• Analysis of Data
  • Migration Effectiveness
  • Alumni Data
  • Questionnaire

Analysis of Data

Migration Effectiveness

Migration effectiveness is a measure of retention or non-retention. It is a percentage ratio of net migration to total migration with a range of -100 to 100.

E = (N/T) * 100
N = Total in-migration - Total out-migration
N = Total out of staters that come to OU - Total graduates leaving Oklahoma
N = 77 - 116 = -39

T = Total in-migration + Total out-migration
T = Total out of staters that come to OU + Total graduates leaving Oklahoma
T = 77 + 116 = 193

E = N/T = (-39/193) * 100 = -20 %

This demonstrates that in 1999, OU is losing more graduates than it took in. Compared to the overall migration effectiveness of Oklahoma (3.6) in 1993, -20 is much lower, indicating that most people that migrate out of Oklahoma do so after college.

Alumni Data

Two maps provided by the Alumni Association of the University of Oklahoma contain information on the number and location of alumni up to February 1997 and January 1998. Figure 1 was created by subtracting the number of alumni of 1997 from 1998 for each location to provide a look at a recent one-year pattern. Data on military base locations and U.S. territories were omitted because no students mentioned a U.S. territory on the survey and students transferring due to the military were not required to specify this fact. This data provides context with which to compare data derived from the survey of 1999 OU graduating seniors.

See Figure 1. Note, the two categories that are blank in the legend (not the 0-25) have no states with those numbers of students.

In 1998, 28% of OU graduates stayed in Oklahoma after graduating. 24% moved to Texas. Florida is next with 4.7% of 1998 graduates relocating there. This drastic drop from Texas to Florida demonstrates a high degree of spatial focus of OU's graduates. What is particularly interesting is that the spatial focus is strictly on Oklahoma and Texas. Other states in the region are behind Florida, California, Arizona, and Georgia in receiving OU graduates.

Questionnaire Data

25 classes participated out of the 50 + capstone courses. A total 460 students completed surveys. Out of the students who participated, only those who will be graduating in May 1999 were included in analysis. Students not graduating in May were excluded due to the relative uncertainty of future plans at this stage. 30 % of students who participated in the survey do not graduate in May, leaving a total of 320 completed questionnaires available for analysis.

The survey data is sorted into six areas (See Table 1) with 33 completed surveys in each to insure a representative spread of fields of study. There are so few in each section due to the lowest common denominator of returns. Courses in the humanities only returned 33 completed surveys of students graduating in May. Therefore, only 198 of the 320 acceptable surveys are analyzed in this study (62%). The majors listed in Table 1 are only those capstone courses that participated in the survey. The same number of surveys from each major was included in the area when possible. The surveys included from each major were chosen randomly.

• Business Administration
  • Accounting
  • Business Administration
  • Finance
  • International Business
  • Management
  • Management Information Systems
  • Marketing
• Social Sciences
  • Communications
  • Political Science
  • Sociology
  • Native American Studies
• Professional Studies
  • Health and Sports Sciences
  • Journalism and Mass Communication
• Engineering
  • Chemical Engineering
  • Civil Engineering
  • Computer Engineering
  • Electrical Engineering
  • Environmental Engineering
  • Environmental Science
  • Industrial Engineering
  • Mechanical Engineering
  • Petroleum Engineering
• Natural Sciences
  • Microbiology
  • Physics and Astronomy
  • Zoology
  • Geography
  • Meteorology
• Humanities
  • Classics
  • English
  • French
  • Philosophy

Though 33 surveys are included in each section, this does not accurately reflect enrollment numbers since not all capstone courses participated. To give a more accurate picture of the 1999 OU graduates, the percentage of enrollment is considered. See Table 2.

One additional note about the questionnaire data is in regards to timing. The survey was distributed during a warm spell with temperatures in the 70s with sunny days. Perhaps if it had been given in winter or during the hottest months of summer, climate wouldn't be high on the list for what people like about Oklahoma!

Figure 2 maps the states OU graduates are planning on moving to in May 1999. This map, unlike the map developed from the Alumni Association data, includes those who intend to move out of the country. Most of those moving out of the country seem to do so for reasons other than military relocation. It shows, like Figure 1, a strong spatial focus on Oklahoma and Texas. Also like Figure 1, more students move to California, Florida, and out of the country than move to states in the immediate region.

See Figure 2. Note, the "9" category that is blank in the legend (not the "0") has no states with 9 students.

Looking at why graduates move to a location after receiving a baccalaureate can offer direction in solving a brain drain problem if one exists. In the case of Oklahoma and OU, the university has a 20 % net loss, as demonstrated by the migration effectiveness. Finding out why students stay or go can help tip the balance in Oklahoma's favor. On a side note, the reasons cited by students from Malaysia were remarkably similar. All in one way or another wrote that peacefulness, safety, and quiet were main influences on their decision to live somewhere.

Figure 3 deals with the frequency of mention of influences on the decision to live somewhere. Economic opportunities rank high; they are cited 28% of the time. Proximity to family is cited 16% of the time. This examination of the responses gives a picture of the general concerns of graduates. When asked to rank the influences on their decisions, a stronger pattern emerges. Figure 4 displays the primary influence on the decision to live somewhere. Here, economic opportunities make up 44% where proximity to family half that at 22%. Note the 7% of students who are out for a new experience. Perhaps these students are those few who are "preconditioned genetically to strike out into new lands and places, a compulsion not grounded in any rational consideration of push-and-pull factors" (Jordan-Bychkov and Domosh, 1999).

Though the majority of students move due to economic opportunities, it is still worth checking this finding against origins. Table 3 reveals that they mean what they say. 69% of the students surveyed are not planning on returning to their home state/country after graduating.

Go to next page, analysis, cont.d.