SUNY Potsdam NSSE 2010 Major Field Report Part II. Comparisons to Other Institutions SOCIAL SCIENCES

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "SUNY Potsdam NSSE 2010 Major Field Report Part II. Comparisons to Other Institutions SOCIAL SCIENCES"

Transcription

1 Major Field Report Part II. Comparisons to Other Institutions SOCIAL SCIENCES Comparing your students majoring in SOCIAL SCIENCES fields to those in SOCIAL SCIENCES fields at your comparison groups Social Sciences includes the following major codes: 63 = Anthropology, 64 = Economics, 65 = Ethnic studies, 66 = Geography, 67 = Political science (includes govt., int. relations), 68 = Psychology, 69 = Social work, 70 = Sociology, 71 = Gender studies, and 72 = Other social science.

2 Major Field Report Part II. Comparisons to Other Institutions SOCIAL SCIENCES Frequency Distributions

3 Major Field Report: Part II. Comparisons to Other Institutions Interpreting the Frequency Distributions Sample This report is based on information from all randomly selected SOCIAL SCIENCES students (inlcuding those from census administrations) for both your institution and your comparison institutions. Targeted oversamples and other non-randomly selected students are not included. Variable Names Class Major The name of each variable appears in Frequency distributions are reported separately for first-year the first column for easy reference to students and seniors. Insitution-reported class levels are used. Of your raw data file. course, first-year student reports of major are likely to be unstable, and interpretations of first-year results should be made with caution. Variables The items from the NSSE survey appear in the left column in the same order and wording as they appear on the instrument. Benchmark Items that comprise the five "Benchmarks of Effective Educational Practice" are indicated by the following: LAC: Level of Academic Challenge ACL: Active and Collaborative Learning SFI: Student-Faculty Interaction EEE: Enriching Educational Experiences SCE: Supportive Campus Environment Response Options Response options listed just as they appear on the instrument. BETWEEN Institution Comparisons on Major Group NSSE data serve to identify institutional strengths and weaknesses in reference to selected comparison institutions, yet institution-level comparisons may not capture important variation in student engagement that can be found within key sub-populations such as major. This report displays the frequency distributions for the SOCIAL SCIENCES group at your institution and at your selected comparison institutions. Major classifications are based on recodes of the student-provided PRIMARY major (majrpcod). Major groups with fewer than five respondents in a given class are not reported. Comparison groups must contain at least three institutions with five or more respondents in the major group, or they are left blank. NSSEville NSSEville State State 1a. CLQUEST Never 0 0% 16 2% 77 2% 276 2% 0 0% 12 1% 52 1% 194 1% (ACL) Asked questions in class or contributed to class discussions Sometimes 2 8% % 1,267 28% 4,875 27% 3 10% % % 3,906 17% Often 10 38% % 1,686 37% 6,433 36% 8 28% % 1,826 31% 6,748 30% Very often 14 54% % 1,575 34% 6,374 35% 18 62% % 3,090 52% 11,787 52% Total % 1, % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 5, % 22, % 1b. Made a class presentation CLPRESEN Never 0 0% % % 1,779 10% 0 0% 73 5% 368 6% 999 4% (ACL) Sometimes 13 50% % 2,406 52% 9,542 53% 3 10% % 2,092 35% 8,512 38% Often 11 42% % 1,327 29% 4,979 28% 14 48% % 2,235 37% 8,483 37% Very often 2 8% 69 7% 409 9% 1,682 9% 12 41% % 1,307 22% 4,689 21% Total % 1, % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 22, % 1c. Prepared two or more REWROPAP Never 1 4% % % 2,430 14% 5 17% % % 3,875 17% drafts of Sometimes 15 58% % 1,449 32% 5,911 33% 13 45% % 2,115 35% 8,571 38% a paper or assignment Often 8 31% % 1,417 31% 5,537 31% 6 21% % 1,575 26% 5,742 25% before turning it in Very often 2 8% % 1,103 24% 4,041 23% 5 17% % 1,356 23% 4,484 20% Total % 1, % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 5, % 22, % Count Column Percentage (%) Weighting The Count column represents the The '%' column represents the All results displayed in this report are actual number of students who percentage of students unweighted. responded to the particular option in responding to the particular each question. option in each question.

4 Major Field Report: Part II. Comparisons to Other Institutions 1a. Asked questions in class or CLQUEST Never 0 0% 17 2% 103 3% 410 2% 2 4% 14 1% 108 2% 391 2% contributed to class (ACL) Sometimes 6 32% % 1,366 33% 5,574 32% 11 22% % 1,514 23% 5,462 22% discussions Often 6 32% % 1,415 34% 6,062 34% 20 39% % 1,994 30% 7,386 30% Very often 7 37% % 1,230 30% 5,617 32% 18 35% % 3,094 46% 11,577 47% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 1b. Made a class presentation CLPRESEN Never 2 11% 64 8% % 2,177 12% 3 6% 32 2% 418 6% 1,345 5% (ACL) Sometimes 10 53% % 2,171 53% 9,659 55% 13 25% % 2,323 34% 9,008 36% Often 3 16% % 1,071 26% 4,501 26% 23 45% % 2,566 38% 9,480 38% Very often 4 21% 59 8% 329 8% 1,307 7% 12 24% % 1,428 21% 5,040 20% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 1c. Prepared two or more drafts of REWROPAP Never 3 17% 90 12% % 2,264 13% 6 12% % % 3,973 16% a paper or assignment before Sometimes 3 17% % 1,201 29% 5,478 31% 19 37% % 2,430 36% 9,491 38% turning it in Often 5 28% % 1,384 34% 5,567 32% 17 33% % 1,876 28% 6,477 26% Very often 7 39% % 1,086 26% 4,303 24% 9 18% % 1,478 22% 4,860 20% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 1d. Worked on a paper or project INTEGRAT Never 0 0% 8 1% 63 2% 236 1% 1 2% 4 0% 42 1% 149 1% that required integrating ideas Sometimes 1 5% % % 2,722 15% 2 4% 98 7% 531 8% 1,957 8% or information from various Often 10 53% % 1,777 43% 7,497 42% 13 26% % 2,241 33% 8,031 32% sources Very often 8 42% % 1,597 39% 7,205 41% 34 68% % 3,929 58% 14,764 59% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 1e. DIVCLASS Never 0 0% 23 3% 184 4% 656 4% 2 4% 19 1% 167 2% 670 3% Included diverse perspectives (different races, religions, genders, political beliefs, etc.) in class discussions or writing assignments Sometimes 4 21% % 1,034 25% 4,461 25% 9 18% % 1,258 19% 4,997 20% Often 8 42% % 1,666 40% 7,074 40% 15 29% % 2,381 35% 8,795 35% Very often 7 37% % 1,233 30% 5,476 31% 25 49% % 2,926 43% 10,403 42% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 1f. Come to class without CLUNPREP Never 4 21% % 1,035 25% 4,127 23% 14 28% % 1,438 21% 4,689 19% completing readings or Sometimes 13 68% % 2,380 58% 10,376 59% 26 52% % 4,048 60% 14,879 60% assignments Often 0 0% 93 12% % 2,232 13% 8 16% % % 3,562 14% Very often 2 11% 36 5% 196 5% 931 5% 2 4% 88 7% 425 6% 1,795 7% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 1g. Worked with other students CLASSGRP Never 1 5% 83 11% % 2,388 14% 5 10% 95 7% % 2,991 12% on projects during class (ACL) Sometimes 11 58% % 1,807 44% 7,956 45% 23 45% % 2,926 43% 11,642 47% Often 5 26% % 1,335 32% 5,478 31% 17 33% % 2,107 31% 7,255 29% Very often 2 11% 78 10% % 1,862 11% 6 12% % % 3,026 12% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % - 4 -

5 Major Field Report: Part II. Comparisons to Other Institutions 1h. Worked with classmates OCCGRP Never 1 5% 91 12% % 2,354 13% 4 8% 91 7% % 2,330 9% outside of class to prepare (ACL) Sometimes 11 58% % 1,838 44% 7,738 44% 24 47% % 2,718 40% 10,119 41% class assignments Often 4 21% % 1,175 28% 5,539 31% 15 29% % 2,161 32% 8,418 34% Very often 3 16% 84 11% % 2,094 12% 8 16% % 1,076 16% 4,102 16% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 1i. Put together ideas or concepts INTIDEAS Never 0 0% 34 4% 229 6% 867 5% 2 4% 34 3% 209 3% 691 3% from different courses when Sometimes 6 32% % 1,425 35% 6,029 34% 11 22% % 1,681 25% 6,020 24% completing assignments or Often 7 37% % 1,674 41% 7,085 40% 20 39% % 2,805 42% 10,452 42% during class discussions Very often 6 32% % % 3,680 21% 18 35% % 2,011 30% 7,659 31% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 1j. Tutored or taught other TUTOR Never 11 58% % 2,375 58% 9,673 55% 24 47% % 3,589 53% 12,211 49% students (paid or voluntary) (ACL) Sometimes 3 16% % 1,244 30% 5,701 32% 15 29% % 2,119 31% 8,200 33% Often 4 21% 57 7% 345 8% 1,652 9% 6 12% 126 9% 610 9% 2,635 11% Very often 1 5% 21 3% 162 4% 684 4% 6 12% 77 6% 421 6% 1,856 7% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 1k. Participated in a communitybased COMMPROJ Never 10 53% % 2,392 58% 10,015 57% 28 56% % 3,197 48% 11,729 47% project (e.g. service (ACL) Sometimes 7 37% % 1,016 25% 4,614 26% 13 26% % 2,053 31% 7,904 32% learning) as part of a regular Often 2 11% 74 10% % 1,977 11% 7 14% % % 3,203 13% course Very often 0 0% 34 4% 231 6% 972 6% 2 4% 95 7% 564 8% 1,978 8% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 1l. ITACADEM Never 2 11% % % 2,802 16% 10 20% % % 3,006 12% Used an electronic medium (listserv, chat group, Internet, instant messaging, etc.) to discuss or complete an assignment (EEE) Sometimes 6 32% % 1,289 31% 5,412 31% 15 29% % 1,963 29% 7,462 30% Often 6 32% % 1,118 27% 4,898 28% 12 24% % 1,846 27% 6,720 27% Very often 5 26% % 1,027 25% 4,575 26% 14 27% % 2,107 31% 7,728 31% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 1m. Used to communicate Never 0 0% 4 1% 45 1% 145 1% 0 0% 5 0% 42 1% 88 0% with an instructor Sometimes 3 16% % % 2,796 16% 3 6% % % 2,423 10% Often 5 26% % 1,412 34% 6,099 35% 18 35% % 1,911 28% 7,075 28% Very often 11 58% % 1,913 46% 8,637 49% 30 59% % 4,043 60% 15,303 61% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 1n. Discussed grades or FACGRADE Never 0 0% 64 8% 297 7% 1,189 7% 2 4% 69 5% 280 4% 975 4% assignments with an instructor (SFI) Sometimes 7 37% % 1,594 39% 6,916 39% 17 33% % 2,236 33% 8,446 34% Often 7 37% % 1,386 34% 5,747 32% 12 24% % 2,280 34% 8,469 34% Very often 5 26% % % 3,841 22% 20 39% % 1,944 29% 7,007 28% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % - 5 -

