1
CHAPTER I
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
Commercial poultry production steadily increases yearly, with the U.S. ranking as the
world’s largest poultry producer (United States Department of Agriculture; USDA, 2021). The
National Chicken Council predicts that in 2022, per capita consumption of poultry will be 114.1
pounds per year; a drastic increase from 1960 (34.2 pounds per year; National Chicken Council,
2021). As demonstrated in previous years, this will likely continue to rise due to the prediction of
the world’s population increasing to 9.8 billion by 2050 (United Nations, 2017). The poultry
industry contributes roughly $500 billion to the U.S. economy (Dunham, 2020). The U.S.
Poultry & Egg Association, National Chicken Council, National Turkey Federation, and United
Egg Producers have partnered to publish an economic report illustrating that the U.S. poultry
industry provides 2,139,617 jobs, and $121.1 billion in wages (“U.S. poultry industry,” 2020). It
was noted that since the last study in 2018, the poultry industry has created approximately
200,000 more jobs and a 15% increase in economic impact from the previous year (2017) (“U.S.
broiler industry,” 2019). This demonstrates approximately 60,000 new poultry jobs available
each year within the past three years.
Due to the industry constantly growing, the demand for qualified employees to fulfill
these positions comes into question. The demand for industry employees relies heavily on
poultry science graduates from various land grant universities. However, with only six poultry
2
degree granting universities graduating approximately 110 students each year, there is a lack of
qualified employees and thus, these graduates are in high demand (Wells et al., 2019).
Additionally, companies have had to increase training times as well as develop training programs
for their nonpoultry graduate employees (“Trainee Programs”, 2021; Snetsinger, 1992; Pardue,
1991).
Proposing internal recruitment within poultry science departments, could potentially be a
key element to ensure the continuing growth and advancements of the poultry industry and
alleviate some strain on companies to provide additional training to new employees. According
to Dolence (1991), recruitment does not necessarily reflect student numbers but rather,
prompting change in an institution’s student profile proving to be “a strategic tool of institutional
management and should be evaluated as such.” Currently, college admission recruitment efforts
are based off of Gerdzhikov’s (2015) College Recruitment Funnel. It begins with the prospective
student funneling down into inquiries, applicants, admits, confirms, enrolled, and lastly retention.
Noteworthy, this funnel primarily focuses on external recruitment but neglects internal
recruitment efforts. However, recruitment does not stop at enrollment in the program but is an
ongoing process which follows a student throughout their college career (Bowen & Carstensen
1999). Therefore, recruitment should not be focused solely to obtain the student, but also retain
the student long term.
Currently, the nationwide university dropout rate is 40%, with roughly 30% of those
being classified as freshman (Hanson, 2021). Thus, verifying that retention should be a major
focus area for universities and that recruitment should not stop when a student gets on campus.
The National Center for Education Statistics defined retention as “the enrollment from fall of the
3
first year of enrollment to the fall of the following year (including summer)” (Hagedorn, 2006);
and only includes first-time students.
Many studies have evaluated students’ preferences for recruitment efforts. Chapman
(1981) creates a model of student college choice. This model identifies several factors
influencing students’ college choice such as student characteristics (level of education
aspirations and high school performance) and external influences (significant persons, fixed
college characteristics, and college efforts to communicate with students), all which could be
utilized as recruitment strategies (Chapman, 1981). Along with Chapman (1981), Gammill
(2016) identified communication with department representatives as the most effective form of
recruitment. Specifically for poultry, Pardue (1990) identified that successful recruitment
programs utilized a variety of methods including contacting students through direct mail,
telephone contacts, off-campus seminars, on-campus events, alumni networking, and industry
liaisons. Overall, campus tours were deemed as the most effective recruitment strategy (Pardue,
1990). These data also determined that maintaining contact with prospective students is an
“essential element in successful recruitment efforts”. Unlike Chapman (1981), Gammill (2016),
and Pardue (1990), Smith (1998), identified high school visits to be the most effective
recruitment strategy. However, more recently, Wells et al. (2019), identified that participation in
on-campus events was the most effective recruitment strategy.
While there are many studies discussing external recruitment strategies, there seems to be
almost none focusing on internal recruitment efforts and the possibility of increasing university
retention. Therefore, there is a lack of data focusing on internal recruitment methods specifically
within the Colleges of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS) at poultry science degree-granting
universities. There may be possible target areas for recruitment within individual CALS. The
4
objective of this study was to determine potential internal recruitment areas within the CALS at
poultry science degree-granting universities in order to increase university retention rates and
student numbers within poultry science departments. The hypothesis of this study was that by
utilizing internal recruitment methods within CALS departments, student enrollment will
increase within poultry science departments. In addition, university retention will increase, thus
proving to be an effective recruitment strategy with minimal cost.
Statement of the Problem
In the 1960s, a large portion of poultry science departments were lost, creating a major
shift within animal science and poultry science departments, where most poultry science
departments were either dismantled or merged with the respective animal science departments
(Beck, 1992). According to Beck (1992) factors that attributed to the decrease in poultry
departments are “divergence of program needs between industry and university, precipitated by
vertical integration, and loss of job opportunities and exacerbated by lack of cooperative
planning.” The remaining poultry departments reside in the southeast of the US, where the
majority of broiler production still occurs. Sunde (1972) determined that most poultry
departments merged due to a loss of funding and low enrollment. As with any major decision,
there can be disadvantages and advantages to merging departments. Advantages of combining
departments include more access to laboratory materials and space, as well as the opportunity to
expose animal science students to poultry. The disadvantages, however, can be loss of a
program’s identity, the dilution of effort, and the potential loss of the program entirely (Beck,
1992). With the merging of departments, there has also been a significant decrease of poultry
staff members (28%) (Sunde, 1981). However, in 1972 Sunde reported that faculty in non-
merged poultry departments had increased by 38%. Once there is a vacancy in a poultry position
5
within a merged department, the position may never be filled. Overall, for poultry science
departments, the merger disadvantages largely outweigh the advantages.
Some 50 years ago, it was estimated that more than 130 graduates will be needed each
year in order to fill poultry positions, this number would undoubtedly be much higher now.
Merging departments may seem like a cost-saving move to upper administration within a
university; however, data suggests that a merger of an animal science and poultry science
department weakens the field of poultry science based on the availability of personnel and
budget (Sunde, 1972). Additionally, without university support/personnel, poultry research may
not be performed, which could hinder industry advancement. In past studies, consolidation of
poultry departments was urged against, as it removed industry personnel from college
administration and weakened academic influence within poultry (Lower & Quarles, 1975). These
consolidations have resulted in not only a lack of poultry departments but also a lack of any
poultry curriculum being offered at most universities nationwide; leading to an insufficient
number of graduates to meet industry employment demands.
General Background
Recruitment
Student recruitment is the foundation of any successful academic program at a university.
Without recruitment, the ability to produce qualified employees to the workforce would be slim
to none (Anderson, 1953). Due to the decrease in stand-alone poultry science departments and
the constantly increasing demand of the poultry industry (Beck, 1992), recruitment for future
poultry science students is imperative. Several studies have been conducted on the need for, and
importance of recruitment within poultry science departments. Pescatore and Harter-Dennis
(1987), evaluated student recruitment activities within poultry and animal science departments.
6
They identified that several materials are utilized and deemed effective such as pamphlets,
presentations, posters, videos, etc.; along with involvement in high school organizations/visits;
and university held programs as an effort to increase student numbers. Pescatore and Harter-
Dennis (1987) concur that current recruitment practices are inadequate to meet the demand for
poultry employees. Berry et al. (1991) proved a lack of recruitment outreach within poultry
science departments leading to the decline of poultry science graduates. Anctil (2008) proposed
that due to education not being tangible, it is the recruiters’ job to incorporate tangible things in
other areas that represent their department such as within academics, campus appearance, and
showing incoming students the benefits of attending this particular school. Financial and industry
support also play a big role in creating an effective recruitment program (Lower and Quarles,
1975). Furthermore, other factors such as negative assumptions and lack of knowledge of career
opportunities also contribute to the decrease in graduate numbers (Espey & Boys, 2012).
External recruitment efforts
Many studies have evaluated effective recruitment strategies for prospective students.
