National Student Satisfaction and Priorities 15-Year Trend Report: Four-Year Private Colleges and Universities

2011 Research Report
National Student Satisfaction and Priorities 15-Year Trend Report: Four-Year Private Colleges and Universities
Findings and observations from 1994-1995 to 2009-2010
For the past 15 years, higher education has faced signicant demographic, technological, political, and economic changes. While the demand for college education has increased steadily to record levels, campuses have had to meet the needs of this inux of students in the face of severe budgetary cuts brought on by economic downturns. The cost of attending a four-year institution has also nearly doubled during this time frame (The College Board, 2010), putting college students under tremendous economic pressure. Many of these changes have fueled a negative view of the long-term stability and strength of the American college system. In a recent poll, one out of every three college presidents in the United States expressed the opinion that higher education is headed in the wrong direction (Fischer, 2011). Many others, from parents to politicians, have shown concern for what they feel is a more expensive, less benecial educational experience. But what of the students themselves? Amid this sea of changes and challenges, have students become less satised with their college experiences? Have their priorities shifted dramatically along with these dramatic socioeconomic shifts? This report examines 15 years of data on student satisfaction and priorities at four-year private colleges and universities in the United States. It looks at overall student satisfaction, issues students deemed most important, and the most signicant changes between the 1994-1995 and 2009-2010 academic years. Similar reports on trend analyses for four-year public institutions, community colleges, and career schools are also available.
National Student Satisfaction and Priorities 15-Year Trend Report: Four-Year Private Colleges and Universities Findings and observations from 1994-1995 to 2009-2010 Introduction and Overview
The shifting demographics
Between 1994-1995, when Noel-Levitz rst introduced the Student Satisfaction InventoryTM (SSI), and the 2009-2010 school year, the demographics of students taking the SSI have changed dramatically. Student Satisfaction Inventory demographic changes at four-year private institutions, 1994-2010
Demographic Variables
African Americans Hispanic Caucasian/White Daytime enrollment Evening enrollment Part-time employment Not employed Residence hall Rent room/apartment Parents home In-state Out-of-state
2009-2010
12% 10% 62% 87% 12% 44% 38% 42% 24% 19% 70% 26%
1994-1995
6% 4% 78% 92% 7% 52% 33% 56% 16% 13% 62% 33%
Shift
6% 6% -16% -5% 5% -8% 5% -14% 8% 6% 8% -7%
In particular, several signicant changes stand out:

The participation of African Americans and Hispanics doubled in 15 years. These shifts are in keeping with overall changes in ethnic composition, with African Americans comprising nearly 14 percent of college students and Hispanics accounting for 12 percent of all college students (National Center for Education Statistics, 2010). The reduction of part-time employment and the increase of students who are not employed at all. This change comes despite signicant increases in college cost. It also seems to contradict a perception that students have to work more than previously in order to support their educations. This could mean that more parents are willing to go into debt to nance their childrens educations. Note that these shifts in employment were also seen among public four-year campuses as well, where there was a 5 percent decline in part-time employment (to 43 percent in 2009-2010) and a 6 percent increase (to 37 percent) of students who were not employed. Perhaps even more surprisingly, community colleges saw a 9 percent increase in students who were not employed, up to 35 percent in 2009-2010. A signicant shift from students at private institutions living in residence halls to private residences or the homes of their parents.
2 2011 Noel-Levitz, Inc. The National Student Satisfaction and Priorities 15-Year Trend Report: Four-Year Private Colleges and Universities
The study
This study focuses on student responses to the four-year version of the Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) administered at four-year private institutions. The results are specic to the original Form A, 73item version of the SSI. (A 45-item, Form B version was introduced in 2004.)
Separate reports are also available for fouryear public institutions, community colleges, and career and private schools.
The SSI debuted in 1994 and during the following 15 years, the four-year version Form A of the instrument has been administered at more than 740 four-year private institutions and completed by more than 1.2 million students. (See the appendix for the full list of four-year private schools which have administered the SSI at least once.) This study will share data across the 15 years, with a special comparison of the results from the 19941995 academic year as compared with the 2009-2010 academic year. Number of participating institutions and students
Academic Year
1994-1995 2009-2010
Institutions
97 230
Students
31,938 93,721
The survey instrument

The Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) measures the satisfaction and priorities of students on a wide range of issues related to college life and learning. The results allow campuses to identify areas of strength, where students report high satisfaction in areas of high priority, and campus challenges, where students indicate low satisfaction in areas of high priority. The instrument has high reliability and validity (see the appendix for more information), and more than 2,400 four-year and two-year, public and private campuses have administered it since its release in 1994. It has versions specic to four-year colleges and universities, community colleges, and two-year career and private schools to better capture the experiences of students at these types of institutions. The SSI is part of the Satisfaction-Priorities Survey Suite, which includes surveys for campus personnel, adult students, online learners, and parents of currently enrolled students. A 2009 study published by Noel-Levitz, Linking Student Satisfaction and Retention by Dr. Laurie Schreiner, documented the link between student satisfaction and the likelihood that students will be retained. This study found that while 75 percent of the variation is unknown, student satisfaction accounts for 17 percent of the variation in retention. Student satisfaction is a contributing factor to student success.
2011 Noel-Levitz, Inc. www.noellevitz.com 3
The data analysis

For the item-level analysis in this study, items were compared for four-year private institutions between the recent 2009-2010 academic year and the original 1994-1995 academic year. Two types of analyses were done. 1) The rst view is a ranking comparison which converts the average scores for each data set into a rank order of importance or satisfaction. The range of 73 items remains consistent across the ranks, but the shifts in position are interesting to note. Items that tie are reected with the same rank number, and the remaining items shift down. 2) The second view is with the shifts in the percentage of students indicating that they were satised or very satised with the same item (responses of 6 or 7). This type of analysis is not currently included in the individual campus SSI report. The standard analysis of average importance and satisfaction scores, which is how the SSI results are typically reported to campuses, is included in the appendix section of the report. The average score for satisfaction allows for a comparison of statistical signicance for satisfaction between the original year and the recent year.
Observations:
We have made ve observations on the trends over the past 15 years:
1. What is most important to students has stayed important. 2. Satisfaction levels have risen overall at four-year private institutions. 3. Financial aid and cost factors have increased in importance in enrollment decisions. 4. The importance ranking and satisfaction level shifts in nancial items. 5. The importance ranking and satisfaction level shifts in campus climate items.
Lets take a closer look at these observations.
Observation 1: What is most important to students has stayed important.

The items of highest importance to students have stayed consistent over the past 15 years. The majority of items appear in both the 2009-2010 and 1994-1995 lists of top 15 important items. Top 15 most important items to students in 2009-2010 with the corresponding rank in 1994-1995
Item
The content of the courses within my major is valuable. The instruction in my major eld is excellent. Nearly all of the faculty are knowledgeable in their eld. The quality of instruction I receive in most of my classes is excellent. I am able to register for classes I need with few conicts. My academic advisor is knowledgeable about requirements in my major. Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment. I am able to experience intellectual growth here. It is an enjoyable experience to be a student on this campus. There is a good variety of courses provided on this campus. The campus is safe and secure for all students. Major requirements are clear and reasonable. Adequate nancial aid is available for most students. My academic advisor is approachable. Faculty are fair and unbiased in their treatment of individual students.
Importance Rank 2009-2010

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (tie) 9 (tie) 9 (tie) 12 13 (tie) 13 (tie) 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 (tie) 6 (tie) 10 17 9 8 14 13 12 10
The following items have shifted up in importance by ve ranking spots or more (listed in order of 2009-2010 importance):
Item
It is an enjoyable experience to be a student on this campus. Faculty provide timely feedback about student progress in a course. Computer labs are adequate and accessible. Financial aid counselors are helpful. There are adequate services to help me decide upon a career. Admissions staff are knowledgeable. Freedom of expression is protected on campus. The personnel involved in registration are helpful. The assessment and course placement procedures are reasonable. Class change (drop/add) policies are reasonable. Academic support services adequately meet the needs of students. Admissions counselors accurately portray the campus. Admissions counselors respond to prospective students. Administrators are approachable to students. Graduate teaching assistants are competent as classroom instructors.

9 19 23 26 28 31 (tie) 31 (tie) 31 (tie) 34 39 41 42 50 52 56

17 25 29 32 33 38 37 36 40 44 50 47 56 62 65
Importance Rank 1994-1995 minus 2009-2010

8 6 6 6 5 7 6 5 6 5 9 5 6 10 9
The following items have shifted down in importance by at least ve ranking spots (listed in order of importance for 2009-2010).
Item
Faculty are fair and unbiased in their treatment of individual students. Faculty are usually available after class and during ofce hours. Faculty care about me as an individual. I seldom get the run-around when seeking information on this campus. Library resources and services are adequate. Living conditions in the residence halls are comfortable (adequate space, lighting, heat, air, etc.). Parking lots are well-lighted and secure. Channels for expressing student complaints are readily available. There is a strong commitment to racial harmony on this campus. There is an adequate selection of food available in the cafeteria. I feel a sense of pride about my campus. The staff in the health services area are competent. Library staff are helpful and approachable.
Library resources have shifted down in importance.

