2016 institutional report - SNAAPsnaap.indiana.edu/pdf/2016/2016_Sample_Institutional_Report.pdf ·...

SAMPLE UNIVERSITY

2016 institutional report

Note to the 2016 Sample SNAAP Institutional Report

This Sample Institutional Report is intended to illustrate the kind of information a participating institution will receive.

The data in this sample report are compiled from several anonymous institutions.

May 2017

Sample University 123 Any Road Anytown, USA Dear [Name]: We are pleased to present your institution’s results from the 2016 survey by the Strategic National Arts Alumni Project (SNAAP). In this report, you will find your institution’s confidential data alongside aggregate findings from peer institutions. Before delving into your school’s results beginning in Section 2, we encourage you to read Section 1, which puts your data in context. In addition to your 2016 Institutional Report, we provide you with a full data set of identifiable information. While you are free to use and publicize your data as you wish, please remember that individual respondents should never be publicly identified. Your interactive SnaapGraph report will be available shortly and sent under separate cover. It contains a summary of your key data points with comparative results in a colorful, graphic format. We encourage you to begin sharing and using your SNAAP data as soon as possible. Your data will generate rich insights and, most likely, contain actionable findings. To assist you in sharing and using your SNAAP data on campus, we provide a number of tools on the SNAAP website (snaap.indiana.edu), including webinars and information about how other institutions are using their data. Thank you for your leadership as part of this national effort to learn more about the lives and careers of graduates of arts programs. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions about SNAAP. Best wishes,

Sally Gaskill Director

2016 Institutional Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 1: About the ReportNavigating Your Report

2016 Survey Overview

Resources

Participating Institutions

Staff, Board, and Funders

Section 2: Undergraduate Alumni Results Data Highlights

Comparison Groups

Respondent Characteristics

Frequency Report

Alumni Comments

Recent Graduates Summary

Recent Graduates Frequency Report

Module Report

Section 3: Graduate Alumni Results Data Highlights

Comparison Groups


Frequency Report

Alumni Comments



Module Report

Section 1: About the Report

Navigating Your Report

2016 Survey Overview

Resources


Staff, Board, and Funders

1

navigating Your report Report Formats

SNAAP provides your reports in two formats. (1) The PDF report contains your complete Institutional Report data and is ready to be printed in whole or in part. (2) Excel versions of most reports are included to allow you to customize your data. (The Data Highlights and Recent Graduates Summary do not have corresponding Excel documents.)

For institutions that give degrees at multiple levels, we provide separate reports for each degree-level—high school, undergraduate, or graduate.

In addition, SNAAP provides a complete identifiable data set of individual responses in SPSS file format for institutional researchers.

Start with Data Highlights

We recommend approaching your report through your institution’s Data Highlights.

The Data Highlights feature key findings from your institutional data, including some information about different subgroups of your alumni.

Descriptions of Individual Reports

Data Highlights. Three-page executive summary of your key results.

Comparison Groups. Explanation of the selection of your two comparison groups, with lists of each group’s institutions and majors. A complete list of the available SNAAP majors can be found in Appendix B of the accompanying codebook.

Respondent Characteristics. Overview of your sample size, response rate, and sampling error, as well as complete demographics of your alumni respondents and their arts major(s).

Frequency Report. A complete set of frequencies from the core questionnaire (all survey questions with fixed response options). Broken down by section: Education, Institutional Experiences, Career, Current Work, Arts Engagement, Facts & Figures.

Alumni Comments. All responses to open-ended questions in the core questionnaire, with each respondent’s cohort and type of work. Alumni comments are unedited and appear exactly as typed in the survey by respondents.

The comments in your PDF report may be truncated due to a quirk in the software. Unfortunately, SNAAP is unable to fix this formatting issue. You can view the full set of alumni comments in the Excel version we provide.

Recent Graduate Summary. Two-page highlights of results for your recent graduates (up to five years out for postsecondary institutions and 10 years out for arts high schools).

Recent Graduates Frequency Report. A complete set of frequencies (all survey questions with fixed response options) from the core questionnaire. Broken down by section: Education, Institutional Experiences, Career, Current Work, Arts Engagement, Facts & Figures.

Module Report. Frequencies and alumni comments from the Career Skills and Entrepreneurship Module and/or the Internship Module.

Consortium Report. For consortium participants, additional questions were appended to the core survey. This report features frequencies from the additional consortium questions.

Plus: SnaapGraph. This Visualization Report provides your key results in an interactive graphic format. It will be sent under separate cover sometime in summer 2017.

Plus: Complete Data Set. In addition to your full Institutional Report in PDF, SNAAP provides a complete data set with identifiable data, compatible with SPSS or similar software. We also provide editable Excel versions of many reports, which include templates for display and allow you to customize your own analyses.

2

2016 surveY overviewAbout SNAAP

The Strategic National Arts Alumni Project (SNAAP) is an annual online survey, data management, and institutional improvement system designed to enhance the quality of arts school education.

SNAAP generates rich, detailed information about the lives and careers of people with intensive training in the arts, broadly defined. Educational institutions with degree programs in the arts need high quality, actionable data for planning and assessment. Accreditation requirements also increasingly require information about alumni outcomes. SNAAP data can be critical to both.

SNAAP data can identify ways to better connect arts training to artistic careers, making it possible for arts leaders, educators, and researchers to understand and address the systemic factors that help or hinder the career paths of alumni, whether they work as artists or pursue other paths. SNAAP data allow participating schools to compare themselves with similar schools across multiple dimensions. The annual findings also provide insight into national patterns and trends resulting from detailed analyses of employment, career outcomes, and institutional experiences by artistic discipline, geographic region, graduation year cohort, and degree type.

SNAAP grew out of the Surdna Foundation’s interest in helping arts training institutions across the country learn more about their graduates. Following several years of planning, three field tests of the survey were conducted beginning in 2008. The first national administration occurred in fall 2011 and was repeated in 2012 and 2013, creating a database of nearly 100,000 respondents. In 2015 and 2016, over 65,000 arts alumni responded to SNAAP’s new questionnaire and topical modules.

SNAAP 2.0

In 2015, SNAAP revised the core questionnaire by tailoring questions to provide actionable results for institutions. The new questionnaire was administered

in 2015 and 2016. It will be repeated in 2017. Other innovations introduced in SNAAP 2.0 include:

n Topical modules on subjects of particular concern to institutions that can be appended to the core questionnaire; new topical modules include Career Skills and Entrepreneurship and Internships

n Data visualizations (SnaapGraph) of key results for ease of interpretation and sharing

n Accreditation toolkits that map SNAAP survey items to the standards of accrediting agencies

Benefits of SNAAP Participation

Leaders at educational institutions with degree-granting arts programs can use SNAAP results to:

n inform, develop, and reform their institution’s curriculum with evidence of what aspiring artists need to advance in rapidly changing arts fields

n compare experiences at their institutions to those at similar institutions to identify relative strengths and challenges

n strengthen alumni engagement and support

n clarify what their alumni learned as students and how they have used this in both arts and non-arts contexts

n address the career needs of their students and alumni

n enhance their institution’s recruitment, public relations, marketing, strategic planning, and development efforts

n provide evidence of the value of an arts education and alternative measures of success, including school and work satisfaction, for alumni working both inside and outside the arts

Some Uses of SNAAP Data

Your SNAAP data are rich grounds for insights and inquiry. Some lines of inquiry include:

~ How relevant are the skills and training that alumni received at your school to their current work, whether as artist, doctor, lawyer, teacher, or in any other occupational role?

3

1% 5%6%

18%

31%

39%

Tribal: Tribal Colleges (1%)

Baccalaureate Colleges (5%)

Arts High School (6%)

Master's Colleges andUniversities (18%)

Special Focus Four-Year: Art,Music, & Design Schools (31%)

Doctoral Universities (39%)

~ How satisfied are your alumni with various aspects of their experience at your institution in respect to its perceived strengths and weaknesses?

~ How do your graduates think your school could have better prepared them for work or further education?

~ What additional degrees, in which fields, and from what types of institutions, did your alumni pursue after graduation?

~ What alternative measures of alumni success, such as levels of satisfaction with current primary jobs, would provide useful information for your institution?

~ How important are the arts in the lives of your alumni who are not currently working as artists?

~ What barriers do your graduates face as they pursue work, and how can your institution better support the careers of its alumni?

Survey Data and Methodology

The results throughout this report combine data from the SNAAP 2015 and SNAAP 2016 survey administrations. A total of 386,496 individuals with arts degrees from 82 postsecondary institutions and six arts high schools were invited to participate in 2015 and/or 2016.1 Of this population, 65,376 alumni of all ages responded to the online survey.2

Approximately 73% of respondents replied about their undergraduate arts degrees, 23% were graduate-level alumni, and 4% responded on behalf of their arts high school experience.

SNAAP is committed to assisting institutions in locating as many arts alumni as possible for invitation to take the survey. Most participating institutions take advantage of an online service offered through SNAAP to “find” lost alumni. In 2015 and 2016, the SNAAP survey was completed by 3,398 previously “lost” alumni, representing about 5% of total respondents.

2 The data throughout this report do not include data from two institutions with non-standard survey administrations.

Figure 1. SNAAP 2015 and 2016 Institutions by Basic Carnegie Classification3

3 These classifications reflect the updated 2015 version of the Basic Carnegie Classification, from the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, now housed at the Center for Postsecondary Research, at Indiana University. SNAAP works with Canadian participants to apply comparable classifications. See http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/index.php for more information.

1 One participating postsecondary institution also has an arts high school program. It is counted in both the number of postsecondary institutions and number of arts high schools.

4

Figure 2. SNAAP 2015 and 2016 Institutions by Region4

4 SNAAP defines U.S. regions per U.S. Census guidelines.

The average institutional response rate was 18%. The highest institutional response rate was 34%, and the majority of institutions had a response rate of 15% or higher.

The aggregate (“All SNAAP”) results presented in this Institutional Report are from 77 postsecondary institutions in the U.S. and five postsecondary institutions in Canada for the undergraduate and graduates levels. Aggregate results at the high school level include data from six arts high schools. Figures 1 and 2 provide an overview of the types of institutions that participated.

Report Customization

Participating institutions can append an additional question set in the form of a topical module. In 2015 and 2016, the vast majority of institutions selected the Career Skills & Entrepreneurship module.

Institutions can further customize their reports by participating in a consortium. In 2016, two sets of institutions opted to form consortia through which they appended survey questions that were specific to their interests. These included a consortium for arts high schools and a consortium for members of the Alliance for the Arts in Research Unviersities (a2ru).

Institutions can also choose to have their data broken out by major or groups of majors, in addition to their aggregate Institutional Reports.

Reliability of Institutional Data

Alumni surveys present particular challenges in terms of response rates. It is difficult for institutions to keep their alumni files current, especially with email addresses. More than 60% of the alumni records submitted to SNAAP include an email address. The email addresses that are submitted may or may not be current.

The SNAAP research team has studied the issues of bias and response representativeness. A study based on a SNAAP field test did not discover significant biases that would prevent schools from drawing conclusions from their data. Furthermore, a 2014 publication using SNAAP data found that respondents to alumni surveys are just as representative as respondents to student surveys, which are commonly used for purposes of assessment.

In addition to your Institutional Report’s statistical data, the open-ended Alumni Comments provide unedited, qualitative feedback from graduates that can illuminate your findings.

6%

25%

17%31%

21%Canada (6%)

U.S. Midwest (25%)

U.S. Northeast (17%)

U.S. South (31%)

U.S. West (21%)

5

resourcesSNAAP Accreditation Toolkits

SNAAP Accreditation Toolkits offer guidelines for incorporating SNAAP survey items into accreditation self-studies and suggest ways to map specific items from the SNAAP survey to accreditation standards.

The following toolkits are available:

Regional accrediting agencies:

n Higher Learning Commission – North Central Association (HLC-NCA)

n Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE)

n New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC)

n Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU)

n Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC)

n Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) Senior College and University Commission

Specialized accrediting agencies:

n National Association for Schools of Art and Design

n National Association for Schools of Music

n National Association for Schools of Dance

n National Association for Schools of Theatre

The complete accreditation toolkits are located at snaap.indiana.edu/accred_toolkits

Sample: SNAAP Survey Items Mapped to HLC-NCA (excerpt)

6

SnaapGraph (Data Visualization Report)

Your institution’s key results are included in a new information graphics format (which can be downloaded separately on the SNAAP Institutional Interface). These data visualizations can be used for both internal and external reporting. They are available in PDF format.

Your SnaapGraph includes your institution’s results from both undergraduate and graduate alumni (when applicable) and is divided into the following sections:

n About SNAAP

n Participating Alumni

n Educational Experiences

n Career

n Skills

n Income + Debt

SNAAP Webinars

SNAAP offers free webinars, both live and prerecorded, for administrators, institutional researchers and others who want to better use and understand their SNAAP data.

The following webinar is scheduled for summer 2017:

n Your 2016 SNAAP Institutional Report: Step by Step

Your SNAAP Campus Project Manager will be notified when it is available for viewing.

SNAAP Website

A host of other resources can be found directly on the SNAAP website. Examples include:

n Using SNAAP Data: Lessons from Past Participants

n Using SNAAP Data: Value for the Field

n Powerpoint template for easily sharing your institution’s results

n DataBrief Archive

n Annual and Special Reports

n SnaapShot

n Other Publications

References

Kennedy, J., Tepper, S., & Lambert, A. D. (2010, September). An analysis of mode effects in three survey modes in the Strategic National Arts Alumni Project. Paper presented at the 2nd International Workshop on Internet Survey Methods, Daejeon, South Korea.

Lambert, A. D., & Miller, A. L. (2014). Lower response rates on alumni surveys might not mean lower response representativeness. Educational Research Quarterly, 37(3), 38-51.

7

United StatesAlabamaUniversity of Montevallo*

ArizonaArizona State University, Tempe

CaliforniaArt Center College of Design, PasadenaCalifornia College of the Arts, OaklandCalifornia Institute of the Arts, ValenciaSan Diego State UniversitySan Francisco Art InstituteUCLA School of Theater, Film and Television, Los Angeles

ColoradoColorado State UniversityMetropolitan State University of Denver*

University of Colorado Denver

ConnecticutUniversity of Connecticut, Mansfield*

University of New Haven*

FloridaEckerd College, St. Petersburg*

Florida International University, MiamiRingling College of Art and Design, Sarasota*

GeorgiaKennesaw State University*

IllinoisDePaul University, The Theatre School, ChicagoSchool of the Art Institute of Chicago

IndianaIndiana University Jacobs School of Music, BloomingtonIndiana University Arts Administration, BloomingtonUniversity of Saint Francis–Fort Wayne

IowaUniversity of Iowa, Iowa City

LouisianaLouisiana State University, Baton Rouge

MaineMaine College of Art, Portland

MarylandBaltimore School for the Arts†

Maryland Institute College of Art, Baltimore

MassachusettsMassachusetts College of Art and Design, BostonTufts University, School of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

MichiganHope College, Holland*

Interlochen Center for the Arts†

Kendall College of Arts and Design of Ferris State University, Grand RapidsMichigan State University, East LansingUniversity of Michigan-Ann Arbor, School Music, Theatre and DanceWayne State University, Detroit

MinnesotaMinneapolis College of Art and DesignSt. Cloud State UniversitySt. Olaf College, Northfield*

New HampshireNew Hampshire Institute of Art, Manchester

New MexicoInstitute of American Indian Arts, Santa FeUniversity of New Mexico, Albuquerque

New YorkThe Juilliard School, New YorkManhattan School of MusicNew York Conservatory for Dramatic Arts, New York*§

Pace University, New YorkSchool of Visual Arts, New York

North CarolinaUniversity of North Carolina–CharlotteUniversity of North Carolina School of the Arts, Winston–Salem‡

University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Performing ArtsWestern Carolina University, Cullowhee

OhioArt Academy of CincinnatiColumbus College of Art & DesignKent State UniversityUniversity of Toledo

OregonGeorge Fox University, Newberg*

Pacific Northwest College of Art, Portland

PennsylvaniaDrexel University, PhiladelphiaMessiah College, MechanicsburgPennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts, PhiladelphiaPennsylvania State University, State College

Rhode IslandRhode Island School of Design, Providence

2015 and 2016 participating institutions

8

South CarolinaCollege of CharlestonSouth Carolina Governor’s School for the Arts and Humanities†

South DakotaNorthern State University, Aberdeen

TennesseeMemphis College of ArtUniversity of Tennessee at Chattanooga

TexasBooker T. Washington High School for the Performing and Visual Arts, Dallas†

Fort Worth Academy of Fine Arts†

Southern Methodist University, DallasUniversity of North Texas, DentonUniversity of Texas at AustinUniversity of Texas Rio Grande ValleyTexas Christian University, Art and Art History, Fort WorthTexas Tech University, Lubbock

UtahBrigham Young University, ProvoSouthern Utah University, Cedar CityWeber State University, Ogden*

Utah State University, Logan

VirginiaJames Madison University, HarrisonburgUniversity of Mary Washington, Fredericksburg*

Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond

WashingtonThe Evergreen State College, Olympia*§

WisconsinMilwaukee Institute of Art & Design*

University of Wisconsin-MadisonUniversity of Wisconsin-Stevens Point

* Undergraduate respondents only

† Arts high school

‡ Has arts high school and postsecondary programs

§ Institution excluded from analysis (including comparison groups) due to non-standard survey administration

Canada

Alberta Alberta College of Art and Design, Calgary*

British ColumbiaEmily Carr University of Art and Design, VancouverUniversity of Victoria

Nova ScotiaNova Scotia College of Art and Design, Halifax

OntarioOCAD University, Toronto

9

snaap staff and BoardSNAAP Staff

Indiana University

DirectorSally Gaskill

Project CoordinatorRebecca F. Houghton

Research AnalystAngie L. Miller

Research AffiliateZach Morgan

Arizona State University

SNAAP Research DirectorDean, Herberger Institute for Design and the ArtsSteven J. Tepper

SNAAP Postdoctoral ScholarHerberger Institute for Design and the ArtsAlexandre Frenette

Center for Postsecondary Research, School of Education, Indiana University

DirectorThomas Nelson Laird

Finance ManagerMarilyn Gregory

Research AnalystsKevin FosnachtAmy RiberaRick Shoup

Web DeveloperHien Nguyen

Publications CoordinatorSarah B. Martin

Office CoordinatorBarbara Stewart

Office SecretaryKatie Noel

Center for Survey Research, Indiana University

DirectorAshley Clark

Senior Research DirectorJohn Kennedy

Senior Associate Director of Research TechnologiesKevin Tharp

Director of Research TechnologiesJoe Wilkerson

Study DirectorHeather Terhune Marti

Senior Web ProgrammersJason FrancisBarb Gelwick

Funders

SNAAP exists due to the support of Surdna Foundation and other original funders.

Current Funding

Surdna FoundationEmily Hall Tremaine Foundation

Prior Funding

Surdna Foundation Houston EndowmentBarr FoundationNational Endowment for the ArtsCleveland FoundationEducational Foundation of America

10

National Advisory Board

Douglas Dempster, ChairDean, College of Fine Arts The University of Texas at AustinAustin, Texas

Antonia ControExecutive Director, MarwenChicago, Illinois

Sarah Bainter CunninghamExecutive Director of Research, School of the Arts, Virginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmond, Virginia

Kenneth C. FischerPresident, University Musical SocietyUniversity of MichiganAnn Arbor, Michigan

Aaron FlaggChair and Associate Director,Jazz Studies DepartmentThe Juilliard SchoolNew York, New York

Chris FordDirector, Baltimore School for the ArtsBaltimore, Maryland

Donna HeilandAssociate ProvostPratt InstituteBrooklyn, New York

Samuel HoiPresident, Maryland Institute College of Fine ArtsBaltimore, Maryland

Front Cover Photo Credits:Left and right: The University of Texas at AustinCenter: Institute of American Indian Arts

Laurence D. KaptainDean, College of Arts & MediaUniversity of Colorado DenverDenver, Colorado

Barbara O. KornerDean, College of Arts & ArchitectureThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity Park, Pennsylvania

Steven LavinePresidentCalArtsValencia, California

Ann R. Markusen Director, Arts Economy InitiativeHumphrey School of Public Affairs University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota

Raymond Tymas-JonesAssociate Vice President for the Arts and Dean,University of Utah College of Fine ArtsSalt Lake City, Utah

Section 2: Undergraduate Alumni Results

Data Highlights

Comparison Groups


Frequency Report

Alumni Comments



Module Report

• Excellent - 40%

•

•

•

32%

•

•

• 23%

• Clear writing 19%

• 22%

25%

23%

59%

• Very well - 20%

• Fairly well - 30%

• Not too well - 12% 6%

• Not well at all - 7%

• Did not pursue further education - 31%

15%

Teaching skills 13%

% Very Satisfied

22%

• Had serious conversations with students who are different

17% from themselves in terms of their ethnicity, religious

• Worked with an artist in the community - 70%

50% • Study abroad - 13%

• Internship - 33%

• Complete a portfolio - 84%

a Participated refers to those who responded "often", "sometimes", or "rarely" in question 15.

Freedom and encouragement to take risks

SNAAP 2016 Data Highlights

Sample University

Undergraduate Level

Academic advising

Advising about career or further

education11%

Alumni (n = 309) who did the following activities while at

Sample University:

Opportunities for degree-related

internships or work10%

Opportunities to work in different artistic

disciplines from their own46%

campus publications, student government, fraternity or

Instructors in classrooms, labs, and

studios53%

beliefs, political opinions, or personal values - 95%

Opportunities to network with alumni and

others10%

Opportunities to perform, exhibit, or

present their work29%

• Participated in co-curricular activities (organizations,

sorority, sports) - 62%

Opportunities to take non-arts classes

• Participated in community service - 67%

participateda in the following activities:

While enrolled at Sample University, alumni (n = 313)

very satisfied with these aspects of their time at

Sample University:

13% 17%Alumni (n = 330) reporting their level of satisfaction as

29%

13%

Probably no - 13%

13%

How well Sample University prepared alumni (n = 325) for

3% 51%

further education:

Definitely no - 5%

11%

2%

Project management skills

Technological skills

Artistic technique

Financial and business

management skills

2%

7%

Probably yes - 31%

9%

Research skillsUncertain - 23%

Alumni (n = 334) who would attend Sample University if they

could start over again:

59% 0%Creative thinking and problem

solving

Definitely yes - 28%

Improved work based on

feedback from others54% 1%

This Data Highlights Report features key findings based on your institutional data, including some information about different

subgroups of your alumni. More extensive information, including comparisons to other SNAAP institutions, can be found in the

Frequency Report. Throughout the Data Highlights, "n" refers to the number of alumni responding to a particular question. The

data for schools that participated in more than one year (2015 and 2016) have been combined.

Institutional Experiences Institutional Experiences (cont.)

How alumni (n = 335) rated their overall experience at

Sample University:

Alumni (n = 323) reporting Sample University helped them

develop the following skills and abilities:

Persuasive speaking

Good - 47%

54% 2%Fair - 12%

% Very

Much

% Not

at All

Critical thinking and analysis of

arguments and informationPoor - 2%

Broad knowledge and education

Entrepreneurial skills

21%

Interpersonal relations and

working collaboratively

Leadership skills

Networking and relationship

building

11%21%

45%

12

Alumni who have ever been a(n):

•

% Selected as •

Importantb• Unpaid intern (n = 301) - 36%

95%

95%

98%

90%

90%

88%

95%

95%

82%

81% •

77% •

•

•

91% • Family-related reasons - 19%

92% •

71%

• Debt (including student loans) - 45%

Alumni (n = 313) who: • Lack of social support from family and friends - 15%

• Currently work as a professional artist - 58%

•

• Never worked as a professional artist - 22%

Arts Fieldse

Alumni (n = 312) who: (n = 180)

• Currently work as a teacher of the arts - 22% 44%

• 54%

28%

• Never worked as a teacher of the arts - 49%

• Currently are self-employed - 44%

•

• Never have been self-employed - 21%

43%

•

•

• • Closely related - 41%

• • Somewhat related - 34%

• Not related - 25%

b Important refers to those who responded "very important" or "somewhat important" in question 31.

c Non-arts fields refers to occupational fields 24-44 listed in Appendix C of the Codebook.

d Respondents could select more than one response option.

e Arts fields refers to occupational fields 1-23 listed in Appendix C of the Codebook.

Job security

Alumni who are very satisfied with certain aspects of the

current job in which they spend the majority of their work

time:

Balance between work and

non-work life

41%

34%

Opportunity to contribute

to the greater good

Opportunity for career

advancement29% 28%

29%

23%Opportunity to be creative

Work reflects their values,

personality, and interests49% 35%

Overall job satisfaction 36%

Previously worked as a teacher of the arts

(but not currently) - 28%

Alumni (n = 310) who:

Previously have been self-employed


Those who currently spend a majority of their time in

non-arts fields (n = 85) and find their arts training at

Sample University:

Very relevant - 7%

Relevant - 18%

Somewhat relevant - 36%

Not at all relevant - 39%

Persuasive speaking

94%

Clear writing

Interpersonal relations and working

collaboratively




Financial and business management skills

Office and administrative support

Current location not conducive to artistic career - 22%

Change in interests - 19%

Artistic work not available - 47%

who are past artists, or intended to be artists and never

Reasonsd for not being an artist that were given by those

37

# of Alumnid

Paid intern (n = 306) - 26%

Education, training, and library

Networking and relationship building

Critical thinking and analysis of arguments

and information


Research skills

94%

Improved work based on feedback from others

Creative thinking and problem solving

Artistic technique were (n = 113):

Lack of access to important networks and

people - 42%Teaching skills

Leadership skills

Career Career (cont.)

Those who have ever worked (n = 308) said the following

Alumni who have worked directly after leaving Sample

University (n = 271) reporting how closely related their first

job was to their arts training:

Founder of a nonprofit or for-profit organization

(n = 304) - 15%

skills and abilities were important in their profession or work

life:

22Communications

Higher pay or steadier income in other fields - 53%

15

26%

38%

(n = 85)

45%

Previously worked as a professional artist


Non-arts Fieldsc

Income

The top non-arts occupational fieldsc in which alumni currently

work:

c

13

•

•

• •

• Good - 37% •

• Fair - 20% •

• Poor - 10% •

• Very poor - 5%

•

•

Not Artistsf •

(n = 121) •

•

•

% of Time % of Income

(n = 206) (n = 188)

Less than 25% 23% 46%

85% 77% 26% to 50% 22% 7%

51% to 75% 17% 9%

37% 37%

•

• loan debt on career or educational decisions:

• •

• •

• •

•

•

•

•

•


f Not currently professional artists are identified as those who did not select "yes, I do this currently" in question 25.

g Median income values are calculated using the midpoints of income ranges as values.

Major impact - 49%

Some impact - 31%

No impact - 20%

For those who acquired debt (n = 201), the impact of student

1997-2001 cohorts (n = 22) - $80,000

For professional artists in 2015, the percentage of work time

or income from work as a professional artist:

1987-1996 cohorts (n = 37) - $55,000

76% to 100%

1986 cohort and earlier (n = 54) - $75,000

1987-1996 cohorts (n = 33) - $85,000

2002-2006 cohorts (n = 31) - $35,000

2007-2011 cohorts (n = 39) - $25,000

2012-2016 cohorts (n = 71) - $15,000

2002-2006 cohorts (n = 30) - $65,000

2007-2011 cohorts (n = 37) - $55,000

2012-2016 cohorts (n = 65) - $25,000

Median household incomeg in 2015:

2002-2006 cohorts (n = 15) - 73%

Those not currently professional artistsf who make or perform

art in their personal (not work-related) time:

For those who make or perform art in their personal (not work-

related) time (n = 253), how frequently they do so:

1986 cohort and earlier (n = 30) - 87%

1987-1996 cohorts (n = 14) - 79%

1997-2001 cohorts (n = 11) - 64%

Current Artists

(n = 176)

Waysd in which alumni supported the arts in the past 12

months:

Donating money to an

arts organization or artist44%

Attending an arts event

Volunteering to teach the

arts20% 12%

Volunteering at an arts

organization

Serving on the board of

an arts organization

30% 21%

11% 7%

28%

Arts Engagement Income and Debt

1997-2001 cohorts (n = 23) - $45,000

How current professional artists (n = 172) rated the area

where they currently live and/or work as a place to pursue

their artistic career:

Very good - 28%

Median individual incomeg in 2015:


2007-2011 cohorts (n = 19) - 79%

2012-2016 cohorts (n = 34) - 94%

Several times a month - 32%

A few times a year or less - 17%

Daily - 23%

Several times a week - 28%

14

2016 Comparison Groups

Sample University

Undergraduate Level

Number of Institutions: 47

City State/Province

1. Alberta College of Art and Design Calgary Alberta2. Arizona State University Tempe Arizona3. Art Academy of Cincinnati Cincinnati Ohio4. Art Center College of Design Pasadena California5. Brigham Young University Provo Utah6. California College of the Arts San Francisco California7. California Institute of the Arts Valencia California8. College of Charleston Charleston South Carolina9. Columbus College of Art and Design Columbus Ohio10. Drexel University Philadelphia Pennsylvania11. Eckerd College Saint Petersburg Florida12. Emily Carr University of Art and Design Vancouver British Columbia13. Florida International University Miami Florida14. Kendall College of Art and Design of Ferris State University Big Rapids Michigan15. Maine College of Art Portland Maine16. Maryland Institute College of Art Baltimore Maryland17. Memphis College of Art Memphis Tennessee18. Messiah College Mechanicsburg Pennsylvania19. Metropolitan State University of Denver Denver Colorado20. Milwaukee Institute of Art and Design Milwaukee Wisconsin21. Minneapolis College of Art and Design Minneapolis Minnesota22. New Hampshire Institute of Art Manchester New Hampshire23. Northern State University Aberdeen South Dakota24. NSCAD University Halifax Nova Scotia25. OCAD University Toronto Ontario26. Pacific Northwest College of Art Portland Oregon27. Rhode Island School of Design Providence Rhode Island28. Ringling College of Art and Design Sarasota Florida29. San Diego State University San Diego California30. San Francisco Art Institute San Francisco California31. School of the Art Institute of Chicago Chicago Illinois32. School of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston Boston Massachusetts33. School of Visual Arts New York New York34. St. Cloud State University Saint Cloud Minnesota35. St. Olaf College Northfield Minnesota36. Texas Christian University, Art and Art History Fort Worth Texas37. University of Iowa Iowa City Iowa38. University of Montevallo Montevallo Alabama

Institution Name

2016 Comparison GroupsSample UniversityUndergraduate Level

Comparison Group 1 Institution Selection

Related MajorsCustomized by Institution

Group Name: Selection Method:

The SNAAP Institutional Report displays your institution’s results along with three comparison groups. Your institution had the option of selecting two comparison groups; those two groups could be pre-formed by SNAAP or created and named by your institution. You could select majors and institutions with which to compare your data from the 2015 and 2016 administrations. The third comparison group is composed of all SNAAP schools (all majors included) at the appropriate level (high school, undergraduate, or graduate). A complete list of institutions that participated in SNAAP in 2015 and 2016 can be found in Section 1.

16


City State/ProvinceInstitution Name




39. University of New Haven West Haven Connecticut40. University of New Mexico Albuquerque New Mexico41. University of North Carolina at Charlotte Charlotte North Carolina42. University of North Texas Denton Texas43. University of Saint Francis-Fort Wayne Fort Wayne Indiana44. University of Tennessee at Chattanooga Chattanooga Tennessee45. University of Texas at Austin Austin Texas46. University of Victoria Victoria British Columbia47. Utah State University Logan Utah

17

Number of Majors: 5

1. Art History, Theory, & Criticism2. Design & Visual Communications (general)3. Fine & Studio Art (general)4. Photography5. Printmaking

a SNAAP codes each institution's submitted majors into one of 96 standard arts majors. The majors listed above are those that were selected for this comparison group. For a complete listing of the SNAAP standard arts majors grouped by category, please refer to the Respondent Characteristics Report.

Selection Method: Customized by Institution

Majora

Comparison Group 1 Major Selection

Group Name: Related Majors

18


City State/Province

1. Alberta College of Art and Design Calgary Alberta2. Art Academy of Cincinnati Cincinnati Ohio3. Art Center College of Design Pasadena California4. California College of the Arts San Francisco California5. California Institute of the Arts Valencia California6. Columbus College of Art and Design Columbus Ohio7. Emily Carr University of Art and Design Vancouver British Columbia8. Maine College of Art Portland Maine9. Maryland Institute College of Art Baltimore Maryland10. Memphis College of Art Memphis Tennessee11. Milwaukee Institute of Art and Design Milwaukee Wisconsin12. Minneapolis College of Art and Design Minneapolis Minnesota13. New Hampshire Institute of Art Manchester New Hampshire14. NSCAD University Halifax Nova Scotia15. OCAD University Toronto Ontario16. Pacific Northwest College of Art Portland Oregon17. Rhode Island School of Design Providence Rhode Island18. Ringling College of Art and Design Sarasota Florida19. San Francisco Art Institute San Francisco California20. School of the Art Institute of Chicago Chicago Illinois21. School of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston Boston Massachusetts22. School of Visual Arts New York New York23. University of New Haven West Haven Connecticut


Institution Name

2016 Comparison GroupsSample UniversityUndergraduate Level


Group Name: Art & Design Peers

19

Number of Majors: 53

1. Advertising Art & Design 46. Photography2. Animation 47. Printmaking3. Architecture (general) 48. Public/Social Practice4. Art Education 49. Recording Arts5. Art History, Theory, & Criticism 50. Sculpture6. Art Therapy 51. Sonic/Sound Art7. Arts Administration (general) 52. Time-Based Media8. Book Arts 53. Urban Design9. Ceramics10. Communication Arts11. Computer Art/Digital Arts12. Costume Design13. Creative Writing14. Curatorial/Museum Studies15. Design & Visual Communications (general)16. Drawing17. Environmental Design18. Fashion Design19. Fibers/Textiles20. Film/Cinema/Video21. Fine & Studio Art (general)22. Furniture/Wood23. Game Art/Game Design24. Glass25. Graphic Design26. Historic Preservation27. Illustration28. Individualized Major29. Industrial & Product Design30. Interactive Media31. Interdisciplinary Major32. Interior Architecture33. Interior Design34. Landscape Architecture35. Media Arts (General)36. Metals/Jewelry/Enameling37. New Genres/Performance38. Other Architecture39. Other Arts40. Other Arts Administration41. Other Craft42. Other Design43. Other Fine & Studio Art44. Other Media Arts45. Painting



Group Name: Art & Design PeersSelection Method: Customized by Institution

Majora

20

2016 Respondent Characteristics

Sample University

Undergraduate Level

Sampling Information

Total population size

Sample size (with e-mails)

Sample size (adjusted)a

Number of respondentsb

Response ratec

Sampling errord

Respondent Characteristicse Variable Count % Count % Count % Count %

Cohort (year graduated) cohort_R

1986 and before 90 26% 2,252 24% 3,223 21% 12,049 26%

1987-1996 45 13% 1,514 16% 2,574 17% 7,460 16%

1997-2001 29 8% 1,047 11% 1,546 10% 4,737 10%

2002-2006 43 12% 1,342 14% 2,108 14% 6,137 13%

2007-2011 55 16% 1,669 17% 2,837 19% 8,071 17%

2012-2016 87 25% 1,725 18% 2,929 19% 8,484 18%

Gender Identity gender_id

Man 117 39% 2,485 31% 4,912 39% 14,367 37%

Woman 168 56% 5,260 66% 7,230 57% 23,964 61%

Another gender identity 4 1% 39 0% 101 1% 197 1%

I prefer not to respond 9 3% 203 3% 348 3% 693 2%

Age age_R

24 or younger 30 11% 500 6% 979 8% 2,774 7%

25 to 29 41 14% 1,185 15% 2,005 16% 6,089 16%

30 to 39 67 24% 2,022 26% 3,097 25% 9,383 24%

40 to 49 51 18% 1,422 18% 2,268 18% 6,718 17%

50 to 59 32 11% 1,223 16% 2,065 17% 6,345 16%

60 or older 63 22% 1,454 19% 1,850 15% 7,150 19%

Marital Status marital

Single (never married) 115 39% 2,520 32% 4,557 37% 12,480 32%

Married or domestic partner 136 46% 4,527 57% 6,725 54% 22,610 58%

Divorced/Separated 36 12% 746 9% 1,032 8% 3,227 8%

Widowed 8 3% 145 2% 168 1% 686 2%

Number of Dependents children

0 200 75% 5,081 70% 8,106 71% 24,960 69%

1 35 13% 972 13% 1,531 13% 4,695 13%

2 26 10% 864 12% 1,347 12% 4,501 12%

3 or more 5 2% 369 5% 371 3% 2,137 6%

respondents on the survey measures. Such differences are unknown, so caution is advised when interpreting and drawing conclusions from the results. The sampling

error reported here represents all respondents. Individual questions may have different sampling errors based on those who respond to the question.e Count and percent of total respondents within each category. The data for schools that participated in more than one year (2015 and 2016) have been combined.

a Sample size is adjusted for alumni with undeliverable e-mail addresses.

b Includes those who both fully and partially completed the questionnaire.

c Response rate is the number of respondents divided by adjusted sample size. For those with multiple reports, response rates by level/major are based on school-

d Sampling error is an estimate of the margin by which the true response on a given item could differ from the reported response. To interpret the sampling error,

assume that 60% of your alumni reply "very satisfied" to a particular item. If the sampling error is +/-5%, then the true population value is most likely between

55% and 65%. Results may still not represent "true" values for all alumni when response rate is very low and nonrespondents are markedly different than

reported information (if available). Alumni for whom major was not provided are not included in response rates or reports (except reports that include all majors).

5.0% 0.9% 0.8% 0.4%

342 9,606 15,223 47,048

19% 17% 17% 16%

2,257 63,679 100,238 325,053

1,846 56,676 90,249 295,527

3,593 97,151 141,378 477,310

SNAAP 2016 Respondent Characteristics

Sample University

Undergraduate Level

Undergraduate Level

Sample

UniversityRelated Majors

Art & Design

Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

22

Respondent Characteristics (continued)e Variable Count % Count % Count % Count %

parentedu

Did not finish high school 10 3% 208 3% 353 4% 1,043 3%

Graduated from high school or equivalent 65 22% 918 14% 1,550 16% 5,393 15%

Attended college but did not complete a degree 38 13% 636 10% 885 9% 3,246 9%

Completed an associate's degree (AA, AS, etc.) 22 7% 386 6% 625 6% 2,265 6%

Completed a bachelor's degree (BA, BS, etc.) 75 25% 1,979 31% 3,095 31% 10,952 30%

Completed a master's degree (MA, MS, etc.) 54 18% 1,495 23% 2,215 22% 8,568 24%

Completed a doctoral degree (PhD, JD, MD, etc.) 32 11% 853 13% 1,228 12% 4,553 13%

Race/Ethnicityf,g

American Indian or Alaska Native race_amerind 8 3% 121 2% 144 1% 644 2%

Asian (including Indian subcontinent) race_asian 20 7% 323 5% 1,024 10% 1,838 5%

Black or African American race_blck 13 4% 128 2% 262 3% 1,015 3%

Hispanic or Latino race_hisp 16 5% 457 7% 567 6% 1,891 5%

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander race_haw 2 1% 31 0% 58 1% 162 0%

White race_white 250 86% 5,469 86% 7,915 81% 30,849 87%

Other race_oth 12 4% 221 3% 429 4% 1,034 3%

U.S. Citizen (while at institution)f citizen 284 96% 6,211 96% 9,148 92% 34,697 96%

Type of Device Used for Survey device

PC 66 19% 2,475 26% 3,247 21% 14,303 30%

Mac 176 50% 4,260 44% 7,947 52% 18,272 39%

Smart Phone 88 25% 2,194 23% 3,189 21% 11,257 24%

Tablet 14 4% 601 6% 772 5% 2,700 6%

ReportArtsMajor

Architecture

Architecture (general) 0 0% 0 0% 277 2% 836 2%

Interior Architecture 0 0% 0 0% 101 1% 103 0%

Landscape Architecture 0 0% 0 0% 14 0% 269 1%

Other Architecture 0 0% 0 0% 1 0% 3 0%

Art History

Art History, Theory, & Criticism 3 1% 951 10% 84 1% 1,611 3%

Curatorial/Museum Studies 0 0% 0 0% 3 0% 41 0%

Exhibition Design 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Arts Administration

Arts Administration (general) 0 0% 0 0% 3 0% 178 0%

Music Business 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 109 0%

Performing Arts Management 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 0%

Theater Management 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 38 0%

Other Arts Administration 0 0% 0 0% 7 0% 7 0%

h Arts Major is the arts major reported by the participating SNAAP school in the alumni file, coded into one of the 96 standard SNAAP arts majors. When no arts

major was provided for an alumna(us), the survey response to maj1 (or maj2 if no arts major was provided in maj1) was used (see Codebook).

g The count and percent of alumni who selected that race/ethnicity. Alumni could select more than one category, so percentages may not equal 100%.


