2002-2003 Graduate Student Exit Survey Report
John L. Wallace
Office of Academic Assessment and Institutional Research
Ball State University
October, 2003
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
•
•
•
The 2002-2003 Graduate Student Exit
Survey was completed by Ball State
University Master’s, Doctoral, and
Specialist level students applying to
graduate in December 2001, May 2002,
or July 2002. The survey was designed
to determine the students' opinions about
their experiences at the University and in
their major departments. Of the 946
individuals who were sent the survey,
372 graduate students completed the
survey for a response rate of about 39%.
In both 2002-2003 and 2001-2002, the
majority of respondents were between
the ages of 21 and 30 and at least half
were enrolled in graduate studies fulltime.
Three out of four respondents reported
they were employed while enrolled in
graduate studies. More than seven out of
ten respondents reported they received
financial assistance while enrolled in
graduate school.
•
At least 95%of all respondents indicated
that their general attitude toward Ball
State was very positive or positive.
•
More than nine of ten respondents rated
their academic experiences and the
quality of their graduate education as
excellent or good.
•
At least half of the respondents in both
years reported that very important
reasons for choosing Ball State included
the availability of a specific program ,
having an outstanding program in their
field, and the reputation of the
department.
•
More than 95% of respondents indicated
they had used the registration
procedures, the Bursar’s Office, and the
University web site. Of those, about 80%
were satisfied with the services.
•
In 2002-2003, about 80% of respondents
who had used the Office of Graduate
Admissions, the Graduation Office, or
the Graduate School website were
satisfied.
•
Respondents in 2002-2003 were more
likely than respondents in 2001-2002 to
indicate they had used the Graduate
School web site.
•
In both years, at least 50% of
respondents reported that the
professional expertise of faculty and
opportunities for interactions with
faculty were excellent.
•
Respondents in 2002-2003 rated
significantly higher than the respondents
in 2001-2002 opportunities and
experiences such as the availability of
courses needed for graduation, quality of
teaching, and the professional expertise
of faculty.
•
At least 50% of respondents in both
years agreed that as a result of their
graduate program they had extended
their knowledge about their discipline,
they were committed to the professional
and ethical standards of their discipline,
they could communicate effectively in
ways appropriate for their discipline, and
they could analyze, synthesize, and apply
knowledge in their discipline.
•
Full-time respondents with
assistantships, full-time respondents
without assistantships, and part-time
respondents were significantly different
in a number of demographic
characteristics including age, citizenship,
residence, employment, and year when
they started taking classes.
•
Full-time respondents were less likely
than part-time respondents to report that
they took classes at off-campus
locations, via TV, or via the internet.
•
Part-time respondents were less likely
than full-time respondents to indicate
having applied to one or more other
graduate schools.
•
Full-time respondents were more likely
than part-time respondents to indicate
they had used Ball State services
including the recreation facilities, Career
Center, library services, Ball State
Bookstore, the Office of Academic
Research, the Office of Graduate
Admissions, Counseling and
Psychological Services, and university
computing services.
•
Full-time respondents with assistantships
were more likely than the other
respondents to rate the opportunities to
interact with classmates and faculty as
excellent or good.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1
Personal Characteristics of Respondents ................................................................ 3
Overall Opinions About Ball State ....................................................................... 11
Reasons For Choosing Ball State .......................................................................... 15
Evaluation And Use of Ball State Services ........................................................... 19
Department Ratings............................................................................................... 25
Graduate Program Outcomes ................................................................................ 29
Comparison of Enrollment Groups ....................................................................... 31
Summary and Conclusions.................................................................................... 41
Appendix: Ball State Graduate Student Survey ................................................... 43
LIST OF TABLES
Page
TABLE 1
Demographics ......................................................................................... 4
TABLE 2
Residence While Completing Graduate School ...................................... 5
TABLE 3
Employment ............................................................................................ 7
TABLE 4
Financial Assistance................................................................................ 7
TABLE 5
Location of Classes ................................................................................ 8
TABLE 6
Preparation for Graduate Study............................................................... 8
TABLE 7
Year When Started Taking Classes ........................................................ 9
TABLE 8
Overall Opinions ................................................................................... 12
TABLE 9
Overall Ratings .................................................................................... 12
TABLE 10 Assistantship Experience ..................................................................... 13
TABLE 11 To How Many Universities Did You Apply Besides Ball State? ....... 16
TABLE 12 Reasons for Choosing to Enroll in Graduate Studies at Ball State ...... 16
TABLE 13 Most Important Reason for Choosing Ball State ................................. 18
TABLE 14 Ball State Services ............................................................................... 20
TABLE 15 Use and Satisfaction with Ball State Services ..................................... 22
TABLE 16 Opportunities and Experiences in Respondents’ Department .............. 26
TABLE 17 Graduate Program Outcomes ............................................................... 29
TABLE 18 Enrollment Groups ................................................................................ 31
TABLE 19 Significant Differences in Demographics by Enrollment Group ......... 32
TABLE 20 Employment by Enrollment Group ...................................................... 33
TABLE 21 Financial Assistance by Enrollment Group........................................... 34
TABLE 22 Year When Started Taking Classes by Enrollment Group ................... 34
TABLE 23 Location of Classes by Enrollment Group ............................................ 35
TABLE 24 Plans for the Next Year by Enrollment Group ...................................... 36
TABLE 25 Significant Differences in Reasons for Choosing to Enroll
in Graduate Studies at Ball State by Enrollment Group……………37
TABLE 26 Other University Applications by Enrollment Group .......................... 38
TABLE 27 Significant Differences in Use and Satisfaction with
Ball State Services by Enrollment Group .......................................... 39
TABLE 28 Significant Differences in Opportunities and Experiences in
Respondents’ Department by Enrollment Group .............................. 40
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
FIGURE 1 Method Used to Complete Master’s Degree Research Requirement...... 5
FIGURE 2 Plans for the Following Year .................................................................. 9
INTRODUCTION
The 2002-2003 Graduate Student Exit Survey was completed by Ball State University
Master's, Doctoral, and Specialist level students applying to graduate in December 2001, May
2002, or July 2002. The Graduate Student Exit Survey was developed by the Office of Academic
Assessment and Institutional Research and the Graduate School. The survey is designed to
measure the students' opinions about their experiences at the University and in their major
departments.
This report is a summary of responses from 2002-2003 and 2001-2002 graduate students
who participated in the survey. Of the 946 students who received surveys in 2002-2003, 372
graduate students completed the survey to give a response rate of 39 percent.*
This report is presented in seven sections: Personal Characteristics of Respondents,
Overall Opinions about Ball State, Reasons for Choosing Ball State, Evaluation and Use of Ball
State Services, Department Ratings, Graduate Program Outcomes, and Comparison of
Enrollment Groups for 2002-2003.
* In 2001-2002, of approximately 904 graduate students who received surveys, 397 graduate students completed the
survey for a response rate of about 44 percent.
1
PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS
Summary This section includes the
personal and demographic characteristics of
the 2002-2003 and 2001-2002 survey
respondents. All personal and demographic
information was obtained directly from
responses to survey questions.
At least half (52%)of respondents in
both years reported that they were attending
Ball State full-time. Approximately 91% in
2002-2003 and 90 percent in 2001-2002
were completing a Master’s degree. About
half (at least 45%)of the respondents in both
years were living in Muncie while working
on their degree. In both years, at least 73%
were employed and 71% had received
funding. In addition, at least 71%
respondents in both years took the majority
of their classes on campus. At least 46%of
respondents in both years reported their
plans for the next year included starting a
new job.
•
The majority of respondents (at least
54%) in both years indicated that they
were between 21 and 30 years of age
(Table 1).
•
In both years, about two-thirds (65%) of
respondents were female and the
remaining third (35%) were male
(Table 1).
•
In both years, about 91% of respondents
reported being US citizens and nine
percent reported that they were not
(Table 1).
•
In both academic years, approximately
forty percent of respondents reported
they had received a previous degree from
Ball State (Table 1).
