Student Satisfaction in University of the Philippines

This study assessed the indicators and formulated an index for overall satisfaction among UPLB students. Two methods were used in formulating an index for this study, in which nine dimensions were considered. First method is through stepwise regression analysis with Categorical Principal Component Analysis (CATPCA) wherein three tests were used to evaluate the obtained components: eigenvalue criterion, cumulative percent of variance accounted for, and interpretability criterion.

The number of variables in the nine dimensions was reduced using CATPCA. Since one criterion was not satisfied in CATPCA, PCA with varimax rotation was employed using the transformed variables obtained in CATPCA.

Using Spearman rank order correlation analyses, fifteen variables were identified to be significantly associated to overall satisfaction. Out of the fifteen components identified earlier, regression analysis with optimal scaling resulted to thirteen components with utmost significance in the achievement of satisfaction.

Furthermore, using stepwise regression analysis, ten out of the thirteen components were identified to be indicators of satisfaction which are: campus ambiance, performance of the faculty members, performance of the administrative members, variety of groups and organizations and involvement of students, extra-curricular activities and recreational areas, clarity of requirements and availability of courses offered, academic clarity and instruction quality, ease of use and quality of library resources, financial aid and student employment, and rate of expenses.

This method classified the students as moderately satisfied with an index of 0. 779. Also, the students expressed the highest level of satisfaction in the dimension faculty while least in the dimension financial. To end with, comparing the two index numbers obtained using the two methods; stepwise regression analysis produced 82.

84% of the computed index numbers that were in agreement with the observed level of satisfaction while 94. 39% was produced by the BGNH procedure. KEYWORDS: index, stepwise regression analysis, CATPCA, Spearman rank order correlation, BGNH index procedure, sufficiency 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1. 1 Background of the Study 1. 2 Statement of the Problem 1. 3 Significance of the Study 1. 4 Scope and Limitation 1. 5 Objectives of the Study 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 3. METHODOLOGY 3. 1 Frame Construction 3. 2 Sampling Design 3. 3 Sample Size Determination 3. 4 The Questionnaire 3. 5 Data Analysis 4.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4. 1 Satisfaction Level of UPLB Undergraduate Students 4. 2 Students’ Profile and Level of Overall Satisfaction 4. 3 Stepwise Regression Analysis 4. 3. 1 Categorical Principal Component Analysis (CATPCA) 4. 3. 2 Identification of Indicators of Student Satisfaction 4. 3. 3 Significance of the Fifteen Components on Student Satisfaction 4. 3. 4 Construction of Satisfaction Index (SI) 4. 4 Index Construction using the BGNH Index Procedure 4. 4. 1 Identification 4. 4. 2 Aggregation 4. 5 Comparison of the Obtained Index Numbers from the Two Methods 5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 6.

RECOMMENDATIONS 7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 8. APPENDIX 9. REFERENCES 2 1. INTRODUCTION 1. 1 Background of the Study Satisfaction greatly depends on how a student appreciates things for personal development. This will impose standards which will be examined on how certain factors would affect an individual’s personality. However, these factors are dictated by the environment of the student which sets his/her satisfaction. There are numerous factors that can be considered when it comes to student satisfaction. Overall educational satisfaction is a universal factor for most students and so with the parents.

It is a major driving force that parents take into consideration in enrolling their children. Since parents know the abilities of their children, they will likely send their children to schools that would enhance and develop their children’s skills and abilities. The students meanwhile will be subjected to an environment wherein their level of competence will be tested and eventually, developed. An appropriate school environment must include good qualities of teachers, enthusiastic instruction methods, a healthy and competent student, and the like, which will lead to an excellent evaluation on the satisfaction of the student.

An index (or index number) is a numerical quantity derived as a mathematical function of one or more variables to denote the magnitude of some physical or biological phenomena (Gauran, 1999). On many occasions we need to construct an index that represents a number of variables. Cost of living indexes, general price index, human development index, index of level of development are some of the examples of an index. In this study, basically, an index is defined as a single overall measure of student satisfaction. It is an estimate of the student satisfaction obtained as a mathematical combination of selected student satisfaction variables.

According to John Shumaker, president of the University of Tennessee in 2002, students are the reason the university exists. Offering them high quality academic programs and student services is the university’s highest priority. In turn, students who are satisfied with their educational experience are likely to become active alumni who do many things for the improvement of their alma mater—helping recruit good students, giving gifts to support academic enrichment, and helping build favorable public opinion of the university. Student satisfaction data are used by colleges and universities as an indicator of student development.