Sample University

Undergraduate Level

Undergraduate Level

Sample University Related MajorsArt & Design

Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Parent Educationf

Arts Majorh

e Count and percent of total respondents within each category.

f Alumni from Canadian institutions did not receive this option/question.

23


ReportArtsMajor

Arts Education (Art, Dance, Drama, Music)

Art Education 0 0% 0 0% 136 1% 662 1%

Dance Education 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 67 0%

Drama Education 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 91 0%

Music Education 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2,186 5%

Other Arts Education 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Craft

Book Arts 0 0% 0 0% 3 0% 3 0%

Ceramics 0 0% 0 0% 191 1% 259 1%

Fibers/Textiles 0 0% 0 0% 290 2% 328 1%

Furniture/Wood 0 0% 0 0% 82 1% 107 0%

Glass 0 0% 0 0% 66 0% 79 0%

Metals/Jewelry/Enameling 0 0% 0 0% 155 1% 189 0%

Other Craft 0 0% 0 0% 43 0% 331 1%

Creative Writing

Creative Writing 0 0% 0 0% 27 0% 377 1%

Dance

Dance (general) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 784 2%

Ballet 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 57 0%

Modern Dance 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 74 0%

Other Dance 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 31 0%

Design

Design & Visual Communications (general) 79 23% 1,019 11% 684 4% 1,378 3%

Advertising Art & Design 0 0% 0 0% 424 3% 481 1%

Environmental Design 0 0% 0 0% 167 1% 186 0%

Fashion Design 0 0% 0 0% 179 1% 630 1%

Graphic Design 0 0% 0 0% 2,033 13% 3,056 7%

Illustration 0 0% 0 0% 1,812 12% 2,088 4%

Industrial & Product Design 0 0% 0 0% 959 6% 1,122 2%

Interior Design 0 0% 0 0% 156 1% 793 2%

Urban Design 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 12 0%

Other Design 0 0% 0 0% 48 0% 134 0%

Fine & Studio Art

Fine & Studio Art (general) 115 33% 6,001 62% 2,770 18% 8,882 19%

Drawing 0 0% 0 0% 361 2% 443 1%

Painting 0 0% 0 0% 785 5% 1,458 3%

Printmaking 37 11% 279 3% 251 2% 307 1%

Sculpture 0 0% 0 0% 342 2% 578 1%

Other Fine & Studio Art 0 0% 0 0% 166 1% 231 0%



Arts Majorh

(continued)



Sample University

Undergraduate Level

Undergraduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

24


ReportArtsMajor

Media Arts

Media Arts (general) 0 0% 0 0% 176 1% 459 1%

Animation 0 0% 0 0% 313 2% 456 1%

Communication Arts 0 0% 0 0% 6 0% 408 1%

Computer Art/Digital Arts 0 0% 0 0% 237 2% 293 1%

Film/Cinema/Video 0 0% 0 0% 440 3% 1,138 2%

Game Art/Game Design 0 0% 0 0% 15 0% 26 0%

Interactive Media 0 0% 0 0% 90 1% 131 0%

Photography 115 33% 1,380 14% 1,155 8% 1,493 3%

Screenwriting 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 17 0%

Sonic/Sound Art 0 0% 0 0% 10 0% 10 0%

Telecommunications 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 4 0%

Television & Radio 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 125 0%

Time-Based Media 0 0% 0 0% 64 0% 64 0%

Other Media Arts 0 0% 0 0% 47 0% 153 0%

Music

Music (general) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3,393 7%

Brass 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 173 0%

Choral 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 14 0%

Church/Sacred Music 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 28 0%

Guitar 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 29 0%

Instrumental Conducting 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 0%

Jazz Studies 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 145 0%

Keyboard 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 244 1%

Musicology & Ethnomusicology 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 52 0%

Music Composition & Theory 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 310 1%

Percussion 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 44 0%

Recording Arts 0 0% 0 0% 29 0% 112 0%

Strings 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 278 1%

Voice 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 393 1%

Woodwinds 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 251 1%

Other Music Performance 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 626 1%

Theater

Theater (general) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3,290 7%

Acting 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 459 1%

Costume Design 0 0% 0 0% 9 0% 71 0%

Lighting Design 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 38 0%

Musical Theater 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 117 0%

Playwriting 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 30 0%

Scenic Design 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 138 0%



Arts Majorh

(continued)



Sample University

Undergraduate Level

Undergraduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

25


ReportArtsMajor

Theater (continued)

Stage Management 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 91 0%

Theater Directing 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 51 0%

Theater History & Literature 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 25 0%

Theater Technology 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 236 1%

Other Theater 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 89 0%

Other Arts

Art Therapy 0 0% 0 0% 1 0% 1 0%

Culinary Arts 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 0%

Historic Preservation 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 66 0%

Individualized Major 0 0% 0 0% 54 0% 58 0%

Interdisciplinary Major 0 0% 0 0% 16 0% 275 1%

Music Therapy 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 106 0%

New Genres/Performance 0 0% 0 0% 3 0% 27 0%

Public/Social Practice 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Other Arts 0 0% 0 0% 32 0% 342 1%



Arts Majorh

(continued)



Sample University

Undergraduate Level

Undergraduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

26

2016 Frequency Report

Sample University

Undergraduate Level

Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count %

part_none I have not supported the arts in the past 12 months 95 86% 256 76% 382 84% 1,206 80%

part_vol Volunteered at an arts organization 45 41% 56 17% 76 17% 345 23%

part_brd Served on the board of an arts organization 33 30% 98 29% 107 23% 556 37%

part_tch Volunteered to teach the arts 56 51% 93 28% 98 21% 523 35%

part_donate Donated money to an arts organization or an artist 83 75% 255 76% 273 60% 980 65%

part_attd Attended an arts event 48 44% 38 11% 112 25% 681 45%

part_oth Other 22 20% 67 20% 89 19% 178 12%

Totalb

- - - - - - - -Do not make or perform art in personal time 111 23% 272 20% 215 36% 525 24%

A few times a year or less 25 5% 74 5% 43 7% 129 6%

Several times a month 44 9% 92 7% 52 9% 158 7%

Several times a week 107 22% 372 27% 103 17% 524 24%

Daily 206 42% 563 41% 184 31% 828 38%

Total 493 100% 1,373 100% 597 100% 2,164 100%

Understanding the Frequency ReportThe Frequency Report contains questions with fixed response options. For more detailed information, the Codebook contains a complete

list of variables, survey questions, response options, and the logic used to determine which alumni received each question.

SNAAP 2016 Frequency Report • Arts EngagementSample Institution

Undergraduate Level

Undergraduate Level

Sample

Institution

Comparison

Group 1

Comparison

Group 2

SNAAP

Aggregate

41. The ways in which you

have supported the arts in the

past 12 months (other than

performing, creating, or

exhibiting your own artwork)

44. About how often do you

practice art in your personal

(not work-related) time?c

tmpractice

Comparison Groups The number and percentage of alumni at all institutions in each of the three comparison groups. The first two columns are selected groups and the third is all SNAAP schools at this level. You were allowed to select institutions from the 2015 and 2016 SNAAP administrations. All three comparison groups exclude your alumni. For more details regarding institutions included in each column, see your "Comparison Group" Report.

Topic Area Each section represents a different topic area of the SNAAP Questionnaire.

Your Respondents The number and percentage of your alumni selecting a certain response for each

question. The data for schools that participated in more than one year (2015 and 2016) have been combined.

Variable

These variable names are labels assigned to each survey question in the data set. The variable name allows easy reference to the Codebook, which includes each variable name, the complete questions asked, the response options available, and the logic determining which alumni received each question.

Questions An abbreviated version of the questions on the SNAAP Questionnaire.

Response Options Response options for each particular question.

Dashes For questions where alumni could check more than one response option, dashes are used because percentages can total more than 100%.

Italicized Response Options Due to the dynamic nature of the SNAAP Questionnaire, not all alumni received every question. This italicized line (or lines) indicates the number and percentage of alumni who did not receive the question and why they did not receive it. For more detailed information on why they did not receive each item, please see the Codebook.

Education Level Your report is representative of a specific education level (High School, Undergraduate, or Graduate).

Skipped Numbers This indicates open-ended questions which can be found in the "Alumni Comments" Report or demographic items found on the "Respondent Characteristics" Report.

How to Interpret Percentages All percentages are presented as the percent of all alumni at a given education level, including those that did not receive the question. For example, here we might say that 9% of all Sample Institution's undergraduate alumni practice art in their personal time several times a month. This includes the 23% that did not receive the question because they do not make or perform art in their personal time. Frequencies for some questions (marked with footnote "c") have been reproduced with only those respondents who received the question. These can be found in the "Data Highlights" Report.

28

Undergraduate Level


instdeg_hs High School Diploma 39 11% 825 11% 1,368 11% 4,463 10%

instdeg_Cert Certificate 6 2% 335 4% 463 4% 1,760 4%

instdeg_Assoc Associate Degree 4 1% 90 1% 147 1% 536 1%

instdeg_BA BA 22 6% 2,501 32% 1,220 10% 12,808 30%

instdeg_BArch B Arch 0 0% 12 0% 295 2% 750 2%

instdeg_BFA BFA 324 93% 4,970 64% 9,980 83% 20,614 48%

instdeg_BM BM or B Mus 0 0% 1 0% 1 0% 5,177 12%

instdeg_BS BS 0 0% 293 4% 432 4% 3,902 9%

instdeg_othUG Other undergraduate degree 0 0% 109 1% 160 1% 774 2%

instdeg_AD Artist Diploma 6 2% 193 2% 309 3% 505 1%

instdeg_MA MA 3 1% 164 2% 86 1% 893 2%

instdeg_MArch M Arch 0 0% 14 0% 11 0% 50 0%

instdeg_MFA MFA 10 3% 129 2% 164 1% 515 1%

instdeg_MM MM or M Mus 0 0% 2 0% 0 0% 447 1%

instdeg_DMA DMA 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 41 0%

instdeg_PhD PhD 0 0% 21 0% 4 0% 102 0%

instdeg_othGR Other graduate degree 2 1% 208 3% 136 1% 1,167 3%

Totalb - - - - - - - -

SNAAP 2016 Frequency Report • EducationSample University

Undergraduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

1. Degree(s) or credential(s) pursued at this institutiona

aAlumni from Canadian institutions did not receive this option/question

bTotal may not sum to 100% as respondents could select more than one category.

29

Undergraduate Level



Undergraduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

No 5 1% 222 2% 428 3% 760 2%

Yes 339 99% 9,030 98% 14,266 97% 44,507 98%

Total 344 100% 9,252 100% 14,694 100% 45,267 100%

aftdeg_none Did not pursue any degrees after time at this institution 166 50% 3,455 49% 6,710 61% 19,355 49%

aftdeg_Cert Certificate 36 11% 950 13% 1,149 11% 5,064 13%

aftdeg_Assoc Associate Degree 6 2% 105 1% 115 1% 510 1%

aftdeg_BA BA 3 1% 119 2% 113 1% 594 2%

aftdeg_BArch B Arch 0 0% 8 0% 16 0% 53 0%

aftdeg_BFA BFA 14 4% 255 4% 469 4% 900 2%

aftdeg_BM BM or B Mus 0 0% 2 0% 2 0% 154 0%

aftdeg_BS BS 2 1% 88 1% 93 1% 522 1%

aftdeg_othUG Other undergraduate degree 0 0% 58 1% 70 1% 279 1%

aftdeg_AD Artist Diploma 0 0% 40 1% 61 1% 204 1%

aftdeg_MA MA 28 9% 749 11% 575 5% 3,820 10%

aftdeg_MArch M Arch 2 1% 77 1% 66 1% 315 1%

aftdeg_MBA MBA 3 1% 144 2% 149 1% 865 2%

aftdeg_MFA MFA 67 20% 902 13% 1,189 11% 3,174 8%

aftdeg_MM MM or M Mus 0 0% 5 0% 4 0% 2,020 5%

aftdeg_MS MS 6 2% 237 3% 241 2% 1,450 4%

aftdeg_DMA DMA 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 404 1%

aftdeg_JD JD 1 0% 63 1% 28 0% 495 1%

aftdeg_MD MD or DO 0 0% 11 0% 4 0% 123 0%

aftdeg_PhD PhD 6 2% 138 2% 114 1% 948 2%

aftdeg_othGR Other graduate degree 12 4% 473 7% 454 4% 2,641 7%

Totalb - - - - - - - -

4. Did you complete your undergraduate degree pursued

at this institution?

compinstdeg

5. Degrees or credentials pursued after your time at this

institutiona



30

Undergraduate Level



Undergraduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

compaftCert Did not pursue any degrees after time at this institution 164 50% 3,428 48% 6,679 61% 19,025 49%

Did not pursue a certificate 127 38% 2,686 38% 3,059 28% 14,695 38%

No 7 2% 201 3% 298 3% 1,030 3%

Yes 28 8% 716 10% 856 8% 3,879 10%

In progress 5 2% 88 1% 135 1% 443 1%

Total 331 100% 7,119 100% 11,027 100% 39,072 100%

Did not pursue any degrees after time at this institution 164 50% 3,428 48% 6,679 61% 19,025 49%

Did not pursue an associate degree 157 48% 3,520 49% 4,085 37% 19,190 49%

No 4 1% 111 2% 176 2% 519 1%

Yes 4 1% 67 1% 78 1% 340 1%

In progress 1 0% 17 0% 19 0% 69 0%

Total 330 100% 7,143 100% 11,037 100% 39,143 100%


Did not pursue a BA 160 48% 3,507 49% 4,086 37% 19,111 49%

No 3 1% 121 2% 190 2% 592 2%

Yes 4 1% 80 1% 79 1% 443 1%

In progress 0 0% 12 0% 11 0% 39 0%

Total 331 100% 7,148 100% 11,045 100% 39,210 100%


Did not pursue a B Arch 163 49% 3,617 51% 4,182 38% 19,640 50%

No 3 1% 85 1% 159 1% 433 1%

Yes 0 0% 5 0% 12 0% 36 0%

In progress 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 0%

Total 330 100% 7,135 100% 11,032 100% 39,137 100%

6.3. BA compaftBA

6. Did you complete this degree pursued after your time

at this institution?a

6.1. Certificate

6.2. Associate Degree compaftAssoc

6.4. B Arch compaftBArch



31

Undergraduate Level



Undergraduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions


Did not pursue a BFA 149 45% 3,375 47% 3,739 34% 18,814 48%

No 6 2% 139 2% 280 3% 641 2%

Yes 9 3% 199 3% 358 3% 696 2%

In progress 1 0% 5 0% 6 0% 20 0%

Total 329 100% 7,146 100% 11,062 100% 39,196 100%


Did not pursue a BM or B Mus 163 49% 3,623 51% 4,196 38% 19,539 50%

No 3 1% 84 1% 156 1% 436 1%

Yes 0 0% 1 0% 1 0% 122 0%

In progress 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 4 0%

Total 330 100% 7,136 100% 11,032 100% 39,126 100%

compaftBS Did not pursue any degrees after time at this institution 164 50% 3,428 48% 6,679 61% 19,025 49%

Did not pursue a BS 161 49% 3,537 50% 4,106 37% 19,178 49%

No 4 1% 99 1% 177 2% 524 1%

Yes 0 0% 57 1% 65 1% 337 1%

In progress 1 0% 16 0% 8 0% 79 0%

Total 330 100% 7,137 100% 11,035 100% 39,143 100%


Did not pursue another undergraduate degree 163 49% 3,568 50% 4,129 37% 19,421 50%

No 3 1% 101 1% 172 2% 471 1%

Yes 0 0% 33 0% 43 0% 172 0%

In progress 0 0% 6 0% 7 0% 29 0%

Total 330 100% 7,136 100% 11,030 100% 39,118 100%


at this institution? (continued)a

6.5. BFA

compaftBFA

6.6. BM or B Mus compaftBM

6.7. BS

6.8. Other undergraduate degree compaftothUG



32

Undergraduate Level



Undergraduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions


Did not pursue an Artist Diploma 163 49% 3,586 50% 4,139 38% 19,492 50%

No 3 1% 90 1% 162 1% 436 1%

Yes 0 0% 25 0% 34 0% 140 0%

In progress 0 0% 1 0% 3 0% 9 0%

Total 330 100% 7,130 100% 11,017 100% 39,102 100%


Did not pursue an MA 135 41% 2,879 40% 3,624 33% 15,906 41%

No 7 2% 182 3% 232 2% 928 2%

Yes 22 7% 535 8% 415 4% 2,782 7%

In progress 2 1% 95 1% 71 1% 428 1%

Total 330 100% 7,119 100% 11,021 100% 39,069 100%


Did not pursue an M Arch 161 49% 3,548 50% 4,132 37% 19,381 50%

No 3 1% 92 1% 162 1% 442 1%

Yes 1 0% 54 1% 43 0% 223 1%

In progress 0 0% 7 0% 8 0% 31 0%

Total 329 100% 7,129 100% 11,024 100% 39,102 100%


Did not pursue an MBA 160 48% 3,482 49% 4,049 37% 18,836 48%

No 4 1% 113 2% 183 2% 554 1%

Yes 2 1% 87 1% 97 1% 534 1%

In progress 0 0% 24 0% 15 0% 132 0%

Total 330 100% 7,134 100% 11,023 100% 39,081 100%

6.10. MA compaftMA



6.9. Artist Diploma

compaftAD

6.11. M Arch compaftMArch

6.12. MBA compaftMBA



33

Undergraduate Level



Undergraduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions


Did not pursue an MFA 96 29% 2,724 38% 3,012 27% 16,534 42%

No 12 4% 215 3% 315 3% 833 2%

Yes 38 12% 613 9% 805 7% 2,163 6%

In progress 16 5% 108 2% 147 1% 375 1%

Total 326 100% 7,088 100% 10,958 100% 38,930 100%


Did not pursue an MM or M Mus 163 49% 3,620 51% 4,194 38% 17,694 45%

No 3 1% 85 1% 154 1% 666 2%

Yes 0 0% 2 0% 1 0% 1,453 4%

In progress 0 0% 1 0% 0 0% 174 0%

Total 330 100% 7,136 100% 11,028 100% 39,012 100%


Did not pursue an MS 157 48% 3,388 48% 3,957 36% 18,262 47%

No 4 1% 106 1% 177 2% 547 1%

Yes 3 1% 170 2% 169 2% 1,076 3%

In progress 2 1% 36 1% 43 0% 192 0%

Total 330 100% 7,128 100% 11,025 100% 39,102 100%


Did not pursue a DMA 163 49% 3,625 51% 4,198 38% 19,292 49%

No 3 1% 81 1% 153 1% 464 1%

Yes 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 254 1%

In progress 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 66 0%

Total 330 100% 7,134 100% 11,030 100% 39,101 100%



6.13. MFA

compaftMFA

6.14. MM or M Mus compaftMM

6.15. MS compaftMS

6.16. DMA compaftDMA



34

Undergraduate Level



Undergraduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions


Did not pursue a JD 162 49% 3,565 50% 4,172 38% 19,205 49%

No 3 1% 90 1% 159 1% 448 1%

Yes 1 0% 41 1% 15 0% 362 1%

In progress 0 0% 10 0% 4 0% 53 0%

Total 330 100% 7,134 100% 11,029 100% 39,093 100%


Did not pursue an MD or DO 163 49% 3,614 51% 4,195 38% 19,571 50%

No 3 1% 81 1% 153 1% 406 1%

Yes 0 0% 8 0% 2 0% 80 0%

In progress 0 0% 2 0% 1 0% 31 0%

Total 330 100% 7,133 100% 11,030 100% 39,113 100%


Did not pursue a PhD 157 48% 3,488 49% 4,084 37% 18,748 48%

No 3 1% 95 1% 164 1% 532 1%

Yes 2 1% 75 1% 59 1% 549 1%

In progress 4 1% 43 1% 42 0% 245 1%

Total 330 100% 7,129 100% 11,028 100% 39,099 100%


Did not pursue another graduate degree 151 46% 3,154 44% 3,744 34% 17,088 44%

No 4 1% 122 2% 176 2% 658 2%

Yes 10 3% 337 5% 348 3% 1,911 5%

In progress 1 0% 84 1% 76 1% 381 1%

Total 330 100% 7,125 100% 11,023 100% 39,063 100%


No 34 10% 1,446 16% 1,467 11% 7,420 17%

Yes 129 39% 3,125 36% 4,164 30% 14,453 34%

Total 329 100% 8,798 100% 13,866 100% 42,992 100%

7. Was this degree from after your time at this institution

arts-related?

artaft_R

6.20. Other graduate degree compaftothGR



6.17. JD

compaftJD

6.18. MD or DO compaftMD

6.19. PhD compaftPhD



35

Undergraduate Level


Poor 6 2% 129 1% 253 2% 596 1%

Fair 39 12% 758 8% 1,281 9% 3,338 8%

Good 157 47% 3,861 43% 5,858 41% 17,027 39%

Excellent 133 40% 4,315 48% 7,032 49% 23,019 52%

Total 335 100% 9,063 100% 14,424 100% 43,980 100%

Definitely no 17 5% 270 3% 507 4% 1,172 3%

Probably no 43 13% 772 9% 1,246 9% 3,358 8%

Uncertain 76 23% 1,351 15% 2,210 15% 5,936 13%

Probably yes 104 31% 2,944 32% 4,496 31% 14,010 32%

Definitely yes 94 28% 3,738 41% 5,983 41% 19,551 44%

Total 334 100% 9,075 100% 14,442 100% 44,027 100%

Not at all 53 16% 1,232 14% 2,011 14% 5,114 12%

Very little 116 35% 2,902 32% 4,845 34% 13,054 30%

Some 123 37% 3,652 40% 5,765 40% 18,761 43%

Very much 43 13% 1,280 14% 1,817 13% 7,114 16%

Total 335 100% 9,066 100% 14,438 100% 44,043 100%

No 91 28% 1,510 17% 2,592 18% 6,328 14%

Yes 238 72% 7,463 83% 11,723 82% 37,421 86%

Total 329 100% 8,973 100% 14,315 100% 43,749 100%

Very dissatisfied 28 8% 520 6% 735 5% 1,860 4%

Somewhat dissatisfied 51 15% 1,151 13% 1,842 13% 4,493 10%

Somewhat satisfied 150 45% 3,645 41% 5,890 42% 16,289 38%

Very satisfied 95 29% 2,925 33% 5,141 36% 18,585 43%

Not relevant 6 2% 666 7% 565 4% 2,122 5%

Total 330 100% 8,907 100% 14,173 100% 43,349 100%

SNAAP 2016 Frequency Report • Institutional Experiences


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Undergraduate Level

Sample University

9. Overall, how would you rate your experience at this

institution while pursuing your undergraduate degree?

instexp

10. If you could start over again, would you attend this

institution?

sameinst

12. Would you recommend this institution to another

student like you?

recinst

instperform

11. Since leaving, how connected do you feel to this

institution?

instcon

13. At this institution, satisfaction with:

13.1. Opportunities to perform, exhibit, or

present your work

36

Undergraduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Undergraduate Level

Sample University


Somewhat dissatisfied 33 10% 960 11% 1,903 14% 5,882 14%


Very satisfied 152 46% 3,820 43% 5,727 41% 15,210 35%

Not relevant 9 3% 576 7% 500 4% 3,662 9%

Total 327 100% 8,850 100% 14,082 100% 43,036 100%

Very dissatisfied 29 9% 438 5% 1,138 8% 1,917 4%



Very satisfied 73 22% 3,744 42% 3,404 24% 18,520 43%

Not relevant 32 10% 731 8% 1,570 11% 3,069 7%

Total 326 100% 8,831 100% 14,035 100% 43,043 100%

Very dissatisfied 9 3% 202 2% 311 2% 923 2%



Very satisfied 174 53% 4,784 54% 7,612 54% 23,815 55%

Not relevant 0 0% 44 0% 59 0% 206 0%

Total 327 100% 8,876 100% 14,100 100% 43,175 100%

Very dissatisfied 48 15% 1,288 15% 1,986 14% 5,421 13%



Very satisfied 56 17% 1,882 21% 2,806 20% 10,761 25%

Not relevant 18 6% 458 5% 819 6% 1,920 4%

Total 327 100% 8,848 100% 14,071 100% 43,142 100%

instadisc

instclass

13. At this institution, satisfaction with: (continued)

13.2. Opportunities to work in different artistic

disciplines from your own

13.3. Opportunities to take non-arts classes

13.4. Instructors in classrooms, labs, and studios

13.5. Academic advising

instlab

instacad

37

Undergraduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Undergraduate Level

Sample University




Very satisfied 37 11% 946 11% 1,691 12% 6,493 15%

Not relevant 17 5% 598 7% 869 6% 2,331 5%

Total 328 100% 8,835 100% 14,040 100% 43,049 100%




Very satisfied 33 10% 1,197 14% 2,104 15% 7,633 18%

Not relevant 33 10% 1,073 12% 1,408 10% 4,855 11%

Total 325 100% 8,845 100% 14,059 100% 43,076 100%




Very satisfied 31 10% 982 11% 2,119 15% 6,509 15%

Not relevant 33 10% 934 11% 965 7% 4,069 9%

Total 324 100% 8,802 100% 13,985 100% 42,899 100%




Very satisfied 161 50% 3,833 43% 6,823 49% 17,676 41%

Not relevant 7 2% 322 4% 336 2% 1,875 4%

Total 325 100% 8,832 100% 14,043 100% 42,992 100%

13.9. Freedom and encouragement to take

risks

instfreedom

instnetwk13.8. Opportunities to network with alumni and

others

instintn13.7. Opportunities for degree-related internships

or work

instcareer13. At this institution, satisfaction with: (continued)

13.6. Advising about career or further

education

38

Undergraduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Undergraduate Level

Sample University

Not well at all 24 7% 385 4% 594 4% 1,409 3%

Not too well 39 12% 901 10% 1,354 10% 3,443 8%

Fairly well 97 30% 2,270 26% 3,137 22% 10,385 24%

Very well 65 20% 2,336 26% 3,054 22% 12,862 30%

Did not pursue further education 100 31% 2,962 33% 5,950 42% 15,089 35%

Total 325 100% 8,854 100% 14,089 100% 43,188 100%

Not at all 5 2% 191 2% 333 2% 934 2%

Very little 27 8% 644 7% 1,126 8% 3,611 8%

Some 117 36% 3,220 37% 4,903 35% 16,570 39%

Very much 174 54% 4,715 54% 7,562 54% 21,541 50%

Total 323 100% 8,770 100% 13,924 100% 42,656 100%

Not at all 7 2% 122 1% 288 2% 596 1%

Very little 46 14% 731 8% 1,810 13% 3,496 8%

Some 165 51% 3,663 42% 6,796 49% 17,401 41%

Very much 103 32% 4,193 48% 4,931 36% 20,903 49%

Total 321 100% 8,709 100% 13,825 100% 42,396 100%

Not at all 3 1% 128 1% 156 1% 548 1%

Very little 27 8% 671 8% 777 6% 2,989 7%

Some 116 36% 3,169 36% 4,247 31% 14,981 35%

Very much 174 54% 4,767 55% 8,697 63% 24,004 56%

Total 320 100% 8,735 100% 13,877 100% 42,522 100%

Not at all 0 0% 82 1% 131 1% 485 1%

Very little 21 7% 423 5% 514 4% 2,377 6%

Some 110 34% 2,678 31% 3,465 25% 13,152 31%

Very much 191 59% 5,552 64% 9,764 70% 26,502 62%

Total 322 100% 8,735 100% 13,874 100% 42,516 100%

14. How well did this institution prepare you for your

further education?

edprep

15. How much this institution helped you acquire or

develop:

15.1. Critical thinking and analysis of

arguments and information

instanaly

15.2. Broad knowledge and education instbroad

15.3. Improved work based on feedback from

others

instrev

15.4. Creative thinking and problem solving instcreative

39

Undergraduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Undergraduate Level

Sample University

Not at all 22 7% 438 5% 810 6% 2,091 5%

Very little 92 29% 1,863 21% 3,166 23% 8,570 20%

Some 132 41% 3,720 43% 6,199 45% 18,729 44%

Very much 74 23% 2,720 31% 3,706 27% 13,161 31%

Total 320 100% 8,741 100% 13,881 100% 42,551 100%

Not at all 30 9% 681 8% 1,564 11% 2,878 7%

Very little 93 29% 2,002 23% 4,375 32% 9,348 22%

Some 136 42% 3,710 43% 5,728 41% 18,192 43%

Very much 62 19% 2,327 27% 2,205 16% 12,068 28%

Total 321 100% 8,720 100% 13,872 100% 42,486 100%

Not at all 41 13% 970 11% 1,819 13% 4,167 10%

Very little 89 28% 2,588 30% 4,177 30% 11,468 27%

Some 121 38% 3,503 40% 5,301 38% 17,152 40%

Very much 70 22% 1,669 19% 2,569 19% 9,704 23%

Total 321 100% 8,730 100% 13,866 100% 42,491 100%

Not at all 42 13% 1,051 12% 1,734 12% 4,272 10%

Very little 73 23% 2,112 24% 3,306 24% 9,312 22%

Some 124 39% 3,368 39% 5,157 37% 16,241 38%

Very much 81 25% 2,192 25% 3,681 27% 12,689 30%

Total 320 100% 8,723 100% 13,878 100% 42,514 100%

Not at all 35 11% 817 10% 1,104 8% 4,440 11%

Very little 74 24% 1,941 23% 2,696 20% 9,668 23%

Some 128 41% 3,602 42% 5,518 41% 16,915 41%

Very much 72 23% 2,181 26% 4,224 31% 10,618 25%

Total 309 100% 8,541 100% 13,542 100% 41,641 100%

15.7. Persuasive speaking instspeak

15.8. Project management skills instmanag


develop: (continued)

15.5. Research skills

instresearch

15.6. Clear writing instwrite

15.9. Technological skills insttech

40

Undergraduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Undergraduate Level

Sample University

Not at all 6 2% 213 3% 186 1% 706 2%

Very little 26 8% 656 8% 839 6% 2,403 6%

Some 94 31% 2,972 35% 4,034 30% 12,985 31%

Very much 181 59% 4,648 55% 8,402 62% 25,283 61%

Total 307 100% 8,489 100% 13,461 100% 41,377 100%

Not at all 157 51% 3,731 44% 5,901 44% 15,435 37%

Very little 109 35% 3,289 39% 5,413 40% 16,751 40%

Some 32 10% 1,286 15% 1,942 14% 7,767 19%

Very much 10 3% 225 3% 296 2% 1,698 4%

Total 308 100% 8,531 100% 13,552 100% 41,651 100%

Not at all 140 45% 3,413 40% 5,096 38% 14,427 35%

Very little 109 35% 3,228 38% 5,054 38% 15,957 39%

Some 43 14% 1,478 17% 2,669 20% 8,670 21%

Very much 17 6% 357 4% 656 5% 2,327 6%

Total 309 100% 8,476 100% 13,475 100% 41,381 100%

Not at all 33 11% 668 8% 1,051 8% 2,460 6%

Very little 76 25% 1,816 21% 2,916 22% 6,613 16%

Some 135 44% 3,836 45% 6,007 44% 17,112 41%

Very much 65 21% 2,203 26% 3,569 26% 15,479 37%

Total 309 100% 8,523 100% 13,543 100% 41,664 100%

Not at all 64 21% 1,361 16% 2,217 16% 4,689 11%

Very little 109 35% 2,517 30% 4,081 30% 9,669 23%

Some 89 29% 3,225 38% 5,083 38% 16,404 40%

Very much 48 15% 1,405 17% 2,127 16% 10,762 26%

Total 310 100% 8,508 100% 13,508 100% 41,524 100%

instentr

15.13. Interpersonal relations and working

collaboratively

instwkoth

15.14. Leadership skills instleader



15.10. Artistic technique

instartistic

15.11. Financial and business management skills instbus

15.12. Entrepreneurial skills

41

Undergraduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Undergraduate Level

Sample University

Not at all 54 17% 1,385 16% 2,083 15% 5,271 13%

Very little 110 35% 2,669 31% 4,044 30% 11,500 28%

Some 106 34% 3,248 38% 5,277 39% 16,634 40%

Very much 40 13% 1,234 14% 2,138 16% 8,198 20%

Total 310 100% 8,536 100% 13,542 100% 41,603 100%

Not at all 89 29% 2,226 26% 3,704 27% 8,298 20%

Very little 101 33% 2,532 30% 4,018 30% 10,918 26%

Some 79 25% 2,565 30% 4,079 30% 13,449 32%

Very much 41 13% 1,206 14% 1,729 13% 8,958 22%

Total 310 100% 8,529 100% 13,530 100% 41,623 100%

Never 102 33% 2,899 34% 5,120 38% 11,769 28%

Rarely 97 31% 2,593 30% 4,166 31% 12,463 30%

Sometimes 87 28% 2,206 26% 3,155 23% 12,133 29%

Often 27 9% 890 10% 1,179 9% 5,572 13%

Total 313 100% 8,588 100% 13,620 100% 41,937 100%

Never 118 38% 3,289 39% 6,070 45% 13,731 33%

Rarely 86 28% 2,098 25% 3,586 27% 9,990 24%

Sometimes 74 24% 1,742 20% 2,437 18% 9,003 22%

Often 32 10% 1,404 16% 1,419 11% 8,973 22%

Total 310 100% 8,533 100% 13,512 100% 41,697 100%

Never 17 5% 596 7% 1,051 8% 2,800 7%

Rarely 35 11% 1,612 19% 2,469 18% 8,227 20%

Sometimes 113 36% 3,140 37% 4,763 35% 15,347 37%

Often 149 47% 3,189 37% 5,247 39% 15,384 37%

Total 314 100% 8,537 100% 13,530 100% 41,758 100%



15.15. Networking and relationship building

instnetrel

15.16. Teaching skills instteach

16. How often you did the following while enrolled at

this institution:

16.1. Worked on a project or in a role serving the

community

actcomser

16.2. Participated in co-curricular activities

(organizations, campus publications, student

government, fraternity or sorority, sports)

actcocurr

16.3. Had serious conversations with students who

are different from you in terms of their ethnicity,

religious beliefs, political opinions, or personal

values

actdiv

42

Undergraduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Undergraduate Level

Sample University

actartist Never 95 30% 3,227 38% 5,252 39% 13,446 32%

Rarely 68 22% 2,128 25% 3,340 25% 10,151 24%

Sometimes 96 31% 2,087 24% 3,288 24% 11,078 27%

Often 54 17% 1,090 13% 1,629 12% 6,982 17%

Total 313 100% 8,532 100% 13,509 100% 41,657 100%

No 270 87% 6,735 80% 11,259 85% 34,347 84%

Yes 39 13% 1,671 20% 2,020 15% 6,785 16%

Total 309 100% 8,406 100% 13,279 100% 41,132 100%

No 208 67% 5,833 69% 8,392 63% 27,168 66%

Yes 103 33% 2,585 31% 4,931 37% 14,117 34%

Total 311 100% 8,418 100% 13,323 100% 41,285 100%

No 49 16% 2,445 29% 2,173 16% 16,038 39%

Yes 263 84% 5,991 71% 11,241 84% 25,235 61%

Total 312 100% 8,436 100% 13,414 100% 41,273 100%

carserv Yes 54 17% 1,297 15% 3,098 23% 6,276 15%

No 248 79% 6,909 81% 9,755 72% 33,891 81%

Unsure 13 4% 319 4% 672 5% 1,588 4%

Total 315 100% 8,525 100% 13,525 100% 41,755 100%

19. Since graduating, have you used career services at

this institution?

17. Did you do the following while at this institution?

17.1. Study abroad


this institution: (continued)

16.4. Worked with an artist in the community

17.3. Complete a portfolio (a document/record of

your cumulative artistic work)

actport

17.2. Internship actintn

actabroad

43

Undergraduate Level


jobtime Obtained work prior to leaving this institution 99 32% 2,477 29% 4,094 30% 13,048 31%

Obtained work in less than four months 92 29% 2,663 31% 4,399 33% 13,559 33%

Obtained work in four to twelve months 51 16% 1,337 16% 2,300 17% 6,135 15%

Obtained work after more than a year 28 9% 604 7% 1,085 8% 2,851 7%

Have not yet found work 8 3% 245 3% 449 3% 930 2%

Did not search for work after leaving program 7 2% 254 3% 331 2% 953 2%

Pursued further education 28 9% 884 10% 791 6% 4,013 10%

Total 313 100% 8,464 100% 13,449 100% 41,489 100%

jobtrain Have not yet found work 8 3% 245 3% 448 3% 926 2%


Pursued further education 28 9% 880 10% 790 6% 3,996 10%

Not related 69 22% 2,171 26% 2,236 17% 8,170 20%

Somewhat related 91 29% 1,922 23% 3,137 23% 7,921 19%

Closely related 111 35% 3,002 35% 6,519 48% 19,524 47%

Total 314 100% 8,474 100% 13,461 100% 41,488 100%

Yes, I do this currently. 70 22% 1,558 18% 2,360 18% 9,236 22%

Yes, I have done it in the past, but no longer do. 88 28% 2,407 28% 3,871 29% 12,319 30%

No, I have not done this. 154 49% 4,500 53% 7,210 54% 19,810 48%

Total 312 100% 8,465 100% 13,441 100% 41,365 100%




Total 313 100% 8,458 100% 13,415 100% 41,312 100%

20. After leaving your program at this institution, how

long did it take for you to obtain your first job or work

experience?

21. How closely related was your first job or work

experience to your training at this institution?c

23. Have you ever worked, either full- or part-time,

managing or administering programs or people for an

arts or arts-related organization or business?

SNAAP 2016 Frequency Report • Career


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Undergraduate Level

Sample University

artsrel

22. Have you ever worked as a full- or part-time teacher

of the arts (i.e., classroom setting or private lessons)?

teach

bTotal may not sum to 100% since respondents could select more than one category.

cFor the frequencies of only those who received this question, see the "Data Highlights" Report. 44

Undergraduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Undergraduate Level

Sample University




Total 313 100% 8,484 100% 13,466 100% 41,433 100%

intart No 17 5% 1,702 20% 1,073 8% 7,653 19%

Yes 294 95% 6,752 80% 12,358 92% 33,679 81%

Total 311 100% 8,454 100% 13,431 100% 41,332 100%

stp_curart Currently a professional artist 183 60% 4,420 54% 8,697 67% 22,432 56%

stp_nevint Never intended to work as an artist and never did 7 2% 955 12% 575 4% 4,150 10%

stp_nowk Artistic work not available 53 17% 1,158 14% 1,572 12% 4,895 12%

stp_pay Higher pay or steadier income in other fields 60 20% 1,768 21% 2,140 16% 8,021 20%

stp_city Current location not conducive to artistic career 25 8% 525 6% 701 5% 2,623 7%

stp_inter Change in interests 22 7% 679 8% 877 7% 3,814 10%

stp_fam Family-related reasons 21 7% 575 7% 636 5% 3,091 8%

stp_netwk Lack of access to important networks and people 48 16% 899 11% 1,134 9% 3,598 9%

stp_debt Debt (including student loans) 51 17% 950 12% 1,358 10% 3,628 9%

stp_suppt Lack of social support from family and friends 17 6% 315 4% 368 3% 1,226 3%

Totalb - - - - - - - -

wkself Yes, I do this currently 137 44% 3,857 46% 6,894 52% 18,516 45%

Yes, I have done it in the past, but no longer do 109 35% 2,647 31% 4,531 34% 13,231 32%

No, I have not done this 64 21% 1,919 23% 1,950 15% 9,419 23%

Total 310 100% 8,423 100% 13,375 100% 41,166 100%

25. When you began at this institution did you intend to

work eventually in an occupation as an artist?

27. Have you ever been self-employed, an independent

contractor, or a freelance worker?

