III‘III I III II,|III " IIIIIIII‘IIII'II'; I 5::‘ 'I'I' III" 'A'I'III'II. I" III: nIIII III“, III . II II ' U .1 r” , III. I I. « ;" 3. -I H _II III .' I I I IIII II”' II I I. ”II I I II'I, ,I III IIMIIIVIII‘I I I I I” I“ , III", I.»'.I[II.‘. 37,5? ff}:- .«IIIIII ,. I I .InIII IIIIIIIIII I I I; I IIII 2‘ III‘IQQ 'f'II1;,.."I'-’”I:IIII I 7,411, :4. ‘ “ ”III” V'II . :III'I’ . .. . ..n III. :I III? . ' ' , 5:: I ”I” I I I III . III ”II' I I ‘ I‘IiIIIII I 'l I I III. ' . III . 1III. I In I I‘I-II III: .Ifl-I'I.IIIIII-Igignt-I“. .g,j~}._,.:«‘;I.rn ‘ ‘ ;~.‘, "VII IIVIIII‘I I. ~ 3 II’II'III "LII-f,” III ' f-I .IIII'II.I.II‘”I“IIIIII‘nIIIIIIEI'. A “'1; II "”‘II I 'III‘II'IInuII I ...,, " II .n. III“ In ’ ’ I . I ' III I II I I III "IIIII' I IIIII 'I IIIIIII IIIIIIIII II‘” III; HIGH 1 . III I III' I-| I II II III" II " ..I II II. 'I I IIIIII II IIIII; I IIIIIIII III: III I 'III; ,I II.” III . . I'IJ .‘. I' III‘II‘ .,II “III' ' :JIII . III'I'I'I‘II II I‘ MIME “‘I'IIIIII. ”III; lw'II IIIM I'III'IIIIII IIII'I """ .- . I I I ‘hl, III-{IvI If,“ I I III III .II ‘ IIIII'IIJIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII III I IIIIII III” IIIII III'III IIIII? ”II {III} lb ' ”I I I IIII'IIIII II IIIIII III I n ‘IIIII In”; . II'IIIII' "III II} ‘InIIIIII ”1:". . .. I I III IIIIIIIIIIn III, III‘ I'II'IIII II’I II'JIIIII III WW; I; In ‘ LIIIIII IIIIIIIIII III IIIII'HIIIII' II ”THII‘W I II “III ' ' . IIIYIIT III: I I II I I ~~~~~~ . 4;- ‘gJ ' > . 11. .u»- . ' ~t. V ..-. 4 ‘ IIII’IIII I: ,III .' in . III III!- _, I n.-- I III“ IIIIIIIII I I I:.'I I 'I IIIII aIIIHI'II'III , .51,an I” . H; IIIIII I III'IIIIII IIIII‘I'J I II! III IIIIIIIIIII‘I IIIII III. I I “ITIIIII IIIIIII 'WI II ‘IIIIinlI III, III, III II, IIIIII‘I'I ,nn‘” n:- .3 nm ”IIII‘ 'II'” I.I~'.'II'IIIHI’WI' III. IIIIIIIIJI' III! III'III ? III I III‘ :.'I IIIII II'I II' M; II IIIIIIII IIIII II; III IIIIIIIIII III’I’I III'II. IIIIIIIII I IIIIIIIIIInIIIIIIII I «51- .::' _.____2.=:'-‘_ :9“ (I1, III! “I“ IIII [I‘VIII I I I‘ll! III “I' III, I'IIII'IIIII ”III I II ”II; ,III" I III: IIIIVI. II III III IIIIIIIIIE WU ”I; II III. IIIIII “II III II; .I;!. III”. IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIII III I III” I " ”.Iw Ion II .III. I Ian; I IIIIJIIIII I l'IIIII”IIIIIIIIIPII'IIIII' 'IILI III“ I III ' IIIVII “I'M“! '1 WI - [III IIiIII 51' II . I'll II I I'I'III‘ II I II '.- I” . ' II‘IIII‘IIIllllhIII I'J'I . I“ .n [III I" III I .IIII: " I.:.‘.. IIIII In. nnnIIIIIIIIIII ”III ‘In This is to certify that the thesis entitled AN ANALYSIS OF FACTORS AFFECTING STUDENT DECISIONS UNDER THE MINNESOTA-NORTH DAKOTA TUITION RECIPROCITY PROGRAM presented by George Henry Wallman has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. Administration and HigHer Eaucation O/Wéé/Mm degree in Date February 8, 1980 0-7639 OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY PER ITEM Return to book drop to remove this checkout from your record. © Copyright by GEORGE HENRY WALLMAN 1980 AN ANALYSIS OF FACTORS AFFECTING STUDENT DECISIONS UNDER THE MINNESOTA-NORTH DAKOTA TUITION RECIPROCITY PROGRAM BY George Henry Wallman A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1980 ABSTRACT AN ANALYSIS OF FACTORS AFFECTING STUDENT DECISIONS UNDER THE MINNESOTA-NORTH DAKOTA TUITION RECIPROCITY PROGRAM BY George Henry Wallman The Purpose The purpose of this study was to provide insights to why residents of Minnesota and North Dakota use the tuition reciprocity program between the two states. The Procedure A questionnaire called the Tuition Reciprocity Opinion Scale (TROS) was developed by the researcher and sent to a stratified random sample of 1,700 applicants to the Minnesota-North Dakota Tuition Reciprocity Program. An 83.4% response rate was attained. The questionnaire measured respondents' ratings on six areas of influence derived from a factor analysis of 30 questionnaire items. These areas of influence included: (1) academic, (2) reciprocity, (3) environ- mental, (4) practical, (5) advice of others, and (6) large and diverse influences on the college choice process. George Henry Wallman Five research questions, two of which contained hypotheses, were used as a guide for the data analysis. Descriptive analyses were performed without statistical inference for three of the five research questions while the questions containing hypotheses used t-test and ANOVA procedures to test for differences. Elaboration procedures were used where differences were suggested. Research Questions and Findings 1. How do Minnesota residents rate the specified factors which influence college choice? Minnesota resi- dents were found to rate the Academic and Reciprocity influences the highest. These were followed by the Environmental and Practical influences. A small per- centage of respondents rated the Advice of Others and Large and Diverse influences as being of a little influence. 2. How do North Dakota residents rate the spe- cified factors which influence college choice? North Dakota residents rated the Academic and Reciprocity influences the highest followed by the Environmental and Practical influences. A small percentage of respondents rated the Large and Diverse and Advice of Others areas as being of some influence. 3. Are there differences between the state ratin s? It was found that North Dakota residents rated the Large and Diverse and Environmental influences George Henry Wallman significantly higher than Minnesota residents. There were no differences between the other ratings. 4. What institutions would the sampled students have attended without tuition reciprocity? The findings suggest that Moorhead State University, North Dakota State University, and the University of North Dakota would pro- bably end up with fewer students, overall, if tuition reciprocity did not exist, while the University of Minne- sota-Twin Cities would probably gain in students. Ten percent more North Dakota (than Minnesota) respondents would have attended a school in their home state if tuition reciprocity had not existed when they selected their cur- rent school and about 3% more North Dakota respondents would not have gone to college than the Minnesota respondents. 5. Why does a disproportionate number of Minne- sota residents, who live near the Minnesota—North Dakota border, select North Dakota educational institutions when the total populations along both sides of the border are similar? The research design failed to answer this question. A further investigation showed that possibly Minnesota's larger population and the location of several North Dakota institutions along the Minnesota-North Dakota border contribute to this condition. To my parents, Henry and Isabel Wallman ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Perhaps the greatest challenge of this doctoral program was to complete all requirements within the 18- month leave of absence granted by North Dakota State University. To do this turned out to be a much bigger challenge than anticipated; however, its accomplishment was made possible by many people who in big and small ways reached out with friendship, expertise, encouragement, advice, and love. Such a dependence and interaction with people have been a characteristic of my life. Therefore, this will not be a brief list of acknowledgments, nor will it be an easy task as many of the thoughts and feelings from within simply do not maintain their depth and quality when placed on paper. In spite of these limitations, my list begins: To my wife, Joyce, who made the biggest adjustment of all, in living conditions and social environment. Your love, encouragement, and stoicism were monumental. We made it together! To Marc and Bethany, who were so adaptive to their new setting and willing to trust in their parents iii even when inner thoughts would slip out and reveal a lone- liness for friends and home in Fargo. To... Dr. Howard Teitelbaum, who provided a model of dedication to learning, scholarship, and research which will remain with me forever; for a willingness to go that extra step to teach; for patience with an impatient novice. Dr. Walter Johnson for his patience and calm, supportive encouragement and for reminding me when it was time to quit and relax. Dr. Richard Featherstone for reaching out when he sensed it was needed. David Worden, the person at NDSU, who was my mentor and really paved the way for this experience to happen. Don Schwartz, my staunch supporter, giver of advice, encourager, devil's advocate, and dear friend. Linda Bevalacqua for her friendship and unending confidence that I could do it. Clovis Machado Da-Silva for just listening and reminding me of the right way to do things. Bruce Weitzel for his wit and humor which helped keep things in perspective. To the following peOple who know the role they played: iv Ann Winship Dean John Welser Laurel Loftsgard Jack Judy Jane Lillestol Doug and Gail Luikert Ken McClarty George Kuh Ralph Weeks Dr. Lou Stamatokos My Office Staff Ken and Carol Hopper at NDSU Dave Marler Nelvia Brady Ray Burington Sharon Johnson Dick Kasper Evelyn Piche Chuck Bentson Mary and Steve Tonsager Neil Jacobson Sharon and Burton Cardwell Thelma and Elvin Behrens I express a deep appreciation for the friendship and support you extended to me. This was a great experience! TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I. THE PROBLEM. . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . Need for the Study. . . . . . . Lack of Research on Tuition Reciprocity. Purpose of Study . . . . . . . . Research Questions. . . . . . . . Limitations and Sc0pe. . . . . . . Assumptions . . . . . . . . . Definitions of Terms . . . . . . . Overview: The Minnesota Tuition Reciprocity Programs . . . . . Minnesota - Wisconsin . . . . . . Minnesota - North Dakota . . . . . Other Minnesota Programs . . . . . Organization of the Study . . . . . II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . Introduction. . . . . Tuition Reciprocity in the United States Interstate Educational Compacts. . . Compact- -Related Tuition Reciprocity Programs. . . . . . . . Administrative-Agreement Tuition Reciprocity Programs. . . . . . Reciprocity Studies . . . . . . . The New England Board of Higher Edu- cation Evaluation. . . . The Minnesota Higher Education Coordi- nating Board Study . . . . . . vi xiv \DmdmmbNH I—' FJHFA H U1Nu‘3.._ ._. F M 82262:: new $02.00 0 .J-.KI¢EBE& . ’2: 81:) or 1:33.: {—7.5033- fl 3.35 ._ .._ .353: m 23.5» e 5386 a £285 a 5285 p 5223 \ 1 -. .- :3 auto. L of F 832:. — :50! S a) 533:1 «coal. m .4 LP. _ 338 ~_ L - ,1 F- . 53.5. 20233 15:2 305 NM _ ll : ll ‘ l. l ‘ \ w)... M :94»... __ fol Yoda-:2 .H 3..qu l“ is; :00... 893.3. 1.} 4 1 ~ ‘5 .. K W WNW 9’! . a .. .250 W --\ ,, L i‘ r9333 M <5$nu5£1dl M . ._... - W555 :Eoz , a... .5. I l m; 48 The Survey Instrument This section of Chapter III contains a discussion of the procedures used to develop the Tuition Reciprocity Opinion Scale (TROS) which was the instrument used to collect data for the study. In writing about the develop- ment of such survey instruments, Warwick and Lininger (1975) state that: There are two basic goals in questionnaire design: (1) to obtain information relevant to the purposes of the survey and (2) to collect this information with maximal reliability and validity. (p. 127) The survey instrument used in this study is called the Tuition Reciprocity Opinion Scale (TROS). Its develop- ment was assisted by the goals stated above and involved several steps. First, a comprehensive review of literature per- taining to tuition reciprocity studies was conducted. This was followed by a selected review of literature relating to the college choice process. The third step involved an interview with Kate Jeffrey, researcher for the Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board (MHECB). Jeffrey was the researcher who conducted the MHECB study (February 1979) on Minnesota tuition reciprocity partici- pants which was cited in Chapter II. Jeffrey pointed out that the MHECB was unable to pilot-test the survey instru- ment used in their study and as a result it was found that several items were confusing to survey respondents. These items were associated with the scaled section of their 49 survey instrument which attempted to determine why - Minnesota residents selected out-of—state schools (personal interview, St. Paul, Minnesota, March 19, 1979). This information further affected the design of the Tuition Reciprocity Opinion Scale. After these steps had been completed, a questionnaire was developed which contained several items relating to demographic data and 30 items relating to the college choice process. The questionnaire was then pilot tested with regard to clarity of instruction, item construction, content, wording, and length. Assisting in this process were students and faculty members from the Department of Administration and Higher Education at Michigan State University and staff members from the Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board (MHECB) and the North Dakota Board of Higher Education (NDBHE). The questionnaire was then pilot-tested again, this time at North Dakota State University using 25 Minnesota residents who were participants in The Program. Comments from the pilot-test further affected the final design of the TROS survey instrument. Validity of Instrument Moser (1967) points out that: "Whatever approach to attitude scaling one cares to adopt, there always remains the question . . . to what extent the scale is reliable and valid" (p. 242). As a result of the pilot 50 test and the extensive evaluation discussed in the pre- vious section, content validity was claimed for the questionnaire. According to Moser and Kalton (1972), validity is the ability of the survey instrument to measure what it sets out to measure. Content validity means that the questionnaire items contain the common thread of attitude which is under study and, in addition, the full range of attitude is present in a balanced form. Moser and Kalton further point out that: The assessment of content validity is essentially a matter of judgment; the judgment may be made by the surveyor or, better, by a team of judges engaged for the purpose. (p. 356) In this case it was the judgment of the researcher and team of experts cited in the previous section that the TROS would measure those factors necessary to answer the research questions. The questionnaire which emerged from these efforts (see Appendix D for final version) was organized into five parts: items relating to the institution currently attended, general information, items relating to the institution most seriously considered before selecting current institution, alternate plans in the absence of The Program and college choice factors. Items were of various types: open—ended, multiple choice, and scaled. The scaled items relating to college choice factors were considered a major section of the study. A Likert- type scale was employed with a five-point-ordered-metric 51 scale (Coombs, 1953). Participants in The Program were asked to respond to statements according to the instruc- tions set below: Listed below are several statements which may reflect ways you were influenced to select the school you are currently attending. Please read each statement and then circle the appropriate response to the right, from the following choices: does not apply applies but no influence influenced me a little influenced me some influenced me strongly influenced me very strongly U'l-wal-‘O II II II II II II There were 30 college choice items out of a total of 58 items in the questionnaire. Factor Analysis The reliability of the survey instrument was also of concern, especially because the TROS instrument was self-developed. However, before a determination of the reliability of the instrument could be made, it was decided to examine the college choice items (dependent variables of the TROS) to see whether these different items were, in fact, independent of each other or whether they formed relationships that could result in a reduc— tion of the items into factors. Hence, a factor analysis was conducted to obtain the most parsimonious description of the phenomenon under study, which in turn might result in a reduction of the data to be analyzed. Nie et a1. (1975, p. 469) attribute data reduction as the most 52 distinctive characteristic of factor analysis. Dawes (1972) describes this process of factor analysis as a form of index measurement which "provides a spatial rep— resentation of variables whose proximity is assessed by correlation coefficients" (p. 40). The factor analysis involved 617 questionnaires which had been returned by sampled students. The SPSS subprogram, Factor, was used with a varimax rotation and Eigenvalues set at unity. The original factor analysis showed 10 factors with a wide range of factor loadings and Eigenvalues. On the basis of these findings, subjective judgment was used to eliminate items with low loadings and factors with low Eigenvalues in order to reduce data for analysis. As a result five groupings of items were developed into what are called: Areas of Influence. These Areas are: (1) Environmental, (2) Academic, (3) Advice of others, (4) Practical, and (5) Large and diverse. Table 3.1 contains a listing of the five areas of influence which were developed through the factor analysis. Included in this listing are the TROS college choice items which are associated with each area of influence. Collectively, these five areas of influence account for 75.9% of the variance of all college choice items on the TROS. 53 Table 3.1 Areas of Influence from Factor Analysis with Factor Loadings TROS College Factor Area Of Influence Choice Items Loading Environmental 47 Quick Response .33930 49 Friendly .60285 51 Good campus visit .62711 54 Moderate size community .35837 60 Good social climate .66614 61 Attractive campus .78836 Academic 53 Academic program .74875 suited to interests 65 Excellent academic .81037 program Advice of Others 43 Recommended by High .62436 School Teacher 57 Recommended by High .81689 School Counselor 63 Parents Preferred .24656 Practical 39 Chance to live at home .66816 55 Close to family .76820 Large and Diverse 48 More than 10,000 .57082 50 Large and Diverse .60421 56 Large community .43222 Note. N = 617 Eigenvalues set at one. 54 Reliability With the independence of these factors estab- lished the reliability of the TROS instrument could be approached by analyzing each influence from each other. Moser (1967) explains that: A measuring instrument is reliable to the extent that repeat measurements made with it under con- stant conditions will give the same result (assum- ing no change in the basic characteristic5--e.g. attitude--being measured). (p. 242) Wiersema (1975) calls attention to the fact that the concept of reliability is strictly a statistical con- cept and that coefficients of reliability cannot be established through a subjective investigation of the items, but must be done through an administration of the survey instrument with the reliability coefficient being computed from the results. There are several statistical approaches to determining the reliability of a survey instrument. Among them is Cronbach's Alpha which was used in this study. It was selected because it requires only one administration of the instrument. The computer program SSPSS Subprogram Reliability was used to calculate Cron- bach's Alpha for each of the instrument's five-college choice factors. Table 3.2 shows the reliability coef- ficients for each of the five influences. In considering what constitutes an acceptable level of reliability, Wiersema (1975) feels that: 55 The question of high and low reliability and, more appropriately, the minimum reliability that is acceptable does not have a specific answer which covers all tests and situations. The business of high and low is, of course, a relative thing. The question must be answered in the light of existing information and pre- vious results. (p. 171) Table 3.2 Reliability Coefficients of Five Areas of Influence Determined from the Factor Analysis Reliability Area of Influence Items Coefficient n (Cronbach's Alpha) Warm and Friendly 47,49,51,54,60,6l .80 644 Academic 53,65 .76 1,231 Advice of Others 43,57,63 .63 196 Practical 39,55 .68 364 Large and Diverse 48,50,56 .72 141 The reliability coefficients range from a high of .80 to a low of .63. It is called to the reader's attention that while all the factors (or influences) were judged to be adequate, those influences having a relia- bility coefficient below .72 must be viewed as moderately reliable. After examining the factor analysis and reliability results, there was one TROS college choice item which stood out. Item 3 did not associate with any other items in the Factor analysis and had a high mean score. It asked respondents to rate the influence of not having to 56 pay out-of—state tuition on their college choice decision. Since this was closely identified with the major benefit of tuition reciprocity, it was added to the list of influences out of interest. Being added in this arbitrary way and only containing one TROS item precluded the use of the same test for reliability. A Description of the Areas of Influence The following areas of influence were determined by the factor analysis and subjective judgment. They are described by the nature of the college choice items (TROS) which make up the influence. Academic.--This area included two TROS items which related to academic reasons for the college choice decision. Item 27 stated that the institution had an excellent academic program in the student's area of interest. Item 15 reflected that the chosen academic program was well suited to the individual's interests. Environmental.--This influence contained six college choice items which described the college as friendly, moderate in size, attractive, quick to respond to requests for information, and having a good social climate. 57 Practical.--There were three TROS items in this influence. They stated that the currently attended institution provided a chance to live at home or allowed the individual to remain close to family. Advice of Others.--The influence of a high school teacher, counselor, or parent is reflected in this influence. Large and Diverse.--Students responding to this area as an influence were indicating that their college choice was affected by the perception that the school was large and diverse, had more than 10,000 students, and was located in a large community. Reciprocity.--This influence was added after the factor analysis and simply reflects the fact that not having to pay out-of—state tuition was or was not an influence to enroll at a Minnesota or North Dakota insti- tution. It represents a cost influence directly related to tuition reciprocity. Data Collection A mail survey was selected as the best method of data collection primarily because of its relatively low cost for a sample size of 1,700 which was geographi- cally distant from the researcher. Such an approach 58 was also well suited for the use of a rating scale (Warwick & Lininger, 1975) which the college choice factors necessitated. The basic data collection design was directed at assuring an adequate response rate given the various time constraints. It involved: an initial mailing, a post- card reminder, and a follow-up mailing to nonrespondents. This pattern was influenced by research conducted by Vigderhous (1977) which: . . . suggested the longer the time elapsed between mailing the first questionnaire and the reminder, the less effective is the reminder itself (the individual might forget that he received a question- naire or he might lose it. (p. 212) The specific recommendation was that the follow- up should take place between the twelfth and fifteenth days after the initial return is received. This procedure was modified for this study to avoid heavy Christmas mail. Therefore, it was decided to send the follow-up eleven days after the initial return was received. The Vidgerhous (1977) research did not include the use of a postcard reminder; however, Warwick and Lininager (1975) point out that research on the use of postcard reminders is extensive and conclusions are mixed. The decision to use a postcard reminder was influenced by the fact that the mailing addresses used in the survey were home addresses of reciprocity applicants. This would require the forwarding of all mailings for students 59 attending college away from home. It was reasoned that because of this need to forward some mail, a reminder mailed shortly after the initial mailing would serve a useful purpose. Therefore, it was decided that the post- card reminder would be mailed on the fifth day after the initial return to correspond roughly with research results obtained by Vidgerhous (1977) which showed response rates would start to decline on the fourth or fifth day after the initial return(s). All mailings used first—class postage. This was done for several reasons: (1) the only address available was the applicants' home address which required the for- warding of the envelOpe for those living away from home and (2) higher response rates are associated with first- class rather than third-class postage (Warwick & Lininager, 1975), possibly because more importance is placed on the mailing using first-class postage. All printed materials in the survey were typeset professionally using the same type style to give a pro- fessional appearance. The cover letter and questionnaire were printed on 24-pound Hammermill Bond-~Ivory paper and carried the same masthead. Two envelopes were used: a number 10 regular mailing envelope, which would contain the initial and follow-up mailing, plus a number 9 busi- ness reply envelope providing free postage for respondents. Each questionnaire was stamped with an identifying number matched to a printed list of the sampled students in 60 order to conduct a follow-up mailing to nonrespondents. These procedures follow suggestions made by Engelhart (1972) where he states: An attractive-looking questionnaire is much more likely to receive a good response than one that is unappealing. If possible, the questionnaire should be printed; respondents can more easily write legibly on a printed page. When it is more than two or three typewritten pages in length and several hundred copies are required, offset printing is no more expensive than mimeo- graphing. (p. 101) The questionnaire, accompanied by the initial cover letter and business reply envelope, was mailed to the 1,700 sampled applicants to The Program on November 15, 1979. The cover letter was kept as brief as possible and Opened with attention being called to the sponsoring agencies: (1) the MHECB and North Dakota Post-Secondary Education Commission. The first return was received on November 19, 1979. Five days later, on November 23, 1979, a postcard reminder was mailed with the following message: You should have received a packet of materials asking you to participate in a study on tuition reciprocity which is being sponsored by the Minne- sota Higher Education Coordinating Commission and North Dakota Postsecondary Education Commission. This postcard is intended to serve as a reminder that your participation in the study is very important. We look forward to receiving your completed questionnaire if you have not returned it already. During the next two weeks, 900 questionnaires were returned. Respondents' code numbers were recorded and on November 30, 1979, another copy of the questionnaire 61 and letter was mailed to nonrespondents. This mailing ‘ differed slightly in appearance from the initial mailing in that the mailing envelope contained a stamped message stating: "Important--Second Request." Time constraints did not allow for any further follow-up. The survey was stepped on December 18, 1979, at which time 1,418 ques- tionnaires had been received, representing a response rate of 83.4%. Table C.3 in Appendix C shows the number of questionnaires received each day of the survey. Coding_and Keypunching The questionnaire had been designed so most item responses were self-coding except for items 12, l7, l9, and 27. As the questionnaires were received, they were checked for accuracy and the uncoded items were coded. The coding format which was used for items 12, 17, 19, and 27 can be found in Appendix D. If a respondent failed to circle any of the response alternatives, that response was treated as a missing value. Double digit responses were coded with a 99 if a response was missing while single digit responses received a 9 if a response was omitted. Such missing data, therefore, were not included in any of the statistical calculations, although the number of times data were not provided for a given item was recorded. The coded questionnaires were then taken to the keypunching division of the Michigan State University Computer Center for processing. 