Most, reflect on external recruitment strategies, which focus on students outside the university,
including transfer students and incoming freshman. Common external recruitment strategies
utilized by most college recruiters are, mailing literature, telephone prompts, emails, social
media, off/on campus events, and FFA/4H contests. Previous research from Wells et al. (2019)
evaluated external recruitment methods utilized in the six poultry science degree granting
universities. Current department heads and undergraduate students were surveyed and identified
that conversations with a poultry faculty member or department representative, and on-campus
activities (FFA/4H) were the most influential in student recruitment. Wells et al. (2019) also
identified letters and mailings from the departmental faculty or representatives, as well as on-
7
campus events to be effective recruitment strategies within poultry science departments. Along
with identifying recruitment strategies, it was also determined that an average yearly recruitment
budget of $15,832.00 and approximately one employee recruiter for each of the six degree
granting poultry science departments were utilized yearly (Wells et al., 2019). Along with Wells
et al. (2019), Gammill (2016), Peiter et al., (2004); Segler-Conrad et al., (2004); Washburn et al.,
(2002) also identified conversation with a professor on campus or departmental representative
was deemed the most effective recruitment strategy. All noted these conversations can also
correlate with on campus visits as a vital recruitment effort. Wells et al. (2019), also agreed with
Rayfield et al. (2013) on that FFA and 4H events held on-campus are effective recruitment
efforts. Gammill (2016), notes that along with conversations with faculty/departmental personnel
and campus visits; promotional paraphernalia also serves as effective recruitment methods.
Although these strategies are catered towards external recruiting, it is important to note that a
conversation with faculty/departmental personnel could not only be utilized as an external
recruitment strategy but could also be incorporated for internal recruitment. This can be done
through potential certificate programs, allowing students to take courses outside their major
curriculum, and guest lecturing in other courses could all be deemed as a conversation with
faculty/departmental personnel. From each of the above-mentioned studies, students also
selected university qualities as an effective recruitment tool; however, with internally recruiting,
staff do not have to take this into consideration as these students are already at the university.
Internal recruitment efforts
A common theme occurs throughout these previous studies, these studies all focus on
external recruitment practices i.e., recruiting incoming students outside of the universities.
However, there is one study that has discovered the potential advantages of internal recruitment.
8
Bowen and Carstenson (1999) evaluated internal recruitment efforts utilized within Collegiate
Aviation Education as a “fertile area to attract new students.” In addition, it has been stated that
internal recruitment will provide the most productive and most cost-effective results in
increasing students numerically in any department (Bowen & Carstenson, 1999).
Student retention
When focusing on internal recruitment it should also be noted that 80% of students will
change their major at least once throughout their college career (“What percentage of students
change majors,” 2021). Those students who change their major, increase their chances of
graduating by 40%, thus increasing the university’s retention rate (Murphy, 2000 and Micceri,
2001). Therefore, just by using internal recruitment methods, not only will potentially be a more
productive and cost-effective method, but it could also assist in retention rates within the
university. Internal recruitment practices have the potential to increase university retention. By
placing those students who already plan on leaving the university in a diverse major, (i.e.,
poultry) that could be a “better fit” for these students and has the potential to entice more
students to stay enrolled within the university.
Industry employee research
The small pool of poultry science graduates creates a challenge for the poultry industry to
hire qualified employees. Because of this, many industry jobs are occupied by nonpoultry
graduates, creating a delay of advancing applied poultry knowledge within the industry
(Anderson, 1953). The industry has made great advancements thus far, however, with more
poultry graduates readily available the industry could potentially advance at a higher speed. A
lack of well-equipped poultry graduates could potentially lead to a decline in specializations
9
within poultry employees. Employers prefer employees to have a basic background knowledge
of the industry as well as hands-on experience either through organizations, university course
work, research, internships, or previous work experience (Bekkurn, 1993). As such, industry
personnel are having to back track in order to train nonpoultry employees in basic applied
poultry knowledge (Snetsinger, 1992). This requires industry employers to prepare graduates to
fulfill job requirements in the 21st century instead of it being addressed at the university level. To
accommodate the need for employee trainings, a study was conducted involving an interactive
video to teach poultry employees the basics of the industry. It was noted that company
employees requested this training to gain knowledge of their job positions (Kennedy & Agnew,
1998). Additionally, these researchers tested this interactive video with nonpoultry majors at the
collegiate level; nonpoultry students showed an increase in knowledge pertaining to poultry
(Kennedy & Agnew, 1998). They concluded this program as a success and an effective approach
to train employees as well as nonpoultry majors who have an interest in entering the industry.
This type of education module could similarly be utilized by universities offering certificate
programs to educate not only current employees but also prospective nonpoultry major students.
Studies have also evaluated job satisfaction in relation to job knowledge (Ward, 1989;
Kianto et al., 2016; and Schmidt, 2010). In one particular study, it was determined that
employees who acquired job knowledge had less intention to leave their job (Ward, 1989). This
creates a positive association of employees' job knowledge and job satisfaction (Ward, 1989),
and could impact long-term employee retention.
Partnerships
Many early studies have considered the idea of academic scholars and industry personnel
working together to revamp program curriculum to reflect industry needs (Lower & Quarles,
10
1975; Payne, 1923; Tully, 1937; and Anderson, 1953). Kennedy and Agnew (1998) developed a
successful partnership between industry personnel and university scholars in creating a dual-
purpose video for students and industry employees. Partnerships are becoming a more prevalent
topic and can be an easy fix for universities not offering poultry as a major or curriculum.
Nonpoultry universities being able to partner with a degree-granting poultry university allows
their students the poultry opportunities they would otherwise not receive, all while not having a
large investment toward faculty, staff, and curriculum development. One example of an existing
partnership is the NACTA agreement between Mississippi State University and the University of
Nebraska (NE) Technical College Institute (Brasher, 2018). Due to the influx of poultry job
opportunities within the past 5 years, Nebraska is utilizing the agreement to better equip students
for these industry positions (Brasher, 2018). Participating students take two semesters worth of
poultry courses through Mississippi State University and are able to graduate with their degree
from Nebraska with a concentration in poultry (Brasher, 2018). Recently, Purdue University’s
Department of Animal Sciences created a 1 credit course for students to have the opportunity to
learn about poultry and careers within the poultry industry (Wickenhauser et al., 2021). An
evaluation of this course was conducted to determine its efficacy. These data suggested that
although some students did not have a desire to pursue a career in poultry, they all acknowledged
the career opportunities within the industry (Wickenhauser et al., 2021). From this course,
students also showed an increase in knowledge of poultry production. Wickenhauser (2021)
advises other programs to offer similar courses to increase adequate graduates for the poultry
industry; this could also be a steppingstone course used as a training tool for current employees.
While partnerships should definitely be an avenue utilized in our field, they tend to be much
more labor-intensive and meet a smaller target area as opposed to certificate programs.
11
Certificate programs
Certificate programs are utilized throughout many workforces and have proven to be
successful (Johnson et al., 2017; Cannon et al., 2001; Lohman, 2007; Bosworth, 2011). They
offer specialized education and training within a particular field that allows students or current
employees to provide them with skills necessary to enter the workforce or to advance in existing
employment (Lohman, 2007). These programs traditionally are short-term, low cost, and have
high rates of completion compared to degree programs, making them appealing to current
employees and employers (Bosworth, 2011). They have also been offered in many forms, such
as e-learning, university crash course, interactive video, and workshop/seminar (Van Rooji &
Lemp, 2010). A few of the poultry degree-granting universities offer an in-house certificate
program to current students and/or partner with other universities and community colleges
(Texas A&M, 2021 and University of North Georgia, 2021). Texas A&M University’s certificate
program focuses on increasing participants knowledge of poultry meat production; whereas the
University of North Georgia provides participants with the understanding and knowledge needed
to be successful within the industry. Minnesota State University is currently beginning a
certificate program for students, as well as employees within the poultry industry. This program
is offered online or in-person and consists of three poultry courses in hopes to provide a platform
of extended learning for industry employees within the state due to a lack of a degree-granting
institutions housed within their state (“Online poultry program,” 2021). Certificate programs
have the potential of being a steppingstone for more well-equipped employees, assist in
advancements for the future of the poultry industry, and provide a platform for career entry and
advancement in occupations (Bosworth, 2011).
