Copy of 2015 Student Survey Report

URBAN PLANNING
STUDENT SURVEY
FEBRUARY 2015

URBAN PLANNING SURVEY RESULTS FEBRUARY 2015 2
Contents
Introduction
Methodology
Results:
Demographic Data
Perceptions of Planning
Strengths & Weaknesses of UP
After Graduation
Program Administration
Program Faculty
Core Classes
Other Course Offerings
Concentrations
Summary
Conclusion
3
4
5
7
9
13
14
15
16
21
24
25
26

The Urban Planning Vision
Student Working Group began
meetings in the fall of 2014 with
the goal of providing a voice
to Urban Planning students at
GSAPP about the direction of their
program. The UP Vision Student
Working Group identified several
areas of interest and created
subcommittees concerned with
program mission, curriculum,
and faculty/administration. Each
subcommittee worked within
the larger UP Vision Student
Working Group to address areas
of interest to Urban Planning
students. In order to gain a better
understanding of the thoughts,
perceptions, and concerns of the
entire Urban Planning student
community, the UP Vision
Student Working Group decided
to administer a survey that would
gauge students’ perceptions of the
program.
The Urban Planning Vision
Student Working Group began
meetings in the fall of 2014 with
the goal of providing a voice
to Urban Planning students at
GSAPP about the direction of their
program. The UP Vision Student
Working Group identified several
areas of interest and created
subcommittees concerned with
program mission, curriculum,
and faculty/administration. Each
subcommittee worked within
the larger UP Vision Student
Working Group to address areas
of interest to Urban Planning
students. In order to gain a better
understanding of the thoughts,
perceptions, and concerns of the
entire Urban Planning student
community, the UP Vision
Student Working Group decided
to administer a survey that would
gauge students’ perceptions of the
program.
On behalf of the UP Vision student
working group, the UP Program
Council presents our Spring 2015
Student Survey Report. Briefly,
here’s what stands out from the
survey results:
Faculty
Strengths: Highly respected
faculty; diversity of engaging
practicing faculty
Weaknesses: Size of core faculty
Curriculum
Strengths: Studios; diversity of
course offerings; opportunities to
take classes in other programs.
Weaknesses: Core classes; lack
of international focus; lack of
emphasis on design and technical
skills.
Vision
Perceptions: Lack of dynamic
program vision and identity.
Introduction

To design the survey, members of
the UP Vision Student Working
Group and other interested students
who submitted questions to a Goo-
gle Spreadsheet from December
2014 to January 2015. On January
18, 2015, submitted questions were
reviewed, selected, edited, and
formatted by a group of students,
consisting of Jawaher al-Sudairy,
Jorge Casar, Logan Clark, Jack
Darcey, Timothy Douglas, Andrea
Forsberg, Olivia Jovine, Andrew
Lassiter, Isha Patel, Alexandra
Paty, and Mike Phillips.
The survey consisted of 61 quan-
titative and qualitative questions,
grouped into nine sections.
Demographic Data
Perceptions of Planning
Experience at UP
After Graduation
Program Administration
Program Faculty
Core Classes
Other Course Offerings
Concentrations
The survey was administered
through a Google Form Survey
that was distributed by email to
all UP Masters and PhD students.
Data was collected from January
23rd to February 3rd, 2015 and
resulted in 53 responses.
The results were analyzed and pre-
pared by a group of UP students,
consisting of Jorge Casar, Timothy
Douglas, Andrea Forsberg, Olivia
Jovine, Andrew Lassiter, Mike
Phillips, and George Todorovic.
Qualitative data was distributed
to members of this student group,
who then found and tabulated
frequent responses, highlighted
quotes that reflected larger sen-
timents expressed by the student
body, and prepared summaries that
draw on qualitative and quantita-
tive data for each section.
The results of this effort are this
document. Any further questions
regarding methodology can be
directed to Timothy Douglas at
tbd2110@columbia.edu.
Methodology

