Factorsthataffectpost-graduationsatisfactionofChileanuniversitystudentsOscarEspinozaa,b,c,LuisEduardoGonzálezd,e,NoelMcGinnf,g,DanteCastilloe,handLuisSandovali,ja bSchoolofEducation,UniversityofPittsburgh,Pittsburgh,PA,USA;CenterofComparativeEducationalPolicies,UniversidadDiegoPortales,Santiago,Chile;cCenterofAdvancedResearch,UniversidaddePlayaAncha,Santiago,Chile;dSchoolofEducation,HarvardUniversity,Cambridge,MA,USA;eInterdisciplinaryProgramofEducationalResearch(PIIE),Santiago,Chile;fUniversityofMichigan,AnnArbor,MI,USA;gSchoolofEducation,HarvardUniversity,Swampscott,MA,USA;hLicenciadoenSociología,UniversidadArcis,Santiago,Chile;iMagisterenCienciaPolítica,PontificiaUniversidadCatólicadeChile,Santiago,Chile;jUniversidadTecnológicaMetropolitana,Santiago,Chile

ABSTRACT KEYWORDSUniversities’ reputations are built in part on graduates’ assessments of the Satisfaction; Chile; university quality ofeducationtheyreceived.Whatdotheseassessmentstellus?Aregraduates;universityimage;graduates’judgmentsofqualitybasedon their experiences as studentsor programquality; salaryon their later job satisfaction, that is, onprocessoronoutcomes?TheobjectiveofthisstudywastoassesstheextenttowhichChileanuniversitygraduates’satisfactionwiththeirprofessionaltrainingisassociatedwithexperiencesduringthedegreeprogramtheypursued,employmentexperiencesincludingsalarylevel,ortheprestigelevelorimageoftheuniversitytheyattended.Surveyquestionnaireswere used to collect data from recent graduates of professional programs in Primary-SecondaryTeachingandPsychologyinthreeuniversitiesthatdifferinprestige.Alinearregressionmodelshowsthatgraduates’satisfactionwiththeirdegreeprogramisajointfunctionoffamilybackground,programqualityanduniversityimage,butnotsalaryoncegraduated.

Introduction

In2006,Chileansecondarystudentstooktothestreetstodemandbetterqualityofpubliceducation(Donoso2013).Unsatisfiedwithgovernmenteffortstoaddresstheircomplaints,themovementbeganagainin2011,thistimewithuniversitystudentsjoiningin.ByMay2011studentshadmassedinstreetdemonstrationsandsoonbegan to occupy and close universities. The students’ complaints included lowpublic expenditure onhighereducationcomparedtoothercountries,highstudent indebtedness, selectiveadmissionpolicies thatlimit access of students from lowincome families to the more prestigious universities, and high levels ofunderemployment,thatislimitedaccessoflow-incomegraduatestooccupationsdeemedtobecommensuratewiththeirlevelofprofessionaltraining(Espinoza,González,andMcginn2016).Anexternalstudyoftheprotestsconcluded that the dissatisfaction of current students in Chile was promptedmore by anticipation of loweconomicrewardsoncegraduatedthanbyjudgmentsthattheirpresenttrainingwasoflowquality(Cummings2015).Inanefforttoreducetheperceivedcostofhighereducationrelativetofutureincome,aprogressivegovernmentisnowproposingtoeliminateallfeesforuniversity

CONTACTOscarEspinozaoespinoza@academia.clCenterofComparativeEducationalPolicies,UniversidadDiegoPortalesUniversidaddePlayaAncha,Av.Ejército260,Santiago,Chile©2017SocietyforResearchintoHigherEducationenrollment.If,however,studentunrestisprovokedmorebycurrentexperiencesintheclassroomratherthanbyanticipatedfutureincome,thispolicymaynotbringpeaceonthecampus.UniversitystudentsatisfactionisnotanewconcerninChile.Aspartoftheirmanagementsomeuniversitiesalready carry out regular surveys tomonitor levels of student satisfaction. These studies rely primarily onperceptionsbystudentsofthequalityofphysicalfacilitiesandinstructionoffered.Thesurveyresultsarenotpublicknowledgebutpublishedstudiesbasedon individualuniversities reportvarying levelsof satisfaction

(ValenzuelaandRequena2006;Palominos-Belmaretal.2016).However,noresearchappearstohavebeendonetoassessthelinkbetweenstudentperceptionsofqualityandlaterprofessionalemploymentandincome.Theobjectiveofthisstudywastodeterminewhether jobsatisfactionofuniversitygraduates isdeterminedprincipallybyincomereceived,oralsoisinfluencedbytheirsenseofbeingwell-preparedasprofessionals.Theresearchsoughttoanswerthesequestions:Dograduateshaveafavorableperceptionofcriticalelementsofthedegreeprogramoftheiruniversity?Dograduatesbelievethatparticipationinaqualitydegreeprogramisrewardedbyemployers?Issatisfactionwiththeirjobprincipallyafunctionofthesalaryreceived,oralsorelatedtotheperceivedqualityofthedegreeprogram,andtheprestigeoftheuniversityattended?

Internationalresearchassessingstudents’satisfactionpriortograduation

Earlydefinitionsofsatisfactionfocusedonreactionstoexperiencesasauniversitystudentintheinstitutionwithlittleattentiontowhathappenedaftergraduation.Universitieswereconcernedabouthighdropoutratesand looking for ways to retain more students. Satisfaction with student life was seen as an importantdeterminant of student persistence or continuation in the university. A nowwell-known sociologicalmodel(Spady 1970) explained persistence as the product of students’ social interactions (engagement in studentactivities, integration into the university community). Positive interactions with teachers and classmatesgeneratedsatisfactionwhichaccompaniedbyacademicsuccessencouragedstudentstokeepgoing.Asecondapproachtostudentsatisfactionwasdevelopedby institutional researchersconcernedprincipallyabout maintaining high enrollment rates and tuition revenues. They defined universities as serviceorganizationsandborrowedinstrumentsfromthecorporatesectortomeasure‘consumersatisfaction.’ThemostfrequentlyusedwastheSERVQUALscale(Parasuraman,Zeithaml,andBerry1985).Littleconcernwasexpressedaboutamountorqualityoflearning.Athirdapproachtakenbypsychologistsledtoacomplexmodellinkingstudentself-efficacy,courseofstudyandacademicperformanceaspredictorsofpersistenceasastudent(Lent,Brown,andHackett1994).Inthismodel, student persistence in the university is affected by student expectations linked with family socio-economicstatusandprimaryandsecondaryeducation.Morerecentlystudentpersistenceinpursuingadegreehasbeenassociatedwithinstitutionalfactorssuchastheselectivityof theuniversity.Persistence levelsarepositivelyassociatedwith theaveragestudentabilitylevelasmeasuredbyadmissionexaminations (Titus2004).Thesedifferentperspectiveshavebeenpursuedusingavarietyofmethodstomeasurestudents’satisfactionwiththeuniversityinwhichtheystudied(Billups2008).TheresearchliteraturemostrelevantforunderstandinguniversitystudentsatisfactioninChilearepriorstudiesincountrieswhoseuniversities,likethoseinChile,offerprimarilyundergraduateprofessionaldegrees(ratherthanprovidinga‘liberal’educationwhichdoesnotprepareforaspecificprofession).Mostofthisresearchhasfocusedonassessmentofstudentsatisfactionpriortograduation.Anumberofstudieshaveequated‘satisfaction’withpositivestudentperceptionsofthequalityofthe‘services’offeredbytheuniversity.Forexample,astudyinPakistanadaptedaninstrumentusedinserviceindustriestoassessstudentsatisfactioninbusinessschools(Ijazetal.2011).Thestudyreviewed19otherservicequalitymodels and isolated five dimensions of perceived quality: tangibles; reputation; cooperation and support;reliability;andresponsiveness.Allthequalityitemscorrelatedhighlywithsatisfaction.Candelasetal.(2013),usingaversionofaVenezuelanquestionnaire(GentoandVivas2003),identifiedsixdimensionsofsatisfactionreferring to: academic aspects; administrative aspects; complementary aspects; academic content;environment; and relationships.A study inMexicomeasured student satisfactionwithCurriculumContent;Teaching Methods; Infrastructure and Facilities; Professors’ Skills; and Student’s Performance. Levels ofsatisfactionweremosthighlycorrelatedwithStudent’sPerformance,andsecondarilywithProfessors’Skills.Asimilar study in Spain showed that studentsweremore satisfiedwith theirprofessors’ teachingwhen theyobtainedhighergrades(Fernándezetal.2007).Inanotherstudyhowever,thecriticaldeterminantoflevelofsatisfactionwasnottheprofessors’skillbuttheirrelationshipwiththestudents(Salinas,Morales,andMartínez2008).OnestudyofgraduatesfromEuropeanuniversitiesusedorderedchoicemodelstoidentifyfactorsassociatedwithperceptionsofprogramquality,including:environmentalfactors,fieldofstudy,usefulnessofstudyandother individual-specificcharacteristics.Graduateswhoweremostsatisfiedwiththeircourseofstudyratedcoursecontentandnon-academicsocialaspects(e.g.relationshipswithotherstudents)veryhighly.Limitedopportunitiestoparticipateinresearchprojectsandlimitedteachingmaterialsandfacilities(e.g.textbooksand

