1993 EMPLOYER SURVEY REPORT

University of Nevada, Reno

The collection of information from employers about graduates is vital and appropriate to an university's understanding of whether it is successful in meeting its educational goals. Although the purposes of a university education are broader than only the preparation for employment, the thoughtful integration of knowledge needed for meaningful work is a critical role for higher education. Today, the modification of curriculum in response to both increasing bodies of knowledge and changing work and professional demands is an ongoing process. With the goals in mind of better understanding the demands our students will face and of asking how well prepared our current graduates are, the University of Nevada, Reno, began an annual survey of employers of graduates in 1993.

METHODOLOGY

Some institutions survey employers by mailing questionnaires to the businesses and institutions that generally hire the university's graduates. In this way, feedback about the typical graduate is collected. The advantage of this approach is that it serves as a barometer of the perception of the institution in the community and gives multiple constituencies the opportunity to provide feedback to the university. However, the problem inherent in this approach is that the institution can never be sure if the data collected reflects perceptions of current graduates or if the data reflects perceptions of previous graduates and institutional reputation. This is particularly troublesome if the institution is primarily concerned with how well today's graduates are prepared for employment and is attempting to chart changes over time as the curriculum is updated and modified.

In order to obtain more specific information, the 1993 University of Nevada, Reno's Employer Survey linked names of graduates with their employers. In utilizing this approach it was necessary to obtain permission from graduates to survey their employers. This step raised sampling concerns, as those who grant permission may differ in important ways from those who do not, thereby decreasing the ability to generalize from the findings (Banta, 1992). Nevertheless, this approach seemed the most appropriate way to obtain specific information needed to look at the current graduate.

The survey was designed to collect information on the following:

1) How relevant is the graduate's education/major to his/her present employment?

2) What knowledge areas, skills, and experiences are considered most valuable to ongoing successful performance in today's work force?

3) What perception do employers have of the adequacy of our graduates' preparation in these areas?

4) How effective is the university overall in educating students to meet the needs of the work force?

The timing of the survey was important since 1991 graduates had not participated in the new university core curriculum. Therefore, responses should reflect the education of students prior to the introduction of new university general requirements that emphasize more writing, more reading of primary texts, more critical analysis, and more quantitative reasoning. It is hoped that this data will provide a baseline for an evaluation of the changes in general education begun in 1989. However, so many other changes are occurring in both major fields of study and student characteristics that the ability to attribute future changes to the core curriculum may be doubtful. At best, we can hope to identify trends and areas where problems continue to occur.

Seven hundred and twenty-five graduates participated in the alumni survey completed by the university. All respondents had graduated from the university in the spring, summer, or fall of 1991 and had thus worked for one to two years following graduation. Of the 725 participating alumni, 59 percent were employed full-time and 18 percent were employed part-time. Those employed (N= 558) were sent letters asking if the university could survey their employers. The letter assured alumni that the employer questionnaire was confidential, and, more importantly, related to the employer's perception of the university's performance, not the employee's performance. However, there remained a strong concern that graduates who felt that their employers held a less-than-favorable perception of their work performance would choose not to participate. Those alumni who did not respond after the initial mailing received a follow-up letter re-iterating the purpose of the survey, namely, to evaluate the university's performance and not the individual's. This procedure resulted in the return of 110 alumni postcards giving permission to survey their employer. Of the 110 surveyed, 83 employers responded. At least one follow-up phone call was made to each employer to encourage the participation of those not responding.

CHARACTERISTICS OF PARTICIPANTS

The 83 participating employers represented the following areas of business, industry, and the public sector:

GRADUATES FIELD

20 (24.1%) Education

11 (13.3%) Government Services/Public Administration

10 (12.0%) Medical/Dental

7 ( 8.4%) Accounting

7 ( 8.4%) Mining/Engineering Services

6 ( 7.2%) Gaming

6 ( 7.2%) Retail

3 ( 3.6%) Law Enforcement

3 ( 3.6%) Advertising/Public Relations/Marketing

2 ( 2.4%) Research and Development

2 ( 2.4%) Tourism/Hospitality

2 ( 2.4%) Forestry

1 ( 1.2%) Utilities

1 ( 1.2%) Insurance

1 ( 1.2%) Veterinary Sciences

1 ( 1.2%) Other

Employers of students from nine colleges were represented. Only the College of Medicine had no employers of their graduates who responded.

