METHODOLOGY
In August 1998, packets
containing alumni surveys were mailed to all students who graduated with a
baccalaureate degree from the university in the 1995 (N=1300) and 1996 (N=1206)
calendar years. This packet contained a
cover letter explaining the purpose of the survey and the survey instrument. A total of 433 were returned (n=188 and 245,
for 1995 and 1996 alumni, respectively) resulting in a response rate of 17%
(see Table 1 for breakdown by college).
Analyses revealed few significant differences between the 1995 and 1996
samples, therefore, unless otherwise noted, all analyses were conducted on the
combined 1995/1996 samples.
Table 1
Sample Size by College
College |
Sample Size* |
% of Total |
||
|
|
1995 |
1996 |
1995 |
1996 |
Agriculture
(AGR)
|
11
|
8
|
6.1
|
3.4
|
Arts
and Science (AS)
|
73
|
82
|
40.3
|
35.4
|
Business
Administration (BA)
|
24
|
28
|
13.3
|
12.1
|
Education
(ED)
|
20
|
37
|
11.0
|
15.9
|
Engineering
(ENG)
|
12
|
20
|
6.6
|
8.6
|
Human
& Community Science (HCS)
|
27
|
35
|
14.9
|
15.1
|
Journalism
(JRN)
|
6
|
7
|
3.3
|
3.0
|
Medicine
(MED)
|
5
|
9
|
2.8
|
3.9
|
Mines
(MINE)
|
3
|
6
|
1.7
|
2.6
|
*Missing data for 20 cases
|
181
|
232
|
43.8
|
56.2
|
DEMOGRAPHICS
Race/Ethnicity: Ninety-one percent of the sample identified
themselves as White. Three percent
identified themselves as either Mexican American/Hispanic/Latino. Two percent identified themselves as Asian
American/Pacific Islander or an International student. One percent stated they were African
American/Black or Other. Less than 1%
identified themselves as Native American.
Due to the small non-White sample size, no analyses based on
race/ethnicity were conducted.
Sex/Gender: Sixty-four percent of respondents were female and 36% were male. A significant difference was found, however, for gender by age at enrollment F (1,425) = 6.19, p <.01, with females being older (M=23.4, SD=9.2) compared to males (M=21.4, SD=6.9).
Age: The mean age of respondents upon enrollment was twenty-three; the mean age at graduation was 28. The median age upon enrollment and graduation, however, was lower (Mdn = 19.0 and 24.0, for enrollment and graduation, respectively). A significant difference was found, however, for gender by age at enrollment F(1,425) = 6.19, p < .05. The mean at enrollment was higher for females (M = 23.4) compared to males (M = 21.4).
While the majority of respondents were less than 24 years of age at enrollment (75%), a considerable number of respondents, however, did not fall into this traditional college age category. Thirteen percent were between 25 and 34 at enrollment; 12% were older than 34 at enrollment. Therefore, to facilitate data analyses, age was broken down into three age categories 1 = less than 24 years of age, 2 = 25 to 34 years of age, and 3 = older than 34 years of age.
Family Educational Background: More than one-half of respondents indicated their father (71%) or mother (66%) had some college experience. Thirty percent indicated their father had a college degree, while 23% indicated their mother had a college degree. Furthermore,17% stated their father had some graduate training and 11% stated their mother had some graduate training. A significant difference in level of parental education was found, however, by age F(2,427) = 14.26, p < .001 for mother’s education, and F (2,423) = 15.44, p < .001, for father’s education. The mean[1] level of education for both mother and father decreased as the age at enrollment of the respondent increased (M = .367, .3.23, and 2.53, for mother’s education) and (M = 4.07, 3.32, and 2.89, for father’s education).
Thirty-five percent of respondents indicated a member of their immediate family had previously attended the university. A significant relationship was found, however, for age at enrollment and family attendance at the university X2 (2, N = 427) = 17.58, p < .001. Follow-up comparisons[2] indicated respondents 25 years old or younger at enrollment were 2.28 times (.409/.179) more likely to have had an immediate family member attend UNR compared to respondents age 25-34 years of age X2 (2, N = 427) = 10.78, p < .01. Furthermore, respondents 25 years old or younger at enrollment were 2.17 times (.409/.188) more likely to have an immediate family member attend UNR compared to respondents older than 34 years of age X2 (2, N = 371) = 8.68, p < .01.
STUDENT EXPERIENCES
Length of Attendance: The majority (87%) of respondents attended the university on a full-time basis. While over one-half (58%) attended the university for 8 or less regular semesters, 11% attended for 9 regular semesters and 16% attended for 10 regular semesters, and 15% attended for more than ten semesters. Thus, for approximately 40% the respondents, the path to graduation took longer than the traditional four years.