labs)weremajordeterminantsofdissatisfaction.Thelevelofsatisfactionwithtimespentattheuniversitywasinfluencedbybothperceptionsofthequalityofprogramsandemploymentexperiences(Mora,García-Aracil,andVila2007;García-Aracil2009).Severalstudieshavelinkedstudentacceptanceofthecorporateorbrandimageoftheuniversity(assessedby‘Would you enroll again in this university?’) with student persistence. A Norwegian study assessed therelationshipsbetweenservicequality,facilities,studentsatisfaction,imageoftheuniversitycollege,imageofthestudyprogramandstudentloyalty(definedaspersistenceorcontinuationintheuniversity)(HelgesenandNesset2007).Studentsmadeacleardistinctionbetweentheirperceptionoftheuniversity,andthatof theprograminwhichtheywereenrolled.Studentsatisfactionwashighlyrelatedtouniversityloyalty(notdroppingout),whiletheimageoftheuniversityandthatoftheprogramwereonlyslightlyrelated.A study involving university students in Spain (Beerli and Pérez 2002), and others in India (Thomas 2011),Lebanon(Azoury,Daou,andElKhoury2013)andThailand(KunanusornandPuttawong2015)showedthatthecognitive component of the image of the university precedes the affective component. The cognitivecomponents include university prestige, cost and program characteristics. Both components contribute tosatisfaction.Perceived‘value’oftheservicesreceived(associatedwiththeuniversity’simage)istheantecedentto student satisfactionwith those services and the consequence of student satisfaction is student loyalty.‘Value’isaqualitative,undefinedexpressionoftherater’sappreciationoftheservicesreceived.Employabilityisonecontributortoperceivedvalue(Teixeira,daSilva,andOomdoValle2015).Asperceivedvalueincreasessotoodoesauniversity’sprestige.Thiscontributestohigherrankings, inflatesimage(Hazelkorn2016),andattractsnewstudents.Notingtheshiftfromcollegialinstitutionsto‘enterpriseuniversities,’researchersinAustraliaexplainedstudentloyaltyusingaresearchmodelbasedontheEuropeanCustomerSatisfactionIndex(BrownandMazzarol2009).Inthismodel,studentsatisfactionisdeterminedbytheperceivedvalueoftheeducationtheuniversitydelivers;togethertheyimpactonloyalty.Otherfactorsincludetheuniversity’simage(whichislinkedtoperceivedvalueandtosatisfaction),andthequalityoftheeducationalprogramasexperiencedbythestudent.Thevariousdimensions of quality are similar to those in the SERVQUAL instrument (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, andBerry1985).

ResearchinChileonuniversitystudentsatisfaction

Intheearly1980sChilebegananextendedprocessofuniversityreformandexpansion.Theimpetusforchangewastheconversion,bythemilitarygovernmentrulingsince1973,ofhighereducationfromastate-controlledsystemtooneresponsivetomarketpressures(Ginsburgetal.2003;Altbach,Reisberg,andRumbley2009;Rust,Portnoi,andBagley2010).TheUniversityofChilefoundedin1843wasin1981splitinto17independentpublicuniversities located in various regions. Over the next 10 years 22 new private universities were created.Institutionswereencouragedtobeginself-financing,bychargingtuitionandenrollmentfeesandcreatingasystemofloansandscholarships.After1988universitieswereallowedtooperateascommercialinstitutionsthatwouldcompetewitheachotherfortuitionrevenues(Espinoza2008;SalazarandLeihy2013).Withtherestoration of democracy in 1990 four successive governments (of the Christian Democratic and Socialistparties)increasedpublicfundingforandaccesstoalllevelsofeducation.Stateexpendituresonprimaryandsecondary education were doubled, class sizes were reduced and the school day extended, and teacherqualifications(andsalaries)raised.Areductionoffailureratesinprimaryschoolswasfollowedbyadoublingofenrollmentsinsecondaryschools,leadingtoincreaseddemandforhighereducation(Elacqua2012).Highereducationenrollments inChilehadreached250,000studentsby1980butby2016werepassing1.2million.Institutionalgrowthwas,however,uneven.Somenewprivateuniversitiesmushroomeddoublingtheirenrollmentsyearbyyear.Othersexpandedslowly, somebychoicebutmorebecausethey failed toattractstudents.Universitiesfolloweddifferentstrategiesintheirstrugglestosurvive.Someenteredatthelowendofthe market, offering a less expensive ‘education’ marked by large classes, low quality instruction andinadequate facilities (Ginsburg et al. 2003). Others have sought to compete with the more traditionalinstitutions, hiring more highly trained staff, offering programs requiring well-equipped laboratories andclassrooms,andseekingclosertieswithpotentialemployers(KatzandSpence2009).Between1995and2005a number of universities closed because they had been unable to attract and hold a sufficient number ofstudents(Espinoza2005).Concernedabouthighdropoutrates,Chileanresearchers(Himmel2002)employedanearlymodelthatpositedthatuniversityretentionwasa jointproductofstudents’ levelofacademicsuccessandcommitmenttotheinstitution(Spady1970).Themodelassertsthatcommitmentdevelopsfromsatisfactionwiththeuniversity

experience,whichisbasedprincipallyontheengagementorintegrationofthestudentinthevariousaspectsofuniversitylife.OneuniversitymodeleditsstrategytokeepstudentsontherecommendationsofTinto(1987).Coordinatorsineachofthevariousprogramsprovideincomingstudentswithacademicguidanceandsupport.Study programs are aimed at students experiencing difficulties in their courses. Extra attention is given tostudentswhoappeartobedisengagedfromuniversitylife(García-Huidobro2002).Aconceptualmodelofthefactorsexplainingretentioninauniversityattributessocialandacademicintegrationtosatisfactionwiththeuniversityexperience;levelofsatisfactionispositedasdeterminingthedecisiontopersistortodropout(Díaz2008).Someresearchsuggeststhatstudentmotivationtoremainortodropoutislinkedmoretoaspecificdegreeprogram than to the university itself. A study of student satisfaction with their studies in the businessadministrationfacultyofoneuniversityreportedmorethan60%ofstudentswereunsatisfied(ValenzuelaandRequena 2006); on the other handmost students in Civil Engineering (in the same university)were highlysatisfied(Olea2009).EvaluationofstudentsatisfactionwiththeiruniversityandprogramhasbecomeacommonpracticeinChileanuniversities,especiallyinprivateinstitutions.Studentshavebecomedefinedasclients,andtheuniversityasaserviceorganization.Satisfactionisdefinedasameasureofthe‘perceived’qualityofprogramandinstitutionalelements.Anexcellentrepresentationofthisapproachisastudythatdefinesthedeterminantsofsatisfactionofagroupof Chilean engineering students at the University of Talca (de la Fuente, Marzo, and Reyes 2010). Theresearchers’firsttaskwastodecidewhichelementsofvariousprogramswouldbeassessed.Theyreviewed10studiescarriedoutintheUnitedStates,EuropeandvariousLatinAmerricancountriesandpublishedinhighereducation and business administration journals. Some of the articles listed actions or activities (such ascommunicationwith the university, social activities); others asked about ‘dimensions of behavior’ (such asempathy, attitude, formality, competence); others listed ‘aspects’ (such as academic reputation, academicresources,socialactivities).Thequestionsweregroupedintosevencategories.Thefirstthreecategorieswerepositedtodeterminesatisfactionwithpersonnel,whichinturnimpactsonstudents’globallevelofsatisfaction:studentsratedservicepersonnel,professors’attitudesandbehaviors,andprofessors’competence.Thesecondfourcategorieswereconsideredtoimpactdirectlyonglobalsatisfaction.Studentsratedcareeropportunities;installations;reputation;andotherservices(e.g.studentcenter,busservice).Theresearchersobtainedresponsestothesevencategoriesofquestionsfromarepresentativesampleof289studentsenrolledduringtheperiod2002–2008,respondedto54seven-pointLikertscaleitems.Lowestscoreswereobtainedonquestionsreferringtotheexistenceoffacilities,highestscoreswereassignedtotheteachingfaculty. Factor analysis indicated the existence of seven factors (corresponding to the seven categories ofquestions)whichexplained62.8%ofthevariance.Theauthorsthenappliedstructuralequationmodelingtotestthevalidityoftheirhypotheses.Theyconcludedthateachofthefirstsixcategoriesisimportantforglobalsatisfaction, with qualities of the professor being most important. A student’s likelihood to persist in theuniversity(i.e.tonotdropout)isdirectlyrelatedtotheirgloballevelofsatisfaction.Theauthorsalsoconcludedthatstudentswerehighlysatisfiedwiththeiracademicprogram(delaFuente,Marzo,andReyes2010).

