| SJSU Home : WASC Accreditation : WASC Portfolio : Supplemental Data : Student Experience Data Analyses |
In addition to analyzing data obtained from enrolled students (2004), data collected from the 1999 graduating class exit survey and data collected in the fall of 2004 from alumni who had graduated up to 5 years previously were analyzed. Here you can link to both the quantitative and qualitative analyses conducted as well as a summary of the components and a synthesis of the findings.
A. Enrolled Undergraduate & Graduate Student Data Analysis
1. Quantitative Analysis: Responses to Likert-Scaled Survey Items
- Transition to career
- Advising/orientation
- Instruction & related resources
- Student services
- Application process
2. Qualitative Analysis: Responses to Open-Ended Interview Items
3. Qualitative Analysis: Responses to Index Card Exercise
B. Alumi Data Analysis
1. Quantitatve Analysis: Responses to Likert-Scaled Survey Items
2. Qualitative Analysis: Responses to Open-Ended Survey Items
C. 1999 Exit Survey Analysis
1. Qualitative Analysis: Open Ended Item
D. National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Report
1. Summary Report (context: WASC CFRs)
Quantitative Analysis of Responses to Survey Items From Enrolled Undergraduate and Graduate Students
Fall 04 Undergraduate & Graduate Student Survey
To capture the student experience, faculty, staff, and the student member of the Student Experience Committee visited classes and engaged students in discussion related to their experiences as a student at SJSU. In addition, students were asked to complete a survey which contained 21 likert scaled items grouped into three sections: a) experiences getting started at SJSU, b) experiences while attended SJSU, and c) experiences related to their transition beyond SJSU. Following these likert scaled (1 through 5) items were six demographic items pertaining to aged, language, major (which was used to identify the college), ethnicity, status when first enrolled, and present class level (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior, masters/credential student).
Survey Results - Fall 04 Undergraduate & Graduate Students
(CFRs 1.2, 2.1, 2.4, 2.5, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 2.13,
2.14, 3.1, 3.6, 4.1, 4.8)
The survey was complete by 820 students enrolled in classes at SJSU in the Fall of 2004. Sixty two percent (512) of the students were undergraduates (juniors & seniors), 36% (294) were graduate students, and the remaining students (14) did not provide a response to the item on class level. Distribution across the colleges is conveyed below.
| College | Number of Students | College | Number of Students |
| Business | 114 | Humanities | 59 |
| Applied Sci & Arts | 87 | Science | 232 |
| Education | 49 | Social Science | 120 |
| Engineering | 79 | Social Work | 37 |
Median age for the undergraduate students was 23 (S.D. = 5.9). Median age for the gradate students was 29 (S.D. = 7.7). With respect to language, 77% (both undergrad and grad) identified English as their primary language. This is comparable to campus wide information obtained from the Writing Skills Test (74.4%).
Below is a crosstabulation of class level with status when first enrolled. Most of the undergraduates are transfer students (64%). Among graduate students it was interesting to observe that 24% started here at SJSU as undergraduates.
| Entering Status | Currently Undergrad Student | Currently Grad Student |
| Native Frosh | 172 (33.8%) | 16 (5.5%) |
| UG Transfer from Community College | 277 (54.4%) | 39 (13.3%) |
| UG Transfer from another University | 47 (9.2% ) | 18 (6.1%) |
| Entered as Graduate/Post-baccalaureate Student | 13 (2.6% ) | 220 (75.1%) |
Turning to an analysis of the responses to the likert-scaled survey items, a factor analysis was conducted to understand the underlying structure of the likert items. Five factors emerged:
Summary information for each factor is presented below. As can be seen in the summary statistics, for both undergrad and graduate students their experiences in the area of instruction are rated highest followed by the application process for graduate students and student services for undergraduate students.
| Group | Summary Stat | Transition to Career | Advising/orientation | Instruction CFR 2.4, 2.5 |
Student Services | Application Process |
| Undergraduate Students | Mean |
3.32 |
3.02 3.00 .87 497 |
3.71 3.80 .69 512 |
3.41 3.50 .93 450 |
3.24 3.00 1.03 509 |
| Graduate Students | Mean Median St. Dev N |
3.41 3.50 .95 258 |
3.25 3.00 .97 261 |
3.67 3.75 .75 293 |
3.37 3.50 1.05 224 |
3.55 3.50 .94 291 |
| Combined | Mean Median St. Dev N |
3.35 3.40 .95 696 |
3.09 3.00 .91 758 |
3.70 3.50 .72 805 |
3.40 3.50 .97 674 |
3.35 3.50 1.00 800 |
It should be noted that advising in the major did NOT cluster with the advising
factor (which included for example, GE advising, pre-collegiate advising). Major
advising was associated with the factor on instruction and related resources.
This highlights the very distinct experiences that students are having with
advising in general and advising in the major. Student experiences with advising
in the major were more positive compared to other advising.
Transition to Career
Most of the items in this factor were skipped (selected 'not used') by a large proportion of both the undergraduate and graduate students. The responses to the items in this factor are presented in the following tables. From the tables below, student experiences tend to be predominantly in the categories fair and good. In addition, the areas where students indicate a more positive experience are internships and preparation for future careers.