GRADUATES COLLEGE

22 (26.5%) Arts & Science

16 (19.3%) Human & Community Sciences

15 (18.1%) Business Administration

13 (15.7%) Education

7 ( 8.4%) Engineering

5 ( 6.0%) Agriculture

3 ( 3.6%) Journalism

2 ( 2.4%) Mines

The majority (66.3%) of graduates who gave permission to survey their employers are currently working in positions related to their major fields of study. Most (81.9%) survey respondents listed their relationship to the graduate as "supervisor." Of the remainder, 15.7% reported that they were the graduate's "employer", while 2.4% listed their relationship to the graduate as "other."

In general, there were no differences found in the characteristics of graduates whose employers participated than those who did not grant permission or whose employers failed to participate. See Appendix A for examples of questions on the alumni survey and responses of all alumni and those whose employers participated in this survey. There were no areas of employment not represented in the final groups.

SURVEY RESULTS

HOW RELEVANT IS THE GRADUATE'S UNR EDUCATION/MAJOR TO HIS/HER PRESENT EMPLOYMENT?

Overall, results indicate that graduates' are working in positions that utilize their university education and major fields of study. Not only was a university education an important consideration for most employers in the decision to hire, but it continues to be an important consideration in their assessment of the graduates' potential for advancement.

Minimal Educational Level Required: The majority (56.6%) of employers indicated that the minimal educational level required for the graduate's position was a four year degree or higher. A high school diploma was the minimal level required of 18.1% of the positions; 14.5% required at least a two year degree; 9.6% required at least some college; while one of the positions only required some high school. Thus, 43.4% of our graduates entered the work place apparently "underemployed."

Importance of Education to Decision to Hire: When making the decision to hire, 42.2% of employers reported that the graduate's university education was a very important consideration. 44.6% rated the university education as important or somewhat important. Only 10.8% of employers reported that the graduate's university education was of no importance in the decision to hire that graduate. Two employers did not respond to this question.

When employers were asked if the graduate's specific field of study (or major) was an important factor in the hiring decision, 71.1% of employers felt that it was important or very important. 15.7% believed that the graduate's major was not important to the hiring decision, while 10.8% believed it to be somewhat important. Two employers did not respond to this question.

Relevancy of Graduate's Major to Current Position: More than half (79.5%) of the employers reported that the graduate's education closely or somewhat matched the requirements of the job. 14.5% reported that the graduate was employed in a field different from his/her major and that the education received did not cover most of the job requirements. 4.8% reported that they had no knowledge of the relevancy of the graduate's major to his/her current position. One employer did not respond to this question.

Importance of Education for Advancement: Most employers indicated that the graduate's university education was either important or very important (73.5%) to his/her potential for advancement. A smaller number, (14.5%) indicated that the graduate's university education would not be important to his/her advancement, and 10.8% indicated that it would only be somewhat important. One employer did not respond to this question. Additional comments by employers generally highlighted the importance of the graduate's university education, not only in the hiring decision, but also in decisions regarding advancement within the business or institution.

WHAT KNOWLEDGE AREAS, SKILLS AND EXPERIENCES ARE CONSIDERED MOST VALUABLE IN PERFORMING WELL IN TODAY'S WORK FORCE?

Employers were asked to consider the value of specific areas of preparation to successful job performance and career development (see Table 1). The five most valuable areas as rated by employers are directly related to undergraduate education: oral communication, writing, computer experience, courses related to employment, and mathematics. The area "courses related to employment" turned out to be so nebulous that it is of little value in identifying curriculum content since each employer had a different interpretation of what related to the job. Not unexpectedly, employers saw little direct relationship between courses in humanities and fine arts and the job, even while rating writing skills high. It was surprising, given the diversity of the work force today, that foreign language courses were rated relatively low.

