Baccalaureate Alumni Survey 1998-2001 Degree Recipients

Document Sample
Baccalaureate Alumni Survey 1998-2001 Degree Recipients Powered By Docstoc
					 Baccalaureate Alumni Survey
 1998-2001 Degree Recipients




Georgia Tech Office of Assessment
  Joe Ludlum, Coordinator of Survey Research

                   May 2005
                            Table of Contents


Executive Summary …………………………………………………………………………..                       1

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………                           3

Survey Findings
       Demographics ……………………………………………………………………….. 5
       General Knowledge, Skills and Abilities ……………………………………………. 6
       Student Satisfaction and Experiences ……………………………………………….. 12
       Further Education ……………………………………………………………………. 19
       Employment …………………………………………………………………………. 20

Appendices
      Appendix A: 2004 Survey Results Tables ………………………………………....... 25
      Appendix B: 2001 and 2004 Survey Comparison Tables ………………………….. 41
      Appendix C: Survey Instrument …………………………………………………….. 53
Executive Summary
The Georgia Tech survey of baccalaureate alumni who graduated from 1998–2001 was undertaken
to identify alumni satisfaction with preparation for employment and experiences at Georgia Tech.
This project replicates many elements of the 2001 baccalaureate alumni survey, to which
comparisons are drawn.

A thorough survey process* yielded a 28.5% response rate. Because of the high quality assurance
steps taken and the results received, this report is based on the conclusion that results obtained are
both accurate and broadly representative of the population of Georgia Tech bachelor’s graduates
for those years surveyed.

The following are some of the major findings, by topic area:

     General Knowledge, Abilities and Skills
     Alumni were asked to rate a set of skills, abilities, and attributes generally expected of a
     Georgia Tech graduate degree recipient, first rating the importance of each item relative to
     their personal employment experience since graduation, and then rating each item relative to
     how well their education had prepared them.

     -    The areas rated most important by alumni were a mix of analytical thinking,
          communication, and interpersonal skills. The highest importance ratings were in the
          abilities to think critically and logically, identify, formulate and solve problems within
          your discipline, communicate in writing, engage in lifelong learning, and exercise
          leadership skills.

     -    Alumni indicated that Georgia Tech did an excellent job in preparing them in analytical
          and technical skills. The highest ratings of preparation were for the abilities to think
          critically and logically, to identify, formulate and solve problems within your discipline,
          to analyze and interpret data, and to use computing technology in communications.

     -    Preparation in other important areas, particularly the ability to exercise leadership skills
          and similar interpersonal skills was good, but lower compared to more technical areas
          considered to be of equal importance by respondents.

     -    Alumni were less positive regarding business preparation. An understanding of product
          development or design from a business perspective, which roughly three quarters of
          alumni rated as being important, has both one of the lowest preparation ratings, as well as
          a decrease in preparation from 2001 to 2004.

     Student Satisfaction and Experiences
     - Over 85% of alumni reported being generally satisfied with their overall preparation to
        practice professionally in their discipline, enter the workforce upon graduation,
        contribute professionally within their discipline, and contribute to society.

     -    Over 80% of alumni were satisfied with teaching provided by faculty across the Institute,
          and over 90% were satisfied with teaching by faculty in their college.


*
 The process used follows a methodology to increase response rate, as discussed in Dillman’s Mail & Internet Surveys: the Tailored
Design Method 2nd Ed. (2000).



                                                                                                                                -1-
Georgia Tech Office of Assessment
Baccalaureate Alumni Survey, May 2005



      -   Alumni reported being moderately satisfied with the quality of advisement they received
          at Tech. However, reported levels of satisfaction were up in all areas of advising
          common to both the 2001 and 2004 surveys, with academic planning showing the largest
          increase.

      -   Between 2001 and 2004, alumni reported higher rates of participation in applied learning
          experiences, such as the co-op program, internships, undergraduate research, and other
          employment. The co-op program had marked increases in both program participation and
          in the number of respondents who indicated that the experience had been helpful in
          obtaining their first job.

      Further Education
      - 38.4% of Tech alumni survey respondents in 2004 went on to pursue additional degrees,
         down from 41.3% in 2001. Similarly, the number of alumni survey respondents reporting
         absolutely no interest in pursuing further education increased from 5.7% to 14.3%.

      -   While pursuit of further education has decreased among respondents, preparation ratings
          have increased. Over four-fifths of responding alumni (86.5%) stated that they had
          received good or excellent preparation for further study, up from 69.7% in 2001. The
          number of responding alumni reporting fair or poor preparation for further education
          dropped from 21.6% in 2001 to only 4.8% in the current survey.

      Employment
      - Reported employment rates for alumni increased from 2001 to 2004. Of the 2004
        respondents, 87.6% were currently employed full-time, compared to 80.7% in 2001.
        However, the number of responding alumni who were not employed and still seeking
        employment increased from 1.5% in 2001 to 2.3% in 2004.

      -   While reported full-time employment rates among responding alumni appears to be up,
          job satisfaction rates appear to have decreased. The majority of alumni reported being
          satisfied, yet the 2004 survey found lower satisfaction with career choice since
          graduation and career progression since graduation compared to the 2001 survey.




-2-
Introduction

Background
To retain its role at the forefront of higher education, Georgia Tech needs to not only be able
respond to changes in knowledge and technology, but changes in our society and culture. The
world is changing, and in many ways the technical and non-technical abilities of Georgia Tech’s
graduates will need to change with it. The current trends towards more diverse work
environments and a broader range of cultures – within the domestic workplace, as well as through
increased globalization-- are often commented upon by those in business and education.1234 These
types of technical, social, and political changes are thought by experts to be of importance, and
are detailed in the National Academy of Engineering’s (NAE) report, The Engineer of 20205. The
areas evaluated in this survey include preparation in a variety of skills and abilities that already
are, or that will become increasingly important in the work environment. These changes in the
needs of the workplace require changes in the methods and opportunities of education6, such as
the initiatives developed through Georgia Tech’s current Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP)7.

Surveying alumni several years after graduation provides an opportunity to evaluate the outcomes
of the Georgia Tech experience from the perspective of the alumni who have had time to develop
in their careers and to better appreciate the demands of their chosen fields. The Georgia Tech
survey of baccalaureate alumni who graduated from the Institute between Fall 1998 through
Summer 2001 sought to measure the degree to which alumni perceive that Georgia Tech prepared
them for the working world, as well as to gauge their satisfaction with the overall Georgia Tech
experience. This survey is a further iteration of an assessment process that began with a survey of
engineering baccalaureate recipients in 1997 and continued with an Institute-level baccalaureate
alumni survey in 2001.

Results from this report may provide insight into what skills and abilities are most valued in the
work environment experienced by Georgia Tech alumni, as well as which curricular and co-
curricular activities are perceived by alumni to most benefit GT students. Comparing this data to
prior alumni survey results provides a method for investigating and tracking over time how the
Georgia Tech experience has changed, and serves to document changes in the expectations of the
employers of GT alumni.

Sample and Methodology
The entire survey process was designed to include standard elements of survey research and
specific practices shown to contribute to response rate. This included:
    • A pre-notification email sent to all 1,435 alumni with valid email addresses, informing
         them of the survey and of how they could respond on the web.
    • A personally addressed pre-notification letter mailed to all 5,609 alumni in the final
         sample, informing them that they could respond to the survey online or return the paper
         form that would be mailed in two weeks*;
    • A first mailing, including a personally-addressed cover letter from the President of the
         Institute, and a postage-paid business reply envelope;
    • A custom-designed follow-up card mailed to all who did not respond within two weeks of
         the first mailing; and
    • A final mailing to non-respondents.


    *
        Alumni residing abroad were sent an email and invitation letter, but did not receive any follow-ups.



                                                                                                               -3-
Georgia Tech Office of Assessment
Baccalaureate Alumni Survey, May 2005




        •    For those alumni who gave permission, a survey was sent to their direct supervisors to
             provide comparison/validation of skill and ability ratings, and an outside view of alumni
             performance in the work environment. These results are an important and direct source of
             feedback, and will be discussed in a forthcoming report.

This process resulted in 1,401 valid responses, a 28.5% adjusted response rate.

Quality Assurance
Data quality assurance steps taken yielded the following findings:
   • Precision: The overall margin of error for items included in this report was narrow at
       2.5% (at a 95 percent confidence level).
   • Reliability: Item reliabilities were high. Cronbach’s Alphas, a common measure of
       survey item reliability, were 0.86 for importance items, 0.91 for preparation items, and
       0.91 for satisfaction items on the survey. Alphas of 0.70 and above are considered
       acceptable.
   • A post-hoc comparison of demographic information between the population and obtained
       response was conducted. Chi-square tests for sample representativeness (p < 0.01)
       revealed no significant differences in proportion by college or year of graduation. There
       were significant differences by ethnicity (higher than expected response from
       White/Caucasian alumni) and gender (women responded at a higher rate than men). Thus,
       caution should be used when interpreting results based on these factors.
   • Because of the high quality assurance standards, and the volume and quality of the results
       received, this report is based on the conclusion that results obtained are both accurate,
       and functionally representative of the population of Georgia Tech bachelor’s graduates
       for those years surveyed. Further methodological information on this survey is available
       from the Office of Assessment.

Rating Scales
All importance, preparation, and satisfaction items were rated by respondents on five-point
scales. The specific response anchors are presented in the table below.


Table 1. Likert Scales Used
Rating          Importance                                   Preparation                     Satisfaction
   5*           Extremely Important                          Very Well Prepared              Extremely Satisfied
   4*           Very Important                               Well Prepared                   Very Satisfied
   3*           Important                                    Prepared                        Satisfied
   2            Somewhat Important                           Somewhat Prepared               Somewhat Satisfied
   1            Not Important                                Not Prepared                    Not Satisfied

* - “Sufficient” score for percentages rating an item as important, prepared, or satisfied




Other survey items were rated using various categorical and ordinal scales. For select items, Chi-
Square tests (using p < 0.01 as a significance level) were performed.




-4-
Relevance and Statistical Findings
An important consideration in the interpretation of any statistical analysis from these alumni
survey data is power and effect size. The large number of responses to this survey can provide
stable estimates of the attitudes and experiences of alumni from across the Institute. This large
sample size also provides a great deal of power for detecting very small differences or effects
through statistical tests. Statistical significance provides a flag for determining if an effect or
difference is “real,” or likely to be found among all alumni from this period.

However, what significance does not address is if these differences matter. Statistical significance
will indicate that a measured pattern or difference is most likely stable, but not if that difference is
important, useful, or relevant for discussion or action. Theoretical models, areas of interest, and
common sense should suggest how large of a difference is meaningful.

Measures of effect size can be used as a numeric guide in the interpretation of the relevance of the
results. A common measure of effect size is Cohen’s d, a standardized measure of the difference
between the means of two groups (such as in a t-test). Cohen’s d is calculated by taking the
difference between the means of two groups, and dividing this by the standard deviation of the
combined groups. A common rubric proposed by Cohen for interpreting effect size8 is provided
in the following table. Effect size will be used along with significance tests in evaluating the
relevance of findings.


Table 2. Effect Size Guidelines (Cohen’s d)

                                             Percent of Non-overlap
    Cohen’s d         Effect Size               Between Groups

      .20              Small                         14.7%

      .50              Medium                        33.0%

      .80              Large                         47.4%




Survey Findings

Demographics
The following table shows demographic breakdown of survey respondents and the GT
population. Chi-square tests were run to compare these groups and ensure the validity of the
responding sample. No significant differences in proportions were found for college or year of
graduation. White students were slightly overrepresented in the responding student sample. *
Similarly, there was a significant difference in response by gender, with women tending to
respond at a higher rate than men. This response pattern is fairly typical of Georgia Tech students.




*
  Due to the very small number of Hispanic, Native American, and Multiracial alumni, these groups were combined for analyses by
ethnic group (combined N = 55, 3.9% of sample).



