follow-up survey of 2007-2008 community college … survey of 2007-2008 . community college...

Follow-up Survey of 2007-2008 Community College Graduates

CSM Report

May 2010

Planning, Institutional Effectiveness, and Research Office

Kathleen Rottier, Ph.D., Executive Director Chip Keech, Planning and Assessment Analyst (principal author)

Shannon Acton, Research Analyst Kathy Marshall, Institutional Research Analyst

Jennifer Houchin, Executive Assistant

Table of Contents

List of Tables .........................................................................................................................ii List of Figures ........................................................................................................................iii Executive Summary ...............................................................................................................v Introduction ............................................................................................................................1 Population and Limitations ....................................................................................................1 Methodology ..........................................................................................................................2 Data Tabulation ......................................................................................................................2 Results and Discussion: The Community College Experience.............................................2 Results and Discussion: Transfer Activities .........................................................................6 Results and Discussion: Employment Activities ..................................................................11 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................15 Appendix A: Survey Instrument ...........................................................................................A-1

Planning, Institutional Effectiveness, and Research (PIER) May 2010

2008 Graduate Follow-up Survey i

List of Tables

Table 1: Graduate Rating of Important Objectives ....................................................................................3 Table 2: Most Important Objective as Identified by Graduates .................................................................3 Table 3: Graduate Satisfaction with Educational Goal Achievement – MPAR 7/KPI G2-01 ..................4 Table 4: Attend Same Community College? .............................................................................................4 Table 5: Enroll in Same Program? .............................................................................................................5 Table 6: Improvement of Academic Skills and Increased Personal Change .............................................5 Table 7: Graduate Rating of Community College Experience ..................................................................6 Table 8: Where Transferred? .....................................................................................................................7 Table 9: Graduate Rating of Community College Transfer Preparation – MPAR 13/KPI G2-03 ............8 Table 10: Graduate Rating of Community College Transfer Preparation: 2005 Compared to 2008 ........8 Table 11: Current Major Same as Community College Program ..............................................................9 Table 12: Percent of Transfer Credit Acceptance ......................................................................................9 Table 13: Employment Status – CSM, Peers and State .............................................................................11 Table 14: Employment Status – CSM Trends ...........................................................................................11 Table 15: Percent of Career Program Graduates Employed Full-time in a Related Field – MPAR 20 ....12 Table 16: Graduate Rating of Community College Employment Preparation – MPAR 21/KPI G2-04 ...13 Table 17: Graduate Rating of Employment Preparation: 2005 Compared to 2008 ...................................14


2008 Graduate Follow-up Survey ii

List of Figures

Figure 1: Most Important Objective Achieved? ........................................................................................4 Figure 2: Education Since Graduating CSM? ............................................................................................7 Figure 3: Percent of Transfer Credit Acceptance ......................................................................................10 Figure 4: Reasons Courses with a Grade of “C” or Better Not Accepted .................................................10 Figure 5: Job Related to Community College Program .............................................................................12 Figure 6: Community College Preparation for Employment .....................................................................13 Figure 7: Distribution of Job Location of Graduates – Employed Full- or Part-time ...............................14 Figure 8: Current Gross Salary – Employed Full-time ..............................................................................15


2008 Graduate Follow-up Survey iii


2008 Graduate Follow-up Survey iv

Executive Summary

All community colleges in Maryland, in collaboration with the Maryland Higher Education Commission (MHEC), conduct follow-up surveys of their graduates every three years. Several items from the graduate follow-up survey are reported to MHEC as indicators in the annual Maryland Performance Accountability Report (MPAR) and to CSM stakeholders as Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) in CSM’s Quality Improvement Process (QIP). The purpose of the survey is to help community colleges and MHEC assess and improve programs and services. This report presents the results of the most current administration of the survey, conducted in 2009, of the 2007-2008 graduates. Where possible, peer and statewide averages have been included for comparison purposes, and trends from prior administrations of the survey at CSM are also included. The survey results are displayed and discussed beginning on page 2 under the three components of the survey: the college experience, transfer activities, and employment activities. Methodology and Population Planning, Institutional Effectiveness, and Research (PIER) utilized the 2008 Degree Information System (DIS) file to identify 755 students meeting the study criteria. The population for the study consists of all students who graduated from CSM in fiscal year 2008 (July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008) with an associate’s degree or certificate. PIER provided the student data to MHEC. MHEC prepared the surveys and sent them to CSM for mailing. The survey package included: a cover letter from Dr. Gottfried explaining the purpose of the survey and to encourage participation; the survey instrument; and a postage-paid return envelope to encourage recipients to respond. The survey package was mailed to students in May, 2009 with a deadline for return in June, 2009. Follow-up mailings were sent to non-responders two weeks after the initial mailing. Because the response rate was below the desired 30% after the deadline, PIER staff made 284 telephone calls to non-responders. This yielded 14 survey responses which raised the response rate to 32%. Completed surveys were mailed to MHEC for data tabulation. A data file with all CSM responses was provided to CSM from MHEC for internal use in March, 2010. Selected Findings Below is a list of selected findings from the survey results. A complete discussion of the results can be found in the Results and Discussion sections of the report, beginning on page 2 of this document.