Attendance at Other Institutions: Over one-half (53%) of respondents indicated they had attended another institution prior to attending the University of Nevada, Reno (mean number of credits transferred = 52.1). A significant relationship was found, however, by age at enrollment X2 (2, N = 433) = 72.86, p < .001. Respondents between 25 and 34 years of age at enrollment were 2.2 (.912/.410) times more likely to have been a transfer students compared to respondents less than 25 years of age X2 (1, N = 381) = 48.86, p < .001. Respondents older than 34 years of age at enrollment were 2.44 (.846/.410) times more likely to have been a transfer student compared to respondents less than 25 years of age at enrollment X2 (1, N = 376) = 34.13, p < .001. Hence, older respondents tended to be transfer students rather than first-time freshmen.
The most frequently stated reason for transferring to UNR were to obtain a bachelor’s degree (46%) or relocation to the area (31%). Other reasons included (a) a better degree program offered at UNR (11%) and recommendations from friends (4%). A significant relationship was found between age at enrollment and transferring to UNR to obtain a bachelor’s degree X2 (2, N = 229) = 7.94, p < .05. Respondents between 25 and 34 years of age were 1.5 (.577/.383) times more likely to have been transfer students compared to respondents 25 years of age or younger X2 (1, N = 185) = 5.66, p < .05.
More than one-third (39%) of respondents also indicated they had taken a course at a community college while enrolled at UNR (mean number of credits taken = 12.9). The most frequently (21%) stated reason for concurrent enrollment was that the class was not available at UNR. Fourteen percent of respondents also stated that the course was either full or more difficult at UNR.
Advising Experiences: Respondents were asked to evaluate both the availability and quality of advising within their major on a four-point scale (1 = poor, 2 = fair, 3 = good, and 4 = excellent). Overall, the majority of respondents rated the availability of their advisor favorably (34% and 30%, good and excellent, respectively). These same positive ratings were also evident for quality of advising (30% for both good and excellent). A significant difference was found, however, by age at enrollment for both availability of advising F (2,427) = 7.20, p < ,001 and quality of advising F (2,426) = 8.16, p < .001. Respondents older than 34 years of age rated availability of advising significantly more positively (M = 3.00) compared to younger respondents (M = 2. 50 and 2. 53, for less than 25 and 25 – 34 years of age, respectively). Older respondents also rated quality of advising significantly more positively (M = 3.0) compared to younger respondents (M = 2.45 and 2.42, for less than 25 and 25 –34 years of age, respectively).
Significant differences in ratings of quality of advising were not found by college, however, significant differences were found for availability of advising[3] F(8,408) = 5.48, p < .001. Respondents gave good or excellent ratings for the colleges of Journalism (M = 3.71), Agriculture (M = 3.60), and Mines (M = 3.11). Respondents rated the remaining colleges as either good or fair in availability of advising. Table 2 is a breakdown of significant pairwise comparisons by college.
Table 2
Availability of Advising
Significant Pairwise Comparisons by College
|
Comparison |
SE |
M1 |
M2 |
Mean Difference |
p-value |
|
AGR1 vs. AS2 |
.229 |
3.60 |
2.79 |
0.81 |
.017 |
|
.269 |
3.71 |
2.79 |
0.92 |
.025 |
|
|
AGR1 vs. BA2 |
.255 |
3.60 |
2.27 |
1.33 |
.000 |
|
AGR1 vs. HCS2 |
.248 |
3.60 |
2.71 |
0.89 |
.013 |
|
AS1 vs. BA2 |
.156 |
2.79 |
2.27 |
0.52 |
.034 |
|
ED1 vs. BA2 |
.185 |
2.91 |
2.27 |
0.64 |
.022 |
|
JOURN1 vs. BA2 |
.291 |
3.71 |
2.27 |
1.44 |
.000 |
|
JOURN1 vs. HCS2 |
3.71 |
2.71 |
1.00 |
.017 |
|
|
Note. Higher scores indicate
greater perceived availability of advising. |
|||||
Availability and Scheduling of Classes: Respondents
were asked to rate the overall availability of courses on a 4-point scale (1 = poor, 2 = fair, 3 = good, and 4 = excellent). In addition, respondents were asked to give the frequency of
occurrence of several types of registration difficulties on a 4-point scale (1=
never, 2 = 1-2 times, 3 = 3-4 times,
4 = > 4 times). The majority (69%) rated the availability of
courses as good (49%) or excellent (20%).
As can be seen in Figure 1, some difficulties
were evident for scheduling classes.
Three areas stand out as problematic: courses being offered at the same
time, courses being full, and conflicts with work.
