Commuter students: involvement and identification with an institution of higher education.

Commuter students: involvement and identification with an institution of higher education. INTRODUCTION Since the 1980's, many public universities in the UnitedStates have evolved from "state" universities to "statesupported" universities. A "state-assisted" university isone that receives less than 50% of their budget from the state(Archibald and Feldman, 2004). In order to overcome this gap inresources, it is important for universities to become more marketingoriented. The traditional student of yesterday is rare in today's world.There are not many of the typical residential colleges in which afull-time student enters immediately after high school, lives in adormitory, and rarely works because the parents are their source ofsupport. Less than a quarter of today's undergraduate populationfits the description of a traditional student (Attewell and Lavin,2007). Approximately seventy-five percent of college students arecommuters (Recruitment and Retention in Higher Education, 2006). Acommuter student is defined as one who does not live on campus(Recruitment and Retention in Higher Education, 2006), but attends theuniversity from local and surrounding areas (Schibrowsky and Peltier,1993). In today's competitive environment, it is essential tounderstand the needs, attitudes and opinions of the large group of thecommuter students who ultimately pay many of the school's bills.Understanding group differences between the commuters and non-commutersis critical, as the commuter population nationwide continues to increaseand universities are forced to compete for the patronage of thesecommuter students. Commuting and non-commuting students may be differentiated amongthree basic dimensions: (1) socioeconomic and demographic differences;(2) academic differences; and (3) non-school obligations and activities.In general, the commuter student's average age and standarddeviation of ages tend to be higher than non-commuters. Commuterstudents are more apt to come from blue collar families with less incomeand educational background. These commuter students are also more likelyto be first generation college students and be less academicallyprepared for college (Schibrowsky and Peltier, 1993). Many of thesecommuting students are likely to cycle in and out of college. They maypostpone re-enrolling in college and work more hours, so that they canafford the next semester's tuition. Conversely, they maydiscontinue enrollment in order to take care of their family needs andobligations. For many commuting students, a college degree is somethingthat must be fit into the rest of their life and not the other wayaround (Attewell and Lavin, 2007). Understanding the commuter student is becoming more and moreimportant. Yet, their lives are becoming increasingly complex.Universities need to consider whether it makes sense for the commutingstudent to pay fees for programs that they will almost certainly neveruse. The commuter student is less likely to use the recreational centeror attend a sporting event, but they still pay the fees. It is importantto understand what is significant to the commuting student from thestandpoint of tuition and fees. Additional issues that may differentiatecommuters and noncommuters include their motivation to attend college,their support groups, how they spend their time, their involvement inschool, and their attitudes towards the university. With this growingtrend in commuting students expected to continue into the future,understanding the commuter student allows universities to better meettheir needs (which is exactly what the marketing concept is all about). LITERATURE REVIEW University education becomes more productive and complete asstudents develop relationships with their peers and faculty (Astin,1993; Astin, 1999). Being involved in the university is thought to havea positive effect on the learning experience (Rubin, 2000). For acommuter student, these relationships on campus and involvement inactivities may be more complicated. The commuting student tackleschallenges that the non-commuting student typically doesn't face,especially feelings of isolation, multiple life roles and differentsupport systems. ALONE WITH OTHERS Commuter students are projected to participate less in schoolactivities, campus social events, and be less involved with fellowstudents and faculty. Research has shown that students benefit and arepositively affected by social and academic integration (Lundberg, 2003).They are aware of the notion that they no longer fit the traditionalstudent role. Further, they do not have great expectations that thecollege will have special programs to assist with the nontraditionalstudents' academic goals (Newbold, Mehta, and Forbus, 2009-2).Multiple Life Roles Commuter students are more apt to be older, work full time, andhave a family or extended family to support (Bye, Pushkar, and Conway,2007). This places them in the construct of a non-traditional, maturestudent. In general, mature students tend to be more diverse thanyounger students in their expectations of the college or university, intheir motivations for attending, and their experiences with highereducation (Compton, Cox, and Laanan, 2006). As would be expected fromtheir age, the most common characteristic of non-traditional