                                                                                                                                  -5-
Georgia Tech Office of Assessment
Baccalaureate Alumni Survey, May 2005



Table 3. Demographics

                               Response (n = 1401)      Population (n = 5613)
Female                           469           33.5%      1,684         30.0%
Male                             932           66.5%      3,929         70.0%

Asian                             123          8.8%         707        12.6%
African-American                   88          6.3%         522         9.3%
Hispanic                           45          3.2%         169         3.0%
Native American                     3          0.2%          13         0.2%
Multiracial                         7          0.5%          45         0.8%
Caucasian                       1,135         81.0%       4,157        74.1%

Graduated 1998-1999              470          33.5%       1,898        33.8%
Graduated 1999-2000              430          30.7%       1,835        32.7%
Graduated 2000-2001              501          35.8%       1,880        33.5%

Architecture                      66           4.7%         285         5.1%
Computing                        125           8.9%         562        10.0%
Engineering                      867          61.9%       3,415        60.8%
Ivan Allen                        55           3.9%         248         4.4%
Management                       186          13.3%         736        13.1%
Sciences                         102           7.3%         367         6.5%




General Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities
Alumni were asked to rate a set of skills, abilities, and attributes generally expected of a Georgia
Tech graduate, first rating the importance of each item relative to their personal employment
experience since graduation, and then rating each item relative to how well their education had
prepared them. The areas surveyed included technical, analytical, and job-specific skills, as well
as abilities in non-technical or semi-technical areas important in the work environment. Many of
these are among the skills and abilities that NAE’s report, The Engineer of 2020, discusses as
becoming even more important in the next few years. The Engineer of 2020 is an initiative on the
future of engineering and education, focusing on directions in the field of engineering, as well as
prospective changes in society and technology as an influence on the needs of the work
environment. As a resource for educators, The Engineer of 2020 report is intended to promote a
reevaluation of education objectives and requirements. While intended primarily as a resource
and guide for engineering education, many of the findings and implications are applicable to
education in many fields of study, and preparation to work in virtually any career. Areas of
future importance are considered from current trends, including shifts in the population,
technology, and the work environment. Some of the necessary non-technical areas of growing
importance include awareness of social and cultural diversity, the relationship between
professional practice and other work/products, and the relationship between professional practice
and the world at large.

Traditionally, Georgia Tech instills these capabilities in many ways, including a variety of
interactive, problem-based, or project-based learning opportunities. The initiatives developed in
the current Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) build on this tradition, in developing programs and
opportunities to improve the quality of Georgia Tech’s experience. The specific initiatives are to
strengthen the opportunities for our undergraduate students to be well prepared to practice their
disciplines in a global context and to strengthen the opportunities for them to enhance their skills
in scholarship and innovation through research.




-6-
Many of these non-technical or semi-technical skills involve connections, transitions or
translations between individuals, disciplines, systems, and cultures. We term these sorts of
connective areas as “interskills,” as many of these skills and abilities stress transcending
traditional ontological and epistemological boundaries. Interskills typically involve people:
communication and work in teams, particularly in multidisciplinary and multicultural projects or
settings; the awareness of the impact of professional practice; and the use of work products--
within system, cultural, environmental, and global milieus.

There are 13 items on survey that address or relate to interskill areas:
        - The ability to exercise leadership skills
        - The ability to effectively resolve interpersonal conflict within a group or team
        - The ability to function on multi-disciplinary or cross-functional teams
        - The ability to function in culturally and ethnically diverse environments
        - The ability to synthesize knowledge across disciplines
        - The ability to practice your discipline in different social or cultural settings
        - An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility within your discipline
        - An understanding of the impact your professional practice has on society and culture
        - An understanding of the environmental impact of professional practice within your
            discipline
        - The ability to communicate orally, informally and in prepared presentations
        - The ability to communicate in writing (e.g. business letters, technical reports)
        - The ability to use computing technology in communications
        - The ability to converse in a foreign language within the context of your profession

It is worth noting that these interskill areas also tie strongly to the goals and outcomes of current
QEP initiatives, particularly those related to communication and interaction or to diversity.

Importance
The Importance ratings gathered here are a somewhat subjective means of measuring the
relevance or necessity of each of the knowledge, ability, and skill areas in the alumni’s
professional career. These are presented as a guideline for focus, and should be considered in
comparison to other sources of information.


Table 4. Five Items Rated Highest on Importance
                                                                   Percent Rating Item
                                                     Mean          Important or Better
                                              2001          2004          2004
The ability to think critically and
logically                                     4.66          4.69          99.5%

The ability to identify, formulate and
solve problems within your discipline         4.32          4.48          97.0%

The ability to communicate in writing
(e.g., business letters, technical reports)   4.40          4.38          96.6%

The ability to engage in lifelong learning    4.33           .26          95.9%

The ability to exercise leadership skills     4.38          4.25          96.5%




                                                                                                    -7-
Georgia Tech Office of Assessment
Baccalaureate Alumni Survey, May 2005



It is noteworthy that the items rated highest in importance by alumni are a mix of the analytical
and technical skills expected from Georgia Tech graduates, as well as several “interskill” items
(communication, teamwork/organizational skills). This combination of skills parallels the
findings of NAE’s Engineer of 2020, and may become increasingly important to the future
workplace.

Only a handful of skills and abilities received low overall importance ratings, with fewer than
60% of alumni rating them as being important. The items with the lowest overall importance
ratings were those that are relatively specialized knowledge or job requirements – ones that are
more relevant to specific programs or occupations. Examples include knowledge of specific areas
of study, such as advanced mathematics (48.5%) and life sciences (34.2%), as well as being a
licensed professional (40.1%).

Changes from 2001 Survey
Overall there was a general agreement on the ratings of importance between the 2001 and 2004
surveys. As noted in the table below, there were several minor shifts, but only a few large
changes.


Chart 1. Largest Changes in Item Importance: 2001–2004


       * Practice your discipline in different social or cultural settings                                                                             +0.29

      * Impact your professional practice has on society and culture                                                                                   +0.29

         Identify, formulate and solve problems within your discipline                                                                         +0.15

                       Use computing technology in communications                                                                             +0.13

        Use computing technology in discipline-specific analysis and                                                                          +0.13

  Understand environmental impact of practice within your discipline                                                          -0.13

                                The ability to exercise leadership skills                                                    -0.13

               Understand and apply knowledge of physical sciences                                                          -0.15

             * Understand and apply knowledge of computer science                                                   -0.29
                                                                                    -0.86
   *** Communicate orally, informally, and in prepared presentations

                                                                        -1.00            -0.80          -0.60   -0.40       -0.20     +0.00   +0.20     +0.40


* small effect size (d > 0.2)      ** medium effect size (d > 0.5)           *** large effect size (d > 0.8)




The largest, most meaningful increases in importance were on social/cultural interskill items: how
professional practice can impact society and culture, and how society and culture can influence or
be a part of the workplace. While these are still lower in importance compared to other items, it
does show a trend towards the need to recognize the interaction of profession and society. The
most noteworthy decrease in importance is in oral communication skills, declining from 97.5% of
alumni rating this as important in 2001 to 82.5% in 2004. While this is still a fairly important area,
this finding may merit further investigation.




-8-
Preparation
Overall, Georgia Tech alumni felt that they were well prepared in a variety of skills. For 19 of the
31 knowledge, abilities and skills, 75% or better of respondents reported being prepared, well
prepared, or very well prepared by Tech. The ten items with the highest preparation ratings are
presented in the following table:


Table 5. Top Ten Preparation Ratings for Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities
                                                                         % Rating
                                                                        Prepared or     % Rating
                                                        Mean               Better      Important
 Preparation Items                               2001          2004         2004         2004

 The ability to think critically and logically   4.28          4.37         97.0%        99.5%

 The ability to identify, formulate and solve
 problems within your discipline                 4.01          4.09         95.2%        97.0%

 The ability to analyze and interpret data       3.93          4.04         94.0%        94.2%

 The ability to use computing technology in
 communications                                  3.53          3.99         93.4%        92.4%

 An understanding and ability to apply
 knowledge of advanced mathematics (e.g.,
 calculus and above)                             4.02          3.93         92.4%        48.5%

 An understanding and ability to apply
 knowledge of physical sciences                  3.81          3.76         91.7%        55.6%

 The ability to engage in lifelong learning      3.78          3.75         88.2%        95.9%

 The ability to function in culturally and
 ethnically diverse environments                 3.56          3.68         86.7%        87.0%

 The ability to use techniques, skills and
 tools necessary for practice in your
 discipline                                      3.60          3.67         89.8%        94.4%

 The ability to conduct an information
 search using catalogs, indexes,
 bibliographies, Internet, etc                    n/a          3.64         87.2%        80.9%




While the majority of items show strong preparation, there are some areas where alumni did not
feel as well prepared. The least favorable ratings of preparation are given on the following table.

Most of least favorable preparation ratings are for lower-importance items; those that are
relatively specialized knowledge, skill, or job requirements. Only two of the preparation items
receiving the least favorable ratings were rated as being fairly important: an understanding and
ability to apply knowledge of business and finance and an understanding of product development
or design from a business perspective. Since roughly three-quarters of respondents rated these
items as being important, this may be an area that merits more in-depth inquiry.




                                                                                                   -9-
Georgia Tech Office of Assessment
Baccalaureate Alumni Survey, May 2005



Table 6. Five Least Favorable Preparation Ratings for Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities
                                                                                 % Rating Prepared    % Rating
                                                       Mean                          or Better       Important
 Preparation Items                           2001              2004                    2004            2004

 Being a licensed professional
 within your discipline                       2.97                 2.72                57.4%            40.1%

 An understanding and ability
 to apply knowledge of
 Business and Finance                         2.73                 2.69                52.6%            77.5%

 An understanding of Product
 development or design from a
 business perspective                         2.75                 2.64                53.2%            74.6%

 An understanding of
 Environmental impact of
 professional practice within
 your discipline                              2.59                 2.59                52.6%            58.2%

 The ability to Converse in a
 foreign language within the
 context of your profession                    n/a                 1.68                17.9%            26.9%

n/a – not asked in 2001



Preparation on Interskills
While preparation in the technical areas was consistently strong, there was a fair amount of
variation on interskill-related items. Only two interskill areas are among the top 10 in
preparation—the ability to use computing technology in communications, and the ability to
function in culturally and ethnically diverse environments. This is a consistent trend among these
items—half of the interskill areas have a preparation rating over 75%; high, but not as high as the
technical skills.

Table 7. Preparation Ratings on Interskill Items
                                                                                       % Rating
                                                                                      Prepared or     % Rating
                                                            Mean                         Better      Important
 Interskill Preparation Items                    2001                 2004               2004           2004
 The ability to use computing
 technology in communications                        3.53                 3.99            93.4%         92.4%

 The ability to function in culturally and
 ethnically diverse environments                     3.56                 3.68            86.7%         87.0%

 The ability to function on multi-
 disciplinary or cross-functional teams              3.43                 3.42            78.6%         91.9%

 The ability to synthesize and integrate
 knowledge across disciplines                        3.33                 3.40            83.2%         88.9%

 An understanding of professional and
 ethical responsibility within your
 discipline                                          3.32                 3.37            78.9%         95.4%

 (Table 7 cont’d on next page)




-10-
Table 7. Preparation Ratings on Interskill Items    (cont’d)

                                                                       % Rating
                                                                      Prepared or        % Rating
                                                                         Better         Important
 Interskill Preparation Items                2001              2004      2004             2004
 The ability to communicate in writing
 (e.g., business letters, technical
 reports)                                    3.39              3.34      78.3%            96.6%

 The ability to communicate orally,
 informally, and in prepared
 presentations                               3.41              3.34     76.4%            82.5%

 The ability to exercise leadership skills   3.46              3.33     74.9%            96.5%

 The ability to practice your discipline
 in different social or cultural settings    2.63              3.07     71.8%            69.6%

 The ability to effectively resolve
 interpersonal conflict within a group or
 team                                         n/a              2.99     67.2%            91.4%

 An understanding of the impact your
 professional practice has on society
 and culture                                 2.64              2.86     61.5%            74.7%

 An understanding of the environmental
 impact of professional practice within
 your discipline                             2.59              2.59     52.6%            58.2%

 The ability to converse in a foreign
 language within the context of your
 profession                                   n/a              1.68     17.9%            26.9%




Items of note regarding interskill preparation:
        - Leadership skills is one of the most important interskills, yet has relatively low
            preparation rating (at just under 75%). This is also a small but significant decline
            from 2001.
        - The ability to resolve interpersonal conflict: While 91% of alumni reported this to be
            an important skill, only 67.2% reported that they were adequately prepared by Tech to
            accomplish this.

A table of all items and their importance/preparation ratings is given in Appendix A.

Group differences in Preparation ratings
Comparisons were made between colleges, ethnic groups, and gender on preparation ratings. A
full list of these means is presented in Appendix A.

Only one item, the ability to exercise leadership skills, showed a significant difference by gender
that could not be attributed to other sources. Women reported slightly higher preparation rates
than men, with 80.3% of women reported being prepared (mean preparation rating of 35.1),
compared to 72.2% of men (mean preparation rating of 3.23, t-test significant at p < .001, Cohen’s
d = .241). Although no other item showed a meaningful difference in preparation between men
and women, there was an overall pattern of women reporting slightly higher preparation than men
in the interskill areas, particularly those with higher importance ratings.


