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

Size: px
Start display at page:

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

Transcription

1 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 selected students are not included in this report. Class Frequency distributions are reported separately for first-year students and seniors. Institution-reported class ranks are used. Variables The items from the NSSE survey appear in the left column in the same order and wording as they appear on the instrument. Variable Names The name of each variable appears in the first column for easy reference to your raw data file and the Mean Comparisons report. Response Options Response options appear in the second column just as they appear on the instrument. Interpreting the Frequency Distributions Report Weighting Weights adjusting for gender, enrollment status, and institutional size are applied to the percentage column (%) of this report. Weights are computed separately for first-year students and seniors. Weighted results present a more accurate representation of your institution and comparison group students. Only the column percents are weighted. The counts are the actual number of respondents. Because the counts are unweighted and the column percentages are weighted, you will not be able to calculate the column percent directly from the count numbers. For more information about weighting, please visit the NSSE Web site at inst_report.htm. Count The Count column represents the actual number of students who responded to the particular option in each question. Counts are unweighted. Column Percentage (%) This column represents the weighted percentage of students responding to the particular option in each question.

2 Technological University 1a. Asked questions in class or CLQUEST Never 14 3% 41 2% 722 5% 3,784 3% 26 5% 53 3% 423 2% 2,086 2% contributed to class Sometimes % % 6,983 44% 47,618 38% % % 5,701 31% 32,002 27% discussions Often % % 5,453 33% 46,646 35% % % 6,179 34% 42,423 33% Very often 64 12% % 2,947 18% 32,516 23% % % 5,783 32% 51,511 37% Total % % 16, % 130, % % % 18, % 128, % b. Made a class presentation CLPRESEN Never 23 4% % 3,286 22% 17,373 16% 35 6% 43 3% 1,129 7% 4,999 5% Sometimes % % 8,691 54% 71,136 53% % % 6,743 38% 41,128 34% Often % % 3,161 19% 32,647 24% % % 6,315 34% 49,145 37% Very often 37 7% % 953 6% 9,320 7% 76 14% % 3,888 21% 32,696 24% Total % % 16, % 130, % % % 18, % 127, % c. Prepared two or more REWROPAP Never % % 2,467 15% 17,164 13% % % 3,035 16% 20,694 16% drafts of Sometimes % % 5,006 31% 41,827 31% % % 6,826 37% 49,150 38% a paper or assignment Often % % 5,081 32% 42,105 32% % % 4,922 28% 33,968 27% before turning it in Very often 52 10% % 3,535 22% 29,344 23% 56 10% % 3,296 18% 24,141 19% Total % % 16, % 130, % % % 18, % 127, % d. Worked on a paper or INTEGRAT Never 10 2% 43 2% 507 3% 2,737 3% 9 2% 15 1% 253 2% 1,203 1% project that required Sometimes % % 3,980 25% 28,052 22% % % 2,642 15% 15,377 13% integrating ideas or Often % % 7,073 44% 58,729 44% % % 7,255 40% 49,863 40% information from various Very often % % 4,521 28% 40,913 31% % % 7,923 43% 61,490 46% sources Total % % 16, % 130, % % % 18, % 127, % e. Included diverse DIVCLASS Never 33 6% % 1,255 8% 7,733 7% % % 1,690 9% 8,068 8% perspectives (different Sometimes % % 5,417 34% 42,608 33% % % 6,158 34% 40,536 32% races, religions, genders, Often % % 5,893 36% 49,807 38% % % 5,856 33% 44,710 34% political beliefs, etc.) in Very often 84 16% % 3,517 22% 30,239 23% 39 7% % 4,355 24% 34,542 26% class discussions or Total % % 16, % 130, % % % 18, % 127, % f. Come assignments to class without CLUNPREP Never 90 16% % 2,999 18% 28,797 22% 62 11% % 2,875 16% 23,577 18% completing readings or Sometimes % % 9,562 59% 78,062 59% % % 10,757 59% 76,994 59% assignments Often 93 17% % 2,478 16% 16,524 14% % % 3,033 17% 18,689 16% Very often 40 8% 77 5% 1,027 6% 6,943 6% 61 11% % 1,396 8% 8,586 7% Total % % 16, % 130, % % % 18, % 127, % g. Worked with other CLASSGRP Never 60 11% 163 9% 1,997 13% 15,844 12% 78 14% % 2,130 12% 12,982 10% students Sometimes % % 7,316 46% 61,136 46% % % 7,794 43% 55,884 43% on projects during class Often % % 5,077 31% 40,802 32% % % 5,420 30% 39,579 31% Very often 91 17% % 1,694 10% 12,599 10% 74 13% % 2,727 15% 19,450 15% Total % % 16, % 130, % % % 18, % 127, % a Column percentages (%) are weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size. Because the counts are not weighted, you cannot calculate the column % directly from the counts. 1

3 Technological University h. Worked with classmates OCCGRP Never 21 4% 65 4% 2,237 16% 15,759 15% 8 2% 25 2% 1,191 7% 7,903 7% outside of class to prepare Sometimes % % 7,105 45% 58,339 45% 97 18% % 5,971 34% 43,721 35% class assignments Often % % 4,673 27% 40,586 29% % % 5,965 33% 44,745 34% Very often % % 2,076 12% 15,765 11% % % 4,950 27% 31,556 24% Total % % 16, % 130, % % % 18, % 127, % i. Put together ideas or INTIDEAS Never 22 4% 75 5% 1,049 7% 7,656 7% 11 2% 31 2% 498 3% 3,171 3% concepts from different Sometimes % % 6,502 43% 51,311 42% % % 4,887 29% 33,816 28% courses when completing Often % % 5,696 37% 47,977 38% % % 7,768 44% 55,341 44% assignments or during Very often 58 11% % 1,963 13% 16,918 13% % % 4,426 24% 32,301 25% class discussions Total % % 15, % 123, % % % 17, % 124, % j. Tutored or taught other TUTOR Never % % 7,256 49% 62,613 52% % % 7,258 42% 51,085 43% students (paid or Sometimes % % 5,443 35% 42,670 33% % % 6,484 37% 44,765 36% voluntary) Often 92 18% % 1,770 11% 13,058 10% % % 2,212 12% 16,258 13% Very often 24 5% 163 9% 749 5% 5,551 4% 76 14% % 1,626 9% 12,542 9% Total % % 15, % 123, % % % 17, % 124, % k. Participated in a COMMPROJ Never % % 9,810 65% 77,099 65% % % 9,693 56% 63,482 54% community-based project Sometimes % % 3,556 23% 31,153 23% % % 5,020 28% 38,308 29% (e.g. service learning) as Often 25 5% 119 7% 1,313 9% 10,944 8% 39 7% 100 6% 1,752 10% 14,472 11% part of a regular course Very often 7 1% 37 2% 528 3% 4,612 3% 18 3% 58 4% 1,108 6% 8,340 6% Total % % 15, % 123, % % % 17, % 124, % l. Used an electronic medium ITACADEM Never 83 16% % 2,156 15% 18,816 16% 61 11% 114 7% 1,952 11% 13,908 11% (listserv, chat group, Sometimes % % 4,511 29% 38,251 30% % % 4,737 26% 34,269 27% Internet, instant Often % % 4,269 27% 34,199 27% % % 4,718 27% 33,450 27% messaging, etc.) to Very often % % 4,280 28% 32,618 27% % % 6,171 36% 43,028 35% discuss or complete an Total % % 15, % 123, % % % 17, % 124, % m. Used assignment to Never 12 2% 29 2% 378 4% 2,376 3% 6 1% 21 1% 120 1% 944 1% communicate with an Sometimes % % 3,743 26% 28,967 26% 96 18% % 2,658 17% 18,593 17% instructor Often % % 5,477 35% 45,861 36% % % 5,528 32% 39,300 32% Very often % % 5,616 35% 46,678 34% % % 9,277 50% 65,828 50% Total % % 15, % 123, % % % 17, % 124, % n. Discussed grades or FACGRADE Never 57 11% 101 6% 1,430 10% 9,485 9% 33 6% 71 4% 799 5% 5,024 5% assignments with an Sometimes % % 6,720 45% 53,603 44% % % 6,554 38% 44,098 37% instructor Often % % 4,577 30% 39,208 31% % % 5,731 32% 42,029 33% Very often 57 11% % 2,488 15% 21,558 17% % % 4,499 25% 33,493 25% Total % % 15, % 123, % % % 17, % 124, % a Column percentages (%) are weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size. Because the counts are not weighted, you cannot calculate the column % directly from the counts. 2

