NAGAP GEM Advocate Spring 21014

VOLUME 1 NUMBER 2 SPRING 2014

The GEM Research Advocate A Publication for Graduate Enrollment Management Professionals

ď ˝NAGAP 360 REPORT

www.nagap.org

NAGAP 360 REPORT This report is provided to members and interested others by NAGAP, the Association for Graduate Enrollment Management Professionals. The findings are based on the 360 survey results. The NAGAP Governing Board and the Research and Global Issues Committee gratefully acknowledge NAGAP members for their continued support in answering surveys such as this one.

The Leader in Graduate Enrollment Management

2012-2014 Research and Global Issues Committee Joshua LaFave, Chair State University of New York at Potsdam

Christopher Connor State University of New York at Buffalo

Karen Barnhill University of North Carolina Wilmington

Robert Detwiler Lourdes University

Jean Carlo Bonilla New York University Matthew Cipriano New York University, Sackler Institute

Rick Garcia University of Southern California Erinn Lake Edinboro University

2012-2014 NAGAP Governing Board James N. Crane President Brigham Young University

Dave Fletcher Education Chair Barry University

Julie B. Deland Vice President Harvard Graduate School of Education

Marcus Hanscom Online Education Chair University of New Haven

Kristen Sterba Secretary University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Sarah Petrakos Treasurer Simmons College Joanne Canyon-Heller Immediate Past President/ International Relations Chair Roosevelt University Judith Baker Membership Chair Nazareth College of Rochester Cammie Baker Clancy Chapters Chair Empire State College-SUNY

Teisha Johnson Conference Chair 2014 Illinois College of Optometry Jennifer Kulbeck Publications Chair/Editor Alliant International University Joshua LaFave Research and Global Issues Chair State University of New York at Potsdam Keith Ramsdell Professional Development Chair Lourdes University Francesca A. Reed Marketing & Social Media Chair Marymount University

THE GEM RESEARCH ADVOCATE A Publication for Graduate Enrollment Management Professionals Editor, Jennifer Kulbeck NAGAPpublications@gmail.com The GEM Research Advocate is published semiannually by NAGAP, with content from the Research and Global Issues Committee in collaboration with the Publications Committee.

Copyright Š 2014 NAGAP NAGAP is committed to diversity and inclusiveness in all of its activities.

This commitment embraces respect for differences including age, culture, disability, education, ethnicity, gender, life experiences, race, religion, and sexual orientation. NAGAP champions an open exchange of ideas in a collegial environment that embraces academic freedom, cooperation, mutual respect, and responsibility. NAGAP supports activities that promote and nurture professional development, best practices, research, and collaboration of a diverse and global community of graduate enrollment management professionals, encouraging dialogue that fosters professional growth among all of its constituents, in the US and internationally.

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 PURPOSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 METHODOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SOURCES OF CONFLICT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Response Rate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Titles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Involvement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Changes to NAGAP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Significant Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

GEM Certification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Knowledge versus Interest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Conference Attendance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Conference Exhibitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Educational Offerings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Email Communications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Perspectives Journal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDIXES Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix

N

A

G

1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 5 5

A: Graphs and Charts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 B: Retention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 C: Membership Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 D: Education Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 E: Marketing Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 F: Publications Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

A

P

T H E

G E M

R E S E A R C H

A D V O C A T E

•

S P R I N G

2 0 1 4

i

ii

S P R I N G

2 0 1 4

•

T H E

G E M

R E S E A R C H

A D V O C A T E

N

A

G

A

P

INTRODUCTION The NAGAP 360 survey was conducted by the Research and Global Issues Committee, in coordination with the Education, Membership, Marketing and Publications committees. The survey focused on collecting information from our members to help steer not only the future of these committees, but also the direction of NAGAP as an organization. The following report details the methodology and findings of the NAGAP 360 survey as well as the Research Committee’s analysis of the survey and implications derived from those findings.

PURPOSE NAGAP has changed as an organization. The purpose of the NAGAP 360 survey is to assess the current state of the association and ensure that NAGAP is growing in the right direction with a clear understanding of our membership in order to best serve their changing professional needs. NAGAP 360 presents an opportunity to reflect and celebrate our past, while being mindful of the future.

METHODOLOGY The NAGAP 360 survey was derived and constructed as a multi-step process. After the results from the initial survey were received, a secondary survey was deemed necessary for further clarification purposes.

Initially, requests were made to the individual committees for survey questions they felt would be most beneficial to them. Questions were submitted by the Education, Membership, Marketing and Publications committees. During this time, historic NAGAP member surveys were reviewed and analyzed to help focus the efforts of the Research and Global Issues Committee and also to identify common questions with historical data that could provide insight on the membership.

Once the questions were gathered, the Research and Global Issues Committee set about compiling and organizing the questions, eliminating redundancies, tailoring questions and grouping questions into distinct categories. Based on the questions, the best headings for categories were determined to be: Personal Knowledge, Annual Conference, Education (Offerings and Topics) and Communication. Also included were headings for “About You” to collect background information, as well as “What Would You Like?” allowing open responses to areas not covered by other questions. To give the survey a distinct identity, a logo was also developed which will be used for subsequent follow-up surveys to NAGAP 360.

Via email, social media and conference announcements, the survey was sent to the full NAGAP community, including both enrollment management professionals and vendors. The initial deadline for completion of the survey was March 31; however, because of a low response rate, the deadline was extended to the end of April in order to collect more responses.

In examining the responses, it was determined that better analysis and a greater understanding of our membership could be achieved by breaking the responses out by professional level, the hypothesis being that the needs of a less experienced graduate enrollment professional would differ from those of a more seasoned professional. Based on the open format for titles in the survey, over 100 different titles were collected. Pairing these with the NAGAP Membership and Salary Survey responses, the titles were grouped into 25 categories. NAGAP leadership and chapter leadership were surveyed to further break down these 25 categories into four separate career tiers representing: Senior Leadership, Leadership, Management and Staff.

