Building MIT's First-Year Experience (Fall 2002)
Summary of Initial Findings
January 2, 2003

Results are reported and summarized according to "questions" related to the first-year experience.  These questions are listed in the Table of Contents, with a summation of key points provided for each question in italics (i.e. results highlights).  More details and descriptions are provided in the sections following the "Table of Contents and Results Highlights."  In the "Details of Survey Results," results sections begin with a bullet that identifies the survey question(s) that focus on this area, as well as the percent of survey respondents eligible to answer the question that did so.

The two final open-ended questions are still being evaluated; however, these results seem to be focused more on specific ideas for improvements and/or a further reflection of the results provided by the numbers in areas where students agreed or disagreed strongly.  There are also a series of questions related to evaluation of the advising system and/or academic information, which is still being processed by the ARC; however, these questions are not related in any significant way to the work of the Residence System Implementation Team.

Please direct any questions or inquiries for further information to Rick Gresh (rgresh@mit.edu).


1



Table of Contents and Results Highlights


PART I:  "DEMOGRAPHICS"
As the participation in the survey mirrored the overall class of 2006 and 636 students participated with a 90% or better reply rate on most questions, there is confidence that the results of this survey reflect the overall class.

PART II:  "DORM-RELATED QUESTIONS"
A. Do students feel their current dorm is a "good fit"?
Overall, students felt their dorm was a good fit to them to a "considerable extent" (the second highest on a 5 point scale).  Results also show that the class of 2006 was equally satisfied with fit as upperclass students surveyed in April 2002.  Active squatters demonstrated the highest satisfaction with "fit."
B. Did students have adequate information to make Housing decisions?
Neutral to Somewhat Agree that they did prior to Residence Orientation, though this average does not increase significantly after RO.
C. Did students take summer lottery Housing decisions seriously?
Overall, the answer is clearly yes.
D. Parental Impact on Housing decisions
Almost half state their parents had no impact, and, of the other half, the impact was generally viewed as helpful.
E. Residence Orientation:  Visiting Dorms with the Intent to Consider Moving
59% of our first-year students visited other Dorms with the intent to consider a move.  Of those visiting more than 3 Dorms, 75% ultimately squatted.
F. Residence Orientation:  Did the activities realistically reflect living there?
The campus average was between somewhat disagree that they did to neutral; FSILG events did significantly better.
G. OAL:  Factors relating to why students did or did not request to move
Satisfaction with fit/social/cultural issues played the greatest role in why students did not move (2.5 times greater than facility issues).  While, for those that requested a move, facility-related were equal to fit/social/cultural issues (43% to each).  Only 5% of squatters' reasons were related to being settled or moving as a hastle, and only 2% was attributed to not having enough time.
H. Why First-Year Students did not enter the OAL
Students did not enter because they did not want to move or due to RBA; only 9 of 636 responders were not aware of the OAL or missed the deadline.
I. Dorm Room Assignments:  the Option to Squat
Students were generally neutral to "somewhat disagree" on feeling the "option to squat their room" would have helped them better acclimate to MIT.  Note:  less than 20% felt strongly about the question.
J. Impact of Orientation Movement on Community and Support
Overall, students who did not move at all and students that moved rooms/buildings felt similarly supported and/or connected to their dorm community.  However, students whose room movement was opposite to their desire (either wanting to move or not but experiencing the opposite), were significantly less likely to highly value being a part of their dorm's community.

K. Impact of Orientation Movement on Preparation to Start Classes
Overall students did not feel and/or perceive that movement had a significant effect on their ability to be prepared for classes, though they did seem to report that moving buildings has more of an impact than moving rooms.

