Department of Geology California State University, Sacramento Self Study With Focused Inquiry for Program Review March 2009
Table of Contents Introduction...1 General Information About the Program...2 Assessment Update...2 Results of Focused Inquiry...4 1. How well does the content and structure of our curriculum train students to solve geologic problems?...4 2. How well does the content and structure of our curriculum meet the workforce needs of California?...6 3.How well does the structure of our programs meet the needs of our faculty to maintain fulfilling professional lives?...13 Faculty Response to Focused Inquiry Results...16 List of Tables Table 1. Comparison of content areas of GIT exam with content areas in Sac State Geology Curriculum...7 Table 2. Comparison of required courses in the Sac State Geology program to the number of programs nationally that require similar courses....9 Table 3. Comparison of required number of semester units in Geology disciplines at selected CSU campuses...11 Table 4. Possible curriculum changes to meet department goals...18 List of Figures Figure 1. Distribution of Field Camp Grades...3 Figure 2. Graphical comparison of required Geology courses at Sacramento State with national trends...10 Figure 3. Employment status of recent graduates...12 Figure 4. A ternary diagram of faculty perceptions of their current workload distribution and their desired workload distribution...15 Figure 5. Ternary diagrams of faculty perceptions of their current and desired distribution of teaching assignments (a), and service activities (b)...15 Attachments Attachment A Department Factbook Attachment B Alumni Survey Attachment C Assessment Report 2007-2008 Attachment D Questions for Student Focus Group Attachment E Content Exit Domains Attachment F Student Knowledge Inventory Attachment G Questions for Professional Focus Group Attachment H Curriculum Scenarios Considered
Self-Study With Focused Inquiry Department of Geology March 2009 Introduction In May 2008 the Geology Department submitted a Self-Study Proposal that was intended to provoke thoughtful reflection on the content and structure of our undergraduate program, particularly the B.S. degree in Geology. The goals outlined in the proposal were the result of hours of faculty discussion during the Fall 2007 and Spring 2008 semesters. Specifically, the goals of our Self-Study are to address three focused inquiry questions: 1. How well does the content and structure of our curriculum train students to solve geologic problems? 2. How well does the content and structure of our curriculum meet the workforce needs of California? And 3. How well does the structure of our programs meet the needs of our faculty to maintain fulfilling professional lives? To address each of these questions we had proposed a multi-pronged approach that includes data collection and analysis, questionnaires, and focus groups. In this report we provide the results of that self study. We have not been successful in assembling the focus groups we wanted, primarily because of time and logistical constraints, some of which were created by a time-consuming faculty search in the Fall semester. We are hopeful that the focus groups will occur before the campus visit by the external reviewer. In addition to the focused inquiry questions, our study also includes General Information About the Program, which consists of data collected and compiled by the Office of Institutional Research, and an Assessment Update, which augments the Department Assessment Report dated June 2008. All full-time faculty participated in the data collection and analysis for this study.
Department of Geology 2 Self Study for Program Review, Spring 2009 I. General Information About The Program The Office of Institutional Research has provided a Factbook that includes statistics on enrollment, demographics, faculty workloads, and course offerings for the period 2003-2008. The Factbook is included as Attachment A of this report. II. Assessment Update Our department adopted its current Assessment Plan in May, 2000. At that time, we identified five program goals: That students are prepared for professional and /or graduate study in the geosciences; That students develop a deep understanding of Earth systems: how Earth systems work and how they interact; That students develop their ability to solve geologic problems through the use of scientific method; That students develop a deep curiosity about how the Earth works, and a lifelong appreciation of the Earth's place in space and time; and That students develop their technical communication skills: seeking and processing technical information; and communicating technical information and conclusions in both oral and written form. The methods we chose to measure our progress toward these goals include development of a common rubric for assessing writing; development of a rubric to assess field mapping skills; collection of student field camp grades (like many small geology departments, we do not offer this capstone course, so our students take this required course at other institutions); and alumni surveys. The alumni survey is included as Attachment B. The most striking result of the alumni survey is that 84% of the respondents indicated that they were poorly prepared in the area of technical writing. On the other hand, over 89% of the respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with the overall education they received in the Geology Department. We have continued collect and evaluate data on student writing skills, and on student success in field camp. After attempting to use a field-mapping rubric for several semesters we abandoned that effort in favor of relying on field camp grades because we found it very
Department of Geology 3 Self Study for Program Review, Spring 2009 difficult to develop a rubric that could be used across different mapping classes which focused on different aspects of geology. Our students tend to perform well in the field camps then attend. Figure 1, shows the distribution of field camp grades for students who attended field camp since 2003. 20 15 Field Camp Grades 2003-2008 N=41 10 5 0 A A- B+ B C D Figure 1. Distribution of Field Camp Grades We have continued developing our inquiry into student writing skills. We have used our assessment data to identify areas of student weakness, and have adjusted writing instruction and assignments accordingly. We are now assembling a student guide to technical writing for students to be used in all courses with writing assignments to ensure consistency in our approach to improving student writing skills. Moreover, we are hopeful that the newly implemented changes in the university writing policies, which put greater focus on writing within the discipline, will be effective in improving the technical writing of our majors. The analysis of our assessment data prior to Fall 2007 pointed to the need for more longitudinal assessment data. Therefore, we have added two new components to our assessment plan. We have identified a small set of critical knowledge and skills that are essential to understanding geology. This information is being compiled into a booklet for students. We have begun to track students longitudinally by testing them on this set of knowledge and skills at several points during the major. We believe this strategy will
Department of Geology 4 Self Study for Program Review, Spring 2009 effectively communicate to students just what they should be learning about geology, and will allow us to track their progress in mastering this body of knowledge. The expansion of our assessment plan is included as part of our focused inquiry, and is discussed further in the next section of this report. Our most recent Assessment Report is included as Attachment C. III. Results of Focused Inquiry The discipline of Geology is a licensed profession in California and most other states. By the same token, the science of Geology is fundamental to understanding environmental change, earth and energy resources, water supply, and land use. Consequently the Geology program at Sacramento State must balance training of professional geologists (i.e., teaching to the test ), preparing a citizenry to be knowledgeable in earth processes, and preparing future scientists to be successful in research and graduate school. Our focused inquiry is intended to address issues related to striking an appropriate balance of these needs. Our focused inquiry consists of addressing the three questions listed in the introduction of this report. 1. How well does the content and structure of our curriculum train students to solve geologic problems? Student Performance in Field Camp All Sacramento State Geology majors with a B.S. degree objective are required to attend a summer field camp that is offered by another institution. Summer field camp is typically central requirement for geology B.S. degrees. Nonetheless, only 90 geology department in the country offer a summer field camp 1. Therefore our department, like the majority of other geology departments, has required that our students attend field camp run by another institution. (Students are permitted to attend one of four preselected field camps; they may petition to attend other camps, which are screened by our faculty on a case-by-case basis.) We use our field camp grades as an independent assessment of how student preparation. Field camp grades are reported in the previous section. 1 Status of the Geoscience Workforce: Chapter 2: Four Year Colleges and Universities, American Geological Institute, 2009.
