DOCUMENT RESUME - ERICFINAL REPORT Project No. 760-541-70-1007-06 Grant No. OEC-3-6-062728-2129...

ED 033 645

AUTHOFTITLE

INSTITUTIONSpcns Agency

Bureau NoPub DateContractNote

EDFS PriceDescriptors

Identifiers

Abstract

DOCUMENT RESUME

HE 001 009

Coker, David I.Diversty cf Intellective andNon-Intellective Characteristics BetweenPersisting and Non-Persisting Studentsamcng Campuses.Wisconsin State Univ., Stevens Point.Office of Education (DHEW), Washington,r. C. Bureau of Research.ER-6-2728Apr 68OEC-3-6-062728-2129123p.

EDRS Price MF-$0.50 HC-$6.25Academic Achievement, *DropoutCharacteristics, Dropouts, *HigherEducation, *Persistence, StateUniversities, *Student Characteristics,Vocational Interests, *Withdrawal*Wisconsin

This study attempted to discover thenature and extent of the diversity of characteristics ofpersisting and non-persisting students both within andamong 5 state universities in Wisconsin. The sampleconsisted of all full-time freshmen during 1965-66 at theinstitutions (N=7010). Students who either withdrew duringthe year or did not return for the 1966-67 year(non-persisting students), were divided into those whowithdrew for academic reasons and those who withdrew fornon-academic reasons. The results indicated that there weresignificant differences between both male and femalepersisting and non-persisting students (all) on the basisof planned educational major, vocational choice, vocationalrole preference, educational aspirations, number of changesin academic major, place cf college residence, and size ofhigh school graduating class. Previous high schoolachievement and ACT scores tended to be discriminatevariables between male and female and among the persisting,non-persisting (academic) , and non-persisting (nonacademic) students both within and among campuses. Collegeachievement in terms of GPA, credits attempted, and creditsearned, appeared tc differentiate both male and femalepersisting and non-persisting students (all) both withinand among campuses. Continued research is necessary ifinstitutions hope to decrease attrition rate. (DS)

El 3fri9

OE-ER

FINAL REPORTProject No. 760-541-70-1007-06Grant No. OEC-3-6-062728-2129

sEsr COPY AVAILABLE

DIVERSITY OF INTELLECTIVE AND NON-INTELLECTIVE CHARACTERISTICSBETWEEN PERSISTING AND NON-PERSISTING STUDENTS

AMONG CAMPUSES

April 1968

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE

OFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE

PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS

STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION

POSITION OR POLICY.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OFHEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

Office of EducationBureau of Research

FINAL REPORT

Project No. 760-541-70-1007-06Grant No. OEC-3-6-062728-2129

DIVERSITY OF INTELLECTIVE AND NON-INTELLECTIVE CHARACTERISTICSBETWEEN PERSISTING AND NON-PERSISTING STUDENTS

AMONG CAMPUSES

Dr. David L. CokerWisconsin State UniversityStevens Point, Wisconsin 5zi1g1

April 1968

The research reported herein was performed pursuant to a grantwith the Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Educa-tion, and Welfare. Contractors undertaking such projects underGovernment sponsorship are encouraged to express freely theirprofessional judgment in the conduct of the project. Points cf

view or opinions stated do not, therefore, necessarily repre-sent official Office of Education position or policy.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OFHEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

Office of EducationBureau of Research

I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

I. PREFACE 1

II. INTRODUCTION 2

Purpose of the Study 5Statement of the Problem 5Research Hypotheses 6

Definition of Terms 8

Delimitation of the Problem 9Limitations of the Problem 9

III. METHODOLOGY 10

Selection of Sample 10

Collection of the Data 10

Scoring of the Data 11

Coding of the Data 11

Statistical Treatment of the Data 12

IV. RESULTS 13

Analysis of Scholastic Aptitude 13

Analysis of High School Achievement 53Analysis of College Achievement 65

Analysis of Non-Intellective Characteristics 80

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . 100

Diversity Among Persisting and Non-Persisting StudentsAmong Campuses on the Basis of Scholastic Aptitude . 100

Diversity Among Persisting and Non-Persisting StudentsAmong Campuses on the Basis of High School Achieve-ment .. 103

Diversity Among Persisting and Non-Persisting StudentsAmong Campuses on the Basis of College Achievement . 105

Diversity Among Persisting and Non-Persisting StudentsAmong Campuses on the Basis of Non-IntellectiveCharacteristics 106

VI. REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY 112

ii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Differences Among Persisting and Non-Persisting Studentson All Campuses on the Basis of Mean Scores on the ACT

Scales . , o OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 14

2 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Persisting and Non-Persisting Students on All Cam-puses on the Basis of Mean Scores on the ACT - English

Scale

3 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Persisting and Non-Persisting Students on All Cam-puses on the Basis of Mean Scores on the ACT-MathematicsScale

4 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Persisting and Non-Persisting Students on All Cam-puses on the Basis of Mean Scores on the ACT-SocialScience Scale

15

16

17

5 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Persisting and Non-Persisting Students on All Cam-puses on the Basis of Mean Scores on the ACT-NaturalScience Scale . 17

6 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Persisting and Non-Persisting Students on All Cam-puses on the Basis of Mean Scores on the ACT-CompositeScale 18

7 Differences Between Male and Female Persisting Studentson the Basis of ACT Scales 19

8 Differences Between Male and Female Academic Non-PersistingStudents on the Basis of the ACT Scales 20

9 Differences Between Male and Female Non-Academic Non -Persisting Students on the Basis of the ACT Scales 21

10 Differences Among Female Persisting Students Among Campuseson the Basis of Mean Scores on the ACT Scales 22

11 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Female Persisting Students Among Campuses on theBasis of the Mean Score on the ACT-English Scale 23

12 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Female Persisting Students Among Campuses on theBasis of the Mean Score on the ACT-Mathematics Scale 25

iii

Table Page

13 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Female Persisting Students Among Campuses on theBasis of the Mean Score on the ACT-Social Science Scale 26

14 Differences Among Male Persisting Students Among Campuseson the Baas of Mean Scores on the ACT Scales 27

15 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Male Persisting Students Among Campuses on theBasis of Mean Scores on the ACT-English Scale 28

16 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Male Persisting Students Among Campuses on theBasis of Mean Scores on the ACT-Mathematics Scale . . 30

17 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Male Persisting Students Among Campuses on theBasis of Mean Scores on the ACT- Social Science Scale . . . 31

18 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Male Persisting Students Among Campuses on theBasis of Mean Scores on the ACT-Natural Science Scale . 32

19 Differences Among Persisting Students Among Campuses onthe Basis of Mean Score for the ACT-Composite Scale . . 33

20 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Persisting Students Among Campuses on the Basisof Mean. Score for the ACT-Composite Scale . . . . . . . 34

21 Differences Among Female Academic Non-Persisting StudentsAmong Campuses on the Basis of Mean Scores for the ACTScales 35

22 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Female Academic Non-Persisting Students Among Cam-puses on the Basis of. Mean Scores for the ACT - English

Scale

23 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Female Academic Non-Persisting Students Among Cam-puses on the Basis of Mean Scores for the ACT-SocialScience Scale

36

37

2' Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Female Academic Non-Persisting Students Among Cam-puses on the Basis of Mean Scores for the ACT-NaturalScience Scale 39

iv

Table Page

25 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the Differences

Among Female Academic Non-Persisting Students Among Cam-

puses on the Basis of Mean Sccres for the ACT-Composite

Scale 40

26 Differences Among Male Academic Non-Persisting Students

Among Campuses on the Basis of Mean Scores for the ACT

Scales . OOOOO OOOOOOOO 41


Among Male Academic Non - Persisting Students Among Cam-

puses on the Basis of Mean Scores for the ACT-Mathematics

Scale 42


Among Male Academic Non-Persisting Students Among Cam-

puses on the Basis of Mean Scores for the ACT-Social

Science Scale 43



puses on the Basis of Mean Scores for the ACT-Natural

Science Scale 45



puses on the Basis of Mean Scores for the ACT-Composite

Scale

31 Differences Among Female Non-Academic Non-Persisting Stu-

dents Among Campuses on the Basis of Mean Scores on the

English, Mathematics, and Natural Science Scales of the

ACT , OOOOOOOO e OOOOOOOO

46

47

32 Differences Among Male Non-Academic Non-Persisting Students

Among Campuses on the Basis of Mean Snores for the Eng.-

lish, Mathematics, and Natural Science Scales of the ACT . 47


Among Male Non-Academic Non-Persisting Students Among

Campuses on the Basis of Mean Scores on the ACT-English

Scale 48

34 Differences Among Non-Academic Non-Persisting Students

Among Campuses on the Basis of Mean Scores on the Social

Science and Composite Scales of the ACT 49


Among Non-Academic Non-Persisting Students Among Campuses

on the Basis of Mean Score on the ACT-Social Science

Scale 50

Table Page

36 Duncan's New Mailtiple Range Test Applied to the Differences

Among Non-Academic Non-Persisting Students Among Campuses

on the Basis of Mean Score on the ACT-Composite Scale 52

37 Differences Among Persisting and Non-Persisting Students

for AU. Campuses on the Basis of Mean Grade Point

Achieved in High School 53


Among Persisting and Non-Persisting Students on All Cam-

puses on the Basis of Mean Grade Point Achieved in High

School . . .54

39 Differences Between Male and Female Persisting Students

on All Campuses on the Basis of Average Grade Achieved

in High School 55

40 Differences Between Male and Female Academic Non-Persisting

Students on All Campuses on the Basis of Average Grade

Achieved in High School 55

41 Differences Between Male and Female Non-Academic Non-

Persisting Students on All Campuses on the Basis of

Average Grade Achieved in High School 55

42 Differences Among Female Persisting Students Among Campuses

on the Basis of Mean Grade Point Achieved in High School . 56


Among Female Persisting Students Among Campuses on the

Basis of Mean Grade Point Achieved in High School . . . . 57

44 Differences Among Male Persisting Students Among Campuses

on the Basis of Mean Grade Point Achieved in High School . 58


Among Male Persisting Students Among Campuses on the

Basis of Mean Grade Point Achieved in High School . . . 59

46 Differences Among Female Academic Non-Persisting Students

Among Campuses on the Basis of Mean Grade Point Achieved

in High School 58


Among Female Academic Non-Persisting Students Among Cam-

puses on the Basis of Mean Grade Point Achieved in High

School 60

48 Differences Among Male Academic Non-Persisting Students


in High School 61

vi

Table Page



puses on the Basis of. Mean Grade Point Achieved in High

School 62

50 Differences Among Female Non-Academic Non-Persisting Stu-

dents Among Campuses on the Basis of the Mean Grade

Point Achieved in High School 63


Among Female Non-Academic Non-Persisting Students Among

Campuses on the Basis of Mean Grade Point Achieved in

High School . . . 0 ... ... ........... 64

52 Differences Among Male Non-Academic Non-Persisting Students


in High School 65

53 Differences Among Male Persisting Students Among Campuses

on the Basis of Credits Earned, Credits Attempted, and

Grade Points Achieved .66



Basis of Credits Earned ...... ...... 67



Basis of Credits Attempted . .68

56 Differences Among Female Persisting Students Among Campuses

on the Basis of Credits Earned, Credits Attempted, and

Grade Points Achieved

57 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Female Persisting Students Among Campuses on the

Basis of Credits Earned

68

69


Among Female Persisting Students Among Campuses on the

Basis of Credits Attempted 70

59 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Female Persisting Students Among Campuses on theBasis of Grade Points Achieved 71

60 Differences Among Male Academic Non-Persisting StudentsAmong Campuses on the Basis of Credits Earned, CreditsAttempted, and. Grade Points Achieved 72

vii

Table Page

61 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Male Academic Non-Persisting Students Among Campuseson the Basis of Credits Earned 72

62 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Male Academic Non-Persisting Students Among Campuses

on the Basis of Credits Attempted 73

63 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Male Academic Non-Persisting Students Among .Campuses

on the Basis of Grade Points Achieved 74

64 Differences Among Female Academic Non-Persisting StudentsAmong Campuses on the Basis of Credits Earned, CreditsAttempted, and Grade Points Achieved 75

65 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Female Academic Non-Persisting Students Among Cam-puses on the Basis of Credits Earned 76

66 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Female Academic Non-Persisting Students Among Cam-puses on the Basis of Credits Attempted 77

67 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Female Academic Non-Persisting Students Among Cam-puses on the Basis of Grade Points Achieved 78

68 Differences Among Male Non-Academic Non-Persisting StudentsAmong Campuses on the Basis of Credits Earned, CreditsAttempted, and Grade Points Achieved 79

69 Differences Among Female Non-Academic Non-Persisting Stu-dents Among Campuses on the Basis of Credits Earned,Credits Attempted, and Grade Points Achieved . ... . . 79

70 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Female Non-Academic Non-Persisting Students AmongCampuses on the Basis of Grade Points Achieved . 80

71 Differences Between Male and Female Students From All

Campuses on the Basis of Persistence 81

72 Differences Among Male Persisting and Non-Persisting Stu-dents on All Campuses on the Basis of Educational Major 82

73 Differences Among Female Persisting and Non-PersistingStudents on All Campuses on the Basis of EducationalMajor 84

viii

TablePage

74 Differences Among Male Persisting and Non-Persisting Stu-

dents on All Campuses on the Basis of Vocational Choice . . 86

75 Differences Among Female Persisting and Non-Persisting

Students on All Campuses on the Basis of Vocational

Choice . ...... . . . 87

76 Differences Among Male Persisting and Non -Persisting Stu-

dents on All Campuses on the Basis of Vocational Role

Preferences89

77 Differences Among Female Persisting and Non-Persisting Stu-

dents on All Campuses on the Basis of Vocational Role

Preferences90

78 Differences Among Male Persisting and Non-Persisting Stu-

dents on All Campuses on the Basis of Educational Plans . 92


Students on All Campuses on the Basis of Educational

Plans9'


Students on the Basis of Change of Academic Major . . . . 95


on the Basis of College Residence 97


on the Basis of Size of High School Graduating Class . . . 99

ix

PREFACE

The Consortium on Research Development in Wisconsin involvesfive state universities which are located at Stevens Point, Whitewater,LaCrosse, Menomonie. and River Falls. A purpose of the Consortium is

to assist in the promotion of inter- and intra-institutional researchwithin and among the faculty of these campuses on a cooperative basis.

This report represents the initial research project supportedby the Consortium in conjunction with the U. S. Office of Education,

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

The investigator would like to thank the many students, faculty,

and administrators on the five Wisconsin State University campuses whose

assistance and cooperation made the completion of this investigation

possible.

The investigator wishes to especially- thank Mr. Donald Benz,

Wisconsin State University-Stavens Point, Mr. William Webster, Wisconsin

State Dhivrsity-River Falls, Mr. Sam Wood, Stout State University-

Menomonie, Mr. John Prentice, Wisconsin State University-Whitewater, and

Mr. John Jenks, Wisconsin State University-LaCrosse, who served asProject Directors on each of their respective campuses and who contrib-

uted voluntarily many long hours toward the development of the investi-

gation and the collection of the data. Without their valuable assist-

ance, this investigation would not have been possible.

The investigator would like to extend a special acknowledgment'

to Mr. John Storlie, Director of the Data Processing Center, Wisconsin

State University-LaCrosse, who volunteered many hours of his on time

as well as that of his center toward the development and completion of

the proces&ing of the data of this investigation.

The investigator would like to extend his gratitude and appre-ciation to Dr. William H. Clements and the other coordinators for the

Oonsortium on Research Daveloprent for their continuous assistance and

support throughout the investigation.

The investigator would like to thank the U. S. Department ofHealth, Education, and Welfare under whose grant this research was

conducted.

Special thanks are extended to Mrs. Marcia Swan for her assist-

ance in preparing the many drafts and the final report of this study.

INTRODUCTION

Every year thousands of high school graduates enroll in collegesand universities across the nation as entering freshmen but, at the endof that year, a substantial portion of these students have withdrawn

from their respective institutions. These non-persisting students have

been the concern of many publics.

The desirability of education is a deep commitment in American

society. When a student does not persist in a selected college or uni-versity, society's immediate reactions tend to be that the individualhas sacrificed his own future, misappropriated personal and institution-

al resources, and probably detracted from the welfare of the nation.Many people tend to feel that those students who leave the academicscene prior to completion of the four years will become inextricablyand permanently immersed in an ever increasing pool of underdeveloped

resources. The contention seems to be that the non-persisting studentserves as a drain for the optimal development, conservation, and util-ization of human resources which will serve to provide a sound base for

societal progress.

The college or university tends to take a critical view of thenon-persisting student because of perceived economic implications for

the institution. These economic implications tend to complement andsupplement the college and university's acceptance of the society'sgoals for the optimal development of human resources. Educators withinthe college or university exhibit great concern over the non-persistingstudent since reduction in the full-time enrollment tends to have rami-fications for the use of residence halls, libraries, and classrooms.The non-persisting student is of concern to educators in public institu-tions since a reduction in enrollment may precipitate severe limitationsto continued expansion since such growth tends to be related to the num-ber of students enrolled. The parents of students tend to take an ex-tremely negative point of view of those persons who dO not persist incollege. They tend to regard the non-persister as a failure and prob-ably perceive him as an object which represents unfulfillinent of manydreams of achievement and many long years of struggle and sacrifice.This parental attitude may be poignant particularly in a college oruniversity where the vast proportion of the student population arefirst generation college students.

The attitude of the non-persisting student toward himself tendsto be an amalgamation of the reactions of the society, the institution,and his family towards his decision of non-persistence. The process ofmaking a decision to withdraw from the university is often coupled withstrong feelings of anxiety resulting from the predisposed attitudes ofthose around him. The negative attitudes which are reflected frequentlyby society and members of the college or university tend to formulatetremendous pressure on the student, resulting in severe impairment ofthe ability to progress in effective decision-making.

2

All of these factors have tended to make the problem of reten-

tion and withdrawal of college students an active and persistent topic

of investigation. The literature related to the retention and with-

drawal of college students tends to be extremely extensive. The status

of research on the university dropout has been reviewed by Knoell (1960)

and Summerskill (1962).

According to Knoell, there have been four major types of studies

which have focused on the retention and withdrawal of college students.

She indicated that these were:

(1) the census study, which serves primarily to establish base

line data for particular institutions or states;

(2) the "autopsy study" which attempts to identify the reasons

for attrition by asking the dropouts questions at the time

they withdraw;

(3) the case study approach, often used by admissions officers

and others whose concerns are decisions about students

rather than research; and

(4) prediction in which admission variables are related to

success and failure in college, including the dropout

( 6:64-65).

Summerskill's review of the literature tended to reveal con-

flicting evidence in findings of the various studies which examine such

factors as academic ability, personal motivation and adjustment, bio-

logical and social variables, and finances as these may be related to

college or university persistence. Be tended to indicate that academic

factors such as previous high school achievement and performance in col-

lege and finances tend to be the most consistent variables related, to

persistence in a college or university. The role of socio-economic

status of parents, high school size and location, and personal or social

adjustment of the student in connection with persistence in colleges and

universities is ill-defined (10:627-657)

Any review of the literature of reported studies in the field of

the university dropout tends to reflect a paucity of studies focused on

the characteristics of students among institutions and the relationship

of these traits to academic persistence. A. vast majority of the re-

search investigations have used an intra-institutional design. There

seems to be an obvious gap in data of inter-institutional comparisons

of persisting and non-persisting students.

Pervin, Reik, and Dalrymple ( 9) have indicated that a definite

factor in the concerns of the college dropout and the utilization of

talent may reside in the interaction of the individual and the institu-

tion. In essence, they seem to be in agreement with Kauffman when he

made the statement:

3

It may be more important to concern ourselveswith the most effective means of entering thehigher educational process and making the wisestpossible decisions at the entry point so long as

we continue to allow maximum flexibility and op-portunity for the individual student (5).

The crux of the issue seems to be this: All colleges and uni-

versities cannot be all things to all people. Institutions of higher

education have given only informal recognition to this in the past.

Historically, the college and the student have differentially appraised

one another as to the mutual benefits that can be gained from any union.

Such appraisals have not always been on rational grounds. Greater ra-

tionality seems to be called for in the decisions that must be made in

the future. Formal acknowledgement of such rationality seems to becalled into contention by the focus on the university dropout.

The issue of the educational sorting process - -by the individual

as well as by the institution--may not be relegated solely to an intra-

mural perspective. In those states where there is a system of univer-

sity education, there should be a system of inter-university analysis.

The major implication of such a concept seems to be that the

student in a state-wide system of higher education may have several

choices of campuses within such a system. All campuses may not serve

his particular needs equally. In this vein the alternatives may not

be unlike those he had when he assessed the potentialities of various

colleges and universities while in high school. In either instance,

within the high school or within the college, the choice could be re-

garded as one of selecting the institutional setting that would afford

maximal development. Definitive knowledge of the characteristics ofpersisting and non-persisting students on the various campuses of state

universities within a coordinated system would serve to aid the evalu-

ating process performed by the students and campus officials.

The concerns of society, institutions, parents, and students

were linked inextricably to this investigation. The non-persisting

student may contribute to the drain of developed human resources within

the nation. The non-persisting student may precipitate severe limita-

tions for institutional expansion, particularly in a coordinated sys-tem of higher education such as the one that exists in the state uni-

versity system that was a part of this investigation. The non-persist-

ing student may be faced with a parental perception of his failure,

particularly in some of the schools investigated, because of an enroll-

ment of a high proportion of "first generation" students. The possible

personal concerns of the non-persisting student are legitimate concerns

for any educator who accepts the concept that a premise in the educa-

tional process is the facilitation of effective and efficient decision-

making.

4

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to seek out the nature and extentof the diversity of the characteristics of persisting And non-persistingstudents within and among the various campuses of a state universitysystem. Specifically, the study attempted to discern what diversity ofmeasured scholastic aptitude existed on the various campuses within astate university system. Also, the study attempted to assess what divesty existed in non. intellective factors of persisting and non-persist-ing students who were enrolled on these various campuses. Finally, thestudy attempted to serve as an initial study in a comprehensive assess-ment of the university dropout within and among the various campuses ofselected state universities.

Statement of the Problem

The problem for this study can best be stated in question formwithin the basic areas of the investigation.

Within the area of scholastic aptitude, the following questionswere postulated: What is the nature and extent of the diversity ofmeasured scholastic aptitude of persisting and non-persisting studentswithin and among the various campuses? Are there significant differ-ences among persisting and non-persisting male and female students onthe various campuses with regard to scholastic aptitude?

Within the area of high school achievement, the following ques-tions were developed: What is the nature and extent of the diversityof previous high school achievement of persisting and non-persistingstudents within and among the various campuses? Are there significantdifferences among persisting and non - persisting male and female stu-dents with regard to previous high school achievement?

The following question was formulated with respect to univer-sity achievement: Are there significant cafferences among persistingand non-persisting students among campuses on the basis of creditsattempted, credits earned, and average grade points achieved?

With regard to non-intellective characteristics of persistingand non-persisting students, the following questions were postulated:Is there a significant disproportionality among male and female stu-dents with respect to persistence in college? Is there a significantdisproportionality among persisting and non-persisting students withrespect to change in academic major? Is there a significant dispro-portionality among persisting and non-persisting students with respectto the place of residence in college? Is there a significant dispro-portionality among sizes of high school graduating classes with re-spect to persistence in college?

Other questions which were postulated regarding characteristicsof persisting and non-persisting students were Is there a significantdisproportionality among persisting and non-persisting students with

.5

respect to indicated educational major? Is there a significant dispro-portionality among persisting and non-persisting students with regard toindicated vocational choicer Is there a significant difference amongpersisting and non-persisting students with respect to indicated voca-tional role preference? Is there a significant difference among per-bisting and non-persisting students on the basis of indicated educationalplans?

Research Hypotheses

In formulating the null hypotheses tested, the term "comparedgroups" refers to the subgroups of persisting (P), academic non-per-sisting (NPA), and non-academic non-persisting (NPO) students.

The following null hypotheses were tested:

(1) There are no significant differences in measured scholasticaptitude among the compared groups of students.

(2) There are no significant differences in measured scholasticaptitude of persisting students among the five campuses.

(3) There are no significant differences in measured scholasticaptitude of academic non-persisting students among the fivecampuses.

(4) There are no significant differences in measured scholasticaptitude of non-academic non-persisting students among thefive capuses.

(5) There are no significant differences in measured scholasticaptitude between male and female persisting students.

(6) There are no significant differences in measured scholasticaptitude between male and female academic non-persistingstudents.

(7) There are no significant differences in measured scholasticaptitude between male and female non-academic non-persist-ing students.

(8) There are no significant differences in average gradeachieved in high school among the compared groups ofstudents.

(9) There are no significant differences in average gradeachieved in high school of persisting students among thefive campuses.

(10) There are no significant differences in average gradeachieved in high school of the academic non-persistingstudents among the five campuses.

6

There are no significant differences in average gradeachieved in high school of the non-academic non-persist-ing students among the five campuses.

There are no significant differences in average gradeachieved in high school between male and female per-sisting students.

There are no significant differences in average gradeachieved in high school between male and female academicnon-persisting students.

There are no significant differences in average gradeachieved in high school between male and female non-academic non-persisting students.

There are no significant differences in the number ofuniversity credits attempted among persisting and non-persisting students among the five campuses.

(16) There are no significant differences in the number ofuniversity credits earned among persisting and non-per-sisting students among the five campuses.

(17) There are no significant differences in the number ofuniversity grade points achieved among persisting andnon-persisting students among the five campuses.

(18) There are no significant differences in the number ofmale and female students among compared groups of students.

(19) There are no significant differences among the sizes ofhigh school graduating classes among the compared groupsof students.

(20) There are no significant differences among the places ofresidence in college of the compared groups of students.

(21) There are no significant differences among the comparedgroups of students with respect to change in academicmajor.

(22)

(23)

(24)

(25)

There aregroups of

There aregroups of

There aregroups of

no significant differences among the comparedstudents in terms of educational major.

no significant differences among the comparedstudents in terms of vocational choice.

no significant differences among the comparedstudents in terms of vocational role preferences.

There are no significant differences among the comparedgroups of students in terms of educational aspirations.

Definition of Terms

The term persisting student referred to any student who has com-pleted the academic year in the anticipated sequential order without in-terruption. For the purpose of this study, the persisting student wasthe student who completed the 1965-66 academic year and who was enrolledas a sophomore in the fall semester of 1966.

The term non-persisting student referred to any student whoeither officially or unofficially withdrew from the universities inves-tigated and interrupted the anticipated sequential order of academicprogression. For the purpose of this study, the non-persisting studentwas the student who did not complete the 1965-66 academic year and whodid not enroll for the sophomore year in the fall of 1966.

The term academic non-persister (NPA) referred to any studentwho voluntarily or involuntarily withdrew from the university becauseof academic reasons.

The non-academic non-persisting student (NPO) referred to anystudent who either voluntarily or involuntarily withdrew from the uni-versity for reasons other than academically related concerns.

The term scholastic aptitude referred to the sub-scores achievedby each student in the sample on the American College Testing Program(ACT). The terms English, Mathematics, Natural Science, Social Science,and Composite referred to the various sub-scales of the American CollegeTesting Program.

The term non-intellective characteristics referred to the scoreson the student characteristic sub-scales of the American College TestingPro&ram (ACT).

The terms Educational Major, Vocational Choice, Vocational RolePreferences, Educational Role Preferences, and Most Important Goals inCollege referred to the specific sub-scales in this section of theAmerican College Testing Pro (ACT).