62 Research Questions and Hypotheses As stated in Chapter I several research questions were formulated to provide a framework for analyzing the data. 1. These questions restated are: How do Minnesota residents who use The Program rate specified factors which influence college choice? (TROS) How do North Dakota residents who use The Program rate specified factors which influence their college choice? Are there significant differences between the findings of Question 1 and 2? What institutions would the sampled students have attended without tuition reciprocity? Why does a disproportionate number of Minnesota residents who live near the Minnesota-North Dakota border select North Dakota postsecondary institutions? (See: Special note at the end of chapter.) In answering Questions 3 and 5, several null hypotheses were formulated to further assist the data analysis. Ho : The null hypotheses for Question 3 are: There is no significant difference between Minnesota and North Dakota residents' ratings on the Academic area of influence. Ho : There is no significant difference between Minnesota and North Dakota residents' ratings on the Reciprocity area of influence. 63 H03: There is no significant difference between Minnesota and North Dakota residents' ratings on the Environ- mental area of influence. H04: There is no significant difference between Minnesota and North Dakota residents' ratings on the Practical area of influence. H05: There is no significant difference between Minnesota and North Dakota residents' ratings on the Advice of Others area of influence. HO6 There is no significant difference between Minnesota and North Dakota residents' ratings on the Large and Diverse area of influence. Question 5 relates to the six strata used in the sample and are answered by using the following hypotheses stated in the null form: H07: There is no significant difference among strata of the study in relation to the ratings on the Academic area of influence. H08: There is no significant difference among strata of the study in relation to the ratings on the Reci- procity area of influence. 64 H09: There is no significant difference among strata of the study in relation to the ratings on the Environ- mental area of influence. H0 10 There is no significant difference among the six strata of the study in relation to the ratings on the: Practical--area of influence. H011: There is no significant difference among the six strata of the study in relation to the ratings on the: Advice of Others--area of influence. H012: There is no significant difference among the six strata of the study in relation to the ratings on the: Large and Diverse--area of influence. Data Analysis The nature of the research questions provides for a variety of ways in which to analyze the data. Some of these approaches are straightforward and descriptive while others are slightly more complex, using tests for significant differences. This section of Chapter III will describe the analysis of data. It is organized so that the description of the data analysis follows the order in which the research questions are presented. 65 Questions 1 and 2, briefly stated, ask how resi- dents of Minnesota and North Dakota rate the six areas of influence derived from the TROS college choice items. These questions will be looked at first. The data will be organized so that mean scores and standard deviations of the six areas of influence can be contrasted to each other as well as within selected independent variables (Academic interest, current institution, distance from home, age, cost of alternate college, class standing, and commuter status). This organization will enable the researcher to investigate the mean scores of the six influences broken down by the different levels of each independent variable. It will also allow for the formu- lation of tentative conclusions about the degree of variability (or consistency) among the students accord- ing to the six areas of influence. These comparisons will be displayed in tabular form. Research Question 3 asks if there are differences between Minnesota and North Dakota residents' mean scores on the six areas of influence. The data analysis for Question 3 will be guided by the six null hypotheses stated earlier. These null hypotheses were formulated to allow for tests of significant differences. Six t-tests will be conducted to see if the states differ on their ratings of the six areas of influence. Since the use of multiple t-tests compounds 66 the overall significance level, the reader is referred to the Sigpificance Level section of this chapter for an explanation of how this will be treated. When the results of the t-tests suggest that differences exist, a process of elaboration will be used in an attempt to see if selected independent variables can explain these differences. A two-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be used in these elaboration pro- cedures. Where interaction is present, the cells will be examined for ordinality of effect. The initial analysis design using the t-tests can be viewed by the following figure. States MN ND XI xl Figure 3.2. Tableau for Analyzing Questions 1 and 2 Where: Xi = Mean score on various areas of influence. The fourth question asks the respondents to indi— cate the institution they would have attended in the absence of tuition reciprocity. This will be analyzed by the use of tables of frequencies and percentages showing these institutions. 67 The fifth question of the study asks why a dis— proportionate number of Minnesota residents select North Dakota postsecondary educational institutions (see special note this chapter). The sample strata will be used to see if there are any significant differences between stratum 3 and 4 as to how students rate the six areas of influence. As in Question 3, six t-tests will be used to see if differences exist. The analysis design can be described by Figure 3.3: Independent Variable Strata MN ND Dependent Variable (College Choice Factors) XI XI Figure 3.3. Tableau for Analyzing Question 3 Where: Xi = Mean score on various areas of influence Rationale for Parametric Techniques The use of a t-test and ANOVA are considered parametric statistical techniques. Wiersema (1975) states: . . . underlying the use of these techniques are what are called the parametric assumptions, basi- cally conditions put on the data and the population distributions from which the sample of data is selected. (p. 225) 68 There are four of these assumptions as explained by Wiersema (1975). The first calls for the data to be independent so a score for one of the TROS college choice items should in no way influence the score on another item. In addition a normal population distribution is assumed as one of the parametric assumptions. A third assumption calls for a homogeneous variance of the populations (where two or more are involved). The fourth assumption calls for the use of an interval level of measurement for the scaling of the data being measured. In relation to these four assumptions the researcher draws the following conclusions: 1. The TROS dependent variables were formed by a varimax factor analysis and thus can be treated as independent of each other. 2. The population distribution is presumed to be normally distributed as no other information exists to the contrary. 3. The population variances while not tested are presumed to be equal. This leaves the fourth assumption relating to the need for an interval level of measurement. 69 To some social scientists the Likert-type scale used in the TROS would be viewed as having a less than interval level of measurement (Coombs, 1953), probably falling into the ordinal category, necessitating the use of nonparametric statistics. Such a conclusion is viewed by Abelson and Tukey (1970, pp. 407-417) as un- necessarily limiting. It is their feeling that many times what appears to be ordinal data is, in fact, more than ordinal data, falling into what Coombs (1953) describes as an ordered-metric level of measurement. Under this circumstance, Abelson and Tukey (1970) feel it is justified to use parametric techniques. Another way of stating this is to say that the assumptions associated with the use of parametric tech- niques remain robust when used with ordered-metric data; and, thus, the assumptions are reasonably met, justify- ing the use of analysis of variance procedures. Significance Levels According to Wiersema (1975), the significance level for determining the rejection or nonrejection of null hypotheses is an arbitrary decision which is directly dependent on the amount of risk the researcher is willing to take in making an error. That is to say, the consequences of being wrong in accepting or reject- ing a research hypothesis must be taken into account in determining the error. Traditionally, educational 70 research has been done at the .05 level of significance, ' meaning that the chances are 5 in 100 that an extreme test statistic (suggesting a rejection) would occur by chance alone if the hypothesis of no difference is true. Occasionally, the .01 level is set. It was the researcher's decision to set the significance level at the .10 level. This suggests that an incorrect decision about the groups differing from each other could be made about 10% of the time. In other words, it was recognized that a .10 level compared to a .05 level would increase the chances of accepting a hypothe- sis when in fact it should be rejected. This decision was made for the following reasons: (1) the Minnesota- North Dakota Tuition Reciprocity Program, while involving hundreds of thousands of dollars, was not judged to be in jeOpardy as a result of the findings of this study; and (2) survey research, particularly descriptive research, is not viewed as a precise social science investigative technique. Given this imprecision, it was deemed more important to detect significant differences than to be absolutely sure a type II error was not being committed. However, because a series of multiple t-tests are being used the alpha level for the overall experimentwise effect is being compounded. To control for this, a variation of the Bonferroni procedure will be used, and each comparison will be tested at the .10/6 = .02 71 level. This will insure that the overall alpha will be no greater than the .10 level. This adjustment thus allows the error rate associated with the overall alpha level to be a result of the function of the number of comparisons which are made, which in this situation are six. Therefore, a .02 level of significance will be used to make decisions on individual t-tests (Kirk, 1968). When differences are suggested, a process of elaboration will be used to search for explanations. This will be done, in most cases, using a two-way analy- sis of variance with a .10 level of significance. Data Processing The data analysis was aided by the use of the Michigan State University CDC 750 computer and the Sta— tistical Package of the Social Sciences (SPSS, Nie et al., 1975). Data for Questions 1, 2, and 4 were analyzed using the SPSS subprograms: Frequencies, Crosstabs, and Egggkf dpwp. Questions 3 and 5 were analyzed with the use of SPSS subprograms: t-test and ANQVA. Also a factor analysis and reliability test were done using the SPSS subprograms: Factor and Reliability. The factor analysis involved a principle factoring with iteration, a varimax rotation, and the allowance of .25 missing values. The factor analysis was done on the 30 dependent variables which made up the College Choice section of the survey instrument. 72 Special Note: Research Question 5 The fifth research question of this study refers to a disproportionate number of Minnesota residents using The Program. This section of Chapter III is intended to clarify and define what is meant by the use of the term "disproportionate number." The MHECB study (February 1979) called attention to the fact that more Minnesota residents were using tuition reciprocity benefits than were residents of North Dakota or Wisconsin. In discussing this situation as it relates to North Dakota, the MHECB study stated: Minnesota sends roughly twice as many students each year to schools in Wisconsin and North Dakota as it receives from these states. (p. 45) Along the North Dakota state line differences in population density are small and thus unlikely to be a factor in student migration patterns. According to 1976 estimates, 293,100 Minnesotans lived in the 16 counties in the two state planning regions bordering on North Dakota.1 On a roughly comparable area covering the 14 North Dakota counties closest to the Minnesota-North Dakota border were 266,300 North Dakotans.2 (p. 46) This speculates that the larger number of Minne- sota residents attending North Dakota institutions is not a matter of Minnesota having a larger population than North Dakota. Therefore, the difference is considered disproportionate to the populations of the cited geo- graphic regions. Subsequently, in an attempt to answer why a dis- proportionately higher number of Minnesota residents (who live near the North Dakota border) attend North 73 Dakota institutions, two of the sample study's six strata will be used. Strata 3 and 4 closely resemble the geo- graphic regions cited in the MHECB (February 1979) study. Hence, they will be investigated to see if there are dif— ferences between the two using mean scores on the six areas of influence which affect college choice decisions. Possibly, these comparisons will assist in answering the research question. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Introduction This chapter contains a presentation and analysis of the data gathered when fall 1979 applicants to the Minnesota-North Dakota tuition reciprocity program (The Program) were surveyed regarding specified factors which influenced them to enroll at an educational institution in the other state. The major findings are presented in statistical, descriptive, and tabular form. Review of Procedures Questionnaires were sent to 1,700 residents of Minnesota and North Dakota who had submitted applications to The Program for the fall term of 1979. The initial mailing took place on November 15, 1979, and was followed by a postcard reminder and a follow-up mailing to nonrespondents. The survey was completed on December 18, 1979, and resulted in 1,418 responses. Thus, 83.4% of the total number of students surveyed returned questionnaires. A total of 1,291 74 75 questionnaires were determined to represent the target population and were considered usable for data analysis. The questionnaire contained 30 items that were representative of influences affecting college choice decisions. A Likert-type scale was used and the instructions asked each respondent to circle the appropriate response from the following choices: does not apply applies but no influence influenced me a little influenced me some influenced me strongly influenced me very strongly Uiwal—‘O II II II II II II The zero was treated as a missing value and sub- sequently omitted from calculations. These 30 items were subsequently factor analyzed in order to reduce data for analysis. The factor analysis aided in the development of five areas that were judged to be important in the college choice decisions of the survey respondents. After careful examination of the factors and college choice items on the Tuition Reci- procity Opinion Scale (TROS), a sixth item (reciprocity influence) was added. The six areas of influence and the TROS items which related to each of these categories are as follows (see Appendix D for a sample of the question- naire): 1. Academic Items included: 53, 65 76 2. Reciprocity Items included: 41 3. Environmental Items included: 47, 49, 51, 54, 60, 61 4. Practical Items included: 39, 55 5. Advice of Others Items included: 43, 57, 63 6. Large and Diverse Items included: 48, 50, 56 The Environmental, Advice of Others, and Large and Diverse areas were adjusted to allow for calculations of statistics if one-third of the items making up that influence were missing. In other words, if two items were missing from the Environmental influence, calcu- lations were carried out for the remaining four items. If more than two items were missing, the entire area of influence (Environmental, in this example) was declared missing. The college choice items of the TROS and subse- quent areas of influence represent the instrument's dependent variables. In addition, there were numerous independent variables which were judged to have a poten- tial effect on the way dependent variables would be rated. The five areas of influence which were developed with the help of the factor analysis were tested for reliability using the SPSS subprogram: Reliability. It was decided that the reliability of these areas ranged from moderate to high. 77 The sixth area (Reciprocity) was added outside the factor analysis and was not tested for reliability because it contained only one college choice item. An awareness of these procedures is helpful when interpret- ing the results of this study. The data were analyzed using several SPSS sub- programs producing a variety of descriptive statistics. In addition, the research questions containing hypotheses and subsequent tests for statistical differences between means were analyzed using SPSS subprograms: t-test and ANQXA. When overall statistical differences were sug- gested, they were investigated in an attempt to determine where these differences occurred. Survey_Resu1ts The target population of this study was all Minnesota and North Dakota residents using The Program. These individuals were included in the data tape of Program applicants obtained from the MHECB. In addition this tape also contained some applicants who applied for tuition reciprocity but did not use it. These non— users were not included in the data analysis. There were 127 respondents who indicated that they had applied for tuition reciprocity but decided not to use it. This left 1,291 usable questionnaires for data analysis. The remaining respondents were compared to the individuals on the MHECB data tape to see if, in fact, the survey 78 respondents were representative of the total group from which the sample was drawn. Table 4.1 presents a comparison of the distribu- tion of survey respondents and applicants to The Program by state. As can be seen, there is a close fit between these two groups. Table 4.1 Composition of State Residency for Total Group of Appli- cants to the Program and Survey Respondents Applicants to The Program Survey Respondents State f % f % Minnesota 4,298 58.4 784 60.7 North Dakota 3,056 41.6 507 39.3 Approximations of the six strata were developed and compared between survey respondents and the actual mailing sample. Table 4.2 contains a comparison of survey respondents to survey sample by strata. Some variation is present as strata one was over-represented. It is difficult to speculate as to the reasons for this since the comparisons are based on approximations of county affiliation. The differences were judged to not be of major concern as adequate cell size seemed to be present. The other strata appeared to closely follow 79 Table 4.2 Approximation of Frequencies for Survey Respondents and Survey Sample by Sample Strata Respondents Sample Stratum Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Stratum 1a 211 16.3 181 10.6 Stratum 2 54 4.2 57 3.3 Stratum 3 222 17.2 435 25.6 Stratum 4b 275 21.3 357 21.0 Stratum 5 147 11.4 212 12.5 Stratum 6 371 28.7 458 27.9 Missing 11 .9 Total 1,291 100 1,700 100 Note. See Figure 3.1 for Map of Strata. The reason for the discrepancy between respondents and sample frequencies for stratum 1 is that the sample data used an actually reported county residence while the TROS ques- tionnaire used location of high school by country. aStrata 1, 2, and 3 are in North Dakota. bStrata 4, 5, and 6 are in Minnesota. 80 the proportions found in the mailing sample which in turn was proportional to the entire group of applicant of The Program. A further investigation was done to see if insti- tutional affiliation of the survey respondents was similar to that of the entire group of applicants to The Program. Table 4.3 presents this information and shows that once again the survey respondents closely resemble the total group of students from which the sample was drawn. On the basis of these observations, it was decided that the survey respondents were, in fact, representative of the applicants on the MHECB data tape and that the response rate of 83.4% was excellent in minimizing bias from nonrespondents. The reader's attention is called, once again, to Table 4.3 where it is noted that there are only a few postsecondary educational institutions in each state which are predominant recipients of tuition reciprocity students. In Minnesota, Moorhead State University (MSU) is the principle institution receiving North Dakota stu- dents while North Dakota State University (NDSU) and the University of North Dakota (UND) are in a similar position in North Dakota. MSU accounts for 80% of North Dakota's participants in The Program. NDSU and UND, in turn, account for 87.3% of Minnesota's participants. Table 4.4 shows that along with the popularity of a few educational institutions, there is a propensity 81 Table 4.3 Composition of the MHECB Data Tape and Survey Respondents by Institution Data Tape ND Respondents MN Institutions f % f % Bemidji 46 1.5 8 1.6 Mankato 25 .8 6 1.2 Moorhead 2,477 81.1 398 80.0 St. Cloud 41 1.3 9 1.8 Southwest 3 .1 1 .2 Winona 9 .3 1 .2 UM-Crookston 123 4.0 24 4.8 UM-Duluth 12 .4 3 .6 UM-Morris 12 .4 1 .2 UM-Twin Cities 274 9.0 42 8.4 UM-Waseca 2 .1 2 .4 MN Community College 32 1.0 3 .6 Total 3,056 100 498 100 ND Institutions MN Respondents Dickinson 13 .3 1 .1 Mayville 90 2.1 13 1.7 Minot 11 .3 2 .3 NDSSS 434 10.1 75 9.7 NDSU-B 9 .2 1 .1 NDSU 1,953 45.4 358 46.1 UND 1,763 41.0 320 41.2 Valley City 25 .6 6 .8 Total 4,298 100 776 100 82 Table 4.4 Frequencies of Survey Respondents' Academic Interest at Current School by State Academic Interest MN Residentsa ND Residentsb fc %d f % Agriculture 45 5.7 6 1.2 Architecture 30 3.8 1 .2 Business 103 13.1 157 31.0 Computer Science & Mathematics 15 1.9 13 2.6 Education 52 6.6 96 19.0 Engineering 128 16.4 7 1.4 Health Related 99 12.6 31 6.1 Humanities and Social Science 25 3.2 22 4.3 Home Economics 55 7 0 2 .4 Journalism 7 .9 13 2.6 Pharmacy 37 4 7 1 .2 Science Related 29 3.7 14 2.8 Social Work 6 .8 26 5.1 Trade or Technical 35 4.5 5 1.0 Undecided 31 4.0 23 4.5 Other 87 11.1 89 17.6 an = 784 bN = 506 c = Frequency d = Percentage 83 toward a relatively small number of academic programs. Business and Education attract North Dakota residents to Minnesota while Agriculture, Business, Engineering, Home Economics, and Health-related fields draw Minnesota stu- dents to North Dakota. Several academic programs at the predominant postsecondary educational institutions in each state appear to be the major attraction for students from the other state. Table 4.5 contains a comparison of academic interests by selected institutions. It can be seen that several academic programs are associated with the insti- tutions which draw the most tuition reciprocity partici- pants. These insights about the distribution of students at institutions and in academic programs provide a back- ground to better understand the data analysis associated with the research questions. Additional demographic data about the survey respondents can be found in Appendix C. Summary of Findings: Survey Results This section contained introductory information about several overall characteristics of the survey results. It showed that Moorhead State University was the major recipient of North Dakota students under The Program. North Dakota State University and the University of North Dakota were shown to be the major North Dakota institutions attracting Minnesota residents. Associated 84 Table 4.5 Frequencies and Percentages of Predominant Academic Interests by Selected Current Institutions Academic Interest Institution f % Moorhead State University Business Education Social Work Health Related Total Enrolled 130 33.0 92 23.1 24 6.0 20 5.0 398 University of Minnesota-Twin Cities Business Health Total Enrolled 16.7 16.7 \lxl 42 North Dakota State University Agriculture Architecture Engineering Home Economics Pharmacy Health Related Total Enrolled 43 12.0 24 6.7 82 23.0 51 14.2 36 10.0 24 6.7 358 University of North Dakota Business Education Engineering Health Othera Total Enrolled 68 21.2 32 10.0 42 13.1 61 19.1 65 20.3 320 20.3 aAn inspection of this category showed a prepon- derance of students who listed aviation which was not included in the list of academic interests. 85 with the institutions in each state were several academic programs which appeared to be closely identified with the institution's appeal to students from the other state. The survey respondents were also shown to resemble the total group of applicants to the Minnesota-North Dakota Tuition Reciprocity Program from which the sample was drawn. The Research Questions The research questions were previously presented in Chapters I and III. Each question will be restated along with its hypothesis, when appropriate. A summary of findings will appear at the end of this chapter. The nature of this study allows for a wide range of investigation into the independent variables of the survey instrument. Therefore, the analysis is restricted to the reporting of major findings. As a guideline for Questions 1 and 2, observations will be made of selected independent variables, highlighting differences between means which are approximately equal to or greater than .5 (five-tenths). In addition, discernible trends within the various levels of the independent variables will be reported. Tables showing means, standard deviations, and cell frequencies will be used. Research Question 4 will be answered by the pre- sentation of tables showing frequencies and percentages. 