基于安卓的大学生记账管理系统的设计与实现-外文翻译译文和原文

基于安卓的大学生记账管理系统的设计与实现-外文翻译译文和原文 毕业设计外文文献翻译 院 系: 计算机与信息工程学院 年级专业: 12软件工程(金融服务)2 姓 名: 学 号: An Analysis of Personal Financial Lit Among 附 件: College Students Among College Students 指导老师评语: 指导教师签名: 年 月 日 大学生个人理财知识分析 大学生个人理财知识分析 这项研究调查了924名大学生审视自己的个人财务知识;调查了学生的财务知识与学生的特性之间的关系，和理财知识对学生的意见和决定的影响。结果表明，参与者回答问题的正确性为53,。所调查的人包括非经营性专业、妇女、在下层阶级行列的学生、30岁以下并且很少有工作的人、知识水平较低者。懂得较少财务知识的学生往往有错误的观点和作出不正确的决定。结论是:大学生不太了解个人理财。低的财务知识水平会限制他们做出明智决策的能力。 I. 介绍 管理个人财务的能力在当今世界已经变得越来越重要。人们必须为他们的退休和子女的教育长期投资。他们还必须决定短期储蓄和借贷一个假期，向下支付房子，汽车贷款和其他大件物品。此外，他们还必须管理自己的医疗保险和人寿保险的需求。 不幸的是，研究表明，美国人有个人认识不足财政(EBRI，1995年，毕马威会计师事务所，1995年; PSRA，1996年，1997年，奥本海默基金/女孩公司，1997年;先锋集团/货币杂志，1997年)。他们未能作出正确决策因为他们还没有收到良好的个人理财教育(HSR，1993年，希拉，1993;奥尼尔，1993年)。 这项研究有三个目的。首先，它提供大学生个人理财素养的证据。其次，它会检查为什么一些大学生相对比别人有更多的理财知识。该分析可以帮助我们识别出大学生所拥有决定能力水平的因素。第三个目的是检查学生的知识如何影响他/她的意见和个人财务问题上的决定。 本文的结构安排如下。第二部分回顾了以前对金融知识的研究。第三部分是讨论。第四部分是提出的结果。第五部分总结全文。 II. 文献回顾 大部分以前的研究都是由在金融服务行业的从业人员进行。他们专注于资金管理和投资有关的问题。这个重点与会计师财务策划师的调查结果一致，说明这些问题是个人理财规划的重要领域(NEFE，1993-1996)。这些研究结果表明，参与的调查者回答调查问题的正确率普遍只有不到60,。 此前高中生的研究均发现，他们在个人财务的基本知识上未受到良好的教育，并且知识贫乏(巴肯，1967; CFAJAMEX，1991; HSR，1993; Langrehr，1979; NAEP，1979)。在对来自63所学校的1509高中学生的调查研究中，曼德尔(1997)了一个平均正确的比分，57,在收入、资金管理、储蓄、投资和消费等领域。他的结论是:学生们离开学校时没有做出关键决策影响他们生活的能力。 难道成年人对个人理财和投资有一个很好的控制,几个结果研究表明，他们并 1 大学生个人理财知识分析 没有。普林斯顿调查研究协会(1997)调查了全国1770个家庭的金融知识，并且找到了一个平均正确的42,的比分。这一结果表明，家庭金融决策者没有很好地理解基本的财务概念。在对另一个522个成年女性的研究中，56,的人被发现不是很懂投资(奥本海默基金/女孩公司，1997年)。 工人们没有为退休充分储蓄，并且做出的投资决策过于保守。毕马威会计师事务所(1995)对1183个雇主的研究发现，员工只贡献他们收入的5%到401(k)退休福利计划，尽管典型的计划允许14,的贡献。有证据表明，员工没有最大化自己的利益。另外，低的储蓄率和低的保守的投资回报可能不会对经济安全的退休提供足够的收入。雇员福利研究所(1995)提供了进一步的证据:大多数美国人没有储蓄足够得退休基金并且可能对财政信心和安全有一个错觉。研究对1000个在职员工和离退休人员进行了有关金融知识问题的调查。约所有职工的71,的和离退休人员的81,，比分在60,或者以下。注册财务策划师学会(1993)调查了123个注册财务策划师许可人，并发现当谈到做出个人财务决策时，金融文盲是一个重大的问题。较差的投资基础知识是他们的客户最常遇到的问题。 两次全国调查的结果表明，投资者对投资问题没有牢固的知识。普林斯顿调查研究协会(1996年)采访了1001个投资者，并且发现只有18,的人是财务知识者。先锋集团/金钱杂志(1997年)调查了1,467个在全国各地的59个购物中心的共同基金投资者。对20个问题的测验的平均正确比分约为45,。 大多数已发表的研究集中在金融知识高中生和成年人。很少一些人调查大学生，除了丹麦和希拉(1987)和沃尔普，陈和Pavlicko(1996年)。丹麦和希拉(1987)调查了爱荷华州立大学323个大学生，使用一个信用卡、保险、个人贷款、记录保存和整体的财务管理知识的问卷调查。他们发现，参与者对整体资金管理水平、信用卡和保险的知识水平较低。他们还发现，男性更多地了解保险和个人贷款，但女性更了解涉及的总体财务管理的部分问题知识。已婚学生一般都更了解个人金融。沃尔普，陈和Pavlicko(1996年)关注投资的知识。他们调查中西部州立大学的454名学生发现，参与者的平均正确比分是44,，这表明他们知识不足。他们还发现男生比女生有更多的知识，并且商务专业的是比非商务专业的更有知识。 虽然以前的研究已经提供了人们个人理财知识的证据，并提高了我们对这个问题的理解，但它也有几个弱点。例如，对大学生这两项研究使用的样本都是从一所大学。许多研究涵盖个人财务选定的区域，忽略其他。此外，有效性调查仪器是可疑的，因为有限数量的项目包括在在调查问卷。这些限制由以下事实加剧:许多以前的研究只报告金融知识水平而不分析这些影响人的知识因素。以前的研究都没有检测一个人的知识是怎样影响他们个人财务问题意见和如何做出财务决定。 2 大学生个人理财知识分析 III. 方法 本研究采用一个全面的调查问卷设计涵盖个人财务的主要方面。它包括金融知识的一般知识、储蓄和借贷、保险理财知识和投资。该调查要求参与者回答52个问题，包括他们个人理财知识的36多项选择题、8个问题他们意见和决定的问题，以及8个人口统计数据问题。本次调查使用试验研究以改进仪器。调查的有效性和透明度进一步由两个懂得个人理财知识的人来评估。调查的质量和一致性使用量表的阿尔法来进一步评估。调查问卷的副本可以在附录中找到。 每个参与者的回答用来对每个问题、部分和整个调查来计算正确分数的平均百分比，与现有的文献相一致(丹麦和希拉，1987;沃尔普，陈，与Pavlicko，1996)，平均百分比正确的分数被分组为(1)80,以上，(2)60,至79,(3)60,以下。该第一类代表了一个相对高的知识水平。第二类代表一个中等知识水平。第三类代表了相对较低的水平知识。 以前的研究表明，金融知识水平因分组学生而异(沃尔佩，陈，与Pavlicko，1996)。这项研究提供了进一步采用方差(ANOVA)分析的差异的证据。差异进一步使用逻辑回归模型来分析。参与者分为两个使用样品的正确答案的中位数百分比的子组。比样本中位数分数更高的学生被列为相对懂得更多知识。与样本中位数分数等于或小于的被列为相对懂得更少知识。此二分变量然后在逻辑回归作为因变量，由所有的独立变量同时进行说明。 在逻辑回归中使用的独立变量是变量，例如学术纪律、排名、性别、种族、国籍、工作经验、年龄和收入。系数代表了相比参考组每一个子组的效果， 这是任意选择的。例如，如果参与者是一个非商业专业则专业编码为1，否则为0。参考类别是商务专业。如果物流变量的系数为负，那么就意味着与商业专业相比，非专业的业务与减少的关于个人财务的被知识化日志比值相关。 要确定对参与者拥有的金融知识对他们意见的影响，学生被要求对个人财务问题使用5个类别来归类:非常重要，有些重要，不确定，有些不重要和非常不重要。他们还要求对相关的金融问题的进行决定。如在物流回归分析，将样品分成两组学生，一组具有相对更多的知识和一组具有相对较少的知识。因为这个问题调查中的每个部分都有关，正确答案的中位数百分比部分用于分类样品。交叉列表和卡方检验用于确定这两个组的意见和决定的差异是统计显著。 IV. 结果与分析 问卷发送到14个大学校园的1,800名学生。它们包括在加利福尼亚州、佛罗里达州、肯塔基州、马萨诸塞州、俄亥俄州和宾夕法尼亚州的公立和私立学校、大型大学的主分校和小社区高校。13个校园的924名学生参加了调查，代表的51.33, 3 大学生个人理财知识分析 的回应率。样品的详细特征在表1中。 在教育方面，与会者约52.6,是商业专业。36,的参与者的老年人，其余的均匀分布在大一、大二、大三和研究生中。就人口的背景而言，大部分的参与者是白人和美国公民。女性参与者约占55.6,样品。大多数参与者有两年以上的工作经验。约75.7,学生是18至29岁。缺少响应导致样本量从792到905不同;因此，不同样品规模被用来计算表1中的有效百分比。 A. 全面调查结果 整体结果示于表2中。正确评分的平均百分比是分为三类:80，60-79，和下面60的最高分数是第一次提出，随后是每个部分中更低的分数。正确的分数总体平均比例为52.87,，表明平均参与者正确回答只有大约一半的调查问题。正确分数的中位数百分比是36个问题的调查的55.56,。