A SURVEY OF STUDENT ATTITUDES ‘ TOWARD THE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY RESIDENCE HALL SYSTEM Thesis for the Degree of M. A. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY JAMES CATTANACH 1 97 2 I/IIIIIIIIIIIII/III/IIIIIIIIIIII/I/l/II L 93 10401 1212 MSU' LIBRARIES .a-IlanuuL RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. be charged if book is FINES wiII returned after the date stamped below. 1% esoTw M lame? MAY232004 MM 14111202012 mm m 011322129029 “$12212 l A SURVEY OF STUDENT ATTITUDES TOWARD THE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY RESIDENCE HALL SYSTEM BY James Cattanach This study surveyed student attitudes toward the Michigan State University Residence Hall system, and ‘ how those attitudes affected occupancy. In addition to gen- erating new data, the study validates and integrates similar studies undertaken at other universities. A random sample of 138 on-campus and 50 off-campus students at Michigan State University were interviewed. The questionnaire consisted of open-end questions, modified Likert scales, and semantic differential scales designed to elicit attitudinal preferences. The students were found to be slightly positive in their evaluation of the residence halls overall. They perceived the dormitories to be an adequate place to live for one year, allowing a student to adjust and make friends. But, due to complaints of high expense, poor food, small rooms, restrictions and lack of privacy many students felt it better to move off-campus after one year. James Cattanach Students living off-campus were found to hold more intense attitudes concerning both good and bad aspects of residence hall living. Their evaluations of classes in the dormitories, cleanliness, and laundry facilities were significantly more positive than those of current on-campus residents. However, their evaluations concerning lack of privacy, expense, noise and restrictions were consistently more negative. Males were generally more critical of the Residence Hall system than females. They were particularly negative in their evaluation of room size, cleanliness, noise, food and a lack of freedom. Seniors and sophomores tended to evaluate the resi- dence halls more negatively, while freshmen had the most positive attitudes. Seniors were particularly concerned with a lack of privacy and restrictions on life style. Sophomores disliked the restrictive atmosphere, quiet hours, the food and expenses. Accepted by the faculty of the Department of Advertising, College of Communication Arts, Michigan State University, in partial fulfillment of the require— ments for the Master of Arts degr e. ‘ Y, Director of Thesis A SURVEY OF STUDENT ATTITUDES TOWARD THE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY RESIDENCE HALL SYSTEM BY James Cattanach A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Advertising 1972 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to acknowledge the considerable amount of time and effort expended by Dr. Kenward Atkin in helping me to prepare this paper. I also thank the class of Advertising 823, Winter term, for their help in interviewing and data collection. Finally, I thank my wife, Roberta, for her assistance and consideration. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . CWTER II 0 BACKGROUND 0 C C O O O O O O O O O MSU Research (3)--Re1ated Research (7)-- Summary (9) CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . The Problem (ll)--Sampling (12)--The Question- naire (13)--Analysis (16) CHAPTER IV. FINDINGS O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Total Sample (l7)--On-Campus/Off-Campus Groups (43)--Ma1e/Female Groups (62)-- Class Level Groups (81) CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 iii Page 11 17 107 112 113 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Recent research of student opinions on residence halls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 2. Total sample characteristics . . . . . . . . . 13 3. Sources of information about residence halls O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 20 4. Total sample attitudes about the residence hall overall . . . . . . . . . . . 22 5. Total sample attitudes about residence hall expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 6. Total sample attitudes about noise in the residence hall . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 7. Total sample attitudes about residence hall Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 8. Total sample attitudes about residence hall food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 9. Total sample evaluation of residence hall fOOd O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 26 10. Total sample attitudes about social aspects of residence hall life . . . . . . . . . . . 29 11. Total sample attitudes about residence hall rules 0 O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O 30 12. Total sample attitudes about residence hall management and staff . . . . . . . . . . 31 13. Total sample evaluation of residence hall management and staff . . . . . . . . . . 32 14. Total sample evaluation of my ideal place to live 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 32 15. Total sample evaluation of my residence hall I O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 38 iv 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. Page Total sample evaluation of my residence hall room I O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O 41 On and off-campus attitudes about the residence hall overall . . . . . . . . . . . 45 On and off-campus attitudes about residence hall expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 On and off-campus attitudes about noise in the residence hall . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 On and off-campus attitudes about residence hall options 0 O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O 48 On and off-campus attitudes about residence hall feed 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 49 On and off-campus evaluations of residence hall fOOd O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 51 On and off-campus attitudes about social aspects of residence hall life . . . . . . . 52 On and off-campus attitudes about residence hall rules 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O 53 On and off-campus attitudes about residence hall management and staff . . . . . . . . . . 54 On and off-campus evaluations of residence hall management and staff . . . . . . . . . . 57 On and off-campus evaluations of my ideal place to live 0 O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 58 On and off-campus evaluation of my residence hall 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O 61 On and off-campus evaluation of my residence hall room . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Male/female attitudes about the residence hall overall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Male/female attitudes about residence hall expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. Male/female attitudes about noise in the residence hall . . . . . . . . . . . Male/female attitudes about residence hall options 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O Male/female attitudes about residence hall fOOd O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O Male/female evaluation of residence hall f 00d 0 O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O Male/female attitudes about social aspects of residence hall life . . . . . . . . . Male/female attitudes about residence hall rules 0 O O O O O O O O O O O I I O Male/female attitudes about residence hall management and staff . . . . . . . . Male/female evaluations of residence hall management and staff . . . . . . . . Male/female evaluations of my ideal place to live . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Male/female evaluations of my residence hall 0 O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O Male/female evaluations of my residence hall room 0 o o o o o o o ' o o o o o o o o Attitudes about the residence hall overall by class level . . . . . . . . . . . . . Attitudes about residence hall expenses by class level . . . . . . . . . . . . . Attitudes about noise in the residence hall by class level . . . . . . . . . . . Attitudes about residence hall Options by class level . . . . . . . . . . . . . Attitudes about residence hall food by Class level 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 vi Page 66 67 68 70 70 72 75 75 76 79 81 82 84 84 85 88 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. Page Evaluation of residence hall food by class level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Attitudes about social aspects of residence hall life by class level . . . . . . . . . . 92 Attitudes about residence hall rules by class level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Attitudes about residence hall management and staff by class level . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Evaluations of residence hall management and staff by class level . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Evaluation of my ideal place to live by Class level 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 100 Evaluations of my residence hall by Class level 0 O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O 102 Evaluations of my residence hall room by Class level 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 105 Sample demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Academic majors of sample . . . . . . . . . . . 136 Residency of sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Financial characteristics of sample . . . . . . 138 Sample grade point averages . . . . . . . . . . 139 Sample car ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 vii OF FIGURES of residence hall of residence hall of residence hall of my ideal place of my residence of my residence hall profile profile profile profile profile of residence of residence of residence of my ideal of my residence profile of my residence Male/female profile of residence hall Male/female profile of residence hall LIST Figure 1. Total sample profile food . . . . . . . 2. Total sample profile staff . . . . . . 3. Total sample profile management . . . . 4. Total sample profile live . . . . . . . 5. Total sample profile hall . . . . . . . 6. Total sample profile room I O O O O O O 7. On-campus/off-campus hall food . . . . 8. On-campus/off-campus hall staff . . . . 9. On-campus/off-campus hall management . lO. On-campus/off-campus place to live . . ll. On-campus/off-campus hall . . . . . . . 12. On-campus/off-campus hall room . . . . l3. fOOd O O O O O O 0 14. staff . . . . . . 15. Male/female profile of residence hall management . . . . viii Page 27 33 34 36 40 42 50 55 56 59 60 63 69 73 74 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Male/female profile of to live . . . . . . Male/female profile of hall . . . . . . . . Male/female profile of hall room . . . . . Class level profile of food . . . . . . . . Class level profile of staff . . . . . . . Class level profile of management . . . . . Class level profile of to live . . . . . . Class level profile of hall 0 O O O O O O C Class level profile of hall room . . . . . my ideal place my residence my residence residence hall residence hall residence hall my ideal place my residence my residence ix Page 77 78 80 90 98 99 101 103 106 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Today's university is not only obliged to feed the mind, but to feed and house the body as well. The pro- vision of comfortable, convenient, economical and stimu- lating student housing has been the concern of Michigan State University since 1856 when the first dormitory-- Saints' Rest—-was completed. What do the students think about the residence halls, and how do their attitudes affect occupancy rates? At a time when new residence halls, residential colleges and other "living-learning" alternatives are being developed, little continuing research on the feelings of the residents of these structures is being conducted. Since housing is an integral part of the univer- sity's total function, it has come under scrutiny. The last major investigation of the Residence Hall system at MSU was in 1969, when student demands for more liberated housing regulations caused the administration to examine housing facilities. Recently, perhaps as a result of the more liberalized regulations sought and received, occupancy levels in the dormitories have been declining. If this trend toward lower occupancy levels continues, the univer- sity faces serious economic and administrative problems. This study collected information about the reasons for this decline, as well as student-residence hall inter- action. The data generated should be useful in better approximating a fit between student housing needs and economically feasible courses of action for the university. CHAPTER II BACKGROUND MSU Research The Residence Halls Study 1969 The relevant impetus for this research project begins in 1967. In October of that year, the Michigan State Off-Campus Council submitted a pr0posal to the. Associated Students of Michigan State University (ASMSU), the student governing body. This proposal called for the revoking of a university regulation that s0phomores and juniors be required to live in supervised housing (gener- ally meaning on-campus). ASMSU approved the proposal and sent it to the Faculty Committee on Student Affairs as the next step in its legal journey. A sub-committee of the Faculty Committee on Student Affairs was established in November to study the proposal and make a report on its feasibility. Six months later the sub-committee concluded that allowing freshmen and soph- omores to live in unsupervised housing was economically impossible at that time. However, they determined that the university had the obligation to make the residence halls the best possible place in which to live, study and grow intellectually. Feeling that the matter merited further study, they called for an all-encompassing study of the residence hall system--including both its living and learning aspects. This was undertaken by the Provost's Ad Hoc Com- mittee on the Residence Halls in September, 1968. The Committee divided itself into four functional sub-groups concerned with physical facilities, staffing, rules and regulations, and living-learning. The Committee