Alumni Survey – EC Classes of 2000 & 2001
and the Peer Group
Office of Institutional Research
Prepared by Mary Ann Weaver
and George W. Ferriell, Jr.
February 21, 2007
The Classes of 2000 and 2001 were invited to complete the
HEDS Alumni survey in the spring of 2006.
This report compares responses from Earlham’s Classes with the Classes
of 2000 and 2001 from some of our peer institutions. Institutions represented in the 2000 and 2001
Peer Group include
The response rate for Earlham was 38% and the gender breakdown consisted of 71.6% female respondents. For the Peer Group, the response rate ranged from 13.9% - 62.6% and 66.3% of the respondents were female.
Looking at the ethnicity breakdown, whites made up 89.1% of Earlham respondents while 91.8% of the respondents within the Peer Group identified themselves as being white.
For Earlham, 51.5% were married or living with a partner while 49.3% of the Peer Group indicated the same. Along the same line, 7.4% of Earlham respondents indicated that they had 1 or 2 children. For the Peer Group, 7.4% stated that they had 1 or 2 children and 0.4% stated that they had more than 2 children.
Table 1 shows the undergraduate majors of the
respondents. The majority of respondents
from Earlham and the Peer Group majored in Social Science, Humanities or Life
Sciences. Differences among the groups
were most notable in the number of Arts and Music majors, Education majors,
Physical Sciences majors, and Psychology majors.
Table 1
Classification of Respondents’ Undergraduate Major
When surveyed 6-7 years after graduation, 14.4% of Earlham respondents indicated that their major was unrelated to their career. This compares to 15.1% of the Peer Group that indicated that their major was unrelated to their career. On the other hand, 45.6% of Earlham respondents revealed that their major was directly related to their career while 47.1% of the Peer Group indicated the same.
Table 2
Evaluation of Undergraduate Education
Extent enhanced by undergraduate experience
|
Ability/Knowledge |
Earlham |
Peer Group |
|
|
Mean Scores |
|
|
CRITICAL THINKING |
|
|
|
Acquire new skills and knowledge |
3.6 |
3.7 |
|
Think analytically and logically |
3.7 |
3.7 |
|
Formulate creative/original ideas |
3.5 |
3.5 |
|
Academic ability |
3.6 |
3.6 |
|
SKILLS/LEARNING |
|
|
|
Write effectively |
3.6 |
3.6 |
|
Use quantitative tools |
3.1 |
3.0 |
|
Appreciate arts, literature, music, drama |
3.3 |
3.4 |
|
Gain in-depth knowledge of a field |
3.5 |
3.4 |
|
Read or speak a foreign language |
2.9 |
2.6 |
|
SOCIAL/MORAL AWARENESS |
|
|
|
Develop awareness of societal problems |
3.7 |
3.3 |
|
Place current problems in perspective |
3.6 |
3.3 |
|
Understand moral/ethical issues |
3.6 |
3.3 |
|
SELF DEVELOPMENT |
|
|
|
Understand myself |
3.5 |
3.4 |
|
Function independently, w/o supervision |
3.4 |
3.5 |
|
Develop self-esteem |
3.3 |
3.2 |
|
Establish a course of action for goals |
3.3 |
3.4 |
|
Intellectual self-confidence |
3.5 |
3.5 |
|
Develop desire for continued learning |
3.6 |
3.6 |
|
RELATIONSHIP SKILLS |
|
|
|
Lead/supervise tasks/groups of people |
3.1 |
2.9 |
|
Relate well to people of different culture/races |
3.4 |
3.0 |
|
Function effectively as member of team |
3.4 |
3.2 |
|
Communicate well orally |
3.4 |
3.3 |
|
Understand others |
3.5 |
3.4 |
|
UNDERSTANDING SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY |
|
|
|
Understanding the process of science |
3.1 |
2.9 |
|
Use technology |
2.9 |
2.9 |
Scale:
4=Greatly 3=Moderately 2=A Little 1=Not at all
When evaluating the extent to which their critical thinking, self development, relationship skills, and understanding of science/technology was enhanced by their undergraduate education, the Earlham respondents and the Peer Group had similar feelings. However, when rating the extent to which their social/moral awareness was enhanced, Earlham respondents gave higher ratings than the Peer Group. Additionally, Earlham respondents gave higher ratings for the extent to which their ability to read or speak a foreign language improved.
