Postgraduate outcomes of college students

Comprend des références bibliographiques et un index.1. Postgraduate Outcomes in American Higher Education Mary Ann Coughlin, Jerold S. Laguilles, Heather A. Kelly, Allison M. Walters Institutions of higher education are under increased scrutiny from all stakeholders to define the value of the credentials they award. National efforts such as the College Scorecard are discussed, along with the challenges of defining and collecting first-destination outcomes.2. Collecting and Using Postgraduate Outcomes Data at a Private College Jerold S. Laguilles This chapter describes how a private college has improved its postgraduate data-collection efforts and results based on the recommended First-Destination Survey standards of the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE). Data results are utilized at the institutional and program level, and interpreted based on the institutional context.3. First-Destination Outcomes at a Public Research University: Aligning Our Survey With a Set of Standards Heather A. Kelly, Allison M. Walters Building on its long history of collecting postgraduate outcomes, a public research university decided to adopt the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) First-Destination Survey standards. This chapter presents the enhanced survey and knowledge rate efforts along with survey results compared with NACE benchmarks.4. So Much More Than Salary: Outcomes Research in the Liberal Arts Cate Rowen Liberal arts colleges must define their own college value proposition within the mission of a liberal education. This chapter draws on case studies from four institutions and reflects on the inherent challenges of interjecting the complex values of the liberal arts into a national discussion focused on the financial bottom line.5. Community Colleges: Preparing Students for Diverse Careers Lou A. Guthrie Community colleges serve students with a variety of educational and career goals, and it is challenging to measure and demonstrate their successful outcomes. This chapter reviews community colleges’ measures of success, including transfer activities, and strategies for effectively communicating outcomes data to stakeholders.6. Leading Gainful Employment Metric Reporting Kristina Powers, Derek MacPherson U.S. Department of Education Gainful Employment reporting requirements should be examined by institutional researchers. This chapter recommends why and how institutional research should lead an institution’s collaborative reporting efforts on gainful employment.7. Using State Workforce Data to Examine Postgraduation Outcomes David R. Troutman, Jessica M. Shedd State workforce data offer the opportunity to move beyond selfreported survey data when examining postcollegiate outcomes. This chapter provides an introduction to state workforce data, specifically unemployment insurance (UI) wage records, and their strengths and limitations for informing postgraduate outcomes

What kind of alumni do low-income students become? An investigation of the relationship between income-status and future alumni involvement

As colleges and universities seek to increase the enrollment of low-income students through targeted financial aid strategies, such as no-loans policies, little research has looked into how engaged these future alumni would be as volunteers or donors. Using data from administrative databases at a single institution, this study focused on three alumni outcomes: volunteering, donating, and donation amount over a ten-year period and included sub-sample analyses before and after a no-loans policy was instituted. The main findings revealed that in terms of alumni volunteering, income-status has no apparent effect. With regard to alumni donating behavior, low-income status at enrollment does not appear to be a significant variable. However, low-income status at enrollment is associated with lower donation amounts, both before and after the enactment of a no-loans policy. Middle-income status, on the other hand, is negatively associated with donation behavior and donation amounts but only before the enactment of a no-loans policy. The findings suggest no-loans policies may impact the alumni involvement of individuals from low and middle-income backgrounds in different ways. From a practical standpoint, admissions and financial aid offices should be mindful about how no-loans policies impact the profile of the applicant pools, and advancement offices should think about targeted solicitation efforts that take into account the socio-economic background of alumni at the time of enrollment

Subjective and objective assessment of sedentary behavior among college employees

Abstract Background High levels of sedentary behavior are linked to increased mortality. In the United States, individuals spend 55–70% of their waking day being sedentary. Since most individuals spend large portions of their daily lives at work, quantifying the time engaged in sedentary behavior at work is emerging as an important health determinant. Studies profiling academic institutions, where a variety of personnel with diverse job descriptions are employed, are limited. Available studies focus mostly on subjective methods, with few using objective approaches. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to assess sedentary behavior among all occupational groups of a college in the Northeastern United States utilizing both a subjective and an objective method. Methods College employees (n = 367) completed the Occupational Sitting and Physical Activity Questionnaire (OSPAQ). A sub-sample of these employees (n = 127) subsequently wore an activPAL3 accelerometer 24 h per day for seven consecutive days. Outcome variables were time spent sitting, standing, stepping, and total number of steps. To assess fragmentation of sedentary behavior, the average duration of a sitting bout and sitting bouts/sitting hour were calculated. Differences between administrators, faculty, and staff, were analyzed using multivariate and univariate analyses of variance. Results The OSPAQ results indicated that administrators spent more of their working day sedentary (73.2 ± 17.7%) than faculty members (58.5 ± 19.6%, p < 0.05). For the objective phase of the study, complete data were analyzed from 86 participants. During a waking day, administrators (64.0 ± 8.1%) were more sedentary than faculty (56.0 ± 7.9%, p < 0.05) and fragmented their sitting less than staff (3.7 ± 0.7 and 4.5 ± 7.9 bouts of sitting/sitting hour, respectively; p < 0.05). This pattern was also seen during working hours, with administrators (4.9 ± 2.1) taking fewer breaks per hour than staff (6.9 ± 3.0, p < 0.05). Conclusions Administrators are the most sedentary members of the campus community. However, overall, the level of sedentary behavior among employees was high. This study highlights the need for sedentary behavior interventions in the college/university environment