randomly sampled 4,500 students living in residence halls, using four different questionnaires representing the four func- tional areas of inquiry. The members of the Committee also made efforts to speak with students and staff both individually and in groups. In their report, the Committee came to conclusions in the five areas which follow.1 Physical Facilities The Committee found that students were generally unwilling to pay $50 extra for either single rooms or carpeting, felt to be often-voiced student desires. Students were also unwilling to pay extra for unsupervised lThe Provost's Ad Hoc Committee on the Residence Halls, The Residence Hall Study (East Lansing, Michigan.: Michigan State University, 1969) pp. 12-42. apartments with meals served. However, when specifically asked, students desired unsupervised apartments with cook- ing facilities by a two to one margin. They were also unwilling to pay sufficient amounts for double rooms with- out meals, and meals only Monday through Friday. In general, most of the students preferred the present arrangement, although they felt breakfast should be Optional. Students were satisfied with the sleeping conditions, number of telephones, storage space, parking, ability to relax, desk-space, and room maintenance. But, they didn't like the inflexibility of the furniture and the prohibitions on room decoration. The strongest dissatisfaction was with the aesthetic appeal of the hall as a whole (which they felt to be cold and impersonal), the high noise level making study diffi- cult, and the poor lighting conditions. Rules and Regulations Most complaints about regulations centered around privacy, particularly the freedom to have members of the Opposite sex in the room at any and all hours and the right to have alcohol in the room. Since the 1969 study was completed, both of these regulations have been mod- ified allowing for alcohol use in the residence halls and 24 hour visitation rights. Other areas of complaint found were: poor meal periods (especially breakfast), strict contract release policy, and restrictions on room decoration and rearrange- ment. The majority of the students (four out of five) did not feel overly constrained by regulations. While 70% felt sufficiently involved in planning regulations, 50% felt that the residence hall was not successful in enforcing quiet hours. Furthermore, 60% felt that regu- lations were the primary reason for students moving off- campus. m The typical reaction to the utility of the Resident Advisor (RA) in the dorm was "I didn't use him much, but he helped someone else a great deal." The Committee attrib- uted this to a tendency of not revealing any incompetency in handling one's own affairs. They therefore concluded that the RAs were playing a useful role in the residence halls. The Committee also generalized that most students seem convinced that no one was particularly interested in them. Living-Learning The Committee found that students generally ap- proved of the living-learning concept and found it valuable to have classes in the dormitories. Why Students Leave the University The Committee sent questionnaires to sophomores that had dropped out of the university. They found that the dropouts had failed to identify with the academic life. Financial difficulties and lack of interest in study were the primary reasons for leaving the university. Dissat- isfaction with residence hall life was not among the major reasons for departure. Related Research The Wisconsin Study A 1971 study of the University of Wisconsin Residence Hall system probed similar problems. A sample of 1,040 students living in residence halls were questioned concerning reasons for leaving, for not leaving, and gen- eral attitudes about the residence halls. This study found three valid reasons for returning to university residence halls: convenient location, the services provided, and the friends and activities in the dormitories. Convenient location was the single most valid reason for returning. Economical living was the least valid reason for returning. This was somewhat surprising to the researchers. The concern over costs was reflected in the three most valid reasons found for not returning: lack of privacy, freedom from regulations, and high cost considerations. In general, students were neutral about food quality, however, they felt the amount was adequate and the hours convenient. They did see food costs as too high. Furnishings were adequate, but the rooms were too small and not conducive to study. Nearly twenty-five percent of the students were willing to pay a premium for a single room. The students opposed required residency.2 The Western Michigan Study In 1972, 500 students at Western Michigan Univer— sity were asked their Opinions about the residence halls. In that study, 20.8% of the respondents preferred living in a university residence hall; while 32.6% preferred university-owned single apartments, and 41.4% wanted pri- vate apartments or houses. Respondents liked the location and meal conveniences of living in the dormitories and the Opportunity to make friends. They disliked the high room and board rates, the rules, and the lack of privacy.3 2John R. Nevin, "University Residence Halls Research Study." Paper presented to the Director of Residence Halls, The University of Wisconsin. The Univer- sity of Wisconsin, 1971. pp. 31-33. 3"Residence Hall Occupants Survey: Western Mich- igan University." Unpublished paper prepared for Housing Office, Western Michigan University. Western Michigan University, 1972. pp. 3-6. The Idaho Study Disenchantment because of high costs, lack of pri- vacy, regulations and noise was also reflected in a recent study at the University of Idaho. Unlike the other studies, the Idaho researchers went to off-campus dwellers seeking reasons for their pref- erence for off-campus life, details on off-campus costs, and ideas for improving on-campus living. The major reasons found for living off-campus were: greater privacy, lower food costs, and less noise. Student suggestions for on-campus living included more apartment- style dormitories and smaller dormitories.4 Summary Common likes and dislikes appear in these studies regardless of type of university or location. Students like the convenience of living in a dormitory and the unique social atmosphere allowing them to make friends easily. However, they dislike certain restrictions placed upon them, particularly a lack of privacy and freedom. High costs are also a common complaint. The findings of the four studies, broken down by tOpic, are summarized in Table l on the next page. 4Office of Student Advisory Services, University of Idaho. Unpublished report of housing survey of off- campus students including cost data. The University of Idaho, 1972. pp. 1-2. 10 Table 1. Recent research of student Opinions on residence halls. MSU Wisconsin West. Mich. Idaho 1969 1971 1972 1972 Facility adequate, like conven- like lo- dislike (general) furniture ience; dis- cation lack of inflexible, like lack of convenience, privacy cold & im- privacy, sm. dislike personal rooms lack of lack privacy privacy Expenses high costs high costs Noise dislike dislike dislike noise noise noise Options unwilling to willing to prefer pay extra for pay extra apartment single room for single style and other room rooms Options; pre- fer apartment style rooms Food adequate,but adequate, high cost poor meal quality hours neutral, high cost Social Activities like activ- like chance ities and to make friends friends Rules restricted, feel re- feel in certain stricted restricted areas, a- against gainst strict strict con- contract tract re- release lease Management and Staff resident advisors useful, others not interested CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY The Problem The problem under investigation in this study can be stated very simply: What are student attitudes toward the Michigan State Residence Hall system and how do they relate to occupancy or non-occupancy? This study was designed to provide basic bench- marks for continuing investigation. The 1969 study, while it covered similar areas, was not specifically concerned with reasons for staying or leaving. While the information it generated was helpful, it is now dated. This present research is designed to be the first of a series of studies continually monitoring student attitudes and changes in opinion. This feedback on specific areas should enable the university to better zero-in on student housing needs over time. In another sense, this study is a test of the pre- vious research mentioned in the last chapter. If certain trends in student attitudes toward residence halls are appearing, they should also surface in this study. Should 11 12 the findings support a commonality of likes and dislikes across university students, these may be generalized with more confidence. Finally, this study breaks new ground by comparing the attitudes of students currently living in residence halls with the attitudes of past residents now living off- campus. Shifts in preference over time can therefore be measured by continuing study as today's on-campus residents become tomorrow's off-campus residents. Sampling A random sample of 188 male and female undergrad- uate students at Michigan State University was drawn for the survey. Of these students, 138 were selected by com- puter from on—campus housing lists, while another 50 living off-campus were systematically drawn from the student telephone directory. To qualify for the sample, a person had to be a full-time undergraduate student, single, either living or having lived in a residence hall at MSU. Graduate students were excluded as accounting for a small prOportion of those living on-campus and generally not having lived there previously. Greater weight was given to those students living 'on-campus since the survey was primarily directed at deter- mining current attitudes toward the Residence Hall system. 13 While the on-campus sample was not as large as that used in the 1969 study, it was felt that 138 observations were sufficient for this information-gathering task. No specific hypotheses were being tested for the entire student uni- verse. Unlike the 1969 study, Off-campus students were included to get a perspective on past perceptions of the residence halls and possible motives for leaving. It was felt that the off-campus group's attitudes would throw new light on the problems existing in the Residence Hall system and provide a unique basis for comparison with on-campus students. The Questionnaire An interviewer administered the questionnaire, which was respondent-completed except for classificatory data. Two forms of the questionnaire were used, one for on-campus and off-campus groups. Both questionnaires con- tained the same material, although the off-campus form used necessary grammatical changes. Copies of both ques- tionnaire forms can be found in the Appendix. Three question types were used: open-end, Likert scales (modi- fied), and the semantic differential. The open-end questions were designed to get respond- ent interest generated by allowing him to "let off steam" about his likes and dislikes. These questions could also 14 be used as a validity check on later scaling devices of attitude measurement. The Likert-type scales follow a pattern devised by Likert (1932) although slightly modified. In these scales, the subjects are asked to respond to an item in terms of degree of agreement. The most widely used Likert scale has five positions of agreement: Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree. Respondents indicate their degree of agreement with a statement according to these categories, which are numer- ically weighted from positive to negative. Responses indicate a measure of strength of feeling about a topic.5 The neutral position was dropped in this study to force a positive or negative response. It was felt that some of the items might not be of great concern to many students, yet some measure of preference was desired. The forced response would at least indicate a tendency of feeling. The Option of no response was left to indicate genuine lack of interest. Response factors in the Likert section were: Facility--overall (items 45, 49, 52, 53, 55, 58, 59 and 60); Facility--expenses (items 48 and 54); Facility--noise (items 51 and 62); Facility--Options (items 50, 74, 75, 76, 5Claire Selltiz, et al., Research Methods in Social Relations, (New York: HoIt, Rinehart and Winston, 1959), pp. 366-69. 15 77 and 78); Food (items 47, 56 and 57); Social Activities (items 46, 65, 66 and 67); Rules (items 63, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73 and 79); and Staff (items 61 and 64). The semantic differential, develOped by Osgood, Suci and Tannenbaum (1957) is a type of attitude scale used to measure the meaning of an object to an individual. The subject is asked to rate a concept on a series of seven- point bipolar rating scales. A profile of meaning for a concept can be constructed by drawing lines between the points checked on each of the scales. These profiles can then be compared to measure similarity or difference of various concepts by one group, or similarity among many groups' perceptions of one concept. Three groupings of scales have been consistently found to identify dimensions of attitude: evaluation, potency and activity.6 In this study, the semantic differential was used to test concepts similar to those in the Likert section for validity of attitude. But, they were primarily used to establish an attitudinal basis for comparison. These comparisons were made between concepts (e.g. Ideal Place to Live and My Residence Hall) to test similarity of attitude for a group; and between groups (e.g. On-campus and Off- campus residents) for one concept. 6Ibid., pp. 380-383. 16 Concepts used with the semantic differential scales were: Ideal Place to Live, My Residence Hall, My Residence Hall Room, Residence Hall Food, Advisory Staff of My Resi- dence Hall, and Management of My Residence Hall. Analysis Frequencies and means (where appropriate) were computed for each item. Responses were broken down by respondent's residency on-campus or off-campus, sex, and class level. Means for these sub-groups were computed and tested for significance of difference using a standard Z test at the .05 level of significance. Scores on the Likert scales range from strong agreement (1.00) to strong disagreement (4.00) with a statement. A score of 1.00 to 1.99 indicates strong agree- ment, 2.00 to 2.44 indicates agreement, 2.45 to 2.55 indicates a neutral position, 2.56 to 2.99 indicates dis- agreement, and 3.00 to 4.00 indicates strong disagreement. Scores on the semantic differential range from a very positive evaluation (l.00)to a very negative evalu- ation (7.00). Average scores at either extreme are rare. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS Total Sample Characteristics The total sample was judged to be representative of the student population at Michigan State. Of the total 188 observations, 73% lived on-campus while 27% lived off- campus. There were slightly more females in the sample (57%) than males. The sample consisted of 27% freshmen, 27% sophomores, 29% juniors and 17% seniors. This compares with a total university enrollment at the time of 23% freshmen, 20% sophomores, 27% juniors and 26% seniors. While the sample closely approximates actual enrollment proportions, greater weighting of lower class levels was due to a greater amount of on-campus interviewing. Of those interviewed, 54% said they had lived in a residence hall for two quarters, again reflecting the pre- dominance of lower class levels. The next largest group had lived in the residence halls for five quarters. About half of the total sample had not lived in another residence 17 18 hall. Of those that had, previous residences were evenly split among the various on-campus housing complexes.7 Table 2. Total sample characteristics. Characteristic Percentage of Total Sample Residency On-Campus 73% Off-Campus 27 Sex Female 57 Male 43 Class Level Fresfian 27 Sophomore 27 Junior 29 Senior 17 General Attitudes The open-end questions provided an indication of how students generally felt about the Residence Hall system. Most of the students felt that living in a residence hall was a good experience, particularly for freshmen. But, after one year, they felt it was better to get off-campus. The first year in a dormitory gives students the opportunity to meet friends and make acquaintances, while the more sheltered environment allows new students to adjust to university life. 7A complete breakdown of the total sample character- istics can be found in the Appendix. 19 Students generally pointed to the social atmosphere of the residence halls as their greatest asset. Along with the more social aspects, students did like the convenience of living in a residence hall. The nearness to classes, convenience of not having to shop for and prepare meals, and the availability of staff help were considered important. However, students did object to the high noise levels in the dormitories. They were also concerned about the general lack of privacy in the dorms, and the small room sizes. Privacy seemed to be a function of the small rooms, the essentially public nature of the hall as a whole, and the regulations. Other complaints were the expense, the tasteless food, and uselessness of the resident advisors. Student preference for the social aspects and convenience of dorm life along with a dislike of lack of privacy, noise and expenses support similar findings in the previously cited studies. Ideally, most students would prefer to live off- campus. The general preference was for a house, followed by an apartment. Yet, most students would advise incoming freshmen to live in a dormitory for their first year to meet people and get acquainted. 20 Sources of,Information The leading source of information about the resi- dence halls was word-of-mouth, with newsletters and bulletin boards next in importance. Newsletters had a higher score among the alternatives than did bulletin boards, however bulletin boards were mentioned more frequently. Not all dormitories use newsletters or use them very extensively. While resident advisors and other staff were mentioned with a lower frequency, they were important for some students. The student newspaper, the State News, was not a good source of information about the residence halls. Table 3. Sources of information about residence halls. Source of a Frequency of Information Avg. Score Response Word-of-mouth 1.73 149 Newsletters 2.06 91 Bulletin Boards 2.19 112 Resident Advisors 1.90 64 Other Staff 2.09 61 State News 2.45 46 Other 1.48 25 aRespondents ranked alternatives first, second and third in importance. This score represents an average of all rankings for the particular alternative. Most students felt that the information they received about the residence hall was adequate. But, they were slightly negative about the letters and brochures they re- ceived priOr to attending MSU. They felt that a fair job 21 was done, but that the information presented in these letters and brochures was not very specific or detailed. MoSt of the information dealt with prices and fees, very little about life in the dorms. The information they did receive about certain living options became irrelevant if they later found they were assigned to a dormitory not offering these options. Students felt they should know more about the particular residence hall in which they would live and the rooms and Options offered there. The Facilityioverall Generally, students had a slightly favorable attitude toward the residence hall facility as a whole. The state- ment, "Generally speaking, my residence hall is a great 8 Also, place to live," received a positive score of 2.23. students rejected the statement that residence halls are "cold and impersonal." This directly contradicts the find- ings of the 1969 study. (See Table 4). {Students are strongly in favor of classes being held in the residence hallsL) They agree that the halls are clean, sanitary and have adequate laundry facilities. However, they did feel that the rooms were too small and that there was not enough privacy. These findings verify both open-end responses and the results of the previously cited studies. 8Scores on the Likert scales vary from strong agree- ment (1.00) to strong disagreement (4.00) with a statement. 22 Table 4. Total sample attitudes about the residence hall overall. Item Avg. Score Evaluation My residence hall is a great place to live 2.23 Agree Residence halls are cold and impersonal 2.80 Disagree Rooms are as good as anyone could expect 2.48 Neutral Classes should be held in the residence halls 1.60 Strongly Agree Residence halls are clean and sanitary 1.88 Strongly Agree Residence halls have adequate laundry facilities 2.02 Agree Rooms are too small 2.29 Agree Not enough privacy 2.00 Agree Facility Expenses Students, iJ1 general, felt that the residence halls were too expensive. They disagreed with the statement, "The cost of living in residence halls is reasonable for what you get." There was even stronger disagreement with the state- ment, "On-campus living is more economical than off-campus living." (See Table 5, next page). The area of expenses and student attitudes toward cost are major problems that have perhaps been overlooked in the past. Student perceptions of cost were only slightly 23 Table 5. Total sample attitudes about residence hall expenses. Item Avg. Score Evaluation The cost of living in residence halls is reasonable for what you get 2.90 Disagree On-campus living is more economical than off-campus living 3.00 Strongly Disagree touched upon in the 1969 study through tying certain options to cost increases. When these "options at cost" were re- jected, the researchers reasoned that these alternatives were not sufficiently important to the students. But given student concern over expenses, perhaps the increased costs rather than the options themselves were rejected. Expenses were a major problem area for the Residence Hall system. This finding provides support for the Wiscon— sin and Western Michigan studies indicating great student concern over rising costs. Noise in the Facility The Likert scales did not indicate noise to be a major complaint. However, responses to the semantic dif- ferential contradicted this. '(See Table 6, next page). 24 Table 6. Total sample attitudes about noise in the residence hall. Item Avg. Score Evaluation Residence hall has a suitable atmosphere for study 2.49 Neutral It's usually too noisy to study in the residence hall 2.48 Neutral Facility Options Students favored most of the options mentioned in the questionnaire. One area of reduced interest involved single rooms, with students indicating little interest in them as an inducement to stay in the dorm. Students did prefer floors with unlimited visitation hours, men and women on alternating floors, dormitories without board, and apartments in residence halls with cooking facilities. The rather widespread agreement on these options would seem to indicate their success if extended to more people. (See Table 7, next page). The noise problem becomes more complex given the general disregard for quiet hours indicated. If noise is a problem, quiet hours are apparently not an acceptable solution. 25 Table 7. Total sample attitudes about residence hall options. Item Avg. Score Evaluation I'd stay in the residence hall Slightly if I could get a single room 2.63 Disagree Prefer unlimited visitation Strongly hours 1.49 Agree Prefer men and women on Strongly alternating floors 1.79 Agree Prefer to live in a dormitory without board 2.08 Agree Prefer apartments in residence halls with cooking facility 2.03 Agree Prefer floor with specified quiet hours 2.75 Disagree Food Residence hall food was a major area of complaint. Students indicated that the food was unappetizing. What may be a more surprising finding was their neutral feeling about the food's nutritional value. The majority of students also appear to be against offering special menus for minority groups. (See Table 8, next page). The semantic differential profile for "Residence Hall Food" was equally negative.9 The best feature was 9Scores on the semantic differential range from a very positive evaluation (1.00) to a very negative evaluation (7.00). Average scores at either extreme are rare. 26 Table 8. Total sample attitudes about residence hall food. Item Avg. Score Evaluation Residence hall food is generally appetizing 2.91 Disagree Residence hall food is generally nutritious 2.48 Neutral Should offer special food _ Slightly menus for minority groups 2.63 Disagree the meal hours, perceived as somewhat good. Food service was also seen as more fast than slow, which may be considered an asset. (See Food Profile, next page.) Table 9. Total sample evaluation of residence hall food. Scale ' Avg. Score Tasty-tasteless 4.25 Fast-slow 3.22 Wide variety—limited variety, 3.64 Good meal hours—poor meal hours 2.70 Healthy-unhealthy 3.25 Inexpensive-expensive 4.50 Good-bad 3.92 However, the other scales were considerably more negative. Again, the food was considered quite tasteless. Students also saw the variety of food available as somewhat limited. Reflecting previously cited nutritional doubts, the food received a neutral score on the healthy--unhealthy scale. 27 can" w>wmsmmxou usuammsasu mason Home" Hoom mumflum>u OODfiEHH 30am" mmwaoummu" Goon Hams OOGOOflmmH mo OHHMOHQ OHQEMm Hmuos .H musmwh "UOOm uo>fimcmmxmcfl "mausmms Hanson Home @000 "humflum> mofi3 ”ummu ”mummy 28 Yet, by far the most negative aspect of the food was its cost, seen as very expensive. The rather poor over- all good--bad rating of the food would seem to reinforce an "expensive for what you get" feeling. Social Activities The social life in the residence hall appears to be a major plus. Students felt quite strongly that it was easier to make friends while living in the residence halls. They also agreed, though not as strongly, that the social activities offered in the residence halls were worthwhile. Students neither agreed nor disagreed that students living off-campus have a more enjoyable social life. This equality of social life is probably a competitive point in the resi- dence hall's favor. Students did feel, however, that their freedom to control their own life style was limited. This may have a tendency to lessen some of the better social aspects of the dormitory. (See Table 10, on next page). Rules As noted, there was a tendency for students to see residence hall life as limiting their freedom. They disagreed with the statement, "On-campus living offers as much freedom as off-campus living." Yet, rules were not the major complaint they seemed to be in the 1969 study. 29 Table 10. Total sample attitudes about social aspects of . residence hall life. Item - AVg. Score Evaluation It's easier to make friends while living in residence. Strongly halls 1.64 Agree Social activities offered in residence halls are worthwhile 2.28 Agree Students living off-campus have. a more enjoyable social life 2.54 Neutral Residence hall living limits your control of your life style 2.21 Agree Students agreed slightly that the University tries to give students the accommodations they prefer. They agreed that living in the residence halls had improved since rules on visitation and alcohol use were changed. Finally, they strongly disagreed that things were run strictly or army-style in the dormitories. There were some specific complaints similar to those uncovered in 1969. Students felt that no one should be required to live in a residence hall. They believed that residents shouldn't have to sign a full-year contract and that the University should never assign three students to a room. Students slightly agreed that the restrictions on room decOration were too severe, but this doesn't seem to be a major problem. 30 Total 11. Total sample attitudes about residence hall rules. Item Avg. Score Evaluation On-campus living offers as much Slightly freedom as off-campus living 2.62 Disagree The University tries to give students the accommodations Slightly they prefer 2.38 Agree Living in residence halls is better since rules on visitation and alcohol use were changed 1.80 Agree Things are run too strict (army— Strongly style) 3.25 Disagree No one should be required to live Strongly in a residence hall 1.60 Agree Residents shouldn't have to sign Strongly a full-year contract 1.60 Agree University should never assign Strongly three students to a room 1.43 Agree Restrictions on room decoration Slightly and arrangements are too severe 2.37 Agree Management and Staff Student attitudes about the management and staff of the residence halls were generally neutral, perhaps indi- cating disinterest. They may see the management and staff as doing an adequate job as long as the hall is running efficiently. Students generally did see the residence halls as being run smoothly and efficiently, although attitudes toward the importance of the resident advisors in the dormi- tories were neutral to somewhat negative. 