12
Overall
Although studies have proven that recruitment is a vital part for ensuring the future of
the poultry industry, recruitment efforts are primarily focused on externally recruiting as well as
providing certificate programs and partnerships to populations of students who have already
entered the workforce. By comparing studies that analyze retention rate and students’ choice in
changing majors, internal recruitment efforts may prove to be more effective in meeting the
demand for qualified employees for the poultry industry and reaching students prior to entering
the workforce.
Additionally, there is a lack of data on internal recruitment methods within the CALS at
poultry science degree-granting universities. Therefore, research is needed to determine potential
internal recruitment areas within CALS at poultry degree granting universities. Utilizing internal
recruitment and partnerships/certificate programs within universities for student prior to
graduation could aid in student recruitment and retention efforts. Internal recruitment would
utilize less personnel, time, and materials, and thus, be more cost efficient. Establishing
partnerships between universities and departments would lead to more exposure of poultry
science to students. Moreover, certificate programs could be offered in order to provide students
with a general knowledge of the poultry industry in addition to their current studies.
Purpose of the Study
This thesis consists of three different studies. The overall objective for these studies was
justify the development of effective internal recruitment strategies for departments within CALS,
specifically poultry science.
The purpose of the first study was to determine major retention rates and university
retention rates within the CALS at Mississippi State University (MSU) utilizing MSU’s
13
Graduation Positioning System (GPS) Software. The software was utilized to examine students’
movement each year over a six-year period. This data was collected through mining techniques
of cataloged data.
The following questions were used to guide this study:
• What are major and university retention rates within the College of Agriculture and
Life Sciences at Mississippi State University?
• What is the movement (graduation, major change, leave university) of students
within the CALS throughout their time at MSU?
The results from Study 1 served as a foundation for Study 2. The purpose of the second
study was to determine potential internal recruitment areas within the CALS at all six poultry
science degree-granting universities in order to increase university retention rates and student
numbers within poultry science departments. More specifically, to examine possible trends
observed for one university to another. Utilizing internal recruitment methods within CALS
departments could increase student enrollment within poultry science departments, as well as
increase university retention, and potentially prove to be a cost-effective recruitment strategy.
The following questions were used to guide study 2:
• What are major and university retention rates within the College of Agriculture and
Life Sciences within the six poultry degree granting universities?
• How does this compare to Mississippi State University’s GPS software?
• Are there potential areas for internal recruitment within Colleges of Agriculture
and Life Sciences?
The results from Study 2 served as a foundation for Study 3. The third study had two
focal areas within the objective. The purpose of the third study was to determine if students or
14
employees within nonpoultry science majors (within CALS) at poultry science degree-granting
universities would be: (1) receptive to completing coursework pertaining to poultry or receptive
to changing their major to poultry (Student Focus) and (2) willing to implement a poultry course
within curriculum and advise students of post-graduate opportunities within poultry (Advisor
Focus). The hope would be that awareness would be given to students and advisors within
nonpoultry science majors (within CALS) at poultry science degree-granting universities,
leading them to be receptive to poultry curriculum to improve graduate opportunities.
The following questions were used to guide study 3:
• What are factors that influence students’ major choice?
• What factors correlate to students’ interest in their major?
• Will students have an interest in poultry?
• How do students perceive majoring in poultry science?
• What are advisors’ perceptions on students’ majors?
• What are advisors’ perceptions on factors influencing students to switch majors?
• What is advisors’ level of willingness to inform students about poultry
opportunities?
• Would advisors be willing to introduce students to opportunities within poultry?
Significance of the Study
An ever-growing industry requires constant advancements within all attributes of the
poultry industry such as microbiology, nutrition, processing, reproduction, etc., making
recruitment an often-overlooked topic amongst industry personnel. The poultry industry
encompasses many different factors, some larger than others, however; the industry is 100%
15
people. This enhances the importance of recruitment at universities and recruiting students
within poultry science departments to the six remaining universities offering poultry science.
Many of these departments already practice external recruitment methods, with some success in
increasing their students numerically; however, maybe there is another population of potential
recruits that have not been targeted in these departments. Assessing retention trends within
CALS and CALS departments might lead to a new pool of potential recruits for poultry science
graduates. Departments within CALS with low retention rates might be potential target areas for
recruitment. Practicing internal recruitment may expose students, who are looking to change
majors or leave the university, to a new major that might be a “better-fit” for them, in turn
indirectly increasing university retention.
16
References
Anctil, E. J. (2008). Selling higher education: Marketing and advertising America's colleges and
universities. ASHE Higher Education Report, 34(2), 1-121.
Anderson, E. W. (1953). A Study of the Curriculum and Its Organization in Departments of
Poultry Husbandry. Purdue University.
Beck, M. M. (1992). Status of poultry science departments and poultry research within combined
departments. Poultry Science, 71(8), 1328-1331.
Bekkurn, V. A. (1993). Experience needs of college of agriculture graduates as perceived by
business and industry. NACTA journal.
Bosworth, B. (2011). Expanding certificate programs. Issues in Science and Technology, 28(1),
51-57.
Bowen, B., & Carstenson, L. (1999). Recruiting from within: Action-oriented research solutions
to internal student recruitment in collegiate aviation education.
Brasher, K. (2018, February 6). MSU and Nebraska College of Technical Agriculture Develop
Poultry Partnership. College of Agriculture and Life Sciences | Mississippi State
University. Retrieved March 16, 2022, from https://www.cals.msstate.edu/news-
item.php?id=452
Cannon, M. M., Umble, K. E., Steckler, A., & Shay, S. (2001). " We're Living What We're
Learning": Student Perspectives in Distance Learning Degree and Certificate Programs in
Public Health. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 49-59.
Chapman, D.W. 1981. A model of student college choice. The J Higher Educ. 52:490-505.
Dolence, M. G. (1991). Setting the context for evaluation of recruitment and retention programs.
New directions for institutional research, 1991(70), 5-19.
Dunham, J. (2020, November 9). 2020 Poultry and Egg Economic Impact Study. Retrieved
March 9, 2022, from https://poultry.guerrillaeconomics.net/res/Methodology.pdf
Espey, M., & Boys, K. A. (2012). Filling the gap: Exploring internal challenges and
opportunities to successful student recruitment in applied economics departments (No.
1372-2016-109034).
Gammill, W. D. (2016). A Comparison of Effective Recruitment Methods of In-state and Out-of-
state Students in the Department of Agricultural Sciences at West Texas A&M
University (Doctoral dissertation).
17
Gerdzhikov, N. (2018, September 12). How to master the college admissions funnel. LinkedIn.
Retrieved March 9, 2022, from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/higher-education-
marketing-how-master-your-admissions-gerdzhikov
Hagedorn, L. S. (2006). How to Define Retention: A New Look at an Old Problem. Transfer and
retention of urban community college students (TRUCCS).
Hanson, M. (2021, November 22). College dropout rate [2022]: By year + demographics.
Education Data Initiative. Retrieved March 9, 2022, from
https://educationdata.org/college-dropout-rates
Johnson, M. D. (2017, January). Highlighting and examining the importance of authentic
industry examples in a workforce development certificate program. In ASEE annual
conference.
Kennedy, D., & Agnew, D. (1998). Utilizing industry experts and interactive video to teach a
poultry science course. NACTA Journal, 22-27.
Kianto, A., Vanhala, M., & Heilmann, P. (2016). The impact of knowledge management on job
satisfaction. Journal of knowledge management.
Lohman, E. M., & Dingerson, M. R. (2005). The effectiveness of occupational-technical
certificate programs: Assessing student career goals. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 29(5), 339-355.
Lower, W. C., & Quarles, C. L. (1975). Student Enrollment Survey of Poultry Science Majors in
Land Grant Institutions. Poultry Science, 54(4), 955-958.
Micceri, T. (2001). Change Your Major and Double Your Graduation Chances.
Murphy, M. (2000, May). Predicting graduation: Are test score and high school performance
adequate. In Annual Forum of the Assocation for Institutional Research, Cincinnati, OH.
