DOCUMENT RESUME HE 001 659 Meyer, John W. TITLE The .

2y ago
30 Views
2 Downloads
1.44 MB
77 Pages
Last View : 1m ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Jayda Dunning
Transcription

IDOCUMENT RESUMEED 040 686AUTHORTITLESPONS AGENCYBUREAU NOPUB DATEGRANTNOTEEDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS24HE 001 659Meyer, John W.The Effects of College Quality and Size on StudentOccupational Choice. Final Report.Office of Education (DHEW) , Washington, D.C. Bureauof Research.BR-7-1-070Jun 70OEG-9-8071-070-006176p.EDRS Price MF- 0.50 HC- 3.90Career Choice, *College Environment, Colleges,*College Students, Educational Quality, *HigherEducation, *Occupational Choice, UniversitiesABSTRACTThis study focused on two issues: (1) the effects ofcollege characteristics on the social status of student occupationalchoices; and (2) an analysis of the characteristics of colleges whichaffect the degree to which students choose occupations which areacademic in character. The study is based on data gathered from 946students in 99 colleges who returned mail questionnaires both intheir freshman and senior years. The findings indicated that: (1)college quality indicators or college size and complexity haveneither positive nor negative effect on the overall social status ofthe occupations selected by students, when individual backgroundfactors and freshman occupational choices are taken into account; (2)college quality indicators show no systematic effects on shiftingstudent occupational choices toward either academic or non-academichigh status professions; and (3) large schools tend to shift studentoccupational choice toward high-status professional occupationalchoices and away from high-status academic occupations, while smallschools have just the opposite effect. (AF)3L2

(;)ftFINAL REPORTProject No. 7-1-070Grant No. OEG9-8071-070-0061THE EFFECTS OF COLLEGE QUALITY AND SIZE ONSTUDENT OCCUPATIONAL CHOICEU.S. DEPARTMENTOF HEALTH, EDUCATION& WELFAREJohn W. MeyerStanford UniversityStanford, CaliforniaOFFICE OFATIEDUCATIONTHIS DOCUMENTHAS BEEN REPRODUCEDEXACTLY ASRECEIVEDFROMORGANIZATIONTHE PERSON ORORIGINATINGIT. POINTS OFVIEW OR OPINIONSSARILY REPRESENT STATED DO NOT NECESCATION POSITION OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUOR POLICYJune 1970The research reported herein was performed pursuant to a contract withthe Office of Education, U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfareadministered by the Laboratory for Social Research, Stanford University.In its final phase the research was supported by the Stanford Center forResearch and Development in Teaching (Project No. 5-025200308, ContractNo. 0E-6-10-078), and a slightly modified version of this report will bepublished Ly this Center. Contractors undertaking such projects underGovernment sponsorship are encouraged to express freely their professionaljudgment in the conduct of the project. Points of view or opinions stateddo not, therefore, necessarily represent official Office of Education position or policy.U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFAREOffice of EducationBureau of Research

CONTENTSPREFACEiiiLIST OF TABLESivChapter1.INTRODUCTION2.DATA, METHODS, AND MEASURES3.10A.The Data10B.Occupational Choices of Individual Students13C.Individual Factors Affecting OccupationalChoiceD.College Characteristics25RESULTSA.B.C.4.130College Effects on Raising or Loweringthe Status of Occupational Choices30College Effects on Academic and ProfessionalOccupational Choices39The Absence of Effects of College Quality onOccupational Choice: Colleges and theStratification System49CONCLUSIONS57REFERENCESAPPENDIX A:59REFERENCE TABLES.ii62

