The design of this questionnaire is divided into four parts.
The first part is life satisfaction, with * * * sub-items of 12. They are accommodation, diet, sports facilities, community activities, getting help, complaint channels and feedback, campus safety, daily living facilities, personal space, classmate relationship, campus environment and evaluation of the city.
The second part is learning/education satisfaction. This part investigates teaching facilities, library collection, campus network, teacher level, practice opportunities, learning atmosphere, personal progress, evaluation system and so on 14.
The third part is employment/income satisfaction. This part mainly examines students' evaluation of school employment guidance, graduates' whereabouts, graduates' income and other related contents.
The fourth part of the questionnaire is the satisfaction of university consumption. This part examines students' evaluation of the school's tuition, miscellaneous fees, meals, internet access fees, experimental equipment use fees and other expenses.
data processing
The four parts, namely, life satisfaction, study/education satisfaction, employment/income satisfaction and university consumption satisfaction, are graded according to different degrees of satisfaction, such as very satisfied, relatively satisfied, average, not very satisfied and very dissatisfied. Then, the scores of each part are added up and converted into a percentage system, with a total score of 65,438+000 for each part and 25 points for each part.
Data distribution analysis
Because only the proportion of the original data is transformed during processing, that is, the original data is expanded to the percentage level in the same proportion, the distribution of data is not affected. From the statistical results, the overall satisfaction score of major universities is not high for the perfect score of 100, which shows that there is still a certain distance between the specific situation of the school and the expectations of students.
Taking Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics as an example, its satisfaction score is 72.45867, which is hardly excellent. More interestingly, about 1/3 of the satisfaction scores of colleges and universities failed. Most of the 100 universities in the survey are well-known universities, and it is undoubtedly regrettable that such a result appears in the survey.
Although the overall satisfaction score is not high, the scores of different universities are relatively small, which reflects that although the comprehensive strength of each school is quite different, from the student's point of view, students from different environments are roughly equal in their satisfaction or complaints about their environment.
Overall satisfaction ranking
As can be seen from the ranking of schools, the ranking results are not necessarily related to the quantitative evaluation of the overall strength of colleges and universities by society. For example, Tsinghua University and Peking University ranked 45th and 26th, while Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, China University of Science and Technology and Huazhong University of Science and Technology ranked in the top three.
The quantitative evaluation of the strength of colleges and universities is of course an objective and convincing indicator, but for students, more attention is paid to the actual satisfaction of the school with students' actual study and life.
The evaluation of the overall strength of the school is based on some indicators related to the strength of the school's software and hardware, such as the proportion of professors, the number of national key disciplines, the amount of books in the library, the area occupied by the school, and the building area of the school. , that is, the overall evaluation of school resources. For a student, the school resources that can be enjoyed at school are only a part of the total resources, and some aspects have little influence on ordinary students, especially undergraduates. Evaluating a school from the perspective of students is actually a measure of the available resources provided by the school that are actually related to students, so it has considerable reference.
In addition, in the four sub-items of the overall satisfaction ranking, it can also be found that, on average, the order of these four indicators from high to low is: life satisfaction-learning/education satisfaction-employment/income satisfaction-consumption satisfaction (as shown below).
It can be seen that college students are most dissatisfied with university fees and are also anxious about employment and income.
Secondary satisfaction ranking
The sub-item satisfaction ranking of this survey reflects the unique campus temperament of each school. Sub-item satisfaction ranking involves 20 aspects, such as the activity of community activities, student loans, teachers' responsibilities, professional knowledge and structure, and employment guidance.
For example, from the activity of community activities, Central Academy of Drama, Jinan University and Hebei University are in the forefront. Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics has considerable advantages in employment guidance, graduate destination and graduation income.
Do you want to enter this university?
In the survey, the recommendation of the graduating undergraduates to their alma mater was designed, that is, whether to recommend applying for the exam. It is suggested that the ranking of application and the overall ranking of satisfaction are not consistent, but the ones with higher scores are basically prestigious schools. Fudan University, for example, ranks 74th in comprehensive ranking, but first in recommended ranking. This reflects that although some famous students have high expectations and are dissatisfied with the school to a certain extent, they cannot ignore their trust in the future development of the school and the high sense of belonging brought by the school's social popularity and comprehensive strength. For students who are about to enter the college entrance examination after reading this survey, they still need to make careful choices according to their own and social needs.