1

Kalamazoo College Off-Campus Housing Study

Cody Colvin
Daichi Hirakawa
Professor Charles Stull
BUSN-160
Winter 2016

(1) Introduction
For our final project in Kalamazoo Colleges BUSN-160 Winter 2016 Business Statistics
course, we Cody Colvin and Daichi Hirakawa set out to measure student
satisfaction with local off-campus housing offerings.
We wished primarily to find out how satisfied students are with their current living
arrangements, which elements of their experiences they deemed most important in
determining their overall satisfaction, and how they discovered their homes availability.
After reviewing similar studies by the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater (1) and
Longwood University (2), we crafted our questions and used a physically-distributed
survey to gather our data. We asked students, specifically, to:
A) Rate the effectiveness of property listing tools (listing websites, signs, word of mouth)
B) Indicate (through a 1-5 rating system) variables which most significantly contributed
to their overall satisfaction
C) Rate in several categories (1-5 scale) the service quality they were receiving from
their landlords, and
D) Include financial information, including monthly rent and utility costs.
Throughout our study, we communicated closely with a client, Mike Kiewiet. A prolific
local property owner, Mike owns and rents out 11 properties in our surveyed
neighborhood, and is actively involved in the tenancy of an additional six. We reached
out to him under the assumption that he could most effectively use our data to optimize
future housing offerings for local college students, and in doing so, run his business
more efficiently and profitably. His extensive connections with other area landlords also
assured us that he could disseminate any useful findings to the rest of the local real
estate community.

(2) Description of population and sample

By physically surveying residences near Kalamazoo College, we selected an initial population of
108 houses, identifying those we perceived as likely student residences. Ultimately, due to time
constraints, we pared our population down significantly to just three blocks closest to K;
however, these blocks are also owned in large part by our client, so these residents responses
were especially important to us.
Once we reduced our population, we numbered each house on a map. We took that range
(1-41) and, using a random number generator, we selected a random 75% of our population to
serve as our sample. We then rounded that number, 30.75, to 31.

Throughout our entire data-gathering process, we made the conscious decision to exclude data
of non-student residents. Though such information mightve been useful to our client, we
decided to remain true to our original intention in helping to optimize the local student housing
market.
After visiting 28 houses (we immediately subtracted 3 houses which we assumed were not
student-rented), we removed from our sample those which we discovered through direct contact
were also not inhabited by students.
Of identified student houses from our final sample, we received a response rate of 18/22,
around 82%. Specifically, we received received responses from 40 students living in those 18
houses. Our data was collected over the course of two excursions on a Sunday afternoon, one
early in the day, and one later at night. We attempted to contact residents from the entire
sample on the first visit, and tried once more that night to contact residences which hadnt
answered previously. To ensure the greatest level of randomness, we did not replace
unresponsive residences, and we approached only those houses selected by our random
number generator.
Ultimately, we consider our final sample an accurate representation of our population. Our
respondents informally affirmed our prior knowledge that Mike Kiewiet owned a substantial
section of those three blocks; thus, we knew that the data sample wed provide to Mike
consisted largely of the reviews and preferences of his own tenants.

3a Basic Descriptive Statistics

Amenity Ratings (see next page for chart)
Respondents were asked to indicate, on a scale of 1-5, the importance of several variables in
determining overall satisfaction in their off-campus housing experiences. An answer of 1
signified the variable to be least important, with 5 categorizing the variable as most
important.
The sample means for each variables rating can be found below. Our results indicate high
priority placed on personal bedrooms, with a mean rating of 4.675 and a mode of 5. Proximity to
campus follows, with a mean rating of 4.625 and a mode of 5.
Our client also confirmed informally that, in his own experience, students have placed high
importance on the inclusion of washers and dryers; thus, its position as the 3rd most highlyrated variable is largely unsurprising.

