UNCW Office of Institutional Research
and Assessment
Summary of Results from the Graduating Senior Survey 2008-2012
The Graduating Senior Survey has been administered since 1998 by the UNC General
Administration. The 16 institutions in the UNC system are required to survey their graduating seniors
every other spring.Data from the surveys are used as part of state-wide assessment activities. The
survey contains 76 items pertaining to academic and non-academic aspects of graduating seniors’
experience. This report compares results from the years 2008, 2010 and 2012 for all items, however,
only academic items are additionally separated out for analysis by school/college. The survey itself is
found in Appendix 1.Complete results are reported in the accompanying tables.
In spring semester 2012, 1,787graduating UNCW seniors were invited via email to participate
electronically in the Graduating Senior Survey. UNCW OIRA received 238 completed surveys, for a
response rate of 13%, less than the spring 2010 response rate,39%, and the spring 2008 response
rate, 45%. Response rates in 2012 are shown by department in Table 1.
Academic Items – Overall Results
Faculty Contribution:Respondents were asked to rate the facultyof their major department
on 9 items measuring Faculty Contributions using a 4-point Likert scale: 4=Excellent, 3=Good,
2=Fair, 1=Poor. Overall mean scores on Faculty Contribution items in 2012 (shown below) did
not differ significantly from mean scores in 2010 or 2008 according to analyses of variance
comparisons.Means and standard deviations for 2008, 2010, and 2012 are presented for each
question in this section in Table 2.
o Set high expectations for you to learn (M=3.62, SD=.553)
o Respect diverse talents and ways of learningof you and your classmates (M=3.30,
SD=.774)
o Encourage you to be actively involved learner (M=3.51, SD=.655)
o Encourage student-faculty interaction in and out of the classroom (M=3.39,
SD=.720)
o Give you frequent and prompt feedback (M=3.28, SD=.670)
o Encourage you to devote sufficient time and energy to your coursework (M=3.49,
SD=.622)
o Develop opportunities for you to learn cooperatively with fellow students (M=3.40,
SD=.710)
o Care about your academic success and welfare (M=3.46, SD=.733)
o Overall faculty contribution (M=3.47, SD=.621)
Academic Advising: Respondents were asked to rate academic advising in their major
department on 5 items using a 5-point Likert scale: 5=Don’t know/did not use, 4=Excellent,
3=Good, 2=Fair, 1=Poor. “Don’t know/did not use” was excluded from calculations of means.
Mean scores in 2012 (shown below) on one Academic Advising item, “Knowledge of campus
policies/procedures”, differed significantly from mean scores in previous years according to
analyses of variance comparisons. Means and standard deviations for 2008, 2010, and 2012
are presented for each question in this section in Table 3.
Access to advisor (M=3.19, SD=.904)
Sufficient time with advisor (M=3.06, SD=.994)
Accurate info about degree requirements/course sequencing(M=3.09, SD=1.051)
Knowledge of campus policies/procedures- The mean score in 2010 (M=3.15,
SD=.875) was significantly higher than in 2008 (M=2.98, SD=.920),
F(2,1590)=5.902, p=.003.The mean score in 2012 (M=3.03, SD=.938) was not
significantly different than 2008 or 2010.
Poor to Excellent
o
o
o
o
4.00
3.00
UNCW - Advisor knowledge
2.98
3.15
3.03
2.00
1.00
2008
2010
2012
*Means with different colors are significantly
different from each other
o Academic advising in major overall (M=3.01, SD=.989)
Knowledge, Skills, and Personal Growth: Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which
their college education contributed to knowledge, skills, and personal development
using a 5-point Likert scale: 5=Don’t know, 4=Very much, 3=Somewhat, 2=Very little, 1=Not at
all. “Don’t know” was excluded from calculations of means. Mean scores on the Knowledge,
Skills, and Personal Growth items in 2012 (shown below) did not differ significantly from mean
scores in 2010 or 2008 according to analyses of variance comparisons. Means and standard
deviations for 2008, 2010, and 2012 are presented for each question in this section in Tables
4, 5 and 6.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Writing skills (M=3.42, SD=.701)
Listening skills (M=3.47, SD=.621)
Speaking skills (M=3.56, SD=.640)
Comprehension skills (M=3.58, SD=.610)
Using mathematics skills (M=3.00, SD=.857)
Applying scientific methods of inquiry (M=3.29, SD=.827)
Enhancing analytic skills (M=3.67, SD=.570)
Developing computer skills (M=3.21, SD=.749)
Ability to function as part of a team (M=3.41, SD=.724)
Ability to work with people from diverse backgrounds (M=3.36, SD=.758)
Recognizing and acting on ethical principles (M=3.48, SD=.702)
Appreciating racial equity (M=3.22, SD=.874)
Appreciating gender equity (M=3.30, SD=.840)
Personal growth (M=3.79, SD=.478)
Additionally, respondents who had participated in a co-op, internship, practicum, student
teaching, or other field experience as part of their major.were asked to rate the extent to
which this experience contributed to their personal and professional growth on a 4-point Likert
scale: 4=Excellent, 3=Good, 2=Fair, 1=Poor. Mean rating was 3.68 (SD=.574) which did not
differ significantly from 2010 or 2008.
