OCR Text |
Show Frats And Non-Frats Do Battle By JIM TODD Figures don't lie, or do they? Do fraternity men, on the average, get higher grades than non-fraternity men? A lot of people at the U of U seem to think so, but are they right? Earlier this month the Office of the Dean of Students issued a 7 page mimeographed mimeo-graphed report (Annual Scholarship Scholar-ship and Membership Mem-bership - Report, ArnHpmir "V p a r which were released .in the report from the Office of the Dean of Students: The fraternity G.P.A.' was 2.511 for the past year with a G.P.A. of 2.551 for spring quarter quar-ter alone. The comparable figures fig-ures for the all-men's averages being 2.461 and 2.514. (Incidentally, if you noticed that the fraternity and all-men's averages aver-ages " seem pretty darn close, like within about 3 to 5 one-hundredths of a grade point of each other, you read them the same way I do.) A bit of fast subtracting gives us the rather non-significant information in-formation that, during spring quarter, quar-ter, the "all-men" gained oh the fraternity average to the extent of about one one-hundredth of a grade point. Hence the possible justification of the Chronicle writer's writ-er's statement that the independent independ-ent is "gaining ground" and "getting "get-ting smarter or studying harder." If any reader thinks that one one-hundredth of a grade point is a very, significant difference, probably prob-ably he should apply for a position posi-tion on the Chronicle, or perhaps even the Dean of Student's staff. Actually the figures presented by . the report are completely invalid for comparing fraternity and non-fraternity non-fraternity averages, for the following follow-ing reasons: 1. The figures are not comparable, compar-able, because there has been absolutely ab-solutely no attempt to match the individuals represented, by the figures, fig-ures, as to either scholastic major, or class standing. (For example, the grades obtained by all the fraternity fra-ternity math majors during their junior year could be matched against grades obtained by all the independent math majors who were also in their junior year, etc. If this were actually to be done, the grade point advantage would probably prob-ably be found to be with the in dependents). 2. The all-men's average includes the grades made by both independents independ-ents and fraternity men. 3. Fraternities frequently pledge upperclassmen. Since upperclass-men upperclass-men typically make higher grades than underclassmen this fact alone would tend to artificially raise the "all-fraternity average." Actually the report from the Office Of-fice of the Dean of Students ignores ig-nores the very real possibility that the independents are in fact head and shoulders above comparable fraternity types both scholastically and intellectually. It is quite likely that, when compared com-pared with the independents, fraternity fra-ternity memberships include a far larger fraction of people in majors that require relatively little effort to attain good grades. (Not to mention men-tion the possibility that the average aver-age grade given in some of these fields may be higher than those given in other 'harder' fields). Both of these things would result in an artifically high fraternity G.P.A. Thus, the physical education, business, and political science major ma-jor may well ba-found in great numbers on fraternity row. Where- as, the people in relatively demanding demand-ing majors, (where the average grades in some of the required classes can be quite low) such as math, physics, chemistry, architecture architec-ture and engineering, probably are conspicuous only by their compar-ative compar-ative absence. Perhaps when the office of the Dean of Students releases the figures fig-ures for next year those ' figures could possess some real significance signific-ance and meaning. . (Editor's note: The preceding column is offered to Chronicle readers as a guest column and does not reflect the views or opinions of the editorial staff of the Daily Utah Chronicle.) TODD 1965-66). This report states, in part, that "For the tenth consecutive year the all-fraternity average has been above that of the all-men's." Well, that seems to settle it. Fraternity men do get higher grades. Still, I can't agree. I think that the figures issued in the above report are not only highly misleading, mis-leading, but in fact are completely complete-ly invalid for comparing fraternity and non-fraternity grade point averages. To give an example of the dangers dan-gers of using these figures, a Chronicle writer, who must be unnamed, un-named, last week, logieally but somewhat unastutely, analyzed the report even further. He stated that "Figures recently released by the Office of the Dean of Students for the 1965-66 school year seem to indicate that the non-frateraity man is either getting smarter or studying harder." (compared (com-pared to fraternity men). Although he unfortunately still remains "traditionally "tra-ditionally . . . below the all-fraternity average, . . . but is gaining ground." In support of this startling bit of deduction, there was given the following grade point averages, |