| Q17 career planning advice | very poor | undergrad | grad | total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 27 | 15 | 42 | ||
| 7.5% | 9.3% | 8.1% | ||
| poor | 67 | 31 | 98 | |
| 18.6% | 19.3% | 18.8% | ||
| fair | 136 | 52 | 188 | |
| 37.8% | 32.3% | 36.1% | ||
| good | 96 | 46 | 142 | |
| 26.7% | 28.6% | 27.3% | ||
| excellent | 34 | 17 | 51 | |
| 9.4% | 10.6% | 9.8% | ||
| Total | 360 | 161 | 521 | |
| 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | ||
Information in table below related to CFR 2.11
| Q18 internship experiences | very poor | Undergrad | Grad | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 27 | 14 | 41 | ||
| 11.7% | 9.0% | 10.6% | ||
| poor | 41 | 15 | 56 | |
| 17.8% | 9.6% | 14.5% | ||
| fair | 70 | 37 | 107 | |
| 30.4% | 23.7% | 27.7% | ||
| good | 51 | 52 | 103 | |
| 22.2% | 33.3% | 26.7% | ||
| excellent | 41 | 38 | 79 | |
| 17.8% | 24.4% | 20.5% | ||
| Total | 230 | 156 | 386 | |
| 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | ||
Information in table below related to CFR 2.11
| Q19 prep for future careers | very poor | Undergrad | Grad | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20 | 11 | 31 | ||
| 5.2% | 5.0% | 5.1% | ||
| poor | 51 | 19 | 70 | |
| 13.3% | 8.6% | 11.6% | ||
| fair | 131 | 64 | 195 | |
| 34.2% | 28.8% | 32.2% | ||
| good | 121 | 92 | 213 | |
| 31.6% | 41.4% | 35.2% | ||
| excellent | 60 | 36 | 96 | |
| 15.7% | 16.2% | 15.9% | ||
| Total | 383 | 222 | 605 | |
| 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | ||
Q20 opportunities to connect with alums, |
very poor | Undergrad | Grad | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 39 | 18 | 57 | ||
| 12.2% | 9.3% | 11.1% | ||
| poor | 56 | 44 | 100 | |
| 17.5% | 22.7% | 19.5% | ||
| fair | 98 | 62 | 160 | |
| 30.6% | 32.0% | 31.1% | ||
| good | 83 | 43 | 126 | |
| 25.9% | 22.2% | 24.5% | ||
| excellent | 44 | 27 | 71 | |
| 13.8% | 13.9% | 13.8% | ||
| Total | 320 | 194 | 514 | |
| 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | ||
| Q21 career center resources | very poor | Undergrad | Grad | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14 | 7 | 21 | ||
| 4.5% | 5.4% | 4.8% | ||
| poor | 35 | 18 | 53 | |
| 11.4% | 13.8% | 12.1% | ||
| fair | 103 | 49 | 152 | |
| 33.4% | 37.7% | 34.7% | ||
| good | 105 | 39 | 144 | |
| 34.1% | 30.0% | 32.9% | ||
| excellent | 51 | 17 | 68 | |
| 16.6% | 13.1% | 15.5% | ||
| Total | 308 | 130 | 438 | |
| 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | ||
Advising/Orientation - Information in tables below related to CFR 2.10, 2.12, 2.13, 2.14
The responses to the items in this factor are presented in the following tables. A quick reminder, this factor does not include advising in the major. From the tables below, student experiences in this area tend to be wide ranging and span primarily the poor to good categories. In addition, the area where students indicate a more positive experience is with new student orientation.
| Q2 pre-college advising | very poor | Undergrad | Grad | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 42 | 13 | 55 | ||
| 10.3% | 9.8% | 10.1% | ||
| poor | 96 | 29 | 125 | |
| 23.5% | 21.8% | 23.1% | ||
| fair | 143 | 45 | 188 | |
| 35.0% | 33.8% | 34.7% | ||
| good | 88 | 28 | 116 | |
| 21.5% | 21.1% | 21.4% | ||
| excellent | 40 | 18 | 58 | |
| 9.8% | 13.5% | 10.7% | ||
| Total | 409 | 133 | 542 | |
| 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | ||
| Q3 new student orientation | very poor | Undergrad | Grad | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 26 | 17 | 43 | ||
| 7.0% | 9.0% | 7.7% | ||
| poor | 63 | 26 | 89 | |
| 17.1% | 13.8% | 15.9% | ||
| fair | 137 | 58 | 195 | |
| 37.1% | 30.7% | 34.9% | ||
| good | 116 | 64 | 180 | |
| 31.4% | 33.9% | 32.3% | ||
| excellent | 27 | 24 | 51 | |
| 7.3% | 12.7% | 9.1% | ||
| Total | 369 | 189 | 558 | |
| 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | ||
| Q4 new student advising | very poor | Undergrad | Grad | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 53 | 21 | 74 | ||
| 12.6% | 10.2% | 11.8% | ||
| poor | 92 | 41 | 133 | |
| 21.9% | 19.9% | 21.2% | ||
| fair | 145 | 67 | 212 | |
| 34.5% | 32.5% | 33.9% | ||
| good | 96 | 56 | 152 | |
| 22.9% | 27.2% | 24.3% | ||
| excellent | 34 | 21 | 55 | |
| 8.1% | 10.2% | 8.8% | ||
| Total | 420 | 206 | 626 | |
| 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | ||
| Q8 GE advising | very poor | Undergrad | Grad | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 50 | 11 | 61 | ||
| 12.2% | 6.6% | 10.6% | ||
| poor | 89 | 29 | 118 | |
| 21.7% | 17.5% | 20.5% | ||
| fair | 143 | 57 | 200 | |
| 34.8% | 34.3% | 34.7% | ||
| good | 104 | 47 | 151 | |
| 25.3% | 28.3% | 26.2% | ||
| excellent | 25 | 22 | 47 | |
| 6.1% | 13.3% | 8.1% | ||
| Total | 411 | 166 | 577 | |
| 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | ||
Instruction and Related Resources
The responses to the items in this factor are presented in the following tables. From the tables below, student experiences in this area tend to range primarily in the fair to excellent categories. Classroom instruction and library resources were the areas student responses reflect a particularly positive experience.
