The Economic Contribution of the Out-Of-State Student to the Economy of Utah

Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU

All Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies

5-1964

The Economic Contribution of the Out-of-State Student to the Economy of Utah

Joseph Thomas Markowski Utah State University

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd

Part of the Business Administration, Management, and Operations Commons

Recommended Citation Markowski, Joseph Thomas, "The Economic Contribution of the Out-of-State Student to the Economy of Utah" (1964). All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 3185. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/3185

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION OF THE OUT - OF - STATE

STUDENT TO THE ECONOMY OF UTAH

Joseph Thomas Markowski

A thesis submitted in partial fulfi l lment of the requirements for the degree

Master of Business Administration

Ap proved:

UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY Logan, Utah

1964

UTA ~· '" L,;·v._ "" LIBRARY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am indebted to the many students from the six insitutions in

this study who took the time to fill out and return the questionnaires

supplying the necessary data to make this thesis possible. Without

their cooperation all efforts would be in vain.

This endeavor has benefited greatly from the advice and counsel of

many faculty members at Utah State University. Included in this

particularly are the members of my graduate committee, Professor Robert

D. Jolton, Professor Howard M. Carlisle and Professor Reed R. Durtschi.

Indispensable contributions to the success of this study were made by

Professor Bartel Jensen of the Economics Department and Professor Robert

F. Pietrowski, director of Management Institute at Utah State University.

A word of thanks goes to Mrs. Robert B. Denison, who read the manu

script in its various stages and has made many helpful and useful

suggestions.

Above all, I must speak of my debt to Professor Reed R. Durtschi

II of the Economics Department who first initiated the idea of such a I study and whom I have repeatedly sought for advice and suggestions.

Joseph T. Markowski II TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

I. INTRODUCTION

Origin and nature of problem l Setting • 3 Scope and limitations of study 4 Review of literature 8

II. METHODOLOGY ll

Collection of data (total number of out- of-state students ...... ll Data gat hered on total student expenditures • 15 Determining the size and selection of sampl e 16 Sample adequacy and representativeness 17

III. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA 20

Total and mean expenditur es made by out- of-state students • . . . . 20 Summar y on expenditures 28 Classification of t otal expenditures made by out- of-state students ...... 29 Summary of breakdown of expenditures 36 Sources of income for out-of- s tate s tudents 37 Summary on sources of income 44 Conclusions on out- o f - s tate students' expenditures and incomes 45

IV. CONCLUSIONS 47

Introduction 47 Out- of-state students ' t o t a l expenditures in the state of Utah • • • • • . . .. 50 Out-of- state students' expenditures for r e tail trade .••. • ••.•• .. • 53 Out-of-state students ' expenditures to private r ental households • . • 53 Tuition ...... 54 Rent and utilities going t o institutions 55 Out-of-state s tudents ' expendi tures in pr i vate institutions ...... 55 Out - of- state students' expenditures to state institutions ...... 57 Conclusions on the effect of out-of-state students' expenditures upon income and employment 57 Suggestions for further research •..•• . ••• 61 Chapter Page

LITERATURE CITED 62

APPENDIXES 64 LIST OF TAB LES

Table Page

1. Geographical distribution of out-of-state students attending Utah coll eges and universities, first session, 1963- 64 . . • 13

2. Qut-of-state enr ollment in Utah by college and university, first session, 1963- 64 ...... •.• • 13

3 . Out - of-state enroll ment in Utah colleges and universities by mar ital status , sex and class in col l ege first session, 1963-64 . . . . . • ...... • ...... • 14

4. A comparison of the total number of out- of- state students enrolled in Utah colleges and universities to the number of accepted respondents in the sample by college, sex, marital status, class in college and sections of the country , 1963-64 ...... 19

5. Total and mean expenditures made by out-of- state students attending Utah colleges and universities 1963-64 21 6 . Total and mean expenditures made by out-of-state students attending Ut ah colleges and universities by sex, 1963-64 22

7 . Total and mean expenditures made by out-of-state students attending Utah colleges and universities by sex and marital status, 1963-64 ...... 22

8. Total and mean expenditures made by out- of-state students attending Utah colleges and universities by c lass in college, 1963 - 64 . . . . . • . . . . • ...... • 23

9. Total and mean expenditures made by out- of- state students attending Utah colleges and universities by class i n college and sex, 1963-64 ...... • • 24

10. Mean expenditures by class in college and marital status f or Brigham Young University, the University of Utah and Utah State University, 1963-64 . • • . . . . . • . . 25

11 . Mean and total expenditures for all out-of-state students attending Utah colleges and universities by college , marital status and sex, 1963-64 ...... • . . . . 26

12. Total and mean expenditures of out- of-state students attending Utah colleges and universities by sections of the country the students reside in , 1963 - 64 . .. 27

i Table Page

13. A breakdown of total and mean expenditures made by out of-state students attending Utah colleges and universities into nine categories ...... 30

14. Mean expenditures for out-of-state students by nine categories, 1963-64 ...... 31

14.1 A percentage comparison of mean expenditures by each institution for each of the nine categories, 1963- 64 .. 32

15. A comparison of mean and percentage of mean expenditures for married students attending Brigham Young University, the University of Utah and Utah State University, 1963-64 .• 34

15.1 A comparison of mean and percentage of mean expenditures for single male students attending Brigham Young Univer sity, the University of Utah and Utah State University, 1963-64 . • ...... 35

15.2 A comparison of mean and percentage of mean expenditures for single female students attending Brigham Young Univer sity, the University of Utah and Utah State University, 1963-64 ...... • . . . • . . . • . 35

16. Total and mean incomes received by out-of-state students attending Utah colleges and universities separated by sources of income, 1963- 64 ...... 38

17 . Mean income received by out-of- state student s while attend ing a Utah college or university by sex and marital status, 1963-64 . . . • ...... • . 39

18. Mean income r eceived by out- of-state students by colleges, 1963-64 ...... 40

19 . Mean incomes of out- of-state married students attending the three universities located within the s t a t e of Utah, 1963-64 . . . . . • . . . . • . • ...... 41

19 . 1 Mean incomes of out-of-st ate single male students attend ing the three uni versities l ocated wit hin the state of Ut ah, 1963-64 . • ...... • ...... 42

19 . 2 Mean incomes of out-of- state single female students attend ing the three universities within the state of Utah, 1963- 64 ...... • . • • . . 43

20 . Total expenditures for 14,221 out-of-state students attend ing Utah c o lleges and universities, in nine categories, 1963-64 ...... • ...... 51

21 . Flow of out-of-state student expenditures to economic sectors in the state of Utah, 1963-64 ...... 52 Table Page

22. First round income generated by the out-of-state students ' expenditures in the state of Utah by economic sectors, 1963-64 . • ...... • . • . . . . 58

23 . Geographical distribution of out- of- state students i n Utah colleges and universities, by marital s tatus, sex and c lass in college, first session, 1964-64 . . • • . . . 72

24. Out-of-state enrollment in Utah colleges and unive rsities by college, marital status, sex and c lass in college, f irs t session, 1963-64 ...... •..... 75 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Origin and Nature of Problem

Is the out- of-state college student in Utah paying his own way?

Many legislative debates within recent years have centered themselves

upon this controversial question without obtaining any definite answers .

Articles have been written both pro and con concerning the amount of

financial responsibility in higher education that should be assumed by

governmental bodies, i.e.: should the state institutions be supported more by taxes or should a greater portion of its costs be covered by

student fees with the possible result that fewer students will

attend because of higher fees.

In itself, the matter of tuition as a source of funds for institu-

tions has become a controversial topic at all l evels of both the public

and private sector . As one author states:

No other aspect of financing higher education in fraught with more emo tional bias or with more collateral complexities than the matter of student charges. It is impossible to consider the question of student fees as a source of educational and general income for our colleges and universities without becoming entangeled in far-ranging issues of educational philosophy and practice.l

The issue in this study is not whether a larger part of the cost of public higher education should be borne by higher tuition fees . A questionnaire returned in this study included a note written by a single

John D. Millett, "The Role of Student Charges," Financing Higher Education 1960-70, Dexter M. Keezee (ed.) (New York: McGraw Hill Co . , 1959), p. 162. 2

sophomore female from the University of Utah whose home state is

California, which stated:

The out- of-state student makes a substantial contribution to the economy of Utah and also to its intellectual atmosphere. It would in my opinion be a miStake to raise tuition again as any institu tion needs a varied intellectual and social contribution which is given by the out-of-state student . This is true no matter what the college purports to teach or in what state it is located.

The problem of tuition is quite detailed and is outside the scope of

this report and the qualifications of the writer. Rather, this report

centers itself upon only one aspect of the problem, specifically,

the contribution to the Utah economy made by the out- of- state student while attending a college or university in the state. These expenditures

not only include the costs of his education but also other types of 2 costs which the student incurs while attending college.

The objectives of this study will be first, to determine the total number of out-of- state students enrolled in eight Utah colleges and universities. Data wil l be compiled as to college, marital status, class in college and home state or foreign country. Second, total expenditures made in Utah by the out-of-state students will be determined and classified into nine categories based upon the types of goods and services purchased. Third, the student's source or sources of income will be considered in order to determine how he is financing his education .

Fourth, the author will consider the influence of these expenditures on the income and employment of Utah.

The U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare estimates that college and university enrollments for the U. S . will increase from 3.6 million in 1960 to 7 million students by 1970. Latest available

This is not considering the students ' opportunity cost of not pu tting his services on the labor market. 3 3 statistics revealed that full time student enrollment in five institu-

tions of higher learning within the state of Utah increased from 27,770 4 in 1962-63 to 29,840 in 1963-64, or approximately seven per cent. With

the increase in birth rates since 1943, the shifts in population and the

continuing rise in the proportion of young people attending college,

the trend seems to be towards an increase in college enrollments in

Utah. Assuming that the out-of-state registration in Utah colleges

and universities is maintained at its present level of 37.8 percent of

total enrollment, then an increase in absolute numbers can be expected

in the coming years . For this reason alone such a study is justified.

The method used to secure the necessary information is based upon

a stratified random sample of 3,000 students using the questionnaire

appearing in Appendix A. The sample was stratified by geographical

sections of the country. From within each stratum a random sample was

selected .

The state of Utah was selected as the site of this study primarily

for practical purposes. As the author is a student attending Utah State

University the convenience factor plays an important role . Secondly,

as an out-of-state student I have a deep interest in the contribution

made by nonresident students to the economy of Utah .

3 Gar land G. Parker, 11 Statistics of Attendance in American Universities and Colleges, 1963-64," School and Society, Vol. 92 No . 2236 (January 11, 1964), p. 18. A full- time student is one who devotes substantially a l l of his working or study time to his college curriculum. This is interpreted generally to mean 12 degree- credit hours, presumably 75 percent of a normal load or more, but may be less for graduate students .

4 Ibid., p . 16. 4

Eight institutions of higher education located within the state

are included in this study. Data are used from Brigham Young University

located in Provo, the University of Utah located in Salt Lake City, Utah

State University located in Logan, Snow College located in Ephraim,

Dixie College located in St. George, the College of Southern Utah located in Cedar City, Weber State College l ocated in Ogden, and Westminster

College located in Salt Lake City. With these institutions it is possible t o compare costs between private and public institutions as well as two and four year colleges.

Scope and Limitations of Study

Two limitations affecting this study were time and cost. Question naires were mailed to students during the winter quarter (or in some institutions the second semester) by which time some out-of- state students had either graduated or left school for various reasons and could not be contacted . To cover costs limited personal funds were available and some subsidies granted. With a larger budget more ques tionnaires could have been mailed and the sample size increased to decrease the size of the sample error . Hence, with a larger budget a more exhaustive and elaborate study might have been possible.

A third limitation was the fact that Weber State College and the

College of Southern Utah could not be included in the sample. Although the number of out-of-state students attending these institutions was supplied, the names and local addresses were withheld because of school policy.

A fourth limitation is the failure to account for all out-of state students enrolled in Utah colleges and universities . For examp l e 5 questionnaire 25015 shown in Appendix B was left unanswered because the respondent claimed Utah residency although official school records list the student as being a nonresident. In such circumstances no choice was available but to discard the respondent from the sample.

An other problem which could not be corrected or avoided and which tended to depress the true number of out-of-state students was the fact that some students who claim residency are officially classified as residents but have no intention of remaining and becoming permanent residents after graduation. One example was questionnaire 1706 , a married male graduate student from Brigham Young University who made the comment, "Since I'm married, I'm a resident of what state I hang my coat in. At the present it's Utah."

Finally, an undete rmined numb er of out-of-state students exis t who registe r ed during the winter quarter (or second semes t e r) for the first time and do not appear in my final count since their names were not available at the time the data was collected.

One important factor to consider is the accuracy of the questionnaires which were accepted as usable. In a pilot study conducted on the campus of Utah State University the average time for answering a questionnaire was between five and six minutes . Only two statistical checks could be used to validate parts of the questionnaire; first, the tuition figure given (and in some cases room and board if the student

5 A statistical check was used to i dentify the respondent as to horne state, college, sex, marital status and class in college by placing a small number on the return envelope. The reason for such action was to increase the statistical r e liability and not to identify the student as such . The refore the onl y identity that can be used under the arrange ment in the form letter will be the number of the student and; hence, his personal identity will be kept anonymous. 6 lived in campus housing) could be checked against established rates set by the institution; secondly, the statistical check as explained in footnote 5.

The breakdown of expenditures into such things as recreation were of necessity approximations by most respondents. Evidence of this were questionnaires numbers 1100, 719 and 2509. Number 1100, (a freshman single female from Brigham Young University whose home state is Washington) stated that her total expenditure "is a conservative estimate and if I was not on a limited budget it \•lOuld be several hundred dollars more."

Number 719 (a freshman single male from Brigham Young University, whose 6 home state is Oregon) stated, "the totals here are only guesses, I cannot state that these are the true totals." Number 2509 (a married male student from the University of Utah whose home state is Idaho) replied to question ll, "These amounts are based upon monthly averages," and to part 9 of question 11 entitled "other", "The rest stays in Utah but I don't know where it goes ."

Although some students indicated that they kept records of expenditures the majority used estimates based upon monthly or weekly averages.

This approach is consistent with other surveys studying student or even household expenditure patterns. Students had little difficulty determining total expenditures or sources of income, but confessed to problems in tracing exactly where the dollars were spent.