PREFACEThe line of work leading to the present study goes back for a numberof years. As a teacher at Columbia College, Columbia University, I wasstruck by the strong pressures which even very able students seemed to experience because of the extraordinary standards of comparison set by thepresence of such a highly qualified student body. Two students--StanleyRaffel and Lawrence Kessler--aided greatly in the development of this ideaby examining empirical data on the problem in their senior theses. TheBureau of Applied Research at Columbia University, through Allen Barton,its director, also contributed by providing helpful financial support andencouragement.11The present empirical study was developed while I was working withtwo colleagues now at Northeastern University--William Bowers and DavidKamens. Working closely together, first with the help of the Bureau ofApplied Social Research at Columbia University, and then through theRussell B. Stearns Study at Northeastern, we made a number of attempts todesign and obtain support for a major contextual study of the ways collegecharacteristics affect the decisions of individual students. We were notable to obtain regular financial support, but finally decided to go aheadanyway. We took advantage of data on a rather large sample of Americancollege students which William Bowers had gathered (under Office of Education sponsorship) at the Bureau of Applied Social Research. Using thefacilities of the Stearns Study at Northeastern University, we preparedand mailed a follow-up questionnaire to the students who had been freshmen at the time of the earlier study. The returned data were processedand organized at the Stearns Study, and were made available to me at Stanford University.It should be clear from the above paragraph that without my intellectualand practical collaboration with William Bowers and David Kamens, this studywould not have been possible. I am grateful for their advice and help.,ftThis study was actually conducted at Stanford University's Laboratoryfor Social Research and its Center for Research and Development in Teaching,supported by the U. S. Office of Education. I am particularly indebted toPatrick McDonnell, and in the later stages of the data analysis to Anne Grahamfor technical help in working with these data. Both of them have given freelya great deal of time to setting up the data for computer analysis, and to carryThese are tasks which have been made more frustrating,ing out such analyses.more difficult, and more time-consuming because computation facilities at Stanford were not adequately developed to deal with problems of the kind of socialresearch reported here. The completion of this study, therefore, owes a greatdeal to the dedicated and skilled assistance of these people. In the same areas,technical assistance was also ably and willingly provided by Sally Main and MarcBernstein.iii

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLESFIGURES12Propositions on the Effects of School Quality onthe Status of Student Occupational Choices(Individual Student Characteristics Held Constant)A Typology of Occupations, According to SocialStatus and Degree of Integration with theAcademic World718TABLES123A3B456789R,1011AStudent Occupational Choices: Changes BetweenFreshman and Senior YearsSocial Status of Senior Choice According toFreshman Choice and Ability Index ScoreSenior Academic Occupational ChoicesAccording to Freshman Choice and SexSenior Professional Occupational ChoicesAccording to Freshman Choice and SexLoadings of a Number of College Attributes onFirst Two Orthogonal FactorsSocial Status of Senior Occupational Choice bySex, Ability, Freshman Choice, and Social Statusof the SchoolSocial Status of Senior Occupational Choice bySex, Ability, Freshman Choice, and CollegeSelectivitySocial Status of Senior Occupational Choice bySex, Ability, Freshman Choice, and FacultyStudent Ratio of the SchoolSocial Status of Senior Occupational Choice bySex, Ability, Freshman Choice, and Percent ofFaculty with DoctoratesSocial Status of Senior Occupational Choice bySex, Ability, Freshman Choice, and Size of theSchoolSocial Status of Senior Occupational Choice bySex, Ability, Freshman Choice, Selectivity ofthe School, and Faculty-Student RatioStudents with Non-Academic Freshman Choices Only:Senior Academic Occupational Choice by Sex,Ability, and the Social Status of the Studentsof the Schooliv1116,1721232328, 2931333435363841

