The Preparedness of Two-year Career and Technical School Students for Work in the Architectural/Engineering Industry Sonya Overstreet, M.S. EMH&T Introduction Two-year associate degrees have for some time been an avenue to well-paid middle-class jobs in the architectural and engineering industry. Carnevale, Jayasundara, & Hanson 3 cite five major paths offered through the American Career and Technical Education (CTE) system to well-paid middle-class jobs. One of the pathways cited is earning an associate s degree. The number of associate s degrees earned increased by 50% between the academic years 1999-2000 and 2009-2010. 5 During the academic year 2010-11, of the 848,572 associate s degrees conferred by Title IV institutions, 32,405 of those degrees were in the architectural and engineering technologies/technicians fields. 6 Individuals with an associate degree in drafting and design generally enter the architectural and engineering field through entry level technician and designer positions. A question to be asked is, are associate degree programs adequately educating and preparing students to meet the needs of industry? Industry Need With two-year career and technical school graduates entering the architectural and engineering industry it is important to understand how prepared they are. Employees hired at the technician level are primarily responsible for using engineering design software to create and revise architectural or engineering drawings. These drawings are created and revised based on specific design criteria provided by an architect or engineer. The drawings are the electronic representation of the architectural or engineering design for a project. It is critical that these drawings are created and managed well to ensure the integrity of the design. A technician typically holds an associate degree in design drafting from a two-year career and technical school and has 0-5 years of work experience in the architectural/engineering industry. Many of the associate s degrees earned focus on general computer aided drafting/design (CAD).
Session ETD 435 These degrees include but are not limited to Associate Applied Science, Computer Aided Drafting, Associate Applied Science, Civil Drafting, Associate Applied Science, Mechanical Drafting and Associate Applied Science, Drafting and Design. One of the critical business issues facing architectural and engineering organizations is ensuring technicians are being hired who have basic drafting, design and design software skills needed to perform their job duties as expected. With only anecdotal evidence, this study investigates the preparedness of two-year career and technical school graduates along three areas of focus: opinion survey, two-year career and technical program curriculum review and job competency review. Methodology The goal of this study was to answer the primary research question - Are two-year career and technical schools adequately preparing students for drafting and design technician positions in the architectural/engineering industry? To address this question the following three questions were asked: 1. Do two-year career and technical school educators/administrators feel that they adequately prepare their two-year architectural/engineering graduates for drafting and design technician positions in the architectural/engineering industry? 2. Do architectural/engineering industry professionals feel that two-year architectural/engineering graduates are adequately prepared to work as drafting and design technicians in the architectural/engineering industry? 3. Do two-year architectural/engineering graduates feel that they are adequately prepared to work as drafting and design technicians in the architectural/engineering industry? To answer these research questions, three strategies were used: (1), an opinion survey, (2) a review of current two-year drafting and design curricula, and (3) a review of current architectural and engineering technician job posts. These strategies are described in detail below. Opinion Survey The first phase of this study was to conduct an opinion survey. The goal of the web-based survey was to gather data on how prepared two-year career and technical school graduates are for work in the architectural and engineering industry. The survey was designed to solicit feedback from three target audience groups: (1) educators/administrators, (2) industry professionals and (3) two-year career and technical school graduates. Each target group was asked a series of questions that would provide insight to their perception of how well prepared two-year career and technical school graduates are for work in the architectural and engineering industry, see Appendix A. The survey was posted to the Engineering Technology Listserv and to eleven LinkedIn professional networking groups. The Engineering Technology Listserv allows members of the American Society of Engineering Education Engineering Technology Division to post notices related to engineering technology. 1 The Engineering Technology Listserv has a membership of over four thousand; including all fifty United States, fifty five countries and over one thousand