students isthat they are generally more financially independent (Evelyn, 2002).However, a lack of financial management skills can result in withdrawalfrom higher education pursuits for older students because of theiradditional financial burdens (Hart, 2003). Commuter students are likely to limit their time on campus becauseof a more complex lifestyle than non-commuting students (Recruitment andRetention in Higher Education, 2006). Traditional students spend amajority of their time on or around campus, while commuters often haveother requirements such as working (possibly more than one job) ortaking care of their own (or extended) family, all the while beingencumbered with commuting to and from campus for classes (Jacoby, 2000).With these other responsibilities, the commuter student is more likelyto schedule classes during the same blocks of time (Jacoby, 2000). Inother words, commuters register for Monday, Wednesday, and Friday orTuesday and Thursday classes. Optimizing their time for other facets oftheir life reduces the amount of time spent on campus and the time spentdeveloping relationships with peers and faculty. This lack of on-campusinteraction hampers student involvement and engagement which arepresumed to lead to success (Lundberg, 2004). Further, absenteeism fromclasses has been shown to be positively correlated to lower levels ofacademic achievement (Sauers, McVay and Deppa, 2005). Approximately 70percent of commuter students reported working while continuing theircareers (Smith, 1989). This results in a more "vocational"mind set. These students would prefer to spend the time and effort ontheir career, which is providing the financial support for theirlifestyle, than on acquiring what may be considered theoreticalknowledge that cannot be readily applied to the job setting. Thecommuter is pursuing a degree as a credential (Smith, 1989) whereas thenon-commuter is considered to be interested in gaining knowledge forcontinued development and growth as a person. DIFFERENT SUPPORT SYSTEMS The fact that commuter students lead complex lifestyles may alsomean that they have different support systems than the non-commuterstudents. Since they live and work away from the campus, their supportsystems are also off campus. The traditional residential student hassupport systems on campus readily available when faced with a problem.Counselors, advisement centers, and professors are there to help withschool troubles. Peers, friends, and roommates lend support with otherpotential problems that they understand and are also facing (Ruchti,Mehta, and Newbold, 2008). The commuter student may have no one in their support group who isexperiencing the same situations. Their support is usually made up offamily members, coworkers, and friends. It is difficult for thesesupport group members to relate both to the stresses and the demands ofhigher education (Jacoby, 2000). Members of their support group may notunderstand why commuter students spend time studying instead of with thefamily or on work projects. Because they spend less time on campus, it is thought that commuterstudents are less engaged in college activities. Since students learnwhile being involved, this hinders commuting students' success(Astin, 1999). It has been shown that "the more time and effortstudents invest in their learning and the more intensely they engage intheir own education, the greater will be their achievement, growth,satisfaction with the college experience, and likelihood of persistencetoward attainment of their educational goals" (Jacoby, 2000, p.9). HYPOTHESES Commuter Students as Non-traditional Students In this research, the first goal is to establish whether commuterstudents today are significantly diverse from non-commuter students.Previous research has shown that commuter students are more likely toshow the characteristics of the non-traditional student: characteristicssuch as being over 24 years of age, working full time, and usuallyhaving dependents to support (Bye, Pushkar, and Conway, 2007). [H.sub.1]: Commuter students are more apt to be non-traditionalstudents than non-commuter students. Commuter Students Itinerant Nature The variables relating to transferring students, number ofcolleges/universities attended, and numbers of years at the graduatinguniversity, helps to illustrate the differences between commuter andnon-commuter students. These characteristics speak to the generalitinerant nature of the typical commuter student's educationalexperience. In fact, transferring students generally tend to feelisolated and disconnected from the student body at a new school. It isshown that commuter students tend to cycle in and out of college,fitting classes in when it coincides with the rest of their life(Attewell and Lavin, 2007). [H.sub.2]: Commuter students are more likely to be transferstudents than non-commuter students. Commuter Students' Work and Income Schibrowsky and Peltier (1993) determined that commuter studentstypically work more hours than non-commuters students. This does notnecessary mean they are working towards enhancing their career. In fact,many of them are working to pay their bills. Since commuter students areplaying multiple roles, they tend to be time-deprived, work more hours,and spend time commuting to and from campus during the week (Jacoby,2000). [H.sub.3]: Commuter students are more