Zicklin Mission Review Survey Purposes, Results, Implications May 28, 2002

Zicklin Mission Review Survey

Purposes, Results, Implications

May 28, 2002

Zicklin Mission Review Survey 2

Selected words from our constituents…


I’ll be proud of the Zicklin School in three years if….

….they can provide free meals with every class.

undergraduate student



….a Baruch graduate becomes the next president of the United States.

anonymous



….Mayor Bloomberg uses Baruch as a pit-stop for his next campaign.




….the staff will be more cooperative and nice.




….we produce high-quality research in top-tier journals in each field.

faculty member



….we de-emphasize teaching.

faculty member



….we get serious about better teaching.

faculty member



….the image of Baruch as “Big Bird” that does a lot of things decently is changed to something more precise…..(some other animal).

faculty member



….the ability of our students to write improves.

faculty member



….I can use what I learned to become a CEO.

graduate student



….we set higher standards for tenure and promotion.

faculty member



….people would know the name, Zicklin School of Business.

staff member



….salaries for all faculty are brought up to market.

faculty member



….we hire a Nobel-prize winning professor of economics.

faculty member



….we serve fewer, but better students properly.

faculty member



….faculty and students are significantly involved outside of class in school life.

member Board of Trustees



….it is seen as a very desirable teaching post because of its relations with business, its focal location, and the quality of students.

member Business Advisory Council



….graduates of the Full-Time Honors MBA program do not hear the phrase “we do not hire from here…”

FT MBA student



….there are more classes available at registration.




….faculty morale improves.

faculty member



….all offices are staffed with sufficient, fairly paid, competent help.

staff member



….we let students get the classes they need to graduate on time.




….students leave here saying they would definitely come here again.

faculty member



….the institution develops a reputation for caring about students.

staff member



….we improve our visibility to all stakeholders.

faculty member



….we break into the top 50 MBA programs.

faculty member



….Zicklin makes the top 25.

masters student



….we keep the bathroom clean.




….students, faculty, administrators, and alumni have defined and begun working toward a shared vision for the School, having outlined concrete steps to reach incremental goals.

staff member


Purpose of Survey

To seek broad input from Zicklin faculty, undergraduate and masters students, staff, and alumni for use by Mission Review Committee in drafting the School’s mission statement and developing strategic priorities for further planning


Method

Survey used to reach large number of people in short period, latter-half of spring 2002 semester Survey items adapted/extended for our purposes from Academic Leadership: Turning Vision Into Reality, Moore and Diamond, Ernst & Young Foundation


Completed Survey Responses

Faculty – 83* Undergraduates – 255** Masters – 156*** Staff – 36 Alumni/Advisory Council – 8 (more to come)

* Assistant –19%; Associate – 27%; Full- 46%; Instructor – 8%** Sophomores, Juniors, Seniors*** All programs, FT MBA skew


What We Wanted to Know

1. What people think about the current status of the Zicklin School on various dimensions

2. How much future emphasis people would like to see devoted to each of these dimensions

3. Which of these dimensions should be considered institutional priorities

4. What people would like to see Zicklin accomplish in the next three years


Results

By group:Faculty, Undergraduates, Masters, Staff

• Current Status• Future Emphasis• Institutional Priorities• I’ll be proud categories


Current Status: FacultyScale: 1 – Poor; to 5 – Excellent

Student Diversity 4.56Faculty Diversity 3.61Use of Technology in Teaching 3.53Faculty Quality 3.52Faculty Teaching 3.39Faculty Collegiality 3.25Student Quality 3.19Faculty Research 3.06Curriculum Innovativeness 3.04 Mid-

pointGrading Standards 2.95Faculty Service 2.89Student Support Services 2.79External Relations with Business Community 2.71Student Life 2.68Shared Governance 2.65Career Services 2.58Faculty and Staff Development 2.52


Future Emphasis: FacultyScale: 1 – Lower Emphasis; to 5 – Higher Emphasis

Career Services 4.56Faculty Quality 4.54Student Quality 4.43External Relations with Business Community 4.37Faculty Research 4.32Faculty and Staff Development 4.15Student Support Services 4.13Faculty Teaching 4.10Curriculum Innovativeness 3.91Use of Technology in Teaching 3.88Grading Standards 3.86Shared Governance 3.84Student Life 3.82Faculty Collegiality 3.75Faculty Service 3.60Faculty Diversity 3.14Student Diversity 2.79


