<%BANNER%>

Relationship of Enrollment to the Tuition and Fee Difference Ratio and State Resources between 1960 and 2000

University of Florida Institutional Repository
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022188/00001

Material Information

Title: Relationship of Enrollment to the Tuition and Fee Difference Ratio and State Resources between 1960 and 2000
Physical Description: 1 online resource (111 p.)
Language: english
Creator: ,
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: community, higher, price, tuition, undergraduate
Educational Administration and Policy -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Higher Education Administration thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The literature indicated that tuition and fee prices influenced enrollment in postsecondary education, with higher prices resulting in decreased attendance. The difference in tuition and fees between public community colleges and undergraduate institutions, operationalized as the tuition and fee difference ratio, was examined for its association with enrollment. The purpose of this study was to test student price response theory by examining the degree to which the attempt to provide access to public postsecondary education via the introduction of a lower-priced option, with considerations of a state's resources, was associated with enrollment for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000. Results indicated that the difference in tuition and fees was not statistically significantly related to enrollment. The general trend of the tuition and fee difference ratio was, however, negatively associated with enrollment. Implications for state systems were discussed.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Honeyman, David S.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022188:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022188/00001

Material Information

Title: Relationship of Enrollment to the Tuition and Fee Difference Ratio and State Resources between 1960 and 2000
Physical Description: 1 online resource (111 p.)
Language: english
Creator: ,
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: community, higher, price, tuition, undergraduate
Educational Administration and Policy -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Higher Education Administration thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The literature indicated that tuition and fee prices influenced enrollment in postsecondary education, with higher prices resulting in decreased attendance. The difference in tuition and fees between public community colleges and undergraduate institutions, operationalized as the tuition and fee difference ratio, was examined for its association with enrollment. The purpose of this study was to test student price response theory by examining the degree to which the attempt to provide access to public postsecondary education via the introduction of a lower-priced option, with considerations of a state's resources, was associated with enrollment for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000. Results indicated that the difference in tuition and fees was not statistically significantly related to enrollment. The general trend of the tuition and fee difference ratio was, however, negatively associated with enrollment. Implications for state systems were discussed.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Honeyman, David S.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022188:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101106_AAAAFY INGEST_TIME 2010-11-07T01:09:24Z PACKAGE UFE0022188_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 1051986 DFID F20101106_AABTNV ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH mullin_c_Page_065.jp2 GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
a9bd717360533483c9351436d7befa6a
SHA-1
8c9c11327f7046db26aad8e0e875d980bf75ccde
25271604 F20101106_AABTOJ mullin_c_Page_050.tif
e80b0870e1cab1960a3729d3c7874ad6
306400e844da25522713bebc4bf50946b21414e2
F20101106_AABTNW mullin_c_Page_084.tif
20907441be552b5d81cc99ab6c10be0f
07894dd8a24f370a19ddbebb184360687670b814
2900 F20101106_AABTOK mullin_c_Page_044.txt
0778ae88c240c99770ac0b95ce1f2ce2
5f45cb35d034e59cac393f98b76df1eb650c343d
48331 F20101106_AABTNX mullin_c_Page_048.jpg
e851ebc9dc453de61603238bea967a10
f6bd0dff6f02f4d33a06acd47587e95d77432679
7901 F20101106_AABTPA mullin_c_Page_083.QC.jpg
ba6415d2ddde18f765914d42a48a779f
14c65a7c15016c090010f1da32d5b4d0d23eb73a
1959 F20101106_AABTOL mullin_c_Page_026.txt
393b325705c9353097618bddddb40c4b
55f7215d7061dec2f2460f48a7bdb923de72f2ce
25265604 F20101106_AABTNY mullin_c_Page_077.tif
7c268ee11b608934665a6fa664a072e3
6174ea5ef8c54c0ed9e86a7732b0d7432db4c162
F20101106_AABTPB mullin_c_Page_003.tif
178d577e89a225308bea1c9e58331b57
1e3a9e8663d9b6beea9ea295cbb69bae5c161e95
3111 F20101106_AABTOM mullin_c_Page_077.txt
4b5a672097bb901b263d2c57fd7ef658
0b1a75a4d1073d2bfd3630297d5dd4381de715e0
8439 F20101106_AABTNZ mullin_c_Page_054thm.jpg
0f25f08f6d733a9e952869275541c58d
a974a653e081256d87abf1dace160ebdc3dbbd5b
52063 F20101106_AABTPC mullin_c_Page_018.pro
20e6cd5a327fa30aae02be49b9cf9ab1
1c666066c733e3d1e58e87a8af2a8081d97d5591
8696 F20101106_AABTON mullin_c_Page_001.QC.jpg
7c93131dbf3dec6a3042a84409dd3a75
835db646e6d8aa94ff05311363b2b80ae01cbf99
2677 F20101106_AABTPD mullin_c_Page_106.txt
139c41a00ca8a317a71a437c3e1a21c8
fbd2b656a77aa3fd6a592a41faa3dc4ca050b628
F20101106_AABTOO mullin_c_Page_039.tif
20dc15e911ac89162e762e8343877810
b3243e50e97610e26afa10efe6073856d71a4dfd
9368 F20101106_AABTPE mullin_c_Page_107thm.jpg
eb6c99a76f38a97c0fd3f41659ee316f
489566cd3b56f7fff0c298398df3d1d37c160452
1051981 F20101106_AABTOP mullin_c_Page_054.jp2
7484236ed77f87d09e64599523b7f2f8
79e4725cad35bf5d9b8d8c0b729666982d07cf39
4777 F20101106_AABTPF mullin_c_Page_073thm.jpg
3ac8ff72a6e4a6ee028e206b2bf12a2e
e14eecd5ba246c2333c8cefd666dbbb80b8c7cb5
36407 F20101106_AABTOQ mullin_c_Page_034.QC.jpg
89ea3304a29e4e7c08edccbe72b9a7b0
af9b9a48c440e71b619099f97560eec008c51bfa
F20101106_AABTPG mullin_c_Page_065.tif
789fed51ed9d68a9d1aafff80f0ca0bd
920d028dd444f14b06e036715fc2bf28a807a423
56636 F20101106_AABTOR mullin_c_Page_066.pro
ca978cb98dce0f39c6a25d6c237efc53
283d7e618b23d8b80ea910bc9a36ec505afc35b0
35580 F20101106_AABTOS mullin_c_Page_095.QC.jpg
ed8297d5eefe207dfc496af29212dfa2
3fcb3edb32a6f6b9d7851ed8c11eb63c8819b6cf
1051982 F20101106_AABTPH mullin_c_Page_077.jp2
763b0d403192b92668ce912c570d3959
5c7fa7cd2c82f68bb10ec3245327a64468cf388e
54109 F20101106_AABTOT mullin_c_Page_092.pro
5f1b6411e43f7494a6bc98d61b0ac5d0
0d2b1eb2e76feb61281822d4a0f71658e2f61022
106657 F20101106_AABTPI mullin_c_Page_104.jpg
1ab196c1fffb8d2ad55dbebfa2430131
92bf40ecd9d11750511bfb1bb6e9fd59e5936ffe
1051953 F20101106_AABTOU mullin_c_Page_044.jp2
50e6a4142524a94af0ca868a0fe6ffc2
ab77ae363b4bf7bdaf3a5424ca613d123579ce8e
7448 F20101106_AABTPJ mullin_c_Page_063.QC.jpg
0ca589769feac3c489d521cc3ba2c98c
569e9bfc9a9d48370fe0717c8047e46cfc1a7c43
3085 F20101106_AABTOV mullin_c_Page_084thm.jpg
a3b1352feada33c6375b50a562ac8c74
18f0f58b61a9051f6ff259f03575ba2ea8fd2d78
56953 F20101106_AABTPK mullin_c_Page_030.pro
3ccf961996cd071c08fc4533530f1e0f
df3f445c1248f3e5be87dd824212f085e989c4eb
690 F20101106_AABTOW mullin_c_Page_098.txt
cc5b5ecd6e19ceb2cd809bcc3158e3ff
c3ca0ec12ca8fcc1d0e784216aeaeb3d99a32094
1026815 F20101106_AABTQA mullin_c_Page_051.jp2
668c045f9031c31d867b184909fd3a4c
18d4851457143293e7d1bfd4b01a9ab6bc3917c6
29830 F20101106_AABTPL mullin_c_Page_078.jpg
406dcd57caf42fa3c9b94e10853c03d2
b4d00c36e34d64ab5b62cd7f9212939c1e081c6d
1051931 F20101106_AABTOX mullin_c_Page_011.jp2
d627c71b9dac8c1a07fba5fffcca2060
62ff8c8ec6df5b7c87806b6fc875b5c75e3e962c
500 F20101106_AABTQB mullin_c_Page_084.txt
f6c6f113cdfd8e70dd17b804a135a7b2
9a41f60e3c43d7135231e5be204e9a186b966cef
F20101106_AABTPM mullin_c_Page_073.tif
349abb325db0eea71a6c88561d64cd0c
be826636a854be636911562eae91d7881c84889d
54705 F20101106_AABTOY mullin_c_Page_006.jpg
15fac607c75fcab7022f5b04bf479f9b
04f1fd105cbe9f370e27e0756e3840f2dd2bf7e9
2230 F20101106_AABTQC mullin_c_Page_012.txt
0bd1bd02d53735ea204fba59ec398a5f
7290e68e07e0588980fb0c7905a14b5b81367305
3234 F20101106_AABTPN mullin_c_Page_087thm.jpg
ba0854a94c84373420a4f004ab900c1a
8c7ffd552ea27b6aa67c4085c19047d84e094b38
112346 F20101106_AABTOZ mullin_c_Page_034.jpg
3b17a3245a8d3c7253b648cf255ee3f6
bff22a2250080faeb4ccc4ab082b3ab0c251c410
1051951 F20101106_AABTQD mullin_c_Page_036.jp2
ac9c1a1a8b3f1a09a93bdb83dabab157
b3ce1bbb42eb09c74bd69d905c715a01112661eb
2588 F20101106_AABTPO mullin_c_Page_054.txt
763aa5ad2fc56bf1f69674e757e7297f
bf1070a1498ddd0a159f0d447e518e3dfdf3a6dc
54957 F20101106_AABTQE mullin_c_Page_041.pro
606ab14adef62fad48ea76e0d6a58076
12d494962c6708d23d921fff7ddd56d117dc5e37
F20101106_AABTPP mullin_c_Page_037.tif
e6d1e1567d5c23da1b34030e75c47c71
f3f8f88b3bb33e276bfd72dc493d01219b18018d
6850 F20101106_AABTQF mullin_c_Page_089.pro
f8de1a1e47015b30ab01a7d4a4e108a1
f6c5db4a8ac36c07fc00a2bbd0a6d0197e970271
1281 F20101106_AABTPQ mullin_c_Page_023.txt
9f9e0c702d44397a2f6141d19262bd69
2c6b14e364ee84e60525b6796b9e7d36f090d541
114344 F20101106_AABTQG mullin_c_Page_094.jpg
4dc597c7db5daa535defb05489d8aeae
2bc87ff7d6f5dcfba73a9ec36bf622452dd0c328
1997 F20101106_AABTPR mullin_c_Page_035.txt
420c414845dd4ac87c5ad83b0e091011
a2998f9f4e80cb9f421eadd21c5476ecc4d5725f
8099 F20101106_AABTQH mullin_c_Page_068thm.jpg
ededa74710569cb1b583b3e3a6f7127e
4bebafeca1d9b31fd16df6c54463f7164aa0b2ad
31220 F20101106_AABTPS mullin_c_Page_058.QC.jpg
80af0731509a61223fae02f0de7341e4
e2bd232cb37182161f87bd2169d2ef2dad46b116
F20101106_AABTPT mullin_c_Page_105.tif
e58f30d60fcd15ae3b5d3b442db187b7
822c77deda44b39383c47c1f0eb21fec10240aad
58563 F20101106_AABTPU mullin_c_Page_080.jpg
398e2a11c728f3f3d77961834bffeee8
866fb7595011fbd5c0cfd37529672b1536daffdf
10028 F20101106_AABTQI mullin_c_Page_098.pro
e414ffbb9ae92486ed481a94bc5596b3
84765ef9a68d98e927436dcdf2e81ccf3ce15248
578 F20101106_AABTPV mullin_c_Page_085.txt
84e530f97746032d60439b46832c375b
cd2f9dd5e696ced56209f06be5616f818351f57a
114440 F20101106_AABTQJ mullin_c_Page_013.jpg
e9ccdd86ea741ee132e462cf8af4b6b6
c07c50aed80a7e395662225bc8a04bfec815def1
3286 F20101106_AABTPW mullin_c_Page_088thm.jpg
417ac93663a82ce79dbc04ce1fee6065
3c71777206fadf4ff1e319093246bf635b599a57
2278 F20101106_AABTQK mullin_c_Page_013.txt
ce8797013818e91a577d5f8d1033c85a
f607ef4761f06e515840c318922aede81407dcba
11616 F20101106_AABTPX mullin_c_Page_006.QC.jpg
32a15e316a154df1fd7db175568a1674
556367d20aa6bdcdba3c879b74870f6ee9ba10d9
119313 F20101106_AABTRA mullin_c_Page_014.jpg
321d5124f73912c5106ca7bb0ebd82d7
301cf7c1f565a0cc871b10b0604118e98695d3d4
F20101106_AABTQL mullin_c_Page_029.tif
4bc6a34530b182390ee85eb83e4a338f
4e77b7ed8163a458f86cb0fcb308d4e96a5ab99f
93886 F20101106_AABTPY mullin_c_Page_064.jpg
7a7033be2698d1a66b08525083b5d788
bca1d65f26509e63561b1d0f4ec17cc8881bf0c9
128361 F20101106_AABTRB mullin_c_Page_015.jpg
a4ee861df359ab0a57c5f9659454e67e
14fd238ebb6e451288e1cce33c1c1b8aa90a56ed
129195 F20101106_AABTQM UFE0022188_00001.mets FULL
a2d416560a39179fde067042b3628979
d330534ebd6380619ef823e2ce935f326647cbaa
1013518 F20101106_AABTPZ mullin_c_Page_070.jp2
f6da1c848686316296f8ef24da07deab
2f811ccad553655e54f680c743c100ab6ed26617
111012 F20101106_AABTRC mullin_c_Page_017.jpg
c29553be60ea0848ffea38fba29d504c
ebaceeab9a59ceaff0d51f74b96416a45d68d4a2
105842 F20101106_AABTRD mullin_c_Page_018.jpg
fb47bf9d49175658a99106fa1971892f
11e0a316001ff7cded8323c431680122f12f8f59
118542 F20101106_AABTRE mullin_c_Page_019.jpg
f036cc5c517e006894b5f279a5a37b07
eea4f45ea0e985317038793b00bd9ba57f607f68
28370 F20101106_AABTQP mullin_c_Page_001.jpg
c46cf5044736a73a9c2b3a715dd51a91
aaf721d795638ce47cc80f1d0eaec11d7cdf1b1f
50289 F20101106_AABTRF mullin_c_Page_020.jpg
90c2bf9c2a5887583c6b85809de533b9
443872819093c1d59e507b94ce297c50e18b8e20
4663 F20101106_AABTQQ mullin_c_Page_002.jpg
4f704b37080b9b55c6ebc1dd462a90fe
b012481d24d6e8da60b3cfd352258aa291113e2c
26643 F20101106_AABTRG mullin_c_Page_021.jpg
cd071e8686383cd152f62cdd9e07bad3
f9aa0505abb66af27468ec1d50d73a1340ed9a18
3181 F20101106_AABTQR mullin_c_Page_003.jpg
0fcfa4e220247ab2f9ee57f25df85819
9c117f8da844c029c8877a84d2bce3a1a0854d0b
39318 F20101106_AABTRH mullin_c_Page_022.jpg
1348a983ac09d136a393fda804c26130
6501ebfbfa838295db8408d39875e2b9967024f0
26103 F20101106_AABTQS mullin_c_Page_004.jpg
90f75aa7553cbbd573251124a9e4738b
06a2ed9ed993c52009f798bd94c65b3b843b4650
38055 F20101106_AABTRI mullin_c_Page_023.jpg
4a49c5211773ba07a34cc7f552cec2da
e2bbb7eda9c3458a22682dd0e9f9c55007f0a3b2
112749 F20101106_AABTQT mullin_c_Page_005.jpg
3f42b729640eee940317dab8dd3d0eb6
eadff053736e419a87ac6ccd7fc2e9e63ca20421
61215 F20101106_AABTQU mullin_c_Page_007.jpg
c99520e5046ab37ab4acb8bbc778c153
ead40c1a059d2e84853fa472d2a6ea0848fb501a
95184 F20101106_AABTRJ mullin_c_Page_026.jpg
745820141299184293a751ba16642251
b17805d454e1a0f5880caf14ebc83913a0fe6f57
90075 F20101106_AABTQV mullin_c_Page_008.jpg
15e800dd71130a7005c4224bf15ca8af
2149eaa799d54d9b96a13123e407a1dd3ff495eb
111691 F20101106_AABTRK mullin_c_Page_027.jpg
415a6663d9611d5a6a088d823662b507
299a9cfbd1b6d42b97105b3e628e26b1b3b81f17
77736 F20101106_AABTQW mullin_c_Page_009.jpg
590fd21c2ad9344efa8035268f2dd43a
6d07ea1048763f0a56156d433a44ca1a414022cc
39657 F20101106_AABTSA mullin_c_Page_047.jpg
8b31f7cec7e55f3e3dee12242316ce00
718acf7c9b0a1471c2fee764e11913efa17d64f2
108297 F20101106_AABTRL mullin_c_Page_028.jpg
e4147ee2f2e2e32096f36d0f225dd267
0bc20d97ba11b228b592d19948671dbe83bd1a79
121565 F20101106_AABTQX mullin_c_Page_010.jpg
5ba7be65e9f6e9de44597dff49c89654
867bad676f9189491c8c3ee33a04bdcf49816a51
20920 F20101106_AABTSB mullin_c_Page_049.jpg
4dbaf86524d1ec9a912efabdbdb21bca
ab0fe068df627f7e788e125cb8a0143300abec2c
115071 F20101106_AABTRM mullin_c_Page_030.jpg
c3fc3191fe28948a81169f823ffd8836
0674f4a64e46fd474af279cbfbb828f0927f9006
105244 F20101106_AABTQY mullin_c_Page_011.jpg
c54db378340909c5a5c7d60290af339b
e9cab455604c0ccac1dbd2258153b9ce71c37bed
16850 F20101106_AABTSC mullin_c_Page_050.jpg
7446da5944bb124f31a9e73e742c16ef
ff316c357ab3f46550e471a147b53bdb39e5c161
103621 F20101106_AABTRN mullin_c_Page_031.jpg
7d421220ad0d47da16cb48da7f593cf3
942d89a9ba6fde6974c1cdc29205eeb094f0b4b6
113747 F20101106_AABTQZ mullin_c_Page_012.jpg
3a660c861c6775ea265fed7fdd86dad2
230afb351b5c40175389a984de4b2da99319579d
99121 F20101106_AABTSD mullin_c_Page_052.jpg
16803c528ccf90c3b2cb270d71a17830
07d7b2a0e860bf501534ed56587750af6e74106d
112273 F20101106_AABTRO mullin_c_Page_032.jpg
bf0c02e2d0ff80172f44260cdc3aed3e
f1bf6be25fd2de92713efe30325ccc5b95794b8a
109814 F20101106_AABTSE mullin_c_Page_055.jpg
71477e5df10c1abb3ba1a69148e35541
159b77102ecccdef65a8ca390af307ac02b6edf1
122997 F20101106_AABTRP mullin_c_Page_033.jpg
a33b409e6231baa5de975b0c45910417
44ed0f16bfac0b11af3932007e74bf0ed5d91650
112903 F20101106_AABTSF mullin_c_Page_056.jpg
4658e62d9e2efc2cb8184b391566c016
b8c0661941bbc8a1dcf099c6dd6f4570aaddc3a8
101034 F20101106_AABTRQ mullin_c_Page_035.jpg
97873d56693a23c4f0067fff9477430e
ce680c3941423e7798e09d4bdd9b86a5140252c7
110368 F20101106_AABTSG mullin_c_Page_057.jpg
60b2f5c0c4fe2e195b2a73e9e8b73399
493a7766aadab0a7b93a8bb375c426ccdf9a20bc
101031 F20101106_AABTRR mullin_c_Page_036.jpg
76ecd5ede8a48a7fa55f0036afd0e71c
4e4cda4d40f89ac354a7486f24ffffb44f3a6037
107621 F20101106_AABTSH mullin_c_Page_058.jpg
27bf9d6a12c813832ae1a13b4c9512a8
03b044797617dedd15754b60ee1839c2c8ad45b3
113622 F20101106_AABTRS mullin_c_Page_037.jpg
587cf80d5d4289af0948a25be8b61de7
1965d0fa88e39a709222e60307029b593609e3c5
95439 F20101106_AABTSI mullin_c_Page_059.jpg
97c3c2824301b3bcae6823dbd54048a7
d252f2f1c4d94a488608111c929da86f8a698f04
112955 F20101106_AABTRT mullin_c_Page_038.jpg
0874a22bbb70785199a3924359d4460f
0762e814faa611fbe05e809af75b996d23be59ec
106461 F20101106_AABTSJ mullin_c_Page_060.jpg
f057aa2aa5d9f299c28e041035799f59
98b31c432da418f7c69fb06d0dd27decee222bcb
109609 F20101106_AABTRU mullin_c_Page_039.jpg
c7c8917c50173d9f7f73bd624c170191
80b90bc22074d19eafc9e581c8087f10da54dfad
104012 F20101106_AABTRV mullin_c_Page_040.jpg
16f9e5a50a31932053a45a4af60d2af1
c6ee5f3448f19b98913eb7200f7cdfac66d5e5a4
15848 F20101106_AABTSK mullin_c_Page_061.jpg
39abd7eb0c8ee6fd270fcf6a08c5221f
03b1b6c590344628fd6abc6f15b3b0cd56c6b0cf
108103 F20101106_AABTRW mullin_c_Page_042.jpg
6d2507bccf298139d504105a52a1f06b
94a9711c6e59d20a2b075d4f1c91c19604f9f9b7
96030 F20101106_AABTSL mullin_c_Page_067.jpg
582529d7ccd7bf1e50abcb85acf86e5a
68919626b750f949657fe2bfe9784cf9a1fdafa3
118154 F20101106_AABTRX mullin_c_Page_043.jpg
83df6b5896da454ca055367a39a5c2da
1433f374342ee7832b55cb685d5516466bafc6fb
27064 F20101106_AABTTA mullin_c_Page_088.jpg
c93df15e284aa8be1fb1ea88e8626acf
81e81d8223093d6115d094a75744372dde975c67
105317 F20101106_AABTSM mullin_c_Page_068.jpg
f9ad192407d2dedd2f63c3acc81c007c
8bd3af2c2e3866182afeac90d068f458a1267603
142670 F20101106_AABTRY mullin_c_Page_044.jpg
9038d75825586a4a5002976034e16806
0aec829fc578afa744c7fa5e8420b989501cd1af
22402 F20101106_AABTTB mullin_c_Page_090.jpg
101baffd581a8ae64b494c94d34b1d85
2ea5d957c3bf9a21cb99260c9bfb600e99ba0422
93130 F20101106_AABTSN mullin_c_Page_070.jpg
9fa411f8cad6dd7a6b63d084dcc936c5
862d0af9b78030b8806b3dd22d387eff8c34afe4
109959 F20101106_AABTRZ mullin_c_Page_045.jpg
e19da6edc04e53c742b61588505982bd
9c60c530c353c29297833bcf78638cf18f09281a
97574 F20101106_AABTTC mullin_c_Page_091.jpg
807fec7262603bbe4c9c5b25c250dcad
c3ee5a4a8a5785c3480a5f240145400fc9f6eb61
41269 F20101106_AABTSO mullin_c_Page_071.jpg
a8997e6db4902a963ae260ab3d3cb410
5c88652c301de19be091eae87577ef0820b22f86
108056 F20101106_AABTTD mullin_c_Page_092.jpg
623f0abc984c8b11917cbfe01848a17f
d94ef1c15280d418cd9d76ec1a18341a4a0a4803
70331 F20101106_AABTSP mullin_c_Page_073.jpg
0ad430d35f9fa6620edd5db6eb9546ed
fe6ad626f832197d92393df2d12d9c7470a71bbe
105744 F20101106_AABTTE mullin_c_Page_095.jpg
0497af036dd697bea8459f18d74fe033
fd2dd83965da1d11db7e0f967cfdbea051371e71
83908 F20101106_AABTSQ mullin_c_Page_074.jpg
03e002de2f518c06d60b3ab68c7ea069
34fa40ee41a126d69b9a37151503d343ad869904
74794 F20101106_AABTTF mullin_c_Page_097.jpg
0598237f0170276e26fa38de93bbda7d
7ad1a71e6af3bf931040d11e79e9b99f77661dfc
58765 F20101106_AABTSR mullin_c_Page_075.jpg
96a505dc320e767977557040a21c338d
9c706237892915b6ee3f73c879a87f3c05afaa03
37286 F20101106_AABTTG mullin_c_Page_098.jpg
bfcb75e1bb18503762283c17b406f1a8
4fe166181d72ee010730ebb1ef0cb994eacaee88
28324 F20101106_AABTSS mullin_c_Page_076.jpg
da5a2f0d464287d7b1d7898857ab8a2a
ca1c570f7b29fb3996da51b60814e84c7bf7e4f9
26688 F20101106_AABTTH mullin_c_Page_099.jpg
f8f776ac2762a1483ed40759bcb8eb40
9ba8f6762379299eec9f8b452ad245647c8560f0
75168 F20101106_AABTST mullin_c_Page_077.jpg
e59d1ee9236fe5dd291685a421e5ac4b
a89f2733b3653e99affe357f77e1ac0e35719271
126598 F20101106_AABTTI mullin_c_Page_101.jpg
573175f2b3b9394357b44fda9ddcea64
bcc84861d42ca92be32160f6b872dda27d3f73d7
46124 F20101106_AABTSU mullin_c_Page_079.jpg
6f5d2ad76e6461a03c54ddcb6e061ae7
cc9fd9b11abfe279fc5981b91c18d1bcf0b2de5f
126405 F20101106_AABTTJ mullin_c_Page_102.jpg
5f13082b7001d3a0b7f69b70ebd4a53a
52e65aabae9467355fb7a90c89f4bee444a37d6a
20596 F20101106_AABTSV mullin_c_Page_081.jpg
93a4fb3b85b3d64b6d5010f22752dc21
c73b68c7ad42dcbfd63916df6bd5d95c42c3cbf0
132092 F20101106_AABTTK mullin_c_Page_105.jpg
acd918bb39a61846a8e4e5ab38f34820
2ebae471c3b43a92d16b812f20ad0e32513e4e62
22071 F20101106_AABTSW mullin_c_Page_082.jpg
869c8a36d97c95e94da083c553071786
2b703c9a3cd059559e838734f46da20e9da86f3f
24465 F20101106_AABTSX mullin_c_Page_084.jpg
7884397741a862bb0c66c28ebcaf9e30
812e4560f2baeeb105a43b280625ae6848d00478
F20101106_AABTUA mullin_c_Page_018.jp2
44f30388a1a4e3ec88baf58345b5bfa6
55b9ad6de10d61d12e6ffef2228175f83b9e5c0e
140138 F20101106_AABTTL mullin_c_Page_106.jpg
a4c0ef0c5dd4356a63b3a4572d5f504e
a9995fc640bb540d89eb8fbcc39f2362e4de971e
24679 F20101106_AABTSY mullin_c_Page_086.jpg
39b4fa50b26f7b4e00db5f487602502e
2523da1aa6f0d8c79a4e0e7ce257ff7d663e8a78
1051959 F20101106_AABTUB mullin_c_Page_019.jp2
492b478d6247156194de089e606a0c93
96d1a1bc03aae96a3e454100bf638411f68311f1
135309 F20101106_AABTTM mullin_c_Page_107.jpg
390dc8111700d430cbe6c38db3585294
8847cfd7ad10b56a6490c7f2a1da1bfb7e5afb53
24592 F20101106_AABTSZ mullin_c_Page_087.jpg
4d1eba62099e4ba978eee060c7b898bd
585f5b3ad1903a5faff94bc185e0161a12b0d310
519314 F20101106_AABTUC mullin_c_Page_020.jp2
6df65b42921e5af5397e09d3f87fedbd
1792621ffd871ce752f109cd9e352ddc35d13a38
126486 F20101106_AABTTN mullin_c_Page_108.jpg
775ed97bc1fdd0acd6e96c1ca57c5283
86867ebce948cbaac5f1e20a5f56ae57c487c237
210220 F20101106_AABTUD mullin_c_Page_021.jp2
36ef4d3e75f0e4d5350e8feb7ea91667
1896a39069bb62d3d801c6eacbba49addc2e972f
125975 F20101106_AABTTO mullin_c_Page_109.jpg
3363d3fecb805fc59f6e87b28fc236ad
79450b6b26f56882fce9464bf86598cc79ce7ee0
506963 F20101106_AABTUE mullin_c_Page_023.jp2
f00549e58d08598e3b11502e642faeb2
92694780d2e905b4b5b23e4757013154c07dc3bc
277957 F20101106_AABTTP mullin_c_Page_001.jp2
00c4cac52e459a8105efef6fdb817da1
5a9c10edefcc6018926fb4dba358d0bbe2134df5
287208 F20101106_AABTUF mullin_c_Page_024.jp2
5d2e8d0a289e18015b7e6646dfeaaa9e
f263bab989e6b254b76f0d4f6677b5019d347fd7
32880 F20101106_AABTTQ mullin_c_Page_002.jp2
cc6e2909faa9ea1951597dc8a1305716
108c54f23ffd1267a4468c0631e155cc245e04e8
1051974 F20101106_AABTUG mullin_c_Page_028.jp2
c2181cb5a7fa2d90129054163f8ae648
ac1082df65f94999754ad950fc1ab7a9606714c7
17866 F20101106_AABTTR mullin_c_Page_003.jp2
859355ac57ef31bd1f4b6c194590ded6
9a0f3ff9051cb4fb17f7d59f7f370043e51debb1
50377 F20101106_AABUAA mullin_c_Page_006.pro
1d662c109c02e920b6b61551d63ea750
f0912905dabe4d0fdf34adc7023540d5c3f3cb35
1051972 F20101106_AABTUH mullin_c_Page_030.jp2
e02060473ca6bcd35e3b4e41098b425f
3a3b4fb8eb9381f091407f510885f6297e40b349
251600 F20101106_AABTTS mullin_c_Page_004.jp2
62f21ed81d8c0c5fab5728d42e5509a2
7652cdf191105b56598bd62f5957a1c3f6e72871
45204 F20101106_AABUAB mullin_c_Page_007.pro
e2ab86c058649239f9fdd30804a8db11
bd86790aa5fc5e479d28f2f44787c1ff71c86e62
1051826 F20101106_AABTUI mullin_c_Page_032.jp2
182e31b69a4527dd3750efaf26576e00
f07dc700043d82a343717c2d14884e9bb0a9a78f
984068 F20101106_AABTTT mullin_c_Page_006.jp2
8f2656b92c4c71e72a9d32c5f03e4ecf
1839daae5c55ec217f06b37413566c9e2f5e230d
59765 F20101106_AABUAC mullin_c_Page_008.pro
d167b36b9cb8fcf339aa1a09b78a8278
3842bc1e7b52904cc0901d1ba87f21b378816c49
1051946 F20101106_AABTUJ mullin_c_Page_033.jp2
e1fce220b4fd36e967beabb766b40c08
e529b65bd5402053c1821281fccd532f3faab9e4
F20101106_AABTTU mullin_c_Page_007.jp2
0a2a0796f4e4e5938664623810cf6dfa
0f78f50ef19009ce1a7ec9fc30d9db36a03dabe1
35740 F20101106_AABUAD mullin_c_Page_009.pro
df29fbe434d977c5e2e405cf07239040
67d237e1e185a1581c2c7b65a7c9291b5bcfa8ac
1051963 F20101106_AABTUK mullin_c_Page_034.jp2
71766c48412d29e82cb6321854ccc39a
a75e1dff7660ff855cbd1d32da54570a6fd2c9a1
1051954 F20101106_AABTTV mullin_c_Page_008.jp2
7cd3389dc0d7b9f9f2b39a3e2721c86b
45b688a4ec9b4a41d6d86d52fecd70f6ef656c01
61966 F20101106_AABUAE mullin_c_Page_010.pro
b7e5ad822da3dd78016ccb353e68a6bf
97dfdd1eb969c42854ef6971791dda9f45c49d0f
F20101106_AABTUL mullin_c_Page_035.jp2
f6599eb1e7c863d818ac8802b57f420c
26c18767b7ca3f1b48f03e83e4bbacb10fe165be
1051855 F20101106_AABTTW mullin_c_Page_013.jp2
a846eba7cfbbbc2b17d711721e5040f8
a44e4e86786287c0ef692bedd2a07172fd5e480c
51765 F20101106_AABUAF mullin_c_Page_011.pro
87fa79d5e00a2c18f6f6f97dec3db98b
c11787547fefd017f5d668649ce63102c599e180
1051971 F20101106_AABTVA mullin_c_Page_059.jp2
475730ca844c52811b4f56143e1a812e
cb06adda18cbfda08ba7a763261d8b7414ee234d
1051967 F20101106_AABTTX mullin_c_Page_014.jp2
887d79ebc9b50a94780435ec07db23c4
ba46782f98d393230c5cc2c8ac420551f18fbeff
56266 F20101106_AABUAG mullin_c_Page_012.pro
0b2dbec19495d8d90d9a3bece3222cf7
f93d3ea3a69b2923ca7f5283370c56e74529d7c1
1051977 F20101106_AABTVB mullin_c_Page_060.jp2
94646c3ac0cff5bcc8f02306d5ba2609
dfaef300fefae36883f31483ddb1c037838b4850
1051970 F20101106_AABTUM mullin_c_Page_038.jp2
92b6871396b62a9d5c296b153048cf6b
126569771e98fb6b4f586e92fa2052c52184278a
1051965 F20101106_AABTTY mullin_c_Page_016.jp2
2204011173dc3f55166627a356181f8f
f31cbcd794580a1a75710e85d3f649198a8f50aa
61615 F20101106_AABUAH mullin_c_Page_014.pro
e973887a1516bb8cce874e4621b5532c
fc4fdc417361c515cf49c9c2494a2b6ab1112920
149470 F20101106_AABTVC mullin_c_Page_061.jp2
649a8e6ea91db0f4753cd5b980f2425d
9f5e5c76e2466bf2560931b489d67785b24641d8
1051985 F20101106_AABTUN mullin_c_Page_039.jp2
71ab915b2af95eef04c5cbad048ee521
eb2d1693cb2522384553dfa5f28094742eb722af
F20101106_AABTTZ mullin_c_Page_017.jp2
5d0b6dd89034c7d96c27a0070ba8c23c
1b33ae4fa90bcbab3ea3b8d44ca8b94ea52d33a8
55848 F20101106_AABUAI mullin_c_Page_016.pro
40ad3abdd564a41f86228b3692a8096b
6f759f5ae8da8514756c54e36e8dfc3a08042968
198932 F20101106_AABTVD mullin_c_Page_062.jp2
8e7717f3d83516179747c45fcfbe8928
6333dca2b2228fdda5bfed624cd5c7a1ff393443
F20101106_AABTUO mullin_c_Page_040.jp2
6d5074eb221be5b31c9e2ec8c24b82c7
483fce3d95a1e80aa0ddfd08a3a268d23b224df7
54602 F20101106_AABUAJ mullin_c_Page_017.pro
6370d5d2cfb2b8b5385018644aa8746f
92eb5405d5a2efa3fe973272cf6e1dfa51bc5452
1036985 F20101106_AABTVE mullin_c_Page_064.jp2
8ce673e4974679d6aa2f29b374bbb5e7
3aa1e4251c2181dd12d098ea2ae3c9e5cd6c46d8
1051979 F20101106_AABTUP mullin_c_Page_041.jp2
dca382a248d9ee6bf61d58bc842a151f
9c22c2a1d4a3015ca4911d4f3edc03f0bb445253
61117 F20101106_AABUAK mullin_c_Page_019.pro
d49eb5814343c7468aafc14f708272b0
1583ce9974fc1025f5a541fddb02f38303d75c37
F20101106_AABTUQ mullin_c_Page_042.jp2
b417d021b59e8a5eef4849247584014b
45c7c7b5ad0d8341bf4c148ac5f93c7c1748a32a
24407 F20101106_AABUAL mullin_c_Page_020.pro
4fab0296460bdfdb99ef9f6412b7fbf2
e43cc6884b959e44719d3a498be883afde7def61
1051983 F20101106_AABTVF mullin_c_Page_066.jp2
6acc2fb5cfab9516fd723406570f6e0c
74ccb49bb1bb3791346ec39b22cf25a154c4447f
F20101106_AABTUR mullin_c_Page_043.jp2
c3723f9ad1c544ca0c7d8a7a9243c6f8
d81787379251784901245af0bf69fa8406fb66eb
54370 F20101106_AABUBA mullin_c_Page_039.pro
131911de199e19c7df58d675b458103a
e96c5c525fc6d8b908f4a4a5b5012c8f36b0ad94
6264 F20101106_AABUAM mullin_c_Page_021.pro
b1d6a066e2601f2f556d668e18d91605
0c791572b9cdd73e34c08932da7ac283ba581411
1041573 F20101106_AABTVG mullin_c_Page_067.jp2
a479983cc80cf26a682da0f5751de977
6bc67ba8f16b53f949690774f06d18d1c15838c4
1051966 F20101106_AABTUS mullin_c_Page_045.jp2
7134072043250b584db425b3b3fee507
b4ed0681e6e66808cf4cd98b7b904eb262858fd9
51325 F20101106_AABUBB mullin_c_Page_040.pro
16b00dc9cf11c413daf8c63eb5aa9815
234790308583c02e1032b95b4186264aef01f9d9
22088 F20101106_AABUAN mullin_c_Page_023.pro
18da42853880d82bd0c51dfa897a0b84
35277fc93b1b133b5a1d8fd097896539505c5a97
1051947 F20101106_AABTVH mullin_c_Page_068.jp2
24ac4980c4f46a32122af0286c0bec81
b8b23940506ba14691d69ca173b97aa9fd6a742b
1051957 F20101106_AABTUT mullin_c_Page_046.jp2
a210468bb088da46e65fd1824a21dc49
d238e41dd75cb58264d33625ec29bd8d604a1d2e
51971 F20101106_AABUBC mullin_c_Page_042.pro
0e66da6d5ede360c3ba4bf509a1881dd
cb4185adb834295d7c61d98ac86e9d493feef0fc
7949 F20101106_AABUAO mullin_c_Page_024.pro
ec09131e680c55bc4df326182e438ed6
2163e6114e58cc2a90726ba26353a7f9ae3df26f
1051943 F20101106_AABTVI mullin_c_Page_069.jp2
d68ea3d50666e527edd364a357303938
8afd7034e5bfbb07ef2ec57a003c47b7ae3845b2
502490 F20101106_AABTUU mullin_c_Page_048.jp2
ad189a838ab9c7bc7dc5c19efe6308f7
cc3dc0902f3e2aaa314744f1c7cf5bd8415a0c9e
59774 F20101106_AABUBD mullin_c_Page_043.pro
62acb63c840f0005df5982f00fd0d72e
b8738c750d31d839076eec45a7d6a60e08248804
14840 F20101106_AABUAP mullin_c_Page_025.pro
9d887fe743acbea4c9d33e159ab26b6a
105a2d3023a8d82e7810f46a635400db2eedfc79
430683 F20101106_AABTVJ mullin_c_Page_071.jp2
8841519f448c4f47e8a34cab090f8c10
0e6c813423d56a97968dc7fbd7e0da55721616b8
170101 F20101106_AABTUV mullin_c_Page_049.jp2
e65243004a7600d48c90408022826639
0eef264afbe3be496fee28fcc274b82e0b278f37
75054 F20101106_AABUBE mullin_c_Page_044.pro
88fb862d95c775176278c63e31fd0a33
0712191984f0f83ed15b93262142d273e41f7f2b
46725 F20101106_AABUAQ mullin_c_Page_026.pro
a469f18028c45e54b431a573a3d75568
bc5f37e233e3511293abc95525de4854a293f008
374706 F20101106_AABTVK mullin_c_Page_072.jp2
c18e55b9afc29ef56b75c12563cead90
05215c15d13bd33c343ffe417403709187e56149
F20101106_AABTUW mullin_c_Page_052.jp2
340cea61b462f7fdfa6f547b924b5fc3
4b558a618c450951e871585d7bf413b8ccc36fba
55000 F20101106_AABUBF mullin_c_Page_045.pro
f7faddd31f3084008e9aa62efc0a5947
bf29e4ec1473d29787b590cf61e5e6f247664981
53164 F20101106_AABUAR mullin_c_Page_028.pro
1a9d5173901650263c8e89722a2a9a4b
d499fd1238890181c2d8a21c115ab5f806e83550
1051948 F20101106_AABTVL mullin_c_Page_073.jp2
d44bd4bfec4fadaac1f7904a63316de8
90b8bd4bc8bf1c615db93c795774e40e85194044
F20101106_AABTUX mullin_c_Page_055.jp2
e98ad62652487df782bae2f4b556d0ab
f60e42c0b92b0fb86f843c0315e6667cad668189
47714 F20101106_AABUBG mullin_c_Page_046.pro
e3793aadb5a08a804d3aea1f854d4afe
5d97b67a9a6d9ddcae7bfd9a6c9f1060890112a0
1051984 F20101106_AABTWA mullin_c_Page_092.jp2
e7bf28be6dfbbb83cf36561c0cd1e6a4
38843bc9ea4b250e2f237d01b8619a730748762b
54274 F20101106_AABUAS mullin_c_Page_029.pro
1e179162aeab8806ecf74c28ee124fad
98ffcbbb8e97f2e510541f857027a8ccf4541d62
875177 F20101106_AABTVM mullin_c_Page_074.jp2
7cbb24ed542317452e33847392c91a06
04148dd8faab4576ede3d512d9350916782c15f2
1051955 F20101106_AABTUY mullin_c_Page_056.jp2
045ed0f2f5a22ad1e4beed74adbddcd0
e9cea32ae9303cd5a7ea8b634d914ec6f505bef2
18190 F20101106_AABUBH mullin_c_Page_047.pro
7321f54075e418fb0ff958eb68b9ec96
858f6b1128050dd2a3b0c129b823f9acc7b95587
1051973 F20101106_AABTWB mullin_c_Page_093.jp2
82b028b64ee3eb49080bdedfb4d4bb5c
477a63d5e1e541947977592fbd81d6dbbdd848fc
51063 F20101106_AABUAT mullin_c_Page_031.pro
283378464e1d0845d74976944096f0c1
32ca4b18863cc063f6b21f310495e16edd797139
1051937 F20101106_AABTUZ mullin_c_Page_057.jp2
c3820b0af9d42f5038a08e00d8f5cce0
f2bbb6906d12008952284eeeecef2f4667063aff
26899 F20101106_AABUBI mullin_c_Page_048.pro
4a3f239de4e657dabd10c1d8cdcaad70
f48a99e6eb4fce0e10ab9d97a72039abff945869
F20101106_AABTWC mullin_c_Page_095.jp2
0944a63515713e57dc2e1aeb4c47db20
5a0d14fed71cefc75c5113724c4ad65b3bc055e5
56559 F20101106_AABUAU mullin_c_Page_032.pro
2cba95ec76ab4893f84bfbd688de5c97
70a9636dcb486def1e3aaefca87f24083f31ea35
F20101106_AABTVN mullin_c_Page_075.jp2
73195c671b4c22cb0f537686d9a35eda
0e17ee3e415341caac7e54f094318dcc3d68b002
1119 F20101106_AABUBJ mullin_c_Page_050.pro
7d66b06fa0ba961bd51e3877f2ff6910
c15180acf5c84e8ee9c90bdd89564fe1563edef1
F20101106_AABTWD mullin_c_Page_096.jp2
0b9ce9971ada6577b04888df66116816
26e7fcac01ab83bae261b1777dc77324899d74be
62032 F20101106_AABUAV mullin_c_Page_033.pro
6f6d485781d9c7c8fed820524e5a0087
3c047e371f242a7e04577d38a853178efac8f11c
453032 F20101106_AABTVO mullin_c_Page_079.jp2
eb5babe09c187d010bf05dfc7d49b025
8c09c4889176418f080a7c77122f78aae3658f1f
45662 F20101106_AABUBK mullin_c_Page_051.pro
153128249f2f39a531c72373ccd78794
00565ee6645200bde3e1b56cfeb38b9d62b69372
808307 F20101106_AABTWE mullin_c_Page_097.jp2
caf2a6dcddb5bf868dd7e2656f34f10d
d64c78361b1cc12b3b400639600517166607ead9
54870 F20101106_AABUAW mullin_c_Page_034.pro
4ae79fcf2674f08dfeb45fcece5b8477
f2987f8693381edf2cc32c28682bfc3e5b6301fe
1051920 F20101106_AABTVP mullin_c_Page_080.jp2
c6ff311f529fd06720541662a6da5630
ce0a89d0c6c079bedd8720406cdc1c433afe97b6
48804 F20101106_AABUBL mullin_c_Page_052.pro
be6095a13e776e99fd25711079a0b3bd
ce77113541a7b52377c5a669e67195af5d07027e
331392 F20101106_AABTWF mullin_c_Page_098.jp2
03064243c822915dd01d3a7a97c3086f
71ab5da685ba1f480fd7fb60a8f8ddec640699ff
232993 F20101106_AABTVQ mullin_c_Page_081.jp2
2e2223e4a94ec5d6562ac6a90ccbf8cc
714b2119c897b7ed967818aa82b5faf8932ef6e5
19060 F20101106_AABUCA mullin_c_Page_071.pro
f8e83b5a224aa739173f9b9012744569
44f1762cc9ab021b706d1ff832380038620858be
50769 F20101106_AABUBM mullin_c_Page_053.pro
aae46507f68d8612c645ab422da77d20
b806ea74660ce3937b8769511e8bfc805598c56c
271173 F20101106_AABTWG mullin_c_Page_100.jp2
3b4dba5435554f8d454958d2198804f2
541353cf57f5b4962f9c75b49a47dc1f19942ad3
50288 F20101106_AABUAX mullin_c_Page_035.pro
9af1f239440e7683bc5086a9062eaa58
525d51a86a2c40ed193b7da5f3fe765ca00cf07f
215944 F20101106_AABTVR mullin_c_Page_082.jp2
d6bc0a4befffd75fe7dabec6ad475781
0de86401f54fc52811fef6f96ce7348bec0b978d
15947 F20101106_AABUCB mullin_c_Page_072.pro
ceccc378a0ac07ee78e9a3dbc58fabbd
5f1e9e9cf00e036e7c798da6b21704326a475dc7
63902 F20101106_AABUBN mullin_c_Page_054.pro
a2ad1a7523aceb477fe62472ada3bff0
099b9388d38b0fedf3468e53d928c5d246ea6444
1051960 F20101106_AABTWH mullin_c_Page_103.jp2
51c78d19eb99e5659f0b2e3120505487
0b94b1a4052820b021bf0c6db38ab854cc3f690d
49675 F20101106_AABUAY mullin_c_Page_036.pro
984dfced682832c3eaad0b121ea2f764
16bd83b82d418ea52bafd309a698ed0caadffd17
242919 F20101106_AABTVS mullin_c_Page_083.jp2
5ff74ee95b19aef67799b93265f3af55
2c2a49245ff7f04096c2ad281a9c926ebe569afa
54352 F20101106_AABUBO mullin_c_Page_055.pro
74f11f20571d14691b8b1bb0cedaf5f9
2e094d73bd57486de2345ca1cb5ace97611eaf8e
F20101106_AABTWI mullin_c_Page_104.jp2
fa83cfd784299e0570bd8d47594ea97e
9f3d17cb73ad1c741e7174d39879b00300a14227
56191 F20101106_AABUAZ mullin_c_Page_038.pro
3bd4ccdb44fbcc645fb733b48c7b8b96
e635926b827e89c7960ab648c04f084a10c9d8a4
282955 F20101106_AABTVT mullin_c_Page_084.jp2
aa88bb399551b79f28130a4db567aa38
497acc91d85a600c5077a617abffb6177f1937e3
65645 F20101106_AABUCC mullin_c_Page_073.pro
b493925427bf0d44a8c107856de2fa15
cd19ca531d42408cb4c12b25d35424e502e96e98
55576 F20101106_AABUBP mullin_c_Page_057.pro
265c6620217b1934d17da2728e51f83c
5bcb0d5d3dec172adc42c2e94648f457aa8d4c5c
1051969 F20101106_AABTWJ mullin_c_Page_105.jp2
8ebb35d1116dd6130f5a4458645f1203
5949da468c90451b7a1c05beacd2a023434e684b
187772 F20101106_AABTVU mullin_c_Page_085.jp2
005114c9c4288867b51347ebc009c8b0
110d41a29610e88058b6e3fb548d57d26cf1b42f
42242 F20101106_AABUCD mullin_c_Page_074.pro
f97ad2ed50e0b995a1ac02a600626dc5
dbabdca52cdb70387d5fec61b1633fd37e31f98a
55507 F20101106_AABUBQ mullin_c_Page_058.pro
387b941a7f396f854f48ea60dfe53d55
8b67ec19c99ab01023479aecb782e4c851c0cc60
F20101106_AABTWK mullin_c_Page_106.jp2
16e337a33aeab772ad29dd7c0d69b436
ae696892a2e31ebf39e3e05416d2b4b73b7d647a
264023 F20101106_AABTVV mullin_c_Page_086.jp2
c11feaefc952108457bf582865fbee50
cba6b0e266308a02edde1c3b0c1b44787cb7b2f8
18874 F20101106_AABUCE mullin_c_Page_076.pro
01e359274d0d8b5de0ce8c587134c6d7
3822992b14d3dc8b2e081e4fcf7e1287322f85f7
49334 F20101106_AABUBR mullin_c_Page_059.pro
86c14edeef1bd019eb22f3df5004fe7d
4268b5076fc7431bc01ed7c9efe90f2aad8f9f2c
F20101106_AABTWL mullin_c_Page_107.jp2
7db5b9013d499b25d6aa70aa2c712373
ed812db8667ce81b1216384d7ee414f1808516d5
253047 F20101106_AABTVW mullin_c_Page_087.jp2
d15e474da9c33d597c6712e026c828fc
a8af954e8cbbb6d7f71e23a86d5f3c5263a36e3d
64946 F20101106_AABUCF mullin_c_Page_077.pro
b8de3eb412371868ee904bbb0abe28e6
d530ee5252d3d9c3c1db0103aa38450a864ea9c5
F20101106_AABTXA mullin_c_Page_015.tif
aec760e2e7d2ffbb1ec48c125c11cd9e
5dfb231b4580c97cdd2681e7f250413665a1fd8d
52871 F20101106_AABUBS mullin_c_Page_060.pro
1652934cb0fc569bddc7a65315259307
719e8d0feb091c1581c84d10350f6354518297a4
F20101106_AABTWM mullin_c_Page_108.jp2
c458f56cb85d5864af1d7ec564498324
5f5aa7e578be700420cea52cd10c608cb83785f3
309646 F20101106_AABTVX mullin_c_Page_089.jp2
5957005d92fdadfbef3ed49d2fe1335d
177d2bf3766326bbd19e4b30c85cefbb443f82ca
21024 F20101106_AABUCG mullin_c_Page_078.pro
03c74dff56a298482d521c9f9a10e412
5b16935ae9a8a96cd9314241be0f458cd5748141
F20101106_AABTXB mullin_c_Page_016.tif
c462e4f2a5c8223c78061309d85152f3
9080830ae2b6fc3d3b3e280fc45c3f29635c89d7
6219 F20101106_AABUBT mullin_c_Page_061.pro
6dc5bfbf266eff573ef45ea21e1a4cb6
cc10bdbc766bd71d5fcea1da659dc7304aa77286
697405 F20101106_AABTWN mullin_c_Page_110.jp2
e0b8f89d40dfcf90b7a544fe69d9d3c2
fb81085f9652c31e190ca32dac67c9da1502a2c6
224725 F20101106_AABTVY mullin_c_Page_090.jp2
d40a7e89a48f0ad5f2fd14ab2926dca3
e9bd006123ab1721a7d7b62a011dc56f0dbbf38f
19950 F20101106_AABUCH mullin_c_Page_079.pro
32b74b6539207add002c1ee4f5beddab
81aa44c9434fd58ca8b5ca4808a0469e557677e1
F20101106_AABTXC mullin_c_Page_017.tif
a2343c565787d7e2cd30e02c7f1d67a5
6d3f31cae6de02d138c953a4b618b013363089ff
9425 F20101106_AABUBU mullin_c_Page_062.pro
04f8cc0c07f2652836a63bb54bcbc21e
a6b45d38a1d894385edf8b16aa8a266467f22fe3
1051918 F20101106_AABTVZ mullin_c_Page_091.jp2
6b79734492b8ac89e7d6f725dcb86213
db20011e0360cd3d296cb65bd9fca99bd395f6d8
91837 F20101106_AABUCI mullin_c_Page_080.pro
f264c12cacd7e29085fec51cd4fbf15a
8bf5fbf2371049827fbdb3b5bc9f04dd0c913309
F20101106_AABTXD mullin_c_Page_018.tif
cdaeae8e9d292bf898705ab6d8f27c45
f433248f16f83850ae76287ab7580c3a20a38978
12273 F20101106_AABUBV mullin_c_Page_063.pro
40ab3fb137c83912f816922126cf5883
7216dd4a5b80c489d9f9ae6f9767d7bc8931f58d
191374 F20101106_AABTWO mullin_c_Page_111.jp2
f44684f88a0564f15c0a89b52191ffbc
3f2893707e4236b7eab960540f49cd00a7ac3ae0
6753 F20101106_AABUCJ mullin_c_Page_081.pro
c94dd578377898c5952ca10944137f8c
a0b3dcd23537584b40248cf2342e9d052b58b707
F20101106_AABTXE mullin_c_Page_019.tif
405da12b6c1a2f02efa73219079e1836
fe79f0128325c7fe367297fc414e7b94ee42eb2c
48933 F20101106_AABUBW mullin_c_Page_065.pro
e00641e057a3e216e220369355deccc5
3c4d50730377fde05798d7a30f22f7235d449e0a
F20101106_AABTWP mullin_c_Page_001.tif
360281a9779e287e9d7df4c14e5a0d56
ce654caebdcd8f5f65d9fef40517148a14a0dde5
3473 F20101106_AABUCK mullin_c_Page_082.pro
f76f56e0d4197d67f11eebb299fd67e9
fa4a42f800f3c2f4d2db200f4022388324a75953
F20101106_AABTXF mullin_c_Page_020.tif
c9fe26d97568a3ad86b1ed3803833327
7b0ca4eed1d3776fbbd9fc60fa458323782502df
51223 F20101106_AABUBX mullin_c_Page_068.pro
b81ded461cff5b73de4c5e20d16ba4ec
c2e80ddfcd1405f60bc94b6959da743aca8b0297
F20101106_AABTWQ mullin_c_Page_004.tif
0af12fecb38de303966806dd3bed8f9d
da77f73ce154d122881f8687171f6c68a92ff316
7951 F20101106_AABUCL mullin_c_Page_085.pro
0334a3ce2200fc69c6dbf80064eee6d4
9b483a6974886ef02c4a736af831d2c2be7ace40
F20101106_AABTXG mullin_c_Page_021.tif
e336da45d2126e08f4c722cc1dc673de
c968ca084ff8fa9fb803183ca7315464aec5ac96
F20101106_AABTWR mullin_c_Page_006.tif
1755abb9db651ae1ca0785871a314db4
c685f95d5d3acddfcc4ae5873592e35fcf9a6718
61856 F20101106_AABUDA mullin_c_Page_105.pro
5232f66da9128d955cccdc27fab3021f
83eb93e180c729b4c1c384b0227526e0fb03e7b7
6510 F20101106_AABUCM mullin_c_Page_086.pro
645dbbd4b7481cae6ecad8bda745cbf6
d24f21430439e391e9b9773b31b38797cb3448dc
F20101106_AABTXH mullin_c_Page_022.tif
d10029919b5c8f6cf4e8acccb4886870
6d4e3001adaf9d7db8ef7b97a5c6d8704962c8e5
55354 F20101106_AABUBY mullin_c_Page_069.pro
5899d8ddb9ba4ba5b0e2d58e09b9597c
ead459be3d8cd372b75bb9a9160e474a5ce2e016
F20101106_AABTWS mullin_c_Page_007.tif
c0260ac23ff693159e59b59a227f9a94
c77c43bb01b576a8083e6ca2879f1821f38638e6
66613 F20101106_AABUDB mullin_c_Page_106.pro
d28ce7af789bfefc2dd0a004ab4a1037
a1f248df2ef028ba1ff494d4d1f1642e863721bf
5260 F20101106_AABUCN mullin_c_Page_087.pro
170264c437bd67f234043852a96a7b4a
ad2d26ba50339a9e18263f9b31c494fe48a2c81b
F20101106_AABTXI mullin_c_Page_023.tif
ec86cd3a5503108ab145e11247844f2b
0d15fc385810c8e7650898a35d5b6e64a3c13c68
44457 F20101106_AABUBZ mullin_c_Page_070.pro
dc7b72a6996606c0e3bfa66765a30529
8bc035ddf81b22f78c18fba131e589c79a9433ec
F20101106_AABTWT mullin_c_Page_008.tif
2077ca559d84ce15a1862f5a503a0001
ad099d75771d67660215b22eb8396da0fa7d2f38
64381 F20101106_AABUDC mullin_c_Page_107.pro
8e81b3c18411c38c2ebce5d6060c94c2
462c1f91bbd8bed5f01ef0a5d462bd2d29edc232
8552 F20101106_AABUCO mullin_c_Page_088.pro
f31e626c467cbe1012ab6fa095f50a93
2b1af59abffb150feb408e0fa28175238bdca1a2
F20101106_AABTXJ mullin_c_Page_024.tif
4e40e4dd74e7ce41f90b5d0dbeedba8b
5a9ae256b2a332565e0a2558a397f139246b1641
F20101106_AABTWU mullin_c_Page_009.tif
b579221cba8a8c165735b1484429a4d2
1629aadf5d450603b222348075dc963046397cb7
62632 F20101106_AABUDD mullin_c_Page_109.pro
b91c2178860cc1842dd4d9b6cf4de5bd
97e4b5d0bef513853097f25d3889282166e7c4ea
48660 F20101106_AABUCP mullin_c_Page_091.pro
0c17ded9470f1801ae1ce76bd0392496
c573ed5adb8339948df976602c030b11db479789
F20101106_AABTXK mullin_c_Page_025.tif
a8d393c4a9ce9b8d470efa092b1b29b3
afae63765fb86f184927e92a2be718c106dd9aab
F20101106_AABTWV mullin_c_Page_010.tif
233c7e692257375e8caa3e0921c7eb81
78798907ea5ec8e0ed4f3a841d8bb6e5f4f27bb0
7861 F20101106_AABUDE mullin_c_Page_111.pro
3158848195af54cdc5c073b6eadb1f19
d223449353aab877bc28104a9b8e3ef681e04e08
53894 F20101106_AABUCQ mullin_c_Page_093.pro
8e33f14fcb060d36e1aecbb11f19f86a
add7c0d83db9e4e3a102e728da5671dbc45fbc4f
F20101106_AABTXL mullin_c_Page_026.tif
91749bc244e6a1cbcb940d92a653ed4e
cacfd90f23fcd95990861e86363f84e846a281f8
F20101106_AABTWW mullin_c_Page_011.tif
fc3b99bb2ead1bdb0f44b733088c321a
b4e0a59e227c5a1c541fada18973e79c40463d32
515 F20101106_AABUDF mullin_c_Page_001.txt
f2254417bb7eeb68f95ad46b062faacd
2573656f9ed010f9305ad4394c1308d8e59dbe7e
56574 F20101106_AABUCR mullin_c_Page_094.pro
29af0c5900e222c19b265d305dc6160c
8c5bd0e752fbd4d4b28e362f652c6dd7a7ef6396
F20101106_AABTXM mullin_c_Page_027.tif
0af330e13d2c7feec30d6153fa157840
0da4755812235b75bba6823761856adfccba61b8
F20101106_AABTWX mullin_c_Page_012.tif
fffaf21e7edf7d3503a33b40e07000c8
69904b8834316a6109dfcbf004c55bd798e4640b
100 F20101106_AABUDG mullin_c_Page_002.txt
387e93fea3d276f35e22497efee3311a
267f3c845600a1790b32760c58bb55384e6d2e9d
F20101106_AABTYA mullin_c_Page_046.tif
1d7f5aaf37f8c28b31f786c36b9b09dd
de6dca1f199496d988cba44b1207a3b537e06731
52694 F20101106_AABUCS mullin_c_Page_095.pro
2f7ea50e2d5a6f0460abf4b252005fbd
ef17157eb80bf673f85a98f6a890ce59634c05ae
F20101106_AABTXN mullin_c_Page_028.tif
10cfaa66e80f02a3452e16f79c6c1e61
22a83a2f080eb8753c409a3207ed1f65c27b0920
F20101106_AABTWY mullin_c_Page_013.tif
d9fd4518f0c8a014edd2866d2847f102
a81654a1632800f39bcb6ebd129ca9690ffe0556
68 F20101106_AABUDH mullin_c_Page_003.txt
f51f8941391192fefb2df26e1d6fc625
46b88ebe7c675d751b789ab23650de7fd8770e17
F20101106_AABTYB mullin_c_Page_047.tif
4c38256eee9c7ce547c866d415fdfcad
a1c00df7f1e0cb724883029eb22f5021c9c2424e
53330 F20101106_AABUCT mullin_c_Page_096.pro
a819ecdc9bd871d3cfd3f121df2ca11f
88c8e9e7c8f49f6cee1f28940b20b05fe5f6d51e
F20101106_AABTXO mullin_c_Page_030.tif
f00853b62bfca8ec2fda376ac3143137
b561861526968251398064244f3622f3d16c1dce
F20101106_AABTWZ mullin_c_Page_014.tif
184983d8d1eda9cf43d5ef83b6ef100e
52698751a0770a91bcb4f21cd3853d2c57731834
471 F20101106_AABUDI mullin_c_Page_004.txt
6189235a39e75ffbbae934c7256b54b5
4071413aa41f81bf57b2b233e4345bdc052953b9
F20101106_AABTYC mullin_c_Page_048.tif
b47d26758936830643d32adeaa132a83
534da16f237f66b28c79b5b3502d1362af822bdb
36263 F20101106_AABUCU mullin_c_Page_097.pro
3f11905f0c624c271a6029d33708d61f
6068345bed1217581b78d0c1c97892135ec3ce77
3850 F20101106_AABUDJ mullin_c_Page_005.txt
57ab1e2a45feb0204b27e4f25886956c
5e6a30320261591e16782c9b08283d83869b74c4
F20101106_AABTYD mullin_c_Page_049.tif
d7e643f151936a535ec7a761ba21ddd9
f1f7ece069ec8907db93323dadc54f65d31317fb
4793 F20101106_AABUCV mullin_c_Page_099.pro
016ff0ff6e98a186dce6ee2532bc9936
2ee60c7ae478134f8ee3102a22961c3b1175c9d6
F20101106_AABTXP mullin_c_Page_031.tif
26d081ea4ea8fe91d8fea7efd0e713b2
bdc3c4e42f34bc9ce0b14d75a2a48bfac5abc011
2097 F20101106_AABUDK mullin_c_Page_006.txt
84045f6012ccb2ba7d7adab24082705d
d62c14f577735d637fc47d7e0ca277cd507ea858
F20101106_AABTYE mullin_c_Page_051.tif
aa40e19be46f778d525313914530b4a4
48c1f129bc14fe0b422c5429c7fcdb8bf77f2181
7483 F20101106_AABUCW mullin_c_Page_100.pro
ab52ada59785795ae20f13f47721ad24
f61a8c148be92a28903d824daeedcd14642c4cee
F20101106_AABTXQ mullin_c_Page_032.tif
736428965098a706275aafe532231682
95409cf416220e9cb4fe0285c067a9bba4523ee9
1848 F20101106_AABUDL mullin_c_Page_007.txt
3ff197056d6c3418a9f949c90f6796c4
fc4de6a53f9f031d9373ad48414628eacd65b4cf
F20101106_AABTYF mullin_c_Page_052.tif
8cca1e969f6da732732034469afb940c
38f696393f52eaf1b8952343f85787ecc60befc0
59447 F20101106_AABUCX mullin_c_Page_101.pro
145391602394f61bb1658312f4435a4a
225d40f0fb1aa11332ae6523f60e855e68b04b95
F20101106_AABTXR mullin_c_Page_033.tif
5fe884e604d504faeb836d04641dca72
02bd32aa063624527ced85f555e7da5acd0cbe05
2217 F20101106_AABUEA mullin_c_Page_032.txt
89e1f80a8b52de9448d8877c69f2a5d4
69af89eb04433bdb8b3ee98c65c39f412dd05e7e
2495 F20101106_AABUDM mullin_c_Page_008.txt
ed24ccf0fdd80c563337fe5cae8b87b3
0bd7fdf0275765b2ec0e52862a629f8592db919a
F20101106_AABTYG mullin_c_Page_053.tif
e5e8dcf995eb949afa3705905544bf4e
faec96b8f0c30b15dd20724dc282810da7e1bff2
60129 F20101106_AABUCY mullin_c_Page_102.pro
69678d9fc2c0d7f4e12338a34dd24114
aa6b59d1e86fc7202d254b7f6378750b4ad962b3
F20101106_AABTXS mullin_c_Page_034.tif
afeec010f320fbcda8fd984c23557d3c
a8e575b5c97913494dd6c178a89ae8c7b73776b8
2414 F20101106_AABUEB mullin_c_Page_033.txt
ae845f44c2d692ed6e5fb014426656ca
046a12f119f49482ffbb27b34e9989405f17ec5e
2485 F20101106_AABUDN mullin_c_Page_010.txt
461dbfd04f08eacda2700b017906237b
12a202ce16acf53bd9a9febd07b746f54f0a94e8
F20101106_AABTYH mullin_c_Page_055.tif
64c112d660daa9591921cc39a2b527b6
0c718d3383bb4c0bde8b364d2809cffcd25fd523
F20101106_AABTXT mullin_c_Page_035.tif
7f87b18cc83fdd1e31bdd868b0988f7a
0c753fbe22c1c5bbb45cd1070d0b28949ca28cd3
2167 F20101106_AABUEC mullin_c_Page_034.txt
f6db724dd72a54a60f68fac10e5c2207
04dd820f65fe243abcdf1ce56feaf7f9df07b5b7
2081 F20101106_AABUDO mullin_c_Page_011.txt
ca30f152f23153122119a5dfaaecc904
a4a8b573bf3dd327f53c189bef22adbeac84e979
F20101106_AABTYI mullin_c_Page_056.tif
eb11890d6c36d1875817c7b3df59739f
07d8e7c1bf6c78ad1da149b304137637bc93d94d
58262 F20101106_AABUCZ mullin_c_Page_103.pro
d153ea91f4c02894579959a165db3fa6
e82d7b5a31eb6c23ed4ab445cbd27ddbdc573cae
F20101106_AABTXU mullin_c_Page_036.tif
5140d73f8856614a25485d9c6d13b740
c93c1c569580210a592d50d377c2fa8b5ec8a029
1971 F20101106_AABUED mullin_c_Page_036.txt
e708b1e1163455eeca1cc730d1368453
be538b56315765106f574263befef48a81487426
2568 F20101106_AABUDP mullin_c_Page_015.txt
9657c5fe69bba67fcabc0f8c3cf3801f
738cf88d7c504f6c5345f330b8c2f090cbbe0612
F20101106_AABTYJ mullin_c_Page_057.tif
94dcc7765b6bd5cbe749e66a1b183e55
ad0ad390b52124284b8841ae294c2d2012b59000
F20101106_AABTXV mullin_c_Page_040.tif
12abcf2302cf75d5bf87a8b2f334d440
e67ef689d48cb554f4fc712acc766b62749bffbd
2241 F20101106_AABUEE mullin_c_Page_037.txt
f48fcb4e2c292c54653b4aa008d4cace
3ad351d794b57075fd88b5ae4ea6f5460cf0f43b
2186 F20101106_AABUDQ mullin_c_Page_016.txt
9771613d2a80fec939ffe63c1a674c31
bc0ca91b4762c1c0a6c0ebcff708869812cde60a
F20101106_AABTYK mullin_c_Page_058.tif
70314b92b13cb5753e67a619a5c2d876
a0f1ddbfb6a423ec89c85ce0a40f8d418ada906b
F20101106_AABTXW mullin_c_Page_041.tif
2592baa9c99483dbffbe3a58798a2aa6
68b3452087171e04a0b770394fb6ea780d900572
2205 F20101106_AABUEF mullin_c_Page_038.txt
36422edea4ed97ae1a2f0f58d05df8de
2f882b7f29618af243aae2d42002edb480756eb9
2154 F20101106_AABUDR mullin_c_Page_017.txt
507e33a2b5154c65bea7137b339e8c30
3a385f1c752d0ad8809a0ccd8b2001484667b32c
F20101106_AABTYL mullin_c_Page_060.tif
bb9b06b21c6eb76cf125af7ff10cdc1b
412d36294d6228615e5554c19159b085bfe1081c
F20101106_AABTXX mullin_c_Page_042.tif
4cab566c23ed529e7562c4951cc03cb3
7f6b344004ac9a908c2c6580e4062c50679284bc
2131 F20101106_AABUEG mullin_c_Page_039.txt
8a9d54a635da32aa4de56157b5a48392
918c76539106483fe0154222d6d7ea82978373b1
F20101106_AABTZA mullin_c_Page_079.tif
1c9ea164e73f4ef0ab2053ba1e7e465f
9b05fc73761ad0ba07f9ec007c70abc1348acc18
2130 F20101106_AABUDS mullin_c_Page_018.txt
fe10338c095f9ec190df25fb2dc5baeb
0d15e50df32686b5565e3cf4c34bcb0e697e6937
F20101106_AABTYM mullin_c_Page_061.tif
179fdc67d2e6762d0310336a9fba210d
7bbb5dc20c680b4b1b6fcc17b3e8ce8545c92cf2
F20101106_AABTXY mullin_c_Page_044.tif
6e68447b33c7ee32ad480e83ee2b23a0
9abe12c58bb4357660985b6b46d6343b02f595c1
2025 F20101106_AABUEH mullin_c_Page_040.txt
994680ce674a1e7f697cd820a7c0e33b
437d204c589a19fbdd396e8b066cfcc1358a18cf
F20101106_AABTZB mullin_c_Page_080.tif
136904ce59b27493d3f27edeacc0a4fd
68f71ad64aa9ee427af047fa36b2003cb43c4711
1030 F20101106_AABUDT mullin_c_Page_020.txt
539ee03da506849ace18b162f1b90a7d
d8e5810fc4da8f0971061f9bf971fef226505b54
F20101106_AABTYN mullin_c_Page_062.tif
c8991178c10674c0fcedf83897680fce
b337a83fafe18aea2010f848209d87ca9dd0e3d1
F20101106_AABTXZ mullin_c_Page_045.tif
