“[The Academic Conference] is a step toward solidarity among all the
segments of shareholders in the system. We need to believe ourselves
to be a family--albeit large--that must fight for our place, our
recognition, and our success.”
Academic Conference 2014
Participant Survey: Qualitative Analysis
Method: Responses for each question were counted, then organized by
positive, negative and neutral, then counted again. Common responses
in each category were grouped and the most common were reported.
Survey Respondents (n=60)
5%
17%
CSU Trustee
Student
Administrator/MPP
62%
17%
Faculty
2. Please provide comments to elaborate on your rating for the
Thursday Keynote Speaker – Kevin Finneran.
Text Response
Total Number of Comments: 43
Number of Negative Comments: 21
Comments: Thursday
Number of Positive Comments: 8
Keynote Speaker
Number of Neutral Comments: 14
Common kudos: “An eclectic approach,
19%
but a plethora of useful information.”
49%
“The content of his speech was
incredibly important and applicable.”
33%
“What he had to say was an important
indicator of what policy makers at the
national level are considering.” “He
provided a new perspective, new
context, for viewing the position our students are in when they
the university.” “His data was important” (2).
Negative
Neutral
Positive
enter
Common criticisms: Finneran’s talk “wasn’t very organized” or was “not
really clear” (10).
No “thesis” or “takeaways,” esp. with regard to
the CSU (4). Some would rather just read Piketty (2). Talk was
generally “not very inspiring” (4). “Nothing new to say” (3). Two
commenters wish there could have been discussion in the large group
directly afterward, “to mine the useful elements [of the talk].”
Other comments: “Because of the timing and the canceling of breakout
sessions, there was no opportunity to explore some of the implications
of his talk” (3).
3. Please provide comments to elaborate on your rating for the
Thursday Student Posters.
Text Response
Total Number of Comments: 49
Number of Negative Comments: 16
Number of Positive Comments: 33
Comments:
Poster Session
Common kudos: Posters were “great,”
(8) “inspiring,” (2) and “interesting”
(6). The session created opportunities
Positive
33%
for interaction with students (5) in
Negative
67%
particular, “to see what they value.”
The students were complimented (10):
“obviously worked hard,” “seemed
thrilled,” were “knowledgeable,
articulate and committed.” Commenters were interested in cross-campus
efforts, esp. via ASI (7): “emphasizes the idea that were are
complementary campuses—not all alike,” “important to see what programs
are creating academic success for our students.” Three commenters
noted that the poster sessions were applicable to the conference theme:
It’s All About Our Students.
Common criticisms: Three commenters echoed this sentiment: “According
to the students […] they were asked to prepare [the posters] at the
last minute and they were not sure of the reasons for preparing them.”
Posters were “mixed in quality” or “amateurish” (4). Three commenters
wanted more student or campus participation. Three commenters did not
see the connection between the posters and the conference theme.
Other comments: “It would have been useful to have the student posters
listed on the conference program by student name, campus and title of
poster.” “Would have liked to see more about how successful projects
initiated by students were initially envisioned, then implemented, and
then assessed for effectiveness and optimization later.” “I think a
chance for the student leaders to present to us as a panel might have
been more effective for hearing their ideas and priorities for the
system.”
4. Please provide comments to elaborate on your rating for the Friday
Keynote Speaker – Suzanne Mettler
Comments: Friday
Total comments: 43
Positive comments: 36
Keynote Speaker
Negative comments: 7
16%
Text Response
Common kudos: “Excellent” (12)
Positive
“Interesting” (5) “Outstanding” (4)
Negative
“Engaging” (3) “Informative” (2)
“Powerful” (2) Well-organized (2).
84%
Also: Very good, challenging,
stimulating, clear, awesome, impactful, wonderful, thoughtful,
relevant, innovative, digestible, amazing. Commenters noted her
excellent data/research (8). Other: “She advanced potential
solutions.” “I felt like I was sitting in a really good graduate
class.” “A single word: wow.”
her book.
Several wrote that they would purchase
Common criticisms: Presentation offered no solutions (4) and confirmed
much of what we already know (3). It wasn’t targeted to the CSU (3)
Other comments:
“The people who most needed to hear what she had to say […] the BOT,
were mostly absent.”
“It would have been good to have her book available for purchase at the
conference.”
“I wish we had a Q&A session with her.”
“I think it is critical that we find a way to make her talk available
to all the conference attendees so that those who couldn't stay, can
hear the presentation.”
5. Please provide comments to elaborate on your rating for the Friday
Panel Discussion.
Text Response
Total comments: 47
Positive comments: 28
Negative comments: 19
Comments:
Friday Panel
Common kudos: Good discussion/worth
listening to (9). Good composition of
panel (6). The question card format
Positive
40%
was effective (4). This session pulled
60%
Negative
the conference themes together and put
things in a CSU context (3). Well
moderated by Christine Miller (3). Best session of the conference (2).
Other: “It was great to hear the chancellor and the board chair off
script.” “Student voices were solicited and heard.” “I think that
putting administrators, professors, trustees, chancellor’s office
executives, and students into a room is extremely eye opening.”
Common criticisms: No new/original ideas (5). No problem-solving (2).
Dull (3). Too short (5). No audience participation (2). Commenters
wished instead for time to report on breakout session to the large
group (3) Other: “Pre-selected questions read by a moderator kind of
take the air out of the room. Maybe questions selected by the breakout
groups (had we had them both) would have provided a little more
spontaneity and exchange.”