•
At least half of respondents in both years
reported they were enrolled full-time
while attending Ball State (Table 1).
•
In both years, nine of every ten
respondents reported they were obtaining
a Master’s degree, eight percent were
completing a Doctorate and about one
percent were completing a Specialist’s
degree (Table 1).
•
Of Master’s degree respondents, about
half in both years reported that they were
satisfying their research requirement
with a research class. About one in ten
respondents in both years indicated that
they were satisfying their research
requirement with a thesis (Figure 1).
•
In both years, about half (45%) of
respondents indicated they lived in
Muncie. Of those in Muncie, about one
third (29%) reported living in University
housing (Table 2).
2
T ABLE 1
Demogr aphics
2002-2003
2001-2002
Percentages
Age
21-25
26-30
31-35
36-40
41-45
46-50
More than 50
N=235
23.8
29.8
11.9
8.9
8.5
8.5
8.5
N=384
35.2
26.6
10.9
9.1
7.3
5.5
5.5
Gender
Female
Male
N=234
65.0
35.0
N=392
62.2
37.8
Citizenship
U.S. Citizen
Not U.S. Citizen
N=236
90.7
9.3
N=391
91.3
8.7
Received a pr evious degr ee fr om Ball State
Yes
No
N=366
40.7
59.3
N=388
37.4
62.6
Attendance
Full-time
Part-time
N=368
52.1
47.9
N=386
66.1
33.9
Degr ee
Master’s
Doctorate
Specialist
N=368
91.3
7.9
0.8
N=397
90.1
8.3
1.6
T ABLE 2
Residence While Completing Gr aduate School
2002-2003
2001-2002
Percentages
Residence
Muncie
Outside Muncie
N=366
44.5
55.5
N=397
54.1
45.9
Muncie Residents
University Housing
Non-University Housing
N=163
28.8
71.2
N=215
36.2
63.8
3
F IGURE 1
Method Used to Complete Master ’s Degr ee Resear ch Requir ement
60
49.8
50
2002-2003
2001-2002
40
Percent
46.7
27.1
30
21.1
20
14.9
16.8
11.3 12.3
10
0
Thesis
Creative Project Research Paper Research Class
Re se arch Re quire me nt
•
•
In both years, about two-thirds (66%) of
respondents reported being employed
while enrolled in graduate school
(Table 3).
About half (47%) of employed
respondents in both years reported
working full-time off campus.
•
In 2002-2003, a significantly lower
percentage of employed respondents
indicated that they worked part-time off
campus while working on their degree
(22% in 2002-2003 compared to 36% in
2001-2002; Table 3).
•
Of employed respondents, two percent in
2002-2003 and four percent in 20012002 reported working full-time on
campus. At least seven percent in both
years reported working part-time on
campus (Table 3).
•
At least seven out of ten respondents in
both years indicated that they received
funding while enrolled in graduate
studies at Ball State (Table 4).
•
In both years, about one in ten
respondents who received funding
indicated they had received a teaching
assistantship. Of respondents who
received funding, approximately 11% in
2002-2003 and 14% in 2001-2002
reported they had received a research
assistantship. At least one-quarter in
both years reported they had received
other assistantships (Table 4).
4
•
Less than ten percent of respondents in
either year reported that they received a
scholarship or a fellowship from Ball
State (Table 4).
•
In 2001-2002, approximately three
percent of respondents who received
funding indicated they received a grant
from Ball State. In 2002-2003, however,
approximately six percent of respondents
who received funding indicated they had
received a grant (Table 4).
•
GSL/SLS loans were received by only
15% of 2002-2003 respondents with
funding and by 27 percent of 2001-2002
respondents with funding (Table 4).
Respondents in 2002-2003 were
significantly more likely than
respondents in 2001-2002 to indicate
that they had taken a class via the
internet (33% in 2002-2003 compared to
18% in 2001-2002; Table 5).
•
Seventy-one percent of respondents in
2002-2003 indicated they had taken the
majority of their classes on campus and
86% of respondents in 2001-2002
indicated that they had taken the
majority of their classes on campus in
Muncie (Table 5).
•
•
Of the respondents who received
funding, 16% in 2002-2003 and 20% in
2001-2002 indicated that they received
funding from an employer (Table 4).
•
At least three quarters (77%) of the
respondents in both years indicated that
they had taken a class on campus in
Muncie. Sixteen percent in 2002-2003
and 18 percent in 2001-2002 indicated
they had taken a class via TV at an offcampus site. At least 12% in both years
reported they had taken a class with an
instructor at an off campus site (Table
5).
T ABLE 3
Employment
2002-2003
2001-2002
Percentages
Employed While Enr olled in Gr aduate
School
Yes
No
Type of Employment *
Full-time Off Campus**
Part-time Off Campus**
Full-time On Campus
Part-time On Campus
N=368
N=392
72.6
27.4
66.1
33.9
N=267
47.3
22.3
1.6
7.3
N=259
57.1
35.6
3.8
8.0
* Respondents were asked to mark all that apply.
** Statistically significant differences exist between 2002-2003 and 2001-2002 percentages on this item (p≤ .05).
5
T ABLE 4
Financial Assistance
2002-2003
2001-2002
Percentages
Received funding
Yes
No
N=365
71.8
28.2
N=395
75.4
24.6
Type of funding *
Teaching Assistantship
Research Assistantship
Other Assistantship**
Scholarship from Ball State
Fellowship from Ball State
Grant from Ball State
GSL/SLS loan**
Funding from employer
Other
N=262
10.8
11.3
24.5
3.5
1.9
5.9
14.8
16.4
11.8
N=298
16.8
13.8
44.6
5.0
3.7
3.4
27.2
19.5
13.8
* Respondents were asked to mark all that apply.
** Statistically significant differences exist between 2002-2003 and 2001-2002 percentages on this item (p≤ .05).
T ABLE 5
Location of Classes
2002-2003
2001-2002
Percentages
Wher e did you take your classes? *
On campus in Muncie**
Via TV at an off-campus site
Via the internet **
With an instructor at an off-campus site
Wher e did you take the major ity of your
classes?
On campus in Muncie
Via TV at an off-campus site
Via the internet
With an instructor at an off-campus site
N=372
77.4
16.1
32.8
14.5
N=397
90.7
18.4
18.4
12.1
N=372
N=397
71.4
10.0
12.4
6.3
85.6
6.8
4.5
3.1
* Respondents were asked to mark all that apply.
** Statistically significant differences exist between 2002-2003 and 2001-2002 percentages on this item (p≤ .05).
6
•
Nearly half (45%) of respondents in both
years reported that their previous
education and training was “excellent”
preparation for graduate school and at
least 43% in both years reported it was
“good” preparation. (Table 6)
•
Approximately one out of ten
respondents in both years indicated that
they started taking courses at Ball State
during the same year that they completed
the survey. About one-third (31%) of
the respondents began taking classes the
previous year (Table 7).
T ABLE 6
Pr epar ation for Gr aduate Study
2002-2003
2001-2002
Percentages
How would you char acter ize your pr evious
education and tr aining as pr epar ation for
graduate study at Ball State?
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
N=365
N=387
44.7
45.2
9.6
0.5
47.3
43.4
8.5
0.8
T ABLE 7
Year When Star ted Taking Classes
2002-2003
2001-2002
Percentages
When did you fir st star t taking cour ses at
Ball State?
Before last year
Last year
This academic year
N=372
N=397
58.1
30.9
8.9
53.8
34.9
11.3
7
•
When respondents were asked to
indicate their plans for the following
year, more respondents in 2002-2003
and 2001-2002 reported they planned to
start a new job (Figure 2).
•
Four of every ten respondents reported
they would return to or continue their
prior job (Figure 2).
•
About 14% of respondents in both years
reported they planned to continue
graduate studies (Figure 2).
F IGURE 2
Plans for the Following Year *
56.9
60
50
45.4
40.9
Percent
40
32.5
2002-2003
2001-2002
30
20
15.3 13.6
7.8
10
7.1
0
Start a New Job
Return to /
Continue Graduate
Continue Prior Job
Study
Other
Re se arch Re quire me nt
* Respondents wer e asked to mar k all that apply.