From here, initial analysis from the NAGAP 360 survey was reassessed providing the results as outlined in this report. Additionally, the questions asked by each NAGAP committee were broken out independently to reflect the needs of those committees and provide independent reporting.

SOURCES OF CONFLICT During the analysis, a number of potential areas of conflict were identified, which should be considered in understanding the results of the survey.

Response Rate We received 316 responses to the NAGAP 360 survey, representing only 19% of the 1,627 NAGAP members (2012/13). While a statistical regression was not conducted, when compared to the Salary Survey results (664 respondents representing 41% of NAGAP members), the response rate pales in comparison. A higher response rate would have produced a greater level of confidence in the collected data.

N

A

G

A

P

T H E

G E M

R E S E A R C H

A D V O C A T E

•

S P R I N G

2 0 1 4

1

Titles In the survey, the question for title was left as an open-ended answer allowing respondents to fill in their individual title. After completion of the survey, we compared these titles to the responses from the salary survey and linked the titles to each other. We then had the NAGAP leadership determine which tier the titles fell in to conduct further analysis based on different tiers. Because titles differ from institution to institution, individuals with the same title could be at different levels and hold different responsibilities. Other methods considered for determining the tiers were based on the connected salary levels from the salary survey as well as the years of experience in the profession. After discussion, it was determined that the best way to categorize the titles into tiers was through a voting process.

The tiers for the titles is reflective of the opinions of the NAGAP leadership and chapter leaders (and even still some titles received equal number of votes into two tiers and further discussion was necessary to place them into a tier).

Additionally, there was a higher response rate from “senior” members of NAGAP, those with Tier 3 and Tier 4 titles, who had been in the profession for longer than five years. This may skew the data when considering the analysis for future needs and desires for the organization. Those who have been in the profession longer often have different needs than those who are relatively new or at lower levels in the profession (a difference can be seen in the desire to develop skills versus the desire to acquire new knowledge).

Involvement Though there are 13 chapters and special interest groups in NAGAP, they are concentrated in certain parts of the country. Of the respondents, over 200 had been involved with the NAGAP board or a chapter board, served on a committee or had been a presenter/ recorder/moderator at a conference (either chapter or national). The implication here is that the survey respondents were individuals who were already involved with the organization and already communicating the direction they wanted to see the organization taking.

The survey could, in theory, serve to back up and reassure the NAGAP leadership that the current direction that NAGAP is taking is the direction the members want it to be going in, whereas it could also indicate that the leaders who set that direction are also the survey respondents.

Changes to NAGAP In 2012, NAGAP rebranded itself changing from National Association of Graduate Admissions Professionals to NAGAP: The Leader in Graduate Enrollment Management. This represents a major change in the way of thinking about the profession. While “admissions professionals” is very focused on the recruitment and admissions processes for applicants, “graduate enrollment management” has a broader focus on the student lifecycle and takes into consideration the holistic student experience.

Though this change was made, the targeted membership remained the same. When the survey was conducted, the mindset of the membership was of the traditional NAGAP as an admissions professionals’ organization. In considering the expansion to the entire graduate enrollment management workforce, the topics, knowledge base and direction of the organization needs to expand beyond the limited admissions perspective. The survey responses reflect the revised direction of NAGAP; this needs to be understood when considering the analysis as well as what areas of growth and expansion are needed for the diversified role of the graduate enrollment management professional.

Significant Findings The appendices include graphs and charts based on responses to the survey. Appendix A highlights some significant findings, while Appendix B presents all of the Knowledge/Interest maps broken down by tier.

Membership Overall, survey respondents have had over 12 years of experience working in higher education and Tier 4 (Leadership) has an average of over 20 years. The average time respondents have been working specifically in Graduate Enrollment Management (GEM) drops down to just under 10 years and the average length of time they have been involved with NAGAP is around 5 years.

Approximately two thirds of those who responded are also members of at least one local chapter or special interest group and almost 10% participate in more than one.

These respondents are also fairly active. The majority of respondents participate in some way on the NAGAP board or on NAGAP committees, on chapter and special interest group boards and committees, or at conferences as presenters or moderators/recorders.

Reference: Appendix A, Charts 1, 2, 3

2

S P R I N G

2 0 1 4

•

T H E

G E M

R E S E A R C H

A D V O C A T E

N

A

G

A

P

GEM Certification GEM Certification was, by a narrow margin, deemed to be a benefit if it were developed, according to 51% of the respondents. An additional 34% were unsure of its merit, but were not against it; however, only 7% felt it would directly influence their hiring decisions and 29% felt it would have no impact. Out of the Leadership Tier, over 33% felt it would have no impact.

The bottom line with GEM certification is that it is still an unknown. Over one third of the respondents were unsure what it would consist of and almost one quarter were unsure what impact it could have on the hiring process. This might be an area to refocus on with a better defined plan for the certification and what it would entail.

Reference Appendix A, Charts 4 & 5

Knowledge versus Interest We asked the membership to rank their level of knowledge in areas pertaining to admissions policies and procedures, as well as their level of interest in learning more. We focused these questions on the following areas: Admissions Policies and Procedures, Document Imaging, GEM Related Research, Financial Aid/Support, Legal and Ethical Issues, Marketing (overall), Using Social Media, CRMs, Measuring ROI, Professional Development (self), Professional Development (staff), Recruitment, Diversity Recruitment, International Recruitment, Developing a Recruitment Plan, Student Services Lifecycle, New Student Services and Retention.

