13
This article was downloaded by: [Mount St Vincent University] On: 05 October 2014, At: 14:00 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK International Journal of Construction Education and Research Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uice20 Assessing Construction Management Higher Education Strategies: Increasing Demand, Limited Resources, and Over- Enrollment Jay P. Christofferson PH.D. a , Kristen Wynn a & Jay S. Newitt PH.D. a a Brigham Young University , Provo, Utah Published online: 23 Feb 2007. To cite this article: Jay P. Christofferson PH.D. , Kristen Wynn & Jay S. Newitt PH.D. (2006) Assessing Construction Management Higher Education Strategies: Increasing Demand, Limited Resources, and Over-Enrollment, International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 2:3, 181-192, DOI: 10.1080/15578770600906992 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15578770600906992 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions

Assessing Construction Management Higher Education Strategies: Increasing Demand, Limited Resources, and Over-Enrollment

  • Upload
    jay-s

  • View
    214

  • Download
    2

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

This article was downloaded by: [Mount St Vincent University]On: 05 October 2014, At: 14:00Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of ConstructionEducation and ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uice20

Assessing Construction ManagementHigher Education Strategies: IncreasingDemand, Limited Resources, and Over-EnrollmentJay P. Christofferson PH.D. a , Kristen Wynn a & Jay S. Newitt PH.D. aa Brigham Young University , Provo, UtahPublished online: 23 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: Jay P. Christofferson PH.D. , Kristen Wynn & Jay S. Newitt PH.D. (2006) AssessingConstruction Management Higher Education Strategies: Increasing Demand, Limited Resources, andOver-Enrollment, International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 2:3, 181-192, DOI:10.1080/15578770600906992

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15578770600906992

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Assessing Construction Management HigherEducation Strategies: Increasing Demand, Limited

Resources, and Over-Enrollment

JAY P. CHRISTOFFERSON, PH.D., KRISTEN WYNN,AND JAY S. NEWITT, PH.D.

Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah

The demand for Construction Management (CM) graduates is on the rise. The problemis that as a result of demand, a growing number of CM programs are experiencingincreasing enrollments which exceed their current resources. The purpose of thisresearch was to see how ACCE-Accredited Baccalaureate CM programs were mana-ging increased enrollment demand with limited resources. Forty-nine of the 53 accreditedACCE programs responded to the survey instrument. Over two-thirds of the respondentsstated that they were either approaching or were at the limits of enrollment capacities.Most of the respondents listed limited enrollment, the use of adjunct faculty, and fundingfrom industry as leading strategies for managing or obtaining resources. Because CMprograms will not be willing to sacrifice quality, more and more CM programs willimplement limited enrollment controls. As more CM programs initiate enrollment con-trols, it will become increasingly difficult for the construction industry to fill entry levelpositions with college graduates. Because CM programs are having difficulties acquiringresources through their universities, it may be necessary to acquire additional resourcesthrough industry. Other strategies to manage increasing demand are discussed.

Keywords construction management programs, enrollment control, limitedresources, over-enrollment

Introduction

A study performed by Robert W. Dorsey (1992, pp. 35–37) noted a projected need of10,000 new construction managers each year. Within his research, Dorsey discoveredthat more and more of these managers were no longer being pulled from the ranksinto management promotions, but rather, were being recruited heavily from con-struction management (CM) education programs.

The marketability of construction management related graduates within theindustry is not in doubt. Most construction management education programs boast100% placement, indicating multiple offers (Bilbo et al., 2000). These graduates fillentry level positions with multiple titles and duties within the industry. Such titlesinclude estimator, field engineer, scheduling engineer, office engineer, project engi-neer, and project manager (Gunderson et al., 2002). In addition, the Bureau of

Address correspondence to Jay P. Christofferson, Brigham Young University, School ofTechnology, Provo, UT 84602. E-mail: [email protected]

International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 2:181–192, 2006Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1557-8771 print=1550-3984 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15578770600906992

181

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Labor Statistics projected a 10% to 20% increase in construction managementemployment between 1996 and 2006 (DOL, 2005). These statistics project an annual,steady, growth rate that will provide predictable employment opportunities forfuture graduates (Gunderson et al., 2002).