Information in table below related to CFR 3.1
| Q9 major advising | very poor | Undergrad | Grad | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22 | 17 | 39 | ||
| 4.6% | 6.6% | 5.3% | ||
| poor | 53 | 33 | 86 | |
| 11.0% | 12.7% | 11.6% | ||
| fair | 123 | 73 | 196 | |
| 25.5% | 28.2% | 26.4% | ||
| good | 146 | 77 | 223 | |
| 30.2% | 29.7% | 30.1% | ||
| excellent | 139 | 59 | 198 | |
| 28.8% | 22.8% | 26.7% | ||
| Total | 483 | 259 | 742 | |
| 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | ||
Information in table below related to CFRs 2.13, 3.6
| Q11 library resources | very poor | Undergrad | Grad | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8 | 10 | 18 | ||
| 1.6% | 3.7% | 2.4% | ||
| poor | 13 | 19 | 32 | |
| 2.7% | 7.1% | 4.2% | ||
| fair | 68 | 55 | 123 | |
| 13.9% | 20.5% | 16.2% | ||
| good | 161 | 90 | 251 | |
| 32.9% | 33.6% | 33.2% | ||
| excellent | 239 | 94 | 333 | |
| 48.9% | 35.1% | 44.0% | ||
| Total | 489 | 268 | 757 | |
| 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | ||
Information in table below related to CFR 2.1
| Q13 classroom instruction | very poor | Undergrad | Grad | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | 5 | 12 | ||
| 1.4% | 1.7% | 1.5% | ||
| poor | 30 | 13 | 43 | |
| 5.9% | 4.5% | 5.4% | ||
| fair | 145 | 75 | 220 | |
| 28.7% | 26.0% | 27.7% | ||
| good | 223 | 132 | 355 | |
| 44.1% | 45.7% | 44.7% | ||
| excellent | 101 | 64 | 165 | |
| 20.0% | 22.1% | 20.8% | ||
| Total | 506 | 289 | 795 | |
| 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | ||
| Q14 class size conducive to learning | very poor | Undergrad | Grad | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22 | 16 | 38 | ||
| 4.4% | 5.6% | 4.8% | ||
| poor | 48 | 21 | 69 | |
| 9.5% | 7.3% | 8.7% | ||
| fair | 166 | 65 | 231 | |
| 32.9% | 22.6% | 29.2% | ||
| good | 183 | 111 | 294 | |
| 36.3% | 38.5% | 37.1% | ||
| excellent | 85 | 75 | 160 | |
| 16.9% | 26.0% | 20.2% | ||
| Total | 504 | 288 | 792 | |
| 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | ||
Note related to above table: courses surveyed ranged in size from 20 to 100.
Information in table below related to CFR 2.13
|
Q15 academic support services e.g. tutoring |
very poor | Undergrad | Grad | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14 | 11 | 25 | ||
| 4.5% | 9.3% | 5.8% | ||
| poor | 54 | 19 | 73 | |
| 17.3% | 16.1% | 17.0% | ||
| fair | 114 | 37 | 151 | |
| 36.5% | 31.4% | 35.1% | ||
| good | 87 | 39 | 126 | |
| 27.9% | 33.1% | 29.3% | ||
| excellent | 43 | 12 | 55 | |
| 13.8% | 10.2% | 12.8% | ||
| Total | 312 | 118 | 430 | |
| 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | ||
Information in table below related to CFRs 2.13, 3.6
|
Q16 technology resources (computer labs) |
very poor | Undergrad | Grad | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 23 | 18 | 41 | ||
| 5.3% | 8.1% | 6.3% | ||
| poor | 58 | 35 | 93 | |
| 13.4% | 15.8% | 14.2% | ||
| fair | 117 | 64 | 181 | |
| 27.0% | 29.0% | 27.7% | ||
| good | 143 | 68 | 211 | |
| 33.0% | 30.8% | 32.3% | ||
| excellent | 92 | 36 | 128 | |
| 21.2% | 16.3% | 19.6% | ||
| Total | 433 | 221 | 654 | |
| 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | ||
Student Services
The responses to the items in this factor are presented in the following tables. Note that very few students have experience with housing services so the number responding to the housing item was very low. From the tables below, student experiences in the area of student services tend to range primarily in the fair to good categories with the exception of financial aid which was spread out across all categories from very poor to excellent.
| Q6 housing services | very poor | Undergrad | Grad | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14 | 4 | 18 | ||
| 9.3% | 9.5% | 9.4% | ||
| poor | 32 | 7 | 39 | |
| 21.3% | 16.7% | 20.3% | ||
| fair | 50 | 15 | 65 | |
| 33.3% | 35.7% | 33.9% | ||
| good | 40 | 11 | 51 | |
| 26.7% | 26.2% | 26.6% | ||
| excellent | 14 | 5 | 19 | |
| 9.3% | 11.9% | 9.9% | ||
| Total | 150 | 42 | 192 | |
| 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | ||
| Q7 financial aid | very poor | Undergrad | Grad | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 24 | 26 | 50 | ||
| 10.9% | 18.2% | 13.7% | ||
| poor | 33 | 28 | 61 | |
| 14.9% | 19.6% | 16.8% | ||
| fair | 65 | 31 | 96 | |
| 29.4% | 21.7% | 26.4% | ||
| good | 59 | 40 | 99 | |
| 26.7% | 28.0% | 27.2% | ||
| excellent | 40 | 18 | 58 | |
| 18.1% | 12.6% | 15.9% | ||
| Total | 221 | 143 | 364 | |
| 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | ||
Information in table below related to CFR 2.13
| Q10 student health services | very poor | Undergrad | Grad | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | 3 | 14 | ||
| 4.1% | 2.5% | 3.6% | ||
| poor | 15 | 4 | 19 | |
| 5.5% | 3.4% | 4.9% | ||
| fair | 81 | 27 | 108 | |
| 29.9% | 22.7% | 27.7% | ||
| good | 95 | 50 | 145 | |
| 35.1% | 42.0% | 37.2% | ||
| excellent | 69 | 35 | 104 | |
| 25.5% | 29.4% | 26.7% | ||
| Total | 271 | 119 | 390 | |
| 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | ||
|
Q12 student life (recreation, clubs/organizations) |
very poor | Undergrad | Grad | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18 | 9 | 27 | ||
| 5.1% | 6.0% | 5.3% | ||
| poor | 52 | 22 | 74 | |
| 14.7% | 14.6% | 14.7% | ||
| fair | 123 | 46 | 169 | |
| 34.7% | 30.5% | 33.5% | ||
| good | 102 | 50 | 152 | |
| 28.8% | 33.1% | 30.1% | ||
| excellent | 59 | 24 | 83 | |
| 16.7% | 15.9% | 16.4% | ||
| Total | 354 | 151 | 505 | |
| 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | ||
Application Process
Two items comprised this factor. The first was related to the application process. For both undergrad and grad students their experiences with the application process were generally positive. The second was related to the transfer of units to SJSU from other colleges/universities. With respect to the transfer of units, undergraduates were more widely spread out than graduates in their experiences. With the greater proportion of our students historically and presently being transfer students greater attention is needed in this area so that the transfer of units and communication with community colleges is clearer and facilitates a smooth transfer into SJSU.