Researchondeterminantsofjobsatisfaction

The level of satisfaction a student assigns to his/her job is affected by two factors. First, is the student’sperceptionofthequalityofhis/herdegreeprogram.Graduateswhobelievetheyarewell-preparedaremorelikely to feel comfortable in theiremployment (Capraraetal.2006).Second, salaryandworkingconditionsreinforce the graduate’s sense of competence. Research reports conflicting findings, as the relationship ismoderatedbyavarietyoffactorsincludingincomesofotherworkersandchangesinthefirmandtheindividual(KucelandVilalta-Bufí2013).Incomeisconsideredoneofthemostfrequentdeterminantsofjobsatisfactionbut,asitismediatedbyotherfactors,itmaynotalwaysappearasdominant.Psychologicalresearchdemonstratesthatjobsatisfactionvariesprincipallyasafunctionofpsychologicalcharacteristicsoftheindividual(Cohrs,Abele,andDette2006).Socialpsychologists are more likely to refer to the interaction between job characteristics and individualcharacteristics (Sousa-Poza and Sousa-Poza 2000). Predictors of job satisfaction of graduates in variousEuropeancountriesvarywithoccupationalsector,country,andjobcharacteristics,aswellaswiththequalityandskill levelofuniversity training (Mora,García-Aracil,andVila2007;García-Aracil2009). InSouthKorea,university prestige has an important influence on salaries offered graduates, but has little impact on jobsatisfaction(JungandLee2016).

Finally,studiesshowthatemployersdoassignslightlyhighersalariestograduatesofprestigiousuniversities,impactingthegraduates’jobsatisfaction(Bills2003;JungandLee2016).

Guidinghypothesesforthisstudy

Satisfaction with Degree Progam. Graduates are more likely to feel satisfied in what they do if they feelcompetentorefficacious.Astudententersuniversitywithadegreeofsocialcapitalandself-confidencederivedfromhis/herfamilyexperienceandfromprioreducationalexperience(Acar2011).Confidentstudentsexpecttolearnmore,andreactpositivelytoinstructionperceivedtobedemandingandcomprehensive(KimandSax2009;Jury,Smeding,andDarnon2015).Weexpected,thereforetofindthatgraduates’satisfactionwiththeirdegreeprogramisassociatedwiththeirlevelofparentaleducationandqualityofsecondaryschooling(DeWitz,Woolsey,andWalsh2009;McConneyandPerry2010).Satisfactionwith thedegreeprogram isalso related to theextent towhich theprogram is seentopreparestudents for futurework.Weexpectedtheseperceptionstobebasedoncurriculumcontentandqualityofteaching.

Figure1.Hypothesizedrelationshipsbetweenqualityofprogram,universityselectivity,employment,andsatisfactionwithemployment.

Perceptionsofqualityalsodependontheactualprogram:comprehensivenessofcontent,qualityofteachingstylesandpresenceofactivitieslinkingtheoryandpracticeandtheperceivedqualityofinstitutionalfacilities(ThomasandGalambos2008;MedranoandPérez2010;Candelasetal.2013).We further expected that the public prestige of the university attended would influence the graduates’judgmentofthequalityoftheirspecificdegreeprogram.Job Satisfaction. Asrpeortedabove,publiccriticism of universities in Chilefrequently blames low economicreturns toemploymentonpooruniversityquality,but international researchsuggests that the relationshipbetweenjobsatisfactionandsalaryisweak.Wetestedthehypothesisinthisstudy.Inaddition,wetestedthecommonassumptionthatemployersassignbettersalariestograduatesofprestigiousuniversities. Ifso,weshouldthenexpectarelationshipbetweenprestigeandjobsatisfaction.The relationships tested are described graphically in Figure 1. Parents’ Education influences the quality ofSecondaryEducation received;both influence thegraduate’sperceptionof thequalityofhis/heruniversitydegree program. This perception is also influenced by the program’s content and procedures, and by theuniversity’prestige.JobSatisfactonisajointfunctionofUniversityPrestige,ProgramQuality,andtheactualconditionsandfinancialrewardsofthejob.

Methodology

Sample.Allparticipants in thisstudygraduatedfromthreeChileanuniversities located inSantiago (a listofuniversitiesanddegreeprogramsinSantiagoisdisplayedinTable1)intheyears2012,2013,and2014.StudentswereenrolledindegreeprogramsinPsychology,orinBasicEducationTeaching.Thesetwoprogramsrank4thand7thinsizeofChileanuniversityenrollments(CNED2015).Eachprogramawardsaprofessionaldegreeforwhichallstudentstakethesamesetofcourses.TheTeachingprogramcanbecompletedinfouryearsbutmaytakefourandonehalforfiveyears.Psychologyprogramsusuallyarecompletedinfiveyears.Thegraduatesweresampledonlyfromthosewhohadbeenenrolledinregularday-timeclasses.Theuniversitieswerechosentorepresentthreelevelsofadmissionselectivity.SomeuniversitiesinChileselectstudentsonthebasisofanationaltestofknowledgeofthesecondaryschoolcurriculum(testofuniversity

Perceived Quality of Program

Satisfaction with Employment

University Selectivity

Employment Conditions, Rewards

Parents' Education

Program Content, Operation

2 dary Educ'n

selectionorPSU).Thistesthasbeenshowntopredictuniversitygradesinthefirstyear(Pearson2013).Testscoresaverage510andhaveastandarddeviationof110.Themostselectiveofthethreeuniversities(highlyselectiveorHS)onlyadmitsstudentswhoscore600orhigheronthePSU.TheHSisapublicuniversitythatawards government-funded tutition scholarships to top scorers on the PSU. The HS ranks third of ChileanuniversitiesontheQSWorldUniversitylist.Themoderatelyselectiveuniversity(MS)wasoneofthefirstofthenewprivateuniversitiesopenedafter1980.Assuchitreceivesnodirectfinancialsubsidiesfromthegovernment.Aminimumof475pointsonthePSUisrequiredforadmission.StudentsenteringtheMSbetween2011and2013hadaveragescoresof550.Thelessselectiveuniversity(LS)alsoisprivateandTable1.UniversitiesinSantiagoaccordingtocontrolleranddegreeprogramsofferedbyknowledgearea.University Controller Knowledgeareas(degreeprogramsoffered)UniversidaddeChile State Science,engineering,health,socialsciences,teaching,

humanitiesandliberalartsPontificiaUniversidadCatólicadeChile Traditional

privateScience,engineering,health,socialsciences,teaching,humanitiesandliberalarts

UniversidaddeSantiagodeChile State Engineering,socialsciences,teaching,humanitiesandliberalarts