6 Major Field Report: Part II. Comparisons to Other Institutions 1o. Talked about career plans FACPLANS Never 3 16% % % 3,684 21% 5 10% % 1,066 16% 3,527 14% with a faculty member or (SFI) Sometimes 11 58% % 1,805 44% 7,979 45% 16 32% % 2,561 38% 9,820 39% advisor Often 2 11% % % 3,956 22% 15 30% % 1,816 27% 6,658 27% Very often 3 16% 88 12% % 2,062 12% 14 28% % 1,285 19% 4,875 20% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 1p. Discussed ideas from your FACIDEAS Never 10 53% % 1,676 41% 6,695 38% 12 24% % 1,951 29% 6,565 26% readings or classes with (SFI) Sometimes 6 32% % 1,497 36% 6,906 39% 18 36% % 2,849 42% 10,743 43% faculty members outside of Often 2 11% % % 2,743 15% 11 22% % 1,216 18% 4,810 19% class Very often 1 5% 51 7% 327 8% 1,382 8% 9 18% % % 2,815 11% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 1q. Received prompt written or FACFEED Never 1 5% 44 6% 250 6% 918 5% 2 4% 36 3% 269 4% 845 3% oral feedback from faculty on (SFI) Sometimes 7 37% % 1,309 32% 5,601 32% 14 27% % 1,812 27% 6,742 27% your academic performance Often 9 47% % 1,747 42% 7,467 42% 21 41% % 3,010 45% 11,260 45% Very often 2 11% % % 3,707 21% 14 27% % 1,637 24% 6,057 24% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 1r. Worked harder than you WORKHARD Never 0 0% 40 5% 200 5% 1,077 6% 6 12% 67 5% 351 5% 1,432 6% thought you could to meet an (LAC) Sometimes 7 37% % 1,415 34% 5,998 34% 16 31% % 2,178 32% 8,405 34% instructor's standards or Often 9 47% % 1,691 41% 6,952 39% 18 35% % 2,701 40% 9,626 39% expectations Very often 3 16% % % 3,641 21% 11 22% % 1,499 22% 5,444 22% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 1s. FACOTHER Never 8 42% % 2,335 57% 9,561 54% 26 51% % 3,224 48% 10,913 44% Worked with faculty members on activities other than coursework (committees, orientation, student life activities, etc.) (SFI) Sometimes 4 21% % 1,122 27% 5,049 29% 13 25% % 1,960 29% 7,752 31% Often 5 26% 82 11% % 2,030 12% 8 16% % % 3,703 15% Very often 2 11% 45 6% 224 5% 983 6% 4 8% % 617 9% 2,495 10% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 1t. Discussed ideas from your OOCIDEAS Never 0 0% 31 4% 227 6% 757 4% 2 4% 34 3% 208 3% 656 3% readings or classes with others (ACL) Sometimes 4 21% % 1,197 29% 5,041 29% 13 25% % 1,656 25% 6,062 24% outside of class (students, Often 10 53% % 1,510 37% 6,467 37% 16 31% % 2,476 37% 9,320 37% family members, co-workers, Very often 5 26% % 1,193 29% 5,391 31% 20 39% % 2,395 36% 8,868 36% etc.) Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 1u. Had serious conversations DIVRSTUD Never 1 5% 88 12% % 2,175 12% 9 18% % % 2,386 10% with students of a different (EEE) Sometimes 6 32% % 1,298 31% 5,225 29% 12 24% % 2,097 31% 7,806 31% race or ethnicity than your Often 6 32% % 1,162 28% 4,952 28% 14 27% % 1,944 29% 7,051 28% own Very often 6 32% % 1,122 27% 5,370 30% 16 31% % 2,042 30% 7,696 31% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % - 6 -

7 Major Field Report: Part II. Comparisons to Other Institutions 1v. Had serious conversations DIFFSTU2 Never 0 0% 67 9% % 1,511 9% 4 8% 87 7% 534 8% 1,737 7% with students who are very (EEE) Sometimes 3 16% % 1,245 30% 4,976 28% 16 31% % 2,054 30% 7,456 30% different from you in terms of Often 9 47% % 1,182 29% 5,226 30% 13 25% % 2,074 31% 7,705 31% their religious beliefs, political Very often 7 37% % 1,301 31% 5,999 34% 18 35% % 2,080 31% 8,043 32% opinions, or personal values Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 2a. Coursework emphasizes: MEMORIZE Very little 0 0% 37 5% 204 5% 940 5% 3 6% 86 6% 518 8% 2,069 8% Memorizing facts, ideas, or Some 3 16% % % 4,410 25% 17 33% % 2,009 30% 7,540 30% methods from your courses Quite a bit 7 37% % 1,777 43% 7,257 41% 14 27% % 2,563 38% 9,303 37% and readings Very much 9 47% % 1,182 29% 5,114 29% 17 33% % 1,668 25% 6,049 24% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 2b. Coursework emphasizes: ANALYZE Very little 0 0% 8 1% 83 2% 300 2% 0 0% 11 1% 81 1% 250 1% Analyzing the basic elements (LAC) Some 3 16% % % 2,507 14% 8 16% % % 2,559 10% of an idea, experience, or Quite a bit 9 47% % 1,784 43% 7,293 41% 14 27% % 2,673 40% 9,759 39% theory Very much 7 37% % 1,556 38% 7,548 43% 29 57% % 3,180 47% 12,309 49% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 2c. Coursework emphasizes: SYNTHESZ Very little 0 0% 25 3% 150 4% 574 3% 2 4% 31 2% 239 4% 696 3% Synthesizing and organizing (LAC) Some 4 21% % 1,103 27% 4,096 23% 14 27% % 1,305 19% 4,370 18% ideas, information, or Quite a bit 8 42% % 1,687 41% 7,323 42% 15 29% % 2,661 40% 9,885 40% experiences Very much 7 37% % 1,171 28% 5,638 32% 20 39% % 2,527 38% 9,918 40% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 2d. EVALUATE Very little 1 5% 38 5% 182 4% 695 4% 1 2% 38 3% 236 4% 803 3% Coursework emphasizes: Making judgments about the value of information, arguments, or methods (LAC) Some 2 11% % % 3,891 22% 11 22% % 1,290 19% 4,501 18% Quite a bit 8 42% % 1,744 42% 7,307 41% 16 31% % 2,637 39% 9,958 40% Very much 8 42% % 1,283 31% 5,773 33% 23 45% % 2,567 38% 9,638 39% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 2e. Coursework emphasizes: APPLYING Very little 0 0% 26 3% 155 4% 562 3% 0 0% 22 2% 177 3% 639 3% Applying theories or concepts (LAC) Some 1 5% % % 3,561 20% 6 12% % 1,006 15% 3,688 15% to practical problems or in Quite a bit 9 47% % 1,617 39% 6,952 39% 16 31% % 2,383 35% 8,926 36% new situations Very much 9 47% % 1,471 36% 6,632 37% 29 57% % 3,191 47% 11,698 47% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 3a. Number of assigned READASGN None 0 0% 4 1% 31 1% 123 1% 0 0% 16 1% 69 1% 220 1% textbooks, books, or booklength (LAC) % % % 2,343 13% 4 8% % 1,438 21% 4,197 17% packs of course % % 1,655 40% 6,460 36% 20 39% % 2,474 37% 8,775 35% readings % % 1,137 27% 5,620 32% 19 37% % 1,642 24% 6,893 28% More than % % % 3,181 18% 8 16% % 1,133 17% 4,888 20% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % - 7 -

8 Major Field Report: Part II. Comparisons to Other Institutions 3b. Number of books read on READOWN None 4 21% % % 3,826 22% 10 20% % 1,235 18% 4,475 18% your own (not assigned) for % % 2,228 54% 9,770 55% 26 51% % 3,604 53% 13,646 55% personal enjoyment or % % % 2,648 15% 8 16% % 1,151 17% 4,287 17% academic enrichment % 32 4% 239 6% 843 5% 3 6% 66 5% 404 6% 1,368 5% More than % 26 3% 154 4% 627 4% 4 8% 69 5% 359 5% 1,198 5% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 3c. Number of written papers or WRITEMOR None 17 89% % 3,351 81% 14,362 81% 23 45% % 3,161 47% 10,594 42% reports of 20 pages or more (LAC) % 91 12% % 2,292 13% 24 47% % 2,850 42% 11,780 47% % 35 5% 127 3% 575 3% 3 6% 97 7% 447 7% 1,652 7% % 10 1% 72 2% 271 2% 0 0% 23 2% 158 2% 482 2% More than % 15 2% 45 1% 198 1% 1 2% 27 2% 122 2% 423 2% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 3d. Number of written papers or WRITEMID None 2 11% 78 10% % 1,672 9% 1 2% 52 4% 364 5% 1,085 4% reports between 5 and 19 (LAC) % % 2,130 52% 8,814 50% 13 25% % 2,673 40% 8,909 36% pages % % 1,110 27% 5,387 30% 30 59% % 2,408 36% 9,660 39% % 54 7% 312 8% 1,523 9% 5 10% % % 3,902 16% More than % 9 1% 58 1% 296 2% 2 4% 69 5% 370 5% 1,391 6% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 3e. Number of written papers or WRITESML None 0 0% 17 2% 104 3% 359 2% 1 2% 78 6% 448 7% 1,373 5% reports of fewer than 5 pages (LAC) % % 1,217 29% 4,759 27% 15 29% % 2,316 34% 7,626 31% % % 1,456 35% 6,270 35% 16 31% % 1,880 28% 7,321 29% % % % 4,106 23% 9 18% % 1,186 18% 4,737 19% More than % 92 12% % 2,259 13% 10 20% % % 3,910 16% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 4a. Number of problem sets that PROBSETA None 1 5% % % 2,777 16% 14 27% % 1,511 22% 6,416 26% take you more than an hour to % % 1,464 35% 6,145 35% 15 29% % 2,199 33% 7,845 32% complete % % 1,342 32% 5,555 31% 14 27% % 1,886 28% 6,542 26% % 75 10% % 1,820 10% 3 6% 104 8% 604 9% 2,152 9% More than 6 0 0% 38 5% 297 7% 1,406 8% 5 10% 88 7% 520 8% 1,908 8% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 4b. Number of problem sets that PROBSETB None 2 11% % % 2,648 15% 15 29% % 1,881 28% 7,853 32% take you less than an hour to % % 1,405 34% 6,129 35% 13 25% % 2,454 37% 8,585 35% complete % % 1,137 27% 4,635 26% 14 27% % 1,374 20% 4,878 20% % 76 10% % 2,089 12% 5 10% 93 7% 526 8% 1,786 7% More than 6 0 0% 85 11% % 2,208 12% 4 8% 89 7% 486 7% 1,748 7% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % - 8 -