PART III:  "FSILG-RELATED QUESTIONS"
A. Influence of CPW on Interest in FSILGs
Those overnighting in an FSILG were significantly more likely to attend FSILG events with an interest in joining and were significantly more likely to have actually joined.  Those overnighting in a Dorm with an FSILG host had nearly identical results to those overnighting without an FSILG host.  It is worth noting, however, that almost 40% of those overnighting in an FSILG have NOT attended events with an interest in joining.
B. Sources of Information about FSILGs:  How useful were they?
"Talking with students" was the only source of information rated as "very useful."  All others were between "somewhat useless" and "somewhat useful."
C. FSILG Activities:  Do they provide a realistic idea of membership?
Students were between neutral and somewhat agreeing that they did.
D. First-Year student impressions of FSILGs
Overall, students had a neutral to somewhat favorable impression of FSILGs.
E. Factors influencing interest in an FSILG:  Overall
Students reported joining FSILGs for reasons related to the community and/or organization, while those that are firmly against joining sited issues related more to time and/or FSILG facilities.  60% of students, regardless of their interest in joining, reported discussing FSILGs with their parents.
F. Factors influencing interest in FSILGs:  Upperclass Students in Dorms
Overall, students did not perceive Dorm residents as discouraging them from participating in FSILG recruitment.
G. How much time are FILG members spending on FILG activities?
2/3 of those eligible to answer this question did not.  Of those that did, there was a fairly even distribution from 0 hours to more than 15 hours a week.
H. The Timing of Fall FILG Recruitment
Students are significantly more likely to be interested in membership if FILG recruitment were held during the first two weeks of classes.

PART IV:  CAMPUS-WIDE or RESIDENCE SYSTEM-WIDE QUESTIONS
A. Where students will live next academic year
55% reported living in their same Dorm, 24% in an FSILG, with the remainder living in other Dorms or unable to make a prediction.  Note:  only about 80% of those joining FSILGs felt they were able to predict they would actually live there next year.
B. Impact of various activities on academic performance:  5th Week Flags
Flag distribution did not vary significantly across categories of Dorm/room movement during Orientation and across FSILG members and non-members, indicating that neither of these creates a greater likelihood of receiving a flag.


2



Details of Survey Results


PART I:  "DEMOGRAPHICS"


Overall, the level and distribution of participation was solid.  65% of the class of 2006 participated in the survey (636 out of 980).  Those that completed the survey were highly likely to complete almost every question.  Participation percentages (out of the 636 participating) are provided along with results.  Out of the 64 non-open ended questions, only 6 had less than a 75% participation rate (and only 10 had less than an 90% participation rate) of those eligible to answer; for some questions, an answer was only asked for those that answered a previous question a certain way.  Across every key demographic data point (except one) the percentage of the pool reflected the percentages existing within the class of 2006.  Some of these key demographics are offered below.

Demographic Category
% of Survey Participants
% within Class
Male
54
57
Female
46
43
International
8
8
Asian-American/Pacific Islander
30
28
African-American, non-Hispanic
6
6
Residents of Baker
10
11
Residents of Next House
19
18
Residents of East Campus
7
8
Received a 5th Week Flag
19
20
Attended CPW
63
63
Males joining an FSILG
46
48
Students not entering the OAL
58*
40
Students actively squatting in the OAL
30*
47
Students asking to move in OAL that weren't reassigned
5
6
Students reassigned in OAL
8
9
# of students who changed rooms after NOT having changed dorms in through the OAL
58
Unavailable

* It seems highly likely that students misinterpreted question 5, which asked them to identify if they entered the OAL, instead reading the question as asking if they requested to move.  Given the results and how students responded to other questions, many active squatters apparently chose "No - I did not enter the lottery" instead of "Yes - I entered to stay (squat) my current dorm."  Otherwise, close to 100% of those actually not entering the lottery would have had to participate in the survey.  With most analysis, active and passive squatters are processed as one unit, so this will have little effect on the results.



3



PART II:  "DORM-RELATED QUESTIONS"

II.A.  Do students feel their current dorm is a "good fit"?

Question 14 (99%)

First-year students were asked to rate at what extent do they agree with the following statement:  "My current Dorm is a good fit for me."  Students were given a range of 1-5 (1 being "not at all", 3 being "to a moderate extent" and 5 being "to a very great extent").

As a means of comparison, we asked this question in April 2002 to all students living in Dorms at the time during the ACUHO-I/EBI survey.  36.8% of those eligible completed the survey.  The percentages of those responding with the following extents are presented below:

Extent of agreement
% in First-Year Survey
% in EBI Survey
Not at all
2
3
To a slight extent
8
8
To a moderate extent
18
16
To a considerable extent
33
31
To a very great extent
39
39

The overall average then for the above comes out to be a 4.00 (squarely on "to a considerable extent").  This average does vary depending on what action students took during the OAL.  For those that actively squatted, the average is 4.21.  For those that requested a move and were reassigned, the average is 3.98.  For those that did not enter the lottery, the average is 3.92.  It is encouraging however that those who sought a reassignment but did not get one had an average of 3.57.

