II. Satisfaction with Purdue
Choosing
Purdue (Q 6)
Click
to view snapshot results of (Q
6)
The next two questions allow us first to step back and consider why faculty initially chose Purdue and then to compare these responses with their current levels of satisfaction with eight specific facets of the university.
The following four factors most positively influenced respondents’ decisions to initially accept a position at Purdue:
1)
Prestige of the unit, school, or university (88% agreed that this was
a positive influence)
2)
University benefits (81%)
3)
Balance between teaching and research responsibilities (78%)
4)
Access to research facilities (72%)
| Of the eight factors listed for this question, respondents were least likely to say that geographic location (43%) and opportunities available for their spouse/partner (44%) positively influenced their decision to come to Purdue. (This latter number reflects the proportion after the 36% of respondents who chose “not applicable” - presumably because they were single or their spouse/partner was not seeking employment - were removed from the total N for this question.) See Table 1 |
|
)
Differences by School
A number of differences exist when we consider responses by school. Faculty in Veterinary Medicine (68%) were the least likely to report that the prestige of their unit, school, or the university positively influenced their decision to come to Purdue, compared to 90% or more of faculty in the following schools: Agriculture, CFS, Education, Engineering, Health Sciences, and Technology. Geographic location was a significant draw for a clear majority in Health (76%), CFS (65%), Education (65%), and Technology (61%), while Engineering (31%) and Science (21%) faculty were far less likely to say that geographic location positively influenced their decision to come to Purdue. Also, Engineering (31%), Science (38%), and Agriculture (39%) faculty were less likely than their peers to say that opportunities available for their spouse positively influenced their decision to come to Purdue. 3
Salary's role in influencing whether one accepts a position at Purdue varies tremendously by school. A majority of Library (86%) and Agriculture (72%) faculty reported that this was a positive influence, while only 30% of Technology faculty and 33% of those in Education and Management described their salary offer as a positive influence.
A clear majority of faculty in every school described the benefits package as a positive influence on their decision to accept Purdue's offer of employment. Responses ranged from 66% of Management faculty to 90% of Health Sciences and 94% of Veterinary Medicine faculty who perceived this as a positive influence.
Finally, the extent to which access to research facilities positively influenced individuals' decisions to come to Purdue varied by school affiliation. In this case, just 54% of Liberal Arts faculty and 58% of Technology faculty saw this as a positive influence, while 85% of Science faculty reported that this was a positive draw.
Differences by Rank
Salary was most likely to attract full professors (55%) and least likely to be a positive factor in attracting assistant professors to Purdue (46%). Full professors were also the most likely to say that access to research facilities (79% vs. 66% and 68% for associate and assistant professors respectively), balance between teaching and research responsibilities (83% vs. 75% and 74% for associate and assistant professors respectively) and the leadership of one’s unit head or dean (66% vs. 56% and 63% for associate and assistant professors respectively) positively influenced their decision to accept a position at Purdue.
Differences by Gender
Opportunities available for their spouse/partner were more likely to positively influence females’ (55%) than males’ (40%) decisions to come to Purdue. Males, on the other hand, were more likely to report that salary (54% vs. 45%), balance between teaching and research responsibilities (82% vs. 70%), and access to research facilities (76% vs. 63%) drew them to Purdue. Differences in the distribution of males and females across the schools and across the ranks may account for most of these differences.
Differences by Race
Examining responses by race, underrepresented minorities were less likely than Asian Americans or Caucasians to report that geography (35% vs. 41% and 45% respectively) or benefits (65% vs. 87% and 82% respectively) attracted them to Purdue. They were, on the other hand, more likely than Asian Americans and Caucasians to say that the leadership of their unit head or dean (75% vs. 57% and 62% respectively) and opportunities available for their spouse/partner (56% vs. 25% and 44% respectively) influenced their decision to come to Purdue.
Asian Americans were the least likely to say that salary (41% vs. 58% of underrepresented minorities and 53% of Caucasians) or opportunities for their spouse (see above) attracted them to Purdue and were the most likely to say that Purdue’s prestige was a significant drawing factor (100% vs. 87% of underrepresented minorities and 88% of Caucasians). 4
_______________________________________
3 Throughout the report, responses from schools singled out for comment were generally at least ten percentage points above or below the mean.
4 Throughout the report, differences in survey responses that are analyzed by race/ethnicity must be examined with caution because relatively few respondents identified themselves as Asian American (32) or underrepresented minorities (24) and not all of these individuals answered every question. These smaller numbers can lead to more volatility in response patterns, thus putting into question the meaningfulness of the results. The same caution is appropriate regarding analyses of responces from several of the smaller schools, such as Consumer and Family Sciences, Education, the Libraries, and Management.
){kind=link}