The purpose of this study is to provide information on why students applied to and enrolled at the University of California, Santa Cruz. The study presents analysis on financial, academic and social reasons why students selected the college they planned to attend. Like previous studies in 1991 and 1992, surveys were sent to the parents of students who decided not to attend UC Santa Cruz. Unlike previous studies, however, the surveys were also sent to their children (hereafter called non-SIRs), as well as those students who intended to register to UC Santa Cruz (hereafter called SIRs). Since the surveys were sent out before students actually attended college, the results should be interpreted as a measure of impressions or expectations and not a reflection of actual experience. Approximately a third of the six thousand surveys were returned and the people who returned the survey appeared to be representative of all students. Overall, perceived academic quality and reputation are the main reasons why the majority of students decide to attend other universities. However among specific groups of applicants, such as those from lower income families or students of color, college costs are important.

The purpose of this study is to provide information on why students applied to and enrolled at the University of California, Santa Cruz. The study presents analysis of the financial, academic and social reasons why students selected the college they planned to attend. Approximately a third of the six thousand surveys were returned, and the people who returned the survey appeared to be representative of all students. Findings from the survey include:

This study examines why students who applied and were admitted to the University of California Santa Cruz (UCSC) decided to attend or to enroll in another school. The 1994 study follows similar studies conducted in 1991 and 1992. The focus of the earlier studies was the impact of fee increases on enrollment. Although student fees now require a greater portion of Californians' disposable income than at any time during the past thirty years, this study placed more emphasis on understanding all of the factors important in selecting a college.

The 1994 College Choice Survey was developed by the Office of Institutional Research in cooperation with the Office of Admissions and the Financial Aid Office. A copy of the survey and its accompanying cover letter are contained in Appendix A. In July 1994, the survey was sent to a large sample of students (and their parents) who were admitted to the Fall 1994 school year and were California residents. The survey was sent to students who signed a statement of intent to register (referred to as SIRs) and non-SIRs (those who were admitted to UC Santa Cruz but decided to attend college elsewhere). Unlike previous studies, the surveys were sent to both students and their parents.

Sampling

Of the 9,002 freshmen applicants admitted to UC Santa Cruz for fall 1994, 7,211 elected not to enroll. A stratified random sampling plan was developed to obtain information on students from important subpopulations. For non-SIRs (also referred to in this report as non-enrollees or nonmatriculants), all students from underrepresented ethnic groups (1,536), half of all other students of color (716), and a third of Caucasian students (1,013) were sent a copy of the questionnaire. A random sample of one-third of the (non-SIR) parents (1,010) of the applicants selected for the study were included in the study as were all students who signed a statement of intent to register.

Without adjusting the data obtained from stratified random sampling, the results from the sample would not be representative of the population. To estimate what the results would be if the questionnaires were sent to all applicants or parents, the responses were weighted. The results reported in this paper are based on the weighted data except when noted.

To reduce the number of questions on the questionnaire, information collected on the UC application form was not asked on the survey. Using an identification code on the return envelope, information on a student's ethnicity, gender, home county, and SAT scores were added to the data set after the survey was returned.

Representativeness of the Sample

Of the 6,316 surveys mailed, 1,884 were returned. The response rate (unweighted) among students wanting to attend UC Santa Cruz (41%) was higher than non-SIRs (27%). The response rate for parents of non-SIR applicants was 18%. (As the return rate in the 1992 study was 38%, many parents may not have returned the survey since their children returned one). The demographic characteristics of those returning the survey were compared to population statistics obtained from applicants' admission forms, and in general found to be quite similar.

Income. In the population, SIRs had a significantly lower average income ($61,080) than non-SIRs ($71,736). The average incomes for both groups of survey respondents were $72,018 and $74,942, respectively. As we have found in the past, the average income of survey respondents is generally higher than in the population. The average income for non-SIRs was nearly the same as in 1992.

Test Scores. As a measure of academic preparation, all applicants to the University of California are required to submit scores from the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). The SAT scores of respondents were fairly close to the total population. The SAT score averages for all non-SIRs were 496 Verbal and 564 Math and for SIRs the scores were 490 Verbal and 541 Math. The average scores for survey respondents were slightly higher for non-SIRs (505 Verbal, 566 Math) and slightly lower for SIRs (486 Verbal, 539 Math).

Ethnicity. Table 1 shows the ethnicity of the population and survey respondents (in percentages) for both 1992 (non-SIRs only) and 1994 (non-SIRs and SIRs). The 1994 percentages reflect the weights used to account for the sampling plan. Response rates within ethnic groups were very similar. SIRs included fewer African Americans and Chicanos than non-SIRs.

Gender. Sixty percent of students admitted to UCSC, but attending school elsewhere, were women (40% were male) and as were 61% of the non-SIR survey respondents. For students who decided to attend UC Santa Cruz: 64% were women as were 66% of the SIR respondents. These percentages were nearly identical in 1992.

Home Location. Home locations of survey respondents were generally similar to their respective populations. Table 2 shows the home locations of respondents for the 1992 and 1994 surveys. The percentage of survey respondents from the Los Angeles area was slightly lower while those from the Bay Area were higher than in the population.

Overall. The respondents to the 1994 survey appeared to be representative of the overall population. The only major difference between respondents and the population was their family income (respondents had higher incomes). Otherwise, the respondents were very similar to the population (for home locations, gender, and SAT scores). Comparisons between ethnic groups should be considered with caution due to the small number of respondents in some of the groups (e.g., African-American, Filipino).

How many of the students enrolled at another college?

Nearly all (98%)of the students who were accepted to UC Santa Cruz, but did not enroll, attended another college. Of the few that did not attend college, UC Santa Cruz was the first choice of a quarter of these students, followed by UC Berkeley (18%). These students were accepted at most of their top three choices. The few students who did not attend college tended to be Caucasian and have higher incomes.

Was the school they attended one of their top choices?

UC campuses were the first choice of 57% of non-enrollees. Private colleges, both in- and out-of-state, were the first choice of another 32% (CSU, community colleges, or out-of-state public campuses were the first choice of 11%). Eighty-two percent of SIRs picked a University of California campus as their first choice (a UC campus was the second choice of 15%).

Table 3 shows that UCSC was the first choice of 64% of SIRs and the second choice of 24%. Consistent with other studies over the past two years, only twelve percent of new UCSC students rated the campus as their third choice or lower. Like Santa Cruz students, 55 percent of admitted, non-enrolling students attended the school that was their first choice (60% in 1992). Twenty-three percent attended their second choice school. Those making above $80,000 were more likely to attend their first choice school (although for the highest income group - those with family income greater than $200,000 per year - this was not the case).

Seventy-three percent of those students who picked UCSC as their first choice attended UCSC. The "take rate" fell to 21% for students who rated UCSC as their second choice, and only 4% of those who rated UCSC as their third choice or lower attended this campus.

Table 3 also shows that only 6% of admitted, non-enrolling students (n=78) would have preferred to attend UCSC (the same as in 1992). UCSC was the second choice of 23% (roughly the same as in 1992).

Virtually none of the African Americans in the survey picked UCSC as their first choice, and only 17% picked UCSC as their second choice. Higher proportions of Chicano and Native American students chose UCSC as their second choice. For SIRs, 75% of Chicano SIRs said UCSC was their first choice. Asian students were less likely than students in other ethnic groups to rate UCSC highly.

Thirty-seven percent of the 78 respondents (weighted) who rated UCSC as their first choice attended their second choice school (more than half of these students were from the Los Angeles area). For the students who attended their school of first choice, UCSC was their second choice for about 32% of the students (30% for 1992) and the third choice for another 28%.

How far away from home was the college they attended?

