UTS Graduating Student Questionnaire - 2012 Graduation — Michael Mickler

UTS Graduating Student Questionnaire - 2012 Graduation Mike Mickler January 12, 2013 The Graduating Student Questionnaire is based on the Sample Graduating Student Questionnaire prepared by the Commission on Accrediting of the Association of Theological Schools, with appropriate modifications. It is a comprehensive instrument, including questions on program outcomes (personal growth and skills development) as well as evaluation of program components and overall experience. The Graduating Student Questionnaire is to be completed by all graduating students at the end of their final semester of study. This questionnaire was first used in 2011. This report contains the results from students who graduated in 2012, the second time this questionnaire was used.

Questionnaire

The questionnaire contains questions in several areas: Demographics, Financial, Career Plans, Program Outcomes (Personal Growth and Skills Progress), Program Components (Influences, Field Education, Services & Academic Resources), and Overall Experience. For many questions a five-point rating scale is used, with graduating students asked to assess the importance of, or their satisfaction with, a number of items. Some questions ask for self- ratings on their personal growth.

All members of the graduating class of 2012 were given this questionnaire; a total of 14 were returned. It should be noted that a few of the respondents did not answer all the 112 questions; the average number of responses to each question was 12.61.

Demographics

Appendix 1 contains the detailed results of the demographic questions: Questions 1-10 and Question 14. In summary, the majority of respondents (8) graduated from the M.Div. program, 2 from the MA and 3 from the D.Min. program; 1 was unknown. Nine were full-time students and 5 part- time. The majority of respondents entered UTS between 2007 and 2010; two entered earlier. Four reported that they took a leave of absence for a term or more.

Respondents showed diversity regarding gender, ethnicity, and marital status. In terms of age and religious affiliation, one category had the highest number of respondents with the rest showing diversity: The largest group of respondents were aged over 56 (6), with the rest distributed between ages 26 and 55; the largest group were Unificationist (6), with a variety of Christian denominations being represented. The majority were US citizens (9), although a significant number reported other citizenship (5).

Questions 11-13 asked questions on financial matters. Appendix 2 contains the detailed results of these questions. Both average (arithmetic mean) and median (middle rating for the group) are given for questions asking for ratings. In response to the question (Q11) on how many hours per week they worked this year, there was a wide variety of responses: Several of the respondents said they had no paying job; the others gave answers varying from less than 10 hours to more than 20 hours per week, with the largest group (6 respondents) reporting more than 20 hours worked per week. In terms of sources of income (Q12), only three sources—scholarship/grant (3.83), off- campus work (3.50), and government loan (3.15)—received an average rating above 3 “somewhat important”; on-campus work (1.45) was rated as the least important source of income, with 9 respondents rating it 1 (of no importance); other (1.70), credit card (1.73), and denominational support (1.84) also received low average ratings of below 2 (of little importance). Of the sources rated important, scholarship/grant (3.83), off-campus work (3.50), and government loan (3.15) received average ratings between 3 (somewhat important) and 4 (important); both scholarship/grant and government loan received median ratings of 5, indicating that at least half of the respondents reported these sources very important; off-campus work received a median rating of 4, indicating that over half of the respondents regarded this source of income as important or very important. Regarding educational debt (Q13a-13c), respondents reported a wide variety of levels of debt: Three reported that they brought no debt; the others reported different amounts from less than $10,000 to over $40,000; one was unknown. Three reported that they incurred no educational debt at UTS; the others reported incurring educational debt of different amounts from less than $10,000 to over $40,000; one was unknown. Two respondents reported that they would have no monthly educational debt payments after graduation; five reported monthly

payments of less than $200; others reported monthly payments in varying amounts from $200 to over $1,000; one was unknown.

Career Plans

Graduating students were also asked about their career plans following graduation in Questions 15a-15c. Appendix 3 contains the detailed results of these questions. When asked what position they would have after graduation, respondents gave a variety of answers. The only career (apart from Other and Undecided) receiving more than one response was Parish ministry (3 responses). When asked what they would like to be doing in five years, a much wider variety of answers was given with many careers receiving several responses. It should be noted that several respondents checked more than one career and two checked the majority of items; thus, the total number of responses to this question (44) was much greater than the number of respondents (14). The majority of respondents (11 out of 14) reported that they had not yet been offered any position.

Program Evaluation

The major portion of the questionnaire asks graduating students to evaluate the program in terms of their own growth and development as well as their satisfaction with the various program components and overall experience at UTS. The results of these questions follow in the sections below.

A. Program Outcomes 1. Personal Growth Questions 16a-16t asked graduating students to rate their personal growth in 20 areas. A five- point scale was used, where 1=much weaker, 2=weaker, 3=about the same, 4=stronger, 5=much stronger. As can be seen in Table 1 and Charts 1a and 1b, the average rating for all questions was 4.31, with all questions receiving average ratings above 4.00 (stronger), except one (Clarity of vocational goals, which received an average rating of 3.92), and all questions received median ratings of 4 or above.