Research at Texas A&M University provided further information on thedemand of college graduates in the construction industry. Based on their researchstatistics, the demand for graduates in the industry will have increased almost 38%by 2005. However, based on constant enrollment statistics, a supply deficit of5,880 graduates will arise (Bilbo et al., 2000).

With high industry demand and competitive entry-level salaries, it is no surprisethat student enrollments in Construction Management programs are increasing dra-matically. Programs like Arizona State University have increased enrollment by over50% in the last 15 years (ASU, 2005). Many programs are having difficulties sustain-ing current enrollments based on their resources. For example, programs likeBrigham Young University implemented limited enrollment in their programs in1998 by setting restrictions in admissions (BYU, 2005).

Unfortunately, many construction management programs do not have theresources available to meet the dramatic increase in student enrollment. Several con-struction management programs are struggling with the inability to acquire adequatefunding to create new teaching positions, difficulties finding new faculty to fill avail-able positions, and a general lack of resources for expansion options, includingequipment and facilities (Jakubowski & Keith, 1981).

Problem Statement and Purpose of the Study

The demand for construction management graduates is on the rise. The problem isthat, as a result of demand, a growing number of construction management pro-grams are experiencing increasing enrollments within their student populations thatexceed their current resources.

The purpose of this research was to identify what strategies baccalaureate Con-struction Management programs accredited by the American Council for Construc-tion Education (ACCE) were using to manage increased enrollment demand withlimited resources.

For consistency, the research was narrowed to ACCE accredited programs. Thesubjects were limited to a list of names provided by the ACCE who would best repre-sent the status and philosophy of their construction management programs. The sub-jects held titles such as Program Chair, Department Head, Director, ProgramCoordinator, Interim Chair, Interim Coordinator, etc., and for the purpose of thisstudy will be referred to as program directors.

The following assumptions were associated with this study; programs not accre-dited by the ACCE face the same enrollment problems as accredited programs, theindividual responses provided by the program directors were accurate and truthful,and the varying times and dates of the administration of the survey had no affect onthe responses provided by the program directors.

Methodology

Population and Sample

The population within this research was construction management programs withinthe United States. In order to maintain consistency, the research sample was

182 J. P. Christofferson et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

05

Oct

ober

201

4

narrowed to ACCE accredited programs. A list of the 53 ACCE accredited programswas acquired through the ACCE official website (ACCE, 2005).

Subjects

The subjects interviewed for this research where chosen based on the program con-tact information provided by the ACCE. The subjects held the following titles: Pro-gram Chair, Department Head, Director, Program Coordinator, Interim Chair,Interim Coordinator, etc. For the purposes on this research, the subjects will bereferred to as program directors. The program directors were contacted based ona list of phone numbers provided by the ACCE. They were then asked if they wouldbe interested in answering questions concerning enrollment issues within theirrespective construction management programs.

Instrumentation

The instrument used for this research was a survey. The survey questions (AppendixA) were based upon interviews with associates of the ACCE. The survey wasdesigned to be both qualitative and quantitative in nature. Quantitative questionswere derived from a review of literature surrounding similar topics. This informationprovided much of the foundational aspects for the qualitative data to be gathered.

The qualitative questions where intended to be open-ended. As mentionedbefore, there is little to no literature currently published concerning constructionmanagement programs and over-enrollment. This implies that there is little to noinformation known as to how construction management programs are handling thedocumented increase of enrollments. By asking open-ended questions, the researchergathered information specific to each school that has not previously been published.

Survey Administration

In discussion with a member of the ACCE Board, it was felt that the survey wouldbest be performed over the telephone. Due to the dual nature of the survey, a tele-phone survey would allow the interviewer to discuss in detail the qualitativeresponses to open-ended questions. In addition, a telephone survey would providethe highest response rate.

