2019 graduate and professional student …...association (gpsa) graduate student survey arizona...

2019 Graduate and Professional Student Association (GPSA) Graduate Student Survey

Arizona State University 2019

1

2019 GPSA Graduate Student Survey

SURVEY AUTHORS Michelle Sullivan-Govani, GPSA President, 2018-2019 Sarah Geren, GPSA Vice President of External Affairs, 2018-2019 REPORT AUTHORS Amanjot Singh, GPSA Innovation Fellows award recipient, 2020 Parvika Singhal, GPSA Innovation Fellows award recipient, 2020 EDITORS Leah Jones, GPSA President, 2019-2020 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS GPSA wishes to acknowledge to following individuals for their contributions to and support for the project and completion of this report: Zee Wilson, GPSA Director of the Innovation Fellows Program, 2019-2020 Elizabeth Rosenkrantz, Assistant Director, Associated Students of Arizona State University (ASASU)

2


METHODS The Graduate and Professional Student Association (GPSA) invited the population of Arizona State University (ASU) graduate and professional students to participate in an online survey in May 2019, at the conclusion of the 2018-2019 academic year. The survey was administered anonymously online and requested information about the level of support graduate and professional students received while pursuing their degrees at ASU. Questions sought information about students’ financial arrangements, health insurance and care, and use of and satisfaction with ASU services, programs, and facilities. Demographics (e.g., sex, age, citizenship, campus, enrollment status, degree program) were also requested to help identify underserved groups. In addition, the survey invited students to provide suggestions to improve existing programs or identify needs that were not being met by programs and services at ASU.

PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHICS Overall, 1,075 ASU graduate and professional students elected to participate in the survey, which represented 12% of the 12,692 graduate students enrolled at ASU in Fall 20191. Forty eight percent of respondents were women, 51% were men, and less than 1% preferred not to specify their sex. As compared to the graduate student population in Fall 2019, women were slightly under-represented in the sample (i.e., the ASU graduate student population consisted of 47% women and 53% men).

Fig.1 Gender distribution of respondents Fig.2 Age distribution of respondents

The average age of respondents was 30 years, with 20 as the youngest and 75 as the oldest age reported. Analysis by age bracket revealed that 37% of respondents were age 18-24, 49% were 25-34, 9% were 35-44, 3% were 45-54, and 1% were age 55 and older.

3


Fig.3 Residents and non-residents distribution of respondents

For tuition purposes, respondents were asked to specify their Arizona residency status; among those they were 34% residents and 65%2 non-residents. The population of graduate students in Fall 2019 consisted of 65% Arizona residents and 35% non-Arizona residents; thus, nonresidents were over-represented in the sample. Thirty four percent of respondents were U.S. citizens, 44% percent of respondents identified themselves as international graduate and professional students. International students were slightly over-represented in the sample (i.e., the population of ASU graduate students consisted of 23% international students in Fall 2019). When asked to identify their primary campus affiliation 74% of respondents identified Tempe, 17% of participants reported Downtown, 2% indicated West, and 6% indicated Polytechnic. In addition, 84% of respondents were enrolled full-time and 16% were enrolled part-time in their degree programs. As compared to the population of ASU graduate students in Fall 2019, full-time students were overrepresented in the sample (i.e., the population of graduate students included 66% full-time students and 34% part time students).

Fig.4 Campus distribution of respondents Fig.5 Program type distribution of respondents

4


The sample of respondents consisted of 61% master’s students, 37% doctoral students (ie. AUD, DMA, DNP, EDD. PHD) , 1.3% professional (i.e. JD) students. Comparative figures provided by ASU Institutional Analysis describing the population of graduate students in Fall 2019 included 64% master’s, 31% doctoral, and 5% non-degree seeking students; professional students were not separately identified. In addition, survey respondents represented 15 academic colleges at ASU, with the largest percentages of respondents pursuing degrees at the Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering (40%), the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences(20%), the Watts College of Public Service and Community Solutions (8%), and the W.P. Carey School of Business (7%). There was slight over-representation of graduate and professional students from Engineering (i.e., 23% of the population in Fall 2019) and Liberal Arts and Sciences (i.e., aggregated sample 21% as compared to 17% of the population) and under-representation of students from the Teachers College (i.e., 16% of the population in Fall 2019). Otherwise, the percentages of sampled graduate and professional students were fairly representative of the population within each academic unit (i.e., less than 2% difference).