The following table lists the average rating of each variable, the standard deviation for each
rating, and each variables median and mode. The graph which follows it provides a visual
representation for the means of each variable. We consider these statistics highly useful to local
landlords, especially our client; knowing exactly what students want allows managers to
optimize their offerings for maximum customer satisfaction.

AMENITY

Average
Importance
Rating (1-5)

Standard
Deviation

Median

Mode

Having your own

bedroom

4.675

0.83

Proximity to
campus

4.625

0.63

Washer and dryer

provided by
landlord

4.575

0.75

Familiarity with
roommates

4.525

0.82

Affordability of
monthly cost

4.425

0.78

4.35

0.83

Landlord fairness

VALUE

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

AMENITY

AMENITIES

6
AMENITY

Timeliness and
quality of
maintenance

Average
Importance
Rating (1-5)

Standard
Deviation

Median

Mode

4.15

0.98

3.975

1.05

3.95

0.9

Size of your own,

personal living
space

3.875

0.91

Readily available
parking nearby

3.775

1.29

Affordability of
down payment

3.625

1.27

Size of home
overall

3.525

1.04

3.5

Previously
installed air
conditioning

3.25

1.5

Proximity to
restaurants /
nightlife

3.025

1.1

2.9

1.41

2.5

Presence of
outdoor patio/
porch

2.775

1.54

2.5

Pets permitted

2.375

1.25

Size of yard

2.225

1.23

Having furniture
provided by
landlord

1.775

0.97

1.5

Landlord
responsiveness
Safety of
neighborhood

Having your own

bathroom

3b: Confidence Intervals for Means

Landlord Ratings
Another set of variables we wished to include for our client attempts to explain renters
satisfaction with the service of their property managers. Specifically, students were asked to rate
their satisfaction, from 1-5, with specific service variables describing their landlords: kindness,
fairness, commitment to timely maintenance, and respect of privacy.

LANDLORD
RATING
CATEGORY
Kindness

Average Rating

Confidence
Interval (95%)

4.55 4.27 to 4.83

Standard
Deviation (s)

Standard Error
(s/n)=(s/6.3246)

0.875595

0.138443

Fairness

4.475 4.204 to 4.746

0.846940

0.133912

Maintenance

4.325 4.164 to 4.786

0.971056

0.153536

4.3 3.966 to 4.634

1.042679

0.164861

Privacy

The average ratings listed above signify the mean rating for each category, and the subsequent
confidence intervals were determined by calculating the standard error of each variable and
multiplying it by the t-value corresponding with 95% significance and 39 degrees of freedom,
2.023. Our confidence intervals suggest that we can be 95% certain that the true ratings for the
entire population of students in our target neighborhoods lie within those ranges.
Ultimately, students seem exceptionally satisfied with the service theyve received from their
property managers. We also believe that landlord service satisfaction could play an
exceptionally important role in determining overall satisfaction, discussed later in our Multiple
Regression section.
Average rating
(1-5)
Overall
Satisfaction

Confidence
interval (95%)

4.5 4.31 to 4.69

Standard
Deviation (s)

Standard Error
(s/n)=(s/6.3246)

0.6

0.095

Similar observations follow for overall satisfaction. Students are highly satisfied, and we can be
95% confident that the true population rating for satisfaction would lie somewhere between 4.31
to 4.69.

3b (extra): Confidence Intervals for Means

Efficacy of Property Listing Sites (Means)

Website

Avg.
Effectiveness
(1-5)

Conf. Interval
(95%)

Standard
Deviation

Standard Error
(s / n) (s/6.3246)

