ACSP Survey of Masters Students in Planning

During Spring 1997, the student representatives to the Executive Committee (ExCo) of ACSP conducted a survey of planning students. They received 326 responses, which were summarized at the Spring 1998 Executive Committee meeting. The survey was investigative in nature, relying largely on open-ended questions. The plan was to develop a more comprehensive and focused survey that continued to pursue the issues of how students decide to pursue a planning degree, how they decide which school to attend, how satisfied they are in their decisions, and the relationships between these questions. A second survey was drafted targeting masters students and reviewed by the ExCo at the Fall 1998 meeting. The survey was pre-tested on masters students at U.C. Berkeley and revised.

An e-mail was sent to each school in the U.S. offering a masters degree in planning, using the ACSP mailing list. Each school was asked to help distribute the survey by either: (1) providing a list of e-mail addresses; (2) providing a list serve address to which masters students belong; or (3) forwarding the survey to students via e-mail or paper. Forty-five of 77 schools responded positively. Of these, 21 (47%) provided a list of e-mail addresses, 13 (29%) provided an address for a list serve, 9 (20%) agreed to forward the survey to students, and 2 (4%) agreed to distribute the survey on paper to students.

Surveys were all sent during the month of April 1999 and 351 valid responses were received. Each survey included a code indicating the student's school. The purpose of this code was not to tabulate results by school, but to judge the representativeness of the survey results. Table 1 lists the 45 schools participating, along with the distribution method and number of responses from each school. The table also includes an estimate of the number of masters students in the program, based upon the 10^th edition of the ACSP Guide to Graduate Education in Planning. A second column indicates the number of surveys distributed, which was estimated using the ACSP data when a list of e-mail addresses was not provided. From this, an overall response rate of 15% was calculated.

Given the survey distribution method, one concern is whether the survey results represent planning schools in general and whether any particular schools might influence the results. Figure 1 shows the distribution of schools participating in the survey compared to the distribution of schools in the U.S. based upon the size of the program. The distributions are very similar. The distribution of students and respondents by school size is not quite as close (Figure 2). However, it is unlikely that any one school's respondents influenced the survey results significantly. The actual number of survey respondents was compared to the expected number of survey responses (based upon the share of surveys distributed to each school) for the 40 schools with at least one respondent. In the most extreme case, a school had 5.3 more respondents than expected. This represents 1.5% of the total responses, respectively. The difference between the expected and actual number of respondents was less than one-percent of the total survey responses for 22 of the 45 schools. Ten schools were over-represented by 1.0% to 1.5%, or 3.4 to 5.3 surveys.

Basic demographic information was collected (Tables 2 through 7). Over half (54.4%) of the responding students were women and 42.2% were men. The largest share of students were aged 26-30 years (44.7%), with 29.9% of the students aged 21-25. The vast majority of respondents (84.0%) were U.S. citizens. The respondents were evenly split between first year students (42.5%) and second year students (44.4%), with 10.0% in their third or forth year. Thirty-five percent of the students were going to graduate prior to or during June 1999, with an additional 13.1% graduating in the second half of 1999 and 35.0% graduating in the first half of 2000.

Over three-quarters of the students were from five areas of concentration (Table 2): Land Use (20.8%), Environmental Planning (19.4%), Community Development (16.0%), Transportation (10.8%), and Urban Design (10.5%).

The most popular undergraduate majors were Political Science and Public Policy (and related majors, 13.1%), Geography (11.1%), Architecture (and related majors, 10.0%), and Environmental Studies (8.8%). The full range of majors is represented, including physical and biological sciences, liberal arts, and engineering (Table 8). A small percentage (3.4%) of the students had an undergraduate degree in Planning and 6.6% had a degree in Urban Studies or Urban Affairs. A majority (57.3%) of the students took a course in the field of planning as an undergraduate (Table 9). Only a few students (9.7%) already had a masters degree.

A large share of the students (28.8%) started their masters program less than a year after finishing their previous degree. However, the largest share of students (32.2%) waited 3-5 years before starting their masters program in planning. Most students did not have internship or professional work experience in planning prior to starting on their masters; 27.9% reported having an internship in planning and 29.3% had professional work experience in planning (Tables 12 and 13).

