NH: 00»0Hmao0
NN.unm HN.u0m NN.u0m NN.I0N
NN.NIz NN.Nuz HN.Nuz NN.NI:
NNuz Nan NHan NHHIz .Hoosom :NH: oEoN
NN.n0m NN.u0m HN.n0m NN.unm
HN.Naz 0N.Nuz NN.N.: 0N.an
HH.z** NNIz NNuz NzHuz .HooNom ouaum 0°»0H0ao0
NN.:NN N:.u0m NN.“:m NN.u0m
N:.Nuz HN.Nuz 0N.Nuz :N.Nu:
-Nuz NHuz NHuz Nan .Hoonom ouauN 090m
.:0H»0o:6m mph0:00h
moHGEGNH WOHdX mOHwEGNH mead: .mfifldwhdkw
m»:06H00::0z m»:06Hm0m

 

 

 

“60::H»:0o~ mumduo>< »:H0mI060uo

.m.k w4m49

236

 

 

 

 

 

 

.0Ha0» 0H:» m0 0M0: »thu 0:» :0 wHo:§Nm 6:0 mnonfinc 0:» 90 :0H»0:0Hawo 0:» 00m “0»02
NN.I00 NN.I0N NN.u0N N:.u0N
NH.an NN.N.2 NN.Nu2 NH.Nu2 .Hoosom .0000 no
NHuz Nan wNuz mmnz H0:0Hmmououm 60»0Hmsoo
NN.u0N NN..0N NN..nm NN..0N
NN.Nu2 HN.HI2 N:.NI2 N:.Nu: .Hoo:om .00:0 no
Nuz Nuz Nan Nan** Haconm00ou: esom
NN.u0N HN.unm NN.uom NN.unm
N:.Nuz :N.Naz H:.Nuz NN.NI:
mmuz HNuz mman NNHuz .0M0HH00 60»0Hm500
NN.uam NN.nnm NN.INN 0N..0N
N:.Nuz 0:.Naz NN.Nuz 0:.Nu:
Nana NNuz NNHIz NNuz .omoHHoo osom
NN.I00 NN.u0m NN.n0m NN.I0m
0:.Nuz NN.NI2 :N.Naz NN.NIz
:Nuz NNHuz NnNuz Nosuz .Hoosom 00H: NouoHNEoo
HN.unm HN..0N NN.I0N NN.IQN
N:.Nux NN.NI: 0:.Nu: NN.NI2
NNIz NNIz NoHuz NoHuz .HooNom :NH: oEoN
NN.-mm N:.u0m NN.unm NN.unm
NN.NI2 N0.Nuz NN.N.2 NH.NI2
w|z** NHuz omuz Nmnz .H00:0m 060:: 60»0H:500
2N.u0m NN.INN NN.u0m 0N.uam
NN.Nuz 0N.Nuz NH.an HN.NIz
Nuz Nuz** NHuz :an .Hoonom ouaum osom
.:0H»0o:6m mrM0:»0z
00H080m 00H0z 00H0E0N 00H0z 0H:0Hu0>
- m»:06H00ncoz , - m»:06H00m

 

 

 

i

A60=:H»:0uv mohduobd »:Homu06mmm .m.N MHmdP

237

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.0H:0» 0H:» mo 0M0: »MWHN 0:» :0 0H0:EN0 6:0 0:0:E0: 0:» :0 :0H»0:0HQK0 0:» 00m "0»02
NN..nm HN..0N NN..0m NN..am
NH.Nuz NH.NI: NN.Nux NH.NI:
NHIZ HNuz NHuz HHuz .HmHsooaag
NN.I0m NN.u:m NN.unm NN.-mm --
mm.muz mm.muz NH.Nuz MH.mnz
HHIz* NHIz NN.: NNuz .o»a>H:m
HN.-0N HN.-0N HN.IQN NN..0N
N:.Nuz NN.Nuz NN.Nu2 NN.NI2
mmmuz dnmuz :mwuz Namuz .0HH::L
.606mw»»<
H00:om :uHm :0 0QNH
0N.unm 2:.nnm HN.-am 2N.unm
N:.Nuz mm.mnz mm.muz H:.mnz
ma: "2 OHuz muz .k0:»o
onnm :m.nnm NN.nnm :N.nnm
on: NN.Nuz NN.Nu: NN.an
ouz HHuz :Huz Nmmz .0coz
0N.Inm NN.n0m HN.-am NN.nnm
m:.mu= mm.mlz mm.muz NN.Nn:
NNHuz NNHIz NNN-z NNN-z .»:0»m0»ou:
:N.unm :N.nnm md.nnm . 3N.|Qm
NN.Nuz 0:.Nuz 0H.NI: N:.Nuz
NNuz. :Nuz NNuz aNaz .anzoN
NN.unm NN.-am NN.:QN 0N.u:m
0:.Nu: mm.muz Nm.muz NN.Nu2
mmaz NNuz NNH-z NNHuz .OHfim:»0o
.0o:0h0moum msofiuHHo
00H050m mmwwz 00H080m 00H0: 0H:0Hh0> .I
m»:06H00h:0z m»:06H00m II. II.
A60::H»:0ov 00M0A0>4 »:HomI060mm .N.N mqmde