31 Table 12. Total sample attitudes about residence hall management and staff. Item Avg. Score Response Residence hall is Operated smoothly and efficiently 2.10 Agree Resident advisors play an Slightly important role 2.57 Disagree The semantic differential profiles for management and staff were similarly neutral, although the profile for the staff was slightly more positive. The staff was per- ceived as somewhat concerned, friendly, agreeable and good. But, the staff was seen as somewhat less valuable. The management profile was more definitely neutral. This may be due to a less personal image of management, while student interaction with staff members is likely to be more frequent. (See Table 13, next page and profiles on pages 33 and 34). The Ideal Place to Live The ideal profile on the semantic differential pro- vides a basis for comparison with two following concepts-- My Residence Hall and My Residence Hall Room. As might be expected, students preferred their ideal place of residence to be clean, friendly, close, personal, attractive and good. 32 Table 13. Total sample evaluation of residence hall management and staff. Scale Avg. Score Staff concerned-unconcerned 2.84 friendly-unfriendly. 2.72 good-bad 2.80 valuable-worthless 3.23 agreeable-diSagreeable 2.77 Management concerned-unconcerned 3.24 friendly-unfriendly 3.15 good-bad 3.25 valuable-worthless 3.11 agreeable-disagreeable 3.36 Although students complain about noise in the dormitories, it is apparently not a very impOrtant aépect of the ideal Table 14. Total sample evaluation of their ideal place to 1iVe- Scale Avg. Score Clean—dirty 1.79 Quiet-noisy 3.22 Large-small 2.97 Friendly-unfriendly 1.51 Close-diStant. 2.06 Personal-impersonal 2.20 Attractive-unattractiVe 1.86 Wellfurnished- poorly furnished 2.51 Good-bad 1.61 Inexpensive—expensiVe 2.74 .mmmum Ham: mocmowmmu mo oaflmoum mamamm Hmuoe .m musmfim % OHQMOOHOMmHO“ " u u u u "wanmomumm mmoanuu03" " u u u "I. "manmsam> Own" " u u u " "poem aapnmwumcs" u u u u u ”wapamwum “ u u u ,u- u "Umcumosoo oozuoocoons" 34 manmmmummmflou mmmanunozu Oman maocownmcs" Omanmocoocsu .ucofimmmcmfi Ham: oosmcwmmu mo maflmoum OHQEMm Hmuoe .m musmflm "mammomnmm “manmsam> “woom "mapcmfium ‘\/\/ "Omanmocoo 35 living environment. Noise may be a tolerable annoyance, whereas other problems are less bearable. Noise may also be indicative of a preferred lively social atmOSphere. The unfavorable 1arge--small score could be a matter of confusion or ambiguity of meaning. Large or small with respect to what? Large or small rooms, or a large or small building? While the preference is for larger something (probably rooms), the relevance of the scale in this case is in doubt. The manner in which a place is furnished is of minor importance. Finally, the very negative score on the inexpensive-- expensive scale is significant. This score may be due to a prestige image that a higher priced residence carries with it, with some students preferring (and capable of) paying higher rents as a means of demonstrating their status. But, it would be a mistake to look at the somewhat more expensive rating on this scale and interpret it as a disregard for price in choosing a place of residence. Although there was no scale measuring prestige effect, we can use the expense scale as some measure in the ideal sense. But, this use in interpreting the residence hall concepts may lead to erroneous conclusions. (See Ideal pro- file on next page). 36 m>wmcmmxmu Own" coschHSM“ aauoom m>auomnuumu 1:: HMGOmHOQEflu unnumwou haocmfiumcsu Hanan" kudos" muuflpu .0>HH ou woman Hmmpfl he no wHflmoum mHmEMm Hmuoa .v mnnmwm um>fimsomxm IS.“ "@000 "Omnmwnusm HH03 uw>wuomugpm "Hmcomumm "wmoao "MHOGOHHM HomHmH "umwsq “cmmao 37 My Residence Hall While the residence hall profile closely approximates the ideal profile in shape, the distance between the two indicates a rather wide gap in sentiment. The two profiles are closest on three aspects: large size, furnishing, and cleanliness. Most dormitory buildings are large, but the ambiguity of this scale has been noted. Furnishings have also been established as of minor importance. The clean score confirms the positive evaluation found in the Likert section. The other scales did show noticeable differences. The noisy score was very unfavorable, but given the confusion around the noise factor this score is difficult to interpret. While noise is a widespread problem it may not be a very significant one. This questionnaire calls for areas of complaint and noise is a very obvious peeve. But it is a problem that is OOped with all the time in all residences. Noise is annoying, and life would be better at times with- out it, but it can be shut out or walked away from at the expense of personal inconvenience. A solution, at great expense to the Residence Hall system, would hardly seem warranted. 38 Table 15. Total sample evaluation of my residence hall. Scale Avg. Score Ideal Score Clean-dirty 2.47 1.79 Quiet-nois 4.72 3.22 Large-smal 3.17 2.97 Friendly-unfriendly 2.83 1.51 Close-distant 3.18 2.06 Personal-impersonal 3.44 2.20 Attractive-v unattractive 3.16 1.86 Well furnished- poorly furnished 3.05 2.51 Good—bad 2.99 1.61 Inexpensive- expensive 4.76 2.74 After cleanliness, the dormitories were strongest on the friendly scale. The dorms could conceivably be more friendly though, given this score's distance from the ideal. The residence halls are also not seen as particularly close. This could be due to ambiguity of the term, or that various dorms are close to some classes but distant from others. The residence hall was seen as somewhat more im- personal than indicated in the Likert section. They were also not seen as attractive, implying the lack of aesthetic appeal pointed out in the 1969 study. The "good" score, while slightly encouraging at 2.99, is far from satisfactory. 39 The most unfavorable score again was on the inex- pensive--expensive scale. This substantiates the strong feelings about the expense of dorm living noted previously. (See profile on next page). Mpresidence Hall Room The profile for the residence hall room was generally closer to the ideal profile than that of the entire dormi- tory. The room was seen as clean, although not as clean as the residence hall. This might be expected since cleanliness would be dependent on the particular occupant of the room. While the room was seen as noisy, it was considerably less noisy than the entire residence hall. The ability to personally control noise level seems to reinforce its status as inconvenience rather than major complaint. Room size, however, was a major problem. Should any new facilities be planned, larger room sizes should be in- vestigated. The room was seen as more friendly and personal than the residence hall, perhaps reflecting better relations with roommates and members of a smaller living area. However, the rooms were not seen as attractive or well-furnished. This may be due to restrictions on room size, decoration, furniture and other items. The overall good--bad score of 3.04 was close to that of the entire residence hall. As a measure of general 40 m>flmcmmxmu Oman Umnmwcuam" manoom w>auomnuumu In: HmGOmnomEH" unnamed" MHOGOHHMGS" Hanan" mmfioc" muhwpn .Hamn mocmpflmon ME «0 meMOHm OHQEMm Hmuoa .m musmfim HmmUH O O O “IO 0 u nm>fimcmmxm 0 use 0 "O a “poem O O u no. u “Omnmwcuam o3 9 HH .OIIIIIIII " v um>wuomuuuw 9 ” And "Hmsomumm O 6 u ” "mmo o o H ' u “.6 a "MHUGOHHM .1 o o O O N» " "mmnma «0 ” "umfisv O O. 0 +1 u " "smoao 41 attitudes, this again is not very favorable. Finally, the rooms were seen as expensive, once again reinforcing this common complaint. (See profile on next page). Table 16. Total sample evaluation of my residence hall room. Scale Avg. Ideal Res. Hall Score Score Score Clean-dirty 2.59 1.79 2.47 Quiet-noisy 3.99 3.22 4.72 Large-small 4.87 2.97 3.17 Friendly- unfriendly 2.10 1.51 2.83 Close— distant 2.82 2.06 3.18 Personal- impersonal 2.55 2.20 3.44 Attractive- unattractive 3,06 1.86 3.16 Well furnished- poorly furnished 3.40 2.51 3.05 Good-bad 3.04 1.61 2.99 Inexpensive- expensive 4.77 2.74 4.76 attitudes, this again is not very favorable. Finally, the rooms were seen as expensive, once again reinforcing this common complaint. (See profile on next page). Total Sample Summary Students generally had a slightly positive attitude toward the residence halls, and perceived them to be a good, adequate place to live, but preferably only for one year. 42 .Eoou Hams mocmvflmmu.hfi mo oawmoum mamfimm Hmuoa .m wusmwm HmwOH O O O O>Hmcmmxmu u u u u u u .0 « um>flmcmmxo O. 0 use can u u u u u u u 0 - "poem 0. O OOSmHGHsm—u " u u u n V O " "omnmwsunw manoom o Hao3 . ITIIIIII 0>Huomuuumn " n u u “0 ” o>fluomuuum Ins Q Hchmummfifl" u u u u n on ”Hmcomumm a “acumen“ " u u u u no "mmoao 0 IIOIIIII mapcownmcsu u u u u n u C "maonmfluu I .0 0 Hanan" u u u " LV " "momma O hmflosu u u u . n "O u "umflsw 0 .0 O +l|| huuwpu " u n u u u "GMOHU 43 During this initial year, students make friends and get ac- customed to university life. The social aspects of residence hall living were the most beneficial. However, after the first year, a series of major and minor complaints take their toll. The most telling problem was that of expense. Students perceived the resi- dence halls as being considerably more expensive than living off-campus. Other major complaints concerned the taste and quality of the food served, room size, and lack of privacy. Some secondary problems were noise, room decoration, regulations, contractual arrangements, and furniture. It would seem that prior interest has revolved more around these secondary, though perhaps more visible complaints than the more basic problems. On-campus/off-campus groups The Facility Overall The overall attitudes of both groups are similar to those of the total sample in being somewhat positive, however the off-campus scores were slightly more negative. While both groups agreed that "Generally speaking, my residence hall is a great place to live," the off-campus group took a more negative stance. Both groups also re- jected the statement that "Residence halls are cold and impersonal" with off-campus sentiment again somewhat more 44 negative. Feelings that the rooms were as good as anyone could expect were divided between the groups around the neutral zone. The generalized negative feeling of the off-campus group may be due to the fact that they are no longer living in the dormitories and are not very concerned with their operation. This allows them to be more selective in their remembrances. Whereas those students living on-campus are concerned with dorm life, because it is their life, allowing a more critical and specific appraisal of good and bad points. The tendency for the off-campus group to intensify. both good and bad points was common. The off-campus group was significantly more in favor of classes held in the resi- dence halls. They saw the dormitories as significantly cleaner and with better laundry facilities. These aspects may seem more advantageous to the off-campus student having lost the conveniences of residence hall life. 'A similar effect occurs on the negative aspects, where the off-campus group intensified their negativity. The off-campus group was significantly more negative about lack of privacy. If off-campus life does offer more privacy, it would heighten the lack of privacy experienced by former residence hall dwellers. 45 mmum< ma.~ mamsonum >5.H mmumm mo.~ mom>fium nmsocm uoz mmnms om.~ mmnmd om.m HHmEm oou mum mfioom mm.m momma mm.H moum¢ ma.~ mmwuoadma wumsvmpm /mamcoupm Obs: maamn mocmwfimmm om.m memos mm.H mmnmm hm.a mnmuflcwm paw mamconum sumac mum mHHmn mocmoflmmm HH.~ woumfi mv.H wonm4 mm.H mHHmn monopwmou a“ mamconum hamconum pawn on OHOOSm mommmao moummmwo mm.m mmum< av.m uoomxm OHSOO ocomcm Mapcmflam mm poom mm mum mEoom omummmflo Hm.~ mommmmflo hm.m Hmsomummfifl paw OHOO mum maamn mocmpwmmm mmnmd ov.~ mouos mH.m O>HH ou oomHm ummnm sausmfism m we Hams mosmcsmmu as whoom N x x DOMOAMHGmflm coaumsam>m msmEMOImmo sowumsam>m mamEmOIco EODH .Hamnm>o Hams mocmcflmmu msu usonm moosuwuum msmEmoummo paw cO .nH manna 46 Facility Expenses The problem of expenses found for the total sample was strongly reinforced, with the off—campus group signifi- cantly more negative about costs in the residence halls. The off-campus group disagreed significantly that "The cost of living in residence halls is reasonable for what you get". The off-campus group also disagreed significantly more with the statement that on-campus living was more economical than living off-campus. (See Table 18, next page). Noise in the Facility The tendency for the off-campus group to intensify issues also shows up on the noise question. Students living on-campus consider noise to be less of a problem than those living off-campus. Students living on-campus were significantly more positive that "My residence hall has a suitable atmosphere for study," while the off-campus group tended to agree that "It was usually too noisy in the residence hall to study." (See Table 19, next page). Facility Options The on-campus group was neutral about single rooms as an inducement to stay in the dormitories, while the off- campus group was significantly opposed to this option. mmum< om.~ Hmuusmz mm.~ Hams moammeon a“ mosum on mmfloc oou maamamo mh.m omnmmmwo Hm.m woumfi mm.m upsum Mom muonmmOEum manmuflsm m was Hams mocmpwmmm ouoom N x x unMOMMHsmflm cowumsam>m msmEMOImwo Goaumsam>m mamEMOIcO EODH 47 .Hams mocmpflmou may 2H wmfloc usonm moosufluum m5m580|mmo was :0 .ma magma vm.m mmummmfio mm.m OOHOMmflo hm.m msmfimo hamconum Immo umnu HmOHanoom whoa ma OGH>HH msmEMOIcO mm.m omummmflo mH.m mommmmflo Hm.m OHAMGOmmmH mamconum mw mHHmn monopflmou ca OGH>HH mo umoo was whoom N x x DGMONMHcmHm coflumnam>m msmfimoummo coaumsHm>m mamEMOIGO EwuH .mmmsomxo Hams monopflmmu #5038 moosufluum msmEMOImmo can so .mH magma 48 Table 20. On and off-campus attitudes about residence hall options Item On- Evalu- Off- Evalu- Sig. campus ation campus ation Z 52 1? I'd stay in the residence hall if I could get 2.47 Neutral 3.04 Disagree 3.54 a single room Prefer unlimited Strongly Strongly visitation hrs. 1.51 Agree 1.44 Agree Prefer men and women on al- Strongly Strongly ternating floors 1.77 Agree 1.83 Agree Prefer to live in dormitory without board 2.04 Agree 2.22 Agree Prefer apartments in residence halls with cook- Strongly ing facility 2.16 Agree 1.71 Agree 3.28 Prefer floor with specified quiet hours 2.85 Disagree 2.51 Neutral 2.07 The levels of agreement for most of the other options pare alleled those of the total sample. Both groups favored unlimited visitation hours, men and women on alternating floors, and residence halls without board. Off-campus students were significantly more in favor of apartments with cooking facilities. Off-campus students were unconcerned about quiet hours. However, the on-campus group was significantly against quiet hours. 