The Alumni Survey was developed by the Alumni Survey Development Committee from summer 2002 through spring 2003 and was administered by the office of Institutional Research from fall 2003 through January 2004. It was designed to ascertain how alumni felt about their experiences at CSUDH and how their experiences here affected their lives. The Alumni Survey Committee developed eight topic areas in order to concentrate attention on particular areas of interest. These areas were designed to provide feedback on the following questions:
Topic Areas:
How did the university contribute to alumni’s personal development?
To what extent do alumni attribute their career success to their educational experiences at CSUDH?
How is the reputation of CSUDH viewed by our alumni?
To what extent do alumni feel connected to or have an interest in the university?
What do alumni think about the quality of the education that they experienced while a student at CSUDH?
How did our alumni benefit from our diverse campus environment?
How did various off-campus delivery systems impact on their experience and education as a student?
To what extent did the curriculum taught at CSUDH prepare our students for the work environment and/or advanced degrees?
To reduce the number of questions asked of any one respondent and better target particular areas of interest to the most appropriate alumni, four separate surveys were developed and administered to four different groups of alumni. More than half of the questions in each survey were common to all four groups and a few were common to only two or three. The remaining questions were unique to each sample. The identified subpopulations which make these samples unique were “New Alumni” (those completing their program within the past five years), “Old Alumni” (those completing their program over five years ago) and “Distance Learning Alumni” (those that completed a distance learning program at any time). There was also an additional sample, consisting of both new and old alumni, which were given specific questions for use by the Alumni Relations office. However, they did not receive the unique questions that were given to the other new and old subpopulations. The results for these Alumni Relations respondents are reported separately only for the specific items that were asked solely of this group. In all other instances, their responses are tallied along with the other samples of “New” and “Old” alumni.
There were 1,281 total respondents to the four surveys. The totals for each identified subpopulation are as follows:
There were 494 alumni identified as graduating within the past 5 years. Of these, 148 were part of the Alumni Relations sample and 346 were in the new alumni sample. For questions that are common to both of these groups, the responses are combined and identified as “New Alumni.”
There were 611 alumni identified as graduating more than 5 years ago. Of these, 161 were part of the Alumni Relations sample and 450 were in the old alumni sample. For questions that are common to both of these groups, the responses are combined and identified as “Old Alumni.”
There were176 alumni identified as receiving their degree through a distance
learning program.
The term “subpopulations” is used frequently in the analysis and refers to the four groups that were given some unique questions in addition to the common set of questions that everyone received.
This term has been defined operationally to describe the level of the program
the alumni completed at CSUDH. The three categories are undergraduate alumni,
graduate alumni, and “credential only” alumni. This last group consists
of those that finished a credential program without concurrently enrolling in
a major leading to a degree. Most of these alumni would have already earned
an undergraduate degree, but some may have earned a master’s degree prior
to pursuing their credential.
Many people played a role in the development of the survey. The following acknowledge their contributions.
Pete Van Hamersveld (Chair), Senior Research Analyst, Institutional Research
Imani Brown, former Associate Vice President, University & Government Relations
Miguel Dominguez, Department Chair, Foreign Languages
Maria Hurtado-Ortiz, Faculty, Psychology
Cheryl Jackson-Harris, Faculty, Health Sciences
Connie White-Betz, Counseling Psychologist, Student Development
Sheila Wood, Alumni Association Board member
Elana Christova, Humanities External Degree
Roger Hamrick, Quality Assurance
David Karber, Public Administration, (MPA on-line program)
Kent Poertner, Business Administration, (MBA on-line program)
Carole Shea, Division of Nursing
Eugene Watson, Quality Assurance
Joanne Zitelli, Associate Dean, Extended Education
Jinny Hernandez-Quinnes
Tamala Terhune
The following individuals reviewed and refined the instruments used in the Alumni Survey. The list is presented in alphabetical order followed by the position held at the time the survey was developed.
Don Barnett, Faculty, Accounting/Law
Charmayne Bohman, Assistant Vice President, Graduate Studies (retired)
Joel Colbert, Associate Dean School of Education
Bob Christie, Faculty, Sociology
Scott Curtis, School of Business and Public Affairs
Bob Dowling, Acting Dean, School of Business and Public Affairs
Steven Frieze, Acting Director Institutional Research, Assessment and Planning
Larry Grey, Director, Student Development
Pam Hammond, Executive Director of Public Affairs and Publications
George Jennings, Chair, Mathematics
Cynthia Johnson, Faculty, Nursing
Dan Joseffini, Coordinator, International Student Services
Mary Lou Cappel, Faculty, Physical Education and Recreation
Naomi Moy, Director , Reference Librarian, Library
Linda Pomerantz, Acting Assistant Vice President, Undergraduate Programs
Penny Roebuck-Putz, Program Assistant , CEE Mediated Instruction and Distance
Learning
Julie Sandoval, Associate Athletics Director, Senior Woman Administrator, Athletics
Tamala Terhune, Alumni Relations Coordinator (no longer at the campus)
Rose Aguilar Welch, FacultySchool of Health
Justine Bell-Waters, Executive Assistant to the President, President’s
Office
Selase Williams, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
Randy Zarn, Associate Vice President Student Life, Student Affairs
The Alumni Survey addressed several issues that indicate how the experiences our alumni had at CSUDH affected their personal development in a variety of ways.
A healthy university experience can provide students with opportunities to think of new possibilities for their future plans, both personally and professionally. The results of the Alumni Survey shows that half (53.3%) of our alumni respondents indicated that their personal or professional aspirations changed as a consequence of their educational experiences at CSUDH. This is a remarkable outcome that is consistent among the different degree levels and is consistent when comparing the subpopulation that graduated over five years ago with the subpopulation graduating more recently. It is slightly less the case for Distance Learning respondents (46.9%) compared to these other two subpopulations. A review of the ratings by ethnic group shows that there were some differences between Hispanics (63.4%), African Americans (57.1%), Asian/Pacific Islanders (52.4%), and Whites (48.9%). All of these results should be considered impressive and have the potential of measuring the value added for alumni who attended CSUDH. Although far from conclusive, the data also suggest that there may be differences between ethnic groups. Given the extraordinary diversity of CSUDH, the campus is devoted to being responsive equally to the needs of all ethnic groups. The results described suggest potential differential responses to this item which should not be ignored.
A third (34%) of our alumni respondents either “strongly agreed,” or “agreed” that their experiences at CSUDH encouraged them to become more involved in community volunteer work. The results were fairly consistent for all degree levels. When comparing subpopulations, it was somewhat less true of Distance Learning respondents (25.7%) than was the case for respondents from the other subpopulations of newer alumni (35.5%) and those graduating over five years ago (34.9%). There were also some differences between ethnic groups. Particularly, African-Americans showed the highest level of agreement (40.1%), followed by Asian/Pacific Islander (38.7%), then Hispanics (35.3%), and finally Whites (30.5%). Therefore, what we can surmise from these results is that this very positive effect that CSUDH has on people seems to hold true regardless of the degree level earned, how long ago they graduated, or their ethnic background.
Close to 60% of all alumni respondents felt that their experiences at CSUDH helped them to become more aware of social and/or political issues. There were only very slight differences by degree level. The largest differences by subpopulation were between Distance Learning Alumni (51.5%) and alumni that graduated within the last five years (62.4%). Most of the identified ethnic groups responded quite similarly, with the exception that Whites (56.2%) showed slightly less agreement than did African-Americans (65.4%), Hispanics (63.2%), or Asian/Pacific Islanders (61.4%). It is fair to conclude that; overall, the CSUDH experience benefited our alumni’s social and/or political awareness in fairly consistent ways, regardless of their degree level, ethnic background or when they earned their degree.
Respondents were asked to rate each item in a list of various campus experiences in terms of their importance to their personal development. Based on the highest rating on a three point scale (“very important”), it is possible to compare the relative importance of each item. Those who did not have experience in any of the items were directed to mark, “Not Applicable.”
There were a set of personal development items that were experienced by the vast majority of alumni respondents. These will be reported initially. Courses in the major/degree program were very important to 69.7% of the respondents. About half of the respondents in each of the following items provided a “very important” rating: interactions of people of diverse backgrounds (55.0%), interactions with faculty (53.4%), interactions with fellow students (50.0%), academic advising (49.4%), and interactions with staff (48.8%).
Some items experienced by fewer respondents were rated very important. In fact, they were often rated as higher than most of the commonly experienced items described above. For instance, less than half of the respondents experienced an internship, yet 61.5% of those that did thought it was very important to their personal development. Even fewer participated in student teaching experiences, yet 61.5% considered the experience important to their career success. This is particularly the case since many of these respondents were students interested in teaching careers. Fieldwork was experienced by half of the respondents and was considered very important by 58.8%. There has been much discussion on this campus about the number of programs that require a minor. The results from this survey show that half (49.9%) of those that took a minor thought it was very important to their personal development.