9 Major Field Report: Part II. Comparisons to Other Institutions 5. Select the circle that best EXAMS 1 Very little 0 0% 4 1% 24 1% 85 0% 0 0% 13 1% 72 1% 209 1% represents the extent to which 2 0 0% 5 1% 35 1% 183 1% 0 0% 24 2% 115 2% 385 2% your examinations during the % 28 4% 169 4% 588 3% 3 6% 46 3% 250 4% 884 4% current school year challenged 4 1 5% % % 1,967 11% 5 10% % % 2,639 11% you to do your best work % % 1,340 32% 5,564 31% 17 34% % 1,963 29% 7,474 30% % % 1,345 32% 6,338 36% 14 28% % 2,263 33% 8,773 35% 7 Very much 2 11% % % 3,053 17% 11 22% % 1,359 20% 4,635 19% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 6a. Attended an art exhibit, play, ATDART07 Never 4 21% % % 3,374 19% 13 25% % 2,047 30% 6,252 25% dance, music, theater, or other Sometimes 5 26% % 1,963 48% 8,242 47% 23 45% % 3,195 48% 12,047 48% performance Often 4 21% % % 4,045 23% 7 14% % 1,033 15% 4,465 18% Very often 6 32% 85 11% % 1,989 11% 8 16% 88 7% 448 7% 2,160 9% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 6b. Exercised or participated in EXRCSE05 Never 2 11% 94 12% % 1,947 11% 4 8% % 1,120 17% 3,190 13% physical fitness activities Sometimes 5 26% % 1,190 29% 4,911 28% 16 32% % 2,256 33% 7,991 32% Often 5 26% % 1,094 26% 4,618 26% 14 28% % 1,586 23% 6,026 24% Very often 7 37% % 1,275 31% 6,220 35% 16 32% % 1,788 26% 7,706 31% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 6c. Participated in activities to WORSHP05 Never 13 68% % 1,850 45% 7,202 41% 37 73% % 2,710 40% 9,708 39% enhance your spirituality Sometimes 3 16% % 1,059 26% 4,736 27% 8 16% % 1,891 28% 6,860 28% (worship, meditation, prayer, Often 2 11% 74 10% % 2,561 14% 1 2% % % 3,492 14% etc.) Very often 1 5% 83 11% % 3,190 18% 5 10% % 1,185 18% 4,853 19% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 6d. Examined the strengths and OWNVIEW Never 1 6% 66 9% 350 8% 1,202 7% 3 6% 96 7% 397 6% 1,263 5% weaknesses of your own views Sometimes 5 28% % 1,371 33% 5,562 31% 21 41% % 1,881 28% 7,044 28% on a topic or issue Often 10 56% % 1,438 35% 6,545 37% 14 27% % 2,555 38% 9,520 38% Very often 2 11% % % 4,353 25% 13 25% % 1,901 28% 7,071 28% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 6e. OTHRVIEW Never 0 0% 33 4% 151 4% 584 3% 1 2% 33 2% 190 3% 629 3% Tried to better understand someone else's views by imagining how an issue looks from his or her perspective Sometimes 3 17% % 1,091 26% 4,396 25% 9 18% % 1,488 22% 5,554 22% Often 8 44% % 1,613 39% 7,065 40% 23 45% % 2,649 39% 9,884 40% Very often 7 39% % 1,277 31% 5,672 32% 18 35% % 2,415 36% 8,849 36% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 6f. Learned something that CHNGVIEW Never 0 0% 19 2% 110 3% 434 2% 0 0% 23 2% 150 2% 477 2% changed the way you Sometimes 5 26% % 1,061 26% 4,283 24% 11 22% % 1,558 23% 5,777 23% understand an issue or Often 7 37% % 1,658 40% 7,086 40% 19 37% % 2,690 40% 9,997 40% concept Very often 7 37% % 1,314 32% 5,935 33% 21 41% % 2,360 35% 8,733 35% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % - 9 -

10 Major Field Report: Part II. Comparisons to Other Institutions 7a. Practicum, internship, field INTERN04 Have not decided 2 11% 87 11% % 1,956 11% 6 12% 103 8% % 2,256 9% experience, co-op experience, (EEE) Do not plan to do 0 0% 18 2% 133 3% 478 3% 10 20% % 1,079 16% 3,965 16% or clinical assignment Plan to do 14 78% % 3,271 79% 14,260 80% 9 18% % 1,956 29% 5,797 23% Done 2 11% 41 5% 221 5% 1,028 6% 26 51% % 2,953 44% 12,941 52% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 7b. Community service or VOLNTR04 Have not decided 0 0% 79 10% % 1,512 9% 3 6% 109 8% 612 9% 1,781 7% volunteer work (EEE) Do not plan to do 0 0% 26 3% 151 4% 623 4% 10 20% % % 2,526 10% Plan to do 13 68% % 1,841 45% 7,403 42% 7 14% % 1,231 18% 3,559 14% Done 6 32% % 1,694 41% 8,115 46% 30 60% % 4,165 62% 16,971 68% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 7c. Participate in a learning LRNCOM04 Have not decided 3 17% % 1,327 32% 5,752 33% 4 8% % 1,143 17% 3,548 14% community or some other (EEE) Do not plan to do 5 28% % % 4,090 23% 18 36% % 3,080 46% 12,777 51% formal program where groups Plan to do 3 17% % 1,272 31% 4,800 27% 1 2% 121 9% % 1,982 8% of students take two or more Done 7 39% % % 2,971 17% 27 54% % 1,775 26% 6,515 26% classes together Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 7d. Work on a research project RESRCH04 Have not decided 7 37% % 1,554 38% 6,567 37% 9 18% % 1,360 20% 4,093 16% with a faculty member outside (SFI) Do not plan to do 1 5% % % 3,041 17% 21 41% % 2,953 44% 11,215 45% of course or program Plan to do 10 53% % 1,590 38% 7,297 41% 5 10% % 1,130 17% 3,518 14% requirements Done 1 5% 30 4% 194 5% 786 4% 16 31% % 1,303 19% 6,096 24% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 7e. Foreign language coursework FORLNG04 Have not decided 2 11% % % 2,320 13% 2 4% 112 8% 638 9% 1,692 7% (EEE) Do not plan to do 3 17% % % 2,863 16% 15 29% % 2,522 37% 7,189 29% Plan to do 7 39% % 1,647 40% 6,561 37% 2 4% 80 6% % 1,809 7% Done 6 33% % % 5,973 34% 32 63% % 2,953 44% 14,291 57% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 7f. Study abroad STDABR04 Have not decided 7 37% % 1,141 28% 4,135 23% 8 16% % 1,002 15% 2,981 12% (EEE) Do not plan to do 6 32% % % 3,064 17% 32 63% % 4,134 61% 14,118 57% Plan to do 6 32% % 1,914 46% 9,997 57% 4 8% 100 7% % 2,194 9% Done 0 0% 13 2% 108 3% 452 3% 7 14% % % 5,541 22% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 7g. Independent study or selfdesigned INDSTD04 Have not decided 8 42% % 1,466 36% 6,245 35% 8 16% % 1,060 16% 3,056 12% major (EEE) Do not plan to do 7 37% % 1,725 42% 7,534 43% 30 59% % 3,880 58% 14,616 59% Plan to do 4 21% % % 3,291 19% 2 4% 104 8% % 1,964 8% Done 0 0% 25 3% 141 3% 531 3% 11 22% % 1,113 17% 5,186 21% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, %

11 Major Field Report: Part II. Comparisons to Other Institutions 7h. Culminating senior SNRX04 Have not decided 7 37% % 1,436 35% 5,909 33% 8 16% % % 2,432 10% experience (capstone course, (EEE) Do not plan to do 0 0% 47 6% 328 8% 1,234 7% 10 20% % 1,313 19% 5,810 23% senior project or thesis, Plan to do 12 63% % 2,296 55% 10,257 58% 9 18% % 2,162 32% 6,819 27% comprehensive exam, etc.) Done 0 0% 16 2% 80 2% 318 2% 24 47% % 2,452 36% 9,891 40% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 8a. Quality of relationships with ENVSTU other students (SCE) 8b. Quality of relationships with ENVFAC faculty members (SCE) 8c. Quality of relationships with ENVADM administrative personnel (SCE) and offices 1 Unfriendly, Unsupportive, Sense of alienation 0 0% 12 2% 64 2% 226 1% 0 0% 12 1% 76 1% 241 1% 2 0 0% 30 4% 137 3% 491 3% 0 0% 28 2% 150 2% 580 2% 3 1 5% 35 5% 245 6% 1,009 6% 2 4% 64 5% 333 5% 1,155 5% 4 1 5% % % 2,116 12% 4 8% % % 2,815 11% % % % 3,751 21% 13 25% % 1,508 22% 5,414 22% % % 1,232 30% 5,427 31% 17 33% % 2,134 32% 7,928 32% 7 Friendly, Supportive, Sense of belonging 8 42% % 1,039 25% 4,738 27% 15 29% % 1,751 26% 6,857 27% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 1 Unavailable, Unhelpful, Unsympathetic 0 0% 5 1% 30 1% 118 1% 0 0% 10 1% 55 1% 203 1% 2 1 5% 14 2% 91 2% 323 2% 0 0% 19 1% 127 2% 434 2% 3 1 5% 48 6% 222 5% 879 5% 2 4% 59 4% 286 4% 1,059 4% 4 1 5% % % 2,622 15% 1 2% % % 2,795 11% % % 1,098 26% 4,699 26% 11 22% % 1,467 22% 5,605 22% % % 1,234 30% 5,555 31% 19 37% % 2,241 33% 8,399 34% 7 Available, Helpful, Sympathetic 4 21% % % 3,559 20% 18 35% % 1,776 26% 6,480 26% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 1 Unhelpful, Inconsiderate, Rigid 1 5% 27 4% 124 3% 454 3% 2 4% 87 6% 332 5% 1,223 5% 2 1 5% 53 7% 241 6% 954 5% 6 12% 106 8% 476 7% 1,974 8% 3 1 5% 72 9% % 1,695 10% 6 12% % % 2,831 11% 4 1 5% % % 3,937 22% 6 12% % 1,435 21% 5,127 21% % % % 4,258 24% 13 25% % 1,482 22% 5,577 22% % % % 3,820 22% 12 24% % 1,339 20% 4,842 19% 7 Helpful, Considerate, 4 21% 96 13% % 2,633 15% 6 12% % % 3,429 14% Flexible Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 25, %