• The respondents to this survey placed high importance on earning an associate’s degree or certificate (mean = 2.91) and lowest importance on updating skills for a current job (mean = 1.81) [scale of very important = 3 to not important = 1]. The results closely align with the peer mean and statewide mean ratings. (page 3)


2008 Graduate Follow-up Survey v

• A large majority (81%) felt their most important objective was achieved while almost all (96%) felt their most important objective was at least partly achieved. (page 4)

• The aspects of the community college experience most highly rated by CSM respondents were [scale of very good = 5 to very poor = 1]: overall college experience (mean = 4.42), overall quality of college (mean = 4.35) and quality of classroom instruction (mean = 4.27). The areas least highly rated were: job placement/referral services (mean = 3.39), academic advising (mean = 3.73) and student activities (mean = 3.75). (page 6)

• Of those respondents who graduated from transfer programs, three-quarters (75%) stated that CSM prepared them very well or well for transfer. This figure is reported as MPAR Indicator 13 and CSM KPI G2-03, “Graduate Satisfaction with Transfer Preparation”. (page 8)

• The survey results show that students are having more credits accepted by their transfer institutions than they did ten years ago. The biggest reason for non-acceptance of credits was that there was no comparable course offered at the transfer institution. (pages 9-10)

• Over one-half (56%) of the CSM respondents who graduated from a career program and are employed full-time work in the same field as the program from which they graduated. This figure is reported as MPAR Indicator 20, “Percent of Career Program Graduates Employed Full-Time in a Related Field”. (pages 11-12)

• Over one-third (36%) of the CSM respondents who graduated from a career program and are employed full-time working in the same field or a somewhat-related field of their program stated that the college prepared them very well for employment. This figure is reported as MPAR Indicator 21 and CSM KPI G2-04, “Graduate Satisfaction with Job Preparation”. (pages 12-13)

Conclusion Analyses of the results show that CSM graduates are much like their counterparts who graduated from other community colleges in Maryland. The CSM results for many of the questions closely align with peer and statewide averages. The CSM results show that graduates place high importance on earning an associate’s degree or certificate and preparing to transfer to a four-year institution. They expressed satisfaction with their educational goal achievement at CSM. CSM graduates rated the overall college experience and overall quality of the college highly. The CSM results also show that over one-half (57%) of the 2007-2008 graduates have transferred to four-year institutions, and three-quarters (75%) felt that they were well-prepared for transfer. Recent CSM graduates report greater success in having more of their community college credits accepted by their transfer institutions than those graduates from ten years ago.


2008 Graduate Follow-up Survey vi

The majority of the 2007-2008 graduates (84%) are employed on at least a part-time basis, with over three-quarters (77%) stating that CSM prepared them well for employment. A large majority (83%) of the graduates stated that they work in Maryland. Generally, the findings show that graduates are satisfied with the CSM college experience and the preparation received for transferring to four-year institutions and/or entering the workforce.


2008 Graduate Follow-up Survey vii


2008 Graduate Follow-up Survey vii

Follow-up Survey of 2007-2008 Community College Graduates College of Southern Maryland

Introduction All community colleges in Maryland, in collaboration with the Maryland Higher Education Commission (MHEC), conduct follow-up surveys of their graduates every three years. Prior to the administration of the 2004-2005 graduate follow-up survey administered in 2006, the survey was administered biennially. Several items from the graduate follow-up survey are reported to MHEC in the annual Maryland Performance Accountability Report (MPAR) and to CSM stakeholders as Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) in CSM’s Quality Improvement Process (QIP). The purpose of the survey is to help community colleges and MHEC assess and improve programs and services. The survey instrument, which can be found in Appendix A of this document, was revised by MHEC extensively with the most current administration of the survey. Several new questions were added to the survey, and choices available to survey respondents were modified for several questions. Because of this, current results may not be comparable to past results. Trends and percent changes from the previous survey results are presented throughout the document, but caution should be exercised when making inferences from this type of information. This report presents the results of the most current administration of the survey, conducted in 2009, of the 2007-2008 graduates. Throughout the document, the survey results are labeled representing the year of graduation (i.e., the “2008” results refer to the most recent survey administration, the “2005” results refer to the 2004-2005 graduate follow-up survey administered in 2006, and so on). Where possible, peer and statewide information have been included for comparison purposes. The survey results are displayed and discussed beginning on page 2 under the three components of the survey: the college experience, transfer activities, and employment activities. Population and Limitations The population of the survey consists of all students who graduated from CSM in fiscal year 2008 (July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008) with an associate’s degree or certificate. In February 2009, the Planning, Institutional Effectiveness, and Research Office (PIER) identified all students who graduated from CSM with an associate’s degree or certificate in fiscal year 2008 (July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008) using the 2008 Degree Information System (DIS) file. The total number of students identified was 755. Of this population, 232 students (31%) returned surveys to CSM. Because 18 of the 755 surveys were returned as undeliverable, the adjusted response rate was 32% (232/737). The response rate to the survey has remained very consistent over time; it was 31% for the three prior administrations (2004-2005, 2001-2002, and 1999-2000 graduates) of the graduate follow-up survey. The MHEC target for the survey response rate was 30%, and the community colleges’