The termtriculation data referred to the data obtainedon all students from the various sub-scales of the American CollegeTesting Program prior to their actual enrollment in any of the fiveuniversities.

The termyost-matriculation data referred to the data obtainedon all students after they had been enrolled in the various collegesinvestigated.

The term credits attempted referred to the total number ofcredits attempted on a semester basis by the persisting and non-persist-ing students on each of the campuses investigated.

8

The term credits earned referred to the number of credits on a

semester basis by persisting and non-persisting students on each of the

five campuses investigated,

The termlraLa points referred to the total number of grade

points achieved by and non-persisting students on each of

the five campuses investigated.

Delimitation of the Problem

This investigation was confined to five state universities of

Wisconsin. The state universities involved were as follows: Wisconsin

State University-Stevens Point, Wisconsin State University- Whitewater,

Wisconsin State University-LaCrosse, Wisconsin State University-River

Falls, and Stout State University.

The student sample for this study was confined to those students

who enrolled on a full-time basis as freshmen in the fall, 1965, on the

five campuses selected for this study.

This study was delimited to an analysis of the variance of scho-

lastic aptitude and non-intellective characteristics of students en-

rolled on the five campuses selected for this investigation.

Limitations of the Problem

The study was limited to the extent that it reflected only those

characteristics of the student groups sampled at the time of the inves-

tigation. Because of the constant flow of students enrolled, subsequent

studies will need to be done in order to insure a reliable and valid

estimate of the characteristics of persisting and non-persisting stu-

dents among the five campuses.

The study was limited to the extent that the American College

Testing Program (ACT) and the post-matriculation data are suitable

measures of scholastic aptitude, achievement, and non-intellective

characteristics, respectively. The study was limited also to the ex-

tent that errors may have been introduced in the administration of the

instruments and the collection of the post-matriculation data.

The study was limited to the extent that the definition of per-

sisting and non-persisting students fails to distinguish between stu-

dents dropping out for differing reasons, such as health, personal,

disciplinary, or financial reasons.

The study was further limited to the extent that it tends to

fail to distinguish between students who withdraw during the middle of

the year and those who complete the first year, both of whom do not en-

roll during the sophomore year.

Finally, the investigation was limited to the extent that there

was no distinction made between voluntary and non-voluntary withdrawals.

9

I'IETHODOLOGY

Selection of Sample

The total student sample of this study consisted of students

who were enrolled on the five campuses on a full-time basis and were

classified by university standards as freshmen for the 1965-66 academic

year. Essentially, the total student sample consisted of the entire

freshman class of 1965-66, for whom ACT scores were available in the

five state universities which participated in the investigation.

The sampling procedure used was chosen for the following rea-

sons: the study concerned itself with the diversity of student charac-

teristics between persisting and non-persisting students within and

among the various campuses of the state universities. Since the entire

freshman class needed to be surveyed in order to identify the sub-

samples of persisting and non-persisting students, the entire freshman

population of the five universities was used instead of other sampling

procedures.

The 1965-66 freshman class was selected because of the availa-

bility of intellective and non-intellective pre-matriculation data.

Prior to the 1965-66 academic year, some of the institutions investi-

gated had not requested the collection and analybis of non-intellective

data on their freshman classes. The sampling was delimited to the 1965-

66 year in order to assure uniformity of data.

All the institutions investigated participated in the post-

enrollment analysis provided by the American Colle e Testing Program

for the entering freshman class during 1965- . The American College

Testing Program provided each university a listing of all students who

had responded to the American College Testiqgprograinduring 1964-65,

and who had subsequently enrolled in each of the institutions investi-

gated. Each of the five project directors on the campuses participating

in this study then subdivided the total sample into three groups--per-

sisting, academic non-persisting, and non-academic non-persisting students.

The principal investigator realized that the two subgroups of

non-persisting students masked certain data. For example, by pooling

all non-persisting students who either voluntarily or involuntarily

withdrew from the university for reasons other than academic concerns,

the specific reason for the withdrawal, i.e., health, financial, or

discipline, could not be identified. However, the investigator felt

that the objectives of the study were exploratory and the purposes of

investigation would be satisfied through such pooling techniques. The

same rationale was applied to the academic non -persister.

Collection of the Data

The data collected for analysis in this study were from either

the American College Testing Program (ACT) which was completed by each

10

student prior to entering into one of the fIve Institutions investigatedor from data obtained from the students' cumulative folder maintained byeach of the participating schools.

In order to approximate a standardization of the collection ofdata, several meetings were established with all five project directors.These meetings were particularly important to the collection of the post-matriculation data. During these meetings, the principal investigatorindicated the general nature and purpo,se of the research being conductedand emphasized the need for uniformity of data on all students in orderto facilitate comparative analysis.

The most difficult aspect of this portion of the investigationwas to identify data on all students which was available at all institu-tions. Even though there was considerable agreement among all institu-tions with regard to the type of data collected on all students, themethods of collection, retention, and retrieval of such data variedwidely. Consequently, the time necessary for the completion of the col-lection of all post-matriculation data from each of the five institu-tions investigated was prolonged. In each instance, the registrar'soffice on each campus was the source of information for all post-matric-ulation data on persisting and non-persisting students.

Each project director on each of the participating campusescollected and subgrouped the data on the persisting and non-persistingstudents. These data were analyzed by the principal investigator.

Scoring of the Data

The scoring of the pre-matriculation data was done by the scor-ing service at the Measurement Research Center, Iowa City, Iowa. Thisscoring service is the only means of scoring the ACT. The authors ofthe instrument will not release, under any circumstances, the scoringtemplates. The scoring service does provide the IBM cards on which thescores are reported. Both raw scores and percentile scores are reported.

The scoring service provided the initial analysis of the per-sisting and non-persisting subgroups of students on all scales of theACT. The scoring service did not provide comparative analysis amongthe five institutions investigated.

The compilation of the post-matriculation data for the persist-ing and non-persisting subgroups was done by the Data Processing Centerat Wisconsin State University-LaCrosse, LaCrosse, Wisconsin.

Coding of the Data

In order to minimize possible errors in coding of the post,matriculation data, all coding of data was done by the project directorson each of the campuses. All coding was checked several timrs to insurethat there were no errors or omissions in coding.

11

All of the data were coded according to a standardized codingform which had been developed by the principal investigator. All projectdirectors were intimately aware of the rationale and procedure to be em-ployed in the coding process.

Statistical Treatment of the Data

The main objective of the study was to investigate differencesamong persisting and non-persisting students among various state uni-versity campuses on the basis of their scores on tests of intellectiveand non-intellective characteristics. With the purpose of determiningdifferences between and among groups and the significance of these dif-ferences, Chi Square and Studentts "t" test of significance were appliedto the data. The analysis of variance model was utilized to test dif-ferences among students among campuses.

All final comparative analysis and statistical treatment ofdata was done at Wisconsin State University-Stevens Point by the prin-cipal investigator and the staff of the Office of Institutional Research.

12

RESULTS

The main objective of this study was to seek out the nature and

extent of the diversity among persisting and non-persisting students

enrolled on the campuses of five state universities. Students who were

enrolled on a full-time basis as freshmen during the 1965-66 academic

year on the campuses of the five state universities were subgrouped

according to their persistence In school. These subgroups of persist-ing and non-persisting students were compared on the basis of scores

on a test of scholastic aptitude, previous high school achievement,

university achievement, selected personality attributes, and various

personal-biographical data -thich were developed as a result of their

enrollment in each of the five schools investigated.

The data obtained from this investigation are presented inthree general categories which will be discussed in the following se-

quence:

(1) the diversity of persisting and non-persisting studentsin terms of scholastic aptitude;

(2) the heterogeneity among persisting and non-persistingstudents in terms of previous high school achievementand college performance;

(3) the multiformity among persisting and non-persistingstudents in terms of selected personal-biographical data.The personal-biographical data included the factors ofsex, college residence, size of high school graduating

class, changes in declared academic major, educationalmajor, vocational choice, vocational role preferences,and educational plans.

Since there were very few variables which did not discriminateamong persisting and non-persisting students among campuses, all results

of the investigation will be presented.

Analysis of Scholastic Aptitude

A purpose of the investigation was to seek out differencesamong persisting and non-persisting students on the basis of scholastic

aptitude. The total student sample had participated in the AmericanCollege Testing Program (ACT). The scores on the various sub-scales of

the ACT were used as the estimate of the scholastic aptitude of thepersisting and non-persisting student.

The statistical treatment of analysis of variance was used fortesting differences among the compared groups of students. If any of

the variance ratios exceeded the value required for significant differ-ences to be accepted at the 0.05 level of confidence, Duncan's New Mul-

tiple Range Test was applied to the data to determine which mean(s)

13

were contribufing to the significant F ratio ( 3:167-176). Where the F

ratio proved to be 6ignificant, the results of the application of Dun-

can's New Multiple Range Test are reviewed immediately following the ap-

propriate analysis of variance table. In each case where the application

of Duncan's New Multiple Range Test was used, the shortest significant

ranges were computed at the same level of confidence as indicated by the

related variance ratio.

The interpretation of Duncan's New Multiple Range

follows: Any two means appearing together within the same

underscored, are not significantly different. Any two me

ing in the same subset are significantly different.

Test is assubset, i.e.,

ans not appear-

In the discussion of these results the following abbreviations

will be used for the categories of persisting and non-persisting stu-

dents:

Persisting student - P

Academic non-persisting student - NPA

Non-academic non-persisting student - NPO

Table 1 presents the F ratios for the differences among persist-

ing and non-persisting students on all campuses on the basis of mean

scores on the ACT scales. As indicated in Table 1, there were highly

significant differences found among persisting and non-persisting stu-

dents on all campuses on all scales of the ACT test.

TABLE 1, DIFFERENCES AMONG PERSISTING AND NON-PERSISTING STUDENTS ON

ALL CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN SCORES ON THE ACT SCALES

ACTScales

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean

Variation Squares Freedom Square

Between grpsEnglish Within grps

TotalBetween grpsWithin grpsTotalBetween grpsWithin grpsTotalBetween grpsWithin grpsTotalBetween grps

Composite Within grpsTotal

Mathe-matics

SocialScience

NaturalScience

5359118500123859

9943

2157372256807452

1740991815515624

175313180 37

965102708109673

2 2679.5

7006 16.9

70082 4972.0

7006 30.6

70082 3726.0

7006 24.8

70082 2812.0

7006 25.0

70082 3482.0

7006 14.7

7008

F P

158.5 0.001

161.5 0.001

149.9 0.001

112.4 0.001

237.5 0.001

14

The results of the application of. Duncan's New Multiple RangeTest to the differences among persisting and non-persisting studentson the ACT-English scale are presented in Table 2. As Table 2 shows,three distinct slit sets of means were formed which tended to be signifi-

cantly different from each other.

TABLE 2. DUNCAN'S NEW MIMPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THE DIFFERENCESAMONG PERSISTING AND NON-PERSISTING STUDENTS ON ALL CAMPUSES ON THEBASIS OF MEAN SCORES ON THE ACT-ENGLISH SCALE

NPA NPO PPersist-

Means(N = 1186) (N = 1584) (N = 4233)

ence17.1 18.9 19.5

Shortestsignificantranges

NPA

NPO

P

17.11.8 2.4

(57.24)* (103.20)* R2 = 19.13

18.90.6

(28.80)* R3 = 19.72

19.5

NPONPA

P

*Significant at the 0.001 level

Based on these results, persisting students, regardless of cam-pus, tended to achieve a significantly higher mean score on the ACT-English scale than either of the two non-persisting student subgroups.Students who did not persist because of academic reasons, regardless ofcampus, seemed to reflect a significantly lower mean score on the ACT-

English scale than persisting students or students who did not persistbecause of non-academic reasons.

Table 3 presents the results of Duncan's New Multiple Range Testapplied to the differences among persisting and non-persisting studentson all campuses on the basis of mean scores on the ACT-Mathematics scale.According to these results, there were three significantly differentsubsets formed.

These results seemed to indicate that persisting students, re-gardless of campus, tended to make significantly higher mean scores onthe ALT-Mathematics scale than did either of the two non-persistingstudent subgroups. The academic non-persisting subgroup, regardless ofcampus, tended to achieve a Elignificant3T lower mean score on the ACT -Mathematics sub-scale than did either the persisting or non-academicnon-persisting student.

15

TABLE 3. DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THE DIFFERENCESAMONG PERSISTING AND NON - PERSISTING STUDENTS ON ALL CAMPUSES ON THE

BASIS OF MEAN SCORES ON TEE ACT-MATHEMATICS SCALE

NPA NPO

Persist- (N = 1186) (N = 1584) (N = 4233)Shortest

Means significantence ranges

18.1 20.0 21.3

NPA

NPO

P

18.1

1.9 3.2(60.42)* (137.60)* R2 = 25.74

1.3

20.0 (62.70)* R3 = 26.53

21.3

NPONPA

P

*oia,;f1,11+. at the 0.001 level

Table 4 presents the results of the application of Duncan's NewMultiple Range Test applied to the differences among persisting and non-persisting students on all, campuses on the basis of scores on the ACT-

Social Science scale.

As Table 4 indicates, there were three significantly different

subsets formed. These results tended to indicate that persisting stu-dents, regardless of campus, tended to achieve a significantly highermean score on the ACT-Social Science scale than either of the non-

persisting student subgroups. The non-academic non-persisting studentsubgroup, while being significantly lower than the persisting studentsample, tended to be significantly higher on the basis of mean score

achieved on the ACT-Social Science scale.

Table 5 indicates the differences among persisting and non-persisting students on all campuses on the basis of the ACT-NaturalScience scale following the application of Duncan's New Multiple Range

Test.

The results presented in Table 5 tended to indicate that theacademic non-persisting student tended to achieve a significantly lowermean score on the ACT-Natural Science scale than either the persistingor non-academic non-persisting student subgroups. Furthermore, thepersisting student subgroup tended to achieve a significantly highermean score than either of the non-persisting student samples.

16

TABLE 4. DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO ilib DIFFERENCES

AMONG PERSISTING AND NON-PERSISTING STUDENTS ON ALL CAMPUSES ON THE

BASIS OF MEAN SCORES ON THE ACT - SOCIAL SCIENCE SCALE

NPA NPO P

Persist-Means

(N = 1186) (N = 1584) (N = 4233)

ence19.4 21.2 22.2


NPA 1.8 2.8

19.4 (57.20)* (43.00)* R2 = 23.22

NPO 1.0

21.2 (47.90)* R3 = 23.94

P22.2

NPONPA

P


TABLE 5. DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THE DIFFERENCES


BASIS OF MEAN SCORES ON THE ACT-NATURAL SCIENCE SCALE

NPA NPO P

Persist-Means

(N = 1186) (N = 1584) (N = 4233)

ence19.8 21.2 22.2


NPA

NPO

P

19.8

1.4 2.4

(44.50)* (103.20)* R2 = 23.27

21.2

1.0(47.90)* R

3= 23.99

22.2

NPONPA

P


17

The results of the application of Duncan's New Multiple Range

Test applied to the differences among persisting and non-persisting stu-

dents on the basis of mean scores on the ACT-Composite scale are pre-

sented in Table 6,

TABLE 6. DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THE DIFFERENCES


BASIS OF MEAN SCORES ON THE ACT-COMPOSITE SCALE

Persist-Means

ence

NPA NPO(N = 1186) (N = 1584) (N = 4233)

18.7 2o.4 21.4


NPA 1.7 2.7

18.7 (54.10)* (116.10)* R2 = 17.82

NPO 1.4

20.4 (67.10)* R3= 18.38

P21.4

NPONPA

P


Based on the results presented in Table 6, three significantly

different subsets contributed to the significance of the variance ratio.

Persisting students, regardless of campus, tended to achieve a signifi-

cantly higher mean score on the ACT-Composite scale than did either of

the non-persisting student samples. The academic non-persisting stu-

dent tended to achieve a significantly lower mean score than did either

the persisting or non-academic non-persisting student sub-samples.

Differences Between Male and Female Students on ACT Scores

In the attempt to discern if there were any significant differ-

ences between male and female students on the basis of scores on thetests of scholastic aptitude, the mean scores achieved on the ACT scales

were compared. Since significant differences had been identified among

persisting and non-persisting students, separate analyses were made for

the three categories of persisting and non-persisting students in deter-

mining the significance of any differences between male and female mem-

bers of the student sample.

18

Table 7 presents the differences between male and female per-sisting students on the basis of the ACT scales. Significant differenceswere found between the mean scores of four of the sub-scales of the ACTof which three of these differences were significant at the 0.001 levelof confidence.

TABLE 7. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE PERSISTING STUDENTS ON THEBASIS OF ACT SCALES

Male FemaleACT (N = 2410) (N = 1824)Scales

Mean d Mean

t P

English 18.5 4.1 20.8 3.8 5.96 0.001

Mathematics 22.3 5.4 19.9 5.6 14.11 0.001

Social22.0 4.9 22.3 4.9 1.97 0.05Science

Natural22.6 4.9 21.5 4.9 7.22 0.001Science

Composite 21.5 3.8 21.3 3.8 1.06 NSey.

According to the results presented in Table 7, persisting femalestudents tended to make significantly higher mean scores on the Englishand Social Science scales of the ACT than did male persisting students.The mean score difference between male and female persisting students onthe basis of the ACT-English scale tended to be highly significant.

Male persisting students tended to make significantly higher meanscores on the Mathematics and Natural Science scales of the ACT than didfemale persisters. The mean score difference in each case was highlysignificant.

There were no significant differences identified between maleand female persisting students in terms of the mean scores on the ACT-Composite scale.

Based on these results, the §12.12, Mathematics, Social Science,and Natural Science sub-scales of the ACT tended to be identified asdiscriminate factors between male and female persisting students.

The results of the analysis for significant differences betweenmale and female students who did not persist because of academic reasonsare presented in Table 8. There were significant differences betweenmale and female students who were academic non-persisters in terms ofmean scores for all of the sub-scales of the ACT. All of the differ-ences can be considered to be highly significant.

19

1

TABLE 8. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE ACADEMIC NON-PERSISTINGSTUDENTS ON THE BASIS OF THE ACT SCALES

ACTMale

(N = 811)Scales

Mean d

English

Mathematics

SocialScience

NaturalScience

Composite

16.6

19,3

19.7

20.5

19.2

4.2

5.2

4.9

5.1

3.8

Female(N = 376)

Mean d

18.2 3.8

15.5 5.6

18.8 5.1

18.2 4.8

17.8 3.4

t P

7.33 0.001

11.11 0.001

2.86 0.01

7.97 0.001

6.35 0.001

According to these results, female students who did not persistbecause of academic reasons appeared to make significantly higher meanscores on the ACT-English scale than did male students who did not per-sist for similar reasons.

The results tended to indicate that male students who did notpersist because of academic reasons seemed to make significantly highermean scores on the Mathematics, Social Science, Natural Science, andComposite sub-scales of the ACT than did the female students who didnot persist because of similar reasons.

All of the scales of the ACT seemed to discriminate betweenmale and female academic non-persisting students. The results tendedto indicate that the male academic non -persister may have had a signifi-cantly greater scholastic aptitude than did his female counterpart. Themale academic non-persister seemed to reflect a significantly higherscholastic potential in terms of the general areas of Mathematics, So-cial Science, and Natural Science. The only area in which the femaleacademic non-persister tended to indicate a significantly greater scho-lastic potential than her male counterpart was in terms of the generalarea of English.

Table 9 indicates the differences between male and female stu-dents who did not persist because of non-academic reasons in terms ofthe mean scores for the five sub-scales of the ACT. Highly significantdifferences between mean scores were indicated for three of the sub-scales.

Female students who did not persist because of non-academic rea-sons tended to make a significantly higher mean score on the ACT-Englishscale than did male students who did not persist for similar reasons.

20

TABLE 9. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE NON-ACADEMTC NON-PERSIST-

ING STUDENTS ON THE BASIS OF THE ACT SCALES

Male Female

ACT (N = 833) (N = 752)

ScalesMean d Mean

English

Mathematics

SocialScience

NaturalScience

Composite

17.6 4.2

21.1 5.3

21.0 5.2

21.8 5.2

20.5 4.0

20.3 4.1

18.9 5.6

21.4 5.1

20.5 5.0

20.4 4.0

t P

12.94 0.001

8.00 0.001

1.34 NS

5.07 0.001

0.49 NS

Male students who did not persist for non-academic reasons tended

to make a significantly higher mean score on the Mathematics and Natural

Science sub-scales of the ACT than did female students who were their

counterparts.

There were no significant differences found between male and fe-

male students who did not persist for non-academic reasons in terms of

mean scores on either the Social Science or Composite scales of the ACT.

Based on these results, the English, Mathematics, and Natural

Science scales of the ACT tended to be discriminate variables between

male and female students who did not persist because of non-academic

reasons.

In summary, the analysis of the differences between male and fe-

male persisting and non-persisting students seemed to indicate that the

female students, regardless of persisting or non-persisting status,

tended to make a significantly higher mean score on the ACT-English

scale than did her male counterpart. Conversely, the male student, re-

gardless of persistence status, tended to make a significantly higher

mean score on the Mathematics and Natural Science sub-scales of the ACT.

The persisting female students appeared to indicate a significantly

higher mean score on the Social Science sub-scale of the ACT, whereas

the male student who was a non- persister, because of academic reasons

tended to reflect a significantly higher mean score than did the female

student for this same sub-scale.

In terms of the Composite score for the ACT, there did not ap-

pear to be any significant differences between male and female persist -

iflg students or non-persisting students who withdrew for non-academic

reasons. However, male students who withdrew for academic reasons

tended to reflect a significantly higher mean score on the Composite

scale of the ACT than did the female student who did not persist for

similar reasons.

21

Differences Among Campuses on the Basis of ACT Scores

Differences Among Students Am2213.uses. A purpose

of the study was to determine if there were significant differences among

campuses in terms of the scholastic aptitude of persisting and non-per-

sisting students. Since significant differences had been identified

among persisting and non-persisting students, as well as between male

and female students, the data were partitioned into six separate sub-

groups where significant dlfferences had been determined prior to the

comparison of campuses on the basis of mean scores achieved on the ACT.

This procedure was necessary in order to ensure that any differences

that might be identified among campuses in terms of mean scores achieved

on the various scales of the ACT were valid and could not be attributed

to either differences between male and female students or among persist-

ing and non-persisting students. Again, where significant differences

were determined among campuses Duncants New Multiple Range Test was ap-

plied to the variance ratio data in order to determine the location of

the source of variance.

Table 10 presents the results of the differences among female

persisting students among campuses on the basis of mean scores on the

ACT scales. As these results indicate, significant differences were

found among campuses on the basis of mean scores achieved by female per-

sisting students on ell of the sub-scales of the ACT with the exception

of the Natural Science scale.

TABLE 10. DIFFERENCES AMONG FEMALE PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES

ON THE BASIS OF MEAN SCORES ON THE ACT SCALES

ACTScales

English

Mathe-matics

SocialScience

NaturalScience


Variation Squares Freedom SquareF P

Between grpsWithin grpsTotalBetween grpsWithin grpsTotalBetween grpsWithin. grps

TotalBetween grpsWithin grpsTotal

294 425903 1811

26197 181

73.4414.30 5.14 0.01

335 4 83

53776 1811 31.35 2.67

,54111 181

52343855 1811 24.23 5.80 0.01

4478 19196 48.90

43078 1811 23.79 2.06 NS

422Z1 1815

0.05

130.41

The results of Duncants New Multiple Range Test as applied to the

differences among female persisting students among campuses on the basis

of mean score achieved on the ACT-English scale are presented in Table 11.

These results tended to indicate that two subsets of means were signifi-

cantly different from each other and seemed to account for the significant

variance ratio found in Table 10.

22

W

TABLE 11.

DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIEDTO THE DIFFERENCES AMONG FEMALE PERSISTINGSTUDENTS

AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF THE MEAN

SCORE ON THE ACT - ENGLISH SCALE

SLC

RF

WSP

Shortest

Campus

Means

(N = 237)

(N = 441)

(N = 194)

(N = 553)

(N = 391)

significant

ranges

20.0

20.5

21.0

21.0

21.1

S

20.0

0.5

(8.75)

1.0

(14.6)*

1.0

(18.2)*

1.1

(18.9)*

R2

= 13.77

LC

20.5

0.5

(8.2)

0.5

(11.1)

0.6

(12.2)

R3= 14.34

RF

21.0

0.0

(0.0)

0.1

(1.6)

R = 14.74

21.0

0.1

(2.1)

R = 14.84

SP

21.1

SLC

RF

SP


The result -s presented in Table? Li suggested that female students

enrolled on the campuses of Stout and aCrosse were net significantly

different on the ba7is of the mean scores on the ACT-English scale. How-

ever, female students enrolled on the campuses of River Falls, White-

water, and Stevens Point, while not being significantly different from

each other, tended to achieve a significantly higher mean score on the

ACT-English scale than did their counterparts enrolled on the campuses

located at Stout and LaCrosse.

Table 12 presents the results of the application of Duncan's New

Y ltiple Range Test to the differences among female persisting students

e -,g campuses on the basis of the mean score on the ACT-Mathematics

scale.

The results shown in Table 12 suggested that two significantly

different subsets of campuses contributed to the significance of the

variance ratio among campuses. Female persisting students enrolled on

the campuses of Stout, LaCrosse, River Falls, and Stevens Point did not

appear to be significantly different in terms of the mean score achieved

on the ACT-Mathematics scale. Female persisting students enrolled on

the campuses located at River Falls, Stevens Point, and Whitewater did

not appear to differ significantly. However, female students enrolled

on the campus located at Whitewater tended to achieve a significantly

higher mean score on the ACT-Mathematics scale than did their counter-

parts who were enrolled on the campuses located at Stout and LaCrosse.

As these results indicate, the campuses at River Falls and Stevens

Point were shared by both subsets.

The results presented in Table 13 indicate the application of

Duncan's New Multiple Range Test to the differences among female per-

sisting students among campuses on the basis of the mean score on the

ACT-Social Science scale. These results suggested that two signifi-

cantly different subsets of campuses contributed to the significance

of the variance ratio. Female persisting students enrolled on the cam-

puses of Stout, LaCrosse, and River Falls tended to form one subgroup

of campuses. The second subset seemed to consist of female persisting

students on the campuses of River Falls, Whitewater, and Stevens Point.

The campus located at River Falls was shared by both subsets.

Based on these results, female persisting students on the cam-

puses located at Stout, LaCrosse, and River. Falls did not differ signi-

ficantly from each other, Furthermore, female persisting students en-

rolled on the campuses located at River Falls, Whitewater, and Stevens

Point did not vary significantly on the basis of mean score on the ACT-

Social Science scale. However, female persisting students enrolled on

the campuses located at Whitewater and Stevens Point, while not differ-

ing significantly from each other, did achieve a significantly higher

mean score on the ACT-Social Science scale than did their counterparts

who were enrolled on the campuses located at Stout and LaCrosse.

24

TABLE 12.

DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THE DIFFERENCES AMONG FEMALE PERSISTING STUDENTS

AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF THE MEAN SCORE ON THE ACT-MATHEMATICS SCALE

Campus

Means

S

(N = 237)

LC

(N = 441)

RF

(N = 194)

SP

(N = 391)

W(N = 553)

Shortest

significant

ranges

19.3

19.4

19.9

19.9

20.4

S

19.3

0.1

(1.75)

0.6

(8.76)

0.6

(10.32)

1.1

(20.02)*

R2= 15.52

LC

19.4

0.5

(8.20)

0.5

(8.02)

1.0

(22.14)*

R3

= 16.34

RF

19.9

0.0

(0.00)

0.5

(8.45)

R2,= 16.89

SP

19.9

0.5

(10.62)

R5

= 17.29

20.4

SLC

RF

SF

RF

SP


TABLE 13.

DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THE DIFFERENCES AMONG FEMALE PERSISTING STUDENTS

AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF THE MEAN SCORE ON THE ACT-SOCIAL SCIENCE SCALE

SLC

RF

WSP

Shortest

Campus

Means

(N = 237)

(N = 441)

(N = 194)

(N = 553)

(N = 391)

significant

ranges

21.6

21.7

22.6

22.7

22.9

0.1

1.0

1.1

1.3

21.6

(1.75)

(14.60)

(20.02)*

(22.49)*

R2 = 17.92

LC

0.9

1.0

1.2

21.7

(14.76)

(22.14)*

(24.42)*

R3= 18.68

r.)

RF

0.1

0.3

22.6

(1.69)

(4.83)

R4 = 19.19

0.2

22.7

,(4.25)

R5 = 19.57.

SP

22.9

MO

.

RF

WSP

SLC

RF


Table 14 presents the results of the differences among male per-sisting students among campuses oh the basis of mean scores on the ACTscales. The results shown in Table 14 suggested that significant differ-ences were indicated among campuses on all the sub-scales of the ACT interms of mean score achieved among the male persisting student sub-samples.

TABLE 14. DIFFERENCES AMONG MALE PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ONTHE BASIS OF MEAN SCORES ON THE ACT SCALES

ACT Source of Sum of Degrees of MeanScales Variation Squares Freedom Square

Between grps 597 4 149.2

English Within grps 39014 2405 16.2 9.20 0.01

Total 39611 2409

Between grps 301 4 75.4Mathe-

Within grps 68739 2405 28.6 2.64 0.05matics

Total 69040 2409

SocialBetween grps 7e-------- 4 190.0

ScienceWithin grps 58018 2405 24.1 7.88 0.01

Total 58778 2409

NaturalBetween grps 686 4 171.4

ScienceWithin grps 56297 2405 23.4 7.32 0.01

Total 56983 2409

The application of Duncan's New Multiple Range Test applied tothe differences among male persisting students among campuses on thebasis of mean scores on the ACT-English scale are presented in Table15. These results suggested that three significantly different subsetsof campuses contributed to the significant differences found among cam-puses.

Based on these results, male persisting students enrolled onthe campuses located at Stout and River Falls did not differ signifi-cantly on the basis of mean score on the ACT - English scale. Male per-

sisting students enrolled on the campuses located at River Falls, La-Crosse, and Whitewater did not differ significantly. The third subsetof campuses consisted of male persisting students enrolled at LaCrosse,Whitewater, and Stevens Point.

These results suggested that male persisting students enrolledon the campuses located at LaCrosse and Whitewater tended to achieve asignificantly higher mean score on the ACT-English scale than did theircounterparts enrolled on the campus located at Stout. Male persistingstudents enrolled on the campus located at Stevens Point tended toachieve a significantly higher mean score on the ACT-English scale thandid their counterparts enrolled on either of the campuses located atStout or River Falls.

27

lhar

edid

eig

TABLE 15.

DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST

APPLIED TO THE DIFFERENCES

AMONG MALE PERSISTING STUDENTS

AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS

OF MEAN SCORES ON THEACT-ENGLISH SCALE

Campus

S RF

LC

co

w SP

Means

S

(N = 222)

RF

(N = 382)

LC

(N = 529)

W(N = 691)

SP

(N = 586)

Shortest

significant

ranges

17.3

18.1

18.5

18.6

19.1

0.8

1.2

1.3

1.8

17.3

(13.41)

(21.22)*

(23.83)*

(32.29)*

= 14.64

R2

0.4

0.5

1.0

18.1

(8.42)

(11.09)

(21.50)*

R3= 15.26

0.1

0.6

18.5

(2.45)

(14.14)

R = 15.68

0.5

18.6

(12.59)

R 3= 15.99

19.1

S

RF

RF

LC

LC

SP


The multiple comparison of the mean scores on the ACT Mathematics

scale as indicated by male persisting students among the various campuses

is presented in Table 16.

The results presented in Table 16 appeared to indicate that male

persisting students enrolled on the campuses located at River Falls,

Whitewater, and Stevens Point tended to achieve significantly higher

mean scores on the Mathematics sub-scale of the ACT than did their coun-

terparts enrolled on the campus located at LaCrosse. The differencesbetween LaCrosse and the subset of three campuses seemed to account for

the significant variance found among campuses on the basis of this sub-

scale of the ACT.

Table 17 presents the application of Duncants New Multiple Range

Test to the differences among male persisting students on the basis of

mean scores on the ACT-Social Science scale. These results indicated

two significantly different subsets of campuses. One subset consisted

of male persisting students enrolled on the campuses located at River

Falls, LaCrosse, Whitewater, and Stevens Point. While the male per-

sisting students enrolled on these campuses did not differ significantly

from each other, they did appear to achieve a significantly higher mean

score on the Social Science sub-scale of the ACT than did their counter-

parts who were enrolled on the campus located at Stout.

The multiple comparison of mean scores on the ACT-Natural Science

scale achieved by male persisting students among campuses is presented

in Table 18. The results shown in Table 18 suggested three subsets ofcampuses tended to account for the significant differences found among

campuses.

According to the results presented in Table 18, male persistingstudents enrolled on the campus located at River Falls tended to achieve

significantly higher mean scores on the Natural Science sub-scale of the

ACT than did their male counterparts at Stout. Furthermore, male per-

sisting students enrolled on the campus located at Stevens Point tended

to achieve higher mean scores on the ACT-Natural Science scale than did

their counterparts enrolled on the campuses located at Stout and LaCrosse.

Since there were no significant differences found between maleand female persisting students with regard to mean scores achieved on

the ACT-Composite scale, these students were pooled into one persisting

group with the mean scores achieved on each campus by this group com-

pared to seek out differences among campuses. As indicated in Table 19,

significant differences were found among campuses.

29

!M

I M

IR 1

E11

Mir

Int

1111

11-1

1111

11'"

'

TABLE 16.

DUNCANTS NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THEDIFFERENCES AMONG MALE PERSISTING STUDENTS

AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN

SCORES ON THE ACT-MATHEMATICS SCALE

Campus

Means

LC

21.5

S

LC

SRF

(N = 529)

(N = 222)

(N = 382)

21.5

22.0

22.3

0.5

0.8

(8.84)

(16.84)*

0.3

WSP

Shortest

(N = 691)

(N = 586)

significant

ranges

22.7

22.8

1.2

1.3

(29.36)*

(30.63)*

R2= 14.83

0.7

0.8

22.0

(5.03)

(12.83)

(14.35)

R3

= 15.61

RF

0.4

0.5

CD

22.3

(8.87)

(10.75)

R4= 16.14

0.1

22.7

(2.52)

R5

= 16.53

SP

22.8

LC

S S

RF

SP


1, s

.,47

.V

o..

a

TABLE 17.

DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIEDTO THE DIFFERENCES AMONG MALE PERSISTING

STUDENTS

AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN SCORES ON THE

ACT - SOCIAL SCIENCE SCALE

Campus

SMeans

(N = 222)

RF

(N = 382)

20.4

21.8

S

20.4

1.4

(23.46)*

RF

21.8

LC

22.1

22.2

SP

22.5

LC

WSP

Shortest

(N = 529)

(N = 691)

(N = 586)

significant

ranges

22.1

22.2

22.5

1.7

1.8

2.1

(30.06)*

(32.99)*

(37.67)*

R2

= 17.89

0.3

0.4

0.37

(6.32)

(8.87)

(15.05)

R3

= 18.64

0.1

0.4

(2.45)

(9.42)

R4= 19.15

0.3

(7.55)

R5

= 19.53

RF

LC

WSP

S


*No

lori

Sim

iN

od11

011

OM

IM

Otin

MI

Inn

Inn

mem

11.1

1111

1111

1111

11

TABLE 18.

DUNCANtS NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THE DIFFERENCES AMONG MALE PERSISTING STUDENTS

AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN SCORES ON THE ACT-NATURAL SCIENCE SCALE

Campus

S LC

k.0

wm

RF

SP

Means

S

(N = 222)

LC

(N = 529)

W(N = 691)

21.6

22.3

22.4

21.6

0.7

(12.38)

0.8

(14.66)

22.3

0.1

(2.45)

22.4

22.8

23.4

S

LC

W

LC

W

RF

SP

Shortest

(N = 382)

(N = 586)

significant

ranges

22.8

23.4

1.2

1.8

(20.11)*

(32.29)*

R2

= 17.63

0.5

1.1

(10.53)

(25.92)*

R3= 18.37

o.4

1.0

(8.87)

(25.18)

R4

= 18.88

0.6

(12.90)

R5= 19.25

RF

SP


44,..

.,1.

TABLE 19. DIFFERENCES AMONG PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE

BASIS OF MEAN SCORE FOR THE ACT-COMPOSITE SCALE

ACT Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean

Scales Variation Squares Freedom Square

Between grps 729 4 132.1

Composite Within grps 62670 1229 14.8

Total 63399 42)3

F P

8.92 0.01

Duncangs New Multiple Range Test was applied to the differences

among persisting students among campuses on the basis of the mean score

achieved for the ACT-Composite scale. The results of this statistical

comparison are presented in Table 20.

These results suggested that three subsets of campuses contrib-

uted to the significant difference found among campuses. Based on these

results, persisting students enrolled on the campus located at River

Falls tended to achieve significantly higher mean scores on the ACT-

Composite scale than did persisting students enrolled on the campus lo-

cated at Stout. Male persisting students enrolled on the campus located

at Stevens Point tended to achieve a higher mean score for the Composite

sub-scale of the ACT than their counterparts enrolled on the campuses

located at Stout, Whitewater, and LaCrosse, but did not vary significant-

1,y from those persisting students enrolled on the campus located at

River Falls.

Differences Among Academic Non-Persisting Students Among Campuses.

Since significant differences were revealed between male and female aca-

demic non-persisting students on all scales of the ACT, separate compar-

isons of campuses were made for male and female academic non-persisting

students.

Table 21 presents the differences among female academic non -persisting students among campuses on the basis of mean scores for the

ACT scales. As the results presented in Table 21 indicate, significant

differences were revealed among female academic non-persisting students

among campuses on the basis of mean scores for four of the five ACT

scales. Based on these results, the English, Social Science, Natural

Science, and Composite sub-scales of the ACT seemed to be discriminate

variables among female academic non-persisting students among campuses.

33

TABLE 20.

DUNCANIS NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO DIFFERENCESAMONG PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG

CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN SCORE FOR THE ACT-COMPOSITE

SCALE

Campus

S w LC

RF SP

SW

LC

RF

SP

Means

(N = 458)

(N = 1243)

(N = 970)

(N = 584)

(N = 977)

20.6

20.6

21.0

21.4

21.9

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.3

20.6

(o.o)

(10.02)

(18.12)*

(32.46)*

0.4

0.8

1.3

20.6

(13.20)

(11.27)

(43.03)*

0.4

0.9

21.0

(10.80)

(28.08)*

0.5

21.4

(13.52)

21.9

RF

SP

WLC

RF

SW

LC

Shortest

significant

ranges

R2= 14.03

R = 14.61

2--

R4

= 15.02

R5= 15.32


35

TABLE 21. DIFFERENCES AMONG FEMALE ACADEMIC NON-PERSISTING STUDENTS

AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN SCORES FOR THE ACT SCALES

ACTScales

Source ofVariation

Mathe-matics

Between grpsWithin grpaTotalBetween grpsWithin grpsTotalBetween grpsWithin grpsTotalBetween grpsWithin gypsTotalBetween grpsWithin grpsTotal

SocialScience

NaturalScience

Composite

Sum ofSquares

426523656621

74182

539252

979021883168534212

408042 2

Degrees of MeanFreedom Square

F P

4 10 .5o

371 14.10 7.54 0.01

371

28.5519.99 1.42 NS

132.50

371 24.90

37i

371374

371

5.32 0.01

54.6022.40 2.43 0.05

53.1010.90 4.83 0.01

Table 22 indicates the results of the application of Duncan's

New Multiple Range Test applied to the differences among female academic

non-persisting students among campuses on the basis of mean scores

achieved on the ACT-English scale.

Based on the results presented in Table 22, two subsets of cam-

puses tended to account for the significant variance ratio found for

the La-English sub-scale indicated in Table 21. Female academic non-

persisting students enrolled on the campuses located at LaCrosse and

Stout formulated one subset while female academic non-persisting stu-

dents enrolled on the campuses located at Stout, Whitewater, Stevens

Point, and River Falls formed the other subset. The variances which

appeared to account for the significant variance ratio tended to be

contributed by female academic non-persisting students who were enrolled

on the campuses of River Falls, Stevens Point, and Whitewater, since

these students tended to achieve a significantly higher mean score on

the ACT-Engliph scale than did their counterparts who were enrolled on

the campus located at Stout.

The multiple comparison of campuses on the basis of mean snores

achieved for the ACT-Social Science scale by female academic non-per-

sisters is presented in Table 23. These results seemed to indicate that

female academic non-persisting students who were enrolled on the campuses

located at Stevens Point, River Falls, and Whitewater tended to achieve

a significantly higher mean score on the Social Science sub-scale of the

ACT than did similar students who were enrolled on the campus located at

Stout. Female academic non-persisters who were enrolled on the campuses

located at LaCrosse, Whitewater, River Falls, and Stevens Point did not

differ significantly in terms of their mean score on this sub-scale of

the ACT. Furthermore, female academic non-persisting students who were

enrolled on the campuses located at Stout and LaCrosse did not differ

significantly.

...m

mire

b,...

...T

aim

imar

rref

,M11

1011

1111

1IM

MO

NO

MIN

P0,

VM

1111

;111

1111

11er

,

TABLE 22.

DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THE DIFFERENCES AMONG

a ALE ACADEMIC NON-

PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN SCORES FOR THE ACT-ENGLISH SCALE

IP11

.O

..

LC

SW

SP

RF

Shortest

Campus

Means

(N =

58)

(N =

29)

(N = 194)

(N =

79)

(N =

16)

significant

ranges

,...*

)

0\

1.5.7

17.6

LC

15.7

1.9

(11.82)

S

17.6

W18

.3

SP

18.7

RF

19.5

18.3

18.7

19.5

2.6

3.0

3.8

(24.54)*

(24.54)*

(19.00)*

R2= 13.66

0.7

1.1

1.9

(4.97)

(7.15)

(8.63)

R = 14.24

0.4

1.2

(4.24)

(6.54)

R4

= 14.62

0.8

(4.12)

R5

= 14.92.

LC

S S

SP

RF


TABLE 23.

DUNGAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIEDTO THE DIFFERENCES AMONG FEMALE ACADEMIC

NON-

PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS

OF MEAN SCORES FOR THE ACT-SOCIAL SCIENCE

SCALE

S

Campus

Means

(N =

29)

S LC w RF

SP

LC

(N =

58)

(N = 194)

RF

SP

Shortest

(N =

16)

(N =

79)

significant

ranges

15.4

17.5

19.3

19.4

19.6

2.1

3.9

4.o

4.2

15.4

(13.06)

(27.73)*

(18.16)*

(27.30)*

1.8

1.9

2.1

17.5

(16.89)

(9.50)

(15.54)

0.1

0.3

19.3

(0.55)

(3.18)

0.2

19.4

(1.03)

19.6

R2= 16.28

R = 16.96

R4

= 17.43

R = 17.78

LC

WRF

SP

SLC


The application of Duncan's New Multiple Range Test to the dif-ferences among female academic ron- persisters among campuses on the basisof mean scores achieved for the ACT-Natural Science scale tended to re-veal three subsets of campuses, These results are presented in Table 2I.

On the basis of the results presented in Table 24, female academ-ic non-persisting students who were enrolled on the campus located atStout tended to achieve a significantly lower mean score on the ACT-Natural Science scale than any other campus. Female academic non-per-sisting students who were enrolled on the campuses located at LaCrosse,Stevens Point, and River Falls did not differ significantly. Further-more, these same students who were enrolled on the campuses located atStevens Point, River Falls, and Whitewater did not differ significantly.However, female academic non-persisting students who were enrolled onthe campus located at Whitewater did achieve a significantly highermean score on the Natural Science sub-scale of the ACT than did theircounterparts who were enrolled on the campus located at LaCrosse.

Table 25 presents the results of the analysis of the comparisonof campuses in terms of the mean score achieved for the ACT-Compositescale by female academic non-persisting students. These results indi-cate that two subsets of campuses were contributing to the significantdifference among campuses.

The results presented in Table 25 tended to indicate that femaleacademic non-persisting students who were enrolled on the campus locatedat Stout did not differ significantly in terms of the.r achieved meanscore for the ACT-Composite scale from those enrolled on the campus lo-cated at LaCrosse. However, the female academic non-persisting studentat Stout did tend to achieve a significantly lower ACT-Composite meanscore than did similar students who were enrolled on the campuses lo-cated at Whitewater, Stevens Point, and River Falls.

The results of the differences among male academic non-persist-ing students among campuses on the basis of mean scores for the ACTscales are presented in Table 26. As the results in Table 26 indicate,significant differences were found among male academic non-persistingstudents among campuses on the basis of mean scores for four of thefive sub-scales of the ACT. Based on these results, the Mathematics,Social Science, Natural Science, and Composite sub-scales of the ACTseemed to differentiate among male academic non-persisting studentsamong campuses.

38

TABLE 24.

DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGETEST APPLIED TO THEDIFFERENCES AMONG FEMALE ACADEMIC

NON-

PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONGCAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN

SCORES FOR THE ACT-NATURAL

SCIENCE SCALE

k_A

) o

Campus

Means

S

(N =

29)

LC

(N =

58)

15.4

17.7

15.4

2.3

(14.30)*

LC

17.7

SP

18.5

W

19.3

RF

19.7

S

LC

amm

iwom

ilmo.

m. M

111

SP

WRF

Shortest

(N =

79)

(N = 194)

(N =

16)

significant

ranges

18.5

19.3

19.7

3.1

3.9

4.3

(20.15)*

(27.73)*

(19.52)*

R2

= 13.83

0.8

1.6

2.0

(6.54)

(15.10)*

(10.00)

R2_7

14.56

0.8

1.2

(8.47)

(6.18)

R4

= 15.05

0.4

(2.18)

R5= 15.41

SP

RF

SP

RF

*Significant at the 0.05

level

TABLE 25.

DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THE DIFFERENCES AMONG FEMALE ACADEMIC NON-

PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN SCORES FOR THE ACT-COMPOSITE SCALE

SLC

WSP

RF

Shortest

Campus

Means

(N =

29)

(N =

58)

(N = 194)

(N =

79)

(N =

16)

significant

s LC

..-

wCD

SP

RF

15.6

17.0

18.1

15.6

___ __

1.4

(8.71)

2.5

(17.86)*

17.0

1.1

(10.38)

18.1

18.1

18.6

ranges

18.1

18.6

2.5

3.o

(16.25)*

(13.62)*

R2= 12.06

1.1

1.6

(8.99)

(8.00)

R3

= 12.56

o.o

0.5

(0.0)

(2.73)

R4

= 12.90

0.5

_____

(2.58)

R5

= 13.17

LC

WSP

RF

SLC


TABLE 26. DIFFERENCES AMONG MALE ACADEMIC NON-PERSISTING STUDENTSAMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN SCORES FOR THE ACT SCALES

ACT Source of. Sum of Degrees of Mean


Between grps 93 4English Within grps 13886 807

Total 13979 811

Maths-Between grps 282 4

maticsWithin grps 21941 807

Total 22223 811

SocialBetween grps 451 4

ScienceWithin grps 19112 807

Total 19563 811

NaturalBetween grps 304 4

ScienceWithin grps 20699 807

Total 21003 811

Between grps 253 -4--Composite Within grps 11350 807

Total 11603 811

23.417.2 1.36 NS

70.527.2 2.59 0.05

112.823.7 4.76 0.01

75.925.6 2.96 0.05

63.314.1 4.50 0.01

In order to determine the location of the variances among cam-puses found for each of the significant sub-scales of the ACT, Duncan's

New Multiple Range test was applied to the data.

Table 27 indicates the results of the application of Duncan'sNew Multiple Range Test to the differences among male academic non-per-sisting students among campuses on the basis of mean scores for the ACT -

Mathematics scale.

Based on these results, male academic non-persisting studentswho were enrolled on the campuses located at Whitewater and StevensPoint, while not differing significantly from each other in terms oftheir mean score for the ACT-Mathematics scale nor from their counter-parts enrolled on the campus located at Stout, did achieve a signifi-cantly higher mean score than similar students who were enrolled on thecampuses located at River Falls and LaCrosse.

The multiple comparison of male academic non-persisting students among campuses on the baSis of mean scores achieved on the ACT-Social Science scale is presented in Table 28. As these results indi-

cate, three subsets of campuses were identified.

According to these results there were no Significant differencesfound among male academic non-persisting students who were enrolled onthe campuses located at Stout, LaCrosse, and River Falls. There did not

appear to be any significant differences identified among male academic

non-persisting students who were enrolled on the campuses located atLaCrosse, River Falls, and Whitewater. Male academic non-persistingstudents who were enrolled on the campuses located at River Falls,Whitewater, and Stevens Point did not appear to differ significantly.

TABLE 27.

DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THE DIFFERENCES AMONG MALE ACADEMIC NON-

PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN SCORES FOR THEACT-MATHEMATICS SCALE

LC

Campus

Means

(N =

55)

(N = 123)

RF

17.7

17.7

18.5

0.8

(6.98)

LC

S SP

18.5

19.3

19.6

Woo

liptv

.00.

0.m

..4.

S

(N = 114)

SP

(N = 283)

- -

(N = 237)

19.7

- -

Shortest

signiftcant

ranges

19.3

19.6

1.6

1.9

2.0

(13.78)

(18.24)*

(18.94)*

R2

14

.47

0.8

1.1

1.2

(8.70)

(16.58)*

(15.26)*

R, = 15.23

0.3

0.4

(3.82)

(5.87)

R, = 15.75

'4

**1

19.7

RF

0.1

(1.61)

R = 16.12

LC

SSP

w

,... ......,


TABLE 28.

DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THEDIFFERENCES AMONG MALE ACADEMIC NON-

PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEANSCORES FOR THE ACT-SOCIAL SCIENCE SCALE

Campus

SMeans

(N = 114)

18.5

S

18.5

LC

18.8

RF

18.8

w19.9

SP

20.4

LC

RF

WSP

Shortest

(N = 123)

(N =

55)

(N = 237)

(N = 283)

significant

ranges

18.8

0.3

(3.26)

18.8

19.9

20.4

0.3

1.4

1.9

(2.58)

(20.54)*

(24.21)*

R2= 17.74

0.0

1.1

1.6

(0.0)

(13.99)

(24.13)*

R3= 18.49

1.1

1.6

(10.31)

(15.36)

R4

= 18.99

0.5

(8.03)

R5

= 19.37

S

LC

RF

SP

RF

LC

RF


tJ' 1

119,

4=li

The results did suggest that the male academic non-persisting student

who was enrolled on the campuses located at Whitewater and. Stevens Point

did achieve a significantly higher mean score on the ACT-Social Science

scale than did the male academic non-persisting student who was enrolled

on the campus located at Stout, Furthermore, the male academic non-per-

sisting student who was enrolled at Stevens Point tended to exceed sig-

nificantly his counterpart who was enrolled at LaCrosse,

Table 29 presents the application of Duncan's New Multiple Range

Test to the differences among male academic non-persisting students on

the basis of mean score achieved for the Natural Science sub-scale of

the ACT. Based on these results, male academic non-persisting students

who were enrolled at Stevens Point tended to achieve a significantly

higher mean score on the Natural Science sub-scale of the ACT than did

male academic non-persisting students who were enrolled on the campuses

located at LaCrosse and River Falls.

Two subsets of campuses tended to be formed when the means

achieved on the ACT-Composite scale by male academic non-persisting

students among campuses were compared. These results are presented in

Table 30.

According to these results, male academic non-persisting stu-

dents who were enrolled on the campus located at Stevens Point tended

to achieve a significantly higher mean score on the ACT-Composite scale

than did male academic non-persisting students who were enrolled at

River Falls and LaCrosse. However, there were no significant differ-

ences revealed among male academic non-persisting students who were en-

rolled on the campuses located at Stevens Point, Whitewater, and Stout.

Furthermore, th41-e were no significant differences indicated among male

academic non-pg.:Sisting students who were enrolled on the campuses lo-

cated at River Falls, LaCrosse, Stout, and Whitewater.

Differences Among Non-Academic Non-Persisting Students Among

Campuses. Since there were significant differences found between male

and female non-academic non-persisting students on the basis of mean

scores on the ACT scales, separate analyses were conducted on those ACT

scales where these significant differences were revealed.

Table 31 shows the differences among female non-academic non-

persisting students among campuses on the basis of mean scores on the

English, Mathematics, and Natural Science scales of the ACT. According

to the results presented in Table 31, there were no significant differ-

ences revealed among female non-academic non-persisting students among

campuses on the basis of mean scores for these sub-scales of the ACT.

TABLE 29.


PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN SCORES FOR THE ACT-NATURAL SCIENCE SCALE

LC

RF

WS

SP

Shortest

Campus

Means

(N = 123)

(N =

55)

(N = 237)

(N = 114)

(N = 283)

significant

ranges

LO

RF W

kn

S SP

19.5

19.6

20.5

20.5

21.2

0.1

19.5

(0.87)

1.0

(12.72)

1.0

(10.87)

1.7

(25.64)*

R2

= 14.02

19.6

0.9

(8.52)

0.9

(7.75)

1.6

(15.36)*

5_1.14177

20.5

0.0

(0.0)

0.7

(11.24)

R4

= 15.27

20.5

0.7

(8.94)

R5= 15.63

21.2

SP

LC

RF


=11

/

1.11

1111

1111

1111

111W

''''"1

111M

PIE

W v

"'71

4111

1111

111W

7m07

,111

111M

inw

rFri

mrM

min

ev-a

wiim

irw

TABLE 30.

DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THE DIFFERENCESAMONG MALE ACADEMIC NON-

PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OFMEAN SCORES FOR THE ACT-COMPOSITE SCALE

RF

Campus

Means

(N =

55)

LC

(N = 123)

18.2

i8.4

RF

0.2

18.2

(1.74)

LC

18.4

S18.6

w19.4

SP

19.7

S

(N = 114)

18.6

o.4

(3.44)

0.2

(2.17)

(N = 237)

SP

(N = 283)

Shortest

significant

ranges

19.4

19.7

1.2

(11.36)

1.5

(14.40)*

R2

= 1

3.52

1.0

(12.72)

1.3

(19.6o)*

R3

= 14.08

0.8

(11.7L)

1.1

(1L. 01)

=R = 14.47

0.3

(4.82)

R, = 14.76

___2

LC

SP


TABLE 31, DIFFERENCES AMONG FEMALE NON-ACADEMIC NON-PERSISTING STUDENTSAMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN SCORES ON THE ENGLISH, MATHEMATICS,AND NATURAL SCIENCE SCALES OF THE ACT

ACT Source of Sum of Degrees of MeanF P


Between grps 104 4 25.9English Within grps 12345 747 16.5 1.57 NS

Total 12449 751

Mathe-Between grps 165 4 41.2

ma ticsWithin grps 23590 747 31.6 1.32 NS

Total 23755 751

NaturalBetween grps 100 4 24.9

ScienceWithin grps 18581 747 24.9 1.00 NS

Total 18681 751

The differences among male non-academic non-persisting studentsamong campuses on the basis of mean scores achieved on the English,Mathematics, and Natural Science sub-scales of the ACT are presented inTable 32. According to the results shown in Table 32, only the Englishsub-scale of the ACT tended to differentiate among male non-academicnon-persisting students among campuses. There were no significant dif-ferences indicated among male non-academic non-persisting studentsamong campuses on the basis of mean score achieved on the Mathematics

and Natural Science sub-scales of the ACT.