该可靠性为0.85。大信度表明该问卷是可靠的，这进一步增加了它的有效性。调查结果显示，大学生对个人理财的知识是不够的。 知识水平低的原因之一是系统缺乏完善的个人的金融教育在大学课程。大多数高等教育机构放小重视学生的个人理财教育(丹麦和希拉，1987)。即使企业学校不要求学生参加个人财务管理课程(Bialaszewski，Pencek，与泽特罗，1993)。据Gitman和培根(1985年)的一项调查显示，只有5,的商学院提供金融服务的本科专业。由于缺乏个人理财教育，这并不奇怪结果表明，大学生对个人理财的知识不足。 另一个原因知识的低电平可以归因于年轻的年龄参与者们。如表1所示，参与者的约44,是18至22岁的年龄及约76,是30岁以下的大多数都是在一个非常早期的阶段了财务生命周期。在此阶段的循环，它们暴露于有限数量的与一般的知识，储蓄和贷款，保险资金的问题。在此期间，他们的大部分收入都用于消费，而不是investment.These因素可以解释一般知识(63.70,)，储蓄和借款(54.47,)，保险的部分正确答案的平均百分比差异( 59.24,)，投资(40.37,)。进一步看为对个别问题的得分表明，学生们与他们所熟悉的问题得分较高。例如，得分最高的是相关车险。学生们所熟悉的问题，因为他们很多人拥有了汽车，不得不支付更高的车险保费。学生也得分公寓租赁比较高。他们更多地了解这些问题，因为他们需要在自己的大学里租公寓。相反，学生有税，定期寿险经验不多，而且大部分的投资主题。随后，他们的收入低的分数在这些领域。 B.通过样品的亚群结果分析 在本节中，个人的金融知识和参与者之间的关系教育，工作经验，收入和其他人口背景进行检查。表3显示了对第一节(常识)，第二节(储蓄和借款)，第三节(保险)，第四节(投资)，并通过不同的分组整个调查正确反应的平均百分比。方差分析已经被用于检测是否来自不同子组的参与者有不同程度的知识。 4 大学生个人理财知识分析 与会的教育背景对他们的知识显著的影响。整个调查的结果清楚地表明，企业的专业是不是非经营性专业更有知识。平均来说，在商业专业回答的正确的调查问题60.72,;对非经营性专业，49.94,。商业巨头正确回答约8,至12,的问题比非专业的业务这种模式是贯穿各个部分执着。方差分析的测试结果表明，该差异在0.01的水平上显显著。 调查结果还表明，从不同的阶级队伍的参与者有不同的金融知识水平。一般来说，研究生知道比本科生多，大三，大四的学生比那些从下层更有见识。再次，在不同的行列之中素养水平的差异在0.01的水平上显显著。 表3显示了参与者的知识与他们的人口特征变化。从女性参加者(50.77,)正确答案的百分比是低于那些从男性参与者(57.40,)。其中包括整体效果各阶层这种模式仍然存在。 F统计的值表明这些差异是高度显著。来自不同种族背景的参与者有不同程度的金融知识。虽然不同的分数有统计学显著，没有任何一个亚群可以申请分数最高的整个四个部分。非洲裔美国参与者赚取得分最低遍及各个部分。外国学生也能挣得分比美国同行低。 在参加者的工作经验和年龄，参与者更按年计算工作经验比那些经验较少更有 29和40岁以上的年龄分组表现出比其他年龄组的更多知识。最知识。参与者23? 后，似乎参与者具有较高的个人收入正确比那些收入较低的回答更多的问题。本次调查有“60岁以上”年龄类别和收入类别“没有收入”。然而，参与者在这些类别的数量是非常小的。他们被重组进入“40以上”的相邻组和“在$ 10,000。”逻辑回归的结果示于表4如由高卡方值所建议的，型号具有高解释力。该模型的整体拟合的另一种广泛使用的措施是检查其正确分类的观察能力。对于整个样本的观察71.47,的正确分类有50.03,的几率分类相比。类似的模式可以在各个章节中找到。 除了该模型的整体拟合，主要为整个样本的系数是负的，并显著在0.01水平。与方差分析的结果是一致的，其结果表明，非经营性专业更可能是关于个人理财业务相比较少的专业知识渊博。对于CLASSRANK变量显著负系数表明，从低阶级队伍的参与者更有可能比那些从研究生班少博学。女性参与者更有可能成为比男性少知识渊博。与缺乏工作经验的参与者有被比那些更有经验少懂行的概率很高。那些具有六个或更多年的经验和那些没有经验以及小于2年的经验之间的差异是在分别的0.07和0.06的水平显著。 30岁以下的参加者更有可能与那些40岁以上相比要少内行。虽然AGE3系数仍然呈现负值，那些谁是他们的三，四十岁以上的老年人之间的差异有统计学insignificant.While种族，国籍和收入变量会影响在单向ANOVA知识水平，他们不再有任何在逻辑回归显著影响，其中所有的变量同时被用于解释的知识水平。 除了少数例外，从逻辑回归结果的各个部分是与整个样本的一致。例如，业务专业演出持续高于调查的每个部分非经营性专业更好。同样的，对于CLASSRANK， 5 大学生个人理财知识分析 性别和年龄各章节中的变量很多系数携带相同的标志，如图所示整个样本是显著。种族，国籍和收入的几个系数在个别路段显著。 结果，企业的专业是更有知识与以前的研究结果是一致的。这一发现并不令人惊讶，因为商业专业的课程要求给他们更多的机会，采取财政和有关的课程。参与者是谁在班级排名更高级的都在调查中获得了较高的分数。一种解释是，由住在大学的时间越长，学生自然会拿起更多的个人理财。我们的观点是，学生不只是通过花更多的时间在大学学习其他无关的学科赢得个人理财的知识。他们学会通过商业课程的主题，研讨会，或自己的错误。我们的观点是与本研究业务的专业是不是非经营性专业更有知识的发现是一致的。推理类似的线将适用于谁的原因是老年人或有更多工作经历的参与人在调查中高分。他们必须有事先接触到的个人财务。他们不识字多，只是因为他们年纪大了。 女性得分低于男性的发现与现有文献一致(Genasci，1995;史密斯和史密斯，1997;高铁，1993年;卢因，1995年，马丁内斯，1994;沃尔普，陈，与Pavlicko，1996年)。空间的限制不允许的，为什么女性比男性少知识的综合分析。然而，考虑到越来越多的妇女加入劳动大军的事实，他们预计比男性需要解决的不足在他们对个人理财的知识，活得更长。 V. 概括和总结 这项研究调查了来自全国多个高校的924名学生，为了检测大学生个人理财方面的知识;为了研究金融知识与之间参与者的特点，如学科、性别和经验的关系;为了研究金融知识不足的后果。 结果表明，大学生需要提高他们的个人财务知识。尽管调查中包括的问题是相当基础，对这个调查的整体平均正确答案是53,左右。每个地区的平均知识、储蓄和贷款、保险和投资没有一个是在65,以上。到目前为止，最弱的区域是投资，其中平均参与者回答问题的平均正确率为40,。金融知识水平较低在子组中发现。它们包括这些非经营性专业、在较低的阶级队伍、妇女、30岁以下的人和并没有什么工作经验。同时也发现，较少知识的参与者倾向于持有错误意见，并在一般知识、储蓄、借贷和投资等领域做出不正确的决定。虽然关于保险意见上他们的差别不大，但懂得更少知识的参与者更可能采取不正确行动。个人理财知识的预测能力证明了改善大学生的知识是非常重要的。如果没有足够的知识，他们更可能在现实世界中出错。 我们的结论是，大学生并不太懂得个人金融。这种能力的缺乏会限制他们做出明智的财务决策的能力。结合过去三十年进行的研究提供的证据，这项研究结果表明，我们的教育系统是一个缺少个人理财教育的系统。所缺乏的教育导致美国公众发现的严重金融文盲。文盲和代价高昂的后果使得个体担心其财政状况，使他们工 6 大学生个人理财知识分析 作场所得工作效率受到影响(CHARGE，1995年)。当个人无法管理自己的财政，它就会成为社会的一个问题。这一具有挑战性的问题需要解决。 7 An Analysis of Personal Financial Literacy Among College Students An Analysis of Personal Financial Literacy Among College Students Chen H, Volpe R P. An analysis of personal financial literacy among college students[J]. Financial Services Review, 1998, 7(2):107–128. This study surveys 924 college students to examine their personal financial literacy;the relationship between the literacy and students' characteristics;and impact of the literacy on students' opinions and decisions. Results show that participants answer about 53% of questions correctly. Non-business majors, women, students in the lower class ranks, under age 30,and with little work experience have lower levels of knowledge.Less