Students were asked how they first learned about the field of planning (Table 14). The largest share (35.3%) listed an undergraduate class, 25.6% listed professional work experience, and 24.8% listed a professor. Newspapers and books (10.8% and 16.5%, respectively) were also popular sources of initial information on planning.

Students were asked what sources of information they used to identify possible graduate schools (Table 15) . University catalogs were by far the most popular source (61.3%), while 39.3% got information from professors, 29.6% from people working in the field, and 26.5% from students.

In addition, 15.1% of the students indicated that they used the ACSP Guide to Graduate Education in Planning. These students were asked additional questions about the Guide (Tables 16, 17, and 18). The APA Planners Bookstore was the most popular source for the Guide (24.1%), followed by campus libraries (22.4%) and the internet (20.7%). Students were asked to rank (1 to 3) what they found most useful about the Guide. The most useful aspects of the Guide included the list of schools with descriptions of the programs (1.3 mean score), information about program accreditation (1.7), the list of faculty and specializations (2.2), and cost/tuition information (2.3). Faculty/student diversity information also ranked as very useful, but only by four respondents. When asked how the Guide could have been more useful, 22.4% of the students asked for more details or specific information on a certain topic, such as the philosophy of the program or information about graduates. In addition, 20.7% asked for a ranking of schools or evaluative comments from students or alumni and 10.3% wanted more up-to-date information.

Students were asked several questions about their graduate school application and decision process. A large portion of the students (42.8%) only applied to the school they were attending (Table 19). For these students, the decision process between schools occurred before the application process. Of those that applied to more than one school, 67.8% limited their applications to planning programs (Table 20). Of the 32.2% that applied to other programs, 21.9% applied public policy or administration programs and 18.8% applied to environmental policy or studies programs (Table 21).

Though only 57.2% of the students applied to more than one school, 81.9% of these were accepted to more than one school (Table 22). Therefore, 46% of all the students needed to choose between two or more schools that accepted them.

Visits to campus are often a factor in a students' decision between schools. Most students (61.9%) visited at least one of the campuses they applied to prior to knowing whether they were accepted. Of these, 76.4% talked with students, staff, and/or faculty in the planning department. The students that had only applied to one school were more likely to have visited and talked with people in the department prior to knowing whether they were accepted (Table 24). This indicates that visiting a campus may narrow some students' focus when applying to schools. In addition, several students remarked in open-ended portions of the survey that they were attending their undergraduate institution. These students may have limited their search for schools as well, though the survey did not identify these students. The students that applied to six or more schools in all were the least likely to have visited any of the schools prior to knowing their acceptance.

Almost half of the students (48.2%) visited their current campus to help them decide whether to attend that school (Table 25). An additional 22.0% visited their campus, but not to help in the decision process. Of those that visited to help in their decision, nearly all (87.7%) met with professors, 67.3% met with department staff, and 65.4% met with current students (Table 26). Only 10.5% met with a financial aid officer and 9.9% met with alumni. About half (48.7%) of the students that applied to more than one campus visited one of the other campuses they applied to to help decide which school to attend (Table 27). Campus visits were "very important" in the decision process for 36.5% of the students and "somewhat important" to 34.3% (Table 28).

Many factors or concerns enter into a students' decision in choosing a school. Students were asked to rate on a scale of 1 (not important at all) to 5 (very important) the importance of a list of 19 specific factors in choosing their current university. The results for all the students appear in Table 29. The reputation of the planning program and the university were the most important factors overall, with both scoring a mean of 4.0. Accreditation from PAB ranked third in importance, tied with cost considerations and/or availability of funding, and a program focus on a particular specialty area.

However, there are some significant differences in the decision process between students applying only to one school and those applying to more than one school. These differences are shown in Table 30. Students who applied to more than one school were more concerned with the reputation of the university and planning school, program focus on a particular area, and the existence of other related departments on campus. On the other hand, for students only applying to one school, location nearest home, the ability to work full- or part-time, family or relational considerations, and the estimated time for degree completion were more important than for students applying to more than one school. This indicates that students only applying to one school are more likely to be limited in choice due to a job and/or family ties.