Below we’ve highlighted the areas with the greatest gap between individuals who listed their knowledge level as experts compared to individuals who listed their interest in learning more as extreme: GEM Related Research:

5% expert vs. 27% extreme

Marketing (overall):

17% expert vs. 41% extreme

Using Social Media:

12% expert vs. 34% extreme

Measuring ROI:

5% expert vs. 38% extreme

Professional Development (self): 14% expert vs. 45% extreme Diversity in Student Recruitment: 13% expert vs. 39% extreme Developing a Recruitment Plan: 15% expert vs. 46% extreme Retention:

7% expert vs. 39% extreme

When examining the graphs in Appendix B, you can see the breakdown of interest and expertise by tier; however, the aggregated results of the entire membership tend to mimic the tier-by-tier breakdown. The eight categories listed above show the areas with the greatest discrepancies between expert knowledge and most interest in learning more (all are greater than a 20 percentage point difference). Additionally, over 20 suggestions were submitted for future areas of focus as well as over 65 other areas of knowledge.

Reference Appendix B

Conference Attendance Overall, attendance at conferences has been on the rise except for a blip in 2009. The rising conference attendance can be attributed to increased membership and the nature of career paths (older members returning with newer members only attending more recent conferences). The 2009 blip can be attributed to a combination of market response as well as the high cost of conference attendance in areas like New York.

Reference Appendix A, Chart 6

Proposals A handful of questions related to conference session proposals and whether the proposals were fairly assessed. Only 75 respondents had previously submitted a proposal (almost 25%). Approximately 45% felt there was transparency in how proposals were selected, though approximately 48% felt they did not have an idea about this. Almost 65% of respondents felt they had a fair opportunity to be selected for a presentation and felt that they would benefit from proposal training.

Reference Appendix A, Charts 7, 8, 9, 10, Appendix C

Conference Exhibitors When asked about vendors at the conference, by a large margin respondents said they had interactions with them at conferences.

While just over 20% of respondents had not attended a conference in the past, of those who had attended, over 90% had interactions with vendors.

N

A

G

A

P

T H E

G E M

R E S E A R C H

A D V O C A T E

•

S P R I N G

2 0 1 4

3

A follow up question asked if respondents had contracted with vendors in the past. Though only 39% had, when taking into account that 20% of respondents had not attended a conference in the past, this percentage is actually significantly higher, closer to 50% of respondents who had attended a past conference.

Of the 50% who had contracted with vendors, application vendors, software/technology vendors and marketing/recruitment/ publications vendors account for over 75% of any contracts signed. International vendors accounted for an additional 12% and consulting vendors accounted for 5%. CRMs were mentioned often in the fill-in responses and staffing assistance vendors were not utilized at all by respondents.

Reference Appendix E

Educational Offerings When asked about the venue they prefer for educational sessions, over 50% of respondents said they prefer the annual conference, with an additional 38% liking the annual conference as a venue. Around 70% of respondents like or prefer Webinars and Chapter Meetings as educational venues, while Grad Fairs and Regional Receptions received the worst response (dislike or prefer a different venue) with only about 15% ranking them at the bottom (both the Winter PDI and online/webinars also had 10% of respondents ranking them at the bottom).

In reviewing these responses, annual conferences continue to be a preferred method of for accessing educational offerings (along with networking, etc.); however, regional meetings through NAGAP chapters and online/webinar offerings are preferred or appreciated.

Given budgetary constraints and time commitments, these two options are likely to increase over time (also given the continued growth of chapters across the continental U.S.).

Regarding content for the sessions, we asked open-ended questions. The trends we saw from the responses were: Marketing

Reporting

Graduate Enrollment Management

Legal Issues

Student Services

Career Progression

Strategy

Internationalization of Higher Education

Retention

Leadership/Managing Staff

Financial Aid & Funding

Ethics

Diversity

Data-driven decision making

Admissions

Credential Evaluation

When asked if respondents found the current NAGAP educational offerings relevant, 83% either agreed or strongly agreed that the offerings pertained to their interests. Specifically, over ¾ of respondents “agree” that sessions are relevant and yet less than a quarter “strongly agree.” While this is a good response, there is evidence that more work needs to be done to continually align needs with interests and knowledge of critical areas in Graduate Enrollment Management and NAGAP membership.

However, 85% of membership did feel that the educational offerings from NAGAP were diverse enough in selection and presentations.

Reference Appendix D

Email Communications Regarding email communications, 56% of respondents indicated that they read the monthly newsletters between 7-12 times throughout the year, with only 5% never reading them. In terms of the value of the content, for the most part over 50% find the content valuable or very valuable. Job links and “other items” were both under 50% being found “kind of valuable” or below.

Beyond the email newsletters, over 70% of respondents said they regularly read the individual communications from NAGAP and less than 1% said they never read these. As to the value of the other communications, overwhelmingly responses were that email communications are valuable. This is in line with the 72% that read emails often/always from the previous question.

Reference Appendix F

4

S P R I N G

2 0 1 4

•

T H E

G E M

R E S E A R C H

A D V O C A T E

N

A

G

A

P

Perspectives Journal Only 59% of respondents said they read Perspectives “often” or “always” (though only 6% never read it) and 60% of respondents said they share Perspectives with non-NAGAP members as well.

Of the respondents who do read Perspectives, only 14% solely read the journal online while 25% said they access it in both paper form as well as online. That being said, only 20% of respondents had accessed the Perspectives archive on the NAGAP website. Over 50% of respondents said that a search based on topic/keyword would greatly improve functionality and their chances of accessing the archives.

When asked about the importance of receiving a paper copy of Perspectives, 47% agreed or strongly agreed that they would still want to see a paper copy; however, over 40% felt that solely digital publication would be acceptable. Around 20% of respondents did not feel strongly one way or another. In terms of the perceived value of Perspectives if it were only online, we learned from respondents that many seem to be complacent about the issue; however, a larger portion than the previous questions reported that they disagreed that value would decrease if Perspectives went to an online only format.