Department of Geology 5 Self Study for Program Review, Spring 2009 As part of this self study we polled recent field-camp attendees about their field camp experience. Typical student responses were Students got exposure to different rocks and formations than they were exposed to in California. In some cases this was seen as being a good thing, in some cases students thought that mapping almost all carbonates was too narrow an experience. Students struggled with making balanced cross-sections and thought that they had not received sufficient preparation for this task. Students really had to work hard at interpreting aerial photos, for which they had received almost no preparation. Compared to other students in field camp, our students were very comfortable in the field and had better knowledge and skills with the Brunton transit and with interpreting topographic maps. Some students were not required to provide written field reports as part of their field camp experience. (Written reports are supposed to be required by approved field camps.) Students universally felt that field camp was a valuable experience. Some our students thought that students from other institutions were less mature than the geology students at Sac State. One respondent said other students behavior was more difficult to abide than the academic aspect of field camp. Focus groups with current students We have developed questions for this focus group as well a pool of students to participate. Professor Elaine Gale, from the Communication Studies Department, has agreed to conduct the focus group. The focus group will meet later this semester, when we can coordinate schedules of the students and Professor Gale. The line of questioning that will be pursued in this focus group is indicated in Attachment D. Longitudinal questions administered to all students. Department faculty have developed topical Exit Domains which provide the most basic skills that students should acquire in each of several core courses. In Spring 2009 we will
Department of Geology 6 Self Study for Program Review, Spring 2009 develop course exit exams to begin assessing how well are students are acquiring the expected knowledge and skills. The list of Exit Domains is given in Attachment E. We have also developed a Student Knowledge Inventory question bank that is administered to all students in junior- and senior-level courses. These questions test students on the essential knowledge that we expect all students to have in our program. This inventory was administered for the first time in Spring 2009. A summary of the inventory is given in Attachment F. The conclusions we draw from the initial administration of the Student Knowledge Inventory are: Students have a reasonably good grasp on mineralogy and plate tectonics after their first semester in the upper division. Students have very poor knowledge of classification and mineralogy of igneous and metamorphic rocks. Students knowledge of faulting and fault classification is relatively weak. Students ability to interpret the order of geologic events from a cross section is relatively good. Students have not memorized the geologic time scale by the time they should. Although we are using the longitudinal tests to assess our program and teaching, it is also helpful in identifying students who are struggling in the major. Advisors have identified 6 students who took the inventory, and plan to discuss concerns and possible remedies. 2. How well does the content and structure of our curriculum meet the workforce needs of California? Comparison of Sacramento State Geology curriculum to content areas of the Professional Geologists exam The Professional Geologist exam consists of two parts: The Geologist In Training (GIT) exam, which candidates usually take shortly after they graduate from college, and the Practice of Geology (PG) exam, which candidates take after they have worked under the supervision of a licensed geologist for at least three years. In using the licensing exam as a lens through which to view our curriculum, we focused on the GIT exam because the content of that exam reflects what the professional community expects recently-graduated college students to know and do. The content areas of the GIT
Department of Geology 7 Self Study for Program Review, Spring 2009 exam are broken down by percentages in the guidelines for the exam 2. For comparison, we estimated the number of credit units Sac State Geology students receive in each of the specified content areas. (Some content areas of the GIT exam are covered in several courses, so we attempted to proportion the credit units accordingly.) Table 1 summarizes this comparison. In most content areas there is reasonably good alignment in the weights given to the content areas. The striking exceptions are in the areas of remote sensing (which includes aerial photo interpretation) and in hydrogeology. Table 1 indicates that our curriculum gives greater weight to mineralogy and petrology than does the GIT exam, however, the department faculty considered this to be inevitable because those courses provide the foundation for other areas of geology. Table 1. Comparison of content areas of GIT exam with content areas in Sac State Geology Curriculum Content Area GIT (% of Questions) Sac State (% of credit units) Field 19.4 13.0 Remote Sensing 9.7 0.0 Min/ Petrol/ Petrog/ Geochem 13.6 19.6 Sed / Strat / Paleo 10 19.6 Geomorphology 6.4 8.7 Structure & Tectonics 9.1 10.9 Geophysics & Seismo 3.6 8.7 Hydrogeology 24.5 6.5 Engineering Geol 2.7 6.5 Minerals / Petroleum / Energy 0.9 6.5 Comparison of Sacramento State Geology curriculum to that at other universities Table 2 and Figure 2 compare the required courses in our program to the percentage of geology programs in the country requiring similar courses. The national data were taken from a report by Drummond and Markin 3. Our program requires courses in more subdisciplines the most programs in the country. The last row of Table 2 indicates that our 2 National Associate of State Boards of Geology, www.asbog.org 3 An Analysis of the Bachelor of Science in Geology Degree as Offered in the United States, J. of Geoscience Education, March 2008.
Department of Geology 8 Self Study for Program Review, Spring 2009 program requires more units in the major than most programs. (A more detailed examination of the data in Drummond and Marklin shows that the number of required courses for our program is more than one standard deviation over the national mean.) Table 2 indicates that only 18% of the programs in the country require a course in Hydrogeology and almost none require a course in Remote Sensing, even though these are heavily weighted topics on the GIT exam. We also compared our curriculum to several other programs within the CSU system (Table 3). (A direct comparison was often difficult because courses go by different names and some topics are covered in a variety of courses. Therefore Table 3 is based on some interpretation of the catalog descriptions from each of the listed campuses.) We chose campuses based on those that are similar size, have similar programs and have similar university demographics. Table 3 shows that our program tends to have more required courses than similar programs within the CSU system. We are the only program in the comparison group that requires Geomorphology. Only CSU Northridge and Sacramento State require Geophysics and Paleontology. Within the comparison group, only San José State offers their own field camp, although we are aware of other CSU campuses that also have field camps.