4 Technological University o. Talked about career plans FACPLANS Never % % 3,870 27% 29,058 26% % % 3,311 20% 18,332 17% with a faculty member or Sometimes % % 7,246 47% 59,167 47% % % 7,496 43% 50,072 41% advisor Often 87 17% % 2,881 18% 24,889 19% % % 4,058 23% 32,867 25% Very often 27 5% 145 9% 1,214 8% 10,764 8% 72 13% % 2,710 15% 23,385 17% Total % % 15, % 123, % % % 17, % 124, % p. Discussed ideas from your FACIDEAS Never % % 6,936 47% 50,407 43% % % 5,307 31% 32,256 28% readings or classes with Sometimes % % 5,640 37% 49,732 39% % % 7,845 44% 56,847 45% faculty members outside Often 48 9% % 1,839 12% 16,702 13% 85 16% % 2,879 16% 22,648 17% of class Very often 20 4% 132 7% 795 5% 7,015 5% 44 8% 161 9% 1,543 8% 12,886 9% Total % % 15, % 123, % % % 17, % 124, % q. Received prompt written FACFEED Never 30 6% 100 7% 1,373 10% 8,175 8% 20 4% 60 4% 1,032 7% 4,804 5% or oral feedback from Sometimes % % 6,020 41% 45,416 39% % % 5,933 34% 37,058 32% faculty on your academic Often % % 5,682 36% 49,995 39% % % 7,521 43% 56,948 45% performance Very often 43 8% % 1,924 12% 18,647 14% 70 13% % 2,957 17% 24,950 18% Total % % 14, % 122, % % % 17, % 123, % r. Worked harder than you WORKHARD Never 70 14% % 1,414 9% 9,438 9% 44 9% 152 9% 1,246 7% 7,376 7% thought you could to meet Sometimes % % 5,984 41% 48,216 40% % % 6,482 37% 44,559 37% an instructor's standards Often % % 5,427 36% 45,769 37% % % 6,489 37% 47,334 38% or expectations Very often 55 11% % 2,165 14% 18,795 15% 73 14% % 3,228 19% 24,468 19% Total % % 14, % 122, % % % 17, % 123, % s. Worked with faculty FACOTHER Never % % 9,245 64% 69,738 61% % % 8,480 51% 53,130 48% members on activities Sometimes % % 3,795 24% 34,860 26% % % 5,349 29% 40,786 31% other than coursework Often 61 12% % 1,434 9% 12,594 9% 77 14% % 2,267 12% 18,690 13% (committees, orientation, Very often 12 2% 89 5% 512 3% 4,997 4% 42 8% 169 9% 1,344 7% 11,125 8% student life activities, Total % % 14, % 122, % % % 17, % 123, % t. etc.) Discussed ideas from your OOCIDEAS Never 39 8% 122 8% 1,121 8% 7,630 7% 31 6% 76 5% 688 4% 4,497 4% readings or classes with Sometimes % % 5,585 37% 45,232 38% % % 5,775 33% 39,571 33% others outside of class Often % % 5,329 35% 43,891 35% % % 6,565 37% 47,268 38% (students, family Very often 67 13% % 2,956 20% 25,424 20% 82 16% % 4,414 26% 32,393 25% members, co-workers, Total % % 14, % 122, % % % 17, % 123, % u. etc.) Had serious conversations DIVRSTUD Never % % 2,444 17% 19,579 17% 85 16% % 2,121 13% 15,460 13% with students of a Sometimes % % 5,101 34% 42,354 34% % % 6,122 35% 44,780 35% different race or ethnicity Often % % 3,927 26% 31,576 26% % % 4,749 27% 33,121 27% than your own Very often 74 15% % 3,518 23% 28,647 23% 72 14% % 4,440 25% 30,306 25% Total % % 14, % 122, % % % 17, % 123, % a Column percentages (%) are weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size. Because the counts are not weighted, you cannot calculate the column % directly from the counts. 3

5 Technological University v. Had serious conversations DIFFSTU2 Never 57 11% 138 9% 1,694 13% 12,604 12% 50 10% % 1,681 11% 11,058 10% with students who are Sometimes % % 4,964 34% 40,653 34% % % 5,958 35% 43,185 35% very different from you in Often % % 4,365 28% 36,053 29% % % 5,136 28% 37,215 30% terms of their religious Very often % % 3,964 25% 32,862 26% % % 4,652 25% 32,218 26% beliefs, political opinions, Total % % 14, % 122, % % % 17, % 123, % 2a. Coursework or personal values emphasizes: MEMORIZE Very little 25 5% 145 8% 745 5% 7,191 6% 51 10% % 1,473 8% 11,544 9% Memorizing facts, ideas, or Some % % 3,775 26% 33,797 27% % % 5,282 30% 39,232 31% methods from your Quite a bit % % 6,140 42% 49,149 41% % % 6,406 37% 44,911 37% courses and readings Very much 86 17% % 4,217 27% 31,135 26% 88 16% % 4,185 24% 27,427 23% Total % % 14, % 121, % % % 17, % 123, % b. Coursework emphasizes: ANALYZE Very little 8 2% 23 2% 348 3% 2,595 2% 7 1% 21 1% 259 2% 1,672 2% Analyzing the basic Some % % 2,974 21% 23,475 21% 83 16% % 2,676 16% 17,674 15% elements of an idea, Quite a bit % % 6,791 46% 54,839 45% % % 7,437 42% 53,175 43% experience, or theory Very much % % 4,757 31% 40,299 32% % % 6,963 40% 50,541 40% Total % % 14, % 121, % % % 17, % 123, % c. Coursework emphasizes: SYNTHESZ Very little 19 4% 61 4% 788 6% 5,634 5% 23 5% 67 4% 630 4% 3,988 4% Synthesizing and Some % % 4,475 31% 34,831 30% % % 4,347 25% 27,487 24% organizing ideas, Quite a bit % % 6,166 41% 50,998 41% % % 6,924 40% 50,397 41% information, or Very much 96 19% % 3,432 23% 29,678 23% % % 5,434 31% 41,159 32% experiences Total % % 14, % 121, % % % 17, % 123, % d. Coursework emphasizes: EVALUATE Very little 34 7% 100 6% 945 7% 6,671 6% 28 5% 93 6% 991 6% 5,989 5% Making judgments about Some % % 4,462 30% 34,355 29% % % 4,396 26% 29,380 25% the value of information, Quite a bit % % 6,089 41% 50,980 42% % % 6,835 38% 49,383 40% arguments, or methods Very much % % 3,373 22% 29,175 23% % % 5,109 29% 38,279 30% Total % % 14, % 121, % % % 17, % 123, % e. Coursework emphasizes: APPLYING Very little 17 3% 39 3% 634 4% 4,659 4% 13 3% 34 2% 563 3% 3,372 3% Applying theories or Some % % 3,565 25% 28,100 24% 69 13% % 3,162 19% 21,011 18% concepts to practical Quite a bit % % 5,827 39% 49,432 41% % % 6,368 36% 45,970 37% problems or in new Very much % % 4,841 32% 38,997 31% % % 7,246 42% 52,703 42% situations Total % % 14, % 121, % % % 17, % 123, % 3a. Number of assigned READASGN None 5 1% 14 1% 118 1% 641 1% 13 3% 34 2% 209 1% 1,348 1% textbooks, books, or booklength Between % % 2,932 20% 20,632 20% % % 4,667 27% 29,627 26% packs of course Between % % 6,474 44% 49,204 43% % % 6,802 40% 46,788 39% readings Between % % 3,723 24% 34,100 25% 51 10% % 3,477 20% 27,206 21% More than % 134 8% 1,593 10% 16,438 11% 32 6% 145 8% 2,156 12% 17,826 13% Total % % 14, % 121, % % % 17, % 122, % a Column percentages (%) are weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size. Because the counts are not weighted, you cannot calculate the column % directly from the counts. 4