Reference Appendix F

An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions Thirty-three percent of respondents regularly utilize or occasionally utilize An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions, 16% report that they did not receive it and 10% have not even opened the copy they received. Taking this into account, of those who both received and opened it, the majority of respondents found value in this publication.

When asked if NAGAP were to produce its own resources/guides, the open response answers regarding topics varied greatly with over 70 responses collected. Some of the responses that appeared multiple times included: ROI, Best Practices, Marketing, Legal/Ethical Issues and Financial Aid. Reference Appendix F

N

A

G

A

P

T H E

G E M

R E S E A R C H

A D V O C A T E

•

S P R I N G

2 0 1 4

5

Appendix A: Graphs and Charts Appendix A: Graphs and Charts Years of Experience Appendix A: Graphs and Charts Chart 1: Years of Experience Years of Experience

Avg Years of Experience by TIER Avg Years of Experience by TIER

Average years of experience Average years of experience

25.0

25.0 20.0 20.0 15.0 15.0 10.0 10.0 5.0

5.0 0.0

TIER 1 TIER 2 TIER 3 0.0 AVG of Yrs in HigherED in GEM TIER 1 TIER AVG 2 of YrsTIER 3 AVG of Yrs in HigherED

TIER 4

AVG of Yrs in GEM

Grand Total

AVG of4Yrs in Grand NAGAPTotal TIER AVG of Yrs in NAGAP

Chart 2: Number of Interest Groups Participating In

No of Interest Group by TIER No of Interest Group by TIER

120

100 120 80 100 6080 4060 2040 020

0

6

S P R I N G

TIER 1

TIER No 1 Groups

TIER 2

No Groups

2 0 1 4

•

T H E

G E M

1 Group TIER 2

1 Group

TIER 3

2 Groups TIER 33 Groups 2 Groups

R E S E A R C H

3 Groups

A D V O C A T E

TIER 4

TIER 4

N

A

G

A

P

Chart 3: Involvement

Involvement by TIER 120 100 80

60 40 20

0

TIER 1 Involv.

TIER 2 Involv.

No Involvement

Involved in 3 Groups

TIER 3 Involv.

Involved in 1 Group

Involved in 4+ Groups

TIER 4 Involv.

Involved in 2 Groups

Chart 4: GEM Certification: Beneficial to Members?

Benefit of GEM Cert 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

TIER 1

TIER 2

GEM Cert Benefit- Yes

TIER 3

GEM Cert Benefit- NO

TIER 4

ALL

GEM Cert Benefit- don’t know

Chart 5: GEM Certification: Beneficial for Hiring?

GEM Cert for Hiring 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

TIER 1

TIER 2

GEM Cert Benefit hiring- Yes

TIER 3

GEM Cert Benefit hiring- don’t know

N

A

G

A

P

T H E

G E M

TIER 4

GEM Cert Benefit hiring- NO

ALL

GEM Cert Benefit hiring- n/a

R E S E A R C H

A D V O C A T E

•

S P R I N G

2 0 1 4

7

Chart 6: Attendance at Previous Conferences

Attendance at Previous Conferences Attendance at Previous Conferences TIER 1

TIER 2 TIER 1

37 2631 23 5 4 2 4 3 1

31 23 23 18 4 3 1 3 2

23 18

3 2

TIER 3 TIER 2

TIER 4 TIER 3

75

70

51

36 37 26 8 4 3 5 4 2

6975

5870

51 51

4658

51

36

15 4 11 3

11 3 10 5 4

10 5 4 8 4 3

Grand Total TIER 4 Grand Total

108

89

66 69 46

12 9 15 2 4

149

149

96108

7789

96

77

66

31

18 8 5 12 9 2

31

17 18 5 8 5

17 5

Chart 7: Prior Proposal Submission

Prior Submission of Proposal Prior Submission of Proposal YES

NO

YES

121

7

17

TIER 1

8

S P R I N G

7

13 17

57

TIER 2 TIER 1

2 0 1 4

•

13

T H E

50 57

TIER 3 TIER 2

G E M

NO

200

121 50

5

75

5

TIER 4 TIER 3

R E S E A R C H

5

5 ALL TIER 4

200

75

ALL

A D V O C A T E

N

A

G

A

P

Chart 8: Transparency in Proposals

Transparency in Proposals Trnspt Proposal Selection -Yes

Trnspt Proposal Selection -N/A

7

1

15

TIER 1

25

3

42

TIER 2

83

Trnspt Proposal Selection -NO

76 8

7

TIER 3

134

122

1

TIER 4

13

1

ALL

Chart 9: Fair Shot of Being Selected

Fair Shot of Proposals Fair shot of Proposal accept YES

Fair shot of Proposal accept No 190

122 17

3

TIER 1

42

13

TIER 2

14

30

9

TIER 3

TIER 4

ALL

Chart 10: Proposal Training

Proposals Training NAGAP proposal traning YES

17

7

TIER 1

N

A

G

A

P

T H E

46

20

TIER 2

G E M

121

NAGAP proposal traning NO 191

39

TIER 3

R E S E A R C H

7

69

3

TIER 4

A D V O C A T E

ALL

•

S P R I N G

2 0 1 4

9

Appendix B: Retention

Knowledge-Interest M Knowledge-Inte

Knowledge-Interest Map: Retention Know - TIER 1

Know - TIER 2

Know -TIER 3

Know - TIER 4

Know - ALL

Int - TIER 1

Int - TIER 2

Int - TIER 3

Int -TIER 4

Int - ALL

Know - TIER Know 1 2 4 -Know TIER 1- TIER Know -Know TIER 2-TIER 3Know Know -TIER 3- TIER Know -Know TIER 4- ALL