knowledgeable students tend to hoM wrong opinions and make incorrect decisions.It is concluded that college students are not knowledgeable about personal finance. The low level of knowledge will limit their ability to make informed decisions. I. TRODUCTION The ability to manage personal finances has become increasingly important in today's world. People must plan for long-term investments for their retirement and children's education.They must also decide on short-term savings and borrowing for a vacation, a down payment for a house, a car loan, and other big-ticket items. Additionally, they must manage their own medical and life insurance needs. Unfortunately, studies have shown that Americans have inadequate knowledge of personal finances.They fail to make correct decisions because they have not received a sound personal finance education (HSR,1993;Hira,1993; O'Neill, 1993). This study has three purposes. First, it provides evidence of personal finance literacy among college students. Second, it examines why some college students are relatively more knowledgeable than others. The analysis may help us identify factors that determine the level of competency possessed by college students. The third purpose is to examine how a student's knowledge influences his/her opinions and decisions on personal financial issues. The paper is organized as follows. Section II reviews previous studies on financial literacy.Section III discusses methodology. Section IV presents results. Section V concludes the paper. II. LITERATURE REVIEW Most of the previous studies are conducted by practitioners in the financial service 1 An Analysis of Personal Financial Literacy Among College Students industry.They focus on money management and investment-related issues. This emphasis is consistent with findings of the Certified Financial Planners, indicating these issues are important areas of personal financial planning (NEFE, 1993-1996). The results of these studies show that the participants generally answered fewer than 60% of survey questions correctly. Prior studies of high school students consistently find that they are not receiving a good education in personal financial fundamentals and have poor knowledge (Bakken,1967; CFAJAMEX, 1991; HSR, 1993; Langrehr, 1979; NAEP, 1979). In a recent study of 1,509 high school seniors from 63 schools, Mandell (1997) reports an average correct score of 57% in the areas of income, money management, savings and investment, and spending.His conclusion is that students are leaving schools without the ability to make critical decisions affecting their lives. Do adults have a good command of personal finance and investments? Results of several studies suggest that they do not. Princeton Survey Research Associates (1997) surveys 1,770 households nationwide on their financial knowledge and find an average correct score of 42%. This result shows that household financial decision makers do not have a good grasp of basic finance concepts. In another study of 522 adult women, 56% are found not very knowledgeable about investing (Oppenheimer Funds/Girls Inc., 1997). Workers do not save adequately for retirement and make investment decisions that are too conservative. A KPMG (1995) survey of 1,183 employers finds employees contribute only about 5% of their income to 401K plans, although the typical plan allows a 14% contribution.The evidence indicates that employees are not maximizing their benefits. Additionally,the low savings rate and the low return from conservative investments may not provide enough income for a financially secure retirement. Employee Benefit Research Institute (1995) provides further evidence that most Americans do not save sufficient retirement funds and may have a false sense of financial confidence and security. The study surveys 1,000 current workers and retirees on financial knowledge issues. About 71% of all workers and 81% of retirees score 60% or less. The