26. Why did you either stop working in an occupation as

an artist or choose not to pursue work as an artist?c

24. Have you ever worked, either full- or part-time, in an

occupation as an artist (where you create or perform your

art)?

artist



Undergraduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Undergraduate Level

Sample University

wkfd No 257 85% 6,984 85% 10,843 84% 34,124 85%

Yes 47 15% 1,216 15% 2,049 16% 5,966 15%

Total 304 100% 8,200 100% 12,892 100% 40,090 100%

wkpdint No 227 74% 5,919 73% 8,466 66% 27,865 70%

Yes 79 26% 2,208 27% 4,354 34% 11,942 30%

Total 306 100% 8,127 100% 12,820 100% 39,807 100%

wkupdint No 194 64% 5,215 65% 8,276 66% 26,298 67%

Yes 107 36% 2,831 35% 4,306 34% 12,979 33%

Total 301 100% 8,046 100% 12,582 100% 39,277 100%

artwkfd Never founder of a nonprofit or for-profit organization 255 83% 6,942 84% 10,780 82% 33,964 83%

No 9 3% 369 4% 557 4% 1,661 4%

Yes 44 14% 1,000 12% 1,801 14% 5,058 12%

Total 308 100% 8,311 100% 13,138 100% 40,683 100%

Past professional artist (but not currently) 60 21% 1,647 21% 2,323 19% 8,846 23%

Never worked as a professional artist 68 23% 2,352 30% 2,346 19% 9,922 26%

Studio space 26 9% 587 7% 982 8% 2,380 6%

Performance/exhibition space 7 2% 166 2% 251 2% 842 2%

Equipment 25 9% 358 4% 758 6% 1,919 5%

Business advising 21 7% 712 9% 1,513 12% 3,461 9%

Loans, investment capital 20 7% 520 7% 1,106 9% 2,815 7%

Publicity and recognition of your work 39 13% 1,021 13% 1,944 16% 4,650 12%

Professional networks 26 9% 604 8% 1,274 10% 3,535 9%

Total 292 100% 7,967 100% 12,497 100% 38,370 100%

wkskillanaly Not at all important 3 1% 106 1% 153 1% 468 1%

Only a little important 16 5% 346 4% 499 4% 1,751 4%

Somewhat important 57 19% 1,568 19% 2,389 18% 7,500 18%

Very important 232 75% 6,315 76% 10,188 77% 31,147 76%

Total 308 100% 8,335 100% 13,229 100% 40,866 100%

31. The importance of the following to perform

effectively in your profession or work life:



30. What is the most important resource to which you

currently do not have access but need to advance your

artistic career?

28. Are you now or have you ever been a(n):

28.1. Founder of a nonprofit or for-profit

organization

28.2. Paid intern

28.3. Unpaid intern

29. Was any of your work as a founder of a nonprofit or

for-profit organization arts-related?

resource



Undergraduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Undergraduate Level

Sample University

wkskillbroad Not at all important 2 1% 79 1% 136 1% 366 1%



Very important 220 71% 5,854 70% 8,904 68% 28,490 70%

Total 308 100% 8,307 100% 13,167 100% 40,708 100%

wkskillrev Not at all important 3 1% 85 1% 127 1% 346 1%



Very important 197 64% 5,385 65% 8,803 67% 27,983 69%

Total 306 100% 8,301 100% 13,174 100% 40,715 100%

wkskillcreative Not at all important 1 0% 52 1% 59 0% 188 0%

Only a little important 4 1% 90 1% 161 1% 528 1%

Somewhat important 39 13% 752 9% 1,048 8% 3,533 9%

Very important 261 86% 7,425 89% 11,918 90% 36,536 90%

Total 305 100% 8,319 100% 13,186 100% 40,785 100%

wkskillresearch Not at all important 10 3% 172 2% 251 2% 944 2%

Only a little important 21 7% 749 9% 1,029 8% 4,138 10%


Very important 176 58% 4,847 58% 7,877 60% 22,368 55%

Total 306 100% 8,326 100% 13,185 100% 40,796 100%

wkskillwrite Not at all important 7 2% 209 3% 359 3% 1,002 2%

Only a little important 23 7% 613 7% 1,121 9% 3,284 8%


Very important 192 63% 5,526 66% 8,287 63% 26,524 65%

Total 307 100% 8,321 100% 13,179 100% 40,776 100%


effectively in your profession or work life: (continued)

31.2. Broad knowledge and education


others

31.6. Clear writing

31.4. Creative thinking and problem solving




Undergraduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Undergraduate Level

Sample University

wkskillspeak Not at all important 5 2% 198 2% 311 2% 847 2%



Very important 195 64% 5,261 63% 8,634 66% 26,550 65%

Total 304 100% 8,317 100% 13,170 100% 40,760 100%

wkskillmanag Not at all important 4 1% 126 2% 189 1% 690 2%



Very important 244 80% 6,422 77% 10,440 79% 31,396 77%

Total 304 100% 8,303 100% 13,170 100% 40,713 100%

wkskilltech Not at all important 6 2% 108 1% 124 1% 524 1%



Very important 203 68% 5,448 67% 8,980 70% 25,764 65%

Total 300 100% 8,106 100% 12,849 100% 39,816 100%

wkskillartistic Not at all important 20 7% 917 11% 790 6% 3,756 9%

Only a little important 34 11% 1,005 12% 1,121 9% 4,858 12%


Very important 172 58% 4,323 54% 7,864 61% 22,034 56%

Total 299 100% 8,062 100% 12,795 100% 39,635 100%

wkskillbus Not at all important 19 6% 457 6% 627 5% 2,114 5%



Very important 147 49% 4,064 50% 6,630 52% 19,410 49%

Total 300 100% 8,101 100% 12,840 100% 39,783 100%

31.11. Financial and business management skills



31.7. Persuasive speaking

31.8. Project management skills


31.9. Technological skills



Undergraduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Undergraduate Level

Sample University

wkskillentr Not at all important 31 10% 974 12% 1,151 9% 4,594 12%



Very important 132 44% 3,584 44% 6,146 48% 16,490 42%

Total 298 100% 8,070 100% 12,771 100% 39,586 100%

wkskillwkoth Not at all important 4 1% 74 1% 114 1% 290 1%



Very important 212 71% 6,137 76% 9,739 76% 32,116 81%

Total 300 100% 8,095 100% 12,830 100% 39,790 100%

wkskillleader Not at all important 7 2% 190 2% 284 2% 672 2%



Very important 189 63% 5,087 63% 8,133 64% 26,960 68%

Total 298 100% 8,070 100% 12,796 100% 39,677 100%

wkskillnetrel Not at all important 6 2% 145 2% 217 2% 572 1%



Very important 205 69% 5,536 68% 8,874 69% 27,839 70%

Total 299 100% 8,093 100% 12,822 100% 39,766 100%

wkskillteach Not at all important 32 11% 775 10% 1,422 11% 3,301 8%



Very important 126 42% 3,136 39% 4,395 34% 17,056 43%

Total 299 100% 8,089 100% 12,829 100% 39,774 100%


31.16. Teaching skills





collaboratively

31.14. Leadership skills



Undergraduate Level


curemp Full-time (35 hours or more per week) 184 60% 5,133 62% 8,614 66% 25,983 64%

Part-time only (fewer than 35 hours per week) 57 19% 1,358 16% 2,015 15% 6,328 16%

Unemployed and looking for work 16 5% 280 3% 590 4% 1,263 3%

In school full-time 12 4% 244 3% 279 2% 1,044 3%

Caring for family full-time 4 1% 257 3% 212 2% 1,071 3%

Retired 17 6% 553 7% 661 5% 3,111 8%

Other 16 5% 477 6% 772 6% 1,814 4%

Total 306 100% 8,302 100% 13,143 100% 40,614 100%

curjob_none Currently not employed 30 10% 845 10% 1,069 8% 4,060 10%

curjob_arch Architect 5 2% 120 1% 403 3% 1,028 3%

curjob_artadm Arts administrator or manager 23 8% 637 8% 984 8% 3,079 8%

curjob_curator Museum or gallery worker, including curator 16 5% 534 6% 631 5% 1,353 3%

curjob_graphicdes Graphic designer, illustrator, or art director 65 21% 1,705 21% 4,140 32% 7,352 18%

curjob_intdes Interior designer 3 1% 171 2% 523 4% 1,138 3%

curjob_webdes Web designer 18 6% 566 7% 1,254 10% 2,516 6%

curjob_othdes Other designer 8 3% 418 5% 1,337 10% 2,467 6%

curjob_tchhied Higher education arts educator 28 9% 540 7% 918 7% 2,516 6%

curjob_tchk12 K-12 arts educator 22 7% 511 6% 617 5% 3,260 8%

curjob_prvttch Private teacher of the arts 14 5% 387 5% 597 5% 3,414 8%

curjob_othtch Other arts educator 15 5% 288 3% 462 4% 1,227 3%

curjob_craft Craft artist 30 10% 641 8% 1,100 8% 2,262 6%

curjob_finart Fine artist 85 28% 1,951 24% 2,969 23% 5,531 14%

curjob_film Film, TV, video artist 11 4% 360 4% 1,006 8% 2,418 6%

curjob_animator Multi-media artist or animator 10 3% 254 3% 709 5% 1,322 3%

curjob_photo Photographer 56 18% 1,186 14% 1,385 11% 2,799 7%

curjob_actor Actor 2 1% 48 1% 93 1% 1,179 3%

curjob_choreo Dancer or choreographer 3 1% 38 0% 56 0% 779 2%

SNAAP 2016 Frequency Report • Current Work


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Undergraduate Level

Sample University

33. Those occupations in which you currently work:

32. Current employment status

bTotal may not sum to 100% since respondents could select more than one category. 50

Undergraduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Undergraduate Level

Sample University

curjob_sound Engineer or technician (light, sound, other) 6 2% 72 1% 171 1% 816 2%

curjob_musician Musician 7 2% 170 2% 260 2% 4,226 10%

curjob_stage Theater and stage director or producer 1 0% 44 1% 82 1% 1,037 3%

curjob_writer Writer, author, or editor 22 7% 659 8% 1,044 8% 3,197 8%

curjob_othart Other occupation associated with the arts 33 11% 616 7% 1,057 8% 2,823 7%

curjob_maintn Building, maintenance, installation, and repair 11 4% 244 3% 371 3% 994 2%

curjob_comm Communications 22 7% 782 9% 1,164 9% 3,480 9%

curjob_comput Computer and mathematics 12 4% 315 4% 425 3% 1,582 4%

curjob_construct Construction 8 3% 175 2% 335 3% 933 2%

curjob_edu Education, training, and library 37 12% 749 9% 774 6% 3,815 9%

curjob_engocc Engineering and science 3 1% 91 1% 146 1% 485 1%

curjob_farm Farming, fishing, and forestry 1 0% 91 1% 123 1% 337 1%

curjob_finan Financial and other business services 5 2% 198 2% 232 2% 1,086 3%

curjob_food Food preparation related 9 3% 187 2% 310 2% 822 2%

curjob_hlthtech Healthcare 7 2% 259 3% 295 2% 1,330 3%

curjob_humres Human resources 1 0% 96 1% 101 1% 473 1%

curjob_legal Legal 2 1% 100 1% 79 1% 645 2%

curjob_manag Management 10 3% 467 6% 736 6% 2,484 6%

curjob_manfact Manufacturing 6 2% 147 2% 317 2% 665 2%

curjob_military Military and protective services 0 0% 30 0% 42 0% 221 1%

curjob_office Office and administrative support 15 5% 544 7% 604 5% 2,321 6%

curjob_sales Sales 14 5% 476 6% 724 6% 2,184 5%

curjob_care Services and personal care 6 2% 138 2% 181 1% 622 2%

curjob_socialser Social services 8 3% 177 2% 194 1% 793 2%

curjob_transport Transportation and material moving 3 1% 74 1% 94 1% 310 1%

curjob_othnart Other occupation outside of the arts 12 4% 370 4% 461 4% 1,610 4%

curjob_oth Other 10 3% 429 5% 610 5% 1,989 5%

Totalb - - - - - - - -


(continued)


Undergraduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Undergraduate Level

Sample University

interdis Never worked as a professional artist 65 21% 2,298 28% 2,278 18% 9,660 24%

No 48 16% 1,319 16% 2,197 17% 7,872 20%

Yes 191 63% 4,595 56% 8,535 66% 22,590 56%

Total 304 100% 8,212 100% 13,010 100% 40,122 100%

majtimejob_R Currently not employed 30 10% 841 10% 1,068 8% 4,045 10%

Architect 4 1% 72 1% 223 2% 680 2%

Arts administrator or manager 11 4% 277 3% 360 3% 1,253 3%

Museum or gallery worker, including curator 7 2% 236 3% 237 2% 558 1%

Graphic designer, illustrator, or art director 36 12% 877 11% 2,376 18% 4,108 10%

Interior designer 0 0% 56 1% 198 2% 514 1%

Web designer 3 1% 109 1% 268 2% 508 1%

Other designer 8 3% 229 3% 866 7% 1,529 4%

Higher education arts educator 18 6% 296 4% 419 3% 1,314 3%

K-12 arts educator 17 6% 386 5% 420 3% 2,472 6%

Private teacher of the arts 0 0% 46 1% 77 1% 803 2%

Other arts educator 1 0% 87 1% 126 1% 378 1%

Craft artist 5 2% 136 2% 265 2% 521 1%

Fine artist 30 10% 724 9% 1,077 8% 1,903 5%

Film, TV, video artist 3 1% 94 1% 387 3% 884 2%

Multi-media artist or animator 2 1% 36 0% 214 2% 324 1%

Photographer 14 5% 414 5% 353 3% 593 1%

Actor 0 0% 4 0% 9 0% 294 1%

Dancer or choreographer 0 0% 5 0% 4 0% 163 0%

Engineer or technician (light, sound, other) 3 1% 13 0% 31 0% 240 1%

Musician 0 0% 23 0% 27 0% 1,287 3%

Theater and stage director or producer 0 0% 6 0% 11 0% 168 0%

34. Since leaving this institution, has your artistic

practice involved working across multiple art

forms/disciplines?

36. The occupation in which you spend the majority of

your work time:


Undergraduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Undergraduate Level

Sample University

majtimejob_R Writer, author, or editor 1 0% 103 1% 130 1% 551 1%

Other occupation associated with the arts 17 6% 350 4% 608 5% 1,624 4%

Building, maintenance, installation, and repair 1 0% 47 1% 62 0% 181 0%

Communications 8 3% 232 3% 267 2% 1,084 3%

Computer and mathematics 5 2% 133 2% 155 1% 777 2%

Construction 3 1% 25 0% 57 0% 182 0%

Education, training, and library 18 6% 417 5% 330 3% 2,006 5%

Engineering and science 1 0% 31 0% 43 0% 194 0%

Farming, fishing, and forestry 0 0% 19 0% 27 0% 72 0%

Financial and other business services 4 1% 83 1% 83 1% 513 1%

Food preparation related 4 1% 97 1% 155 1% 401 1%

Healthcare 6 2% 134 2% 132 1% 721 2%

Human resources 0 0% 29 0% 19 0% 152 0%

Legal 2 1% 61 1% 28 0% 417 1%

Management 1 0% 186 2% 292 2% 1,058 3%

Manufacturing 2 1% 41 1% 70 1% 152 0%

Military and protective services 0 0% 18 0% 24 0% 111 0%

Office and administrative support 7 2% 244 3% 240 2% 1,016 3%

Sales 6 2% 199 2% 299 2% 925 2%

Services and personal care 3 1% 53 1% 69 1% 214 1%

Social services 2 1% 83 1% 77 1% 398 1%

Transportation and material moving 1 0% 22 0% 26 0% 92 0%

Other occupation outside of the arts 11 4% 251 3% 260 2% 1,009 3%

Other 6 2% 302 4% 381 3% 1,363 3%

Total 301 100% 8,127 100% 12,850 100% 39,752 100%


your work time: (continued)


Undergraduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Undergraduate Level

Sample University

arttime Never worked as a professional artist 65 22% 2,277 28% 2,249 18% 9,578 24%

I did not work as an artist in 2015. 26 9% 860 11% 1,138 9% 4,687 12%

Less than 25% 48 16% 1,388 17% 1,973 15% 6,633 17%

26% to 50% 46 15% 941 12% 1,550 12% 4,330 11%

51% to 75% 35 12% 735 9% 1,386 11% 3,507 9%

76% to 100% 77 26% 1,852 23% 4,452 35% 10,706 27%

Total 297 100% 8,053 100% 12,748 100% 39,441 100%

timetrainrel Currently not employed 30 10% 839 10% 1,064 8% 4,039 10%

Not at all relevant 41 14% 1,089 13% 1,269 10% 4,797 12%

Somewhat relevant 63 21% 1,628 20% 2,095 16% 7,185 18%

Relevant 64 21% 1,615 20% 2,466 19% 7,367 19%

Very relevant 103 34% 2,900 36% 5,869 46% 16,128 41%

Total 301 100% 8,071 100% 12,763 100% 39,516 100%

timejobsec Currently not employed 30 10% 839 11% 1,064 8% 4,039 10%




Very satisfied 117 39% 3,141 39% 4,824 38% 17,034 43%

Total 301 100% 7,987 100% 12,641 100% 39,276 100%

timecreative Currently not employed 30 10% 839 10% 1,064 8% 4,039 10%




Very satisfied 116 39% 3,284 41% 5,531 44% 16,819 43%

Total 299 100% 8,021 100% 12,665 100% 39,326 100%

39. Overall, how relevant is your arts training at this

institution to your current work in the occupation in

which you spend the majority of your work time?

40. Level of satisfaction with each of the following

aspects of your current work in the occupation in which

you spend the majority of your work time:

40.1. Job security

40.2. Opportunity to be creative

38. Approximate percentage of your work time you spent

working as an artist in 2015:


Undergraduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Undergraduate Level

Sample University

timeincome Currently not employed 30 10% 839 11% 1,064 8% 4,039 10%




Very satisfied 77 26% 1,705 21% 2,977 24% 9,477 24%

Total 300 100% 7,990 100% 12,634 100% 39,199 100%

timebalance Currently not employed 30 10% 839 10% 1,064 8% 4,039 10%




Very satisfied 84 28% 2,462 31% 3,700 29% 12,421 32%

Total 300 100% 7,999 100% 12,658 100% 39,299 100%

timegood Currently not employed 30 10% 839 10% 1,064 8% 4,039 10%




Very satisfied 106 36% 3,045 38% 4,246 34% 16,216 41%

Total 298 100% 7,997 100% 12,648 100% 39,309 100%

timecareer Currently not employed 30 10% 839 11% 1,064 8% 4,039 10%




Very satisfied 75 25% 1,959 25% 3,220 26% 10,175 26%

Total 297 100% 7,925 100% 12,520 100% 38,910 100%

40.5. Opportunity to contribute to the greater good

40.6. Opportunity for career advancement



you spend the majority of your work time: (continued)

40.3. Income

40.4. Balance between work and non-work life


Undergraduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Undergraduate Level

Sample University

timework Currently not employed 30 10% 839 10% 1,064 8% 4,039 10%




Very satisfied 118 39% 3,635 45% 5,703 45% 18,456 47%

Total 301 100% 8,018 100% 12,675 100% 39,371 100%

timesat Currently not employed 30 10% 839 10% 1,064 8% 4,039 10%




Very satisfied 108 36% 3,108 39% 5,031 40% 16,480 42%

Total 300 100% 8,009 100% 12,667 100% 39,322 100%

40.8. Overall job satisfaction




40.7. Work that reflects my personality, interests,

and values


Undergraduate Level


part_none I have not supported the arts in the past 12 months. 30 10% 906 11% 1,831 15% 4,373 11%

part_vol Volunteered at an arts organization 77 26% 1,985 25% 2,776 22% 9,609 25%

part_brd Served on the board of an arts organization 29 10% 884 11% 1,279 10% 4,526 12%

part_tch Volunteered to teach the arts 50 17% 1,298 16% 1,900 15% 6,924 18%

part_donate Donated money to an arts organization or an artist 112 38% 2,839 36% 4,128 33% 14,969 38%

part_attd Attended an arts event 243 82% 6,583 82% 9,773 78% 32,186 82%

part_oth Other 27 9% 595 7% 911 7% 2,427 6%

Totalb - - - - - - - -

perform No 44 15% 1,612 20% 2,492 20% 9,129 23%

Yes 254 85% 6,358 80% 10,065 80% 30,089 77%

Total 298 100% 7,970 100% 12,557 100% 39,218 100%

tmpractice Do not make or perform art in personal time 44 15% 1,611 20% 2,488 20% 9,122 23%

A few times a year or less 42 14% 1,294 16% 1,804 14% 5,635 14%

Several times a month 81 27% 2,021 25% 3,190 25% 9,567 24%

Several times a week 72 24% 1,833 23% 3,042 24% 9,203 23%

Daily 58 20% 1,240 16% 2,092 17% 5,834 15%

Total 297 100% 7,999 100% 12,616 100% 39,361 100%

41. The ways in which you have supported the arts in

the past 12 months (other than performing, creating, or


43. Do you make or perform art in your personal (not

work-related) time?

SNAAP 2016 Frequency Report • Arts Engagement

44. About how often do you practice art in your personal


Undergraduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Sample University



Undergraduate Level


income $10,000 or less 36 12% 1,046 13% 1,422 11% 4,447 11%

$10,001 to $20,000 38 13% 833 10% 1,174 9% 3,463 9%

$20,001 to $30,000 34 12% 840 11% 1,198 10% 3,603 9%

$30,001 to $40,000 44 15% 763 10% 1,108 9% 3,847 10%

$40,001 to $50,000 21 7% 765 10% 1,048 8% 3,840 10%

$50,001 to $60,000 20 7% 663 8% 916 7% 3,488 9%

$60,001 to $70,000 17 6% 516 6% 754 6% 2,570 7%

$70,001 to $80,000 9 3% 362 5% 649 5% 2,047 5%

$80,001 to $90,000 3 1% 262 3% 515 4% 1,489 4%

$90,001 to $100,000 11 4% 260 3% 462 4% 1,268 3%

$100,001 to $150,000 14 5% 402 5% 902 7% 2,525 6%

More than $150,000 8 3% 227 3% 615 5% 1,681 4%

I prefer not to answer. 40 14% 1,022 13% 1,772 14% 4,886 12%

Total 295 100% 7,961 100% 12,535 100% 39,154 100%

$10,000 or less 23 8% 371 5% 568 5% 1,549 4%

$10,001 to $20,000 25 9% 464 6% 683 5% 1,917 5%

$20,001 to $30,000 24 8% 522 7% 747 6% 2,080 5%

$30,001 to $40,000 27 9% 525 7% 755 6% 2,446 6%

$40,001 to $50,000 14 5% 496 6% 719 6% 2,412 6%

$50,001 to $60,000 13 4% 517 7% 661 5% 2,479 6%

$60,001 to $70,000 17 6% 444 6% 622 5% 2,137 5%

$70,001 to $80,000 19 7% 403 5% 626 5% 2,164 6%

$80,001 to $90,000 10 3% 399 5% 599 5% 1,974 5%

$90,001 to $100,000 17 6% 452 6% 662 5% 2,255 6%

$100,001 to $150,000 31 11% 1,057 13% 1,635 13% 5,655 14%

More than $150,000 21 7% 857 11% 1,684 13% 5,239 13%

I prefer not to answer. 51 17% 1,424 18% 2,531 20% 6,722 17%

Total 292 100% 7,931 100% 12,492 100% 39,029 100%

45. What was your individual annual income in 2015?

(Do not include spousal income or interest on jointly-

owned assets.)

46. In 2015, what was your total household income from

all sources?

hhincome

SNAAP 2016 Frequency Report • Facts and Figures

Sample University

Undergraduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions


Undergraduate Level



Sample University

Undergraduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

artinc Never worked as a professional artist 65 22% 2,248 28% 2,216 18% 9,503 24%

I did not work as an artist in 2015. 42 14% 1,167 15% 1,617 13% 6,103 16%

Less than 25% 87 29% 2,177 27% 3,140 25% 9,298 24%

26% to 50% 14 5% 422 5% 734 6% 2,106 5%

51% to 75% 17 6% 297 4% 591 5% 1,609 4%

76% to 100% 70 24% 1,614 20% 4,166 33% 10,358 27%

Total 295 100% 7,925 100% 12,464 100% 38,977 100%

stdloan None 97 33% 3,352 42% 4,467 36% 17,219 44%

$10,000 or less 29 10% 1,071 13% 1,324 11% 5,355 14%

$10,001 to $20,000 28 9% 904 11% 1,370 11% 4,446 11%

$20,001 to $30,000 43 14% 801 10% 1,348 11% 3,691 9%

$30,001 to $40,000 20 7% 571 7% 1,025 8% 2,475 6%

$40,001 to $50,000 23 8% 318 4% 594 5% 1,370 3%

$50,001 to $60,000 20 7% 182 2% 430 3% 926 2%

More than $60,000 32 11% 460 6% 1,341 11% 2,221 6%

I prefer not to answer. 6 2% 327 4% 672 5% 1,547 4%

Total 298 100% 7,986 100% 12,571 100% 39,250 100%

impctloan No student loan debt incurred 97 33% 3,352 42% 4,465 36% 17,189 44%

No impact 40 13% 1,349 17% 2,187 17% 7,307 19%

Some impact 63 21% 1,541 19% 2,593 21% 7,399 19%

Major impact 98 33% 1,728 22% 3,302 26% 7,279 19%

Total 298 100% 7,970 100% 12,547 100% 39,174 100%

parentart No 243 82% 6,339 80% 9,679 77% 30,992 79%

Yes 53 18% 1,621 20% 2,861 23% 8,075 21%

Total 296 100% 7,960 100% 12,540 100% 39,067 100%

47. The approximate percentage of your personal (not

household) income that came from your work as an

artist in 2015c

48. How much student loan debt did you incur in order

to attend this institution?

49. How much impact has your debt incurred from

attending this institution had on your career or

educational decisions?c

52. Were/are any of your parents, guardians, or close

relatives professional artists?


Undergraduate Level



Sample University

Undergraduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

artcity Past professional artist (but not currently) 58 20% 1,569 20% 2,201 18% 8,503 22%

Never worked as a professional artist 65 22% 2,241 28% 2,201 18% 9,465 24%

Very poor 9 3% 99 1% 179 1% 368 1%

Poor 18 6% 248 3% 538 4% 1,252 3%

Fair 34 12% 888 11% 1,651 13% 4,112 11%

Good 63 21% 1,368 17% 2,528 20% 6,693 17%

Very good 48 16% 1,542 19% 3,220 26% 8,696 22%

Total 295 100% 7,955 100% 12,518 100% 39,089 100%

insttown No 131 45% 4,570 58% 6,847 55% 24,935 64%

Yes 161 55% 3,322 42% 5,600 45% 13,965 36%

Total 292 100% 7,892 100% 12,447 100% 38,900 100%

61. Within the first five years after leaving this

institution, did you take up residency in the town/city

where this institution is located to pursue your career?

60. How would you rate the current area where you live

and/or work as a place to pursue your artistic career?c


2016 Alumni Comments

Sample University

Undergraduate Level

Understanding the Alumni Comments

Work as Work as Arts Work as Arts Undergraduate Level

Artistb

Teacherb

Administratorb Comment

1995 Current Current NeverMore research and writing opportunities.

2000 Current Current Past I would have like more interdisciplinary arts collaborations. I studied in both the art

department and the dance department, and never at any time did either program

encourage or assist in work that might mean working with other students from 2000 Past Never Current

Teach an artist how to price their services.

2005 Past Past Never Offer career counseling and internships with area artist or artist outside the

community.

2005 Never Never Never The relationship between the advisor and the student is very critical. Everything

possible should have been done to foster that relationship.

2006 Never Current No ResponseProvide guidance on business aspects related to a career in a creative field.

Cohort

The Alumni Comments Report contains all responses to open-ended questions. See the Codebook for a complete list of variables, survey

questions, response options, and the logic used to determine which alumni received each question.

SNAAP 2016 Alumni Comments • Institutional Experiences

Sample InstitutionUndergraduate Level

Is there anything that this institution could have done better to prepare you for further education or for your career? Please

describe.c

Column Headers

Columns present cohort and

basic work experience

characteristics for alumni who

submitted comments. These

characteristics were derived

from specific variables on the

survey. Each column is a

specific variable. The variable

names corresponding to each

column header are as follows:

Cohort = cohort Work as Artist = artist Work as Arts Teacher = teach Work as Arts Administrator = artsrel

Question The questions asked of alumni are found here.

Alumni Comment The alumni comment column includes the responses from each alum to the respective question, with a limit of 8,000 characters. The data for schools that participated in more than one year (2015 and 2016) have been combined.

All available responses are provided. Not all alumni responded to each question. These responses have not been screened or edited.

Response Value Respondents had three response options regarding their involvement in three capacities (Work as Artist, Work as Arts Teacher, Work as Arts Administrator) as follows:

Current = Yes, I do this currently. Past = Yes, I have done it in the past, but no longer do. Never = No, I have not done this. No Response = Alumnus/alumna left this question blank

Topic Area Each comment question comes from a different topic area of the SNAAP Questionnaire.

Cut Off Comments If a comment appears cut off, please refer to the Excel version to see the entire comment. A non-text character may have been used.

62


Artistb Teacherb AdministratorbComment

2014 Current Never Never Yale School of Art

2013 Current Never Never Portland State University

2013 No Response No Response No Response Pratt Institute

2011 Current Current Past University of Alabama

2010 Current Never Never California College of the Arts

2008 Past Current Past Rhode Island School of Design- MFA in progress

2007 Current Current Past University of California, Irvine

2007 Current Current Never Fontbonne University

2007 Current Current Never University of Memphis- Art Teacher Certification/Licensing

2007 Current Never Never Washington university in St. Louis

2006 Past Never Never The University of Memphis, BS in progress

2005 Current Current Past Mills College

2005 Past Never Past University of Memphis

2004 Never Current Current Maryland Institute College of Art

2002 Current Current Never UC DAVIS

2002 Current Past Past University of Oregon, Master's Degree in Architecture

2001 Current Never Never California College of the Arts: MFA

1999 Current Current Past Mississippi College

1997 Current Current Past Art Educator Certification

1994 Past Never Never Gonzaga University, Masters Degree in Communication and Leadership

1994 Never Current Past Rochester Institute of Technology

1992 Current Current Never Prescott College, MA Aesthetic Theory

1990 Current Current Past University of Georgia, MFA

1984 Current Current Never William Carey Masters in the Art of Teaching

1981 Current Past Past University of Houston

1979 Current Never Current Monterey Peninsula College

SNAAP 2016 Alumni Comments • Education Sample University

Undergraduate Level

Please list the names of any educational institutions that you attended after leaving this institution and subsequent degrees received.a

Cohort

aAsked of all alumni who pursued at least one degree at another institution. Variable name in Codebook is otherinsts.

bSee "Understanding the Alumni Comments" page for details.

63



Cohort

1978 Never Never Never Columbia University MBA

1976 Current Past Past Washington University, St Louis Missouri

1976 Past Current Past University of New Mexico

1974 Current Past Past Syracuse University MFA

1974 Current Never Never Tulane University - Master of Architecture

1974 Past Past Never San Francisco State University

1972 Current Past Past Sacramento State University

1965 Past Past Past University of Memphis

University of Mississippi



64

bSee "Understanding the Alumni Comments" page for details.cAsked of all alumni. Variable name in Codebook is edpreptxt.

Work as Work as Arts Work as Arts Undergraduate LevelArtistb Teacherb Administratorb Comment

2016 Current Never Never I think it would have been very beneficial for the campus to have provided some leadership role experience.

2015 Current Never Never Providing more real projects, especially collaborative ones. I think teaching students in the fine art programs more business related things will help them succeed more after graduating. collaborate more between majors as well... everyone graduates and then they have no idea how to work with other people who think differently or how to professionally present themselves.

2015 Never Never Never Made the opportunities well known. There were a lot of thing that went on that I never knew about until I heard about it from another student after the event already happened.

2014 Current Current Current Networking, internships and teaching opportunities would have helped me tremendously.2014 Current Never Current Some kind of money management class2014 Current Never Never We did little to no training on websites and web work. This was a huge disservice in my opinion.2013 Current Current Never I'm still unsure what careers I could pursue.2013 Current Past Never Providing a broader scope of ways to apply my degree, as well as courses throughout all 4 years dedicated

to building a business as an independent artist.2013 Current Never Never Provided me more opportunities, and most importantly prepared me to work within the community.2013 Past Past Never teach how to market, price your work. teach a proper way of writing a art CV or resume instead of just

giving a outline and we just guess. Also schedule more advanced classes second semesters for those who want to learn as much as possible in there field of study instead of putting more advanced students in remedial classes. plus offer more variety in ones field of study.

2013 Past Never Never I think we could have been better prepared for the real world, and with prospective jobs. I also felt like there could have been an even further push for developing a portfolio to which we could use for potential graduate applications as well as getting into galleries. There weren't many resources-at least not to my knowledge, for gallery shows. It seemed you had to work for the school or it's gallery to get a show, or know the right person to get a show at a gallery, which was made hard for a transfer student to know exactly who to turn to when needing resources. There could be more resources available to the students, after all, I am working on paying off my $60,000 of debt-the least the school can provide is a prospective job after college.

SNAAP 2016 Alumni Comments • Institutional Experiences Sample UniversityUndergraduate Level

Is there anything that this institution could have done better to prepare you for further education or for your career? Please describe.c

Cohort

65



Cohort

2013 Never Never Never I was disappointed with the lack of support in finding a career after I graduated. I ended up going through a friend that went to AI and their career services helped me find opportunities.

2012 Current Never Past Learn how to create a website. Learn how to make connections and sell your work. Figure out ways to apply your degree in the real world. Business classes so you know how to make money as an artist, and run your own business. Start doing all these things from sophomore year, not just the last semester of your last year, and have it crammed alongside your thesis class. It needs to be a required separate class that your build upon over the years.

2012 Current Never Never Higher academic standards. More career advising. Pay your faculty more so they can spend more time focusing on students

2011 Current Never Never More help finding work opportunities in my field. More after college access to improving technical skills using computer applications related to my field.

2011 Current Never Never better career services2010 Current Never Never More experience doing the work of not just a designer but as an art director.2010 Current Never Never More technical training2010 Never Never Never how to present yourself professionally, take more leadership2009 Current Past Current While I'm not taking a long time to complete this survey, I've long since felt that there should have been

full courses on grant writing [how to find, how to write, and actually obtaining one], acquiring residencies, how to get a show [the ins, outs, etc - simply visiting a gallery was not enough], and a running a small business course. An internship should absolutely be required - perhaps even two. In addition, a website course and how to maintain a decent online presence, especially in today's technological world, should be a MUST. The school in almost no way set us up for success after graduation.

2007 Current Past Past This is a hard question considering each student gets to choose their own courses. Right now, I am an artist. I like being an artist, but I have a hard time being anything else because I don't have any real skills. I wish the sculpture and technology classes would have been more important and mandatory while I was in attendance. I believe there has been more of a focus on technology over the part 5 years though.

2007 Current Never Never Could've spent some time actually teaching students the right way to operate design software…instead of "here's the project".."here are some artists to look at"…"figure it out". I did..but I learned ALOT the wrong way. When I got to the real world, I was embarrassed of my "technique". Also…some financial planning would've been helpful. It would've been nice to learn while in school how to survive on basically minimum wage (once the monthly loans are paid).

2006 Past Never Past Real-world career training would have been useful.2006 Never Never Never Making a living with your work in any way other than as an artist was looked down upon by some teachers.

Mostly it was the adjunct teachers that had real insights and advice into how to make a living creatively. I had no idea what to do when I graduated and fell back to my skills in tech and writing.

66



Cohort

2005 Past Current Never Support for applying the creative self to life after school- developing the entrepreneur2005 Never Past Past access to a wider breath of non art related courses would have been nice2003 Never Never Never Teach students how to better sell themselves and their work and how to survive in the real world. I wish

they were more organized, selective, and challenging. I wish the school encouraged healthy competition and hard work - it was so easy to coast by in classes and there was a lot of "talking" and not a lot of "doing." It was a great little community with a lot of potential but they really did not teach real world skills such as business and financial management, entrepreneurship, sales and marketing. Very few of my classmates are actually working as artists today - most had to find work in other areas to make ends meet. That is really sad, especially when compared to more competitive successful schools, whose graduates are killing in it the art world.

2000 Current Past Never Pairing students with alumni and other professionals.2000 Never Never Current More rigorous non-art classes.1998 Past Never Past Opportunity to spread my wings, not just fill in instructors blanks. No business advice nor how to survive

once you lose your studio and your arts environment.1994 Current Current Current A better digital art program.1992 Current Never Never I was extremely prepared1990 Current Never Current I attended many years ago. The school had very little focus on helping guide people toward a career path. I

was one of the luck ones who made a career in art with my degree. I worked hard at it and met key instructors who had similar careers that allowed me to find my career path. I still help review current student portfolios and give advice to them in any way possible. I do think that school does a great job now of helping students get in front of the right people that can help expose them to options for their career in art.

1989 Current Never Past Actually have someone guide me through the next steps or options for post graduation. And for the teachers to also have that concept - there was just nothing in place at all in 1990. It really upset me and my family at the time.

1988 Past Current Never Computers came aboard the year that I graduated, 1988. Technology came on so strong and quick, I was in the right place, wrong time! No fault of the school.

1986 Past Current Past Assistance with housing1985 Current Never Past Better instructors. They need to show up for class and know everyone's names that are in the class.

1984 Never Never Never I do wish there had been more on career choices in my major. There was no discussion (that I can remember) of what other options I had besides becoming a fine arts artist. I graduated 30 years ago so I'm sure this has changed but there really was no other discussion other than somehow miraculously being discovered by some gallery.

1981 Current Never Current Financial management would've been a very helpful part of the curriculum

67



Cohort

1978 Current Past Never I graduated a long time ago, so my experience is not very relevant to current or recent students. As you can see from this survey, most of these extra things were not done, taught or offered as an option. At the time, they did a relatively good job, but they didn't do enough copywriting or advertising concept work. That hurt me in the beginning of my career. There were no computers in general use at the time, so the work I do now bears almost no resemblance to what I did in school.

1977 Current Never Never I did not want to graduate. I wanted to stay there and take more classes.1976 Current Never Never Any internship with an artist or an artistic community would have been valuable.1976 Past Past Never There was no career guidance. I was not prepared to enter the workforce using my degree. There was

little guidance in continuing my education.1971 Current Past Never Writing-reading, ecology, sciences.1967 Current Never Past I think I was well prepared for my career.1963 Past No Response Never I graduated 50 years ago, however, I discovered as time passed I had received a very good education in the

fine arts. I had been prepared to enter the field of Interior Design with a firm foundation. I successfully worked for 20 years.

68

bSee "Understanding the Alumni Comments" page for details.dAsked of all alumni who are currently working. Variable name in Codebook is wktraintxt.


2016 Current Never Never Everything that I studied in school is being applied to my current work.2015 Never Past Past Learning to write through research assignments/thesis project helped me become a better writer, which is

what I am doing now, not really super creative (more related to marketing)

2015 Never Never Never I'm a designer and I got my degree in design2014 Current Never Never It's relevant since I still make 2d images.2014 Never Past Never I teach preschool, so while my art is not related to my job, I do indeed have to incorporate quick and

creative problem-solving, and creative thinking into creating weekly lesson plans for a primarily-visual and verbal education for the kids.

2014 Never Never Never I am passing my knowledge of Design to a younger generation.2013 Current Past Past My final portfolio upon graduation has been the most relevant in my work. My art history education has

also equipped me references and guidance for information.2013 Current Never Never Knowledge of computer programs and workflow are essential.2013 Never Current Current I work with computers but assist artists daily.2013 Never Never Never Critical thinking, research, visual thinking, creative problem-solving all are part of my work as a teacher.

2013 Never Never Never My arts training prepared me for work in comics, illustration, and various design arts fields. I work in a library. They are unrelated.

2011 Current Current Past I needed my undergraduate training to give me all the pieces and ideas that could be. It helped me develop my own interests and see how those interests might work within the arts community. At the time, I was frustrated with a lack of emphasis on technical skill, but now I see that I really had a good balance between self-expression, self-motivation, and technical teaching.

2011 Current Never Never My arts training gave me skills in thinking about art and understanding art history and art in the world around me.

2011 Current Never Never I was trained in graphic design, which evolved into my user experience design work. A large majority of my learnings from college was relevant to user experience design AND graphic design work.

2010 Current Never Never Being able to talk about images is extremely important in my current work. Understanding visual elements and communicating them to clients/art directors etc. allows me to do my job successfully.

