Fiscal Year 1994-1995
Introduction
This summary report includes assessment results for the following components:
The remaining components will be reported on as follows:
1. General Education
This component was reported on last in 1992. Based on the schedule of reporting, this component will be reported on next in 1996.
2. Majors or Concentrations
Majors or concentrations provide students with specialized knowledge and skills.
Reports on the following majors and concentrations are included in this section:
NOTE: The departments of African-American Studies, Economics, English Language & Literature, and Linguistics, which were scheduled to report this year, will not report for the following reasons:
Summary of Assessment Methods by Undergraduate Major/Concentration (College of Liberal Arts):
| Major/Concentration | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| Assessment Method: | |||||||||||
| Alumni Survey | X | * | X | X | |||||||
| Capstone Course | X | X | X | * | |||||||
| Course-embedded Performance Measures | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Employment offers & Placement | X | X | * | X | X | ||||||
| Employer Survey | |||||||||||
| Exit Interviews | X | X | X | X | * | X | * | X | |||
| External Referees (e.g., external advisory board) | X | X | |||||||||
| Graduate Record Exam | X | ||||||||||
| Graduation Success & Retention | X | X | X | ||||||||
| Internal Entrance/Exit Exams | X | X | X | ||||||||
| Internal Referees (e.g., peer evaluation) | X | X | X | ||||||||
| Performances, Competitions & Exhibits | X | X | X | X | |||||||
| Portfolios | X | X | |||||||||
| Senior Projects | X | X | |||||||||
| Standardized Exams | X | ||||||||||
| Student-completed Course Evaluations | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Success in Graduate School | X | X | X | ||||||||
| Transcript Evaluation | X | X | X | X | X |
Use of Assessment Results: Classics Program employs several methods of assessment including transcript evaluations, course-embedded performance measures, exit exams, oral proficiency interviews, course evaluations, and exit surveys. The results are used to evaluate the curriculum and improve the courses.
The Department of Comparative Literature assesses its program's effectiveness at the departmental level by tracking its graduates' employment and success in graduate school. At the course level, standardized course evaluations and "open-ended" surveys provide student feedback. The results are used to evaluate the curriculum and improve the courses.
Contemporary European Studies Program - The results of the exit interviews, together with a compilation of data for the annual report are communicated to the participating faculty, department heads and the Dean of Liberal Arts. Given the relative newness of the program (started in 1991) and the very small sample of three students involved, there is insufficient data to do a trend analysis.
The Department of French and Classics employs several methods of assessment including transcript evaluations, course-embedded performance measures, exit exams, oral proficiency interviews, course evaluations, and exit surveys. The results are used to evaluate the curriculum and improve the courses.
The Department of Germanic, Slavic & Oriental Languages - At the end of the spring semester the faculty receives a report regarding the Senior Seminar, its structure and outcomes. The departmental curriculum committee periodically reviews the structure of the course and makes recommendations for changes. The major advisor confers with the departmental chair regarding the exit interviews at the end of the spring semester. The chair, in turn, reports summary findings to the department faculty. Similarly the major advisor informs the chair of any untoward findings in the transcript evaluations. Placement examinations are administered by the basic courses coordinator who reports the results to the department faculty. The department chair analyzes all student evaluations each semester and discusses them with each faculty member. Teaching is also one of the main criterion for the Annual State Evaluation of each faculty member. The results of 122 exit examinations are reported to the chair and the faculty at the beginning of each new semester. All examinations described above are subject to periodic reviews and fine-tuning.
Interdisciplinary Studies Program - The Interdisciplinary Studies Committee continues to evaluate each student's individual program of study. Beginning in fall 1995, the college will conduct an exit interview with each candidate for a BAIS degree at the time of application for graduation. The college plans to follow up this exit interview with a phone interview a year after graduation. These two interviews will assess student satisfaction with the program. The results will be used to evaluate the curriculum and improve the courses.
The Latin American Studies Program graduates, on average, two students annually. In the past four years, students have progressed or graduated with a GPA of 2.5+, with most earning above a 3.0. Grades in the Senior Seminar likewise have indicated that students have demonstrated proficiency in their knowledge of Latin America, in their language ability, and in their research and communication skills. Results from exit interviews indicate that students have been pleased with the flexibility of the program, which allows them to tailor the course work to meet their needs and interests. One shortcoming of the program, as gleaned from the interviews, is the very nature of a program based in five different academic departments has meant a diffused experience for some students. This information will be used to fine-tune the program.