6 Technological University b. Number of books read on READOWN None % % 3,608 25% 28,970 25% % % 3,443 20% 23,866 20% your own (not assigned) Between % % 8,241 55% 67,805 55% % % 9,374 55% 66,769 54% for personal enjoyment or Between % % 1,917 13% 15,851 13% 77 15% % 2,738 16% 19,734 16% academic enrichment Between % 69 4% 568 4% 4,479 4% 24 5% 93 5% 904 5% 6,501 5% More than % 43 3% 506 3% 3,943 3% 27 5% 92 5% 853 5% 5,951 5% Total % % 14, % 121, % % % 17, % 122, % c. Number of written papers WRITEMOR None % % 12,468 83% 100,674 82% % % 8,799 51% 57,271 48% or reports of 20 pages or Between % % 1,802 13% 15,701 13% % % 7,133 42% 55,190 43% more Between % 42 3% 332 2% 2,550 3% 32 6% % 946 5% 7,261 6% Between % 10 1% 125 1% 1,148 1% 10 2% 49 3% 244 1% 1,666 1% More than % 12 1% 108 1% 954 1% 7 1% 25 2% 193 1% 1,434 1% Total % % 14, % 121, % % % 17, % 122, % d. Number of written papers WRITEMID None 65 13% % 2,265 15% 14,174 14% 55 11% 145 9% 1,786 11% 9,347 9% or reports between 5 and Between % % 8,010 54% 62,589 53% % % 7,944 47% 51,312 44% 19 pages Between % % 3,488 23% 33,339 25% % % 5,110 29% 41,189 32% Between % 104 6% 873 6% 9,036 7% 57 11% 155 9% 1,747 10% 15,240 11% More than % 33 2% 202 1% 1,903 1% 19 4% 86 5% 724 4% 5,726 4% Total % % 14, % 121, % % % 17, % 122, % e. Number of written papers WRITESML None 8 2% 45 3% 468 3% 2,996 3% 24 4% 138 9% 1,168 7% 7,201 7% or reports of fewer than 5 Between % % 4,869 32% 33,752 31% % % 6,084 36% 39,692 34% pages Between % % 5,026 33% 42,220 34% % % 4,681 26% 34,770 28% Between % % 2,862 20% 27,026 21% 87 17% % 2,953 17% 22,601 17% More than % % 1,614 11% 15,041 11% 62 12% % 2,425 15% 18,543 14% Total % % 14, % 121, % % % 17, % 122, % 4a. Number of problem sets PROBSETA None 24 5% 73 5% 2,004 14% 17,115 14% 43 8% % 3,279 20% 26,399 21% that take you more than % % 5,165 35% 42,936 37% % % 5,491 32% 38,740 32% an hour to complete % % 4,586 31% 37,123 30% % % 4,853 27% 33,322 27% % % 1,516 10% 12,219 9% 47 9% % 1,626 9% 11,054 9% More than % % 1,538 10% 11,228 9% % % 1,994 11% 12,639 11% Total % % 14, % 120, % % % 17, % 122, % b. Number of problem sets PROBSETB None 37 7% % 1,846 13% 16,905 14% % % 4,556 27% 34,171 28% that take you less than an % % 5,257 35% 41,826 35% % % 6,337 37% 43,080 36% hour to complete % % 4,012 27% 32,343 26% % % 3,328 20% 24,490 20% % % 1,675 11% 14,169 11% 28 5% 107 7% 1,336 8% 9,533 8% More than % % 2,011 13% 15,279 13% 58 11% 122 8% 1,672 10% 10,742 9% Total % % 14, % 120, % % % 17, % 122, % a Column percentages (%) are weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size. Because the counts are not weighted, you cannot calculate the column % directly from the counts. 5

7 Technological University 5. Mark the box that best EXAMS 1 Very little 5 1% 7 1% 98 1% 634 1% 4 1% 18 1% 166 1% 1,227 1% represents the extent to 2 5 1% 14 1% 153 1% 1,244 1% 4 1% 42 3% 281 2% 2,018 2% which your examinations % 53 4% 505 4% 3,898 4% 19 4% 48 3% 668 4% 4,712 4% during the current school % 147 9% 1,658 12% 13,956 12% 46 9% % 2,022 12% 13,827 12% year challenged you to do % % 4,688 32% 38,164 32% % % 5,137 30% 36,436 30% your best work % % 5,134 34% 42,055 33% % % 5,730 33% 40,846 32% 7 Very much 95 19% % 2,582 17% 20,903 17% 97 18% % 3,276 19% 23,396 19% Total % % 14, % 120, % % % 17, % 122, % 6a. Attended an art exhibit, ATDART05 Never 63 13% % 3,985 27% 27,802 27% % % 5,551 33% 34,965 31% gallery, play, dance, or Sometimes % % 6,718 44% 55,624 45% % % 7,780 45% 55,854 45% other theater performance Often 99 19% % 2,534 18% 23,327 18% 59 11% 165 9% 2,441 14% 19,255 15% Very often 28 6% 57 3% 1,479 11% 13,321 10% 25 5% 72 4% 1,431 8% 12,007 9% Total % % 14, % 120, % % % 17, % 122, % b. Exercised or participated EXRCSE05 Never 30 6% 111 7% 1,702 13% 13,544 14% 25 5% 127 8% 2,173 14% 15,172 14% in physical fitness Sometimes % % 4,166 28% 33,101 28% % % 5,442 32% 38,605 32% activities Often % % 3,837 26% 30,240 25% % % 4,255 24% 29,247 24% Very often % % 5,011 33% 43,174 33% % % 5,327 30% 39,048 30% Total % % 14, % 120, % % % 17, % 122, % c. Participated in activities to WORSHP05 Never % % 5,370 38% 46,018 41% % % 5,729 33% 42,841 37% enhance your spirituality Sometimes % % 3,958 25% 33,853 27% % % 4,786 26% 35,529 28% (worship, meditation, Often 75 15% % 2,348 15% 17,854 14% 76 15% % 2,629 15% 18,487 15% prayer, etc.) Very often 63 12% % 3,006 22% 22,081 18% 79 15% % 4,014 27% 24,968 20% Total % % 14, % 119, % % % 17, % 121, % d. Examined the strengths OWNVIEW Never 54 11% % 1,464 11% 10,997 10% 70 13% % 1,309 8% 8,629 8% and weaknesses of your Sometimes % % 5,699 39% 46,319 39% % % 6,040 35% 42,693 36% own views on a topic or Often % % 5,005 33% 41,433 34% % % 6,242 36% 45,023 36% issue Very often 54 11% % 2,535 17% 21,248 17% 71 14% % 3,600 21% 25,684 20% Total % % 14, % 119, % % % 17, % 122, % e. Tried to better understand OTHRVIEW Never 42 8% 143 9% 917 7% 6,502 6% 47 9% 123 8% 790 5% 5,105 5% someone else's views by Sometimes % % 5,203 35% 40,981 35% % % 5,472 32% 37,708 31% imagining how an issue Often % % 5,513 37% 46,303 38% % % 6,671 39% 48,930 40% looks from his or her Very often 74 15% % 3,074 21% 26,238 21% 86 16% % 4,261 24% 30,293 24% perspective Total % % 14, % 120, % % % 17, % 122, % f. Learned something that CHNGVIEW Never 28 6% 68 4% 601 4% 4,290 4% 29 6% 65 4% 466 3% 3,017 3% changed the way you Sometimes % % 5,106 35% 39,811 34% % % 5,545 32% 37,950 32% understand an issue or Often % % 5,757 39% 47,434 39% % % 6,855 40% 49,681 41% concept Very often 75 15% % 3,243 22% 28,484 23% 77 15% % 4,323 25% 31,388 25% Total % % 14, % 120, % % % 17, % 122, % Column percentages (%) are weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size. Because the counts are not weighted, you cannot calculate the column % directly from the counts. 6