UniversidadAdolfoIbáñez Private Socialsciences,humanitiesandliberalartsUniversidadAlbertoHurtado Private Socialsciences,humanitiesandliberalartsUniversidaddeLosAndes Private Health,socialsciences,humanitiesandliberalartsUniversidaddelDesarrollo Private Socialsciences,humanitiesandliberalartsUniversidadDiegoPortales Private Health,socialsciences,engineering,teaching,humanities

andliberalartsUniversidadMayor Private Sciences,humanitiesandartsUniversidadSanSebastián Private Health,socialsciences,engineering,teachingUniversidadAutónomadeChile Private Health,socialsciences,engineering,teaching,humanities

andliberalartsUniversidadNacionalAndrésBello Private Science,engineering,health,socialsciences,teaching,and

humanitiesUniversidadFinisTerrae Private Engineering,health,socialsciences,teaching,and

humanitiesUniversidadMetropolitanadeCienciasdelaEducación

State Teaching

UniversidadCatólicaSilvaHenríquez Private Socialsciences,teachingandhealthUniversidadTecnológicaMetropolitana State EngineeringandtechnologyUniversidadBernardoO’Higgins Private Socialsciences,engineering,teachingandhealthUniversidadAcademiadeHumanismoCristiano

Private Socialsciencesandteaching

UniversidadCentraldeChile Private Health,engineering,socialsciences,communication,artsandteaching

UniversidaddeLasAméricas Private Health,engineering,socialsciences,communication,artsandteaching

UniversidadSantoTomás Private Science,health,engineering,socialsciences,communication,artsandteaching

UniversidadTecnológicadeChile Private EngineeringandtechnologyUniversidaddelPacífico Private Health,socialsciencesandcommunicationUniversidadBolivariana Private SocialsciencesandteachingUniversidaddeArtes,CienciasyComunicación

Private Artsandcommunication

UniversidadGabrielaMistral Private Health,socialsciences,engineeringandteachingUniversidadIberoamericanadeCienciasyTecnología

Private Health,socialsciences,engineering

UniversidadInternacionalSEK Private Health,socialsciencesandteachingUniversidadLaRepública Private Health,socialsciences,engineeringandteachingUniversidadLosLeones Private Engineering,teachingandsocialsciencesUniversidadMigueldeCervantes Private EngineeringandsocialsciencesUniversidadPedrodeValdivia Private HealthUniversidadUcinf Private Health,socialsciences,engineering,andteachingmorerecentlyestablished.Applicantsarerequiredtotakeanadmissionexaminationappliedbytheuniversitybutallareselected.StudentsadmittedtotheLShadaveragePSUscoresof500orless.

The sample included 266 persons, about half of the graduates between 2012 and 2014. Participantswerechosen randomly from amaster list and contacted over the Internet during themonths ofNovember andDecember 2015.Graduateswhodid not accept the invitation to participate in the studywere replacedbyrandomchoice.TheresultsofthesamplingprocessaredescribedinTable2.Thedifferencesinthenumberofcasesforeachuniversityareafunctionofenrollmentsize.Variables.InJuly2015participantswereadministeredafivepagequestionnaire(seetheappendix).Studentswere identifiedbyuniversity fromwhichgraduated,andprofessionaldegreeprogram,Psychology,orBasicEducation Teaching. They provided their age and gender, mother’s level of education, secondary schoolattended(publicorprivate),employmenthistorybeforeandaftergraduation,andcurrentsalary.Table2.Obtainedsampleofcasesbyuniversityandprogram. Obtained Number

ofUniversity Program Population %oftotal casesLessselectiveuniversity(LS) Psychology 77 12.4 42 Teaching 76 12.2 33

Moderatelyselectiveuniversity(MS) Psychology 136 21.9 53 Teaching 96 15.4 39

Highlyselectiveuniversity(HS) Psychology 162 26.0 70 Teaching 75 12.1 29

Total 622 100 266

Theparticipantsevaluatedtheirdegreeprogramindicatingtheirdegreeofagreement(1=stronglydisagree,2=disagree,3=agree,4=stronglyagree)with27descriptivestatements(seetheappendix).Responseswerecombined to make three scales. The first scale included 10 items referring to comprehensiveness of thecurriculum, coverage and flexibility of the curriculum (theory, practice and value formation), and teachingmethods. The questions were of the form ‘The theoretical formation I received was adequate’ or ‘Thecurriculumseemedcoherentandflexible’and‘Theteachingstylesdevelopedintheprogramweremotivatingandstimulatedparticipation.’TheaveragescoreontheseitemsmakesupthevariableProgramQuality.Thesecond(4item)scaleaskedabouttheuniversities’sattentiontoinfrastructuretosupporttheprogram.Atypical itemwas ‘Theprogram inwhich I studied alwaysmade available themeans necessary to carry outnecessaryactivities.’TheseitemscombinedtomakethevariableInfrastructure.Thethirdscalecombinedfiveitemsthataskedforapost-graduationassessmentoftheextenttowhichthegraduatefeltpreparedforworkin theirprofession. Forexample, ‘The formation I received inmyprogramwas sufficientenough forme toperform satisfactorally atwork’ and ‘As a graduate I have an identifiable professional profile.’ These itemscommentonwhat thegraduatesexperienced in theexerciseof theirprofessiononceon the job; thescalerepresentstheirSatisfactionwiththeirEmployment.Analysis.Foreachscale,principalcomponentsfactoranalysisyieldedonefactor.Table3presentstheresultsofvarioustestsoftheadequacyofthescales.TheKaiser–Meyer–Olkintestassessestheextenttowhichitemscanbeconsideredtobemeasuringthesamephenomenonordimension;theupperlimitis1.00.TheBartletttestindicatesthatthesamplesdohaveequalvariances.Thethreescaleseachexplainmorethanhalfofthevarianceamongtheir items.ThePrincipalComponentsanalysis indicatedthat thetwogroupsofgraduates,PsychologyandTeaching,usedthesamedimensionsinassessingtheirdegreeprograms.Inordertocomparetheaveragescalescoresofthetwogroupsofgraduatesandtoassesstheirdifferencesonother variables, we used univariate analysis of variance. This is appropriate for categorical predictor orindependent variables. In order to compare the simultaneous effect of several variables, some categorical,othersordinal,onscalescores,wereliedontheSPSSStatisticsversionofmultiplelinearregression.Weusedlogisticregressioninthosecaseswherethedependentvariablewascategorical.

Findings

PerceivedQualityofPrograms.Thedatacollectedinthisstudysuggestthatacademicquality,atleastinChileanuniversities,variesconsiderablywithinagiveninstitution.Setsofgraduatesdidnothave

Table3.Testsofconstructedscales.

Scale

Numberofitemsinscale

Kaiser–Meyer–Olkinsamplingadequacy

Bartlett’stestofsphericity

Percentvarianceexplained

Programquality 10 .924 .000 58.7Attentiontoinfrastructure 4 .768 .000 64.8Satisfaction 5 .715 .000 73.8Table4.Meanratingsofprogramsinpsychologyandteachingbygraduates(4ishighest).