60%

45% 42% 40% 39% 36% 21%21% 14%

% 3%

0%

3%

0% 1% 1% 0% 1%

tention - 1- Not at all interested

7% 4% 6%

0%

6%

21%

25%

45% 45% 42% 42% 40% 39%11% 8% 39% 9% 7% 36% 36% 3%

0%

Retention - 2- Little interest

Retention - 3- Some interest

Retention - 5- Extremely intereste 23%

Retention - 4- Much interest

21%21% 21%21% 16%14% 14%

4% 4% 3% 4% 4% 3% 3% 1% 3% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0%

45% 38% 35%

40% 34% 33%35% 33% 28%

36% 33%

23% 23% 19%

16% 0%

45%

0%

19%

16%

7% 7% 6% 4% 6% 4% 6% 0% 0% 0%

Knowledge-Interest Map: Retention Knowledge-Interest Map: RetentionRetention Retention - 1Not at all- interested Little interest - 2- Little interest Retention 1- Not at all interested Retention - 2-

Retention - 3Some i Retention

now2-TIER 3Know -TIER Know3- TIER Know 4 Int- -ALL TIER 1 Int -Int - TIER - TIER -TIER - ALL TIER -Know TIER 4- ALL Know TIER 1 2 Int -Int TIER 2 3 Int -Int TIER 3 4 Int Int -TIER 4

45% 45% 42% 42% 40% 39% 39% 40% 36% 36%

45%

45% 38%

40% 40% 36% 36% 35% 35% 34% 34% 33%33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 28% 28% 25% 23% 23%23% 21%23% 25%21% 19% 19%

16%

11%

6% 7% 6% 6% 7% 4% 6% 0% 0% 0%

Int -TIER 4

0%

0%

Retention - 3Some interest Retention - 3- Some interest

etion interest - 2- Little interest

R3

45%

Int - ALL

9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 11% 3% 3%

Retention - 4Much interest Extremely Retention - 4- Much interest Retention - 5Retention -5

Int - ALL 60% 45% 38% 35%

40% 34% 33% 8% 11% 3% interest

10

39%

8% 9% 7%

Retention - 5- Extremely interested

S P R I N G

2 0 1 4

•

T H E

G E M

R E S E A R C H

A D V O C A T E

N

A

G

A

P

Knowledge-Interest Map: Retention Know - ALL

Int - ALL

40%

39% 33% 21%

16% 3%

33%

7%

6%

1%

Retention - 1- Not at Retention - 2all knowledgable Limited knowledge

Retention - 3- Some knowledge

Retention - 4- Fair amount of knowledge

Retention - 5- Expert

Knowledge-Interest Map: Retention Know -TIER 3

Int - TIER 3

42% 33%

35%

34%

23% 14% 3%

8%

7%

1%

Retention - 1- Not at Retention - 2all knowledgable Limited knowledge

Retention - 3- Some knowledge

Retention - 4- Fair amount of knowledge

Retention - 5- Expert

Knowledge-Interest Map: Retention Know - TIER 1

Int - TIER 1

39%

38%

35% 23%

21%

25%

11% 4%

4%

0%

Retention - 1- Not at Retention - 2- Little Retention - 3- Some Retention - 4- Much Retention - 5all interested interest interest interest Extremely interested

N

A

G

A

P

T H E

G E M

R E S E A R C H

A D V O C A T E

•

S P R I N G

2 0 1 4

11

Knowledge-Interest Map: Retention Know - TIER 4

Int -TIER 4 60%

45%

45%

40%

9% 0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Retention - 1- Not at Retention - 2all knowledgable Limited knowledge

Retention - 3- Some knowledge

Retention - 4- Fair amount of knowledge

Retention - 5- Expert

Knowledge-Interest Map: Retention Know - TIER 2

Int - TIER 2 45%

36%

36%

28% 21%

4%

19% 6%

1%

Retention - 1- Not at Retention - 2all knowledgable Limited knowledge

12

S P R I N G

2 0 1 4

•

T H E

G E M

3%

Retention - 3- Some knowledge

R E S E A R C H

Retention - 4- Fair amount of knowledge

Retention - 5- Expert

A D V O C A T E

N

A

G

A

P

Appendix C: Membership Committee (to go along with deeper analysis of knowledge/interest, Appendix B)

While further analysis will be conducted with the following questions, respondents were asked to review areas within Graduate Enrollment Management and indicate their level of knowledge and level of interest in the specific areas. The graphs below represent an aggregate of the responses. Additional analsysis is included in the report. First question, on a scale, how interested are you in the following topics: 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40%

5 - Exteremely Interested 4 - Much interest

30%

3 - Some interest

20%

2 - Little Interest

1 - Not at all interested

10%

0%

N

A

G

A

P

T H E

G E M

R E S E A R C H

A D V O C A T E

•

S P R I N G

2 0 1 4

13

On a scale from 1 to 5 from “not at all knowledgeable” to “expert”, we asked respondents to rank their knowledge in the following areas: 100% 90%

80%

70% 60% 50% 40%

5 - Exteremely Interested 4 - Much interest

30%

3 - Some interest

20%

2 - Little Interest

1 - Not at all interested

10%

0%

14

S P R I N G

2 0 1 4

•

T H E

G E M

R E S E A R C H

A D V O C A T E

N

A

G

A

P

Appendix D: Education Committee

Comment [J1]: If we cu should be re-named App

In this report, the education committee of NAGAP posed several questions to support the strategic planning and development of professional development opportunities ranging from online webinars to annual conferences. Questions also posed related to the knowledge of certain areas, interest, and opportunities for engagement related to the sharing of expertise.

Q1. What is your preferred venue for accessing NAGAP educational sessions? In this question, respondents were asked to share their preferences for educational offerings currently a part of NAGAP programming. The responses were to be ranked for each venue from 1, being a ‘dislike’ for the venue to 5, being ‘preferred.’