8
OVERALL OPINIONS ABOUT BALL STATE
Summary Respondents were asked
about their general attitudes toward Ball
State, including whether or not they would
recommend Ball State. In both years, more
than nine out of ten respondents rated their
attitude toward Ball State as very positive or
positive.
About nine of every ten rated their
academic experiences, personal enrichment,
and quality of graduate education as either
excellent or good. When asked about their
assistantship experience, about 90% of those
with assistantships in both years rated the
experience as excellent or good.
•
At least 95 percent of respondents in
2002-2003 and 2001-2002 reported that
their general attitude toward Ball State
was very positive or positive (Table 8).
•
In both years, 84% of respondents stated
they would recommend Ball State to
someone who is considering their major.
•
Nine of every ten respondents in both
years reported that their overall academic
experiences were either excellent or
good (Table 9). Respondents in 20022003 rated their academic experiences
significantly higher than 2001-2002
respondents.
•
About 85% of respondents in 2002-2003
and 2001-2002 rated their personal
enrichment as excellent or good
(Table 9).
•
Respondents in 2002-2003 rated their
personal enrichment significantly higher
than 2001-2002 respondents.
•
Approximately 90% of respondents in
both years rated the quality of their
graduate education as excellent or good
(Table 9). Respondents in 2002-2003
rated quality of their graduate education
significantly higher than 2001-2002
respondents.
•
Of the respondents with assistantships,
57% in 2002-2003 and 48% in 20012002 reported that their assistantship
experience was excellent. Thirty-three
percent in 2002-2003 and 41%in 20012002 reported it was good (Table 10).
Respondents in 2002-2003 rated their
assistantship experience significantly
higher than 2001-2002 respondents.
•
In 2002-2003, 52% of respondents with
assistantships rated their stipend as
excellent or good. In 2001-2002, 56%
rated it as excellent or good (Table 10).
•
In both years, about 75% of respondents
with assistantships indicated that the
supervision and guidance for
assistantship activities was excellent or
good (Table 10).
9
T ABLE 8
Over all Opinions
2002-2003
2001-2002
Percentages
What is your gener al attitude towar d Ball
State?*
Very positive
Positive
Negative
Very negative
N=233
Ave=3.38
42.9
52.8
3.4
0.9
N=388
Ave=3.27
31.2
64.7
3.9
0.3
N=233
N=386
84.5
7.7
7.7
84.2
6.2
9.6
Would you r ecommend Ball State to
someone who wanted to major in your
field?
Yes
No
Don’t know
* Statistically significant differences exist between 2002-2003 and 2001-2002 percentages on this item (p≤ .05).
T ABLE 9
Over all Ratings
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
N
Ave
Percentages
Your academic experiences*
2002-2003
2001-2002
367
386
3.40
3.26
47.1
35.2
46.6
55.7
5.2
8.8
1.1
0.3
Your personal enrichment*
2002-2003
2001-2002
365
388
3.32
3.17
47.9
34.8
38.6
48.5
11.2
15.5
2.2
1.0
Quality of your graduate
Education*
2002-2003
2001-2002
366
384
3.31
3.20
41.8
33.9
48.4
53.6
8.7
11.5
1.1
1.0
10
T ABLE 10
Assistantship Exper ience
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
N
Ave
Percentages
Assistantship experience*
2002-2003
2001-2002
152
201
3.43
56.6
47.8
32.9
40.8
7.9
8.5
2.6
3.0
Assistantship stipend
2002-2003
2001-2002
151
197
2.52
15.9
14.7
36.4
41.1
31.1
31.0
16.6
13.2
Supervision and guidance for
assistantship activities
2002-2003
2001-2002
151
199
3.03
39.7
39.2
16.6
17.1
7.9
8.5
35.8
35.2
11
REASONS FOR CHOOSING BALL STATE
Summary Respondents were asked
about the number of universities to which
they had applied. Respondents were also
asked to rate the importance of a list of
reasons for enrolling in graduate studies at
Ball State and to indicate their most
important reason. Figure 3 displays the top
ten reasons why respondents chose to attend
graduate studies at Ball State University.
More than six out of every ten
respondents in 2002-2003 and in 2001-2002
indicated they had not applied to any other
universities.
Three-quarters of respondents in both
years reported that a very important reason
for choosing Ball State was the availability
of a specific program. At least 45% of
respondents in both years indicated that very
important reasons for choosing Ball State
included the availability of a specific
program, an outstanding program, the
reputation of the department, and the
location.
Respondents in 2002-2003 gave
significantly higher importance ratings to the
following important reasons for enrolling at
Ball State: reputation of department’s
faculty, the personal attention BSU gives to
students, relatively low cost to attend,
technology resources, and the availability of
distance education.
•
At least 62% of respondents in both
years reported that they had not applied
to other universities besides Ball State
(Table 11).
•
Approximately one-quarter of
respondents in 2002-2003 and in 20012002 indicated they had applied to
between one and three schools other than
Ball State (Table 11).
•
Three-quarters of respondents in both
years indicated that a very important
reason for enrolling at Ball State was the
availability of a specific program (Table
12).
•
More than one-third of respondents in
both years indicated that a very
important reason for enrolling at Ball
State the reputation of faculty in the
department (Table 12).
•
Respondents in 2002-2003 rated their
Ball State’s relatively low cost a
significantly more important reason to
attend Ball State than 2001-2002
respondents (Table 12).
•
At least one-quarter of respondents in
both years indicated that personal
attention to students and the reputation
of Ball State were very important
reasons for deciding to engage in
graduate studies at Ball State (Table 12).
•
Attending Ball State as an undergraduate
was a very important factor in deciding
to enroll in graduate studies according to
22% of respondents in 2002-2003 (Table
12).
•
When asked about the most important
reason for pursuing graduate studies at
Ball State, 21% of respondents in both
years reported the availability of a
specific program (Table 13).
12
F IGURE 3
Top Ten Reasons Respondents Chose to Enr oll in
Gr aduate Studies at Ball State Univer sity
10. Availability of Distance Education
1.59
1.79
2002-2003
1.91
1.79
9. Technology Resources
2001-2002
8. Relatively Low Cost
2.14
2.08
7. Reputation of Ball State
2.15
2.06
6. BSU Gives Personal Attention to Students
2.04
2.2
2.22
2.21
5. Location
2.27
2.12
4. Reputation of Faculty in Department
2.39
2.33
3. Reputation of Department
2.49
2.43
2. Outstanding Department
2.75
2.73
1. Availability of Specific Program
1
Not
Important
2
Somewhat
Important
3
Very
Important
Aver age Rating
T ABLE 11
To How Many Univer sities Did You Apply Besides Ball State?
2002-2003
2001-2002
Percentages
0
1-3 other schools
4 or more other schools
63.7
28.0
8.0
62.4
24.5
13.1
13
T ABLE 12
Reasons for Choosing To Enr oll in Gr aduate Studies at Ball State
I chose to enr oll in graduate studies at
Ball State because…
Ver y
Important
Somewhat
Important
Not
Important
N
Ave
Percentages
of the availability of a specific program.
2002-2003
2001-2002
366
380
2.75
2.73
78.7
78.2
17.5
16.8
3.8
5.0
Ball State has an outstanding program in
my field.
2002-2003
2001-2002
358
377
2.49
2.43
57.8
53.8
33.8
35.5
8.4
10.6
of the reputation of my department.
2002-2003
2001-2002
359
374
2.39
2.33
49.3
47.9
40.4
37.2
10.3
15.0
of the reputation of faculty in my
department.*
2002-2003
2001-2002
353
370
2.27
2.12
41.1
36.2
44.5
39.7
of location.
2002-2003
2001-2002
352
378
2.22
2.21
49.1
46.6
23.9
28.0
Ball State gives personal attention to
students. *
2002-2003
2001-2002
352
369
2.20
2.04
39.8
31.2
40.6
41.2
14.4
24.1
27.0
25.4
19.6
27.6
* Statistically significant differences exist between 2002-2003 and 2001-2002 on this item (p≤ .05).