Table 1 – Personal Growth Average Median Area of personal growth Rating Rating Empathy for the poor and oppressed 4.14 4 Ability to pray 4.29 4 Concern about social justice 4.29 4 Enthusiasm for learning 4.57 5 Insight into troubles of others 4.00 4 Desire to become an authority in my field 4.54 5 Trust in God 4.85 5 Self-discipline and focus 4.15 4 Respect for other religious traditions 4.38 5 Respect for my own religious tradition 4.54 5 Ability to live one’s faith in daily life 4.38 4 Clarity of vocational goals 3.92 4 Self-confidence 4.15 4 Self-knowledge 4.23 4 Strength of spiritual life 4.15 4 Sense of calling and mission 4.23 4 Acceptance and love for others 4.15 4 Ability to self-assess and self-care 4.31 4 Feeling the presence of God in my life 4.54 5 Connection to God’s created world 4.38 5 AVERAGE 4.31

The item receiving the highest average rating (4.85) was “Trust in God”; four more items received average ratings over 4.50: “Enthusiasm for learning,” “Desire to become an authority in my field,” “Respect for my own religious tradition,” and “Feeling the presence of God in my life.” Seven items received median ratings of 5, which means that more than half the respondents gave ratings of 5 (much stronger) for these questions: “Enthusiasm for learning,” “Desire to become an authority in my field,” “Trust in God,” “Respect for other religious traditions,” “Respect for my own religious tradition,” “Feeling the presence of God in my life,” and “Connection to God’s created world.” The questions receiving the lowest ratings were “Clarity of vocational goals” (3.92) and “Insight into troubles of others” (4.00). It should be noted these questions still received average ratings of 4, or close to 4, and median ratings of 4, which means over half the respondents reported strong or very strong personal growth in these areas.

Chart 1a – Personal Growth Average Ratings

Personal Growth - Average Ratings

Empathy for poor & oppressed Ability to pray Concern about social justice Enthusiasm for learning Insight into troubles of others Desire to become an authority in my field Trust in God Self-discipline and focus Respect for other religious traditions Respect for my own religious tradition Ability to live one’s faith in daily life Clarity of vocational goals Self-confidence Self-knowledge Strength of spiritual life Sense of calling and mission Acceptance and love for others Ability to self-assess and self-care Feeling the presence of God in my life Connection to God’s created world

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Chart 1b – Personal Growth Median Ratings

Personal Growth - Median Ratings

Empathy for the poor and oppressed Ability to pray Concern about social justice Enthusiasm for learning Insight into troubles of others Desire to become an authority in my field Trust in God Self-discipline and focus Respect for other religious traditions Respect for my own religious tradition Ability to live one’s faith in daily life Clarity of vocational goals Self-confidence Self-knowledge Strength of spiritual life Sense of calling and mission Acceptance and love for others Ability to self-assess and self-care Feeling the presence of God in my life Connection to God’s created world

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

2. Skills Progress Questions 17a-17p asked graduating students how satisfied they were with their progress in 20 skills that relate to their future work. A five-point scale was used, where 1=very dissatisfied, 2=somewhat dissatisfied, 3=neutral, 4=satisfied, 5=very satisfied. As can be seen in Table 2 and Charts 2a and 2b, the average rating for all questions was 4.23, with all but one question receiving average ratings above 4.00 (satisfied) and all questions receiving median ratings of 4 or above.

Table 2 – Skills Progress Average Median Progress in skills Rating Rating Ability to preach well 4.00 4 Ability to use and interpret Scripture 4.31 4 Knowledge of church polity/canon law 3.75 4 Ability to give spiritual direction 4.07 4 Ability to teach well 4.38 4 Knowledge of church doctrine and history 4.31 4 Ability to lead others 4.07 4 Ability to conduct worship/liturgy 4.15 4 Knowledge of other religious traditions 4.29 4 Knowledge of my own religious tradition 4.36 4.5 Ability to relate social issues to faith 4.54 5 Ability in pastoral counseling 4.29 4.5 Ability to administer a parish 4.15 4 Knowledge of Christian philosophy and ethics 4.23 4 Ability to think theologically 4.36 4.5 Appreciation for the providential course of history & its affect on life 4.43 4 AVERAGE 4.23

The highest rated question was “Ability to relate social issues to faith,” which received an average rating of 4.54 and a median rating of 5, which means that at least half of the respondents rated themselves very satisfied with their growth in this area. All other questions received median ratings of 4, which means that for each of these skills over half the respondents rated themselves satisfied or very satisfied with their growth.

Chart 2a – Skills Progress Average Ratings

Skills Progress - Average Ratings

Ability to preach well Ability to use and interpret Scripture Knowledge of church polity/canon law Ability to give spiritual direction Ability to teach well Knowledge of church doctrine and history Ability to lead others Ability to conduct worship/liturgy Knowledge of other religious traditions Knowledge of my own religious tradition Ability to relate social issues to faith Ability in pastoral counseling Ability to administer a parish Knowledge of Christian philosophy and ethics Ability to think theologically Appreciation for the providential course of history and its affect on…

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Chart 2b – Skills Progress Median Ratings

Skills Progress - Median Ratings

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

The lowest rated question was “Knowledge of church polity/canon law,” which received an average rating of 3.75 and a median rating of 4. Thus, over half the respondents rated themselves satisfied or very satisfied with their development in this area, although the lower average suggests that some respondents were not satisfied. In fact, the raw data reveal that one

respondent rated this question 1, bringing down the average for the total of 12 respondents, the rest of whom all gave ratings of 3, 4, or 5. Program Components 1. Influences

Question 18a asked graduating students about their theological perspective since beginning their program. Possible answers were: more conservative, less conservative, more liberal, less liberal, and about the same. It can be seen in Table 3 that over half the respondents (8 out of 14) reported that their theological perspective had become more liberal while studying at UTS. No respondents reported they had become more conservative or less liberal.