15 19 30 37 39 44 46 47 51 52 60 61 67

10 14 20 29 20 31 35 42 45 47 52 56 53
Importance Rank 1994-1995 minus 2009-2010

-5 -5 -10 -8 -19 -13 -11 -5 -6 -5 -8 -5 -14
Observations on these importance shifts:

Despite the many changes to the higher education environment and the socioeconomic characteristics of students, the top 15 items have stayed consistent for the past 15 years. The three largest shifts up in importance are: The expectation for the experience being enjoyable: It has become more important for students to enjoy their experience and to feel like they t in at the institution. Academic support services meeting student needs: This shift could possibly stem from more selfreported learning disabilities and student recognition of needing academic support. Administrators being approachable: Societal inuences on being able to communicate with individuals more readily with e-mail and texting may be extending to the expectation to reach college administrators more easily. The three largest shifts down in importance are: Library resources and library staff: This could be because schools have invested in making these better over the past 15 years, so the issue is not as critical; or students are able to access more information online, so the library resources on campus are not as critical. Living conditions in the residence hall are comfortable: More students in 2009-2010 are living off campus, so this may have an impact in this shift, or again more attention to the facilities issues in recent years have made this less of an issue. Faculty care about students as individuals: This may be inuenced by class sizes getting larger with budget cut backs or students feel that they are able to more easily communicate with faculty on an individual basis through e-mail, so the item has become less important.
Observation 2: Satisfaction levels have risen overall at four-year private institutions.

In general, students in the 2009-2010 group are more satised than the 1994-1995 group. Statistically signicant improvements in satisfaction were identied on all 73 standard items on the survey, with an average increase of 0.28. All items were signicant at the highest level of condence of 0.001. For the percentage shifts, 72 items had an average of 7 percent improvement in satisfaction, one item held steady in satisfaction percentages, and no items declined in satisfaction percentages. The average scores (from 1-7) for each category, for all items were as follows:
Academic Year
1994-1995 2009-2010
Average Satisfaction
4.95 5.23
Average Satisfaction Percentage

45% 52%
At four-year public institutions, students in the 2009-2010 data set are more satised than the students in 1994-1995. Statistically signicant improvements in satisfaction were identied on all 73 standard items on the survey, with an average increase of 0.45. All but one of the items were signicant at the highest level of condence of 0.001, with the remaining item at the 0.01 level. For the percentage shifts, 72 items had an average of 13 percent improvement in satisfaction, one item held steady in satisfaction percentages, and no items declined in satisfaction percentages. At community colleges, students in the 2009-2010 data set are more satised than the students in 1994-1995. Statistically signicant improvements in satisfaction were identied on 69 out of 70 standard items on the survey, with an average increase of 0.23. All but two of these items were signicant at the highest level of condence of 0.001. For the percentage shifts, 66 items had an average of 6 percent improvement in satisfaction, one item held steady in satisfaction percentages, and three items declined in satisfaction percentage with an average of one percent in decline.
Summary satisfaction scores:

One of the summary items, which appears at the end of the survey, asks students to indicate their overall level of satisfaction. The following graph reects the percentage of students indicating that they were satised (answer 6) or very satised (answer 7) to the summary item for each academic year between 1994-1995 and 2009-2010. Satisfaction %
65% 60% 55% 50% 45% 40% 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Satisfaction %
2009-2010
Satisfaction percentage 58%
1994-1995
53%
Shift
5%
Over 15 years, overall satisfaction has improved 5 percent, but as the above line graph indicates, this percentage peaked in 1997-1998 with a decline over the next three years before a more steady increase over the next several years. (Note that in the 1997-1998 academic year, a large portion of the four-year private institutions that administered the Student Satisfaction Inventory were members of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, which historically have had high levels of overall satisfaction. This may have contributed to the spike in overall satisfaction at that time.) This bar graph compares the percent of students indicating that they are satised or very satised across the three types of institutions for 1994-1995 and 2009-2010: Comparing Satisfaction 60%
50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 4-Year Private Institutions 4-Year Public Institutions Community Colleges
1994-1995 2009-2010
58% 53% 47%
57%
58%
60%
It is important to note how many times the participating four-year private institutions have administered the SSI. Number of times campuses have administered the SSI:
Number of Administrations
Once Twice 3 to 5 6 to 9 10 or more Total
All Institutions
174 108 215 160 84 741
Percentage of All Institutions

23.5% 14.6% 29.0% 21.6% 11.3% 100.0%
Institutions Administering in 2009-2010

10 19 54 86 61 230
Percentage of 2009-2010 Institutions

4.3% 8.3% 23.5% 37.4% 26.5% 100.0%
The 1994-1995 academic year was the rst year that the SSI was available for campuses to administer, so all of these institutions had rst-time administrations. The overall percentage of campuses which have administered the SSI only once in 15 years is 23.5 percent, but in the 2009-2010 data set, only 4.3 percent of campuses were rst-time administrations. Conversely, the percentage of institutions in 2009-2010 which had administered 10 or more times over 15 years was 26.5 percent. With 87 percent of campuses in 2009-2010 having administered the SSI at least three times, overall satisfaction may have increased, because campuses that assess student satisfaction on a regular cycle tend to be more active in working to improve satisfaction levels. We can take a closer look at how satisfaction is improving for the items identied earlier as areas of high importance/high expectation to students. These are listed in descending order of importance to students in 2009-2010: Top items of importance
Item
The content of courses within my major is valuable. Instruction in my major eld is excellent. Nearly all faculty are knowledgeable in their elds. The quality of instruction in most classes is excellent. I am able to register for classes with few conicts. My academic advisor knows requirements in my major. Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment. I am able to experience intellectual growth here. It is an enjoyable experience to be student on campus. There is a good variety of courses provided on campus. The campus is safe and secure for all students. Major requirements are clear and reasonable. Adequate nancial aid is available. My academic advisor is approachable. Faculty are fair and unbiased in their treatment of students.
Satisfaction Percentage 2009-2010

64.6% 63.1% 70.9% 60.0% 50.7% 66.5% 43.8% 64.7% 59.1% 56.6% 66.7% 62.2% 42.0% 66.7% 54.6%

60.6% 59.2% 69.1% 58.0% 47.7% 62.4% 37.4% 59.6% 51.3% 47.8% 57.6% 56.8% 37.9% 63.3% 46.6%
Satisfaction Percentage Shift

4.0% 3.9% 1.8% 2.0% 3.0% 4.1% 6.4% 5.1% 7.8% 8.8% 9.1% 5.4% 4.1% 3.4% 8.0%
Items with greatest satisfaction shifts

Item
Library resources and services are adequate. There is a strong commitment to racial harmony. Freedom of expression is protected on campus. Computer labs are adequate and accessible. Graduate teaching assistants are competent. Security staff respond quickly in emergencies. Academic support services meet the needs of students. Student disciplinary procedures are fair. Administrators are approachable to students. Parking lots are well-lighted and secure. Tutoring services are readily available.

58.0% 59.2% 56.4% 58.0% 47.4% 47.8% 51.5% 51.7% 50.3% 47.4% 57.4%

39.0% 43.6% 41.9% 43.7% 33.6% 34.5% 38.9% 39.3% 38.7% 36.2% 46.2%
Satisfaction Percentage Shift

19.0% 15.6% 14.5% 14.3% 13.8% 13.3% 12.6% 12.4% 11.6% 11.2% 11.2%
Observations on these satisfaction shifts:

Regular administrations of satisfaction assessments and efforts to make improvements on campus as a result of the data collected, can have a positive impact on satisfaction levels overall. There have been consistent satisfaction improvements in all areas of the campus experience. There is still room for additional improvement with high importance items with 50 percent or less of students indicating that they are satised or very satised with items, such as: Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment. Students are able to register for classes with few conicts. Adequate nancial aid is available for most students. These are areas that are valued by students where campuses can be doing more to communicate around the issues and can further improve the service delivery of these items.
Interesting observations on the satisfaction scores:

Highest satisfaction percentage: 70.9 percent Median percentage: 51.7 percent Lowest satisfaction percentage: 28.0 percent Items with top three satisfaction percentages
Faculty are knowledgeable in their eld. The campus is well-maintained. The campus is safe and secure for all students. 70.9% 68.3% 66.7%
Items with bottom three satisfaction percentages

Intercollegiate athletics contribute to spirit. There is an adequate selection of food in the cafeteria. The amount of student parking space is adequate. 32.0% 30.5% 28.0%
Observation 3: Financial aid and cost factors have increased in importance in enrollment decisions.
Financial aid and cost factors have increased in importance in students decisions to enroll at four-year private institutions.
The SSI assesses factors to enrollthe relative inuence of different reasons why students chose to attend a college. Compared to students in 1994-1995, the students in 2009-2010 indicated higher importance for nancial aid and cost as factors in their decision to enroll at four-year private colleges and universities: Shifts in factors to enroll
Factors to enroll
Financial aid Academic reputation Cost Personalized attention prior to enrollment Geographic setting Campus appearance Size of institution Recommendations from family/friends Opportunity to play sports Sorted in order of importance for 2009-2010
Importance Percentage 2009-2010

81.0% 78.8% 74.3% 64.6% 57.4% 57.4% 56.4% 42.7% 26.7%
Importance Percentage 1994-1995

75.9% 78.9% 67.5% 60.5% 53.3% 51.8% 65.1% 39.9% 24.6%
Importance Percentage Shift

5.1% -0.1% 6.8% 4.1% 4.1% 5.6% -8.7% 2.8% 2.1%
Observations on the enrollment factors:

Financial aid is now the driving factor in decisions for students to enroll, ahead of academic reputation in 1994-1995. The cost factor has also increased in importance. Campus appearance has increased in importance as a factor, perhaps because of the investment in campus infrastructures over the past 15 years. Students at four-year private institutions place less importance on the size of the institution in their considerations for enrolling. The increase in the importance of nancial aid as a factor in the decision to enroll was even more apparent for four-year public institutions (15.1 percent) and for community colleges (8.7 percent) over the same 15-year period.
Observation 4: The importance ranking and satisfaction level shifts in nancial items.
Students are more satised with their tuition paid being a worthwhile investment in 20092010.
A hot topic area for four-year private institutions relates to items about nancial aid services and how students perceive the value of the tuition they pay. While these items have stayed important to students over the 15 years, there have been some adjustments in satisfaction scores for nancially related items at fouryear private institutions.
Financial items
Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment. Adequate nancial aid is available. Financial aid counselors are helpful. Financial aid awards are announced in time. Billing policies are reasonable.

