CAREER SUCCESS AND STUDENT SATISFACTION: A STUDY OF COMPUTER SCIENCE COOEPRATIVE EDUCATION GRADUATES

Is cooperative education making a contribution to higher education in the 1990's? Does cooperative education meet the expectations and needs of today's very practical and career- oriented students? Levine (1993) states students of the 1990's are looking for colleges and universities to address their specific, practical needs. The literature tells us that students in higher education are more mature, older, and very different from their colleagues of the 1970's and 1980's.

"Current undergraduates were afraid of being unable to find jobs, of living in an economy in which they will do less well than their parents . . . the relationship these students want with their college is like the one they already have with their banks, supermarkets, and the other organizations they patron­ize. They want education nearby and to operate during convenient hours preferably around the clock. They want easy, accessible parking, short lines, and polite, efficient personnel and services. They also want high quality prod­ucts but are eager for low costs. They are very willing to comparison shop, placing a premium on time and money." (Levine, 1993, p.4)

One must keep in mind that college is not the most important element in the lives of many of these students. Family and work are often more important than education. Astin (1993) discovered that freshman life goals have reflected the above philosophy: in 1970, 39 .1 % of first year students

It seems to follow from these findings that today's practical college and university students would appreciate the benefits of participating in coop­erative education programs. This is consistent with research on cooperative education in that it is oriented to the world of work, applying learning to the real world, with a primary focus on finding a job (Wilson & Lyons, 1961). In an attempt to study this hypothesis the authors surveyed computer science graduates attending a large, urban, public Midwestern university to find out whether participation in cooperative education during their undergraduate experience had a positive impact on their attitude toward their alma mater, and whether the experience had been beneficial in their career. Participation in cooperative education was open to all students in good academic stand­ing, i.e., a grade point average of 2.0 or above. All students who graduated from the Computer Science program during the preceding eleven years were surveyed.

A second area of emphasis in this study focuses on the economic impact of co-op on its participants. Although Wilson and Lyons (1961) found no salary difference others since then have. Significant differences in career advancement have been found for co-op participants. Jarrel (1974) found that the rate of advancement, number of awards received and involvement in continuing education was greater, while job turnover was lower for co-op than non-co-op students. Brown (1976) found that cooperative education students were more likely to obtain full-time employment than non-co-ops. Rogers and Weston (1987) found that co-op participation had an impact on beginning salaries, such that co-op students received significantly higher starting salaries.

In more recent investigations, analyses of the economic benefits of co­op have started to rely on more sophisticated statistical methodology. Siedenberg (1989) proposed the use of Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) to allow the researcher to isolate co-op as a predictor of monetary rewards. MLR allows the researcher to control for the effect of certain variables sta­tistically. Using this approach, Siedenberg (1990) found that participation in co-op eliminated the salary gap between nontraditional co-ops and those non-co-ops already in the workplace, after controlling for prior expe­rience, gender, race, supporting a family, unemployment rate and GPA Gardner, Nixon and Motschenbacker (1990) used multiple linear regres­sion to isolate individual, academic and demographic variables effects on salary. Gardner et al. found no significant difference between those with one and two co-op experiences versus those with no co-op experience. They did find a significant difference for those who had three to five co-op experiences. That study also considered gender and found that women with co-op experience did better in salary than men in computer science and civil, agricultural and general engineering.

The current study investigated whether computer science graduates who participated in cooperative education (one or more semesters) were more positive about their educational experience than computer science graduates who did not participate in co-op. Satisfaction was measured by self reported satisfaction with their university, the co-op program, academic major, and continued involvement with the university. Additionally, it was hypothesized that computer science graduates who participated in cooper­ative education would have a more successful career/ employment history than computer science graduates who did not participate in co-op. Success was measured by percentage of graduates employed upon graduation, quickness of finding employment, difference between starting and current salaries and employment in positions related to academic major.