Please describe how your arts training is or is not relevant to your current work.d

Cohort

SNAAP 2016 Alumni Comments • Current Work Sample UniversityUndergraduate Level

69



Cohort

2010 Never Never Never I work as a preparator for two gallery's and part time at an art store. My background at art school helps a little, but common sense and knowing the right people got me the jobs.

2009 Past Past Past I create furniture from wood and I create paintings (acrylic).2008 Current Current Past I work in restaurant management but the ability to work with different personalities/character types as well

as the project management gained from my arts training is hugely important, as is the ability to think creatively/abstractly to problem solve.

2006 Past Past Never I work in marketing and creativity is very important.2005 Past Current Current The ability to problems solve and think critically/creatively (which I gained at my school) is very relevant

to my current work, artistic training/technique is not.2003 Current Past Never My overall arts training has been used throughout my career. Sometimes its unclear how but all of the

training manifests into confident actions while problem solving and creating. I did learn a great deal in school but I feel like I learned more outside of school working. Whether it was for another artist, prop building, hanging artwork, working construction, or selling vegetables in a farmers market, I found that what I learned could and should be used in the creation and selling of my art. I do think that the department should talk about and offer classes on how to support oneself via making and selling art after school. Its a mystery that seems to be different for every artist but with a little guidance it may not seem so scary.

2002 Current Current Never technical skill, community based studio practice2000 Never Never Current Problem solving, defending choices, working with others, development of new programs/ideas1998 Never Past Past completely relevant as I use my knowledge of photography and Photoshop constantly1994 Current Current Current I trained in digital arts in its infancy. I work as a Videogame art director.1992 Current Never Never Art is my central focus. I am making a successful career as a painter and sculptor.1990 Past Never Current Mostly critical thinking skills.1984 Never Never Never I currently work as an office assistant at an art school so being knowledgeable about different areas of art

and different mediums is very helpful.1981 Past Never Past As a residential builder and remodeler it is important to follow plans, design on the fly and work

successfully when unforeseen circumstances arise.1976 Current Past Never Art history is your friend! Design skills! Imagination!1974 Past Never Never My arts training taught me how to SEE and how to LOOK and think. The critique sessions were also

invaluable. My training is very relevant to my work today many years later.1971 Current Past Never a critical eye1967 Current Never Past I am now retired, but I use my design and writing skills constantly in civic, genealogical, and patriotic

organizations.1960 Current Past Past Having a degree in Advertising Design gave me a firm understanding of organizing the picture plane. This

ability carried over into every aspect of my production rather in flat, relief or sculpture 'planes'.

70

bSee "Understanding the Alumni Comments" page for details.eAsked of all alumni who are currently working. Variable name in Codebook is majtimetxt.fOccupation for majority of work time. Variable name in Codebook is majtimejob_R.


2016 Current Past Never Graphic designer, illustrator, or art director

I'm self employed and I would describe myself as a watercolor illustrator.

2015 Never Past Past Communications Copywriter2014 Current Never Never Graphic designer, illustrator, or art

directorFreelance illustrator

2014 Current Never Never Graphic designer, illustrator, or art director

Freelance Graphic Designer

2014 Never Past Never Education, training, and library Preschool Teacher2013 Current Past Past Museum or gallery worker,

including curatorMuseum Shop Associate

2013 Current Never Current Arts administrator or manager Account Coordinator at a graphic design firm2013 Current Never Never Engineer or technician (light, sound,

other)AV Specialist

2013 Past Never Never Computer and mathematics Data Center Technician2012 Current Current Never Film, TV, video artist Producer and Director of a documentary film2012 Never Never Never Financial and other business

servicesBank Teller

2011 Current Never Never Other designer Senior User Experience Designer. This is the process of enhancing user satisfaction by improving the usability, accessibility, and pleasure provided in the interaction between the user and the product. I currently work in an education technology company on their website platform.

2011 Never Never Never Sales District Manager in retail2010 Current Never Never Graphic designer, illustrator, or art

directorArt Director.

2010 Never Never Never Manufacturing master colorist for cosmetic company2009 Never Never Never Other designer Director of design research at a health tech startup.

Cohort

Please provide your job title and, if the title is not self-explanatory, a brief description of your work in the occupation in which you spend the majority of your work time.e

SNAAP 2016 Alumni Comments • Current Work Sample UniversityUndergraduate Level

Occupationf

71



Cohort Occupationf

2009 Never Never Never Education, training, and library I am a children's librarian. I do story times 5 times a week at the library. I also help children and parents with early literacy skills that will hopefully make them better readers in the future.

2007 Current Current Never Higher education arts educator I teach drawing and 2D-design at a community college2007 Current Never Never Graphic designer, illustrator, or art

directorSenior Graphic Design Specialist

2007 Current Never Never Legal Litigation Paralegal2006 Never Past Current Healthcare Community support specialist-outreaching homeless and/or low

income population, provide assistance in navigating life, problem solve, counseling

2005 Past Current Never Office and administrative support Office manager, E marketing associate and purchaser2004 Never Never Never Arts administrator or manager Senior Marketing Program Manager2002 Current Current Never Higher education arts educator assistant professor2001 Current Never Never Other Audio Visual Specialist

My team maintains all of the conference rooms (over 200) and a few event spaces for a large company. This involves daily checks on spaces and answering frequent service calls when equipment is not working well. Equipment includes projectors, audio and video conferencing, microphones, music, and televisions. We also run events which can range from meetings for a few dozen people to a couple thousand, and press releases. The creative part of my job comes in I get to create creative content for the events. Usually backgrounds in After effects, though the whole adobe suite is regularly used. It's fun to make abstract and ephemeral pieces that play on stages of a business meeting!

1999 Current Never Never Web designer Visual designer/User interface designer.1997 Current Current Current Other arts occupation Associate Director of Enrollment1994 Current Current Past Fine artist Teacher - Workshops on multimedia - show and sell art work1994 Past Never Never Financial and other business

servicesMarket Analytics Specialist. I review utility bills for large companies looking for discrepancies in use and cost. Then I manage the issues that come up

1989 Current Current Current Museum or gallery worker, including curator

Gallery Director

1989 Past Never Never Other occupation outside of the arts Nurse Home Health RN seeing patients after they come out of hospital.

72



Cohort Occupationf

1985 Current Never Never Other arts occupation commission airbrush artist1982 Never Never Never Photographer I am a self-employed photographer. I shoot events, concerts, and

conferences. 25 years now.

1979 Current Never Never Fine artist Visual Artist working in collaboration with other artists to produce exhibits.

1978 Never Never Never Financial and other business services

Managing Director, risk underwriting

1976 Past Past Never Services and personal care Pet Resort Specialist1971 Current Past Never Architect Owner, Building design firm1969 Current Current Never K-12 arts educator 5th grade-8th grade art teacher. Middle School1964 Never Never Never Higher education arts educator I am an adjunct instructor in filmmaking, emphasis on

cinematography

73

bSee "Understanding the Alumni Comments" page for details.gAsked of all alumni. Variable name in Codebook is contcomm.


2016 Current Past Never My school taught me how important it is to stay involved in the arts community and go to gallery openings, etc.

2015 Current Never Never I think my school needs to improve on students participation in civic and community life. Any projects that involved this were all self-initiated.

2015 Never Past Past I am a political activist artist, engaging my community is motive #1. My school has not really helped me to engage my community except those within that institution

2013 Current Past Past My participation in the community has mostly been self-driven. Specific teachers guided me in the right directions for what outlets to seek, but otherwise personal involvement in a community is something one has to be motivated to seek and stay present in.

2013 Current Never Never Made me consider more social issues and solutions2013 Past Past Never My school introduced me to the power of participating in a creative community.2013 Never Never Current It is relevant mostly through the connections I have made through the school, which is primarily why I

attend galleries and art walks, or other community activities.2011 Never Never Never It allows me a set of skills I can share with people if the opportunity presents itself.2010 Current Never Never The understanding that art needs community2006 Current Current Past I love art. I participate in the art community. This was fostered in my time at my school. I learned how to

engage.2005 Current Past Current I help a team of artists create massive art projects for several mainstream communities, events, industries,

and corporations that are always seen by the public.1994 Current Current Past Volunteer for the city and participate in art based projects for the community.1988 Current Past Never I makes me want to Show People the Beauty in LIFE by doing my work and participating with other artists

and students to show them the Value of Creating.1979 Current Never Current Openness to various approaches as it applies to aiding diverse arts organizations1971 Current Current Past Through art, education and my practice, my network has expanded to include diverse activities and

constituents with an international scope. I have worked with artists, designers and scientists on a variety of projects involving environment, critical studies and social practice on several continents and continue to develop programs, consultancies and projects.

1967 Current Never Past I appreciate the arts far more than I would have without my training.

SNAAP 2016 Alumni Comments • Arts Engagement Sample UniversityUndergraduate Level

Describe how your arts training at this institution is or is not relevant to your participation in civic and community life.g

Cohort

74

bSee "Understanding the Alumni Comments" page for details.hAsked of all alumni. Variable name in Codebook is finalcomments.


2015 Current Never Never More lectures and more workshops. There are PLENTY of people in the community that could provide lectures or workshops. Network these alumni with current students. You're using upperclassmen as mentors for the underclassmen, but what about the upperclassmen? They need mentors too! I think that's all I can think of at the moment. I love the school and I'm glad I went there, but I think there's a lot of things we can improve on. If you have any questions or would like to talk to me more, please feel free to reach out.

2014 Current Never Never Lack of finances during my school career did impact my ability to pursue things like internships and study abroad.

2014 Current Never Never As a student I felt a lack of support from the administrative offices. To get anything answered was a nightmare, and you were sent from office to office with no idea how to get anything done. I left school with one singe math credit remaining because every time I tried to figure out how to get that one credit covered no one could help me with it.

2011 Current Never Never Like many students my student loan debt prevents me from getting ahead in life. Its so massive I don't know how I will ever pay it off, especially with the interest added on. It make a huge chunk of any income and will for possibly the rest of my life. This is unacceptable and students need a solution to this problem.

2010 Current Past Never When it asked if I pursued any other education, so far I have not, but I am planning to obtain a Masters starting next year. In a related field: Architecture. I think my Bachelors prepared me well for this next step.

2010 Current Never Never I feel the promotion of alumni events is solely focused on fine artists and does little to promote designers who are making big waves creating commercials, books, magazines, branding programs, websites and so on. I would like to hear about an alum's design successes.

2007 Current Current Never also inform art students of the importance of social media today. Its an ever growing tool to increase ones publicity in the world, Free too!!!

If there are additional things you would like to tell us about your education, life, and/or career that were not adequately covered on the survey or about this project or questionnaire , please do so here.h

Cohort

SNAAP 2016 Alumni Comments • Facts and Figures Sample UniversityUndergraduate Level

75



Cohort

2007 Current Never Never This was a wonderful school, and I appreciated my time there. It is difficult to recommend art school (or, really undergraduate degrees in general) to anyone due to the cost, but it was a very valuable experience and made a big impact in my life. When I entered the school I understood that it would be difficult to make a career in the arts, and that has certainly been my experience. Ultimately I think that any kind of decision about going to art school or making art is something that has little to do with finances - basically due to a lack of overall societal support for the arts. I don't regret going to art school and I'm happy that I am continuing my studio practice.

2005 Current Current Never The quality of education I received was high, but more structure would have helped me in my approach to further education and work.

1994 Current Current Past The survey failed to take into consideration that college level instructors essentially have two full-time occupations that overlap on a regular basis. We are educators and working artist and devote equal amounts of time to both

1992 Current Current Never It took twenty years of steady, patient persistence as a studio artist before my work was recognized. Over the past decade, I've seen two books of my art published, consistent gallery representation, and my work going into corporate and museum collections. And all this while teaching full time. One has to take the long view, and believe in the work beyond any commercial or professional aspirations, even as one pursues those goals.

1989 Current Never Past hope this helps others and that is why I filled this out.1988 Current Past Never Yes. I am GLAD that this survey is being done. 1986 Past Current Past My educational experience was satisfying and prepared me to be successful. Unfortunately, finding

employment can be a difficult task and any assistance the school could give students in this area would be a great benefit to them.

1982 Never Past Current Artists should help one another and not be in opposition to or competition with one another. Many significant and door opening experiences/opportunities have come through the strength of an artists' group, non-profit artist run gallery or artists' cooperative. While not all best opportunities have emerged through those sources, the artists and organizations I have known or been a part of have served a supportive role in my development and confidence as an artist who exhibits and sells her work.

1980 Never Past Never More follow-up from teacher advisers would've probably been helpful.1974 Never Current Past The faculty were caring and concerned about individual students. I still have fond memories of their

support, even when my projects were not up to the level expected. They were tough, but caring.

1972 Current Past Past This was a serious art school...I still have a lot of respect for it and do appreciate my time there.1949 Never Never Never I started with very little education, that did not prevent me from succeeding. I was determined to succeed.

I had faith that my life would be better and different and it is.

76

2016 Recent Graduates Report

Sample University

Undergraduate Level

•

•

•

•

•

• Study abroad - 13%



• Very well - 12%


• Not too well - 8%

• Not well at all - 4% • Yes - 68%

• Did not pursue further education - 43% • No - 32%

Recent alumni (n = 94) who would attend Sample University if

they could start over again:

Comparing the % of alumni who say a skill is very important to their work to the % who say that they acquired that skill very much

while at Sample University:

Recent alumni (n = 84) who participated in the following

activities while at Sample University:

Freedom and encouragement to take risks 40%

Probably yes - 37%

Uncertain - 24%

Whether recent alumni (n = 93) would recommend Sample

University to other students like themselves:


Probably no - 12%

How well Sample University prepared recent alumni (n = 91) for

further education:

Definitely no - 6%

SNAAP 2016 Recent Graduates

Sample University

Undergraduate Level

Academic advising

Opportunities for degree-related internships or

work


disciplines from their own

This Recent Graduates Report features key findings based on your data from your most recent alumni. SNAAP defines "recent

alumni" as those who graduated in the last 5 years for postsecondary institutions, and in the last 10 years for arts high schools.

Throughout the Recent Graduates Report, "n" refers to the number of alumni responding to a particular question. The data for

schools that participated in more than one year (2015 and 2016) have been combined.


16%

Recent alumni (n = 93) reporting their level of satisfaction

as very satisfied with these aspects of their time at

Sample University:

% Very Satisfied

How recent alumni (n = 94) rated their overall experience at

Sample University:

Opportunities to perform, exhibit, or present

their work


17%

41%

22%

16%

10%

Instructors in classrooms, labs, and studios 45%

Advising about career or further education 13%


others

3%

16%

57%

23%

Poor

Fair

Good

Excellent

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

77%

65% 69%

84%

57% 59% 61%

83%

63% 53%

46% 40%

65% 62% 64%

36%

70%

35%

56% 57%

34% 33% 29% 35%

20%

59%

6% 6%

17% 18% 19% 13%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Skill is very important to work (n = 84)Acquired skill in school (very much) (n = 91)

78


•

•

• Never have been self-employed - 33% • Good - 38%

• Fair - 21%

• Poor - 7%

• Very poor - 7%

•

• Serving on the board of an arts organization - 1%

• Volunteering to teach the arts - 13%

• Donating money to an arts organization or artist - 25%

• Attending an arts event - 81%


•


Artistic work not available 70%

Higher pay or steadier income in other fields 42%

Current location not conducive to artistic career 30%

Change in interests 12%

Family-related reasons 9%

58%

61%

18%

a Arts fields refers to occupational fields 1-23 listed in Appendix C of the Codebook.

b Non-arts fields refers to occupational fields 24-44 listed in Appendix C of the Codebook.

c Does not include those who were never artists and never intended to be.


e Median income values are calculated using the midpoints of income ranges as values.

Comparing recent alumni working in arts fieldsa to those in

non-arts fieldsb who report they are very satisfied with certain

aspects of the current job in which they spend the majority of

their work time:



Median individual and household incomee in 2015 by

graduating year:

Income and Debt

Ways recent alumni (n = 79) supported the arts in the

past 12 monthsd:

Volunteering at an arts organization - 24%

% Selected

Recent alumni (n = 84) who:

Reasons why recent alumni (n = 33) are not currently pursuing

careers as professional artistsc:

For recent alumni who acquired student loan debt at Sample

University (n = 66), impact on life decisions:

Arts Engagement




How current professional artists (n = 42) rated the area where

they currently live and/or work as a place to pursue their

artistic career:

Very good - 26%

Reasond

Lack of access to important networks and people

Debt (including student loans)

Lack of social support from family and friends

Career

71%

27%

2%

Major

impact

Some

impact

No

impact

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

35%

22%

22%

13%

13%

39%

35%

40%

42%

21%

35%

28%

28%

35%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Job security

Opportunity to

be creative

Income

Work and

life balance

Career

advancement

Work reflects

interests

Overall job

satisfaction

Arts fields (n = 43)

Non-arts fields (n = 23)

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

2015

(n = 16)

2014

(n = 25)

2013

(n = 9)

2012

(n = 10)

2011

(n = 12)

Household

Individual

79

2016 Recent Graduates Frequency Report

Sample University

Undergraduate Level








part_oth Other 22 20% 67 20% 89 19% 178 12%

Totala





Daily 206 42% 563 41% 184 31% 828 38%

Total 493 100% 1,373 100% 597 100% 2,164 100%

Sample Institution

High School Level

High School Level

Sample

Institution

Comparison

Group 1

Comparison

Group 2

SNAAP

Aggregate









tmpractice

SNAAP 2016 Recent Graduates Frequency Report • Arts Engagement

Understanding the Recent Graduates Frequency ReportThe Recent Graduate Frequency Report contains responses for questions with fixed response options from your most recent alumni. SNAAP

defines "recent alumni" as those who graduated in the last 5 years for postsecondary institutions, and in the last 10 years for arts high

schools. For more detailed information on the questions, the Codebook contains a complete list of variables, survey questions, response

options, and the logic used to determine which alumni received each question.

Comparison Groups The number and percentage of recent alumni at all institutions in each of the three comparison groups. The first two columns are selected groups and the third is all SNAAP schools at this level. You were allowed to select institutions from the 2015 and 2016 SNAAP administrations. All three comparison groups exclude your recent alumni. For more details regarding institutions included in each column, see your "Comparison Group"


Your Respondents The number and percentage of your recent alumni selecting a certain response for each question. The


Variable




Dashes For questions where recent alumni could check more than one response option, dashes are used because percentages can total more than 100%.




How to Interpret Percentages All percentages are presented as the percent of all recent alumni at a given education level, including those that did not receive the question. For example, here we might say that 9% of all Sample Institution's undergraduate recent alumni practice art in their personal time several times a month. This includes the 23% that did not receive the question because they do not make or perform art in their personal time. Frequencies for some questions (marked with footnote "c") have been reproduced with only those respondents who received the question. These can be found in the "Data Highlights" Report for all

81

Undergraduate Level


instdeg_hs High School Diploma 10 10% 170 10% 274 10% 901 11%

instdeg_Cert Certificate 1 1% 68 4% 67 3% 306 4%


instdeg_BA BA 3 3% 435 27% 209 8% 2,650 31%


instdeg_BFA BFA 95 97% 1,180 72% 2,300 88% 4,428 52%

instdeg_BM BM or B Mus 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 811 9%

instdeg_BS BS 0 0% 35 2% 59 2% 713 8%



instdeg_MA MA 1 1% 19 1% 6 0% 74 1%


instdeg_MFA MFA 3 3% 14 1% 13 0% 46 1%


instdeg_DMA DMA 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 4 0%

instdeg_PhD PhD 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 0%

instdeg_othGR Other graduate degree 0 0% 13 1% 10 0% 89 1%

Totalb - - - - - - - -

SNAAP 2016 Recent Graduates Frequency Report • EducationSample University

Undergraduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions




82

Undergraduate Level



Undergraduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

No 0 0% 12 1% 16 0% 42 0%

Yes 96 100% 1,957 99% 3,434 100% 9,299 100%

Total 96 100% 1,969 100% 3,450 100% 9,341 100%

aftdeg_none Did not pursue any degrees after time at this institution 67 72% 995 68% 1,901 81% 5,480 71%

aftdeg_Cert Certificate 5 5% 117 8% 123 5% 531 7%


aftdeg_BA BA 0 0% 19 1% 12 1% 82 1%


aftdeg_BFA BFA 2 2% 63 4% 103 4% 185 2%


aftdeg_BS BS 0 0% 9 1% 7 0% 52 1%



aftdeg_MA MA 5 5% 79 5% 41 2% 334 4%


aftdeg_MBA MBA 0 0% 8 1% 4 0% 57 1%

aftdeg_MFA MFA 15 16% 106 7% 118 5% 337 4%

aftdeg_MM MM or M Mus 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 261 3%

aftdeg_MS MS 2 2% 22 2% 20 1% 122 2%

aftdeg_DMA DMA 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 22 0%

aftdeg_JD JD 0 0% 9 1% 5 0% 48 1%

aftdeg_MD MD or DO 0 0% 1 0% 1 0% 18 0%

aftdeg_PhD PhD 2 2% 5 0% 6 0% 59 1%

aftdeg_othGR Other graduate degree 1 1% 47 3% 35 1% 226 3%

Totalb - - - - - - - -

4. Did you complete your undergraduate degree pursued

at this institution?

compinstdeg


institutiona



83

Undergraduate Level



Undergraduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

compaftCert Did not pursue any degrees after time at this institution 66 71% 986 67% 1,890 79% 5,348 70%

Did not pursue a certificate 21 23% 341 23% 329 14% 1,649 22%

No 1 1% 41 3% 53 2% 162 2%

Yes 2 2% 64 4% 73 3% 312 4%

In progress 3 3% 38 3% 43 2% 174 2%

Total 93 100% 1,470 100% 2,388 100% 7,645 100%

Did not pursue any degrees after time at this institution 66 71% 986 67% 1,890 79% 5,348 70%

Did not pursue an associate degree 25 27% 445 30% 440 18% 2,126 28%

No 1 1% 31 2% 48 2% 128 2%

Yes 0 0% 1 0% 2 0% 12 0%

In progress 1 1% 6 0% 6 0% 23 0%

Total 93 100% 1,469 100% 2,386 100% 7,637 100%


Did not pursue a BA 26 28% 438 30% 438 18% 2,090 27%

No 1 1% 27 2% 46 2% 134 2%

Yes 0 0% 8 1% 12 1% 70 1%

In progress 0 0% 8 1% 4 0% 15 0%

Total 93 100% 1,467 100% 2,390 100% 7,657 100%


Did not pursue a B Arch 26 28% 456 31% 448 19% 2,164 28%

No 1 1% 24 2% 45 2% 116 2%

Yes 0 0% 0 0% 2 0% 3 0%

In progress 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 0%

Total 93 100% 1,466 100% 2,385 100% 7,632 100%



6.3. BA compaftBA



6.1. Certificate



84

Undergraduate Level



Undergraduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions


Did not pursue a BFA 24 26% 397 27% 352 15% 1,990 26%

No 0 0% 31 2% 63 3% 143 2%

Yes 3 3% 57 4% 89 4% 164 2%

In progress 0 0% 3 0% 3 0% 10 0%

Total 93 100% 1,474 100% 2,397 100% 7,655 100%


Did not pursue a BM or B Mus 26 28% 456 31% 450 19% 2,146 28%

No 1 1% 24 2% 44 2% 112 1%

Yes 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 25 0%

In progress 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 0%

Total 93 100% 1,466 100% 2,384 100% 7,632 100%

compaftBS Did not pursue any degrees after time at this institution 66 71% 986 67% 1,890 79% 5,348 70%

Did not pursue a BS 26 28% 447 30% 443 19% 2,117 28%

No 1 1% 24 2% 45 2% 120 2%

Yes 0 0% 3 0% 6 0% 22 0%

In progress 0 0% 6 0% 2 0% 24 0%

Total 93 100% 1,466 100% 2,386 100% 7,631 100%


Did not pursue another undergraduate degree 26 28% 454 31% 445 19% 2,154 28%

No 1 1% 25 2% 47 2% 116 2%

Yes 0 0% 1 0% 2 0% 5 0%

In progress 0 0% 1 0% 2 0% 6 0%

Total 93 100% 1,467 100% 2,386 100% 7,629 100%



6.5. BFA

compaftBFA


6.7. BS




85

Undergraduate Level



Undergraduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions


Did not pursue an Artist Diploma 26 28% 453 31% 446 19% 2,152 28%

No 1 1% 24 2% 45 2% 115 2%

Yes 0 0% 2 0% 1 0% 8 0%

In progress 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 0%

Total 93 100% 1,465 100% 2,382 100% 7,626 100%


Did not pursue an MA 21 23% 377 26% 409 17% 1,836 24%

No 1 1% 29 2% 46 2% 136 2%

Yes 3 3% 27 2% 12 1% 114 1%

In progress 2 2% 47 3% 25 1% 197 3%

Total 93 100% 1,466 100% 2,382 100% 7,631 100%


Did not pursue an M Arch 26 28% 448 31% 445 19% 2,141 28%

No 1 1% 23 2% 43 2% 113 1%

Yes 0 0% 2 0% 0 0% 6 0%

In progress 0 0% 6 0% 5 0% 18 0%

Total 93 100% 1,465 100% 2,383 100% 7,626 100%


Did not pursue an MBA 26 28% 448 31% 446 19% 2,111 28%

No 1 1% 26 2% 45 2% 118 2%

Yes 0 0% 2 0% 0 0% 11 0%

In progress 0 0% 4 0% 2 0% 34 0%

Total 93 100% 1,466 100% 2,383 100% 7,622 100%



6.10. MA compaftMA



6.9. Artist Diploma

compaftAD



86

Undergraduate Level



Undergraduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions


Did not pursue an MFA 11 12% 350 24% 332 14% 1,833 24%

No 3 3% 31 2% 50 2% 137 2%

Yes 0 0% 39 3% 34 1% 95 1%

In progress 12 13% 58 4% 73 3% 205 3%

Total 92 100% 1,464 100% 2,379 100% 7,618 100%


Did not pursue an MM or M Mus 26 28% 456 31% 450 19% 1,910 25%

No 1 1% 23 2% 43 2% 124 2%

Yes 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 114 1%

In progress 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 123 2%

Total 93 100% 1,465 100% 2,383 100% 7,619 100%


Did not pursue an MS 24 26% 434 30% 430 18% 2,051 27%

No 1 1% 24 2% 44 2% 118 2%

Yes 1 1% 5 0% 4 0% 43 1%

In progress 1 1% 15 1% 15 1% 64 1%

Total 93 100% 1,464 100% 2,383 100% 7,624 100%


Did not pursue a DMA 26 28% 456 31% 450 19% 2,146 28%

No 1 1% 22 2% 43 2% 107 1%

Yes 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 0%

In progress 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 19 0%

Total 93 100% 1,464 100% 2,383 100% 7,622 100%


6.15. MS compaftMS




6.13. MFA

compaftMFA



87

Undergraduate Level



Undergraduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions


Did not pursue a JD 26 28% 448 31% 446 19% 2,122 28%

No 1 1% 22 2% 44 2% 110 1%

Yes 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 6 0%

In progress 0 0% 8 1% 3 0% 36 0%

Total 93 100% 1,464 100% 2,383 100% 7,622 100%


Did not pursue an MD or DO 26 28% 455 31% 450 19% 2,151 28%

No 1 1% 22 2% 43 2% 108 1%

Yes 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 0%

In progress 0 0% 1 0% 0 0% 13 0%

Total 93 100% 1,464 100% 2,383 100% 7,623 100%


Did not pursue a PhD 24 26% 451 31% 444 19% 2,110 28%

No 1 1% 20 1% 42 2% 108 1%

Yes 0 0% 0 0% 1 0% 3 0%

In progress 2 2% 5 0% 5 0% 51 1%

Total 93 100% 1,462 100% 2,382 100% 7,620 100%


Did not pursue another graduate degree 25 27% 409 28% 415 17% 1,952 26%

No 1 1% 25 2% 47 2% 123 2%

Yes 0 0% 9 1% 9 0% 54 1%

In progress 1 1% 35 2% 24 1% 149 2%

Total 93 100% 1,464 100% 2,385 100% 7,626 100%


No 7 8% 174 9% 168 5% 818 9%

Yes 19 20% 436 23% 576 18% 1,810 21%

Total 93 100% 1,857 100% 3,246 100% 8,807 100%




6.17. JD

compaftJD




arts-related?

artaft_R



88

Undergraduate Level


Poor 3 3% 51 3% 115 3% 234 3%

Fair 15 16% 220 11% 469 14% 1,010 11%

Good 54 57% 924 48% 1,670 50% 4,011 45%

Excellent 22 23% 719 38% 1,114 33% 3,724 41%

Total 94 100% 1,914 100% 3,368 100% 8,979 100%

Definitely no 6 6% 82 4% 177 5% 340 4%

Probably no 11 12% 183 10% 394 12% 825 9%

Uncertain 23 24% 294 15% 614 18% 1,271 14%

Probably yes 35 37% 649 34% 1,136 34% 3,009 34%

Definitely yes 19 20% 708 37% 1,050 31% 3,531 39%

Total 94 100% 1,916 100% 3,371 100% 8,976 100%

Not at all 14 15% 276 14% 485 14% 1,051 12%

Very little 25 27% 538 28% 1,011 30% 2,368 26%

Some 36 38% 784 41% 1,431 42% 3,977 44%

Very much 19 20% 317 17% 442 13% 1,584 18%

Total 94 100% 1,915 100% 3,369 100% 8,980 100%

No 30 32% 383 20% 804 24% 1,628 18%

Yes 63 68% 1,523 80% 2,550 76% 7,325 82%

Total 93 100% 1,906 100% 3,354 100% 8,953 100%


Somewhat dissatisfied 16 17% 265 14% 504 15% 1,066 12%

Somewhat satisfied 51 55% 805 43% 1,453 44% 3,613 41%

Very satisfied 16 17% 607 33% 1,094 33% 3,433 39%

Not relevant 0 0% 67 4% 47 1% 227 3%

Total 93 100% 1,866 100% 3,300 100% 8,800 100%


student like you?

recinst

instperform


institution?

instcon



present your work

SNAAP 2016 Recent Graduates Frequency Report • Institutional Experiences


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Undergraduate Level

Sample University


institution while pursuing your undergraduate degree?

instexp


institution?

sameinst

89

Undergraduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Undergraduate Level

Sample University




Very satisfied 38 41% 800 43% 1,169 36% 2,900 33%

Not relevant 1 1% 65 4% 62 2% 304 3%

Total 92 100% 1,852 100% 3,275 100% 8,741 100%




Very satisfied 20 22% 664 36% 699 21% 3,296 38%

Not relevant 1 1% 108 6% 208 6% 436 5%

Total 90 100% 1,851 100% 3,282 100% 8,759 100%


Somewhat dissatisfied 2 2% 150 8% 309 9% 715 8%


Very satisfied 41 45% 909 49% 1,499 46% 4,404 50%

Not relevant 0 0% 6 0% 9 0% 27 0%

Total 92 100% 1,854 100% 3,280 100% 8,755 100%




Very satisfied 15 16% 444 24% 711 22% 2,440 28%

Not relevant 1 1% 38 2% 91 3% 169 2%

Total 92 100% 1,848 100% 3,281 100% 8,753 100%




instlab

instacad

instadisc

instclass




90

Undergraduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Undergraduate Level

Sample University



Somewhat satisfied 24 26% 503 27% 867 27% 2,536 29%

Very satisfied 12 13% 219 12% 403 12% 1,421 16%

Not relevant 2 2% 76 4% 125 4% 271 3%

Total 92 100% 1,840 100% 3,258 100% 8,722 100%




Very satisfied 14 16% 298 16% 527 16% 1,723 20%

Not relevant 3 3% 106 6% 129 4% 382 4%

Total 90 100% 1,850 100% 3,273 100% 8,747 100%




Very satisfied 9 10% 245 13% 498 15% 1,538 18%

Not relevant 5 5% 95 5% 133 4% 406 5%

Total 91 100% 1,841 100% 3,265 100% 8,721 100%




Very satisfied 36 40% 831 45% 1,376 42% 3,508 40%

Not relevant 1 1% 31 2% 45 1% 170 2%

Total 91 100% 1,845 100% 3,270 100% 8,727 100%


risks

instfreedom


others


or work



education

91

Undergraduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Undergraduate Level

Sample University

Not well at all 4 4% 94 5% 154 5% 338 4%

Not too well 7 8% 166 9% 327 10% 712 8%

Fairly well 30 33% 464 25% 770 24% 1,994 23%

Very well 11 12% 375 20% 507 15% 1,875 21%

Did not pursue further education 39 43% 743 40% 1,514 46% 3,824 44%

Total 91 100% 1,842 100% 3,272 100% 8,743 100%

Not at all 1 1% 22 1% 60 2% 157 2%

Very little 6 7% 113 6% 239 7% 598 7%

Some 20 22% 597 33% 1,178 37% 3,117 36%

Very much 64 70% 1,088 60% 1,727 54% 4,708 55%

Total 91 100% 1,820 100% 3,204 100% 8,580 100%

Not at all 2 2% 25 1% 60 2% 119 1%

Very little 8 9% 141 8% 402 13% 730 9%

Some 49 54% 792 44% 1,609 51% 3,586 42%

Very much 32 35% 854 47% 1,112 35% 4,097 48%

Total 91 100% 1,812 100% 3,183 100% 8,532 100%

Not at all 1 1% 25 1% 37 1% 106 1%

Very little 6 7% 134 7% 198 6% 541 6%

Some 33 36% 590 33% 954 30% 2,572 30%

Very much 51 56% 1,063 59% 2,009 63% 5,334 62%

Total 91 100% 1,812 100% 3,198 100% 8,553 100%

Not at all 0 0% 15 1% 31 1% 102 1%

Very little 4 4% 79 4% 128 4% 378 4%

Some 35 38% 486 27% 887 28% 2,440 29%

Very much 52 57% 1,233 68% 2,142 67% 5,627 66%

Total 91 100% 1,813 100% 3,188 100% 8,547 100%


develop:



instanaly



others

instrev



further education?

edprep

92

Undergraduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Undergraduate Level

Sample University

Not at all 3 3% 67 4% 151 5% 329 4%

Very little 10 11% 314 17% 623 20% 1,399 16%

Some 47 52% 732 40% 1,424 45% 3,608 42%

Very much 31 34% 703 39% 996 31% 3,217 38%

Total 91 100% 1,816 100% 3,194 100% 8,553 100%

Not at all 1 1% 112 6% 275 9% 464 5%

Very little 15 16% 345 19% 819 26% 1,585 19%

Some 45 49% 763 42% 1,421 45% 3,646 43%

Very much 30 33% 593 33% 676 21% 2,846 33%

Total 91 100% 1,813 100% 3,191 100% 8,541 100%

Not at all 3 3% 141 8% 301 9% 621 7%

Very little 24 26% 431 24% 840 26% 1,964 23%

Some 38 42% 785 43% 1,343 42% 3,601 42%

Very much 26 29% 455 25% 711 22% 2,362 28%

Total 91 100% 1,812 100% 3,195 100% 8,548 100%

Not at all 3 3% 133 7% 213 7% 442 5%

Very little 15 16% 318 18% 572 18% 1,314 15%

Some 41 45% 715 40% 1,262 39% 3,306 39%

Very much 32 35% 643 36% 1,148 36% 3,486 41%

Total 91 100% 1,809 100% 3,195 100% 8,548 100%

Not at all 5 6% 113 6% 175 6% 505 6%

Very little 20 24% 404 23% 642 21% 1,759 21%

Some 42 50% 806 45% 1,317 42% 3,707 44%

Very much 17 20% 452 25% 981 31% 2,416 29%

Total 84 100% 1,775 100% 3,115 100% 8,387 100%







instresearch


93

Undergraduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Undergraduate Level

Sample University

Not at all 0 0% 55 3% 66 2% 190 2%

Very little 12 15% 174 10% 283 9% 642 8%

Some 22 27% 659 37% 1,069 35% 2,754 33%

Very much 48 59% 873 50% 1,680 54% 4,738 57%

Total 82 100% 1,761 100% 3,098 100% 8,324 100%

Not at all 33 39% 696 39% 1,190 38% 2,668 32%

Very little 33 39% 712 40% 1,328 43% 3,427 41%

Some 13 15% 304 17% 501 16% 1,804 22%

Very much 5 6% 58 3% 94 3% 473 6%

Total 84 100% 1,770 100% 3,113 100% 8,372 100%

Not at all 26 31% 608 34% 991 32% 2,356 28%

Very little 36 43% 701 40% 1,243 40% 3,253 39%

Some 17 20% 368 21% 707 23% 2,110 25%

Very much 5 6% 89 5% 163 5% 618 7%

Total 84 100% 1,766 100% 3,104 100% 8,337 100%

Not at all 4 5% 103 6% 189 6% 347 4%

Very little 25 30% 340 19% 642 21% 1,226 15%

Some 41 49% 837 47% 1,398 45% 3,384 40%

Very much 14 17% 489 28% 875 28% 3,405 41%

Total 84 100% 1,769 100% 3,104 100% 8,362 100%

Not at all 9 11% 199 11% 372 12% 650 8%

Very little 32 39% 432 25% 803 26% 1,656 20%

Some 27 33% 730 41% 1,269 41% 3,363 40%

Very much 15 18% 401 23% 658 21% 2,683 32%

Total 83 100% 1,762 100% 3,102 100% 8,352 100%

instentr


collaboratively

instwkoth





instartistic



94

Undergraduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Undergraduate Level

Sample University

Not at all 8 10% 204 12% 325 10% 675 8%

Very little 25 30% 468 26% 772 25% 1,927 23%

Some 35 42% 756 43% 1,356 44% 3,541 42%

Very much 16 19% 342 19% 656 21% 2,227 27%

Total 84 100% 1,770 100% 3,109 100% 8,370 100%

Not at all 14 17% 400 23% 759 24% 1,507 18%

Very little 35 42% 545 31% 957 31% 2,357 28%

Some 24 29% 563 32% 1,027 33% 2,874 34%

Very much 11 13% 261 15% 361 12% 1,627 19%

Total 84 100% 1,769 100% 3,104 100% 8,365 100%

Never 9 11% 409 23% 776 25% 1,547 19%

Rarely 35 41% 553 32% 1,036 34% 2,552 31%

Sometimes 29 34% 553 32% 895 29% 2,746 33%

Often 12 14% 239 14% 371 12% 1,480 18%

Total 85 100% 1,754 100% 3,078 100% 8,325 100%

Never 20 24% 577 33% 1,044 34% 2,188 26%

Rarely 26 31% 433 25% 892 29% 2,053 25%

Sometimes 27 32% 416 24% 677 22% 1,909 23%

Often 12 14% 316 18% 437 14% 2,118 26%

Total 85 100% 1,742 100% 3,050 100% 8,268 100%

Never 2 2% 102 6% 183 6% 449 5%

Rarely 10 12% 306 18% 534 17% 1,455 18%

Sometimes 24 29% 606 35% 1,075 35% 2,945 36%

Often 48 57% 731 42% 1,268 41% 3,437 41%

Total 84 100% 1,745 100% 3,060 100% 8,286 100%


this institution:


community

actcomser




actcocurr




values

actdiv




instnetrel


95

Undergraduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Undergraduate Level

Sample University

actartist Never 19 22% 485 28% 909 30% 1,990 24%

Rarely 19 22% 479 28% 845 28% 2,193 27%

Sometimes 31 36% 522 30% 871 29% 2,472 30%

Often 16 19% 254 15% 429 14% 1,615 20%

Total 85 100% 1,740 100% 3,054 100% 8,270 100%

No 73 87% 1,309 77% 2,472 83% 6,307 78%

Yes 11 13% 397 23% 506 17% 1,812 22%

Total 84 100% 1,706 100% 2,978 100% 8,119 100%

No 44 52% 946 55% 1,490 49% 4,221 51%

Yes 40 48% 782 45% 1,532 51% 3,986 49%

Total 84 100% 1,728 100% 3,022 100% 8,207 100%

No 5 6% 404 23% 385 13% 2,359 29%

Yes 80 94% 1,328 77% 2,661 87% 5,869 71%

Total 85 100% 1,732 100% 3,046 100% 8,228 100%

carserv Yes 23 27% 356 20% 875 29% 1,611 20%

No 58 68% 1,305 75% 2,007 66% 6,266 76%

Unsure 4 5% 78 4% 168 6% 377 5%

Total 85 100% 1,739 100% 3,050 100% 8,254 100%


this institution?