II.B.  Did students have adequate information to make Housing decisions?
12B (99%) and 12F (99%)
Please note:  the majority of the information available on this issue can be found in the results of the summer and OAL lottery surveys.

To add to the information provided about quality of information during the summer and OAL lotteries, we asked students to rate their agreement on a 1-4 scale (with 1 being strongly disagree and 4 being strongly agree) with the following statement:  "I was given enough information, prior to my arrival at MIT, to make an informed choice regarding my dorm selection for my first year at MIT."  This question was meant to explore the relationship between summer information and final decisions in terms of information.  They were also asked to rate their agreement with, on the same scale, the following:  "In retrospect, by the end of Orientation, I felt MIT had adequately informed me of my various housing options."

For the first question, the overall average is 2.74.  While 80 students (13%) selected strongly disagree as their answer, 138 (22%) selected strongly agree.

For the second question, the overall average was 2.86 (not significantly higher than the average when excluding information gained during Orientation).  It may be useful to note that the more students felt they had a "good fit" in their dorm assignment (question 14), the more well informed they felt MIT had made them by the end of Orientation (2.36 for those believing their current dorm is not at all a good fit for them to 3.15 for those stating their current dorm is a very great fit for them).

II.C.  Did students take summer lottery Housing decisions seriously?
Question 12C (98%)

RSIT was interested in exploring how seriously students took their summer housing decisions as a concern was raised by Dormitory Council that perhaps students did not do so.

On a four point scale (1 being strongly disagree and 4 being strongly agree), students were asked to rate their agreement with the following:  "I took the housing decisions I had to make over the summer seriously."

The overall average was 3.53 indicating that students did take their decisions seriously.  Only 61 students (less than 10%) answered with a 1 or 2 and only 24 of those strongly disagreed with the above statement.

II.D.  Parental Influence on Housing decisions
12D (99%):  337 of these provided a 1-4 ranking and 293 selected N/A.

On a four point scale (1 being strongly disagree and 4 being strongly agree), students were asked to rate their agreement with the following statement:  "Overall, I would characterize any impact my parents/guardians had on my housing decisions as helpful (if your parents/guardians had not impact, please select N/A)."

The average among those that stated their was some impact was 2.90, indicating that, on balance, any parental impact was helpful (only 24 of the 337 stated that they strongly disagreed that this impact was helpful).  It is interesting to note that 47% actively selected N/A - stating that their parents/guardians had no impact.

II.E.  Residence Orientation:  Visiting Dorms with the Intent to Consider Moving
7 (99%)

It is a strong belief of the Dormitory Council that there is not enough time during Orientation for Residence Exploration/Residence Orientation.  To help inform this conversation, we asked students to identify how many dorms they visited during RO with the intent to consider potentially moving there.  Students were asked to consider the Cultural Houses as part of New House.

41% visited no dorm with the intent of possibly moving, 28% visited 1-2 dorms, 21% visited 3-4, 7% visited 5-6, and 4% visited 7-10 (NOTE:  McCormick and Next House residents are included in the percentages above).  Meaning that 59% of the first-year students were open to at least considering a move to another dorm when they arrived.

To better inform the discussion of the need for more time, it may be useful to look at what action students who visited 3 or more Dorms (arguably those most open to considering moving elsewhere) eventually took.  75% of them ultimately chose to squat (either actively or passively) resulting in 30% of all of the students who squatted having actually visited 3 or more dorms with the intent to move there (Note:  Considered in "squatted" are those that either actively squatted or those that did not enter the lottery who selected "I did not want to move to another dorm" as their reason for not doing so).

We also looked at variability among those living in east campus versus west campus dorms (excluding McCormick and Next House due to RBA).  Those in East Campus Dorms were more likely to visit dorms with the intent to consider moving there.  While 35% of those in West Campus Dorms visited no dorms with the intent to move there, only 13% of those in East Campus Dorms did the same.  Similarly, while only 11% of those in west campus dorms visited more than 5 dorms with intent, 25% of those in east campus dorms did the same.  When cross-referenced with II.G. (question 8), it is likely that issues with quality of facilities played an equal part to seeking a good fit for those that did want to move, while seeking a good fit was more significant than facility issues for those requesting to squat.