It serves as an indicator of the institution’s awareness to the needs of the students and a measure of the effectiveness of an institution, its success, and vitality. With this, an index on student satisfaction should be constructed in order for academic institutions to identify the factors that would help them enhance the student’s total development. An index will be helpful for colleges and universities to better understand, improve and change campus environment, therefore creating surroundings more favorable for student development.

Therefore, it is an obligation for college and university administrators to collect data on student satisfaction for monitoring their institution’s progress in many areas of campus life and student development. Moreover, formulating and improving a student satisfaction index will be very useful especially in determining which area(s) of campus life and student development is (are) the students less satisfied with. 1. 2 Statement of the Problem There are several probable factors that influence the degree of satisfaction of the University of the Philippines, Los Banos (UPLB) undergraduate students towards their educational experiences.

These factors are identified because they are the indicative of problems or deficiencies in the kind and quality of educational experiences of the UPLB undergraduate students. Since there are numerous factors or variables that have an effect on the level of satisfaction of the undergraduate students, there is a need to formulate or construct a single 3 measure called an index number that would summarize all the information contained in the variables. This index would be considered as the only indicator of the degree of satisfaction of the students.

This single value would replace the values from each of the variables that are usually described separately. 1. 3 Significance of the Study An analysis on the level of satisfaction of the UPLB undergraduate students by means of constructing an index would be useful in providing information to the university about the current condition of its students regarding the degree or level of the overall satisfaction of the students in the university. This study can aid to possible improvement of the area(s) of educational experiences and campus life in which the students are less satisfied with.

Likewise, it can help in drawing policies and regulations which can lead to a better development and management of the university. It would also inform the university on the possible factors influencing the students’ level of satisfaction. Also, with the use of such index, the university administrators can check their efficiency and further take remedial measures for the improvement of the university and all other factors that would affect student satisfaction.

Furthermore, an index number can also be used to address the problems or deficiencies in the kind and quality of learning experiences of the UPLB undergraduate students more quickly, effectively and responsively. 1. 4 Scope and Limitation This study only focused on the set of UPLB undergraduate students registered during the first semester of the academic year 2009 to 2010. Students with non-degree and graduate status were not included. Also, failure to exhaust all possible variables was considered as a limitation. 1.

5 Objectives of the Study This study generally aims to assess overall satisfaction indicators among undergraduate students from the University of the Philippines, Los Banos. In particular, this study intends to: 1. assess the level of satisfaction of UPLB students; 2. determine the factors affecting the level of satisfaction of UPLB students; 3. construct student satisfaction index using the indicators identified by the undergraduate students; and 4. identify the components from which the students expressed lower or higher satisfaction levels; 5.

compare stepwise regression analysis with Categorical Principal Component Analysis procedure together with the procedure derived from the methods used in constructing the Bhutan Gross National Happiness Index (e. g. determine which among the two methods of constructing an index would acquire higher degree of satisfaction; and determine which among the two methods of constructing an index would result to a greater proportion of satisfied students from the sampled undergraduate students) 4 2.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE According to Random House Webster’s Dictionary, satisfaction is defined as the fulfillment of the needs, expectations, wishes, or desires of someone; or, fulfillment of the requirements or conditions of something. According to Noel Gauran, an index (or index number) is a numerical quantity derived as a mathematical function of one or more variables to denote the magnitude of some physical or biological phenomena. A study conducted by the Eastern Oregon University used student’s satisfaction inventory as a means to measure student satisfaction with a wide range of college experiences.

In this study, the principle of consumer theory was used as a basis for the construction of the inventory. For that reason, students are foreseen as the consumers who have an option about whether to invest in education and where to enroll. Moreover, students are seen as individuals who have definite expectations about what they want from their campus experience. From this point of view, satisfaction with college occurs when an expectation is met or exceeded by an institution. An overall student satisfaction with Chabot College was conducted on 2005.

The study resulted that most students are satisfied with their overall experience at Chabot, instructors, the physical condition of Chabot, student services, and campus climate, according to the latest Student Satisfaction Survey. The Student Satisfaction Survey was conducted in October 2005 in a representative sample of seventy-five course sections and was completed by 1,605 students (62% full-time and 38% part-time). The main purpose of the survey was to collect student feedback on satisfaction with Chabot academic and student services and the campus climate.