Finally, respondents who indicated they were obtaining their degree from an off-campus
degree program were asked to rate the likelihood they would have obtained this degree on a
UNC campus had the program not been available on a 4-point Likert scale: 4=Very likely,
3=Probably, 2=Probably not, 1=Not likely. Mean rating was 3.03 (SD=1.019) which did not
differ significantly from 2010 or 2008.
Your Plans for Next Year: Response frequencies for 2012 are presented for each question in
this section in Table 7. Respondents were asked to choose their primary plans following
graduation. The top five choices are listed below:
o
o
o
o
o
Seeking employment (39%)
Full-time grad./prof. school (19%)
Have accepted full-time paid employment related to my field of study (10%)
Undecided (5%)
Part-time employment and grad./prof. school (4%)
Your Conclusions: Most (79%) respondents indicated that they would still choose this
institution if they could start over again and 90% indicated they would recommend this
institution to a friend. Additionally, respondents were asked to rate the intellectual
environment on this campus using a 4-point Likert scale, 4=Very strong, 3=Strong, 2=Weak,
1=Very weak. Further, they were asked to rate the quality of instruction in their major, the
quality of instruction overall, and the overall education at UNCW using a 4-point Likert
scale, 4=Excellent, 3=Good, 2=Fair, 1=Poor. Mean scores on the Conclusion items in 2012
(shown below) did not differ significantly from mean scores in 2010 or 2008 according to
analyses of variance comparisons. Means and standard deviations for 2008, 2010, and 2012
are presented for most questions in this section in Table 8.
o
o
o
o
Intellectual environment on this campus (M=3.22, SD=.592)
Quality of instruction in your major (M=3.58, SD=.675)
Quality of instruction overall (M=3.25, SD=.586)
Overall education at this institution (M=3.51, SD=.628)
Non-academic items – Overall results
Library Services: Respondents were asked to rate aspects of library services using a 5-point
Likert scale: 5=Don’t know/did not use, 4=Excellent, 3=Good, 2=Fair, 1=Poor. “Don’t know/did
not use” was excluded from calculations of means. On two items, “Hours of operation” and
“Library services overall”, the mean scores in 2012 (shown below) were significantly lower than
previous years according to analyses of variance comparisons. Means and standard
deviations for 2008, 2010, and 2012 are presented for each question in this section in Table 9.
o Hours of operation– The mean in 2012(M=2.97, SD=.916) was significantly lower
than 2008 (M=3.43, SD=.707) and 2010 (M=3.55, SD=.646), F(2,1558)=52.464,
p=.000.
Poor to Excellent
Library - Hours of operation*
4.00
3.43
3.55
2008
2010
3.00
2.97
2.00
1.00
2012
*Means with different colors are significantly
different from each other
Poor to Excellent
o Staff responsiveness (M=3.30, SD=.712)
o Access to databases and collections (M=3.40, SD=.672)
o Overall- The mean in 2012 (M=3.29, SD=.631) was significantly lower than the
mean scores in 2008 (M=3.44, SD=.629) and in 2010 (M=3.44, SD=.627),
F(2,1582)=5.456, p=.004.
Library - Overall*
4.00
3.44
3.44
3.29
2008
2010
2012
3.00
2.00
1.00
*Means with different colors are significantly
different from each other
Technology Services: Respondents were asked to rate aspects of technology services
using a 4-point Likert scale: 5=Don’t know/did not use, 4=Excellent, 3=Good, 2=Fair, 1=Poor.
“Don’t know/did not use” was excluded from calculations of means. On two items, “Access to
internet”, and “Technology training classes”, the mean scores in 2012 (shown below) were
significantly lower than previous years.Means and standard deviations for 2008, 2010, and
2012 are presented for each question in this section in Table 9.
Poor to Excellent
o Access to the internet –The mean score in 2012 (M=3.33, SD=.722) was
significantly lower than 2008 (M=3.57, SD=.626) and 2010 (M=3.50, SD=.669),
F(2,1598)=11.876, p=.000. The mean score in 2008 and 2010 did not differ from
each other.
Technology - Internet Access*
4.00
3.57
3.50
3.33
3.00
2.00
1.00
2008
2010
2012
*Means with different colors are significantly
different from each other
o Hours of operation for computer center, labs, help desks (M=3.20, SD=.757)
o Access to up-to-date facilities (M=3.25, SD=.740)
o Access to trained staff for help (M=3.21, SD=.717)
o Technology training classes – The mean score in 2012 (M=2.98, SD=.886) was
significantly lower than 2010 (M=3.22, SD=.780) but no different than 2008 (M=3.08,
SD=.814), F(2,858)=4.870, p=.008. The mean in 2010 also did not differ than 2008.
Poor to Excellent
Technology - Training Classes*
4.00
3.00
3.08
3.22
2.98
2008
2010
2012
2.00
1.00
*Means with different colors are significantly
different from each other
o Overall(M=3.21, SD=.628)
Career-related Services: Respondents were asked to rate aspects of career-related
services using a 4-point Likert scale: 5=Don’t know/did not use, 4=Excellent, 3=Good, 2=Fair,
1=Poor. “Don’t know/did not use” was excluded from calculations of means. The mean scores
for Career-related Services items in 2012 (shown below) did not differ significantly from mean
scores in 2010 or 2008 according to analyses of variance comparisons.Means and standard
deviations for 2008, 2010, and 2012 are presented for each question in this section in Table 9.
o Opportunity for career assistance (M=3.19, SD=.853)
o Information on internships, co-op, or other career-related experiences (M=3.08,
SD=.924)
o Resources available to explore career options (M=3.07, SD=.880)
o Career-related information available through computers/internet or other technology
(M=3.24, SD=.807)
o Overall (M=3.11, SD=.825)
Employment Search Services: Respondents were asked to rate aspects of employment
search services using a 4-point Likert scale: 5=Don’t know/did not use, 4=Excellent, 3=Good,
2=Fair, 1=Poor. “Don’t know/did not use” was excluded from calculations of means. The mean
scores on other Employment Search Services items in 2012 (shown below) did not differ
significantly from mean scores in 2010 or 2008 according to analyses of variance
comparisons. Means and standard deviations for 2008, 2010, and 2012 are presented for each
question in this section in Table 9.
o Resume preparation (M=3.28, SD=.847)
o Interview preparation and skills (M=3.01, SD=.969)
o Access to employment opportunities (e.g., career fairs, interviews, job listings, etc.)
(M=3.13, SD=.914)
o Overall (M=3.06, SD=.914)
Other Offices: Respondents were asked to rate other offices that serve them both on general
service and staff responsiveness using a 5-point Likert scale: 5=Don’t know/did not use,
4=Excellent, 3=Good, 2=Fair, 1=Poor. “Don’t know/did not use” was excluded from
calculations of means. Mean scores in 2012 (shown below) for six areas exhibited significant
change over time. Means and standard deviations for 2008, 2010, and 2012 are presented for
each question in this section in Table 10.
Poor to Excellent
o Registration process
 Service area – The mean score in 2012 (M=2.95, SD=.841) was significantly
lower than the mean score in 2010 (M=3.10, SD=.788) but no different than
2008 (M=3.00, SD=.757), F(2,1562)=4.598, p=.010. The mean score in 2010
also did not differ from 2008.
Registration process - Service
4.00
3.00
3.00
3.10
2.95
2008
2010
2012
2.00
1.00
*Means with different colors are significantly
different from each other
Poor to Excellent
 Staff responsiveness (M=2.95, SD=.796)
o Financial aid application/award process
 Service area (M=2.97, SD=.952)
 Staff responsiveness (M=2.77, SD=.993)
o Financial aid disbursement process
 Service area – The mean score in 2012 (M=3.01, SD=.909) was significantly
higher than 2008 (M=2.74, SD=.967) but no different than 2010 (M=2.91,
SD=.906), F(2,1011)=5.803, p=.003. The mean in 2010 also did not differ
from 2008.