                                                                                                    -11-
Georgia Tech Office of Assessment
Baccalaureate Alumni Survey, May 2005



Changes from 2001 Survey
A full list comparing 2001 and 2004 ratings on the general knowledge, abilities and skills items
can be found in Appendix B.

Overall, Georgia Tech has a high standard of preparation relative to the needs of the workplace,
and seems to be maintaining this in several key areas. The largest improvements were in areas
that appear to be of growing importance. In particular, social and cultural awareness--both in
work environment and in the impact of the discipline-- showed sizable increases in both
importance and preparation ratings.


Chart 2. Largest Changes in Preparation n: 2001–2004

                            * Use computing technology in communications                                                                           +0.46

            * Practice your discipline in dif ferent social or cultural settings                                                                   +0.44

           * Impact your prof essional practice has on society and culture                                                         +0.22

   * Use computing technology in discipline-specific analysis and design                                                           +0.22

                   Understand and apply know ledge of Computer science                                                      +0.16

                           Understand and apply know ledge of humanities                                   -0.09

             Understand and A pply know ledge of advanced mathematics                                      -0.09

Understand product development or design f rom a business perspective                                    -0.12

                                     The ability to exercise leadership skills                          -0.13

                     † Being a licensed prof essional w ithin your discipline                  -0.25

                                                                               -0.60   -0.40           -0.20       +0.00   +0.20           +0.40       +0.60
* small effect size (d > 0.2)           † d = .198




The areas that had the largest increases in preparation ratings include the same social and cultural
areas where importance increased, as well as in applied use of computing technology. The
increase in importance relating to computing technology is likely the result of increasing use of
computers and computer technology in society. The increase in preparation is evidence that
Georgia Tech is providing ample exposure to and opportunities in using such technology.

Overall, the decreases in reported preparation were relatively minor. One change of note is the
decrease in preparation for understanding product development or design from a business
standpoint. This was not only one of the items that received the lowest preparation ratings, but
this is also a significant decrease from 2001. Given that nearly three quarters of alumni rated this
item as being important, this may be an area that merits attention.


Student Satisfaction and Experiences

Satisfaction
Alumni were asked a series of questions concerning satisfaction levels with overall preparation,
instruction, advisement, equity of treatment, and facilities at Georgia Tech. Over 90% of
respondents reported being satisfied with their preparation to contribute and practice



-12-
professionally within their discipline. All other areas of preparation had at least 80% of
respondents reporting being satisfied.


Table 8. Satisfaction with Overall Preparation
                                                                          Mean                     % Satisfied
Overall preparation to:                                           2001            2004                2004

Practice professionally within your discipline                     3.90            3.89               91.6%

Interview and obtain your first job after graduation               3.55            3.71               81.6%

Enter the workforce after graduation                               3.90            3.95               87.6%

Contribute professionally within your discipline                   3.92            3.94               90.9%

Contribute to society                                              3.94            3.78               88.3%




A difference by college was detected on only one overall preparation item: satisfaction of
preparation to interviewing and obtaining a job. No differences were found on the other work-
related items--entering the workforce or contributing professionally within their discipline.

Student satisfaction was relatively stable between the 2001 and 2004 surveys, with a few minor
shifts in overall preparation ratings.


Chart 3. Changes in Overall Preparation: 2001–2004



     Interview and obtain your                                                     +0.17
      first job after graduation

     Enter the workforce after                                             +0.05
            graduation

     Contribute professionally                                            +0.02
      within your discipline

       Practice professionally                                 -0.02
        within your discipline


         Contribute to society                         -0.16


                               -0.60        -0.40      -0.20      +0.00       +0.20        +0.40        +0.60




Ratings of overall preparation showed very minor changes in two areas: an increase in
preparation for interviewing and obtaining job after graduation, and a decrease in overall
preparation to contribute to society.

Respondents indicated they were satisfied with the quality of instruction provided by faculty in all
disciplines. At least 90% of respondents rated instruction by faculty within their discipline and


                                                                                                                 -13-
Georgia Tech Office of Assessment
Baccalaureate Alumni Survey, May 2005



their college as satisfactory or better. Alumni reported being not as satisfied with the quality of
instruction provided by student teaching assistants, both within and outside of their major.


Table 9. Quality of Instruction Provided by Faculty and Teaching Assistants
                                                                                      Extremely Satisfied,
                                                                                       Very Satisfied, or
                                                                   Mean                    Satisfied
                                                          2001             2004              2004

Faculty in major                                           3.90            3.97               91.6%

Faculty in college, outside major                          3.61            3.63               90.1%

Faculty outside college                                     n/a            3.32               81.8%


Teaching assistants in major                               3.46            3.40               82.3%

Teaching assistants in college, outside major              3.23            3.18               79.1%

Teaching assistants outside college                         n/a            2.86               65.5%

n/a – not asked in 2001




There were no significant changes in quality of instruction items between the 2001 and 2004
alumni surveys.

While satisfaction with advisement has improved since the 2001 survey, alumni respondents
remain less satisfied with the quality of advising they received relative to other satisfaction items.
Slightly over half of the respondents were satisfied with their academic planning advisement,
while less than half were satisfied with career planning and graduate education advising. Of the
advising items, satisfaction with academic planning showed the greatest improvement.


Table 10. Satisfaction with Advisement
                                                                   Mean                 % Satisfied
Quality of advisement with respect to:                     2001           2004             2004

Academic planning                                           2.74          3.03             65.1%

Career planning                                             2.33          2.54             46.5%

Graduate education                                          2.45          2.59             49.3%

Cooperative Education Program (Co-op)                        n/a          3.20             66.6%

Internships                                                  n/a          2.53             46.8%

n/a – not asked in 2001




-14-
Chart 4. Changes in Quality of Academic Advising: 2001–2004



                                                                                           +0.29
 * Academic planning



                                                                                  +0.20
         Career planning



                                                                            +0.14
  Graduate education


                              -0.60   -0.40      -0.20     +0.00          +0.20            +0.40     +0.60
* - small effect size (d > 0.2)




Overall, approximately 90% of respondents were satisfied with the equity of treatment they
received from everyone at Georgia Tech, including their fellow students.


Table 11. Satisfaction with Equity of Treatment
                                                                          Mean                     % Satisfied
Equity of treatment, with respect to other students, by:           2001            2004               2004

Academic administrators                                            3.56             3.70              90.7%

Faculty                                                            3.60             3.70              90.1%

Staff                                                              3.64             3.73              92.1%

Student teaching assistants                                        3.59             3.65              90.9%

Fellow students                                                    3.77             3.83              94.4%




There is a very small increase in satisfaction ratings on all equity of treatment items between the
2001 and 2004 surveys. While small, this change was significant for all of the full-time university
employees (faculty, staff, and administration).

Co-Curricular Experiences
Alumni were asked about their participation in co-curricular activities (societies, clubs,
organizations, etc.) while at Georgia Tech. Overall, alumni indicated a high degree of co-
curricular involvement, with 89.4% of respondents reporting participation in one or more
activities. This is a significant increase in participation from the 2001 alumni survey, up from
74.6%. While some of this increase may be due to additional categories added to the 2004 survey,
there were marked increases in most categories.




                                                                                                              -15-
Georgia Tech Office of Assessment
Baccalaureate Alumni Survey, May 2005



Table 12. Groups with the Highest Reported Participation:
                                                           2001                 2004
Club / Intramural sports                                    n/a                 48.9%

Honor & professional societies                             40.2%                46.2%

Social fraternity or sororities                            25.6%                32.9%

Community service activities                               13.1%                27.6%

n/a – not asked in 2001



Alumni were also asked about their level of involvement in co-curricular activities. Of the 1,258
alumni who reported involvement in any activities, 12.3% came to some meetings or activities,
25.1% came to most meetings or activities, and 60.8% reported holding one or more leadership
positions.

Alumni were asked two sets of questions concerning experiential learning experiences and their
contribution to employment. While the number of students who participated in the different
programs varied, students generally indicated these experiences were helpful in obtaining their
first full time job.


Table 13. Experiential Learning Experiences
                                                      Median       Outside of     Helped Obtain
Program/ Experience               % Participated   # Semesters       US?           First Job?

Cooperative education
program (Co-op)                       42.7%            3             2.9%               86.3%

Undergraduate research
experience                            24.2%            1             2.4%               65.1%

Internship                            24.6%            1             4.3%               90.7%

Study Abroad                          20.8%            1             n/a                51.8%

Summer employment /
part-time job in major                32.2%            2             5.9%               86.7%

Any form of on-campus
employment                            43.6%            2             2.9%               48.7%




There was an increase in the proportion of students who took advantage of experiential learning
opportunities while at Tech. The largest increases were in Institute-related or supported work
opportunities, with participation in each opportunity increasing roughly by a third. This is in
contrast to student-initiated summer or part-time work, which was virtually unchanged.




-16-
Chart 5. Participation in Experiential Learning: 2001–2004


        100.0%



          80.0%



          60.0%
                                                                                                           2001
                               42.7%                                                          43.6%
                                                                                                           2004
                                                                                 32.2%    33.7%
          40.0%          31.0%                                              31.7%
                                               24.2%             24.6%
                                           20.9%
                                                           17.1%
          20.0%



           0.0%
                    Coop Program * Undergraduate           Internship *   Summer / Part On-campus
                                     Research                                 time      employment *
                                                                           employment
* - Chi Square significant at p < .01




Most of those who participated in one of these experiential learning opportunities indicated the
experience helped them obtain their first job after graduation, with the co-op program,
internships, and summer employment considered most helpful. These rates increased from the
2001 report, with the co-op program and summer employment demonstrating the largest
increases.


Chart 6. Experience Helped Obtain Job: 2001–2004


         100.0%                                                  90.7%            86.7%
                                   86.3%                    87.2%
                          78.9%
           80.0%                                                            71.9%
                                                   65.1%
                                           58.7%
           60.0%                                                                                   48.7%
                                                                                           46.2%
                                                                                                           2001
                                                                                                           2004
           40.0%



           20.0%



            0.0%
                     Coop Program * Undergraduate           Internship    Summer / Part   On-campus
                                      Research                                time        employment
                                                                          employment *

* - Chi Square significant at p < .01




                                                                                                                  -17-
Georgia Tech Office of Assessment
Baccalaureate Alumni Survey, May 2005



TQEP Programs
Georgia Tech’s QEP initiatives focus on two Experiential Learning areas; global competence
(International Plan), and research experience (Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program
and Research Thesis Option)Error! Bookmark not defined.. An additional focus of this report is
to identify baseline information on the participation in and impact of these initiatives.

Alumni who reported participating in these activities indicated that they were better prepared in
many of the abilities targeted for development through the current QEP initiatives. While there
was a high degree of variation between colleges, the differences reported below appear to persist
across the colleges.

To explore the impact of international experiences, alumni who reported participating in study
abroad, or had any other professional experience or learning opportunity outside of the US, were
counted as having had an international experience. By this method, 24.3% of alumni reported
having some form of international experience. As would be expected, those with any form of
international experience reported being better prepared in their ability to practice their discipline
in different social or cultural settings, and the ability to converse in a foreign language within the
context of their profession. These alumni also reported significantly higher preparation in the
ability to exercise leadership skills, and the ability to resolve interpersonal conflict within a
group or team.

A similar rate of participation was seen in Undergraduate Research, with 24.2% having some form
of research experience. Not surprisingly, students who participated in undergraduate research
reported being significantly better prepared in their ability to design and conduct experiments,
and the ability to analyze and interpret data. Additionally, these alumni also showed a small but
significantly higher rating for preparation in their ability to function in culturally diverse
environments and the ability to synthesize and integrate knowledge across disciplines.

These results confirm that current QEP initiatives can influence their targeted outcomes.


Table 14. Preparation Rating Differences by Participation in International Experience
                                                              Mean
                                                                      Did not
 International Experiences                     Participated          Participate    t       Effect Size
 The ability to practice their discipline in
 different social or cultural settings              3.23                3.02       3.17**     0.174

 The ability to exercise leadership skills          3.48                3.28       2.94**     0.160

 The ability to resolve interpersonal
 conflict within a group or team                    3.13                2.95       2.57*      0.140

 The ability to converse in a foreign
 language within the context of their
 profession                                         1.81                1.64       2.53*      0.139

 *p < .05   ** p < .01   *** p < .001




-18-
Table 15. Preparation Rating Differences by Participation in Undergraduate Research
                                                                Mean
                                                                        Did not
    Undergraduate Research Experience            Participated          Participate    t        Effect Size

 The ability to design and conduct
 experiments                                         3.66                 3.38       4.44***      0.365

 The ability to analyze and interpret data           4.15                 4.00       2.55**       0.139

 The ability to synthesize and integrate
 knowledge across disciplines                        3.53                 3.36       2.72**       0.149

 The ability to function in culturally diverse
 environments                                        3.79                 3.64       2.27*        0.124

 * p< .05   ** p < .01   *** p < .001




Further Education and Professional Development
Alumni were asked a set of questions about their plans and preparation for pursuing
additional/higher-level degrees. While a large portion of alumni report pursuing another degree,
pursuit and interest in further education appear to have declined from 2001 survey results. When
asked about current plans, 38.4% reported either being currently enrolled or having already
completed a degree. This is down from 41.3% in 2001. Meanwhile, the number or alumni
reporting no interest in pursuing further education nearly tripled, from 5.7% in 2001 to 14.3% in
2004.