Students who attended UCSC were more likely to live closer to UCSC than those students that didn't enroll (mean distance from home 380 vs. 492 miles, respectively).

There was little relationship between a family's income and the distance between home and college. The average distance from home to school was about 500 miles; the average was slightly lower for students from households with incomes over $160,000. Students from households with relatively low incomes enrolled in schools far from home. This trend was similar to what was found in 1992.

What schools did they attend?

Over half of the non-enrollees attended other University of California campuses (59% in 1992, 55% in 1994); 11% attended California State University (CSU) campuses (7% in 1992); 5% attended California community colleges (7% in 1992); 11% attended private schools in California (10% in 1992); 14% attended private schools outside California (13% in 1992); and 5% attended public schools outside California (5% in 1991).

For those students attending other University of California campuses, there were regional preferences. Table 4 summarizes the findings. With some important exceptions, many students tended to enroll in UC campuses near their homes. Berkeley was a fairly common choice for students from all geographic areas. Not surprisingly, the parents of students had a stronger regional preference than the students. Except for Berkeley, the parents preferred to enroll the students in UC campuses near their homes.

Only a quarter of the non-SIRs who rated UC Santa Cruz as their first choice attended other UC campuses, compared to a half in 1992. Others were evenly split among the California State University campuses, community colleges, and private colleges.

Family income was related to the school attended. Those making above $100,000 a year tended to go to other UC's or private schools and nearly 60% of those making up to $20,000 a year went to other UC's. Those making less than $100,000 were more likely to attend California State Universities than otherwise. More than half (57%) of the students who attended a California State University campus were from families with incomes less than $60,000.

African Americans, Filipinos and Asians were more likely to attend another UC campus than the average rate (53%). Caucasians were a little more likely to attend private schools outside of California (than the average) and Chicano students were more likely to attend California State Universities.

How many students applied for and received financial aid?

Sixty percent of non-enrollees reported applying for financial aid, up from less than half in 1992. Eighty percent of the students from households with incomes of less than $20,000 applied; 70% with incomes less than $80,000. Nearly three-quarters of those making above $80,000 did not apply for financial aid.

For students who applied for financial aid, receipt of financial aid was a deciding factor in whether to attend a specific college for seventy-six percent of the students, up from over half (56%) in 1992. Table 5 shows that a financial aid offer was a deciding factor for nearly all of the students from households earning $40,000 or less (a large increase from 1992's 65%), and less than half of the students from households with incomes greater than $80,000. Eighty-one percent of the students who applied for financial aid from households making less than $20,000 received offers of aid and as did over half of those from households making between $20,000 and $60,000. Of students who received offers of financial aid from UCSC, 60% of students from low income households deemed the aid package to be sufficient (down from 80% in 1992); only 30% to 40% of the students from households making above $40,000 felt the aid offered was sufficient.

Parents' and Students' Comments on Financial Aid

Parents and students were asked three open-ended questions on financial aid: (1) did they receive a better financial aid award?; (2) was the award timely and clearly explained?; and (3) how influential was the estimate of financial aid in determining one's decision to attend UC Santa Cruz? The summaries of the answered received are not weighted.

1. Did they Receive a Better Financial Award?

Non-SIR Parents. About half the respondents who answered the question (out of 70 parents) said that they received a larger award from another institution. About 16% said they received a larger grant, and an equal number said they received less loans. Twenty-one percent (15 parents) said that the better offer was a reason why they chose to attend another college. Approximately ten percent said that the reason they attended another college was due to the availability of a specific major, location, or preference for a particular school rather than the amount of financial aid.

Non-SIR students. Over three-quarters of the students said that they received a larger award from another institution. About half of these said they got a larger grant, and fifteen percent said they were offered lower loan amounts. Like the parent sample, twenty-four percent (59 students) said that the better offer was a reason why they chose to attend another college. Thirty percent (73 students) said directly that it was not a reason why they attended another school.

SIRs. About two-thirds of SIRs said that they received a better offer at another school. Most of these were in the form of a larger grant and a few (14%) said a lesser loan.

2. Was Award Timely and Clearly Explained?

Non-SIR Parents. Eighty-six percent of the forty parents who answered the question thought that the financial award letter was timely and clearly explained. Only 8% said that the award letter arrived late, and 5% responded that they needed more financial aid.

Non-SIR students. Like their parents, eighty-three per cent of students who decided not to attend UC Santa Cruz said that the financial award letter was timely and clearly explained. About twelve percent said that the award letter was late, and the rest had miscellaneous comments or criticisms. A small number of people offered positive suggestions such as a more exact breakdown between loan and grant amounts, more information on exactly when loans will have to be repaid, and an 800 number. On the other hand, a few students thought the documentation was too confusing and too much.

SIRs. About half the SIRs who answered the question (154 out of 319) said the award letter was timely and clearly explained-a much lower percentage than those who decided to attend another college. Fourteen percent said that the financial award was not timely and clearly explained, 9% said that they would like earlier notification, and 9% said that they had not received their final offer. Eight percent wanted a more exact breakdown between the types of aid (i.e., type of loan, workstudy versus a scholarship or grant). A small minority of students (2%) had criticisms about the phone system, wanting more information, and miscellaneous errors with processing.

3. Did the Estimate of Financial Aid Influence the Decision to Attend?

Non-SIR Parents. Over eighty percent said that the estimate was not an influence, while only eight percent said it was an influence, and five percent said it was somewhat influential.

Non-SIR students. Seventy-three percent of the students said that their estimate was not a reason they attended another college. Nineteen percent said it was, which is significantly larger than what their parents said. Two percent said it had "some influence."

The respondents were asked to list how important particular sources of information were in choosing a college to attend. Table 6 lists average ratings by topic for the three groups of respondents. The scale ranged from 1 (very important) to 1 (less important). The survey also asked if the respondent did not use the information source (Not Used).

There was a great deal of similarity between non-SIRs and SIRs for the sources of information used for College choice. All groups highly rate campus tours and vists, campus brochures, information from students and faculty and admission brochures. SIRs were less likely to use college faculty or staff and more likely to use friends compared to non-SIRs. Neither the US News and World Report nor college recruiters were regarded as important sources of information. They rated a formal campus visit higher than all students. SIRs were less likely to use US News and World Report, college recruiters, college graduates and college faculty and staff. They were not more likely to use any particular source of information.

Importance and Satisfaction Indices for All Survey Respondents

Parents and students were asked to rate the importance of nineteen campus characteristics that may have contributed to their decision. Tables 7a-c present the characteristics in the order of their importance ratings for the parents of non-SIRs (7a), non-SIRs (7b), and students that decided to attend UCSC (7c). Each characteristic was rated on a three point scale: 1 - Very Good; 2 - Satisfactory; and 3 - Less than satisfactory.

Important Factors in College Selection

For non-SIRs and their parents, overall reputation, career and graduate preparation, and rigorous academic standards were rated as the most important campus characteristics. The least important were distance from friends and family, timeliness of financial aid, and campus activities. This pattern was also apparent in 1992. Importantly, SIRs had a different list of priorities, which could explain why they came to UCSC. SIRs thought that availability of a specific major, small classes, career preparation, overall reputation, and total cost were the most important.

Satisfaction With UCSC and the College Attended

Parents and students also compared UCSC with the school that they would be attending. Satisfaction ratings are quite subjective; based on impressions from recruitment materials, campus visits, prestige, publicity, and anecdotes. It is important to note that a halo effect will likely influence the ratings of the school that the student will be attending. For non-SIRs, satisfaction with the campus they chose was far higher than with UCSC on the most important campus characteristics. Non-SIRs generally felt the most satisfied with those qualities that they rated as most important: overall reputation, career and graduate preparation and academic standards. UCSC was evaluated similar to the selected campuses only on the availability of campus housing, total cost, small class sizes, campus size, and ethnic or cultural diversity. This trend was similar to 1992. The campus characteristic showing the lowest satisfaction, for all groups, was the financial aid offer and grants. The grading system at UCSC was also rated low by parents. Although SIRs were also satisfied with those things that they felt were important, they were less satisfied than non-SIRs. SIRs were most satisfied with campus housing, campus size, and the character of the students but they did not consider these of the highest importance.