Fig.6 Distribution of respondents by ASU college

The full population of graduate and professional students received the survey link via the GPSA email distribution list; however, the sample of those who responded to the survey was not fully representative of the enrolled graduate student population in Fall 2018. Thus, the findings presented in this report should be considered with this in mind and interpreted with caution. That is, they may not be generalizable to the full ASU graduate student population.

5


RESULTS Finances Employment opportunities: Graduate and professional students who responded to the survey reported holding various types of employment positions while pursuing their degrees at ASU. Respondents most commonly reported employment positions that were research assistantships (23%), teaching assistantships (22%), student worker (19%), outside ASU employments (14%) and graduate assistantships or graduate internships (8%). An additional 4% of respondents reported holding a fellowship; very few indicated holding full-time staff or faculty (3%), part-time staff or faculty (3%) and management intern (<1%) positions. 3% of respondents indicated “other,” many of whom specified that they worked part-time on-campus. 23% of respondents indicated that they were not employed.

Fig. 7 Employment distribution

International students were more likely to report holding research assistantships than teaching assistantships, whereas non-international students were more likely to hold off-campus jobs than international students.

6


Table 1. Demographic Distribution of Employment

While participants enrolled at ASU full- and part-time were similarly likely to report holding part-time off-campus positions, full-time students were more likely than part-time students to hold research and teaching assistantships and less likely to report working full-time off campus. In addition, master’s and doctoral students were more likely than professional students to hold applied positions, such as internships, and part- and full-time jobs on-campus. Among the respondents there were no professionals to hold any TA positions, part-time positions, fellowships, or internships. Source of Debt: Overall, 46.6% of respondents mentioned personal savings as a source of

funds for their expenses, 39.2% reported using credit cards, 33.9% as federal loan, 20.8% reported private loans, 9.7% reported personal loans, 34.3% reported borrowing loans from friends, and 1.4% reported using other resources. In total, 19% of respondents reported having no debt at all.

7


Fig.8 Source of funds

About 31% of respondents who were in their first professional degree reported savings as a source of funding, which is lower than Doctorate (43.6%) and Master’s (48.8%) degree respondents. However, most first degree respondents also reported no debt at all (38.5%) as compared to only 17.8% of Doctorate and 19.3% from the Master’s respondents who do not have any debt. Doctoral students reported the most number of loans from private sources (22.7%) as compared to Masters (20%) and first professional degree (7.7%).

Fig.9 Comparison of source of debt by Doctorate, Masters and First Professional Degree holders

8


Savings (40.8%), credit cards (35.7%), and borrowing from friends (38.8%) were the most reported sources of funding overall. Almost half (49.5%) of the respondents who were international students responded using savings as a source of funds. For resident students, federal loans (60.5%), savings (56.7%), and credit cards (45.3%) were reported as the main sources of funding. On the other hand, only 18.6% of the non-residents reported federal loans as a source of funding.

Table 2. Comparison for Source of Funds

Reason for Debt: About 75% of the respondents stated the reason for debt was to pay tuition. About 70% reported living expenses as a reason for debt, 30.5% reported incidentals like vet bills and transportation costs, 25.6% reported summer expenses, 21.8% reported professional development expenses like travel, conferences, internships, and workshops, 21.5% reported healthcare costs, and 6.5% reported research expenses. Additionally, 4.9% respondents also reported other reasons for debt.

Fig.10 Reason for debt

9


Tuition was reported as the reason for debt by the greatest number of international students (80.4%) as compared to domestic students (71%). Domestic students(73.2%) reported living expenses as the biggest reason for debt as compared to international students (64.4%). Domestic students reported more debt for all the reasons except for tuition. The reason for debt

for incidentals was reported significantly more by domestic students (40.1%) than by international students(16.7%). Domestic students also reported higher in reasons for debt for expenses including healthcare costs (27.3%), professional expenses (26.8%), summer living expenses (30.8%), and research expenses (8.9%) as compared to international students who reported (at 13.1% for healthcare costs, 14.4% for

professional expenses, 18% for summer living expenses, and 2.9% for research expenses.