4.00
Financial aid disbursement Service
3.00
2.74
2.91
3.01
2008
2010
2012
2.00
1.00
*Means with different colors are significantly
different from each other
 Staff responsiveness(M=2.81, SD=.991)
o Campus food services
 Service area- The mean score in 2012 (M=3.01, SD=.721) was significantly
higher than the mean score in 2008 (M=2.80, SD=.777) but no different than
in 2010 (M=2.88, SD=.793), F(2,1210)=5.156, p=.006. The mean score in
2008 also did not differ from 2010.
Poor to Excellent
Campus food- Service
4.00
3.00
2.80
2.88
3.01
2008
2010
2012
2.00
1.00
*Means with different colors are significantly
different from each other
Staff responsiveness - The mean score in 2012 (M=3.14, SD=.779) was
significantly higher than the mean scores in 2008 (M=2.93, SD=.804) and in
2010 (M=2.93, SD=.780), F(2,997)=4.236, p=.015. The mean score in 2008
and 2010 did not differ from each other.
Campus food - Staff
Poor to Excellent

4.00
3.00
2.93
2.93
3.14
2.00
1.00
2008
2010
2012
*Means with different colors are significantly
different from each other
Poor to Excellent
o Campus health services
 Service area (M=2.95, SD=.917)
 Staff responsiveness (M=2.97, SD=.968)
o Campus counseling (non-career) services
 Service area (M=2.97, SD=.901)
 Staff responsiveness (M=2.87, SD=.941)
o Business services/cashier/student accounts
 Service area – The mean score in 2012 (M=3.07, SD=.792) was significantly
higher than the mean score in 2008 (M=2.92, SD=.748) but no different than
in 2010 (M=3.02, SD=.705),F(2,1220)=3.505, p=.030. The mean score in
2008 and 2010 did not differ from each other.
4.00
3.00
Bus. svc/Cashier/Student acct Service
2.92
3.02
3.07
2008
2010
2012
2.00
1.00
*Means with different colors are significantly
different from each other
 Staff responsiveness (M=2.96, SD=.835)
o Campus residence life programs for students living in university-owned housing
 Service area (M=3.03, SD=.839)
 Staff responsiveness (M=3.03, SD=.844)
o Opportunities to participate in campus recreational and other extra-or cocurricular activities – The mean scores in 2012 (M=3.52, SD=.680) and 2010
(M=3.52, SD=.668) were significantly higher than in 2008 (M=3.35, SD=.722),
F(2,1113)=8.446, p=.000, but they did not differ from each other.
Poor to Excellent
4.00
Campus rec/Extra- or cocurricular
3.35
3.52
3.52
2008
2010
2012
3.00
2.00
1.00
*Means with different colors are significantly
different from each other
o Opportunities to participate in community service projects (M=3.20, SD=.801)
o Opportunities to develop leadership skills (M=3.32, SD=.803)
Academic Items – Summary of significant changes by school/college
Too few respondents from the secondary education program responded to the survey for analyses of
variance to be performed. Most items showed no change over time within school/college. Below only
significant results are summarized.
School of Nursing:
Academic Advising - Respondents were asked to rate academic advising in their major
department on 5 items using a 5-point Likert scale: 5=Don’t know/did not use, 4=Excellent, 3=Good,
2=Fair, 1=Poor. “Don’t know/did not use” was excluded from calculations of means. Means and
standard deviations for 2008, 2010, and 2012 are presented in Table 3. School of Nursing mean
scores on three items differed over time according to analyses of variance comparisons. First the
mean for “Access to advisor”, in 2010 (M=3.51, SD=.585) was significantly higher than the mean
score in 2008 (M=2.97, SD=.984), F(2,94)=4.345, p=.016. The mean score in 2012 (M=3.24,
SD=.970) did not differ from the mean score in 2008 or 2010.
Poor to Excellent
SON - Advisor access
4.00
3.00
3.51
2.97
3.24
2.00
1.00
2008
2010
2012
*Means with different colors are significantly
different from each other
Second, the mean for “Knowledge of campus policies and procedures”, in 2010 (M=3.44,
SD=.586) was significantly higher than the mean score in 2008 (M=2.91, SD=.928), F(2,91)=4.725,
p=.011. The mean score in 2012 (M=3.12, SD=.857) did not differ from the mean score in 2008 or
2010.
