PAR‘HCWANON iN ATi‘lifiTk’ES AND ITS EFFECT GN ACADEMEC SUCCESS AT CENTRAL MIQHIGAN UNIVERSITY Thesis: {m the Bear“ caf- Ed. 63* MlCHlGAN STAYE URIVERSHY Richwci Jay Kirchner 1962 I :4 myuvurwyujuumw1W / This is to certify that the ‘ " thesis entitled PARTICIPATION IN ATHLETICS AND ITS EFFECT ON ACADEMIC SUCCESS AT CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY presented by Richard J ay Kirchner has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Doctors degree in Education / Major professor May 10 9 1962 L I B R A R Y Michigan State .. University Date PARTICIPATION IN ATHLETICS AND ITS EEFECT ON ACADEMIC SUCCESS AT CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY By Richard Jay Kirchner AN ABSTRACT OF A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR.QF EDUCATION Department of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation 1962 ILHII wmgmim’! 31" ‘iéflmri ABSTRACT PARTICIPATION IN ATHLETICS AND ITS EEFECT ON ACADEMIC SUCCESS AT CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY by Richard Jay Kirchner The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether or not participation.in athletics at Central Michigan University had any desirable or undesirable effect on the academic success of the participants. The study was conducted over a five year period from.the academic year 1955-56 to the academic year 1959- 60. All of the individuals who were on varsity teams, were not transfer students, and for whom college aptitude scores were available, were matched with.non-athletes. The nonpathletes and athletes were matched on the basis of the year they began college, their major and their minors. By an analysis of covariance, the effect of the college aptitude was held constant and the analysis for difference in mean honor point average was made. Various sub-groups were analyzed including each of the individual sports in which competition is sponsored at Central Michigan University. Richard Jay Kirchner High levels of significant difference in mean academic achievement (.001 level of confidence) were found for the following sub-groups: (1) Non-pressure sports (F-ratio of 12.600), (2) Minor sports (F-ratio of 16.870). (3) Wrestling (F-ratio of 15.540) and (4) Participants in two or more sports (F—ratio of 15.810). Other significant sub-groups included: (1) Major sports (F-ratio of 5.564), (2) Tennis (F-ratio of 8.320), (3) Cross-country (F-ratio of 4.730) and (4) Freshmen on varsity teams (F-ratio of 5.080). The following general conclusions applicable only to Central Michigan University were drawn: 1. Athletic participation did not have a detrimental effect on scholarship of athletes at Central Michigan university. 2. Individual sports showing the greatest academic success were track, wrestling and cross-country. 3. The non-pressure and minor sports showed the highest level of academic success. 4. Freshmen participating on varsity teams showed superior scholastic achievement when compared with their non-athlete controls. PARTICIPATION IN ATHLETICS AND ITS EFFECT ON ACADEMIC SUCCESS AT CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY By Richard Jay Kirchner A.THESIS Submitted to Michigan St ate University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR.0F EDUCATION Department of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation 1962 ACKNOWLEDGMENT The investigator would like to acknowledge the very great cooperation given him by the administration of Central Michigan University in making available all of the necessary data. Special mention should be made of Dr. Donald Kilbourn, Dr. King McCristal and Dr. Randolph Webster who assisted with the early planning, making many constructive sug- gestions; Mr. George Lauer, registrar and person directly responsible for making records available to the investi- gator; Dr. Wilbur Waggoner for his guidance in the statistical analysis and interpretation of the data; and Mr. Douglas Wooley for his assistance in wiring and programming the I. B. M. equipment. The guidance and cooperation of my committee (Dr. Wayne Van Hues, chair— man; Dr. G. Mikles; Dr. Walter Johnson and Dr. J. Dzenowagis) was most valuable throughout the program. i i / 111 W TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Importance of the study . . . . . . . . . . . Statement of the problem . . . . . . . . . . Scepe of the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations of the study . . . . . . . . . . ox \n .> n: r4 .4 H Definitions of Terms Used . . . . . . . . . . . II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 General Weaknesses of Past Literature . . . . . 10 Effect of Intramural Participation . . . . . . 11 Literature Against Intercollegiate Competition. 13 Literature Supporting Intercollegiate Competition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Literature Involving matching . . . . . . . . . 16 Summary of the Literature . . . . . . . . . . . 23 III. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Experimental Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Control Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Sub-groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Statistical Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 CHAPTER IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Aptitude and honor point ratio of athletes Curricula of athletes . Analysis of results . . . . . . . . . Discussion . . ...‘. . . . . . . . . . V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations . . . . Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY .APPENDIX A. .APPENDIX B. .APPENDIX C. .APPENDIX D. Programming of I. B. M. Codification for Majors Codification for Minors Summary of Results . . . Card PAGE 32 32 32 34 36 52 so so 51 62 62 64 69 70 71 72 VI. VII. VIII. XI. XII. XIII . -—-— __._— LIST OF TABLES College Aptitude of Athletes as Measured by ACE~T Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Academic Success of College Athletes . . . . . . Major Fields of Study of Athletes . . . . . . . . Minor Fields of Study of Athletes . . . . . . . . Comparison of Mean Honor Point Ratiosof Athletes and Non-Athletes . . . . Comparison of Mean Honor Point Ratios of Pressure Sport Athletes and Non-Athletes . . . . . . . . Comparison of Mean Honor Point Ratios of Non- Pressure Sport Athletes and Non-Athletes . . . . Comparison of Mean Honor Point Ratios of Pressure Sport Athletes and Non-Pressure Sport Athletes . Comparison of Mean Honor Point Ratios of Major Sport Athletes and Non-Athletes . . . . . . . . Comparison of Mean Honor Point Ratios of Minor Sport Athletes and Non-Athletes . . . . . . . . Comparison of Mean Honor Point Ratios of Football Squad Members and Non-Athletes . . . . PA GE 33 35 37 38 39 40 4o 41 42 43 43 Comparison of Mean Honor Point Ratios of Basketball Squad Members and Non-Athletes . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Mean Honor Point Ratios of Baseball Squad Member: and Non-Athletes . . . . . . . . . 44 44 . .~-.. 171 III] HIII I117, TABLE XIV. XVII. XVIII. XIX. XXII. XXIII. Comparison of Mean Honor Point Ratios of Squad Members and Non-Athletes . . . . Comparison of Mean Honor Pbint Ratios of tling Squad Members and Non-Athletes . Comparison of Mean Honor Point Ratios of country Squad Members and Non-Athletes Comparison of Mean Honor Point Ratios of Squad Members and Non-Athletes . . . . Comparison of Mean Honor Point Ratios of Squad Members and Non-Athletes . . . . Comparison of Mean Honor Point Ratios of Squad Members and Non-Athletes . . . . Comparison of Mean Honor Point Ratios of Squad Members and Non-Athletes . . . . Comparison of Mean Honor Point Ratios of Participating in Two or More Sports and Athletes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Mean Honor Point Ratios of Wres- ;.;.;-' ' .1; Gymnastic Athletes None Freshmen Competing on Varsity Teams and Non-Athletes . . . Comparison of Mean Honor Point Ratios of Competing on Varsity Teams and Freshmen Freshmen Teams Summary of Results Freshmen on PAGE 45 46 46 47 48 49 49 51 51 72 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM During a period of time when the academicians in American education circles and in popular writings are attacking the ”frills“ of education, it becomes in- creasingly important that all areas of school activity ‘ be soundly grounded. Participation in athletics, as well as participation in debate, band and many other activities commonly found on the college campus, can be defended on their own merit. However, it is not the purpose of this paper to attempt to defend or attack athletic participation. Instead, this study will take the basic premise that academic success is the sole objective of college life (a premise that my well be debated) and attempt to determine if participation in another educational activity, varsity athletics, is detrimental to scholastic achievement. 1. THE PROBLM Importance 9_f_ Lb; m _ For the past five years the Interstate Intercol- legiate Athletic Conference, of which Central Michigan University is a member, has been contemplating a "fresh- man rule" that would in effect bring the conference's athletic policies more in line with the National Collegiate Athletic Association and be a departure from the general policies of the national Association of , Intercollegiate Athletics. One of the many arguments that has been used by the academic members of the vari- ous institution's faculty boards of control 19.... Martin that is being done the academic achievement of freshmen due to their participation in athletics. In addition, it has often been claimed that the student, regardless of college class, suffers academically from partici- pation in the varsity athletic program. In a smaller voice, the Opponents of this point of view have claimed that participation in athletics actually helps men to attain better scholarship. They have said that the athlete has superior success aca- demically due to the closer counseling he received and the added stimulation from eligibility requirements. Statement 9_f_ 3.112.91‘0219! Since this question had been answered largely on personal opinions and prejudices, the purpose of , this study was: (1) to determine what effect, if any, athletic participation had on academic success in college, (2) if athletic participation had an effect on academic success, did it have a greater or lesser effect on freshmen competing on varsity teams? (3) assuming ._—~c— .4 that athletic participation had an effect on the academic success of freshmen competing on varsity teams, is this a greater effect than on freshmen competing on recognised freshmen teams? and (4) is there any difference between the effects of participation in major or pressure sports and minor sports? no problem that the investigator wished to pursue was whether or not participation in athletics affected scholastic success as measured by honor point ratio. In the past, many authors have compared academic performance of athletes and non-athletes. Whether or not a man par- ticipated in athletics seemed to have little effect on the quality of his scholastic work. However, these have been simple status studies and generally no attempt has been made to analyze the data. One of the most frequent complaints concerning this type of study is that the two groups did not have comparable courses of study with the inference that the athletes were taking easier com-see. Although this had been contra- indicated by Davis and Pobans,1 and their conclusion was 2 later substantiated by Snedden, the investigator decided 10. 