Total: 53
Male: 45%
Female: 49%
n/r: 6%
Average Age: 27.5
Median Age: 26
Mode Age: 24
1st years: 58%
2nd years: 21%
3rd years: 4%
Phd: 17%
Demographics
Concentrations
Country of OriginRace / Ethnicity Years of professional experience
USA 50%
China 19%
India 6%
Canada 4%
Chile 4%
Colombia 2%
Korea 2%
Mexico 2%
Norway 2%
Russia 2%
Saudi Arabia 2%
UAE 2%
Venezuela 2%
n/r 2%
White/Caucasian 44%
Asian 23%
n/r 10%
Hispanic 6%
Chinese 6%
White/Latino 2%
White/ Pacific Islander 2%
Unsure 2%
Mixed 2%
Korean 2%
Arab 2%
Respondents
None, 9%
0-1 years, 17%
1 year, 6%
2 years, 9%
3 years, 8%
4 years, 19%
5 years, 4%
6 years, 0%
7 years, 2%
8 years, 4%
9 years, 6%
10 years, 2%
More than 10 years, 6%
Years of professional experience
12%
22%
39%
27%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Housing and
Community
Development
International
Development
Land Use,
Transportation,
and Environment
Urban and
Economic
Development

Previous academic field(s) of study
Previous Professional Backgrounds

The most common word used to
describe the field of urban planning
was: comprehensive. It appeared a
total of 6 times as the response to
an open answer question.
Focuses of the Urban Planning
Field:
-- 81% of respondents think a
design and technical approach
is a valuable focus for an urban
planning program; while 75%
of respondents think a policy
approach is a valuable focus for
an urban planning program.
-- Only 34% of respondents think
that a theoretical approach is
a valuable focus for an urban
planning program.
-- On a scale from “not important”
(1) to “very important” (5),
79% of respondents said that
sustainability was important or
very important to their personal
development as a planner.
Phrases that describe Urban
Planning:
-- “Social science with a strong
orientation towards action and
place. More critically-aware and
advocacy-oriented than public
policy, and more concerned with
impact and practical relevance
than geography, sociology
and other traditional social
sciences.”
-- “The field should not be
confused with the municipal
planning efforts which are
primarily concerned with land
use, redevelopment and zoning;
this is part of urban planning,
but is not all of the field.”
-- “The junction between all
stakeholders in any built
environment, urban planning
negotiates the interests of
developers, policy makers,
users, advocates, architects and
politicians, and more, to create
a solution that is better than the
sum of stakeholders’ interests
and ensures economic, ecologic,
environmental, social and
livable sustainability.”
-- “Urban planning in a post WWII
era is at its core largely about
using the state and its affiliated
tools and resources to manage
and mitigate processes of
capitalism. Urban planning has
Perceptions of
Planning
Words that
describe planning:
comprehensive (x 6)
fieldwork
community (x 6)
pluralistic
equity (x 3)
density
access
infrastructure (x 3)
biophilia
physical
philosophical
magic
politics (x 4)
economics (x 2)
teamwork
negotiation
design (x 5)
coordination (x 2)
collective
distribution
future (x 2)
land use (x 3)
transportation (x 2)
pragmatic (x 2)
analytical
creative
sustainability
75%
81%
34%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90% Apolicyapproach
Adesign/technicalapproach
Atheoreticalapproach
What is a valuable focus for
an Urban Planning
program?

the additional responsibility to
take into account issues of space
and consider local dynamics
and their relationship to broader
national and international forces
(such as, recently, lax lending
by national housing finance
agencies in the US or climate
change).”
-- “Planning is NOT about a
particular ‘technique’ such as
GIS or ‘hard skills’ in general.
Nor is it only about cities,
because cities do not exist
in political or environmental
vacuums.”
-- “The analytic evaluation and
subsequent manipulation of that
which has been produced by the
anthropocene.”
-- “Urban planning refers to
collective decision making
processes and outcomes that
are intended to influence the
built environment. Planning
is a formal profession but it is
also a particular approach to
understanding urban issues,
one that looks holistically
at problems and attempts to
coordinate the actions of many
stakeholders for long-term
public benefit. Urban planning
is about communication,
participation, coordination and
translation.”
-- “Planning is a critical social
science that studies land use
and spatial agglomeration
from economic and ecological
perspectives, addressing
questions of housing,
community development,
transportation, and other kinds
of regional systems. From a
built environment perspective,
planning goes beyond
‘programming’ and ‘use’, to
engage in a mixed-method
research process that aligns
community values and uses
within larger social, economic,
ecological, sustainability, and
political narratives.”
-- “It holds the place in-between
architecture and policy. It guides
how our cities our developed.”
-- “Urban planning is a field
that lacks a clear identity. A
field that ranges widely from
the theoretical and abstract
to the practical and physical;
encompassing a wide range
of unrelated disciplines; that
is riven with much existential
hand-wringing about what falls
within the purview of the field.”
The strengths of the Urban
Planning program at GSAPP:
0%
6%
11%
30%
49%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Notimportantatall
Somewhatimportant
Neutral
Important
Veryimportant
How important is the concept
of sustainability is to your
personal development as a
planner?

Students had a lot to say about the
strengths and weaknesses of the
program. A few topics kept coming
up.
Faculty: Students had mixed
feelings about full-time faculty,
but responses were positive on
average. Many responses discuss
the perceived need for more
tenured faculty to bolster the
identity and core of the program.
And adjunct faculty were lauded,
with many responses mentioning
the quality and diversity of adjunct
and practicing professors.
GIS: Seventy-seven percent of
students expected to develop
proficiency in GIS, and seventy-
two percent already feel that they
have. Students are generally very
positive about the GIS component
of the program, but they want it to
be a sustained strength. Students
call for more GIS course offerings
and a permanent GIS professor.
Design: Some students are
happy with the design elements
of the program. And many list
a perceived design focus as
a primary reason for coming
to GSAPP or express high
expectations for the quality of
design coursework in the program,
especially in reference to its
location within an architecture
school; one student said that
they chose GSAPP because they
“wanted the design focus of
a planning program within an
architecture school.” Sixty percent
of students listed “design” as
a proficiency they expected to
develop in the program. So it is
striking that, according to students’
responses, the expectation of a
strong design core is often not
met, with only twenty-one percent
of students listing “design” as a
proficiency they feel they have
developed in the program. And
only two percent of students rate
the “design” focus of the program
as a five out of five. One student
stated that the program has “very
little investment in cultivating
technical or design knowledge”
with another lamenting the “very
little emphasis on technical/design
thinking” and another saying
that the program “needs more
courses that offer technical skills
- maybe through technical skills
concentrations.”
Studios: Students consistently
listed studios as a strength of the
program, and there is a perception
that this strength should be
emphasized. A suggestion that
came up multiple times was
that the program more strongly
encourage or require the advanced
studio course.
International focus: While a
huge proportion of UP students
are international, multiple students
Strengths and
Weaknesses of
the UP program
Why did you choose
Columbia’s GSAPP UP
program?
New York City
Reputation
Architecture school
Connections/opportunities
Faculty
Design focus
15%
26%
32%
19%
2%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Not a component of the program
A weak component of the program
Neither
A component of the program
A major component of the program
The strength of the 'Design' focus in the program:

were unhappy with the program’s
lack of attention to the needs of
international students; and the
quality of the “international focus”
of the program did not rank well,
with sixty-eight percent of students
ranking it as a three or below out
of five.
Summary of Strengths
Students’ perceptions of the
strengths of the program revolved
primarily around studios and class
offerings, along with the program’s
location in New York City.
Many students praised the first-
year studio course, with some
recommending a stronger focus
on the advanced studios. One
comment stated that “the advanced
studio was one of the best
experiences I had in the program,
and I think the program should
strongly consider adding a second
year studio as a component of the
curriculum.” Students repeatedly
mentioned the diversity and
breadth of course offerings within
UP, as well as access to classes in
other programs, as a strength of the
program. One student mentioned
that “the breadth of the course
offerings is our program’s greatest
strength” and another praised the
“flexibility in taking classes from
other programs like SIPA, (and)
design.”
New York City played a central
role in students’ perceptions
of program strengths, with one
student finding value in the “host
of opportunities to engage with the
urban structures around us, either
through internships or through
GSAPP studios.” Other popular
responses included the quality of
professors in general; the quality
and diversity of adjunct and
practicing professors; the quality
and engagement of fellow students;
the name value and reputation
of the program; and the critical
and theoretical orientation and
intellectual rigor of the program.
Other notable comments
included:
-- “Prevalence of adjunct
professors with relevant and
strong experience.”
-- “Intelligent, progressive, and
engaged student body”
-- “Having the thesis requirement
in addition to the capstone
workshop made this program
very appealing to me...access
to faculty, classes and resources
within the Architecture and Real
Estate programs...prevalence of
adjunct professors with relevant
and strong experience.”
Summary of Weaknesses
The most common responses from
students regarding the weaknesses
of the program focused on the
separation of UP from the rest of
the school, and a perceived lack
of sufficient tenured faculty. A
common sentiment was that the
program does not have a distinct
identity in GSAPP and that it is
marginalized within the school.
One student mentioned “weak
connections to other GSAPP
programs” while another noted
“inattention (to UP) by the greater
GSAPP community and a sort
of spatial separation of the UP
students which in turn fosters
a feeling of insignificance.”
One student, hoping for more
of a connection to the design
opportunities of the architecture
program, stated that “the UP
program is very limited in its
In general, what do you
believe are the strengths of
the UP program?
Studios
Location
Course offerings
Quality of professors (in
general)
Adjunct professors
4%
32%
32%
25%
2%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Neither
The strength of the 'International' focus in the program:
In general, what do you
believe are the weaknesses
of the UP program?
Separation of UP from
GSAPP
Lack of tenured faculty
Core curriculum
Program vision/leadership
Lack of design focus

design opportunities, and many
of the architecture design courses
require some sort of architecture
background.”
Students also commonly referred
to an insufficient tenured faculty.
One student saw a primary
weakness of the program as a
“deficit of core faculty members...
despite program size,” another
noted that there was “no full time
GIS faculty member” and another
mentioned that the “full time
faculty is too small and doesn’t
cover all fields of interest to
students.” One student suggested
that the separation of UP from
GSAPP and the insufficient
tenured faculty may be connected:
“Small, powerless, poor reputation,
submerged by architecture and
dominated by adjuncts (which then
decreases community, sense of
identity as a planning program).”
The third and fourth most common
responses focused on core courses,
with one student stating that “the
first year core courses are terrible”
and another that they “taught us
nothing;” and lack of a dynamic
program identity and vision,
respectively. One student stated
the program’s weakness to be a
“lack of vision for the Master’s
program - where is it going? What
does it stand for?;” another student
lamented that there is “no clear
direction” for the program.
Other popular responses included:
too strong of a focus on American
planning (and lack of attention
to the needs of international
students); lack of academic and
professional guidance; career
services and internships; quality
of faculty; lack of sufficient
design/technical skills; and weak
concentrations.
included:
-- “Lots of connections in the
city...though many of these
opportunities are not extended
to international students, who
constitute a large proportion of
the student population - and this
disparity of opportunity was
not honestly conveyed during
the recruitment or enrollment
process (in fact, it was more
the opposite, where we were
told that many opportunities
existed).”
-- “Lack of ardent leadership; a
sense that the program is drifting
and no one really is in charge or
has a vision for the program”
-- “Program (particularly core)
too North America-centric for
the increasingly international
student body”
Why students choose the UP
Program at GSAPP
A majority of responses mentioned
New York City and the reputation
of the school as primary reasons
for choosing Columbia’s UP
program. One student summed
up their reasoning for choosing
Columbia as “the magnificent
setting in NYC for hands-on
planning project experience,”
while another responded “an Ivy
League education focused on city/
community development in the
biggest city in the United States.”
The program’s location in
an architecture school is also
appealing to students. “I wanted
to learn in a creative environment,
so an architecture school was
perfect,” said one student, while
another stated that they were
drawn to a program that is “housed
in a school of architecture that
takes into account the human
experience with regards to the
built environment;” a third chose
GSAPP because they sought
“strong design skills from a policy
perspective.”
Also frequently mentioned was
the allure of the connections
and opportunities offered by the
program, Columbia at large, and
the city of New York. One student,
for example, responded that they
“felt that having the resources of
the university and New York City
would provide opportunities that
would be unavailable to me in
other programs”
Other popular responses included:
the quality and reputation of the
faculty; the perceived design focus
of the program; the studio and
thesis components of the program;
and the funding received.
4%
11%
40%
28%
11%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Neither
The strength of the 'Social Justice' focus in the program:

included:
-- “The studio was really enticing
to me. Columbia’s program is
also fairly well-regarded. Also
New York City is a great place
to learn about urbanism.”
-- “(The program’s literature)
made me think that I could
actually work with “real world”
problems and leave behind
my architecture education
that insisted (on ignoring) the
existence of budgets”
-- “I was drawn to the idea of
being at a design school.”
-- “A multi disciplinary
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
PolicyAnalysisandWriting
Economic/FinancialSkills
Design
Presentation/CommunicationSkills
Socialawareness
Theoreticalbackground
GISMapping
QuantitativeResearchSkills
QualitativeResearchSkills
Other
The difference between expected and actual
proficiencies developed at the UP program
What
proficiencies
did you
expect to
develop at
Columbia’s UP
Program?
What
proficiencies
have you
developed at
Columbia’s UP
Program?

After
Graduation
Do you intend to take the AICP
exam after graduating?
23% Yes
25% No
47% Not sure
60%
38%
34%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
TheUnitedStates
Internationally
Notsure
Where do you plan to
work after
graduating?
66%
43%
40%
28%
6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
PrivateSector
GovernmentalAgency
Non-profit
Academia
Other
What sector are you
looking to work in
after graduating?

The survey collected positive
feedback about the program
administration with many
students commenting on the
approachableness, friendliness,
and responsiveness of program
administration. The Urban
Planning administration’s open
door policy was noted by multiple
students as a positive attribute.
Students also appear to have a
high opinion of and good working
relationship with administrative
staff.
Students identified several
perceived weaknesses within
the program’s administration,
which can be divided into two
categories, one concerning Urban
Planning administration and one
concerning GSAPP administration.
With regards to Urban Planning
administration students wrote of a
lack of career services, internship
assistance, alumni connections,
external coordination with the
larger Columbia community,
and a clear vision and leadership
within the program. With regards
to GSAPP administration, students
wrote of a lack of communication/
coordination amongst the school’s
programs and a bias towards the
needs of the Architecture program
over the Urban Planning program.
This sentiment of a lacking school-
wide coordination and bias was
captured in qualitative data with
the question, Do you feel that
you’ve been sufficiently informed
about Columbia’s Studio Xs, labs
and research centers relevant to
Urban Planning? Which 85% of
respondents answered no.
Program
Administration
Strengths
Communication
Approachable
Friendly
Responsive
Open Door Policy
Specific Administrator Men-
tioned
Weaknesses
Career Services and
Internship Assistance
External Coordination with
larger Columbia community
Lack of Vision/Leadership
Lack of Alumni Connections
Disorganization of larger
GSAPP administration/
Architecture bias
KeyWords/Phrases
Do you feel that you’ve been
sufficiently informed about
relevant GSAPP class offerings
outside of UP?
relevant class offerings outside
of GSAPP?
Columbia Studio Xs, labs and
research centers relevant to
urban planning?
19% YES
77% NO
11% YES
85% NO
51% YES
45% NO

The general consensus of how
the students view the faculty
were mixed. While the biggest
strength is that there are numer-
ous amounts of adjunct faculty
the main weakness was that
there are not enough tenure fac-
ulty. Although this may be seen
as an oxymoron, the main con-
cern of the students is that the
core of the faculty is weakening
due to the recent loss in number.
There is also a perception that
the faculty that have remained
do not communicate well with
each other and are complacent
with their courses. The only sil-
ver lining that can be seen from
a disconnected and complacent
faculty is that, as a whole, they
have a very diverse background
with each professor specializing
and having prestige in a certain
area.
Program Faculty
Would you be willing to serve as
such a student representative?
Do you know who your academic
advisor is?
Have you contacted your
academic advisor for help?
72% YES
25% NO
85% YES
11% NO
40% YES
57% NO8%
11%
15%
30%
32%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Unimportant
Somewhatunimportant
Neutral
Somewhatimportant
Veryimportant
How important do
you feel that student
representation in the
faculty hiring process
is?
Strengths
Adjunct professors
Diversity
Experience
Clout
Intellect
Knowledge
Weaknesses
Not enough tenure
Unenergetic
Disengaged
Do not communicate
internally
KeyWords/Phrases

Comments regarding Planning
Law centered seemed to indicate
two different prevailing opinions.
One was that the course was
engaging, useful and fair in its
workload. These commenters
generally regarded the class as
fair in its difficulty and workload,
though one commenter suggested
that the class might benefit from
smaller group discussions to
facilitate understanding.
The other main trend indicated
that the course lacked relevance
for international students.
Many comments indicated
that it might be helpful to have
an internationally focused or
comparative law course, with a
focus on planning. Several foreign
students also expressed in the
survey that learning American
case law was difficult for language
reasons.
Notable Comments:
-- “This was definitely satisfactory
for me. The course is coherent,
has a logical trajectory, and a
reasonable amount of work -
possibly even on the light side.
Exams were appropriate and
effective. I think more active
class activities could be effective
- small discussion groups, etc
(which were tried a few times
and usually productive).”
-- “Great if one is planning to work
within the US, otherwise it is too
focused on UP in the US with
little to no international focus. I
would suggest having the option
between two courses, where one
focuses on US law and the other
on international law.”
-- “Having no background in law,
I found class to be very useful,
not too hard but challenging and
comprehensive.”
-- “I liked this course but am
not sure how useful it will be
for the international students
who do not plan on practicing
in the United States. I think
a comparative property/land
use law class would be more
appropriate.”
-- “I’m an international student.
It is too difficult for me to
understand the legal system in
the United States.”
Core Classes:
Planning Law
0%
4%
23%
28%
9%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Veryunsatisfied
Notsatisfied
Neutral
Somewhatsatisfied
Verysatisfied
How satisfied were
you with Planning Law
core class?

This course was negatively
reviewed with almost 70% of
respondents ranking it 3 and under,
out of 5.
Feedback indicated that this course
would benefit from structural and
organizational improvement. The
course attempted to cover “too
many things in one semester”
so that the students were taught
“theory, but history was forgotten”.
Students suggested that the course
be divided into the “Theory
of planning” and “History of
Planning” as another course. One
student suggested this second
required course be “History of the
American City.” Another trend
was the concern was that the
scope of the course was broad,
outdated and out of touch with
modern planning issues. One
student wrote that the course
covered “a critique of planning
methods of the mid 20th century,
but contemporary alternatives
were overly generalized. We
learned only to “Be inclusive,”
“seek community input,” and
that “sustainability is good” etc.”
Feedback also indicated that the
small group discussions were
lacking in structure, organization,
and outputs.
The students also expressed
discontent with the scope of
the projects. Students indicated
that the final group project was
disorganized, ambiguous in
its scope and deliverables, and
that the semester-long timeline
was too long for such a paper
and presentation. Three students
described that the smaller
assignments felt “like busy work.”
A trend in this feedback was the
desire for more feedback and
accountability throughout the
semester in the form of quizzes
and paper feedback.
Students generally felt positively
about the theory reading choices
(the Feinstein reader in particular),
and the lectures about the
perils of racism and improving
inequality in the world, the guest
lecturers (offering a diversity of
perspectives), and aspects of the
group project (which offered an
opportunity to develop an in-depth
knowledge of a topic.)
Core Classes:
History & Theory
23%
21% 21%
13%
4%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Veryunsatisfied
Notsatisfied
Neutral
Somewhatsatisfied
Verysatisfied
How satisfied were
you with Planning
History & Theory core
class?

Students’ perception of the GIS
core class were generally positive.
Suggestions for improvements
include:
-- “we should reinforce the skills
we learn here in other classes.”
-- “more GIS throughout the
department!”
-- “offer advanced GIS each
semester “students should be
encouraged to graduate with a
strong background in GIS not
just intro level”
-- “Supplemental design session
and supplemental statistics
session.”
Core Classes:
Intro to GIS
Strengths
The professor’s availability
for extra assistance
Important and applicable
Glad it is required course now
Very active atmosphere
Emphasis on design “crucial
in the professional world and
I applaud the professor for
putting such emphasis on this
aspect of cartography”
Weaknesses
More direction during class
time
Get assignments back on
time
Hard to know what is going
on in class
GIS for HP doesn’t count
Lecture was boring
KeyWords/Phrases
2%
0%
9%
21%
45%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Veryunsatisfied
Notsatisfied
Neutral
Somewhatsatisfied
Verysatisfied
How satisfied were
you with Intro to GIS
core class?

This course received very mixed
reviews, with rankings divided
evenly between 2 and 4. A large
number of survey respondents
indicated that this course would
greatly benefit from a structural
improvement. A respondent
mentioned that “while the class
was logical, the syllabus is
too broad. Maybe splitting the
class into two, Quantitative and
Qualitative Research Methods,
would have added depth to some
of the topics that were covered,
but vaguely.” Several respondents
added that TA sessions (labs) and
homeworks were helpful. In fact,
one respondent suggested that
the course should be much more
lab-oriented: “this class does not
require a large lecture - it should
simply be taught as a lab session
and divided into two semesters
for Quantitative and Qualitative
methods.” There is also a
generalized view that the class was
“too basic.”
Other notable comments included:
-- “Could have been more
technically challenging. While I
realize that some students do not
have a statistical background,
the boot camps can be extended
to cover that.”
-- “It exposed us to the basics of
research and the final project
was helpful in applying those
skills.”
Core Classes:
Planning
Techniques
Strengths
Interesting and helpful final
project
Great TA sessions
Useful
Weaknesses
Class attempts to cover too
much in one semester
Class would be better in
smaller groups
Slow pace
KeyWords/Phrases
11%
21%
23% 23%
4%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Veryunsatisfied
Notsatisfied
Neutral
Somewhatsatisfied
Verysatisfied
How satisfied were
you with Methods
and Techniques for
Planners core class?

Overall, the course is positively
viewed, with almost 60% of the
respondents ranking it with 4 out
of 5 or above. Also, the survey
results show a generalized positive
regard for the Professor. Other
positive comments reflected
how the class is enjoyable and
interesting, with a unique approach
to basic economics - one student
respondent that the Professor “is
one of the best people to teach this
course, mainly due to his Marxist
focus.”
Several respondents, however,
noted that the course lectures
lacked structure, commenting,
for example, that “too much time
was devoted to basic economic
concepts when we could have been
working more on urban economic
issues. The course itself could
also benefit from a slightly more
structured lecture style.” A few
students also noted that the course
is somewhat confusing and “overly
reliant on the TAs.”
Other notable comments included:
-- “The single most nurturing class
in the semester.”
-- “The professor was great, but
it was more of a Theory class.
I think economic theory is
important for planners.”
-- “Some themes took too many
weeks. Could be more dense and
less theoretic.”
Core Classes:
Economics for
Planners
KeyWords/Phrases
Strengths
Excellent Professor
Well taught
Interesting
Weaknesses
Too theoretical
Lack of structure
Too much time spent on a
few, basic themes
8%
4%
13%
40%
17%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Veryunsatisfied
Notsatisfied
Neutral
Somewhatsatisfied
Verysatisfied
How satisfied were
you with Economics
for Planners core
class?

Other Course
Offerings
11%
21%
30%
15%
2%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Veryunsatisfied
Notsatisfied
Neutral
Somewhatsatisfied
Verysatisfied
How satisfied are
you with UP's
international planning
course offerings?
11%
17%
28%
17%
4%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Veryunsatisfied
Notsatisfied
Neutral
Somewhatsatisfied
Verysatisfied
How satisfied are
you with UP's design
course offerings?
4%
11%
40%
13%
4%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Veryunsatisfied
Notsatisfied
Neutral
Somewhatsatisfied
Verysatisfied
How satisfied are
you with UP's
environmental/
sustainability
planning course
offerings?

17%
15%
21%
25%
6%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Veryunsatisfied
Notsatisfied
Neutral
Somewhatsatisfied
Verysatisfied
How satisfied are
you with UP's history
and theory course
offerings?
4% 4%
28%
30%
8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Veryunsatisfied
Notsatisfied
Neutral
Somewhatsatisfied
Verysatisfied
How satisfied are
you with UP's
economic
development course
offerings?
2%
8%
26%
30%
15%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Veryunsatisfied
Notsatisfied
Neutral
Somewhatsatisfied
Verysatisfied
How satisfied are
you with UP's
technical methods
(eg GIS, Adobe)
course offerings?
2% 2%
9%
38%
19%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40% Veryunsatisfied
Notsatisfied
Neutral
Somewhatsatisfied
Verysatisfied
How satisfied are
you with UP's land
use planning course
offerings?
0%
8%
25%
32%
9%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Veryunsatisfied
Notsatisfied
Neutral
Somewhatsatisfied
Verysatisfied
How satisfied are
you with UP's
transportation
planning course
offerings?
13%
17%
15%
25%
6%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Veryunsatisfied
Notsatisfied
Neutral
Somewhatsatisfied
Verysatisfied
How satisfied are
you with UP's
research methods
(quant and qual)
course offerings?

4%
13%
32%
9%
4%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Veryunsatisfied
Notsatisfied
Neutral
Somewhatsatisfied
Verysatisfied
How satisfied are
you with UP's
community
development course
offerings?
4%
15%
28%
15%
2%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Veryunsatisfied
Notsatisfied
Neutral
Somewhatsatisfied
Verysatisfied
How satisfied are
you with UP's
planning finance
course offerings?
8%
9%
26%
17%
2%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Veryunsatisfied
Notsatisfied
Neutral
Somewhatsatisfied
Verysatisfied
How satisfied are
you with UP's housing
course offerings?