II.F.  Residence Orientation:  Did the activities realistically reflect living there?
12E (90%)

On a four point scale (1 being strongly disagree and 4 being strongly agree), students were asked to rate their agreement with Dorm activities providing a realistic idea of what it would be like to live there.  The average for the response related to the Dorms is 2.36 (note a similar question asked about FSILGs yielded an average of 2.71).

II.G.  OAL:  Factors relating to why students did or did not request to move
Question 8 (95% provided at least one response)

Students were asked to list the top two reasons why they took the action they did in the OAL (either to request a move or to squat/not enter).

The results, in summary, indicate that for those that requested a move, 43% of the reasons were based on facility-related issues and 43% were based on fit/social/cultural issues.  Of those that requested to stay, 53% were related to fit/social/cultural issues, 21% were related to facility issues, and 11% of the reasons related to RBA or personal restrictions.  Interestingly, fit/social/cultural issues seemed to play a larger role in squatting in moving, while facilities issues played a much more significant role in requesting to move.  Only 5% of those that did not move stated that they thought moving would be too much of a hastle and/or were already "settled" and only 2% felt they did not have adequate time or information.  More details provided in the following paragraphs.

79 students in the survey requested a move.  Of those, 70 (89%) listed at least one reason why with a total of 120 reasons provided.  43% of the reasons were associated with facility issues and 43% were associated with fit/social/cultural issues.  The primary facility issues were related to building location (14), looking for a better/newer facility (11), wanting a single (8), the general layout of a dorm (7), and health/allergy considerations (6).  The primary fit/social/cultural issues were interest in finding a better social atmosphere/less boring dorm (13), not liking the people/having friends elsewhere (13), not liking or liking the culture/mentality/personality (12), or generally looking for a better atmosphere or a place they like better (12).  The remainder were due to lack of information, misrepresentation in information, or wanting to improve upon results of the summer lottery (I got my third choice, but want my first or second).  Two students said they moved because their parents didn't like their Dorm and one student moved dorms because he knew he was going to have to move rooms anyway.

554 students in the survey passively or actively squatted.  Of those, 532 (96%) listed at least one reason why with a total of 816 reasons provided.  53% of the reasons were associated with fit/social/cultural issues, 21% were associated with facility issues, 11% were due to RBA or personal restrictions (gender, religion, etc.).  Of the remainder, 5% simply stated they did not want to move (37), 5% indicated they were either settled or thought moving would be too much of a hastle (40), 2% felt they either had a lack of time or information (17), 2% stated risk/uncertainty as their primary motivation (14), and the remaining 2% stated that they did not move because they had faired well in the summer lottery and/or their experience visiting matched what they had expected based upon summer information (14).  The primary fit/social/cultural issues were generally liking the culture, atmosphere, or personality (334) and having friends or liking one's roommate (62).  The primary facility related issues were location (68), liking one's current room size or bathroom arrangement (64), and overall quality of the building/facility (31).

II.H.  Why First-Year Students did not enter the OAL
Question 6 (100%)

RSIT was interested in exploring why 21% of the first-year class did not enter the Orientation Adjustment Lottery to either request a new assignment or to actively squat.  There had been a concern that students were not aware of the lottery or individuals missed the deadline.  Only 9 individuals (1% of 636) reported that they did not enter the lottery because they either missed the deadline, forgot about it, or weren't aware of it.  The remainder did not enter because they did not want to move (247 individuals), were in RBA (108) or live at home/in family housing (2).


4



II.I.  Dorm Room Assignments:  the Option to Squat
9 (96%) and 10 (98%)

To get a sense of what occurred for those students who did not moving buildings during the Orientation Adjustment Lottery, we asked if they moved rooms or not and if they wanted to or not.  The results are as follows:

Action/Interest
Percentage of those squatting or not reassigned during the OAL
Yes I moved and I wanted to
52
Yes I moved but did not want to
14
No I did not move and did not want to
29
No I did not move but wanted to
5

We asked students to rate their agreement with the following statement (1-4 scale with 1 being strongly disagree):  "It would have helped me to better acclimate to MIT if I knew I had the option to keep my summer room assignment if I wanted to."  The overall average was 2.28.  Those that did not want to move (whether they did or did not actually move) agreed much more than those who wanted to move (2.92 to 2.11).  It may be helpful to note that 31 students strongly agreed with the statement while 93 strongly disagreed, meaning the great majority had less strong feelings about the question.