Similar to 1992, Table 7b shows that the only quality that Santa Cruz rated higher than the school a non-SIR was attending was in total cost, indicating that total cost may not be an important reason that non-SIRs attended another college. The largest differences in satisfaction rates between SIRs and non-SIRs were in academic reputation, reputation of a specific program, overall academic standards, graduate and career preparation. Interestingly enough, SIRs were not particularly satisfied with the total cost of UCSC, unlike those that did not attend. They rated total cost at 1.76, which is nearly the same as non-SIRs (1.75) rating their own school.

Although there were some differences in satisfaction ratings, the main difference in the three tables are the different importance levels of SIRs and non-SIRs. This can perhaps be seen more clearly in Appendix B, where the ratings of SIRs and non-SIRs are displayed in sorted order. Other differences in the ratings were to be expected. The halo effect would predict that higher satisfaction ratings would be given to the school the student will be attending. In addition, most students were dissatisfied with the total cost of the school they attended.

Table 8 compares the importance ratings of SIRs and non-SIRs. In general, SIRs felt small classes, diversity, and total cost were more important than non-SIRs. SIRs were less interested in academic standards, overall reputation and the reputation of a specific program.

Many of the characteristics that students felt were important were related to one another. By examining the interrelationships, five distinct factors were identified. Table 8 displays how these characteristics grouped together for the three groups of respondents.

The five factors were academic quality (e.g., academic standards and reputation, preparation for career and graduate school, availability of specific programs or majors, and the time it takes to earn a degree), cost (total cost and financial aid offer), size and grading system (class and campus size, grading system), location (proximity to friends, relatives, and family), and social (e.g., character of the students, campus and off campus activities, diversity).

Importance and Satisfaction Ratings by Ethnicity
Although the most important sets of campus characteristics were the same, the rankings differed significantly within each ethnic group. Table 9a-c shows the percentage of parents within each group that rated each of the most important campus characteristics as very important (when two-thirds or more rated a campus characteristic as very important, percentages are printed in bold).

Only a third of White parents rated total cost was important. In contrast, 80% of African Americans and 70% of Filipinos thought total cost was very important. While a campus's reputation was the most important aspect of a campus for Caucasian parents, other factors (benefits of a college education, cost, college environment and programs) were of equal or greater importance for families of color. Cost factors (financial aid or total cost) were very important to African American, Chicano, and Filipino families. The most important characteristic of a college for families with annual incomes less than $40,000 was the offer of financial aid (overall reputation was most important for more affluent families).

How important were college-related costs in deciding which college to attend?

Compared to other characteristics of a college, total cost and the offer of financial aid were less important than institutional quality. However, there are significant differences in the importance of cost between low, middle, and high income families. Table 10 shows that over sixty percent of the parents from households earning $40,000 or less said the cost of attending a college was the most important consideration. Cost was an important consideration for over three-fourths of all parents. Importantly, SIRs seemed to have more concern over total costs than Non-SIRs.

There were significant differences among ethnic/cultural groups on the influence of college cost. For all groups of color, college costs were more important in choosing a college than for Caucasian families, and this is true for both SIRs and Non-SIRs. Only 33% of Caucasian Non-SIRs thought total cost to be very important, whereas over two-thirds of Chicanos and African Americans thought so. For SIRs, half of the applicants of color were from families making less than $60,000 per year. For Non-SIRs, half the applicants were from families making less than $80,000 per year.

The median household incomes of freshpersons enrolling at UCSC in 1994 were slightly lower than that of all accepted students (see Table 11). The difference is due to students from more affluent families who attended more expensive universities. This trend has been more pronounced in 1994 than in 1992. In fact, a larger proportion of upper income groups (those making above $80,000) choose to attend another college.

How important were financial aid offers in deciding which college to attend?

Financial aid offers were very important to most SIRs from households earning $40,000 or less and non-SIRs earning $60,000 or less. Only a small minority of either students thought financial aid offers were important above $80,000. This is different than in 1992, since there have been reductions in financial aid for those that are relatively well off. The offer of financial aid was significantly more important to most groups of color than for Caucasian students. Compared with other ethnic groups, African American and Chicano students generally felt that financial aid was very important. Less than one-third of the non-SIRs attended a school that offered a better financial aid package than UCSC.

What was the impact of the fee increases?

Both surveys asked people to rate how much influence the UC fee increases had in their decision to select a college to attend. The average response for all non-SIRs was 2.66, showing either a slight influence or some influence. However, the impact was greatest on families with incomes of $60,000 or less, as it was in 1992. Table 12 shows the percentage of people who said the fee increase was a considerable influence or the most important influence in their decision to attend a college. The 1992 results suggest the impact of the fee increase on lower income families increased dramatically from 1994.

Applicants who rated UCSC as their first choice reported being more impacted by the fee increase than applicants who rated it lower. Forty-six percent of the applicants who rated UCSC as their first choice said the fee increase was a considerable or important influence on their decision; only 26% of those who rated UCSC as their second choice, and 18% of those who rated it as a lower choice said the fee increase was as important.

The reported impact of the fee increases was highest among African Americans, Chicanos, Filipinos and Asians, in that order.

SIRs were also asked what effects (if any) recent fee increases would have on their ability to pay. About a third said that the fees will make attending college more difficult. Three percent said they would not be able to attend, while 8% said it would increase the chance of not attending. Another four percent said they could probably not attend. Summing these up, about half of the SIRs said that the fee increases will have a strong negative effect. About fifteen percent said that the fee increases will have little or no effect, and eight percent said it would have no effect at all. Others said that they would have to get more financial aid, live at home, and nine percent said they would have to work.

Have the fee increases affected applications and enrollment?

If increased fees (or costs less grants and aid) affected the ability of students to afford attending UCSC, lower application and attendance rates for students from lower income households should be found. Table 13 shows the percentage of applications, admissions, and acceptances by family income for freshperson applicants in the falls of 1992 and 1994.

There were important changes in the distribution of applicants' income from 1992 to 1994. Applications to UCSC increased among lower income students and 8% more students with incomes of $40,000 or less enrolled in 1994 than in 1992. In both the 1992 and 1994 studies, students from higher income families were less likely to enroll at UCSC.

Parents and students were asked why they applied for admission to UCSC. Both SIRs and non-SIRs were asked this question. In order of importance, 675 non-SIR students listed the following reasons why they originally applied to UCSC: location (17%), beautiful campus (14%), academic reputation (13%), distance from home (12%), and as an alternative UC campus (8%). Location could mean that the area was nice, or some other specific quality, such as closeness to the bay area or Santa Cruz. Often those that said they liked the location also said they liked the beauty of the campus, which was the second reason why students said they originally planned to come to UCSC. Campus beauty includes everything from the natural environment, the trees, the mountains, closeness to the beach and also a "pleasant" atmosphere.

Only a few percent applied to UCSC due to friends or relatives attending UCSC, narrative evaluations (1.5%), the attractiveness of a smaller college, the dual degree program, cost, or a relaxed, non-competitive atmosphere.

Parents had a slightly different emphasis on the reasons to attend UCSC. Although the most important item was location (18%), the other reasons were more oriented towards academic concerns: availability of a field or major (13%), academic reputation (13%), campus size (9%), the alternative UC (9%).