8 Technological University 7a. Practicum, internship, field INTERN04 Have not decided 69 14% 125 9% 1,918 14% 15,801 15% 29 6% 91 6% 1,298 8% 8,415 8% experience, co-op Do not plan to do 18 4% 42 3% 546 5% 4,565 5% 93 18% % 2,931 18% 19,379 17% experience, or clinical Plan to do % % 11,086 74% 89,172 73% 72 14% % 3,832 25% 24,448 23% assignment Done 29 6% 92 5% 952 7% 8,828 7% % % 8,981 50% 68,797 53% Total % % 14, % 118, % % % 17, % 121, % b. Community service or VOLNTR04 Have not decided % % 2,069 16% 16,469 16% 51 10% 136 8% 1,681 11% 10,682 10% volunteer work Do not plan to do 63 13% 137 9% 951 7% 7,605 8% 97 20% % 2,915 18% 19,098 18% Plan to do % % 5,819 40% 46,656 39% 45 9% 141 9% 2,279 15% 15,048 14% Done % % 5,649 37% 47,519 37% % % 10,165 57% 76,153 59% Total % % 14, % 118, % % % 17, % 120, % c. Participate in a learning LRNCOM04 Have not decided % % 4,795 32% 42,794 35% 53 10% % 2,284 14% 16,463 14% community or some other Do not plan to do % % 4,020 29% 31,608 28% % % 9,040 53% 64,113 53% formal program where Plan to do 74 15% % 3,123 21% 26,256 22% 23 5% 68 4% 1,183 8% 8,352 8% groups of students take Done % % 2,556 18% 17,632 15% % % 4,528 26% 32,020 25% two or more classes Total % % 14, % 118, % % % 17, % 120, % d. together Worked on a research RESRCH04 Have not decided % % 5,835 40% 48,707 41% 65 13% % 2,669 16% 18,058 16% project with a faculty Do not plan to do 85 17% % 3,541 25% 29,064 26% % % 8,996 52% 65,210 53% member outside of course Plan to do % % 4,520 30% 35,202 29% 62 12% % 2,101 13% 12,881 12% or program requirements Done 22 4% 76 5% 600 4% 5,321 5% % % 3,271 19% 24,839 19% Total % % 14, % 118, % % % 17, % 120, % e. Foreign language FORLNG04 Have not decided % % 2,605 18% 20,581 19% 39 8% 124 8% 1,352 9% 9,104 8% coursework Do not plan to do % % 3,886 27% 30,763 28% % % 7,319 41% 49,632 42% Plan to do 84 17% % 4,719 33% 36,923 31% 38 8% 127 8% 1,392 9% 8,940 8% Done 77 15% 165 9% 3,290 22% 30,054 22% % % 6,976 41% 53,347 41% Total % % 14, % 118, % % % 17, % 121, % f. Study abroad STDABR04 Have not decided % % 4,186 30% 33,908 30% 43 8% % 2,208 14% 13,693 13% Do not plan to do % % 3,883 28% 30,252 29% % % 11,077 64% 77,303 65% Plan to do % % 6,086 40% 51,488 39% 32 6% 84 5% 1,416 9% 8,763 8% Done 10 2% 27 2% 334 2% 2,650 3% 63 12% % 2,332 13% 21,212 14% Total % % 14, % 118, % % % 17, % 120, % g. Independent study or selfdesigned INDSTD04 Have not decided % % 4,856 34% 41,874 35% 53 10% 139 9% 2,021 13% 12,810 12% major Do not plan to do % % 7,179 49% 53,990 46% % % 10,648 61% 73,416 61% Plan to do 56 11% % 2,057 14% 19,024 16% 36 7% 103 7% 1,363 9% 9,356 9% Done 10 2% 36 2% 403 3% 3,409 3% 67 13% % 3,002 17% 25,390 19% Total % % 14, % 118, % % % 17, % 120, % a Column percentages (%) are weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size. Because the counts are not weighted, you cannot calculate the column % directly from the counts. 7

9 Technological University h. Culminating senior SNRX04 Have not decided % % 6,008 41% 46,620 41% 19 4% 60 4% 1,798 11% 11,464 11% experience (capstone Do not plan to do 47 9% 106 8% 1,699 12% 12,464 12% 48 9% % 4,705 28% 30,870 28% course, senior project or Plan to do % % 6,563 46% 57,650 46% % % 4,979 31% 34,368 29% thesis, comprehensive Done 4 1% 15 1% 221 1% 1,541 1% % % 5,554 30% 44,285 32% exam, etc.) Total % % 14, % 118, % % % 17, % 120, % 8a. Quality of relationships with other students ENVSTU 1 Unfriendly, Unsupportive, Sense of Alienation 6 1% 7 0% 176 1% 1,115 1% 4 1% 19 1% 168 1% 973 1% b. Quality of relationships ENVFAC with faculty members % 33 2% 452 3% 3,109 3% 5 1% 41 3% 418 2% 2,637 2% % 53 3% 734 5% 5,822 5% 13 3% 80 5% 837 5% 5,035 5% % 136 9% 1,774 13% 13,137 13% 42 8% 149 9% 1,866 11% 12,107 11% % % 3,062 21% 24,405 21% % % 3,456 20% 24,080 21% % % 4,386 30% 36,501 30% % % 5,217 30% 37,467 30% 7 Friendly, Supportive, Sense of % % 3,898 26% 34,157 27% % % 5,067 30% 38,611 30% 1 Belonging Unavailable, Total % % 14, % 118, % % % 17, % 120, % Unhelpful, Unsympathetic 4 1% 8 1% 138 1% 753 1% 4 1% 13 1% 195 1% 916 1% % 30 2% 441 3% 2,546 3% 10 2% 49 3% 520 3% 2,622 3% % 85 6% 1,135 8% 6,859 7% 34 7% 78 5% 1,065 6% 5,397 5% % % 2,898 20% 18,916 18% 76 15% % 2,467 15% 13,895 13% % % 4,310 29% 32,193 27% % % 4,418 26% 27,751 24% % % 3,733 26% 35,255 28% % % 4,996 29% 38,756 31% 7 Available, Helpful, Sympathetic 50 10% % 1,833 13% 21,729 17% 71 14% % 3,370 20% 31,613 23% Total % % 14, % 118, % % % 17, % 120, % c. Quality of relationships ENVADM 1 Unhelpful, with administrative Inconsiderate, Rigid 13 3% 48 4% 528 4% 3,531 4% 19 4% 99 7% 1,049 6% 6,065 6% personnel and offices % 77 6% 1,084 8% 7,526 7% 49 10% 128 8% 1,682 9% 10,311 9% % 137 9% 1,868 13% 13,196 12% 60 11% % 2,117 12% 13,762 12% % % 3,686 25% 27,154 23% % % 3,608 22% 25,269 21% % % 3,438 23% 28,821 23% % % 3,606 22% 26,369 21% % % 2,417 17% 22,901 18% 99 19% % 2,952 17% 22,401 18% 7 Helpful, Considerate, Flexible 55 11% % 1,453 10% 15,016 12% 61 12% % 2,000 12% 16,693 13% Total % % 14, % 118, % % % 17, % 120, % a Column percentages (%) are weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size. Because the counts are not weighted, you cannot calculate the column % directly from the counts. 8