Each question in the survey instrument was designed to provide an overall andcomplete assessment of the current state of enrollment within individual constructionmanagement programs.

Findings

Of the 53 accredited programs in the United States, 49 responded to the telephonesurvey conducted by the author. Question 1 of the survey inquired if their construc-tion management programs had all the resources available to admit every qualifiedstudent that applied. In response to that question, 33 percent of the program direc-tors replied that they had all of the resources necessary, 26% felt they were approach-ing the limits of capacity, and 41% felt that they could not handle any additionalstudents (see Figure 1).

Over 67% of ACCE accredited construction management programs were eitherapproaching or already at capacity.

Increasing Demand, Limited Resources, and Over-Enrollment 183

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Respondents of the survey estimated their program’s maximum enrollmentcapacity and submitted their current enrollment numbers. The difference wascalculated; negative numbers represent programs that were running over capacity.Student-to-faculty (Student=FTE) ratios for each institution were then calculatedbased on the full-time equivalent faculty for each construction management program(Table 1).

Maximum capacities listed as ‘‘N=A’’ were either unsure of their program’scapacity or confident that they could expand to meet demand.

Program directors were asked what limitations they felt their programs con-fronted. The program directors listed the following limitations (Figure 2).

Two-thirds of the respondents felt limited in their programs by lack of fundingor lack of university support. One program director felt that construction manage-ment was not a priority in his university’s eyes, while another stated that other pro-grams ‘‘were bleeding worse then they were.’’ Funding was also a concern in findingqualified faculty. One program director felt that the program was unable to affordthe few qualified Ph.D.s that were available.

The ‘‘Other’’ category included one program director whose program establishedclass sizes that would not allow for expansion. Another program director expressed adesire to establish consistent growth within his program before expanding.

When asked what strategies were being used to accommodate increased studentenrollment demand, over two-thirds of the program directors listed limiting enroll-ment, using adjunct faculty, and securing funding from industry as leading strategiesfor managing or obtaining resources (see Figure 3).

Limited Enrollment

Twenty-four percent of the programs limit enrollments as a method for dealing withincreasing student demand. Those programs that limited enrollment used the follow-ing criteria to admit students to their programs Figure 4.

Figure 1. Programs at capacity, approaching capacity, or under capacity.

184 J. P. Christofferson et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Table 1. Student capacity compared to current program enrollments, sorted byenrollments

Maximum capacity Current enrollment Difference FTE faculty Students=FTE

600 900 �300 24 38600 600 0 14 43460 550 �90 11.2 49500 540 �40 17 32560 530 30 13 41500 500 0 13 38500 450 50 12 38400 400 0 11 36312 400 �88 7 57N=A 400 N=A 12 33450 400 50 10 40N=A 350 N=A 7 50262 300 �38 6 50N=A 290 N=A 7 41180 280 �100 6 47257 257 0 2.75 93250 250 0 20 13220 240 �20 4.5 53288 230 58 7 33150 220 �70 2.5 88200 215 �15 6.5 33250 210 40 5 42200 204 �4 4 51N=A 200 N=A 8 25350 200 150 6 33120 180 �60 6 30150 175 �25 6 29175 175 0 5 35120 165 �45 6.5 25170 165 5 4 41180 165 15 5 33200 160 40 5 32400 150 250 4 38145 145 0 3.5 41200 130 70 3 43130 130 0 4 33125 125 0 3 42130 110 20 3 37125 100 25 3.25 3180 90 �10 6 1590 90 0 3 30180 89 91 4 22

(Continued)

Increasing Demand, Limited Resources, and Over-Enrollment 185

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

05

Oct

ober

201

4

GPA

GPA is the criteria most often used in determining admission to an ACCE construc-tion management programs. It was used as the sole criteria for admittance, or some-times it was combined with other criteria to limit enrollment. For example, oneprogram based admittance on the GPA of required pre-requisite courses, workexperience, and a letter=essay. Another school based admission solely on the stu-dent’s ACT score because they felt that it was the best method of measuring a stu-dent’s aptitude and future performance.