How important are these skills in their current activities? Table 3 compares Earlham respondents and the
Peer Group. The responses were quite
similar with the exception of the use of technology which was more important
for the Earlham graduates.
Table 3
Importance in current activities
|
Ability/Knowledge |
Earlham |
Peer Group |
|
|
Mean Scores |
|
|
CRITICAL THINKING |
|
|
|
Acquire new skills and knowledge |
3.9 |
3.9 |
|
Think analytically and logically |
3.9 |
3.9 |
|
Formulate creative/original ideas |
3.7 |
3.7 |
|
Academic ability |
3.3 |
3.3 |
|
SKILLS/LEARNING |
|
|
|
Write effectively |
3.7 |
3.6 |
|
Use quantitative tools |
3.2 |
3.2 |
|
Appreciate arts, literature, music, drama |
3.1 |
3.0 |
|
Gain in-depth knowledge of a field |
3.6 |
3.5 |
|
Read or speak a foreign language |
2.5 |
2.3 |
|
SOCIAL/MORAL AWARENESS |
|
|
|
Develop awareness of societal problems |
3.5 |
3.4 |
|
Place current problems in perspective |
3.6 |
3.5 |
|
Understand moral/ethical issues |
3.7 |
3.5 |
|
SELF DEVELOPMENT |
|
|
|
Understand myself |
3.6 |
3.6 |
|
Function independently, w/o supervision |
3.8 |
3.9 |
|
Develop self-esteem |
3.5 |
3.5 |
|
Establish a course of action for goals |
3.8 |
3.8 |
|
Intellectual self-confidence |
3.7 |
3.7 |
|
Develop desire for continued learning |
3.7 |
3.7 |
|
RELATIONSHIP SKILLS |
|
|
|
Lead/supervise tasks/groups of people |
3.3 |
3.4 |
|
Relate well to people of different culture/races |
3.7 |
3.5 |
|
Function effectively as member of team |
3.7 |
3.7 |
|
Communicate well orally |
3.8 |
3.8 |
|
Understand others |
3.8 |
3.8 |
|
Ability/Knowledge |
Earlham |
Peer Group |
|
UNDERSTANDING SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY |
|
|
|
Understanding the process of science |
3.0 |
2.8 |
|
Use technology |
3.3 |
2.8 |
Scale:
4=Greatly 3=Moderately 2=A Little 1=Not at all
The participants were asked about their satisfaction with various services or aspects of their college. Table 4 shows that with few exceptions Earlham respondents were somewhat more satisfied with their college experience than the peer group.
Table 4
Satisfaction with College Experiences
|
College Experiences |
Earlham |
Peer Group |
|
|
Mean Scores |
|
|
ACADEMIC EXPERIENCES |
|
|
|
Academic advising |
3.4 |
3.2 |
|
Contact with faculty |
3.8 |
3.7 |
|
Quality of teaching |
3.8 |
3.8 |
|
Courses in major field |
3.6 |
3.6 |
|
Courses outside major field |
3.5 |
3.5 |
|
Independent study/research |
3.7 |
3.5 |
|
CAMPUS SERVICES AND FACILITIES |
|
|
|
Career services |
3.1 |
2.7 |
|
Financial services |
3.5 |
3.2 |
|
Library resources |
3.6 |
3.4 |
|
Recreation/athletics |
3.5 |
3.3 |
|
Residential life |
3.3 |
3.4 |
|
CAMPUS CLIMATE |
|
|
|
Student voice in policies |
3.4 |
3.1 |
|
Campus safety |
3.7 |
3.5 |
|
Sense of belonging |
3.6 |
3.5 |
|
Ethnic/racial diversity |
3.1 |
2.7 |
|
Social life on campus |
3.3 |
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 all expectations at least moderately and often times greatly fulfilled for Earlham respondents and the Peer Group with Earlham respondents giving slightly higher scores for acquiring in-depth knowledge in a particular field, fostering personal growth, and promoting ability to form relationships.
Table 5
Expectations
|
Expectation |
Earlham |
Peer Group |
|
|
Mean Scores |
|
|
Enhance your intellectual growth |
3.7 |
3.8 |
|
Acquire in-depth knowledge in a particular field |
3.5 |
3.4 |
|
Develop competence in career relevant skills |
3.0 |
3.0 |
|
Foster your personal growth |
3.7 |
3.6 |
|
Promote your ability to form relationships |
3.5 |
3.4 |
Scale:
4=Greatly 3=Moderately 2=A Little 1=Not at all
The mean score of their rating of overall satisfaction with their undergraduate education was 3.7 for Earlham respondents and the Peer Group (scale: 4=very satisfied, 1=very dissatisfied). For Earlham respondents, 72.1% indicated they were very satisfied with their Earlham education while 73.4% of the Peer Group indicated the same.