10 Technological University 9a. Preparing for class ACADPR01 0 hr/wk 2 0% 3 0% 50 0% 323 0% 2 0% 12 1% 61 0% 358 0% (studying, reading, writing, 1-5 hr/wk 60 12% % 2,288 17% 17,542 18% 59 12% % 3,106 19% 20,321 18% doing homework or lab 6-10 hr/wk % % 3,832 27% 30,201 27% 96 19% % 4,475 26% 31,148 26% work, analyzing data, hr/wk % % 3,128 21% 25,904 21% % % 3,236 19% 23,858 20% rehearsing, and other hr/wk % % 2,462 16% 20,020 16% % % 2,488 14% 18,861 15% academic activities) hr/wk 48 9% % 1,285 9% 11,827 9% 57 11% % 1,518 9% 11,435 9% hr/wk 36 7% 122 7% 688 5% 6,220 5% 39 7% 115 6% 927 5% 6,662 5% 30+ hr/wk 27 5% 186 9% 663 4% 5,532 4% 49 10% % 1,132 7% 7,784 6% Total % % 14, % 117, % % % 16, % 120, % b. Working for pay on WORKON01 0 hr/wk % % 11,882 83% 88,911 80% % % 12,534 74% 82,544 73% campus 1-5 hr/wk 44 9% 116 6% 388 2% 6,138 4% 45 9% % 565 3% 7,274 4% 6-10 hr/wk 61 12% % 786 5% 11,884 7% 93 18% % 1,103 6% 12,165 8% hr/wk 21 4% 72 4% 680 4% 6,091 5% 47 9% 141 8% 975 5% 7,851 6% hr/wk 7 1% 47 3% 428 4% 3,100 3% 22 4% 94 6% 1,055 8% 6,371 6% hr/wk 4 1% 8 1% 94 1% 675 1% 14 3% 54 4% 278 2% 1,714 2% hr/wk 1 0% 4 0% 53 0% 251 0% 3 1% 9 1% 147 1% 781 1% 30+ hr/wk 0 0% 5 0% 85 1% 536 1% 7 1% 24 2% 289 2% 1,724 2% Total % % 14, % 117, % % % 16, % 120, % c. Working for pay off WORKOF01 0 hr/wk % % 9,914 67% 80,018 62% % % 7,370 43% 51,699 41% campus 1-5 hr/wk 17 3% 69 4% 628 4% 5,749 5% 19 4% 74 4% 808 5% 6,420 5% 6-10 hr/wk 16 3% 58 4% 696 5% 5,585 5% 26 5% 96 6% 1,068 6% 7,921 6% hr/wk 9 2% 61 4% 759 5% 5,705 5% 29 5% 87 5% 1,128 6% 8,278 6% hr/wk 7 1% 38 3% 843 6% 6,552 6% 21 4% 104 6% 1,655 9% 11,264 9% hr/wk 6 1% 28 2% 631 5% 4,839 5% 8 2% 63 4% 1,359 8% 8,975 8% hr/wk 5 1% 14 1% 354 3% 2,943 3% 8 1% 39 3% 947 6% 6,225 6% 30+ hr/wk 1 0% 20 2% 577 5% 6,173 8% 11 2% 97 7% 2,607 18% 19,637 19% Total % % 14, % 117, % % % 16, % 120, % d. Participating in cocurricular COCURR01 0 hr/wk 96 19% % 5,340 42% 41,461 43% 85 17% % 7,663 49% 50,789 47% activities 1-5 hr/wk % % 4,642 31% 39,050 30% % % 5,068 29% 36,522 29% (organizations, campus 6-10 hr/wk % % 2,047 13% 16,428 12% % % 1,918 10% 14,242 11% publications, student hr/wk 43 8% % 1,007 6% 9,017 7% 51 10% % 926 5% 7,435 5% government, fraternity or hr/wk 29 6% 137 8% 633 4% 5,589 4% 35 7% 107 6% 618 3% 5,019 4% sorority, intercollegiate or hr/wk 11 2% 58 3% 309 2% 2,735 2% 21 4% 72 4% 309 2% 2,562 2% intramural sports, etc.) hr/wk 4 1% 29 2% 139 1% 1,196 1% 9 2% 20 1% 156 1% 1,296 1% 30+ hr/wk 14 3% 49 3% 280 2% 2,093 2% 22 4% 63 4% 286 2% 2,567 2% Total % % 14, % 117, % % % 16, % 120, % a Column percentages (%) are weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size. Because the counts are not weighted, you cannot calculate the column % directly from the counts. 9

11 Technological University e. Relaxing and socializing SOCIAL05 0 hr/wk 5 1% 19 1% 116 1% 1,017 1% 4 1% 11 1% 206 1% 1,381 1% (watching TV, partying, 1-5 hr/wk % % 3,083 21% 26,618 23% % % 4,675 29% 34,657 29% etc.) 6-10 hr/wk % % 4,114 28% 34,697 29% % % 5,247 31% 37,807 31% hr/wk % % 2,880 20% 23,834 20% 92 18% % 3,180 18% 22,095 18% hr/wk 74 15% % 1,920 14% 14,738 13% 53 11% % 1,835 10% 12,412 10% hr/wk 26 5% 101 6% 952 7% 6,991 6% 30 6% 89 6% 748 4% 5,161 4% hr/wk 15 3% 33 2% 457 3% 3,264 3% 16 3% 46 3% 373 2% 2,439 2% 30+ hr/wk 44 9% 90 6% 857 6% 6,299 6% 17 4% 77 5% 665 4% 4,338 4% Total % % 14, % 117, % % % 16, % 120, % f. Providing care for CAREDE01 0 hr/wk % % 11,076 76% 90,417 72% % % 10,888 61% 78,079 62% dependents living with you 1-5 hr/wk 29 6% 111 8% 1,747 12% 13,323 13% 42 8% 136 8% 2,088 13% 13,924 12% (parents, children, spouse, 6-10 hr/wk 8 2% 41 3% 606 4% 4,781 5% 20 4% 66 4% 1,061 7% 6,992 6% etc.) hr/wk 6 1% 15 1% 344 3% 2,572 3% 11 2% 35 2% 622 4% 3,955 4% hr/wk 1 0% 12 1% 161 1% 1,510 2% 5 1% 22 1% 429 3% 3,098 3% hr/wk 2 0% 5 0% 91 1% 703 1% 2 0% 5 0% 231 2% 1,597 1% hr/wk 2 0% 1 0% 50 0% 417 1% 0 0% 3 0% 162 1% 1,267 1% 30+ hr/wk 2 0% 10 1% 293 2% 3,681 5% 7 1% 35 2% 1,444 9% 11,346 10% Total % % 14, % 117, % % % 16, % 120, % g. Commuting to class COMMUTE 0 hr/wk 85 17% % 1,596 9% 21,913 14% 42 8% % 1,004 5% 12,790 8% (driving, walking, etc.) 1-5 hr/wk % % 9,504 66% 75,186 64% % % 11,331 66% 78,470 64% 6-10 hr/wk 37 8% 108 8% 2,115 16% 12,999 14% 49 10% % 3,107 19% 19,490 19% hr/wk 11 2% 43 3% 608 5% 4,004 4% 7 1% 69 4% 872 5% 5,601 5% hr/wk 1 0% 15 1% 266 2% 1,619 2% 3 1% 14 1% 308 2% 1,839 2% hr/wk 1 0% 8 1% 113 1% 604 1% 2 0% 7 0% 107 1% 641 1% hr/wk 0 0% 1 0% 47 0% 317 0% 0 0% 4 0% 47 0% 346 0% 30+ hr/wk 0 0% 2 0% 129 1% 807 1% 4 1% 5 0% 160 1% 1,148 1% Total % % 14, % 117, % % % 16, % 120, % 10aSpending significant ENVSCHOL Very little 6 1% 12 1% 331 3% 2,246 2% 11 2% 23 2% 428 3% 2,655 2% amounts of time studying Some 68 14% % 2,684 21% 20,157 19% 72 14% % 3,338 20% 21,498 19% and on academic work Quite a bit % % 6,689 47% 54,571 47% % % 7,678 45% 54,845 46% Very much % % 4,577 30% 39,557 31% % % 5,400 32% 40,706 32% Total % % 14, % 116, % % % 16, % 119, % b. Providing the support you ENVSUPRT Very little 11 2% 27 2% 487 4% 3,212 3% 21 4% 59 4% 1,045 7% 5,206 5% need to help you succeed Some 80 16% % 3,388 25% 23,463 23% % % 4,831 29% 28,691 27% academically Quite a bit % % 6,490 46% 52,513 45% % % 7,348 43% 53,039 44% Very much % % 3,910 25% 37,292 29% % % 3,622 22% 32,746 24% Total % % 14, % 116, % % % 16, % 119, % a Column percentages (%) are weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size. Because the counts are not weighted, you cannot calculate the column % directly from the counts. 10