Zillow

3.000 2.464 to 3.536

1.679

0.265

Trulia

1.875 1.404 to 2.346

1.471

0.233

craigslist

1.700 1.289 to 2.110

1.285

0.203

apartments.com

1.675 1.250 to 2.100

1.328

0.210

wmuhomes.com

1.375 1.029 to 1.721

1.079

0.171

showmetherent

1.375 1.105 to 1.645

0.84

0.133

hotpads

1.125 .945 to 1.33

0.56

0.089

Some of our most actionable information is our discovery of listing sites effectiveness. The
average effectiveness again represents the mean rating of the sites importance (1-5, the latter
signifying greatest importance), as students were asked to indicate how important each site was
in helping them find their off-campus home. The confidence intervals were formed by adding
and subtracting the product of the standard error (listed on the far right) and the t value for 39
degrees of freedom at 95% confidence, 2.023.
As listed above, Zillow is by far the most effective site for disseminating listings information.
Based on this information, we suggested that our client focus advertising efforts on Zillow; he
then informed us that he uses a service, rentlinx.com, which posts listings on a plethora of sites,
including Zillow and Trulia.
With the comparatively high use of Zillow, we thus suggest that landlords near Kalamazoo
College provide detailed information on the popular site. A service which posts on multiple
websites is further advised, as our data suggests a tendency for students to rely primarily on
one or two sites in their property search.

3b: Confidence Intervals for Proportions

Utility Proportions

UTILITY

Provided by landlord

Confidence Inverval
(95%)

Standard Error

Electricity

22.5% 9.6% to 35.5%

6.6%

Gas/heat

22.5% 9.6% to 35.5%

6.6%

Water
Garbage
Snow

30% 15.3% to 44.7%

7.25%

77.5% 64.6% or 90.4%

6.6%

80% 67.7% to 92.3%

6.3%

Cable

0% None

None

Internet

0% None

None

We also believed it beneficial for our client to know, with as much accuracy as possible, which
utilities were typically included in renters fixed monthly costs. The sample proportions for each
variable are listed on the left, with confidence intervals (and corresponding standard errors)
listed to the right.
Each standard error and confidence interval is calculated at the 95% level of significance; thus,
we can say with as much certainty that the true proportion for our entire population lies within
those specified ranges. Acknowledging a 5% chance of error, we found garbage and snow
removal to be the only majority landlord-provided utilities in the area. Our client acknowledged
that the primary reason he pays for garbage removal is due to the observed tendency of
students to let it accrue to unwieldy amounts. Thus, this is unsurprising.
We did not, however, expect such results for the inclusion of cable and internet in monthly cost.
Since both of these variables are commonly flat-rate amenities, it might make sense for
landlords to factor it into rental costs. At the very least, these results inform our client that his
lack of cable and internet provision is not likely unique.
It is worth noting, however, that desired cable and internet packages likely differ from tenant to
tenant. Purchasing a cable subscription for a tenant who dislikes television, and expecting for
them to pay for it in their monthly cost, would likely lower that tenants overall satisfaction.
Furthermore, the variability of cost by package, rather than use, makes cable and internet
similar to utilities such as gas or water, in that its cost varies with its use.

10

3c: Hypothesis Testing

(Test 1) Testing the Importance of Cost
Something which surprised us was the relatively low-seeming importance our respondents
placed upon affordability of monthly cost.
After collecting our data, we came across a South Dakota State University study surveying
students on variables largely congruent to ours (3). The study reported 76% of respondents
rating affordability a most important variable (5 on their 1-5 scale), whereas only 55% of our
respondents rated affordability of monthly cost as most important (5) to overall satisfaction.
We used SDSUs sample proportion to test our own. We specifically wanted to see if our
population proportion, which we can only estimate with our sample proportion, is truly less than
76%. We formed our null hypothesis to state that there is indeed no difference; if we chose not
to reject the null hypothesis, thatd mean that our sample proportion of 55% the percentage of
people in our sample who rated affordability of monthly cost most important might not
contradict the idea that 76% our population as a whole find cost to be most important. Our
alternative hypothesis the one we expected to be true states the opposite, that the
population proportion is actually less than .76.
It is important to note that this does not test the accuracy of SDSUs claim. Rather, it tests only
the idea that our true population proportion is .76, a number we garnered from their study. And
since we use a z-value for 95% confidence, there is, notably, a 5% chance that we are incorrect.
Hypothesis testing procedure:
H0: P = 0.76