TABLE 32. DIFFERENCES AMONG MALE NON-ACADEMIC NON-PERSISTING STUDENTSAMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN SCORES FOR THE ENGLISH, MATHE-MATICS, AND NATURAL SCIENCE SCALES OF THE ACT

ACT Source of Sum of Degrees of MeanScales Variation Squares Freedom Square

Between.

English Within grps 14311 828 17.3 3.75 0.01

Total 14571 832

Mathe-matics

NaturalScience

Between grpsWithin grpsTotalBetween grpsWithin grpsTotal

80 4 19.9

23305 828 28,2 0.71 NS

2 385 8 2211 52.8

22825 828 27.6 1.91 NS2 036 832

In the effort to discern the exact location of the cause of thesignificant variance ratio found among male non-academic non-persistingstudents among campuses on the ACT-English scale, Duncanis New MultipleRange Test was applied to the data. These results are presented inTable 33.

47

TABLE 33.

DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO DIFFERENCES AMONG MALE NON-ACADEMIC NON-

PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN SCORES ON THE ACT-ENGLISH SCALE

RF

WS

SP

LC

Shortest

Campus

Means

(N = 145)

(N = 192)

(N = 172)

(N = 160)

(N = 164)

significant

ranges

16.8

17.4

17.5

18.0

18.5

RF

0.6

0.7

1.2

1.7

16.8

(7.70)

(8.78)

(14.56)

(21.05)*

111

Wo.i

0.6

17.4

(1.35)

(7.93)

(14.62)

S0.5

1.0

co

17.5

('6.43)

(12.96)

R2= 15.15

113

= 15.79

R1+= 16.22

SP

18.0

LC

18.5

RF

0.5

(6.36)

16.55

SP

LC

SP


According to the results presented in Table 33t two subsets of

campuses were indicated. Male non-acaciend..c non-persisting students who

were enrolled cr., the campuses located. at Whitevater, Stout, Stevens

Point, and LaCrs.-sse did not appear to differ significantly in terms of

mean score on the AC English scale. Male non - academic non-persisting

students who were enrolled on the calTuses located at River Falls, White-

water, Stout, and Stevens Point comprised the second subset of campuses.

Th6 siplificant variance ratio indicated in Table 32 for theash sub-

scal-a of the ACT. tended to be isolated to the difference between male

non - academic nee.-persting students who were enrolled on the campuses

located at LaCrosse and River Falls, Male non-acadec non-persisting

students who were enrolled on the campus located at LaCrosse tended to

achieve a significantly higher mean score on the English sub-scale of

the ACT than did their counterparts who were enrolled on the campus lo-cated at aver Falls.

Since there were no significant differences between male and

female non-academic non-persisting students on the basis of the mean

scores achieved on the Social Science and Composite sub-scales of the

ACT, these two subgroups were --p=ed and comparisons were made for dif-

ferences among campuses. The results of this comparison are presented

in Table 34. According to the results presented in Table 34, there was

a significant difference among non-academic non-persisting students

among campuses on the basis of the mean scores achieved on these two

sub-scales.

TABLE 34, DIFFERENCES AMONG NON-ACADEKEC NON-PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG

CAITUSES ON :WE BASIS OF MEAN SCCRES ON ' SOCIAL SCIENCE AND COM-

POSME SCALES OF 'Nit: ACT

ACTScales

SocialScience

Source ofVariation

Sum of Degrees of Mean

Squares Freedom Square

Between grpsWithin grpsTotal

Composite


3414494734o814

1752479824973

F P

4 85.3580 25.6 3.33 0.01

5844

58o 15.7 3.18 0.05584

Dtncants New Multiple Range Test was applied to the differences

among non-academic non-persisting students among campuses on the basis

of the mean score on the ACT-Social Science scale. The results of this

statistical application are presented in Table 35.

49

TABLE 35.

DUNCANIS NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THE DIFFERENCES AMONG NON-ACADEMIC NON-

PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN SCORE ON THE ACT-SOCIAL SCIENCS SCALE

Campus

Means

S

(N = 308)

RF

(N = 228)

20.6

20.6

S20.6

0.0

(0.0)

RF

20.6

LC

21.0

21.5

SP

21.8

SRF

LC= 355)

(N = 431)

SP

(N = 268)

21.0

21.5

Aw

rorr

omm

eonm

adot

ahoi

sra

21.8

Shortest

significant

ranges

11.1

1110

1111

1111

10.1

1111

0.4

0.9

1.2

(7.23)

(17.06)*

(20.32)*

R2

= 14.03

0.4

0.9

1.2

(6.66)

(15=53)*

(18.84)*

R = 14.76

3--

0.5

0.8

(9.87)

(13.98)

R4

= 15,27

0.3

(5.45)

R = 15.63

LC

SP

Lc


1011

111.

11

According to the results shown in Table 35. two subsets of cam-

puses were formulated. One subset consisted of campuses located at Stout,

River Falls, and LaCrosse, while tae second subset of campuses consisted

of those located at LaCrosse, Whitewater, and Stevens Paint. These re-

sults tended to indicate that non--academic non-persisting students vino

were enrolled at Stevens Point and linitewater tended. to achieve a ::::iuti-ficantly higher mean score on the ACT-Social Science scale than did their

counterparts who were enrolled on the campuses located at Stout and River

Falls. However, non - academic non-persisting students who were enrolled

on the campuses located. at Stevens Point and Whitewater did not appear todiffer significantly from each other nor from their counterparts who wereenrolled at LaCrosse. Non-academic non-persisting students who were en-rolled on the campuses located at Stout and River Falls tended to have a

cantly lower mean score than their counterparts on campuses lo-cated at Ifaitewater and Stevens Point. but did not vary significantly from

others locatad cn the campus at LaCrosse.

Table 36 presents the results of the application of Duncants New

Multiple Range Test to the differences among non-academic non -persistingstudents on the basis of mean scores for the ACT-Composite seals.

Based on the results presented in Table 36, there did not appearto be any significant differences among non-acadethc non-persisting stu-dents who were enrolled on the campuses located at River Falls, LaCrosse,

Stout, and Whitewater in terms of mean score for the Composite sub-scale

of the ACT. While non-academic non-persisting students who were en-

rolled on the campus located at Stevens Point tended to achieve a signi-

ficantly higher mean score on the ACT-Composite scale than their coun-

terparts at River Falls and LaCrosse, these students did not di ffer sig-

nificantly from those non-academic non-persisting students who were en-

rolled on the campuses located at Stout and Whitewater.

Snynmary of Differences Among Campuses on the Basis of ACT Scores.

Since there were significant differences revealed among persisting and

non-persisting students as well as between male and female students on

all campuses, separate analysis for the six subgroups was necessary to

determine if there were significant differences among campuses on the

basis of mean scores achieved for each of the five sub-scales of the

ACT. With the exception of the Natural Science sub-scale of the ACT,

all other scales tended to discriminate among campuses for male and fe-

male persisting students. In terms of academic non-persisting students,

the Mathematics sub-scale of the ACT did not discriminate among female

academic non-persisting students among campuses and the English sub-

scale did not discriminate among male academic non-persisting students

among campuses. All other scales tended to reflect a significant dif-

ference among academic non-persisting students among campuses. There

were only three scales which tended to reveal any significant difference

among campuses on the basis of mean scores achieved on the ACT scales by

non-academic non-persisting students. While the English, Mathematics,

and Natural Science sub-scales of the ACT tended to discriminate between

male and female non-academic non-persisters, only the aigIlish sub-scale

tended to reflect significant differences among campuses for the male

non-academic non-persisting student among campuses. The Social Science

and Composite sub-scales of the ACT tended to be discriminate factors

among non-academic: non-persisting students among campuses.

51

TABLE 36.

DUNCANIS NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THE DIFFERENCES AMONG NON-ACADEMIC NONE -

PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN SCORE ON THE ACT-COMPOSITE SCALE

RF

SP

Campus

Means

(N = 228)

(N = 355)

(N = 308)

(N = 431)

(N = 268)

RF

19.9

20.3

20.3

20.5

21,0

onli.

"

Shorts :It

signifioant

ranges

...e.

a....

.....r

......

i.O.W

......

..e...

mom

ettr

ifelm

eom

iam

emeo

rolo

.o.r

.r...

.4...

......

....0

0..*

.e...

.111

.0r

40P

luvW

ww

ww

wW

Ipa

19.9

14. 0

.10.

4%.

0.4

o.4

0.6

1.1

(6.66)

(6.47)

(io.35)

(17.27)*

R2

= 10.97

I20.3

0.0

(o.(d)

S20

.3

0.2

0.7

(3,95)

(12.23)*

En = 1t.55

tom

....1

106,

11

0.2

0.7

(3,79)

(11.85)

R4 = 11.94

w20.5

SP

21.0

0.5

(9.08)

RC = 12.23


SW

SP

IyC

Sw

Analysis of High School Achievement

A second area of investigation was to seek out differences amongpersisting and non-persisting students among campuses on the basis ofprevious high school achievement. The total student sample had partici-pated in the providing of these data through responding to the AmericanCollege Testing Program (ACT). The average grade achieved in high schoolthat was indicated by each student on this instrument was used as the es-timate of previous high school achievement of the persisting and non-persisting students.

Table 37 indicates the differences among persisting and non-per-sisting students for all campuses on the basis of mean grade pointachieved in high school. As the results in Table 37 indicate, therewere highly significant differences revealed among the compared groupsof students.

TABLE 37. DIFFERENCES AMONG PERSISTING AND NON-PERSISTING STUDENTS FORALL CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN GRADE POINT ACHIEVED IN HIGH SCHOOL

Source of Sum of Degrees of MeanVariation Squares Freedom Square

Between grps 256 2 128.00Within grps 2670 6821 0.39Total 2926 6823

327.9 0.001

The results of the application of Duncan's New Multiple RangeTest to the differences reflected in Table 37 are presented in Table 38.The results of this multiple comparison suggested that there were threedistinct subsets of students which contributed to the highly significantvariance ratio indicated in Table 37.

Based on these results, there appeared to be a definite hierarchyof high school achievement among the compared groups of students. Asmight be expected, the persisting students seemed to achieve a signifi-cantly higher grade average in high school than the non-persisting stu-dent. Furthermore, the academic non-persisting student tended to indi-cate a significantly lower average grade achieved in high school thaneither the non-persisting student who withdrew from the university fornon-academic reasons or the persisting student.

53

TABLE 38. DUNCAN:S.14Di MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIE) TO THE DIFFERENCESAMONG PERSISTING AND NON-PMISTDIG STUDENTS ON ALL CA}IPUSES ON THEBASIS OF MAN GRADE POINT ACHIEVED IN HIGH SCHOOL

NPA NPOPersist- = 1153) = 1525) (N 41.40) Shortest

Meansence

' significant

2.08 2.45 2.61ranges

NPA 0.37 0.532.08 (13.31)* (22.27)* R

2= 2.26

NPO 0.1624'5 (7.55)* R

3= 2.35

P2.61 R = 2.42

NPONPA

P


Differences Among Male and Female Students and High SchoolAchievement. Comparisons were made between male and female students onthe basis of the average grade achieved in high school in order to dis-cern if there were any significant differences between these two studentsubgroups. Since significant differences had been identified among per-sisting and non-persisting students, separate analyses were made for thethree categories of persisting and non-persisting students in order todetermine the significance of any differences between male and femalemembers of the student sample.

The results of the analysis for differences between male and fe-male persisting and non-persisting students are presented in Tables 39through 41. As these results indicate, there were highly significantdifferences found between male and female persisting and non-persistingstudents in terms of their average grade achieved in high school.

Based on the results indicated in Tables 39 through 41, the fe-male student, regardless of the campus and persistence status, tendedto achieve a higher grade point average in high school than did her malecounterpart.

54

TABLE 39. DHATtENCES BETWEEN MALE AND MALE PERSISTING STUDENTS ONALL CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF AVERAGE GRADE ACHIEVED IN HIM SCHOOL

Mean d N - 1M F M F II F t P

2.17 2.78 0..63 0.63 2341 1796 15.69 0.01

TABLE 110. DIFTERENCES BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE ACADEMIC NON-PERSISTINGSTUDENTS ON ALL CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF AVERAGE GRADE ACHIEVED INHIGH SCHOOL

Mean d N - 1M F M F M F

t P

2.03 2.17 0.47 0.51 782 379 4.46 0.01

TABLE 41. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE NON-ACADEMIC NON-PERSIST-ING STUDENTS ON ALL CAMPUSES ON lair; BASIS OF AVERAGE GRADE ACHIEVED IN

HIM SCHOOL

Mean d N - 1141 F M F M F

t

2.28 2.64 0.65 0.65 79.5 729 11.28 0.01

55

Differences Among Campuses in Terms of High School Achievement.Since significant differences were found between male and female stu-dents as well as among persisting and non-persisting students, the totalgroup was partitioned into six subgroups. The purpose of this partition-

ing prior to attempting to discern if there were significant differencesamong campuses was to ensure that any significant differences found

among campuses could not be attributed to the differences between maleand female students nor among persisting and non persisting students.

Differences hnong Persisting Students in Terms of High School

Achievement. The results presented in Table 42 indicate the differencesamong female persisting students among campuses on the basis of mean

grade point achieved in high school. As the results presented in Table

42 indicate, there were significant differences found among campuses.

TABLE 42. DIFFERENCES AMONG a PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSESON ME BASIS OF MEAN GRADE POINT AfffIEVED IN BIG H SCHOOL


Variation Squares Freedom Square

Between grps 13.3 4 3.33Within grps 702.1 1786 0.39 8.54 0.01

Total 715.4 1790

The data presented in Table 42 was further analyzed throve) theapplication of Duncan's New Multiple Range Test to determine the reasonsfor the significant variance ratio. These results are presented in

Table 43.

Based on the results of the application of Duncan's New MultipleRange Test, two subsets of campuses seemed to be revealed. Female per-

sisting students who were enrolled on the campuses located at Stout,Whitewater, and River Falls did not seem to differ significantly interms of their previous high school achievement. Furthermore, femalepersisting students who were enrolled on the campuses at River Falls,Stevens Point, and LaCrosse did not appear to differ significantly.However, female persisting students who were enrolled on the campuseslocated at Stevens Point and LaCrosse, while not differing significantlyfrom each other, did appear to achieve a significantly higher gradepoint average in high school than did their counterparts who were en-rolled on the campuses located at Stout and Whitewater.

56

TABLE 43.

DUNCAN1 S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO DIFFERENCES AMONG FEMALE PERSISTING STUDENTS

AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN GRADE POINT ACHIEVED IN HIGH SCHOOL

SW

RF

SP

aew

o...a

new

,rl..

1ww

awlo

r

Campus

Means

(N = 231)

(N

545)

(N = 194)

(N = 383)

(N = 435)

4wro

ilmm

oI.w

"/.M

taftw

I.mia

rtw

m..*

4.0.

2.70

2.74

2.75

2.87

2.89

Shortest

significant

ranges

S

2.70

w

o.o4

0.0

0.17

0.19

(0.72)

(0.73)

(2.87)*

(3.30)*

1111

1.11

.110

1111

1111

111M

ON

III!1

111.

1011

1111

111.

1111

1111

1%,

2.74

11.4

4R.,2= 2.26

......

fti0.01

0.13

0.15

(0.17)

(2.76)*

(3.29)*

R3= 2.35

RF

2.75

SP

2.87

LC

2.89

0.12

(1.92)

0.14

(2.13)

R - 2.42

4...

ww

...../

.deo

......

..0.6

1401

*.1.

41**

1101

14.0

1.01

1..N

.....M

me.

.WO

1..

Ow

.. ea

A.M

. .11

40.O

..Vs

flew

w.

0.02

(0.40)

R2447

15

.ma4

=61

.111

10.0

110

.wW

....4

0mi=

...M

.O01

4.14

ft .w

ww

MO

.Nel

leat

r.f..

..w.im

pma

a.

S

4141

=11

*11.

1111

1.1.

....1

.11.

01M

IMIN

/..W

erM

eMr.

,/MO

Y01

101.

110.

1110

0110

MV

OIN

N V

ION

ON

IMM

et.O

.111

144f

tam

MIA

NO

NIM

IJO

I

WRF

SP

LC


Table 14 presents the differences among male persisting students

among campuses cn the basis of mean Grade point achieved in high school.

As these remllts idicate, significant differences were indicated among

campuses.

TABLE 44. DIFFERENCES AMONG MALE PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON

THE BASIS OF MEAN GRADE POINT ACHIEVED IN HIGH SCHOOL

11,


Variation Squares Freedom SquareF P

Between grps 18.5 4 4.62Within grps 905.9 2341 0.39 11.94 0.01

Total 924.4 2345

The results of the multiple comparison of the'mean grade pointsachieved in high school by male persisting students among campuses arepresented in Table k5. As these results indicate, two distinct subsets

of campuses were revealed.

According to the results presented in Table 45, male persistingstudents who were enrolled on the campuses located at Stout, Whitewater,and LaCrosse did not differ significantly in terms of their previous

high school achievement. Male persisting students who were enrolled onthe campuses located at Stevens Point and River Falls, while not differ-ing significantly from each other, appeared to achieve a significantlyhigher mean grade point in high school than their counterparts who wereenrolled on the campuses located at Stout, Whitewater, and LaCrosse.

Differences Among Academic Non-Persisting Students in Terms of

Hip School Achievement. Significant differences were found among fe-male academic non-persisting students among campuses on the basis of

mean grade point achieved in high school. These results are presented

in Table 46.

TABLE 46. DIFFEP.ENCES AMONG MALE ACADEMIC NON - PERSISTING STUDENTSAMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN GRADE POINT ACHIEVED IN HIGH SCHOOL


Between grps 2.2 4 0.56

Within grps 98.3 368 0.27 2.08 0.05

Total 100.5 372

In an effort to account for the significant variance ratio thatwas reflected in Table 46, Duncan's New Multiple Range Test'was appliedto these differences. The results of this multiple comparison aro pre-

sented in Table 47.

58

TABLE 45.

DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THE DIFFERENCES AMONG MALE PERSISTING STU-

DENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN GRADE POINT ACHIEVED IN HIGH SCHOOL

Campus

Means

S

(N = 216)

(N = 681)

1,0

(N = 502)

2.33

2.41

2.45

S

2.33

flol.1

1111

1111

.011

Ilim

e

0.08

(1.45)

0.12

(2.09)

2.24

40.

04(0

.96)

LC

2.4.

5

SP

2.56

RF

2.58

SP(N = 568)

RF

(N= 373)

2.56

1101

100.

111.

111.

1111

2.58

Shortest

significant

ranges

yolig

aiim

e1.1

9.10

MM

INM

lagi

liS

INIO

MM

NIN

OM

O 1

1141

MO

VII.

0.23

0.25

(4.07)*

(4.13)*

R2= 2.29

0.15

0.17

(3.73)*

(3.73)*

R a= 2.39

.11.

1111

1dilM

I.M00

01.1

1101

./100

1140

,111

111I

NIN

IMIN

MA

MM

OM

IM00

0100

10.1

10

0.11

(2.54)*

0.13

(2.69)*

0.02

(0.42)

R4=

R = 2.51

SL

C

SP

RF

.111

I


TABLE 47.

DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THE DIFFERENCESAMONG FEMALE ACADEMIC NON-

PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN GRADEPOINT ACHIEVED IN HIGH SCHOOL

S

Campus

Means

(N =

49)

S RF

ON

SP

cl

W LC

RF

SP

(N =

12)

(N = 77)

(N = 192)

2.07

2.14

2.17

2.19

2.07

0.07

(0.31)

0.10

(0.77)

0.12

(0.94)

2.14

0.03

(0.14)

0.05

(0.24)

2.17

0.02

(0.21)

2.19

2.35

S

RF

SP

RF

SP


LC

(N = 57)

0.01

. Mai

o=

=.1

1

2.35

Shortest

significant

ranges

...04

0101

10~

1114

1,11

1=11

1. 9

.411

0010

0011

1111

110.

1101

.11

0.28

44

(2.03)*

R2 =

1

0.21

(0.93)

R = 1.52

11=

MA

IMIO

MM

ININ

MO

OM

MIO

NIM

MO

IN.

0.18

(1.1

+6)

R1+

= - 1.57

0.16

(1.50)

Rg

1.61

1...001.1.10.1010

LC

Based on the results presented in Table 47, female academic non-persisting !tudents vrho were enrolled on the campus located at LaCrossetended to achieve a sipailicatnly higher mean grade point average inhigh school than did their counterparts who were enrolled on the campuslocated at Stout. However, the female academic non-parsisting studentwho was enrolled at LaCrosse did not differ siglificantly in terms ofmean grade point achieved in high school from similar students who wereenrolled on the campuses located at River Falls, Stevens Point, andWhitewater. The female academic non persisting student who was enrolledon the campus located at Stout did not differ significantly from similarstudents who were enrolled on the campuses located at River Falls, Ste-vens Point, and Whitewater in terms of previous high school achievement.

Table 48 preEents the differences among male academic non-per-sisting students among campuses on the basis of mean grade pointachieved in high school.

TABLE 48. DriFERENCES .AMONG MALE ACADEMIC NON--PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONGCP.14F'USES ON THE PASIS OF MEAN GRADE POINT ACHIEVED IN HIGH SCHOOL


Between, grps 1.5 4 0.38Within grps 103.7 782 0.13 2.9 0.05Total 105.2 786

Since there were significant differences found among campuses,Duncan's New Multiple Range Test was applied to the data in an effort todiscern the location of the variance. These results are presented inTable 49.

The results presented in Table 49 indicate that two distinctsubsets of campuses were formulated. Male academic non-persistingstudents who were enrolled on the campuses located at Whitewater, La-Crosse, Stevens Point, and River Falls did not appear to differ signi-ficantly from each other in terms of previous high school achievement.However, male academic non-persisting students who were enrolled on allof these campuses tended to achieve a significantly higher mean gradepoint average than did their counterparts who were enrolled on the cam-pus located f,t Stout.

61

TABLE 49.


PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN GRADE POINT ACHIEVED IN HIGH SCHOOL

Campus

S w LC

SP

RF

SW

LC

Means

(N = 108)

(N = 230)

(N = 119)

=an

......

....m

. "SP

RF

(N = 270)

(N =

53)

AlIm

imm

aboo

N11

1.

Shortest

significant

rang0t7

1.93

2.03

2.06

2.06

2.07

0.10

0.13

0.13

0.14

1.93

0441

....1

11M

11.1

10.

(1.21)*

(1.38)4

(1.61)*

(1.18)*

= 0.99

0.03

0.03

0.04

2.03

(0.38)

(0.47)

(0.37)

11,1

1.05

0.00

0.01

2.06

(0.00)

(0.09)

R4= 1.09

0.01

2.06

(0.09)

R, = 1.11

2.07

imill

.410

1411

01.1

04

S

rl 1.

4.m

....

LC

SP

RF


110.

1/0

11*

Differences AmongyonAeademic Non-Persisting Students Among

Campuses in Terms of 1iigh School Achievement. Female non-academic non-

persisting students among campuses were compared on the basis of mean

grade point achieved in high school. Significant differences were found

among these students among campuses and the results of this analysis are

presented in Table 50.

TABLE 50. DIFFERENCES AMONG FEMALE NON-ACADEMIC NON-PERSISTING STUDENTS

AMONG CAMPUSES ON ME BASIS OF THE MAN GRADE POINT ACHIEVED IN HIGH

SCHOOL


Variation Squares Freedom. SquareF P

Between grps j.6 4 1.14

Within grps 312.6 730 0.43 2.65 0.01

Total 317.2 734

Since significant differences were found among female non-academic

non-persisting students among campuses, Duncan's New Multiple Range Test

was applied to the data in an effort to discern the location of the vari-

ance. The results of this statistical application are shown in Table 51.

According to the results indicated in Table 51, two subsets of

campuses were developed. Female non-academic non-persisting students

who were enrolled on the campuses located at Whitawater, River Falls,

Stout, and Stevens Point formed one subset of campuses. Female non-

academic non-persisting students who were enrolled on the campuses lo-

cated at River Falls, Stout, Stevens Point, and LaCrosse comprised the

second subset of campuses. These results indicated that the significant

variance ratio which had been revealed in Table 50 could be attributed

to the differences between female non-academic non-persisting students

enrolled on the campus located at LaCrosse and those were enrolled on

the campus located at Whitewater. Femzle non-academic non-persisting

students who were enrolled on the campus located at LaCrosse tended to

achieve a significantly higher mean grade point average in high school

than did similar students who were enrolled on the campus at Whitewater.

63

I 4 1----7.1

w-41

6-0

iimi)

awl

Mil

OM

RIm

mo

TABLE 51.

DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIEDTO THE DIFFERENCES AMONG FEMALE NON-ACADEMIC

NON-

PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE

BASIS OF MEAN GRADE POINT ACHIEVED IN HIGH

SCHOOL

111.

111.

001M

0411

1011

1.11

0101

1110

04

WRF

SSP

LC

Shortest

Campus

Means

(N = 231)

(N =

79)

(N = 132)

(N = 106)

(N = 182)

significant

ranges

2.78

°AN

2.59

2.62

2.64

2.70

W2.59

0.03

(0.33)

0.04

(0.52)

0.11

(1.05)

RF

2.62

0.02

(0.20)

0.08

(0.76)

S

2.64

0.06

(0.65)

SP

2.70

LC

2.78

SP

RF

SSP

. \ 1MIR

I.I.M

.Trf

t

M 0

040.19

(3.25)*

R2= 2.40

P00

0,16

(1.68)

R = 2.51

0.14

(1.73)

R4

= 2.57

..11M

M~

11

0.08

(0.93)

R. = 2.63

LC

*Significant at the 0.2.01 level

=01

6Y.

Table 52 presents the differences among male non-academic non-persisting students among campuses on the basis of mean grade pointachieved in high scilooi. As the results presented in Table 52 indicate,there were no significant differences found among male non-academic non-persisting students among campuses:

TABLE 52. DIFFERENCES AMONG NAV; NON-ACADIMC NON-PERSISTING STUDENTSAMONG CAFTUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN GRADE POINT ACHIEVED IN HIGH SCHOOL


Between grps 1.1 4 0.27Within grps 276.8 791 0.35 0.77 NSTotal 277.9 795_

Summary of Differences Among Campuses in Terms of High SchoolAchievement, Significant differences were found among campuses in termsof mean grade point achieved in high school by male and female persist-ing and academic non-persisting students. Significant differences werefound among campuses among female non-academic non-persisting studentsbut not among male non-academic non-persisting students in terms ofmean grade point achieved in high school.

Analysis of College Achievement

A. purpose of this investigation was to seek out differencesamong persisting and non-persisting students on the basis of collegeachievement. College achievement was defined in terms of the totalnumber of credits earned, credits attempted, and grade points achievedby the persisting and non-persisting students among campuses.