National Chicken Council. 2021. Per capita consumption of poultry and livestock, 1965 to
forecast 2022, in pounds. Accessed Feb. 2022.
https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the-industry/statistics/per-
capitaconsumption-of-poultry-and-livestock-1965-to-estimated-2012-in-pounds/
Online poultry program. AgCentric. (2021, May 28). Retrieved March 16, 2022, from
https://www.agcentric.org/online-poultry-program/
Pardue, S.L. 1990. Enrollment trends and recruitment strategies for undergraduate programs of
poultry science. Poult. Sci. 69:563-567.
Pardue, S.L. 1991. Should the turkey industry be concerned about the shortage of poultry science
graduates? Turkey World. April:30-32.
18
Payne, L. F. (1923). Poultry as a Required Course in the Agricultural Curriculum. Poultry
Science, 2(3), 78-84.
Peiter, R. L., Coffey, D., Morgan, J. A., & Kantrovich, A. (2004). University freshman attitudes
regarding decisions to attend university programs of agriculture in Kentucky. Journal of
Southern Agricultural Education Research, 54(1), 201-218.
Pescatore, A. J., & Harter-Dennis, J. M. (1987). An assessment of student recruitment activities
by departments of poultry and/or animal sciences. NACTA Journal, 31(1), 22-25.
Poultry Science Business Certificate. Program: Poultry Science Business Certificate - University
of North Georgia - Acalog ACMS™. (2021). Retrieved March 16, 2022, from
https://catalog.ung.edu/preview_program.php?catoid=28&poid=5530
Rayfield, J., Murphrey, T. P., Skaggs, C., & Shafer, J. (2013). Factors that influence student
decisions to enroll in a college of agriclture and life sciences. NACTA Journal, 49(1), 88-
93.
Segler-Conrad, E., Joerger, R. M., & Leske, G. (2004). Forms of communication and individuals
that influence freshmen students when selecting an agriculture education major and a
college of agriculture. 31st National Agricultural Education Research Conference, (pp.
27-29).
Schmidt, S. W. (2010). The relationship between job training and job satisfaction: A review of
literature. International Journal of Adult Vocational Education and Technology
(Ijavet), 1(2), 19-28.
Smith, J. (1998). Recruitment: Student outreach strategies. Handbook for the college admissions
profession, 127-140.
Snetsinger, D. C. (1992). Poultry science training—what industry needs. Poultry science, 71(8),
1308-1312.
Sunde, M. L., Hartung, T. E., & Jensen, L. S. (1972). Problem of disappearing poultry science
departments. Poultry Science, 51(4), 1079-1087.
Sunde, M. L., 1981. Report of departmental status committee. Poultry Sci. 60:2746.
Texas A&M College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Poultry. (2021). Retrieved March 16,
2022, from https://posc.tamu.edu/poultry-meat-production-certificate/
Trainee programs. Sanderson Farms. (2021, June 24). Retrieved February 28, 2022, from
https://sandersonfarms.com/corporate/careers/trainee-programs/
Tully, W. C. (1937). Poultry Husbandry in the Agricultural College Curriculum, Elective or
Required. Poultry Science, 16(2), 139-143.
19
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 2017. World population projected
to reach 9.8 billion in 2050, and 11.2 billion in 2100. Accessed Feb. 2022.
https://www.un.org/en/desa/world-population-projected-reach-98-billion-2050-and-112-
billion-2100
USDA United States Department of Agriculture. 2021. Poultry and eggs. Accessed Feb. 2022
from https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/animal-products/poultry-eggs.aspx
U.S. broiler industry creates almost 200,000 new jobs, economic output up 11 percent in two
years. National Chicken Council. (2019, April 5). Retrieved March 16, 2022, from
https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/u-s-broiler-industry-creates-almost-200000-new-
jobs-economic-output-up-11-percent-in-two-years/
U.S. poultry industry provides 2.1 million jobs; economic impact up 15 percent in two years.
National Chicken Council. (2020, December 2). Retrieved March 9, 2022, from
https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/u-s-poultry-industry-provides-2-1-million-jobs-
economic-impact-up-15-percent-in-two-years/
Van Rooij, S. W., & Lemp, L. K. (2010). Positioning e-learning graduate certificate programs:
Niche marketing in higher education. Services Marketing Quarterly, 31(3), 296-319.
Ward, E. A. (1989). A Field Study of Job Knowledge Job Satisfaction, Intention to Turnover,
and Ratings of Simulated Performance. Psychological Reports, 64(1), 179-188.
Washburn, S. G., Garton, B. L., & Vaughn, P. R. (2002). Factors influencing college choice of
agriculture students’ college-wide compared with students majoring in agricultural
education. 24th National Agricultural Education Research Conference, 24, pp. 327-333.
Las Vegas.
Wells, J. B. (2019). Assessment of Recruiting Methods to Enhance Poultry Science
Undergraduate Programs. Mississippi State University.
Wickenhauser, J. L., Brennan, P., Erasmus, M., Karcher, D. M., & Karcher, E. L. (2021).
Recruiting the next generation of poultry professionals. Journal of Applied Poultry
Research, 30(1), 100130.
What percentage of students change majors? Frank Financial Aid. (2021, October 27). Retrieved
March 16, 2022, from https://withfrank.org/how-to-pay-for-college/how-does-college-
work/transfer/what-percentage-of-students-change-
majors/#:~:text=Changing%20majors%20when%20you%20are,that%20sooner%20rather
%20than%20later.
20
CHAPTER II
AN EVALUATION OF MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY’S COLLEGE OF
AGRICULTURE AND LIFE SCIENCES’ DEPARTMENTAL
RETENTION TRENDS
Abstract
With only six poultry science departments remaining in the U.S. and poultry production
steadily increasing, the demand for poultry science graduates cannot be met. Therefore,
recruitment in these departments is necessary to attempt to meet the industry’s demand for
qualified employees. Recent research has focused efforts on external recruitment practices for
poultry science departments as well as methods of recruitment students prefer (Wells et al.,
2019). However, to our knowledge, no research has assessed recruitment efforts internally within
poultry science degree-granting universities. Therefore, the objective of this study was to
determine potential areas within the Colleges of Agriculture (CALS) at MSU, where recruitment
efforts could be focused on increasing retention at the university level and increasing student
numbers within MSU’s poultry science department. Retention rates were collected through
MSU’s Graduating Positioning Systems (GPS) software to assess possible trends for each
department within CALS. Using data from the GPS system, it was determined that Biochemistry
(BCH) and Animal and Dairy Sciences (ADS) have the largest population of students who
change majors, but still graduate from the university each year (n=50 and 17, respectively). This
descriptive data suggests that internal recruitment within CALS to increase student numbers, as
well as increase retention within CALS, could be an effective recruiting method.
21
Introduction
The poultry industry contributes roughly $500 billion to the US economy (Dunham,
2019) and provides approximately 200,000 jobs since 2018 (“U.S. broiler industry”, 2019). With
only six poultry degree granting universities graduating approximately 110 graduates each year
there is a high demand for qualified employees (Wells et al., 2019). Many studies have evaluated
effective recruitment strategies for prospective students. Common recruitment strategies utilized
by most college recruiters are, mailing literature, telephone prompts, emails, social media, off/on
campus events, and FFA/4H contests. Previous research from Wells et al. (2019) evaluated
external recruitment methods utilized in the six poultry science degree granting universities. This
research surveyed current department heads and undergraduate students. It was also determined
that an average yearly recruitment budget of $15,832.00 and approximately one employee
recruiting for the six degree granting poultry science departments was being utilized (Wells,
2019). Currently, college admissions recruitment efforts are based off of Gerdzhikov’s (2015)
College Recruitment Funnel. This funnel starts off with the prospective student funneling down
into inquiries, applicants, admits, confirms, enrolled, and lastly retention. This funnel primarily
focuses on external recruitment but neglects internal recruitment efforts. Currently, the university
dropout rate is 40%, with roughly 30% being classified as freshman (Hanson, 2021). Only, 63%
of students who started a bachelor’s degree at a four-year institution in fall 2013, graduated with
that degree from the same institution within six years (“Undergraduate retention and graduation
rates”, 2021). In addition, roughly 80% of college students will change their major before
graduation (“What percentage of students change majors”, 2021).