12 Major Field Report: Part II. Comparisons to Other Institutions 9a. Preparing for class (studying, ACADPR01 0 hr/wk 0 0% 0 0% 14 0% 60 0% 0 0% 1 0% 24 0% 68 0% reading, writing, doing (LAC) 1-5 hr/wk 3 16% % % 2,236 13% 8 16% % 1,224 18% 3,825 15% homework or lab work, 6-10 hr/wk 4 21% % 1,094 26% 4,259 24% 14 27% % 1,845 27% 6,274 25% analyzing data, rehearsing, hr/wk 7 37% % % 3,965 22% 10 20% % 1,441 21% 5,375 22% and other academic activities) hr/wk 4 21% % % 3,405 19% 9 18% % 1,052 16% 4,267 17% hr/wk 0 0% 64 8% 354 9% 2,034 11% 2 4% 106 8% 576 9% 2,504 10% hr/wk 1 5% 35 5% 199 5% 1,042 6% 1 2% 55 4% 275 4% 1,396 6% 30+ hr/wk 0 0% 17 2% 111 3% 720 4% 7 14% 49 4% 310 5% 1,252 5% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 9b. Working for pay on campus WORKON01 0 hr/wk 16 84% % 3,305 80% 13,546 76% 31 62% 1,004 75% 5,233 78% 17,112 69% 1-5 hr/wk 2 11% 26 3% 139 3% 843 5% 6 12% 62 5% 193 3% 1,160 5% 6-10 hr/wk 1 5% 58 8% 289 7% 1,654 9% 9 18% 114 8% 404 6% 2,353 9% hr/wk 0 0% 24 3% 195 5% 919 5% 0 0% 71 5% 343 5% 1,762 7% hr/wk 0 0% 27 4% 160 4% 505 3% 2 4% 56 4% 340 5% 1,516 6% hr/wk 0 0% 2 0% 17 0% 121 1% 2 4% 13 1% 104 2% 476 2% hr/wk 0 0% 0 0% 7 0% 42 0% 0 0% 14 1% 35 1% 190 1% 30+ hr/wk 0 0% 3 0% 21 1% 81 0% 0 0% 8 1% 81 1% 351 1% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 9c. Working for pay off campus WORKOF01 0 hr/wk 16 84% % 2,620 63% 12,914 73% 35 69% % 2,549 38% 11,955 48% 1-5 hr/wk 0 0% 37 5% 193 5% 750 4% 1 2% 49 4% 279 4% 1,204 5% 6-10 hr/wk 1 5% 45 6% 221 5% 746 4% 1 2% 75 6% 381 6% 1,521 6% hr/wk 0 0% 35 5% 215 5% 753 4% 2 4% 98 7% 423 6% 1,606 6% hr/wk 0 0% 40 5% 293 7% 859 5% 2 4% % % 2,085 8% hr/wk 0 0% 34 4% 199 5% 577 3% 4 8% 121 9% 566 8% 1,648 7% hr/wk 0 0% 14 2% 128 3% 353 2% 3 6% 81 6% 399 6% 1,218 5% 30+ hr/wk 2 11% 19 2% 265 6% 747 4% 3 6% % 1,473 22% 3,718 15% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 9d. Participating in co-curricular COCURR01 0 hr/wk 8 42% % 1,838 44% 6,121 35% 24 47% % 3,554 53% 10,626 43% activities (organizations, (EEE) 1-5 hr/wk 3 16% % 1,221 29% 5,682 32% 18 35% % 1,704 25% 7,036 28% campus publications, student 6-10 hr/wk 4 21% % % 2,743 15% 4 8% % 630 9% 3,233 13% government, fraternity or hr/wk 0 0% 56 7% 260 6% 1,417 8% 3 6% 79 6% 324 5% 1,613 6% sorority, intercollegiate or hr/wk 0 0% 30 4% 150 4% 867 5% 0 0% 57 4% 222 3% 1,086 4% intramural sports, etc.) hr/wk 3 16% 13 2% 71 2% 414 2% 1 2% 31 2% 129 2% 536 2% hr/wk 0 0% 6 1% 46 1% 201 1% 0 0% 22 2% 63 1% 294 1% 30+ hr/wk 1 5% 19 2% 58 1% 291 2% 1 2% 27 2% 129 2% 547 2% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, %

13 Major Field Report: Part II. Comparisons to Other Institutions 9e. Relaxing and socializing SOCIAL05 0 hr/wk 0 0% 6 1% 49 1% 180 1% 0 0% 16 1% 89 1% 261 1% (watching TV, partying, etc.) 1-5 hr/wk 5 26% % % 3,920 22% 12 24% % 1,958 29% 6,459 26% 6-10 hr/wk 6 32% % 1,168 28% 5,057 29% 11 22% % 2,104 31% 7,586 30% hr/wk 4 21% % % 3,754 21% 13 25% % 1,255 19% 5,016 20% hr/wk 2 11% 99 13% % 2,370 13% 4 8% % % 2,905 12% hr/wk 0 0% 60 8% 229 6% 1,082 6% 4 8% 71 5% 284 4% 1,224 5% hr/wk 0 0% 22 3% 110 3% 489 3% 3 6% 34 3% 130 2% 560 2% 30+ hr/wk 2 11% 49 6% 227 5% 863 5% 4 8% 70 5% 224 3% 935 4% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 9f. Providing care for dependents CAREDE01 0 hr/wk 17 89% % 2,674 65% 13,265 75% 36 71% % 3,496 52% 15,690 63% living with you (parents, 1-5 hr/wk 1 5% 85 11% % 1,924 11% 4 8% % % 2,861 11% children, spouse, etc.) 6-10 hr/wk 1 5% 57 7% 296 7% 843 5% 2 4% 101 8% 506 8% 1,503 6% hr/wk 0 0% 19 2% 142 3% 460 3% 0 0% 43 3% 295 4% 816 3% hr/wk 0 0% 19 2% 97 2% 289 2% 4 8% 35 3% 233 3% 662 3% hr/wk 0 0% 10 1% 54 1% 156 1% 0 0% 20 1% 151 2% 381 2% hr/wk 0 0% 4 1% 32 1% 85 0% 1 2% 18 1% 113 2% 295 1% 30+ hr/wk 0 0% 15 2% 233 6% 656 4% 4 8% 122 9% 1,019 15% 2,715 11% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 9g. Commuting to class (driving, COMMUTE 0 hr/wk 1 5% % % 3,386 19% 9 18% 125 9% % 3,044 12% walking, etc.) 1-5 hr/wk 15 79% % 2,433 59% 10,851 61% 27 53% % 3,931 58% 15,756 63% 6-10 hr/wk 2 11% 89 12% % 2,130 12% 10 20% % 1,401 21% 4,066 16% hr/wk 0 0% 34 4% 230 6% 686 4% 4 8% 79 6% 398 6% 1,160 5% hr/wk 1 5% 13 2% 87 2% 307 2% 0 0% 23 2% 147 2% 415 2% hr/wk 0 0% 4 1% 40 1% 139 1% 0 0% 16 1% 65 1% 176 1% hr/wk 0 0% 3 0% 15 0% 65 0% 1 2% 11 1% 41 1% 101 0% 30+ hr/wk 0 0% 10 1% 56 1% 161 1% 0 0% 24 2% 96 1% 271 1% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 10a. Spending significant amounts ENVSCHOL Very little 0 0% 8 1% 83 2% 302 2% 0 0% 23 2% 169 3% 530 2% of time studying and on (LAC) Some 4 21% % % 2,612 15% 8 16% % 1,242 18% 4,167 17% academic work Quite a bit 9 47% % 1,946 47% 8,111 46% 22 43% % 3,089 46% 11,242 45% Very much 6 32% % 1,419 34% 6,687 38% 21 41% % 2,238 33% 8,986 36% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 10b. ENVSUPRT Very little 0 0% 19 2% 118 3% 404 2% 1 2% 57 4% 308 5% 1,039 4% Providing the support you need to help you succeed academically (SCE) Some 3 16% % % 2,870 16% 7 14% % 1,529 23% 5,238 21% Quite a bit 6 32% % 1,770 43% 7,508 43% 26 51% % 2,830 42% 10,513 42% Very much 10 53% % 1,496 36% 6,842 39% 17 33% % 2,039 30% 8,049 32% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, %

14 Major Field Report: Part II. Comparisons to Other Institutions 10c. Encouraging contact among ENVDIVRS Very little 2 11% 91 12% % 1,934 11% 5 10% % 1,029 15% 3,794 15% students from different (EEE) Some 4 21% % 1,113 27% 4,674 27% 16 31% % 1,992 30% 7,668 31% economic, social, and racial or Quite a bit 4 21% % 1,353 33% 5,820 33% 15 29% % 2,069 31% 7,544 30% ethnic backgrounds Very much 9 47% % 1,134 28% 5,193 29% 15 29% % 1,634 24% 5,852 24% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 10d. Helping you cope with your ENVNACAD Very little 5 26% % % 3,772 21% 13 26% % 2,380 35% 8,207 33% non-academic responsibilities (SCE) Some 4 21% % 1,428 35% 6,546 37% 16 32% % 2,308 34% 9,175 37% (work, family, etc.) Quite a bit 4 21% % 1,066 26% 4,714 27% 13 26% % 1,313 20% 4,958 20% Very much 6 32% 97 13% % 2,640 15% 8 16% 125 9% % 2,540 10% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 10e. Providing the support you ENVSOCAL Very little 3 17% % % 2,481 14% 8 16% % 1,582 24% 5,291 21% need to thrive socially (SCE) Some 4 22% % 1,350 33% 5,781 33% 18 35% % 2,439 36% 9,206 37% Quite a bit 3 17% % 1,334 33% 5,929 34% 18 35% % 1,792 27% 6,987 28% Very much 8 44% % % 3,415 19% 7 14% % % 3,287 13% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 10f. Attending campus events and ENVEVENT Very little 0 0% 61 8% % 1,225 7% 4 8% % % 2,611 11% activities (special speakers, Some 2 11% % % 3,654 21% 10 20% % 1,992 30% 6,599 27% cultural performances, athletic Quite a bit 8 42% % 1,498 36% 6,706 38% 17 33% % 2,318 35% 9,278 37% events, etc.) Very much 9 47% % 1,268 31% 6,085 34% 20 39% % 1,425 21% 6,348 26% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 10g. ENVCOMPT Very little 0 0% 16 2% 103 2% 425 2% 0 0% 33 2% 140 2% 488 2% Using computers in academic work Some 3 16% % % 2,321 13% 2 4% % % 2,585 10% Quite a bit 7 37% % 1,391 34% 5,863 33% 18 35% % 1,952 29% 7,339 29% Very much 9 47% % 2,116 51% 9,079 51% 31 61% % 3,905 58% 14,480 58% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 11a. Acquiring a broad general GNGENLED Very little 1 5% 12 2% 104 3% 333 2% 0 0% 20 2% 176 3% 488 2% education Some 1 5% % % 2,064 12% 2 4% % % 2,505 10% Quite a bit 6 32% % 1,666 41% 7,066 40% 20 40% % 2,418 36% 8,490 34% Very much 11 58% % 1,797 44% 8,162 46% 28 56% % 3,297 49% 13,320 54% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 11b. Acquiring job or work-related GNWORK Very little 2 11% 74 10% % 1,592 9% 3 6% 95 7% 538 8% 1,985 8% knowledge and skills Some 7 37% % 1,130 28% 5,029 29% 11 22% % 1,559 23% 6,352 26% Quite a bit 4 21% % 1,492 36% 6,392 36% 23 46% % 2,347 35% 8,533 34% Very much 6 32% % 1,073 26% 4,619 26% 13 26% % 2,272 34% 7,959 32% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, %