Would graduates encourage others to attend their chosen undergraduate institution?
Among Earlham respondents, 75.8% revealed that they definitely would encourage others to attend Earlham. None of the Earlham respondents indicated that they definitely would not encourage others to attend Earlham; however two respondents said they probably would not. Along the same lines, 75.6% of the Peer Group respondents stated that they definitely would encourage others to attend their undergraduate institution. On the other hand, none of the Peer Group revealed that they definitely would not encourage others to attend their undergraduate institution.
The alumni were asked to indicate their level of involvement in extracurricular activities and then to evaluate the contribution of these various activities to their personal or professional life after graduation. Table 6 shows the mean scores.
Earlham respondents were slightly more involved in many of the activities, but less involved in intercollegiate and intramural sports. The greatest difference between Earlham and the Peer Group is seen in Earlham respondents’ involvement in study abroad programs.
Table 6
Level of Involvement in Activities
|
Level of Involvement |
Earlham |
Peer Group |
|
|
Mean Scores |
|
|
EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES |
|
|
|
Student or campus government |
1.5 |
1.6 |
|
Intercollegiate athletics |
1.8 |
2.0 |
|
Intramural sports |
1.6 |
1.8 |
|
Student publications |
1.5 |
1.5 |
|
Performing arts/music |
2.4 |
2.2 |
|
Political organization or club |
2.1 |
1.7 |
|
Community service |
2.5 |
2.3 |
|
Religious groups |
1.8 |
1.5 |
|
ACADEMIC ACTIVITIES |
|
|
|
Internships |
2.2 |
1.7 |
|
Study abroad |
3.1 |
2.4 |
|
Work on faculty research |
1.6 |
1.6 |
|
Independent study |
2.4 |
2.3 |
|
EMPLOYMENT ACTIVITIES |
|
|
|
On-campus employment |
2.7 |
2.7 |
|
Off-campus employment |
1.6 |
1.7 |
Table 7 shows that, for the Earlham graduates, extracurricular activities such as participation in political clubs, community service, and religious groups made a larger contribution to their personal or professional life after graduate compared to the Peer Group. Additionally, academic activities such as internships, study abroad, and working on faculty research were rated higher by Earlham graduates.
Table 7
Contribution of Activities to Personal/Professional Development
|
Contribution to
your development |
Earlham |
Peer Group |
|
|
Mean Scores |
|
|
EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES |
|
|
|
Student or campus government |
1.8 |
1.8 |
|
Intercollegiate athletics |
2.0 |
2.1 |
|
Intramural sports |
1.7 |
2.0 |
|
Student publications |
1.8 |
1.8 |
|
Performing arts/music |
2.4 |
2.5 |
|
Political organization or club |
2.3 |
2.0 |
|
Community service |
2.7 |
2.6 |
|
Religious groups |
2.2 |
1.7 |
|
ACADEMIC ACTIVITIES |
|
|
|
Internships |
3.0 |
2.6 |
|
Study abroad |
3.5 |
3.2 |
|
Work on faculty research |
2.3 |
2.0 |
|
Independent study |
2.6 |
2.7 |
|
EMPLOYMENT ACTIVITIES |
|
|
|
On-campus employment |
2.5 |
2.5 |
|
Off-campus employment |
2.1 |
2.1 |
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. Earlham respondents felt slightly more prepared for their post-baccalaureate education, interpersonal relationships, and social and civic involvement. However, Earlham respondents and the Peer Group felt equally prepared for their current career.
Table 8
Level of Preparedness for post-graduation Activities
|
Activities |
Earlham |
Peer Group |
|
|
Mean Scores |
|
|
Post-baccalaureate education |
3.4 |
3.3 |
|
Current career |
3.2 |
3.2 |
|
Social and civic involvement |
3.3 |
3.0 |
|
Interpersonal relationships |
3.1 |
3.0 |
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 their undergraduate institution. Table 9 shows that the Peer Group was more involved with their alma mater in many areas, especially in their contributions to the annual fund. However, Earlham respondents were slightly more likely to maintain contact with family.
