2003 usc graduate student survey student survey... · i 2003 usc graduate student survey table of...

i

2003 USC Graduate Student Survey

2003 USC GRADUATE STUDENT SURVEY

Prepared by Mark A. Pavelchak Director, Student Outcomes Research Student Outcomes Research Report No. 26 Division of Student Affairs October, 2003

i


Table of Contents

Executive Summary ii

Introduction 1

Methodology 1

Questionnaire design 1

Sample selection 1

Procedure 1

Sample representativeness 2

Organization of results and analytic strategy 2

Results 3

Degree progress 3

Finances 4

Time allocation 4

Admissions 6

Orientation 6

Housing 8

Living situation 10

Transportation 10

University services 12

Campus climate 14

Overall assessment 17

Post-graduation Plans 19

Summary and discussion 20

Appendix A: Sample representativeness 23

Appendix B: Questions omitted from report 24

ii


Executive Summary

A first-ever survey was conducted of USC’s degree-seeking graduate student population from November 23rd, 2002 until January 17th, 2003. Over 50 percent of the 3523 invitees participated. Some of the major findings of this survey include : Ø Across a variety of issues including orientation, housing, parking, university policies and GPSS,

graduate students report a need for more and better quality information. Ø The greatest single need that graduate students report is more assistance in finding close,

affordable housing, especially at the point of initial enrollment. Ø Master’s, Doctoral, and Professional students differ substantially in how they fund their

education, how they spend their time, and in their usage of university services. On the other hand, they differ very little on most attitudinal factors such as their level of satisfaction with university services and perceptions of campus climate.

Ø Many students express concerns over safety. Concerns are greater for students on the Health

Sciences Campus than on the University Park Campus, but are high on both campuses after dark. Ø International students differ substantially from other students in a variety of ways including living

situation and their use of campus services and facilities. Their perceptions and evaluations about their USC experiences also differ – primarily in the negative direction.

Ø Despite all of the ‘constructive criticism’ submitted by graduate students in regard to housing,

parking, problems with their programs, etc., most graduate students report a high level of satisfaction with their experience at USC.

Ø The strongest predictors of overall satisfaction among graduate students include the quality of

instruction, amount of contact with faculty, and the sense of community on campus. In contrast, many of the factors that generated some of the strongest complaints about USC – housing, parking, financial aid, and safety – are virtually uncorrelated with overall satisfaction.

Ø Less than half of the doctoral students responding to the survey aspire to a traditional academic

career, and only about 60 percent aspire to work in academe in any capacity.

1


Introduction

“One major promise that we must attend to is excellence in graduate education.” – USC President Steven B. Sample in his annual address, February 27, 2002.

Graduate students comprise over 46 percent of the student population at the University of Southern California, yet little is known about them. Surveys have been regularly conducted on USC’s undergraduate population for over 20 years, but a broad survey of the graduate population has never been done. Given that excellence in graduate education is one of USC’s emerging priorities, it is essential we increase our understanding of the graduate student population. Toward that end, a questionnaire designed to address many aspects of graduate student life was developed during the summer of 2002. It was administered to a random sample of the degree-seeking population at the end of the fall 2002 semester and the beginning of the spring 2003 semester. This report focuses on the results of that survey.

Methodology Questionnaire design The questionnaire was developed by the Office of Student Outcomes Research with extensive input from the Provost’s office, the Graduate School, GPSS, and various university offices. 1 Portions of the questionnaire were adapted from one that was administered at Ohio State University in 1998. Essentially identical online and paper versions of the questionnaire were prepared.2 Sample selection The target population for the survey was 13,752 degree-seeking graduate students registered at USC as of Week 3 in the fall 2002 semester. From this population, which includes 53.2 percent Master’s students, 27.5 percent Doctoral students and 19.3 percent Professional students, a random sample of 3523 students (just over 25 percent) was selected. A participation rate goal of 50 percent was established for the study. Procedure After three days of live testing with 50 invitees, the survey was “rolled out” via email to the remainder of the invited sample on November 26, 2002. Each email message included a personal password that was required to gain entry to the survey. This procedure ensured that only invited students participated and that they only participated once. Reminder/progress report email messages were sent out each week to non-respondents until the survey closed. Each message contained a response rate progress report as well as unique content that varied from message to message. Because not all graduate students regularly check their USC email address, invitations were also sent out via postcard. Both email and postcard invitations included instructions

1 A copy of the questionnaire can be obtained online at http://www.usc.edu/student -affairs/sor/surveys/gradsurvey.pdf. 2The online version differed from the paper version in one procedural respect, involving two groups of questions dealing with usage of and satisfaction with services (Sections F and G). On these questions in the online version, students were prevented from answering satisfaction questions (they “grayed-out”) if a respondent indicated that they had never used the service.

“This survey is a good thing. The school must become more open to listening to suggestions from students, as opposed to reacting defensively any time a certain

aspect of the program is criticized.” — Master’s student in Journalism

2


for obtaining a paper copy of the survey if a student had difficulty with the online version, or simply preferred that method. To increase student participation, academic deans, program advisors, and Student Affairs staff members were also asked to encourage invitees from their constituencies to participate in the survey. In some instances, these administrators were successful in making new contacts with invitees (via personal communications and email listservs populated with non-USC email addresses). Communication from administrators also conveyed the importance of the survey to the student’s academic program and to the university as a whole. A firm closing date for the survey was not established at the outset because, given that this was the first comprehensive survey of USC’s graduate student population, it was unclear how long it would take to reach the response rate goal of 50 percent. By mid-January, the goal had been reached. The survey was officially closed on January 17, 2003.

“Thank you for the survey and opportunity to share thoughts, I hope this will continue in the future, and that the feedback will be beneficial.”

— Doctoral student in Neuroscience

Sample representativeness By the close of the survey, 1802 of the 3523 invitees (52 percent) had completed all ten sections the survey.3 Of this total, only 5 were completed on paper, the rest via the web. A comparison of characteristics of the target population and the sample (see Appendix A) shows that representativeness of the sample is quite high. Only a few small sources of bias were found. Two of them – a slight over-representation of new students relative to continuing students, and a slight over-representation of younger (under 25) students compared to older students – are moderately correlated. Two others – gender and GPA, are much smaller than they have been in recent surveys of the undergraduate program. Females participated a bit more frequently than males, and the average cumulative GPA of respondents is slightly higher than that of non-respondents. The relatively small size of these biases indicates a broad level of participation among the student population. Organization of results and analytic strategy Due to the space limitations, not every question included in the survey could be discussed in this report. The excluded questions, which are listed in Appendix B, generally apply to a narrow issue or sub-population. Results from the excluded questions will be shared separately with the relevant campus offices or schools. Results presented in this report are organized in the following manner: 1) Overall results within a section. In cases where groups of similarly-formatted questions were written on

a single topic, such as admissions or orientation, results and discussion will compare responses to those questions. For example in regard to satisfaction with university services, discussion will focus on services that receive high, moderate and low satisfaction ratings.4

2) Comparisons among degree type: Master’s, Doctoral, Professional. Results in a few tables (time spent

on campus and issues related to campus climate) are also broken down by campus (University Park

3 An additional 130 respondents were excluded from most analyses, 120 because they only completed part of the survey and 10 because they spent very little time (less than five minutes) on the survey. 4In some instances, intra-item comparisons can be misleading. For example, in regard to ratings of satisfaction with university services, certain services (such as library services) historically receive higher ratings than others (e.g., food services). A more appropriate metric to use in the evaluation of such services would be ratings of similar services at another university or, ideally, ratings of the same services at USC at another point in time. For this reason, it is hoped that this survey can be redone at USC in a few years.