Students who decided to attend UCSC cited the following reasons: location (17%), beautiful campus (17%), distance from home (12%), availability of a specific program such as marine biology, psychology or political science (12%), campus size (8%), financial aid or grant (6%), total cost (6%), and academic reputation (5%). Other items mentioned included narrative evaluations (3%), the college system and a relaxed, less competitive atmosphere. SIRs differed from other students and their parents by placing less emphasis on academic concerns and by emphasizing specific programs and campus size concerns over college costs.

Comments on Why Students Attended Another College

Non-SIRs were asked to summarize why their son or daughter chose to attend another college. The reasons were summarized for students of color, low-income students, students with SAT scores greater than 1300, those for whom UCSC was their first choice, and for students who elected to attend another University of California campus. The percentages cited in this section are not weighted; they are based on the total number of comments.

Students of Color. In 1994, the reason most often cited for attending another college was the campus's distance from home (24%), financial aid or grants (12%), cost (12%), academic reputation (12%) and wanting a specific program (9%). Location was important for only 2% of students of color. Three per cent said that the narrative evaluation system was important, another three percent said they wished to attend a smaller college. Since distance often implies more costs, it is safe to say that financial concerns were of top priority for students of color. Only 1% responded that they wanted to attend a more ethnically or culturally diverse campus.

Parents generally felt similar to students. They rated distance from home as most important (25%), followed by availability of a specific program (20%), academic reputation (13%), financial aid or grants (10%), and total cost (10%).

Lower-income Students. About one-fourth of students from families with less than $60,000 annual income reported that distance (23%) was most important, followed by financial aid or grants (17%), total cost (16%), the availability of a specific program (13%), and academic reputation (10%). About three percent thought that diversity was an important reason to attend another college. Another four percent said that they did not like the relaxed, non-competitive atmosphere at UCSC. Of those, one percent mentioned drugs specifically. Low income parents were very similar to students in their views on the importance of college characteristics.

High Achieving Students. About one-quarter of the people with combined SAT scores of 1300 or higher said they enrolled in another campus because it had a better academic reputation. Not surprisingly, higher achieving emphasized academic reputation more than any other item. Sixteen percent said they attended another school mainly because distance from home. Twelve percent said there was a specific program that UCSC did not offer, followed by eight percent each of the following: financial aid, total cost, location, and the character of students. Six percent said that narrative evaluations were an important reason for not attending. In general, parents felt similar to students, although they emphasized academic reputation even more.

First Choice: UCSC. The largest reason for students to not attend UCSC was cost. Forty percent of the students who would have preferred to attend UCSC said they could not afford to come here. About a fourth of the respondents said the distance from home was a problem. Eighteen percent said that financial aid and grants was not enough. These findings are similar to 1992. Eight percent said they needed a specific program that UCSC did not offer, while only three per cent said that academic reputation was important.

Attending Other UC Campuses. The largest reason for students and parents to not attend UCSC was due to distance. Twenty-eight percent of students and twenty-two percent of parents said that distance from home was a major reason that they did not attend UCSC. The second reason was a desire for a specific program (14%) followed by academic reputation (13%), financial aid (8%), and total cost (5%). Five percent said they did not like the relaxed, less competitive atmosphere and lifestyle of the campus. In general, parents felt the same as students.

Satisfaction Indices and Demographics by College Attended

Part of the reason why students attended other colleges was attributed to their lower satisfaction with UCSC. Before comparing UCSC with the ratings of other colleges, and in particular other UC's, it is important to understand how students who attended UCSC compared with UCSC applicants that attended other colleges. The following three tables show the SAT score, ethnicity, and income distributions of UCSC applicants by the UC campus they attended.

Table 14 shows that UCSC SIRs have about the same SAT scores as all UCSC admitted students who attended a UC campus. Students with higher SAT scores tended to choose Berkeley, UCLA, and San Diego. Students with lower SAT scores were more attracted to Riverside, Irvine, and Santa Barbara. Caucasian students were more likely to attend UCSC than other UC campuses and Asian students were less likely to attend UCSC (see Table 15). Students with family incomes below $20,000 were more likely to attend Riverside, UCLA, and Davis while students from more affluent families were more likely to attend UCSD and UCSB (see Table 16).

Ratings of UCSC are listed in Appendix C, and with college attended in Appendix D. They are similar to the ratings of all students in most respects. Generally students who attended UC campuses, California Polytechnic State University (CP), or Stanford (STAN) were the least satisfied with their financial aid offers and the total cost of attending college.

Table 17 on the next page lists differences in satisfaction averages of UCSC by college attended. The difference is important as it points to how our applicants perceive UCSC to be different from specific (and desirable) campuses. A difference of a half a point or greater is highlighted in bold, while shaded regions indicate categories that have six or more colleges that had greater than a half point difference between average satisfaction with UCSC compared to the college attended.

The largest differences were found in academic areas, that is, graduate and career preparation, overall reputation, availability of a specific major and the reputation of a specific program. There was also a large difference in student satisfaction between UCSC's grading system and the system used at other campuses. Students who attended Davis, Riverside, Santa Barbara, Stanford, and Cal Poly were less satisfied with UCSC's narrative evaluation system. Students at Berkeley, Irvine and Los Angeles also were less satisfied, but the differences were smaller. Another large difference across all colleges was found for the character of students. The areas where UCSC rated the best were in small classes, campus size, and total cost.

In contrast to students who attended other campuses, students who came to UCSC were very satisfied with the narrative evaluation system and character of students (see Table 7c). The grading system ranked fourth in satisfaction and the character of students ranked third. To simplify comparisons with the other campuses, averages of the factors related to social atmosphere, cost, and academic quality were averaged. Scatter diagrams comparing UCSC and its most common competitors are presented in Appendix E.

Importance and Satisfaction Indices for non-SIRs who Preferred UCSC

Of particular interest in this study were those students who rated UCSC as a higher choice than the college they attended. Why didn't these students come to UCSC? What are their demographics? What other college did they attend? Do they differ much from students in general?

Demographics. Table 18 compares the ethnicity of students who wanted to come to UCSC, but did not, with all survey respondents. This group of about 140 students had proportionately more Chicano students than the total population (19% vs. 12%) and had slightly lower family incomes. These students had lower SAT scores (60% had total scores lower than 1050 compared to 45% of all admitted students). This group was more likely to attend Santa Barbara, San Diego and Riverside, and less likely to attend Berkeley, Davis and Los Angeles.

Two-thirds of these students said that financial concerns were the main reason they did not come to UCSC. Other common reasons for attending another campus were the availability of specific program (10%) and distance (10%).

Table 18 shows the ranked averages of the satisfaction, importance and difference ratings. Unlike other non-SIRs, the first-choice non-enrollee group thought that costs and other financial variables were considerably more important. In fact, this group thought that the school they were attending was far better in terms of cost, financial aid offers, and the amount of the financial aid grant offered.

Non-SIRs: On a scale of 1 to 3, 1 being the best, students who applied but did not attend UCSC rated the following characteristics in the table below. Students rated their satisfaction with UCSC, the satisfaction with the college they attended, and how important each characteristic was. The Difference column is the difference between UCSC and the college attended. "First Choice Non-SIRs" represents students who picked UCSC as a first or second choice but did not attend their first choice school.