Institutional Priorities: Faculty

Mentions

Faculty Research 63Faculty Quality 57Student Quality 44Career Services 41External Relations with Business Community 34


“I’ll be proud of Zicklin if…”: Faculty

Mentions

Student quality is improved 32External relations/recognition is improved 27Faculty salaries are increased 25Support of faculty research is increased 23Rankings are increased 21Faculty quality is increased 21


Current Status: Undergraduates

Scale: 1 – Poor; to 5 – Excellent

Student Diversity 4.26Faculty Diversity 3.77Use of Technology in Teaching 3.64Faculty Quality 3.47Faculty Teaching 3.43Student Quality 3.43Faculty Collegiality 3.40Career Services 3.37 Grading Standards 3.35Faculty Research 3.32Faculty Service 3.30Faculty and Staff Development 3.28Curriculum Innovativeness 3.27External Relations with Business Community 3.16Student Life 3.12Student Support Services 3.09Shared Governance 3.06 Mid-

point


Future Emphasis: Undergraduates

Scale: 1 – Lower Emphasis; to 5 – Higher Emphasis

Career Services 4.48Student Support Services 4.36Faculty Quality 4.33Faculty Teaching 4.32External Relations with Business Community 4.28Use of Technology in Teaching 4.16Student Quality 4.13Curriculum Innovativeness 4.01Student Life 4.01Faculty and Staff Development 3.94Grading Standards 3.88Faculty Service 3.85Faculty Research 3.72Faculty Collegiality 3.64Shared Governance 3.57Student Diversity 3.30Faculty Diversity 3.26


Institutional Priorities: Undergraduates

Mentions

Career Services 169Faculty Quality 139Faculty Teaching 120External Relations with Business Community 104Student Support Services 100


“I’ll be proud of Zicklin if…”: Undergraduates

Mentions

Teaching, curriculum, class size, andavailability are improved 66

Career services are improved 62Student support, administrative services

are improved 56Faculty quality is increased 42External relations/recognition is improved 38


Current Status: MastersScale: 1 – Poor; to 5 – Excellent

Student Diversity 4.46Faculty Diversity 3.79Faculty Collegiality 3.61Student Quality 3.55Faculty Service 3.50Faculty Quality 3.48Use of Technology in Teaching 3.46Faculty Teaching 3.42Faculty and Staff Development 3.35Faculty Research 3.32Grading Standards 3.31Curriculum Innovativeness 3.14Shared Governance 3.12 Mid-

pointStudent Life 2.97Student Support Services 2.95External Relations with Business Community 2.86Career Services 2.53


Future Emphasis: MastersScale: 1 – Lower Emphasis; to 5 – Higher Emphasis

Career Services 4.59External Relations with Business Community 4.57Faculty Quality 4.55Faculty Teaching 4.37Student Quality 4.34Curriculum Innovativeness 4.26Student Support Services 4.25Use of Technology in Teaching 4.09Faculty and Staff Development 4.07Student Life 3.87Faculty Research 3.77Grading Standards 3.71Faculty Service 3.57Shared Governance 3.57Faculty Collegiality 3.47Faculty Diversity 3.22Student Diversity 3.21


Institutional Priorities: Masters

Mentions

Career Services 102Faculty Quality 92External Relations with Business Community 86Student Quality 82Faculty Teaching 59


“I’ll be proud of Zicklin if…”: Masters

Mentions

Rankings are increased 66External relations/recognition is improved 55Career services are improved 52Student quality is improved 33Faculty quality is increased 33


Current Status: StaffScale: 1 – Poor; to 5 – Excellent

Student Diversity 4.23Grading Standards 3.83Career Services 3.71Faculty Quality 3.54Faculty Teaching 3.53Use of Technology in Teaching 3.52Student Quality 3.44External Relations with Business Community 3.38Faculty Research 3.20*Curriculum Innovativeness 3.18Faculty and Staff Development 3.12Faculty Diversity 3.08Shared Governance 3.07* Mid-pointStudent Support Services 2.90Faculty Service 2.89Faculty Collegiality 2.81*Student Life 2.77