institutions. The institutions of higher learning represented include both four and two year colleges and universities. The LinkedIn professional networking groups targeted included the following: LinkedIn Group ACTE: Association for Career and Technical Education Membership (as of February 4, 2013) 3,000 AUGI AutoCAD Community 800 AutoCAD Exchange 3,500 BIM Experts 18,000 CAD / BIM / Drafting Recruitment 6,800 CAD Software Users 14,000 Civil 3D Interest Group 2,200 Civil Engineering Professional Network & Opportunity 19,000 Design and Construction Network 44,000 Innovation in Vocational Education and Training 7,000 Technical Education 1,400 There were several potential obstacles identified that may hinder a high survey completion rate from the listserv and the LinkedIn groups. The potential obstacles include listserv member s frequency to read and respond to listserv emails, LinkedIn member s frequency to log into LinkedIn, LinkedIn member s frequency to check group discussions, respondent s interest in study topic, length of the survey and respondents willingness to forward survey study to colleagues. The survey was opened February 4, 2013, a reminder to participate in the survey posted February 11, 2013 and the survey was closed at 5:00 EST on February 15, 2013. During the time the survey was open, several members of various LinkedIn groups posted comments and questions in response to the survey. Two-Year Program Curriculum Review In addition to the opinion survey, a review of two-year programs was completed. The goal of this review was to identify how much emphasis is placed on computer based drafting and design courses as well as non-computer based drafting and design courses. A systemic process was applied to identify and select two-year programs that met a defined set of criteria. The criteria set used for this study was limited by program type, level of award and institution type. The programs selected were computer aided drafting (CAD) and computer aided design and drafting
(CADD) that are offered at associate degree granting two-year public and private schools. Schools and programs were identified using College Navigator. College Navigator is an interactive web based tool used to search and compare postsecondary educational institutions. 4 Table 1 documents the exact criteria set used to build a list of schools and programs. Table 1 - School Selection Criteria College Navigator Selection Criteria State No Preference Programs/Majors Architectural Drafting and Architectural CAD/CADD Level of Award CAD/CADD Drafting and/or Design Technology/Technician Civil Drafting and Civil Engineering CAD/CADD Drafting and Design Technology/Technician, General Electrical/Electronics Drafting and Electrical/Electronics CAD/CADD Mechanical Drafting and Mechanical Drafting CAD/CADD Associate s Degree Institution Type Public (< 2-year and 2-year) Private, non-profit (< 2-year and 2-year) Private, for-profit (< 2-year and 2-year) Program Selection To select the programs to be reviewed for this study, a list of schools was built for each program type. Each list was sorted alphabetically by state, and eleven schools from each list were selected for evaluation. Only one school per state and per program type was added to the list of eleven schools for evaluation. In some program categories less than eleven schools were identified in the search. In these cases, only the schools that met the qualifications were reviewed. A total of fifty-one schools were reviewed. Table 2 shows the results of the College Navigator search and the number of schools evaluated for this study. Table 2 College Navigator Results
Program Type Number of Schools (Search Results) Number of Schools Evaluated Architectural Drafting and Architectural CAD/CADD CAD/CADD Drafting and/or Design Technology/Technician Civil Drafting and Civil Engineering CAD/CADD Drafting and Design Technology/Technician, General Drafting/Design Engineering Technologies/Technicians, Other Electrical/Electronics Drafting and Electrical/Electronics CAD/CADD Mechanical Drafting and Mechanical Drafting CAD/CADD 113 11 236 11 14 6 359 11 6 0 7 1 98 11 Reviewing Each Program Type The goal of each program review was to identify how much emphasis drafting and design technical training receives in these two-year programs. To identify this, each program was reviewed to see how many courses and credit hours are spent on computer based and noncomputer based drafting and design training. To do this, courses that were listed in the program curriculum as CAD or by specific engineering design software name were counted as computer based drafting and design courses and courses that were identified as board drafting or just as drafting and design courses were counted as non-computer based courses. The number of courses and credit hours per course were calculated to determine the average number of computer based and non-computer based drafting and design courses and credit hours offered in each program type. Job Competency Review In addition to the opinion survey and the review of two-year program curricula, a review of the job posts was conducted to identify current needs among employers. The goal of this review was to identify what technical and non-technical skills required by employers for drafting and design technician positions. Careerbuilder.com, the U.S. largest online job site 2, was selected as the online job board to use to search for job posts. An advanced search was performed using the two-year degree requirement, full time employment type and keywords. The keywords used in the search were architectural drafter, architectural designer, civil drafter, civil technician, mechanical drafter, mechanical designer, electrical drafter, electrical drafter, CAD technician,