Satisfaction: UCSC			Satisfaction: Other			Difference (UCSC-Other)			Importance
Campus Housing	1.25		Avail Specific Major	1.34		Total Cost	0.50		Total Cost	1.42
Campus Activities	1.40		Proximity to Friends	1.44		Financial Aid Offer	0.49		Financial Aid Offer	1.56
Overall Reputation	1.40		Proximity to Home	1.44		Amount of F/A Grant	0.47		Career Preparation	1.59
Campus Size	1.47		Grading System	1.48		Timeliness of F/A	0.39		Amount of F/A Grant	1.65
Urban Activities	1.48		Campus Housing	1.51		Avail Specific Major	0.31		Overall Reputation	1.66
Program Reputation	1.52		Campus Activities	1.55		Proximity to Friends	0.30		Avail Specific Major	1.74
Academic Standards	1.53		Campus Size	1.55		Small Classes	0.30		Grad Preparation	1.77
Career Preparation	1.53		Career Preparation	1.56		Graduation Rate	0.24		Academic Standards	1.84
Diversity	1.55		Diversity	1.56		Proximity to Home	0.21		Character of Students	1.86
Grad Preparation	1.55		Graduation Rate	1.57		Grading System	0.20		Graduation Rate	1.87
Character of Students	1.62		Overall Reputation	1.60		Character of Students	0.01		Campus Housing	1.88
Avail Specific Major	1.65		Small Classes	1.60		Diversity	-0.01		Timeliness of F/A	1.88
Proximity to Home	1.65		Total Cost	1.60		Career Preparation	-0.03		Program Reputation	1.89
Grading System	1.68		Character of Students	1.61		Campus Size	-0.08		Small Classes	1.89
Proximity to Friends	1.74		Urban Activities	1.63		Program Reputation	-0.12		Diversity	2.08
Graduation Rate	1.81		Program Reputation	1.64		Campus Activities	-0.15		Campus Size	2.09
Small Classes	1.90		Academic Standards	1.73		Urban Activities	-0.15		Campus Activities	2.09
Total Cost	2.10		Grad Preparation	1.79		Academic Standards	-0.20		Urban Activities	2.18
Timeliness of F/A	2.22		Timeliness of F/A	1.83		Overall Reputation	-0.20		Grading System	2.24
Financial Aid Offer	2.37		Financial Aid Offer	1.88		Grad Preparation	-0.24		Proximity to Home	2.34
Amount of F/A Grant	2.40		Amount of F/A Grant	1.93		Campus Housing	-0.26		Proximity to Friends	2.44

Secondary Analyses

Analyses based on group averages (Tables 7a-c) suggest that financial concerns such as total cost, financial aid, and grant amounts were less important in determining whether a person attends UCSC than other factors such as academic quality or social factors (especially among parents). Although non-SIRs were less satisfied with the financial factors than other areas rated, they often rated UC Santa Cruz as more satisfactory than other schools in total cost (the average is 0.07 higher for students and 0.05 higher among parents). However, this tells us little about how important financial variables are to potential sub-groups of survey respondents (including the first choice non-enrollees studied in the previous section). Approximately 40% of all non-SIRs said the overall financial aid offer, amount of grant, and total cost were very important. In the question about what things should be changed to get non-SIRs to attend UCSC, about 20% of students and parents replied that it was financial considerations such as financial aid, grants, and college costs (see page 29, "Non-SIR Comments on Recommended Changes to UCSC). Earlier in this report, financial considerations were shown to be important to many low and middle income students as well as underrepresented minorities.

Not all applicants place the same value on college characteristics. Cluster analysis was used to better understand how the priorities of applicants differed. Cluster analysis creates groups of students with similar characteristics (both SIR or non-SIRs were included in this analysis). The results of the analysis can best be explained in terms of the factors identified in the factor analysis (see Table 8). Table 19 shows that student groups differed by the value they placed on financial, academic, and social factors. Financial qualities included overall educational cost and financial aid. Academic characteristics included overall academic quality and reputation, specific major quality, preparation for graduate and career occupation, while social variables included on- and off-campus activities, friends attending the campus, etc.

Six groups of applicants were identified. A plus (+) indicates that a particular group rated a factor higher than other groups. For example, Group 1, with 21% of the applicants, rated financial and academic variables as very important, while social variables were relatively unimportant. Group 5 was characterized as primarily interested in financial considerations. Students in group 5 were more likely to attend UC Santa Cruz than students in other groups. This suggests that financial variables were very important to the some of people who chose to attend UC Santa Cruz. Most of these students (61%) have an income less than $40,000 and have an ethnic background similar to the majority of students.

Discriminant and logit analyses also found that the amount of the financial aid was very important in explaining why people come to UC Santa Cruz. Both analyses were used to identify the characteristics of UCSC which were most strongly related to the probability of enrollment. The logit analysis found that a one unit increase in applicant satisfaction with the financial aid grant, the character of students, or the distance from home would each increase the probability of a student of attending UCSC by about ten percent. Discriminant analysis was used to identify which factors could be used to predict whether an applicant would or would not enroll at UCSC. Consistent with the results from the logit analysis, students who rated highly the amount of their grant, the character of the students, the distance to the campus, and the availablity of specific programs were most likely to enroll at UCSC. These statistical analyses confirmed that financial concerns were important in attracting students to Santa Cruz.

Non-SIRs and their parents were asked what changes would be necessary to attend UCSC.

Parents. A quarter of the parents (out of 127 parents that answered the question) said that financial aid, the amount of grant awarded, or the cost of the school should be changed. About 20% said that there was a specific program that they could not find at UCSC: engineering, pharmacology or sports were among the top programs mentioned. Fourteen percent said that no changes were necessary. Eleven percent said that academic reputation should be improved. Six percent said that the narrative evaluation system should be changed, about the same amount said that they needed a more traditional social setting or that the character of students was a problem. Less than three percent had various criticisms such as housing, diversity, size, the campus too secluded, or the location was a problem.

Students. Like their parents, fifteen percent of the students were concerned about financial aid, grants, or cost of the school, even though 20% said that nothing at all should be changed. About fourteen percent each cited the campus's poor academic reputation or the lack of a specific program (engineering, medicine, business, sports and arts were among those mentioned). Seven percent of the students said that narrative evaluations were a factor, a slightly higher number than their parents. Five percent said that the distance from home was a reason why they did not attend UCSC, while another five percent thought the atmosphere was too liberal, or too relaxed and non-competitive.

In examining the responses of all survey respondents, it appears the most important issue facing UCSC is the perception of the campus's academic quality. However, important changes in enrollments can involve a relatively small percentage of people with specific concerns. While reviewing the overall results of the study, care should be taken not to overlook important smaller groups. It may be that gains in student enrollment will accrue from attending to the specific concerns of these groups.

Building a positive image of UCSC throughout the State is a campuswide responsibility. While it is goal of the admissions staff to make the campus attractive to prospective students, the outdated image of UCSC as a haven for counter-cultures persists. Conducting focus groups of high school students and counselors would be useful to better understand how students have developed their perceptions of UCSC. Redefining this image will require a long-term, coordinated effort that must span a variety of media. Although the process of changing UCSC's image will require a significant effort, perhaps the two most difficult tasks will be deciding what the preferred image will be, and meeting the resulting expectations.

Fee increases contribute to students' decisions where to attend college, but there is little evidence to suggest that it has changed students' decision to attend UCSC. Undoubtedly, there are some students each year that can not attend their school of choice due to financial reasons, however the percentage of UCSC applicants who attended the CSU and community colleges has not changed. The percentage of UCSC applicants who enroll at other UC campuses suggest that the fee increases have not dramatically influenced students' decisions to attend UCSC.

The campus's lower "take rates" may be partly due to the better offers of aid. However, career preparation was the second most important campus characteristic for lower income families. UCSC, with its traditional liberal arts emphasis, does not offer a wide array of career-oriented programs (e.g., business or engineering programs). While UCSC's curricular offerings will always be smaller than the larger UC campuses, the needs and interests of the new generation of students should be considered during the development of the campus's current and new programs.

