DOCUMENT RESUME
ID 097 934 JC 740 428
TITLE The Academic Performance of Missouri Junior CollegeTransfer Students at the University ofHissouri-Columbia.
INSTITUTION Missouri Univ., Columbia.NOTE 18p.
EDRS PRICE MF-$0.75 HC-S1.50 PLUS POSTAGEDESCRIPTORS *Academic Achievement; College Students; *Comparatite
Analysis; Dropout Rate; *Grade Point Average; HigherEducation; Junior College Students; Persistence; PostSecondary Education; Statistical Data; *StudentEvaluation; Tables (Data); Technical Reports;*Transfer Students; Universities
IDENTIFIERS Missouri; *University of Missouri Columbia
ABSTRACTTo ascertain the academic performance of Missouri
junior college transfer students at the University ofMissouri-Columbia, two student populations were compared. The firstpopulation was 383 junior-college students who transferred to theUniversity of Missouri-Coluabia for the fall 1971 semester. Students(278) who transferred to the university from Missouri four-yearcolleges for the fall 1971 semester comprised the second population.The two populations were compared on academic entry patterns,persistence, and academic performance (GPA and attrition) from thetime of the students' enrollment through the 1973 winter semester.The data were analyzed by statistical techniques. The study data,which are tabulated, show: (1) 80.68 percent of the junior collegesample enrolled in the College of Administration and Public Affairs,College of Agriculture, College of Arts and Science, and College ofEducation; 85.24 percent of the four-year sample entolled in theCollege of Arts and Science, College of Education, College ofAgriculture, and College of Home Economics; (2) 40.20 percent of thejunior-college sample failed to continue their enrollment even thoughthey were academically eligible; (3) 24.02 percent of thejunior-college sample were suspended or dismissed for academicreasons; (4) on honor-roll eligibility, there were significantdifferences between the two samples for the 1971 fall and 1972 wintersemesters; there were no significant differences between the twosamples for the 1972 fall and 1973 winter semesters; (5) a higherpercentage of the junior-college sample completed graduationrequirements than the four-year sample did; and (6) there was asignificant difference between the 1971-72 cumulative grade pointaverages of the two groups, but there was no significant differencebetween the 1972-73 cumulative grade point averages. (DB)
. ;,f P.A4 **A1.11if Oh ME Ad TMg' r foto a stm.All
tAstortat OFI oiA.4,10*
t sr of Piti11.
,Se.,; `, f
' t 04.
5:51°1Ulm
The Academic Performance of. Missouri Junior CollTransfer Students at the University o Missouri-CO umhia
et"
The University of Missouri-ColumbiaAdmissions Staff
TITLE:
rt7rr r11:11:MIE
The Academic Performance of Missouri Junior CollegeTransfer students at the University of Missouri-Columbia.
RESEARCHERS: The University of Missouri-Columbia Admissions Staff.
PURPOSE: To ascertain the academic performance of Missouri juniorcollege transfer students at the University of Missouri-Columbia.
POPULATIONS: The first population of this study was composed ofjunior college students who transfer to the University ofMissouri-Columbia. The sample of this population wasjunior college students who transferred to the Universityof Missouri-Columbia and enrolled for the 1971 Fall Semester.The students in this sample were assigned to one of fourgroups, based on the number of semester hours transferredto the University of. Missouri-Columbia. (Group one wascomposed of students with fifteen to thirty semesterhours; group two was composed or students who haft
earned between thirty-ono and fiLLy-four semesteit hour::;
group three was composed of students who had earnedfifty-five or more semester hours; and group four wascomposed of students who had earned the Associate of ArtsDegree).