The degree to which respondents considered courses important to their personal development differed according to the type of courses taken. For instance, courses in the major/degree program were given “very important” ratings by more respondents (69.7%) than were courses in the minor (45.2%) or other courses outside of their major in the general education curriculum (40.9%).
Overall, these results show that the academic areas of their specific interests of study were the most important things that these respondents remember about their university experience. In fact, the three items that were rated the least important to their personal development were the non-academic campus life areas involving student organizations (23.6%), intercollegiate athletics/intramural sports (23%), and student government (20.4%).
Nine out of every ten respondents to the Alumni Survey felt that CSUDH did a good job in preparing or assisting them in their professional careers. In fact, about half (48.9%) indicated that CSUDH prepared them “very well” and 43.5% indicated that they were “adequately” prepared. Only 7.7% thought that they were “not very well” prepared for their professional careers. These proportions were fairly consistent between new, old, and distance learning subpopulations. When comparing by degree levels, the responses for credential and graduate alumni were only slightly more favorable than for undergraduate alumni. Therefore, regardless of when they graduated or the type of degree earned, the respondents to the Alumni Survey were very positive about the value that their education added to their careers.
One of the main reasons people go to college is to improve their quality of living through career enhancement. The Alumni Survey asked all respondents if their experiences at CSUDH led to or advanced their careers. Overall, over three quarters (78.5%) of the respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that it did. The ratings by degree level show it was somewhat more the case for credential alumni (90.1%) than it was for those earning graduate (79.4%) or undergraduate (73.4%) degrees. This is due, in part, to the professional component of the education credential curriculum which is geared to enhance career opportunities. The breakdown by subpopulations shows the extent of agreement for new (75.1%), old (81.6%) and distance learning (77.0%) respondents.
The Alumni Survey asked respondents to rate the importance of various campus experiences to their career success. If applicable, they were to mark either “very important,” “somewhat important,” or “not very important.” The following elaborates on some of these.
Respondents valued their interactions with people of diverse backgrounds. In fact, 55.0% rated this non-academic area as very important to their career success. When analyzed by ethnicity, some small differences are apparent. Most notable, the identified minority respondents found these interactions to be slightly more important than was the case for White respondents. The breakdown was Asian/Pacific Islander (65.7%), African-American (62.3%), Hispanic (57.3%), and White (50.1%). Nevertheless, these interactions were still regarded as very important by half of the white respondents.
A list of majors for those with internship experiences demonstrates that, regardless of the particular course of study, an internship was a valuable part of the educational experience for those who participated. Overall, 69.0% of these respondents rated it as very important to their career success.
A list of majors for those with student teaching experiences shows that about a third (36.8%) of the respondents that had this experience at CSUDH were only in a credential program without concurrently pursuing a degree. Not surprisingly, a large proportion (81.2%) of these “credential only” alumni considered this experience very important to their career success. For these, as well as the MA Education and MA Special Education respondents, the nature of this experience is essential to their career success in K-12 education. For respondents from other majors, it is uncertain how they defined this item or applied it to their educational experiences.
A breakdown by degree level for those that finished a Master’s thesis/senior project/ or capstone course shows that, regardless of the course of study, most respondents found this item to be very important to their career success. This was the case for 57.2% of the respondents overall, 53.2% of undergraduate alumni, 58.7% of graduate alumni, and 59.3% of alumni respondents that just earned a credential.
The results of the Alumni Survey show that 84.9% of our respondents were employed at the time they were students at CSUDH. This proportion varies slightly by degree level, subpopulation, or the three largest ethnic groups of African-American, White, and Hispanic, indicating that the differences between these variables are irrelevant to the need to work while attending college. Of the undergraduate and “credential only” alumni who worked while attending college, 53.8 % and 57.3% respectively worked full-time (35 and above hours per week). Of the graduate alumni that worked while attending college, 80.9% worked full-time. The median number of hours worked was 40 for each subpopulation of new, old, or distance learning respondents (a measure of central tendency typically used with employment related analyses to accommodate the possibility of extremes in any direction). Except for Hispanics, where the median was 32.0, the median hours worked for each of the other ethnic groups was 40. Finally, the median number of hours worked for each degree level was also 40. What this demonstrates is that regardless of degree level, ethnicity or when they graduated, the majority of our alumni had a combined burden of work and education while they were students and the number of hours they worked was substantial.
The Student Development Office offers activities and services that assist students
in selecting majors, deciding career goals, choosing graduate programs, securing
employment, and helping alumni in obtaining jobs. The subpopulation of alumni
that graduated within the past five years was asked about their use of the office’s
activities or services before and after graduating. They were able to mark each
activity or service that they used to help attain employment.
Of the 345 potential new alumni respondents that were asked this question,
188 (54.5%) indicated they were clients of the Student Development Office before
graduating by using at least one of the office’s activities or services.
A review of some of these activities or services shows that the one that was
used most frequently before graduating was web site/other electronic resources
(54.8%). Student development referrals (Career Center) were used by 43.1% of
these respondents while Career days or job fairs were used before graduating
by 42.6%. About a third of these respondents used either career Center Handouts
(32.4%), participated in career workshops (29.8%), or used the career resources
library in the career center (29.8%) before graduating. On campus interviews
were conducted for a relatively small percentage of the respondents (15.4%)
prior to graduation.
Of the 345 potential respondents, 72 (20.9%) indicated that they used at least
one of the office’s services after graduating. Of these, more than half
(55.6%) used web site/other electronic resources. Career days or job fairs were
the next most widely used services after graduating, selected by 43.1% of these
new alumni customers. Less than a quarter (22.2%) obtained career center handouts
after graduating and Student development referrals (Career Center) were used
by 15.3%. Relatively few attended career workshops (13.9%) or used the career
resources library in the career center (13.9%). Of those that were clients of
the office, the service that was used least was on campus interviews (8.3%).
It should be noted that some Student Development career services appeal to a high percentage of students, while other are targeted at select populations of students. For instance, the On-Campus Interview program attracts employers who wish to hire predominately entry level positions in business. Graduate students or students whose interests gravitate toward science, education or the arts would not participate in this program. In contrast, job fairs draw employers with a broad spectrum of employment opportunities.
Some differences observed may be linked to cost. For instance, alumni pay an annual fee to attend workshops, participate in On-Campus Interviews or to see a career counselor. On-line resources, such as job posting are free as is the case for job fairs.
Regardless of these considerations, further research would be useful to explore why more students and alumni did not use the resources of the Student Development Office.
One of the objectives of the Alumni Survey was to determine the extent to which the university has been instrumental in securing employment for recent graduates. To accomplish this objective, the subpopulation of respondents that graduated within the past five years was asked to select from a list of various contacts that led to their first career position after graduating. The most frequently selected contacts were non-institutional: a family member or friend (23.7%), an employer while attending CSUDH (23.7%), or self initiated cold call (20.7%). The types of contacts that involve the institution directly were only minor contributors. For instance, the informal opportunities for Faculty referrals (4.1%) constitute a small proportion of contacts leading to career positions after graduation. The issues of faculty referrals and the career development aspects of the curriculum can be explored further in other research areas. The least selected type of contacts that led to their first career position after graduating were campus interviews (3.6%), and career center referrals (3.0%).
Although the results indicate that only 10.7% of these new alumni attributed the campus with providing a contact which led to their first career position after graduating, it is unknown how many of those who found their job on the internet, did so through the campus job site. Furthermore, the category internship/summer job would also include an unknown proportion of campus related contacts. For future studies, these categories should be more specific so that a more reliable measurement of campus related contacts can be established.
The respondents that graduated within the past five years were asked how long they searched for their first career position after graduating from CSUDH. Overall, 39.5% were already employed and continued in their same position. Another 12.3% obtained a new career position prior to graduating and 12.3% went straight to a graduate or professional program. For the remaining third of the respondents, all but 4% obtained a career position within 12 months after graduating, which is a positive indicator of the employability of CSUDH graduates in career positions.
Respondents that graduated over five years ago were asked to write in the type of job and industry in which they work. The most frequently occurring jobs were teacher (26.7%), manager (10.1%), nurse (8.7%), administrator (4.0%), professor (4.0%), analyst (3.5%), accountant, CPA, auditing (3.3%), and director (2.3%). The remaining list of occupations was written in by fewer than 2% of the respondents and represents quite a variety of professional positions. The most frequently occurring industries in which these respondents work are education (45.6%), healthcare (13.1%), government (6.9%), sales (4.8%), aerospace (3.1%), law enforcement (2.6%), and manufacturing (2.6%). The remaining list of industries was written in by fewer than 2% of the respondents.
