1

AGS Internal Committee Report: Graduate Student Life Survey

2014-2015

Committee members:

Raquel Borges-GarciaVice President of Internal Affairs

William DevannyInternal Committee Member

Armond Franklin-MurrayInternal Committee Member

Rebecca GradyData Analyst, Internal Committee Member

Michelle Ka Yu ChanuInternal Committee Member

Nicole WinterInternal Committee Member

2

Introduction

MOTIVATION FOR GRADUATE STUDENT LIFE SURVEY

The Internal Committee of the Associated Graduate Students (AGS) launched the Graduate Student Survey with the intention of identifying the key strengths and weaknesses present in the UCI graduate student experience. The motivation behind this survey was to collect and present comprehensive, empirical data, to aid not only AGS in its advocacy efforts on behalf of graduate students, but also to provide information for ou campus partners regarding current student needs. With advocacy in mind, this report focuses most heavily on areas we have identified as needing the most improvement or further attention. These areas include mental health, housing, parking, income, professional development, and awareness of AGS programming and services, therefore, this report contains sections that focus on each of those specific areas of interest.

SURVEY METHODOLOGY AND BASIC RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS

We collected data for the Graduate Student Life Survey using Qualtrics Survey Software, using a sampling frame based on all currently-enrolled UCI graduate student emails as of winter quarter 2015. To bolster the response rate, we offered raffle prizes to students who completed this survey. We used a tiered prize system in which additional prizes would be “unlocked” with increasing rates of participation. This was done to increase participation rates without substantially decreasing the chances of winning a prize. 1,224 surveys were started, yielding a 87% completion rate. 1,058 graduate students completed this year’s survey out of 5,152 total graduate students at UCI in the 2014-2015 academic year, or 19.95%. 62% of respondents are doctoral students, 37% are Master’s students, and 1% are students receiving credentials in Education. 18.6% of survey respondents were from biological and physical sciences, 25.7% from engineering and computer science departments, 10.0% from health sciences and medicine (nursing, pharmaceutical sciences, public health, and medicine), 31.9% from business, education, social sciences, and social ecology departments, 8.1% from arts and humanities schools, and 5.6% from the Law school. Respondents were also given the option to respond as “other”, therefore, the percentages may not sum up to 100%.

Respondents were, on average, 27.7 years old, and 2.5 years into their graduate program (as of Winter 2015), with an even split between men and women (51% female). Most were full time students (90.1%) and California residents (69%). 34% were White non-Hispanic, 19% were Asian or Pacific Islander, 9% were Hispanic, 2% were Black non-Hispanic, and 1% were American Indian / Alaskan Native. 21% of total respondents were International students and 14% declined to state their ethnicity.

While we attempted to maximize the representativeness of our survey by capturing as many individuals across a wide array of graduate students subgroups, several questions pertained to only certain subsets of respondents. Additionally, blank or “Not applicable”

3

responses were removed from analysis item-by-item. As a result, final analytic sample sizes may vary across sections and findings.

OVERVIEW OF KEY FINDINGS

Although students are satisfied with various aspects of life at UCI, there are several aspects causing stress and dissatisfaction with UCI graduate students. Open-ended responses showed that key complaints of survey respondents were lack of community, stressful financial experiences, unmanageable workloads, and stress from housing. Some respondents also cite identity issues and religious intolerance as sources of stress. Unsurprisingly, finances were often listed as a significant source of stress, primarily with regards to overall funding levels, availability of teaching assistantships, and summer funding for research.

Responses also showed that a large proportion of students are still dissatisfied with healthcare options on campus, with issues ranging from limited availability of physicians/specialists to poor service. Lastly, respondents also reported some inappropriate conduct from faculty members, with students reporting condescending behavior, emotional and verbal outbursts, sexual harassment, and sexism.