CAD drafter, CAD designer and drafter. Thirty-two job posts were evaluated. This sample set included the following job title groupings: - Architectural Drafting/Designer posting 4 - CAD Drafter/Designer 10 - CAD Technician 9 - Civil CAD Drafter/Designer/Technician 3 - Electrical CAD Drafter/Designer/Technician -3 - Mechanical Drafter/Designer/Technician - 3 Review of Job Posts The goal of the job post review was to identify the skillset that employers are seeking in candidates for entry-level and mid-level technician positions. To review these job posts, the following process was used. First, the job description and minimum job qualification for each post was documented. The minimum qualifications were then separated into technical and nontechnical skills. The skills that fall into the technical skills category include proficiency in AutoCAD, computer-aided drafting skills, design skills and specific design software skills. The skills that fall into the non-technical category are communication skills, writing skills, team skills and Microsoft Office Suite skills. Once the category lists were complete, the most sought after skills by employers were documented. Results - Opinion Survey Demographics At the close of the survey, there were 133 respondents. Out of the 133 respondents, 89 respondents completed the survey. There was a 66.9% completion rate. The 131 respondents represented the following target audiences, Educator/Administrator (34), Industry Professional (33) and Drafting/Design Technician (22). Survey Respondents (Target Audience) 25% 38% Educator /Administrator (34) Industry Professional (33) 37% Drafting/Design Technician (22) Graph 1
In the educator/administrator target group, 80% of respondents identified themselves as educators and 20% of respondents identified themselves as administrators. In the industry professional target group, 49% of respondents identified themselves as engineers, 21% as project managers, 15% as other, 6% as CAD managers, 6% as human resource professionals and 3% as architects. In the drafting/design technician target group, 53% aligned their job responsibilities with civil engineering, 20% other, 10% electrical engineering, 10% architectural and 7% mechanical engineering. Educator/Administrator Breakdown Administrators 20% Educators 80% Graph 2 Industry Professional Breakdown Architect 3% CAD Manager 6% Human Resource Professional 6% Other 15% Project Manager 21% Engineer 49% Graph 3
Two Year Graduate Career Field Breakdown Architectural 10% Mechanical Engineering 7% Other 20% Electrical Engineering 10% Civil Engineering 53% Graph 4
Research Question 1 Do two-year career and technical school educators/administrators feel that they adequately prepare their two-year architectural/engineering graduates for drafting and design technician positions in the architectural/engineering industry? Educators indicate that they are confident to very confident that their programs meet industry needs and that their graduates have relevant industry skills. When asked how confident they are that the education their institution provides is meeting industry needs, 77% are confident to very confident. Similarly, when asked how confident they are that the coursework at their institution is preparing students for work in industry, 84% are confident to very confident. The results of the two-year career and technical school graduate skills assessment questions indicate that educators/administrators also have a high level of confidence in the basic drafting, advance drafting and basic design skills of their graduates. Their confidence in graduate s advance design skills is not as high. Chart 1 shows the educator s/administrator s confidence level in the drafting and design skills of graduates. The majority is confident to very confident in the basic drafting (75%), advance drafting (61%), basic design (68%) and advanced design (45%) skills of graduates. Percentage of Survey Respondents 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Educator/Administrator Assessment of Graduate Skills 75% Basic Drafting 61% Advance Drafting Skills 68% Basic Design Chart 1 45% Advance Design Somewhat to Not Confident Neutral Confident to Very Confident In addition to the skill assessment questions, educators/administrators were asked to list three things about their program that they feel prepares their students for work in industry. There were several elements of their programs that educators/administrator feel prepare their students for work in industry. Forty-seven percent of respondents say that the hands on, real world exercises their programs provides prepare their students, 29% of respondents say that their relationship with industry and/or their strong advisory boards help prepare students and 18% of respondents say that offering co-ops and internships help prepare students for work in industry.