Fig.11 Comparison of reason for deby by international and domestic students

Of students with debt, over 85% of Master’s respondents stated tuition as the reason for debt, the greatest percentage of all degrees. Doctoral (78.4%) and first professional degree (83.3%) students reported living expenses as the biggest reason for debt. Tuition and living expenses were consistently reported as the top two reasons for financial debt. About 81% of residents reported debt from tuition 66.3% reported debt for living expenses. However, more non-residents reported living expenses (71.6%) than tuition (71.2%) as a reason for debt. About 11% of doctoral students reported research as a reason for debt.

10


Table 3. Comparison for the reason for debt

Cut Spending in Last 12 Months: Overall, 78.2% respondents reported they had been forced to cut spending on eating food out, 75.2% on personal travel, 74.1% on entertainment, 58.3% on clothing, 57.7% on savings, 38.3% on transportation costs, 32.7% on housing and utility costs, 29.8% on healthcare costs, 25.2% on cable and internet, 20.9% on professional travel, 20.3% on cooking food at home, 17.4% on family expenses, 4.2% on childcare, and 3.4% in other areas.

Many of the students who reported other reasons for being forced to cut spendings reported they had been forced to cut spendings in all the areas.

Fig.12 Cut spending in last 12 months

11


All of the respondents who were pursuing their first professional degree (100%) reported they were forced to cut spendings on eating out as compared to Doctoral (78.5%) and Master’s (77.6%) students. About 37.2% of Doctoral students reported being forced to cut spending on

healthcare costs, as compared to Masters (25.3%) and first professional degree (33.3%) students. Doctoral (21.2%) students also reported being forced to cut spending on family expenses more than by Master’s (15.2%) and first professional degree (8.3%) students. Almost twice as many of Doctoral respondents reported being forced to cut spendings on professional travel (30.5%) as compared to

Master’s (15.4%) students; none of the first professional degree students reported cutting spendings on professional travel. However, first professional degree students reported the highest percentage who were forced to cut spendings on personal travel (91.7%) as compared to Doctorate (79.1%) and Master’s (72.4%) students.

Fig. 13 Comparison of spending cuts by Doctorate, Masters and First Professional Degree holders

Domestic students reported being forced to cut adding to savings significantly more (71.5%) as compared to international students (39.7%). About 26% of domestic students reported that they had to cut spending on professional travel as compared to international students (13.8%). About 32% of the domestic students reported they were forced to cut spending on cable and/or internet as compared to international students (16.1%). Transportation cost and housing and utility costs are the only areas where more international students reported more as areas where forced to cut spending (39.2% and 33.9%, respectively) as compared to the domestic students (37.7% and 31.7%, respectively). About 5% of domestic respondents reported that they were

12


forced to cut spending on childcare, as compared to international students (3.5%). About 6% of domestic students reported other reasons for cutting spending, but only 0.8% of international students did. Almost twice as many residents reported being forced to cut spending on family expenses (24.6%), as compared to 13.4% of non-residents. About 71% of residents reported that they had to cut spending on adding to savings as compared to non-residents (49.9%). More non-residents reported that they had to cut spending on transportation costs (40.9%), as compared to residents (33.7%). Almost twice as many residents responded they had to cut spending on family expenses (24.6%), as compared to non-residents(13.4%). About 6.4% of residents also responded that they had to cut spending on childcare, more than that the percentage of non-residents who reported cutting childcare expenses(3.1%). Finally, 6.1% of residents reported other reasons for cut spendings, as compared to non-residents (1.5%).

Table 4. Comparison for spending cuts in past 12 months

Legal Issues Need for Legal Counsel: Among 89% of the respondents, 12% of them needed legal counseling. The results showed that among those 12%, 69% were international students. Legal counselling was majorly needed by Doctorate and Master students as compared to Professional students.