Although no space was left for comments on my questionnaire in many cases a student wou ld donate a few lines to justify certain answers or

6 By "here" he indicated question ll of my questionnaire which asked for a breakdown of total expenditures for various types of goods and services. However, no trouble seemed to exist for the student in answering question 10 (total expenditures) or question 12 (sources of income). to state his own philosophy on certain issues, which indicated a definite attempt to fill out the questionnaire correctly and an interest in the study . This interest, and possibly the knowledge that his identity would remain anonymous, plus perhaps a feeling of a moral obligation or responsibility to aid a fellow student (myself) in fulfilling his educational requirements, may in combination be responsible for the fact that the percentage of usable returns was over 54 percent without a follow- up, something rarely found in most mail surveys.

One other comment seems appropriate with respect to returned questionnaires: where the respondent took no interest in the survey or attempted to sabotage the results, a childish immature answer to the questionnaire such as number 2206 found in Appendix C was returned.

Number 2206, instead of mer e ly falsifying figures, made obvious his intentions and hence could be detected easily and discarde d from the study. (Such questionnaires number five in total or approximately .003 percent of total returns.)

Another unavoidable limitation encountered in thi s study was that the records of several of the schools did not inc lude statements of marital status. Although the t otal number of out-of-state s tudents from these schools, home state, sex and class in college were furnished, an 7 adjustment figure shown in Appendix E had to be used to estimate the

According to data supplied by the University of Utah, out of 1435 students, 313 were married or approximately 1 out of every 5. Utah State University had nearly the same relationship, while Brigham Young University had a slightly lower ratio of approximately 1 married student out of every 7 (out-of-state student ratio). Assuming a compromise ratio of 1 married out of every 6 out-of-state students, then for the unclassified U of U students approximately 140 will be married. In the case of Weber and the College of Southern Utah this ratio was decreased to 1 out of every 10 students largely because of the high percentage of lower classmen who are generally found in the singl e classifications. 8

proportion of the married population. Included i n this t otal adjustment

figure of 170, is an estimated 140 married students from the Universit y

of Utah, 18 f rom Weber College and 12 from the College of Southern Utah.

In the cases of Snow and Dixie Coll ege, no attempt was made to es timate

the married population since these schools are two year institutions and

no r e lationships or corre l ations existed between the numbe r of married

and singl e students. Westminster College had its majority of out-of-

state students living in campus housing facilities for single students

which indicates a low off-campus (therefore , probably marri ed) population,

making it unnecessary to es timate the number of ma rried out- of-stat e

students attending this particular coll ege .

Review of Literature

In 1953, the United States Department of Education conducted a

study8 concerning the costs i ncurred in attending various colleges and

the sources of income used to finance this e duca tion a The study covered

110 colleges located in 41 states and the District of Columbia . A

questionnaire was gi ven to 15 ,316 f ull time , single, undergradua te students

on a random basis . Students selected for the sample in each college were believed to be reasonably r e presentative of the universe.

Some of the major highlights of the study are given in Appendix E,

and some ar e used for comparative purposes late r in this report . Weber

Co llege wa s the only institution selected from Utah f or this particular

study and seventy students were chosen on a random basis. Total expenditures per student for Weber College averaged $750 per school year .

8 Ernes t V. Hollis and As sociates , Cost of Attending College, U. S. De pt. of Health, Education and Welfa~e. Bulletin 1957. No. 9 (Wa s hington: U.S. Government Printi ng Office, 1958.) 9

Of the seventy respondents, forty-six reported capital expenditures amount-

ing to an average of $176 per student . (Examples of capital items include

radios, record players, television sets, slide rules, automobiles, cameras,

etc.)

Two base studies need mentioning since they account for the students'

economic contribution made while attending universities located within the

area covered by their studies. The first, An Economic Base Study of Madi-

son, Wisconsin9 accounts for the contribution made by students enrolled in

the University of Wisconsin, and the second, a base study of The Economy of

Albuquerque, New Mexico, 10 which considers the economic contribution made by

students attending the University o f New Mexico, to Albuquerque.

The economic base technique is used to explain the economic structure

and to predict the growth potential of a region . Employees within the base

boundaries are classified into two groups: one the basic, s upporting or the

primary group, and the other, nonbasic, servicing or secondary groups . The

basic or supporting g roup produces goods and services used f or export out-

side the base boundaries. This group earns dollar inflows into the base

boundaries and thus can support an existing population. Service or second-

ary groups are supported by the basic group and their main function is to

serve the wants and needs of persons living within the base boundar ies.

9 John W. Alexander, An Economic Base Study of Madison, Wisconsin, Wisconsin Commerce Papers, Vol. l, No. 4 (Mad ison Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin, School of Commerce, Bureau of Business Research and Service, 1953.), pp. 24-27 . 1 ° Fede ral Reserve Bank of Kansas City and the Bureau of Business Research, Unive rsity of New Mexico, Th e Economy of Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1949, p. 4 5. 10

Students as consumers purchase goods and services as well as pay

tuition and fees while attending college. Students whose home or residence are outside the base boundaries can be considered as temporary, tourist-

like residents. As such, the goods and services sold to this group of

students (or as consumers) can actually be considered as exports out of

the base boundaries since the funds used to pay for such goods and services come from outside the base boundaries. Of course some adjustment must be made for students who earn money within the base boundaries but on the whole this group has an important influence upon employment 11 within the area considered. For instance, according to the study of

Albuquerque's economy, the University of New Mexico accounts for a total of 1,820 persons engaged in activity which supports the city's economy.

Their employment reflects the fact that student enrollment comes from outside the base boundaries which in this case was Bernalillo County.

11 Richard B. Andrews, "Mechanics of the Urban Economic Base: Special Problems of Base Identification," Land Economics, Vol. 30, 1954, p. 260-263 . ll

CHAPTER II

METHODOLOGY

Collection of Data (Total Number of Out-of-State Students)

Information regarding the total number of out- of-state students

enrolled in Utah colleges and universities was secured by compiling the

information received from each institution into a meaningful whole. In

the case of Brigham Young University, a school official supplied the

total enrollment figures of out-of- state students for the first semester

of the 1963-64 school year. This data was broken-down by home states

of students (if foreign student, country) and sex. The author, through

a time-consuming procedure, used the student directory to obtain the

students' names, local address, class in college and marital status

to supplement the data supplied by the school.

The University of Utah supplied a list of the out-of-state enrollment

figures for the autumn quarter of the 1963-64 school year . After an

additional request and personal visit, a more comprehensive list for the winter quarter was furnished which consisted of the student's name, home and local address, sex, marital status and class in college. Utah

State University furnished a complete list of out-of- state enrollment

figures broken-down by the student's name, home state, sex, marital

status and class in college for the fall quarter of the 1963-64 school year. The student directory and a Logan City phone book were used to

obtain the local address of the student. 12

In the cases of Di xie College, Snow College and Westminster

Co llege, a student directory was used t o furnish t he necessary informa tion. Weber Coll ege and the College of Southern Utah supplied data con cerning the t otal number of out-of-sta t e students broken-down by s tate of residency, sex and year in college. However, the s tudent' s name , local address and ma rital status were not supplied because of school po l icy. It is for this reason that students from these two institutions are not included in the sample.

Results of the data gathering process are shown in Appendix E and

Tables 1 through 3 . Table 1 shows the geographical distribution of t he out-of- state enrollment. Ca lifornia represents the largest percentage of out-of- state students ( 27 . 04) with Idaho placing second (17.67).

The New England area consisting of six states had the smallest represen tation (1 . 40) with only 199 students attending Utah colleges and uni versities. A comple t e separation of students by states , sex, marital status and year in college i s shown in Appendix E, used t o supplement

Table 1.

Table 2 i s a percentage breakdown of out- of-state enrollment by college attending . Brigham Young University accounted for the larges t percentage (66 . 36) f ollowed by the University of Utah (16.00) and Utah

State University (13.51). Brigham Young University accounts for such a large percentage of the total out- of-state enrollment primarily because it is a private institution run by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter

Da y Sa ints, and, thus, many of its members attend for this reason. 13

Table 1. Geographical distribution of out-of-state students attending Utah colleges and universities, first session 1963-64.

No . of Per cent of Sections of the Country students student total

New England ...... 199 1.40 Middle Atlantic ...... •...•. . 523 3.68 East North Central ...... •.•. . 615 4.32 West North Central .••• ...... 423 2. 97 South Atlantic . •.•••. •.. .. . •. 545 3.83 E & W South Central ...••.•.•. 388 2.73 Pacific States (Northwest) ••• 1,30ll 9.1.5 Arizona ...... 674 4. 74 California ••••••••••••••..•.• 3,846 27.04 Colorado ••••..•.•.•••••. . ••.• 346 2.43 Idaho . •.•• . •.•••••••••••...•. 2,513 17.67 Montana ••.• ••• ••.••••.••••••. 234 1.65 Nevada • •.• • •••.••••..••..•••• 556 3.91 New Mexico •••••• • •.•.•••••••• 215 1.51 Wyoming ••.• . •.•••.•••••..•.•. 459 3 . 23 Foreign ...... 1,375 9.67 Adjusting figure •.•.•.•.• • ••• . 07

Total ...•• • . .•..•••.•• .. 14,221 100.00

Table 2. Out-of-state enrollment in Utah by college and university, first session 1963-64.

No. of Per cent of Utah coll ege or university students student total

Brigham Young University ...•..•.. 9,437 66 . 36 University of Utah .•...•.•...•••. 2,275 16.00 Utah State University •.•.•...... • 1,921 13.51 Weber State College •...... • •.. 181 1.26 Westminster College • ••.. ..•...... 165 1.16 Coll ege of Southern Utah . ..•..••• ll5 .81 Dixie College ...... 92 .65 Snow College ••.•••.••..• •. ••..•.. 35 . 25

Total . . .• .•.• .•.• .. •• . •• . • .. 14,221 100.00 14

Table 3, is a presentation of some vital statistics on out- of-

stat e students. More male students (58.5) from out- of-state attend Utah

colleges and universities than females (41.5), and the greatest majority

of these students (85.6) are single rather than married (14.4) . Fresh-

men r epresent the largest percent of the total (33.3) followed in a

descending order by sophomores (20.8), juniors (17.3), seniors (14.7),

and graduate students (10.0).

Table 3. Out-of-state enrollment in Utah co lleges and unive rsities by marital status, sex and class in college, first session, 1963-64.

No. of Per cent Vital statistics students of total

Marital status Married ..•• •• ..•..• • •. •• . . 2,048 14.4 Single •...... • ••• •.•.••.. 12,173 85 . 6

Total .•.•..• . .•.• • ..•..•.•______~1~4~2~2~1------~l~O~O~.~o ___

Sex Male .•.....•.•.....•..•••• 8,321 58.5 Female .•••...••.•.•.•....• 5,900 41.5

Total ...•...... •.•...•.______~l4~2~2~1~------l~O~O~ .~o ___

Cl ass in college Freshman ...... •..... 4,733 33 . 3 Sophomore .•...... •...... • 2,952 20.8 Junior ...... 2,461 17. 3 Set1ior ...... 2,090 14.7 Graduate .•...... • ...... •. 1,431 10.0 Unidentified as to year in college ...... • 554 3.9

To tal ...... •...... ••...,______....:1~4!...t...:2"'2~1~------...... -'lo.;O~Oc:.~O~- 15

Data Gathered on Total Student Expenditures: Methodology

A pilot study was conducted on the campus of Utah State University

where seventy students were asked to fill out and return questionnaires

similar to the one used in this study. In filling out the questionnaire,

students were asked to record the time it took to fill in the required

information and to make any suggestions or comments which would clarify

any ambiguous questions . After some r evisions the final questionnaire

as shown in Appendix A was constructed. The questionnaire is primarily

the product of the author. It was designed t o gather the r equired

information with the least possible inconvenience to the respondent.

Three broad areas are covered within the questionnaire. Questions

through 9 ask for information concerning the college in which the student

is presently enrolled, sex, marital status, work in the state, class

in college and the number of credit hours the student is currently

carrying. Questions 10 and 11 require information on the students '

total expenditures made within the state of Utah during the school year

and a complete breakdown of these expenditur es into nine broad categories.

Therefore, the first section of the questionnaire makes possible a

comparison of expenditure patterns for colleges, sec t ions of the country, marital status and c l ass in college . Question 12 is designed to find out how the student is financing his education by determi ning his source or sources of income. Again, using the first section of the question naire it will be possible to compare sources of income by the various categories previously mentioned . 16

Determining the Size and Selection of the Sample

In the pilot study of seventy USU students, the mean expenditures

of both male and female students combined was $1,393 and the standard

deviation (s) was calculated at $288. In order to assure some meaningful

information a maximum error (e) was set at $150 and the probability level

at .90 (z0 ). In other words, the author wanted to be sure that 90 percent of the time the estimated mean would not be in error by more

than ± $150. (This of course assumes that the universe is normally distributed.) Under those conditions the sample size was calculated 12 at 995 usable returns.

Because of the nature of the survey (mail) an expected return of

33 percent was anticipated and the sample size was increased to 3,000 in order to insure a sufficient number of usable returns.

The sample selection technique used in this survey is designated as a stratified random sample. Except for students whose addresses were not known because of an inadequate mailing list, every individual within each stratum had the same and equal chance of being included within the sample .

Students were first separated into sections of the country based upon their place of residency, and from within each section or stratum a random sample was sel ected based upon its proportion to the total

z 2 s2 12 The formul a used in this case was n __e0 _ 2__ _

Where n = the sample size z = the value corresponding to the desired probability 0 level (.90) e = the maximum allowable error 2 2 s = the standard deviation Substituting: n = (1.64) (288) (150)2

n D 995 17

population (14,221) . For example , California accounted for 27 . 04 percent

of the total out- of-state enrollment hence, 811 (27.04 of 3,000) students were selected by a random procedure from this state. A number was

selected (157 in this case) from a table of random numbers as the designated starting position and then every fifth student was selected until all 811 were accounted for. This same method was used for each state and section of the country throughout the selection procedure .

Sample Adequacy and Representativeness

Of the 3,000 questionnaires mailed out, 1714 were returned or approx imate ly 57 percent, of which 1629 or 54 percent were found to be usable.

The question now arises as to the r epresentativeness of the 1629 accepted questionnaires . Table 4 i s a comparison of the universe (14,221 out-of state students) to the accepted samp l e respondents by col l ege, section s of the country, marital status, sex and class in college . Although the comparison is not exact in all categories, in no case is the variance such that a large sample bias could be injected into the study. In most instances , a logical explanation can be given for the variance that exist , based upon known information .