11B12A12B13A13B14A14B15A15B1617A17B17C18A -lAA-1BMen Only: Senior Professional OccupationalChoices by Freshman Choice, Ability Index Score,and the Social Status of the Students of theSchoolStudents with Non-Academic Freshman Choices Only:Senior Academic Occupational Choice by Sex,Ability, and Selectivity of the SchoolMen Only: Senior Professional OccupationalChoices by Freshman Choice, Ability Index Score,and Selectivity of the SchoolStudents with Non-Academic Freshman Choices Only:Senior Academic Occupational Choice by Sex,Ability, and Faculty-Student Ratio of the SchoolMen Only: Senior Professional OccupationalChoices by Freshman Choice, Ability Index Score,and Faculty-Student Ratio of the SchoolStudents with Non-Academic Freshman Choices Only:Senior Academic Occupational Choice by Sex,Ability, and School SizeMen Only: Senior Professional OccupationalChoices by Freshman Choice, Ability Index Score,and School SizeStudents with Non-Academic Freshman Choices Only:Senior Academic Occupational Choice by Sex,Ability, and Availability of Graduate Training atthe CollegeMen Only: Senior Professional OccupationalChoices by Freshman Choice, Ability Index Score,and Availability of Graduate Training at theCollegeStudents' Grade Point Average as Reported byRegistrar by Ability Index Score and Selectivityof SchoolStudents with Non-Academic Freshman Choices Only:Senior Academic Occupational Choice by Sex,Ability, and Grade Point Average as Reported byRegistrarMen Only: Senior Professional Occupational ChoicesExcluding Engineers by Freshman Choice, Ability,and Grade Point Average as Reported by RegistrarMen Only: Senior Engineering Occupational Choicesby Freshman Choice, Ability, and Grade PointAverage as Reported by RegistrarStudents Reporting a "Flair" for Work in MajorSubjects as Seniors by Sex, Ability Index Score,and Grade Average in MajorSenior Academic Occupational Choices According toFreshman Choice and Ability Index ScoreSenior Professional Occupational ChoicesAccording to Freshman Choice and Ability IndexScore41424344444646484952535354556262r

l Status of Senior Occupational Choice bySex, Ability, Freshman Choice, and SchoolExpenditure per StudentSocial Status of Senior Occupational Choice bySex, Ability, Freshman Choice, and CollegeAverage Verbal S.A.T. ScoreSocial Status of Senior Occupational Choice bySex, Ability, Freshman Choice, and Library SizeSocial Status of Senior Occupational Choice bySex, Ability, Freshman Choice, and Availabilityof Graduate TrainiAg at the CollegeStudents with Non-Academic Freshman Choices Only:Senior Academic Occupational Choice by Sex,Ability, and Expenditure per StudentMen Only: Senior Professional OccupationalChoices by Freshman Choice, Ability Index Score,and Expenditure per StudentStudents with Non-Academic Freshman Choices Only:Senior Academic Choices by Sex, Ability Score,and College Average S.A.T. Score (Verbal)For Males Only: Senior Professional Choices byFreshman Choice, Ability, and College AverageS.A.T. ScoreStudents with Non-Academic Freshman Choices Only:Senior Academic Occupational Choice by Sex,Ability, and Percent of Faculty with DoctoratesMen Only: Senior Professional Occupational Choicesby Freshman Choice, Ability Index Score, andPercent of Faculty with DoctoratesStudents with Non-Academic Freshman Choices Only:Senior Academic Occupational Choice by Sex,Ability, and Library SizeMen Only: Senior Professional OccupationalChoices by Freshman Choice, Ability, and LibrarySizevi6364656667676868696970.70