49 Food Both groups' attitudes toward residence hall food followed the negative trend of the total sample. Both groups saw the food as generally unappetizing and were un- sure about its nutritional aspects. There was slight disa- greement with offering special minority menus by both groups. Table 21. On and off-campus attitudes about residence hall food. Item On- Evalu- Off- Evalu- Sig. campus ation campus ation X X Z Residence hall food is gen- erally appetizing 2.92 Disagree 2.91 Disagree Residence hall food is gen- erally nutritious 2.47 Neutral 2.47 Neutral Should offer special menus for minority groups 2.66 Disagree 2.55 Neutral The scales on the semantic differential followed the total sample profile for residence hall food in being nega- tive. The only significant difference between the two groups was on the healthy--unhealthy scale with the on-campus group less convinced that the food was healthy. (See Food profile on the next page and Table 22 on page 51). 50 can“ .UOOM Hams OOCOOHmmH mo maamoum mamE80|mm0\msmEmoncO m9m5m01mmo mamEMOIco O>Hmcmmxmu mauammsqsu mnsos Human Hoom >uoanm>u pmuflfifla 3oam" mmmflwflmwflu .5 ousmflm "boom uo>wmcmmxm lg.“ "Nguamms "mason Home @000 "aumflum> mcwz “yuan "mummy 51 Table 22. On and off-campus evaluations of residence hall food. Scale On-campus Off-campus Significant i i z Tasty-tasteless 4.27 4.22 Fast-slow 3.32 2.93 Wide variety- limited variety 3.69 3.53 Good meal hours- poor meal hours 2.56 3.06 Healthy-unhealthy 3.39 2.87 2.08 Inexpensive-expensive 4.42 4.73 Good-bad 3.91 4.00 Social Activities The social life of the residence halls was again found to be favorable. Both groups strongly agreed that it was easier to make friends in the dormitories, but somewhat less strongly that the social activities offered were worth- while. As might be expected, students living off-campus felt that they had a more enjoyable social life. It is interesting to note, however, that on-campus students dis- agreed with this statement. While this is encouraging, it is unlikely that a student would admit that he did not have an enjoyable social life. The off-campus group, perhaps as a result of the previously noted tendency to intensify both positive and nega- tive aspects, saw on-campus living as significantly more 52 limiting than the students residing on-campus. This again is relatively encouraging, although the on-campus group did agree that their life style was limited. Table 23. On and off-campus attitudes about social aspects of residence hall life. Item On- Evalu- Off- Evalu Sig. campus ation campus ation i i z It's easier to make friends while living in the Strongly Strongly res. halls 1.61 Agree 1.71 Agree Social activities offered in the res. halls are worthwhile 2.26 Agree 2.34 Agree Students living off— campus have a more enjoyable social life 2.66 Disagree 2.28 Agree 3.01 Residence hall living limits your control of _ Strongly your life style 2.30 Agree 1.97 Agree 2.29 Rules The findings of the last section indicated that off- campus students perceived the dorms to be more restrictive than those students actually living on-campus. This result is supported as the off-campus group also disagreed signifi- cantly from the on-campus group with the statement, "On-campus 53 living offers as much freedom as off-campus living." The on-campus group neither agreed nor disagreed with the state- ment. Both groups felt that the University tried to give students the accommodations they preferred, that life was better in the residence halls since rule changes concerning visitation and alcohol, and that things weren't run too strictly. were the same for both groups. (See Table 24 ). The specific complaints noted for the total sample Table 24. On and off—campus attitudes about residence hall rules. Item On- Evalu— Off- Evalu— Sig. campus ation campus ation i x z On-campus living offers as much freedom as Strongly off-campus living 2.50 Neutral 3.02 Disagree 3.05 University tries to give students the accommodations they Slightly Slightly prefer 2.36 Agree 2.40 Agree Living in the res. halls is better since the rules on visitation and alcohol were Strongly Strongly changed 1.75 Agree 1.93 Agree Things are run too strictly (army- Strongly Strongly style) 3.33 Disagree 3.08 Disagree No one should be re- quired to live in a Strongly residence hall 1.90 Agree 2.08 Agree Shouldn't have to sign Strongly Strongly a full-yr contract 1.65 Agree 1.46 Agree Univ. shouldn't as- sign three students Strongly Strongly to a room 1.47 Agree 1.32 Agree Restrictions on room decoration are too , Slightly Slightly severe 2.38 Agree 2.38 Agree 54 Management and Staff Both groups agreed that the residence halls were run smoothly and efficiently, but there was a significant dif- ference between their opinions of the resident advisors. The on-campus residents were neutral in attitude, while the off-campus group was significantly more negative about the resident advisor's importance. (See Table 25 ). Table 25. On and off-campus attitudes about residence hall management and staff. Item On- Evalu- Off- Evalu- Sig. campus ation campus ation i x z Residence hall is operated smoothly and efficiently 2.08 Agree 2.16 Agree Resident advisors play an important role in the resi- dence halls 2.47 Neutral 2.83 Disagree 2.24 The semantic differential scales were again neutral, although the off-campus group was generally more negative in their evaluations. They perceived the staff to be sig- nificantly more disagreeable than the on-campus group. The off-campus group differed significantly in their evaluation of management as well, being more negative on all scales. (See profiles on next two pages). 55 manmmmummu Imwo mmmasuu03" can" aapcmwnmcs“ oocnmocoocsu .mmmum Ham: monocwmmu mo mawmoum momEMOIMMO\msmEmoan mOmEMOImmo mamEMOIGO .m ousmwm ”manmmmumm "manmsam> ”U000 "mapcowum "vocnoocoo 56 .ucmsmmmcmfi Ham: mucmowmmu mo mawmoum m5m880|mm0\msmsmonco .m madman mOmEMOImmo msmEMOIGO . . . manmwmumm" u u u u u u "manmmmumm Imflc O o mmmanuuozu u u u u u” u "manmsam> 0 Own" u u u u M u "coom o mapcmflumcsu " u u u [-6. u " MHOGOHHM O Omanmocoocs" u u u u ‘ IQ" " uwmcnmocoo 57 Table 26. On and off-campus evaluations of residence hall management and staff. Scale On-campus Off-campus Significant i 3': 2 Staff concerned-unconcerned 2.75 3.10 friendly-unfriendly 2.64 2.95 good-bad 2.72 3.02 valuable-worthless 3.16 3.38 agreeable-disagreeable 2.65 3.12 2.22 Management concerned-unconcerned 3.10 3.67 2.17 friendly-unfriendly 3.02 3.55 2.05 good-bad 3.00 3.89 3.67 valuable-worthless 2.93 3.55 2.28 agreeable-disagreeable 3.19 3.77 2.25 Ideal Place to Live 58 Both groups'profiles of their ideal place to live correspond with that of the sample as a whole. The only significant difference was on the quiet-noisy scale, with the off-campus group significantly more concerned about a quiet place to live. (See Ideal profile on next page). Table 27. On and off-campus evaluations of my ideal place to live. Scale On-campus Off-campus Significant i i z Clean-dirty 1.81 1.73 Quiet-noisy 3.37 2.87 2.60 Large-small 3.01 2.89 Friendly-unfriendly 1.55 1.42 Close-distant 2.10 1.89 Personal-impersonal 2.24 2.12 Attractive-unattractive 1.87 1.85 Well furnished- poorly furnished 2.51 2.55 Good-bad 1.61 1.61 Inexpensive-expensive 2.88 2.38 My Residence Hall Again, there were no significant differences between groups, each group's evaluation similar to that of the entire sample. However, the off-campus group tended to be slightly more critical. (See profile on page 60 and Table 28 on page 61. 59 0>Hmc0mxmn Own“ wmzmwcusmu MHHOOQ 0>Huomuugmu Ins HMGOmHomEH" unnumfip" hapcmflumadn HHmEmu mmfloc" Muuflo“ .m>sa op oomam HMOUH he no mawmoum msmEMOImm0\msmEMOIGO .oa musmfim msmEMOImmo msmemouco . . . .- . . um>wmcmmxo O I 0 ca "poom "canmficuam HHO3 uo>wuomuuum "accomumm b" ”mmoHo . “haocmflnm “mound "young “sumac .Hamn mocoowmon we no oaamoum mamEmoumm0\wamEm0I:O .HH musmflm msmeOImmo mOmEMOIco . . . 60 m>flmcmmxmn " u . u u " uw>fimammxm IGH Oman u u u n “Y n “@000 cosmHGHSMH " u u n O - u "OmnmflcHSM mauoom O Haws 95» omuuumu u u u u 00.! u " m>fiuomnuwm Ins HMGOmHmmfiwu " u u u a u « "HchmHmm O ucmumwpu u u u u h " Homoao I MHOSOAHMGO" u u u u o " "MHOGOHHM HHmEm" " u u u u " "mmuma mmwocu " u . . u " "uwflsv muufipu u u u u u " “sumac 61 Table 28. On and off-campus evaluations of my residence hall. Scale On-campus Off-campus Significant SE 32 z Clean-dirty 2.50 2.42 Quiet-noisy 4.63 5.02 Large-small 3.21 3.08 Friendly-unfriendly 2.79 2.97 Close-distant 3.13 3.34 Personal-impersonal 3.36 3.63 Attractive-unattractive 3.24 2.93 Well furnished- poorly furnished 3.12 2.87 Good-bad 2.94 3.12 Inexpensive-expensive 4.67 5.06 My Residence Hall Room The attitudes of both groups were once again similar to those of the total sample. The only significant difference Table 29. On and off-campus evaluations of my residence hall room. Scale On-campus Off-campus Significant i x z Clean-dirty 2.71 2.26 2.10 Quiet-noisy 3.97 4.06 Large-small 4.72 5.22 Friendly-unfriendly 2.10 2.10 Close-distant 2.77 3.00 Personal-impersonal 2.58 2.48 Attractive-unattractive 2.97 3.24 Well furnished- poorly furnished 3.44 3.24 Good-bad 2.97 3.22 Inexpensive-expensive 4.66 5.12 62 was on the clean-dirty scale, with the on—campus group perceiving the room to be somewhat dirtier. (See Profile on next page). On-Campus/Off-Campus Summary The off-campus group was found to intensify certain positive and negative aspects of dormitory life. Good as- pects, such as the ability to make friends, classes in the residence halls and laundry facilities became even better in retrospect. Bad aspects like the lack of privacy, the expense, the noise and the restrictions became worse. The more moderate attitudes of the on—campus group are perhaps better indicators of actual conditions. While the on-campus scores were generally not as negative as the off—campus scores, in many cases they were still neutral or negative. In other words, on-campus resi- dent attitudes are far from favorable, with the likelihood of getting worse as present students contemplate moving off-campus. Male/Female Groups The Facility Overall Overall, each group followed the total sample senti- ment of being slightly positive about the residence halls, although the female group tended to be slightly more favor- able. (See Table 30 on page 64). 63 m>wmsmmxwu Oman Omnmflcusmu hauoom O>Huomuuumu In: HocOmummafl" assumes" mHOcmflHmcsu Hamfimu mmaocu mpuflpu .Eoon Hams mocwowmmu we no waamoum mnmfimoumm0\msmem0|co msmEOOIMMO mOmEMOIGO .NH wusmwm uw>fimcwmxm IGH "poem upwnmwnusm Hao3 um>wuomnuum "HMGOmHmm "omoHo "hapcmflum "omnma "umflsw "sumac 64 Table 30. Male/female attitudes about the residence hall overall. Item Male Evalu- Female Evalu- Sig. i ation i ation Z Generally speaking, my res. hall is a great place to live 2.30 Agree 2.18 Agree Residence halls are cold and imper- sonal 2.72 Disagree 2.86 Disagree The rooms in the res. halls are as as good as anyone Slightly' Slightly could expect 2.57 Disagree 2.41 Agree Classes should be held in residence Strongly Strongly halls 1.72 Agree 1.49 Agree My residence hall is clean and Strongly sanitary 2.05 Agree 1.76 Agree 2.54 My residence hall has adequate laundry facili- ties 2.00 Agree 2.04 Agree The room I live in is too small 2.15 Agree 2.40 Agree Residence halls do not offer Strongly enough privacy 1.98 Agree 2.00 Agree The female group was more in favor of classes in the residence halls, and significantly more positive that the halls were clean and sanitary. laundry facilities were adequate. Both groups agreed that 65 The male group was more concerned about room.si2e while both agreed that there was not enough privacy. Facility Expenses Both groups viewed residence hall costs as unreason- able and on-campus living as uneconomical, with little dif- ference between them. Table 31. Male/female attitudes about residence hall expenses. Item Male Evalu- Female Evalu- Sig. i ation i ation Z The cost of living in res. halls is reasonable for what you get 2.89 Disagree 2.91 Disagree On-campus living is more economical than off-campus Strongly living 2.97 Disagree 3.03 Disagree Noise in the Facility The male group saw the dorm as somewhat noisier than the female group. Males disagreed that there was "a suitable atmosphere for study" and agreed that it was "to noisy to study." 66 Table 32. Male/female attitudes about noise in the residence hall. Item Male Evalu— Female Evalu- Sig. i ation i ation z My residence hall has a suitable atmosphere for Slightly Slightly study 2.61 Disagree 2.40 Agree It's usually too noisy in my residence hall Slightly to study 2.41 Agree 2.55 Neutral Facility Options Both male and female groups preferred most of the options listed in the questionnaire. Both groups strongly preferred to live on a floor with unlimited visitation. Al- though sentiment was not as strong, both also preferred not to pay board and to live in apartments with cooking facili- ties. As in the total sample, both groups disagreed with specified quiet hours. While both groups would agree to living in a residence hall with men and women on alternating floors, the female group was significantly more negative about this option. There was also a significant difference on the ques- tion of single rooms. Females were far less concerned with having a single room than males, although male sentiment was not very strong. 