Alumni Survey
– Class of 1996
Office of
Institutional Research
Prepared by
Mary Ann Weaver
February 6,
2007
The Class of 1996 was invited to complete the HEDS Alumni survey in 2002 and then again in 2006. This report compares responses from the Class of 1996 in 2006 (10 years after graduation) to their responses in 2002 (6 years after graduation).
The response rate for the two surveys was very similar with 48% responding in 2002 and 42% responding in 2006. Gender breakdown was similar also. Females were more likely to respond. Fifty five females responded in 2006 whereas only 25 males responded. In 2002, 67 females and 21 males responded. In 2006, 98.8% of the respondents were 30 years old or older and 76% of them were married or living with a partner. In 2002 85% of the respondents had no children whereas in 2006, 58.8% had no children. As shown in Table 1, the majority of the respondents in both 2002 and 2006 were social science, humanities or life science majors.
Table 1
|
|
2002 |
2006 |
|
Arts and Music |
3.4% |
3.7% |
|
Business/Management |
6.8% |
3.7% |
|
Education |
1.1% |
1.2% |
|
Geosciences |
0.0% |
2.5% |
|
Humanities |
18.2% |
18.5% |
|
Life Sciences |
19.3% |
18.5% |
|
Math/Computer Science |
2.3% |
3.7% |
|
Physical Sciences |
4.5% |
9.9% |
|
Psychology |
10.2% |
7.4% |
|
Social Sciences |
28.4% |
25.9% |
|
Other Non-Science Fields |
12.5% |
11.1% |
When surveyed 10 years after graduation, 80% of the Class of 1996 indicated that their major was indirectly or directly related to their career. This compares to 89% who indicated the same 6 years after graduation.
When evaluating the extent to which certain abilities or knowledge were enhanced by their Earlham education, the responses from the Class of 1996 varied little between 2002 and 2006. However these alumni did rate the enhancement of some of their abilities somewhat higher after being away from Earlham longer. Their ability to read or speak a foreign language and their appreciation for the arts was rated higher than the rating received in 2002. Table 2 shows the mean scores for the ratings in 2002 and 2006.
Table 2
Evaluation of Undergraduate
Education
|
Extent enhanced by undergraduate
experience | ||
|
Ability/Knowledge |
2002 |
2006 |
|
CRITICAL THINKING |
|
|
|
Acquire new skills and knowledge |
3.6 |
3.7 |
|
Think analytically and logically |
3.7 |
3.8 |
|
Formulate creative/original ideas |
3.4 |
3.5 |
|
Academic ability |
3.6 |
3.5 |
|
SKILLS/LEARNING |
|
|
|
Write effectively |
3.8 |
3.7 |
|
Use quantitative tools |
2.9 |
3.1 |
|
Appreciate arts, literature, music, drama |
3.2 |
3.4 |
|
Gain in-depth knowledge of a field |
3.2 |
3.4 |
|
Read or speak a foreign language |
2.5 |
2.8 |
|
SOCIAL/MORAL AWARENESS |
|
|
|
Develop awareness of societal problems |
3.6 |
3.7 |
|
Place current problems in perspective |
3.4 |
3.6 |
|
Understand moral/ethical issues |
3.5 |
3.6 |
|
SELF DEVELOPMENT |
|
|
|
Understand myself |
3.2 |
3.4 |
|
Function independently, w/o supervision |
3.4 |
3.4 |
|
Develop self-esteem |
3.1 |
3.3 |
|
Establish a course of action for goals |
3.2 |
3.3 |
|
Intellectual self-confidence |
3.5 |
3.5 |
|
Develop desire for continued learning |
3.6 |
3.5 |
|
RELATIONSHIP SKILLS |
|
|
|
Lead/supervise tasks/groups of people |
2.9 |
2.8 |
|
Relate well to people of different culture/races |
3.4 |
3.5 |
|
Function effectively as member of team |
3.4 |
3.4 |
|
Communicate well orally |
3.4 |
3.4 |
|
Understand others |
3.5 |
3.5 |
|
UNDERSTANDING SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY |
|
|
|
Understanding the process of science |
2.9 |
3.1 |
|
Use technology |
2.6 |
2.8 |
Scale: 4=Greatly 3=Moderately 2=A Little 1=Not
at all
In Table 3 you will see the importance of these various abilities in the current activities of the Class of 1996. Most abilities slightly increased in importance between 2002 and 2006. As could be expected, the use of technology has increased in importance more so than any other skill.