0. Davis and J. F. Pobanz, “Subjects Pursued by Winners of the ‘M‘ at the University of Michigan," Education Administration and Su rvision, 4 (April, 1918) , 222. 2D. Snedden ”Athletes and Scholarship,“ Harvard Alumni Bulletin, 3i (December 20, 1928). 362. """""‘" 4 to match the athletes and non-athletes on the basis of their major and minor fields of study as declared by the individuals in their personal record file. In addition, since it is of interest to determine the effect of partic- ipation, the factor of college aptitude, as measured by the total score (T—score)3 of the ACE. college aptitude “It. was held constant by the analysis of covariance statis- tical technique. In this way, the sample consisted of two stratified random samples (one athlete and the other non-athlete) with similar courses of study and with the effect of their college aptitude removed. m 2.1:. an ass: This study involved athletes and non-athletes at Central Michigan University who had ACE—T scores available and had not transferred from another university, college or junior college. The population was selected from the athletes attending Central Michigan University between the academic years 1955-56 and 1959-60 inclusive. The non-athlete sample was drawn from the student body attending Central Michigan during comparable dates. Central Michigan is a university located in Mt. Pleasant, Michigan. Its 1959-60 resident enrollment was about 4,950. 3The T-score of the ACE is a total of the verbal and nonverbal components of the ACE examination and is not to be confused with the standard score referred to as a T—score. Limitatigns 9; the Btgz i'he following limitations pertaining to this study have been recognized and, where possible, attempts have been made to negate them: 1. Accurate records might not have been readily available on all experimental and control subjects. 2. the claim had been made by some of the Inter- state Intercollegiate dthletic Conference coaches that be- cause of the snll amount of financial aid given in this conference, many of the athletes recruited were not of as high potential scholastic ability as the rest of the student body. 3. Certain individuals may have helped the athlete remain eligible by giving athletes breaks in the grading system. ' 4. the school may have had anti-athlete instructors who intentionally made the course requirements difficult for athletes to meet. 5. in athlete may have lettered in more than one sport. In this event, he was recorded once in overall calculations but in individual sport breakdowns, he may have appeared on two or more athletic teams. 6. In spite of comparable fields of study, the experimental and control groups may not have had compar- able courses . 7. Many factors that affected scholastic success may not have been accounted for. It is believed that by having used the total population of athletes and having randomly selected the control group, the influence of these factors was held to a minimum. 8. Since this study was a semester by semester comparison rather than a person by person comparison, one person may have exerted considerable influence on the results while others exerted comparatively little. In groups where the number of cases was large this was of little importance but in the smaller sub-groups it became a major factor. 11. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS The following terms were defined because of their many connotations at various institutions and because of their unique use in certain instances at Central Michigan University. Academic Success. Measured by the honor point ratio. Athlete. Any boy who received a varsity award at Central Michigan University in any given year of the study, or any boy who remained with a varsity team for a full season of competition, or any boy who would have received a letter as a result of his participation had he remained academically eligible for a full school year. College Aptitud . The score achieved on the ACE-T college aptitude examination. ‘gligiblg,dghlgte. Any athlete who met the eligibil- ity requirements of Central Michigan University. He must have been.taking at least twelve semester hour credits at the time of competition and, with the exception of first semester freshmen, must have passed at least eleven semester hour credits the semester prior to competition. In addition, he must have had a cumulative honor point ratio of: (1) first semester freshman -- no requirement, (2)second semester freshman - 0.7 honor points per credit, (3) first semester sephomore -- 0.8 honor points per credit, (4) second semes- ter sephomore - 0.9 honor points per credit, and (5) juny ior and above -- 1.0 honor points per credit. The maximum possible number of honor points per credit was three for eligibility purposes. Preshman.f Any student who had not had a previous year of competition at the college level and had earned less than thirty credits. In the event that such a student 'would have two classifications, the one based on credits prevailed providing it did not classify a student as a freshman who had prior college competition. Freshman.§gyg. .A2rule prOposed by certain members of the Interstate Intercollegiate Athletic Conference 8 faculty boards of control that would have prohibited fresh- men from participating on varsity teams. At the time of the study, freshmen were eligible for competition on varsity teams in the Interstate Intercollegiate Athletic Conference. £1333; £9332. Points awarded for scholastic attain- ment in college course work. An "A" is worth four honor points per credit; "B", three honor points per credit; ”C“, two honor points per credit; "D”, one honor point per credit and "E”, zero honor points per credit. For eligibility, deduct one honor point from the honor point ratio (the total honor points divided by the total credits carried or earned) to place the student on the three-point system used by the Interstate Intercollegiate Athletic Conference. gong; §9_i_r_1t_ 33112. The total honor points acquired divided by the total number of credits earned plus failures. M93. Any student who had earned over fifty-nine credits and less than ninety credits or had just two prior seasons of competition. In the event that such a student had two classifications, the one based on credits prevailed providing it did not classify a student as a junior who had three or more years of prior college competition. Major Sport. Any sport that received major point totals in the Interstate Intercollegiate Athletic Conference all-sports traphy competition. These sports were football, basketball, baseball and track. m M. Any sport that received minor sport point totals in the Interstate Intercollegiate Athletic Conference all-sports trophy competition. The sports that received minor point totals were cross-country, gymnastics, swimming, golf, tennis and wrestling. Passing $1333. I) or above. Pressure _S_p_or__. Football and basketball. Mm. Any student who had earned over twenty- nine credits and less than fifty-nine credits or had just one prior season of competition. In the event that such a student had two classifications, the one based on credits prevailed providing it did not classify a student as a saphomore who had two or more years of previous competition. Senior. Any student who had earned overeighty-nine credits but less than sufficient credits to graduate or had three prior seasons of competition. In the event that such a student had two classifications, the one based on credits prevailed providing it did not classify a student as a senior who had four prior years of competition. slum .MJ #— -—m —-. 55‘ CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The purpose of this study was to determine whether or not participation in athletics had any effect on scho— lastic success at Central Michigan University. To deter- mine the effect of participation, athletes and non-athletes were matched according to year they began college, majors and minors. By an analysis of co-variance, the effect of college aptitude was held constant and the difference in mean honor point average was analysed for significance. GENERAL WEAKRESSES OF PAST LITERATURE As early as 1921, Jacobson noted that most past studies of the effect of athletic participation on scho- larship were weak because the results had not been sub- jected to statistical analyses.1 Very few studies reviewed involved college athletes and even the more recent ones had a tendency to avoid any statistical treatment or se- rious effort at controlling the samples. lJohn M.‘Jacobsen, “Athletics and Scholarship in the High School,” School Rovieg. 39:280. 11 EFFECT OF INTRAMURAL PARTIO IPATIOH Three studies have been completed that compared the academic achievements of participants and non-participants in intramural activities. Somers concluded that “partic- ipation in class team competition does not appreciably affect either adversely or favorably, the academic grades of student participants."2 This study supported two prior studies involving intramural participation. Waskes found that there was a higher scholastic attainment by those who had participated in the intramural program and in a final emanation stated that '..... at least (intramural participation) has no deleterious effect on the participant's scholastic attainment."3 Hackensmith and Miller worked only with team sports in the college intramural program and concluded that the one hundred and sixty one partici- pants had a higher median scholastic ranking than the one hundred and sixty one non-participants.4 The average 2M. R. Somers, ”Comparative Study of Participation in Extracurricular Sports and Academic Grades,“ Research Quarterly, 22 (March, 1951), 89c 3Paul R. Washes, 'A Study of Intramural Sports Participation and Scholastic Attainment at the University of Oregon.” W W1. 