Information in table below related to CFR 2.13
| Q1 application process | very poor | Undergrad | Grad | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 42 | 11 | 53 | ||
| 8.4% | 3.8% | 6.7% | ||
| poor | 61 | 28 | 89 | |
| 12.2% | 9.7% | 11.3% | ||
| fair | 177 | 103 | 280 | |
| 35.3% | 35.5% | 35.4% | ||
| good | 152 | 94 | 246 | |
| 30.3% | 32.4% | 31.1% | ||
| excellent | 69 | 54 | 123 | |
| 13.8% | 18.6% | 15.5% | ||
| Total | 501 | 290 | 791 | |
| 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | ||
| Q5 transfer units | very poor | Undergrad | Grad | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 48 | 8 | 56 | ||
| 15.0% | 5.1% | 11.7% | ||
| poor | 49 | 17 | 66 | |
| 15.3% | 10.8% | 13.8% | ||
| fair | 93 | 43 | 136 | |
| 29.1% | 27.2% | 28.5% | ||
| good | 83 | 54 | 137 | |
| 25.9% | 34.2% | 28.7% | ||
| excellent | 47 | 36 | 83 | |
| 14.7% | 22.8% | 17.4% | ||
| Total | 320 | 158 | 478 | |
| 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | ||
Qualitative Analysis of Responses to
Open-Ended Interview Items
From Enrolled (2004) Undergraduate and Graduate Students
(CFRs 1.5, 1.6, 1.9, 2.10, 2.13, 2.14, 3.1, 3.2, 3.5)
Data was collected in teams of two: one facilitator and one recorder. Each recorder prepared a summary of the discussion, lead by the facilitator, around these eight open-ended items:
Below is a sample summary report from a recorder in an evening graduate class (31 students).
1. What brought you here?
| location - close to home/work | easy commute |
| did not know about other schools | not expensive |
| cost effective | wonderful teachers during undergrad experience |
| very good reputation | easy to get in |
| evening classes | good engineering program |
| cisco sends their people here | wanted to pursue MBA while working full time |
| strategically located in silicon valley, and caters to working professionals; provides a variety of classes that are up to date | high quality education |
| athletic scholarship - undergrad; price & convenience - grad | easy to communicate |
| good business school | can work full time |
| great MBA program | friends gave good report |
| Volleyball. Staff in Human Performance great so I continued on | Better in comparison to Sac state and Hayward |
| only school (out of 3) I was admitted to |
2. What made you successful?
| flexible schedule | no kids |
| smart | drive and work ethic |
| support of employer | support of family |
| self, parents, God | patience |
| my discipline | motivation |
| weekend classes | good undergrad and grad experiences at other schools |
| desire to improve self | professors accessible, evening classes |
| cost effectiveness, my efforts, good professors | flexible program/schedule |
| cost | no transcripts required - accepted international certificate |
| changed from engineering major to business - business school awesome | being goal driven |
| desire/drive to learn new things | I’m intelligent. Would have made it anywhere |
| insights from professors | my determination |
| teachers are flexible - understand that you work | staff in MBA office |
| my own will power to complete what I started | just went for it |
| persistence, dedication, work ethic | my proactiveness |
| networking with students; visiting with teachers | hard work, not having a job |
3. Biggest hurdles & how overcome?
| adding classes overcame with persistence |
not offering classes needed |
| parking (need good walking shoes) | anxiety tied to going back to school |
| juggling work, school, family | increase in fee structure several times |
| academic standards too low, need to be higher | too easy to get in, not stringent enough requirements |
| traffic | not getting classes I wanted. I overcame by giving up and letting go. |
| Long hours, sacrificed weekends. Overcame by being tough (mentally) | time management |
| paying for parking | subjects I did not understand. Over came by finding classmates to work with |
| I-880 traffic | keeping up with studies |
| money - supported by employer | parking |
| not enough classes offered every semester | finding motivation to carry on - on part-time basis; overcame by looking at positive side of education |
| forced to take non-interesting classes | professors too often teach political ideology |
| some teacher don’t go by university ethics | Office of admissions and records |
| Overcame hurdles with persistence | not enough networking |
| There are quite a few people who don’t belong at this university (or ANY university for that matter). Dumb, dumb!!! | GMAT - low math scores. Overcame by talking to Dean of Business |
| need to offer more summer classes | working long hours - not able to study |
| finding time to spend on projects and study | not wide enough selection of finance class |
| managing school, work, family | missing work to go to class |
| expense of living in San Jose | overcame commute troubles by carpooling |
| too much work, not enough time | not enough classes on certain days of week |
| Overcame small obstacles by just learning to adjust |
4. What did the University give you?
| valuable connections with other students |
friends |
| knowledge | income |
| power | degree |
| good on campus jobs for students: work study and student assistants | awareness; breadth of knowledge; hustle. I’d be on my way to a boring career without this |
| made wonderful friends; lasting friendships | we will see... |
| a way to achieve goal of MBA | An MBA. I have a stronger business mind |
| Gave me everything I have today. My entire career was possible due to my SJSU education | better team/group member, valuable connections, friendships, earning power, MBA, great study abroad experience in Thailand |
| good basic business education | degree & self improvement; expand my horizons and work opportunities, open my eyes to other areas, work ethic, understanding |
| made me a better person personally, intellectually; more responsible,
disciplines. Made me aware of scarcity of time |
I’m smarter |
| wouldn’t have a master’s degree, last degree would be from India which might not be valued here | work and study ethics |
| through undergrad athletics, gave feelings of local ties (loyalty) to institution and community | all-around improvement in personality |
| helped me believe in myself and better understand what I am fitted for. | Gave me opportunity to work and study an affordable place to learn; knowledge; a degree |
| students are mediocre, but professors are excellent - fantastic people - they add so much to my life by their sheer presence | Knowledge of marketing. I have become more analytical |
| More respect from colleagues at work; networking, friends | provided time for reflection |
| opened my mind to business world | interpersonal skills |
| a fee hike every semester; made me save more to go to school | I’m more resourceful |
| valuable connections | income |
| exposure to different perspectives | became a better person with a higher level of consciousness and understanding |
| waste of time; might get a job; paper to hang on the wall | my undergrad and grad education |
| I’ve become more knowledgeable, confident, adept at communication and people skills. | New contacts |