Two different programs stated the use of a percentage-based combination of cri-teria to limit enrollment. One school used a scale of 40 percent GPA, 30% workexperience, 30% leadership, and an application resume. Another program used ascale of 50 percent GPA, 25% work experience, 25% leadership skills, and an essay.

The following were the top three combinations of enrollment criteria used byACCE construction management programs:

1. GPA and Pre-requisite Courses2. GPA and SAT=ACT Scores3. GPA and Work Experience

Figure 2. Resource limitations.

Table 1. Continued

Maximum capacity Current enrollment Difference FTE faculty Students=FTE

300 80 220 5 16132 65 67 3.5 1970 48 22 2.75 1775 35 40 3 12

186 J. P. Christofferson et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Other methods of limited enrollment were used as well. Based on previous suc-cesses, one program was specifically looking for older students who had communitycollege experience. Another program was planning on limiting enrollment into spe-cific cohorts to control enrollment demands. In addition, one program was usingtwo-tier GPA-based enrollment where students were evaluated again, after a seme-ster of being admitted into the program.

Thirty-three percent of the program directors responded that they were planningon implementing limited enrollment strategies within the next five years. Twenty-four percent stated that they were not planning on limiting their enrollments any

Figure 3. Resource managing strategies.

Figure 4. Limited enrollment criterion.

Increasing Demand, Limited Resources, and Over-Enrollment 187

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

05

Oct

ober

201

4

time soon. There were three main reasons stated for not implementing limited enroll-ment. One program director stated that limiting enrollment ‘‘hurt the budgetinggame’’ by discouraging resources that would normally follow enrollment. Anotherrespondent felt that their program could successfully raise funds within the industryfor additional support. One respondent felt that limited enrollment was subjectiveand open to accusations of bias.

Adjunct Faculty

Twenty percent of the schools interviewed use adjunct faculty as a strategy foraccommodating student demand. The use of adjunct faculty is a method of dealingwith fluctuating semester enrollments. Their use can provide a way around hiringexpensive, full-time Ph.D.s. One program stated that only 50% of their faculty mem-bers were Ph.D.s. Additionally, a significant portion of their teaching load washandled by part-time industry professionals with baccalaureate degrees. Accordingto one program director, it was difficult to find adjunct faculty that could accommo-date the amount of hours and time slots needed.

Industry Funding

Eighteen percent of the respondents used industry funding to support studentdemand. Resources provided by industry funding included: personnel grants fundedsolely by industry donations; faculty and administrative slots, such as, office man-agers, part-time adjunct professors, and full-time professors; and facilities—labs,remodeled and new facilities, equipment, etc.

One respondent stated that the industry within the geographic area was so des-perate for graduates that they were more than willing to help expand the program byproviding resources. This program director said that industry ‘‘relished in theirsuccess’’ and were very supportive. This same program’s industry advisory boardprovided industry connections for funding not only for the program but forsponsored student events as well.

Increased Class Sizes and Teaching Loads

Ten percent of the programs listed increasing class sizes and additional course sec-tions as a way to compensate for over-enrollment. According to respondents,increasing classes enabled these programs to accommodate additional students. Pro-gram directors did note the increased teaching loads adversely affected faculty mem-bers and students.

Decreased Recruiting Efforts

Four percent of the program directors decreased their recruiting efforts to controlenrollment. Previously, these schools actively recruited high school students by print-ing brochures, offering scholarships, and visiting campuses. With programs now atcapacity, program directors decreased or discontinued recruiting efforts.

Increased Use of Labs

Four percent of the programs used labs to control over-enrollment. Multiple smalllabs were opened for lecture classes with large enrollments. A professor would teach

188 J. P. Christofferson et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

05

Oct

ober

201

4

the lecture section, but the labs were taught by either teachers’ assistants or voca-tional educators. This provided programs the ability to increase student capacitywithout placing excessive stress on faculty members.