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTIONSummary. This study is designed to show how two basic characteristicsof colleges--their "quality" or resources and their size or organizationalcomplexity--affect the occupational choices of students when relevant characteristics of the individual students are held constant. Two aspects ofoccupational choices are involved:the degree to which students choose occupations which are higher or lower in overall social status, and the degreeto which they choose occupations (among those of the highest status) whichare academic in character, rather than nonacademic professions. The earlierresearch literature suggests two inconsistent lines of reasoning about theeffects of school quality on both the social status of student occupationalchoices and their academic character.(1) The educational and social resources of high-quality schools operate to make any given student more likelyto aspire to higher status occupations and to more academic ones. Such schoolsare able to provide better teachers and more of them, more stimulating peers,better facilities, and the social prestige which a student can count on toopen doors for him after graduation. These characteristics involve the studentmore in the life of the college, and lead him both to aspire to positions ofthe greatest significance (or status) and to identify with the values of theacademic world.(2) Higher-quality schools provide higher levels of competition for any given student by surrounding him with more able and more highlymotivated peers, and faculty members who set very high standards. This competitive pressure makes a given student less likely to receive good gradesand much encouragement, and to be able to maintain his self-esteem as a stuThus, students of given ability who are in higher quality schoolsdent.should tend to end up with lower aspirations and less confidence in theirability to pursue distinctively academic occupations than other students.'''N,,,The research literature also suggests similarly inconsiste.nt argumentabout the effects of school size. Larger schools offer students *ore formalopportunities, but smaller ones may offer more opportunities to ideftify withindividual teachers.It is often suggested that the features of smal;11, collegesare especially likely to lead students toward academic occupations, because students are able to relate more closely to their teachers.In order to examine these hypotheses, this study presents data on theoccupational choice changes of 946 students in 99 American colleges. These students were part of a larger mail questionnaire survey of students in the springof 1963.At that time, they were college freshmen. In 1966- -when many of themwere college seniors--another mail questionnaire was sent to them. The 946students on whom we have information are those who returned both questionnaires.Because the response rate obtainable in such a situation was inevitably low, thesample may be unrepresentative in many ways. The most important of these is thatstudents who dropped out of college or transferred to another college between1963 and 1966 are greatly underrepresented because it was difficult to keeptrack of their addresses. We have corrected for this underrepresentation by1L

analyzing the data both in their present form and also with the dropouts andtransfers in the sample weighted more heavily to bring this part of the sampleup to its appropriate size--roughly 50 per cent of the sample. No significantdifferences between the two analyses are found.College characteristics are measured by aggregating information on individual students and also by using institutional information reported in anumber of 'sources. Data from several of these sources have been collectedfor computer analysis as a College Characteristics Data Bank by researchersat the Bureau of Applied Social Research at Columbia University (Nash, 1966).A factor analysis of college characteristics taken from these various sourcesshows that those attributes which indicate school quality or resources and thosethat indicate school size or organizational complexity may be seen as two distinct (and unrelated) factors. Thus the analysis of the effects on studentoccupational choices of school quality and school size may take place independently.The analysis of college effects on student occupational choices proceeds with relevant individual characteristics of students held constant. Preeminently this includes the students' occupational choices as freshmen, of course.But also included are sex (female students are less likely to retain or shiftto aspirations of high occupational status, and are almost completely unlikelyto plan at any point on entering the high-status nonacademic professions) andacademic ability (measured by combining information on the student's high schoolStudents of higher ability aregrades with his verbal aptitude test score).more likely than others to retain or develop aspirations to occupations of highInterestingly enough, the social class background of the stusocial status.dents shows almost no relation to their shifts in occupational choice duringCorrespondingly, this varcollege when their ability level is held constant.iable is not held constant in the analysis of college effects.The basic contextual findings of the study are negative. None of theindicators of college quality which were examined showed effects--either positive or negative--on the status of the occupational choices of the students.Those apparent effects of a few quality indicators on the degree to which students choose academic occupations appear to reflect the operation of schoolsize, not quality.College size or complexity also appears to have no effect on the socialstatus of the occupations chosen by the students. However, college size doesshow an effect on the degree to which students choose academic occupations.Students in large schools are less likely than others to choose academic occupations, and more likely to choose nonacademic professions (such as law,medicine, or engineering) than others. And students in small schools are thusmore likely to choose academic occupations. It is hypothesized that this effect results from the degree to which small schools bring a student into closecontact with the academic career (through his teachers, who are academics), andat the same time isolate him from the formal programs, curricula, entrance requirements, and so on, which might lead him into other professions.2