7 13 26 27 37

6 13 32 27 41
Importance Shift
-1 0 6 0 4
Percentage Percentage Percentage Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction 2009-2010 1994-1995 Shift

43.8% 42.0% 48.6% 44.1% 36.3% 37.4% 37.9% 40.7% 39.2% 32.0% 6.4% 4.1% 7.9% 4.9% 4.3%
Observations on the financial items:

While there has been a lot of discussion in the media regarding the increasing tuition required for higher education, especially for four-year private institutions, satisfaction has increased with this item over the last 15 years. Students are also more satised with their interaction with nancial aid services. This may be inuenced by technology improvements that make it easier to communicate with nancial aid counselors, submit paperwork, and track nancial aid awards. It is interesting to note that while satisfaction has improved on all of these items, student satisfaction levels are still less than 50 percent across the board. Institutions have opportunities to continue to improve communication around the worthwhileness of the tuition paid issue and to be sensitive to the critical nature of the nancial aid availability and service as a pathway to the educational opportunities. If students are not convinced of the value of the education or are hassled with the nancial aid process, it may make the students more vulnerable for not returning to the institution. The shifts in importance and satisfaction in this nancial area are more evident for four-year public institutions and community colleges. For example, four-year public students indicate a 16.7 percent increase in satisfaction with adequate nancial aid being available, and satisfaction with convenient ways of paying school bills increased 9.3 percent for community colleges.
Observation 5: The importance ranking and satisfaction level shifts in campus climate items.
As noted earlier, Noel-Levitz has documented the link between student satisfaction and retention, and in the 2009 study Linking Student Satisfaction and Retention, campus climate was identied as a key predictor of student satisfaction for four-year institutions. The following shifts in importance rankings and satisfaction scores have been observed at four-year private institutions over the past 15 years.
Campus climate items
Enjoyable experience to be student on campus. Campus is safe and secure for all students. Institution shows concern for students as individuals. Campus staff are caring and helpful. Students are made to feel welcome on campus. Freedom of expression is protected on campus. Seldom get run-around on campus. Channels for expressing student complaints are available. Strong commitment to racial harmony. Administrators are approachable to students.

9 9 17 18 19 31 37

17 8 17 19 20 37 29
Importance Shift
8 -1 0 1 1 6 -8
Percentage Percentage Percentage Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction 2009-2010 1994-1995 Shift

59.1% 66.7% 55.9% 61.2% 61.9% 56.4% 42.3% 51.3% 57.6% 50.5% 56.9% 54.6% 41.9% 37.4% 7.8% 9.1% 5.4% 4.3% 7.3% 14.5% 4.9%
47
42
-5
39.2%
29.7%
9.5%
51 52
45 62
-6 10
59.2% 50.3%
43.6% 38.7%
15.6% 11.6%
Observations on the campus climate items:

As indicated earlier, some of these items are among those with the biggest increases in satisfaction overall. Four-year private institutions are making signicant improvements in the areas of racial harmony, freedom of expression, and administrators being approachable to students. Many of the multicultural efforts that have been instituted over the last few years may be having an impact here. Several of these items are also among the biggest shifts in importance, both up and down. Technology may be having some inuence on decreasing the relative importance of some items, such as campus run-around or channels for expressing student complaints. It may also be that campuses have addressed many of these issues to the satisfaction of students, so they are less important now. Four-year private institutions have continued opportunities to concentrate on campus climate issues to further improve the student experience. Customer service training can have a positive impact on staff interaction with students, leading to increases in satisfaction for several of the campus climate items. Colleges and universities can show their commitment to the student body as a whole through each individual interaction that occurs on campus.
Conclusions: What Do the Data Tell Us?

Perhaps the most surprising conclusion of these results is that the satisfaction and priorities of students have not changed dramatically in 15 years, despite many signicant changes to the higher education environment. However, there are a number of signicant points that private four-year colleges and universities should keep in mind: Instructional issues remain the top focus of students. Throughout the period of this study, the academic experience has remained the paramount concern and priority of students. Academic quality is therefore vital to student satisfaction and the overall success of an institution; if students feel they are receiving a quality education, they are more likely to feel positive about their experiences. Consequently, campuses need to be focused on academic quality and the relationships that are built between students and faculty, inside and outside of the classroom. Satisfaction regarding the value of tuition can still improve despite increasing over the past 15 years. Although there has been much discussion about the value of higher education and the value of paying tuition, more students now report satisfaction with the item tuition paid is a worthwhile investment than they did 15 years ago. However, this item still has room for more improvement with just 43.8 percent of students indicating that they are satised or very satised. It is important for campuses to document outcomes of graduates and to show current students that their investment in a private education will have value when they graduate. Performance gaps have shrunk in many areas. Campuses have a performance gap when they have low satisfaction on items that are a high priority. However, importance levels have stayed consistent over the last 15 years, while satisfaction levels have improved in core areas such as instruction, advising, campus climate, recruitment/nancial aid, registration effectiveness, as well as safety and security. These decreased gaps reect improved experiences for students as campuses actively work to make improvements. Students appear to feel safer on campus. With high prole breaches of security on a few campuses, another hot topic has been general safety on campus. According to students satisfaction scores, though, students today feel safer than they did in the mid-1990s. It is possible that, after the severe breaches of security at campuses earlier in the 2000s, institutions are being more deliberate and visible about campus security, thereby reassuring students that campuses are safer. Students want an enjoyable campus experience. Across four-year public and private campuses, as well as two-year public institutions, students have expressed a desire for college to be enjoyable. This relates to how well they feel that they t on campus and how they feel about being a student; they want their campuses to provide a quality college experience, not just a quality education. Technology is likely driving some satisfaction improvements. Advances in information and communication technologies in the past 15 years have likely made changes in student satisfaction and priorities. Online access to information may be making issues such as library resources and campus run-around less important, as students can access so much information and perform many administrative tasks online. Likewise, faculty availability may be less of a priority due to e-mail access with faculty. Four-year private institutions have seen increases in racial harmony and freedom of expression. Satisfaction results signify that students today see their campuses as more welcoming environments for all types of students than 15 years ago.
More campuses are taking a systematic approach to assessing student satisfaction. More than 63 percent of the participating institutions in 2009-2010 had administered the Student Satisfaction Inventory six or more times, which is every two or three years, and more than 87 percent had administered the survey more than three times during the 15-year span. In addition, the number of four-year private campuses administering the survey in one academic year has grown from 97 to 230. Systematic assessment has likely played a signicant role in increasing student satisfaction. Committing to measure student satisfaction signals a commitment to improve student satisfaction. Satisfaction and priorities data provide these campuses with a way to prioritize resources and resolve the most pressing challenges for students. In addition, the emphasis of accrediting bodies on quality and outcomes may also be playing a role here as four-year private institutions commit to improving the quality of the student experience and to being able to document those activities and improvements.
Taking action: How can campuses improve student satisfaction?