13


Fig.14 Percentages of respondents who needed legal counsel

Results showed that most of the legal counselling or advice needed was for tenant’s rights and immigration. Analysis of students' comments suggested a major portion of “other type” of legal advice and counselling was needed for “sexual assault” and/or “unethical behaviour,” while the rest portion was regarding “tax filing” and “personal injuries/accidents”.

Fig. 15 Types of legal counsel needed

Meeting the Need for Legal Advice: Of the respondents, 57% who needed legal advice were unable to meet their needs. About 44% stated the reason was either they “could not afford private counseling” or that “consultations were expensive,” while others could not find the resources or didn’t know how to approach the situation. Out of 43% who got legal advice, 15% sought a private law firm and 5% sought a pro-bono firm or attorney for their representation. Nobody stated using government appointed attorneys. Of the remaining students who received legal advice, 6% got their legal counsel from “family or friend attorneys,” and 5% got it from ASU professors and academic advisors; the rest either did their own research or eventually stopped seeking advice.

14


Counseling The survey reported 61% students did not (660) use any counselling, 19% used in the past, and 8% were currently using the counselling services. Doctorate Students belonged to 50% of the group who used counselling in the past and Master students covered the remaining 49%. Forty-five percent of Master students were currently using counselling whereas Professional students contribute to just 2% of students who were currently using counselling.

Fig.16 Percent of respondents who used counselling

Seventy five percent of the students who reported not using any counselling, reasoned that they did not feel the need of counselling, whereas 5% stated “it did not fit the budget,” 10% did not know where to go, and 4% stated that “counselling did not fit the schedule.” The remaining 5% of students specified other reasons such as reluctance due to “incompetent services,” not knowing such services existed, or having their own personal counsellors. ASU Counseling Services: Out of all respondents who used counseling, 60% students used ASU services, 53% used private practice, 12% used former workplace/college/university counselling services, 3% used ASU Employee Assistance Program, and 2% used tele counselling services. Some students used more than 1 counselling service.

Fig.17 Types of counselling services used

15


The survey reported, out of 60% (183/296) of students who used ASU counselling services, including ASU EAP, 27% of them stopped counselling because they met their counselling goals, 10% stopped counselling because of budget issues, and 9% stopped because they did not find the counselling useful.

Fig.18 Reasons for stopping ASU counselling services

Out of 14% of the respondents who gave “other” reasons, over half of them stated that “ASU counselling is short term” and “ASU counselling tends to move students to private firms.” The remainder of the reasons included “short on time and money,” “moving out of state,” and “conflict of interest.” Program Support Respondents were asked to rate the support they receive from their program. Overall, nearly 80% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they were supported as a student by their program, while 12% disagreed or strongly disagreed. Similarly, 66% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they were supported as a person by their program, while 15.5% disagreed or strongly disagreed. Finally, 61.4% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their program welcomes feedback, while 17.2% disagreed or strongly disagreed. About 56% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they know the course of action to take if treated unfairly or discriminated against by their program. Nearly 25% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that they know the course of action they can take if treated unfairly or discriminated against by their program. About 18% neither agreed nor disagreed.

16


Fig. 19 Program support

Table 5. Comparison of program support by Doctoral, Masters and First Professional Degree respondents

17


Table 6. Comparison for program support by domestic and international student

Awareness of ASU Services The results showed that 70% of respondents were aware of ASU Health Services, 64% knew about the writing center, and about half knew about Career Services, Counseling Services, and Financial Aid. However, the awareness about ASU services like iGrad, medical withdrawal and compassion, and student advocate were each noted by close to 15% of respondents. Awareness about Patient Advocate services and the child care subsidy were noted by even fewer respondents with only about 7% reporting knowing about either resource.

Fig.20 Awareness of ASU services

18


Domestic students were more likely to be aware of and use ASU resources than international students. However, international students were more aware about the ASU Career Services and ASU Health Services. Among the respondents, all the students from the West campus were aware of ASU Writing Center. They even showed a distinguishably higher awareness for Patient Advocate services than any other campuses’ students. Respondents from the Poly campus noted more awareness about ASU Career Services and Tempe campus students had more awareness about ASU Counselling Services. First degree professional students showed remarkably more awareness of Medical Withdrawal services, child care subsidy services, Student Advocate services, and Financial Aid Services than Doctorate and Master’s students. Doctorate students were more aware about ASU Health Services and the ASU Writing Center.