14
T ABLE 12 (CONT ’D)
Reasons for Choosing To Enr oll in Gr aduate Studies at Ball State
I chose to enr oll in graduate studies at
Ball State because…
Ver y
Important
Somewhat
Important
Not
Important
N
Ave
of the reputation of Ball State.
2002-2003
2001-2002
Percentages
365
380
2.15
2.06
31.0
26.8
53.4
52.1
15.6
21.1
of its relatively low cost.
2002-2003
2001-2002
350
373
2.14
2.08
38.0
31.4
38.3
45.3
23.7
23.3
of technology resources. *
2002-2003
2001-2002
348
370
1.91
1.79
28.2
22.4
34.5
33.8
37.4
43.8
of the availability of distance education. *
2002-2003
2001-2002
355
370
1.79
1.59
33.0
23.2
12.7
12.2
54.4
64.6
I received an assistantship.*
2002-2003
2001-2002
338
361
1.77
1.93
33.1
41.6
10.4
10.2
56.5
48.2
it was recommended to me.
2002-2003
2001-2002
350
364
1.77
1.74
25.4
22.3
26.0
29.4
48.6
48.4
I attended Ball State as an undergraduate
student.
2002-2003
2001-2002
337
337
1.58
1.58
22.3
20.5
13.6
17.2
64.1
62.3
a friend or spouse was also attending.
2002-2003
2001-2002
338
359
1.38
1.33
14.8
10.6
8.9
12.0
76.3
77.4
* Statistically significant differences exist between 2002-2003 and 2001-2002 on this item (p≤ .05).
15
T ABLE 12 (CONT ’D)
Reasons for Choosing To Enr oll in Gr aduate Studies at Ball State
I chose to enr oll in graduate studies at
Ball State because…
I was personally recruited by my
department.
2002-2003
2001-2002
other.
2002-2003
2001-2002
Ver y
Important
Somewhat
Important
Not
Important
N
Ave
Percentages
334
348
1.37
1.43
9.9
12.6
17.4
17.8
72.8
69.5
93
56
n/a
n/a
35.5
23.2
2.2
10.7
62.4
66.1
T ABLE 13
Most Impor tant Reason for Choosing Ball State
2002-2003
2001-2002
Percentages
I chose to enr oll in gr aduate studies at Ball State
because…
of the availability of a specific program.
Ball State has an outstanding program in my
field.
I received an assistantship.
of location.
of the availability of distance education.
I attended Ball State as an undergraduate student.
of the reputation of my department.
of the reputation of faculty in my department.
it was recommended to me.
of the reputation of Ball State.
a friend or spouse was also attending.
Ball State gives personal attention to students.
of its relatively low cost.
I was personally recruited by my department.
of technology resources.
other.
20.8
11.1
21.9
18.2
10.6
15.0
14.6
6.2
2.7
0.4
2.7
2.2
3.5
1.8
1.8
2.2
0.0
4.4
17.7
12.8
10.3
4.0
3.7
2.8
1.7
1.7
1.1
1.1
0.9
0.6
0.0
1.4
16
EVALUATION AND USE OF BALL STATE SERVICES
Summary Respondents were asked whether
they had used Ball State services and
whether they were satisfied with the
services. Table 14 includes the exact
responses given. Figure 4 displays the
percent of 2002-2003 respondents who
indicated they used a Ball State service and
the percent of those users who were satisfied
with the service. Table 15 outlines the
percent of respondents who used the service,
and of those, the percent who were satisfied.
•
•
•
As shown in Table 14, the majority of
respondents in both years reported they
had not used the Career Center,
Counseling and Psychological Services,
or the Office of Academic Research.
More than 95% of respondents in both
years indicated they had used the
Registration Procedure or the Bursar’s
Office. Of those, at least three-quarters
in both years were satisfied with the
Registration Procedure and at least 70%
in both years were satisfied with the
Bursar’s Office (Table 15).
The University web site was used by
more than 90% of respondents in both
years. Of respondents who had used the
University web site, at least 80% of
respondents in both years reported being
satisfied (Table 15).
•
Significantly fewer 2002-2003
respondents reported using the Library
services when compared to 2000-2001
respondents (Table 15).
•
At least eight out of ten respondents in
both years reported using the Ball State
Bookstore. Of those, about threequarters were satisfied (Table 15).
•
In both years, almost 75% of
respondents reported they had used
University Computing Services and of
those, about eight in ten were satisfied
(Table 15).
•
Approximately 39% of respondents in
2002-2003 and 51% of respondents in
2001-2002 indicated that they had used
recreational facilities—a significant
decrease in its use. At least 85% of
those were satisfied with the facilities
(Table 15).
•
About one-quarter of 2002-2003
respondents reported they had used the
Career Center, a significant decrease
from 2001-2002 (Table 15).
•
Approximately one in four respondents
in both years indicated they had used the
Office of Academic Research (Table 15).
•
Less than ten percent of respondents in
2002-2003 indicated they had used
Counseling and Psychological Service, a
significant decrease from 2001-2002
(Table 15).
•
About nine in ten respondents in both
years reported that they had used the
Office of Graduate Admissions. Of
those, about 85% indicated they were
satisfied with the services. (Table 15)
17
•
Graduate School web site (84% in 20022003 compared to 75% in 2001-2002)
(Table 15).
Respondents in 2002-2003 were
significantly more likely than
respondents in 2001-2002 to use the
T ABLE 14
Ball State Ser vices
I did not use
this ser vice.
I used this ser vice and I was…
Satisfied
N
Undecided
Dissatisfied
Percentages
Univer sity Ser vices
Ball State Bookstore
2002-2003
2001-2002
236
389
17.8
15.9
61.0
66.6
11.9
11.1
9.3
6.4
Bursar’s Office
2002-2003
2001-2002
236
394
5.1
3.8
74.2
72.8
13.1
11.4
7.6
12.0
Career Center*
2002-2003
2001-2002
234
392
76.9
64.0
14.5
21.9
5.1
9.4
3.4
4.6
Counseling and
Psychological Services*
2002-2003
2001-2002
234
392
93.6
82.1
3.8
11.2
2.6
4.3
0.0
2.3
Library Services*
2002-2003
2001-2002
235
393
16.6
8.9
73.2
76.3
5.5
7.9
4.7
6.9
Office of Academic
Research (Grant Support)
2002-2003
2001-2002
234
392
75.6
77.6
17.5
13.3
4.3
7.7
2.6
1.5
Recreational Facilities*
2002-2003
2001-2002
231
393
61.5
48.6
32.9
44.5
4.8
3.3
0.9
3.6
* Statistically significant differences exist between 2002-2003 and 2001-2002 percentages on this item (p≤ .05).
18
T ABLE 14 (CONT ’D)
Ball State Ser vices
I did not use
this ser vice.
I used this ser vice and I was…
Satisfied
N
Univer sity Ser vices (cont’d)
Registration Procedure
2002-2003
237
2001-2002
393
Undecided
Dissatisfied
Percentages
3.0
2.0
76.8
80.2
13.5
10.7
6.8
7.1
University Computing
Services
2002-2003
2001-2002
234
392
28.2
26.3
56.8
57.1
9.8
12.2
5.1
4.3
University Web Site
2002-2003
2001-2002
237
393
3.8
4.8
81.9
83.7
8.9
7.4
5.5
4.1
Gr aduate School Ser vices
The Graduation Office
2002-2003
2001-2002
235
390
16.6
11.5
67.7
73.6
13.2
12.6
2.6
2.3
The Graduate School Web
Site
2002-2003
2001-2002
235
391
15.7
24.8
68.9
61.4
12.8
11.0
2.6
2.8
The Office of Graduate
Admissions
2002-2003
2001-2002
236
390
9.7
9.2
78.4
77.4
10.6
10.3
1.3
3.1
* Statistically significant differences exist between 2002-2003 and 2001-2002 percentages on this item (p≤ .05).