TABLE 1: EMPLOYERS' RATING OF VALUE OF KNOWLEDGE AREAS, SKILLS AND EXPERIENCES

(Percentage who responded valuable, somewhat valuable, or not valuable)

AREAS, SKILLS, AND EXPERIENCES	VALUABLE	SOMEWHAT VALUABLE	NOT VALUABLE
Oral Communication Emphasis	95.2	4.8	-
Writing Skills	85.6	13.3	1.2
Computer Experience	82.0	16.9	1.2
Courses Specific to Employment	77.2	21.7	1.2
Courses in Mathematics	74.7	19.3	6.0
General Work Experience	72.3	25.3	2.4
Quantitative Reasoning Skills*	72.3	26.5	-
Internship or Co-operative Experience	61.4	28.9	9.6
Courses in Social Sciences	59.0	38.6	2.4
Research Skills	51.8	33.7	14.5
Paid Work Experience in Same Field*	49.4	41.0	7.2
High Grade Point Average	48.2	42.2	9.6
Courses in Statistics	47.0	42.2	10.8
Courses in Western Culture	44.5	44.6	10.8
Courses in Business	42.2	53.0	4.8
Capstone Courses	39.8	48.2	12.0
Courses in Natural Sciences	38.6	34.9	26.5
Courses in Foreign Languages	38.6	41.0	20.5
Courses in Humanities*	28.9	44.6	24.1
Courses in Fine Arts	26.5	31.3	42.2

* missing cases

WHAT PERCEPTION DO EMPLOYERS HAVE OF THE ADEQUACY OF OUR GRADUATES' PREPARATION IN SPECIFIC SKILL AREAS?

Based on observations of the graduates' job performance, employers were asked to rate the preparation received by the graduate in a number of skill areas (see Table 2). The majority of employers rated graduates' preparation in all of the skill areas as "good" or "excellent." It should be noted that those areas most directly related to educational outcomes (written communication, problem solving and critical thinking, and mathematical skills) were among the lowest ranked. The skills most often thought of as related to personal characteristics (interpersonal skills, ability to adjust to new job demands) were among the highest rated. Since the employers' responses tended to be positive in all of the areas, the areas most rated fair or poor by some employers should be of some concern. Those areas are working well with persons of diverse backgrounds, verbal communication, written communication, problem solving and critical thinking, ability to think creatively, mathematical skills, and leadership skills.

TABLE 2: EMPLOYERS' RATING OF GRADUATES' PREPARATION

(Percentage who responded excellent/good, fair/poor, or skill not applicable)

SKILL AREAS	EXCELLENT/ GOOD	FAIR/POOR	SKILL NOT APPLICABLE
Ethical Practice	94.0	4.8	1.2
Interpersonal Skills	91.5	7.2	1.2
Ability to Adjust to New Job Demands	89.1	9.6	1.2
Verbal Communication	88.0	12.0	-
Ability to Work Independently	88.0	9.6	2.4
Application of Knowledge to Job	86.8	4.8	8.4
Work well/Persons of Diverse Backgrounds	83.1	13.3	3.6
Written Communication	80.7	16.9	2.4
Problem Solving/Critical Thinking	80.7	16.9	3.6
Ability to Think Creatively	75.9	14.5	9.6
Mathematical Skills	74.7	15.7	9.6
Leadership Skills	65.1	21.7	13.3

It seems apparent that employers looked at the actual requirements of the graduate's job and declined to rank him/her if the job did not necessitate that skill. Therefore, those employers of employees working in jobs unrelated to their major said application of knowledge to job was not applicable. Since including those employers who indicated that the skill was not applicable to the present job appeared to influence the rankings, percentages were recalculated in Table 3 based only on the employers who said the skill was pertinent to the job and rated the employee's preparation. The percentage of employers who rate problem solving/critical thinking, mathematical skills, written communication, and leadership skills rises, but the relative ranking of writing and problem solving/critical thinking drops, indicating a clear need for an improvement in students' preparation in these areas. Changes in the university curriculum since these students graduated are designed to address these areas, and future employer responses will be of particular interest.