Table 9
Involvement with Alma Mater
|
Activity |
Earlham |
Peer Group |
|
|
Mean Scores |
|
|
Read campus publications |
3.1 |
3.2 |
|
Visited the institution’s Web site |
2.9 |
2.9 |
|
Visited campus for any purpose |
2.1 |
2.3 |
|
Attended alumni functions on campus |
1.4 |
1.5 |
|
Attended alumni functions off campus |
1.4 |
1.6 |
|
Attended alma mater sporting events |
1.4 |
1.4 |
|
Served as an alumni admissions volunteer |
1.1 |
1.2 |
|
Participated in a career advisory program |
1.1 |
1.1 |
|
Participated in alumni continuing education program |
1.0 |
1.0 |
|
Participated in an alumni community service program |
1.0 |
1.1 |
|
Contributed to or solicited for the annual fund |
1.7 |
2.5 |
|
Maintained contact with other alumni |
3.6 |
3.6 |
|
Maintained contact with faculty members |
2.6 |
2.4 |
|
Maintained contact with administrators |
1.4 |
1.4 |
Scale: 4=Frequently 3=Occasionally
2=Briefly 1=Never
Among Earlham respondents, 40.6% indicated that they strongly or very strongly identified with their Alma Mater while 36.7% of the Peer Group indicated the same.
Table 10 shows alumni involvement in organizations since graduation. Earlham respondents are more involved in political organizations, religious organizations and service organizations than the Peer Group but less involved in recreational organizations.
Table 10
Involvement in Organizations
|
Earlham |
Peer Group |
|
|
|
Mean Scores |
|
|
Civic/Community |
2.2 |
2.2 |
|
Cultural/Arts |
2.2 |
2.3 |
|
Educational Service (e.g., PTA) |
1.5 |
1.5 |
|
Political |
1.9 |
1.7 |
|
Professional |
2.4 |
2.4 |
|
Recreational (e.g., sports club) |
2.0 |
2.2 |
|
Religious |
2.0 |
1.8 |
|
Service (e.g. Rotary, Kiwanis) |
1.4 |
1.3 |
|
Youth (e.g. Little League, Scouting) |
1.5 |
1.5 |
Scale:
4=Greatly 3=Moderately 2=A Little 1= Not at All
Currently, among Earlham respondents, 61.8% are working full time, 32.1% are attending graduate school full time and 6.7% are attending graduate school part time. Within the Peer Group, 68.2% are working full time, 28.5% are attending graduate school full time and 9.4% are attending graduate school part time.
Table 11 indicates the percentage of respondents who have received or are currently enrolled in a particular graduate program. A much higher percentage of Earlham respondents are currently enrolled in master’s degree programs and professional degree programs compared to the Peer Group.
Table 11
Degrees
|
Degree |
Earlham |
Peer Group |
|
Master’s received |
23.6% |
27.7% |
|
Enrolled in Master’s |
29.1% |
19.8% |
|
Professional degree received |
|
|
|
Law degree received |
3.0% |
<1% |
|
Medical degree received |
4.5% |
<1% |
|
Enrolled in professional degree program |
|
|
|
Enrolled in law program |
7.6% |
<1% |
|
Enrolled in medical program |
9.0% |
<1% |
|
Doctorate degree received |
<1% |
1.9% |
|
Enrolled in a doctorate degree |
12.1% |
10.3% |
Table 12 shows the current annual income of the respondents. More respondents within the Peer Group indicated that their current annual income was between $40,000 and $99,999 or more than $120,000 compared to the Earlham respondents. A higher percentage of Earlham respondents indicated that had no earned income or income less than $40,000.
Table 12
Current Annual Income
|
|
Earlham |
Peer Group |
|
No earned income |
9.1% |
7.0% |
|
Less than $19,999 |
26.7% |
15.6% |
|
$20,000 to $39,999 |
38.8% |
37.1% |
|
$40,000 to $59,999 |
18.2% |
24.9% |
|
$60,000 to $79,999 |
4.2% |
9.3% |
|
$80,000 to $99,999 |
1.2% |
2.8% |
|
$100,000 to $119,999 |
1.2% |
1.0% |
|
More than $120,000 |
0.6% |
2.4% |
The data collected from the HEDS Alumni Survey of the
Earlham Classes of 2000 and 2001 and the Peer Group has allowed Earlham to
adequately compare its alumni with its peers.
Careful analysis of this information can allow
Created by Mary Ann Weaver
weavema@earlham.edu
May 7, 2007