Increased Enrollment Requirements

Four percent of the programs initiated more stringent enrollment requirements tocontrol enrollment demand. Although technically a form of limited enrollment,some program directors perceived a difference in the two categories. All studentswho met minimum requirements were allowed into the program as opposed to aranking system where even qualified applicants to a program are not accepted ifthey fall below the number who can be accepted. Students who met the specifiedstandard were automatically admitted into the program. For example, a minimumGPA, SAT=ACT score, or high school rankings was used to set a minimumstandard. If enrollments began to increase, the program would increase theminimum standards. This quantitative method was perceived by respondents asless biased than qualitative ranking methods like leadership, work experience,and essay writing.

Other

One program director stated that program funding was a direct result of the pro-gram’s academic research and status within the university; therefore, he felt the bestway to gain resources was to encourage more research by faculty members. One pro-gram was re-organized and transferred from the Engineering Department to theInformation Technology Department. Following the transfer, the program directorhad an increase of available program resources. One program listed the use of TA’sas a major resource to manage over-enrollments. Due to the school’s large construc-tion management related Ph.D. programs, there were a number of Ph.D. candidatesavailable to work as teachers’ assistants.

Another program director employed a hybrid method of curriculum that com-bined the use of electronic assignments and tests to alleviate resource deficiencies.This same program was making use of vocational educators to teach some oftheir lower level technical classes. Although high school vocational educatorsare not typically Ph.D.s and are less expensive to hire, they do have educationalbackgrounds.

Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations for Future Research

Conclusions

Enrollment demands for ACCE construction management programs will continue toincrease even as the lack of necessary resources to meet that demand will force moreand more programs to limit their enrollments. Additional funding for constructionmanagement education does not appear to be a priority of most university adminis-trations. The shortage of qualified graduates to fill entry-level construction manage-ment positions will continue to worsen as demand for construction managementstudents increases.

Increasing Demand, Limited Resources, and Over-Enrollment 189

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Many construction management faculty members continue to stretch to try tomeet heavy teaching loads—even at the peril of the quality of their teaching. If goodquality teaching is to be maintained, construction management programs willincreasingly limit enrollments or alternatively, find additional funding for neededresources from industry or other outside sources.

For now, most programs are choosing to limit their enrollments; however,industry will need to step up in a major way to support construction managementprograms if they expect to have sufficient college-educated construction managementgraduates for the future.

Improving university perceptions about construction management education iscritical to the future expansion of construction management programs. Industry advi-sory boards can be of great support to construction management programs, not onlyby donating money and other resources but by helping to improve the perceptions ofuniversity administrators of their construction management programs. It is the uni-versity administrations who manage faculty resources. As administrators come tounderstand what construction management programs are about and feel some pres-sure from industry to produce more construction management graduates, they maybe more likely to allot additional resources to construction management programs.

Implications

As demand for construction management graduates increases, college-level recruit-ing will become progressively more competitive. Construction companies will haveto become more visible within construction management programs. Already, compa-nies are visiting campuses and enticing students with food, shirts, hats and doorprizes to come to recruitment information sessions for their company. Companieswill continue building their relationships with students and marketing to these pro-spective employees by sponsoring student events, volunteering as guest lectures, andproviding job-site tours.

Recruiters will continue to increase entry-level salary offers to entice graduatesto sign with the companies they represent. Benefits such as vehicle allowances, sign-ing bonuses, relocation-expense reimbursements, etc. will continue to increase ifcompanies are to attract university educated construction managers.

Using internships will become increasingly important for companies as they lookfor better ways to recruit construction management graduates. Internships provideemployers with the opportunity to create working relationships with students beforethey graduate. When employment relationships are positive, post-graduate studentswill be more likely to return for full-time employment with the companies theyinterned with during their education.