12 Technological University c. Encouraging contact ENVDIVRS Very little 57 12% % 2,092 16% 15,756 15% % % 3,648 22% 22,881 20% among students from Some % % 4,881 35% 38,576 34% % % 6,233 37% 43,451 36% different economic, social, Quite a bit % % 4,452 31% 37,190 32% % % 4,385 26% 33,032 27% and racial or ethnic Very much 83 17% % 2,838 18% 24,911 20% 51 10% % 2,554 15% 20,225 16% backgrounds Total % % 14, % 116, % % % 16, % 119, % d. Helping you cope with ENVNACAD Very little % % 4,159 30% 29,616 29% % % 7,165 41% 43,971 40% your non-academic Some % % 5,748 40% 47,132 39% % % 6,072 36% 45,486 37% responsibilities (work, Quite a bit % % 3,131 22% 28,149 23% 66 13% % 2,570 16% 21,175 16% family, etc.) Very much 27 6% 145 9% 1,225 8% 11,474 9% 21 4% 86 5% 1,023 7% 8,932 7% Total % % 14, % 116, % % % 16, % 119, % e. Providing the support you ENVSOCAL Very little 79 16% % 2,597 19% 19,351 19% % % 4,763 28% 29,528 27% need to thrive socially Some % % 5,394 38% 44,120 38% % % 6,721 39% 48,631 40% Quite a bit % % 4,467 31% 37,608 31% % % 3,964 24% 30,251 24% Very much 38 8% % 1,793 13% 15,289 12% 31 6% 114 6% 1,372 9% 11,083 9% Total % % 14, % 116, % % % 16, % 119, % f. Attending campus events ENVEVENT Very little 15 3% 89 6% 1,213 9% 9,549 11% 51 10% % 2,440 14% 15,369 15% and activities (special Some % % 4,021 28% 29,387 28% % % 5,692 32% 37,063 33% speakers, cultural Quite a bit % % 5,680 38% 45,800 37% % % 5,803 34% 43,009 35% performances, athletic Very much % % 3,350 24% 31,689 24% 67 13% % 2,895 19% 24,152 18% events, etc.) Total % % 14, % 116, % % % 16, % 119, % g. Using computers in ENVCOMPT Very little 4 1% 9 1% 287 2% 2,431 2% 4 1% 6 0% 271 2% 1,988 2% academic work Some 32 6% 84 6% 1,616 12% 15,109 13% 37 7% 49 3% 1,504 9% 10,806 9% Quite a bit % % 4,830 35% 40,340 35% % % 4,759 29% 34,716 29% Very much % % 7,535 51% 58,596 50% % % 10,305 60% 72,153 60% Total % % 14, % 116, % % % 16, % 119, % 11aAcquiring a broad general GNGENLED Very little 21 4% 85 6% 397 3% 2,843 3% 24 5% 120 8% 452 3% 2,744 3% education Some % % 2,469 17% 18,288 17% % % 2,688 15% 15,916 14% Quite a bit % % 6,570 47% 51,284 45% % % 6,798 40% 45,296 39% Very much % % 4,686 33% 42,885 35% % % 6,784 42% 54,952 44% Total % % 14, % 115, % % % 16, % 118, % b. Acquiring job or workrelated GNWORK Very little 23 5% 78 5% 1,578 11% 11,495 11% 27 5% 61 4% 1,213 7% 7,636 7% knowledge and Some % % 4,324 31% 34,935 31% 90 18% % 3,621 22% 24,834 21% skills Quite a bit % % 4,998 35% 41,165 35% % % 5,735 34% 40,607 34% Very much % % 3,219 22% 27,643 23% % % 6,147 37% 45,795 37% Total % % 14, % 115, % % % 16, % 118, % a Column percentages (%) are weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size. Because the counts are not weighted, you cannot calculate the column % directly from the counts. 11

13 Technological University c. Writing clearly and GNWRITE Very little 58 12% 140 9% 952 6% 5,512 6% 56 11% % 889 5% 4,689 4% effectively Some % % 3,620 25% 25,918 23% % % 3,722 21% 22,760 20% Quite a bit % % 5,762 42% 47,585 41% % % 6,563 39% 45,777 39% Very much 76 15% % 3,790 27% 36,267 30% 80 16% % 5,545 34% 45,664 36% Total % % 14, % 115, % % % 16, % 118, % d. Speaking clearly and GNSPEAK Very little 67 14% % 1,683 11% 10,114 10% 50 10% 137 9% 1,220 7% 6,300 6% effectively Some % % 4,387 31% 33,391 29% % % 4,371 25% 27,073 24% Quite a bit % % 5,055 37% 43,478 37% % % 6,241 38% 45,010 38% Very much 72 15% % 2,994 21% 28,283 24% 85 17% % 4,884 30% 40,504 32% Total % % 14, % 115, % % % 16, % 118, % e. Thinking critically and GNANALY Very little 18 4% 35 3% 375 3% 2,664 3% 8 2% 28 2% 322 2% 1,955 2% analytically Some 71 15% % 2,383 18% 17,891 17% 53 10% % 2,072 12% 13,147 12% Quite a bit % % 5,989 43% 48,469 42% % % 6,314 38% 43,385 38% Very much % % 5,374 37% 46,255 38% % % 8,013 48% 60,411 49% Total % % 14, % 115, % % % 16, % 118, % f. Analyzing quantitative GNQUANT Very little 13 3% 29 2% 892 7% 7,608 7% 8 2% 35 3% 814 5% 6,306 5% problems Some 85 17% % 3,651 27% 30,830 27% 45 9% % 3,664 22% 27,292 23% Quite a bit % % 5,586 39% 45,736 39% % % 6,154 37% 43,169 37% Very much % % 3,972 27% 30,992 27% % % 6,073 36% 42,027 35% Total % % 14, % 115, % % % 16, % 118, % g. Using computing and GNCMPTS Very little 10 2% 23 2% 866 6% 7,017 6% 7 1% 20 1% 563 3% 4,384 4% information technology Some 62 13% % 2,996 22% 26,328 22% 36 7% 96 7% 2,724 17% 20,532 17% Quite a bit % % 5,112 37% 42,993 37% % % 5,644 34% 41,160 34% Very much % % 5,149 35% 38,931 34% % % 7,787 46% 52,811 45% Total % % 14, % 115, % % % 16, % 118, % h. Working effectively with GNOTHERS Very little 21 4% 40 3% 836 6% 5,899 6% 17 4% 34 2% 676 4% 3,775 4% others Some 87 18% % 3,767 28% 28,155 26% 72 14% % 3,375 21% 21,056 19% Quite a bit % % 5,475 39% 45,498 39% % % 6,101 36% 43,412 36% Very much % % 4,047 28% 35,717 30% % % 6,561 39% 50,639 40% Total % % 14, % 115, % % % 16, % 118, % i. Voting in local, state, or GNCITIZN Very little % % 6,154 43% 51,063 43% % % 6,199 36% 41,619 36% national elections Some % % 4,159 30% 34,913 30% % % 5,258 32% 37,959 32% Quite a bit 38 8% % 2,331 17% 18,280 17% 48 10% % 3,062 19% 22,758 19% Very much 17 4% 51 3% 1,346 10% 9,962 10% 21 4% 68 4% 2,120 13% 15,916 13% Total % % 13, % 114, % % % 16, % 118, % a Column percentages (%) are weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size. Because the counts are not weighted, you cannot calculate the column % directly from the counts. 12