48d8e80890366b03a967f8d429cafe6d
aac32f3b55f7eb89383122b9dd38fb0074bf1401
2209 F20101106_AABUEI mullin_c_Page_041.txt
e6b6b0718c697a722773448a9a36396d
69cbfcc2d0ff9eea74a0fcb02c6c6f412262cb03
F20101106_AABTZC mullin_c_Page_082.tif
5122c4d79ba3b052eb0119d1b35c66a2
301ddf666c4b35ee9057bac4cd76c9d5eca332c9
676 F20101106_AABUDU mullin_c_Page_022.txt
1a62e2d0cc41497b2fc33921b2bb11f3
5751b371c346ed47119cc5befb33123709cf841b
F20101106_AABTYO mullin_c_Page_063.tif
8b7bbcb6c7a67d0d97ff44b4f8493467
428dec07532f638a3235836e64ef020c4fba0967
2057 F20101106_AABUEJ mullin_c_Page_042.txt
03bd26acb7336d38fec530a79a0d47d0
490ee476da32286a28e75bbfdd566b4912bcfecc
F20101106_AABTZD mullin_c_Page_083.tif
ce6364d1d02b918c3a57e51ef0e0b01d
b70cc283e4eec381290e4dcdd3fac08c6e15c1d6
2145 F20101106_AABUDV mullin_c_Page_027.txt
654d5ad8854c2930fc08903ee882c6b5
fd373554044f4b1e3376ff4946c3508d8bf496cc
F20101106_AABTYP mullin_c_Page_064.tif
fe11b516b7bd92bfaddd61d23c249539
442acdd0e9a9c17ba564dc934ee08e04b52c75a8
2324 F20101106_AABUEK mullin_c_Page_043.txt
2023f853fd8b230a0e150f490884ead4
372d0a20843b616b01d2058a8e0180a89a539787
F20101106_AABTZE mullin_c_Page_085.tif
f53d74aa86de72d55b11533b110c0b0d
de1f07a480762e6c9f1541f35f091fb18ef4017a
2085 F20101106_AABUDW mullin_c_Page_028.txt
837ebb393cd5707ac301186686feae48
f2adcf542c4def8461548f474cafc4cec2dc3f30
2195 F20101106_AABUEL mullin_c_Page_045.txt
7fdd957978a36a25bcfb4e4800234c79
f48f6d2f9f8ed53cd2e36e085fde727b3a8d8836
F20101106_AABTZF mullin_c_Page_086.tif
2dabe7b204003b37a0e50f8c7b36845b
af60927c6cfd09f4218b6ecca494abf2f8508b96
2148 F20101106_AABUDX mullin_c_Page_029.txt
785fdabc7424652ca8db0c0c822f92c6
940bcbb127d5392e4a00ada80b72156e6dae1cf1
F20101106_AABTYQ mullin_c_Page_066.tif
a0c213221b3c71e4c39877fecf9a8ed6
adce6e2534588f55e393fc34ff52fabcd9b23724
1902 F20101106_AABUEM mullin_c_Page_046.txt
4d4d2a66130da32e9e18beb9f246886f
18530721b4c7d33c1f024260af393086cf113f1a
F20101106_AABTZG mullin_c_Page_088.tif
32cd5f461cec727f511b5ada934465c7
6c4dccee2ead87778e967508344811ab0c74f5f2
2237 F20101106_AABUDY mullin_c_Page_030.txt
09d5bd5e1c13cac863db217b887b1e1f
815036acd35801ef273a84a2672d296499bdd688
F20101106_AABTYR mullin_c_Page_067.tif
989d6e017cab6af7261236096d82d6e6
d8cfbd1752cd13e99134912a733cd80d3b6cbde0
434 F20101106_AABUFA mullin_c_Page_062.txt
0240b42d538946a78c0cd7860f9de05b
1c40c83ed29ed3b2ed66cb429bef0532bbbc0266
785 F20101106_AABUEN mullin_c_Page_047.txt
62510510a1cdbbbee82c69ed0fec8790
e70cd794d5100ddc05b309c74730693ec8ec30d7
F20101106_AABTZH mullin_c_Page_090.tif
fb82206046e139d58e55fe4d3304999c
b9e7df312e6d8f00a12df7c3b5d2c5f67a41158e
2052 F20101106_AABUDZ mullin_c_Page_031.txt
296a7c42ccad54d5b5c8b875701bcc03
7217a395a47f5ab08a30ec39810834e249dc9732
F20101106_AABTYS mullin_c_Page_068.tif
56c46ae813d4ea9b621f74f2b7b48b31
af81c28e20f8df8a378661bccc4f12bf9f1697fd
609 F20101106_AABUFB mullin_c_Page_063.txt
779423cacc4b194fbcea5e22523e3da3
374c3ee89c534ca088b7bdbf51f418433cc4f58e
1703 F20101106_AABUEO mullin_c_Page_048.txt
d6e6b2d216d77f833d62a38915a38d78
65a83d14531f8192dc45235b74d2d86075369050
F20101106_AABTZI mullin_c_Page_092.tif
563767bc1b3b3319cd383ae3d5ce6a56
956c52fed64292e233e7488491e8623e04fedaec
F20101106_AABTYT mullin_c_Page_069.tif
74a53b0f4707f64c02ac99b5434f8249
e7601e86e0812b4b0983257612c081676950a54c
1930 F20101106_AABUFC mullin_c_Page_064.txt
92a33db571d1ff12ed0a9de011e72b80
be4fe73628c67962ecb7743149fc588efd2862bb
328 F20101106_AABUEP mullin_c_Page_049.txt
13172d44dc13ed9123a3c26bd7dea34b
2103a2f9f39a829dd7e39ef57f5dc792bda9e301
F20101106_AABTZJ mullin_c_Page_093.tif
1a06c6900c7f135f74d3c2899e7673cc
e252046fd7e28a2bd50c739173b1848ff663b6c0
F20101106_AABTYU mullin_c_Page_070.tif
f4651b9047be047a09404252d49606c6
6a1ef2ce3aeb6c8087a00381d9e422f0b9ceb0ba
1990 F20101106_AABUFD mullin_c_Page_065.txt
fb98fb32a4050998998098a663fb8403
b89758b8d7fbaa703bce57d8ab7d214636f85264
85 F20101106_AABUEQ mullin_c_Page_050.txt
a46074776325ac7cc8cd25f84bf75e4f
9708a83e0ec6e969a95d6e284459f2a5445f1f67
F20101106_AABTZK mullin_c_Page_094.tif
e52bbf04e7c9473d5d4f8477bda41f1f
a60b0332fe828c68fdb9ae1d7e0d781aca6ec9e2
F20101106_AABTYV mullin_c_Page_071.tif
411aecae7ee1e7ff40170284d353b2d2
0194ca59aa2245e2759c19361d42f3592701aaec
2266 F20101106_AABUFE mullin_c_Page_066.txt
8dd8864d877898adf98f33d2cf1b83e0
bc3869cf960e904abc10272b2dd9d80aa12a590f
1994 F20101106_AABUER mullin_c_Page_051.txt
a9d4d83de0d6d9ea17670414dd88a275
f620c24977d46e22aa47e466feacaf7eeb5de4ba
F20101106_AABTZL mullin_c_Page_095.tif
b81bb16bcd53af973a3a2e7d1f16c8f0
4bcab677d89cd8b19c2219db979197f7744265fe
F20101106_AABTYW mullin_c_Page_072.tif
e220445accc1d30069e0ebb8af6541ca
9d58715aae066a17b8b7574505a507bd0cf2a96c
2112 F20101106_AABUFF mullin_c_Page_068.txt
52a8734b96746e49cd60e656fd1dae56
d4c4b383f012172ea32c0a2ae6f68542c4b8ee07
F20101106_AABUES mullin_c_Page_052.txt
eb2436a11df002906f4cee13fddecaae
e138d699dc9ef4f7303266b350146dbb4005f21e
F20101106_AABTZM mullin_c_Page_097.tif
bf8aa13cc6cdedd9320b2f8baa03f7d2
b07bfe299c3f9ce249844332e3ab05aee3952cc7
F20101106_AABTYX mullin_c_Page_075.tif
fe7cfac1710cc1fb46982adfde47811c
7b54e37b4dc5737db8cbb8f61f6b2db8a5c9e51a
2227 F20101106_AABUFG mullin_c_Page_069.txt
9b25d8820ed9c7b32dafa9f221348573
7b70b97b04f0fd1bf3732e68c79d2b0c55cd4718
2016 F20101106_AABUET mullin_c_Page_053.txt
90f22b1a5492ca256e36ef873f86ed64
b004c0b4281f6ec930968f7c647fd148034fa72a
F20101106_AABTZN mullin_c_Page_098.tif
3154529cd6d9bf95152a7c0dcfcee8f3
039860bc67aa7399f366ea408809de3e7e728142
F20101106_AABTYY mullin_c_Page_076.tif
b17da228c6a54442461ce00fe0a4ce3e
f9ed90ad5562d04ea8ffbf72677c3ea3230fded4
1839 F20101106_AABUFH mullin_c_Page_070.txt
c4202b20fdee08a673929dcb0103f674
8b220310f1d27abf689af3b055f793210a4da737
2143 F20101106_AABUEU mullin_c_Page_055.txt
0f5b514972786985ae0397e12c9478e7
e0981ab435d59f4abb9ed0f9d999e7d2510f7cf7
F20101106_AABTZO mullin_c_Page_099.tif
3e1dea5d3dbe048c1e55295d064b9893
fc4b9dee1fb0c83c78e79c0cb77fa3e951abfdd9
F20101106_AABTYZ mullin_c_Page_078.tif
b490d9ee364ed38d3df6e073b7bf9072
be2759fb2585505fc3c2140f7599cf660bfc8359
704 F20101106_AABUFI mullin_c_Page_072.txt
1131ad20045d56fabad0fff0e5b06767
e23b2052562b2d26cde18cdc5771e8468a50be8b
2198 F20101106_AABUEV mullin_c_Page_056.txt
396f4d3b47049fe4abc846c668dec4e6
76b6ef1efb3ba74f297ce905a3ef9d7f2526a759
F20101106_AABTZP mullin_c_Page_101.tif
0ff5b1247df2a5a763c7c94a5d8d1bdd
c65efd3cf7c329551059c8b3b5ae8b77d2146304
3265 F20101106_AABUFJ mullin_c_Page_073.txt
406de27e05bf110f9d107bf3fd8370a0
a255923fbc209e7eca158c7eedf3f19dfdc4b1c9
2283 F20101106_AABUEW mullin_c_Page_057.txt
9e5c98f93be2e0900f3b6d36b6ea6c12
1b4f01b72179d7d86125ab6e0fe4ede96d3b8de0
F20101106_AABTZQ mullin_c_Page_102.tif
f17d0af05a02d99907315782ee72c91e
ac78230c38da19c9d86d8262c31c6e7dc812bbde
1944 F20101106_AABUFK mullin_c_Page_074.txt
0c342dc54da2a35d5e92b95d6e9915c6
cef77f92398c3931380e6d88e8a29ca6eb2a016d
2208 F20101106_AABUEX mullin_c_Page_058.txt
9a3e7d5897e33c9e6dac28236f77ef5e
b99851f1c7f2ffb83b3ec4ec12f1ce5e56fbc15c
3011 F20101106_AABUFL mullin_c_Page_075.txt
0ab9fa4a22f071f8a68d0b7c6cd0fabd
3000b8c6bd10ccb424a818bd3ce6c05441962540
2043 F20101106_AABUEY mullin_c_Page_059.txt
f4f272ada8042077ca30d61c035198fd
89488112e46c8f6a1d23ba6dcbbdebb000a39ab4
F20101106_AABTZR mullin_c_Page_103.tif
10f792d7aa04b277cb2f1953319fe8e9
cfe3558756dd882e2787fdb83f662f64427897c1
2138 F20101106_AABUGA mullin_c_Page_096.txt
c0350aeacd47c64fe4aa572fda3b7edc
f77f1ed683b6d08bceb87d9b9320212f2fae2bc7
909 F20101106_AABUFM mullin_c_Page_076.txt
141d802b79249f3d7769b7a53effd753
50efa0791b5b68d543ee40703ba67b2ca5bc7e42
2092 F20101106_AABUEZ mullin_c_Page_060.txt
f7dd1fb5ea88198fb2b219a7429dc1cb
174d07633f66fada5cae6391250c4d31a051cf92
F20101106_AABTZS mullin_c_Page_104.tif
1d2e45b700eef09d84bee942d90f178d
e241e9f59228444aa37240f3e9f072e07f6c9000
1452 F20101106_AABUGB mullin_c_Page_097.txt
cd7bfe71632fa1f1c8cea23e99dfee93
f6f9809a8525a8a6ae16d574473a41330f169993
932 F20101106_AABUFN mullin_c_Page_078.txt
a9fbc7d677a68f8c985dd9edd07a1478
cb5625359b95f8604b36adf246aa7c249deecc1d
F20101106_AABTZT mullin_c_Page_107.tif
04b8ce8f72d1571ed40eb861c133dc10
90f09daf05e682d23ff2ab3f0f81d730481cb498
364 F20101106_AABUGC mullin_c_Page_099.txt
8e8f8888d549e6f10c7d6a5a21b76379
7629791a8f6eb73c13758fa3f79bb4ac61dce00a
4948 F20101106_AABUFO mullin_c_Page_080.txt
1c0edd5fc8743832e72c073ed163a313
cf6638dc9c5190481d60af459c3c02a521778f0a
F20101106_AABTZU mullin_c_Page_109.tif
43ce73195a5f3cb01155b8240867d97e
dae63eba1addfeda4fa6c0dd65fae36e1ddd7be8
616 F20101106_AABUGD mullin_c_Page_100.txt
1f112427e47e46073f49af4f7ab889cd
a4ee2ee7ca5dce252732df775a9f11656d7775bd
666 F20101106_AABUFP mullin_c_Page_081.txt
22f518c2aad356124bd4657a6c1de86b
f462a20aa5be9fe8fc8c004c8d6c8057143b6046
F20101106_AABTZV mullin_c_Page_111.tif
27f379ec575f1d95b8eb7922eb7a1cb7
a4454c75959db64ef04a9878a0d090b0fb1426ed
2415 F20101106_AABUGE mullin_c_Page_101.txt
da5fa660173ba883134a2b87d214a298
5f9f3a6f4d6a318fdb04166ea31a875778dcb533
180 F20101106_AABUFQ mullin_c_Page_082.txt
c7a152874f840a2c41105e13a61e9e1f
af858d52bae22d3e38db8814db8f5a3a46d9ecef
9235 F20101106_AABTZW mullin_c_Page_001.pro
d412f1385ab33885f9428ad426b0900b
aa5c5031354bbee785035fdda6569bd1a9e41c54
2432 F20101106_AABUGF mullin_c_Page_102.txt
8dffdaace84d3047554369c386f4a87a
1acba84e3de1895062f4c15024f70ea866fbaf47
702 F20101106_AABUFR mullin_c_Page_083.txt
47fea71bffb6965b213c56a9de8d45b4
26862f0922573dc589fabbb2088b70795d0361de
1147 F20101106_AABTZX mullin_c_Page_002.pro
2d4128445c0314132cc15a460a958431
01f7718ebe83c7d5ba8c597dcdb849257ffcb3d2
2345 F20101106_AABUGG mullin_c_Page_103.txt
cfd3477a598a7b590ed859961b1dbe37
c7446e38e8e99a065e7200222195fa9e89cbe494
728 F20101106_AABUFS mullin_c_Page_086.txt
8d67c66fdacb49a71794c5d7e098a987
f9977d860dbd4238e113c03ae6f926fd437992e2
10762 F20101106_AABTZY mullin_c_Page_004.pro
3eb896233b5b01a739a5b8fae73eb28a
e07670f8e4574bfd4506babbd01a564aeabd21fe
2106 F20101106_AABUGH mullin_c_Page_104.txt
b6e20a8ffb37e3e236ee46f99a7fa47b
873879b45f8c484fe53794943ce0e290bdf1ecce
F20101106_AABUFT mullin_c_Page_087.txt
3e691452807d5551dfe74f2b68a59d52
3b25bfb1cdcae11ba1d91b3c4ad70357b78e6e2c
93003 F20101106_AABTZZ mullin_c_Page_005.pro
a9533ecd23702b4ed423a1dfe18e505c
6043bf3ca05965f70dcbad836b71f7edd476052b
2497 F20101106_AABUGI mullin_c_Page_105.txt
99f3642af1137dc6630bc6389ca55fcf
135da3e86e163d63a6bd8d3ad9d119e0ac893bcc
409 F20101106_AABUFU mullin_c_Page_089.txt
89e61e88f0d874ebed08b67d617baab8
ba50ab206b4931656e4c3188b18246d39767e6ee
2590 F20101106_AABUGJ mullin_c_Page_107.txt
432421f34610d525070e4b24f27b797c
f3c7089eeffcd293f999d400ad9bd457360560c3
344 F20101106_AABUFV mullin_c_Page_090.txt
84961bda4b2bb36cd71bf209c4753c04
a426782900bc52ba0f8d5d6071e74681fbb82bc0
2434 F20101106_AABUGK mullin_c_Page_108.txt
1241dc1c8dfc56fbf3a8bf074e0d7295
a6f736cf086b5e159e398c33eb8f74d07e204ae5
2045 F20101106_AABUFW mullin_c_Page_091.txt
a1fba15b63e45b4c34ec602e45fc2f67
a90abacf9b05536b786fbc872ddab6779e1241b3
1211 F20101106_AABUGL mullin_c_Page_110.txt
b449a1f6aefa0e22830fec620afe245b
fae947f0ccc1708aee323ac81257e127cc945b8c
2140 F20101106_AABUFX mullin_c_Page_092.txt
a53e4a17fc482f70a68eb022dc37fb1f
3785d3fca471a236c62dc06940426388e91c1acc
355 F20101106_AABUGM mullin_c_Page_111.txt
3a0d481b5a5310420b62675b36c52e50
6b9eb67b1c7be8f6c5145c4fb786e59053a57af4
2214 F20101106_AABUFY mullin_c_Page_094.txt
b14479c4b30ed33921b27284dd940661
22eff6f6a0e36126abe842a7bbe0f0d04759bbbb
38363 F20101106_AABUHA mullin_c_Page_107.QC.jpg
01939583b093f1f983e12276d4c92089
7ccc917e7bad17fad67410762528a9c982271fb8
2180 F20101106_AABUGN mullin_c_Page_001thm.jpg
8c07d11fa2d17af1242168cf729bbeb0
b48d92c2a54a358695ccbd85b1355cbf57d21d57
F20101106_AABUFZ mullin_c_Page_095.txt
9aea02a22969998d0b85e91c6bb33fe8
d82ee94935d0d044c061df60298fc67deb59fa87
8314 F20101106_AABUHB mullin_c_Page_036thm.jpg
c5ddcbe08ba797d1045d9bb151a97c93
f07f32302574c19e8d34ed68a2c9fbe5b7465ab4
793747 F20101106_AABUGO mullin_c.pdf
036917e2e4632644ece318dd818cb766
bfdccd1e6ff3f6a0f7c313bd6f2854694050f8f3
8816 F20101106_AABUHC mullin_c_Page_093thm.jpg
e8e1c3459f50457dca0530d2f47e78d1
d55f3386ccb584987c33fe9e552a44efb5d30ec6
15240 F20101106_AABUGP mullin_c_Page_020.QC.jpg
743221cd6c566085c71216cd7a97e7d3
d9eb3bdf2e077728b5a0ccbc357d4d7a5ac4c7d2
29741 F20101106_AABUHD mullin_c_Page_051.QC.jpg
326743994aeb175aae71d9293d6e9ed4
4477fc9442865a0784a8ad8f02931c1c47e724da
3232 F20101106_AABUGQ mullin_c_Page_006thm.jpg
d0fa975660b087c93fabdf6d8e04e6e6
d01ec340e96f38a5f142c52597e466801899c304
3088 F20101106_AABUHE mullin_c_Page_090thm.jpg
6907baddb1a24e23b88114f3cdde6d49
dfbc7f62a7a3efb0d195c6b20f66eb7fb5727b34
9331 F20101106_AABUGR mullin_c_Page_105thm.jpg
eb83629eccf76e3ca4393b974dc81059
b646dd0d55ce3021b5af568c165a79ae226a89b1
2912 F20101106_AABUHF mullin_c_Page_083thm.jpg
f06dbaeec201f5ffb185ffff414de2fb
5f6a1178d15e87f522e3fa0811fdaf9666781959
17227 F20101106_AABUGS mullin_c_Page_007.QC.jpg
38e89e84bded91b6c75dd8a4ec88d1ef
fa968bfb2fa15481340d29b9ee0c22de817f17bc
7640 F20101106_AABUHG mullin_c_Page_046thm.jpg
16cfb2aa7a6d80be9ee687d70835fe91
e9c8487730bccc051cc1f1bc515d3b672f43a304
4295 F20101106_AABUGT mullin_c_Page_007thm.jpg
a218773f5320ed14efc95c2eae44dbcb
53561a2907983678199e59a522b57d8e5092bf89
1993 F20101106_AABUHH mullin_c_Page_050thm.jpg
7d340351e66156137fd67c33ca62e1a9
c15df7fc539b1cd58dccddc72a52bd8f3128f7c5
8718 F20101106_AABUGU mullin_c_Page_041thm.jpg
fa9960230a5af1d234b1412c9815ba0f
6ad11fcd930264dce29d401a60a3a3dc3bb75413
32614 F20101106_AABUHI mullin_c_Page_053.QC.jpg
3895f0781f49bc490a4233d04e1e252e
95f8dd6c5a6d538d0081758d0fad974c37b65210
9233 F20101106_AABUGV mullin_c_Page_108thm.jpg
7583b5e015303cc585a7904f10b8636c
49208d8013d010660d3bd2049ddb2fc81d606441
8975 F20101106_AABUHJ mullin_c_Page_017thm.jpg
0161ccf72cb712f595041073fbd2280b
4e1dac58445abf34cdb54bebf24e53a1547d8cb0
33560 F20101106_AABUGW mullin_c_Page_068.QC.jpg
cf90936a3c54e8db9bbab672b887d783
2bb0c742a023ac459a62c37b26e7ac84df37dabe
3604 F20101106_AABUHK mullin_c_Page_079thm.jpg
4dd4d98113801c9a07786d617e07274d
3ee8b0b5d4bb350c59ff3a56bcefbceaea573319
1317 F20101106_AABUGX mullin_c_Page_002.QC.jpg
f4ef1b2863e70bb9c6aab2050bbfe888
3dc05d7455fad0109f3642a570efb12f0f0d608a
1784 F20101106_AABUHL mullin_c_Page_111thm.jpg
c0bdaaa1dae65d27bc2b5da442528ca1
860ed2df0ffeba09e362f00b7fae229d048dad88
37398 F20101106_AABUGY mullin_c_Page_014.QC.jpg
da2ae9f80356e84adc7e4ac6032357f9
c7376356302918b907e8d7ec5ea45473facdbc5b
35296 F20101106_AABUIA mullin_c_Page_093.QC.jpg
b8f63ffdfdcf1b205fdbb0a176f0b747
8700ce5a194b68f8248668d1605c3c2b2592ab18
29929 F20101106_AABUHM mullin_c_Page_064.QC.jpg
202c51d7f4e1839967cc3288d5009cd6
5b886321ea665d8a541489302d6ecb29a5e6f957
6028 F20101106_AABUGZ mullin_c_Page_097thm.jpg
45874f9c0e9000a35d9c69df75bbc3ce
80ac878b2215002ba99e3dc81966721b662c8c29
8820 F20101106_AABUIB mullin_c_Page_033thm.jpg
492c2bfbc228366d2410044cc1807b12
c84ec917251cf2adab7d389622a89c7449f86a25
8264 F20101106_AABUHN mullin_c_Page_078.QC.jpg
75afcbfe28496c4d9cbc9ced88593f95
4ce8aead26dbc31a6e38cef8db33ba1e16feec9a
34570 F20101106_AABUIC mullin_c_Page_103.QC.jpg
2c9beb819cb1720c9521bd48103173fd
a0afd443dd3b61426616f4868350b62b81e09ad9
6044 F20101106_AABUHO mullin_c_Page_050.QC.jpg
dce35e712e220b9e34c08d494b73f688
88615635e670ac2ef4058c0b272610679a34d1a1
38286 F20101106_AABUID mullin_c_Page_106.QC.jpg
926d555ad9499e3ce3f56ea51fb9c5e7
e9c011360ded39d13f99ab178c229bd7f016ac90
36521 F20101106_AABUHP mullin_c_Page_045.QC.jpg
c5df3682df0565f77ff41b8b91048016
e54149a708bf23a7fa9159fc12466e2faf98f489
36518 F20101106_AABUIE mullin_c_Page_056.QC.jpg
72af167933661863529805b390bd7101
8a79d46ed2a9519175119f5acb61269cb1ecda8d
8808 F20101106_AABUHQ mullin_c_Page_103thm.jpg
16757d3e97757ef6984ed0b4452a54b1
8d8cc44cf479660e4f8f1d8a4aeb643a1ad86bd4
8824 F20101106_AABUIF mullin_c_Page_045thm.jpg
615b4c92346625af9966c3722472666d
3b4433e6c6b447c021a176fef77067429c521f59
8680 F20101106_AABUHR mullin_c_Page_031thm.jpg
e66a5a9206fc190a8e7bf94df56f295e
7410d8a94e0f01e0b485e6320546eea09972bced
3656 F20101106_AABUIG mullin_c_Page_100thm.jpg
a31d9542a3b7ee1787ba734245fdfe6a
f413179891126b8b370bc4a1cbfa2446125ae667
6246 F20101106_AABUHS mullin_c_Page_008thm.jpg
8f630edc1f36908095c55e19d63cdb31
c7a4e82f789d4b5b079837f7e5823529acaf1709
8283 F20101106_AABUIH mullin_c_Page_076.QC.jpg
3044add558fa5383cbcb673c690271f5
63593bf7600d94e39e2d9231efa0e0490c0eb16e
35671 F20101106_AABUHT mullin_c_Page_054.QC.jpg
890acd9f5e42bf51ca3d51e73114024e
b9518211a13d5afb556a059a611d1f9672fd5b58
8800 F20101106_AABUII mullin_c_Page_096thm.jpg
ca6630059d12c7d4383e3236b4a2d621
9da2835a0ad4dfef7f53decdab7f0c4c2ac5461c
2806 F20101106_AABUHU mullin_c_Page_082thm.jpg
58dfe3b82ecba39571d0ccef8f855233
05a09efbcd82e69ebb49ad9d5c4eaa568fe872d3
8989 F20101106_AABUIJ mullin_c_Page_014thm.jpg
c5c92a8fd1c3293c545505d38f254cf4
e991c563963b2cfcaab035093649c7b164278ac2
8685 F20101106_AABUHV mullin_c_Page_029thm.jpg
90abfd82cc5fbfab3d33010f800b922c
75f9145b45e73cfb9546f764be6114d0f2a354b6
5686 F20101106_AABUIK mullin_c_Page_061.QC.jpg
147e713982cdfea29e055d11f165d297
5a517afa9028ca0711c18ba88309540c594ea3ac
3070 F20101106_AABUHW mullin_c_Page_086thm.jpg
cfdf7e65a2b799bba7efb818c0ac4b96
1b2983445f345f665c033b42016d0a22e59dca20
3739 F20101106_AABUIL mullin_c_Page_099thm.jpg
76c3209218ac30a1236aeb39bbdb41e8
c015b7eb2d40c183fa3f2f4bc84e17e13cd1b652
10954 F20101106_AABUHX mullin_c_Page_025.QC.jpg
4b48f6d992097b440ab13ede83d43cbc
0dee6638befe190f294640d91de344c4b8f02641
8814 F20101106_AABUJA mullin_c_Page_030thm.jpg
265d35f9ff3533f49d885e61c5d29bc3
b79761b16be04b2d5fd77acb506ae71f1424f3be
37326 F20101106_AABUIM mullin_c_Page_016.QC.jpg
25b283a25886741306a4dab04f6e1122
48a992840bb1637bcac2d1ba44545329aa439aa6
8972 F20101106_AABUHY mullin_c_Page_021.QC.jpg
d7c9f8c5d4539e746373145f99d3618a
684c189290ff6ecec056d98b2fa17973db2ffd34
8255 F20101106_AABUJB mullin_c_Page_057thm.jpg
fe949cfb77a531398c1709ebd8e4bc50
e2279d1bb0d5e4e4ba2a79d852c9ae39511f86cf
25336 F20101106_AABUIN mullin_c_Page_008.QC.jpg
cefc800df24f34f0a02a6e3e0c3182c3
dc865cf9d8583b7ded924f81f6a3105843a31442
2058 F20101106_AABUHZ mullin_c_Page_004thm.jpg
5fa7bfe53f6fab14c54b2db52179f474
5780aa90b8e858c70b253e38327cde2ea6e6e64c
8683 F20101106_AABUJC mullin_c_Page_032thm.jpg
634fb14093ee82afb3b923c558f66637
ff6302495946a1068bfea3433916d0e34c0dec05
8676 F20101106_AABUIO mullin_c_Page_060thm.jpg
fe7d8d6dc1072fa72808282b96c11689
80944d9982d34036064eb9a1335d39edea08da12
3436 F20101106_AABUJD mullin_c_Page_071thm.jpg
5aefc6482484e588833200e19c09feb7
e22cf479808a36852b4225f2683d964c08f01ead
8826 F20101106_AABUIP mullin_c_Page_090.QC.jpg
bcf1d5973f0743379fc98fd9ee4319c8
e021a1cbf4f362f2a901fb0524a06c6d22557474
3634 F20101106_AABUJE mullin_c_Page_080thm.jpg
46aa24338af773a76dca23d92e6510b7
f4bbc520b8f31a13e9a5874364204d931fda6122
452 F20101106_AABUIQ mullin_c_Page_003thm.jpg
66744c3adcda46974b840f98bcff8694
92dc1f8ea4be6cd60b5a9d58a3a4049ca20314d7
8853 F20101106_AABUJF mullin_c_Page_055thm.jpg
0f6aa30549c42b3da9b17de7e80996a6
8e25d8de37d2b03b1a644a1a681e6bcfd6398945
31413 F20101106_AABUIR mullin_c_Page_026.QC.jpg
30daeeab943b2fe90564d4661ef02a33
a294383ef25c732f44abdedc00349b2988495226
8984 F20101106_AABUJG mullin_c_Page_086.QC.jpg
290d2882beb13d7491193d863b53191a
b84b94ad9a1d11dbe01f4f3e733ad1f989742d53
14005 F20101106_AABUIS mullin_c_Page_071.QC.jpg
0a5af0f2e97530f60f703a8c319cd131
c00adc9786b5e608a236edbf35d18efd9bc1333d
3431 F20101106_AABUJH mullin_c_Page_047thm.jpg
b35dff9c25ea8bd36632b3add394dc12
b85674765b0506cbd04e9c7dcd446ee3c2785966
37125 F20101106_AABUIT mullin_c_Page_094.QC.jpg
e27f0f4a8a006ceee14849432cc6cebf
25a56926e288e4b325483967bc8dc0e371c319ad
8959 F20101106_AABUJI mullin_c_Page_027thm.jpg
f048cf4d0c38290b392721f08ab3ae6d
e0fae560789c68d612e8e8f6f791aceeeb36720a
9456 F20101106_AABUIU mullin_c_Page_101thm.jpg
e0b37beaa33cefed9df6111fdd7eece7
9a65710d06262d5671acf80f7f46358ce6eb298d
9262 F20101106_AABUJJ mullin_c_Page_106thm.jpg
553386f419be918047e8745a90c9b826
53b4766b3b93b7574c23f909b99a5453eddc2e34
2789 F20101106_AABUIV mullin_c_Page_085thm.jpg
16c84bd9ab019ad2498be010bca34e39
04bd2a4678cf89151927b25f7a175f4e88cd553c
7755 F20101106_AABUJK mullin_c_Page_058thm.jpg
7bf91b8ff4abd351d90a7829c8e4d621
66b483e910f57569abf27566ff2d95775bf8e004
6827 F20101106_AABUIW mullin_c_Page_062.QC.jpg
5c0de6636663fb03c43d311b9e1281ce
a2cab363edb240e84db9a63bb1d7c0059e830ed4
37252 F20101106_AABUJL mullin_c_Page_109.QC.jpg
cbfa6a6163547c5c5410a6696ab2838d
7501643caa951c14952ebac4f8bca6dbebabc625
1927 F20101106_AABUIX mullin_c_Page_062thm.jpg
d11a082cfb0176d460f90640cbe4d456
c59732301c8149a40571c04b19b31b74d88e7a66
34413 F20101106_AABUKA mullin_c_Page_029.QC.jpg
7e264d449cc96361e50a6458b7fc037a
1807930393d14576b4395b9f4d1505318cf443d6
8006 F20101106_AABUJM mullin_c_Page_059thm.jpg
6848d88719d84f4f7dbd11eda2b771fc
2dec8ac22b9b05c32701aae375feaea8367bdd16
7480 F20101106_AABUIY mullin_c_Page_051thm.jpg
033aa52f0a0b36e2994c896f13e21bbf
665644b6e47e0c6338d73e062be20419559e4431
10305 F20101106_AABUJN mullin_c_Page_089.QC.jpg
759393ed15a0d84978c29a1c5d59a73b
2da0104866d420ff9df7b992e25e1f6050e650a5
2799 F20101106_AABUIZ mullin_c_Page_081thm.jpg
7c8bd62c3552a9685be6716e907867e5
eae1c9f9d96353f51b1edb078aea115c007ae3d1
8532 F20101106_AABUKB mullin_c_Page_040thm.jpg
f4ceb7ef506cc7a72257534ecaa249b5
4cb651af15e25a86dcb105b3bd9be8c9a70fde20
8636 F20101106_AABUJO mullin_c_Page_011thm.jpg
573d19cfc383c74244a7a6bb2c7d0e03
4e846cb1e9f3ecbe49059b9140e3231ef87872ca
2351 F20101106_AABUKC mullin_c_Page_078thm.jpg
2ef96c689020c5cec0452fc121d6e1a2
e0f07f18e3e33b3d6765e3271dbd1f98374fafc7
8442 F20101106_AABUJP mullin_c_Page_004.QC.jpg
70d71c38ff3f8a562606f2038656ceae
c87e7f138ac9b6ea51c34135724d93dcc267d4e6
36772 F20101106_AABUKD mullin_c_Page_038.QC.jpg
552344298ec9d33d5e040565ba8d94cf
6d44b8afad32346c838e96a13edef8627717640e
3696 F20101106_AABUJQ mullin_c_Page_089thm.jpg
c31181e967984d81f0b24612548b191f
1d59c073804985f476aaa348146e18c4ac6082d3
8227 F20101106_AABUKE mullin_c_Page_091thm.jpg
0e503045eaf75ab6eb854c03240e3851
2cde5fdc87a3dc291859a4b0b4e20cdbfd33fd84
2778 F20101106_AABUJR mullin_c_Page_072thm.jpg
46b15aafeea93260d10915c7766d2091
a9f1074ab00ffbcadb7a1f58df53ccb09ac86bf7
30396 F20101106_AABUKF mullin_c_Page_070.QC.jpg
4ce71f89f032937420f3dcf404e24b57
6aa8140cb5b29a1d060214f6e91ca0def225b445
7236 F20101106_AABUJS mullin_c_Page_049.QC.jpg
7f0283b3d14519b85c4775c888220dab
2b610da32afc0c33c5ba49f481b3947fac7cbc32
3938 F20101106_AABUKG mullin_c_Page_020thm.jpg
44d8e0393e10a086da655b1fef69afb7
f64dec7ca2d67aec7ad7cd4954e1a20c9f8a283e
9212 F20101106_AABUJT mullin_c_Page_056thm.jpg
06693bc22eec809ce0c5e64978c4c5ad
03ad7fd8043da2867d4dd358128a1551b14868ec
34938 F20101106_AABUKH mullin_c_Page_037.QC.jpg
2bdc8b83e4455c22c3153d9953207d73
f81bcb08916716749f09e640405a2ffd900ff97a
39551 F20101106_AABUJU mullin_c_Page_044.QC.jpg
bd6b683dabe4bc7634fba12e954b9774
971b45cca7f666485d74af131eba7c196feb7c48
13079 F20101106_AABUKI mullin_c_Page_023.QC.jpg
4951529025fdd74213b23902e70eeeac
9157eb8e97b90c05c4d06b62ecf98d03cf4e39c8
1510 F20101106_AABUJV mullin_c_Page_061thm.jpg
bdcba305d3848f8751efc519c072f185
54bda0bb74aa11fa79c48a4689804d851f2acdff
8921 F20101106_AABUKJ mullin_c_Page_034thm.jpg
79a0bfc26d2d5e7bdf7f0422989e621a
07298a50cda9d37af60d7d194a447f61b39fee7a
8767 F20101106_AABUJW mullin_c_Page_104thm.jpg
96c826c91f6da1b69df45e8424257278
0c65e143672a280cdb671294b2cc8bdcbc49c5f4
8655 F20101106_AABUKK mullin_c_Page_053thm.jpg
cf00a5f1fb04f3145c7af5c1022d98d1
df750cdaeb627912fc78fae9611920f3c2a7179f
33183 F20101106_AABUJX mullin_c_Page_057.QC.jpg
4be570805a19079145e3ec5ecb9c6340
09a9a57a62a082fcbe12bb75fc20dbf45d8da9ba
4486 F20101106_AABULA mullin_c_Page_110thm.jpg
728703167be07a6b0444fda4acb36d10
8e293deedc06172eb2cd4dd89c51048fa519c8f2
2618 F20101106_AABUKL mullin_c_Page_049thm.jpg
775812c5687cb9680c394a44818b769f
e088db500f17c0fc54726a3677bfdfdbe527a129
34764 F20101106_AABULB mullin_c_Page_069.QC.jpg
f25f57270af1cfe0f3d1980372a1100b
7f0080e5cb92c0bedde8800de60de37b15369551
8481 F20101106_AABUKM mullin_c_Page_066thm.jpg
c58445896c43765c57fd823121ddad46
06aa1fafd9c2846388c0dc527b643e1fed16f4fb
36484 F20101106_AABUJY mullin_c_Page_027.QC.jpg
5471fa996b087e310866f72f0b87b252
ca108edb86b7c1786e04a0b8e21b9e49c6c3eefd
9102 F20101106_AABUKN mullin_c_Page_044thm.jpg
a685af491d026d76dabec36650daf944
5e48d1f6dcfd8df9c8b6d5b11f59dc602d9a6ae4
8143 F20101106_AABUJZ mullin_c_Page_065thm.jpg
052dbac9320e5f85696b2e8c983a98c6
8152acc68636dd2dc7cd42184117892aac611559
31572 F20101106_AABULC mullin_c_Page_091.QC.jpg
346707a352480521003fc52e9e9faa35
d876e79a9422ef4547fea215183151a9cc292640
31473 F20101106_AABUKO mullin_c_Page_065.QC.jpg
3c418f1fb3e04725bf7fef78d1fc839e
4e6349507f8b4afed00e25e0aab44f84e678384c
2946 F20101106_AABULD mullin_c_Page_024thm.jpg
f4076feceee16817ac6d81ed132fe6c3
5911d273a5c3d32312f24c85e967a8554a3af613
26138 F20101106_AABUKP mullin_c_Page_074.QC.jpg
70ee7d06609b6d3e7c2b9116eb6b5075
1b4509c2f7d2174d14033c71e073e295d5b246a7
6161 F20101106_AABULE mullin_c_Page_009thm.jpg
bac5d522f47e0afa70adf2448a906dc9
931066fa1cf69c9d307ffde9bab409f0f525cbe3
9317 F20101106_AABUKQ mullin_c_Page_109thm.jpg
a7e8a105f21263f68f83b76472c4bb24
5d992ef0c0e8f26e59438c706146a26d3876a112
12751 F20101106_AABULF mullin_c_Page_047.QC.jpg
b143411002bcf30f6d7f273db26b7b3a
38ebcddd04e8d1b65cf8ecef3b6e9f61d49f32db
9259 F20101106_AABUKR mullin_c_Page_024.QC.jpg
bc5bcd54e8f240f56e6ebf3dbdb3f88f
b130f509dadc363a6c3f0115030aedc1ddd9bcf6
32905 F20101106_AABULG mullin_c_Page_104.QC.jpg
d372bcc7e412389c7eb4db5eeec4e660
ceef157d4dbde2a73168febbc7112a13f5c48f9a
16422 F20101106_AABUKS mullin_c_Page_080.QC.jpg
704cb043ba237cd685922c5b2f1c2968
3ad4f41db634d2a1823f80e353dba45d1731aae3
23955 F20101106_AABULH mullin_c_Page_009.QC.jpg
6f76fd387a60cbe24b4b3c0d071e74ad
d393cd5c9f80d4107c2a3765af8fc3291c595eee
8338 F20101106_AABUKT mullin_c_Page_035thm.jpg
c84ddd4a49bc36f1503ac60f7b272327
0c2853d7b7bbb09f5adf819384443a8fd1cb1c0d
36359 F20101106_AABULI mullin_c_Page_010.QC.jpg
8b819fcab4efc583a6bd3b6c46c6ce02
ece8b1b6f7a678ae52d61c815e5ab4b680a75379
8051 F20101106_AABUKU mullin_c_Page_067thm.jpg
cc1edacf450ad28b5950588a0fe06440
12febaf8c8991ce26336b48e90c027135632a80b
7953 F20101106_AABULJ mullin_c_Page_026thm.jpg
26af93e5f502592239f4acc3aafe2dca
3a77fcaad2bfeee3283fcabd36942337808a175b
18712 F20101106_AABUKV mullin_c_Page_110.QC.jpg
7ecc6fa9e942eff5f24dcb9ae3b54938
79f04839ef2031a35a7eb391038da98023ae11ff
9823 F20101106_AABULK mullin_c_Page_088.QC.jpg
95bcc6a49f3a072d4599f7682d3e6ad0
20319aaa1bc25eac26f1c9f5082693cf4a4ce2fc
36747 F20101106_AABUKW mullin_c_Page_030.QC.jpg
d85673303a3db4e89259b9b65a5e8062
39c1a83d14580cb086703b7b6d8042c8009c4d3d
6036 F20101106_AABULL mullin_c_Page_005thm.jpg
8bad306ad9308369f092c52cd3b3dc1c
a5f1f5cd04463dd006044b762b4c863723340840
8046 F20101106_AABUKX mullin_c_Page_052thm.jpg
638b3241c6d88eef702a46f69e8da12b
d2d6b4804869c5151f3330d443ff79aa949e794d
31613 F20101106_AABUMA mullin_c_Page_052.QC.jpg
ebda22e1414e8e64f0baca68fbd8811d
165d65f2b773c9af711c843f4afc45f3e4689386
8677 F20101106_AABULM mullin_c_Page_092thm.jpg
9b2614bce235a67973e9f22ccfbc7e5c
16e6019b663ba46f11605772b810a7011be76715
8684 F20101106_AABUKY mullin_c_Page_028thm.jpg
9963f975420de49625a42fe7e0c843f3
db0272e77f19d11fd982bcebc3454ac63dcb55f5
4382 F20101106_AABUMB mullin_c_Page_048thm.jpg
a9b468627300a5c5269c78c52fc73a18
293dc5a623df3de97743eb1fd9f6a9e1a1a98df4
35097 F20101106_AABULN mullin_c_Page_032.QC.jpg
5ae6fc71add5e5f465adde51c315cb93
e31101cbf268d225a20ab93b6aab20afc40221d1
11265 F20101106_AABUKZ mullin_c_Page_100.QC.jpg
6e2ce76ee12d1ca16317b46f1021c962
6e700c2e1af86fb84db67716ab0de450dd316077
4225 F20101106_AABTJA mullin_c_Page_098thm.jpg
78d558846e5b4d2ecac1ad7d2b3210fe
3df80097c8d0933c02456ad00268e38cb301e091
F20101106_AABUMC mullin_c_Page_063thm.jpg
c60e50297ac47cec34032f6cfc802b84
cb3e5ecde0c8523d4b1d7627ecc2fb7fa24654f1
33980 F20101106_AABULO mullin_c_Page_096.QC.jpg
aefa17448bfcca93bdb3f463f1820a2c
a9f262993dce4b6a1e88ae6a1a1dbb2f7fd95040
38566 F20101106_AABULP mullin_c_Page_015.QC.jpg
2563ff9dedaa5a9fb34c905bdeca198e
8e6b8cc5b8e6f3165507091ad7a110d7eba2e99d
36574 F20101106_AABTJB mullin_c_Page_039.QC.jpg
5f0109f75133a05f4334a34d5b816462
47968e6dd7fdb2fbf6124f7a9b22bd8257d32a4f
8477 F20101106_AABUMD mullin_c_Page_019thm.jpg
0c97ec6d9dafc42010a2020add66986e
96ecab6e65086ef197588d770a794b3b3b5fbd4d
581 F20101106_AABULQ mullin_c_Page_002thm.jpg
f6a6a161cf6c84c3ad37a254af719c38
eb674bdbeb20fcb02dbbd712d210500a8bc25e6c
56175 F20101106_AABTJC mullin_c_Page_056.pro
1bb4a0815b0b6d7e0967ab01cc83f02f
1724a658f121a77da84a3ab6e75e8a588ca108f7
2320 F20101106_AABUME mullin_c_Page_076thm.jpg
afc1dece247dbb8b0809537ac376cca5
8c7905e7299e14e999d0f88c21ab5ab823085cd4
32817 F20101106_AABULR mullin_c_Page_036.QC.jpg
c1da8bda031892c2fd5b45b2de4b96ae
8a40fedf13e72ed09ecabd9b6269794b0f203131
8190 F20101106_AABTJD mullin_c_Page_070thm.jpg
7e7febf719b5cdfad47ab3581bc5f47f
1368e589488c11e230b5276a34fc48ba74b4fb07
33699 F20101106_AABUMF mullin_c_Page_040.QC.jpg
f06dacd8c86f1c4298d1bb61ca0bae50
a35b716277065aaae0a538937e67bb6caf67995a
3626 F20101106_AABULS mullin_c_Page_075thm.jpg
3be52d08203186373e91db2165880312
9e3ae32d6e1d8cafb4192b7ce0b5a11869289e59
635 F20101106_AABTJE mullin_c_Page_025.txt
b548c8d8136cd5f67e007170282661e4
1a3c7e834fc64604d3e94cb3f6eda3a81f5663a9
24176 F20101106_AABUMG mullin_c_Page_005.QC.jpg
f7bf75a4741d2014582b476966a6972f
061266ea7acc1a44cc6653f261767854345e54d6
1051932 F20101106_AABTIR mullin_c_Page_031.jp2
817a2fd2cedb3269f47e479ccfb51502
978bab81cdbbaf3f7ab2a9302e1b6c9aa5f74445
8967 F20101106_AABULT mullin_c_Page_037thm.jpg
b01ab59d91b40b4f0515622aaec2c847
d6e67539a8047a8684e4328b1dc776b91f67a76a
7572 F20101106_AABTJF mullin_c_Page_085.QC.jpg
edc867ec07c9bcffd0a924466b076813
22fc63ed84fb1b06ee0f84cbdcad9306a4ec9062
4987 F20101106_AABUMH mullin_c_Page_077thm.jpg
f586ff19b787a0d2855d905cfd4e0f34
43d8369d98aca36a5663204aedacb803f1370e3b
34884 F20101106_AABTIS mullin_c_Page_018.QC.jpg
83788fbe239302acf96a5f6d900b5b0a
cf1616c73305ce5644c2edcf53a00fe860c25536
34864 F20101106_AABULU mullin_c_Page_028.QC.jpg
1ced5f7e82c8b2c81cc320ce0187b46d
8328a3628d0483aeb1cc9cdeb3f19aef61ca30e5
6260 F20101106_AABTJG mullin_c_Page_074thm.jpg
3aa84f64e45360d4625ac5322dc1d30b
34fd6ac8b88f4008278ee0b8778bfe9e49440d28
9162 F20101106_AABUMI mullin_c_Page_102thm.jpg
8dc0414bafba967875f19d979f2c70fb
e2f319239486c0266feeefb80449e61eaddda07f
481480 F20101106_AABTIT mullin_c_Page_078.jp2
3792355b345acb7259fc8a1e11228d28
b38d3967609ffb2f4598dadf83ea479793926ac2
13556 F20101106_AABULV mullin_c_Page_079.QC.jpg
1a166e7a61a3a91dab40c0ef95b53cec
8473e3a219440271f6b48c1b8decb41513748cba
19900 F20101106_AABTJH mullin_c_Page_085.jpg
9243a6e897bf5c24c344defebae4cda7
5942e655bbd6f08a4772d202c43c51629016f8dd
31392 F20101106_AABUMJ mullin_c_Page_067.QC.jpg
e09a4af60caaa94973f4e2a17e38b897
b528d5ca17be7cf301678bdf4e39fbb295bec64c
37795 F20101106_AABTIU mullin_c_Page_101.QC.jpg
5eae764dddd678179f8ab88c4cd01057
1fd36e7144f4d4449681c9c845df0fb2aeefacab
8805 F20101106_AABULW mullin_c_Page_015thm.jpg
59366f6ed5971ff8d10d762404967b41
9f658d20a1f4ad2ac221e188688cbd2508e234c8
35057 F20101106_AABTJI mullin_c_Page_055.QC.jpg
5d9ab5778ad1bfde82689078d01924ce
5ccdf90ce5743c23d937d957f8e0cd63ebdb6ec8
8333 F20101106_AABUMK mullin_c_Page_069thm.jpg
e616f57853c8202ed8d14cf277277205
567d73a3b56eea88205c427fc5150943cf2a3ded
112560 F20101106_AABTIV mullin_c_Page_069.jpg
64509bc738c79f9b46588f7fea5d4970
c7529be861d257002f508d7d03a28f7d829bad88
13553 F20101106_AABULX mullin_c_Page_098.QC.jpg
23ee34b30c4408997fcbc72bd1ab2ffb
0efb47798cca417cf5ca85ff0cf94f27f19738a5
470621 F20101106_AABTJJ mullin_c_Page_025.jp2
e57b873332213b7cfe7e1e7db60299ca
407dc46bf4545562b82056a8e4ed6818030ac8dc
6146 F20101106_AABUML mullin_c_Page_111.QC.jpg
8d1d38dd82406e5f908a06de4676d1df
1d768dc5871e2784a0830babc6399a83ea638e4b
827157 F20101106_AABTIW mullin_c_Page_009.jp2
214185fa19ad9666294753ecf1fb9e3a
534187aa4c5566430fd8052405dc9693a1c9eb9f
10602 F20101106_AABULY mullin_c_Page_099.QC.jpg
a8324576de160cc03dd46f596ac1409b
38ed44e80b3bb5df8c5c9424b7d4e15b4604f79a
51882 F20101106_AABTJK mullin_c_Page_104.pro
6011e2c8ccdc998a7d6961572ec845d9
d804c73f4da2ef7d563d3a95bf7c279ce6c13ede
10857 F20101106_AABUMM mullin_c_Page_072.QC.jpg
ba180573435ea67279b7b80229658ea3
8fb1c34f6d2802e916e9fc5f0cbbe4f3b8954c9f
425945 F20101106_AABTIX mullin_c_Page_076.jp2
d3291bcc90a7b29e6e93fadb10be5911
50653859c6432c8a9fe5e9d3ce70cf23d7e18214
37189 F20101106_AABULZ mullin_c_Page_041.QC.jpg
4ce599fcad233886a53c631f8e20f904
f84e44230eadbf04ff5d61edf6b9a4bf390efb37
250 F20101106_AABTKA mullin_c_Page_061.txt
d2c9fdb384421d9a3db8b30eabfa89c0
6c85734cccae87bd16557c832bfcb84173f4a231
763 F20101106_AABTJL mullin_c_Page_071.txt
e01facb84bed4fb877af727ce1a08ee4
a2866b28c4b1e316ccc7861106b2832c990f8d6b
31639 F20101106_AABUMN mullin_c_Page_035.QC.jpg
f5d1fa57a40a03865a3c990fffd1051f
8da493b147f956505f0749d1a4cdce588f36cd5d
2525 F20101106_AABTIY mullin_c_Page_109.txt
b7da61c27950751bb53f6e767750a1e4
0cedfa346550b41cb6e38f10b1a396f4235b3a1b
54295 F20101106_AABTKB mullin_c_Page_027.pro
b8bb46cfcedc5c9af62b2895bd22e34c
18184666ff60192cdb6ded5bdc455a8590a50e0d
1051968 F20101106_AABTJM mullin_c_Page_026.jp2
5fff86c8c29bbc62aa37e66bc3f5c424
e9bf8df45b3687c5f503246cb2904516bfb01848
167111 F20101106_AABUMO UFE0022188_00001.xml
ae1250c72ae081b4f4cddc526523098e
159f04604d0edfd9d9674838dae839c5f7f93e4e
F20101106_AABTIZ mullin_c_Page_027.jp2
462ca5a681411a1edd1b70ec31efddfa
7f23e19716717e93bc6a68375a823074a9a160e9
F20101106_AABTJN mullin_c_Page_042.QC.jpg
e5e9b3a46d6279f38571d62c35a61b07
871445f57553e719086f86073f090a0685d226be
34384 F20101106_AABUMP mullin_c_Page_011.QC.jpg
e525648219843acbdcafc97a3da42b89
1a1275fc2fc7af9470f7cb38fd232159f1ece3db
F20101106_AABTKC mullin_c_Page_110.tif
4259de2bb403917832646a6621a6dbc9
47023333f67d807e1aca9f1ec4737ab9d809d590
F20101106_AABTJO mullin_c_Page_015.jp2
622c74e53781fd646ad420f8d7fdf382
a257e3878c0f5c33c6314bff55576cae178f9861
8386 F20101106_AABUMQ mullin_c_Page_012thm.jpg
91a0fd50025bd2c890b17f3f16c7f840
08cb64e5f52937b5ead9f718a48faa317657fa75
1051964 F20101106_AABTKD mullin_c_Page_005.jp2
6ff436627a59fbcfaeac9a27b5340064
bc4ee3032cf30c5495dff5d0921abf13b29a9c14
2120 F20101106_AABTJP mullin_c_Page_093.txt
ba98455dc10f095cbe938cab0c422e47
b32408b5192d9e4bb7882489feffeef7e261607b
3880 F20101106_AABUMR mullin_c_Page_023thm.jpg
74cb505d1e13bbc3109d7be17dee2a4c
28c9162f288d51dc6aac8940afded7daf90b200f
F20101106_AABTKE mullin_c_Page_096.tif
4a94be34c21d4f983b416756798fe35c
9b65076109c5bd38ecac8db0c824da7ac35ac059
105363 F20101106_AABTJQ mullin_c_Page_096.jpg
2759fef26b5328007d0eafdd3f014a07
6c69a0e62abed762b11055007c63451dc2be9201
34505 F20101106_AABUMS mullin_c_Page_060.QC.jpg
b226bf9fe34505ed75aa944ee230bd53
f66c952e189acab2fd8cd47e293e98d273fd75f3
8217 F20101106_AABTKF mullin_c_Page_013thm.jpg
eab95af2a13e5965146ad1e46dfdd19f
eba8cdcf7e9ee4030178ff83fb45db595c29482a
36502 F20101106_AABTJR mullin_c_Page_017.QC.jpg
8cf6dddd163fbb35b3f8b7c3c3c2bf79
cce4667282d06cde1bf4d7c28ec46a0b6bc5e60d
31878 F20101106_AABTKG mullin_c_Page_046.QC.jpg
3a2c2dbc35f065b53b89cabe25a43bc7
356527694878cd644078bf54251e822afaf0b8df
5760 F20101106_AABTJS mullin_c_Page_049.pro
67945227e62da143a7e164e87513f13f
b0539d22b189577a0b140251678f0e1f17924ce7
19086 F20101106_AABTKH mullin_c_Page_073.QC.jpg
c053e91db4ab7823eb6e3813a57cb6e7
f38cca055b42b7765c54552d74d3e11a0eeefc87
116116 F20101106_AABTJT mullin_c_Page_016.jpg
f7a00a08e79dbee1b62a6581a7f1a350
352772e659ad55dda41fd725f96a0d6eabfaa224
29607 F20101106_AABTKI mullin_c_Page_110.pro
7830b829fac4f91bdfe83744d277a2dc
0b721058b626db0b9977b9a6f1a71a6eb1ff59d5
30128 F20101106_AABTJU mullin_c_Page_059.QC.jpg
cab73610714fefeec69bb0c592186337
bf33d914563a7b8b2da5779fc3b67a11017b50e7
37978 F20101106_AABTKJ mullin_c_Page_072.jpg
94463add7512eaf0787a56cce25b029a
0b66bbcf1e84902289180344941b0af8d59d9386
20350 F20101106_AABTJV mullin_c_Page_111.jpg
21e8f7955d0438dda6dbb9231951bb89
705b8060633c5a227443347dffb06c7966ae3d5e
96374 F20101106_AABTKK mullin_c_Page_046.jpg
ff62bb0524d13c207a63b1650c237be4
83573f81345f05ba8d62410650761ddc78792d4d
7468 F20101106_AABTJW mullin_c_Page_084.pro
128e4885b5434760cfe585cc50210b77
b3901adc5d921690636c659453259a2e34cff00d
F20101106_AABTLA mullin_c_Page_016thm.jpg
4e89a9a267f2ac2c170678b4f110a6be
6127fe6efa74291bae553ed07776dce33670c308
12913 F20101106_AABTKL mullin_c_Page_022.QC.jpg
a00bfa3bff663efbf20b3a7bfe36ddf8
27f68b10730044b84ebfaef7250f23d7a60255c7
F20101106_AABTJX mullin_c_Page_002.tif
2515c10814b4118f090dd50a6bec4d8f
36a50e7449d52e2cb0ed99a7458b24887454f6d4
9079 F20101106_AABTLB mullin_c_Page_038thm.jpg
1da1f50b15e23388937118378ce759ed
4be96c16990328a9b3130cd87f62c3281ad40428
60364 F20101106_AABTKM mullin_c_Page_108.pro
240e786b00c923b1ae2fd67c8b21fe57
dd0ce8b0d13fd94e167e14cc0c7be9d7f01f8c40
36180 F20101106_AABTJY mullin_c_Page_092.QC.jpg
a1d3b053b57394c82af715c05288725b
065ae76eed1350478dedeb6c0dca435109461552
4920 F20101106_AABTLC mullin_c_Page_083.pro
3a3054a008d58f6fec71858a9edcbc83
3726f3cd339bef40269615f99a98ed3c892528bb
968 F20101106_AABTKN mullin_c_Page_079.txt
485b36cd8c783961fd1b9c23a3dc6874
f0b7fbd3049d6355eebb4c5fe3b5b658b2a0208e
F20101106_AABTJZ mullin_c_Page_081.tif
8908a1eb57f7241df37ee03efc734bd5
c902b49059d6bcc85fcd9cc45c0737904b118658
F20101106_AABTKO mullin_c_Page_102.jp2
72fe0d4924ce25f11c71300b466f9587
4422b1e8b6f7e34cdfca8609d0e06330bc3d1b4a
F20101106_AABTLD mullin_c_Page_019.txt
af4a315582fe4dd2989883c0c21b0687
4e40f27ad1e9090eb63c2af9d4f4242c6c38ad89
1051962 F20101106_AABTKP mullin_c_Page_037.jp2
0c685f0df842a3f8c7ac478bdd2a459e
fd315417aaa2634abccdade8507a185a90fe76fc
35390 F20101106_AABTLE mullin_c_Page_025.jpg
9084bfdd7c76d51d0b419fd85bb2e005
582fc294a47d986eb53d397899fce56a80d055e6
2399 F20101106_AABTKQ mullin_c_Page_014.txt
cf345f9ccd2fd82c5fa6060b949c39cb
cd2721c4e1d9990a8fe13adae5c49b206ba7db27
22485 F20101106_AABTLF mullin_c_Page_083.jpg
bd352e18f5e3c9a7b0a8dd81c8302cff
cc3ff5f6c70dae09a3a5f15e73889470e441ef8c
F20101106_AABTKR mullin_c_Page_043.tif
38f844dfd151eb3581859acc9783b16f
b253a7e39a79d9708a13728b21c2787d9ca16ccc
112245 F20101106_AABTLG mullin_c_Page_041.jpg
4673e7e72d2533e636ed1abdc610aa23
c5d3f9d761ebce91b0f8a52eca381039a9195695
F20101106_AABTKS mullin_c_Page_038.tif
b7588318e36bf9a7ef0ad13974d11293
0c48af15cd82486efd2661070240db9a40a29146
8325 F20101106_AABTLH mullin_c_Page_042thm.jpg
d98829702a1a531c2a77ad048e252448
b2e8b216c892a49e65993422cf09a23b4a525580
8503 F20101106_AABTKT mullin_c_Page_095thm.jpg
9aa759b3f367a63944bf71b6e99b5081
f58ef8936bc9016d514468042c4d92c40bd0b03c
45243 F20101106_AABTLI mullin_c_Page_064.pro
3746acff8e242b24cec830afefc5f58a
f7d934d4f618b8061582bdd3d7eae412d4f4faf9
F20101106_AABTKU mullin_c_Page_091.tif
d615a596efb4c98b629835ccc0a4fa80
b333bcf55b0a468deddff02c1b3045ac6be82f5c
8961 F20101106_AABTLJ mullin_c_Page_039thm.jpg
5592f50fc5431c5c5fc7d58c5299fd87
791331e2e9b4a54d880d8d9c18be4e8583f57828
F20101106_AABTKV mullin_c_Page_058.jp2
4b6b79b2fd4105019edc6e88b2099720
d9011ad2359d34e0734d5d1a4194c665cb3e99bc
1045 F20101106_AABTKW mullin_c_Page_003.QC.jpg
1e18b98d25ff08fa1c4c684b9d163ec5
2496dbba9d577f665102a90d673f19d7e1f1c532
F20101106_AABTLK mullin_c_Page_087.tif
027b53467d0594b44cd1a64b9c1f1801
a6b86c737a2e502ea258f3b673cdb6303a2c64e3
99354 F20101106_AABTKX mullin_c_Page_065.jpg
618d8dfb6359880ba7acf5f66cf985a0
843aa7e35d34966d994eca99a98c6ad987f3a82c
38137 F20101106_AABTMA mullin_c_Page_033.QC.jpg
098deb77b9f625da057637e4e5f5aeda
0c7e38609dd67e04e7d225cd3327098c943f4020
115855 F20101106_AABTLL mullin_c_Page_066.jpg
e6c15cbe4d33dc0bf7dcebe81b24aef3
844bca2ea436f7f120b21838ddc151e68d45a484
F20101106_AABTKY mullin_c_Page_059.tif
1d185b678ea32ce9f18142d784b14bd5
f2ba1ed7c5d7f2989cb5a5c86f425f66e08a1e6c
F20101106_AABTMB mullin_c_Page_010.jp2
60974529551d400de10520e91fa8b476
9459f38c4a6e2c25d0d2d8b3e4ecd0b1bf9a1f52
8307 F20101106_AABTLM mullin_c_Page_018thm.jpg
d92c5ab887d7adbd201c67f176a9bdae
1d0640bcd59c5c6aa94c9018b8bfc541d1c6dbeb
272356 F20101106_AABTKZ mullin_c_Page_088.jp2
e9039166d428388c5b749c92bbcbd381
8f39d9ddd630c00d080d7d726d3d8e83b53b1885
37484 F20101106_AABTMC mullin_c_Page_105.QC.jpg
e5a59d151e8c30d13a0d4c9c94455ebf
db9988d30ec51a17b308961215eb80b6a8353b0a
7414 F20101106_AABTLN mullin_c_Page_081.QC.jpg
038e0c6368303acaf72e468675128a69
51cc1aab8a0a1a92b1ba9af5f83e333dbdecb16c
1051935 F20101106_AABTMD mullin_c_Page_029.jp2
b833c699415ded0e6bff96a56ac88e40
37bc5a0781aa01448eb58b4500dbcdb35f414e70
8284 F20101106_AABTLO mullin_c_Page_043thm.jpg
fdb8f9430b8dc17c0886d2338855aa53
deedae85676eeaa361b18b13ea71ad03d346923c
36614 F20101106_AABTLP mullin_c_Page_066.QC.jpg
ed6bb8ec8f78c6e8ec1b7bbcf800cff9
6f6db6d944befd3768c3e3d4bab679e9981b093f
1051936 F20101106_AABTME mullin_c_Page_109.jp2
5d413eb5e1717027fd9672c24a611a53
e4b7580c707130fb4b1c23018708d45df82afb78
228870 F20101106_AABTLQ mullin_c_Page_099.jp2
7d073f23a415db43fcafbb42ef3ce69a
4ac65322b8c324549c131aa93b192a35ad7f1b06
66302 F20101106_AABTMF mullin_c_Page_015.pro
e36d7ed69db90c35b10921b11788b5e0
2e77294d3e4933d0d8b4242f2bf45746ace1426d
117134 F20101106_AABTLR mullin_c_Page_103.jpg
170fd73e64a139ae845a04428619582c
5364767dd792a5f90c8c94d6e3a6d16548bca556
108112 F20101106_AABTMG mullin_c_Page_093.jpg
141a8c5c0e1373a92f50211eb01b8dbd
18ac10c834ac8127fc138a5bef7e7bfde2a8a211
7789 F20101106_AABTLS mullin_c_Page_064thm.jpg
542e89bcdf5e0f8d99345fd4a937d4f0
82dd270ad21b0b138ed6445bba2167078b4e30a7
1051886 F20101106_AABTMH mullin_c_Page_101.jp2
b75f1eb182a614b7440c2e744275a602
d7f99170eccc06762df1d899c496b057fe7bdf6c
24996 F20101106_AABTLT mullin_c_Page_063.jpg
40895c51e25833da13f4f61126c4da19
0c5725bc728ae99f1757aaa65058df81b806f463
F20101106_AABTMI mullin_c_Page_053.jp2
0f854b47d0533dfee27d81b5f38d888f
93bdd5f567ad55ce388cd5263130fe272b79c6bd
8263 F20101106_AABTLU mullin_c_Page_082.QC.jpg
b36e11b84024e1d100e79f4d85ee4e36
89f05ba721a9ddc9fd936ac1a29e9c1191066e03
64087 F20101106_AABTMJ mullin_c_Page_075.pro
e48f1b000a3ce4d1304d638fb294ad9f
6efbc9ab141086efd53d6c0ab430b955ebb42793
15632 F20101106_AABTLV mullin_c_Page_048.QC.jpg
178532190b89b7726119b361135b4651
6de001b18157154a1ed4d92f2a0ef9e6e4ad52ca
484 F20101106_AABTMK mullin_c_Page_021.txt
8f20b3093087e422581b540f78867b38
fe0a6c887f11d07d0885a075883251171ab1cd3b
F20101106_AABTLW mullin_c_Page_108.tif
ea8e9696ee86be838aa54fd1ee7b2074
9a8871e305346d7d66efe3eef322ac0fc15269f8
65496 F20101106_AABTNA mullin_c_Page_110.jpg
4878118532b05f150e84f96294d18535
ff47f59a486f9d04bb84dd1006b9e013f9009117
407034 F20101106_AABTML mullin_c_Page_047.jp2
2aed3eafdd0d1eec78c627768b86734b
3fb8eb3eb9e88a56aea303daadbd8c51c1f308a7
346484 F20101106_AABTLX mullin_c_Page_022.jp2
13f0ca3992ecf7dd9ae2a6745e1d4184
b84f9cec3ead7f8692845c123793414941ae19f2
4184 F20101106_AABTNB mullin_c_Page_090.pro
d189395153848d5d8ccfc9385a8743c0
9133938e31fbdae4daed0e87c686f696780286a3
21711 F20101106_AABTMM mullin_c_Page_062.jpg
fa9308b3881d10e921aae25fe5bcd29e
a72d1c514dfffed7617c66e480107d8a9069a778
8640 F20101106_AABTLY mullin_c_Page_084.QC.jpg
c51fd6380f58d27b84c6a68fe95998de
2cc002ed098a89ab9eb7e313975195d691e81020
20357 F20101106_AABTNC mullin_c_Page_077.QC.jpg
72ebf76999a383a4f5aff703cde580a5
0ea329ed817bc3dff7fb2016204ac9ea55a8712a
F20101106_AABTMN mullin_c_Page_005.tif
de0262cbddfedf0d94dc99fa18a5a9c9
0a5ed1bc4ffd8b0177759ea0f02db2389b946aa1
102155 F20101106_AABTLZ mullin_c_Page_053.jpg
de3c5b4ee37fd02b9ac844119f43e262
9c32ba2ac66275df9d53b427225d078746b2dd3d
34391 F20101106_AABTND mullin_c_Page_031.QC.jpg
f7f06d4e3dcdface487e6a0c6ea17ed5
00b8bb0526351422afbfedbb9ea5712a31394b08
34177 F20101106_AABTMO mullin_c_Page_019.QC.jpg
fdb8fc1dca3df6149cc62dc7d1843531
88399708d84b2d77aea08f294f4760058f4b0166
8660 F20101106_AABTNE mullin_c_Page_010thm.jpg
7e87b4a4939a7f760fcfef2ea5e1e10c
ecffd12f732bdea6eb72a01f172635d05f27605c
F20101106_AABTMP mullin_c_Page_106.tif
9d555bdfc42c76352c99408df6d361c6
5ef6d78bad2d0da119134e22ec868b27de22d10c
1620 F20101106_AABTMQ mullin_c_Page_009.txt
9348306f61e9e9fc1ea665c34a216027
972f15ccb3564264170ba4af59b0b8b723a44aa6
F20101106_AABTNF mullin_c_Page_089.tif
df1b3d18f3ec4df131ef0ad50c65ccc8
42c8ccceffd9542fe90b8aa11d5135dd29d4b1e8
3924 F20101106_AABTMR mullin_c_Page_022thm.jpg
6ed22a7c1b6ffe1e58f5f32b818e90ef
0d14b44a874fb6b1c138feb5fb0c28ea129721d1
56869 F20101106_AABTNG mullin_c_Page_037.pro
d0c595097968372f7e204caa97d56232
3c96a121b44518957fb7c21963165594d4cf9823
24050 F20101106_AABTMS mullin_c_Page_024.jpg
45de43fe08e60380a4e82d188a8be888
e6c0d952a66d5a749e701670875772c789c882de
3273 F20101106_AABTNH mullin_c_Page_021thm.jpg
bfd5dd92cdd0186ff8d678b150c492b4
ad5756be53d5433d6d89104166f32d90a37cc9d3
122722 F20101106_AABTMT mullin_c_Page_054.jpg
97f4311524fb5906feeeb35547148133
50362b2a56050f149846239d77720ddd1e9c0137
111228 F20101106_AABTNI mullin_c_Page_029.jpg
1a08c6c9f24e8aa6b8ec0c2c5b2f527e
2bc0b7f3dabf7a6bc344f0f5cd71ac15a4465654
8491 F20101106_AABTMU mullin_c_Page_087.QC.jpg
5602405af25da45022ec6658b6addb3d
85ed309d54079159958b568018efa8e5c5c5b3c0
30319 F20101106_AABTNJ mullin_c_Page_089.jpg
f939be9fb870388bc22d032d110b7e00
c3706f266cc02577f2eca08a5f7b87278b9f5e90
15470 F20101106_AABTMV mullin_c_Page_075.QC.jpg
8c5951ac99898d6a70b077fddf7c83ae
050080ccb2ad41aef4d3907d5ac3f75f061d0b6a
F20101106_AABTNK mullin_c_Page_054.tif
29e5692fe1a83fbad67f3140775011d4
5ba30e465442246ee4103d4f43e6701ea18101c1
625 F20101106_AABTMW mullin_c_Page_003.pro
a3fc5128e6e197b906ed6c4af2f8b3ac
c0c59339eb68e2126aeb3a9364c4cc85b7356080
147519 F20101106_AABTNL mullin_c_Page_050.jp2
914d7122287e4ba07b4e19ae5e69511a
1bb2bfc5810691bfe3b92223e888ddbf73cd9e2c
759 F20101106_AABTMX mullin_c_Page_088.txt
a2c09910d0cb339c05b5f4c28de3b879
be79b55a25778c1ea98a92fab682e5f8bef941a5
30840 F20101106_AABTOA mullin_c_Page_100.jpg
8e81d898e3b9b762c4b85201e351042b
ef17b37ab3890823244d102d9c4a145ebaf7c5c3
F20101106_AABTNM mullin_c_Page_094.jp2
d1d61d14890385c0a024bdc093479fc3
f5ab706a0d509a7729be1c086cef9021930c38d5
36547 F20101106_AABTMY mullin_c_Page_102.QC.jpg
8f4567c1a2c4773de31231612fc99d61
f37bf3d47e71161c346ed9963f7a0b931b25eef8
3173 F20101106_AABTOB mullin_c_Page_025thm.jpg
d089d8657167cb718f9fb94eab81af7e
734bcf194e75fe91b116dccb5d5974c4d4ccc13a
F20101106_AABTNN mullin_c_Page_100.tif
2234ba73b5f816dbd1b75f24c73bc634
8411e15b97ff300690400a72130dbd0c15d1d69b
1883 F20101106_AABTMZ mullin_c_Page_067.txt
ce872c44eec06ca558fe42a7912d4688
5bf969baafec97466bf6b84ccdb1a830cf37fc65
34927 F20101106_AABTOC mullin_c_Page_013.QC.jpg
5587000c3ce8dbb15be1c9676f5b2f12
e3ca50b7a26eeb84c44359a859580f47e3a2dc62
34741 F20101106_AABTNO mullin_c_Page_012.QC.jpg
680e1072c86503e9535d585b1047e028
01fed2ae82c6ea099bf9b9dc4f441e7170e197bf
9173 F20101106_AABTOD mullin_c_Page_094thm.jpg
1d839ebadc416b887b71a1451a4967d8
d3c00d0b3e01e3241e41c888743d70fd4ce3d527
34628 F20101106_AABTNP mullin_c_Page_043.QC.jpg
6f549ebeccc8e0d092f3dddfb711d05c
dd8719fb69a7f6e52e06de39d47b1c18f915c73f
37224 F20101106_AABTOE mullin_c_Page_108.QC.jpg
ec7e2800680bedd488dc3ff253fad03a
413cd7d8bfa2468f931a04cfc57d1088ccb5f32a
347 F20101106_AABTNQ mullin_c_Page_024.txt
6fc820f17f7bb057f915bd1f306d661a
47e53edef7bfdbacf38a543771d6ce2a8cc51034
1051906 F20101106_AABTOF mullin_c_Page_012.jp2
6f1c57d85f6e40459c4450d994e0413e
67b885a9e211d2ee7aa4b4ec69585ccac7b7f886
45507 F20101106_AABTNR mullin_c_Page_067.pro
f56fe1f7a944d8e96417fb959f2d4933
d8c78f21788a95b37fe316897c2c22d258dd6c43
F20101106_AABTNS mullin_c_Page_074.tif
680c35ca729b0d7cfa3e348f54e8d41a
6783678d98326894c41ec63d17eb3867c3ff8a2f
230173 F20101106_AABTOG mullin_c_Page_063.jp2
b317b35f0d9304639fdbb3e43fab4da2
9e7438ae5152277962de9c0cd26f7b961af9f223
57256 F20101106_AABTNT mullin_c_Page_013.pro
2ccb37d2fb77b5970b58532c7e368d41
292a1fd7735e214b7e4fdcc70056f0fb195174bd
12972 F20101106_AABTOH mullin_c_Page_022.pro
9416c64fe808e29765211c3a18f7aa77
ee7ac9f5a03bfda23b55d2ce1f45b279b3b4b3ed
24682 F20101106_AABTNU mullin_c_Page_097.QC.jpg
9c6e19d470c533fdba303f44dbc4d0e2
a942410b7ea0839c709f6a3a66b65a0d79a4223b
93010 F20101106_AABTOI mullin_c_Page_051.jpg
f4028c7df08d17678757d1c6c6f315de
0580040da72689d6a3199f1a3db0fbc3120d809f