Table 3 – Theological Change Theological change # of Responses More conservative 0 Less conservative 3 More liberal 8 Less liberal 0 About the same 3 TOTAL 14

Question 18b asked graduating students to mark the three most important influences on their educational experience; 16 possible choices were offered. The results are shown in Table 4.

Table 4 – Educational Influences Educational influences # of Responses Faculty 7 Biblical Studies 2 Study of History and Theology 2 Field Education/Internship 5 Required Reading 4 Experiences in ministry 2 Personal life experiences 2 Spiritual formation 1 Classroom discussion 8 Interaction with fellow students 0 Ecumenical interaction 5 Community life of school 0 Worship/liturgy 0 Multiethnic/cultural contacts 3 Differences in perspective 1 Other 0 TOTAL 42

Two items were marked by at least half of the respondents: Classroom discussion (8) and the Faculty (7). Several possible educational influences received no responses: Interaction with fellow students, Community life of school, Worship/liturgy, and Other. 2. Field Education/Internship

Questions 19a-19c asked about field education/internship. Question 19a asked if field education/internship was a required part of the program. Thirteen responded Yes, and one was unknown. Thus, thirteen respondents answered questions 19b and 19c. Question 19b asked how important field education/internship was to their seminary education. Table 5 shows that the majority (9 of 13) reported it to be important or very important; no respondents said it was of no importance or little importance.

Table 5 – Importance of Field Education Importance # of Responses No importance 0 Little importance 0 Somewhat important 1 Important 3 Very important 9 TOTAL 13

Question 19c asked respondents to mark the two top effects of their field education/internship; seven choices were given. Table 6 shows that respondents gave varied answers, with all effects being marked by at least one respondent. Table 6 – Effects of Field Education Effect # of Responses Greater vocational clarity 1 Improved pastoral skills 7 Greater interest in future ministry 2 More self-confidence 3 Greater sense of people’s needs 6 Better idea of my strengths and 4 weaknesses Greater self-understanding 3 TOTAL 26

3. Services and Academic Resources

Questions 20a-20w asked graduating students how satisfied they were with 23 services and academic resources. A five-point scale was used, where 1=very dissatisfied, 2=somewhat dissatisfied, 3=neutral, 4=satisfied, 5=very satisfied. Table 7 – Services and Academic Resources Average Median Services and Academic Resources Rating Rating Accessibility of faculty 4.23 5 Quality of teaching 4.54 5 Class size 4.20 4 Ease in scheduling required courses 4.38 5 Opportunities for cross-registration 3.60 3 Writing and research support 3.69 4 Online/off campus learning 3.22 3 Adequacy of library collection 3.67 4 Helpfulness of administrative/staff support 4.25 4 Academic advising 4.20 4 Spiritual formation 3.77 4 Career/vocational counseling 3.33 3 Pastoral care 3.40 3.5 Placement services 2.44 2 Financial aid 3.45 4 Housing 2.50 2.5 Child care 1.50 1 Extracurricular/cultural activities 2.40 3 Sports/exercise facilities 1.63 1 Health and wellness program 1.80 1.5 Food service 2.50 2.5 Upkeep of campus 2.20 2 Campus security 2.60 2.5 AVERAGE 3.20

As can be seen in Table 7 and Charts 3a and 3b, the average rating for all questions was 3.20. Six questions received average ratings of 4.00 (satisfied) or above; the highest rated item being Quality of teaching (4.54). Three items—Accessibility of faculty, Quality of teaching, and Ease in scheduling required courses—received median ratings of 5, which means that at least half the respondents were very satisfied with these academic resources. Three questions received average ratings of below 2 (Somewhat dissatisfied): Child care (1.5), Sports/exercise facilities (1.63), and Health and wellness program (1.80). These items received low median ratings of 1 or 1.5, indicating that half the respondents were very dissatisfied with these services.

Chart 3a – Services and Academic Resources Average Ratings

Services & Academic Resources - Average Ratings Accessibility of faculty Quality of teaching Class size Ease in scheduling required courses Opportunities for cross-registration Writing and research support Online/off campus learning Adequacy of library collection Helpfulness of administrative / staff support Academic advising Spiritual formation Career/vocational counseling Pastoral care Placement services Financial aid Housing Child care Extracurricular/cultural activities Sports/exercise facilities Health and wellness program Food service Upkeep of campus Campus security

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Chart 3b – Services and Academic Resources Median Ratings

Services and Academic Resources - Median Ratings

Accessibility of faculty Quality of teaching Class size Ease in scheduling required courses Opportunities for cross-registration Writing and research support Online/off campus learning Adequacy of library collection Helpfulness of administrative/staff support Academic advising Spiritual formation Career/vocational counseling Pastoral care Placement services Financial aid Housing Child care Extracurricular/cultural activities Sports/exercise facilities Health and wellness program Food service Upkeep of campus Campus security

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

C. Overall Experience

The final section of the questionnaire, Questions 21a-21p, asked graduating students how much they agreed with 16 statements about their overall experience of the program. A five-point scale was used, where 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neutral, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree. As can be seen in Table 8 and Charts 4a and 4b, the average rating for all statements was 4.26 and the median ratings for all questions was 4 or above, except one (Commuting time increased the time it took to complete my program) which had a median score of 3.5. Thirteen of the statements received average ratings above 4 (agree); nine of the questions had a median rating of 5, meaning that over half the respondents strongly agreed with the statement.