The Department of Philosophy not only assesses student outcomes but also its degree of success in meeting departmental goals. The department does an excellent job of tracking students after graduation which provides positive indicators of the programs' success (see USC's 1995 Institutional Effectiveness Report). The planned capstone course will help pinpoint any weakness in the curriculum. The Department of Philosophy also does an excellent job of assessing scholarly work and community service, the results of which are used for consideration of tenure and promotion.
The Department of Religious Studies demonstrates its strength of instruction and advising with 13 awards in the past five years (including teaching, advisement, service and statewide agency awards) with only 6 full-time faculty members. The department has strong indicators of success in the areas of public service and scholarship as well (see USC's 1995 Institutional Effectiveness Report). The department plans to conduct Senior Exit Surveys. The results will be used to evaluate the curriculum and improve the courses.
Department of Spanish, Italian and Portuguese - The department Chair and staff gathers all assessment data and the Department Curriculum Committee assists the Chair in evaluating that material and determining the strengths and weaknesses of the program. Using the mission statement and the objectives of the program as guidelines, this committee makes recommendations regarding the curriculum, syllabi, and the articulation of courses. The committee's findings are shared with the rest of the faculty at the final departmental meeting of the academic year. The Department continually reviews the quality of teaching/learning in its programs and makes revisions to course descriptions, course content, and prerequisite requirements as needed to maintain and enhance the quality of instruction in this department.
The Department of Theater, Speech and Dance - The departmental self-study for NAST re-accreditation indicates strengths as well as areas for improvement in the undergraduate program. The results of the self-study will be used to improve the department's programs of study. The overall findings of the self-study and the re-accreditation visit are very positive (see Appendix A of USC Columbia's 1995 Institutional Effectiveness Report).
3. Performance of Professional Program Graduates on Licensing and Certification Exams
Student achievement in professional programs may be assessed in part through an examination of performance on licensure and certification exams in areas such as teaching and nursing. Licensure and certification exams match collegiate achievement with professional standards and norms. USC Columbia reports annually on the following exams: (1) Law, (2) Nursing, (3) Medicine, (4) Education, and (5) Pharmacy.
The performance of graduates from professional schools on their required licensing and certification exams is one obvious measure of program effectiveness. USC graduates consistently do extremely well on these examinations, and the University is pleased with these results. The results of such testing for the recent academic year are summarized in the following table.
Results of Licensing and Certification Exams for 1994-95:
| Examination | Number Tested | Number Passing | Percent Passing |
| Law SC Bar Exam |
245 | 231 | 94.8 |
| Education NTE Professional Knowledge Exam |
457 | 450 | 98.5 |
| NTE Specialty Area Exams | 569 | 509 | 89.5 |
| Medicine USMLE-Step 1 |
69 | 65 | 94.2 |
| USMLE- Step 2 | 76 | 69 | 90.8 |
| Nursing NCLEX-RN |
75 | 74 | 98.7 |
| Pharmacy NABPLEX |
86 | 81 | 94.2 |
USC Columbia students compare quite favorably to other students on all professional examinations:
Year Registered Med. Board Med. Board Pharmacy State Bar
Nurse Part I Part II NABPLEX Exam
1992 98 (91) 84 (85) 100 (93) 95 (84) 93 (87)
1993 100 (91) 93 (91) 100 (94) 98 (84) 96 (93)
The numbers in parentheses are the national passing percentages, with the exception of the State Bar Examination where the state passing percentages are listed. (National percentages for NTE are not available.)
4. Reports of Program Changes that have Occurred as a Result of External Program Evaluation
There have been no program changes in 1995 as a result of external program evaluations.
5. Academic Advising
Academic advising provides students with an understanding of their rights and responsibilities for completion of their degree, program and/or career preparation.
Assessment Method: Currently, academic advising is assessed at the university-level by analyzing the results of the Senior Survey, which is administered every third year by the Division of Student Affairs (last administered in 1994, next in 1997). The results of the survey are disseminated to the faculty and staff by the Division of Student Affairs.
Focus groups, which will address several issues including academic advisement, are scheduled for the AY 1995-96.