For instance unde r the breakdown of "college ," the higher return f r om Utah State University students can be accounted for on the gr ounds that first, the author is a studen t attending this University and perhaps

USU students took a keener interest for this reason . Second, the student newspaper at this institution printed an articl e about the survey and requested that students who were sel ected in the sample, return the questionnaire promptly and accuratel y . 18

In the samp l e a larger proport ion of married s tudents responded

than are representative of the universe. The same situation he ld true

for the category "class in college ." It seems that from the junio r

year up to t he graduat e l evel a gr eat er response was recorded in the

sample than found in the universe . It is a frequently -made assumption

that a higher proportion of students are married at the upper class

l evel s than found at the lower class l evels . I believe that this

correlation accounts for part of the variance shown in the category

concerning ntarital status . The discrepancy in regard to sex is based

upon the fact that males seemed to i ndicate a greate r interest in the

study than females. This conclusion is readi l y apparent from the

returned questionnaires where ma l e s tudents cons t antly requested information on the results of this study as compared to the passive a ttitude expressed by the majority of females.

For the s tudy as a whol e , the reader will notice that most of the categories are very closel y related and the possibility of a bias within them extremely r emo t e . (If the reader wishes t o know the statistical accuracy of the sample , it is shown in Ap pendix F.) However , when the categori es are r efined (e .g: a freshman married s tude nt from

USU) and the number of respondents falling into the c l assification is small, the estimated averages are subject t o l e ss confidence.

Table 4. A comparison of the t otal number of o ut~of - state students enrolled in Utah colleges and universities t o the number of accept ed respondents in the sample by college, sex, marital status, cla ss in college and sections of the country , 1963-64 .

Percent in No. in Percent College universe sample of sample Brigham Young University • . ...• • 66 . 36 1050 64.5 Un iversity of Utah ..•.•• • . . • .. . 16.00 244 15 .0 Utah State University •• ...... 13 . 51 285 17 . 5 Snow College .. . • , ..• . • . ••.•.••. .25 13 . 8 19

Table 4. (Continued) Percent in No. in Percent College universe sample of sample Dixie College ....•... . •...•.. .65 9 .5 Westmins t er Co~lege . • .•...... 1. 16 28 1.7 Other Colleges •...... 2.07 Total . . .•...... 100.00 1629 100 . 0 ;, Weber State College and the College of Southern Utah .

Percent in No. in Percent Marital Status universe sample of sample Married • ...... • .... • ...... 14.4 329 20 . 2 Single ...... • . • . • . •...... 85 . 6 1300 79 . 8 To t al •. .. .. •. • . . • .•... •. 100.0 1629 100.0

Percent in No. in Percent Class in college universe sample of sample Freshman . . .•••...... •. . .•. . . . 33.3 419 25 . 7 Sophomore ...• . • •••• • • .. ..•.•. 20 . 8 335 20.6 Junior ...... 17 . 3 352 21.6 Senior ...... 14 . 7 326 20 . 0 Graduate . • • .. . . •. •• . •..• ... .. 10.0 ~97 12.1 Unidentified ....• . .•. .. . • . . •• 3.9 Total...... 100 . 0 1629 100 . 0

Sex Male .•• .• ••.• •...•.. . .•. • . • •. 58 . 5 1038 63.7 Femal e .••• • ...•...... •.. . • ••. 41.5 591 36.3 Total •. • •.. • ..•...•.•.• • 100 . 0 1629 100. 0

Sections of t he coun try New England States .•..• . •.... 1.40 24 1.5 Midd le Atlant ic . •...... 3 . 68 66 4 . 1 East Nor th Cen t r al .•.. . • ... .. 4.32 83 5.1 West No rth Central ...... •. 2 .97 73 4 . 5 Sou t h Atlant i c ...... • ... 3 .83 74 4. 5 E & W South Central ...... 2. 73 46 2. 8 Pacific Stat es (Northwes t ) .. . 9 .15 153 9 .4 Ar izona, ...... 4 . 74 68 4 . 2 California .. .•...... • . .•... 27 . 04 408 25 . 0 Co l orado ...... • ...... 2.43 33 2 . 0 I daho ..•. • . • ...... •... . 17.67 290 17.8 Montana ...... • ...... •...... 1.65 30 1. 8 Nevada ...... •....•...... • 3 . 91 67 4 . 1 New Mexico ...... 1.51 27 1.7 Wyoming ...... 3 . 23 46 2.8 Foreign- Canada . . . .. • . . .. • . . . . 59 - Other ...... • . •...... 9 . 67 82 8.7 Total . . .. •.••• •. .. . .• .. . 100.00 1629 100 . 0 20

CHAPTER III

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

In presenting and analyzing the data we are concerned with total expenditures, their breakdo\

Expenditures will be expressed in t erms of a 10 month school year instead of the normal 12 month period. Data is present ed in terms of averages (mathematical mean) and of course a particular student's expen diture probably will vary from this common average. In some instances where the dispersion of the means or the standard error of the mean is high the reader will be warned . Such isolated cases appeared when only a few respondents fell into the c lassification. (e.g: a married freshman from USU) .

Total and Mean Expenditures Made by Out-of-State Students

Table 5 gives total and mean expenditure figures made by out-of state students, married and single. A total of 329 married students who responded accounted for $1,077,540 in expenditures or 36.4 percent of total expenditures. A sample of 1300 single students accounted for

$1 , 880,560 in expenditures or 63 . 6 percent of total expenditures . The mean expenditure of married s tude nts was $3,275 as compared to $1,447 for singl e students. Expenditures for the 1629 total respondents amounted 21

to $2 ,958,100 or a me an expenditure of $1,816.

Table 5. Total and mean expenditures made by out-of-state stude nt s attending Utah colleges and universities by marital status, 1963-64 .

Percent Number of Total $ of total Mean Marital status respondents exp. exp . exp.

Married . •. • .•..... 329 $1,077,540 36 . 4 $3,275

Singl e •. . •• ••..... 1300 1,880,560 63 . 6 1,447

Total •... • . . • 1629 $2 ,958 ,100 100.0 $1 , 816

Table 6 is a breakdown by sex of t ot a l and mean expenditures of out- of- state students. Male students accounted for 73 . 5 percen t of the total expenditures and had a mean expenditure of $2 , 095 as compar ed to fema l e students with a mean expenditure of $1,326 . Such r esults coincide with studies conducted by the Office of Education on a country-wide basis which found that the male student spends more while attending coll ege 13 than the female .

In Table 7, s i ngle students are grouped by sex and compared to married students as a group. No attempt was made to separate married s tude nts by sex because of the small numb er of married femal e respondents .

In some instances where the questionnaire was sent t o a married female student it was filled ou t and returned by he r s pouse. In the light of these fac ts it was decided t o combine both male and female married

13 Ernest V. Hollis and Associated, Cost of Attending College, U.S. Dept . of Health, Education and We lfare . Bulletin 1957 . No. 9 (W ash- ington: U.S . Government Pri nting Office, 1958)' p. 33. 22 students into one group. The results indicate that married students spend more than double ($3,275) the amount spent by single students

($1,447). The single male student's mean expenditure ($1,575) was again higher than the single female ($1,277) by almost $300.

Table 6. Total and mean expenditures made by out- of-state students attending Utah colleges and universities by sex, 1964-64.

Percent Number of Total $ of total Mean Sex respondents exp. exp. exp.

Male . .•. .•..•. . . 1038 $2,174,490 73.5 $2,095

Female •••••••... 591 783,610 26.5 1,326

Total •.• •• • 1629 $2,958,100 100.0 $1,816

Table 7. Total and mean expenditures made by out- of-state students attending Utah colleges and universities by sex and marital status, 1963-64.

Sex and Marital Number of Total $ Percent Mean status respondents exp. of total exp.

Single ..• .••.•••• 1300 $1,880,560 63.6 $1,447

Male 739 1,163,990 39.4 1,575 Female 561 716,570 24.2 1,277

Married ...... • 329 1 '077 ,540 36.4 3,275

Total . • ..... 1629 $2,958,100 100.0 $1,816 23

In Table 8, total and mean expenditures for all out-of-state students

are compared by class in college . The r esults indicate that the mean

expenditure increase as the stude nt continues on with his schooling .

Freshmen as a group had the l owes t mean expenditure figure ($1,372)

and graduate students ($2,998) the highest. These figures are signifi-

cantly influenced by the numbe r of married students, which also increases

from the freshman to the graduate level.

Table 8. Total and mean expenditures made by out- of- state students attending Utah colleges and universities by class in college, 1963-64.

Number of Total $ Perce nt Mean Class in college respondents exp. of total exp .

Freshman ...... • 419 574,760 19.4 $1,372 Sophomore ..•...... 335 525,590 17.8 1,569 Junior ...... 352 597,610 20.2 1,698 Se nior ...... 326 669,530 22.6 2,054 Graduate ...... 197 590,610 20 . 0 2 , 998

Total. •...... 1629 $2 ,958,100 100.0 $1,816

A more detailed account of mean expenditures by class in college is presented in Table 9 . Here a new variable, sex, is included and the resul ts are somewhat similar . Mean expenditures increased in the same relationship as when compared by class in col lege (Table 8) for male students with the lowest mean expenditure ($1,501) being made in the freshman year and the highest ($3,160) in the graduate year . For the female student also, the lowest mean expenditure occurred in the freshman year ($1,215) and the highest in the graduate year ($1,976).

However , her senior year ranked second lowest ($1,300), followed by her 24

junior year ($1,331) and sophomore year ($1,360).

Table 9. Total and mean expenditures made by out-of-state students attending Utah colleges and universities by class in college and sex, 1963-64.

Percent Class in college Number of Total $ of total Mean and sex respondents exp . exp. exp .

Freshman ...... ••. 419 574,760 100 .0 $1,372 Male ...... •. 230 345,120 60.0 1,501 Female ...•.. 189 229,640 40.0 1,215

Sophomore •.•.•... 335 525,590 100.0 $1,569 Male •...... 185 32 1,600 61.2 1,738 Female .....• 150 203,990 38.8 1,360

Junior ...... 352 597,610 100.0 $1 , 698 Male .••.•••. 218 419,300 70.2 1,923 Female .•• • •• 134 178,310 29.8 1,331

Senior ...... 326 $ 669 . 530 100.0 $2.054 Male .•...... 235 551,220 82 . 3 2,346 Female ...... 91 118,310 17.7 1,300

Graduate ••••••..• 197 590,610 100.0 $2 , 998 Male .• . • •... 170 537,250 91.0 3,160 Female •...•. 27 53,360 9.0 1,976

A final comparison of mean expenditures by class in college is shown in Table 10. Two new variables were added (college and marital status), and a comparison was made between Brigham Young University, the University of Utah and Utah State University. For single students in all three universities with the exception of the senior year at

Utah State University a definite relationship existed . Freshman year expenditures were lowest , followed in order by junior year, sophomore year, senior and graduate year. In the case of married students 25

no definite relationship existed perhaps because of the small number

of respondents for certain classifications.

Table 10. Mean expenditures by class in college and marital status for Brigham Young University, the University of Utah and Utah State University, 1963-64.

Brigham Young U Univ. of Utah Utah State U. Class in college single married single married single married

Freshman •••. ••.. $1,245 $3,698* $1,723 $3,317* $1,510 $3,000* Sophomore ••..... 1,314 2,426 1,849 4, 780* 1 ,594 3,025* Junior ...... 1,297 2,561 1,763 5,088 1,536 2,473 Senior ...... 1,369 2,891 2,300 3,590 1,600 3,013 Graduate ...•••.. 1,602 3,624 2,333 4,241 1,588 3,281

* Fewer than 10 respondents.

In Table 11, a comparison is made of the total and mean expenditures of the six colleges r epresent ed in this study with students grouped by marital status and sex. The two colleges located in Salt Lake City had the highest mean expenditures: the University of Utah $2,719 and

Westminster College $1784; followed by Utah State University $1,778 and

Brigham Young University $1 ,630. The two junior colleges, Snow and

Dixie, had mean expenditures of $1,392 and $944 respectively. A comparison of the three universities by marital status and sex shows that the University of Utah is the highest in all categories followed by

Utah State University, and Brigham Young University. Part of this higher mean figure can be attributed to the out-of-state tuition fee for the two public institutions, the larger of which is placed upon the

University of Utah out-of-state student . Again in all three cases the married student had double the expenditure of the single student and the single male spent more than the single female. 26

Table 11. l1ean and total expenditures for all out-of-state students attending Utah colleges and universities by college, marital status and sex, 1963-64.

College, sex and Number of Total $ Mean marital status respondents exp. exp.

Brigham Young U...... 1050 ~1 ' 7ll ,410 ~ 1, 630 Married ...... 206 608,840 2,956 Single-Male .. •..• . • • 416 600,190 1 , 443 - Female ...... 428 502,380 1,175

University of Utah .. . , .•• 244 ~ 663,450 ~2' 719 Married ...... 79 336,940 4,265 Single-Male ..•.•.• .. ll9 241.120 2,026 -Female . • . •.•. 46 85,390 1,856

Utah State University .... 285 ~ 506,680 $1' 778 Married •• . •. •. . .•••. 44 131,760 2 , 995 Single-Male • ••• . •. •• 174 274,780 1,579 -Female •.• ••. • 67 100, 140 1,495

Snow College •• • ... • . •• •.• 13 ~ 18, 100 ~1 , 392 Single-Ma l e .••..• • . • ll 15 , 800 1 , 436 -Female •••• .• • 2 2,300 1,150

Dixie Co llege ..•.•. • .... • 9 ~ 8 , 500 ~ 944 Single-Ma l e ... .• .. • • 5 5 , 200 1 ,040 -Femal e . . .. •.• 4 3 , 300 825

Westminster College . .... • 28 ~ 49 , 960 ~ 1, 784 Single-Male • ...... •• 14 26,900 1,921 -Femal e ...... 14 23,060 1 ,647

To t al ...... • ...... 1629 $2,958, 100 $1, 816

The last present a t ion (Table 12) of t ot a l expenditures of ou t-of- state students is a breakdown by sections of the country in which the student resides. The highest mean expenditur es were reported by students from the East and l

Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, etc. , represent this section of the country in this particular study . Colorado had the lowest mean expenditure ($1,422) followed by Arizona ($1,623) and New Mexico ( $1,633) . The reason for 27

including this particular table was the aut hor's belief that expendi-

tures would vary according to the student ' s home state. However, an

analysis of Table 12 shows little variation in expenditures by section s

of the country and the highest mean expenditure from the East South Central

and West South Central States combined can in the author's opinion be

attributed to a higher percentage of married students included in this

section whose mean expenditures are higher. A comparison of the

percentage of the numbe r of respondents from each section to the

percentage of total expenditures for each section of the country indi-

cates little variation which supports the conclusion that expenditures

do not vary by the student's home state .

Tab l e 12. Total and me an expenditures of out-of-sta t e s tudents attending Utah colleges and un iver s ities by sections of the country the students r eside in, 1963-64.