z at 95%, one tailed test (.05), is 1.645

HA: P < 0.76

se= ((.55(.45)/40)) = .079

p =.55

critical region (in one direction): .76 - zse(.13); reject if sample

proportion is under .63
REJECT NULL HYPOTHESIS

Using a one-tailed test (due to our interest in only one critical value direction), we can then
conclude with 95% confidence that our true population proportion the percentage of K
students in our surveyed neighborhoods which would rate affordability of cost as most
importantis less than .76.
We cannot, however, claim that K students care less about cost than SDSU students. Sample
statistics are inherently imperfect, and in addition, we did not test the significance of SDSUs
proportion. It is indeed possible that, by these metrics, K students actually do value cost less,
but such a comparison is impossible to make accurately with our resources and sample size.

11

3c: Hypothesis Testing

(Test 2) Testing student use of property showings
A student housing study by the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater suggested that, on average,
student respondents at the University received an average of fewer than 1 official property
showings. (2)
We thus decided to poll our own respondents on the same variable. We found the sample mean
for property showings (by a real estate professional, owner or property manager) equaled 1.375;
we thus calculated a confidence interval of 1.177 to 1.573 at the 95% level of significance.
This means that, on average, students received fewer than two official property showings before
making a final decision, or signing a lease.
We decided to test our result against that of Whitewater; specifically, we wished to find if our
sample mean of 1.375 contradicts the idea that the true population mean is less than 1.
Our null hypothesis states that the true population mean is equal to or greater than 1. Not
rejecting that hypothesis would mean that the difference between our sample mean (1.375) and
UWWs sample mean (>1) cannot be explained by random chance at the 95% confidence level.
Since we will only reject the null hypothesis if our sample mean falls below the the critical
region, we will use a one-tailed t-test.
Hypothesis Testing Procedure

H0: 1

One-tailed test (not concerned with upper probability)

HA: < 1

At 39 d.f., 95% (.05) confidence, t=2.023

se=.198 (standard deviation divided by square root of n)

x = 1.375

critical region: reject any sample mean less than 1-tse; reject
any sample mean less than .667
DO NOT REJECT NULL HYPOTHESIS

Thus, by not rejecting our null hypothesis, we find with 95% confidence that our true population
mean is not less than 1. The difference between our sample mean and an estimate less than
one cannot be explained by random chance. Thus, our data does not conform with UWWs
findings of their own students. Why our students seem to visit more properties is difficult to
guess; UWWs housing offerings might be more homogenous, forcing students to visit fewer
properties before getting a feel for their options. Ultimately, its difficult to say.

12

3c: Hypothesis Testing

(Test 3) Testing off-campus cost against dorm prices

We found a mean monthly rental cost (not including utilities) of $366 with a standard deviation of
$96, with both numbers rounded up to nearest dollar. To determine whether this cost is
significantly different from the billed cost of standard double room at Kalamazoo College (4), we
used hypothesis testing.
According to the Colleges website, a standard double costs $4335 per annual school year (9
months); thus, the monthly rate for such a room computes to $481. Our null hypothesis states
that the difference between our rental average ($366) and the colleges monthly rate ($481) can
be explained by random chance. The alternative hypothesis states that there is, indeed, a
statistically significant difference at the 95% level of confidence.
signifies the true population average rent for K students in our surveyed neighborhoods. The
form of our question specifically, whether the sample mean of off-campus rent is significantly
less than on-campus room cost allows us to use a one-tailed t-test, as the form of our
question only inquires as to whether off-campus cost is less than the tested idea.