Assessment Results: The 1994 Senior Survey revealed that 63.5% of the seniors who were surveyed "agreed" or "strongly agreed" that they were satisfied with academic advising. In response to the question "What are your comments and suggestions for improving USC?" the most frequent response was .better advising" (12.7% of those surveyed).
Use of Assessment Results: Academic advising guidelines (see Appendix B of USC Columbia's 1995 Institutional Effectiveness Report) were jointly developed by student government and the academic Deans and Assistant & Associate Deans Councils, in AY 1994-95. These guidelines will appear in the Carolina Community in the fall of 1995. Colleges will adapt these guidelines as necessary to meet the needs of their students.
USC Columbia continues to use the Ada B. Thomas Outstanding Faculty Advisor Award to recognize outstanding faculty advisors. (This award was modeled after the Amoco Outstanding Teaching Award.) This year the award was increased from $1000 to $1500, thanks to the contributions of the Office of the President and the Student Alumni Association. This year, Dr. David P. Hill, professor in the Department of Spanish, Italian & Portuguese, won the Ada B. Thomas Outstanding Faculty Advisor Award.
According to the Advisor of the Year, David Hill, the advisement process at USC is getting better, and a computer generated program is helping. "The Curriculum Explorer System, or CUE, allows more time for the interpersonal part of advising," said David Hill, who advises more than 100 students each year. "It takes away the mechanical questions, .Have you done this?' and .Have you taken that?' The trend is very positive."
According to Ginger Miles, the CUE coordinator, CUE's computer reports give advisors a complete picture of academic program requirements. Information, including course completion and transfer work, allows advisors to work with the student without picking through transcripts or filling out checklists and losing sight of what the advisement process is intended to do. According to Ginger Miles, "With CUE, a student can really have a dynamic advisement session."
The Cue System is assessed in numerous ways. For instance, during CUE training classes for advisors and administrative staff, comments and suggestions are solicited and later used to enhance the system. In addition, when CUE users receive system updates via e-mail, they have an opportunity to respond to the system administrators with comments and suggestions. Students are canvassed informally to get their impressions of the CUE System. Finally, an e-mail user group is planned to allow continual discussion among CUE users. This discussion will not only allow advisors to share ideas, it will provide the CUE System administrators continual feedback about the system.
Since advisors first used CUE in the spring of 1994, Ginger Miles has added new features to CUE and will soon expand the system to meet the needs of more students. Soon, students will have direct access to their own records. USC's four-year and regional campuses will use CUE for the first time in the fall of 1995.
6. Entry-Level Placement and Developmental Education
Entering undergraduate students must possess certain knowledge and skills to perform satisfactorily in the university. USC Columbia has defined the skills appropriate for its entry-level students. These skills are assessed when students enter the institution. Students who are under-prepared are placed in developmental courses. Students in each developmental course are tracked to determine their rates of completion and success in both developmental courses and an appropriate sequence of credit courses. USC Columbia assesses the effectiveness of its placement and developmental education programs.
Placement Examinations and Procedures: USC Columbia has pre-enrollment examination and placement programs in mathematics and four foreign languages: German, French, Latin and Spanish. USC Columbia requires every freshman to take the math and language placement examinations. The results of these tests determine the level of classes students are advised to take. In some cases, transfer students take placement examinations. Placement examinations are not required in the Mature Student Program, but those students may opt to be tested.
Most students take the placement examinations during announced administrations of spring or summer orientation prior to matriculation. USC developed each examination. They take approximately one hour each to administer. In general, the results of the foreign language tests are binding; although, exceptions may be granted by the departments when they believe them to be warranted. Based on their scores, students are placed in either 101, 102, 121, or 122 in the selected foreign language. The results of the mathematics examinations have been used primarily as an advisement tool to direct students to the courses in which they are most likely to succeed.
The English Department assesses the entry-level writing skill of new freshmen in English 101. During the first week of the semester, freshmen present a portfolio of written work from high school. They also write essays in class and outside of class. The portfolio and essays are the evaluated by specially-trained faculty and graduate students. Those whose writing skills need strengthening then attend Writing Studio, a small group (3-4 students) tutorial which meets once a week for an hour while they are enrolled in English 101.
Developmental Education: USC Columbia no longer offers developmental courses. However, beginning in the fall of 1995, USC Columbia has contracted with Midlands Technical College to pilot developmental math courses for students who do not pass USC Columbia's math placement test. Midlands Tech will enroll the students and teach the classes.