Program N

Qualityofprogram

Mean SD

Infrastructure

Mean SD

Psychology 165 2.91 .48 2.36 .67Teaching 101 3.11 .78 2.75 .83Total 266 2.98 .62 2.51 .76ANOVAtestofgroupdifference p<.010 p=.000

similarperceptionsofwhattheyexperiencedasstudents.AsshowninTable4,theTeachingprogramsreceivedhigherratingsofProgramQualityandAttentiontoInfrastructurethandidthePsychologyprograms.One possibility is that judgments of program quality are mediated by students’ expectations. In Chile aselsewhere,childrenraisedbyparentswithlowereducationlevelstendtohaveloweraspirationlevels(Carrasco,Zuñiga,andEspinoza2014).Some49%ofthegraduates inthisstudyhavemotherswithnopost-secondaryeducation.Graduateswithless-educatedmotherswerebothmorelikelytograduateinTeachingandtohavemorefavorableperceptionsoftheirprogramsthandidgraduateswithmore-educatedmothers.Aspirationsarealsoshapedbyexperiencesinsecondaryschool.StudentsinChileattendoneofthreekindsofsecondaryschools.Municipalschoolsdependprincipallyonpublicfunds,fromthemunicipalityandthecentralgovernment. Voucher schools, although privately owned andmanaged, receive subsidies from the centralgovernment. Inaddition, they cancharge fees;asa result, theygenerally spendmoreper student thandomunicipal schools. A third kind of school accepts no public funding, attracts upper-income students, andgraduatesstudentswithevenhigheraveragetestscores.Althoughresearchshowsthatvoucherandprivateschoolsarenomoreeffectivethanmunicipalschoolsingeneratinglearning(CarnoyandMcEwan2000;HsiehandUrquiola2006),theyaremoresuccessfulinattractingstudents(withthehighesttestscores)frommiddleandupper-incomefamilies.OnaveragetheirstudentsscorehigherthanmunicipalsecondaryschoolsonthePSUandthereforearemorelikelytobeadmittedtoaselectiveuniversity.Somevoucherschoolsalsorecruitstudentsfromlowincomefamilies(with lesseducatedmothers).Table5showsthatgraduateswhoattendedvouchersecondaryschoolsonaverageassignhigherscorestoProgramQuality in the university than do those who went to a municipal school. Graduates who went to privatesecondaryschoolsareleastpositiveintheirratingsofquality.Thesefindingsprovideonlypartialsupportforthehypothesisthatperceivedqualitydependsinpartofparentaleducation.Thereisnodifferenceinratingsofinfrastructurebymunicipal andvoucher school students;bothassignhigher scores thandograduateswhoattendedprivatesecondaryschools.More than half of all graduates (53%) continue in the university after graduation. They enroll in courses,specialization programs, master’s and doctor degree programs. Of these, 62% are Psychology graduates.Psychologygraduatesaremorelikelytoenrollinfurtherstudiesiftheirmotherhadpost-secondaryeducation(62%to38%),whileTeachinggraduatesarelesslikelytocontinueintheuniversity(46%to54%)iftheirmotherhadpost-secondaryeducation.Isthisprimarilyaresultofdifferentcareeraspirationsinfluencedbyparents,ordifferencesintheperceivedquality

Table5.Effectoftypeofsecondaryschoolattendedonperceptionsofprogramandpost-graduationexperiences.TypeofSecondary

N

Qualityofprogram

Mean SD

Infrastructure

School Mean SD

Municipal 79 2.93 .62 2.58 .71Voucher 146 3.11 .53 2.58 .75Private 41 2.65 .79 2.11 .77Total 266 2.98 .62 2.51 .76ANOVA p=.000 p<.001

of the programs? A logistic regression comparing the effects ofMother’s Education, ProgramQuality andInfrastructureonFurtherStudiesindicatesthatbothmother’seducationandqualityarelinkedtofurtherstudy(p=.052andp=.048respectively),whileratingsofinfrastructurearenot.Satisfactionwith Employment.All the graduateswereworking in the field forwhich theywere trained.Asarguedabove,satisfactionwithemploymentmaybeinfluencedbyqualityofthetrainingthatprecededit,butitmayalsobetheresultofeventsoccurringaftergraduationthatareunrelatedtoqualityoftraining.Personsmayassignmoresatisfactiontojobsthatarehardertoobtain.Inaddition,jobsdifferintheircontent.Theworkofapsychologist,forexample,maybemoredifficultorlessgratifyingthanthatofateacher(orviceversa),asa resultof thenatureof the task,or relationswithco-workersor supervisors.Personsmaybemorehighlyregarded and treatedwithmore respect because of the reputation of the university they attended.Otherpeopleplacemorevalueonthefinancialreturnfromtheirwork.Ifwetake‘timetogetajob’asanindicatorofeaseoffindingwork,mostgraduateshadnodifficultyintheirjobsearch.Includingthosewhohadworkedwhileintheirdegreeprogram,60.6%ofthegraduateshadajobwithin twomonths of graduation, and 85.6%within sixmonths. Only 7.9% of all graduates were withoutemploymentayearormoreaftergraduation;ofthese3.8%werenotlookingforwork.Thetimerequiredtofindemploymentisunrelatedtograduates’perceptionofthequalityoftheprogramtheyattended.Ontheotherhand,Teachinggraduateswhotooklongertofindemploymentweremorecriticaloftheinfrastructureavailable in their program. This is linked to the inclusion of practice teaching in the Teaching curriculum;universitiesvaryinthenumberofhoursstudentsaregivensupervisedpractice.Graduatesthathavenothadsupervisedteachingpracticearehiredonaprovisionalbasis,usuallyatlessthanfulltime,forasemesterorayear.There is a significant difference between the salaries or income of Psychology graduates as compared toTeaching graduates. The two groups also differ in their employer.Most of the Psychologists work for thegovernment,mostoftheteachersareinvoucherschools.Table6comparesgraduatesbysalary.Themiddlesalarycategory–US$750–1500–includesthe2014incomepercapita(GDP/capita)forChile,approximatelyUS$1185 per month (United Nations Statistics Division 2015). Psychologists on average earn more thanTeachers;21%ofthePsychologistsearnmorethanUS$1500permonth,comparedto3.2%oftheTeachers.Inmostoccupationssalariestendtoincreasewithyearsofservice.Inthisstudy2012graduatesareearningmorethan2013or2014graduates.Teachersalariesjumpafteroneyearofemployment,withfull-timework.Psychologistsinmanagerialpositionsarepaidsignificantlymorethanthosewhoareemployees;Teacherswhoaremanagers(principals)arepaidonlyslightlymorethantheircolleagues.Salariesarehigherforgraduatesofthemostselectiveuniversitythanfortheothers.Asindicatedinpriorstudies,thereisnodirectrelationshipbetweenProgramQualityandcurrentIncome.Inthisstudy,mostofthegraduatesarerelativelynewontheir jobs,andemployerswillnothavehadenoughevidenceoftheiractualcontributiontothefirm.ThereisasignificantlinearrelationshipbetweenInfrastructureratings(butnotforProgramQuality)andIncomeforPsychologygraduates.TherelationshipbetweenthetwoprogramscalesandIncomeforTeachinggraduatesisnonlinear;thosereceivingmid-levelincomesaremorepositivethaneitherextreme.Wehavenodirectmeasureoftheprestigeoftheprogramortheuniversity.Fortheformer,weuseparticipants’levelofagreementwiththestatement‘OncomparingourselvestograduatesofotherprogramsIbecameawarethatemployersaremorefavorabletowardus.’WecallthisvariableImage.ThisratingwasmadeatthesametimeasthoseinProgramQuality,andnodoubtitsscore

Table6.Averagemonthlyearningsofgraduatesbyprofession.

Program N NPsychology 31 19.7 93 59.2 33 21.0 157Teaching3638.35558.533.294Total6726.714859.03614.3251

Table7.Multipleregressionoffactorsinfluencingsatisfactionwithemployment.Psychologygraduates

–

Coefficientsa

1 (Constant) .653 1.409 0.464 .643

MoEd .248 0.309 .042 0.804 .423

Typeofsecondary .093 0.228 .022 0.408 .684

ProgQual .410 0.036 .687 11.528 .000

Infrastr −.179 0.068 −.165 −2.631 .009

TimetoJob −.065 0.221 −.017 −0.294 .769

Income .253 0.259 .055 0.976 .331

Image .539 0.184 .163 2.932 .004

Selectivity .956 0.205 .265 4.673 .000

a R2=.612,adjustedR2=.591;N=156.Dependentvariable:Satisfn.Unstandardized

coefficientsStandardizedcoefficients

Teachinggraduates B Std.error Beta T Sig.Coefficientsb1 (Constant) −1.865 1.075

−1.735 .086

MoEd 0.205 0.338 0.025 0.607 .545Typeofsecondary 0.408 0.275 0.063 1.484 .141

ProgQual 0.425 0.026 0.839 16.390 .000Infrastr 0.080 0.060 0.067 1.342 .183TimetoJob −0.686 0.260 −0.107 −2.636 .010Income 0.429 0.343 0.058 1.251 .214Image 0.417 0.180 0.098 2.320 .023Prestige 0.677 0.208 0.137 3.253 .002b 2 2Dependentvariable:Satisfn.R=.894,adjustedR=.884;N=93.