7. Please provide comments to elaborate on your rating for: The
breakout sessions fostered dialogue among different constituencies and
led to understanding of different perspectives.
Text Response
Total comments: 46
Positive comments: 29
Negative comments: 17
Comments:
Breakout
Positive
37%
Common kudos: Different perspectives
63%
Negative
were valuable (6). Lively discussion
in our group (5). Best part of the
conference (4). Good to get student
input (2) Other: “Just great minds
thinking together from all areas of CSU was great.” “I watched
trustees, faculty and administrators have animated conversations with
students and each other. It was truly impressive.”
Common criticisms: Not enough administrators or trustees in our group
(3). Unfortunate that the other breakout was cancelled (3). Someone
from the CO hijacked the discussion (2). The group I was in wasn’t
balanced (2). Unclear as to where the conversation will go in the
future (2). Other: “This was a valuable session but needed more
direction as far as the prompt. Were we to discuss obstacles and
challenges only? Or should it have been tied to the speaker?”
“Naturally, the administrators in my group held the reigns for the
conversation. However, I was able to provide the student perspective. I
would have liked to be more prepared on which issues to discuss that
affect the CSU as a whole rather than just an individual campus.”
8. Please provide comments to elaborate on your rating for: The
overall conference provided a good forum for communication and exchange
of ideas.
Total comments: 38
Positive comments: 20
Negative comments: 18
Comments:
Forum for
Comm.
Text Response
Common kudos: The conference provided
a good forum for communication (14). I
Positive
shared information/learned about other
47%
53%
Negative
campuses (6). Informal, social
interaction was very important (5).
Other: “I had great chats with a number
of people from students to presidents. It made one feel part of the
CSU, not just our own campus.” “It was a mix of CSU constituents that I
have not been part of before.”
Common criticisms: Because of the lateness of the trustees, we had
less time to share ideas (3). Not enough trustees present (2).
Conference was too short (3). We needed another breakout session or
more opportunities for open discussion (3). Other: “I would have
liked there to have been more of an objective. We put students first,
but in the end, the message culled from the speakers was, 'Life is
unfair to most of the population, and we need to train our students get
jobs.' There were no solutions or even ideas offered as to how we
address either one of these issues.”
9. Please provide comments to elaborate on your rating for: The
conference was informative and worthwhile. Response
Total comments: 33
Positive comments: 18
Negative comments: 15
Comments:
Informative/Worthwhile
Common kudos: Bringing these
constituents together is important
(8). The conference was informative
Positive
45%
(7). Other: “I learned how other
55%
Negative
employees of the CSU think and
worry and hope for the system, and
that was good.” “I learned many
things I did not know about the CSU. I had a chance to get away from
the day-to-day work-world in order to think about the larger picture of
public higher education, and I had some good conversations with a
number of people from throughout the system. This made it worthwhile.”
Common criticisms: The BOT running overtime was a major problem (3).
The speakers spoke too long (2). Other: “I didn't see a lot of new
solutions to the problems we had. I would also like to see a session on
best practices.” “I learned more from my colleagues during meals and
breaks then I did from the formal program.” “In hindsight, I think one
speaker and a longer panel discussion may be better. I also think that
a presentation/discussion by the Chancellor and the Chair of BOT might
be interesting. Particularly, on future goals of the CSU.”
10. Please provide comments to elaborate on your rating for: I would
benefit from a CSU Academic Conference offered on a regular basis.
Text Response
Yes (97%).
Why:
Beneficial for interaction of different constituents (13)
We can improve the system this way (4)
It’s informative (1)
“Regular cross-fertilization is important across all the
constituencies. Face-to-face interactions with informal or looselystructured events allows for creative collaboration, as well as
humanizing individuals who are often seen (only) as "others" due to
structural roles.”
“This is a step toward solidarity among all the segments of
shareholders in the system. We need to believe ourselves to be a
family--albeit large--that must fight for our place, our recognition,
and our success.”
Suggestions:
“Leadership needs to be more present. More trustees!”
“I would have liked more interaction with CSU/Chancellor's Office
Administrators.”
“I would suggest that more breakout sessions be planned, including
sessions on best practices, and integrating Academic Affairs and
Student Affairs. It would also be a good forum to invite influential
politicians so that they can be better informed about higher
education.”
12. Please share your ideas. What session topics or speakers would
you like to be included at a future CSU Academic Conference? If
possible, please provide contact information for any speakers.
Text Response
Suggested speakers:
Mark C. Taylor, Professor at Columbia University, wrote Speed Limits:
Where Time Went and Why We Have So Little Left
Freeman Hrabowski
Robert Reich
Ken Robinson (2)
Ian Jukes
Carol Geary Schneider (AACU)
Tony Wagner
Suggested topics:
Social justice issues
Quality, diversity, graduation rates
Impact of the internet and social media
Relation between the CSU and K-12 (2)
Graduation initiative
What are campuses doing exceptionally well? (2)
Educational futurist
What constitutes a baccalaureate degree/how will it be implemented and
evaluated for completion? Are there other options?
Definition of student success
Biggest challenges to CSU success
General education
Shared governance
Online education
Remediation
Appropriate mix of degrees
Improvements in teacher education
Appropriate level of math/science for the work force
Performance measures
The appropriate level of athletics in higher education