19
F IGURE 4
Use and Satisfaction with Ball State Ser vices
for 2002-2003 Respondents
Per cent
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Registration Procedure
100
97.0
79.1
Bursar's Office
94.9
78.1
University Web Site
85.1
96.2
83.4
87.8
Library Services
Ball State Bookstore
74.2
71.8
University Computing Services
38.5
Recreational Facilities
79.2
63.0
24.4
Office of Academic Research
82.2
85.4
23.1
Career Center
Counseling & Psychological Services
90
71.9
6.4
60.0
Percent Used
Percent of Users Satisfied
T ABLE 15
Use and Satisfaction with Ball State Ser vices
Used the
Ser vice
Was
Satisfied
Percentages
Percentages
Univer sity Ser vices
Registration Procedure
2002-2003
2001-2002
97.0
98.0
79.1
81.8
Bursar’s Office
2002-2003
2001-2002
94.9
96.2
78.1
75.9
University Web Site
2002-2003
2001-2002
96.2
95.2
85.1
88.0
20
T ABLE 15 (CONT ’D)
Use and Satisfaction with Ball State Ser vices
Used the
Service
Percentages
Was
Satisfied
Percentages
Univer sity Ser vices (Continued)
Library Services
2002-2003
2001-2002
**
83.4
91.1
87.8
83.8
Ball State Bookstore
2002-2003
2001-2002
82.2
84.1
74.2
79.2
University Computing Services
2002-2003
2001-2002
71.8
73.7
79.2
77.5
Recreational Facilities
2002-2003
2001-2002
**
38.5
51.3
85.4
87.1
Career Center
2002-2003
2001-2002
**
23.1
36.0
63.0
61.0
Office of Academic Research (Grant
Support)
2002-2003
2001-2002
24.4
22.4
**
71.9
59.1
Counseling and Psychological Services
2002-2003
2001-2002
**
6.4
17.9
60.0
62.9
21
T ABLE 15 (CONT ’D)
Use and Satisfaction with Ball State Ser vices
Used the
Service
Percentages
Was
Satisfied
Percentages
Gr aduate School Ser vices
The Office of Graduate Admissions
2002-2003
2001-2002
90.3
90.8
86.9
85.3
The Graduation Office
2002-2003
2001-2002
**
83.4
88.5
81.1
83.2
The Graduate School Web Site
2002-2003
2001-2002
**
84.3
75.2
81.8
81.6
* Of those who used the service, percentages of respondents who were satisfied with the service.
** Statistically significant differences exist between 2002-2003 and 2001-2002 percentages on this item (p≤ .05).
22
DEPARTMENT RATINGS
Summary Respondents were asked to
rate a number of experiences and
opportunities in their respective
departments. Overall, the majority of
respondents in 2002-2003 and 2001-2002
rated their department experiences and
opportunities as excellent or good.
Opportunities and experiences rated
highest by the 2002-2003 respondents
included the professional expertise of
faculty, opportunities for interactions with
faculty and opportunities for interactions
with classmates.
Respondents in 2002-2003 rated
professional expertise of faculty, availability
of courses needed for graduation, quality of
teaching, the courses they completed and the
quality of computer facilities significantly
higher than 2001-2002 respondents.
•
•
•
Over half (51%) of respondents in 20022003 indicated that professional
expertise of faculty were excellent
(Table 16).
About 90% of respondents in 2002-2003
and 2001-2002 indicated that
professional expertise of faculty was
excellent or good (Table 16).
About 85% of respondents in both years
indicated that opportunities for
interactions with faculty were excellent
or good (Table 16).
•
The opportunities for interactions with
classmates was rated as excellent or
good by at least 85% of respondents in
both years (Table 16).
•
Approximately eight out of ten
respondents in both years reported that
the availability of courses needed for
graduation was excellent or good (Table
16).
•
In both years, about nine out of ten
respondents indicated that the courses
they had taken were excellent or good
(Table 16).
•
Significantly more 2002-2003
participants rated the quality of teaching
as excellent or good (Table 16).
•
In both 2002-2003 and 2001-2002, ??
out of ?? respondents rated their
consultations about a thesis, dissertation,
research paper, or creative project as
excellent or good. (Table 16)
•
At least one-?? of respondents in both
years reported that the quality of
teaching was excellent. (Table 16)
•
?? out of ?? respondents rated their
career preparation as excellent or good in
both years. (Table 16)
•
The academic ability of graduate
students was rated as excellent by 29%
of respondents in 2002-2003 and by 25%
of respondents in 2001-2002. In both
years, about half rated it as good (Table
16).
•
At least 70% of respondents rated the
quality of computer facilities as excellent
or good in both 2002-2003 and 20012002 (Table 16).
23
•
•
•
years rated career preparation as
excellent or good (Table 16).
Seven out of ten respondents in both
years indicated that the quality of library
holdings was excellent or good (Table
16).
At least 22% of respondents in both
years rated the opportunities for research
as excellent. Forty-seven percent in
2002-2003 and 49% in 2001-2002 rated
them as good (Table 16).
About seven in ten respondents in both
•
The quality of studio facilities was rated
as excellent or good by at least 68% of
respondents in both years (Table 16).
•
In 2002-2003, 21% rated the quality of
non-computer lab facilities as excellent
and 50% rated the quality as good. Ten
percent of respondents in 2001-2002
rated the quality as excellent and 60
percent rated it as good (Table 16).
T ABLE 16
Opportunities and Exper iences in Respondents’ Depar tment
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
N
Ave
Percentages
Professional expertise of
faculty*
2002-2003
2001-2002
237
390
3.40
3.29
51.1
42.3
38.8
45.1
8.9
11.8
1.3
0.8
Opportunities for
interactions with faculty
2002-2003
2001-2002
238
395
3.33
3.24
50.0
43.0
36.6
41.3
10.1
12.7
3.4
3.0
Opportunities for interactions
with classmates
2002-2003
365
2001-2002
390
3.26
3.30
43.3
43.1
41.4
45.9
13.2
9.0
2.2
2.1
24
T ABLE 16 (CONT ’D)
Opportunities and Exper iences in Respondents’ Depar tment
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
N
Ave
Availability of courses
needed for graduation*
2002-2003
2001-2002
Percentages
238
394
3.23
3.10
43.3
36.5
39.5
40.6
14.3
18.8
2.9
4.1
The courses you have taken*
2002-2003
2001-2002
238
393
3.22
3.09
34.5
26.7
55.5
56.5
7.6
15.8
2.5
1.0
Quality of teaching*
2002-2003
2001-2002
237
390
3.17
3.05
33.8
27.2
52.3
52.6
11.4
18.2
2.5
2.1
Availability of faculty as
mentors
2002-2003
2001-2002
228
380
3.09
2.99
39.9
33.4
36.0
40.5
17.1
17.6
7.0
8.4
The academic ability of
graduate students
2002-2003
2001-2002
361
380
3.06
3.02
28.5
24.7
51.5
55.8
16.9
16.1
3.0
3.4
Interactions with your
faculty advisor
2002-2003
2001-2002
221
374
3.00
2.97
39.4
38.8
33.0
29.7
16.3
21.4
11.3
10.2
Quality of computer
facilities*
2002-2001
2001-2002
292
337
2.98
2.83
28.4
18.4
48.3
52.8
16.4
22.6
6.8
6.2
Consultations about thesis/
dissertation/research paper/
creative project
2002-2003
2001-2002
255
285
2.96
2.95
33.3
31.2
40.4
40.0
15.7
21.4
10.6
7.4
25
T ABLE 16 (CONT ’D)
Opportunities and Exper iences in Respondents’ Depar tment
Excellent
N
Ave
Good
Fair
Poor
Percentages
Opportunities for experiential
learning through internships,
practicuums, etc.