In developing a strategy to attract new students, the campus should target those students most likely to succeed, but also those who would be comfortable at UCSC. UCSC may not be a successful competitor for students with the highest test scores, but should do well with students who are typical of students who attend the UC.

There are also implications of these findings for enrolled students. Although the parental income of newly-admitted students has not changed markedly over the past two years, the percentage of applicants for financial aid increased over the past several years. The greatest increase in financial aid requests has been from students from middle income families. Because of the increased need, the proportion of aid from loans has been increasing. As this trend continues, the number of enrolled with financial problems is likely to increase.

University of California, Santa Cruz

1. Please list the top three colleges to which you applied for admission in order of preference.

Was admission offered?

1st choice ________________________________________ ____ Yes ____ No

2nd choice ________________________________________ ____ Yes ____ No

3rd choice ________________________________________ ____ Yes ____ No

2. Will you be attending college this fall?

____ Yes, at _______________________________________________

Intended major ________________________________________

____ No

3. How far away from your home is the college you plan to attend? ________ miles

4. Listed below are sources of information about colleges that students often rely on when choosing a college. Please indicate how important these sources were to you in helping you to choose a college.

Very Important Less Didn't

Important Important Use or Ask

	A campus tour sponsored by the college	____	____	____	____
	An informal campus visit	____	____	____	____
	Admission brochures or campus catalog	____	____	____	____
	College guides (e.g. Peterson's or College Blue Book)	____	____	____	____
	US News & World Report campus ratings	____	____	____	____
	Friends	____	____	____	____
	Parents, brothers or sisters	____	____	____	____
	College students	____	____	____	____
	College graduates	____	____	____	____
	College faculty or staff	____	____	____	____
	High school teachers or counselors	____	____	____	____
	College recruiters	____	____	____	____

5. Was financial aid necessary (a deciding factor) to attend college? ____ Yes ____ No

6. Did you apply for financial aid from UC Santa Cruz? ____ Yes ____ No

7. Were you offered financial aid from UC Santa Cruz? ____ Yes ____ No ____ N/A

8. Was the amount of financial aid offered from UC Santa Cruz sufficient? ____ Yes ____ No ____ N/A

9. Did you receive a better offer of financial aid from another college? ____ Yes ____ No ____ N/A

13. Listed below are characteristics of colleges that students often consider when choosing a college. In the unshaded area on the right, please indicate how important these factors were to you in choosing a college.

College Very Important Less

UCSC Selected Important Important

	____	____	Total Cost	____	____	____
	____	____	Overall Financial Aid Offer	____	____	____
	____	____	Timing of Financial Aid Offer	____	____	____
	____	____	Amount of Financial Aid Grant	____	____	____
	____	____	Distance from Home	____	____	____
	____	____	Close to Culture, Activities of a City	____	____	____
	____	____	Campus Clubs, Events & Activities	____	____	____
	____	____	Distance from Friends and Relatives	____	____	____
	____	____	Availability of Campus Housing	____	____	____
	____	____	Character/Type of Students Enrolled	____	____	____
	____	____	Cultural or Ethnic Mix of Students	____	____	____
	____	____	Average Time to Complete Degree	____	____	____
	____	____	Campus Size	____	____	____
	____	____	Small Classes	____	____	____
	____	____	Grading System	____	____	____
	____	____	Availability of a Specific Major	____	____	____
	____	____	Career Preparation	____	____	____
	____	____	Preparation for Graduate School	____	____	____
	____	____	Reputation of a Specific Program	____	____	____
	____	____	Rigorous Academic Standards	____	____	____
	____	____	Overall Reputation of College	____	____	____

Using the shaded area on the left of the page, please rate UC Santa Cruz and the school you will be attending. Use the following scale to evaluate each school:

1 Very Good If you are unsure or do not have an

2 Satisfactory opinion, please feel free to leave a

3 Less than satisfactory question unanswered.

14. What influence (if any) have recent University of California fee increases had on the selection of the college you will attend?

____ Absolutely no influence ____ Moderate influence

____ Slight influence ____ Considerable influence

____ Some Influence ____ Most important influence

---

July 5, 1994

Dear UC Santa Cruz Applicant,

Earlier this year you applied, and were accepted, to the University of California, Santa Cruz. This survey has been sent to you so that we can better understand the reasons why you did not accept our offer of admission. (If you do plan to attend, please return your Statement of Intent to Register immediately).

The purpose of the study is to understand your decision not to attend UC Santa Cruz. The information you provide will help us to understand the influence of college costs, financial aid, and our curricular offerings. Your answers to this survey are especially important because this survey has been sent only to a selected group of students.

The questionnaire can be answered in ten minutes or less. Your responses to this survey will be completely confidential. The information will be used only for the purposes explained above and the results will be based on the answers of all respondents -- information from specific individuals will not be cited.

The questionnaire is included with this letter. After you have completed it, please mail it back to us using the pre-paid envelope provided. We would like to receive your reply by July 15, 1994.

If you have any questions about this study or would like a copy of the results, please feel free to call me at (408) 459-4341.

Thank you for answering this survey.

Sincerely,

Randy Nelson, Director

Institutional Research and Policy Studies

---

Appendix B

Satisfaction and Importance Indices by Rank Order: Non-SIRs

Non-SIRs: On a scale of 1 to 3, 1 being the best, students who did not attend UCSC rated the following characteristics in the table below. Students rated both their satisfaction with UCSC, the satisfaction with the college they attended, and how important the characteristic was. The Difference column is the difference between the average satisfaction with UCSC and the college attended.

Satisfaction: UCSC			Satisfaction: Other			Difference (UCSC-Other)			Importance
Campus Housing	1.37		Overall Reputation	1.23		Overall Reputation	0.7		Overall Reputation	1.4
Diversity	1.68		Career Preparation	1.27		Program Reputation	0.66		Career Preparation	1.48
Total Cost	1.68		Grad Preparation	1.27		Academic Standards	0.65		Grad Preparation	1.51
Campus Size	1.71		Academic Standards	1.27		Grad Preparation	0.59		Academic Standards	1.57
Campus Activities	1.74		Program Reputation	1.28		Career Preparation	0.53		Avail Specific Major	1.6
Proximity to Home	1.76		Avail Specific Major	1.31		Avail Specific Major	0.51		Program Reputation	1.61
Character of Students	1.77		Campus Housing	1.33		Character of Students	0.44		Character of Students	1.71
Proximity to Friends	1.79		Character of Students	1.33		Urban Activities	0.44		Total Cost	1.73
Career Preparation	1.8		Campus Activities	1.41		Graduation Rate	0.41		Campus Housing	1.75
Avail Specific Major	1.82		Urban Activities	1.41		Grading System	0.4		Graduation Rate	1.77
Urban Activities	1.85		Campus Size	1.42		Amount of F/A Grant	0.36		Small Classes	1.81
Grading System	1.86		Grading System	1.46		Campus Activities	0.33		Campus Size	1.83
Grad Preparation	1.86		Diversity	1.5		OR=#000000>Campus Size	0.29		Financial Aid Offer	1.9
Small Classes	1.87		Proximity to Home	1.5		Financial Aid Offer	0.27		Urban Activities	1.93
Timeliness of F/A	1.89		Graduation Rate	1.52		Proximity to Home	0.26		Amount of F/A Grant	1.94
Academic Standards	1.92		Proximity to Friends	1.56		Proximity to Friends	0.23		Campus Activities	1.95
Overall Reputation	1.93		Small Classes	1.66		Small Classes	0.21		Diversity	2.06
Graduation Rate	1.93		Timeliness of F/A	1.73		Diversity	0.18		Grading System	2.1
Program Reputation	1.94		Total Cost	1.75		Timeliness of F/A	0.16		Proximity to Home	2.15
Financial Aid Offer	2.08		Financial Aid Offer	1.81		Campus Housing	0.04		Timeliness of F/A	2.21
Amount of F/A Grant	2.19		Amount of F/A Grant	1.83		Total Cost	-0.07		Proximity to Friends	2.23

---

Satisfaction and Importance Indices by Rank Order: SIRs.