HOUSINGMany graduate students choose to live on campus for various reasons, such as being

part of the UCI community, proximity to campus, and cheaper rent prices. However, there are also a significant portion of students who choose to live off campus for reasons, such as better night life or better accommodations for families. In this survey, 50% of the students lived off campus, and are not included in analyses of housing satisfaction except when otherwise indicated. Although the majority of students living on-campus report being moderately satisfied with their housing community, both the 2013-2014 and the 2014-2015 survey results indicate that there are several students struggling with numerous housing-related issues, such as rent, parking, and access to campus housing.

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

Approximately three-quarters of survey respondents who live on campus reported overall satisfaction with their housing communities. But consistent with last year’s findings, our results highlight a few outstanding concerns. Housing affordability remains a source of financial strain for respondents. Over one-third of students reported that they could not afford to pay rent their rent or live comfortable after paying their rent. Other concerns include availability of visitor parking and services.

4

Table 1: Satisfaction with Housing Communities

Housing Community Responses Percent Satisfied

Palo Verde 249 65.9%

Verano Place 281 72.9%

Campus Village 18 77.8%

Vista Del Campo 14 71.4%

VDC Norte 13 76.9%

Puerta Del Sol 7 85.7%

Camino Del Sol 2 100%

Total On-Campus 584 70.4%

HOUSING SATISFACTION

Graduate students appear to be satisfied with the on-campus housing opportunities with 70% of respondents reporting overall satisfaction. However, satisfaction depended in part of where residents lived. Compared to last year’s results, a lower percentage of Palo Verde residents reported satisfaction compared to residents of other communities (79% last year to 666% this year). Verano residents also expressed decreased satisfaction with their community since last year (from 77% last year to 73% this year). We suspect increased rent costs and limited availability of visitor parking contributed to this result.

Our findings did not reveal statistically significant gender differences: 73% of women and 67% of men, and 71% of those who identified as another gender were satisfied with their on-campus housing communities. There were also no statistically significant differences in housing satisfaction based on age, race/ethnicity, or family status (e.g. whether they had a partner or children).

Students who live off campus, whether by choice or otherwise, are far less satisfied housing overall – only 28% of them are satisfied, compared to 70% of on-campus students. This is how they view UCI’s housing services, not how they view the off-campus community they live in. Future surveys should follow up on why people view housing services negatively and what their reasons for moving off campus. Open-ended comments showed some recurring reasons students chose to live off-campus, including: living with family nearby, difficult application process, lack of one-bedroom apartments, noise/quality/amenities, not being able to definitely choose community/roommate/move in date, not allowing pets, rent cost, being on a waitlist, and inability for professional students to obtain available housing. Medical and law students also mentioned difficulties with their academic calendar not matching up with housing schedules.

5

PRIMARY SOURCE OF FINANCIAL STRESS

Housing or rent costs are the primary source of financial stress for respondents. Over one-third of respondents (36.6%) living on campus reported that they did not earn enough money to pay their rent and/or could pay their rent but did not have enough money remaining to live comfortably.

Our survey reports that most students who live on campus pay between $700-799 per month on rent while earning on average between $1,700-1,899 per month, indicating that they spend between 41.17-42.07% of their wages on rent. This percentage sits above the federal recognized rate for affordable housing, which is 30% of household annual income (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development). Table 2: Graduate Student Housing Prices

Housing CommunityMonthly Rent

Single (Cost / Bedroom)

Family (Cost / Unit)

Palo Verde

● Studio & 1 Bedroom $805 - 1,013 $805 - 1,013

● 2 Bedroom $632 - 796 $1,264 - 1,592

● 3 Bedroom $647 $1,941

Verano Place

● 1 Bedroom $945 $945

● 2 Bedroom $509 - 746 $1,018 - 1,492

● 3 Bedroom $368 $1,104

Campus Village

● 2 Bedroom $731 N/A

Puerta Del Sol

● Studio $1,177 - 1,277 $1,177- ,1277

● 1 Bedroom $1,450 $1,450

● 2 Bedroom (shared bedrooms) $630 $630

Vista Del Campo & VDV Norte

6

● 1 Bedroom $1,313 - 1,360 N/A

● 2 Bedroom $955 - 1,026 N/A

● 3 Bedroom $917 - 988 N/A

● 4 Bedroom $820 N/A

70.4% of on campus residents are satisfied with overall housing services. In contrast, only 28.2% of off-campus residents are satisfied with UCI housing services, indicating that maybe these people left UCI housing or were unable to find housing (for a myriad of reasons). Further surveys should inquire as to why people chose to live off-campus.