238

.0Hn0» 0H:» mo 0N0: »muHm 0:» :0.MH0:EN0 6:0

 

m:0:§::.0:» :0 :0H»0:0HAH0 0:» 00m "0»02

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NN.u0m NN.unm NN.INN 0N.a00
NN.Nuz NN.Na: N:.an .N:.Nu:
menz NNHIZ NHnuz NNnuz .6HH:» u0mmb
N:.n0m N:.nnm N:.unm N:.uqm
N0.an N0.Nuz NN.HIz :0.Nu:
NNaz NNHuz NNan NHNIz .00H00 0H00H2
N:.u0m NN.Inm 0N.a00 NN.INN
NN.Nn :0.NI: NN.HI= NN.HI:
an** NHuz NHuz 00.2 .0uHa» nommw
.mdeU “Canada—flaunt .
HooNom :uHm_mw scam
NN.unm 0N.u:m 0N.uam NN.:QN
HN.NIz NN.NI2 NN.Nuz. 0N.Nuz
Nan aoHaz :NNIz HHNaz .ooo.00H uo>o NpHo
NN.INN NN.INN HN.-am NN.qu
NN.N-x NN.NIz NN.Nuz 2N.an
oNuz NNuz NNNuz NNHuz .A000.00HI000.NNV.N»H0
0N.unm NN.-am NN.-0N NN.nnm
0:.Nuz H:.Nuz :N.Nuz NN.an
NNuz NNuz NNNIz NNNaz .A000.NNI00N.NV.23oe
HN.:QN NN.unm 0N.n0m NN.I00
HN.Nuz NN.NIz NN.NIz 0N.Nuz .
NHaz NNuz NoHuz NNHuz .AooN.NI0NNV.oNaHHH>
NN.unm NN.n0N NN.:NN NN.aam
NN.NI: NN.N.2 N:.Nuz NN.Nuz
Nuz.* Naz NNuz NNHuz _hmu0N
~NMH::E800 ofiom N0 onHm
00H080M. 00H0HII, 00H080m 00H0z 0HDONMM>
m»:06H00::0z .mm:06H00m .
A60::H»:0ov mow¢M0>4 »:H0:I060AU .mIN mqmde

 

239

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.OHQQH mafia HO QMdnm amend.“ 039 CO mHBEm UWIHN MHOQEHHC OHM». ho £0H96¢5HQNO 0.50 00m nouoz
00.n00 NN.I00 NH.I0N NN.Inm
NN.HI= HN.NIz NH.N.2 :0.NI:
Huz NNIz. Naz. aoHuz .ouauHsoHuNN
.HOhdZ .HdHHHONHhHHU
NN.uam N2.uam NN.-0N N:.u0m
NN.Naz NN.N.z :0.Nu: :H.an
Nuz.. NH.z* Nuz NHIz .uo>o 0:0 000.H
2N.Iam NN.-am NN.I00 NN.-00
NN.Naz HN.N-: NN.NI2 NN.NI:
NNuz NNIz oanz NNHIz .NNNI00:
NN.aam NN.I0m HN.-am NN.-00
H:.Nuz N:.NI2 NN.NIz NN.N.=
00.2 0N.z* HNNIz NNH-z .NNNIooN
NN.-am HN.I00 NN..00 :N.I00
HN.NIz NN.NIz NN.NI: NN.NI2
HNIz 0Nuz :NNuz :NNuz .NNHIooH
NN.-00 NN.I00 NN..00 NN..00
N:.Nuz NH.NI: 0:.Naz NN.NI:
Nan: NNuz HNNuz NoNuz .NNINN
NN..00 HN.-00 NN.u0m NN.INN
NN.HIz NN.NI: NN.NIz 0N.Nuz
Nuz Nuz NHIz** NNuz .NN N000:
.mm0Ho mmw»0:60uo
.III Hoosom :mHm_Mm ONHN
MOHQEONH mQHdZ MOHdHHaNH mOHdz OHDGHHdP
mquUNmOaH—NOZ mpCGUflmom