Institute of Certified Financial Planners (1993) surveys 123 Certified Financial Planner licensees and finds that financial illiteracy is a major problem when it comes to making individual financial decisions. Poor knowledge of investment fundamentals is the most common problem encountered by their clients. The results of two national surveys suggest that investors do not have a solid knowledge of investment issues. Princeton Survey Research Associates (1996) interviews 1,001 investors and finds that only 18% of them are financially literate. Vanguard 2 An Analysis of Personal Financial Literacy Among College Students Group/Money Magazine (1997) survey 1,467 mutual fund investors at 59 shopping malls across the country.The average correct score on a 20-question quiz is approximately 45%. Most published studies focus on financial literacy among high school students and adults. Few of them have examined college students except for Danes and Hira (1987) and Volpe, Chen, and Pavlicko (1996). Danes and Hira (1987) survey 323 college students from Iowa State University using a questionnaire covering knowledge of credit card, insurance,personal loans, record keeping, and overall financial management. They find that the participants have a low level of knowledge regarding overall money management, credit cards, and insurance. They also find that males know more about insurance and personal loans, but females know more about issues covered in the section of overall financial management knowledge. Married students generally are more knowledgeable about personal finance. Volpe, Chen, and Pavlicko (1996) focus on knowledge of investment. They survey 454 students from a state university in the Midwest and find that the average correct score of the participants is 44%, suggesting that they have inadequate knowledge. They also find that male students are more knowledgeable than female students, and business majors are more knowledgeable than non-business majors. While the prior research has provided evidence of people's personal finance knowledge and improved our understanding of the issue, it suffers from several weaknesses. For example, both studies on college students use samples from a single university. Many studies cover selected areas in personal finances, neglecting others. Furthermore, the validity of the survey instruments is questionable because of the limited number of items included in the questionnaires. These limitations are compounded by the fact that many prior studies only report the levels of financial literacy without analyzing the factors that influence people's knowledge. None of the previous studies have examined how an individual's knowledge impacts their opinions regarding personal finance issues and financial decision making. III. METHODOLOGY This study uses a comprehensive questionnaire designed to cover major aspects of personal finance. It includes financial literacy on general knowledge, savings and borrowing, insurance,and investments. The survey participants are asked to answer 52 questions including 36 multiple-choice questions of their knowledge on personal finance, eight questions of their opinions and decisions, and eight questions on demographic data. The survey is used in a pilot study to refine the instrument. The validity and clarity of the 3 An Analysis of Personal Financial Literacy Among College Students survey are further evaluated by two individuals who are knowledgeable in personal finance. The quality and consistency of the survey are further assessed using Cronbach's alpha. A copy of the questionnaire can be found in the Appendix. The responses from each participant are used to calculate the mean percentage of correct scores for each question, section, and the entire survey. Consistent with the existing literature (Danes & Hira, 1987; Volpe, Chen, & Pavlicko, 1996), the mean percentage of correct scores is grouped into (1) more than 80%, (2) 60% to 79%, and (3) below 60%. The first category represents a relatively high level of knowledge. The second category represents a medium level of knowledge. The third category represents a relatively low level of knowledge. Previous research suggests that levels of financial literacy vary among subgroups of students (Volpe, Chen, & Pavlicko, 1996). This study provides further evidence of the differences using analysis of variance (ANOVA). The differences are further analyzed using logistic regression models. The participants are classified into two subgroups using the median percentage of correct answers of the sample. Students with scores higher than the sample median are classified as those with relatively more knowledge. Students with scores equal to or below the median are classified as students with relatively less knowledge.This dichotomous variable is then used in the logistic regression as the dependent variable, which is explained simultaneously by all of the independent variables. The independent variables used in the logistic regression are variables such as academic discipline, class rank, gender, race, nationality, work experience, age, and income.The coefficients represent the effect of each subgroup compared with a reference group,which is arbitrarily selected. For example, MAJOR is coded as 1 if a participant is a non-business major, 0 otherwise. The reference category is a business major. If the logistic coefficient of the variable is negative, then it means that compared with business majors,the non-business majors are associated with decreased log odds ratio of being more knowledgeable about personal finance. To determine the impact of financial literacy possessed by the participants on their opinions, students are asked to rank personal finance issues using five categories: very important, somewhat important, not sure, somewhat unimportant, and very unimportant.They are also asked to make decisions on the related financial issues. As in the logistic regression analysis, the sample is partitioned into two groups of students with relatively more knowledge and those with relatively less knowledge. Since the issues are related to each section in the survey, the section median percentage of correct answers is 4 An Analysis of Personal Financial Literacy Among College Students used to classify the sample. Cross-tabulations and Chi-square tests are used to determine if the difference of the two groups' opinions and decisions are statistically significant. IV. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS The questionnaires are sent to 1,800 students from 14 college campuses. They include both public and private schools, main and branch campuses of large universities, and small community colleges in California, Florida, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.Nine hundred twenty-four students from 13 campuses participated in the survey, representing a response rate of 51.33 %. Detailed characteristics of the sample are presented in Table 1. In terms of education, about 52.6% of the participants are business majors. Thirty-six percent of the participants are seniors with the rest evenly distributed among freshman,sophomore, junior, and graduate students. In terms of demographic background, most of the participants are white and U.S. citizens. Female participants represent about 55.6% of the sample. Most participants have more than two years of work experience. About 75.7% of the students are from 18 to 29 years of age. Missing responses cause the sample size to vary from 792 to 905; therefore, various sample sizes have been used to calculate valid percentages in Table 1. A. Overall Results of the Survey The overall results are presented in Table 2. The mean percentage of correct scores is grouped into three categories: over 80, 60-79, and below 60. The highest score is presented first, which is followed by lower scores within each section. The overall mean percentage of correct