Total No . Percent Sections of the of respon Percent Total $ of t otal Mean country dents of t otal exE• exE. exE ·

New England .•.. .•••.. 24 1.5 42,290 1.4 $1,762 Middle Atlantic •.• • •• 66 4.1 113 , 040 3.8 1, 713 Ea s t N. Central. . • . . . 83 5.1 180,970 6.1 2,180 Wes t N. Ce ntral. ••••. 73 4.5 155,450 5. 3 2,129 South Atlantic •.•••.• 74 4.5 143,380 4.8 1,938 E&W South Central •••• 46 2. 8 107,060 3. 6 2,327 Pacific States (NW) • . 153 9.4 270,800 9.2 1, 770 Arizona ...... 68 4 . 2 110 , 370 3.7 1,623 California .••••••• • • • 408 25.0 691 , 310 23.4 1,694 Colorado •.• .• .••.•••• 33 2.0 46,910 1.6 1,422 Idaho .• . •••••••• . •••. 290 17.8 524,520 17.7 1,809 Montana •••.• • •..•••. • 30 1.8 53,680 1.8 1,789 Nevada •..•.• • • .•.•.•. 67 4.1 117 , 330 4.0 1,751 New Mexico ••• .•.... •. 27 1.7 44,080 1.5 1,633 Wyoming .•..•.• . . . . ••• 46 2.8 86,690 2.9 1,885 Canada ••.. . • • ...... 59 120 , 610 4.1 2,044 Foreign** ...... •.•... 82 8.7 149 , 610 5.1 1,825

Total .. • ...... 16 29 100 . 0 ~2,958,100 100 . 0 ~1,816 1"' Includes a total of 33 different countries. 28

Summary on Expenditures

A total of 1629 out-of-state respondents made expenditures in the

State of Utah amounting to $2,958,100 or $1,816 per student. The major variable in total expenditures was found to be marital status, which po i nted to the fact that married students spend $3,275 which is more than twice the amount than single students. Male students were found to spend $2,095 which is more than female students ($1 , 326) in the aggre gate, and single males ($1,575) more than single females ($1,277).

The freshman year in college showed the lowest mean expenditure

($1,372) while the highest was the graduate year ($2,998). •~en comparison was confined to the three universities, the mean expenditures of the sophomore and junior classes were reversed. 29

Classification of Total Expenditures Made by Out-of-State Students

The data gathered for this section show most clearly the limita

tions of mail survey vs. pe rsonal interview, during which verbal clari

fications can be made to preve nt ambiguities. For instance, some

respondents inte rpreted books as tuition expenditures, some as "other"

expenses, making some approximations necessary in the conclusions.

These slight differences do not significanlly affect the conclusions,

but the reader should be aware of them.

Table 13 is a breakdown of total expenditures by all respondents

into nine broad categories. Food and Beverage represented the highest

mean expenditure of $417 or 22.98 percent of total expenditures. Re nt

and Utilities followed with a mean expenditure of $394 or 21.70 percent

of total expenditures . Mean tuition expenditures amounted to $332

(18.25 percent) followed by "Automotive" $218 (11.98 percent) and

"Other" $183 (10.11). The lowest mean expenditure reported was $36

(1 .96 percent) for home furnishings which included such things as appli

ances, dishes, etc.

Tables 14 and 14-1 show a comparison of mean expenditures in nine categories for the six institutions covered in this study. The mean expenditure for tuition was reported highest for Westminster College

($656), a private four year institution located in Salt Lake City.

This was follm

University ($369), Bri.gham Young University ($288), Dixie College

($285), and Snow College ($240). Rent and Utilities were reported highest for the University of Utah ($580), with Utah State placing second 30

($366) followed very closely by Brigham Young University ($365). Snow

and Dixie Colleges showed figures which compare closely for this

particular category with mean expenditures of $202 and $209 respectively.

Table 13. A breakdown of total and mean expenditures made by out-of state student s attending Utah colleges and universities into nine categories, 1963-64.

Percent Mean Category Total $ expenditures of total exp .

Tuition ...... $ 539,940 18.25 $ 332 Rent & Utilities ...... 641,850 21.70 394 Food and Beverage •.... $679,650 22.98 417 -off campus 479,030 16.20 294 -on campus 200,620 6.78 123 Apparel...... •. .. 162,610 5.50 100 Automotive . . •.•...... 354,320 11.98 218 -supplies 143,020 4.83 88 -purchased auto 182, 780 6.18 112 -auto insurance 28,520 • 97 18 Recreation and Entertainment ...... 134,240 4 .54 82 Medical and Dental . . . . 88,230 2.98 54 Home Furnishings ...... 58,180 1.96 36 Other ...... • . •. •••• ... 299,080 lO.ll 183

Total. ••.•••...•• $2,958,100 100 .00 $1816

Mean expenditures for food and beverage were again highest for the

two colleges located in Sa lt Lake City. The University of Utah reported

the highest mean expenditure ($647) for this particular category, followed by Westminster College ($412). Dixie College had the l ow mean expenditure of $187. For all of the remaining categories with the exception of

"other", the University of Utah reporte d the highest mean expenditures followed most frequently by Utah State University and Brigham Young

University. 31

Table 14. Mean expenditures for out- of- state s tudents by nine categories, 1963 - 64.

BYU UofU usu Snow Dixie West . mean mean mean mean mean mean Category exp. exp. exp. exp. exp . exp.

Tuition ...... •. .... $288 $444 $369 $240 $285 $656 Rent & Utilities .. 365 580 366 202 209 299 Food and Beverage371 647 407 271 187 412 - off campus 259 476 300 188 99 72 - on campus 112 171 107 83 88 340* Apparel ••...... •. 90 148 101 70 41 74 Automotive • .••••• l70 445 224 117 35 58 -supplies 72 159 90 102 31 53 -purchased auto 83 255 116 15 - auto insurance 15 31 18 4 5 Recreation and Ent- ertainment ...... 71 125 85 118 67 86 Medical and Dental. 51 72 55 22 40 33 Home Furnishings •.• 28 80 32 12 2 12 Other .•••.•.•••• • •• 196 178 139 340 78 154

Total. ..••••• $1630 $2 719 $1778 $1392 $944 $1784

*Practically all of the respondents lived in campus housing facilities.

Us ing as a base the total mean expenditure of each institution, expenditures for that institution were converted in each category to percent of the total spent. Tab l e 14-1 i s a percentage comparison of each category in Table 14. Generally s peaking, the three universities in the study showed a close relationship when the data were expressed in this fashion . When tuition was computed by this proce.dure Westminster

Co llege recorded the highest percentage expenditure for tuition (36.8 percent) and surprisingly the Univer sity of Utah the l m;est (16.3 percent).

The only large variance between the three universities is in 11 0ther 11 and the "Automotive 11 c ategory which combines purchases of autos, supplies and auto insurance purchased in Utah . The University of Utah had the highes t percentage (16.5) fol l owed by Utah State University (12.6 percent), 32

and Brigham Young University (10.4 percent). If the reader wi ll observe

in Table 14 the category "new or used car purchased in Utah," he will

notice the high mean expenditure ($255) for University of Utah students

which accounts for part of this 16.5 percent. Home Furnishings showed

a higher percentage of mean expenditures for the Universities than for

the other three colleges. This can be attributed to the married popula-

tion in each of the Universities, who spend more for Home Furnishings

than single students. The fact that no married students were included

for Snow, Dixie, or Westminster Colleges, (see footnote 7 and Table 11)

should partially explain the differences.

Tab l e 14-1. A percent age comparison of mean expenditures by each institution for each of the nine categories 1963-64.

BYU% UofU % usu % Snow % Dixie % West. % of mean of mean of mean of mean of mean of mean Category exp. exp. exp. exp . exp. exp.

Tuition ...... 17.7 16.3 20.8 17.2 30.2 36.8 Rent and Utilities. 22.4 21.3 20.6 14 .5 22.1 16.8 Food and Beverage •. 22.8 23 . 8 22.8 19.5 19 .8 23.1 - off campus 15 . 9 17 .5 16.8 13.5 10.5 4.0 -on campus 6.9 6.3 6.0 6. 0 9. 3 19. 1 Apparel ••. . • ••. •.•. 5.5 5.4 5 . 7 5.0 4.4 4. 1 Automotive ..•..... • 10.4 16.5 12. 6 8.4 3 . 7 3.3 Recreation and Ent- er tainment ..•.... 4 . 4 4.6 4.8 8.5 7 . 1 4.8 Medical and De ntal. 3.1 2.6 3.1 1.6 4 . 2 1.8 Home Furnishi ngs .•• 1.7 2.9 1.8 .9 • 2 • 7 Other ••.•..•• .. .• .. 12.0 6.6 7.8 24.4 8 . 3 8.6

Total . ••...... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Tables 15, 15-1, and 15-2 show the mean and percentage of mean expenditures by students of the three universities by marital s t a tus and sex. Table 15 is a comparison of married students' expenditures for 33

each of the three universities. Although the dollar mean expenditur es

vary, when expressed in percentage terms l ittle difference exists among

the universities. In mean dollar expenditures the University of Utah

had the highest figures in all categories followed by Utah State Univer

sity and Brigham Young University. Generally speaking students attend

ing Utah State University and Brigham Young University compared more

closely to each other than to the Univer sity of Utah. The largest

dollar difference existed in the category Rent and Utilities in which

married students attending the University of Utah averaged $1031 while

Utah State University students averaged $742 and Brigham Young Univer

sity married students $726. However , the reader will note that when

expressed in percentage terms all three compare very closely .

In Table 15-1, a comparison is made of single male students attend

ing the three universities in the state. In dollar amounts the highest

mean expenditures for all categories except "medical care" and '' o ther"

are recorded by single male students attending the Univer sity of Utah.

Utah State University ranked highest in "medical care" ($33) while

Brigham Young University singl e ma l e students ranked highest in the

category "other" ($134). Tuition for University of Utah singl e male

students was higher in dollar terms ($440) as was the case for "rent and utilities" ( $369) although in percentage t erms Utah State Universit y

singl e male students ranked f irst in both categories . The highest mean expenditures on "food and beverage" ($558) and on "recreati on" ($135) are made again by the University of Utah single male, although in the case of "recreation" the highest percentage figure (7.1) is r ecorded by Brigham Young University, singl e male students.

Table 15-2 compares single females attending the three universi ties. As did the single male, the single female from the University of 34

Utah had the highest mean expenditure in all categories except "medical

care" and "other". Utah State University single females ranked highest

in both categories with a mean expenditure of $48 and $406 respectively.

In percentage terms, the University of Utah single fema l es led in the

categories of tuition (25 . 2), apparel (8.5), automotive (10.1), recrea-

tion (3.8) and home furnishings (1.3).

Table 15. A comparison of mean and percentage of mean expenditures for married students attending Brigham Young University, the University of Utah and Utah State University, 1963-64.

BYU-married UofU -married USU-married mean % of mean % of mean % of Category exp. mean exp . mean exp . . mean

Tuition .. , ...... 330 11.2 $ 433 10.2 377 11.8 Rent and Utilities ... 726 24.5 1,031 24.2 742 23.1 Food and Bever age .... -off campUs 573 19.4 874 20 . 5 698 21.8 -on campus 31 1.1 54 1.3 37 1.2 Apparel •.••.•.•.•••.. 131 4 .4 221 5.1 152 4 . 7 Automotive ...... 486 16.4 715 16.8 697 21.7 Recreation and Ent- ertainment ...... 78 2.6 142 3.3 94 2.9 Medical and Dental ..• 150 5.1 160 3 . 8 152 4 . 7 Home Furnishings •.•.• 91 3.1 184 4.3 134 4.2 Other .•••••.••.•••••. 360 12.2 451 10.5 125 3.9

Total •.••.• • •••. $2,956 100.0 $4,265 100.0 $3, 2o8* 100.0

*This figure does not balance with that shown in Table 11. The reason for the discrepancy is the result of t wo separate entries made by the re'sp'on'd'en·t. In· 'tabt'e' t'l, coinciding to question 10 in the question naire the respondent was asked to give his total expenditure figure. In Table 15, coinciding to question 11 he was asked to separate his total expenditures into nine categories. In this particular case the total in question 11 was greater than that given in question 10; as a result the author made no attempt to force a balance. However, when the opposite was the case, that is, t otal expenditures were greater, 11 the excess was added to "other • 35

Table 15-1. A comparison of mean and percentage of mean expenditures for single ma l e student s attending Brigham Young University, the University of Utah and Utah State University, 1963-64.

BYU-sing l e M U of U-single M USU -single M mean % of mean % of mean % of Category exp. mean exp. mean exp. mean

Tuition ...... •. . 279 19.3 $ 440 20.6 $ 371 23.5 Rent and Utilities •• 273 18.9 369 17.3 308 19 . 5 Food and Beverage •.. -off campus 185 12 .8 322 15.1 254 16.1 -on campus 189 13.1 236 11.1 135 8.6 Apparel •.•..••...•.• 76 5.3 96 4.5 83 5.3 Automotive ...... 166 ll.5 366 17.2 187 11.8 Recreation and Ent- ertainment ...... 103 7.1 135 6.3 100 6.3 Medical and Dental .. 27 l. 9 26 1.2 33 2.1 Home Furnishings .• .. 11 .8 32 1.5 15 .9 Other ...... • 134 9 . 3 111 5 .2 93 5.9

Total* ...... $1443 100 . 0 $2133 100 .0 $1579 100.0

See footnote * , Table 15 .

Table 15-2. A comparison of mean and percentage of mean expenditures for single fema le students attending Brigham Young University, the University of Utah and Utah State University, 1963-64.

BYU-single F U of U-single F USU-single F mean % of mean % of mean % of Category exp. mean exp. mean exp. mean

Tuition ...... $ 276 23.5 468 25.2 356 23.8 Rent and Utilities. 279 23.7 351 18.9 271 18 . 1 Food and Beverage .• -off campus 180 15.3 192 10.3 160 10 . 7 -on campus 75 6.4 204 11.0 80 5.4 Apparel ...•••..•... 84 7.2 158 8.5 ll4 7.6 Automotiv~ • ...... 22 1.9 187 10.1 9 .6 Recreation and Ent- ertainment ...... 37 3.1 70 3.8 41 2. 7 Medical and Dental. 26 2.2 40 2.2 48 3.2 Home Furnishings . . . 13 1.1 24 1.3 10 • 7 Other ...... 183 15.6 162 8.7 406 27 . 2

Total ...... $1175 100 .0 $1856 100.0 $1495 100.0 36

Summary of Breakdown of Expenditures

A comparison can be made from the l ast two tables of mean

expenditure patterns for single male and fema l e students attending the

three universities located within t he state. Single male students had

higher mean expenditures in the categories of "food and beverage, "

"recreation and entertainment, .. and "automotive." Single female students

recorded higher mean expenditures in the cases of "apparel," "medical

care", and "other. 11 Tuition as a percent of total expenditures was

highest for single ma l es attending Brigham Young University and Utah

State University while "rent and utilities 11 and "home furnishings"

were higher for single males attending the University of Utah and Utah

State University than for females.