* >50 percent “No Opinion”


Future Emphasis: StaffScale: 1 – Lower Emphasis; to 5 – Higher Emphasis

External Relations with Business Community 4.54Student Support Services 4.51Faculty Quality 4.48Career Services 4.37Faculty Teaching 4.30Student Quality 4.29Use of Technology in Teaching 4.19 Faculty and Staff Development 4.18Curriculum Innovativeness 4.18Student Life 4.15Faculty Diversity 4.03Faculty Service 3.96Faculty Research 3.82Grading Standards 3.82Faculty Collegiality 3.82Student Diversity 3.76Shared Governance 3.48


Institutional Priorities: Staff

Mentions

Student Support Services 22Faculty Quality 21Student Quality 20Career Services 19External Relations with Business Community 17


“I’ll be proud of Zicklin if…”: Staff

Mentions

External relations/recognition is improved 12Student support/administrative services

are improved 9Rankings are increased 8Career services are improved 8Student quality is improved 7


Summary: Current Status

Faculty Undergraduates Masters Staff

Our strongest suits (>4)Student Diversity

Our weakest suits (<3) Faculty/Staff Devel.

Career Services Shared Governance Student Life External Relations Student Support Svs. Faculty Service Grading Standards


Summary: Future Emphasis


(>4.2)Career Services Faculty Quality External Relations Student Quality Student Support Srvs Faculty Teaching Faculty Research Curric Innovativeness Use of Tech in Teaching


Summary: Institutional Priorities Comparison Rankings


Faculty Research 1 Faculty Quality 2 2 2 2Student Quality 3 4 3Career Services 4 1 1 4External Relations 5 4 3 5Faculty Teaching 3Student Support Services 5 1


Summary: “I’ll be proud of Zicklin if…”

Ranked Mentions Faculty Undergraduates Masters

Staff

Student Quality is improved 1 4 4External relations/recognition

is improved 2 5 2 1Faculty salaries are increased 3Support of faculty research

is increased 4Rankings are increased 5 1 3Faculty quality is increased 5 4 4Teaching/curriculum, class size,

and availability are improved 1Career Services are improved 2 3 3Student support, administrative

services are improved 3 2


Implications

1. Faculty are most critical of current status among all groups. Suggests we “are toughest on ourselves” and implying both need, and interest in change.


Implications

2. Undergraduates are least critical of current situation suggesting their expectations are lower. Masters students concerns are focused on external relations and student support especially in career services. Staff’s assessment focuses on student support, student life, and faculty involvement.


Implications

3. Agreement across all groups that faculty quality should be key future emphasis. Suggests aggressive recruiting is on target, retention support recommendations should be adopted, and faculty development, and assessment are key.


Implications

4. All groups place high emphasis on strengthening external relations/ recognition and career services. Suggests Zicklin must invest further in these areas. Rankings progress is emphasized by masters students, faculty, and staff.


Implications

5. Faculty, staff, and masters students place high priority on increasing student quality. Suggests continuing to raise bar on undergrad admissions and recruiting more aggressively on masters level.


Implications

6. Faculty want higher emphasis on research. Consistent with aggressive recruiting of new, high quality faculty, adoption of retention support plan, and need for additional faculty development and research support.


Implications

7. All groups, except faculty, indicate higher emphasis should be placed on teaching. This gap in expectations, should be addressed.


Implications

8. Undergraduates, masters students, and staff, indicate additional emphasis on student support services is required. Plan to build school infrastructure with MBA tuition revenue should be implemented.


Implications

9. Masters students indicate more emphasis than others on the need for curriculum innovativeness. Streamlining the MBA Full-Time and Flex-Time cores are a start. May still need to focus short term on coordination and integration before other steps.


Implications

10. Faculty concern over salaries is considerable but is viewed in context with parallel institutional advancement in other areas including student quality, external relations/ recognition/rankings, and faculty performance.

Zicklin Mission Review Survey

Purposes, Results, Implications

May 28, 2002

Documents

Zicklin Mission Review Survey Purposes, Results, Implications May 28, 2002