The results of campuses in this study illustrate several strategies that can help keep students satised, use resources more strategically, and take a signicant step toward strengthening student success and completion rates. Monitor trends on your campus. This can be accomplished by routine, regular satisfaction assessment. By essentially creating your own trend study, you can assess challenges and take the appropriate steps to address the most pressing concerns of students. Guide decisions with data. Satisfaction data can be used for strategic planning, satisfying accreditation requirements, identifying and removing roadblocks to student retention, and identifying campus strengths that can be communicated to current and prospective students. Look back to move forward. Examining past challenges can prepare campuses for future issues. Use past assessments to identify potential new challenges as well as ways to meet those challenges. Benchmark your campus against similar institutions. By surveying students, you not only gain insight into their opinions and priorities, but you also take a valuable step toward staying competitive with other campuses. You can gauge your strengths and challenges in keeping current students satised and nding benets to attract new students. That benchmarking is only possible through regular assessment.
Sources: The College Board. (2010). Higher education landscape: Current demographic trends in U.S. higher education. New York: The College Board. Retrieved from http://www.studentclearinghouse.info/signature/ Fischer, K. (2011, May 15). Crisis of condence threatens colleges. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Higher-Education-in-America-a/127530/ National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Are there any new back to school statistics for 2010? Fast Facts. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372 Schreiner, L. (2009). Linking student satisfaction and retention. Coralville, IA: Noel-Levitz. Retrieved from https://www.noellevitz.com/papers-research-higher-education/2009/student-satisfaction-retention
Appendix I: SSI Reliability and Validity

The Student Satisfaction Inventory is a very reliable instrument. Both the twoyear and four-year versions of the SSI show exceptionally high internal reliability. Cronbachs coefcient alpha is 0.97 for the set of importance scores and is 0.98 for the set of satisfaction scores. It also demonstrates good score reliability over time; the three-week, test-retest reliability coefcient is 0.85 for importance scores and 0.84 for satisfaction scores. There is also evidence to support the validity of the SSI. Convergent validity was assessed by correlating satisfaction scores from the SSI with satisfaction scores from the College Student Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSSQ), another statistically reliable satisfaction instrument. The Pearson correlation between these two instruments (r = 0.71; p<0.00001) is high enough to indicate that the SSIs satisfaction scores measure the same satisfaction construct as the CSSQs scores, and yet the correlation is low enough to indicate that there are distinct differences between the two instruments.
Appendix II: Four-Year Private Participation

The following table documents the number of institutions and student records for each of the 15 academic years included in this study. The date ranges are September 1 of the rst year through August 31 of the second year. These counts are specic to four-year private institutions.
Academic Year
1994-1995 1995-1996 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
Institutions
97 105 138 206 221 235 179 225 198 250 200 239 212 239 189 230
Students
31,938 36,819 48,447 85,175 88,741 84,423 79,715 95,611 86,614 105,096 87,334 99,665 86,253 94,849 82,937 93,721
Appendix III: Four-Year Private List of Schools