Poor to Excellent
SON - Advisor knowledge
4.00
3.00
3.44
2.91
3.12
2.00
1.00
2008
2010
2012
*Means with different colors are significantly
different from each other
Poor to Excellent
Finally, the mean for “Academic advising services overall”, in 2010 (M=3.49, SD=.621) was
significantly higher than the mean score in 2008 (M=2.94, SD=.906), F(2,96)=4.718, p=.011 The
mean score in 2012 (M=3.29, SD=.985) did not differ from the mean score in 2008 or 2010.
4.00
3.00
SON - Advising overall
3.49
2.94
3.29
2.00
1.00
2008
2010
2012
*Means with different colors are significantly
different from each other
Knowledge, Skills, and Personal Growth - Respondents were asked to rate the extent to
which their college education contributed to knowledge, skills, and personal development
using a 5-point Likert scale: 5=Don’t know, 4=Very much, 3=Somewhat, 2=Very little, 1=Not at all.
“Don’t know” was excluded from calculations of means. Means and standard deviations for 2008,
2010, and 2012 are presented in Table 5. School of Nursing mean scores on one item differed over
time according to analyses of variance comparisons. Those whose major included a co-op,
internship, practicum, student teaching, or other field experience, evaluated the experience
significantly higher in 2012 (M=3.87, SD=.352) than in 2010 (M=3.34, SD=.888), F(2,91)=4.799,
p=.010. The mean score in 2008 (M=3.74, SD=.505) did not differ from 2010 or 2012.
Not at all to Very Much
SON - Co-op, etc contribution
4.00
3.74
3.87
3.34
3.00
2.00
1.00
2008
2010
2012
*Means with different colors are significantly
different from each other
School of Business:
Academic Advising - Respondents were asked to rate academic advising in their major
department on 5 items using a 5-point Likert scale: 5=Don’t know/did not use, 4=Excellent, 3=Good,
2=Fair, 1=Poor. “Don’t know/did not use” was excluded from calculations of means. Means and
standard deviations for 2008, 2010, and 2012 are presented in Table 3. School of Business mean
scores on one item differed over time according to analyses of variance comparisons. The mean for
“Accurate information about degree requirements and course sequencing”, in 2012 (M=3.38,
SD=.954) was significantly higher than the mean score in 2008 (M=2.90, SD=1.028), F(2,340)=3.733,
p=.025. The mean score in 2010 (M=3.08, SD=.925) did not differ from 2008 or 2012.
Poor to Excellent
CSB - Advisor accuracy
4.00
3.00
2.90
3.08
2008
2010
3.38
2.00
1.00
2012
*Means with different colors are significantly
different from each other
College of Arts/Sciences:
Academic Advising - Respondents were asked to rate academic advising in their major
department on 5 items using a 5-point Likert scale: 5=Don’t know/did not use, 4=Excellent, 3=Good,
2=Fair, 1=Poor. “Don’t know/did not use” was excluded from calculations of means. Means and
standard deviations for 2008, 2010, and 2012 are presented in Table 3. College of Arts/Sciences
mean scores on one item differed over time according to analyses of variance comparisons. The
mean for “Knowledge of campus policies and procedures”, in 2010 (M=3.10, SD=.887) was
significantly higher than the mean score in 2012 (M=2.87, SD=.995), F(2,837)=3.030, p=.049. The
mean score in 2008 (M=2.99, SD=.908) did not differ from 2010 or 2012.
Poor to Excellent
CAS - Advisor knowledge
4.00
3.00
2.99
3.10
2.87
2008
2010
2012
2.00
1.00
*Means with different colors are significantly
different from each other
Knowledge, Skills, and Personal Growth - Respondents were asked to rate the extent to
which their college education contributed to knowledge, skills, and personal development
using a 5-point Likert scale: 5=Don’t know, 4=Very much, 3=Somewhat, 2=Very little, 1=Not at all.
“Don’t know” was excluded from calculations of means. Means and standard deviations for 2008,
2010, and 2012 are presented in Table 5. College of Arts/Sciences mean scores on one item differed
over time according to analyses of variance comparisons. Those whose major included a co-op,
internship, practicum, student teaching, or other field experience, evaluated the experience
significantly higher in 2012 (M=3.71, SD=.568) than in 2008 (M=3.51, SD=.732), F(2,494)=4.117,
p=.017. The mean score in 2010 (M=3.67, SD=.594) did not differ from 2008 or 2012.