RELATIONSHIP OF ENROLLMENT TO THE TUITION AND FEE DIFFERENCE RATIO
AND STATE RESOURCES BETWEEN 1960 AND 2000





















By

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL MULLIN


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2008

































2008 Christopher Michael Mullin




























To my family.









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank my family for their support as I pursued education beyond that which was

compulsory. I thank my advisor for the knowledge, skills and memories. I thank my committee

for their support of my research and invaluable contributions of their expertise. Lastly, I thank

the office staff in the Department of Educational Administration and Policy for all their support

and friendship.









TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ..............................................................................................................4

L IST O F T A B L E S ......................................... ................................................ . 7

LIST OF FIGURES .................................. .. ..... ..... ................. .8

ABSTRAC T .........................................................................................

CHAPTER

1 IN TR OD U CTION .......................................................................... .. ... .... 10

Era of O rganization....................... .. ..................... .. .......... .............. 11
Participation via Localized Institutions ........................................................................... 12
Stratifying Tuition and Fees ....................................................................................... 13
Enrollm ent and Increasing Tuition and Fees ............................................................... 15
State R sources .............................................. 17
Purpose of the Study ............... ............... .......... ......................... .... 18
D definition of T erm s ...... .... ................................ ...................... ........ .. .. ............. 19

2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............................................... ............................. 26

A access and State Structures ........................................................... ..... ............... 26
State M aster Plans .................... ..............................................27
Balance of a Public Postsecondary Education System................................. ...............29
Student Price R response ........ .......... .... .. .. ............................. .......................... 31
Philosophies Guiding Tuition and Fee Policy ................................................. ..........33
Tuition Differentiations ................................. ............ ........ .... ...............3 5
Institutional R ationales .......... ..... .. ............................. ........... ..... .....36
F federal A action s ........................................................ ...................39
Tuition and Fees and Enrollm ent .................................. ...........................................40
State R sources ................... ..................... .................. ......... 41
E educational A ttainm ent .................................................... ............... ...............42
Incom e and the A ability to P ay ......... ................. .........................................................43
Conceptual Framework............................... .. ... ..... ..............45

3 M ETHODOLOGY .............................. ... ....... .................. ............. 51

R research Q question ............................................................................. 5 1
Research Hypothesis............. .... .. ........................... ..... .......51
D ata Sum m ary ...............................................................................52
P o p u latio n ...................................... .................................... ................5 2
V ariables of Interest ................ ... ......................... ......... ........ ................. .. 52









D e sig n ................... ...................5...................7..........
M o d el 1 .............. ..................................................................... 5 7
M o d e l 2 ..................................................................................5 8
D ata T re a tm e n t .................................................................................................................. 5 9
L im itatio n s ................... ...................5...................9..........

4 R E S U L T S .............................................................................................6 4

M o d e l 1 ............................................................................6 4
M o d e l 2 ............................................................................6 8

5 C O N C L U S IO N .................................................................................................................. 9 1

Discussion of the Results ................................. ............................. ........91
Significance of A association ........................................................................................ 9 1
F orty -Y ear T ren d s .........................................................................92
Directions for Future Research .................................. .......................... .... ......95
Implications for State Planning ............................................................96

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ...................................................................................................10 1

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................................................................... ........111
































6









LIST OF TABLES

Table page

2-1 R ationales for increased costs............................................................................. ...... 47

3-1 States without a public community college system, by year ...........................................62

3-2 Conditional mean imputation for median family income, selected states in 1970 ............63

4-1 M odel sum m ary for M odel 1 ..................................................................... ..................72

4-2 C oefficients for M odel 1 .......................................................................... ....................73

4-3 A N O V A for M odel 1 .............................................................................. ..................... 74

4-4 D escriptive statistics for M odel 1 ........................................................... .....................74

4-5 P earson correlations for M odel 1 ............................................................ .....................75

4-6 M odel sum m ary for M odel 2 .................................................. ............................... 76

4-7 C oefficients for M odel 2 .......................................................................... ....................77

4-8 A N O V A for M odel 2 ................................................................................................78

4-9 D escriptive statistics for M odel 2 ............................................. ............................. 79

4-10 Pearson correlations for M odel 2............................................... ............................ 80









LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

1-1 Postsecondary education participation, 1910 to 1950............................................. 21

1-2 Number of public postsecondary education institutions, 1910 to 1950.............................22

1-3 Number of public postsecondary education institutions, 1933 to 2000...........................23

1-4 Tuition and fees at public postsecondary education institutions, 1933 to 1950 ................24

2-1 Difference in tuition and fees examined in the study ................................................. 49

2-2 C onceptual fram ew ork ............................................................................. ....................50

4-1 Studentized residual versus CC ENR ........................................ .......................... 81

4-2 Studentized residual versus TD R ............................................................ .....................82

4-3 Studentized residual versus M FI............................................. .............................. 83

4-4 Studentized residual versus E A .............................................................. .....................84

4-5 Studentized residual versus Y ear......... ................. .................................. ............... 85

4-6 Studentized residual versus UI ENR...... ............................................. ...............86

4-7 Studentized residual versus TD R ........... ............................ ................. ............... 87

4-8 Studentized residual versus M FI.................................. ........................ ............... 88

4-9 Studentized residual versus EA ............................................................. .....................89

4-10 Studentized residual versus Y ear......... ................. .................................. ............... 90

5.1 Forty-year trend of TDR on enrollment................. ........ .. ............... 98

5.2 Forty-year trend of MFI on enrollment............... ........... .. ...................99

5.3 Forty-year trend of EA on enrollment .............................................. ................. .. 100











8









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

RELATIONSHIP OF ENROLLMENT TO THE TUITION AND FEE DIFFERENCE RATIO
AND STATE RESOURCES BETWEEN 1960 AND 2000

By

Christopher M. Mullin

August 2008

Chair: David S. Honeyman
Major: Higher Education Administration

The literature indicated that tuition and fee prices influenced enrollment in postsecondary

education, with higher prices resulting in decreased attendance. The difference in tuition and fees

between public community colleges and undergraduate institutions, operationalized as the tuition

and fee difference ratio, was examined for its association with enrollment. The purpose of this

study was to test student price response theory by examining the degree to which the attempt to

provide access to public postsecondary education via the introduction of a lower-priced option,

with considerations of a state's resources, was associated with enrollment for the years 1960,

1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000. Results indicated that the difference in tuition and fees was not

statistically significantly related to enrollment. The general trend of the tuition and fee

difference ratio was, however, negatively associated with enrollment. Implications for state

systems were discussed.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

The provision of public postsecondary education by the states gained support from the

federal government in the late nineteenth century.1 Spurred on by a growing populist concern

for agricultural advancements, Justin Morrill introduced a bill in Congress to support the

establishment of agricultural and mechanical colleges with federal aid to the states (Roche 1986).

Up to and during this time public financial support for postsecondary education was sporadic at

best, relying heavily on student fees, private gifts and grants (Chambers 1968; Cohen 1998;

Roche 1986; Lucas 1994).

Within a context of sectional differences along economic and social lines, Abraham

Lincoln signed the Morrill Act of 1862 providing the means for states to begin operating their

own postsecondary education institutions (Anderson 1976; McDowell 2001). The purpose of

these new institutions was specified in the fourth section of the act which stated "each State

which may take and claim the benefit of this act, to the endowment, support, and maintenance of

at least one college... in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial

classes in the several professions and pursuits of life" (PL 37-108, emphasis added).

The act was an effort to extend the opportunity for education to individuals via

institutions that would reflect the unique local context and desires of each state (Eddy 1957). In

approximately twenty states the land-grant college was an addition to an already present state

1 It was the case that public funds were utilized to support a few public and private
postsecondary education institutions prior to this time. Support from private and public sources
uniquely placed the institutions as semi-public entities (Roche 1986). For example, four hundred
British pounds for the establishment of Harvard and the President of the university's salary came
from the Massachusetts General Court in 1636 and was thereafter supplemented by bank taxes
and tolls paid to cross the Charles River (Lucas 1994; Cohen 1998; Roche 1986). In another
case, tracts of land, taxes on tobacco, export duties on furs and skins and a tax on peddlers were
directed toward the establishment and maintenance of William and Mary College in 1693 (Lucas
1994; Cohen 1998; Roche 1986).









college (Brubacher and Rudy 1997). For example, Michigan had already established the

University of Michigan in 1817 when Michigan State University was chartered as a land-grant

institution in 1863 (Anderson 1976). Dunham (1969) asserted non-land-grant public colleges

and universities often started out as another type of institution such as a teachers college, a junior

college or a religious college. Throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth century

postsecondary education institutions were created with little to no federal or state guidance.

Era of Organization

The years after World War II were critical to the development of postsecondary

education in the United States. Again federal action spurred the growth of opportunity for

postsecondary education and the states had to respond.

Soldiers returning from the Second Word War were provided federal tuition vouchers,

via the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1947 (PL 346- 268, GI Bill), which were valid at any

institution, public or private, in-state or out. As such, enrollments at public postsecondary

education institutions significantly expanded along with the belief everyone could go to college

(Cohen 1998). As compared to only 2.8% of 18 to 24 year-olds attending postsecondary

education in 1910, by 1950 this percentage increased to 15 (Figure 1-1).