For all respondents tuition amounted to 18.25 percent of total

expenditures whil e living expenditures accounted for 71.64 percent if

"other", the catchall category (10.11 percent), is excluded . The highest mean expenditures for students was on food and beverage ($417), followed

by rent and utilities ($394), tuition ($332) and automotive ($218) .

Except for the categories of tuition (l./estminster $656) and "other"

(Sno.0.$340), the University of Utah had the highest mean expenditur es

for all categories. However, when more variables such as marital status and sex are considered the results change somewha t , as shown in previous

tables. 37

Sources of Income for Out-of-State Students

This section will describe the sources of income for out-of-state

students. The reader is cautioned that the classification of scholar

ship was variously defined by respondents. In some cases respondents

informed the author by a note on the questionnaire that they included

some funds under scholarship which cannot be credited to the college.

For instance, one foreign student listed under scholarship a grant made

to him by his government. Others listed money received from the U.S .

Government for duty in the armed forces or money received from private

foundations. Therefore, the category does not specify the student income

received from the college under study. An a ttempt was made to distinguish

between scholarship received by graduate students and by undergraduates; however, this method was not applied to a ll tables and the reader must

be aware of this.

In the classification of summer job, the income received by the

student comes from his home state and is not to be confused with income from jobs in Utah held by students while attending school. In the category of other income, such things as war orphan payments, gifts, money from relatives and tax refunds are included a lthough the author believes the majority of this total (especially in the case of the

University of Utah) comes in the form of armed forces income and benefits.

Table 16 is a comparison of total and mean sources of income for all respondents included in the study. Total income received amounted to $3,595,040 or an average income of $2,207 per student. Parents were the chief source of income accounting for 25.6 percent of the total followed in importance by summer jobs (22.5 percent), jobs in Utah 38

(13.2 percent) and husband and or wife working in Utah (12.9 percent).

Loans accounted for the sma lles t part of income rec e ived with a mean

income from thi s s ource of $67 or 3.0 of the total.

Table 16. Total and me an inc ome received by out-of-state students attending Utah colleges and universities separated by sources of income , 1963-64.

Percent Mean Sources of income Income received of total income

Parents ...... ~ ...... 919,800 25 . 6 $ 565 Summer job ...... • . 808,070 22.5 496 Loans ...... , . . 108,960 3.0 67 Husband or wife working ...... 463,590 12.9 285 Scholarship,grant,fellowship . 330,560 9.2 203 Jobs in Utah ...... 476,320 13.2 292 Savings ...... 262 , 000 7.3 161 Other ...... 225,740 6.3 138

Total ...... $3,595,040 100 . 0 $2207

A comparison is made in Table 17 on the basis of income received by marital status and s ex . Single male students earned 34.0 percent of their income by a summer job compared to the single female, 20.5 percent, and the marr i ed s tudent, 12.7 percent. Parents played the dominant role in financing the single female students' education

(50.7 percent) as compared to the single male (31.0 percent) and married student (6. 3 percent). The largest source of income for the married student come s under the classification of husband and or wife working (32 . 2 perce nt) followed by jobs in Utah (19 . 3 percent), scholarship, grant or fellowship (12 . 8 percent) . 39

Table 17. Mean income r eceived by out-of-state students while attend ing a Utah college or university by sex and marital status, 1963-64.

Single-male Single-female Married mean % of mean % of mean % of Source of income income total income total income total

Parents ...... $ 571 31.0 729 50.7 270 6.3 Summer job ...... •...... 626 34 .0 294 20.5 548 12.7 Loans ...... • ...... •. 60 3.3 25 1.7 154 3.6 Husband or wife working. 1,388 32.2 Scholarship,grant,etc ... 146 7 .9 72 5.0 554 12.8 Jobs in Utah .....•...... 179 9.7 126 8.8 831 19.3 Savings ...... •••...... • 157 8.5 132 9.2 218 5 .1 Other ....•.... • ...... •.• 104 5.6 59 4.1 350 8.0

Total . ....•..••.• . . $1,843 100.0 $1 ,437 100.0 $4,313 100 . 0

Table 18 is an analysis of the mean income received from the various

sources by students of each college. The University of Utah had the

highest mean income, $3,329 followed in order by Utah State University:

$2,167, Westminster College: $1,984, Brigham Young University: $1,980,

Snow College: $1,570 and Dixie College: $1,192 .

In Table 19 a comparison of the mean income of married students

attending the three universities in the state is made. The highest mean income was reported by married students from the University of

Utah as $5,393 followed by Utah State University $4,554 and Brigham

Young University $3,849. In all three cases married students relied

primarily upon work within the state to finance their education.

Combining the two classifications, jobs in Utah and husband and or wife working, Brigham Young University accounted for the highest percentage of income from these two sources (57.3 percent) . Utah State University married students received 45. 7 percent of their income from these two 40

sources while the University of Ut ah students report ed 43 .3 percent.

When the reader looks at the classification scholarships , grants and

fe l lowships, for the three institutions married students at the Univer-

s ity of Utah rely mor e heavily (24.7 percent) upon these sources of

income than married students f rom Utah State University (15.4 percent)

or Brigham Young University (5.8 percent).

Table 18 . Me an income r eceived by out-of-state students by colleges, 19 63-64.

BYU UofU usu Snow Dixie West. mean mean me an mean me an me an Source of income income income income income income income

Parents ...... $ 550 520 $ 599 $ 754 410 $1104 Summer j ob ..... , .. .. . ,., 494 379 622 558 332 334 Loans ...... 56 100 72 31 94 143 Husband or wife working. 26 1 595 156 Scholarship ,grant, e tc . *99 690 193 - undergraduate ...... 53 110 42 8 93 97 -graduate student. .. .. ,, 46 580 151 Jobs in Utah •..•.•... • .• 304 350 237 38 169 86 Savings , ....•...... 135 205 220 181 94 158 Other .• ...... • • . •• .•.• 81 490 68 62

Total ....•...... $1980 $3329 $2167 $1570 $1192 $1984

* Shows the portion of scholarships going to graduates and under graduates in order to give the figure more meaning.

Another relationship exists between husband and or wife working and the classification savings. Brigham Young University married students l isted 34 . 3 percent of their income from the spouse's job and hence were forced to use only 4.2 percent of savings . On the other hand,

Utah State Un i versity married s tudents earned 21.4 percent of their income from a spouse working and were forced to spend 7.6 percent of savings. Married student s from the University of Utah fell in between 41

this range whereas the spouse accounted for 33 . 2 percent of income and

savings, 5 . 5 percent . The reason for such a relationship could lie

in the fact that more job opportunitie s are availab l e in Provo and Salt

Lake City than in Logan, hence the USU married student must finance part

of his education through savings.

Table 19. Mean incomes of out-of-state married students attending the three universities l ocated within the s tate of Utah, 1963-64.

BYU-married U of U-married USU -married mean % of mean % of mean % of Source of income income total income total income t otal

Parents ...... $ 338 8.8 115 2 . 1 230 5. 1 Sunnner job ...... 608 15.8 238 4 .4 824 18.1 Loans ...... 169 4 .4 154 2.9 88 1.9 Husband or wife working 1321 34 .3 1793 33. 2 975 21.4 Scholarship,grant,etc .. 224 5 .8 1332 24.7 700 15 . 4 Jobs in Ut ah ...... 884 23.0 542 10 . 1 1105 24.3 Savings ...... 161 4. 2 296 5.5 345 7.6 Other ...... 144 3 .7 923 17 . 1* 287 6. 2

Total ...... $3849 100.0 $5393 100 . 0 $4554 100.0

* The large figure in this particular instance can be partly a ttributed to the large numb er of respondents from the University of Utah who r eported income from military duty and as such, the income is 11 considered as "other •

Table 19-1 is a comparison of mean income of the male single students in the three universities. The Universit y of Utah r eported the highest mean income $2 , 431 fol l owed by Utah State University

$1,833 and Brigham Young Un i versity $1,684 . The two most important sources of income for Brigham Young University and Ut ah State University singl e males were summer jobs and pare nts in that order and for the

University of Utah the reverse order was reported . As was the case with 42

married students, jobs in Utah supplied larger incomes to male students

attending the University of Utah and Brigham Young University than for

single male students attending Utah State University. As a result

single male students from Utah State University relied more heavily

upon savings to finance their education. Jobs in Utah accounted for 12.5

percent of income for Brigham Young University single males, 9.7 percent

for the University of Utah and 4.2 percent for single males attending

Utah State University.

Table 19-1. Mean incomes of out-of-state singl e male students attending the three universities located within the state of Utah, 1963-64.

BYU -single M UofU-single M USU-single M mean % of mean % of mean % of Source of income income total income total income total

Parents ..• •. ...•...... $ 539 32.0 598 24.6 587 32.0 Summer job ..•.• ... •• .•. 625 37.1 505 20.8 729 39.8 Loans ...... 35 2.1 89 3.7 92 5.0 Husband or wife working Scholarships,grants,etc.* 82 4 .9 454 18 . 7 102 5.6 Jobs in Utah ...... 210 12.5 237 9.7 77 4. 2 Savings ...... 128 7.6 182 7.5 211 11.5 Other ...... 65 3.8 366 15 . 1 35 1.9

Total...... $1684 100. 0 $2431 100.0 $1833 100.0

* The reader is cautioned that under this particular category most of the D.\Oney is going to single graduate students as was the case in Tab l e 18.

Table 19-2 is a comparison of mean incomes of single females attending the three universities. The University of Utah again reported the highest mean income ($2,044) followed in order by Utah State University

($1,530) and Brigham Young University ($1,362). Parents were the most important source of income in all three cases followed by summer employ- 43 ment in the cases of Brigham Young and Utah State University . Jobs in Utah placed second as a sour ce of income (15.5 percent) for t he

University of Utah single female, fourth for the Brigham Young Univer- sity co-ed and sixth for the s ingle fema l e from Utah State University .

The reader will note that the jobs in Utah and savings relationship held true in this case as well as for married students and single ma l e students indicating the lack of job opportunities in Logan as compared to Salt Lake City and Provo.

Table 19-2. Mean incomes of out-of-state single female students att end ing the three universities within the state of Utah, 1963-64.

BYU-singl e F UofU-single F USU - s i ng le F mean % of mean % of mean % of Source of income income total income t otal income total

Parents ...... 665 48.8 $1013 49 .6 868 56.7 Swmner job ..• ...... 312 22.9 297 14.5 211 13.8 Loans ••••...•...... •. 22 1.6 35 1. 7 12 .8 Husband or wi fe working Scholarship,grants,etc. 53 3 . 9 199 9.7 95 6 . 2 Jobs in Ut ah ... . . •.• . . • 115 8.4 317 15.5 81 5.3 Savings . •...• • . .. . . •. . . 129 9.5 106 5 . 2 163 10.7 Other ..•.•...... •. • 66 4.9 77 3 . 8 100 6.5

Total • . •...... $1362 100.0 $2044 100.0 $1530 100.0

,, See footno te on the bottom of Tab l e 19-2. 44

Summary on Sources of Income

As a group, out-of-state students r ece ive the largest percentage

of income from parents (25.6 percent) followed in order by summer jobs

(22.5 percent), jobs in Utah during the school year (13.2 percent) and

husband and or wife working (12 .9 percent). The smallest source of

income14 was found to be loans (3.0 percent) when dealing with the ou t-

of-state students as a group. With single male and single fema l e

students, loans remain the smallest source of income but the other

relationships change . Summer emp l oyme nt ranked first for the single male student (34.0 percent) and parents second (31.0 percent). For the

female the relationship was reve rsed with parents accounting for 50.7

percent and summer jobs 20.5 percent of income. Married student s as

a group r eceived 51.5 percent of their income e ither through j obs in the

state or their spouse working in the state. Scholarships, grants and

fellowships ranked third (12.8 percent) for the married students

followed closely by summer employment (12.7 percent). Here again,

loans accounted for the lowest percentage of income (3.6 percent) as was the case for single students.

The University of Utah in the aggregate and under marital and sex classifications headed the list among the colleges for mean incomes.

Mean income for the University of Utah out-of-state students was $3,329 followed in order by Utah State University ($2 ,167) , Westminster College

($1,984), Brigham Young University ($1,980), Snow College ($1,570), and

Dixie College ($1,192) .

14 Income in this case is taken t o mean any funds made available to the student fo finance his education; thus income in this study includes savings and loans . 45

Conclusions on Out-of-State Students' Expenditures and Income

A total of 1629 out- of-state students had total expenditur es amount

ing to $2,958,100 or $1,816 per student, Income for this same group of

students amounted to $3,595,040 or $2,207 per student. Male students

had higher mean expenditures ($2,095) than females ($1,326). Married

students' average mean expenditure ($3,275) was more than double that

of the single student ($1,447). (Single male $1,575-single female $1,277.)

Income for married students averaged $4,313 compared to $1,843 for the

single male and $1,437 for the single female.

Mean expenditures analyzed by year in college increased as the

student advanced in class rank. The f r eshman year had the l owest mean

expenditure ($1,322) and graduate students the highest ($2,998).

The University of Utah had the highest mean expenditures ($2,719)

and mean income ($3,329) for the group. This also held true when

categorized by marital status and sex. Westminster College placed

second with mean expenditures of .. $1,784 and a mean income of $1,984;

followed by Utah State University with mean expenditures of $1,778

and a mean income of $2,167; Brigham Young University: mean expenditure

of $1,630 and mean income of $1,980; Snow College: mean expenditure of

$1 ,392 and mean income of $1,570; and Dixie College: mean expenditure of

$944 and mean income of $1, 192.

Students as a group received the largest portion of their income

from parents 25.6 percent ($565), followed by summer employment 22.5

percent ($496) and jobs in Utah 13 .2 percent ($292). Married students

relied most heavily upon the employment of their spouses, 32.2 percent

($1,388), and jobs in Utah, 19.3 percent ($831). Singl e male students' most important source of income was summer emp loyment 34.0 percent, 46 followed by income from parents 31.0 percent. Single females however, received 50.7 percent of their income from parents and 20.5 percent from summer employment. The reader will note that single females spent almost $300 less than single males, but the fact that they received a much larger portion of their incomes from parents explains the claim frequently made by parents that their college daughters spend more than their college sons.