When examining the housing communities separately, there were no overall significant differences between the communities with regards to satisfaction with resident parking, overall satisfaction, quality of housing, and process of obtaining housing. We did see a few significant differences with regards to resident satisfaction, particularly in terms of visitor parking availability and affordability. Specifically, ACC residents are the least satisfied with affordability, but the most satisfied with visitor parking. Those living in Campus Village had the lowest satisfaction with visitor parking (M=1.88, scale 1-5), followed by Palo Verde residents (M= 2.62). We also found that gender did not have a significant effect on overall satisfaction with housing, although those who identified as LGBTQ* (73% satisfied, n=11) had the highest level of satisfaction, followed by cisgender women (61% satisfied, n= 388), followed by cisgender men (58% satisfied, n=375).

Lastly, we assessed graduate student satisfaction rates with the availability of parking on campus housing communities. Currently, on-campus students must register their visitors’ license plates online; students receive a finite number of visitor parking hours per year; and visitors may only park in a few designated visitor spots. Last year over half of respondents (58%) were satisfied with visitor parking in their housing communities, this year it dropped down to 45%. Notably, every community has gone down significantly since last year’s survey, with the exception of ACC. Not surprisingly, Campus Village had the lowest satisfaction rating, since it does not offer any free visitor parking opportunities to its residents. It is important to note that Campus Village’s parking policies are fundamentally different from all other student housing communities, since Campus Village is the only graduate community located on the main campus. Given the limited number of parking posts, both resident and visitor parking spots are in high demand. Lack of visitor parking was mentioned much more often than issues with resident parking, of those, respondents usually complained about having to park farther away from their homes than desired. Future surveys should also examine the effect of the “flex” parking spots implemented in Palo Verde this year, since those allow for a few more visitor spots to be available on the weekends.

Table 3: Graduate Student Satisfaction with Visitor Parking

7

Housing community Responses Percent Satisfied

13-14 14-15 13-14 14-15

American Campus Communities 44 27 75% 81%

Verano Place 248 275 71% 52%

Campus Village 14 16 50% 13%

Palo Verde 214 239 41% 34%

Total 520 557 58% 45%

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Although a large portion of respondents (70.4%) were generally satisfied with their housing communities, satisfaction did go down from last year (77%). Students’ feelings regarding housing varied widely from extremely positive to severely disappointed. One of the main issues seen in the survey responses is the difficulty of paying rent given the current stipend level for graduate students. This is especially true for residents of more expensive on-campus housing options such as American Campus Communities. Notably, student housing has thus far been able to place all graduate students applicants with a housing guarantee in their first choice housing communities. It would be extremely beneficial to be able to continue this practice, since involuntary placement in a more expensive housing community could be financially devastating to students with lower stipend levels.

It is also important to note that the complaints raised in this survey are not necessarily representative of all student experiences with housing, however, they are very serious concerns for the students affected. Some of these issues, such as lack of access to housing or confusing information, can be especially problematic for certain populations such as international and master’s students. One issue that seems to impact almost all graduate students is the dire need for more affordable housing options. Graduate students are spending a large portion of their income on rent, above the federally recommended guideline for “affordable” housing, making housing one of the main sources of financial stress for our students. Although this year there has been increased programming aimed at teaching graduate students how to manage their finances, this fall short of providing graduate students either cheaper housing or higher stipends. To further address rent prices and other housing issues reported here, we continue to stress the importance of AGS representatives playing a role in decisions or policies regarding graduate student housing through committees such as the Coordinated Governance Group (CGG).

MENTAL HEALTH AND WELLNESS

8

The health and overall well-being of graduate students is a key concern to AGS, and our findings suggest that a significant portion of UCI graduate students are still unhappy or stressed throughout their graduate careers. A troublesome finding is that many of these students are not seeking help, unable to find help on campus, or using coping mechanisms which may be maladaptive.