The following campuses have administered the SSI at least once in the past 15 years. These schools are specic to the original Form A version. This list includes 741 institutions.
Abilene Christian University, TX Adrian College, MI Alaska Pacic University, AK Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, NY Albany Law School of Union University, NY Albany Medical College, NY Albertus Magnus College, CT Albion College, MI Alderson Broaddus College, WV Alfred Adler Institute of Minnesota, MN Allegheny College, PA Allegheny Wesleyan College, OH Alverno College, WI Ambrose University College, AB American Academy of Art, IL American Christian College and Seminary, OK American Indian College of the Assemblies of God, AZ American International College, MA Anderson College, SC Anderson University, IN Andrews University, MI Antioch College, OH Aquinas College, MI Arcadia University, PA Asbury College, KY Ashford University, IA Ashland University, OH Assumption College, MA Augsburg College, MN Aurora University, IL Austin College, TX Averett University, VA Azusa Pacic University, CA Baker College of Allen Park, MI Baker College of Auburn Hills, MI Baker College of Cadillac, MI Baker College of Cass City, MI Baker College of Clinton Township, MI Baker College of Flint, MI Baker College of Jackson, MI Baker College of Muskegon, MI Baker College of Owosso, MI Baker College of Port Huron, MI Baker University, KS Baldwin-Wallace College, OH Baptist Bible College, MO Baptist College of Health Sciences, TN Barat College, IL Barber-Scotia College, NC Barton College, NC Baylor University, TX Becker College - Worcester, MA Belhaven College, MS Benedictine College, KS Benedictine University, IL Bennett College for Women, NC Bennington College, VT Bentley University, MA Berea College, KY Berklee College of Music, MA Berry College, GA Bethany College, KS Bethany College, WV Bethany University, CA Bethel College, KS Bethel College, IN Bethel University, MN Bethune Cookman University, FL Biola University, CA Blessing-Rieman College of Nursing, IL Blueeld College, VA Bluffton College, OH Booth University College, MB Brandeis University, MA Brenau University, GA Brevard College, NC Brewton-Parker College, GA Briar Cliff University, IA Bridgewater College, VA Briercrest College and Seminary, SK Brigham Young University Hawaii Campus, HI Brooks Institute, CA Bryan College, TN Bryan LGH College of Health Sciences, NE Bryant University, RI Buena Vista University, IA Caldwell College, NJ California Baptist University, CA California College of Arts and Crafts, CA California Institute of Technology, CA California Lutheran University, CA Calvary Bible College and Theological Seminary, MO Calvin College, MI Campbell University, NC Canadian Southern Baptist Seminary, AB Canisius College, NY Capital University, OH Capitol College, MD Cardinal Stritch University, WI Carlow University, PA Carolina Bible College, NC Carroll College, MT Carroll College, WI Carson-Newman College, TN Cascade College, OR Catawba College, NC Cazenovia College, NY Cedar Crest College, PA Cedarville University, OH Centenary College, NJ Centenary College of Louisiana, LA Central Bible College, MO Central Christian College of the Bible, MO Central College, IA Central Methodist College, MO Chaminade University of Honolulu, HI Champlain College, VT Chancellor University, OH Chapman University, CA Charleston Southern University, SC Chatham College, PA Chestnut Hill College, PA Chicago School of Professional Psychology, IL Chowan College, NC Cincinnati Christian University, OH Clain University, SC Clark Atlanta University, GA Clarkson College, NE Clarkson University, NY Clearwater Christian College, FL Cleveland Institute of Art, OH Coe College, IA Coker College, SC Colby-Sawyer College, NH College for Creative Studies, MI College of Mount Saint Vincent, NY College of Mount St. Joseph, OH College of Notre Dame of Maryland, MD College of Saint Rose, NY College of Santa Fe, NM College of the Southwest, NM Colorado Christian University, CO Columbia Bible College, BC Columbia College, SC Columbia College Chicago, IL Columbia International University, SC Columbus College of Art and Design, OH Concordia College, NY Concordia University, IL Concordia University, MI Concordia University, MN Concordia University, NE Concordia University, TX Concordia University, WI Connecticut College, CT Corban University, OR Cornell College, IA Cornerstone University, MI Cornish College of the Arts, WA Cottey College, MO Covenant College, GA Cox College, MO Crichton College, TN Crossroads Bible College, IN Crossroads College, MN Crown College, MN Cumberland University, TN Curry College, MA Dakota Wesleyan University, SD Dallas Baptist University, TX Dallas Theological Seminary, TX Dana College, NE Davis & Elkins College, WV Davis College, NY De Paul University, IL Delaware Valley College, PA Des Moines University - Osteopathic Medical Center, IA 2011 Noel-Levitz, Inc. www.noellevitz.com 17
Detroit College of Business, MI DeVry College of New York, NY DeVry DVUC - Naperville, IL DeVry Institute of Technology Calgary, AB DeVry University - Addison, IL DeVry University - Advantage Academy, IL DeVry University - Alpharetta, GA DeVry University - Chicago, IL DeVry University - Chicago, IL DeVry University - Colorado Springs, CO DeVry University - Columbus, OH DeVry University - Crystal City, VA DeVry University - Decatur, GA DeVry University - Federal Way, WA DeVry University - Fort Washington, PA DeVry University - Fremont, CA DeVry University - Fresno, CA DeVry University - Houston, TX DeVry University - Irving, TX DeVry University - Kansas City, MO DeVry University - Long Beach, CA DeVry University - Miramar, FL DeVry University - North Brunswick, NJ DeVry University - Orlando, FL DeVry University - Phoenix, AZ DeVry University - Pomona, CA DeVry University - Sacramento, CA DeVry University - Scarborough, ON DeVry University - Sherman Oaks, CA DeVry University - Tinley Park, IL DeVry University - Toronto, ON DeVry University - West Hills, CA DeVry University - Westminster, CO Dickinson College, PA Dillard University, LA Divine Word College, IA Doane College, NE Dominican College of Blauvelt, NY Dominican University of California, CA Dordt College, IA Drake University, IA Drexel University, PA Drury College, MO DYouville College, NY East Texas Baptist University, TX Eastern Mennonite University, VA Eastern Nazarene College, MA Eastern University, PA East-West University, IL Edgewood College, WI Edward Waters College, FL Elizabethtown College, PA Elmira College, NY Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, FL Emerson College, MA Emmanuel College, MA Emmanuel College, GA Emmaus Bible College, IA Emory & Henry College, VA Erskine College, SC Eureka College, IL Evangel University, MO Everglades University, FL
Faith Baptist Bible College and Seminary, IA Faulkner University, AL Ferrum College, VA Florida College, FL Florida Hospital College of Health Sciences, FL Florida Memorial College, FL Florida Southern College, FL Franciscan University of Steubenville, OH Franklin College of Indiana, IN Franklin College, Switzerland Franklin Pierce University, NH Freed-Hardeman University, TN Fresno Pacic University, CA Friends University, KS Furman University, SC Geneva College, PA George Fox University, OR Georgetown College, KY Georgian Court College, NJ Goddard College, VT Gordon College, MA Goshen College, IN Goucher College, MD Grace Bible College, MI Grace College and Seminary, IN Grace University, NE Graceland University, IA Grand Canyon University, AZ Grand View University, IA Green Mountain College, VT Greenville College, IL Guilford College, NC Gwynedd-Mercy College, PA Haigazian University, Lebanon Hamline University, MN Hampden-Sydney College, VA Hannibal-La Grange College, MO Hanover College, IN Hardin-Simmons University, TX Harrington College of Design, IL Hartwick College, NY Hastings College, NE Hawaii Pacic University, HI Heidelberg College, OH Hendrix College, AR Heritage Bible College, NC Heritage Christian University, AL Heritage College and Seminary, ON Hesser College, NH Hesston College, KS Hillsdale College, MI Hiram College, OH Hobe Sound Bible College, FL Holy Family College, PA Holy Names College, CA Hood College, MD Hope International University, CA Houghton College, NY Houston Baptist University, TX Howard Payne University, TX Howard University, DC Huntington University, IN Illinois College, IL Illinois College of Optometry, IL Illinois Institute of Technology, IL
Illinois Wesleyan University, IL Immaculata College, PA Indiana Institute of Technology, IN Indiana Wesleyan University, IN Institute of Computer Technology College, CA Ithaca College, NY Jacksonville University, FL Jamestown College, ND John Brown University, AR John Carroll University, OH Johnson & Wales University, FL Johnson & Wales University, RI Johnson & Wales University, VA Johnson C. Smith University, NC Judson College, AL Judson University, IL Juniata College, PA Kalamazoo College, MI Kansas City Art Institute, MO Kansas Wesleyan University, KS Kentucky Christian College, KY Kettering College of Medical Arts, OH Kettering University, MI Keuka College, NY Keystone College, PA King College, TN Kuyper College, MI La Roche College, PA Laboratory Institute of Merchandising, NY LaGrange College, GA Lake Erie College, OH Lakeview College of Nursing, IL Lancaster Bible College, PA Lawrence Technological University, MI Lee University, TN Lees-McRae College, NC Lenoir-Rhyne University, NC Les Roches Marbella, Spain LeTourneau University, TX Lewis University, IL Lincoln Christian University, IL Lincoln College - Normal, IL Lincoln Memorial University, TN Lindsey Wilson College, KY Lineld College, OR Lipscomb University, TN Livingstone College, NC Long Island University Brooklyn Campus, NY Long Island University Southampton Campus, NY Loras College, IA Lourdes College, OH Loyola University Chicago, IL Loyola University New Orleans, LA Luther Rice Seminary, GA Lynchburg College, VA Lynn University, FL Lyon College, AR Madonna University, MI Maharishi University of Management, IA Malone University, OH Manchester College, IN Manhattan Christian College, KS Manhattanville College, NY Maranatha Baptist Bible College, WI
Marian College, IN Marian University, WI Marietta College, OH Marquette University, WI Martin Luther College, MN Martin Methodist College, TN Mary Baldwin College, VA Marygrove College, MI Maryland Institute College of Art, MD Marylhurst University, OR Marymount College, CA Marymount College, NY Marymount Manhattan College, NY Marymount University, VA Maryville College, TN Maryville University of Saint Louis, MO Marywood University, PA Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, MA McMurry University, TX McPherson College, KS Memphis College of Art, TN Menlo College, CA Mercer University, GA Mercy College, NY Meredith College, NC Merrimack College, MA Messiah College, PA Methodist University, NC Miami International University of Art & Design, FL Mid-America Christian University, OK MidAmerica Nazarene University, KS Midland Lutheran College, NE Midwest University, MO Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, MO Milligan College, TN Millikin University, IL Millsaps College, MS Milwaukee Institute of Art & Design, WI Milwaukee School of Engineering, WI Mississippi College, MS Mississippi University for Women, MS Missouri Baptist University, MO Molloy College, NY Montreat College, NC Moravian College, PA Morris College, SC Mount Carmel College of Nursing, OH Mount Ida College, MA Mount Marty College, SD Mount Mercy University, IA Mount Saint Mary College, NY Mount St. Marys University, MD Mount Vernon Nazarene University, OH Mountain State University, WV Muhlenberg College, PA Multnomah University, OR Muskingum College, OH Nazarene University College, AB Nazareth College of Rochester, NY Nebraska Christian College, NE Nebraska Methodist College, NE Nebraska Wesleyan University, NE Neumann University, PA New England College, NH New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary-Georgia Campus, GA
New York Institute of Technology, NY Newman University, KS Niagara University, NY Nichols College, MA North Carolina Wesleyan College, NC North Central University, MN North Greenville University, SC North Park University, IL Northeastern University, MA Northern Caribbean University, Jamaica Northland College, WI Northwest Christian University, OR Northwest Nazarene University, ID Northwest University, WA Northwestern College, IA Northwestern College, MN Northwestern College, WI Norwich University, VT Notre Dame College, NH Nova University, FL Nyack College, NY Oakwood University, AL Oglethorpe University, GA Ohio Christian University, OH Ohio Dominican University, OH Ohio Valley College, WV Ohio Wesleyan University, OH Oklahoma Baptist University, OK Oklahoma Christian University, OK Oklahoma Wesleyan University, OK Olivet Nazarene University, IL Oral Roberts University, OK Otis College of Art and Design, CA Ottawa University, KS Our Lady of the Lake College, LA Our Lady of the Lake University, TX Ozark Christian College, MO Pace University, NY Pacic Lutheran University, WA Pacic Northwest College of Art, OR Pacic Union College, CA Pacic University, OR Paine College, GA Palm Beach Atlantic University, FL Palmer College of Chiropractic, FL Palmer College of Chiropractic, IA Palmer College of Chiropractic West, CA Patten University, CA Paul Smiths College, NY Peace College, NC Pfeiffer University, NC Philadelphia University, PA Phillips University, OK Pillsbury Baptist Bible College, MN Pitzer College, CA Point Loma Nazarene College, CA Point Park University, PA Post University, CT Prairie Bible Institute, AB Pratt Institute, NY Presbyterian College, SC Principia College, IL Providence Christian College, CA Providence College, RI Queens University of Charlotte, NC Quincy University, IL Quinnipiac University, CT
Randolph-Macon College, VA Redeemer College, CA Regis College, MA Regis University, CO Reinhardt College, GA Rhodes College, TN Rider University, NJ Ripon College, WI Rivier College, NH Roanoke Bible College, NC Robert Morris University, PA Roberts Wesleyan College, NY Rochester College, MI Rochester Institute of Technology, NY Rockhurst University, MO Rocky Mountain College, MT Rocky Mountain College of Art & Design, CO Roger Williams University, RI Rollins College - Hamilton Holt School, FL Roosevelt University, IL Rosemont College, PA Saint Francis Medical Center College of Nursing, IL Saint Joseph College, CT Saint Josephs College, IN Saint Josephs College, ME Saint Louis College of Pharmacy, MO Saint Martins University, WA Saint Mary-of-the-Woods College, IN Saint Marys College, MI Saint Meinrad College, IN Saint Olaf College, MN Saint Peters College, NJ Saint Vincent College, PA Salve Regina University, RI Samuel Merritt College, CA San Diego Christian College, CA Savannah College of Art and Design, GA School of the Art Institute of Chicago, IL School of Visual Arts, NY Schreiner University, TX Seattle Pacic University, WA Seton Hall University, NJ Seton Hill University, PA Shaw University, NC Sheldon Jackson College, AK Sherman College of Straight Chiropractic, SC Shorter College, GA Siena College, NY Siena Heights University, MI Silver Lake College, WI Simmons College, MA Simpson College, IA Simpson University, CA South Florida Bible College and Theological Seminary, FL Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, NC Southeastern Bible College, AL Southeastern University, FL Southern Adventist University, TN Southern Catholic College, GA Southern Nazarene University, OK Southern New Hampshire University, NH Southern Virginia University, VA Southern Wesleyan University, SC 2011 Noel-Levitz, Inc. www.noellevitz.com 19
Southwest Baptist University, MO Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine, AZ Southwestern Adventist University, TX Southwestern Assemblies of God University, TX Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, TX Southwestern Christian University, OK Southwestern College, KS Southwestern University, TX Spalding University, KY Spartan College of Aeronautics and Technology, OK Spelman College, GA Spring Arbor University, MI Spring Hill College, AL Springeld College, MA St. Ambrose University, IA St. Augustines College, NC St. Catharine College, KY St. Edwards University, TX St. John Fisher College, NY St. Johns University, NY St. Marys University, TX St. Thomas Aquinas College, NY St. Thomas University, FL Steinbach Bible College, MB Sterling College, KS Stevenson University, MD Stonehill College, MA Sullivan University, KY Syracuse University Main Campus, NY Tabor College, KS Taylor University, IN Taylor University, Fort Wayne, IN Tennessee Temple University, TN Tennessee Wesleyan College, TN Texas Chiropractic College, TX Texas Christian University, TX Texas Lutheran University, TX Texas Wesleyan University, TX The American College of Greece, GR The American University of Rome, Italy The Art Institute of Atlanta, GA The Art Institute of Atlanta Decatur, GA The Art Institute of Austin, TX The Art Institute of Boston at Lesley University, MA The Art Institute of California Hollywood, CA The Art Institute of California Inland Empire, CA The Art Institute of California Los Angeles, CA The Art Institute of California Orange County, CA The Art Institute of California Sacramento, CA The Art Institute of California San Francisco, CA The Art Institute of California San Diego, CA The Art Institute of California Sunnyvale, CA The Art Institute of Charleston, SC The Art Institute of Charlotte, NC
The Art Institute of Colorado, CO The Art Institute of Dallas, TX The Art Institute of Fort Lauderdale, FL The Art Institute of Houston, TX The Art Institute of Houston - North, TX The Art Institute of Indianapolis, IN The Art Institute of Jacksonville, FL The Art Institute of Las Vegas, NV The Art Institute of Michigan, MI The Art Institute of New York City, NY The Art Institute of Ohio Cincinnati, OH The Art Institute of Philadelphia, PA The Art Institute of Phoenix, AZ The Art Institute of Pittsburgh, PA The Art Institute of Portland, OR The Art Institute of Raleigh Durham, NC The Art Institute of Salt Lake City, UT The Art Institute of Seattle, WA The Art Institute of Tampa, FL The Art Institute of Tennessee Nashville, TN The Art Institute of Tucson, AZ The Art Institute of Washington, VA The Art Institute of York Pennsylvania, PA The Art Institutes International Minnesota, MN The Art Institutes International Kansas City, KS The College of Saint Scholastica, MN The Deance College, OH The Illinois Institute of Art - Chicago, IL The Illinois Institute of Art Schaumburg, IL The Kings University College, AB The Masters College and Seminary, CA The New England Institute of Art, MA The University of Findlay, OH The University of Scranton, PA Thiel College, PA Thomas More College, KY Tifn University, OH Touro College, NY Transylvania University, KY Trevecca Nazarene University, TN Trinity Baptist College, FL Trinity Christian College, IL Trinity College, VT Trinity International University, IL Trinity Lutheran College, WA Trinity Western University, BC Tusculum College, TN Tuskegee University, AL Tyndale University College & Seminary, ON Union College, NE Union College, KY Union University, TN Universidad Iberoamericana, Mexico Universidad Jose Cecilio del Valle, NY University of Charleston, WV University of Denver, CO University of Detroit Mercy, MI University of Evansville, IN University of Hartford, CT
University of LaVerne, CA University of Mary, ND University of Mary Hardin-Baylor, TX University of New England, ME University of New Haven, CT University of Portland, OR University of Saint Francis, IN University of Saint Thomas, MN University of San Francisco, CA University of Sioux Falls, SD University of Southern California, CA University of St Francis, IL University of Tampa, FL University of the Incarnate Word, TX University of the Pacic, CA University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, PA Upper Iowa University, IA Urbana University, OH Ursuline College, OH Utica College, NY Valley Forge Christian College, PA Vanderbilt University, TN Vanguard University of Southern California, CA Virginia Wesleyan College, VA Viterbo University, WI Walla Walla University, WA Walsh University, OH Warner Pacic College, OR Warner University, FL Warren Wilson College, NC Washington Adventist University, MD Washington Baptist University, VA Washington Bible College/Capital Bible Seminary, MD Washington College, MD Waynesburg University, PA Wentworth Institute of Technology, MA Wesley College, DE Wesleyan College, GA West Suburban College of Nursing, IL West Virginia Wesleyan College, WV Western Maryland College, MD Western New England College, MA Westminster College, MO Westminster College of Salt Lake City, UT Westmont College, CA Wheaton College, IL Wheaton College, MA Wheeling Jesuit University, WV Whittier College, CA Whitworth University, WA Widener University, PA Wilkes University, PA William Jessup University, CA William Jewell College, MO William Penn University, IA Williams Baptist College, AR Wilmington College, DE Wilson College, PA Wisconsin Lutheran College, WI Wittenberg University, OH Woodbury University, CA Worcester Polytechnic Institute, MA Xavier University, OH Yeshiva University, NY
Appendix IV: Complete Four-Year Private Demographic Comparison