One of the five campuses_ investigated, River Falls, based theiracademic year on three quarters rather than two semesters. Because ofthis variance, River Falls was withdrawn from these series of analyses.

Since significant differences had been indicated among persist-ing and non-persisting subgroups as well as between male and femalestudents among campuses on the basis of previous variables, six sub-groups were identified for the analysis of each of the achievementvariables. The results of these analyses are presented according topersisting and non-persisting student status.

Differences Among Persisting Students Among Campuses. Table53 presents the differences among male persisting students among cam-puses on the basis of credits earned, credits attempted, and gradepoints achieved in college. As the results in Table 53 indicate, sig-nificant differences were found among male persisting students among

65

"T.`

41,

:

campuses on the basis of credits earned and cI-edits attempted. However,no significant differences were found among these same students withregard to grade points achieved.

TABLE 53. DIFFERENCES AMONG MALE PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSESON tte: BASIS OF CREDITS EARNED, CREDITS ATTEMPTED, AND GRADE POINTSACHIEVED

VariableSource ofVariation

Sum of Degrees of MeanSquares Freedam Square

F P

Creditsearned

Creditsattempted

Gradepointsachieved

Between grpsWithin grpsTotalBetween grpsWithin grpsTotalBetween grpsWit} in grpsTotal

2269.7 340543.2 202742812.9 2030

756.620.0 37.8 0,01

1969.6 3 656.530430.8 2027 15.0 43.7 0.0132400.4 203012541.2

745309.7

7850.9

3 418.12027 376.7 1.11 NS20 0

The results of the application of Duncan's New Multiple RangeTest to the differences reflected in Table 53 on the basis of creditsearned is presented in Table 54. According to these results, threedistinct subgroups of students were identified.

Male persisting students who were enrolled on the campus lo-cated at LaCrosse tended to earn a significantly lower mean number ofcredits earned than did similar students who were enrolled on the cam-puses located at Stevens Point, Whitewater, and Stout. While theredid not appear to be any significant differences among male persistingstudents enrolled on the campuses located at Stevens Point and Stout,nor among male persisting students who were enrolled at Stout andWhitewater, male persisting students enrolled on the campus locatedat Whitewater tended to earn a significantly higher mean number ofcredits earned than did their counterparts who were enrolled on thecampus at Stevens Point.

TABLE 54. DUNCAN2S NEW MULTUIE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THE DIFFERENCESAMONG MALE PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON TBE BASIS OF CREDITS

EARNED

LC SF W S Shortest

Campus (N = 486) (N = 581) (N = 684) (N = 280) significantranges

Beans 28,44 30,06 31.07 31.12

LC 1.62 2.63 2.68

28.44 (33.91)* (62.69)* (50.52)* R2 = 16.39

SP 1.01 1.06

30.06 (20.28)* (11.01) R3 = 17.08

0.05

31.07 (9.99) R4 = 17.55

S

31.12

LC

SP


Table 55 presents the results of the application of Duncan'sNew Multiple Range Test to the differences among male persisting stu-

dents among campuses on the basis of credits attempted. The results

reflected in Table 55 tend to parallel those indicated in Table 54.

In each instance three distinct subsets of students were identified.

Again, male persisting students who were enrolled on the campus located

at Whitewater tended to achieve a significantly higher mean number of

credits attempted than did their counterparts who were enrolled on the

campus located at Stevens Point. Furthermore, male persisting students

who were enrolled on the campus located at LaCrosse tended to achieve a

significantly lower mean number of credits attempted than did theircounterparts on any of the other campuses. Male persisting students

who were enrolled on the campus located at Stout did not differ signi-

ficantly from their counterparts who were enrolled on the campus lo-

cated at either Whitewater or Stevens Point.

67

TABLE 55. DUNCAN2S NEW MULTUIE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THE DIFFERENCES

AMONG MALE PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF CREDITS

ATTEMPTED

Lc

Campus (N = 486) (N

SP- 581) (N = 684) (N = 280)

Shortestficant

Means29.28 30.64 31.66 31.88

ranges

LC29.28

1.36 2.38 2.60

(28.46)* (56.74)* (49.01)* R2 = 14.09

SP 1.02 1.24

30.64 (20.48)* (12.88) R3

= 14.69

W 0.22

31.66 (4.40) R4 = 15.09

S31.88

LC

S W

SP


Table 56 indicates the differences among female persisting stu-dents among campuses on the basis of credits earned, credits attempted,

and grade points achieved in the various universities. According to

the results presented in Table 56, significant differences were found

among female persisting students among campuses on the basis of all

three achievement variables.

TABLE 56. DiMEENCES AMONG FEMALE PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSESON THE BASIS OF CREDITS EARNED, CREDITS ATTEMPTED, AND GRADE POINTS

ACHIEVED


Sum of Degrees ofSquares Freedom

MeanSquare

Creditsearned

Creditsattempted

Gradepointsachieved

Between grpsWithin grpsTotalBetween grpsWithin grpsTotalBetween grpsWithin grpsTotal

600.3 335033.5 163635633.8 1639

200.021.4

1352.6 331295.8 1636

32648.4 1639

4826.0 3800541.9 1636

80 '6 16

68

450.919.1

1608.7489.3

F P

9.35 0.01

23.60 0.01

3.28 0.05

The application of Duncan's New Multiple Range Test applied tothe differences among female persisting students among campuses on thebasis of credits earned revealed three distinct subsets of students.These results are presented in Table 57.

According to the results presented in Table 57, female persist-ing students who were enrolled on the campus located at LaCrosse tendedto earn a significantly lower mean number of credits earned than didtheir counterparts on any of the other campuses. Female persistingstudents who were enrolled on the campus located at Stevens Point, whiletending to earn a significantly higher mean number of credits earnedthan their counterparts enrolled on the campus located at LaCrosse,tended to achieve a significantly lower mean number of credits earnedthan did similar students who were enrolled on the campuses located atWhitewater and Stout. There were no significant differences revealedamong female persisting students who were enrolled on the campuses lo-cated at Whttewater and Stout even though each of these two subgroupsof female persisting students tended to earn a significantly highermean number of credits earned than did similar students enrolled on thecampuses located at LaCrosse and Stevens Point.

TABLE 57. DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO TEE DIFFERENCESAMONG FEMALE PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OFCREDITS EARNED

LC SPShortest

Campus (N = 435) (N = 390) (N = 547) (N = 268)Means

significant

30.22 30.31 31.55 31.60ranges

LC 0.09 1.33 1.3830.22 (18.25)* (29.27)* (25.13)* R2 = 16.83

SP 1.24 1.2930.31 (26.46)* (22.99)* R

3= 17.54

0.05

31.55 (9.48) R = 18.02

S

31.60

SP

IC


69

1[1M1,111.

There were two distimt subgroups of students :Identified when

DuncanTs New Multiple Range Test was applied to the differencas among

female persisting students among campuses on the basis of credits at-

tempted. These reFults are presented in Table 58.

According to the results presented in Table 58, female persist-

ing students who were enrolled on the campuses located at LaCrosse andStevens Point did not differ sig,nificantly in terms of the mean number

of credits attempted. However, these same students tended to achievea significantly lower mean number of credits attempted than did theircounterparts who were enroll.ed on the campuses located at Stout and

Whitewater. Female persisting students who were enrolled on the cam-puses located at Stout, andiCite-water did not vary significantly.

TABLE 58. DUNCANTS NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO TEE DIFFERENCES

AMONG FEMATR PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OFCREDITS ATTEMPTED

CampusMeans

LC30.82

SP30.85

S31,92

32.07

LC SP

(N = 435) (N = 390) (N = 268) (N = 547)Shortestsignificantranges

30.82 30.8.5 31,92 32.07

0.03 1.10 1.25

(6.08) (20,03)* (27.,51)* R2 = 15488

1.07 1.22(19.07)* (26.03)* R3 =16.55

0.15(2.84) R4 = 17.00

S

LC SP

*Significant at the 0,01 level

Table 59 presents the results of the application of Duncan? s

New Multiple Range Test to the differences among female persisting stu-

dents among campuses on the basis of the total grade points achieved

while enrolled on the various campuses investigated. According to

these results, three distinct subgroups of students were revealed.

The results presented in Table 59 tended to indicate that stu-

dents enrolled on the campus located at Whitewater tended to achieve a

significantly higher mean number of grade points achieved while enrolled

1 70

than did the female persisting, student ittio was enrolled on the campuslocated at Stevens Point. However, female persisting students -who wereenrolled on the campus located at Whitewater did not va.ry sigelficantliyfrom similar students who were enrol3.ed on the campuses located atStout and LaCrosse w4..,th regard to mean number of grade points achieved.Female persisting students who were enrolled on the campus located atStout seemed to achieve a significantly higher mean number of gradepoints while enrolled than did si a.r students who were enrolled on thecampus located at LaCrosse. Female persisting students who were en-rolled on the campus located at Stevens Point did not seem to vary sig-nificantly from their counterparts siho were enrolled on the campuseslocated at LaCrosse and St-out.

TABLE 59. DUNCAN1S Mil MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO TETE DJAMOCESAMONG FEMALE PERSISTING STUD M AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF GRADEPOINTS ACMEVED

CampusMeans

SP LC(N = 390) (N=435) (N = 547)

76.54 77.29 79.39

S(N = 268)

83.16


SP76.54

0.75 2,85(15.21) (60.82)*

6.62(5177) R2 = 61*32

LC77.29

2.10 5,87(46.22) (106.89)* R3 = 6155

79.39 NINN (58.21) 114 = 66.74

S83.16

ammelmal

"=11111/110=1,4=M1.1111."

11111

S

SP S

LC SP


Differences .Among Academic 2on-Patmgistin Students Asong. Cam-puses.. The differences among male academic non-persisting studentsamong campuses on the basis of credits earned, credits attempted, andgrade points achieved while enrolled in the various institutions inves-tigated are presented ,n Table 60. According to these results, therewere significant differences found among male academic non-persistingstudents among campuses on the basis of all of the college achievementvariables.

71

1.

TABLE 60. DIFFEREXES AMONG MAT.E ACADETTIC NON-PERSISTING STUDEVIS AMONGCAITUSE3 ON tniE BASIS OF CRP= EARL, GROUTS MEM:TED, AND GRADEPOINTS ACHIEVED


Sum of Degrees of MeanSquares Freedom Square

Creditsearned

Creditsattempted

Gradepointsachieved

Between cpsWithin grpsTotalBetween grpsWithin grpsTotalBetween grps

grpsTotal

4704.652627.957432.53882.5

29395.1

33277.614917.2

236516.0

251433.2

381013

1568.1

3810813

3810813

1294.236.3

4972.4291.9

F P

24.1 0.01

35.7 0.01

17.03 0.01

Three distinct subgroups of students were revealed when DuncantsNew Multiple Range Test was applied to the data regarding the differ-ences among male academic nom-persisting students among campuses on thebasis of mean credits earned. These results are presented in Table 61.

TABLE 61. DUNCAN'S NEW MUITIPLE RANGE TEST APPLiii) TO THE DIFFERENCESAMONG MLLE ACADMIC NON-PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAE:USES ON nitBASIS OF CREDITS EARNED

Campus

Means

LC(N = 178)

SP(N = 282)

16.88 19.55

LC16.88

2.67(3941)'f

SP

19.55

21,31

S24.45

(N = 224) (N = 130)

21.31 24.45


4.43 7.57(59.45)* (9273)* R2 = 29.36

1.76 4.90(27.79) (65.36)* R3 = 30.59

3.14(40.25)* R4 = 31.43

SP

IC

S


72

According to t'rese results, male academic non-persisters whowere enrolled on the campus located at Stout achieved a significantlyhigher mean number of credits earned than their counterparts who wereenrolled on the campuses lotted at LaCrosse, Stevens Point, andWhitewater. Male academic non-persisting students uho were enrolledon the campuses located at Stevens Point and Wnitewater did not ap-pear to differ significantly on the basis of mean credits earned eventhough they did achieve a significantly lower mean number of creditsearned than did their counterparts on the campus located at Stout anda significantly higher mean number of credits earned than did similarstudents who were enrolled on the campus located at LaCrosse. Maleacademic non-persisting students who were enrolled on the campus lo-cated at LaCrosse tended to earn a significantly lower mean number ofcredits earned than did similar students who were enrolled on eitherof tie three other campuses.

The differences among male academic non-persisting studentsamong campuses on the basis of mean number of credits attempted wereanalyzed utilizing Duncan's New Multiple Range Test. These resultsare presented in Table 62.

TABLE 62. DUNCAN'S NEST MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPL,IED TO THE DIFFERENCESAMONG MALE AultIZZiEr.' NON-PERSISTDIG STUDENTS AMONG CAI' FUSES ON MEBASIS OF CREDITS ATTalPliii

CampusMeans

LC(N = 178)

SP(N = 282)

24,44 25.71

LC24.44

1.27(18.75)

SP25.71

29.53

S

29.83

Shortest(N = 224) (N = 130) significant29.53 29.83

ranges

5.09 5.39(68.31)* (66.03)* R2 = 20.98

3,82 4.12(60.31)* (54,96)* R = 21.86

0.30(3.85) R.4 = 22.46

w S

LC SP


73

As the results presented in Table 62 indicate, two distinctsubgroups of students were indicated. Hale academic non-persistingstudents who were enrolled on the campuses located at Stout andWhitewater did not vary significantly from each other on the basis ofmean number of credits attempted. However, these same students whowere enrolled on the campuses located at Whitewater and Stout tendedto achieve a significantly higher mean number of credits attemptedthan did their counterparts who were enrolled on the campuses locatedat LaCrosse and Stevens Point. Male academic non-persisting studentswho were enrolled on the campuses located at Stevens Point and La-Crosse, while not differing significantly from each other, did achievea significantly lower mean number of credits attempted than did simi-lar students who were enrolled on the other two campuses.

Table 63 presents the results of the application of DuncantsNew Multiple Range Test to the differences among male academic non-persisting students among campuses on the basis of the total gradepoints achieved while enrolled in the institution.

According to the results presented in Table 63, male academicnon-persisting students who were enrolled on the campus located atStout tended to achieve a significantly higher mean number of gradepoints than did similar students who were enrolled on the campuseslocated at LaCrosse, Stevens Point, and Whitewater. Hale academicnon-persisting students who were enrolled on the campuses locatedat LaCrosse, Stevens Point, and Whitewater did not appear to varysignificantly on the basis of the mean number of grade points achievedwhile enrolled on these campuses.

TABLE 63. DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THE DIFFERENCESAMONG FIP.LE ACADEMIC NON-PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON THEBASIS OF GRADE POINTS ACHIEVED

LC SPCampus (N = 178) (N = 282) (N = 224) (N = 130)

Shortest

Means significant

29.41 33.21 33.54 43.02ranges

LC29.41

SP33.21

w33.54

S

3.80 4.13 13.61(56.09) (55.42) (166.72)* R2 = 62.22

0.33 9.81(5.21) (130.80)* R3 64.83

9.49(121.67)* R = 66.61

43.02

LC SP


Tatle 6 presents the differences among female academia non-persisting students among campuses on the basis of credits earned,credits attempted, and grade points achieved while enrolled on thevarious campuses investigated. According to the results presented inTable 64, significant differences were indicated among female academicnon-persisting students among campuses on the basis of all three col-

lege achievement variables.

TABLE 64. Di_kkMENCES AMONG FEMALE ACADEMC NON PERSISTING STUDENTSAMONG CAIDUSES ON TIE BASIS OF CREDITS EARNED, CREDITS AT-TEMPTED,

AND GRADE POINTS ACT al


Sum of Degrees of MeanSquares Freedom Square

F P

Creditsearned

Creditsattempted

Gradepointsachieved

Between grpsWithin grpsTotalBetween grpsWithin grpsTotalBetween grpsWithin grpsTotal

2430.323876.326306.62000.69298.9

11299.56712.4

76616.983329.3

3 810.1

398 59.9 13.5 0.01

401

3 666.9398 23.4 28.5 0.01

401

3 2237.4398 192.5 11.6 0.01

401

The application of Duncan's New Multiple Range Test to the dif-ferences among female academic non-persisting students among campuseson the basis of mean credits earned is presented in Table 65. Accord-ing to these results, female academic non-persisting students who wereenrolled on the campus located at Stout tended to achieve a signifi-cantly higher mean number of credits earned than did their counterpartswho were enrolled on the campuses located at LaCrosse, Stevens Point,and Whitewater. Furthermore, female academic non-persisting studentswho were enrolled on the campus located at Whitewater tended to achievea significantly higher mean number of credits earned than did similar

students who were enrolled on the campus located at LaCrosse. Therewere no significant differences indicated among female academic non-

persisting students who were enrolled on the campus at Stevens Pointand similar students who were enrolled on the campuses located ateither Whitewater or LaCrosse,

7.5

TABLE 65. DUNCAN'S 1 r1 MULTUILE RANGE TEST APPLUD TO THE DIFFERENCES

.AMONG FEMALE ACADEMIC NON -PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CA11PUSES ON THEBASIS OF CRra)8 EARNED

LC SPCampus (N = 97) = 76) (II = 200) (11 = 29)

Shortest

Beans Eignificant

18.65 20.54 22.03 28.79ranges

LC 1.89 3.3818.65 ------ (17.54) (38.60)* (67.63)* R2 = 28.19

SP20.54-

1.49 8.25(15.63) (53.46)* R3 = 29.38

6.7622.03 (48.06)* R4 = 30.19

S28.79

SP

LC SP


Table 66 presents the application of Duncan's New Multiple RangeTest to the differences among female academic non-persisting studentsamong campuses on the basis of credits attempted. According to theseresults, female academic non-persisting students who were enrolled onthe campuses located at Whltewater and Stout did not vary significantlyon the basis of the mean number of credits attempted. However, thesesame students tended to attempt a significantly hieher mean number ofcredits while they were enrolled on their respective campuses than didtheir female academic non-- persisting counterparts who were enrolled onthe campuses located at LaCrosse and Stevens Point. The female aca-demic non-persisting students who were enrolled on the campuses locatedat LaCrosse and Stevens Point did not appear to vary significantly withregard to the mean number of credits attempted while enrolled.

76

TABLE 66, DUNCAN'S NEW MULTME RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THE DIFFERENCESAMONG FEMALE ACADREC NON-PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON nitBASIS OF CREDITS ATTEMPTED

Lr SPShortest

Campus = 97) (N = 76) (N. = 200) (N = 29)significant

Means25.43 26.62 30.12 31.69

ranges

LC 1.19 4.69 6.2625.43 (11.04) (53.56)* (41.75)* R2 = 1759

SP 3.50 5.0726.62 (36.72)* (32.85)* R, = 18.33

W 1.5730.12 (11.16) R4 = 18.83

S31.69

LC SP


With regard to the mean number of grade points achieved whileenrolled on the various campuses investigated, female academie non-persisting students who were enrolled on the campus located at Stouttended to achieve a significantly higher mean number of grade pointsthan did their counterparts who were enrolled on the campuses locatedat LaCrosse, Whitewater, and Stevens Point. However, female academicnon-persisting students who were enrolled on the campuses located atLaCrosse, Whitewater, and Stevens Point did not appear to vary signi-ficantly on the basis of mean number of grade points achieved. Theseresults are presented in Table 67.

77

TABLE 67. DUNCAN'S 1 MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLUD TO Tkit DIFFERENCES

AMONG FEMALE ACADEtEC NON - PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON !WE

BASIS OF GRADE POINTS ACELIEVFeD

LC W SP SShortest

Campus (N = 97) (N = 200) (N = 76) (N = 29)Beans

significant

33.86 34.38 35.27 50.12ranges

LC 0.52 1.41 16.26

33.86 (5.9) (13.08) (108.45)* R9 = 50.53

0.89 15.74

34.38 (9.34) (111.90)* R3= 52.65

SP 14.85

35.27 (96.23)* R4 = 54.09

S

50.12

LC w SP


Differences Among Non-Academic Non-Persisting Students. Table

68 presents the differences among male non-academic non-persisting stu-dents among campuses on the basis of credits earned, credits attempted,and grade points achieved while enrolled in the various institutionsinvestigated. According to the results presented in Table 68, therewere no significant differences found among male non-academic non-persisting students among campuses on the basis of any of the collegeachievement variables used in this investigation.

The differences among female non-academic non-persisting stu-dents among campuses cn the basis of credits earned, credits attempted,and grade points achieved while enrolled in the various institutionsinvestigated are presented in Table 69. As these results indicate,there were no significant differences found among female non-academicnon-persisting students among campuses on the basis of mean number ofcredits earned and credits attempted. However, there were significantdifferences found among female non-academic non-persisting studentsamong campuses on the basis of the mean number of grade points achievedwhile enrolled in the compared universities..

78

TABLE 68. DIFFERENCES AMONG MALE NON-ACADEMIC NON-PERSISTING STUDENTSAMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF CREDITS EARNED, CREDITS ATTENTTED, ANDGRADE POINTS ACHIEVED



MeanSquare

F P

CreditsBetween grps

earnedWithin grpsTotal

516.255406.655922.8

Creditsattempted

Gradepointsachieved

Between grpsWithin grpsTotalBetween grpsWithin grpsTotal

136.945482.245619.1

72438944.8443317.4

3 172,70561 98.80 1.74 NS564

3561564

3 1 90.90561 782.4 1.91 NS564

45.6381.07 0.56 NS

TABLE 69. DIFFERENCES AMONG FEMALE NON-ACADEMIC NON-PERSISTING STUDENTSAMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF CREDITS EARNED, CREDITS ATTEMPTED, ANDGRADE POINTS ACHIEVED



MeanSquare

F P

Creditsearned


CreditsBetween grpsWithin grps

attemptedTotal

Grade Between grpspoints Within grpsachieved Total

575.351620.252195.5

166.440644.040810.411761.8

505153.4516925.2

3 191.8

589 87.6 2.2 NS

59255.5

589 69.0 0.8 NS

592

3 3920.6589 857.6 4.6 0.01592

The application of Duncan's New Multiple Range Test to the dif-ferences among female non-academic non-persisting students among cam-puses on the basis of mean number of grade points achieved while en-rolled on the various campuses investigated is presented in Table 70.According to these results, the female non-academic non-persisting stu-dents who were enrolled on the campus located at Whitewater tended toachieve a significantly lower number of grade points than did theircounterparts who were enrolled on the campus located at Stout. Therewere no significant differences identified among female non-academicnon-persisting students who were enrolled on the campuses located atWhitewater, LaCrosse, and Stevens Point on the basis of mean number ofgrade points achieved. Furthermore, there were no significant differ-ences found among female non-academic non-persisting students who wereenrolled on the campuses located at LaCrosse, Stevens Point, and Stouton the basis of this same achievement variable.

79

TABLE 70. DUNCAWS NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THE DIFFERENCESAMONG FEMALE NON-ACADEMIC NON-PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ONTHE BASIS OF GRADE POINTS ACHIEVED

W LC SP SCampus (N = 233) (N = 166) (N = 107) (N = 87)

Shortest

Means significant

52.54 53.84 57.12 65.67ranges

W 1.30 4.58 13.1352.54 (16.18) (55.42) (147.70)* R2 = 106.70

LC 3.28 11.835314 (37.39) (12.63) R

,= 111,18

SP 8.5557.12 (83.70) R = 114.23

S

65.67

LC SP

W LC SP

S


Analysis of Non-Intellective Characteristics

*E A fourth purpose of this investigation was to seek out the na-ture and extent of the diversity of personal non-intellective charac-

mz teristics among persisting and non-persisting students. In order toachieve this purpose, persisting and non-persisting students were com-pared on the basis of personal non-intellective characteristics whichwere gathered through two major sources. Each persisting and non-persisting student had responded to the American College Testing Pro-gram (ACT) in which they had indicated their tentative decisions re-garding educational major, vocational choice, vocational role prefer-ences, and educational plans, After each persisting and non-persist-ing student had enrolled on his repsective campus, data were collectedregarding any change of academic major, place of college residence,and the size of high school graduating class. The discussion of theresults within this section will be presented in this order.

II

Differences Among Persisting and Non-Persisting Students onthe Basis of Sex. The differences between the number of male and fe-male students in terms of their persistence in all the universitiesinvestigated are presented in Table 71.

80

The results presented in Table 71 suggest there were fewer male

persisting students than expected with more female students than ex-

pected who persisted in the five universities studied. Also, there

seemed to be fewer male students than expected and more female students

than anticipated whc did not persist because of non-academic reasons.

However, there appeared to he more male students and fewer female stu-

dents than expected who did not persist in the five schools for academic

concerns. These results are in the expected direction.

TABLE 71. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE STUDENTS FROM ALL CM--

FUSES ON TIM BASIS OF PERSISTENCE

Male Female

Obs Exp Obs Exp Total

Persisting 2424 2459 1838 1803 4269

Academic NP 866 742 419 543 1285

Non-academic NP 706 795 672 583 1378

Total 3996 2929 6925

Degrees of Freedom 2

Chi Square 74.44

Significant at the 1% level of confidence

Differences Among Persisting and Non-Persistina Students on the

Basis of Educational Major. Table 72 presents the results of the dif-

fLo.,,,s among male persisting and non-persisting students on the basis

of educational major.

As these results indicate, there appeared to be more male per-

sisting and academic non-persisting students than anticipated but fewer

male students than expected who did not persist because of non-academic

reasons who were majoring in fields associated with the social, reli-

gious, and educational fields. This same observation may be made with

respect to those students majoring in th.e administrative, political,

and persuasive fields.

In the scientific fields, there seemed to be more male persist-

ing students than expected but fewer male non-persisting students than

anticipated--regardless of the reason for their non-persistence.

Male persisting students were observed less frequently than ex-

pected but male non-persisting students more frequently than antici-

pated who had selected a major area of study which could be classified

as being engineering, agriculture, or technology. This same observation

may be made with regard to th.e male persisting and nonpersisting stu-dents who were studying in the area of the arts and humanities.

81

TAM 72. DIFFERENCES AMONG MALE PERSISTING AND NON- PERSISTING STUDENTSON ALL CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF EDUCATIONAL MAJOR

P NPA /TO

Obs EXp Obs Exp Obs En-:1D Total

Social, Religious, andEducational Fields 382 376 133 127 117 129 632

Administrative, Politi-cal, and Persuasive 278 275 98 92 86 95 462

Business and Finance 231 234 81 80 82 80 394

Scientific Fields 225 212 68 71 63 73 356

Engineering, Agricultureand Technology 538 565 209 191 204 195 951

Medical Fields 116 114 35 38 40 39 191

Arts and Humanities 115 131 46 44 59 45 220

Other 32 35 6 11 20 12 58

Undecided 464 439 125 149 148 151 737

Total 2381 801 819 4001


Chi Square 27.523

Significant at the 5% level

82

The male persisting student who was undecided about his aca-

demic major was found more frequently than anticipated whereas the male

non-persister was observed less frequently than expected.

Table 73 presents the differences among female persisting and

non-persisting students on all campuses on the basis of educational

major.

As the results in Table 73 indicate, there were more femalepersisting and academic non-persisting students than anticipated who

had indicated a major in a social, religious, or educational field.

However, there tended to be fewer female students than expected who

we/e majoring in one of these areas but who did not persist because of

non-academic reasons.

Female persisting students who were majoring in a field asso-ciated with business or finance tended to be observed less frequentlythan anticipated, but female non-persisters who did not persist be-cause of non-academic reasons and who were majoring in similar areas

were observed more frequently than expected.