Table 7. Percent of respondent awareness among different groups

Misconduct & Reporting Almost half of the survey respondents noted that they knew how to report different types of misconducts (sexual misconduct, behavioral misconduct, academic misconduct, and retaliation reporting). About 65% of the respondents noted that they knew about resources for survivors of sexual misconduct.

19


Fig 21: Knowledge about types of misconduct reporting

According to the survey responses, 50% of the Doctoral or Master’s student respondents knew how to report misconduct, which was slightly more than the percentage of first degree professional students. The survey also showed that students knew more about reporting sexual and academic misconduct than about reporting a retaliation. Comparing among different campuses showed that students at the West campus were less aware of the process of reporting a retaliation and also that the population of students was almost equally divided among those who know how to report misconduct and those who did not. The survey reported that more International students knew about reporting misconduct than domestic students, by almost a 20% difference.

Fig 22: Knowledge about types of misconduct reporting

20


About 31% of the students who belonged to West Campus did not know about the resources for survivors of sexual misconduct, which was slightly larger than students at other campuses; 16% of students at the Tempe campus, 27% of students at the Poly campus, and 25% of students at the Downtown campus reported now knowing about resources for survivors of sexual misconduct. About 78% of international students were aware of the resources for survivors of sexual misconduct as compared to only 57% of domestic students. Out of 838 total responses, 4% (37) of students reported that they have experienced retaliation for reporting misconduct. Of those who experienced retaliation, about 48% were certain that the retaliation was related to the report and indicated that they are still facing it. Eighty one percent who noted experiencing retaliation were females, and 35% percent were international students. About 66% of respondents reported either that they did not report any misconduct or did not face any retaliation. Out of them, 34% raised concerns about “anonymity” and “confidentiality” of the reports as a reason for not reporting any misconduct, 47% stated either that they were not aware of such reports or reflected a need for more awareness and understanding of the process through training. Other reasons for not reporting included suggestions for means of easy and appropriate initial reporting, ways for improving relationships with students, and educating staff, students and faculty. Faculty Mentorship Most of the respondents reported they feel comfortable discussing careers (93%), coursework (91.5%), and research (71.8%) with their faculty mentor. However, only 14.4% of total respondents feel comfortable discussing male-female health with their mentor, 24.8% felt comfortable discussing general health, and 16.8% felt comfortable discussing LGBTQIA identities.

21


Fig.23 Percentage of respondents comfortable talking about topics with their faculty mentors

Fig.24 Comparison of mentor relationships for male and female respondents

Almost twice as many domestic students reported they feel comfortable discussing male-female health with their mentor (17.9%) as compared to international students (9.7%). Only 22% of international students reported they feel comfortable discussing family matters with their mentor, as compared to about 43% of

22


domestic students. About 23% of domestic students feel comfortable discussing LGBTQIA identities with their mentor as compared to 8.4% of international respondents.

Table 8. Comparison of mentor relationships

About 90% of Doctorate students responded that they feel comfortable discussing research with their mentor as compared to Master’s students (59.5%) and first degree professional students (55.6%). Additionally, 86% of Doctoral respondents, 80% of Master’s respondents, and 66% of first professional degree respondents reported feeling comfortable discussing their career with their faculty mentor. About 93% of Doctoral students, 90% of Master’s students, and 66% of first professional degree students responded that they feel comfortable discussing coursework with their mentors. However, many respondents did not feel comfortable discussing finances with their mentor; 11.1% of first degree professional students, 28.2% of Master’s students, and 32.7% of Doctoral students noted comfort in discussing finances with their faculty mentor. Finally, one third of first professional degree students responded with other topics that they felt comfortable discussing with their mentor, as compared to only 3.2% of Doctoral students and 4.6% of Master’s students.

FOOTNOTES 1. ASU Facts. (2019). Quick Facts Fall 2019. Retrieved from: https://www.asu.edu/facts/#/ 2. Please note that, due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100%.

23

https://www.asu.edu/facts/#/

2019 graduate and professional student …...association (gpsa) graduate student survey arizona...

Documents