2008 Graduate Follow-up Survey 1

response rates ranged from a high of 40.9% to a low of 16.8%. The statewide average response rate was 26.1%. The sample size yielded a margin of error of ±5.36% at the 95% confidence interval, slightly lower than the survey of 2004-2005 graduates. This means that we can be 95% confident that, if we had responses from all of the graduates, their responses would be the same as the sample, ±5.36%. Methodology PIER utilized the Degree Information System (DIS) file to identify 755 students meeting the study criteria (all students who graduated from CSM in fiscal year 2008 with an associate’s degree or certificate). PIER provided the student data to MHEC. MHEC prepared the surveys and sent them to CSM for mailing. Prior to sending the survey package to students, PIER sent a postcard to the CSM survey population informing them of the survey and a drawing that they would automatically be entered in for returning a completed survey. The survey package included: a cover letter from Dr. Gottfried explaining the purpose of the survey and to encourage participation; the survey instrument; and a postage-paid return envelope to encourage recipients to respond. The survey package was mailed to students in May, 2009 with a deadline for return of Friday, June 17, 2009. Follow-up mailings were sent to non-responders two weeks after the initial mailing. Because the response rate was below the desired 30% after the deadline, PIER staff made 284 telephone calls to non-responders. This yielded 14 survey responses which raised the response rate to 32%. Completed surveys were mailed to MHEC for data tabulation. Data Tabulation PIER used the survey instrument developed and required by MHEC. The survey instrument can be found in Appendix A of this document. The completed surveys were returned to MHEC for data tabulation. A data file with all CSM responses was provided to CSM from MHEC for internal use in March, 2010. MHEC prepared two reports of the information: The “Follow-up Survey of 2007-2008 Maryland Community College Graduates” which provides frequencies and cross-tabulations to many items from the survey, and the “2008 Community College Graduates Follow-up Survey Report”, which provides analyses of the data. Both documents can be found on MHEC’s website at http://www.mhec.state.md.us/publications/research/index.asp. Results and Discussion: The Community College Experience The first seven questions on the survey center around the experiences of community college graduates while they were in the community college. The first question on the survey asked graduates to rate several objectives that might be achieved by attending a community college as



http://www.mhec.state.md.us/publications/research/index.asp�

very important (3), somewhat important (2) or not important (1). Then, they were asked to mark, of those listed, the objective they considered most important. Table 1, below, shows the mean (average) of graduates’ responses for CSM, its peers (Frederick, Harford and Howard Community Colleges), and the statewide mean in descending order of importance as rated by CSM graduates. The respondents to this survey placed high importance on earning an associate’s degree or certificate (mean = 2.91) and lowest importance on updating skills for a current job (mean = 1.81). The results closely align with the peer mean and statewide mean ratings.

Table 1. Graduate Rating of Important Objectives (Question 1) CSM Peer State

Earn an associate's degree or certificate 2.91 2.82 2.84 Prepare for transfer to a four-year institution 2.53 2.48 2.40 Self enrichment 2.42 2.41 2.44 Prepare for entry into first career 2.04 2.04 2.00 Prepare for entry into different career 1.86 1.83 1.86 Update skills for current job 1.81 1.78 1.80

Table 2, below, displays the graduates’ ratings of the most important objective. The top two most important objectives as identified by the CSM respondents were to earn an associate’s degree or certificate (45%) and prepare for transfer to a four-year institution (31%). Those percentages are almost identical to the peer and statewide results.

Table 2. Most Important Objective as Identified by Graduates (Question 1) CSM Peer State # % # % # % Earn an associate's degree or certificate 98 45% 221 44% 1167 45% Prepare for transfer to a four-year institution 66 31% 165 33% 790 30% Prepare for entry into first career 22 10% 49 10% 238 9% Prepare for entry into different career 18 8% 37 7% 228 9% Update skills for current job 3 1% 7 1% 52 2% Self enrichment 9 4% 20 4% 138 5% Total 216 499 2613

Figure 1, next page, displays the percentages of CSM respondents that felt their most important objective, from Question 1, was completely achieved, partly achieved, or not at all achieved by the time they graduated. A large majority (81%) felt their most important objective was achieved while almost all (96%) felt their most important objective was at least partly achieved.



Figure 1. Most Important Objective Achieved? (Question 2)

Responses to question 2 are reported in MPAR Indicator 7 and CSM KPI G2-01 “Graduate Satisfaction with Education Goal Achievement”. Table 3, below, shows the information for the five instances of survey administration, along with the percent change from the last survey, and an indication of the trend of the data. The benchmark for this indicator is 95%; CSM’s current rate (96%) exceeds that benchmark. The trend of the data is flat, but also very high (ranging from 91% to 98%). The peer mean for 2008 is slightly higher than CSM’s with an increase of six percentage points over the last administration of the survey. Table 3. Graduate Satisfaction with Educational Goal Achievement (Question 2) - MPAR 7/KPI G2-01 Percent of respondents who completely or partly achieved their most important objective

1998 2000 2002 2005 2008 Change Trend CSM 98% 91% 92% 95% 96% 1% ◄► Peer 96% 95% 95% 92% 98% 6% ◄►