3


Campus (UPC) versus Health Sciences Campus (HSC).5 The Health Sciences Campus serves the Schools of Medicine, Pharmacy, and Independent Health Professions.

3) Comparisons along other factors, including ethnicity (including international status), gender, new (first-

semester) versus continuing, full-time versus part-time, age, dependents, and distance from campus. The campus factor is defined in terms of the campus associated with a student’s major. Three of these factors have been dichotomized for easier analysis. The dependents factor was split zero versus one or more dependents. Age was split at 25 years of age. Finally, distance from campus was split at 10 minutes from campus. Given the sheer number of factors examined, not all are discussed for each question on the survey. Factors that had the largest effect on responses, in terms of variance accounted for, are generally discussed with the exception of certain “obvious” results such as non-local students spend more time commuting than local students. Beyond effect size, another focus is on results that are deemed either potentially actionable or are counter-intuitive.

Statistical significance. Tests of statistical significance involving degree type and ethnicity were done via one-way analyses of variance with post-hoc contrasts. All other factors were dichotomous in nature and were tested via between-subjects t-tests.6 The actual criterion for significance however, varies somewhat from section to section. This is because for certain groups of factors (such as time allocation) a very large amount of the variance in responses is accounted for by subgroup differences (e.g., Doctoral students spend much more time on research than do non-Doctoral students), while for other groups of factors (such as satisfaction), much less variance is accounted for by subgroup factors. In general, factors meeting the “newsworthy” criteria listed above are always mentioned if they are significant at the .001 level. News-worthy factors are also mentioned if they are significant at the .01 level and there are relatively few significant factors among the group of questions.

Results Degree progress Students indicated the number of years that they expected to pass before degree attainment. The results appear in Table 1. Table 1: Expected time remaining until degree completion Percent of students responding by degree type

Amount of time: Master’s (n=931)

Doctoral (n=537)

Professional (n=330)

Total (n=1798)

One year or less 52.6 24.3 19.4 37.5 Two years or less 36.6 25.9 28.9 32.2 Three years or less 8.7 21.3 28.7 16.6 Four years or less 1.2 14.9 21.9 9.0 Five years or less 0.7 11.4 0.3 3.8 More than five years 0.2 2.1 0.8 0.8

While degree type has perhaps the greatest effect on answers to this question, other factors also have strong effects on expected time-to-degree. In some instances, factors interact. For example, part-time status has a different effect for Master’s and Doctoral students. As one might expect, part-time doctoral students expect

5 The campus factor is an oversimplification because some USC graduate students are located in many other locations such as Orange County, Sacramento, and Catalina Island. However, the percentage of students at these locations is too small to be included in analyses for this report. 6 Results from tests of statistical significance based on these dichotomized variables could vary if a different break point was chosen.

4


to take longer to finish than full-time students, but the opposite is true for Master’s students: 56 percent of part-time Master’s students expect to finish within one year compared to only 50 percent of full-time students. Finances Respondents were asked to indicate how much of this year’s educational expenses (tuition and fees) are or will be covered by various categories. Table 2 presents the results.

Table 2: Sources of funding Percent responding by degree type Master’s Doctoral Professional Total Sources (n=830) (n=423) (n=309) (n=1562)

Graduate assistant stipend 13.6 57.6 3.3 24.7 USC fellowship/scholarship 18.5 26.1 34.8 23.8 Non-USC fellowship or scholarship 8.7 8.0 12.8 9.4 Other employment (USC or not) 42.2 30.8 30.1 36.8 USC work-study position 8.9 3.7 0.3 5.8 Tuition remission 13.1 45.8 3.7 20.5 Employer paid tuition 19.0 7.9 0.6 12.4 Educational loans 50.9 25.4 84.9 51.1 Other loans 16.4 6.1 35.8 17.6 Credit cards 21.2 22.5 30.3 23.5 Parent/spouse/other family member 46.2 24.0 53.3 41.8 Personal savings 45.9 30.9 35.2 39.8 Other 2.7 3.7 3.2 3.1

The size of the differences in funding sources among the degree types is striking. Doctoral students rely heavily on stipends and tuition remission. Professional students rely heavily on educational loans and family contributions. Master’s students rely on a combination of employer-paid tuition, employment, loans, family contributions, and personal savings. Although a variety of breakdown factors have a significant effect on these results, they will not be discussed in this report.7 Time allocation Quantifying how graduate students spend their time, both in and out of the classroom, is an important part of understanding the graduate school experience. Two sets of questions were included to address this issue. The first set deals with the number of hours per week spent on various activities. The second set of questions addresses the proportion of campus time allocated to the University Park Campus, the Health Sciences Campus, evening visits and weekend visits. Activities. Table 3 shows the average number of hours spent per week on various academic and non-academic activ ities during a typical semester. While all students spent a considerable amount of time preparing for class, the percent of time spent on other activities varied greatly by degree type. Both Master’s students and Doctoral students spent considerable time in employment while Professional students spent the most time in registered classes and labs.

7 On the questions involving USC-based funding sources, a comparison with university financial aid records caused concern as to the accuracy of these self-report data. Discrepancies involved primarily the dollar amounts, not the presence or absence of a funding source.

5


Table 3: Hours per week spent on selected activities

Mean hours spent per week by degree type

Activity Master’s (n=908)

Doctoral (n=517)


Total (n=1749)

Registered classes and/or labs 10.2 9.5 18.8 11.6 Preparing for class 15.2 12.5 18.3 15.0 Personal research 5.7 13.0 4.0 7.6 Major-related artistic expression 4.0 3.2 1.8 3.4 Co-curricular activities 3.2 3.0 3.9 3.3 Community service/volunteer work 1.1 1.4 2.1 1.4 Departmental or university service 1.0 1.4 0.9 1.1 Employment (USC and or non-USC) 17.9 15.9 3.8 14.7 Commuting 6.1 5.4 5.9 5.8 Many factors have a strong effect on how students spend their time. In regard to ethnicity/citizenship , the biggest differences involve international students who spend considerably more time on research and co-curricular activit ies than other students. They are able to do this in part because they spend less time in employment and less time commuting (since many live within walking distance of campus; see living situation). HSC students spend less time working than UPC students but more time involved in volunteer work. Because HSC students are in the medical field, many are required to do community work as part of their degree. Finally, one non-significant result is worth sharing: part-time students spend just as much time engaged in extra-curricular activities as do full-time students. On-Campus Time. Students were asked to indicate what proportion of their time they spent on each campus, how much time they spent on campus after 5pm and how much campus time occurred on the weekend. Because of the great effect that the campus factor has on these results, Table 4 is broken down on that factor. To a large degree, these results validate the campus factor, which is based on academic major. Students in majors associated with the University Park Campus spent over 90 percent of their time on that campus. The same is true for HSC students with the exception of Master’s students, who spend about 70 percent of their time on the Health Sciences Campus. Most of this lower percentage is due to Master’s Students in the School of Medicine, who only spend an average of 63 percent of their time on the Health Sciences Campus. Table 4: Allocation of time spent on campus Percent of time spent by degree type and campus

University Park Students Master’s (n=852)

