Iowa State University
Department of Residence
Research Office
Spring 2002 Residence Hall and Frederiksen Court
Grade Report
June 2002
Research Staff: Don Whalen, Coordinator of Research and Assessments
Ana Arboleda, Graduate Student
Yongyi Wang, Graduate Student
Brian Hayes, Undergraduate Research Assistant
Bradey McDeid, Undergraduate Research Assistant
In partnership with
Dr. Mack Shelley and the
Research Institute for Studies in Education
Spring2002ResidenceHallandFrederiksenCourt
GradeReport
Abstract
Demographic characteristics that shaped the overall grade point average (GPA) of students who
lived in the residence halls during Spring 2002 were gender, ethnicity, and classification. Women earned
a higher GPA than men, and majority students earned a higher GPA compared to minority students. Men
from every classification had a lower GPA than their female counterparts. Particular attention should be
paid to second year freshmen men who were found to be an academically at-risk group (GPA < 2.0). The
recurrent finding of better academic performance of students in alcohol-free and smoke-free houses is
also noteworthy.
Introduction
This Spring 2002 (S02) semester grade report is based on the residence hall 10th day of classes
file with academic information from the Registrar’s information file. Grade information from this report
might differ from the hall and house grade report because that information was based on grade
information received at the end of Spring 2002 term. Grade changes and appeals would not be reflected
in the earlier file.
Demographic Analysis
Gender: As it has been observed through the years, women earned a higher GPA than men.
(t(7621)=13.74, p < .001). Additionally, compared to Spring 2001 (S01) women have increased their
GPA (+.02) while men’s GPA has decreased (-.05) (Table 1). Men from every ethnicity, except
American Indian/Alaskan Native, to some extent decreased their GPA (Table 3).
Ethnicity: White students had a significantly higher GPA than minority students (t(862)=10, p <
.001). A test of multiple comparisons1 showed differences among particular ethnicities. White students
were significantly different from Black non-Hispanic (mean difference= .55, p < .001), Asian or Pacific
Islander (mean difference= .23, p < .006), and Hispanic (mean difference= .32, p < .001) students.
Majority students had a similar GPA from S01 to S02, but minority students decreased their GPA by .08.
(Table 2). Only one minority group increased its GPA, American Indian/Alaskan Native. Aside from
this proportionally small group, all other minority groups decreased their GPA (majority’s GPA remained
constant) (Table 3).
Classification: The small decrease in the overall RH students’ GPA may be observed through
the negative change in the GPA of all classifications from S01 to S02. Differences among groups are
statistically significant for S02 (F(5,7687)=86, p < .001). Special students2 (-.04) and sophomores (-.03)
had the largest decrease in their GPA (Table 5). However, for the interaction between classification and
gender, only sophomore women GPA (-.05) decreased, while women from every other classification
increased their GPA. Men from every classification group decreased their GPA (Table 5).
House characteristics: No significant difference was found between students in coed houses and
students in same sex houses for S02 (Table 6). Parallel results were noted for S01. Although not shown
in the table, significant differences were also noted for Fall 20013.
Knowing that women achieved higher grades than men, the interaction effect of coeducational
housing by gender was measured. There was no significant difference between men who lived in same
sex houses and those who lived in coeducational houses during S01. However, women who lived in same
sex houses did significantly better (.10) than those who lived in coeducational houses in S02
(t(973)=2.51, p < .012) (Table 7).
House characteristics4 such as alcohol-free and smoke-free seem to have an impact on students’
academic performance. As in S01, in S02 students who lived in alcohol-free houses had a significantly
1
A Bonferroni adjustment was performed to control for multiple comparisons.
Students who are taking classes but not seeking a degree are classified as “special.”
3
Fall 2001 Grade Report, March 2001. Iowa State University Department of Residence Office.
4
The analysis of house characteristics does not include Frederiksen Court.
2
higher GPA (.16) than those who did not (t(8245)=4.24, p < .001) (Table 8). This difference remained
when gender was taken into account. Women who lived in alcohol-free houses had a significantly higher
GPA than those who did not (t(364)=4.08, p < .001). The same result was observed for men; those who
lived in alcohol-free houses had a higher GPA than those who did not (t(466)=2.91, p < .004).
A similar finding was observed for students’ who lived in smoke-free houses. Similarly to S01,
for S02 students’ GPA was .24 average points higher than the GPA of those not living in smoke-free
houses (t(5985)= 10.25 p < .001) (Table 9). Also for S02, women (t(2485)=5.17 , p < .001) and men
(t(3416)=8.09 , p < .001) who lived in smoke-free houses had a significantly higher GPA than those who
did not.
First-generation: As observed in S01, first-generation students’ S02 GPA was not significantly
different from that of second-generation students. In fact, both groups had the same GPA change from
S01 to S02, having decreased .02 average points (Table 10). Black non-Hispanic first-generation students
had a small decrease in their GPA (-.01) during S02, while Hispanic first generation students had a larger
decrease (-.14)(Table 11).