Methodology

A survey instrument was constructed based on a review of the literature, and administrative experience. The initial draft was compiled by a cooper­ative education director and subsequently revised by the faculty member and graduate researcher on this project. The revised questionnaire was mailed to everyone who graduated from the computer science degree pro­gram during the past eleven years. The number of graduates totaled 645. Two mailings were sent one month apart. The number of respondents was 239, for a response rate of 37%. More co-op than non-co-op graduates responded to the survey. The proportion of co-ops to non-co-ops who grad­uated from the computer science program surveyed were 31 % and 69%, while the proportion of co-op to non-co-op respondents was 45% and 55%, respectively. Responses were coded and spot checked for accuracy. Fre­quency distributions were used to determine if any of the responses were outside established parameters. Identified responses were checked for tran­scription and response errors.

Results

Results for hypothesis one found no significant difference in satisfaction with academic major or the institution, as a function of participation in coop­erative education. One significant finding was that more co-ops than non-co-ops recommended participation in cooperative education programs. Survey results for item 22 (What is your overall attitude toward the university?) found no significant difference between co-ops and non-co-ops in atti­tudes toward their undergraduate institution. Both groups had mean posi­tive responses of 3.85 and 3.81, respectively, on a five-point Likert scale. Frequency distributions for item 19 (If you participated in co-op, how would you rate your satisfaction with the university's Cooperative Education Pro­gram?) showed a mean positive response of 4.32, on a five-point Likert scale for co-op participants. Analysis of item 21 (Would you recommend participation in the Cooperative Education program?) found that significantly more co-ops (95.4%) than non-co-ops (58.7%) would recommend participation in co-op (p<.001 ). Responses to items 23 (Have you made a financial contribu­tion to the University since your graduation, and if so how much?) showed no significant differences noted in self reports of contributions made between co-ops (45.7%) and non-co-ops (44.9%), and no significant difference in the amount donated between co-op and non- co-op participants.

Analysis of the second hypothesis, that co-op's will have had more suc­cessful career/ employment histories than non-co-ops resulted in several sig­nificant findings. Survey results on item 17 (How many times have you changed employers since graduation?) showed that non-co-ops changed employers significantly more often than co-ops (p<.003). Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) analysis confirmed these results. Graduation year was held constant to control for the length of time in the work force and eco­nomic conditions at time of graduation. MLR analysis, which controlled for graduation year and gender found a significant negative relationship (p<.0327) between participation in cooperative education and employer changes. This regression model also provided a stronger test of gender by running gender as the dependent variable with participation in co-op and graduation year as covariates. The covariate of graduation year was statis­tically significant as expected, while gender was not significant.

Analysis of hypothesis two focused on whether "computer science co-op graduates who participated in cooperative education will have found employment quicker than non participants." Results for item 7 (Check your employment status: Continuing Education, Seeking Employment, Unavail­ability for Employment, Serving in Military, Employed?) found no significant differences, however, results did approach significance for seeking employ­ment (p=0.077) between co-op and non-co-op students. Significant differences between male and female respondents to "unavailability for employment" were also found (p=0.002). Frequency distributions showed that 8.1 % of the female respondents were unavailable for employment. Closer inspection shows that 13.3% of female co-op graduates as opposed to 4.5% of female non­-co-op participants identified themselves as unavailable for employment. Survey results comparing employment of co-ops versus non-co-ops were not significant (p=0.90). However, MLR analysis of employment controlling for graduation year, gender, part-time employment and unavailability approached significance (p<.0955). Frequency distributions showed that 90.1 % of female respondents were employed compared with 100% of males. Responses to item 8 (Is employment: full-time, part- time, self-employment, temporary?) showed that co-op graduates did not differ from non-co-op grad­uates in terms of job status with a total of 93.7% employed. However, analy­sis by gender showed significant differences in employment status (p=0.038), full-time employment (p=0.0003), and part-time employment (p=.001). No significant differences were found for self or temporary employment. Of the female respondents who reported themselves as employed, 83.6% were employed full-time and 9.1% were employed part-time.