Table 8 – Overall Experience Average Median Overall experience Rating Rating Satisfied with my academic experience 4.46 5 Field education/internship has been helpful 4.38 5 Faculty were supportive and understanding 4.38 5 I felt accepted within this school community 4.31 5 I have grown spiritually 4.31 4 My faith is stronger that when I came 4.15 4 My personal faith has been respected 4.38 4 I know at least one faculty member well 4.75 5 I have been able to integrate the theology and practice of ministry 4.10 4.5 The school has tried to be an inclusive community 4.30 5 I have come to know students from other ethnic groups 4.67 5 I have made good friends here 4.50 5 Seminary was a good experience for my spouse/family 3.50 4 Commuting increased the time it took to complete my program 3.60 3.5 I have been able to manage financially 3.77 4 If I had to do it over, I would still come here 4.46 5 AVERAGE 4.25

Three questions had the average ratings 4.50 or above—“I know at least one faculty member well” (4.75), “I have come to know students from other ethnic groups” (4.67), and “I have made good friends here” (4.50). These, as well as ten other items, had median ratings of 5. The lowest rated four questions had average ratings between 3 (Neutral) and 4 (agree). These statements were: Seminary was a good experience for my spouse/family” (3.50), “Commuting increased the time it took to complete my program” (3.60), and “I have been able to manage financially” (3.77).

Chart 4a – Overall Experience Average Ratings

Overall experience - Average Ratings Satisfied with my academic experience Field education/internship has been helpful Faculty were supportive and understanding I felt accepted with the school community I have grown spiritually My faith is stronger that when I came My personal faith has been respected I know at least one faculty member well I have been able to integrate the theology and practice of… The school has tried to be an inclusive community I have come to know students from other ethnic groups I have made good friends here Seminary was a good experience for my spouse/family Commuting increased the time it took to complete my… I have been able to manage financially If I had to do it over, I would still come here

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Chart 4b – Overall Experience Median Ratings

Overall Experience - Median Ratings

Satisfied with my academic experience Field education/internship has been helpful Faculty were supportive and understanding I felt accepted with the school community I have grown spiritually My faith is stronger that when I came My personal faith has been respected I know at least one faculty member well I have been able to integrate the theology and practice of ministry The school has tried to be an inclusive community I have come to know students from other ethnic groups I have made good friends here Seminary was a good experience for my spouse/family Commuting increased the time it took to complete my program I have been able to manage financially If I had to do it over, I would still come here

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

The statement “If I had to do it over, I would still come here” received a relatively high average rating (4.46) and a median rating of 5, which means that the majority of students agreed with that statement.

A. Comparison with 2011 Results

The same questionnaire had been given to the 2011 graduating students, with 14 responses. A comparison of the data shows that responses to the program outcomes questions were generally similar (see Table 9 and Chart 5 below).

Table 9 – Comparison of Overall Average Ratings 2011 & 2012

2011 2012 Personal growth 4.38 4.31 Skills Progress 4.17 4.23 Services & Academic Resources 3.76 3.20 Overall Experience 4.18 4.25 TOTAL Program Outcomes 4.10 3.92

Chart 5 – Comparison of Overall Average Ratings 2011 & 2012

Comparison 2011 & 2012 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 2011 1.5 2012 1 0.5 0 Personal Skills Progress Services & Overall growth Academic Experience Resources

The only notable difference between the two years is seen in the section on Services & Academic Resources, where the 2012 average ratings are lower than those in 2011. Therefore, a more detailed comparison of this section was undertaken.

The results shown in Table 10 and Chart 6 reveal that the Academic Resources were rated similarly by graduates from the two years. Items were rated above 3 (neutral) and many above 4 (satisfactory), with the exception of one item (Placement Services) which was rated below 3 in 2012, a substantial drop from 3.55 in 2011.

All the non-academic services items received substantially lower ratings in 2012. As noted earlier in this report, three items were rated below 2, indicating that respondents were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with these services. In addition, the other five items were rated between 2 and 3, indicating that the majority of respondents were dissatisfied with these items as well. No item was rated above 3. By contrast, in 2011, the lowest rated item (Health and wellness program) received an average rating of 3 (neutral), with all other items rated between 3 and 4.

