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/Default.shtml.
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: