Data and Interpretation

A. Student Profile (Undergraduate Art Majors; see Chart 4) The number of undergraduate students declaring a major in Art rose steadily between Fall 1999 and Fall 2003 (from 200 to 264, an increase of 24%). During that same five-year period, the total number of declared majors in the College of Arts and Letters rose by 30% (from 2702 to 3880), partly because of substantial increases in programs like Graphic Design (increase of 65%). The 24% increase reported for majors in the Art Department had parallels in History (also 24%) and even Communication Studies, which has largest number of majors in the College (increase of 25%). In each year, the great majority of Art majors were female (for example, 63% of the majors in Fall 2000, 65% of the majors in Fall 2001-2002, and 65.5% of the majors in Fall 2003). Caucasians were consistently the largest ethnic group, followed by Asian/SE Asian/Filippino (11%) and Hispanic (10%). [(62 of the 264 majors identified their ethnic origin as “other” in F’03 (just over 23%). ] Similar ratios were reported five years earlier: Caucasians at 51%, Asian (etc.) at 12%, and Hispanic at 10%.

On the average, approximately 44 students graduated from CSUS with a BA in Art each year between 1998 and 2003 (total of 218 students; see Appendix). Typically, 56% of each group of graduating seniors identified themselves as Caucasian. The next most common ethnic group was Asian/Southeast Asian/Filipino (18 graduates over a five-year period; 8.25% of the total), followed by Hispanic (15 graduates; 6.9%), African American, and Native American (5 graduates in each case). [44 of the 218 graduates identified their ethnic origin as “other” (just over 20%).] Women outnumbered men in every graduating class, with the greatest disparity occurring in AY 1999-2000 (35 women and 14 men). All told, approximately 70% of the Art graduates between 1998-2003 were women.

Given the percentages reported above, it is appropriate that the same five-year period also saw the addition of new courses in Asian, Latin American, and African American art history to our curriculum, and of an African American man and a Southeast Asian woman to our full-time faculty (Ricardo Favela joined the full-time faculty in Fall 1998). If the part-time lecturers are counted, women also outnumber men on our faculty (on the full-time faculty, if all three FERP’ers are counted, men outnumber women by one). The range of public events sponsored by the Department of Art between 1999 and 2003 reflected a comparable diversity.

In any given Fall semester, the majority of the Art majors were continuing students (70.9% in 1999, 71.4% in 2000, 68.4% in 2001, 69.2% in 2002, and 71.3% in 2003). The next most numerous were the transfer students (15.8%, 16.1%, 15%, 15.1% and 13.6%), followed by “first-time” students (8.7%, 8.8%, 11.9%, 10.9%, and 7.5%). Most undergraduate Art majors were juniors and seniors during the same four-year period (68.2%, 69.7%, 67.5%, 70%, and 71.4%). [The College percentages were similar: 68.4%, 68%, 68.4%, 68.5%, and 68.2%. Source: Five-Term Enrollment Summary Report, Office of Institutional Research.] Nonetheless, the majority of the courses that we offer every semester are at the lower division level. In Fall 2004, for example, we had 46 lower-division and 34 upper-division courses on our schedule at the end of advance registration (not counting supervisory, independent study, or fieldwork courses). On July 27, the lower-division courses had a net enrollment of 1137, and the upper-division courses had a net enrollment of 664.A contributing factor to this discrepancy probably was the number of non-Art majors who are enrolled in our lower-division classes.

Compared to the College and University, the Department of Art consistently has had a slightly higher percentage of female undergraduate students (for example, 66% vs. 61% and 58% for the College and University, respectively, in Fall 2003). It also has had a slightly higher percentage of Asian students than the College (though not higher than the University as a whole). By contrast, lower percentages of white students have been reported in some semesters (in Fall 2002 and 2003, fewer than 50% of the Art majors identified themselves as white). We also have had lower percentages of African American students (for example, 3% vs. 5% for the College in Fall 2003; see the data reported in the Program Profiles on the website of the Office of Institutional Research).

Part III.A: Undergraduate Student Profile: Chart 4

The following data were extracted from the website of the Office of Institutional Research (http://www.oir.csus.edu). All data are from the Fall semesters for the period 1999-2003. When College and University figures also are provided for comparison, they appear directly below the figures or percentages for Art.

B. Undergraduate Student Academic Performance (see Chart 5)

At the last Program Review, concern was expressed about the disparity between the percentages of high grades awarded students in art classes and in all College classes. For example, it was observed that, in Spring 1988, 71% of the final grades awarded in all art classes were in the B to A range, versus 57% for the College. There continues to be a notable difference between Art and College grades at the lower division level. In Spring 2003, 79% of the grades awarded in lower division art classes were in the upper range, versus 59% for the College (although the percentage of B grades awarded was almost identical: 33% for the Department and 32% for the College, versus 23% for the University as a whole). However, at the upper division level, the disparity was considerably less, with percentages of 77% and 72% reported for art and College classes respectively (versus 65% for the University as a whole). The difference may be due in part to the fact that lower division studio art classes are not academically rigorous in the usual sense of the term. They do not require the memorization of material, the mastery of complex intellectual concepts, or the writing of polished prose. Most of the final grade is based on work that is done in the studio classroom under the direct supervision of the instructor, who works closely with each student. Less skilled students can observe more adept classmates at work in the studio and learn from them. Group critique sessions make all students fully aware of how their performance compares with that of their classmates. Accordingly, there may be more opportunity (and more encouragement) for students to do well in lower division classes in studio art than in other disciplines. Some of these factors also may contribute to the slightly higher academic standing of Art majors, whose overall GPA (3.06) was higher than that of other students in the College (2.95) and University (2.88) in Fall 2003. Similarly, a higher percentage of Art majors were in “good standing” that semester (92%, versus 86% for the College and 84% for the University). The “1-Year Continuation Rate” of first-time freshmen also was higher (82% in Art, versus 77% for the College, 76% for CSUS).

The WPE pass rate was another topic of discussion in the 1999 Program Review. Then as now, Art majors tend to have a lower pass rate than other students in the College and University: in Fall 2003, the averages were 60% for “native” students and 53 % for transfer students, versus 71% for native and transfer students throughout the College (the University percentages were 68% and 63 % respectively). [By comparison, Interior Design majors reported the following pass rates: 40% for native students and 68% for transfer students. The average SAT score was 970.] However, the average SAT score reported for first-time freshmen entering the Art program was identical to that reported for CSUS (967, versus 995 for the College). Why do Art majors tend to do less well on the WPE than other student groups in the College? Without reviewing the WPE scores of students within the three Art disciplines—Art Education, Art History, and Art Studio—it is hard to come to any conclusions. Art faculty frequently lament the poor writing skills of students enrolled in their classes, but these students represent a variety of majors. Like our colleagues in other departments, we suspect that there has been a decline in the academic preparation of students prior to their arrival at the University. However, we have not conducted a scientific study, and cannot say for certain what has contributed to the weaknesses displayed by our students in their written work, much less their lower pass rates on the WPE.

Part III.A: Undergraduate Academic Performance: Chart 5

The following data were extracted from the website of the Office of Institutional Research (http://www.oir.csus.edu). All data are from the Fall semesters for the period 1999-2003. When College and University figures are provided for comparison, they appear directly below the figures or percentages for Art. For the grade ranges, the first percentage is for lower division courses, the second for upper division. For WPE pass rates, the first percentage is for native students, the second for transfers. As stated in the guidelines, no comparison data are available for comparisons of the preparation of students for upper-division and/or graduate coursework.