Table 10 – Comparison of Services and Academic Resources Ratings 2011 & 2012

Services and Academic Resources 2011 2012 Accessibility of faculty 3.93 4.23 Quality of teaching 4.14 4.54 Class size 4.10 4.20 Ease in scheduling required courses 4.21 4.38 Opportunities for cross-registration 4.22 3.60 Writing and research support 4.08 3.69 Online/off campus learning 3.75 3.22 Adequacy of library collection 3.83 3.67 Helpfulness of administrative/staff support 4.00 4.25 Academic advising 4.20 4.20 Spiritual formation 4.15 3.77 Career/vocational counseling 3.82 3.33 Pastoral care 3.78 3.40 Placement services 3.55 2.44 Financial aid 3.42 3.45 Housing 3.70 2.50 Child care 3.11 1.50 Extracurricular/cultural activities 3.40 2.40 Sports/exercise facilities 3.50 1.63 Health and wellness program 3.00 1.80 Food service 3.45 2.50 Upkeep of campus 3.73 2.20 Campus security 3.40 2.60 AVERAGE 3.76 3.20

Chart 6 – Comparison of Services and Academic Resources Average Ratings 2011 & 2012

Services & Academic Resources

Accessibility of faculty Quality of teaching Class size Ease in scheduling required courses Opportunities for cross-registration Writing and research support Online/off campus learning Adequacy of library collection Helpfulness of administrative/staff… Academic advising Spiritual formation Career/vocational counseling 2012 Pastoral care 2011 Placement services Financial aid Housing Child care Extracurricular/cultural activities Sports/exercise facilities Health and wellness program Food service Upkeep of campus Campus security

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

However, this section received the lowest average ratings by respondents from both years, and was the only section to receive to be rated less than 4 (Satisfied) both years. Thus it appears that looking at the combined results from the two years is reasonable.

B. Comparison by Program including 2011 Results When the results from the two years are combined there are several respondents from each program, allowing for some comparisons to be made (see Table 11 below). Note: One respondent in 2012 did not indicate a program and therefore is not included in this analysis.

Table 11 –Respondents by Program 2011 & 2012

2011 2012 Total M Div 2 8 10 MRE 8 0 8 MA 1 2 3 D Min 3 3 6 TOTAL 14 13 27

Table 12 – Comparison of Average Section Ratings by Program 2011 & 2012 M Div MRE MA D Min Personal growth 4.36 4.45 4.25 4.23 Skills Progress 4.35 4.26 3.67 4.10 Services & Academic Resources 3.72 3.67 2.88 3.29 Overall Experience 4.63 4.12 4.08 3.84 TOTAL Program Outcomes 4.22 4.10 3.67 3.83

Chart 7 – Comparison of Program Outcomes by Program 2011 & 2012

Total Program Outcomes 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 M Div MRE MA D Min

Several points can be observed in these results. First, the MA program respondents have the lowest overall Program Outcomes rating (3.67), with the D.Min. program (3.83) also below 4 (Satisfactory). When the average ratings for each section are compared by program, the differences between the programs become more apparent (see Appendix 4 for detailed results). The MA graduates rated their Skills Progress and the Services and Academic Resources lower than graduates from the other programs. The D.Min. graduates also rated the Services and Academic Resources lower than M.Div. and MRE graduates, but by less of a margin; their Skills Progress was rated above 4 and was only slightly lower than the M.Div. and MRE graduates. Most notably, the D.Min. graduates gave lower ratings on their Overall Experience, the only group with an average rating for this section below 4 (Satisfactory) for this section. Even so, the D.Min. graduates did rate the final question (“If I had to do it over, I would still come here”) relatively high (4.33). The M.Div. graduates gave the highest average rating (4.63) for their Overall Experience, the only group to rate any section over 4.5, which contributed to their having the highest rating for program outcomes as a whole (4.22).

Chart 8 – Comparison of Sections by Program 2011 & 2012

Comparison of Sections 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 M Div 2.5 2 MRE 1.5 MA 1 D Min 0.5 0 Personal growth Skills Progress Services & Overall Academic Experience Resources

Discussion and Conclusions

This is the second time this questionnaire was used at UTS. However, in both years the number of respondents was small (14 each year). Thus, although there are data from two years available for comparison, the small number of respondents means that detailed statistical analysis is still not meaningful. For this report, therefore, descriptions of the results with simple graphical comparisons were presented in the previous sections.

Questions relating to students Apart from the demographic questions, the questionnaire includes questions on the graduating students’ financial situation and career plans before moving on to program evaluation. The financial questions revealed that a significant proportion of students graduating in 2012 had worked off campus more than 20 hours per week during their time at UTS. Others worked less or not at all, relying on scholarships and government loans for financial support. Students entered and left UTS with a wide range of educational debt. Regarding career plans, the respondents expressed a wide variety of responses. However, few of the 2012 graduates actually had a job offer at the time when they completed the questionnaire.

This gives cause for concern as it would be expected that a larger proportion of graduating students would have already been offered a position, especially those that have educational debt.