 

 

 

 

A60::H»:0ov 000090»: »:H0mI060Hm

 

.N.N 04000

2&0

.0HN0» 0H0»

 

mfilmm0m »muHm 0:» :0 mHonshm 6:0

mhwmfs: 0:» ho

:0H»0:0H:M0 0:» 00m "0»02

 

 

 

 

Na..0m NN..nm NN..QN 0N.unm
N:.N.z NN.N.z 2N.N.x NN.N.2 Acomono
0N.z NH.z NNH.z NNHuz ococv.0o:0000000 oz
0N..0N N0..00 NN..00 NN..0N
:0.N.: N.N.z NN.N.= :N.N.z
NNuZ hnz NNnZ OMIZ .muhm :OH»00HCSEEOU
0:..00 NN..00 NN..00 NN..00
HN.N.z HN.N.z NN.N.z 0H.N.z
Nduz Nuz coauz Nan .:0H»0o=6m
HN..00 H0..nm NN..00 NN..00
0N.N.z NN.N.2 NN.N.: NN.N.2
NH.z*. NH.z.. NNuz NN.z .mcHoHuoe N000H0000>
HN..0N NN..00 0N..00 NN..00
N:.N.z N:.N.z 0N.N.z N:.N.
NN.: 00.2 NNN.z NNH.z .0000 0:0 oocoHom
0N..00 0.00 HN..00 00..0N
N:.N.2 0.: NN.N.z NN.H.z
Huuz ouz :HHuz le .moHao:000 050m
00..00 0N..00 NN..QN NN..00
NN.N.: N:.N.z NN.N.z 0N.N.z I
H.z.. 0N.z N.z NNan ..cHuoocHNcN
NN..0N NN..00 0N..00 2N..00
NN.N.: 0N.N.z NN.N.: NH.N.z .ooH>uom
NNuz NN.z 0NH.z NNH.z oHHnsm 0:0 0000H000
b.»:0mP,.A0n0z H0H30Hhuso
00H080m 00H0S 00H050m 00H0z 0H:0H:0>
m»:06Hmoh:0z m»:06Hm0m

 

[I

 

200:0H0000. 000000>< 00H00I00000 .N.N NHN<N

2&1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.0H:0» 0H:» M0 000m »mkHM 0:» :0 mHonfihm 6:0 02038:: 0:» :0 :0H»0:0Hm20 0:» 00m "0»02
NN..00 0N..0m 0N..nm NN..0N
Nm.muz :0.m.z HN.NI: NN.Nu:
wuz** Nan. man man .mH:m:0H0:om 0H5060o<
00..00 NN..00 HN..am NN..00
HN.N.z 0N.Nuz NN.N.z 0N.N.:
an Nan Nn2** dauz .HHHm .H .0
0.00 2N..nm N2..0N Na..nm
on: ::.Nuz NH.Nuz :2.muz
0.2 Na: Naz mm: .:00:
0.00 NN..0m 0.00 N0..00
0.2 NN.N.z 0.2 NN.N.2
0.2 NH.2 0-2 NH.2 .0H0000Hoson 0H00H004
NN..00 - 2N..nm N0..00 0N..nm
No.m.z :H.Nuz Nd.muz NN.N.2
0.2.. NN.2 N:.2 HNH.2 .000 osHuupp00
Nn.0:m Nn.unm 0N.nnm 0N.nnm
Nn.an NN.an Hm.muz HN.Nuz
NNN.2 NON.2 NNN.2 NNN.2 .000000N
.»:0mm1w
H0Ho:0:Hm :0602.Mm ooudom
- 00H0802 00H0: 00H0E02 00H0: 0H:0H:0>
m»:06H002:0z m»:06H00a
“II I I I
A60=:H»:0ov 00m020>¢ »:H02I060mm .N.N mumde

Rflfik “
huh} BEE ENLY

 

 

 

 

HWIHIHWIH

I

1293 03056 6073

3

 

....