Except for those from the distance learning subpopulation, respondents that were employed at the time the survey was administered were asked to indicate their current individual annual income by selecting from a list of income ranges. These ranges were further collapsed (i.e., low, middle, high) in order to facilitate the analysis. Although the results from these respondents are interesting, additional research on a larger sample is imperative for a conclusive understanding of salaries earned by our alumni.
The small numbers of respondents represented by each major allows for only anecdotal information of income. To provide some examples, income levels by major of their degree are presented for respondents graduating over five years ago in majors that generated at least 10 respondents.
A comparison by degree level shows that graduate degree respondents were somewhat more likely to earn higher incomes than undergraduate degree respondents. In fact, 26.8% of the graduate degree respondents earned at least $80,000 compared to 19.6% of undergraduate degree respondents. Conversely, 16.9% of the graduated degree respondents earned less than $40,000 compared to 26.4% of undergraduate degree respondents. Respondents who were recommended for an education credential from CSUDH had a larger proportion (70%) in the middle income range of $40,000-$79,999 than was the case for those earning degrees: undergraduate (54%), graduate (56%). The analysis below will explore the differences between each of these courses of study in terms of when they graduated and their ethnicity. Although differences in income are apparent, knowing when an alumnus graduated, their course of study, or their ethnic affiliation provides limited guidance in predicting income. Therefore, additional investigation of income differences and how they are associated with ethnicity and other variables needs further exploration.
Overall, about one quarter (26.4%) of the working undergraduate respondents were in the income range that earned less than $40,000, just over one half (54.0%) were in the middle range, earning between $40,000-$79,000, and one fifth (19.6%) were in the higher income range, earning $80,000 or more.
Not surprisingly, a comparison of these undergraduate alumni by when they received their degree shows that over twice as many old (graduating over 5 years ago) than new (graduating within 5 years) undergraduate respondents were in the higher income range (26.5% old vs. 11.3% new) and much fewer were in the lower range (20.6% old vs. 33.5% new). In both cases, just over half were in the middle range (55.2% old and 52.9% new). Thus, the fact that many older undergraduate alumni respondents had opportunities to increase their incomes is reflected in the results. In fact, the results show movement from both lower and middle income levels to the next higher income category.
There were differences in income ranges by ethnicity for these undergraduate degree respondents. Most important of all, a much higher proportion of Hispanics (45.1%) fell in the lower income range (less than $40,000) than was the case for African-Americans (23.8%), Asian/Pacific Islanders (23.8%), or Whites (22.9%). Well over a quarter of the Whites (27.9%) were in the higher income range (over $80,000). This was markedly higher than was the case for African-Americans (14.0%), Hispanics (11.3%), or Asian/Pacific Islanders (11.9%), which had similar proportions in the higher income range.
As might be expected, the current income earned by graduate degree respondents was somewhat higher from that reported by alumni earning baccalaureate degrees. One out of every six (16.9%) graduate degree respondents was in the income range that earned less than $40,000. Just over half (56.3%) were in the middle range, ($40,000-$79,000), while over a quarter (26.8%) were in the higher income range, earning $80,000 or more. A comparison of the graduate alumni by when they received their degree, shows that more old (graduating over 5 years ago) than new (graduating within 5 years) graduate degree respondents were in the higher income range (32.4% old vs. 18.9% new). Interestingly, the proportion in the lower range was about the same for both old (17.6%) and new (15.8%) graduate alumni. Fewer older graduate alumni were in the middle range (50.0% old) than was observed in those that graduated within the past five years (65.3% new). As in the case with undergraduates, the expected tendency to earn more as time passes is evident in these results. Compared to undergraduate respondents, fewer graduate degree respondents were in the low income range in the first place and there was almost no shift away from the proportion found in this range for those that graduated over five years ago. The major shift after the five year mark was from the middle range and towards the high range.
Those who earned graduate degrees also showed differences in income by ethnicity. Some of the total numbers for each ethnic group are low, but will be reported as a point of discussion. Compared to undergraduate respondents, Hispanic graduate alumni had a fairly low proportion (11.5%) in the lower income range of less than $40,000. They were almost tied with African-Americans (10.7%), were lower than Whites (17.0%), and especially lower than Asian/Pacific Islanders (28.6%). Whites had the largest proportion (30.9%) in the high income range of over $80,000, followed by African-Americans (23.2%), Hispanics (19.2%) and Asian/Pacific Islanders (7.1%). More than half of each ethnic category for graduate degree respondents earned a salary n the middle income range.
The group of respondents that pursued a credential only track showed little differences in income ranges based on how long ago they were recommended for a credential. For the new “credential only” respondents, 16.1% were in the lower income range (less than $40,000), 68.8% were in the middle income range ($40,000-$79,000), and 15.2% were in the higher income range ($80,000 or more). There was no marked shift for those that completed their program over five years ago. In that group 12.1% were in the lower income range (less than $40,000), 71.4% were in the middle income range ($40,000-$79,000), and 16.5% were in the higher income range ($80,000 or more).
There were only 10 Asian/Pacific Islander “credential only” respondents, and the number of cases for the other groups are fairly low. Therefore, the following descriptions of the findings should be used only as a source of conversation in planning additional research. A comparison of these “credential only” alumni by ethnicity shows small differences in their income ranges. Whites only had 9.5% in the lowest income range (less than $40,000) and Asian/Pacific Islanders had the highest percent in this range (20.0%). In between these were African-Americans (12.8%) and Hispanics (18.40%). A large majority of each ethnic group earned salaries in the middle income range ($40,000-$79,000). In this range there were little differences between Whites (73.0%), Hispanics (71.4%), or African-Americans (70.2%). However, Asian/Pacific Islanders (60.0%) were less represented in this category. Whites (17.6%) and African-Americans (17.0%) were equally represented in the highest income range ($80,000 or more) and Hispanics were represented the least (10.2%).
Of critical importance to the university are the impressions people have of the institution. The reputation (image) of the campus can significantly affect who enrolls and who persists. Information on these topics can ultimately lead to discussions that can improve university programs and practices.
All respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement to the following question, “If choosing a university again, I would choose CSUDH.” Overall, three quarters of our alumni showed agreement with this statement as indicated by combining the ratings of “Strongly Agree” and “Agree.” Analyzing the breakdown of this question by sample subpopulations or degree level shows high levels of agreement between categories in each of these groups. Therefore, whether graduating recently, a long time ago, with a bachelor’s, master’s, or credential, the majority of our alumni would still choose CSUDH if they could do it again. The identified ethnic groups were fairly similar in their willingness to choose CSUDH again. There were some small differences by ethnicity. About three quarters of African-Americans (79.5%), Hispanics (78.6%), and Whites (75.8%) indicated they would choose CSUDH again. The level of agreement from Asians/Pacific Islanders (69.4%) was just slightly lower.
The Alumni Survey asked all respondents if they would recommend CSUDH to prospective students. This item is another strong indicator of how alumni viewed CSUDH. Nine out of ten respondents indicated that they would recommend CSUDH, with only small differences between the identified sample subpopulations (87.8% to 93.1%), degree levels (88.7% to 93.5%), or ethnic groups (88.2% to 92.9%). This feedback is very positive, especially since it is so widely agreed upon by each of the comparison categories listed above.
This question was also analyzed for those respondents that indicated they would not select CSUDH if choosing a university again. The results show that, despite the fact that they felt this way, a large minority (37%) of this subgroup would still recommend CSUDH to prospective students. There were marked differences by degree level, although they result from a small number of cases (103). Nevertheless, it is worth noting some of the observations provided in this analysis. For instance, 29.4% of the undergraduate respondents who would not choose CSUDH again still recommend this campus to prospective students. This figure was even higher for graduate alumni (46.4%). This may indicate that some respondents surveyed felt very positive about our campus, but looking back, they would have chosen a different career path which would not have included a CSUDH education. This may be a reflection of their academic program choices rather than how they perceived CSUDH. Another possibility is that, after looking back, they feel they personally could have competed at a higher academic level. There were also differences by subpopulation; the more recent alumni respondents who would not choose CSUDH again were more apt to still recommend this campus to prospective students (42.9%) than were those graduating over five years ago (31.6%) or those from distance learning programs (33.3%). A breakdown by ethnicity shows that about half of the African-American respondents and a third of each of the other identified groups indicated that they would still recommend CSUDH to prospective students, even though they would not choose CSUDH again themselves. Although these figures may serve as a very interesting point of discussion, they should be viewed with caution since further research is necessary to determine the extent to which we can depend on these findings as conclusive.