Program evaluation questions The major part of the questionnaire contains program evaluation questions. These questions cover both program outcomes and evaluation of program components. All sets of questions received average ratings above 3. In fact the sections on Personal Growth, Skills Progress, and Overall Experience received average responses of over 4, indicating strong approval ratings. The section on Services & Academic Resources received the lowest average ratings (3.20). In the comparison with the 2011 ratings (Table 10 and Chart 6) it was apparent that the average ratings for each section were similar except for the Services & Academic Resources, where the 2012 ratings were lower, indicating that there are some items here that are not only unsatisfactory but their condition is worsening. The first section in program outcomes concerns personal growth. For the 2012 graduates, these questions received rather high ratings (average rating for all questions of 4.31), with seven questions receiving the highest rating of 5 (much stronger) from over half of the respondents. Even the lowest rated questions received ratings of 4 (stronger) from over half of the respondents. When combined with the 2011 results, the data showed that the graduates from each program gave similar average ratings in this section (see Table 12 and Chart 8), all above 4 (Satisfied). Thus, the results from these questions suggest that the UTS programs strongly support personal growth. The second section is concerned with Field Education. The results indicated that the 2012 graduates, like those in 2011, regarded this as an important component of their seminary education. A variety of beneficial effects were reported, including improved pastoral skills and greater sense of people’s needs. The third section concerns progress in skills relating to future work. The ratings in this section from 2012 are also above 4 (average rating for all questions of 4.23). Only one skill received an average rating below 4 (Knowledge of church polity/canon law) which received an average rating of 3.75. Still, over half the respondents rated their skills progress on this question satisfied or very satisfied. The highest rated questions was “Ability to rate social issues to faith” which was the only question on which half the respondents rated themselves very satisfied with their progress. It was noted that the MA graduates were somewhat less satisfied with their skills

progress. However, it may be that some of the skills that they rated lower are less emphasized in their program, especially those graduates who chose an academic rather than a professional concentration in their studies. Generally, the results from these questions can be taken to suggest that the UTS programs support appropriate skills development. The questionnaire also covers a number of program components. The section on Services & Academic Resources received an average rating of 3.20, which is lower than the other sections; in fact this average is below 4 (Satisfactory). Further analysis revealed that it was the non- academic services (Child care, Sports/exercise facilities, Health/wellness program in particular) that respondents were dissatisfied with, and that these ratings were lower than those from 2011 which were already showing some dissatisfaction. This held true for graduates from all programs, with those from the MA program giving the lowest ratings. The academic resources, on the other hand, continued to receive higher ratings, all showing some level of satisfaction. The final section of the questionnaire asked about the graduating students’ overall experience. Here the average rating (4.25) was similar to that from 2011. Several questions receiving the highest rating of 5 (strongly agree) from over half of the respondents. The results of this section, therefore, give strong support to the success of the UTS programs. However, it was noted that the D.Min. graduates rated this section lower than graduates from other programs, with an average rating of 3.84 while those from other programs had average ratings above 4. Still, the D.Min. graduates (along with those from other programs) rated the question “If I had to do it over, I would still come here” 4.33, median 4, which means that the majority agreed with this statement.

Recommendations

1. The obvious conclusion from the results presented here is that the questionnaire should be given each year to graduating students so that data from a larger number of respondents will be available to analyze. 2. Positive outcomes a. The results on program outcomes are positive, with graduates in 2012 continuing to report satisfaction with their personal growth and skills progress. Field Education continued to be rated as an important component of the program. b. The 2012 graduates continued to rate academic resources positively, generally expressing satisfaction with all items in this area. 20

c. Generally the graduates continued to report satisfaction with their overall experience at UTS, including agreement with the statement “If I had to do it over, I would still come here”—a good indication that UTS is succeeding in providing valuable programs to its students. 3. Concerns a. Few of the 2012 graduates had a job offer and many were carrying significant debt. Coupled with the low rating on placement services, this gives cause for concern. b. The 2012 graduates gave rather low ratings to the questions on non-academic services, lower than those in 2011 which were already eliciting some dissatisfaction. This indicates that these problems are increasing and services are not improving, and thus attention is needed in this area. c. The D.Min. graduates rated the section on overall experience somewhat lower than the graduates from the other programs. Given that the structure of this program is very different from that of the other programs (2-week intensive sessions at the Barrytown campus versus semester-long classes at the New York Extension) this difference is not surprising, albeit disappointing. Further investigation of the lack of satisfaction of the D.Min. students in this area is in order.

Appendix 1 - Demographics

Question 1 – Degree Program Program # of Responses MDiv 8 MRE 0 MA 2 DMin 3 Diploma/certificate 0 Non-degree special 0 Other 0 Unknown 1 TOTAL 14

Question 2 – Full-time or part-time status Status # of Responses Full-time 9 Part-time 5 TOTAL 14

Question 3 – Year began Year Began # of Responses 2010 3 2009 2 2008 3 2007 4 2003 1 2001 1 TOTAL 14

Question 4 – Leave of absence Leave of absence # of Responses Yes 4 No 10 TOTAL 14

Question 5 – Gender Gender # of Responses Male 8 Female 6 TOTAL 14

Question 6 – Age range Age range # of Responses 20-25 0 26-30 1 31-35 2 36-40 0 41-45 1 46-50 1 51-55 3 56 or older 6 TOTAL 14

Question 7 – Citizenship Citizenship # of Responses US 9 Canadian 0 Other 5 TOTAL 14

Question 8 – Ethnicity Ethnicity # of Responses International 3 Asian 0 Black 5 Hispanic 2 Native North American 1 White 3 TOTAL 14

Question 9 – Marital status Marital status # of Responses Single 6 Married 8 TOTAL 14

Question 10 – Dependents Dependents # of Responses None 4 One 3 Two 3 Three 3 Four or more 1 TOTAL 14