Not at all to Very Much
CAS - Co-op, etc contribution
4.00
3.51
3.67
3.71
2008
2010
2012
3.00
2.00
1.00
*Means with different colors are significantly
different from each other
APPENDIX A
Graduating Senior Survey
Section A: Faculty Contribution
Please evaluate how well faculty members in your major department do each of the following.
1. Set high expectations for you to learn
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
2. Respect the diverse talents and ways of learning of you and your classmates
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
3. Encourage you to be an actively involved learner
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
4. Encourage student-faculty interaction, in and out of the classroom
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
5. Give you frequent and prompt feedback
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
6. Encourage you to devote sufficient time and energy to your coursework
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
7. Develop opportunities for you to learn cooperatively with fellow students
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
8. Care about your academic success and welfare
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
9. In general, how would you evaluate your instructors on these eight measures?
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
Section B: Help Outside the Classroom
Based on your last two years on this campus, how would you evaluate each of the following? (If you
have not had enough experience with a service to evaluate it, please mark “Don’t know/did not use,”
then skip to the next service.)
1. Academic advising in your major
a. Access to advisor
( ) Don't know/did not use
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
b. Sufficient time with advisor
( ) Don't know/did not use
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
c. Accurate information about degree requirements and course sequencing
( ) Don't know/did not use
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
d. Knowledge of campus policies and procedures
( ) Don't know/did not use
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
e. Academic advising services overall
( ) Don't know/did not use
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
2. Library Services
a. Hours of operation
( ) Don't know/did not use
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
b. Staff responsiveness
( ) Don't know/did not use
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
c. Access to databases and collections
( ) Don't know/did not use
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
d. Library services overall
( ) Don't know/did not use
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
3. Technology Services
a. Access to internet
( ) Don't know/did not use
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
b. Hours of operation for computer center, labs, and help desks
( ) Don't know/did not use
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
c. Access to up-to-date facilities
( ) Don't know/did not use
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
d. Access to trained staff for help
( ) Don't know/did not use
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
e. Technology training classes
( ) Don't know/did not use
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
f. Technology services overall
( ) Don't know/did not use
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
4. Career-related services
a. Opportunity for career assistance
( ) Don't know/did not use
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
b. Information on internships, co-op, or other career-related experiences
( ) Don't know/did not use
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
c. Resources available to explore career options
( ) Don't know/did not use
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
d. Information available through computers/Internet and other technology
( ) Don't know/did not use
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
e. Career-related services overall
( ) Don't know/did not use
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
5. Employment search assistance
a. Resume preparation
( ) Don't know/did not use
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
b. Interview preparation and skills
( ) Don't know/did not use
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
c. Access to employment opportunities (e.g., career fairs, interviews, job listings, etc.)
( ) Don't know/did not use
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
d. Employment search assistance overall
( ) Don't know/did not use
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
Section C: Knowledge, Skills, and Personal Growth
1. To what extent do you think your college education contributed to your knowledge, skills, and
personal development in each of the following areas?
a. Writing skills
( ) Don't know
( ) Very much
( ) Somewhat
( ) Very little
( ) Not at all
b. Listening skills
( ) Don't know
( ) Very much
( ) Somewhat
( ) Very little
( ) Not at all
c. Speaking skills
( ) Don't know
( ) Very much
( ) Somewhat
( ) Very little
( ) Not at all
d. Comprehension skills (written information)
( ) Don't know
( ) Very much
( ) Somewhat
( ) Very little
( ) Not at all
e. Using mathematics skills
( ) Don't know
( ) Very much
( ) Somewhat
( ) Very little
( ) Not at all
f. Applying scientific methods of inquiry
( ) Don't know
( ) Very much
( ) Somewhat
( ) Very little
( ) Not at all
g. Enhancing analytic skills
( ) Don't know
( ) Very much
( ) Somewhat
( ) Very little
( ) Not at all
h. Developing computer skills
( ) Don't know
( ) Very much
( ) Somewhat
( ) Very little
( ) Not at all
i. Ability to function as part of a team
( ) Don't know
( ) Very much
( ) Somewhat
( ) Very little
( ) Not at all
j. Ability to work with people from diverse backgrounds
( ) Don't know
( ) Very much
( ) Somewhat
( ) Very little
( ) Not at all
k. Recognizing and acting on ethical principles
( ) Don't know
( ) Very much
( ) Somewhat
( ) Very little
( ) Not at all
l. Appreciating racial equity
( ) Don't know
( ) Very much
( ) Somewhat
( ) Very little
( ) Not at all
m. Appreciating gender equity
( ) Don't know
( ) Very much
( ) Somewhat
( ) Very little
( ) Not at all
n. Personal growth
( ) Don't know
( ) Very much
( ) Somewhat
( ) Very little
( ) Not at all
2. Did your major include a co-op, internship, practicum, student teaching, or other field
experience?