86 Research Questions 3 and 5 contain the null hypo- theses and will be answered in a straightforward manner which follows the order of the hypotheses. Research Question 1 How do Minnesota Residents who use The Program rate the specified factors which influence their college choice? Overall mean scores. Table 4.6 contains the overall mean scores for Minnesota residents on the six areas of influence. It can be observed that the Academic and Reciprocity influences not only have the highest mean scores but also are rated as a valid influence by the largest number of respondents. The Academic influence with a mean score of 4.29 and the Reciprocity influence with a 3.91 indicate that a large number of Minnesota residents place a considerable amount of importance on these two influences. The Practical influence had a mean score of 3.50 with 25% of the Minnesota respondents rating it as a valid influence. A larger percentage of respondents indicated that the Environmental influence applied to them in selecting a North Dakota institution. However, this influence while applying to more students was rated lower than the Practical area of influence. The Environ- ment influence received an overall 3.00 mean score. The lowest ratings and fewest number of responses are associated with the Advice of Others and Large and 87 Table 4.6 Overall Mean Scores for Minnesota Resident on the Six Areas of Influence Influence Mean SDa nb Academic 4.29 .87 728 Reciprocity 3.91 1.19 687 Practical 3.50 1.29 193 Environmental 3.00 .83 396 Advice of Others 2.60 .90 139 Large and Diverse 2.01 .85 68 Note. Nd = 784 a = Standard Deviation b = Number of cases in each cell c = Percentage is figured using N d = Total cases usable for Minnesota 88 Diverse areas. The Advice of Others influence received .a mean score of 2.60 with 17.7% of the respondents view- ing it as a valid influence. The Large and Diverse influence had a 2.01 mean score with only 8.7% of the Minnesota respondents seeing it as a valid influence. Analysis of independent variable: Current insti- tution. The mean scores on the dependent variables (areas of influence) for Minnesota residents by current educa- tional institution are presented in Table 4.7 and show that students at the two predominant institutions (NDSU, UND) rate the areas of influence in a similar manner. The only inconsistency is that students at NDSU scored .58 lower on the Large and Diverse influence than did respondents at UND. Analysis of independent variable: Academic interest. Table 4.8 presents the mean scores on the areas of influence for Minnesota residents by academic interest at their current institution. Among individuals in the various academic interests where there were fre- quencies above 20, those in the Humanities and Social Sciences rated the Academic influence the lowest (3.86) while those in Agriculture (4.60) and Pharmacy (4.76) were among the highest. Students who were undecided about their academic interest rated academic influence the lowest of all (3.04). Mean Scores on the Six Areas of Influence for Minnesota Residents at North Dakota Institutions 89 Table 4.7 Area of Influence 1a 2b 3C 4d 5e 6f Institution Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean SD SD SD SD SD SD n n n n n n Dickinson 2.50 4.00 O O 1 l O O 0 0 Mayville 3.83 3.67 3.50 2.75 .99 1.72 .75 .63 12 12 O 8 4 0 Minot 3.50 4.50 2.58 0 .71 .35 1 2 O 2 O 0 NDSSS 4.32 3.71 3.67 3.01 2.67 1.16 .87 1.24 1.14 .75 1.00 .24 67 56 33 4O 13 2 NDSU-B 5.00 4.00 0 0 1 l O 0 0 NDSU 4.35 4.00 3.52 2.92 2.54 1.69 .85 1.11 1.24 .87 .87 .60 339 318 83 182 65 27 UND 4.26 3.88 3.32 3.10 2.62 2.27 .89 1.25 1.40 .80 .94 .93 293 285 72 159 56 39 Valley City 3.50 3.17 4.00 3.00 1.27 1.47 0 .81 6 6 1 4 O 0 Overall 4.30 3.92 3.50 3.00 2.60 2.01 .90 1.20 1.29 .83 .90 .85 460 687 197 396 139 68 Note. See Appendix E for list of acronyms. a = Academic; b = mental; e Advice of Oth Reciprocity; c ers; f Practical; d = Environ— Large and Diverse. Mean Scores on the Six Areas of Influence for Minnesota Residents by Academic Interest 90 Table 4.8 Area of Influence 1a 2b 3C 4d Se 6f Interest Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean SD SD SD SD SD SD n n n n n n Agriculture 4.60 4.20 2.80 3.05 2.41 1.44 .57 1.01 1.15 .76 1.04 .19 44 40 12 29 9 3 Architecture 4.30 3.74 3.50 2.84 2.06 1.67 .74 1.46 1.73 .82 .25 .47 30 27 4 16 6 4 Business 3.92 3.76 3.21 3.21 2.44 2.20 1.00 1.34 1.35 .84 .89 .85 91 83 29 48 24 10 Computer Science/ 4.12 4.64 3.63 2.95 2.44 1.00 Mathematics .71 .63 1.89 .98 .69 0 13 14 4 10 3 1 Education 4.20 3.86 4.18 2.99 3.13 1.80 .74 1.31 1.25 .69 1.04 .79 47 42 17 27 5 7 Engineering 4.31 4.12 2.93 2.88 2.61 1.56 .74 .94 1.23 .80 .83 .55 123 122 27 62 22 9 Health Related 4.55 3.79 3.67 3.06 2.91 1.72 .76 1.28 1.26 .71 .96 .76 97 82 27 52 18 12 Humanities/ 3.86 3.95 3.75 3.06 2.62 3.11 Social Science .91 1.02 .96 .77 .59 .77 21 21 8 14 7 3 Home Economics 4.56 4.03 3.50 3.14 2.38 1.83 .64 1.24 1.37 1.00 1.04 .43 54 51 13 29 7 4 Journalism 3.64 3.29 2.00 2.83 .75 1.60 .70 1.36 7 7 2 3 1 Pharmacy 4.76 4.03 4.25 3.01 2.67 1.67 .46 .97 .52 .78 .93 O 36 36 6 20 12 1 91 Table 4.8 (Continued) Area of Influence 1a 2b 3C 4d Se 6f Interest Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean SD SD SD SD SD SD n n n n n n Science Related 4.06 3.74 4.20 3.00 3.11 1.00 1.23 .76 .83 1.34 26 27 5 9 O 3 Social Work 3.70 3.17 2.33 2.00 2.33 1.10 1.47 .60 0 O 5 6 O 3 1 1 Trade or Technical 4.51 3.84 3.93 2.92 2.67 1.33 .69 1.14 1.08 .69 .86 0 33 25 15 16 4 1 Undecided 3.04 3.59 3.50 3.20 2.17 3.33 1.24 1.28 1.00 .82 1.00 0 23 27 6 18 4 2 Other 4.46 3.88 3.64 2.80 2.77 2.48 .97 1.25 1.39 1.03 1.04 .86 78 77 18 4O 17 7 Overall 4.30 3.91 3.50 3.00 2.60 2.01 .88 1.19 1.29 .83 .90 .85 728 687 193 396 139 68 a = Academic; b = Reciprocity; c = Practical; d = Environ- mental; f = Advice of Others; 9 = Large and Diverse. 92 The Practical area of influence presents several anomalies. Using 20 or more cell frequencies as a guide- line, Engineering students rated this influence the lowest (2.93) of any academic interest. Those in Health-related programs scored a mean of 3.67 which was the highest for those interests having 20 or more frequencies in the cell. However, relatively few respondents in the academic interests viewed the Practical influence as applicable in affecting their choice of a North Dakota institution. Analysis of independent variable: Distance cur- rent school is from home. When survey respondent's ratings on the six areas of influence are examined by the distance their current institution is from home, several findings are evident. Table 4.9 contains these findings and it can be seen that distance affects the ratings on the Academic and Practical influences. As distance increases the mean scores on the Academic influence increase while an increase of distance decreases the Practical influence. Of course, the opposite could be said: That as distance from home decreases, academic influences decrease while Practical considerations rise. Analysis of independent variable: Commuter status. This variable is similar to distance from home as distance plays a role in the feasibility of commuting. Table 4.10 shows the mean scores for Minnesota commuters 93 Table 4.9 Mean Scores on the Six Areas of Influence for MN Residents by Distance Current School is From Home Influence Less Than 30-50 50-100 Over 30 Miles Miles Miles 100 Miles Academic a Mean (4.29) 4.13 4.06 4.31 4.40 SD (.87) .98 .80 .81 .85 n 158 60 146 ' 364 Reciprocity Mean (3.91) 3.90 3.87 3.87 3.95 SD (1.19) 1.25 1.17 1.23 1.16 n 139 60 130 358 Environmental Mean (3.00) 2.78 3.06 3.02 3.09 SD (.83) .85 .85 .87 .77 n 86 36 90 184 Practical Mean (3.50) 3.83 3.20 3.02 1.94 SD (1.29) 1.09 1.29 1.34 1.16 n 133 22 20 18 Advice of Others Mean (2.59) 2.34 2.55 2.89 2.65 SD (.90) .85 .70 .97 .91 n 42 14 28 55 Large and Diverse Mean (2.00) 1.84 1.93 2.03 2.10 SD (.85) .76 1.01 .95 .81 n 15 5 22 26 a = Numbers in parentheses represent and its Standard Deviation. the overall grand mean 94 Table 4.10 MN Residents' Mean Score on Areas of Influence by Commuter Status Status Influence Commuting Not Commuting Academic a Mean (4.29) 4.12 4.33 SD ( .88) .90 .87 n 117 610 Reciprocity Mean (3.92) 4.01 3.89 SD (1.20) 1.22 1.19 n 102 583 Environmental Mean (3.46) 2.76 3.04 SD ( .83) .94 .80 n 55 340 Practical Mean (3.50) 4.18 2.60 SD (1.28) .95 1.12 n 110 83 Advice of Others Mean (2.59) 2.42 2.64 SD ( .90) .93 .89 n 27 112 Large and Diverse Mean (2.01) 1.63 2.07 SD ( .85) .65 .87 n 10 58 Number of Cases a = Numbers within parentheses represent the overall grand mean and its Standard Deviation. 95 and those not commuting on the six areas of influence. Commuters rate Practical considerations higher than non- commuters while there is a small increase in noncommuters' ratings of Academic considerations. Also, Practical con- siderations stand out for commuters and noncommuters when compared to the Grand Mean. Commuters scored .68 higher than the Grand Mean on Practical considerations while noncommuters rated this influence .9 lower than the Grand Mean. Analysis of independent variable: Class standing. Table 4.11 presents mean scores by class standing. Graduate students stand out on the Practical Influence with a mean score of 4.47 which is almost an entire scale interval above the Grand Mean. They also rate Environ- mental Influences the lowest of all the class levels. However, attention is called to the fact that a small number of graduate students saw these influences as applicable to their college choice decisions. Analysis of independent variable: Consideration of an alternate institution. The mean scores in Table 4.12 reflect respondent ratings to the fact that they did or did not consider an alternate institution before selecting their current school. There is very little variation between cells or in comparison to the Grand Means which indicates that this variable has little effect on how individuals rate the six areas of influence. 96 Table 4.11 Ratings on the Six Areas of Influence for Minnesota Residents by Class Standing Class Standing Influence la 2b 3C 4d Se 6 Academic Mean (4.29)9 4.29 4.26 4.36 4.33 4.21 4.00 SD ( .87) .88 .94 .84 .79 .88 1.01 n 288 174 146 131 28 20 Reciprocity Mean (3.91) 3.77 3.86 3.85 4.32 4.15 3.56 SD (1.19) 1.24 1.25 1.15 .93 1.23 1.46 n 215 167 138 121 27 18 Environmental Mean (3.00) 3.00 3.07 3.00 3.02 2.44 3.06 SD ( .83) .82 .79 .78 .92 .93 .55 n 122 106 81 69 12 6 Practical Mean (3.50) 3.31 3.63 3.31 3.02 4.47 5.00 SD (1.29) 1.24 1.10 1.33 1.38 1.03 O n 58 44 33 34 19 6 Advice of Others Mean (2.60) 2.80 2.42 2.67 2.50 2.00 1.00 SD ( .90) .93 .79 .93 .94 0 O n 45 41 3O 21 1 1 Large and Diverse Mean (2.01) 1.98 2.09 1.96 2.00 1.92 SD ( .85) .83 .99 .83 .69 1.13 'n 24 19 ll 10 4 O a = freshmen; e = graduate student; f b = sophomore; c represent the Grand Mean and its standard deviation. junior; d = senior; other; 9 = numbers within parentheses 97 Table 4.12 Mean Scores on the Six Areas of Influence for MN Residents by Consideration of an Alternate Institution Status Influence Considered an Did Not Consider an Alternate Institution Alternate Institution Academic a Mean (4.29) 4.29 4.39 SD ( .87) .87 .80 n 472 251 Reciprocity Mean (3.91) 4.00 3.75 SD (1.19) 1.16 1.25 n 454 228 Environmental Mean (3.00) 3.06 2.86 SD ( .83) .82 .81 n 268 126 Practical Mean (3.50) 3.29 3.80 SD (1.29) 1.29 1.24 n 114 79 Advice of Others Mean (2.60) 2.55 2.64 SD ( .90) .88 .94 n 90 45 Large and Diverse Mean (2.01) 2.03 1.93 SD ( .85) .81 .98 n 52 16 a = Numbers within parentheses represent the overall grand mean and its Standard Deviation. 98 Independent variable: Cost of alternate insti- tution. The survey instrument asked those respondents who had considered an alternate institution to indicate how the cost of that school compared to the cost of their current institution. Table 4.13 contains the results of this comparison. Respondents who had considered an alternate institution which cost about the same as their current school rated the Practical influence the lowest of all cost categories with a mean score of 3.00 compared to a mean of 3.50 for individuals considering an alternate school which cost less. With the exception of what was pointed out, cost of alternate school did not seem to cause a major impact on the influence ratings. Summary of findings: Research Question 1. Over- all, Minnesota residents appear to be influenced the most by Academic and Reciprocity influences. The Environmental and Practical influences seem to have a moderate effect on their decision to select a North Dakota institution. The Advice of Others and Large and Diverse areas of influence seem to have the smallest influence on only a small percentage of respondents. Students at NDSU and UND seem to place similar importance on the six areas of influence. Specific academic programs affect how the Academic area of influence is rated. Engineering students rated Practical considerations lower than most other academic programs. 99 Table 4.13 Mean Scores on the Six Areas of Influence for MN Residents by Costa of Alternate Institution Cost of Alternate Institutiona Influence 1b 2C 3d 4 Academic Mean (4.29) 4.24 4.39 4.18 4.28 SD ( .87) .95 .76 .92 .87 n 228 61 139 63 Reciprocity Mean (3.91) 4.12 3.98 3.92 3.70 SD (1.19) 1.04 1.22 1.24 1.24 n 233 63 130 57 Environmental Mean (3.00) 3.15 2.89 3.06 2.84 SD ( .83) .81 .74 .85 .90 n 121 39 81 35 Practical Mean (3.50) 3.40 3.50 3.00 3.63 SD (1.29) 1.18 1.40 1.34 1.30 n 54 19 32 15 Advice of Others Mean (2.60) 2.58 2.97 2.36 2.90 SD ( .90) 1.04 .75 .78 .78 n 47 12 28 10 Large and Diverse Mean (2.01) 1.77 2.17 2.21 1.67 SD ( .85) .77 .83 .85 .69 n 16 8 23 6 a = Cost compared to current institution; b = Cost is more; c = Cost is less; = Cost is about the same; e Numbers within parentheses represent the overall grand mean and its Standard Deviation. NOt sure; 100 The distance an individual's current school is from home affects ratings on both Academic and Practical considerations. An increase in distance increases the rating on the Academic influence while it decreases Practical considerations. The commuting status of respondents affects the scale ratings in a similar manner. The consideration of an alternate institution before selecting the current school appears to have little influence in how the areas of influence are per- ceived. Research Question 2 How do North Dakota Residents who use The Program rate specified factors which influence their col- lege choice? Table 4.14 presents the overall mean scores for North Dakota residents. The highest mean scores and largest number of respondents are associated with the Academic and Reciprocity areas of influence. The Academic influence received a mean score of 4.26 with 91.3% of all North Dakota respondents indicating that it applied to them as an influence in selecting their current Minnesota institution. The Reciprocity area received a 4.04 mean score and 85% of the respondents rated it as a valid influence. These results indicate that, like their Minnesota counterparts, North Dakota respondents place 101 a considerable amount of importance on academic and financial considerations in selecting a Minnesota institution. Table 4.14 Overall Mean Scores for ND Residents on the Six Areas of Influence Influence Mean SD n %a Academic 4.26 .91 463 91.3 Reciprocity 4.04 1.14 431 85.0 Practical 3.78 1.29 159 31.4 Environmental 3.30 .81 228 45.0 Large and Diverse 2.79 1.13 70 14.0 Advice of Others 2.48 .95 48 9.5 Note. N = 507 a% = percentage of cell frequencies based on N. The Practical and Environmental influences were seen by a considerably smaller number of individuals as being a valid influence. Among North Dakota respondents 31.4% rated the Practical influence at an overall mean score of 3.78. The Environmental influence was rated by 45% of the respondents but received a lower rating with a 3.30 overall mean score. Like Minnesota respondents the lowest mean scores and fewest number of ratings are associated with the Advice of Others and Large and Diverse areas of influence. Fourteen percent of North Dakota's respondents indicated that the Large and Diverse area was a valid influence, 102 and its overall rating was a 2.79 mean score. The Advice of Others influence received a 2.48 mean score with 9.5% of the respondents feeling that it applied to them as an influence. While there was a similar order in how the two states viewed the six areas of influence, the degree to which the areas were seen to influence individuals varied; and Research Question 3 will address the question of whether these differences are statistically significant. Analysis of independent variable: Current institution. Moorhead State University (MSU) is the principle recipient of North Dakota students. Therefore, it is difficult to make comparisons between MSU and other Minnesota institutions because the cell frequencies are so small. The University of Minnesota--Twin Cities and its Crookston branch do contain at least 20 cell fre- quencies in the Academic and Reciprocity influences as can be seen in Table 4.15 which contains ratings on the six influences by institution. A comparison of these institutions on the influ- ences just mentioned reveals that there is little vari- ation between the means. In other words, students attending MSU, UM-Twin Cities, and UM-Crookston place similar importance on academic considerations and reci- procity benefits in selecting these institutions. Mean Scores on the Six Areas of Influence for North Dakota 103 Table 4 . 15 Residents at Minnesota Institutions Area of Influence 1a 2b 3 46 Se 6f t't t' Ins l u ion Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean SD SD SD SD SD SD n n n n n n Acad Rec Pract Envir AdVic L & D Bemidji 4.21 3.86 3.67 .86 1.34 .82 7 7 0 6 0 O Mankato 4.00 3.17 1.00 3.50 .89 1.33 O .23 6 6 l 2 0 O Moorhead 4.29 4.03 3.87 3.26 2.31 2.35 .90 1.18 1.22 .82 .96 1.04 364 332 143 181 35 23 St. Cloud 4.00 4.50 3.27 1.00 .53 .19 2.00 8 8 O 5 O 4 Southwest 3.50 4.00 1.00 3.00 0 O O O 1 l 1 l O O Winona 4.50 4.00 O O 1 1 0 0 O UM—Crookston 4.30 4.00 3.30 3.57 3.00 .88 1.26 .97 .72 1.12 23 20 5 18 4 O UM-Duluth 4.33 4.33 2.83 .58 .58 .94 3 3 O 2 O O UM-Morris 5.00 5.00 4.67 O O O 1 1 0 1 O 0 UM-Twin Cities 4.22 4.28 3.60 2.94 2.93 3.12 .88 1.13 1.63 .67 .92 1.14 38 40 5 3 5 38 104 Table 4.15 (Continued) Area of Influence 1a 2b 3c 4d 5e 6f Institution Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean SD SD SD SD SD SD n n n n n n Acad Rec Pract Envir Advic L & UM-Waseca 3.50 4.00 1.00 O 0 0 1 1 O l O 0 MN Community 4.00 4.00 3.75 College 1.41 1.00 .35 2 3 O 2 O 0 Overall a = Academic; b = Reciprocity; c - Practical; d = Environ- mental; e Advice of Others; f = Large and Diverse. 105 Analysis of independent variable: Academic interest. Table 4.16 shows how the six areas of influence are rated according to the student's academic interest at their current institution. Those academic areas contain- ing at least 20 cell frequencies were examined. On this basis, it is difficult to identify any anomalies of the ratings with the exception of students in Education rating practical considerations .51 higher than students with an interest in Business. Analysis of independent variable: Distance from h9g3. The survey instrument recorded the distance the respondent's current institution was from home. Table 4.17 contains mean scores on the six areas of influence accord- ing to distance from home. It is noted that students attending a Minnesota institution which is more than 51 miles from home rate practical considerations lower than students whose home is closer than 50 miles to the school they are currently attending. North Dakota residents are also affected by distance when rating the Advice of Others influence. As distance increases the rating on this influence also increases; however, caution is advised on this interpretation as a result of small cell frequencies. Independent variable: Commuter status. Table 4.18 contains the results of comparing commuter status on the ratings of perceived importance of the specified areas of influence. This independent variable is similar to 106 Table 4.16 Mean Scores on the Six Areas of Influence for North Dakota Residents by Academic Interests Area of Influence 1a 2]D 3C 4d 58 6f Interest Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean SD SD SD SD SD SD n n n n n n Ac Rec Prac En Ad L & D Agriculture 3.90 3.67 3.50 3.71 2.67 1.39 1.50 .70 1.06 0 5 6 2 4 O 1 Architecture 5.00 3.0 0 O 1 l O O O 0 Business 4.26 3.97 3.66 3.20 2.47 2.82 .87 1.17 1.21 .78 .88 1.19 150 133 59 7O 22 17 Computer Science 3.95 4.17 2.17 4.00 3.00 2.83 Mathematics 1.23 1.19 2.02 .78 O .70 10 12 3 4 l 2 Education 4.39 3.95 4.17 3.35 2.83 2.83 .85 1.18 1.20 .85 1.42 1.47 95 85 26 48 6 4 Engineering 3.60 2.83 1.00 3.41 2.67 3.00 .89 1.67 O .85 1.42 1.47 5 6 1 4 3 2 Health Related 4.40 4.15 4.36 3.07 2.91 .77 1.18 1.12 .83 1.30 24 20 11 11 O 7 Humanities/Social 4.00 4.00 3.78 3.00 2.00 2.52 Science 1.03 1.29 1.34 .65 O 1.03 21 19 9 7 1 7 Home Economics 4.25 5.00 4.00 4.83 .35 O O .23 2 l O O l 2 Journalism 4.15 4.10 3.50 2.88 2.88 4.16 1.04 1.29 .70 .69 .47 1.17 13 10 2 6 2 2 Table 4.16 (Continued) 107 Area of Influence 1a 2b 3c 4d 5e 6f Interest Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean SD SD SD SD SD SD n n n n n n Ac Rec Prac En Ad L & D Pharmacy 4.00 5.00 3.33 3.67 3.67 O 0 O O 0 l l 0 l 1 1 Science Related 3.96 4.30 3.62 3.52 2.16 2.00 .58 .94 1.10 .51 1.17 .33 12 10 4 10 2 3 Social Work 4.50 4.18 4.35 3.56 1.58 2.58 .73 1.18 .81 .81 .57 .73 25 22 10 16 4 4 Trade or Technical 3.75 4.25 5.00 2.61 1.04 .95 O .53 4 4 1 3 0 0 Undecided 3.26 4.20 3.35 3.10 2.00 2.50 1.32 1.09 1.51 .88 O 1.29 17 21 7 10 l 4 Other 4.45 4.20 3.70 3.38 2.83 2.56 .75 1.12 1.39 .93 1.65 1.06 77 78 23 33 2 13 Overall 4.26 4.04 3.78 3.30 2.79 2.48 .91 1.17 1.29 .81 1.13 .95 463 431 159 228 70 48 a = Academic; b = Reciprocity; c = Practical; d = Environ- mental; e = Advice of Others; = Large and Diverse. 108 Table 4.17 Mean Scores on the Six Areas of Influence for ND Residents by Distance Current School is From Home Distance Influence Less Than 30-50 51-100 Over 30 Miles Miles Miles 100 Miles Academic Mean (4.26) 4.32 4.29 4.19 4.21 SD (4.04) .88 1.02 .98 .88 n (463) 177 29 56 200 Reciprocity Mean (4.04) 4.02 4.13 3.94 4.08 SD (1.17) 1.23 1.35 1.31 1.04 n (431) 164 23 50 193 Environmental Mean (3.30) 3.16 3.30 3.18 3.43 SD (.81) .85 .72 .82 .78 n (228) 78 11 35 103 Practical Mean (3.78) 3.99 3.50 2.25 2.71 SD (1.29) 1.15 1.49 1.44 1.35 n (159) 130 10 6 12 Advice of Others Mean (2.48) 2.05 2.44 2.79 2.85 SD (.95) .77 .96 .96 1.03 n (48) 20 3 8 16 Large and Diverse Mean (2.79) 2.73 2.83 1.80 2.92 SD (1.13) .96 1.65 .61 1.18 n (70) 16 2 5 46 109 Table 4.18 Ratings on the Six Areas of Influence for North Dakota Residents at Minnesota Schools by Commuter Status Status Influence Commuting Not Commuting Academic a Mean (4.1) 4.34 4.22 SD (1.3) .83 .94 n 148 312 Reciprocity Mean (3.4) 3.94 4.08 SD (1.7) 1.24 1.13 n 131 297 Environmental Mean (2.5) 2.98 3.41 SD (1.4) .79 .79 n 58 168 Practical Mean (1.8) 4.12 2.90 SD (1.9) 1.11 1.25 n 115 43 Advice of Others Mean (.81) 1.94 2.65 SD (1.3) .69 .98 n 12 35 Large and Diverse Mean (1.3) 2.41 2.88 SD (1.4) 1.07 1.13 n 13 56 a = Numbers within parentheses represent the overall grand mean and its Standard Deviation; b = Standard Deviation. 110 distance from home as the feasibility of commuting is, no doubt, a function of proximity to the individual's current institution. As was the case with distance from home, noncommuters place less importance on practical consideration than do commuters. Analysis of independent variable: Class standing. Mean scores for the specified influences on college choice are presented according to respondents' class standing in Table 4.19 and two analomies exist. There is a slight difference in the amount of influence practical consid- erations caused between freshmen and sophomore respondents. Sophomore students rated this influence slightly higher than freshmen. It is also noted that North Dakota graduate students placed a very high rating on practical consider- ations with a mean score of 4.93 and a standard deviation of .17 which is very close to the top of the rating scale. However, it should also be noted that only 16 North Dakota graduate students saw practical considerations as influ- ential at all. Analysis of independent variable: Consideration of alternate school. It was thought that perhaps the consideration of an alternate college would have an influence on how students rated the six areas of influence. Table 4.20 presents the mean scores on the areas of influence by the consideration of an alternate school. 111 Table 4.19 Ratings on the Six Areas of Influence for North Dakota Residents by Class Standing Class Standing Influence 1 2 3C 4d Se 6 Academic Mean (4.26)9 4.09 4.31 4.27 4.38 4.28 4.01 50h ( .91) .99 .83 .89 .88 .72 1.09 n 94 92 107 90 42 35 Reciprocity Mean (4.04) 3.98 3.92 3.99 4.15 4.23 4.18 SD (1.17) 1.23 1.21 1.17 1.08 1.23 1.03 n 93 84 103 87 34 27 Environmental Mean (3.30) 3.22 3.45 3.52 3.29 2.76 2.62 SD ( .81) .78 .68 .62 .96 .83 1.56 n 66 55 46 46 7 7 Practical Mean (3.78) 3.39 3.83 3.53 3.56 4.93 4.42 SD (1.29) 1.19 1.17 1.43 1.37 .17 1.07 n 40 24 3O 34 l6 14 Advice of Others Mean (2.48) 2.50 2.60 2.67 2.11 0 SD ( .95) .92 .95 1.11 1.01 n 18 14 6 9 0 0 Large and Diverse Mean (2.79) 2.82 2.43 3.09 2.92 2.83 2.50 SD (1.13) 1.20 1.11 1.12 1.15 1.05 1.23 n 9 14 14 17 8 8 a = freshmen; b = sophomore; c = junior; d = senior; e = graduate student; f represent the Grand Mean and its standard deviation plus the total maximum number of cases for that influence; h other; 9 = numbers within parentheses Standard Deviation. 112 Table 4.20 Ratings on the Six Areas of Influence for ND Residents at MN Institutions by Consideration of Alternate School Status Influence Considered an Did Not Consider an Alternate Institution Alternate Institution Academic Mean (4.26)a 4.23 4.30 sub ( .91)a .90 .90 n 259 202 Reciprocity Mean (4.04) 4.12 3.96 SD (1.17) 1.09 1.25 n 240 189 Environmental Mean (3.30) 3.36 3.19 SD ( .81) .74 .92 n 138 88 Practical Mean (3.78) 3.45 4.14 SD (1.29) 1.35 1.09 n 80 78 Advice of Others Mean (2.48) 2.40 2.64 SD ( .95) 1.01 .85 n 32 15 Large and Diverse Mean (2.79) 2.92 2.65 SD (1.13) 1.16 1.09 n 36 33 a = Numbers within parentheses represent the overall grand mean and its Standard Deviation; b = Standard Deviation. 113 North Dakota residents who did not consider an alternate institution rated the Practical area of influence .69 higher than those students who did consider an alternate college or university. No other anomalies were detected. Analysis of independent variable: Cost of alter- nate school. Table 4.21 shows how the specified influences were rated according to the cost of the respondents' alternate institution which was compared to the cost of her/his current school. Once again, cells with 20 or more frequencies were examined. Respondents who were not sure of the cost comparison between their alternate and current school rated the reciprocity influence .61 lower than those students who indicated their alternate school cost about the same. With this exception, the cost difference between these students' current and alternate institutions had very little effect on how the six areas of influence were perceived as affecting their college choice. Summary of findings: Research Question 2. North Dakota respondents like the Minnesota respondents of this study indicated that the Academic and Reciprocity influ— ences were important considerations in selecting a Minnesota institution. The Environmental and Practical influences were viewed by fewer respondents to being of importance in selecting a postsecondary institution. When these areas were considered valid influences, 114 Table 4.21 Ratings on the Six Areas of Influence for ND Residents at MN Institutions by Cost of Alternate Institution Cost of Alternate Schoola Influence 1b 2c 3d 4e Academic f Mean (4.26) 4.16 4.30 4.29 4.09 509 < .91) .91 .91 .83 1.05 n (463) 71 42 129 31 Reciprocity Mean (4.04) 4.12 3.88 4.28 3.67 SD (1.17) 1.11 1.32 .95 .91 n (431) 71 40 120 21 Environmental Mean (3.30) 3.42 3.53 3.25 3.29 SD ( .81) .83 .66 .75 .59 n (228) 42 22 68 15 Practical Mean (3.78) 3.64 2.50 3.66 3.36 SD (1.29) 1.28 .94 1.45 1.30 n (159) 27 10 38 11 Advice of Others Mean (2.48) 2.23 2.22 2.53 2.33 SD ( .95) 1.15 .83 .94 .60 n (48) 14 3 12 4 Large and Diverse Mean (2.79) 2.87 2.79 2.83 2.33 SD (1.13) .99 1.35 1.29 .0 n (70) 13 8 12 1 a = Compared to cost of current institution; b = Cost is more; c = Cost is less; d = Cost is about the same; e = Not sure; f = Same as others; 9 = Same as others. 115 respondents' overall ratings were moderately strong. The Advice of Others and Large and Diverse areas were seen by the smallest number of students to be valid influences and their overall mean scores were consid— erably lower than the Academic and Reciprocity influences. It was noted that residents of both states saw the six influences in a similar order but that there were vari— ations between state ratings. These variations will be tested under Question 3 to see if they are statistically different. Students attending MSU, UM-Twin Cities, and UM- Crookston seem to be influenced in a similar way by the specified influences. Students living more than 51 miles from home and those who are not commuting rate the Prac- tical area of influence lower than those attending college closer than 50 miles from home and those who are commuting. North Dakota graduate students perceive practical consid- erations as very strong influences on their college choice. Individuals who did not consider an alternate col- lege or university rated the Practical area of influence higher than those students who did consider an alternate school. The difference in cost between alternate and current institution had little affect on five of the six areas of influence. Students who were not sure of the cost difference between current and alternate institutions rated practical considerations higher than those who had 116 considered an alternate institution which cost about the same as their current school. These investigations of how residents of Minnesota and North Dakota rate the six areas of influence provide the framework for the third research question. Research Question 3 Table 4.22 contains a presentation of how each state rated the six areas of influence. While the order of the ratings is similar, there is a variation in how they were rated. Research Question 3 is intended to determine if the differences between means is statisti- cally significant. To assist the data analysis, six hypotheses were presented in the null form (see Chapters I and III). These hypotheses are REFORMULATED here to assist in an orderly and convenient presentation. Hypothesis 1: There will be a significant difference between Minne- sota and North Dakota ratings on the Academic area of influence. Hypothesis 2: There will be a significant difference between Minne- sota and North Dakota ratings on the Reciprocity area of influence. Hypothesis 3: There will be a significant difference between Minne- sota and North Dakota ratings on the Environmental area of influence. 