17.1. Study abroad






actport


actabroad

96

Undergraduate Level


jobtime Obtained work prior to leaving this institution 29 35% 476 28% 910 30% 2,606 32%

Obtained work in less than four months 24 29% 471 27% 855 28% 2,320 28%

Obtained work in four to twelve months 16 19% 262 15% 506 17% 1,203 15%

Obtained work after more than a year 4 5% 122 7% 224 7% 483 6%



Pursued further education 4 5% 182 11% 157 5% 786 10%

Total 84 100% 1,720 100% 3,027 100% 8,180 100%




Not related 20 24% 419 24% 529 17% 1,588 19%

Somewhat related 27 32% 367 21% 721 24% 1,658 20%

Closely related 26 31% 544 32% 1,244 41% 3,359 41%

Total 84 100% 1,718 100% 3,025 100% 8,165 100%

Yes, I do this currently. 13 15% 217 13% 317 10% 1,386 17%

Yes, I have done it in the past, but no longer do. 15 18% 288 17% 560 19% 1,491 18%


Total 84 100% 1,716 100% 3,023 100% 8,146 100%


Yes, I have done it in the past, but no longer do. 13 15% 245 14% 341 11% 980 12%


Total 84 100% 1,716 100% 3,019 100% 8,131 100%

artsrel



teach

SNAAP 2016 Recent Graduates Frequency Report • Career


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Undergraduate Level

Sample University



experience?








Undergraduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Undergraduate Level

Sample University

Yes, I do this currently. 48 57% 815 47% 1,780 59% 4,353 53%


No, I have not done this. 27 32% 674 39% 850 28% 2,686 33%

Total 84 100% 1,719 100% 3,021 100% 8,142 100%

intart No 5 6% 387 23% 334 11% 1,595 20%

Yes 79 94% 1,330 77% 2,685 89% 6,536 80%

Total 84 100% 1,717 100% 3,019 100% 8,131 100%

stp_curart Currently a professional artist 48 58% 811 49% 1,773 61% 4,341 55%


stp_nowk Artistic work not available 23 28% 328 20% 528 18% 1,304 16%

stp_pay Higher pay or steadier income in other fields 14 17% 336 20% 492 17% 1,449 18%

stp_city Current location not conducive to artistic career 10 12% 155 9% 259 9% 748 9%

stp_inter Change in interests 4 5% 112 7% 181 6% 616 8%

stp_fam Family-related reasons 3 4% 66 4% 84 3% 319 4%

stp_netwk Lack of access to important networks and people 19 23% 253 15% 397 14% 1,001 13%

stp_debt Debt (including student loans) 20 24% 298 18% 483 17% 1,150 14%

stp_suppt Lack of social support from family and friends 6 7% 69 4% 111 4% 272 3%

Totalb - - - - - - - -

wkself Yes, I do this currently 37 45% 717 42% 1,389 46% 3,464 43%

Yes, I have done it in the past, but no longer do 19 23% 438 26% 902 30% 2,103 26%

No, I have not done this 27 33% 548 32% 705 24% 2,520 31%

Total 83 100% 1,703 100% 2,996 100% 8,087 100%



art)?

artist









Undergraduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Undergraduate Level

Sample University

wkfd No 78 94% 1,515 92% 2,597 91% 7,204 92%

Yes 5 6% 127 8% 256 9% 620 8%

Total 83 100% 1,642 100% 2,853 100% 7,824 100%

wkpdint No 56 67% 1,087 65% 1,642 56% 4,774 60%

Yes 27 33% 579 35% 1,282 44% 3,156 40%

Total 83 100% 1,666 100% 2,924 100% 7,930 100%

wkupdint No 42 51% 834 50% 1,487 51% 4,149 53%

Yes 40 49% 833 50% 1,406 49% 3,752 47%

Total 82 100% 1,667 100% 2,893 100% 7,901 100%


No 2 2% 56 3% 110 4% 238 3%

Yes 4 5% 114 7% 245 8% 574 7%

Total 84 100% 1,671 100% 2,932 100% 7,965 100%

Past professional artist (but not currently) 9 11% 226 14% 380 13% 1,084 14%

Never worked as a professional artist 27 32% 655 39% 824 28% 2,630 33%

Studio space 6 7% 125 7% 269 9% 655 8%


Equipment 8 10% 129 8% 278 9% 654 8%

Business advising 8 10% 131 8% 297 10% 651 8%

Loans, investment capital 5 6% 81 5% 193 7% 476 6%

Publicity and recognition of your work 12 14% 170 10% 352 12% 806 10%

Professional networks 7 8% 121 7% 294 10% 812 10%

Total 84 100% 1,672 100% 2,933 100% 7,925 100%



Somewhat important 12 14% 342 20% 657 22% 1,703 21%

Very important 65 77% 1,218 73% 2,104 71% 5,785 72%

Total 84 100% 1,678 100% 2,949 100% 7,996 100%

resource







artistic career?



organization

28.2. Paid intern

28.3. Unpaid intern





Undergraduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Undergraduate Level

Sample University




Very important 55 65% 1,090 65% 1,782 61% 5,058 64%

Total 84 100% 1,675 100% 2,936 100% 7,960 100%




Very important 57 69% 1,193 71% 2,140 73% 6,017 76%

Total 83 100% 1,674 100% 2,938 100% 7,965 100%



Somewhat important 13 16% 192 11% 323 11% 820 10%

Very important 69 84% 1,445 86% 2,540 86% 6,963 87%

Total 82 100% 1,675 100% 2,940 100% 7,976 100%




Very important 47 57% 952 57% 1,617 55% 4,175 52%

Total 83 100% 1,673 100% 2,935 100% 7,975 100%

wkskillwrite Not at all important 3 4% 68 4% 134 5% 290 4%



Very important 49 59% 1,023 61% 1,640 56% 4,636 58%

Total 83 100% 1,676 100% 2,936 100% 7,973 100%





others

31.6. Clear writing





Undergraduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Undergraduate Level

Sample University




Very important 50 61% 1,016 61% 1,772 60% 4,820 60%

Total 82 100% 1,674 100% 2,933 100% 7,969 100%




Very important 69 83% 1,302 78% 2,307 79% 6,238 78%

Total 83 100% 1,671 100% 2,934 100% 7,971 100%




Very important 51 63% 1,095 67% 2,008 70% 5,090 65%

Total 81 100% 1,632 100% 2,855 100% 7,822 100%

wkskillartistic Not at all important 5 6% 197 12% 191 7% 760 10%



Very important 43 53% 827 51% 1,648 58% 4,286 55%

Total 81 100% 1,624 100% 2,841 100% 7,784 100%

wkskillbus Not at all important 6 7% 124 8% 204 7% 554 7%



Very important 37 46% 754 46% 1,310 46% 3,513 45%

Total 81 100% 1,628 100% 2,852 100% 7,812 100%










Undergraduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Undergraduate Level

Sample University

wkskillentr Not at all important 10 12% 213 13% 325 11% 1,050 14%



Very important 32 40% 662 41% 1,173 41% 3,034 39%

Total 81 100% 1,622 100% 2,838 100% 7,776 100%




Very important 53 65% 1,224 75% 2,134 75% 6,252 80%

Total 81 100% 1,631 100% 2,850 100% 7,809 100%




Very important 50 62% 983 61% 1,603 56% 4,810 62%

Total 81 100% 1,624 100% 2,839 100% 7,789 100%




Very important 51 64% 1,148 70% 1,986 70% 5,657 72%

Total 80 100% 1,630 100% 2,852 100% 7,815 100%

wkskillteach Not at all important 14 17% 178 11% 401 14% 862 11%



Very important 29 36% 548 34% 775 27% 2,767 35%

Total 81 100% 1,628 100% 2,850 100% 7,814 100%







collaboratively




Undergraduate Level


curemp Full-time (35 hours or more per week) 47 58% 989 60% 1,847 63% 4,960 63%

Part-time only (fewer than 35 hours per week) 16 20% 302 18% 497 17% 1,396 18%

Unemployed and looking for work 8 10% 116 7% 257 9% 500 6%

In school full-time 8 10% 146 9% 154 5% 618 8%

Caring for family full-time 0 0% 21 1% 15 1% 93 1%

Retired 0 0% 10 1% 15 1% 23 0%

Other 2 2% 75 5% 129 4% 310 4%

Total 81 100% 1,659 100% 2,914 100% 7,900 100%

curjob_none Currently not employed 10 12% 196 12% 322 11% 761 10%

curjob_arch Architect 0 0% 9 1% 70 2% 158 2%

curjob_artadm Arts administrator or manager 6 7% 141 9% 195 7% 621 8%

curjob_curator Museum or gallery worker, including curator 6 7% 142 9% 143 5% 313 4%

curjob_graphicdes Graphic designer, illustrator, or art director 22 27% 391 24% 952 33% 1,665 21%

curjob_intdes Interior designer 0 0% 16 1% 84 3% 183 2%

curjob_webdes Web designer 3 4% 121 7% 243 8% 501 6%

curjob_othdes Other designer 3 4% 65 4% 272 9% 501 6%

curjob_tchhied Higher education arts educator 2 2% 45 3% 55 2% 160 2%

curjob_tchk12 K-12 arts educator 4 5% 67 4% 80 3% 527 7%

curjob_prvttch Private teacher of the arts 3 4% 58 4% 85 3% 539 7%

curjob_othtch Other arts educator 5 6% 68 4% 98 3% 245 3%

curjob_craft Craft artist 7 9% 104 6% 206 7% 388 5%

curjob_finart Fine artist 17 21% 295 18% 433 15% 778 10%

curjob_film Film, TV, video artist 4 5% 73 4% 213 7% 530 7%

curjob_animator Multi-media artist or animator 3 4% 55 3% 191 7% 330 4%

curjob_photo Photographer 14 17% 223 13% 228 8% 518 7%

curjob_actor Actor 0 0% 9 1% 18 1% 258 3%


SNAAP 2016 Recent Graduates Frequency Report • Current Work


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Undergraduate Level

Sample University




Undergraduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Undergraduate Level

Sample University


curjob_musician Musician 0 0% 20 1% 49 2% 660 8%

curjob_stage Theater and stage director or producer 0 0% 7 0% 15 1% 162 2%

curjob_writer Writer, author, or editor 3 4% 85 5% 155 5% 437 6%

curjob_othart Other occupation associated with the arts 12 15% 144 9% 241 8% 595 8%


curjob_comm Communications 5 6% 127 8% 196 7% 613 8%

curjob_comput Computer and mathematics 3 4% 45 3% 97 3% 281 4%


curjob_edu Education, training, and library 15 19% 109 7% 118 4% 542 7%



curjob_finan Financial and other business services 1 1% 27 2% 45 2% 153 2%


curjob_hlthtech Healthcare 0 0% 21 1% 30 1% 156 2%



curjob_manag Management 3 4% 61 4% 94 3% 277 4%



curjob_office Office and administrative support 4 5% 163 10% 187 6% 668 8%

curjob_sales Sales 4 5% 157 9% 255 9% 650 8%




curjob_othnart Other occupation outside of the arts 2 2% 76 5% 98 3% 293 4%

curjob_oth Other 4 5% 93 6% 130 4% 382 5%

Totalb - - - - - - - -


(continued)


Undergraduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Undergraduate Level

Sample University

interdis Never worked as a professional artist 25 31% 630 38% 794 27% 2,543 33%

No 13 16% 275 17% 524 18% 1,592 20%

Yes 43 53% 732 45% 1,571 54% 3,666 47%

Total 81 100% 1,637 100% 2,889 100% 7,801 100%

majtimejob_R Currently not employed 10 13% 194 12% 321 11% 756 10%

Architect 0 0% 7 0% 44 2% 106 1%

Arts administrator or manager 2 3% 63 4% 87 3% 307 4%


Graphic designer, illustrator, or art director 16 20% 227 14% 587 20% 1,012 13%


Web designer 0 0% 23 1% 56 2% 119 2%

Other designer 3 4% 40 2% 194 7% 336 4%

Higher education arts educator 1 1% 27 2% 23 1% 80 1%

K-12 arts educator 2 3% 50 3% 46 2% 402 5%



Craft artist 0 0% 15 1% 45 2% 79 1%

Fine artist 3 4% 99 6% 130 5% 213 3%



Photographer 3 4% 77 5% 57 2% 111 1%

Actor 0 0% 1 0% 1 0% 79 1%



Musician 0 0% 0 0% 5 0% 172 2%




forms/disciplines?


your work time:


Undergraduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Undergraduate Level

Sample University


Other occupation associated with the arts 5 6% 96 6% 156 5% 373 5%


Communications 3 4% 39 2% 57 2% 224 3%


Construction 0 0% 4 0% 11 0% 41 1%

Education, training, and library 9 11% 53 3% 53 2% 274 4%





Healthcare 0 0% 10 1% 15 1% 77 1%

Human resources 0 0% 4 0% 2 0% 14 0%

Legal 0 0% 6 0% 5 0% 41 1%

Management 0 0% 20 1% 37 1% 96 1%

Manufacturing 0 0% 13 1% 20 1% 39 1%


Office and administrative support 2 3% 79 5% 83 3% 321 4%

Sales 1 1% 72 4% 142 5% 327 4%


Social services 0 0% 10 1% 7 0% 53 1%


Other occupation outside of the arts 2 3% 56 3% 57 2% 190 2%

Other 3 4% 67 4% 88 3% 275 4%

Total 79 100% 1,623 100% 2,867 100% 7,741 100%




Undergraduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Undergraduate Level

Sample University

arttime Never worked as a professional artist 25 32% 622 39% 785 28% 2,518 33%

I did not work as an artist in 2015. 4 5% 113 7% 183 6% 505 7%

Less than 25% 10 13% 215 13% 369 13% 1,083 14%

26% to 50% 14 18% 188 12% 363 13% 888 12%

51% to 75% 7 9% 172 11% 323 11% 842 11%

76% to 100% 18 23% 292 18% 810 29% 1,822 24%

Total 78 100% 1,602 100% 2,833 100% 7,658 100%

timetrainrel Currently not employed 10 13% 194 12% 321 11% 756 10%

Not at all relevant 11 14% 278 17% 403 14% 1,146 15%

Somewhat relevant 22 28% 325 20% 519 18% 1,491 19%

Relevant 15 19% 308 19% 544 19% 1,405 18%

Very relevant 21 27% 507 31% 1,050 37% 2,873 37%

Total 79 100% 1,612 100% 2,837 100% 7,671 100%

timejobsec Currently not employed 10 13% 194 12% 321 11% 756 10%




Very satisfied 25 32% 554 35% 968 34% 2,892 38%

Total 79 100% 1,598 100% 2,831 100% 7,659 100%

timecreative Currently not employed 10 13% 194 12% 321 11% 756 10%




Very satisfied 23 29% 499 31% 925 33% 2,580 34%

Total 79 100% 1,596 100% 2,823 100% 7,629 100%







40.1. Job security





Undergraduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Undergraduate Level

Sample University

timeincome Currently not employed 10 13% 194 12% 321 11% 756 10%




Very satisfied 15 19% 245 15% 511 18% 1,377 18%

Total 79 100% 1,594 100% 2,824 100% 7,649 100%

timebalance Currently not employed 10 13% 194 12% 321 11% 756 10%




Very satisfied 18 23% 443 28% 710 25% 2,191 29%

Total 79 100% 1,597 100% 2,823 100% 7,649 100%

timegood Currently not employed 10 13% 194 12% 321 11% 756 10%




Very satisfied 21 27% 454 28% 676 24% 2,457 32%

Total 79 100% 1,595 100% 2,817 100% 7,639 100%

timecareer Currently not employed 10 13% 194 12% 321 11% 756 10%




Very satisfied 15 19% 392 25% 700 25% 1,975 26%

Total 79 100% 1,589 100% 2,812 100% 7,619 100%






40.3. Income



Undergraduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Undergraduate Level

Sample University

timework Currently not employed 10 13% 194 12% 321 11% 756 10%




Very satisfied 21 27% 572 36% 948 34% 2,865 37%

Total 79 100% 1,595 100% 2,821 100% 7,646 100%

timesat Currently not employed 10 13% 194 12% 321 11% 756 10%




Very satisfied 23 29% 477 30% 856 30% 2,532 33%

Total 79 100% 1,597 100% 2,825 100% 7,648 100%






and values


Undergraduate Level


part_none I have not supported the arts in the past 12 months. 12 15% 218 14% 492 18% 1,052 14%

part_vol Volunteered at an arts organization 19 24% 408 26% 591 21% 1,773 23%


part_tch Volunteered to teach the arts 10 13% 210 13% 327 12% 1,153 15%

part_donate Donated money to an arts organization or an artist 20 25% 346 22% 540 19% 1,740 23%


part_oth Other 5 6% 103 6% 150 5% 381 5%

Totalb - - - - - - - -

perform No 8 10% 296 19% 465 17% 1,457 19%

Yes 71 90% 1,287 81% 2,324 83% 6,130 81%

Total 79 100% 1,583 100% 2,789 100% 7,587 100%

tmpractice Do not make or perform art in personal time 8 10% 296 19% 465 17% 1,457 19%


Several times a month 29 37% 507 32% 814 29% 2,121 28%

Several times a week 23 29% 384 24% 766 27% 1,975 26%

Daily 12 15% 237 15% 488 17% 1,288 17%

Total 79 100% 1,590 100% 2,799 100% 7,614 100%





work-related) time?




Undergraduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Sample University



Undergraduate Level


income $10,000 or less 20 25% 401 25% 658 24% 1,791 24%

$10,001 to $20,000 20 25% 301 19% 447 16% 1,302 17%

$20,001 to $30,000 8 10% 247 16% 367 13% 1,095 14%

$30,001 to $40,000 14 18% 180 11% 313 11% 1,026 14%

$40,001 to $50,000 4 5% 132 8% 254 9% 760 10%

$50,001 to $60,000 2 3% 61 4% 155 6% 397 5%

$60,001 to $70,000 0 0% 26 2% 88 3% 184 2%

$70,001 to $80,000 0 0% 15 1% 67 2% 140 2%

$80,001 to $90,000 0 0% 5 0% 34 1% 54 1%

$90,001 to $100,000 1 1% 13 1% 31 1% 49 1%

$100,001 to $150,000 2 3% 7 0% 22 1% 40 1%

More than $150,000 0 0% 2 0% 8 0% 20 0%

I prefer not to answer. 8 10% 188 12% 338 12% 738 10%

Total 79 100% 1,578 100% 2,782 100% 7,596 100%

$10,000 or less 14 18% 223 14% 361 13% 1,010 13%

$10,001 to $20,000 14 18% 226 14% 352 13% 1,007 13%

$20,001 to $30,000 8 10% 202 13% 277 10% 863 11%

$30,001 to $40,000 12 15% 170 11% 268 10% 854 11%

$40,001 to $50,000 4 5% 108 7% 223 8% 638 8%

$50,001 to $60,000 3 4% 79 5% 135 5% 429 6%

$60,001 to $70,000 1 1% 70 4% 121 4% 307 4%

$70,001 to $80,000 4 5% 39 2% 96 3% 264 3%

$80,001 to $90,000 2 3% 40 3% 83 3% 206 3%

$90,001 to $100,000 0 0% 34 2% 68 2% 188 2%

$100,001 to $150,000 3 4% 52 3% 104 4% 291 4%

More than $150,000 0 0% 28 2% 69 2% 164 2%


Total 79 100% 1,568 100% 2,763 100% 7,550 100%



owned assets.)


all sources?

hhincome

SNAAP 2016 Recent Graduates Frequency Report • Facts and Figures

Sample University

Undergraduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions


Undergraduate Level



Sample University

Undergraduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

artinc Never worked as a professional artist 25 32% 606 39% 769 28% 2,480 33%


Less than 25% 21 27% 414 26% 679 24% 1,743 23%

26% to 50% 3 4% 87 6% 167 6% 453 6%

51% to 75% 3 4% 59 4% 118 4% 358 5%

76% to 100% 17 22% 240 15% 758 27% 1,779 23%

Total 78 100% 1,571 100% 2,775 100% 7,578 100%

stdloan None 12 15% 534 34% 755 27% 2,603 34%

$10,000 or less 1 1% 122 8% 142 5% 591 8%

$10,001 to $20,000 6 8% 135 9% 191 7% 658 9%

$20,001 to $30,000 15 19% 194 12% 358 13% 1,012 13%

$30,001 to $40,000 10 13% 169 11% 319 11% 800 11%

$40,001 to $50,000 11 14% 98 6% 199 7% 421 6%

$50,001 to $60,000 10 13% 59 4% 151 5% 320 4%

More than $60,000 12 15% 175 11% 482 17% 790 10%


Total 78 100% 1,577 100% 2,782 100% 7,587 100%

impctloan No student loan debt incurred 12 15% 534 34% 754 27% 2,598 34%

No impact 1 1% 129 8% 229 8% 724 10%

Some impact 18 23% 319 20% 593 21% 1,681 22%

Major impact 47 60% 587 37% 1,188 43% 2,557 34%

Total 78 100% 1,569 100% 2,764 100% 7,560 100%

parentart No 65 84% 1,267 81% 2,190 79% 6,101 81%

Yes 12 16% 302 19% 571 21% 1,446 19%

Total 77 100% 1,569 100% 2,761 100% 7,547 100%










artist in 2015c


Undergraduate Level



Sample University

Undergraduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

artcity Past professional artist (but not currently) 9 12% 211 13% 348 13% 1,028 14%


Very poor 3 4% 22 1% 40 1% 91 1%

Poor 3 4% 60 4% 119 4% 303 4%

Fair 9 12% 186 12% 413 15% 899 12%

Good 16 21% 264 17% 515 19% 1,311 17%

Very good 11 14% 225 14% 564 20% 1,448 19%

Total 76 100% 1,571 100% 2,762 100% 7,545 100%

insttown No 39 51% 845 54% 1,436 52% 4,510 60%

Yes 37 49% 710 46% 1,305 48% 2,981 40%

Total 76 100% 1,555 100% 2,741 100% 7,491 100%







2016 Career Skills and Entrepreneurship Module Report

Sample University

Undergraduate Level


1. Alberta College of Art and Design 45. San Diego State University

2. Arizona State University 46. San Francisco Art Institute

3. Art Academy of Cincinnati 47. School of the Art Institute of Chicago

4. Art Center College of Design 48. School of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

5. Brigham Young University 49. School of Visual Arts

6. California College of the Arts 50. Southern Methodist University

7. California Institute of the Arts 51. Southern Utah University

8. College of Charleston 52. St. Cloud State University

9. Colorado State University 53. Texas Christian University, Art and Art History

10. Columbus College of Art and Design 54. Texas Tech University

11. DePaul University 55. The Juilliard School

12. Drexel University 56. University of Colorado Denver

13. Eckerd College 57. University of Connecticut

14. Emily Carr University of Art and Design 58. University of Iowa

15. Florida International University 59. University of Mary Washington

16. George Fox University 60. University of Michigan-Ann Arbor

17. Hope College 61. University of Montevallo

18. Indiana University Bloomington 62. University of New Haven

19. Institute of American Indian Arts 63. University of New Mexico

20. James Madison University 64. University of North Carolina at Charlotte

21. Kendall College of Art and Design (Ferris State University) 65. University of North Carolina at Greensboro

22. Kennesaw State University 66. University of North Carolina School of the Arts

23. Kent State University 67. University of North Texas

24. Louisiana State University, Music and Dramatic Arts 68. University of Saint Francis-Fort Wayne

25. Maine College of Art 69. University of Tennessee at Chattanooga

26. Manhattan School of Music 70. University of Texas at Austin

27. Maryland Institute College of Art 71. University of Texas Rio Grande Valley

28. Massachusetts College of Art and Design 72. University of Toledo

29. Memphis College of Art 73. University of Victoria

30. Messiah College 74. University of Wisconsin-Madison

31. Metropolitan State University of Denver 75. University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point

32. Michigan State University 76. Utah State University

33. Milwaukee Institute of Art and Design 77. Virginia Commonwealth University

34. Minneapolis College of Art and Design 78. Wayne State University

35. New Hampshire Institute of Art 79. Weber State University

36. Northern State University 80. Western Carolina University

37. NSCAD University

38. OCAD University

39. Pace University

40. Pacific Northwest College of Art

41. Penn State University - University Park

42. Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts

43. Rhode Island School of Design

44. Ringling College of Art and Design

Institution Name


Institution Name

The SNAAP Career Skills and Entrepreneurship Module Report displays your institution’s results along with one

comparison group: all other SNAAP schools (all majors included) at the undergraduate level that also participated in the

Career Skills and Entrepreneurship Module. The participating institutions from 2015 and 2016 are listed below.

2016 Career Skills and Entrepreneurship Module Participants

115

Variable Response Options Count % Count %

CScwgen Not at all 6 2% 829 2%

Very little 17 6% 3,291 9%

Some 103 35% 13,055 36%

Very much 168 57% 19,485 53%

Total 294 100% 36,660 100%

CScwrisk Not at all 11 4% 1,749 5%

Very little 31 11% 6,267 17%

Some 110 38% 15,211 42%

Very much 141 48% 13,303 36%

Total 293 100% 36,530 100%

CScweval Not at all 9 3% 915 3%

Very little 23 8% 4,242 12%

Some 120 41% 14,827 41%

Very much 139 48% 16,490 45%

Total 291 100% 36,474 100%

CScwinv Not at all 10 3% 1,553 4%

Very little 42 14% 6,375 18%

Some 117 40% 14,985 41%

Very much 124 42% 13,377 37%

Total 293 100% 36,290 100%

CSbroadnet Strongly disagree 16 5% 2,220 6%

Somewhat disagree 36 12% 6,165 17%

Somewhat agree 137 47% 15,997 44%

Strongly agree 104 35% 12,170 33%

Total 293 100% 36,552 100%

CScareerdev Strongly disagree 106 36% 7,930 22%


Somewhat agree 86 29% 13,459 37%

Strongly agree 20 7% 4,124 11%

Not applicable 6 2% 461 1%

Total 295 100% 36,696 100%

CSbroadview Strongly disagree 72 25% 6,369 17%




Total 292 100% 36,594 100%

CSadvan Strongly disagree 42 14% 6,670 18%


Somewhat agree 104 35% 12,194 33%


Not applicable 44 15% 3,554 10%

Total 294 100% 36,663 100%

2. This institution exposed me to a broad network of

artists, leaders, and scholars through guest lectures,

workshops, or special events that helped me see new

opportunities.

1.4. Inventing new methods to arrive at

unconventional solutions

Sample University

Other Module

Schools

Undergraduate Level

1.2. Taking risks in coursework without fear

of penalty

1.3. Evaluating multiple approaches to a

problem

SNAAP 2016 Career Skills and Entrepreneurship Module

ReportUndergraduate Level

Sample University

4. My education at this institution exposed me to a broad

view of career options, both in and out of the arts.

5. When I was a student at this institution, I took full

advantage of career services (advising, classes,

workshops, etc.).

3. I feel that this institution integrated all aspects of

career development into my education.

1. The coursework at this institution emphasized the

following:

1.1. Generating new ideas or brainstorming

116


Sample University

Other Module

Schools

Undergraduate Level



Sample University

CSabilresil Strongly disagree 18 6% 872 2%


Somewhat agree 105 36% 12,539 34%

Strongly agree 148 51% 20,507 56%

Total 291 100% 36,680 100%

CSabiladapt Strongly disagree 11 4% 623 2%


Somewhat agree 108 37% 11,903 33%

Strongly agree 155 53% 21,982 60%

Total 292 100% 36,503 100%

CSabilrecog Strongly disagree 20 7% 1,411 4%


Somewhat agree 118 41% 14,391 39%

Strongly agree 103 36% 15,193 42%

Total 290 100% 36,549 100%

CSabilfin Strongly disagree 77 26% 6,047 17%




Total 291 100% 36,554 100%

CSbenplan Strongly disagree 6 2% 1,108 3%



Strongly agree 177 61% 18,975 52%


Total 289 100% 36,424 100%

CSbenmarket Strongly disagree 6 2% 830 2%



Strongly agree 193 67% 21,126 58%


Total 287 100% 36,219 100%

CSbencomm Strongly disagree 12 4% 1,125 3%


Somewhat agree 108 37% 13,269 37%

Strongly agree 134 46% 15,245 42%


Total 290 100% 36,220 100%

7.3. Communicate through and about my

art (engage with the community, speak in

public, receive feedback, etc.)

6.2. Adapt (able to change to meet a new

set of circumstances)

6.3. Recognize opportunities to advance my

ideas or career

6.4. Financially manage my career

7. Looking at my career path, I would have benefited

from more knowledge about how to do the following:

7.1. Develop a 3 to 5 year strategic plan to

realize my goals

7.2. Market and promote my work and my

talents

6. When I left this institution, I felt confident in my

ability to:

6.1. Be resilient (able to pick myself

up when things do not go as planned)

117


Sample University

Other Module

Schools

Undergraduate Level



Sample University

CSbenmanfin Strongly disagree 10 3% 1,333 4%



Strongly agree 192 66% 20,429 56%


Total 290 100% 36,277 100%

CSbenlegal Strongly disagree 10 3% 1,758 5%



Strongly agree 174 60% 17,795 49%


Total 289 100% 36,093 100%

CSdiffjob Strongly disagree 43 15% 3,659 10%


Somewhat agree 107 37% 15,847 44%


Total 289 100% 36,189 100%



(continued)

7.4. Manage finances (develop budgets,

raise money for projects, save for the future,

etc.)

7.5. Monitor legal and tax issues (copyright,

trademark, sales and income tax, etc.)

8. I feel my education at this institution prepared me to

work in many different jobs and roles.

118

Undergraduate Level

Comment

2016 I think continuing workshops for alumni who may still have trouble keeping their resumes current, or who still would

like to know about career options for them with their individual experience would benefit us greatly.

2015 Any financial planning, or Portfolio creating training

2015 I know the teachers that I had made sure that I received the right training or assistance, but I know many students that

did not. Teach students how to market themselves, encourage the networking, collaboration, and getting them

involved with the community.

2014 Marketing and business training, and financing.

2014 Applying for grants/grant writing

Website building

Networking

Essentially, there was no emphasis on how to "play the game." The picture painted was the utopian idea of the artist,

not the hustle/rejection/ the flip side and hardships of being an artist, that should have been the emphasis, that this

career path is difficult and does not only revolve around making work/practice but ability to entice others, "paint

yourself to draw people closer."2013 Community engagement

2013 I've pretty much figured things out on my own, from being out in the real world.

2013 When I have a goal I'm very good at dedicating myself to accomplish that goal, but it's hard to set a goal in the first

place. I have done a little marketing of my artwork but I have never been very successful. I am good at public

speaking and talking about my work but not great at finding venues to do that. I am good at keeping a budget and

saving money but not always good at knowing how to raise money apart from working my regular job and I'm not

always sure what all to include in a budget. I'd love to learn more about legal and tax issues because those are both

complicated things that I know almost nothing about. I really want to finish building my studio but it's hard when at

times it seems pointless.2013 Filing taxes as an artist!

2012 A business class or arts management workshop

2011 Any career advising would help. ANY.

2007 Arts networking, basics of grant writing, identifying opportunities.

2007 Courses in graphic design, leadership, marketable skills.

2005 Help networking with other professionals OUTSIDE of my school's community and grant writing/management. Also,

more information on how to manage student loan debt.

2003 It would be nice to have the opportunities for continuing education during the summer months. I don't have the

inclination or resources to do an MFA degree at this time.

2001 Maybe access to a network for exhibition opportunities?

1997 Job placement for alumni. Networking events and job fairs to become gainfully employed in our chosen creative

field.

SNAAP 2016 Career Skills and Entrepreneurship Module Report

Comments

Sample University

Undergraduate Level

Please comment if there is any type of training or assistance that would benefit you now.a

Cohort

aAsked of all alumni. Variable name in Codebook is CStraintxt.

119

Undergraduate Level

CommentCohort

1993

How to build and maintain a portfolio.

How to network and create opportunities to foster working relationships.

How to manage finances as a working artist.

How to approach galleries and investigate opportunities to sell my work

How to write grants for fellowships or residencies, etc.

Would like to have a forum to connect with alumni and learn about alumni services available to me.1990 My internship is what got me ready for professional practice

1987 Being older, assistance on how to use current skills to transition to a different career within the arts.

1984 Mentorship

1973 I would love more technological training in the arts. I want to further experiment photographic training and

contemporary arts training

1964 Have professionals in the field speak to students.


120

Section 3: Graduate Alumni Results

Data Highlights

Comparison Groups


Frequency Report

Alumni Comments



Module Report

• Excellent - 37%

•

•

•

37%

•

•

• 30%

• Clear writing 18%

• 27%

27%

23%

45%

• Very well - 13%


• Not too well - 8% 1%

• Not well at all - 4%

• Did not pursue further education - 60%

17%

Teaching skills 26%

% Very Satisfied

17%

• Had serious conversations with students who are different

21% from themselves in terms of their ethnicity, religious

• Worked with an artist in the community - 79%

60% • Study abroad - 9%



a Participated refers to those who responded "often", "sometimes", or "rarely" in question 15.


19%

Interpersonal relations and

working collaboratively

Leadership skills

Networking and relationship

building

14%25%

47%

How alumni (n = 155) rated their overall experience at

Sample University:

Alumni (n = 151) reporting Sample University helped them

develop the following skills and abilities:

Persuasive speaking

Good - 43%

66% 2%Fair - 15%

% Very

Much

% Not

at All

Critical thinking and analysis of

arguments and informationPoor - 6%


This Data Highlights Report features key findings based on your institutional data, including some information about different

subgroups of your alumni. More extensive information, including comparisons to other SNAAP institutions, can be found in the

Frequency Report. Throughout the Data Highlights, "n" refers to the number of alumni responding to a particular question. The



3%

9%

Probably yes - 32%

12%

Research skillsUncertain - 21%

Alumni (n = 153) who would attend Sample University if they

could start over again:

60% 1%Creative thinking and problem

solving


Improved work based on

feedback from others58% 1%

9%

Probably no - 12%

17%

How well Sample University prepared alumni (n = 151) for

1% 53%

further education:

Definitely no - 9%

10%

7%



Artistic technique

Financial and business

management skills

very satisfied with these aspects of their time at

Sample University:

14% 17%Alumni (n = 151) reporting their level of satisfaction as

15%

beliefs, political opinions, or personal values - 96%


others14%

Opportunities to perform, exhibit, or

present their work31%

• Participated in co-curricular activities (organizations,

sorority, sports) - 55%


• Participated in community service - 68%

participateda in the following activities:

While enrolled at Sample University, alumni (n = 149)

Freedom and encouragement to take risks

SNAAP 2016 Data Highlights

Sample University

Graduate Level

Academic advising

Advising about career or further

education8%

Alumni (n = 146) who did the following activities while at

Sample University:

Opportunities for degree-related

internships or work11%


disciplines from their own47%

campus publications, student government, fraternity or

Instructors in classrooms, labs, and

studios43%

122

Alumni who have ever been a(n):

•

% Selected as •

Importantb• Unpaid intern (n = 141) - 49%

97%

95%

99%

90%

93%

93%

94%

95%

82%

77% •

72% •

•

•

94% • Family-related reasons - 4%

89% •

77%

• Debt (including student loans) - 54%

Alumni (n = 147) who: • Lack of social support from family and friends - 6%


•


Arts Fieldse

Alumni (n = 147) who: (n = 97)

• Currently work as a teacher of the arts - 44% 43%

• 53%

19%

• Never worked as a teacher of the arts - 26%


•

• Never have been self-employed - 13%

45%

•

•

• • Closely related - 53%

• • Somewhat related - 26%

• Not related - 21%

b Important refers to those who responded "very important" or "somewhat important" in question 31.

c Non-arts fields refers to occupational fields 24-44 listed in Appendix C of the Codebook.


e Arts fields refers to occupational fields 1-23 listed in Appendix C of the Codebook.

Alumni who have worked directly after leaving Sample

University (n = 135) reporting how closely related their first

job was to their arts training:

Founder of a nonprofit or for-profit organization

(n = 138) - 24%

skills and abilities were important in their profession or work

life:

11Sales

Higher pay or steadier income in other fields - 60%

9

15%

42%

(n = 26)

38%



Non-arts Fieldsc

Income

The top non-arts occupational fieldsc in which alumni currently

work:

Career Career (cont.)

Those who have ever worked (n = 146) said the following

12

# of Alumnid

Paid intern (n = 132) - 27%

Communications

Networking and relationship building

Critical thinking and analysis of arguments

and information


Research skills

96%

Improved work based on feedback from others

Creative thinking and problem solving

Artistic technique were (n = 52):

Lack of access to important networks and

people - 29%Teaching skills

Leadership skills

Education, training, and library

Current location not conducive to artistic career - 23%

Change in interests - 19%

Artistic work not available - 48%

who are past artists, or intended to be artists and never

Reasonsd for not being an artist that were given by those

Persuasive speaking

96%

Clear writing

Interpersonal relations and working

collaboratively




Financial and business management skills

Previously worked as a teacher of the arts


Alumni (n = 147) who:



Those who currently spend a majority of their time in

non-arts fields (n = 27) and find their arts training at

Sample University:

Very relevant - 7%

Relevant - 22%

Somewhat relevant - 26%

Not at all relevant - 44%

Work reflects their values,

personality, and interests60% 23%

Overall job satisfaction 31%

Opportunity for career

advancement21% 35%

27%

19%Opportunity to be creative

Job security

Alumni who are very satisfied with certain aspects of the

current job in which they spend the majority of their work

time:

Balance between work and

non-work life

48%

26%

Opportunity to contribute

to the greater good

c

123

•

•

• •

• Good - 30% •

• Fair - 32% •

• Poor - 9% •

• Very poor - 5%

•

•

Not Artistsf •

(n = 56) •

•

•

% of Time % of Income

(n = 104) (n = 94)

Less than 25% 31% 67%

91% 84% 26% to 50% 32% 9%

51% to 75% 17% 11%

20% 14%

•

• loan debt on career or educational decisions:

• •

• •

• •

•

•

•

•

•


f Not currently professional artists are identified as those who did not select "yes, I do this currently" in question 25.

g Median income values are calculated using the midpoints of income ranges as values.

2007-2011 cohorts (n = 7) - 71%

2012-2016 cohorts (n = 19) - 79%

Several times a month - 22%

A few times a year or less - 14%

Daily - 22%

Several times a week - 42%

Arts Engagement Income and Debt

1997-2001 cohorts (n = 15) - $45,000



artistic career:

Very good - 24%

Median individual incomeg in 2015:


Current Artists

(n = 82)

Waysd in which alumni supported the arts in the past 12

months:

Donating money to an

arts organization or artist50%

Attending an arts event

Volunteering to teach the

arts34% 11%

Volunteering at an arts

organization

Serving on the board of

an arts organization

45% 25%

30% 7%

36%

2002-2006 cohorts (n = 7) - 86%

Those not currently professional artistsf who make or perform

art in their personal (not work-related) time:

For those who make or perform art in their personal (not work-

related) time (n = 119), how frequently they do so:

1986 cohort and earlier (n = 9) - 89%

1987-1996 cohorts (n = 5) - 80%

1997-2001 cohorts (n = 8) - 63%

1997-2001 cohorts (n = 15) - $65,000

For professional artists in 2015, the percentage of work time

or income from work as a professional artist:

1987-1996 cohorts (n = 15) - $75,000

76% to 100%


1987-1996 cohorts (n = 13) - $85,000

2002-2006 cohorts (n = 15) - $55,000

2007-2011 cohorts (n = 23) - $35,000

2012-2016 cohorts (n = 39) - $15,000

2002-2006 cohorts (n = 13) - $75,000

2007-2011 cohorts (n = 20) - $75,000

2012-2016 cohorts (n = 35) - $25,000

Median household incomeg in 2015:

Major impact - 61%

Some impact - 26%

No impact - 13%

For those who acquired debt (n = 110), the impact of student

124

2016 Comparison Groups

Sample University

Graduate Level


City State/Province

1. Arizona State University Tempe Arizona2. Art Academy of Cincinnati Cincinnati Ohio3. Art Center College of Design Pasadena California4. Brigham Young University Provo Utah5. California College of the Arts San Francisco California6. California Institute of the Arts Valencia California7. Columbus College of Art and Design Columbus Ohio8. Drexel University Philadelphia Pennsylvania9. Emily Carr University of Art and Design Vancouver British Columbia10. Florida International University Miami Florida11. Kendall College of Art and Design of Ferris State University Big Rapids Michigan12. Maine College of Art Portland Maine13. Maryland Institute College of Art Baltimore Maryland14. Memphis College of Art Memphis Tennessee15. Minneapolis College of Art and Design Minneapolis Minnesota16. New Hampshire Institute of Art Manchester New Hampshire17. NSCAD University Halifax Nova Scotia18. OCAD University Toronto Ontario19. Pacific Northwest College of Art Portland Oregon20. Rhode Island School of Design Providence Rhode Island21. San Diego State University San Diego California22. San Francisco Art Institute San Francisco California23. School of the Art Institute of Chicago Chicago Illinois24. School of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston Boston Massachusetts25. School of Visual Arts New York New York26. St. Cloud State University Saint Cloud Minnesota27. Texas Christian University, Art and Art History Fort Worth Texas28. University of Iowa Iowa City Iowa29. University of New Mexico Albuquerque New Mexico30. University of North Texas Denton Texas31. University of Saint Francis-Fort Wayne Fort Wayne Indiana32. University of Texas at Austin Austin Texas33. University of Victoria Victoria British Columbia34. Utah State University Logan Utah

Institution Name

2016 Comparison GroupsSample UniversityGraduate Level




The SNAAP Institutional Report displays your institution’s results along with three comparison groups. Your institution had the option of selecting two comparison groups; those two groups could be pre-formed by SNAAP or created and named by your institution. You could select majors and institutions with which to compare your data from the 2015 and 2016 administrations. The third comparison group is composed of all SNAAP schools (all majors included) at the appropriate level (high school, undergraduate, or graduate). A complete list of institutions that participated in SNAAP in 2015 and 2016 can be found in Section 1.