likely to work more hours perweek than non-commuter students. [H.sub.4]: Commuter students are more likely to earn more incomethan non-commuter students. Commuter Students Assimilation Commuter students often lack a sense of belonging to theuniversity. The limited time on campus allows students less interactionwith peers and faculty, and as a result fewer relationships are believedto be developed. Commuter students rarely feel connected to a placewhere they have no significant relationships (Jacoby, 2000). Generally,commuter students spend a lot of time "out of the loop",unaware of campus events, or unable to attend. Many will focus ongetting their degree and graduating rather than interaction with theirpeers and forming lasting relationships (Pemberton, 2009). Research hasshown that success in college and a feeling of a fulfilling college lifeis correlated to involvement in the university (Astin, 1993). [H.sub.5]: Commuter students are less likely to be involved inschool-sponsored activities than non-commuter students. Commuter Students' Attitudes and Opinions Individuals who identify strongly with their university and view itas being prestigious, distinctive, and competitive with other highereducation institutions are more likely to display an attitude of supportfor the institution (Mael and Ashforth, 1992). Commuter status appearsto be the biggest driver to precluding students from perceiving theschool in a favorable light, identifying with it, and joining the AlumniAssociation (Newbold, Mehta, and Forbus, 2009-1) [H.sub.6]: Commuter students are less likely to believe theuniversity is distinct than non-commuter students [H.sub.7]: Commuter students are less likely to believe that theuniversity has a good reputation than non-commuter students [H.sub.8]: Commuter students are less likely to identify with theuniversity than non-commuter students [H.sub.9]: Commuter students are less likely to be interested injoining the Alumni Association prior to graduation than non-commuterstudents METHOD The Survey Instrument The instrument designed for this study was a self-administered,structured, undisguised questionnaire. Prior to the regular study, apilot study was conducted with a representative sample of the population(Alreck and Settle, 2004). This was mainly done to determine accuracy ofinstructions, wording of the questions, appropriateness of scale, etc.Since the topic under investigation was somewhat sensitive, extra carewas taken to eliminate any ambiguity in the questionnaire. Seven-pointmodified Likert scales were used extensively to assess the following:Student attitudes, opinions, and reasons for being in a university, * Their level of involvement and participation in variousuniversity activities, * Their attitudes towards their work (if they did not work, theycould skip this section), * Their social life and relationships with various reference groupmembers, * Their general opinions about attending and selecting theiruniversity, * Their time management strategies, * Their attitude towards stress, * Their stress coping strategies. Approximately 3-4 items were developed to represent each constructunder investigation. Nominal to ratio scales were used to obtainclassification information. The survey took between 10 and 12 minutes tocomplete. To encourage participation from respondents, all completedresponses were eligible to participate in a random drawing. Sampling and Data Collection The study was conducted among a projectable sample of the 4th-yearstudent (i.e., senior status was used as a filter question) populationat a mid-sized southwestern state university. The overall ending samplewas 453 students (from a population of approximately 3000 seniors), ofwhich 108 met the criteria as commuter students. The university wherethis study was conducted has a significant amount of housing within fivemiles of the campus, which is typically occupied by students who havemoved to the area to go to school. Commuting students are considered tobe living outside of the county where the school operates and have notrelocated to attend the school. Factor Development The items in the survey were developed based upon the literaturereview and the special circumstances of the institution where theresearch was conducted (Churchill and Brown, 2007). For each construct,correlations between the items were examined to determine if furtherinclusion of each item was warranted. Following the deletion of spuriousitems, exploratory factor analyses were conducted for each constructutilizing principal components with varimax rotation. Factors witheigenvalues greater than 1 were retained. Since this was primarily anexploratory study, a minimum factor loading of 0.30 (Nunnally, 1978) wasused as a guideline for including items in a factor. The reliability ofeach factor was evaluated utilizing an internal consistency measure.Factors with Cronbach alpha less than 0.70 were not used for theanalysis. Rather, the analysis was performed utilizing individual items.Table 1 summarizes the reliability of the factors utilized to test thevarious hypotheses. Analyzing Differences between Commuter Students and Non-CommuterStudents Nominal data were analyzed primarily through Chi-square analysis.Findings at the 0.10 significance level were accepted. Differences infactors and scaled items were determined via ttests for means