117 Table 4.22 Comparison of Overall Mean Scores for Minnesota and North Dakota on the Six Areas of Influence State Minnesota North Dakota Influence Mean Mean SD SD n n Academic 4.29 4.26 .87 .91 728 463 Reciprocity 3.91 4.04 1.19 1.14 687 431 Practical 3.50 3.78 1.29 1.29 193 159 Environmental 3.00 3.30 .83 .81 396 228 Advice of Others 2.60 2.79 .90 1.13 139 70 Large and Diverse 2.01 2.48 .85 .95 68 48 118 Hypothesis 4: There will be a significant difference between Minne- sota and North Dakota ratings on the Practical area of influence. Hypothesis 5: There will be a significant difference between Minne- sota and North Dakota ratings on the Advice of Others area of influence. Hypothesis 6: There will be a significant difference between Minne— sota and North Dakota ratings on the Large and Diverse area of influence. Presentation of tests of hypotheses. The tests for significant differences between the states involved the use of t-tests and ANOVA procedures. An overall signifi- cance level of .10 was used; however, this had to be adjusted when using multiple t-tests. Therefore, a .02 level of significance was used to make decisions about individual t-tests in order to preserve an overall .10 level. (See Chapter III for explanation.) When the t-test suggested a significant difference, elaboration procedures were used in an attempt to see if the differ- ence could be explained by an independent variable. In these cases, a two-way ANOVA was used. Tests of Hypotheses l, 2, 4, and 5. Hypothesis 1 was formulated to test whether there were statistically significant differences between Minnesota and North Dakota on the Academic area of influence. The data suggested 119 that there is no evidence to support this hypothesis. That is to say, no significant difference was found between the two mean scores (t1189 = .60, p = .551) (see Table 4.23). Similarly, no difference was found for Hypothesis 2 which compared mean scores on the Reciprocity area of influence (t = 1.75, p = .081 (see Table 4.23). 1116 Hypothesis 4 was formulated to test for differences between the states on the Practical area of influence. Once again, no evidence was present to suggest a differ- ence (t = -2.00, p = .046) (see Table 4.23). There- 350 fore, its null hypothesis is tenable. Similarly, no difference was found for Hypothesis 5 which was formulated to see if the mean scores for the two states differed on the Advice of Others influence (t185 = .76, p = .451) (see Table 4.23). Therefore, its null hypothesis is also tenable. Test of Hypothesis 3. Hypothesis 3 was formulated to test whether there was a difference between Minnesota and North Dakota on the Environmental area of influence. Here, the data suggested a difference was present (t622 = -4.30, p = .000) (see Table 4.23). North Dakota respon- dents rated this influence .30 higher than their Minnesota counterparts. Since a difference was found, elaboration pro- cedures were used to provide a better understanding of this phenomenon. This involved the investigation of 120 Table 4.23 t-Tests for Comparisons between States on the Six Areas of Influence Comparison n Mean SD t df Sig. Academic Influence Minnesota 728 4.29 .88 .60 1189 .551 North Dakota 463 4.26 .91 Reciprocity Influence Minnesota 687 3.92 1.20 1.75 1116 .081 North Dakota 431 4.04 1.17 Practical Influence Minnesota 193 3.50 1.29 -2.00 350 .046 North Dakota 159 3.78 1.29 Environmental Influence Minnesota 396 3.00 .83 -4.30 622 .000 North Dakota 228 3.30 .82 Advice of Others Minnesota 139 2.60 .90 .76 185 .451 North Dakota 48 2.48 .95 Large and Diverse Minnesota 68 2.01 .85 -4.55 136 .000 North Dakota 70 2.79 1.13 121 several independent variables to see if they affected the ratings on the Environment area of influence. Table 4.24 contains the results of ANOVA tests for the independent variables: distance from home, commuter status, class standing, degree and cost of alternate school. The results were all the same. Basing decisions on the .10 level of significance, no evidence was found to suggest interaction was present. Therefore, this suggests that these independent variables did not affect the ratings on the Environmental area of influence and that the higher North Dakota mean score could possibly be the result of state residency, alone. Test of Hypothesis 6. Hypothesis 6 was formulated to see if there were differences between the states on the Large and Diverse area of influence. The data suggested that a difference was present (t136 = -4.55, p = .000) (see Table 4.23). North Dakota respondents rated this influence .78 higher than their Minnesota counterparts. Since a difference was present, elaboration pro- cedures were used. It was reasoned that the University of Minnesota was the most likely institution in Minnesota which would be viewed as large and diverse by North Dakota residents. Hence, it was decided to use a one-way analy- sis of variance on selected institutions to see if a better understanding of the phenomenon could be attained. 122 Table 4.24 Elaboration Procedures: ANOVA by State and Other Variables for Environmental Influence State by Distance Source SS df MS F Sig. State 3.89 1 3.89 5.66 .019 Distance 3.86 3 1.29 1.87 .137 Interaction .56 3 .19 .27 .845 Within 114.90 167 .69 Note. N = 175 State by Commuter Status State 4.22 1 4.22 6.21 .014 Commuter Status 2.58 1 2.58 3.80 .053 Interaction .49 l .49 .72 .399 Within 116.26 171 .68 Note. N = 175 State by Class Standing State 4.02 1 4.02 6.03 .015 Class Standing 6.53 5 1.31 1.96 .087 Interaction 4.61 5 .92 1.38 .234 Within 109.29 164 .67 2.06 Note. N = 116 State by Degree State 4.32 1 4.32 6.22 .014 Degree 4.25 5 .85 1.22 .299 Interaction 1.52 4 .38 .55 .702 Within 113.14 163 .69 Note. N = 174 State by Cost of Alternate School State 2.93 1 2.93 4.12 .045 Cost .46 3 .15 .21 .887 Interaction 1.18 3 .39 .55 .648 Within 69.81 98 .62 Note. N = 106 123 Table 4.25 contains data which suggest that differences do exist between the UM-Twin Cities, MSU, NDSU, and UND as to how the Large and Diverse influence is rated (F3,125 = 11.30, p = .000). Post hoc procedures using Scheffé contrasts shows that the UM-Twin Cities differs from NDSU and UND. This suggests that North Dakota resi- dents attending the UM-Twin Cities rate the Large and Diverse influence significantly higher than do Minnesota respondents attending NDSU or UND. Summary of findings: Research Question 3. There were no significant differences found between Minnesota and North Dakota respondents in the way they rated the Academic, Reciprocity, Practical, and Advice of Others influences. A difference was found to be statistically sig- nificant between the states for the Environmental influ— ence. Elaboration procedures suggested this difference is due to the main effects of state residency and, there- fore, it is felt that North Dakota respondents do, in fact, place more importance on a warm, friendly institu— tional environment when selecting a Minnesota postsecon- dary educational institution. The Large and Diverse influence was also found to be rated statistically different between the states with North Dakota residents having a higher mean score. Post hoc procedures seem to suggest that the choice of 124 Table 4.25 Procedures: ANOVA between Selected Institutions for Large and Diverse Influence ANOVA Summary df SS MS F Sig. Between 3 31.85 10.62 11.30 .000 Within 125 117.47 .94 Total 128 147.32 Cell Summary Institution n Mean gziggiign Moorhead 23 2.35 1.04 UM—Twin Cities 38 3.12 1.14 UND 40 2.28 .91 NDSU 28 1.76 .69 Table of Differences between Institutions of Interest for Selected Scheffé Contrasts Strata UM-Twin Cities NDSU UND Moorhead NS NS NS ** ** UM-Twin Cities 1.36 .85 *1: = Significant at .10 level on Scheffé Test NS Not significant at .10 level 125 the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities affects this higher rating. However, it should be noted that the degree of influence is slight and affects very few individuals. Research Question 4 What institutions would the sampled students have attended without tuition reciprocity? TROS item 28 was the major data collection device for this research question. It simply asked respondents what they would have done in the absence of the program. There were four response items to use in answering this question. They were: 1. Would have attended the school listed in Question 20. 2. Would have attended the school I am currently attending. 3. Would not have gone to college. 4. Other Table 4.26 presents the frequencies and percentages obtained for the various responses to this item. In addition, the other category is broken down to reflect more specified answers. The results indicate that a larger percentage of Minnesota residents (38.5) would remain at their current institution than would North Dakota residents (28.9) while a slightly higher percentage of North Dakota residents would attend the alternate institution they listed on the survey questionnaire. 126 Table 4.26 Comparison between States of Plans in the Absence of Tuition Reciprocity Plans Minnesota North Dakota f % f % Attend alternate institution listed on TROS 233 31.7 165 34.7 Remain at current institution 283 38.5 137 28.9 Would not have attended college 67 9.0 57 11.9 Other 153 20.8 117 24.5 Total 736 100 476 100 Breakdown of "Other" Category Would have looked for an unspecified school in my home state 40 5.4 24 5.0 Would have attended a specified school in home state not listed as alternate choice 31 4.2 30 6.3 Other (not sure, not specified) 82 11.1 63 13.2 Note. Percentages of the breakdown of "other" are against total cases for each state. 127 Apparently, The Program was a major reason 9% of Minnesota and nearly 12% of North Dakota residents went on for postsecondary education. These are the per- centages associated with individuals who indicated they would not have gone to college in the absence of The Program. The category "other" broken down reveals that approximately 10% of each state's total respondents would have attended an unspecified institution in their home state or an institution they had not listed on the TROS instrument. The various categories of item 28 were used to derive data which would directly answer research Question 4. Crosstabulations were made between the respondent's current and alternate institution listed in other parts of the TROS, with the way in which item 28 was answered. The results are shown in Table 4.27 which displays the frequencies and percentages of respondents' answers to item 28 by institu- tion. It can be seen that Moorhead State (MSU) would retain (they would either stay at MSU or transfer to MSU in the absence of The Program), 165 students. This repre- sents a total decrease of 289 students from the 398 who are currently enrolled (see Table 4.3 for current enroll- ments). Likewise, NDSU would retain 186 students compared to the 358 currently enrolled. UND would retain 178 stu- dents compared to the 320 respondents currently enrolled. 128 .Aoozom ucmuuoo news» no coeusuwumcfi poeufiuwmm wzu woummm 0:3 mucmccoommu uo umofioc AmuOu on» mucvaHQOL m chaoua .>uw00um«owu :oquqou usozudi vouuwuum coma w>mn pane: m~005um m>63 macauu> muuoaumu aw .mcuoa umcuo cu .>ua00uoaumu uaozuws coon m>mg vase: mcodmuowp .mucmpcoomou awn: no HouOu 55m mzu mucommuouu v :Eaaou I mean Own and n mma 0v oz: mean mam om "N cud me :moz On u me me N mm m mmmoz w u w u u w m can . . mucwpawmm z: deacom mucmuawom z: e mossuou pOAHOLCm m can N a >2 >uom0umu ucmuuso >o pound; macauouaumcu >~ucmuuau mcszaou EOum . cmwzuwm :uwzuo: um acacaoamm docsom ouoxao zuuoz ~mu09 pmcfimo Hayes oucmumuuoo no pmumuo manomemom o2 muncuwuat o m c m N H mucwcsum uo moouoom so + mv oOH ma ma hp moaueu caseuto do a em ma 0 n o :oumx00u0123 mmmc mom moa o nod me vowzuoo: u w u u u u m can . . mucwpemom z: fleecom macmpamom 2: v m:E:~OU mpw-0ucm an pcm ~ ~ >n >uoowumo ucwuuau >o poumao >~ucwuusu mass~ou Sena macauauaumcH cmwzuwm :umcuo: um ocacamem Hoonow omuoe pwcamo amuoe . qumoCCaz oocmumuuwo ca pmumao mucwpammm oz wumcuwu~< . o m v m N A FR‘ mucocoum mo mmouoom “1.- -‘1‘ ”H,“ quhllhlu 'u"hl..t‘9u|'l“llfll”"““llll“10f I - "l '1‘ mcofiuoufiumcH wuoxmo zuuoz pom qumwccez pwuowowm cc >uwoouowowm cowuwob mo wocwmo< 0:» Cu mcofimauwo acmpoum uo muomuum hN.v manMB 129 An anomaly exists and is associated with the UM- Twin Cities which would retain (or receive) 109 students compared to its current enrollment of 42 respondents. However, it should be noted that a large group of respondents were not sure what they would have done with- out tuition reciprocity and, therefore, selected the "other" category. This is yet another source of students for those institutions which were listed and it is not possible to assess what their ultimate decisions would be. Table 4.27, therefore, represents an approximation of how selected institutions might be affected had it been necessary to charge out-of—state tuition. Clearly, MSU, NDSU, and UND benefit from The Program and would possibly lose a considerable number of students in its absence while the UM-Twin Cities would probably increase in students if The Program did not exist. Research Question 5 Why does a disproportionate number of Minnesota residents who live near the Minnesota-North Dakota border select North Dakota postsecondary educational institutions? It should be noted that Chapter III contained an explanation that this disprOportion was defined by the MHECB (February 1979) study using U.S. census and Minne- sota demographic data. The regions where this dispro- portion occurs closely resemble strata 3 and 4 (see 130 Figure 3.1). These strata will be investigated in an attempt to answer this question. To assist in the analysis of data, six hypotheses were presented in Chapters I and III. They are restated and reformulated here to provide a convenient and orderly process of data analysis. Hypothesis 7: There will be a significant difference among the strata on the ratings of the Academic influence. Hypothesis 8: There will be a significant difference among the strata on the ratings of the Reciprocity influence. Hypothesis 9: There will be a difference among the strata on the ratings of the Environmental influence. Hypothesis 10: There will be a difference among the strata on the ratings of the Practical influence. Hypothesis 11: There will be a difference among the strata in the ratings of the Advice of Others influence. Hypothesis 12: There will be a difference among the strata on the ratings of the Large and Diverse influence. 131 Presentation of tests of hypotheses. The tests for differences between strata 3 and 4 involved the use of six t-tests. Since the overall significance level was set at .10, adjustments were made on the individual t-tests to avoid a compounding of the alpha level beyond that which was designated. Therefore, a .02 level of significance was used to make decisions about individual tests (see Chapter III for explanation). When differences were sug- gested, elaboration procedures were used in an attempt to gain a better understanding of the phenomenon. Tests of Hypotheses 7, 8, 10, and 11. Hypothesis 7 was formulated to test whether there was a difference between strata 3 and 4 on the Academic area of influence. Data results indicate that no evidence was present to suggest a difference. That is to say that no difference was found between these two strata (t447 = 1.62, p = .106) (see Table 4.28). Similarly, no difference was found between strata 3 and 4 in testing Hypothesis 8 which was formulated to test for differences on the Reciprocity influence (t411 = .69, p = .490) (see Table 4.28). Hence, the null hypothesis is tenable. Hypothesis 10 was formulated to see if a difference existed between strata 3 and 4 on the Practical area of influence. Once again, no evidence was present to suggest such a difference (t252 = 1.53, p = .128) (see Table 4.28). Table 4.28 132 t—Tests for Comparisons between Strata 3 and 4 on the Six Areas of Influence Comparison n Mean SD t df Sig. Academic Influence Strata 3 (ND) 200 4.32 .87 .62 447 .106 Strata 4 (MN) 249 4.18 .94 Reciprocity Influence Strata 3 (ND) 184 4.01 1.22 .62 411 .490 Strata 4 (MN) 229 3.92 1.23 Practical Influence Strata 3 (ND) 119 3.78 1.17 .53 252 .128 Strata 4 (MN) 135 3.56 1.18 Environmental Influence Strata 3 (ND) 99 3.29 .79 .18 246 .002 Strata 4 (MN) 149 2.95 .85 Advice of Others Strata 3 (ND) 31 2.54 1.08 .32 97 .751 Strata 4 (MN) 68 2.47 .92 Large and Diverse Strata 3 (ND) 28 2.87 1.07 .27 48 .002 Strata 4 (MN) 22 1.94 .90 133 Similarly, no difference was found in testing Hypothesis 11 which was formulated to see if there was a difference between the strata on the Advice of Others influence (t97 = .32, p = .751) (see Table 4.28). Hence, the null hypothesis is tenable. Test of Hypothesis 9. Hypothesis 9 was formulated to see if there were differences between the strata on the Environmental influence. Data results indicated there was evidence to conclude that a difference exists and stratum 3 in North Dakota rates this influence .34 higher than stratum 4 in Minnesota (t246 = 3.18, p = .002) (see Table 4.28). Since a difference was suggested by the t-test, elaboration procedures were used in an attempt toprovide a better understanding of the difference. A two-way analysis of variance was used to test for interactions of the main effect (strata) with the following indepen- dent variable: distance from home, commuter status, class standing, degree, and cost of alternate institution. The results of these tests were the same. No interactions were present suggesting that the higher mean score for stratum 3 was due to something other than those indepen- dent variables tested or that it was the result of the main effect of this stratum (see Table 4.29). 134 Table 4.29 Elaboration Procedures: ANOVA by Strata and Other Variables for Environmental Influence Strata by Distance Source SS df MS F Sig. Strata 7.65 1 7.65 11.32 .001 Distance 1.92 3 .64 .95 .418 Interaction 3.50 3 1.17 1.73 .162 Within 162.18 240 68 Note. N = 248 Strata by Commuter Status Strata 8.86 1 8.86 13.43 .001 Status 6.81 1 6.81 10.32 .001 Interaction .33 l .33 .49 .483 Within 160.39 243 .66 Note. N = 249 Strata by Class Standing Strata 7.03 1 7.03 10.41 .001 Class Standing 5.33 5 1.07 1.58 .166 Interaction 2.94 5 .59 .87 .501 Within 159.33 236 .68 Note. N = 248 Strata by Degree Strata 6.47 1 6.47 9.46 .002 Degree 5.30 5 1.06 1.55 .175 Interaction 1.80 5 .36 .53 .756 Within 159.33 233 .68 Note. N = 245 Strata 5.68 l 5.68 8.46 .004 Cost 3.37 3 1.12 1.68 .175 Interaction .95 3 .32 .47 .702 Within 100.68 150 .67 Note. N = 158 135 Test of Hypothesis 12. This hypothesis was formu- lated to see if a difference existed between strata 3 and 4 on the Large and Diverse area of influence. Data results indicated that a difference was present and that respondents in stratum 3 (ND) rated this influence higher than their Minnesota counterparts (t48 = 3.27, p = .002) (see Table 4.28). It should be noted that North Dakota stratum 3 contained only 28 cases and that elaboration procedures would result in a further reduction of cases. Because of this small cell size, it was decided to not proceed with an investigation of independent variables. It is suspected (without statistical inference) that the dif- ference between the strata could be related to respondents in stratum 3 who are attending the UM-Twin Cities. This speculation is based on evidence from Hypothesis 6 (Research Question 3) which showed that a higher North Dakota rating on this area of influence was possibly associated with respondents who were attending the UM- Twin Cities. Summary of findings: Research Question 5. It was found that respondents in strata 3 and 4 did not differ in rating the Academic, Reciprocity, Practical, and Advice of Others influences. However, a difference was found between these two strata on their rating of the Environmental area of influence. Stratum 3 in North 136 Dakota rated this influence significantly higher than its Minnesota counterpart, and it was felt that this was due to the main effect of stratum and was not affected by several independent variables which were tested. In addition, it was found that stratum 3 in North Dakota rated the Large and Diverse influence sig- nificantly higher than stratum 4 in Minnesota. On the basis of these findings, it is difficult to answer Research Question 5 as no evidence exists to indicate that four of the six areas of influence are affecting more Minnesota residents from stratum 4 to select North Dakota institutions. In fact, the evidence suggests that as far as four of the six areas of influence are concerned, respondents in strata 3 and 4 see things quite similarly. The Large and Diverse and Environmental influences were rated higher by North Dakota residents in stratum 3; however, the disproportion exists in the oppo- site direction with more Minnesota residents in stratum 4 going into North Dakota. Thus, no firm conclusions can be made regarding the findings of Question 5 and it must be concluded that the research design of this question failed to provide adequate data to answer this question, suggesting that an answer lies outside the six areas of influence used in this question. In an attempt to pro- vide some understanding about this question, an additional investigation was made. 137 An additional investigation of Research Question 5. Since the design of this question failed to provide data which suggested answers, it was decided to re-examine the premise used in formulating the question. Chapter III contained a special note which attempted to explain how "a disproportionate number of Minnesota residents . . ." was being defined. A quote was used from the MHECB study (February 1979) which defined the disproportion or imbalance of Minnesota students migrating to North Dakota. This quote was subsequently used to formulate Research Question 5. It stated: Minnesota sends roughly twice as many students each year to schools in Wisconsin and North Dakota as it receives from these states. (p. 45) Along the North Dakota state line differences in population density are small and thus unlikely to be a factor in student migration patterns. According to 1976 estimates, 293,100 Minnesotans lived in the 16 counties in the two state planning regions bordering on North Dakota.1 On a roughly comparable area covering the 14 North Dakota counties closest to the Minnesota-North Dakota border were 266,300 North Dakotans.2 (p. 46) A closer examination of this statement reveals that an assumption is made that the majority of the Minnesota residents attending North Dakota institutions live near the North Dakota border and other geographic regions in Minnesota do not contribute much to the total. A review of Table 4.2 from Chapter IV shows this assump- tion to be incorrect. This table indicates that stratum 5 138 and 6 in Minnesota are, in fact, significant contributors to the total number of Minnesota participants in The Program and that the corresponding strata in North Dakota (1 and 2) produce a much smaller number of North Dakota participants. It is noted that in comparing the states by strata, geographically similar strata are used. That is to say that stratum l in North Dakota corresponds approximately to stratum 6 in Minnesota, as far as dis- tance from the common Minnesota-North Dakota border is concerned. Likewise, strata 2 and 5 can be paired, as well as strata 3 and 4 which touch the common state border (see Figure 3.1 for map). Table 4.30 contains the frequencies of spring 1979 high school graduates and the frequencies of fall 1979 applicants to the Minnesota-North Dakota Tuition Reci- procity Program (The Program) arranged by these geographi- cally similar strata. The results show that Minnesota stratum 6 has many more high school graduates than does stratum 1 in North Dakota. Although not as dramatic, a similar situation exists for stratum 5 in Minnesota com- pared to stratum 2 in North Dakota. An examination of applicants to The Program further supports the idea that, in fact, Minnesota's larger population does have a sig- nificant impact on student migration patterns. It should also be observed that while strata 3 and 4 have a similar number of high school graduates 139 Table 4.30 Comparison of High School Graduates and Applicants to The Program, by Strata High School Freshmen Applicants Graduates to The Program Strata Spring 1979 Fall 1979 fa f Stratum 1 (North Dakota) 7,020 209 Stratum 6 (Minnesota) 65,676 550 Stratum 2 (North Dakota) 1,111 69 Stratum 5 (Minnesota) 3,191 255 Stratum 3 (North Dakota) 3,141 401 Stratum 4 (Minnesota) 2,472 481 Note. See Figure 3.1 for Map of Strata. Taken from the following sources: Minnesota High School Grad- uates, Special report prepared by Carole Hokanson, Minne- sota State Department of Education, St. Paul, Minnesota, September 1979; North Dakota High School Graduates, Special report prepared by Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, Bismarck, North Dakota, October 1979; Appli- cants to The Program, MHECB Data tape as of October 10, 1979, St. Paul, Minnesota. a = Frequency 140 (Stratum 3 in North Dakota actually has more), there is a larger number of Minnesota applicants from stratum 4 than from stratum 3 in North Dakota. A possible explanation to this corresponds to a suggestion in the 1979 MHECB study (February) that the presence of several North Dakota institutions along the common state border draws more Minnesota students into North Dakota than would be expected based on population ratios along the border. Therefore, it is speculated that Minnesota's denser population and the close prox- imity of several North Dakota institutions (NDSU and UND) to the common state border contribute to Minnesota having the largest number of participants in The Program. Summary of findings: Chapter IV. Research Question 1 asked how Minnesota respondents rated the six areas of influence. A descriptive analysis of the data revealed that the Academic and Reciprocity influences were seen by almost all respondents to be a valid influence on their college choice and, overall, these influences received the highest mean scores. The Environmental and Practical influences were rated by considerably fewer respondents and were viewed overall to exert some influence on the selection of an institution. The Large and Diverse and Advice of Others areas received the lowest ratings with the fewest number of respondents indicating that these were valid influences on their college choice. 