It is possible that the absence of effects of school quality onoccupational choice--particularly on the social status of occupational choices- (1) A relatively lowmay result from two basic features of American society.level of cultural definition of occupations as primarily organized around thestratification system. Individual students may be choosing occupations primarily in terms of their interests and tastes, and only secondarily in terms ofthe stratificational location of the occupations in the class structure. Andthe society may be organizing access to occupations in these terms sufficiently(2) Theto make such orientations possible for individual students to maintain.stratification system of the educational order--rankings of schools by prestigeand quality,and within them, rankings of students by grades and performance--maybe seen by students and others as only loosely related to the stratificationsystem of the "real" or adult society and its occupational structure. That is,success or failure in school may not be taken as the main basis on which toformulate occupational plans.Either of these two lines of reasoning--or both--may explain the failure of the present study to show either positive or negative relations betweenSome evidence supporting theschool quality and occupational choice status.first line of reasoning is presented. It is shown that college grades areless strongly related than might be expected,to shifts in occupational choice.Students with poor grades do not overwhelmingly shift away from high-statusoccupational plans, and students with very good records do not show strong shiftstoward high-status occupational choices.The Problem. This report presents some empirical data on a problem thathas been of considerable interest from a number of points of view--do differentcolleges tend to send essentially similar students into different occupations?Social scientists have been interested it this question because differences inoccupational allocation among colleges might indicate something about how social(For general review of thisizing, or "people-processing" organizations work.literature, see Jacob, 1957, and especially Feldman and Newcomb, 1969). Theyhave also been interested in the ways colleges might be related to the stratification system. Do the great differences among colleges in selectivity andresources contribute to mobility by adding more kinds of opportunity, or dothey make the stratification system more rigid by intensifying the class-relateddifferences among the students they selectively admit? From the point of viewof those administering the system of higher education, the occupational effectsof college social structures are obviously of great importance, since the justification of many structural arrangements in colleges depends primarily on theeffects they have on students in such central areas as occupational choice.Interest in college effects on occupational choices centors on two important questions, both of which are considered empirically in this report.First, what is the relation between a college's quality (or resources) and itseffects on the social status of the occupational intentions of its students? Dohigh-quality schools increase the inclinations of their students to choose highstatus or professional occupations?(Spaeth, 1968a, b; 1970).Or conversely

do they lower the aspirations of their students by providing high standardsand highly competitive surroundings (Davis, 1966; Meyer, 1965)? Second,what is the relation between a colleWs size or quality and its tendencyto recruit students for distinctively intellectual or academic occupations?Do high-quality schools reinforce such aspirations by providing training androle models, or do they diminish them with high competitive standards (Meyer, 1965;Raffel, 1969)? Do small schools provide the kind of close contact with teacherswhich reinforces academic aspirations, as is suggested by the major early studiesof Knapp and his associates (1952, 1953)?Research in this field has been faced with a number of methodologicalproblems which have made it very difficult to arrive at clear evidence on college effects (Barton, 1959). The simplest and yet most troublesome of theseis the need to study college outputs holding constant the input characteristics which students bring with them.Otherwise any findings that colleges varyin the occupations chosen by their students might reflect differences in thekintis of students they select.Some of the most interesting studies in thisarea have had difficulty with this problem, simply because it requires studying the same students over four years. Knapp et al. (1952, 1953), had no wayof holding constant the kinds of students their colleges selected, and couldonly examine the career lines of graduates.The studies based on NORC data(Davis 1966; Spaeth 1968a,b; 1970) rely on a large sample drawn at the end oftheir senior year in college.The crucial data on the occupational choicesthe students arrived at college with, are obtained only through retrospectivequestions, which involve massive errors. These studies also lose track of allthose students who dropped out of their colleges, and since colleges differ entiaL'y produce dropouts (Kamens, 1968; Astin 1968), a large class of potential college effects are completely .left out.Some studies which do followthe same students through college are able to obtain information only on veryselected groups of students, as with the National Merit Scholarship Corporation studies by Astin (1962,1963) and Thistlethwaite (1962,1963).A second methodological problem has been the difficulty of conceptualizing and measuring characteristics of colleges. The simple attempt to seehow much colleges vary in the final occupational choices of students who arrived with similar occupational choices does not tell us which kinds of college characteristics are involved in the effects. But it is also true thatattempts simply to try out a number of college characteristics which happen tobe available, or which arise from a factor analysis of questionnaire data froma number of schools, does not provide much reason to hypothesize or expect tofind interesting college effects (Astin, 1962, 1963, 1968).The present study examines changes in college student occupationalchoices by comparing data taken from the same sample of students at two pointsin time. Nine hundred forty-six students in 99 American colleges, who returnedmail questionnaires both in their freshman and their senior years, constitutedthe sample. A good many kinds of data are available on the colleges--bothmeasures obtained by aggregating information on the individual students, and institutirnal reports of the college itself. Enough information is available onrelevant characteristics of the individual students themselves to make it possible to examine the effects of college characteristics on relatively similarstudents.