Question 14 – Religious affiliation Religious affiliation # of Responses Unification 6 Anglican 2 Church of God 1 Pentecostal 2 Roman Catholic 1 Lutheran 1 Non-Denominational 1 TOTAL 14

Appendix 2 – Financial

Question 11 – Hours worked Hours worked/week # of Responses None 3 Less than 10 1 10-15 2 16-20 1 More than 20 6 Unknown 1 TOTAL 14

Question 13 – Educational debt Question 13a – Educational debt brought Educational debt brought # of Responses None 3 Less than $10,000 2 $10,000-$19,999 2 $20,000-$29,999 2 $30,000-$39,999 2 More than $40,000 2 Unknown 1 TOTAL 14

Question 13b –Educational debt incurred Educational debt incurred # of Responses None 3 Less than $10,000 2 $10,000-$19,999 4 $20,000-$29,999 1 $30,000-$39,999 2 More than $40,000 1 Unknown 1 TOTAL 14

Question 13c –Monthly educational debt payments Educational debt payments # of Responses None 0 Less than $200 5 $200-$349 1 $350-$499 1 $500-$1,000 2 More than $1,000 2 Unknown 1 TOTAL 14

Question 12 – Sources of income

Source of Income Average Rating Median Rating On-campus work 1.45 1 Scholarship/grant 3.83 5 Off-campus work 3.50 4 Spouse’s work 2.27 1 Savings 2.45 2 Parents/family 2.18 1 Denominational support 1.83 1.5 Government loan 3.15 5 Other loan 2.25 1 Credit card 1.73 1 Other 1.70 1

Sources of Income - Average Ratings 5

Sources of Income - Median Ratings 5 4 3 2 1 0

Appendix 3 – Career Plans

Question 13a – Position after graduation

# of Responses Position Full-time Part-time Parish ministry 2 1 Campus ministry Inner-city ministry 1 Pastoral counseling Hospital or hospice chaplaincy Secondary/prep school teaching College/university teaching Church administration Seminary teaching Social work/services 1 Foreign missions 1 Home missions Church planting/evangelism 1 Youth ministry Church musician Religious education Spiritual direction Social justice ministry Further graduate study Professional lay ministry 1 1 Other 1 2 Undecided 2 None TOTAL 7 7

Question 13b – Have you been offered a position?

Offered position # of Respondents Yes 3 No 11 TOTAL 14

Question 13c – What would you like to be doing in 5 years?

Position # of Responses Parish ministry 2 Campus ministry 1 Inner-city ministry 3 Pastoral counseling 3 Hospital or hospice chaplaincy 3 Secondary/prep school teaching 1 College/university teaching 4 Church administration Seminary teaching 2 Social work/services 3 Foreign missions 2 Home missions 2 Church planting/evangelism 1 Youth ministry 1 Church musician 3 Religious education 3 Spiritual direction 2 Social justice ministry 4 Further graduate study 1 Professional lay ministry 3 Other Undecided TOTAL 44

Appendix 4 – Comparison by Program 2011 & 2012 Data

Personal Growth M Div MRE MA D Min Area of personal growth Ave Med Ave Med Ave Med Ave Med Empathy for the poor and oppressed 4.50 5 4.35 5 4.00 4 3.83 4 Ability to pray 4.40 4.5 4.25 5 4.33 5 4.00 4 Concern about social justice 4.40 4.5 4.25 5 4.33 5 4.33 4 Enthusiasm for learning 4.70 5 4.50 5 4.67 5 4.33 4.5 Insight into troubles of others 3.89 4 4.20 4.5 3.67 5 4.33 4 Desire to become an authority in my field 4.11 4 4.67 5 4.33 4 4.83 5 Trust in God 4.78 5 4.50 5 5.00 5 4.50 5 Self-discipline and focus 4.11 4 4.17 4 4.00 4 4.17 4 Respect for other religious traditions 4.33 4 4.50 5 4.00 4 4.33 4.5 Respect for my own religious tradition 4.44 5 4.50 5 4.67 5 4.00 4.5 Ability to live one’s faith in daily life 4.22 4 4.50 5 4.67 5 4.33 4.5 Clarity of vocational goals 4.44 4 4.50 5 3.67 3 4.00 4 Self-confidence 4.33 4 4.33 4 4.00 4 4.00 4 Self-knowledge 4.33 4 4.33 4 3.67 4 4.17 4 Strength of spiritual life 4.22 4 4.33 5 4.00 4 4.17 4 Sense of calling and mission 4.44 4 4.17 4 4.33 4 4.33 4.5 Acceptance and love for others 4.33 4 4.67 5 4.33 4 4.00 4 Ability to self-assess and self-care 4.33 5 4.50 5 4.33 4 4.50 4.5 Feeling the presence of God in my life 4.44 5 4.83 5 4.67 5 4.33 4.5 Connection to God’s created world 4.40 4 4.83 5 4.33 5 4.00 4 AVERAGE 4.36 4.44 4.25 4.23 Skills Progress M Div MRE MA D Min Progress in skills Ave Med Ave Med Ave Med Ave Med Ability to preach well 4.33 4 4.29 5 3.67 4 3.75 4 Ability to use and interpret Scripture 4.30 4 4.33 5 3.50 3.5 4.20 4 Knowledge of church polity/canon law 4.33 4 4.00 5 3.00 3 3.00 3.5 Ability to give spiritual direction 4.20 4 4.71 5 3.33 3 4.17 4 Ability to teach well 4.44 4 4.38 4.5 3.67 4 4.33 4 Knowledge of church doctrine and history 4.30 4 4.43 5 3.50 3.5 4.50 4.5 Ability to lead others 4.00 4 4.25 4.5 4.00 4 4.00 4 Ability to conduct worship/liturgy 4.20 4 4.17 4.5 4.00 4 4.00 4 Knowledge of other religious traditions 4.44 4 4.13 4 3.67 4 4.25 4.5 Knowledge of my own religious tradition 4.60 5 4.57 5 4.00 4 3.80 4 Ability to relate social issues to faith 4.56 5 4.14 4 4.00 4 4.33 4 Ability in pastoral counseling 4.50 4.5 4.50 5 3.33 3 4.17 4 Ability to administer a parish 4.20 4 3.83 4.5 3.50 3.5 4.25 4 Knowledge of Christian philosophy & ethics 4.40 4 4.17 5 3.50 3.5 4.00 4.5 Ability to think theologically 4.40 4 4.17 4.5 3.67 4 4.40 4 Appreciation for the providential course of 4.17 4 4.33 4 4.40 5 history & its affect on life 4.30 4 AVERAGE 4.35 4.26 3.67 4.10 4