METHOD:
The second population of this study was composed ofstudents who transfer to the University of Missouri-Columbia from Missouri four-year colleges. The sample ofthis population was Missouri four-year college transferstudents who transferred to the University of Missouri-Columbia and enrolled for the 1971 Fall Semester. Thestudents in this sample were assigned to one of fourgroups, based on the number of semester hours transferredto the University of Missouri-Columbia. (Group one wascomposed of students with fifteen to thirty semesterhours; group two was composed of students who hadearned between thirty-one and fifty-four semester hours;group three was composed of students who had earnedbetween fifty-five and fifty-nine semester hours; and groupfour was composed of students who had earned between sixtyand seventy semester hours).
The two populations were compared on academic entrypatterns, persistence, and academic performance (G.P.A.and attrition) from the time of the student's enrollmentat the University of Missouri-Columbia for the 1971 FallSemester through the 1973 Winter Semester.
The data pertaining to attrition and persistence wereanalyzed by use of the chi-square statistic. The datapertaining to grade point averages were analyzed by use
of the t statistic. The data pertaining to academic
entry and completion of graduation requirements werereported in percentages. The Statistical hypotheseswere tested using a .05 level of confidence.
2
ASSUMPTIONS: 1. Semester grades obtained from the students',1officialtranscript are a valid indicator ot the students'college academic accomplishment.
LIMITATIONS
2. Students chosen as subjects earned at least a gradepoint average of "C" prior to transferring to theUniversity of Missouri-Columbia.
This study was limited to students who were admittedand who subsequently enrolled at the University otMissouri-Columbia.
2. This study was limited to the investigation and com-parison of Missouri junior college and four-yearcollege transfer students who enrolled at theUniversity of Missouri-Columbia for the 1971 FallSemester.
3. This study does not include transfer students fromthe other campuses of the University of Missouri.
DEFINITIONOF TERMS: 1. Academic dismissal and suspension. Depending on
the Academic Division in which they are enrolled,students are dismissed or suspended if their semestergrade point averages are 1.0 or below or if they fail
half or more of their programs. When dismissed,students are generally eligible to re-enroll in thatAcademic Division after two semesters. Suspensionis of a permanent nature and students are noteligible to re-enroll in the Academic Divisionfrom which they were suspended.
2. Academic Performance. A student's achievement, asdefined herein, includes only his scholastic recordin terms of grades recorded upon his official reportcard.1
3. Admissions Policy. The establiped procedurefollowed in admitting students.4
4. Attrition. Term used to note students who aresuspended or dismissed from the University ofMissouri-Columbia for academic reasons.
1Gary L. Smith, "A Comparison of Undergraduate Veterans and Non-Veterans at the University of Missouri-Columbia" (unpublished Doctor'sdissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia, June, 1971), p. 8.
2Handbook of Data and Definitions in Higaer Education (Washington,D. C.: The American Association of Collegiate Registrars and AdmissionsOfficers, 1962), p. 36.
ISTI.TUTIONSSTUDIED:
3
Committee on Entrance and Revision of Records. ThisCommittee acts aP an agent of the Faculty on easesof admission referred by the director of Admissions andreceives and acts upon petitions by students for re-visions in entries concerning grades and creditsentered upon the official record card.3
6. Grade. A rating or evaluation of a student'slariVement.4
7. Grade Point Average (GPA). A measure of averagescholastic success obtained by dividing the totalnumber of grade points earned by the total number ofhours of course work attempted.5
8, Persistence. Continuous registration beginning withthe 1971 Fall Semester through the 1973 WinterSemester.