11 (May. 1940). 27- 4-C. W. Hackensmith and L. Miller, “Comparison of the Academic Grades and Intelligence Scores of Participants and Mon-participants in Intramural Athletics at the Uni- versity of Kentucky," gsearcb Quarterly, 9 (March, 1938). 94. 12 number of activities by each participant was six. Further, they concluded that freshman participation did not have a marked effect upon the students academic grades and sopho- more participants showed a slightly higher mean academic average. Junior and senior intramural participants demon- strated a definitely higher mean academic achievement than did the non-participants of the same class. Sperling included three groups in his investigation at the City College of New York in studying personality differences between varsity athletes, intramural athletes and mom-athletes.5 He concluded, ”A more socially desirable degree of personality deveIOpment accompanies a greater degree of experience in physical education activities."6 Beck, on the other hand, while not disagreeing with this point, makes a strong plea that perhaps we are expecting too much from our athletes when we require them to work as well as practice and study while taking a full academic load.7 The majority of the studies reviewed seemed to 5Abraham P. Sperling, "The Relationship Between Personality Adjustment and Achievement'in sical Edu- ' cation Activities,” Research Quarterly, 13 ( ctober, 1949, 351. . . 6Ibid., pp 363. 7R. L. Beck, 'Athletitis or the Academic Back ound of the Athlete,“ School and Societ , 55 (February, 1 42, 215. 13 indicate that athletics contributed to, or at least did not detract from, academic success. Many different criteria were used to determine academic success but the most popular was the honor point ratio. LITERATURE AGAINST INTERCOLLEGIATE COMPETITION Marco was one of the dissenters.8 Using the per cent of students graduating from William and Mary College, he determined that only 32.2 per cent of the football players graduated while 55.9 per cent of the general student body graduated. This was in spite of the fact that the athletes selected the less demanding curricula. Nancy, using the academic averages of football players over a ten year period concluded that there was an "unmistakeable evidence of overemphasis on college football."9 He con- eluded this because the grades of football players were lower than the grades of other men during the ten years studied. In addition, spring semester grades for both groups were higher which he also attributed to the over- emphasis on football . 8S. M. Marco, ”Place of Intercollegiate-Athletics in Higher Education,” Journal of Higher Education, 31 (November, 1960 , 422. " "" "" ‘ 90. A. Maney, "The Grades of College Football Stu- dents,” m and. We 38 (1933) e 307- l4 Champlin mde the point that most criticism of athletics is justified only when a small minority of the athletes is being considered.10 LITERATURE SUPPORTING INTERGOLLEGIATE COMPETITION A number of uncontrolled or poorly controlled studies arrive at somewhat different conclusions when working with high school boys. Reals and Reese concluded that although intelligence quotient scores were slightly in favor of non-athletes, teachers' marks favor athletes? This conclusion was substantiated by the work of Bay12 and 13 Connor concluded that there is no significant Pangle . difference between the scholastic attainment of athletes and non-athletes and therefore, participation in athletic 100.1). Champlin, 'Dia osing Athletitis,‘ School 2.6-. 300161; e 55 (May 239 194-2 9 537.- 11W. R. Reals and R. G. Reese, “High School Letter- men - Their Intelli ence and Scholarship, School Review, 47 (September, 1939 , 534. "—— 12Roward C. Bay, “Inter-relationships of Physical and Mental Abilities and Achievement of High School Boys," MW 11 (March. 1940). 129. 13R. Pangle, "Scholastic Attainment and the High Schgsal Aggletefl' Peabody Journal 33 Education, 33 (May, 195 9 3 . 15 activity did not have an adverse effect on scholastic success.l4 Jones15 and Olson16 disagreed that athletes scored below normal .011 intelligence tests. They found that athletes were more intelligent than non-athletes. In addition, Jones found that a smaller percentage of athletes than non-athletes were in the lower intelligence levels. Heating compared the season of participation with the season of non-participation in varsity high school athlet- ics.17 He found that 51.7 per cent of the participants had higher grades in season; 26.8 per cent had lower grades in season and 21.5 per cent had grades equal during partici- pation and non-participation semesters. Jacobsen was a little more cautious but he also concluded that the scholar- ship cf athletes did not seem to suffer appreciably during l4Thomas Connor, ”Varsity Athletes'Make Superior Scholars," Scholastic Coach, 24 (November, 1954). 56. 15R. H. Jones, ”Comparison of the Intelligence of ' High School Athletes‘with Non-Athletes,” School and Society, 42 (September, 1935), 415. 16Arne L. Olson, “Characteristics of'Fifteen‘ Year Old Boys Classified as Outstanding Athletes, Scientists, Fine Artists, Leaders, Scholars, or as Poor Students or Delinquents“ (paper read at the American Association'of Health, Physical Education and Recreation convention, Cincinnati, Ohio, April 10, 1962). 17walao T. Keating, “Scholarship of Partici ts in Football,“ Athletic Journal, 41 (February, 1961 , ll. 16 the period of participation.18 He concluded that athletes were generally of average mntal ability and tended to stand as high as, if not slightly higher than, non-athletes in academic achievement as measured by school marks. Host of the studies already summarized have some weaknesses from the research point of view but can be accepted as being honest efforts to acquire some indication as to the academic ability of athletes. ' In a few, the bias of the author seemed apparent. In may, the lack of adequate controls and sampling procedures must be taken into consideration when reading them. However, the preponderance of evidence began to take form. LITERATURE INVOLVING MATCHING In some studies, attempts have been made to match athletes and non-athletes on various criteria. Often these criteria are vague or extremely generalised but the inves- tigator believes that any honest attempt to eliminate possible bias from the study by matching procedures is worthwhile of note. In one of the earliest studies, Cook and Thompson matched athletes on the basis of the year the athletes started school and the number of semesters that the 13John M. Jacobson, ”Athletics and Scholarship in the High School,” School Raview, 39 3280. 17 athlete remained in high school.19 They concluded that “athletes are more likely to graduate than non-athletes", and that “athletic interest causes a pupil to be less willing to miss school because of the necessity of regular practice.'20 They also pointed out that athletes did just a trifle poorer scholastically. Eaton and Shannon compared high school lettermen and non-lettermen with respect to intelligence percentiles.21 They found that high school athletes were lower in intelligence and achievement but that achievement related to intelligence was higher. It may reasonably be assumed that athletes have greater physical fitness than non-athletes. Therefore, it is interesting to look at the relationship between scholar- ship and physical fitness. Giauque found that there was 'no reasonable relationship between scholarship and physical fitness.'22 ”William A. Cook and Mabel Thompson, “A Comparison of Letter Boys and Non—Letter'Boys in a City High School,“ School Eview,'36 (May, 1928). 350. ”page no. 357- 21Dorothy Eaton and J. R. Shaman, “College Careers of Hi School Athletes and Non-Athletes," School Review, 4-2 22Charles D. Giauque, "An Inquiry into the Correlation Between Physical Fitness and Scholastic Standing," Su le- ment 2 the Research Quarterg, 6 (March, 1935). 27 . 18 Cormany used different and more select criteria in matching his athletes and non-athletes.23 The author paired his samples on the basis of school, grade, age and intel— ligence quotient. In addition, the criteria for scholastic success was selected as results on standardized achieve- ment measures in English, biology and American history. This eliminated, to a large extent, teacher prejudice for or against athletes. The final conclusion was ”..... it is striking, if not significant, to find in each case (sub- group of the study) that the trend is in favor of the athlete."24 Another author that used standardized English tests as criteria for scholastic success was Shannon.25 This author concluded that "athletes ..... make higher achievement records in proportion to their intelligence than mom-athletes."26 Culley divided his sample into three classifications for analysis.27 They were: athletes winning a letter; 23w. J. B. Cormany, "High School Athletics and Scholarship Measured by Achievement Tests," School Review, 43 (June. 1935). 456. 24Ibid., pp. 458. 25J. R. Shannon, ”Scores in English of High School Athletes and Non-Athletes," School Rev'ew, 46 (February, 1938), 128. 26Ibid., pp. 130. 27B. H. Culley, "Athletes and Grades," Phi Delta Ka an, 22 (April, 1940), 383. l9 athletes not winning a letter; and the general student body. The three groups had practically the same mean intelligence quotient scores. He concluded that athletes did somewhat better so participation ".... did not harm them and .... it may have served as a stimulus to many who otherwise would have been content to let their scholastic achievements ride along.“ He further concluded that "facts more or less support the claim ..... that the interscholastic program had benefits which were inherent in the program itself and which were not necessarily confined to physical improvement . " 28 Tuttle and Beebee correlated the academic achieve- ments of varsity athletes at the University of Iowa over a six year span with the success of the individual teams as measured by conference finishes and found a correlation of .80.29 Regarding the scholarship of athletes, the authors found that “scholastic averages in all sports move down during the season of competition."30 They also concluded that the scholastic attainment of letter winners was approximately equal to the average of the 281hig., pp. 389. 29w. w. Tuttle and r. s. Beebee, ”Study of the Scholastic Attainments of Letter Winners at the State University of Iowa,” Research Quarterly, 12 (May, 1941). 174. 3°lhid., pp. 180. 