TABLE 3: EMPLOYERS' RATING OF GRADUATES' PREPARATION*

(Percentage who responded excellent/good or fair/poor)

SKILL AREAS	EXCELLENT/ GOOD	FAIR/POOR
Ethical Practice	95.1	4.9
Application of Knowledge to Job	94.7	5.3
Interpersonal Skills	92.7	7.3
Ability to Adjust to New Job Demands	90.2	9.8
Ability to Work Independently	90.1	9.9
Verbal Communication	88.0	12.0
Work well/Persons of Diverse Backgrounds	86.3	13.7
Ability to Think Creatively	84.0	16.0
Problem Solving/Critical Thinking	83.8	16.2
Mathematical Skills	82.7	17.3
Written Communication	82.7	17.3
Leadership Skills	75.0	25.0

*All employers who said skill was not applicable are removed from calculation of percentages.

HOW EFFECTIVE IS THE UNIVERSITY OVERALL IN EDUCATING STUDENTS TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE WORK FORCE?

Employers indicate that the University of Nevada, Reno, is effectively meeting the needs of the work force. The vast majority of employers rated the university education received by the graduate, as it applies to his/her job requirements, favorably, with 67.5% rating it as "good," and 21.7% rating it as "excellent." A smaller percentage of employers, (9.6%), rated the graduate's education as "fair," and only 1.2% rated it as "poor."

As another indication of the overall favorable response to the university's graduates, all of the employers reported that they would probably or definitely hire UNR graduates if appropriate positions became available. Furthermore, 50.6% of employers would recommend UNR graduates to other employers, and 26.5% would give a UNR graduate a strong recommendation. None of the employers indicated that they would be unwilling to recommend UNR graduates, but 22.9% of employers reported that they would be "neutral" in their recommendation.

When asked to rate the effectiveness of the university in meeting Nevada's educational needs, most employers were positive, but felt that there was room for improvement by indicating that the university was "somewhat effective" (65.1%). 30.1% of employers felt that the university was "very effective" in meeting Nevada's educational needs. Only 2.4% felt that the university was doing a "very ineffective" job. Two employers (2.4%) did not respond to this question.

Employers were also given an opportunity to provide comments in an open-ended question format. Specifically, employers were asked about their expectations for UNR graduates; to what extent those expectations had been realized; what, if any, additional skills or areas of knowledge they would like to see in graduates; and what suggestions they had for improving the education of future UNR graduates.

Expectations of UNR Graduates. When employers were asked about their expectations of UNR graduates, a number of consistent expectations emerged. The most consistent expectation of employers, was that graduates possess effective communication skills. Employers noted that university graduates "should have excellent written and oral communication skills," and that they "should have the ability to speak articulately," and "write clearly." Another consistent expectation of employers was that graduates display professionalism in the work place. This was defined as "a strong sense of responsibility, dependability, and reliability," and an "ability to take instruction well, work independently and ethically." One employer noted that graduates were expected to have a "professional attitude" as opposed to an "occupational attitude" -- graduates were expected to be "willing to do more than the minimum required" and to be "more interested in the functions of the job than the pay." Similarly, a number of employers expected graduates to be "flexible," able to adjust to changing job demands, and show "initiative" on the job. Employers expected graduates to demonstrate the knowledge that they had gained from their major fields of study and to be able to reason and think critically. A number of employers' comments revealed that they also expected graduates to possess "good interpersonal skills." To some of these employers, "good interpersonal skills" included the "appreciation of people from different backgrounds" as well as the "ability to deal with people of all races and ages."

The overwhelming majority of employers who responded to this question also reported that their expectations for University of Nevada graduates had been met. Of those employers who commented that their expectations had not been met, oral and written communication skills were most often described as areas in need of improvement. Another identified problem, lack of independent and critical thinking skills, was also mentioned by employers in the open-ended question section.

