AQIP 2007 Systems Portfolio - San Juan College

San Juan College – AQIP Systems Portfolio- November 2007Breakdown 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006Products73% A23% B3% C1% D71% A22% B3% C1% D3% no mark65% A24% B5% C1% D1% F4% no mark68% A23% B3% C1% D1% F4% no mark62% A27% B7% C1% D1% F3% no markPrice40% A26% B23% C5% D2% F4% no mark37% A32% B19% C5% D1% F6% no mark37% A29% B21% C3% D1% F9% no mark35% A29% B19% C4% D2% F11% no mark36% A28% B22% C5% D3% F6% no markConvenience65% A25% B8% C1% D1% F63% A23% B8% C1% D5% no mark67% A17% B8% C1% D7 % no mark74% A14% B4% C1% D7% no mark67% A23% B7 % C1% D2% no markFacilities84% A1 2% B2% C1% D1% F80% A14% B2% C7% no mark78% A13% B2% C7% no mark84% A12% B1% C3% no mark88% A8% B1% C3% no markPeople86% A9 % B2% C1% D2% no mark83% A9% B4% C4% no mark83% A9% B1% C1% D3% no mark82% A14% B1% C3% no mark82% A12% B4% C2% no markOperations70% A20% B5% C1% D1% F3% no markTable 3.12 SJC Bookstore Satisfaction Survey ResultsAnother result of building strong relationships withstakeholders is that San Juan County residents havepassed every local bond issue since the college’sinception. In June 2005 San Juan County voterspassed (74% voter approval) a $10.7 million bondelection that funded the student dining center remodeland expansion, construction of a new facility for alliedhealth programs; and completion of the OutdoorLearning Center and Learning Commons3R5 Comparative data, including national surveys,are used to determine gaps in performance betweenSJC and other institutions. Comparisons are madeoutside the academic community in areas whereappropriate (see Tables 2.3 and 9.1.). As previouslyprovided, Noel-Levitz and CCSSE data provideexternal student benchmarking data.72% A17% B4% C1% D6% no mark66% A18% B5% C1% D10% no mark71% A16% B5% C1% D7% no mark73% A17% B4% C1% D1% F4% no markImprovement (I)3I1 San Juan College strives to improve its currentprocesses and systems for understanding the needsof students and other stakeholder groups throughinput from advisory councils, campus committees,industry associations, internal review of studentservice programs and external consultants. TheGrants Quality Review process was piloted in fall2006 to SJC recently engaged Stamats for a multipleyear project to enhance overall marketing activitiesand to recommend recruitment improvementprocesses for all student segments.Fall 2006, the Vice President for Student Servicesengaged a cross-function team to conduct acomprehensive review of the Native AmericanProgram. The review resulted in a reorganization ofAQIP Category Three: Understanding Students’ and Other Stakeholders Needs 34