Alumni that graduated over five years ago (“older alumni”) were asked two questions to determine if their impressions about CSUDH have changed since they were enrolled as students. First, they were asked to rate their overall impression of CSUDH while they were attending the campus. Then they were asked if their overall impressions have changed since graduating.
Three quarters of these older alumni claimed they had favorable impressions of our campus while they were attending, as indicated by their ratings of either “Very High” or Above Average.” Very few (3.5%) indicated unfavorable impressions. Since graduating over five years ago, the majority (61%) of these alumni feel about the same about our campus as they did while enrolled. However, for 35% of these older alumni, their overall impressions are more favorable now than when they were enrolled, while only 4% indicated any decline in their impressions.
These findings are fairly consistent among degree levels but slightly less consistent between the identified ethnic groups. For instance, both African-Americans and White respondents reported nearly the same positive impressions of CSUDH while they were enrolled (77.9% and 78.1% respectively). However twice as many African-Americans (50.5%) than Whites (24.9%) indicated that their impressions have improved since graduating. The figures for Hispanics were 26.3% and 32% for Asian/Pacific Islanders. Some of these differences may be a sign of a greater affinity from those who live in the immediate community of CSUDH.
There were several items on the Alumni Survey that were designed to elicit
information on alumni related activities. For this purpose, a subset of alumni
was selected to give feedback on questions that focused on the extent to which
respondents were engaged in the university subsequent to earning their degree
at CSUDH. These respondents consisted of 149 new alumni that graduated within
the past five years and 160 old alumni that graduated over five years ago, totaling
309. There was an additional engagement question asked of all respondents about
the degree to which they were informed about campus events and news. Furthermore,
the Alumni Relations sub-sample and the respondents that graduated over five
years ago were asked about the extent to which they felt connected to the campus.
Respondents were asked to rate the degree to which they felt connected to the
campus on a scale of 1 (none) to 10 (strongest). There was quite a dispersion
of these individual
ratings. The mean
rating for this item was 5.21 and the standard deviation was 2.6. This
result indicates that as a whole, our alumni feel a moderate sense of connectivity
to the campus. Compared to the respondents that graduated over five years ago
(mean=5.16), the degree to which the newer alumni felt connected (mean=5.41)
was only very slightly stronger, so the length of time that has elapsed since
graduating barely has an affect on the respondents’ sense of connectivity.
A review of the statistics
by ethnicity shows some differences in the levels of connectivity. The highest
levels were reported by African-Americans (mean=6.04) and Hispanics (mean=5.95),
followed by Asian/Pacific Islanders (mean=5.05) and Whites (mean=4.64). It is
apparent that, although there are many exceptions in the individual
ratings by ethnicity, there was a greater proportion of Whites that reported
low levels of connectivity compared to the two other large groups: African-Americans
and Hispanics. This may be an area of concern from a diversity point of view
and is an issue that should be explored further by a survey which more specifically
addresses dimensions of diversity at CSUDH. Currently there is insufficient
data to make a definitive judgment on the subject, but it could have something
to do with the composition of the student body or how long students are at CSUDH
since, historically, a greater proportion of Whites compared to African-Americans
or Hispanics started as transfer students, which means they would have spend
fewer terms at CSUDH before graduating.
All respondents to the Alumni Survey were asked to rate the extent to which they were informed about CSUDH. Generally speaking, respondents fit into three generally equal categories: perception of being informed, uninformed and somewhere in between. As indicated by the combined ratings of “very” or “adequately” informed, alumni that were informed constituted 38.1% of the total respondents. This suggests that 61.9% were at least moderately uniformed about CSUDH. These uninformed alumni are further categrized by the middle ratings of “not very well informed” (31.1%) and the combined lowest ratings of “poorly” or “not at all” informed (30.8%). Considering that these perceptions are all from alumni for whom we had valid addresses and took the initiative to respond to the survey, these ratings seem low. It appears that we need to do a better job keeping alumni informed about events and developments at CSUDH.
Comparing the responses by the subpopulations shows basically no difference between new or old alumni as far as the percent that felt adequately or very well informed (38.4%, 37.9%). However, more old alumni (33.7%) felt “poorly” or “not at all” informed than was the case for new alumni (25.7%). Distance learning alumni provided the largest proportion of these low ratings (35.3%).
There were small differences
by ethnicity in the perceptions of being informed. As a group, White respondents
gave more bipolar ratings, with 39% indicating they were at least adequately
informed and almost as many (35.2%) indicating they were poorly informed at
best. The remaining (25.8%) indicated the middle level, “not very well” informed.
Only 30.7% of Hispanics indicated they were at least adequately informed and
just as many (30.0%) felt uninformed. African-Americans and Asian/Pacific Islanders
were similar to each other in that 42% felt at least adequately informed and
23% felt uninformed.
The sample of respondents who completed surveys that contained specific questions
on Alumni Relations issues was asked to select how
they would prefer to receive information about CSUDH. The vast majority
(73.6%) indicated that they preferred to get their information via standard
mail. A much smaller proportion (17.2%) indicated Email as their
preferred choice for getting information about CSUDH. Only 8.8% indicated that
they would rely on the CSUDH web site and almost none (0.4%) would want to wait
for a phone call from CSUDH.
The sample of alumni designated to provide feedback to Alumni Relations issues
was asked to indicate their degree of interest in participating in various alumni
events, presuming that they had the opportunity to do so. Based on their indication
of being either “very interested” or “somewhat interested,” the alumni event
that clearly generated the most interest was “professional
development seminars” (70.9%). This was followed by “social/cultural
events (mixers)” (51.2%), “on/off
campus special events”(46.7%), class
reunions (36.1%) and sporting
events (30.6%). In the last four events, undergraduate alumni showed more
interest than did graduate alumni. This was especially true for class reunions
where twice as many undergraduate than graduate alumni showed at least some
interest.
In conjunction with the question above regarding interest in alumni events, respondents were also asked to indicate the barriers that have prohibited them from participating in alumni activities. Respondents were asked to mark “Yes” or “No” next to a list of possible barriers that were listed on the survey. The barriers selected, in descending order, were: lack of time (85.1%), uninformed (70.1%), distance from campus (60.1%), lack of interest in subject matter (51.6%), not a value (47.4%), don’t know anyone (34.9%), too expensive (27.0%), and disability (8.7%).
Of greatest concern to CSUDH are responses to this item over which the campus
has some influence. An alumnus who has no information about campus events,
or is uninterested in activities that are available, or see limited value in
participation is disengaged. Building a vital alumni will require programming
that involves and invigorates the many CSUDH graduates who could potentially
be active in campus activities.
The Alumni Relations sample was asked to choose from list of eight
types of groups or chapters that the Alumni Association could develop (create/offer).
The most frequently chosen type of group/chapter was departmental/professional
(60.5%), a possible focus of alumni activities for the future. This was followed
by cultural (40%), special interest/other (24.5%), honor’s
(23.0%), recreation/sports (17.0%), service clubs (15.5%), religious
group (13.5%), and fraternities and sororities (13.5%).
The Alumni Relations sample was asked to select no more than five items from a list of nine alumni services/activities that they felt should be created or enhanced by the Alumni Association. The most frequently chosen items from this list of services/activities involve practical career building opportunities that could be offered to graduates or students. Identifying job opportunities for graduates, (selected by 79.6% of the respondents), and networking with alumni (44.8%) were chosen as services that are currently available and that should be enhanced.
Other services listed on the survey which are currently available and recommended for enhancement are:
Providing financial support (e.g. donations) (35.8%)
Providing feedback to university (35.1%)
Serving on boards, committees, etc.(28.0%)
Participating in the alumni groups/chapters (24.0%)
Volunteering at events (17.9%).
Of the services that are not currently available, alumni most often
selected mentoring students (65.6%). Also of importance were opportunities
for them to recruit students for internships (44.4%).
The survey asked the Alumni Relations sample of respondents to provide information regarding important services that the Alumni Relations office could offer. They were to select any number of benefits and services which would interest them from a list of thirteen items. The most frequently chosen items were career networking (55.7%) and discounts at stores (books, computers, etc.) (55.7%). Also very popular was employment links on the Alumni Web site (49.4%) and a mentor program for former alumni (48.2%).
The remaining items were:
Library borrowing privileges (45.1%)
Alumni travel opportunities (45.1%)
Affiliation with fitness center (41.6%)
Alumni ID card (39.6%)
Group insurance (home, car, travel) (24.3%)
Alumni achievement award (18%)
Permanent E-mail/mail forwarding service (17.6%)
Credit cards (Visa, MasterCard) (13.7%)
Other (3.5%)
Respondents were also asked to indicate the types of Alumni Association programs that they would prefer to attend. They were given four overlapping types of categories and could select as many as they wish. Almost half (47%) selected alumni & spouse/significant other, in which both alumni and their spouses could attend. Just over a third (35.3%) selected programs to be utilized by strictly alumni. There was a 5.6% overlap in that some respondents wanted opportunities for both arrangements. A third of the respondents selected a family program offering activities (33.6%) and affinity group/chapter (13.8%) was selected by the least number of respondents.