Venue

Venue

Online/Webinar

1 – Dislike 2 – Prefer a 2 – Prefer a venue 1- Dislike different venue venue

12

Summer PDI Online/Webinar 3 Summer PDI Winter PDI 8 Winter PDI Graduate Fair/Graduate 11 Fair/Regional Regional Reception Reception Annual Conference 1 Annual Conference Chapter Meeting/ 3 Chapter Conference Meeting/Conference

different 17 venue

12 3 8 11

17 17 17 21 21 30 30

47 122 131 80

1 3

1 7

23 73

1 7

3 – Neither

4 – I like this

5 – I prefer this venue

47

134

54

9154 20 7124 11722

20

3dislike – Neither or like4 – I like this venue5 – I prefer dislike or like venue this venue

122 131 80 23 73

134 91 71 117 103 112

24 22

103

137

11269

69

137

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40%

5 – I prefer this venue

20%

3 – Neither dislike or like

30%

4 – I like this venue

2 – Prefer a different venue

10%

1- Dislike venue

0%

N

A

G

A

P

T H E

G E M

R E S E A R C H

A D V O C A T E

•

S P R I N G

2 0 1 4

15

Q2. Which educational session topics would you most benefit from? In this question, open responses were collected to look at specific educational topics respondents felt they would most benefit from, or would most like to see. Topics ranged from marketing to CRM, GEM staffing/structure, leadership and diversity for example. A short-list by topic area that presented multiple entries is included in the table below.

Marketing

Reporting

Graduate Enrollment Management

Legal Issues

Student Services

Career Progression

Strategy

Internationalization of Higher Education

Retention

Leadership/Managing Staff

Financial Aid & Funding

Ethics

Diversity

Data-driven decision making

Admissions

Credential Evaluation

Q3. I find the topics and focus of educational offerings relevant. In this question, after learning what would be most beneficial from members, the question was asked to get a sense for how our members felt about what was currently being offered at our educational offerings. The breakdown is below: Answer Options 1 – Strongly Disagree

Percentage

Count

1.8%

4

2 – Disagree

1.4%

3

3 – Neither Agree or Disagree

13.7%

30

4 – Agree

59.8%

131

5 – Strongly Agree

23.3%

51

Educational Offering Relevancy 2% 23%

1% 14%

60%

1- Strongly Disagree

2 – Disagree

3 – Neither Agree or Disagree 4 – Agree

5 – Strongly Agree

Q4. A follow up question was asked as to whether or not members felt that the sessions were diverse enough to meet needs related to the multiple topics that affect their current job responsibilities. With this response, ~85% indicated that the offerings were in fact diverse enough in selection.

16

S P R I N G

2 0 1 4

•

T H E

G E M

R E S E A R C H

A D V O C A T E

N

A

G

A

P

Q5. Over the last ten years, which annual conferences have you attended?

Response: Attended 160 140 120 100

80 60 40

Response Attended

20 0

There are multiple inferences that can be made from this particular chart. While the overall response rate of the survey was low, we learn that those that did respond to this question tend to be either newer members of NAGAP, or earlier in their careers. In 2009, the dip in attendance represents a time when the economic condition created increased hindrance in member’s ability to attend a conference (timing also in a more costly city). Overall, however, of the responses we see a continual increase in those attending annual conferences. It should be noted as a limitation to this chart, it is based upon 202 responses, with 113 skipping this question (either intentionally, or have never attended a conference).

Q6. At the time the survey was conducted, we asked members if they were planning to attend the next conference, which was in Orlando in April 2013. In continued trajectory of the previous question, 181 responses were “yes”, or 65% of total responses, with 29.9% being “no”, and 5% being “don’t know yet.”

Q7.-Q9. If you have not attended an annual conference before, what were the reasons? If you have attended some, but not all of the past conferences, what were the reasons? Here, the goal was to simply identify some of the key reasons members do not attend annual conferences. Some of the responses that appeared multiple times can be seen below:

N

A

G

If never attended, what are the reasons?

If attended some, but not all, what are the reasons?

Was not a member

Budget cuts

Too expensive

Change in position

No money in budget/PD funding not available

Travel restrictions

Other members went

Location

Timing of conference related to position

Other members went – rotate years

Chose PDI over annual conference

Scheduling/timing of conference

Previous knowledge of NAGAP

Workload & out of office time

A

P

T H E

G E M

R E S E A R C H

A D V O C A T E

•

S P R I N G

2 0 1 4

17

Q10.-Q16. The next several questions asked were specifically designed to learn from members about their interest/experience presenting at conferences. Information centered on how NAGAP prepares its members for presentations.

Have you submitted a proposal in the past for a session at the Annual Conference?

27.4% (76) – Yes 72.6% (201) – No 38 skipped this question How many times have you submitted a proposal and how many of those were accepted?

On average, respondents to this question have submitted ~2 proposals since being a member of NAGAP. This average was taken from a total of 77 responses to the question. Range was 0-9 times.

Of this, an average of 1.68 submissions were accepted, for an approximate 84% acceptance rate.

Do you feel the session selection process for the Annual Conference is transparent and easy to understand?

Selection Process Transparency

45%

50%

5%

Yes No

I haven't considered submitting before

If you were to submit a proposal, do you feel you have a fair shot of being selected for a session?

In this question, 86% felt that they would have a shot at being accepted to present their proposal. Interestingly, this is higher than the 50% who agree with transparency in the selection process. Additional comments received are available at the end of this appendix.

Do you think NAGAP should offer training on how to prepare a session proposal?

73% of respondents with this question felt that there is value to training on how to prepare a session proposal. This was conducted in the past via webinar, and will continue to be offered for future conferences. An equal amount also agreed that along with training on putting together a conference proposal, training on effective presentation at a conference would also be value added.

Q17. If NAGAP offered a “Graduate Enrollment Management (GEM) Profession Certification process, what would you expect it to entail? Responses to this were overwhelming at 70% of total participants. A full listing of responses was shared with the Education Committee and is available upon request.