Table 3
|
Importance in current
activities | ||
|
Ability/Knowledge |
2002 |
2006 |
|
CRITICAL THINKING |
|
|
|
Acquire new skills and knowledge |
3.8 |
3.8 |
|
Think analytically and logically |
3.8 |
3.9 |
|
Formulate creative/original ideas |
3.6 |
3.8 |
|
Academic ability |
3.4 |
3.4 |
|
SKILLS/LEARNING |
|
|
|
Write effectively |
3.5 |
3.7 |
|
Use quantitative tools |
3.1 |
3.2 |
|
Appreciate arts, literature, music, drama |
2.9 |
3.1 |
|
Gain in-depth knowledge of a field |
3.6 |
3.5 |
|
Read or speak a foreign language |
2.3 |
2.3 |
|
SOCIAL/MORAL AWARENESS |
|
|
|
Develop awareness of societal problems |
3.3 |
3.5 |
|
Place current problems in perspective |
3.4 |
3.6 |
|
Understand moral/ethical issues |
3.5 |
3.6 |
|
SELF DEVELOPMENT |
|
|
|
Understand myself |
3.5 |
3.7 |
|
Function independently, w/o supervision |
3.9 |
3.9 |
|
Develop self-esteem |
3.5 |
3.7 |
|
Establish a course of action for goals |
3.8 |
3.8 |
|
Intellectual self-confidence |
3.6 |
3.8 |
|
Develop desire for continued learning |
3.7 |
3.8 |
|
RELATIONSHIP SKILLS |
|
|
|
Lead/supervise tasks/groups of people |
3.4 |
3.5 |
|
Relate well to people of different culture/races |
3.6 |
3.6 |
|
Function effectively as member of team |
3.7 |
3.7 |
|
Communicate well orally |
3.8 |
3.8 |
|
Understand others |
3.7 |
3.8 |
|
UNDERSTANDING SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY |
|
|
|
Understanding the process of science |
2.8 |
2.9 |
|
Use technology |
3.1 |
3.4 |
Scale: 4=Greatly 3=Moderately 2=A Little 1=Not
at all
The alumni from the Class of 1996 were asked how satisfied
they were with various services or aspects of Earlham. Table 4 shows that with the exception of
their social life, their level of satisfaction with their Earlham experience
changed very little between 2002 and 2006.
Table 4
Satisfaction with College
Experiences
|
College
Experiences |
2002 |
2006 |
|
ACADEMIC EXPERIENCES |
|
|
|
Academic advising |
3.2 |
3.3 |
|
Contact with faculty |
3.7 |
3.7 |
|
Quality of teaching |
3.8 |
3.8 |
|
Courses in major field |
3.6 |
3.5 |
|
Courses outside major field |
3.4 |
3.4 |
|
Independent study/research |
3.5 |
3.4 |
|
CAMPUS SERVICES AND FACILITIES |
|
|
|
Career services |
2.6 |
2.6 |
|
Financial services |
3.3 |
3.3 |
|
Library resources |
3.6 |
3.5 |
|
Recreation/athletics |
3.2 |
3.2 |
|
Residential life |
3.3 |
3.3 |
|
CAMPUS CLIMATE |
|
|
|
Student voice in policies |
3.2 |
3.3 |
|
Campus safety |
3.6 |
3.6 |
|
Sense of belonging |
3.5 |
3.5 |
|
Ethnic/racial diversity |
3.0 |
3.1 |
|
Social life on campus |
3.1 |
3.3 |
Scale: 4=Very Satisfied 3=Generally Satisfied
2=Generally Dissatisfied 1=Very Dissatisfied
To what extent did their undergraduate experience fulfill their original expectations? Table 5 shows they were most satisfied with the enhancement of their intellectual growth. Responses in 2006 were remarkably similar to the 2002 responses.