Additional Skills/Knowledge Areas Graduates Should Have in Order to Qualify for Jobs. Employers were asked an open-ended question regarding what additional skills or areas of knowledge university graduates should have in order to qualify for their jobs. The areas most discussed as desirable were: communication skills; computer skills; and skills specific to the graduate's degree (e.g. effective classroom/time management skills for teachers).

Suggestions for Improving the Education of Graduates. Employers frequently commented that there should be more emphasis on written and oral communication skills. Employers suggested that "more courses should require writing" and that "students should receive more opportunities for feedback regarding their ability (or lack thereof) to write." Employers also suggested that "students be given more chances to speak before groups so that [they] can gain confidence in their verbal abilities." Another frequent comment by employers, was that they would like to see students have more opportunities to apply the theories they were learning. Many employers suggested that "more field experiences and internship courses would benefit UNR graduates by providing [them] with hands-on experience that they can then apply to their studies." Other frequent suggestions included: less rote learning; better computer training; and more emphasis on critical thinking and logical reasoning.

DISCUSSION

The information gathered from this survey provides an interesting and helpful picture of graduate employment. Overall, the employers surveyed provided positive feedback concerning the preparation of 1991 graduates for employment. However, as Banta (1992) notes, "most surveys of employers generally produce positive findings, regardless of the type of institution or the survey methodology applied." Furthermore, employers tend to "rate most employee attributes as important and most specified employees as good or very good" (Banta, 1992). Most of the positive comments were found in the fixed question section of the survey, in which response categories were provided for employers. This supports evidence that employers tend to give high positive responses on fixed items when compared with open-ended questions (Banta, 1992). And while the rate of return from employers was fairly high (75%), only 19% of those alumni surveyed gave permission to contact their employers. This reinforced our concern that positive employer responses may reflect a self-selection bias on the part of graduates -- namely, that only those graduates who were confident that they were performing well on the job gave permission for their employers to be surveyed. In an effort to increase the number of students granting permission to contact employers, future alumni surveys will include a request to survey the graduate's employer, hopefully yielding a larger number of employers.

Despite what may be a positive response bias, however, the employers' comments did point to a number of areas which should be of concern. Targeted in the new university core curriculum are more student experiences in writing, critical thinking, and mathematics, clearly areas of concern in the employers' responses. The ability to think creatively may be enhanced through some of the university's new capstone courses. Now being studied for more emphasis across the curriculum is the area of oral communication. The new university diversity requirement to be implemented in fall of 1994 will provide a beginning for improved skills in working well with persons of diverse backgrounds. Increased emphasis on internships within the university is already being seen as a result of this and other surveys. No direct link has been articulated between the curriculum and leadership skills, but some growth in this area may be seen as students graduate with a greater sense of confidence in their abilities.

This report will be distributed to administration, faculty, and staff for use in program evaluation and in curriculum planning. As the first of annual reports, this will provide a base to examine changes in employers' perceptions of our graduates over time.

REFERENCES

Banta, T.W. (1993). Critique of a Method for Surveying Employers. AIR Professional File, Number 46.

APPENDIX A

Responses of Graduates Whose Employer Responded to Employer Survey

(Selected Questions on Alumni Survey)

(Overall Alumni Responses in parenthesis)

Satisfaction at Graduation

8.4% dissatisfied/very dissatisfied (all alumni 11%)

91.6% satisfied/very satisfied (all alumni 89%)

Satisfaction Now

14.6% dissatisfied/very dissatisfied (all alumni 17%)

85.4% satisfied/very satisfied (all alumni 83%)

Overall Academic Experience

15.4% poor/fair (all alumni 12%)

84.6% good/excellent (all alumni 88%)

Opportunity to Write Effectively

26.5% very little/somewhat (all alumni 27%)

73.5% quite a bit (all alumni 73%)

Quality of Internships (n = 58)

40.0% poor/fair (all alumni 46%)

60.0% good/excellent (all alumni 54%)