5. Do differently?
get to know students in department |
Choose a different undergrad degree program join student associations, clubs assoc. with degree get to know students outside of the current circle of friends - athletes |
| take fewer classes at a time | participate in more social events/student activities nothing |
| would have taken courses at a CC and waived some basic course requirements | take classes that relate to interests not just for the credits |
| live closer to campus | would involve myself more |
| nothing is under my control which I can change for SJSU | study more and learn more |
| take more classes at a time |
get to know some professors better |
| be more involved in campus student life, take less units each semester to be able to focus better | practice leadership |
| network more, get to know more students | live closer and really experience campus life - rather than commuter life |
| Take hard classes at beginning of program | maybe do undergrad in business not MBA |
| select the classes I want earlier | take at least 2 classes per semester to finish quicker |
| quit my job and go straight through MBA one program | work harder |
| take more classes to make more cost effective | join clubs |
| meet with more professors |
6. Brochure Content?
| location, location, location | great professors/ experienced faculty |
| library | accreditation |
| silicon valley culture | job opportunities: full time and part time |
| more hands on than UC system: practical application | urban campus; proximity to downtown, other activities |
| diversity - multi-cultural (staff and students) | part-time program |
| faculty availability/approachable | evening graduate program |
| flexible scheduling | close to great CA locations |
| low crime rate | great business faculty |
| silicon valley location | good programs geared toward working professionals |
| unity in diversity | entrepreneurship |
| price - affordable | flexible grad class scheduling |
| campus is beautiful | evening classes |
| diverse environment; excellent staff; urban, exciting campus; lots of Asians and Indians | very hands on |
| can learn just as much as you do at more expensive universities |
7. Change 3 things
| bring back the pub |
schedule classes in the business buildings |
| modernize classroom buildings/facilities | introduce fee waivers and stipends for graduate students in research, teaching, job training |
| change the face of the university: improve marketing, change profile, add more recognition | make spartan bookstore a student bookstore; subsidize costs |
| improve admission and records: lost records | improve security so backpacks not stolen |
| strengthen football program to improve visibility | more stringent entrance criteria |
| offer more classes, offer more off-campus classes; offer more useful classes - marketing, product management | better use of off-campus facilities |
| better marketing of university | need higher academic awareness and higher social awareness |
| better MBA financial specialty | rising fees; keep stable prices |
| parking - need inexpensive parking | offer more classes; offer better classes |
| increase academic standards | modernize classrooms |
| social events | student interaction with each other |
| curbside bookstore | RAISE THE STANDARDS; raise standards for acceptance and graduation |
| move south campus athletics to north campus | build support, bring notoriety |
| make sure graduate studies office does not loose documents | more industry connection for the students |
| bring more outstanding speakers for students | better position SJSU |
| better entrance |
organize meaningful events and activities |
| be open about fee structure and rising costs | build sense of belonging; more activities to unite students |
| make more prestigious; more well known internationally | work on better international student program |
| strengthen alumni association | publicize SJSU more |
| improve overall standards | not increase fees so often |
| accommodate part time students better |
increase support for athletics among faculty and staff |
| more stringent entrance requirements | program policies |
| more concerts, dances, fun activites so students bond and have school spirit |
8. Advice to others:
| it takes time |
get involved and appreciate education |
| network with senior students | utilize existing resources: library, public transportation, faculty |
| be aware of documentation deadlines | don’t waste time if not serious |
| make sure to keep track of documentation; be persistent follow up...documents get lost |
visit campus and takes its pulse before applying |
| be sure you know what you need to do, as some people will not help | make the most of your time in school |
| take EE here; MBA finance is good | have patience and don’t expect too much |
| don’t take this experience lightly. It’s the most valuable time spent in your life. | Study abroad for a semester if you can |
| set time aside to complete coursework | learn from faculty |
| you get only one chance, learn as much as you can | study business or engineering |
| live on campus (as undergrad) or near | be involved |
| check out the campus before applying - make sure you like it | come for an education not fun. Fun will come down the road |
| be proactive | meet friends, connect, have coffee with them; this is the time of your life; it’s not only about studying, it’s about living!! |
| Realize that school takes a lot of time | it’s a big commitment if you have work and family to balance |
| try to take challenging and interesting courses |
participate in events - e.g. MBA association |
| get to know more of the campus | enjoy |
| be on your own | appreciate education |
| network with older students in your area | don’t be afraid to ask questions |
| take more financial courses | study and don’t party all the time |
| you’ve got to be willing to do the work and put in the time in order to get the most out of classes | get involved and enjoy what you do. Your experience will be better |
| Keep following your dreams. |
Quantitative Analysis of Responses to Survey Items From Alumni
(CFRs: 1.5,2.1, 4.8)
Data collection (Fall 04) for alumni involved solicitation via email requesting individuals who had graduated up to five years ago from SJSU to complete an on-line survey. The on-line survey contained 31 Likert items in 6 categories: (a) current perceptions of the university; (b) what shapes their current perceptions; (c) perceptions of student services while a student at SJSU; (d) perception of quality of academic programs while a student at SJSU; (e) factors contributing to quality of academic programs while a student at SJSU; and (f) perception of the quality of campus activities while a student at SJSU. In addition, there were two demographic items and two open-ended questions. The first open-ended item asked “what was your most valuable and most challenging experience while a student as SJSU?” The second open-ended question asked about “the effectiveness of SJSU’s academic program overall and specifically in your major.”
Survey Results
The survey was complete by 811 SJSU alumni in the Fall of 2004. Seventy-six percent (616) had earned an undergraduate bachelor's degree from SJSU, 27% a Master's degree, and 3% a teaching credential. All had graduated within the past five years.