The Alumni Survey asked several questions pertaining to the quality of education that alumni experienced while a student at CSUDH.
In order to determine if alumni have a positive impression about the education they received at CSUDH, the Alumni Survey asked respondents to rate their satisfaction with various educational experiences. Respondents showed that they were pleased with what they experienced at CSUDH as indicated by their combined ratings of “very satisfied” and “satisfied”. In fact, a stunning majority (85%-90%) indicated that they were satisfied with a variety of instructional related items. These pertained to their overall satisfaction with their degree programs that offered very relevant courses in appropriate class sizes. They felt they received high quality instruction from enthusiastic faculty that effectively communicated the subject matter and graded fairly. Although the ratings about instructional items are very high, respondents viewed the university’s maintenance of high academic standards slightly less satisfactory (80%) by comparison. Furthermore, relative to the high ratings, the opportunities they had to examine different points of view were also viewed with slightly less satisfaction (76.7%). The time at which courses in the major were offered (82.0%) was rated slightly better than the variety of courses that were offered in the major/program (76.9%) or the availability of classes (74.1%). Respondents were noticeably less satisfied with university library services (71.0%) when compared to their other high ratings. As would be expected, only a small number of respondents (66) knew enough about university housing to provide an opinion. Of those, the majority (56.4%) selected the middle rating, “neutral” and only 32% indicated satisfaction.
The time at which courses were offered and the availability of courses in the major are educational experiences that can have an impact on the length of time it takes for students to progress towards their degree. The last section in this topic area, referring to “progress to degree,” will explore this important issue in greater depth.
The Office of Institutional Research, Assessment, and Planning produces copious statistics on graduation rates for various student cohorts which can help put the following analysis into a clearer context. These can be found at http://www.csudh.edu/oir/Retention.htm.
The time courses were offered and the availability of classes are educational experiences that can affect the length of time it takes students to complete their degree. However, there are many other important issues that mitigate time-to-degree, which the Alumni Survey tried to address. Respondents that earned their degrees within the last five years were first asked whether the time in which it took to earn a degree was “slower than originally planned,” “about the same as originally planned,” or “faster than originally planned.” The next item on the survey asked respondents to select from a list of typical reasons if there were delays in completing their degree. Respondents could select all applicable reasons resulting in information that is not mutually exclusive.
Because of the nature of time-to-degree data, it is necessary to view these results separately for undergraduate degrees, graduate degrees, and those that were recommended for a credential. Since there was a total of 314 alumni that responded to the first item (time in which it took to earn a degree) and 200 that responded to the second (experienced any delays in completing their degree), further analysis by undergraduate degrees, graduate degrees, and credentials yield fairly small numbers. Although any statements based on small numbers should be viewed with caution, they can serve as a starting point for discussion about issues that require further research. With this in mind, the following describes the feedback we received from the alumni respondents in our sample. Regular exit surveys of alumni might be a useful way to get more reliable information about obstacles towards earning degrees and would allow the tracking of improvements over time.
There were 172 responses from undergraduate alumni to this time-to-degree item. Just over half (58.7%) earned their degree in about the length of time that they planned originally. Another one third (33.7%) took longer than planned originally and relatively few (7.6%) finished faster than they planned originally. Out of these undergraduate alumni, 112 (65%) indicated that they experienced delays towards graduation by selecting at least one reason from a list of potential reasons that was provided by the survey. They were asked to select as many as applied. The most common reasons selected were the need to combine work and education (58%) and personal reasons (40.2%). The other reasons selected were more institutional in nature. About a third (34.8%) of the respondents selected problems with class scheduling as reasons for their delays. Almost as many respondents (29.5%) found that graduation checks and other administrative processes caused them delays. About one out of ten (9.8%) experienced delays as a result of a change of major and relatively few (4.5%) cited academic difficulties as a reason for causing delays to completing their education. There will always be a subset of students that the university cannot assist in terms of expediting their progress towards their degrees. They make choices consistent with personal priorities that may expedite their educational goals. For others, the university may be instrumental in expediting their progress.
The responses to the time-to-degree question from alumni that have earned graduate degrees are fairly low (68), therefore, the results presented below should serve only as a mechanism for initiating conversation about an important topic. These respondents differ from undergraduate degree respondents in that fewer felt that they progressed towards graduation in a slower time frame than they planned originally (22.1% compared to 33.7% for undergraduates). Furthermore, almost twice as many graduate than undergraduate respondents felt they progressed towards their degree faster than planned originally (14.7% compared to 7.6% for undergraduates). The remainder (63.2%) reported graduating in about the same time frame as they planned originally. The most frequently chosen reason for the few (37) that experienced delays towards graduation pertained to problems with scheduling classes (43.2%); personal reasons (35.1%) followed close behind. Compared to respondents who have earned undergraduate degrees, almost half as many of these 37 graduate degree respondents thought that combining work with education was a reason for delays towards graduation (32.4% compared to 58% for undergraduates). This is particularly interesting since more graduate (81.1%) than undergraduate (54.0%) respondents worked full-time while they were enrolled. Since these comparisons are based on such few responses, further research, such as exit surveys, is required before any reasonable comparisons can be made.
There was also a fairly small number (74) of respondents that were recommended a credential without concurrent enrollment in a master’s degree (Credential Only). Compared to the undergraduate and graduate respondents, they were the most satisfied with the time it took to completion in that 64.9% indicated that their progress was about the same as planned originally and 28.4% felt it was slower. The remaining 6.8 earned their credential faster than planned originally. Out of the 51 that felt they had any delays in completing their credential, scheduling classes (56.9%) and combining work with education (47.1%) were the most frequently selected reasons. Although these figures are interesting, they are from a small number of respondents, so a more substantial sample of credentialed alumni is necessary in order establish a level of confidence in any findings.
The Alumni Survey asked all respondents to indicate how they felt about the interactions they had with faculty, staff, and administrators. Eight questions were given to each category of employee. Each question related to issues that can affect educational quality . The possible ratings were “Mostly Positive,” “Neutral,” and “Mostly Negative.” Respondents were also given the option of marking “Not Applicable.” Although most respondents provided ratings for their interactions with faculty (90.2%), and a large proportion rated staff interactions (73.6%), many did not rate the interactions they had with administrators (55.4%). For the purpose of this analysis it is assumed that the non-respondents did not have substantial contact with administrators and therefore, could not provide feedback.
Naturally, students engage in a variety of interactions with campus personnel throughout the course of their education. It would not be reasonable to think that all these interactions could be measured so easily. Sometimes it is those unique incidents that will be remembered and form lasting impressions. These results reflect the overall impressions that CSUDH made on these alumni respondents.
A review of the raw data reveals that many respondents rated all or most of the eight questions identically. This may imply that many could not discriminate between the specific issues associated with their interactions with university personnel, but did have a general impression of their interactions. For this reason, an analysis of the results of any one item would read very similarly to any other. Therefore, it was useful to create a composite of all eight questions for this written analysis as a measurement of their overall interactions. This composite table is based on the means of the cells in each table for the individual items.
The large majority of respondents (79.1%) had mostly positive impressions of their overall interactions with faculty. Of the reminder, most (17.0%) had neutral impressions and few (3.9%) reported that their impressions were mostly negative. These impressions were fairly consistent among the different subpopulations of distance learning respondents, respondents that graduated within the past five years (new alumni), and those that graduated over five years ago (old alumni). As a comparison, the proportion of mostly positive impressions resulting from their interactions with faculty was 77.5% for distance learning alumni, 77.4% for new alumni, and 81.0% for old alumni.
More distance learning respondents rated their interactions with staff as mostly positive (64.2%) than was the case for new (48.3%) or old (48.2%) alumni respondents.
The impressions that administrators made on alumni relative to their interactions with them was markedly lower. Compared to the ratings for faculty and staff, distance learning respondents gave a smaller proportion of mostly positive ratings (42.6%). These proportions were even lower for new (31.5%) or old (30.0%) alumni respondents.
The links to the results of the eight individual questions pertaining to the different types of interactions with faculty, staff, and administrators are listed below:
Were approachable
Were responsive to my needs
Treated me with respect
Provided me with accurate information
Available to talk with me during posted hours
Willing to listen to my concerns/questions
Gave timely responses to my email
Communicated effectively
CSUDH is one of the most ethnically diverse campuses in the country. According to some research., this is an important characteristic since a racially diverse student body is necessary for preparing students to be effective citizens in a multicultural society (Rudenstine, 1996; Young, 1995). A diverse environment provides students with the opportunity to interact with many people who are different from themselves both in race and culture. The Alumni Survey was designed to shed some light on how the diversity encountered by students at CSUDH enhanced their ability to work with, understand, and accept people from backgrounds that are different from their own.