Research Question 2 Do architectural/engineering industry professionals feel that two-year architectural/engineering graduates are adequately prepared to work as drafting and design technicians in the architectural/engineering industry? The survey results indicate that industry professionals do not have the high level of confidence that two-year career and technical school graduate have relevant industry. Only 34% of industry professionals say that they are confident to very confident that graduates have relevant industry skills. The industry professionals are also much less confident in the basic drafting, advance drafting, basic design and advanced skills of graduates. Chart 2 shows industry professional s level of confidence in the drafting and design skills of graduates. Industry professionals say they are 55% confident to very confident in the basic drafting skills of graduates. They are 24%, 10% and 7% confident to very confident in their advance drafting basic design and advanced design skills respectively. Percentage of Survey Respondents 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Industry Professional Assessment of Graduate Skills 55% Basic Drafting 24% Advance Basic Design Drafting Skills 10% 7% Advance Design Somewhat to Not Confident Neutral Confident to Very Confident Chart 2 Industry professionals were also asked to list at least three skills two-year career and technical school graduates need to be successful in industry. They were also asked to list the three areas that recent graduates need additional education in to be better prepared for work in industry. The skills industry professionals believe graduates need to be successful in industry fail into three major categories, communication/professionalism, AutoCAD proficiency/drafting/design and plan preparation/read and interpret drawings. The majority of respondents, 73% say that communication/professionalism skills like work ethic, organization, team, willingness to learn were the skills graduates needed to be successful. Fifty-eight percent of respondents say AutoCAD proficiency/drafting/design while 46% say that plan preparation/read and interpreting drawings were necessary skills. In response to the question, what three areas recent graduates need additional education, 62% of respondents say communication/professionalism, 50% of
respondents say engineering/survey skills (grading, profiles, pipes, and basic construction) and 35% say drafting/design. Research Question 3 Do two-year architectural/engineering graduates feel that they are adequately prepared to work as drafting and design technicians in the architectural/engineering industry? Two-year career and technical school graduates, 73%, reveal that they are satisfied to very satisfied with the education they received. Fifty-five percent of respondents feel that they acquired relevant industry skills from their education. In respect to their confidence in their skills, 55% to 68% of respondents indicate they were confident to very confident in their skills after graduating and when starting and working their first drafting/design job after graduating, see Chart 3. Percentage of Survey Respondents 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 55% After Graduating Graduate Skills Confidence Level 59% Starting First Drafting/Designer Position Chart 3 68% Working first Drafting/Designer Position Somewhat to Not Confident Neutral Confident to Very Confident Although two-year technical school graduate respondents are satisfied with the education they received, there were skills they would have liked to have learned in their program. The four most cited topics respondents would like to have learned are other CAD design software programs (19%), more design training (19%), more in-depth training in courses and specialty areas (19%) and more hands on real world experience (14%). Primary Research Question Are two-year career and technical schools adequately preparing students for drafting and design technician positions in the architectural/engineering industry? Survey Results The results of the opinion survey show a gap between the perception of the three target groups as to the preparedness of two-year career and technical school graduates. The first gap can be seen
between educators/administrators and industry professionals. Seventy-five percent of educators/administrators say they are confident graduates have relevant industry skills, however only 34% of industry professionals are confident graduates have relevant industry skills. The second gap can be seen in among graduates. Graduates, 73%, are satisfied with the education they received but only 55% are confident they have relevant industry skills after graduating. Percentage of Confidence 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Confidence in Graduates Skills 75% 34% Educators/Administrators Indusrty Professionals Survey Respondents Chart 4 Curriculum Review Results The curriculum review shows that the average number of required computer based and noncomputer based drafting and design courses and credit hours can vary significantly depending on the program type. The programs that require the most computer based drafting/design courses and credit hours are the CAD/CADD Drafting and/or Design Technology/Technician programs. In contrast, the Electrical/Electronics Drafting and Electrical/Electronics CAD/CADD programs require the fewest CAD and drafting/design courses and credit hours. Average CAD Courses and Credit Hours Per Program No. of CAD Classes Credit Hours Electrical Drafting/Design Technology Mechanical Civil CADD Drafting/Design Architectural 1 3 4 4 4 3 7 8 13 13 14 21 Chart 5