Doctoral (n=441)


Total (n=1453)

On University Park Campus (UPC) 91.6 90.2 94.7 91.5 On Health Sciences Campus (HSC) 2.3 3.4 2.0 2.6 After 5PM 45.4 27.8 14.5 36.7 Weekends 14.7 12.2 6.0 13.0

Heath Science Students Master’s (n=63)

Doctoral (n=85)


Total (n=316)

On University Park Campus (UPC) 9.6 4.4 3.5 4.9 On Health Sciences Campus (HSC) 70.5 94.8 94.6 89.7 After 5PM 20.2 21.8 18.1 19.5 Weekends 8.8 15.5 12.1 12.4 The fact that the percentages of time spent on the two campuses does not sum to 100 percent highlights the fact that some students spend their time in other USC-affiliated locations (Orange County, Sacramento). Campus activity after 5PM is much more common among UPC students except for those pursuing

6


Professional Degrees. While this certainly due in part to a greater number of evening programs on the University Park Campus, it could also be due to a lack of availability of resources after 5PM on the Health Sciences Campus as well as perceived safety concerns (see safety on campus). Few students on either campus spend much time on campus over the weekend. One big exception to this is international students, who spent almost twice as much time as other students on campus over the weekend. Also, males spend more campus time than females both in the evening and over the weekend. Although only about 21 percent of the graduate population is part-time, their representation increases after 5PM. Part-time students spend a much greater proportion of their on-campus time after 5PM than do full-time students after 5PM (48 percent versus 29 percent) and also spend slightly more time on campus over the weekend. Finally, as one might expect, distance from campus influences weekend time on campus: local students spend a greater proportion of their on-campus time over the weekend as do distant students (19 percent versus 11 percent). On the other hand, evening time on campus is not affected by distance from campus. Admissions Students were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction with four aspects of the admissions process. The results appear in Table 5. Table 5: Satisfaction with the application/admissions process Mean satisfaction by degree type

Satisfaction Master’s (n= 892)

Doctoral (n= 508)

Professional (n= 309)

Total (n= 1709)

Speed of receiving admissions materials 3.8 3.8 4.1 3.9 Clarity and helpfulness of instructions 3.8 3.7 4.1 3.8 Informed about progress of application 3.4 3.5 3.8 3.5 Grad program responsiveness 3.7 3.7 4.0 3.7 The scale used for these questions ranged from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied) Satisfaction levels are well above the scale midpoint on all four factors, but are lowest in regard to being kept informed about the progress of the application. Looking more closely at this factor, part-time students are less satisfied than full-time students about being kept informed. Professional students are more satisfied with all aspects of the admissions process than are Master’s and Doctoral students. However this result also interacts with the campus factor: HSC students are more satisfied with being kept informed than UPC students, except at the Professional level, where there is no difference. Only one other factor has a strong effect on satisfaction with the admissions process. International students report much lower levels of satisfaction than other students on every factor. We will see however, that this pattern recurs in various portions of this report. The meaning of this pattern is discussed at the end of the paper. Orientation Several sets of questions were asked about making the transition to becoming a graduate student at USC including orientation programs, ease of transition, and suggestions for making transition easier. Orientation programs. The first set of questions concerned the perceived usefulness of certain orientation programs. Students were to respond to each question only if the program was applicable to them. The responses appear in Table 6, which also includes individual sample sizes due to large variability across questions.

7


Table 6: Usefulness of orientation programs

Mean usefulness by degree type Master’s Doctoral Professional Total Orientation program n Mean n Mean n Mean n Mean University-wide orientation 411 3.4 275 3.2 118 3.5 804 3.3 Dept/school program orientation 725 3.8 418 3.8 273 3.8 1416 3.8 International student orientation8 242 3.7 182 3.6 5 3.8 429 3.7 Program/Dept/school for TAs 162 3.3 235 3.6 31 3.4 428 3.5 University-wide program for TAs 119 3.0 199 3.2 28 3.2 346 3.1 Center for Excellence in Teaching’s ITA Institute 107 3.1 162 3.5 25 3.3 294 3.3 The scale used for these questions ranged from 1 (not useful at all) to 5 (very useful) Overall, students found orientation programs within their own program or department more useful than university-wide programs. International students found their orientation program to be useful as well. However, international students found program/department orientation programs to be less useful than other students. There are very few other factors influencing responses to these questions, largely because most of the questions applied to a relatively small number of graduate students. Ease of transition to campus. Students were asked to indicate how easy or difficult their transition to graduate student life at USC was on a scale that ranged from 1 (very difficult) to 5 (very easy). The mean response on this question was 3.14, close to the mid-point of the scale, indicating that for most students, transitional difficulties were moderate. The only factor that had a large effect on responses to this question was ethnicity/citizenship : white students had the easiest time transitioning to campus while international students and to a lesser extent, Latino students, had the most difficulty. Suggestions for making transition easier. Students were asked to indicate what could have been done at the university level and at the program level to make their transition to campus easier. The most frequent University-level suggestions are shown in Table 7. Table 7: University-level concerns

Type of Concern Number of comments

Housing 132

Orientation 80

Parking 53

Information about USC 51

Financial aid 46

Specific needs (e.g., counseling services, mentoring, job opportunities, workshops) 45

Social activities/networking 43

International student concerns 37

Funding 35 Housing issues accounted for the greatest number of suggestions for change at the university level. (Suggestions regarding housing and parking will be discussed in their respective sections in this report). In regard to orientation, several students were apparently not aware that USC has a university-level orientation program. Of those students who did know about the orientation, some thought it could be better-organized. Select groups of students, such as part-timers and those beginning in the summer term, did not feel that they were properly oriented to the university.

8 Includes international students only.

8


A large number of students felt that they did not receive enough information about USC prior to enrollment. One student, who was also a USC undergraduate student, noticed that she was sent much less information when she enrolled as a graduate student. Students felt they lacked information on a variety of topics including policies, registration procedures, computer resources/email accounts, libraries, billing procedures, and student services. Many also requested a campus map with important locations highlighted. Some students suggested that a graduate student handbook be developed that contains all the information they need to know about USC and a checklist of things to do as a new USC graduate student (including, registering for classes, payment of fees, fee waivers, deadlines, etc.). Such a handbook might also include an introduction to the Los Angeles area - including things to do, safety precautions, banking, shopping, grocery stores, and public transportation. At the program level, the three most common suggestions for improvement involved better advisement and mentoring, more information on programs, majors, and courses, and better department orientation. Students would like to see their departments provide clearer expectations of their program. Students feel that orientation did not provide sufficient information required to make their transition somewhat smooth. Students suggested that any program or department-based orientation occur prior to the start of the academic year. Additional program or department-specific suggestions will be shared with the relevant academic deans and department chairs. Housing Students were asked a series of questions about how their housing needs were initially addressed upon enrollment at USC. Housing contract. Students were asked whether they applied for a housing contract and the subsequent outcome of that effort. Table 8 presents the results. Table 8: Housing contract Percent of students responding by degree type

Contract-related question Master’s (n=995)

Doctoral (n=563)


Total (n=1914)

Did you apply for housing contract? 14.2 21.6 20.1 17.4 If yes: Was a contract offered? 38.3 51.2 75.7 49.8 If yes: Did you accept the contract? 81.0 68.8 68.5 71.7 A common perception among graduate students is that, because there is not enough housing for graduate students, the chances of actually getting the opportunity to live in the residential system is remote. That may be why less than 20 percent of graduate students applied for a housing contract. Two factors influenced this percentage. First, a larger percentage of Doctoral and Professional students applied for a housing contract than Master’s students. Second, more international students – 27 percent – applied for a contract than other students, indicating that they had fewer viable alternatives than other students.