67 Table 33. Male/female attitudes about residence hall Options. Male Evalu- Female Evalu- Sig. i ation i ation Z Item I'd stay in the residence hall if I could get a single room Slightly Agree Disagree 2.47 I'd prefer to live on a floor with unlimited visit- ation hours Strongly Agree Strongly 1.37 Agree I'd prefer to live in a dorm with men and women on alternating floor 1.50 Strongly Agree Strongly Agree 4.02 I'd prefer to live in a dorm if I didn't have to pay board 2.17 Agree Agree I'd prefer to live in a residence hall if I could have an apartment with cooking facilities Strongly Agree Agree I'd prefer to live on a floor with specified quiet hours 2.75 Disagree 2.77 Disagree Food Both groups supported the overall negative feelings about food, being neutral on nutrition and more negative about taste. Both groups were Opposed to special minority menus o 68 Table 34. Male/female attitudes about residence hall food. Item Male Evalur Female Evalu- Sig. i ation i ation 2 Residence hall food is generally Strongly .. , appetizing 3.02 Disagree 2.84 Disagree Residence hall food is generally nutritious 2.45 Neutral 2.48 Neutral Residence halls should offer special food menus for _ Slightly minority groups 2.66 Disagree 2.59 Disagree The food profiles on the semantic differential were equally negative for the two groups. They did differ sig- nificantly though on three scales. (See Table 35). The male group perceived the food to be more taste- less, slower, and bad. The fact that the female scores were still unfavorable does indicate a basic problem. Ex- pense was also a major concern of both groups. (See Food Profile, next page). Social Activities There was little difference between the two groups in agreeing that social activities were a good aspect of residence hall life. Both felt strongly that it was easier to make friends in the dorm, but not as strongly that the activities were worthwhile. Both were unsure about the 69 can“ O>Hmcmmxmu mauammncsu mason Home" noon muwwum>u cmuasfis 30Hmu mmmamumMD" .Ooom Hams cosmowmmu mo OHHMOHQ OHMEOM\OHMS mamamm mama .ma musmwm "poom uw>Hmcmmxo IGH "asuamms "mason Home Ooom “mnmflum>, mpw3 Hyman "mammu 70 Table 35. Male/female evaluation of residence hall food. Scale Male Female Significant X X Z Tasty-tasteless 4.70 3.93 2.83 Fast-slow 3.49 3.01 2.08 Wide variety- limited variety 3.86 3.48 Good meal hours- poor meal hours 2.57 2.80 Healthy-unhealthy 3.36 3.18 Inexpensive-expensive 4.47 4.52 Good-bad 4.31 3.64 2.50 social life being better off-campus. The male group tended to feel that their life style was more limited by living in the dorm. (See Table 36). Table 36. Male/female attitudes about social aspects of residence hall life. Item_ Male Evalu- Female Evalu- Sig. X ation X ation 2 It's easier to make friends while living in the Strongly Strongly res. halls 1.60 Agree 1.66 Agree Social activities offered in the res. halls are worthwhile 2.20 Agree 2.34 Agree Students living off- campus have a more enjoyable social Slightly life 2.50 Neutral 2.57 Disagree Residence hall living limits your control of your life style 2.15 Agree 2.26 Agree 71 Rules The two groups differed significantly in their per- ceptions of the amount of freedom offered by on-campus living. Males felt more restricted while the females were more neutral. Both groups tended to agree on their perceptions of the other rules, although the males continued to be slightly more negative. (See Table 37). Management and Staff The male group tended to be slightly more critical of management and staff, although there were no significant differences. Both groups agreed that the residence halls were operated smoothly and efficiently but were unsure about the resident advisors. The neutral profiles for both groups on the semantic differentials indicate the overall lack of concern noted before. (See Profiles on pages 73 and 74). Ideal Place to Live The Ideal profiles of both groups were similar, approximating that of the total sample. There was a tendency for females to want larger and more attractive places of residence, although these differences were not significant. (See Ideal Profile on page 77). 72 Table 37. Male/female attitudes about residence hall rules. Item Male Evalu- Female Evalu- Sig. X ation X ation z On-campus living offers as much freedom as off- campus living 2.86 Disagree 2.45 Neutral 2.77 The University tries to give students the ac- commodations they prefer 2.50 Neutral 2.30 Agree Living in res. halls is better since rules on visitation and alcohol use were Strongly Strongly changed 1.74 Agree 1.83 Agree Things are run too strict (army- Strongly Strongly style) 3.13 Disagree 3.34 Disagree No one should be required to live Strongly Strongly in a res. hall 1.93 Agree 1.94 Agree Residents shouldn't have to sign a Strongly Strongly full-yr contract 1.63 Agree 1.56 Agree University should never assign three students to a.v Strongly Strongly room 1.47 Agree 1.40 Agree Restrictions on room decoration and arrangements are Slightly too severe 2.27 Agree 2.44 Agree 73 wanmmmummmflpu mmmanunosu can" hapsmfiumssu pmcumoaoocs“ .mmmum Hams mosmtwmmu mo OHHMOHQ mHmEmm\mHmz mamfiwm mama .vH mhsmfim "manmmmumm "manmsam> “woom umHOGOHHm “Omsuoocoo 74 OHQMOOMOMme" mmmanun03u own" MHOGOHHMGSH pmcuoosoossu .usofimmmcmfi Ham: mocmpflmmu mo maflmoum mHmEOM\mHmz macaw“ mama .ma musmfim "manmomumm "OHQOSHO> "poom "mapcmwum "omcumocoo Table 38. Male/female attitudes 75 management and staff. about residence hall Item Male Evalu— Evalu- Sig. X ation X ation Z Residence hall is operated smoothly and efficiently 2.20 Agree 2.04 Agree Resident advisors play an important role in the Slightly residence halls 2.63 Disagree 2.52 Neutral Table 39. Male/female evaluations management and staff. of residence hall Scale Male Female Significant i i 2 Staff Concerned-unconcerned 2.98 2.70 Friendly-unfriendly 2.81 2.14 Good-bad 2.91 2.70 Valuable-worthless 3.38 3.10 Agreeable-disagreeable 2.86 2.70 Management Concerned-unconcerned 3.51 3.05 Friendly-unfriendly 3.27 3.03 Good-bad 3.30 3.22 Valuable-worthless 3.22 3.02 Agreeable-disagreeable‘ 3.36 3.36 76 Table 40. Male/female evaluations of my ideal place to live. Scale Male Female Significant i 3': z Clean-dirty 1.81 1.78 Quiet-noisy 3.19 3.24 Large-small 2.84 3.10 Friendly-unfriendly 1.53 1.51 Close-distant 2.05 2.07 Personal-impersonal 2.17 2.22 Attractive-unattractive 2.05 1.73 Well furnished- poorly furnished 2.55 2.48 Good-bad 1.61 1.62 Inexpensive-expensive 2.69 2.76 My Residence Hall There were marked differences in the two groups' perceptions of the residence halls. In general, the female group was more positive, with evaluations nearer the ideal. Both groups saw the hall as somewhat large, and very expensive. Females perceived it as slightly more friendly and personal. The male group saw the dorm as significantly dirtier which supports a similar finding in the Likert section. Again, the males perceived the dormitory to be noisier; while the females saw the residence hall as closer, more attractive and better furnished. Females also gave the residence hall a better overall good-bad rating. (See Profile on page 78). 77 m>Hmcmmxwu own" Omsmacn5m" hanoom m>wuomuuumu Ins HMGOmummEHu psmumfipu mapcOAHmssu Hamfim" mwaocu huufipu .m>HH ou woman Hmwow he no maamoum OHMEOM\mHm2 mamfimm OHME "6 0‘} .mH ousmflm um>flmsmmxm law. "@000 "pmnmwsusm Hamz um>Huomuuum ”Hmsomumm "mmoHo "maocmfium "wanna "uwwsv "sumac .Hamn mosmpflmmu he no OHHMOHQ oawsmw\oamz .ha musmflm 78 OHMEOM mHME O O O O>Hmcmmxou u n W, n u " am>flmsmmxm .0 0 a. and Oman " u u u Olw u "@000 O o Omnmflsuswn " u u u u on u " "Omnmflcunw mauoom o Ham3 lull" O>Huomnuumu ” n u u . ” uo>fluomuuum 1:5 0 O Hmsomnwmawu ” u u u o u " "HMGOmHOQ O ucmumfiou u u u u 0 o u " "omoHo O maosmwumssu " u u u .0” u "MHOGOHHM 0 Hanan“ " u u “0 0 u u “momma mmflonu u u (w . u " "umflav ' C . . muufipn u u u u u “ "smwao Table 41. Male/female evaluations of my residence hall. 79 Scale Male Female Significant i 2 z Clean-dirty 2.91 2.15 3.76 Quiet-noisy 5.01 4.49 2.60 Large-small 3.32 3.07 Friendly-unfriendly 3.05 2.68 Close-distant 3.55 2.89 2.87 Personal-impersonal 3.58 3.33 Attractive-unattractive 3.47 2.92 2.47 Well furnished- poorly furnished 3.37 2.80 2.73 Good-bad 3.22 2.81 1.98 Inexpensive-expensive 4.93 4.62 My Residence Hall Room Both groups did not differ significantly in their evaluations on the clean-dirty, large-small, friendly- unfriendly, and personal-impersonal scales. (See Table 42, page 81). However, males again saw the rooms as more noisy, distant, unattractive, poorly furnished, bad and expensive. (See Profile, next page). Male/Female Groups Summaty The male group was generally more critical of a variety of issues than was the female group. In particular males were more critical of room size, lack of cleanliness, noise, food, and lack of freedom. They were more in favor of men and women on alternating floors and single rooms as options. 80 0>Hmcmmxwu Oman omsmwcusm" manoom 0>Huoonuumu Isa HMGOmHmmEfl“ unnumwou hapamflumcsu HHmEm" mmaocu huuwpu .Eoou Hams OOQOOfimmH as no maflmonm mamfimm\mamz mHmEmm OHME .mH onsmflm um>wmammxm Ian.“ "@000 "Omsmwsuam Hamz um>wuomuuuw “HMGOmHmm "mmoHo "MHOGOHHM "mmHMH "Dowsw "smmHo Table 42. Male/female evaluations of my residence hall 81 room. Scale Male Female Significant x i z Clean-dirty 2.80 2.43 Quiet-noisy 4.33 3.74 2.50 Large-small ° 4.98 4.29 Friendly-unfriendly 2.25 1.98 Close-distant 3.11 2.59 2.26 Personal-impersonal 2.63 2.48 Attractive-unattractive 3.60 2.65 3.99 Well furnished- poorly furnished 3.71 3.16 2.44 Good-bad 3.30 2.86 2.04 Inexpensive-expensive 5.10 4.54 2.31 Class Level Groups The Facility Overall There were no significant differences between class level groups concerning the overall facility. Each class level reflected the total sample's slightly positive evalu- ation. There was a significant difference though, between juniors and seniors on the question of privacy. Seniors were considerably more negative than juniors about the amount of privacy afforded in the dorms. Seniors were more concerned about privacy than any other group, freshmen being the second most concerned group. In other general areas, there was a slight tendency for freshmen to be more positive than other groups. (See Table 43, next page). 82 om.m Amomsom mommd momma >0a>mmm ImOmcsbv .mum H5.H oomm¢ NH.~ oomm< mo.m .mum nm.m nmooco uoz oomm< smusm mmmsm momma oo.m ommmd mm.~ oomm< Hm.m Imam av.m 00» mm Boom momumamoam ommmm hmossaa .mum Hm.m momma Ho.m oomm¢ wo.~ oommm NH.~ ouasmooa mas . Haas oocoommom oommm mommd mommd Ommawwwmw .Hum mm.m .mum Gm.m .mum om.m momma so.~ ma mmms mosmcammm m a mommm oomm¢ oommfi ommmfi oocopamom ca mwom .mum mm.m .mum hm.m .mum wo.m .mum nm.m on szoSm mommamo momma momma uoomxo lama mm.m lama mm.~ oommd mm.m oomm¢ mm.m OHOOO ocomsa ma poom ma mma mEoom momma momma ommma momma oswammwwommw Immo em.m Immo m>.m Immo mh.m lama mm.m mamas oocoommom o>mH oommd Hm.m oommm mm.m oommfl hm.m oommm oa.m on moaam uaomm a mm Haas oosoommom N usao sOmua x comma x GOmua x GOHHa x Immmcmmm noma>m mOHmom noma>m mommdb noma>m .nmom Izma>m .nmmmm EmmH .Ho>om mmaao an Hmamo>o Haas oommpmmom mam moona mopsumuum .mw oHQaB 83 Facility Expenses The slightly more favorable evaluations by freshmen were also found in this area, however all groups were nega- tive about expenses. There were no significant differences amoung groups. (See Table 44, page 83). Noise in the Facility No one class level felt significantly more or less bothered by noise in the residence halls. (See Table 45, page 84). Facility Options There were no significant differences among groups on the following options which all class levels preferred: unlimited visitation, men and women on alternating floors, rooms without board, and apartments with cooking facilities. There was considerable difference on the question of quiet hours among sophomores, juniors and seniors. The sophomores were significantly less in favor of specified quiet hours than either of the upperclass groups. Freshmen were more in favor of having a single room than any other group and differed significantly from seniors in this respect. (See Table 46, page 85). 84 monum mommammo momm< on Mason mmusmmmm mm.~ mmusmmmm ss.m manusmz m¢.~ manusmz mm.~ oou Nmmmsms monum MMMWMMMM mm.m Hamuomz mm.~ maumwmmm Hv.m Hamuomz mv.~ mow omonmmOEua . . mmnaumsm N usao comma x acmma x momma x comma x Immmcmmm Inma>m mOHmmm noma>m mommsh Inma>m .nmom Isaa>m .zmmmm Emum .Ho>mm mmaao an Haas mommOmmom on» cm mmmos usona moosumuum .mv mamas momma mcm>ma momma Immo momma momma msmfiaoummo camp -mma .mum m~.m .mum no.m ummo mm.~ lama mm.~ mmomsosoom «mos mcm>ma momsaouso momma momma momma momma mHQaGOmaom ummo .mum oo.m ummo sm.~ -mma mm.~ umma mm.~ mm mam>mm mo “moo N usao comma m GOmma x comma x comma x Immmsmmm Izma>m mOmsmm Inma>m mOHmsh Inaa>m .nmom IsHa>m .smmmm EoUH .Hm>oH mmaao an momsmmxo Haas oommommmm usona moosmmuum .vv mamas 85 Table 46. Attitudes about residence hall options by class level. Item Fresh. Evalu- Soph. Evalu- _ ation _ ation X X Stay in residence hall if could get single Slightly room 2.35 Agree 2.72 Disagree Prefer to live on a floor with unlimited Strongly Strongly visitation hours 1.64 Agree 1.45 Agree Prefer to live in a dorm with men and women on alter— Strongly Strongly nating floors 1.84 Agree 1.88 Agree Prefer to live in a dorm if did not have to pay Strongly board 1.94 Agree 2.03 Agree Prefer to live in residence hall if could have an apart- ment with cooking facilities 2.06 Agree 2.13 Agree Prefer to live on a floor with Spec- ified quiet Strongly hours 2.78 Disagree 3.03 Disagree 86 Junior Evalu- Senior Evalu- Significant X ation X ation Z (Freshman- Slightly Strongly Senior) 2.57 Disagree 3.00 Disagree 2.68 i Strongly Strongly 1.46 Agree 1.40 Agree Strongly Strongly 1.66 Agree 1.78 Agree 2.24 Agree 2.12 Agree Strongly 2.07 Agree 1.78 Agree (Sophomore- Junior) 2.13 2.61 Disagree 2.53 Neutral (Sophomore- Senior) 2.34 87 Food There was general agreement among all class levels that the food was unappetizing and that special minority menus should not be offered. Sophomores were most negative about nutrition and differed significantly from juniors. (See Table 47, page 88). The food profiles on the semantic differential in- dicated considerable deviation among the groups, with the sophomore group again being most negative. Sophomores were most negative about taste, differing significantly from both freshmen and juniors. Sophomore concern with nutrition was again indicated as they viewed the food to be more unhealthy than any other class level. Sophomores also saw the food as more expensive, differing significantly from the fresh- men. Finally, sophomores gave the food a poorer good-bad rating, differing significantly from juniors. (See Table 48, page 89; and Food Profile on page 90). Social Activities There was again general agreement that it.was easier to make friends in the dorm and that the activities were somewhat worthwhile. Seniors agreed most that students living off-campus had a more enjoyable social life, differing significantly from freshmen and sophomores. On the other hand, freshmen did not believe that residence hall living limited the control of your life style, 88 mmsomm hummosmfi Ham momma mmmmammo momma mom momma -usmz as.