The data used in this study were .Aimpiled on studentstransferring from thirty-two Mis::-:114-i colleges and uni-versities (fourteen junior college:.; and eighteen four-year institutions). Students incl led in this studywere required to be within the minimum and maximum hourlimitation; and Missouri college- .Ind universities wereincluded if at least five of their students transferredto and enrolled at the University of Missouri-Columbiafor the 1971 Fall Semester. The junior colleges repre-sented in this study were East Central Junior College,Florissant Valley Community College, Forest Park Com-munity College, Jefferson College, Longview CommunityCollege, Maplewood Community College, Meramec CommunityCollege, Mineral Area Junior College, Moberly JuniorCollege, Penn Valley Community College, St. Marys JuniorCollege, Three Rivers Junior College, Trenton JuniorCollege, and Wentworth Military Academy. The four-yearinstitutions represented in this study were CentralMethodist College, Central Missouri State University,Columbia College, Lincoln University, The Lindenwood CollegesMissouri Baptist College, Missouri Southern College,Missouri Valley College, Missouri Western College, North-east Missouri State University, Northwest Missouri StateUniversity, Rockhurst College, St. Louis University,Southeast Missouri State University, Southwest MissouriState University, Stephens College, Westminster College,and William Woods College.
3Committees, Councils, Boards 1971-72 (Columbia: University ofMissouri-Columbia, 1971), p. 5.
4Handbook of Data and Definitions in Higher Education, op. cit., p. 38.
5Ibid., p. 39.
FINDINGS:
ACADEMICENTRY.PATTERNS: The data in Table I represent the academic divisions
in which students in the samples enrolled' for the 1971Fall Semester. The results are reported in percentages.The junior college sample was composed of 383 studentsand the four-year college sample was composed of 278students. It should be noted. that 80.68 percent of thejunior college sample enrolled in the following academicdivisions: College of Administration and Public Affairs,College of Agriculture, College of Arts and Science,and College of Education; and 85.24 percent of the four-year sample enrolled in the following academic divisions:College,pf Arts and Science, College of Education, College.of Agriculture, and CGliege of Home Economics.
PERSISTENCE: Persistence, in this study was defined as continuousregistration beginning with the 1971 Fall Semester throughthe 1973 Winter Semester. The data presented in Tables IIand III reflect the comparison of the two samples. Thedata in Table II report the total persistence of thesamples and the data in Table III reflect voIuntarir with-drawal by academic division. It should be noted that whenpersistence was tested for total persistence and voluntarywithdrawal by academic division for the 1972 and 1973 WinterSemesters and. the 1973 Fall Semester, there were no sig-nificant differences between the two samples. When cumulativepersistence was tested, the difference between the twosamples was highly significant. It should be further notedthat 40.20 percent of the junior college sample failed tocontinue their enrollment even though they were academicallyeligible.
ATTRITION: Attrition was measured by the number of students dismissedor suspended for academic reasons at the end of the 1971Fall, 1972 Winter, or 1973 Fall Semester. Tables IV andV reflect the results of the comparison on attrition byacademic divisions and for tote41 academic ineligibility.It should be noted that the teats of significance for the1972 Fall Semester and cumulative academic ineligibilitywere significant at the .05 level of confidence. It
should be further noted that 24.02 percent (almost one-fourth) of the junior college sample were suspended ordismissed for academic reasons during the two academicyears covered by this study.
HONOR ROLLACHIEVEMENT: The data in Table VI report the academic performance of
the two samples as they were compared on eligibility forthe honor roll. To be eligible for the honor roll,students must attempt at least twelve hours (academic
TABLE I. ACADEMIC ENTRY PATTERNS
Academic Division Number
Junior CollegeStudents.
Number WithPercentage AA Degree
Four YearCollege. Students
Number Percentage
College of Adm. andPublic Affairs 42 10.97 18 9 3.24
College of Agriculture 38 9.92 16 23 8.27
College of Arts andScience 159 41.51 18 129 46.40
College of Education 70 18.28 14 67 24.10
College ofEngineering 23 6.01 5 16 5.76
School of Forestry,Fisheries, andWildlife 17 4.44 2 6 2.16
College ofHome Economics 14 3.66 2 18 6.47
School of Journalism 11 2.87 4 5 1.80
School of Nursing 4 1.04 0 2 .72
School of Social andCommunity Services 5 1.31 1 3 1.08
TOTAL 383 100.00 80 278 100.00
TABLE II.