For the group as a whole, the largest mean expenditures ($417) were made for food and beverage, followed by rent and utilities ($394) and tuition, ($332). With the exception of tuition (Westminster College

$656) and other, (Snow College $340), the University of Utah had the highest mean expenditures for all categories, usually followed by Utah

State University and Brigham Young University in that order. 47

CHAPTER IV

CONCLUSIONS

Introduction

The technique used in this study as stated earlier is a crude base analysis approach . Although there are stated limitations in certain areas, this approach has provided more meaningful results in the author's opinion than the technique employed in studying student expenditures in the Albuquerque15 and Madison, IHsconsin studies . 16 Based upon national and state statistics the author has calculated income and employmen t generated in Utah from out-of-state student expenditures. By use of established gross margin figures the amount of dollars flowing to firms outside the state in the form of cost of goods has been determined. In simi l ar studies where expenditures of students were calculated into t he economic base the author states;

Actually, there is thus far in the literature no completely satisfactory means of accomplishing this necessary identification process. It is a process almost completely dependent on estimates usually made by the investigator and not as yet, by the enterprises under investigation.l7

15 Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City and the Bureau of Business Research, University of New Mexico, The Economy of Albuquerque New Mexico, 1949, p. 45. 16 John W. Alexander, An Economic Base Study of Madison, Wisconsin , Wisconsin Commerce Papers, Vol. No. 4 (Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin, School of Commerce, Bureau of Business Research and Service, 1953.), pp. 24-27.

17 Horner Hoyt, Economic Survey of the Land Uses of Evanston , Illinois, p . 18 . Also, an unpublished pre liminary study done by this writer on the economic base of Madison, Wisconsin, 1947 and 1958, for the Bureau of Business Research and Service, School of Commerce , Univers i ty of Wisconsin. 48

With this thought in mind the reader will be aware that the estimates

made in this case will be rough because of data limitations yet the

results will provide some insight on the general magnitude of out- of-

state students expenditures upon employment and income in Utah .

Various ter.hniques were availabl e to determine the impact of out-of-

state student expenditures upon income and employment in the State of

Utah . If the author were to follow the technique used in the base study

of the Economy of Albuquerque as previously mentioned, the results would

be a gross overstatement of the income and employment generated by out-

of-state students expenditures. The method employed by the Albuquerque

study was to divide total student expenditures by the average wage

income of Bernalillo County, New Mexico. Using this technique the 18 results would be an elevated figure of 5,262 ($25,825,336/$4,908),

persons engaged in basic emp loyment by out-of-state students expenditures.

In this particular case the authors neglected to account for the fact

that not every dollar of expenditures will stay within the base bounda ries

or become income to local workers; specifically the portion for the cost

of goods imported into the region should have been excluded. Goods and

services flowing into a region require an outflow of dollars in return,

something the authors neglected to account for in their study. Hence,

the approach used in studying students ' contribution to the Utah economy

will be to assume that the entire cost of goods flows out of the state of

Utah. Such an approach appears more logical although it will yield a

18 Utah, Department of Employment Security, Utah Labor Market Quarterly, 3rd Quarter 1963, p. A-2 . This r eport includes total nonagricultural employment and average monthly wages for the state of Utah. The author is going to use a t en month school year basis to determine the employment figure. 49

conservative estimate of the income and employment generated for Utah

residents by out-of-state students expenditures. In a highly specialized

economy such as ours goods and services are exchanged between regions

on a basis of comparative advantage. In the case of Utah such articles

as automobiles, machinery, food products etc . , are imported, and various

minerals, beef, and missiles exported. The state of Utah not being a

highly diversified type of economy will ship most of the products produced

within its boundaries outside the state. It will, on the other hand,

import nearly all of the products used within the state. Assuming that

all cost of goods flows out of the state in this particular case is

in line with this type of rationale. Therefore, only the wages, rents

and profits generated in the state by student expenditures will be

counted as income flowing to Utah residents.

As explained earlier, the base t echnique is used to describe the

economic structure and to predict the growth potential of a region.

Employees within the base boundaries (Utah in this case) are classified

as either basic or nonbasic. Basic employees are those who produce

goods and services for export or, looking at this from another angle,

those who cause dollars to flow into a region . Service or nonbasic

employees on the other hand are those who produce goods and services for

l ocal consumption and, thus, do not attract dollars into a region.

Students who live outside the base boundaries purchase goods and services within the base primarily by bring ing dollars into the region, and as such could be considered as tourist-like residents. Consequently, enterprises catering to students are to be considered in whole or in part base-associates of the university which in this case is the key base 50 19 unit .

Thus, the colleges and universities are in this case the key base

unit because they are attracting out-of-state students (dollars) to Utah

and in return are supplying a service (education) for export . The base-

associates in this case would be retail ers and private citizens providing

goods, services and shelter in return for imported dollars brought in

by students pursuing an educati on. Using this rationale the author will

now consider the influence the dollars imported by out-of-state students

have upon income and employment in Utah.

Out-of-State Students' Total Expenditures in the State of Utah

Based upon an average mean expenditure of $1,816 for the 1629

sample respondents, total expenditures for the 14,221 out-of-state

students attending Utah colleges and universities amounted to $25,825,336 20 for the 1963-64 school year. (An average of ten months in the school

year .) Table 20 is a breakdown of the total expenditures into the nine

broad categories covered in this study.

For the sake of convenience, the ou t-of-state students 1 expenditures

can be divided into four areas, expenditures going to retail establish-

ments, expenditures going to private institutions, expenditures going

to private citizens in the form of gross rental receipts, and expendi-

19 Richard B. An drews, "Mechanics of the Urban Economic Base: Special Problems of Base Identification," Land Economics, Vol. 30, 1954, p. 262. 20 This is an unweighted total calculated by multiplying the total number of out-of-state students (14,221) by the mean expenditures ($1,816). As such this would be a slight over estimate of total expenditures because of the larger number of married and single male students in the sample. However, the author was conservative in other areas hence this should compensate for the over estimation in this case . 51 tures going to state institutions. Tabl e 21 shows these expenditures flat-l ing to four economic sectors of the Utah economy.

Table 20. Total expenditures out-of-state students attending Utah colleges and universities in nine categories, 1963-64

Category Total expenditures

Tuition ...... 4,721,372 Rent and Utilities . .• ...... •...... •.•.• 5,603,074 Food and Beverage $5,930,157 purchased off campus 4,180,974 purchase d on campus 1,749,183 Apparel ...... • • ... .•.•. •...... •.... 1,422,100 Automotive group ...... •...... 3,100,138 Recreation and Ente rtainment ...... 1,166,122 Medical and Dental Care ...... 767,934 Home Furnishings •...... 511 '956 Other ...... 2,602 ,443

Total ...... $225,825,336 52

Table 21. Flow of out- of-s tate student expenditures to economic sectors in the s tate of Utah, 1963-64.

Sector Dollar Expenditures

Retail

Food and Beverage (off campus} . . . $ 4,180,974 Apparel ...... •. . . • . .. . 1,422,100 Automotive ...... • ...... 3,100,178 Recreation and Entertainment* . .•. 1,166,122 Medical and Dental Care* • . .. . •. .. 767,934 Home Furnishings ...... • • ...... 511 '956 Other . . ••.•...•...... 2,602,443

Total • .• •.•..•...... • ....•.______~$=1~3~,7~5 ~1~·~7~0~7 _____

Private Rental Receipts

Rent and Utilities . • •••••• . •..• • . $ 2,671,821

Total • • •.••• • . .• ••.• . •••••••______~$~2~·~6~7~1~·~8~2~1 ~----

Private Educational Institutions

Tuition ...... $ 2,826,096 Food and Beverage (on campus) .... 1,113,044 Rent and Utilities .•.•••.. . ••.. •. 1,928,200

Total • • ••.. . • . •.. . •... • •.. . . ______$~5~ · =8~67~·~3~4~0__ ___

State Educational Institutions

Tuition ...... $ 1,895,276 Food and Beverage ...... 636,139 Rent and Utilities ...... 1,003,053

Total • ...... • . . . ..______~$~3~·~5~34~·~4~6~8 __ ___

Total, all sectors ...... $25,825,336

* The two service categories were combined under r etail for simpli city in further mathematical computations. 53

Out-of-State Students ' Expenditures For Retail Trade

As shown in Tabl e 21, out- of-st a t e students' expenditures for

r e tail goods and services amounted to $13,751,707. If the cost of goods

sold for all six categories amounted t o 61.7 percent of sales , the

result is a gross margin of 32.9 percent left for salaries, rent, profits 21 and other expenses. By multiplying $13,751,707 by the gross margin

f igure (3 2.9 percent) the result is $4,524,312 going t o residents of

Utah in the form of wages, rents and profits. On the basis of the

average monthly wage of retai lers in Ut ah for the 3rd quart er of 1963

this would result in 1,688 basic jobs in r e tailing created by student

2 expenditure s on a t en month basis. ( $4 5 2 ,431 /$268 ~1,688)7 The remainder,

$9 , 227,395 is assumed by the author to flow out of Utah to firms supply-

ing goods and services to Utah retail ers and as such takes the form

of income to residents outside the base boundaries.

Out-of-State Student$' Expenditures to Private Rental Households

Expenditures to private citizens in the form of rent and utilities

amounted to $2,671,821. According to national figures net rental income

to private nonfarm r ented dwellings, above expenses, amounted to 21.22 23 percent of gross rental income in a r ecent year. Hence, ($2,671,821 X

21 These percentages are de rived from two authoritative sources. William R. Davidson and Paul L . Brown, Retailing Management, (Ronald Press Company: New York, 1953), p. 716. Homer Hoyt, "A Method for Measuring the Value of Im port es into an Urban Community,! Land Economics, Vol. 37, 1961, p. 153.

22 Utah Department of Employment Security, Utah Labor Market Quarterly, 3rd Quarter , 1963 , p. A-6. 23 U.S., De partment of Commerce, National Income , (Washington : U.S. Govern ment Printing Office, 1954), p . 87. The reader is not to confuse this figure (21.22 percent) with a rate of r e turn on inve stment; it is the per centage of gross rental income. It is gross r ent minus landlord's expense for utilities, taxes, etc. 54

21.22) the total amount of net rental income going to Utah landlords from

out-of-state students amounted to $566,960 during the 1963-64 school

year. This is the equivale nt of 430 basic jobs if compared to the average

monthly wage for r ooming and boarding houses in the third quarte r of 24 1963. ($56,696/$132=430) Part of the cost of running a rented dwell-

ing goes out to Utah reside nts through the landlord in the form of

income , specifically such things as facility expenses (utility bills)

and maintenance costs . According to national figures this amount wi ll 25 usually run about 19.3 percent of gross rental income. Hence, ($2,671,821

X 19 . 3) $5 15,661 goes to Utah utility compani es and citizens supplying

services to Utah landlords. This figure must be considered because it

is income directly derived from s tudents expenditures . On the basis of

the average monthly wage in Utah (non-agricultural) this amounts to an

additional 126 jobs ($51,566/$409=126)~ 6 Thus, students expenditures

to the private sector accounts for $1,082,621 in income going to Utah

residents which is equivalent to 556 basic jobs.

Expenditures on tuition are treated as income going directly to

individuals within the state. This can be justified on the grounds that

colleges and universities are the key base industry in this case and

tuition expenditures can be assumed to flow to the teaching and support-

ing staffs of the educational institutions. If this be the case, then

24 Utah Department of Employment Security, Utah Labor Market Quarte rly, 3rd Quarter 1963, p . A-7. 25 U.S. , Department of Commerce, National Income, (Washingt on: U.S . Govern ment Printing Office, 1954) , p. 87 . (Exhibit 3 . ) 26 Utah Department of Employment Security, Utah Labor Market Quarterly, 3rd Quarter, 1963 , p. A-2. 55

such jobs should be classified as "basic" because money is being imported

through the out-of- state student in return for the service education.

According to a report from one institution in the study, the average monthly salary for all full-time employees of ~he institution amounted to $5,438. If we assume that this figure is typical for all institutions in the study this would be the equivalent of 868 basic jobs in colleges and universities supported by out-of-state students . (Tuition $4,721,372/

$5438=868) Although tuition receipts go to other things besides salaries the author is assuming that most, if not all, will remain within the base boundaries as income. (First round expenditures)

Based upon a report furnished by one of the institutions within the study approximately 31 percent of gross rent flows to the school as net rental income . This figure is higher than that for the private landl ord

(21.22 percent) but the reader must remember that educational institutions are not subjected to the same taxes or interest schedules as the private landl ord. Based upon this same source of information another 21 percent of gross rent will flow to Utah citizens supplying insurance, supplies, utilities, etc., to the institutions. \-lith these facts in mind, the author will now proceed t"o·· examine the income and employment generated in educational institutions through out-of-state students' expenditures.

Out-of-State Students' Expenditures in Private Institutions

Students' expenditures going to private institutions in the form of tuition ($2,826 , 096) as e xplained above, will be considered as first round incomes to faculty and supporting staffs of the institutions. 56

In the total of on-campus expenditures for food and beverage ($1,113,044)

part of the ost of goods will remain in the state but like the retail

sector, after the first round , the author i s assuming that the money will flow from Utah whol.,saler s to firms out side the state . Private educational institutions are lassified as non-profi.t organizations.

Hence, the porti.on of the gross margin that would ordinarily flow as residual income to the entrepreneur wil l either return to the student in the form of lower prices or will flow in the form of wages to employees working in campus facilities . According to figures supplied by the U.S. 27 Department of Comrnerce salaries in "eating places" amounted to 21. 5 percent of sales. In this case, this 'Y'ould amount to income generated of $239,304 ($1,113,044 X 21 . 5) for individuals working in such facilities. According to average monthly figures for salaries in "eating 28 places", this wou ld result in 156 basic jobs . ($23,930/$153).

For rent and utilities collected by such institutions the figure of 31 percent of gross rent as explained previously will be used. Thus

597,742 ($1,928,200 X 31 .) is avail able as net rental income to private institutions for supplying housing facilities to students . Part of the gross rental figure will flow to Utah residents in the form of insurance, supplies and facility expenses and thus another $404 , 922 ($1,928, 200

X 21) in income is generated. Combining the income from rent and utilities and di.viding by the average monthly wage in the state for the third quarter gives a total of 245 basic jobs supported by out-of- state expenditures. ($100,267/$409=245) As a result, the private institutions

27 U.S., Bureau of the Census . U. S. Census of Business: - 1958 Retail Trade Utah, (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office)BC58-RA44, Utah 195 8, p . 44-7. 28 Utah Department of Employment Security, Utah Labor Market 'luarterly, 3rd Quarter 1963 , p. A~6 . 57 and individuals working for them receive a s income from out-of-state students the sum of $4,068,064 in the form of tuition, rents and salaries.

Out-of-State Students' Expenditure s to State Institutions

The state institutions, like private institutions, receive receipts in three areas from the out- of-state students. All three expenditure flows will be treated in the same light as those of private institutions.