Below are responses to the question 'What is your current perception of SJSU in each of these areas?'. Alumni perceptions of the campus are predominately good.
| Area | Poor | Fair | Good | Excellent |
| Academic programs | 3% | 18% | 61% | 19% |
| Leadership of campus | 12% | 42% | 41% | 5% |
| Relations with community | 8% | 35% | 47% | 10% |
| SJSU's reputation | 7% | 37% | 48% | 8% |
| Student resources (e.g. career center, health center, counseling) | 6% | 29% | 50% | 16% |
Below are responses to the question 'Which of the following shape your current perception of SJSU?' Clearly, experiences as a student are most influential in shaping the perceptions of alumni.
| Item | % Selecting an item |
| Alumni publications | 28% |
| Experience as a student | 92% |
| Experience as an alumni | 38% |
| Interaction with current faculty, staff, administrators | 46% |
| Media (e.g. newspaper, TV) | 30% |
| Word of mouth | 38% |
Below are responses to the question 'What was your perception of the quality of each of the following while you were a student at SJSU?'. The difference in responses to advising in the Major compared to GE is striking. Perceptions of the quality of advising in the major are considerably higher than those related to GE. Comparable results were observed with our current students. As was also the case with current students, alumni made little use of support services other than the library and rated the library very favorably.
| Item | Poor | Fair | Good | Excellent | Never Used |
| Advising-GE | 15% | 22% | 23% | 8% | 32% |
| Advising-major | 9% | 19% | 31% | 32% | 10% |
| Application process | 14% | 28% | 45% | 12% | 1% |
| Career center services | 8% | 16% | 29% | 12% | 35% |
| Counseling center services | 5% | 14% | 17% | 6% | 57% |
| Cross-cultural programming (e.g. MOSAIC) | 2% | 7% | 11% | 4% | 76% |
| Financial aid services | 5% | 13% | 22% | 10% | 50% |
| Housing center services | 3% | 7% | 10% | 2% | 78% |
| Library | 2% | 12% | 40% | 43% | 3% |
| Online registration | 9% | 14% | 34% | 27% | 17% |
| Student health center services | 1% | 7% | 23% | 20% | 48% |
In response to the question 'What was your perception of the quality of our academic programs while you were a student at SJSU?", The majority of alumni rated the quality as good (53%) followed by excellent (20%), fair (23%), and poor (4%). This is a more favorable view than was observed from current students.
With respect to campus activities (e.g. student clubs, recreation, athletics, music, theater) most (60%) alumni indicated they had not been actively involved. Alumni perceptions of the quality of campus activities was good (48%) followed by fair (37%), and the categories poor and excellent both had 7%.
Qualitative Analysis of Open-Ended Survey Items From Alumni
(CFRs 1.2, 1.5, 1.6, 1.9, 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.11, 3.1, 3.2)
The two open ended items in the alumni survey were:
What was your most valuable and most challenging experience while a student as SJSU? 537 individuals provided a response to this item.
We welcome here your insights related to the effectiveness of SJSU’s academic program overall and specifically in your major. 396 individuals provided a response to this item.
The responses given were summarized first by item then holistically from two perspectives:
Coding of responses to 1st open-ended item
Coding of responses to 2nd open-ended item
Emerging themes from open-ended responses
Themes Emerging From the Responses Viewed in Polarity
CODING ALUMNI DATA FROM 1ST OPEN-ENDED ITEM INTO
CATEOGORIES
(Most Valuable and Most Challenging Experiences at SJSU)
Instructors
Positive
18/55 students stated that they were pleased with the availability of their
instructors
4/55 students stated that they were pleased with their instructors teaching
style
21/55 students stated that their instructors were knowledgeable
Negative
2/55 students stated that instructors were not available
7/55 students stated that instructors did not use effective teaching methods
3/55 students stated that instructors were not knowledgeable
Courses
Positive
4/106 students stated that class availability was good, specifically summer
and night classes
67/106 students stated that classes were valuable; all responses were related
to major classes
and programs like study abroad, humanities honors and the Spartan Daily
11/106 students stated that graduation was the most valuable academic experience
4 students stated that online classes were very useful
Negative
9/106 students stated that class availability was poor
8/106 students stated that classes were not valuable
3/106 stated that the technology used in classes was poor
Interaction
Positive
26/105 students stated that they valued the diversity of people found at SJSU
7/105 students stated that they valued the relationships they created while
at SJSU
59/105 students stated that they gained valuable leadership experience at SJSU
6/105 students stated that they valued learning to balance school and other
responsibilities
Negative
1/105 student stated that they did not feel a sense of community
4/105 students stated that the people at SJSU were not valuable
1/105 student stated the there was a lack of support in the Greek community
1/105 student stated that SJSU was not perceived well by outside agencies
University
Positive
4/78 students stated that the career center was valuable
1/78 student stated that park and ride was valuable
4/78 students stated that departmental advising was valuable
Negative
1/78 student stated that the career center was not valuable for finding internships
33/78 students stated that the admissions and records department was not effective
15/78 students stated that parking and housing on and around SJSU was not accessible
or affordable
15/78 students stated that advising was poor
3/78students stated that the cost of attending SJSU was too high
1/78 student stated that the financial aid program was poor
1/78 student stated that the buildings at SJSU were in poor condition
CODING ALUMNI DATA FROM 2ND OPEN-ENDED ITEM
INTO CATEGORIES
(Insights Related to the Effectiveness of SJSU Academic Programs)
Instructors
Thirty-two individuals responded on positive and negative influences of the universities instructors. Out of those 32 responses, 15 were positive and 17 were negative.
Positive
5/32 stated that the instructors did an overall good job.
3/32 stated that the instructors developed effective programs.
3/32 stated that the instructors were dedicated to their work.
2/32 stated that instructors were encouraging to their students and created
a positive environment.
1/32 stated that instructors at the university were demanding and had high expectations
of their students.
1/32 liked the diversity of instructors at the university.
Negative
4/32 stated that the instructors did not have enough expectations of students.
4/32 stated that instructors are unavailable to students.
4/32 stated that the instructors have a lack of organization and knowledge for
the courses they teach.
3/32 stated that instructors lack in student interaction.
1/32 has received prejudice comments from instructors.
1/32 stated that instructors should create credibility through more publishing.
Courses
Fifty-six individuals responded on the positive and negative aspects in courses in general at the university. Out of those responses 22 were positive and 32 were negative.
Positive
12/56 stated that the courses were very effective through providing useful
information.
5/56 stated that the courses taken prepared students for future careers.
4/56 stated that they liked the availability of a variety of general education
courses.
1/56 stated that the courses were solid.
Negative
11/56 stated that the courses were not effective or challenging.
10/56 there is a lack of available classes. Courses should be provided on Saturdays
and Sundays.