15 Major Field Report: Part II. Comparisons to Other Institutions 11c. Writing clearly and GNWRITE Very little 0 0% 23 3% 124 3% 561 3% 2 4% 33 2% 202 3% 676 3% effectively Some 1 5% % % 3,060 17% 9 18% % 1,003 15% 3,489 14% Quite a bit 10 53% % 1,679 41% 6,976 40% 16 32% % 2,493 37% 9,049 36% Very much 8 42% % 1,620 39% 7,032 40% 23 46% % 3,026 45% 11,645 47% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 11d. Speaking clearly and GNSPEAK Very little 0 0% 45 6% 241 6% 1,231 7% 1 2% 51 4% 340 5% 1,258 5% effectively Some 3 16% % % 4,275 24% 7 14% % 1,351 20% 5,124 21% Quite a bit 9 47% % 1,570 38% 6,568 37% 19 38% % 2,506 37% 9,159 37% Very much 7 37% % 1,348 33% 5,509 31% 23 46% % 2,499 37% 9,247 37% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 11e. Thinking critically and GNANALY Very little 0 0% 10 1% 74 2% 294 2% 0 0% 14 1% 114 2% 368 1% analytically Some 1 6% % % 2,029 12% 5 10% % % 2,172 9% Quite a bit 7 39% % 1,616 39% 6,644 38% 16 32% % 2,288 34% 8,062 33% Very much 10 56% % 1,904 46% 8,627 49% 29 58% % 3,636 54% 14,198 57% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 11f. Analyzing quantitative GNQUANT Very little 0 0% 39 5% 229 6% 993 6% 0 0% 61 5% 288 4% 1,165 5% problems Some 4 21% % % 4,297 24% 9 18% % 1,474 22% 5,725 23% Quite a bit 8 42% % 1,679 41% 6,938 40% 23 46% % 2,508 37% 8,929 36% Very much 7 37% % 1,214 30% 5,327 30% 18 36% % 2,426 36% 8,950 36% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 11g. GNCMPTS Very little 2 11% 55 7% 255 6% 1,206 7% 3 6% 61 5% 288 4% 1,138 5% Using computing and information technology Some 4 21% % % 4,243 24% 8 16% % 1,320 20% 5,305 21% Quite a bit 6 32% % 1,546 38% 6,415 36% 13 26% % 2,281 34% 8,712 35% Very much 7 37% % 1,412 34% 5,760 33% 26 52% % 2,833 42% 9,705 39% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 11h. Working effectively with GNOTHERS Very little 1 5% 40 5% 227 6% 882 5% 1 2% 42 3% 283 4% 910 4% others Some 4 21% % % 3,794 22% 8 16% % 1,289 19% 4,818 19% Quite a bit 6 32% % 1,536 37% 6,656 38% 19 39% % 2,345 35% 8,953 36% Very much 8 42% % 1,500 37% 6,296 36% 21 43% % 2,796 42% 10,159 41% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 11i. Voting in local, state, or GNCITIZN Very little 7 39% % 1,631 40% 7,195 41% 14 28% % 1,880 28% 6,915 28% national elections Some 5 28% % 1,153 28% 5,050 29% 14 28% % 1,914 29% 7,365 30% Quite a bit 5 28% % % 3,181 18% 12 24% % 1,545 23% 5,548 22% Very much 1 6% 79 11% % 2,139 12% 10 20% % 1,357 20% 4,961 20% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, %

16 Major Field Report: Part II. Comparisons to Other Institutions 11j. Learning effectively on your GNINQ Very little 0 0% 42 6% 214 5% 831 5% 4 8% 67 5% 384 6% 1,219 5% own Some 2 12% % % 3,736 21% 14 28% % 1,157 17% 4,359 18% Quite a bit 8 47% % 1,745 43% 7,539 43% 14 28% % 2,601 39% 9,682 39% Very much 7 41% % 1,229 30% 5,437 31% 18 36% % 2,532 38% 9,453 38% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 11k. Understanding yourself GNSELF Very little 2 11% 78 10% % 1,521 9% 3 6% 96 7% 596 9% 1,998 8% Some 1 6% % % 4,017 23% 15 31% % 1,388 21% 5,093 21% Quite a bit 5 28% % 1,455 36% 6,365 36% 13 27% % 2,168 33% 8,220 33% Very much 10 56% % 1,290 32% 5,611 32% 17 35% % 2,513 38% 9,375 38% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 11l. Understanding people of GNDIVERS Very little 2 11% 82 11% % 1,734 10% 4 8% 102 8% 606 9% 2,289 9% other racial and ethnic Some 0 0% % 1,072 26% 4,727 27% 12 24% % 1,604 24% 6,437 26% backgrounds Quite a bit 8 44% % 1,436 35% 6,163 35% 21 42% % 2,223 33% 8,123 33% Very much 8 44% % 1,179 29% 4,948 28% 13 26% % 2,253 34% 7,912 32% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 11m. Solving complex real-world GNPROBSV Very little 1 6% 65 9% % 1,571 9% 3 6% 107 8% 578 9% 2,068 8% problems Some 4 22% % 1,134 28% 5,058 29% 19 38% % 1,771 26% 6,566 27% Quite a bit 8 44% % 1,545 38% 6,644 38% 16 32% % 2,383 36% 8,991 36% Very much 5 28% % 1,009 25% 4,299 24% 12 24% % 1,960 29% 7,145 29% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 11n. GNETHICS Very little 1 6% 91 12% % 1,910 11% 6 12% % % 2,770 11% Developing a personal code of values and ethics Some 2 11% % 1,031 25% 4,371 25% 18 36% % 1,549 23% 5,794 23% Quite a bit 7 39% % 1,416 35% 6,004 34% 14 28% % 2,053 31% 7,703 31% Very much 8 44% % 1,177 29% 5,287 30% 12 24% % 2,282 34% 8,504 34% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 11o. Contributing to the welfare GNCOMMUN Very little 1 6% % % 2,467 14% 7 14% % % 3,287 13% of your community Some 6 33% % 1,279 31% 5,265 30% 20 40% % 1,918 29% 7,009 28% Quite a bit 4 22% % 1,263 31% 5,659 32% 13 26% % 1,922 29% 7,515 30% Very much 7 39% % % 4,173 24% 10 20% % 1,878 28% 6,971 28% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 11p. Developing a deepened sense GNSPIRIT Very little 8 44% % 1,472 36% 6,335 36% 31 62% % 2,891 43% 10,526 42% of spirituality Some 4 22% % 1,003 24% 4,301 24% 12 24% % 1,610 24% 5,985 24% Quite a bit 2 11% % % 3,577 20% 2 4% % 1,070 16% 3,799 15% Very much 4 22% 91 12% % 3,371 19% 5 10% % 1,125 17% 4,474 18% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, %

17 Major Field Report: Part II. Comparisons to Other Institutions 12. Overall, how would you ADVISE Poor 0 0% 43 6% 188 5% 785 4% 2 4% 121 9% % 2,229 9% evaluate the quality of Fair 1 5% % % 2,829 16% 8 16% % 1,303 19% 4,756 19% academic advising you have Good 9 47% % 1,927 47% 8,049 45% 15 30% % 2,612 39% 9,810 39% received at your institution? Excellent 9 47% % 1,363 33% 6,091 34% 25 50% % 2,144 32% 8,221 33% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 25, % 13. How would you evaluate your ENTIREXP Poor 1 5% 13 2% 80 2% 296 2% 0 0% 25 2% 153 2% 427 2% entire educational experience Fair 2 11% 91 12% % 1,748 10% 1 2% % % 2,541 10% at this institution? Good 4 21% % 2,129 51% 8,460 48% 22 44% % 3,174 47% 11,233 45% Excellent 12 63% % 1,472 36% 7,253 41% 27 54% % 2,654 39% 10,807 43% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 25, % 14. If you could start over again, SAMECOLL Definitely no 1 5% 48 6% 191 5% 753 4% 0 0% 73 5% 357 5% 1,180 5% would you go to the same Probably no 2 11% % % 2,266 13% 6 12% % % 3,102 12% institution you are now Probably yes 5 26% % 1,707 41% 6,807 38% 15 30% % 2,605 38% 9,058 36% attending? Definitely yes 11 58% % 1,689 41% 7,945 45% 29 58% % 2,934 43% 11,687 47% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 25, %

18 Major Field Report: Part II. Comparisons to Other Institutions 15. Age AGE 19 or younger 16 84% % 3,424 83% 15,363 86% 0 0% 0 0% 13 0% 62 0% % 61 8% 321 8% 1,196 7% 41 80% % 3,656 54% 16,669 67% % 8 1% 161 4% 490 3% 2 4% % 1,344 20% 3,765 15% % 12 2% 126 3% 373 2% 3 6% 100 7% % 2,321 9% % 13 2% 105 3% 308 2% 4 8% 82 6% % 1,899 8% Over % 1 0% 13 0% 38 0% 1 2% 10 1% 88 1% 286 1% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 25, % 16. Your sex: SEX Male 5 26% % 1,021 25% 4,872 27% 15 29% % 1,718 25% 7,120 28% Female 14 74% % 3,129 75% 12,908 73% 36 71% 1,011 75% 5,046 75% 17,894 72% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 25, % 17. Are you an international INTERNAT No % % 3,944 96% 16,724 94% 49 96% 1,263 95% 6,488 96% 23,887 96% student or foreign national? Yes 0 0% 28 4% 182 4% 983 6% 2 4% 71 5% 253 4% 1,056 4% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 24, % 18. What is your racial or ethnic RACE05 American Indian or other identification? (Select only Native American 0 0% 3 0% 30 1% 130 1% 3 6% 4 0% 70 1% 208 1% one.) Asian, Asian American, or Pacific Islander 0 0% 21 3% 143 3% 896 5% 0 0% 38 3% 222 3% 1,045 4% Black or African American 0 0% % % 2,085 12% 2 4% % % 2,709 11% White (non-hispanic) 18 95% % 2,397 58% 11,044 62% 42 82% % 4,002 59% 16,220 65% Mexican or Mexican American 0 0% 3 0% 290 7% 729 4% 0 0% 1 0% 418 6% 851 3% Puerto Rican 0 0% 18 2% 97 2% 243 1% 1 2% 30 2% 97 1% 231 1% Other Hispanic or Latino 0 0% 37 5% 194 5% 682 4% 1 2% 63 5% 305 5% 808 3% Multiracial 0 0% 29 4% 164 4% 698 4% 2 4% 32 2% 262 4% 883 4% Other 0 0% 19 2% 66 2% 281 2% 0 0% 39 3% 123 2% 427 2% I prefer not to respond 1 5% 52 7% 234 6% 985 6% 0 0% 92 7% 483 7% 1,632 7% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 25, % 19. What is your current CLASS Freshman/first year 14 78% % 3,371 81% 15,102 85% 0 0% 0 0% 13 0% 28 0% classification in college? Sophomore 4 22% % % 2,234 13% 1 2% 1 0% 25 0% 62 0% Junior 0 0% 9 1% 76 2% 277 2% 1 2% 73 5% 307 5% 1,062 4% Senior 0 0% 3 0% 26 1% 83 0% 44 86% 1,253 93% 6,291 93% 23,485 94% Unclassified 0 0% 2 0% 33 1% 79 0% 5 10% 18 1% 133 2% 378 2% Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 25, % 20. Did you begin college at your ENTER Started here 16 84% % 3,688 89% 16,171 91% 28 55% % 3,095 46% 14,745 59% current institution or Started elsewhere 3 16% 66 9% % 1,595 9% 23 45% % 3,677 54% 10,279 41% elsewhere? Total % % 4, % 17, % % 1, % 6, % 25, %

Class Frequency distributions are reported separately for first-year students and seniors. Institution-reported class ranks are used.