II.J  Impact of Orientation Movement on Community and Support
11A (91%), 11C (71%), 32A (99%), 32B (99%), 32C (99%), and 32D (99%)
All of these questions rated agreement with a statement on a 1-4 scale (1 being strongly disagree and 4 being strongly agree).
Information is provided on the overall average as well as any significant variation among first-year students based upon if they moved buildings and/or rooms during Orientation (and, related to room movement, their desire to move).

Felt welcomed at MIT:  We asked students how much they agreed with the statement "I felt welcomed by MIT upon arrival."  The overall average was 3.46.  The individual averages were consistent except that students who didn't move rooms but wanted to reported an average of 3.19.

Support network of peers:  We asked students to rate their agreement with "I feel I have a good network of support from other students."  The campus average was 3.47.  Again, the individual averages were consistent with this, except that those who did not move but wanted to reported an average of 2.92.

Graduate Resident Tutors (GRTs):  We asked students to rate their agreement with the statement "at least one of the GRTs in my dorm knows me."  The overall average was 3.48, and there was virtually no variability among the various categories of movement.


5



Value in Dorm Community:  We asked students to rate their agreement with the statement "I value being a part of my dorm's community."  The overall average was 3.18.  Those that moved or didn't move against their will (so to speak) were less likely to agree (2.76 to 2.94), followed by those that moved buildings (3.06), while those that either moved rooms or didn't but their desire matched this movement were more likely to agree (3.19 to 3.29).

Impact of Room Changes on Dorm Community:  We asked students to rate their agreement with the statement:  "Change rooms within the same dorm during Orientation did (or would have) helped me find a significantly better community within my Dorm."  The overall average was 2.80.  Those that did want to move rooms (whether they did or did not actually move) agreed more strongly (3.08 to 3.20) while those that did not want to change rooms had averages on the disagree side of the scale (2.04 and 2.42).

Impact of Building Changes on MIT Community:  We asked students to rate their agreement with the statement:  "Change dorms during Orientation did (or would have) helped me find a significantly better community at MIT."  The overall average was 2.58.  Those that actually moved buildings were significantly more likely to agree (3.45) while those that didn't want to move rooms and didn't actually were likely to not agree (2.24).

II.K.  Impact of Orientation Movement on Preparation to Start Classes
11B (91%), 11D (72%), and 32E (98%)
All of these questions rated agreement with a statement on a 1-4 scale (1 being strongly disagree and 4 being strongly agree).
Information is provided on the overall average as well as any significant variation among first-year students based upon if they moved buildings and/or rooms during Orientation (and, related to room movement, their desire to move).

Preparation for Classes:  We asked students to rate their agreement with the statement:  "I feel MIT prepared me to start classes."  Overall, the average was 2.88, with little variability among the categories of movement, though those that did not move rooms but wanted to were less likely to agree (2.68).

Impact of Room Changes on Preparation:  We asked students to rate their agreement with the statement:  "Change rooms within the same dorm during Orientation did (or would have) disrupted my ability to be prepared for the first day of classes."  The overall average was 1.83.  No category had an average above 2.50 (demonstrating agreement), though those that did not move rooms and did not want to do so were closest to agreeing (2.37).

Impact of Building Changes on Preparation:  We asked students to rate their agreement with the statement:  "Change dorms during Orientation did (or would have) disrupted my ability to be prepared for the first day of classes."  The overall average was 2.13.  Those that moved buildings disagreed the strongest (1.67) while those that did not move rooms and did not want to do so had a neutral average (2.52).



6



PART III:  "FSILG-RELATED QUESTIONS"

III.A.  Influence of CPW on Interest in FSILGs
Questions 1 (94%), 16 (93%), and 17 (88%)
Note:  Question 16 considers all FSILGs while Question 17 excludes sororities.
CPW policy is such that students do not state a preference for staying in a dorm or FSILG, so assignment to one or the other is "random."