In 1950, the number of public institutions had expanded to include 66 land-grant

colleges, 259 other undergraduate institutions and 330 community colleges (Figure 1-2). These

institutions of various size and shape were in operation with their focus on liberal education,

teacher training and vocational education. With the encouragement of the federal government,

states began at this time to create state master plans to organize postsecondary education

institutions and create efficiencies in their operation (The Carnegie Foundation for the

Advancement of Teaching 1976; Dressel 1980; Hearn and Griswold 1994).









To meet the increased demand for participation in postsecondary education, states took

innovative action with the expansion of the two-year, public community college2 in

postsecondary education structures to provide educational opportunity (Longanecker 2007).

Termed "democracy's colleges," these institutions were believed to have brought educational

opportunity to the masses through their open-door philosophy, proximity to a state's citizens and

low-cost to the student (The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education 1970b). Medsker and

Tillery (1971) contributed three other factors to their growth: (a) training programs of various

duration and focus were needed to meet the growing job market, (b) the influx of participants

taking advantage of the GI Bill, and (c) the perspective of adults after World War II that there

was a broader world to which they belonged and should learn about.

Participation via Localized Institutions

While the ideal of increased educational opportunity via open-access institutions was

situated at the end of the Second World War (Palmer 1996), it had been suggested that universal

access to postsecondary education via the creation of localized institutions was not achieved until

the decade spanning the years 1960 to 1969 (Lingenfelter 2004; Longanecker 2007). The facts

confirmed this belief, for between 1960 and 1970 the number of community colleges grew from

412 to 909, an increase of 497 institutions or 121% (American Association of Community

Colleges n.d.), while the number of other public postsecondary education institutions remained

constant (Figure 1-3).



2 The term community college, as utilized herein, indicated an institution that offers at least
an associates of arts degree program. Institutions that did not offer an associate of arts program,
such as a technical college, were not included in this study. Historically, the community colleges
were referred to as junior colleges. The term "community college" gained prominence after its
application in Volume 1: Establishing the Goals of The Presidential Commission on Higher
Education (1947).









The increased number of community colleges allowed undergraduate public institutions

to expand in areas commensurate with increased status, such as graduate education, research, and

research funding. As a result, these undergraduate institutions could redirect less-qualified

students to community colleges by increasing their own admission standards (Cohen 1998).

Community colleges accepted their role as providers of postsecondary opportunity to those who

were of lesser income, geographically bound or older (The Carnegie Commission on Higher

Education 1970a).

A salient theme early in the evolution of the American postsecondary enterprise was the

notion of access via the material realization of localized institutions. There was no doubt that the

local proximity of community colleges was a major achievement and primary factor in the

democratization of postsecondary education (Cohen and Brawer 1996). However, as

postsecondary education institutions became accessible to the vast majority of the population via

localized, open-access institutions, a new frontier was to be drawn: access as a condition of price.

Stratifying Tuition and Fees

For the increasing number of individuals interested in pursuing postsecondary education,

community colleges were always the less expensive option. It was the case that the range in

tuition and fees3 between community colleges and undergraduate institutions nationally

narrowed from 1933 to 1956. The maximum difference in tuition and fees during this time was

$31 per 36-week academic year in 1939, with the minimum amount being $5 in 1950

(Figure 1-4).


3 Tuition, theoretically, had been conceptualized as the cost of instruction, whereas fees
applied to a service or additional cost (see Shelburne [1939] for a legal review of the
differentiation of tuition and fees). Lombardi (1973) noted "[S]ome community college
educators prefer the term fee to tuition, reflecting their uneasiness at the contradiction between
the concept of the open door and the practice of charging tuition. The use of fee may also be a
circumvention of state law that forbids tuition but permits fees" (38).









As the difference in tuition and fees between public undergraduate institutions and

community colleges equalized, the tidal wave of enrollments and accompanying federally

sponsored scholarships via the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1947 (PL 346-268, GI Bill)

ended. It was also the case at this time that other sources of income did not proportionally

increase to keep up with inflation and their increased expenditure levels (The Commission on

Financing Higher Education 1952). The decrease in GI Bill revenue in the decade of 1950-1959

concerned institutions as they had become increasingly dependent on student-oriented revenue

via augmented tuition and fee revenue and state and local appropriations contingent upon

enrollment.

With the National Education Defense Act of 1958 (PL 85-864), the federal government

had the option to extend opportunity and support to students via federal scholarship programs

first introduced in the GI Bill. However, it came to be that" in the last days before the passage

of that [NDEA] act, the provision for student loans was inserted in lieu of a plan of scholarships,

at the initiative of the conservative Eisenhower Administration" (Chambers, 1968, p. 117). The

National Defense Education Act of 1958's emphasis on fellowships4 and loan programs was a

critical juncture in the evolution of tuition and fee5 policy it contributed to the beginning of a

stratified price structure in postsecondary education (Hauptman, 1990; Callan, 2006; Thelin,

2007).


4 The focus of fellowships was on graduate education. Specifically, Title IV of the
National Defense Education Act "...funded 1,500 fellowships per year for students preparing to
teach at the college or university level" (Thelin 2007, 27).

5 Tuition and fees are examined here in the collective. While tuition had been defined as a
cost for instruction, a fee had been defined as an educational cost applied to an individual for
purposes other than instruction. A review of legal precedent supports the use of fees, other than
those used for tuition. It was observed that legal precedent had determined the prohibition or
restraint on public postsecondary education institutions in setting fees was limited only when
expressed or implied by constitutional or statutory language (Shelburne 1939).









By 1965, the equalization of tuition and fees between public postsecondary education

institution types ended, as community college tuition was half of that charged at undergraduate

institutions, with prices of $109 and $284 respectively. The twice-as-much difference continued

until the early 1990s. By 2000, the difference increased to a factor of three with the national

average price of $1333 at public community colleges and $3501 at undergraduate institutions

(Figure 1-5).

Enrollment and Increasing Tuition and Fees

The decrease in federal assistance to the student, however, did not signal the end of

increased participation by individuals and the federal government, in postsecondary education. In

the years following the introduction of the GI Bill (1950-1959), the percent of the population

enrolled in degree-granting institutions increased from 15% to 18.3% (United States Department

of Education 1972). The 3.3% increase was noticeably less than both the proceeding and

proceeding decades, with the percent of the population increasing from 8.4% in 1940 to 15% in

1950 (a 6.6% increase) and an increase from 18.3% in 1960 to 25.7% in 1970 (a 7.4% increase)

as illustrated in Figure 2-1. The rapid increase in postsecondary education participation held

level during the 1970s, only to increase rapidly again between 1980 and 2000.

The decades following 1960 marked a significant period of growth for the public

postsecondary education enterprise.6 Participation was increasing as new institutions were built


6 The rapid expansion of community colleges, however, did not come without criticism.
Critical theorists have pointed towards community colleges specifically as vehicles for social
stratification. Hansen and Weisbrod (1969) argued the low tuition policies common within
community colleges served to limit intergenerational social mobility and provided the benefits of
higher education only to those who could afford the higher priced state institutions. Their work
sounded the initial warnings of stratification of educational opportunity along fiscal lines. Brint
and Karabel (1989) espoused that community colleges, void of a transfer function, would have
remained extensions of elementary and secondary education. Instead, community colleges
provided the opportunity to transfer to higher education institutions via preparation in the liberal
arts. Furthermore, they claimed early leaders in the community college movement, specifically









to meet the continued demand engendered by the social climate of the middle of the twentieth

century, and expanded services to include educational options other than transfer (Cain 1982).

The social climate was fueled by paradigm-shifting social policy resulting from Brown v. Board

ofEducation (347 U.S. 483 1954), the Higher Education Act of 1965 (PL 89-329), Title IX of

the Educational Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-318) and other federal and state actions ensuring

democracy was an opportunity for all citizens (The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of

Teaching 1982; Kim and Rury 2007), in addition to the looming tide of baby-boomers entering

postsecondary education (Kim and Rury 2007; Rouse 1994).

The concern over the increasing difference in tuition and fees was compounded by the

fact that a body of literature had shown price influenced student participation (Heller 1997;

Jackson and Weathersby 1975; Leslie and Brinkman 1987; Pryor, Hurtado, et al. 2006).

Additionally, there had been extensive study of the influence of tuition and fee rates on student

participation, finding that as rates increase, participation decreases (Heller 1997; Kane 1991;

Leslie and Brinkman 1987). Recently, it had been observed that between 1993 and 2005, young

and working-aged adults had not increased in their enrollment in education beyond the high

school (The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education 2006). This plateau in

postsecondary participation had lead to national concerns as the United States lead member

countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in the

percent of adults aged 45 to 54 with at least an associates degree (40%), seven countries had

higher percentages of individuals aged 25 to 34 with at least an associates degree. This



Leonard V. Koos, Walter Crosby Eells, and Doak S. Campbell, attempted to divert students to
vocational education in an attempt to provide "short range upward mobility" while satisfying the
college's need to secure "the best training markets still unoccupied by their four-year
competitors" (209).









generational change in college attainment was concerning as it indicated the impact of decreased

attendance in postsecondary education in a globalized society (Reindl 2007; OECD 2007).

State Resources

State resources contribute to the college participation. In developing and maintaining

postsecondary education systems, state policymakers had to take into consideration the resources

of a state. Two areas of particular interest were the educational participation of academically

qualified individuals and the ability of a state's citizens to pay for non-compulsory education.

High school graduation rates increased throughout the twentieth century, providing for

and increased percentage of state residents to be academically qualified to attend postsecondary

education (Kim and Rury 2007). The national demand for, and participation in postsecondary

education lead to the realignment of state systems and the development of institutions such as the

community college. While estimates of college going rates seem to have plataeued since the

early 1990s, a recent survey indicated that the shift in national demographics was contributing to

a decrease in postsecondary education participation. The survey, conducted by the National

Center on Public Policy and Higher Education (2007), found 62% of respondents agreed that

motivated and academically qualified students were not attending college because of a perceived

lack of opportunity, a belief most prevalent amongst African-American and Hispanic parents.

The wealth of a state's residents influenced the tuition and fee rates (Koshal and Koshal

2000), as family income remains a strong predictor of who will go to college (Callan 2006).

Between 1982 and 2005, median family income outpaced the consumer price index, 127% to

95% respectively, while tuition and fees increased by 375% during the same time period (Callan

2006). In 2002, the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance found "financial

barriers prevent 48 percent of college-qualified, low-income high school graduates from









attending a four-year college, and 22 percent from attending any college at all, within two years

of graduation [from high school]" nationally (v).

Two states addressing concerns over access and participation in postsecondary education

were Kentucky and Texas. An 83% increase in tuition at undergraduate institutions in Kentucky

during a 6-year period from 2001-2002 to 2006-2007 heightened apprehension over the

affordability of postsecondary education's impact on educational participation in the state

(Division of Performance Audit 2006). Texas' unease over postsecondary education

participation was addressed in their educational plan entitled Closing the Gaps by 2015. The

impetus behind this plan was the state's acknowledgement that the proportion of state residents

enrolling in postsecondary education was declining. A goal of the plan was to increase the

percentage of residents participating in postsecondary education from 5% in 2000 to 5.7% in

2015 (The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board 2000). Admittedly, a part in meeting

this goal was to set tuition and fee prices at levels that closed the gaps.

Purpose of the Study

It was observed that the difference in tuition and fees between public institution types

changed between the years 1950 and 2000 by a factor of three while participation in

postsecondary education had plateaued. The purpose of this study was to test student price

response theory by examining the degree to which the attempt to provide access to public

postsecondary education via the introduction of a lower-priced option, with considerations of a

state's resources, was associated with enrollment for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000.

Research Question

In order to address this issue, the following research question was developed. How was

enrollment associated with the tuition and fee difference ratio between institution types and state

resources for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000?









Research Hypotheses

* Hol: Enrollment was not significantly associated with tuition and fee difference ratio
between public institution types and state resources for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990
and 2000.

* HA1: Enrollment was significantly associated with tuition and fee difference ratio
between public institution types and state resources for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990
and 2000.

Significance of the Study

An examination of factors contributive to the difference in tuition and fees at public

postsecondary education institutions is imperative as prior research had shown that (a) the

difference continues to expand, (b) legislators were actively pursuing methods to redirect

students to lower cost institutions for the first two years of college and (c) tuition and fees play a

significant role in determinations of postsecondary education participation. The cost of

postsecondary education had become a significant concern for all stakeholders.

The compilation of a dataset, acquired from the work of Hurt and Burkel (1939-1960),

provided the opportunity to extend our understanding of state-level analysis to a time when (a)

national data available by the National Center for Education Statistics was not available, and (b)

increasing participation in postsecondary education participation became a national objective.

Definition of Terms

* Affordability: Perceived ability of potential participants to afford attending
postsecondary education. Affordability had been measured in the literature as a
percentage of family income needed to pay tuition and fees at a postsecondary education
institution. No attempts to operationalize affordability were made in this study.
References pertained to the theoretical conception of the term.

* Community college: Any two-year institution offering liberal arts education. The
purpose for this distinction rests in the comparative nature between community colleges
and four-year undergraduate institutions drawn in the study. When collecting data,
institutions with the work technical in their name were excluded, unless it also included
community (representing its comprehensive nature). Tribal community colleges were
also emitted as they receive a disproportionate amount of funding from the federal
government.









* Elasticity: How one unit change in supply resulted in a change in price.

* Inflation: The result of excesses in demand as compared to supply resulting in increased
prices.

* Postsecondary education structures: The composition of a state higher education
system.

* Pricing: Tuition and fees as outlined below.

* Tuition and fees: The costs reported by the institutions on surveys from either the
National Center for Educational Statistics or the editors of the Blue Book. This
discussion focused on costs associated with tuition and fees, not on the other costs
associated with education such as forgone earnings and the cost of living described in the
literature. The literature also referred to tuition and fees as it was defined for the
purposes of this study as the "sticker price."

* Undergraduate institution: A public postsecondary education institution that offered at
least a bachelor's degree.














14


12


10 -


8


6





2


0
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950
Participation (%) 2.8 4.5 6.9 8.4 15

Figure 1-1. Postsecondary education participation, 1910 to 1950. [United States Department of
Education 1972].





























1910


1920


1930


1940


1950


Community 25 74 180 238 330
Colleges
1 Four-Year 196 220 242 251 259
1 1 Land-Grant 65 66 66 66 66


Number of public postsecondary education institutions, 1910 to 1950. [United States
Department of Education 2003; Dunham 1969; American Association of
Community Colleges n.d.; National Association of State Universities and Land-
Grant Colleges 2008


Figure 1-2.


'do -

'dgoo
wo











1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0


1910


1920


1930


1940


1950


1960


1970


1980


1990


2000


Community Colleges 25 74 180 238 330 412 909 1058 1106 1156
4-Year 196 220 242 251 259 279 359 482 528 526
Land-Grant 65 66 66 66 66 66 67 67 67 96
Year (decade)


Community Colleges


- -4-Year


- Land-Grant


Figure 1-3. Number of public postsecondary education institutions, 1933 to 2000. [United States Department of Education 2003;
Dunham 1969; American Association of Community Colleges n.d.; National Association of State Universities and Land-
Grant Colleges 2008]


'640000opp-

'40or

.900 now

OWN mmop!!!!!0,Icllo= MOR goo 000

Mw&.MhMwdOrm =a a a am a a am a a am a a am 0 a am 0 a am a am










120


100


40


00 0 o o


1933


1939


1947


1950


Community Colleges -Undergraduate Institutions


Figure 1-4. Tuition and fees at public postsecondary education institutions, 1933 to 1950. [Author's calculations from The Blue Book
3-6th Editions.]


I











4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000


500


1933 1939 1947 1950 1956 1959 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000


Comm. Coll. 72 72 84 90 101 146 109 187 245 391 641 824 1239 1333
- -Undrgrd. Inst. 93 103 92 95 127 166 284 405 556 804 1318 1888 2848 3501


Figure 1-5. Tuition and fees at public postsecondary education institutions, 1933 to 2000. [Author's calculations from The Blue Book
3-6th and 8-9th Editions, for years 1933 to 1959; Unites States Department of Education 2003, for years 1965 to 2000.]









CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Literature reviewed for this study was composed of documents originating from public

and private entities, policy commissions, government agencies, and scholars in the fields of

postsecondary education finance, education, policy, sociology, law, economics and history. The

literature reviewed was primarily in the form of reports, books and other policy documents with

a lesser amount in the form of studies guided by specific research questions.

Access and State Structures

The Morrill Act of 1862 expanded a state's ability to provide postsecondary education

opportunity to their citizens. To meet the growing interest in postsecondary education, the

number and type of public institutions grew without guidance throughout the nation. An attempt

to coordinate these institutions within a framework to increase systemic efficiencies came with

the implementation master plans.

The Morrill Act of 1862 (PL 37-108) served as the catalyst for the expansion of public

postsecondary education, as the federal government provided support for states to open and

maintain their own postsecondary education institutions (Anderson 1976; McDowell 2001). The

fourth section of the Morrill Act outlined purpose of these new institutions, specifically "each

State which may take and claim the benefit of this act, to the endowment, support, and

maintenance of at least one college ... in order to promote the liberal and practical education of

the industrial classes in the several professions and pursuits of life" (7 U.S.C.301, emphasis

added). Expressly, intent of public institutions of postsecondary education was to provide

educational opportunity for those who were destined for it or who had the courage to attend

(Morrill 1887).









These new federally initiated institutions signified the emancipation of postsecondary

education from their traditionally classical purpose (Brubacher and Rudy 1997). The emergence

of these new public institutions from the battle weary nation faced difficulties gaining consistent,

fiscal support from the states (Brubacher and Rudy 1997). It was not until the second signing of

the act in 1890, that states began to provide substantial support for the institutions, as the original

land-grant institutions had subsisted on their endowment from the original legislation (Brubacher

and Rudy 1997). For the next seventy-five years, institutions of postsecondary education, lacking

in coordination at the state level, appeared in various forms in localities determined largely by

political maneuvering, with little attention to the goals of the institution (Gross and Grambsch

1974).

As access to public postsecondary education began to expand after World War II, The

Presidential Commission on Higher Education asserted the "greatest need faced by higher

education is for the machinery necessary to assure a comprehensive but economical State-wide

system of education" (1947, 3:30). This recommendation, with the aid of political infighting and

increases in government size, prompted states to initiate coordination efforts to increase

efficiency (The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 1976; Dressel 1980;

Hearn and Griswold 1994). The President's Committee on Education Beyond the High School

(1957) recommended "the expansion and support of existing institutions should in general take

priority over the establishment of new ones" (72). The Committee suggested the community

college be utilized to meet this pressing problem of an increase in the postsecondary sector,

albeit only as part of a thoroughly considered state-wide plan.

State Master Plans

Glenny (1965) outlined several features of a recent development in postsecondary

education: the master plan. It was observed that these plans would, among other things,









emphasize the creation of colleges, and place junior colleges under the realm of postsecondary

education as opposed to secondary education. Furthermore, it was expressed that master plans

would reinforce "the use of admission standards and tuition rates to funnel students into desired

types of institutions and programs" (Glenny 1965, 97). During the decade 1960-1969, master

plans were present in 38 states (The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching

1982).

The master plans were often implemented or developed by nascent statewide

coordinating boards (Berdahl 1971). Section 1202 of the Educational Amendments of 1972 (PL

92-318) supported the establishment of statewide postsecondary education commissions to

coordinate the development and governance of all state higher education entities (McKinney

1974). The language of the legislation blurred the lines between higher education and

postsecondary education, favoring the latter (Martorana 1974). While going unfunded, and

ultimately disregarded, the governing state education entities initially established as a result of

1202 Commissions were charged with various powers, responsibilities and duties. A reason for

doing so was that the intent of section 1202 was to unite the unique institutions within a state, yet

it resulted in the opposite (Martorana 1974). These nascent governing state postsecondary

education systems were provided minimal federal guidance, while the number of institutions

continued to grow (McKinney 1974). The growth of state coordination boards was observed by

Berdahl (1971) to grow from sixteen in 1950 to more than twice that amount by 1970. The

introduction of accountability measures, increased regulation by state and federal agencies, and

concern for equity and efficiency served as the impetus behind coordination efforts (Tillery and

Wattenbarger 1985). The period from the early 1970s to the 1990s was marked as one of

decentralization of state level governing authority (McLendon 2003).









Balance of a Public Postsecondary Education System

The evolution and balance of postsecondary options within a state depended largely on

whether there was local participation in the development the postsecondary enterprise (Medsker

and Tillery 1971). A tension between state control and institutional autonomy also existed with

undergraduate systems (Dressel 1980). The resulting composition of postsecondary education

systems differed substantially from state to state (The Carnegie Commission on Higher

Education 1973; Dressel 1980), authorizing the development of institutions with focused efforts

on either more community colleges or extending an already present state university (Rouse

1998). It was the case that states engaged in master planning had to strategically plan for growth

and balance the roles of institutions already established.

California provided an example of a state that maintained a tiered structure of higher

education, with an emphasis on community colleges. Public community colleges emerged in

California in 1910 as an addition to state colleges and the University of California. The

institutions within this tripartite postsecondary education system acted independently of each

other, and were pitted against each other in their requests to the legislature, until they were joined

under a master plan in 1960 (Douglass 2000). It had since been the case that a tiered system

operated in California, with a reliance on community colleges to serve as the primary access

point to higher education. State colleges coordinated as the California State University campuses

offered up to the master's degree1 and the University of California campuses offered the

doctorate (California State Department of Education 1960).

Wisconsin took another approach by incorporating extension centers of their land-grant

institution, the University of Wisconsin, as pre-baccalaureate education campuses (Brubacher

1 These institutions also offered doctoral degrees jointly with University of California
campuses (Tillery 1973).









and Rudy 1997; Cohen 1998). The state-university philosophy took root at the turn of the

twentieth century, when extension efforts and research yielded returns to the society greater than

were expected (Brubacher and Rudy 1997). As a result or early contributions to state

development, the university and state became integral to each other's development. Two-year

colleges in the state were branch campuses for liberal arts, with a separate state system for

vocational education. It was observed that another reason for enacting this philosophy was due

to the lack of local initiative to extend postsecondary education opportunity (Medsker and Tillery

1971).

An examination of state postsecondary education structures in 1976 reported that 26 states

were identified as having the potential deficit in institutions offering open-access2 via the

community college in 1976.3 Conversely, 12 states were lauded for having a community college

within commuting distance of most state residents4 (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement

of Teaching 1982). Rouse (1998) termed states providing more education options beyond the

high school via a large number of community colleges as compared to undergraduate institutions

have embraced the democratization effect (Koos 1924; Brint and Karabel 1989). Conversely,

Rouse (1998) termed states with a focus on limiting community colleges in favor of the

development of four-year, undergraduate institutions as having created a diversion effect,

whereby a higher proportion of individuals must attend four-year institutions for education


2 Open-access was defined as an institution with low or no tuition for high school
graduates.

3 These states included Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, new Mexico,
New York (SUNY), North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

4 These states include Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, New York,
North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, and Washington.









beyond the high school (Rouse 1998). Research indicated that state systems that had a heavy

dependence on community colleges had lower levels of baccalaureate attainment (Orfield and

Paul 1992), and diverted more students to community college (Rouse 1994; Rouse 1998).

Student Price Response

It was argued that there was not enough evidence of the cost of tuition on the enrollment of

low-income students. Specifically, "[s]ince so little is known about the independent effect of

low or no tuition on the decision of various groups of students to attend a community colleges, a

rigid position on tuition may not be justified" (Garms 1977, 80). This claim was since

challenged by a body of literature focused on the response of students to price.

Leslie and Brinkman (1987) expressed price, buyer income, the prices of comparable

goods, and the buyer's preferences as factors influencing the amount of a good being demanded.

Their review of price-response literature was a meta-analysis where the studies were perceived

as one observation and each study was standardized according to the work of Jackson and

Weathersby (1975) to arrive at a student price response coefficient (SPRC). Upon reviewing the

literature, the authors concluded that tuition and fee prices influenced participation rates in

postsecondary education.

Savoca (1990) examined student price response arguing prior studies underestimated the

elasticity of demand by one-half because they did not take into account the effect of increases on

individuals who did not apply to college. Kane (1991) found increased tuition resulted in

decreased enrollment, with black students being the most sensitive to price. In a 1995 study,

Kane found that community college students were the most sensitive to tuition increases. St.

John and Starkey (1994) found a "strong negative relationship between tuition charges and

persistence in community colleges" (211).









Heller (1997) expanded upon Leslie and Brinkman's study to examine the relationship

between tuition and financial aid on enrollment. His review of price-response literature was

summarized in one sentence: "[a]s the price of college goes up, the probability of enrollment

tends to go down" (649). Four key observations included (a) aid decreases were associated with

decreased enrollment, with grants having the strongest influence, (b) low-income students were

the most sensitive to pricing differences, (c) black students were the most sensitive, Hispanic

students were mixed and white students were least sensitive, and (d) community colleges

students were more sensitive to prices than students at four-year public institutions. A survey of

college students conducted by researchers at the Higher Education Research Institute found

financial barriers impacted students' decisions as to which postsecondary institutions they

attended (Pryor, Hurtado, et al. 2006).

The importance of price in student decision-making was not limited to public institutions.

Twenty-three elite private institutions5 created in 1958 "the Ivy Overlap Group ... an agreement

among the participants to refrain from offering financial aid to student applicants bases other

than financial need, to use standard guidelines in determining aid to needy students, and to adjust

offers" in order to frame an potential students choice on non-financial reasons (Matlock 1994,

523).

There were warnings as to the potential for increased tuition as a funding source could

result in socio-economic stratification in postsecondary education (Chambers 1968). The

5 The institutions included Brown University, Columbia University, Amherst College,
Barnard College, Comell University, Bowdoin College, Dartmouth College, Bryn Mawr
College, Harvard University, Colby College, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Middlebury
College, Princeton University, Mount Holyoke College, University of Pennsylvania, Smith
College, Yale University, Trinity College, Tufts University, Vassar College, Wellesley College,
Wesleyan University and Williams College.









Commission on Higher Education appointed by President Truman recognized the need for, and

advocated on behalf of, affordable postsecondary education. Volume Two of the report, entitled

Equalizing and Expanding Individual Opportunity, cited income inadequacies and the lack of

sufficient state support as two of the greatest barriers hindering the affordability of

postsecondary education (The Presidential Commission on Higher Education 1947).

As postsecondary education participation increased in the second half of the twentieth

century so did the amount students were responsible to pay. Rationales for the increased

expenditures in postsecondary education held constant. Two philosophies guided the

development of tuition and fee policy. The first placed a larger burden on public support in an

effort to hold tuition low and negate the influence of individual costs in the decision to pursue

educational opportunity. The other perspective, suggested that the market mechanism be enacted

in postsecondary education.

Philosophies Guiding Tuition and Fee Policy

The demands of access and affordability facing policymakers were encapsulated in the

debates regarding tuition pricing. The two primary philosophies6 guiding the development of

tuition policy were (a) low tuition with high state support to institutions or (b) high tuition with

federal, state, and private support to the individual in the form of aid.

Low tuition. The support for a low tuition policy was rooted in the belief that the student

already had a fiscal burden to bear in addition the out-of-pocket costs charged by the institution

6 Alternative tuition philosophies included Carbone's five models: nonresident student -
surcharge model, resident tuition-fee-remission model, sliding scale, multiple-criteria model,
sliding-scale single-criterion model, and the national tuition bank (1974). Moore et al (1974)
also outlined eight possible considerations in the development of tuition models. They were,
tuition rates reflective of (a) the average citizen's ability to pay, (b) the student's ability to pay,
(c) the program of study, (d) credit-hours pursued, (e) equally across all institutions, (f) level of
instruction, (g) the proportion of instructional costs per student, and (h) a combination of the
preceding seven options.









(Wattenbarger 1979; Bowen 1980; Stampen 1980). In addition to the burdens faced by the

individual in the devotion of time and effort to pursuing further education, the argument for a

low tuition policy was set in the belief that an educated citizenry benefits the entire society in

their decreased dependence on healthcare and welfare, increased tolerance for others, and fiscal

returns in the form of higher taxes to be paid over a lifetime (Chambers 1968; Cohen and Brawer

1996). A last consideration in the low tuition policy argument was that low-income families had

to pay a larger percentage of their family income to attend postsecondary education institution,

so low prices should be maintained whenever possible (Cohen and Brawer 1996).

The low tuition philosophy was championed in the community college, which saw their

student body as the community, not a select few (Gleazer 1980; Wattenbarger, Shafer and

Zucker 1973). The perspective of access via the open-door philosophy mirrored the philosophy

of public school education in that if an individual wished to learn, the opportunity would be

afforded to them (The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education 1970; Wattenbarger 1979).

Ultimately, access via low-to-no tuition went unrealized as a "discernable trend" toward

increased tuition was observed between the years 1966 and 1971 and continued through the

remainder of the twentieth century (Wattenbarger, Schafer and Zucker 1973). Even California, a

bastion in the low tuition cause for community colleges, raised its tuition from $18 per unit to

$26 unit in 2004-05, in order to maximize student eligibility for federal Pell Grants (The State of

California 2004). However, the interest in free tuition at public community colleges had

continued despite the presence of tuition in every state.

High-tuition/high-aid. The implementation of a high-tuition/high-aid policy

fundamentally operated from the application of "free market" principles to postsecondary

education (Harris 1960; Kerr 1968; Hauptman 1990). The thrust of this perspective framed









tuition as too low in comparison to the actual costs accrued by an institution (Mumper and

Anderson 1993). It was argued that higher tuition would allow institutions to redirect

institutional revenues via tuition and fees to individuals based upon need (Hansen and Weisbrod

1969; Fisher 1990) supported high-tuition/aid. Fixing tuition and fees at a level equal to private

institutions was also perceived of as a way to operationalize the market mechanism in

postsecondary education (Garms 1980).

Tuition Differentiations

The literature on tuition differences was reflective of three dichotomies. The requirement

for potential students to pay differentiated prices were dependent on residency status, program

differences and their relationship to each other, and the idea of providing access for all citizens to

postsecondary education.

Residency. Tuition differences were discussed with respect to residence of the student as

the primary determinant (Greenleaf 1936). It was argued that a state or district should not have

to fund the education of an "outsider" at the same rate as a citizen who lived within its borders

and who contributed to the postsecondary education institution via taxes (Arney 1970;

Schietinger 1981)

District differences, commonly termed "chargebacks," were observed to decrease in the

in the years between 1970 and 2005 (Mullin and Honeyman 2006). Interstate variations in

tuition and fee charges, however, had continued in practice.7

Differences in relationship. Relational differences were both intra- and inter-

institutional. Intra-institutional tuition differences primarily addressed expenditure differences at

the institutional level between various colleges offering different services (Wetzel 1995), or

7 There have been interstate cooperatives that have negated the cost to out-of-state students
through regional policy board (Christal 1997).









levels of education, such as undergraduate and graduate, within an institution (The Carnegie

Commission on Higher Education 1970b; Schietinger 1981). Differentiated tuition between the

first two years of study, the second two years of study and graduate education was believed to

have a negative impact on attrition (Bowen 1974).

A rational for differentiated tuition was grounded in cost analysis (The Carnegie

Commission on Higher Education 1973). Implications of a shift towards cost-based tuition

differentiation were hindered by the influence cost had on elasticity of demand, concerns about

equity, and the relationship of cost and prestige (Johnson 1979). Additionally, the relationship

between tuition differences and institutional costs were not supported in the literature

(Middaugh, Graham and Shahid 2003; Johnson 1979).

Tuition differences between public four-year and private undergraduate institutions were

a concern, as tuition charges at private schools were between three and five times larger than at

public institutions (The National Commission on the Financing of Postsecondary Education

1973). It was believed that maintaining lower tuition and fees at public undergraduate

institutions would be difficult, as it disadvantaged private institutions (The Carnegie Council on

Policy Studies in Higher Education 1975). In response to the perspective that the market

mechanism should exist in postsecondary education, a decrease in this difference was the

incorporation of financial aid to the student (Garms 1980; The National Commission on the

Financing of Postsecondary Education 1973).

Institutional Rationales

Tuition and fee increases have consistently overtime based upon three general arguments:

shifts in inflation, increasing expenditures, and unstable sources of income. Two reports, forty

years apart, provided greater detail (Table 2-1).









In 1952, The Commission on Financing Higher Education was formed to examine the

fiscal condition of postsecondary education. The Commission outlined five sources of financial

difficulties for postsecondary education institutions: (a) inflation; (b) the expansion of

educational services; (c) needs for enlarged and modernized capital plant; (d) fluctuating student

enrollments; and (e) uncertain sources of income.

Hauptman and Merisotis (1990) reviewed articles and other documents relating to the

dramatic dependence on tuition and fees originating from the student. The results of their

analysis indicated five reasons for the increase: (a) higher charges were the result of increases in

costs; (b) increases in expenditures by colleges for a variety of services; (c) competition between

institutions; (d) non-tuition revenue had leveled-off or dropped; and (e) the increase in student

aid.

They asserted the increase in inflation8 forced the institutions to be more dependent on

student income, as it was the most available source of additional income. A concern in doing so

was the instability of tuition and fee revenue as compared to endowment income on operating

budgets. Inflation had impacted the costs of doing business; however, it had been the case that

tuition increases have outpaced inflation (Paulsen 1998; Wellman 2001).

Reasons provided for increasing expenditures were factors external to institutional control

and may have provided justifiable rationales for increases in tuition and fees. It had been argued,

however, that increases in costs were not closely related with the tuition and fees charged to

students (The Commission on Financing Higher Education 1952; Cunningham and Merisotis


8 Inflation was conceptualized as the increase in the price of goods and services (Martinez
2004). The Consumer price index (CPI) was a common measure reflective of the broad costs
associated with participation in society. Another inflation measure, the Higher Education Price
Index (HEPI), was developed by Halstead (1989) to apply directly to goods and services
demanded by postsecondary education institutions.









2002; Johnson 1979; Jones, 2002; Middaugh, Graham and Shahid 2003). Implications of a shift

towards cost-based tuition differentiation were hindered by the influence cost had on elasticity of

demand, concerns about equity, and the relationship of cost and prestige (Johnson 1979).

Furthermore, increases in expenditures and competition between institutions were the result of

institutional desires that cannot be justified on the grounds of costs, but rather on questionable

budgeting and planning: conceptualized as the "Revenue Theory of Costs," which may be

summarized as expenditures drive revenues in the search for prestige (Bowen 1980, 15).

What appeared to be a contributing factor in the development of tuition and fee policy was

the uncertain nature of non-tuition revenue. While working in concert with tuition and fees, state

and local governments have always assumed the largest burden for funding public postsecondary

education since data from public institutions were available (Table 2-2). State and local revenue

was the only source of the three to increase in each time span for which data was available. The

smallest increase was between 1930 and 1950, when state and local revenue increased only 14%

with the greatest increase was between 1950 and 1963 when revenue increased 380%.

Institutional revenue resultant of tuition and fees and the federal government exhibited dramatic

shifts between time spans, but the shifts were in the same direction (Campbell, English and

Lampros 1952; United States Department of Education 1965; United States Department of

Education 1972; United States Department of Education 2003).

A factor unique to the literature obtained for this study was Hauptman and Merisotis'

(1990) fifth reason. A reason they cited for the increased tuition and fees was not driven by

economic conditions or institutional desires, rather the augmentation of the student share of

educational costs via student financial aid availability. In summary, the determinations of tuition

and fee policy were reflective of institutionally espoused expenditures and guiding philosophies









and differences. These rationales resulted in differences in tuition and fee policy between

institutions types and locations.

Federal Actions

An upturn in the dependence on tuition was enhanced via federal legislation, starting with

the NDEA of 1958 (PL 85-864), that Stampen (1980) asserted was influenced by the high

tuition, high-aid philosophy of economists. Chambers outlined schemes developed to keep both

public and private postsecondary education as high-fee enterprises (1968). These schemes-tax-

supported tuition scholarships, government loans, private loans, student-work opportunities and

tax credits for postsecondary education-in many respects have become institutional operations

within the national scope of financing higher education. Chambers (1968) asserted that the

benefits of such schemes should be examined via two tests. First, was the scheme "designed

indirectly to channel tax moneys into private colleges" (96). Second, was it "designed to shift

the cost of education from the general public to the student" (96). A caveat in the high-

tuition/high-aid philosophy was that it only works if state/institutions increase need-based aid at

the same rates as increases in tuition. If not, college would become less affordable (Mumper and

Anderson 1993).

A different perspective on why tuition and fees became such a pivotal source of revenue

was summized by Clark Kerr (1968). Kerr (1968) summized five options being considered by

the federal government during the decade of the 1960s to assist in structuring fiscal support for

all institutions of postsecondary education. One option was to provide tax breaks to parents with

students enrolled in postsecondary education. This option was not favored as it was perceived to

benefit middle and upper-income families due to the regressive nature of the taxes, while

positioning power in the hands of parents with respect to influence over institutional choice and

program curriculum. Direct grants to states and/or individual institutions were also considered,









but not favored as they were perceived as placing too much power in either the state or

institution with additional concerns about equitable distribution states with larger enrollments.

The last two options, grants to individuals and categorical grants based upon federally identified

needs, gained acceptance. It was believed grants to students would contribute to fiscal stability

of institutions through diversified revenue streams, allow students to enact the market

mechanism in postsecondary education, and remain neutral with respect to the issue of support

for public and private institutions. Categorical aid, was believed to contribute to a diverse

revenue stream for institutions while meeting the various education and workforce needs of the

nation.

Tuition and Fees and Enrollment

The fundamental purpose of the community college was to provide educational

opportunity. To meet this purpose three conditions were deemed as requisite. First, the colleges

must be open-access Second, they must offer a diverse range of curricular offerings. Finally,

attendance must be fiscally easy (Medsker and Tillery 1971).

Reasons provided for the differences in tuition were twofold. First, community college

leaders wanted to maintain the concept of open-access, of which they believed affordability to be

a primary component. Second, state leaders were trying to control enrollments in the more

costly state colleges and universities (Education Commission of the States 1972). Both

rationales continue to inform the national dialogue on tuition and fee policy in 2007.

In 2007, the governor of Massachusetts announced a plan that would make community

college tuition free within ten years (Ashburn 2007). Kenneth Corn, a Senator from Oklahoma,

submitted a bill to make all community colleges in Oklahoma free to all high school graduates

(Hoberock 2007). Ruppert (2001) observed that 71% of state policymakers believed the









increased demand for higher education should redirect students first through the two years at the

lower cost community college then on to an undergraduate institution.

A concern with setting tuition and fees at a level that made postsecondary education

accessible to all students was the concern that low-income and minority students would

concentrate in the community colleges (The Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher

Education 1975). Howard Bowen (1974) expressed concern that an increasing gap in tuition and

fee pricing may exacerbate attrition. It had been expressed that comparisons of tuition and fees

between community colleges and undergraduate institutions was difficult because the ability to

separate (a) the costs between undergraduate and graduate work at undergraduate institutions,

(b) the instruction costs between the two institution types varied as the undergraduate institutions

utilized less-expensive graduate students and community colleges utilized professors,

(c) economies of scale, and (d) curriculum differences (Medsker and Tillery 1971).

Only recently had the difference in tuition and fees between community colleges and

undergraduate institutions been examined. Hearn, Griswold and Marine (1996) included the

tuition difference between public community colleges and undergraduate institutions as part of

their analysis of state tuition and aid policies. Their independent variables reflected regional,

resource and governance influence on the tuition difference. Utilizing four regression models,

they found a smaller tuition and fee difference in the Midwest region and states with high levels

of high school completers. Whereas states with high income levels or weak coordinating

boards/planning agencies were likely to have a higher difference in tuition and fees between

community colleges and undergraduate institutions.

State Resources

It was in the interest of state policymakers to have a more educated citizenry (Rupport

2001). States with a large percentage of individuals enrolled in postsecondary education were









likely to exhibit high levels of educational attainment beyond the high school, high degree

completion, a high percentage of civic participation in the voting process, and rates of poverty

below (Martinez, 2004). A resulting benefit to the state was an increase in lifetime earnings for

citizens and subsequently a larger individual contribution to tax revenue for the state (Vernez,

Krop and Rydell, 1999; Martinez 2004). Participation in postsecondary education demand

continued to grow as a result of demographic growth, improvements in K-12 education and

policy imperatives (Martinez 2004; Kim and Rury 2007).

Two problems have faced the expansion of educational opportunity within a state. First,

the individual benefits of postsecondary education can only apply to those who are eligible to

participate (Martinez 2004). Second, the college eligible individual must be able to pay for the

additional educational experience.

Educational Attainment

A problem facing the nascent institutions of the nineteenth century was locating properly

prepared students for admission as few secondary school graduates attended college (Krug 1962;

Goldin and Katz 2000). In 1920, the nation was experiencing a rapid increase in the number of

high school graduates (Sonnenberg 1993). By 1940, only 16 percent of high school graduates

were attending college, an amount that increased to approximately 33 percent in 1960 and then to

more than 40 percent by 19809 (Kim and Rury 2007). While increases in high school graduates

influenced college participation rates, as college participation increased tenfold between 1940

and 1980. Taking only the increases in high school graduation rates, Kim and Rury (2007)





9 Diane Ravitch (1981) suggested an approximate high school graduation rate of 50% in
1940 and 85% in 1970. She also indicated college participation rates similar to Kim and Rury,
however specifying college participation rates leveled-off at 45% in 1968.









calculated the increase would have been threefold. It was clear there was a national shift towards

increased participation in postsecondary education.

Improved high school graduation rates were not uniform in regions across the nation. For

example, while the percentage of college participants in the south mirrored other regions, lower

than average high school graduation retarded participation (Kim and Rury 2007). Disparities in

postsecondary education participation by underrepresented groups were another reason for the

plateau in college enrollment rates. In 2000, Texas acknowledged that its population

characteristics were becoming increasing diverse, and that significant efforts had to be made to

encourage enrollment and decrease barriers to postsecondary education in the state. The result

was a plan entitled Closing the Gaps by 2015 (The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board

2000). Hearn, Griswold and Marine (1996) found that as a state's educational attainment, as

measured by the percent of a state's population with at least a high school education, increased

the difference in tuition and fees between institution types decreased.

Income and the Ability to Pay

Postsecondary education participation and the ability to pay was documented consistently

throughout the evolution of the postsecondary enterprise.10 Parental income had been associated

with in the educational attainment of an individual. Specifically, increased income resulted in




10 In colonial colleges, family position in society influenced a student's position for
recitations and academic processions (Brubacher and Rudy 1997). The practice of ranking
individuals by socio-economic status was common practice until the 1767 at Yale and 1770 at
Harvard (Roche 1986). However, "it was not until well into the eighteenth century that colleges
assumed an elitist, patrician cast as rising costs began to restrict attendance at college to the well-
to-do" (Lucas, 1994, p.108). "Fees, room and board ranged from ten to fifty pounds, at a time
when a journeyman mechanic earned fifty pounds per year and a prosperous attorney from two
hundred to three hundred pounds. Obviously, college was not for the sons of the poor" (Cohen
1998, 46).









increased attendance (Taubman 1989; The National Commission on Financing Postsecondary

Education 1973).

The United States General Accounting Office (1996) examined the increase in college

costs in relationship to household income. The report only examined public, 4-year institutions,

finding tuition increased 234 percent during the fourteen-year period between 1980-1981 and

1994-1995. During this same time period, media household income, serving as a proxy for

ability to pay, increased 82 percent.11 The increased variability between states with respect to

average tuition and related fees ranged from $1,524 to $5,521. It was observed that states with

low tuition were associated with low median household incomes, low college expenditures per

student, and higher state appropriations for higher education (Koshal and Koshal 2000). The

ability to pay12 tuition and fees prevent postsecondary education participation for otherwise



11 It is important to note that increases in tuition and fees experienced during the 1980s was
compounded by the fact that federal and state taxes increased as well, thereby making college
ever more costly (Mumper and Anderson 1993).
12 An important question when examining the concept of the ability to pay was a
specification of whose ability to pay? Historically, it had been the case that individuals engaged
in the act of influencing tuition policies expressed views that exposed their naive beliefs in the
ability of students to afford postsecondary education. This sentiment was mostly clearly
articulated in a report on the financing of higher education, which stated "[t] he economic barrier
to higher education is usually exaggerated in most discussions of the subject, for this barrier can
be overcome where there is an individual determination to do so" (The Commission on
Financing Higher Education 1952, 135). They continued to advocate for the federal government
to withdraw any notion of a scholarship aid program for a vast number of citizens.
In 1990, Hauptman and Merisotis asserted an economically-framed perspective that
"comparing increases in what it costs to send a child to college with changes in the value of
stocks, bonds, and other investments is one way to examine changes in parents' ability to save
for their children's educational costs. Interestingly, in the high-tuition 1980s, the pretax return
on stocks and bonds increased faster than the growth in tuitions and other charges, suggesting
that many parents could have kept pace with college costs if they had invested in stocks and
bonds" (6). The audience of this statement suggested that affordability was not being defined for
the industrial classes, but rather those who have the financial wherewithal to maintain and
manage fiscal assets representative of fiscal prosperity.









qualified individuals (The Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance 2002; The

Commission on Financing Higher Education 1952; Mumper and Anderson 1990).

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework guiding this study was developed in response to the literature

that noted the influence of tuition in the enrollment of individual in postsecondary education.

Where earlier studies examined the influence of price on enrollment or the decision to apply, this

study contributed to the dialogue by examining the association of a state's public postsecondary

education pricing structure on enrollment.

A state's public postsecondary education pricing structure was operationalized by a ratio

depicting the difference in state-averaged, tuition and fees at a public undergraduate institution

divided by tuition and fees at a community college, as depicted in Figure 2-1. A small ratio

would be the result of tuition and fee prices close to each other, as expressed by the relationship

between points (a) and (b). A larger ratio would result when the difference in tuition and fees

was greater as expressed in points (c) and (d). Theoretically, if the difference were zero, the

price would determine enrollment (as examined previously in the student rice response

literature). As such, one would suspect that if the difference ratio were zero, and the price was

high, enrollment would be negatively associated. Conversely, if the difference ratio were zero

and the tuition and fee were low, enrollment would be positively associated. This study does not

take actual tuition and fee "sticker-price" into consideration (College Board 2006), rather it

examined the difference in price. It therefore, may be conceptualized, that as the difference ratio

increases a lower cost option is created in the postsecondary education structure. This lower-

priced option, as compared to the higher-priced option, could serve as an entry-point that would

be more affordable and decrease the influence of tuition and fee as a deterrent in postsecondary

education enrollment.









State's developed public postsecondary education structures to address the increased

participation in postsecondary education. The nature of these structures varied by state and

arrangement in an effort to optimize efficiency and participation. Specific, state resources were

included to determine their association with enrollment. State public postsecondary education

structures were operationalized in the form of median family income and percent of a state's 25+

population with a high school diploma or higher but not a bachelor's degree or higher.

The variable of interest to this study was enrollment in public postsecondary education.

This construct was operationalized by a variable reflective of fall headcount enrollment for

degree-seeking individuals in undergraduate academic programs.

In summary, there had been an increasing number of individuals partaking in

postsecondary education in the second half of the twentieth century. Participation in education

had been observed to increase, determinations of tuition and fee prices have been found to

impact individual pursuit of postsecondary education and the type of institution attended, and the

concerns of a generation ago have been realized, as income had served to stratify institutional

enrollment. It is therefore proposed that an association existed between the constructs of state

resources and postsecondary education pricing structures with enrollment in public

postsecondary education (Figure 2-2). The purpose of this study was to test student price

response theory by examining the degree to which the attempt to provide access to public

postsecondary education via the introduction of a lower-priced option, with considerations of a

state's resource, was associated with enrollment for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000.









Table 2-1. Rationales for increased costs
Rationale Commission on Financing
Higher Education (1952)
Shifts in inflation (a) Inflation


Increasing costs


Unstable sources of income


(b) The expansion of
educational services


(c) Needs for enlarged and
modernized capital plant

(d) Fluctuating student
enrollments
(e) Uncertain sources of
income


Hauptman and Merisotis
(1990)
(a) Higher charges were the
result of increases in costs

(b) Increases in expenditures
by colleges for a variety of
services

(c) Competition between
institutions

(d) Non-tuition revenue had
leveled-off or dropped


(e) There was an increase in
student aid availability


Other









Table 2-2. Changes in federal, state and local and tuition and fee revenues in public
postsecondary education, 1933-2000.
Revenues (in thousands)
Year Percent Change
Tuition and fees Federal State and local

1930 $37,447 $14,450 $145,423

1940 $55,287 $29,144 $165,518
48% 102% 14%

1950 $222,635 $104,593 $493,444
303% 259% 198%

1963 $1,880,700 $2,142,200 $2,367,600
745% 1948% 380%

1968 $1,399,013 $1,566,037 $5,362,810
-26% -27% 127%

1980 $5,570,404 $5,540,101 $20,629,654
298% 254% 285%

1990 $15,258,024 $9,763,427 $41,771,692
174% 76% 102%

2000 $31,919,611 $19,744,966 $69,948,323
109% 102% 67%
Sources: Campbell English and Lampros 1952; United States Department of Education
1965,1972 and 2003.

























Z d

S- -- d
-- b


Undergraduate Institution
Tuition and Fees


Community College
- ~Tuition and Fees


Figure 2-1. A depiction of the difference in tuition and fees examined in the study



























Figure 2-2. Conceptual framework









CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

It was observed that the difference in tuition and fees between public institution types

changed between the years 1960 and 2000 by almost a factor of three. During this time period,

access to postsecondary education was operationalized via localized institutions (Koos 1924;

Gleazer 1980; Cohen and Brawer 1996) and organized via state master plans (Glenny 1965), the

number of students with at least a high school diploma but not a bachelor's degree or higher

increased as did the college participation rate (Kim and Rury 2007), and an the price of tuition an

fees increased faster than inflation (Paulsen 1998). The purpose of this study was to test student

price response theory by examining the degree to which the attempt to provide access to public

postsecondary education via the introduction of a lower-priced option, with considerations of a

state's resource, was associated with enrollment for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000.

Research Question

In order to address this issue, the following research question was developed. How was

enrollment associated with the tuition and fee difference ratio between institution types and state

resources for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000?

Research Hypotheses

In order to test the research question, the following hypothesis was developed.

* Hol: Enrollment was not significantly associated with the tuition and fee difference ratio
between public institution types and state resources for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990
and 2000.

* HA1: Enrollment was significantly associated with the tuition and fee difference ratio
between public institution types and state resources for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990
and 2000.









Data Summary

In order to answer the research question, data was obtained for the years 1960, 1970,

1980, 1990 and 2000. Analysis of the data was calculated utilizing the state as the unit of

analysis.

Population

The population of interest consisted of all states that had at least one public community

college and at least one public undergraduate institution. South Dakota and Maine were

removed as they did not have a public community college at anytime during the years examined,

bringing the total number of states to forty-eight. State postsecondary education structures

evolved by adding, removing, or combining institutions. These shifting public postsecondary

education organizations resulted in different population sizes for each year (Table 3-1), where:

1960 (N=34), 1970 (N=45), 1980 (N=46), 1990 (N=48), and 2000 (N=48). As a result, the total

number of cases was 221.

Variables of Interest

This study examined two independent constructs, comprised of three independent factors,

believed to influence the dependant variable, enrollment in public institution types.

Enrollment. The number of public postsecondary education institutions had increased

significantly between the years 1960 and 2000. The growth of these institutions was under the

direction, or the result, of state master plans (Glenny 1965; Dressel 1990; Hearn and Griswold,

1994). Guided by The Presidential Commission on Higher Education (1947) and established in

whole, or partially in response to the 1202 Commissions of the Educational Amendments of

1972, a primary goal of these systems was to provide a public postsecondary education structure

to provide access for qualified individuals interested in participating. This study utilized fall

headcount enrollment of degree-seeking undergraduate students to gauge participation in public









postsecondary education as it was the only enrollment variable consistently reported across all

five years.

Enrollment data were obtained by summing fall headcount enrollment for degree-seeking

undergraduate students for the institutions within a state for a given year. Fall, degree-seeking

headcount enrollment for each institution type and state were obtained from reports from the

National Center for Education Statistics for the years 1960 and 1970. The Integrated

Postsecondary Education Data System was accessed for fall headcount enrollment in 1980, 1990,

and 2000. Total degree-seeking, fall headcount enrollment in both institution types (TOT ENR),

degree-seeking, fall headcount enrollment at community colleges (CC ENR), and degree-

seeking, fall headcount enrollment at undergraduate institutions (UIENR) were employed as

dependent variables.