scores is 52.87%, indicating on average the participants answered only about half of the survey questions correctly. The median percentage of correct scores is 55.56%.The reliability of the 36-question survey is 0.85. The large Cronbach alpha indicates that the questionnaire is reliable, which further increases its validity. The findings suggest that college students' knowledge on personal finance is inadequate. One reason for the low level of knowledge is the systematic lack of a sound personal finance education in college curricula. Most of the higher education institutions put little emphasis on students' personal finance education (Danes & Hira, 1987). Even business schools do not require students to take a Personal Finance Management course (Bialaszewski,Pencek, & Zietlow, 1993). According to a survey by Gitman and Bacon (1985), only 5% of business school offers an undergraduate major in finance services. Given the lack of personal finance education, it is not surprising the results show that college students have inadequate knowledge on personal finance. Another reason for the low level of knowledge can be attributed to the young ages 5 An Analysis of Personal Financial Literacy Among College Students of the participants. As shown in Table 1, about 44% of the participants are 18 to 22 years of age, and about 76% are under 30. The majority of them are in a very early stage of their financial life cycle. At this stage of the cycle, they are exposed to a limited number of financial issues related to general knowledge, savings and borrowing, and insurance. During this period, most of their incomes are spent on consumption rather than investment.These factors may explain the differences in the mean percentages of correct answers for the sections of General Knowledge (63.70%), Savings and Borrowing (54.47%), Insurance (59.24%), and Investment (40.37%). A further look into the scores on individual questions shows that students score higher on issues with which they are familiar. For example, the highest score is related to auto insurance. Students are familiar with the issue because many of them own cars and have to pay a higher auto insurance premium. Students also score relatively high on apartment leases. They know more about these issues because they need to rent apartments during their college years. In contrast, students have little experience with tax, term life insurance, and most of investment topics. Subsequently, they earn low scores in these areas. B. Analysis of Results by Subgroups of the Sample In this section, the relationship between personal financial literacy and participants' education, work experience, income and other demographic background are examined.Table 3 shows the mean percentage of correct responses for Section I (General Knowledge),Section II (Savings and Borrowing), Section III (Insurance), Section IV (Investment),and the entire survey by different subgroups. ANOVA has been used to detect if participants from various subgroups have different levels of knowledge. Participants' educational background has a significant impact on their knowledge. The results for the entire survey clearly show that business majors are more knowledgeable than non-business majors. On average, the business majors answered 60.72% of the survey questions correctly; the non-business majors, 49.94%. This pattern of business majors answering about 8% to 12% more questions correctly than non-business majors is persistent throughout the individual sections. The testing results of ANOVA indicate that the differences are statistically significant at the 0.01 level. The findings also suggest that participants from different class ranks have different levels of financial knowledge. Generally, graduate students know more than the undergraduate students, and junior and senior students are more knowledgeable than those from the lower ranks. Again, the differences in the level of literacy among different