Almost 50 percent of those students that did apply for a housing contract received an offer. Perhaps once this statistic becomes public, the number of applications will increase. It is unclear why the percentage of offers varies so much among the degree types. Many students that were offered contracts did not accept them. The most common reasons given for this are, in decreasing order: unacceptable quality, too expensive, and had already found other housing. Temporary housing. Students were asked if they had a need for temporary housing upon enrollment at USC. Those that did need temporary housing were asked a series of additional questions. Twenty-three percent of the respondents indicated a need for temporary housing upon enrollment, but this varied greatly by degree type. Doctoral students expressed the greatest need (33 percent) followed by Master’s students (21 percent)

9


and Professional students (11 percent). Also, a larger percentage of UPC students needed temporary housing than HSC students. By far the biggest determinant of the need for temporary housing was international student status: 52 percent of all international students needed temporary housing. The average length of need for temporary housing is about 2 ½ weeks, although 18 percent need housing for at least four weeks. Relatively few factors have an effect on the length of need. One such factor is age: more students who are over 25 need temporary housing longer than do younger students. Despite the number of international students that needed temporary housing, they do not need housing for a longer period of time than other students. How students solve their need for temporary housing. By far, the most common solution to the need for temporary housing is to stay at a friend’s house. More students (146) indicate this solution than the next four answers combined: hotel/motel, relative’s house, housing arranged by student association, room provided by USC Housing. Evaluations of USC efforts. Students indicating a need for temporary housing were asked several additional questions about USC’s helpfulness in addressing that need. First, students rated the helpfulness of various USC offices including the university housing office, the student’s academic program, and “other university offices” (such as OIS). Responses to these questions clearly indicate that more assistance is needed: Less than 10 percent said that the university housing office was helpful or very helpful with only slightly higher percentages (14 and 16 percent, respectively) for academic program and other offices. Next, students were asked whether they thought there are adequate services on campus to assist new students in finding non-university housing. Only 21 percent of respondents answered yes to this question. Suggestions for improving housing services. Finally, students were asked an open-ended question how housing assistance services should be improved. Table 9 shows the most frequent responses. Table 9: How housing services should be improved


Create a website/database/listing for available housing 71

Provide more assistance for housing grad students 56

Establish an office to help new students find housing off-campus 43

Allocate a greater percentage of housing contracts to graduate students 32

Give international graduate students priority assistance 22

Provide services that help protect students from bad renting practices 19

Keep housing Information up-to-date 16

Make more temporary housing available 14

Provide maps/brochures for housing together with admissions letter 13

Respond more quickly to housing applications and inquiries 8 Interesting specific suggestions include:

• Provide a list of landlords and prominent housing owners and rental agencies. • Provide a map that shows where USC students live and how much they pay in each area. • Online services: it should be possible for lessors to post their vacancies (similar to UCLA site) • Create a list of do’s and don’ts when looking for an apartment. • Create a family matching program for new international students to find a host family for the first

week of their arrival in the U.S. (Stanford University has a similar program).

10


Living situation Respondents were asked to indicate their marital status, how many dependents they had, whether they live outside the LA area and if so, where they lived. The results appear in Table 10. Table 10: Household situation

Percent of students responding by degree type

Situation Master’s (n=634)

Doctoral (n=369)


Total (n=1227)

Percent married or partnered 28.1 42.0 17.7 30.3 Number of dependents None 75.6 65.9 86.5 74.7 One 13.7 20.3 8.5 14.7 Two or more 10.7 13.7 5.0 10.5 Living situation University housing 4.0 5.4 6.9 4.9 Alone 20.5 25.4 20.2 21.9 With parents 9.7 4.8 18.4 9.8 With spouse/significant other 30.6 42.2 19.9 32.1 With roommates 37.7 26.4 38.1 34.4

Thirty percent of the graduate population is married or partnered and twenty-five percent have at least one dependent. Ten percent of the dependents live outside the LA area. Doctoral students are much more likely than other students to be married and to have dependents, which is partly why relatively few of them live with roommates. Professional students are least likely to be married and most likely to live with their parents. Living situation is greatly affected by many other factors beyond the obvious factors of age and number of dependents. For example, ethnicity/citizenship has a big effect. White students are more likely to live with a spouse/significant other than other students and are less likely to live in university housing or with roommates. International students are much more likely to live with roommates than other students and are less likely to live with parents or a spouse. Latino students are more likely to live with parents while African-American students are more likely to live alone. Finally, in regard to the campus factor, HSC students are more than twice as likely to live with their parents as students on the UPC students. Transportation Students were asked a series of questions about their transportation habits and how their transportation needs could be improved. Commuting time. Students were asked to indicate how many minutes it took to get to campus from the time they left their front door. Table 11 presents the responses. Overall, graduate students take an average of 32 minutes to get to campus from their front door, an average which is inflated by a few very large commute times (26 reported commutes of 2 hours or more). The median commute time is 26 minutes. Average commute time does not vary by campus but it does vary significantly by international status: international students live an average of only 22 minutes from campus with a median of less than 15 minutes.

11


Table 11: Minutes from front door to campus

Percent of students responding by degree type

Number of minutes Master’s (n=921)

Doctoral (n=530)


Total (n=1774)

0 to 10 minutes 17.8 16.0 14.9 16.7 11 to 20 minutes 23.2 26.0 28.8 25.1 21 to 30 minutes 20.3 24.9 26.0 22.7 31 to 40 minutes 11.6 9.2 9.6 10.5 41 to 50 minutes 10.9 11.9 10.2 11.0 51 to 60 minutes 9.4 5.5 7.1 7.8 More than 60 minutes 6.7 6.4 3.4 6.0 Form of transportation. Students were asked to indicate the means of transportation they typically used to get to campus (more than one response could be given). Table 12 shows the percent that gave each response. Table 12: Means of transportation used Percent of students responding by degree type

Transportation used Master’s (n=932)

Doctoral (n=539)


Total (n=1802)

Personal car 69.6 69.9 82.8 72.1 Walk/Ride bike 25.0 25.2 11.5 22.6 USC tram 14.6 11.3 1.5 11.2 Carpool 8.2 8.2 10.9 8.7 Public transportation 5.5 5.8 1.2 4.8 True to the Southern California lifestyle, the personal car is by far the most common form of transportation used to travel to USC. Professional students are more reliant on their personal car because few live within walking distance of campus or on a tram route. Because international students are much more likely to live near campus than other students (see previous section), their transportation choices are also quite different. For example, 62 percent of international students walk, ride a bike, or take a USC tram compared to only about 19 percent of non-international students. In regard to factors other than ethnicity, gender had the next largest effect on transportation choices. Perhaps for safety reasons, females are less likely to walk or ride a bike to campus than males and more likely to drive a car. Parking/transportation improvement suggestions. Students were asked to indicate the ways in which their parking/transportation needs could be better served. Table 13 shows the most frequent responses. Table 13: Suggestions for parking and transportation needs


Decrease cost of parking passes 308

Add more parking lots/parking spaces 269

Increase frequency of tram stops 81

Inform students when they can buy parking passes 50

Free/reduced parking rates after 5PM, weekends and holidays 48

Better traffic and security enforcement 47 The top two concerns, by far, are the price of parking permits and the lack of parking spaces reserved for graduate students. An interesting suggestion made was to provide additional incentives to promote carpools.

