Survey Results—Faculty, Students, Alumni

1. Survey Results—Faculty, Students, Alumni Women’s Commission March 30, 2007

2. COACHE • Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education • Coordinated by Harvard’s Graduate School of Education (Cathy Trower and Richard Chait) • Purpose • To further enlighten academic leaders about the experiences and concerns of junior faculty • To provide data that lead to informed discussions and appropriate actions to improve the quality of work life for junior faculty

3. Four Areas Assessed • Tenure, nature of the work • Policies and practices at the university • Climate, culture, and collegiality • Global satisfaction

4. Tenure Process • Clemson has reasonable expectations for performance (4.07) • Clemson lacks clarity of the tenure process (3.06 more than one standard deviation below the mean of peers) • Satisfaction with fairness of immediate supervisor’s evaluation (4.15) is higher than peers for females and faculty of color

5. From the COACHE, 2005 Executive Summary provided to Clemson University.

6. Nature of the Work • Faculty are satisfied with their • Discretion over their content in their courses (4.68) • The course levels (4.28) • The courses taught (4.24) • The focus of their research (4.32) • The number of students taught (4.01)

7. Policies and Practices • Clemson ranks above its peers in the effectiveness of travel funds for female faculty members • Clemson’s effectiveness in professional assistance for improving teaching (3.55) ranks above the peer group overall and by race and gender

8. Climate, culture and collegiality • Faculty of color report higher satisfaction with how well they fit in their department when compared to peers • Females report higher satisfaction with the amount of professional interaction with junior colleagues than peer institutions • Faculty of color rate a higher satisfaction with their departments as places to work, while females rate this area below our peers

9. Global Satisfaction • The lowest mean score was in the effectiveness of childcare at 1.94 • Satisfaction with the chief academic officer in caring about the quality of life for junior faculty (3.34) is higher than our peer institutions overall, for males, and for faculty of color

10. “Effectiveness Gaps” • Professional assistance in obtaining externally funded grants (50%) • Formal mentoring programs for junior faculty (48%) • Childcare (46%) • Spousal/partner hiring program (40%) • Paid or unpaid research (sabbatical) leave during the probationary period (39%)

11. Best Aspects about Clemson • Cost of living • Geographic location • “Sense of fit” • Support of colleagues

12. Worse Aspects • Lack of support for research • Tenure criteria clarity • Quality of graduate students • Compensation, Unrelenting pressure to perform, too much service/too many assignments, and geographic locations (tied for fourth)

13. Departmental Results • Tenure Process • Highest in Engineering/Computer Sc/Math (3.9) lowest in Education (2.3) • Tenure Criteria • Highest in Engineering/Comp Sc/Math (4.1), lowest in Education (2.6) • Tenure Standards • Highest in Engineering group (3.6), lowest in Humanities (2.3)

14. Expectations regarding tenure • And performance as a scholar • Physical Sciences (4.6), lowest Humanities (2.8) • And performance as a teacher • Engineering (4.4), lowest other Professions (3.6) • And performance as a student advisor • Business (4.2), lowest Humanities (3.2) • And performance as a campus citizen • Physical Sciences (4.6), lowest Humanities (3.2) • And as a member of the broader community • Physical Sciences (4.6), lowest Humanities (3.2)

15. Quality and Satisfaction • Number of students (range 4.4 to 3.6) • Undergraduate students (range 3.9 to 3.4) • Graduate students (range 4.2 to 2.6)

16. Research and Level of Satisfaction • What’s expected as a researcher (range 4.0 to 2.2) • Amount of time to conduct research (range 3.4 to 1.5) • Amount of research funding expected to find (range 3.3 to 1.8; only Business was above a 3.0) • Research services (range 3.5 to 1.6)

17. Children, family and tenure • Institutional support—having children (range from 3.7 to 1.6; only Business above 3.0) • Institutional support—raising children (range 3.2 to 1.6; only Business above 3.0) • Departmental support—having children (range 3.6 to 2.2; all but Education above 3.0) • Departmental support—raising children (range 4.0 to 3.0)

18. Other Areas • Fairness of evaluations (range 4.5 to 3.3) • Collaboration with senior faculty (range 3.7 to 2.4) • Professional interactions with senior faculty (range 4.0 to 2.3) • Personal interactions with senior faculty (range 3.9 to 3.0) • Intellectual vitality of senior colleagues (range 3.8 to 2.7)

19. Opportunities • Guidelines for Tenure and Promotion • Relationships between non-tenured and tenured faculty • Research support systems (university, college, department) • Institutional support for “having children”

21. NSSE Survey of Students • National Survey of Student Engagement • Academic Challenge • Supportive Campus Environment • Student-Faculty Interaction • Active and Collaborative Learning • Enriching Educational Experience

22. Supportive Campus Environment • Both freshmen and seniors report that the environment helps them succeed academically and thrive socially. • The campus environment provides help to cope with non-academic responsibilities (work, family, etc) is significantly higher for freshmen. • Clemson freshmen and seniors rate quality of relationships with other students, faculty, and administrative personnel and offices significantly higher than both peer and Carnegie institutions.

23. Academic Challenge • Students report continued high emphasis of the mental skill, application, and the lowest order skill, memorizing, is now significantly lower, indicating a shift toward greater emphasis on higher order learning outcomes. Significant changes in the reporting of the level of coursework emphasizing • Changes in performance expectations indicate that freshmen and seniors are reading significantly fewer numbers of textbooks and writing shorter papers than both peer groups, coming less prepared to class (not completing readings or assignments), and attending fewer art exhibits, galleries, plays, dance, or other theater performances.