CADD drafting/design program graduates on average are required to complete seven CAD (computer-based) courses for an average of twenty-one credit hours, while other program graduates may complete an average of three to four courses for a total of eight to fourteen credit hours. Nine of the eleven CAD/CADD Drafting and/or Design Technology/Technician programs reviewed offer an introduction, intermediate and advance AutoCAD course in the curriculum. Several of the programs offer engineering design software specific course like AutoCAD Civil 3D, Autodesk Inventor, Autodesk Revit and Pro/Engineering. CADD drafting/design graduates are also averaging more non-computer based drafting and design courses. On average CADD drafting/design graduates are required to complete five noncomputer based courses for an average of thirteen credit hours. Among the many non-computer based drafting/design courses offered, four of the eleven CADD drafting/design programs reviewed offer specific industry based drafting/designed courses like, architectural drafting, civil drafting, machine drafting structural drafting, mechanical and electrical drafting. Average Drafting/Design Classes and Credit Hours Per Program No. of Drafting/Design Classes (non-computer based) Credit Hours Electrical Drafting/Design Technology Mechanical Civil CADD Drafting/Design Architectural 0 2 2 3 3 5 5 8 8 8 13 Chart 6 Job Competency Review Results The review of job competencies results reveal that employers are looking for job candidates who have a proficiency in design software packages and have non-technical skill needed in the workplace. The skill requirements found in all job posts is a proficiency in AutoCAD and the ability to create and modify CAD drawings. In addition to AutoCAD proficiency, 53% of job posts require a competency in other CAD design software like AutoCAD Civil 3D, SolidWorks and Autodesk Revit. Non-technical skills were highly representative in the job posts, 40% of posts require candidates to have excellent communication skills and 31% require a proficiency in Microsoft Office Suite (Excel, Word, and PowerPoint). Discussion - Educator/Administrator and Industry Professional Perception One of the more surprising findings is the lack of confidence industry professionals have in graduate s basic drafting skills. This is significant because two-year drafting/design programs
are assumed to focus on basic drafting technique. In addition, very few industry professional respondents, 24%, indicate they are confident to very confident in graduate s advance drafting skills. Industry professional have a similar lack of confidence in graduate s basic design and advance design skills. Only 10% are confident to very confident in graduate s basic design skills and only 7% are confident to very confident the graduates advance design skills. In contrast, educators are overwhelming confident that they are preparing students for work in industry. Chart 7 shows a side-by-side comparison of how confident to very confident educators/administrators and industry professionals are in the skills of two-year career and technical school graduates. Percent Confident to Very Confident 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Educators/Administrators & Industry Professionals Graduate Skills Assessment 75% 55% Basic Drafting 61% 24% Advance Drafting Skills 68% Basic Design Chart 7 45% 10% 7% Advance Design Educators/Administrators Indusrty Professionals Gap 1 Analysis Educator/Administrator and Industry Professional Divide So, how is such a difference of opinion possible? Analyzing the responses from educators/ administrators and industry professionals to a series of questions focused around the relationship between two-year schools and industry professional in their local communities may yield clues to the divide. Both groups were asked how important it is for two-year career and technical school to develop a relationship with industry leaders in their community. Among educators/administrators 88% say it is important to very important and among industry professionals 86% say it is important to very important. When responding to the question, how strong is your school s relationship with industry professionals, 73% of educators said it is strong to very strong. Only 31% of industry professionals say their company has a relationship with local schools and 27% say they do not. A lack of relationship between two-year career and technical schools and industry professionals may be leading to a misunderstanding of the skills industry professionals are expecting graduates to have and a misalignment of program curricula to meet industry needs. Developing stronger relationships between two-year career and technical schools and industry professionals may likely benefit educators/administrators, industry professionals and graduates.