amongindependent groups. Again, findings at the 0.10 significance level wereaccepted. FINDINGS Demographics Table 2 summarizes the findings from the first five hypotheses ofthe study. The first hypothesis stated that commuter students were morelikely to be non-traditional students (i.e., more than 24 years old).This hypothesis was confirmed, as 53% of commuter students wereclassified as non-traditional, while only 10% of non-commuters wereclassified as nontraditional. Thus, the commuter students were more than5 times more likely to be nontraditional students. Commuter students were also more likely to be transfer students.Keep in mind, the survey was conducted among 4th year college students.Among commuters, 73% of the students had transferred into the school.For non-commuters, this figure was 42%. Thus, as predicted by Hypothesis#2, commuters were seen as being more prone to have transferred in. Interestingly, there were no significant differences betweencommuters and non-commuters when it comes to whether or not they wereworking. Roughly 80%--85 % of non-commuters and commuters, respectively,report working while going to school. However, as hypothesized, commuterstudents were found to work more hours per week than non-commuters. Overhalf of all commuters (51%) report working over 21 hours per week, whilethis figure for non-commuters is only 37%. These findings supportHypothesis #3. Hypothesis #4 was also supported. Given the fact that they arenon-traditional students and likely to be working more hours per week,commuter students are more likely to have higher personal incomes. Whilenearly 70% (69.4%) of non-commuters report earning less than $10,000 peryear, only 31 % of commuters report earning commensurately low incomes.This is less than half the proportion of non-commuters. The next hypotheses deal with students' sense of assimilationinto the university culture. The results are seen in Table 3. Ashypothesized (Hypothesis #5), commuters are significantly less likely totake part in university-sponsored events. This is not surprising, giventheir greater propensity to be non-traditional students who worksignificantly more hours per week, thereby reducing the time availableto attend university sporting or social events. The commuterstudents' focus away from the university would explain their lackof familiarity with many of the alumni services and activities oncampus. Also as expected, commuter students are significantly less likelythan non-commuters to view their school as either "distinct"or as having a "good reputation". These findings, whichsupport Hypotheses 6 and 7, emanate from the itinerant education historyof most commuter students, combined with their relatively lowerinvolvement in campus-sponsored activities. All of the aforementionedleads to the finding that commuter students are significantly less proneto "identify" with the institution, confirming Hypothesis 8. The preceding shortfalls in involvement, regard and identification,lead commuter students to be significantly less likely to want to jointhe Alumni Association (Note: Students who are close to graduation areoften solicited to join the school's Alumni Association prior tograduation). This confirms Hypothesis 9. DISCUSSION The research conducted supported all of the hypotheses. Thefindings are instructive as to the special challenges facinginstitutions of higher learning and their administration and facultywhen it comes to engaging commuter students and developing long-lastingrelationships with them. More specifically, commuter students are foundto be more apt to be non-traditional students, transfer students, workmore hours, and earn more income. In addition, commuter students areless likely to be involved in school-sponsored activities, less likelyto believe the university is distinct; less likely to believe theuniversity has a good reputation, and less likely to identify with theuniversity. Therefore, commuter students are less likely to beinterested in joining the Alumni Association. In summary, they are lessinvolved while in school and indicate they will continue that relativelylow level of involvement once they graduate. This distinction betweencommuters and non-commuters is critical when universities are trying toraise funds to close the gap between state funding and their annualbudgets. A Typical Commuter Student To further understand the implications of these challenges, let usconsider the daily life of "Ralph", a hypothetical commuterstudent. Ralph shares his home life with a wife, two children, and amother-in-law. He has a job with a local manufacturing company as a shopfloor supervisor. He would like to complete his undergraduate degree tohelp facilitate his promotion to the next level of management. Ralphnegotiated his work week with his employer so that his two days offwould be Tuesday and Thursday rather than the traditional Saturday andSunday. He spent two years at a community college completing the typicalcore requirements. Ralph enrolled in a university scheduling all hisclasses on his two days off from work. This arrangement requiredcoordination with professors for access to classes that fit his timeframe. Ralph is responsible for transporting his children to their schooleach morning because his wife needs to be at her job early. Hismother-in-law picks up the children after school. This means