There appeared to be fewer female persisting students andslightly fewer female academic non-persisters thhn expected who werefocusing their study in the medical fields. On the i-ther hand, there

seemed to be more female students than expected in these areas whodid not persist because of non-academic reasons.

The results presented in Table 73 suggest that there were morefemale persisting students than expected majoring in fields associatedwith the arts and humanities but slightly fewer female non-persistingstudents than expected studying in these same areas--regardless of thereason for non-persistence.

There seemed to be fewer female perEisting students as well asacademic non-persisting students than anticipated who were not able to

make a decision with respect to an educational major. However, there

appeared to be more female students than expected who did not persistbecause of non-academic reasons and who had indicated being undecidedabout an academic major.

Summary. Based on the results presented in Tables 72 and 73,persistence seemed to be favored by an educational major that was con-sistent with the purposes of most of the institutions investigated.Students who planned to major in an area associated with the scientificfields seemed to persist more frequently than anticipated. Female stu-dents who intended to major in an area associated with the arts and hu-manities tended to persist more frequently than expected but male stu-dents tended to persist less frequently than anticipated. The results

seemed to indicate that being undecided about an educational major mayfavor persistence among male students but not among female students.

83

TABLE 73. DIFFERENCES AMONG MALE PERSISTING AND NON-PERSISTING STU-

DENTS ON ALL CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF EDUCATIONAL MAJOR

111PA NPO

Obs Ex Obs Exp Obs Exp Total






Medical Fields 124 147 28 30 85 60 237


Other 20 23 9 5 9 10 38

Undecided 229 237 38 49 116 97 383

Total 1814 376 745 2935


Chi Square 45.116


84

Differences Among Persisting and Non-Persisting Students on the

Basis of Vocational Choice. The results presented in Table 74 show the

differences among persisting and non-persisting male students on all

campuses on the basis of vocational choice. While there were no signifi-

cant differences indicated, the direction of the results will be dis-

cussed because of possible implications for future research. According

to these results, there tended to be more male persisting students than

expected who had selected an occupational area which might be associated

with the social, religious, or educational fields. On the other hand,

there appeared to be fewer non-persisting male students--regardless of

their reason for non-persistence--than gnticipated who hr.d indicated a

vocational choice which might be related to these same three fields.

There seemed to be slightly fewer persisting and non-persisting

male students than expected who had indicated a vocational choice in

the fields of administration, politics, or persuasion. The same obser-

vation could be made with regard to the vocational fields of business,

finance, and science.

There appeared to be fewer persisting male students than anti-

cipated who had revealed an occupational decision which might be re-

lated to engineering, agriculture, or technology. The same observation

could be made with regard to the male student who did not persist be-

cause of non-academic reasons. However, there tended to be more male

students than expected who did not persist because of academic reasons

but who had indicated a vocational choice of a field that might be re-

lated to these same three areas.

There seemed to be more persisting and slightly fewer academic

non-persisting male students than expected who had selected a vocation

in one of the medical fields.

Non-persisting male students--regardless of the reason for non-

persistence--were observed slightly more frequently than expected where

the vocational choice could be related to the arts and humanities.

Within this same vocational area, persisting male students were observed

less frequently than anticipated.

Persisting male students seemed to indicate being undecided

about their vocation more frequently than expected. This same observa-

tion might be made with regard to the male non-persister who withdrew

because of non-academic reasons. However, there seemed to be fewer

academic non-persisting male students than anticipated who had not de-

veloped a clear concept regarding their future occupation.

The results presented in Table 75 reveal the differences among

female persisting and non-persisting students on all campuses on the

basis of vocational choice.

Those results seemed to indicate that there were more persist-

ing female students than expected who indicated a vocational decision

which might be related to social, relia4ous, or educational fields.

There appeared to be fewer female non-persisting students--regardless

85

T

I

TABLE 74. DMERENCES AMONG MAJE PERSISTING AND NON-PkIRSISTING STUDENTSON ALL CAPXUSES ON TIE BASIS OF VOCATIONAL CHOICE

P NPA NPO

Obs Exp Obs Exp Obs Exp Total


Administrative, Politi-cal, and Persuaive

Business and Finance

Scientific Fields

Engineering, Agricultureand Technology

Medical FieIds

Arts and Humanities

192 186

171 175

97 100

457 472

122 116

104 118

Rouse-wife 2

Other 146

Undecided 641

61 62 59 64 312

62 58 60 60 293

37.-)-2"11

-1 34 34 168

182 158 153 162 792

31 38 41 40 194

49 40 45 40 198

2 0 0 0 0

159 54 54 68 55

627 187 210 223 214

2

268

1051

Total 2318 7r/6 793 3887

Degrees of Freedom

Chi Square

Not Significant

18

22.928

86

TABLE 75. DIFFERENCES AMONG FEMALE PERSISTING AND NON-PERSISTING STU-

DENTS ON AIL CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF VOCATIONAL CHOICE

EPA NPO

Obs Exp Obs Exp Obs DT Total






Medical Fields 139 154 27 32 84 64 250


Housewife 21 25 5 5 14 10 40

Other 98 104 32 22 39 43 169

Undecided 318 321 52 67 150 132 520

Total 1764 371 729 2864


Chi Square 45.047


87

of the reason fcr ncn-persistence--than expected who had decided that

their future vocation would be within one of these same three areas.

The results presented in Table 75 tended to reveal that any

variance among persisting and non-persisting students who had decided

that their vocaticnal area would be within the fields of engineering,

agriculture, or technology probably could be attributed to the male

population with Ln the five universities.

There appeared to be fewer persisting and academic non-persist-ing female students than expected who had selected a vocation associated

with one of the medical fields. However, there seemed to be more female

students than expected who had indicated their vocation in one of these

medical fields but who had not persisted because of non-academic reasons.

According to the results presented in Table 75, there seemed tobe fewer persisting and academic non-persisting female students than ex-

pected who were undecided about their future vocation. On the other

hand, there appeared to be more female students indicating indecisionregarding their future career but who did not persist because of non-

academic reasons.

Summary According to the results presented in Tables 74 and75, persistence seemed to be favored among students if they are plan-

ning on a vocation which is associated with the educational emphasis

that is found in the five universities investigated. Persistence with-

in the university does not seem to be favored by students who had

elected a vocation which might be associated with the fields of engi-

neering, agriculture, technology, or the arts and humanities. Male

students who had elected a vocational choice associated with the medi-

cal fields seemed to be found more frequently than anticipated whereas

the female student who had elected a career in one of the variousmedical fields appeared to be found more frequently among those stu-

dents who had not persisted for non-academic reasons.

As was indicated in the results presented in Tables 72 and 73,being undecided about a vocational choice seamed to favor persisting

male students and not female students. Furthermore, if the undecided

male or female student does not persist, the reasons may well be non-

academic.


Basis of Vocational Role Preferences. Male persisting and non-persist-ing students on all campuses were compared on the basis of their voca-

tional role preferences. The results of this comparison are presented

in Table 76. According to these results, there were no significantdifferences between the observed and expected number of male persistingand non-persisting students within each of the vocational role prefer-

ence categories.

Table 77 shows the results of the differences among female per-sisting and non-persisting students on all campuses on the basis oftheir preferences for a vocational role.

88

TABLE 76. DIFFERENCES AMONG MALE PERSISTING AND NON-PERSISTING STUDENTS

ON ALL CAMPUSES ON TIE BASIS OF VOCATIONAL ROLE PREFERENCES

P NPA NPO


Researcher orInvestigator 218 220 75 74 76 75 369

Teacher or Therapist -475 459 147 152 145 156 767

Administrator orSupervisor 283 278 102 93 80 94 465

Promoter or Salesmanof Services or 100 101 32 34 37 34 169

Products

Practitioner, Performer,Producer of Services 387 378 127 127 120 120 634

or Products

None of the Above 198 226 86 76 95 77 379

Two or More Roles 74 73 21 25 23 25 123

Undecided 575 575 184 193 205 196 964

Total 2310 774 786 3870

Degrees of Freedom

Chi Square

Not Significant

14

16.663

J.

Yr'

TABLE 77. DIFFERENCES AMONG MALE PERSISTING AND NON-PERSISTING STU-

DENTS ON ALL CA11PUSES ON TIE BASIS OF VOCATIONAL ROLE PREFERENCES

P NPA NPO

Obs Exp Obs Exp Obs Ecp Total

Researcher orInvestigator

Teacher or Therapist

Administrator orSupervisor

57 57 11 12 24 23 92

974 924 188 194 336 379 1498

48 49 9 10 22 20 79

Promoter or Salesmanof Services or 17 15 0 3 7 6 24

Products

Practitioner, Performer,Producer of Services 166 180 45 38 80 74 291

or Products

None of the Above 103 136 47 29 70 56 220

Two or More Roles 63 59 12 _13 22 25 97

Undecided 322 330 56 69 157 135 535

Total 1750 368 718 2836


Chi Square 44.132


Based on these results, there seemed to be more female persist-ing students than anticipated who preferred the occupational role of ateacher or therapist. There tended to be fewer non-persisting studentsthan expectedregardiess of reason for non - persistence- -who preferred

these same vocational roles.

Fewer female persisting students than expected indicated apreference for a vocational role that might be associated with a prac-titioner, performer, or producer of services of products. However,slightly more non persisting female students than expected expressed apreference for one of these roles.

There appeared io be fewer female persisting students than ex-pected who indicated that they preferred an occupational role other thanthose listed whereas more female non-persisters than anticipated indi-cated that the alternatives of vocational roles did not reflect theirpreferences.

Female persisting students as well as female academic non-persisters tended to be observed less frequently than expected as beingundecided with regard to a vocational role preference. However, femalestudents who did not persist because of non-academic reasons were ob-served more often than anticipated as being undecided about a preferredoccupational role.

Summary. Persistence seems to be favored among female studentsif they prefer a teacher-therapist role in their future vocation. Thisvocational role tends to be quite consistent with the goals of the fiveinstitutions investigated. Non-persistence tends to be favored if thefemale student prefers a vocational role which may be more closelyaligned with practitioner, performer, or producer of services. Basedon the data presented in Table 77, persisting female students on allthe campuses seemed to be more able to identify a vocational role pref-erence. As was indicated with the analysis of the results dealing witheducational major and vocational choice, being undecided about a voca-tional role preference does not seem to facilitate persistence amongfemale students. The results seem to indicate that the female student,if she is undecided about a vocational role preference, will probablynot persist mithin the institution and might well be expected to with-draw for reasons other than those that might be related to academicconcerns.

Differences Among Persisting and Non-Persisting Students on theBasis of Educational Plans. Male persisting and non-persisting studentson all campuses were compared on the basis of their educational plans.

Educational plans were defined as the anticipated educational degree tobe obtained. The results of these comparisons are presented in Table78.

Based on these results, the vast majority of the male studentson all campuses anticipated the completion of the bachelorts degree.There seemed to be fewer male persisting students than anticipated whoaspired to the receipt of the bachelorts degree but more non-persisting

91

TABLE 78. DIFFERENCES AMONG MALE PERSISTING AND NON-PERSISTING STUDENTS

ON ALL CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF EDUCATIONAL PLANS

P NPA NPO

Obs Exp Obs

High School Diploma 5 7 4

College, but less than

a Bachelor's Degree 332 360 142

B.A. 1286 1312 461

M.A., M.B.A. 528 476 124

Ph.D. 39 42 14

M.D. 42 36 9

Exp Obs Exp

2 2 2

121 130 123

411 453 447

160 147 162

14 17 14

12 10 12

Total

11

604

2200

798

70

61

D.D.S. 25 25 8 8 9 9 42

L.L.B. 31 33 12

B.D. 5 3 0

Other 42 41 10

11 12 11

1 0 1

14 16 14

55

5

68

Total 2335 784 795 3914


Chi Square 34.122


92

male students than expected who planned on the completion of the re-

quirements for this degree. Persisting male students tended to beobserved less frequently' than expected among those students who didnot anticipate the completion of the bachelor's degree. On the otherhand, the male non-persisting student appeared more often than expectedindicating that his educatio,-al plans included college but not the com-

pletion of the bachelor's degree.

With regard to graduate study as defined by the aspirationtoward the master's degree, there were more persisting male studentsthan expected who anticipated pursuing graduate study for a master's

degree. Male non-persisting students, on the other hand, were foundless frequently than expected with aspirations of the completion of

this same degree.

The results presented in Table 79 show the differences amongfemale persisting and non-persisting students on all campuses on thebasis of their educational plans.

A review of the results presented in Table 79 indicates thatmost female students did not anticipate graduate study beyond themaster's degree level and, where such students are observed, they arevery close to the number expected. The majority of the female stu-dents seemed to anticipate the completion of the bachelor's degreewith the next greatest number of students being found in the categor-ies of less than a college degree or the master's degree program.

There appeared to be fewer female persisting students thanexpected who indicated that they did not plan on completing theircollege program. On the other hand, there seemed to be more femalenon-persisting students than expected who revealed that they did notanticipate completing the four year program.

Persisting female students tended to be more likely to plan onthe achievement of the bachelor's degree whereas non-persisting femalestudents tended to be less likely to aspire to the receipt of this samedegree.

There were more female students than expected who either per-sisted or did not persist because of non-academic reasons who seemedto anticipate the completion of the master's degree program. However,there were fewer female students than expected who were academic non-persisters who revealed that they planned to achieve this same degree.

Summary. According to the results presented in Tables 78 and79, persisting students seemed to anticipate the completion of thefour years within any of the five institutions investigated as well asholding aspirations for graduate study. Male and female students whodid not peisist because of academic reasons appeared to anticipatetheir non-persistence since they reflected that they expected to attendcollege but did not aspire to the completion of the four years. Fur-thermore, very few of the male and female academic non-persisting stu-dents held the master's degree as an educational goal. The male and

93

TABLE 79. DIFFERENCES AMONG MALE PERSISTING AND NON-PERSISTING STU-DENTS ON ALL CAILTUSES ON TE BASIS OF EDUCATIONAL PLANS

P NPA NPO


High School Diploma 3 4 1 1 3 2 7

College, but less thana Bachelor's Degree 227 286 97 60 140 118 464

B.A. 1222 1172 230 245 447 482 1899

M.A., M.B.A. 269 259 37 54 114 107 420

Ph.D. 21 19 1 4 9 8 31

M.D. 7 8 0 2 6 3 13

D.D.S. 1 1 0 0 0 0 1

L.L.B. 1 1 0 0 1 1 2

B.D. 1 1 0 0 0 0 1

Other 32 33 7 7 i14 13 53

Total 1784 373 734 2891


Chi Square 59.446


94

female students who did not persist because of non-academic reasons

tended to reflect a slightly higher educational aspiration since they

appeared to be more likely to aspire to the master's degree than the

academic non-persisters. However, the results seemed to indicate that

such students may-have serious questions about their persisting to the

completion of the bachelor's degree and, if they aspired to the master's

degree, they might be expected to have serious questions about this edu-

cational goal.

Differences Among Persisting and Non - Persists no Students on the

Basis of Change of Academic Major. In the comparison among persisting

and non-persisting male students on the basis of change of academic

major, there were no significant differences found among the three sub-

groups of persistence of male students.

On the other hand, there were significant differences indicated

among persisting and non-persisting female students in terms of a change

of academic major. Table 80 presents these results.

Based on the results presented in Table 80, there tended to be

more female persisting students than expected who did not change their

academic major while there were fewer female persisting students than

expected who did change their major area of study. The same trend in

results appeared to be reflected with those female students who did not

persist because of non-academic reasons.

However, there were fewer academic non-persisting female stu-

dents than expected who remained in one major area of concentrationwhile there were more of these same students than expected who changed

their academic major.

TABLE 80. DIFFERENCES AMONG FEMALE PERSISTING AND NON- PERSISTING STU-

DENTS ON THE BASIS OF CHANCE OF ACADEMIC MAJOR

Unchanged Changed

Obs Exp

Persisting 1288 1274

Academic NP 268 290

Non-academic NP 474 466

Total 2030

Obs Exp Total

550 564 1838

151 129 419

198 206 672

899 2929


Chi Square 6.371


95

Summary. Based on the results presented in Table 80, persist-

ence seems to be positively related to commitment to an academic major.

The finding that those female students who did not persist because of

academic reasons will probably change their academic major tends to be

consistent with the results presented in Tables 78 and 79, in which the

academic non-persister reflected a definite doubt with regard to com-

mitment to the completion of the four years and the bachelor's degree.

Differences Anon°. Persisting and Von-Persisting Students on the

Basis of College Residence. Table 81 shows the differences among per-

sisting and non persisting students enrolled on the five campuses in-

vestigated on the basis of their place of college residence.

Although the numerical differences were not extreme, the re-

sults presented in Table 81 tended to indicate that there were fewer

students than expected who persisted regardless of their place of col-

lege residence. However, the results seemed to indicate that living

in a campus residence hall tended to enhance the possibility of per-

sistence since the difference between the number of observed and ex-

pected students within this category tended to be the least of any of

the four possible living arrangements. There seemed to be more stu-

dents than expected who tended not to persist because of academic rea-

sons who lived in private housing or with parents and/or relatives.Conversely, there appeared to be fewer of these same type of non-per-

sisting students than expected who lived in a university residence hall.

The results in Table 81 tended to indicate that fewer students

than expected who did not persist because of non -academic reasons were

living in residence halls. In contrast, there seemed to be more of

these non-academic non-persisting students living in college residences

other than university residence balls with the greatest discrepancy

being between observed and expected numbers of students being in the

category of home/parents.

Summary. Based on these results, persistence within the uni-versities tended to be favored if the students were residing in a uni-

versity-operated housing unit. Non-persistence tended to be more likely

where the student was residing in either a private residence or at home

living with parents or relatives. Since there appeared to be more stu-

dents than expected who did not persist because of non-academic reasonsliving at home with parents/relatives and fewer of these same students

residing in university-operated housing units, there maybe some reasonto believe that the involvement in campus activity may be a factor of

persistence.

96

TABLE 81.

DIFFERENCES AMONG PERSISTING AND NON-PERSISTING STUDENTS ON THE BASIS OF COLLEGE

RESIDENCE

Residence Hall

Private

Commute

Home/Parents

Obs

Persisting

3350

Academic NP

929

Non-academic NP

998

Exp

Obs

3252

282

980

108

1045

116

,1.

Exp

Obs

Exp

Obs

Exp

Total

312

116

154

476

506

4224

94

72

47

165

153

1274

100

63

50

180

162

1357

Total

5277

506

1111

0111

41IM

MIII

IMIII

IMIN

NIM

I111

4MO

IN

251

821

6855

Degrees of Freedom

6

Chi Square

46.02


di


Basis of Size of Nigh School Graduating Class. The differences among

persisting and non-persisting students on all campuses on the basis of

the size of high school graduating class are presented in Table 82.

The results shown in Table 82 suggest that there were more per-

sisting students than expected who graduated from classes of 250 or

fewer students while there were fewer persisting students than expected

who graduated from classes of 250-750 students.

Based on the results presented in Table 82, there were fewer

students than expected who did not persist because of academic reasons

whose high school graduating class was 250 or fewer students while there

were more of these academic nonpersisting students than expected who

graduated from classes of 250 students or more.

There appeared to be more students than expected who did not

persist for non-academic reasons who graduated in classes of 100 or

fewer students while fewer students than expected who did not persist

for similar reasons graduated in high school classes of 100-500 or

more students.

The results presented in Table 82 tend to suggest that the size

of high school class in which the student gra&ated may be a factor in

terms of persistence within the five universities investigated. The

results seemed to indicate that students graduating from a class of 250

or fewer students may be more likely to persist in one of the univer-

sities than students who graduate from classes of 250 or more students.

Furthermore, if the student who graduated from a class of 100 or fewer

students does not persist, it seems likely to expect that his non-per-

sistence is due to non-academic reasons.

98

TABLE 82.

DIFFERENCES AMONG PERSISTING AND NON-PERSISTINGSTUDENTS ON THE BASIS OF SIZE OF

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATING CLASS

0-25

26-50

51-10o

101-250

Obs

Exp

Obs

Exp

Persisting

37

36

263

256

Academic NP

611

65

77

Non-academic NP

16

12

88

83

Total

59

416

Obs

Exp

Obs

Exp

773

749

1515

1503

198

226

447

453

245

241

479

485

1216

2441

251-500

501 750

751 -999,9

VD

Obs

Exp

VD

Persisting

1019

1021

Academic NP

320

307

Non-academic NP

319

330

Total

1658

Obs

Exp

472

512

189

155

172

166

833

Obs

Exp

Total

140

142

4219

47

43

1272

44

46

1363

231

6854

Degrees of Freedom

Chi Square

12

22.77


SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMENDATIONS

The purpose of this study was to seek out the nature and extent

of the diversity of the characteristics of persisting and non-persisting

students within and among the various campuses of five state universi-

ties. Specifically, the study attempted to discern what diversity of

intellective and non-intellective factors existed among persisting and

non-persisting students within and among the selected campuses.

The total student sample (N = 7010) of this study consisted of

students who were enrolled on the five campuses on a full-time basis

and were classified by university standards as freshmen for the 1965-66

academic year. Essentially, the total student sample consisted of the

entire freshman class of 1965-66, for whom ACT scores were available in

the five state universities which participated in the investigation.

The five state universities which participated in the study were located

at Stevens Point, Whitewater, River Falls, LaCrosse, and Menomonie

(Stout).

The 1965-66 freshman class was selected because of the availa-

bility of intellective and non-intellective pre-matriculation data.

Prior to the 1965-66 academic year, some of the institutions investi-

gated had not requested the collection and analysis of non-intellective

data on their freshman classes. All institutions investigated partici-

pated in the post-enrollment analysis provided by the American Colle e

Testing Program for the entering freshman class during the 1965-

academic year. Therefore, the sampling was delimited to the 1965-66

year in order to assure uniformity of intellective and non-intellective

data.

The problem examined in this investigation was divided into

four broad areas. Thus, the summary of the findings and conclusions

and recommendations resulting from these findings might be best dis-

cussed in terms of the four basic areas investigated.

Diversity Among Persisting and Non-Persisting Students

Among Campuses on the Basis of Scholastic Aptitude

Persisting and non-persisting students were compared, regard-

less of the campus on which they were enrolled, on the basis of the

mean scores reflected on the various sub-scales of the ACT. In all

cases, persisting students tended to achieve significantly higher mean

scores on all the sub-scales than either of the two non-persisting sub-

groups. Furthermore, non-academic non-persisting students, while

achieving a significantly lower mean score on these ACT sub-scales

than the persisting students, appeared to make significantly higher

mean scores than the academic non-persister.

These results seemed to be in the expected direction. Per-

sisting students appeared to enter their various universities with a

significantly higher scholastic aptitude than did their non-persisting

100

counterparts. However, the results did indicate clearly that the ACT

sub-scales did discriminate among persisting and non-persisting students.

Also, while there may be some tendency to group all non-persisting stu-

dents into one broad category -with regard to scholastic aptitude, the

results of this study tended to indicate that this should not be done.

There seems to be reason to believe that the non-academic non-persisting

students entered the various universities with a significantly. higher

scholastic aptitude than did the academic non-persister.

In the attempt to discern if there were any significant differ-

ences between male and female students on the basis of scores cn the

tests of scholastic aptitude, the mean scores achieved cn the ACT scales

were compared. Since significant differences had been identified among

persisting and non-persisting students, separate analyses were made for

the three categories of persisting and non-persisting students in deter-

mining the significance of any differences between male and female mem-

bers of the student sample. Significant differences were identified

among male and female persisting and non-persisting students.

The analysis of the differences between male and female persist-

ing and non-persisting students seemed to indicate that the female stu-

dents, regardless of persisting or non-persisting status, tended to make

a significantly higher mean score on the ACT-English scale than did

their male counterparts. Conversely, the male student, regardless of

persistence status, tended to make a significantly higher mean score on

the Mathematics and Natural Science sub-scales of the ACT. The persist-

ing female students appeared to indicate a significantly higher mean

score on the Social Science sub-scale of the ACT, whereas the male stu-

dent who was a non-persister because of academic reasons tended to re-

flect a significantly higher mean score than did the female student for

this same sub-scale.

In terms of the Composite score for the ACT, there did not ap-

pear to be any significant differences between male and female persist-

ing students or non-persisting students who withdrew for non-academic

reasons. However, male students who withdrew for academic reasons tend-

ed to reflect a significantly higher mean score on the Composite scale

of the ACT than did the female student who did not persist for similar

reasons.

Since significant differences had been identified among per-sisting and non-persisting students, as well as between male and female

students, the data were partitioned into six separate subgroups where

significant differences had been determined prior to the comparison of

campuses on the basis of mean scores achieved on the ACT. This proce-

dure was necessary in order to insure that any differences that might

be identified among campuses in terms of mean scores achieved on the

various scales of the ACT were valid and could not be attributed to

either differences between male and female students or among persisting

and non-persisting students. Were significant differences were deter-

mined among campuses, Duncants New Multiple Range Test was applied to

the variance ratio data in order to determine the location of the source

of variance.

101

Significant differences were found among campuses on the basis

of mean scores achieved by female persisting students on all the sub-

scales of the ACT with the ex:7-eptin cf the Natural Science scale, Fur-

thermore, significant differerces were indicated among campuses on all

the sub-scales of the ACT in term= cf mean score achieved among the male

persisting student sut-samplese Based on these results, there were sig-

nificant differences found among campuses with regard to scholastic apti-

tude of both the male and female pers...sting students.

Significant differences were revealed among female academic non-

persisting students among campuses on the basis of the mean scores for

four of the five ACT scales. Based on these results, the English,

Social Science, Natural Science, and Composite sub-scales of the ACT

seemed to discriminate among female academic non-persisting students

among campuses. With regard to male academic non-persisting students,

significant differences were found among the student sub-sample among

campuses on the basis of mean scores for the Mathematics, Social Sci-

ence, Natural Science, and. Composite sub- scales of the ACT. Again,

the various sub-scales of the ACT tended to be discriminate factors

among academic non-persisting students among campuses.

There were no significant differences revealed among female

non-academic non-persisting students among campuses on the basis of

mean scores for the sub-scales of the ACT, Furthermore, only the Eng-

lish sub-scale of the ACT tended to differentiate among male non-

academic non-persisting students among campuses. Based on these re-

sults, the various sub-scales of the ACT did not seem to differentiate

among non-academic non-persisting students among campuses. The only

exception was the Enaligh sub-scale of the ACT.

The following recommendations are made in view of the results

of this study regarding scholastic aptitude. The order of recommenda-

tions is not on the basis of priority.

Based on the results, the intellective scales of the American

College Testing Program (ACT) tended to be discriminate factors among

persisting and non-persisting students. Since these scales appeared

to be discriminate factors, it is recommended that each campus give

serious consideration to the development of an intensive discriminate

analysis program of their incoming student population utilizing the

results of the ACT program. Furthermore, since significant differ-

ences were indicated between male and female students, it is recom-

mended that this discriminate analysis program take into account these

differences.

The academic non-persisting student appeared to enter the var-

ious universities with a significantly lower scholastic aptitude than

did the non-academic non-persisting student. This significant differ-

ence may have definite implications for programs within the various

universities if these universities hope to effect differentiall;y-r'the

attrition rate. The results suggest that the assistance given to the

academic non-persisting student may differ significantly from the ser-

vice provided to the non-academic non-persisting student.