TOTAL PERSISTENCE
.441
11.0
1111
000.
1011
11.1
St
Students eligible,
however, did not
re-enroll
Students eligible
to re-enroll
for the
semester
indicated
TO
TA
L
d
Winter, 1972
Jr.
Four-Year
Col.
Col.
udents
Students
Fall, 1972
Jr.
Four-Year
Col.
Col.
Students
Students
Winter, 1973
Jr.
Four-Year
Col.
Col.
Students
Students
Cumulative
Persistence
Jr.
Four-Ye
Col.
Col.
Students
Studen
37
23
65
43
52
29
154
95
305
237
236
191
223
180
127
141
342
260
301
234
275
209
281
236
X2= 0.640
(ns)
X2= 0.846
(ns)
X2
= 2.159
(ns)
X2
= 10.87
f =1
df
= 1
df =1
df
=1
P> .05
P> .05
P> .05
P< .001
ts.
TABLE III.
VOLUNTARY WITHDRAWAL BY ACADEMIC DIVISION
Academic Divisions
Winter, 19'2
Jr.
Four-Year
Col.
Col.
Students
Students
Fall, 1972
Jr.
Four-Year
Col.
Col.
Students
Students
College of Administration
and Public Affairs
College of Agriculture
College of Arts and
5 2
0 0
5 11
Science
19
14
39
22
College of Education
65
14
10
College of Engineering
12
42
School of Forestry,
Fisheries & Wildlife
3.
0
College of Home Economics
22
23
School of Journalism
School of Nursing
10
01
School of Social and
Community Services
.A
IM0
1M
IMIO
NW
M/W
O
TOTAL
37
23
65
43
X2
=7.313
(ns)
X2=4.475
(ns)
df
=7
df
= 7
P>
.05
P> .05
Winter, 1973
Jr.
'Four-Year
Col.
Col.
Students
Students
5 3
26 10
2 2
15 6
32
32
10
10
52
AP
INIM
M.
29
X2
1.237 (ns)
df P
> .05
a)
TABLE IV.
ACADEMIC INELIGIBILITY
Winter, 1972
Jr.
Four-Year
Col.
Col.
Students
Students
Fall, 1972
Jr.
Four-Year
Col.
Col.
Students
Students
Winter, 1973
Jr.
Four-Year
Col.
Col.
Students
Students
Cumulative Academic
Ineligibility
Jr.
Four-Year
Col.
Col.
Students
Students
Students on
Academic Suspen-
sion or
Dismissal
41
18
45
21
63
92
42
Students Eligible
to Continue
.
Enrollment
342
260
297
239
291
236
291
236
TOTAL
383
278
342
260
297
239
383
278
X2
=3.545
(ns)
X2=
3.906
(S)
X2
=0.469. (no)
X2
=5.318
df
=1
df
=1
df
=1
df
=1
P>
.05
P<
.05
P>
.05
P<
.05
TABLE V.
ACADEMIC INELIGIBILITY ACADEMIC DIVISION
Academic Division
Winter,
Jr.
Col.
Students
1972
Four-Year
Col.
Students
Fall, 1972
Jr.
Col.
Students
Four-Year
Col.
Students
winter,
Jr.
Col.
Students
1973*
Four-Year
col.
Students
College of Administration
and Public Affairs
College of Agriculture
College of Arts and
Science
College of Education
College of Engineering
School of Forestry,
Fisheries & Wildlife
College of Some Economics
School of Journalism
School of Nursing
TOTAL
6 1
24 5 3 1 1 "M
O
41
3 1 8 5 0 0 IMO
18
X2
= 4.756 (us)
df
= 6
P> .05
6 3
19
10 1 1 3 1 1
45
2 1
11 6 0 0 0 0
21
X2= 3.925 ins)
df
= 8
P> .05
2 0
IMO
NI&
OW
.
011.
11.1
M
*Cells too small
for a test of
significance.