ranks are statistically significant at the 0.01 level. Table 3 shows participants' knowledge varies with their demographic 6 An Analysis of Personal Financial Literacy Among College Students characteristics.The percentages of correct answers from the female participants (50.77%) are lower than those from the male participants (57.40%). This pattern persists among all sections including the overall results. The values of F-statistic suggest that these differences are highly significant. Participants from dissimilar ethnic backgrounds have different levels of financial knowledge. Although the different scores are statistically significant, no single subgroup can claim the highest scores throughout the four sections. African-American participants earn the lowest scores throughout the various sections. Foreign students also earn lower scores than their American counterparts. In terms of participants' work experience and ages, participants with more years of work experience are more knowledgeable than those with less experience. Participants in the age subgroups of 23 to 29 and 40 or older exhibit greater knowledge than the other age groups. Finally, it seems that participants with higher personal income answered more questions correctly than those with lower income. The survey has an age category of "60 or older" and an income category of "No income." However, the number of participants in these categories are very small. They are regrouped into the adjacent groups of "40 and over" and "Under $10,000." Results of the logistic regression are shown in Table 4. As suggested by the high Chi-square values, the models have high explanatory power. Another widely used measure of the overall fit of the model is to examine its ability to correctly classify observations. For the entire sample, 71.47% of the observations are correctly classified as compared with 50.03% chance classification. Similar patterns can be found in the individual sections. In addition to the overall fit of the model, the coefficient of MAJOR for the entire sample is negative and significant at the 0.01 level. Consistent with findings of ANOVA, the result suggests that non-business majors are more likely to be less knowledgeable about personal finance than business majors. The significant negative coefficients for CLASSRANK variables indicate that participants from lower class ranks are more likely to be less knowledgeable than those from graduate classes. Women participants are more likely to be less knowledgeable than men. Participants with less work experience have high probability of being less knowledgeable than those with more experience. The differences between those with six or more years of experience and those with no experience and those with less than two years of experience are significant at the 0.07 and 0.06 levels respectively. Participants under age 30 are more likely to be less knowledgeable as compared with those 40 or older. Although the coefficient of AGE3 still exhibits a negative sign, the difference between those who are in their thirties and 7 An Analysis of Personal Financial Literacy Among College Students forties or older is statistically insignificant.While RACE, NATIONALITY, and INCOME variables affect level of knowledge in one way ANOVA, they no longer have any significant impact in the logistic regression where all the variables are used simultaneously to explain the level of knowledge. With few exceptions, the results from logistic regressions for the individual sections are consistent with that of the entire sample. For example, the business majors perform consistently better than the non-business majors in every section of the survey. Similarly,many coefficients for CLASSRANK, GENDER, and AGE variables in the individual sections carry the same signs and are significant as shown for the entire sample. Few coefficients of RACE, NATIONALITY, and INCOME are significant in the individual sections. The