12


More bike racks were suggested, and bike lanes should be created. Also it was mentioned that campus cruiser takes too long, as students are left waiting for quite a while. University services Students were asked to provide usage level and satisfaction ratings for a variety of university services relevant to graduate students. Usage of university services. Students were asked to indicate whether they used each service often, rarely, or never. The following graph shows the breakdown of these results.

University Services: Usage

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Counseling

Services for international students

University-wide career planningand placement

Recreational facilities (Lyon Center)

Transcript and record

Financial aid

The web registration system

Student health center

Computing

The telephone registration system

Library

Ser

vice

Percentage

Often

RareNever

Library services are used often by over 50 percent of graduate student population and by almost 90 percent at least occasionally. Eight different services are used at least occasionally by at least 40 percent. Service usage is greatly influenced by degree type to the extent that the usage of only two of the services (counseling and computing services) listed above do not differ at the .001 level. Master’s students use career planning and the web registration system more than other students and use the telephone registration system, library services, and the student health center less than other students. Doctoral students use transcript/record services, the library, and recreational facilities more than other students and financial aid services less than other students. Finally, professional students use financial aid services more than other students and the web registration system and computing services less than other students. Usage of university services also varies significantly along virtually every dimension examined in this report. The greatest influence comes from international student status. International students use one service – financial aid – less than other students, but use every other service on the above list except for counseling services more than other students. Distance also has a significant effect on usage of several services with local students using the service more frequently. As one might expect, full-time students use most services more frequently than part-time students, but the reverse was true in regard to career planning and the web registration system. Males use computer facilities, the Lyon Center, career planning services and the web

13


registration system more than females but use the student health center, library services and the telephone registration system less. The Lyon Center is used more by local students, younger students, and students with no dependents. Satisfaction with university services. Students were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction for every university service that they used at least occasionally. Table 14 presents the mean responses.

The telephone and web registration systems are not only two of the most commonly-used services (see previous section); they also received the highest satisfaction ratings in this section. Library and computing services also received high satisfaction ratings, as they have traditionally done in most recent undergraduate surveys. On the other hand, the student health center and career planning services, which also tend to receive relatively high satisfaction ratings by undergraduates, received relatively low ratings in this survey. In contrast to most other sections of the survey, degree type and other breakdown variables had very little effect on responses. The largest effect is that HSC students are more satisfied with the Student Health Center than are UPC students, which is surprising given that the main facility is located on the University Park Campus. Improving university services. The final question in the section on university services asked students for suggestions on how the services could be improved. To some extent, the pattern of suggestions mirrored the service usage listed above. For example, library and computer services, which are used by a la rge number of graduate students, were two of the most common topics of suggested improvements. On the other hand, telephone and web registration services, which are also heavily used, received considerably fewer suggestions for improvement. Specific suggestions will be shared with the relevant university administrators.

“Just from having read through this survey, I'm becoming aware that there are apparently services for graduate students available, though I'd never been

aware of them before today. Perhaps you could prepare one succinct brochure listing all available services and provide this to all graduate students.”

— Doctoral student in English

Table 14: University services relevant to graduate students Mean satisfaction by degree type Master’s Doctoral Professional Total Services n Mean n Mean n Mean n Mean The telephone registration system 601 3.8 450 4.0 263 3.9 1314 3.9 The web registration system 644 3.8 342 3.7 58 3.4 1044 3.7 Library services 733 3.7 489 3.5 291 3.7 1513 3.6 Computing services 643 3.6 395 3.5 208 3.6 1246 3.6 Transcript and record services 389 3.6 330 3.5 109 3.6 828 3.5 Recreational facilities (Lyon Center) 405 3.6 296 3.5 137 3.2 838 3.5 Financial aid services 523 3.3 256 3.4 269 3.6 1048 3.4 Student health center 455 3.4 370 3.3 232 3.2 1057 3.3 Counseling services 129 3.2 88 3.4 41 3.1 258 3.3 Services for international students 230 3.4 189 3.4 6 3.3 425 3.4 University-wide career planning and placement services 355 3.3 97 3.1 41 3.0 493 3.2 The scale used for these questions ranged from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied)

14


Open-ended responses such as these are one way for relatively small groups of graduate students to have their voices heard. For example, students on the Health Sciences Campus want a recreation center/gym on their campus and want the cafeteria to remain open after 3pm for the benefit of students that take late classes. Also, a student at the Sacramento Center suggested that students at the Center should have pictures on their ID cards (like most students) to create a sense of belonging.

“Make the university appear unified to students. I don't care about USC's internal structure and deeply flawed revenue center model; I want to give my address once, not five times. I don't want to have to use Google to find a USC

web service; I want them to be all in one place. I want to be on essential mailing lists automatically. If I'm going to be a number, let me be ONE

number.” —Doctoral student in Engineering

Campus climate A variety of questions were asked to develop a sense of USC’s campus climate. Issues examined include the perceived campus climate toward groups of students, safety on campus, and personal relationships. Perceived campus climate toward groups of students. Students were asked to indicate how positive or negative they felt the campus climate was toward students with a variety of characteristics. Table 15 shows the mean responses. Table 15: Perceived campus climate towards… Mean rating by degree type

Student type Master’s (n= 749)

Doctoral (n= 436)


Total (n= 1475)

Female students 3.8 3.7 3.8 3.8 Male students 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.8 Students of color 3.7 3.6 3.8 3.7 Caucasian students 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 International students 3.7 3.6 3.7 3.6 Disabled students 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.6 Gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender students 3.4 3.3 3.5 3.4 The scale used for these questions ranged from 1 (very negative) to 5 (very positive)

While the perceived campus climate is above the scale mid-point for all groups, it is least positive for gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender (GLBT) students. HSC students and professional students in general have a more positive perception of the campus climate toward students of color. Gender only has one large effect on perceptions of campus climate: males feel that the campus climate toward females is more positive than females themselves do. Ethnicity/citizenship has a consistent effect across every factor in that White students tend to have the most positive perception and international students tend to have the least positive perception of the campus climate. New students perceive the campus climate to be more positive than do continuing students, especially in regard to male students, students of color, and international students. Relationships. Students were asked to evaluate the quality of their relationships with other students, with administrative personnel, and with faculty on seven-point semantic differential scales. In each case, higher scores signify “better” relationships, but the nature of those relationships varies due to different scale endpoints. Table 16 shows the scale means, broken down by campus.

15


Table 16: Student relationships with…

Mean rating by degree type and campus Relationships with... Campus Master’s Doctoral Professional Total

UPC (n= 852) (n= 445) (n= 159) (n= 1456) Other students 5.1 5.0 4.9 5.0 Administrators 4.7 4.6 4.9 4.7 Faculty members 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 HSC (n= 68) (n= 88) (n= 167) (n= 323) Other students 5.1 5.4 5.1 5.1 Administrators 4.8 5.2 5.1 5.0 Faculty members 5.2 5.6 5.2 5.3 The scale used for these three questions varied as follows: Students : 1 (competitive, uninvolved, sense of alienation) to 7 (friendly, supportive, sense of belonging). Administrators: 1 (rigid, impersonal, bound by regulations) to 7 (helpful, considerate, flexible). Faculty: 1 (remote, discouraging, unsympathetic) to 7 (approachable, helpful, understanding, encouraging).