4/56 stated that courses need to provide more hands on experiences.
2/56 stated that students who struggle with English as a language should not
be able to “coast” through courses.
2/56 stated that the budget cuts have affected the availability of courses.
2/56 stated that the classes are too large for effective learning.
1/56 would like to see more diverse classes.
Facilities
Eleven individuals responded on the positive and negative aspects of the universities facilities. Out of those responses, two were positive and nine were negative.
Positive
2/11 enjoyed the new library
Negative
7/11 stated that the facilities were overall poor
2/11 stated that there was a lack of computer labs and parking at the university.
University
Eighteen individuals had general comments regarding the positive and negative aspects of the university. Out of those responses four were positive and 14 were negative.
Positive
4/18 thought that overall the university was effective and provided a great experience.
Negative
5/18 state that the communication and networking within the university need
improvement.
4/18 stated that San José State should uphold to the same standards as
other universities (e.g. Stanford and Cal).
3/18 stated that there was a lack of contact with the community.
1/18 thought there was an overcrowding in the university
1/18 thought the materials in classrooms and courses were not “cutting
edge.”
Administration
Twenty-five individuals commented on the positive and negative aspects of the university’s administration. One of those responses was positive and other 24 were negative.
Positive
1/25 stated that the career center had offered some great programs
Negative
13/25 stated that there is a lack of effective advising overall, specifically
advising in the graduate department and on taking specific classes within individual
majors.
5/25 stated that the career center was difficult to use.
2/25 stated that the administration has a lack of communication.
2/25 stated that administration had bad procedures.
1/25 stated that there wasn’t any consistency in requirements.
1/25 the administration does not promote resources.
Dominant Themes That Emerged After Coding Alumni Data From
Both Open-Ended Items Into Categories
I. LEADERSHIP AND SERVICE/ POOR SERVICE AND INACCESSIBLE
A. Leadership and Service
1. Ethics bowl, Greek life, honors programs, Mcnair program, GLBTA
2. Tutorial center, career center (internships), dept. advising, park and ride,
night classes
B. Poor service and inaccessible
1. Admissions and records- lack of organization, poor customer service, transfer
credit, poor GE advising, poor procedures
2. Career center difficult to use
3. SJSU should uphold the same standards as other universities
4. Lack of contact with the community
5. Lack of parking
6. Cost of living
7. Poor course availability
8. Instructors unavailable
9. Instructors were lacking in student interaction
10. Networking and communicating within the university needs improvement.
11. Advisors were poor in the graduate departments.
12. Students felt that they were not advised adequately in taking the right
specific classes for their majors.
II. SCHOLARSHIP AND KNOWLEDGE/ LACK OF STIMULATION
A. Scholarship and knowledge
1. Lab experience and report writing were seen as good tools, study abroad,
humanities honors, Spartan Daily, real world experience gained in class
2. Instructors -- dedicated, developed good programs, encouraging, created a
positive environment, demanding, had high expectations, diversity among instructors
3. Courses-effective, prepared students for career, variety of GE
B. Lack of Stimulation
1. Course content--group projects allowed weak students to bring down strong
students, not enough real world experience gained in class, not challenging,
need more hands on experience, classes too large
2. Many students felt that the courses were not effective and challenging.
3. Students would have liked to have classes offered on Saturdays and Sundays.
4. For effective learning the classes need to be reduced.
5. Instructors--bias, blind to cheating, not challenging, unorganized, lack
of knowledge, prejudice toward students with disabilities, used prejudice language,
not published.
III. EVOLVING TECHNOLOGY AND CONVENIENCE/LACK OF INNOVATION
A. Evolving technology
1. Distance learning, computer labs,
2. King library—access to computers, labs, study rooms, accessibility,
environment
B. Lack of innovation
1. Technology- too little, too old, people soft not dependable, uncomfortable
buildings.
2. Materials are not cutting edge, poor communication network within the university
3. Many alumni felt that the facilities were overall poor during their time
at SJSU.
4. The students would have liked to see more computer labs
IV. DIVERSITY AND INTERACTION/ LACK OF INTERACTION
A. Diversity
1. Diversity on campus, (balancing-family, work, school, sports, leadership
roles, commute)
2. Support from role models related to ethnicity, exchanging ideas and interacting
with diverse students
3. Diversity of campus is most valuable experience, global experience
B. Lack of interaction
1. Disconnected from peers, university is overcrowded
Polar Themes Emerging From the Responses
A. DIVERSITY versus LACK OF DIVERSITY
The polarity between diversity and lack of diversity as experienced by alumni was unbalanced. Respondents expressed predominately positive comments about their multidimensional experiences with diversity as SJSU.
Positive comments related to diversity
Several alumni expressed very positive comments about the different forms of
diversity at San José State University. They expressed appreciation regarding
ethnic diversity, as well as diversity related to gender, age, and disability.
Some respondents expressed that the diversity on campus was one of the most
valuable experiences they encountered within and beyond the classroom; they
felt that exchanging ideas and interacting with diverse students represented
a valuable educational experience. Other respondents expressed appreciation
for the support they received from diverse ethnic role models. A couple respondents
expressed that the most valuable experience related to the university was the
multicultural campus and global educational setting; they felt that the campus
represented a rich global experience.
Negative comments related to diversity
One respondent expressed that he/she experienced prejudice toward students with
disabilities, another expressed that he/she experienced prejudicial language,
and lastly another respondent felt that there should be more diverse interaction
within the educational setting. A couple of respondents expressed that they
felt disconnected from peers.
B. LEADERSHIP & SERVICE versus INADEQUATE SERVICE & ACCESSABILITY
Positive Leadership and Service Experiences
Several respondents expressed that their educational experience was enhanced
because of the leadership opportunities that were available within the university
setting. Their experiences at San José State University were enhanced
through their involvement in the following activities and/or programs: ethics
bowl, Greek life, McNair program, GLBTA (gay, lesbian, bisexual, and trans gendered
association), tutorial center, and career center (internship opportunities and
resume development). Their educational experiences were also enhanced and facilitated
through services such as department advising, park and ride, and the availability
of night classes and distance learning.