When reviewing data regarding retention rates at the collegiate level, it is important to be
aware of the definition of retention and how these retention rates are calculated. Retention rate
22
“measures the percentage of first-time undergraduate students who return to the same institution
the following fall, and graduation rates measure the percentage of first-time, full-time
undergraduate students who complete their program at the same institution within a specified
period of time” (“Undergraduate retention and graduation rates”, 2021). In correlation with the
industry demand, current recruitment efforts, previous studies from our lab, and university
retention rates, there is a lack of internal recruitment. Therefore, a potentially large pool of
recruits may be sitting in the front yard of CALS departments.
Purpose of the Study
As identified in Chapter I of this thesis, there is a lack of data on internal recruitment
methods within the CALS at poultry science degree-granting universities. Therefore, the
objective of this study was to determine potential internal recruitment areas within the CALS at
MSU in order to increase university retention rates and student numbers within MSU’s
Department of Poultry Science. The hypothesis of this study was that by utilizing internal
recruitment methods within CALS departments, student enrollment will increase within MSU’s
Department of Poultry Science as well as increase university retention, and potentially prove to
be a cost-effective recruitment strategy.
The following questions guided the study:
• What are major and university retention rates within the College of Agriculture and
Life Sciences within Mississippi State University?
• What is the movement of students within the CALS throughout their time at MSU?
23
Methods
Mississippi State University’s GPS software was utilized to identify retention trends
within the CALS. Additionally, the GPS software identified those students who left each major,
graduated, and/or left the university without graduating. This software is directly tied to MSU’s
Register’s Office information systems. The results from this study guided the subsequent
chapters of this thesis.
Population
Students enrolled in the years of Fall 2010 to Fall 2015 at MSU within the CALS served
as the population for this study. This population includes (1) students who left the major, (2) left
the university entirely, and (3) students who graduated. Therefore, this population covers all
students who were within CALS at any point throughout their college career between Fall 2010
to Fall 2015.
Variables, Measures, and Instrumentation
Within the software there is a portion titled “major tracking”, this subset of the system
was utilized for this study. This system correlates the number of students within each major of
the CALS for each semester over the selected period of time. The software also indicated the
number of students who left the major, university, and graduated for each term. When a student
has left the selected major but not the university, the software indicated that particular students
new selected major choice.
Data Collection
Data was collected through MSU’s GPS software (“MSU Student Success Portal,” 2022)
from each major within CALS at MSU. Only students who attended MSU as first-time freshman
24
and chose any major within CALS upon admission were utilized for this study. Data from Fall
2010 to Fall 2015 were utilized to ensure that this population had been given six years to
graduate. The GPS software output generated the following student populations (Figure 2.1) for
each major within CALS: (1) number of students within the population for each specific major
within CALS, (2) number of students graduated within four to six years, (3) number of students
that left the university, as well as (4) specific majors students changed to from their original
CALS major at the time of admission. Majors within CALS included: Culinology (CULY);
Biochemistry (BCH); Landscape Contracting and Management (LAC); Landscape Architecture
(LA); Agricultural Engineering, Technology, and Business (AETB); Poultry Science (PO); Food
Science, Nutrition, and Health Promotion (FSNHP); Agricultural Science (AGS); Agribusiness
(AGB); Animal and Dairy Sciences (ADS); Agronomy (AGN); Environmental Economics and
Management (EEM); and Horticulture (HO). It should be noted that some current CALS majors
were not reported due to either the creation, disbanding, or combination of these majors through
the time period (2010 to 2015) selected for this study. These majors include Agricultural
Education, Leadership, and Communication (AELC); Fashion, Design, and Merchandising
(FDM); Agricultural Information, Science, and Education (AIS); Environmental Science in
Agricultural Systems (ESAS); Human Sciences (HS); Human Development and Family Sciences
(HDFS).
25
Figure 2.1 Example of poultry science GPS software output
Data Analysis
Retention rates across all majors within the CALS were obtained through calculating
averages from the number of students each semester. Total number of potential recruits from
each major within the CALS were also calculated.
Results and Discussion
Within these results, almost all majors within CALS were accounted for; however, it is
important to note that several majors were missing from this software. Although this software
provided us with preliminary data, it is important to note that this was not the most accurate
measure, and therefore more conclusive data should be collected.
26
However, from the GPS data, it was identified that most students change major or leave
the university within the first year, with a 59% retention rate. It was identified that BCH and AS
have the largest population of students who change majors but still graduate from the university
each year. As observed in Table 2.1, BCH and ADS have the largest number of incoming
students, however not even half (21% and 41% respectively) of these students graduated within
these majors. Thus, alluding to a large pool of potential recruits.
Table 2.1 Number of incoming vs. graduated students within each major of CALS utilizing
GPS software
Major
Incoming
Graduated in major
Culinology
15
2
Biochemistry
797
169
Landscape Contracting and
Management
14
4
Landscape Architecture
80
24
Agricultural Engineering
Technology and Business
47
16
Poultry Science
51
18
Food Science, Nutrition, and
Health Promotion
114
41
Agricultural Science
22
8
Agribusiness
109
41
Animal and Dairy Sciences
446
184
Agronomy
82
44
Environmental Economics
and Management
16
9
Horticulture
33
19
27
It was also identified that within CALS at MSU there was a total of 93 students who
stayed at the university but changed their major, and 110 students left the university completely
as demonstrated in Table 2.2. From the GPS software, it was identified that BCH and ADS, once
again had the highest number of potential recruits (n=145) and (n=42) respectively. The majors
BCH and ADS accounted for 72% (n=93) of the total number of potential recruits leaving a
CALS departments per year. These two majors (BCH and ADS) also accounted for 71% (n=110)
of the number of potential recruits leaving the university per year. This demonstrates a potential
area for internal recruitment within CALS at MSU.
Table 2.2 Number of potential recruits who are leaving the major as well as the university for
each major within CALS
Major
Potential
Recruitment
Number (leaving
major) per year
Potential Recruitment
Number
(Leaving University) per
year
Poultry Science
0
1
Horticulture
1
4
Environmental Economics and
Management
1
2
Agricultural Science
1
2
Landscape Contracting and Management
1
6
Agricultural Engineering Technology and
Business
2
3
Agronomy
3
4
Landscape Architecture
4
2
Agribusiness
5
7
Food Science, Nutrition, and Health
Promotion
8
1
Animal and Dairy Sciences
17
25
Biochemistry
50
53
TOTAL
93
110
The following table (2.3) combines Table 2.1 and Table 2.2. It illustrates the number of
incoming students, number of students who graduated from the major, those students who
28
graduated from the major but from a different major, and those students who left the university
as a whole.
Table 2.3 Number of students within each major in CALS at MSU and their status
Major
Incoming
Graduated in
major
Graduated - left
major
Left University
CULY
15
2
2
12
BCH
797
169
471
317
LAC
14
4
9
5
LA
80
24
46
34
AETB
47
16
25
20
PO
51
18
26
23
FSNH
114
41
89
25
AGS
22
8
13
9
AGB
109
41
70
40
ADS
446
184
288
151
AGN
82
44
59
22
EEM
16
9
13
3
HO
33
19
22
11
These data further verified that ADS and BCH have the largest populations of students
who leave from the major leading to low retention rates for those majors. This alludes to two
large potential recruitment populations who are within the university, which could mean it is
possible to utilize less time, cost, personnel, and resources to recruit these students as compared
to traditional external recruitment methods.
Table 2.4 illustrates the major retention rate and university retention rate from each major
within CALS. In this graph, it is noted that CULY has the lowest major and university retention
rates, however; this has a partnership with another university where students come into the major
transfer before graduation. However, followed by CULY, BCH had the next lowest major
retention rate.
29
Table 2.4 Major and university retention rates within CALS at MSU
Major
Major retention
University retention
CULY
13.30%
13.30%
BCH
21.20%
59.10%
LAC
28.60%
64.29%
LA
30%
58%
AETB
34.00%
53.19%
PO
35.30%
50.98%
FSNH
35.90%
78.07%
AGS
36.40%
59.10%
AGB
37.60%
64.22%
ADS
41.30%
64.57%
AGN
53.70%
71.95%
EEM
56.25%
81.25%
HO
57.60%
66.67%
Table 2.5 shows the semester/term most students within that major leave. The 1st and 2nd
terms are the most common terms in which students leave. These data confirmed that freshman
are the hardest students to retain. This could be due to numerous factors such as disinterest in
major, poor academic standing, and financial issues. However, disinterest in major could
potentially be solved through internal recruitment and thus leading to an increase in university
retention.