TABLE VI.
HONOR ROLL ACHIEVEMENT
Fall, 1971
Jr.
Four-Year
Col.
Col.
Students
Students
Winter, 1972
Jr.
Four-Year
Col.
Col.
Students
Students
Fall, 197".!
Jr.
Col.
Students
Four-Year
Col.
Students
Winter* 1973
Jr.
Col,
Students
Four-Year
Col.
Students
Students Eligible
for Membership
54
Students Not
Eligible for
Membership
TOTAL
329
383
68
210
278
X2= 11.489 (S)
df
= 1
P< .001
58
65
284
195
342
260
X2
= 5.874 (5)
df
1P
< .02
80
217
297
65
174
239
X2
= 0.004 (na)
df
= 1
P= >.05
85
206
291
78
158
236
X= 0.900 (ns)
df
= 1
P> .05
11
division regulations on Physical Education and ROTC havevaried since the 1972 Fall Semester) and earn at least a3.000 grade point average. It should be noted that therewere significant differences (beyond the .05 level ofconfidence) between the two samples for the 1971 Fall and1972 Winter Semesters. It should be further noted thatthere were no significant differences between the twosamples for the 1972 Fall and 1973 Winter Semester.
The honor roll eligibility pattern might suggest that"transfer shock" was working and that the junior collegetransfer student recovered during the 1972-73 academicyear.
GRADUATION: The data in Table VII represent the number of studentsin the two samples who transferred at least fiftysemester hours to the University of Missouri-Columbiaand completed the requirements for graduation by theend of the 1973 Fall Semester. It should be noted thata higher percentage of junior college transfer studentscompleted graduation requirements than four-year collegestudents. This might be indicative of two things:(1) junior college students plan their programs so thattheir transfer facilitates completion of degree require-ments and (2) closer coordination exists between thejunior colleges and the University of Missouri-Columbiathan is generally recognized.
GRADE POINTAVERAGE: Tables VIII, IX, X and XI report the comparisons of the
two samples on grade point averages. Table VIII reflectsthe comparison of cumulative grade point averages of thetwo samples which were compiled at the end of the 1972and 1973 Winter Semesters. It should be noted that therewas a significant difference (beyond the .001 level ofconfidence) between the 1971-72 cumulative grade point
averages. It should be further noted that there were nosignificant differences between the 1972-73 cumulativegrade point averages.
Table IX shows the comparison of grade point averages bygroups between the two samples. Group one for juniorcollege students was composed of students with fifteento thirty semester hours; group two was composed ofstudents who had earned between thirty-one and fifty-foursemester hours; group three was composed of studentswho had earned fifty-five or more semester hours; and
group four was composed of students who had earned theAssociate of Arts Degree. It was interesting to notethat only eighty (20.88%) of the junior college studentshad earned the A.A. Degree. Group one of the four-year college students was composed of students withfifteen to thirty semester hours; group two was composed
12.
TABLE VII. STUDENTS COMPLETING REQUIREMENTSFOR GRADUATION
JuniorCollegeStudents
Four-YearCollegeStudents
Number of Students with Fiftyor more Transfer Hours 197 118
Number of Students CompletingGraduation Requirements 117 65
Percentage of Students CompletingGraduation Requirements withinFive Semesters 59.39% 55.08%
C;1
~4
TABLE VIII.
COMPARISON OF CUMULATIVE GRADE POINT AVERAGES
Winter, 1972
(Collected at end of Semester)
Jr.
Four-Year
Col.
Col.
Students
Students
Winter, 1973
(Collected at end of Semester)
Jr.
Four-Year
Col.
Col.