~ umma mk.~ Nmpsmmmm ow.~ -mma sm.~ coca mmmomsm mommo OHSOSm mamas mommcmmmm ha.m msomummusa Amomadb momma Ham haaamm I.nmomv mmmm< Hm.m mmmmfi mm.m Immo mm.m lusmz mv.~ [com mm woom Haas mosmommmm momma mcmnmmmmma momma momma lama momma mamamm umms mm.~ ummo Hm.~ .mum mo.m ummo mm.~ news mm coca Haas mocmommmm N ucao comma x GOHua x comma x comma x Immmsmmm Ioaa>m mOHmmm Inma>m mOmmSH Inma>m .nmom Inaa>m .nmmmm EmuH .Hm>ma mmamo an ooom Haas mocmommmm usona mmnsumuum .hv mamas 89 mo.~ lmomasn-.smomc mk.m mm.m ms.¢ as.m amnuaooo mo.~ A.£momn.nmmmmv mo.v mm.v mm.v vm.v m>mmsmmxmum>mmcmmxosm mv.m AmOmcmm|.£momv mm.m AmOmcsnu.smomc nm.~ A.nmmmml.smomv mh.m mw.~ mo.v em.m mammamzsolhnmmamm ov.~ mm.m mm.m mv.~ ammo: Hams moon Immso: Hams poom mm.m m~.m mm.m mm.m mummma> Ommmfimmlmmmmma> mumz oo.m mv.m nm.m mo.m 3oamlumam sm.~ Amomssnu.smomc Nm.~ 1.smomu.smmumv mm.v mm.m om.v mm.m mmwmmummuumumms N m x x m ucaommmcmmm mOHGmm mommoh .nmom .nmmmm mmaom .Hm>mH mmaao an Ooom Haas mocmpmmmm mo GOmuaDHa>m .mv mHQaB 90 van" m>mmammxmu mguaamsssu ammo: Hams“ moon mummma>u omumfima 3oamu mmmHmumau" mmomcmm mmomsablll.lll X mmmoeonmom + + + :aEnmmmm .poom Haas mommommmm mo mammomm Hm>mm mmamu .mm mmommm "voom um>mmsmmxm IGH "maummms "ammo: mama ooom "hummma> mOmz "moan “ammam 91 differing significantly from both sophomores and seniors. (See Table 49, page 92). Rules All class levels agreed that the University tried to give students preferred accommodations, and that life was not too strict in the residence halls. They also felt that things were better since the alcohol and visitation rule changes, that no one should be required to live in the resi- dence halls, or sign a full-year_contract. Finally, all class levels agreed that three people should not be assigned to a room. Seniors felt that the regulations on room decoration and arrangement were too severe, differing from SOphomores and juniors. Finally, seniors were significantly different from freshmen and sophomores in believing that on-campus living offered less freedom. This would appear to reinforce similar findings for on-campus/off-campus groups. (See Table 50, page 93. Management and Staff All groups agreed that the residence halls were run smoothly and efficiently, but freshmen were more likely to agree that the resident advisors played an important role than juniors or seniors. Sophomores also were more positive about the resident advisors. (See Table 51, page 95). 92 NM.N AmOHGmm mahum I.nmmmmv mmma msom mo hm.~ Homucoo mao» 1.5mom mumsmm mam>mm. u.smmmmv momma mo.~ momma o~.~ momma so.~ mmmusmz we.~ mmms mosmcmmmm vo.~ AmOmsmm mmma u.nmomy mmmoom mmnm mm.m twoncm mmOE a AmOHcow mmmmammo momma m>as msmEaOImmo -.smmumv momma m~.~ manusmz sm.~ Nmusmmmm mm.~ lama so.~ mam>mm magmasum ommssnumos mma mamas mmmm< mm.m momm< mm.~ mmmmm mm.m mommd om.m .mom on» cm vmmmmmo mom» Im>muoa Hamoom mama: mmmmd mmmm< mmmm< mommm .mom on» :m .mum ve.m .mum mm.m .mum on.m .mum mm.m mcm>mm mamaz monommm mxaE om mommao m.um N usao comma m coaua x comma x comma x Immmcmmm I5Ha>m mOmsmm noma>m mOHmob Inma>m .nmom Isaa>m .nmmmm Emum .Hm>mm mmaao an mmma Haas mocmpmmmm mo muommma Hamoom usona mmvsumuum .mv mamas Table 50. 93 Attitudes about residence hall rules by class level. Item Fresh.- Evalu- Soph. Evalu- - ation - ation X X On-campus living offers as much freedom as Slightly off-campus living 2.44 Agree 2.48 Neutral University tries to give students the accom- modations they prefer 2.32 Agree 2.46 Neutral Living in residence halls is better since rules on visitation and alco- Strongly Strongly hol use were changed 1.89 Agree 1.84 Agree Things are run too strict Strongly Strongly (army-style) 3.24 Disagree 3.38 Disagree No one should be required to live in a residence Strongly Strongly hall 1.74 Agree 1.96 Agree Residents should not have to sign a full-year Strongly Strongly contract 1.70 Agree 1.46 Agree University should never assign three students Strongly Strongly to a room 1.54 Agree 1.43 Agree Restrictions on room decoration and arrange- ment are too severe 2.32 Agree 2.60 Disagree 94 Junior Evalu- Senior Evalu- Significant X ation X ation Z (Fresh.-Senior) 2.13 (Soph.-Senior) 2.73 Disagree 2.93 Disagree 2.04 Slightly 2.38 Agree 2.34 Agree Strongly Strongly 1.71 Agree 1.75 Agree Strongly Strongly 3.16 Disagree 3.25 Disagree Strongly 2.12 Agree 1.93 Agree Strongly Strongly 1.75 Agree 1.40 Agree Strongly Strongly 1.35 Agree 1.40 Agree (Soph.-Senior) Slightly 2.77 2.44 Agree 2.00 Agree (Junior-Senior) 2.18 95 mo.N Amomcsh I. mom mm.~ so mmmmn AmOHGmm momma momma mommm mnwomwowmwm -.smmmmc umma mm.m umma ss.m.mmurmmmm ms.~ momma mm.~ unmuuomsm am mama mmomm>oa .usoOmmmm Nmucmmommmm . . . . pea manuooam mmmmd mo N mommm ma N mmmmd mo N mmmmd NH N Omuammmo mm Haas mosmpmmmm N usao comma x comma x semua x comma x Immmsmmm noHa>m mOmmom Isma>m .mommSO lama>m .nmom noma>m .nmmmm EmuH .Hm mamas .Hm>mm mmamo an mmaum Osa msmsmmasae Haas mosmommmm moona mowsumuum xE-é-e 96 On the semantic differential scales, the profiles were similar for all groups, although the seniors tended to be more negative. They saw the staff as more unconcerned than both sophomores and juniors. (See Table 52, page 97 and Profiles on pages 98 and 99). The Ideal Place to Live Although most group profiles were similar, there were some differences. Sophomores, and particularly juniors wanted a friendlier atmosphere than either freshmen or seniors. Freshmen were less concerned about distance, being significantly different from juniors. Seniors were willing to accept a place with a poorer overall good-bad rating. Sophomores were most concerned about expense, while fresh- men were least concerned, differing significantly from both sophomores and juniors. Sophomores viewed expense more importantly than juniors as well. Finally, freshmen were least concerned about noise, differing significantly from sophomores. (See Table 53, page 100; and Profile, page 101). My Residence Hall The profiles of all class levels were quite similar. The only significant difference was between juniors and seniors, with seniors perceiving the dorms to be smaller. (See Table 54, page 102; and Profile, page 103). q 97 om.m Nv.m ew.m Nm.m mmnammmmammplmmnammmma wm.m vm.m oo.m mo.m ,mmmmsumosummnasma> mm.m mN.m NH.m oH.m panlooom ov.m mm.m mo.m mo.m smasmmmmssummccmmmm Nm.m ma.m bH.m mH.m Omcmmocooaslpmsmmosoo usmfimmasaz aa.m sk.~ mm.~ mm.~ mmnmmmummmmaummnmmwnmm mm.m ¢H.m mo.m ON.m mammnumozummnasma> mo.m NN.N mm.~ mm.m amnucoom ma.m mm.N om.N oh.N maosmmmMGSIhaocmmmm «v.N Amomsomlmomsahv wv.N Amomcmmn.nmomv om.m Nm.N om.N om.N omsmmosOOGSIOmsmmocom mmaum N x x x x usaommmsmmm mOmmmm mommsh .smom .nmmmm maaom .Hm>mH mmaao an mmaum osa ucmfimmasafi Haas mommpmmmm mo mGOmuasaa>m .Nm mHQaB 98 .mmaum Haas mocmwmmmm mo mammomm Hmbma mmaHU .ON mmammm mmomsmm mmmoeonmom + + + mmomssb.lll.lll mmenmmmm . . . mmnammmmammpu u u u u “ "maaammmma mmmanumOB“ " u u u u "mananma> wan" " u u u u "Uoom hmpcmmmmss" " u u u n o " "mmocommm , o. m pmammonooss" “ u u u n u "Omcmmosoo 99 .msmfimmasafi Haas mommpmmmm mo mammomm Hm>mH wmaao .HN mmsmmm mmOHsmm mmmoEonmom + + + mmomssb II I smfinmmmm . . . mmnammmmammou " u u u u "mmnaommma mmmanumozu “ u n u “ umHQaDHa> Can“ u n u u u "woom haosmmmmcdu u u u n u "haocmmmm Omcmmosomcsu “ u n u " "cosmmmsoo .1 ‘v’.u :Mr 100 mo.N Amomsob|.£momv mH.N Am0mc5hl.nmmmmv mo.q 1.rmomu.smmmmc mm.~ mk.~ mm.~ mm.m o>mmsmmxmum>mmcmmxmcm mo.m Amomsmmu.smomc sm.m mm.m ms.m mm.m annuaooo ma.~ ~m.~. ms.m mm.~ amsmmcmsm ammoomlcmammcmsm mama mk.m am.m mm.m mm.m m>muomuuumcsum>muoamuu< ms.~ mm.~ sm.~ mm.~ mmcommmssmummaommmm mm.~ Amomcssu.smmmmc mm.~ ms.m so.~ mm.~ usaummaummomo mH . N AHOHGSHI . Smmhhv om.~ Amomcmmumomasnc ms.m mm.m mv.m ma.m smacmmmmasummacmmmm mm.~ mm.m m~.m mo.m mmasmummmmq mo.~ 1.smomu.smmmmc mo.m mm.m mo.m om.m Nmmoauummso mm.m em.m mm.m mm.m mummaucammo ucaomwmcmmm mOmmom mommsm .gmom .nmwmm maaom .Hm>ma mmaao ms m>mm ou moaHm Hampm as no commasmabm .mm mHQaB .m>mH om moaam Hampm m8 m0 mammomm Hm>mH mmaau .NN mmnmmm mmmoeosmom + + + smeammmm . . . amOmsmm mmoms5b_lll.lll m>mmcmmxmu " u u u 61‘ u 0 " um>mmsmmxm ‘ /x lGfl can" u u u u u \‘w u poom .\ \ Omnmmcmnmu u u u u u A " "Omnmmcmsm mamoom / Hamz m>muoamuuan " u u u u v um>muoamuua In: 1 0 l HacommmmEmu " u u u u .u ”HaGOmmmm / unaumwvu “ u u u n .l "mmOHo 0 v» .' hapsmwmmcou u u u u u . w!“ "hapcmmmm t. ‘1. HHaEmu " u n u x. .u x u u mmmaa at . v mmmocu " u u u 0 m " "momsm .,o . hummnu " u n u u " "camao .mu. 102 an.¢ ¢>.v «m.v mm.v m>mmcmmxmlo>mmcmmxmcm mm.m mm.~ mm.m mm.~ annuaooo m~.m mm.~ mo.m ao.m amsmmamsm ammoomlpmnmmsmSM Hamz om.~ so.m mm.m sm.m o>muommuumcslm>muommuua ms.m mm.m sm.m m¢.m mmaommmasmummsomnmm mo.m m~.m mo.m m~.m pcmummcuomomo om.m mm.~ om.~ ms.m mmaammmmssummosmmms mm.~ Anomammumomcsnc mm.m as.~ sm.m ~m.m mmasmummmmq oa.s mm.v om.w ms.q mmmoauummsc m¢.~ ms.~ m¢.~ mm.~ mammaucmmmo usammwmcmmw mommmm mOHMSO .gmom .nmmmm mHaom .Hm>mH mmaHo an Haas mocmommmm ME mo mGOHuasHa>m .wm mamas 103 ..HHan monopmmmm he no mammomm Hm>mH mmamu .mN mmsmmm amOmsmm mmmososmom o + + mm0mssbrll.lll. smsnmmmm . . . o>mmcmmxmu " u u .. n u u um>mmcmmxm IGNH a u n u u u u n " 00m O Q .5" O Omsmmcmsm“ " u u ” A.%I u "commmcmsm Mamoom 0 Hams m>muoamuuau " u u n “ um>mmoammua Ins \ HasOmmmmEmu " u u u “If" u "Hacommmm usaummcu u u u u u "mmon ; hapsmmmmss" " u u u u "mavsmmmm X. Hmafim" " u u . I‘lhk. " "mmmaa lllIo hmHOGu u u u A... «0 u “ "ummsm aumwwu " u u u u u "Gamao 104 My Residence Hall Room Again the profiles were similar, but there were three significant differences. Seniors again saw the rooms as smaller, differing from freshmen. Sophomores felt that the rooms were better furnished than freshmen. And finally, sophomores again saw the room as more expensive than fresh- men. (See Table 55, page 105; and Profile, page 106). Summary for Class Level Groups In general, the freshmen group was most positive in their evaluations of the residence halls. This may indicate satisfaction with a new living experience. Seniors tended to be most critical, which supports the negative stance found for those students living off- campus. They were particularly concerned with the lack of privacy and the restrictive nature of on-campus living. SOphomores, while in favor of many options and a less restrictive atmosphere, were most critical of quiet hours, nutrition, food in general, and expense. 105 mo.m 1.rmomn.rmmusc no.4 mm.v mo.m ov.o m>mmcmmxmum>mmamaxmsm mm.m om.~ a~.m mm.~ annuaooo km.m 1.3momu.smmmmc om.m sm.m mo.m «N.m cwrmmsmsm hmmoomlpmsmmcmsm Amok mm.m sm.m mo.m vm.m m>muommuumssum>muoamuua sm.m mm.~ om.~ on.~ masommmmsmummsommmm mo.m as.~ mm.~ mm.~ uaaummanmmOHO em.m mm.~ sm.~ mm.~ smacmmmmssummnsmmmm om.~ mmomcwmn.smmmsv sm.m mm.v mm.¢ oe.v mmasmnmmmaq m~.¢ sm.m -.s mm.m Nmmocupomsc m~.N ma.~ mm.~ sa.m mummancmmmo N x x x x msaommmcmmm mOmmmm mommob .nmom .smmmm mHaom L .Hm>mm mmamo an Eoom Haas monopmmmm he mo msomuaoaa>m .mm manaa .Eoom Haas mocmOmmmm he no mammomm Hobma mmaao .vN mmommm mmmoeonmom +i+_+ :mEnmmmm . . . mmomsmm mmOmcsb II I 106 m>mmcmmxmu " u f 0 u 0 u u um>mmsomxm I IGH can“ u u u u .7 x u "poom o Omnmmcmsm" " u u u . n " "oozmmsmsm hamoom )+ HHmB m>muoamupau " u u u / :01 " um>muoamuua In: _ Hacommmmfimu ” u u u u " "HaGOmmmm, usaUmmpu ” u u u ..2/ “ "mmoao 111v Mapsmmmmcsu " u u u u . "hapsommm {Inl‘1 HHaEm u u u A, O u u " "mmmaa 0 .III 0 hmflocu " u u I 0 0 u u "umHOm I, mummou " u u u u “ "caoao CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS This study was designed to gather information about students, their interaction with the Residence Hall system, and their reasons for leaving the dormitories. Some good aspects of living in the residence halls were found. Of primary importance was the social atmos- phere,the chance to make friends and meet different kinds of peOple. This fact was widely agreed upon as being most valuable. The dorms also gave incoming freshmen the Op- portunity to adjust gradually to university life in the company of other more experienced students and staff. Should the residence halls become populated primarily with freshmen, much of this valuable cross-pollination would be lost. Finally, the residence halls were found to be convenient in location, in having classes in the building, and in the preparation of meals. These findings support those of the Wisconsin, Western Michigan, and Idaho studies suggesting that these are commonly favored aspects of residence hall life. 107 108 However, there were also negative attributes off- setting these positive attributes which may be'contributing-Uo declining residency. The major problem found was that of expense. Perhaps more of the minor complaints could be COped with by residents if the dormitories could be seen as competing effectively with off-campus Options on a price basis. A second major complaint concerns food, specifically taste and nutrition. While students preferred to have meals prepared, they did expect better quality. This was very apparent in the nutrition findings. Even though food served might have been of the highest nutritional value, the fact that most students were uncertain about this aspect indicates a serious problem. Another major complaint was a combination of two problems--small room size and lack)of privacy. Given the size of most dorm rooms, there was little privacy available. The public nature of the rest of the dormitory also elim- inates a sense of individual privacy. A lack of freedom, while not as strongly or as widely held also seemed to contribute to the exodus from the residence halls. There was a feeling, particularly among those who had moved off-campus that residence hall life was restrictive. These findings also support the com- mon complaints found in the Wisconsin, Western Michigan and Idaho studies. 