QoL-Plenary.pdf

7/27/2019 QoL-Plenary.pdf

1/17

Student Affairs Committee

October 25th, 2013

Akshay ShahCo-Chair, Student Affairs Committee

University Senator

Quality of Life Survey


2/17

Quality of Life

2

University-wide survey designed to measure student quality of life on a qualitative andquantitative level.

Recommendations derived from data will drive short-, mid-, and long-term projects toimprove student quality of life.

Why? There has never been a comprehensive, campus-wide data-collection mechanism to

assess the Quality of Life of Columbia students.

Several schools and departments administer student satisfaction surveys for specificimmediate needs, but results in one-off incremental projects.

Governing bodies need data to implement policies, determine their impact objectivelyand methodically, and measure their success and sustainability resulted in the creation ofthe Quality of Life survey.

What?


3/17

Quality of Life

How? 13 Categories:

- Funding, Housing, Academics, Social Life, Transportation, Safety, Libraries, Space,Career Preparation, Administration, Technology, Health

Four parts in each category:- Satisfaction- Specific satisfaction questions per category- Importance- Satisfaction * Importance = Impact- Open-ended recommendation question per category

Randomized order of categories Wide variety of variables:

16 Demographic Variables 84 Satisfaction Variables 13 Importance Variables 55 Personality Variables


4/17

Quality of Life Timeline

Fall 2012: Survey Design and Development Behavioral Research Lab at the Columbia Business School

February 2013: Pilot to selected students February April 2013: Engaged stakeholders and Improved Survey April 2013: Launched Survey 2013-2014: Analysis and Recommendations


5/17

Number of Responses

Emailed to 36,000 students

Over8,650 surveys started Over6,250 completed responses

Overall Response Rate of17.29%

In 20 different schools


6/17

Diversity of Responses

76.5%

23.5%

English First Language

YesNo

39.1%

60.6%

0.4%

Gender

Male

Female

Transgender/

Genderqueer

19.7%

80.3%

International Student

Yes

No

86.5%

12.1%1.2% 0.2%

Maritial Status

Single

Married

Divorced

Widowed

10.0%

90.0%

LGBTQ Identified

Yes

No

59.8%

21.2%

10.8%

7.0%

5.7%

4.6%

1.1%

0.4%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%

White

Asian-Pacific

Hispanic

African-American

South Asian

Other

Native American

Pacific Islander

Ethnicity


7/17

Overall Results

Satisfaction is on a scale of -3 to 3, with -3 being very dissatisfied, 0 being neutral, and 3 being verysatisfied.

1.66

1.44

1.30 1.30

0.89

0.75 0.72 0.710.64

0.52 0.48

0.10 0.080.01

-0.18

0.87

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00


8/17

Overall Results

Overall

Others

Funding

Housing

Academic

SocialLife

Transporta


9/17


Undergraduate Students Satisfaction

1.66

1.44

1.30 1.30

0.89

0.75 0.72 0.710.64

0.520.48

0.10 0.080.01

-0.18

0.87

1.84

1.601.50

1.35

1.01

0.86

0.600.67

0.35

0.51

0.63

-0.01

0.32

0.00

0.11

0.87

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

Overall Undergraduate


10/17

Graduate Non-PhD Students Satisfaction


1.66

1.44

1.30 1.30

0.89

0.75 0.72 0.710.64

0.52 0.48

0.10 0.080.01

-0.18

0.87

1.53

1.29

1.09

1.25

0.80

0.65

0.79 0.760.87

0.56

0.41

0.26

-0.13

0.09

-0.67

0.87

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

Overall Graduate


11/17

PhD Students Satisfaction


1.66

1.44

1.30 1.30

0.89

0.750.72 0.71

0.64

0.520.48

0.10 0.080.01

-0.18

0.87

1.55

1.441.35

1.29

0.820.72

0.86

0.69

0.81

0.44

0.26

-0.04 -0.02

-0.19

0.46

0.82

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

Overall PhD Students


12/17

Data Analysis and Recommendations

Analyze data by category Test hypothesis using survey data Meet with key administrators to discuss results and jointly

develop recommendations


13/17

Comparing Satisfaction Across Schools

Barnard

Dental

P&S

College

Business

Law

GSAPP

GSAS

Journalism

JTSArts

SCESEAS,Graduate

SEAS,Undergrad

GS SIPA

Nursing

PublicHealth

SocialWork

TC

0.5

0.7

0.9

1.1

1.3

1.5

1.7

1.9

2.1

2.3

2.5

1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8

AdjustedSatisfaction(mean=1.5

63)

Adjusted Importance (mean=1.67)

Safety Satisfaction vs. Importance

More Satisfied, Less Important More Satisfied, More Important

Less Satisfied, Less ImportantLess Satisfied, More Important


14/17

Likelihood to Donate

School Likelihood of Donating (-3 to 3)

Columbia Business School 1.05

School of General Studies 0.57

Columbia College 0.47

College of Physicians and Surgeons 0.38

SEAS, Undergraduate 0.34

Barnard College 0.20

SIPA 0.10

College of Dental Medicine 0.10SEAS, Graduate 0.05

Jewish Theological Seminary 0.05

Graduate School of Journalism -0.02

Columbia Law School -0.03

School of Continuing Education -0.04

School of Social Work -0.05

School of Nursing -0.09GSAPP -0.12

Teachers College -0.21

GSAS -0.22

School of Public Health -0.40

School of Arts -0.46


15/17

Next Steps

Establish a data protocol for open access and transparentdiscussion.

Develop recommendations jointly with key stakeholders. Circulate the Quality of Life Report among Senate

Commi_ees, Offices of the President and the Provost. Publish the finalized Quality of Life Report in November

2013.

Institutionalize the survey so that its conducted every twoyears through a possible Senate resolution.


16/17

Acknowledgements

Quality of Life survey would not have been possible without the help of:

The Behavioral Research Lab at the Columbia Business School Professor Katherine Phillips,Professor Akinola Modupe, Alia Crum and Ashley Martin.

The Office of the Provost Roxie Smith, Lucy Drotning and Stephen Ri_enberg The Office of the President The Board of Trustees Department of Statistics Senators Aly Jiwani and Adil Ahamed Student Councils Senate Staffers Amna Pervez, Ramis Wadood, Hector Polanco, Zander Daniel, Saaketh

Pradhan and Ben Spener

Zan Gilani


17/17

Thank You

17

Questions

Akshay Shah, SEAS 14: [email protected] MaXhew Chou, CC 14: [email protected]

QoL-Plenary.pdf

Documents

Transcript of QoL-Plenary.pdf