2002-2003
280
2001-2002
312
2.94
3.01
32.9
35.4
36.8
36.9
21.4
21.0
8.9
6.7
Quality of library holdings
2002-2003
2001-2002
309
350
2.92
2.83
22.0
20.6
52.1
48.6
21.4
24.3
4.5
6.6
Opportunities for research
2002-2003
2001-2002
312
332
2.88
2.88
24.7
22.3
47.4
49.1
19.2
22.6
8.7
6.0
Career preparation
2002-2003
2001-2002
224
382
2.87
2.90
28.1
27.0
38.8
44.0
24.6
21.5
8.5
7.6
Quality of non-computer
laboratory facilities
2002-2003
2001-2002
217
259
2.83
2.76
20.7
10.4
50.2
59.8
20.7
24.7
8.3
5.0
Quality of studio facilities
2002-2001
2001-2002
123
147
2.78
2.81
17.9
16.3
49.6
53.1
25.2
25.9
7.3
4.8
Opportunities for teaching
2002-2003
2001-2002
162
256
2.75
2.71
24.1
19.5
37.0
41.4
28.4
29.7
10.5
9.4
Advice about your career
plans
2002-2003
2001-2002
210
353
2.62
2.56
22.4
17.6
33.3
36.9
28.6
29.5
15.7
16.0
26
27
GRADUATE PROGRAM OUTCOMES
Summary Respondents were asked
graduate program, they were able to
communicate effectively in ways that are
appropriate to their discipline (Table 17).
about outcomes of their graduate program.
Overall, at least 80% of the respondents in
both years strongly agreed or agreed they
had accomplished the program outcomes.
•
•
•
More than 95% of respondents in 20022003 and 2001-2002 strongly agreed or
agreed that as a result of their graduate
program, they had extended their
knowledge about the discipline
(Table 17).
At least 95% of respondents in both
years strongly agreed or agreed that as a
result of their graduate program, they
were committed to the professional and
ethical standards of their discipline
(Table 17).
•
Approximately 95% of respondents in
both years strongly agreed or agreed that
as a result of their graduate program they
could analyze, synthesize, and apply
knowledge in their discipline (Table 17).
•
Eighty-five percent of respondents in
both years strongly agreed or agreed that
as a result of their graduate program,
they understood research and scholarship
(Table 17).
•
In both years, about 90%of respondents
strongly agreed or agreed that as a result
of their graduate program, they could
engage in research and scholarship in
their discipline (Table 17).
In both years, more than one half of
respondents strongly agreed and another
third agreed that as a result of their
T ABLE 17
Gr aduate Pr ogr am Outcomes
As a r esult of my gr aduate
pr ogr am, I…
Str ongly
Agr ee
N
Ave
238
396
4.54
4.57
Agr ee
Undecided
Disagr ee
Str ongly
Disagr ee
Percentages
have extended my knowledge
about the discipline.
2002-2003
2001-2002
61.3
60.6
33.6
36.4
2.5
2.3
2.5
0.8
0.0
0.0
28
T ABLE 17 (CONT ’D)
Gr aduate Pr ogr am Outcomes
As a r esult of my gr aduate
pr ogr am, I…
Str ongly
Agr ee
Agr ee
Undecided
Disagr ee
Str ongly
Disagr ee
N
Ave
Percentages
369
394
4.58
4.54
63.7
57.9
32.0
38.1
2.7
3.8
1.6
0.3
0.0
0.0
368
395
4.51
4.47
59.0
52.4
35.6
42.8
3.5
4.1
1.6
0.8
0.3
0.0
367
395
4.47
4.42
52.0
47.6
43.9
47.6
3.0
3.8
1.1
1.0
0.0
0.0
237
394
4.20
4.22
39.7
37.1
46.0
52.3
9.7
7.9
4.2
1.5
0.4
1.3
237
393
4.27
4.24
42.6
36.6
45.6
53.4
8.9
8.1
2.5
1.0
0.4
0.8
am committed to the
professional and ethical
standards of my discipline.
2002-2003
2001-2002
am able to communicate
effectively in ways that are
appropriate to my discipline.
2002-2003
2001-2002
can analyze, synthesize, and
apply knowledge in my
discipline.
2002-2003
2001-2002
understand research/
scholarship in my discipline.
2002-2003
2001-2002
can engage in research or
creative projects in my
discipline.
2002-2003
2001-2002
29
COMPARISON OF ENROLLMENT GROUPS FOR 2002-2003
Summary Respondents in 2002-2003
were divided into three enrollment groups:
full-time students with assistantships
(teaching, research, or other), full-time
students without assistantships, and parttime students. Numerous differences were
found between the groups with respect to
their demographic characteristics,
employment, reasons for choosing Ball
State, and use of Ball State services.
•
Forty-nine percent of respondents were
enrolled full-time and had assistantships.
About 12% were enrolled full-time but
did not have assistantships. Thirty-eight
percent were enrolled part-time (Table
18).
•
More than two-thirds of full-time
respondents, including both those with
assistantships and those without
assistantships, were between the ages of
21 and 30. In significant contrast, less
than one-third part-time respondents
were between the ages of 21 and 30
(Table 19).
•
•
Nearly all (98%) of part-time
respondents were U.S. citizens. In
significant contrast, 85% of full-time
students with an assistantship and 81%
of full-time students without an
assistantship indicated they were U.S.
citizens (Table 19).
Full-time Master’s respondents with
assistantships were significantly more
likely than other respondents to indicate
they had used a thesis to complete their
research requirement (Table 19).
•
Approximately 44% of full-time
respondents with assistantships, 41% of
part-time respondents, and 27% of full
time respondents indicated that they had
a previous degree from Ball State (Table
19).
•
Full-time respondents were significantly
more likely than part-time respondents to
indicate that they lived in Muncie during
their graduate studies at Ball State (79%
of full-time students with assistantships
and 81% of full-time students without
assistantships compared to 17% of parttime students; Table 19).
•
Nearly all (97%) of the part-time
respondents reported that they were
employed while enrolled in graduate
school. In significant contrast, only 46%
of full-time respondents with
assistantships and 56% of full-time
respondents without assistantships
indicated they were employed (Table
20).
•
Of those who were employed, 19%of
full-time respondents with assistantships,
63% of full-time respondents without
assistantships, and 86% of part-time
respondents reported they were
employed full-time in off campus jobs.
This difference was statistically
significant (Table 20).
30
F IGURE 5
Enr ollment Gr oups
Full-time with
Assistantship
48%
Part-Time
39%
Full-time
without
Assistantship
13%
N=290
T ABLE 18
Significant Differ ences in Demogr aphics
by Enr ollment Gr oup
Full-time With An
Assistantship
Full-time Without
An Assistantship
Par t-time
Percentages
Age *
21-25 years old
26-30 years old
31-35 years old
36-40 years old
41-45 years old
46-50 years old
51 years old and older
n=85
48.2
29.4
10.6
4.7
2.4
0.0
4.7
n=37
29.7
40.5
10.8
2.7
10.8
2.7
2.7
n=112
3.6
26.8
12.5
14.3
12.5
17.0
13.4
Citizenship *
U.S. citizen
Not U.S. citizen
n=86
84.9
15.1
n=37
81.1
18.9
n=112
98.2
1.8
n=133
n=33
n=98
29.3
12.8
19.5
38.3
9.1
12.1
36.4
42.4
3.1
13.3
35.7
48.0
Method Used to Complete Resear ch
Requir ement *
Thesis
Creative Project
Research Paper
Research Class
31
T ABLE 18 (C ON’T )
Significant Differ ences in Demogr aphics
by Enr ollment Gr oup
Full-time With An
Assistantship
Full-time Without
An Assistantship
Par t-time
Percentages
Pr evious Degr ee fr om Ball State
Yes
No
n=140
43.6
56.4
n=37
27.0
73.0
n=111
41.4
58.6
Residence *
In Muncie
Outside of Muncie
n=140
78.6
21.4
n=36
80.6
19.4
n=112
17.0
83.0
* Statistically significant differences exist between enrollment group percentages on this item. (p≤ .05).
•
•
•
About 65% of employed full-time
respondents with assistantships, 53% of
employed full-time respondents without
assistantships, and 17% percent of
employed part-time respondents reported
they were employed part-time in off
campus jobs. This difference was
statistically significant (Table 20).