Tuition difference ratio. Tuition and fees data reflected the price of instruction for an

academic year. The difference in tuition and fee rates at public community colleges and

undergraduate institutions was the variable of interest in this study. This difference would play

an important role in future policy actions as states examined actions to redirect students to public

community colleges before attending undergraduate institutions (Ruppert 2001).

Tuition and fee data utilized in this research study were collected from two data sources:

the Blue Book and the United States Office/Department of Education. The need for the two

sources was due to a lack of tuition and fee data from the United States Office/Department of

Education requisite for the study in 1960 and 1970.

Tuition and fee data for 1960 were obtained from a report by the United States Office of

Education entitled Higher education planning and management data, 1960-61: Salaries, tuition

and fees, room and board (Bokelman 1960). The data reported in this report was deemed









inappropriate as it aggregated tuition and fee data on public institutions by regions and individual

state data were not reported. As such, the Blue Book (Burkel 1960), a survey of institutions of

postsecondary education similar in methodology to those utilized by the National Center for

Education Statistics, was used as a data source.

Tuition and fee data for 1970 were also dependent upon the use of the Blue Book (Russell

1970) as a data source for the acquisition of tuition data, as there was a lack of tuition and fee

data from the National Center for Education Statistics for the years 1966-1972. Specifically, it

was noted that

In the first three HEGIS surveys (fall 1966, 1967, and 1968) the data on basic student
charges were obtained from a survey for which also sought projections of various data
into the future. Difficulties with these surveys prevented the publication of data on basic
student charges except for the small amount of summary data published for the 1966-
1967 and 1968-1969 academic years. The reduced HEGIS survey for 1969 did not
contain a request for data on student charges. The survey of basic student charges was
reinstituted in the fifth HEGIS survey (fall 1970) as part of the survey of financial
statistics and continued in this manner in the sixth survey (fall 1971). However, the
resulting data were unsatisfactory since finance data are for the previous year and basic
student charges data are the current year. In the seventh HEGIS survey (fall 1972) the
survey form on basic student charges was attached, appropriately, to the survey form on
institutional characteristics (United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
1975, iii).

Attempts to collect the raw tuition and fee data collected in these reports from the National

Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the Research Triangle Institute, the Inter-university

Consortium on Political and Social Research1 (ICPSR), and a federal document repository were

unsuccessful.

When an institution reported only enrollment from the United States Office of Education

report or tuition and fees from the Blue Book, they were removed from the population. Listwise


1 ICPSR, located at the University of Michigan, was awarded a contract to archive data
utilized in the Higher Education General Information Surveys (HEGIS) employed by the
National Center for Education Statistics from 1966 to 1986.









deletion was employed as it was both the logical and most robust option. It made no sense to

utilize estimation procedures to create a missing tuition and fee price when institutions within

each state which maintaining control over tuition and fees varied (Mullin and Honeyman 2008).

Utilization of the Dataset Cutting Tool of the National Center for Education Statistics' Integrated

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) resulted in undergraduate tuition and fees public

community colleges and undergraduate institutions for the years 1980, 1990 and 2000.

State level tuition and fee data were acquired by averaging tuition and fees by institution

type per state from the data sources. The tuition and fee difference ratio between institution

types (TDR) was determined by dividing the state average tuition and fees at undergraduate

institutions by the state average tuition and fees at community colleges.

State resources. The growth and expansion of public institutions and tuition and fee rates

took place within the context of the state. Two factors believed to be associated with these

increases were the ability of the state's citizenry to pay for noncompulsory education and the

percentage of the state's population eligible to attend either a public community college or

undergraduate institution.

Ability to pay was operationalized as the Median Family Income in constant dollars for

the year 2000 (MFI). Data on Median Family Income for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and

2000 were obtained from the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) database at the

University of Minnesota, sponsored by the National Science Foundation and the National

Institutes on Health to disseminate census data. Data were missing for median family income for

six states (DE, ID, MT, ND, VT and WY) in 1970. The missing data were replaced via

conditional mean imputation (Allison 2002). This process regressed the missing variable on all

other variables in the equation. The missing values were then generated utilizing the estimated









equation (Table 3-2). A concern resulting from utilizing this imputation method was that

standard errors were estimated and test statistics that may be overestimated (Allison 2002). The

values obtained via IPUMS and the imputed values for 1970, were converted to current dollars

for the year 2000 utilizing the inflation calculator of the United States Department of Labor,

Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The state resource of educational attainment in a state had been operationalized as the

percent of a state's population twenty-five years or older with a high school degree or higher

(Hearn, Griswold, and Marine 1996). During data compilation for this study, it became apparent

that the use of this variable was questionable as it also included those individuals who had

already achieved an undergraduate degree. This conclusion was the result of examining the data

utilized by Hearn, Griswold and Marine (1996). In doing so, it was observed that the data were

reflective of a state's educational resources for the percentage of a state's population over

twenty-five years of age with a high school diploma or higher. Another table was also presented

which depicted the percent of a population aged twenty-five or older with a bachelor's degree or

higher. In comparing these percentages, it was determined that there was overlap as the two

percentages together exceeded 100%. In an effort to most clearly operationalize the construct of

a state's educational resources, the variable for educational attainment (EA) was defined as the

percentage of a state's population with at least a high school diploma, but not a bachelor's

degree. This percentage was calculated by subtracting the percent of a state's population 25

years old or more with a high school diploma or higher from the percent of a state's population

25 year old or more with a bachelor's degree or more in order to arrive at a percentage reflective

of those who may be interested in enrolling in a public postsecondary education institution as an

undergraduate. The state-level data were obtained from the United States Census Bureau (n.d.)









data table entitled Census 2000 PHC-T-41. A Half-Century ofLearning. Historical Statistics on

Educational Attainment in the United States, 1940 to 2000.

Design

The research question asked if enrollment was associated with the tuition difference ratio

between institution types or state resources between 1960 and 2000. Two multiple regression

analysis models were constructed to address this question for each of five years (1960, 1970,

1980, 1990, and 2000). Years were dummy coded, with 1960 serving as the reference year.

Model 1

A multiple regression analysis was conducted with degree-seeking fall headcount

enrollment at a public community college (CCENR) serving as the dependent variable. The

independent variables were included in the model to determine the amount of variance associated

with the dependent variable. The resulting model was the following:

CCENRi = a + B1 (TDR) + B2(MFIi) + B3(EAi) + B4(YR70i) + Bs(YR80i) +
B6(YR90i) + B7(YR00i) + Bs(YR70* TDRi) + B9(YR80* TDRi) + Bio(YR90* TDRi) +
Bll(YROO* TDRi) + B12(YR70*MFIi) + B13(YR80*MFIi) + B14(YR90*MFIi) +
Bi5(YROO*MFIi) + B16(YR70*EAi) + Bi7(YR80*EAi) + Bls(YR90*EAi) +
B19(YROO*EAi) + ei (3.2)

where,

* CCENR = the dependent variable for the community college, degree-seeking fall
enrollment in public postsecondary education,
* i = the state
* a = the intercept of the regression equation
* B1 = the regression coefficient for the slope of TDR,
* TDR = the independent variable for the tuition difference ratio between institution types,
* B2 = the regression coefficient for the slope of MFI,
* MFI = the independent variable for Median Family Income,
* B3 = the regression coefficient for the slope of EA,
* EA = the independent variable for the percent of a state's population that was had
completed high school but had not earned a bachelor's degree,
* B4-7 = the regression coefficients for the slope of YR,
* YR = the independent variable for the year of interest,
* Bs.11 = the regression coefficients for the product term of YR by TDR,









* B12-15 = the regression coefficients for the product term of YR by MFI,
* B16-19 = the regression coefficients for the product term of YR by EA, and
* e = the random error not accounted for in the model.

The null and alterative hypothesis were

* Ho: B1-19 = 0
* HA: B1-19 0

The null hypothesis stated that there was not an association between community college

enrollment and the tuition and fee difference ratio between institution types and state resources.

Model 2

A multiple regression analysis was conducted with degree-seeking fall headcount

enrollment at a public undergraduate institution (UI_ENR) serving as the dependent variable.

The independent variables were included in the model to determine the amount of variance

associated with the dependent variable. The resulting model was,

UI ENRi = a + B1 (TDRi) + B2(MFIi) + B3(EAi) + B4(YR70i) + Bs(YR80i) + B6(YR90i)
+ B7(YROOi) + Bs(YR70* TDRi) + B9(YR80* TDRi) + Bio(YR90* TDRi) + B11(YROO*
TDR) + B12(YR70*MFIi) + B13(YR80*MFIi) + B14(YR90*MFIi) + Bi5(YROO*MFIi)
+ B16(YR70*EAi) + B17(YR80*EAi) + B18(YR90*EAi) + B19(YROO*EAi) + ei (3.3)

where,

* UIENR = the dependent variable for the undergraduate institution, degree-seeking fall
enrollment in public postsecondary education,
* i = the state
* a = the intercept of the regression equation
* B1 = the regression coefficient for the slope of TDR,
* TDR = the independent variable for the tuition difference ratio between institution types,
* B2 = the regression coefficient for the slope of MFI,
* MFI = the independent variable for Median Family Income,
* B3 = the regression coefficient for the slope of EA,
* EA = the independent variable for the percent of a state's population that was had
completed high school but had not earned a bachelor's degree,
* B4-7 = the regression coefficients for the slope of YR,
* YR = the independent variable for the year of interest,
* B8-11 = the regression coefficients for the product term of YR by TDR,
* B12-15 = the regression coefficients for the product term of YR by MFI,









* B16-19 = the regression coefficients for the product term of YR by EA, and
* e = the random error not accounted for in the model.

The null and alterative hypothesis were

* Ho: B1-19 0
* HA: B1-19 0

The null hypothesis stated that there was not an association between undergraduate institution

enrollment and the tuition and fee difference ratio between institution types and state resources.

Data Treatment

The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) computer program calculated the data.

Descriptive statistics were calculated to describe the nature of the variables utilized in the study.

Statistical selection procedures such as stepwise, forward, backward or all possible subsets were

not utilized in the analysis. Data were entered into the models based upon the theoretical basis.

Independent variables were entered as a block, and then interaction terms were entered as

another block. Change statistics were reported to determine the presence of interaction effects.

In all models, assumptions of linearity, normality, independence and equal conditional

variances were checked utilizing scatter and residual plots (Shavelson 1996). Collinearity was

checked through the application of tolerance and variance inflation factors methods. Cook's

Distance was checked for the influence of data points on the analysis. The decision to reject or

fail to reject the null hypothesis was based upon a type I error rate of .05. The analysis was

interested in significance, either positive or negative, so non-directional hypotheses were used.

Limitations

The use of 1959 and 1969 tuition and fee data in the place of 1960 and 1970 tuition and

fee data were necessary as multiple attempts to collect data from the United States Department of

Education, contracted archival entities, and a federal repository were unsuccessful. This reality









caused concerns regarding the validity of the findings and should be interpreted with such

concerns. It was decided to continue forward with the data because it the ratio of the difference,

not the actual raw data that was utilized in the study. A one-year change in the ratio may have

occurred, but it was believed the change would not be substantially different than the tuition and

fee difference for the 1959 and 1969 years.

The literature suggested the inclusion student financial aid as a variable (Paulson 1994).

This variable was not included in the study as consistent data were not available for the five time

periods examined within this study.

The TDR may be interpreted as a low-end estimate of the gap in costs between community

colleges and four-year institutions when room and board and other external costs were

considered. This assumption would only apply to instances where an individual had to move to

attend a baccalaureate degree granting, four-year institution.

When identifying community colleges, there was the possibility that a community college

may offer the four-year degree and not have been identified as doing so. The relatively new

status of these institutions should not have significantly impacted the study as baccalaureate

degree programs were limited in number and type at each institution.

In thinking about life option beyond the high school, it is important for future researchers

to consider that other options existed for individuals outside of postsecondary education. What

this study did not factor in, and would contribute to understanding this observation, was the

percentage of individuals who choose to pursue a career option that required only a high school

diploma. For example, Campbell and Siegel (1960) included estimates of death and military

enrollment rates in their calculation of what they termed "eligible college aged population"

(486). State incarceration rates would also contribute to understanding who was eligible to









participate in public postsecondary education. Other individuals may have engaged in

employment opportunities, being unable to risk the foregone earnings one sacrificed while

attending an institution of postsecondary education.









Table 3-1. States without a public community college system, by year
1960 1970 1980
Arkansas Delaware Alaska
Connecticut New Hampshire Kentucky
Delaware Vermont
Hawaii
Louisiana
New Hampshire
New Mexico
Nevada
Ohio
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Virginia
Vermont









Table 3-2. Conditional mean imputation for median family income, selected states in 1970
State TDR EA Conditional mean imputation for MFI
Delaware 0 41.5 $4,681
Idaho 1.17 49.5 $5,541
Montana 2.15 48.2 $5,360
North Dakota 1.03 41.9 $4,689
Vermont 0 45.6 $5,143
Wyoming 1.58 51.1 $5,707
Estimation equation: MFI = -35.319(TDR) + 112.784(EA)









CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

The purpose of this study was to test student price response theory by examining how

enrollment was associated with the tuition and fee difference ratio and state resources for the

years1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000. In order to address this issue, the following research

question was developed: How was enrollment associated with the tuition difference ratio

between institution types and state resources between 1960 and 2000?

It was hypothesized that enrollment was not significantly associated with tuition

difference ratio between public institution types and state resources between 1960 and 2000. To

test the research question and resulting hypotheses, multiple regression analysis was employed.

Two multiple regression models were developed to predict enrollment from the tuition

and fee difference ratio and state resources. The independent variables in each model were the

same tuition and fee difference ratio (TDR), median family income (MFI), educational

attainment (EA), year (YR), and interactions by year (YRxTDR, YRxMFI, and YRxEA) while

the dependent variable depicted two different enrollment counts.

The first model included total enrollment in community colleges as its dependent

variable. The second model included the total enrollment in undergraduate institutions as its

dependent variable.

Model 1

A multiple regression analysis was performed with the dependent variable as community

college enrollment (CCENR) and the independent variables (TDR, MFI, EA, YEAR, YRxTDR,

YRxMFI, and YRxEA). Product terms for the three continuous variables (TDR, MFI, and EA)

were computed for the years 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000 with 1960 serving as the reference









year. As a result, a reduced model, a full model inclusive of product terms, and fixed effect

models were constructed for analysis.

The influence of outliers on predicted values (Cook's distance) and the intercept and

slope (DFBETAS) were calculated as part of the analysis. It was determined that California in

1980, 1990, and 2000 served as an outlier influencing the predicted value with a Cook's Distance

value greater than 1. California in 1980, 1990, and 2000 were removed after a review of Cook's

distance values of 3.42120, 5.35827, and 6.39814 respectively. Scores greater than 1 were

perceived as being influential. As such, the data points were removed from analysis reducing the

sample size to 218.

Reduced model. The multiple regression analysis of the reduced model, not inclusive of

product term variables, accounted for a 15.9% of the variance in enrollment (Table 4-1). A 95%

confidence interval for the population correlation coefficient (R = .399) extends from .281 to

.505, indicating the observed value was consistent with the data and not merely that it was not

equal to zero. The resulting standard regression equation (Table 4-2) was,

CCENR = 11,373.667 + 6,160.406(TDR) + 1.895(MFI) 1,442.072(EA)
+ 12,274.185(YR70) + 45,704.127(YR80) + 74,992.184(YR90) +
77,671.040(YROO) (4-1)

The intercept was not interpretable as zero was not a valid enrollment option in the study. The

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) revealed that the reduced model was statistically significant, F

(7, 210) = 5.666, p < 0.01 (Table 4-3).

Full model. The multiple regression analysis of the full model, inclusive of all variables

and product terms, accounted for 24.6% of the variance in enrollment (Table 4-1). A 95%

confidence interval for the population correlation coefficient (R = .496) extends from .389 to









.590, indicating the observed value was consistent with the data and not merely that it was not

equal to zero. The resulting standard regression equation (Table 4-2) was,

CCENR = 28,851.061 + 13,696.399(TDR) + 1.165(MFI) 613.373(EA) -
26,174.942(YR70) + 37,981.113(YR80) + 418,372.794(YR90) + 897,166.623(YR00) -
8,697.004(YR70* TDRi) 13,402.257(YR80* TDRi) 47,072.093(YR90* TDRi)-
49,792.108(YROO* TDRi) + .322(YR70*MFIi) + 3.219(YR80*MFIi) +
.236(YR90*MFIi) 2.387(YR00*MFIi) + 958.815(YR70*EA) -
2,065.569(YR80*EAi) -5, 038.087(YR90*EAi) 10,819.320(YROO*EAi) (4-2)

The intercept was not interpretable as zero was not a valid enrollment option in the study. The

inclusion of product terms accounted for 8.7% of the variance in community college enrollment.

The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) revealed that the full model was statistically

significant F (19, 198) = 3.404, p < 0.05 (Table 4-3). Therefore, the null hypothesis that there

was not a relationship between community college enrollment and the tuition and fee difference

ratio between institution types and state resources was rejected.

Descriptive statistics for the full model standard regression equation were presented in

Table 4-4. Pearson's correlations indicated that the independent variables median family income,

educational attainment, the years 1970, 1990 and 2000 were statistically significant at the 0.05

level in association with community college enrollment. Product terms for the years inclusive of

1990 and 2000 were also significantly associated with community college enrollment at the 0.10

level (Table 4-5). The TDR was not observed to correlate significantly with the dependent

variable or any independent variable save those that included TDR in the product term.

The models were tested for violations to the assumptions of linearity, normality,

independence and equal conditional variance (Shavelson 1996). Studentized residuals were

calculated and plotted against all variables in the model to check for violations to the

assumptions (Figures 4-1 to 4-5). Analysis of the scatterplots did not reveal violations of the

assumptions.









Fixed effect models. Inserting the values of"0" and "1" wherever the relevant dummy

code occurs in the full model, the following regression equations were determined for the years,

1960,
CCENR =- 28,851.061 + 13,696.399(TDR) + 1.165(MFI) 613.373(EA), (4-3)

1970,
CCENR = 55,026.003 + 4,999.395(TDR) + 1.487(MFI) +345.442(EA), (4-4)

1980,
CC ENR = 9,130.052 + 294.142(TDR) + 4.384(MFI) 1,542.196(EA), (4-5)

1990,
CCENR = 389,521.733 33,375.694(TDR) + 1.401(MFI) 4,424.714(EA), (4-6)

2000,
CCENR = 868,315.562- 36,095.709(TDR) 1.222(MFI)- 11,432.693(EA). (4-7)

Across the forty years, as measured every ten years, investigated in the study, the

independent variables exhibited different trends. The tuition and fee difference ratio (TDR) was

positively associated with degree-seeking enrollment in a public community college for the years

1960, 1970, and 1980, a trend that turned negative in 1990 and 2000. The trend however was

consistently negative as the associations, which started out positively, continued to decrease

since the reference year. Increases in median family income were positively associated with

community college enrollment for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, and 1990, only to become

negatively associated in 2000. Increases in educational attainment were negatively associated

with enrolment for all years but 1970,when the association was positive.

This suggested that, over the five time points examined, an increase in the difference in

tuition and fee difference ratio, median family income, and educational attainment shifted from

being positively associated with fall headcount, degree-seeking enrollment at public community

colleges to being negatively associated.









Model 2

A multiple regression analysis was performed with the dependent variable as

undergraduate enrollment (UI_ENR) and the independent variables (TDR, MFI, EA, YEAR,

YRxTDR, YRxMFI, and YRxEA). Product terms for the three continuous variables (TDR, MFI,

and EA) were computed for the years 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000 with 1960 serving as the

reference year. As a result, a reduced model, a full model inclusive of product terms, and fixed

effect models were constructed for analysis.

The influence of outliers on predicted values (Cook's distance) and the intercept and

slope (DFBETAS) were calculated as part of the analysis. It was determined that California in

1980, 1990, and 2000 served as an outlier influencing the predicted value with a Cook's Distance

value greater than 1. California in 1980, 1990, and 2000 were removed after a review of Cook's

distance values of 15.93089, 4.44889, and 1.35235 respectively. Scores greater than 1 were

perceived as being influential. As such, the data points were removed from analysis reducing the

sample size to 218.

Reduced model. The multiple regression analysis of the reduced model, not inclusive of

product term variables, accounted for a 15.5% of the variance in enrollment (Table 4-6). A 95%

confidence interval for the population correlation coefficient (R = .393) extends from .274 to

.499, indicating the observed value was consistent with the data and not merely that it was not

equal to zero. The resulting standard regression equation (Table 4-7) was,

UIENR = 54,650.696 4,036.997(TDR) + 1.275(MFI) 1,754.747(EA)
+ 38,510.392(YR70) + 70,930.372(YR80) + 85,750.868(YR90)
+ 89,662.325(YR00) (4-8)

The intercept was not interpretable as zero was not a valid enrollment option in the study. The

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) revealed that the reduced model was statistically significant, F

(7, 210) = 5.489, p < 0.01 (Table 4-8).









Full model. The multiple regression analysis of the full model, inclusive of all variables

and product terms, accounted for 24.2% of the variance in enrollment (Table 4-6). A 95%

confidence interval for the population correlation coefficient (R = .492) extends from .384 to

.586, indicating the observed value was consistent with the data and not merely that it was not

equal to zero. The resulting standard regression equation (Table 4-7) was,

UIENR = 31,163.881 + 4,396.764(TDR) + 1.928(MFI) 2,061.697(EA) -
1,387.195(YR70) + 128,432.212(YR80) + 455,913.581(YR90) + 506,613.606(YR00) -
13,138.783(YR70* TDRi) 24,096.449(YR80* TDRi) 47,856.271(YR90* TDRi)-
29,237.839(YROO* TDRi) + .135(YR70*MFIi) + 3.336(YR80*MFIi) -
1.825(YR90*MFIi) 3.253(YROO*MFIi) + 1,253.781(YR70*EA) -
2,901.814(YR80*EAi) 3,763.268(YR90*EAi) 3,751.613(YROO*EAi) (4-9)

The intercept was not interpretable as zero was not a valid enrollment option in the study. The

inclusion of product terms accounted for 8.7% of the variance in undergraduate institution

enrollment.

The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) revealed that the full model was statistically

significant, F (19, 198) = 3.331, p < 0.05 (Table 4-8). Therefore, the null hypothesis that there

was not a relationship between undergraduate institution enrollment and the tuition and fee

difference ratio between institution types and state resources was rejected.

Descriptive statistics for the full model standard regression equation were presented in

Table 4-9. Pearson's correlations indicated that the independent variables median family

income, educational attainment, the year 1990 and 2000 were statistically significant (p < 0.10)

associated with undergraduate institution enrollment. Product terms for median family income

in 2000 and educational attainment in 2000 were also significantly associated with undergraduate

institution enrollment at the .10 level (Table 4-10). The TDR was not observed to correlate

significantly with the dependent variable or any independent variable save those that included

TDR in the product term.









The models were tested for violations to the assumptions of linearity, normality,

independence and equal conditional variance (Shavelson 1996). Studentized residuals were

calculated and plotted against all variables in the model to check for violations to the

assumptions (Figures 4-6 to 4-10). Analysis of the scatterplots did not reveal violations of the

assumptions.

Fixed effect models. Inserting the values of"0" and "1" wherever the relevant dummy

code occurs in the full model, the following regression equations were determined for the years,

1960,
UIENR = 31,163.881 + 4,396.764(TDR) + 1.928(MFI) 2,061.697(EA), (4-10)

1970,
UIENR = 29,776.686 8,742.019(TDR) + 2.063(MFI) + 807.916(EA), (4-11)

1980,
UIENR = 159,596.093 19,699.685(TDR) + 5.264(MFI)- 4,963.511(EA), (4-12)

1990,
UIENR = 487,077.462 43,459.507(TDR) + 0.103(MFI) 5,824.965(EA), (4-13)

2000,
UIENR = 537,777.487 24,841.075(TDR) 1.325(MFI) 5,813.31(EA). (4-14)

Across the forty years, as measured every ten years, investigated in the study, the

independent variables exhibited different trends. The tuition and fee difference ratio (TDR) was

negatively associated with degree-seeking enrollment in at undergraduate institutions for all

years as compared to the reference year, 1960. While still negatively associated, this trend

reversed in 2000. Increases in median family income were positively associated with

undergraduate institution enrollment for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, and 1990, only to become

negatively associated in 2000. Increases in educational attainment were negatively associated

with enrolment for all years but 1970,when the association was positive.









An emerging trend in the data over five time points investigated showed largely negative

associations with undergraduate institution, degree-seeking fall enrollment for the independent

variables TDR and EA. This suggested that, over the five time points over forty years examined,

an increase in the difference in tuition and fee difference ratio had an influence on the decreased

number of individuals enrolled in undergraduate institutions. It also continued the trend

observed in the other models, that as the percentage of a state's population over 25 years old with

at least a high school degree but not a bachelor's degree or higher increased, enrollment at public

postsecondary education institutions decreased.









Table.4-1. Model summary for Model 1
Std. error Change Statistics
Adjusted R of the R square Sig. F
Model R R square square estimate change F change dfl df2 change
1 .399 .159 .131 71531.984 .159 5.666 7 210 .000(a)
2 .496 .246 .174 69738.627 .087 1.912 12 198 .035(b)
a Predictors: (Constant), YROO, TDR, YR70, MFI, YR80, EA, YR90; b Predictors: (Constant),
YROO, TDR, YR70, MFI, YR80, EA, YR90, YR70XTDR, YR80XTDR, YROOXTDR,
YR90XTDR, YR70XMFI, YR70XEA, YR90XMFI, YR80XMFI, YROOXMFI, YR80XEA,
YR90XEA, YROOXEA; c Dependent Variable: CCENR










Table 4-2. Coefficients for Model 1
Standardized
Unstandardized coefficients coefficients 95% Confidence interval for B Collinearity statistics
Model B Std. error Beta t Sig. Lower bound Upper bound Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) -11373.667 35581.340 -.320 .750 -81516.045 58768.711


TDR
MFI
EA
YR70
YR80
YR90
YROO
2 (Constant)
TDR
MFI
EA
YR70
YR80
YR90
YROO
YR70XTDR
YR80XTDR
YR90XTDR
YROOXTDR
YR70XMFI
YR80XMFI
YR90XMFI
YROOXMFI
YR70XEA
YR80XEA
YR90XEA
YROOXEA


6160.406
1.895
-1442.072
12274.185
45704.127
74992.184
77671.040
-28851.061
13696.399
1.165
-613.373
-26174.942
37981.113
418372.794
897166.623
-8697.004
-13402.257
-47072.093
-49792.108
.322
3.219
.236
-2.387
958.815
-2065.569
-5038.087
-10819.320


5030.651
.689
825.333
17736.895
21073.768
23881.600
25248.842
72443.060
6789.071
2.612
2561.671
95685.673
137958.454
181823.314
239149.633
14127.311
15678.857
21409.786
18148.526
2.906
3.560
2.891
3.050
2850.686
3323.399
3565.719
3930.419


.078
.207
-.197
.065
.242
.403
.417

.174
.127
-.084
-.138
.201
2.248
4.820
-.089
-.145
-.456
-.539
.071
.686
.055
-.595
.217
-.563
-1.534
-3.390


1.225
2.750
-1.747
.692
2.169
3.140
3.076
-.398
2.017
.446
-.239
-.274
.275
2.301
3.751
-.616
-.855
-2.199
-2.744
.111
.904
.081
-.783
.336
-.622
-1.413
-2.753


a Dependent variable: CCENR


.222
.006
.082
.490
.031
.002
.002
.691
.045
.656
.811
.785
.783
.022
.000
.539
.394
.029
.007
.912
.367
.935
.435
.737
.535
.159
.006


-3756.641
.537
-3069.071
-22690.997
4160.886
27913.795
27897.372
-171710.041
308.233
-3.986
-5665.033
-214868.763
-234075.369
59814.041
425559.367
-36556.310
-44321.238
-89292.566
-85581.320
-5.409
-3.801
-5.465
-8.401
-4662.788
-8619.370
-12069.747
-18570.176


16077.453
3.254
184.926
47239.366
87247.368
122070.574
127444.707
114007.919
27084.565
6.317
4438.287
162518.878
310037.595
776931.546
1368773.879
19162.301
17516.723
-4851.621
-14002.897
6.053
10.239
5.936
3.627
6580.418
4488.232
1993.574
-3068.464


.986
.705
.315
.455
.323
.243
.218

.515
.047
.031
.015
.007
.004
.002
.182
.132
.089
.099
.009
.007
.008
.007
.009
.005
.003
.003


1.014
1.418
3.174
2.196
3.099
4.109
4.593

1.943
21.418
32.168
67.228
139.750
250.605
433.541
5.488
7.579
11.287
10.126
107.571
151.122
120.218
151.677
109.322
215.699
309.608
398.275









Table 4-3. ANOVA for Model 1

Model Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.
1 Regression 202950708476.311 7 28992958353.759 5.666 .000(a)
Residual 1074533196251.469 210 5116824744.055
Total 1277483904727.780 217
2 Regression 314515626586.006 19 16553454030.842 3.404 .000(b)
Residual 962968278141.774 198 4863476152.231
Total 1277483904727.780 217
a Predictors: (Constant), YROO, TDR, YR70, MFI, YR80, EA, YR90; b Predictors: (Constant),
YROO, TDR, YR70, MFI, YR80, EA, YR90, YR70XTDR, YR80XTDR, YROOXTDR,
YR90XTDR, YR70XMFI, YR70XEA, YR90XMFI, YR80XMFI, YROOXMFI, YR80XEA,
YR90XEA, YROOXEA; c Dependent Variable: CCENR


Table 4-4. Descriptive statistics for Model 1
Mean Std. deviation N
CC ENR 50121.1000 76726.9350 218
TDR 1.7466 .9720 218
MFI 40612.5321 8387.3626 218
EA 49.3193 10.4817 218
YR70 .2064 .4057 218
YR80 .2064 .4057 218
YR90 .2156 .4122 218
YROO .2156 .4122 218
YR70XTDR .3488 .7851 218
YR80XTDR .3839 .8313 218
YR90XTDR .3664 .7429 218
YROOXTDR .4016 .8301 218
YR70XMFI 8354.5642 16895.4960 218
YR80XMFI 8244.8532 16347.6940 218
YR90XMFI 9176.0138 17955.9504 218
YROOXMFI 9844.1284 19117.8521 218
YR70XEA 8.5913 17.3640 218
YR80XEA 10.5656 20.9211 218
YR90XEA 12.1734 23.3616 218
YROOXEA 12.5376 24.0379 218













Table 4-5. Pearson correlations for Model 1
CC ENR TDR MFI EA YR70 YR80 YR90YR00 YR70X YR80X YR90X YROOX YR70X YR80X YR90X YROOX YR70XYR80XE YR90X
TDR TDR TDR TDR MFI MFI MFI MFI EA A EA


TDR Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
MFI Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
EA Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
YR70 Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
YR80 Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
YR90 Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
YROO Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
YR70XTDR Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
YR80XTDR Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
YR90XTDR Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
YROOXTDR Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
YR70XMFI Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
YR80XMFI Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
YR90XMFI Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
YROOXMFI Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
YR70XEA Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
YR80XEA Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
YR90XEA Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
YROOXEA Pearson Correlation
Sie. (2-tailed)


.023 1
.730
.040 .477 1
.553 .000
-.030-.008-.375 1
.662 .901 .000
.060-.041 .091 -.260
.382 .548 .181 .000
-.026 .122 .358 -.267
.707 .072 .000 .000
.063 .316 .443 -.267
.355 .000 .000 .000
.166 .003-.326 .873
.014 .964 .000 .000
.205-.036 .057 -.236
.002 .597 .404 .000
.061 .111 .316 -.252
.372 .101 .000 .000
.181 .257 .390 -.247
.007 .000 .000 .000
-.025 .104-.332 .972
.716 .126 .000 .000
.059-.006 .104 -.258
.382 .928 .127 .000
-.026 .217 .348 -.261
.699 .001 .000 .000
.049 .382 .427 -.263
.475 .000 .000 .000
-.028 .032-.275 .972
.681 .644 .000 .000
.048-.027 .120 -.258
.480 .687 .077 .000
-.033 .120 .374 -.266
.629 .077 .000 .000
.055 .307 .455 -.267
.416 .000 .000 .000


** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).


-.275 1
.000
-.233 -.233
.001 .001
-.243 -.243
.000 .000
.943 -.259
.000 .000
-.254 .925
.000 .000
-.260 -.260
.000 .000
-.265 -.265
.000 .000
.977 -.269
.000 .000
-.271 .984
.000 .000
-.260 -.260
.000 .000
-.265 -.265
.000 .000
.996 -.274
.000 .000
-.274 .997
.000 .000


1

-.206
.002
-.220
.001
-.216
.001
.854
.000
-.225
.001
-.228
.001
-.230
.001
.850
.000
-.225
.001
-.233
.001
-.233
.001


1

-.240
.000
-.245
.000
-.248
.000
.895
.000
-.241
.000
-.245
.000
-.253
.000
.914
.000


1

-.264
.000
-.254
.000
-.259
.000
.973
.000
-.268
.000


a Listwise N=218









Table 4-6. Model summary for Model 2

Change statistics
Adjusted R Std. Error of R square Sig. F
Model R R square square the Estimate change F change dfl df2 change
1 .393(a) .155 .126 60493.800 .155 5.489 7 210 .000
2 .492(b) .242 .169 58985.437 .088 1.906 12 198 .035
a Predictors: (Constant), YROO, TDR, YR70, MFI_2000, YR80, Educational attainment, YR90; Predictors: (Constant), YROO, TDR,
YR70, MFI 2000, YR80, Educational attainment, YR90, YR70XTDR, YR80XTDR, YROOXTDR, YR90XTDR, YR70XMFI,
YR70XEA, YR90XMFI, YR80XMFI, YROOXMFI, YR80XEA, YR90XEA, YROOXEA; c Dependent Variable: UI_ENR










Table 4-7. Coefficients for Model 2
Standardized
Unstandardized coefficients coefficients 95% Confidence interval for B Collinearity statistics
Model
B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Lower bound Upper bound Tolerance VIF


1 (Constant)
TDR
MFI
EA
YR70
YR80
YR90
YROO
2 (Constant)
TDR
MFI
EA
YR70
YR80
YR90
YROO
YR70XTDR
YR80XTDR
YR90XTDR
YROOXTDR
YR70XMFI
YR80XMFI
YR90XMFI
YROOXMFI
YR70XEA
YR80XEA
YR90XEA
YROOXEA


54650.696
-4036.997
1.275
-1754.747
38510.392
70930.372
85750.868
89662.325
31163.881
4396.764
1.928
-2061.697
-1387.195
128432.212
455913.581
506613.606
-13138.783
-24096.449
-47856.271
-29237.839
.135
3.336
-1.825
-3.253
1253.781
-2901.814
-3763.268
-3751.613


30090.742
4254.365
.583
697.975
14999.894
17821.850
20196.402
21352.663
61272.865
5742.245
2.209
2166.680
80931.636
116686.260
153787.477
202274.493
11948.982
13261.291
18108.552
15350.155
2.458
3.011
2.445
2.580
2411.131
2810.955
3015.911
3324.377


-.061
.165
-.284
.241
.445
.546
.571

.066
.250
-.334
-.009
.805
2.903
3.226
-.159
-.309
-.549
-.375
.035
.843
-.506
-.961
.336
-.938
-1.358
-1.393


1.816
-.949
2.186
-2.514
2.567
3.980
4.246
4.199
.509
.766
.873
-.952
-.017
1.101
2.965
2.505
-1.100
-1.817
-2.643
-1.905
.055
1.108
-.746
-1.261
.520
-1.032
-1.248
-1.129


.071
.344
.030
.013
.011
.000
.000
.000
.612
.445
.384
.342
.986
.272
.003
.013
.273
.071
.009
.058
.956
.269
.456
.209
.604
.303
.214
.260


-4667.929
-12423.733
.125
-3130.682
8940.729
35797.717
45937.200
47569.290
-89667.279
-6927.044
-2.429
-6334.427
-160985.796
-101675.133
152641.989
107724.770
-36702.385
-50247.947
-83566.653
-59508.613
-4.712
-2.602
-6.647
-8.340
-3501.012
-8445.066
-9710.697
-10307.343


a Dependent Variable: UIENR


113969.322
4349.738
2.424
-378.813
68080.055
106063.027
125564.537
131755.359
151995.042
15720.572
6.285
2211.034
158211.406
358539.556
759185.173
905502.441
10424.819
2055.048
-12145.889
1032.936
4.983
9.274
2.997
1.834
6008.573
2641.438
2184.162
2804.117


.986
.705
.315
.455
.323
.243
.218

.515
.047
.031
.015
.007
.004
.002
.182
.132
.089
.099
.009
.007
.008
.007
.009
.005
.003
.003


1.014
1.418
3.174
2.196
3.099
4.109
4.593

1.943
21.418
32.168
67.228
139.750
250.605
433.541
5.488
7.579
11.287
10.126
107.571
151.122
120.218
151.677
109.322
215.699
309.608
398.275









Table 4-8. ANOVA for Model 2
Model Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.
1 Regression 140596911838.069 7 20085273119.725 5.489 .000(a)
Residual 768494961526.836 210 3659499816.795
Total 909091873364.904 217
2 Regression 220194092036.388 19 11589162738.758 3.331 .000(b)
Residual 688897781328.517 198 3479281723.882
Total 909091873364.904 217
a Predictors: (Constant), YROO, TDR, YR70, MFI_2000, YR80, Educational attainment, YR90. b Predictors: (Constant), YROO,
TDR, YR70, MFI 2000, YR80, Educational attainment, YR90, YR70XTDR, YR80XTDR, YROOXTDR, YR90XTDR, YR70XMFI,
YR70XEA, YR90XMFI, YR80XMFI, YROOXMFI, YR80XEA, YR90XEA, YROOXEA. c Dependent Variable: UI Fall enrollment










Table 4-9. Descriptive statistics for Model 2
Mean Std. deviation N
I ENR 73228.3700 64725.2920 218
TDR 1.7466 .9720 218
MFI 40612.5321 8387.3626 218


49.3193


10.4817


YR70
YR80
YR90
YROO
YR70XTDR
YR80XTDR
YR90XTDR
YROOXTDR
YR70XMFI
YR80XMFI
YR90XMFI
YROOXMFI
YR70XEA
YR80XEA


.2064
.2064
.2156
.2156
.3488
.3839
.3664
.4016
8354.5642
8244.8532
9176.0138
9844.1284
8.5913
10 5656


YR90XEA 12.1734
YROOXEA 12.5376
Dependent variable: UI_ENR


.4057 218
.4057 218
.4122 218
.4122 218
.7851 218
.8313 218
.7429 218
.8301 218
16895.4960 218
16347.6940 218
17955.9504 218
19117.8521 218
17.3640 218
20.9211 218
23.3616 218
24.0379 218













Table 4-10 Pearson correlations for Model 2
UI yr70x yr80x yr90x yr00x yr70x yr80x yr90x yr00x yr70x yr80x yr90x
ENR TDR MFI EA yr70 yr80 yr90 yrOO TDR TDR TDR TDR MFI MFI MFI MFI EA EA EA


TDR Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
MFI Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
EA Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
yr70 Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
yr80 Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
yr90 Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
yrOO Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
yr70xTDR Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
yr80xTDR Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
yr90xTDR Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
yrOOxTDR Pearson Correlation
00 Sig. (2-tailed)
S yr70xMFI Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
yr8OxMFI Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
yr90xMFI Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
yrOOxMFI Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
yr70xEA Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
yr8OxEA Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
yr90xEA Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
yrOOxEA Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)


.255 .023 1
.000 .730
.190 .040 .477 1
.005 .553 .000
-.066 -.030 -.008 -.375 1
.333 .662 .901 .000
.047 .060 -.041 .091 -.260 1
.491 .382 .548 .181 .000
.126 -.026 .122 .358 -.267 -.267 1
.064 .707 .072 .000 .000 .000
.160 .063 .316 .443 -.267 -.267 -.275 1
.018 .355 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
-.080 .166 .003 -.326 .873 -.227 -.233 -.233 1
.239 .014 .964 .000 .000 .001 .001 .001
.019 .205 -.036 .057 -.236 .908 -.243 -.243 -.206 1
.776 .002 .597 .404 .000 .000 .000 .000 .002
.083 .061 .111 .316 -.252 -.252 .943 -.259 -.220 -.229 1
.220 .372 .101 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001
.127 .181 .257 .390 -.247 -.247 -.254 .925 -.216 -.224 -.240 1
.062 .007 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001 .000
-.039 -.025 .104 -.332 .972 -.253 -.260 -.260 .854 -.229 -.245 -.240 1
.568 .716 .126 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000
.059 .059 -.006 .104 -.258 .991 -.265 -.265 -.225 .900 -.250 -.245 -.251 1
.387 .382 .928 .127 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000
.126 -.026 .217 .348 -.261 -.261 .977 -.269 -.228 -.237 .919 -.248 -.254 -.259 1
.062 .699 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
.159 .049 .382 .427 -.263 -.263 -.271 .984 -.230 -.239 -.255 .895 -.256 -.261 -.264 1
.019 .475 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
-.065 -.028 .032 -.275 .972 -.253 -.260 -.260 .850 -.230 -.245 -.241 .965 -.251 -.254 -.256 1
.337 .681 .644 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
.035 .048 -.027 .120 -.258 .992 -.265 -.265 -.225 .888 -.250 -.245 -.251 .990 -.259 -.261 -.251 1
.610 .480 .687 .077 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
.114 -.033 .120 .374 -.266 -.266 .996 -.274 -.233 -.242 .930 -.253 -.259 -.264 .973 -.270 -.259 -.264 1
.093 .629 .077 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
.152 .055 .307 .455 -.267 -.267 -.274 .997 -.233 -.242 -.258 .914 -.259 -.264 -.268 .978 -.259 -.265 -.273
.025 .416 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000


** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).


























00
0
I ".:: :." 0







00




,0 0
o o



0;




o




00 0




O0 10DCOD 20&DOD J0OO0O 400000 S0000
-2.00000


0 10=0 =0 3 4I==I= SOOOI

CC FALL ENROLLMENT


Figure 4-1. Studentized residual versus CCENR















C :.:'I -


I
E


0
0 0

0


(b JR 0 0


O
0


0 0


Figure 4-2. Studentized residual versus TDR


1 I f I I






















0

0
0














o.a .o (6
S 0






















Figure 4-3. Studentized residual versus MI
2 oo







0 0








2.0000



MFI


Figure 4-3. Studentized residual versus MFI




























O




So o




1o1 o o o
0 0 0 0





2. 3.0 0 0 5.0


00 000
o oo




0.00 10.00 20.00 30.0D 40.00 S0.00 60.00 70.00

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT


Figure 4-4. Studentized residual versus EA















C '. :.. -


0




0



.0



0e 0
4 --: -

0









S0 0
J 0

0 3
o o
SiI











I I I I I
190 1970 1980 1990 2000

YEAR


Figure 4-5. Studentized residual versus Year
























0


000

0





00 0

o
c oQm e








c- of 'o
00 o




0 0 0




Co C

0 C's



I I I I !
0 10 200000 300000 400000

UI FALL ENROLLMENT


Figure 4-6. Studentized residual versus UIENR.































0
I s *:-:--* ------ "--------
o, o


oo
0 00
o oo0 0 0



0 O0
0 9 0
o o

.0000







0.00 2.00 4.00




Figure 4-7. Studentized residual versus TDR.


TDR


1 ~-::


























] .555.


C

0
a


J 0




o0 b 0


C -) oo
0 0 0








IO- 0 0
0
** ^*0 0 ---------o-- -- 0





00 o
I 0 0 o0 8% ,o 0



o oi
00 00 0




I I I
0.00 20000.00 40000.00 a0e

MFI


Figure 4-8. Studentized residual versus MFI.


ri ,>* ;r.


































00
00


%<90 4p 0 00 0
0 O 0 O o
o o
0 0


I I
30.00 40.00

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT


Figure 4-9. Studentized residual versus EA.


*1V.: -


1.ODcDo -




o.ODDOOr -


I I
0.00 10.00


70.00
70.00


. ..........


















4.cOOO


* ] %8


-1.00000


1946


1970


Figure 4-10. Studentized residual versus Year.





























90


0
8 0
0


1980
YEAR


2000









CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION

The nature of state postsecondary education systems, via enrollment, has been examined

both in the literature and through quantitative analysis. This chapter will conclude the study with

a discussion of the results, suggestions for future research, and implications for state planning.

Discussion of Results

The purpose of the study was to test student price response theory by examining how

enrollment was related to the tuition and fee difference ratio and state resources for the years

1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000. The omnibus hypothesis guiding this study stated enrollment

was not significantly associated with tuition difference ratio between public institution types and

state resources between 1960 and 2000. This inquiry was examined through statistical analysis

of the significance of association between enrollment and the independent variables and the

analysis of forty-year trends.

Significance of Association

Two models, differing by dependent variable reflective of community college and

undergraduate institution enrollment, were developed to test the hypothesis. Analysis of the

results indicated that the tuition and fee difference ratio did not have a statistically significant

association with the enrollment variables. It was observed that in both the community college

enrollment and the undergraduate institution enrollment models, the tuition and fee difference

ratio was not significantly associated with enrollment.

The complete models, inclusive of median family income and educational attainment,

accounted for 24.6 % and 26.5% of the variance in enrollment for Model 1 and Model 2

respectively. In both models the state resource variables, median family income and educational

attainment, had statistically significant zero-order correlations with community college









enrollment as did the years 1990 and 2000. This result confirms prior research indicating income

and educational attainment influence participation in public postsecondary education.

Forty-year Trends

The fixed effects models for each year, with 1960 serving as the reference year, captured

forty-year trends in the relationship of enrollment to each independent variable, while holding

the others constant. Trends for each relationship were presented and discussed in further detail

in this section.

Enrollment and the tuition and fee difference ratio. Whereas the student price

response theory, as conceptualized as the difference in pricing between two institution types and

not the actual tuition and fee "sticker price, was not statistically significant in its association

with enrollment, the forty-year trend depicting the relationship between enrollment and the

tuition and fee difference ratio provided evidence for further consideration. The emergent trends

indicated that as the tuition and fee difference ratio increased community college enrollment

decreased. This trend was the same in undergraduate institutions, except between the years 1990

and 2000 where the trend took a turn in the positive direction (Figure 5-1).

Results of the analysis indicating that community college enrollment was negatively

associated with an increase in the TDR suggested that the community college was not increasing

enrollment by serving as the low-cost, entry-point to postsecondary education. One would have

suspected that as the gap in tuition and fee prices, as operationalized by the TDR, increased that

a larger number of individuals would have opted to enroll in a less-costly, localized institution to

mitigate expenses. This was not the case.

The increased association of the TDR to enrollment at undergraduate institutions from

1990 to 2000 was a result of significant interest to the researcher. It suggested that as the

difference in tuition and fees between institution types increased, there was the tendency for









more individuals to enroll in four-year public institutions. The fact that approximately 25% of

the variance in enrollment was explained in the whole model provided two lens for analyzing

this phenomena. First, it may have been that the result of increases in state and institutionally

supported merit-based aid at four-year institutions mitigated the influence of price in enrollment

decisions. For example, Cornwall, Mustard and Sridhar (2006) found that Georgia's

implementation of the HOPE Scholarship increased enrollment in the state's public institutions,

with four-year institutions seeing most of the gain. While aid as a variable of interest was not a

possibility for this study, future studies of student price response must factor in aid to account for

its influence on enrollment.

Second, if state aid was not a driving factor in the enrollment decisions of individuals,

what could have been associated with such a trend reversal? Another lens through which

enrollment decisions may be viewed was that of competition. It has been reported that during

the 1990s an increasingly larger percentage of the total population enrolled in private institutions

(Snyder 2008). In order for individuals to compete for the job market after postsecondary

education it may have been that individuals who may have considered first attending the

community college either did not attend or engaged in personal financing practices that enable

them to pay relatively higher prices at public four-year institutions. Perhaps Bowen's (1980)

"Revenue Theory of Costs" may be reframed from the students' perspective, as such: prestige

drives expenditures in the search for revenue.

Enrollment and median family income. Median family income exhibited itself to be

strongly correlated with enrollment. Across both models, median family income exhibited the

same trend. Between 1960 and 1980, holding other variables constant, an increase in median

family income resulted in an increasingly positive association with enrollment. However,









between 1980 and 2000, an increase in median family income resulted an increasingly negative

association with enrollment. This trend suggested that wealthier students began to enroll in

postsecondary options other than public institutions during this time. Such a position was

supported by the observation that enrollment in the private sector of postsecondary education, as

a percent of total enrollment in all postsecondary education, increased from 21.5% in 1990 to

23.2% in 2000 and continued to 25.5% in 2005 (Snyder 2008). This observation, in combination

with results of the study, contributed to price response studies in that not only were individuals

on the lower end of the economic spectrum most influenced by price in their enrollment

decisions (Leslie and Brinkman 1987; Kane 1995; Heller 1997), but those states with high

median family incomes also exhibited a preference not to attend public postsecondary education.

Enrollment and educational attainment. The relationship between enrollment at both

institution types and educational attainment provided the opportunity to examine the impacts of a

more educated populace at the compulsory level on postsecondary education. Between 1960 and

1970, analysis of the data indicated a positive association between enrollment and educational

attainment of individuals. This trend reversed between 1970 and 2000, where it was observed

that the percentage of a state's population aged 25+ with a high school diploma but not a

bachelor's degree or higher increased an increasingly negative association with enrollment

emerged. The most dramatic shifts happened between 1990 and 2000, when the association with

community college enrollment continued its negative trend by nearly doubling. At

undergraduate institutions, the trend was increasingly negative, however between 1990 and 2000

there was a positive association between enrollment and educational attainment. This trend could

be interpreted two ways. Either states had academically qualified individuals that were not

engaged in postsecondary education or states where educational attainment increased witnessed









an increase in individuals choosing options other than public postsecondary education. Both

options have some credibility a the former was supported by the conclusions of the Advisory

Committee on Student Financial Assistance (2002), who concluded a million bachelors degree

were lost during the 1990s to academically qualified individuals. The latter perspective appeared

to be an emerging trend in this study, namely that an increasing number of academically

qualified individuals-as determined by completion of high school-originating from families

with lesser income were deciding to attend four-year institutions as compared to community

colleges.

Directions for Future Research

The national scope and time span covered by the study presented multiple options for

future studies. Specifically, studies with state size adjustments, state level studies, studies of

populations and studies of programs may be undertaken to further examine the association

between enrollment and price and state characteristics.

Even after removing outliers, it may have been that the size of the state's population

enrolled in public postsecondary education influenced the analysis. Future studies could control

for the influence of state size on the enrollment variable by calculating a ratio of enrollment to

the number of persons in a state.

As it applied to state-specific studies, the aggregate nature of the study may have masked

the unique nature of a state outcomes. Case studies of specific states, or longitudinal studies of

their shifts in enrollment and tuition and fee prices in the context of state resources would

contribute to the dialogue on the various state structures on public postsecondary education

attainment. Kentucky, for example, had experimented over the time period examined in the

study with numerous state structures of public postsecondary education. They have had

independent community colleges, community colleges as an extension of the University of









Kentucky with a separate technical college system, and most recently a joint community and

technical college system.

With respect to studies of various populations, the current nature of the national dialogue

surrounding postsecondary education was the participation of traditionally underrepresented

groups. It was the case, however, that data delineated by race or ethnicity was not available until

1980. Specifically, Statistical Directive 15 of 1977 instructed federal agencies to classify

individuals racially within one of four racial classifications: American Indian, Asian of Pacific

Islander, Black, or White with further delineations of the White and Black classifications as

either Hispanic or non-Hispanic (Office of Management and Budget 1977). The resulting

"ethno-racial pentagon" has since been applied to institutions of higher education to quantify

demographic characteristics of student populations.

Another area for future research was the application of comparisons between federal

programs geared at college participation to a state or national norm. A program of interest may

include the United States Department of Education's Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness

for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR-UP) or other programs centrally focused on the increasing

postsecondary participation for groups who have traditionally not participated.