Department of Geology 9 Self Study for Program Review, Spring 2009 Notes Table 2. Comparison of required courses in the Sac State Geology program to the number of programs nationally that require similar courses. Course/Subject % of Programs Requiring Sac State Requires? Field Camp 99.3 Yes 1 Physical Geology 95.8 Yes Structural Geology 82.7 Yes Petrology 90.2 Yes Sedimentology 82.9 Yes 2 Stratigraphy 64.1 Yes 2 Mineralogy 79.4 Yes Historical Geology 75.6 Yes Paleontology 46.3 Yes Geomorphology 36.6 Yes Geophysics 19.9 Yes Geochemistry 18.8 Elective Hydrogeology 18.1 Elective Field Methods? 3 Yes # Units in Geology Courses 30-42 55 4 1 Field camp is a "graduation requirement" 2 Sedimentology and stratigraphy are combined 3 Data are ambiguous 4 49 units not counting field camp
Department of Geology 10 Self Study for Program Review, Spring 2009 100 = Required at Sac State 90 80 % of Universities Requiring 70 60 50 40 30 combined 20 10 0 Field Camp Physical Geology Structural Geology Petrology Sedimentology Stratigraphy Mineralogy Historical Geology Core Content Area Paleontology Geomorphology Geophysics Geochemistry Hydrogeology Figure 2. Graphical comparison of required Geology courses at Sacramento State with national trends.
Department of Geology 11 Self Study for Program Review, Spring 2009 Table 3. Comparison of required number of semester units in Geology disciplines at selected CSU campuses. CSU Sacramento CSU Northridge San Diego State San Francisco State Physical Geology 4 4 4 4 4 Historical Geology 4 4 4 4 4 Mineralogy 5 3 4 2 2** Petrology 4 4 4 2 3** Sed / Strat 4 4 4 4 3 Structural Geology 4 4 5 4 4 Field Geology 7 8 6 4 3 Field Camp away away 4 Hydrogeology 4* Geophysics 4 3 Geomorphology 4 4* Paleontology 4 4 Geochemistry 3 4* Geology Elective Units 9 10 6 8 23 San Jose State Notes * "Required" elective ** Combined course "away" means field camp is taken at another university
Department of Geology 12 Self Study for Program Review, Spring 2009 Employment status of recent graduates To estimate the employment status of recent graduates, we tracked, to the extent possible, graduates for whom we have field-camp grades since 2003. A summary of the postgraduation status of those students in shown in Figure 3, which indicates that our students tend to be successful when they seek employment or admission to graduate programs. The results in Figure3, however, may be overly-positive because of two factors: (1) We only sampled graduates who earned a B.S. and completed field camp; some of our weaker students tend to opt for the B.A. degree, and may be less successful in the job market or getting into graduate school; and, (2) the current job market provides fewer opportunities for current students than those who graduated are recently as 2008. Number of Students 15 10 5 Post-Graduate Status of BS Geology Students Last 5 Years Key Employed = successfully employed within two months of graduation Graduate School = enrolled in grad school within 3 semesters of graduation Unemployed = unsuccessfully seeks or sought employment in geology Non-Geology = Chose to enter other employment area N/A = data not available 0 Employed Graduate School Unemployed Non-Geology Pursuits N/A Figure 3. Employment status of recent graduates. Focus Group of Selected Professionals We have developed questions for this focus group as well a pool of professional geologists to participate. Professor Elaine Gale, from the Communication Studies Department, has agreed
Department of Geology 13 Self Study for Program Review, Spring 2009 to conduct the focus group. The focus group will meet later this semester, when we can coordinate schedules of the students and Professor Gale. The line of questioning that will be pursued in this focus group is indicated in Attachment G. 3. How well does the structure of our programs meet the needs of our faculty to maintain fulfilling professional lives? Trends in Faculty Scholarly Productivity We found it difficult to quantify scholarly productivity in a meaningful way because of the varied nature of scholarship in our department: Some faculty advise graduate students, some are very active in advising undergraduate research projects, and some focus on the scholarship of teaching. (If we simply count professional presentations with published abstracts, we find that, on the whole, department faculty have consistently conducted research that produces 5-7 professional abstract each year.) Faculty discussions of what we mean by Scholarly Productivity, began well over a year ago as we were discussing the Self-Study Proposal. One consequence of that discussion was a modification in the Department ARTP document such that we recognize the differing nature of faculty scholarship. Specifically, faculty agreed that The following types of evidence shall be the basis of evaluation of each faculty member's scholarly activity and currency for the purpose of retention, tenure or promotion: (1) Products of scientific research including published journal articles, professional reports. (2) Other scholarly publications and reports appropriate to his or her academic assignment. (3) Documented results of student research conducted under his or her supervision. (4) Published abstracts of presentations at professional meetings. (5) Funded grant or contract proposals, proposals that are in review at the time the file is submitted, and unfunded proposals with written comments from reviewers. (6) Documentation of participation in activities of professional organizations. (7) Documentation of invited professional presentations. In light of faculty recognition of the variety of scholarly products that faculty produce, we are uncertain how to summarize faculty productivity, other than what is documented in individual CVs. All faculty remain engaged in their disciplines and active on local, regional or national levels.
Department of Geology 14 Self Study for Program Review, Spring 2009 Faculty Perceptions of Workload and Job Satisfaction To measure workload and job satisfaction, faculty individually plotted their current and desired distribution of tasks on ternary diagrams that have vertices of Teaching, Scholarship, and Service. The results of individual faculty responses are compiled in Figure 4. The ternary plots indicate that all faculty seek a greater balance between teaching, scholarship and service. Only one faculty member, Professor Hammersley, indicated that her current balance of teach, scholarship and service are approximately the same balance she would like to maintain long term. Four faculty members (Cornwell, Evans, Hausback and Horner) expressed the desire for more opportunities for scholarship. Professors Kusnick and Evans expressed the desire to engage in less service and more teaching. When we examine more closely the faculties perceived interest and aspirations the areas of teaching and service, some interesting observations emerge (Figure 5). Four faculty members expressed a desire to reduce their teaching loads in General Education (GE) courses, while two faculty members expressed a desire to increase GE teaching. Similarly, in the area of service, some faculty expressed a desire to engage in less department and university service, while other faculty wanted less community service and more department or university service. These trends indicate that it may be possible to shift teaching and service assignments in ways that meet the Department s needs and are more fulfilling to individual faculty.
Department of Geology 15 Self Study for Program Review, Spring 2009 Teaching Now Now Ideal Ideal Ideal Now Ideal Now Now Ideal Ideal Now Scholarship Service Figure 4. A ternary diagram of faculty perceptions of their current workload distribution ( Now ) and their desired workload distribution ( Ideal ). Majors Dept (a) (b) Research & Advising Teaching GE Univ Service Comm Figure 5. Ternary diagrams of faculty perceptions of their current distribution of teaching assignments (a), and service activities (b). Each faculty member contributed one arrow. The tail of the arrows indicates that faculty member s perceived distribution of their current assignment. The arrow head indicates the distribution of activities they would prefer.