Demographic Variables
Female Male 24 and younger 25 and older African American Caucasian/White Hispanic Asian Day Evening Full-time Part-time Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate/Professional 3.5 GPA 3.0-3.49 2.5 - 2.99 2.0 - 2.49 1.99 or below No credits Full-time employment Part-time employment Not employed Residence hall Rent room/apartment Parents home Own house In-state Out-of-state International Yesdisability Nodisability First choice Second choice Third choice
2009-2010
58% 42% 81% 19% 12% 62% 10% 6% 87% 12% 91% 9% 31% 22% 21% 20% 3% 35% 32% 17% 8% 2% 7% 18% 44% 38% 42% 24% 19% 11% 70% 26% 4% 6% 94% 64% 26% 10%
1994-1995
59% 41% 82% 18% 6% 78% 4% 4% 92% 7% 91% 9% 36% 20% 20% 17% 6% 23% 28% 22% 11% 2% 13% 15% 52% 33% 56% 16% 13% 11% 62% 33% 5% 5% 95% 65% 25% 10%
Shift
-1% 1% -1% 1% 6% -16% 6% 2% -5% 5% 0% 0% -5% 2% 1% 3% -3% 12% 4% -5% -3% 0% -6% 3% -8% 5% -14% 8% 6% 0% 8% -7% -1% 1% -1% -1% 1% 0%
Appendix V: Scale Scores Across All 15 Years

The 73 individual items on the SSI are clustered into 11 scales, or categories, on a statistical and conceptual basis. This section of the study provides a trend analysis on the importance and satisfaction scores for six key scale areas across all 15 years of satisfaction data results. These are typically important areas to students and ones that campuses should be focused on. As noted in the charts below, importance scores have held relatively steady across the 15 years with some variances in satisfaction scores. In recent years, satisfaction levels generally are improving in all of these areas as campuses maintain regular assessment activities and work to improve the specic priority issues to students. Instructional Effectiveness
6.5 6.3 6.1 5.9 5.7 5.5 5.3 5.1 4.9 4.7 4.5 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Importance Satisfaction
Academic Advising
6.5 6.3 6.1 5.9 5.7 5.5 5.3 5.1 4.9 4.7 4.5 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
4.5 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 1995-96 1994-95
Campus Climate
Registration Effectiveness
4.7
4.9
5.1
5.3
5.5
5.7
5.9
6.1
6.3
6.5
4.5
4.7
4.9
5.1
5.3
5.5
5.7
5.9
6.1
6.3
6.5
Importance
Importance
Satisfaction
Satisfaction
Recruitment and Financial Aid

6.5 6.3 6.1 5.9 5.7 5.5 5.3 5.1 4.9 4.7 4.5 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Safety and Security

6.5 6.3 6.1 5.9 5.7 5.5 5.3 5.1 4.9 4.7 4.5 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Appendix VI: Performance Gap Review

Another way to review the combination of importance and satisfaction data is with the performance gap. This score is simply the importance score minus the satisfaction score. As the previous charts illustrate, performance gaps exist between the level of importance students place in these categories and their perceived levels of satisfaction. The larger the performance gap, the greater the discrepancy between what students expect and their level of satisfaction. Across 15 years, the average performance gaps in these six categories are as follows: Average performance gaps
Category
Instruction Advising Registration Effectiveness Campus Climate Recruitment and Financial Aid Safety and Security
Average Performance Gap