Of those pursuing a further degree, over three-quarters of alumni (75.2%) reported that they were
enrolled in or had completed a Master’s program. Slightly over one quarter (25.3%) reported
pursuing a Doctorate.

While fewer alumni are pursuing further education, those who are currently working towards
another degree or who have already completed a graduate program reported being significantly
better prepared for graduate or professional study compared to their counterparts from 3 years ago
(86.5% of alumni reporting good or excellent preparation in 2004, up from 69.7% of alumni in
2001). The number of alumni reporting fair or poor preparation dropped to less than one-fourth of
the 2001 rate: 4.8% in 2004, down from 21.6% in 2001.

Responding alumni also reported a modest degree of involvement with professional development
in their careers. Nearly fifty-six percent (55.9%) of alumni participated in some sort of continued
professional development, such as professional conferences (32.6%), continuing education
activities (29.6%), or completing requirements for their field, (such as the EIT exam for engineers
18.7%), or being licensed in their field (7.5%).

Regarding alumni that participated in international experiences or undergraduate research; these
participants were more likely to be pursuing or to have completed a graduate degree. While 33.1%
of those who did not have an undergraduate research experience reported seeking further
education, 54.9% of alumni with such an experience were enrolled in or had completed a graduate
degree program. Similarly, 45.9% of those who had some form of international experience
reported pursuing a graduate degree, compared to 36% of those who had not.




                                                                                                     -19-
Georgia Tech Office of Assessment
Baccalaureate Alumni Survey, May 2005



Employment
Alumni were asked several questions regarding their employment status. The results are
presented in the table below.

Table 16. Current Employment Status
Current Employment Status                                  2001                 2004

Employed full time                                         80.7%                87.6%

Employed part-time                                          1.8%                 3.6%

Unemployed, seeking employment                              1.5%                 2.3%

Unemployed, not seeking employment                         16.0%                 6.4%



Employment rates for Georgia Tech alumni are very high. A larger proportion of alumni surveyed
in 2004 report being employed compared to their counterparts of three years prior.

Of the portion of alumni who were employed, 45.4% indicated their position was directly related
to their field of study. This did not change significantly from 2001. Of those alumni employed
outside of their major field of study, fewer alumni surveyed in 2004 reported this to be their
preference compared to 2001 (78.2% in 2004 vs. 84.7% in 2001).

When respondents were asked how long it took them to get their first full-time permanent job
after graduation, over two-thirds (68.5%) reported securing a position before completing their
degree or accepted a position upon graduation. While this is slightly more than in 2001 (63.8%),
the total number that found a job within 3 months of graduating was unchanged at 83.5%.

Comparing alumni who had engaged in applied learning experiences, those alumni who had
participated in Co-op were more likely to have a job at or before graduation (78.6%) than those
who had not (60.6%). Additionally, more of the Co-op participants reported having found a job
within 3 months (88.8 % vs. 79.3% for non-participants). A reverse of this pattern is seen among
alumni who participated in undergraduate research, with fewer of these alumni securing a job by
graduation (65.0%) or within 3 months (77.5%) compared to those who had not engaged in
research (69.4% and 85.1%, respectively). This is most likely due to the fact that more of these
alumni may have pursued graduate education rather than entering the workforce directly.

Most of the currently-employed respondents were satisfied with their career choice (81.7%) and
their career progression (75.8%) since graduation. This is a small but significant decline in
satisfaction over the 2001 survey, where 88.5% were satisfied with their career choice and 87.4%
were satisfied with their career progression.

Table 17. Satisfaction with Career Choice and Progression
                                                    Mean                     Effect Size
                     Item                    2001   2004          Change     Cohen’s d

Satisfaction w/ career choice since
                                             4.00   3.61          -0.39***      0.350
graduation
Satisfaction w/ career progression since
                                             3.84   3.41          -0.43***      0.372
graduation

*- p < .05   ** - p < .01   *** - p < .001




-20-
Georgia Tech alumni reported a median salary range of $60,000–$69,999 in 2004, with 67.8%
making between $40,000 and $80,000 a year.


Chart 7. 2004 Alumni Salary



     25.0%


     20.0%


     15.0%


     10.0%


      5.0%


      0.0%




                                                                                                                 er
                0


                           99


                                        99


                                                    99


                                                                99


                                                                            99


                                                                                        99


                                                                                                    99
                 0




                                                                                                             ov
              ,0


                          ,9


                                      ,9


                                                  ,9


                                                              ,9


                                                                          ,9


                                                                                      ,9


                                                                                                  ,9
           30


                      39


                                   49


                                               59


                                                           69


                                                                       79


                                                                                   89


                                                                                               99


                                                                                                            or
         r$


                     -$


                                 -$


                                             -$


                                                         -$


                                                                     -$


                                                                                 -$


                                                                                             -$


                                                                                                        00
      de




                                                                                                       ,0
                 0


                               0


                                           0


                                                       0


                                                                   0


                                                                               0


                                                                                           0
                00


                            00


                                        00


                                                    00


                                                                00


                                                                            00


                                                                                        00


                                                                                                  00
    Un


              0,


                          0,


                                      0,


                                                  0,


                                                              0,


                                                                          0,


                                                                                      0,


                                                                                               $1
           $3


                      $4


                                   $5


                                               $6


                                                           $7


                                                                       $8


                                                                                   $9




When asked about international work experiences, slightly over one quarter of alumni (25.4%)
reported having worked outside of the United States at some point. Alumni who had reported
having some sort of undergraduate international learning experience were more likely to have
subsequently worked outside of the US (30.2%) than those who had not (23.9%). A similar trend is
seen with those who participated in undergraduate research, with 31.0% of those alumni reporting
working abroad, compared to 23.7% of those who did not participate in undergraduate research.

College Differences: Further Education and Employment
There are some notable differences among colleges regarding the current employment and further
education plans of the alumni. Not surprisingly, employment status displays an inverse
relationship with further education status: those colleges that have the highest number of alumni
that pursued or are pursuing further education have the lowest current employment.




                                                                                                                      -21-
Georgia Tech Office of Assessment
Baccalaureate Alumni Survey, May 2005



Table 18. Percent Employment (Full-time Work) and Further Education by College
                                                              College
                                                                         Ivan
                            Architecture   Computing     Engineering     Allen    Management      Sciences
 % of alumni with Full-
 Time employment                88.9%        92.8%           88.1%        77.8%        89.1%       73.3%

 % of alumni pursuing/
 completed degree               27.0%        24.0%           38.3%        51.8%        33.7%       65.3%




There is some overlap between these questions. There are alumni who have completed a degree and
currently have a full-time job, as well as those who are currently working and going to school at the
same time. Based on earlier satisfaction ratings, there were no differences among colleges on the
ability to get a job, as well as there being no differences in the proportion of alumni who were
currently unemployed and seeking employment.

Generally, alumni appear to feel prepared by Georgia Tech to succeed in whatever field they
chose to pursue. Alumni report being well prepared in relatively important technical and
interpersonal/relational skills. While more of the 2004 alumni are employed, they are somewhat
less satisfied with their employment choices compared to their counterparts in 2001.

Recommend Degree Program
Recommendations by alumni follow the overall patterns of satisfaction and preparation responses.
The majority of alumni (95%) indicated that they might or would definitely recommend their
degree program to a friend or relative. There were no differences found based on gender or
ethnicity.

Summary
The comparison of the 2001 and 2004 alumni survey demonstrates several interesting changes.
While many of the importance, preparation, and satisfaction ratings have remained fairly stable,
there are some notable changes between the surveys. With the exception of oral communication,
importance and preparation ratings reflect an expected increase in the value of interskills in the
work setting, particularly in social and cultural awareness. Preparation ratings show some
improvement in these areas, as well as a resounding readiness for using computers in the
workplace. With the exception of a general increase in satisfaction with advising, alumni from
both groups are reporting very similar satisfaction and experiences while they were at Tech, and
overall report being well prepared for their careers.

There are some salient differences in alumni experiences beyond Georgia Tech. The more recent
group of alumni seems to be focused more on work, and less on further education. While they are
satisfied with their preparation and overall choices, they are also less satisfied with their
positions. This may reflect changes in the economy and work opportunities between these
cohorts.

This report provides and overview of findings and salient analyses of alumni from across the
myriad disciplines of the Institute. Additional details or focused analysis of the data are available
from the Office of Assessment.




-22-
                                              References

1
 Hammer, M., and Champy, J., Reengineering the Corporation, New
York, New York: Harper Collins, 1993. Referenced in Nicholson, M., “Valuing Experiential, Web-based,
Results-oriented Pedagogy for Teaching International Business Law: A Pilot Study in Simulation,” 2001,
www.globalview.org/Nicholson%20Paper.doc.
2
 Wheeler, B.C., “The State of Business Education: Preparation for the Past?,” Selections, Vol. 14, No. 2,
1998, pp. 19-21. Referenced in Nicholson, M., “Valuing Experiential, Web-based, Results-oriented
Pedagogy for Teaching International Business Law: A Pilot Study in Simulation,” 2001,
www.globalview.org/Nicholson%20Paper.doc.
3
 Hamilton,D., and McFarland,D.,“A Decision Model for Integration Across the Business Curriculum in the
21st Century,” Journal of Management Education, Vol. 24, No. 1, 2004. Referenced in Nicholson, M.,
“Valuing Experiential, Web-based, Results-oriented Pedagogy for Teaching International Business Law: A
Pilot Study in Simulation,” 2001, www.globalview.org/Nicholson%20Paper.doc.
4
 Olfs, Peter, Senior Director (Emeritus), Corporate Communications International, Siemens AG,
Presentation to the 2005 International Internship Event, Georgia Institute of Technology, February 10,
2005.
5
 National Academy of Engineering. The Engineer of 2020: Visions of engineering in the new century.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2004.
6
 Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America's Research Universities, Boyer
Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University, 1998,
http://naples.cc.sunysb.edu/Pres/boyer.nsf
7
 Strengthening the Global Competence and Research Experiences of Undergraduate Students,
http://www.assessment.gatech.edu/SACS/QEP/QEP_Mar21_Georgia_Tech_final_print.pdf
8
 Cohen, J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, 1988.