that Ralphleaves home at 7:00 am each morning to have the children at school by7:30 am and to be at work or the university by 8:30 am. Some morningsthere are traffic problems which cause delays in his commute. On Tuesdayand Thursday, Ralph's four classes are from 9:00 am to 2:00 pm witha break at noon. The noon hour is typically spent studying whilegrabbing a bite in one of the restaurants in the student center.Immediately after his last class, Ralph heads home to study and completeclass assignments. When Ralph drives to the campus, he takes the same route each dayand parks in the same parking lot, often times far away from hisclasses. He typically proceeds directly to his classroom, frequentlymaking it there barely before class starts. Normally, Ralph does notengage any of his fellow students: "traditional" studentscannot relate to his situation, and other commuter students do not havetime to engage him. When Ralph has some issue with his finances orcourse schedule, he is most likely to ask one of his professors, as heis pretty much unfamiliar with how to navigate the administrativemachinery of the institution. The schedule Ralph keeps does not allow him time for partaking inschool-sponsored activities, such as the homecoming football game or theannual lighting of the Christmas lights. In fact, he proceeds throughhis college career mostly unaware of these types of events. Implicationsfor the Institution As the "Ralph" scenario above illustrates, there aresignificant challenges to developing longer-term relationships withcommuter students. Traditional events and marketing approaches go mostlyunnoticed by busy commuters who shuffle to and from their classes and donot partake of the traditional student experiences. Commuter studentsmay express feelings of being treated like a second-class student, andcome to resent paying fees for services they do not use, while many oftheir particular needs (such as convenient parking) go unmet. Commuterstudents pay for such unused amenities as the recreational center,health center, student center, athletic fee, advisement fee, etc. Perhaps the institution should take a more segmented approach tothe fees it levies and the services it provides. Commuter students, forexample, might be more amenable to fees for ancillary services such aslockers or a special locker room for changing prior to returning to ajob after classes, a partnership with a gas station located on campuswhich offers student discounts, special (or even valet) parking forcommuter students, and day care facility for their kids, etc. In anattempt to cater to the needs of the growing number of commuterstudents, universities could add a web page on their site with specialissues for commuters such as time management tips or a link to areatraffic information usually provided by the surrounding cities. Implications for Individual Course Formats The trend toward increasing numbers of commuter students also putspressure on instructors at the class level. It is often difficult forcommuters to maintain regular attendance at classes. As previouslydiscussed, commuter students tend to leverage the course instructor forinformation and assistance in regard to university issues outside ofnormal classroom activities. Indeed, previous research has shown thatfaculty members may be best served by re-thinking their roles, andconcentrating more on "learning delivery" aspects of courses,rather than the traditional "upstream" focus on content(Sasse, Schwering, and Dochterman, 2008) Hybrid classes represent apossible option, whereby students have the opportunity to meet withtheir professor part of the time and complete a certain portion of thecoursework online. In these hybrid courses, instructors leverage theInternet and Internet-based course management systems to provide moreflexibility and more around-the-clock access and support to classactivities. Overall improvements in communication technology whichaffords more opportunity for synchronous communication has been positedas a facilitator of the increasing trend in online courses to meet theneeds of non-traditional students (Gupta, Eastman & Swift, 2005)Finally, study groups can be formally incorporated into course designsand syllabi to provide for a support system outside of the courseinstructor. FUTURE RESEARCH Future research is needed to develop a more thorough understandingof the balance of family life, work life, and school life for bothcommuter and non-commuter students. Further learning in this area willassist institutions in better understanding student motivations andbehaviors, and assist in developing programs and courses which bettermeet the needs of students. In addition, it is also relevant foruniversities to study the programs and fees structures that are leviedon students. Future research could add to the information base and helpconclude if commuters and non-commuters want different amenities paidfor by their fees. It might be found that commuter students would preferto pay one set of fees for things that they would need (e.g., lockers,commuter lounge, assigned parking, etc.), and non-commuter studentswould pay fees for the things that they use (e.g., the recreationcenter, climbing wall, sporting pass, etc.). Perhaps more positiveattitudes and a greater sense of commitment could be achieved, once theuniversity better meets the needs and desires of its various studentsubgroups. With great success, some universities (e.g., University ofPhoenix, NOVA, etc.) have built their entire business model around theneeds of both commuters and non-traditional students. REFERENCES Alreck, P. L. and Settle, R. (2004). The Survey Research Handbook.3rd edition. McGraw-Hill Anonymous. (2006, July). Commuter students: Myths, realities,helpful theoretical frameworks. Recruitment and Retention in HigherEducation, 20(7), 5-6. Archibald, R. and Feldman, D. (2004, February). A new compact forhigher education in Virginia. The VirginianPilot, pp. B11. Attewell, P. & Lavin, D. (2007, July). Distorted statistics ongraduation rates. Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. B16. Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theoryfor higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 40,518-529. Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical yearsrevisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bye, D., Pushkar, D., and Conway, M. (2007, February). Motivation,interest, and positive affect in traditional and nontraditionalundergraduate students. Adult Education Quarterly, Vol. 57, no 2, p.141-158. Churchill, G. and T. Brown. (2007). Basic Marketing Research.Thomson Southwest. Compton, J. I., Cox, E., and Laanan, F. S. (Summer 2006). AdultLearners in Transition. New Directions for Student Services, no. 114. Evelyn, J. (2002, June). Nontraditional Students DominateUndergraduate Enrollments, Study Finds. Chronicle of Higher Education,Vol. 48, Issue 40. Gupta, S., Eastman, J., and Swift, C (2005). Creating An EffectiveOnline learning Environment: A Shift in the Pedagogical Paradigm.Academy of Educational leadership Journal, Vol. 9, no 3. Hart, N. K. (2003, Spring). Best Practices in ProvidingNontraditional Students with Both Academic and Financial Support. NewDirections for Higher Education, no. 121. Jacoby, B. (2000, Spring). Why involve commuter students inlearning? New Directions for Higher Education, 109, 3-12. Lundberg, C. A. (2004). Working and learning: The role ofinvolvement for employed students. NASPA Journal (Online), 41(2),201-15. Lundberg, Carol A. (Nov/Dec 2003). The Influence of TimeLimitations, Faculty, and Peer Relationships on Adult Student Learning:A Casual Model. The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 74, No. 6. Mael, F. and Ashforth, B. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: Apartial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, p. 103-123. Newbold, J., Mehta, S., and Forbus, P. (2009-1, April). Auniversity alumni relationship model. A paper presented at the April,2009, General Business Conference, Huntsville, Texas. Newbold, J., Mehta, S., and Forbus, P. (2009-2, September).Non-Traditional Students: Today's Higher Education Environment. Apaper presented at the September, 2009, IABPAD Conference, Memphis,Tennessee. Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric Theory 2nd edition. McGraw-Hill Pemberton, S. (2009). Road to college. Journal of Marketing forHigher Education. http://colleges.collegetoolkit.com/guides/transfer/restransfer.aspx Ruchti, A., J. Newbold, and S. Mehta (2008) "Understanding theSpecial Needs of Commuter Students", 13th Annual MarketingManagement Association Fall Educators' Conference, September24th--26th, Louisville KY. Rubin, S. (2000, Spring). Developing community through experientialeducation. New Directions for Higher Education, 109, 43-50. Sasse, C., Schwering, R. and Dochterman, S. (2008). RethinkingFaculty Role in a Knowledge Age. Academy of Educational LeadershipJournal. Vol. 12, no. 2. Sauers, D., McVay, G and Deppa, B., Absenteeism and AcademicPerformance in an Introduction to Business Course, Academy ofEducational Leadership Journal, Vol. 9, no. 2. Schibrowsky, J. & Peltier, J. (1993, Summer). A strategicmarketing approach to marketing education at commuter campuses.Marketing Education Review, 3, 22-30. Smith, B. (1989). The personal development of the commuter student:What is known from the comparisons with resident students? An ERICReview. The Commuter Student, 17, 47-56. John J. Newbold, Sam Houston State University Sanjay S. Mehta, Sam Houston State University Patricia Forbus, Sam Houston State UniversityTable 1: Summary of Factors UtilizedFactor (No. of Items) Cronbach AlphaDistinct (3) .713Reputation (7) .913Involvement (3) .721Commitment (5) .952Table 2: Chi-Square Summary--DemographicsHypothesis Pearson Item Chi-Square p-value[H.sub.1] Non-Traditional Student Status 87.327 0.000 **[H.sub.2] Transfer Student Status 31.641 0.000 **[H.sub.3] Time Spent Working Per Week 6.540 0.038 *[H.sub.4] Personal Income 59.410 0.000 *** p-values are significant at alpha = .05** p-values are significant at alpha = .01Table 3: Means Test Summary--Attitudes/Behaviors Non- Commuter CommuterHypotheses Item Mean Mean[H.sub.5] Involvement in Institution- 3.40 4.84 sponsored Activities[H.sub.6] University as Distinct 4.72 5.11[H.sub.7] University has Good Reputation 4.71 4.94[H.sub.8] Identification with University 5.06 5.36[H.sub.9] Interest in Joining the Alumni 3.36 3.79 Association Prior to GraduationHypotheses T-score p-value[H.sub.5] 7.990 .000 **[H.sub.6] 3.248 .001 **[H.sub.7] 1.747 .081 *[H.sub.8] 1.940 .053 *[H.sub.9] 2.089 .037 *** p-values are significant at alpha = .05* p-values are significant at alpha =. 10