Department of Geology 16 Self Study for Program Review, Spring 2009 Faculty Response to Focused Inquiry Results During the Spring 2008 and Fall 2008 semesters Geology Department faculty engaged in frequent and extensive discussions about our curriculum in light of the Self-Study results, especially with respect to the focused inquiry questions. Of necessity, many of these discussions were conducted current with other self-study activities. The Need for Curriculum Revisions In light of the Self Study and related discussions, the Department faculty recognize the need to revise our current curriculum. The goals of any revision include Reducing the total number of required units for the B.S. (and by association, the B.A.) degree in Geology; Continuing to provide a strong foundation in core areas of geology, as represented by the GIT exam guidelines and curricula at other universities. Increasing the flexibility in teaching loads in order to achieve the desired balance in individual teaching assignments; Reducing the number of hours students spend in field courses, especially during the semester when those activities create conflicts with instruction in other courses; Making units for field camp an explicit part of the curriculum rather than a graduation requirement ; Addressing student deficiencies in their preparation for field camp; Assuring that students get adequate writing experience and feedback; Increasing opportunities for undergraduate research. Curriculum Scenarios Recognizing the need for curriculum revisions, faculty discussed a broad range of possible curriculum changes. During faculty discussions we considered in detail no fewer that seven different scenarios for curricula that might achieve those goals. A summary of those options is provided in Attachment H. There is one curriculum scenario for which we seek particular input from the Review Committee. It is summarized in Table 4. We do not intend to formalize any changes or
Department of Geology 17 Self Study for Program Review, Spring 2009 submit any course change proposals until we have the opportunity to get input from the external program reviewer and the review committee. The changes indicated in Table 4 nominally reduce the required student credit units (SCU) by 4 SCU. The effective reduction, however, is 10 SCU because field camp is currently a graduation requirement for which the units are counted in the SCU load. The curriculum in Table 4 combines an Advanced Field course with a field camp that we would provide, and includes these units in the SCU load. This course would include focused instruction on remote sensing and aerial photo interpretation. The curriculum in Table 4 dramatically increases student flexibility by making several courses electives, rather than required courses. This flexibility should allow some students to opt for more applied topics, while others can opt for more academic topics, thereby accommodating different post-graduation objectives.
Department of Geology 18 Self Study for Program Review, Spring 2009 Table 4. Possible curriculum changes to meet the goals outlined in this section. SCU NEW SCU OLD Comments Preparation for the Major (Lower Division) Physical Geology 3 3 3 3 Physical Geology Lab 1 1 2 2 or Geology of Mexico Historical Geology 3 3 3 3 Historical Geology Lab 1 1 2 2 Chemistry 1A 5 5 Chemistry 1B 5 5 Calculus (Math 30) 8 4 Dropping requirement for second-semester Physics 5A 4 4 Physics 5B 4 4 or Physics 11A Physics 11B Total Units 34 30 10 10 Upper Division Courses Required of All Students Mineralogy 5 5 7 7 Sed / Strat 4 5 5 7 Dropped Companion Field Course Ign & Meta Petrol 4 5 5 7 Dropped Companion Field Course Field Geology 4 4 6 6 Structural Geology 4 5 5 7 Dropped Companion Field Course Advanced Field 5 3 10 Combined Adv Field and Field Camp Total Units 26 27 38 34 All Students Required to Take 2 of Paleo 1 each semester 4 4 5 5 Courses in this group are lab courses; Hydrogeology Offered on a two-year rotation; students Surface Processes 4 4 5 5 take two. Geophysics 4 5 Total Units 8 12 10 15 All Studentes Required to Take 2 of Ores 3 3 3 3 3 Courses in this group are non-lab; 1 each semester Geochemistry 3 3 3 Offered on a three-year rotation; Volcanology 3 3 3 3 3 Students take two. California Tectonics 3 Engineering Geology 3 Senior Thesis 3 Total Units 6 9 6 9 WTU NEW WTU OLD New Old New Old SCU SCU WTU WTU Total Required 74 78 64 68
Attachment A - Factbook Fact Book Fall 2008 Geology 6000 J Street Sacramento, CA 95819-6028 Phone: (916) 278-6566 Fax: (916) 278-6828 http://www.oir.csus.edu Fall 2003 Spring 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS INPUT: STUDENTS 1 New Student Background...1 2 Undergraduate Student Profile...2 3 New Graduate Student Background...3 4 Graduate Student Profile...4 PROCESS: CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION 5 Student Course Load...5 6 Class Size...6 7 Course Enrollment...7 8 FTE and Student/Faculty Ratio...9 9 Faculty Profile...10 10 Faculty Workload...11 OUTCOMES: STUDENT ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE 11 Grade and Term GPA by Level...12 12 Undergraduate Degree GPA by Ethnicity...14 13 Degrees Conferred...15 14 Retention Rates...16 15 Graduation Rates...18 APPENDIX Appendix A: Faculty Workload (Fall 2007)... A - 1 Appendix B: Faculty Workload (Spring 2008)...B - 1