A new question to the survey is question 3, “If you had to do it over again, would you attend the same community college?”. Table 4, below, shows that the vast majority (91%) of respondents stated that they would, if they had to do it all over again, attend CSM again. This result mirrors the peer (91%) and statewide (92%) results with a slightly higher percentage (8%) unsure whether they would attend CSM again (peer = 4%, statewide = 6%). Table 4. Attend Same Community College? (Question 3)

CSM Peer State

# % # % # % Yes 211 91% 514 91% 2697 92% No 3 1% 24 4% 71 2% Not sure 18 8% 24 4% 165 6% Total 232 562 2933

Completely, 81%

Partly, 15%

Not at all, 4%



Another new question to the survey is question 4, “If you had to do it over again, would you enroll in the same program?”. Table 5, below, shows that nearly three out of four (71%) CSM graduates would enroll in the same program. This result mirrors the peer (71%) and exceeds statewide (69%) results. Table 5. Enroll in Same Program? (Question 4) CSM Peer State # % # % # % Yes 164 71% 401 71% 2017 69% No 35 15% 70 12% 422 14% Not sure 33 14% 90 16% 490 17% Total 232 561 2929

Questions 5 and 6, both new on the survey, asked graduates to rate how attending the community college affected their mastery of skills and increased personal change in certain areas. Table 6, below, presents the results to both of those questions, each in descending order by CSM graduates’ responses. A majority of CSM respondents believed that they improved their mastery of writing skills (93%), understanding of science and technology (91%), and mathematics skills (88%) by attending CSM. A majority of CSM respondents also stated they experienced increased clarity of educational and career goals (87%) and increased self-confidence (86%) by attending CSM. The CSM results are similar to the peer and statewide results.

Table 6. Improvement of Academic Skills and Increased Personal Change (Questions 5 and 6 ) CSM Peer State Academic Skills

Writing skills 93% 89% 89% Understanding of science and technology 91% 89% 90% Mathematics skills 88% 82% 83% Computer skills 85% 82% 82% Reading comprehension 82% 80% 81% Personal Change

Clarity of educational and career goals 87% 87% 88% Self-confidence 86% 86% 87% Enjoyment of learning 81% 83% 83% Appreciation of cultural diversity 63% 73% 71% Appreciation of art, music and literature 61% 67% 62%

Table 7, next page, shows the mean responses to question 7 which asked graduates to rate several aspects of the community college experience as very good (5), good (4), fair (3), poor (2), or very poor (1). Responses of no basis to judge were excluded from the calculation. This is a new question to the survey except for “overall quality of the college” which has been asked on



previous administrations of the survey. The table lists each area in descending order by CSM graduates’ mean rating. The areas most highly rated by CSM respondents were: overall college experience (mean = 4.42), overall quality of college (mean = 4.35) and quality of classroom instruction (mean = 4.27). The areas least highly rated were: job placement/referral services (mean = 3.39), academic advising (mean = 3.73) and student activities (mean = 3.75). The mean results for CSM, particularly the highest rated and lowest rated areas, are very similar to the peer and statewide mean ratings. The mean rating for overall quality of the college in the 2005 survey was 4.22 (compared to 4.35 in the most recent survey). Statistical significance testing, used to determine the likelihood that a finding or a result is caused by something other than just chance, was conducted between these two means; the test, conducted at the 95% confidence interval, determined that the difference in the means is not statistically significant.

Table 7. Graduate Rating of Community College Experience (Question 7) CSM Peer State Overall college experience 4.42 4.44 4.46 Overall quality of college 4.35 4.53 4.45 Quality of classroom instruction 4.27 4.32 4.35 Faculty availability/helpfulness 4.22 4.41 4.35 Library 4.17 4.34 4.18 Quality of online instruction 4.09 3.90 4.01 Access to information technology 4.07 4.26 4.20 Class scheduling 4.02 4.27 4.22 Tutorial services 3.98 4.14 4.07 Quality of laboratory equipment 3.96 4.08 4.09 Student activities 3.75 4.00 3.92 Academic advising 3.73 4.09 3.94 Job placement/referral services 3.39 3.63 3.55

Results and Discussion: Transfer Activities Questions 8 through 13 on the survey center around the transfer experiences of community college graduates. Question 8, a new question on the survey, asked graduates if they have taken courses at a college or university since graduating from their community college. Figure 2, next page, displays the transfer activities of CSM respondents. Over one-half (57%) stated that they have transferred to a four-year school on at least a half-time basis. Over one-third (37%) indicated that they have taken no college courses since graduating from CSM. Peer and statewide data are not available for this question.



Figure 2. Education Since Graduating CSM? (Question 8)

Question 9, new to the survey, asked graduates to indicate to which college or university they transferred. Table 8, below, shows the transfer colleges and universities, by type, of the CSM respondents. The highest number of respondents transferred to University of Maryland, University College, followed by Towson University, and University of Maryland, College Park.