SIRs: On a scale of 1 to 3, 1 being the best, students who attended UCSC rated the following characteristics in the table below. Students rated both their satisfaction with UCSC, the satisfaction with the college they would have attended if they did not attend UCSC, and how important each characteristic was. The Difference column is the difference between the average satisfaction of UCSC and the other college that the student might have attended.

Satisfaction: UCSC			Satisfaction: Other			Difference (UCSC-Other)			Importance
Campus Housing	1.18		Career Preparation	1.46		Campus Size	-0.51		Avail Specific Major	1.58
Campus Size	1.27		Academic Standards	1.48		Character of Students	-0.42		Small Classes	1.58
Character of Students	1.33		Overall Reputation	1.5		Campus Housing	-0.41		Career Preparation	1.59
Grading System	1.41		Program Reputation	1.5		Grading System	-0.34		Overall Reputation	1.59
Grad Preparation	1.43		Grad Preparation	1.51		Diversity	-0.32		Total Cost	1.61
Diversity	1.43		Campus Housing	1.59		Small Classes	-0.3		Grad Preparation	1.62
Avail Specific Major	1.44		Graduation Rate	1.63		Total Cost	-0.26		Campus Housing	1.65
Career Preparation	1.44		Avail Specific Major	1.65		Proximity to Friends	-0.25		Character of Students	1.67
Overall Reputation	1.45		Urban Activities	1.7		Proximity to Home	-0.24		Campus Size	1.72
Program Reputation	1.45		Campus Activities	1.7		Avail Specific Major	-0.21		Program Reputation	1.79
Campus Activities	1.49		Character of Students	1.75		Campus Activities	-0.21		Academic Standards	1.8
Urban Activities	1.5		Diversity	1.75		Urban Activities	-0.2		Financial Aid Offer	1.88
Small Classes	1.55		Grading System	1.75		Amount of F/A Grant	-0.09		Diversity	1.93
Academic Standards	1.55		Campus Size	1.78		Grad Preparation	-0.08		Graduation Rate	1.94
Proximity to Home	1.57		Proximity to Home	1.81		Overall Reputation	-0.05		Amount of F/A Grant	1.96
Proximity to Friends	1.57		Proximity to Friends	1.82		Program Reputation	-0.05		Urban Activities	1.97
Graduation Rate	1.6		Small Classes	1.85		Graduation Rate	-0.03		Grading System	2.01
Total Cost	1.76		Total Cost	2.02		Career Preparation	-0.02		Campus Activities	2.03
Amount of F/A Grant	2.03		Financial Aid Offer	2.07		Financial Aid Offer	-0.02		Proximity to Home	2.13
Timeliness of F/A	2.03		Amount of F/A Grant	2.12		Timeliness of F/A	0.03		Proximity to Friends	2.17
Financial Aid Offer	2.05		Timeliness of F/A	2		Academic Standards	0.07		Timeliness of F/A	2.19

---

Appendix C

Satisfaction of UCSC by College Attended

	College Attended: Non-SIRs									SIRs
Category	Cal Poly	STAN	UCB	UCD	UCI	UCLA	UCR	UCSB	UCSD	UCSC
Availability of Campus Housing	1.26	1.60	1.28	1.33	1.32	1.22	1.50	1.49	1.32	1.18
Character of Students Enrolled	1.68	2.10	1.68	1.99	1.81	1.71	1.77	1.95	1.74	1.27
Campus Size	1.76	1.30	1.57	1.63	1.60	1.63	1.38	1.75	1.60	1.27
Grading System	1.97	1.54	1.91	2.06	2.00	1.68	1.91	2.05	1.99	1.41
Ethnic and Cultural Diversity	1.44	1.85	1.87	1.82	1.71	1.61	1.73	1.70	1.65	1.43
Graduate Preparation	1.86	1.90	2.05	1.90	1.64	1.90	1.63	1.86	2.00	1.43
Availability of a Specific Major	2.15	1.50	1.90	1.83	1.67	1.84	1.78	1.78	1.97	1.44
Career Preparation	1.97	1.77	1.88	1.84	1.73	1.85	1.50	1.71	1.72	1.44
Reputation of a Specific Program	1.82	2.00	2.09	1.98	1.93	2.16	1.89	1.89	1.96	1.45
Overall Reputation	1.80	2.20	2.22	2.03	1.92	2.04	1.64	1.82	1.95	1.45
Extracurricular Campus Activities	1.79	1.40	1.85	1.73	1.61	1.77	2.00	1.89	1.71	1.49
Proximity to Urban Activities	1.47	1.90	2.00	1.69	2.05	2.18	1.92	1.94	1.73	1.50
Small Classes	1.66	1.90	1.57	1.57	1.64	1.54	1.55	1.69	1.85	1.55
Rigorous Academic Standards	1.79	2.00	2.20	2.02	1.79	1.97	1.50	1.88	2.06	1.55
Proximity to Home	1.43	1.55	1.62	1.77	2.22	1.92	2.40	1.76	1.71	1.57
Proximity to Friends and Relatives	1.57	1.46	1.63	1.83	2.24	1.91	2.07	1.80	1.80	1.57
Graduation Rate	2.00	2.17	1.66	1.81	1.72	1.66	1.73	1.83	1.81	1.60
Total Cost	2.05	1.31	1.49	1.75	1.63	1.61	1.69	1.82	1.70	1.76
Timeliness of FA	1.89	1.67	1.52	1.91	1.95	2.02	1.67	2.15	1.96	2.03
Amount of Grant	2.16	1.89	2.02	2.25	2.17	2.30	2.00	2.00	2.11	2.03
Financial Aid Offer	1.90	1.89	1.88	2.20	2.23	2.11	1.50	2.23	1.97	2.05
Number	59	15	127	198	58	98	21	138	112	450

---

Appendix D

Satisfaction With the College Attended

	College Attended: Non-SIRs									SIRs
	Cal
Category	Poly	STAN	UCB	UCD	UCI	UCLA	UCR	UCSB	UCSD	UCSC
Availability of Campus Housing	1.24	1.14	1.78	1.22	1.29	1.37	1.38	1.27	1.24	1.18
Campus Size	1.45	1.36	1.90	1.39	1.59	1.67	1.28	1.55	1.28	1.27
Character of Students Enrolled	1.32	1.36	1.27	1.25	1.39	1.29	1.36	1.46	1.42	1.33
Grading System	1.35	1.36	1.59	1.45	1.66	1.45	1.29	1.49	1.41	1.41
Ethnic and Cultural Diversity	1.57	1.29	1.25	1.54	1.49	1.27	1.47	1.67	1.58	1.43
Preparation for Graduate School	1.22	1.00	1.18	1.23	1.38	1.14	1.46	1.40	1.17	1.43
Availability of a Specific Major	1.17	1.07	1.45	1.32	1.41	1.32	1.13	1.54	1.20	1.44
Career Preparation	1.14	1.00	1.30	1.22	1.22	1.22	1.31	1.45	1.21	1.44
Overall Reputation	1.17	1.09	1.09	1.11	1.33	1.11	1.54	1.46	1.17	1.45
Reputation of a Specific Program	1.19	1.00	1.15	1.19	1.39	1.25	1.57	1.53	1.13	1.45
Extracurricular Campus Activities	1.55	1.18	1.29	1.47	1.35	1.21	1.85	1.51	1.55	1.49
Proximity to Urban Activities	1.49	1.64	1.07	1.60	1.35	1.18	2.07	1.44	1.37	1.50
Small Classes	1.57	1.36	2.48	1.75	1.78	2.40	1.33	1.89	1.81	1.55
Rigorous Academic Standards	1.19	1.00	1.09	1.19	1.31	1.18	1.38	1.48	1.20	1.55
Proximity to Home	1.30	1.73	1.29	1.45	1.57	1.40	1.41	1.43	1.62	1.57
Proximity to Friends and Relatives	1.49	1.50	1.32	1.48	1.56	1.42	1.50	1.61	1.67	1.57
Graduation Rate	1.74	1.14	1.91	1.67	1.60	1.67	1.50	1.75	1.50	1.60
Total Cost	1.27	2.23	1.48	1.66	1.57	1.55	1.41	1.73	1.76	1.76
Amount of Grant	1.80	1.44	1.96	2.12	1.80	2.31	1.33	1.71	1.84	2.03
Timeliness of FA Offer	1.63	1.44	1.84	1.75	1.56	2.17	1.89	1.69	1.69	2.03
Financial Aid Offer	1.96	1.44	1.98	1.99	1.72	2.25	1.33	1.82	1.89	2.05
Number	59	15	127	198	58	98	21	138	112	450