126

Number of Majors: 5

1. Art History, Theory, & Criticism2. Design & Visual Communications (general)3. Fine & Studio Art (general)4. Photography5. Printmaking



Majora


Group Name: Related Majors

127


City State/Province

1. Art Academy of Cincinnati Cincinnati Ohio2. Art Center College of Design Pasadena California3. California College of the Arts San Francisco California4. California Institute of the Arts Valencia California5. Columbus College of Art and Design Columbus Ohio6. Emily Carr University of Art and Design Vancouver British Columbia7. Maine College of Art Portland Maine8. Maryland Institute College of Art Baltimore Maryland9. Memphis College of Art Memphis Tennessee10. Minneapolis College of Art and Design Minneapolis Minnesota11. New Hampshire Institute of Art Manchester New Hampshire12. NSCAD University Halifax Nova Scotia13. OCAD University Toronto Ontario14. Pacific Northwest College of Art Portland Oregon15. Rhode Island School of Design Providence Rhode Island16. San Francisco Art Institute San Francisco California17. School of the Art Institute of Chicago Chicago Illinois18. School of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston Boston Massachusetts19. School of Visual Arts New York New York

2016 Comparison GroupsSample UniversityGraduate Level



Institution Name

128

Number of Majors: 53

1. Advertising Art & Design 46. Photography2. Animation 47. Printmaking3. Architecture (general) 48. Public/Social Practice4. Art Education 49. Recording Arts5. Art History, Theory, & Criticism 50. Sculpture6. Art Therapy 51. Sonic/Sound Art7. Arts Administration (general) 52. Time-Based Media8. Book Arts 53. Urban Design9. Ceramics10. Communication Arts11. Computer Art/Digital Arts12. Costume Design13. Creative Writing14. Curatorial/Museum Studies15. Design & Visual Communications (general)16. Drawing17. Environmental Design18. Fashion Design19. Fibers/Textiles20. Film/Cinema/Video21. Fine & Studio Art (general)22. Furniture/Wood23. Game Art/Game Design24. Glass25. Graphic Design26. Historic Preservation27. Illustration28. Individualized Major29. Industrial & Product Design30. Interactive Media31. Interdisciplinary Major32. Interior Architecture33. Interior Design34. Landscape Architecture35. Media Arts (General)36. Metals/Jewelry/Enameling37. New Genres/Performance38. Other Architecture39. Other Arts40. Other Arts Administration41. Other Craft42. Other Design43. Other Fine & Studio Art44. Other Media Arts45. Painting




Majora

129

2016 Respondent Characteristics

Sample University

Graduate Level

Sampling Information

Total population size

Sample size (with e-mails)

Sample size (adjusted)a

Number of respondentsb

Response ratec

Sampling errord

Respondent Characteristicse Variable Count % Count % Count % Count %

Cohort (year graduated) cohort_R

1986 and before 24 14% 478 22% 470 13% 3,781 25%

1987-1996 20 12% 337 15% 530 15% 2,321 15%

1997-2001 19 11% 240 11% 364 10% 1,441 10%

2002-2006 22 13% 301 14% 566 16% 1,787 12%

2007-2011 34 20% 358 16% 727 20% 2,572 17%

2012-2016 47 28% 490 22% 937 26% 3,087 21%

Gender Identity gender_id

Man 65 47% 653 35% 1,072 37% 5,528 44%

Woman 68 50% 1,120 61% 1,756 60% 6,703 53%

Another gender identity 0 0% 11 1% 23 1% 54 0%

I prefer not to respond 4 3% 60 3% 82 3% 281 2%

Age age_R

24 or younger 0 0% 8 0% 22 1% 72 1%

25 to 29 18 13% 145 8% 291 10% 1,052 9%

30 to 39 43 32% 461 26% 936 33% 3,144 26%

40 to 49 28 21% 348 20% 629 22% 2,291 19%

50 to 59 17 13% 307 17% 463 16% 2,121 17%

60 or older 30 22% 507 29% 485 17% 3,523 29%

Marital Status marital

Single (never married) 44 33% 449 25% 870 30% 3,056 25%

Married or domestic partner 75 56% 1,144 63% 1,732 59% 7,938 64%

Divorced/Separated 12 9% 202 11% 276 9% 1,195 10%

Widowed 4 3% 32 2% 34 1% 279 2%

Number of Dependents children

0 82 68% 1,187 71% 1,811 69% 8,145 71%

1 23 19% 241 14% 412 16% 1,619 14%

2 11 9% 192 12% 343 13% 1,357 12%

3 or more 4 3% 44 3% 63 2% 409 4%


Sample University

Graduate Level

Graduate Level

Sample

UniversityRelated Majors

Art & Design

Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

1,115 17,063 26,449 125,449

807 11,470 20,792 87,449

748 10,523 19,300 79,826

7.1% 1.9% 1.5% 0.8%

164 2,232 3,617 15,023

22% 21% 19% 19%

respondents on the survey measures. Such differences are unknown, so caution is advised when interpreting and drawing conclusions from the results. The sampling

error reported here represents all respondents. Individual questions may have different sampling errors based on those who respond to the question.e Count and percent of total respondents within each category. The data for schools that participated in more than one year (2015 and 2016) have been combined.

a Sample size is adjusted for alumni with undeliverable e-mail addresses.

b Includes those who both fully and partially completed the questionnaire.

c Response rate is the number of respondents divided by adjusted sample size. For those with multiple reports, response rates by level/major are based on school-

d Sampling error is an estimate of the margin by which the true response on a given item could differ from the reported response. To interpret the sampling error,

assume that 60% of your alumni reply "very satisfied" to a particular item. If the sampling error is +/-5%, then the true population value is most likely between

55% and 65%. Results may still not represent "true" values for all alumni when response rate is very low and nonrespondents are markedly different than

reported information (if available). Alumni for whom major was not provided are not included in response rates or reports (except reports that include all majors).

131


parentedu

Did not finish high school 6 4% 57 3% 87 3% 466 4%

Graduated from high school or equivalent 20 15% 268 15% 362 13% 1,885 15%

Attended college but did not complete a degree 14 10% 160 9% 191 7% 984 8%

Completed an associate's degree (AA, AS, etc.) 9 7% 84 5% 124 4% 610 5%

Completed a bachelor's degree (BA, BS, etc.) 39 28% 428 25% 734 26% 2,909 24%

Completed a master's degree (MA, MS, etc.) 31 23% 409 24% 751 27% 3,208 26%

Completed a doctoral degree (PhD, JD, MD, etc.) 18 13% 332 19% 529 19% 2,241 18%

Race/Ethnicityf,g

American Indian or Alaska Native race_amerind 6 5% 26 2% 36 1% 178 1%

Asian (including Indian subcontinent) race_asian 12 9% 108 6% 295 11% 815 7%

Black or African American race_blck 3 2% 45 3% 98 4% 386 3%

Hispanic or Latino race_hisp 6 5% 101 6% 171 6% 571 5%

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander race_haw 0 0% 4 0% 8 0% 31 0%

White race_white 108 81% 1,415 83% 2,130 78% 10,274 85%

Other race_oth 7 5% 79 5% 153 6% 431 4%

U.S. Citizen (while at institution)f citizen 126 93% 1,586 91% 2,392 86% 11,131 91%

Type of Device Used for Survey device

PC 35 21% 453 20% 609 17% 4,477 30%

Mac 95 57% 1,282 57% 2,174 60% 6,658 44%

Smart Phone 29 17% 360 16% 653 18% 2,832 19%

Tablet 7 4% 120 5% 156 4% 895 6%

ReportArtsMajor

Architecture

Architecture (general) 0 0% 0 0% 90 2% 226 2%

Interior Architecture 0 0% 0 0% 34 1% 55 0%

Landscape Architecture 0 0% 0 0% 23 1% 51 0%

Other Architecture 0 0% 0 0% 1 0% 1 0%

Art History

Art History, Theory, & Criticism 13 8% 365 16% 109 3% 479 3%

Curatorial/Museum Studies 0 0% 0 0% 24 1% 40 0%

Exhibition Design 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Arts Administration

Arts Administration (general) 0 0% 0 0% 44 1% 322 2%

Music Business 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Performing Arts Management 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 14 0%

Theater Management 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 17 0%

Other Arts Administration 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 0%



g The count and percent of alumni who selected that race/ethnicity. Alumni could select more than one category, so percentages may not equal 100%.


Sample University

Graduate Level

Graduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Parent Educationf

Arts Majorh


f Alumni from Canadian institutions did not receive this option/question.

132


ReportArtsMajor

Arts Education (Art, Dance, Drama, Music)

Art Education 0 0% 0 0% 222 6% 485 3%

Dance Education 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Drama Education 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 33 0%

Music Education 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 782 5%

Other Arts Education 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Craft

Book Arts 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Ceramics 0 0% 0 0% 51 1% 61 0%

Fibers/Textiles 0 0% 0 0% 65 2% 70 0%

Furniture/Wood 0 0% 0 0% 25 1% 28 0%

Glass 0 0% 0 0% 13 0% 13 0%

Metals/Jewelry/Enameling 0 0% 0 0% 26 1% 31 0%

Other Craft 0 0% 0 0% 3 0% 45 0%

Creative Writing

Creative Writing 0 0% 0 0% 118 3% 183 1%

Dance

Dance (general) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 124 1%

Ballet 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 0%

Modern Dance 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Other Dance 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 10 0%

Design

Design & Visual Communications (general) 11 7% 170 8% 136 4% 210 1%

Advertising Art & Design 0 0% 0 0% 13 0% 14 0%

Environmental Design 0 0% 0 0% 8 0% 21 0%

Fashion Design 0 0% 0 0% 6 0% 22 0%

Graphic Design 0 0% 0 0% 144 4% 154 1%

Illustration 0 0% 0 0% 81 2% 84 1%

Industrial & Product Design 0 0% 0 0% 79 2% 100 1%

Interior Design 0 0% 0 0% 5 0% 49 0%

Urban Design 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 10 0%

Other Design 0 0% 0 0% 96 3% 107 1%

Fine & Studio Art

Fine & Studio Art (general) 39 23% 1,392 62% 805 22% 2,059 14%

Drawing 0 0% 0 0% 2 0% 21 0%

Painting 0 0% 0 0% 213 6% 427 3%

Printmaking 24 14% 87 4% 71 2% 88 1%

Sculpture 0 0% 0 0% 119 3% 203 1%

Other Fine & Studio Art 0 0% 0 0% 25 1% 45 0%



Arts Majorh

(continued)



Sample University

Graduate Level

Graduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

133


ReportArtsMajor

Media Arts

Media Arts (general) 0 0% 0 0% 104 3% 108 1%

Animation 0 0% 0 0% 111 3% 114 1%

Communication Arts 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 138 1%

Computer Art/Digital Arts 0 0% 0 0% 143 4% 150 1%

Film/Cinema/Video 0 0% 0 0% 150 4% 432 3%

Game Art/Game Design 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 0%

Interactive Media 0 0% 0 0% 33 1% 60 0%

Photography 79 48% 219 10% 205 6% 242 2%

Screenwriting 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 0%

Sonic/Sound Art 0 0% 0 0% 14 0% 16 0%

Telecommunications 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Television & Radio 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 12 0%

Time-Based Media 0 0% 0 0% 4 0% 4 0%

Other Media Arts 0 0% 0 0% 4 0% 59 0%

Music

Music (general) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1,326 9%

Brass 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 230 2%

Choral 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 79 1%

Church/Sacred Music 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 67 0%

Guitar 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 27 0%

Instrumental Conducting 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 84 1%

Jazz Studies 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 148 1%

Keyboard 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 593 4%

Musicology & Ethnomusicology 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 166 1%

Music Composition & Theory 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 378 3%

Percussion 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 56 0%

Recording Arts 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 0%

Strings 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 435 3%

Voice 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 457 3%

Woodwinds 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 344 2%

Other Music Performance 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 394 3%

Theater

Theater (general) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1,067 7%

Acting 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 140 1%

Costume Design 0 0% 0 0% 6 0% 35 0%

Lighting Design 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 13 0%

Musical Theater 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 12 0%

Playwriting 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 39 0%

Scenic Design 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 61 0%



Arts Majorh

(continued)



Sample University

Graduate Level

Graduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

134


ReportArtsMajor

Theater (continued)

Stage Management 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 0%

Theater Directing 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 60 0%

Theater History & Literature 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 9 0%

Theater Technology 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 57 0%

Other Theater 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 78 1%

Other Arts

Art Therapy 0 0% 0 0% 73 2% 73 0%

Culinary Arts 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Historic Preservation 0 0% 0 0% 26 1% 40 0%

Individualized Major 0 0% 0 0% 1 0% 1 0%

Interdisciplinary Major 0 0% 0 0% 13 0% 75 0%

Music Therapy 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 18 0%

New Genres/Performance 0 0% 0 0% 16 0% 68 0%

Public/Social Practice 0 0% 0 0% 6 0% 6 0%

Other Arts 0 0% 0 0% 64 2% 341 2%



Arts Majorh

(continued)



Sample University

Graduate Level

Graduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

135

2016 Frequency Report

Sample University

Graduate Level








part_oth Other 22 20% 67 20% 89 19% 178 12%

Totalb





Daily 206 42% 563 41% 184 31% 828 38%

Total 493 100% 1,373 100% 597 100% 2,164 100%









tmpractice

SNAAP 2016 Frequency Report • Arts EngagementSample Institution

Graduate Level

Graduate Level

Sample

Institution

Comparison

Group 1

Comparison

Group 2

SNAAP

Aggregate

Understanding the Frequency ReportThe Frequency Report contains questions with fixed response options. For more detailed information, the Codebook contains a complete

list of variables, survey questions, response options, and the logic used to determine which alumni received each question.

Comparison Groups The number and percentage of alumni at all institutions in each of the three comparison groups. The first two columns are selected groups and the third is all SNAAP schools at this level. You were allowed to select institutions from the 2015 and 2016 SNAAP administrations. All three comparison groups exclude your alumni. For more details regarding institutions included in each column, see your "Comparison Group" Report.


Your Respondents The number and percentage of your alumni selecting a certain response for each

question. The data for schools that participated in more than one year (2015 and 2016) have been combined.

Variable




Dashes For questions where alumni could check more than one response option, dashes are used because percentages can total more than 100%.




How to Interpret Percentages All percentages are presented as the percent of all alumni at a given education level, including those that did not receive the question. For example, here we might say that 9% of all Sample Institution's undergraduate alumni practice art in their personal time several times a month. This includes the 23% that did not receive the question because they do not make or perform art in their personal time. Frequencies for some questions (marked with footnote "c") have been reproduced with only those respondents who received the question. These can be found in the "Data Highlights" Report.

137

Graduate Level





instdeg_BA BA 3 2% 131 6% 92 3% 874 6%


instdeg_BFA BFA 23 14% 256 12% 371 11% 838 6%

instdeg_BM BM or B Mus 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1,332 9%

instdeg_BS BS 1 1% 24 1% 28 1% 320 2%



instdeg_MA MA 17 10% 510 24% 385 11% 2,529 17%


instdeg_MFA MFA 146 88% 1,554 74% 2,536 74% 6,013 41%

instdeg_MM MM or M Mus 0 0% 2 0% 1 0% 3,991 27%

instdeg_DMA DMA 0 0% 1 0% 4 0% 1,133 8%

instdeg_PhD PhD 1 1% 83 4% 10 0% 914 6%

instdeg_othGR Other graduate degree 7 4% 116 6% 414 12% 1,263 9%

Totalb - - - - - - - -


Graduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions




138

Graduate Level



Graduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

No 2 1% 34 2% 66 2% 198 1%

Yes 157 99% 2,104 98% 3,380 98% 14,193 99%

Total 159 100% 2,138 100% 3,446 100% 14,391 100%

aftdeg_none Did not pursue any degrees after time at this institution 105 75% 1,294 71% 2,206 74% 8,676 67%

aftdeg_Cert Certificate 13 9% 173 10% 273 9% 1,380 11%


aftdeg_BA BA 0 0% 5 0% 3 0% 30 0%


aftdeg_BFA BFA 2 1% 14 1% 23 1% 50 0%


aftdeg_BS BS 0 0% 2 0% 4 0% 52 0%



aftdeg_MA MA 10 7% 55 3% 86 3% 336 3%


aftdeg_MBA MBA 0 0% 5 0% 11 0% 90 1%

aftdeg_MFA MFA 8 6% 117 6% 165 6% 370 3%


aftdeg_MS MS 0 0% 25 1% 33 1% 154 1%

aftdeg_DMA DMA 0 0% 1 0% 0 0% 591 5%

aftdeg_JD JD 0 0% 5 0% 6 0% 74 1%

aftdeg_MD MD or DO 0 0% 2 0% 4 0% 23 0%

aftdeg_PhD PhD 4 3% 118 7% 122 4% 759 6%


Totalb - - - - - - - -

4. Did you complete your graduate degree pursued at

this institution?

compinstdeg


institutiona



139

Graduate Level



Graduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

compaftCert Did not pursue any degrees after time at this institution 105 73% 1,289 70% 2,202 73% 8,550 66%

Did not pursue a certificate 20 14% 344 19% 480 16% 2,874 22%

No 6 4% 61 3% 85 3% 333 3%

Yes 12 8% 126 7% 210 7% 1,045 8%

In progress 0 0% 19 1% 27 1% 146 1%

Total 143 100% 1,839 100% 3,004 100% 12,948 100%


Did not pursue an associate degree 33 24% 508 28% 739 25% 4,202 32%

No 2 1% 38 2% 54 2% 187 1%

Yes 0 0% 5 0% 6 0% 22 0%

In progress 0 0% 2 0% 5 0% 11 0%

Total 140 100% 1,842 100% 3,006 100% 12,972 100%


Did not pursue a BA 33 24% 511 28% 748 25% 4,214 32%

No 2 1% 40 2% 53 2% 189 1%

Yes 0 0% 2 0% 2 0% 16 0%

In progress 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Total 140 100% 1,842 100% 3,005 100% 12,969 100%


Did not pursue a B Arch 33 24% 516 28% 751 25% 4,242 33%

No 2 1% 37 2% 53 2% 178 1%

Yes 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

In progress 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Total 140 100% 1,842 100% 3,006 100% 12,970 100%



6.3. BA compaftBA



6.1. Certificate



140

Graduate Level



Graduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions


Did not pursue a BFA 31 22% 502 27% 728 24% 4,192 32%

No 2 1% 39 2% 58 2% 187 1%

Yes 2 1% 13 1% 19 1% 41 0%

In progress 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Total 140 100% 1,843 100% 3,007 100% 12,970 100%


Did not pursue a BM or B Mus 33 24% 516 28% 751 25% 4,211 32%

No 2 1% 37 2% 51 2% 188 1%

Yes 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 29 0%

In progress 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Total 140 100% 1,842 100% 3,004 100% 12,978 100%

compaftBS Did not pursue any degrees after time at this institution 105 75% 1,289 70% 2,202 73% 8,550 66%

Did not pursue a BS 33 24% 514 28% 748 25% 4,193 32%

No 2 1% 38 2% 50 2% 182 1%

Yes 0 0% 2 0% 2 0% 38 0%

In progress 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 0%

Total 140 100% 1,843 100% 3,002 100% 12,966 100%


Did not pursue another undergraduate degree 33 24% 510 28% 744 25% 4,203 32%

No 2 1% 37 2% 50 2% 178 1%

Yes 0 0% 6 0% 7 0% 32 0%

In progress 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 0%

Total 140 100% 1,842 100% 3,003 100% 12,965 100%



6.5. BFA

compaftBFA


6.7. BS




141

Graduate Level



Graduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions


Did not pursue an Artist Diploma 33 24% 514 28% 749 25% 4,157 32%

No 2 1% 37 2% 50 2% 188 1%

Yes 0 0% 1 0% 2 0% 59 0%

In progress 0 0% 1 0% 1 0% 5 0%

Total 140 100% 1,842 100% 3,004 100% 12,959 100%


Did not pursue an MA 24 17% 462 25% 666 22% 3,910 30%

No 4 3% 49 3% 61 2% 237 2%

Yes 5 4% 37 2% 63 2% 243 2%

In progress 2 1% 7 0% 12 0% 40 0%

Total 140 100% 1,844 100% 3,004 100% 12,980 100%


Did not pursue an M Arch 33 24% 508 28% 732 24% 4,212 32%

No 2 1% 37 2% 49 2% 175 1%

Yes 0 0% 4 0% 15 0% 21 0%

In progress 0 0% 3 0% 3 0% 4 0%

Total 140 100% 1,841 100% 3,001 100% 12,962 100%


Did not pursue an MBA 33 24% 511 28% 740 25% 4,152 32%

No 2 1% 37 2% 53 2% 186 1%

Yes 0 0% 4 0% 6 0% 61 0%

In progress 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 9 0%

Total 140 100% 1,841 100% 3,001 100% 12,958 100%



6.10. MA compaftMA



6.9. Artist Diploma

compaftAD



142

Graduate Level



Graduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions


Did not pursue an MFA 26 19% 401 22% 591 20% 3,880 30%

No 5 4% 66 4% 83 3% 249 2%

Yes 3 2% 81 4% 108 4% 254 2%

In progress 0 0% 5 0% 14 0% 24 0%

Total 139 100% 1,842 100% 2,998 100% 12,957 100%


Did not pursue an MM or M Mus 33 24% 515 28% 750 25% 4,069 31%

No 2 1% 36 2% 48 2% 204 2%

Yes 0 0% 1 0% 1 0% 137 1%

In progress 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 6 0%

Total 140 100% 1,841 100% 3,001 100% 12,966 100%


Did not pursue an MS 33 24% 491 27% 718 24% 4,091 32%

No 2 1% 41 2% 52 2% 181 1%

Yes 0 0% 16 1% 18 1% 115 1%

In progress 0 0% 5 0% 10 0% 21 0%

Total 140 100% 1,842 100% 3,000 100% 12,958 100%


Did not pursue a DMA 33 24% 515 28% 751 25% 3,659 28%

No 2 1% 37 2% 48 2% 279 2%

Yes 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 337 3%

In progress 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 116 1%

Total 140 100% 1,841 100% 3,001 100% 12,941 100%


6.15. MS compaftMS




6.13. MFA

compaftMFA



143

Graduate Level



Graduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions


Did not pursue a JD 33 24% 511 28% 745 25% 4,168 32%

No 2 1% 36 2% 47 2% 168 1%

Yes 0 0% 3 0% 5 0% 63 0%

In progress 0 0% 1 0% 1 0% 7 0%

Total 140 100% 1,840 100% 3,000 100% 12,956 100%


Did not pursue an MD or DO 33 24% 514 28% 747 25% 4,219 33%

No 1 1% 36 2% 48 2% 166 1%

Yes 0 0% 1 0% 3 0% 14 0%

In progress 0 0% 1 0% 1 0% 5 0%

Total 139 100% 1,841 100% 3,001 100% 12,954 100%


Did not pursue a PhD 29 21% 398 22% 630 21% 3,486 27%

No 2 1% 54 3% 62 2% 309 2%

Yes 2 1% 60 3% 58 2% 407 3%

In progress 2 1% 41 2% 48 2% 201 2%

Total 140 100% 1,842 100% 3,000 100% 12,953 100%


Did not pursue another graduate degree 29 21% 462 25% 670 22% 3,691 29%

No 2 1% 41 2% 54 2% 230 2%

Yes 3 2% 45 2% 61 2% 394 3%

In progress 1 1% 5 0% 13 0% 75 1%

Total 140 100% 1,842 100% 3,000 100% 12,940 100%


No 9 6% 179 9% 267 8% 1,407 11%

Yes 26 19% 394 20% 558 18% 3,040 23%

Total 140 100% 1,946 100% 3,153 100% 13,334 100%




6.17. JD

compaftJD




arts-related?

artaft_R



144

Graduate Level


Poor 9 6% 57 3% 78 2% 281 2%

Fair 23 15% 202 10% 320 9% 1,146 8%

Good 66 43% 877 42% 1,289 38% 4,945 35%

Excellent 57 37% 952 46% 1,683 50% 7,601 54%

Total 155 100% 2,088 100% 3,370 100% 13,973 100%

Definitely no 14 9% 65 3% 98 3% 431 3%

Probably no 19 12% 192 9% 270 8% 997 7%

Uncertain 32 21% 391 19% 556 17% 1,901 14%

Probably yes 49 32% 726 35% 1,109 33% 4,503 32%

Definitely yes 39 25% 721 34% 1,336 40% 6,139 44%

Total 153 100% 2,095 100% 3,369 100% 13,971 100%

Not at all 24 16% 219 10% 309 9% 1,269 9%

Very little 48 31% 610 29% 973 29% 3,854 28%

Some 60 39% 890 43% 1,509 45% 6,268 45%

Very much 22 14% 375 18% 579 17% 2,599 19%

Total 154 100% 2,094 100% 3,370 100% 13,990 100%

No 45 30% 434 21% 631 19% 2,328 17%

Yes 106 70% 1,630 79% 2,689 81% 11,528 83%

Total 151 100% 2,064 100% 3,320 100% 13,856 100%




Very satisfied 47 31% 730 35% 1,238 37% 6,663 48%

Not relevant 4 3% 158 8% 165 5% 767 6%

Total 151 100% 2,057 100% 3,307 100% 13,790 100%


student like you?

recinst

instperform


institution?

instcon



present your work



Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Graduate Level

Sample University


institution while pursuing your graduate degree?

instexp


institution?

sameinst

145

Graduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Graduate Level

Sample University




Very satisfied 72 47% 839 41% 1,376 42% 4,025 29%

Not relevant 7 5% 277 14% 277 8% 2,804 21%

Total 152 100% 2,047 100% 3,292 100% 13,666 100%




Very satisfied 25 17% 542 27% 677 21% 3,278 24%

Not relevant 51 34% 484 24% 866 26% 4,020 30%

Total 150 100% 2,030 100% 3,268 100% 13,617 100%




Very satisfied 66 43% 1,016 50% 1,653 50% 7,449 54%

Not relevant 1 1% 38 2% 46 1% 196 1%

Total 152 100% 2,043 100% 3,287 100% 13,717 100%




Very satisfied 32 21% 550 27% 879 27% 4,432 32%

Not relevant 12 8% 185 9% 315 10% 1,045 8%

Total 151 100% 2,051 100% 3,293 100% 13,715 100%




instlab

instacad

instadisc

instclass




146

Graduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Graduate Level

Sample University




Very satisfied 12 8% 268 13% 468 14% 2,745 20%

Not relevant 13 9% 183 9% 278 8% 1,204 9%

Total 152 100% 2,040 100% 3,285 100% 13,676 100%




Very satisfied 16 11% 387 19% 638 19% 3,089 23%

Not relevant 16 11% 325 16% 438 13% 2,428 18%

Total 152 100% 2,039 100% 3,273 100% 13,672 100%




Very satisfied 21 14% 332 16% 660 20% 2,724 20%

Not relevant 13 9% 193 9% 202 6% 1,487 11%

Total 151 100% 2,032 100% 3,261 100% 13,604 100%




Very satisfied 91 60% 1,098 54% 1,972 60% 6,452 47%

Not relevant 4 3% 65 3% 60 2% 799 6%

Total 152 100% 2,036 100% 3,275 100% 13,633 100%


risks

instfreedom


others


or work



education

147

Graduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Graduate Level

Sample University

Not well at all 6 4% 49 2% 80 2% 302 2%

Not too well 12 8% 101 5% 189 6% 653 5%

Fairly well 24 16% 308 15% 506 15% 2,152 16%

Very well 19 13% 436 21% 613 19% 3,574 26%

Did not pursue further education 90 60% 1,148 56% 1,895 58% 7,041 51%

Total 151 100% 2,042 100% 3,283 100% 13,722 100%

Not at all 3 2% 46 2% 87 3% 452 3%

Very little 12 8% 115 6% 212 7% 1,129 8%

Some 37 25% 628 31% 1,029 32% 4,802 35%

Very much 99 66% 1,234 61% 1,923 59% 7,203 53%

Total 151 100% 2,023 100% 3,251 100% 13,586 100%

Not at all 5 3% 48 2% 94 3% 383 3%

Very little 16 11% 218 11% 413 13% 1,430 11%

Some 73 49% 878 44% 1,455 45% 5,424 40%

Very much 55 37% 865 43% 1,267 39% 6,268 46%

Total 149 100% 2,009 100% 3,229 100% 13,505 100%

Not at all 1 1% 42 2% 54 2% 261 2%

Very little 10 7% 149 7% 196 6% 935 7%

Some 52 35% 683 34% 1,034 32% 4,573 34%

Very much 87 58% 1,147 57% 1,958 60% 7,774 57%

Total 150 100% 2,021 100% 3,242 100% 13,543 100%

Not at all 2 1% 38 2% 53 2% 319 2%

Very little 14 9% 123 6% 180 6% 1,000 7%

Some 45 30% 629 31% 913 28% 4,499 33%

Very much 90 60% 1,225 61% 2,086 65% 7,696 57%

Total 151 100% 2,015 100% 3,232 100% 13,514 100%


develop:



instanaly



others

instrev



further education?

edprep

148

Graduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Graduate Level

Sample University

Not at all 13 9% 141 7% 256 8% 956 7%

Very little 45 30% 368 18% 666 21% 2,252 17%

Some 48 32% 748 37% 1,303 40% 4,933 36%

Very much 45 30% 767 38% 1,015 31% 5,422 40%

Total 151 100% 2,024 100% 3,240 100% 13,563 100%

Not at all 18 12% 216 11% 391 12% 1,312 10%

Very little 49 32% 409 20% 777 24% 2,602 19%

Some 57 38% 784 39% 1,266 39% 5,114 38%

Very much 27 18% 605 30% 796 25% 4,496 33%

Total 151 100% 2,014 100% 3,230 100% 13,524 100%

Not at all 14 9% 219 11% 372 11% 1,655 12%

Very little 46 30% 411 20% 714 22% 3,011 22%

Some 50 33% 853 42% 1,334 41% 5,404 40%

Very much 41 27% 532 26% 815 25% 3,454 26%

Total 151 100% 2,015 100% 3,235 100% 13,524 100%

Not at all 26 17% 313 16% 451 14% 1,783 13%

Very little 33 22% 439 22% 691 21% 2,667 20%

Some 51 34% 778 39% 1,290 40% 5,001 37%

Very much 40 27% 478 24% 798 25% 4,057 30%

Total 150 100% 2,008 100% 3,230 100% 13,508 100%

Not at all 15 10% 271 14% 349 11% 2,319 18%

Very little 38 26% 482 25% 667 21% 3,235 25%

Some 59 40% 744 38% 1,248 40% 4,787 36%

Very much 34 23% 453 23% 870 28% 2,831 21%

Total 146 100% 1,950 100% 3,134 100% 13,172 100%







instresearch


149

Graduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Graduate Level

Sample University

Not at all 10 7% 231 12% 197 6% 754 6%

Very little 15 10% 260 13% 405 13% 1,166 9%

Some 54 38% 708 37% 1,150 37% 3,751 29%

Very much 64 45% 738 38% 1,364 44% 7,446 57%

Total 143 100% 1,937 100% 3,116 100% 13,117 100%

Not at all 76 53% 987 51% 1,384 44% 5,744 44%

Very little 48 33% 638 33% 1,164 37% 4,537 34%

Some 19 13% 257 13% 453 14% 2,145 16%

Very much 1 1% 60 3% 133 4% 741 6%

Total 144 100% 1,942 100% 3,134 100% 13,167 100%

Not at all 67 47% 909 47% 1,230 40% 5,168 40%

Very little 57 40% 624 32% 1,038 33% 4,247 33%

Some 19 13% 292 15% 606 20% 2,719 21%

Very much 1 1% 105 5% 229 7% 929 7%

Total 144 100% 1,930 100% 3,103 100% 13,063 100%

Not at all 20 14% 227 12% 265 8% 1,000 8%

Very little 31 21% 412 21% 575 18% 1,861 14%

Some 58 40% 802 41% 1,259 40% 5,154 39%

Very much 36 25% 506 26% 1,033 33% 5,170 39%

Total 145 100% 1,947 100% 3,132 100% 13,185 100%

Not at all 28 19% 362 19% 460 15% 1,592 12%

Very little 38 26% 464 24% 738 24% 2,421 18%

Some 55 38% 723 37% 1,215 39% 5,112 39%

Very much 24 17% 394 20% 708 23% 4,034 31%

Total 145 100% 1,943 100% 3,121 100% 13,159 100%

instentr


collaboratively

instwkoth





instartistic



150

Graduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Graduate Level

Sample University

Not at all 25 17% 311 16% 373 12% 1,625 12%

Very little 40 28% 473 24% 730 23% 2,971 23%

Some 59 41% 763 39% 1,286 41% 5,369 41%

Very much 20 14% 398 20% 746 24% 3,207 24%

Total 144 100% 1,945 100% 3,135 100% 13,172 100%

Not at all 22 15% 271 14% 438 14% 1,490 11%

Very little 25 17% 334 17% 610 19% 2,081 16%

Some 59 41% 682 35% 1,179 38% 4,524 34%

Very much 38 26% 660 34% 906 29% 5,110 39%

Total 144 100% 1,947 100% 3,133 100% 13,205 100%

Never 47 32% 750 38% 1,066 34% 4,068 30%

Rarely 44 30% 500 25% 755 24% 3,220 24%

Sometimes 32 21% 491 25% 801 25% 3,720 28%

Often 26 17% 241 12% 539 17% 2,357 18%

Total 149 100% 1,982 100% 3,161 100% 13,365 100%

Never 66 45% 995 51% 1,518 49% 6,658 50%

Rarely 38 26% 478 24% 833 27% 3,228 24%

Sometimes 28 19% 319 16% 528 17% 2,106 16%

Often 15 10% 160 8% 247 8% 1,267 10%

Total 147 100% 1,952 100% 3,126 100% 13,259 100%

Never 6 4% 123 6% 177 6% 1,076 8%

Rarely 17 12% 334 17% 497 16% 2,377 18%

Sometimes 39 27% 738 38% 1,102 35% 4,946 37%

Often 85 58% 759 39% 1,365 43% 4,886 37%

Total 147 100% 1,954 100% 3,141 100% 13,285 100%


this institution:


community

actcomser




actcocurr




values

actdiv




instnetrel


151

Graduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Graduate Level

Sample University

actartist Never 31 21% 690 35% 981 31% 3,517 27%

Rarely 29 19% 369 19% 626 20% 2,445 18%

Sometimes 50 34% 560 29% 907 29% 3,992 30%

Often 39 26% 342 17% 614 20% 3,310 25%

Total 149 100% 1,961 100% 3,128 100% 13,264 100%

No 133 91% 1,698 89% 2,723 89% 11,876 91%

Yes 13 9% 209 11% 343 11% 1,183 9%

Total 146 100% 1,907 100% 3,066 100% 13,059 100%

No 108 74% 1,462 77% 2,135 70% 10,068 77%

Yes 37 26% 442 23% 922 30% 2,995 23%

Total 145 100% 1,904 100% 3,057 100% 13,063 100%

No 17 12% 591 31% 760 25% 6,327 49%

Yes 128 88% 1,321 69% 2,308 75% 6,679 51%

Total 145 100% 1,912 100% 3,068 100% 13,006 100%

carserv Yes 16 11% 322 16% 677 22% 2,128 16%

No 120 81% 1,592 81% 2,351 75% 10,778 81%

Unsure 12 8% 56 3% 119 4% 422 3%

Total 148 100% 1,970 100% 3,147 100% 13,328 100%


this institution?


17.1. Study abroad






actport


actabroad

152

Graduate Level


jobtime Obtained work prior to leaving this institution 64 44% 709 36% 1,033 33% 5,509 42%

Obtained work in less than four months 39 27% 576 30% 979 32% 3,650 28%

Obtained work in four to twelve months 21 14% 296 15% 545 18% 1,694 13%





Total 147 100% 1,950 100% 3,106 100% 13,208 100%




Not related 29 20% 302 15% 429 14% 1,408 11%

Somewhat related 35 24% 430 22% 755 24% 2,319 18%

Closely related 71 48% 1,007 52% 1,634 53% 8,118 61%

Total 148 100% 1,955 100% 3,104 100% 13,217 100%

Yes, I do this currently. 65 44% 814 42% 1,178 38% 6,127 46%

Yes, I have done it in the past, but no longer do. 44 30% 736 38% 1,059 34% 4,608 35%


Total 147 100% 1,954 100% 3,112 100% 13,189 100%



No, I have not done this. 71 48% 907 47% 1,562 50% 6,200 47%

Total 147 100% 1,950 100% 3,101 100% 13,169 100%

artsrel



teach



Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Graduate Level

Sample University



experience?








Graduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Graduate Level

Sample University




Total 147 100% 1,959 100% 3,121 100% 13,230 100%

intart No 16 11% 392 20% 463 15% 2,163 16%

Yes 130 89% 1,564 80% 2,651 85% 11,023 84%

Total 146 100% 1,956 100% 3,114 100% 13,186 100%

stp_curart Currently a professional artist 86 59% 1,173 62% 2,027 67% 8,247 65%


stp_nowk Artistic work not available 25 17% 157 8% 279 9% 1,126 9%

stp_pay Higher pay or steadier income in other fields 31 21% 259 14% 435 14% 1,776 14%




stp_netwk Lack of access to important networks and people 15 10% 129 7% 220 7% 755 6%

stp_debt Debt (including student loans) 28 19% 164 9% 314 10% 906 7%


Totalb - - - - - - - -

wkself Yes, I do this currently 78 53% 919 47% 1,552 50% 6,520 50%

Yes, I have done it in the past, but no longer do 50 34% 637 33% 1,106 36% 4,219 32%

No, I have not done this 19 13% 389 20% 439 14% 2,388 18%

Total 147 100% 1,945 100% 3,097 100% 13,127 100%



art)?

artist









Graduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Graduate Level

Sample University

wkfd No 105 76% 1,540 82% 2,339 78% 10,097 79%

Yes 33 24% 341 18% 643 22% 2,722 21%

Total 138 100% 1,881 100% 2,982 100% 12,819 100%

wkpdint No 97 73% 1,337 72% 1,878 64% 9,335 75%

Yes 35 27% 511 28% 1,058 36% 3,188 25%

Total 132 100% 1,848 100% 2,936 100% 12,523 100%

wkupdint No 72 51% 1,242 69% 1,744 61% 8,941 73%

Yes 69 49% 570 31% 1,130 39% 3,357 27%

Total 141 100% 1,812 100% 2,874 100% 12,298 100%


No 6 4% 80 4% 127 4% 431 3%

Yes 35 24% 305 16% 592 19% 2,503 19%

Total 145 100% 1,917 100% 3,050 100% 13,000 100%

Past professional artist (but not currently) 31 22% 307 17% 476 16% 2,563 21%


Studio space 13 9% 136 7% 237 8% 672 6%


Equipment 6 4% 59 3% 114 4% 478 4%


Loans, investment capital 13 9% 127 7% 298 10% 1,069 9%

Publicity and recognition of your work 27 19% 359 20% 556 19% 2,161 18%

Professional networks 10 7% 172 9% 300 10% 1,209 10%

Total 139 100% 1,821 100% 2,927 100% 11,961 100%




Very important 123 84% 1,585 82% 2,500 81% 10,211 78%

Total 146 100% 1,937 100% 3,069 100% 13,056 100%

resource







artistic career?



organization

28.2. Paid intern

28.3. Unpaid intern





Graduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Graduate Level

Sample University




Very important 112 77% 1,537 80% 2,371 78% 10,193 78%

Total 145 100% 1,930 100% 3,057 100% 13,021 100%




Very important 96 66% 1,155 60% 2,000 65% 8,573 66%

Total 146 100% 1,926 100% 3,059 100% 13,007 100%




Very important 132 90% 1,769 91% 2,815 92% 11,693 90%

Total 146 100% 1,934 100% 3,063 100% 13,035 100%




Very important 101 69% 1,274 66% 1,947 64% 7,382 57%

Total 146 100% 1,930 100% 3,065 100% 13,042 100%




Very important 105 72% 1,473 76% 2,222 72% 9,235 71%

Total 146 100% 1,932 100% 3,066 100% 13,027 100%





others

31.6. Clear writing





Graduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Graduate Level

Sample University




Very important 103 71% 1,379 72% 2,197 72% 9,227 71%

Total 146 100% 1,928 100% 3,063 100% 13,017 100%




Very important 115 79% 1,467 76% 2,394 78% 9,640 74%

Total 145 100% 1,921 100% 3,059 100% 12,998 100%




Very important 93 65% 1,171 63% 1,883 63% 7,120 56%

Total 142 100% 1,854 100% 2,968 100% 12,665 100%




Very important 82 58% 1,081 58% 1,766 60% 8,241 65%

Total 142 100% 1,851 100% 2,965 100% 12,624 100%




Very important 65 46% 851 46% 1,435 48% 5,935 47%

Total 142 100% 1,853 100% 2,965 100% 12,651 100%










Graduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Graduate Level

Sample University

wkskillentr Not at all important 15 11% 226 12% 279 9% 1,223 10%



Very important 62 44% 779 42% 1,339 45% 5,368 43%

Total 140 100% 1,839 100% 2,943 100% 12,589 100%




Very important 107 75% 1,326 72% 2,291 77% 10,415 82%

Total 142 100% 1,851 100% 2,966 100% 12,659 100%




Very important 94 68% 1,189 65% 2,016 68% 9,105 72%

Total 138 100% 1,843 100% 2,957 100% 12,626 100%




Very important 93 66% 1,292 70% 2,126 72% 9,116 72%

Total 141 100% 1,856 100% 2,972 100% 12,665 100%




Very important 77 55% 1,081 58% 1,506 51% 7,973 63%

Total 141 100% 1,851 100% 2,966 100% 12,657 100%







collaboratively




Graduate Level


curemp Full-time (35 hours or more per week) 86 60% 1,121 58% 1,948 64% 7,921 61%

Part-time only (fewer than 35 hours per week) 33 23% 381 20% 603 20% 2,353 18%




Retired 12 8% 171 9% 119 4% 1,435 11%

Other 7 5% 114 6% 174 6% 591 5%

Total 144 100% 1,922 100% 3,056 100% 13,000 100%

curjob_none Currently not employed 12 8% 179 9% 192 6% 1,271 10%


curjob_artadm Arts administrator or manager 19 13% 201 11% 311 10% 1,503 12%


curjob_graphicdes Graphic designer, illustrator, or art director 18 13% 238 12% 545 18% 894 7%




curjob_tchhied Higher education arts educator 33 23% 560 29% 756 25% 3,272 25%

curjob_tchk12 K-12 arts educator 11 8% 129 7% 239 8% 1,206 9%

curjob_prvttch Private teacher of the arts 10 7% 87 5% 142 5% 2,016 16%



curjob_finart Fine artist 64 44% 753 39% 989 32% 2,126 16%








Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Graduate Level

Sample University




Graduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Graduate Level

Sample University


curjob_musician Musician 2 1% 29 2% 55 2% 3,441 27%


curjob_writer Writer, author, or editor 16 11% 222 12% 383 13% 1,493 12%






curjob_edu Education, training, and library 9 6% 154 8% 240 8% 1,291 10%

















curjob_oth Other 10 7% 67 4% 120 4% 427 3%

Totalb - - - - - - - -


(continued)


Graduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Graduate Level

Sample University

interdis Never worked as a professional artist 28 19% 459 24% 587 19% 2,312 18%

No 22 15% 281 15% 472 16% 3,098 24%

Yes 94 65% 1,158 61% 1,971 65% 7,443 58%

Total 144 100% 1,898 100% 3,030 100% 12,853 100%

majtimejob_R Currently not employed 12 8% 177 9% 190 6% 1,265 10%

Architect 1 1% 9 0% 77 3% 165 1%



Graphic designer, illustrator, or art director 5 3% 92 5% 248 8% 335 3%


Web designer 2 1% 11 1% 36 1% 60 0%

Other designer 2 1% 34 2% 139 5% 262 2%

Higher education arts educator 24 17% 359 19% 446 15% 2,207 17%

K-12 arts educator 6 4% 95 5% 157 5% 817 6%



Craft artist 1 1% 21 1% 31 1% 93 1%

Fine artist 12 8% 300 16% 373 12% 723 6%



Photographer 8 6% 54 3% 65 2% 98 1%

Actor 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 76 1%



Musician 0 0% 0 0% 2 0% 1,367 11%




forms/disciplines?


your work time:


Graduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Graduate Level

Sample University




Communications 4 3% 35 2% 58 2% 226 2%


Construction 0 0% 6 0% 15 0% 38 0%






Healthcare 1 1% 16 1% 24 1% 127 1%

Human resources 1 1% 1 0% 3 0% 17 0%

Legal 0 0% 6 0% 4 0% 75 1%

Management 0 0% 16 1% 38 1% 213 2%

Manufacturing 1 1% 3 0% 5 0% 18 0%



Sales 4 3% 21 1% 34 1% 133 1%


Social services 0 0% 5 0% 28 1% 77 1%



Other 6 4% 47 3% 73 2% 272 2%

Total 144 100% 1,880 100% 3,001 100% 12,749 100%




Graduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Graduate Level

Sample University

arttime Never worked as a professional artist 27 19% 456 24% 582 20% 2,300 18%

I did not work as an artist in 2015. 10 7% 144 8% 206 7% 1,235 10%

Less than 25% 32 23% 353 19% 553 19% 2,421 19%

26% to 50% 33 23% 331 18% 497 17% 1,948 15%

51% to 75% 18 13% 215 12% 381 13% 1,309 10%

76% to 100% 21 15% 365 20% 740 25% 3,446 27%

Total 141 100% 1,864 100% 2,959 100% 12,659 100%

timetrainrel Currently not employed 12 8% 177 9% 190 6% 1,265 10%

Not at all relevant 18 13% 147 8% 223 8% 920 7%

Somewhat relevant 27 19% 280 15% 452 15% 1,659 13%

Relevant 27 19% 350 19% 612 21% 2,199 17%

Very relevant 58 41% 912 49% 1,489 50% 6,617 52%

Total 142 100% 1,866 100% 2,966 100% 12,660 100%

timejobsec Currently not employed 12 9% 177 10% 190 6% 1,265 10%




Very satisfied 55 39% 693 37% 1,117 38% 5,359 43%

Total 141 100% 1,850 100% 2,942 100% 12,563 100%

timecreative Currently not employed 12 9% 177 10% 190 6% 1,265 10%




Very satisfied 57 40% 860 46% 1,365 46% 5,962 47%

Total 141 100% 1,863 100% 2,959 100% 12,601 100%







40.1. Job security





Graduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Graduate Level

Sample University

timeincome Currently not employed 12 9% 177 10% 190 6% 1,265 10%




Very satisfied 27 19% 376 20% 626 21% 2,737 22%

Total 140 100% 1,847 100% 2,944 100% 12,546 100%

timebalance Currently not employed 12 9% 177 10% 190 6% 1,265 10%




Very satisfied 30 21% 495 27% 810 28% 3,529 28%

Total 141 100% 1,856 100% 2,945 100% 12,569 100%

timegood Currently not employed 12 9% 177 10% 190 6% 1,265 10%




Very satisfied 59 42% 784 42% 1,246 42% 5,905 47%

Total 140 100% 1,851 100% 2,949 100% 12,571 100%

timecareer Currently not employed 12 9% 177 10% 190 7% 1,265 10%




Very satisfied 30 21% 424 23% 718 25% 3,079 25%

Total 141 100% 1,823 100% 2,915 100% 12,389 100%






40.3. Income



Graduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Graduate Level

Sample University

timework Currently not employed 12 9% 177 10% 190 6% 1,265 10%




Very satisfied 65 46% 991 53% 1,540 52% 6,807 54%

Total 141 100% 1,858 100% 2,954 100% 12,603 100%

timesat Currently not employed 12 9% 177 10% 190 6% 1,265 10%




Very satisfied 52 37% 727 39% 1,172 40% 5,361 43%

Total 139 100% 1,860 100% 2,949 100% 12,587 100%






and values


Graduate Level


part_none I have not supported the arts in the past 12 months. 7 5% 122 7% 239 8% 791 6%

part_vol Volunteered at an arts organization 51 37% 569 31% 806 27% 3,937 31%

part_brd Served on the board of an arts organization 29 21% 309 17% 461 16% 2,566 20%

part_tch Volunteered to teach the arts 34 25% 383 21% 571 19% 3,139 25%

part_donate Donated money to an arts organization or an artist 61 44% 923 50% 1,348 46% 6,599 52%


part_oth Other 15 11% 186 10% 246 8% 832 7%

Totalb - - - - - - - -

perform No 20 15% 376 20% 549 19% 2,726 22%

Yes 117 85% 1,466 80% 2,380 81% 9,841 78%

Total 137 100% 1,842 100% 2,929 100% 12,567 100%

tmpractice Do not make or perform art in personal time 20 14% 375 20% 549 19% 2,721 22%

A few times a year or less 17 12% 181 10% 353 12% 1,262 10%

Several times a month 26 19% 360 19% 657 22% 2,483 20%

Several times a week 50 36% 542 29% 803 27% 3,290 26%

Daily 26 19% 394 21% 584 20% 2,855 23%

Total 139 100% 1,852 100% 2,946 100% 12,611 100%





work-related) time?

SNAAP 2016 Frequency Report • Arts Engagement



Graduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Sample University



Graduate Level


income $10,000 or less 25 18% 198 11% 303 10% 1,000 8%

$10,001 to $20,000 15 11% 178 10% 248 9% 1,015 8%

$20,001 to $30,000 17 12% 162 9% 257 9% 1,074 9%

$30,001 to $40,000 12 9% 179 10% 263 9% 1,101 9%

$40,001 to $50,000 17 12% 163 9% 279 10% 1,215 10%

$50,001 to $60,000 3 2% 181 10% 287 10% 1,297 10%

$60,001 to $70,000 10 7% 153 8% 222 8% 1,016 8%

$70,001 to $80,000 7 5% 89 5% 172 6% 835 7%

$80,001 to $90,000 5 4% 70 4% 146 5% 624 5%

$90,001 to $100,000 4 3% 67 4% 117 4% 524 4%

$100,001 to $150,000 7 5% 103 6% 185 6% 870 7%

More than $150,000 2 1% 69 4% 119 4% 490 4%


Total 137 100% 1,832 100% 2,915 100% 12,543 100%

$10,000 or less 13 10% 61 3% 131 5% 394 3%

$10,001 to $20,000 10 7% 87 5% 126 4% 495 4%

$20,001 to $30,000 10 7% 84 5% 134 5% 579 5%

$30,001 to $40,000 8 6% 119 7% 185 6% 668 5%

$40,001 to $50,000 9 7% 108 6% 177 6% 725 6%

$50,001 to $60,000 5 4% 114 6% 175 6% 812 6%

$60,001 to $70,000 9 7% 119 7% 183 6% 757 6%

$70,001 to $80,000 13 10% 105 6% 160 6% 789 6%

$80,001 to $90,000 6 4% 87 5% 139 5% 692 6%

$90,001 to $100,000 7 5% 120 7% 183 6% 848 7%

$100,001 to $150,000 13 10% 228 13% 409 14% 2,070 17%

More than $150,000 10 7% 227 12% 390 13% 1,640 13%


Total 135 100% 1,820 100% 2,899 100% 12,515 100%



owned assets.)


all sources?

hhincome


Sample University

Graduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions


Graduate Level



Sample University

Graduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

artinc Never worked as a professional artist 26 19% 449 25% 578 20% 2,283 18%

I did not work as an artist in 2015. 16 12% 216 12% 331 11% 1,598 13%

Less than 25% 63 46% 757 41% 1,092 38% 3,961 32%

26% to 50% 8 6% 113 6% 189 7% 843 7%

51% to 75% 10 7% 48 3% 102 4% 536 4%

76% to 100% 13 10% 243 13% 608 21% 3,262 26%

Total 136 100% 1,826 100% 2,900 100% 12,483 100%

stdloan None 25 18% 675 36% 853 29% 5,046 40%

$10,000 or less 9 7% 202 11% 232 8% 1,566 12%

$10,001 to $20,000 9 7% 189 10% 224 8% 1,172 9%

$20,001 to $30,000 11 8% 160 9% 237 8% 938 7%

$30,001 to $40,000 13 10% 159 9% 266 9% 825 7%

$40,001 to $50,000 8 6% 103 6% 217 7% 662 5%

$50,001 to $60,000 13 10% 87 5% 194 7% 538 4%

More than $60,000 46 34% 219 12% 604 21% 1,498 12%


Total 136 100% 1,851 100% 2,935 100% 12,606 100%

impctloan No student loan debt incurred 25 19% 674 36% 853 29% 5,038 40%

No impact 14 10% 291 16% 397 14% 2,250 18%

Some impact 29 21% 389 21% 676 23% 2,448 19%

Major impact 67 50% 493 27% 1,007 34% 2,842 23%

Total 135 100% 1,847 100% 2,933 100% 12,578 100%

parentart No 116 84% 1,501 82% 2,340 80% 9,992 80%

Yes 22 16% 340 18% 585 20% 2,543 20%

Total 138 100% 1,841 100% 2,925 100% 12,535 100%










artist in 2015c


Graduate Level



Sample University

Graduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

artcity Past professional artist (but not currently) 30 22% 288 16% 451 15% 2,447 19%


Very poor 4 3% 26 1% 35 1% 145 1%

Poor 7 5% 77 4% 115 4% 436 3%

Fair 26 19% 240 13% 362 12% 1,468 12%

Good 25 18% 374 20% 672 23% 2,679 21%

Very good 20 14% 393 21% 720 25% 3,108 25%

Total 138 100% 1,844 100% 2,933 100% 12,557 100%

insttown No 61 45% 1,081 59% 1,576 54% 7,819 63%

Yes 76 55% 744 41% 1,333 46% 4,652 37%

Total 137 100% 1,825 100% 2,909 100% 12,471 100%







2016 Alumni Comments

Sample University

Graduate Level

Understanding the Alumni Comments

Work as Work as Arts Work as Arts Graduate Level

Artistb

Teacherb

Administratorb Comment

1995 Current Current NeverMore research and writing opportunities.

2000 Current Current Past I would have like more interdisciplinary arts collaborations. I studied in both the art

department and the dance department, and never at any time did either program

encourage or assist in work that might mean working with other students from 2000 Past Never Current

Teach an artist how to price their services.

2005 Past Past Never Offer career counseling and internships with area artist or artist outside the

community.

2005 Never Never Never The relationship between the advisor and the student is very critical. Everything

possible should have been done to foster that relationship.

2006 Never Current No ResponseProvide guidance on business aspects related to a career in a creative field.

Cohort

The Alumni Comments Report contains all responses to open-ended questions. See the Codebook for a complete list of variables, survey

questions, response options, and the logic used to determine which alumni received each question.

SNAAP 2016 Alumni Comments • Institutional Experiences

Sample InstitutionGraduate Level

Is there anything that this institution could have done better to prepare you for further education or for your career? Please

describe.c

Column Headers

Columns present cohort and

basic work experience

characteristics for alumni who

submitted comments. These

characteristics were derived

from specific variables on the

survey. Each column is a

specific variable. The variable

names corresponding to each

column header are as follows:

Cohort = cohort Work as Artist = artist Work as Arts Teacher = teach Work as Arts Administrator = artsrel

Question The questions asked of alumni are found here.

Alumni Comment The alumni comment column includes the responses from each alum to the respective question, with a limit of 8,000 characters. The data for schools that participated in more than one year (2015 and 2016) have been combined.

All available responses are provided. Not all alumni responded to each question. These responses have not been screened or edited.

Response Value Respondents had three response options regarding their involvement in three capacities (Work as Artist, Work as Arts Teacher, Work as Arts Administrator) as follows:

Current = Yes, I do this currently. Past = Yes, I have done it in the past, but no longer do. Never = No, I have not done this. No Response = Alumnus/alumna left this question blank

Topic Area Each comment question comes from a different topic area of the SNAAP Questionnaire.

Cut Off Comments If a comment appears cut off, please refer to the Excel version to see the entire comment. A non-text character may have been used.

171

Work as Work as Arts Work as Arts Graduate Level


2014 Past Current Past UC Santa Cruz

2013 Never Past Never University of Manchester

2011 Current Past Never Western Kentucky University - Graduate Certificate in Gender and Women's Studies

2008 Current Current Never Universidad Complutense de Madrid

2006 Past Past Never Mills College, UC Berkeley

Post-Bac in Computer Science (studied for MA)2004 Current Current Current National College of Art and Design, Ireland - Art in the Contemporary World

2002 Current Current Current University of Nebraska

Prescott College2002 Past Past Past Appalachian State University Masters of Public Health Administration

1999 Past Current Never San Francisco State University

1998 Current Past Never Cameron University

1997 Current Past Past University of North Florida, M. Ed Leadership

1995 Past Never Never Rochester Institute of Technology MFA

1992 Current Current Current Sonoma State University

1991 Current Past Never Delta State University; received a Master of Arts in Secondary Arts Education.

1989 Past Current Past USD, UCLA,

1985 Current Current Never Bay Area Video Coalition

1978 Past Past Never City College of San Francisco Certificate in Multimedia Design

1971 Current Past Current American Society of Interior Design, MFA, Interior Design

1970 Never Current Never UC Berkeley

SNAAP 2016 Alumni Comments • Education Sample University

Graduate Level

Please list the names of any educational institutions that you attended after leaving this institution and subsequent degrees received.a

Cohort



172


Work as Work as Arts Work as Arts Graduate LevelArtistb Teacherb Administratorb Comment

2016 Current Current Never Offer more classes in business and development skills related to being an artist.2016 Current Past Past Business management, professional development, gallery and community connections, transitional

opportunities between MFA and professional career2015 Current Never Current Business classes at the graduate level would be great.2015 Never Never Current More practical classes would have been better - museum practice, how galleries actually work, general

overviews of art business world.2014 Current Current Current Better thesis preparation in graduate courses2014 Current Current Never More classes to prepare for being a teacher.2014 Never Never Current More could be done for art history majors in terms of providing support, as well as resources to connect

students with internships, writing opportunities, symposia, etc. Even an online database would have been a great help.

2013 Current Current Current Classes involving practical problem solving for translating my portfolio into dealing with the "real world" of approaching curators and galleries. Classes about strategies for presenting work. These seem to have come about in the past couple of years since I've graduated which is great.

2012 Past Current Current Better career assistance and preparation. Additionally, I had no academic advising, was not assigned an advisor, and had to take charge of my own educational planning. I feel that the school needs to think more about students who have financial need, rather than give financial aid to students that already have the financial ability to pay. When trying to get assistance from financial aid, they shrugged their shoulders and said 'good luck' and that was it. Pretty lame if you ask me, when you're considering that students aren't just paying for tuition and books, but materials as well. Part-time jobs don't cut it, and if you really want to develop artists, you can't just develop the rich artists with trust funds.

2011 Current Past Never More Alumni resources in other cities2011 Current Never Current Website skills, mentor programs, building relationships between galleries and students, how to apply for

grants, how to maintain a practice in the real world, affordable studio options, creating alumni groups for continued critical assessment, exploring and providing access to new technologies, creating a discourse between students in different genres

SNAAP 2016 Alumni Comments • Institutional Experiences Sample UniversityGraduate Level

Is there anything that this institution could have done better to prepare you for further education or for your career? Please describe.c

Cohort

173



Cohort

2010 Past Past Past For my graduate degree, it was extremely beneficial as I was working towards a Masters of Art in Teaching and working in the classroom as a visual art teacher at the same time. It was great and directly transferable. As an undergraduate, I felt ill prepared for what my options were as a working artist which is why I gravitated to teaching. Perhaps insight and direct one-on-one preparation and brainstorming with what my options were, as well as, information on how to look for work.

2009 Current Current Past Graduate students are responsible for their education, the school is their to offer a support network, I don't always feel like the community was being fostered.

2008 Current Current Never exhibition preparation, approaching galleries and museums2007 Current Current Past Have more scholarships and financial aid, better housing help.2005 Past Past Current More focus on the development of my individual artistic practice and how to sustain it after graduate

school.2004 Current Current Past Provided many more opportunities to work with the community. Provide training in job prep and

networking opportunities. The graduate directors often have preferential treatment to those students they "liked" to work with visiting artists....this should have been a rotating process so all grad students could have had this opportunity.

2004 Current Never Current Provide more opportunities to gain solid teaching experience.1996 Current Current Past More interaction with professional artists1994 Current Current Current Contact and networking after graduation1994 Past Past Never More options for jobs after school for fine art majors1989 Current Past Never Not charge so much tuition, or give a break to students, like myself, single, with two children and no child

support.1981 Current Past Never I had no career advice re: gallery sales. I learned to teach by watching teachers, but had no real discussion

about the art of teaching. I honestly had no information re: making a living as an artist other than teaching. I graduated in 1981. I taught for 30 years.

1970 Past Past Past Project grants would have helpful.

174



2016 Current Never Current I continually critique freelance illustrators' work for my company. I manage artists, so I understand timelines and logistical problems they come across.

2015 Current Never Past Arts training is definitely relevant to my current work, I am working as an interior designer, conceptually trying to implement the principle freedom which I got through art.

2015 Never Never Never I stock produce in a big box store. What I did get from my education is an extremely high work ethic and a very disciplined work. Critical thinking skills, and organizational skills are used in my section at work, working with others and the ability to clearly convey instructions from one employee to another. My place of employment does provide work in photography, it is a matter of waiting for an opportunity to open up.

2014 Current Past Past I am a freelance writer and media artist outside of my day job.2014 Past Current Past I'm in musicology. Critical theory and performance studies is relevant to my work.2014 Never Never Current I currently own and operate an art gallery, for which my education was fairly relevant, although more

training in business, sales and collector relations would have actually been a lot more helpful than theory. I also work full time at a tech company, which actually funds my art gallery, and that job is not art-related whatsoever.

2011 Current Past Never My career is inclusive of arts and humanities, so while it can be more research heavy at times, there is a balance of art and design in there as well.

2010 Past Past Past It is not relevant for my current career though I have intentions of becoming an art instructor again in the K-12 arena. Most of my artistic exploration is for my own personal pleasure.

2010 Never Never Current I would not have been eligible for my current job without an MA degree.2007 Past Never Current As a curator and owner of a small gallery, my arts education is more broadly applied than if I were

engaged in my personal artistic practice as a photographer.2005 Past Past Current My training in the arts gives depth of context to my work and helps me connect with students and assist

them in achieving their goals.

Please describe how your arts training is or is not relevant to your current work.d

Cohort

SNAAP 2016 Alumni Comments • Current Work Sample UniversityGraduate Level

175



Cohort

2004 Current Past Never It is totally relevant in many ways. Obviously the technical skills I learned paved the way for me to move further into the development world. The creative education has helped me many ways, and has made me more valuable in many ways as well. I work in a world full of engineers. My creative education gives me a very unique perspective that many coworkers don't have. Artist can be flexible and adaptable. This has allowed me to come up with solutions to solve problems that other engineers couldn't, because the solution was outside the box. My education has also made me valuable because I can bring style and usability to websites and applications that those around me can't.

2002 Past Past Past My school taught me to think outside of the box, how to take any feedback and make it positive/useful and be clear in communication. As the Director of Development for a large healthcare provider that is a local non-profit , being able to solve problems uniquely and think of alternative solutions is essential. Being able to hear complaints from our community about services and care, and finding a way to use this information to better our programs is key. And being able to clearly express my perspective on any given topic, and most importantly, being able to HEAR someone else's perspective and consider it has been valuable. My education comes in handy every day in my non related art career. Thinking in 2D and 3D isn't just for painting and sculpture; it is essential in critically thinking about the world and jobs we do as well. Identifying the many layers that go into any project and being able to explain and hear the many different perspectives of each layer is a skill that is rarely taught in a classroom. I learned this skill from my classes, where our professors challenged every idea we had, and challenged us to develop each idea more.

1997 Current Past Past Creative problem solving, collaboration, keen understanding of the elements of design, and technological skills are very important in my job

1995 Past Never Never Graphic design is a critical piece of my role in marketing and sales. Plus, study in 3d/industrial design has been critical to product management.

1989 Current Past Never I am an editor of a magazine and I also write for it. I participate actively on the design and focus of the magazine.

1985 Current Current Never Eyes and hand skills. Photos altered in editing. Teaching ceramics

1970 Current Past Past I learned problem solving, which I apply daily.

176



2016 Current Current Never K-12 arts educator High School Photography Teacher.2015 Current Never Never Photographer Commercial freelance photographer.2015 Past Current Never Fine artist adjunct professor.2014 Current Current Past Fine artist artist@artist, 24/72014 Current Current Never Other arts educator I host field trips and conduct classroom visits to teach kids about

creative reuse, recycling, and crafts.2014 Past Never Never Communications Account executive, and management trainee in PR consulting and

creative solutions.2014 Never Never Current Computer and mathematics I am a closed captioning transcriptionist at a tech company.2014 Never Never Never Sales Sales Associate2013 Never Never Never Computer and mathematics Software Engineer2012 Current Never Never Web designer Owner of my own LLC.2011 Current Past Never Communications Director and Managing Editor2010 Current Past Never Graphic designer, illustrator, or art

directorGraphic Designer, Customer Service Representative, Project Manager

2009 Current Current Past Architect Senior Associate, I oversee the design and management of building projects.

2008 Past Current Past Sales Sales Associate2007 Current Current Never Other arts occupation Art Handler. I move art, hang art, ship art for rich people.2007 Current Never Current Museum or gallery worker,

including curatorPreparator, Exhibitions

2005 Current Current Current Other Content and Community Specialist2002 Current Current Current Higher education arts educator Studio art instructor1999 Never Past Current Museum or gallery worker,

including curatorMuseum Educator

Cohort

Please provide your job title and, if the title is not self-explanatory, a brief description of your work in the occupation in which you spend the majority of your work time.e

SNAAP 2016 Alumni Comments • Current Work Sample UniversityGraduate Level

Occupationf

177



Cohort Occupationf

1995 Past Never Never Communications Self-employed marketing consultant. This has included product development, design, copywriting and sales...

1990 Current Current Past Higher education arts educator Professor1976 Current Current Past Fine artist I paint, photograph, and write.1970 Current Current Never Craft artist Trying to perfect and extend my expressive range in the fields of

ceramic tile and murals/ backsplashes /wall pieces using ceramic and mosaic media.

178

bSee "Understanding the Alumni Comments" page for details.gAsked of all alumni. Variable name in Codebook is contcomm.


2015 Current Past Past Understanding current arts climate and contemporary issues, ability to critique multiple forms of arts, critical thinking skills and verbal communication, ability to bring groups together, leaderships skills.

2015 Never Never Never Fostering a healthy appetite and appreciation for the arts, in all their forms.2014 Current Current Current It has made me aware of the integral role we play in our communities not just as artists but what art does to

bring communities together.2014 Current Current Never I now know a lot of people in the arts community, so I participate more fully in the local art scene.2014 Never Current Current My arts training is a very significant part of my civic and community life. It helps me engage and

contribute at a high level.2011 Current Past Never It has some influence, but it is minimal at this point2010 Current Past Never My arts training has taught me to keep my eyes open to community events that I wouldn't have noticed.2007 Current Current Past There weren't any aspects of volunteering that were part of the graduate program.2004 Past Current Never I am conscious of the larger picture, but I would not say that civic participation was emphasized at school.

1995 Current Current Current My arts training is only partially relevant, in that it gave me the time to focus on my art, gave me opportunity to make some connections, and steep myself in the arts learning environment. I taught teens through the Summer youth art classes. I have been very determined and very self-disciplined in pursuing the arts in my civic and community life.

1976 Current Current Past I knew I was an artist at age nine. My formal arts training has been just the natural progression of experiences that I needed in my chosen life. I wanted to take four years and think about art. This school was perfect for that goal. In the physicality of the reality of art there and then, I could test my thoughts and "leavings" against clear and unambiguous points of view. All of my life experiences have been relevant. Art is just part of the overall balance of my life, it is an integrated part.

1971 Current Past Current I have become an activist for HIV/AIDS and have produced may fundraising art events for various charities for the last 35 years.

SNAAP 2016 Alumni Comments • Arts Engagement Sample UniversityGraduate Level

Describe how your arts training at this institution is or is not relevant to your participation in civic and community life.g

Cohort

179



2015 Never Never Current The MA program is really wonderful. We are surrounded by generous, smart, diverse professors and mentors. I hope that in the future, adjunct faculty is treated more fairly, as those members of the community shaped my experience and I would hate for the school to lose them.

2014 Past Never Never Please help find the needs of the students instead of waiting for the students to fit into the school's policy and community on their own.

2010 Past Past Past Though I am no longer engaged in activities that began my educational path as an undergraduate, there is a thread that weaves together everything I have done. My Masters degree had a much greater impact on my life than my BFA.

2006 Past Past Never Not sure I have any specific feedback now, but I appreciate the opportunity to share. It was a struggle at first to recognize that though I was focused on starting a career in art, between family and the reality of student loans that idea just wasn't going to be sustainable for long. It was great to get nice feedback from a generation of artists in their 50s and 60s, but pretty disheartening to realize that we are the generation footing the bill for their cheap low cost-of-living decades prior.

2004 Past Current Never Artists by their nature are terrific problem solvers and this actually makes them employable in a wide range of fields - but they need to understand how to access those options.

2002 Never Never Never I paid off my student loans this last year. The choices I made after I graduated were exactly that... I had choices about what to do about my finances. Ultimately I don't regret having finished an MFA as there is no price really for the abstract values I recovered during my time there. I do think that the ideal of being a starving artist sacrificing health care and financial stability should be looked at in a sober manner. It is irresponsible for arts institutions to directly or indirectly foment the ideal of being "discovered" in an art market that uses up and spits out talent like a television game show. Looking back I might have chosen a more affordable public school.

1996 Current Current Past The lasting impact of my education rested in the development and understanding of a philosophical structure. This understanding has been crucial in the development of my art and pedagogy.

1983 Past Current Never I gained a lot of knowledge and critical thinking skills through my graduate studies. I wish I could have been better prepared for the skills needed to survive financially in my fied. However, I am very happy in my present situation, teaching full-time and being an artist on my own time.

If there are additional things you would like to tell us about your education, life, and/or career that were not adequately covered on the survey or about this project or questionnaire , please do so here.h

Cohort

SNAAP 2016 Alumni Comments • Facts and Figures Sample UniversityGraduate Level

180

2016 Recent Graduates Report

Sample University

Graduate Level

•

•

•

•

•

• Study abroad - 4%



• Very well - 10%


• Not too well - 8%

• Not well at all - 4% • Yes - 57%

• Did not pursue further education - 67% • No - 43%

23%

15%

Instructors in classrooms, labs, and studios 38%

Advising about career or further education 17%


others

Opportunities to perform, exhibit, or present

their work


29%

56%

10%

Recent alumni (n = 48) reporting their level of satisfaction

as very satisfied with these aspects of their time at

Sample University:

% Very Satisfied

How recent alumni (n = 49) rated their overall experience at

Sample University:

SNAAP 2016 Recent Graduates

Sample University

Graduate Level

Academic advising

Opportunities for degree-related internships or

work


disciplines from their own

This Recent Graduates Report features key findings based on your data from your most recent alumni. SNAAP defines "recent

alumni" as those who graduated in the last 5 years for postsecondary institutions, and in the last 10 years for arts high schools.

Throughout the Recent Graduates Report, "n" refers to the number of alumni responding to a particular question. The data for

schools that participated in more than one year (2015 and 2016) have been combined.


13%

Recent alumni (n = 47) who would attend Sample University if

they could start over again:

Comparing the % of alumni who say a skill is very important to their work to the % who say that they acquired that skill very much

while at Sample University:

Recent alumni (n = 47) who participated in the following

activities while at Sample University:

Freedom and encouragement to take risks 60%

Probably yes - 32%

Uncertain - 26%

Whether recent alumni (n = 47) would recommend Sample

University to other students like themselves:


Probably no - 13%

How well Sample University prepared recent alumni (n = 48) for

further education:

Definitely no - 15%

12%

18%

47%

22%

Poor

Fair

Good

Excellent

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

79% 70% 66%

85%

64%

77% 81% 79%

62%

51%

40% 40%

84%

67% 69%

44%

64%

33%

64% 60%

40%

23% 28% 30%

13%

34%

0% 0%

17% 11% 11%

28%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Skill is very important to work (n = 47)Acquired skill in school (very much) (n = 47)

182


•

•

• Never have been self-employed - 9% • Good - 35%

• Fair - 43%

• Poor - 4%

• Very poor - 0%

•

• Serving on the board of an arts organization - 15%

• Volunteering to teach the arts - 17%

• Donating money to an arts organization or artist - 27%

• Attending an arts event - 93%


•


Artistic work not available 72%

Higher pay or steadier income in other fields 50%

Current location not conducive to artistic career 44%

Change in interests 11%

Family-related reasons 0%

44%

72%

6%

Reasond

Lack of access to important networks and people

Debt (including student loans)

Lack of social support from family and friends

Career Arts Engagement






artistic career:

Very good - 17%

Comparing recent alumni working in arts fieldsa to those in

non-arts fieldsb who report they are very satisfied with certain

aspects of the current job in which they spend the majority of

their work time:



Median individual and household incomee in 2015 by

graduating year:

Income and Debt

Ways recent alumni (n = 41) supported the arts in the

past 12 monthsd:

Volunteering at an arts organization - 34%

% Selected


Reasons why recent alumni (n = 18) are not currently pursuing

careers as professional artistsc:

For recent alumni who acquired student loan debt at Sample

University (n = 36), impact on life decisions:

a Arts fields refers to occupational fields 1-23 listed in Appendix C of the Codebook.

b Non-arts fields refers to occupational fields 24-44 listed in Appendix C of the Codebook.

c Does not include those who were never artists and never intended to be.


e Median income values are calculated using the midpoints of income ranges as values.

78%

19%

3%

Major

impact

Some

impact

No

impact

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

54%

8%

38%

15%

46%

23%

38%

25%

54%

13%

25%

17%

50%

33%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Job security

Opportunity to

be creative

Income

Work and

life balance

Career

advancement

Work reflects

interests

Overall job

satisfaction

Arts fields (n = 24)

Non-arts fields (n = 13)

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

$90,000

2015

(n = 15)

2014

(n = 9)

2013

(n = 3)

2012

(n = 4)

2011

(n = 6)

Household

Individual

183

2016 Recent Graduates Frequency Report

Sample University

Graduate Level








part_oth Other 22 20% 67 20% 89 19% 178 12%

Totala





Daily 206 42% 563 41% 184 31% 828 38%

Total 493 100% 1,373 100% 597 100% 2,164 100%


Understanding the Recent Graduates Frequency ReportThe Recent Graduate Frequency Report contains responses for questions with fixed response options from your most recent alumni. SNAAP

defines "recent alumni" as those who graduated in the last 5 years for postsecondary institutions, and in the last 10 years for arts high

schools. For more detailed information on the questions, the Codebook contains a complete list of variables, survey questions, response

options, and the logic used to determine which alumni received each question.

Sample Institution

High School Level

High School Level

Sample

Institution

Comparison

Group 1

Comparison

Group 2

SNAAP

Aggregate









tmpractice

Comparison Groups The number and percentage of recent alumni at all institutions in each of the three comparison groups. The first two columns are selected groups and the third is all SNAAP schools at this level. You were allowed to select institutions from the 2015 and 2016 SNAAP administrations. All three comparison groups exclude your recent alumni. For more details regarding institutions included in each column, see your "Comparison Group"


Your Respondents The number and percentage of your recent alumni selecting a certain response for each question. The


Variable




Dashes For questions where recent alumni could check more than one response option, dashes are used because percentages can total more than 100%.