Students
Students
Mean
2.300
Standard Deviation
0.646
Number of Students
307
t = 4.2595
= 545
P < .001
UMC CLASS AVERAGE
CUM GPA
12
34
2.533
0.627
240 TOTAL
CUM GPA
2.691
2.742
0.654
0.656
222
179
t = 0.776
dl = 399
P > .05
UMC CLASS AVERAGE
12
34
TOTAL
2.5044
2.5997
2.7137
2.7074
2.6617
2.5384
2.6370
27015
2.7670
2.6972
0-0.4999
52
70-0.4999
10
212
.5-1.4999
266
58
36
5365
.5-1.4999
256
63
41
6366
1.5-2.4999
1556
1444
1293
1174
5467
1.5-2.4999
1355
1335:
1405
1173
5268
2.5-3.4999
1435
1483
1698
1821
6437
2.5-3.4999
1406
1488
1870
2062
6826
3.5-4.0000
316
245
323
268
1152
3.5-4.0000
316
282
.
335
372
1305
TOTAL
3578
3232
3350
3268
13428
TOTAL
334 3
3170
3651
3613
13777
14
of students who had earned between thirty-one andfifty-four semester hours; group three was composedof students who had earned between fifty-five andfifty-nine semester hours; and group four was composedof students who earned between sixty and seventysemester hours.
The data were not subjected to a statistical treatmentbecause: (1) a prior agreement was made with the ResearchCommittee and (2) the chi square statistic, tstatistic, and percentage were not appropriate to treatthe data.
Table X shows the comparisons of junior college cumu-lative grade point averages with the 1971 and 1972 FallSemesters, the 1972 and 1973 Winter. Semesters, and theUniversity of Missouri-Columbia cumulative grade pointaverages. It should be noted that the number of ttests which were significant decreased each semester afterthe 1971 Fall Semester. The decrease in the number ofsignificant tests of significance might be attributed totwo factors: (1) the transfer shock and/or (2) thelonger students remain in college, the more like theirfellow students they become.
Table XI shows the comparisons of four-year collegecumulative grade point averages with the 1971 and 1972Fall Semesters, the 1972 and 1973 Winter Semesters andthe University of Missouri-Columbia cumulative gradepoint averages. It should be noted that the four-yearcolleges had fewer significant t tests than the juniorcolleges. It was not possible Eo further test the datain Tables X and XI because of the limitation on statis-tical treatments.
TABLE IX.
COMPARISONS OF GRADE POINT AVERAGES BY GROUPS
Groups
Transfer Mean GPA
Jr.
Four-Year
Col.
Co.L.
Students
Students
1971-72 Cumulative GPA
Jr.
Four -Year
Col.
Col.
Students
Students
1972-'73 Cumulative GPA
Jr.
Four-Year
Col.
Col.
Students
Students
1 (15-30 hours)
2.773
2.730
2.219
2.516
2.462
2.678
2 (31-54 hours)
2.706
2.725
2.190
.2.645
2.652
2.845
3 (55 or acre- -
Jr. Co].)
(55-59--4 yr.
Co].)
2.776
2.678
2.451
2.495
2.851
2.802
4 (AA--Jr. Co].)
(60-70-4 yr.
Col.)
2.953
2.773
2.453
2.556
2.799
2.813
TOTAL
2.808
2.740
2.328
2.554
2.711
2.773
:AE4
,N
;...11%-tE71.611.XRAN4
UMLIA110 T-rA
reppl
:.
Prtt
Irargsfer 4PA
A 2.96613.545i- 302.2543 0.9681
9 2.771.Q.5gAi 192.3:1 0,657 !
35
3.002,0.7011 15;.2.7 0.7:7
23
O 2,9980.43bl i2.049
3.105:0.504
142.612
F 2.722!0.513
Aa2.656!0.654
J1:1 2.82710.433
1.0361
Q.845 ,
1.-5:
5e '.012 0.801
6'1.899
42,301 0.8971
t1.1-,'1
!:
3. -* i 2.5961J.413
1441.753 0.617i 1.4 3.iet-
43 2.609 0.476 1W2.128 0.790 J.78.4..4**
c1
,.
