Microsoft Word 2007 ichrie conference Proceedings Final-Final 06-06-07. doc

 
 
 
 

---

 
2007 Annual International CHRIE Conference & Exposition 
125
Table 3 
Suggested List of Characteristics to Use as Quality Indicators
Characteristic Category 
Mean 
SD 
Var. 
Sanitation and safety of labs 
Facilities 
4.83 
.437 
.191 
Industry experience of faculty 
Faculty 
4.65 
.564 
.318 
Subject experience of faculty 
Faculty 
4.65 
.561 
.315 
Required internship 
Learning Opportunities 
4.37 
.899 
.808 
% of graduates employed 
Outcomes 
4.34 
.722 
.521 
Student to station ratio 
Facilities 
4.29 
.730 
.533 
Teaching experience of faculty 
Faculty 
4.28 
.778 
.606 
Faculty evaluation procedure 
Org and Admin 
4.27 
.689 
.474 
Number of cooking labs 
Facilities 
4.26 
.795 
.632 
Program evaluation procedures 
Org and Admin 
4.23 
.676 
.457 
Student to instructor ratio- lab 
Faculty 
4.21 
.768 
.590 
Regional/national accreditation 
Org and Admin 
4.17 .976 .952 
% of students completing degree 
Outcomes 
4.15 
.837 
.700 
Faculty continuing education 
Faculty 
4.13 
.835 
.697 
Availability of academic advising 
Student 
Services 
4.13 .774 .599 
Availability of career placement 
Student Services 
4.10 .831 .690 
Required work experience 
Learning Opportunities 
4.05 
1.022 
1.045 
Opportunity for participation in events 
Learning Opportunities 
4.04 
.879 
.773 
Opportunity for partic. in competition 
Learning Opportunities 
3.99 
.976 
.951 
Program has an external advisory board 
Org and Admin 
3.92 
.971 
.942 
 
Low student to faculty ratios would also facilitate the involvement with faculty characterized as important 
to students’ educational attainment and satisfaction (Astin, 1985, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). However, the 
results of this study, emphasizing ratios and faculty experience, differed from Gould and Bojanic’s (2002) ranking 
factors for hospitality programs, which included only the number of faculty and their publishing records.
The culinary educators and industry chefs surveyed did not consider any of the characteristics of students, 
including selective admissions, to be important quality indicators. This contrasts to the ranking systems used by 
U.S. 
News and World Report
, which uses student selectivity factors as 15% of its total ranking score (Gater, 2002). 
Perhaps culinarians recognize, as did McCleeny (2004) and Pascarella and Terenzini (1991), that student selectivity 
does not necessarily influence educational attainment. The respondents’ opinions also corresponded to the literature 
on ranking and quality evaluation of hospitality management programs, which used student attitudes and outcomes, 
such as placement rates, rather than selectivity as quality indicators (Gould & Bojanic, 2002; Lefever & Withian, 
1998; Pavesic, 1984). 
The culinary educators and industry chefs considered two student services characteristics, availability of 
academic advising and availability of career placement, to be important quality indicators. However, these results 
differ from those of the community college and hospitality quality research which did not mention these services as 
quality indicators (Blumin, 1988; Casado, 1991; Gould & Bojanic, 2002). The importance of the student services 
also coincides with the results of the survey that showed the actual outcomes characteristics of placement rates and 
graduation rates were of even higher importance than providing the services.
In evaluating student learning opportunities, the survey respondents did not consider interaction with peers 
and faculty outside of class important. This contradicts the quality assessment literature that advocates peer learning, 
opportunities to extend learning beyond the classroom, and other involvement factors as essential aspects of the 
college experience (Astin, 1993: Haworth & Conrad, 1997; McCleeny, 2004). However, the low importance ratings 
may be due to the respondents’ recognition of Astin’s (1993) findings that students in vocational programs who go 
to school full-time and most likely work full-time may not have the time or desire to become actively engaged with 
their peers or the institutions.

---