102

Many of the educational models that are found in higher educa-tion today are focused for the development of an "intellectual elite"with little collsideraticn being gi7en to the "push-out," Further inves-tigation seems to be recommended on the basis of the findings in thisstudy for identifying the source within the educational models foundwithin these state universities which provide for the differences interms of scholastic aptitude among persisting and non-persisting stu-dents. The results of such further investigation would seem to havedefinite implications for such programs as attraction and selection ofpotential students, accelerated classes, advanced class placements,honors programs, and the development of individualized attention tothe educational development of students who obvioasly have differencesin terms of scholastic potential.

Diversity Among Persisting and Non-Persisting StudentsAmong Campuses on the Basis of High School Achievement

A second area of investigation was to seek out differencesamong persisting and non-persisting students among campuses on thebasis of previous high school achievement. The total student samplehad participated in providing these data through responding to theAmerican College Testing Program (ACT). The average grade achievedin high school as indicated by each student on this instrument wasused as the estimate of previous high school achievement of the per-sisting and non-persisting students.

When persisting and non-persisting students were compared,persisting students tended to achieve a significantly higher gradeaverage in high school than the non-persisting student. Furthermore,the academic non-persisting student tended to indicate a significantlylower average grade achieved in high school than either the non-per-sisting student who withdrew from the university for non-academic rea-sons or the persisting student.

Again, these results seemed to be in the expected direction.Persisting students appeared to enter their various universities witha significantly higher academic success pattern than did their non-persisting counterparts. Furthermore, the results of this investiga-tion tended to indicate that all non-persisting students should not bepooled on the basis of previous high school achievement. Non-academicnon-persisting students appeared to enter the various universities witha significantly higher academic success pattern than did the academicnon-persister,

Comparisons were made between male and female students on thebasis of the average grade achieved in high school in order to discernif there were any significant differences between these two studentsubgroups. Since significant differences had been identified amongpersisting and non-persisting students, separate analyses were made forthe three categories of persisting and non-persisting students in orderto determine the significance of any differences between male and fe-male members of the student sample.

103

When the male and female students were compared, there were

highly significant differences found between male and female persist-

ing and non-persistLng students in terms of their average grade achieved

in high school. Based on the results of the investigation, the female

student, regardless of the campus and persistence status, tended to

achieve a higher grade point average in high school than did her male

counterpart. These results are in the anticipated direction.

Since significant differences were found between male and fe-

male students as well as among persisting and non-persisting students,

the total group was partitioned into six subgroups prior to the compar-

ison of students among campuses.

Significant differences were found among campuses on the basis

of mean scores achieved by female persisting and non-persisting stu-

dents in terms of mean grade point achieved in high school. Based on

these results, the mean grade point achieved in high school seemed to

be a differential factor among female persisting and non-persisting

students as well as among campuses.

Significant differences were revealed among campuses on the

basis of mean scores achieved by male persisting and academic non-

persisting students in terms of the mean grade point achieved in high

school. However, there were no significant differences indicated

among campuses on the basis of the mean grade point achieved in high

school by the non-academic non-persisting student.

The following recommendations are made in view of the results

of this investigation regarding previous high school achievement.

Again, the order of recommendations is not on the basis of priority.

The results of this investigation indicated that the mean grade

point achieved in high school tended to be a discriminate variable

among persisting and non-persisting students. Based on these results,

each campus should give serious consideration to the inclusion of this

factor in their development of continued investigation of this factor

as it relates to their respective educational programs. Furthermore,

since significant differences were indicated between male and female

students, these differences should be recognized in the development of

further research.

The academic non-persisting student appeared to enter the var-

ious universities with a significantly lower academic success pattern

than did either the persisting or non-academic non-persisting student.

These results suggest that each institution should review its educa-

tional programs for the purpose of identifying the extent to which

these programs take into consideration this differential and previous

academic success.

104

Diversity Am ng Persisting and Non-Persisting StudentsAmong Campuses on the Basis of College Achievement

A. purpose of this investigation was to seek out differences

among persisting and non-persisting students on the basis of college

achievement. College achievement was defined in terms of the total

number of credits earned, credits attempted, and grade points achieved

by the persisting and non-persisting students among campuses.

Significant differences were found among female persistingstudents among campuses on the basis of credits earned, credits at-

tempted, and grade points achieved. Furthermore, significant differ-

ences were indicated among male persisting students among campuses on

the basis of credits earned and credits attempted. However, ::here

were no significant differences revealed among male persisting stu-

dents among campuses in terms of the total number of grade points

achieved while enrolled in each of the respective institutions.Based on these results, college achievement as defined in this inves-

tigation seemed to be a differential factor among male and female

persisting students among campuses.

There were significant differences revealed among male andfemale academic non-persisting students among campuses on the basis

of credits earned, credits attempted, and total grade points achieved

while enrolled on the respective campuses. Again, these achievement

variables seemed to differentiate among academic non-persisting stu-

dents among campuses.

According to the findings of this investigation, there were

no significant differences found among female non-academic non-per-sisting students among campuses on the basis of mean number of credits

earned and credits attempted. However, there were significant differ-

ences found among female non-academic non-persisting students among

campuses on the basis of the mean number of grade points achieved

while enrolled in the compared universities. There were no significant

differences found among male non-academic non-persisting students among

campuses on the basis of any of the college achievement variables used

in this investigation. Based on these results, the mean number ofcredits earned, credits attempted, and grade points achieved while en-rolled in the various universities did not seem to be a discriminatefactor among male and female non-academic non-persisting students

among campuses.

Based on these results, it is recommended that further investi-gation be conducted to attempt to account for the reasons for the var-iances among campuses on the basis of college achievement with particu-lar attention being focused on the persisting and academic non-persist-ing student population. Such investigation may provide insight intoinstitutional differences in educational policies and procedures. Ob-

viously, such policies and procedures are of vital concern.

Further study seems to be indicated for the purpose of delineat-ing the reasons that the mean number of credits earned, credits attempted,

105

and grade points aohieved in college hsr the non-academic non-persisting

student does not seem to discrimirate among campuses whereas these same

variables do seem tc differentiate campuses among persisting and aca-

demic non-persisting students.

Diversity Among Persisting and Non-Persisting Students

Among Campuses on tne Basis of Non-Intellective Characteristics

A fourrn purPose of this investigation was to seek out the

nature and extent of the diversity of perscnal non-intellective charac-

teristics amcng persisting and non-persisting students. In order to

achieve this purpose; persisting and non-persisting students were com-

pared on the basis of personal ncn-intellective characteristics which

were gathered tnrough two major souroes. Each persisting and non-

persisting student had responded to the American College Testinei Pro-

gram (ACT) in which he had indicated his teatative decisions regarding

edLoational major, vocational choice, vocational role preferences, and

educational plans. After each persisting and non-persisting student

had enrolled on his respective campus, data were collected regarding

any change of academic major, place of college residenze, and the size

of high school graduating class. The summary of the findings and con-

clusions and recommendations resulting from these findings in this

section of this investigation will be discussed in this order.

Since there appeared to be a aignificant difference with re-

gard to the number of male and female students who either persisted

or did not persist for academic or non-academic reasons, separate

analyses were ccndueted for male and female students on the basis of

non-intellective factors.

Differences Among Persisting and Von-Persisting Students on

the Basis of Educational Major. There were significant differences

indicated among male and female persisting and non-persisting students

on the basis of educational major. Based on the results of this in-

vestigation, persistence seemed to be favored by an educational major

that was consistent with the purposes of most cf the institutions in-

vestigated. Students who planned to major in an area associated with

the scientific fields seemed to persist more frequently than antici-

pated. Female students who intended o major an area associated

with the arts end humanities tended to persist more frequently than

expected but male students tended to persist :less frequently than

anticipated, The results seemed to indicate that being undecided

about an educational major may favor persistence among male students

but not among female students.

Differences Among Persisting and Non - Persisting Students on

the Basis of Vocational Choice. Male persisting and non-persisting

students on all campuses were compared on the basis of their vocational

choice. According to the results, there were no significant differ-

ences indicated among male persisting and non -- persisting students. On

the other hand, there were significant differences revealed among fe-

male persisting and non-persisting students cry all campuses on the basis

of vocational choice.

106

lamal Omni

04 *1 5 1-4 c+ PG 0 ct- 1-,*O 0" 11) 0 tr- 1-4) S.) 1' 0C)

LJ.Z C-I. DI 0 0 0 ORC) o cc H. cr 0-' z

a. o' 1-1 H. 11 O' P PI,- 0- CD PG 1-, 0c+ 1-0 1-4 li 0 Pa

04 0 cf u) oCD 0 H CA

a) ct O'' Z ec)C) C) 0 c+ 1-, H 0 0 P0 P 0 H4 01 s:I' 1-4 OFli tS cf. c+ z 0 1 a..1

O co I-J 0 0 A) cf. 0 I'd P-.CY H 0 0- c+ H. - CD

ci) rn 0 1.J. p . . 0 11 004 0- P 0 (D ';-3

00

1-' a) H H 0 1.-,) 1-"

131. 'I:1ct- c+ 1:3-R. P 1A7) H. 8rt- 1-1 0

P, V" c, sp.. co ct-

g 0 12 p.. E.t. p.. o 0o cr c) F114,1:1 (D g 0 bi'

I- ()04 H)H) 04 0 (1) (D '1 c+ C+ U) ...1

'C:i ct- P rn cn 1-3 I-I) 0 f.L.:0 1-1 (D

a) 0-1 0 H. 0 0 0 ri 011 a) P.. (+ 0) (+ l 0 (D 01:1

O *---.. 04 t+ 1.-i' CI- 1-3 rS coH. N o CD CD 0 :7' t-1-0) 0 11 0 0 0 11 0) 11ct- P) 1.-13 0 En 11 0 CD

(D P a ' r4 0 (D .l" 1---1 k VICD 0 1-I 1-' 31 (D -'' cl)

1-x 0 0 I-I0 CD P. P 0 0 tic+ .1 0 0' 0 11 0- p

I-1* Hi 1.-4 0 0 P a) 1-s 0O a) o 0°a

c-1- I-I) Cl) Oq5 0 Oq 4 co Oa0000 P ct- a) 0' 11 P (1-

0- 0' I--,..0 0". CD 0 11 :5-.(D P 0 a) r 1-1) O. a)

U) 1-1 a) o 0crl.

o CD C.11 Cf' 11 0I-, c+ 0- LT' - 0 fr.

En CD I-I- P CD c+ 1.-13

H . 1-1; "0 0 0 P CD c+ a)H' 0 o p.. ...T. 1-.. ai ttrt. !-I ... z 0 ,-1z ct- (D c+ P ''Ci I-1* 0 CD

1-1, CD 1(i)l) te /MI Ic:Ii6 qtn (1)

CI' 0

0 H (D to ti 1- 0 CD C) M*--0 0 17 P 0 0) 0 0

+ (DF0 0 0 1-1

1-3 1-s cI' 0 0c+ 0 0 Ht3 1-13 a) 5 0

N 0 I-13 faa 0 0' p) cm

fa: a) 0LIP., . tiA) 0 cl) IJ. co Pa' 11 00 0 cn (-I. co 0 1-$

ct- c1- 1-1* tzi CD ct- 01P.

1-1

I a) P 0' r:" c1- 0 c1'O fl) 1

1-h00-

Hoq0

I

0c+ 1-ci

a)

ct.a)P.,

0 0-o0 N.

t+0O

A)1

a)

Co 1-.1)

0

CD

010Co

0ct.

(D

0toCD

t.17'

P3et

i.H

or'

0"t<:

0

1-1:3

CD

Vii.

Cncr

14'Cr1

rr

C+

F-.))

rsPa

hh

11)

to

ri

cory.tD

To

¶ am* timid Me NMI WOW

133 H. c+H.Sal 'jl; ,t(3 to H. 110 (D

P 04 5 c1.0q c-1- H,P., 0- o 04 0 I-J 1-1. A) CD

1- (-I- 1-1 0 0 0 cf. w 11A) o 0" a) co pa040 0 CD Co c+ 11 11)

O P H. 0 IV

Cl 0 I-1 )1) a, 0 (t) (1) 1.1P tD cr (D 0) P U)

P 1-,,0 t<1 1ri CD 0

ti I-4 0 0 11 rs (I) ct-O 0 I.J '7.5 0:1 a. 11 a)0 a) co 1-4 (0 Cs 1.1 tD inw SL 1-1 c+ CO 171 et 0c-t- 0 0 CD CD I.J. 1-1,) C4 c+I'' H) :3 1-6 ('I' N 11 (DO t+ 0) H. 4/ti (0

tS ,-+ cP 0 Co A) Cr st)P IJ cl- N It, (I)1 --1 11 a) 14 a) & ()

A)Oq 1-1

cPtil

1-1 l 11. .0 00 01 (1) c

c+ to ti <1 c+ 1-1 0CD H. p 4 o o c.)

rs (3 P3 11 0 0 H/-0 Ott H c) 0 0+1 co c+ CD 0 0' I C)

CD al Cf. 0 ..7)- ",-.1 1.1 H. py

(7)11 A2 AFL ft ,:t fs3 cto

o 1.4 Co a) CD a)0 11 o I-I' Pa

CD I 01:1 0 cP II 0 (1) c+0 I -1 0

cD ,d c) 41' )..,. 0

cf. I'd 0 0 :4 ctCD P I-6 0 11/-11 H 0 c+ CD 1-4,

0' CD 1-1 CD Pa 0' (D0 t1 01c+0 04 P Oct H

(3 CD 1-12 0 0 a)(D A) cf.

C) Cl) c7' H I-4 co(0 CD (I) Cl) 0 c+t.4 P

1-.4 0 p..co 0

cn 0 11 " Mr$

(D (D 0 c+ n'so Ti) Cl/ :7)"0 CD (D 1-'

rn pa0)

1-4I-4 CD H)0 a) td cn W. I-4fP-II-. CD En I-1 0 rs.

Pa a) c+(D

A) (DCl) 04 I

thct" cI.P..

a) 0Pa

O .-1 rAH.

t+fa, 0

1-#3 C+1-4

(D 4() "0 0 0 lb

to tU 1.3

P.co 0O 01-4) CI* 0L-S

ig a) :5 0 0P 0c) 1 0 I-1)H 0 'c$ 0 0tv H to 1.1

1.1.J' CD rn cr ;.1

Cl) ri) t,. CD C)

'(111 rt.'', *1). Z.C.-441 1(nHro U)

1.91 LI' iTOt) .+ 00 0 0 0

0 A) ,1 P,cDo

rFo L-3

0 0Ij.

r.T. 0 0 at)a)

c+(,) u.

111 .r ta"".P.

31/4-I*

81 CPA -1.)1

A)(D

co

I.J. nI)

a) 11(

F -1, 0)0 0 Oct 0"t1

°c.0(.41. 11.-";:: 1.04; ct:4). 01;:j

0114 1,C1?,

N (D 0'0 O. al(.4-

.3

5 11oi1t<1

O H) YIS

H) CI. CD

1-4 0 11N o 1-.)

1-71J 0 0o I-1 oo H

En 11 0 to"d

ri)trlig

1.1

I

toI

& H.0 0 Ot)N I-J

ti) i) rnCr 0

r.

1-4) "Z.;

(DH) criC+ CO)

PCS 0I.

+1.4

I-J,1.4)1-4)

r$(0

r)

ro

HA)

COcn

H-4)

1.0

CD P.p,+

0)c

Cr N.0)

ht?

cifC')O 0

C+

0 POP.. 0

I1

14.C) Co

)-ti1.1

0tti

(11

Ti)

riUI

(3

ti0

0

O 0 '3" 0C)*. 14,

1C)). cnct. I-I )CD 0 H.

0cn I-1ct) Ott IV Pa

P (D rn

7' nn ibn

0

r71 1

1't C).

O a) .1 04'1 P..O 0

'7,1 0 Crs0u el)

I

lc/ Pt. I-1)

lc 1)) Cp'

1J I-J Pa.3 0

CM 1-1.Al 0 0

::13- )1:

Cl" C)rt (I) 1.0

ti CD

CD

N (1)

:r .1 (000: II) ;.1

0 P. 0.1r)" c) 0CD 0 A) co

rt-ct. (C,

Ha) A) 1+

I-4 0c+ 0 44 0r10 ctPa A) 0' c+

tf/

rA 0 CPPIO

!J 1 -D 1-h CP

CD I-1 CAI c+0 04 CD A) Cri-4))Q u) (n

(D D)40:3 "I 0 -3)

11) CD la1;111

C) N0 , 1-1. 1:d

ct) fl) r. (t) C')

Co r) r1 1 0to (+ to in CD ID

1(1)

cl 0 c7" I-" Pa a Sa.O.

1.,aCI! I1111,

I 11

fp' 4,1 (4 101'1 I

Clr t.$11) :11.1 II 4,14 ;1?' I

17' Cl' 0* (1) P, 1111) '-,4 P. S. I)sa., cf. vt)

r..1" (0"1( (71' CI 111 ii t:"13 "5 0 (1) ,!'t(11C) CI 1:4;° cro Pa.r.i P, :1clia) crui) ito iv) 'ttlti

u) ;I), 1.1it) "4

14.

c(a)1('t.*Iti tIrtiA)): tcprlL.111:

1.41

A) H'I) C) P. tort: .41

CO

0 t.... (1 r,CD1.

19. 4.tib 1-1)4)

4.) 1:4

Oci '4 0'00

(311

0 (1114' nc;)

U)ti rfl) I-c; ,1 ;1.)) Iv;

F; (D.$ ro }cot: ..r2)

o el. a) rn A) 0CT, CD Icf,* ) rf-s1

C+ t "0.3

#34 CD 0 04 0CD it) 0 13

(t)0. es. tz"

04 a)a) P.

academic emphasis as is m:ght be relai-ei tc persistence in a unlver-

sity by a sLden7 ,,teens tc be a vital area for investigaticn br3cause of

the planned non-olulloation educati:Ylai effort in each of the univer-

sities wil'cla p=.rt.'ci.cted in this study.

The relat:_cn.Ehip cf being unAe-i4ed =boa:. an educational major,

vocaticrt,l_ choize. cr a vocaticnal role -7-efe-er.f-e

a university seems tc merit continued research by each of the institu-tions whioh parttoipated in the study, Ea -..'h institution should attempt

to discern if being undecided about an educational major and vocationalchoice favors persiT-tenoe among male students but not among female stu-

dents, The results of such an investigation would have definite impli-cations for the development of academic advising and educational/voca-tional counseling for entering students on each of the campuses.

Differences I= Persisting and Non-PersisgStudents on theBasis of Educational Flans. Male and female persisting and non-persist-ing students on all campuses were compared on the basis of their educa-tional plans. Educational plans were defined as the anticipated educa-tional degree to be obtained,

There seemed to be fewer male persisting students than antici-pated who aspired to the receipt of the bachelor's degree but more non-persisting male students than expected who planned on the completion ofthe requirements for this degree. Persisting male students tended tobe observed less frequently than expected among those students who didnot anticipate the completion of the bachelor's degree, On the otherhand, the male non-persisting student appeared more often than expectedindicating that his educational plans included college but not the com-pletion of the bacheicr's degree.

The majority of the female students seemed to anticipate thecompletion of the bachelor's degree with the next greatest number ofstudents being found in the categories of less than a college degreeor the master's degree program, There appeared to be fewer femalestudents than expected who indicated that they did not plan on com-pleting their college program. On the other hand, there seemed to bemore female non-persisting students than expected who revealed thatthey did not antJ.cipate completing the four year program,

In general, persisting students seemed to anticipate the com-pletion of the four years within any of the fi=re institutions investi-gated as well as holding aspirations for graduate study. Male and fe-male students who dad not persist because of academic reasons appearedto anticipate their non-persistence since they reflected that they ex-pected to attend college but did riot aspire to the completion of thefour years. Furthermore, very few of the male and female academic non-persistIng students held the master's degree as an educational goal.The male and female students who did not persist because of non-academicreasons tended to reflect slightly higher educational aspirations sincethey appeared to be more likely to aspire to the master's degree thanthe academic non-per sisters. However, the results seemed to indicatethat such students may have serious questions about their persisting

108

"1",Tw,'"70, r Trrrrrr,

-WIWI I 11.111 UNA Noma lima 46.4

ct 1,, ctCD 16 0 0 P." 0

ct. 4 P.. (-t. o -o:i 1-.) o otla) i-I. 1-1 obd

(-1.. 0 0 a) 1- 00' 1-1 a) a)0 a) 5 0

::r cn 0 ib 0.5 q o cl. A., lc/

fiu P: cdi-J. I-I 0.11 CD to (D 1-.1 (D

co11 r4 )-1 z cnil Pi 0 0 0 P.. a) 1-4) cn

;LI- 0

CD (X) 11:1 P1 Ct. CI' CO 1-1) 1-, 0o cr to 0 0 0-1 1-5. c+ Id v.' l'n 0 0 ct I 1-I)Po wed 000M 00)00' I-3 r+ Pa H) 0' hi t.

1-1 Pa }j4 CO A 11 0 0 AJ (4. 11 0 0" 0 r:s (D CD C.) F"P., tJ^ 1 cr Cn CD 0 rt: a) 0 DI (D P. ,:+ )zi tt 1: .0" by

0 CD 1-'' a)c+ . Q.

p g)i .,0 S.", 4, ti11-1. 117!1 11 CD 0 a) cn 0 1-4)0 ,{9..0 a:. 0 a) to co Di tri' P..

(D :i pi Ii ri :.-$ a)(4- t-J. cn v.: cn q PI0 0 .1-1 0 11 0 IS 1 ci 0 Ft 1 CD c-1 0 0(D 0 1." r.1 (D r) 'd .1,' Lt. 0 0 ,..+3 co )1 i Is ..1-<

R'(D (D 1-1 cr Cr. 5 0 0 0 0- e I a.rt. .74' 0 ct- 0' )-3 VI 0 0 H- 0 ci cD I./ c) 0

O[1) t+ 0 (D t:T. 0 0 P. :- " 'II

74. ;11 ri g ;.1 I;t: I °I4cr 0' 0 V LP)II 11 0 Q. to e+ C) a,. a) v. 1-t

Q.r... t.,'"v" CD 0 CD 0 0 11>1-' A) 0 ct 0 ...--r CD Q. DI ca. u) .-+ IA I.-, 0 5

0 4.+ c.n a) 0 0 0 0 0 0 VI4?) 0 P,. 0 P..COsf-' P.. I-4) 1-4) ,s.4,.. Cl) 1-4) gill (D 00 Ft Cn 1--k

1 5 1.:1 cmwl 0 0 CD cr CD Cr tj' drtc+ 0 11 1,-). rn 0 0 4 5 r-1. rit '5.H (D cr cr ,071 cr5 a) 0 i3.: o- CD ti' ri-

til ib LI 0 ib tJ 11 & ::$'1-1) p. tu H) gl P-ri1,11. H IA* cl, (t)

iii 1-' ct' i) :7.1

CD 0t01 IJ H) (D (1) tr. (D 0 03 C3 0 C) 0 m. ..$0 '.:'S CD ri P) 1' I. /1 413 P$ Z.1 0. 'A:4 0 CA (D 4 CA Cu Z 11 0 0 et. CO ',..1 c-t . 1J'

o<1 cn I-I o - n,1 P., (D 1-, 0' 0 cr cr to 0 DIc+ cr A) Il tn ri 0 0 1-1) tb 41 0 ''S t+0 0 0-. h:::I 1"" :I' t'S .N 0 (n 0 cli P.. 0 1-1'i-- 0 Pi 116 Cla 0 (1) 70 0 Ocl 0 CD I 6 0 00 c+ (D c- cr 1-1 CI 0' 'I CD P. A) (D 0 Ft\ID 1J" 0 0' Cn DI 0 P. (D (D 0 0 H 0 .I. Ft ct' H all0 o 0 H. 0- g fa, 0 al 0. 5 a) 0 0 m a) 0" 0)0 to cn ',..1 cn 0 0 CD 0 5 0 1.-,. H) (A 1.1 0 r..30 a) .-1. c+ Pi 0 t-I' fa,H 4 0 0 0 ti

to cs 0 0 "0 0 0" 0"r-,-"ri 0. 0 0 11) 0 a) to v.: 5 -s 0 0 0 0 lb cD Z

fi.:0 t-1 0 0 (4- c-.1. ;:,34 0 o

CD11 V M 0"Di 0 0 0 "0 0 Cr. I.I. p, Cs CO I-1, 0 :..1)1 0 HD 5-.3 0 vi) (D P t',"4' (/) 0 i

11 0 0 DI 0(D CD

c+ 0 0 P, 1-1 ,-1' pl. M., Pa 1.4; 1T};a P.. 0 0' ID I '..--1 ta 1 k. . c-I" o 0 0 117.; '-TIci 0 0 11 klFt' 5 cn 0 I-#) 0 0 8 & ri v..... ....4 r., 114 d H) 0 .$

P. 3c1 P 0 0 II cl)0 0 I-I 0 0 0 '-i I 0 1-1 5 nq :1- as 0 F" 14'0 P, PJ a), V) 0 .,+ 0' H DI 0 .__"-11 0- M COCD (D ID 0 H 0 0 $1.) CD c-t (-I. P.) 0 0 A) 0 e+0 /1 H it 1-1) CO A) 0 0 ::: 0 1-1 0 V1 0 1-1'

(D A) 0 1-'' (D a) 7t' a. e.e ott (1. Cl. Pt gl. o aq11 ts 0 0 a) Pa Oct0 A. o cti

0 0 H. LD 0 o (Dc+ 0 0 0$

0 04 OR0 li 5 c+ 0 0 OR el P.s 0 II ...+ O s o 0 CI)H4 /-13 Cr $13 c.. P. 0 .0 (D Pa (D M 0 1:11 cl F-1) 0 1.0 P (D LI. P., (D 1-1) 1-1) (D I Pa VI 0

p. Pl. C.) (to 0 0 't H I-J 4 0* 'd a) Ila A,0 1-.. 1-s 0 f.ii a) a) Pt CD tr 0 cr 0 1'0 (Dtl cr V, c+ 0 1c-r A) 0 ti 0 il Is cr A) CD 00 0 r. CO A) I-.1 Di rt. (D p U) 0 P'' fl. FS crP, 0 0. CD 0 (D ib l'`" II II 0 (I) (f)0 0 t-i UI 0. Ft' ','S Ia. cr. I-I) 0 114) 0 0 5 P.1 0.' 0". 0"CCD 0 0 to cn 0 CD 80 0 0 a) 0 c+ I

+ a) his cn 01-.1* 0 cl*P. En Ori 0 P 'I a)0 (D M 0 I cr 11 el 4)11 Orn V c+

CD P, 0' 0 0" Ota 0"I a)

1-s F-J"c:I I-' II 0 Ota Ila & 4 5 :,- (-I- Pu I-1 0- Ila 0. u) "1:1 0- 5 00 1.1. H 0 (D 0 0 0 I-J iv' Pa H I" I. 0 CD 0 Ip" pa t$ (D 0 CD C.) 13" A)0 0 (D Ocl 1-1 Vs 0 P) 0 11' C.- (I 0 c+ II 4 a) 11 ts 1 CD tt CD 0)

::5" 3" .1 C) (I)

0 tk) 1-$ H 0 il fl: i...''. l's 1-.-1(71 (Vs tilv f.D..: 4 rti 0 (14 CD c1 .1*) ,')

CD Cl) i,), 0' c+ Cn CD 0 Pa FS 4 ti II I-. 11 0 A! W. 0 0to pi 0 i-3, 1-,, 5 * f.$1, H

...kir ,.s..*: tZ51 ccno g colt 0 Pei 1. P) 1-4) CD si rn a)

0.1:I.1...1 1.., t.,) 0 til c) 0I.-, :....: 0 tl o' or o

0_ 1-4,

«3' 1443 tI 11) 'A 1 t'S .3'

Li.C) X:

H)):a...,. rst- ,",ti' ti

r+ LZ" c-f 11.% cii H pi 0 0.