In the remainder of thisOur report is organized in the following way.introductory section, we consider the empirical and theoretical background ofthe present study--the college effects literature and the theoretical problemswhich are the starting point of the present study.The next main section of the report (Chapter II) presents the data(a)Four main topics are involved:with which this analysis is concerned.a description of the sample, and the methods of data collection, and potential inaccuracies or biases in the data; (b) a description of the occupationalchoice classifications which provide the basic dependent variables being examined, along with data on the overall ways in which student occupationalchoices change through college; (c) a description of the basic individual attributes which affect changes in occupational choice during college, and whichmust be held constant in an examination of college effects; and (d) a description and analysis of the characteristics of colleges the effects of whichwe are examining.It is organized aroundChapter III presents the results of the study.(a) the effects of college quality, along with college sizethree problems:and complexity, on the social status of the occupations students choose. (b) Theeffects of college quality and size on the degree to which students choose(c) Some argumentshigh-status academic as opposed to nonacademic professions.and data on the low level of empirical relationship between academic successand failure and students' choices relevant to the occupational stratificationsystem.This report then concludes (Chapter IV) with a short summary of ourmajor findings.The Focus of the Study. The present study focusses on two issues involved in the discussions of college effects on occupational choice.(1) What are the effects of college characteristics, in particular,college quality on the social status of student occupational choices? Collegesand universities can be distinguished along a continuum of amount of resources**One could imagine defining school quality in terms of the changes whichare induced in students--an idea similar to defining the quality ofa firm by its profits per unit produced. Or it would be possible toconceive of school quality in terms of changes in students per unitof investment, which would be analogous to the firm's profit/investmentBut since neither researchers nor college administrators knowratio.what effects any given college produces, because of the methodologicalproblems noted above, among others, college quality is ordinarilydefined in terms of inputs or structural characteristics, not outputs.This is fundamentally irrational, in Weber's sense, and would becomparable to defining the quality of a business firm in terms of itsinvestments in capital, labor, and technology, without considering itsprofits.

Some have more money, better students, more highly trained faculty members,more social and intellectual prestige, more advanced academic programs, andThe sociological literature on schools suggests two basic ways inso on.which these characteristics might affect the social level of the goals of stuIt seems reasonable to believe that students in high-quality col(a)dents.leges would be more likely to move to (or retain) high-status occupationalchoices. They are, presumably, better educated; they are surrounded by higherstatus peers who themselves have high aspirations, and who provide a climateof high aspirations; they are brought into contact with more prestigious andmore likely to look favorably on their aspirations. This line of reasoningis best developed in the literature on the effects of high schools on collegeintentions, in which these various arguments are used to explain why high schoolswith high social-status students are more likely to create intentions to attendcollege among students who themselves are of the same status and ability.Studies, beginning with Wilson (1959) have not gone very far in explaining whichamong the various resources of high-status high schools are actually operating(see the review by Meyer, 1970), although there is some agreement that the influence of high-status peers is most important. At the college level, somestudies have found positive effects on occupational intentions of variableswhich seem to indicate school quality (Spaeth, 1968a, b,; 1970), while othershave not (Astin, 1968; Knapp et al., 1962, 1963). (b) Arguments exactly opposite to the one above have emerged in discussions of college effects. In apaper entitled "The Campus as a Frog Pond," Davis (1966) shows some evidence thatstudents' aspirations are negatively affected by the quality of the college theyStudents in high attend (see also Werts, 1968; Meyer, 1965; & Raffel, 1969).quality colleges face competitive standards so much higher than students inother colleges, that relative to their abilities and original aspirations, theirfinal occupational goals may actually be adversely affected. Their peers havehigher than ordinary ability, their teachers have high standards and are likelyto be preoccupied with graduate training research, and other professional activities. The net conse