Assessment Method 1: Foreign Languages - As language enrollment increases and placement tests become more widely used, the need to select appropriate standard setting methods and to assess cut-off scores becomes pivotal to the effective placement in secondary institutions of students with previous language study. USC Columbia reviewed standard setting methods and applied two such methods to assess current cut-off scores for the Spanish curriculum.
Assessment Results: A discrepancy was found between a cut-off score determined by the Angoff method and an existing cut-off score for the Spanish placement test. (The Spanish placement test cut-off scores are used to determine which one of three tracks students will enter: Track 1 - Spanish 109, 110 &122; Track 2 - Spanish 121 & 122; or Track 3 - Spanish 122.) An examination of the central location of grades confirmed the discrepancy, indicating that perhaps some students were placed improperly in Track 2. The more qualitative approach of the Angoff method, used in conjunction with the more quantitative process of examining the central location of grades may provide a balanced system of assessing cut-off scores. Used together, these methods complement each other and draw upon both the judgement and expertise of the instructors and quantifiable data from past student performance.
NOTE: The reliability coefficient for the placement examinations are as follows: Spanish .85; French .81; German .87; and Latin .71.
Use of Assessment Results: Instructors are notified of students in Spanish 121 who may have difficulty. The progress of these students is monitored closely. Students in Spanish 121 who are having difficulty are given the option to move to Track 1.
Assessment Method 2: Writing Skills - In addition to the evaluation of students' portfolios and essays in English 101, the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) provides some useful information.
Assessment Results: While 91.8% of the seniors who were surveyed in 1994 were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with USC Columbia's Writing Center, USC Columbia's students reported about the same writing experience in their undergraduate work as the national norm on the CSEQ in 1991 and 1993:
USC 1991 USC 1993 NORMS
Mean Scale Scores: 24.3% 24.4% 25.0%
Use of Assessment Results: A faculty committee is currently working on implementing "writing across the curriculum."
7. Success of Entering Students in Meeting College or University Admissions Prerequisites
*1987 1993 1994
All Freshmen 44 95 95.8
SC Residents 56 96 96.5
Non-Residents 48 90 93.3
* 1987 was the last year before the prerequisites were required.
8. Achievement of Students Transferring from Two to Four-Year Institutions
Assessment information can strengthen the quality of college transfer courses and better prepare students for the demands of upper division undergraduate studies. USC's regional, two-year (sending) institutions are responsible for assessing the achievement of their students who transfer to four-year colleges and universities, as well as reporting the assessment to the CHE. USC Columbia collects information concerning students who transfer into the university from two-year, state-supported colleges and shares that information with the sending institutions. Students who move from one USC campus to another are not considered to be transfer students. However, USC Columbia, USC Aiken, and USC Spartanburg collect and report similar information for students who move in from the regional campuses (Beaufort, Lancaster, Salkehatchie, Sumter, and Union) as they do for students who transfer in from other two-year institutions.
Movement of Students within the USC University System: Students who wish to change from one of the Regional Campuses to USC Columbia initiate movement efforts by going to their (regional) campus' records office and completing a change-of- school/campus/major form. It is at this time that eligibility to change campuses is determined. At least two important factors influence the determination of eligibility:
For Internal Transfer Data see the Regional Campuses' reports.
External Transfer Data are reported below:
1992 Cohort
The 1992 Cohort consists of 32 students who transferred from USC System regional campuses to other South Carolina four-year public institutions (senior colleges),outside the USC System. The cohort is small because students were eliminated who transferred more than once or who had earned less than 12 credit hours at the regional campus (they did not meet the "pure cohort" criteria specified by the Technical Committee) and because Winthrop University could not provide data due to a computer conversion. This year, of the eight public institutions* required to report, only Clemson University provided data. Consequently, the 1995 update includes the progress of 14 students. The small number of students permits the actual performance of each transfer student to be summarized in the table below. Regional campus officials can examine the performance of each student to determine the success of their transfer students at Clemson. The Clemson native students' GPAs, which were reported in 1993, were not available at the time of this report.
Four categories are used to describe the outcome of each student: "Dropouts" are defined as students who were absent from the senior institution for more than one full year (not in attendance from the fall of 1994 to the spring of 1995). "Stopouts" are defined as students who are not currently enrolled (spring,1995), but who were enrolled sometime during 1994. "Persisters" are defined as students who have not graduated and who are currently enrolled (spring, 1995). Finally, any student who graduated by the spring of 1995 is classified as a graduate."