College: From S01 to S02, the college of Agriculture was the only college that had a GPA
increase (+.05). Students in LAS and Business sustained their GPA during this period. Students from
other colleges decreased their GPA. Students in Veterinary Medicine had the largest decrease (-.20),
followed by those in Family and Consumer Sciences (-.10), Design (-.08), Engineering (-.04), and
Education (-.02). The overall difference among colleges was significant (F(7,7685)=2.13, p < .04) (Table
12). Within each college, seniors had the highest GPA compared to other classifications. Juniors had the
second highest (without taking special students into account) (Table 13).
Freshmen
Differences constantly found between 1st and 2nd year freshmen’s academic performance confirm
the idea of analyzing these groups separately. While minority and majority 1st year freshmen’s GPA were
significantly different (t(393)=7.05, p < .001), minority and majority 2nd year freshmen’s GPA did not
revealed any significant difference. The difference between minority and majority 1st year freshmen’s
GPAs is observed mainly between White and Black non-Hispanic students’ GPA (mean difference=.58, p
< .001) and also between White and Hispanic students’ GPA (mean difference=.42. p < .002) (Table 14).
As in the overall population, 1st and 2nd year freshmen women had a higher GPA than their male
counterparts. This difference is statistically significant for both 1st (t(3267)=9.90, p < .001) and 2nd
(t(96)=2.98, p < .004) year freshmen (Table 4).
Within every college, 2nd year freshmen had a lower GPA than every other classification, except
in Education in which 1st year freshmen had a lower GPA (not including special students) (Table 13).
Conclusions
Though there was a small decrease in the overall RH GPA, majority students sustained their
academic performance while most minority students (Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and Black nonHispanic) had a lower academic performance during S02 compared to S01.
Men’s GPA, particularly those living in same-sex houses, had a negative contribution to the
overall GPA. On the other hand, women had a positive academic performance, particularly those living
in same-sex houses.
The persistent higher academic performance of students in alcohol-free and smoke-free houses is
noteworthy. Furthermore, these findings replicate those from previous semesters5; students who live in an
environment with these characteristics tend to demonstrate higher academic performance.
As indicated in previous reports, special attention should be paid to 2nd year freshmen.
Minority2nd t year freshmen were detected to be students at risk6, especially Black non-Hispanics.
5
Fall 2001 Grade Report, March 2001. Spring 2001 Grade Report, October 2001. Iowa State University
Department of Residence Office.
6
GPA < 2.00
Tables
Table 1. Average grades by gender
Spring 01
Spring 02
Gender
GPA
N
GPA
N
2.91
3115
2.93
3429
Female
2.70
3912
2.65
4264
Male
Total
2.79
7027
2.77
2.91
Ethnicity
Majority
Minority
Total
GPA
N
2.40
16
2.28 261
2.82 5964
2.75 210
2.61 147
2.91
29
2969 2.69 3658 2.79
Table 4. Average grades by classification year
Spring 01
Spring 02
Classification
GPA N GPA N
2.64 3153 2.63 3271
Freshman
N/A N/A 2.01 138
2nd YF
2.78 1933 2.75 1904
Sophomore
2.93 1144 2.91 1264
Junior
3.19 762 3.17 1069
Senior
3.19
35 3.15 47
Special
Total
2.79
Spring 01
Mean
N
2.82
5964
2.52
634
Spring 02
Mean
N
2.81
6407
2.44
711
7693
Table 3. Average grades by ethnicity and gender
Spring 01
Ethnicity / gender
Female
Male
GPA
N GPA N
Am Indian/Ak Native
3.04
7
1.90
9
Black (NH)
2.27 125 2.29 136
White (NH)
2.94 2684 2.71 3280
Asian/P Islander
2.89
77 2.67 133
Hispanic
2.69
62 2.55 85
Not to indicated
3.07
14 2.76 15
Total
Table 2. Average grades by ethnicity
7027 2.77 7693
Table 5. Average grades by classification year and gender