1
r
K 2.514,I 0.493
19r 2.3b1 0,729 i
192..11".*
L 2.441; 0.648
14,2.132 0.6,42 1
1-.
2...,,t-,
;
.i2.803
1
0.481
12.397i0.b7d i
13; 1..,
,1
N 2.75.7 0.363
171, Z.U1J1 0.648 I
17; 1.:).1*
* = 41
L
k1
A
P-.05
.
4 m
,1
AZ4
.vo.
b 2...A.
10!'14:4
'1 ..-77,
-.7.35
.4).7
12
221' 1-:$....!.
-.5.,ta.
.
.,.13
....7,....
38 349;t3*
754t4)2.,:..,
LI.
..1,-1
.-..:5
C1.172
7 1.595
1)
..1"
.3.-e.,,
I,..1.11,
1...1-14.
.
:.5.,:t,
1..)22
A. 0.592
!10::. 3.441:
1
13 2.41:!*
1.09;,H,
11b 64369*;2311.--
13 0.806
29k
0.80;
Ibi -
1'
1.750
122
.::
3 4.,..-X7
)*ii,t.
...
;-,;334;b.,94
7',11,:71,
.,
:.i...3.1.:.
.34910..vW 7r1.b..,
.1z-,,:.
i.
:.743i.5,6*5
.7."5 40t,T -.°2.56,2 11,,S4
8.5.1.85.7.*.168.,-f
1
.I
v.74ir3,b1133 10.1.-...4,7...i19 -1.2.431 0..3P.4111C,..
1
!:
1
w.
;--.91341j.444
b?). It:.
i, 0 ,-) ,..1.14.3.41',
b° 1.1T;
I.67/!11.531 12-1 1).
1.95: %k.44)81
61.4,.-,,J.-
1
-.!.
4;-1.Q2:10.;405
6 --!0.1.41
.
.....Z.339 .).564::i.
i..I
11
i
1:
r
6161
.yr,
1
.744/15,
1
Li
*0!..14.4;.1%0.
.1.'1.4701N:16
0 t.."1i.431:14
.Z.56503.596 27
1.5.h .t53
!Z.425ci.431
5-
4P/0.72d
34 )1«..0,
26614
:64'1-2.5b?1 t.i.t.-3'
0.741
3
5Trf
"". t
*""
EJ-
.:LL :
2s.1414f.r ,PA
!lean
S.D.
N Neat%
-t
A 3.11.9 3333 9-2.524
t.17.
6...$79
1..
:.
3._'a
.:..9:
"..7
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
Of
CA
141.
LO
S N
4GE
LE
S
s.,r
..2,0
1's
1-47
4
CLE
MIN
GH
OU
SE
FO
RJU
NIO
R M
IME
INF
OR
MA
TIO
N
df P
4? P
. :e
at
a -935 0.509 3..; 2.326 4.602 33 ,4r9
..
.71
5:
:.2n.* t.4
' 2.615 t:.%.2 -23
".,
.C-.
,.6.9. ,:.
:Al:
41 A-,2.5-,,z .:.:7,..
.14.97
.
C 2.444 0 .507 1.1 2.117 1.1.9Ut
4 ).:!.0i.*
.,..5.
,..71:
.::.
+A
.395 U.S25 1`)
...2.53 " ....al
..:.:-,4 Is
2.-37:
2.6.3 ;...-19-.
it--.
Z.633 ,..t..2'1-:
1..34
L...1_. ...4.5
4 .-U.45i
1.
-2.456 5.330
i1.7...4
17Z .455 0 .551
9! 2.192 4.649
9 1. 1.:1
1v
2.30"
2.61 U..:36
:-.
4.029
12.-2-:
L..4e.:-.
a -1..1::
,, ;1.445- t.:-.45:
t:-02:73"
4.'40:,
I.F 2 .617 1.295
612.335 .842
fl
-!.;.7.5
I..