result that business majors are more knowledgeable is consistent with findings of previous research. The finding is not surprising because curriculum requirements of business majors give them more opportunity to take finance and related courses. Participants who are more senior in class rank have earned higher scores in the survey. One explanation is that by staying in universities longer, students will naturally pick up more about personal finance. Our argument is that students do not gain more knowledge of personal finance by just spending more time in college learning other unrelated subjects. They learn the subject through a business course, seminars, or their own mistakes. Our view is consistent with the finding of this study that business majors are more knowledgeable than non-business majors. A similar line of reasoning would apply to why the participants who are older or have more work experience earned high scores in the survey. They must have prior exposure to personal finance. They are not more literate just because they are older. The finding that women score lower than men is consistent with the existing literature(Genasci, 1995; Goldsmith & Goldsmith, 1997; HSR, 1993; Lewin, 1995; Martinez, 1994;Volpe, Chen, & Pavlicko, 1996; ). Space limitations do not allow a comprehensive analysis of why women are less knowledgeable than men. Yet given the fact that more and more women are joining the work force and they are expected to live longer than men, deficiency in their knowledge about personal finance needs to be addressed. V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION This study surveys 924 students from multiple universities across the country to examine college students' knowledge of personal finance; the relationship between the financial literacy and participants' characteristics such as academic discipline, gender, 8 An Analysis of Personal Financial Literacy Among College Students and experience;and the consequences of having inadequate knowledge. Results suggest that college students need to improve their knowledge of personal finance. Although the questions included in the survey are fairly basic, the overall mean of correct answers for the survey is about 53%. None of the mean scores for each area of general knowledge, savings and borrowing, insurance, and investments are above 65%. By far the weakest area is investment, where on average the participants answered about 40% of the questions correctly. Lower levels of financial literacy are found among subgroups.They include those who are non-business majors, in the lower class ranks, women, underage 30, and have little work experience. It is also found that participants with less knowledge tend to hold wrong opinions and make incorrect decisions in the areas of general knowledge, savings and borrowing and investments. While there is little difference in their opinions regarding insurance, the less knowledgeable participants are more likely to act incorrectly. The predictive ability of personal finance knowledge shows that improving college students' knowledge is important. Without adequate knowledge, they are more likely to make mistakes in the real world. Our conclusion is that college students are not knowledgeable about personal finance.The incompetency will limit their ability to make informed financial decisions. Together with evidence provided by the research conducted in the past three decades, the findings of this study suggest that there is a systematic lack of personal finance education in our education system. The lack of education has resulted in serious financial illiteracy found in the American public. The illiteracy and its costly consequences have made individuals worry about their finances to the extent that their productivity in workplaces is affected (CHRGI,1995). When individuals cannot manage their finances, it becomes a problem for the society.This challenging issue needs to be addressed. 9