18

S P R I N G

2 0 1 4

•

T H E

G E M

R E S E A R C H

A D V O C A T E

N

A

G

A

P

Do you think this certification would be beneficial to you as a member?

Beneficial

36%

Yes No

53%

11%

I do not know

Do you think this would be beneficial to you when looking to hire new employees?

Hiring Credential Value 22%

30%

N

A

G

A

P

T H E

G E M

41%

7%

R E S E A R C H

Yes No

I do not know

I do not handle hiring

A D V O C A T E

•

S P R I N G

2 0 1 4

19

Appendix E: Marketing Committee Appendix F: Marketing Committee Report

Comment [J1]: If should be re-name

For the Marketing Committee, questions were constructed that sought to learn information about the way in which we partner/engage with our vendors, who members would like us to engage more with, and other ways we can improve the relationship our members Comment [J1]: If w Appendix F: Marketing Committee Report should be re-named have with vendors.

Q1. I am familiar with the Alliance Partner Program. For this question, responses were collected to learn from our member’s what the awareness level was for the NAGAP Alliance Partnership Program. Responses were very diverse, with the majority not familiar with or know about this program:

Awareness of Alliance Partnership Program?

5 - Strongly Agree

4 - Agree

2% Awareness 11% of Alliance Partnership Program?

3 - Neither Agree or Disagree 19%

5 - Strongly Agree 2%

4 - Agree 11%

3 - Neither Agree or Disagree 19%

2 - Disagree 30%

1 - Strongly Disagree 38%

1 - Strongly Disagree 38%

2 - Disagree 30%

Q2. When seeking a new vendor, I look at NAGAP’s Alliance Partner’s first. Similar to the previous question, we learn that given most members are not familiar with the alliance program; they also will not be using them to make decisions on which vendor to utilize for their institution’s needs. Sixteen responses did list “agree” or “strongly agree”, indicating that if the program was better communicated and organized differently, it may become Reference a point of reference for members.

Alliance Partners First?

Agree 5%

Strongly Agree 2%

Reference Alliance Partners First?

Strongly AgreeStrongly Agree Agree 2% 30% 5% Neither Agree or Disagree Strongly Agree 39% 30% Disagree Neither Agree or 24% Disagree 39% Disagree 24%

Q3. Have you interacted with vendors at any past conferences? Vendors continue to be valued at NAGAP conferences, with 72.6% of responses indicating “yes” they do interact with vendors, 6.3% “no”, and a larger than expected amount of 21.1% indicating “I have not attended any conferences.” So, with those that did respond, 92% have interacted with vendors.

20

S P R I N G

2 0 1 4

•

T H E

G E M

R E S E A R C H

A D V O C A T E

N

A

G

A

P

Q4. Have you contracted with any vendors you met at a NAGAP Annual Conference? For this response, ~39% have contracted with vendors from a conference, while 61.1% have not. Given what we have learned from the previous responses, if someone did not skip the question, they would answer “no” since they also have not attended the conference. Additionally, there are other inferences that may be made about vendor interaction. For instance, while they do not contract at the conference, it serves an awareness function that likely transpires into a contract or business agreement.

Q5. With which category of vendor(s) have you established a new contract? To provide a better sense for the different areas our member’s contract or have a need to contract, this survey asked what category of vendor(s) did they establish new contracts with? Not to be an exhaustive list, however several categories were considered below:

Category of Vendors 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Category of Vendors

Unfortunately, 37% of respondents skipped this question. There were 15 “other” responses for vendors not otherwise categorized in the aforementioned areas. However, with the information collected, one can see that almost half of the responses indicate that they have not established new contracts from vendors either during or after the conference. One can assume with budgetary constraints new contracts are much lower, or members are doing their own research and not using the annual conference as the primary function for finding solutions to their needs.

N

A

G

A

P

T H E

G E M

R E S E A R C H

A D V O C A T E

•

S P R I N G

2 0 1 4

21

Appendix F: Publications Committee

Comment [J1]: If we Comment [J1]: IfAp w should be re-named should be re-named

In the next several questions, the Publications Committee sought to learn the way in which members review and use NAGAP publications. With the primary publication being Perspectives, questions around that and other communications are included below: Q1. Do you read the monthly E-News letter? In this question, we learn from respondents that over half do read the E-News letter often or always, while a quarter sometimes read it:

E-News E-NewsReadership Readership 5% 5%

30% 30%

13% 13% 26% 26%

26% 26%

1 - Never 1 - Never 2 - Rarley (1-3 times a year) 2 - Rarley (1-3 times a year) 3 - Sometimes (4-6 times a year) 3 - Sometimes (4-6 times a year) 4 - Often (7-9 times a year) 4 - Often (7-9 times a year) 5 Almost always (10-12 times a year) 5 Almost always (10-12 times a year)

Q2. How would you rank the perceived value of E-News? This question provides insight into the various components of the E-News letter, which provides insight into the importance of expanding sections or considerations for removing others: 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0%

22

S P R I N G

5 - Very worthwhile 5 - Very worthwhile 4 - Valuable 4 - Valuable 3 - Kind of valuable 3 - Kind of valuable 2 - Of some worth 2 - Of some worth 1 - No Value 1 - No Value

Overall Overall

2 0 1 4

Events News Links Job Links Events News Links Job Links Calendar Calendar

•

T H E

G E M

Updates Other items Updates Other items

R E S E A R C H

A D V O C A T E

N

A

G

A

P

Q3. Do you read the individual communications from NAGAP? The NAGAP board is also very sensitive to the amount of communications it sends to members. Here, we learn about what respondents’ thoughts are regarding individual email communications:

Email Readership 1% 34%

11%

17%

1 - Never

2 - On Occasion 3 - Sometimes 4 - Often

37%

5 - Always

Q4. I think the email communications are valuable. Here, overwhelming responses that email communications are valuable. This is in line with the 72% that read emails Often/Always from the previous question. The breakdown of responses is as follows: Answer Options

Response Percent

1 – Strongly Agree

1.5%

2 – Disagree

1.9%

3 – Neither agree nor disagree

21.4%

4 – Agree

55.6%

5 – Strongly Agree

19.5%

Q5. Do you read Q5.

