Copy of 2015 Student Survey Report

URBAN PLANNING STUDENT SURVEY FEBRUARY 2015

URBAN PLANNING SURVEY RESULTS FEBRUARY 2015 2

Contents

Introduction

Methodology

Results:

Demographic Data

Perceptions of Planning

Strengths & Weaknesses of UP

After Graduation

Program Administration

Program Faculty

Core Classes

Other Course Offerings

Concentrations

Summary

Conclusion

3

4

5

7

9

13

14

15

16

21

24

25

26


The Urban Planning Vision Student Working Group began meetings in the fall of 2014 with the goal of providing a voice to Urban Planning students at GSAPP about the direction of their program. The UP Vision Student Working Group identified several areas of interest and created subcommittees concerned with program mission, curriculum, and faculty/administration. Each subcommittee worked within the larger UP Vision Student Working Group to address areas of interest to Urban Planning students. In order to gain a better understanding of the thoughts, perceptions, and concerns of the entire Urban Planning student community, the UP Vision Student Working Group decided to administer a survey that would gauge students’ perceptions of the program.

The Urban Planning Vision Student Working Group began meetings in the fall of 2014 with the goal of providing a voice to Urban Planning students at GSAPP about the direction of their program. The UP Vision Student

Working Group identified several areas of interest and created subcommittees concerned with program mission, curriculum, and faculty/administration. Each subcommittee worked within the larger UP Vision Student Working Group to address areas of interest to Urban Planning students. In order to gain a better understanding of the thoughts, perceptions, and concerns of the entire Urban Planning student community, the UP Vision Student Working Group decided to administer a survey that would gauge students’ perceptions of the program.

On behalf of the UP Vision student working group, the UP Program Council presents our Spring 2015 Student Survey Report. Briefly, here’s what stands out from the survey results:

Faculty Strengths: Highly respected faculty; diversity of engaging practicing faculty Weaknesses: Size of core faculty

Curriculum Strengths: Studios; diversity of course offerings; opportunities to take classes in other programs.

Weaknesses: Core classes; lack of international focus; lack of emphasis on design and technical skills.

Vision Perceptions: Lack of dynamic program vision and identity.

Introduction


To design the survey, members of the UP Vision Student Working Group and other interested students who submitted questions to a Goo-gle Spreadsheet from December 2014 to January 2015. On January 18, 2015, submitted questions were reviewed, selected, edited, and formatted by a group of students, consisting of Jawaher al-Sudairy, Jorge Casar, Logan Clark, Jack Darcey, Timothy Douglas, Andrea Forsberg, Olivia Jovine, Andrew Lassiter, Isha Patel, Alexandra Paty, and Mike Phillips.

The survey consisted of 61 quan-titative and qualitative questions, grouped into nine sections. Demographic Data Perceptions of Planning Experience at UP After Graduation Program Administration Program Faculty Core Classes Other Course Offerings Concentrations

The survey was administered through a Google Form Survey that was distributed by email to all UP Masters and PhD students. Data was collected from January 23rd to February 3rd, 2015 and resulted in 53 responses.

The results were analyzed and pre-pared by a group of UP students, consisting of Jorge Casar, Timothy Douglas, Andrea Forsberg, Olivia Jovine, Andrew Lassiter, Mike Phillips, and George Todorovic. Qualitative data was distributed to members of this student group, who then found and tabulated frequent responses, highlighted quotes that reflected larger sen-timents expressed by the student body, and prepared summaries that draw on qualitative and quantita-tive data for each section.

The results of this effort are this document. Any further questions regarding methodology can be directed to Timothy Douglas at [email protected].