Spring 01
Spring 02
Classification
Female
Male
Female
Male
& gender
GPA N GPA N GPA N GPA N
2.76 1528 2.53 1625 2.79 1569 2.48 1702
Freshman
N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.40 48 1.80 90
2nd YF
2.97 833 2.64 1100 2.92 848 2.61 1056
Sophomore
3.03 469 2.86 675 3.06 514 2.81 750
Junior
3.30 269 3.13 493 3.33 427 3.06 642
Senior
2.85 16 3.48 19 3.22 23 3.09 24
Special
2.91 3115 2.70 3912 2.93 3429 2.65 4264
Total
6627
Spring 02
Female
Male
Total
GPA N GPA
N
GPA N
2.80 10 2.35
9
2.59 19
2.36 133 2.17
145 2.26 278
2.97 2926 2.68 3481 2.81 6407
2.81 94 2.48
153 2.60 247
2.46 69 2.51
98
2.49 167
2.92 197 2.62
378 2.73 575
2.93 3429 2.65
4264
2.77 7693
Table 6. Average grades by coed housing
Spring 01
Spring 02
Coed
GPA N GPA
N
Same-sex 2.78 5573 2.73 4806
2.81 1454 2.72 1382
Coed
Total
2.79 7027 2.73
Table 7. Average grades by coed housing and gender
6188
Spring 01
Spring 02
Females
Males
Females
Males
GPA N GPA N GPA N GPA N
Same-sex 2.91 2435 2.68 3138 2.91 2123 2.58 2683
2.88 680 2.76 774 2.81 641 2.63 741
Coed
Coed &
gender
Total
Table 8. Average grades by alcohol-free house
Alcohol Free
Not Alcohol Free
Spring 01
GPA N
2.89 630
2.78 6397
Total
2.79 7027 2.73 6188
Alcohol-Free
Spring 02
GPA N
2.87 640
2.71 5548
2.91 3115 2.70 3912 2.89 2764 2.60 3424
Table 9. Average grades by
smoke-free house
Smoke Free
Not Smoke Free
Spring 01
GPA N
2.87 2634
2.74 4393
Total
2.79 7027 2.73 6188
Smoke-free
Spring 02
GPA N
2.84 3297
2.60 2891
Table 10. Average grades by first-generation
Spring 01 Spring 02
First-Generation
GPA N GPA N
7
2.78 366
2.77 407
First Generation
2.79 6661 2.77 7286
Not First Gen.
Total
2.79 7027
2.77 7693
Table 11. Average grades by first-generation and ethnicity
Spring 01
Spring 02
First generation /
FG
Not FG
FG
Not FG
Ethnicity
GPA N GPA N GPA N GPA N
Am Indian/Ak Native
*
1 2.44 15
--- 2.59 19
Black (Non-Hispanic)
2.30 40 2.28 221 2.26 34 2.26 244
White (Non-Hispanic)
2.86 285 2.82 5679 2.87 320 2.81 6087
Asian/P Islander
2.77 17 2.75 193 2.44 28 2.62 219
Hispanic
2.58 16 2.61 131 2.44 14 2.50 153
Not to indicated
*
3 2.84 26 2.55 11 2.73 564
Total
7
2.79 362 2.79 6265 2.77 407 2.77 7286
Special Services Program participants, the majority of whom are first generation students, are included in these
numbers as first generation.

GPA for N < 5 are not reported in order to secure students’ identity.
Table 12. Average grades by college
Spring 01 Spring 02
College
Agriculture
Design
Education
Engineering
Family & Consumer Sc
Business
Liberal Arts and Scs
Veterinary Medicine
GPA N GPA N
2.75 830 2.80 849
2.88 616 2.80 655
2.90 501 2.88 514
2.77 1714 2.73 1997
2.92 277 2.83 297
2.75 908 2.75 1001
2.77 2179 2.77 2372
*
2 3.05 8
Total
2.79 7027 2.77 7693
Table 13. Average grades by college & classification year
Agriculture
Design
Education
Eng.
College &
classification GPA N GPA N GPA N GPA N
F&CSc.
GPA
2.75
1.76
2.75
2.69
2.96
*
Vet med
1st yr fresh
2nd yr fresh
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Special
2.58
2.52
2.82
2.84
3.24
3.25
N
0
6
1
0
0
1
Total
2.80 849 2.80 655 2.88 514 2.73 1997 2.83 297 2.75 1001 2.77 2372 3.05
8
2.69 331 2.67 193 2.58 818
1.94 8 2.83 11 1.42 30
2.76 151 2.92 133 2.61 489
2.99 90 3.00 99 2.97 333
3.25 74 3.17 76 3.15 311
*
1
*
2 3.32 16
N
121
4
82
51
36
3
LAS
N GPA N GPA
425 2.60 1054 -17 2.14 52 2.98
267 2.78 572
*
161 2.93 371 -127 3.22 310 -4
3.18 13
*
329
10
209
159
134
8
GPA
2.77
0.96
2.81
2.94
3.12
2.66
Business
Table 14. Average grades by first and second year freshmen and ethnicity
Spring 02
1st-2nd year freshmen &
1st yr F
2nd yr F
Ethnicity
GPA
N
GPA N
Am Indian/Ak Native
2.32
8
-0
Black (NH)
2.10
127
1.60
5
White (NH)
2.67 2776 2.11 103
Asian/P Islander
2.51
114
1.67
7

Hispanic
2.26
72
*
2
Not to indicated
2.60
174
1.79 21
Total

2.63
3271
2.01
138
GPA for N < 5 are not reported in order to secure students’ identity.