141 The independent variables, distance from home and commuter status, were found to affect the ratings on the Academic and Practical influences. As distance increased, Academic ratings increased while Practical influences were seen to decrease in importance. The second research question asked how North Dakota residents rated the six areas of influence. The findings are similar to the Minnesota findings. Academic and Reciprocity influences were the strongest, affecting the most respondents. Environmental and Practical influences were seen by fewer individuals to be valid influences; however, the strength of the ratings indicated the influences were strong. The Large and Diverse and Advice of Others influences were seen as exerting a little influence on a few students. The third research question compared the states on their overall rating of the six areas of influence. No statistically significant differences were found for the Academic, Reciprocity, Practical, and Advice of Others influences. Differences were found between the states on the Environmental and Large and Diverse influences with North Dakota residents rating both of these higher than their Minnesota counterparts. The higher North Dakota rating on the Large and Diverse influence appeared to be influenced by North Dakota residents who were attending 142 the UM-Twin Cities. The higher North Dakota rating on the Environmental influence could not be explained from an investigation of several independent variables leaving the researcher to conclude that it was probably a state- wide main effect. Research Question 4 found that in the absence of The Program a higher percentage of North Dakota respon- dents would return to their home state than would Minne- sota residents and a slightly higher percentage of North Dakota respondents would not have gone to college without tuition reciprocity. It was also shown that if The Program had not existed, respondents college choices would have affected MSU, NDSU, and UND in a negative way, while the UM-Twin Cities would have been affected positively. The fifth research question attempted to answer why a disproportionate number of Minnesota residents who live near the North Dakota border select North Dakota postsecondary educational institutions. The research design and subsequent data analysis failed to provide an answer to this question. However, the question was inves- tigated further and additional data seem to suggest that Minnesota's denser population and North Dakota institu— tion's proximity to the Minnesota border play a role in Minnesota having the largest number of participants in The Program. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS This chapter contains the study's findings, conclusions, and implications. In addition, a summary of the study's background, purpose, and methodology is included along with suggestions for further research. Summary Background and Purpose of’the Study The purpose of this study was to provide insights as to why students in Minnesota and North Dakota use the tuition reciprocity program established between the two states. Such understandings could prove useful to the state agencies and legislators who must make decisions and recommendations regarding future courses of action. Declining enrollments of high school seniors will create pressures for a close examination of state expenditures in postsecondary education. Since the Minnesota-North Dakota tuition reciprocity program is unique nationally 143 144 and because it is so comprehensive in scope, other states may be interested in understanding the dynamics of student usage of The Program. The Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board (MHECB) released results of a study in 1979 (Feb- ruary) which is very similar to this study on the Minne- sota—North Dakota tuition reciprocity program. The MHECB study found that Minnesota residents using reciprocity benefits in North Dakota and Minnesota were inclined to do so for academic and financial reasons. In preparation for the study, a selected review of research on the college choice process was conducted. It was concluded that on the basis of this review the college choice process is a complex interaction of influences affecting certain people in certain ways. Among the most commonly cited influences affecting the selection of a particular college or university were intellectual, practical, and social factors. Also the advice received from other people has been seen to influence some individuals. On the basis of this information, 30 college choice items were developed for use as dependent variables in the Tuition Reciprocity Opinion Scale (TROS) survey' instrument. 145 Methodology The target population investigated in this study included all fall 1979 participants in the Minnesota- North Dakota Tuition Reciprocity Program (The Program). This population was identified from a list of applicants to The Program provided by the Minnesota-Higher Education Coordinating Board (MHECB). A questionnaire developed by the researcher was mailed to a stratified random sample (with proportional allocation) of applicants to The Program. The initial mailing took place on November 15, 1979, followed by a postcard reminder which was mailed on November 23, 1979. On November 30, 1979, a follow-up mailing was sent to approximately 700 nonrespondents. The survey was com— pleted on December 18, 1979, at which time 1,418 ques- tionnaires had been received representing an 83.4% response rate. One hundred and twenty-seven (127) questionnaires were determined to be from students who had submitted applications for The Program but subse- quently decided not to use it. This left 1,291 usable questionnaires for data analysis purposes. Since there were 30 dependent variables (college choice items on TROS), it was decided that an attempt would be made to reduce these items into parsimonious groups, if possible. Hence, a factor analysis was con- ducted and resulted in the establishment of five factors 146 which were subsequently referred to as areas of influence. These areas were: Academic, Environmental, Practical, Advice of Others, and Large and Diverse. A sixth area of influence was added outside of the information obtained from the factor analysis. This was called the Reciprocity influence and was made up of one college choice item which asked respondents to rate the influence of not having to pay out-of-state tuition on the selection of their cur- rent school. The research design was varied and included the use of the independent variables: State (Minnesota and North Dakota) as well as the sample design's six strata (see Figure 3.1 for map). These variables provided the framework to examine the six areas of influence. Five research questions, some with hypotheses, had been formulated to assist the data analysis procedures. Research Questions 3 and 5 contained the null hypotheses. The data analysis of these questions involved the use of t-tests to see if statistically significant differences were present. Since the researcher was con- cerned with maintaining an overall .10 level of sig- nificance, it was decided to use a .02 level for decisions made on individual t—tests (see Chapter III for expla- nation). When the t-tests suggested differences, a process of elaboration was used whereby several independent 147 variables were investigated to see if they would provide a better understanding of the difference. Findings It should be noted that respondents had the option to indicate that a given college choice item did not apply to them at all. Therefore, only individuals who felt the item had a little to a very strong influence rated the individual college choice items. Some of these items then became part of a more general area of influence. 1. How do Minnesota residents rate the specified factors which influence college choice? The Academic and Reciprocity areas of influence were found to affect the largest number of respondents and also received the highest ratings. These ratings were at the strong to very strong levels of influence. The Environmental and Practical influences applied to fewer respondents and were also rated more moderately by Minnesota respondents. The areas of influence which affected the fewest respondents were: Advice of Others and Large and Diverse. These two areas were rated as having a little to some influence. It was also found that as distance from home increased, respondents rated the Academic influence higher and the Practical influence lower. Noncommuters also 148 tended to rate the Academic influence higher than com- muters, while commuters rated the Practical influence higher than noncommuters. 2. How do North Dakota residents rate the spe- cified factors which influence college choice? The Academic and Reciprocity influences were found to affect the largest number of respondents and also received the highest ratings. These ratings were at the strong to very strong levels of influence. The Environmental and Practical influences applied to fewer respondents and were also rated more moderately by Minnesota respondents. The Large and Diverse and Advice of Others influences were viewed by the smallest number of respon- dents as influencing them to select a Minnesota insti- tution. These areas were rated as having a little to some influence. As was the case with Minnesota respondents, dis- tance from home was found to influence the ratings of the Practical and Academic influences. The academic rating increased as distance increased while the Practical rating decreased. Noncommuters also rated the Academic influence higher than commuters while commuters rated the Practical influence higher than noncommuters. 3. Are there differences between the state ratings? It was found that Minnesota and North Dakota 149 respondents rated the Academic, Reciprocity, Practical, and Advice of Others influences in a similar way. How- ever, North Dakota ratings on the Environmental and Large and Diverse influences were significantly higher than Minnesota's. 4. What institutions would the sampled students have attended without tuition reciprocity? It was found that MSU, NDSU, and UND would probably end up with fewer students overall if tuition reciprocity did not exist, while the UM-Twin Cities would probably gain in students. Ten percent more North Dakota (than Minnesota) respondents would have attended a school in their home state if The Program had not existed when they selected their current school, and about 3% more North Dakota respondents would not have gone to college than the Minnesota respondents. 5. Why does a dinproportionate number of Minne- sota residents who live near the Minnesota-North Dakota border select North Dakota educational institutions when the total populations along both sides of the border are similar? The research design failed to provide data to answer this question. However, a further investigation revealed that possibly the greater number of Minnesota participants in The Program is a result of: (l) Minne- sota's denser population and (2) the close proximity of NDSU and UND to the Minnesota border. 150 Conclusions This section of Chapter V will contain a discus- sion about the findings of the study and relate them to other research which was presented in Chapter II. This will be done in three parts. First, the findings of Research Questions 1, 2, and 3 will be discussed followed by a discussion of Research Question 4. The final part will focus attention on Research Question 5. Research Questions 1, 2, and 3 Question 1 asked how Minnesota residents rated the study's six areas of influence. This is also one of the sections of the present study which overlaps with the 1979 MHECB study (February), therefore, comparisons will be made when apprOpriate. Minnesota residents rated the Academic and Reci- procity influences the highest of all six areas. In addition, the highest number of responses was obtained on these two influences reflecting that, overall, a high number of Minnesota respondents were strongly influenced by academic and tuition reciprocity considerations in selecting their current North Dakota institution. This closely corresponds with findings in the 1979 MHECB study (February) which concluded that aca- demic and financial considerations were the most impor- tant factors affecting Minnesota residents to enroll at North Dakota institutions. 151 The next highest mean scores for Minnesota resi- dents are associated with the Environmental and Practical areas of influence. Of these two, the largest number of responses was received on the Environmental influence; however, it was not rated as high as the Practical influence which was seen as a valid influence by only 25% of the Minnesota respondents. This is a strikingly different response rate compared to the 1979 MHECB study where 44% of their respondents indicated close proximity to home was a factor in selecting a North Dakota school. It is possible that the geographic distribution of stu- dents was different for the two studies with fewer local students being represented in the present study. However, it is not possible to verify this; therefore, it remains as a speculative explanation. The lowest mean scores on the present study are associated with the Advice of Others and Large and Diverse influences. These two areas are viewed as affecting the fewest number of Minnesota respondents and at a level to indicate that for those few people they were considered to be a minor influence. Question 2 asked how North Dakota residents rated the six areas of influence. Question 3 asked if there were differences in how Minnesota and North Dakota resi- dents rated these six areas. The conclusions regarding these two questions will be combined in the following discussion. 152 North Dakota respondents, like their Minnesota counterparts gave the highest ratings and highest response rates to the Academic and Reciprocity influences with no significant differences between the two states. This seems to indicate that a very large number of the Reci- procity respondents in both states place a high degree of importance on selecting an institution in the other state which has a strong academic reputation in the pro- gram that best fits their interest and at the lower cost associated with not having to pay out-of—state tuition. A more moderate number of respondents rated the Environmental and Practical influences, overall, as being of some to a strong influence in selecting a school in the other state. It should be noted that as far as the Environmental influence is concerned, North Dakota respondents placed more importance on this area of influence than did their Minnesota counterparts. Here, North Dakotans rated this influence a little toward the strong level of influence while the Minnesota overall rating corresponded exactly to it being of some influence. The following six items reflect the components which made up the Environmental area of influence. Therefore, it can be concluded that North Dakota respon- dents were influenced more by: (1) a friendly environ- ment, (2) a moderate-size campus, (3) a good social climate, (4) quick responses to requests for information, 153 (5) a good pre—enrollment visit, and (6) an attractive campus setting, than are their Minnesota counterparts. Since MSU receives the largest number of North Dakota students, it seems reasonable to assume that MSU reflects, in a positive way, the six items which were just listed. A small number of respondents from each state were influenced by the Advice of Others and Large and Diverse influences. The UM—Twin Cities is the largest school in this study. It is also located in the largest community of the two states. Therefore, it is not sur- prising to find that a small group of students from North Dakota who are attending the UM-Twin Cities play a role in influencing a statistically higher rating on the Large and Diverse influence for North Dakota respon- dents. Research Question 4 This research question asked what institutions survey respondents would have attended in the absence of tuition reciprocity. Extensive comparisons will be made to the 1979 MHECB study on Minnesota tuition reciprocity participants. It was found that 31% of the Minnesota respondents would have attended the alternate Minnesota institution they listed on the survey questionnaire, while 38.5% indicated they would remain at their current North Dakota institution. Nine percent also indicated they would not have attended college without The Program, 154 and an additional 20.8% selected the category "other" which upon investigation was shown to include such things as: not sure, or would have attended an unspeci- fied Minnesota institution. The 1979 MHECB study had similar findings. In that study, 39% of their Minnesota respondents indicated they would have remained at their current North Dakota institution. The two studies also concur in the percentage of Minnesota residents who would not have gone to college without the benefit of tuition reciprocity. Each study found 9.0% of the Minnesota respondent indicating this situation. The 1979 MHECB study and the present study seem to present very similar findings regarding the plans of Minnesota residents in the absence of The Program. At this point comparisons between the two studies will stop as the sc0pe of the present study was broader and included findings about North Dakota respondents. When comparing the states in how respondents answered this question, two interesting findings stand out. A larger percentage of North Dakota resident (10%) would have attended a North Dakota institution if tuition reciprocity did not exist when they selected their cur- rent Minnesota school. Three percent more North Dakota respondents would not have gone to college without The Program. 155 It should be noted that a finding from Research Question 3 was that the rating on the Reciprocity influence was not statistically different between the states, yet it appears that tuition reciprocity is a strong enough influence to cause larger percentages of North Dakota residents to: (1) attend a North Dakota school or (2) not go to college, if The Program did not exist. Since the differences in percentages between the states were not determined to be statistically dif- ferent, it can only be a matter of speculation, free from statistical inference, that these percentages do in fact represent a trend or direction. Overall, it was found that the plans of the sur- vey respondents in the absence of The Program would have a big impact on the institutions of each state with MSU, NDSU, and UND becoming net losers of students while the UM-Twin Cities might actually gain in enrollment without tuition reciprocity. It is possible that Minnesota's denser population contributes to this since a large number of Minnesota students in The Program come from the stratum where the UM-Twin Cities is located. Research Question 5 This question attempted to explain why more Minnesota residents living near the North Dakota border migrated to North Dakota than would be expected from each state's populations along the border. The question 156 was not answered within the original research design. A further investigation suggested that it was wrong to assume that the movement of students across the state line was only related to those areas near the common Minnesota-North Dakota border. The presentation of additional information provided evidence to speculate that more Minnesota students use The Program than do North Dakota residents because of: (1) Minnesota's larger population and (2) the proximity of NDSU and UND to the Minnesota border. Table 1.5 contains information which shows that NDSU and UND collectively attract Minnesota respondents into a wider range of academic programs than MSU does with North Dakota respondents. Since academic consider- ations appear to have a strong influence on reciprocity participants, it seems reasonable to conclude that the combined offerings of the two predominant North Dakota institutions does indeed play some role in attracting more Minnesota residents to North Dakota. Relationship of This Study to Other Research on the Collegg Choice Process Chapter II contained a selected review of college choice research. The findings of this study will be re- lated to information about the college choice process which was presented in the second chapter. 157 Astin (1965) speculated that the college choice process for many students probably had little to do with the consideration of quality. This study appears to pro- vide evidence that, as far as the tuition reciprocity participants of this study are concerned, academic con- siderations do in fact play a very important role in their selection of a postsecondary educational institu— tion in Minnesota or North Dakota. Perhaps this is a characteristic of the geographic region associated with this study. To support this, Thompson (1965) in a survey of high school seniors from the Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minne- sota area concluded that the most important factors influencing college choice were institutional quality and the appropriateness of the curriculum. This presents a strikingly similar result to the present study where the Academic area of influence, which was the highest rated and most frequently rated influence, was made up of two items relating to the quality of the academic program and its appropriateness for the individual. Astin (1977), in a more recent study, seems to contradict his 1965 statement when he reports that a 1977 American Council on Education study showed that a good academic reputation and the offering of special programs were the most frequently cited reasons students gave in selecting the school they were enrolled in. 158 Earlier it was pointed out that the present study started out with 30 college choice items which were subsequently factor analyzed. The results of this factor analysis were quite similar to the findings of Richards and Holland (1965) when they found that 27 college choice items on the American College Test (ACT), Profile Report could be reduced to four factors: (1) in- tellectual, (2) practicality, (3) advice of others, and (4) social emphasis. These bear striking similarity to four of the present study's six areas of influence, namely: Academic, Practical, Advice of Others, and Environmental. While their item content may have varied from the Richards and Holland study (1965), their overall tone and direction were similar. The interaction of several factors in the college choice process is discussed by Feldman and Newcomb (1969, p. 110). They believe that the selection of a particular college is the result of a complex interaction of factors involving the values, goals, personalities, aspirations, and family socioeconomic status of students, to mention only a few. There seems to be some evidence for this in the present study. The standard deviations associated with the mean scores of the present study seem to indicate a moderate range of fluctuation in the ratings of the six areas of influence. This seems to suggest that different people 159 with different needs perceive the importance of each influence in a different way, hence, a complex inter- action of factors appears to be present. An example is the commuter or individual who lives close to a particular school and tends to emphasize the importance of the Practical influence, while the student living further away places more emphasis on academic consider- ations. These were findings that appear to be charac- teristics of both Minnesota and North Dakota students in the study and tend to support the notion of an inter- action of factors affecting the college choice process. Another example of the complexity of this process is found in Holland's (1958, p. 315) study of National Merit Scholarship students when he concludes that the type of institution considered attracts different types of individuals and that an explanation of the college choice process implies divergent personal needs and values. An example of individual needs being matched to institutional characteristics can be found in the present study. It was pointed out that North Dakota respondents' ratings on the Large and Diverse influence were associated with individuals who were attending the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities. This institution has the largest enrollment and is located in the most populated region of all schools in the study, reflecting that those 160 individuals rating the Large and Diverse influence high represent some divergent needs compared to other respondents in the study who sought out a more mod- erately sized school with a warm, friendly atmosphere. Overall, the present study provided several confirmations of previous research and from this can be developed some implications of the findings to various constituent groups in Minnesota and North Dakota. Implications There are several implications of this study to various groups of people in Minnesota and North Dakota. The findings appear to have the most to say to adminis- trators of postsecondary educational institutions and those peOple who affect state policy decisions, namely members of the state agencies involved with higher edu- cation (MHECB, NDBHE), as well as state legislators. College and university_administrators. The 19805 have been predicted to be a period of declining enroll- ments. Institutional administrators have already strated to show concern for ways to stabilize enrollments when the trends seem to predict declines. Admissions officers are searching for "techniques" that will have a positive effect on enrollments. Overall, institutional concerns relate to ways that the institution can adapt to change_ and in the long run continue to attract an adequate 161 number of students. There appear to be several findings of this study that touch on areas that can be controlled by the institution and thereby be used to affect the enrollment of students from both states. First, this survey of reciprocity participants can be viewed as a market survey of those individuals who were positively influenced by institutional char- acteristics. In other words, the results reflect things about the institutions that students like. Moorhead State University obviously has a lot at stake in foster- ing its Business and Education programs which attract large numbers of North Dakota respondents. Likewise, North Dakota State University's ability to attract Minnesota residents appears to be associated with its perceived quality in Engineering, Architecture, Agri- culture, Home Economics, and Pharmacy. Another implication relates to academic quality. The mere existence of a program in the curriculum is not enough to attract large numbers of students. Quality must be perceived by prospective students as evidenced by the strong emphasis placed on the Academic area of influence. The apparent importance placed on academic con- siderations by prospective students has yet another implication to the institutions. How is image perceived? What affects the image of an institution to those outside 162 the school? It is this researcher's Opinion that alumni, current students, and the institution's own public relations efforts can play a major role in affecting institutional image. Perhaps the most controllable of these is the institution's public relations efforts. If academic considerations play a major role in affecting student decisions to enroll, it would seem imperative that: (1) information about the institution's academic programs be readily available to prospective students, (2) news bureau releases should emphasize things which reflect academic quality, and (3) media presentations used in admissions and alumni areas should emphasize those institutional characteristics which reflect aca- demic quality. People Involved with State PolicnyecisiOns The North Dakota Board of Higher Education is a governing board of all state institutions in North Dakota. It differs from the Minnesota Higher Education Coordinat- ing Board (MHECB) in that it has definite power vested in it over state institutions while the MHECB is more of a recommending organization. In either situation, both agencies have the power to influence legislators who in turn can determine state policy. Planning and coordination of the higher education community is a function, to some degree, of both agencies. 