I...5i .......
. -:. 419
t..
.3.5:1..3.176
3 '2 .;,51*
".
4.t1-.. ..I.4
3 -,32193s,
..i.266,4.. .
.1 -1,697
': 4
G : .479 0 .292
5),2.146 4.467
5 1. Iv --:
.695,
61.940
54!)
11.21.
1..13::
'.4
1.ct'i
1 .10.10 .;...i-..
:1,369 -: .4
"..":.'7'
..1.:
9 2 .749 0.434 1L 2.421 U.7,6 16 1.15"
3.
.1.:69 ...t:79
It,
:4332:
14
2.650, 9.:^,./-.1..
4.3!::).,
..-
:..:4; .-4,68
ii --:;.t44I
..r
239 :-....3t :5
.:.461
4 :-
I : .698 .., .479
6 i2.734 i..5.0
b 1.4.1.'...
.....L
...3 ...
31.352
6 ' 2.441 ;....20
A.
i2..:79 ...:.613 ',-3.
'52.51,.
:' '2,323 4.31:
J.54.,
1,1E.
t2.9.3_ L.14.
. 4 -U.Iii -
....'..4;°1
:3 2 .6% 0.542
7 2.152 U.993
7 1.1"
12
i.050 1.v7:
2.24* "
2.513 U.2211
K 2 .644 0 .4a:: 15 2.629 0.579 1.-: 4.2"t
2...';3-v
,.
..46.
21:
...3; 4.bil 13 ---:.
.....
:...:-7:..
.,.:565 12
..,..4.45.:
ZA:6
.......
I. 2 .S.6! 5 .4&4 22
2.66
1 ii.
763
2.ia.9.:.:.
1. .5
.8..;; Z2
....569
2.993 :..-3316 1-.:252
3:,
3..-5 3.514: 1:-.
.-.0.44.
Zz.,
A2.94.7. ....e, ,
-r4.26t.
..
'2 .76(.0.4.6 21 2.429 !.1.694 27 :.42.3* .:2
:,.v_» ....1-t 22
.325 42 - 1.51.,5.51!4 I''
4.971.
33
2.E.:74 ::.I4L 17
-.14.391
3: -...'2.;%579 L,391 17.
.1123 :31
. .739 0 .936 37
t
2.716 !...i.919 37 0.120
:...".%1i2:s.t29 32 -9.42e
.,-..:
2.9$3 3.659
.i.:7
.2.acia ,....-5E' 2.1 -,,k./..7::.:7
2.9-t6- ...6;.0 11 -4.t41
9.t:i 2 0211,, 497 1912.557.4.667.17
..).33.
33
..-5r1
.3.
13 "4,352
25
2..:36 U.65711
71.ii.7.
-2:
2.733. :...
S" 1...,
.19.:
-. 2.677, :.3;:t_k.:
..!1-2
la_,
P ..:
.5aa
-;.116
5:3.-J96 73,66t
.. -1.6-::
1.2;."
.3.;4;5's
t:.9:n .,;I:
I -:..w:
.;:.i:,-.1
.,-,::
a -;.:1t,
....-
4.194 ....;,;
J.....
Q2
.72-
4 0
.39
9!2.177 -U.32Y
-4 3.331* It
.....-: J.523
70
2.2"V
1.t!
2.646 U..94
:.,7,. -1:
2.'11- :.542
-0.564-
1.:
,,..»54-:4..37.
1.749 :12 ',
R 2.7060 .593 102.061 4.736 10 2.428
16
2..-9 ....:-.3.
14
4.665
10
2.470 ...149
.4.%O. 2:, - 2,.-9I..
,...-..ii
7 .41,67,5
1-:;
-i2-..:926'::,.i:
,;,-..5-Zt:
i
Z; 2
dati
.39a 10:2.12U 4.597 1'4
3.2:i.)*
a P
r03
Pc.05
..1