Astin (1993) found that cross-race socialization was associated with increases in cultural awareness, commitment to racial understanding, commitment to the environment, and it is correlated with higher levels of academic development. The Alumni Survey asked respondents two questions pertaining to the interactions they had at CSUDH with people of diverse backgrounds in light of their personal development and career success. The results show that more than half (55%) of the respondents indicated that the interactions they had with people of diverse backgrounds were very important to both their personal development and also to their career success. In each case, only about one out of eight respondents thought that these interactions were “not very important.” This leaves a third in the middle range indicating that these interactions were only “somewhat important” to either their personal development or their career success.
In terms of affecting their personal development, at least half of each ethnic group placed a high level of importance on their interactions at CSUDH with people of diverse backgrounds, but there were some differences. The highest level of importance came from Asian/Pacific Islanders (63.0%), African Americans were next in line (60.9%), followed by Hispanics (58.4%). Compared to these people of color, the level of importance indicated by White respondents (50.3%) was somewhat lower and moderately positive.
In terms of affecting their career success, at least half of each ethnic group reported that the interactions they had at CSUDH with people of diverse backgrounds was very important. Asian/Pacific Islanders (65.7%) indicated the highest levels of importance to these kinds of interactions, African-Americans (62.3%) were next, followed by Hispanics (57.3%). Again, compared to people of color, Whites (50.1%) did not have a clear majority of respondents indicating the highest level of importance, but the fact that half felt this way should still be considered impressive.
The most important thing to remember about these results is that each ethnic category provided very positive feedback, which seems to indicate a shared understanding that it is important to learn to function as citizens in a multicultural society and that CSUDH is credited as playing a crucial role in acquiring this skill. The differences observed between ethnic groups are of some concern since enhancing understanding of diversity is such an important value at CSUDH. Further research, such as a campus diversity survey, would be needed to further explore these dynamics.
Neil Rudenstine (1996), president of Harvard University, argued that diversity enhances civic life as it develops tolerance and mutual respect. Learning to work effectively with people from diverse backgrounds is particularly important in light of today’s increasingly diverse workforce. The results from the Alumni Survey show that two thirds (65.1%) of the respondents agreed that the experiences they had at CSUDH provided them with this skill. A breakdown by ethnic category shows some small differences which are still all very positive. Specifically, Hispanics (77.4%) agreed somewhat more than Asian/Pacific Islanders (68.3%) or African-Americans (66.2%) and Whites agreed the least (62.2%). Thus, it appears that for most respondents, with only few exceptions due to ethnic background, the degree to which they are able to function effectively in a diverse work environment are due largely to their past experiences at CSUDH.
An important part of a college education is the opportunity to learn about issues from other people’s points of view as students engage in discussions in and out of the classroom. Smith et al. (1997) and Milem and Hakuta (2000) found that exposure to cultural diversity in the curriculum, student body, and faculty, and social, cultural, and political diversity in race dialogues contribute to greater openness to diversity, higher levels of intellectual engagement, increases in complex thinking and motivation. The opportunities for diversity that exists at CSUDH cannot be found at campuses that are more homogeneous since, as Smith (1991) points out, an additional benefit in moving toward a pluralistic environment is that more diverse perspectives tend to surface in the classroom. Therefore, it could be speculated that at the multitude of ethnically and culturally homogeneous campuses throughout our country, there may be more limitations as to the nature of these points of view than is possible at CSUDH where many students come from different countries, cultures, social classes or are members of various ethnic groups.
The Alumni Survey asked respondents if their experiences at CSUDH have made them more aware of issues from the perspectives of people from diverse backgrounds. Two thirds (67%) agreed that it did. Only about a quarter (22.9%) felt neutral about this issue and a tenth (10.1%) did not feel they gained such awareness. There were some differences by ethnic group in that Hispanics (76.2) agreed that they gained more of this kind of awareness than was reported by Asian/Pacific Islanders (70.2%), African-Americans (66.9%) or Whites (65.7%). These results show that CSUDH is viewed by most respondents, regardless of their own ethnic identity, as a place where they became more aware of other peoples’ points of view in light of their diverse backgrounds.
Astin (1993) and Smith et al. (1994) point out that student diversity in a supportive environment leads to understanding of human differences and an appreciation for the aesthetic qualities of life. Overall, two thirds (64%) of the respondents indicated that their experiences at CSUDH contributed either “Very Much” or “Much” to their acceptance of people from diverse backgrounds. For the remaining one third, the less than affirmative response to this item could be do to several factors. One possible hypothesis is that they were already predisposed to diversity before attending CSUDH. Therefore, their experiences at CSUDH may have made little difference in their tendency to accept people from backgrounds different from their own. A more negative perspective would say that some people simply don’t change or that they may have had negative experiences which promoted negative views.
A review of these ratings by ethnic group shows some small differences. Most noteworthy, there were a somewhat smaller percentage of these high ratings from White respondents (60.0%) compared to African-Americans (71.7%), Hispanics (70.7%) or Asian/Pacific Islanders (68.3%). We might speculate that some White respondents probably had ample opportunities to attend a less diverse campus, so the fact that they chose CSUDH in the first place may indicate that they already had a very accepting attitude about diversity.
Overall, what is most important about these results is that CSUDH is viewed as a place where most students, regardless of ethnic group, experience an environment that enhances their acceptance of people who are different from themselves.
There are several graduate programs that are offered through a distance learning modality. They are MA Behavioral Sciences, MBA, MA Humanities, Masters in Nursing (MSN), and MS Quality Assurance. There were 176 distance learning alumni that responded to the survey. These respondents received many of the same questions that were given to other respondents. The analysis of the other topic areas included references to how responses from these distance learning alumni are similar or different from other respondents. This analysis will focus on several questions that were asked only of the distance learning respondents.
Some programs offered multiple modes of delivery for the instruction students received in that different technology (TV and internet) may be incorporated in a single course. The emphasis in this analysis is not to compare programs, but to compare the four basic instructional modalities below:
It is possible for distance learning students to have experienced more than
one mode of instructional delivery. This was the case for 23 of the 176 distance
learning respondents. In order to eliminate the confounding effects of those
who experienced several modalities, only the132 respondents who each experienced
one modality are included in analysis where different modalities are compared
to each other. Furthermore, the number of responses also varies depending on
whether they answered a particular question at hand. Unfortunately, an analysis
by the four modes of delivery yields a small number of respondents from some
categories suggesting that the results should be viewed with some caution.
Respondents were asked if they would have been able to meet their educational
goals without the availability of a distance learning program. Overall,
66.4% indicated that it would not be likely, as indicated by combining the responses
to “definitely not” and “probably not.” Alumni who felt most dependent on distance
learning in order to meet their educational goals were respondents that took
courses through mail correspondence (70.1%) and those who took courses on-line
(69.7%).
Respondents were asked to indicate the percentage
of their total coursework that was taken through a distance learning format
of instruction. The vast majority of distance learning respondents (80.5%)
took all of their courses through a distance learning format. For another 10.9%
of respondents, 75%-99% of their courses were taken through distance learning.
Thus, nine out of ten alumni that graduated from a distance learning program
took at least three-quarters of their courses by means of some distance learning
mode of instruction. This proportion
varied by program, but at least three quarters of the respondents in each
program took at least three-quarters of their courses through a distance learning
mode of instruction. The exception was MSN for which only one alumnus responded
to the survey. All courses taken through mail correspondence were in the MA
Humanities external degree program. In this program, nearly all respondents
(96.9%) indicated that all their coursework was taken in this way.
The distance learning alumni were given a list of possible reasons that they may have had for choosing a distance learning program at CSUDH. They were asked to select as many reasons as applied to them. Overall, the most frequently chosen reason was the flexibility to adapt the time spent on coursework to their schedule (84.0%). This was particularly the case for those who took all their distance learning courses on-line (90.9%). Three quarters (74.8%) of the respondents were attracted to the particular curricula or degree offered. This was more the case for those who took courses through TV or video instruction (90.5%) than for the other modalities. There were those that simply preferred independent learning (42.0%). This was particularly the case for those who took courses through mail correspondence (53.7%). Some respondents indicated that their situation prevented them from traveling to college (40.5%) or that they did not live near a college (25.2%). The tuition rate was also a factor for many (38.9%). The reputation of CSUDH was not the most important reason for choosing distance learning over traditional college attendance (17.6%), nor was the reputation of faculty (6.1%).