1.04 0.99 1.19 1.01 1.26 1.47
The chart below reects the performance gaps for the six categories. The Safety and Security category consistently has the largest performance gaps (this scale also includes parking items). As the chart below illustrates, performance gaps in all six areas have consistently dropped in recent years, which matches the trend of improving satisfaction. Performance Gaps Across All Six Categories
1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Instruction Advising Campus Climate Recruitment and Financial Aid Safety and Security Registration Effectiveness
Appendix VII: All Item ScoresAverages and Percentages for Importance and Satisfaction
Item on the Four-Year Private Student Satisfaction Inventory, Form A Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Average Average Average Average Average Average Importance Importance Importance Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction Importance Importance Importance Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction 2009-2010 1994-1995 Shift 2009-2010 1994-1995 Shift 2009-2010 1994-1995 Shift 2009-2010 1994-1995 Shift
1. Students feel a sense of belonging. 2. Campus staff are caring and helpful. 3. Faculty care about me as an individual. 4. Admissions staff are knowledgeable. 5. Financial aid counselors are helpful. 6. My academic advisor is approachable. 7. Campus is safe and secure for all students. 8. Content of courses within major is valuable. 9. Variety of intramural activities are offered. 10. Administrators are approachable to students. 11. Billing policies are reasonable. 12. Financial aid awards announced in time. 13. Library staff are helpful and approachable. 14. My academic advisor is concerned about my success as an individual. 15. Staff in the health services are competent. 16. Instruction in my major eld is excellent. 17. Adequate nancial aid is available.
72.0% 85.1% 80.6% 79.7% 82.2%
72.0% 86.2% 83.5% 76.4% 79.1%
0.0% -1.1% -2.9% 3.3% 3.1%
52.0% 61.2% 58.3% 55.9% 48.6%
47.6% 56.9% 55.5% 49.1% 40.7%
4.4% 4.3% 2.8% 6.8% 7.9%
5.93 6.33 6.21 6.2 6.27
5.89 6.34 6.27 6.07 6.13
0.04 -0.01 -0.06 0.13 0.14
5.26 5.53 5.47 5.37 5.09
5.07 5.37 5.37 5.13 4.78
0.19 0.16 0.1 0.24 0.31
86.4%
86.9%
-0.5%
66.7%
63.3%
3.4%
6.4
6.4
5.69
5.53
0.16
86.2%
87.7%
-1.5%
66.7%
57.6%
9.1%
6.42
6.45
-0.03
5.67
5.3
0.37
92.1%
92.6%
-0.5%
64.6%
60.6%
4.0%
6.62
6.61
0.01
5.64
5.47
0.17
42.8%
38.3%
4.5%
41.4%
37.7%
3.7%
4.88
0.12
4.93
4.82
0.11
71.8% 77.5% 81.0%
67.0% 75.1% 80.2%
4.8% 2.4% 0.8%
50.3% 36.3% 44.1%
38.7% 32.0% 39.2%
11.6% 4.3% 4.9%
5.97 6.13 6.24
5.81 6.03 6.18
0.16 0.1 0.06
5.26 4.68 4.93
4.87 4.45 4.72
0.39 0.23 0.21
62.5%
69.6%
-7.1%
60.4%
52.8%
7.6%
5.73
5.9
-0.17
5.57
5.27
0.3
83.0%
82.8%
0.2%
59.0%
55.6%
3.4%
6.3
6.27
0.03
5.46
5.3
0.16
70.1%
70.2%
-0.1%
42.8%
38.1%
4.7%
5.9
5.87
0.03
4.93
4.74
0.19
91.1%
92.0%
-0.9%
63.1%
59.2%
3.9%
6.59
6.59
5.61
5.46
0.15
85.8%
85.6%
0.2%
42.0%
37.9%
4.1%
6.4
6.37
0.03
4.87
4.63
0.24
Item on the Four-Year Private Student Satisfaction Inventory, Form A
Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Average Average Average Average Average Average Importance Importance Importance Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction Importance Importance Importance Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction 2009-2010 1994-1995 Shift 2009-2010 1994-1995 Shift 2009-2010 1994-1995 Shift 2009-2010 1994-1995 Shift
18. Library resources and services are adequate. 19. Academic advisor helps set goals to work toward. 20. The business ofce is open during convenient hours. 21. Amount of student parking space is adequate. 22. Counseling staff care about students as individuals. 23. Living conditions in residence halls are comfortable. 24. Intercollegiate athletics contribute to school spirit. 25. Faculty are fair and unbiased in their treatment of students. 26. Computer labs are adequate and accessible. 27. Registration personnel are helpful. 28. Parking lots are well-lighted and secure. 29. It is an enjoyable experience to be a student on this campus. 30. Residence hall staff are concerned about individuals. 31. Males and females have equal opportunities to participate in athletics. 32. Tutoring services are readily available. 33. Academic advisor knows requirements in major.
76.9%
84.0%
-7.1%
58.0%
39.0%
19.0%
6.11
6.27
-0.16
5.47
4.65
0.82
73.5%
71.7%
1.8%
46.4%
39.7%
6.7%
6.02
5.95
0.07
5.03
4.77
0.26
71.6%
69.2%
2.4%
50.0%
42.9%
7.1%
5.96
5.87
0.09
5.21
4.91
0.3
73.0%
71.1%
1.9%
28.0%
20.6%
7.4%
5.95
5.87
0.08
3.92
3.53
0.39
73.5%
72.2%
1.3%
47.9%
39.0%
8.9%
6.01
5.92
0.09
5.16
4.89
0.27
77.4%
80.5%
-3.1%
39.5%
29.1%
10.4%
6.05
6.14
-0.09
4.74
4.32
0.42
51.4%
51.0%
0.4%
32.0%
26.6%
5.4%
5.19
5.24
-0.05
4.45
4.36
0.09
85.6%
87.9%
-2.3%
54.6%
46.6%
8.0%
6.37
6.41
-0.04
5.3
0.3
82.7%
80.3%
2.4%
58.0%
43.7%
14.3%
6.29
6.16
0.13
5.4
4.87
0.53
80.4%
77.7%
2.7%
57.0%
49.1%
7.9%
6.2
6.09
0.11
5.41
5.14
0.27
74.3%
77.4%
-3.1%
47.4%
36.2%
11.2%
6.03
6.1
-0.07
5.03
4.56
0.47
86.6%
85.8%
0.8%
59.1%
51.3%
7.8%
6.42
6.35
0.07
5.46
5.17
0.29
65.6%
62.8%
2.8%
44.5%
37.5%
7.0%
5.73
5.61
0.12
4.75
0.25
59.8%
57.0%
2.8%
54.7%
44.0%
10.7%
5.49
5.41
0.08
5.32
5.02
0.3
70.7%
69.5%
1.2%
57.4%
46.2%
11.2%
5.93
5.85
0.08
5.46
5.09
0.37
88.6%
88.5%
0.1%
66.5%
62.4%
4.1%
6.49
6.46
0.03
5.69
5.51
0.18
34. I am able to register for classes with few conicts. 35. Assessment and course placement procedures are reasonable. 36. Security staff respond quickly in emergencies. 37. I feel a sense of pride about my campus. 38. Adequate selection of food in the cafeteria. 39. I am able to experience intellectual growth here. 40. Residence hall regulations are reasonable. 41. Commitment to academic excellence on campus. 42. There are a sufcient number of weekend activities. 43. Admissions counselors respond to needs and requests. 44. Academic support services meet needs of students. 45. Students are made to feel welcome on campus. 46. I can easily get involved in campus organizations. 47. Faculty provide timely feedback regarding progress in a course. 48. Admissions counselors accurately portray campus.
89.4%
90.2%
-0.8%
50.7%
47.7%
3.0%
6.5
6.48
0.02
5.1
4.94
0.16
79.4%
77.0%
2.4%
52.9%
44.7%
8.2%
6.17
6.04
0.13
5.3
5.04
0.26
81.6%
80.8%
0.8%
47.8%
34.5%
13.3%
6.28
6.23
0.05
5.11
4.6
0.51
70.0%
71.3%
-1.3%
51.2%
46.3%
4.9%
5.91
5.91
5.22
5.03
0.19
72.9%
73.0%
-0.1%
30.5%
21.3%
9.2%
5.97
5.94
0.03
4.27
3.81
0.46
87.8%
88.0%
-0.2%
64.7%
59.6%
5.1%
6.46
6.41
0.05
5.65
5.46
0.19
70.1%
69.7%
0.4%
42.2%
35.0%
7.2%
5.85
5.8
0.05
4.84
4.51
0.33
85.4%
87.0%
-1.6%
60.0%
54.6%
5.4%
6.36
6.36
5.53
5.33
0.2
55.6%
59.4%
-3.8%
33.4%
24.0%
9.4%
5.42
5.52
-0.1
4.57
4.15
0.42
73.2%
70.1%
3.1%
50.2%
41.1%
9.1%
5.87
0.13
5.24
4.96
0.28
76.8%
72.1%
4.7%
51.5%
38.9%
12.6%
6.1
5.92
0.18
5.29
4.91
0.38
83.4%
83.8%
-0.4%
61.9%
54.6%
7.3%
6.31
6.27
0.04
5.58
5.32
0.26
68.1%
67.4%
0.7%
53.3%
49.3%
4.0%
5.84
5.78
0.06
5.33
5.18
0.15
84.1%
82.8%
1.3%
48.9%
44.0%
4.9%
6.31
6.22
0.09
5.18
5.01
0.17
76.4%
73.0%
3.4%
48.3%
38.7%
9.6%
6.09
5.94
0.15
5.09
4.77
0.32
49. Adequate services to help decide career. 50. Class change (drop/add) policies are reasonable. 51. This institution has good reputation in the community. 52. The student center is a comfortable place. 53. Faculty consider differences as they teach a course. 54. Bookstore staff are helpful. 55. Major requirements are clear and reasonable. 56. Student handbook provides helpful information. 57. I seldom get the run-around when seeking information on this campus. 58. The quality of instruction in most classes is excellent. 59. This institution shows concern for students as individuals. 60. I generally know whats happening on campus. 61. Adjunct faculty are competent. 62. There is a strong commitment to racial harmony. 63. Student disciplinary procedures are fair. 64. Orientation services help students adjust. 65. Faculty are available after class and during ofce hours.
81.1%
78.9%
2.2%
50.0%
40.5%
9.5%
6.23
6.11
0.12
5.22
4.89
0.33
77.0%
74.3%
2.7%
56.8%
51.2%
5.6%
6.11
5.98
0.13
5.35
5.15
0.2
80.8%
80.8%
0.0%
63.9%
63.5%
0.4%
6.23
6.19
0.04
5.62
5.57
0.05
68.3%
63.4%
4.9%
47.6%
39.3%
8.3%
5.86
5.68
0.18
5.04
4.71
0.33
78.9% 67.3%
78.6% 62.8%
0.3% 4.5%
47.5% 59.3%
38.1% 51.5%
9.4% 7.8%
6.16 5.85
6.11 5.7
0.05 0.15
5.14 5.48
4.83 5.19
0.31 0.29
87.1%
87.3%
-0.2%
62.2%
56.8%
5.4%
6.41
6.36
0.05
5.57
5.37
0.2
61.9%
61.9%
0.0%
48.8%
46.1%
2.7%
5.65
5.63
0.02
5.2
5.1
0.1
77.6%
80.1%
-2.5%
42.3%
37.4%
4.9%
6.13
6.16
-0.03
4.79
4.55
0.24
89.3%
91.4%
-2.1%
60.0%
58.0%
2.0%
6.51
6.54
-0.03
5.52
5.44
0.08
84.7%
86.6%
-1.9%
55.9%
50.5%
5.4%
6.34
6.35
-0.01
5.36
5.18
0.18
69.9% 78.8% 73.3%
69.0% 76.4% 73.9%
0.9% 2.4% -0.6%
48.7% 53.9% 59.2%
43.9% 44.8% 43.6%
4.8% 9.1% 15.6%
5.9 6.16 5.98
5.83 6.05 5.97
0.07 0.11 0.01
5.15 5.34 5.49
4.98 5.07 4.93
0.17 0.27 0.56
75.2%
73.3%
1.9%
51.7%
39.3%
12.4%
6.05
5.94
0.11
5.22
4.76
0.46
72.4%
71.4%
1.0%
51.4%
45.2%
6.2%
5.96
5.89
0.07
5.23
5.01
0.22
84.1%
87.4%
-3.3%
64.0%
62.5%
1.5%
6.31
6.36
-0.05
5.64
5.57
0.07
66. Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment. 67. Freedom of expression is protected on campus. 68. Nearly all faculty are knowledgeable in their eld. 69. There is a good variety of courses provided on campus. 70. Graduate teaching assistants are competent. 71. Channels for expressing student complaints are readily available. 72. The campus is well-maintained. 73. Student activities fees are put to good use. 90. Factor to enroll: Cost. 91. Factor to enroll: Financial aid. 92. Factor to enroll: Academic reputation. 93. Factor to enroll: Size of institution. 94. Factor to enroll: Opportunity to play sports. 95. Factor to enroll: Recommendations from family. 96. Factor to enroll: Geographic setting. 97. Factor to enroll: Campus appearance. 98. Factor to enroll: Personalized attention prior to enrollment.
87.6%
88.7%
-1.1%
43.8%
37.4%
6.4%
6.47
6.46
0.01
4.9
4.62
0.28
79.7%
77.0%
2.7%
56.4%
41.9%
14.5%
6.2
6.08
0.12
5.36
4.88
0.48
90.3%
91.9%
-1.6%
70.9%
69.1%
1.8%
6.54
6.55
-0.01
5.82
5.74
0.08
87.5%
89.2%
-1.7%
56.6%
47.8%
8.8%
6.42
6.42
5.39
5.08
0.31
71.8%
66.2%
5.6%
47.4%
33.6%
13.8%
5.95
5.74
0.21
5.16
4.76
0.4
73.5%
74.2%
-0.7%
39.2%
29.7%
9.5%
6.02
0.02
4.79
4.46
0.33
82.9% 75.8% 74.3% 81.0% 78.8% 56.4% 26.7%
81.2% 74.2% 67.5% 75.9% 78.9% 65.1% 24.6%
1.7% 1.6% 6.8% 5.1% -0.1% -8.7% 2.1%
68.3% 37.9% 0.0% N/A N/A N/A N/A
59.4% 28.7% 0.0% N/A N/A N/A N/A
8.9% 9.2% 0.0% N/A N/A N/A N/A
6.28 6.08 6.03 6.23 6.17 5.41 3.57
6.18 5.99 5.75 5.99 6.13 5.67 3.57
0.1 0.09 0.28 0.24 0.04 -0.26 0
5.74 4.74 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
5.41 4.35 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0.33 0.39 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
42.7% 57.4% 57.4%
39.9% 53.3% 51.8%
2.8% 4.1% 5.6%
N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A
4.83 5.41 5.45
4.75 5.24 5.26
0.08 0.17 0.19
N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A
64.6%
60.5%
4.1%
N/A
N/A
N/A
5.69
5.52
0.17
N/A
N/A
N/A
Note: Items 74-83 capture campus-dened items, if utilized by the institution. Items 84-89 capture satisfaction scores only for diverse population items and were not included in this study.
Please visit www.noellevitz.com/Benchmark to download these Noel-Levitz National Satisfaction-Priorities Reports on additional populations that may be of interest.
Questions about this report?