1992 Cohort Transfer Data
| Regional Campus | Senior College | Race | Sex | Regional Campus GPA | Cum. GPA | Cum. Hours Earned | Outcome |
| Beaufort | Clemson | Non-White | Male | 3.73 | 2.43 | 123 | Persister |
| Beaufort | Clemson | White | Female | 3.00 | 2.70 | 110 | Persister |
| AVG | 3.37 | 2.57 | 117 | ||||
| Lancaster | Clemson | White | Male | 2.97 | 2.74 | 109 | Persister |
| Lancaster | Clemson | White | Female | 2.60 | 1.95 | 59 | Dropout |
| Lancaster | Clemson | White | Female | 3.21 | 3.27 | 122 | Stopout |
| Lancaster | Clemson | White | Female | 3.66 | 3.17 | 136 | Graduate |
| Lancaster | Clemson | White | Male | 2.56 | 1.83 | 86 | Persister |
| AVG | 3.00 | 2.59 | 102 | ||||
| Salkehatchie | Clemson | White | Male | 2.71 | 2.68 | 121 | Persister |
| Salkehatchie | Clemson | White | Male | 3.59 | 2.52 | 103 | Persister |
| Salkehatchie | Clemson | White | Male | 3.08 | 0.92 | 61 | Dropout |
| Salkehatchie | Clemson | White | Female | 3.88 | 1.76 | 49 | Dropout |
| AVG | 3.32 | 1.97 | 84 | ||||
| Sumter | Clemson | White | Male | 2.53 | 2.12 | 88 | Persister |
| Sumter | Clemson | White | Male | 2.71 | 3.43 | 118 | Persister |
| Sumter | Clemson | White | Female | 3.58 | 3.22 | 123 | Stopout |
| AVG | 2.94 | 2.92 | 110 |
* The eight other four-year public institutions: Clemson University, College of Charleston, Francis Marion University, Lander University, Medical University of South Carolina, South Carolina State University, The Citadel, and Winthrop University.
1994 Cohort
Very little data have been provided for the 1994 cohort at the time of this report. None of the other public senior colleges in South Carolina reported the number of applied, accepted, and enrolled students from any of the USC regional campuses. In addition, only Clemson has provided student performance data for regional campus transfer students.
Rather than attempt to follow the CHE guidelines in establishing a pure cohort similar to the 1992 cohort, all students who attended a regional campus and who later attended Clemson University in 1994 are included in the 1994 Cohort. This change was implemented to avoid the appearance of creating a "skewed sample," as was suggested by CHE concerning the 1992 USC System cohort. The number of "transferred hours" will therefore be larger than the number of "regional campus hours earned" for some students. The results are listed in the following table.
1994 Cohort Transfer Data (from Clemson only)
| Regional Campus | Race | Sex | Regional Campus Hours Earned | Transferred Hours | Regional Campus GPA | First Transfer Semester GPA |
| Beaufort | White | Female | 42 | 31 | 3.11 | 2.68 |
| Beaufort | White | Female | 63 | 62 | 2.03 | 2.00 |
| AVG | 53 | 47 | 2.57 | 2.34 | ||
| Lancaster | White | Male | 12 | 32 | 3.13 | 3.69 |
| Lancaster | White | Female | 85 | 77 | 3.11 | 3.00 |
| AVG | 49 | 55 | 3.12 | 3.35 | ||
| Salkehatchie | White | Male | 55 | 40 | 2.67 | 0.69 |
| Salkehatchie | White | Male | 81 | 46 | 2.53 | 3.50 |
| Salkehatchie | White | Male | 16 | 16 | 2.56 | 1.00 |
| Salkehatchie | White | Female | 9 | 45 | 3.33 | 2.50 |
| Salkehatchie | White | Male | 68 | 59 | 2.88 | 1.80 |
| Salkehatchie | White | Female | 69 | 64 | 3.64 | 3.25 |
| AVG | 50 | 45 | 2.94 | 2.12 | ||
| Sumter | White | Female | 41 | 30 | 2.96 | 2.33 |
| Sumter | White | Female | 35 | 33 | 2.90 | 2.56 |
| Sumter | White | Male | 62 | 48 | 2.81 | 1.80 |
| Sumter | White | Male | 55 | 55 | 3.43 | 2.00 |
| Sumter | White | Male | 18 | 36 | 4.00 | 3.82 |
| AVG | 42 | 40 | 3.22 | 2.50 |
These results, although based on a very limited number of students, appear to follow the trends found in the 1992 cohort: No minority students transferred from a regional campus to Clemson. In addition, while some students appeared to have some difficulty acclimating to their new college, most students experienced academic success their first semester at Clemson.