DOCUMENT RESUME. 24. HE 001 659. Meyer, John W. The Effects of College Quality and Size on Student Occupational Choice. Final Report. Office of Education (DHEW), Washington, D.C. Bureau. of Research. BR-7-1-070 Jun 70 OEG-9-8071-070-0061. 76p. EDRS Price MF- 0.50 HC- 3.90 Career Choi

Related Documents:

holux hxe-w01 hp 290483-b21 310798-b21 311314-001 311314-002 311315-b21 311340-001 311349-003 311949-001 343110-001 343117-001 350579-001 359498-001 35h00013-00 35h00014-00 35h00063-00m 377358-001 382877-001 382878-001 383745-001 383858-001 395780-001 398687-001 399858

001 10 001 055 dyson andrew pass 001 10 001 056 gomani only pass 001 10 001 057 jasten wonderful pass 001 10 001 058 jobo yona pass . 001 10 003 083 wanda kastom l pass 001 10 003 084 y

Abe, Genki 064 31798 001 039 230 86/05/05 Abendroth, Walter 100 325769 001 001 230 86/11/03 Aberg, Einar 105 009428 001 155 230 86/16/05 Abetz, Otto 100 004219 001 022 230 86/11/06 Abjanic, Theodore 105 253577 001 132 230 86/16/01 Abrey, Richard See Sovloot (100-382419) Abs, Hermann J. 105 056532 001 167 230 86/16/06 Abualy, Aldina 105 007801 001 183 230 86/17/02 Abwehr 065 37193 001 122 230 .

02 1 Waterslager/Kleur 02.005.001 2 002 02.005 02 1 Timbrado's/Kleur 02.006.001 2 002 02.006 02 1 Harzers/Postuur 02.007.001 2 002 02.007 02 1 Waterslagers/Postuur 02.008.002 2 002 02.008 02 1 Timbrado's/Postuur 02.009

BY ABDULLAH YUSUF ALI THE OPENING, CHAPTER NO. 001 001.001 In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. 001.002 Praise be to God, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the world; 001.003 Most Gracious, Most Merciful; 001.004 Master of the Day of Judgment. 001.005 Thee do we worship, and Thine aid we seek. 001.006 Show us the straight way,

Weight kg Ways 1P 3P Ordering details Type Code Type No. GDMS312 MXFC GDMS318 MXFC GDMS324 MXFC GDMS330 MXFC GDMS336 MXFC GDMS348 MXFC GDMS360 MXFC GDMS372 MXFC 2CVB 106 001 M0001 2CVB 206 001 M0001 2CVB 306 001 M0001 2CVB 406 001 M0001 2CVB 506 001 M0001 2CVB 606 001 M0001 2CVB 706 001 M0001 2CVB 806 001 M0001 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 12 18 24 30 .

Materiał: stal nierdzewna szlifowana na matowo Artykuł DN/OD Klasa filtra Jednostka dostawcza PLN/szt. 170448-001 250 G4 pojedynczo 60,00 170458-001 250 F6/G2 pojedynczo 70,00 170468-001 315 G4 pojedynczo 74,00 170528-001 315 F6/G2 pojedynczo 84,00 170538-001 400 G4 pojedynczo 82,00 170548-001 400 F6/G2 pojedynczo 92,00 170558-001 500 G4 .

Coprigt TCTS n rigt reered Capter nwer e Sprint Round 16. _ 17. _ 18. _ 19. _ 20. _ 50