30
Table 2.5 The term which students leave the most
Major
Term most students leave
Culinology
2nd term
Biochemistry
1st term
Landscape Contracting and Management
1st term
Landscape Architecture
1st term
Agricultural Engineering Technology and Business
1st and 2nd term
Poultry Science
1st term
Food Science, Nutrition, and Health Promotion
1st term
Agricultural Science
2nd term
Agribusiness
2nd term
Animal and Dairy Sciences
1st and 2nd term
Agronomy
2nd term
Environmental Economics and Management
1st and 2nd term
Horticulture
2nd term
Thus, intervention might need to occur within a student’s freshman year in order to
expose them to other opportunities within their university that might be a “better fit” for them
i.e., poultry. A way to do this would be through providing students with an introductory poultry
course into their curriculum or inviting a poultry guest lecture into a general freshman or
departmental seminar/introductory freshman course. No trends were observed in relation to if
students are changing majors from within CALS, to specific target majors/colleges.
It is realized that this data is a preliminary study and therefore creating a lack of
accuracy. In order to obtain more adequate data and verify trends across all six poultry degree
granting universities, Offices of Institutional Research and Effectiveness were contacted which
leads into Chapter II of this thesis.
31
References
Dunham, J. (2020, November 9). 2020 Poultry and Egg Economic Impact Study. Retrieved
March 9, 2022, from https://poultry.guerrillaeconomics.net/res/Methodology.pdf
Gerdzhikov, N. (2018, September 12). How to master the college admissions funnel. LinkedIn.
Retrieved March 9, 2022, from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/higher-education-
marketing-how-master-your-admissions-gerdzhikov
Hanson, M. (2021, November 22). College dropout rate [2022]: By year + demographics.
Education Data Initiative. Retrieved March 9, 2022, from
https://educationdata.org/college-dropout-rates
MSU Student Success Portal. (2022). Retrieved March 29, 2022, from
http://www.gps.msstate.edu/~ssp/gps/majorTracker.php
Undergraduate retention and graduation rates. 2021. Retrieved February 21, 2022, from
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/2021/ctr_508c.pdf
U.S. broiler industry creates almost 200,000 new jobs, economic output up 11 percent in two
years. National Chicken Council. (2019, April 5). Retrieved March 16, 2022, from
https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/u-s-broiler-industry-creates-almost-200000-new-
jobs-economic-output-up-11-percent-in-two-years/
Wells, J. B. (2019). Assessment of Recruiting Methods to Enhance Poultry Science
Undergraduate Programs. Mississippi State University.
What percentage of students change majors? Frank Financial Aid. (2021, October 27). Retrieved
March 16, 2022, from https://withfrank.org/how-to-pay-for-college/how-does-college-
work/transfer/what-percentage-of-students-change-
majors/#:~:text=Changing%20majors%20when%20you%20are,that%20sooner%20rather
%20than%20later.
32
CHAPTER III
AN ASSESSMENT OF CALS RETENTION AT THE SIX POULTRY DEGREE GRANTING
UNIVERSITIES UTILIZING OFFICES OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH AND
EFFECTIVENESS
Abstract
There are only six poultry degree granting universities in the US, producing an estimate
of 110 poultry science graduates each year. However, with not enough poultry graduates to meet
the demand for industry employees, many of these positions are filled with other ag or even non
ag majors. Thus, proving recruitment within poultry science departments being a key to meeting
the poultry industry demands for qualified employees. Previous studies (Wells et al., 2019) have
evaluated external recruitment strategies. In addition, preliminary data mentioned in Chapter II
specifically focused on potential internal recruitment strategies within Biochemistry and Animal
Science students seeking a “better fit” major at MSU. This study elaborates on those previous
findings. The objective of this study was to determine potential internal recruitment areas within
the CALS at poultry science degree-granting universities, in order to increase university
retention rates and student numbers within poultry science departments. Data was collected from
Fall 2010 to Fall 2019, and retention rates were analyzed to obtain a ten-year average. Trends
were observed with animal sciences consistently having the largest populations of students
changing their majors or leaving the universities. This descriptive data suggests that internal
recruitment within CALS at poultry science degree granting institutes could be a cost-effective
33
and easy method for poultry science departments to increase student numbers, as well as increase
retention within CALS.
Introduction
As mentioned in Chapter I of this thesis, there has been a huge decline in poultry science
departments, with most poultry departments combining with animal science (Beck, 1992).
Studies have identified that a decrease in student interest and negative assumptions towards the
field have led to a decrease in students (Berry et al., 1991 and Beyl et. al, 2016), thus leading to a
decrease in poultry departments. While others have deemed lack of industry support and
“industrialization of poultry production” to be the primary factor of the decline in poultry
departments, regardless, a decline in students has been observed (Cheeke, 1999 and Lower &
Quarles, 1975). Along with a lack of industry support Beck (1992) and Sunde (1972) both state a
lack of university support such as funding that led to the combining of departments. Therefore,
studies have been conducted to potentially raise the number of poultry science graduates,
particularly focusing on recruitment (Wells et al., 2019 and Pescatore & Harter-Dennis, 1987). A
common factor is the population of 4H and FFA participants being a huge target for recruitment
(Armstrong, 2015 and Denton, 1998). However, there are still not enough graduates to fulfill
industry demand (Wells et al., 2019).
Without a sufficient number of poultry science graduates, there will be a lack of
knowledge in applied poultry science, therefore progress within the poultry industry may be
delayed (Thaxton et al., 2003). Thus, making it imperative to evaluate all six poultry science
degree granting universities and their potential for internal recruitment within their respective
CALS.
34
Purpose of the Study
Results from Chapter II of this thesis guided the purpose of this study. After identifying
retention trends within a five-year period at MSU, this study was conducted in hopes of
reviewing how trends from MSU’s GPS software compares to the five other poultry degree
granting universities. The objective of this study was to determine potential internal recruitment
areas within the CALS at poultry science degree-granting institutes, in order to potentially
increase university retention rates and student numbers within poultry science departments. The
hypothesis of this study was that by utilizing internal recruitment methods within CALS
departments, student enrollment within poultry science departments will increase, as well as
university retention, and potentially prove to be a cost-effective recruitment strategy.
The following questions guided the study:
• What are major and university retention rates within the College of Agriculture and
Life Sciences within the six poultry degree granting universities?
• How does this compare to Mississippi State University’s GPS software?
• Where many there be potential areas for internal recruitment within Colleges of
Agriculture and Life Sciences?
With identifying these trends in a five-year period, the question arises how this compared to a
ten-year period, thus leading to contacting the Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness
at MSU to verify them.
Methods
After submission to MSU’s Institutional Review Board (IRB), it was determined that the
study did not need IRB oversight (Appendix A). Therefore, each of the six poultry science
degree granting universities’ Offices of Institutional Research and Effectiveness were contacted.
35
Data was collected to verify trends found in Chapter II of this thesis as well as identify if these
trends follow suit throughout all six poultry science degree granting universities. Offices were
requested to pull retention rates form each major within their CALS departments from Fall 2010
to Fall 2019.
Population
The population for this study was determined as a result from the previous study in
Chapter II. Students within majors found in the CALS at the six poultry degree granting
universities: Mississippi State University, North Carolina State University, University of
Arkansas, Texas A&M University, Auburn University, and University of Georgia were
collected. All students who had been admitted between Fall of 2010 to Fall 2019 were selected.
Variables, Measures, and Instrumentation
A representative with the institutions of effectiveness for each of the six universities were
contacted via email and/or external data request form found on their university’s website was
submitted. Representatives were asked to provide if possible:
“1. Retention percentages for major (2010-2019),
2. Retention percentages for university (2010-2019),
3. The number of students that started in each major throughout 2010-2019,
4. The number of students that graduated in each major throughout 2010-2019,
5. The number of students that left each major (this number can be calculated if other
parts are provided) along with what major they transferred into or the top 5 majors that most
students transfer into will be great, and
6. The number of students that left the university 2010-2019”
36
It is important to note that every university’s CALS majors differ from each other depending on
the university, which could cause changes in retention trends.
Additional results from this study were also utilized in study 3, Chapter IV of this thesis.