reflectsaresponsebias.ThedifferenceinresponsesofPsychologyandTeachinggraduatesisnotsignificant.Weusedthelevelofselectivity(minimalscoreonPSU)asanindicatorofuniversityprestige.Thetwovariables,ImageandPrestige,aresignificantlycorrelated(r=.283).BothareunrelatedtoProgramQuality.Theratingofinfrastructureisinverse,thatis,themostselectiveuniversityhaslesspositiveratingsofinfrastructure.Ratings of Satisfaction with employment can therefore be influenced by several different factors. Givendifferencesinthetwotypesofprograms,weseparatetheanalyses.Table7presentsresultsforPsychologyandTeachinggraduates.ThelevelofsatisfactionwithcurrentemploymentofgraduatesinPsychologyfromthesethreeuniversitiesisdeterminedprincipallybythequalityoftheirdegreeprogram,andindependentlybytheprestigeassociatedwiththeselectivityoftheuniversity.Programimageisathirddeterminant.Wedonothaveanexplanationforthenegativeeffectoftheinfrastructurevariable.TeachinggraduatesarerelativelymoreinfluencedbyProgramQualityandlessbyuniversityprestigethanarePsychologygraduates.Thosewhotooklongertofindapositionendedupmoresatisfiedthanthosewhoalreadyhadapositionormadeanearlychoice.Thecomparisonbyemployersoftheirprogramwithothers(Image)alsocontributestotheirdegreeofsatisfaction.

Discussion

Thisstudyshowsthattherearedifferencesacrossuniversitiesinthequalityofprofessionaldegreeprogramsthey offer, assessed in terms of what graduates experience once they are employed. Satisfaction withemployment after graduation is determined principally by perceptions of the quality of the professionalprogramthatpreceded it. Inotherwords, ifgraduatesbelievethattheirprogramtaughtpertinentmaterial

well,theyaremorelikelytoenjoytheirwork.Thisfindingfitsthepsychologicalmodelofsatisfaction,inwhichself-efficacyorsenseofagencyassumeshighimportance.Thelevelofselectivityofauniversityalsohasasignificantimpactonsatisfactionwithemployment,butmuchlessthanthegraduates’perceptionofthequalityoftheirprogram.Graduatesofthemostselectiveuniversityonaveragewerelesspositiveaboutthequalityoftheirtrainingthanthosefromotheruniversities,butwhenotherfactorsaretakentheprestigeoftheirinstitutioncontributestotheirsatisfactionwiththeirwork.Asinotherstudents,incomeisnotasignificantcontributortosatisfactionwithcurrentemployment,althoughonaverageincomesarehigherforgraduatesofselectiveuniversitiesthanforthosethatarenotselective.Theuniversityaffiliationofthenewhiremaybeusedbyemployersasasignalofthecandidate’sskilllevel,butitisanunreliable indicator ifwepresume that thegraduates’perceptionsofqualityarevalid (income-programqualityr=.102).Putmorebluntly,theselectivityoftheuniversitydoesnotguaranteethequalityoftheirdegreeprograms.GraduatesofTeachingdegreeprogramsareadditionallysatisfiedifemploymentaftergraduationwasrelativelyeasytofind.RecentgraduatesinPsychologyandinBasicEducationTeachinghadrelativelylittledifficultyinfindingemploymentatcurrentwageratesandwerenotunderemployed.The findingsof thisstudyarehighlysuggestive,butshouldnotbegeneralizedtootherprofessionaldegreeprograms.Althoughdifferentprogramscanbeassessedusingthesameindicators,withinagivenuniversitytheyyieldsignificantlydifferentratings.

Conclusion

These results should be encouraging for government and university officialswhomust respond to studentcriticismsofthequalityandcostofhighereducation.Mostparticipantsinthisstudymadepositivejudgmentsaboutthequalityoftheirprograms,andfeltthattheircurrentemploymentwasmakingeffectiveuseoftheknowledgeandskillsacquiredintheirprograms.Thestudysuggeststhat,atleastinthesethreeuniversities,professionaldegreeprogramsaresuccessfulindevelopingrelevantknowledgeandskillsintheirstudentsandgraduates, and that therefore graduates look back on their university experience with appreciation.Testimonials from students and from graduates about the quality of their education contradict complaintsaboutlowquality.Theresultssuggestthatdissatisfactionwithuniversityqualityisnotwidespread,makingthefamilyburdenofhighuniversitycostsamorelikelycauseofstudentunrest.Therapidexpansionofuniversityenrollments,andgraduates,maywellhaveexceededlabormarketdemand,whichwouldresultinlowerwages.Thecostburdenmustweigh heaviest on familieswhose students leave university before completing their degree and facelimitedemploymentopportunities.Improvingstudentretentionandcompletionrateswouldallowuniversitiestobemoreselectiveintheiradmissions.Improvedlabormarketinformationmightguidemorestudentsintoprogramswithbetteremploymentpractices.At the same time, the results could be used to support a claim that unequal access to quality programscontributestothehighlevelofincomeinequalitythatpersistsinChile.Toresolvethisassertionrequiresamorecomplex study, involving a much larger sample of universities, and of academic programs. One possibleoutcomeisevidencethatqualityprogramsarenotfoundexclusivelyinuniversitieswithhighrankingsor,morelikely,thatnotalldegreeprogramsinagivenuniversityareofthesamequality. Itmightwellbethatmanyexcellentprogramsaretobefoundinuniversitieswithlowerprestigerankings.InthepresenteconomyofChile,thelinkbetweenuniversityprestigeandemployers’hiringpracticesreinforcessevere income inequality. Research demonstrating that concentration of quality in a few universitiescontributesthisproblemcouldsupporteffortsatsignificantreform.Thismightentaileitherlevelingofcostsofuniversityattendance(andeliminatingothersocio-economicstatus-linkedbarrierstoprestigiousinstitutions)oreffortstoraisethequalityofnon-prestigioustothatofthecurrently favored.Eitherway,thesurvivalofparticipatorydemocracyinChilerequiresconsiderationofthelinkbetweeneducationalqualityandpoliticalstability.AcknowledgementsTheauthorsaresolelyresponsibleforthecontentsofthisreport.

DisclosurestatementNopotentialconflictofinterestwasreportedbytheauthors.

FundingThisresearchwassupportedbytheNationalFundforScientificandTechnologicalDevelopmentofChile(CONICYT)throughtheFondoNacionaldeDesarrolloCientíficoyTecnológico(FONDECYTProjectNo.1151016).