14 Technological University j. Learning effectively on GNINQ Very little 29 6% 82 6% 844 6% 6,637 7% 33 7% 89 6% 1,124 7% 6,594 6% your own Some % % 3,738 26% 30,092 26% % % 3,531 21% 23,592 21% Quite a bit % % 6,100 44% 49,773 43% % % 6,612 40% 48,251 40% Very much 88 18% % 3,313 24% 27,766 24% % % 5,377 33% 39,868 33% Total % % 13, % 114, % % % 16, % 118, % k. Understanding yourself GNSELF Very little % % 1,824 13% 12,722 12% % % 2,420 14% 13,248 13% Some % % 4,069 29% 32,057 28% % % 4,393 26% 29,099 25% Quite a bit % % 4,941 35% 41,551 35% % % 5,255 32% 39,612 33% Very much 67 14% % 3,157 23% 27,935 24% 78 15% % 4,572 29% 36,328 29% Total % % 13, % 114, % % % 16, % 118, % l. Understanding people of GNDIVERS Very little 86 18% % 2,182 15% 16,412 15% % % 2,820 17% 18,133 16% other racial and ethnic Some % % 4,647 33% 37,970 33% % % 5,532 33% 38,860 33% backgrounds Quite a bit % % 4,449 32% 37,002 32% % % 4,897 30% 35,882 30% Very much 46 9% % 2,709 20% 22,841 20% 45 9% % 3,385 21% 25,387 21% Total % % 13, % 114, % % % 16, % 118, % m. Solving complex real-world GNPROBSV Very little 43 9% 81 6% 1,748 13% 13,696 13% 30 6% 77 5% 1,930 11% 12,580 11% problems Some % % 4,829 35% 39,661 35% % % 4,844 29% 35,237 30% Quite a bit % % 4,905 35% 40,196 35% % % 5,710 34% 41,771 35% Very much % % 2,512 17% 20,692 18% % % 4,161 25% 28,708 24% Total % % 13, % 114, % % % 16, % 118, % n. Developing a personal GNETHICS Very little 85 18% % 2,234 16% 16,162 16% % % 2,948 17% 17,289 16% code Some % % 4,321 30% 34,461 31% % % 4,826 27% 32,555 28% of values and ethics Quite a bit % % 4,458 31% 37,636 32% % % 4,731 28% 36,005 29% Very much 86 18% % 2,975 22% 25,975 21% 83 17% % 4,130 28% 32,424 26% Total % % 13, % 114, % % % 16, % 118, % o. Contributing to the GNCOMMUN Very little % % 2,901 21% 21,866 22% % % 3,741 22% 22,649 21% welfare Some % % 4,996 35% 40,467 36% % % 5,719 33% 39,504 34% of your community Quite a bit % % 4,020 28% 33,361 28% % % 4,172 25% 32,603 26% Very much 36 7% % 2,075 15% 18,516 14% 47 9% % 3,004 20% 23,498 18% Total % % 13, % 114, % % % 16, % 118, % p. Developing a deepened GNSPIRIT Very little % % 5,537 41% 43,005 41% % % 8,260 48% 53,401 49% sense of spirituality Some % % 3,711 25% 31,392 27% % % 3,901 21% 29,338 24% Quite a bit 49 10% % 2,638 17% 21,969 18% 54 11% 118 7% 2,248 13% 17,843 14% Very much 24 5% 100 6% 2,101 17% 17,836 14% 27 5% 90 5% 2,222 18% 17,640 14% Total % % 13, % 114, % % % 16, % 118, % a Column percentages (%) are weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size. Because the counts are not weighted, you cannot calculate the column % directly from the counts. 13

15 Technological University 12. Overall, how would you ADVISE Poor 19 4% 57 4% 962 7% 6,482 6% 40 8% % 2,064 12% 11,333 11% evaluate the quality of Fair 87 18% % 2,886 21% 20,991 20% % % 4,085 24% 24,519 22% academic advising you Good % % 6,645 47% 54,419 47% % % 6,714 40% 48,252 40% have received at your Excellent % % 3,550 25% 32,708 27% % % 3,817 24% 34,421 27% institution? Total % % 14, % 114, % % % 16, % 118, % 13. How would you evaluate ENTIREXP Poor 15 3% 30 2% 283 2% 2,031 2% 10 2% 42 3% 428 3% 2,255 2% your entire educational Fair 48 10% % 1,708 13% 12,436 12% 61 12% % 2,297 14% 13,150 12% experience at this Good % % 7,569 54% 58,879 53% % % 8,514 49% 56,580 49% institution? Excellent % % 4,487 32% 41,272 33% % % 5,441 34% 46,551 36% Total % % 14, % 114, % % % 16, % 118, % 14. If you could start over SAMECOLL Definitely no 21 4% 61 4% 612 4% 5,053 5% 19 4% 130 9% 1,085 6% 6,179 6% again, would you go to the Probably no 50 10% % 1,767 12% 14,213 13% 65 13% % 2,350 13% 15,729 13% same institution you are Probably yes % % 5,752 41% 46,041 41% % % 6,692 39% 45,558 39% now attending? Definitely yes % % 5,913 43% 49,279 42% % % 6,551 42% 51,051 42% Total % % 14, % 114, % % % 16, % 118, % IPEDS: a Column percentages (%) are weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size. Because the counts are not weighted, you cannot calculate the column % directly from the counts. 14

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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 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 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

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

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 (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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cumulative. Percent. Faculty Staff Student External Total

Cumulative. Percent. Faculty Staff Student External Total Survey Participants Valid Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Faculty 441 17.3 17.3 17.3 Staff 508 20.0 20.0 37.3 Student 1431 56.3 56.3 93.6 External 164 6.4 6.4 100.0 2544 100.0 100.0

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

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

Instructors Who Taught Courses During the Spring 2007 Term. Spring 2007 Course and Teaching Evaluations

Instructors Who Taught Courses During the Spring 2007 Term. Spring 2007 Course and Teaching Evaluations TEMPLE UNIVERSITY Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122 A Commonwealth INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF THE PROVOST Richard M. Englert Phone: (215) 204-4775 Interim Provost Fax: (215) 204-5816 E-mail: provost@temple.edu

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

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

2009 Spring Check-In Survey Report

2009 Spring Check-In Survey Report 2009 Spring Check-In Survey Report All surveys All surveys: Number of surveys = 500 Number of completed surveys = 123 Percent of surveys completed = 24.60 % Number of people who have asked to be removed

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

Spring 2014 Graduate Student Survey Results by Degree Appendix B

Spring 2014 Graduate Student Survey Results by Degree Appendix B Appendix B Background I consider myself a... 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 1 Part-time student Full-time student 2% 14% 45% 98% 8 86% 55% EdD PhD MIT MEd I would prefer to take classes that meet during the.. Morning