24. Student-Faculty Interaction • Clemson students are statistically significant higher than peer and Carnegie institutions in reporting discussions with faculty about grades and receiving prompt written or oral feedback on their academic performance. • Neither freshmen nor seniors score significantly in working with a faculty member on a research project outside of course or program requirements. However, with the Creative Inquiry program, a change is anticipated in this measure.

25. Active and Collaborative Learning • Student reported activity of community-based project (service learning) as a part of a regular course continues to be significant for seniors and changing level of significance for freshmen. The 2005 freshmen were lower than freshmen NSSE students but, in 2006, freshmen have a significantly higher participation rate, a great step for Clemson! • Seniors are significantly higher than peers in tutoring or teaching other students.

26. Enriching Educational Experiences • Scores are significantly higher than peers in reporting the use of electronic technology to discuss or complete an assignment, using email to communicate with an instructor, and using computers in academic work. • Freshmen scores on participating in learning communities or some other formal program where groups of students take two or more classes together is significantly lower than both peers and Carnegie institutions. With the growth of new learning communities, this score may change in the 2007 year.

27. Enriching Educational Experiences • Significantly lower scores than peers are in (1) having a serious conversation with students of a different race or ethnicity, (2) understanding people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds, (3) including diverse perspectives (different races, religions, genders, political beliefs, etc.) in class discussion or writing assignments, and (4) trying to better understand someone else’s views by imagining how an issue looks from his or her perspective.

28. Highlights • When asked, “If you could start over again, would you go to the same institution you are now attending?” and “How would you evaluate your entire educational experience at this institution?” student responses are statistically significantly higher than peer, Carnegie, and the total NSSE population for 2005 and 2006! • Students achieve significantly higher responses on how often they (1) participated in physical fitness activities, and (2) participated in activities to enhance your spirituality (worship, meditation, prayer, etc). • Freshmen report quality academic advising at a statistically significantly higher level than peer, Carnegie and NSSE institutions. In 2006 seniors were higher than selected peers.

29. Opportunities • Clemson is statistically lower in reporting frequency of (1) coming to class without completing readings or assignments, and (2) attending an art exhibit, gallery, play, dance, or other theater performance.

30. Opportunities • Significantly lower than peer, Carnegie and all NSSE institutions for 2005 and 2006 are both the senior and freshmen responses to (1) understanding people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds, and (2) including diverse perspectives (different races, religions, genders, political beliefs, etc.) in class discussion or writing assignments. Trying to better understand someone else’s views by imagining how an issue looks from his or her perspective is significantly lower for both freshmen peer groups.

31. Alumni Surveys • General Education outcomes are among the most significant issues addressed at the undergraduate level. Undergraduate one-year out alumni reported that Clemson made somewhat or very significant contributions to: • experiencing self and social awareness (94.3%); • awareness of one’s own values (92.1%); • ability to write clearly and effectively (91.7%); • skills required for active participation in group discussions (90.6%); • development of writing skills in the areas of incorporation of existing research into writing (90.2%); • exhibition of confidence/reduced apprehension in public speaking (89.8%); and • organization of thoughts when writing (89.5%).

32. Undergraduate One-year Out • Reported that Clemson contributed little or not at all to: • development of understanding of popular press articles on scientific subjects (41%); • appreciation of the arts (34.5%), • understanding of causes of human actions (29.3%); • ability to use technical computer skills (27.7%); • understanding historical and future consequences of human actions on societies (27.5%).

33. Undergraduate Three-Year Out • Clemson made little or not at all contribution to their: • ability to understand causes of human actions (21.1% compared to 29.3% for one-year out alumni); • ability to understand the historical and future consequences of human actions on societies (23.3%compared to 27.5% for one-year out alumni).

34. Graduate Students • Both one- and three-year out alumni indicated that Clemson contributed little or not at all to: • improvement of an appreciation of historical development at rates of 38.1% and 39.6% respectively. • instructional strategies were provided to teaching assistants prior to entering the classroom, one- and three-year out alumni responded that this never or only sometimes happened: at rates of 33.3% for one-year out and 52.2% for three-year out alumni.

35. Graduate Students—One year • Clemson University contributed little or not at all to • development of skills required for formulating and solving a thesis question (21.4%); and • laboratory facilities within their departments (21.4%).

36. Graduate Students—Three Years Out • Responded with agreement levels of little or not at all to the statements • advisor and student met at appropriate intervals to discuss work (29.8%); • advisor helped set goals that were clear and reasonable (31.3%); • student had a professor who served as mentor (35.4%); • exposure to multiple disciplines and research scholars working within these disciplines (27.7%);and • contributed to ability to devise and perform experiments (27.1%).

37. Other Areas • Academic advising issues such as meeting an advisor on a regular basis, help with the setting of appropriate goals, and development of a mentoring relationship with a faculty advisor received negative comments (little or not at all) at rates ranging from 28.7% all the way up to 39.4%. • Administrative services such as on-line registration, billing and tuition payments, enrollment certification, and the utility and accuracy of degree progress reports were generally viewed favorably.

38. Summary

39. Opportunities • The scores for both freshmen and senior are not statistically significantly different regarding Clemson’s environment of encouraging contact among students from different economic, social, racial, and ethnic backgrounds. It must be noted that student responses are not different from those of peers in the extent to which the institution emphasizes encouraging contact among students from different economic, social, and racial or ethnic backgrounds. From these data, one could reason that the institutional environment is ripe for student interactions that are not being reported as taking place.