Information on student learning experiences at Chabot and student demographics were also collected. A study that intends to measure students’ satisfaction with Portuguese higher education, through the estimation of an explicative model of the students’ opinion formation process was conducted by Helena Alves and Mario Raposo. In this study, it was found out that the student satisfaction index of Portuguese public higher education is only of 54 on a scale from one to one hundred (1 to 100).

This value constitutes a reference mark that universities in Portugal can use to compare with their own performance. Another study which was conducted by Pennsylvania State University used a student satisfaction survey to gather feedback from undergraduate students from 20 Pennsylvania State University campuses. Students’ experiences at Pennsylvania State University, including overall satisfaction with in – and out – of class experiences, their use of and satisfaction with various student services, and campus involvement were considered in conducting the survey.

The survey provided the University with information regarding the effectiveness of services and programs and measures change over time by comparing results with similar surveys conducted in 1999, 2002, and 2004. Curtin University of Technology is conducting an annual student satisfaction survey, also called Curtin Annual Student Satisfaction (CASS) survey, to assess student’s satisfaction with their experience at Curtin, including their course, campus life and the available services and facilities.

CASS collects a large amount of quantitative and qualitative data. In August 2008, valid responses were received from over 5,989 individual students at Australian campuses. Some of the topics considered in the survey questionnaire are: campus life, campus services, campus facilities, Online Access to Student Information Services (OASIS), student housing services, student guild, overall satisfaction, and the like.

The Graduate Student Satisfaction Survey (GSSS) of Oklahoma State University was conducted in 2004 to assess graduate students’ satisfaction and perceptions about various aspects of their academic experience – the quality of their academic program, relationships with faculty and advisors, support and resources provided by the department and the university, and interactions with the Graduate College and the Graduate and Professional Student Association. 5

Survey results include responses to 31 questions and provide information that could be useful to academic departments and/or the Graduate College in improving the quality of programs and services available to graduate students and increasing graduate student satisfaction. The survey satisfies the state regents’ requirement for assessing current student satisfaction, and provides information to support the accreditation process and university planning. An article cited at Journal of College Student Development was another study pertaining to student satisfaction.

The study used a random sample of 199 students from the national sample of 4,408 students from different types of colleges and universities stratified by institutional race (HBCU and PWI), type, control, and selectivity. Student responses to 27 satisfaction items on the College Student Survey were analyzed to show the construction of a fundamental measure as the first step toward creating a universal metric of student satisfaction. A study on hunger index was carried out by R. A. Virola and L. V. Castro of the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB).

According to their proposed conceptual framework on hunger index, inadequate food consumption and poor health/nutritional status are identified as the immediate causes of hunger. Accordingly, the following are the proxy indicators identified to come up with the hunger index: (a) proportion of households with per capita energy consumption less than per capita energy requirement for inadequate food consumption, and (b) proportion of underweight children under 5 years old, and (c) mortality rate of children under 5 years old for poor health/nutritional status.

Data were assessed in terms of the possible sources, availability starting 1990 and onwards, and level of disaggregation such as: proportion of households with per capita energy consumption less than the requirement; proportion of underweight children under 5 years old; and, mortality rate of children under 5 years old. Analysis of the satisfaction levels of the scholars (students enrolled in the second semester of the academic year 2006-2007, whose scholarship standings were good in the first semester, academic year 2006-2007) under the DOST-SEI RA 7687 scholarship was conducted by Joyce de Leon Grajo.

She used the Loglinear-Logit Categorical Data Analysis to determine the factors that have an effect on the scholar’s level of satisfaction, such as classification, perceived family status, average monthly expenditure, average monthly family income and average monthly additional allowance. According to her study, 44% of the scholars in UPLB were dictated to take a course they did not prefer. On the other hand, 95. 1% of them agree on the 4-5 year term they can utilize their scholarship.

Generally, the scholars see all benefits given to them as satisfactory though it is worth mentioning that 44% of the scholars rate the monthly stipend they receive as unsatisfactory and 44. 5% of them regard school fee benefit as very satisfactory. Thirty-four point six percent (34. 6%) of them see their book allowance unsatisfactory. A study on the construction of happiness index among UPLB undergraduate students was done by Girly M. Ramirez. She used Categorical Principal Component Analysis (CATPCA) to reduce the elements of the dataset containing numerous levels of satisfaction.

Her main objective was to study the indicators of happiness among UPLB undergraduate students. She used Spearman rank order correlation coefficient to identify possible indicators of happiness. A stepwise regression analysis was performed to derive an equation which measures student happiness index. 6 3. METHODOLOGY 3. 1 Frame Construction The frame used was the list of all 9,350 registered undergraduate students of the University of the Philippines, Los Banos during the first semester of the academic year 2008 to 2009.