                                                                                                         -23-
Georgia Tech Office of Assessment
Baccalaureate Alumni Survey, May 2005




-24-
APPENDIX A: Descriptives & Analyses of 2004 Alumni Survey Responses

Table A1. Ethnic Makeup of Alumni Respondents by Colleges (% within College)

                   Architecture   Computing       Engineering       Ivan Allen         Management        Sciences     Total
Asian/
Pacific
Islander                  9.1%       9.6%              9.6%           7.3%                 4.8%            8.8%        8.8%

African
American                  1.5%       6.4%              7.2%           3.6%                 4.3%            6.9%        6.3%

Hispanic                10.6%       4.0%               3.8%           3.6%                 2.2%            3.9%        3.9%

Caucasian               78.8%       80.0%             79.5%          85.5%                88.7%           80.4%       81.0%

Native
American                  9.1%       9.6%              9.6%           7.3%                 4.8%            8.8%        8.8%

Multiracial               1.5%       6.4%              7.2%           3.6%                 4.3%            6.9%        6.3%




Table A2. Frequencies of Importance Response Items
                                                                             Count           Percent
 An understanding and ability to apply        Extremely Important                136              9.8%
 knowledge of advanced mathematics
                                              Very Important                     233          16.7%
 (e.g., calculus and above)
                                              Important                          307          22.0%
                                              Somewhat Important                 388          27.8%
                                              Not Important                      330          23.7%
                                              Total                           1,394          100.0%

 An understanding and ability to apply        Extremely Important                159          11.4%
 knowledge of physical sciences               Very Important                     274          19.7%
                                              Important                          340          24.4%
                                              Somewhat Important                 299          21.5%
                                              Not Important                      319          22.9%
                                              Total                           1,391          100.0%

 An understanding and ability to apply        Extremely Important                 72              5.2%
 knowledge of life sciences                   Very Important                     119              8.6%
                                              Important                          282          20.4%
                                              Somewhat Important                 376          27.1%
                                              Not Important                      536          38.7%
                                              Total                           1,385          100.0%

 An understanding and ability to apply        Extremely Important                348          25.1%
 knowledge of computer science                Very Important                     354          25.6%
                                              Important                          309          22.3%
                                              Somewhat Important                 227          16.4%
                                              Not Important                      147          10.6%
                                              Total                           1,385          100.0%
 (Table A2 cont’d on next page)




                                                                                                                    -25-
Georgia Tech Office of Assessment
Baccalaureate Alumni Survey, May 2005



Table A2. Frequencies of Importance Response Items (cont’d)
                                                                     Count    Percent

 An understanding and ability to apply         Extremely Important     228     16.5%
 knowledge of humanities (e.g., English,       Very Important          500     36.1%
 communications, languages)
                                               Important               422     30.5%
                                               Somewhat Important      188     13.6%
                                               Not Important            46      3.3%
                                               Total                  1,384   100.0%

 An understanding and ability to apply         Extremely Important      81     5.8%
 knowledge of social sciences (e.g.,           Very Important          220    15.9%
 history, economics, public policy)
                                               Important               399    28.8%
                                               Somewhat Important      393    28.3%
                                               Not Important           294    21.2%
                                               Total                 1,387    100.0%

 An understanding and ability to apply         Extremely Important     346    25.0%
 knowledge of business and finance             Very Important          410    29.6%
                                               Important               318    23.0%
                                               Somewhat Important      223    16.1%
                                               Not Important            88     6.4%
                                               Total                 1,385    100.0%

 The ability to communicate orally,            Extremely Important     356    26.2%
 informally, and in prepared                   Very Important          435    32.1%
 presentations
                                               Important               328    24.2%
                                               Somewhat Important      202    14.9%
                                               Not Important            36     2.7%
                                               Total                 1,357    100.0%

 The ability to communicate in writing         Extremely Important     762    54.8%
 (e.g., business letters, technical reports)   Very Important          453    32.6%
                                               Important               128     9.2%
                                               Somewhat Important       41     2.9%
                                               Not Important             6     0.4%
                                               Total                 1,390    100.0%

 The ability to use computing technology       Extremely Important     665    47.9%
 in communications                             Very Important          440    31.7%
                                               Important               177    12.8%
                                               Somewhat Important       80     5.8%
                                               Not Important            26     1.9%
                                               Total                 1,388    100.0%

 The ability to use computing technology       Extremely Important     528    38.3%
 in discipline-specific analysis and design    Very Important          377    27.3%
                                               Important               214    15.5%
                                               Somewhat Important      130     9.4%
                                               Not Important           131     9.5%
                                               Total                 1,380    100.0%
 (Table A2 cont’d on next page)




-26-
Table A2. Frequencies of Importance Response Items (cont’d)
                                                                   Count   Percent

 The ability to conduct an information       Extremely Important     398   28.6%
 search using catalogs, indexes,             Very Important          374   26.9%
 bibliographies, Internet, etc
                                             Important               352   25.3%
                                             Somewhat Important      193   13.9%
                                             Not Important            73    5.3%
                                             Total                 1,390   100.0%

 The ability to exercise leadership skills   Extremely Important     649    46.7%
                                             Very Important          495    35.6%
                                             Important               197    14.2%
                                             Somewhat Important       43     3.1%
                                             Not Important             6     0.4%
                                             Total                 1,390   100.0%

 The ability to function on multi-           Extremely Important     627    45.2%
 disciplinary or cross-functional teams      Very Important          439    31.7%
                                             Important               209    15.1%
                                             Somewhat Important       81     5.8%
                                             Not Important            31     2.2%
                                             Total                 1,387   100.0%

 The ability to effectively resolve          Extremely Important     493    35.6%
 interpersonal conflict within a group or    Very Important          503    36.3%
 team
                                             Important               271    19.6%
                                             Somewhat Important       98     7.1%
                                             Not Important            21     1.5%
                                             Total                 1,386   100.0%

 The ability to function in culturally and   Extremely Important     488    35.2%
 ethnically diverse environments             Very Important          417    30.0%
                                             Important               302    21.8%
                                             Somewhat Important      138     9.9%
                                             Not Important            43     3.1%
                                             Total                 1,388   100.0%

 The ability to design and conduct           Extremely Important     247    17.8%
 experiments                                 Very Important          280    20.2%
                                             Important               328    23.6%
                                             Somewhat Important      272    19.6%
                                             Not Important           261    18.8%
                                             Total                 1,388   100.0%

 The ability to analyze and interpret data   Extremely Important     681    49.2%
                                             Very Important          429    31.0%
                                             Important               195    14.1%
                                             Somewhat Important       63     4.5%
                                             Not Important            17     1.2%
                                             Total                 1,385   100.0%
 (Table A2 cont’d on next page)




                                                                                     -27-
Georgia Tech Office of Assessment
Baccalaureate Alumni Survey, May 2005



Table A2. Frequencies of Importance Response Items (cont’d)
                                                                    Count   Percent

 The ability to think critically and          Extremely Important   1,021    73.8%
 logically                                    Very Important          308    22.3%
                                              Important                47     3.4%
                                              Somewhat Important        6     0.4%
                                              Not Important             1     0.1%
                                              Total                 1,383   100.0%

 The ability to identify, formulate and       Extremely Important     856    61.8%
 solve problems within your discipline        Very Important          388    28.0%
                                              Important               100     7.2%
                                              Somewhat Important       27     1.9%
                                              Not Important            14     1.0%
                                              Total                 1,385   100.0%

 The ability to design a system,              Extremely Important     527    38.0%
 component, or process to meet desired        Very Important          372    26.8%
 needs and quality
                                              Important               261    18.8%
                                              Somewhat Important      123     8.9%
                                              Not Important           105     7.6%
                                              Total                 1,388   100.0%

 The ability to synthesize and integrate      Extremely Important     399    28.7%
 knowledge across disciplines                 Very Important          500    36.0%
                                              Important               336    24.2%
                                              Somewhat Important      120     8.6%
                                              Not Important            34     2.4%
                                              Total                 1,389   100.0%

 The ability to use techniques, skills and    Extremely Important     564    40.8%
 tools necessary for practice in your         Very Important          511    37.0%
 discipline
                                              Important               229    16.6%
                                              Somewhat Important       57     4.1%
                                              Not Important            20     1.4%
                                              Total                 1,381   100.0%

 The ability to engage in lifelong learning   Extremely Important     690    49.9%
                                              Very Important          422    30.5%
                                              Important               214    15.5%
                                              Somewhat Important       45     3.3%
                                              Not Important            11     0.8%
                                              Total                 1,382   100.0%

 The ability to practice your discipline in   Extremely Important     274    19.8%
 different social or cultural settings        Very Important          296    21.4%
                                              Important               393    28.4%
                                              Somewhat Important      277    20.0%
                                              Not Important           144    10.4%
                                              Total                 1,384   100.0%
 (Table A2 cont’d on next page)




-28-
Table A2. Frequencies of Importance Response Items (cont’d)
                                                                  Count    Percent

 The ability to converse in a foreign       Extremely Important      78      5.6%
 language within the context of your        Very Important          111      8.0%
 profession
                                            Important               184     13.3%
                                            Somewhat Important      309     22.3%
                                            Not Important           703     50.8%
                                            Total                 1,385    100.0%

 An understanding of product                Extremely Important     328     23.8%
 development or design from a business      Very Important          420     30.4%
 perspective
                                            Important               281     20.4%
                                            Somewhat Important      178     12.9%
                                            Not Important           173     12.5%
                                            Total                  1,380   100.0%

 An understanding of professional and       Extremely Important     614     44.5%
 ethical responsibility within your         Very Important          479     34.7%
 discipline
                                            Important               225     16.3%
                                            Somewhat Important       54      3.9%
                                            Not Important             9      0.7%
                                            Total                  1,381   100.0%

 An understanding of the environmental      Extremely Important     208     15.1%
 impact of professional practice within     Very Important          273     19.8%
 your discipline
                                            Important               323     23.4%
                                            Somewhat Important      271     19.6%
                                            Not Important           307     22.2%
                                            Total                  1,382   100.0%

 An understanding of the impact your        Extremely Important     294     21.3%
 professional practice has on society and   Very Important          355     25.7%
 culture
                                            Important               381     27.6%
                                            Somewhat Important      230     16.7%
                                            Not Important           119      8.6%
                                            Total                  1,379   100.0%

 Being a licensed professional within       Extremely Important     255     18.7%
 your discipline                            Very Important          122      8.9%
                                            Important               170     12.5%
                                            Somewhat Important      243     17.8%
                                            Not Important           574     42.1%
                                            Total                  1,364   100.0%




                                                                                     -29-
Georgia Tech Office of Assessment
Baccalaureate Alumni Survey, May 2005



Table A3. Frequencies of Preparation Item Responses
 Preparation                                                    Frequency   Valid Percent

 An understanding and ability to apply     Very Well Prepared       423         32.0%
 knowledge of advanced mathematics         Well Prepared            495         37.4%
 (e.g., calculus and above)
                                           Prepared                 303         22.9%
                                           Somewhat Prepared         91          6.9%
                                           Not Prepared              10          0.8%
                                           Total                   1,322       100.0%

 An understanding and ability to apply     Very Well Prepared       307         23.4%
 knowledge of physical sciences            Well Prepared            506         38.6%
                                           Prepared                 388         29.6%
                                           Somewhat Prepared         97          7.4%
                                           Not Prepared              12          0.9%
                                           Total                   1,310       100.0%

 An understanding and ability to apply     Very Well Prepared       105          8.2%
 knowledge of life sciences                Well Prepared            301         23.4%
                                           Prepared                 522         40.6%
                                           Somewhat Prepared        228         17.7%
                                           Not Prepared             130         10.1%
                                           Total                   1,286       100.0%

 An understanding and ability to apply     Very Well Prepared       270         20.6%
 knowledge of computer science             Well Prepared            435         33.3%
                                           Prepared                 307         23.5%
                                           Somewhat Prepared        216         16.5%
                                           Not Prepared              80          6.1%
                                           Total                   1,308       100.0%

 An understanding and ability to apply     Very Well Prepared        90          6.8%
 knowledge of humanities (e.g., English,   Well Prepared            313         23.8%
 communications, languages)
                                           Prepared                 522         39.7%
                                           Somewhat Prepared        321         24.4%
                                           Not Prepared              69          5.2%
                                           Total                   1,315       100.0%

 An understanding and ability to apply     Very Well Prepared        83          6.3%
 knowledge of social sciences (e.g.,       Well Prepared            276         21.0%
 history, economics, public policy)
                                           Prepared                 540         41.1%
                                           Somewhat Prepared        351         26.7%
                                           Not Prepared              64          4.9%
                                           Total                   1,314       100.0%

 An understanding and ability to apply     Very Well Prepared       102          7.7%
 knowledge of business and finance         Well Prepared            248         18.7%
                                           Prepared                 347         26.2%
                                           Somewhat Prepared        396         29.9%
                                           Not Prepared             231         17.4%
                                           Total                   1,324       100.0%
 (Table A3 cont’d on next page)




-30-
Table A3. Frequencies of Preparation Item Responses (cont’d)
 Preparation                                                        Frequency   Valid Percent
 The ability to communicate orally,            Very Well Prepared       192          14.3%
 informally, and in prepared                   Well Prepared            435          32.3%
 presentations
                                               Prepared                 402          29.8%
                                               Somewhat Prepared        269          20.0%
                                               Not Prepared              49           3.6%
                                               Total                  1,347         100.0%

 The ability to communicate in writing         Very Well Prepared       194          14.4%
 (e.g., business letters, technical reports)   Well Prepared            410          30.5%
                                               Prepared                 448          33.3%
                                               Somewhat Prepared        243          18.1%
                                               Not Prepared              49           3.6%
                                               Total                  1,344         100.0%

 The ability to use computing technology       Very Well Prepared      470          35.0%
 in communications                             Well Prepared           498          37.1%
                                               Prepared                284          21.2%
                                               Somewhat Prepared        70           5.2%
                                               Not Prepared             19           1.4%
                                               Total                  1,341        100.0%

 The ability to use computing technology       Very Well Prepared      305          22.9%
 in discipline-specific analysis and design    Well Prepared           435          32.7%
                                               Prepared                365          27.4%
                                               Somewhat Prepared       171          12.9%
                                               Not Prepared             54           4.1%
                                               Total                  1,330        100.0%