Methodology


Total: 53

Male: 45% Female: 49% n/r: 6%

Average Age: 27.5 Median Age: 26 Mode Age: 24

1st years: 58% 2nd years: 21% 3rd years: 4% Phd: 17%

Demographics

Concentrations

Country of OriginRace / Ethnicity Years of professional experience

USA 50%China 19%India 6%Canada 4%Chile 4%Colombia 2%Korea 2%Mexico 2%Norway 2%Russia 2%Saudi Arabia 2%UAE 2%Venezuela 2%n/r 2%

White/Caucasian 44%Asian 23%n/r 10%Hispanic 6%Chinese 6%White/Latino 2%White/ Pacific Islander 2%Unsure 2%Mixed 2%Korean 2%Arab 2%

Respondents

None, 9%

0-1 years, 17%

1 year, 6%

2 years, 9%

3 years, 8%

4 years, 19%

5 years, 4%

6 years, 0% 7 years, 2%

8 years, 4%

9 years, 6%

10 years, 2% More than 10 years, 6%

Years of professional experience

12%

22%

39%

27%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Housing and Community

Development

International Development

Land Use, Transportation,

and Environment

Urban and Economic

Development


Previous academic field(s) of study

Previous Professional Backgrounds


The most common word used to describe the field of urban planning was: comprehensive. It appeared a total of 6 times as the response to an open answer question.

Focuses of the Urban Planning Field: - 81% of respondents think a

design and technical approach is a valuable focus for an urban planning program; while 75% of respondents think a policy approach is a valuable focus for an urban planning program.

- Only 34% of respondents think that a theoretical approach is a valuable focus for an urban planning program.

- On a scale from “not important” (1) to “very important” (5), 79% of respondents said that sustainability was important or very important to their personal development as a planner.

Phrases that describe Urban Planning: - “Social science with a strong

orientation towards action and

place. More critically-aware and advocacy-oriented than public policy, and more concerned with impact and practical relevance than geography, sociology and other traditional social sciences.”

- “The field should not be confused with the municipal planning efforts which are primarily concerned with land use, redevelopment and zoning; this is part of urban planning, but is not all of the field.”

- “The junction between all stakeholders in any built environment, urban planning negotiates the interests of developers, policy makers, users, advocates, architects and politicians, and more, to create a solution that is better than the sum of stakeholders’ interests and ensures economic, ecologic, environmental, social and livable sustainability.”

- “Urban planning in a post WWII era is at its core largely about using the state and its affiliated tools and resources to manage and mitigate processes of capitalism. Urban planning has

Perceptions of Planning

Words that describe planning:

comprehensive (x 6)fieldwork community (x 6)pluralisticequity (x 3)density accessinfrastructure (x 3)biophilia physicalphilosophicalmagicpolitics (x 4)economics (x 2)teamworknegotiationdesign (x 5)coordination (x 2)collective distributionfuture (x 2)land use (x 3)transportation (x 2)pragmatic (x 2)analytical creativesustainability

75%

81%

34%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% A

pol

icy

app

roac

h

A d

esig

n/te

chni

cal a

pp

roac

h

A t

heor

etic

al a

pp

roac

h

What is a valuable focus for an Urban Planning program?


the additional responsibility to take into account issues of space and consider local dynamics and their relationship to broader national and international forces (such as, recently, lax lending by national housing finance agencies in the US or climate change).”

- “Planning is NOT about a particular ‘technique’ such as GIS or ‘hard skills’ in general. Nor is it only about cities, because cities do not exist in political or environmental vacuums.”

- “The analytic evaluation and subsequent manipulation of that which has been produced by the anthropocene.”

- “Urban planning refers to collective decision making processes and outcomes that are intended to influence the built environment. Planning is a formal profession but it is also a particular approach to understanding urban issues, one that looks holistically at problems and attempts to coordinate the actions of many stakeholders for long-term public benefit. Urban planning is about communication, participation, coordination and translation.”

- “Planning is a critical social science that studies land use and spatial agglomeration from economic and ecological perspectives, addressing questions of housing, community development, transportation, and other kinds of regional systems. From a built environment perspective, planning goes beyond ‘programming’ and ‘use’, to engage in a mixed-method research process that aligns community values and uses

within larger social, economic, ecological, sustainability, and political narratives.”

- “It holds the place in-between architecture and policy. It guides how our cities our developed.”

- “Urban planning is a field that lacks a clear identity. A field that ranges widely from the theoretical and abstract to the practical and physical; encompassing a wide range of unrelated disciplines; that is riven with much existential hand-wringing about what falls within the purview of the field.”

The strengths of the Urban Planning program at GSAPP:

0%

6%

11%

30%

49%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Not

imp

orta

nt a

t al

l

Som

ewha

t im

por

tant

Neu

tral

Imp

orta

nt

Very

imp

orta

nt

How important is the concept of sustainability is to your personal development as a planner?


Students had a lot to say about the strengths and weaknesses of the program. A few topics kept coming up.

Faculty: Students had mixed feelings about full-time faculty, but responses were positive on average. Many responses discuss the perceived need for more tenured faculty to bolster the identity and core of the program. And adjunct faculty were lauded, with many responses mentioning the quality and diversity of adjunct and practicing professors.

GIS: Seventy-seven percent of students expected to develop proficiency in GIS, and seventy-two percent already feel that they have. Students are generally very positive about the GIS component of the program, but they want it to be a sustained strength. Students call for more GIS course offerings and a permanent GIS professor.

Design: Some students are happy with the design elements of the program. And many list a perceived design focus as

a primary reason for coming to GSAPP or express high expectations for the quality of design coursework in the program, especially in reference to its location within an architecture school; one student said that they chose GSAPP because they “wanted the design focus of a planning program within an architecture school.” Sixty percent of students listed “design” as a proficiency they expected to develop in the program. So it is striking that, according to students’ responses, the expectation of a strong design core is often not met, with only twenty-one percent of students listing “design” as a proficiency they feel they have developed in the program. And

only two percent of students rate the “design” focus of the program as a five out of five. One student stated that the program has “very little investment in cultivating technical or design knowledge” with another lamenting the “very little emphasis on technical/design thinking” and another saying that the program “needs more courses that offer technical skills - maybe through technical skills concentrations.”

Studios: Students consistently listed studios as a strength of the program, and there is a perception that this strength should be emphasized. A suggestion that came up multiple times was that the program more strongly encourage or require the advanced studio course.

International focus: While a huge proportion of UP students are international, multiple students

Strengths and Weaknesses of the UP program

Why did you choose Columbia’s GSAPP UP program?New York CityReputationArchitecture schoolConnections/opportunitiesFacultyDesign focus

15%

26%

32%

19%

2%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Not a component of the program

A weak component of the program

Neither

A component of the program

A major component of the program

The strength of the 'Design' focus in the program:


were unhappy with the program’s lack of attention to the needs of international students; and the quality of the “international focus” of the program did not rank well, with sixty-eight percent of students ranking it as a three or below out of five.

Summary of Strengths Students’ perceptions of the strengths of the program revolved primarily around studios and class offerings, along with the program’s location in New York City.

Many students praised the first-year studio course, with some recommending a stronger focus on the advanced studios. One comment stated that “the advanced studio was one of the best experiences I had in the program, and I think the program should strongly consider adding a second year studio as a component of the curriculum.” Students repeatedly mentioned the diversity and breadth of course offerings within UP, as well as access to classes in other programs, as a strength of the program. One student mentioned that “the breadth of the course offerings is our program’s greatest strength” and another praised the “flexibility in taking classes from other programs like SIPA, (and) design.”

New York City played a central role in students’ perceptions of program strengths, with one student finding value in the “host of opportunities to engage with the urban structures around us, either through internships or through GSAPP studios.” Other popular responses included the quality of professors in general; the quality and diversity of adjunct and practicing professors; the quality and engagement of fellow students; the name value and reputation of the program; and the critical and theoretical orientation and intellectual rigor of the program.

Other notable comments included: - “Prevalence of adjunct

professors with relevant and strong experience.”

- “Intelligent, progressive, and engaged student body”

- “Having the thesis requirement in addition to the capstone workshop made this program very appealing to me...access to faculty, classes and resources within the Architecture and Real Estate programs...prevalence of adjunct professors with relevant and strong experience.”

Summary of Weaknesses The most common responses from

students regarding the weaknesses of the program focused on the separation of UP from the rest of the school, and a perceived lack of sufficient tenured faculty. A common sentiment was that the program does not have a distinct identity in GSAPP and that it is marginalized within the school. One student mentioned “weak connections to other GSAPP programs” while another noted “inattention (to UP) by the greater GSAPP community and a sort of spatial separation of the UP students which in turn fosters a feeling of insignificance.” One student, hoping for more of a connection to the design opportunities of the architecture program, stated that “the UP program is very limited in its

In general, what do you believe are the strengths of the UP program?

StudiosLocationCourse offeringsQuality of professors (in general)Adjunct professors

4%

32%

32%

25%

2%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%



Neither



The strength of the 'International' focus in the program:

In general, what do you believe are the weaknesses of the UP program?

Separation of UP from GSAPPLack of tenured facultyCore curriculumProgram vision/leadershipLack of design focus


design opportunities, and many of the architecture design courses require some sort of architecture background.”

Students also commonly referred to an insufficient tenured faculty. One student saw a primary weakness of the program as a “deficit of core faculty members...despite program size,” another noted that there was “no full time GIS faculty member” and another mentioned that the “full time faculty is too small and doesn’t cover all fields of interest to students.” One student suggested that the separation of UP from GSAPP and the insufficient tenured faculty may be connected: “Small, powerless, poor reputation, submerged by architecture and dominated by adjuncts (which then decreases community, sense of identity as a planning program).”

The third and fourth most common responses focused on core courses, with one student stating that “the first year core courses are terrible” and another that they “taught us nothing;” and lack of a dynamic program identity and vision, respectively. One student stated the program’s weakness to be a “lack of vision for the Master’s program - where is it going? What does it stand for?;” another student lamented that there is “no clear direction” for the program.

Other popular responses included: too strong of a focus on American planning (and lack of attention to the needs of international students); lack of academic and professional guidance; career services and internships; quality of faculty; lack of sufficient design/technical skills; and weak concentrations.

Other notable comments included: - “Lots of connections in the

city...though many of these opportunities are not extended to international students, who constitute a large proportion of the student population - and this disparity of opportunity was not honestly conveyed during the recruitment or enrollment process (in fact, it was more the opposite, where we were told that many opportunities existed).”

- “Lack of ardent leadership; a sense that the program is drifting and no one really is in charge or has a vision for the program”

- “Program (particularly core) too North America-centric for the increasingly international student body”

Why students choose the UP Program at GSAPP A majority of responses mentioned New York City and the reputation of the school as primary reasons for choosing Columbia’s UP program. One student summed up their reasoning for choosing Columbia as “the magnificent setting in NYC for hands-on planning project experience,” while another responded “an Ivy League education focused on city/

community development in the biggest city in the United States.”

The program’s location in an architecture school is also appealing to students. “I wanted to learn in a creative environment, so an architecture school was perfect,” said one student, while another stated that they were drawn to a program that is “housed in a school of architecture that takes into account the human experience with regards to the built environment;” a third chose GSAPP because they sought “strong design skills from a policy perspective.”

Also frequently mentioned was the allure of the connections and opportunities offered by the program, Columbia at large, and the city of New York. One student, for example, responded that they “felt that having the resources of the university and New York City would provide opportunities that would be unavailable to me in other programs”

Other popular responses included: the quality and reputation of the faculty; the perceived design focus of the program; the studio and thesis components of the program; and the funding received.

4%

11%

40%

28%

11%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%



Neither



The strength of the 'Social Justice' focus in the program:


Other notable comments included: - “The studio was really enticing

to me. Columbia’s program is also fairly well-regarded. Also New York City is a great place to learn about urbanism.”

- “(The program’s literature) made me think that I could actually work with “real world” problems and leave behind my architecture education that insisted (on ignoring) the existence of budgets”

- “I was drawn to the idea of being at a design school.”

- “A multi disciplinary

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Pol

icy

Ana

lysi

s an

d W

ritin

g

Econ

omic

/Fin

anci

al S

kills

Des

ign

Pre

sent

atio

n/C

omm

unic

atio

n S

kills

Soc

ial a

war

enes

s

Theo

retic

al b

ackg

roun

d

GIS

Map

pin

g

Qua

ntita

tive

Res

earc

h S

kills

Qua

litat

ive

Res

earc

h S

kills

Oth

er

The difference between expected and actual proficiencies developed at the UP program

What proficiencies did you expect to develop at Columbia’s UP Program?

What proficiencies have you developed at Columbia’s UP Program?


After Graduation

Do you intend to take the AICP exam after graduating?

23% Yes25% No47% Not sure

60%

38%

34%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

The

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

Inte

rnat

iona

lly

Not

sur

e

Where do you plan to work after graduating?

66%

43% 40%

28%

6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Priv

ate

Sec

tor

Gov

ernm

enta

l Age

ncy

Non

-pro

fit

Aca

dem

ia

Oth

er

What sector are you looking to work in after graduating?


The survey collected positive feedback about the program administration with many students commenting on the approachableness, friendliness, and responsiveness of program administration. The Urban Planning administration’s open door policy was noted by multiple students as a positive attribute. Students also appear to have a high opinion of and good working relationship with administrative staff.

Students identified several perceived weaknesses within the program’s administration, which can be divided into two categories, one concerning Urban Planning administration and one concerning GSAPP administration. With regards to Urban Planning administration students wrote of a lack of career services, internship assistance, alumni connections, external coordination with the larger Columbia community, and a clear vision and leadership within the program. With regards to GSAPP administration, students wrote of a lack of communication/coordination amongst the school’s

programs and a bias towards the needs of the Architecture program over the Urban Planning program. This sentiment of a lacking school-wide coordination and bias was captured in qualitative data with the question, Do you feel that you’ve been sufficiently informed about Columbia’s Studio Xs, labs and research centers relevant to Urban Planning? Which 85% of respondents answered no.

Program Administration

Strengths CommunicationApproachableFriendlyResponsiveOpen Door PolicySpecific Administrator Men-tioned

WeaknessesCareer Services and Internship AssistanceExternal Coordination with larger Columbia communityLack of Vision/LeadershipLack of Alumni ConnectionsDisorganization of larger GSAPP administration/Architecture bias

Key

Wor

ds /

Phr

ases

Do you feel that you’ve been sufficiently informed about relevant GSAPP class offerings outside of UP?

Do you feel that you’ve been sufficiently informed about relevant class offerings outside of GSAPP?

Do you feel that you’ve been sufficiently informed about Columbia Studio Xs, labs and research centers relevant to urban planning?

19% YES77% NO

11% YES85% NO

51% YES45% NO


The general consensus of how the students view the faculty were mixed. While the biggest strength is that there are numer-ous amounts of adjunct faculty the main weakness was that there are not enough tenure fac-ulty. Although this may be seen as an oxymoron, the main con-cern of the students is that the core of the faculty is weakening due to the recent loss in number. There is also a perception that the faculty that have remained do not communicate well with each other and are complacent with their courses. The only sil-ver lining that can be seen from a disconnected and complacent faculty is that, as a whole, they have a very diverse background with each professor specializing and having prestige in a certain area.

Program Faculty

Would you be willing to serve as such a student representative?

Do you know who your academic advisor is?

Have you contacted your academic advisor for help?

72% YES25% NO

85% YES11% NO

40% YES57% NO8%

11%

15%

30% 32%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Uni

mp

orta

nt

Som

ewha

t un

imp

orta

nt

Neu

tral

Som

ewha

t im

por

tant

Very

imp

orta

nt

How important do you feel that student representation in the faculty hiring process is?

Strengths Adjunct professorsDiversityExperience CloutIntellectKnowledge

WeaknessesNot enough tenure UnenergeticDisengaged Do not communicate internally

Key

Wor

ds /

Phr

ases


Comments regarding Planning Law centered seemed to indicate two different prevailing opinions. One was that the course was engaging, useful and fair in its workload. These commenters generally regarded the class as fair in its difficulty and workload, though one commenter suggested that the class might benefit from smaller group discussions to facilitate understanding.

The other main trend indicated that the course lacked relevance for international students. Many comments indicated that it might be helpful to have an internationally focused or comparative law course, with a focus on planning. Several foreign students also expressed in the survey that learning American case law was difficult for language reasons. Notable Comments: - “This was definitely satisfactory

for me. The course is coherent, has a logical trajectory, and a reasonable amount of work -

possibly even on the light side. Exams were appropriate and effective. I think more active class activities could be effective - small discussion groups, etc (which were tried a few times and usually productive).”

- “Great if one is planning to work within the US, otherwise it is too focused on UP in the US with little to no international focus. I would suggest having the option between two courses, where one focuses on US law and the other on international law.”

- “Having no background in law, I found class to be very useful, not too hard but challenging and comprehensive.”

- “I liked this course but am not sure how useful it will be for the international students who do not plan on practicing in the United States. I think a comparative property/land use law class would be more appropriate.”

- “I’m an international student. It is too difficult for me to understand the legal system in the United States.”

Core Classes: Planning Law

0%

4%

23%

28%

9%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Very

uns

atis

fied

Not

sat

isfie

d

Neu

tral

Som

ewha

t sa

tisfie

d

Very

sat

isfie

d

How satisfied were you with Planning Law core class?


This course was negatively reviewed with almost 70% of respondents ranking it 3 and under, out of 5.

Feedback indicated that this course would benefit from structural and organizational improvement. The course attempted to cover “too many things in one semester” so that the students were taught “theory, but history was forgotten”. Students suggested that the course be divided into the “Theory of planning” and “History of Planning” as another course. One student suggested this second required course be “History of the American City.” Another trend was the concern was that the scope of the course was broad, outdated and out of touch with modern planning issues. One student wrote that the course covered “a critique of planning methods of the mid 20th century, but contemporary alternatives were overly generalized. We learned only to “Be inclusive,” “seek community input,” and that “sustainability is good” etc.” Feedback also indicated that the small group discussions were

lacking in structure, organization, and outputs.

The students also expressed discontent with the scope of the projects. Students indicated that the final group project was disorganized, ambiguous in its scope and deliverables, and that the semester-long timeline was too long for such a paper and presentation. Three students described that the smaller assignments felt “like busy work.” A trend in this feedback was the desire for more feedback and accountability throughout the semester in the form of quizzes and paper feedback.

Students generally felt positively about the theory reading choices (the Feinstein reader in particular), and the lectures about the perils of racism and improving inequality in the world, the guest lecturers (offering a diversity of perspectives), and aspects of the group project (which offered an opportunity to develop an in-depth knowledge of a topic.)

Core Classes: History & Theory

23%

21% 21%

13%

4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Very

uns

atis

fied

Not

sat

isfie

d

Neu

tral

Som

ewha

t sa

tisfie

d

Very

sat

isfie

d

How satisfied were you with Planning History & Theory core class?


Students’ perception of the GIS core class were generally positive. Suggestions for improvements include: - “we should reinforce the skills

we learn here in other classes.” - “more GIS throughout the

department!” - “offer advanced GIS each

semester “students should be encouraged to graduate with a strong background in GIS not just intro level”

- “Supplemental design session and supplemental statistics session.”

Core Classes: Intro to GIS

Strengths The professor’s availability for extra assistanceImportant and applicable Glad it is required course now Very active atmosphereEmphasis on design “crucial in the professional world and I applaud the professor for putting such emphasis on this aspect of cartography”

WeaknessesMore direction during class timeGet assignments back on timeHard to know what is going on in class GIS for HP doesn’t count Lecture was boring

Key

Wor

ds /

Phr

ases

2% 0%

9%

21%

45%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Very

uns

atis

fied

Not

sat

isfie

d

Neu

tral

Som

ewha

t sa

tisfie

d

Very

sat

isfie

d

How satisfied were you with Intro to GIS core class?


This course received very mixed reviews, with rankings divided evenly between 2 and 4. A large number of survey respondents indicated that this course would greatly benefit from a structural improvement. A respondent mentioned that “while the class was logical, the syllabus is too broad. Maybe splitting the class into two, Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods, would have added depth to some of the topics that were covered, but vaguely.” Several respondents added that TA sessions (labs) and homeworks were helpful. In fact, one respondent suggested that the course should be much more lab-oriented: “this class does not require a large lecture - it should simply be taught as a lab session and divided into two semesters for Quantitative and Qualitative methods.” There is also a generalized view that the class was “too basic.”

Other notable comments included: - “Could have been more

technically challenging. While I realize that some students do not have a statistical background, the boot camps can be extended to cover that.”

- “It exposed us to the basics of research and the final project was helpful in applying those skills.”