Those overnighting in an FSILG were significantly more likely to attend FSILG events with an interest in joining and were significantly more likely to have actually joined.  There is little variability among all other categories of "overnighting" in terms of likelihood to exhibit behaviors that demonstrate an interest in FSILGs; the other categories are overnighting in a dorm with an FSILG host, overnighting in a dorm without an FSILG host, or not overnighting at all.

63% of those overnighting in an FSILG attended FSILG events with an interest in exploring membership versus 31%-42% for all other categories of "overnighting."  45% of those overnighting in an FSILG went on to actually join an FSILG, versus 15% to 18% for other categories.

Of those not overnighting in an FSILG, approximately 20% of them have not attended any FSILG events and 60% have made no effort to join an FSILG.  Please keep in mind though that sorority recruitment has not yet been held, so women have had limited opportunities to seek membership.

III.B.  Sources of Information about FSILGs:  How useful were they?
20A-H (97% for all of them)

On a four point scale (1 being very useless and 4 being very useful), students were asked to rate the usefulness of 8 sources of information about FSILGs.  Students were given the option to select "did not read, receive, or attend."  The results below provide, for each source of information, a % of respondents who chose "did not read, receive, or attend" and then the average "usefulness" rating each source received (first from all respondents and then from the subset that stated they had joined an FSILG).

Information
Source
% "did not
read, receive,
or attend"
Usefulness Rating, All Respondents
(1-4 scale)
Useful Rating by Joiners (1-4 scale)
Campus Preview Weekend
39
2.70
2.88
FSILG Overview Bk
25
2.43
2.26
FSILG CD
43
2.26
2.13
Summer Contact
69
2.16
2.33
Indiv. Rush Books
42
2.71
2.87
Rush 2002 Site
45
2.42
2.32
ILG Rush Guide
43
2.16
2.16
Talking with Students
8
3.50
3.72
III.C.  FSILG Activities:  Do they provide a realistic idea of membership?
23C (74%)

On a four point scale (1 being strongly disagree and 4 being strongly agree), students were asked to rate their agreement with FSILG activities providing a realistic idea of what it would be like to join.  The average for the response is 2.71 (note a similar question asked about Dorms yielded an average of 2.36).  It is interesting to note for the FSILG question that there is little variability on this average among those that joined versus those that have no interest in joining.

III.D.  First-Year student impressions of FSILGs

23D (86%), 23E (71%), 23F (72%)

Students were asked to rate their agreement on a four point scale (1 being strongly disagree and 4 being strongly agree) with the following statements:
23D - "I have a positive impression of fraternities"
23E - "I have a positive impression of sororities"
23F - "I have a positive impression of independent living groups"

Overall, the average of students who reported their agreement was between 2.75 and 2.88 for each of the questions above.

We also examined the averages by dividing the respondents into three groups:  (1) those that have joined an FSILG; (2) those that are open to joining but haven't and (3) those firmly not interested in joining an FSILG.

Those open to joining who have not yet joined, had an average from 2.87 to 2.96 for the kinds of FSILGs (slightly above the overall average).  Agreement with having a positive impression of fraternities and sororities among those that have joined an FSILG was 3.38 and 3.12 respectively, both of which are above the campus average.  This is not the case for the ILGs:  among those who have joined an FSILG, their impression of ILGs is consistent with the overall average above.

Among those who are firmly not interested in joining an FSILG, their average for an impression of ILGs is slightly lower than the overall average, but not significantly so (and still above 2.5).  Not so for the fraternities and sororities, the average for which are 2.36 and 2.34 respectively.


7



III.E.  Factors influencing interest in an FSILG:  Overall
Questions 19 (93% ranked at least one factor) and 21 (95%).

Students were asked to rank up to 5 listed factors (with an open-ended "other" option as one of them) that were significant to their actions related to membership in an FSILG (joining, considering joining, or having no interest in joining).

Of those that joined, four factors received a ranking by at least half of those responding (160).  They are (in order from most to least):  "social atmosphere" (130), "FSILG members I've met/talked to" (123), "academic support" (83), and "values/beliefs of the organization" (80).  Only 31 students marked "desire to live in an FSILG" as one of their top five reasons," though the "location" or "quality/condition of the house" were ranked by 49 and 60 individuals respectively.