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

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

STUDENT EXPERIENCE SURVEY - HE 2016

STUDENT EXPERIENCE SURVEY - HE 2016 RMIT Vietnam STUDENT EXPERIENCE SURVEY - HE 2016 615H-Accounting Survey Population: 114 Respondents: 34 Response Rate: 29.8% Demographics (% of total sample size) Commencement Year Age Gender Pre 2011

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

Master Degree Exit Interview Engineering Management

Master Degree Exit Interview Engineering Management Polytechnic University of Puerto Rico Master Degree Exit Interview Engineering Management 2015 Graduate School, Coop Program and Institutional Research Office 1 2 Sample Sample 2015 Population 83 Sample

More information

Master Degree Exit Interview Environmental Management

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

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

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

Master Degree Exit Interview Electrical Engineering

Master Degree Exit Interview Electrical Engineering Polytechnic University of Puerto Rico Master Degree Exit Interview Electrical Engineering 2014 Graduate School, Coop Program and Institutional Research Office 1 2 Sample Sample 2014 Population 6 Sample

More information

Instructors Who Taught Courses During the Spring 2006 Semester. Spring Semester 2006 Course and Teaching Evaluations

Instructors Who Taught Courses During the Spring 2006 Semester. Spring Semester 2006 Course and Teaching Evaluations TEMPLE UNIVERSITY Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122 A Commonwealth INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF THE PROVOST Ira M. Schwartz Phone: (215) 204-4775 Provost Fax: (215) 204-5816 E-mail: ira.schwartz@temple.edu

More information

Master Degree Exit Interview Master Computer Engineering

Master Degree Exit Interview Master Computer Engineering Polytechnic University of Puerto Rico Master Degree Exit Interview Master Computer Engineering Graduate School, Coop Program and Institutional Research Office 1 2 Sample Population 9 Sample 7 Percent of

More information

Engagement Study February 2014

Engagement Study February 2014 Engagement Study February 2014 Our Strategic Plan Identify and understand key constituencies Increase engagement Motivate giving Project Objectives What do they know about us? Understand perceptions of

More information

Q1 What is your current position or job title for the most recent academic year?

Q1 What is your current position or job title for the most recent academic year? Q What is your current position or job title for the most recent academic year? Answered: 2 Skipped: / 35 Q2 How many years of experience do you have working in education? Answered: 2 Skipped: - years

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

Master Degree Exit Interview Electrical Engineering

Master Degree Exit Interview Electrical Engineering Polytechnic University of Puerto Rico Master Degree Exit Interview Electrical Engineering 2016 Graduate School, Coop Program and Institutional Research Office 1 2 Sample Sample 2016 Population 6 Sample

More information

GUIDE TO THE UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM IN ECONOMICS

GUIDE TO THE UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM IN ECONOMICS GUIDE TO THE UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM IN ECONOMICS 2018-2019 SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY THE COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES AND THE MAXWELL SCHOOL OF CITIZENSHIP AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT 110 EGGERS HALL

More information

Instructors Who Taught Courses During the Fall 2005 Semester. Fall Semester 2005 Course and Teaching Evaluations

Instructors Who Taught Courses During the Fall 2005 Semester. Fall Semester 2005 Course and Teaching Evaluations TEMPLE UNIVERSITY Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122 A Commonwealth INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF THE PROVOST Ira M. Schwartz Phone: (215) 24-4775 Provost Fax: (215) 24-5816 E-mail: ira.schwartz@temple.edu

More information

Slide 1. Slide 2. Slide 3. Northeastern Ohio Actuarial Collaboration. Thomas Wakefield Youngstown State University

Slide 1. Slide 2. Slide 3. Northeastern Ohio Actuarial Collaboration. Thomas Wakefield Youngstown State University Slide 1 Northeastern Ohio Actuarial Collaboration Thomas Wakefield Youngstown State University Slide 2 Undergraduate Mathematics and Statistics at Youngstown State University 150 undergraduate mathematics/mathematics

More information

Registration for Senior Year CLASS OF 2018

Registration for Senior Year CLASS OF 2018 Registration for Senior Year CLASS OF 2018 Senior Scheduling Today, we are going to discuss your senior course selections. Some reminders when you get your verification card. Not all classes in the course

More information

June 27, Dear Members of The Joseph Sears School Community,

June 27, Dear Members of The Joseph Sears School Community, Dear Members of The Joseph Sears School Community, June 27, 2017 The 2017 School Climate Survey was issued to parents in May as a means of monitoring school climate and systematically collecting parent

More information

SAMPLE. FIN350: Principles of Finance for the Public Sector Credit Hours: 3. Course Description and Outcomes

SAMPLE. FIN350: Principles of Finance for the Public Sector Credit Hours: 3. Course Description and Outcomes FIN350: Principles of Finance for the Public Sector Credit Hours: 3 Contact Hours: This is a 3-credit course, offered in accelerated format. This means that 16 weeks of material is covered in 8 weeks.

More information

Master Degree Exit Interview Manufacturing Engineering

Master Degree Exit Interview Manufacturing Engineering Polytechnic University of Puerto Rico Master Degree Exit Interview Manufacturing Engineering 2016 Graduate School, Coop Program and Institutional Research Office 1 2 Sample Sample 2016 Population 23 Sample

More information

Graduate Survey Master's Degree Respondents Orlando Campus

Graduate Survey Master's Degree Respondents Orlando Campus Sample 4 Graduate Survey Master's Degree Respondents Orlando Campus - 2015 Master's Degree Gender Degree Frequency Percent Gender Frequency Percent Business Administration 1 33% Male 4 100% Engineering

More information

Commissioned by: A National Survey

Commissioned by: A National Survey Commissioned by: Conducted by: Precision Research Services A National Survey Random (non biased) sample N = 1500 respondents The make up of sample closely resembles the population Multi-stage, stratified

More information

F11 Freshman Check-in Summary Report

F11 Freshman Check-in Summary Report 2. Do you live in a: Response Rate: 99% (N=190) Question Type: Choose one Tag: Q1 Residence Hall (1) 173 9 House / apartment near campus (2) 6 3% House / apartment far from campus (driving required) (3)

More information

YouGov March 14-16, 2017

YouGov March 14-16, 2017 1. Watch College Sports How often do you watch college sports of any kind? Often 16% 21% 10% 13% 18% 16% 16% 16% 14% 15% 21% Sometimes 22% 27% 16% 20% 19% 26% 20% 22% 27% 12% 20% Rarely 20% 20% 21% 19%

More information

Accounting 40S Course Outline Business and Technology Department

Accounting 40S Course Outline Business and Technology Department Accounting 40S Course Outline 2015-2016 Business and Technology Department General Learning Outcomes (GLOs) for ACC40S Students will build upon and expand accounting principles and concepts introduced

More information

COURSE SYLLABUS AND INSTRUCTOR PLAN

COURSE SYLLABUS AND INSTRUCTOR PLAN WACO, TEXAS COURSE SYLLABUS AND INSTRUCTOR PLAN Principle of Managerial Accounting ANNETTE BIGHAM SPRING 2011 Course Description: Emphasizes managerial use of and decision making with accounting data.

More information

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSSETS DARTMOUTH College of Business Department of Accounting and Finance

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSSETS DARTMOUTH College of Business Department of Accounting and Finance UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSSETS DARTMOUTH College of Business Department of Accounting and Finance Summer 2018 COURSE: FIN 670, Investment Analysis, Online section PREREQUISITES: FIN 500 and graduate standing

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

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

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSSETS DARTMOUTH College of Business Department of Accounting and Finance. FIN 484, Advanced Investment Analysis, Online section

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSSETS DARTMOUTH College of Business Department of Accounting and Finance. FIN 484, Advanced Investment Analysis, Online section UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSSETS DARTMOUTH College of Business Department of Accounting and Finance Fall 2016 COURSE: FIN 484, Advanced Investment Analysis, Online section PREREQUISITES: FIN 383 Investment

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

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