Degree type has relatively little effect on the quality of relationships while campus has a small but consistent effect on all three: HSC students have better relationships with other students, administrators and faculty than do UPC students. This difference is especially noticeable at the Doctoral level. Relationships are also influenced by gender and ethnicity. Females rate the quality of their relationship with administrative personnel as more helpful and considerate than males. Regarding ethnicity/citizenship, the clearest result is that, with one exception, international students report the least positive relationships with all three groups. The exception is that African-American students report the least positive relationships with other students even though they, along with Latino students, report the most positive relationships with faculty and administrators. Safety on campus. Students were asked to indicate how safe they felt in various campus environments as well as in their home. Table 17 shows the mean responses, broken down by campus. Table 17: How safe do you feel…

Mean feeling of safety by degree type and campus

Location Campus Master’s Doctoral Professional Total

UPC (n= 779) (n= 415) (n= 148) (n= 1342) On campus during the day 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.3 On campus at night 3.2 2.9 2.8 3.1 In your campus building at night 3.7 3.3 3.6 3.6 In/around parking structures at night 2.8 2.5 2.2 2.6 On campus on weekends 3.6 3.3 3.4 3.5 In your home 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 HSC (n= 61) (n= 86) (n= 161) (n= 308) On campus during the day 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.0 On campus at night 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.7 In your campus building at night 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.4 In/around parking structures at night 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.3 On campus on weekends 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 In your home 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.3

16

2003 USC Graduate Student Survey The scale used for these questions ranged from 1 (not safe at all) to 5 (very safe)

Perhaps the best news in these results is that students feel virtually as safe on campus during the day as they do in their own home. On the other hand, two negative results also stand out: 1) Students feel much less safe on campus at night, especially in/around parking structures, and 2) students feel less safe on the Health Sciences Campus than on the University Park Campus at all times. Ethnicity/citizenship and gender both had a significant effect on perceptions of safety. The primary ethnicity/citizenship factor to emerge is that international students tend to feel the least safe, regardless of the time or location. Similarly, females feel less safe than males on multiple items. Improving the atmosphere of graduate education. Students were asked to provide suggestions for how the atmosphere for graduate education at USC could be improved. To begin with, many students questioned the assumption that the atmosphere needed to be improved. The following comment was typical of this type of response:

“Overall, my experience has been very positive. I have made some very good friends, forged other valuable relationships and have met some very bright

faculty members who have helped me outside of the classroom.” —MBA student

Although there were many such comments, a much larger percentage of students had constructive criticisms to share. The most common suggestions for improving the atmosphere of graduate education involved a) increasing the number and quality of interactions among graduate students, b) encouraging faculty and staff to take more responsibility in the creation of the atmosphere, and c) increasing the number and quality of interactions with faculty and staff. Several students also suggested either increasing the quality of faculty or increasing the standards for admission. Several students on the Health Sciences Campus commented on the lack of a campus climate, at least relative to the University Park Campus. The following are typical:

“Please take into consideration the needs of the HSC campus, which are very different from the UPC campus. Assuming that the students can find all they

need at the UPC campus may be correct. However, assuming the HSC students will go to the UPC campus and use these services is probably naive.”

—Doctoral student in Biochemistry

“Being a student at HSC you would have absolutely no idea what university you were apart of. HSC is a world of its own separate from UPC with no bridge

between.” —Professional student in Pharmacy

“We need more activities at the HSC. We need to make the HSC campus look nicer. When I go over to the UPC, it is like night and day. I feel gypped!”

—Professional student in Pharmacy

Additional interesting suggestions included:

• Creating more networking events with USC alumni. • Offer more on-campus activities besides sports (see UCLA) • Increase the perception that graduate students are a welcome part of the “Trojan Family,” which

currently seems geared towards undergrads.

17


Many students did not offer specific suggestions for improving the atmosphere, but commented on the sense of alienation they felt within their program. In most cases, this sense of alienation derived from certain characteristics that set them apart from the rest of the program. Some international students felt isolated in programs with a high concentration of US citizens, and some US citizens felt isolated in programs with a high concentration of international students. Some students felt isolated because of their age, their ethnic background, the part-time status, or their location (e.g., Orange County campus).

I love USC! I will have two degrees from the university so I am confident in the university. However, I must say that throughout my graduate studies, I have

felt something like second class status to the undergraduate student population. I feel like graduate students are an after thought in the university's planning

and service provisions. Thank you for the opportunity to participate.” — Master’s student in Social Work

Overall assessment Looking back. In an effort to encourage students to a review the decisions they have made in regard to their graduate education, students were asked to indicate their level of agreement with a series of statements. Table 18 shows the mean responses. Across the four questions, students are most certain that their decision to attend graduate school was a good one. Less than four percent are not glad they had made that decision (by virtue of response of either disagree or disagree very strongly). Students are only slightly less certain that choosing USC and applying to their current graduate program were good decisions. Less than eight percent are not glad they had made one or both of these decisions. Finally, students are least certain that they would recommend their current program. But most students are still positive in this regard as less than 15 percent gave a negative response to this question.

Table 18: Evaluative judgments Mean rating by degree type

Judgment Master’s (n= 924)

Doctoral (n= 532)


Total (n= 1787)

Glad I decided to attend graduate school 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 Glad that my degree will be from USC 4.1 4.0 4.0 4.1 My program is best-suited for me 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.0 Would recommend current program 3.9 3.7 3.9 3.9 The scale used for these questions ranged from 1 (disagree very strongly) to 5 (agree very strongly)

All degree types are similar in the level of positive feelings toward pursuing a graduate degree, enrolling at USC, and choosing the best program for them. Doctoral students have a somewhat less favorable assessment of their program than do other degree types. The only breakdown factor that had a large effect on responses is citizenship: the responses of international students are much lower (more negative) on every factor. Intention to stay. Students were asked to indicate the likelihood that they would remain in their program until they achieved their degree objective on a scale that varied from 1 (very unlikely) to 5 (very likely). With a mean of 4.7, professional students are more certain that they will finish than are either Master’s students (mean = 4.4) or Doctoral students (mean = 4.3).

18


Ethnicity and citizenship are the only breakdown factors that have a large effect on responses. International students are the least certain that they will stay to the end of their program while African-American and White students are the most certain that they will stay.

