No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Alumni follow-up practices of accredited postsecondary institutions in the Commonwealth of Virginia were investigated. The subpopulations studied included: (a) community colleges (N=23); (b) two-year colleges (N=3); (c) proprietary two-year colleges (N=19); (d) accredited proprietary schools (N=47); and (e) accredited postsecondary vocational programs (N=5). A total of 97 institutions participated in the study. The study collected data on the: (a) purposes for which alumni follow-up studies were conducted; (b) procedures and methodologies employed in follow-up studies; (c) categories of data collected; and (d) dissemination made of completed alumni follow-up reports. The study used two survey instruments and achieved a 100% response rate for both instruments. The following conclusions were drawn from the research findings: (a) Almost all accredited postsecondary institutions conduct alumni follow-up studies; (b) the four most common purposes for conducting alumni follow-up activities are for evaluation, compliance/reporting, accreditation and planning; (c) graduates or program completers are the population of alumni most universally studied in follow-up studies; (d) employers of graduates or program completers are almost exclusively the focus of alumni follow-up activities; (e) institutions tend to follow-up the subpopulation of all students when conducting alumni follow-up studies; (f) most institutions use mail questionnaires in alumni and employer follow-up studies; (g) most institutions make 1 to 3 attempts to collect Follow-up data from both alumni and the employers of alumni; (h) a minority of institutions collect longitudinal data from alumni; (i) a majority of institutions collect follow-up data on alumni to determine their employment status, to evaluate training programs, to determine the job satisfaction of alumni and to obtain information on the educational status of alumni; (j) the majority of institutions collect follow-up data from the employers of alumni on the satisfactoriness of their alumni, employee knowledge and employee characteristics; and (k) the primary disseminations made of completed alumni follow-up reports are to meet compliance/reporting requirements, institutional information needs and marketing efforts. The findings are applicable only to accredited postsecondary institutions in the Commonwealth of Virginia. This study also makes recommendations for future research on alumni follow-up practices. / Ed. D.

Public funding of higher education has declined substantially in recent years (Alexander, 2000; Esposito, 2010; Mortenson, 2012; NACUBO, 2011; Redd, 2014; Serna and Harris, 2014), while operating costs and demand have increased (Desrochers and Kirshstein, 2012; Mortenson, 2012; Mumper and Freeman, 2011; NCSES, 2014; Serna and Harris, 2014; St. John and Parsons, 2004), forcing institutions to look for alternative sources of revenue (NCSL, 2010). One such alternative source of revenue is alumni giving (Monks, 2003; Archibald and Feldman, 2012; CAE, 2014). Research has shown that the factors that influence alumni financial giving include demographic characteristics (Hoyt, 2004; Monks, 2003), academic experiences (Monks, 2003; Pumerantz, 2005), social experiences (Monks, 2005; Thomas and Smart, 2005; Volkwein, 1989), and alumni participation variables (Gaier, 2005; Gallo and Hubschman, 2003). Although there is ample evidence to support the importance of alumni giving, researchers have not examined the factors that influence young alumni giving. This study sought to determine if demographic characteristics, academic experiences and social experiences explain the variance in alumni giving to their alma mater within five years of graduating. I conducted a case study at a single institution and used Volkwein's (1989) model of giving coupled with data from the 2011 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) that captured alumni's demographic characteristics and measured their academic and social experiences while in college. I merged NSSE with data about giving that I retrieved from the Development Office at the selected institution. The variables included five Demographic items, fourteen Academic Experience items with numerous sub-items, and twelve Social Experience items with numerous sub-items. Exploratory factor analysis revealed five academic factors and four social factors. The results of a multiple regression analysis revealed that only one factor, Class Assignments, explained the variance in young alumni giving, but it may have been spurious. It would appear that demographic characteristics and academic and social factors determined from NSSE are not particularly useful in explaining giving by young alumni. Indeed, only 14.5% of participants actually made a donation within five years of graduating. Clearly more research is needed to expand upon the literature about alumni giving. / Ph. D. / Public funding of higher education has declined substantially in recent years (Alexander, 2000; Esposito, 2010; Mortenson, 2012; NACUBO, 2011; Redd, 2014; Serna & Harris, 2014), while operating costs and demand have increased (Desrochers & Kirshstein, 2012; Mortenson, 2012; Mumper & Freeman, 2011; NCSES, 2014; Serna & Harris, 2014; St. John & Parsons, 2004), forcing institutions to look for alternative sources of revenue (NCSL, 2010). One such alternative source of revenue is alumni giving (Monks, 2003; Archibald & Feldman, 2012; CAE, 2014). This study sought to determine if demographic characteristics, and academic and social experiences while in college, explain the differences in alumni giving to their alma mater within five years of graduating. Using a single institution and Volkwein’s (1989) model of giving, coupled with data from the 2011 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and institutional giving data, it would appear that demographic characteristics and academic and social factors determined from NSSE are not particularly useful in explaining giving by young alumni.

Die aktuelle Ausgabe des Newsletter für Freunde, Absolventen und Ehemalige der Technischen Universität Chemnitz.

Die aktuelle Ausgabe des Newsletter für Freunde, Absolventen und Ehemalige der Technischen Universität Chemnitz.

Die aktuelle Ausgabe des Newsletter für Freunde, Absolventen und Ehemalige der Technischen Universität Chemnitz.

Die aktuelle Ausgabe des Newsletter für Freunde, Absolventen und Ehemalige der Technischen Universität Chemnitz.

This was a follow-up study of graduates of Portland State University's School of Social Work from 1964 to 1973. The study gathered information in four areas: (1) graduates' career patterns, (2) tasks graduates presently perform in their jobs, (3) tasks graduates felt are necessary for students to learn in a school of Social Work, and (4) graduates' continuing education needs and experiences. It was hoped that this information would prove valuable in curriculum design, both in the School of Social Work and in the Division of Continuing Education. I A stratified random sample of sixty-one graduates, totaling 15.4% of the ten-year population of 396 graduates, was surveyed by mailed questionnaire. Fifty-two of these responded for a return rate of 85.3%. Results from the questionnaire were transferred to punch cards and frequencies, means, standard deviations, and a factor analysis of data were performed by computer. Forty-five of the fifty-two respondents considered themselves to be presently practicing social work. Twenty-four of these respondents worked primarily in direct treatment, and all but one of these reported having collateral duties in administration or facilitative services. Respondents showed almost no interest in pursuing further graduate study in social services or any other'field, and indicated only moderate interest· in continuing education seminars or classes. Of all continuing education offerings, family therapy received the highest interest score and research received the lowest. Respondents felt that the most important tasks to be taught in graduate school were direct service tasks. A factor analysis was performed to reduce these tasks to more easily reportable shared factors, and the tasks seen as most crucial for learning were those concerned with direct treatment, resource assistance, and client contact. Although respondents believed that direct service tasks -should be stressed in the School curriculum, most of the respondents also were performing non-direct service tasks such as leadership and consultation in group process.