Table 3
Frequency of Closed Courses
Significant Pairwise Comparisons by College
|
Comparison |
SE |
M1 |
M2 |
Mean Difference |
p-value |
|
AS1 vs. ED2 |
.147 |
2.10 |
2.86 |
0.76 |
.000 |
|
.249 |
1.80 |
2.86 |
1.06 |
.001 |
|
|
BA1 vs. ED2 |
.183 |
1.92 |
2.86 |
0.94 |
.000 |
|
ENG1 vs. ED2 |
.207 |
1.74 |
2.86 |
1.13 |
.000 |
|
HCS1 vs ED2 |
.175 |
2.18 |
2.86 |
0.68 |
.004 |
|
MED1 vs ED2 |
.286 |
1.64 |
2.86 |
1.22 |
.001 |
|
Note. Higher scores indicate greater frequencies. |
|||||
Working and Attending School: Nearly all respondents (90%) were employed will attending the university. A significant relationship found, however, by age at time of enrollment X2 (1, N = 422) = 7.65, p < .05. Pairwise comparisons revealed that those in the less than 25 age category were 1.15 (.924/.804) times more likely at have been employed compared to those in the older than 34 age category X2 (1, N = 365) = 7.44, p < .01. For all respondents, the majority (61%) had worked off campus. However, 20% reported they had worked both off campus and on campus during their time at the university. Only 10% reported working solely on campus while attending school. Of those who worked during the academic year, more than one-quarter (27%) worked more than 30 hours per week. Approximately one-third (32%) worked 21 –30 hours per week; 31% worked 11-20 hours per week. Only 10% worked 10 hours or less during the academic year.
Campus Connectedness: The number and type of close relationships formed were utilized as a measure of campus connectedness. Respondents were asked how many close relationships they had formed during their time at the university, with whom these relationships were formed, and how they were formed. Most of the of respondents (94%) stated they had formed at least one close relationship with another student; 75% had formed three or more such relationships while attending the university. The majority (84%) of these friendships were formed through acquaintances made in classes. However, 24% had formed friendships through off campus events. Other avenues for the formation of close friendships included: fraternity/sorority participation (18%), UNR activities and social events (17%), UNR clubs (15%), UNR sporting events (13%), and friends made in the dorms (9%). However, age at enrollment and the probability of forming close relationships through these means were significantly related. Pairwise comparisons revealed that, overall, it was more likely for respondents less than 25 years of age to form relationships through these activities compared to respondents older than 34 years of age at enrollment.
Respondents were also asked about the number of close relationships they had developed with professors. A close relationships was defined as one where the respondents felt comfortable asking the professor for a letter of recommendation. Fifteen percent indicated they had established this type of relationship with one professor; 29% with two professors, and 34% with three professors. Approximately 20% stated they had not established a close relationship with any professors while attending the university.
Seventy-one percent of respondents indicated they spent less than five hours per week on campus for social activities. However, 17% stated they spent between five and eleven hours on campus for such activities. These percentages are consistent with the commuter nature of the campus. Approximately one-quarter (26%) indicated they had lived in a campus dormitory and only 11% had lived in a fraternity or sorority house.
To further assess levels of connectedness, respondents were asked whether they participated in several activities or groups. These activities included (a) fraternities/sororities, (b) clubs related to their major, (c) ASUN or other student government, (d) intercollegiate athletics, (d) intramural athletics, and (e) study abroad programs. Participation in clubs related to the major was the most frequently (32%) given type of participation, followed by intramural activities athletics (18%), and fraternity/sorority participation (17%). Less than 10% of all respondents reported participation in ASUN/student government (6%), intercollegiate athletics (6%), or study abroad programs (5%).
In addition to whether respondents participated in these activities, they were also asked about the frequency of attendance at the following events on campus: (a) a public forum/lecture on a social topic, (b) an athletic event as a spectator, and (c) an art exhibit, concert, or play.[4] Almost one-half (48%) reported attending a public forum or cultural event at least occasionally. However, almost one-quarter (24% and 21%, for public forum and cultural event, respectively) had never attended either of these events. Respondents more frequently reported attending an athletic event as a spectator. More than one-third (37%) reported having attended an athletic event every semester while at the university. Significant differences in frequency of attendance were found for public forum/lecture (F[2,426] = 5.30, p<.01) and attendance at athletic events (F[2,428] = 52.1, p < .001. Respondents in the < 25 age category (M = 2.17) and >34 age category (M = 2.39) more frequently attended a public forum/lecture compared to respondents in the 25 – 34 age category (M = 1.82).