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

The majority of graduate students at UCI view their experiences here as at least somewhat positive, although there are still several mental health issues that are not currently being addressed. Finances, unsurprisingly, are the biggest source of stress for the students, followed by poor work/life balance and TA responsibilities. Interestingly, culture shock was also a significant source of stress for students, potentially hinting at a need for better orientation practices.

SOURCES OF STRESS

Graduate students face many responsibilities and potential stressors, such as research, teaching, outside responsibilities, and relationships. To better understand the possible sources of stress, we asked respondents to select their major sources of stress. Table 4 lists the percentage of respondents who said the item had a negative or very negative effect on their well-being.

Table 4: Major Sources of Stress for Graduate Students

Sources of Stress Percentage

Finances 54.5%

Work/Life Balance 37.4%

TA responsibilities 32.0%

Mental Health 31.2%

Physical Health 23.2%

Culture Shock 22.9%

Course work 20.5%

Employment outside UCI 20.1%

Roommate relationship 18.8%

Research 15.9%

Department Culture 13.5%

9

Identity-based stress 12.3% (Gender or sexual orientation)15.6% (Race/ethnicity)15.3% (Other identity)

Advisor relationship 9.5%

Family/spouse/partner relationship 7.4% (Spouse/partner)5.9% (Family)

Social Life/Recreation 5.4%

Note: Because respondents could select multiple reasons, cumulative total > 100%.

Finances, work-life balance, and employment

The top three sources of stress were work-related issues, such as poor work-life balance and financial difficulties. 37.4% of students struggle to maintain a good work-life balance, which can be extremely important for overall health and well-being. Many of these complaints may come from students struggling to juggle their family lives along with their academic responsibilities. 58.6% of respondents with children report not being able to afford childcare expenses, and 41.1% of these respondents do not feel accommodated by the UCI community. These findings suggest that as the profile of the “typical” graduate student changes throughout the years to include more non-traditional and older students, the UCI community must change also to accommodate different needs, such as better childcare and other services.

TA responsibilities was also listed as one of the top sources of stress for graduate students. This finding is not surprising given the number of departments changing the number of years of guaranteed TAships. 28.7% of students feel they do not have adequate opportunities for on campus employment (such as TAships), and for those students who do are employed as TAs, 29.1% report frequently being overwhelmed by their responsibilities. One solution to this problem could be to increase the available funding for departments to hire TAs, thus reducing both financial and academic stress for graduate students. We recognize that many of these budgetary decisions are a consequence of lower allocations by the Governor of California; therefore, we stress the importance for AGS lobbyists to continue working towards increasing state funding for all the UC campuses and for departments to continue researching and providing services to aid students in receiving extramural funding.

COPING AND UTILIZATION OF SERVICES

Most graduate students are enrolled in the Graduate Student Health Insurance Program (GSHIP), which provides primary care via the Student Health Center (SHC). Perhaps the most troubling finding from this section, is that despite high levels of stress among graduate students, many do not seek help or are unable to find help. Only 54.1% of our respondents report

10

knowing where to go if they need psychiatric services, 12.3% report they would not seek professional help for mental health issues, and 21.3% report they would not seek professional help for chronic stress.

Equally troubling are the relatively high levels of dissatisfaction with various campus services such as the student health center and the counseling center (see Table 5). The highest amount of dissatisfaction was seen in the General Medicine section of the Student Health Center (compared to psychiatric services and the counseling center). The main complaint for all healthcare providers on campus is the difficulty in acquiring a referral for off-campus services. Oftentimes, due to either low staff numbers or limited resources for specialized care, students need to seek physicians or services off-campus, but need to get a referral first. This process can takes weeks, or even months, often requiring multiple visits to the student health center on campus before the student is able to get the care he/she requires. This contributes to not only prolonged periods of pain, sickness, and discomfort for graduate students, but also decreased satisfaction with overall UCI experience. We recommend that the referral process be streamlined.