TABLE 1: New Student Background Entering in Fall 5-Year First-Time Freshmen 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Mean Headcount Department 3 1 2 College 157 177 201 208 182 185 % of College 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.4% Average SAT Scores SAT Verbal 470 630 550 SAT Math 490 650 570 Combined SAT 960 1280 1120 College Mean 1000 978 989 965 979 982 University Mean 966 964 971 957 958 963 High School GPA Department Mean 3.42 2.80 3.11 College Mean 3.27 3.32 3.32 3.28 3.24 3.29 University Mean 3.21 3.20 3.22 3.19 3.18 3.20 Geographic Origin Sacramento A rea 1 1 Other California 2 1 2 Out of state % Sacramento Area 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.7% New Transfers Headcount Department 9 9 7 10 13 10 College 152 205 230 231 241 212 % of College 5.9% 4.4% 3.0% 4.3% 5.4% 4.6% Geographic Origin Sacramento Area* 3 3 1 2 8 3 Other California 5 5 6 8 4 5.6 Out of state 1 1 0 0 1 1 % Sacramento Area 33.3% 33.3% 14.3% 20.0% 61.5% 32.5% * Sacramento area includes Sacramento, Placer, and Yolo counties. Geology 1
TABLE 2: Undergraduate Student Profile Fall 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Total Enrolled* Department Total 49 46 46 59 75 College Total 1,169 1,323 1,531 1,603 1,588 % of College 4.2% 3.5% 3.0% 3.7% 4.7% Ethnicity African American 1 2.0% 1 1.3% American Indian 1 2.2% 1 2.2% 1 1.3% Asian 1 2.0% 2 4.3% 5 10.9% 6 10.2% 6 8.0% Latino 6 12.2% 5 10.9% 3 6.5% 4 6.8% 3 4.0% All Minority 8 16.3% 8 17.4% 9 19.6% 10 16.9% 11 14.7% White/Caucasian 32 65.3% 29 63.0% 30 65.2% 37 62.7% 52 69.3% Foreign Other/Unreported 9 18.4% 9 19.6% 7 15.2% 12 20.3% 12 16.0% % Minority (College) 497 42.5% 573 43.3% 691 45.1% 776 48.4% 751 47.3% % Minority (Univ.) 8883 39.4% 9044 40.1% 9548 41.5% 9913 42.0% 9763 41.2% Gender Dept.-Female 31 63.3% 26 56.5% 21 45.7% 25 42.4% 35 46.7% Dept:- Male 18 36.7% 20 43.5% 25 54.3% 34 57.6% 40 53.3% College-Female 672 57.5% 773 58.4% 893 58.3% 947 59.1% 905 57.0% College-Male 497 42.5% 550 41.6% 638 41.7% 656 40.9% 683 43.0% University-Female 12991 57.6% 12959 57.5% 13215 57.4% 13517 57.2% 13568 57.2% University-Male 9571 42.4% 9596 42.5% 9813 42.6% 10098 42.8% 10156 42.8% Age Under 18 18-24 25 51.0% 30 65.2% 33 71.7% 30 50.8% 41 54.7% 25 and over 24 49.0% 16 34.8% 13 28.3% 29 49.2% 34 45.3% Enrollment Status New 9 18.4% 12 26.1% 7 15.2% 11 18.6% 13 17.3% Continuing 40 81.6% 34 73.9% 39 84.8% 48 81.4% 60 80.0% Returning 2 2.7% Residence California resident 47 95.9% 45 97.8% 46 100% 59 100% 75 100% Outside California 2 4.1% 1 2.2% Foreign * Total enrollment includes new, continuing, and returning students. Geology 2
TABLE 3: New Graduate Student Background Entering in Fall 5-Year Graduates - First-time 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Mean Degree Objective 2nd Bachelor's degree 2 1 1 1 Master's Degree 3 3 5 2 Total 3 3 2 1 6 3 Institution of Origin Sacramento State 1 3 1 Out of State 1 2 1 1 State College 1 1 University of California 1 1 3 1 Private School Total 3 3 2 1 6 3 % Sac. State Students 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 20.0% Graduate Transfers Degree Objective 2nd Bachelor's degree 1 Master's Degree 1 1 1 1 Total 1 1 2 1 Institution of Origin Sacramento State 1 Out of State 1 State College University of California 1 1 Private School Total 1 1 2 1 % Sac. State Students 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% Geology 3
TABLE 4: Graduate Student Profile Fall 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Total Enrolled* Department Total 19 16 10 11 13 College Total 144 158 172 183 206 % of College 13.2% 10.1% 5.8% 6.0% 6.3% Ethnicity African American American Indian Asian 1 5.3% 2 15.4% Latino 1 5.3% 1 6.3% 1 7.7% All Minority 2 10.5% 1 6.3% 3 23.1% White/Caucasian 12 63.2% 10 62.5% 8 80.0% 8 72.7% 4 30.8% Foreign Other/Unreported 5 26.3% 5 31.3% 2 20.0% 3 27.3% 6 46.2% % Minority (College) 36 25.0% 36 22.8% 38 22.1% 52 28.4% 68 33.0% % Minority (Univ.) 1544 26.6% 1515 28.0% 1438 29.3% 1434 29.2% 1457 28.5% Gender Dept.-Female 5 26.3% 4 25.0% 3 30.0% 3 27.3% 7 53.8% Dept:- Male 14 73.7% 12 75.0% 7 70.0% 8 72.7% 6 46.2% College-Female 71 49.3% 82 51.9% 100 58.1% 92 50.3% 116 56.3% College-Male 73 50.7% 76 48.1% 72 41.9% 91 49.7% 90 43.7% University-Female 3859 66.4% 3694 68.2% 3350 68.3% 3393 69.0% 3456 67.7% University-Male 1954 33.6% 1723 31.8% 1554 31.7% 1521 31.0% 1649 32.3% Enrollment Status New 3 15.8% 4 25.0% 2 20.0% 2 18.2% 8 61.5% Continuing 16 84.2% 12 75.0% 7 70.0% 8 72.7% 5 38.5% Returning 1 10.0% 1 9.1% Residence California Resident 18 94.7% 16 100.0% 10 100.0% 11 100.0% 13 100.0% Outside California 1 5.3% Foreign * Total enrollment includes new, continuing and returning students. Geology 4