Core Classes: Planning Techniques

Strengths Interesting and helpful final projectGreat TA sessionsUseful

WeaknessesClass attempts to cover too much in one semesterClass would be better in smaller groupsSlow pace

Key

Wor

ds /

Phr

ases

11%

21%

23% 23%

4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Very

uns

atis

fied

Not

sat

isfie

d

Neu

tral

Som

ewha

t sa

tisfie

d

Very

sat

isfie

d

How satisfied were you with Methods and Techniques for Planners core class?


Overall, the course is positively viewed, with almost 60% of the respondents ranking it with 4 out of 5 or above. Also, the survey results show a generalized positive regard for the Professor. Other positive comments reflected how the class is enjoyable and interesting, with a unique approach to basic economics - one student respondent that the Professor “is one of the best people to teach this course, mainly due to his Marxist focus.”

Several respondents, however, noted that the course lectures lacked structure, commenting, for example, that “too much time was devoted to basic economic concepts when we could have been working more on urban economic issues. The course itself could also benefit from a slightly more structured lecture style.” A few students also noted that the course is somewhat confusing and “overly reliant on the TAs.”

Other notable comments included: - “The single most nurturing class

in the semester.”

- “The professor was great, but it was more of a Theory class. I think economic theory is important for planners.”

- “Some themes took too many weeks. Could be more dense and less theoretic.”

Core Classes: Economics for Planners

Key

Wor

ds /

Phr

ases

Strengths Excellent ProfessorWell taughtInteresting

WeaknessesToo theoreticalLack of structureToo much time spent on a few, basic themes

8%

4%

13%

40%

17%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Very

uns

atis

fied

Not

sat

isfie

d

Neu

tral

Som

ewha

t sa

tisfie

d

Very

sat

isfie

d

How satisfied were you with Economics for Planners core class?


Other Course Offerings

11%

21%

30%

15%

2%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Very

uns

atis

fied

Not

sat

isfie

d

Neu

tral

Som

ewha

t sa

tisfie

d

Very

sat

isfie

d

How satisfied are you with UP's international planning course offerings?

11%

17%

28%

17%

4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Very

uns

atis

fied

Not

sat

isfie

d

Neu

tral

Som

ewha

t sa

tisfie

d

Very

sat

isfie

d

How satisfied are you with UP's design course offerings?

4%

11%

40%

13%

4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Very

uns

atis

fied

Not

sat

isfie

d

Neu

tral

Som

ewha

t sa

tisfie

d

Very

sat

isfie

d

How satisfied are you with UP's environmental/sustainability planning course offerings?


17% 15%

21%

25%

6%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Very

uns

atis

fied

Not

sat

isfie

d

Neu

tral

Som

ewha

t sa

tisfie

d

Very

sat

isfie

d

How satisfied are you with UP's history and theory course offerings?

4% 4%

28% 30%

8%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Very

uns

atis

fied

Not

sat

isfie

d

Neu

tral

Som

ewha

t sa

tisfie

d

Very

sat

isfie

d

How satisfied are you with UP's economic development course offerings?

2%

8%

26%

30%

15%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Very

uns

atis

fied

Not

sat

isfie

d

Neu

tral

Som

ewha

t sa

tisfie

d

Very

sat

isfie

d

How satisfied are you with UP's technical methods (eg GIS, Adobe) course offerings?

2% 2%

9%

38%

19%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40% Ve

ry u

nsat

isfie

d

Not

sat

isfie

d

Neu

tral

Som

ewha

t sa

tisfie

d

Very

sat

isfie

d

How satisfied are you with UP's land use planning course offerings?

0%

8%

25%

32%

9%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Very

uns

atis

fied

Not

sat

isfie

d

Neu

tral

Som

ewha

t sa

tisfie

d

Very

sat

isfie

d

How satisfied are you with UP's transportation planning course offerings?

13%

17% 15%

25%

6%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Very

uns

atis

fied

Not

sat

isfie

d

Neu

tral

Som

ewha

t sa

tisfie

d

Very

sat

isfie

d

How satisfied are you with UP's research methods (quant and qual) course offerings?