Two-year Technical School Graduate Perception Another interesting finding was that although 73% of graduates indicate that they are satisfied with the career and technical education received, just slightly over half felt confident in their skills after graduating. Among graduate respondents, 55% are confident to very confident in their skills after graduating from their program, see Chart 3. Graduates also indicate that they wish they had learned other CAD design software programs, had more design training, more indepth training in courses and more hands on experiences during their programs. Graduates are developing more confidence in their skills after working in their first drafting/design position after graduating, however they are also finding the need for additional skills to be successful. Gap 2 Analysis Graduate Perception The results of the study point to two possible main causes. First, there appears to be a misalignment of program curricula to meet industry needs. The misalignment of program curricula has been discussed as a possible result of the lack of relationship between the schools and industry. The second cause is that graduates report that they are often finding work in industries that was not their program focus. When looking at what field graduates are working, 53% of graduate respondents indicate that their current job responsibilities are more closely aligned with the civil engineering field, see Graph 4 page 8. However, only 14% of respondents graduated from a program with a civil engineering focus. A deeper comparison of Graph 4 and Graph 5 reveals that the majority of two-year graduates are not working in the field of their program focus. This suggests that graduates may be finding their skills in a particular software program and drafting/design techniques learned in school are not as easily transferrable from one industry to another. The review of job competences lends some support to this finding. In the job competency review, 53% of the job posts require a proficiency in specific design software packages and several post listed a desire for candidates to have a proficiency in additional design software packages. This requirement goes beyond a proficiency in basic AutoCAD. Two year Program Focus General Drafting/Design 23% Electrical Engineering 9% Other 18% Architectural 32% Civil Engineering 14% Mechanical Engineering 4% Graph 5
Recommendations and Conclusion This exploratory study was conducted to gather data on how each target group, educators/administrators, industry professionals and two-year career and technical school graduates, feel two-year career and technical schools are preparing students for work in architectural and engineering industry. The goal of the study was to engage educators/administrators, industry professionals and two-year career and technical school graduates in answering the following question: Are program curriculums at two-year career and technical schools adequately preparing students for drafting and design technician positions in the architectural/engineering industry? The results of this study provide evidence of a significant gap between how each target group feels about how prepared two-year career and technical school graduates are. The results suggest that the main gap between the confidence levels in graduate s skills is linked to the lack of relationship between the schools and industry professionals. This lack of relationship is perhaps leading to the development of program curricula that are not meeting the needs and expectations of industry, missed training opportunity for students and reduced marketability of graduates. One common thread among each group is the need for graduates to have more specialized focus in specific industry areas. Without more specialized knowledge of particular engineering disciplines, engineering theory, engineering and business best practices and design software packages, graduates may have difficulty attaining a drafting/design technician position and meeting the demands of industry successfully. Building a stronger relationship between two-year career and technical schools and industry professionals may have potential benefits to all target groups: Benefits to educators and administrators - Strengthen relationship with industry leaders. Improvements in technical curriculum that more closely aligns with industry needs. Improvement in technical curriculum that provides applicable technical skills desired by employers. Improvement in the marketability of graduates leading to higher percentage of graduate employment placement. Benefits to two-year career and technical school graduates - Better preparedness for job market with highly marketable skills employers are seeking. Increased confidence in career options and marketability. Increased understanding of industry trends and needs. Benefits to industry professionals - Strengthen relationship with educators and administrators. Providing industry expertise to curriculum design and development.
Having greater access to skilled job candidates who may require less on-the-job training. Hiring two-year career and technical school graduates that are productive sooner in their employment. Additional research is needed to conduct a more in-depth analysis of the gaps identified by this study and the potential causes for the gaps on a regional and national level.
Appendix A Assessment questions asked of the educator/administer and industry professional groups. 1. How confident are you that your two-year career and technical school graduates have the relevant industry skills? 2. How confident are you that your two-year career and technical school graduates have basic drafting skills? 3. How confident are you that your two-year career and technical school graduates have advanced drafting skills? 4. How confident are you that your two-year career and technical school graduates have basic design skills? 5. How confident are you that your two-year career and technical school graduates have advanced design skills? Assessment questions asked of the two-year career and technical school graduate respondent. 1. How satisfied were you with the career and technical education you received? 2. After graduating, how confident were you that you had learned relevant industry skills? 3. When working in your first drafter/designer position after graduation, how confident were you in your skills? 4. When thinking about your first drafter/designer position after graduation how relevant were your skills?
Bibliography 1. Listserv. (2013, 2 17). Retrieved from Engineering Technology and Industrial Distribution: http://etidweb.tamu.edu/index.php 2. Careerbuilder.com. (2013). About us. Retrieved February 2013, from Careerbuilder.com: http://www.careerbuilder.com/share/aboutus/default.aspx 3. Carnevale, A. P., Jayasundara, T., & Hanson, A. R. (2012). Career and Technical Education: Five Ways That Pay Along the Way to the B.A. Washington: The Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. Retrieved February 28, 2013, from http://cew.georgetown.edu/ctefiveways/ 4. National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). About. Retrieved January 2013, from College Navigator: http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/ 5. National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). Degrees earned (Indicator 47-2012). U.S. Department of Education. 6. U.S. Department of Education. (2012). Degrees conferred at Title IV institutions, by level of degree and field of study: United States, academic year 2010-11. National Center for Education Statistics: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved February 28, 2013, from http://nces.ed.gov/datalab/tableslibrary/viewtable.aspx?tableid=8490