( ) Yes
( ) No
If yes, how would you evaluate this experience in terms of its contribution to your personal and
professional growth?
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
Section D: Other Offices That Serve You
Based on the last 2 years on this campus, how would you evaluate each of the following services? (If
you have not had enough experience with a service to evaluate it, please mark "Don't know/did not
use," then skip to the next service. For those service areas you can rate, please also rate the
responsiveness of the staff to your needs for each service area.
1. Registration process - Evaluation of Service Area
( ) Don't know/did not use
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
1. Registration process - Evaluation of Staff Responsiveness
( ) Don't know/did not use
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
2a. Financial aid services - Application/award process - Evaluation of Service Area
( ) Don't know/did not use
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
2a. Financial aid services - Application/award process - Evaluation of Staff Responsiveness
( ) Don't know/did not use
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
2b. Financial aid services - Disbursement process - Evaluation of Service Area
( ) Don't know/did not use
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
2b. Financial aid services - Disbursement process - Evaluation of Staff Responsiveness
( ) Don't know/did not use
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
3. Campus food services - Evaluation of Service Area
( ) Don't know/did not use
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
3. Campus food services - Evaluation of Staff Responsiveness
( ) Don't know/did not use
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
4. Campus health services - Evaluation of Service Area
( ) Don't know/did not use
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
4. Campus health services - Evaluation of Staff Responsiveness
( ) Don't know/did not use
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
5. Campus counseling (not career) services - Evaluation of Service Area
( ) Don't know/did not use
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
5. Campus counseling (not career) services - Evaluation of Staff Responsiveness
( ) Don't know/did not use
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
6. Business services/cashier/student accounts - Evaluation of Service Area
( ) Don't know/did not use
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
6. Business services/cashier/student accounts - Evaluation of Staff Responsiveness
( ) Don't know/did not use
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
7. Campus residence life programs for students living in university-owned housing - Evaluation of
Service Area
( ) Don't know/did not use
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
7. Campus residence life programs for students living in university-owned housing - Evaluation of
Staff Responsiveness
( ) Don't know/did not use
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
8. Opportunities to participate in campus recreational and other extra-curricular or co-curricular
activities
( ) Don't know/did not use
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
9. Opportunities to participate in community service projects
( ) Don't know/did not use
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
10. Opportunities to develop leadership skills
( ) Don't know/did not use
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
Section E: Your Conclusions
1. All things considered, how would you characterize the intellectual environment on this campus?
( ) Very strong
( ) Strong
( ) Weak
( ) Very weak
2. All things considered, how would you evaluate the quality of instruction on this campus:
a. In your major?
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
b. Overall?
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
3. All things considered, how would you evaluate the overall education that you are receiving at
this institution?
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
4. Would you recommend this institution to a friend considering college?
( ) Yes
( ) Not sure
( ) No
5. If you could start over again, would you still choose to attend this institution?
( ) Yes
( ) Not sure
( ) No
6. If you are earning your degree through an off-campus degree program, how likely is it that you
would have obtained this degree on a UNC campus if the off-campus program had not been
available?
( ) Very likely
( ) Probably
( ) Probably not
( ) Not likely
Section F: Your Plans for Next Year
Please indicate the best description of your primary plans following graduation by marking the one
most appropriate.
( ) I have accepted a full-time paid job related to my field of study
( ) I have accepted a full-time paid job unrelated to my field of study
( ) I have accepted a part-time paid job
( ) I will continue in my current paid job
( ) I am currently seeking - or plan to seek - paid employment
( ) I will be going to graduate or professional school full-time next year
( ) I will be going to graduate or professional school part-time and working part-time next year
( ) I will take more undergraduate courses next year
( ) I am neither seeking employment nor planning on attending school next year
( ) I will be entering or continuing military service
( ) I will be engaged in volunteer activity (e.g., Peace Corps)
( ) I will be starting or raising a family
( ) I don't know yet
( ) Other [
]