163 Research assists the planning function and planning can in the long run affect the design of higher education. Because of this, both agencies are concerned about the future and in particular the impending decline in enrollments which will raise some important questions about the feasibility of continuing the tuition reci- procity agreement between the states. Since the tuition reciprocity agreement between the states has already attracted political interest, there is a strong possibility that the agencies involved with higher education (MHECB and NDBHE) will be sought out to provide leadership in resolving the overall con- cerns about the patterns of student migration. Their financial support of this study is evidence of their interest in understanding the dynamics of student mi- gration. Therefore, the findings have implications to these agencies as well as the state legislators who have raised questions about the tuition reciprocity agreements. The disparity in the number of Minnesota resi- dents attending North Dakota institutions has already surfaced as a political issue in Minnesota possibly because a similar situation exists between Minnesota and Wisconsin, and it may be that it is the overall effect which concerns Minnesota lawmakers. The findings of this study, which are associated with an assessment of alternate plans in the absence of 164 tuition reciprocity, appear to point out that the exis- tence of The Program does not seem to have an adverse affect on a large number of institutions in the two states. Only the UM-Twin Cities seems to be affected in an adverse way. The degree to which this institution seems to be affected appears to be minimal given the size of its overall enrollment compared to the number of stu- dents 1ost to North Dakota schools. Also, the presence of tuition reciprocity has no doubt helped Moorhead State better utilize its facilities which had been subject to several years of enrollment decline prior to The Program. Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board members and Minnesota lawmakers should be relieved to know that the larger number of Minnesota students attend- ing North Dakota institutions is most likely a function of Minnesota's larger overall population, and it is not related to a perceived weakness in the Minnesota higher education system. While future enrollment declines will compound the issue of disparities, it seems logical to conclude that perhaps the current imbalance of students is equitable when considering the populations of each state and any efforts to balance the exchange could be per- ceived as detrimental to North Dakota. 165 Concluding Statement This study has shown that the participants in the Minnesota-North Dakota tuition reciprocity program are influenced by academic and financial considerations. It appears that the elimination of out-of—state tuition provides an opportunity to consider schools in the other state and that the selection of a particular institution is strongly influenced by the reputation of the academic program and its appropriateness to the individual. While not as many individuals are influenced by Environmental and Practical considerations, a moderate number are. North Dakota students appear to place more importance on the Environmental area of influence. A small number of tuition reciprocity participants in each state are influenced, a little, by Advice of Others and the Large and Diverse areas of influence. A small group of North Dakota residents are particularly interested in the size and diversity offered by the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities. It appears that Minnesota's larger population, as well as the location of two North Dakota institutions along the Minnesota border, contribute to Minnesota having more participants in The Program than North Dakota. If tuition reciprocity had not existed when the survey respondents were selecting a college, it appears that the University of Minnesota—Twin Cities would have 166 enrolled more students than they did with tuition reci- procity in effect. On the other side, MSU, NDSU, and UND would possibly have enrolled fewer students than they do with tuition reciprocity. What appears to be happening is that residents of both states seek out academic programs and institu- tional settings which are perceived to meet their needs the best. As this takes place, MSU, NDSU, and UND appear to benefit from an enrollment standpoint, while the UM- Twin Cities loses some students. It is interesting to note that most of the academic programs which attract Minnesota residents into North Dakota (Engineering, Pharmacy, Home Economics, Agriculture, and Aviation) are available in Minnesota only at the UM-Twin Cities. Suggestions for Future Research This investigation into why students in Minnesota and North Dakota use the tuition reciprocity agreement between the states only provides information about one aspect of the total impact The Program has on the states. It seems prudent to also consider the economic impli- cations of student migration associated with tuition reciprocity, as local communities are also affected by this exchange of students. Therefore, it is suggested that a future area of investigation concern itself with the cost benefits associated with the Minnesota-North Dakota tuition reciprocity agreement. 167 Also, one of the intended purposes of The Program was to provide a catalyst for interstate cooperation and coordination of higher education on a regional basis. Associated with this is the concept that a full utili- zation of facilities and instructional programs will preclude the need for the further duplication of programs in each state. A study assessing the impact of The Pro- gram on such duplication would provide insights on a perceived benefit of having tuition reciprocity. The development of the TROS instrument, the research methodology, and data processing techniques provide a relatively convenient and economical way to continue a yearly collection of data about reciprocity participants. Minor modifications to the TROS could also make it applicable for use with South Dakota, Wis- consin, and Iowa participants in tuition reciprocity with Minnesota. Such research could provide a monitoring of students' reasons for using tuition reciprocity, which in turn might help to detect trends or changes that could affect the states. Since this study revealed a propensity toward the consideration of academic factors in selecting a college or university, it would be useful to have a better understanding of what affects institutional image. Therefore, it is suggested that future research be directed at determining how an institution's image is developed. 168 Another area for investigation would be the com- parison of participants in reciprocity programs with those who are not taking advantage of these benefits. Finally, since the Wisconsin tuition reciprocity program represents a larger number of participants than this study, a comparative study between Minnesota and Wisconsin users of tuition reciprocity would provide additional insights to understanding Minnesota student migration patterns. APPENDICES APPENDIX A MINNESOTA RECIPROCITY AGREEMENTS APPENDIX A MINNESOTA RECIPROCITY AGREEMENTS MINNESOTA-WISCONSIN PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION RECIPROCITY AGREEMENT 1978-79 GENERAL PROVISIONS (I) PuAPOAe and Natune ofi the Agnecment. The purposes of this agreement are mutually to continue to Improve the post-secondary education advantages of residents of Minnesota and Wisconsin through greater availability and accessibility of post-secondary education opportunities and to achieve improved effectiveness and economy in meeting the post-secondary education needs of Minnesota and Wisconsin residents through cOOperative planning and effort by two neighboring states. These purposes will be accomplished through granting students entrance to public post-secondary institutions in the neighboring state according to the same terms, conditions, and fees which govern entrance to those institutions by residents of the state in which the institutions are located. Under this agreement, Minnesota residents are afforded the opportunity to attend public institutions in Wisconsin on the same basis that Wisconsin residents attend these institu- tions; and Wisconsin residents are offered the opportunity to attend public institutions in Minnesota on the same basis that Minnesota residents attend these institutions. With the exception of those programs identified within this agreement for which specific quotas are established, the opportunity to enter a public institution in the neighboring state will be dependent upon the availability of space in the particular program which the student seeks to enter. A student whose reciprocity application is approved by the appropriate agency in his state of residence will be accommodated in a puinc institution in the neighboring state if he meets those admission requirements which are applied to resident of the neighboring state and if space is availabie in the program which the student seeks to enter. 169 170 (2) Dunazion 06 the Agneement. This agreement is to be effective at the .beginning of the I978-79 academic year. The agreement will be reviewed annually and may be modified at any time upon mutual agreement of both parties to the agreement representing their respective states. This agreement is subject to modification by the executive branch and/or the legislature of either state. (3) Scope 06 the Agheement - Studentb. All persons who qualify as residents of Minnesota and Wisconsin for purposes of higher education under laws and regulations of the state of residency may be eligible to attend a public vocational school or a public collegiate institution as a student in the neighboring state under this agreement. Wisconsin students enrolled in extension courses offered by Minnesota institutions in Wisconsin are not eligible for tuition reciprocity under this agreement. Minnesota students enrolled in extension courses offered by Wisconsin institutions in Minnesota are also not eligible for tuition reciprocity under this agreement. (4) Scope 06 the Agfleement - Inbtitutionb. All public vocational schools and collegiate institutions of higher education in Minnesota and Wisconsin are included under this agreement and are available to residents of the neighboring state in accordance with terms of this agreement. COLLEGIATE EDUCATION (I) Pianyfiph C0££egia£e Studentb Unden the Agneemenz. Under this agree- ment, any and all Minnesota residents are eiigible to attend public collegiate institutions in Wisconsin as undergraduate, graduate, and professional students on the same basis for admission and tuition purposes that Wisconsin residents attend the same institutions. Similarly, any 171 and all Wisconsin residents are eligible to attend public collegiate institutions in Minnesota as undergraduate, graduate, and professional students on the same basis for admission and tuition purposes that Minnesota residents attend these institutions. The Minnesota resident attending a Wisconsin institution is required to meet those admission and performance requirements which are applicable to Wisconsin residents. Wisconsin residents attending Minnesota institutions are required to meet those admission and performance requirements which are applicable to Minnesota residents. Those charges for tuition and fees which apply to Minnesota residents attending Minnesota institutions will be applied to Wisconsin residents attending Minnesota institutions under the agreement. Those charges for tuition and fees which apply to Wisconsin residents who attend Wisconsin institutions will be applied to Minnesota residents who attend Wisconsin institutions under this agreement. The intent of this agreement is that there shall be no restrictions on the number of students from either state who may participate in this agreement. (2) Adminiétnative Agencieb. The following state agencies shall be responsible for administering this agreement in their respective states: State of Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board State of Wisconsin Higher Educational Aids Board (3) Appflication Deadiine and Centifitcation odStudenz Efiigfibiiitg. (a) To be eligible under this agreement a student must file a l978-79 application prior to or during the term or semester in which he/she expects to first receive the waiver of the non- resident portion of tuition. A student is deemed to meet this application date requirement if his/her completed application is postmarked no later than the last day of scheduled classes. (h) 172 (b) A term or semester is deemed to run through the last day of scheduled classes as published in the academic calendar of the institution. (c) Neither state agency will be financially liable for students enrolled under the reciprocity agreement who have not received prior approval and certification by the responsible agency. Univeniity 06 Minnebota School 06 Ueteninang Medicine. Notwith- standing the provisions above, the University of Minnesota School of Veterinary Medicine shall accept, each year, not less than l7 students or 20% of the entering class of Veterinary Medicine, whichever is the greater, but shall not be required to accept more than 2% qualified residents of the State of Wisconsin as entering first year students into the professional veterinary medicine program. (5) Computation ofiglntenitate Reimbuniement 60a Tuition L066. (a) After June 30, each state shall determine the number of undergraduate, graduate, and professional students for whom non-resident tuition has been remitted under this agreement during the academic year including summer session. Each state shall certify to the other state, in addition to the number of students so determined, the aggregate amount of tuition that would have been paid in that year had this agreement not been in effect, the aggregate amount of tuition actually paid in that ' year and its ”net tuition loss”. (b) “Net tuition loss“ means the difference between the aggregate amount of tuition that would have been paid to a state in any school year by residents of the other state had this agreement not been in effect and the aggregate amount of tuition paid to that state in that school year by residents of the other state. 173 (c) Enrollment determinations used in this computation shall begin with the fall session and include the next following spring and summer sessions. (d) The state with the greater net tuition loss shall receive from the other state an amount determined by subtracting the net tuition loss of the state making the payment from the net tuition loss of the state receiving the payment. (e) Anv payment made under this agreement shall be a payment by one state to the other state and any allocation of funds to institutions to meet institutional costs associated with the agreement or for any other purpose shall be the responsibilitv of each respective state. VOCATIONAL-TECHNICAL AND ADULT EDUCATION (l) Plan 60% Vocationai Studentb Unden the Agaeement. A Wisconsin resident enrolled in a full-time program in a Minnesota Area Vocational Technical Institute shall be considered a Minnesota resident for tuition purposes. Likewise, a Minnesota resident enrolled in a full- time program in a Wisconsin School of Vocational, Technical and Adult Education shall be considered a Wisconsin resident for tuition purposes. (2) Student Aggiicationb. A student applying under this agreement must complete the WisConsin Vocational, Technical and Adult Education non- resident tuition form which must also be approved by the student's respective home district administrator. 174 TREATMENT OF OTHER FORMS OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT STUDENT AID (l) A student who attends a public institution in the other state and who for any reason is not initially liable for payment of a non-resident tuition charge shall not be eligible for, nor shall he/she be counted under, this agreement. This includes any students whose tuition has been waived or paid through indirect forms of aid or support such as govern- mental (federal/state/local) or private grants. contracts, or stipends awarded to the institution. (2) In the case of direct forms of financial aid. such as federal, state and institutional arants. scholarships, loans and workstudv, the student shall be considered eligible under this agreement. The student's budget used to determine his/her financial need for direct forms of aid, however. should reflect the fact that he/she is paying resident rather than non- resident tuition. AUDITINGJ DATA VERIFICATION, AND INSTITUTIONAL REPORTING (l) Both states agree to adopt. and continually seek to refine. a com- prehensive internal accounting system for the calculation of tuition loss. The purpose of such systems will be to assure each state that appropriate audit and verification procedures are followed by the insti- tutions in determining the amount of net tuition loss under this agreement. (2) Both states agree to work closely with their appropriate audit agencies (legislative, state, educational system, or institution) to establish those monitoring and audit procedures necessary to verify the accuracy of the data provided by the institutions. 175 (3) Both states further agree that each state may develop those con- firmation procedures it deems appropriate to be used in monitoring the accuracy of the other state's net tuition loss calculation. ADMISSIONS PROMOTION AND RECRUITMENT The Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board and the State of Wisconsin Higher Educational Aids Board iointlv urge that all Minnesota and Wisconsin institutions follow the Statement of Principles of Good Practices, which has been adopted by the National Association of Secondary Schools and College Admissions Officers, and the recommended guidelines for institutions adooted by the Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board, which are attached to this agreement as appropriate codes of conduct for representatives of public institutions involved in admissions promotion and student recruitment in the neighboring state. a 0/ 227/11“, Clyde R. Ingl , Executive Director ///fames A. xecutive Secretary Minnesota Higher Education ’ /State of sin Coordinatinq Board ingher E‘u a onal Aids Board ./ ‘ 176 9933 Later Avenue. Stilts 500 Sickle. Illinois 60076 Tel. 312/67643500 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION or course ADMISSIONS counsstons 3 Statement of Principles of Good Practice The htgh school and college admissions counselor belteses tn the dignity. the worth. and the potentialities of each student with sshorn he comes Il'l contact He ts committed to assisting students l0 plan for post-secondary education. Beltestng that institutions of learning are ultimatels only as strong as their human resources. the welfare of the tndmdual student is the mou important consideration in lhlS counseling relationship Following ts a statement of Princnples of Good Practice for the National Assottatton of College Admissions Counselors 1. Admissions Promotion and b. Make clear all dates concerning appli- Recruitment cation. notification, and candidate re. A.Colcge-dUMMApess 53.10%me l. Admissions counselors are professional c. Furnish data descriptive of currently mumf this?" institution‘s stafl. As “my“; classes. filo . receive remuneration on - . . . . afixcdsalary,ratherthancommissionor " .33.:mede honusbasedonthenumherofsmdenn recruited. . Admissions papers are responsible for the development of publications used for pro- motional and recruitment activities. These publications should: a. State clearly and preciwa requirements as to secondary-school preparation, ad- mission tests, and transfer-student ad- mission requirements. b. Include statements concerning admis- sions calendar that are current and accurate. c. Include precise information about op- pzrltunitt'es and requirement: for finan- c . d. Describe in detail any special programs such as overseas study. early decision, early admirnon, credit by examination, or advanced placement. e. Contain pictures and statements of the campus and community that are cur- rent and represent reality. . Colic snd universities are responsible for persons who may become Involved in the admissions, promotional and recruit- ment activities (i.e., alumni. coaches, stu- dents, faculty) and for educating them about the principles outlined in this state- ment. . The adm'nsions counselor is forthright, ac- curate. and comprehensive in presenting his institution to high school personnel and prospective students. The admissions counselor adheres to the following: a. State clecly the requirements. and other criteria. 5. The Admissions Counselor avoids unpro- fessional promotional tactics, such as: a. Contracting with high-school personnel for remuneration for referred students. b. Contracting with placement services tha require a fee from the institution for each student enrolled. c. Encouraging a student's transfer if the student, himself, has not indicated transfer interest. I. mmrmmo: C. 1. Provide a program of counseling which does justice to the college opportunities sought and available. 2. Encourage the student and his parents to take the initiative in learning about col- leges and universiu'es. 3. Invite college and university representa- tives to assist in counseling candidates about college opportunities. 4. Avoid invidious comparisons of institu- tions. 5. Refuse unethical or unprofessional ucsts (e.g., for lists of to studenu. lists 0 ath- letes. etc.) from co ege or university rep- resentatives (e.g., alumni, coaches, etc). 6. Refuse any reward or remuneration from a college, university. or private counseling service for placement of its students. It! match iv flee-dstndemsshallhe podtl'vep-toltheadmimiom dccdvely-ppIe-eatother Colegeelearh'hoases section which videliaiso he a "coma: ll. anceactlvitiesandsdheretothehhciplmof GoodPracticccontalnedheteln. 1. Application Procedures . Colleges and Universities Agree to: Accept full responsibility for admissions decisions and for proper notification of those decision to candidates and, where possible, to secondary schools. Receive information about a candidate in confidence and to respect completely the confidential nature of such data Notify high-school personnel when using students on admission selection committee. Nor apply newly-revised requirements to the disadvantage of a candidate whose see- ondary-school course has been established in accordance with earlier requirements. Notify the candidate as soon as ible if the candidate is clearly inadmissible. Not deny admission to a candidate on the grounds that it does nor have aid funds to meet the candidate's apparent financial need, foreips students excepted. Not require a candidate or his school to indicate the order of the candidate's col- lege or university preference. early deci- sion plans excepted. Permit the candidate to choose without penalty among oflcrs of admission until he as heard from all colleges to which the candidate has applied or until the candi- date’s reply date. Not maintain a waiting list of unreasonable length or for an unreasonable period of time. 3. Secondary School Personnel Agree to: l. 2. 3. Provide an accurate, legible, and complete transcript for its candidates. Describe its marking system and its method of determining rank in class. Describe clearly its special curricular op. portunitics (e.g., honors. advanced place- ment courses. seminars. etc. ). Provide an accurate description of the can- didate‘s personal qualities that are relevant to the admission process. Report any significant change in the candi- date's status or qualifications between the time of recommendation and graduation. Urge the candidate to recognize and dis- charge his responsibilities in the admissions process. a. Complying with requests for additional information in a timely manner. It. Responding to institutional deadlines on admissions and refraining from stock-piling acceptances. 177 c. Responding to institutional deadline: on room reservations, financial aid, health records, and prescheduling where all or any of these are applicable. 7. Not. without permission of the candidate. reveal the candidate's college preference. "I. Financial Assistance: (Where Such Assistance is Based upon Need) A. and Universities Agree The 1. Financial assistance consists of scholar- ships. grann. loans. and employment which may be oflctcd to students singly or in vari- ous forms. . They should strive, through their publica- tions and communications, to prosidc schools, parents, and students with factual information about its aid opportunities, programs. and practices. . Financial assistance from colleges and other sources should be viewed only as supplementary to the cfloru of the family. In determining the financial contribution of the candidate’s family. they use methods which assess ability to pay in a consistent and equitable manner such as those devel- oped by the College Scholarship Service and the American College Testing Pro- gram. .. They should clearly state the total yearly cost of attendance and should outlme for each student seeking assistance an estimate of his need. They should permit the candidate to choose. without penalty. among ofiers of financial assistance until he has heard from all colleges to which the candidate has applied or until the candidate‘s reply date. . They should clearly state policies on re- ncwals. . They should not announce publicly the amount of financial award on an individual candidate because it is a reflection of the family's financial situation. I. SecondarySchoolPersonaelAgreetos . Refrain, in public announcements. from giving the amounts of financial aid received by studenn. . Advise the student who has been awarded aid by non-college sources that it is his responsibility to notify the colleges to which he applied of the type and amount of such outside assistance. . Provide ade uate opportunity within the school for able students to receive a special recognition for their accomplish- meats, thus making it unnecessary for col- leges to provide such honorary recognition through their financial-assistance programs. 178 Recommended Guidelhes for w- Concerned that ethical practices be followed and that the welfare of the pro- spective student receive primary consideration, members of the Commission and the Higher Education Advisory Council studied the issue of acceptable recruiting standards at Minnesota institutions. AsaresnltolthesedeliheeationatheConnnhslonreeommendsthat allpost-secondnryhtstituionslollowtheseguldelhes: 1.1tbanapproprlletnnctlonofhtsthtlonsolpost-seconhy education to encourage citizens of the state to become students i order to enhance their own development and to haease their potmtflservlce. Lhtheaercheotthatfnncdoaitbproperforinsfimtlonsto hminatebroadlylnlornmtionahouteducmionalprogran-h genes-alandhtstkntlonalprogramslnp-tleularandtocoutlt withpoteuthlstudentspenonaflyahouttheh'neethandlnterests andthehtstiution’srelemtollerlm. 3.1thqimvpriatetousethemmedlatoacquahlpotentlnlen- tolleesandtheh'parentswlthprogramsavdlableatlnstltuflous. ltmayhenecessarytodosowhenotheraudiencesthancmrent high school students are addressed. Such dissemination should heposhiveandshouldnotmakeunhhormtfavorahlereterences toothersyntemsorlnstitutlons. 4.1thhnperatlvethatinstitutlonsandtheh'representativeshecom- pletelyhonestandaccurateinassessligtheadeqnacyoftlnlr olerlngstomeettheneedsandhtterestsotthestndent.m shouldhtcludedlsclosureofanydeficiencluthatmayheea- pericacedhythestudentintheevesloltranslerorforthem poses oi eestlicatlon for employment. 