9. Analysis of Undergraduate Retention and Attrition
This component was reported on last in 1994. Based on the schedule of reporting, this component will be reported on next in 1996.
10. Minority Student and Faculty Access and Equity
| MINORITY GRADUATE ENROLLMENT, GRADUATE DEGREES EARNED AND REPRESENTATION IN GRADUATE PROGRAMS | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Category | 1993 | 1994 | ||||
| African American # | Total # | African American % | African American # | Total # | African American % | |
| A. Enrollment 1. Number and Percent of African-American Masters and First Professional Students |
815 | 8,381 | 9.7 | 959 | 8,637 | 11.1 |
| 2. Number and Percentage of African-American Doctoral Students | 112 | 1,737 | 6.4 | 128 | 1,789 | 7.2 |
| B. Degrees Earned 1. Number and Percentage of African-American Masters and First Professional Degree Recipients |
143 | 2,224 | 6.4 | 143 | 2,203 | 6.5 |
| 2. Number and Percentage of African-American Doctoral Degree Recipients | 14 | 275 | 5.1 | 15 | 283 | 5.3 |
| C. Representation of African-Americans in Degree Programs 1. Number and Percentage of Masters and First Professional Programs with No African-American Degree Recipients |
60 | 99 | 60.6 | 57 | 98 | 58.2 |
| 2. Number and Percentage of Doctoral Programs with No African-American Degree Recipients | 42 | 50 | 84.0 | 43 | 51 | 84.3 |
* USC-School of Medicine students are not included in this report.
11. Academic Performance of Student Athletes
The maintenance of admission standards, satisfactory academic performance, and appropriate program completion rates among those participating in inter-collegiate athletic programs while receiving athletic grants-in-aid is essential for the integrity of South Carolina's public institutions. USC Columbia submits its NCAA Academic Reporting Form for all inter-collegiate sports in which grants-in-aid are awarded. The NCAA Academic Reporting Form is augmented by the following information: the number of athletes with grant-in-aid who do not meet published institutional admissions criteria categorized by sport and gender; the graduation rate for athletes with grants-in-aid categorized by specific degree earned; and the average number of years needed for recruited student athletes with grants-in-aid (when different from recruited athletes) to earn a degree organized by sport and gender and with parallel data on all students.
Assessment Method:
Assessment Results:
| 85-86 AY | 86-87 AY | 87-88 AY | 88-89 AY | Avg | ||||||
| SPORT | Pool | % | Pool | % | Pool | % | Pool | % | Pool | % |
| Men Baseball |
4 | 50 | 7 | 43 | 3 | 33 | 6 | 33 | 20 | 40 |
| Basketball | 3 | 67 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 75 | 6 | 67 | 14 | 64 |
| Football | 29 | 52 | 21 | 48 | 23 | 57 | 18 | 67 | 91 | 55 |
| Track/Cross-Country | 8 | 100 | 2 | 50 | 8 | 75 | 3 | 67 | 21 | 81 |
| Golf | 5 | 20 | 1 | 100 | 5 | 80 | 2 | 0 | 13 | 46 |
| Soccer | 3 | 100 | 6 | 67 | 4 | 75 | 7 | 86 | 20 | 80 |
| Swimming | 3 | 67 | 7 | 29 | 7 | 71 | 9 | 44 | 26 | 50 |
| Tennis | 2 | 50 | 2 | 20 | 3 | 67 | 1 | 100 | 8 | 63 |
| Total Other | 13 | 54 | 16 | 50 | 19 | 74 | 19 | 58 | 67 | 60 |
| Total Men's Sports | 57 | 60 | 47 | 47 | 57 | 65 | 52 | 60 | 213 | 58 |
| Women Basketball |
1 | 100 | 3 | 67 | 5 | 80 | 2 | 50 | 11 | 73 |
| Cross-Country | 5 | 100 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 83 | ||||
| Golf | 1 | 100 | 0 | 2 | 100 | 5 | 100 | 8 | 100 | |
| Softball | 5 | 60 | 5 | 20 | 5 | 60 | 5 | 80 | 20 | 55 |
| Swimming | 1 | 0 | 5 | 60 | 6 | 50 | 4 | 50 | 16 | 50 |
| Tennis | 1 | 100 | 1 | 100 | 0 | 5 | 80 | 7 | 86 | |
| Volleyball | 7 | 43 | 2 | 100 | 3 | 67 | 4 | 50 | 16 | 56 |
| Total Other | 15 | 53 | 13 | 54 | 16 | 63 | 23 | 74 | 67 | 63 |
| Total Women's Sports | 16 | 56 | 16 | 56 | 26 | 73 | 26 | 69 | 84 | 65 |
| All USC Athletes | 73 | 59 | 63 | 49 | 83 | 67 | 78 | 63 | 297 | 60 |
| USC Students | 2925 | 60 | 2536 | 61 | 2947 | 61 | 2993 | 62 | 11401 | 61 |
The grade point averages for each USC team are presented in the following table. Of all the sports, only football is consistently below the 2.5 level. Men's basketball, which generally has the lowest team GPA, has one of the better men's team GPAs in 1995.