CD let '.,1-0" r:).. (1) 0 1.... it)1.7' 0 ,rf 0 CD C` i" ti

I-.

I:::

: le

0 rt fly) a), .1 14. 1(71. I ..,D5

(1) c0t. pn 47+ t.03 (DP" 01-1' 1.4. (., ..lb tn..1 ,;,' 0 0

0 '1 to m u)?I.

5 1-0) Pe c+ e ru 0.- m (I) At; 0

rt. 0. 0. 0' PiPc:I "I

(Cl-4-1 (1.) CD 11 1-1 rt Hr,1

'014, 11)..1, '4),,,i 19, 'a .7t- li, ,) ,D o

0 0.. cr cr 0 Ps ct et* P-. 0)

H Cl.i..., i. ri) 0 t oe tti

44 F...4 1:::/ ) 'PI 41 iD i o '1"

) I i. 1

1 41 'r i) 1..4

!:' lc.)

..%

';

0.. ,. 1 ..

,A,

0., ,,, , 13.)

:3 1,', ',oil

1 .L 0 4

...4,' :1,..

Ct

.... r.

(I) On P 'i 4) irs

..t. PI CD

,0 .

:-.f. er, 5-1,..,ct t."." e,

0 c) (D so I-1 A) .4 1 't111))

r..01 1.41.--1 1.0 .9 ..--t" .4 1 ' it. II ',3 rn .4

ii 1(1 14

(Dc+ P-0

.11 i....4 1,,,..,

) '

0 Ft) l. ...? (I) ,... .1 a,p., 1..1 ...el a, 1.... r.; 0- 1...., ea l.., o,

alLi, ..i,

.,...q. ti 0 c.i. /13 0.,4 :s' a) *4 az Cri: rill.): l'..311 mir.t.) I 'II,.

f,I.;

t!'fil-..'' 1:7-

al r. ,,

1:).r. 0. Li :1)

.,..s. s. it rt1 (D cl I I. tr. 0 04rA nci e), z" 11 t.11 cr I' CD Cl 11 Cr NI (Is ° C:) ;I ei 0.. ,..-) 11"1

,r, 11 :% (0 1

to 4*)

CD r.s. I.; 0 0 0 (D 0 c,D P Ps.,,,

-.",,)

rc) 0

1')iv ;

- red.. rfin rot 14) Pt 1--, 0' 1.4 0 , 1' W, Li ri

ttic" 11 A " H (IC"' H '17141. a),)./4 tl,'"4' l'111., 4.::i; 1:P1 tIt17' t%*ti effi P'

[ i1,

U'cols.,

1.-:-11 e: :'::' CD n' t: :),0 r.s (it Cl.0.. P., re tr (D AS 0 CD rt.I g: :5 r., 1--1 0 H. 1... ry m st) 6 115 t li%,--. p) t) r.r4 ) CD ti u., RBI ct 1..I. IJ. rt. 1-.1. 1'1' Ila 1,...)" ri ;1: AI t.$,4) tr,t+; 09

:i:4, 1.1. ,.. I I.

t t.

0 H 1-4) 0 0 q:f (Je. 3 cn .4 0 to 00 Io 0 1.1 t$

0

0 ri.

tji cli:1) 4'0,:li

sl4 4

I . 0 , 114

U) it: 'll:

1%

0 0 a'In 0I-I a, -. A) er 0

Vil / .1CA li

/II1'0 o 0 0 1

-4,. 4 ..r1 1.4) c.t.. 1.4) 0.. P.P.) 1 .D `,,v*

-.tCD

r::1

cot p i 0 0 p" o 1.11 4 0 O 1 0 0 (it ti '.4., ot- 4 1 '' 0 11. 1 -.4., ,..t 0 1-1 1.1, I-4) C' rs %...tots 0 i (..1' i P. 0 ,*3 4** rt '44' ::,-7

,i,1'

11) p.. '1 Oq 0 cil l..4) 0 H. 1 I Cr i'l *r.) i...ie 0 0 "(j I-.. 0 ?) a 1)A

(CTI14

4 1.1) LT oft

0 Ot ts P

0 Ii 1...1 fl) il CD 1/ ,.1 ts" 0 MI 0 0 r..1 0 : 0. 1. ' 0 01 01.-1 in

H p., P$ I'S tl ri 0 c) qt '11 1-1 I'd '1 I'D

0 .4' 14) I "g [I'se; 11,,

i.'t' CD 17) 0 0 cri 5-.) 0 D.t 1 it et D 0 .4. oti 0 al0 0 ws 1--1 E. o, trt I.-41 0 I-. 11 0 t..1 (.1 ,,,t t.r. ..1u, :.f.. A, l4)

?..t. P.:i4.(i'ti LI to () DI (.4. Cr ,,-.1-.1.1 0 0 0 ,D 1.- cn it 0. .1 at +4)

1. 9 p, c.). 0 (A It) o 0 :1.. i,.. 1:3" ,) u. 0 ti) . % ,r) I ..

.I. I..;

0 co 0 1., i...rt. (-: r.:T. Cr 1.1 rs 0 I,' CD 1- -' C) I "v" P' 0, ''..1

° 4 a) i'f it°71,t;1:;,,, P 0 0 .- ao ri. II' .*IA ct cr,

)-, D.

11

0.r:

0 0 ..0 I-v.Ocl } 0 %) 0 0 1 ...1+7, 1...0.1 C1c1 .,..10 10-. ;::sH"

i...1 rl .10., -,4 .1

0 Co P.: (D c+ P4 Co ;1%4 Orl ti A5 rA 0' I P3 U 0 Ito

H) (11 H. A4 4,,) ,,. I. r 11 C4' t'4' I-";At 1-3 CD l'i' ill LI:

ryi i.-1 ct- p- CDtr g :S 2 " 2, a g

51CI

p w 5, al 5 rgi. 1'1: ;:' ',:41,, ;11),,, `ii. !: mFD41,-.1 co to '"1

s.0 0(D 'rl5'j .1)

CD H P 1-1' 0 Pa °(-1 1-1. (1)0

I -"cr C°D rI art! 41 f1 U) r''pa ca, co 5 It- Hi

P. 51 %-i- 0- 15.) Fa. 0 .41 CD ri., c7. 1,.".:3 r.* '1

g) co u) U) u) 0 ch cD Ca a) I- 1-4) I.4 (I) 0 0 0 / H. mI-I Cr ) tri 1J' CD (D c+ IA 'I to 0r+ (D (+ K:. RI 61. MCI (D Ir+1 linj. Ifs ',7' al 0 Ii 0 P.1-1) (3 0 .'4'CD P' Cr 1-#, 0 to p, 1-1. "c1 0 Cl . cD .-t- c1. Oct ct" 0 }1 u) in e)11 CD (1) 1--.1

cr) 1.1.cr c.t. o (0) 11-1! 0 r) 8- est. 0-. p p. (a 0 ..-s (1.k.

TH1

13 2., %.,.1 6,a)

0 r 6 P 0 t)

Cr 0'0 (1)0

c+ $15 '1 r+ P- qi II ID 4,1*113 cl' 0 CA

I 1 I t.11 CD LA 0*CD $3.

1 rd..0 (40 WI I

1:111

1-1 $.4

f

(0 (f)bl) 6.,

(1.1 0 tat) 4.4 (1) ).4i 1 '1-4 4) 0 $.,1 (.)112 to $.4 H

,g:CU 1(1

P0 1) 4t2( () 110 14 .1-

cci0

4 r srW t)I:i4.

9 (1) ell 0 i.-0.: '20 4

)."1' 1-1 ,0 0,1 A) 0 X:

0 0 ..14 u) 0 .1-1;114 ; U1 (1.1 'T1

..:iC.i I.

1 I, a)u .1:1 14 (0

.174 (I) I.L.; , .14;. . CI

4d 11) ;J.: ,.1 (I'x,lo F., (I) 4.4 cl,s., (I) CZ Ts a) 0)NI 1)0 I ci ..,

r 00) I.; 4) 0%.ri it/ ,, ).:: 41 $1,,,3 Ai ). 4-s p1.1 .1 C. U) (,I ,i-.1 to 4.1i;,., I. LI:(1) 1-1" t 1 t) 11 4.1

, i ,t) ,,,,! cli r .f...1

W 0,1 r- I 0 4.)El .k t) :t:0 k A : li) 44

AL, Pi 01 .1.1 il (',1

$.4 P ,C1 011).) $:4

6 1;1 1. I gl1.1: +, co v., cu r11' .14 gi (ci i'l 4)r 1 ,. 0

1:

0.4 (1).11, 1,)1 4 r 1

I)) 4) 1-1 ca.4 ),-..: :?.. 1.4 al El: t 'I (t. V t:

t ii, 1 1 i 1.,,, t):1 It ......1 igi. i., 0.,, , 1

;11 CO a) ii) 3.1(I) W 01 0 I-1I.) III $,.: :.- 9

"it , i) ( j 4 4g 4) r: $i

A X:4

.1 I Ili 0 0.1N51

*r! Ita t/) lil 11 El

(1)

).4 'tS a) it +16-1 $:.: 1:1 0

,-.) 0 0 asti) .1.3 r) 1.1 F .1.)

11 0 co qi 0 4)U (11 (0 e.,) 0 F.

oalPI :3 .1-1 a) 00 (11 ,r; ,g1 rd 0 4)pi C) c.) .1-) (1) 3 rd

tar) rd la) a)

1 rcS -) i f(4.3 rd et ,,o, in it 0 1

')1 P 0 0 4-.1 a) Pi TS ,e1 co0 0 f..) 1..)

c 4) A.1

0, R. 04-I 4) r- I 0 C) l

U) I. 0) H M .111 id.3 U) .1.1

,CU1 (11q a) 4-i E-1 ,,,, 0 0 +) 0 43

(1) C)4-i

0 r011 C.: 03 .r-1'CI 0 .0. 4)AS CD

al a) cr)s 0 0 0 1.1 a) $1,

4.) 1.1 V 4) In +3 di (0 ()) a)V4 (1) 0 11) rlitan 4-i 0 (I) 91 .4.1 +)

c*-) g ..1 rd Cf"1 .4 '1.14 id to coEl .i.).5 d ..0 41 (l) 0 0 . 1.-1 4

4.) tl) If.1 1'4 0) cil 0. o Q1in 4) r-1 a) 1.1) ,.'i.11 C: 1-1 A./ in ea t..) S-4 rycra iNi 0 :3 (11 C) u a) .,

--i. .1S. 1 c.) ;,1 a) 0.4 f.( a) 0.co , -: r..1 140 14 a) ,.0 .4.) 4) I'd

rig

h.1 0) a) (0 .,C1 0.... et-1 0

g4 g 0 r-IC)

1 E.-4 'PO E-1(1) CD . r'l1 .r1

0 D0 1.) CI 0) 'IA (1) ..C) r--1VI .11 0 U ,.C1 6 U) b0

D,1 0 4.) QJ A.t r, o 0,ti 'CS 0 a) a) .1.) ,..s.:j

5414i)4

10..1 .10-1 iigi r(i pi Atilrd

I%

tl) (4 ,CI W 0 OS 4) rdDIi.: 1)14

1..;..,-... .14 twit) .it:i .1..) tar 4(1:,'

.r'

ID i.3 g 0) tl(4 i4? ( ::: $4 0 . 1 Ai 1))ul a) 4.) a) g V) Pi Pi(1 .4 10 U) l':.:1 rai :1 Cck

,

;al

..(1a 1-1 .ri r1

4 la DI 41 V) i. 0A4A) Fi 01 gl 0 T1 PI A"

15.-: 0 .a) .. 0J Al a) 4Q1 a, '4.. e') 0 40 -C.: XI(0 () 1 ID 4 .) 4.1 (0 41 -)VI t'.I :7,1 4) 11 :z.

I r ,:: (I) .ii .c: 1 I: !LI-,-i! 1 c 0 A:4 40 PA il:f g

C. ti a i 0 01), 43i C.: :0 lb "rd ca In '00 Co A TS Al 1 II! A.4 :.1C) 0) .0! 0 4,- 51 (t) I)g 4I 4,1 .1. ` AI, C? . 'I trP U)0) 1-4 I) V. (a () (1) 51$ i (I) t.1 DO I: 0 .8 ..0 bo0 ,..1 .4..) 1.4 ..c., to Pi44 H V) .) Iti 4.4 ID ta

c:-.1 00 .r61 0113 Cl) 1-1i .,..1. ) .DI r-1

r.ti 'A i 0 C.) qi th rl 1-14-( 0 rii a) g ,g; o a) (a cl0 r,),,,,1 U) (.1 4. 3 eCi 'P $.1 ..C.

) DO to Lo 4-"g in P4 4.)Irl P.4), 0.1 i 0 0 P 0 .0 I- I 0M 0 M 4-I Z a-4 r-I gII PD °

0000 4)-P I'd V) A4 2 4

rd

N)

et-Lp.i o )w

a) .11a) co La

7/ct $(1)1

.p0a) rdra

04.)H VJ F44 .) ri

1 1 AV-1 24rf4. 1P4

I.0

trIto

U)

Aai

Sr $.1rdVI 0116 4) S'g a)

1.0 a)

4)rel Tit

.re-i

w t

V.4 "r).44 4:

(3.t1

(1)

.1S1 Stii*

(1)(1.1

C.) 7.4 0)(1.) ;.1

<4 0.CI'

4-10

rd

rd

U)4.)

4-)

4)$4

4-)U)

0

rCIX.41

(1) pit

r00 0)LA 0gga)0a) (.1

Intl) go:11

Al A .1 000)1404) ID A.1

r ti4) '0 P

rr8 463

C).3

it. 1 a) A

1)0 br-04 °

0111

a).L1e oil C)

41 4)(1i

Po: V,: t.t11

:rtrl:t(11)14:11):11)

I'd;113)(P13141

r-1 .t

:14 V)0

0ID A1:11 F4

I U)H

4-)F4 0 U)

(1) et--1:14 ic:1

g1 .lerjt

g Pio g .r1 TS

rI°rd a)

Ca 4-)D

0)bf) .1 4.) .7i

4)V1-1.1 F.43) CD1 VA° 111

a) top., a)

14' .4:4 P1 Lari -3F)i

t>4 +30) 3 H4 .1-1 C)

tr)

FTi

4:1N

c)

43 $..) 1

cti a E1 0.r.: ,3

0

a0 u1g:

10 jT i *r-1

ir.

ill (1) $,(1.4)

A:

1)11

(Libe(1)

0: rd40 1-'1J (1),

4-1 (I) 10C

0)rCl C)

(11 44.)F-ra og

0) .1..) cdU)

g Hcd ty) 4.)

a). 1-)

Q) AI,r)

A a) +3 0)

bo

.41

: 1 .0 gelH

tr) rla) t F.1to to o

4-) HOti-I +)

ckt grn ca0a)

:4D 4...11 rU) Tr) .H

4) 0,C3 .ri

:.0 4: Pi (aU)

jS g0 4-)

.19 rdtri (a

43t-ks

a)

t(1) ctig1 .40:4)

P-4 r'1 4s)

4)

u).1 rd

1.10

a)

4'Atf-4

(1)

CH0

00 .1.4A4 4cd 0

-)

gi0 .r-I

a)F-1

trt

cti

4-)

$.at1

140C)

a)

F-4

as

a)rdIDa))14

-1

O

4-)

cH

U)) ros:DF4

ai U .4-3srl.4-) $4 a)

oa)

'U) .r-1 .H° -Pr°

1:240 w$4 >~ 4-1

.1-1 ;04:r0 F4 0T4 ./.4

a.rI4

4-1 4-) VI cd

0° a) 4z31 111(1)

C) 0 0 4.:"Sr{ rd A 1.11.+, 4 0 .4-)

EQ) $.1

0 oei-I U1

4-)4C) ..) .41

0 0 0)Is +3 F4

V.1 0 0U) 3 4-10

.1 1-10 -) eri

q.': 74.7e

H rl(1) 4.3.1 cd

II) C) s.11

.r9 Aa) 1-'1

4-1 rclo 5.94-1 1f) orlXI 0 (0

a) Id(1) 4:44 Cf)

ta 0 4-) Ul

Q11 .2 +Ca) g 5:1C)c) U rg 0 4)

Xt

H -P 4-1 Idri

F.t cti CO

(1)

at 0 4-)O

erl

a)

.r1a)A 0r) 10.4

0 Hco

411 +9 .49 qi C)

04-)

co

1d

0

cd

.r I4-)

.Cl.U)

O

O4)-1

0A

0r14-)

taf)H4-)

a)

(1) in M I m

u)(1) e) .V) 1 ci0 0 L P (0 $4g 0 Pi fal el-I a) Cil0 $4 P (11 110 to pi (a0 A- TS g +) ctiu) r 0 0 ..-t g .L-3 H

4-) 4-1 P-( 4: 4: 0 0 0Z .1-1 H o cti u) TS g(1) r0 r-I ..g 0 r-I 140

TS cd -1 TS 10 4-) rd p4.)

E

-P0 0 0 A-I 0

(xi F4 to :11 4s)

Cl') ai 0 to 14 CZ) c4

b .1-1C) Ill VI 0 F4 tr1Q...2 rit.r9

4-1 -P WI -5, 2 I r,.. ctri .. ,..... 0 F4

+3 (1) 4°0 qa21 140\1 rd tg)

F.uli US -Pro .rig 4-30 .,a) el-10 0a) oo.it-t4 rI rig +.) 1-4

a) .P 0 w p., rgP . t b0 ( 1 1 Pt U oLogom

r-1 10 A-4 0 0 cd cti btO

TS 10

O VI ri rdca ; .45)A-a rii(n(Q11 :45: :.40)o ct ..4-3.,1

bo

g b0 F4 H 4-)cd g 43), 0 0 V) 0

.14 0 11) H 0 4-) EDb0 .P 1 A 4-) r-I AI 0 0

.F.1 cd 0 ton za) rcL et-L rcia) rg0 04-) TS 0 T1 rd 0

tra tr) VI 0 -4-) t4)rtib1-1 F4 TS -P 4:= -P cb 31

U) t-D 0 11 111 0 Cd 0S-1 ct A 0 F4 Ul0 H D.0 'net rd P,) ctila, 0 110 q-I Z P cti 0. 00 Z 0 r1 .4-' t-t CI) F.4

4.4yam,)

g.i 'rib A .1-1 4-1

0 a) rrito .,-.1 0a) = P-I 2 e" 1 co 80 .4.) .4.3 F_I ctiz thi tiO $4 0 0 00 0 0 4-i 0 ID 4 44F4 0 0 ..5, c.7'. 110.4 -P 00 0) 14 \ PI

el-44-1 .r-I W rtil AQ) C \I a) CD.' Ul°.1-4 Cf) rd to ti-L g ;- oP

el-1it0OctiOtd

0 0 r0 4-3 Vag 0 alFt.-1 0 TS 0 0 ,K)

Ul A 0 CO in ..C1.1-1 re) 4.) -Pca Al

CDtt 0 u)

Di 0) g CD H 0 r-IIll I I3 0 P4 0 Ti Fxc U

MI ISM 1101 thimi 01.1 ifoinwo #461114411 Ffi."81" #1*.", tritamt ts.lt #111.01i /WM, .1.110 111.14 PIM, I", Slag 41.10

250 or fewer students while there were more of these academic non-persisting students tnan exuecnea whc graduated from classes of 250

students cr more.

The results seemed to _rdi:ate that students graduating from aclass of 250 or fewer students may be more likely to persist in one ofthe universities Investigated than students who graduated from classes

of 250 or more students. Also, if the student who graduated from aclass of 10C or fewer students did not persist, it seemed likely toexpect that his non-persistence was due tc non-academic reasons.

These 1.esults tend to snggAst that the s=ze of high school c lass

in which the student graduated may be a factor in terms of persistencewithin the five universities investigated. Each institution shouldconduct further investigation to discern the precise effect that thesize of high school graduating class might have with regard to per-sistence within the institution. Again, this study did not accountfor the possible influence of scholastic aptitude. There may be rea-

son to believe that the Institutions are attracting or selecting stu-dents from the larger high schools who rank in the lower levels ofscholastic aptitude and students from the smaller high schools whorank within the upper levels of academic potential. If this differ-ential attraction were valid, the findings within this investigationwould be better explained.

In summary, the objectives of this investigation were achieved.There is a diversity of characteristics among persisting and non-per-sisting students among campuses. These persisting and non-persistingstudents vary significantly from each other as do the campuses onwhich they are enrolled. The ACT data obtained on each student enter-ing each of the institutions as well as selected post-matriculationvariables seemed to differentiate among persisting and non-persistingstudents among campuses.

This investigation was initiated as an exploratory study toserve as an impetus to continued research in the area of educationaldevelopment of students. This goal will be met only in the futureand to the extent the cooperating institutions utildze the resultsfrom this investigation as guidelines for the development of hypothesesregarding their respective educational programs and the impact thesemight have on their students. The results of this investigation indi-cate there are significant differences among persisting and non-per-sisting students and if the institutions hope to effect rationally theattrition rate of their students as well as give explicit recognitionto individual differences among students and campuses, then continuedresearch is a necessity and not a luxury.

REFERENCES A RIBLTOGRATHY

1. Astin, Alexander W., "Some Characteristics of Student Bodies Enter-ing Hier-Ler Educational Institutions," Journal of Educational

Psychology-55:267-275, 1964.

2. Astin, Alexander Nr Who Goes Where To College? Science ResearchAssociates, Chicago, Ill., 125 pp., 1964.

3 Duncan D. R., "Multiple Range Test for Correlated and Hetero-scadistic Means," Biometrics 13:167-176, 1957.

4. Edwards, A. L., Experimental Design in Psychological Research,Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York; 1963.

Kauffman, J. F., "Student Personnel Services: Some Questions andRecommendations," Educational Record, Fall, 1964.

6. Knoell, Dorothy, "A Critical Review of Research on the CollegeDropout," The College Dropout and the Utilization of Talent,(Per non et al., ed.), Princeton Univ. Press, 1966.

7. McConnell, T. R., A General Pattern for American Public HigherEducation, The Carnegie Series in American Education, McGraw-Hill, 1962.

8. McConnell, T. R., "Diversification of American Higher Education:A Research Program," Educational Record 38:300-315, 1957.

9. Pervin, L. A., Reik, L. E., and Dalrymple, lir., The College Dro outand the Utilization of Talent, Princeton Univ. Press, 19 .

10. Summerskill, J., "Dropouts from College," The American College,(Sanford, ed.), Wiley, New York, pp, 627-657, 1962.

11. Tseng, M., "Multiple Comparisons Among Treatments," Department ofHuman Resources, University of West Virginia, 1967, mim.

112

Reprinted from The Educational Record, Fall 19":

(title of copyrighted work)

by Joseph F. Kauffman

(name of author)

American Council on Educationby permission of

(name of copyright owner)

Copyrighted 1964

(date)

Permission to rep- puce this copyrighted material has been granted by

American Council ft Education (copyright owner) to the Educa-

tional Research in';,rmation Center (ERIC) and to the organization oper-

ating under contract with the Office of Education to reproduce ERIC docu-

ments by means of microfiche or facsimile hard copy, but this right is

not conferred to any user of ERIC materials. Reproduction by users of

any copyrighted material contained in documents disseminated through

the ERIC system requires permission of the copyright owner.

is

.10

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESSPRINCETON NEW JERSEY 08540

June 4, 1968

Professor David L. CokerStudent AffairsWisconsin State UniversityStevens Point, Wisconsin 54481

THE COLLEGE DROPOUT & THE UTILIZATION OF TALENT, by Pervin, Reik & Delrymple,(Princeton University Press, 1966): quotation from pp. 64-65

We hereby grant you permission to reprint the above material in

a reaearch report, under grant from U.S. Department of Health, Education & Welfaras requested in your letter of

17 May 1968 without charge.

1. The credit line should include notice of author (and translator or editor), title,

publisher, and copyright. All information needed for credit line is given above

2. Rights herein granted shall not be construed to relate to any interior matter sherights to which are not controlled by the Princeton University Press.

3. This permission applies to only one edition of your publication and all retirintsof that edition in the same format. It will be necessary for you to apply for anew permission for any revised or enlarged editions, or for change from paterbackto hardcover or hardcover to paperback editions.

RE1' /kh

Sincerely,

\61Roy t. ThomasPermissions Manage r.

(TOP)

001

100

101

102

103

200

300

310

320

OE 6000 (REv. 9-60ERIC ACCESSION NO.

CLEARINGHOUSE.ACCESSIO N

OEPARTr.IF.NT OF IlEAL M. EDUCATION. AND WELFAREOFFICE OF EDUCATION

ERIC REPORT RESUME

RESuAlL DATE05 24-68

P.A. IS DOCUMENT COPYRIGHTED? YES

ERIC REPRODUCTION RELEASE? YES M4ONO

TITLE

DiversiZy of Intellective and Non-Intellective Characteristics Between

Persisting and Non-Persisting Students Among Campuses

PERSONAL AumoRts;

Coker, David L.

INSTITUTION SOURCE)Wisconsin State Universitr-Stevens Point

REPORT /SERIES NO.

ISOURCE CODE

OTHER SOURCE I SOURCE CODE

Consortium on Research Development

330 OTHER REPoRT I.O. 760-541-70-1007-06

340350400

500501

600

601

602

603

604

605

606

607

800

801

802

803804

805

806

807

808809

810811

812

8)3814815

816817

818819

820821

822

0 Tri EP. SOURCE SOURCE CODE

OTHER REPORT NO.

;AU D'L. DATE 5Apr 68 COr. TRACT /GRANT NUMBER OEC -3 -6 -062728 -2129PAGINATIOIJ. ETC.

112 pages

RETRIEVAL TER,As

College persistence

College dropout

T

IDENTIFIERS

ABsTRAcTrn purpose of the study-was to seek out the nature and extent of the diver-

sity of the characteristics of persisting and non-persisting students vithin and

among the various campuses of five state universities.

The total student sample (N = 7010) of the study consisted of the entire

freshman class of 1965-66 who were enrolled on the campuses of the five state uni-

rersities on a full-tine basis. The sample was stratified into persisting, academi

non-persisting, and non-academic non-persisting student categories for each of the

articipating campuses.The results indicated that the various sub-scales of the American College

Testing Program tended to discriminate between male and female and among persisting

and non-persisting students within as well as amorg campuses. Previous high school

schievenent tended to be a discriminate variable between male and fenale and among

persisting and non-persisting students within and among campuses. College achieve-

ment in terns of credits earned, credits attempted, and grade points achieved ap-

peared to differentiate male and female persisting and non-persisting students with

in and among campuses. There were significant differences revealed between male an

fer,ale persisting and non-persisting students on the basis of planned educational

major, vocational choice, vocational role preferences, educationd aspirations, nun

ber of changes in.acadenic major, place of college residence, and size of high

school graduating class.The results were discussed with regard to their implications for further

study of the persistence of the college student on the various campuses as well as

for the educational programs among the five state universities as these might be reto naulzterse

DOCUMENT RESUME - ERICFINAL REPORT Project No. 760-541-70-1007-06 Grant No. OEC-3-6-062728-2129...

Documents

Transcript of DOCUMENT RESUME - ERICFINAL REPORT Project No. 760-541-70-1007-06 Grant No. OEC-3-6-062728-2129...