Introduction

The University of Nevada, Reno began an annual survey of employers in 1993. The objective of the survey was to more fully understand the job demands its students face upon graduation and how well the university is doing in preparing graduates to meet such demands. While the purpose of a university is much broader than only the preparation for employment, it is important that graduates be able to integrate the knowledge gained through a university education with a meaningful work experience. The process of curriculum modification in response to both the growing body of knowledge and rapidly changing work and professional requirements is on going. Therefore, it is necessary for the university to continue to collect information from employers in order to ascertain whether it is successful in preparing graduates for the world of work. Furthermore, it is vital to the university's educational goals to be able to discern whether curriculum changes continue to be effective from year to year, or if further modifications are warranted.

In order to facilitate data comparisons across graduating classes, the 1994 survey was designed to collect much of the same information obtained in the 1993 Employer Survey. Both surveys were designed to collect information on the following:

1. How relevant is the graduate's overall education and major to his or her present employer?
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. Overall, how effective is the university in educating students to meet the needs of the work force?

To provide a more complete picture of employers' evaluation of our graduates, the 1994 survey collected information on some additional areas. These additional areas are as follows:

1. How do graduates from University of Nevada, Reno compare to graduates from other universities and colleges in regard to general characteristics expected of college graduates?
2. How does the educational preparation of a University of Nevada, Reno graduate compare with that of employees who have graduated from other universities and colleges?

Methodology

Overview

The 1994 Employer Survey combined two different methodological approaches to obtain a sufficient sample size of employers from which to generate meaningful results,. The first approach taken was to mail questionnaires to the businesses and institutions that either have hired UNR graduates in the past or have attempted to hire recent graduates of the university. Addresses of employers were gained through Career Development Center job postings from the previous year. The second approach taken 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 raises sampling concerns, as those who grant permission may differ in important ways from those who do not, thereby decreasing the generalizability of the findings (Banta, 1992). However, by combining these data with those obtained via the first approach, the generalizability of the data was improved over what would have been appropriate using either approach alone.

The timing of the survey is an important consideration. The survey of 1991 graduates was administered to students who graduated prior to the implementation of the university core curriculum. In contrast, the present survey is based on students who, for the most part, attended the university after the introduction of new university core requirements that emphasize more writing, more reading of primary texts, more critical analysis, and more quantitative reasoning. However, these data should be regarded as reflecting a transitional period between these different requirements since it is not possible to assess accurately which students were subject to the core. Nevertheless, the 1994 data are a preliminary step in providing a baseline for an evaluation of the changes in general education begun in 1989. Since changes in the core curriculum cannot be viewed in isolation from other changes occurring in both major fields of study and student characteristics, these data are best viewed as a means of identifying trends and areas where problems continue to occur.

Method 1

The Career Development Center job postings over the previous year were utilized to contact possible employers of recent graduates. All employers were sent letters stating the purpose of the survey, along with several copies of the survey. The cover letter emphasized that the purpose of the survey was to evaluate the university's performance, not the individual employee's performance. 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. A concern with this approach is that the university can never be sure if the data collected reflects perceptions of current graduates or if the data reflect perceptions of previous graduates and institutional reputation. In order to lessen this concern, employers were asked to select a recent graduate who had been hired and to fill out the survey as it related to that particular employee. Additionally, employers were asked to indicate both the educational major and the year of graduation for the chosen employee. This was done in order to be certain that the employer was, in fact, basing perceptions of the university on relatively recent graduates.

Five hundred and sixty-six possible employers were contacted of which 64 (8%) responded and were appropriate for inclusion in the sample (that is, the employer had actually hired a UNR graduate on a full-time, permanent basis). The 64 responses comprised 68% of the final sample.

Method 2

Five hundred and eighty-six graduates participated in an alumni survey completed by the university. All respondents had graduated from the university with baccalaureate degrees in the spring or fall of 1992 and, thus, had worked for one to two years following graduation. All of these alumni were sent letters asking them 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 to the initial mailing received a follow-up letter, along with an additional copy of the survey, 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 52 alumni postcards giving permission to survey their employer. Of the 52 surveyed, 30 employers responded, comprising 32% of the final sample. Thus, the combined methods resulted in a final sample size of 94.

Characteristics of Participants

Employers evaluated the university based on graduates over the following range of graduation dates:

# of Graduates		Year of Graduation
1	(1.1%)	1984
1	(1.8%)	1987
2	(2.1%)	1990
4	(4.2%)	1991
35	(7.2%)	1992
16	(7.0%)	1993
24	(25.5%)	1994
8	(8.5%)	1995
3	(3.2%)	Unknown
Total 94	Total 100%

The 94 participating employers represent the following areas of business, industry, and the public sector.

Graduates	Field
40 (42.6 %)	Education
12 (12.8%)	Retail
5 ( 5.3%)	Medical/Dental
5 ( 5.3%)	Tourism/Hospitality
4 ( 4.3%)	Government Services / Public Administration
4 ( 4.3%)	Accounting
4 ( 4.3%)	Mining/Engineering Services
4 ( 4.3%)	Research and Development
3 ( 3.2%)	Gaming
3 ( 3.2%)	Computer Programming / Information Systems Management
2 ( 2.1%)	Law Related
2 ( 2.1%)	Advertising / Public Relations / Marketing
1 ( 1.1%)	Banking
1 ( 1.1%)	Construction
4 ( 4.3%)	Other

Employers of students from seven colleges were represented in addition to a graduates from the Interior Design program. Three respondents did not indicate the college of the employee. The College of Medicine and the College of Journalism had no employers of their graduates respond to the survey.

Graduates	College
32 (34.0 %)	Education
23 (24.5%)	Arts and Sciences
20 (21.3%)	Business Administration
4 ( 4.3%)	Agriculture
5 ( 5.3%)	Human and Community Sciences
3 ( 3.2%)	Engineering
3 ( 3.2%)	Mines
1 (1.1%)	Interior Design
3 ( 3.2%)	Unknown

The majority of employers who responded indicated that the employee’s major field of study was either completely related (63%) or somewhat related (26%) to the job that graduate currently held. Most (78%) survey respondents listed their relationship to the graduate as "supervisor". Of the remainder, 16% reported that they were the graduate’s "employer", while 7 % listed their relationship to the graduate as "other".

Back to the choice page for the
1994 and 1996 Employer Survey

Assessment Home

UNR Home