Recommendations for Future Research

Although this study was narrowed to the limited resource strategies within construc-tion management programs, it does bring to light further questions and topics forfuture research. For example, according to respondents, the use of limited enroll-ment was the most popular method of managing limited resources. Many of the pro-grams used GPA, ACT=SAT, work experience, etc. as enrollment criteria. However,success within the industry can not necessarily be predicted by one or two limitedenrollment criteria. A valuable study could be to research whether or not the admis-

190 J. P. Christofferson et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

05

Oct

ober

201

4

sion standards used by construction management programs are representative offuture success within the construction industry.

Many university programs are provided with adequate resources to expandaccording to enrollment demands. Others programs, such as construction manage-ment, have growth restrictions imposed by university administrators. What criteriaare used by university administrators to determine which programs are growth-restricted? In addition, how does a program achieve the status necessary withina university to acquire resources for expansion?

Another valuable research subject would be to evaluate student-to-faculty ratiosbetween construction management programs. What, if any, are the correlationsbetween student-to-faculty ratios and programs that are under enrolled, overenrolled, or approaching their limits of capacity?

Over half of the program directors that were not planning on implementingenrollment controls stated that enrollment limitations were not allowed in their uni-versity policy. As demand increases, these programs will need to find alternativesolutions to manage limited resources. When expansion and enrollment limitationsare not possible, how will these programs maintain the quality of education that theyare currently providing?

References

American Council for Construction Education. (2005). Accredited Baccalaureate Programs[WWW document] URL http://www.accehq.org/programs092304.html#Accredited%20Bach

Arizona State University. (2005). Construction management—undergraduate education[WWW document] URL http://construction.asu.edu/undergraduate/ugcurrent.shtml.

Bilbo, D., Fetters, T., Burt, R., & Avant, J. (2000). A study of the supply and demand for con-struction education graduates. [online] Journal of Construction Education, 5(1), 78–89.

Brigham Young University. (2005). Introduction to Construction Management. [WWW docu-ment] URL http://www.et.byu.edu/cm/.

Department of Labor (DOL). Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2005). Occupational Outlook Hand-book 2004–2005 Edition [WWW document] URL http://bls.gov/oco/ocos005.htm.

Dorsey, R. (1992). Evaluation of college curricula which prepares management personnel forconstruction. Construction Industry Institute, Source document 71.

Gunderson, D., Ra, J. W., Schroeder, H., & Holland, H. R. (2002). Needs assessment—a con-struction management bachelor of science degree program in alaska. [online] Journal ofConstruction Education, 7(2), 86–96.

Northern Arizona University. (2005). Construction Management Entrance Requirements[WWW document] URL http://www.cet.nau.edu/Academic/CM/admission.shtml.

Parker, C. E. & Haynes, J. J. (1985). Two-tier enrollment control. Civil Engineering Education,357–363. (American Society of Civil Engineers).

Appendix A

Survey Questionnaire

Name of UniversityPoint of Contact PersonTitleDate

1. Do you have the resources available to admit every qualified student that appliesto your Construction Management Program?

Increasing Demand, Limited Resources, and Over-Enrollment 191

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

05

Oct

ober

201

4

2. If not, do you feel limited by: (note all that apply)a. Finding qualified faculty to fill positions?b. Inadequate funding for expansion?c. Lack of university support?d. Other – Explain?

3. What do you feel is the maximum capacity for student enrollment within yourprogram?

4. How many students are currently enrolled in your program?

5. How many Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Faculty do you have?

6. Are you experiencing over enrollment based on lack of resources?

7. If so, what strategies are you using to accommodate student demand based onyour resources?

8. Are you using limited enrollment as one strategy to address lack of resourcesissues?

YES NO

9. If not, do you expect to implement limited enrollment in the next few years?a. YES NOb. If yes, when do you expect to do so?

10. How do you limit your enrollment? What criteria do you use to admit students?

Guidelines for Questioning

a. GPA?b. Work Experience? How Much?c. Standardized test scores, SAT, ACT, etc?d. Minimum standard in order to apply?e. Leadership?f. Personal Interviews?g. Other?

192 J. P. Christofferson et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:00

05

Oct

ober

201

4