The frames were constructed by compiling the lists of students from the different colleges of the university, namely: the College of Agriculture (CA), College of Arts and Sciences (CAS), College of Development Communications (CDC), College of Economics and Management (CEM), College of Engineering and Agro-Technology (CEAT), College of Forestry and Natural Resources (CFNR), College of Human Ecology (CHE), and the College of Veterinary Medicine (CVM) ; and from different classifications, namely Freshman (F), Sophomore (SO), Junior (JR) and Senior (SR). 3.

2 Sampling Design The sampling design used was a two-way stratified random sampling. The population of students was divided into 24 strata categorized by colleges (CA, CAS, CEAT, CEM, CFNR and CHE, and, CDC and CVM) and classifications (Freshman, Sophomore, Junior and Senior) in which the student belonged. The colleges CFNR and CHE, and CDC and CVM were combined for the reason that these colleges have the least number of students. Also, the two colleges which were combined were those colleges where in the sum of the number of students was close enough to be compared to the other individual colleges.

Simple random sampling was executed to generate samples in each stratum. 3. 3 Sample Size Determination An appropriate sample size was determined using the formula: n= where NQ PC ( N ? 1) + Q 2 N = population size P = perceived proportion of students who are satisfied Q = 1-P C = desired coefficient of variation The perceived proportion of students who are satisfied was set to 50% because the researcher allocated equal proportions for satisfied and dissatisfied students.

Table 1 shows the possible sample sizes with their corresponding measures of coefficient of variation. The sample size with a coefficient of variation of 5% was used in this study. Also, the cost of survey and the time duration in conducting the survey were also considered in identifying sample size. 7 Table 1. Possible sample sizes for the study Coefficient of Variation Sample Size (n) 0. 1 99 0. 09 122 0. 08 154 0. 07 200 0. 06 270 0. 05 384 0. 04 586 0. 03 993 0. 02 1973 0.

01 4832 The number of samples taken per stratum was determined using proportional allocation such that the allocation of sample size is in direct proportion to the size of the stratum. The proportional allocation scheme is given by, ? Ni ? ni = n? ? ? N? where n = sample size Ni = population per stratum N = population size Table 2 shows the sample sizes used for the 24 strata. Proportional allocation was implemented after identifying the actual number of students per colleges and per classifications studying at UPLB. Table 2.

Sample sizes used per stratum College CA CAS CEAT CEM CFNR + CHE CDC + CVM TOTAL Freshman Sophomore 17 10 56 23 25 11 13 7 17 10 16 7 144 68 Junior Senior 12 11 28 30 12 27 8 8 8 9 7 12 75 97 TOTAL 50 138 75 36 44 41 384 3. 4 The Questionnaire This study was implemented by conducting a survey. Questionnaires were used as datagathering tools. The questionnaires were divided into two parts. The first part dealt with information on demographics and the second part acquired information on the satisfaction of the students.

The second part of the questionnaire included a question wherein the students were asked on their overall level of satisfaction. All the questions were answered with a seven – point scale (strongly dissatisfied (1), moderately dissatisfied (2), slightly dissatisfied (3), neither dissatisfied 8 nor satisfied (4), slightly satisfied (5), moderately satisfied (6), and strongly satisfied (7)). Also, they were asked to evaluate possible indicators of satisfaction, which were based on some previous studies done among students of different institutions and universities.

The possible indicators of student satisfaction were grouped in nine different dimensions. Table 3 summarizes the nine dimensions with corresponding number of indicators. Table 3. Summary of the nine components with corresponding number of indicators Component Number of Indicators University Environment 8 Faculty 7 Administrators 7 Activities and Organizations 10 Academics 16 Physical Facilities 13 Communications and Technology 10 Services and Resources 14 Financial 7 Total 92 3. 5 Data Analysis Two methods were used in constructing the student satisfaction index.

The first method was through stepwise regression analysis using Categorical Principal Component Analysis (CATPCA). The second method was the scheme used in constructing the Bhutan Gross National Happiness Index (GNH) which was coded as BGNH in this study. These two methods were performed for comparison purposes. The steps done were the following: Step1. Descriptive Statistics Characteristics of the sampled students were tabulated. Also, frequency and percentage distributions were presented to evaluate the answers of the respondents. Step 2. Index construction using stepwise regression analysis Step 2.