20 male group to which they belonged and that the sports upon which most emphasis was placed ranked lowest in scholastic attainment . In one of the few studies where some attempt was made to control the courses of study of athletes and non- athletes, Reeder studied the academic records of members of varsity squads in.the College of Commerce at Ohio State University.31 He found that on intelligence tests, athletes and non-athletes were equal at the quartile points and that the grade-point averages at the quartile points were also approximately equal. .Athletes had a better record than.non— athletes regarding dismissal because of academic problems, but did not do as well during the quarter of competition. He concluded that: In.this case it is significant that practically one half the group of athletes can work 20-22 hours per week in addition to athletic participation and succeed as well scholastically as the other group that is free from.employment and from financial problems. The cumulative ratios 359 practically identical at the quartile points. Henning and Carter matched high school athletes and classmates on the basis of school, date of graduation, 3].C. W. Reader “Academic Performance," Jgurnal o_f_ Higher Education, 13 (April, 1942), 204. 321hid., pp. 207. 21 high school scholarship, average measured intelligence, reading quotients and college preparatory study load.33 They found that a significantly larger number of football players than control non-athle tes planned to go to college. The measured intelligence quotients and high school grades of non-athletes were slightly superior but the differences were not significant. Football players distributed their courses equally with non-athletes and tended to graduate a slightly higher percentage than the not-athletes. When sixty star athletes were sampled, it was found they did not differ from the other athletes in intelligence or scholastic achievement. The most recent article reviewed concerned basketball players in the 1960 Iowa sub-state and state tournaments. With fourteen of the sixteen participating schools report- ing, Eidsmoe reported that “athletes, such as basketball players, who are highly competitive in their chosen sport are also above the average of their fellow students in academic performance J34 33E. J. Henning and H. D. Carter, ”Participation in High School Football as a Factor Affecting College ' Attendance and Scholarship,” Journal 9; Applied P cholo , 29 (June, 1945), 236. 34R. M. Eidsmoe, “Facts About the Academic Perform- ance of High School Athletes," Journal of lies h, M Eduggtion and Recre tion, 32 (November,'T9 , 20. ll 22 Probably the most comprehensive survey of the effect of athletic participation on scholastic performance was the one sponsored by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and reported by Savage.35 Fifty two colleges and universities, 2,787 athletes and 11,480 non-athletes were surveyed. In summarizing the results, it can be said that athletes carried a slightly larger number of program hours but that the difference was not significant; that athletes scholastic grades averaged slightly lower than non-athletes, but this was not significant; that a higher proportion of athletes than non-athletes graduate but that it takes the athlete longer; that a slightly higher proportion of athletes than non-athletes incurred probation at some time during the college course, but it was very slight; that wrestlers, cross-country and track men do very well with football and polo players standing at the bottom of the list; that a larger proportion of athletes than non- athletes elected "easy" courses but the same is. true, in exactly the same prOportions, when considering "hard" courses and that non-athle tee did slightly, but not materially, better than athletes on intelligence scores. 3‘J-Howard J. Savage, and others, "American College Athletics," (New York: The C rnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1929 , pp. 123-25. 23 In a second survey reported by Savage, thirteen schools tested 4,412 seniors with a standardized examination of general knowledge.36 The results of this examination showed that 290 athletes averaged over twenty points higher than 1,340 non-athletes but that the difference was not significant. Top scores were turned in by wrestlers and men participating in two or more sports who did slightly better than the athletes as a whole. The author concluded that “athletes have a better intellectual capacity than non- athle to s . " 37 SUMMARY OF THE LITERATURE In summary it might be said that the basic problems recognized in the 1920's are still prevalent in studies attempting to analyze the effect of athletic participation on scholastic grades. They are still ill-controlled and statistical interpretations have very rarely been attempted. Probably more often than not the athlete has suffered a little in the comparison of intelligence quotient scores but not to a significant degree. Regarding the question of scholastic achievement, there are no significant differences between athletes and non-athle tee though here the athlete 351hid., pp. 125. 37Ibide, pp. 127s 24 tends to show the better scores. Probably the only conclusion that can be drawn from the literature is that no legitimate conclusion is obvious from a perusal of past studies. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY The purpose of this study was to determine whether participation in varsity athletics had any effect on scholastic performance and whether or not this effect, if any, varied with the sport involved or any other classi- fication. Expprimental Group The experimental group was composed entirely of athletes, interpreting the term broadly as defined in Chapter I. The time period covered by the study was from September, 1955 through June, 1960. The experimental group was selected by first listing all of the non-transfer athletes who had won letter awards during the period of the study and then recording all of the names that appeared on the various eligibility lists but did not appear as letter winners. The coach of each varsity sport was approached with the names of athletes appearing on the eligibility lists but not appearing on letter-winner lists and asked to indicate who had completed a season of competition without receiving a letter, or who became scholastically ineligible during a season of competition and thereby did not complete the requirements for a varsity award. . 26 In this way, an experimental group composed of all varsity award winners during the period of the study, all students who remined with a team for a full season of competition and any student who*would have received an athletic award had he not become scholastically ineligible, was established. This general method of selecting the experimental group was followed with most of the sub-groups unless other- wise specified. Except in restricted cases, when freshman team members were used as the experimental group and where analyses were made between two groups of athletes, the varsity team.members were the experimental group. Control m The control group was matched individual to indi- vidual with the experimental group on the basis of year college was begun, major and, where specified, minors. All liberal arts majors or students who indicated that they were \mdecided were grouped together and results were calculated using these undecided students and also cal- culated when they were eliminated from the sample. After the experimental group was determined, the various combinations of major, minors and year starting school were listed. All of the record books for the five years were then examined and all individuals who had corresponding majors and minors for each academic year were 27 recorded providing they were not transfer students and if they had ACE-T scores available. From this control popup lation, a random sample was selected. Whenever possible an athlete was matched with a non-athlete partner. When there were more non—athletes than athletes meeting a par- ticular set of matching criteria (example: experimental and control individuals with physical education major, health education minor, sociology minor, beginning school in September, 1955). the nonpathletes were numbered and the sample that was to be used as control subjects was randomly selected. If more athletes than non-athletes were included, the experimental group was numbered and the sample randomly selected. The ACE-T scores, honor points and credits attempted for each semester were recorded on a special form.devised for this purpose. Summer school sessions were added into the previous semester so the fact that they were summer session classes would exert as little influence as possible. Where comparable semesters appeared (for example, the experimental and control individuals both had first, second, and third semesters in college), the honor point ratio was computed for these semesters. Computation ‘ The honor point ratio, along with other pertinent 28 information, was punched into I. B. M; cards and verified. Each card represented one semester of an experimental and control group pair.1 The sums of scores, sums of squares and sums of cross products were computed on the I. B. M. 602 calculator. Cards were punched so as to facilitate sub-grouping and these sub-groups were sorted on the I. B. Ms card-sorter. The sums of scores, sums of squares and sums of cross- products were then computed for the various sub-groups. Sub-spoups The sub-groups included: (1) total sample with major course of study specified (2) total sample (3) pressure sports (4) pressure sports with major course of study specified (5) non-pressure sports (6) non- pressure sports with major course of study specified (7) major sports (8) major sports with major course of study specified (9) minor sports (10) minor sports with major course of study specified (11) football (12) football with major course of study specified (13) basketball (l4) basketball with major course of study specified (15) baseball (16) base— ball with major course of study specified (17) track chr more details on.the I.B.M5 programming, see appendices A, B, and C. 29 (18) track with major course of study specified (19) wres- tling (20) wrestling with major course of study specified (21) golf (22) golf with major course of study specified (23) tennis (24) tennis with major course of study specified (25) swimming (26) swimming with major course of study specified (27) gymnastics (28) gymnastics with major course of study specified (29) cross-country (30) cross-country with major course of study specified (31) participants in two