 The ability to conduct an information         Very Well Prepared      314          23.4%
 search using catalogs, indexes,               Well Prepared           444          33.0%
 bibliographies, Internet, etc
                                               Prepared                414          30.8%
                                               Somewhat Prepared       131           9.7%
                                               Not Prepared             41           3.1%
                                               Total                  1,344        100.0%

 The ability to exercise leadership skills     Very Well Prepared      229          17.0%
                                               Well Prepared           378          28.1%
                                               Prepared                401          29.8%
                                               Somewhat Prepared       277          20.6%
                                               Not Prepared             60           4.5%
                                               Total                  1,345        100.0%

 The ability to function on multi-             Very Well Prepared      232          17.3%
 disciplinary or cross-functional teams        Well Prepared           453          33.7%
                                               Prepared                371          27.6%
                                               Somewhat Prepared       218          16.2%
                                               Not Prepared             69           5.1%
                                               Total                  1,343        100.0%
 (Table A3 cont’d on next page)




                                                                                                -31-
Georgia Tech Office of Assessment
Baccalaureate Alumni Survey, May 2005



Table A3. Frequencies of Preparation Item Responses (cont’d)
 Preparation                                                      Frequency   Valid Percent
 The ability to effectively resolve          Very Well Prepared      117           8.7%
 interpersonal conflict within a group or    Well Prepared           337          25.1%
 team
                                             Prepared                447          33.3%
                                             Somewhat Prepared       301          22.4%
                                             Not Prepared            139          10.4%
                                             Total                  1,341        100.0%

 The ability to function in culturally and   Very Well Prepared      326          24.4%
 ethnically diverse environments             Well Prepared           467          34.9%
                                             Prepared                367          27.4%
                                             Somewhat Prepared       146          10.9%
                                             Not Prepared             32           2.4%
                                             Total                  1,338        100.0%

 The ability to design and conduct           Very Well Prepared       231          17.3%
 experiments                                 Well Prepared            411          30.7%
                                             Prepared                 466          34.9%
                                             Somewhat Prepared        179          13.4%
                                             Not Prepared              50           3.7%
                                             Total                  1,337         100.0%

 The ability to analyze and interpret data   Very Well Prepared       503          37.4%
                                             Well Prepared            482          35.9%
                                             Prepared                 278          20.7%
                                             Somewhat Prepared         70           5.2%
                                             Not Prepared              11           0.8%
                                             Total                  1,344         100.0%

 The ability to think critically and         Very Well Prepared       745          55.2%
 logically                                   Well Prepared            412          30.5%
                                             Prepared                 152          11.3%
                                             Somewhat Prepared         31           2.3%
                                             Not Prepared               9           0.7%
                                             Total                  1,349         100.0%

 The ability to identify, formulate and      Very Well Prepared       507          37.8%
 solve problems within your discipline       Well Prepared            529          39.4%
                                             Prepared                 242          18.0%
                                             Somewhat Prepared         57           4.2%
                                             Not Prepared               8           0.6%
                                             Total                  1,343         100.0%

 The ability to design a system,             Very Well Prepared       301          22.4%
 component, or process to meet desired       Well Prepared            447          33.3%
 needs and quality
                                             Prepared                 409          30.5%
                                             Somewhat Prepared        141          10.5%
                                             Not Prepared              44           3.3%
                                             Total                  1,342         100.0%
 (Table A3 cont’d on next page)




-32-
Table A3. Frequencies of Preparation Item Responses (cont’d)
 Preparation                                                       Frequency   Valid Percent
 The ability to synthesize and integrate      Very Well Prepared       190          14.2%
 knowledge across disciplines                 Well Prepared            417          31.2%
                                              Prepared                 505          37.8%
                                              Somewhat Prepared        188          14.1%
                                              Not Prepared              36           2.7%
                                              Total                  1,336         100.0%

 The ability to use techniques, skills and    Very Well Prepared       274          20.6%
 tools necessary for practice in your         Well Prepared            499          37.5%
 discipline
                                              Prepared                 423          31.8%
                                              Somewhat Prepared        116           8.7%
                                              Not Prepared              20           1.5%
                                              Total                  1,332         100.0%

 The ability to engage in lifelong learning   Very Well Prepared      372           27.8%
                                              Well Prepared           446           33.4%
                                              Prepared                360           26.9%
                                              Somewhat Prepared       123            9.2%
                                              Not Prepared             35            2.6%
                                              Total                  1,336         100.0%

 The ability to practice your discipline in   Very Well Prepared      126            9.5%
 different social or cultural settings        Well Prepared           320           24.0%
                                              Prepared                510           38.3%
                                              Somewhat Prepared       272           20.4%
                                              Not Prepared            103            7.7%
                                              Total                  1,331         100.0%

 The ability to converse in a foreign         Very Well Prepared       29            2.2%
 language within the context of your          Well Prepared            59            4.5%
 profession
                                              Prepared                149           11.3%
                                              Somewhat Prepared       308           23.3%
                                              Not Prepared            777           58.8%
                                              Total                  1,322         100.0%

 An understanding of product                  Very Well Prepared       83            6.3%
 development or design from a business        Well Prepared           213           16.1%
 perspective
                                              Prepared                408           30.8%
                                              Somewhat Prepared       382           28.9%
                                              Not Prepared            238           18.0%
                                              Total                  1,324         100.0%

 An understanding of professional and         Very Well Prepared      217           16.2%
 ethical responsibility within your           Well Prepared           401           30.0%
 discipline
                                              Prepared                436           32.6%
                                              Somewhat Prepared       225           16.8%
                                              Not Prepared             57            4.3%
                                              Total                  1,336         100.0%
 (Table A3 cont’d on next page)




                                                                                               -33-
Georgia Tech Office of Assessment
Baccalaureate Alumni Survey, May 2005



Table A3. Frequencies of Preparation Item Responses (cont’d)
 Preparation                                                                  Frequency      Valid Percent
 An understanding of the environmental                 Very Well Prepared         75               5.7%
 impact of professional practice within                Well Prepared             202              15.3%
 your discipline
                                                       Prepared                  420              31.7%
                                                       Somewhat Prepared         365              27.6%
                                                       Not Prepared              262              19.8%
                                                       Total                    1,324            100.0%

 An understanding of the impact your                   Very Well Prepared        109               8.2%
 professional practice has on society and              Well Prepared             248              18.7%
 culture
                                                       Prepared                  457              34.5%
                                                       Somewhat Prepared         370              27.9%
                                                       Not Prepared              140              10.6%
                                                       Total                    1,324            100.0%

 Being a licensed professional within                  Very Well Prepared         139             10.9%
 your discipline                                       Well Prepared              212             16.6%
                                                       Prepared                   382             29.9%
                                                       Somewhat Prepared          239             18.7%
                                                       Not Prepared               304             23.8%
                                                       Total                    1,276            100.0%



Table A4. Importance Means by College
 Scale: 1 = not important
        5 = extremely important

                                                                                    College
                                                                                                Ivan
 Importance                                       Architecture    Computing    Engineering      Allen     Management   Sciences
 * An understanding and ability
   to apply knowledge of
   advanced mathematics (e.g.,,
   calculus and above)                                 2.00            2.52       2.83           1.95        2.09        2.54

 * An understanding and ability
   to apply knowledge of physical
   sciences                                            2.74            1.99       3.05           2.11        1.74        3.37

 * An understanding and ability
   to apply knowledge of life
   sciences                                            2.06            1.55       2.14           2.15        1.89        3.46

 * An understanding and ability
   to apply knowledge of
   computer science                                    2.70            4.75       3.45           2.84        2.86        2.78

 * Differences among colleges significant at p < .05

 (Table A4 cont’d on next page)




-34-
Table A4. Importance Means by College (cont’d)
 Scale: 1 = not important
        5 = extremely important

                                                                                  College
                                                                                            Ivan
 Importance                                       Architecture   Computing   Engineering    Allen   Management       Sciences
 * An understanding and ability
   to apply knowledge of
   humanities (e.g., English,
   communications, languages)                          3.77         3.23        3.43        4.25       3.64            3.45

 * An understanding and ability
   to apply knowledge of social
   sciences (e.g., history,
   economics, public policy)                           2.76         2.14        2.45        3.95       3.11            2.25

 * An understanding and ability
   to apply knowledge of
   business and finance                                3.62         2.94        3.49        3.43       4.52            2.50

 * The ability to communicate
   orally, informally, and in
   prepared presentations                              4.16         2.96        3.62        3.89       3.90            3.74

 * The ability to communicate in
   writing (e.g., business letters,
   technical reports)                                  4.23         4.10        4.44        4.55       4.37            4.27

 * The ability to use computing
   technology in communications                        4.15         4.46        4.21        4.05       4.07            3.86

 * The ability to use computing
   technology in discipline-
   specific analysis and design                        4.23         4.25        3.93        2.67       3.12            3.09

 * The ability to conduct an
   information search using
   catalogs, indexes,
   bibliographies, Internet, etc.                      3.63         3.59        3.53        4.00       3.56            3.97

 * The ability to exercise
   leadership skills                                   4.25         3.92        4.29        4.22       4.43            3.98

 * The ability to function on
   multi-disciplinary or cross-
   functional teams                                    4.15         3.69        4.23        3.89       4.16            3.70

 * The ability to effectively
   resolve interpersonal conflict
   within a group or team                              4.08         3.73        4.01        3.84       4.13            3.69

 * Differences among colleges significant at p < .05


 (Table A4 cont’d on next page)




                                                                                                              -35-
Georgia Tech Office of Assessment
Baccalaureate Alumni Survey, May 2005



Table A4. Importance Means by College (cont’d)
 Scale: 1 = not important
        5 = extremely important

                                                                                  College
                                                                                            Ivan
 Importance                                       Architecture   Computing   Engineering    Allen   Management   Sciences

       The ability to function in
       culturally and ethnically
       diverse environments                            3.68         3.66        3.85        4.02       3.85        3.96

       The ability to design and
 *
       conduct experiments                             2.66         3.16        3.13        2.04       2.27        3.56

       The ability to analyze and
 *
       interpret data                                  3.54         4.06        4.33        3.78       4.18        4.31

       The ability to think critically
       and logically                                   4.60         4.76        4.71        4.67       4.64        4.67

   The ability to identify,
 * formulate and solve problems
   within your discipline                              4.67         4.61        4.46        4.27       4.45        4.49

 * The ability to design a system,
   component, or process to meet
   desired needs and quality                           3.75         4.26        3.97        2.56       3.32        3.19

 * The ability to synthesize and
   integrate knowledge across
   disciplines                                         3.80         3.64        3.87        3.48       3.57        3.96

 * The ability to use techniques,
   skills and tools necessary for
   practice in your discipline                         4.51         4.37        4.05        4.04       4.03        4.29

 * The ability to practice your
   discipline in different social or
   cultural settings                                   3.34         2.91        3.14        3.55       3.42        3.38

 * The ability to converse in a
   foreign language within the
   context of your profession                          2.28         1.55        2.00        2.47       1.81        1.87

 * An understanding of product
   development or design from a
   business perspective                                3.66         3.81        3.55        2.42       3.37        2.04

 * An understanding of
   professional and ethical
   responsibility within your
   discipline                                          4.24         3.80        4.16        4.44       4.44        4.21

 * Differences among colleges significant at p < .05

 (Table A4 cont’d on next page)




-36-
Table A4. Importance Means by College (cont’d)
 Scale: 1 = not important
        5 = extremely important
                                                                                  College

                                                                                            Ivan
 Importance                                       Architecture   Computing   Engineering    Allen   Management       Sciences
 * An understanding of the
   environmental impact of
   professional practice within
   your discipline                                     3.63         1.90        3.04        2.26       2.58            2.84

 * An understanding of the
   impact your professional
   practice has on society and
   culture                                             3.88         3.09        3.27        3.87       3.32            3.75

 * Being a licensed professional
   within your discipline                              3.18         1.84        2.35        2.62       2.73            2.93

 * Differences among colleges significant at p < .05




Table A5. Preparation Means by College
 Scale: 1 = not prepared
        5 = very well prepared
                                                                                  College
                                                                                            Ivan
 Preparation                                      Architecture   Computing   Engineering    Allen   Management       Sciences

 * An understanding and ability
   to apply knowledge of
   advanced mathematics (e.g.,
   calculus and above)                                 3.29         3.74        4.14        3.26       3.51            3.95

 * An understanding and ability
   to apply knowledge of physical
   sciences                                            3.41         3.42        3.95        3.08       3.22            4.21

 * An understanding and ability
   to apply knowledge of life
   sciences                                            2.96         2.70        2.98        2.94       3.09            3.68