1. Categorical Principal Component Analysis (CATPCA) The number of variables for each component was subjected to Categorical Principal Component Analysis, instead of Principal Component Analysis (PCA), since the variables were measured in the ordinal scale. This procedure was done to eliminate the insignificant variables and retain the components with meaningful amounts of variance. Eigenvalue criterion, cumulative percent of variance accounted for and the interpretability criterion were the criteria considered in identifying the components to be kept.

Using the derived components, the weighted sum of variables with high loadings was calculated which then resulted the new component scores. Step 2. 2. Correlation and Regression analyses Using Spearman rank order correlation coefficient, the overall satisfaction level of the students was correlated with the new component scores which then generated the possible indicators of satisfaction. After which, regression analysis was performed to identify how the level of satisfaction of students is affected by the components stated earlier. Step 2. 3.

Construction of Index An equation to quantify the students’ satisfaction index was derived using the stepwise regression analysis. To obtain a range of satisfaction index from -1 (very dissatisfied) to +1 (very satisfied), the calculated satisfaction index was rescaled using the derived equation. 9 The formula used in rescaling the calculated satisfaction index was: H { H. I {-{ H. { I . ??? { J{ Step 3. Index construction using the BGNH Index Procedure Bhutan Gross National Happiness Index (GNH) is constructed in two steps – identification and aggregation. The observations were organized in a matrix. Step 3. 1.

Identification The identification process involved four steps: a. ) Application of sufficiency cutoff This step used a sufficiency cutoff. A cutoff is used to determine if the student has attained sufficiency for every indicator in the nine components. The actual observation that reached or even surpassed/exceeded the cutoff was deemed sufficient and was replaced with zero (0). On the contrary, if the actual score fall below the sufficiency cutoff, it is considered insufficient and replaced with one (1). The sufficiency cutoff used in this study was set to 7, corresponding to the very satisfied level of satisfaction. b.)

Calculation of distance from cutoff To determine how the actual scores of those individuals who were considered insufficient dropped further away from the cutoff, the distances of their actual score from the cutoff was calculated. Since the minimum possible value for the variables is one (1), the distance from the cutoff is computed as: J I JI I J . II I JIJJ J I JI I J . c. ) Squaring distance from the cutoff To further emphasize the severity of insufficiency, the calculated distances from the cutoffs for each indicator were squared. This was done to put greater importance on equality (sufficiency) and give a stronger weight to low scores.

d. ) Construction of the Index The squared distances from the cutoff were subtracted from one (1). After which the sum of the resulting differences was computed and was divided by the total number of observations in the matrix. This then computed the index for student satisfaction. Step 3. 2. Aggregation a. ) Breakdown by component To identify how scores in each component has affected the student satisfaction index, the computed index was decomposed. Each component has different number of indicators; therefore, indicators in each component have had equal weights to avoid biasness. The weights were computed as: J I JJ J II JJJ J J IJ JJJ J.

Also, for every component, the average distance from the cutoff for each indicator was computed. b. ) Understanding of the computed measure For a specific component, the index was computed by subtracting the sum of the distances from cutoffs of the indicators in the component from one (1). The index numbers for each component were obtained through this procedure. As a result, the areas that registered lower levels of satisfaction were determined. 10 Step 4. Comparison of the obtained indexes from the two methods The conformity of the observed level of satisfaction and the calculated index were assessed for each index procedure.

The frequencies of the observations that were in accordance with the calculated index were determined and the percentages for the two index construction procedures were compared. Also, the proportion of satisfied students from the sampled undergraduate students was determined by means of dividing the number of satisfied students by the sample size. The resulting two proportions were compared. 11 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION From the sampled 384 undergraduate students registered during the first semester of the academic year 2009-2010, a total of 302 were accomplished respondents.

To compensate for the non-response, base weights were computed using the formula ?n ? wi = ? i ? ? n*? where ni = sample size in the ith stratum n* = number of accomplished respondents Table 4 shows the computed base weights for every stratum. These base weights were attached to the data to ensure that the survey estimates would conform well to known population proportions. Table 4. Base weights for non-response per strata College Freshman Sophomore CA 1. 545 1. 250 CAS 1. 037 1. 150 CEAT 1. 389 1. 571 CEM 1. 182 1. 167 CFNR + CHE 1. 133 1. 429 CDC + CVM 2. 000 1. 750 Junior 2. 400 1. 077 1. 500 1. 143 1. 000 1.