or more different sports (32) participants in two or more different sports with major course of study specified (33) freshmen participating on a varsity team (34) fresh» men participating on a varsity team with major course of study specified (35) members of pressure sport teams compared with members of non-pressure sport teams (36) meme bers of pressure sport teams with major course of study specified compared with members of non-pressure teams with major course of study specified (37) freshmen on varsity teams compared with freshmen on recognized freshman teams (38) freshmen on varsity teams with major course of study specified compared with freshmen on recognized freshman teams with major course of study specified. Since the basic reason for matching the athletes and non-athletes was to attempt to equate the courses of study of the two groups, the analysis of covariance was calculated for each group including the undecided individuals and calculated again eliminating the undecided individuals. Since the undecided group followed, in general, a liberal arts program with a corresponding freedom of election of classes not available in other specialized curricula, it was recognized that the control of programs would be greater when the undecided group was eliminated from the study. Since this group was not eliminated by definition, 'the anal- ysis was made with and without the followers of the liberal arts program. In the freshman team-freshman on varsity team analyses, the experimental population consisted of all members of freshman teams (football, basketball, baseball and track) who were not transfers and had ACE-T scores available. The control group was composed of freshmen on varsity teams. The same procedure for random matching of the two groups that was used for the other parts of the study was used in this analysis. In the pleasure sport-non pressure sport comparisons, the experimental group refers to the varsity football and basketball team members while their matched partners were selected from varsity team nembers of the other sports. The same method of matching was used as in previous sections of the study. 31 Statistical Treatment The analysis of covariance followed the pattern established by Hollemar with the normally distributed honor point ratio as the independent variable and the reotangularly distributed ACE-T score as the dependent variable .2 Statistical significance was selected to be at the five per cent level of confidence. 2cm McNemar, Ps cholo cal Statistics (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1523;, Chapter I5. CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to determine if participation in varsity athletics at Central Michigan University had any beneficial or detrimental effect on scholastic success. In addition, it was desired to loo]: at individual sports and various combinations of sports to differentiate between their individual effects. RESULTS Aptitude and 31992; M, 33.3.23. 9; Athlete; Table I shows the mean and median ACE -T scores of all members of the experimental (athlete) population. Since the ACE-T results are recorded as percentile rank scores based on local norms, it may be assumed that the mean ACE‘T score for the student population is fifty. It can be seen that the median score of one sport equals the theoretical mean of the student body; four teams exceed and six are inferior to the theoretical mean. On the basis of mean scores for the various sports, the ACE-‘1' of five exceeded the student body mean and the ACE-T of six were interior. The only mean that might be considered extreme is golf (29.73) and the only medians are swimming (71) and golf (25). m. . “ ' O , ‘1'." in. ‘ . COLLEGE MITIIDE OF AEHLETBS AS MEASURED BY ACE-1' SCORE TABLEI 55 Mean ESE;:;:-- Sport 323;: fif§§:;g Swimming 25 57.55 71 freak 47 54.19 56 Cross-country 24 52.96 50 wrestling 59 52.85 59 Basketball 26 51.65 52 Gymnastics 16 48.69 45 Two or More 44 47.50 47 Football 61 46.62 47 Tennis 11 45.00 48 Baseball 55 44.97 40 Golf 11 29.75 25 54 The honor point ratios for the various sports populations, based on a four point system, are shown in Table II. Although these scores might be considered fairly low, it must be pointed out that the populations and, later, the samples, are heavily loaded with freshmen and sophomores as there are five freshman and four sophomore classes to select from but only two senior classes due to the method of selecting the experimental subjects. Since it is reasonable to assume that a process of elimination of weaker students takes place in the first two years of school, upper class scholastic attainment should be higher than the attainment of underclassmen. Therefore, the grades of any group dominated by freshmen and sophomores will be lower than grades of groups more normally composed. In the sampling done from this population, the means of ten samples selected exceeded corresponding population means, the means of ten samples were inferior to the corresponding pepulation means and, in two groups, the sample and population means were equal. Gurriculg 2; Athletes As might reasonably be expected, more athletes major in physical education than any other field except the undecided and liberal arts combination. In Table III, the various athlete majors are broken down in a year by year ACADEMIC SUCCESS OP COLLEGE.ATHLETES TABLE II 55 Mean Sport Number Honor Point Average Cross-country 24 2.42 wrestling 59 2-58 Baseball 55 2.57 Two or More 44 2.56 Track 47 2.54 Tennis 11 2 . 2 8 Basketball 264 2.25 Golf 11 2.20 Swimming 25 2.19 Iootball 61 2.16 Gymnastics 16 2.05 Median Honor Point Ayeggge 2.33 2.35 2.33 2.27 2.31 2.28 2.25 2.19 2.25 2.19 2.06 56 compilation. No discernible trend is apparent though a smaller number of athletes seemed to be majoring in physical education during the latter two years of the study. However, this may well be due to the method of selection of the experimental group and the heavy concentration of freshmen and sophomores, especially during these two years. The minors of athletes are indicated in Table IV. The heavy emphasis in.hea1th education during the period of the study is partially explained by the fact that during the first four years of the study a health education minor was virtually required for anyone taking a physical education major. mam The results of the analysis of covariance, hold- ing constant the effect of college aptitude and analysing for significance of difference in mean honor point av- erage, are presented in Tables‘v through XXIII. In Table V, the total population of athletes that could be matched with non-athletes is compared. The left hand comparison includes those who did not indicate a major or minor while the second comparison is only for those indicating a major curriculum. This is the sequence that will be followed for the remainder of the tables through Table XXIII. It should be noted in the mazes- _ ' _— TABLE III MAJOB.FIELDS OF STUDY OF ATHLETES 57 Subject 1255:56 1256-51 1251-58 lQfiB-fifl 1222-60 T033; ¥ 5 ~ ccounting I 4 Art 1 1 Biology 2 3 1 1 l a Business Adm. 1 l 5 5 Chemistry 1 1 Commerce 4 5 5 2 12 Economics 2 2 English 1 1 Geography 1 1 2 History 5 1 2 l 7 Ind. Arts 7 5 1 2 15 Liberal Arts 7 8 15 26 56 92 Mathematics 2 2 2 4 1 ll Ehysical Educ. 14 16 19 7 5 59 Ere-Engineering 5 1 4 Pro Medicine 1 1 Social Sciences 1 4 2 7 Sociology 2 3 1 6 2 i H . gotiIE TABLE IV MINOR FIELDS OF STUDY OF ATHLETES 58 1 .. . . , Year‘ ., . . 2 7 Sub set 1 - 6 l 6- l - 8 1 -60 Totgl 'I;;1 _252i2___22__21__221I2_.JE2_J214E£21__________. Biology 5 5 l 1 l 9 Chemistry 2 2 Commerce 5 1 4 Economics 7 4 5 4 18 English. 1 l 2 French 2 2 Geography . 7 5 4 1 15 Health Educ. 14 15 19 5 49 History 4 10 5 2 21 Ind. Arts 7 2 6 2 17 Mathematics 5 5 1 7 Physical Educ. l2 l5 7 7 4 45 Ihysical Science 1 l l 5 Political Sci. 5 5 Ibychology 1 l 2 Recreation 1 ' l l 5 Sociology 7 5 12 Spanish 1 1 Spgech 59 over-all comparison that the experimental (athlete) group has a substantially higher honor point ratio (0.15) in spite of the fact that they show somewhat lower college aptitude. The athletes performance is statistically significantly better. TABLE‘V COMPARISON OF MEAN HONOR POINT RATIOS OF ATHLETES AND NONeATHLETES :ficludin—Undecided Ma'orJS cified ‘ T—E— WWTIJ—L—t— perimentalont go], Honor Point 2.22 2.09 2.28 2.15 ACEPT Score 50.05 52.78 44.04 47.67 Number* 842 520 .0 F—ratio 15.758 12.500 Significance Level .001 .001 *Number is the total number of individual semesters in the experimental and control groups. The total number of semesters contributed by athletes is N e 2. In all sub- sequent tables this will be the case. Table VI analyzes the effect of participation in the pressure sports (football and basketball). Very little difference in mean honor point average is present and, when the undecided group is eliminated, the experimental group changes from a superior honor point average to an inferior honor point average when comparing it with the control group. In both instances, however, the athletes have a lower ACE-T score o 40 The next analysis shows what might logically be deduced after the first two analyses are studied. TABLE VI COMPARISON OF MEAN HONOR POINT RATIOS OF PRESSURE SPORT.ATHLETES AND NON-ATHLETES Including Undecided ms or S ecified rimental' centrol’ per men a ContfoI Honor Point 2.09 2.04 2.15 2.16 ACE-T Score 43.49 52.69 31.94 47.19 Number . 274 154 F-ratio 1.150 0.065 Significance Level None None W In the non-pressure sport comparisons (Table VII), the athletes perform significantly better than the control group (0.18 honor points per semester higher) with a some- what lower ccllege aptitude. ‘ TABLE‘VII COMPARISON OF MEAN HONOR.POINT RATIOS OF NON-PRESSURE SPORT ATHLETES AND NONnATHLETES Includi U ecided Najor Specified perimenta ontro_‘ pgrimenta ControI Honor Point 2.28 2.10 2.54 2.14 ACE-T Score 51039 52 069 46e27 47047 Number 616 406 I‘l‘atio 16 e 467 17 e600 Significance Level .001 .001 41 The F-ratio for the non-pressure sport group with major specified is the highest of the entire study and is significant at well above the .001 level of confidence. In the direct comparison between pressure and non- pressure sports, no significant difference was found (see Table VIII). TABLE VIII COMPARISON OF MEAN HONOR POINT RATIOS OF PRESSURE SPORT ATHLETES AND NON-PRESSURE SPORT ATHLETES Jae rime ntal Control Experimental ControL Honor Point 2.18 _ 2.28 2.25 2.40 ACE-T Score 54. 57 55 . 48 46 .06 46 .62 Number' 204 . 94 0. P-ratio 2 . 