ratings for the individual respondents. The "is" and "should be" ratings fonathe total University Community for each goal area were also. computed in the same manner. The degree of importance of each goal area as perceived by the total Community and by each of the five sub—gro~ ups was thus indicated by the magnitude of the average ratings. The twenty goal areas could be ranked from most to least important for the total community and for the individual sub—groups according to the magnitude of the average ratings.
FIIIIIIMS _
The‘"is" and "should*be" profiles of the total Univer4 sity Community have been pre- sented in Figure 1. These profiles are based on the av— erage ratings of the total sample (N = 424) for the 13 outcome goals and the seven process goals. A comparison of the two profiles enables one to examine visually the extent of discrepancy between the importance of the goal areas as they are perceived to exist by the respondents ("13" profile) and as they \ would like them to exist ('should be" profile). Some degree of discrepancy bet- ween "is" and "should be" profiles would almost exist always unless the members of a university community feel that the importance of the existing objectives at the university are exactly the way they should be. The discrepancy between the two profiles, however, will vary from one university to anf other. The profiles pre- sented here, are not too dif icult from those of the five sub-groups and thus should generally reflect the attit— udes of the different seg-” ments of the University COm— munity toward the University goals;
The greatest decrepancy between "is" and "should be"‘
Photo by G. Coffin
Discussion (In The Complete Report
iciency. Traditional Relig- iousness was felt to be of no importance at the University
at present and the respond-
ents thought it should be of low importance in the future. Accountability/Efficiency is felt to be of medium import— ance in the future. Account; ability/Efficiency is felt to
' be of medium importance both
at present and in the future. Academic Development, Re— search, and Advanced Training
the three major goals of un—,“
iversities — showed relative—
Tuesday March 25 8:00 PM. Duffy
comparison of the "should be" profiles for the faculty and the fulltime students in which the differences between the two groups comes into fo— ous. Compared to the faculty the fulltime students wanted somewhat less emphasis on In— tellectual Orientation, and Cultural and Aesthetic Awarer ness but more emphasis on al— most everything else. The fulltime students put a sli- ghtly greater emphasis on re— search than the faculty. Table 1 shows the rank—
ly small discrepancies between ing of the 20 goal areas
"is" and "should be" ratings
in the present survey. Aca— demic Development was percei— ved to be of medium import- ance both in terms of "is" and should.be. Both Resear- ch and Academic Development wereiperceived to be of low' importance at present and of medium importance as a future goal. It is surprising that the respondents in general put relatively low emphasis on these three major goals. ’ Figure 2 provides a
according to perceived impor— tance and priority by the to— tal community and by the five sub—groups. The figures in
parentheses show the ranks of
the goal—areas when all 20 go-
als are considered together.
University to accomplish (the "should be" ratings) and how far the University has to go to get there (the "should be is"'discrepancy). INTERPRETATION
The objectives of this survey was to provide infor- mation regarding how the mem— bErs of the University Comm— unity as well as the fiver sub—groups perceive the im— portanCe and priorities of _the 20 goal areas. There is more than enough material in the findings to provide a ba— sis for further deliberations and discussions to plan for the future of the University. The challenge that the mem— bers of the Objectives Comm— ittee as well as the members of the University Community now face is that of Operat—
TThe rank of each goal-area wasfionalizing these goals so
based on its average "should be" rating plus the discre—
pancy between "is"and "should be: ratings. In other words, the ranking of the goal areas in this manner reflects both
, what the respondents want the
that they can be put into action.
Research Sub-Committee
The Cadre77Mar. 18, 1975, page 11
Satadal Dasgupta Chairman
Harry Love Richard.St. Jean
is found in the area of Indi: vidual and Personal Develop-' ment. The respondents felt thiSugoal was given a low priority at present while it should be given high prior-7‘ ityin any future planning. The discrepancies between "is" and "should he" were similarly high in such areas as Intellectual Orientation,
Community and Humanism?A1tru-g
ism. Discrepancies were also high in Intellectual/Aesthe- tic Environment, Democratic Governance, Public/Service, Innovation, Vocational Pre- paration and Meeting Local Needs in the order they are listed here. On the other hand,*diserepancies were very lowwioriTraditionaldkeligiqus:
OUTCOME GOALS
Individual Personal Development Intellectual Orientation Humanism/Altruism
‘Public Service
.. Vocational Preparation
Meeting Local Nccds
Advanced Training
Social Criticism/Activism Academic Development
Social Egalitarianism ' Research ; Cultural/Aesthetic Awareness Traditional Religiousness
rRocrss GOALS
Community
intellectual/Aesthetic Environment
Democratic Governance Innovation
Freedom
Off-Campus Learning Accountabilicy/Efficiency
,.
Table 1
RANKING OF GOAL AREAS IN TERMS OF IMPORTANCE BY TOTAL UNIVERSITY flNMUNITY AND THE’S SUE-GROUPS
TOTAL UNIVERSITY
( 1)* 2 ( 2) 1 ( 4) 3 ( 7) 4 7 5 8 9
1 ( 3) 2
3
4
5 ( 9)
6
7
8
( 2) ( 4) ( 7) (ll) ( 8) (13) (14) ( 9) (15) (19) (16) (20)
( 4) ( l) ( 5) (12)
1 ( l) 4 2 6 (18) 3 7 5 8 l
( 6) ( 3) ( 9) (4.5)
r.
(10) (11) (12)
9 (l3) 6 10 (14) ll 12 13
(13)
(15)
(10)
( 6) 1 (17) 9 (14) 10 ( 9) 12 (20) 13
(11) ‘ ( 8)
(12)
(11; 1 (13.5) 8 (16) (19) (20)
Homuwowhw
,4
(17) (18) (20)
H H ‘ umvowbo~ommvuw~
( 3) ( 5) '( 6) ( 8) (IS) (16) (19)
( 1) ( 5) ( 6) (10) (17) (18) (12)
( 3) ( 2) ( 8) ( 7) (11) (16) (19)
( 2) ( 7) (4.5)
1 ( 2 4 (10) 3 7 5 6
(
an (13.5) no
umubwnw VIVO‘waP‘ wo‘mwbr-am
umowab—I
COEFFICIENT 0F RANK ORDER CORRELATION
(FOR COAL AREAS RANKED 1 T0 20) BETWEEN TOTAL UNIVERSTTY COMMUNITY AND A——
* OUTCOME GOALS AND PROCESS GOALS HAVE BEEN
IS ENCLOSED IN PARENTHESTS.
-92 .76 .93 .88
FULLTIME PARTTINE COMMUNITY ADMINISTRATION FACULTY STUDENTS STUDENTS
A 54 o >—-
(12) (10) (19) (14) (17)
FULLTIME PARTTIME
ADMINISTRATION FACULTY STUDENTS STUDENTS
COMBINED AND THE RANK ORDER FROM 1 TO 20 OF THESE GOALS AREAS
emu 1) ( l)
( 2) on) ( G) (10)
( 9) (7.5) (12) (16) (13) .(14) > (19) (20)
0 V \Dvoouxoswbumr—I
F‘H H w N o
4) 6)
(3.5) (7.5) ( 5) (ll) (17) (15) (18)
\zwa‘wa'w
All-111111
.96
’ . nes‘s‘ déinéceauuabflity'lfiffwv
93197: '0 fiq onoqd