Because campus connectedness involves more than social activities, respondents were also asked how much time they spent on campus for academic reasons excluding classes (e.g. studying, research). Forty percent of respondents indicated they spent at least five hours per week on campus for academic reasons. However, 29% indicated they spent less than five hours on campus for academic reasons. However, as Table 4 shows, significant differences were found by college with Engineering students spending the most time on campus for academic reasons (F [8,409] = 6.27, p < .001).
Table 4
Time Spent on Campus for Academic Reasons
Significant Pairwise Comparisons by College
|
Comparison |
SE |
M1 |
M2 |
Mean Difference |
p-value |
|
AS1 vs. ED2 |
.153 |
2.29 |
1.66 |
0.64 |
.001 |
|
.191 |
2.29 |
2.94 |
0.65 |
.028 |
|
|
AGR1 vs. ED2 |
.269 |
2.67 |
1.66 |
1.01 |
.007 |
|
BA1 vs. ENG2 |
.221 |
2.09 |
2.94 |
0.85 |
.006 |
|
ED1 vs. ENG2 |
.218 |
1.66 |
2.94 |
1.28 |
.000 |
|
ED1 vs. MINE2 |
.376 |
1.66 |
2.88 |
1.22 |
.046 |
|
ENG1 vs. HCS2 |
.214 |
2.94 |
1.97 |
0.97 |
.000 |
|
Note. 1=< 5 hrs; 2=5 –10 hrs.; 3=11-25 hrs.; 3 = > 15 hrs. |
|||||
ACADEMIC EXPERIENCES
Research Activities: Respondents were asked if they had an opportunity to work on a research project beyond those required as a part of their regular course work and with whom they worked. Furthermore, they were asked if the research results were presented at a professional conference or published in a professional journal. Only 12% indicated they had worked on some type of research project. Of this group, 98% worked with a faculty member and 42% worked with a graduate student.
As
depicted in Figure 2, significant differences were found for research activity
by college X2 (8, N
= 423) = 32.0, p < .001.
Of those respondents who worked with a faculty member, 33% reported the research was presented at a professional conference while only 12% indicated the research at been published in a professional journal. Those respondents who reported working with a graduate student less frequently reported the result had been presented at a professional conference (23%) or had been published (5%).
Internships:
Forty-four percent of respondents reported participating in an internship
program while at the university and 37% reported the internship led to their
current employment. There was
considerable variability, however, by college (see Figure 3). For example, 78% of the respondents from the
College of Education reported participation in an internship and 63% reported
that the internship led to their current employment. However, only 29% from the College of Arts and Science reported
participation and 25% reported the internship led to their current employment.
The majority (75%) rated the experience positively (41% and 34%, excellent or good, respectively).
A variety of reasons were given for not participating in internship programs including not being aware of internship possibilities (43%), an internship not offered in one’s major (30%), conflict with work schedules (20%), conflict with class schedules (11%), and not offered during the summer (1%).
Perceptions of the
Major
In addition to advising within the major (see Advising Experiences section), respondents were asked to rate several other aspects of their major. These items assessed issues related to the quality of instruction, opportunities for interaction, and adequacy of materials and facilities to support the major. All responses were based on a four-point scale (1 = poor, 2 = fair, 3 = good, and 4 = excellent).
Quality of Instruction: The majority of respondents rated their respective departments very highly. Eighty-five percent rated the quality of instruction as excellent (36%) or good (49%). Eighty-eight percent also rated the expertise of faculty within the major as excellent (46%) or good (42%). In addition, 86% of respondents rated the fairness of grading within the major as excellent (29%) or good (57%). The majority (78%) also rated the quality of courses for providing a well-rounded education as excellent (50%) or good (28%). Further support for these positive perceptions can be inferred from the fact that 70% of respondents indicated that they would choose the same major again.
Respondents were also asked to rate the quality of courses in preparation for both employment and graduate or professional school. Over one-half (56%) rated courses as excellent (18%) or good (38%) in preparing them for employment and 72% rated courses as excellent (27%) or good (45%) in preparing them for graduate or professional school. A significant difference was found, however, for employment preparation by college, F (8,408) = 5.16, p < .001, M = 2.56. Pairwise comparisons revealed a significant difference between the College of Arts and Science (M = 2.28) and the colleges of Business (M = 2.87), Education (M = 2.82), Journalism (M = 3.21), and Medicine (M = 3.14).
Opportunities for Interaction: The majority (72%) rated opportunities for interaction with faculty within their major as excellent (30%) or good (42%). The majority (59%) also rated the availability of professional activities or clubs within the major as excellent (17%) or good (43%). A significant difference in the availability of these activities or clubs by college was revealed F (8, 353) = 2.86, p < .001. Pairwise comparisons showed a significant difference between the College of Education (M = 2.38) and the colleges of Business (M = 3.00) and Journalism (M = 3.42).