Although these results are from a relatively small number of respondents, it does provide evidence that attendance in programs which offer distance learning modes of instruction provides a practical solution to issues of time and access. Although these distance learning respondents were employed at about the same rate as the regular university graduate degree respondents (87.5% compared to 84.8% for other graduate alumni), for those that did work, a greater percentage worked full-time (89.1% compared to 75.7% for other graduate alumni). Therefore, the combined time constraints created by the need to work and the desire to go to college was solved by enrolling in a distance learning program. Many distance learning students cannot attend college because of the location in which they live and/or work. For these people in particular, a master’s degree would not have been possible without the availability of distance learning.
The Alumni Survey contained an open-ended question asking respondents to explain how distance learning helped them achieve their educational goals. Although strictly anecdotal, this qualitative feedback provides some useful insight into how important distance learning programs were to these alumni.
“I wanted an MS in Quality Assurance. There are very few programs. I could not have done it without distance learning (I live in San Diego).”
“I chose CSUDH’s Master’s in Humanities because it allowed
me to design independent research courses that met my personal career goals
as a writer/researcher.”
“During my CSUDH enrollment: I lived in three different countries,
was on bed rest for a short period during a difficult pregnancy, and still was
able to earn my M.A. in the Humanities through CSUDH. Thanks!”
“I worked full-time while studying for my MBA. I lived in
an area where getting to a university would have taken one hour. Flexibility
was 100% the key to getting my MBA!”
“I was doing a great deal of travel at the time. I could
not have completed my degree without distance learning!”
“Being unable to attend classes physically was all that was
keeping me from going back for my M.A. Also, I become distracted in classrooms.
I can focus on what I want to learn much faster at home.”
“I am in prison, so distance learning in general was essential
and, specifically, CSUDH faculty and course selection was fantastic.”
“My job required me to move regularly and this was the only
way I could see to earn my Master’s. Also, you made it affordable.”
“The coursework at CSUDH provided the flexibility and independence
I wanted, along with the structure I needed. Just the right mix!”
The Alumni Survey asked distance learning respondents to compare their experiences in distance learning courses to their traditional classroom experience. There were seven questions that addressed common issues. The respondents were to compare each one to traditional classroom instruction by rating each as “much better,” “somewhat better,” “about the same,” “somewhat worse,” or “much worse.” For this analysis, the first two ratings are often combined and will be referred to as “better” and the last two will be referred to as “worse.” In many cases the number of respondents in some categories of distance learning modalities is very small. This is particularly the case since often respondents thought the item didn’t apply to them. Therefore, additional research is necessary to substantiate these findings. This could be in the form of surveys administered to current students or soliciting feedback from focus groups.
Regarding the subsequent analysis in this section, it would be misleading just to describe the experiences of distance learning alumni overall since significant distinctions exist among distance learning modes of delivery. In fact, a distance learning program is often selected because the modality facilitates access to the university or suits a participant’s particular learning style. So, rather than describing distance learning overall, which would be misleading, the following analysis points out the relative strengths in which these modalities are viewed by distance learning alumni. It would also be inappropriate to view the quality of a distance learning modality based on any single attribute discussed below. For example, while on-line courses facilitate networking among students, traditional distance learning programs conducted through mail correspondence, such as the MA Humanities External Degree, invite a one-on-one faculty-student mentoring relationship that is particularly suited to individualized research on topics in the humanities. So, comparing distance learning modalities in terms of opportunities for contact with classmates or the instructor would not be a fair assessment of the educational quality received in light of the opportunities that each modality affords. With this in mind, the following analysis describes how respondents viewed various experiences while they were distance learning students.
Overall, half (50.0%) of the distance learning respondents thought that the
distance learning format of instruction helped them learn the materials better
than would have been the case in a traditional classroom. Another 41.5% felt
it would have been about the same and only 8.5% though it was worse. Mail
correspondence courses received the highest percentage of “better” ratings
(59.7%) and on-line courses were given the lowest percentage of “better”
ratings (33.3%). In this last category, about half (58.5%) thought there was
no difference between the two formats in terms of their ability to learn the
materials.
Just over a third (37.5%) of the respondents that took all of their distance
learning courses on-line thought that their on-line interactions was
better than the interactions they’ve experienced in traditional courses. Almost
half (46.9%) thought they were about the same. Almost the same could be said
for courses taken through mail correspondence between faculty and student
in that almost a third (31.0%) thought that these interactions were better than
in traditional courses and almost half (48.3%) though they were about the same.
The respondents who indicated that they took all their courses through TV or
video instruction felt the least comfortable engaging in discussions during
class in that only 23.8% thought that these interactions were better than those
experienced in traditional courses and 47.6% actually thought they were worse.
These respondents were obviously referring to those specific courses that are
televised live and have an interactive component. Perhaps the awareness that
one is on TV can have an inhibiting effect on some people. There were only
eight respondents who only experienced distance learning in classroom instruction
at an off-campus site that thought this question was applicable to them.
Out of these, six (75.0%) felt these discussions were better than they would
be in a classroom on campus. Conducting a focus group of current students that
take courses at these off-campus sites would be a useful way to see if these
courses do indeed afford students with a more intimate learning environment
which promotes classroom discussion.
About a third (35.5%) of the respondents that took all their distance learning
courses on-line thought that the on-line interactions they had were a
better way of getting to know and network with other students and about the
same percentage (38.7%) thought it was worse. The respondents that tended to
feel that their modality of distance learning instruction was not a better way
to get to know or network with other students were those that took their courses
through mail correspondence or through TV or video instruction.
The TV courses was considered a better way to get to know other students by
19% of those who experienced distance learning this way, but 61.9% thought
that TV based courses was a worse way to get to know other students. Although
only based on nine respondents, about half (55.6%) of those that experienced
distance learning exclusively through classroom instruction at an off-campus
site thought it offered better opportunities to get to know and network
with other students compared to classrooms on campus. When comparing this result
with the issue of feeling comfortable in class discussions, it appears that
these particular respondents experienced a smaller and more intimate educational
experience than they experienced in on-campus courses. Further research, such
as focus groups of current students taking courses at these off-campus sites,
would be necessary to determine if this perception is widespread.
One of the major advantages of distance learning programs is the flexibility
of class scheduling, even for courses that are scheduled. The majority of distance
learning respondents (71.9%) thought that class scheduling was better for distance
learning courses than traditional courses. Almost another quarter (23.6%) thought
they were about the same. Very few (4.4%) thought that scheduling distance
learning courses was worse than scheduling traditional courses.
Many of those who took courses through mail correspondence (41.5%) thought
faculty/student communication was better than in on-campus courses. This was
also the case for those who took all their distance learning courses on-line
(42.4%). Compared to the other distance learning students, fewer respondents
who took their courses through TV or video instruction (19.0%) thought
that their communication with faculty was better than they’ve experienced in
traditional on-campus classrooms. In fact, 38.1% thought it was worse. The
nine distance learning respondents that experienced all their classroom instruction
at an off-campus site gave very positive feedback on their ability to communicate
with their faculty in that 55.6% thought that such communication was better
than they would expect on campus, 44.4% thought it was about the same, and none
thought it was worse.
For respondents that took all of their distance learning courses on-line,
28.2% thought that their on-line discussions were more meaningful than in traditional
classes, about a third (34.4%) thought they were about the same, and just over
a third (37.5%) thought they were worse. Most of those that took all their
courses through TV or video instruction, and thought the question was
applicable to them, provided relatively low ratings to this item in that 61.9%
thought the classroom discussions were not as meaningful as in traditional courses.
Out of the eight respondents that took all of their distance learning courses
at an off-campus site, 62.5% felt that their class discussions were more
meaningful than they have experienced in on-campus courses. These results are
all from a small number of cases, but point to the possibility that the regular
contacts students have in these off-campus courses facilitate meaningful dialogue.
Further research would be necessary to see if this perception is in fact shared
by others.
Of those distance learning respondents that took their courses through mail correspondence, only 9.5% thought that it was easier to obtain library resources. It was slightly higher for those who took all of their courses on-line in that 13.0% though it was better than in traditional courses. None of those who took all their courses through TV or video instruction thought that obtaining library resources was better than in a traditional college environment. In fact, 57.9% thought it was about the same and 42.2% thought it was worse.