Students were asked to rank their level of satisfaction with 12 aspects of their program on a scale of 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied) (Table 31). The range of scores was narrow, with mean scores ranging from a high of 3.8 (the availability of internships and learning opportunities outside the classroom, diversity of students, availability of faculty outside the classroom, and quality of students) to a low of 3.2 (diversity of faculty, number and breadth of courses being offered within your department). For all aspects listed, less than 10% of the students were very dissatisfied, except for the availability of financial aid, where 15.8% were very dissatisfied.

Consistent with the rankings of satisfaction with student and faculty diversity, 47.6% of the students felt that the department's faculty were diverse in terms of ethnicity and gender, while 72.9% thought that the students were diverse (Tables 32, 33).

Success in and satisfaction with a program may by influenced by the students' preparation for the program. Most students felt that their undergraduate degrees prepared them "very well" (53.6%) or "okay" (35.3%) (Table 34). Only 9.1% did not feel well prepared.

In addition to the ranking of individual aspects of their program, students were asked to indicate their overall satisfaction with their decision to attend their current university. Most students (55.8%) were "very satisfied" and 33.9% were "somewhat satisfied" (Table 35). Only 7.7% were somewhat or very dissatisfied.

Satisfaction with a planning program may be influenced by students' feelings about planning itself. Therefore, students were asked how satisfied they were with their decision to obtain a masters degree in planning. Students were more satisfied with that decision than their school decision (Table 36); 61.3% were very satisfied that they decided to get a masters in planning and only 5.4% were somewhat or very dissatisfied. In addition, 46.3% of the respondents who answered both questions were very satisfied with both their choice in university and to get a masters degree in planning. Nearly 90% (89.3%) of the students were satisfied with both their choice in school and the decision to pursue a planning degree.

Not only are students satisfied with planning as a degree choice, but for 25.4% of them, their opinion of the planning field has changed in a positive direction since starting their masters program (Table 37). Only 4.6% of the students indicated that their opinion of planning had changed in a negative direction since starting their program.

To get a better handle on students' feelings about the planning profession, students were asked to react to 14 different aspects of the planning field (Table 34). They were asked to indicate which aspects attracted them to the profession with a positive sign and which aspects lessened their attraction to the field with a negative sign. Overall, there were few aspects that they felt negative about, though this was largely due to the list provided. Students felt most positively about the following aspects: impact on people's lives, broad range of issues, changing and impacting the future, dealing with several interacting factors/issues, and public interest. Students felt negatively about the salary potential, politics, and the number of job opportunities. This data could be used to promote the planning field to prospective students.

One would expect some differences in student satisfaction with their university and planning between different groups. To help gauge these differences, four indicators of satisfaction were used:

1. University Score: The mean satisfaction score for all 12 aspects of the student's current university (factors listed in Table 31, weighted evenly). A higher score indicates more satisfaction for the factors listed.
2. University Satisfaction: The student's overall satisfaction with their planning program (Table 35, very satisfied = 1, somewhat satisfied = 2, somewhat dissatisfied = 3, very dissatisfied = 4). A lower score indicates better overall satisfaction.
3. Planning Degree Satisfaction: The student's overall satisfaction with their decision to get a masters degree in planning (Table 36, very satisfied = 1, somewhat satisfied = 2, somewhat dissatisfied = 3, very dissatisfied = 4). A lower score indicates better overall satisfaction.
4. Planning Attitude: The sum of the ratings of the 14aspects of planning (factors listed in Table 34, 1 = positive, 0 = neutral, -1 = negative). A higher sum indicates more positive feelings about planning.

The only significant difference between men and women on these four indicators was on the planning attitude indicator. Women were generally more positive than men (mean of 8.6 versus 7.8, respectively, significant at the 0.05 level).

How long a student is out of school before starting their masters degree might influence their satisfaction. There were no significant differences when the original six categories (less than one year, one year, two years, 3-5 years, 6-9 years, and 10 or more years) were used. However, when the data was collapsed into two categories -- students who started their current program less than one year after finishing their last degree and those that waited one or more years, significant differences in satisfaction did show up. Students less than one year out of school were less satisfied with their decision to get a planning degree (mean = 1.57 versus 1.38, p=0.02; lower score indicates higher satisfaction). However, students less than one year out of school had a higher average University Score (3.61 versus 3.49, p=0.10), indicating that they were more satisfied with their planning department than students with more time out of school. There were no significant differences between these groups of students on the Planning Attitude or University Satisfaction indicators.