6 5 5 5 .145 Signific ance Level None None *The number referred to here and in future tables varies from corresponding numbers in Tables I and II (pages 55 and 55). There are two reasons for this. First, the number here refers to semesters while the number in Tables I and II refers to individuals. Second, certain members of the pepulation have been lost before these analyses due to the investigators inability to match non-athletes to their curricula. Note: Be experimental group is the pressure sport group. In both instances, the non-pressure group had slightly higher college aptitude scores and somewhat higher honor point averages . O C e e 9 a ' . o 42 When track and baseball are added to the pressure sports to form the major sport category, a somewhat dif- ferent picture emerged due possibly to the effect of the performance of the track athletes. With a lower ACE-T score, the experimental group performed better to a significant degree than the control members. This is summarized in Table I1. TABLE II COMPARISON OF MEAN HONOR POINT RATIOS OF MAJOR SPORT ATHLETES AND NON-ATHLETES ‘E'ifi'egrimen gain egongrr pegr Bn 21:58-35:55: Honor Point . 2.19 ‘ 2.05 2.28 2.15 ACE-T Score 51.98 51.92 46 .05 49 .51 Number 452 . 260 ‘ I-ratio 7 . 590 5 . 564 Significance Level .01 .05 In spite of this improvement of the performance of the experimental group from the pressure sport combination to the major sport combination, it did not appreciably reduce the academic attainment of the minor sports participants (Table I) . Their performance was even more statistically significant than the major sports, $3.97; . . gm?" 44 In the first three major sports (football, Table II; basketball, Table III; and baseball, Table XIII), no signif- icant difference in academic achievement can be found. TABLE III COMBARISON OF MEAN HONOR POINT RATIOS 0F BASKETBALL SQUAD MEMBERS AND NONeATHLETES Includigg Undecided Ma'or S cified xper men on o Eiierzmen£az ConfroI Honor Point 2.15 1.99 2.06 2.29 ‘03-T Score 49 079 57 e2]. 36 095 60 .16 Number 86 42 Feratic 2.570 0.880 Significance Level None None TABLE XIII COMPARISON OF MEAN HONOR POINT RATIOS OF BASEBALL SQUAD MEMBERS AND NONBATHLETES Honor Point 2.52 2.25 2.22 48.95 2.58 57.52 ACE-T Score 48.80 Number 108 F-ratio 0.650 2.210 Significance Level None None 45 At this point it should be pointed out that in all of the athlete - non-athlete comparisons from Table V through Table XIII, the mean honor point average of the group that selected their major course of study was higher than the mean honor point average of those in the group who were undecided. This happened in spite of the fact that the individuals specifying a major also had lower college aptitude scores whether the group being considered was athlete or non-athlete . Track participants gave one of the six significant F-ratios. Table XIV shows that the total track group comparison resulted in a highly significant difference in honor point averages with the advantage being in favor of athletic participation. TABLE XIV COMPARISON OF MEAN HONOR POINT RATIOS OF TRACK SQUAD MEMBERS AND NON-ATHLETES EcIuding Undecided Ma'or S cified Eiperl'mengaI Txperfnental T ontr 01 on re Honor POI-ht 2036 1.95 . 204-9 2.15 Number 144 92 F-ratio 8 .880 2 . 570 Simificance Level .01 None 46 Among the minor sports, cross-country(Table XVI) and wrestling (Table XV) showed significant positive values for athletic participation.with wrestling showing the highest level of significance of any sport, major or minor. TABLE IV COMPARISON OF MEAN HONOR POINT RATIOS OF WRESTLING SQUAD MEMBERS AND N ON-ATHLETES Includin Ufidecided'. Eipgrimental Control Ma or S eciTied h_a-;___WL____W5 Honor Point 2.54 2.15 2.45 2.07 ACE-T Scores 49.82 61.65 49.45 52.02 Number 152 102 Faratio 8.710 15.540 Significance Level .01 .001 TABLEJXVI COMPARISON OF MEAN HONOR POINT RATIOS OF CROSS-COUNTRY SQUAD MEMBERS AND NON-ATHLETES emanate; 12:15 “min .. Honor Point 2.46 y2.09 .2.57 2.16 ACE-T Scores 61.02 46.96 58.85 44.55 Number 96 72 P-ratio 4.164 4.750 Significance Level .05 .05 _ “M” J 47 Hatched with a group that had far above average college aptitude, the cross-country athlete still managed to have superior honor point averages regardless of the method of analysis used. The only other sport to show a significant difference in mean honor point average was tennis (Table XVII). TABLE'IVII COMPARISON OF MEAN HONOR POINT RATIOS OF TENNIS SQU AD MEMBERS AND NON—ATHLETES Includi Undecided Ma or S ciiied EperimenfiaI UontroI Eerzmngz m Honor Point 2.28 2.12 2.25 1.99 ADE-T Score 51.89 74.55 45.40 72.40 Number 56 20 F-ratio 3.410 8.320 Significance Level None .05 The investigator believes that this points up one of the noted limitations of a study using a semester by semester comparison.1 One person in the experimental group and one in the control group dominated this comparison, contributing sixteen of the twenty equated semesters. Therefore, in small samples, the semester by semester comparison technique 1See Chapter I, pg 6. 48 leads to some conclusions that may not be justifiable even though they are statistically acceptable. In the larger samples, this has been negated to a large extent but in small samples it is a serious problem. The eraining sports (swimming, Table XVIII; gymnastics, Table XIX; and golf, Table 11) showed no significant differences. Swimmers tended to do much better than their control members but their aptitude for academic work also seemed to behigher. TABLE XVIII COMPARISON OF MEAN HONOR POINT RATIOS OF SWIMMING SQUAD MEMBERS AND NON-ATHLETES —_‘ no oing hose .3. ': or oec ‘ e Vpgr ment§_ on rq‘; Ovper men at on rQ__ Honor Point 2.26 2.00 2.26 1.97 ACE-T Scores 60.67 41.87 55.65 20.25 Number 78 52 r-ratio 2.520 0.100 Significance Level None NOne W s -,_ q ,,.. . 49 Gymnastic team.members did a little poorer than their non-athlete partners. This was one of the few instances when the athletes had lower grades than their control. TABLE III COMPARISON OF MEAN HONOR POINT RATIOS OE GYMNASTIC SQUAD MEMBERS AND NON-WTES ._ ~—_—-_———.—_— —_._.... ._ ____..._. InclGE1gg“63EEEEESE“'—__“fi236§_§é36{£183’ ' xperimen a on ro xperimen si_ on re Honor Point 1.90 1.95 2.00 2.00 ACE-T Scores 40.86 52.95 45.58 52.58 Number 28 26 F-ratio 0.890 0.710 Significance Level None NOne Golfers had the poorest honor point average recorded when comparing it with their’control group. TABLEIIX COMPARISON OF MEAN HONOR POINT RATIOS OF GOLF SQUAD MEMBERS AND NON—ATHLETES Includin Undecided UMa°or S ecIfied Egierimental ontro perimen a ConIrOI Honor Point 2.11 2.58 2.12 2.40 ACE-T Score 55.65 54.89 28.48 57.92 Number 54 so F-ratio 1.480 0.550 Significance Level None None W '9 5114.40,]; €413. ".2:- .7- 50 For athletes that participated in.more than one sport, athletic participation seemed, at a high level of significance, to lead to better scholarship (see Table III). TABLEIIXI COMPARISON OF MEAN HONOR POINT RATIOS 0F ATHLETES PARTICIPATING IN TWO OR MORE SPORTS ANDANON-ATHLETES Includ Undecided Ma or S ecified perimental ontrol xperimental_ ontro Honor Point 2.44 2.06 2.51 2.11 ACE-T Score 51.45 50.02 45.40 45.80 Number 128 p 100 Feratio 14.250 15.810 Significance Level .001 .001 W There is a slight weakness in this summary that should be pointed out. Over one-third of the athletes in this sub-group came from.the combination.of track and cross-country. Since the representatives of these sports performed well academically as individual sports, it might be anticipated that this would occur. The final analysis concerned the effect of athletic participation on freshmen. In comparing freshmen partic- ipating on varsity athletic teams with non-athletes (Table XXII), the athletes do significantly superior work during their freshman.year with lower aptitude scores. However, 51 when.comparing freshmen athletes on varsity teams with freshmen athletes from.freshman teams (Table XXIII), there was no significant difference though the varsity athletes had slightly higher honor point averages and in one case superior and one case inferior college‘aptitude scores. TABLEIIXII COMPARISON OF MEAN HONOR POINT RATIOS OF FRESHI’EN COMPETING ON VARSITY TEAMS AND NON—ATHLETES ‘IHcludingUUndecided Ha'or S ecified xperimental Control Experimen ”UBHTEEI- Honor Point 2.0? 1.95 2.10 ‘1.97 AGE-T Score 51.74 54.90 45.14 47.05 Number 486 256 F-ratio 9.470 5.080 Significance Level .01 .05 TABLE XXIII COMPARISON OF MEAN HONOR POINT RATIOS 0F PRESHMEN COMPETING 0N VARSITY TEAMS AND FRESHMEN ON FRESHMAN TEAMS IHEIEE__—‘Uidecided Ma'or S ecified Honor Point 2.04 1.88 2.12 2.05 ACE-T Score 54.26 45.98 44.62 48.86 Number 204 58 ‘ P-ratio 2 .042 0 .920 Significance Level None None .— —— I" . . I --‘ . '— i... .I. - 52 II. DISCUSSION To attempt to hypothesize the reasons for the results obtained from these data is very difficult because of the many factors that can enter into a study of this type. There was only limdted control of the matching procedure and in spite of the occasional large ”N", in many cases the total number of athletes and their nonpathlete partners involved is comparatively small. The majors and minors seem.to be about normally distributed for the athlete population with the exception of a strong emphasis in physical education, However, since the athlete is obviously highly skilled in at least one, and probably more, physical education activity, it would seem natural to find him.majoring in a field where he has an above average level of ability. Certainly it does not surprise one to find a talented artist majoring in art or a talented celloist majoring in music. Yet, there seems to be a tendency for people to look askance at the talented athlete majoring in.physioa1 education. To find a level of significance as high as was found in the direct athlete - nonrathlete comparisons was very unusual in this type of a study. This may have been.because of the experimental design - a semester by semester compari- son.rather than an.individual-to-individual comparison, / . (I "v ' 7 . ‘ “£51.. g.» , . .__ 3.- 3"“ . _""—- _. -fLJ'I- - ___F i m.— “L. _ _ Ex: seq . _. 7 -" .. 7 w . 