We hope you have found this report to be helpful and informative. If you have questions or would like more information about the ndings, please contact Julie Bryant, Noel-Levitz associate vice-president of retention solutions, at 1-800-876-1117 or julie-bryant@noellevitz.com.
Additional 15-Year Satisfaction-Priorities Reports Noel-Levitz has also released 15-year satisfaction-priorities trend studies for: Four-year public colleges and universities Community, junior, and technical colleges Career and private schools
2011 Satisfaction-Priorities Reports Noel-Levitz has released the following reports detailing satisfaction-priorities trends for the 2010-2011 academic year: Traditional college students (with faculty/staff/ administrator comparisons) Adult students Online learners Parents of college students
About Noel-Levitz
A trusted partner to higher education, Noel-Levitz helps systems and campuses reach and exceed their goals for enrollment, marketing, and student success. Over the past three decades, the higher education professionals at Noel-Levitz have consulted directly more than 2,700 colleges and universities nationwide in the areas of: Student retention Staff and advisor development Student success Marketing and recruitment
Except where cited otherwise, all material in this paper is copyright by Noel-Levitz, Inc. Permission is required, in most cases, to redistribute information from Noel-Levitz, Inc., either in print or electronically. Please contact us at ContactUs@ noellevitz.com about reusing material from this report.
Financial aid services Research and communications Institutional effectiveness
Noel-Levitz has developed an array of proven tools and software programs; diagnostic tools and instruments; Web-based training programs; and customized consultations, workshops, and national conferences. With the Satisfaction-Priorities Surveys (including the Student Satisfaction Inventory), the rm brings together its many years of research and campus-based experience to enable you to get to the heart of your campus agenda. For more information, contact: Noel-Levitz, Inc. 2350 Oakdale Boulevard Coralville, Iowa 52241-9702 Phone: 800-876-1117 Fax: 319-626-8388 E-mail: ContactUs@noellevitz.com
Find it online. This report is posted online at: www.noellevitz.com/Benchmark Sign up to receive additional reports and updates. Visit our Web page: www.noellevitz.com/Subscribe
P024 0711
1-800-876-1117 | ContactUs@noellevitz.com | www.noellevitz.com

National Student Satisfaction and Priorities 15-Year Trend Report: Four-Year Private Colleges and Universities

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

National Student Satisfaction and Priorities 15-Year Trend Report: Four-Year Private Colleges and Universities

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

2011 Research Report

In particular, several signicant changes stand out:

The survey instrument

2011 Noel-Levitz, Inc. www.noellevitz.com 3

The data analysis

Observation 1: What is most important to students has stayed important.

Importance Rank 2009-2010

Importance Rank 1994-1995

Importance Rank 2009-2010

Importance Rank 1994-1995

Importance Rank 1994-1995 minus 2009-2010

2011 Noel-Levitz, Inc. www.noellevitz.com 5

Library resources have shifted down in importance.

Importance Rank 2009-2010

Importance Rank 1994-1995

Importance Rank 1994-1995 minus 2009-2010

Observations on these importance shifts:

Observation 2: Satisfaction levels have risen overall at four-year private institutions.

Average Satisfaction Percentage

2011 Noel-Levitz, Inc. www.noellevitz.com 7

Summary satisfaction scores:

58% 53% 47%

Percentage of All Institutions

Institutions Administering in 2009-2010

Percentage of 2009-2010 Institutions

Satisfaction Percentage 2009-2010

Satisfaction Percentage 1994-1995

Satisfaction Percentage Shift

2011 Noel-Levitz, Inc. www.noellevitz.com 9

Items with greatest satisfaction shifts

Satisfaction Percentage 2009-2010

Satisfaction Percentage 1994-1995

Satisfaction Percentage Shift

Observations on these satisfaction shifts:

Interesting observations on the satisfaction scores:

Items with bottom three satisfaction percentages

Importance Percentage 2009-2010

Importance Percentage 1994-1995

Importance Percentage Shift

Observations on the enrollment factors:

2011 Noel-Levitz, Inc. www.noellevitz.com 11

Importance Rank 2009-2010

Importance Rank 1994-1995

Percentage Percentage Percentage Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction 2009-2010 1994-1995 Shift

Observations on the financial items:

Importance Rank 2009-2010

Importance Rank 1994-1995

Percentage Percentage Percentage Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction 2009-2010 1994-1995 Shift

Observations on the campus climate items:

2011 Noel-Levitz, Inc. www.noellevitz.com 13

Conclusions: What Do the Data Tell Us?

Taking action: How can campuses improve student satisfaction?

2011 Noel-Levitz, Inc. www.noellevitz.com 15

Appendix I: SSI Reliability and Validity

Appendix II: Four-Year Private Participation

Appendix III: Four-Year Private List of Schools

Appendix IV: Complete Four-Year Private Demographic Comparison

2011 Noel-Levitz, Inc. www.noellevitz.com 21

Appendix V: Scale Scores Across All 15 Years

2011 Noel-Levitz, Inc. www.noellevitz.com 23

Recruitment and Financial Aid

Safety and Security