TABLE 5: Student Course Load Academic Year 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 10-Term Mean Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Course Load (Undergraduate) # Full-Time 33 32 33 33 34 42 44 47 58 57 41 # Part-Time 16 11 13 10 12 9 15 13 17 14 13 Dept. Mean Units 12.2 12.4 12.3 12.0 12.3 13.2 12.0 12.9 12.7 13.3 12.5 College Mean 12.6 12.3 12.5 12.3 12.6 12.3 12.6 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 University Mean 12.4 12.4 12.5 12.4 12.5 12.3 12.4 12.2 12.4 12.1 12.4 Course Load (Graduate) # Full-Time 7 5 2 2 1 4 6 4 6 7 4 # Part-Time 12 12 14 16 9 9 5 7 7 12 10 Dept. Mean Units 7.9 7.4 6.5 6.6 5.5 7.2 8.5 7.5 9.0 7.5 7.4 College Mean 7.6 7.3 6.7 6.6 6.8 6.8 7.3 7.4 7.8 7.4 7.2 University Mean 9.4 9.4 9.3 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.8 9.5 9.6 9.5 Average Unit Load Undergraduate Students College Mean University Mean Dept. Mean Units 13.5 Average Unit 13.0 12.5 12.0 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Geology 5
TABLE 6: Class Size Academic Year 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 10-Term Mean Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Number of Sections (Non-supervision) 1 Lower Division 24 21 23 22 23 20 24 25 23 20 23 Upper Division 14 16 13 15 13 15 14 14 16 18 15 Graduate 4 5 2 3 2 2 3 2 4 2 3 Dept. Total 42 42 38 40 38 37 41 41 43 40 40 College Total 565 561 548 552 563 579 605 607 628 602 581 % of College 7.4% 7.5% 6.9% 7.2% 6.7% 6.4% 6.8% 6.8% 6.9% 6.6% 6.9% Average Section Size (Non-supervision) Lower Division 39 40 40 44 46 46 45 37 38 39 41 Upper Division 23 22 23 20 30 25 26 28 26 24 25 Graduate 10 8 10 6 7 4 6 3 7 7 7 Dept. Mean 31 29 32 32 39 35 36 32 31 30 33 College Mean 29 28 30 29 31 28 30 28 27 27 29 University Mean 28 28 29 29 30 29 29 29 29 30 29 Number of Sections (Supervision) 2 Lower Division Upper Division 2 7 4 8 6 6 8 8 5 7 6 Graduate 2 4 5 5 2 4 2 2 4 6 4 Dept. Total 4 11 9 13 8 10 10 10 9 13 10 College Total 74 96 84 100 101 104 117 136 86 100 100 % of College 5.4% 11.5% 10.7% 13.0% 7.9% 9.6% 8.5% 7.4% 10.5% 13.0% 9.7% % Course Enrollment for Majors Lower Division 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% 3% 1% 3% 1% 2% Upper Division 20% 26% 26% 31% 14% 30% 23% 41% 37% 54% 30% Graduate 100% 97% 96% 100% 60% 100% 95% 100% 90% 100% 94% Dept. Total 10% 11% 10% 9% 6% 11% 9% 14% 15% 21% 11% 1 Includes Lecture, Laboratory, and Activity sections. 2 Includes Independent Study, Field Work, Practice Teaching, Work-study, Thesis, and Studio instruction. Average Size 40 35 30 25 Average Size of Course Sections (non-supervision) 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Dept. Mean College Mean University Mean Geology 6
TABLE 7: Course Enrollment Academic Year 10-Term 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Total Course * Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring GEOL001 81 81 GEOL001L 0 GEOL005 23 23 25 71 GEOL005A 18 15 33 GEOL007 33 130 222 268 287 362 309 305 305 2,221 GEOL008 407 419 388 393 380 286 338 272 251 183 3,317 GEOL008L 62 73 65 68 78 70 72 72 64 68 692 GEOL008T 174 172 172 169 168 148 141 102 70 63 1,379 GEOL010 78 81 54 67 51 74 50 54 48 61 618 GEOL010L 34 37 28 33 33 34 36 37 34 29 335 GEOL012 16 15 14 17 21 21 17 17 19 13 170 GEOL012L 14 15 21 21 19 90 GEOL077 53 52 48 46 37 236 GEOL100 12 11 18 25 33 99 GEOL102A 10 11 9 16 16 62 GEOL102B 9 8 13 9 39 GEOL103A 11 10 15 20 31 87 GEOL103B 11 6 15 17 28 77 GEOL105 15 12 12 21 24 84 GEOL110A 13 12 10 16 15 66 GEOL110B 10 9 6 15 12 52 GEOL111A 12 12 17 18 31 90 GEOL111B 12 17 18 31 78 GEOL112 7 10 6 9 11 43 GEOL114 10 1 11 GEOL120 9 7 5 12 13 46 GEOL121 20 20 GEOL123 22 22 GEOL125 11 17 23 51 GEOL127 1 7 16 16 30 70 GEOL130 49 181 147 168 223 218 199 210 198 178 1,771 GEOL140 21 9 25 17 33 19 37 41 8 210 GEOL170 54 34 46 134 GEOL184 12 12 GEOL190A 9 13 22 GEOL193C 6 4 10 GEOL195 2 2 GEOL198A 3 3 1 2 1 3 1 14 GEOL198B 1 2 2 1 2 8 Geology 7
TABLE 7: Course Enrollment Academic Year 10-Term 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Total Course * Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring GEOL199 2 3 2 3 2 6 1 15 6 40 GEOL200 6 6 12 GEOL202 11 4 15 GEOL204 10 5 15 GEOL208 7 7 GEOL210 8 8 16 GEOL212 6 8 14 GEOL218 10 10 GEOL220 15 7 9 31 GEOL227 9 6 15 GEOL230 6 3 1 10 GEOL240C 8 8 GEOL240D 1 1 GEOL293 4 4 GEOL299 2 2 2 3 1 5 2 3 4 6 30 GEOL500 4 3 8 1 1 1 3 21 Total 1,100 1,217 1,214 1,257 1,448 1,283 1,426 1,276 1,267 1,184 12,672 * Enrollment is combined for courses with more than one section in the same semester Geology 8
TABLE 8: FTE and Student/Faculty Ratio 2003-04 2004-05 Academic Year 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 10-Term Mean Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Student FTE (FTES) 1 Lower Division 146.9 128.7 146.4 157.9 173.7 150.3 180.9 153.0 147.5 129.7 151.5 Upper Division 60.9 68.4 55.7 54.0 74.3 67.7 69.6 70.5 78.2 74.3 67.4 Graduate 7.8 5.6 5.4 6.3 3.2 3.6 4.2 3.5 4.3 5.3 4.9 Dept. Total 215.6 202.7 207.5 218.3 251.3 221.6 254.7 227.0 230.1 209.3 223.8 College Total 2583.9 2423.3 2551.1 2448.9 2684.9 2491.8 2782.0 2562.0 2654.5 2521.0 2570.3 % of College 8.3% 8.4% 8.1% 8.9% 9.4% 8.9% 9.2% 8.9% 8.7% 8.3% 8.7% Faculty FTE (FTEF) 2 Lower Division 4.4 4.3 4.8 4.4 4.6 3.7 3.5 4.4 7.3 3.7 4.5 Upper Division 4.4 4.9 4.0 4.1 3.9 4.1 4.6 3.9 4.2 4.8 4.3 Graduate 1.4 1.0.9 1.3.8.7.7 1.7 1.0.8 1.0 Dept. Total 10.2 10.2 9.7 9.7 9.3 8.5 8.8 10.0 12.5 9.3 9.8 College Total 125.0 126.5 122.1 121.7 122.1 113.8 122.1 125.3 147.9 126.0 125.3 % of College 8.2% 8.1% 7.9% 8.0% 7.6% 7.5% 7.2% 8.0% 8.5% 7.4% 7.8% Student/Faculty Ratio (SFR) 