Hypothesis two also examined whether or not co-op versus non-co-op participants found employment quicker. Analysis of item 13 (How many months did it take you to find a position after graduation?) found a significant difference between co-op and non-co-op participants (p<.001). Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) analysis results approached significance using year of graduation, gender, unavailability and part time employment as covariates (p<.096). The average number of months co-op graduates spent seeking employment was 1.16 months, while the average amount of time for non-co­op students was 2.87 months. Frequency distributions showed that it took four months for co-ops to reach 90% employment, while it took non-co-op participants nine months to reach 90% employment. The mean of responses on Item 12 (Was your cooperative education experience helpful in finding your first position after graduation?) was 4.38 on a five-point Likert scale. A total of 94.7% reported cooperative education was helpful (70.4 % indicated co­op was very helpful, 13.9% indicated it was helpful), while 9.3% said it was not helpful. Analysis of item 14 (Were you ever employed by your coopera­tive education employer?) looked at whether co-op students were employed after graduation by their co-op employer. Responses to item 14 showed that 52.3% were employed by their coop employer, while 47.7% were not.

Another part of hypothesis two asked if those with cooperative educa­tion experience had higher starting salaries as a function of participation in co-op (item 15). Initial results showed a significant difference (p<.001) with a positive mean difference of $3754.27. MLR analysis of starting salaries showed significant difference between co-op and non-co-op graduates (p<.0001) when the variables of part-time employment status, graduation year, years of study, gender, and employment with co-op employer were used as covariates.

Analysis performed on present salaries (item 16) showed a positive and significant difference in salary as a function of participation in cooperative education, with a mean difference in salary of $4,049. MLR results for cur­rent salaries showed that co-op versus non-co-op graduates had a significant difference in salaries (p<.0001) when unavailability for employment, part­ time employment, employment with co-op employer, graduation year, gender, and years of study were held constant.
In this analysis, three of the covariates were significant; part-time employment status, graduation year, and participation in co-op.

Discussion

Survey results show that all of the respondents held positive attitudes toward their undergraduate institution. Co-op students reported a high level of satisfaction and more than 95% of them would recommend cooper­ative education to other students. A noteworthy finding is that 59% of the non-co-op graduates recommended it as well. Even those students who did not participate in the cooperative education program recognize the value of a co-op experience.

Both co-ops and non-co-ops were very positive and satisfied with their undergraduate major and institution. Still, no significant difference as far as continuing involvement with university activities and programs was found. Cooperative education professionals might consider studying these results very carefully. Why was higher satisfaction not reported by alumni who had such positive career and job experiences because of participation in cooperative education? Given today's students' focus on using the univer­sity to accomplish very specific goals, one would conclude that participation in cooperative education could be marketed as a very practical educational experience and a very important service deserving of support both by the institution and the alumni. Institutions, parents, students, and potential stu­dents should be aware of the very positive findings regarding both present and starting salaries; the speed with which cooperative education partici­pants found their first jobs; the lack of many job changes; and the fact that many co-op participants found employment with their co-op employer, compared with non-co-op graduates.

Universities and cooperative education professionals should tum their attention to a few seemingly disturbing issues as well. Why do women con­tinue to lag behind men in salaries even after participation in cooperative education experiences? Why do alumni who participated in cooperative education not show greater satisfaction with their undergraduate experi­ences? Why would they not be more involved in university activities - again showing appreciation for what they had received? Why would they not reflect their appreciation by contributing more money to the institution than alumni who did not have the advantages of cooperative education? One explanation could be Levine's findings about today's students, i.e., very practical and not very much institution-oriented. Another explanation might be found in the "outward" orientation of cooperative education itself. The focus of the cooperative education effort is on job or career success and not necessarily on educational or academic success. This focus could be a negative concerning alumni support and institutional support as well. Given the evidence in support of the value of co-op, institutions worried about a competitive market would be wise to consider strengthening coop­erative education on their campuses. What is clear is that in spite of repeated studies that attest to the success of co-op education, institutional support is waning. The irony in this is the apparent inverse relationship between decreasing institutional support and increasing perceived need. If we truly believe in the value of co-op as shown in this study and others, we should be curious about why such a successful program appears to be in decline on so many campuses.