Of those that have no interest in joining (196 students), 4 factors receive a ranking by at least half of the participants.  They are (in order from most to least):  "Desire to live/not live in an FSILG" (144), "Location" (115), "social atmosphere" (104), and "time commitment" (101).  "Parental or family influence" was only ranked by 46 students and more than half of those ranked it as 4th or 5th.

Of those that have not joined but are not firmly against joining (238), there is greater variability about reasons why they might consider joining.  Only two factors receive ranking by at least half of the students:  ""social atmosphere" and "FSILG members I've met/talked to."  Only five factors are ranked by less than a 1/3 of those open to joining:  "organization diversity/respect for diversity" (28), "parental or family influence" (38), "costs" (59), "my friend's decisions to join/not to join" (67), and "desire to live/not to live in an FSILG" (69).

It is interesting to note that students report having discussed FSILGs with their parents at a fairly consistent rate, regardless of their interest or lack of interest in FSILGs.  60% of students who have not joined an FSILG, whether they are open to the possibility or not, report having discussed FSILGs with their parents.  57% of those joining an FSILG reported doing the same.

III.F.  Factors influencing interest in FSILGs:  Upperclass Students in Dorms
23A (79%)

On a four point scale (1 being strongly disagree and 4 being strongly agree), students were asked to rate their agreement with the following statement:  "Upperclass students living in my Dorm have discouraged me from participating in FSILG activities."

Overall, the campus average was 1.81 (between somewhat and strongly disagree) indicating that Dorm residents were generally not a hindrance to an individual's participation in FSILG activities.


8



III.G.  How much time are FILG members spending on FILG activities?
Question 22 (31% of those who have joined an FSILG)

Students who have joined an FSILG were asked to report how much time they are spending on FSILG activities per week since joining.  Of those that responded to the question, 27% said they are spending 0-4 hours; 20% 5-9 hours; 24% 10-14 hours; and 29% more than 15 hours.

Given publicity related to issues arising from first-year students "moving in" to FSILGs during the time of the survey, low turnout on this question was anticipated.

III.H.  The Timing of Fall FILG Recruitment
Questions 24 (94%)
Students were asked to not include sororities in considering their reply to question 24.

The IFC and LGC, in their efforts to gather feedback and evaluate Fall 2002's recruitment period, are working to determine if the current placement of formal recruitment is effective, particularly related to upperclass student stress.  First-year students reported that they would, overall, be more interested in FILGs, if recruitment was held during the first two weeks of the fall term.  40% of males would be more interested versus 18% who reported they would be less interested; females reported 36% and 16% respectively.

Please note that no other time period options were provided; students were asked to compare the current period, which was noted for their reference, to the first two weeks of the term.


9



PART IV:  CAMPUS-WIDE or RESIDENCE SYSTEM-WIDE QUESTIONS

IV.A.  Where students will live next academic year
Question 15 (99%)

Students were asked to predict where they will live next year.  Overall 55% predicted living in their current dorm, 24% living in an FSILG, 8% in another Dorm, and 12% did not feel they could make a prediction.

Of those that have joined an FSILG, the numbers are quite different from the overall campus numbers.  86% of those that are glad they have joined an FSILG and 45% of those that joined an FSILG but are "uncertain it is really for them" anticipate living in an FSILG.  7% of those that are glad and 41% of those that are uncertain predict they will live in a dorm next year.  14% of those that are uncertain about their decision to join do not feel they can yet make a prediction.

IV.B.  Impact of various activities on academic performance:  5th Week Flags

Various Questions and 23B (81%)

124 students reported having received a fifth week flag and 497 reported they did not.  We examined how Dorm movement, room changes, or FSILG participation may have effected the flags.  No significant pattern is demonstrated.  The greatest differences among the various percentages were in the following.  23% of those receiving fifth week flags reported having joined an FSILG; 26% of those that did not receive a fifth week flag.  70% of those receiving a flag changed rooms; 65% of those not receiving a flag did the same.

In addition, students were asked to rate, on a four point scale (1 being strongly disagree and 4 being strongly agree), their agreement with the following statement:  "Participating in FSILG recruitment or being in an FSILG did/would have hurt me academically."  Overall the average was 2.17.  Those that joined an FSILG disagreed more strongly (1.91) than those that are not open to joining (2.36).

10



Document converted from ms word 8 by MSWordView(mswordview 0.5.14)
MSWordView written by Caolan McNamara