Data Collection
Data were received from each representative of their respective university via email. Data
for each university was presented within an Excel format containing all requested information
stated above. Data were then analyzed as needed. In order to provide anonymity, all universities,
aside from MSU, are represented by a letter (University “A” through University “E”).
Data Analysis
Once, the information was received from each office, percentages were calculated to
determine possible retention trends from each universities’ College of Agriculture and Life
Sciences.
Results and Discussion
There was a return rate of 66.67% (n=4). The four participating universities were the
universities housing the four poultry science departments with the largest populations of enrolled
students. Table 3.1 shows the number of incoming, graduated students from that particular major
within CALS. As was observed in Chapter II, BCH and ADS had the largest number of incoming
students, however just over half (55% and 62% respectively) of these students graduated within
these majors. These results solidified the results from Chapter II proving BCH and ADS having
the largest pool for potential recruits. It is important to note that “large pools” of potential recruits
were determined by those majors that contained 80 or above total potential recruits.
37
Table 3.1 Number of students at Mississippi State University within CALS Departments
Major
Incoming
Graduated in the major
ADS
846
524
AELC
22
20
AETB
115
81
AGB
216
127
AGN
149
100
AGS
61
35
AIS
28
17
BCH
1421
775
CULY
35
17
EEM
22
17
ESAS
6
5
FDM
110
76
FSNH
231
143
HDFS
46
32
HO
54
40
HS
151
108
LA
16
13
LAC
28
16
PO
98
64
In Table 3.2, the number of potential recruits who leave a major as well as the university
for each major within CALS at MSU were identified. The top four majors with the largest
population of potential recruits are Biochemistry (largest), followed by Animal Sciences (second
largest), Agribusiness, and Food Science, Nutrition, and Health Promotion. The grand total
potential recruits regardless of major in CALS was 1498 students.
38
Table 3.2 Number of potential students to recruit at Mississippi State University within
CALS
Major
Graduated
(Left major)
Left
university
Total
(Potential
recruits)
Animal and Dairy Sciences
152
170
322
Agriculture Education, Leadership,
and Communication
1
1
2
Agricultural Engineering Technology
and Business
16
18
34
Agribusiness
45
44
89
Agronomy
17
32
49
Agricultural Sciences
12
14
26
Agriculture Information Science
3
8
11
Biochemistry
371
275
646
Culinology
3
15
18
Environmental Economics and
Management
4
2
5
Environmental Science in
Agricultural Systems
0
1
1
Fashion Design and Merchandising
19
15
34
Food Science, Nutrition, and Health
Promotion
64
24
88
Human Development and Family
Studies
5
9
14
Horticulture
6
8
14
Human Sciences
28
15
43
Landscape Architecture
28
27
55
Landscape Contracting
5
7
12
Poultry Science
13
21
34
TOTAL
792
706
1498
With the verification of these trends at MSU, the remaining universities were analyzed
for potential trends. In Table 3.3 the number of incoming, graduated students, and students who
left the university within each major of CALS at University “A” is demonstrated. Table 3.3
demonstrates Animal Sciences as the largest potential recruit population followed by biological
sciences. The third largest population was Life Sciences, however; this major is an undeclared
major within this university’s CALS and these students will leave upon declaring a major.
39
Table 3.3 Number of students at University “A” within CALS Department
Major
Incoming
Graduated
Agricultural and
Environmental Technology
65
55
Agricultural Business
Management
205
179
Agricultural Education
127
101
Agricultural Science
112
77
Agriculture Undeclared
74
41
Agroecology and
Sustainable Food Systems
15
12
Animal Science
1482
1332
Applied Sociology
2
0
Biochemistry
156
143
Biological Sciences
917
799
Bioprocessing Science
47
39
Crop and Soil Sciences
16
13
Extension Education
8
5
Food Science
108
84
Genetics
40
34
Horticultural Science
103
90
Life Sciences
474
125
Molecular Biology
26
19
Natural Resources
12
10
Nutrition Sciences
97
79
Plant and Soil Sciences
93
80
Plant Biology
15
13
Poultry Science
106
99
Soil and Land Development
3
3
Turfgrass Science
26
22
Zoology
177
155
Table 3.4 identified the number of potential recruits who are leaving the major, as well as
the university, for each major within CALS at University “A”. The top four majors with the
largest population of potential recruits are Life Sciences being the largest, followed by Animal
Sciences, and Biological Sciences. Again, it is important to note that the major Life Sciences, at
40
this particular university (A), is categorized as an undeclared major. Students come into this
major with the intention of transferring to a new major. This leaves a total of 897 potential
recruits.
41
Table 3.4 Number of potential students to recruit at University “A” within CALS
Major
Graduated
(left major)
Left university
Total (potential recruits)
Agricultural and Environmental
Technology
10
0
10
Agricultural Business
Management
23
3
26
Agricultural Education
26
0
26
Agricultural Science
35
0
35
Agriculture Undeclared
32
1
33
Agroecology and Sustainable
Food Systems
3
0
3
Animal Science
139
11
150
Applied Sociology
2
0
2
Biochemistry
11
2
13
Biological Sciences
98
20
118
Bioprocessing Science
8
0
8
Crop and Soil Sciences
3
0
3
Extension Education
3
0
3
Food Science
23
1
24
Genetics
4
2
6
Horticultural Science
10
3
13
Life Sciences
349
0
349
Molecular Biology
6
1
7
Natural Resources
2
0
2
Nutrition Sciences
17
1
18
Plant and Soil Sciences
12
1
13
Plant Biology
1
1
2
Poultry Science
6
1
7
Soil and Land Development
0
0
0
Turfgrass Science
3
1
4
Zoology
20
2
22
TOTAL
846
51
897
This table shows the number of potential students to recruit at University “A” within CALS.
As observed in Table 3.5, Animal Science, Human Nutrition & Hospitality Innovation
(HNHI), Apparel Merchandising & Product Development, and Agricultural Business show the
42
largest populations of students for University “B”. These majors also house the largest number of
students who switched majors as seen in Table 3.5, indicating a potential target area for internal
recruitment at University “B”.
Table 3.5 Number of students at University “B” within CALS Departments
Major
Incoming
Graduated in major
Agricultural Business, BSA
387
276
Agricultural Education, Communication,
and Technology, BSA
101
65
Animal Science, BSA
563
357
Apparel Merchandising & Product
Development, BSHES
463
323
Crop Science, BSA
89
53
Environmental Soil & Water Science,
BSA
159
101
Food Science, BSA
103
70
Horticulture, Landscape & Turf Sciences,
BSA
64
28
Human Development & Family Sciences,
BSHES
106
56
Human Nutrition & Hospitality
Innovation, BSHES
337
188
Poultry Science
188
144
Table 3.6 identified the number of potential recruits who are leaving the major as well as
the university, for each major within CALS at University “B”. The top four majors with the
largest population of potential recruits are Animal Sciences being the largest, followed by
Human Nutrition & Hospitality Innovation, Apparel Merchandising & Product Development,
and Agricultural Business. This leaves a total of 849 potential recruits.
43
Table 3.6 Number of potential students to recruit at University “B” within CALS
Departments
Major
Graduated (left
major)
Left
university
Total (potential recruits)
Agricultural Business,
BSA
48
63
111
Agricultural Education,
Communication, and
Technology, BSA
13
13
26
Animal Science, BSA
96
110
206
Apparel Merchandising
& Product
Development, BSHES
71
69
140
Crop Science, BSA
15
11
26
Environmental Soil &
Water Science, BSA
34
25
59
Food Science, BSA
23
11
34
Horticulture,
Landscape & Turf
Sciences, BSA
4
13
17
Human Development &
Family Sciences,
BSHES
26
11
37
Human Nutrition &
Hospitality Innovation,
BSHES
103
46
149
Poultry Science
23
21
44
TOTAL
456
393
849
Table 3.7 demonstrates that Animal Science followed by Biochemistry, Agribusiness,
Biological and Agricultural Engineering (BAE), and Nutrition (NU) have the largest populations
for potential students from University “C”. Although these majors have relatively decent
retention rates (81%, 53%, 59%, 16% (aside from Biological and Agricultural Engineering) and
62%) they still provide a large pool of students that are leaving the major or the university as
observed in Table 3.8. These data indicate potential target areas for internal recruitment.