Table 8. Where Transferred? (Question 9) Maryland Public Bowie State University 3 Frostburg State University 3 St. Mary's College of Maryland 9 Towson University 13 University of Baltimore 2 UM Baltimore 1 UM Baltimore County 2 UM College Park 11 UM University College 63 Maryland Private

College of Notre Dame 1 Stevenson University 1 Other MD Private 3 Out-of-State Public 8 Out-of-State Private 11 Other 2

Full-time at four-year

37%

Part-time at four-year

20%

Community college

6%

No courses since

graduation37%



Responses to question 10 are reported in MPAR Indicator 13 and CSM KPI G2-03 “Graduate Satisfaction with Transfer Preparation”. The percentages reported for this indicator reflect those respondents who graduated from a transfer program and rated their transfer preparation as very well or well. Table 9, below, shows the information for the past five instances of survey administration, along with the percent change from the last survey, and an indication of the trend of the data. The benchmark for this indicator is 83%; CSM’s current rate (75%) is below that benchmark. The trend of the CSM data is down, and the current rate is the lowest among the past five administrations of the survey. The peer and statewide averages for 2008 are slightly higher than CSM’s, with both dropping from the last survey administration. Statistical significance testing, used to determine the likelihood that a finding or a result is caused by something other than just chance, was conducted on the CSM responses to this question for the 2005 (mean = 4.14) and 2008 (mean = 4.05) surveys; the test, conducted at the 95% confidence interval, determined that the difference in the means is not statistically significant. Table 9. Graduate Rating of Community College Transfer Preparation as Very Well or Well (Question 10) – MPAR 13/KPI G2-03 Respondents who graduated from a transfer program 1998 2000 2002 2005 2008 Change Trend CSM 80% 80% 85% 81% 75% -6% ▼ Peer Mean 81% 84% 79% 85% 80% -5% ◄► State 80% 79% 85% 82% 79% -3% ◄►

The wording of the available responses to question 10 changed from the 2005 survey to the 2008 survey. It is important to note this, as it appears to have had a detrimental impact on the percentage of respondents who rated transfer preparation in the top two ratings. The middle category, previously fair – now moderately well, has increased from 14% to 23% while the top two ratings decreased; there seemed to be no impact to the bottom two ratings. Table 10, below, illustrates this point. Table 10. Graduate Rating of Community College Transfer Preparation (Question 10) – 2005 Survey Results Compared to 2008 Survey Results Respondents who graduated from a transfer program

2005 2008 Response # % Response # %

Very Good 29 40% Very Well 28 35%

Good 30 41% Well 32 40%

Fair 10 14% Moderately Well 18 23%

Poor 3 4% Poorly 0 0%

Very Poor 1 1% Very Poorly 2 3%

Total 73 80



Question 11, new to the survey, asked graduates to indicate whether their current major is related to the program from which they graduated at their community college. Table 11, below, shows the responses for those who indicated that they transferred, either full-time or part-time, to a four-year college or university. Over one-half of CSM graduates (53%) who transferred state that they are pursuing programs at four-year colleges or universities that are the same academic field as the program from which they graduated at CSM. This is slightly higher than the peers (49%) and statewide (50%) figures. More than four out of every five CSM graduates (83%) who transferred state that they are pursuing programs at four-year colleges or universities that are the at least somewhat-related to the academic field as the program from which they graduated at CSM. Again, this is slightly higher than the peers (78%) and statewide (80%) figures. Table 11. Current Major Same as Community College Program (Question 11) Respondents who transferred to four-year college or university

CSM Peer State

# % # % # %

Same academic field 69 53% 134 49% 690 50% Somewhat-related academic field 39 30% 79 29% 416 30% Different academic field 22 17% 60 22% 285 20% Total 130 273 1391 In question 12, respondents were asked to select a range of credit hours with a grade of “C” or better that were not accepted by their transfer college or university. Table 12, below, displays the CSM and statewide results for the five administrations of the survey. Peer comparison data is available only for the current survey. Both the CSM and statewide responses show that more credits are now accepted by transfer institutions than they were ten years ago. Table 12. Percent of Transfer Credit Acceptance (Question 12) Respondents who transferred to four-year college or university 1998 2000 2002 2005 2008 Change Trend CSM All credits accepted 16% 17% 45% 53% 40% -13% ▲

Lost 1-6 credits 63% 26% 36% 25% 29% 4% ▼

Lost over 6 credits 21% 56% 19% 23% 31% 8% ▼

Peer All credits accepted

46%

Lost 1-6 credits Data Not Available 30%

Lost over 6 credits

24%

State All credits accepted 14% 16% 45% 45% 40% -5% ▲

Lost 1-6 credits 50% 47% 32% 30% 32% 2% ▼

Lost over 6 credits 36% 37% 23% 26% 28% 2% ▼



Figure 3, below, shows the 2008 CSM responses to question 12 with all of the credit hour ranges that were available for selection.

Figure 3. Percent of Transfer Credits Not Accepted (Question 12)

Question 13, new to the survey, asked graduates to indicate reasons that the courses with a grade of “C” or better were not accepted. Figure 4, below, shows the results for CSM, peers and statewide responses. A slightly higher percentage of CSM graduates stated that the reason their courses would not transfer was because there was no comparable course offered at the transfer college or university. Figure 4. Reasons Courses with Grade of “C” or Better Not Accepted (Question 13)

None, 40%

1-6 credits, 29%

7-10 credits, 13%

11-15 credits, 4%

16-20 credits, 4%

More than 20 credits, 10%

5%

30%34%

12%8%

26%29%

11%6%

28% 29%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Changed major Earned over 60 credits No comparable course offered at transfer college

Other

CSM

Peer

State



Results and Discussion: Employment Activities Questions 14 through 18 on the survey center around the employment experiences of community college graduates. Table 13, below, displays the employment statuses stratified into four groups as reported by respondents from CSM, its peers, and statewide. CSM has more graduates reporting that they are working full-time (35 or more hours per week) and fewer that are unemployed (includes homemakers, unemployed, and retired) than those from the peer institutions and statewide.