How to Interpret Percentages All percentages are presented as the percent of all recent alumni at a given education level, including those that did not receive the question. For example, here we might say that 9% of all Sample Institution's undergraduate recent alumni practice art in their personal time several times a month. This includes the 23% that did not receive the question because they do not make or perform art in their personal time. Frequencies for some questions (marked with footnote "c") have been reproduced with only those respondents who received the question. These can be found in the "Data Highlights" Report for all

185

Graduate Level





instdeg_BA BA 0 0% 30 6% 29 3% 134 4%


instdeg_BFA BFA 4 7% 42 8% 69 7% 132 4%

instdeg_BM BM or B Mus 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 168 5%

instdeg_BS BS 0 0% 5 1% 6 1% 59 2%



instdeg_MA MA 12 22% 98 19% 130 13% 522 16%


instdeg_MFA MFA 41 76% 371 74% 686 68% 1,415 43%


instdeg_DMA DMA 0 0% 0 0% 2 0% 251 8%

instdeg_PhD PhD 0 0% 13 3% 0 0% 118 4%

instdeg_othGR Other graduate degree 3 6% 47 9% 168 17% 413 13%

Totalb - - - - - - - -


Graduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions




186

Graduate Level



Graduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

No 1 2% 8 1% 15 1% 34 1%

Yes 50 98% 532 99% 1,027 99% 3,207 99%

Total 51 100% 540 100% 1,042 100% 3,241 100%

aftdeg_none Did not pursue any degrees after time at this institution 43 91% 345 79% 733 84% 2,294 80%

aftdeg_Cert Certificate 0 0% 23 5% 56 6% 168 6%


aftdeg_BA BA 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 0%


aftdeg_BFA BFA 0 0% 1 0% 3 0% 3 0%


aftdeg_BS BS 0 0% 0 0% 1 0% 5 0%



aftdeg_MA MA 1 2% 8 2% 14 2% 40 1%


aftdeg_MBA MBA 0 0% 0 0% 4 0% 9 0%

aftdeg_MFA MFA 1 2% 26 6% 43 5% 77 3%


aftdeg_MS MS 0 0% 2 0% 3 0% 16 1%

aftdeg_DMA DMA 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 89 3%

aftdeg_JD JD 0 0% 1 0% 1 0% 7 0%

aftdeg_MD MD or DO 0 0% 1 0% 1 0% 4 0%

aftdeg_PhD PhD 1 2% 26 6% 17 2% 105 4%


Totalb - - - - - - - -

4. Did you complete your graduate degree pursued at

this institution?

compinstdeg


institutiona



187

Graduate Level



Graduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

compaftCert Did not pursue any degrees after time at this institution 43 91% 343 78% 731 83% 2,245 78%

Did not pursue a certificate 3 6% 67 15% 86 10% 416 15%

No 1 2% 12 3% 16 2% 53 2%

Yes 0 0% 8 2% 35 4% 91 3%

In progress 0 0% 10 2% 14 2% 62 2%

Total 47 100% 440 100% 882 100% 2,867 100%

Did not pursue any degrees after time at this institution 43 93% 343 78% 731 83% 2,245 78%

Did not pursue an associate degree 3 7% 88 20% 137 15% 578 20%

No 0 0% 8 2% 12 1% 38 1%

Yes 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

In progress 0 0% 2 0% 4 0% 5 0%

Total 46 100% 441 100% 884 100% 2,866 100%


Did not pursue a BA 3 7% 90 20% 141 16% 581 20%

No 0 0% 8 2% 12 1% 38 1%

Yes 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 0%

In progress 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Total 46 100% 441 100% 884 100% 2,866 100%


Did not pursue a B Arch 3 7% 90 20% 141 16% 583 20%

No 0 0% 8 2% 12 1% 38 1%

Yes 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

In progress 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Total 46 100% 441 100% 884 100% 2,866 100%

6.3. BA compaftBA



6.1. Certificate





188

Graduate Level



Graduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions


Did not pursue a BFA 3 7% 89 20% 138 16% 580 20%

No 0 0% 7 2% 11 1% 37 1%

Yes 0 0% 2 0% 4 0% 4 0%

In progress 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Total 46 100% 441 100% 884 100% 2,866 100%


Did not pursue a BM or B Mus 3 7% 90 20% 141 16% 580 20%

No 0 0% 8 2% 11 1% 38 1%

Yes 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 0%

In progress 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Total 46 100% 441 100% 883 100% 2,865 100%

compaftBS Did not pursue any degrees after time at this institution 43 93% 343 78% 731 83% 2,245 78%

Did not pursue a BS 3 7% 90 20% 140 16% 578 20%

No 0 0% 9 2% 10 1% 36 1%

Yes 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 0%

In progress 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 0%

Total 46 100% 442 100% 881 100% 2,864 100%


Did not pursue another undergraduate degree 3 7% 90 20% 141 16% 580 20%

No 0 0% 8 2% 10 1% 36 1%

Yes 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 0%

In progress 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 0%

Total 46 100% 441 100% 882 100% 2,865 100%



6.5. BFA

compaftBFA


6.7. BS




189

Graduate Level



Graduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions


Did not pursue an Artist Diploma 3 7% 90 20% 141 16% 568 20%

No 0 0% 8 2% 10 1% 39 1%

Yes 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 8 0%

In progress 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 4 0%

Total 46 100% 441 100% 882 100% 2,864 100%


Did not pursue an MA 2 4% 82 19% 127 14% 543 19%

No 0 0% 9 2% 10 1% 40 1%

Yes 0 0% 3 1% 9 1% 25 1%

In progress 1 2% 4 1% 5 1% 14 0%

Total 46 100% 441 100% 882 100% 2,867 100%


Did not pursue an M Arch 3 7% 90 20% 140 16% 577 20%

No 0 0% 8 2% 9 1% 36 1%

Yes 0 0% 0 0% 1 0% 4 0%

In progress 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Total 46 100% 441 100% 881 100% 2,862 100%


Did not pursue an MBA 3 7% 90 20% 137 16% 574 20%

No 0 0% 8 2% 11 1% 37 1%

Yes 0 0% 0 0% 2 0% 3 0%

In progress 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 4 0%

Total 46 100% 441 100% 881 100% 2,863 100%

6.10. MA compaftMA



6.9. Artist Diploma

compaftAD





190

Graduate Level



Graduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions


Did not pursue an MFA 3 7% 65 15% 99 11% 507 18%

No 0 0% 11 2% 13 1% 43 1%

Yes 0 0% 23 5% 32 4% 58 2%

In progress 0 0% 3 1% 9 1% 15 1%

Total 46 100% 445 100% 884 100% 2,868 100%


Did not pursue an MM or M Mus 3 7% 90 20% 141 16% 555 19%

No 0 0% 8 2% 9 1% 39 1%

Yes 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 23 1%

In progress 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 4 0%

Total 46 100% 441 100% 881 100% 2,866 100%


Did not pursue an MS 3 7% 88 20% 138 16% 568 20%

No 0 0% 9 2% 10 1% 35 1%

Yes 0 0% 0 0% 1 0% 10 0%

In progress 0 0% 1 0% 1 0% 5 0%

Total 46 100% 441 100% 881 100% 2,863 100%


Did not pursue a DMA 3 7% 90 20% 141 16% 495 17%

No 0 0% 8 2% 9 1% 41 1%

Yes 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 15 1%

In progress 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 66 2%

Total 46 100% 441 100% 881 100% 2,862 100%



6.13. MFA

compaftMFA


6.15. MS compaftMS




191

Graduate Level



Graduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions


Did not pursue a JD 3 7% 89 20% 140 16% 576 20%

No 0 0% 8 2% 9 1% 36 1%

Yes 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 0%

In progress 0 0% 1 0% 1 0% 5 0%

Total 46 100% 441 100% 881 100% 2,863 100%


Did not pursue an MD or DO 3 7% 89 20% 140 16% 579 20%

No 0 0% 8 2% 9 1% 35 1%

Yes 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

In progress 0 0% 1 0% 1 0% 4 0%

Total 46 100% 441 100% 881 100% 2,863 100%


Did not pursue a PhD 2 4% 64 15% 125 14% 479 17%

No 0 0% 11 2% 11 1% 46 2%

Yes 0 0% 0 0% 1 0% 7 0%

In progress 1 2% 23 5% 13 1% 88 3%

Total 46 100% 441 100% 881 100% 2,865 100%


Did not pursue another graduate degree 2 4% 85 19% 134 15% 538 19%

No 0 0% 7 2% 8 1% 37 1%

Yes 1 2% 4 1% 6 1% 17 1%

In progress 0 0% 2 0% 2 0% 26 1%

Total 46 100% 441 100% 881 100% 2,863 100%


No 1 2% 29 6% 48 5% 159 5%

Yes 3 6% 85 17% 121 13% 477 16%

Total 47 100% 496 100% 957 100% 3,018 100%


arts-related?

artaft_R




6.17. JD

compaftJD





192

Graduate Level


Poor 6 12% 26 5% 38 4% 113 4%

Fair 9 18% 65 12% 114 11% 371 12%

Good 23 47% 260 50% 452 45% 1,325 43%

Excellent 11 22% 172 33% 406 40% 1,297 42%

Total 49 100% 523 100% 1,010 100% 3,106 100%

Definitely no 7 15% 22 4% 38 4% 139 4%

Probably no 6 13% 53 10% 88 9% 284 9%

Uncertain 12 26% 105 20% 181 18% 451 15%

Probably yes 15 32% 199 38% 366 36% 1,084 35%

Definitely yes 7 15% 144 28% 335 33% 1,140 37%

Total 47 100% 523 100% 1,008 100% 3,098 100%

Not at all 10 21% 46 9% 89 9% 279 9%

Very little 12 25% 143 27% 250 25% 747 24%

Some 16 33% 222 42% 467 46% 1,405 45%

Very much 10 21% 113 22% 202 20% 671 22%

Total 48 100% 524 100% 1,008 100% 3,102 100%

No 20 43% 125 24% 218 22% 653 21%

Yes 27 57% 394 76% 785 78% 2,432 79%

Total 47 100% 519 100% 1,003 100% 3,085 100%




Very satisfied 14 29% 166 32% 342 35% 1,235 40%

Not relevant 1 2% 35 7% 33 3% 161 5%

Total 48 100% 514 100% 991 100% 3,057 100%



Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Graduate Level

Sample University


institution while pursuing your graduate degree?

instexp


institution?

sameinst


student like you?

recinst

instperform


institution?

instcon



present your work

193

Graduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Graduate Level

Sample University




Very satisfied 27 56% 202 40% 361 37% 861 28%

Not relevant 1 2% 61 12% 75 8% 399 13%

Total 48 100% 509 100% 989 100% 3,036 100%



Somewhat satisfied 10 21% 158 31% 304 31% 832 27%

Very satisfied 5 10% 97 19% 152 16% 614 20%

Not relevant 17 35% 116 23% 258 26% 791 26%

Total 48 100% 507 100% 977 100% 3,029 100%




Very satisfied 18 38% 232 45% 440 44% 1,442 47%

Not relevant 0 0% 8 2% 10 1% 53 2%

Total 48 100% 510 100% 989 100% 3,043 100%




Very satisfied 11 23% 152 30% 274 28% 988 32%

Not relevant 3 6% 26 5% 69 7% 159 5%

Total 47 100% 511 100% 988 100% 3,043 100%

instadisc

instclass







instlab

instacad

194

Graduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Graduate Level

Sample University




Very satisfied 8 17% 79 16% 152 15% 653 21%

Not relevant 0 0% 17 3% 43 4% 127 4%

Total 48 100% 507 100% 987 100% 3,038 100%




Very satisfied 6 13% 93 18% 179 18% 661 22%

Not relevant 4 8% 49 10% 91 9% 335 11%

Total 48 100% 507 100% 986 100% 3,040 100%




Very satisfied 7 15% 98 19% 209 21% 671 22%

Not relevant 1 2% 20 4% 30 3% 172 6%

Total 47 100% 508 100% 980 100% 3,027 100%




Very satisfied 29 60% 247 49% 540 55% 1,420 47%

Not relevant 1 2% 8 2% 9 1% 65 2%

Total 48 100% 507 100% 985 100% 3,030 100%


risks

instfreedom


others


or work



education

195

Graduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Graduate Level

Sample University

Not well at all 2 4% 15 3% 25 3% 80 3%

Not too well 4 8% 27 5% 54 5% 163 5%

Fairly well 5 10% 75 15% 154 16% 509 17%

Very well 5 10% 94 19% 165 17% 584 19%

Did not pursue further education 32 67% 295 58% 587 60% 1,698 56%

Total 48 100% 506 100% 985 100% 3,034 100%

Not at all 0 0% 12 2% 36 4% 115 4%

Very little 4 9% 21 4% 60 6% 241 8%

Some 13 28% 135 27% 288 30% 989 33%

Very much 30 64% 335 67% 588 60% 1,653 55%

Total 47 100% 503 100% 972 100% 2,998 100%

Not at all 1 2% 9 2% 28 3% 89 3%

Very little 5 11% 51 10% 106 11% 302 10%

Some 25 54% 211 43% 426 44% 1,225 41%

Very much 15 33% 225 45% 403 42% 1,360 46%

Total 46 100% 496 100% 963 100% 2,976 100%

Not at all 0 0% 12 2% 19 2% 63 2%

Very little 3 6% 26 5% 59 6% 193 6%

Some 14 30% 171 34% 300 31% 951 32%

Very much 30 64% 289 58% 586 61% 1,773 59%

Total 47 100% 498 100% 964 100% 2,980 100%

Not at all 0 0% 9 2% 23 2% 76 3%

Very little 5 11% 31 6% 57 6% 224 8%

Some 14 30% 163 33% 285 30% 1,001 34%

Very much 28 60% 295 59% 598 62% 1,678 56%

Total 47 100% 498 100% 963 100% 2,979 100%


further education?

edprep


develop:



instanaly



others

instrev


196

Graduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Graduate Level

Sample University

Not at all 0 0% 21 4% 58 6% 196 7%

Very little 14 30% 79 16% 170 18% 469 16%

Some 14 30% 174 35% 372 39% 1,038 35%

Very much 19 40% 228 45% 364 38% 1,284 43%

Total 47 100% 502 100% 964 100% 2,987 100%

Not at all 3 6% 33 7% 82 9% 239 8%

Very little 13 28% 86 17% 190 20% 546 18%

Some 20 43% 184 37% 387 40% 1,108 37%

Very much 11 23% 196 39% 305 32% 1,089 37%

Total 47 100% 499 100% 964 100% 2,982 100%

Not at all 0 0% 27 5% 70 7% 275 9%

Very little 17 36% 95 19% 181 19% 611 20%

Some 17 36% 228 46% 434 45% 1,226 41%

Very much 13 28% 151 30% 283 29% 871 29%

Total 47 100% 501 100% 968 100% 2,983 100%

Not at all 4 9% 47 9% 86 9% 263 9%

Very little 13 28% 104 21% 191 20% 526 18%

Some 16 34% 201 40% 379 39% 1,169 39%

Very much 14 30% 147 29% 309 32% 1,029 34%

Total 47 100% 499 100% 965 100% 2,987 100%

Not at all 6 13% 58 12% 100 11% 404 14%

Very little 17 36% 153 32% 226 24% 781 27%

Some 18 38% 188 39% 380 41% 1,121 38%

Very much 6 13% 84 17% 224 24% 608 21%

Total 47 100% 483 100% 930 100% 2,914 100%






instresearch



197

Graduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Graduate Level

Sample University

Not at all 6 13% 67 14% 84 9% 243 8%

Very little 5 11% 91 19% 172 19% 388 13%

Some 20 43% 180 38% 354 38% 907 31%

Very much 16 34% 139 29% 314 34% 1,358 47%

Total 47 100% 477 100% 924 100% 2,896 100%

Not at all 27 57% 209 44% 357 38% 1,089 38%

Very little 13 28% 172 36% 341 37% 989 34%

Some 7 15% 77 16% 166 18% 564 19%

Very much 0 0% 21 4% 65 7% 262 9%

Total 47 100% 479 100% 929 100% 2,904 100%

Not at all 24 51% 189 40% 284 31% 910 32%

Very little 17 36% 166 35% 314 34% 900 31%

Some 6 13% 93 19% 223 24% 761 26%

Very much 0 0% 29 6% 100 11% 317 11%

Total 47 100% 477 100% 921 100% 2,888 100%

Not at all 7 15% 37 8% 53 6% 166 6%

Very little 11 23% 101 21% 159 17% 405 14%

Some 21 45% 225 47% 383 41% 1,115 38%

Very much 8 17% 119 25% 334 36% 1,226 42%

Total 47 100% 482 100% 929 100% 2,912 100%

Not at all 8 17% 62 13% 92 10% 271 9%

Very little 11 23% 120 25% 216 23% 550 19%

Some 23 49% 198 41% 380 41% 1,138 39%

Very much 5 11% 102 21% 240 26% 942 32%

Total 47 100% 482 100% 928 100% 2,901 100%

instentr


collaboratively

instwkoth





instartistic



198

Graduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Graduate Level

Sample University

Not at all 7 15% 51 11% 74 8% 248 9%

Very little 14 30% 109 23% 190 20% 576 20%

Some 21 45% 199 41% 398 43% 1,195 41%

Very much 5 11% 123 26% 268 29% 890 31%

Total 47 100% 482 100% 930 100% 2,909 100%

Not at all 9 19% 68 14% 134 14% 343 12%

Very little 11 23% 84 18% 213 23% 574 20%

Some 14 30% 158 33% 338 36% 990 34%

Very much 13 28% 169 35% 242 26% 1,003 34%

Total 47 100% 479 100% 927 100% 2,910 100%

Never 15 32% 144 30% 243 26% 684 23%

Rarely 15 32% 141 29% 233 25% 724 25%

Sometimes 11 23% 126 26% 254 27% 863 30%

Often 6 13% 76 16% 205 22% 641 22%

Total 47 100% 487 100% 935 100% 2,912 100%

Never 20 43% 194 41% 377 41% 1,261 44%

Rarely 12 26% 141 29% 278 30% 785 27%

Sometimes 12 26% 97 20% 181 20% 545 19%

Often 3 6% 46 10% 82 9% 286 10%

Total 47 100% 478 100% 918 100% 2,877 100%

Never 3 6% 21 4% 46 5% 176 6%

Rarely 3 6% 74 16% 146 16% 490 17%

Sometimes 13 28% 161 34% 290 31% 1,029 36%

Often 28 60% 221 46% 441 48% 1,197 41%

Total 47 100% 477 100% 923 100% 2,892 100%




instnetrel



this institution:


community

actcomser




actcocurr




values

actdiv

199

Graduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Graduate Level

Sample University

actartist Never 11 23% 144 30% 261 28% 622 22%

Rarely 10 21% 106 22% 203 22% 590 20%

Sometimes 13 28% 141 29% 277 30% 890 31%

Often 13 28% 93 19% 184 20% 791 27%

Total 47 100% 484 100% 925 100% 2,893 100%

No 45 96% 401 86% 767 85% 2,490 88%

Yes 2 4% 66 14% 131 15% 339 12%

Total 47 100% 467 100% 898 100% 2,829 100%

No 37 80% 330 71% 572 64% 2,015 71%

Yes 9 20% 138 29% 327 36% 827 29%

Total 46 100% 468 100% 899 100% 2,842 100%

No 11 24% 142 30% 223 25% 1,118 40%

Yes 34 76% 325 70% 679 75% 1,708 60%

Total 45 100% 467 100% 902 100% 2,826 100%

carserv Yes 5 11% 87 18% 230 25% 475 16%

No 38 81% 382 79% 656 71% 2,315 80%

Unsure 4 9% 12 2% 33 4% 94 3%

Total 47 100% 481 100% 919 100% 2,884 100%


this institution?


17.1. Study abroad






actport


actabroad

200

Graduate Level


jobtime Obtained work prior to leaving this institution 18 38% 153 32% 247 27% 993 35%

Obtained work in less than four months 6 13% 135 28% 298 33% 839 29%

Obtained work in four to twelve months 10 21% 80 17% 170 19% 399 14%





Total 47 100% 477 100% 906 100% 2,846 100%




Not related 12 26% 77 16% 120 13% 329 12%

Somewhat related 9 19% 97 20% 223 25% 567 20%

Closely related 16 34% 220 46% 432 48% 1,501 53%

Total 47 100% 477 100% 905 100% 2,843 100%



No, I have not done this. 23 49% 163 34% 410 45% 925 33%

Total 47 100% 474 100% 904 100% 2,841 100%

Yes, I do this currently. 14 30% 115 24% 195 22% 721 25%



Total 47 100% 475 100% 899 100% 2,831 100%



experience?








Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Graduate Level

Sample University

artsrel



teach



Graduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Graduate Level

Sample University



No, I have not done this. 16 34% 138 29% 235 26% 698 25%

Total 47 100% 475 100% 905 100% 2,845 100%

intart No 7 15% 113 24% 199 22% 599 21%

Yes 40 85% 359 76% 702 78% 2,237 79%

Total 47 100% 472 100% 901 100% 2,836 100%

stp_curart Currently a professional artist 25 53% 275 59% 556 63% 1,767 63%

stp_nevint Never intended to work as an artist and never did 4 9% 79 17% 124 14% 387 14%

stp_nowk Artistic work not available 13 28% 56 12% 103 12% 316 11%

stp_pay Higher pay or steadier income in other fields 9 19% 60 13% 116 13% 337 12%




stp_netwk Lack of access to important networks and people 8 17% 42 9% 75 8% 203 7%

stp_debt Debt (including student loans) 13 28% 61 13% 118 13% 301 11%


Totalb - - - - - - - -

wkself Yes, I do this currently 26 55% 225 48% 447 50% 1,427 50%

Yes, I have done it in the past, but no longer do 17 36% 140 30% 297 33% 845 30%

No, I have not done this 4 9% 107 23% 156 17% 559 20%

Total 47 100% 472 100% 900 100% 2,831 100%









art)?

artist



Graduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Graduate Level

Sample University

wkfd No 38 83% 385 85% 688 80% 2,269 83%

Yes 8 17% 69 15% 168 20% 473 17%

Total 46 100% 454 100% 856 100% 2,742 100%

wkpdint No 31 67% 283 62% 468 54% 1,730 63%

Yes 15 33% 174 38% 399 46% 1,032 37%

Total 46 100% 457 100% 867 100% 2,762 100%

wkupdint No 19 41% 234 51% 396 46% 1,554 57%

Yes 27 59% 224 49% 460 54% 1,168 43%

Total 46 100% 458 100% 856 100% 2,722 100%

artwkfd Never founder of a nonprofit or for-profit organization 38 81% 382 82% 684 78% 2,262 81%

No 2 4% 26 6% 48 5% 104 4%

Yes 7 15% 59 13% 149 17% 430 15%

Total 47 100% 467 100% 881 100% 2,796 100%

Past professional artist (but not currently) 6 13% 62 13% 111 13% 376 14%

Never worked as a professional artist 16 35% 135 29% 228 26% 684 25%

Studio space 4 9% 42 9% 79 9% 227 8%


Equipment 3 7% 20 4% 48 5% 145 5%


Loans, investment capital 7 15% 30 6% 93 11% 259 9%

Publicity and recognition of your work 4 9% 74 16% 127 14% 425 15%

Professional networks 3 7% 55 12% 95 11% 307 11%

Total 46 100% 465 100% 878 100% 2,747 100%




Very important 37 79% 367 78% 712 80% 2,156 77%

Total 47 100% 468 100% 888 100% 2,810 100%







artistic career?



organization

28.2. Paid intern

28.3. Unpaid intern



resource



Graduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Graduate Level

Sample University




Very important 33 70% 353 76% 636 72% 2,055 74%

Total 47 100% 467 100% 884 100% 2,795 100%




Very important 31 66% 296 63% 626 70% 2,018 72%

Total 47 100% 467 100% 888 100% 2,803 100%




Very important 40 85% 413 89% 799 90% 2,489 89%

Total 47 100% 466 100% 885 100% 2,797 100%




Very important 30 64% 303 65% 556 63% 1,600 57%

Total 47 100% 466 100% 886 100% 2,806 100%




Very important 36 77% 345 74% 616 69% 1,902 68%

Total 47 100% 467 100% 888 100% 2,806 100%





others

31.6. Clear writing





Graduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Graduate Level

Sample University




Very important 38 81% 319 68% 603 68% 1,924 69%

Total 47 100% 466 100% 888 100% 2,799 100%




Very important 37 79% 356 76% 680 77% 2,156 77%

Total 47 100% 466 100% 887 100% 2,797 100%




Very important 28 62% 265 58% 534 62% 1,528 56%

Total 45 100% 454 100% 868 100% 2,748 100%




Very important 23 51% 242 54% 460 53% 1,629 60%

Total 45 100% 449 100% 864 100% 2,729 100%




Very important 18 40% 208 46% 381 44% 1,314 48%

Total 45 100% 453 100% 866 100% 2,742 100%










Graduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Graduate Level

Sample University

wkskillentr Not at all important 3 7% 61 13% 90 10% 278 10%



Very important 18 40% 196 43% 375 44% 1,234 45%

Total 45 100% 452 100% 858 100% 2,728 100%




Very important 38 84% 338 74% 676 78% 2,269 83%

Total 45 100% 454 100% 868 100% 2,746 100%




Very important 30 67% 284 63% 565 66% 1,900 70%

Total 45 100% 450 100% 861 100% 2,731 100%




Very important 31 69% 330 73% 630 73% 2,112 77%

Total 45 100% 454 100% 867 100% 2,745 100%




Very important 20 44% 240 53% 359 42% 1,454 53%

Total 45 100% 452 100% 865 100% 2,742 100%







collaboratively




Graduate Level


curemp Full-time (35 hours or more per week) 21 47% 251 54% 532 60% 1,676 60%

Part-time only (fewer than 35 hours per week) 17 38% 114 25% 204 23% 647 23%




Retired 0 0% 2 0% 3 0% 6 0%

Other 2 4% 28 6% 46 5% 126 5%

Total 45 100% 462 100% 883 100% 2,776 100%

curjob_none Currently not employed 4 9% 44 10% 77 9% 204 7%


curjob_artadm Arts administrator or manager 9 20% 64 14% 111 13% 405 15%


curjob_graphicdes Graphic designer, illustrator, or art director 5 11% 82 18% 182 21% 261 9%




curjob_tchhied Higher education arts educator 6 13% 119 26% 154 17% 557 20%

curjob_tchk12 K-12 arts educator 4 9% 31 7% 67 8% 280 10%

curjob_prvttch Private teacher of the arts 0 0% 19 4% 38 4% 419 15%



curjob_finart Fine artist 15 33% 145 32% 203 23% 392 14%








Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Graduate Level

Sample University




Graduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Graduate Level

Sample University


curjob_musician Musician 0 0% 7 2% 9 1% 639 23%


curjob_writer Writer, author, or editor 4 9% 50 11% 105 12% 265 10%






curjob_edu Education, training, and library 2 4% 35 8% 56 6% 231 8%

















curjob_oth Other 3 7% 22 5% 34 4% 96 3%

Totalb - - - - - - - -


(continued)


Graduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Graduate Level

Sample University

interdis Never worked as a professional artist 15 33% 133 29% 225 26% 671 24%

No 5 11% 65 14% 145 17% 681 25%

Yes 25 56% 261 57% 506 58% 1,400 51%

Total 45 100% 459 100% 876 100% 2,752 100%

majtimejob_R Currently not employed 4 9% 43 10% 75 9% 202 7%

Architect 0 0% 0 0% 34 4% 65 2%



Graphic designer, illustrator, or art director 2 4% 40 9% 102 12% 125 5%


Web designer 1 2% 1 0% 9 1% 17 1%

Other designer 0 0% 11 2% 55 6% 89 3%

Higher education arts educator 4 9% 61 14% 74 9% 343 13%

K-12 arts educator 2 4% 21 5% 41 5% 172 6%



Craft artist 0 0% 6 1% 7 1% 20 1%

Fine artist 3 7% 43 10% 58 7% 99 4%



Photographer 1 2% 16 4% 19 2% 22 1%

Actor 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 18 1%



Musician 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 239 9%




forms/disciplines?


your work time:


Graduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Graduate Level

Sample University




Communications 2 4% 9 2% 23 3% 63 2%


Construction 0 0% 4 1% 6 1% 12 0%






Healthcare 0 0% 2 0% 4 0% 19 1%

Human resources 1 2% 0 0% 1 0% 4 0%

Legal 0 0% 1 0% 0 0% 10 0%

Management 0 0% 3 1% 8 1% 30 1%

Manufacturing 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 4 0%



Sales 3 7% 12 3% 14 2% 34 1%


Social services 0 0% 1 0% 11 1% 19 1%



Other 2 4% 16 4% 28 3% 73 3%

Total 45 100% 451 100% 865 100% 2,726 100%




Graduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Graduate Level

Sample University

arttime Never worked as a professional artist 14 33% 132 29% 223 26% 667 25%


Less than 25% 9 21% 72 16% 137 16% 457 17%

26% to 50% 4 9% 80 18% 132 16% 409 15%

51% to 75% 4 9% 51 11% 105 12% 331 12%

76% to 100% 10 23% 86 19% 198 23% 678 25%

Total 43 100% 448 100% 850 100% 2,695 100%

timetrainrel Currently not employed 4 9% 43 10% 75 9% 202 7%

Not at all relevant 11 26% 51 11% 78 9% 252 9%

Somewhat relevant 11 26% 78 17% 149 18% 425 16%

Relevant 5 12% 83 19% 162 19% 485 18%

Very relevant 12 28% 191 43% 386 45% 1,332 49%

Total 43 100% 446 100% 850 100% 2,696 100%

timejobsec Currently not employed 4 9% 43 10% 75 9% 202 8%




Very satisfied 14 33% 137 31% 285 34% 922 34%

Total 43 100% 445 100% 848 100% 2,692 100%

timecreative Currently not employed 4 9% 43 10% 75 9% 202 8%




Very satisfied 14 33% 154 35% 326 38% 1,053 39%

Total 43 100% 446 100% 848 100% 2,691 100%







40.1. Job security





Graduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Graduate Level

Sample University

timeincome Currently not employed 4 9% 43 10% 75 9% 202 8%




Very satisfied 9 21% 57 13% 159 19% 416 15%

Total 43 100% 444 100% 848 100% 2,688 100%

timebalance Currently not employed 4 9% 43 10% 75 9% 202 8%




Very satisfied 9 21% 102 23% 211 25% 674 25%

Total 43 100% 445 100% 846 100% 2,690 100%

timegood Currently not employed 4 10% 43 10% 75 9% 202 8%




Very satisfied 18 43% 135 30% 289 34% 1,057 39%

Total 42 100% 445 100% 847 100% 2,690 100%

timecareer Currently not employed 4 9% 43 10% 75 9% 202 8%




Very satisfied 10 23% 88 20% 207 24% 658 25%

Total 43 100% 443 100% 847 100% 2,680 100%






40.3. Income



Graduate Level




Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Graduate Level

Sample University

timework Currently not employed 4 9% 43 10% 75 9% 202 8%




Very satisfied 15 35% 179 40% 362 43% 1,246 46%

Total 43 100% 445 100% 844 100% 2,687 100%

timesat Currently not employed 4 9% 43 10% 75 9% 202 8%




Very satisfied 13 30% 113 25% 253 30% 900 33%

Total 43 100% 446 100% 847 100% 2,690 100%






and values


Graduate Level


part_none I have not supported the arts in the past 12 months. 2 5% 37 8% 94 11% 246 9%





part_attd Attended an arts event 38 93% 382 86% 701 84% 2,274 85%

part_oth Other 1 2% 34 8% 54 6% 155 6%

Totalb - - - - - - - -

perform No 5 12% 84 19% 160 19% 540 20%

Yes 37 88% 353 81% 673 81% 2,124 80%

Total 42 100% 437 100% 833 100% 2,664 100%

tmpractice Do not make or perform art in personal time 5 12% 84 19% 160 19% 539 20%




Daily 5 12% 75 17% 147 17% 601 22%

Total 42 100% 440 100% 841 100% 2,675 100%





work-related) time?




Graduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

Sample University



Graduate Level


income $10,000 or less 15 36% 81 19% 156 19% 430 16%

$10,001 to $20,000 10 24% 84 19% 113 14% 447 17%

$20,001 to $30,000 4 10% 59 14% 93 11% 346 13%

$30,001 to $40,000 2 5% 53 12% 92 11% 319 12%

$40,001 to $50,000 4 10% 47 11% 91 11% 355 13%

$50,001 to $60,000 0 0% 27 6% 68 8% 226 8%

$60,001 to $70,000 0 0% 24 6% 44 5% 138 5%

$70,001 to $80,000 2 5% 5 1% 21 3% 60 2%

$80,001 to $90,000 0 0% 3 1% 13 2% 31 1%

$90,001 to $100,000 0 0% 6 1% 18 2% 30 1%

$100,001 to $150,000 2 5% 14 3% 42 5% 63 2%

More than $150,000 0 0% 2 0% 14 2% 20 1%


Total 42 100% 436 100% 837 100% 2,670 100%

$10,000 or less 9 21% 37 9% 86 10% 253 10%

$10,001 to $20,000 7 17% 45 10% 72 9% 274 10%

$20,001 to $30,000 5 12% 38 9% 63 8% 263 10%

$30,001 to $40,000 2 5% 53 12% 84 10% 258 10%

$40,001 to $50,000 2 5% 37 9% 61 7% 237 9%

$50,001 to $60,000 3 7% 30 7% 57 7% 211 8%

$60,001 to $70,000 1 2% 21 5% 47 6% 155 6%

$70,001 to $80,000 3 7% 17 4% 39 5% 127 5%

$80,001 to $90,000 0 0% 16 4% 24 3% 98 4%

$90,001 to $100,000 0 0% 21 5% 35 4% 122 5%

$100,001 to $150,000 1 2% 30 7% 72 9% 214 8%

More than $150,000 2 5% 23 5% 64 8% 125 5%


Total 42 100% 435 100% 835 100% 2,663 100%



owned assets.)


all sources?

hhincome


Sample University

Graduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions


Graduate Level



Sample University

Graduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

artinc Never worked as a professional artist 14 34% 127 29% 220 26% 660 25%


Less than 25% 15 37% 167 38% 265 32% 784 29%

26% to 50% 2 5% 30 7% 51 6% 199 7%

51% to 75% 3 7% 13 3% 25 3% 126 5%

76% to 100% 4 10% 58 13% 177 21% 657 25%

Total 41 100% 437 100% 832 100% 2,658 100%

stdloan None 5 12% 142 32% 212 25% 792 30%

$10,000 or less 0 0% 22 5% 28 3% 153 6%

$10,001 to $20,000 2 5% 26 6% 32 4% 172 6%

$20,001 to $30,000 0 0% 34 8% 55 7% 203 8%

$30,001 to $40,000 2 5% 37 8% 56 7% 188 7%

$40,001 to $50,000 2 5% 32 7% 69 8% 221 8%

$50,001 to $60,000 7 17% 26 6% 56 7% 158 6%

More than $60,000 23 55% 109 25% 294 35% 694 26%


Total 42 100% 439 100% 839 100% 2,676 100%

impctloan No student loan debt incurred 5 12% 142 32% 212 25% 791 30%

No impact 1 2% 26 6% 61 7% 224 8%

Some impact 7 17% 88 20% 179 21% 605 23%

Major impact 28 68% 183 42% 387 46% 1,047 39%

Total 41 100% 439 100% 839 100% 2,667 100%

parentart No 38 90% 373 85% 684 82% 2,181 82%

Yes 4 10% 67 15% 150 18% 484 18%

Total 42 100% 440 100% 834 100% 2,665 100%



artist in 2015c









Graduate Level



Sample University

Graduate Level


Peers

SNAAP

Institutions

artcity Past professional artist (but not currently) 5 12% 58 13% 103 12% 349 13%

Never worked as a professional artist 14 33% 126 29% 220 26% 654 25%

Very poor 0 0% 9 2% 16 2% 40 2%

Poor 1 2% 22 5% 33 4% 108 4%

Fair 10 24% 69 16% 121 14% 352 13%

Good 8 19% 87 20% 168 20% 564 21%

Very good 4 10% 68 15% 174 21% 589 22%

Total 42 100% 439 100% 835 100% 2,656 100%

insttown No 13 31% 257 59% 459 55% 1,530 58%

Yes 29 69% 175 41% 369 45% 1,099 42%

Total 42 100% 432 100% 828 100% 2,629 100%







2016 Career Skills and Entrepreneurship Module Report

Sample University

Graduate Level


1. Arizona State University 45. Texas Christian University, Art and Art History

2. Art Academy of Cincinnati 46. Texas Tech University

3. Art Center College of Design 47. The Juilliard School

4. Brigham Young University 48. University of Colorado Denver

5. California College of the Arts 49. University of Iowa

6. California Institute of the Arts 50. University of Michigan-Ann Arbor

7. College of Charleston 51. University of New Mexico

8. Colorado State University 52. University of North Carolina at Charlotte

9. Columbus College of Art and Design 53. University of North Carolina at Greensboro

10. DePaul University 54. University of North Carolina School of the Arts

11. Drexel University 55. University of North Texas

12. Emily Carr University of Art and Design 56. University of Saint Francis-Fort Wayne

13. Florida International University 57. University of Tennessee at Chattanooga

14. Indiana University Bloomington 58. University of Texas at Austin

15. Institute of American Indian Arts 59. University of Texas Rio Grande Valley

16. James Madison University 60. University of Toledo

17. Kendall College of Art and Design (Ferris State University) 61. University of Victoria

18. Kent State University 62. University of Wisconsin-Madison

19. Louisiana State University, Music and Dramatic Arts 63. University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point

20. Maine College of Art 64. Utah State University

21. Manhattan School of Music 65. Virginia Commonwealth University

22. Maryland Institute College of Art 66. Wayne State University

23. Massachusetts College of Art and Design 67. Western Carolina University

24. Memphis College of Art

25. Messiah College

26. Michigan State University

27. Minneapolis College of Art and Design

28. New Hampshire Institute of Art

29. Northern State University

30. NSCAD University

31. OCAD University

32. Pace University

33. Pacific Northwest College of Art

34. Penn State University - University Park

35. Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts

36. Rhode Island School of Design

37. San Diego State University

38. San Francisco Art Institute

39. School of the Art Institute of Chicago

40. School of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

41. School of Visual Arts

42. Southern Methodist University

43. Southern Utah University

44. St. Cloud State University

2016 Career Skills and Entrepreneurship Module Participants

The SNAAP Career Skills and Entrepreneurship Module Report displays your institution’s results along with one

comparison group: all other SNAAP schools (all majors included) at the graduate level that also participated in the

Career Skills and Entrepreneurship Module. The participating institutions from 2015 and 2016 are listed below.


Institution Name

219


CScwgen Not at all 1 1% 543 5%

Very little 8 6% 1,449 12%

Some 47 35% 4,297 37%

Very much 79 59% 5,472 47%

Total 135 100% 11,761 100%

CScwrisk Not at all 3 2% 791 7%

Very little 14 10% 1,965 17%

Some 47 35% 4,413 38%

Very much 72 53% 4,554 39%

Total 136 100% 11,723 100%

CScweval Not at all 2 1% 496 4%

Very little 16 12% 1,504 13%

Some 50 37% 4,531 39%

Very much 68 50% 5,186 44%

Total 136 100% 11,717 100%

CScwinv Not at all 6 4% 813 7%

Very little 21 16% 2,155 19%

Some 50 37% 4,386 38%

Very much 57 43% 4,260 37%

Total 134 100% 11,614 100%

CSbroadnet Strongly disagree 7 5% 508 4%




Total 136 100% 11,762 100%

CScareerdev Strongly disagree 56 41% 2,343 20%





Total 137 100% 11,809 100%

CSbroadview Strongly disagree 41 30% 2,104 18%




Total 137 100% 11,746 100%

CSadvan Strongly disagree 19 14% 2,222 19%





Total 137 100% 11,788 100%


ReportGraduate Level

Sample University

4. My education at this institution exposed me to a broad

view of career options, both in and out of the arts.

5. When I was a student at this institution, I took full

advantage of career services (advising, classes,

workshops, etc.).

3. I feel that this institution integrated all aspects of

career development into my education.

1. The coursework at this institution emphasized the

following:

1.1. Generating new ideas or brainstorming

2. This institution exposed me to a broad network of

artists, leaders, and scholars through guest lectures,

workshops, or special events that helped me see new

opportunities.

1.4. Inventing new methods to arrive at

unconventional solutions

Sample University

Other Module

Schools

Graduate Level

1.2. Taking risks in coursework without fear

of penalty

1.3. Evaluating multiple approaches to a

problem

220




Sample University

Sample University

Other Module

Schools

Graduate Level

CSabilresil Strongly disagree 3 2% 236 2%

Somewhat disagree 12 9% 672 6%



Total 136 100% 11,759 100%

CSabiladapt Strongly disagree 3 2% 182 2%




Total 135 100% 11,720 100%

CSabilrecog Strongly disagree 10 7% 358 3%




Total 136 100% 11,727 100%

CSabilfin Strongly disagree 39 29% 1,546 13%




Total 136 100% 11,702 100%

CSbenplan Strongly disagree 6 4% 415 4%





Total 134 100% 11,635 100%

CSbenmarket Strongly disagree 5 4% 290 3%





Total 132 100% 11,580 100%

CSbencomm Strongly disagree 3 2% 449 4%





Total 133 100% 11,589 100%

6.2. Adapt (able to change to meet a new

set of circumstances)

6.3. Recognize opportunities to advance my

ideas or career

6.4. Financially manage my career



7.1. Develop a 3 to 5 year strategic plan to

realize my goals

7.2. Market and promote my work and my

talents

6. When I left this institution, I felt confident in my

ability to:

6.1. Be resilient (able to pick myself

up when things do not go as planned)

7.3. Communicate through and about my

art (engage with the community, speak in

public, receive feedback, etc.)

221




Sample University

Sample University

Other Module

Schools

Graduate Level

CSbenmanfin Strongly disagree 8 6% 520 4%





Total 132 100% 11,583 100%

CSbenlegal Strongly disagree 9 7% 607 5%





Total 131 100% 11,519 100%

CSdiffjob Strongly disagree 23 17% 1,372 12%




Total 135 100% 11,614 100%



(continued)

7.4. Manage finances (develop budgets,

raise money for projects, save for the future,

etc.)

7.5. Monitor legal and tax issues (copyright,

trademark, sales and income tax, etc.)

8. I feel my education at this institution prepared me to

work in many different jobs and roles.

222

Graduate Level

Comment

2016 Entrepreneurial training. How to manage a business, set up finances for a business, etc.

2015 Developing a 3-5 year strategic plan to realize my goals, market and promote my work and my talents, communicate

through and about my work, manage finances, monitor legal and tax issues.

2014 I learned how to be an artist. I didn't learn professional practice.

2014 Definitely PR and communication training. Some work skill training even for working in a museum or gallery

needed. Work opportunities in art world are really few.

2011 Grant writing, residency applications, public art proposals, web design, art handling: i.e. How to make your work

structurally sound and how to package work for shipping.

2008 how to find right opportunities and meet right people

2007 The student loan problem.

2007 How to manage an artistic career, how to network with artists, financial management

2004 Alumni networking beyond my graduating class

2002 I went to graduate school for all the additional education needed in my field

1999 The world changes too quickly. Predicting what would or wouldn't have helped is not so important. What the school

does is important in that it helps you make work that is yours.

1995 I would be interested in grant writing workshops, or access to database of foundations, government or corporate

grants.

1985 Selling on etsy and ebay

1970 When I was in school it was a different world, I was prepared when I got out, but I think it was easier then.

SNAAP 2016 Career Skills and Entrepreneurship Module Report

Comments

Sample University

Graduate Level

Please comment if there is any type of training or assistance that would benefit you now.a

Cohort


223

2016 institutional report - SNAAPsnaap.indiana.edu/pdf/2016/2016_Sample_Institutional_Report.pdf ·...

Documents

Transcript of 2016 institutional report - SNAAPsnaap.indiana.edu/pdf/2016/2016_Sample_Institutional_Report.pdf ·...