Students are also dissatisfied with the long wait hours for both non-urgent AND urgent appointments. Urgent care is critical to students, especially those living on campus and long wait times is a troubling concern for those cases. Students have also complained that for cases requiring on-going care, such as in the treatment of chronic conditions, it is extremely difficult to schedule health center visits in a way that does not interfere with overall life. Ultimately, we would like graduate students with chronic conditions to be able to function professionally as well as students without such conditions, however, this is often not the case. More staff in the student health center might help with the scheduling problems often encountered by students requiring on-going care.

Table 5: Percent of students who are UNSATISFIED on the following dimensions:

Counseling Center

Student Health Center - General Medicine

Student Health Center- Psychiatric

Wait times for urgent appointments

19.3% 31.8% 18.4%

Wait times for non-urgent appointments

22.1% 34.7% 19.8%

Availability of ongoing care

23.1% 20.2% 19.0%

Ease of referral process for off-campus providers

27.5% 35.0% 19.4%

Respect from staff 8.5% 10.1% 11.8%

11

Overall % dissatisfied 5.6% 13.8% 5.3%

Note: Because respondents could select multiple reasons, cumulative total > 100%.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Although students largely enjoy their experience at UCI, they are still facing several challenges. Some of these challenges are not unique to UCI and are faced by every graduate student, such as learning to balance work and personal life. However, many students are also facing some challenges that may interfere with their ability to focus on their research, such as financial difficulties and feeling overwhelmed by research and TA duties.

We have the following recommendations for both campus stakeholders and AGS:

● Improve health care services, particularly with regards to the referral process for off-campus services.

● Address stressors, particularly financial stress and promote safe avenues for graduate students to seek support.

● Address professional development issues, particularly to ensure that students are aware of both university and industry paths, and skills development necessary for both trajectories.

Campus Climate

Campus climate plays a critical role in shaping the graduate and professional student experience at UCI. Campus climate is defined in the current survey and report as “the current attitudes, behaviors and standards of faculty, staff, administrators and students, concerning the level of respect for individual needs, abilities, and potential” (Rankin & Associates, 2014).

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

Graduate and professional students have reported difficulties with identity-based stress, particularly in the form of discrimination based on religion and gender. Students, particularly women, have also experienced inappropriate behavior from faculty, ranging from sexual harassment to verbal abuse. Race/ethnicity differences exist in experience stress from racial identity and physical and mental health.

IDENTITY-BASED STRESS

Identity-based stress can come in many different forms. Some survey participants reported issues with campus-wide and/or departmental discrimination based on race, gender

12

identity, sexual orientation, or cultural/socioeconomic background. Although we did not find any significant racial or gender differences in receiving respect, encouragement, or social support from faculty, we did find gender differences in experiencing identity stress (in terms of gender/sexual identity), mental health stress, and inappropriate conduct from faculty members. (NOTE: Some of these were conducted with very few participants so results may change with larger sample size).

Generally, those who are classified as “non-cisgendered-binary”, meaning they do not ascribe to the gender (male or female) with which they are born, face more identity and mental health stress. They also report experiencing more frequent instances of inappropriate behavior from faculty. Women (cisgender or otherwise) also reported facing inappropriate behavior from faculty member than men (23% of cisgender women reported inappropriate behavior from faculty vs. 15% of cisgender men, χ2(2)=11.726, p=.003).

There were also significant differences based on students reported race/ethnicity. Specifically, Black and Hispanic students were far more likely the report experiencing a negative effect from stress related to their race or ethnicity. International students were also most likely to experience more problems from mental health and physical health. White and Hispanic students were also more likely to report mental health having a negative effect on their well being. There were no significant differences in race for experiencing other identity-based stress or issues related to faculty interactions (e.g. experiencing respect and support from faculty, witnessing inappropriate behavior).