The quality of information a student gets before deciding what school to attend might influence their satisfaction with their university. Table 39 shows the mean University Satisfaction and mean University Score for students indicating that they used the five most popular sources of information (from Table 15). Students who got information from other students were more satisfied than all students on both indicators. In addition, students that got advice from people working in the field had a lower (more satisfied) University Satisfaction mean, though there was no difference in their University Score (the mean score on 12 program aspects). Students that got advice from professors had a higher (better) University Score, though no difference in the University Satisfaction.

Students who visited their current school before attending were also more satisfied with their school (Table 40). Students who only applied to one school were not significantly more or less satisfied with their school than students who applied to more than one school. On the other hand, students that only applied to one school had a higher mean Planning Attitude score (indicating more positive attitudes towards the planning profession) and were more satisfied with their decision to go to planning school. While these differences were not very statistically significant (p<0.12), it may indicate that students who limited their choice to one school are more focused or sure of their decision to pursue planning. However, the source of this is unclear. The students that only applied to one school were not significantly more likely to have undertaken an internship or professional work in planning or to have taken an undergraduate course in planning. The students who only applied to one school were slightly more likely to have been out of school for one or more years (74.5% versus 68.3% for students applying to more than on school, Pearson chi-square, p<0.13).

How long a student has been in their program may also influence satisfaction. Assuming that the students started in the fall of 1998 or earlier, all respondents were in their program for at least six months, since the survey was administered in April 1999. First year students rated the 12 aspects of their department (University Score) on average higher than the students in year two or beyond (Table 41). In addition, they were more positive about the planning profession. However, the differences in the students' overall satisfaction with their campus and decision to pursue a planning degree between the two groups were not statistically significant.

There were no significant differences in any of the four satisfaction indicators between students who had and had not undertaken a internship or prior professional work experience in planning.

Students were asked which career options they were likely to pursue within the first year of completing their degree and later in life (Table 42). Local government was the most popular option within the first year of graduation (51.9%), followed by private consulting (43.9%), non-profit agencies (38.2%), regional government (34.5%), and state or federal (U.S.) government (30.8%). Only 9.4% of the students were considering a Ph.D. within a year of graduation, though 25.4% would consider it later in life.

Students that indicated that they would pursue a career in local government within the first year of graduation were more satisfied with their decision to attend planning school (mean Planning Satisfaction = 1.32 versus 1.44 for all respondents). On the other hand, students that indicated that they would pursue careers at international agencies, other private sector work, or something not listed on the survey were less satisfied with their decision to attend planning schools. These differences were significantly different from the overall sample at the 0.10 level or better. There were no significant differences in satisfaction for the other career options.

A large share of the students indicated that they were "very likely" to pursue AICP certification at some point after graduation (41.6%) and another 31.1% were "somewhat likely" (Table 43).

Tables 44 through 54 present results from some of the questions, separating the results for males and females. Women were more likely to wait more than one year after finishing their most recent degree to start on their masters program (Table 44). Women were less likely to first learn about planning from a professor or graduate course, but more likely to learn about planning from Planning magazine or other APA publications and other sources (Table 46). There were no statistically significant differences in the sources of information used by men and women to identify possible graduate schools (Table 46). Men were more likely to apply only to the school they were attending, while women were more likely to apply to 2-7 additional schools (Table 47).

In terms of choosing which university to attend, there were some significant differences between men and women (Table 48). Women were more concerned about the reputation of the university, PAB accreditation, family or relational considerations, and the political orientation of the department. With respect to satisfaction with their current program, men and women only differed in their opinions regarding diversity; women were less satisfied with faculty and student diversity.

There were no significant differences between men and women regarding whether their opnion of planning changed since they entered the masters program (Table 50). Both men and women were equally satisfied with their decision to attend their current university (Table 51) and their decision to obtain a masters degree in planning (Table 52). Women were more likely to consider working for the government (local, regional, state or federal), a non-profit agency, and international agencies within the first year of graduation (Table 53). There were no significant differences in interest in pursuing AICP certification between men and women.

Table 1: Survey Responses, by School