Tuition of $1,895, 276 is seen as income to state institutions who distri- bute this as salaries and other costs of running the institution to employees "t-Jithin the state. Food and beverage purchased on-campus represents earnings of $136,770 ($636,139 X 21 .5) to individuals working in campus facilities which is the equivalent to 89 basi c jobs. Rent and utilities represent income of $310,946 ($1,003,053 X 31) to the public institutions based upon the fact that 31 percent of gross income flows to the institution. Utah residents earn an additional $210,641 ($1,003,053

X 21) by supplying ser vices as expl ained previously to the institutions in the form of insurance, supplies , and utilities, ~· Combining the l ast two figures and dividing by the average monthly wage this represents

128 basic jobs supported by out-of-state students in this area. ($52,158/

$409=128).

Conclusions on the Effect of Out- of-State Students ' Expenditures Upon Income and Employment in the State of Utah.

Table 22 shm11 s the contribution of the out-of-state students' expendi tures to the state of Utah resulting from the first round of expenditures. 58

Table 22. First round of income generated by the out-of-state s tudents ' expenditures in the state of Utah by economic sectors, 1963-64.

First round income generated by stu- Emp loyment Sector dent expenditures equivalent

Retail...... $ 4,525,312 1,688

Private ne t r ental income $566,960 430 Income to Utah residents by supplying services to the private landlord .....• 515,661 1,082,621 126

Private Institutions ...... 4,068,064 Tuition ...... 2826,096 Food and Beverage(wages) 239,304 156 Rent and Utilities ...... 597,742 Income to residents for .. . supplying services ...... 404,922

State Institutions ...... , .. 2,553,633 Tuition ...... 1895,276 Food and Beverage(wages) 136' 770 89 Rent and Utilities ...... 310,946 Income to residents for 128 supplying services ...... 210,641

Employment in colleges and univ ersities based upon tuition expenditures ...... 868

Total ...... $12,229,630 3,730

The reader must remember that this figure represents only the first round of income generated by students expenditures and the final result will be some multiple of this based upon the multiplier for the state of Utah. The multiplier is the ratio between the total change in income and the initial change in income. It is based on the fact that expenditures to one person flm:vs as income to another 't..rhich in turn wil l cause consumption and savings to change by some fraction of the change in income . If we assume the income multiplier in Utah to be 1.1 the final 59 result in income generated would be $13,452,593.

On the basis of $12,229,630 in income generated by first round expenditures of out-of-state students this would be the equivalent of

3,730 basic jobs. According to studies done in the field the relationship between basic and nonbasic emp loyment varies according to the particular conditions within the base boundaries. Charles Leven, for example, estimated Sioux City's ratio at 1 to 1.7 and that for Elgin,

Illinois at 1 to 1.5~ 9 Charles Tiebout computed ratios of 1 to 1.1 and 30 1.05, respectively, for Evanston and Winnetka, Illinois . As one author states, 11 a reasonably precise base-nonbase employment ratio cannot be calculated except by primary survey methods. Where time and cost are factors, such methods are often impractical except in the smallest 31 corrununities." Because such factors hold true in this case, the author will make a representative estimate, based on those listed above as well 32 as additional studies that the basic to nonbasic ratio in Utah is

1 to 1. 1.

29 charl es L. Leven, " Economic Report, 1959," City Planning Commiss ion, Sioux City, Iowa; and "Theory and Method of Income and Product Accounts for Metropolitan Areas, Including the Elgin-Dundee Area as a Case Study," Iowa State College, Ames, Iowa, 1958. 3° Charles M. Tiebout, "The Community Income Multiplier: An Empirical Study," (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan , Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1957). 31 Clifford M. Baumback, "Community Economic Base Studies," Iowa Business Digest, (Iowa City: Bureau of Business and Economic Research, Co llege of Business Administration, State University of Iowa, December 1962), Vol. 33, No. 12 , p. 21. 32 Homer Hoyt, "A Method for Measuring the Value of Imports into an Urban Community," Land Economics, Vol. 37 , 1961. In his study of the Washington D.C. Metropolitan Area, 1958, he found the ratio between basic and non basic to be 1 to 1.15, p. 154. In his study of Detroit, Michigan the ratio was 1 to 1.33. p. 156 . 60

If this be the case then 7,833 persons in Utah owe their livelihood

to the expenditures of out-of-state students. This is slightly more than

2 percent of the total non-agricultural employment, but it means that

every two out-of-state students provides a livelihood for one working

Utahn. Of these 7,833 jobs (3,730 basic+ 4103 service) approximately

1,493 are held by out-of-state students working in Utah, leaving a net

employment figure generated of 6,340 jobs for Utah residents. (See

Appendix G for calculation of student employment figure.)

In terms of revenue to the state, this represents roughly an addi-

tional $1,654,596 in taxes placed upon personal income resulting from 33 the first round income generated of $13,452,593.

These facts appear t o indicate that out-of- state student expenditures are responsible for approximately 6,340 jobs going to residents of the state of Utah. Considering only the tax on the first round of income, an additional $1,654,596 flows to the state government in tax receipts.

Considering that all flows other than wages, profits and net rental income were assumed to flow out of Utah, the results are quite impressive.

In reality some of the flows assumed going out of the state will r emain and flow to Utah manufactures, retailers, utility companies, etc., in the form of interests, rents, salaries and profits. This in turn will have an influence upon income and employment figures .

Although the cost of educating an out-of-state student has not been determined in this study, the revenue and expenditures he makes within the state have been found to be substantial.

33 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Governmental Finances in 1960, Table 14, p. 26. (For each $1000 of personal income, the state receives $123 in the form of tax money.) 61

Suggestions for Further Research

The author suggests that various follow up studies be conducted in

the area of student expenditures . Local communities for the most part

are unique and require primary surveys rather than national data to

insure accurate results. As such, perhaps various studies could be

conducted by others to determine the impact of student dollars upon the

local community. For example, a study determining the economic impact of

students attending Utah State University upon the city of Logan or

Cache County would prove interesting and beneficial in predicting future

growth to the area. The same would hold true for Brigham Young Univer

sity upon the city of Pr0vo as well as the other institutions' ~ffec t

upon l ocal communities. Or, looking at this subject from a different

angl e , a study determining the marginal cost of educating an additional

student as compared to the marginal revenue he provides to t he state

is another approach to consider. On the whole, more research i s needed

in these areas not only in Utah but nationwide in order t o determine how changes in spending will effect local income and emp l oyment. This

in turn wi l l enabl e better planning methods to cope with l ocal economic

problems. 62

LITERATURE CITED

Public Documents

U.S. Bureau of the Census. U.S. Census of Business : 1958 Retail Trade. Re port No . BC58-RA44, Utah, p. 44-7 .

U.S. Bureau of the Census. National Income: 1958 . (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1954) p. 87.

Utah Department of Employment Security. Utah Labor Market Quarterly. 3rd. Quarter 1963.

Book

Brown, Lyndon 0. Market Research and Analysis. New York: Ronald Press Company, 1937.

Chambers, M.M. Financing Higher Education. Washington: The Center for Applied Research in Education Inc., 1963.

Hill, DavidS., Ke lly, Fred J. and Savage, Howard J. Economy In Higher Education. New York: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1933.

Hobart, Donald M. Marketing Research Practice. New York: Ronald Press Company, 1950.

Keezer, Dexter M. (ed.) Financing Higher Education 1960-70. New York: McGraw-Hill Co., 1959.

Pfouts, Ralph W. (ed. ) The Techniques of Urban Economic Analysis West Trenton, New Jersey: Chandler-Davis Publishing Co., 1960.

Stockton, John R. Business Statistics. New York: South-Western Publishing Company, 1958.

Reports

Alexander, John W. An Economic Base Study of Madison Wisconsin, Wisconsin Commerce Papers, Vol. I, No. 4. (Madison Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin, School of Commerce, Bvreau of Business Research and Ser vice, 1953. 63

Arrington, Leonard J. and George Jensen. "Utah ' s Eme r ging Me tropolis: The Wasatch Front," Utah ' s Urban Rural Revolution, a report of the Sixth Annual Agriculture and Industry Confer ence, Logan, Utah: Ut ah State University (1962), pp. 9-20.

Hcy llis, Ernes V. and Associates. Cost of Attending College, U.S. Depart ment of Health, Educ ation and Welfar e , Bulle tin 1957. No. 9 (Wash ington: U.S. Government Pr inting Office , 1958) .

Federa l Reserve Bank of Kansas City and the Bureau of Business Research, University of New Mexico , The Economy of Albuguergue New Mexico, 1949 .

Articles and Periodicals

Andrews, Richard B. , "Mechanics of the Economic Base," Land Econom ics , Vol. 29, (May 1953), 161-167.

, "The Pr oblem of Terminology," Land Economics, Vol. 29, (August, --1-953)' 263 - 26 8.

, "The Classification of Base Types, 11 Land Economics, Vol . 29, -----(-November, 1953), 3437349,

, "Th e Problems of Base Measurement ," Land Economics, Vol. 30, -----(-February 1954), 52-60.

, "General Problems of Base Identification," Land Ec onom i cs , ~1. 30, (May 1954), 164-172.

Baumb ack) Clifford M. "C ommunity Economic Base Studies," Iowa Business Digest, Vol . 33, No . 12 (December 1962), 20- 23.

Gribbin, James J. "What Does It Cost To Attend College," Personnel and Guidance, Vol. XXXIV, No. 1 (March, 1956), 443-446 .

Ekstrom, Ruth B. and Cliff, Norman. "Pa rents 1 Feelings About College Costs," School and Society, Vol. 91, No . 2222 (February 23, 1963), 99-100.

Ho;Yt, Homer. "The Utility of the Economic Base Me thod in Calculating Urban Growth," Land Economics, Vo l . 37, (February 1961), 51-58.

Parker, Garland G. "Statistics of Attendance in American Universities and Col l eges, 1963-64," School and Society, Vo l . 92, No. 2236 (January 11, 1964)

Renshaw, Edward F. "Essay Review; Hi gher Education: Resources and Finances ," The School Review, Vol. 71, No. 4 (Winte r 1963), 493-502. APPENDIXES 65

APPENDIX A

Letter and Questionnaire

Dear Fellow Student:

I am conducting under the auspices of the Management Institute of the College of Business and Social Sciences at Utah State Univer sity a research-thesis project on "The Economic Contribution of the Out of-State Student to the Economy of Utah." In order to complete this project, I need your cooperation and help.

On page 2 you will find a short questionnaire. If you will kindly fill in the required information and mail your responses to me in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope, I can get my study underway. As you will not~,some of the information requested is of a personal nature, hence, your identification is not required.

Due to the time and personal expense involved, every questionnaire is of vital importance; and your responses are essential to my study.

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

Joseph Markowski Graduate Student

JM:lt Enclosures 66

PLEASE FILL IN THE RE QUIRED INFORMATION

l. College or university now attending: (1) BYU •.••.•• .•... . . ( ) (4) Snow ....•...... ( (2) U. of Utah ...•••. ( ) (5) Dixie •... • ...•.•.. ( (3) u.s.u ...... ( ) (6) Westminster ...... (

2. Resident of which state?______, if fore ign student, country?__ _

3. Sex: Male ( Female

4 . Ma rital status: Single ( Married ) No. dependents (include self) ----- 5. Do you have a spouse att ending college? Yes No

6 . Year in college: Fr. ( Soph. ( J r. ( Sr. ( Gr . ( )

7 . Credit hours per week you are currently carrying

8. Are you employed in Ut ah? Yes ( No ( I f yes , how many hours per week do you work? ____ 9. How many months of the year do you live i n Utah?

10. During this period of time, approximatel y how much money do you spend in the State of Utah? (If freshman, estimate your a nswer) $__ _

11 . During this same period of time, approximately how many dollars do you spend in Utah for: (If married, include tota l household expendi tures )

(1) Tuition ...... $__ (2) Rent and Utilities • . •.•.•. . . .•••. •...... •...... • ..•... $__ Do you live in campu s housing? Yes ( ) No ( ) (3) Food and Beverage: Purchased at (Supermarkets, foodstores, eating and drinking places) ...... $__ Purchased at (Campus facilities, includes board, snacks, lunches) .. ~ ...... ~ ...... $__ (4) Apparel (Clothing, footwear , dry goods, etc.) .....•....•.• $__ (5) Automotive: Supplies--gas, oil, tires, etc...... $__ New or used car purchased in Utah ...... •..•....• • ..•. $__ Insurance if purchased in Utah ...... • . •...... $__ (6) Recreation and Entertainment (Bowling, golf, theatre, sporting goods, etc.) ...... $__ (7) Medical and Dental Care (Drugs, hospita l, s tudent medical insurance), . . , ...... •...... •• , ...... $__ (8) Home Furnishings (Appliances, rugs, lamps, dishes, radios, etc.) ...... •...... $__ (9) Other (Transporta tion, persona l care, etc . ) •. •...... $__ 67 PLEASE FILL IN THE REQUIRED INFORMATION (Continued)

12. What is the source oi sources of your income? Please use dol l ar amounts. (1) Parents . ...•.•...... $__ _ (6) Jobs in Utah ...... $ (2) Summer job ...... $__ _ (7) Savings ...... $-- - (3) Loans .•...... •... . $__ _ (8) Other . . ..•...... $-- (4) Husband and or wife working • . ..• . $___ --- (5) Scholarship, Grant, Fellowship .. . $__ _ 68

APPENDIX B

Answer to Letter

2501

Dear Mr . Markowski,

My husband is a resident of Utah and has alw·ays attended school here as such. I doubt that the information you request \vould be val id in his case. We wish you luck in your studies, fellow student

Sincerely, 69

APPENDIX C

Returned questionnaire

2206 PLEASE FILL IN THE REQUIRED INFORMATION

1. College or university now a ttending: (1) BYU ...... 00 (4) SnoH ...... r;t} (2) U. of Utah ...... (~ (5) Dixie ...... ~ (3) u.s.u ...... ·l:f> (6) Westminster ... . ey1 2. Resident of which state? ~~ 'S ,if foreign student, country? Ll. ~~J,?

3. Sex: Ma le ~ Female ~ 4. Marital status: Single tyJ Married

5. Do you have a spouse attending college? Yes ~ No ~ 6. Year in college: Fr. 9

7. Credit hours per week you are currently carrying --~~~-~5:~---

8. Are you emp l oyed in Utah? Yes ( ) No ~ If yes , how many hours per week do you work? "'0 9. How many months of the year do you live in Utah?