“I have expressed some negatives about my experiences at USC. They do not dominate my perspective, however. I simply offer them with an eye toward improving things. If my above comments bring this about, then the 85% of my perspective that is positive about USC will easily

make its way to being 100% satisfied.” — Master’s student in Social Work

Satisfaction. Students were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction with several aspects of college life. Table 19 presents the mean responses. Table 19: Level of satisfaction with aspects of college life Mean rating by degree type

Aspect of college life Master’s (n= 873)

Doctoral (n= 502)


Total (n= 1687)

Overall quality of instruction 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.7 Sense of community on campus 3.5 3.1 3.3 3.3 Amount of contact with faculty 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 Ability to find a faculty mentor 3.1 3.6 3.3 3.3 Career counseling and advising 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.1 Overall college experience 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 The scale used for these questions ranged from 1 (very satisfied) to 5 (very dissatisfied)

In general, students are satisfied with their overall college experience and in particular with the quality of instruction and the amount of contact they have with faculty. They are least satisfied with the career counseling and advising they have received. Degree type led to significant differences on two factors. Doctoral students are the least satisfied with the sense of community on campus and Master’s students are least satisfied with their ability to find a faculty mentor. Unlike the previous two sections, several breakdown factors have a large effect on responses. First, ethnicity and citizenship again have a strong influence on responses to every question except finding a faculty mentor and career counseling and advising. As has been the case in several previous sections, international students are least satisfied on every factor. Asian-American students are second least satisfied. In addition, African American students, while satisfied generally about most aspects of college life, have concerns about the sense of community on campus. Other factors that had a significant effect on satisfaction with campus life include new/continuing status, campus, age, and full/part time status. New students are more satisfied than continuing students on all factors except finding a faculty mentor. Campus had a significant effect on two factors: HSC students are more satisfied than UPC students in their ability to find a faculty mentor, but are less satisfied in the sense of campus community. The only difference that age makes is in terms of finding a faculty mentor: older students are more satisfied. Finally, part time students are less satisfied than full-time students with the amount of contact with faculty and their ability to find a faculty mentor but are more satisfied with the sense of community on campus. This is interesting because part time students, by definition and by self-report, spend less time on campus. Advice for future students. Students were asked to write what advice they would like to pass on to students just beginning graduate school at USC. Some of the most common suggestions for students just beginning

19


graduate school at USC include: get to know your professors and fellow students, get involved in extra-curricular activities, become familiar with all the services and opportunities available (housing, parking, registration, etc.), stay on top of your paperwork, and understand that graduate school is a lot of work. Several students also encouraged new students to ask questions about the quality of different courses and professors. Finally, many stress the importance of finding a mentor – either a faculty member or older student in the same program. Impediments to degree completion. Students were asked to list major impediments to completing their degree. The most common responses appear in Table 20. Table 20: Impediments to completing degree

Impediment Number of comments

Cost of tuition and money concerns 136

Work (full-time or part-time jobs) 63

Lack of financial support 45

Time management issues 44

Advisor concerns (no advisor, lack of advice) 41

Faculty/teacher related (student-teacher relationships, teaching methods) 37

Personal reasons (motivation, events, outside activities, etc.) 35

Workload 34

Department concerns (problems with department) 31

Family 22 Concern over finances, including the need to earn an income, is by far the greatest hindrance to degree completion. Many students reported having a difficult time juggling work responsibilities, time to study, classes, and research. Relationship difficulties with – advisors or faculty members – are also important factors. Regarding advisors, students either had difficulty finding an advisor or felt like they did not get enough help or guidance from their advisor. Regarding faculty, several students thought that their professors were unorganized, unhelpful, unavailable, or incompetent as a teacher. Post-graduation plans Students were asked to indicate their expectation for professional employment immediately after completing their graduate degree. Table 21 shows the responses.

Table 21: Career plans after graduation Percent of students responding by degree type

Career plan Master’s (n= 911)

Doctoral (n= 530)


Total (n= 1763)

Tenure track faculty position 1.4 22.6 1.6 7.8 Non-tenure track faculty position 1.0 6.8 0.3 2.6 Other teaching position 1.3 4.0 0.0 1.9 Postdoctoral researcher/fellow/associate 2.0 18.5 1.9 6.9 Researcher, academic setting 4.5 7.9 0.0 4.7 Researcher, non-academic setting 5.0 13.8 0.3 6.8 Professional position for which my program prepared me 74.4 19.8 82.6 59.5 Other non-academic position 10.3 6.6 13.4 9.8

20


This table highlights another important difference between Doctoral students and Master’s or Professional students – a much greater variability in career aspirations. While the large majority of Master’s and Professional students are training for a specific professional position, doctoral students are quite varied in their professional plans. The prototypical position that one normally associates with the PhD – a tenure-track faculty position – was listed as the goal by less than a quarter of doctoral students. However, an almost equal percent plan to seek a post-doctoral position which may eventually lead to a tenure-track position.

Summary and Discussion

In this section, some of the major findings of this report are summarized and discussed. Many positives. USC’s graduate students, for the most part, are pleased with their overall college experience. Most are glad they decided to attend graduate school, that they will be earning their degree from USC, and that they are in a program that fits their needs and interests. Along the way, they’ve developed positive relationships with other faculty, administrators, and other students. These results are generally true for all students whether they are in a Master’s, Doctoral, or Professional degree program. Housing is a major concern. Despite a positive overall evaluation of their USC experience, students consistently point out a few areas in need of improvement with housing the greatest single need. The supply of convenient, affordable USC-owned housing is far short of demand. Moreover, few mechanisms exist to help students find acceptable private housing in local neighborhoods. There is also a lack of temporary housing for new graduate students in their first few weeks on campus. The administration is keenly aware of these issues and has already begun taking steps to address them. For example, University Housing has reserved several additional units for the temporary use of entering graduate students who are new to the area. In addition, plans are under way to complete the second phase of the Parkside complex which will eventually add 900 beds to the university’s inventory. Finally, USC is actively partnering with private firms who have developed plans to construct two large housing complexes oriented toward graduate students in the USC area. If both of these projects go forward, over 2,000 additional beds will be available to USC graduate students.

The communication gap. If housing is the greatest single problem, then poor communication is the greatest meta-problem to be revealed in this survey. Across a variety of issues including orientation, housing, parking, university policies and GPSS, graduate students report a need for more and better quality information. Student after student indicated that they had never been told about X, wish they had known about Y sooner, and had only heard about Z through sheer luck. This communication gap begins with the application and admission process because of its decentralized nature. Each professional school handles its own application and admissions process, and there is wide variation in how it occurs. Enrollment Services has recently begun to study this issue with an eye toward more consistent, complete, and timely communication with prospective students. To improve communications with new and continuing graduate students, the Division of Student Affairs is in the process of developing a student Web Portal. Students will be able to log on to the internet and receive information relevant to them from a variety of university sources in one single location.

Safety and security. For a university with two urban campuses, USC does a great job of insulating the student body from the dangers inherent in its urban setting. However, in the past year or so, a flurry of break-ins and assaults has occurred in and around the USC campuses, and the students are justifiably concerned. While students generally feel safe on campus during weekdays, they feel much less safe on the weekends and after dark, especially in the parking structures. Safety concerns are greater on the Health Sciences Campus than on the University Park campus despite the fact that far fewer crimes are reported there.