| TEAM | Spring 1993 | Spring 1994 | Spring 1995 |
| Men | |||
| Baseball | 2.50 | 2.54 | 2.47 |
| Basketball | 1.99 | 2.19 | 2.71 |
| Football | 2.37 | 2.41 | 2.34 |
| Golf | 3.00 | 2.59 | 2.90 |
| Soccer | 2.93 | 3.18 | 2.76 |
| Swimming | 2.84 | 2.76 | 2.91 |
| Tennis | 2.64 | 2.52 | 2.71 |
| Track | 2.84 | 2.63 | 2.78 |
| Women | |||
| Basketball | 2.34 | 2.57 | 2.58 |
| Golf | 3.20 | 2.46 | 2.81 |
| Softball | 2.73 | 2.95 | 2.93 |
| Swimming | 3.26 | 3.30 | 3.09 |
| Tennis | 3.52 | 3.73 | 3.12 |
| X-Country | 2.86 | ||
| Volleyball | 3.39 | 3.55 | 2.93 |
| Overall | 2.66 | 2.74 | 2.69 |
Use of Assessment Results: The Athletic Department uses assessment results to provide direction for the Academic Enrichment Center.
12. Procedure for Student Development
This component was reported on last in 1994. Based on the schedule of reporting, this component will be reported on next in 1996.
13. Library Resources and Services
This component was reported on last in 1994. Based on the schedule of reporting, this component will be reported on next in 1996.
14. Administrative and Financial Processes and Performance
This component was reported on last in 1993. Based on the schedule of reporting, this component will be reported on next in 1997.
15. Facilities
This component was reported on last in 1994. Based on the schedule of reporting, this component will be reported on next in 1998.
16. Public Service
Public service is part of the university's mission. Individual units assess the effectiveness of such service activities to determine whether they support departmental missions and, therefore, the university's mission. Through these units, the university offers significant cultural events and programs that range from business and government to health and medicine.
An element must be addressed when attempting to determine the degree of success in providing public service to society: Are the public services successful in providing cultural enrichment, the dissemination of knowledge, and the enhancement of the overall quality of life for citizens of South Carolina?
Assessment Method: At the unit level, multiple methods of assessment are used, with an emphasis on the annual activities report of each faculty member. Assessments tend to be based on peer review using both quantitative and qualitative measures. In addition to examining the activities of individual members of the university community, a survey of public service performed by all units is conducted every four years to develop an overall picture of the public service performed by the institution (see the sample survey in USC's 1995 Institutional Effectiveness Report).
Assessment Results: The University spent in excess of $24,000,000 on public service programs in 1994.
The survey results indicated that over 200 public service programs were offered by the university in 1993. Exemplary programs were highlighted in the 1992-93 President's Annual Report. A few excerpts from the report are presented in USC's 1995 Institutional Effectiveness Report.
Use of Assessment Results: The assessment results indicate that the university is providing an amazing array of public service programs that are indeed providing cultural enrichment, the dissemination of knowledge, and the enhancement of the overall quality of life for citizens of South Carolina.
17. Research
This component was reported on last in 1994. Based on the schedule of reporting, this component will be reported on next in 1996.