55 The semester comparison led to a larger number and a smaller rqratio requirement for a particular level of significance. A second reason for this comparatively high level of significance was the statistical technique used. By an analysis of covariance, the effect of college aptitude was eliminated. On the basis of an informal pilot study conducted by the investigator, it was eXpected this statis- tical technique would be a hinderance to obtaining statisti- cal significance though it would be a more valid indication of the true situations However, this did not turn out to be the case. In fact, this technique tended to emphasize the significance of the difference in means. Why athletics should contribute to scholastic success is an interesting question. Certainly athletics are time consuming and it would be expected that this might be detrimental to good scholarship. However, based on.the data in this study, it would appear that athletics con~ tribute positively to academic achievement. Two possible explanations appear to be reasonable and they will be discussed briefly. . First, athletics, because of the eligibility require- ments and other awards for combinations of good scholarship and athletic ability, have built-in inducements for academic achievement. A.boy knows he must maintain acceptable grades if he desires to compete. As a result, he has an additional m .—..n.:q:,p”s.e" war-4a,;a; . {gs-33:43.2: .9. .m‘r figfififi‘ " ~ : 54 incentive to work toward his academic potential. This is, to be sure, an artificial stimulus but if one accepts this hypothesis, it is probably a stimulus that is justified on the basis of its results. The second explanation.concerns the counseling that the athlete receives. In spite of a very fine group of counselors at Central Michigan University, the fact remains that the counselorbcounselee ratio is very large. A coach, on the other hand, is involved in advising only twelve to fifty students. In the case of the larger numbers, very often.more than one person is involved in coaching the sport and therefore the ratio may be even smaller than might be expected. In discussing the academic success of individual sports, possible explanations for the performance of different squads can be advanced. The fine showing of the cross-country team.may have been due to its relatively short season and probably was also due to the relatively high college aptitude. The baseball and wrestling coaches have been trained in counseling and this may be a reason for their success. Wrestling also showed good college potential. On the other end of the scale, gymnastics has by far the longest season and also the coach with the least professional preparation. The problem.of football may be explained by the position.of its season. The fact that it comes so early in 55 the school year may be detrimental. However, it is to be remembered that cross-country occupies the same relative time position in the school year. A definite distinction arose when the influence of pressure and non-pressure sports on academic performance was considered. Certainly there can be little doubt that the results indicated very strongly that participation in non-pressure sports tended to encourage good scholarship. On the other hand, this was not the case with the pressure sports. When the scholastic aptitude of the football team was observed, it proved to be relatively low. 021 the basis of numbers, football dominated the pressure sports. root- ball, of course, comes early in the school year beginning before school even cpens. Did this prevent boys from getting off to the "good start“ many peeple feel is so necessary? Once again, it must be remembered it is difficult to rationalize the performance of cross-country runners if this was the case. Certainly when comparing pressure and non- pressure sports directly, no claim of statistical signif- icance could be made though the data once again tended to favor participation in the non-pressure sports. This poses another question. Is it the nature of the sport, the type of individual involved, the external pressures that are greater in these sports (certainly the internal pressures are no different), or any of a number other possible 56 explanations that caused these differences? In the opinion of the investigator, these questions and the ones involving the participation of freshmen on varsity teams were the most interesting parts of the study. Individually, the performance of the track, cross- oountry and wrestling teams was splendid. To attempt to give possible explanations for this would be difficult. Perhaps it was simply a lucky five year run of athletes. However, because of the relatively large number of cases, this is a difficult hypothesis to justify. It is interesting to note that these are what are basically referred to as individual sports. Does this perhaps have some bearing on the results? Certainly much more information is needed in this area. One of the more intriguing sub-group statistics involved the athletes participating in two or more sports. Actually, in the study, only one man participated in three seasons of competition and he did this for only one year. The partial explanation based on the fact that many of the individuals involved doubled in track and cross-country has already been discussed. However, this does not give an adequate explanation as to why it occurred. Possibly the only general hypothesis that might stand up is the theory that the athlete so involved will better organise his time or that it is the nature of the individual who would 57 attempt to participate in.two varsity sports, to work closer to his capacities than his control partner. The question of the advisability of allowing fresh- men to participate in varsity competition has frequently arisen. In some colleges it has not been.practical to attempt to field representative teams without using freshp men. In others, usually the larger schools, the tradition has grown that freshmen should ”get adjusted" to college life before embarking on an athletic career. Yet, these same peeple who are against freshmen competing on varsity teams condone the participation of freshmen on.freshman teams where coaches may not be as well trained and where practice times are often inconvenient. Also, the partic— ipation of freshmen in band, debate, chorus, student publications and many other activities is rarely, if ever, questioned. The interesting point in the freshman results is that freshmen participating on.varsity teams did better than the regular college freshmen. This was significant regardless of the method of sampling. when.they were compared with freshman teams, the freshmen on the varsity, with approximately equal college aptitude, did not do significantly superior work. The explanation involving counseling by coaches fits nicely in this particular phase of the study. Most college counselors believe that the first two semesters are exceedingly important. 58 Certainly the college counselors were overworked during orientation week when schedules were made up by the fresh- men. At this point, the student who worked closely with his coach was able to get more individual help. In addition, most coaches already had working knowledge of the boy's background, family, financial status, past academic. success and other information that assisted him in helping the boy in the selection of classes. In addition, this eXplanation may help explain the advantage the varsity athlete had over the freshman athlete who was on a freshman team. Very few “unknowns” will make a varsity team as a freshman. Therefore, the coach generally knew with whom he had to work. Somewhat more often, a boy who had not been recruit- ed made a freshman team. Since this boy was unknown up to the time he tried out, he had not received any more than normal tmiversity counseling. This may in part explain the superiority of the freshman on the varsity over the freshman participating on the freshman teams. One of the more interesting points is the fact that a cursory glance at the data indicated that the athletes, as a group, were below their non-athlete counterparts in general college ability. Would these statistics stand up if the athletes had greater college aptitude? Finally, the fact that the group that selected a major did somewhat better, in most cases, in spite of the 59 handicap of lower college aptitude is of interest. No statistical treatment was performed on this data but it is interesting for further study. Does this mean that the stu- dent who goes to college knowing where he is going has a better chance to succeed? It would seem logical to assume so. However, why does he score lower on.the college aptitude test? This and many other questions that have arisen.can only be answered by further studies in.this area. (I‘ll. [ii-[l CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUS IONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS no purpose of this study was to determine if participation in varsity athletics at Central Michigan University had any beneficial or adverse effect on scholastic success. To pursue this problem, athletes and non-athletes were matched on the basis of major, minor( s) and year they started school. By an analysis of cover- iance technique, the college aptitude of each pair was equated and an analysis of difference in mean honor point average was made. The comparison was a semester-by-semester comparison rather than an individual-to-individual compar- icon. I. FINDINGS The total group, non-pressure sport group, minor sport group, two-or-more sports group and the wrestling group showed highly significant results (.001 level of confidence) favoring athletic participation. Other sub- groups that showed significant results included: major sports, track, wrestling (when the liberal arts students were included), tennis, cross-country and freshnen par- ticipating on varsity teams. F-ratios varied from a low of 0.044 for football to a high of 17.600 for the non- 61 1 pressure sports with major specified. II. CONCLUSIONS 0n the basis of this study, the following conclusions seem Justified at Central Michigan University: 1. Athletic participation does not have any detri- mental effect on scholastic success. 2. Track, wrestling and cross-country participants and non-pre ssure sport participants show the highest levels of scholastic success of any of the sub-groups. 3. All significant results are in favor of athletic participation. Virtually all of the non-significant results, also tended to favor the athletic participants. 4. Freshman participation on a varsity athletic team did not have a detrimental effect on scholastic success. III . LIMITATIONS The limitations of this study that should be noted include the disadvantages of a semester-by-semester com- parison. The major weakness of this type of research is that, in small samples, one individual may bias the results by contributing a disproportionate share of the semesters. 18cc Table nIv, Appendix 1), pg. 72. 