Implications for State Planning

The results would implicate that in order for states to maximize enrollment in public

postsecondary education, it may be the case that states should equalize tuition and fee rates for

all institution types. The difficulty in this approach was that each state, and institution type

within the state, has statutorily delegated responsibility for fixing1 tuition to a different entity

(Mullin and Honeyman 2008). It was therefore the case that, in light of statutory responsibility,

1 The term "fixing" was the term found to be most commonly utilized in statutory language
regarding tuition and fee pricing.









agreements between entities responsible for fixing tuition and fees was the avenue most

appropriate for addressing the association of an increase in the TDR and enrollment.

Perhaps the positioning of community colleges as lower-cost options, relative to

undergraduate institutions, contributed to the negative trends in enrollment. State level

policymakers undertaking planning should therefore philosophically situate the community

college as a separate entity rather than a junior college. There was limited evidence for this

position in California.

California was unique in that it has held tuition and fee prices very low at community

colleges, resulting in relatively large tuition and fee difference ratios. Initial analysis indicated

that there was a positive association with enrollment in California. However, in 1980, 1990 and

2000 the state was removed from the analysis as they were an outlier statistically determined to

influence the data. It may be that states starting to reexamine their tuition and fee policies should

clarify if they intend to pursue a low tuition and fee rate or a no tuition and fee rate. There was,

at the time of this manuscript, an action by policymakers to implement California's virtually-no

tuition model in the states of Indiana (Indiana Commission for Higher Education), Massachusetts

(Ashburn 2007), and Oklahoma (Hoberock 2007).










20,000.00

10,000.00

0.00

-10,000.00

-20,000.00

-30,000.00

-40,000.00

-50,000.00


- 1 3 ,6 9 6 .^-------------


294. 2

-8,742.0%,%


-19,699 69 A
-2 \ 441 .n

-3375
V- -36,095.71

-43,459.51


1960 1970 1980 1990 20
Year

-- Community College -A- Undergraduate Institution
Figure 5-1. Forty-year trend of TDR on enrollment


100











6

5

4

3

2-




-1
0




-2
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year

o Community College -A- Undergraduate Institution

Figure 5-2. Forty-year trend of MFI on enrollment











2000

0

-2000 -i
-2,061.70 1,542.
-4000

-6000 --, 14
-5,824.9 -5,813.31
-8000

-10000

-12000
-11,432.69
-14000
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year

0 Community College -A Undergraduate Institution

Figure 5-3. Forty-year trend of EA on enrollment









LIST OF REFERENCES

Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. 2002, June. Empty Promises: The Myth of
College Access in America. Washington, DC: Author.

Allison, P. D. 2002. Missing Data. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

American Association of Community Colleges. Community College GI i till by Decade.
Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved August 1, 2007 from
http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Content/NavigationMenu/AboutCommunityColleges/Historicall
nformation/CCGrowth/CCGrowth.htm

Anderson, G. L. 1976. Land-Grant Universities and Their Continuing Challenge. East Lansing,
MI: Michigan State University Press.

Arney, L. H. 1970. State Patterns of Financial Support for Community Colleges. Gainesville,
FL: Institute of Higher Education.

Ashburn, E. 2007. Massachusetts governor calls for tuition-free community colleges. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, June 4. Retrieved January 13, 2008, from
http://chronicle.com/daily/2007/06/2007060403n.htm

Berdahl, R. O. 1971. Statewide Coordination ofHigher Education. Washington, DC: American
Council on Education.

Bokelman, W. R. 1961. Higher Education Planning and Management Data, 1960-61: Salaries,
Tuition andFees, Room andBoard. Washington, DC: United States Office of Education.

Bowen, H. R. 1980. The Costs of Higher Education: How Much Do Colleges and Universities
Spend Per Student and How Much .\shln/l They Spend? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bowen, H. R. 1974. Financing Higher Education: The Current State of the Debate.
Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges.

Brint, S., and J. Karabel. 1989. The DivertedDream: Community Colleges and the Promise of
Educational Opportunity iln America, 1900-1985. New York: Oxford University Press.

Brown v. Board ofEducation, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

Brubacher, J. S., and W. Rudy. 1997. Higher Education in Transition. A History ofAmerican
Colleges and Universities, 4th ed. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Burkel, C. E. 1956. The College Blue Book, 8th ed. Baltimore, MD: Christian E. Burkel.

Burkel, C. E. 1960. The College Blue Book, 9th ed. Baltimore, MD: Christian E. Burkel.

Cain, R.A. 1982. Equal Educational Opportunity and the Community College. The Journal of
Negro Education, 51(1): 16-28.









California State Department of Education. 1960. A Master Plan for Higher Education in
California, 1960-1975. Sacramento, CA: Author.

Callan, P.M. 2006. College Affordability: Colleges, States Increase Financial Burdens on
Students and Families. In Measuring Up 2006: The National Report Card on Higher
Education, 19-22. San Jose, CA: The National Center for Public Policy and Higher
Education.

Campbell, R., and B. N.Siegel. 1967, June. The Demand for Higher Education in the United
States, 1919-1964. The American Economic Review, 57 (3): 482-494.

Campbell, W. V., English, R. J., and G. Lampros. 1952. Current Operating Expenditures and
Income of Higher Education in the United States 1930, 1950, and 1950: A Staff Technical
Paper for the Commission on Financing Higher Education. New York: Columbia
University Press.

Carbone, R. F. 1974. Alternative Tuition Systems. ACT Special Report No. 12. Iowa City, IA:
American College Testing Program.

Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. 1970a, March. A Chance to Learn: An Action
Agenda for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company.

Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. 1973, June. Higher Education: Who Pays? Who
benefits? Who shouldpay? New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company

Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. 1970b, June. The Open-door Colleges. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 1982. The Control of the Campus: A
Report on the Governance of Higher Education. Lawrenceville, NJ: Princeton University
Press.

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 1976. The States andHigher
Education: A Proud Past and a Vital Future. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Chambers, M. M. 1968. Higher Education: Who Pays? Who Gains? Financing Education
Beyond the High School. Danville, IN: Interstate Printers and Publishers.

Christal, M. E. 1997, March. State Tuition andFee Policies: 1996-97. Denver, CO: State Higher
Education Executive Officers.

Cohen, A. M. 1998. The ./hqig of American Higher Education: Emergence and Gi ,A ith of the
Contemporary System. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Cohen, A. M., and F. B. Brawer. 1996. The American Community College, 3rd ed. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.









College Board. 2006. Trends in College Pricing, 2006. Washington, DC: Author.

Commission on Financing Higher Education. 1952. Nature andNeeds of Higher Education.
New York: Columbia University Press.

Cornwall, C., Mustard, D.B., and D.J. Sridhar. 2006. The Enrollment Effects of Merit-Based
Financial Aid: Evidence from Georgia's HOPE Program. Journal of Labor Economics,
24(4): 761-786.

Cunningham, A. F. and J. P. Merisotis. 2002. National Models for College Costs and Prices.
Planning for Higher Education, 30(3): 15-26.

Douglass, J. A. 2000. The California Idea and American Higher Education: 1850 to the 1960
Master Plan. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Division of Performance Audit. 2006, February 12. Recent Kentucky Tuition Increases May
Prevent the Achievement of the Commonwealth's 2020 Postsecondary Education Goals,
briefing report. Frankfurt, KY: Auditor of Public Accounts.

Dressel, P. L. 1980. The Autonomy of Public Colleges. New Directions for Institutional
Research, No. 26, 7 (2): 11-23.

Dunham, E. A. 1969. Colleges of the Forgotten Americans: A Profile of State Colleges and
Regional Universities. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Eddy, E. D. 1957. Colleges for Our Land and Time. New York: Harper and Brothers.

Education Commission of the States. 1972. Higher Education in the States, Volume 3, Number
3. Denver CO: Author.

Fisher, F. J. 1990. State Financing of Higher Education: A New Look at an Old Problem.
Change, 22 (1): 42-56

Garms, W. I. 1980, February. On Measuring the Equity of Community College. (ERIC Document
Reproductive Service No. ED187378).

Garms, W. I. 1977. Financing Community Colleges. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gleazer, E. J. 1980. The Community College: Values, Vision and Vitality. Washington,
D.C.: American Association of Community and Junior Colleges.

Glenny, L. A. 1965. State Systems and Plans for Higher Education. In Emerging Patterns in
American Higher Education, ed. L. Wilson, 86-103. Washington, DC: American Council
on Education.

Goldin, C. and L. F. Katz. 2000, September. Education and Income in the Early Twentieth
Century: Evidence from the Prairies. The Journal of Economic History, 60 (3): 782-818.









Greenleaf, W. J. 1936. Junior Colleges, Educational Bulletin No. 3. Washington, DC: United
States Government Printing Office.

Gross, E., and P. V. Grambsch. 1974. Changes in University Organization, 1964-1971. New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Publishers.

Hansen, W.L., and B. A. Weisbrod. 1969. Benefits, Costs, andFinance of Public Higher
Education. New York: Markham.

Harris, S. E. 1960. Higher Education in the United States: The Economic Problems. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.

Hauptman, A. M. 1990. The Tuition Dilemma: Assessing New Ways to Pay for College.
Washington, D. C.: The Brookings Institution.

Hauptman, A. M., and J P. Merisotis. 1990. The College Tuition Spiral: An Examination of Why
Charges Are Increasing. New York: The College Board and the American Council on
Education.

Heam, J. C., Griswold, C. P., and G. M. Marine. 1996. Region, Resources, and Reason: A
Contextual Analysis of State Tuition and Student Aid Policies. Research in Higher
Education, 37(3): 241-278.

Heam, J. C. and C. P. Griswold. 1994. State-level Centralization and Policy Innovation in U. S.
Postsecondary Education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(2): 161-190.

Heller, D. E. 1997. Student Price Response in Higher Education: An Update to Leslie and
Brinkman. Journal of Higher Education, 68(6): 624-659.

Higher Education Act of 1965, Public Law 89-329 (1965).

Hoberock, B. 2007. Free Community College Tuition Pushed. Tulsa World, October 20.
Retrieved January 13, 2008, from http:///www.tulsaworld.com

Hurt, H. W., and M. E. Abbott. 1947. The College Blue Book, 5th ed. Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY:
Christian E. Burkel.

Hurt, H. W., and M. E. Abbott. 1950. The College Blue Book, 6th ed. Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY:
Christian E. Burkel.

Hurt, H. W., and H. Hurt. 1933. The College Blue Book, 3rd ed. Hollywood-by-the-Sea, FL: The
College Blue Book.

Hurt, H. W., and H. Hurt. 1950. The College Blue Book, 4th ed. DeLand, FL: The College Blue
Book.









Indiana Commission for Higher Education. Governor outlines plan for higher education access
and affordability. Indianapolis, IN: Author. Retrieved April 25, 2008, from
http://www.che.state.in.us/

Jackson, G. A. and G. B. Weathersby. 1975. Individual Demand for Higher Education. Journal
ofHigher Education, 46(6): 623-52.

Johnson, J. L. 1979. An Analysis of the Relationship Between Instructional Costs and
Differential Tuition Levels. The Journal of Higher Education, 50(3):280-288.

Jones, D. 2002. Cost analysis and the formation of public policy. In Study of College Costs and
Prices, 1988-89 to 1997-98, Vol. 2 Commissioned Papers, ed. A. F. Cunningham et al., 45-
55. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education, Office of Educational
Research and Improvement.

Kane, T. J. 1991. College Entry by Blacks Since 1970: The Role of Tuition, Financial Aid, Local
Economic Conditions, and Family Background. EdD diss., Harvard University.

Kane, T. J. 1995. Rising Public College Tuition and College Entry: How Well Do Public
Subsidies Promote Access to College? Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic
research Working Paper Series No. 5164.

Kerr, C. 1968. Financing Higher Education: The Policy Dilemmas." Public Interest, (11): 99-
136.

Kim, D. and J. L. Rury. 2007, August. The Changing Profile of College Access: The Truman
Commission and Enrollment Patterns in the Postwar Era. History of Education Quarterly,
47(3): 302-327.

Koos, L. V. 1924. The Junior College. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

Koshal, R. K., and M. Koshal. 2000. State Appropriation and Higher Education Tuition: What Is
the Relationship? Education Economics, 8(1): 81-89.

Krug, E. 1962, Autumn. Graduates of Secondary Schools In and Around 1900: Did Most of
Them Go to College? The School Review, 266-272.

Leslie, L. L. and P. T. Brinkman. 1987. Student Price Response in Higher Education: The
Student Demand Studies. Journal of Higher Education, 58(2): 181-204.

Lingenfelter, P. E. 2004. The state and higher education: An essential partnership. In
Restructuring .N/h, ii eI Governance in Higher Education, New Directions for Higher
Education Series Vol. 127, ed. W. G. Tierney and V. M. Lechuga, 47-59. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Lombardi, J. 1973. Managing Finances in Community Colleges. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.









Longanecker, D. A. 2007, March. College Access. In Thinking Outside the Box: Policy
Strategies for Readiness, Access, and Success, ed. D. A. Longanecker et al. ,25-38.
Boulder, CO: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education.

Lucas, C. J. 1994. American higher education: A history. New York: St. Martin's
Griffin.Martinez, M.C. 2004. Postsecondary Participation and State Policy: Meeting the
Future Demand. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Martorana, S. V. 1974. State-Level Planningfor Community Colleges: Are the 1202
Commissions a Centripetal or Centrifugal Force in Postsecondary Education? Essays on
Education, No. 4. Iowa City, IA: ACT Publications.

Matlock, T. P. 1994. The Overlap Group: A Study of Nonprofit Competition. Journal of Law
and Education, 23(4): 523-548.

McDowell, G. R. 2001. Land-grant Universities and Extension into the 21st century.
Renegotiating of abandoning a social contract. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.

McKinney, T. H. 1974, June. Section 1202 and Statewide Planning for Public Community and
Junior Colleges: The New Reality. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University Center for
State and Regional Leadership.

McLendon, M. K. 2003. Setting the governmental agenda for state decentralization of higher
education. Journal of Higher Education, 74(5): 470-515.

Medsker, L. L., and D. Tillery. 1971. Breaking the Access Barriers: A Profile of Two-year
Colleges. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Middaugh, M. F., Graham, R., and A. Shahid. 2003. A Study of Higher Education Instructional
Expenditures: The Delaware Study ofInstructional Costs and Productivity. [NCES-2003-
161]. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics.

Moore, P. R. et al. 1974. Report of the Interinstitutional Committee on Tuition and Fee Policy.
Providence, RI: Rhode Island State Board of Education.

Morrill Act, Public Law 37-108 (1862).

Morrill, J.S. 1887, June 21. Address. In Commemorative Addresses 1862-1887, unedited
volume, 17-26. Amherst, MA: J. E. Williams, Book and Job Printer.

Mullin, C.M., and Honeyman, D. S. 2008, April. Statutory Responsibility for Fixing Tuition and
Fees: The Relationship between Community Colleges and Undergraduate Institutions.
Community College Journal ofResearch and Practice, 32(4-6): 284-304.

Mullin, C.M., and Honeyman, D.S. 2006, March. Community College Funding Formula
Typologies: Calculating the Base. Presentation to the American Education Finance
Association, Denver, CO.









Mumper, M., and J. Anderson. 1993, Fall. Maintaining Public College Affordability in the
1980s" How Did the States Do? Journal of Education Finance, 19(2): 183-199.

National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. 2008. The Land-Grant
Tradition. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved May 1, 2008, from
http://www.nasulgc.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=780

National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. 2007. The Squeeze Play: How Parents
and the Public Look at Higher Education Today. San Jose, CA: Author. Retrieved
February 28, 2008, from http://www.makingopportunityaffordable.org

National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. 2006. Measuring Up 2006: The
National Report Card on Higher Education. San Jose, CA: Author.

National Commission on the Financing of Postsecondary Education. 1973. Financing
Postsecondary Education in the United States. Washington, DC: United States
Government Printing Office.

National Defense Education Act, Public Law 85-864 (1958).

Orfield, G., and F.G. Paul. 1992. State Higher Education Systems and College Completion. New
York: Ford Foundation.

Office of Management and Budget. 1977. Statistical Directive 15: Race and Ethnic Standards
for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting. Washington, DC.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 2007, September. Education at a
glance 2007: OECD briefing note for the United States. Washington, DC: Author.
Retrieved February 28, 2008 from http://www.oecd.org

Palmer, J. 1996. Funding the multipurpose community college in an era of consolidation. In A
Strau..le to Survive: Funding Higher Education in the Next Century, ed. D. S. Honeyman,
J. L. Wattenbarger and K. C. Westbrook, 187-208. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Paulsen, M. B. 1998. Recent Research on the Economics of Attending College: Returns on
Investment and Responsiveness to Price. Research in Higher Education, 39(4): 471-489.

Presidential Commission on Higher Education. 1947. Higher Education for American
Democracy, Vol. 1-6. New York: Harper and Brothers.

President's Committee on Education Beyond the High School. 1957, July. Second Report to the
President. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.

Pryor, J.H., Hurtado, S., Saenz, V. B., Korn, J. S., Santos J. L., and W. S. Korn. 2006. The
American Freshman: National Norms for Fall 2006. Los Angeles: Higher Education
Research Institute, UCLA.









Ravitch, D. 1981. Forgetting the Questions: The Problem of Educational Reform. The American
Scholar, 50(3): 329-340.

Reindl, T. 2007, March. Hitting Home: Quality, Cost, andAccess Challenges Confronting
Higher Education Today. Boston, MA: Making Opportunity Affordable. Retrieved
February 28, 2008, from http://www.makingopportunityaffordable.org

Roche, J. P. 1986. The Colonial Colleges in the War for American Independence. Millwood, NY:
Associated Faculty Press, Inc.

Rouse, C. E. 1998. Do Two-year Colleges Increase Overall Educational Attainment? Evidence
from the States. Journal of Policy Analysis andManagement, 17(4): 595-620.

Rouse, C. E. 1994. What to Do After High School: The Two-Year versus Four-Year College
enrollment decision. In Choices and consequences: Contemporary policy issues in
education ed. R.G. Ehrenberg, 59-88. Ithica, NY: ILR Press.

Ruppert, S. S. 2001. Where We Go from Here: State Legislative Views on Higher Education In
The New Millennium. Littleton, CO: National Education Association. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Services No. ED455740).

Russell, M. 1970. The College Blue Book 1969/70, 13th ed., Vol.2. New York: CCM
Information Corporation.

Savoca, E. 1990. Another Look at the Demand for Higher Education: Measuring the Price
Sensitivity of The Decision To Apply To College. Economics of Education Review, 9 (2):
123-134.

Scheitinger, E. F. 1981. Tuition Policyfor the Eighties. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional
Education Board.

Servicemen's Readjustment Act, Public Law 346-268 (1947).

Shelburne, J. C. 1939. Fees in a Public System. The Journal of Higher Education, 10(2): 83-89.

Snyder, T. D. 2008. Mini-Digest of Education Statistics, 2007 (NCES 2008-023). Washington,
DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Educational Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education.

Sonnenberg, W. C. 1993. Elementary and Secondary Education. In 120 years ofAmerican
Education: A StatisticalPortrait, ed. T. D. Snyder, 34-70. Washington, DC: United States
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

St. John, E. P., and J. B. Starkey. 1994. The Influence of Costs on Persistence by Traditional
College-Age Students in Community Colleges." Community College Journal ofResearch
and Practice 18(2): 201-13.









Stampen, J. 1980. The Financing of Public Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: American
Association for Higher Education and ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education.

State of California. 2004, January. Governor's Budget Summary, 2004-2005. Sacramento, CA:
Author.

Taubman, P. 1989, May. Role of Parental Income in Educational Attainment. The American
Economic Review, 79(2): 57-61.

The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. 2000. Closing the Gaps: The Texas Higher
Education Plan. Austin, TX: Author.

Thelin, J. R. 2007. Higher Education's Student Financial Aid Enterprise in Historical
Perspective. In Footing the Bill: The New Student Loan Sector, ed. F. M. Hess, 19-41.
Washington, DC: The American Enterprise Institute Press.

Tillery, D. and J. L. Wattenbarger. 1985. State Power in a New Era: Threats to Local Authority.
New Directionsfor Community Colleges, 13(1): 5-23.

Tillery, D. 1973. Distribution and Differentiation of Youth: A Study of Transition from School to
College. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company.

Title IX of the Educational Amendments, Public Law 92-318 (1972).

United States Census Bureau. Census 2000 PHC-T-41. A Half-Century ofLearning: Historical
Statistics on Educational Attainment in the United States, 1940 to 2000. Washington, DC:
United States Department of Commerce. Retrieved January 13, 2008, from
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/education/phct41 .html

United States Census Bureau. No. HS-35. Personal Income and Personal Income Per Capita by
State: 1929 to 2001. Washington, DC: United States Department of Commerce. Retrieved
January 13, 2008, from http://www.census.gov/statab/hist/HS-35.pdf

United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. 1975. Higher Education: Basic
Student Charges 1972-1973 and 1973-1974. Washington, DC: United States Government
Printing Office.

United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2008. Inflation calculator.
Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved February 3, 2008, from http://data.bls.gov/cgi-
bin/cpicalc.pl

United States Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 2003. Digest of
Educational Statistics, 2002 Edition. Washington, D.C.: Author.

United State Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 1972. Digest of
Educational Statistics, 1971 Edition. Washington, D.C.: Author.









United State Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 1965. Digest of
Educational Statistics, 1965 Edition. Washington, D.C.: Author.

United States General Accounting Office. 1996, August. Higher Education: Tuition Increasing
Faster than Household Income and Public Colleges' Costs [GAO/HEHS-96-154].
Washington, DC: Author.

Vernez, G., Krop, R. A., and C.P. Rydell. 1999. Closing the Education Gap: Benefits and Costs
[MR-1036-EDU]. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Wattenbarger, J. L., Shafer, S., and J. D. Zucker. 1973. Tuition and the open door. In J.
Lombardi ed., Legal Issues in the Community College. New Directions in Community
Colleges, 1(2): 57-64.

Wellman, J. V. 2001. Looking Back, Going Forward: The Carnegie Commission on Tuition
Policy. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy.

Wetzel, J. N. 1995. The Effect of Tuition Differentials on Student Enrollment Patterns and
University Revenues. Washington, DC: Fund for Improvement of Postsecondary
Education. Wattenbarger, J.L. 1979. More Money for More Opportunity: Reappraisal.
Journal of Education Finance, 4 (4): 483-491.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Christopher M. Mullin was an alumni fellow in the Department of Educational

Administration and Policy at the University of Florida. He earned a Master of Education degree

at Teachers College, Columbia University and Bachelor of Arts degree at the University of

Florida.





PAGE 1

RELATIONSHIP OF ENROLLMENT TO TH E TUITION AND FEE DIFFERENCE RATIO AND STATE RESOURCES BETWEEN 1960 AND 2000 By CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL MULLIN A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008 1

PAGE 2

2008 Christopher Michael Mullin 2

PAGE 3

To my family. 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my family for their support as I pursued education beyond that which was compulsory. I thank my advisor for the knowledge, skills and memories. I thank my committee for their support of my research and invaluable contribu tions of their expertis e. Lastly, I thank the office staff in the Department of Educati onal Administration and Po licy for all their support and friendship. 4

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................... 4LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................7LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................8ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... ...............9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 10Era of Organization .................................................................................................................11Participation via Local ized Institutions ..................................................................................12Stratifying Tuition and Fees .................................................................................................. .13Enrollment and Increasing Tuition and Fees ...................................................................15State Resources ................................................................................................................17Purpose of the Study .......................................................................................................... .....18Definition of Terms ................................................................................................................192 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ........................................................................................26Access and State Structures ................................................................................................... .26State Master Plans ...........................................................................................................27Balance of a Public Postsecondary Education System ....................................................29Student Price Response ...........................................................................................................31Philosophies Guiding Tuition and Fee Policy .................................................................33Tuition Differentiations ...................................................................................................35Institutional Rationales ....................................................................................................36Federal Actions ................................................................................................................39Tuition and Fees and Enrollment ....................................................................................40State Resources .......................................................................................................................41Educational Attainment ...................................................................................................42Income and the Ability to Pay .........................................................................................43Conceptual Framework .......................................................................................................... .453 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................51Research Question ..................................................................................................................51Research Hypothesis ...............................................................................................................51Data Summary ........................................................................................................................52Population .................................................................................................................... ....52Variables of Interest ........................................................................................................52 5

PAGE 6

Design ........................................................................................................................ .............57Model 1 ............................................................................................................................57Model 2 ............................................................................................................................58Data Treatment .......................................................................................................................59Limitations ................................................................................................................... ...........594 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................... ........64Model 1 ...................................................................................................................................64Model 2 ...................................................................................................................................685 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... ...91Discussion of the Results ..................................................................................................... ...91Significance of Association .............................................................................................91Forty-Year Trends ...........................................................................................................92Directions for Future Research ...............................................................................................95Implications for State Planning ..............................................................................................9 6LIST OF REFERENCES .............................................................................................................101BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................111 6

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Rationales for increased costs ............................................................................................ 473-1 States without a public comm unity college system, by year .............................................623-2 Conditional mean imputation for median family income, selected states in 1970 ............634-1 Model summary for Model 1 .............................................................................................724-2 Coefficients for Model 1 ....................................................................................................734-3 ANOVA for Model 1 ......................................................................................................... 744-4 Descriptive statistics for Model 1 ......................................................................................744-5 Pearson correlations for Model 1 .......................................................................................754-6 Model summary for Model 2 .............................................................................................764-7 Coefficients for Model 2 ....................................................................................................774-8 ANOVA for Model 2 ......................................................................................................... 784-9 Descriptive statistics for Model 2 ......................................................................................794-10 Pearson correlations for Model 2 .......................................................................................80 7

PAGE 8

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 Postsecondary education participation, 1910 to 1950........................................................211-2 Number of public postsecondary education institu tions, 1910 to 1950 .............................221-3 Number of public postsecondary education institu tions, 1933 to 2000 .............................231-4 Tuition and fees at public postsecond ary education institutions, 1933 to 1950 ................242-1 Difference in tuition and fees examined in the study .......................................................492-2 Conceptual framework ...................................................................................................... .504-1 Studentized residual versus CC_ENR ...............................................................................814-2 Studentized resi dual versus TDR .......................................................................................824-3 Studentized residual versus MFI ........................................................................................834-4 Studentized resi dual versus EA .........................................................................................844-5 Studentized resi dual versus Year .......................................................................................854-6 Studentized residual versus UI_ENR .................................................................................864-7 Studentized resi dual versus TDR. ......................................................................................874-8 Studentized resi dual versus MFI. .......................................................................................884-9 Studentized re sidual versus EA. ........................................................................................894-10 Studentized re sidual versus Year .......................................................................................905.1 Forty-year trend of TDR on enrollment .............................................................................985.2 Forty-year trend of MFI on enrollment ..............................................................................995.3 Forty-year trend of EA on enrollment .............................................................................100 8

PAGE 9

Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy RELATIONSHIP OF ENROLLMENT TO THE TUITION AND FEE DIFFERENCE RATIO AND STATE RESOURCES BETWEEN 1960 AND 2000 By Christopher M. Mullin August 2008 Chair: David S. Honeyman Major: Higher Education Administration The literature indicated that tu ition and fee prices influenced enrollment in postsecondary education, with higher prices resu lting in decreased attendance. Th e difference in tuition and fees between public community colleges and undergradua te institutions, operationalized as the tuition and fee difference ratio, was examined for its asso ciation with enrollment. The purpose of this study was to test student price response theory by examining the degree to which the attempt to provide access to public postsec ondary education via the introduction of a lower-priced option, with considerations of a states resources, wa s associated with enrollment for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000. Results indicated that the difference in tuition and fees was not statistically significantly related to enrollment. The general trend of the tuition and fee difference ratio was, however, negatively associat ed with enrollment. Implications for state systems were discussed. 9

PAGE 10

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The provision of public postsecondary educat ion by the states gained support from the federal government in the late nineteenth century.1 Spurred on by a growing populist concern for agricultural advancements, Justin Morrill introduced a bill in Congress to support t establishment of agricultural and mechanical colle ges with federal aid to the states (Roche 1986). Up to and during this time public financial supp ort for postsecondary education was sporadic at best, relying heavily on student fees, privat e gifts and grants (C hambers 1968; Cohen 1998; Roche 1986; Lucas 1994). he Within a context of sectional differences along economic and social lines, Abraham Lincoln signed the Morrill Act of 1862 providing the means for states to begin operating their own postsecondary education institutions (A nderson 1976; McDowell 2001). The purpose of these new institutions was specified in the four th section of the act which stated each State which may take and claim the benefit of this act, to the endowment, support, and maintenance of at least one collegein order to promote th e liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several professions and pursu its of life (PL 37-108, emphasis added). The act was an effort to extend the oppor tunity for education to individuals via institutions that would reflect the unique local context and desires of each state (Eddy 1957). In approximately twenty states the land-grant colle ge was an addition to an already present state 1 It was the case that public funds were utilized to support a few public and private postsecondary education institutions prior to this time. Support from private and public sources uniquely placed the institutions as semi-public entities (Roche 1986). For example, four hundred British pounds for the establishment of Harvard and the President of the universitys salary came from the Massachusetts General Court in 1636 and was thereafter supplemented by bank taxes and tolls paid to cross the Charles River (L ucas 1994; Cohen 1998; Roche 1986). In another case, tracts of land, taxes on tob acco, export duties on furs and skins and a tax on peddlers were directed toward the establishment and maintena nce of William and Mary College in 1693 (Lucas 1994; Cohen 1998; Roche 1986). 10

PAGE 11

college (Brubacher and Rudy 1997). For exampl e, Michigan had alr eady established the University of Michigan in 1817 when Michigan State University was chartered as a land-grant institution in 1863 (Anderson 1976). Dunham ( 1969) asserted non-land-grant public colleges and universities often started out as another type of institution such as a teachers college, a junior college or a religious college. Throughout th e late nineteenth and early twentieth century postsecondary education institutions were created with little to no federal or state guidance. Era of Organization The years after World War II were critical to the development of postsecondary education in the United States. Again federa l action spurred the growth of opportunity for postsecondary education and the states had to respond. Soldiers returning from the Second Word War were provided federal tuition vouchers, via the Servicemens Readjustment Act of 1947 (PL 346268, GI Bill), which were valid at any institution, public or private, in-state or out. As such, en rollments at public postsecondary education institutions significantly expanded along with the belief everyone could go to college (Cohen 1998). As compared to only 2.8% of 18 to 24 year-olds attending postsecondary education in 1910, by 1950 this percenta ge increased to 15 (Figure 1-1). In 1950, the number of public institutions had expanded to include 66 land-grant colleges, 259 other undergraduate institutions an d 330 community colleges (Figure 1-2). These institutions of various size and shape were in operation with their focus on liberal education, teacher training and vocational education. With the encouragement of the federal government, states began at this time to create state ma ster plans to organize postsecondary education institutions and create efficiencies in th eir operation (The Carneg ie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 1976; Dressel 1980; Hearn and Griswold 1994). 11

PAGE 12

To meet the increased demand for participa tion in postsecondary education, states took innovative action with the expansion of the two-year, public community college2 in postsecondary education structur es to provide educational op portunity (Longanecker 2007). Termed democracys colleges, these institutio ns were believed to have brought educational opportunity to the masses through their open-door ph ilosophy, proximity to a states citizens and low-cost to the student (The Carnegie Co mmission on Higher Education 1970b). Medsker and Tillery (1971) contributed three other factors to their growth: (a) training programs of various duration and focus were needed to meet the grow ing job market, (b) the influx of participants taking advantage of the GI Bill, and (c) the perspective of adults after World War II that there was a broader world to which they belonged and should learn about. Participation via Localized Institutions While the ideal of increased educational opportunity via open-acce ss institutions was situated at the end of the Second World War (P almer 1996), it had been suggested that universal access to postsecondary education vi a the creation of localized institutions was not achieved until the decade spanning the years 1960 to 1969 (Linge nfelter 2004; Longanecker 2007). The facts confirmed this belief, for between 1960 and 1970 the number of community colleges grew from 412 to 909, an increase of 497 institutions or 121% (American Association of Community Colleges n.d.), while the number of other public postsecondary e ducation institutions remained constant (Figure 1-3). 2 The term community college, as utilized herei n, indicated an institution that offers at least an associates of arts degree program. Institutions that did not offer an a ssociate of arts program, such as a technical college, were not included in this study. Historically the community colleges were referred to as junior colleges. The te rm community college gained prominence after its application in Volume 1: Establishing the Goals of The Presidential Commission on Higher Education (1947). 12

PAGE 13

The increased number of community college s allowed undergraduate public institutions to expand in areas commensurate with increased status, such as graduate education, research, and research funding. As a result, these undergraduat e institutions could redirect less-qualified students to community colleges by increasing their own admission standards (Cohen 1998). Community colleges accepted their role as providers of postseconda ry opportunity to those who were of lesser income, geographically bound or older (The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education 1970a). A salient theme early in the evolution of th e American postsecondary enterprise was the notion of access via the material realization of localized instituti ons. There was no doubt that the local proximity of community colleges was a ma jor achievement and primary factor in the democratization of postsecondary educati on (Cohen and Brawer 1996). However, as postsecondary education institutions became accessibl e to the vast majority of the population via localized, open-access institutions, a new frontier was to be drawn: access as a condition of price. Stratifying Tuition and Fees For the increasing number of i ndividuals interested in pursuing postsecondary education, community colleges were always the less expensiv e option. It was the cas e that the range in tuition and fees3 between community colleges and unde rgraduate institut ions nationally narrowed from 1933 to 1956. The maximum difference in tuition and fees during this time was $31 per 36-week academic year in 1939, with the minimum amount being $5 in 1950 (Figure 1-4). 3 Tuition, theoretically, had been conceptualized as the cost of instruction, whereas fees applied to a service or additional cost (see Shelburne [1939] for a legal review of the differentiation of tuition and fees). Lombar di (1973) noted [S]ome community college educators prefer the term fee to tuition, reflect ing their uneasiness at th e contradiction between the concept of the open door and the practice of charging tuition. The use of fee may also be a circumvention of state law that forbids tuition but permits fees (38). 13

PAGE 14

As the difference in tuition and fees be tween public undergraduate institutions and community colleges equalized, the tidal wave of enrollments and accompanying federally sponsored scholarships via the Servicemens Readjustment Act of 1947 (PL 346-268, GI Bill) ended. It was also the case at this time that other sources of income did not proportionally increase to keep up with inflation and their increased expenditure le vels (The Commission on Financing Higher Education 1952). The decrease in GI Bill revenue in the decade of 1950-1959 concerned institutions as they had become increasingly dependent on student-oriented revenue via augmented tuition and fee revenue and st ate and local appropria tions contingent upon enrollment. With the National Education Defense Act of 1958 (PL 85-864), the federal government had the option to extend opportunity and support to students via federa l scholarship programs first introduced in the GI Bill. However, it came to be that in the last days before the passage of that [NDEA] act, the provision for student loans was inserted in lieu of a plan of scholarships, at the initiative of the conservative Eisenhower Administ ration (Chambers, 1968, p.117). The National Defense Education Act of 1958s emphasis on fellowships4 and loan programs was a critical juncture in the evolution of tuition and fee5 policy it contributed to the beginning of a stratified price structure in postsecondary education (Hauptman, 1990; Callan, 2006; Thelin, 2007). 4 The focus of fellowships was on graduate education. Specifically, Title IV of the National Defense Education Act funded 1,500 fello wships per year for students preparing to teach at the college or univers ity level (Thelin 2007, 27). 5 Tuition and fees are examined here in the co llective. While tuition had been defined as a cost for instruction, a fee had been defined as an educational cost applied to an individual for purposes other than instruction. A review of lega l precedent supports the us e of fees, other than those used for tuition. It was observed that legal precedent had determined the prohibition or restraint on public pos tsecondary education institutions in setting fees was limited only when expressed or implied by constitutional or statutory language (Shelburne 1939). 14

PAGE 15

By 1965, the equalization of tuition and fees between public postsecondary education institution types ended, as community college tuition was half of that charged at undergraduate institutions, with prices of $109 and $284 respectively. The twic e-as-much difference continued until the early 1990s. By 2000, the difference increas ed to a factor of three with the national average price of $1333 at public community coll eges and $3501 at undergraduate institutions (Figure 1-5). Enrollment and Increasing Tuition and Fees The decrease in federal assistance to the student, however, did not signal the end of increased participation by individuals and the fe deral government, in postsecondary education. In the years following the introduction of the GI Bill (1950-1959), the perc ent of the population enrolled in degree-granting institutions increased from 15% to 18.3% (United States Department of Education 1972). The 3.3% increase was noticeably less than both the preceeding and proceeding decades, with the percent of the population increasing from 8.4% in 1940 to 15% in 1950 (a 6.6% increase) and an increase from 18.3% in 1960 to 25.7% in 1970 (a 7.4% increase) as illustrated in Figure 2-1. The rapid increase in postsecondary educa tion participation held level during the 1970s, only to increa se rapidly again between 1980 and 2000. The decades following 1960 marked a signifi cant period of growth for the public postsecondary education enterprise.6 Participation was increasing as new institutions were built 6 The rapid expansion of community colleges, however, did not come without criticism. Critical theorists have pointed towards community colleges specifically as vehicles for social stratification. Hansen and Weisbrod (1969) argued the low tuition policies common within community colleges served to limit intergenerati onal social mobility and provided the benefits of higher education only to those who could afford the higher priced state institutions. Their work sounded the initial warnings of st ratification of educational opportunity along fiscal lines. Brint and Karabel (1989) espoused that community colle ges, void of a transfer function, would have remained extensions of elementary and sec ondary education. Instead, community colleges provided the opportunity to transfer to higher education institutions via preparation in the liberal arts. Furthermore, they claimed early leaders in the community college movement, specifically 15

PAGE 16

to meet the continued demand engendered by the so cial climate of the middle of the twentieth century, and expanded services to include educat ional options other than transfer (Cain 1982). The social climate was fueled by paradigm -shifting social policy resulting from Brown v. Board of Education (347 U.S. 483 1954 ) the Higher Education Act of 1965 (PL 89-329), Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-318) and other federal and state actions ensuring democracy was an opportunity for all citizens (T he Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 1982; Kim and Rury 2007), in addition to the looming tide of baby-boomers entering postsecondary education (Kim and Rury 2007; Rouse 1994). The concern over the increasing difference in tuition and fees was compounded by the fact that a body of literature had shown price influenced student par ticipation (H eller 1997; Jackson and Weathersby 1975; Leslie and Bri nkman 1987; Pryor, Hurtado, et al. 2006). Additionally, there had been extensive study of th e influence of tuition and fee rates on student participation, finding that as rates increase, participation decreases (Heller 1997; Kane 1991; Leslie and Brinkman 1987). Recently, it ha d been observed that between 1993 and 2005, young and working-aged adults had not increased in their enrollment in education beyond the high school (The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education 2006). This plateau in postsecondary participation had le ad to national concerns as th e United States lead member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in the percent of adults aged 45 to 54 with at least an associates degree (40%), seven countries had higher percentages of individuals aged 25 to 34 with at least an associates degree. This Leonard V. Koos, Walter Crosby Eells, and Doak S. Campbell, attempted to divert students to vocational education in an attempt to provide short range upward mobility while satisfying the colleges need to secure the best traini ng markets still unoccupied by their four-year competitors (209). 16

PAGE 17

generational change in college at tainment was concerning as it i ndicated the impact of decreased attendance in postsecondary education in a gl obalized society (Rei ndl 2007; OECD 2007). State Resources State resources contribute to the college participation. In deve loping and maintaining postsecondary education systems, state policymakers had to take into cons ideration the resources of a state. Two areas of particular interest were the educational par ticipation of academically qualified individuals and the abilit y of a states citizens to pay for non-compulsory education. High school graduation rates increased throughout the twen tieth century, providing for and increased percentage of state residents to be academically qualified to attend postsecondary education (Kim and Rury 2007). The national de mand for, and participation in postsecondary education lead to the realignment of state systems and the development of institutions such as the community college. While estimates of college going rates seem to have plataeued since the early 1990s, a recent survey indicated that the shif t in national demographics was contributing to a decrease in postsecondary education partic ipation. The survey, conducted by the National Center on Public Policy and Higher Educati on (2007), found 62% of re spondents agreed that motivated and academically qualified students were not attending college be cause of a perceived lack of opportunity, a belief most prevalent am ongst African-American a nd Hispanic parents. The wealth of a states residents influenced the tuition and fee rates (Koshal and Koshal 2000), as family income remains a strong predictor of who will go to college (Callan 2006). Between 1982 and 2005, median family income out paced the consumer price index, 127% to 95% respectively, while tuition and fees increas ed by 375% during the same time period (Callan 2006). In 2002, the Advisory Committee on Stud ent Financial Assist ance found financial barriers prevent 48 percent of college-quali fied, low-income high school graduates from 17

PAGE 18

attending a four-year college, a nd 22 percent from attending any coll ege at all, within two years of graduation [from high school] nationally (v). Two states addressing concerns over access a nd participation in postsecondary education were Kentucky and Texas. An 83% increase in tuition at undergraduate institutions in Kentucky during a 6-year period from 2001-2002 to 20062007 heightened apprehension over the affordability of postsecondary educations impact on educational participation in the state (Division of Performance Audit 2006). Te xas unease over post secondary education participation was addressed in their educational plan entitled Closing the Gaps by 2015. The impetus behind this plan was the states acknowle dgement that the proporti on of state residents enrolling in postsecondary education was declini ng. A goal of the plan was to increase the percentage of residents partic ipating in postsecondary education from 5% in 2000 to 5.7% in 2015 (The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board 2000). Admittedly, a part in meeting this goal was to set tuition and fee prices at levels that closed the gaps. Purpose of the Study It was observed that the difference in tuit ion and fees between public institution types changed between the years 1950 and 2000 by a f actor of three while participation in postsecondary education had plateaued. The purpos e of this study was to test student price response theory by examining the degree to wh ich the attempt to provide access to public postsecondary education via the introduction of a lower-priced opti on, with considerations of a states resources, was associated with enrollment for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000. Research Question In order to address this issue, the following research question was developed. How was enrollment associated with the tuition and fee difference ratio between in stitution types and state resources for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000? 18

PAGE 19

Research Hypotheses HO1: Enrollment was not significantly associat ed with tuition and fee difference ratio between public institution types and st ate resources for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000. HA1: Enrollment was significantly associated with tuition and fee difference ratio between public institution types and st ate resources for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000. Significance of the Study An examination of factors contributive to the difference in tuition and fees at public postsecondary education institutions is imperativ e as prior research ha d shown that (a) the difference continues to expand, (b) legislators were actively pursuing methods to redirect students to lower cost institutions for the first two years of college and (c) tuition and fees play a significant role in determinations of postsecondary education particip ation. The cost of postsecondary education had become a signifi cant concern for all stakeholders. The compilation of a dataset, acquired from the work of Hurt and Burkel (1939-1960), provided the opportunity to extend our understanding of state-level analysis to a time when (a) national data available by the National Center for Education Statistics was not available, and (b) increasing participation in postsecondary educat ion participation became a national objective. Definition of Terms Affordability : Perceived ability of potential participants to afford attending postsecondary education. Affordability had been measured in th e literature as a percentage of family income needed to pay tuition and fees at a postsecondary education institution. No attempts to operationaliz e affordability were made in this study. References pertained to the theoretical conception of the term. Community college: Any two-year institution offering liberal arts education. The purpose for this distinction rests in the comp arative nature between community colleges and four-year undergraduate institutions dr awn in the study. When collecting data, institutions with the work technical in thei r name were excluded, unless it also included community (representing its comprehensive na ture). Tribal community colleges were also emitted as they receive a disproportio nate amount of funding from the federal government. 19

PAGE 20

Elasticity : How one unit change in supply resu lted in a change in price. Inflation : The result of excesses in demand as co mpared to supply resulting in increased prices. Postsecondary education structures: The composition of a state higher education system. Pricing : Tuition and fees as outlined below. Tuition and fees : The costs reported by the institu tions on surveys from either the National Center for Educational Statistics or the editors of th e Blue Book. This discussion focused on costs associated with tuition and fees, not on the other costs associated with education such as forgone ear nings and the cost of living described in the literature. The literature also referred to tuition and fees as it was defined for the purposes of this study as the sticker price. Undergraduate institution: A public postsecondary education institution that offered at least a bachelors degree. 20

PAGE 21

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Participation (%) 2.8 4.5 6.9 8.4 15 19101920193019401950 Figure 1-1. Postsecondary education participa tion, 1910 to 1950. [United States Department of Education 1972]. 21

PAGE 22

22 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350Number of Institutions Community Colleges 25 74 180 238 330 Four-Year 196 220 242 251 259 Land-Grant 65 66 66 66 66 19101920193019401950 Figure 1-2. Number of public postsecondary education instituti ons, 1910 to 1950. [United States Department of Education 2003; Dunham 1969; American Association of Community Colleges n.d.; National Associ ation of State Universities and LandGrant Colleges 2008

PAGE 23

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Year (decade) Community Colleges 4-Year Land-Grant Community Colleges 25 74 180 238 330 412909105811061156 4-Year 196 220242 251 259 279359 482 528526 Land-Grant 65 66 66 66 66 66 67 67 67 96 1910192019301940195019601970198019902000 23 Figure 1-3. Number of public postsecondary education institutions, 1933 to 2000. [United States Department of Education 2003; Dunham 1969; American Association of Community Colleges n.d.; National Associ ation of State Universities and LandGrant Colleges 2008]

PAGE 24

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 1933193919471950Dollars (current) Community Colleges Undergraduate Institutions 24 Figure 1-4. Tuition and fees at public postsecondary education institutions, 1933 to 1950. [Authors calculations from The Blue Book 3-6th Editions.]