Class Frequency distributions are reported separately for first-year students and seniors. Institution-reported class ranks are used. Sample The Frequency Distributions report is based on information from all randomly selected students for both your institution and your comparison institutions.1 Targeted oversamples and other non-randomly

More information

Ferris State University NSSE 2010 Major Field Report Part II. Comparisons to Other Institutions BUSINESS

Ferris State University NSSE 2010 Major Field Report Part II. Comparisons to Other Institutions BUSINESS NSSE 2010 Major Field Report Part II. Comparisons to Other Institutions BUSINESS Comparing your students majoring in BUSINESS fields to those in BUSINESS fields at your comparison groups Business includes

More information

SUNY Potsdam NSSE 2011 Major Field Report Part II. Comparisons to Other Institutions Social Sciences

SUNY Potsdam NSSE 2011 Major Field Report Part II. Comparisons to Other Institutions Social Sciences NSSE 2011 Major Field Report Part II. Comparisons to Other Institutions Social Sciences Comparing your students majoring in Social Sciences fields to those in Social Sciences fields at your comparison

More information

California Baptist University NSSE 2011 Major Field Report Part II. Comparisons to Other Institutions Arts and Humanities

California Baptist University NSSE 2011 Major Field Report Part II. Comparisons to Other Institutions Arts and Humanities NSSE 2011 Major Field Report Part II. Comparisons to Other Institutions Arts and Humanities Comparing your students majoring in Arts and Humanities fields to those in Arts and Humanities fields at your

More information

The University of Arizona NSSE 2012 Major Field Report Part II. Comparisons to Other Institutions Social Sciences

The University of Arizona NSSE 2012 Major Field Report Part II. Comparisons to Other Institutions Social Sciences NSSE 2012 Major Field Report Part II. Comparisons to Other Institutions Social Sciences Comparing your students majoring in Social Sciences fields to those in Social Sciences fields at your comparison

More information

NSSE Benchmarks Mean Score for 5 Indicators of Effective Educational Practice

NSSE Benchmarks Mean Score for 5 Indicators of Effective Educational Practice National Survey of Student Engagement Survey 2009 Results A total of 953 students (528 first-year and 425 seniors) participated in the 2009 NSSE. 103 first-year students with Undecided majors responded.

More information

Interpreting the Frequency Distributions Report

Interpreting the Frequency Distributions Report Interpreting the Frequency Distributions Report Variables The items from the NSSE survey appear in the left column in the same order and wording as they appear on the instrument. Benchmark Items that make

More information

NSSE 2005 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

NSSE 2005 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 1a. Asked questions in class or CLQUEST Never 24 2% 68 5% 343 5% 1,260 3% 17 2% 49 5% 213 3% 753 1% contributed to class Sometimes 421 36% 614 49% 3,041 46% 16,939 35% 311 31% 420 40% 2,218 34% 11,819

More information

College of Charleston NSSE 2010 Major Field Report Part II. Comparisons to Other Institutions ARTS & HUMANITIES

College of Charleston NSSE 2010 Major Field Report Part II. Comparisons to Other Institutions ARTS & HUMANITIES NSSE 2010 Major Field Report Part II. Comparisons to Other Institutions ARTS & HUMANITIES Comparing your students majoring in ARTS & HUMANITIES fields to those in ARTS & HUMANITIES fields at your comparison

More information

What Students Are Saying About Their UNC Chapel Hill Experience

What Students Are Saying About Their UNC Chapel Hill Experience What Students Are Saying About Their Experience Each year the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) asks students at hundreds of colleges and universities to reflect on the time they devote to various

More information

National Survey of Student Engagement

National Survey of Student Engagement 1. Academic and Intellectual Experiences Asked questions in class or contributed to class a. discussions b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. National Survey of Made a class presentation Prepared two or more

More information

The Student Experience in Brief: UNC Chapel Hill

The Student Experience in Brief: UNC Chapel Hill The Student Experience in Brief: Active Learning Each year the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) asks students at hundreds of colleges and universities to reflect on the time they devote to

More information

Western Carolina University NSSE 2012 Major Field Report Part II. Comparisons to Other Institutions Other and Undecided

Western Carolina University NSSE 2012 Major Field Report Part II. Comparisons to Other Institutions Other and Undecided Major Field Report Part II. Comparisons to Other Institutions Other and Undecided Comparing your students majoring in Other and Undecided fields to those in Other and Undecided fields at your comparison

More information

Level of Academic Challenge (LAC)

Level of Academic Challenge (LAC) NSSE 2012 Benchmark Comparisons Level of Academic Challenge (LAC) (ERHS) Mean Comparisons (ERHS) Class Mean a n Mean a n Sig b Size c Effect First-Year 57.7 11 53.5 1642 Senior 52.1 14 56.6 1649 a Benchmarks

More information

Mean Comparisons August Purdue University

Mean Comparisons August Purdue University Mean Comparisons August 2010 University Interpreting the Mean Comparisons Report Sample The Mean Comparisons report is based on information from all randomly selected students for both your institution

More information

NSSE Scores for English Majors

NSSE Scores for English Majors NSSE Scores for Majors The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) collects information from first-year (FY) and senior (SR) undergraduates from hundreds of universities about their participation

More information

NSSE Scores for Art Majors

NSSE Scores for Art Majors NSSE Scores for Majors The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) collects information from first-year (FY) and senior (SR) undergraduates from hundreds of universities about their participation

More information

Mean Comparisons August The American University in Cairo

Mean Comparisons August The American University in Cairo Mean Comparisons August 2012 Interpreting the Mean Comparisons Report Sample The Mean Comparisons report is based on information from all randomly selected or censusadministered students for both your

More information

NSSE Scores for Geosciences Majors

NSSE Scores for Geosciences Majors NSSE Scores for Majors The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) collects information from first-year (FY) and senior (SR) undergraduates from hundreds of universities about their participation

More information

Washington State University - Pullman Campus. Mean Comparisons August 2012

Washington State University - Pullman Campus. Mean Comparisons August 2012 Mean Comparisons August 2012 Interpreting the Mean Comparisons Report Sample The Mean Comparisons report is based on information from all randomly selected or censusadministered students for both your

More information

NSSE Scores for Psychology Majors

NSSE Scores for Psychology Majors NSSE Scores for Majors The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) collects information from first-year (FY) and senior (SR) undergraduates from hundreds of universities about their participation

More information

NSSE Scores for Human Development and Family Studies (HDFS) Majors

NSSE Scores for Human Development and Family Studies (HDFS) Majors NSSE Scores for (HDFS) Majors The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) collects information from first-year (FY) and senior (SR) undergraduates from hundreds of universities about their participation

More information

NSSE Scores across Pell Recipient Status

NSSE Scores across Pell Recipient Status January 2013 Highlights: recipients are well represented in the NSSE sample First-year recipients have statistically significant higher mean scores compared to first-year non- students for two of the five

More information

NSSE Scores for Health and Exercise Science (HES) Majors

NSSE Scores for Health and Exercise Science (HES) Majors NSSE Scores for (HES) Majors The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) collects information from first-year (FY) and senior (SR) undergraduates from hundreds of universities about their participation

More information

NSSE Scores for Human Dimensions of Natural Resources (HDNR) Majors

NSSE Scores for Human Dimensions of Natural Resources (HDNR) Majors NSSE Scores for (HDNR) Majors The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) collects information from first-year (FY) and senior (SR) undergraduates from hundreds of universities about their participation

More information

NSSE Scores for Fish, Wildlife, & Conservation Biology (FWCB) Majors

NSSE Scores for Fish, Wildlife, & Conservation Biology (FWCB) Majors NSSE Scores for Fish, Wildlife, & Conservation (FWCB) Majors The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) collects information from first-year (FY) and senior (SR) undergraduates from hundreds of universities

More information

Mean Comparisons August CUNY Hunter College

Mean Comparisons August CUNY Hunter College Mean Comparisons August 2007 Interpreting the Mean Comparisons Report Sample The Mean Comparisons report is based on information from all randomly selected students for both your institution and your comparison

More information

The University of Arizona NSSE 2012 Major Field Report Part I. Within-Institution Comparisons

The University of Arizona NSSE 2012 Major Field Report Part I. Within-Institution Comparisons NSSE 2012 Major Field Report Part I. Within-Institution Comparisons Comparing your students' responses across groups of related majors within your institution (as displayed on the "Categories" worksheet)

More information

Chapter 2: NATIONAL SURVEY OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT (NSSE)

Chapter 2: NATIONAL SURVEY OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT (NSSE) Chapter : NATIONAL SURVEY OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT (NSSE) Who takes it? All freshmen and seniors are requested to complete the survey. In, participated in the NSSE. pilot so half of our students were asked

More information

Frequency Distributions August Baccalaureate Colleges Arts & Sciences

Frequency Distributions August Baccalaureate Colleges Arts & Sciences Frequency Distributions August 2010 Interpreting the Frequency Distributions Report Typical-Student Survey Option The typical-student option asks faculty members to respond to questions based on the typical

More information

Master s Colleges & Universities (Medium & Small Programs) Frequency Distributions August 2009

Master s Colleges & Universities (Medium & Small Programs) Frequency Distributions August 2009 Master s Colleges & Universities (Medium & Small Programs) Frequency Distributions August 2009 Interpreting the Frequency Distributions Report Typical-Student Survey Option The typical-student option asks

More information

Master s Colleges & Universities (Larger Programs) Frequency Distributions August 2011

Master s Colleges & Universities (Larger Programs) Frequency Distributions August 2011 Frequency Distributions August 2011 Interpreting the Frequency Distributions Report Typical-Student Survey Option The typical-student option asks faculty members to respond to questions based on the typical

More information

FSSE 2009 Frequency Distributions Kentucky State University

FSSE 2009 Frequency Distributions Kentucky State University 1 How important is it to you that undergraduates at your institution do the following? a. Practicum, internship, field experience, co-op experience, or FINTERN Not important 1 2% 0 0% 1 1% clinical assignment

