Preliminary Report on NSF AGEP Departmental Surveys

1
Preliminary Report on NSF AGEP Departmental
Surveys

• Jennifer L. Weisman, PhD
• Campbell-Kibler Associates, Inc.
• September, 2008

2
General Survey Topics AGEP Involvement
Activities Recruitment Admissions Academic
Support (Retention) Data Collection Faculty
Assessment
3
The Sample Institutions 37 Departments
89 Overall Responses 172 Individual
institutional responses ranged from 1 to 29
surveys Most frequently represented departments
were Biological and Agricultural Sciences -
33 Engineering - 25 Chemistry - 15
4

• The Analysis
• I. Results for all AGEP Disciplinary Areas (and
  3 other categories Arts Humanities,
  Business, and Education)
• II. Results by AGEP vs. Non-AGEP (self report)
• 118 (69) AGEP 54 (31) Non-AGEP
• Results by Natural Sciences and Engineering
  (NSE) vs. Social, Behavioral, and Economic
  Sciences (SBE)
• 109 (72) NSE 43 (28) SBE (other not
  included)

5
Whats Happening in AGEP Departments 86
(102) of AGEP Departments are doing at least one
AGEP-related activity. 64 (75) are doing at
least one AGEP-related retention activity.
52 (61) are doing at least one AGEP-related
recruitment activity.
6
Overall AGEP Impact 83 (98) of AGEP
Departments feel AGEP has had an impact on their
department. 49 (58) feel AGEP has had an impact
on student recruitment. 44 (52) feel AGEP has
had an impact on student retention and progress
to degree. 8 (9) feel AGEP has increased
awareness of diversity. 2 (2) feel AGEP has
had an impact on admissions decisions.
7
One Departments Story of AGEPs Impact AGEP
funds have allowed us to develop new recruitment
materials, hold more events, be creative in
creating new events, allow prospective students
to stay overnight (we have money for lodging and
travel), and to cover the costs of sending our
students to a variety of educational events. The
difference between the time before we had AGEP
funds and now is amazing, and the number of
students of color in our program has continued to
increase and few have dropped out.
8

• Recruitment Highlights
• The most frequently used recruitment strategies
  for specific populations are
• Participation in population-specific events,
  programs, and organizations.
• Targeting minority serving institutions and land
  grant universities.
• Most departments (85) have Undergraduate
  Research Activities 48 use them to recruit
  students.
• More departments have specific strategies to
  recruit underrepresented minority students (72)
  than women (33) or international students (28).
  NSE departments are more apt than SBE departments
  to report having specific strategies for
  recruiting women (36 vs. 16).
• Strategies differ by target population.

9
Most Frequently Used URM Recruitment Strategies
by Department
AGEP departments were more apt to use On-campus
events as an URM recruiting strategy (23 vs. 4)
than non-AGEPS.
10
Recruitment Strategies by Target Population
11

• Admissions Highlights
• Many of the strategies listed to ensure a diverse
  interview or admissions pool are general
  recruitment strategies.
• 24 (42) of all departments have no specific
  strategies for ensuring a diverse INTERVIEW pool.
  The top non-recruitment based strategies are
• Contextual approach to selecting interviewees, 4
  (7)
• Interviewing as many URM applicants as possible,
  3 (5)
• 32 (55) of all departments report no specific
  strategies for ensuring a diverse ADMISSIONS
  pool. The top non-recruitment based strategies
  are
• Awareness of the importance of diversity , 10
  (17)
• Diversity considered during decision-making
  process, 9 (15)

12

• Differences in Admissions Strategies
  NSE vs. SBE
• NSE departments are more apt than SBE departments
  to say they have no strategies for ensuring a
  diverse interview pool (29 vs. 12).
• SBE departments are more apt than NSE departments
  to report using the following strategies for
  ensuring a diverse admissions pool
• considering diversity as an admissions factor
  (16 vs. 5)
• offering or emphasizing student funding (28 vs.
  13)

13

• Highlights from Retention/Student Support
• AGEP Departments appear to be doing a lot of
  activities but they view some as more successful
  than others.
• Almost all departments provide students with
  professional development opportunities.
• Departments use different processes for academic
  advising, the most common are
• Advisor/mentor committee (84/145)
• Annual assessment of student progress with
  attention to time-to-degree (84/144)

14

• Differences in Retention/Student Support
  Activities NSE vs. SBE
• SBE departments are more apt than NSE departments
  to report the following types of activities
• Graduate Research Activities (21 vs. 4)
• Tutoring and Academic Support (21 vs. 1)
• Conference Support (39 vs. 12)
• In terms of academic advising processes, SBE
  departments are more likely than NSE departments
  to do annual assessments of student progress (93
  vs. 80) and NSEs are more apt than SBEs to use
  lab rotations (27 vs. 12).

15
Retention/Student Support Activities among AGEP
Departments
16

• Highlighted Retention/Student Support Strategies
  One AGEP Departments Approach
• Workshops Seminars
• Conference Support
• Student Funding
• Community Social Activities

17
Highlights from Data Collection 23 (40) of
departments surveyed are conducting any research
studies on graduate student recruitment,
admissions, retention, climate, or graduation.
47 (81) of departments conduct exit interviews
with departing or graduating students. 82
(141) of departments collect student demographic
data and 82 (141) collect student retention
data. Departments report use of student data in
different ways. There were several self-reported
challenges to collecting and using student data.
18
Differences in Data Collection
AGEP vs.
Non-AGEP NSE vs. SBE AGEP departments were
more apt to conduct research studies on graduate
student recruitment, admissions, retention,
climate, or graduation than non-AGEP departments
(28 vs. 13). SBE departments were more apt to
conduct these types of studies than NSE
departments (40 vs. 18) NSE departments were
more likely to conduct exit interviews than SBE
departments (52 vs. 28)