Inadequate Service and Accessibility
Several alumni expressed that they encountered negative experiences with Admissions
and Records. This university office was described as lacking organization, providing
poor customer service, and following poor procedures related to students’
needs and requests. Respondents also indicated that this office did not provide
sufficient criteria related to the acceptance or denial of credits from other
colleges/universities; the acceptance of transfer units from other institutions
was slow and inadequate. Other respondents expressed that they received poor
general education advising, that the career center was difficult to use, and
that SJSU should uphold the same standards as other universities in terms of
being accessible and meeting students’ needs. Respondents also expressed
that the university should provide more services related to the community and
that the university would be enhanced with additional parking, as well as course
and instructor availability.
C. EVOLVING TECHNOLOGY versus LACK OF TECHNOLOGY/ INNOVATION
Positive use of Technology
Alumni respondents expressed appreciation for the technology that is integrated
throughout the Martin Luther King Library which provided them with access to
computers, data bases, and electronic (smart) study and conference rooms. They
also expressed appreciation for the interface between the King Library and their
home computers which provided them access to resources and relevant information.
They also expressed appreciation for the technology that allowed SJSU to offer
distance learning courses and supply various computer laboratories throughout
the campus.
Lack of Technology and Innovation
Some alumni respondents expressed that the technology at SJSU was too little
and too old. Others expressed that People Soft was not dependable and that the
communication network within the university was poor and inadequate. Other respondents
pointed that there were old and uncomfortable buildings on campus and that the
learning environments did not provide “cutting edge” materials.
D. SCHOLARSHIP AND KNOWLEDGE versus LACK OF KNOWLEDGE & STIMULATION
Positive Scholarship and the Acquisition of Knowledge
Alumni described instructors as being dedicated, encouraging, demanding,
and having high expectations of their students. They expressed that instructors
provided a positive learning environment involving meaningful and relevant programs.
Respondents felt that the curriculum involved effective courses that adequately
prepared them for their careers and that represented real world experiences.
They appreciated the variety of general education courses that were available
in meeting their general education requirements. They also appreciated the diversity
among their instructors. Laboratory experiences and report writing were seen
as valuable learning tools. Different respondents expressed that their education
was enhanced through the following experiences: studying abroad, participating
in humanities honors program, and working for the Spartan Daily.
Lack of Stimulation and Acquisition of Knowledge
Some respondents expressed that course work was not challenging and did not
provide enough “real world” and/or “hands on” experiences.
Others expressed that classes were too large for effective learning. Another
respondent expressed that group projects allowed weak students to “bring
down” (diminish) stronger students. Instructors were described as being
bias, blind to cheating, not challenging, unorganized, lacking sufficient knowledge,
and prejudicial. One respondent expressed that SJSU did not have enough school
spirit.
Qualitative Analysis of Open Ended Item From 1999 Exit Survey
(Undergraduates)
CFRs 2.1, 2.2, 2.13, 2.14,
The open-ended item students responded to was:
“Please write any comments below that you feel would be helpful
to the University or your major department in improving SJSU.”
| Good college | “My life as a student here was very comfortable and I was able to make many invaluable networking connections through the many professionals on campus here.” |
| Overall positive experience |
|
| Great professors |
|
| General Education |
|
| Re-entry |
|
Negative
| Parking |
|
| Admissions and Records |
|
| Better computers and lab equipment |
|
| Advising |
|
| GE Advising | “Make GE advising mandatory, at least (sic) once a year. |
| Advising for transfer students |
|
| Financial Aid |
|
| Easier steps to graduation |
|
| Better Library Collections |
|
| More preparation for workforce | “I would expose students to more real world experiences.” |
| Internships |
|
| Career options for majors |
|
| Quality of instruction |
|
| Need for more classes |
|
| Unfriendly library staff |
|
| More integration between departments |
|
| Construction |
|
| More support for students taking night classes. | “I don’t think SJSU is focused on the needs of the 40 hour-a-week student. It does not offer enough services and classes for evening students. It does not provide enough opportunities for the evening student to feel a part of SJSU.” |
| Better facilities - Old buildings |
|
| Safety |
|
| Concern about the joint library project |
|
| Concerns about cheating |
“Someone has to put an end to the limitless cheating in the XXX program.” |
| Need more diverse faculty |
|
| More access to faculty |
|
| Clean up surrounding neighborhood |
|
| Lack of “the college experience” |
|
| Better tutoring |
“There needs to be better tutoring for students.” |
| Campus pride | “I heard on the radio last week that SJSU was celebrating 100 years, “one student at a time” yet heard nothing about it on campus. Isn’t that something we should be proud of and celebrate?” |
| More campus life | “Associated Student organizations, committees, elections, and events should be more publicized.” |
| Transit pass |
|
| General Comments |
|
Beginning with the analysis of responses from current undergraduate and graduate students to the survey items, for both undergrad and graduate students their experiences in the area of instruction are rated highest followed by the application process for graduate students and student services for undergraduate students. Lowest rated for undergraduate students were general education advising/orientation and the application process. Among graduate students, the category lowest rated was general advising (not advising in the major).
With respect to the qualitative analysis
of responses to open-ended interview items from current undergraduate and
graduate students, location and cost continue to be important considerations for students (and remain so according to the 2006 Student Needs and Priorities Survey [SNAPS]). When describing factors that contributed to their success, while faculty frequently are noted, personal drive and a proactive approach - particularly when faced with hurdles - are often sited. The hurdles students experience continue to be related to services (e.g. admissions) and infrastructure (e.g. parking). Among the things students report they would do differently, being more engaged in campus life was often mentioned and tied to a belief that their overall experience would have been richer.
With respect to current perceptions among SJSU alumni, the area rated highest was academic programs followed by student resources (e.g. career center, health center, counseling) and SJSU's reputation. For 92% of the respondents, their experiences as a student shaped their current perceptions. Regarding advising, the difference in responses to advising in the Major compared to GE is striking. Perceptions of the quality of advising in the major are considerably higher than those related to GE.
Turning to the qualitative analysis of the two open-ended survey items from alumni, most frequently sited valuable experiences were interaction with diverse population, quality of courses, and leadership experiences. Most frequently noted as challenging experiences were interactions with offices responsible for admissions and records, and finding parking and/or housing near SJSU.
|
San José State University - Home of the Spartans |