3 Lower Division 33.4 29.9 30.3 36.0 38.0 40.4 52.3 34.9 20.3 35.1 35.0 Upper Division 13.8 13.8 14.0 13.2 19.0 16.5 15.1 18.0 18.4 15.3 15.7 Graduate 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.0 3.8 5.1 5.0 1.6 3.5 5.5 4.7 Dept. Total 21.2 19.9 21.3 22.4 27.0 26.0 28.9 22.6 18.3 22.4 23.0 College Total 20.7 19.2 20.9 20.1 22.0 21.9 22.7 20.3 17.8 19.9 20.5 University 21.0 20.0 22.0 20.9 22.5 23.3 22.5 22.4 20.0 21.7 21.6 1 Full-Time Equivalent Students is the sum of Student Credit Units (SCU) divided by 15. Starting fall 2006, FTES is SCU/12 for Classified Graduate Students plus SCU/15 for all other students. (Unclassified Graduate Students include post baccalaureates pursuing a second bachelor s degree, or otherwise not admitted to a graduate degree, or credential program students; these students are combined with undergraduates when computing FTES.) For example, HRS 122 in spring 2007 was a 3-credit class with 47 undergraduate students and 1 classified graduate student enrolled. Thus, FTES is computed as (47*3)/15+ (1*3)/12=9.4+0.25=9.65 NOTE: FTES calculated from the student enrollment file (ERSS) should be close, but not exactly equal, to that calculated from the course section file (APDB). Using the different file structures leads to different types of rounding error. 2 Full-time Equivalent Faculty: Each full-time (workload of 15 weighted teaching units) permanent faculty member is defined as 1.0 FTEF, even though he/she teaches only nine months a year. The FTEF for a part-time faculty member is defined as workload divided by 15. For example, a part-time faculty member teaching two three-unit classes is counted as 6/15 = 0.4 FTEF. 3 Student-Faculty Ratio is FTES divided by FTEF Geology 9
TABLE 9: Faculty Profile Fall 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Total Faculty Department 13 14 13 12 13 College 167 160 166 172 176 University 1,619 1,531 1,539 1,655 1,654 Ethnicity African American 0 0 0 0 0 American Indian 0 0 0 0 0 Asian 0 1 7.1% 1 7.7% 1 8.3% 1 7.7% Latino 0 0 0 0 0 All Minority 0 1 7.1% 1 7.7% 1 8.3% 1 7.7% White/Caucasian 13 100% 13 92.9% 12 92% 11 91.7% 12 92.3% International 0 0 0 0 0 Other/Unreported 0 0 0 0 0 % Minority (College) 29 17.4% 23 14.4% 22 13.3% 26 15.1% 26 14.8% % Minority (Univ.) 368 22.7% 339 22.1% 330 21.4% 372 22.5% 364 22.0% Gender Dept. Female 7 53.8% 7 50.0% 6 46.2% 5 41.7% 7 53.8% Dept. Male 6 46.2% 7 50.0% 7 53.8% 7 58.3% 6 46.2% College-Female 59 35.3% 62 38.8% 65 39.2% 69 40.1% 73 41.5% College-Male 108 64.7% 98 61.3% 101 60.8% 103 59.9% 103 58.5% University-Female 766 47.3% 724 47.3% 733 47.6% 806 48.7% 829 50.1% University-Male 853 52.7% 807 52.7% 806 52.4% 849 51.3% 825 49.9% Rank Full Professor 3 23.1% 4 28.6% 4 30.8% 3 25.0% 4 30.8% Associate Professor 4 30.8% 3 21.4% 3 23.1% 3 25.0% 2 15.4% Assistant Professor 1 7.7% 2 14.3% 2 15.4% 2 16.7% 2 15.4% Lecturer 5 38.5% 5 35.7% 4 30.8% 4 33.3% 5 38.5% Tenure Status Tenure 6 46.2% 7 50.0% 7 53.8% 6 50.0% 6 46.2% On Tenure Track 2 15.4% 2 14.3% 2 15.4% 2 16.7% 2 15.4% None-Tenure Track 5 38.5% 5 35.7% 4 30.8% 4 33.3% 5 38.5% Geology 10
TABLE 10: Faculty Workload Fall 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Weighted Teaching Units (WTU) 1 Full Professor 30 24% 32 28% 28 24% 28 23% 37 29% Associate Professor 18 15% 12 11% 21 18% 34 28% 18 14% Assistant Professor 12 10% 22 20% 26 22% 24 20% 33 26% Lecturer 48 39% 45 40% 42 36% 35 29% 28 22% Other/Unknown 16 13% 2 2% 11 9% Department WTU 124 87% 113 98% 117 100% 121 100% 127 91% College WTU University WTU 1,678 15,147 1,605 14,509 1,657 14,611 1,742 15,197 1,778 14,922 Student Credit Unit (SCU) 2 Full Professor 526 16% 826 27% 729 19% 816 21% 735 22% Associate Professor 198 6% 130 4% 460 12% 940 25% 717 21% Assistant Professor 73 2% 497 16% 770 20% 630 17% 375 11% Lecturer 2255 70% 1638 53% 1810 48% 1417 37% 1024 31% Other/Unknown 182 147% 21 19% 503 397% Department SCU 3234 94% 3112 99% 3769 100% 3803 100% 3354 85% College SCU University SCU 38,750 334,280 38,583 331,284 40,379 333,551 41,667 339,735 39,869 336,679 1 For non-supervision segment (CS Number 01 thru 21), WTU is computed as the product of Course Credit Units and a "K factor" obtained as follows: CS Number K factor CS Number K factor 01 thru 04 (lecture) 1.0 16, 17 (lab) 2.0 05 thru 06 (seminar) 1.0 18 (activity) 6.0 07 thru 14 (activity) 1.3 19 thru 21 (activity) 3.0 15 (lab) 1.5 For a "supervision" resource segment (CS Number 23, 24, 25, 36, & 48), WTU is computed as enrollment times an adjusting factor obtained as follows: CS Number Adjusting Factor CS Number Adjusting Factor 23 1.00 36 0.33 24 0.67 48 0.25 25 0.50 77-78 0.00 2 Student Credit Units for a given class section are computed as follow: (total # of UG enrolled)*(course credits)/15+ (total # of GR enrolled)*(course credit)/12. For example, HRS 122 in Spring 2007 was a 3 credit class, with 47 undergraduates and 1 graduate student enrolled. Thus, SCU is computed as (48*3)/15+(1*3)/12 = 9.4+.25 = 9.65. * The data for Teaching Assistants were not available for 2004. **WTU - this data element represents the total weighted teaching workload due to sections taught (all instructional modes) as well as all assigned time activity. Geology 11