Table 5
Expectations
|
Expectation |
2002 |
2006 |
|
Enhance your intellectual growth |
3.8 |
3.7 |
|
Acquire in-depth knowledge in a particular field |
3.4 |
3.4 |
|
Develop competence in career relevant skills |
3.1 |
3.1 |
|
Foster your personal growth |
3.7 |
3.6 |
|
Promote your ability to form relationships |
3.4 |
3.4 |
Scale: 4=Greatly 3=Moderately 2=A Little 1=Not
at all
Their rating of their satisfaction with their overall undergraduate education has decreased somewhat from 2002 to 2006. Whereas in 2002, 77% of the class was very satisfied with their overall undergraduate education, only 69% felt the same in 2006. Yet in 2006, 76.5% of the respondents indicated they definitely would encourage others to attend Earlham compared to only 73% in 2002.
The alumni were asked to evaluate the level of involvement in various activities while at Earlham and the contribution of these activities to their personal and professional development after graduation.
Table 6
Level of Involvement in Activities
|
Level of
Involvement |
2002 |
2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES |
|
|
|
Student or campus government |
1.5 |
1.7 |
|
Intercollegiate athletics |
2.0 |
2.0 |
|
Intramural sports |
1.7 |
1.8 |
|
Student publications |
1.3 |
1.3 |
|
Performing arts/music |
2.2 |
2.2 |
|
Political organization or club |
1.9 |
1.9 |
|
Community service |
2.4 |
2.4 |
|
Fraternity/sorority |
1.0 |
1.0 |
|
Religious groups |
1.5 |
1.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
ACADEMIC ACTIVITIES |
|
|
|
Internships |
2.0 |
2.0 |
|
Study abroad |
2.8 |
2.8 |
|
Work on faculty research |
1.7 |
1.8 |
|
Independent study |
2.3 |
2.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
EMPLOYMENT ACTIVITIES |
|
|
|
On-campus employment |
2.7 |
3.0 |
|
Off-campus employment |
1.5 |
1.6 |
When surveyed 10 years after graduation, the Class of 1996 indicated about the same level of involvement in various activities (Table 6) and yet they indicated a greater contribution to their development in almost all areas (Table 7).
Table 7
Contribution of Activities to
Development
|
Contribution to
your development |
2002 |
2006 |
|
EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES |
|
|
|
Student or campus government |
1.7 |
2.0 |
|
Intercollegiate athletics |
2.2 |
2.3 |
|
Intramural sports |
1.8 |
2.1 |
|
Student publications |
1.4 |
1.5 |
|
Performing arts/music |
2.4 |
2.5 |
|
Political organization or club |
2.2 |
2.2 |
|
Community service |
2.6 |
2.9 |
|
Fraternity/sorority |
1.0 |
1.1 |
|
Religious groups |
1.8 |
1.8 |
|
ACADEMIC ACTIVITIES |
|
|
|
Internships |
2.3 |
2.6 |
|
Study abroad |
3.1 |
3.2 |
|
Work on faculty research |
1.9 |
2.3 |
|
Independent study |
2.4 |
2.6 |
|
EMPLOYMENT ACTIVITIES |
|
|
|
On-campus employment |
2.4 |
2.8 |
|
Off-campus employment |
1.6 |
2.2 |
Scale:
4=Extensive 3=Moderate 2=A Little 1=None
Table 8 shows to what extent these graduates felt their undergraduate experience prepared them for various post-graduation activities. Ten years after graduation, the Class of 1996 continues to rate their level of preparedness high.
Table 8
Level of Preparedness for post-graduation
Activities
|
Activities |
2002 |
2006 |
|
Post-baccalaureate education |
3.3 |
3.3 |
|
Current career |
3.1 |
3.3 |
|
Social and civic involvement |
3.1 |
3.2 |
|
Interpersonal relationships |
3.3 |
3.2 |
Scale: 4=Greatly 3=Moderately 2=A Little 1=Not
at all
To determine the amount of involvement these graduates have had with their alma mater, they were asked how frequently they participated in various activities that were sponsored by Earlham. Table 8 shows the degree of involvement of the Class of 1996 six and 10 years after graduation. Visits to campus have decreased somewhat but there is no significant differences between their involvement in 2002 and in 2006. Many continue to maintain contact with other alumni and faculty.