 * An understanding and ability
   to apply knowledge of
   computer science                                    2.79         4.40        3.50        3.12       3.24            2.89

 * An understanding and ability
   to apply knowledge of
   humanities (e.g., English,
   communications, languages)                          2.83         2.92        2.98        3.69       3.19            3.01

 * Differences among colleges significant at p < .05

 (Table A5 cont’d on next page)




                                                                                                              -37-
Georgia Tech Office of Assessment
Baccalaureate Alumni Survey, May 2005



Table A5. Preparation Means by College (cont’d)
 Scale: 1 = not prepared
        5 = very well prepared

                                                                                  College
                                                                                            Ivan
 Preparation                                      Architecture   Computing   Engineering    Allen   Management   Sciences

 * An understanding and ability
   to apply knowledge of social
   sciences (e.g., history,
   economics, public policy)                           2.89         2.79        2.90        3.89       3.32        2.72

 * An understanding and ability
   to apply knowledge of
   business and finance                                2.52         2.16        2.53        2.78       4.07        2.16

 * The ability to communicate
   orally, informally, and in
   prepared presentations                              3.83         2.85        3.31        3.59       3.51        3.36

 * The ability to communicate in
   writing (e.g., business letters,
   technical reports)                                  3.25         3.12        3.37        3.76       3.17        3.48

       The ability to use computing
       technology in communications                    3.77         4.12        4.02        4.00       3.91        3.91

 * The ability to use computing
   technology in discipline-
   specific analysis and design                        3.47         3.89        3.65        2.83       3.40        3.33

       The ability to conduct an
       information search using
       catalogs, indexes,
       bibliographies, Internet, etc.                  3.72         3.62        3.60        3.74       3.77        3.64

 * The ability to exercise
   leadership skills                                   3.36         2.83        3.32        3.56       3.67        3.22

 * The ability to function on
   multi-disciplinary or cross-
   functional teams                                    3.38         2.85        3.43        3.37       3.84        3.30

 * The ability to effectively
   resolve interpersonal conflict
   within a group or team                              3.11         2.50        2.98        3.09       3.39        2.82

       The ability to function in
       culturally and ethnically
       diverse environments                            3.62         3.55        3.67        3.78       3.83        3.61

 * The ability to design and
   conduct experiments
                                                       3.24         3.34        3.54        2.87       3.10        3.79

 * Differences among colleges significant at p < .05

 (Table A5 cont’d on next page)




-38-
Table A5. Preparation Means by College (cont’d)
 Scale: 1 = not prepared
        5 = very well prepared

                                                                                  College
                                                                                            Ivan
 Preparation                                      Architecture   Computing   Engineering    Allen   Management       Sciences

 * The ability to analyze and
   interpret data                                      3.65         3.77        4.13        3.67       4.01            4.09

 * The ability to think critically
   and logically                                       4.14         4.23        4.42        4.37       4.28            4.49

     The ability to identify,
     formulate and solve problems
     within your discipline                            4.13         4.16        4.12        3.93       3.97            4.08

 * The ability to design a system,
   component, or process to meet
   desired needs and quality                           3.59         3.95        3.71        2.87       3.41            3.13

 * The ability to synthesize and
   integrate knowledge across
   disciplines                                         3.27         3.16        3.39        3.59       3.46            3.67

     The ability to use techniques,
     skills and tools necessary for
     practice in your discipline                       3.67         3.90        3.66        3.64       3.54            3.70

     The ability to engage in
     lifelong learning                                 3.63         3.69        3.71        4.02       3.79            3.93

 * The ability to practice your
   discipline in different social or
   cultural settings                                   3.06         2.85        3.04        3.30       3.35            3.01

 * The ability to converse in a
   foreign language within the
   context of your profession                          1.87         1.63        1.63        2.40       1.63            1.73

 * An understanding of product
   development or design from a
   business perspective                                2.83         2.47        2.62        2.11       3.28            1.93

 * An understanding of
   professional and ethical
   responsibility within your
   discipline                                          3.34         3.12        3.38        3.33       3.61            3.15

 * An understanding of the
   environmental impact of
   professional practice within
   your discipline                                     3.06         1.86        2.64        2.44       2.74            2.60

 * Differences among colleges significant at p < .05

 (Table A5 cont’d on next page)




                                                                                                              -39-
Georgia Tech Office of Assessment
Baccalaureate Alumni Survey, May 2005



Table A5. Preparation Means by College (cont’d)
 Scale: 1 = not prepared
        5 = very well prepared

                                                                                        College

                                                                                                    Ivan
 Preparation                                      Architecture    Computing      Engineering        Allen   Management   Sciences

 An understanding of the impact
 your professional practice has on
 society and culture                                    3.34         2.60            2.80            3.13      3.07        2.88

 Being a licensed professional
 within your discipline                                 2.76         2.00            2.91            2.52      2.54        2.38

 * Differences among colleges significant at p < .05




Table A6. Current Employment Status by College
                                                                                        College

                                                                                                    Ivan
                                                   Architecture   Computing      Engineering        Allen   Management   Sciences

 Full time (35+ hrs/wk)                                88.9%        92.8%           88.1%           77.8%     89.1%      73.3%

 Part-Time (<35 hrs/wk)                                6.3%          1.6%           3.0%            9.3%       3.8%       5.9%

 Unemployed, seeking
 employment                                            0.0%          1.6%           2.7%            3.7%       2.2%       1.0%

 Unemployed, seeking
 employment                                            7.9%          4.0%           5.8%            5.6%       4.9%      16.8%




Table A7. Length of Time to First Full-time Permanent Job
                                                                            Frequency          Percent

 Had job before completing degree                                             216                 16.8%

 Accepted position upon graduation                                            666                 51.7%

 1-3 months                                                                   193                 15.0%

 4-6 months                                                                    87                 6.8%

 7-12 months                                                                   45                 3.5%

 Over 1 year                                                                   59                 4.6%

 Have not yet obtained full-time permanent job                                 22                 1.7%




-40-
APPENDIX B: 2001 and 2004 Survey Comparisons

Response characteristics
Overall, response rates were lower for the 2004 survey (28.5%, compared to 41.7% in 2001), which may
be due to differences in survey administration methods. The 2001 survey procedure included a
telephone follow-up for those who had not responded after the mailing sequence. Excluding the
follow-up, the response rate on the 2001 survey was 32.8%.

The mode of response changed between the survey administrations. Looking at web and mail
responses (the two formats used in the both surveys), there is a reversal, from predominantly mail-
based responses in 2001 (73.5%) to the majority of surveys completed online in 2004 (74.0%).

Demographics
A comparison of the 2001 and 2004 alumni and respondents show changes in proportions by college,
ethnicity, & gender. These changes are similar to those found in the distribution of students in the
populations. Some notable trends:
    • An increase in the proportion of women – from roughly 1 in 4 to 1 in 3 alumni
    • redistribution by college: Larger proportion of the respondents are from Computing,
         Management; decrease in Engineering & Science
    • A small shift in the ethnic distribution, primarily an increase in Asian, and decrease in
         Caucasian alumni, but this was not significant.


Table B1. Demographic Changes in Alumni Sample (2001 and 2004)

                                   2001 (n=1553)            2004 (n=1401)       Change
                                   N          %             N          %          %
Female                             442       28.5%          469      33.5%       +5.0%
Male                             1,111       71.5%          932      66.5%       -5.0%

Asian                               99        6.4%          123       8.8%       +2.4%
African-American                    97        6.2%           88       6.3%       +0.1%
Hispanic                            57        3.7%           45       3.2%       -0.5%
Native American                      4        0.3%            3       0.2%       -0.1%
Multiracial                          0        0.0%            7       0.5%       +0.5%
Caucasian                        1,296       83.5%        1,135      81.0%       -2.5%

Graduated 5 yrs before survey     511        32.9%          470      33.5%       +0.6%
Graduated 4 yrs before survey     542        34.9%          430      30.7%       -4.2%
Graduated 3 yrs before survey     500        32.2%          501      35.8%       +3.6%

Architecture                        76        4.9%           66       4.7%       -0.2%
Computing                           70        4.5%          125       8.9%       +4.4%
Engineering                      1,017       65.5%          867      61.9%       -3.6%
Ivan Allen                          67        4.3%           55       3.9%       -0.4%
Management                         169       10.9%          186      13.3%       +2.4%
Sciences                           154        9.9%          102       7.3%       -2.6%




                                                                                               -41-
Georgia Tech Office of Assessment
Baccalaureate Alumni Survey, May 2005



Table B2. Importance Ratings 2001 and 2004
Scale: 1 = not important
       5 = extremely important
                                                        Mean               Effect Size   % Rating Important or Better
Item                                            2001   2004    Change           d        2001       2004       Change
An understanding and ability to
apply knowledge of advanced
mathematics (e.g., calculus and
above)                                          2.69   2.61      -0.08        0.060      52.6%      48.5%     -4.10%

An understanding and ability to
apply knowledge of physical
sciences                                        2.90   2.75      -0.15**      0.114      61.8%      55.6%     -6.22%

An understanding and ability to
apply knowledge of life sciences                2.26   2.14      -0.11*       0.093      37.6%      34.2%     -3.43%

An understanding and ability
to apply knowledge of
computer science                                3.67   3.38     -0.29***      0.237      83.2%     73.0%     -10.24%

An understanding and ability to
apply knowledge of humanities
(e.g., English, communications,
languages)                                      3.52   3.49      -0.03        0.030      83.6%      83.1%     -0.50%

An understanding and ability to
apply knowledge of social
sciences (e.g., history,
economics, public policy)                       2.58   2.57      -0.01        0.009      50.3%      50.5%     +0.21%

An understanding and ability to
apply knowledge of business and
finance                                         3.57   3.51      -0.06        0.055      81.2%      77.5%     -3.62%

The ability to communicate
orally, informally, and in
prepared presentations                          4.51   3.64     -0.86***      0.920      97.5%     82.5%     -15.07%

The ability to communicate in
writing (e.g., business letters,
technical reports)                              4.40   4.38      -0.02        0.025      96.9%      96.6%     -0.26%

The ability to use computing
technology in communications                    4.05   4.18     +0.13***      0.127      90.8%      92.4%     +1.61%

The ability to use computing
technology in discipline-specific
analysis and design                             3.63   3.75     +0.13**       0.099      79.7%      81.1%     +1.36%

Bolded items have effect size at d > 0.2
n/a – not asked in 2001

* - p < .05   ** - p < .01     *** - p < .001

(Table B2 cont’d on next page)




-42-
Table B2. Importance Ratings 2001 and 2004 (cont’d)
Scale: 1 = not important
       5 = extremely important
                                                        Mean               Effect Size   % Rating Important or Better
Item                                            2001   2004    Change           d        2001       2004       Change

The ability to conduct an
information search using
catalogs, indexes, bibliographies,
Internet, etc                                    n/a   3.60       -           -           n/a       80.9%       -

The ability to exercise leadership
skills                                          4.38   4.25     -0.13***      0.155      96.9%      96.5%     -0.40%

The ability to function on multi-
disciplinary or cross-functional
teams                                           4.14   4.12      -0.02        0.021      92.5%      91.9%     -0.59%

The ability to effectively resolve
interpersonal conflict within a
group or team                                    n/a   3.97       -           -           n/a       91.4%       -

The ability to function in
culturally and ethnically diverse
environments                                    3.83   3.84     +0.01         0.011      87.0%      87.0%     -0.05%

The ability to design and conduct
experiments                                     3.01   2.99      -0.02        0.018      60.9%      61.6%     +0.73%

The ability to analyze and
interpret data                                  4.25   4.22      -0.02        0.025      94.9%      94.2%     -0.65%

The ability to think critically and
logically                                       4.66   4.69     +0.03         0.054      98.3%      99.5%     +1.18%

The ability to identify, formulate
and solve problems within your
discipline                                      4.32   4.48     +0.15***      0.177      94.6%      97.0%     +2.43%

The ability to design a system,
component, or process to meet
desired needs and quality                       3.73   3.79     +0.05         0.043      80.9%      83.6%     +2.65%

The ability to synthesize and
integrate knowledge across
disciplines                                     3.75   3.80     +0.05         0.047      87.6%      88.9%     +1.31%

The ability to use techniques,
skills and tools necessary for
practice in your discipline                     3.99   4.12     +0.13***      0.131      93.0%      94.4%     +1.43%

Bolded items have effect size at d > 0.2
n/a – not asked in 2001

* - p < .05   ** - p < .01     *** - p < .001

(Table B2 cont’d on next page)