Table 6: Percent of students for whom the following has a negative effect on their well-being

Race/ethnicity stress Mental health Physical Health

Percent n Percent n Percent n

Asian/Pacific Islander 17.5% 177 30.1% 199 27.1% 199

Black, non-Hispanic 52.2% 23 25.0% 24 16.7% 24

White, non-Hispanic 4.2% 262 39.3% 356 25.1% 358

Hispanic 32.9% 85 39.3% 59 29.2% 89

Native American/Alaskan 11.1% 9 41.7% 12 41.7% 12

International 19.1% 199 22.2% 216 15.6% 218

Student comments

13

There were a total of 111 open-ended responses in this section. 71 participants reported unprofessional conduct from faculty, such as condescending behavior and emotional outbursts. Sexual harassment and sexism were also reported in 16% of participants.

Lastly, 60 of these participants cite identity issues as a large source of stress. 28.13% also mention religious intolerance to be a great portion of this stress.

These issues are particularly salient as UCI accepts greater numbers of international students every year. Campus stakeholders and AGS should work together to ensure a safe and inclusive environment for students of all genders, races, religions, and sexual orientations.

CAMPUS RESOURCES

As seen in the previous section, many students are dissatisfied with both mental and physical health care options on campus (see Table 5).

Some students are also not happy with on-campus food options. Out of students who have used on-campus food options, 47.8% of them report overall dissatisfaction compared to 44.7% who are satisfied. About half of the survey participants (47.6%) are satisfied with the quality of food on campus, though many students are calling for more vegetarian/vegan options and longer hours.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

It is the campus’ responsibility to provide a safe and healthy campus environment for its students. Information gathering and proper training of staff and faculty is crucial in improving campus climate.

There are many efforts already underway to improve campus climate, such as DECADE and UCI ADVANCE, among others; however, there is still room for improvement. We commend the leadership of Student Housing and Graduate Division for their continued efforts in providing a more inclusive environment for students of alternative genders and sexual orientations. We also urge campus administration to continue and extend these efforts, increasing their commitment to improving diversity and campus climate overall.

To address the issues raised in this report, we recommend the following:

● Provide resources for students dealing with identity-based stress.

● Provide training for incoming students, faculty, and staff to improve diversity awareness.

● Improve variety of food options, including vegan, vegetarian, and Halal options.

Income and Professional Development

14

Adequate funding is crucial to research and academic success of graduate students. Moreover, in order to be successful after graduate school, students need to not only do well in research and academic endeavors, but also be well trained and prepared for the increasingly competitive job market for both academic and industry positions.

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

Funding continues to be a key concern for many graduate students. Only half of them report having adequate funds to fulfill their living needs, and it varies greatly by what school they are in. It is clear that funding situations are not equal across campus and students in some departments may be significantly worse off than others, an area the administration should investigate. While departments will naturally have different funding practices, these large disparities in the percent of students able to live can show the university where efforts need to be focused. Furthermore, students are reporting some issues in preparedness for the job market, in particular women searching for industry positions.

FUNDING ADEQUACY

15

To succeed in their graduate programs, students must receive adequate funding so financial needs are met and also to ensure students can focus on their research and academic work. Similar to last year, financial stress was cited as the top stressor for graduate students (see Mental Health and Wellness section), above poor work-life balance and identity issues.

Only 50.6% of students report that their income adequately meets their living needs. This number does not include any non-stipend funding (e.g., awards or spousal income) as these are not equally distributed across graduate students and should not be taken into consideration for this finding.

The percent of students with adequate income varies significantly by what program they are in.(χ2(5)=21.922, p=.001). Those in Biological and Physical Sciences are most likely to have adequate income (61.5%), while those in Arts and Humanities are substantially lower (34.9%; see Table 7 for more results).

Table 7: Percent of students with adequate income by school

School Percent of students

Responses

Biological & physical sciences 61.5% 195

Engineering and computer science 44.7% 257

Health sciences and medicine 50.5% 95

Social sciences, social ecology, business, & education

52.5% 320

Arts & humanities 34.9% 86

Law 52.8% 53

Grand average 50.6% 1006

Note: This is the percent of students who agree or strongly agree that their income meetings their living needs.