---

Appendix E

Cost, Social, Academic and Size Averages by College Attended

Satisfaction With UCSC

The charts on the next two pages show how students who attended different campuses rated UCSC. Four characteristics were plotted: "Social" is the average of the items addressing social characteristics of the campus (character of students, campus clubs, ethnic diversity and campus housing), "Cost" is the average of the financial variables (total cost and financial aid), "Academic" is the average of the ratings of things such as career preparation, grading system, overall reputation and rigorous academic standards, and "Size" averages ratings of class and campus size.

The data label on the chart identifies each school. For example, on the first chart ("Social" and "Size"), the average rating of UCR (Riverside) students is over 1.70 for social factors and less than 1.50 for size factors. Students from UCSC rated themselves much higher in terms of both social and size factors, and had equal preferences for both characteristics. The preferred direction is toward the origin (1,1). The higher the satisfaction with a particular characteristic, the lower the number. It should be noted that for readability, the axis for each characteristic may not begin at (1,1) or even with the same number.

UCSC students usually felt more satisfied with UCSC than students who attended college elsewhere. This is particularly apparent with academic as well as social ratings. Students who attended Davis, Santa Barbara, Stanford, and Berkeley all were a lot less satisfied with UCSC both academically and socially. Thus, UCSC is predominantly to the lower left than most colleges. An interesting exception is in the area of cost. Students who went to Stanford, Berkeley, Riverside and San Diego were more satisfied with UCSC's cost than students who decided to SIR to UCSC. This evidence is consistent with information shown earlier that when looking at group averages, cost and financial variables were not particularly important in the choice of college.

Table 20

Summary Chart of Social, Academic, Cost and Size Satisfaction Indices by College Attended

	CP	Stan	UCB	UCD	UCI	UCLA	UCR	UCSB	UCSD	UCSC
UCSC
Size	1.71	1.60	1.57	1.60	1.62	1.59	1.47	1.72	1.73	1.41
Social	1.54	1.74	1.67	1.72	1.61	1.58	1.75	1.76	1.61	1.36
Academic	1.91	1.84	2.04	1.95	1.81	1.92	1.69	1.86	1.95	1.45
Average	2.00	1.69	1.73	2.03	2.00	2.01	1.72	2.05	1.94	1.97
Other College
Size	1.51	1.36	2.19	1.57	1.69	2.04	1.31	1.72	1.55	1.41
Social	1.42	1.24	1.40	1.37	1.38	1.29	1.52	1.48	1.45	1.36
Academic	1.20	1.07	1.26	1.24	1.39	1.24	1.38	1.48	1.21	1.45
Cost	1.67	1.64	1.82	1.88	1.66	2.07	1.49	1.74	1.80	1.97
Other-UCSC
Size	-0.20	-0.24	0.62	-0.03	0.06	0.45	-0.16	0.00	-0.18	0.00
Social	-0.12	-0.50	-0.27	-0.35	-0.23	-0.29	-0.24	-0.28	-0.16	0.00
Academic	-0.70	-0.77	-0.77	-0.71	-0.43	-0.68	-0.31	-0.38	-0.74	0.00
Cost	-0.34	-0.05	0.09	-0.15	-0.33	0.06	-0.23	-0.31	-0.14	0.00

---

Satisfaction with UCSC by College Attended

---

Satisfaction with UCSC by College Attended

---

Cost, Social, Academic and Size Averages by College Attended

Satisfaction With the College Attended

The charts on the next two pages show the average ratings of the college students attended. Four characteristics were plotted: "Social" is the average of the items addressing social characteristics of the campus (character of students, campus clubs, ethnic diversity and campus housing), "Cost" is the average of the financial variables (total cost and financial aid), "Academic" is the average of the ratings of things such as career preparation, grading system, overall reputation and rigorous academic standards, and "Size" averages ratings of class and campus size.

The higher the satisfaction with a particular characteristic, the lower the number. It should be noted that for readability, the axis for each characteristic may not begin at (1,1) or even with the same value.

The data label on the chart identifies each school. For example, on the first chart ("Social" and "Size"), the average rating of UCR (Riverside) students is over 1.50 for social factors and less than 1.30 for size factors. Students from UCSC rated themselves higher than those from Riverside on social factors and about the same on size. Overall, UCSC students rated the campus about average on social factors and very highly on campus size.

---

Satisfaction with College Attended

---

Satisfaction with College Attended

---

Cost, Social, Academic and Size Averages by College Attended

Differences in Satisfaction with the College Attended and UCSC

The previous two charts showed (1) how satisfied students were with UCSC and (2) how satisfied students were with the school they chose to attend. The problem with looking at only satisfaction ratings is that decision to attend a university is often based on the difference between the satisfaction with UCSC and the best alternative. If students are not satisfied with financial areas with both UCSC and the best alternative, it is hard to argue that an improvement along this dimension is important.

The charts on the next two pages show the difference in satisfaction averages between the school they planned to attend (Other) and UCSC. There are four characteristics: "Social" is an average of the social variables (character of students, campus clubs, ethnic diversity and campus housing), "Cost" is an average of the financial variables (total cost and financial aid), "Academic" is an average of variables such as career preparation, grading system, overall reputation and rigorous academic standards), and "Size" represents class and campus size.

A data label identifies each school on the chart. For example, on the first chart ("Social" and "Size"), the rating for Cal Poly (CP) is about -0.20 on both axes. The difference in satisfaction averages was negative. This implies students who decided to attend Cal Poly felt that their college was better than UCSC on both dimensions.

The preferred direction for UCSC is toward (2,2). The most satisfied a student can be of UCSC is 1, and the least satisfied one can be toward the school he plans to attend is 3, which means the largest difference can be 2.

Most differences in average ratings were negative, reflecting students' desires to attend other colleges (those who planned to go to UCSC are [0,0] on each chart: the difference in the school they are going to attend and UCSC is zero). Some interesting exceptions are UCLA and UC Berkeley, whose student rated UCSC loser in terms of size and cost. Of course, UCLA and UCB are rated much higher in academic factors.

The largest differences between UCSC and other colleges were in academic and social factors. For example, Stanford's social and academic characteristics were rated much higher than UCSC's.

---

Differences in Satisfaction with the College Attended and UCSC

---

Differences in Satisfaction with the College Attended and UCSC

---