10. During this period of time , approximately how much money do you spend in the State of Utah? (If freshman , estimate your answer) ..••• $M~Oi'lbOO

11. During this same period of time, approximately how many dollars do you spend in Utah for: (If married, include total household expen ditures)

(1) Tuition ...... (2) Rent and Utilities ...... •...... • ...... • Do you live in campus housing? Yes 0J! No ( ) (3) Food and Beverage: Purchased at (supermarkets, foodstores, eating and drinking places) .. ~ ...... •... $ 2.0 , Purchased at (Campus facilities, includes board, snacks, lunches) ...... •...... $1#!!. (4) Apparel (Clothing, footwear , dry goods, etc .) ...... $~ (5) Automotive: Supplie s--gas , oil, tires, e tc ...... $!0../)2 New or used car purchased in Utah ...... $---tU_ Insurance if purchased in Utah ...... $+f.._Q_ (6) Recreation and Entertainment (Bowling, golf, theatre, sporting goods, etc.) ...... $bf~qel?l (7) Me dical and Dental Care (Drugs, hospital, student medical insurance) ...... $lJ¥f (8) Home Furni shings (Appliances, rugs, lamps, dishes, radios, etc.) ...... $m.___ 70

PLEASE FILL IN THE REQUIRED INFORMATION (Concinued)

(9) Other (Transportation, personal care, etc.) ...•...... $ ;2o.'~"'

12. What is the source or sources of your income? Please use dollar amounts. (1) Parents ...... • .. $ ~cs~t t~tryll'·~~) Jobs in Utah ..• .• ••. $~ II I' I Min (2) Summer job •. •. .... $~0 (7) Savings ...... • •. $~e (3) Loans . .. .•••••.•• • $~1 oo" (8) Other . •. •.•••.• .. • •• $ ~s (4) Husband and or «ife «orking .... . $...lJJ2... (5) Scholarship, Grant, Fello«ship . . $~ (LJ :!//t- 1f.l/IY) tJA(I)S 1/J.P;Dl oJo~" 71

APPENDIX D

Highlights of the study "Cost of Attending College," by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare , Bulletin 1957, No. 9 p. 25 . (1952-53)

1. It \vas the cost of living at college rather than educational costs that made it difficult for low- income families to finance their son or daughter at most colleges. Living costs consumed five-sixths of the average student budget

2. On the average women spent less than men for attendance at college.

3. The pattern of spending of men and women differed significantly on only four items: clothes, recreation, room and board and fees. Except for tuition and fees the pattern of spending did not differ greatly between public and private institutions.

4. The spending (mean) of the middle half of students interviewed ranged between $815 and $1,708.

5. For sources of income students r elied mainly on parents, other relatives, and themselves for their college income.

6. Students financed over one-fourth of their budgets from money they earned during the summer and school year. Two-thirds of the men worked during the school year, earning an average of $486; half of the women were also employed, earning an average of $265 per year.

7. Scholarships, veteran's benefits, loans, gifts and miscellaneous sources together accounted for only 13 . 2 percent of student budgets.

8. Men s pent more than women, with the extra money coming from earnings or loans . Women earned l ess and borrowed less than men in ge tting funds for college.

Cost of attending college during 1956-57 averaged $1,500 at public institutions and over $2,000 at private ones. 72 APPENDIX E

Tab l e 23. Geographical Distribution of Out-of-St at e Students in Ut ah Col l eges and Universi Lies, by Marital Status, Sex and Cl ass in College, First Session 1963-64.

Ma rital Sections of Status Sex Year i n Co llege Country M S M F Fr So Jr Sr Gr Un 1 To t a l

New England

Connecticut ... . 6 55 40 21 21 9 ll 8 10 2 61 Maine ...... 4 18 16 6 9 3 4 5 l 22 Massachusetts .• 3 70 37 36 25 14 13 13 6 2 73 New Hampshire .. 2 27 16 13 15 2 3 5 2 29 Rhode Island ... 7 2 5 3 1 2 1 7 Vermont •.....•. 6 5 3 1 1 7

Total...... 16 183 116 83 76 30 34 27 24 8 199 Middle At l antic

New Jersey . .... 17 141 98 60 53 38 27 19 21 158 New York ...... 21 234 173 82 85 49 45 32 35 9 255 Pennsylvani a .. . 6 104 70 40 30 31 27 11 ll 110

Total...... 44 479 341 182 168 118 99 62 67 9 52 3 E. N. Cen tral

Illinoi s ...... 21 187 139 69 67 54 27 26 27 7 208 Indiana .....•.. 11 71 49 33 28 14 16 6 10 8 82 Michigan .....• . 13 102 65 50 41 23 18 15 15 3 115 Ohio ...... 11 119 83 47 46 27 17 13 2l 6 130 Wi s cons in ...... 9 71 60 20 34 15 10 5 14 2 80

To t a l. . . .•. 65 550 396 219 21 6 133 88 65 87 26 615 w. N. Cen t ral

Iowa .••• •• .• . •• 7 81 49 39 28 28 12 8 ll 88 Kansas . • • • . . . •. 9 72 57 24 25 18 11 14 13 81 Minnesot a ...... 8 47 30 25 19 13 5 8 10 55 Missouri ...... 8 56 33 31 27 14 8 9 5 l 64 Nebraska .•• . •• . 5 59 39 25 16 13 10 12 10 3 64 North Dakota .. . 9 24 23 10 5 7 3 4 14 33 South Dakota ... 9 29 23 15 14 5 6 3 lO 38

To t al...... 55 368 254 169 134 98 55 58 73 5 423 73

Table 23. (Continued)

Marital Sec tions of Status Sex Year in Co llege Country ~ M F Fr So Jr Sr Gr Un Total

South Atlantic

Delaware ...... 1 16 11 6 5 4 3 2 2 1 17 Dist. of Co l . . .. 3 36 20 19 8 8 6 8 8 1 39 Florida ...... 14 97 55 56 59 15 19 15 3 111 Georgia ...... 2 36 15 23 17 10 3 5 3 38 Maryland ...... 12 57 38 31 25 23 8 6 5 2 69 North Carolina. 8 40 24 24 20 5 13 2 3 5 48 South Carolina. 1 30 13 18 13 8 2 3 3 2 31 Virginia ...... 20 162 83 99 75 38 22 18 15 14 182 \vest Virginia . . 10 4 6 5 2 1 10

Total...... 61 484 263 282 227 113 78 60 42 25 545

East and West South Central

Alabama .••...•• 3 17 12 8 6 6 2 1 4 20 Kentucky • •.. .•. 2 21 15 8 7 5 3 8 23 Mississippi. • . . 5 18 9 14 3 2 5 4 3 6 23 Tennessee ...... 3 25 15 13 7 7 3 5 6 28 Arkansas • • ... . . 6 72 11 7 6 2 3 3 1 3 18 Louisiana .. . . •. 4 25 17 12 13 2 5 2 7 29 Oklahoma . .• .. .. 9 38 34 13 13 14 4 6 10 47 Texas ...... 23 177 101 99 78 34 31 29 21 7 200

To tal...... 55 333 214 174 133 67 58 53 60 17 388

Pacific

Alaska ...... 8 33 24 17 19 8 4 4 4 2 41 Hawa ii ...... 5 143 98 50 55 32 32 16 8 5 148 Oregon ...... 77 465 310 232 180 119 111 78 34 20 542 Washington . .. . . 71 499 284 286 199 119 78 82 37 55 570

Tot al ...... 161 1140 716 585 453 278 225 180 83 82 1301

Other Sta tes

Arizona ...... 89 585 332 342 260 145 99 95 42 33 674 California .. •. . 418 3428 2024 1822 1336 847 713 622 245 83 3846 Colorado .....• . 54 292 196 150 125 66 56 57 33 9 346 Idaho ...... •. 416 2097 1548 965 789 542 523 406 186 67 25 13 Montana .. ...• .• 29 205 146 88 68 43 42 45 29 7 234 Nevada . .. •..•.. 61 "" 495 321 235 209 -- 137 86 71 31 22 556 New Mexico ..•.. 31 184 121 94 .. 72 36 38 40 19 10 215 Wyoming . ..•.•. • 60 399 279 180 149 99 88 69 42 12 459 74

Table 23. (Continued)

Marital Sections of Status Sex Year in College Country M S M F Fr So Jr Sr Gr Un* Total

U.S. Possessions 3 2 4 2 2 5 State Unknown .. . . - 4 2 4 4

Total U.S. 1618 11 '228 7270 5576 4421 2753 2282 1910 1065 415 12,846

Foreign Country 260 1,115 1051 324 312 199 179 180 366 139 1,375

To tal .** .. 1878 12,343 8321 5900 4733 2952 2461 2090 1431 554 14,221 Adjustment·· : +170 -170 2048 12,173

k Un in this table stands for students unidentified according to year in college. ** The adjustment figure represents 140 University of Utah students, 18 from Weber College and 12 from the College of Southern Utah. APPENDIX E-1 75 Table 24. Out-of-State Enrollment in Utah Colleges and Universities by College, Marital Status, Sex and Class in College, First Session, 1963-64.

Marital Utah College No. of Status Sex Year in College or Univ a Students M s M F Fr So Jr Sr Gr Un

Brigham Young University 9437 1205 8232 4841 4596 3381 1974 1683 1403 477 519 Utah State University 1921 360 1561 1427 494 650 418 374 231 248 University of Utah 2275 453 1822 1675 600 377 411 346 403 703 35 Westminster College 165 * 165 87 78 73 38 26 28 Weber College 181 18 ** 163 132 49 105 30 23 21 Snow College 35 * 35 31 4 21 l4 Dixie College 92 ~'( 92 57 35 58 34 College of Southern Utah ll5 12"'* 103 7l 44 68 33 9 4

Total. .... 14, 221 2,048 12,173 8321 5900 4733 2952 2461 2090 1431 554

* No data was available on the nwnber of married students . ~-Es timates as explained in footnote 7. 76

APPENDIX F

STATISTICAL RELIABILITY OF SAMPLE TOTAL EXPEN DITURES

Standard* - No. in Sample error of Confidenc,e College sample mean sample mean interval *

BYU ••.•...... •. 1050 $1 , 630 $ 33 $1,565-1,695 Univ. of Utah ... 244 2 , 719 105 2,514-2.923 usu .•.....•..... 285 1, 778 67 1,647-1,909 Snow ••. •...•.• • • 13 1,392 177 1,045-1,739 Dixie ••..•..• •• . 9 944 54 839-1,050 Westminster .... . 28 1,784 92 1,603-1,966

* A measure of precision of the samp l e means. ** Based upon a 95 percent probability leve l. What it means is that 95 percent of the time the true mean of the universe will fall in between the two values given. All additional da ta is based upon the 95 percent probability level.

Co llege , Standard Sex and No. in Sample error of Confidence Ma rital Status sample mean sample mean interval

Single Ma l e ...... 739 $1,575 32 $1 ,512-1, 638 Female ...... 561 1,277 29 1,220-1,335

Ma rried ...... 329 3 ,275 82 3, ll4-3 ,436

BYU-Married ..... 206 2,956 84 2,791-3,120 -Single Ma le .....•.• 416 1,443 43 1,358-1,528 Female .....• 428 1,175 25 1,125 -1,225

UofU-Married 79 4,265 203 3,866-4,664 -Single Ma l e •...... ll9 2,026 82 1,865- 2,187 Fema l e . .•. • 46 1,856 94 1,672-2,041 USU-Marricd 44 2, 995 197 2,609-3,381 -Singl e Male • • . .• .. • 174 1,579 58 1,464-1 ,694 Female 67 1 ,495 156 1,189-1,800 Snow-Ma l e ..... ,. ll 1 , 436 206 1,031-1,842 -Femal e . ... • 2 1,150 150 856-1,144 77

APPENDIX F (Continued)

College, Standard Sex and No. in Sample error of Confidence Marital Status sample mean sample mean interval

Dixie-Male ...... 5 $1,040 40 962-1,118 -Female .... 4 825 78 673- . 977

Westminster -Male ...... 14 1,921 143 1,640-2,203 -Female .... 14 1,647 110 1,432-1,862

By Sections of Country

New England ...... 24 1,762 180 1,410-2,114 Middle Atlantic .. 66 1, 713 102 1,513-1,912 East N. Central . . 83 2,180 193 1,802-2,559 \Vest N. Central .. 73 2,129 182 1, 772 - 2,487 South Atlantic . . . 74 1,938 156 1,631-2,244 E&IV South Cent ... 46 2,327 213 1,909-2,746 Pacific . . .•...... 153 1, 770 93 1,586-1,953 Arizona ...... 68 1,623 107 1,414- 1,832 California ...... 408 1,694 60 1,577-1,812 Colorado ..•.•.... 33 1,422 121 1,185-1,658 Idaho •.•..••...•. 290 1 , 809 74 1,664-1,953 Montana ...... •.. 30 1,789 30 1,402-2,177 Nevada .• •••..•.•. 67 1 ,751 128 1,500-2,003 New Mexico ...... 27 1.,633 167 1,305-1,960 IVyoming •.•.•...• . 46 1,885 174 1,543-2,226 Canada ••. ••••. •.. 59 2,044 183 1,686-2,403 Foreign ... ..•. . .. 82 1,825 106 1,618-2,031 78

APPENDIX G

Data on Incomes Received from Work in t he State

Married Students (2,048 total out-of-state married students)

Husband or wife working as reported by 329 married r e spondents.

Yes ...... l 74 53 percent No ...... l55 47 percent Total 329 100 percent Hence, 1,085 X $1,388 $1,505,980

Where, 1,085 estimat ed number of students with spouse working in Utah. (2,048 X 53 percent) $1,388 mean income from spouse working.

Jobs i n Utah as reported by married r espondents.

Yes ..•.. . l81 55 percent No . . . .•.• l48 45 percent Total 329 100 percent Hence, 1,126 X $831 • 935,706 lfuere, 1,126 estimated number of students working in state. (2,048 X 55 percent) $831 mean income r eported from job in state.

Singl e Students (1300 total out-of-state single students)

Jobs in Utah as reported by singl e students.

Ye s ...... 320 24. 6 percent No ...... 980 75 .4 percent Total 1300 100 . 0 percent Hence, 1737 X $179 $3 10, 923 1258 X $126 158 ,508 2995 469,431 Where , 1737 and 1258 are the estimated number 469,431 of single male s and females working i n the state. $179 and $126 are the mean incomes from jobs in Utah.

Total for both married and singl e students .. .. . $2 , 911, 117 Dividing $291,111 (ten month period) by the aver age monthly wage in the state $409 (footnote 26) gives 711 jobs. To be consistent, using the basic to nonbasic ratio of 1 to 1 .1 gives a t otal of 1493 jobs held by out-of-state students . No data was available on the true wage of the out-of-state student working in the state so this figure was used . Com bined 1iV'ith this , is the fact that 88 percent of the students reported working les s than 30 hours a week will justify the difference between the true total (4 , 121) and 1493 job equival ents at the monthl y wage of $409.