Table 13. Employment Status - CSM, Peers and State (Question 14) CSM Peer State Employed full-time 59% 49% 55% Employed part-time 25% 29% 25% Active duty military 0 1% 1% Unemployed 16% 21% 19%

Table 14, below, displays the employment statuses as reported by the respondents for five instances of survey administration, along with the percent change from the last survey, and an indication of the trend of the data. This question changed with the current survey, and no longer asks whether the graduate is a full- or part-time student (now asked in question 8). The category active duty military was added to the current survey. Respondents were asked to mark all that apply. Although the percentage of those employed full-time has dropped since the last administration of the survey (from 66% in 2005 to 59% in 2008), the trend remains flat over the past five administrations of the survey. The percentages of those employed part-time and those that are unemployed are trending upward. Table 14. Employment Status - CSM Trends (Question 14)

1998 2000 2002 2005 2008 Change Trend Employed full-time 64% 56% 56% 66% 59% -7% ◄► Employed part-time 16% 22% 26% 18% 25% 7% ▲ Active duty military

0%

Full-time homemaker 5% 5% 5% 3% 4% 1% ▼ Unemployed and seeking a job 2% 1% 7% 4% 7% 3% ▲ Unemployed and not seeking a job 0% 1% 1% 1% 4% 3% ▲ Retired 0% 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% ◄►

Responses to question 15 are reported in MPAR Indicator 20 “Percent of Career Program Graduates Employed Full-Time in a Related Field”. The percentages reported for this indicator reflect those respondents who graduated from a career program and are employed full-time in jobs that are in the same field or are somewhat-related to the field of their academic major. Figure 5, next page, shows that over one-half (56%) of the CSM respondents who graduated from a career program and are employed full-time work in the same field as the program from



which they graduated. Four out of every five (80%) of those meeting that criteria work in at least a field somewhat-related to their program at CSM.

Figure 5. Job Related to Community College Program (Question 15)

Table 15, below, shows the results for question 15 for the five instances of survey administration, along with the percent change from the last survey, and an indication of the trend of the data. The benchmark for this indicator is 86%; CSM’s current rate (80%) is below that benchmark. The trend of the CSM data is down, and the current rate is the second-lowest among the five iterations of the survey. Peer and statewide comparison information for 2008 for this question is not provided in the reports prepared by MHEC. The trend for the peers, excluding the unavailable 2008 data, is upward. Statistical significance testing was conducted on the CSM responses to this question for the 2005 and 2008 surveys; the test, conducted at the 95% confidence interval, determined that the difference in the means is not statistically significant. Table 15. Percent of Career Program Graduates Employed Full-time in a Related Field (Question 15) – MPAR 20 1998 2000 2002 2005 2008 Change Trend CSM 88% 79% 86% 86% 80% -6% ▼ Peer 76% 86% 88% 88% n/a ▲

Responses to question 16 are reported in MPAR Indicator 21 and CSM KPI G2-04, “Graduate Satisfaction with Job Preparation”. The percentages reported for this indicator reflect those respondents who graduated from a career program, are employed full-time in jobs that are in the same field or are somewhat-related to the field of their academic major, and rated their preparation for employment as very well or well. Figure 6, next page, shows that over one-third (36%) of the CSM respondents who graduated from a career program and are employed full-time working in the same field or somewhat-related field of their program stated that the college prepared them very well for employment. Over three-quarters (77%) of those meeting that criteria stated that the college prepared them well or very well for employment.

Same field, 56%Somewhat-

related field, 24%

Different field, 20%



Figure 6. Community College Preparation for Employment (Question 16)

Table 16, below, shows the results for question 16 for the five instances of survey administration, along with the percent change from the last survey, and an indication of the trend of the data. The benchmark for this indicator is 83%; CSM’s current rate (77%) is below that benchmark. Although the current rate is the lower than the previous rate, the overall trend for CSM is moving upward. Peer and statewide comparison information for 2008 is not available. The trend for the peers, excluding the unavailable 2008 data, is upward. Statistical significance testing was conducted on the CSM responses to this question for the 2005 and 2008 surveys; the test, conducted at the 95% confidence interval, determined that the difference in the means is not statistically significant. Table 16. Graduate Rating of Community College Employment Preparation (Question 16) – MPAR 21/KPI G2-04 Rating of Very Well or Well

1998 2000 2002 2005 2008 Change Trend CSM 72% 71% 80% 78% 77% -1% ▲

Peer 80% 82% 89% 85% n/a ▲ As with question 10 of the survey, the wording of the available responses to question 16 changed from the 2005 survey to the 2008 survey. It is important to note this, as it appears to have had a detrimental impact on the percentage of respondents who rated transfer preparation in the top two ratings. The middle category, previously fair – now moderately well, has increased from 8% to 23% while the top two ratings decreased; there seemed to be little impact to the other ratings. Table 17, next page, illustrates this point.