Hypothesis Testing Procedure

H0: = 482

One-tailed test (not concerned with upper probability)

HA: < 482

At 39 d.f., 95% (.05) confidence, t=2.023

se= $15 (s, or 95, divided by square root of n, 20)
critical region around idea (one direction): reject any sample
mean under $482-tse, or $451.66

x = 366

REJECT NULL HYPOTHESIS

Thus, with 95% confidence we can reject the idea that our population mean might equal $482;
there is a statistically significant difference between our sample mean and that number. It is
important to remember, however, that we did not factor our monthly utility average into this test.
In any case, it seems much cheaper to live off-campus than on-campus, even including utility
cost (our average was $40). Thus, we can say with at least some confidence that off-campus
housing can be a much more affordable choice than remaining in K Colleges dorms.

13

3d: Hypothesis Testing, Differences of Means

(Test 1) Do males attend more official property showings than females?

Looking at our data, we found that the average frequency of property showings for males was
1.7, with a standard deviation of 1.74; for women, it was 1.1, the standard deviation 1.25. Using
hypothesis testing, we sought to answer the following question: did men in our population make
use of more property showings than did women?
We formed a null hypothesis stating that there was no difference, and that the numerical
discrepancy can be attributed to random chance. Our alternative hypothesis, which we expected
to be true, states the opposite, that there is indeed a statistically significant difference between
the two population means.

Hypothesis Testing Procedure

t for 95%, one-tailed test (.05), d.f. 19 = 1.729

H0: (-) = 0

where = males, = females

HA: (-) > 0

s1=1.74, n1=20;

s2=1.25, n2=20

se= ((1.174^2/20) + (1.25^2/20)) = .383

x 1 - x 2 = 0.6

critical region of the difference: reject any difference of sample

means above 0+tse, or 0.66
DO NOT REJECT NULL HYPOTHESIS

Thus, by not rejecting the hypothesis, we know (with 95% confidence) that the difference
between the two sample means might be a result of random chance; our guess turned out to be
incorrect. Thus, we cannot accurately say that our population of males attend more official
property showings than our population of females.

14

3d: Hypothesis Testing, Differences of Means

(Test 2) Are males more satisfied with off-campus housing than females?

After surveying 20 males and 20 females, our overall satisfaction means for males (4.55,
standard deviation of .605) and females (4.47, standard deviation of .612) looked extremely
similar. We wished to prove that there was no statistically significant difference between the
variables, so we formed our null hypothesis to state that the true population means are equal.
The alternative hypothesis states that there is, indeed, a statistically significant difference
between the true means, not explainable by random chance.

Hypothesis Testing Procedure

H0: (-) = 0

where =males, and = is females

HA: (-) > 0

95% confidence, one-tailed t-test (only concerned with one

direction), 19 d.f., t=1.729
se=((.605^2/20) + (.612^2)/20)) = .19
critical region of the difference: reject any value less than 0-tse
(in negative direction, due to formation of hypothesis); reject
any value less than -0.33

x 1 - x 2 = .08

DO NOT REJECT NULL HYPOTHESIS

Thus, we are able to confirm our theory, and we do not reject the null hypothesis. At the 95%
confidence level, there is no statistically significant difference between the population means of
males and females in overall satisfaction.

15

3d: Hypothesis Testing, Difference of Means

(Test 3) Are seniors more satisfied with off-campus housing than juniors?

Similarly to the previous test, our data indicates close means for satisfaction between juniors
and seniors (4.58 and 4.6, respectively). However, we wished to further prove this by running a
hypothesis test. Our null hypothesis states that there is no statistically significant difference
between the true population means for this variable; our alternative hypothesis states that
seniors, whose mean overall satisfaction in our sample is slightly higher than juniors, have a
higher overall average satisfaction rate (in the population) than do juniors. These results
represent the responses of 12 juniors, and 25 seniors, with standard deviations of .669 (juniors)
and .577 (seniors).

