2011-12 Career Services Benchmark Survey for Four-Year Colleges and Universities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Key Findings oFFice speciFics• Most responding career centers (84.2 percent)are centralized in structure;however, there has been small movement toward decentralization.Currently, 15.8 percent of respondents report a decentralized structure, up from 12.5 percent in 2010 and 13.5 percent reported in last year's survey.• Just under half of offices report their office title is "career services."The next most popular option is "career center," with 15.3 percent of respondents.• Just under 60 percent of respondents reported that their office falls under the division of student affairs.• Overall, the career services office has an average of 2,349 square feet; however, the median is only 1,200 square feet.• On average, there are two rooms available for interviewing, but none are exclusively used for that purpose.services oFFered• More than 90 percent of respondents provide career counseling by appointment; career fairs; workshops; assistance to students pursuing employer-offered internship, co-op, or externship opportunities; and availability of career resources and assessments.• Results show some decline in services, driven largely by larger schools: For example, the average number of workshops delivered fell from 73 to 61.• In 2010-11, an average of 344 students were assisted with employer-based internships, down from an average of 426 in 2009-10.As with workshops, that decline is concentrated among respondents from large schools.• A majority of respondents also provide drop-in career counseling, online career counseling, assistance with academic internships, specialized career fairs; on-campus recruiting, and outreach to alumni.• Fewer than half of respondents provide academic counseling, career classes for credit, or a credential file service.• here are some considerable variations among industry sectors when it comes to depending on new college graduates for overall new hires.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.010 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".