Services and Academic Resources M Div MRE MA D Min Services & Academic Resources Ave Med Ave Med Ave Med Ave Med Accessibility of faculty 4.78 5 3.63 4 4.00 4 3.67 4 Quality of teaching 4.78 5 4.13 4 4.00 4 4.17 4 Class size 4.67 5 3.75 4 4.00 4 4.00 4 Ease in scheduling required courses 4.89 5 4.25 4 3.33 4 3.83 4 Opportunities for cross-registration 4.20 4 4.33 5 3.33 3 3.50 3.5 Writing and research support 3.78 5 4.13 4.5 3.00 3 4.00 4 Online/off campus learning 4.00 5 3.75 4 2.67 3 3.20 3 Adequacy of library collection 3.88 4.5 4.00 4 3.33 4 3.40 3 Helpfulness of administration/staff 4.63 5 4.43 5 3.33 4 3.50 4 Academic advising 4.67 5 4.14 4 4.00 4 3.67 4 Spiritual formation 4.11 4 4.00 4 3.67 4 3.83 4 Career/vocational counseling 4.14 4 3.86 4 2.67 3 2.80 3 Pastoral care 4.33 4.5 3.60 4 2.67 3 3.00 3 Placement services 3.00 3 3.43 4 2.00 2 3.20 3 Financial aid 4.50 5 3.50 3.5 3.33 4 2.00 2 Housing 3.50 4 3.83 4 2.00 2 2.80 3 Child care 2.33 1 2.80 3 2.00 2 2.40 3 Extracurricular/cultural activities 3.00 3 3.29 4 2.00 2 3.00 3 Sports/exercise facilities 1.75 1 3.33 3.5 2.33 2 2.80 3 Health and wellness program 2.25 2 2.67 3 2.00 2 2.60 3 Food service 2.50 2 3.14 3 2.00 2 4.00 4 Upkeep of campus 2.67 2.5 3.43 3 2.33 2 3.20 3 Campus security 3.17 3.5 3.00 3 2.33 2 3.20 3 AVERAGE 3.72 3.67 2.88 3.29 Overall Experience M Div MRE MA D Min Overall experience Ave Med Ave Med Ave Med Ave Med Satisfied with my academic experience 4.89 5 4.57 5 4.33 5 3.83 4 Field education/internship has been helpful 5.00 5 3.86 5 4.67 5 3.20 4 Faculty were supportive and understanding 4.78 5 4.14 4 4.33 5 4.17 4 I felt accepted within this school community 4.89 5 3.86 4 4.67 5 3.83 4 I have grown spiritually 4.78 5 4.43 5 3.67 4 4.33 4 My faith is stronger that when I came 4.67 5 4.14 4 3.67 4 3.3 4 My personal faith has been respected 4.78 5 4.14 5 4.33 4 4.00 4 I know at least one faculty member well 5.00 5 4.25 5 4.67 5 4.67 5 I am able to integrate theology & practice of ministry 4.86 5 4.43 5 3.67 3 3.83 4 The school has tried to be an inclusive community 5.00 5 4.57 5 4.00 4 3.33 3 I have come to know students from other ethnic groups 4.63 5 4.17 4.5 4.67 5 4.20 4 I have made good friends here 4.56 5 3.71 4 4.33 4 4.17 4 Seminary was a good experience for my spouse/family 4.29 4 3.50 3.5 2.00 1 3.60 4 Commuting increased the time to complete my program 3.50 3.5 3.83 4 4.33 4 3.40 3 I have been able to manage financially 4.22 4 3.71 4 4.00 4 2.67 3 If I had to do it over, I would still come here 4.33 5 4.57 5 4.00 5 4.33 4 AVERAGE 4.63 4.12 4.08 3.84