5.]neounsellngprospectlvestudents,thewelfareolthestnded musthethepuamountconslderationlnsdtuflonal should he suflicletlly htlormed about available educational op- tionntoknowwhenprogramsatotherhstltuflonsarehettermlted totheuudent’sneetandhnmwshouldadvlsethestudd whenthhhthecase. £Adndemwhoisreguhflyenrolleddanymutlonshouldnot heconsldesedapotentialenrolleeatnothahntltutlonunleu a)heiseompletinghlscourseoldudyathispresenthtsthutlou, h)hehaslomtallyrequestedhformstionorcounselh'omthm hstltlaion,orc)lnsformallynodfiedthdhflutionolhhb tendontouaulertol. haddfllomtheCommislonm-gesallmtolollowtheSfle- mellolPrlnclplesolGoodPraeticeadoptedhytheNationlAs- sochflonoiSecondarySchoolsandCollegeAdmhslonsOfliceuand MbnesotaAssoclatlonofSecondarySchoolCounselorsandCollege AdmhsloInOIllcetsasanapproprlntecodeolconduetforreple- sedadvesotnatehstltutioas: 179 MINNESOTA-NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION RECIPROCITY AGREEMENT PURPOSE AND NATURE OF THE AGREEMENT The purposes Of this agreement are mutually to continue to improve the post- secondary education advantages Of residents of Minnesota and North mitota through greater availability and accessibility Of post-secondary education Opportunities and to achieve improved effectiveness and economy in meeting the post-secondary education needs of Minnesota and North Dakota residents through OOOperative planning and effort by twO neighboring states. These purposes will be accomplished through granting students entrance to public post-secondary institutions in the neighboring state according to the same terms, conditions, and fees which govern entrance tO those institutions by residents of the state in which the institutions are located. Under this agreement, Minnesota residents are afforded the opportunity to attend public institutions in North Dakota on the same basis that North Dakota residents attend these institutions; and North Dakota residents are offered the opportunity to attend public institutions in Minnesota on the same basis that Minnesota residents attend these institutions. The Opportunity to enter a public institution in the neighboring state will be dependent upon the availability of Space in the particular program which the student seeks to enter. A student whose reciprocity application is approved by the apprOpriate agency in his state of residence will be accommodated in a public institution in the neighboring state if he meets those admission requirements which are applied to residents Of the neighboring state and if space is available in the program which the student seeks to enter. DURATION OF THE AGREEMENT This agreement is to be effective beginning with the 1978-79 academic year. The agreement will be reviewed annually and may be modified at any time upon mutual agreement of both parties to the agreement representing their respective states. SCOPE OF TIIE AGREEMENT - STUDENTS (a) All persons who qualify as residents Of Minnesota and North Dakota for purposes of higher education under laws and regulations Of the state of residency may be eligible to attend an institution governed and Operated by the State Board Of Higher Education in North Dakota and the Board of Regents, the State University Board, and the State Board for Community Colleges in Minnesota, except for those persons enrolled in Special programs for which either state has contracted for a Specific number Of spaces in the other state. (b) Any and all Minnesota residents are eligible to attend the above institutions in North Dakota as undergraduate, graduate, and professional students on the same basis for admission and tuition purposes that North Dakota residents attend the same instimtions. Similarly, any and all North mkotn residents are eligible to attend the above institutions in Minnesota as undergraduate. graduate, and professional students on the same basis 180 for admission and tuition purposes that Minnesota residents attend these institutions. (c) The Minnesota resident attending a North Dakota institution is required to meet those admission and performance requirements which are applicable to North Dakota residents. North Dakota residents attending Minnesota institutions are required to meet those admission and performance requirements which are applicable to Minnesota residents. Those charges for tuition and fees which apply to Minnesota residents attending Minnesota institutions will be applied to North Dakota residents attending Minnesota institutions under the agreement. Those charges for tuition and fees which apply to North Dakota residents attending North Dakota institutions will be applied to Minnesota residents who attend North Dakota institutions under this agreement. The intent of this agreement is that there shall be no restrictions on the number Of students from either state who may participate in this agreement. (d) All forms of financial aid provided by any eligible institution shall be available to a participant under the program established by this agreement, except those aid programs supported by state funds or private funds, for which eligibility is legally restricted, and prOvided the participant otherwise qualifies for the aid. (e) Any resident of a state who otherwise attends an eligible institution in the other state, under conditions which obviate the necessity of paying non-resident charges, shall not be an eligible participant under this program. SCOPE OF THE AGREEMENT - INSTITUTIONS AND PROGRAMS All public collegiate institutions and programs of higher education in Minnesota and North Dakota governed by the State Board Of Higher Education in North Dakota and the Board Of Regents, the State University Board, and the State Board for Community Colleges in Minnesota, except for those programs for which either state has contracted for a specified number of Spaces in the other state, are included under this agreement and are available to residents of the neighboring state in accordance with terms of this agreement. Institutions may not Offer programs in the neighboring state to be covered by this agreement without prior approval of the administrative agencies. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES (a) The following state agencies shall be responsible for administering this a gree- ment in their respective states: State of Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board State of North Dakota Board of Higher Education (b) The designated representatives of each of the two states reSponsible for implementation, certification of the students participating under the agreement, deter- mination of cost factors and calculating reimbursement shall be the chief executive officers of the two administering agencies. 181 (c) The administering agencies may adOpt rules and procedures and may enter into OOOperative agreements. APPLICATION DEADLINE AND CERTIFICATION OF STUDENT ELIGIBILITY (a) To be eligible under this agreement a student must file a current application for the academic year the student wishes to attend the institution prior to or during the term or semester in which he/ she expects to first receive the waiver of the ' non-resident portion of tuition. A student is deemed to meet this application date requirement if his/her completed application is received no later than the last day of scheduled classes. (b) A term or semester is deemed to run through the last day of scheduled classes as published in the academic calendar of the institution. (c) Neither state agency will be financially liable for students enrolled under the reciprocity agreement who have not received prior approval and certification by the responsible agency. COMPUTATION OF INTERSTATE REIMBURSEMENT (a) Annually, each state shall determine the number of students for whom non-resident tuition has been remitted under this agreement during the academic year including the summer sessions. The designated officer of each state shall certify to the other state the number of students so determined and the total number of credit hours covered by the reciprocity agreement. (b) Enrollment determinations used in this computation shall begin with the fall session and include the next following winter, Spring, and summer sessions. (c) Each state shall calculate the payment due based upon the total number of under- graduate, graduate, and professional level credits earned during the enrollment period multiplied by a weighted tuition differential factor for each level of instruction which is the result of averaging the difference between resident and non-resident tuition for each instructional level at the participating institutions. ((1) Any payment made under this agreement shall be a payment by one state to the other state and any allocation of fluids to institutions to meet institutional costs associated with the agreement or for any other purpose shall be the reSponsibility of each re5pcctivc state. ADMISSIONS PROMOTION AND RECRUITMENT The Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board and the North Dakota Board of Higher Education jointly urge that all Mimicsota and North Dakota institutions follow the Statement of Principles of Good Practice, which has been adOptcd by the National 182 Association of Secondary Schools and College Admissions, Officers, and the recommended guidelines for institutions adapted by the Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board, which are attached tO this agreement, as apprOpriate codes of conduct for representatives of public institutions involved in admissions promotion and student recruitment in the neighboring state. \ . my; A fl. //,._ __ 11’1“,” 1r;_'/i ’ .7 CLYDER' INCQB KE' HE. s at” ‘ Executive Direc or -m sioner Of Higher Ed ation Minnesota Higher Education North Da . n State Board of Coordinating Board Higher Education 183 MINNESOTA-SOUTH DAKOTA PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION RECIPROCITY AGREEMENT ARTICLE I. PURPOSE The purpose of the Minnesota—South Dakota Public Higher Education Reciprocity Agreement shall be to provide greater higher educational Opportunities and services to the citizens of the states of Minnesota and South Dakota through the provision of access to the public higher education institutions of each state to students of the neighboring state on an equivalent basis as students from the state in which the institution is located and with the specific aims of enhancing acces- sibility to programs, expanding the range of programs available, and promoting the greater economy of state finances. ARTICLE II. DEFINITIONS As used in this Agreement: "Academic year" means that period of time commencing with the institution's fall quarter or semester and terminating with the subse- quent summer sessions. "Participant" means a person who has been accepted and enrolled at an eligible institution under the provisions.set forth in this Agreement. "Participating states" means those states which are party to this Agreement, i.e., Minnesota and South Dakota. "Tuition Differential Factor" means that number calculated annually which is the result of averaging the average weighted difference between the resident and non-resident tuition for all programs at the undergraduate, graduate and professional levels at all eligible institutions in the participating states. 184 ARTICLE III. ENTRY INTO FORCE, MODIFICATION, TERMINATION A. This Agreement shall become effective at the commencement of the academic year next succeeding its approval by the appropriate authorities in the participating states and shall continue from year to year unless terminated as hereafter provided. B. Modification of this Agreement may be proposed at any time and shall become effective upon mutual agreement of both parties and approval by the appropriate state authorities. C. Either party hereto may terminate this Agreement at any time; provided, however, that such termination shall only work to preclude any further admissions under the terms hereof but shall not prejudice the rights of participants to complete the degree program in which they are enrolled at the date of termination. ARTICLE IV. ELIGIBLE INSTITUTIONS AND PROGRAMS The terms and conditions of this Agreement shall, to the extent provided, govern matriculation at all institutions under the jurisdiction of the South Dakota board of regents, the University of hinnesota board of regents, the Minnesota state university board and the Minnesota state board for community colleges, and shall extend to all programs, whether on an undergraduate, graduate or professional level, except for those programs for which either state has contracted for a guaranteed number of spaces in the other state. It is the intent of this Agreement that there shall be no limitation on the number of students who may participate from either state, except to the extent of program restrictions and the availability of space in the particular program which the student seeks to enter. Participation in the eligible law and medicine programs under the terms of this Agreement shall be restricted to 5% of the spaces available 185 in the first year of each such program; provided, however, that the foregoing limitation shall not preclude participation by students enrolled in such programs beyond the freshman year as of the effective date of this Agreement. ARTICLE V. ELIGIBLE PERSONS AND CONDITIONS OF PARTICIPATION A. All persons who qualify as residents of Minnesota or South Dakota for the purposes of public higher education under the laws or rules of the state in which theyclaim to reside, shall be eligible to apply for admission and attend any of the eligible institutions or programs on the same basis as any resident of the state in which the institution or program is located. It is specifically understood and agreed that all participants under this program shall be treated on an equal basis with state residents, such equality of treatment particularly including, but in no case limited to, admissions, tuition and fees: B. Any resident of a state who otherwise attends an eligible institution in the other state, under conditions which obviate the necessity of paying non-resident charges, shall not be an eligible participant under this program. C. Participants under the program established by this Agreement shall be required to satisfy those admission and performance requirements and comply with all policies, rules and regulations of the institution in which they are matriculated unless herein otherwise provided. D. All forms of financial aid provided by any eligible institution shall be available to a participant under the program established by this Agreement, except those aid programs totally supported by state funds or private funds, for which eligibility is legally restricted, and provided the participant otherwise qualifies for the aid. ARTICLE VI. ADMINISTRATION A. The South Dakota board of regents and the Minnesota higher 186 education coordinating board (MHECB) shall be responsible for the administration of this Agreement and pursuant thereto may adopt rules and procedures and may enter into cooperative agreements. B. Each board shall determine the eligibility of applicants to become participants based on their state's residency policies. Where a participant's residency status originates in one state and is later terminated but may prospectively be established in the other state, then the participant shall, for the purposes of this Agreement, be treated as a resident of the originating state for one year or until residency is subsequently established in a participating state, whichever shall occur first. . C. Each state shall c00peratively audit the eligible institutions at least annually with the objective of verifying the enrollment and continued attendance of participants. ARTICLE VII. REIMBURSEMENT A. Annually, each state shall determine the number of participants and the total credit hours for which non-resident tuition has been remitted under this Agreement and shall certify to the other state the results. Certification shall be submitted by the first day of December and shall encompass the previous academic year. B. The state with the greater total credit hours of participation shall reimburse the other in an amount which shall be determined by multiplying the difference between the states' total credit hours of participation by the Tuition Differential Factor for the year in question. C. Any payment required under this Agreement shall be to the state of South Dakota tuition and fees fund or the state of Minnesota. 187 ARTICLE VIII. CONSTRUCTION AND SEVERABILITY This agreement is entered into by the South Dakota board of regents pursuant to the authority granted in SDCL l3-S3-6.2 and by the Minnesota higher education coordinating board pursuant to the authority granted in Minn. Stat. Ch. 136A.08 and shall therefore be liberally construed in accordance with the intent and to accomplish the purposes of those provisions. If any phrase, clause, sentence or provision of this Agreement or any modification hereof or supplement hereto be determined to be contrary to or inconsistent with the authority above cited or the constitution of either state, or the applicability thereof to any agency, person or circum- stance is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of this Agreement or of any modification or supplement or its applicability to any agency, person or circumstance shall not thereby be rendered ineffective. ff! 1:)(1 Exe tive D re tor Minnes a Higher Education Coordfnating Board Date '1! ‘ “1 [it g; Date P’ I South Dako a ommissioner of Higher Education 188 MINNESOTA-IOWA MERGED AREA III PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION RECIPROCITY AGREEMENT PURPOSE AND NATURE OF THE AGREEMENT The purposes of this agreement are to mutually continue to improve the post- secondary education advantages of residents of Minnesota and Iowa through greater availability and accessibility of post-secondary education Opportunities and to achieve improved effectiveness and economy in meeting the post-secondary education needs of Minnesota and Iowa residents through cooperative planning and effort by two neighboring states. These purposes will be accomplished through granting students entrance to public post-secondary institutions in the neighboring state according to the same terms, conditions, and fees which govern entrance to those institutions by residents of the state in which the institutions are located. Under this agreement, Minnesota residents are afforded the opportunity to attend specified public institutions in Iowa on the same basis that Iowa residents attend these institutions; and specified Iowa residents are offered the Opportunity to attend specified public institutions in Minnesota on the same basis that Minnesota residents attended these institutions. The Opportunity to enter a specified public institution in the neighboring state will be dependent upon the availability of space in the particular program which the student seeks to enter. A student whose reciprocity application is approved by the Specified institution's admissions officer will be accommodated in that public institution if he meets those admibsion requirements which are applied to residents of that state and if space is available in the program which the student seeks to enter. 189 DURATION 01“ THE AGREEMENT This agreement is to be effective at the beginning of the fall term of the 1975-79 academic year. The agreement will be reviewed annually and may be modified at any time upon mutual agreement of the parties representing their institutions. SCOPE OF THE AGREEMENT - STUDENTS (a) All persons who qualify as residents of Minnesota for purposes of higher education under laws and regulations of the state of Minnesota may be eligible to attend Iowa Lakes Community College in Iowa. All persons who qualify as residents of Merged Area III in Iowa for purposes of higher education under laws and regulations of the state of Iowa may be eligible to attend Worthington Community College, Jackson Area Vocational-Technical Institute and Pipestone Area Vocational-Technical Institute in Minnesota. (b) Any and all Minnesota residents are eligible to attend the above institution in Iowa as undergraduate students on the same basis for admission and tuition purposes that Iona residents attend that institution. Similarly, any and all Iowa residents living in Merged Area III are eligible to attend the above institutions in Minnesota as undergraduate students on the same basis for admission and tuition purposes that Minnesota residents attend these institutions. (e) The Minnesota resident attending an Iowa institution is required to meet those admission and performance requirements which are applicable to Iowa residents. Eligible Iowa residents attending Minnesota institutions are required to meet those admission and performance requirements which are applicable to 190 Minnesota residents. These charges for tuition and fees which apply to Minnesota residents attending Minnesota institutions will be applied to eligible Iowa residents attending Minnesota institutions under the terms of this agreement. Those charges for tuition and fees which apply to Iowa residents attending Iowa institutions will be applied to Minnesota residents who attend Iowa institutions under the terms of this agreement. '1 he intent of this agreement is that there shall be no restrictions on the number of students from either state who may participate in this agreement. rd) All forms of financial aid provided by any eligible institution except those aid programs totally supported by state ftuids or private funds, for which eligibility is le;_;ally restricted, shall be available to a participant under the pregram established by this agreement provided the participant otherwise qualifies for the aid. (c). Any resident of Minnesota or Iowa who otherwise attends an eligible institution in the other state, under conditions which obviate the necessity of paying nonresident charges, shall not be. an eligible participant under this program. SCOPE 01’ THE AGREEMENT - INSTI'I‘I‘TIONS AND PROGRAMS All programs of post—secondary education administered by Iowa Lakes Community College, Worthington Community College, Jackson Area Vocational-Technical Institute and l’ipestone Area Vocational-Technical Institute, CXLft‘pt correspondence courses, are available to residents of the neighboring state in accordance with the terms of this agreement. A UM INlS'l‘ltX'l‘lVE AGENCIES (a) The following agencies shall be responsible for administering this agreement in their respective states: 191 State of Minnesota Iligher Education Coordinating Board State of Iowa Board of Directors of Merged Area III (b) The designated representatives reSponsible for implementation on behalf of each of the two states shall be the chief executive officers of the two administering agencies. (c) The administering agencies will agree Upon coolierative procedures to implement this compact. APPLICATION DEADLINE AND CERTIl-‘I(‘A'I‘ION OF STUDENT ELIGIBILITY (a) To be eligible under this agreement a student must file an application for admission to the institution he/she wishes to attend by the application deadline specified for that institution or program. A student is deemed to be eligible for reciprocity benefits if he/she meets the appropriate residency requirements and is accepted for admission. (b) The admissions officers of the eligible institutions will certify to the student and the agency the eligibility of students according to residency guidelines published by the administrative agencies. (c) Denied students may appeal to the administrative agency in the student's home state. Such appeal must be within fourteen calendar days of the date the reciprocity application was rejected. REPORTING (a) Annually, each agency shall determine the number of students for whom nonresident tuition has been remitted under this agreement during the academic year, including the summer sessions. The designated officer of each state shall certify to the other state the number of students so determined and the total 192 number of credit hours covered by the reciprocity agreement. (b) Enrollment determinations used in this report shall begin with the fall session and include the next following winter, spring and summer sessions. ADMISSIONS PROMOTION AND RECRUITMENT The Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board and the Board of Directors of Merged Area III urge that all eligible Minnesota and Iowa institutions follow the Statement of Principles of Good Practice, which has been adopted by the National Association of Secondary Schools and College Admissions Officers, and the recommended guidelines for institutions adepted by the Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board, which are attached to this agreement, as appropriate codes of conduct for representatives of public institutions involved in admissions promotion and student recruitment in the neighboring state. at CLYDE R. E RIC ' RD H. BLACKER Executive Director Superintendent Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Iowa Lakes Community College Board 1013 G Presi t Board of Directors Iowa Lakes Community College 193 h'll'NNESOTA-IOWA MERGED AREA IV PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION REC IPROCITY AGREEMENT flIRl’OSE AND NATURE OF THE AGREEMENT The purposes of this agreement are to mutually continue to improve the post- secondary education advantages of residents of Minnesota and Iowa through greater availability and accessibility of post-secondary education Opportunities and to achieve impro ved effectiveness and economy in meeting the post-secondary education needs of Minnesota and Iowa residents through cooperative planning and effort by two neighboring states. These purposes will be accomplished through granting students entrance to public post-secondary institutions in the neighboring state according to the same terms, conditions, and fees which govern entrance to those institutions by residents of the state in which the institutions are located. Under this agreement, Minnesota residents are afforded the opporttmity to attend specified public institutions in Iowa on the same basis that Iowa residents attend these institutions; and Specified Iowa residents are offered the opportunity to attend specified public institutions in Minnesota on the same basis that Minnesota residents attended these institutions. The Opportunity to enter a specified public institution in the neighboring state will be dependent upon the availability of space in the particular program which the student seeks to enter. A student whose reciprocity application is approved by the Specified institution's admissions officer will be accommodated in that public institution if he meets those admission requirements which are applied to residents of that state and if space is available in the program which the student seeks to enter. 194 DURATION OF THE AGREEMENT This agreement is to be effective at the beginning of the fall term of the 19 78-79 academic year. The agreement will be reviewed annually and may be modified at any time upon mutual agreement of the parties representing their institutions. SCOPE OF THE AGREEMENT - STUDENTS (a) All persons who qualify as residents of Minnesota for purposes of higher education under laws and regulations of the state of Minnesota may be eligible to attend Northwest Iowa Technical College in Iowa. All persons who qualify as residents of Merged Area IV in Iowa for purposes of higher education under laws and regulations of the state of Iowa may be eligible to attend Worthington Community College, Jackson Area Vocatioml-Teehnical Institute and Pipestone Area Vocational— Technieal Institute in Minnesota. (b) Any and all Minnesota residents are eligible to attend the above institution in Iowa as undergraduate students on the same basis for admission and tuition purposes that Iowa residents attend that institution. Similarly, any and all Iowa residents living in Merged Area IV are eligible to attend the above institutions in Minnesota as undergraduate students on the same basis for admission and tuition purposes that Minnesota residents attend those institutions. (0) The Minnesota resident attending an Iowa institution is required to meet those admission and performance requirements which are applicable to Iowa residents. Eligible Iowa residents attending Minnesota institutions are required to meet those admission and performance requirements which are applicable to 195 Minnesota residents. Those charges for tuition and fees which apply to Minnesota residents attending Minnesota institutions will be applied to eligible Iowa residents attending Minnesota institutions under the terms of this agreement. Those charges for tuition and fees which apply to Iowa residents attending Iowa institutions will be applied to Minnesota residents who attend Iowa institutions under the terms of this agreement. The intent of this agreement is that there shall be no restrictions on the number of students from either state who may participate in this agreement. (d) All forms of financial aid provided by any eligible institution except those aid programs totally supported by state funds or private funds, for which eligibility is legally restricted, shall be available to a participant under the program established by this agreement provided the participant otherwise qualifies for the aid. (e) Any resident of Minnesota or Iowa who otherwise attends an eligible institution in the other state, under conditions which obviate the necessity of paying nonresident charges, shall not be an eligible particpant under this program. SCOPE OF THE AGREEMENT - INSTITUTIONS AND PROGRAMS All programs of post-secondary education administered by Northwest Iowa Technical College, Worthington Community College, Jackson Area Vocational- Technical Institute and Pipestone Area Vocational-Technical Institute, except correspondence courses, are available to residents of the neighboring state in accordance with the terms of this agreement. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES (a) The following state agencies shall be responsible for administering this agreement in their respective states: 196 State of Minnesom Higher Education Coordinating Board State of Iowa Board of Directors of Merged Area IV (b) The designated representatives responsible for implementation on behalf of each of the two states shall be the chief executive officers of the two administering agencies. (0) The administering agencies will agree upon cooperative procedures to implement this compact. APPLICATION DEADLINE AND CERTIFICATION OF STUDENT ELIGIBILITY (a) To be eligible under this agreement a student must file an application for admission to the institution he/she wishes to attend by the application deadline specified for that institution or program. A student is deemed to be eligible for reciprocity benefits if he/she meets the appropriate residency requirements and is accepted for admission. (b) The admissions officers of the eligible institutions will certify to the student and the agency the eligibility of students according to residency guidelines published by the administrative agencies. (c) Denied students may appeal to the administrative agency in the student's home state. Such appeal must be within fourteen calendar days of the date the reciprocity application of rejected. REPORTING (a) Annually, each agency shall determine the number of students for whom nonresident tuition has been remitted under this agreement during the academic year, including the summer sessions. The designated officer of each state shall certify to the other state the number of students so determined and the total 197 number of credit hours covered by the reciprocity agreement. (b) Enrollment determinations used in this report shall begin with the fall session and include the next following winter, spring and summer sessions. ADMISSIONS PROMOTION AND RECRUITMENT The Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board and the Board of Directors of Merged Area IV urge that all eligible Minnesota and Iowa institutions follow the Statement of Principles of Good Practice, which has been adopted by the National Association of Secondary Schools and College Admissions Officers, and the recommended guidelines for institutions adopted by the Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board, which are attached to this agreement, as appropriate codes of conduct for representatives of public institutions involved in admissions promotion and student recruitment in the neighboring state. @0 ~ CLYDE R. LE . E. MARTIN Executive Dir ctor Superintendent Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Northwest Iowa Technical College Board APPENDIX B LETTERS OF SPONSORSHIP AND FUNDING APPENDIX B LETTERS OF SPONSORSHIP AND FUNDING NORTH DAKOTA State Board of Higher Education Iran CAPITOL BISMARCK 701-224-2950 OFFICE or THE coumssmnn September 5’ 1979 — Mr. George H. wallman 1445 F Spartan Village East Lansing, Michigan 48823 Dear Mr. wallman: The North Dakota Post Secondary Education Commission agrees to fund one-half of the costs of your reciprocity study. The study as proposed is excellent and will be of benefit to the Commission's long-range planning activities. Upon completion of the study you will present the Commission with a permanent copy. Thank you for your interest in North Dakota Higher Education. Sincerely yours, f 'K ":1" ’7‘. , . TNMM 1* ’¢' " Richard L. Davison Executive Director Post Secondary Education Commission RLD:aj 198 199 MINNESOTA 0.1.5333: HIGHER EDUCATION iifiimtfiiii.’ COORDINATING BOARD “1...”... OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECT OR October 26. 1979 Mr. George H. Wallman 429 Erickson Hall Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48823 Dear George: Please find enclosed the contract materials for our involvement in the study of Minnesota-North Dakota reciprocity. We have just received the computer tape and are ready to forward it to you as soon as you have completed the contract. In reviewing the contract I suggest that you look very carefully at the duties and conditions as well as the Data Privacy Act (copy enclosed). We will also need you to fill in your social security number. If you wish to consult legal counsel on any of the implica- tions of the contract. you should feel free to do so and we will be happy to answer any questions that you may have. We will look forward to our part in the project and are anticipating a first-rate study. Cordially, DAV B. LAIRD. JR. Deputy Executive Director DBLzlw Encl. cc: Leskee AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER APPENDIX C TABLES APPENDIX C TABLES Table C.1 Minnesota Residents Applying for The Program by County County fa County f Aitkin 3 Kandiyohi 21 Anoka 45 Kittson 83 Becker 139 Koochiching 39 Beltrami 74 Lac Qui Prarie 22 Benton 10 Lake 14 Big Stone 26 Lake-of—the-Woods 23 Blue Earth 8 LeSeur 5 Brown 9 Lincoln 6 Carleton 20 Lyon 9 Carver 18 McLeod 15 Cass 36 Mahnomen 31 Chippewa 24 Marshall 153 Chisago 13 Martin 3 Clay 439 Meeker 9 Clearwater 32 Mille Lacs 9 Cook 2 Morrison 11 Cottonwood 5 Mower 9 Crow Wing 27 Murray 0 Dakota 78 Nicollet 8 Dodge 2 Nobles 12 Douglas 65 Norman 77 Fairbault 0 Olmsted 56 Fillmore 6 Otter Tail 291 Freeborn l3 Pennington 117 Goodhue 24 Pine 4 Grant 50 Pipestone 4 Hennepin 288 Polk 555 Houston 0 Pope 28 Hubbard 45 Ramsey 94 Isanti 4 Red Lake 47 Itasca 67 Redwood 3 Jackson 4 Renville 17 Kanabec 2 Rice 10 200 201 Table C.1 (Continued) County fa County f Rock 4 Traverse 58 Roseau 61 Wabasha 2 St. Louis 154 Wadena 62 Scott 20 Waseca 5 Sherburne 10 Washington 37 Sibley 3 Watonwan 4 Stearns 81 Wilkin 182 Steele 12 Winnona 13 Stevens 42 Wright 14 Swift 34 Yellow-Medicine 16 Todd 47 Out-of-State 59 Note. Applications were for the fall term 1979; source of data was the MHECB Data Tape as of 10-3-79. a = Frequency 202 Table C.2 North Dakota Residents Applying for The Program, by County County fa County f Adams 15 McLean 21 Barnes 65 Mercer 12 Benson 15 Morton 57 Billings 0 Montrail 4 Bottineau 17 Nelson 29 Bowman 6 Oliver 5 Burke 6 Pembina 36 Burleigh 203 Pierce 12 Cass 1,479 Ramsey 47 Cavalier 17 Ransom 37 Dickey 26 Renville 5 Divide 4 Richland 147 Dunn 7 Rolette 22 Eddy l6 Sargent 32 Emmons 9 Sheridan 2 Foster 17 Sioux 7 Golden Valley 2 Slope 1 Grand Forks 143 Stark 45 Grant 4 Steele 12 Griggs 10 Stutsman 133 Hettinger 5 Towner 12 Kidder 8 Traill 39 LaMoore 36 Walsh 64 Logan 10 Ward 68 McHenry 13 Wells 16 McIntosh 20 Williams 23 McKenzie 7 Note. Applications were for the fall term 1979; source of data was the MHECB Data Tape as of 10-3-79. a = Frequency 203 Table C.3 Questionnaires Received Each Day of Survey Date Frequency Date Frequency November December 19 7 3 110 20 27 4 24 21 89 5 36 23 192 6 61 26 211 7 71 27 51 10 104 28 48 ll 26 29 164 12 10 30 85 13 29 14 33 17 28 18 12 Total 1,418 Note. On November 15, 1979, a total of 1,700 questionnaires were mailed. 204 Table C.4 Frequencies of Survey Respondents by State and Distance Home is from Current School MN Residents at ND Residents at . ND Institutionsa MN Institutions Distance f0 %d f % Less than 30 miles 176 22.4 202 40.0 30-50 miles 67 8.6 29 5.8 51-100 miles 152 19.4 60 11.8 More than 100 miles 389 49.6 215 42.4 784 100 507 100 an = 784 bN = 507 c = Frequency; d = Percentage Table C.5 Frequencies of Survey Respondents by Commuter Status and State Status Frequency Percentage MN Residents at ND Institutionsa Commuting 132 16.9 Not Commuting 650 83.1 ND Residents at MN Institutionsb Commuting 169 33.5 Not Commuting 335 66.5 aN = 782 b N = 504 205 Table C.6 Frequencies of Survey Respondents by Class Standing and State Minnesotaa North Dakotab Class Standing Residents Residents fc %b f % Freshmen 247 31.5 110 21.8 Sophomore 188 24.0 94 18.8 Junior 152 19.4 111 22.0 Senior 139 17.8 100 19.8 Graduate 35 4.5 43 8.5 Other 22 2.8 46 9.1 N = 783 N = 504 c = Frequency; d = Percentage 206 Table C.7 Frequencies of Survey Respondents by State and Degree MN Residentsa ND Residentsb Degree fC %d f % Associate Degree 77 10.0 47 9.4 Bachelor's Degree 550 71.2 340 67.1 Master's Degree 58 7.4 58 11.4 Specialist 31 4.0 10 2.0 Doctorate 12 1.6 6 1.2 Other 45 5.8 41 8.2 Missing 10 1.2 2 .3 aN = 773 bN = 502 c = Frequency; d = Percentage Table C.8 Frequencies of Survey Respondents by State and Age State Age Minnesotaa North Dakotab f9 %d f % 17-21 years of age 538 68.6 265 52.4 21-30 years of age 222 28.3 167 33.0 Over 30 years of age 24 3.1 74 1.6 aN = 784 bN = 506 c = Frequency; d = Percentage 207 Table C.9 Frequencies of Survey Respondents by State and Sex MN Residentsa ND Residentsb Sex fc %d f % Female 344 43.9 326 64.7 Male 440 56.1 178 35.3 aN = 784 bN = 504 c = Frequency; d = Percentage Table C.10 Frequencies of Survey Respondents by Consideration of an Alternate School and State Minnesotaa North Dakota Status ReSidents ReSidents f9 %d f % Considered an alternate school 503 64.2 278 54.8 Did not consider an alternate school 276 35.2 225 44.3 Missing 5 .6 4 .8 N = 779 2 II 503 c = Frequency; d = Percentage APPENDIX D COVER LETTER, QUESTIONNAIRE, AND CODING FORMAT APPENDIX D COVER LETTER, QUESTIONNAIRE, AND CODING FORMAT Minnesota -North Dakota Tuition Reciprocity Study 600m H. Wallman 329 Erickson Hell Rmreher Midiipn State University (517) 355-1197 Em Lansing, MI 4882‘ October 1979 Dear Student; The Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board and the North Dakota Postsecondary Educa- tion Commission are sponsoring a srudy on tuition reciprocity and we are asking that you complete the enclosed questionnaire. returning it to us in the postage-free envelope provided. The results of the study will be used by members of the two higher education board offices to better undemand what influences students to take advantage of tuition reciprocity. Individuals will nor be identified in any way as overall statistics will be used in reporting the results. Your participation is VERY lMPORTANT because this letter is not being sent to everyone but to a random sample of students who submitted applications for tuition reciprocity. Therefore. a high rate of participation is even more important. During the past two years the Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board has conducted two other studies on tuition reciprocity and it is possible that some of you participated in them. If so. we would still like you to complete the enclosed questionnaire as this study differs from previous ones. Your help is greatly appreciated and we look forward to your participation in this important Study. Thank You. W George H. Wallman Researcher PS. The study is being done in conjunction with a doctoral dissertation while I am on a sabbatical leave from North Dakota State University which is why the materials were mailed from and are being returned to Michigan. 208 209 Minnesota -North Dakota Tuition Reciprocity Study George H. Wallman Researcher (517) 355-1197 PART 1 - INFORMATION ABOUT THE SCHOOL YOU ARE CURRENTLY ATTENDING. Please respond to the following questions by placing the correct code number of the appropriate response on the line to the right. If a line does not appear to the right you are not being asked to transfer a code number. 1. Please select the response that applies to your situation and place the appropriate code number on line 1 to the right. (1) I applied for tuition reciprocity but did not use it. (2) I am a ruident of Minneota attending a North Dakota postsecondary institution under the tuition reciprocity program. (3) I am a ruident of North Dakota attending a Minnesota postsecondary institution under the tuition reciprocity program. (4) other 1. IF YOU INDICATED ITEM NUMBER 1 FOR QUESTION ONE, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO COMPLETE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE. HOWEVER, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU RETURN IT TO US. THANK YOU. . Using the list below please circle the code number (number to left) at the postsecondary institution you are currently attending and also place the code number on line 2 to the right. 01 Bemidji State U. 02 Mankato State U. 03 Minn. Metro. State 04 Moorhead State U. 05 St. Cloud State U. 06 Southwest State U. 07 Winona State U. 08 UM-Crookston 09 UM-Duluth 10 UM-Morris 11 UM-Twin Cities 12 UM~Wasaca 13 Minn. Community College 14 UND-Grand Forks 15 NDSUBottineau 16 NDSU-Fargo I7 NDSSS-Whapeton 18 Dickinson State Coll. 19 Mayville State Coll. 20 Minot State Cell. 21 Valley City State Coll. 22 0th. 2. — . How far from your home is the educational institution you are currently attending? (1) lns than 30 miles (2) 30-50 miles (31 51400 miles (4) more than 1m miles . Are you living at home with your family and commuting to the school you are currently attending? (ll Yes (2) No . What is your current clas standing? (ll Freshman (2) Sophomore (3) Junior (4) Senior (5) Graduate student (61 other . Using the list below please circle the code number (number to left) of your academic interest AT THE TIME YOU SELECTED the school you are now attending and also place the code number on line 6 to the rig“. 09 Home Economics 10 Jaurnalism 01 Agriculture 02 Architecture 03 Business related 11 Pharmacy 04 Computer Science/Math. 12 Science related 05 Education 13 Social Work 06 Engineering 14 Trade 0r Technical 07 Health related 15 Undecided 08 Humanities/SOCIaISCIeoces 16 other :99 Erickson Hall Michipn Sun University Eur tuning. MI 48824 This column is for keypunching please ignore _lll [2.3] [4] __l5] l6] ___l7.81 210 7. Has yOur academic interest changed since you selected the school you are Currently attending? (ll Yes (2) No If you answered ”No" yOu may go on to Question 9. If "Yes" please answer Question 8. 8 If y0ur academic interest has changed since you selected the school you are now attending please circle the code number of your current academic interest and also place the code number on line 8 to the right. 01 Agriculture 09 Home Economics 02 Architecture 10 Jaurnalism 03 Business related 11 Pharmacy 04 Computer Science/Math. 12 Science related 05 Education 13 Social work 06 Engineering 14 Trade or Technical 07 Health related 15 Undecided 08 Humanities/Social Science 16 other 9. AT THE TIME YOU WERE DECIDING WHAT postsecondary institution to attend did you visit the campus of the school you are now attending? it) Yes (2) No 10. Did you apply for financial aid at the school you are currently attending7 (1 I Yes (2) No 11. Did you receive financial aid from this school? (1) Yes (2) No 12. In the space provided below please describe, in your own words, what influenced you to select the school you are now attending? 13. Did yOu transfer to this institution from a state school in your home state’ (1) Yes l2) No 14. When did you transfer to the school you are now attending? (1) within the past year (2) 1 2 years ago (3) over 2 years ago PART II - GENERAL INFORMATION. Please place the code number of the correct response on the line to the riwtt when appropriate. 15. What is your age? (1) under 17 (2) 17-21 (3) 21-30 (M Over 30 16. What is yOur sex? (II Female (2) Male 17. Please write the name, city and state of the high school from which you graduated in the space that follows Ischooll (City) “13101 13 16 {10.11} —_I12] __l13i 1141 —[15} {21 l22’ ___123; 211 18 Please select the response that best describes your situation. I am pursuing a: (II Associate degree (2) Bache- lors degree (3) Master's degree (4) Specialist degree (51 doctorate (6) other 18. __ [24) 19. Did you seriously consider any other educational institutionIsI BEFORE selecting the school yOu are currently attending’ I1) Yes (2) No 19.__ [25] IF YOU ANSWERED "YES" TO QUESTION 19, PLEASE GO ON TO PART III. IF YOU ANSWERED "NO" TO QUESTION 19, PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY AND THEN GO ON TO PART IV - ALTERNATE PLANS, PART III - INFORMATION ABOUT THE SCHOOL YOU MOST SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED BEFORE SELECTING THE SCHOOL YOU ARE CURRENTLY ATTENDING. Please place the code number of the correct response on the line to the ridit when appropriate. 20. What institution did you Most SERIOUSLY consider before selecting the school you are currently attending? Circle the code number of that school and also place it on line 20to the right. 01 Bemidji State U. 12 UM-Waseca 02 Mankato State U. 13 Minn. Community College 03 Minn. Metro. State 14 UND-Grand Forks 04 Moorhead State U. 15 NDSU-Bottineau 05 St. Cloud State U. 16 NDSU-Fargo 06 Scuthwest State U. 17 NDSSS-Whapeton 07 Winona State U. 18 Dickinson State Coll. 08 UM-Crookston 19 Mayville State Coll. 09 UM-Duluth 20 Minot State Coll. 10 UM-Morrrs 21 Valley City State Coll. 11 UM-Twin Cities 22 other 20.___l30,3ll 21. How far is the institution listed in Question 20 from your home? (1) Ian than 30 miles (2) $050 mil: (3i 50100 miles (4) 101-150 miles (5) more than 150 miles 21._ I32] 22. How does the cost of the school you most seriously considered before selecting the school you are now attending compare to the cost of the school you are currently attending? (1) cost is more (2) cost is less l3I cost is about the same (4) not sure 22. I 33] 23, Did you apply for admission to the school listed in Question 20? III Yes (2) No 23.__[34} 24. Were y0u accepted for admission to this school? (11 Yes (2) No 24. I35] 25. Did you apply for financial aid to this school? (I) Yes at No 25 ___l361 26 Did you receive a financial aid offer? (ll Yes (21 No 26..__ I37} 27. What factors discouraged yOu from attending this school? Please describe below, in yOur own words. 27. ___l38l PART IV — ALTERNATE PLANS IN THE ABSENCE OF TUITION RECIPROCITY. 28 If turtrOn reciprocity was not available at the time you selected the school you are currently attending what do y0u feel you would have done? (II wOuld have attended the school listed in Question 20, l2I wOuld have attended the school I am currently attending (3) won not have gone to college (41 other _, __ 28 __ I42) 212 PART V - COLLEGE CHOICE FACTORS. Listed below are several statements which may reflect ways yOu were influenced to select the school you are currently attending. Please read each statement and then circle the appropriate response to the right, from the following choices; 0 = does not apply 1 8 applies but no influence 2 ' influenced me a little 3 = influenced me some 4 = influenced me strongly 5 - influenced me very strongly THE FACT THAT THE SCHOOL I AM NOW ATTENDING: . Provided an opportunity to live at home. . Offered an opportunity to leave my home state. . Would not have to charge me out-of-state tuition. . Offered me a scholarship, grant or asistantship Was recommended by a high school teacherlsl. Offered me a campus job. . Has less than IQWO students. . Has fraternities and sororities. «smuggle-urea . Was quick to rspond to my requests for information. . Has more than 10,000 students. . Was perceived as a friendly school. . Was lar, and diverse. d—a-a-e UN-‘O . Impruasd me on my campus visit. dd 0|. . Offered an academic proyam well suited to my interests. 16. Was located in a moderate size community. 17. Was closer to my family. 18. Was located in a Iarp community. 19. Was recommended by my high school counselor. 20. Was not too competitive academically. 21. Was recommended by a faculty member at another school. 22. Has a good social climate. 23. Has an attractive campus. . Had been attended by a friandlsl. . Was the school my parents preferred. . Had been attended by a memberlsl of my family. . Encouraged me to attend by sending letters and literature. . Wauld cost less to attend than any other school I considered . Recruited me to participate in athletics. 24 25 26 27. Has an excellent academic program in my area of interest. 28 29 3O . Was considered a challenge academically. QUESTIONNAIRE NUMBER The number above is being used to avaid sending DarIlCIDanIS a follow up letter INFLUENCED ME. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO dddd‘ddddddddddddd‘dddd‘ did MNMMNNNNNNMNMNNNNNNNNNNNMMNNNN UUUQUUQUUUUUUNUUUUUUUUUUUQUUQU bbbbbbbbb‘bbbbbb.&b&b‘bbb&bbbb mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 143i 144] 1451 I461 [471 I481 [491 1501 1511 1521 1531 1541 1551 1561 [571 [581 1591 [601 1611 1621 [631 [64] l651 1661 [671 168! 169% I701 171 1 I721 173 76} 213 Coding Format For Items 12, 17, 19, and 27 Column Description 15-19 Item 12: open-ended list of (Multiple reasons) influences in selecting current institution: 1. academic/intellectual 2. social 3. practical 4. advice from others 23 Item 17: location of high school 1. stratum I 2. stratum II 3. stratum III 4. stratum IV 5. stratum V 6. stratum VI 26-29 Item 19b: reasons for not consider- (Multiple reasons) ing an alternative institution: 1. academic/intellectual 2. social 3. practical 4. advice from others 38-41 Item 27: reasons for not selecting (Multiple reasons) alternate institution: 1. academic/intellectual 2. social 3. practical 4. advice from others APPENDIX E ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS APPENDIX E ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ANOVA: Analysis of Variance ECS: Education Commission of the States f: frequency MN: Minnesota MHECB: Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board; formerly the Minnesota Higher Education Coordi- nating Commission (MHECC) MHECC: Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Commission, changed to Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board (MHECB) in 1975 MSU: Moorhead State University SD: Standard Deviation SPSS: Statistical Package of the Social Sciences (see References) SREB: Southern Regional Education Board t: t-test value TROS: Tuition Reciprocity Opinion Scale, the survey instrument UM: University of Minnesota UND: University of North Dakota 214 215 n: number of cases NEBHE: New England Board of Higher Education NERSP: New England Regional Student Program ND: North Dakota NDSU: North Dakota State University NDBHE: North Dakota Board of Higher Education NDPSEC: North Dakota Postsecondary Education Commission NDSU-B: North Dakota State University-Bottineau Branch NDSSS: North Dakota State School of Science WICHE: Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education REFERENCES REFERENCES Astin, A. W. The characteristics and attitudes of 1977- 78 freshmen. The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 23, 1978, pp. 123I3. Astin, A. W. Whoggoes where to college? Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1965. Abelson, R. P., & Tukey, J. W. Efficient conversion of non-metric information into metric information. In E. R. Tufte (Ed.), The quantitative analysis of social problems. Reading, Mass.: Addison- Wesley Co., 1970. Bentley, J. C., & Salter, S. College freshmen view counselor help in college selection. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1967, 46, 178-183. Bowers, T. A., & Pugh, R. C. Factors underlying college choice by students and parents. Journal of College Student Personnel, 1973, 14, 220-224. The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. The capitol and the campus. New York: McGraw Hill, 1971. Dawes, Robyn M. Fundamentals of attitude measurement. New York: Wiley & Sons, 1972. Education Commission of the States. Higher Education in the States, 1978, 1(2), 33-128. Education Commission of the States. Higher Education in the States, 1974, 4(9), 221-296. Engelhart, M. D. Methods of educational research. Chicago: Rand McNaIly, 1972. Feldman, K. A., & Newcomb, T. M. The impact of college on students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1969. 216 217 Holland, J. L. Student explanations of college choice and their relation to college popularity, college pro- ductivity and sex differences. College and Uni- versity, 1958, 33, 313-320. Ingle, C. R. Minnesota-North Dakota cooperation in post- secondary education. St. Paul, Minn.: Minnesota Higher Educatidn Coordinating Board, 1977. Katz, D., & Allport, F. H. Students' attitudes. Syracuse: Craftsman Press, 1931. Kirk, R. E. Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, Calif.: Brooks/ Cole, 1968. Kerr, W. D. Student perceptions of counselor role in the college decision. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1962, 51, 337-342. Kuh, G. D. Admissions. In W. T. Packwood (Ed.), College student personnel services. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas, 1977. Laird, David B., Jr. Inter-State reciprocity: Minnesota- Wisconsin model. St. Paul, Minn.: Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Commission, July 14, 1974. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 097818.) Leister, D. V., & Maclachlan, D. L. Assessing the com- munity college transfer market: A metamarketing application. Journal of Higher Education, 1976, £1,661-680. Martorana, S. V., & Nespoli, L. A. Regionalism in American post-secondary educaEion: Concepts and practices. University Park, Penn.: Center for the Study of Higher Education, Pennsylvania State University, 1978. Michel, F. C. A study of factors related to the develop- ment of an interstate reciprocity agreement in education (Doctoral dissertation, Washington State University, 1975). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1975, 3Q, 741A. (University Microfilms No. 75-16, 182) Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board. Staff Technical Paper: Minnesota participants in tuition reciprocity. St. Paul, Minn.: February 1979. 218 Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board. Report to the Governor and 1979 Minnesota ngislature. St. Paul, Minn.: January 1979. Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Commission. Making the transition: Report to the 1975 Minnesota legislature, supplement 1. St. Paul, Minn.: January 1975. Moser, C. A. Survey_methods in social investigation. London: Heineman, 1967. Mosher, C. A., & Kalton, G. Survey methods in social investigation (2d ed.). New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1972. New England Board of Higher Education. New England regional studentgprogram evaluation. Wellesley, Mass.: 1972. Nie, N. H. et a1. Statistical package for the social sciences (2d ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975. Ostenson, T. K. Fall enrollment prgiections 1976-1980 for North Dakota institutions of higher education. Bismark, N.D.: North Dakota Higher Educational Facilities Commission, 1976. Ridgeway, M. E. Interstate compacts: A gpestion of federalism. Carbondale, I11.: Southern Illinois University Press, 1971. Richards, J. M., Jr., & Holland, J. L. A factor analysis of student explanations of their choice of a college. Iowa City: American College Testing Program, 1965. Smebakken, T. News from the Office of the Governor: Wendell Anderson. St. Paul, Minn.: Governors News Release, June 28, 1973. Southern Regional Education Board. The academic common market 1975-76. Atlanta, Georgia: 1974. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. Ed 101 520) Stewart, M. O., & Hanafin, K. M. Stabilization of fresh- man enrollment by analysis 6f'college choice factors and college serviCes. Arlington, Virginia: 1974 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. ED 088 319) 219 Thompson, G. R. Factors influencing college choice among seniors in selected suburban high schools (Doc- toral dissertation, University of Colorado, 1965). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1966, gg, 6519. (UniverEIty Microfilms No. 66-3291) Torrence, D. E. A comparison of factors influencing the enrollment decisions of first-time freshmen and transfer students admitted to Marygrove College for the 1978 fall semester. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1979. Tri~College University_self-study report. Moorhead, Minn.: TfI-College University, 1978. Wiersema, W. Research methods in education. Itasca, I11.: Peacock, I975.