ReferencesAcar,Erkan.2011.“EffectsofSocialCapitalonSchoolSuccess:ANarrativeSynthesis.”EducationalResearchandReviews6(6):456–61.Altbach,Philip,LizReisberg,andLauraRumbley.2009.TrendsinGlobalHigherEducation:TrackinganAcademicRevolution:AReportPreparedfortheUNESCO2009ConferenceonHigherEducation.Paris:UNESCO.Azoury,Nehme,LindosDaou,andCharbelElKhoury.2013.“UniversityImageandItsRelationshiptoStudentSatisfaction:Caseofthe Holy Spirit University of Kaslik, Lebanon.” Journal of Executive Education 12 (1): 1–13. http://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/jee/vol12/iss1/4.Beerli,Asunción,andPedroPérez.2002.“TheConfigurationoftheUniversityImageanditsRelationshipwiththeSatisfactionofStudents.”JournalofEducationalAdministration40(5):486–505.Bills,David.2003.“Credentials,Signals,andScreens:ExplainingtheRelationshipBetweenSchoolingandjobAssignment.”ReviewofEducationalResearch73(4):442–69.Billups, Felice. 2008. “MeasuringCollege Student Satisfaction:AMulti-Year Studyof the Factors Leading toPersistence.”NERAConferenceProceedngs2008Paper14.http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/nera_2008/14.Brown,Robert,andTimMazzarol.2009.“TheImportanceofInstitutionalImagetoStudentSatisfactionandLoyaltyWithinHigherEducation.”HigherEducation58(1):81–95.Candelas,Carlos,MaríaGurruchaga,AgustínMejías,andLuisFlores.2013.“Medicióndelasatisfacciónestudiantiluniversitaria:Unestudio de caso en una institución mexicana” [Measurement of University Student Satisfaction: A Case Study at a MexicanInstitution].RevistaMexicanadeIngenieríaIndustrial5(9):261–74.Caprara,Gian,ClaudioBarbaranelli,PatriziaSteka,andPatrickMalone.2006.“Teachers’Self-EfficacyBeliefsasDeterminantsofJobSatisfactionandStudents’AcademicAchievement:AStudyattheSchoolLevel.”JournalofSchoolPsychology44:473–90.Carnoy, Martin, and Patrick McEwan. 2000. “The Effectiveness and Efficiency of Private Schools in Chile’s Voucher System.”EducationalEvaluationandPolicyAnalysis22(3):213–39.Carrasco,Evelyn,ClaudiaZuñiga,andJacquelineEspinoza.2014.“Eleccióndecarreraenestudiantesdenivelsocioeconómicobajodeuniversidadeschilenasaltamenteselectivas”[CareerChoiceamongLowSocioeconomicStatusNewcomers inHighlySelectiveChileanUniversities].CalidadenlaEducación40:95–128.http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-45652014000100004.CNED.2015.TendenciasIndices2015[TrendsIndex2015].Santiago,Chile:ConsejoNacionaldeEducación.Cohrs, J. Christopher, Andrea Abele, and Dorothea Dette. 2006. “Integrating Situational and Dispositional Determinants of jobSatisfaction:FindingsfromThreeSamplesofProfessionals.”TheJournalofPsychology140(4):363–96.Cummings,Peter.2015.“DemocracyandStudentDiscontent:ChileanStudentProtestinthePostPinochetEra.”JournalofPoliticsinLatinAmerica7(3):49–84.delaFuente,Hanns,MercedesMarzo,andMaríaReyes.2010.“AnálisisdelasatisfacciónuniversitariaenlaFacultaddeIngenieríadelaUniversidaddeTalca”[AnalysisofUniversitySatisfactionintheSchoolofEngineeringattheUniversityofTalca].Ingeniare.RevistaChilenadeIngeniería18(3):350–63.DeWitz,Joseph,LynnWoolsey,andBruceWalsh.2009.“CollegeStudentRetention:AnExplorationoftheRelationshipBetweenSelf-EfficacyBeliefsandPurposeinLifeAmongCollegeStudents.”JournalofCollegeStudentDevelopment50(1):19–34.Díaz, Cristian. 2008. “Modelo conceptual para la deserción estudiantil universitaria chilena” [Conceptual Model for ChileanUniversity Student Drop Out]. Estudios Pedagógicos XXXIV (2): 65–86. http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0718-07052008000200004.Donoso,Sebastián.2013.“DynamicsofChangeinChile:ExplainingtheEmergenceofthe2006‘Pingüino’Movement.”JournalofLatinAmericanStudies45(1):1–29.Elacqua, Gregory. 2012. “Education: Chile’s Students Demand Reform.” Americas Quarterly, Winter Edition. http://www.americasquarterly.org/node/3287.Espinoza,Oscar. 2005. “Privatización y comercialización de la educaciónsuperior en Chile: Una visión crítica”[Privatization andCommercializationofHigherEducationinChile: ACriticalView].RevistadelaEducaciónSuperior(ANUIES)XXXIV(135):41–60.http://www.anuies.mx/servicios/p_anuies/index2.php?clave=publicaciones/revsup/.Espinoza,Oscar.2008.“Creating (in)Equalities inAccess toHigherEducation in theContextofStructuralAdjustmentandPost-AdjustmentPolicies:TheCaseofChile.”HigherEducation55(3):269–84.Espinoza,Oscar,LuisEduardoGonzález,andNoelMcginn.2016.“TheStudentMovementinChileandtheNeo-LiberalAgendainCrisis”.Chap.11inUnderstandingSouthernSocialMovements,editedbySiminFadaee,168–85.London:Routledge.Fernández, J. Esteban, Samuel Fernández, Alberto Álvarez, and Pablo Martínez. 2007. “Éxito académico y satisfacción de losestudiantesconlaenseñanzauniversitaria”[AcademicSuccessandStudentSatisfactionwithUniversityEducation].RELIEVE13(2):203–14.García-Aracil,Adela.2009.“EuropeanGraduatesLevelofSatisfactionwithHigherEducation.”HigherEducation57(1):1–21.

García-Huidobro,Juan.2002.“NotassobreestrategiasdeacogidaalosnuevosalumnosenlaUniversidadAlbertoHurtado”[NotesonStrategiestoWelcomeNewStudentsatAlbertoHurtadoUniversity].RevistaCalidadenlaEducación(17):165–73.Gento,Samuel,andMireyaVivas.2003.“ElSEUE:uninstrumentoparaconocerlasatisfaccióndelosestudiantesuniversitariosconsueducación”[TheSEUE:AnInstrumenttoKnowtheSatisfactionofUniversityStudentswithTheirTraining].AcciónPedagogica12(2):16–27.Ginsburg,Mark,OscarEspinoza,SimonaPopa,andMayumiTerano.2003.“Privatisation,DomesticMarketisationandInternationalCommercialisation of Higher Education: Vulnerabilities and Opportunities for Chile and Romania Within the Framework ofWTO/GATS.”Globalisation,SocietiesandEducation1(3):413–45.Hazelkorn, Ellen. 2016. “The Effect of Rankings on Student Choice and Institutional Selection.” In Access and Expansion Post-Massification:OpportunitiesandBarrierstoFurtherGrowthinHigherEducationParticipation,editedbyBenJongbloedandHansVossensteyn,107–28.London:Routledge.Helgesen,Øyvind, andErikNesset. 2007. “Images, SatisfactionandAntecedents:Driversof Student Loyalty?ACaseStudyof aNorwegianUniversityCollege.”CorporateReputationReview10(1):38–59.Himmel,Erika.2002. “Modelosdeanálisisde ladeserciónestudiantil en laeducación superior” [ModelsofAnalysisof StudentDropout in Higher Education]. Revista Calidad en la Educación (17): 91–108. http://www.cned.cl/public/secciones/seccionrevistacalidad/revista_calidad_leer_revista.aspx?idPublicacion=35.Hsieh,Chang-Tai,andMiguelUrquiola.2006.“TheEffectsofGeneralizedSchoolChoiceonAchievementandStratification:EvidencefromChile’sVoucherProgram.”JournalofPublicEconomics90:1477–503.Ijaz,Aamir,SyedIrfan,SamanShahbaz,MuhamoodAwan,andMudhirSabir.2011.“AnEmpiricalModelofStudentSatisfaction:CaseofPakistaniPublicSectorBusinessSchools.”JournalofQualityandTechnologyManagementVII(II):91–114.Jung,Jisun,andSooLee.2016.“InfluenceofUniversityPrestigeonGraduateWageandJobSatisfaction:TheCaseofSouthKorea.”JournalofHigherEducationPolicyandManagement38(3):297–315.Jury,Mickael,AnniqueSmeding,andCélineDarnon.2015.“First-GenerationStudents”UnderperformanceatUniversity:TheImpactoftheFunctionofSelection.”FrontiersinPsychology6:710.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4446913/.Katz, Jorge, and Randy Spence. 2009. “Chile: Universities in Transition.” World University News (100), November 8. http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20091106114917103.Kim,Young,andLindaSax.2009.“Student–FacultyInteractioninResearchUniversities:DifferencesbyStudentGender,Race,SocialClass,andFirst-GenerationStatus.”ResearchinHigherEducation50:437–59.Kucel,Aleksander,andMontserratVilalta-Bufí.2013.“JobSatisfactionofUniversityGraduates.”RevistadeEconomíaAplicadaXXI(61):29–65.Kunanusorn, Anusorn, and Duangporn Puttawong. 2015. “The Mediating Effects of Satisfaction on Student Loyalty to HigherEducation Institutions.” European Scientific Journal (Special Edition) 1: 449–63. http://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/view/6455/6195.Lent,Robert,StevenBrown,andGailHackett.1994.“TowardaUnifyingSocialCognitiveTheoryofCareerandAcademicInterest,Choice,andPerformance.”JournalofVocationalBehavior45(2):79–122.McConney,Andrew,andLauraPerry.2010. “SocioeconomicStatus, Self-Efficacy, andMathematicsAchievement inAustralia:ASecondaryAnalysis.”EducationalResearchforPolicyandPractice9:77–91.Medrano,Leonardo,andEdgardoPérez.2010.“AdaptacióndelaEscaladeSatisfacciónAcadémicaalaPoblaciónUniversitariadeCórdoba”[AdaptationoftheScaleofAcademicSatisfactiontotheUniversityPopulationofCórdoba].SUMMAPsicológicaUST7(2):5–14.Mora,José,AdelaGarcía-Aracil,andLuisVila.2007.“JobSatisfactionamongYoungEuropeanHigherEducationGraduates.”HigherEducation53(1):29–59.Olea,Edgardo.2009.AnálisisdelgradodesatisfaccióndelosestudiantesdelaCarreradeIngenieríaenConstrucción[AnalysisoftheStudentśSatisfactionDegreeintheSchoolofEngineeringinConstruction].ValdiviaChile:UniversidadAustraldeChile.Palominos-Belmar,Pedro,LuisQuezada,ClaudioOsorio,JorgeTorres,andL.LuisLippi.2016.“CalidaddelosservicioseducativossegúnlosestudiantesdeunauniversidadpúblicaenChile”[QualityofEducationalServicesAccordingtotheStudentsofaPublicUniversityinChile].RevistaIberoamericanadeEducaciónSuperior(RIES)VII(18):130–42.Parasuraman,A.,ValarieZeithaml,andLeonardBerry.1985.“SERVQUAL.”JournalofRetailing64(1):12–40.Pearson.2013.FinalReportEvaluationoftheChilePSU22January2013.London.http://portales.mineduc.cl/usuarios/mineduc/doc/201301311057540.Chile_PSU-Finalreport.pdf:PearsonPLC.Rust, Val, Laura Portnoi, and Sylvia Bagley. 2010. Higher Education, Policy, and theGlobal Competition Phenomenon. London:Springer.Salazar,José,andPeodairLeihy.2013.“TheInvisibleHandbook:ThreeDecadesofHigherEducationPolicyinChile(19802010).”EducationPolicyAnalysisArchives21(34):1–35.http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1127.Salinas,Agapito,JuanMorales,andPabloMartínez.2008.“Satisfaccióndelestudianteycalidaduniversitaria:Unanálisisexplicatorioen la unidad académicamultidisciplinaria Agronomía y Ciencias de laUniversidadAutónomade Tamaulipas,México” [StudentSatisfactionandUniversityQuality:AnExplanatoryAnalysisintheAcademicUnitoftheAgronomyandSciencesoftheAutonomousUniversityofTamaulipas,Mexico].”RevistadeEnseñanzaUniversitaria31:39–55.Sousa-Poza,Alfonso,andAndrésSousa-Poza.2000.“Well-BeingatWork:ACross-NationalAnalysisoftheLevelsandDeterminantsofJobSatisfaction.”JournalofSocio-Economics29:517–38.Spady,William.1970.“DropoutsfromHigherEducation:AnInterdisciplinaryReviewandSynthesis.”Interchange1(1):64–85.