CONCERNS ABOUT EMPLOYMENT AFTER GRADUATION

Many students choose to go to graduate school in order to not only improve their employment prospects but also to enter into a specific occupation requiring a graduate degree. In our survey, about a quarter of respondents (24.9%) reported preferring an academic career after graduate school. 35.5% are considering both academic and non-academic careers equally, and 36.7% are considering only a non-academic position, after graduate school. Men were slightly more likely to prefer either an academic or a non-academic career, whereas women were more likely to consider both paths equally (χ2(3)=12.044, p=.007).

16

Students generally feel like they are getting adequate preparation for their desired career, but this varies based on the program they are in. Those in the law school feel most prepared and are overall most satisfied with professional development resources. Those in Engineering and Computer Science are the least prepared, at least satisfied with the value of their education, and feel that least that faculty respect and encourage them in their career, compared to the other programs. Only 67.2% of those in Engineering and Computer Science feel they are on the right track in their career, compared to 94.8% in Law (all other programs are between 76%-82%). When it comes to knowing job placement rates for their program, 91.4% of Law students said they did, while most other programs were close to 60%.

Table 8: Average levels of perceived preparation by school

School Avg. Score SD Responses

Biological & physical sciences 3.88 1.23 196

Engineering and computer science 3.62 1.22 269

Health sciences and medicine 3.87 1.36 102

Social sciences, social ecology, business, & education

4.07 1.16 334

Arts & humanities 3.58 1.32 86

Law 4.52 0.80 58

Grand average 3.88 1.23 1045

Note: Responses to the question: “To what extent do you agree with the following statements:-I feel that my department is adequately preparing me to attain my desired career” Ratings on 1-5 Likert scale, 1= Strongly disagree, 2= Disagree, 3= No opinion, 4= Agree, 5=Strongly agree.

Students perceived level of career preparedness did significantly vary by the program they are in (p=.006; see Tables 8 and 9). While it appears that those who preferred an academic career feel more prepared for their career than those who prefer an industry career on average, this difference was not statistically significant (p=.430). Additionally, while there were some differences by program in the size of the difference between academic and non-academic careers, this interaction was also not statistically significant (meaning the difference in preparedness between academic and non-academic tracks was not different based on what program you are in; p=.697). None of the individual programs’ differences between preparedness for academic or non-academic careers were significantly different this year. Student preparedness appears to have increased slightly overall since last year, though minor wording changes in the survey may have affected this as well.

17

Table 9: Perceived level of preparedness by Career Track and School

School Academic Non-Academic Difference

13-14 14-15 13-14 14-15 13-14 14-15

Biological & physical sciences 3.28 4.02 2.78 3.68 0.50*** 0.34

Engineering and computer science 3.10 3.95 2.97 3.63 0.13 0.32

Health sciences and medicine 3.34 3.83 3.05 3.67 0.30* 0.16

Social sciences, social ecology, business, & education

3.19 4.24 3.16 4.15 0.03 0.09

Arts & humanities 3.15 3.67 3.45 4.25 -0.31 -0.58

Grand average 3.19 4.02 3.01 3.90 0.18*** 0.12

Note: Two sample difference of means test. Higher values denote greater preparedness. *p<.10, **p<.05, ***p<.01, two tailed tests.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Overall, students are feeling more prepared to enter the academic arena rather than non-academic fields. This is perhaps understandable given that professors often have only experienced the academic job market, to address this findings, we recommend that other resources be made available to students, through the Graduate Resource Center or the Career Center. The Career Fair organized by AGS this year in combination with the Career Center and the Graduate Resource Center is an excellent example of a highly beneficial program. Internal results from a survey sent to attendants of the Career Fair showed that all attendants viewed the fair as extremely helpful and are eager to participate in future years.

It is encouraging to see that students are feeling more prepared to enter either the academic or non-academic job market than in previous years. Clearly the efforts already put forth by AGS, GRC, and other on-campus facilities has been extremely successful. We recommend that this effort be continued in future years and for students to be continuously evaluated in their choice of future career so we may best help them in their preparations.

Finally, there is the surprising finding that Health Sciences and Medicine are reporting the lowest preparedness for the job market. We already have some resources for these students such as the GPS-BIOMED program. We recommend that these efforts be continued and expanded in future years so all students may benefit from the resources available on campus.

