PBA Home > Institutional Research & Analysis > Surveys > NSSE 2006 > CU-Boulder Results, by Major

NSSE 2006 - CU-Boulder Results, by Major

Data from the 2006 NSSE administration at CU-Boulder were analyzed by academic major for seniors only and for only those majors with sufficiently large enrollments to yield at least five responding seniors. The results for these selected majors in the College of Arts and Sciences (26 majors), the School of Business (4 majors), and the College of Engineering (9 majors) are compared graphically. This link displays a graph with NSSE scales; clicking on a particular scale will display results for items within that scale. Letters in the graphs denote different academic majors, within the three colleges. To view a table containing item numbers and names for each item within each of the scales, see NSSE Item Numbers and Variable Names, by Scale.

Because of the large number of majors displayed in the graphs, separate sets of highlighted graphs that allow more efficient viewing of results for individual majors are provided. In these graphs, each major, e.g., anthropology, is denoted in turn by a special symbol (a purple triangle), whereas results for all other majors are denoted by their original symbols (i.e., letters). A guide to interpreting the graphs is also provided.

Response rates are reported for all CU-Boulder majors represented in the 2006 NSSE administration. Across the majors included in the analyses reported here, response rates for seniors ranged from 23% (economics) to 83% (classics). The total numbers of respondents in some of these majors (e.g., classics, geography, humanities, mathematics, philosophy, physics, and applied mathematics) for 2006 were relatively small (5, 8, 6, 8, 5, 9, and 6, respectively). For certain items, the number of respondents may be even smaller. For example, only five of the 12 economics seniors responded to an item that asked them to rate the university’s responsiveness to academic problems. Caution should therefore be used when interpreting the results for certain majors and items, particularly if the results are associated with small response rates. Detailed information about the numbers of respondents, by item, major, and class level, is available in an Excel table. Note that some majors are not listed in this table, because they did not have at least five responding seniors in both 2002 and 2006.

Summary of Principal Results

Students were generally satisfied with the academic quality of CU-Boulder, regardless of major. Students were also generally satisfied with the academic quality of their majors, the quality of instruction in upper-division courses, and the quality of their relationships with faculty and other students. In addition, students typically reported that they likely would attend the university again if they were starting college over.

There is considerable variability across majors in students’ average responses to NSSE items. For example, humanities majors reported on average that CU-Boulder’s contribution to their computing skills was relatively low, whereas physics majors and math majors reported that this was quite high. Similarly, humanities majors reported that their university experience contributed relatively little to their quantitative skills, whereas physics majors and math majors typically reported relatively high contribution to the development of such skills. These results are not particularly surprising, considering the probable differences in frequency of computer use and in key course content and skills emphasis within these disciplines. Note that you may view these same results with average ratings for a given major highlighted by a special plot symbol. With respect to computing skills, for example, highlighted ratings for humanities majors, for physics majors, and for math majors are presented in separate graphs.

Students also displayed considerable variability in their responses to a question on the overall quality of academic advising. On average, film studies majors gave very low ratings of academic advising quality, whereas philosophy majors gave very high ratings for this item. In addition, philosophy majors indicated high levels of satisfaction, relative to other majors, with both the availability of their advisors, and with the accuracy of information that advisors provide.

Computer science majors gave low ratings, relative to other majors in the College of Engineering, when questioned about how often they were challenged to do their best, the extent to which CU-Boulder emphasizes studying, and how often they had to work harder than they thought possible in order to meet instructor expectations. Among majors in the School of Business, marketing majors gave consistently high ratings on each of these items.

Comparing Results from the 2002 and 2006 NSSE Administrations

Across majors, among seniors, the largest positive change in average ratings from 2002 to 2006 occurred for electrical and computing engineering majors on an item that asked students to rate the quality of instruction in upper-division courses. In 2002, CU-Boulder electrical and computing engineering majors’ average rating on this item was 2.5; in 2006, it was 3.4. The largest negative change in average ratings occurred for aerospace engineering sciences majors on an item that asked the extent to which their experience at CU-Boulder had contributed to their developing a personal code of ethics (3.0 in 2002 vs. 1.8 in 2006). Virtually all of the few relatively large negative changes occurring over time in seniors' ratings pertained to majors within departments that had experienced some type of important change in their characteristics (e.g., personnel changes) between the two administrations of NSSE.

Additional information concerning noteworthy changes in average ratings from 2002 to 2006 is provided in Table 1. All items are on a four-point scale. Average ratings, by major, on other items that are common to the 2002 and 2006 NSSE administrations are provided in an Excel file.

Table 1
Noteworthy Changes in CU-Boulder Students’ Average Ratings from 2002 to 2006, by Major

*The averages reported in this table are weighted to adjust statistically for different sampling fractions and response rates over majors.

L:\IR\survey\NSSE\06\Writeups\ByMajorGraphSummary.doc

Last revision 07/17/07