Perspectives? the next series ofnext questions, learn about readership behaviorsbehaviors of respondents specific to the Do you readIn Perspectives?

In the series ofwe questions, we learn about readership of respondents specific to Perspectives The answers to whether not members readabout 60% readership Perspectives publication.

The answers to the whether or not publication. members read Perspectives is quiteordiverse, with only Often or Always: Perspectives is quite diverse, with only about 60% readership Often or Always:

Perspectives Readership 6%

28%

13% 22%

31%

N

A

G

1 - Never

2 - On occasion 3 - Sometimes 4 - Often

5 - Always

Q6. Do you read Perspectives in paper form or do you access it online? For respondents, 61.8% read H E while G Eonly M 14.2% R E Sindicate E A R they C Hsolely A Dread V Oonline.

C A TAbout E •a quarter S P R(25%) I N Gof 2 0 1 4 A Perspectives P inTpaper, respondents indicated “both” as the way by which they read this publication.

23

Q6. Do you read Perspectives in paper form or do you access it online? For respondents, 61.8% read Perspectives in paper, while only 14.2% indicate they solely read online. About a quarter (25%) of respondents indicated “both” as the way by which they read this publication.

Q7. Do you share Perspectives or articles from Perspectives with non-members? Here, we learn that 60% of respondents share information within Perspectives to non-members. 40% do not.

Q8. Have you ever access the Perspectives archives online? Here, we learn that the Perspectives archive area of the website continues to be an under utilized resource. Only 20% indicated that they access this information.

Q9. Would you access the archives more if you could. Given the low percentage of those that access

Q9. Would you access the archives more if you could.

Given the low percentage of those whothen access Perspectives archives as indicated Perspectives archives as indicated in the previous question, respondents were asked to indicate if in the previous question, respondents were more then if asked to functionality indicate if they would utilizetoarchives more as if “title”, certain functionality could be they would utilize archives certain could be added it. Such items asked: added to it. Such “author” items aswas “title”, “author” was asked:

Functionality - Usage

250 200 150

Functionality - Usage

100 50 0

Search by Title

Search by Author

Search by Topic/Keyword

I do not forsee utilizing archives

Q10. It is important to receive a paper copy of Perspectives. This question was almost an even distribution

in responses, 47% of indicated that theywas “agreed” or an “strongly agreed” thatinpaper Q10. It is important to receive however a paper copy of responses Perspectives.

This question almost even distribution responses, however 47% copies were still distributed to members.

Response counts are listed below: of responses indicated that they “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that paper copies were still distributed to members. Response counts are listed below: Answer Options 1 – Strongly Agree Answer Options 2 – Disagree 3 – Neither Agree or Disagree 1 – Strongly Agree 4 – Agree 2 – Disagree 5 – Strongly Disagree

3 – Neither Agree or Disagree 4 – Agree

Response Count 25 Response Count 48 25 66 48 81 43

5 – Strongly Disagree

24

S P R I N G

2 0 1 4

•

T H E

G E M

R E S E A R C H

66 81

43

A D V O C A T E

N

A

G

A

P

Q11.

If Perspectives were available only think its value would Wequestion learn in this question Q11. If Perspectives were available only online, I think itsonline, value Iwould decrease.

We decrease. learn in this from respondents that many from respondents that many seem to be complacent about the issue, however a larger portion than seem to be complacent about the issue, however a larger portion than previous questions did report that they disagreed that value previous questions did report that they disagreed that value would decrease if Perspectives went to an would decrease if Perspectives went to an online only version. online only version.

Value if Online Only

8%

22%

14% 1 - Strongly Disagree

29%

2 - Disagree

3 - Neither Agree or Disagree 4 - Agree

27%

5 - Strongly Agree

Q12. If Perspectives was only available online, I would be more likely to read it. As a follow up from the previous question, it was clearI that many did notlikely seemtotoread thinkit.the would offered online Q12. If Perspectives was only available online, would be more As value a follow up decrease from the ifprevious question, it was clear only, however it was clear that if it went online, it would not change reader ship behavior.

Less that many did not seem to think the value would decrease if offered online only, however it was clear that if it than wentaonline, it would not quarter of responses indicated that they would read it more if available only online:

change reader ship behavior. Less than a quarter of responses indicated that they would read it more if available only online: Answer Options Answer Options 1 – Strongly Disagree1 – Strongly Disagree 2 – Disagree 2 – Disagree 3 – Neither Agree or Disagree 3 – Neither Agree or Disagree 4 – Agree 5 – Strongly Agree 4 – Agree

Response Count Response Count

5 – Strongly Agree

31 83 100 36 9

31 83 100 36 9

Q13. Did you utilize theDid Anyou Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions publication,publication, which waswhich published by the Council of Graduate Q13. utilize the “An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions” was published by Schools and mailedthe outCouncil to all NAGAP members? of Graduate Schools and mailed out to all NAGAP members?

Responses

24%

9%

16%

41%

10%

1 - I did not receive it

2 - I have not opened it

3 - I have read through portions

4 - I reference it from time to time 5 - I use it regularly

Q14. If NAGAP were to produce written resources and/or guides, what topics would you like to see covered?

N

A

G

A

E sources, G E M summer R E research S E A programs, R C H post-bac A D V programs, O C A Tand E best • practices S P RforI inclusion N G 2 0 1 4 APresource guide T on H funding in graduate education.

25