                                                                                                             -43-
Georgia Tech Office of Assessment
Baccalaureate Alumni Survey, May 2005



Table B2. Importance Ratings 2001 and 2004 (cont’d)
Scale: 1 = not important
       5 = extremely important
                                                        Mean               Effect Size   % Rating Important or Better
Item                                            2001   2004    Change           d        2001       2004       Change

The ability to engage in lifelong
learning                                        4.33   4.26      -0.08*       0.086      96.3%      95.9%     -0.34%

The ability to practice your
discipline in different social or
cultural settings                               2.92   3.20     +0.29***      0.234      63.2%     69.6%     +6.35%

The ability to converse in a
foreign language within the
context of your profession                       n/a   1.95       -           -           n/a       26.9%       -

An understanding of product
development or design from a
business perspective                            3.46   3.40      -0.06        0.049      76.4%      74.6%     -1.81%

An understanding of professional
and ethical responsibility within
your discipline                                 4.10   4.18     +0.08*        0.091      94.1%      95.4%     +1.31%

An understanding of the
environmental impact of
professional practice within your
discipline                                      2.98   2.86      -0.13**      0.096      65.4%      58.2%     -7.26%

An understanding of the
impact your professional
practice has on society and
culture                                         3.06   3.34     +0.29***      0.230      65.4%     74.7%     +9.30%

Being a licensed professional
within your discipline                          2.56   2.44      -0.12*       0.077      44.0%      40.1%     -3.91%

Bolded items have effect size at d > 0.2
n/a – not asked in 2001

* - p < .05   ** - p < .01     *** - p < .001




-44-
Table B3. Preparation Ratings of 2001 and 2004
Scale: 1 = not prepared
       5 = very well prepared
                                                        Mean              Effect Size   % Rating Prepared or Better
Item                                            2001   2004    Change          d        2001       2004      Change
An understanding and ability to
apply knowledge of advanced
mathematics (e.g., calculus and
above)                                          4.02    3.93   -0.09**       0.099      94.0%     92.4%       -1.67%

An understanding and ability to
apply knowledge of physical
sciences                                        3.81    3.76   -0.05         0.055      92.8%     91.7%       -1.11%

An understanding and ability to
apply knowledge of life sciences                3.06    3.02   -0.05         0.042      73.1%     72.2%       -0.97%

An understanding and ability to
apply knowledge of computer
science                                         3.29    3.46   +0.16***      0.142      73.3%     77.4%       +4.05%

An understanding and ability to
apply knowledge of humanities
(e.g., English, communications,
languages)                                      3.11    3.03   -0.09*       0.090       74.5%     70.3%       -4.15%

An understanding and ability to
apply knowledge of social
sciences (e.g., history,
economics, public policy)                       3.00    2.97   -0.03        0.031       70.8%     68.4%       -2.38%

An understanding and ability to
apply knowledge of business and
finance                                         2.73    2.69   -0.04        0.035       55.3%     52.6%       -2.68%

The ability to communicate
orally, informally, and in
prepared presentations                          3.41    3.34   -0.07        0.068       79.8%     76.4%       -3.41%

The ability to communicate in
writing (e.g., business letters,
technical reports)                              3.39    3.34   -0.05        0.048       80.0%     78.3%       -1.69%

The ability to use computing
technology in communications                    3.53    3.99   +0.46***     0.455       83.2%     93.4%     +10.15%

The ability to use computing
technology in discipline-
specific analysis and design                    3.35    3.58   +0.22***     0.203       78.5%     83.1%       +4.56%

Bolded items have effect size at d > 0.2
n/a – not asked in 2001

* - p < .05   ** - p < .01     *** - p < .001

(Table B3 cont’d on next page)




                                                                                                           -45-
Georgia Tech Office of Assessment
Baccalaureate Alumni Survey, May 2005



Table B3. Preparation Ratings of 2001 and 2004 (cont’d)
Scale: 1 = not prepared
       5 = very well prepared
                                                       Mean              Effect Size   % Rating Prepared or Better

Item                                            2001   2004    Change           d      2001       2004      Change

The ability to conduct an
information search using
catalogs, indexes, bibliographies,
Internet, etc                                    n/a    3.64      -         -          n/a        87.2%         -

The ability to exercise leadership
skills                                          3.46    3.33   -0.13**     0.121       80.7%      74.9%       -5.77%

The ability to function on multi-
disciplinary or cross-functional
teams                                           3.43    3.42   -0.01       0.010       80.8%      78.6%       -2.18%

The ability to effectively resolve
interpersonal conflict within a
group or team                                    n/a    2.99      -         -          n/a        67.2%         -

The ability to function in
culturally and ethnically diverse
environments                                    3.56    3.68   +0.12**     0.111       85.1%      86.7%       +1.57%

The ability to design and conduct
experiments                                     3.42    3.44   +0.03       0.027       81.5%      82.9%       +1.36%

The ability to analyze and
interpret data                                  3.93    4.04   +0.11**     0.112       92.3%      94.0%       +1.64%

The ability to think critically and
logically                                       4.28    4.37   +0.09**     0.113       97.1%      97.0%       -0.06%

The ability to identify, formulate
and solve problems within your
discipline                                      4.01    4.09   +0.08*      0.094       94.3%      95.2%       +0.85%

The ability to design a system,
component, or process to meet
desired needs and quality                       3.51    3.61   +0.10*      0.094       84.5%      86.2%       +1.69%

The ability to synthesize and
integrate knowledge across
disciplines                                     3.33    3.40   +0.07       0.070       82.3%      83.2%       +0.92%

The ability to use techniques,
skills and tools necessary for
practice in your discipline                     3.60    3.67   +0.07       0.074       88.0%      89.8%       +1.74%

The ability to engage in lifelong
learning                                        3.78    3.75   -0.03       0.032       88.6%      88.2%       -0.45%

Bolded items have effect size at d > 0.2
n/a – not asked in 2001
* - p < .05   ** - p < .01     *** - p < .001

(Table B3 cont’d on next page)




-46-
Table B3. Preparation Ratings of 2001 and 2004 (cont’d)
Scale: 1 = not prepared
       5 = very well prepared
                                                       Mean               Effect Size   % Rating Prepared or Better

Item                                            2001   2004    Change         d         2001       2004      Change

The ability to practice your
discipline in different social or
cultural settings                               2.63    3.07   +0.44***     0.417       55.9%     71.8%       +15.95%

The ability to converse in a
foreign language within the
context of your profession                       n/a    1.68      -           -         n/a        17.9%           -

An understanding of product
development or design from a
business perspective                            2.75    2.64   -0.12**      0.104       59.1%      53.2%       -5.98%

An understanding of professional
and ethical responsibility within
your discipline                                 3.32    3.37   +0.05         0.045      78.4%      78.9%       +0.45%

An understanding of the
environmental impact of
professional practice within your
discipline                                      2.59    2.59   +0.01         0.005      53.2%      52.6%       -0.51%

An understanding of the
impact your professional
practice has on society and
culture                                         2.64    2.86   +0.22***      0.207      54.2%     61.5%        +7.24%

Being a licensed professional
within your discipline                          2.97    2.72   -0.25***      0.198      64.3%      72.5%       +8.15%

Bolded items have effect size at d > 0.2
n/a – not asked in 2001

* - p < .05   ** - p < .01     *** - p < .001




                                                                                                            -47-
Georgia Tech Office of Assessment
Baccalaureate Alumni Survey, May 2005



Table B4. Quality of Instruction
Scale: 1 = not satisfied
       5 = extremely satisfied
                                                     Mean             Effect Size   % Rating Satisfied or Better
Item                                          2001   2004    Change   Cohen’s d     2001       2004       Change

Quality of instruction provided by
the faculty in: your major                    3.90   3.97     0.07       0.073      91.1%      91.6%      0.5%

Quality of instruction provided by
the faculty in: your college, outside
your major                                    3.61   3.63     0.02       0.026      90.0%      90.1%      0.2%

Quality of instruction provided by
the student teaching assistants in:
your major                                    3.46   3.40     -0.06      0.057      84.3%      82.3%      -2.1%

Quality of instruction provided by
the student teaching assistants in:
your college, outside your major              3.23   3.18     -0.05      0.050      81.0%      79.1%      -1.9%

* - p < .05   ** - p < .01   *** - p < .001




Table B5. Equity of Treatment
Scale: 1 = not satisfied
       5 = extremely satisfied
                                                      Mean                          % Rating Satisfied or Better
Item                                          2001   2004    Change   Cohen’s d     2001      2004        Change
Equity of treatment by: Academic
administrators                                3.56   3.70     0.14*     0.136       89.1%     90.7%       1.6%

Equity of treatment by Faculty                3.60   3.70     0.11*     0.103       89.0%     90.1%       1.1%

Equity of treatment by Staff                  3.64   3.73     0.09*     0.091       92.2%     92.1%      -0.1%

Equity of treatment by Fellow
students                                      3.77   3.83     0.06      0.063       93.1%     94.4%       1.2%

Equity of treatment by Student
teaching assistants                           3.59   3.65     0.06      0.057       90.7%     90.9%       0.2%

* - p < .05   ** - p < .01   *** - p < .001




-48-
Table B6. Further Education Plans
                                     Survey Year
                                  2001        2004    Change

 No interest/ Do not plan to
 continue education               5.7%        14.3%   +8.6%

 Currently interested, has not
 applied                         39.6%        42.8%   +3.3%

 Applying to program             13.50%       4.50%   -9.00%

 Currently enrolled              17.9%        18.5%   +0.6%

 Already completed               23.4%        19.9%    -3.5%




Table B7. Enrollment Status
                                     Survey Year
                                  2001        2004    Change

 Full-time                        69.0%       60.3%    -8.7%

 Part-Time                        31.0%       38.2%   +7.2%

 Don't know                        0.0%        1.5%    1.5%




Table B8. Preparation for Further Education
                                     Survey Year
                                                      Change
                                  2001        2004      (%)

 Poor preparation                  9.5%        1.2%    -8.3%

 Fair Preparation                 12.1%        3.7%    -8.4%

 Average preparation               8.7%        8.7%    0.0%

 Good preparation                 28.8%       37.5%   +8.7%

 Excellent Preparation            40.9%       49.0%   +8.1%




                                                               -49-
Georgia Tech Office of Assessment
Baccalaureate Alumni Survey, May 2005



Table B9. Current Employment Status
                                        Survey Year
                                  2001           2004    Change

 Employed full-time (35+
                                  80.7%          87.6%   +6.9%
 hrs/week)

 Employed part-time (34
                                   1.8%           3.6%   +1.9%
 hours/week or less)

 Unemployed, seeking
                                   1.5%           2.3%   +0.8%
 employment

 unemployed, not seeking
                                  16.0%           6.4%    -9.5%
 employment




Table B10. Time to Acquire First Permanent Full-time Job
                                        Survey Year
                                                         Change
                                  2001           2004

 Had job before completing
                                 17.8%           16.8%    -1.1%
 degree

 Accepted position upon
                                 46.0%           51.7%   +5.7%
 graduation

 1-3 months                      19.7%           15.0%    -4.7%

 4-6 months                       7.4%            6.8%    -0.7%

 7-12 months                      3.8%            3.5%    -0.3%

 Over 1 year                      3.8%            4.6%   +0.8%

 Have not yet obtained full-
                                  1.6%            1.7%   +0.1%
 time permanent job




-50-
Table B11. Relationship between Job and Undergraduate Degree

                                                   Survey Year
                                                 2001            2004        Change

 How close is position related to
 undergraduate degree from Tech?
    Directly related                             43.2%           45.4%         2.1%
    Somewhat related                             40.4%           39.0%        -1.4%
    Not related                                  16.4%           15.7%        -0.8%

 If employed outside of major (position is
 not or somewhat related), this is Alumni’s
 preference                                      84.7%           78.2%       -6.6%*

* Chi-square: p < .05




Table B12. Number of Employees in Organization
                                          2001           2004            Change
 At your work site
       <10                               10.7%           14.1%           +3.4%
        10 –    100                      31.5%           30.3%           -1.2%
       101 – 1,000                       35.6%           31.1%           -4.5%
     1,001 – 10,000                      19.2%           18.8%           -0.4%
   >10,000                                3.0%           5.7%            +2.8%

 At world-wide sites
 No other sites                          19.3%           28.2%           +8.9%
   <1,000                                19.0%           18.2%           -0.7%
    1,001 – 10,000                       21.7%           16.4%           -5.3%
   10,001 – 50,000                       15.2%           16.3%           +1.0%
  >50,000                                24.8%           20.9%           -3.9%




                                                                                      -51-
Georgia Tech Office of Assessment
Baccalaureate Alumni Survey, May 2005




-52-
APPENDIX C: Survey Instrument




                                -53-

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:0
posted:3/13/2013
language:English
pages:61