Table 9
Involvement with Alma
Mater
|
Activity |
2002 |
2006 |
|
Read campus publications |
3.3 |
3.2 |
|
Visited the institution’s Web site |
2.6 |
2.7 |
|
Visited campus for any purpose |
2.2 |
1.9 |
|
Attended alumni functions on campus |
1.6 |
1.4 |
|
Attended alumni functions off campus |
1.4 |
1.5 |
|
Attended alma mater sporting events |
1.3 |
1.3 |
|
Served as an alumni admissions volunteer |
1.3 |
1.3 |
|
Participated in a career advisory program |
1.1 |
1.2 |
|
Participated in alumni continuing education program |
1.0 |
1.0 |
|
Participated in an alumni community service program |
1.2 |
1.1 |
|
Contributed to or solicited for the annual fund |
2.4 |
2.4 |
|
Maintained contact with other alumni |
3.6 |
3.5 |
|
Maintained contact with faculty members |
2.4 |
2.2 |
|
Maintained contact with administrators |
1.5 |
1.4 |
Scale:
4=Frequently 3=Occasionally 2=Briefly 1=Never
In 2002, 76% of the respondents from the Class of 1996 and 72.9% of the respondents in 2006 indicated that they strongly or very strongly identified with Earlham.
Table 9 shows alumni involvement in organizations since graduation. Alumni participation in organizations has increased somewhat.
Table 10
Involvement in
Organizations
|
2002 |
2006 | |
|
Civic/Community |
2.3 |
2.4 |
|
Cultural/Arts |
2.0 |
2.1 |
|
Educational Service (e.g., PTA) |
1.5 |
1.4 |
|
Political |
1.5 |
1.7 |
|
Professional |
2.2 |
2.4 |
|
Recreational (e.g., sports club) |
2.1 |
2.2 |
|
Religious |
1.8 |
1.8 |
|
Service (e.g. Rotary, Kiwanis) |
1.3 |
1.3 |
|
Youth (e.g. Little League, Scouting |
1.7 |
1.8 |
Scale: 4=Greatly 3=Moderately 2=A Little 1= Not
at All
Currently 74.4% of the respondents from the Class of 1996 are working full time; 14.1% are going to graduate school full time and 3.8% are going to graduate school part time. Of the respondents who are working, 22 of them are educators.
Nine have reported receiving doctoral degrees; six of these were in Life Sciences, one in Education, one in Psychology and one in Humanities and Arts. Six are currently enrolled in doctoral degree programs; four in Humanities and Arts, one in Life Science and one in Social Science.
Eleven have received professional degrees; five in law and one in medicine. Thirty have received Master’s degrees. Six of those were in Life Science and six in Education. Others included Engineering, Humanities and Arts, Math, Physical Science, Religion and Social Science.
Table 10
Current Annual Income
|
|
2002 |
2006 |
|
|
% |
% |
|
No earned income |
4.5 |
7.4 |
|
Less than $19,999 |
26.1 |
12.3 |
|
$20,000 to $39,999 |
43.2 |
29.6 |
|
$40,000 to $59,999 |
17.0 |
24.7 |
|
$60,000 to $79,999 |
3.4 |
14.8 |
|
$80,000 to $99,999 |
2.3 |
6.2 |
|
$100,000 to $119,999 |
2.3 |
1.2 |
|
More than $120,000 |
1.1 |
3.7 |
Over 50% of the Class of 1996 now has annual incomes of $40,000 or more whereas in 2002 only 26% had incomes at this level.
In 2006, supplemental questions were added to the alumni survey. From those questions we found that 23.8% of the Class of 1996 felt that Earlham’s language requirement very significantly contributed to the overall value of their Earlham education. However 13.8% indicated that the language requirement made no contribution to the value of their education. Over 63% of the respondents went on an international off-campus program. And 48% of those alums felt their off-campus experience very significantly contributed to their personal development while 18.5% indicated the program also very significantly contributed to their professional development.
Are they employed in a position that is international in nature? Do they use their foreign language skills in their work? Table 11 shows that over 21% of the Class of 1996 are currently employed in a position that is at least somewhat international in nature.
Table 11
International Applications to Current
Position
|
|
Are you currently employed in a position that is international in nature? |
Do you use your foreign language skills in your work? |
|
Not at all |
56.4% |
60.3% |
|
Very little |
21.8% |
19.2% |
|
Somewhat |
12.8% |
9.0% |
|
Quite a bit |
3.8% |
6.4% |
|
Very significantly |
5.1% |
5.1% |
Created by Mary Ann Weaver
weavema@earlham.edu
May 7, 2007