Of those who were employed, 31%
percent of full-time respondents with
assistantships, 11% of full-time
respondents without assistantships, and
1% of part-time respondents reported
they were employed part-time in on
campus jobs. This difference was
statistically significant (Table 20).
Of those with funding, 27% of full-time
respondents without assistantships
indicated they received GSL/SLS loans.
This percentage was significantly higher
than the percentages of other enrollment
groups (Table 21).
•
Compared to full-time respondents
receiving funding, a significantly higher
percentage of part-time respondents
receiving funding indicated that they
were funded by an employer (32% of
part-time students compared to 5% of
full-time students with assistantships,
and 8% of full-time students without
assistantships; Table 21).
•
Part-time respondents were significantly
more likely than full-time respondents to
have begun taking classes during the
survey year 2002-2003 (84% of parttime students compared to 36% of fulltime students with an assistantship and
54% of full-time students without an
assistantship; Table 22).
32
T ABLE 19
Employment by Enr ollment Gr oup
Full-time With An
Assistantship
Full-time Without
An Assistantship
Par t-time
Percentages
Employed *
Yes
No
Of those employed, type of employment **
Full-time Off Campus *
Part-time Off Campus *
Full-time On Campus
Part-time On Campus *
n=141
46.1
53.9
n=36
55.6
44.4
n=112
97.3
2.7
n=65
18.5
64.6
4.6
30.8
n=19
63.2
52.6
0.0
10.5
n=108
86.1
17.6
2.8
0.9
Full-time Without
An Assistantship
Par t-time
* Statistically significant differences exist between enrollment group percentages on this item. (p≤ .05).
** Respondents were asked to mark all that apply.
T ABLE 20
Financial Assistance by Enr ollment Gr oup
Full-time With An
Assistantship
Percentages
Funding *
Yes
No
n=139
100.0
0.0
n=36
61.1
38.9
n=112
58.0
42.0
Of those funded, type of funding **
Teaching Assistantship *
Research Assistantship *
Other Assistantship *
Scholarship from Ball State
Grant from Ball State
Fellowship from Ball State
GSL/SLS loan *
Funding from employer *
Other
n=141
28.4
29.1
59.6
5.7
7.8
3.5
17.0
5.0
9.9
n=37
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.7
10.8
2.7
27.0
8.1
16.2
n=112
0.0
0.9
6.3
2.7
4.5
0.9
9.8
32.1
10.7
* Statistically significant differences exist between enrollment group percentages on this item (p≤ .05).
** Respondents were asked to mark all that apply.
33
T ABLE 21
Year When Star ted Taking Classes by Enr ollment Gr oup
Full-time With An
Assistantship
Full-time Without
An Assistantship
Par t-time
Percentages
When did you fir st star t taking cour ses at
Ball State for this degr ee? *
Before Fall 2000
2001-2002
2002-2003
n=140
n=37
n=111
19.3
45.0
35.7
13.5
32.4
54.1
0.0
16.2
83.8
* Statistically significant differences exist between enrollment group percentages on this item (p≤ .05).
•
•
•
•
Part-time respondents were significantly
more likely than full-time respondents to
report that a very important reason for
choosing Ball State was the availability
of distance education (63% of part-time
students compared to 2% of full-time
students with assistantships and 28% of
full-time students without assistantships;
Table 25).
More than 94% of full-time respondents
took classes on campus in Muncie. This
was significantly higher than the 63% of
part-time respondents who took classes
on campus (Table 23).
Part-time respondents were significantly
more likely than full-time respondents to
indicate that they had taken classes either
via TV at an off-campus site, or with an
instructor at an off-campus sight (Table
23).
One percent of full-time respondents
with assistantships, 11% of full-time
respondents without assistantships, and
21% of part-time respondents reported
they had taken classes via the internet.
This difference was statistically
significant (Table 23).
•
Part-time respondents were significantly
less likely than full-time respondents to
indicate they had taken the majority of
their classes on campus in Muncie
(Table 23).
•
Respondents who went part-time were
significantly more likely than full-time
respondents to indicate that they took the
majority of their classes either via
television or via the internet (Table 23).
•
Full-time respondents with assistantships
just as likely as other respondents to
indicate they would recommend Ball
State to someone considering their major
(77% of full-time students with
assistantships compared to 94% of fulltime students without assistantships and
89% of part-time students).
•
When asked about their plans for next
year, part-time respondents were
significantly more likely than full-time
respondents to indicate their plans
included returning to or continuing a
prior job. Full-time respondents were
most likely to indicate their plans
included starting a new job. These
differences were statistically significant
(Table 24).
34
•
assistantship was an important factor in
choosing to attend Ball State as a
graduate student (Table 25).
Full-time respondents with an
assistantship were significantly more
likely to indicate that receiving an
T ABLE 22
Locations of Classes by Enr ollment Gr oup
Full-time With An
Assistantship
Full-time Without
An Assistantship
Par t-time
Percentages
Wher e did you take your classes? *
On campus in Muncie **
Via the internet **
Via TV at an off-campus site **
With instructor at an off-campus site **
n=140
97.9
0.7
5.0
14.9
n=36
81.1
10.8
10.8
18.9
n=111
62.5
33.9
21.4
52.7
Wher e did you take the major ity of your
classes? **
On campus in Muncie
Via the internet
Via TV at an off-campus site
With an instructor at an off-campus site
n=139
n=36
n=111
99.3
0.0
0.0
0.7
77.8
11.1
5.6
5.6
46.8
27.0
18.0
8.1
* Respondents were asked to mark all that apply.
** Statistically significant differences exist between enrollment group percentages on this item (p≤ .05).
•
Part-time respondents were significantly
more likely than full-time respondents
with assistantships to indicate that the
reputation of BSU was a very important
reason for attending Ball State (Table
25).
•
Full-time respondents with an
assistantship were less likely to report
that the availability of a specific program
was a very important reason for choosing
Ball State (Table 25).
•
Full-time respondents were significantly
more likely than part-time respondents to
indicate that being personally recruited
was a very important reason for
attending Ball State (Table 25).
•
Part-time respondents were significantly
more likely than other respondents to
indicate that location was a very
important reason for choosing Ball State
39% of full-time students with
assistantships compared to 35% of fulltime students without assistantships and
57% of part-time students (Table 25).
•
The majority of full-time respondents
had applied to at least one other school
besides Ball State. In significant
contrast, only 17% of part-time
respondents applied to at least one other
school (Table 26).
35
T ABLE 23
Plans for Next Year by Enr ollment Gr oup
Full-time With An
Assistantship
Full-time Without
An Assistantship
Par t-time
Percentages
What ar e your plans for next year ? *
Return to/continue prior job **
Start a new job **
Continue graduate study
Other
N=141
16.3
64.5
19.1
8.5
n=36
24.3
54.1
10.8
10.8
n=112
68.8
25.0
14.3
7.1
* Respondents were asked to mark all that apply.
** Statistically significant differences exist between enrollment group percentages on this item (p≤ .05).
T ABLE 24
Significant Differ ences in Reasons for Choosing to Enr oll in Gr aduate Studies At Ball State
by Enr ollment Gr oup
Full-time With An
Assistantship
Very important
Somewhat important
Not important
of the availability of distance education *
Very important
Somewhat important
Not important
of the r eputation of Ball State *
Very important
Somewhat important
Not important
of the availability of a specific pr ogr am *
Very important
Somewhat important
Not important
Par t-time
Percentages
I chose to enr oll in graduate studies at
Ball State because…
I r eceived an assistantship *
Full-time Without
An Assistantship
n=139
Ave=2.63
71.9
19.4
8.6
n=32
Ave=1.38
15.6
6.3
78.1
n=92
Ave=1.12
4.3
3.3
92.4
n=134
Ave=1.15
2.2
10.4
87.3
n=36
Ave=1.67
27.8
11.1
61.1
n=106
Ave=2.37
63.2
10.4
26.4
n=138
Ave=1.96
21.0
54.3
24.6
n=37
Ave=2.11
27.0
56.8
27.0
n=109
Ave=2.31
41.3
48.6
10.1
n=138
Ave=2.59
66.7
26.1
7.2
n=37
Ave=2.84
83.8
16.2
0.0
n=110
Ave=2.84
86.4
10.9
2.7
36
T ABLE 24 (C ON’T )
Significant Differ ences in Reasons for Choosing to Enr oll in Gr aduate Studies At Ball State
by Enr ollment Gr oup
Full-time With An
Assistantship
Full-time Without
An Assistantship
Par t-time
Percentages
I chose to enr oll in gr aduate studies at
Ball State because…
I was per sonally r ecr uited *
Very important
Somewhat important
Not important
of location *
Very important
Somewhat important
Not important
n=133
Ave=1.56
18.0
20.3
61.7
n=34
Ave=1.56
14.7
26.5
58.8
n=92
Ave=1.23
3.3
16.3
80.4
n=135
Ave=2.07
39.3
28.9
31.9
n=34
Ave=1.94
35.3
23.5
41.2
n=106
Ave=2.36
57.4
20.8
21.7
* Statistically significant differences exist between enrollment group on this item (p≤ .05).