21


USC is actively addressing student concerns about safety. The Department of Public Safety is launching three new initiatives to make USC’s campuses safer and more secure (Chief Aaron Graves, personal communication). First, in terms of personnel, more full-time public safety officers and part-time student officers have been hired. Second, the department making technological improvements in several areas such as upgraded closed-circuit televisions and electronic alarm systems. Also, new electronic access control systems are being installed to make the parking structures more secure. Finally, new programs for crime prevention education, crime watch, and environmental design are being implemented. Campus climate. Graduate students generally have positive feelings about the relationships they have developed within their own program, but some feel left out of the “Trojan spirit” that permeates the undergraduate experience. Many graduate students want to be specifically included in a greater number of campus activities. Students on the Health Sciences Campus report more of a lack of a ‘campus’ feeling than do students on the University Park campus. A final issue in regard to campus climate concerns the possible exclusion of certain sub-groups. Regardless of campus, students feel that the campus climate toward certain groups of students, including international students, disabled students, and especially gay/lesbian/ transgendered students, is somewhat less positive than it is for students in general. Other areas of concern. Two other areas of concern warrant mention here: parking and career services. The cost and shortage of parking is a pervasive problem on any urban campus, and USC is no different in this regard. To address the parking shortage, plans have been developed to construct a new parking deck adjacent to the University Park campus. Dissatisfaction in regard to career services is a more complicated issue. USC’s Career Planning and Placement Center provides workshops and other services for graduate students, but does not have the resources to provide services specifically tailored to the needs of graduate students. Therefore, much of the assistance for seeking career information must come from a student’s own program. Results about variations in satisfaction on this factor will be shared with the academic deans and the Provost’s office. Responses of international students. On many parts of this survey, the responses of international students differ considerably from than those of other students. On behavioral factors, international students tend to live closer to campus, use different forms of transportation, use the campus differently (e.g., more weekend usage) and use most university services more than other students. On perceptual or evaluative questions on issues such as safety, campus climate, evaluations of services, and evaluations of academic experiences, the responses of international students are more negative than those other students on many dimensions. The reason for this consistent negativity is unclear. One hypothesis, suggested by the Office of International Services, is that new international students come to USC with negative expectations which color their perceptions during their first year as a graduate student. However, no evidence to support this theory was found.9 A second possible reason is, quite simply, that the needs of international students are not being adequately met. However, another possibility is that the negative responses derive partly from culture-based differences in the way questionnaires are perceived and responded to. Some evidence in support of this hypothesis comes in the form of consistent differences in responses to perceptual and evaluative questions based on country of citizenship. Clearly, additional research needs to be done to determine the reason for these results. In the mean time, one initiative announced by the Office of International Services is the development of a stronger link between the week-long orientation of new international students and university-wide orientation programs. What matters most? While graduate students are very forthcoming on this survey with regard to constructive criticism, it appears to be more of the “squeaky wheel principle” at work rather than an 9 This hypothesis was tested via a series of two-way analyses of variance with International versus non-international and new versus continuing as between-subjects variables. Evidence in favor of the hypothesis would be in the form of a significant interaction between the two variables. Across a variety of evaluative and perceptual items, very few significant interactions were found.

22


indication of a fundamental dissatisfaction with USC. A quick regression analysis found that responses to questions associated with many of the common complaints about USC – housing, parking, financial aid, and safety -- are virtually uncorrelated with overall satisfaction. This does not mean that student concerns on these factors are unimportant. But it does mean that these factors are not the ones that are keeping students on the course toward graduation (or steering them off of it). It turns out that the three highest correla tes of overall satisfaction are overall quality of instruction, amount of contact with faculty, and the sense of community on campus. The first two issues are academic in nature and show up most clearly in comparisons among different schools and programs. The last issue, involving the sense of community/campus climate, is one that will require that many offices and programs work together to address. Post-graduation plans. One indicator of excellence in graduate education at the Doctoral level is the percentage of students planning to seek a tenure-track position after earning their degree. On this survey, less than 23 percent of the doctoral students responding to the survey aspire to a tenure-track position and only about 60 percent aspire to work in academe in any capacity. Whether this is simply a reflection of the Doctoral market in 2003 or a function of students not feeling they are able to compete for the select few tenure-track positions that become available each year is unclear. Conclusion. This survey has given us, for the first time, some understanding of what life is like for USC’s almost 14,000 USC graduate students. The tremendous response rate (over 51 percent) plus the large number of students who gave very detailed responses to open-ended questions indicates that this survey was long overdue. It provided a much-needed outlet for students to voice their excitement and pride about being a USC graduate student, but also gave them the opportunity to share some of their frustrations. One can only hope that this report is not an endpoint but rather the beginning of an ongoing dialog between graduate students, faculty, and the administration. This research suggests two steps that will help USC achieve its goal of excellence in graduate education. First, the concerns voiced by students on this survey should be reviewed and addressed by the faculty and administration. Second, a regular program of assessment needs to be established at the graduate level. Follow-up administrations of this survey combined with detailed examinations of specific issues (such as those involving the international student population) would provide the empirical metric of progress toward excellence in graduate education.

“i want to graduate i’ve worked hard i'd like to be acknowledged i'd like some financial help i want to enjoy my university experience i want more of a brotherhood i want to be safe give me options and i'll give you the world.” — Master’s student in Cinema

23


Appendix A: Sample representativeness

Descriptor Sub-category

Degree-seeking population (n=13752)

Survey respondents (n=1802)

Class Doctoral 27.5 29.9 Master’s 53.2 51.7 Professional 19.3 18.4 Gender Female 46.2 48.3 Male 53.8 51.7 Ethnicity Native American 0.4 0.2 Asian-American 20.3 20.8 African-American 3.8 3.4 Latino 7.2 6.3 International 28.5 30.7 White 33.8 33.4 Unknown 6.0 5.2 Citizenship Citizen 65.8 64.7 International 28.5 30.7 Permanent Resident 5.8 4.6 Full/Part-time Full-time 77.2 78.5 Part-time 22.8 21.5 Owning unit Annenberg 2.9 3.7 Architecture 0.5 0.6 Business/Accounting 12.9 13.8 Cinema-Television 4.3 3.3 Dentistry 4.9 4.0 Education 6.6 5.2 Engineering 21.7 23.3 Fine Arts 0.2 0.1 Gerontology 0.5 0.9 Health Professions 3.5 3.4 Dual Degree 0.3 0.2 LAS-combined 10.8 10.8 Law 4.6 5.1 Medicine 8.4 8.3 Music 3.0 2.2 Pharmacy 5.9 6.4 Policy Planning & Dev. 5.0 4.7 Social Work 3.7 3.9 Theatre 0.2 0.2 New or continuing New 34.7 39.2 Continuing 65.3 60.8 Age Over 25 59.6 56.3 25 and under 40.5 43.7 Avg. Cumulative GPA (excludes Law) 3.01 3.09

24


Appendix B: Questions omitted from report1

Section Questions omitted Degree Progress, Time Allocation and Finances

* What program stage are you in? (Doctoral students only)

Housing/Living Situation * What is a fair rate to charge for temporary accommodations? Transportation * What is your local zip code? * Where do you park on the University Park Campus? Services provided by the Graduate School

* What is your usage of and satisfaction with the following services? (Fellowship and scholarship services, thesis/ dissertation editing of format, thesis/dissertation paperwork, handling of student grievances, services of the Graduate Student in Residence, Graduate School web site, and other interaction with the Graduate School).

* What sections of the graduate school web site have you used and what suggestions do you have for improvement?

University services relevant to graduate students

* What is your usage of and satisfaction with the following services? (disabled student services, services for women, services for gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender students, services for people of color, and as well as availability, quality, and cost of childcare services)

Campus climate * Have you ever been a victim of a crime on either USC campus that

you did not report? * Are you aware of how to report instances of discrimination or

harassment at the university based on disability, gender, nationality, race, religion, sexual orientation, or other?

Remaining issues * On average, how often do you read the Daily Trojan? * Are you familiar with the functions of the Graduate and Professional

student Senate (GPSS)? * How could GPSS serve your needs better in the future? * How could Student Affairs serve your needs better in the future? * Any additional comments or suggestions? 1Note: The wording of many questions on this list has been modified to save space

2003 usc graduate student survey student survey... · i 2003 usc graduate student survey table of...

Documents