Teixeira,Sofía,JoaoMatosdaSilva,andPatriciaOomdoValle.2015.“AModelofGraduates”SatisfactionandLoyaltyinTourismHigher Education: The Role of Employability.” Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 16: 30– 42.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2014.07.002.Thomas,Sam.2011.“WhatDrivesStudentLoyaltyinUniversities:AnEmpiricalModelfromIndia.”InternationalBusinessResearch4(2):183–92.Thomas,Emily,andNoraGalambos.2008.“WhatSatisfiesStudents?MiningStudentOpinionDatawithRegressionandDecisionTreeAnalysis.”ResearchinHigherEducation45(3):251–69.Tinto,Vincent.1987.LeavingCollege:RethinkingtheCausesandCuresofStudentAttrition.Chicago,IL:UniversityofChicagoPress.Titus, Marvin. 2004. “An Examination of the Influence of Institutional Context on Student Persistence at 4-Year Colleges andUniversities:AMultilevelApproach.”ResearchinHigherEducation45(7):673–99.United Nations Statistics Division. 2015. Country Profile Chile. Accessed October 1, 2016 (fromWorld Statistics Pocketbook).http://data.un.org/CountryProfile.aspx?crName=CHILE.Valenzuela,Catalina,andCarlosRequena.2006.“GradodeSatisfacciónquePercibenlosestudiantesdePregradodelaFacultaddeCienciasEconómicasyAdministrativasdelaUniversidadAustraldeChile”[SatisfactionDegreeofUndergraduateStudentsintheSchoolofEconomicsandAdministrationattheUniversidadAustraldeChile].Bachelorthesis,UniversidadAustraldeChile.

Appendix:Questionnaireforuniversitygraduatesanddegreeholders

1. Nameofdegreeprogram2. Birthdate3. Sex4. Communeinwhichreside5. Highesteducationlevelachievedbyyourmother6. Typeofsecondaryschool(public/subsidized/primate)finished4thyear7. Academicsituationtoday(graduated/withdegree)8. Periodinwhichwerestudentinprogram(beginningyear/endyear)9. Inotherhighereducationprogramsafterfinishing?10. Whatistheprogramandlengthinsemester11. Presentworksituation12. Ifworkingnow,doyouhaveanotherpayingjobbesides,inyourfield?13. Lengthofworkday(parttime/halftime/3quartertime/fulltime14. Averagemonthlyincomefromwork15. Positiononjob(management/employee/independentprofessional)16. Inwhatsectoremployed;publicorprivate17. Fitbetweendegreeprogramandemployment18. Degreeofsatisfactionwithemployment19. Degreeofsuccessasaprofessional20. Lengthoftimetofindfirstjob21. Mydegreeprogramwasdemanding.22. ThetrainingIreceivedinmydegreeprogramwasofhighquality.23. IfIhadtheopportunitytotakemyprogramagainIwouldchoosetheinstitutionwhereIstudied.24. AsagraduateoftheprogramandtheinstitutionwhereIstudiedIhaveaprofessionalidentity.25. Theprogramgavemeatrainingthatpermittedmetoobtaintheacademicdegreeandprofessionaltitlewithoutproblems.26. Thetheoreticaltrainingthatthedegreeprogramgavemewasadequate.27. Thepracticaltrainingthattheprogramgavemewasappropriate.28. Thepersonalandvaluetrainingtheprogramgavemewassuperb.29. WhenIstudiedtheprogramtheyexposedmetothecurriculum.30. Theprogramand/orinstitutionwhereIstudiedhadagoodpolicyofsupportinenteringthelaborforce31. ThetrainingIreceivedwassufficienttoperformsatisfactorilyintheworldofwork.32. Thepreparationforworkthattheprogramgavemematchedtherequirementsoftheworkplace.33. Ongraduatingfromtheprogram,Iwashiredatalevelthatmetmyprofessionalexpectationsandincomerequirements.34. WhenIcomparemyselfwithgraduatesfromotherprogramsIamawarethatthereactionofemployerswasmorefavorable

towardus.35. Thestudyplanincludedactivitiesthatlinkedstudentswiththeprofessionalenvironment.36. Thestudyplanandcourseprogramwasfulfilledcompletely.37. Thecurriculumseemedcoherentandflexibletome.38. Thecurriculumproposalclearlyidentifiedtheminimalknowledgeandskillsrequiredtograduate.39. ThelearningobjectivesoftheStudyPlanweremadecleartomewhenIwasintheprogram.40. Thecoursecontentswereappropriateformytrainingandperformanceasaprofessional.

41. Someofthecoursecontentswererepeatedunnecessarilyintwoormorecourses.42. Thecourseactivitiesmadeitpossibleformetocombinetheoryandpracticeformyperformanceintheworkplace.43. Theteachingstylesoftheprogramweremotivatingandstimulatedparticipation.44. Theinstitutionwasconstantlyconcernedwithimprovingthequalityoftheinfrastructure.45. TheprograminwhichIstudiedalwaysprovidedthemeans(equipment)necessarytocarryoutactivities(seminars,fieldtrips,

etc.)necessaryformytraining.46. Theinstitutionandtheprogramhadanadequatelibraryandplacestostudy.47. Thelabandworkshopsessionswerecorrectlyimplemented.