More information

Southern Utah University

Southern Utah University Selected Comparison Groups August 2009 Reviewing Your Selected Comparison Groups Report NSSE participants are able to customize their Institutional Reports by tailoring up to three comparison groups. In

More information

Master s Colleges & Universities (Medium Programs) Frequency Distributions August 2010

Master s Colleges & Universities (Medium Programs) Frequency Distributions August 2010 Master s Colleges & Universities (Medium Programs) Frequency Distributions August 2010 Interpreting the Frequency Distributions Report Course-Based Survey Option The course-based option asks faculty members

More information

Frequency Distributions August University of Wisconsin-Whitewater

Frequency Distributions August University of Wisconsin-Whitewater Frequency Distributions August 2010 Interpreting the Frequency Distributions Report Course-Based Survey Option The course-based option asks faculty members to respond to questions about student engagement

More information

Research Universities (high and very high research activity) Frequency Distributions August 2011

Research Universities (high and very high research activity) Frequency Distributions August 2011 Research Universities (high and very high research activity) Frequency Distributions August 2011 Interpreting the Frequency Distributions Report Course-Based Survey Option The course-based option asks

More information

Master s Colleges & Universities (Medium and Smaller Programs) Frequency Distributions August 2012

Master s Colleges & Universities (Medium and Smaller Programs) Frequency Distributions August 2012 Master s Colleges & Universities (Medium and Smaller Programs) Frequency Distributions August 2012 Interpreting the Frequency Distributions Report Course-Based Survey Option The course-based option asks

More information

NSSE Survey Agriculture Majors Compared with All Other Majors

NSSE Survey Agriculture Majors Compared with All Other Majors NSSE Survey 2004 Agriculture s Compared with All Other s Statistical significance set to: p less than.01 Agriculture Other s Class Level Junior Senior 21 44 65 2 505 507 23 549 572 clpresen Made a class

More information

FSSE 2008 Frequency Distributions Baccalaureate Colleges Arts & Sciences

FSSE 2008 Frequency Distributions Baccalaureate Colleges Arts & Sciences 1 How important is it to you that undergraduates at your institution do the following? a. Practicum, internship, field experience, co-op experience, or FINTERN Not important 18 4% 33 7% 51 6% clinical

More information

FSSE 2006 Frequency Distributions University of Wisconsin-Whitewater

FSSE 2006 Frequency Distributions University of Wisconsin-Whitewater How important is it to you that undergraduates at your institution do the following? a. Practicum, internship, field experience, co-op experience, or FINTERN Not important 1 1% 2 1% 3 1% clinical assignment

More information

FSSE 2005 Frequency Distributions University of Wisconsin-Whitewater

FSSE 2005 Frequency Distributions University of Wisconsin-Whitewater How important is it to you that undergraduates at your institution do the following? a. Practicum, internship, field experience, co-op experience, or FINTERN Not important 2 3% 5 5% 7 4% clinical assignment

More information

Interpreting the Frequency Distributions Report

Interpreting the Frequency Distributions Report Interpreting the Frequency Distributions Report Course-Based Survey Option The course-based option asks faculty members to respond to questions about student engagement based on a course taught during

More information

FSSE 2011 Frequency Distributions Illinois State University

FSSE 2011 Frequency Distributions Illinois State University How important is it to you that undergraduates at your institution do the following? a. Practicum, internship, field experience, co-op experience, or FINTERN Not important 3 5% 3 1% 6 2% clinical assignment

More information

FSSE 2005 Frequency Distributions Total Grand Frequencies

FSSE 2005 Frequency Distributions Total Grand Frequencies 1 How important is it to you that undergraduates at your institution do the following? a. Practicum, internship, field experience, co-op experience, or FINTERN Not important 349 7% 122 5% 317 4% 25 4%

More information

Illinois State University

Illinois State University You are taking this survey: tksrvy Before attending orientation 166 8% 93 8% 71 9% 45 7% 117 9% While attending orientation 1,831 92% 1,115 92% 711 91% 626 93% 1,146 91% After attending orientation 4 0%

More information

NSSE 2014 Frequencies and Statistical Comparisons

NSSE 2014 Frequencies and Statistical Comparisons NSSE 2014 Frequencies and Statistical Comparisons California State University-Los Angeles Please note: The layout of this file is optimized for printing and PDF creation, not on-screen viewing. When the

More information

NSSE First Year Students Frequencies and Statistical Comparisons Illinois State University

NSSE First Year Students Frequencies and Statistical Comparisons Illinois State University - First Year Students Frequencies and Statistical Comparisons Please note: The layout of this file is optimized for printing and PDF creation, not on-screen viewing. When the Excel version is viewed on

More information

California State University-Channel Islands. BCSSE 2012 Frequency Distributions

California State University-Channel Islands. BCSSE 2012 Frequency Distributions BCSSE 2012 Frequency Distributions You are taking this survey: tksrvy Before attending orientation 1 0% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 0% While attending orientation 743 92% 523 92% 220 93% 406 93% 292 91% After attending

More information

National Survey of Student Engagement Means Summary Report

National Survey of Student Engagement Means Summary Report Ntionl Survey of Student Enggement Mens Summry Report Vrile Vr. Nme Clss Men Men Sig Effect Size Men Sig Effect Size COLLEGE ACTIVITIES Acdemic, Intellectul, nd Socil Experiences Asked questions in clss

More information

2011 CCFSSE Student and Faculty Frequency Distributions Pima County Community College District

2011 CCFSSE Student and Faculty Frequency Distributions Pima County Community College District FCLQUEST FCLPRESEN FREWROPAP FINTEGRAT FCLUNPREP FCLASSGRP FOCCGRP selected course section ask questions in class or contribute to class discussions selected course section make a class presentation selected

More information

2014 Student Experience at the Research University (SERU) Item Frequencies and Means - Ethnicity by College - Asian Amer. N % Hispanic Amer.

2014 Student Experience at the Research University (SERU) Item Frequencies and Means - Ethnicity by College - Asian Amer. N % Hispanic Amer. 2014 Student Experience at the Research University (SERU) Item Frequencies and s - Ethnicity by College - University of Washington, Seattle School of Business Q006.1 Q006.2 Q006.3 Contributed to a class

More information

Chabot College Fall 2007 Student Accreditation Survey: All Students

Chabot College Fall 2007 Student Accreditation Survey: All Students Chabot College Student Accreditation Survey: Student Sample October 2007 Percentage Distribution of All Survey Items Based on a sample of 1,379 student course enrollments Percentage who were Percentage

More information

BCSSE. Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement Academic Unit Executive Summary. Fall 2015

BCSSE. Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement Academic Unit Executive Summary. Fall 2015 BCE Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement Academic Unit Executive Summary Fall 2015 Office of Institutional Effectiveness 338 Miller Information and Technology Center (MITC) University of Louisville

More information

Level of Academic Challenge

Level of Academic Challenge N S S E S n a p s h o t November 2009 Inside this issue: Active and Collaborative Learning Student and faculty Interaction Enriching Education Experiences Multi year benchmarks Supporting Campus Environment

More information

ASF Committer Diversity Survey

ASF Committer Diversity Survey ASF Committer Diversity Survey - 2016 Introduction Many organisations are wanting to find out how effective they are at attracting a diverse range of people. The Apache Software Foundation (ASF) promotes

More information

Graduating Student Survey Class of 2018

Graduating Student Survey Class of 2018 Graduating Student Survey Class of 2018 Graduating Student Survey Class of 2018 The Graduating Student Survey was administered May-July 2018 to the class of 2018 via a Web link sent by email in the invitation

More information

AY2018 Senior Survey: College of Business Administration Report Introduction

AY2018 Senior Survey: College of Business Administration Report Introduction Introduction Survey Information The Senior Survey is designed to give undergraduate students the opportunity to reflect upon their K-State experiences. This information is used to improve the college experience

More information

American University of Armenia 2016 ENTERING FRESHMAN STUDENT SURVEY

American University of Armenia 2016 ENTERING FRESHMAN STUDENT SURVEY American University of Armenia 2016 ENTERING FRESHMAN STUDENT SURVEY Prepared by Institutional Research Office Email: iro@aua.am Telephone: (+374) 60 61 25 16 April 2017 2016 Entering Freshman Student

More information

American University of Armenia 2018 Freshman Student Exit Survey. Prepared by Office of Institutional Research and Assessment

American University of Armenia 2018 Freshman Student Exit Survey. Prepared by Office of Institutional Research and Assessment American University of Armenia 2018 Freshman Student Exit Survey Prepared by Office of Institutional Research and Assessment Email: iro@aua.am May, 2018 Contents Methodology and Background... 3 Instrument

More information

SOUTHWESTERN OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY ASSOCIATE'S DEGREE EXIT SURVEY 2017

SOUTHWESTERN OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY ASSOCIATE'S DEGREE EXIT SURVEY 2017 SOUTHWESTERN OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY ASSOCIATE'S DEGREE EXIT SURVEY 2017 1. What is your undergraduate CATC General Studies 0 0.00% major? Computer Science 0 0.00% Other: English Education Parks and

More information

Student Goals - For further information, please refer to the South Seattle Community College Mission Statement.

Student Goals - For further information, please refer to the South Seattle Community College Mission Statement. Student Goals - For further information, please refer to the South Seattle Community College Mission Statement. Day Evening Day Evening Day Evening Day/Evening Student 66% 34% 71% 29% 63% 37% Yes No Yes

More information

National Civic Engagement Survey Spring 2015 Descriptive Statistics

National Civic Engagement Survey Spring 2015 Descriptive Statistics National Civic Engagement Survey Spring 2015 Descriptive Statistics In spring 2015, nine community colleges from across the state were provided a small stipend to participate in the Civic Engagement Survey

More information

Alabama A & M University Student Academic Program Assessment Environmental Science

Alabama A & M University Student Academic Program Assessment Environmental Science Section I Degree program type: 1 Undergraduate 2 100% 2 Graduate 0 0% Gender: 1 Male 0 0% 2 Female 2 100% Age group: 1 18-20 0 0% 2 21-23 2 100% 3 24-25 0 0% 4 26-30 0 0% 5 31-40 0 0% 6 41-60 0 0% 7 61

More information

American University of Armenia 2016 FRESHMAN STUDENT EXIT SURVEY

American University of Armenia 2016 FRESHMAN STUDENT EXIT SURVEY American University of Armenia 2016 FRESHMAN STUDENT EXIT SURVEY Prepared by Institutional Research Office Email: iro@aua.am Telephone: (+374) 60 61 25 16 May 2017 2016 Freshman Student Exit Survey 1 Table

More information

THE ENROLLED STUDENT SURVEY

THE ENROLLED STUDENT SURVEY THE ENROLLED STUDENT SURVEY PART 1: Academics and Advising 1. During this academic year, how often have you done each of the following? Never Occasionally Often Very Often Course or classroom experiences

More information

United Way Worldwide: MyFreeTaxes Survey November 18-23, Report Date: January 28, 2016

United Way Worldwide: MyFreeTaxes Survey November 18-23, Report Date: January 28, 2016 United Way Worldwide: MyFreeTaxes Survey November 18-23, 2015 Report Date: January 28, 2016 Methodology Survey Type: The national public opinion survey was conducted using Lightspeed GMI online survey.