Hypothesis Testing Procedure

H0: (-) = 0

where = juniors, = seniors

HA: (-) > 0

95% confidence, one-tailed test (only concerned with one

direction), 11 d.f., t=1.796
se=((.699^2)/12) + (.577^2)/25) = .225
critical region of the difference: reject any value greater than
tse, or .4041.

x 1 - x 2 = .02

DO NOT REJECT NULL HYPOTHESIS

By not rejecting the null hypothesis, our estimation that seniors are not more satisfied than
juniors seems correct at the 95% level of confidence. One might think that juniors and seniors
would have different expectations of off-campus housing; indeed, its easy to assume that
seniors, likely having already spent a year off-campus, might have different expectations for
service. At the very least, this test suggests to us that years spent off-campus would probably
not serve as a suitable variable for a regression of overall satisfaction.

16
3e: Multiple Regression

(Equation 1) Number of property showings

#Official showings = 0.66044 - 0.09873(Friends) + 0.14192(Sites) + 0.29675(Signs)

We believe that understanding which forms of information dissemination work most effectively
toward securing face-time with possible renters is highly beneficial for property managers and
landlords.
The above regression equation models the number of official property showings respondents
attended as the dependent variable. The ratings students attached to the importance of the
following variables in helping them find their eventual property served as the independent
variables:
a friend, or word of mouth
rental websites
signs outside the property.
Specifically, students were asked the following question: How did you find out about your
homes availability? Their ratings of 1-5, from not important to very important, provide the
values for the independent variables.
We initially operated under the assumption that high use of rental websites would correspond to
greater participation in property showings, demonstrating a positive relation. Essentially, we
hypothesized that students who found rental websites to be highly important were more likely to
request a showing of a property.
We hypothesized a similar positive correlation for the relation between the number of official
showings attended, and respondents rating of property signs effectiveness. By the same token
as the above variable, we believed that students who found property signs to be especially
helpful were also more likely to attend showings of properties, as the usefulness of such signs
generally stems from the inclusion of owner information.
We then hypothesized that the other variable, the importance (or effectiveness) of a friend, or
word of mouth in making students aware of available properties, would have a negative relation
with the number of showings attended. We observed in students the tendency for many to
simply defer the choosing of a property to their future roommates, and we figured that if people
were made aware mostly by their friends or word of mouth they would display this
tendency.

17

# official showings = 0.66044 - 0.09873 Friends + 0.14192 Sites + 0.29675 Signs

(Standard Error)

(.93568)

(.14658)

(.13357)

(.15414)

Our predictions regarding the direction of each correlation were correct. Importance of friends/
word of mouth is indeed negative, with importance of sites and importance of signs both
producing positive correlations.
The equation suggests that for every point added to the ratings of importance for each variable
(on a 1-5 scale), the dependent variable increases by that increased variables coefficient. This
means that a one-point increase in the importance of property signs corresponds to a .29
increase in the number of showings attended.
After calculating the equation, we used a shortcut to determine the statistical significance of the
equations dependent variables. By looking at the p-levels, and seeing that none of the variables
possess a p-value lower than .05 (at 95% confidence), we were able to conclude that none of
them can be considered statistically significant at that confidence level. In other words, their
relation to the independent variable could merely be the result of random chance.
The low value of R-square indicates that many influential variables outside of this equation help
to determine the number of official showings students attend. Due to the simplicity of the
equation and the scale of our study in general, such results were expected.
Based on this equation, installing more property signs seems to have the best chance of
securing more official showings. It is important to note, however, that this does not necessarily
correspond with an increased volume of prospective renters, and that this equation is merely a
simple attempt with very limited data to understand a complex market variable.

18
3e: Multiple Regression

(Equation 2) Overall satisfaction

overall satisfaction = 3.61542 + 0.13686 #roommates + 0.17721 kindness - 0.1202 fairness
+ 0.07588 maintenance - 0.04522 privacy

When we were planning the course of this study, our initial intention was to craft a regression
equation for overall student satisfaction with off-campus housing. While we found that our
sample is, overall, extremely satisfied with a mean satisfaction rating (from 1-5) of 4.5, a
standard deviation of .6, and a mode and median of 5 we encountered significant difficulty in
creating a reliable regression equation for the variable.
The dependent variable is students 1-5 rating of overall satisfaction. The independent variables
are as follows:

Number of roommates
Rated landlord kindness
Rated landlord fairness
Rated landlord commitment to timely maintenance
Rated landlord privacy

It seemed logical that students perceptions of their landlords would factor heavily into their
overall satisfaction. However, we did not anticipate a negative correlation coefficient for any of
the landlord ratings; we figured that, as ratings went up, so too would overall satisfaction.
In reality, it seems that the correlation coefficients for the independent variables we selected
were determined largely by random chance. We can tell by the size of our r-square; a low rsquare value means that many important, unidentified variables lie in the background.
Indeed, unlike our previous regression equation, this one seems quite illogical. Only through
randomly testing correlations were we able to determine that the number of roommates a
student has corresponds quite heavily to overall satisfaction, and our assumption of a positive
correlation was correct. In fact, using the p-level test rejecting the idea that there is no
significant relation at 95% confidence if the p-value is below .05 tells us that the roommate
variable is the only one which cannot be explained by random chance, as every other variable
(not including the intercept, which for us is largely inconsequential) sits well above a p-value
of .05.

19

overall satisfaction = 3.61542 + 0.13686 #roommates + 0.17721 kindness - 0.1202 fairness

(standard error)

(.576)

(.049)

(.313)

(.327)

+ 0.07588 maintenance - 0.04522 privacy.

(.12)

(.1)

Its possible that the variables interfere with each other through multicollinearity, obscuring the
regression due to interactions between independent variables. Its also possible that more
roommates truly leads to greater student satisfaction. Our statistical analysis here is limited; like
our previous equation, we are attempting to explain an extremely complex variable this one
psychological, as much as economic with limited data and only a few variables.
Ultimately, we are less confident in this regression equation than that of property showings, and
understandably so: this dependent variable is far more nebulous, and perhaps well beyond our
capabilities. Still, the discovery that the number roommates a student has is somehow
correlated with overall satisfaction if that is, indeed, what weve found here is curious, and
might merit more investigation.

20
4. Conclusions

Ultimately, our statistical analysis informs us, and our client, that students in the Stone,
Eldred and Stanwood neighborhoods are highly satisfied. Our analysis also provides an
exceptionally useful list of amenities, and a measure numerical importance of each
variable.
We also found that, even when adding the average cost of utilities ($40) to rent, living
off-campus is significantly cheaper than living in a standard double room at Kalamazoo
College. This information was released informally to the student body through
Facebook, and was met with exceptional appreciation from students doing the math for
themselves.
We did not come up with a significant, breakthrough regression equation for either
overall satisfaction or frequency of property showings. This was not our intention, and
we did not expect the bulk of our analysiss value to come from these sections. We
simply do not have the resources nor the expertise to be especially useful here.
Had we more time and/or resources, we probably would have expanded our
geographical sampling range, as well as our sample size. We wouldve made more of
an effort to include Western Michigan University students, of whom only a few are
represented in our results.
Ultimately, however, the analysis we provided to our client will help him focus on offering
amenities students find important, and if we have at all positively impacted the local
housing market or, for that matter, the lives of local students then our work will have
been worth it.

21
References

(1)

Kashian, Russell D., and And. "UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-WHITEWATER

STUDENT OFF-CAMPUS HOUSING SURVEY." (n.d.): n. pag. June 2009.
Web. Winter 2016.

(2)

La Roche, Claire. "Student Housing: Trends, Preferences And Needs." Clute

Institute. Web. Winter 2016.

(3)

"Off-Campus Housing Market Analysis for South Dakota State University."

Web. Winter 2016.

(*)

Soper, D.S. (2016). Student t-Value Calculator [Software]. Available from

www.danielsoper.com/statcalc

(*)

RANDOM.ORG (Randomness and Integrity Services Ltd). Available from

www.random.org/

Numbered citations refer to in-text citations. (*) denotes a consulted source for numerical reference.