PAGE 25

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000Average Tuition and Fees (Current Dollars) Comm. Coll. 7272849010114610918724539164182412391333 Undrgrd. Inst. 9310392951271662844055568041318188828483501 19331939194719501956195919651970197519801985199019952000 Figure 1-5. Tuition and fees at public postsecondary education in stitutions, 1933 to 2000. [Autho rs calculations from The Blue Book 3-6th and 8-9th Editions, for years 1933 to 1959; Unites States De partment of Education 2003, for years 1965 to 2000.] 25

PAGE 26

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Literature reviewed for this study was com posed of documents originating from public and private entities, policy co mmissions, government agencies, and scholars in the fields of postsecondary education finance, education, poli cy, sociology, law, economics and history. The literature reviewed was primarily in the form of reports, books and other policy documents with a lesser amount in the form of studies guided by specific rese arch questions. Access and State Structures The Morrill Act of 1862 expanded a states ab ility to provide postsecondary education opportunity to their citizens. To meet the gr owing interest in posts econdary education, the number and type of public institutions grew without guidance throughout the nation. An attempt to coordinate these institutions within a framewor k to increase systemic efficiencies came with the implementation master plans. The Morrill Act of 1862 (PL 37-108) served as the catalyst for the expansion of public postsecondary education as the federal governme nt provided support fo r states to open and maintain their own postsecondary education in stitutions (Anderson 1976; McDowell 2001). The fourth section of the Morrill Act outlined purpos e of these new institutions, specifically each State which may take and claim the benefit of this act, to the endowment, support, and maintenance of at least one college in order to promote the liberal a nd practical education of the industrial classes in the several professions and pur suits of life (7 U.S.C.301, emphasis added). Expressly, intent of public institutio ns of postsecondary education was to provide educational opportunity for those who were destined for it or who had the courage to attend (Morrill 1887). 26

PAGE 27

These new federally initiated institutions signified the emancipation of postsecondary education from their traditionally classical pur pose (Brubacher and Rudy 1997). The emergence of these new public institutions from the battle weary nation faced difficulties gaining consistent, fiscal support from the states (Brubacher and Rudy 1997). It was not until the second signing of the act in 1890, that states began to provide substa ntial support for the ins titutions, as the original land-grant institutions had subsisted on their endowm ent from the original legislation (Brubacher and Rudy 1997). For the next seventy-five years, institutions of postsecondary education, lacking in coordination at the state level, appeared in various forms in localities determined largely by political maneuvering, with little attention to the goals of the institution (Gross and Grambsch 1974). As access to public postsecondary education began to expand after World War II, The Presidential Commission on Highe r Education asserted the greatest need faced by higher education is for the machinery necessary to as sure a comprehensive but economical State-wide system of education (1947, 3:30). This recomme ndation, with the aid of political infighting and increases in government size, prompted states to initiate coordination efforts to increase efficiency (The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 1976; Dressel 1980; Hearn and Griswold 1994). The Presidents Committee on Education Beyond the High School (1957) recommended the expansion and support of existing institutions should in general take priority over the esta blishment of new ones (72). The Committee suggested the community college be utilized to meet this pressing problem of an increase in the postsecondary sector, albeit only as part of a thoroughly considered state-wide plan. State Master Plans Glenny (1965) outlined several features of a recent development in postsecondary education: the master plan. It was observed that these plans would, among other things, 27

PAGE 28

emphasize the creation of colleges, and place ju nior colleges under the realm of postsecondary education as opposed to secondary education. Fu rthermore, it was expressed that master plans would reinforce the use of admission standards a nd tuition rates to funnel students into desired types of institutions and programs (Gle nny 1965, 97). During the decade 1960-1969, master plans were present in 38 states (The Carneg ie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 1982). The master plans were often implemented or developed by nascent statewide coordinating boards (Berdahl 1971). Section 1202 of the Educational Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-318) supported the establishm ent of statewide postsecondary education commissions to coordinate the development and governance of all state higher educa tion entities (McKinney 1974). The language of the legislation blurre d the lines between higher education and postsecondary education, favoring the latter (Martorana 1974). While going unfunded, and ultimately disregarded, the governing state education entities initially established as a result of 1202 Commissions were charged with various powers, responsibilities and duties. A reason for doing so was that the intent of s ection 1202 was to unite the unique institutions within a state, yet it resulted in the opposite (Martorana 1974). These nascent governing state postsecondary education systems were provided minimal federal guidance, while the number of institutions continued to grow (McKinney 1974). The growth of state coordination boards was observed by Berdahl (1971) to grow from sixteen in 1950 to more than twice that amount by 1970. The introduction of accountability measures, increase d regulation by state and federal agencies, and concern for equity and efficiency served as the impetus behind coordination efforts (Tillery and Wattenbarger 1985). The period from the early 1970s to the 1990s was marked as one of decentralization of state level governing authority (McLendon 2003). 28

PAGE 29

Balance of a Public Postsecondary Education System The evolution and balance of postsecondary options within a state depended largely on whether there was local participation in the development th e postsecondary enterprise (Medsker and Tillery 1971). A tension between state control and institutional autono my also existed with undergraduate systems (Dressel 1980). The re sulting composition of postsecondary education systems differed substantially from state to state (The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education 1973; Dressel 1980), authorizing the deve lopment of institutions with focused efforts on either more community colleges or extending an already present state university (Rouse 1998). It was the case that states engaged in master planning had to strategically plan for growth and balance the roles of institutions already established. California provided an example of a state th at maintained a tiered structure of higher education, with an emphasis on community colleges. Public community colleges emerged in California in 1910 as an addition to state colleges and the Univ ersity of California. The institutions within this trip artite postsecondary education syst em acted independently of each other, and were pitted against each other in their requests to the legi slature, until they were joined under a master plan in 1960 (Douglass 2000). It ha d since been the case that a tiered system operated in California, with a reliance on comm unity colleges to serve as the primary access point to higher education. State colleges coordi nated as the California State University campuses offered up to the masters degree1 and the University of California campuses offered the doctorate (California State De partment of Education 1960). Wisconsin took another approach by incorpor ating extension centers of their land-grant institution, the University of Wisconsin, as pr e-baccalaureate education campuses (Brubacher 1 These institutions also offered doctoral de grees jointly with University of California campuses (Tillery 1973). 29

PAGE 30

and Rudy 1997; Cohen 1998). The state-university philosophy took root at the turn of the twentieth century, when extension efforts and research yielded returns to the society greater than were expected (Brubacher and Rudy 1997). As a result or early co ntributions to state development, the university and state became inte gral to each others development. Two-year colleges in the state were branch campuses for lib eral arts, with a sepa rate state system for vocational education. It was obs erved that another reason for enacting this philosophy was due to the lack of local in itiative to extend postsecondary educat ion opportunity (Medsker and Tillery 1971). An examination of state postsecondary educatio n structures in 1976 re ported that 26 states were identified as having the potential deficit in institutions offering open-access2 via the community college in 1976.3 Conversely, 12 states were lauded for having a community college within commuting distance of most state residents4 (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 1982). Rouse (1998) termed states providing more education options beyond the high school via a large number of community colle ges as compared to undergraduate institutions have embraced the democratization effect (Koos 1924; Brint and Ka rabel 1989). Conversely, Rouse (1998) termed states with a focus on limiting community colleges in favor of the development of four-year, undergraduat e institutions as having created a diversion effect, whereby a higher proportion of individuals must attend four-year institutions for education 2 Open-access was defined as an instituti on with low or no tuition for high school graduates. 3 These states included Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada New Hampshire, New Jersey, new Mexico, New York (SUNY), North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. 4 These states include Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. 30

PAGE 31

beyond the high school (Rouse 1998). Research indicated that state systems that had a heavy dependence on community colleges had lower levels of baccalaureate atta inment (Orfield and Paul 1992), and diverted more students to co mmunity college (Rouse 1994; Rouse 1998). Student Price Response It was argued that there was not enough evidence of the cost of tuition on the enrollment of low-income students. Specifically, [s]ince so l ittle is known about the independent effect of low or no tuition on the decision of various groups of students to attend a community colleges, a rigid position on tuition may not be justified (Garms 1977, 80). This claim was since challenged by a body of literature focused on the response of students to price. Leslie and Brinkman (1987) expressed price, buyer income, the prices of comparable goods, and the buyers preferences as factors in fluencing the amount of a good being demanded. Their review of price-response literature was a meta-analysis where the studies were perceived as one observation and each study was standard ized according to the work of Jackson and Weathersby (1975) to arrive at a student price response coeffici ent (SPRC). Upon reviewing the literature, the authors concluded that tuition and fee prices infl uenced participation rates in postsecondary education. Savoca (1990) examined student price res ponse arguing prior studies underestimated the elasticity of demand by one-half because they did not take into account the effect of increases on individuals who did not apply to college. Kane (1991) found increased tuition resulted in decreased enrollment, with black students bei ng the most sensitive to price. In a 1995 study, Kane found that community college students were the most sensitive to tuition increases. St. John and Starkey (1994) found a strong negativ e relationship between tuition charges and persistence in community colleges (211). 31

PAGE 32

Heller (1997) expanded upon Leslie and Brinkm ans study to examine the relationship between tuition and financial aid on enrollment. His review of price-response literature was summarized in one sentence: [a]s the price of college goes up, the probability of enrollment tends to go down (649). Four ke y observations included (a) aid de creases were associated with decreased enrollment, with grants having the stro ngest influence, (b) low-income students were the most sensitive to pricing differences, (c) black students were the most sensitive, Hispanic students were mixed and white students were least sensitive, and (d) community colleges students were more sensitive to prices than students at four-year public institutions. A survey of college students conducted by researchers at the Higher Education Re search Institute found financial barriers impacted students decisions as to which postsecondary institutions they attended (Pryor, Hurtado, et al. 2006). The importance of price in student decision-m aking was not limited to public institutions. Twenty-three elite private institutions5 created in 1958 the Ivy Overlap Group an agreement among the participants to refrain from offering financial aid to student applicants bases other than financial need, to use standard guidelines in determining aid to needy students, and to adjust offers in order to frame an potential stude nts choice on non-financia l reasons (Matlock 1994, 523). There were warnings as to the potential fo r increased tuition as a funding source could result in socio-economic stratification in postsecondary education (Chambers 1968). The 5 The institutions included Brown University, Columbia University, Amherst College, Barnard College, Cornell University, Bow doin College, Dartmouth College, Bryn Mawr College, Harvard University, Colby College, Ma ssachusetts Institute of Technology, Middlebury College, Princeton University, Mount Holyoke Co llege, University of Pennsylvania, Smith College, Yale University, Trinity College, Tuft s University, Vassar College, Wellesley College, Wesleyan University and Williams College. 32

PAGE 33

Commission on Higher Education a ppointed by President Truman r ecognized the need for, and advocated on behalf of, affordable postsecondary education. Volume Two of the report, entitled Equalizing and Expanding Individual Opportunity cited income inadequacies and the lack of sufficient state support as two of the greates t barriers hindering the affordability of postsecondary education (The Presidential Commission on Higher Education 1947). As postsecondary education part icipation increased in the se cond half of the twentieth century so did the amount students were respon sible to pay. Rationales for the increased expenditures in postsecondary education he ld constant. Two ph ilosophies guided the development of tuition and fee policy. The first placed a larger burden on public support in an effort to hold tuition low and negate the influe nce of individual costs in the decision to pursue educational opportunity. The other perspective, suggested that th e market mechanism be enacted in postsecondary education. Philosophies Guiding Tuition and Fee Policy The demands of access and affordability facing policymakers were encapsulated in the debates regarding tuition prici ng. The two primary philosophies6 guiding the development of tuition policy were (a) low tuition with high state support to institutions or (b) high tuition with federal, state, and private support to the individual in the form of aid. Low tuition. The support for a low tuition policy was rooted in the belief that the student already had a fiscal burden to bear in addition the out-of-pocket costs charged by the institution 6 Alternative tuition philosophies included Carbones five models: nonresident student surcharge model, resident tuition-fee-remission m odel, sliding scale, multiple-criteria model, sliding-scale single-criterion model, and the na tional tuition bank (1974). Moore et al (1974) also outlined eight possible considerations in th e development of tuition models. They were, tuition rates reflective of (a) th e average citizens ability to pay, (b) the students ability to pay, (c) the program of study, (d) credit-hours pursued, (e) equally across all institutions, (f) level of instruction, (g) the proportion of instructional costs per student, and (h) a combination of the preceding seven options. 33

PAGE 34

(Wattenbarger 1979; Bowen 1980; Stampen 1980). In addition to the burdens faced by the individual in the devot ion of time and effort to pursuing further education, the argument for a low tuition policy was set in the belief that an ed ucated citizenry benefits the entire society in their decreased dependence on healthcare and welfar e, increased tolerance for others, and fiscal returns in the form of higher taxes to be paid over a lifetime (Chambers 1968; Cohen and Brawer 1996). A last consideration in the low tuition policy argument was that low-income families had to pay a larger percentage of their family in come to attend postsecondary education institution, so low prices should be maintained wh enever possible (Cohen and Brawer 1996). The low tuition philosophy was championed in the community college, which saw their student body as the community, not a select few (Gleazer 1980; Wattenbarger, Shafer and Zucker 1973). The perspectiv e of access via the open-door philosophy mirrored the philosophy of public school education in that if an indivi dual wished to learn, th e opportunity would be afforded to them (The Carnegie Commissi on on Higher Education 1970; Wattenbarger 1979). Ultimately, access via low-to-no tuition went unr ealized as a discernable trend toward increased tuition was observed between the years 1966 and 1971 and continued through the remainder of the twentieth century (Wattenbarger, Schafer and Zucker 1973). Even California, a bastion in the low tuition cause for community colleges, raised its tu ition from $18 per unit to $26 unit in 2004-05, in order to maximize student elig ibility for federal Pell Grants (The State of California 2004). However, the interest in free tuition at public community colleges had continued despite the presence of tuition in every state. High-tuition/high-aid. The implementation of a high-tuition/high-aid policy fundamentally operated from the application of free market princi ples to postsecondary education (Harris 1960; Kerr 1968; Hauptman 1990). The thrust of this perspective framed 34

PAGE 35

tuition as too low in comparison to the actu al costs accrued by an institution (Mumper and Anderson 1993). It was argued that higher tuit ion would allow institutions to redirect institutional revenues via tuiti on and fees to individuals base d upon need (Hansen and Weisbrod 1969; Fisher 1990) supported high-tuition/aid. Fixing tuition and fees at a le vel equal to private institutions was also percei ved of as a way to operationa lize the market mechanism in postsecondary education (Garms 1980). Tuition Differentiations The literature on tuition differences was reflec tive of three dichotomies. The requirement for potential students to pay di fferentiated prices were depend ent on residency status, program differences and their relationship to each other, a nd the idea of providing access for all citizens to postsecondary education. Residency Tuition differences were discussed with respect to residence of the student as the primary determinant (Greenleaf 1936). It was ar gued that a state or dist rict should not have to fund the education of an outsider at the same rate as a citizen who lived within its borders and who contributed to the postsecondary e ducation institution via taxes (Arney 1970; Schietinger 1981 ) District differences, commonly termed charge backs, were observed to decrease in the in the years between 1970 and 2005 (Mullin and Honeyman 2006). Interstate variations in tuition and fee charges, however, had continued in practice.7 Differences in relationship Relational differences were both intraand interinstitutional. Intra-institutional tuition differences primarily addr essed expenditure differences at the institutional level between various colleges offering differe nt services (Wetzel 1995), or 7 There have been interstate cooperatives that have negated the cost to out-of-state students through regional policy boa rd (Christal 1997). 35

PAGE 36

levels of education, such as unde rgraduate and graduate, within an institution (The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education 1970b; Schietinger 1981). Differentiated tuition between the first two years of study, the second two years of study and graduate education was believed to have a negative impact on attrition (Bowen 1974). A rational for differentiated tuition was gr ounded in cost analysis (The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education 1973). Implicatio ns of a shift toward s cost-based tuition differentiation were hindered by the influence co st had on elasticity of demand, concerns about equity, and the relationship of cost and pres tige (Johnson 1979). Additionally, the relationship between tuition differences and institutional costs were not supported in the literature (Middaugh, Graham and Shahid 2003; Johnson 1979). Tuition differences between public four-year an d private undergraduate institutions were a concern, as tuition charges at pr ivate schools were between three and five times larger than at public institutions (The Nati onal Commission on the Financing of Postsecondary Education 1973). It was believed that maintaining lower tuition and fees at public undergraduate institutions would be difficult, as it disadvantag ed private institutions (The Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education 1975). In response to the perspec tive that the market mechanism should exist in postsecondary educat ion, a decrease in this difference was the incorporation of financial ai d to the student (Garms 1980; The National Commission on the Financing of Postsecondary Education 1973). Institutional Rationales Tuition and fee increases have consistently overtime based upon three general arguments: shifts in inflation, increasing e xpenditures, and unstable sources of income. Two reports, forty years apart, provided grea ter detail (Table 2-1). 36

PAGE 37

In 1952, The Commission on Financing Higher Education was formed to examine the fiscal condition of postsecondary education. The Commission outlined five sources of financial difficulties for postsecondary education institutions: (a) inflation; (b) the expansion of educational services; (c) needs for enlarged and modernized capita l plant; (d) fluctuating student enrollments; and (e) uncertain sources of income. Hauptman and Merisotis (1990) reviewed arti cles and other documents relating to the dramatic dependence on tuition and fees originating from the student. The results of their analysis indicated five reasons for the increase: (a ) higher charges were the result of increases in costs; (b) increases in expenditures by colleges for a variety of services; (c) competition between institutions; (d) non-tuition reve nue had leveled-off or dropped; and (e) the increase in student aid. They asserted the increase in inflation8 forced the institutions to be more dependent on student income, as it was the most available so urce of additional income. A concern in doing so was the instability of tuition and fee revenue as compared to endowment income on operating budgets. Inflation had impacted th e costs of doing business; however, it had been the case that tuition increases have outpaced in flation (Paulsen 1998; Wellman 2001). Reasons provided for increasing expenditures were factors external to institutional control and may have provided justifiable rationales for in creases in tuition and fees. It had been argued, however, that increases in costs were not closely related with the tuition and fees charged to students (The Commission on Fi nancing Higher Education 1952; Cunningham and Merisotis 8 Inflation was conceptualized as the increase in the price of goods and services (Martinez 2004). The Consumer price index (CPI) was a common measure reflective of the broad costs associated with participation in society. Anot her inflation measure, the Higher Education Price Index (HEPI), was developed by Halstead (1989) to apply directly to goods and services demanded by postsecondary education institutions. 37

PAGE 38

2002; Johnson 1979; Jones, 2002; Mi ddaugh, Graham and Shahid 2003). Implications of a shift towards cost-based tuition differentiation were hi ndered by the influence cost had on elasticity of demand, concerns about equity, and the relatio nship of cost and prestige (Johnson 1979). Furthermore, increases in expenditures and compet ition between institutions were the result of institutional desires that cannot be justified on the gr ounds of costs, but rather on questionable budgeting and planning: conceptualized as the Revenue Theory of Costs, which may be summarized as expenditures drive revenues in the search for prestige (Bowen 1980, 15). What appeared to be a contri buting factor in the developmen t of tuition and fee policy was the uncertain nature of non-tui tion revenue. While working in concert with tuition and fees, state and local governments have always assumed the largest burden for funding public postsecondary education since data from public institutions were available (Table 2-2). State and local revenue was the only source of the three to increase in each time span for which data was available. The smallest increase was between 1930 and 1950, when state and local revenue increased only 14% with the greatest increase was between 1950 and 1963 when revenue increased 380%. Institutional revenue resultant of tuition and fees and the federa l government exhibited dramatic shifts between time spans, but the shifts were in the same direction (Campbell, English and Lampros 1952; United States Department of Education 1965; United States Department of Education 1972; United States De partment of Education 2003). A factor unique to the lite rature obtained for this st udy was Hauptman and Merisotis (1990) fifth reason. A reason they cited for the increased tuition and f ees was not driven by economic conditions or institutional desires, rath er the augmentation of the student share of educational costs via student fina ncial aid availability. In summar y, the determinations of tuition and fee policy were reflective of institutionally espoused expenditures and guiding philosophies 38

PAGE 39

and differences. These rationales resulted in differences in tuition and fee policy between institutions types and locations. Federal Actions An upturn in the dependence on tuition was enha nced via federal legi slation, starting with the NDEA of 1958 (PL 85-864), that Stampen ( 1980) asserted was influenced by the high tuition, high-aid philoso phy of economists. Chambers outline d schemes developed to keep both public and private postsecondary education as high-fee enterprises (1968). These schemestaxsupported tuition scholarships, government loans, private loans, student-work opportunities and tax credits for postsecondary educationin many respects have become institutional operations within the national scope of fi nancing higher education. Chambe rs (1968) asserted that the benefits of such schemes should be examined vi a two tests. First, was the scheme designed indirectly to channel tax moneys into private colleges (96). Second, was it designed to shift the cost of education from the general public to the student (96). A caveat in the hightuition/high-aid philosophy was that it only works if state/instituti ons increase need-based aid at the same rates as increases in tu ition. If not, college would become less affordable (Mumper and Anderson 1993). A different perspective on why tuition and fees became such a pivotal source of revenue was summized by Clark Kerr (1968). Kerr (1968) su mmized five options being considered by the federal government during the decade of the 1960s to assist in structuring fiscal support for all institutions of postsecondary ed ucation. One option was to provi de tax breaks to parents with students enrolled in postsecondary education. This option was not favored as it was perceived to benefit middle and upper-income families due to the regressive nature of the taxes, while positioning power in the hands of parents with re spect to influence over institutional choice and program curriculum. Direct grants to states a nd/or individual institutions were also considered, 39

PAGE 40

but not favored as they were perceived as placing too much power in either the state or institution with additional concerns about equitabl e distribution states with larger enrollments. The last two options, grants to individuals and cat egorical grants based up on federally identified needs, gained acceptance. It was believed grants to students would contribute to fiscal stability of institutions through diversified revenue st reams, allow students to enact the market mechanism in postsecondary education, and remain neutral with respect to the issue of support for public and private institutions. Categorical aid, was believed to contribute to a diverse revenue stream for institutions while meeting th e various education and workforce needs of the nation. Tuition and Fees and Enrollment The fundamental purpose of the community college was to provide educational opportunity. To meet this purpose three conditions we re deemed as requisite. First, the colleges must be open-access Second, they must offer a diverse range of curricular offerings. Finally, attendance must be fiscally easy (Medsker and Tillery 1971). Reasons provided for the differences in tui tion were twofold. First, community college leaders wanted to maintain the concept of open-acce ss, of which they believed affordability to be a primary component. Second, state leaders were trying to control enrollments in the more costly state colleges and universities (Educat ion Commission of the States 1972). Both rationales continue to inform the nationa l dialogue on tuition and fee policy in 2007. In 2007, the governor of Massachusetts announced a plan that would make community college tuition free within ten years (Ashburn 2007). Kenneth Corn, a Senator from Oklahoma, submitted a bill to make all community colleges in Oklahoma free to all high school graduates (Hoberock 2007). Ruppert (2001) observed th at 71% of state polic ymakers believed the 40

PAGE 41

increased demand for higher education should redire ct students first thro ugh the two years at the lower cost community college then on to an undergraduate institution. A concern with setting tuition and fees at a level that made postsecondary education accessible to all students was the concern that lowincome and minority students would concentrate in the community colleges (The Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education 1975). Howard Bowen (1974) expressed concern that an increasing gap in tuition and fee pricing may exacerbate attriti on. It had been expressed that comparisons of tuition and fees between community colleges and undergraduate inst itutions was difficult because the ability to separate (a) the costs between undergraduate and graduate work at undergraduate institutions, (b) the instruction costs between the two instituti on types varied as the un dergraduate institutions utilized less-expensive graduate students and community colleges utilized professors, (c) economies of scale, and (d) curriculum differences (Medsker and Tillery 1971). Only recently had the difference in tuition and fees between community colleges and undergraduate institutions been examined. Hear n, Griswold and Marine (1996) included the tuition difference between public community college s and undergraduate inst itutions as part of their analysis of state tuition and aid policies. Their independ ent variables reflected regional, resource and governance influence on the tuition di fference. Utilizing four regression models, they found a smaller tuition and fee difference in the Midwest region and states with high levels of high school completers. Whereas states w ith high income levels or weak coordinating boards/planning agencies were likely to have a higher difference in tuit ion and fees between community colleges and underg raduate institutions. State Resources It was in the interest of state policymaker s to have a more educated citizenry (Rupport 2001). States with a large percentage of individuals enrolled in postsecondary education were 41

PAGE 42

likely to exhibit high levels of educationa l attainment beyond the high school, high degree completion, a high percentage of civic participa tion in the voting process, and rates of poverty below (Martinez, 2004). A resulti ng benefit to the state was an in crease in lifetime earnings for citizens and subsequently a larger individual contribution to tax revenue for the state (Vernez, Krop and Rydell, 1999; Martinez 2004). Participation in po stsecondary education demand continued to grow as a result of demographic growth, improvements in K-12 education and policy imperatives (Martin ez 2004; Kim and Rury 2007). Two problems have faced the expansion of edu cational opportunity within a state. First, the individual benefits of postsecondary educatio n can only apply to those who are eligible to participate (Martinez 2004). Second, the college eligible individual must be able to pay for the additional educational experience. Educational Attainment A problem facing the nascent in stitutions of the nineteenth century was locating properly prepared students for admission as few secondary school graduates attend ed college (Krug 1962; Goldin and Katz 2000). In 1920, the nation was experiencing a rapi d increase in the number of high school graduates (Sonnenberg 1993). By 1940, only 16 percent of high school graduates were attending college, an amount that increased to approximately 33 percent in 1960 and then to more than 40 percent by 19809 (Kim and Rury 2007). While in creases in high school graduates influenced college participation rates, as co llege participation increased tenfold between 1940 and 1980. Taking only the increases in high scho ol graduation rates, Kim and Rury (2007) 9 Diane Ravitch (1981) suggested an approximate high school graduation rate of 50% in 1940 and 85% in 1970. She also indicated college participation rates similar to Kim and Rury, however specifying college participati on rates leveled-off at 45% in 1968. 42

PAGE 43

calculated the increase would have been threefold. It was clear th ere was a national shift towards increased participation in postsecondary education. Improved high school graduation rates were not uniform in regions across the nation. For example, while the percentage of college participants in the s outh mirrored other regions, lower than average high school graduation retarded part icipation (Kim and Rury 2007). Disparities in postsecondary education participation by underrepresented groups we re another reason for the plateau in college enrollment rates. In 2000, Texas acknowledged that its population characteristics were becoming incr easing diverse, and that significan t efforts had to be made to encourage enrollment and decrease barriers to postsecondary educati on in the state. The result was a plan entitled Closing the Gaps by 2015 (The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board 2000). Hearn, Griswold and Marine (1996) found that as a state s educational attainment, as measured by the percent of a st ates population with at least a high school education, increased the difference in tuition and fees between institution types decreased. Income and the Ability to Pay Postsecondary education partic ipation and the ability to pa y was documented consistently throughout the evolution of the postsecondary enterprise.10 Parental income had been associated with in the educational attainment of an individual. Specifically, increased income resulted in 10 In colonial colleges, family position in society influenced a students position for recitations and academic processions (Brubach er and Rudy 1997). The practice of ranking individuals by socio-economic status was co mmon practice until the 1767 at Yale and 1770 at Harvard (Roche 1986). However, it was not until we ll into the eighteenth century that colleges assumed an elitist, patrician cast as rising costs began to restrict attendance at college to the wellto-do (Lucas, 1994, p.108). Fees, room and board ranged from ten to fifty pounds, at a time when a journeyman mechanic earned fifty pounds per year and a prosperous attorney from two hundred to three hundred pounds. Obviously, college was not for the sons of the poor (Cohen 1998, 46). 43

PAGE 44

increased attendance (Taubman 1989; The Natio nal Commission on Financing Postsecondary Education 1973). The United States General Accounting Office (1996) examined the in crease in college costs in relationship to household income. The report only examined public, 4-year institutions, finding tuition increased 234 percent during the fourteen-year period between 1980-1981 and 1994-1995. During this same time period, media household income, serving as a proxy for ability to pay, increased 82 percent.11 The increased variability be tween states with respect to average tuition and related fees ranged from $1, 524 to $5,521. It was observed that states with low tuition were associated with low median household incomes, low college expenditures per student, and higher state appropr iations for higher education (K oshal and Koshal 2000). The ability to pay12 tuition and fees prevent postsecondary education participation for otherwise 11 It is important to note that increases in tuition and fees experienced during the 1980s was compounded by the fact that federal and state ta xes increased as well, thereby making college ever more costly (Mumper and Anderson 1993). 12 An important question when examining th e concept of the ability to pay was a specification of whose ability to pay? Historical ly, it had been the case th at individuals engaged in the act of influencing tuition policies expressed views that expos ed their nave beliefs in the ability of students to afford postsecondary education. This sentiment was mostly clearly articulated in a report on the fi nancing of higher education, which stated [t] he economic barrier to higher education is usua lly exaggerated in most discussions of the subject, for this barrier can be overcome where there is an individual de termination to do so (The Commission on Financing Higher Education 1952, 135). They conti nued to advocate for the federal government to withdraw any notion of a scholarship aid program for a vast number of citizens. In 1990, Hauptman and Merisotis asserted an economically-framed perspective that comparing increases in what it costs to send a ch ild to college with changes in the value of stocks, bonds, and other investments is one way to examine changes in parents ability to save for their childrens educational co sts. Interestingly, in the high -tuition 1980s, the pretax return on stocks and bonds increased faster than the grow th in tuitions and other charges, suggesting that many parents could have kept pace with college costs if they had invested in stocks and bonds (6). The audience of this statement suggested that affordability was not being defined for the industrial classes, but rather those who have the fina ncial wherewithal to maintain and manage fiscal assets representa tive of fiscal prosperity. 44

PAGE 45

qualified individuals (The A dvisory Committee on Student Fi nancial Assistance 2002; The Commission on Financing Higher Educati on 1952; Mumper and Anderson 1990). Conceptual Framework The conceptual framework guiding this study wa s developed in respons e to the literature that noted the influence of tu ition in the enrollment of indivi dual in postsecondary education. Where earlier studies examined the influence of price on enrollment or the decision to apply, this study contributed to the dialogue by examining th e association of a states public postsecondary education pricing structure on enrollment. A states public postsecondary education pricing structure was operationalized by a ratio depicting the difference in state-averaged, tuitio n and fees at a public undergraduate institution divided by tuition and fees at a community colleg e, as depicted in Figure 2-1. A small ratio would be the result of tuition and fee prices clos e to each other, as expressed by the relationship between points (a) and (b). A larger ratio woul d result when the differe nce in tuition and fees was greater as expressed in point s (c) and (d). Theoretically, if the difference were zero, the price would determine enrollment (as examined previously in the student rice response literature). As such, one would suspect that if the difference ra tio were zero, and the price was high, enrollment would be negative ly associated. Conversely, if the difference ratio were zero and the tuition and fee were low, enrollment woul d be positively associated. This study does not take actual tuition and fee sti cker-price into consideration (College Board 2006), rather it examined the difference in price. It therefore, may be conceptualized, that as the difference ratio increases a lower cost option is created in the postsecondary education st ructure. This lowerpriced option, as compared to the higher-priced option, could serve as an entry-point that would be more affordable and decrease the influence of tuition and fee as a deterrent in postsecondary education enrollment. 45

PAGE 46

States developed public postsecondary educa tion structures to a ddress the increased participation in postsecondary education. The na ture of these structures varied by state and arrangement in an effort to optimize efficiency and participation. Specifi c, state resources were included to determine their asso ciation with enrollment. Stat e public postsecondary education structures were operationalized in the form of median family inco me and percent of a states 25+ population with a high school di ploma or higher but not a ba chelors degree or higher. The variable of interest to this study was enrollment in public pos tsecondary education. This construct was operationalized by a variab le reflective of fall headcount enrollment for degree-seeking individu als in undergraduate academic programs. In summary, there had been an increa sing number of individuals partaking in postsecondary education in the second half of th e twentieth century. Par ticipation in education had been observed to increase, determinations of tuition and fee pri ces have been found to impact individual pursuit of postsecondary educati on and the type of instit ution attended, and the concerns of a generation ago have been realized, as income had served to stratify institutional enrollment. It is therefore proposed that an asso ciation existed between the constructs of state resources and postsecondary education prici ng structures with enrollment in public postsecondary education (Figure 2-2). The purpose of this study was to test student price response theory by examining the degree to wh ich the attempt to provide access to public postsecondary education via the introduction of a lower-priced opti on, with considerations of a states resource, was associated with enrollment for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000. 46

PAGE 47

Table 2-1. Rationales for increased costs Rationale Commission on Financing Higher Education (1952) Hauptman and Merisotis (1990) Shifts in inflation (a) Inflation (a) Higher charges were the result of increases in costs Increasing costs (b) The expansion of educational services (b) Increases in expenditures by colleges for a variety of services (c) Needs for enlarged and modernized capital plant (c) Competition between institutions Unstable sources of income (d) Fluctuating student enrollments (d) Non-tuition revenue had leveled-off or dropped (e) Uncertain sources of income Other (e) There was an increase in student aid availability 47

PAGE 48

48 Table 2-2. Changes in federal, state and local and tuition and fee revenues in public postsecondary education, 1933-2000. Year Revenues (in thousands) Percent Change Tuition and fees Federal State and local 1930 $37,447 $14,450 $145,423 1940 $55,287 $29,144 $165,518 48% 102% 14% 1950 $222,635 $104,593 $493,444 303% 259% 198% 1963 $1,880,700 $2,142,200 $2,367,600 745% 1948% 380% 1968 $1,399,013 $1,566,037 $5,362,810 -26% -27% 127% 1980 $5,570,404 $5,540,101 $20,629,654 298% 254% 285% 1990 $15,258,024 $9,763,427 $41,771,692 174% 76% 102% 2000 $31,919,611 $19,744,966 $69,948,323 109% 102% 67% Sources: Campbell English and Lampros 1952; United States Department of Education 1965,1972 and 2003.

PAGE 49

d c b a Undergraduate Institution Tuition and Fees Community College Tuition and Fees Figure 2-1. A depiction of th e difference in tuition and fees examined in the study 49

PAGE 50

50 State Resources Enrollment Postsecondary Pricing Structures Figure 2-2. Conceptual framework

PAGE 51

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY It was observed that the difference in tuit ion and fees between public institution types changed between the years 1960 and 2000 by almost a factor of three. During this time period, access to postsecondary education was operationa lized via localized institutions (Koos 1924; Gleazer 1980; Cohen and Brawer 1996) and organi zed via state master plans (Glenny 1965), the number of students with at le ast a high school diploma but not a bachelors degree or higher increased as did the college part icipation rate (Kim and Rury 2007), and an the price of tuition an fees increased faster than infla tion (Paulsen 1998). The purpose of this study was to test student price response theory by examin ing the degree to which the attemp t to provide access to public postsecondary education via the introduction of a lower-priced opti on, with considerations of a states resource, was associated with enrollment for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000. Research Question In order to address this issue, the following research question was developed. How was enrollment associated with the tuition and fee difference ratio between in stitution types and state resources for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000? Research Hypotheses In order to test the research quest ion, the following hypothesis was developed. HO1: Enrollment was not significantly associated with the tuition and fee difference ratio between public institution types and st ate resources for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000. HA1: Enrollment was significantly associated wi th the tuition and fee difference ratio between public institution types and st ate resources for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000. 51

PAGE 52

Data Summary In order to answer the research ques tion, data was obtained for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000. Analysis of the data was calcul ated utilizing the state as the unit of analysis. Population The population of interest consisted of all st ates that had at least one public community college and at least one public undergraduate institution. South Dakota and Maine were removed as they did not have a public community college at anytime during the years examined, bringing the total number of stat es to forty-eight. State pos tsecondary education structures evolved by adding, removing, or combining institutions. These shifting public postsecondary education organizations resulted in different pop ulation sizes for each year (Table 3-1), where: 1960 (N=34), 1970 (N=45), 1980 (N=46), 1990 (N=48), and 2000 (N=48). As a result, the total number of cases was 221. Variables of Interest This study examined two independent constructs, comprised of three independent factors, believed to influence the dependant variab le, enrollment in public institution types. Enrollment. The number of public postsecondary educ ation institutions had increased significantly between the years 1960 and 2000. The growth of these inst itutions was under the direction, or the result, of state master pl ans (Glenny 1965; Dressel 1990; Hearn and Griswold, 1994). Guided by The Presidential Commission on Higher Education (1947) and established in whole, or partially in res ponse to the 1202 Commissions of th e Educational Amendments of 1972, a primary goal of these systems was to prov ide a public postsecondary education structure to provide access for qualified i ndividuals interested in particip ating. This study utilized fall headcount enrollment of degree-seeking undergradua te students to gauge participation in public 52

PAGE 53

postsecondary education as it was the only enrollment variable c onsistently reported across all five years. Enrollment data were obtained by summing fa ll headcount enrollment for degree-seeking undergraduate students for the in stitutions within a st ate for a given year. Fall, degree-seeking headcount enrollment for each institution type a nd state were obtained from reports from the National Center for Education Statistics for the years 1960 and 1970. The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System was accessed for fall headcount enrollment in 1980, 1990, and 2000. Total degree-seeking, fall headcount enrollment in both institu tion types (TOT_ENR), degree-seeking, fall headcount enrollment at community colleges (CC_ENR), and degreeseeking, fall headcount enrollment at undergraduat e institutions (UI_ENR) were employed as dependent variables. Tuition difference ratio. Tuition and fees data reflected the price of instruction for an academic year. The difference in tuition a nd fee rates at public community colleges and undergraduate institutions was the variable of in terest in this study. This difference would play an important role in future policy actions as states examined actions to redirect students to public community colleges before attending underg raduate institutions (Ruppert 2001). Tuition and fee data utilized in this research study were coll ected from two data sources: the Blue Book and the United States Office/Department of Education. The need for the two sources was due to a lack of tu ition and fee data from the Unite d States Office/Department of Education requisite for th e study in 1960 and 1970. Tuition and fee data for 1960 were obtained from a report by the United States Office of Education entitled Higher education planning and manageme nt data, 1960-61: Salaries, tuition and fees, room and board (Bokelman 1960). The data reported in this report was deemed 53

PAGE 54

inappropriate as it aggregated tuition and fee data on public institutions by regions and individual state data were not reported. As such, the Blue Book (Burkel 1960), a survey of institutions of postsecondary education similar in methodology to those utilized by the National Center for Education Statistics, was used as a data source. Tuition and fee data for 1970 were al so dependent upon the use of the Blue Book (Russell 1970) as a data source for the acquisition of tuitio n data, as there was a lack of tuition and fee data from the National Center for Education Statistics for the years 1966-1972. Specifically, it was noted that In the first three HEGIS surveys (fall 1966, 1967, and 1968) the data on basic student charges were obtained from a survey for whic h also sought projections of various data into the future. Difficulties with these surv eys prevented the publica tion of data on basic student charges except for the small amount of summary data published for the 19661967 and 1968-1969 academic years. The reduced HEGIS survey for 1969 did not contain a request for data on st udent charges. The survey of basic student charges was reinstituted in the fifth HEGIS survey (fa ll 1970) as part of the survey of financial statistics and continued in this manner in the sixth survey (fall 1971). However, the resulting data were unsatisfactory since finan ce data are for the previous year and basic student charges data are the current year. In the seventh HEGIS survey (fall 1972) the survey form on basic student charges was atta ched, appropriately, to the survey form on institutional characteristics (United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 1975, iii). Attempts to collect the raw tuition and fee data collected in these reports from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the Re search Triangle Institute, the Inter-university Consortium on Political and Social Research1 (ICPSR), and a federal document repository were unsuccessful. When an institution reported only enrollment from the United States Office of Education report or tuition and fees from the Blue Book, they were removed from the population. Listwise 1 ICPSR, located at the University of Michig an, was awarded a contract to archive data utilized in the Higher Education General Information Surveys (HEGIS) employed by the National Center for Education Statistics from 1966 to 1986. 54

PAGE 55

deletion was employed as it was both the logical and most robust option. It made no sense to utilize estimation procedures to create a missing tuition and fee price when institutions within each state which maintaining control over tuition and fees varied (Mullin and Honeyman 2008). Utilization of the Dataset Cutting Tool of the Nati onal Center for Education Statistics Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) resulted in undergraduate tuition and fees public community colleges and undergraduate instit utions for the years 1980, 1990 and 2000. State level tuition and fee data were acquired by averaging tuition and fees by institution type per state from the data sources. The tu ition and fee difference ratio between institution types (TDR) was determined by dividing the stat e average tuition and fees at undergraduate institutions by the state average tuit ion and fees at community colleges. State resources. The growth and expansion of public in stitutions and tuition and fee rates took place within the context of the state. Two factors believed to be associated with these increases were the ability of the states citizenry to pay fo r noncompulsory education and the percentage of the states populat ion eligible to attend either a public community college or undergraduate institution. Ability to pay was operationalized as the Median Family Income in constant dollars for the year 2000 (MFI). Data on Median Family Income for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000 were obtained from the Integrated Public Us e Microdata Series (IPU MS) database at the University of Minnesota, sponsored by th e National Science Foundation and the National Institutes on Health to disseminate census data. Data were missing for median family income for six states (DE, ID, MT, ND, VT and WY) in 1970. The missing data were replaced via conditional mean imputation (Allison 2002). This process regressed the missing variable on all other variables in the equation. The missing values were then generated utilizing the estimated 55

PAGE 56

equation (Table 3-2). A con cern resulting from utilizing this imputation method was that standard errors were estimated and test statisti cs that may be overestimated (Allison 2002). The values obtained via IPUMS and the imputed valu es for 1970, were converted to current dollars for the year 2000 utilizing the in flation calculato r of the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. The state resource of educational attainment in a state had been operationalized as the percent of a states popu lation twenty-five years or older wi th a high school degree or higher (Hearn, Griswold, and Marine 1996). During data compilation for this study, it became apparent that the use of this variable was questionable as it also in cluded those individuals who had already achieved an undergraduate degree. This conclusion was the result of examining the data utilized by Hearn, Griswold and Marine (1996). In doing so, it wa s observed that the data were reflective of a states educatio nal resources for the percentage of a states population over twenty-five years of age with a high school diploma or higher. Another table was also presented which depicted the percent of a population aged tw enty-five or older with a bachelors degree or higher. In comparing these percentages, it was determined that there was overlap as the two percentages together exceeded 100%. In an effort to most clearly operati onalize the construct of a states educational resources, the variable for educational attainment (EA) was defined as the percentage of a states population with at le ast a high school diploma, but not a bachelors degree. This percentage was calculated by s ubtracting the percent of a states population 25 years old or more with a high sc hool diploma or higher from the percent of a states population 25 year old or more with a bachelors degree or more in order to arrive at a percentage reflective of those who may be interested in enrolling in a public postsecondary educati on institution as an undergraduate. The state-level da ta were obtained from the Unite d States Census Bureau (n.d.) 56

PAGE 57

data table entitled Census 2000 PHC-T-41. A Half-Century of Learning: Historical Statistics on Educational Attainment in the United States, 1940 to 2000. Design The research question asked if enrollment was associated with the tuition difference ratio between institution types or state resources between 1960 and 2000. Two multiple regression analysis models were constructed to address this question for each of five years (1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000). Years were du mmy coded, with 1960 serving as the reference year. Model 1 A multiple regression analysis was conduc ted with degree-seeking fall headcount enrollment at a public community college (CC_EN R) serving as the dependent variable. The independent variables were included in the model to determine the amount of variance associated with the dependent variable. The resulting model was the following: CC_ENRi = a + B1 (TDRi) + B2(MFIi) + B3(EAi) + B4(YR70i) + B5(YR80i) + B6(YR90i) + B7(YR00i) + B8(YR70* TDRi) + B9(YR80* TDRi) + B10(YR90* TDRi) + B11(YR00* TDRi) + B12(YR70*MFIi) + B13(YR80*MFIi) + B14(YR90*MFIi) + B15(YR00*MFIi) + B16(YR70*EAi) + B17(YR80*EAi) + B18(YR90*EAi) + B19(YR00*EAi) + ei (3.2) where, CC_ENR = the dependent variable for the community college, degree-seeking fall enrollment in public postsecondary education, i = the state a = the intercept of the regression equation B1 = the regression coefficient for the slope of TDR, TDR = the independent variable for the tuiti on difference ratio between institution types, B2 = the regression coefficient for the slope of MFI, MFI = the independent variable for Median Family Income, B3 = the regression coefficient for the slope of EA, EA = the independent variable for the per cent of a states population that was had completed high school but had not earned a bachelors degree, B4-7 = the regression coefficien ts for the slope of YR, YR = the independent variable for the year of interest, B8-11 = the regression coefficients for the product term of YR by TDR, 57

PAGE 58

B12-15 = the regression coefficients for the product term of YR by MFI, B16-19 = the regression coefficients for the product term of YR by EA, and e = the random error not acc ounted for in the model. The null and alterative hypothesis were HO: B1-19 = 0 HA: B1-19 0 The null hypothesis stated that there was not an associati on between community college enrollment and the tuition and fee difference ratio between institution types and state resources. Model 2 A multiple regression analysis was conduc ted with degree-seeking fall headcount enrollment at a public undergradu ate institution (UI_ENR) servi ng as the dependent variable. The independent variables were included in th e model to determine the amount of variance associated with the dependent variable. The resulting model was, UI_ENRi = a + B1 (TDRi) + B2(MFIi) + B3(EAi) + B4(YR70i) + B5(YR80i) + B6(YR90i) + B7(YR00i) + B8(YR70* TDRi) + B9(YR80* TDRi) + B10(YR90* TDRi) + B11(YR00* TDRi) + B12(YR70*MFIi) + B13(YR80*MFIi) + B14(YR90*MFIi) + B15(YR00*MFIi) + B16(YR70*EAi) + B17(YR80*EAi) + B18(YR90*EAi) + B19(YR00*EAi) + ei (3.3) where, UI_ENR = the dependent variable for the undergraduate institution, degree-seeking fall enrollment in public postsecondary education, i = the state a = the intercept of the regression equation B1 = the regression coefficient for the slope of TDR, TDR = the independent variable for the tuiti on difference ratio between institution types, B2 = the regression coefficient for the slope of MFI, MFI = the independent variable for Median Family Income, B3 = the regression coefficient for the slope of EA, EA = the independent variable for the per cent of a states population that was had completed high school but had not earned a bachelors degree, B4-7 = the regression coefficien ts for the slope of YR, YR = the independent variable for the year of interest, B8-11 = the regression coefficients for the product term of YR by TDR, B12-15 = the regression coefficients for the product term of YR by MFI, 58

PAGE 59

B16-19 = the regression coefficients for the product term of YR by EA, and e = the random error not acc ounted for in the model. The null and alterative hypothesis were HO: B1-19 = 0 HA: B1-19 0 The null hypothesis stated that there was not an association between undergraduate institution enrollment and the tuition and fee difference ratio between institution types and state resources. Data Treatment The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) computer program calculated the data. Descriptive statistics were calcul ated to describe the nature of the variables utilized in the study. Statistical selection procedures such as stepwise forward, backward or all possible subsets were not utilized in the analysis. Data were entered into the models based upon the theoretical basis. Independent variables were entered as a block, and then interaction terms were entered as another block. Change statistics were reported to determine the presence of interaction effects. In all models, assumptions of linearity, normality, independence and equal conditional variances were checked utilizing scatter and re sidual plots (Shavelson 1996). Collinearity was checked through the application of tolerance and variance infl ation factors methods. Cooks Distance was checked for the influence of data poin ts on the analysis. The decision to reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis was based upon a type I error ra te of .05. The analysis was interested in significance, either positive or nega tive, so non-directional hy potheses were used. Limitations The use of 1959 and 1969 tuition and fee data in the place of 1960 and 1970 tuition and fee data were necessary as multiple attempts to co llect data from the United States Department of Education, contracted archival entities, and a federal repository were unsuccessful. This reality 59

PAGE 60

caused concerns regarding the validity of the findings and should be interpreted with such concerns. It was decided to continue forward with the data because it the ratio of the difference, not the actual raw data that was utilized in the study. A one-year change in the ratio may have occurred, but it was believed the change would not be substantially differe nt than the tuition and fee difference for the 1959 and 1969 years. The literature suggested the inclusion student financial aid as a va riable (Paulson 1994). This variable was not included in the study as cons istent data were not available for the five time periods examined within this study. The TDR may be interpreted as a low-end estimate of the gap in costs between community colleges and four-year institutions when room and board and other external costs were considered. This assumption would only apply to instances where an indi vidual had to move to attend a baccalaureate degree granting, four-year institution. When identifying community colleges, there was the possibility that a community college may offer the four-year degree and not have been identified as doing so. The relatively new status of these institutions should not have significantly impacted the study as baccalaureate degree programs were limited in number and type at each institution. In thinking about life option beyond the high scho ol, it is important for future researchers to consider that other options existed for individuals outside of postsecondary education. What this study did not factor in, and would contribute to understa nding this observation, was the percentage of individuals who choose to pursu e a career option that re quired only a high school diploma. For example, Campbell and Siegel (1960) included estimates of death and military enrollment rates in their calculation of what they termed eligible college aged population (486). State incarceration rates would also co ntribute to understanding who was eligible to 60

PAGE 61

participate in public postseconda ry education. Other individuals may have engaged in employment opportunities, being unable to risk the foregone earnings one sacrificed while attending an institution of postsecondary education. 61

PAGE 62

62 Table 3-1. States without a public community college system, by year 1960 1970 1980 Arkansas Connecticut Delaware Hawaii Louisiana New Hampshire New Mexico Nevada Ohio Rhode Island South Carolina Tennessee Virginia Vermont Delaware New Hampshire Vermont Alaska Kentucky

PAGE 63

Table 3-2. Conditional mean imputation for median family income, selected states in 1970 State TDR EA Conditional mean imputation for MFI Delaware 0 41.5 $4,681 Idaho 1.17 49.5 $5,541 Montana 2.15 48.2 $5,360 North Dakota 1.03 41.9 $4,689 Vermont 0 45.6 $5,143 Wyoming 1.58 51.1 $5,707 Estimation equation: MFI = -35.319(TDR) + 112.784(EA) 63

PAGE 64

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The purpose of this study was to test stude nt price response theory by examining how enrollment was associated with the tuition and fee difference ratio and state resources for the years1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000. In order to addr ess this issue, the following research question was developed: How was enrollment associated with the tuition difference ratio between institution types and state resources between 1960 and 2000? It was hypothesized that enrollment was not significantly associ ated with tuition difference ratio between public institution types and state re sources between 1960 and 2000. To test the research question and resulting hypothese s, multiple regression analysis was employed. Two multiple regression models were develope d to predict enrollment from the tuition and fee difference ratio and state resources. Th e independent variables in each model were the same tuition and fee difference ratio (TDR), median family income (MFI), educational attainment (EA), year (YR), and interactions by year (YRxTDR, YRxMFI, and YRxEA) while the dependent variable depicted tw o different enrollment counts. The first model included total enrollment in community colleges as its dependent variable. The second model included the total en rollment in undergraduat e institutions as its dependent variable. Model 1 A multiple regression analysis was performed with the dependent variable as community college enrollment (CC_ENR) and the independe nt variables (TDR, MFI, EA, YEAR, YRxTDR, YRxMFI, and YRxEA). Product terms for the thr ee continuous variable s (TDR, MFI, and EA) were computed for the years 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000 with 1960 serving as the reference 64

PAGE 65

year. As a result, a reduced model, a full mode l inclusive of product terms, and fixed effect models were constructed for analysis. The influence of outliers on predicted values (Cooks distance) and the intercept and slope (DFBETAS) were calculated as part of the analysis. It was determined that California in 1980, 1990, and 2000 served as an outlier influenci ng the predicted value with a Cooks Distance value greater than 1. California in 1980, 1990, a nd 2000 were removed after a review of Cooks distance values of 3.42120, 5.35827, and 6.39814 respectiv ely. Scores greater than 1 were perceived as being influential. As such, the da ta points were removed fr om analysis reducing the sample size to 218. Reduced model. The multiple regression analysis of the reduced model, not inclusive of product term variables, accounted for a 15.9% of the variance in enrollment (Table 4-1). A 95% confidence interval for the population correlation coefficient (R = .399) extends from .281 to .505, indicating the observed value was consistent with the data a nd not merely that it was not equal to zero. The resulting standard re gression equation (Table 4-2) was, CC_ENR = 11,373.667 + 6,160.406(TDR) + 1.895(MFI) 1,442.072(EA) + 12,274.185(YR70) + 45,704.127(YR80) + 74,992.184(YR90) + 77,671.040(YR00) (4-1) The intercept was not interpreta ble as zero was not a valid enro llment option in the study. The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) re vealed that the reduced model was statistically significant, F (7, 210) = 5.666, p < 0.01 (Table 4-3). Full model. The multiple regression analysis of th e full model, inclusive of all variables and product terms, accounted for 24.6% of the variance in enrollment (Table 4-1). A 95% confidence interval for the population correlation coefficient (R = .496) extends from .389 to 65

PAGE 66

.590, indicating the observed value was consistent with the data a nd not merely that it was not equal to zero. The resulting standard re gression equation (Table 4-2) was, CC_ENR = 28,851.061 + 13,696.399(TDR) + 1.165(MFI) 613.373(EA) 26,174.942(YR70) + 37,981.113(YR80) + 418,372.794(YR90) + 897,166.623(YR00) 8,697.004(YR70* TDRi) 13,402.257(YR80* TDRi) 47,072.093(YR90* TDRi) 49,792.108(YR00* TDRi) + .322(YR70*MFIi) + 3.219(YR80*MFIi) + .236(YR90*MFIi) 2.387(YR00*MFIi) + 958.815(YR70*EA) 2,065.569(YR80*EAi) -5, 038.087(YR90*EAi) 10,819.320(YR00*EAi) (4-2) The intercept was not interpreta ble as zero was not a valid enro llment option in the study. The inclusion of product terms accounted for 8.7% of the variance in community college enrollment. The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) revealed that the full model was statistically significant F (19, 198) = 3.404, p < 0.05 (Table 4-3). Therefore, the null h ypothesis that there was not a relationship between community colleg e enrollment and the tuition and fee difference ratio between institution types a nd state resources was rejected. Descriptive statistics for th e full model standard regressi on equation were presented in Table 4-4. Pearsons correlations indicated that the independent va riables median family income, educational attainment, the years 1970, 1990 and 2000 were statistically significant at the 0.05 level in association with community college enrollment. Product te rms for the years inclusive of 1990 and 2000 were also significantl y associated with community college enrollment at the 0.10 level (Table 4-5). The TDR was not observed to correlate significantly with the dependent variable or any independent variable save those that in cluded TDR in the product term. The models were tested for violations to the assumptions of linearity, normality, independence and equal conditiona l variance (Shavelson 1996). Studentized residuals were calculated and plotted against a ll variables in the model to check for violations to the assumptions (Figures 4-1 to 4-5). Analysis of th e scatterplots did not reveal violations of the assumptions. 66

PAGE 67

Fixed effect models. Inserting the values of a nd wherever the relevant dummy code occurs in the full model, the following regr ession equations were determined for the years, 1960, CC_ENR = 28,851.061 + 13,696.399(TDR) + 1.165(MFI) 613.373(EA), (4-3) 1970, CC_ENR = 55,026.003 + 4,999.395(TDR) + 1.487(MFI) +345.442(EA), (4-4) 1980, CC_ENR = 9,130.052 + 294.142(TDR) + 4.384(MFI) 1,542.196(EA), (4-5) 1990, CC_ENR = 389,521.733 33,375.694(TDR) + 1.401(MFI) 4,424.714(EA), (4-6) 2000, CC_ENR = 868,315.562 36,095.709(TDR) 1.222(MFI) 11,432.693(EA). (4-7) Across the forty years, as measured every ten years, investigated in the study, the independent variables exhibited different trends. The tuition a nd fee difference ratio (TDR) was positively associated with degree-seeking enrollme nt in a public community college for the years 1960, 1970, and 1980, a trend that turned negativ e in 1990 and 2000. The trend however was consistently negative as the associations, whic h started out positively, continued to decrease since the reference year. Increases in median fa mily income were positively associated with community college enrollment for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, and 1990, only to become negatively associated in 2000. Increases in educat ional attainment were negatively associated with enrolment for all ye ars but 1970,when the asso ciation was positive. This suggested that, over the five time point s examined, an increase in the difference in tuition and fee difference ratio, median family income, and educational attainment shifted from being positively associated with fall headcount, degree-seeking enrollment at public community colleges to being negatively associated. 67

PAGE 68

Model 2 A multiple regression analysis was performed with the dependent variable as undergraduate enrollment (UI_ENR) and the in dependent variables (TDR, MFI, EA, YEAR, YRxTDR, YRxMFI, and YRxEA). Product terms fo r the three continuous variables (TDR, MFI, and EA) were computed for the years 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000 with 1960 serving as the reference year. As a result, a reduced model, a full model inclusive of pr oduct terms, and fixed effect models were constructed for analysis. The influence of outliers on predicted values (Cooks distance) and the intercept and slope (DFBETAS) were calculated as part of the analysis. It was determined that California in 1980, 1990, and 2000 served as an outlier influenci ng the predicted value with a Cooks Distance value greater than 1. California in 1980, 1990, a nd 2000 were removed after a review of Cooks distance values of 15.93089, 4.44889, and 1.35235 respectiv ely. Scores greater than 1 were perceived as being influential. As such, the da ta points were removed fr om analysis reducing the sample size to 218. Reduced model. The multiple regression analysis of the reduced model, not inclusive of product term variables, accounted for a 15.5% of the variance in enrollment (Table 4-6). A 95% confidence interval for the population correlation coefficient (R = .393) extends from .274 to .499, indicating the observed value was consistent with the data a nd not merely that it was not equal to zero. The resulting standard re gression equation (Table 4-7) was, UI_ENR = 54,650.696 4,036.997(TDR) + 1.275(MFI) 1,754.747(EA) + 38,510.392(YR70) + 70,930.372(YR80) + 85,750.868(YR90) + 89,662.325(YR00) (4-8) The intercept was not interpreta ble as zero was not a valid enro llment option in the study. The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) re vealed that the reduced model was statistically significant, F (7, 210) = 5.489, p < 0.01 (Table 4-8). 68