More information

Commission District 4 Census Data Aggregation

Commission District 4 Census Data Aggregation Commission District 4 Census Data Aggregation 2011-2015 American Community Survey Data, U.S. Census Bureau Table 1 (page 2) Table 2 (page 2) Table 3 (page 3) Table 4 (page 4) Table 5 (page 4) Table 6 (page

More information

American University of Armenia 2017 Entering Freshman Student Survey. Prepared by Office of Institutional Research and Assessment

American University of Armenia 2017 Entering Freshman Student Survey. Prepared by Office of Institutional Research and Assessment American University of Armenia 2017 Entering Freshman Student Survey Prepared by Office of Institutional Research and Assessment Email: iro@aua.am May 2018 Contents Methodology and Background... 3 University

More information

Northwest Census Data Aggregation

Northwest Census Data Aggregation Northwest Census Data Aggregation 2011-2015 American Community Survey Data, U.S. Census Bureau Table 1 (page 2) Table 2 (page 2) Table 3 (page 3) Table 4 (page 4) Table 5 (page 4) Table 6 (page 5) Table

More information

Riverview Census Data Aggregation

Riverview Census Data Aggregation Riverview Census Data Aggregation 2011-2015 American Community Survey Data, U.S. Census Bureau Table 1 (page 2) Table 2 (page 2) Table 3 (page 3) Table 4 (page 4) Table 5 (page 4) Table 6 (page 5) Table

More information

Zipe Code Census Data Aggregation

Zipe Code Census Data Aggregation Zipe Code 66101 Census Data Aggregation 2011-2015 American Community Survey Data, U.S. Census Bureau Table 1 (page 2) Table 2 (page 2) Table 3 (page 3) Table 4 (page 4) Table 5 (page 4) Table 6 (page 5)

More information

Zipe Code Census Data Aggregation

Zipe Code Census Data Aggregation Zipe Code 66103 Census Data Aggregation 2011-2015 American Community Survey Data, U.S. Census Bureau Table 1 (page 2) Table 2 (page 2) Table 3 (page 3) Table 4 (page 4) Table 5 (page 4) Table 6 (page 5)

More information

Mobiloil Federal Credit Union Employment Application

Mobiloil Federal Credit Union Employment Application Mobiloil Federal Credit Union Employment Application It is our policy to provide equal employment opportunity to all qualified persons without regard to race, creed, color, religious belief, sex, age,

More information

Click here to unlock TallPDF.NET. Q1. During the academic year, on average how often do you visit the Price Center? % Less than once a week

Click here to unlock TallPDF.NET. Q1. During the academic year, on average how often do you visit the Price Center? % Less than once a week University Centers Student Usage and Priority Survey Description: Date Created: 10/25/2012 9:11:38 PM Date Range: 10/29/2012 6:00:00 AM - 11/23/2012 11:59:00 PM Total Respondents: 1808 Q1. During the academic

More information

Institutional Diversity: Encourages students to have a public voice and share their ideas openly

Institutional Diversity: Encourages students to have a public voice and share their ideas openly DLE 2011 RESPONSES BY ETHNICITY Note: = African American, Chicano, Latino/ Spanish, Native American = Filipino, Pacific Islander, Institutional Diversity: Encourages students to have a public voice and

More information

Findings from Focus Groups: Select Populations in Dane County

Findings from Focus Groups: Select Populations in Dane County W ISCONSIN STATE PLANNING GRANT Briefing Paper 3, September 2001 Findings from Focus Groups: Select Populations in Dane County Wisconsin is one of 20 states that received a grant in 2000-01 from the Health

More information

NORTHWEST AREA FOUNDATION SOCIAL INDICATORS SURVEY

NORTHWEST AREA FOUNDATION SOCIAL INDICATORS SURVEY NORTHWEST AREA FOUNDATION SOCIAL INDICATORS SURVEY SEPTEMBER - DECEMBER 2003 Data weighted to states Figure 1: Positive Feelings about Community: Summary i Frequency of Positive Feelings, by State OREGON

More information

The National Citizen Survey

The National Citizen Survey C I T Y O F E L K G R O V E, C A 2011 Supplemental Web Survey Results 3005 30th Street 777 North Capitol Street NE, Suite 500 Boulder, CO 80301 Washington, DC 20002 ww.n-r-c.com 303-444-7863 www.icma.org

More information

CITY OF CALISTOGA DOWN PAYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM LOAN APPLICATION

CITY OF CALISTOGA DOWN PAYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM LOAN APPLICATION DOWN PAYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM LOAN APPLICATION Date Applicant s Name Phone Residence Address Home City, State, Zip Code Phone Mailing Address (If different) FAMILY INFORMATION Applicant or Co-Applicant

More information

Appendix A: Detailed Methodology and Statistical Methods

Appendix A: Detailed Methodology and Statistical Methods Appendix A: Detailed Methodology and Statistical Methods I. Detailed Methodology Research Design AARP s 2003 multicultural project focuses on volunteerism and charitable giving. One broad goal of the project

More information

July Sub-group Audiences Report

July Sub-group Audiences Report July 2013 Sub-group Audiences Report SURVEY OVERVIEW Methodology Penn Schoen Berland completed 4,000 telephone interviews among the following groups between April 4, 2013 and May 3, 2013: Audience General

More information

MedStart-5. Application for Assistance

MedStart-5. Application for Assistance MedStart-5 Application for Assistance Transportation Meals Assistance Utilities Co-Payments Adult Home Care Lab Testing For application help, contact us at 1-888-842-2654 To apply for benefits, follow

More information

New Braunfels, TX. Technical Appendices DRAFT 2017

New Braunfels, TX. Technical Appendices DRAFT 2017 New Braunfels, TX Technical Appendices DRAFT 2017 2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 777 North Capitol Street NE Suite 500 Boulder, Colorado 80301 Washington, DC 20002 n-r-c.com 303-444-7863 icma.org 800-745-8780

More information

February 24, 2014 Media Contact: Joanna Norris, Associate Director Department of Public Relations (904)

February 24, 2014 Media Contact: Joanna Norris, Associate Director Department of Public Relations (904) February 24, 2014 Media Contact: Joanna Norris, Associate Director Department of Public Relations (904) 620-2102 University of North Florida Poll Reveals that a Vast Majority of Duval County Residents

More information

Total Enrollment by Division, Department, Degree Track and Year of Study as of 10/15/17

Total Enrollment by Division, Department, Degree Track and Year of Study as of 10/15/17 Enrollment by Division, Department, Degree Track and Year of Study as of 1/1/1 G1 G G G G DCE G1 G G G + Architecture 1 1 Art and Archaeology 1 1 1 Classics Comparative Literature 1 1 East Asian Studies

More information

Employment Application

Employment Application Employment Application To Applicant Instructions We appreciate your interest in our company and we are interested in reviewing your qualifications for our current open positions. To make this the best

More information

2016 Labor Market Profile

2016 Labor Market Profile 2016 Labor Market Profile Prepared by The Tyler Economic Development Council Tyler Area Sponsor June 2016 The ability to demonstrate a regions availability of talented workers has become a vital tool

More information

Please complete all forms in their entirety. All documents submitted become the property of Drew and cannot be returned.

Please complete all forms in their entirety. All documents submitted become the property of Drew and cannot be returned. I N S T R U C T I O N S F O R C O M P L E T I N G T H E M. A.T. A P P L I C AT I O N Office of Graduate Admission The Caspersen School Drew University Madison, New Jersey 07940 973.408.3110 fax: 973.408.3040

More information

Master Degree Exit Interview Computer Science

Master Degree Exit Interview Computer Science Polytechnic University of Puerto Rico Master Degree Exit Interview Computer Science 2014 Graduate School, Coop Program and Institutional Research Office 1 2 Sample Sample 2014 Population 11 Sample 8 Percent

More information

Patient Identification Form

Patient Identification Form Identification Information Weill Cornell Community Clinic Patient Identification Form Today s Date: / / Name: (last) (first) (middle) DOB (mm/dd/yyyy): / / Current Address: (street) (city) (state) (zip)

More information

Faculty Campus Climate Survey

Faculty Campus Climate Survey Faculty Campus Climate Survey Summary Report June 20, 2017 Dr. Ann McCann Director of Planning & Assessment Faculty Campus Climate Survey The Faculty Campus Climate Survey was conducted in March 2017 to

More information

Master Degree Exit Interview Computer Science

Master Degree Exit Interview Computer Science Polytechnic University of Puerto Rico Master Degree Exit Interview Computer Science 2017 Graduate School, Coop Program and Institutional Research Office 1 Table of Content Sample Student Information COOP

More information

Actuarial Science, M.S.

Actuarial Science, M.S. Actuarial Science, M.S. 1 Actuarial Science, M.S. FOX SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT (http://www.fox.temple.edu) About the Program The Fox School of Business and Management has a longstanding tradition

More information

Vanderbilt University Poll December Survey Results

Vanderbilt University Poll December Survey Results Vanderbilt University Poll December 2012 Survey Results Vanderbilt University Poll December 2012 Toplines for REGISTERED VOTERS N = 829; Margin of Error +/- 4.3% SEX. Record Respondent s sex Male 48% Female

More information

~ Credit Card Survey of USC Students ~ Results from Spring 2002

~ Credit Card Survey of USC Students ~ Results from Spring 2002 ~ Credit Card Survey of USC Students ~ Results from Spring 2002 The Credit Card Survey of USC Students was administered during the Spring 2002 semester to collect information about 1) students use of credit

More information

Heartland Monitor Poll XXI

Heartland Monitor Poll XXI National Sample of 1000 AMERICAN ADULTS AGE 18+ (500 on landline, 500 on cell) (Sample Margin of Error for 1,000 Respondents = ±3.1% in 95 out of 100 cases) Conducted October 22 26, 2014 via Landline and

More information

NSSE Data: Tips and Strategies

NSSE Data: Tips and Strategies Analysis of Multiple Years of NSSE Data: Tips and Strategies Fall 2008 Regional NSSE Users Workshop October 2008 Allison BrckaLorenz Overview Introduction Five Multi Year Analysis Tasks 1. Identifying

More information

New Jersey economic issues poll April 5-14, 2018 Stockton Polling Institute Weighted frequencies

New Jersey economic issues poll April 5-14, 2018 Stockton Polling Institute Weighted frequencies New Jersey economic issues poll April 5-14, 2018 Stockton Polling Institute Weighted frequencies Q1. How would you rate the U.S. economy: Frequency Valid Valid Excellent 47 6.6 6.6 6.6 Good 302 42.1 42.1

More information

Master Degree Exit Interview Landscape Architecture

Master Degree Exit Interview Landscape Architecture Polytechnic University of Puerto Rico Master Degree Exit Interview Landscape Architecture 2015 Graduate School, Coop Program and Institutional Research Office 1 2 Sample Sample 2015 Population 11 Sample

More information