Very well, 36%

Well, 41%

Moderately well, 23%



Table 17. Graduate Rating of Employment Preparation (Question 16) – 2005 Survey Results Compared to 2008 Survey Results

2005 2008 Choices # % Choices # %

Very Good 23 36% Very Well 24 36%

Good 32 50% Well 27 41%

Fair 5 8% Moderately Well 15 23%

Poor 0 0% Poorly 0 0%

Very Poor 1 2% Very Poorly 0 0%

No Basis to Judge 3 5%

0 0%

Total 64 66 Question 17, significantly revised in the current survey, asked graduates to indicate where their primary job is located. Figure 7, below, shows the current results for CSM respondents. Of those CSM graduates who stated that they work either a full- or part-time job, the large majority (83%) stated that they currently work in Maryland.

Figure 7. Distribution of Job Location of Graduates – Employed Full- or Part-time (Question 17)

Working in Maryland

83%

Working in Washington,

D.C.8%

Other location

9%



Question 18, new to the survey, asked graduates to identify the income range of their current gross salary (before overtime, deductions and taxes). Figure 8, below, shows the current results for CSM respondents who stated they work a full-time job. The results are fairly evenly split with the lowest percentage falling in the less than $20,000 range.

Figure 8. Current Gross Annual Salary – Employed Full-time (Question 18)

Conclusion Maryland’s community colleges work collaboratively with the Maryland Higher Education Commission to administer follow-up surveys of their graduates every three years. The purpose of the survey is to help community colleges and MHEC assess and improve programs and services. The survey instrument was significantly expanded for this administration period and consists of three components: the college experience, transfer activities, and employment activities. Survey results are reported in key decision-making documents such as in Indicators 7, 13, 20, and 21 of the Maryland Performance Accountability Report (MPAR) and Indicators G2-01, G2-03, and G2-04 of the CSM Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that are shared with the stakeholders of the institution. The results and discussion sections of the report display the benchmarks established for each of these indicators, along with peer comparisons and trends for the past five administrations of the survey. CSM has experienced mixed results for these indicators, with current results for three of the four indicators (MPAR 13, 20, and 21) falling below the established benchmarks. The trends for these indicators also are mixed with MPAR 21 trending upward, MPAR 7 flat, and MPAR 13 and 20 trending downward. It is important to note the discussion contained in the report about the changes to the wording of the questions used for MPAR indicators 13 and 21 and how these changes seem to have had a negative impact on the results when compared to previous survey results. Analyses of the results show that CSM graduates are much like their counterparts who graduated from other community colleges in Maryland. The CSM results for many of the questions closely align with peer and statewide averages.

6%

19%

15%

15%

18%

12%

15%

Less than $20,000

$20,000 to $29,999

$30,000 to $39,999

$40,000 to $49,999

$50,000 to $59,000

$60,000 to $69,999

$70,000 or more



The CSM results show that graduates place high importance on earning an associate’s degree or certificate and preparing to transfer to a four-year institution. They expressed satisfaction with their education goal achievement at CSM, and also stated that they improved their academic skills such as writing skills and understanding of science and technology by attending CSM. Attending CSM also helped graduates gain clarity of their educational and career goals and gain self-confidence. CSM graduates rated the overall college experience and overall quality of the college highly. The CSM results also show that over one-half (57%) of the 2007-2008 graduates have transferred to four-year institutions with most of them transferring to University of Maryland, University College; Towson University; and University of Maryland, College Park. Three-quarters (75%) felt that they were well-prepared for transfer. Recent CSM graduates report that they are more successful in having more of their community college credits accepted by their transfer institutions than those graduates from ten years ago. The majority of the 2007-2008 graduates (84%) are employed on at least a part-time basis, with over one-half (56%) of those employed full-time stating that they work in the same academic field as their program of study at CSM. Over three-quarters (77%) felt that CSM prepared them well for employment. A large majority (83%) of the graduates stated that they work in Maryland. Generally, the findings show that graduates are satisfied with the CSM college experience and the preparation received for transferring to four-year institutions and/or entering the workforce.



Appendix A: Survey Instrument

Follow-up Survey of 2007-2008 Maryland Community College Graduates


2008 Graduate Follow-up Survey A-1

FOLLOW-UP SURVEY OF 2007-2008 Maryland Community College Graduates

The purpose of this survey is to help your community college and the Maryland Higher Education Commission assess and improve programs. Please complete this questionnaire and return it in the pre-paid envelope provided. All individual responses will remain confidential. Thank you for your assistance in helping us evaluate our programs and services. 1. Below are several objectives one might achieve at a community college. In the left-hand columns,

please rate how important each of these objectives was to you. Then, in the far-right column, mark the one that was your SINGLE MOST important objective.

Very Important

Somewhat Important

Not important

Mark the most important objective (Select only one)

O O O Earn an Associate’s Degree or Certificate O O O O Prepare for transfer to a four-year institution O O O O Prepare for entry into first career O O O O Prepare for entry into different career O O O O Update skills for current job O O O O Self Enrichment O

2. Was your most important objective (as reported in Q. 1 above) achieved by the time you graduated

from your community college?

O Completely O Partly O Not at all 3. If you had to do it over again, would you attend the same community college?