The majority of respondents from each distance learning modality indicated that the amount of work in distance learning courses was about the same as the amount of work in traditional classroom courses. For courses taken through mail correspondence, 41.4% thought there was more coursework, 56.9% thought it was the same, and only 1.7% thought there was less work in distance learning courses. For on-line courses, 32.3% indicated that there was more coursework than in traditional classrooms while 51.6% said it was about the same. Although only based on the small number of respondents, the easiest type of distance learning modality seemed to be courses taken through TV or video instruction. Here 68.4% said the courses had about the same amount of work as traditional classroom courses and 31.6% said that there was less work. Only nine respondents that took all of their courses at an off-campus site answered this question. Out of these nine, two (22.2%) indicated that they had more coursework and seven (77.8%) indicated that the amount of coursework was about the same as in traditional classes. Although these results are from a small sample of distance learning alumni, it appears that distance learning is not a way to avoid the work required for a proper education. In fact, for many respondents distance learning required even more work.
The refinement of basic skills is essential to success in the work environment or the pursuit of further education. This section explores how our alumni feel CSUDH contributed to the development of these skills and how they affected on their subsequent educational activities.
The Alumni Survey asked respondents to comment on how much their experiences at CSUDH contributed to their development in various skill areas. The skill levels described below reflect essential competencies that are highly desirable for a student receiving a degree. These skills are also fundamental to functioning in the work environment and/or to pursue an advanced degree. As indicated by the combined ratings of “very much” and “much,” findings from the Alumni Survey reveal that CSUDH played a valuable role in developing these abilities in our alumni respondents. With few exceptions, as discussed below, further analysis by degree levels show only small differences for most of these skills. The links below, showing the percent that felt CSUDH had much to do with developing their skills, will access these breakdowns by degree level.
Critical thinking skills (72.7%)
Career goals (67.0%)
Problem solving skills (66.8%)
Writing skills (66.4%)
Working in a group (66.4%)
Accepting people from diverse backgrounds (64.1%)
Oral presentation skills (63.0%)
Research skills (62.0%)
Verbal communication skills (61.3%)
Interpersonal skills (58.9%)
Leadership skills (52.3%)
Effective use of computer technology (48.3%)
Library skills (44.6%)
There were a few cases where marked differences between degree levels appeared. For instance, respondents that only earned a credential without concurrently enrolling in a degree program (“credential only”) reported that CSUDH contributed more to developing their career goals than was the case for undergraduates (credential only, 73.5% vs. undergraduate, 64.0%). Graduate degree respondents ranked this item in between the undergraduate and “credential only” respondents (68.2%). More “credential only” respondents reported that their oral presentation skills were enhanced at CSUDH (68.3%) than was the case for graduate degree respondents (58.2%). Undergraduate respondents were in the middle (64.1%).
Graduate degree respondents indicated that CSUDH did not contribute as much to some of their abilities as was the case for undergraduate degree or “credential only” respondents. For instance, a smaller proportion of graduate degree respondents indicated that their verbal communication skills was developed much at CSUDH (53.8%) compared to undergraduate (65.3%) or “credential only” respondents (63.9%). The same could be said for interpersonal skills in that only 50.8% of the graduated degree respondents indicated that CSUDH made much of a contribution compared to undergraduate (63.1%) or “credential only” respondents (62.4%). Graduate degree respondents also did not report as much value added to accepting people from diverse backgrounds compared to undergraduate respondents (53.7% vs. 67.7%) or “credential only” respondents (53.7% vs. 71.6%). It can be speculated that many of these graduate degree respondents felt that these abilities were already present before they became graduate students in the first place.
Respondents were asked the extent to which they agreed to the statement, “CSUDH
prepared me for graduate and/or professional school.” Overall, three quarters
(75.1%) agreed, as indicated by their ratings of either “strongly agreed” or
“agree.” There were only small differences in these combined ratings by degree
level (undergraduate, 72.6%, graduate, 79.0%, credential only: 76.6).
However, the graduate degree respondents provided a higher percentage (50.4%)
of “strongly agree” ratings than was the case for undergraduate (35.3%) respondents.
There were virtually no differences by ethnic
group. The highest percentage of agreement came from Whites (78.5%),
next were African-Americans (75.0%), then Hispanics (74.6%), and finally Asian/Pacific
Islanders (70.1%). A comparison of subpopulations
shows that it doesn’t matter when the respondents graduated since both new (73.7%)
and old (75.9%) alumni respondents agreed to the same extent. The percentage
of agreement from distance learning respondents was only slightly higher (78.0%).
Respondents were given the following list of degrees/programs: Certificate, Bachelor’s, Second Bachelor’s, Credential, Master’s, Doctoral (PhD, EdD, etc), and Professional degree (Law, MD, etc.). They were asked three questions pertaining to this list. They were to mark all degrees/programs that they have already completed, then all degrees/programs they are currently pursuing, and finally, all degrees/programs that they plan to pursue at a later date. For each of these three questions, the responses to the list of degrees/programs are not mutually exclusive since they were asked to mark as many as apply.
Although the reliability of the information on all the degrees/programs that
the respondents already earned is limited to their highest level of education
achieved (this is due to questionnaire clarity), the information gathered on
their continuing education and their future plans for additional education appears
to be fairly sound.
Of the undergraduate respondents, 15.7% went on to complete a master’s degree, 14.2% are currently pursuing a master’s degree, and 24.6% indicated that they plan on pursuing a master’s degree at some time in the future. Although few of these undergraduate respondents subsequently earned a doctorate (1.8%) and even fewer are currently pursuing one (1.0%), almost a tenth (9.4%) indicated they would like to pursue a doctorate degree in the future. Of the undergraduate respondents, 3.8% are currently pursuing a credential. Approximately, 1 out of every 5 undergraduate respondents (19.8%) indicated that they were currently pursuing additional education of some kind and 36.0% indicated that they plan on pursuing some kind of additional education in the future.
Graduate alumni also went on to complete advanced degrees. A relatively small proportion of the graduate respondents (5.8%) subsequently completed a doctorate degree while 4.8% are currently enrolled doctorate programs. Another 17.0% of the alumni plan on pursuing a doctorate in the future. Also reported is the following:
Overall, with certificates, credentials, and additional master’s degrees included, 8.6% are currently pursuing some kind of education and 19.7% plan on pursuing some kind of education at some time in the future.
Half (45.7%) of those that were recommended for a credential at CSUDH without also earning a degree at the same time indicated that they have completed a master’s degree. Furthermore, 11.3% are currently pursuing a master’s degree, and 14.0% plan to pursue a master’s degree at some time in the future. Although relatively few (2.3%) have earned a doctorate degree or are pursuing one (0.9%), 13.6% have a doctorate degree in their future plans.
Two subpopulations of graduate degree alumni were given a pair of questions regarding their capstone experience. These subpopulations were the distance learning respondents and the respondents that graduated over five years ago (“old alumni”). The first question asked them to indicate the type of capstone experience they completed for their degree at CSUDH. A comparison of subpopulations shows that the majority of distance learning respondents completed a thesis (65.5%), many completed a final project (28.9%), and relatively few took the comprehensive examinations (5.6%). Non-distance learning respondents that were given this question, were all from the “old alumni” subpopulation. Only a quarter of these (25.5%) completed a thesis or a final project (23.4%), but half (51.1%) completed comprehensive exams.
The second question asked them to rethink their decision now that they have graduated and indicate the capstone activity they would choose if they could go back in time and do it again (even if it was not an option at the time). A crosstabulation of “if doing it again” by “activity selected” shows that the majority of respondents were satisfied with what they did. Most of those that completed a thesis indicated that they would do the same (82.6%) if they were back in time doing it again. However, there were some that would rather have opted for the comprehensive exams (8.3%) or the final project (9.2%). For those that completed comprehensive exams, 72.9% validated their decision to do so, 12.5% would rather have completed a thesis, and 14.6% wished they completed a final project instead. Out of those that completed a final project, 85.0% were glad they did, 11.7% wished they had completed a thesis, and only 3.3% would have preferred taking comprehensive exams instead.
These results show that more of those completing a thesis or final project were satisfied with their decision compared to those taking final exams. For this latter group, those with regrets were split regarding what they would do different if they could go back in time and do it again.
References
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Milem, J. F., & Hakuta, K. (2000). The benefits of racial and ethnic diversity in higher education. In D. Wilds (author), Minorities in higher education: Seventeenth annual status report (pp.39-67). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Rudenstine, N. (1996, April 19). Why a diverse student body is so important. Chronicle of Higher Education, 42(32), B1-B2.
Smith, D. G., with Gerbick, G. L., Figueroa, M. A., Watikins, G. H., Levintan, T., Moore, L. C., Merchant, P.A., Beliak, H. D., & Figueroa, B. (1997). Diversity works: The emerging picture of how students benefit. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Smith, D., and others. Diversity Works: The Emerging Picture of Student Benefits. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Colleges and Universities, 1994.
Young, C. F. (1995, Octorber 4). Young urges students to reach out in support of alternative action. Daily Bruin. Retrived May 6, 1996 from http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/95/10.04/view.young.html.