109 Two other areas of complaint dealt with in the 1969 MSU study were found to be minor in nature-~noise and room decoration regulations. While noise and the inability to decorate one's room personally are annoying, they are probably not enough to cause one to leave the dormitory. But, as two more problems tacked on to a list of major grievances, they become added burden to an already serious situation. Another problem noted in the 1969 study,_g sensgfigfin _,__...- '1‘!‘ in this study. While students felt that the residence coldness andmimpersonality, was not found to be as strong halls lacked aesthetic appeal, they did not perceive them as "cold and impersonal" when directly questioned. The personal nature of the dormitories was actually one of their more highly rated aspects. Students favored nearly all of the options in this study. The majority of students favored floors with un- limited visitation rights, rooms without board payments, and apartments in the residence halls with cooking facil- ities. The latter were especially preferred by off-campus students. While women were less in favor of men and women on alternating floors, they still agreed to this option. Single rooms, while not a sufficient inducement for most students to remain on-campus, were more favored by males and freshmen. Students would also like to see required 110 residency, full-year contracts and three to a room assign- ments eliminated. A unique Off-campus phenomenon occurred in this study, as those students no longer living in the residence halls tended to. intensify both their good and bad points. In retrospect, the dorms were cleaner, the laundry facil- ities better, and the classes more convenient. But the off-campus students also perceived less privacy, more expense, more noise, and greater restrictions when compared with current residents' evaluations. The male group tended to be more critical, partic- ularly about food, expense and lack of freedom. Seniors were critical of lack of privacy, the restrictions, and the staff. SOphomores disliked the quiet hours, food, and expense. Freshmen were the most positive of all class level groups, feeling less restricted and favoring the resident advisors. Now that these base-points have been established, it is important to refine the questionnaire as an instru- ment and make consistent use of it in the future. Certain questions about social activities and regulations should be reworked. More and newer Options should be tested. Scales in the semantic differential that were of limited use should be eliminated. But, aside from problems with the questionnaire, the findings of this study do provide a strOng basis for 111 comparison with future studies. Although some indications of student attitudes have been found, these will become more meaningful only through comparison with the attitudes of the same students at a later date and with new student residents. In this way, attempts at improvement can be measured, and problem areas can be signaled. The true value of this study lies in what it should be beginning and not in its ending. LIST OF REFERENCES LI ST OF REFERENCES Nevin, John R., "University Residence Halls Research Study" Paper presented to the Director of Residence Halls, The University of Wisconsin. The University of Wisconsin, 1971. Office of Student Advisory Services, University of Idaho. Unpublished report of housing survey of off-campus students including cost data. The University of Idaho, 1972. The Provost's Ad Hoc Committee on the Residence Halls, The Residence_Hall§tudy, East Lansing, Michigan. Michigan State University, 1969. "Residence Hall Occupants Survey: Western Michigan University", Unpublished paper prepared for Housing Office, Western Michigan University. Western Michigan University, 1972. Selltiz, Claire, et al., Research Methods in Social Relations, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1959. 112 APPENDIX 113 APPEND IX The two forms of the questionnaire used in this study follow. The first form was used for on-campus interviewing, the second form was used off-campus. All questions with the exception of the information on the. classificatory pages were completed by the respondent. An interviewer secured and tabulated the classificatory data. Following the questionnaire forms, the classifica- tory data for the total sample is tabled. 114 CLASSIFICATION DATA: TO BE FILLED OUT BY INTERVIEWER 01 Name 02 03 ON-CAMPUS FORM 09 Address Phone 10 11 Sex (circle) 1. Male 2. Female 12 (AT END OF SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL-SAY TO RESPONDENT: "And now would you mind giving me some information about yourself? IF RESPONDENT OBJECTS TO ANY QUESTION, PUT "NA" (NO ANSWER) IN COLUMN BLANK(S) AT LEFT) 13 What is your present class level? (circle) 1. freshman (to 45 credits) 2. SOphomore (to 85 credits) 3. junior (to 135 credits) 4. senior (over 135 credits) What is your age? (circle) 14 1. 18 or under 2. 19 3. 20 4. 21 15 What is your major or preference? 16 17 How many quarters have you lived in this residence hall? quarters (or off campus) 18 Have you lived in any other residence hall (or in a residence hall?) No Yes 19 If yes to previous question: Where 20 For how many quarters? quarters 21 Are you required to live in a residence hall? No Yes About how much do you think you'll spend for this academic year, including tuition, food, clothes, travel, and so forth? (circle) 1. Under $1500 3. $2000-2499 5. $3000-3499 2. $1500-1999 4. $2500-2999 6. $3500-3999 22 7. Over $4000 115 What is the source of your income (READ LIST AND ASK FOR %) 1. Self-employment % 4. Family Self-savings % 5. G I Bill % Scholarship % 6. Other is your Grade Point Average overall? GPA bracket would you say your family's income under? (circle) Under $15000 2. $15000 to $25000 3. Over $25000 is your father's occupation Do you have a car at MSU? No Yes Interviewer Date SOME THIS "LET WHAT 116 NOTICE: THE IDENTITY OF STUDENTS RESPONDING TO THIS QUESTIONNAIRE WILL NOT BE REVEALED TO ANYONE Michigan State University Department of Residence Halls in cooperation with the Department of Advertising STUDY OF ATTITUDES TOWARD MSU RESIDENCE HALLS OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE SIMPLY INCOMPLETE SENTENCES. IS OUR WAY OF SUGGESTING A TOPIC AND ASKING YOU TO YOURSELF GO." EXPRESS YOURSELF AS FULLY AS YOU WANT. YOU SAY HERE MAY HELP US MORE THAN ANY OTHER PART OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE TO UNDERSTAND HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT RESIDENCE HALL LIVING 28 1. So far as I am concerned, living in a residence 29 hall is O O O 30 2. (BE MORE SPECIFIC). The things I like best 31 about living in residence halls are . . . 32 3. The things I like least about living in residence 33 halls are . . . 34 4. As a student, if you could make an absolutely free choice of living quarters, what sort of 35 a place would you like to have? 36 5. Suppose that an incoming student, eligible to live 37 either on or off campus came to you for advice 38 about where to live. What would you advise? Why? 39 6. Rank, in order of importance, your three main sources of information about your residence hall. 40-—- 1. Resident hall adviser Most Important__ 41 2. Other re31dence hall staffers Second Most -——- 3. Bulletin boards Im ortant 4. Newsletter p ——— 5. WOrd-of-mouth Third most 6. State News Important 7. Other (specify) 42 Is the information adequate or inadequate. In what way? 43 117 Thinking back to the letters and brochures you received about residence halls prior to enrolling at Michigan State, would you say these pieces of communications were good, bad, or indifferent? Please explain. 118 STUDENTS OFTEN EXPRESS A NUMBER OF OPINIONS ABOUT THE RESI- DENCE HALLS. I'D LIKE YOU TO READ THIS LIST OF COMMENTS AND MARK WHETHER YOU STRONGLY AGREE, AGREE SOMEWHAT, DISAGREE SOMEWHAT OR STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH EACH COMMENT. >. 4.: m4.» >.m F1 a a>a Pam U1 :3 HA: 01H c:m Q)3 033 at? c>m aim a1 +3 mu >14) F4 0 a)m ~1m 61 .2 Ln: th so (D3 013 GOD 00) mm mm Old L4H LaE one Lam JJU‘I U30 ---!0 +J'v-i 034 ¢ED DID mt: ) 130- The room I live in is too small. Residence hall food is generally nutritious Residence hall food is generally appetizing. Residence halls do not offer enough privacy. Residence halls are cold and impersonal. Generally speaking, my residence hall is a great place to live. My residence hall is Operated smoothly and efficiently. It's usually too noisy in my residence hall to study. The University tries to give students the ac- commodations they prefer. I feel that the resident advisors (RA's) play an important role in the residence hall. It's easier to make friends while living in the residence halls. The social activities offered in the residence halls are worthwhile. Strongly Agree Agree ( Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Strongly Disagree V 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 131 Students living off- campus have a more enjoyable social life. Around my residence hall, things are run too strictly (army style). Living in residence halls is better since the rules on visitation and alcohol use have been changed. On-campus living offers as much freedom as off- campus living. No one should be required to live in a residence hall. Restrictions on room decoration and arrange- ments are too severe. Dorm residents shouldn't have to sign a full-year contract. I'd prefer to live on a floor with unlimited visitation hours. I'd prefer to live in a dorm with men and women) on alternating floors. I'd prefer to live in a dorm if I didn't have to pay board. I'd prefer to live on a floor with specified quiet hours. Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Strongly Disagree 78 79 132 >1 4.) F4 m 61 .c ca) (D3 cam 03m La“ #48 +io~ tno 03¢ arm I'd prefer to live in a residence hall if I could have an apartment with cooking facilities. ( ) ( ) The university should never assign three students to a room. ( ) ( ) Disagree Somewhat () ( ) ( ( Strongly Disagree ) ) 133 THE LAST PART OF THIS QUESTIONNAIRE IS DESIGNED TO MEASURE THE "MEANING" TO YOU OF VARIOUS ASPECTS OF RESIDENCE HALL LIVING. PLEASE STUDY THE EXAMPLE TO SEE HOW THE RATING IS DONE. BY PLACING AN "X" IN ONE OF THE SPACES BELOW, YOU CAN SHOW HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY. FOR EXAMPLE, SUPPOSE YOU FEEL THAT MICHIGAN STATE IS NEITHER "HEALTHY" NOR "SICK." YOU WOULD INDICATE YOUR FEELINGS BY PLACING THE "X" IN THE MIDDLE SPACE. HOWEVER, SHOULD YOU FEEL THAT MICHIGAN STATE IS VERY "SICK," YOU WOULD MARK THE SCALE NEXT TO "SICK." MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY healthy: : : : : : :X :sick IF YOU FEEL THAT MICHIGAN STATE IS QUITE "SICK," YOU WOULD MARK THE SCALE AS FOLLOWS: OR IF YOU FEEL THAT MICHIGAN STATE IS SLIGHTLY "HEALTHY" YOU WOULD MARK THIS WAY: NOW, WOULD YOU PLEASE CHECK YOUR RATING FOR "MY IDEAL PLACE TO LIVE AT MSU" MY IDEAL PLACE TO LIVE WOULD BE: ll___ friendly: :__:__:__:__:__:__:unfriendly 12_ dirty:::_:_:_:_:_:_:clean l3___ close:_:_:_:_:—:_:_:distant l4__ good: :_:_:—:_:_:_:bad 15_ expensive : :: _: _: _: _: _: _: inexpensive 16_ noisy:_:_:_:__:_:_:_:quiet poorly l7__ furnished:_:_:—:_:_:_:_:well furnished 18__ personal :_:_: _: _: _: _: _: impersonal l9 unattractive : _: _: _: _: _: _: _: attractive 20::: large: : : : : : : :small NOW, TURN TO THE NEXT PAGE AND DO THE SAME FOR THE ITEMS LISTED. WORK AS QUICKLY AS YOU CAN--BUT PLEASE CHECK EVERY ITEM. N l'-' NNNNNN \lmU'lobWN (ANN oxooo www LUMP wwww \lmU'lob 05:5.wa NI—‘OKDCD hbhbb U1 U1 uh uh U1 N llllllllll '134 RESIDENCE HALL FOOD tasty: slow: wide variety: poor meal hours: healthy: expensive: good: MY RE clean: noisy: small: friendly: distant: personal: unattractive: well furnished: good: inexpensive: MY clean: noisy: small: friendly: distant: personal: unattractive: well furnished: good: inexpensive: ADVISORY STAFF concerned: unfriendly: good: worthless: agreeable: :tasteless :fast' :limited variety :good meal hours SIDENCE :close :close :impersonal :attractive OF MY RESIDENCE HALL :unconcerned :friendly :bad :valuable :disagreeable 53 54 55 56 57 135 MANAGEMENT OF MY RESIDENCE HALL concerned: :_: :_: : :_:unconcerned unfriendly:::_:::__:::::_:friendly good : _: _: _: _: _: _: _: bad worthless : _: _: _: _: _: _: _: valuable agreeable: : : : : : : :disagreeable 136 Table 56. Sample demographics. Characteristic f Percentage Residency On-campus 137 73% Off-campus 49 27 Sex Male 80 43 Female 106 57 Race White 179 96 Non-white 7 4 Class Level Freshmen 50 27 Sophomore 51 27 Junior 54 29 Senior 32 17 Age 18 or under 39 21 19 52 28 20 44 24 21 37 20 22 and over 14 7 Table 57. Academic majors of sample. College of Major f Percentage Agriculture 21 12% Arts and Letters 19 10 Business 13 7 Communication Arts 4 2 Education 19 10 Engineering 11 6 Human Ecology 11 6 Human Medicine 6 4 James Madison 3 2 Justin Morrill 2 l Lyman Briggs 3 2 Natural Science 26 14 Social Science 29 16 University College 5 3 Veterinary Medicine 3 2 All University 5 3 137 Table 58. Residency of sample. Item f Percentage Length of Residence 1 quarter 15 8 2 quarters 101 54 3 quarters 12 7 4 quarters 5 3 5 quarters 24 13 6 quarters ll 6 7 quarters 3 2 8 quarters lO 5 9 quarters 2 2 10 or more quarters 3 2 Lived in Another Residence Hall? No 95 51 Yes 90 49 Where? Brody 19 23 South 21 25 East 20 24 Central 23 28 How Many Quarters? 1 quarter ll 13 2 quarters 9 ll 3 quarters 29 35 4 quarters 2 3 5 quarters 2 3 6 quarters 24 29 7 quarters l l 8 quarters 0 0 9 quarters 3 4 10 or more quarters l 1 Required to Live in Residence Hall? No 81 44 Yes 105 56 .138 Table 59. Financial characteristics of sample Item f Percentage Expenditures for Academic Year Under $1,500 17 9% $1,500-1,999 32 17 $2,000-2,499 74 40 $2,500-2,999 29 15 $3,000-3,499 26 14 $3,500—3,999 6 3 $4,000 and over 2 2 Major Source of Income Self employment 38 21 Self savings 10 5 Scholarship 22 12 Family 102 55 GI Bill 2 1 Other 11 6 Family Income Under $15,000 66 37 $15,000-25,000 77 43 Over $25,000 35 20 Father's Occupation Professional 38 21 Semi-professional 50 28 White—collar 28 16 Blue-collar 12 7 Agricultural worker 11 6 Skilled laborer 18 10 Semi-skilled laborer 8 4 Unskilled laborer 2 1 No occupation given 12 7 »139 Table 60. Sample grade point averages. Grade Point Average f Percentage 1.9 or less 6 3% 2.0 to 2.2 16 9 2.3 to 2.7 53 30 2.8 to 3.3 67 38 3.4 to 3.6 22 12 3.7 to 4.0 14 8 Table 61. Sample car ownership. Item f Percentage Car Owner? No 142 76% Yes 45 24 "IWilli(Iii)Iflflfilflfw‘ijlilflyuflflfllflfiflIT