167 Senior 2. 200 1. 154 1. 125 1. 333 1. 800 1. 714 Furthermore, an appropriate generation of such weights should be performed in order to eliminate or reduce possible biases in survey estimates due to non-response and at the same time to attain consistency. 4. 1 Satisfaction Level of UPLB Undergraduate Students The last statement in the questionnaire “Your experience so far in the university” which refers to the overall satisfaction of the student as of the time she/he entered the university until the moment she/he answered the questionnaire was answered in a likert scale (Refer to Table 5 for the scales used).

Table 5. Distribution of satisfaction level of undergraduate students Satisfaction Level Frequency 1 – Strongly dissatisfied 3 2 – Moderately Dissatisfied 3 3 – Slightly dissatisfied 11 4 – Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 18 5 – Slightly satisfied 103 6 – Moderately Satisfied 139 7 – Strongly satisfied 106 Total 384 Percent 0. 70 0. 80 3. 00 4. 80 26. 80 36. 20 27. 70 100. 00 12 Table 5 shows that most, with a frequency of 139 or 36. 2% of the UPLB students, are satisfied with the university. However, only 3 of them, or 0. 7% of the sample, have a strongly dissatisfied level of satisfaction with the university.

To further emphasize the differences in the satisfaction levels of UPLB undergraduate students, a bar graph is indicated below. Figure 1. Distribution of satisfaction level of undergraduate students Still, it is noticeable that a large proportion of the students are satisfied with what the university has to offer them. 4. 2 Student’s Profile and Level of Overall Satisfaction Two-way contingency tables for the student’s profile and level of overall satisfaction are shown in Table 6 to Table 21. Note that the codes used for the level of overall satisfaction in the following tables are the same set of codes stated earlier.

Table 6 shows that CA produced the most number of very satisfied students with 42. 9% of its total number of students. On the other hand, only 16. 7% of the total number of students from CDC+CVM is very satisfied. Table 6. Cross-tabulation of the respondents’ college and level of overall satisfaction Level of Overall Satisfaction (%) Total College (%) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0. 00 0. 00 4. 08 2. 04 24. 49 26. 53 42. 86 100. 00 CA 0. 73 0. 00 1. 46 1. 46 29. 93 35. 04 31. 39 100. 00 CAS 0. 00 0. 00 1. 37 5. 48 32. 88 42. 47 17. 81 100. 00 CEAT 0. 00 2. 94 2. 94 5. 88 11. 76 52.

94 23. 53 100. 00 CEM 0. 00 5. 26 6. 88 10. 53 24. 45 24. 62 28. 27 100. 00 CFNR+CHE 4. 35 0. 00 4. 35 11. 78 25. 74 35. 81 17. 96 100. 00 CDC+CVM 0. 78 0. 78 2. 86 4. 68 27. 01 36. 10 27. 79 100. 00 Total Most junior students are very satisfied with what the university has to offer, with 30. 6% of the total number of junior students as shown in Table 7. 13 Table 7. Cross-tabulation of the respondents’ classification and level of overall satisfaction Level of Overall Satisfaction (%) Total Classification (%) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 66. 67 33. 33 0. 00 100.

00 Freshman 0. 00 0. 00 2. 06 3. 09 37. 11 34. 02 23. 71 100. 00 Sophomore 0. 00 1. 02 5. 10 1. 02 21. 43 40. 82 30. 61 100. 00 Junior 1. 60 1. 07 2. 67 8. 02 23. 53 34. 76 28. 34 100. 00 Senior 0. 78 0. 78 3. 12 4. 94 26. 75 36. 10 27. 53 100. 00 Total Table 8 shows that more male students, with 33. 5% of the total number of male students, are very satisfied with the university compared to female students with only 23. 1%. Table 8. Cross-tabulation of the respondents’ gender and level of overall satisfaction Level of Overall Satisfaction (%) Total Gender (%) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.

00 1. 20 2. 40 3. 59 27. 54 31. 74 33. 53 100. 00 Male 1. 39 0. 46 3. 24 5. 56 26. 39 39. 81 23. 15 100. 00 Female 0. 78 0. 78 2. 87 4. 70 26. 89 36. 29 27. 68 100. 00 Total Table 9. Cross-tabulation of the respondents’ religion and level of overall satisfaction Level of Overall Satisfaction (%) Total Religion (%) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 100. 00 100. 00 Islam 1. 01 0. 00 3. 36 5. 37 29. 53 35. 91 24. 83 100. 00 Catholicism 0. 00 0. 00 4. 17 0. 00 20. 83 41. 67 33. 33 100. 00 Protes.