Not many students were
pleased with the current way
concentrations are handled. There
were some comments that did
not feel one way or the other but
most students were confused as
to what they mean and why they
are taking them; more information
was desired. This was similar
to responses indicating that
concentrations were “vague/broad”
but the latter category consists
of students who feel that the
structure of concentrations needs
an overhaul. Structurally, students
felt that the four concentrations
are unbalanced, and biased with
more faculty leading certain
concentrations rather than others;
one suggestion was that each
concentration have a tenured
faculty member in charge.
Internships Requirement
A majority of the student
body was interested in the UP
Curriculum requiring an internship
for students. Respondents felt
that a requirement would help
international students, as well as
help students with no planning
background to gain valuable
experience, further suggesting that
this experience could help facilitate
better projects and research within
school as well as strengthen
resumes in the marketplace.
Conversely, some students felt that
an internship requirement would
be a waste of time, suggesting that
it could distract from school and
might be financially unwise if the
internship was unpaid. However,
overall student responses indicated
that the element of experience
gained from a required internship
seemed to outweigh its drawbacks.
Concentrations
Would you support a
curriculum requiring an
internship before graduation?
72% YES
28% NO
13%
25%
21%
25%
4%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Veryunsatisfied
Notsatisfied
Neutral
Somewhatsatisfied
Verysatisfied
How satisfied do you
feel with the current
structure of UP's
concentrations?
Concentrations
Strengths
Flexibility
Loose Nature
Interesting topics
Weaknesses
Not much meaning
Unclear
Unbalanced
(courses+faculty)
Vague/Broad
Internahip:
Strengths
Experience
Intellectual Boost
Marketable
Resume Boost
Aid International Students
Weaknesses
Could limit
Distract from school
Most are unpaid
Some may not want
Need ability to waive
KeyWords/Phrases
KeyWords/Phrases

The Urban Planning Program is
composed of individuals from
around the world and from
varying academic and professional
backgrounds, yet they all have one
thing in common: they chose to
study Urban Planning at GSAPP.
The reasons for coming to GSAPP
vary, as do the views expressed
in this survey, however, common
threads of concern were identified
in faculty, curriculum, and program
vision.
Faculty
Students generally had positive
things to say about the program
faculty, citing that the tenure
and tenure-track faculty are
highly respected in their fields
and the adjuncts are comprised
of a diversity of interesting and
engaging practitioners. Students
were concerned with the small
size of the faculty, the potential of
a decrease in tenure and tenure-
track faculty, and the lack of a
core faculty member for each
concentration. Simply put, students
feel that there are not enough core
faculty members.
Curriculum
Student responses indicated
enthusiasm for the diversity of
course offerings at UP, studio
classes, and opportunities to
take classes in other programs.
Meanwhile, students expressed
dissatisfaction with core classes,
and felt that the program needs
to have a stronger international
focus that better represents the
international backgrounds and
intentions of the student body.
Lastly, students expressed a strong
desire that the program build upon
the design and technical aspects
of the field, especially within the
context of a school of architecture.
Vision
Students expressed concern about
the program’s perceived lack
of dynamic vision and identity.
Responses reflected a sentiment
that the program needed a stronger
sense of both direction and
community.
Summary

Students had a variety of
opinions about what direction the
program should take, but taken
together their responses give
an impression of the program’s
perceived strengths and needs.
These strengths and needs, in
turn, indicate potential areas of
program focus and provide an
opportunity for the program to
build on existing strengths while
addressing perceived needs. The
UP Vision Student Working Group
sees a lot of strength, and a lot of
potential, in GSAPP’s UP program,
and this perspective is reflected in
the perceptions of the student body
at large - but there is also room for
improvement. This survey report
represents UP Vision’s continued
effort to bring students’ voice
to the table, and communicate
their needs. The group’s intention
remains, through continued
student engagement and continued
collaboration with program faculty
and administration, to improve
the Urban Planning program
for current students, and foster
a vibrant, inclusive program for
future UP classes.
Conclusion

On behalf of all the Urban
Planning students,
Thank You for listening.
The UP Vision Student Working Group
Presented by the Vision Survey Team
Jawaher al-Sudairy, Logan Clark, Jack Darcey, Timothy
Douglas, Olivia Jovine, Andrew Lassiter, Isha Patel, Alexandra
Paty, Mike Phillips, Jorge Casar, George Todorovic.
Report compiled by Andrea Forsberg

Copy of 2015 Student Survey Report

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (17)

Similaire à Copy of 2015 Student Survey Report

Similaire à Copy of 2015 Student Survey Report (20)

Copy of 2015 Student Survey Report