TABLE 11: Grades and Term GPA by Level Academic Year 10-Term 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Mean Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Lower Division A 208 207 233 234 266 182 241 297 283 265 242 B 301 259 301 343 378 299 348 248 258 217 295 C 220 168 205 207 223 233 259 160 193 168 204 D 51 56 50 46 73 67 84 42 49 32 55 F 59 73 47 63 52 43 66 69 45 21 54 CR 1 1 1 1 NC I 41 44 40 42 35 31 36 26 3 3 30 U 18 13 23 21 14 44 24 23 21 27 23 W 18 9 18 10 25 20 23 24 15 9 17 Other 38 1 3 3 2 1 4 17 3 19 9 Total 955 830 920 969 1,069 920 1,085 906 870 762 929 Upper Division A 29 96 52 56 135 125 114 101 120 104 93 B 51 109 93 83 124 132 121 142 116 174 115 C 26 65 73 71 63 60 58 76 84 70 65 D 12 23 20 23 8 14 7 19 20 27 17 F 3 12 14 6 10 1 3 7 11 3 7 CR 1 10 1 2 1 1 3 NC 2 2 I 4 16 6 3 7 2 1 2 4 1 5 U 2 12 7 14 13 5 17 13 10 6 10 W 14 11 5 9 2 7 7 2 9 10 8 Other 156 2 10 3 1 14 2 2 24 Total 298 356 272 275 366 349 342 362 377 398 340 Graduate Level A 15 19 16 13 9 10 10 6 14 11 12 B 13 5 4 1 4 2 1 2 7 4 C 4 4 D F CR 1 1 NC I 3 1 2 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 U W 1 1 2 1 Other 7 6 3 8 2 3 10 3 1 2 5 Total 43 31 25 23 16 16 20 13 20 24 23 Geology 12
TABLE 11: Grades and Term GPA by Level Academic Year 10-Term 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Mean Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Average Term GPA (Lower Division) Dept. 2.47 2.42 2.54 2.54 2.59 2.35 2.42 2.62 2.67 2.70 2.53 College 2.35 2.24 2.27 2.19 2.28 2.20 2.21 2.26 2.24 2.31 2.25 Univ. 2.65 2.59 2.64 2.59 2.60 2.59 2.62 2.62 2.61 2.61 2.64 Average Term GPA (Upper Division) Dept. 2.71 2.68 2.49 2.51 2.92 3.01 2.87 2.75 2.79 2.83 2.77 College 2.73 2.69 2.61 2.62 2.60 2.67 2.70 2.67 2.61 2.65 2.65 Univ. 2.97 2.95 2.97 2.95 2.95 2.93 2.95 2.95 2.94 2.96 2.96 Average Term GPA (Graduate) Dept. 3.37 3.71 3.74 3.91 3.74 3.79 3.90 3.90 3.81 3.59 3.69 College 3.43 3.64 3.36 3.70 3.45 3.55 3.45 3.47 3.47 3.68 3.51 Univ. 3.68 3.67 3.67 3.72 3.67 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.68 3.67 3.69 Grade: A-F - Letter grade NC - No credit U - Unauthorized withdrawal CR - Credit I - Incomplete W - Withdrawal Other: RD - Report Delayed AU - Audit SP - Satisfactory Progress blank - No grade RP - Report in Progress 100% A and B Grade by Level Lower Division Upper Division Graduate % A and B 80% 60% 40% Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Geology 13
TABLE 12: Undergraduate Degree GPA by Ethnicity Graduating Class 5-Year 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Mean Ethnicity GPA African Mean American Count Native Mean American Count Asian Mean American Count Latino Mean 2.93 2.69 2.75 Count 1 2 2 White Mean 3.08 2.90 2.89 2.96 3.13 2.98 Count 9 4 14 4 5 7 International Mean Count Other/ Mean 2.87 3.21 3.20 3.80 3.08 3.17 Unreported Count 2 3 1 1 3 2 Total Mean 305 3.05 303 3.03 288 2.88 312 3.12 311 3.11 300 3.00 Count 11 8 17 5 8 10 Mean Degree GPA Department 3.05 3.03 2.88 3.12 3.11 3.00 College 3.03 3.08 3.08 3.07 3.06 3.06 University 3.05 3.05 3.06 3.05 3.07 3.06 Average Degree GPA of Graduating Classes Department College University Mean 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Graduating Class Geology 14
TABLE 13: Degrees Conferred Graduating Year 5-Year 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Mean Degree Program Bachelor's 8 7 15 5 7 8 Second Bachelor's 2 2 1 2 Master's 1 2 7 4 2 3 Total 11 9 24 9 10 13 Average Years to Bachelor's Degree (First-time Freshmen) Department 5.7 5.7 College 5.6 5.9 5.8 5.6 5.5 5.7 University 5.1 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 Average Years to Bachelor's Degree (Transfers) Department 3.2 7.1 6.7 3.6 3.0 4.9 College 4.3 4.7 4.2 3.6 3.3 3.9 University 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.2 3.5 Average Years to Master's Degree Department 1.8 4.3 4.3 4.1 2.6 3.9 College 6.0 3.6 4.0 4.2 3.3 4.0 University 4.3 4.1 4.0 4.4 3.3 4.0 Average Years to Degree First-Time Freshmen Department College University 10 Academic Year 8 6 4 2 0 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Mean Graduating Year 5-Year Geology 15
TABLE 14: Retention Rates for First-Time Freshmen and Transfers Entering in Fall First-Time Freshmen 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Number Entering 2 0 3 0 1 After One year Dept. Retention Rate* 100% 100% 100% College Retention Rate 74% 77% 85% 78% 75% Univ. Retention Rate 75% 80% 80% 76% 76% After Two years Dept. Retention Rate* 100% 33% -- College Retention Rate 60% 62% 69% 68% -- Univ. Retention Rate 63% 67% 65% 62% -- After Three years Dept. Retention Rate* 100% 33% -- -- College Retention Rate 62% 57% 67% -- -- Univ. Retention Rate 58% 62% 59% -- -- Entering in Fall Undergraduate Transfers 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Number Entering 10 9 9 7 10 After One year Dept. Retention Rate* 80% 67% 100% 86% 80% College Retention Rate 76% 85% 82% 77% 74% Univ. Retention Rate 83% 83% 82% 80% 80% After Two years Dept. Retention Rate* 80% 67% 100% 86% -- College Retention Rate 69% 74% 70% 70% -- Univ. Retention Rate 75% 75% 75% 72% -- * Retention rate is the sum of the counts of continuation and graduation divided by original entering student numbers. Geology 16