62 However, this bias can work to the advantage of either the control or the experimental group. Various other factors have not been controlled but the major areas of weaknesses of previous studies have been eliminated by the sampling procedure and by the statistical technique employed. IV . REC OI'IMENDATIONS 0n the basis of thexresults and conclusions of this study, it seems Justifiable to mks a number of recommenda- tions. f This study was restricted to Central Michigan Univer- sity. It would seem to be desirable and important that other similar studies be conducted in similar institutions; in larger institutions with "big-time" athletic programs; in smaller institutions and others with different philosOphical backgrounds. The question of freshmen participating on athletic teams has long been a subject of considerable debate. One of the arguments against freshmen participating has been that their scholastic performance was poorer as a result of this participation. From the results of this study, this does not appear to be the case at Central Michigan University. In fact, the opposite is apparently true. It therefore is recommended that the question of freshmen i“ ”*gm :3— '."_'-.l*.-b W'fim‘fl .g'..ofin§.. «f -. “.3139!” m m‘fw-h . .- re. 63 participating on varsity teams a be examined more closely and other arguments analyzed objectively. If the arguments are substantiated, then, if applicable, they should be examined in relation to other non-curricular activities. If they do not stand up to objective evaluation, then the National Collegiate Athletic Association and other govern- ing bodies should again evaluate the restriction on freshman participation. The scholarship potential of athletes seemed to be a little below average. The reasons for this should be examined jointly by the athletic department and the school administration with an eye to improving the already adequate scholastic performance of Central Michigan University athletes. Various individual opinions have already been voiced by the athletic staff. Some merit investigation. In summary, much research is needed in this area to dispel personal prejudices both pro and con collegiate athletics. it Central, and no doubt at many other institutions, research of this type will become easier in the future as more and more records will be kept on 1.3.14. cards. Certainly the least enjoyable and most time consuming part of any research of this type is the hand sorting and recording of record books and data. 1.3.14. and other comparable systems will make this type of much needed research easier and more challenging to future investigators. BIBLIOGRAPHY Beck, R. L. 'Athletitis or the Academic Background of the ${Efif§e" Sggoo; and Society, 55 (February 21, 1942), Champlin C. D. "Dia osing Athletitis,“ S 001 and Scciet , 55 (May 25. 1942 . 587-8. '— Ccnncr, T. ”Varsity Athletes make Superior Scholars,“ Scholastic Coach, 24 (Nevember, 1954), 56-7. Ccck,‘William.A. and Mabel Thompson. "A.Compariscn of Letter Boys and Non—Letter Boys in a City High School," School Review, 36 (may, 1928), 350-58. Germany, W. J. B. "High school Athletics and Scholarship Measured by Achievement Tests," Sghcol Review, 43 (June. 1955) , 456-61. “‘— Culley, B. H. '"Athletes and Grades,” Ehi.Delta Ka an, 22 (April: 1940). 383-4. Davis, Calvin 0. and J. F. Pbbanz. ”Subjects Pursued by Winners of the 'M' in all Subjects at the University of Michigan,” ucation Administration and Super- vision, 4 (Apri , l 18 , 222-26. Eaton, Dorothy and J. R. Shannon. ”College Careers of High School Athletes and Non-Athletes,” School §§view, 42 (1934). 356-61. Eidsmoe, R. M. “Facts About the Academic Performance of High school Athletes,” Journal of Health, Ph sical gaucation and Recreation, 32 (NovemBEr, 19 , . Giauque, Charles D. ”An.Inquiry Into the Correlation Between Physical Fitness and Scholastic Standing," ' Supplement tg,the Research Quarterly, 6 (March, 1935): 9-7 . Jacobean, John M; ”Athletics and Scholarship in the High School,” School Review, 393280-87. Jones, R. H. ”Comparison of the Intelligence of High School Athletes with NonpAthletes,” Sghccl and Society, 42 (September 21, 1935), 415-16. 66 Heating, Waldo T. "Scholarship of Participants in Football," Athletic Jgurnal, 41 (February, 1961), 11. Haney, C. A. ”The Grades of College Football Students,” School and Scciet , 38 (1933), 307—8. Marco, S. M. "Place of Intercollegiate Athletics in Higher Education ' J urnal 2; Higher Egucation 31 (November, 1960): 455-27. ’ Hackensmith, C. W. and L. Miller. "Comparison of the Academic Grades and Intelligence Scores of Participants and Non-Participants in Intramural Athletics at the University of Kentucky," Research Quarterly, 9 (March, 1938 9 94-99. ' . Henning, E. J. and H. D. Carter. ”Participation in High School Football as a Factor Affecting College Attendance and Scholarship," Journal 2; Applied Ps cholo , 29 (June, 1945). 533-45? McNemar, Quinn. Ps cholo ical Statistics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Iic., I949. Olson, Arne L. ”Characteristics of Fifteen Year Old Boys Classified as Outstanding Athletes, Scientists, Fins Artists, Leaders, Scholars, or as Poor Students or Delinquents." Paper read at the American Association for Health, Physical Education.and Recreation convention, Cincinnati, Ohio, April 11, 1962. Panglz, R.t 'Ecgglastic AttainmentEand the Rig? ?fi:ool thle e, abod Journal 2;. question, y, 1956). 56011—1- . ‘— Ray, Howard C. “Inter-relationships of Physical and Mental Abilities and Achievements of High school Boys,” The Research Quarterly, 11 (March, 1940), 129-41 0 Heals, W. H. and Reese, R. C. "High School Letterman - Their Intelligence and Scholarship,” School fipview, 47 (September, 1939). 534-39. Reeder, C. W. 'Academic Performance," Journal of Higher Education, 13 (April, 1942), 204-087"""“""“' Savage, Howard J. and others. American College Athletic . New York: The Carnegie Foundation for the vancement of Teaching, 1929. Shannon, J. R. ”Scores in English of High School Athletes and Non-Athletes,“ Sghcol Review, 4 (February, 1938). Snedden, Donald. "Athletics and Scholarshi ,' Harvard Alumni Bulletin, 31 (December 20, 1928?, 335-65. Somers, M. R. "Comparative Study of Participation in Extracurricular Sports and Academic Grades,I gpsearch Quarterlz, 22 (March, 1951), 84-91. Tuttle, W. W. and F. S. Beebee. "Study of the Scholastic Attainments of Letter Winners at the State University lem“muumenuu,R(ML1%D,Nkw. Sperling, Abraham P. I'The Relationship Between Personality Adjustment and Achievement in Physical Education Actigities," Rpsearch Quarterly, 13 (October, 1942), 351- 3. Waskes, Paul R. "A Study of Intramural Sports Participation and Scholastic Attainment at the University of Oregon," Research Quarterly, 11 (May, 1940), 22. 67 APPENDIX Column UI-FWNH APPENDIX A PROGRAMMING OF I. B. M. CARD Program Identification,number Identification.number Identification.number Last digit of year in.which school was begun Sport: wrestling (1); Golf (2); Tennis (3)° Baseball 24;;1Fcctball (52; Basketball (6); Swimming 7 ; Gymnastics Cross-country 0). ACE-T score of athlete ACELT score of athlete Honor point average of athlete Honor point average of athlete Honor point average of athlete Major course of study see Appendix B; Major course of study see.A pendix B First minor course of study {see Appendix C) First minor course of study see Appendix C Second minor course of study see Appendix C Second minor course of study see Appendix C Is this a freshman semester of varsity competition? 1 equals a yes and 2 equals a no. ACE-T score of control ACE-T score of control Honor point average of control Honor point average of control Honor point average of control ‘ Is this a duplicate card except for column 5? 1 equals a,yes. 8); Track (9)) . ‘ “‘\‘ ., ‘ A (I /‘ sl ‘ . 'l I!' {I ,_, - / \ , v: .:. ~ ' _ / . .e‘ . $ L. . a . ‘ ‘ i 1‘ I 4 ' " Arr-‘4 ‘ . . l f a — ii - " .- -_-,_. . . ' 4 .'s-- _ h _' J‘ s- n a . _,. ~ V' .APEENDIX B GODIFICATION FOR MAJORS Code lumber Major 01 Accounting 02 Biology 03 Business Administration 04 Chemistry 05 Commerce 06 Economics 07 English 08 Geography 09 History 10 Industrial Arts 11 Liberal Arts 12 Mathematics 13 Physical Education 14 I’m-Engineering 15 Pre-Medicine 15 Social Science 17 Sociology 18 Speech 19 Art Code Number 01 02 03 O4 05 O6 07 08 09 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 APPENDIX C CODIFICATION FOR MINORS Minor Art Biology Chemistry Commerce Economics English French Geography Health Education History Industrial Arts mathematics Physical Education Physical Science Political Science Psychology Recreation Sociology Spanish Speech L_____...,_. Group Total Total w/mjr Pressure Sports Press. Spts w/mjr Non-Pres. Sports N-P Spts w/mjr Press Spt—N.P. P-Non P. w mjr Major Sport Major Sport w.mjr Minor Sport Minor Sport w/mjr Football Football w/mjr Basketball Basketball w/mjr Baseball Baseball w/mjr Track Track w/mpr Wrestling Wrestling w/mjr Golf Golf w/mjr Tennis Tennis w/mjr N 842 520 274 154 616 406 204 94 452 260 444 502 192 116 86 42 108 68 144 92 152 102 54 50 36 20 APPENDIX D TABLE XXIV SUMMARY OF RESULTS Mean HPA Exp. 2.22 2.28 2.09 2.13 2.28 2.34 2.17 2.23 2.19 2.28 2.29 2.35 so es HO mm Ivtu P‘F‘ -axn and \s\N CHQ wm NH we mm mm mm 0 0 NM NM NM NM [UN NM NM Cont 2.09 2.15 2.04 2.16 2.10 2.14 2.28 2.40 2.05 2.15 C I . O O . O O O O O 0 8w ow Ho mm mo 00 HH m 4w mm mm mm mm NH F‘N ham nun NtJ who lord new new 0 o \OH \ON Mean ACE Expe. 50.03 44.04 43.49 31.94 51.39 46.27 54.37 46.06 51.98 46.05 51.78 48.08 39.97 29.36 49.79 36.95 48.80 37.32 60.75 58.96 49.82 49.45 33.63 28.48 51.89 45.40 Cont. 52.78 52.69 47.19 52.69 47.47 53.48 46.62 51.92 49.31 54.67 49.18 50.82 42.97 57.21 60.10 48.93 44.85 48.21 43.00 61.63 52.02 54.89 57.92 74.53 72.40 p- ratio 13.738 12.500 1.150 0.065 16.467 17.600 2.655 3.143 7.590 5.564 13.375 16.870 0.044 0.836 2.570 0.880 0.630 2.210 8.880 2.570 8.710 15.540 1.480 0.330 3.410 8.320 Level of Signif. .001 .001 None None .001 .001 None None .01 .05 .001 .001 None None None None None None .01 None .01 .001 None None None .05 Group Swimming Swimming w/m jr Gymnastics Gymnastics w/mjr Cross-count I-country w mjr Two or more spts Two plus w/mjr Frosh on varsity Fr on vars w/mjr TABLE XXIV (continued) N 78 32 28 26 96 72 128 100 486 236 Fr on vars-Fr team204 Fr-Fr team w/mjr 58 Mean HPT Exp. 2.26 2.26 1.90 2.00 Cont 2.00 1.97 1.93 2.00 2.09 2.16 2.06 2.11 1.93 1.97 1.88 2.03 Mean ACE mp6s 60.67 55.63 40686 43.38 61.02 58.83 51.45 45.40 51.74 43.14 54.26 44.62 Cont. 41.87 20.22 52.93 52.38 46.96 44.33 50.02 45.80 54.90 47.03 45.98 48.86 73 Level F- of ratio Signif. 2.520 None 0.100 None 0.890 None 0.710 None 40164 005 4.730 .05 14.250 .001 15.810 .001 9.470 .01 5.080 .05 2.042 None 0.920 None MICHIcaN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES 1|”111111111|WMWWNW11111111111111 31293102549122