Discussion and overall conclusions

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

18

Overall, the results from this year’s survey suggest that the majority of graduate students are moderately satisfied with the resources (e.g., housing, student health center). Our results also shed some light on key areas still needing improvement.

Most graduate students still live on campus and report being moderately satisfied with their living situation, although their satisfaction levels did decrease from last year. Many students still struggle to obtain housing, especially in the more affordable communities. Moreover, students are still reporting that rent prices are too high, especially given their stipend levels. Many graduate students report that they do not make enough money to afford rent and live comfortably, often having to resort to taking second jobs outside of their UCI duties. This can interfere with their ability to conduct impactful research or be effective educators during their tenure at UCI.

Finances were the greatest source of stress for students, many citing that they have to go into severe debt in order to complete their graduate studies. We also found, similar to last year, that many students are still struggling to maintain a comfortable, or at the very least sustainable, work-life balance. On top of academic and financial stressors, students also cited campus climate as a source of stress, particularly when linked to cases of sexual harassment from faculty members and cultural insensitivity due to religious or other identity differences.

Lastly, students are reporting greater job preparedness than in previous years, which is an encouraging finding. We see that Health Sciences and Medicine students are reporting the lowest level of preparedness, although this number is likely to rise as existing programs continue and expand in future years.

LIMITATIONS

Although we feel that the survey results provided here provide significant insight into graduate student needs at UCI, we do have to caution that our findings must be viewed in light of several limitations. First of all, our survey only captured 20.5% of the 2014-2015 UCI graduate student population. Some populations, such as international and LGBT* students were underrepresented in this sample. Lastly, we caution against comparing all of this year’s results with last year’s survey’s results, since most survey questions changed significantly and may be capturing different concepts. Future surveys should strive for improvement of survey questions while also attempting to maintain as much continuity from previous years as possible.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

19

There are several areas of graduate student life that can be improved with continued and increased collaboration between campus stakeholders and AGS. These areas include issues such as financial security, campus climate, faculty relations, and access to healthcare.

Specifically, we suggest that parties such as AGS, CGG, individual residents’ councils, and other campus groups work together to provide more affordable housing options for graduate students. Given current stipend levels, rent prices are not within federal guidelines. We recommend that other options be provided for graduate students, particularly those in areas typically paid lower stipends such as arts and humanities.

Campus climate concerns also warrant immediate attention. Better healthcare outreach and improved communication with students might help students struggling with identity stress. We also recommend that students be provided with safe options to report instances of sexual harassment by faculty members. Lastly, we recommend that faculty and staff, as well as incoming students, be given training to better address the increasing diversity of the graduate student body.

We strongly recommend that professional development efforts expand in future years. Although we are improving in this area in general, there is still much that needs to be done for graduate students, particularly those aiming at non-academic fields. Job searching usually coincides with dissertation writing and extensive research efforts and can serve to compound the already high levels of stress experienced by graduate students. Improving the professional development opportunities on campus will benefit both the students, in terms of higher earning jobs and lower stress, and the campus, in terms of potential higher donations from alumni.

Lastly, we recommend continued evaluation of graduate student needs. These endeavors will enable UCI stakeholders to recognize the most successful initiatives and services- and to identity areas which might benefit from additional development and resources.

REFERENCES

20

Rankin & Associates (2014). University of California: Irvine: Campus climate project final report March 2014. Retrieved from http://campusclimate.ucop.edu/_common/files/pdf-climate/uci-full-report.pdf

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are deeply grateful to the UCI Paul Merage School of Business for providing us with a Qualtrics Survey Software account. Without their continuing generosity, we would not have been able to conduct this survey.

We also thank the AGS council for support and helpful suggestions with survey development and interpretation.

Finally, we thank the Graduate Division, Graduate Resource Center, LGBT Resource Center, Counseling Center, and Student Health Center for their time and assistance. We particularly thank Dean Frances Leslie and Leigh Poirier-Ball for support throughout the year, and dedication to serving the graduate student body.