O Yes O No O Not sure

4. If you had to do it over again, would you enroll in the same program?

O Yes O No O Not sure

5. Please rate how attending your community college affected your mastery of each of the following

skills.

Mastery of Skills As a Result of Community College Attendance

Improved a Great Deal

Improved a Fair Amount

No Improvement

At All Writing skills O O O Mathematics skills O O O Understanding of science and technology O O O Reading comprehension O O O Computer skills O O O

6. Please rate how attending your community college affected you in each of the following areas.

Personal Change As a Result of

Community College Attendance

Increased a Great Deal

Increased Somewhat

Remained the Same

Appreciation of art, music and literature O O O Clarity of educational and career goals O O O Self-confidence O O O Appreciation of cultural diversity O O O Enjoyment of learning O O O

7. Please rate each of the following aspects of your community college experience. Mark the

response that most closely reflects your opinion. Choose “No basis to judge” if you did not have any experience with an item. Very

Good Good

Fair

Poor

Very Poor

No basis to judge

Overall college experience O O O O O O Quality of classroom instruction O O O O O O Quality of online instruction O O O O O O Quality of laboratory equipment O O O O O O Faculty availability/helpfulness O O O O O O Class scheduling O O O O O O Academic advising O O O O O O Library O O O O O O Tutorial services O O O O O O Student activities O O O O O O Job placement/referral services O O O O O O Access to information technology O O O O O O Overall quality of college O O O O O O

TRANSFER COLLEGE INFORMATION 8. Have you taken courses at a college or university since graduating from your community college?

(Select only one)

O Yes, primarily as a full-time student at a 4-year institution. (12 or more credits per semester) O Yes, primarily as a part-time student at a 4-year institution. (less than 12 credits per semester) O Yes, primarily as a student at a community college. (Skip to Q. 14) O No, I have not taken any courses since graduating. (Skip to Q. 14)

9. To which 4-year college or university did you transfer?

Maryland Public Selected MD Private O Bowie State Univ. O Baltimore Hebrew O Stevenson University O Coppin State College O Capitol College (formerly Villa Julie) O Frostburg State Univ O College of Notre Dame O Washington College O Morgan State Univ O Columbia Union O Other MD Private Inst O Salisbury Univ O Goucher College Specify: O St. Mary’s College O Hood College _____________________ O Towson Univ O Johns Hopkins Univ _____________________ O Univ of Baltimore O Loyola College Other O UM Baltimore O Maryland Inst Col of Art O Out-of State Private O UM Baltimore County O McDaniel College (W. MD) O Out-of-State Public O UM College Park O Mt. St. Mary’s Univ Specify: O UM Eastern Shore O St. John’s College _____________________ O UM University College O Sojourner- Douglass _____________________

10. How well did your community college prepare you for transfer to this 4-yr institution?

O Very Well O Well O Moderately Well O Poorly O Very Poorly

11. Is your current major in the same academic field as the program from which you graduated at your community college?

O Same academic field O Somewhat related academic field O Different academic field

12. How many credit hours with a “C” or better were NOT accepted by your transfer college/university?

O None O 1-6 O 7-10 O 11-15 O 16-20 O More than 20 13. Why were the courses with a “C” or better NOT accepted? (Mark all that apply.)

O Changed major O No comparable course offered at the transfer college O Earned over 60 credits O Other (please specify)__________________________

EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION 14. What is your current employment status? (Mark all that apply)

O Employed full-time (35 or more hours per week) O Employed part-time (less than 35 hours per week) O Active duty military O Full-time homemaker O Unemployed and seeking a job O Unemployed and not seeking a job O Retired

15. How is your job related to your community college program?

O Same field O Somewhat related field O Different field 16. How well did your community college prepare you for employment?

O Very well O Well O Moderately Well O Poorly O Very Poorly 17. Where is your primary job located?

O Allegany O Cecil O Kent O Washington County O Washington DC O Anne Arundel O Charles O Montgomery O Wicomico O Pennsylvania O Baltimore City O Dorchester O Prince George’s O Worcester O Virginia O Baltimore County O Frederick O Queen Anne’s O Delaware O Calvert O Garrett O St. Mary’s O West Virginia O Caroline O Harford O Somerset O Other Area O Carroll O Howard O Talbot __________ 18. Please select the range that includes your current gross annual salary (before overtime,

deductions, and taxes)? PLEASE REMEMBER, ALL RESPONSES ARE CONFIDENTIAL!

O Less than $20,000 O $45,000 to $49,999 O $20,000 to $24,999 O $50,000 to $54,999 O $25,000 to $29,999 O $55,000 to $59,999 O $30,000 to $34,999 O $60,000 to $64,999 O $35,000 to $39,999 O $65,000 to $69,999 O $40,000 to $44,999 O $70,000 or more

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 19. Please use the space below to enter any additional comments that you would like to share

concerning your community college experience (e.g. what you liked best about your community college experience, what you would suggest to improve the community college experience, etc.).

Thank you for completing this questionnaire.

Please return it in the enclosed prepaid envelope.

If you selected any of these three options, please Continue to Q. 15. Otherwise, SKIP to Q. 19.

follow-up survey of 2007-2008 community college … survey of 2007-2008 . community college...

Documents