PAGE 69

Full model. The multiple regression analysis of th e full model, inclusive of all variables and product terms, accounted for 24.2% of the variance in enrollment (Table 4-6). A 95% confidence interval for the population correlation coefficient (R = .492) extends from .384 to .586, indicating the observed value was consistent with the data a nd not merely that it was not equal to zero. The resulting standard re gression equation (Table 4-7) was, UI_ENR = 31,163.881 + 4,396.764(TDR) + 1.928(MFI) 2,061.697(EA) 1,387.195(YR70) + 128,432.212(YR80) + 455,913.581(YR90) + 506,613.606(YR00) 13,138.783(YR70* TDRi) 24,096.449(YR80* TDRi) 47,856.271(YR90* TDRi) 29,237.839(YR00* TDRi) + .135(YR70*MFIi) + 3.336(YR80*MFIi) 1.825(YR90*MFIi) 3.253(YR00*MFIi) + 1,253.781(YR70*EA) 2,901.814(YR80*EAi) 3,763.268(YR90*EAi) 3,751.613(YR00*EAi) (4-9) The intercept was not interpreta ble as zero was not a valid enro llment option in the study. The inclusion of product terms accounted for 8.7% of the variance in undergraduate institution enrollment. The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) revealed that the full model was statistically significant, F (19, 198) = 3.331, p < 0.05 (Table 4-8). Therefore, the null hypothesis that there was not a relationship between undergraduate in stitution enrollment and the tuition and fee difference ratio between institution ty pes and state resources was rejected. Descriptive statistics for th e full model standard regressi on equation were presented in Table 4-9. Pearsons correlations indicated that the independent variables median family income, educational attainment, the year 1990 a nd 2000 were statistically significant (p < 0.10) associated with undergraduate in stitution enrollment. Product te rms for median family income in 2000 and educational attainment in 2000 were also significantly associat ed with undergraduate institution enrollment at the .10 level (Table 4-10). The TDR was not observed to correlate significantly with the dependent va riable or any independent variable save those that included TDR in the product term. 69

PAGE 70

The models were tested for violations to the assumptions of linearity, normality, independence and equal conditiona l variance (Shavelson 1996). Studentized residuals were calculated and plotted against a ll variables in the model to check for violations to the assumptions (Figures 4-6 to 4-10). Analysis of the scatterplots did not reveal violations of the assumptions. Fixed effect models. Inserting the values of a nd wherever the relevant dummy code occurs in the full model, the following regr ession equations were determined for the years, 1960, UI_ENR = 31,163.881 + 4,396.764(TDR) + 1.928( MFI) 2,061.697(EA), (4-10) 1970, UI_ENR = 29,776.686 8,742.019(TDR) + 2.063( MFI) + 807.916(EA), (4-11) 1980, UI_ENR = 159,596.093 19,699.685(TDR) + 5.264(MFI) 4,963.511(EA), (4-12) 1990, UI_ENR = 487,077.462 43,459.507(TDR) + 0.103(MFI) 5,824.965(EA), (4-13) 2000, UI_ENR = 537,777.487 24,841.075(TDR) 1.325(MFI) 5,813.31(EA). (4-14) Across the forty years, as measured every ten years, investigated in the study, the independent variables exhibited di fferent trends. The tuition a nd fee difference ratio (TDR) was negatively associated with degree-seeking enroll ment in at undergraduate institutions for all years as compared to the refe rence year, 1960. While still negatively associated, this trend reversed in 2000. Increases in median family income were positively associated with undergraduate institution enrollment for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, and 1990, only to become negatively associated in 2000. Increases in educat ional attainment were negatively associated with enrolment for all ye ars but 1970,when the associ ation was positive. 70

PAGE 71

An emerging trend in the data over five time points investigated showed largely negative associations with undergraduate institution, degree-seeking fall enrollment for the independent variables TDR and EA. This sugge sted that, over the five time points over forty years examined, an increase in the difference in tuition and fee differe nce ratio had an influence on the decreased number of individuals enrolled in undergraduate institutions. It also continued the trend observed in the other models, that as the percentage of a state s population over 25 years old with at least a high school degree but not a bachelors degree or higher increased, enrollment at public postsecondary education institutions decreased. 71

PAGE 72

72 Table.4-1. Model summary for Model 1 Model R R square Adjusted R square Std. error of the estimate Change Statistics R square change F change df1 df2 Sig. F change 1 .399 .159 .131 71531.984 .159 5.666 7 210 .000(a) 2 .496 .246 .174 69738.627 .087 1.912 12 198 .035(b) a Predictors: (Constant), YR00, TDR, YR70, MFI, YR80, EA, YR 90; b Predictors: (Constant), YR00, TDR, YR70, MFI, YR80, EA, YR90, YR70XTDR, YR80XTDR, YR00XTDR, YR90XTDR, YR70XMFI, YR70XEA, YR90XM FI, YR80XMFI, YR00XMFI, YR80XEA, YR90XEA, YR00XEA; c Depe ndent Variable: CC_ENR

PAGE 73

Table 4-2. Coefficients for Model 1 Model Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients t Sig. 95% Confidence interval for B Collinearity statistics B Std. error Beta Lower bound Upper bound Tolerance VIF 1 (Constant) -11373.667 35581.340 -.320 .750 -81516.045 58768.711 TDR 6160.406 5030.651 .078 1.225 .222 -3756.641 16077.453 .986 1.014 MFI 1.895 .689 .207 2.750 .006 .537 3.254 .705 1.418 EA -1442.072 825.333 -.197 -1.747 .082 -3069.071 184.926 .315 3.174 YR70 12274.185 17736.895 .065 .692 .490 -22690.997 47239.366 .455 2.196 YR80 45704.127 21073.768 .242 2.169 .031 4160.886 87247.368 .323 3.099 YR90 74992.184 23881.600 .403 3.140 .002 27913.795 122070.574 .243 4.109 YR00 77671.040 25248.842 .417 3.076 .002 27897.372 127444.707 .218 4.593 2 (Constant) -28851.061 72443.060 -.398 .691 -171710.041 114007.919 TDR 13696.399 6789.071 .174 2.017 .045 308.233 27084.565 .515 1.943 MFI 1.165 2.612 .127 .446 .656 -3.986 6.317 .047 21.418 EA -613.373 2561.671 -.084 -.239 .811 -5665.033 4438.287 .031 32.168 YR70 -26174.942 95685.673 -.138 -.274 .785 -214868.763 162518.878 .015 67.228 YR80 37981.113 137958.454 .201 .275 .783 -234075.369 310037.595 .007 139.750 YR90 418372.794 181823.314 2.248 2.301 .022 59814.041 776931.546 .004 250.605 YR00 897166.623 239149.633 4.820 3.751 .000 425559.367 1368773.879 .002 433.541 YR70XTDR -8697.004 14127.311 -.089 -.616 .539 -36556.310 19162.301 .182 5.488 YR80XTDR -13402.257 15678.857 -.145 -.855 .394 -44321.238 17516.723 .132 7.579 YR90XTDR -47072.093 21409.786 -.456 -2.199 .029 -89292.566 -4851.621 .089 11.287 YR00XTDR -49792.108 18148.526 -.539 -2.744 .007 -85581.320 -14002.897 .099 10.126 YR70XMFI .322 2.906 .071 .111 .912 -5.409 6.053 .009 107.571 YR80XMFI 3.219 3.560 .686 .904 .367 -3.801 10.239 .007 151.122 YR90XMFI .236 2.891 .055 .081 .935 -5.465 5.936 .008 120.218 YR00XMFI -2.387 3.050 -.595 -.783 .435 -8.401 3.627 .007 151.677 YR70XEA 958.815 2850.686 .217 .336 .737 -4662.788 6580.418 .009 109.322 YR80XEA -2065.569 3323.399 -.563 -.622 .535 -8619.370 4488.232 .005 215.699 YR90XEA -5038.087 3565.719 -1.534 -1.413 .159 -12069.747 1993.574 .003 309.608 YR00XEA -10819.320 3930.419 -3.390 -2.753 .006 -18570.176 -3068.464 .003 398.275 73 a Dependent variable: CC_ENR

PAGE 74

Table 4-3. ANOVA for Model 1 Model Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. 1 Regression 202950708476.311 7 28992958353.759 5.666 .000(a) Residual 1074533196251.469 210 5116824744.055 Total 1277483904727.780 217 2 Regression 314515626586.006 19 16553454030.842 3.404 .000(b) Residual 962968278141.774 198 4863476152.231 Total 1277483904727.780 217 a Predictors: (Constant), YR00, TDR, YR70, MFI, YR80, EA, YR90; b Pr edictors: (Constant), YR00, TDR, YR70, MFI, YR80, EA, YR90, YR70XTDR, YR80XTDR, YR00XTDR, YR90XTDR, YR70XMFI, YR70XEA, YR90XM FI, YR80XMFI, YR00XMFI, YR80XEA, YR90XEA, YR00XEA; c Depe ndent Variable: CC_ENR Table 4-4. Descriptive statistics for Model 1 Mean Std. deviation N CC _ENR 50121.1000 76726.9350 218 TDR 1.7466 .9720 218 MFI 40612.5321 8387.3626 218 EA 49.3193 10.4817 218 YR70 .2064 .4057 218 YR80 .2064 .4057 218 YR90 .2156 .4122 218 YR00 .2156 .4122 218 YR70XTDR .3488 .7851 218 YR80XTDR .3839 .8313 218 YR90XTDR .3664 .7429 218 YR00XTDR .4016 .8301 218 YR70XMFI 8354.5642 16895.4960 218 YR80XMFI 8244.8532 16347.6940 218 YR90XMFI 9176.0138 17955.9504 218 YR00XMFI 9844.1284 19117.8521 218 YR70XEA 8.5913 17.3640 218 YR80XEA 10.5656 20.9211 218 YR90XEA 12.1734 23.3616 218 YR00XEA 12.5376 24.0379 218 74

PAGE 75

Table 4-5. Pearson correlations for Model 1CC_EN R TDR MFI EA YR70 YR80 YR90 YR00 YR70X TDR YR80X TDR YR90X TD R YR00X TDR YR70X MFI YR80X MFI YR90X MFI YR00X MFI YR70X EA YR80XE A YR90X EA TDR Pearson Correlation .103 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .128 MFI Pearson Correlation .286 .023 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .730 EA Pearson Correlation .232 .040 .477 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .553 .000 YR70 Pearson Correlation -.147 -.030 -.008 -.375 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .030 .662 .901 .000 YR80 Pearson Correlation -.016 .060 -.041 .091 -.260 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .811 .382 .548 .181 .000 YR90 Pearson Correlation .159 -.026 .122 .358 -.267 -.267 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .019 .707 .072 .000 .000 .000 YR00 Pearson Correlation .208 .063 .316 .443 -.267 -.267 -.275 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .355 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 YR70XTDR Pearson Correlation -.115 .166 .003 -.326 .873 -.227 -.233 -.233 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .091 .014 .964 .000 .000 .001 .001 .001 YR80XTDR Pearson Correlation -.004 .205 -.036 .057 -.236 .908 -.243 -.243 -.206 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .950 .002 .597 .404 .000 .000 .000 .000 .002 YR90XTDR Pearson Correlation .130 .061 .111 .316 -.252 -.252 .943 -.259 -.220 -.229 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .055 .372 .101 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001 YR00XTDR Pearson Correlation .171 .181 .257 .390 -.247 -.247 -.254 .925 -.216 -.224 -.240 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .011 .007 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001 .000 YR70XMFI Pearson Correlation -.123 -.025 .104 -.332 .972 -.253 -.260 -.260 .854 -.229 -.245 -.240 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .070 .716 .126 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 YR80XMFI Pearson Correlation -.005 .059 -.006 .104 -.258 .991 -.265 -.265 -.225 .900 -.250 -.245 -.251 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .946 .382 .928 .127 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 YR90XMFI Pearson Correlation .172 -.026 .217 .348 -.261 -.261 .977 -.269 -.228 -.237 .919 -.248 -.254 -.259 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .011 .699 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 YR00XMFI Pearson Correlation .215 .049 .382 .427 -.263 -.263 -.271 .984 -.230 -.239 -.255 .895 -.256 -.261 -.264 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .475 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 YR70XEA Pearson Correlation -.132 -.028 .032 -.275 .972 -.253 -.260 -.260 .850 -.230 -.245 -.241 .965 -.251 -.254 -.256 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .051 .681 .644 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 YR80XEA Pearson Correlation -.021 .048 -.027 .120 -.258 .992 -.265 -.265 -.225 .888 -.250 -.245 -.251 .990 -.259 -.261 -.251 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .760 .480 .687 .077 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 YR90XEA Pearson Correlation .148 -.033 .120 .374 -.266 -.266 .996 -.274 -.233 -.242 .930 -.253 -.259 -.264 .973 -.270 -.259 -.264 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .029 .629 .077 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 YR00XEA Pearson Correlation .191 .055 .307 .455 -.267 -.267 -.274 .997 -.233 -.242 -.258 .914 -.259 -.264 -.268 .978 -.259 -.265 -.273 Sig. (2-tailed) .005 .416 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 75 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). a L istwise N=218

PAGE 76

Table 4-6. Model summary for Model 2 76 Model Change statistics Adjusted R Std. Error of R R square square the Estimate R square change F change df1 Sig. F df2 change 1 .393(a) .155 .126 60493.800 .155 .000 5.489 7 210 2 .492(b) .242 .169 58985.437 .088 .035 1.906 12 198 a Predictors: (Constant), YR00, TDR, YR 70, MFI_2000, YR80, Educational attainment, YR 90; Predictors: (Constant), YR00, TDR, YR70, MFI_2000, YR80, Educational attainment, YR90, YR70X TDR, YR80XTDR, YR00XTDR, YR90XTDR, YR70XMFI, YR70XEA, YR90XMFI, YR80XMFI, YR00XMF I, YR80XEA, YR90XEA, YR00XEA; c Dependent Variable: UI_ENR

PAGE 77

77 Table 4-7. Coefficients for Model 2 a Dependent Variable: UI_ENR Model Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients t Sig. 95% Confidence interval for B Collinearity statistics B Std. Error Beta Lower bound Upper bound Tolerance VIF 1 (Constant) 54650.696 30090.742 1.816 .071 -4667.929 113969.322 TDR -4036.997 4254.365 -.061 -.949 .344 -12423.733 4349.738 .986 1.014 MFI 1.275 .583 .165 2.186 .030 .125 2.424 .705 1.418 EA -1754.747 697.975 -.284 -2.514 .013 -3130.682 -378.813 .315 3.174 YR70 38510.392 14999.894 .241 2.567 .011 8940.729 68080.055 .455 2.196 YR80 70930.372 17821.850 .445 3.980 .000 35797.717 106063.027 .323 3.099 YR90 85750.868 20196.402 .546 4.246 .000 45937.200 125564.537 .243 4.109 YR00 89662.325 21352.663 .571 4.199 .000 47569.290 131755.359 .218 4.593 2 (Constant) 31163.881 61272.865 .509 .612 -89667.279 151995.042 TDR 4396.764 5742.245 .066 .766 .445 -6927.044 15720.572 .515 1.943 MFI 1.928 2.209 .250 .873 .384 -2.429 6.285 .047 21.418 EA -2061.697 2166.680 -.334 -.952 .342 -6334.427 2211.034 .031 32.168 YR70 -1387.195 80931.636 -.009 -.017 .986 -160985.796 158211.406 .015 67.228 YR80 128432.212 116686.260 .805 1.101 .272 -101675.133 358539.556 .007 139.750 YR90 455913.581 153787.477 2.903 2.965 .003 152641.989 759185.173 .004 250.605 YR00 506613.606 202274.493 3.226 2.505 .013 107724.770 905502.441 .002 433.541 YR70XTDR -13138.783 11948.982 -.159 -1.100 .273 -36702.385 10424.819 .182 5.488 YR80XTDR -24096.449 13261.291 -.309 -1.817 .071 -50247.947 2055.048 .132 7.579 YR90XTDR -47856.271 18108.552 -.549 -2.643 .009 -83566.653 -12145.889 .089 11.287 YR00XTDR -29237.839 15350.155 -.375 -1.905 .058 -59508.613 1032.936 .099 10.126 YR70XMFI .135 2.458 .035 .055 .956 -4.712 4.983 .009 107.571 YR80XMFI 3.336 3.011 .843 1.108 .269 -2.602 9.274 .007 151.122 YR90XMFI -1.825 2.445 -.506 -.746 .456 -6.647 2.997 .008 120.218 YR00XMFI -3.253 2.580 -.961 -1.261 .209 -8.340 1.834 .007 151.677 YR70XEA 1253.781 2411.131 .336 .520 .604 -3501.012 6008.573 .009 109.322 YR80XEA -2901.814 2810.955 -.938 -1.032 .303 -8445.066 2641.438 .005 215.699 YR90XEA -3763.268 3015.911 -1.358 -1.248 .214 -9710.697 2184.162 .003 309.608 YR00XEA -3751.613 3324.377 -1.393 -1.129 .260 -10307.343 2804.117 .003 398.275

PAGE 78

78 Table 4-8. ANOVA for Model 2 Model Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. 1 Regression 140596911838.069 7 20085273119.725 5.489 .000(a) Residual 768494961526.836 210 3659499816.795 Total 909091873364.904 217 2 Regression 220194092036.388 19 11589162738.758 3.331 .000(b) Residual 688897781328.517 198 3479281723.882 Total 909091873364.904 217 a Predictors: (Constant), YR00, TDR, YR 70, MFI_2000, YR80, Educational attainment, YR 90. b Predictors: (Constant), YR00, TDR, YR70, MFI_2000, YR80, Educational attainment, YR90, YR70XTDR, YR80XTDR, YR00XTDR, YR90XTDR, YR70XMFI, YR70XEA, YR90XMFI, YR80XMFI, YR00XMFI, YR80XEA, YR90XEA, YR00XEA. c Depe ndent Variable: UI Fall enrollment

PAGE 79

Table 4-9. Descriptive statistics for Model 2 Mean Std. deviation N I_ENR 73228.3700 64725.2920 218 TDR 1.7466 .9720 218 MFI 40612.5321 8387.3626 218 EA 49.3193 10.4817 218 YR70 .2064 .4057 218 YR80 .2064 .4057 218 YR90 .2156 .4122 218 YR00 .2156 .4122 218 YR70XTDR .3488 .7851 218 YR80XTDR .3839 .8313 218 YR90XTDR .3664 .7429 218 YR00XTDR .4016 .8301 218 YR70XMFI 8354.5642 16895.4960 218 YR80XMFI 8244.8532 16347.6940 218 YR90XMFI 9176.0138 17955.9504 218 YR00XMFI 9844.1284 19117.8521 218 YR70XEA 8.5913 17.3640 218 YR80XEA 10.5656 20.9211 218 YR90XEA 12.1734 23.3616 218 YR00XEA 12.5376 24.0379 218 Dependent variable: UI_ENR 79

PAGE 80

80 Table 4-10 Pearson correlations for Model 2 UI_ ENR TDR MFI EA yr70 yr80 yr90 yr00 yr70x TDR yr80x TDR yr90x TDR yr00x TDR yr70x MFI yr80x MFI yr90x MFI yr00x MFI yr70x EA yr80x EA yr90x EA TDR Pearson Correlation -.027 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .691 MFI Pearson Correlation .255 .023 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .730 EA Pearson Correlation .190 .040 .477 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .005 .553 .000 yr70 Pearson Correlation -.066 -.030 -.008 -.375 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .333 .662 .901 .000 yr80 Pearson Correlation .047 .060 -.041 .091 -.260 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .491 .382 .548 .181 .000 yr90 Pearson Correlation .126 -.026 .122 .358 -.267 -.267 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .064 .707 .072 .000 .000 .000 yr00 Pearson Correlation .160 .063 .316 .443 -.267 -.267 -.275 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .018 .355 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 yr70xTDR Pearson Correlation -.080 .166 .003 -.326 .873 -.227 -.233 -.233 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .239 .014 .964 .000 .000 .001 .001 .001 yr80xTDR Pearson Correlation .019 .205 -.036 .057 -.236 .908 -.243 -.243 -.206 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .776 .002 .597 .404 .000 .000 .000 .000 .002 yr90xTDR Pearson Correlation .083 .061 .111 .316 -.252 -.252 .943 -.259 -.220 -.229 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .220 .372 .101 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001 yr00xTDR Pearson Correlation .127 .181 .257 .390 -.247 -.247 -.254 .925 -.216 -.224 -.240 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .062 .007 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001 .000 yr70xMFI Pearson Correlation -.039 -.025 .104 -.332 .972 -.253 -.260 -.260 .854 -.229 -.245 -.240 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .568 .716 .126 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 yr80xMFI Pearson Correlation .059 .059 -.006 .104 -.258 .991 -.265 -.265 -.225 .900 -.250 -.245 -.251 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .387 .382 .928 .127 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 yr90xMFI Pearson Correlation .126 -.026 .217 .348 -.261 -.261 .977 -.269 -.228 -.237 .919 -.248 -.254 -.259 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .062 .699 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 yr00xMFI Pearson Correlation .159 .049 .382 .427 -.263 -.263 -.271 .984 -.230 -.239 -.255 .895 -.256 -.261 -.264 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .019 .475 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 yr70xEA Pearson Correlation -.065 -.028 .032 -.275 .972 -.253 -.260 -.260 .850 -.230 -.245 -.241 .965 -.251 -.254 -.256 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .337 .681 .644 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 yr80xEA Pearson Correlation .035 .048 -.027 .120 -.258 .992 -.265 -.265 -.225 .888 -.250 -.245 -.251 .990 -.259 -.261 -.251 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .610 .480 .687 .077 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 yr90xEA Pearson Correlation .114 -.033 .120 .374 -.266 -.266 .996 -.274 -.233 -.242 .930 -.253 -.259 -.264 .973 -.270 -.259 -.264 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .093 .629 .077 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 yr00xEA Pearson Correlation .152 .055 .307 .455 -.267 -.267 -.274 .997 -.233 -.242 -.258 .914 -.259 -.264 -.268 .978 -.259 -.265 -.273 Sig. (2-tailed) .025 .416 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 ** Correlation is significant at the 0. 01 level (2-tailed). Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

PAGE 81

Figure 4-1. Studentized residual versus CC_ENR 81

PAGE 82

Figure 4-2. Studentized residual versus TDR 82

PAGE 83

Figure 4-3. Studentized residual versus MFI 83

PAGE 84

Figure 4-4. Studentized residual versus EA 84

PAGE 85

Figure 4-5. Studentized residual versus Year 85

PAGE 86

Figure 4-6. Studentized re sidual versus UI_ENR. 86

PAGE 87

Figure 4-7. Studentized residual versus TDR. 87

PAGE 88

Figure 4-8. Studentized residual versus MFI. 88

PAGE 89

Figure 4-9. Studentized residual versus EA. 89

PAGE 90

90 Figure 4-10. Studentized residual versus Year.

PAGE 91

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION The nature of state postseconda ry education systems, via en rollment, has been examined both in the literature and through quantitative analysis. This chap ter will conclude the study with a discussion of the results, suggestions for future research, and implicatio ns for state planning. Discussion of Results The purpose of the study was to test stude nt price response theory by examining how enrollment was related to the tuition and fee difference ratio and state resources for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000. The omnibus hypothesis guiding this study stated enrollment was not significantly associated with tuition difference ratio betw een public institution types and state resources between 1960 and 2000. This inquir y was examined through statistical analysis of the significance of association between enro llment and the independent variables and the analysis of forty-year trends. Significance of Association Two models, differing by dependent variable reflective of community college and undergraduate institution enrollment, were develo ped to test the hypothesis. Analysis of the results indicated that the tuition and fee difference ratio did not have a statistically significant association with the enrollment variables. It was observed that in both the community college enrollment and the undergraduate institution enrollment models, the tuition and fee difference ratio was not significantly asso ciated with enrollment. The complete models, inclusive of median family income and educational attainment, accounted for 24.6 % and 26.5% of the variance in enrollment for Model 1 and Model 2 respectively. In both models the state resource variables, median family income and educational attainment, had statistically si gnificant zero-order correlations with community college 91

PAGE 92

enrollment as did the years 1990 and 2000. This resu lt confirms prior resear ch indicating income and educational attainment in fluence participation in public postsecondary education. Forty-year Trends The fixed effects models for each year, with 1960 serving as the reference year, captured forty-year trends in the relationship of enrollm ent to each independent variable, while holding the others constant. Trends for each relationshi p were presented and discussed in further detail in this section. Enrollment and the tuition and fee difference ratio Whereas the student price response theory, as conceptualized as the differe nce in pricing between two institution types and not the actual tuition and fee sticker price, wa s not statistically significant in its association with enrollment, the forty-year trend depicting the relationshi p between enrollment and the tuition and fee difference ratio provided evidence for further consideration. The emergent trends indicated that as the tuition and fee difference ratio increase d community college enrollment decreased. This trend was the same in undergra duate institutions, excep t between the years 1990 and 2000 where the trend took a turn in the positive direction (Figure 5-1). Results of the analysis indicating that community college enrollment was negatively associated with an increase in the TDR suggested that the community college was not increasing enrollment by serving as the low-cost, entry-poin t to postsecondary education. One would have suspected that as the gap in tuition and fee pri ces, as operationalized by the TDR, increased that a larger number of individuals woul d have opted to enroll in a le ss-costly, localized institution to mitigate expenses. This was not the case. The increased association of the TDR to enrollment at undergraduate institutions from 1990 to 2000 was a result of significant interest to the researcher. It s uggested that as the difference in tuition and fees between institution types increa sed, there was the tendency for 92

PAGE 93

more individuals to enroll in f our-year public institutions. The f act that approximately 25% of the variance in enrollment was explained in th e whole model provided two lens for analyzing this phenomena. First, it may have been that th e result of increases in state and institutionally supported merit-based aid at four-y ear institutions mitigated the in fluence of price in enrollment decisions. For example, Cornwall, Mustard and Sridhar (2006) found that Georgias implementation of the HOPE Scholarship increased enrollment in the states public institutions, with four-year institutions seeing most of the gain. While aid as a variable of interest was not a possibility for this study, future studies of student price response must factor in aid to account for its influence on enrollment. Second, if state aid was not a driving factor in the enrollment decisi ons of individuals, what could have been associated with such a trend reversal? Anot her lens through which enrollment decisions may be viewed was that of competition. It has be en reported that during the 1990s an increasingly larger percentage of th e total population enrolled in private institutions (Snyder 2008). In order for i ndividuals to compete for the job market after postsecondary education it may have been that individuals who may have consider ed first attending the community college either did not attend or engaged in personal fi nancing practices that enable them to pay relatively higher prices at public four-year institutions. Perhaps Bowens (1980) Revenue Theory of Costs may be reframed from the students perspective, as such: prestige drives expenditures in the search for revenue. Enrollment and median family income. Median family income exhibited itself to be strongly correlated with enroll ment. Across both models, median family income exhibited the same trend. Between 1960 and 1980, holding other va riables constant, an increase in median family income resulted in an increasingly posi tive association with en rollment. However, 93

PAGE 94

between 1980 and 2000, an increase in median family income resulted an increasingly negative association with enrollment. This trend suggested that wealthier students began to enroll in postsecondary options other than public institutions during this time. Such a position was supported by the observation that enrollment in th e private sector of pos tsecondary education, as a percent of total enro llment in all postsecondary education, increased from 21.5% in 1990 to 23.2% in 2000 and continued to 25.5% in 2005 (S nyder 2008). This observation, in combination with results of the study, contribut ed to price response studies in that not only were individuals on the lower end of the economic spectrum most influenced by price in their enrollment decisions (Leslie and Brinkman 1987; Kane 1995; Heller 1997), but thos e states with high median family incomes also exhibited a preferen ce not to attend public postsecondary education. Enrollment and educational attainment The relationship between enrollment at both institution types and educational attainment provided the opportunity to examine the impacts of a more educated populace at the compulsory leve l on postsecondary education. Between 1960 and 1970, analysis of the data indicated a positive association between enrollment and educational attainment of individuals. This trend reversed between 1970 and 2000, where it was observed that the percentage of a states population ag ed 25+ with a high school diploma but not a bachelors degree or higher increased an incr easingly negative associ ation with enrollment emerged. The most dramatic shifts happened between 1990 and 2000, when the association with community college enrollment continued its negative trend by nearly doubling. At undergraduate institutions, the trend was incr easingly negative, however between 1990 and 2000 there was a positive association between enrollment and educational attainment. This trend could be interpreted two ways. Either states had academically qualifi ed individuals that were not engaged in postsecondary educati on or states where educational attainment increased witnessed 94

PAGE 95

an increase in individuals choosing options othe r than public postsecondary education. Both options have some credibility a the former wa s supported by the conclusions of the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance (2002), who concluded a million bachelors degree were lost during the 1990s to academically qualified individuals. The latter perspective appeared to be an emerging trend in this study, namely that an increasing number of academically qualified individualsas determined by comple tion of high schooloriginating from families with lesser income were deciding to attend four-year institutions as compared to community colleges. Directions for Future Research The national scope and time span covered by the study presented multiple options for future studies. Specifically, studies with state size adjustments, state le vel studies, studies of populations and studies of progr ams may be undertaken to furt her examine the association between enrollment and price and state characteristics. Even after removing outliers, it may have b een that the size of the states population enrolled in public postsecondary education influenced the analysis Future studies could control for the influence of state size on the enrollment va riable by calculating a ra tio of enrollment to the number of persons in a state. As it applied to state-specific studies, the aggregate nature of the study may have masked the unique nature of a state outcomes. Case stud ies of specific states, or longitudinal studies of their shifts in enrollment and tuition and fee prices in the context of state resources would contribute to the dialogue on th e various state structures on public postsecondary education attainment. Kentucky, for example, had experimented over the time period examined in the study with numerous state structures of public postsecondary education. They have had independent community colleges, community colle ges as an extension of the University of 95

PAGE 96

Kentucky with a separate technical college sy stem, and most recently a joint community and technical college system. With respect to studies of various populations the current nature of the national dialogue surrounding postsecondary education was the part icipation of traditi onally underrepresented groups. It was the case, however, that data delin eated by race or ethnicity was not available until 1980. Specifically, Statistical Directive 15 of 1977 instructed federal ag encies to classify individuals racially with in one of four racial classifications: American Indian, Asian of Pacific Islander, Black, or White with further delineatio ns of the White and Black classifications as either Hispanic or non-Hispanic (Office of Management and Budget 1977). The resulting ethno-racial pentagon has since been applied to institutions of higher education to quantify demographic characteristics of student populations. Another area for future research was the application of comparisons between federal programs geared at college participation to a stat e or national norm. A program of interest may include the United States Depa rtment of Educations Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR-UP) or othe r programs centrally focused on the increasing postsecondary participation for groups w ho have traditionally not participated. Implications for State Planning The results would implicate that in order for states to maximize enrollment in public postsecondary education, it may be the case that states should equalize tuition and fee rates for all institution types. The difficulty in this ap proach was that each stat e, and institution type within the state, has statutorily delegated responsibility for fixing1 tuition to a different entity (Mullin and Honeyman 2008). It wa s therefore the case that, in lig ht of statutory responsibility, 1 The term fixing was the term found to be most commonly utilized in statutory language regarding tuition a nd fee pricing. 96

PAGE 97

agreements between entities responsible for fi xing tuition and fees was the avenue most appropriate for addressing the association of an increase in the TDR and enrollment. Perhaps the positioning of community colleg es as lower-cost options, relative to undergraduate institutions, contributed to the negative trends in enro llment. State level policymakers undertaking planning should theref ore philosophically situate the community college as a separate entity rather than a juni or college. There was limited evidence for this position in California. California was unique in that it has held tu ition and fee prices very low at community colleges, resulting in relatively large tuition and f ee difference ratios. Initial analysis indicated that there was a positive associa tion with enrollment in Califor nia. However, in 1980, 1990 and 2000 the state was removed from the analysis as they were an outlier statis tically determined to influence the data. It may be that states starting to reexamine th eir tuition and fee policies should clarify if they intend to pursue a low tuition and fee rate or a no tuition and fee rate. There was, at the time of this manuscript, an action by policymakers to im plement Californias virtually-no tuition model in the states of Indiana (Indian a Commission for Higher Education), Massachusetts (Ashburn 2007), and Oklahoma (Hoberock 2007). 97

PAGE 98

13,696.40 4,999.40 294.142 -33,375.69 -36,095.71 4,396.76 -8,742.02 -19,699.69 -43,459.51 -24,841.08 -50,000.00 -40,000.00 -30,000.00 -20,000.00 -10,000.00 0.00 10,000.00 20,000.00 19601970198019902000 Year Community College Undergraduate Institution Figure 5-1. Forty-year tre nd of TDR on enrollment 98

PAGE 99

-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 19601970198019902000 Year Community College Undergraduate Institution Figure 5-2. Forty-year tre nd of MFI on enrollment 99

PAGE 100

100 -613.373 345.442 -1,542.20 -4,424.71 -11,432.69 -2,061.70 807.916 -4,963.51 -5,824.97-5,813.31 -14000 -12000 -10000 -8000 -6000 -4000 -2000 0 2000 19601970198019902000 Year Community College Undergraduate Institution Figure 5-3. Forty-year tre nd of EA on enrollment

PAGE 101

LIST OF REFERENCES Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. 2002, June. Empty Promises: The Myth of College Access in America Washington, DC: Author. Allison, P. D. 2002. Missing Data. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. American Association of Community Colleges. Community College Growth by Decade Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved August 1, 2007 from http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Content/NavigationM enu/AboutCommunityColleges/HistoricalI nformation/CCGrowth/CCGrowth.htm Anderson, G. L. 1976. Land-Grant Universities and Their Continuing Challenge East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press. Arney, L. H. 1970. State Patterns of Financial S upport for Community Colleges Gainesville, FL: Institute of Higher Education. Ashburn, E. 2007. Massachusetts governor ca lls for tuition-free community colleges. The Chronicle of Higher Education June 4. Retrieved January13, 2008, from http://chronicle.com/daily/2007/06/2007060403n.htm Berdahl, R. O. 1971. Statewide Coordination of Higher Education Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Bokelman, W. R. 1961. Higher Education Planning and Management Data, 1960-61: Salaries, Tuition and Fees, Room and Board. Washington, DC: United States Office of Education. Bowen, H. R. 1980. The Costs of Higher Education: How Much Do Colleges and Universities Spend Per Student and How Much Should They Spend? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bowen, H. R. 1974. Financing Higher Education: Th e Current State of the Debate. Washington, DC: Associati on of American Colleges. Brint, S., and J. Karabel. 1989. The Diverted Dream: Community Colleges and the Promise of Educational Opportunity iIn America, 1900-1985. New York: Oxford University Press. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Brubacher, J. S., and W. Rudy. 1997. Higher Education in Transition: A History of American Colleges and Universities, 4th ed. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Burkel, C. E. 1956. The College Blue Book 8th ed. Baltimore, MD: Christian E. Burkel. Burkel, C. E. 1960. The College Blue Book 9th ed. Baltimore, MD: Christian E. Burkel. Cain, R.A. 1982. Equal Educational O pportunity and the Community College. The Journal of Negro Education, 51(1): 16-28. 101

PAGE 102

California State Department of Education. 1960. A Master Plan for Higher Education in California, 1960-1975. Sacramento, CA: Author. Callan, P.M. 2006. College Affordability: Coll eges, States Increase Financial Burdens on Students and Families. In Measuring Up 2006: The National Report Card on Higher Education, 19-22 San Jose, CA: The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Campbell, R., and B. N.Siegel. 1967, June. The Demand for Higher Education in the United States, 1919-1964. The American Economic Review, 57 (3): 482-494. Campbell, W. V., English, R. J., and G. Lampros. 1952. Current Operating Expenditures and Income of Higher Education in the Unite d States 1930, 1950, and 1950: A Staff Technical Paper for the Commission on Financing Higher Education New York: Columbia University Press. Carbone, R. F. 1974. Alternative Tuition Systems. ACT Special Report No. 12 Iowa City, IA: American College Testing Program. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. 1970a, March. A Chance to Learn: An Action Agenda for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. 1973, June. Higher Education: Who Pays? Who benefits? Who should pay? New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. 1970b, June. The Open-door Colleges. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 1982. The Control of the Campus: A Report on the Governance of Higher Education Lawrenceville, NJ: Princeton University Press. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 1976. The States and Higher Education: A Proud Past and a Vital Future. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Chambers, M. M. 1968. Higher Education: Who Pays? Who Gains? Financing Education Beyond the High School. Danville, IN: Interstate Printers and Publishers. Christal, M. E. 1997, March. State Tuition and Fee Policies: 1996-97. Denver, CO: State Higher Education Executive Officers. Cohen, A. M. 1998. The Shaping of American Higher Education: Emergence and Growth of the Contemporary System San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Cohen, A. M., and F. B. Brawer. 1996. The American Community College 3rd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 102

PAGE 103

College Board. 2006. Trends in Colleg e Pricing, 2006. Washington, DC: Author. Commission on Financing Higher Education. 1952. Nature and Needs of Higher Education. New York: Columbia University Press. Cornwall, C., Mustard, D.B., and D.J. Sridhar. 2006. The Enrollment Effects of Merit-Based Financial Aid: Evidence from Georgias HOPE Program. Journal of Labor Economics, 24(4): 761-786. Cunningham, A. F. and J. P. Merisotis. 2002. Na tional Models for College Costs and Prices. Planning for Higher Education, 30 (3): 15-26. Douglass, J. A. 2000. The California Idea and American Higher Education: 1850 to the 1960 Master Plan. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Division of Performance Audit. 2006, February 12. Recent Kentucky Tuition Increases May Prevent the Achievement of the Commonwea lths 2020 Postsecondary Education Goals, briefing report. Frankfurt, KY: Auditor of Public Accounts. Dressel, P. L. 1980. The Autonomy of Public Colleges. New Directions for Institutional Research No. 26, 7 (2): 11-23. Dunham, E. A. 1969. Colleges of the Forgotten Americans : A Profile of State Colleges and Regional Universities New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Eddy, E. D. 1957. Colleges for Our Land and Time New York: Harper and Brothers. Education Commission of the States. 1972. Higher Education in the States, Volume 3, Number 3. Denver CO: Author. Fisher, F. J. 1990. State Fina ncing of Higher Education: A New Look at an Old Problem. Change 22 (1): 42-56 Garms, W. I. 1980, February. On Measuring the Equity of Community College (ERIC Document Reproductive Service No. ED187378). Garms, W. I. 1977. Financing Community Colleges New York: Teachers College Press. Gleazer, E. J. 1980. The Community College: Values, Vision and Vitality Washington, D.C.: American Association of Community and Junior Colleges. Glenny, L. A. 1965. State Systems a nd Plans for Higher Education. In Emerging Patterns in American Higher Education, ed. L. Wilson, 86-103. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Goldin, C. and L. F. Katz. 2000, September. Education and Income in the Early Twentieth Century: Evidence from the Prairies. The Journal of Economic History 60 (3): 782-818. 103

PAGE 104

Greenleaf, W. J. 1936. Junior Colleges, Educational Bulletin No. 3 Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office. Gross, E., and P. V. Grambsch. 1974. Changes in University Organization, 1964-1971. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Publishers. Hansen, W.L., and B. A. Weisbrod. 1969. Benefits, Costs, and Finance of Public Higher Education. New York: Markham. Harris, S. E. 1960. Higher Education in the United States: The Economic Problems Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hauptman, A. M. 1990. The Tuition Dilemma: Assessing New Ways to Pay for College Washington, D. C.: The Brookings Institution. Hauptman, A. M., and J P. Merisotis. 1990. The College Tuition Spiral: An Examination of Why Charges Are Increasing New York: The College Board and the American Council on Education. Hearn, J. C., Griswold, C. P., and G. M. Marine. 1996. Region, Resources, and Reason: A Contextual Analysis of State Tu ition and Student Aid Policies. Research in Higher Education, 37 (3): 241-278. Hearn, J. C. and C. P. Griswold. 1994. State-le vel Centralization and Policy Innovation in U. S. Postsecondary Education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(2): 161-190. Heller, D. E. 1997. Student Price Response in Hi gher Education: An Update to Leslie and Brinkman. Journal of Higher Education 68(6): 624-659. Higher Education Act of 1965, Public Law 89-329 (1965). Hoberock, B. 2007. Free Community College Tuition Pushed. Tulsa World, October 20. Retrieved January 13, 2008, from http:///www.tulsaworld.com Hurt, H. W., and M. E. Abbott. 1947. The College Blue Book 5th ed. Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: Christian E. Burkel. Hurt, H. W., and M. E. Abbott. 1950. The College Blue Book, 6th ed. Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: Christian E. Burkel. Hurt, H. W., and H. Hurt. 1933. The College Blue Book, 3rd ed. Hollywood-by-the-Sea, FL: The College Blue Book. Hurt, H. W., and H. Hurt. 1950. The College Blue Book 4th ed. DeLand, FL: The College Blue Book. 104

PAGE 105

Indiana Commission for Higher Education. Governor outlines plan for higher education access and affordability. Indianapolis, IN: Author. Retrieved April 25, 2008, from http://www.che.state.in.us/ Jackson, G. A. and G. B. Weathersby. 1975. Individual Demand for Higher Education. Journal of Higher Education 46(6): 623-52. Johnson, J. L. 1979. An Analysis of the Re lationship Between Instructional Costs and Differential Tuition Levels. The Journal of Higher Education 50(3):280-288. Jones, D. 2002. Cost analysis and the formation of public policy. In Study of College Costs and Prices, 1988-89 to 1997-98, Vol. 2 Commissioned Papers, ed. A. F. Cunningham et al., 4555. Washington, DC: United States Departme nt of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Kane, T. J. 1991. College Entry by Blacks Since 1970: Th e Role of Tuition, Financial Aid, Local Economic Conditions, and Family Background. EdD diss., Harvard University. Kane, T. J. 1995. Rising Public College Tuition and Colle ge Entry: How Well Do Public Subsidies Promote Access to College? Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic research Working Paper Series No. 5164. Kerr, C. 1968. Financing Higher Education: The Policy Dilemmas." Public Interest, (11): 99136. Kim, D. and J. L. Rury. 2007, August. The Changing Profile of College Access: The Truman Commission and Enrollment Patterns in the Postwar Era. History of Education Quarterly, 47(3): 302-327. Koos, L. V. 1924. The Junior College. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Koshal, R. K., and M. Koshal. 2000. State Appropriation and Higher Educati on Tuition: What Is the Relationship? Education Economics, 8(1): 81-89. Krug, E. 1962, Autumn. Graduates of Seconda ry Schools In and Around 1900: Did Most of Them Go to College? The School Review 266-272. Leslie, L. L. and P. T. Brinkman. 1987. Stude nt Price Response in Higher Education: The Student Demand Studies. Journal of Higher Education, 58(2): 181-204. Lingenfelter, P. E. 2004. The state and higher education: An essential partnership. In Restructuring Shared Governance in Higher Education, New Directions for Higher Education Series Vol. 127, ed. W. G. Tierne y and V. M. Lechuga, 47-59. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lombardi, J. 1973. Managing Finances in Community Colleges San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. 105

PAGE 106

Longanecker, D. A. 2007, March. College Access. In Thinking Outside the Box: Policy Strategies for Readine ss, Access, and Success, ed. D. A. Longanecker et al. ,25-38. Boulder, CO: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. Lucas, C. J. 1994. American higher education: A history New York: St. Martin's Griffin.Martinez, M.C. 2004. Postsecondary Participation an d State Policy: Meeting the Future Demand. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Martorana, S. V. 1974. State-Level Planning for Comm unity Colleges: Are the 1202 Commissions a Centripetal or Centrifugal Fo rce in Postsecondary Education? Essays on Education, No. 4. Iowa City, IA: ACT Publications. Matlock, T. P. 1994. The Overlap Group: A Study of Nonprofit Competition. Journal of Law and Education, 23 (4): 523-548. McDowell, G. R. 2001. Land-grant Universities and Extens ion into the 21st century: Renegotiating of abandoning a social contract Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. McKinney, T. H. 1974, June. Section 1202 and Statewide Planning for Public Community and Junior Colleges: The New Reality. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University Center for State and Regional Leadership. McLendon, M. K. 2003. Setting the governmental ag enda for state decentralization of higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 74 (5): 470-515. Medsker, L. L., and D. Tillery. 1971. Breaking the Access Barriers: A Profile of Two-year Colleges. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Middaugh, M. F., Graham, R., and A. Shahid. 2003. A Study of Higher Education Instructional Expenditures: The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity. [NCES-2003161]. Washington, DC: United States Depart ment of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Moore, P. R. et al. 1974. Report of the Interinstitutiona l Committee on Tuition and Fee Policy Providence, RI: Rhode Island St ate Board of Education. Morrill Act, Public Law 37-108 (1862). Morrill, J.S. 1887, June 21. Address. In Commemorative Addresses 1862-1887 unedited volume, 17-26. Amherst, MA: J. E. Williams, Book and Job Printer. Mullin, C.M., and Honeyman, D. S. 2008, April. Statutory Responsibilit y for Fixing Tuition and Fees: The Relationship between Community Colleges and Undergraduate Institutions. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 32(4-6): 284-304. Mullin, C.M., and Honeyman, D.S. 2006, March. Community College Funding Formula Typologies: Calculating the Base. Presentation to the American Education Finance Association, Denver, CO. 106

PAGE 107

Mumper, M., and J. Anderson. 1993, Fall. Main taining Public College Affordability in the 1980s" How Did the States Do? Journal of Education Finance 19(2): 183-199. National Association of State Univer sities and Land-Gr ant Colleges. 2008. The Land-Grant Tradition. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved May 1, 2008, from http://www.nasulgc.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=780 National Center for Public Poli cy and Higher Education. 2007. The Squeeze Play: How Parents and the Public Look at Higher Education Today San Jose, CA: Author. Retrieved February 28, 2008, from http://www.makingopportunityaffordable.org National Center for Public Poli cy and Higher Education. 2006. Measuring Up 2006: The National Report Card on Higher Education. San Jose, CA: Author. National Commission on the Financing of Postsecondary Education. 1973. Financing Postsecondary Education in the United States. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office. National Defense Education Act, Public Law 85-864 (1958). Orfield, G., and F.G. Paul. 1992. State Higher Education Systems and College Completion. New York: Ford Foundation. Office of Management and Budget. 1977. Statistical Directive 15: Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics an d Administrative Reporting Washington, DC. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 2007, September. Education at a glance 2007: OECD briefing note for the United States. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved February 28, 2008 from http://www.oecd.org Palmer, J. 1996. Funding the multipurpose community college in an era of consolidation. In A Struggle to Survive: Funding Higher Education in the Next Century, ed. D. S. Honeyman, J. L. Wattenbarger and K. C. West brook, 187-208. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Paulsen, M. B. 1998. Recent Research on the Ec onomics of Attending College: Returns on Investment and Responsiveness to Price. Research in Higher Education, 39 (4): 471-489. Presidential Commission on Higher Education. 1947. Higher Education for American Democracy, Vol. 1-6. New York: Harper and Brothers. President's Committee on Education Beyond the High School. 1957, July. Second Report to the President Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office. Pryor, J.H., Hurtado, S., Saenz, V. B., Korn, J. S., Santos J. L., and W. S. Korn. 2006. The American Freshman: National Norms for Fall 2006. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA. 107

PAGE 108

Ravitch, D. 1981. Forgetting the Questions: The Problem of Educational Reform. The American Scholar, 50(3): 329-340. Reindl, T. 2007, March. Hitting Home: Quality, Cost, and Access Challenges Confronting Higher Education Today. Boston, MA: Making Opportunity Affordable. Retrieved February 28, 2008, from http://www.makingopportunityaffordable.org Roche, J. P. 1986. The Colonial Colleges in the War for American Independence. Millwood, NY: Associated Faculty Press, Inc. Rouse, C. E. 1998. Do Two-year Colleges Incr ease Overall Educational Attainment? Evidence from the States. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 17(4): 595-620. Rouse, C. E. 1994. What to Do After High Sc hool: The Two-Year versus Four-Year College enrollment decision. In Choices and consequences: Cont emporary policy issues in education ed. R.G. Ehrenberg, 59-88. Ithica, NY: ILR Press. Ruppert, S. S. 2001. Where We Go from Here: State Legi slative Views on Higher Education In The New Millennium. Littleton, CO: National Educati on Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED455740). Russell, M. 1970. The College Blue Book 1969/70, 13th ed., Vol.2. New York: CCM Information Corporation. Savoca, E. 1990. Another Look at the Demand for Higher Education: Measuring the Price Sensitivity of The Decision To Apply To College. Economics of Education Review, 9 (2): 123-134. Scheitinger, E. F. 1981. Tuition Policy for the Eighties Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board. Servicemen's Readjustment Act, Public Law 346-268 (1947). Shelburne, J. C. 1939. Fees in a Public System. The Journal of Higher Education, 10 (2): 83-89. Snyder, T. D. 2008. Mini-Digest of Educa tion Statistics, 2007 (NCES 2008-023). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics Institute of Educational Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Sonnenberg, W. C. 1993. Elementary and Secondary Education. In 120 years of American Education: A Statistical Portrait ed. T. D. Snyder, 34-70. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education, National Cent er for Education Statistics. St. John, E. P., and J. B. Starkey. 1994. The Influence of Costs on Persistence by Traditional College-Age Students in Community Colleges." Community College Journal of Research and Practice 18(2): 201-13. 108

PAGE 109

Stampen, J. 1980. The Financing of Public Higher Education Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education and ER IC Clearinghouse on Higher Education. State of California. 2004, January. Governor's Budget Summary, 2004-2005. Sacramento, CA: Author. Taubman, P. 1989, May. Role of Parental Income in Educational Attainment. The American Economic Review 79(2): 57-61. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. 2000. Closing the Gaps: The Texas Higher Education Plan Austin, TX: Author. Thelin, J. R. 2007. Higher Educations Student Financial Aid Enterp rise in Historical Perspective. In Footing the Bill: The Ne w Student Loan Sector, ed. F. M. Hess, 19-41. Washington, DC: The American Enterprise Institute Press. Tillery, D. and J. L. Wattenbarger. 1985. State Po wer in a New Era: Threats to Local Authority. New Directions for Community Colleges, 13 (1): 5-23. Tillery, D. 1973. Distribution and Differentiation of Youth: A Study of Transition from School to College. Cambridge, MA: Ballinge r Publishing Company. Title IX of the Educational Amen dments, Public Law 92-318 (1972). United States Census Bureau. Census 2000 PHC-T-41. A Half-Centur y of Learning: Historical Statistics on Educational Attainment in the United States, 1940 to 2000 Washington, DC: United States Department of Commer ce. Retrieved January 13, 2008, from http://www.census.gov/population/www/ socdemo/education/phct41.html United States Census Bureau. No. HS-35. Personal Income and Personal Income Per Capita by State: 1929 to 2001 Washington, DC: United States Depa rtment of Commerce. Retrieved January 13, 2008, from http://www.census.gov/statab/hist/HS-35.pdf United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. 1975. Higher Education: Basic Student Charges 1972-1973 and 1973-1974. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office. United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2008. Inflation calculator Washington, DC: Author. Re trieved February 3, 2008, from http://data.bls.gov/cgibin/cpicalc.pl United States Department of Education, Nati onal Center for Education Statistics. 2003. Digest of Educational Statistics, 2002 Edition Washington, D.C.: Author. United State Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 1972. Digest of Educational Statistics, 1971 Edition Washington, D.C.: Author. 109

PAGE 110

United State Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 1965. Digest of Educational Statistics, 1965 Edition Washington, D.C.: Author. United States General Accounting Office. 1996, August. Higher Education: Tuition Increasing Faster than Household Income and Public Colleges' Costs [GAO/HEHS-96-154]. Washington, DC: Author. Vernez, G., Krop, R. A., and C.P. Rydell. 1999. Closing the Education Gap: Benefits and Costs [MR-1036-EDU]. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Wattenbarger, J. L., Shafer, S., and J. D. Zucker. 1973. Tuition and the open door. In J. Lombardi ed., Legal Issues in the Community College. New Directions in Community Colleges, 1(2): 57-64. Wellman, J. V. 2001. Looking Back, Going Forward: The Carnegie Commission on Tuition Policy. Washington, DC: Institute fo r Higher Education Policy. Wetzel, J. N. 1995. The Effect of Tuition Di fferentials on Student Enrollment Patterns and University Revenues. Washington, DC: Fund for Improvement of Postsecondary Education. Wattenbarger, J.L. 1979. More Mone y for More Opportunity: Reappraisal. Journal of Education Finance 4 (4): 483-491. 110

PAGE 111

111 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Christopher M. Mullin was an alumni fellow in the Department of Educational Administration and Policy at the University of Florida. He earned a Master of Education degree at Teachers College, Columbia University and B achelor of Arts degree at the University of Florida.