T ABLE 25
Other Univer sity Applications by Enr ollment Gr oup
Full-time With An
Assistantship
Full-time Without
An Assistantship
Par t-time
Percentages
To how many univer sities did you apply
besides Ball State? *
0
1-3 other schools
4 or more other schools
n=138
47.1
37.7
15.2
n=36
44.4
38.9
16.7
n=112
83.0
17.0
0.0
* Statistically significant differences exist between enrollment groups on this item (p≤ .05).
•
Full-time respondents with assistantships
were significantly more likely than other
respondents to report that they had used
the recreational facilities (Table 27).
•
Full-time respondents were significantly
more likely than part-time respondents to
indicate that they had used library
services (Table 27).
•
Part-time respondents were significantly
less likely than full-time respondents to
report that they had used the Career
Center (Table 27).
•
Part-time respondents were significantly
less likely than full-time respondents to
report that they had used the Ball State
Bookstore. Of those who had used the
37
Bookstore, full-time respondents with
assistantships were significantly less
likely than other respondents to indicate
that they were satisfied with the services
(Table 27).
•
•
•
Part-time respondents were significantly
less likely than full-time respondents to
report that they had used the Office of
Academic Research (Table 27).
Full-time respondents without
assistantships were significantly less
likely to report that they had used the
office of Graduate Admissions (Table
27).
Computing Services. Of those who had
used University Computer Services, fulltime respondents with assistantships
were significantly less likely than other
respondents to indicate that they were
satisfied with the services (Table 27).
•
Full-time respondents with assistantships
were significantly more likely to rate the
opportunities to interact with classmates
as excellent or good. (Table 28)
•
Full-time respondents with assistantships
were significantly more likely to rate the
opportunities to interact with faculty as
excellent or good. (Table 28).
Full-time respondents were significantly
more likely than part-time respondents to
report that they had used University
T ABLE 26
Significant Differ ences in Use and Satisfaction with Ball State Ser vices
by Enr ollment Gr oup
Full-time With An
Assistantship
Full-time Without
An Assistantship
Percentages
Par t-time
Recr eational Facilities
Used the service *
Were satisfied
(n=85) 69.4
(n=59) 89.8
(n=37) 51.4
(n=19) 78.9
(n=107) 8.4
(n=9) 77.8
Car eer Center
Used the service *
Were satisfied
(n=86) 38.4
(n=33) 66.7
(n=37) 32.4
(n=12) 41.7
(n=109) 6.4
(n=7) 84.7
Libr ar y Ser vices
Used the service *
Were satisfied
(n=86) 98.8
(n=85) 83.5
(n=37) 86.5
(n=32) 87.5
(n=110) 70.0
(n=77) 93.5
Ball State Bookstor e
Used the service *
Were satisfied *
(n=85) 92.9
(n=79) 63.3
(n=37) 91.9
(n=34) 73.5
(n=112) 70.5
(n=79) 84.8
38
T ABLE 26 (C ON’T )
Significant Differ ences in Use and Satisfaction with Ball State Ser vices
by Enr ollment Gr oup
Full-time With An
Assistantship
Full-time Without
An Assistantship
Percentages
Par t-time
Office of Academic Resear ch
(Gr ant Support)
Used the service *
Were satisfied
(n=86) 36.0
(n=31) 71.0
(n=36) 25.0
(n=9) 55.6
(n=110) 13.6
(n=15) 86.4
Office of Gr aduate Admissions
Used the service *
Were satisfied
(n=86) 94.2
(n=81) 81.5
(n=36) 77.8
(n=28) 92.9
(n=112) 91.1
(n=102) 89.2
Counseling and Psychological
Ser vices
Used the service *
Were satisfied
(n=86) 10.5
(n=9) 66.7
(n=37) 8.1
(n=3) 66.7
(n=109) 1.8
(n=2) 50.0
Univer sity Computer Ser vices
Used the service *
Were satisfied *
(n=85) 84.7
(n=72) 70.8
(n=37) 86.5
(n=32) 84.4
(n=110) 56.4
(n=62) 87.1
Note: Satisfaction percentages are among those who used the service.
* Statistically significant differences exist between 2002-2003 and 2001-2002 percentages on this item (p≤ .05).
T ABLE 27
Significant Differ ences in Opportunities and Exper iences in Respondents’ Depar tments
by Enr ollment Gr oup
Full-time With An
Assistantship
Full-time Without
An Assistantship
Par t-time
Percentages rating this excellent or good
Opportunity to interact with classmates*
Opportunity to interact with faculty*
n=141
91.1
n=36
75.0
n=110
80.0
n=86
94.2
n=37
81.0
n=112
82.1
* Statistically significant differences exist between enrollment group percentages on this item (p≤ .05).
39
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Overall, respondents to the 2002-2003 and 2001-2002 Graduate Student Exit Surveys had
positive opinions about the University, their department, and their experiences. In both years, at
least 95% reported that their general attitude toward Ball State was very positive or positive. In
both years, about 85% would recommend Ball State to someone who wanted to major in their
field.
About nine out of ten respondents in 2002-2003 and 2001-2002 rated their academic
experiences as excellent or good. In both years, nearly nine out of ten rated the quality of their
graduate education as either excellent or good.
The majority of respondents, in both years, indicated they were satisfied with the
University services they had used. Specifically, at least 81% of those who had used the university
web site were satisfied. Of those who used the Office of Graduate Admissions, 78% in 20022003 and 77% in 2001-2002 were satisfied. In both years, more than three-quarters of those who
had used the registration procedure were satisfied. At least 74% of respondents who had used the
Bursar’s Office or the Library Services were satisfied. In 2002-2003, respondents were less likely
than respondents in 2001-2002 to indicate they had used the Library Services, Recreational
Facilities, Career Center, the Counseling and Psychological Services Center, and the Graduation
Office.
The majority of respondents in both years rated department opportunities and experiences
as excellent or good. Professional expertise of faculty and opportunities for interactions with
faculty were rated as either excellent or good by at least 50% of respondents. Ratings for
opportunities in respondents’ departments significantly rose in the areas of professional expertise
of faculty, availability of courses needed for graduation, courses completed, quality of teaching,
and the quality of computer facilities.
About 95%of respondents in both years strongly agreed or agreed that as a result of their
graduate program they had accomplished various program outcomes including: extending their
knowledge about their discipline; being committed to the professional and ethical standards of
their discipline; being able to communicate effectively in ways appropriate for their discipline;
and being able to analyze, synthesize, and apply knowledge in their discipline.
In 2002-2003, full-time respondents with assistantships, full-time respondents without
assistantships, and part-time respondents were significantly different in a number of demographic
characteristics including age, citizenship, residence, and employment. Full-time respondents
were less likely than part-time respondents to report that they took classes at either off-campus
locations, via television, or via the internet. Part-time respondents were less likely than full-time
respondents to indicate that they had used numerous Ball State services including Career Center,
Counseling and Psychological Services, library services, the Office of Academic Research,
recreational facilities, and computing services.
40