4%

13%

32%

9%

4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Very

uns

atis

fied

Not

sat

isfie

d

Neu

tral

Som

ewha

t sa

tisfie

d

Very

sat

isfie

d

How satisfied are you with UP's community development course offerings?

4%

15%

28%

15%

2%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Very

uns

atis

fied

Not

sat

isfie

d

Neu

tral

Som

ewha

t sa

tisfie

d

Very

sat

isfie

d

How satisfied are you with UP's planning finance course offerings?

8% 9%

26%

17%

2%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Very

uns

atis

fied

Not

sat

isfie

d

Neu

tral

Som

ewha

t sa

tisfie

d

Very

sat

isfie

d

How satisfied are you with UP's housing course offerings?


Not many students were pleased with the current way concentrations are handled. There were some comments that did not feel one way or the other but most students were confused as to what they mean and why they are taking them; more information was desired. This was similar to responses indicating that concentrations were “vague/broad” but the latter category consists of students who feel that the structure of concentrations needs an overhaul. Structurally, students felt that the four concentrations are unbalanced, and biased with more faculty leading certain concentrations rather than others; one suggestion was that each concentration have a tenured faculty member in charge.

Internships Requirement A majority of the student body was interested in the UP Curriculum requiring an internship for students. Respondents felt that a requirement would help international students, as well as help students with no planning background to gain valuable experience, further suggesting that

this experience could help facilitate better projects and research within school as well as strengthen resumes in the marketplace. Conversely, some students felt that an internship requirement would be a waste of time, suggesting that it could distract from school and might be financially unwise if the internship was unpaid. However, overall student responses indicated that the element of experience gained from a required internship seemed to outweigh its drawbacks.

Concentrations

Would you support a curriculum requiring an internship before graduation?

72% YES28% NO

13%

25%

21%

25%

4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Very

uns

atis

fied

Not

sat

isfie

d

Neu

tral

Som

ewha

t sa

tisfie

d

Very

sat

isfie

d

How satisfied do you feel with the current structure of UP's concentrations?

Concentrations StrengthsFlexibilityLoose NatureInteresting topics

WeaknessesNot much meaningUnclear Unbalanced (courses+faculty) Vague/Broad

Internahip: StrengthsExperience Intellectual Boost Marketable Resume Boost Aid International Students

WeaknessesCould limitDistract from school Most are unpaid Some may not wantNeed ability to waive

Key

Wor

ds /

Phr

ases

Key

Wor

ds /

Phr

ases


The Urban Planning Program is composed of individuals from around the world and from varying academic and professional backgrounds, yet they all have one thing in common: they chose to study Urban Planning at GSAPP. The reasons for coming to GSAPP vary, as do the views expressed in this survey, however, common threads of concern were identified in faculty, curriculum, and program vision.

Faculty Students generally had positive things to say about the program faculty, citing that the tenure and tenure-track faculty are highly respected in their fields and the adjuncts are comprised of a diversity of interesting and engaging practitioners. Students were concerned with the small size of the faculty, the potential of a decrease in tenure and tenure-track faculty, and the lack of a core faculty member for each concentration. Simply put, students feel that there are not enough core faculty members.

Curriculum Student responses indicated enthusiasm for the diversity of course offerings at UP, studio classes, and opportunities to take classes in other programs. Meanwhile, students expressed dissatisfaction with core classes, and felt that the program needs to have a stronger international focus that better represents the international backgrounds and intentions of the student body. Lastly, students expressed a strong desire that the program build upon the design and technical aspects of the field, especially within the context of a school of architecture.

Vision Students expressed concern about the program’s perceived lack of dynamic vision and identity. Responses reflected a sentiment that the program needed a stronger sense of both direction and community.

Summary


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

Conclusion

On behalf of all the Urban Planning students, Thank You for listening. The UP Vision Student Working Group

Presented by the Vision Survey TeamJawaher al-Sudairy, Logan Clark, Jack Darcey, Timothy Douglas, Olivia Jovine, Andrew Lassiter, Isha Patel, Alexandra Paty, Mike Phillips, Jorge Casar, George Todorovic. Report compiled by Andrea Forsberg

Documents

Copy of 2015 Student Survey Report