44
Table 3.7 Number of students at University “C” within CALS Departments
Major
Incoming
Graduated in major
Animal Science
1035
566
Biochemistry
2182
1771
Poultry Science
110
95
Biological and Agricultural
Engineering
288
139
Agribusiness
657
385
Agricultural Economics
250
190
Agricultural Science
92
64
Food Science and Technology
102
81
Bioenvironmental Sciences
143
103
Horticulture
65
59
Nutrition
370
231
45
Table 3.8 Number of students at University “C” within CALS Departments
Major
Graduated (left
major)
Left university
Total (potential recruits)
Animal Science
265
146
411
Biochemistry
388
81
469
Poultry Science
9
6
15
Biological and
Agricultural
Engineering
128
21
149
Agribusiness
232
40
272
Agricultural
Economics
48
12
60
Agricultural Science
24
4
28
Food Science and
Technology
18
3
21
Bioenvironmental
Sciences
30
10
40
Horticulture
4
2
6
Nutrition
114
25
139
TOTAL
1260
350
1610
When combining all universities data from Animal Science there is a total of 1089 total
potential recruits. According to data collected from over half of poultry science departments
nationwide, data did not illustrate an ongoing trend of BCH having the lowest retention rate,
however; animal science departments consistently had lower retention rates within CALS.
Across all four universities animal science was one of the top areas for potential recruits. These
results presented animal science as a potential area for internal recruitment for CALS
46
departments, more specifically poultry science departments. If this avenue was explored, it could
in turn increase college retention, increase number of poultry students, decrease recruitment cost,
and potentially meet demand for poultry employees. Results from this study led into Chapter IV
study of this thesis as well as determine the population utilized in Chapter IV.
47
References
Armstrong, P. L. (2015). Increasing student interest in poultry science careers through 4-
H (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University).
Beck, M. M. (1992). Status of poultry science departments and poultry research within combined
departments. Poultry Science, 71(8), 1328-1331.
Berry, J., Reynells, R., Hewlett, M., Pescatore, T., & Bell, D. (1991). Retention of Poultry
Faculty And Poultry Departments. NACTA Journal, 35(2), 21-24.
Beyl, C.A., Adams, A.F., Smith, E.G.(2016). A Proactive Model for Recruiting. NACTA
Journal,(60)(1), 51-59.
Cheeke, P. R. (1999). Shrinking membership in the American Society of Animal Science: does
the discipline of poultry science give us some clues?. Journal of animal science, 77(8),
2031-2038.
Denton, J.H. 1998. Regional center of excellence concept. Poult. Sci. 77:214-216.
Lower, W. C., & Quarles, C. L. (1975). Student Enrollment Survey of Poultry Science Majors in
Land Grant Institutions. Poultry Science, 54(4), 955-958.
Pescatore, A.J. and J.M. Harter-Dennis. 1987. An assessment of student recruitment activities by
departments of poultry and/or animal sciences. Poult. Sci. 31:22-25.
Sunde M.L, T.E. Hartung and L.S. Jensen. 1972. Problem of disappearing poultry science
departments. Poult. Sci. 51:1079-1087.
Thaxton-Vizzier, Y.V., J.A. Cason, N.A. Cox, S.E. Morris, S., and J.P. Thaxton. 2003. Decline
of academic poultry science in the United States of America. World Poult. Sci. 59:303-
313.
Wells, J. B. (2019). Assessment of Recruiting Methods to Enhance Poultry Science
Undergraduate Programs. Mississippi State University.
48
CHAPTER IV
AN ASSESSMENT OF POULTRY AND NONPOULTRY UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT
AND FACULTY/ADVISOR PERCEPTIONS OF POULTRY SCIENCE
Abstract
Recruitment in poultry science departments is necessary to attempt to meet the industry’s
demand for qualified employees. Recent data collected in Chapter III, utilized data mining
techniques to assess the lowest retention rates in CALS, within the six universities housing
poultry science departments. These data consistently identified animal science (AS) departments
to have the lowest retention rates, suggesting a possible target for internal recruitment. Targeting
departments from within offers the potential to retain those students (who would otherwise leave
the university) and place them in a focus area that may be a better “fit” (i.e., poultry). Therefore,
the objective of this study was to determine if nonpoultry science majors from these universities
would be receptive to completing coursework pertaining to poultry. This could lead to an
introduction of poultry, attracting those students that would have left the CALS. Undergraduates
from the six poultry degree granting universities were surveyed to assess if students would be
willing to take an introductory poultry course, what factors influenced them in choosing their
current (changed or not changed) major, and if they would be interested in majoring in poultry
science. Thus, potentially increasing the number of poultry science graduates and decreasing the
number of students dropping out of the university. Faculty members from the six universities
were surveyed to assess if they would be willing to advise students to consider poultry, when
49
students are seeking to change majors. They were also asked if they would be receptive to
allowing a poultry guest speaker in their classes to expose students to the opportunities of
majoring in poultry science. From data collected in the student survey we can solidify that AS
and BCH had the largest population of students change majors (n= 27 and 46, respectively). Data
also identified that 80% of AS and BCH students indicated an interest in taking a poultry course
if it counted towards their curriculum; and 31% of students considered majoring in poultry
science, when prompted of the opportunities when majoring in poultry science. However, 77% of
faculty were hesitant in allowing a poultry course into their curriculum (i.e., social science) for
students, a contrast to the student survey. This data suggests that there is a disconnect between
what students want and what faculty are willing to allow within their departments.
Introduction
Poultry companies are having to compensate for their new hires lack of knowledge for
the industry with training programs (Snetsinger, 1992). In order to provide the industry with
qualified future employees, graduates need to have awareness of the poultry industry (Snetsinger,
1992). A lack of knowledge from employees could lead to a potential decrease in profitability in
the future for the poultry industry due to a potential delay in advancements. According to
Snetsinger (1992), there is a mutual responsibility between the industry and universities to
adjusting curricula as needed, in order to sustain the industry with qualified employees. This can
be achieved by the industry participating in seminars, courses, club meetings, and other
university activities/organizations. The industry must also play a role in university/departmental
recruitment to obtain students to train as future leaders in poultry (Berry et al., 1991). Along with
industry support, in order to potentially internally recruit students into poultry science, it is
important to analyze what caused students to choose their first major as well as what attracts
50
them to changing their major. Previous studies have evaluated factors influencing major choice
(Barkley and Parrish, 2005; Herren et al., 2011; Porter and Umbach, 2006; Rayfield et al., 2013;
and Thielen, 2012), all which utilize David Chapman’s (1981) Student College Choice Model as
a guide. Chapman’s (1981) model proposes that students’ college choice is directed by students’
individual backgrounds and characteristics, family perceptions, and attributes of the college.
Malgwi et al. (2005) utilizes Chapman’s (1981) model to conduct their study that determines
students’ initial interest, being the top factor that entice freshman to select their major, followed
by potential advancement within career and the salary. Students who are looking to change
majors, are tempted by the positive factors about the new major (Malgwi, 2005). Factors
influencing students to change majors are “interest in subject, career opportunities, and high
level of compensation” (Malgwi, 2005). More specifically pertaining to poultry science, Berry et.
al (1991) suggest recruiting students within youth programs such as FFA and 4H. It was also
identified in this study that many students are unaware of the opportunities within poultry (Berry
et. al, 1991). If students were made aware of opportunities within poultry, they may be more
inclined to major in poultry. However, it is important to note that all these studies are outdated as
well as bias to students and do not reflect advisor and faculty perceptions of why students choose
their major. Another key important factor that is missing is why do students leave their major.
Perhaps by identifying these factors, departments within CALS can determine if students who
are seeking to change majors might be a “better fit” in their respective department.
Purpose of the Study
In Chapters II and III of this thesis, it was concluded that AS had the largest potential
populations for internal recruitment. This provides a potential pool of students to actively recruit;
however, students interest in poultry most be considered. Therefore, the purpose of this study
51
was to identify if nonpoultry undergraduate students would have an interest in majoring in
poultry science or enrolling in a poultry course. The objective of this study was to determine if
students or employees within nonpoultry science majors (within CALS) at poultry science
degree-granting universities would be: (1) receptive to completing coursework pertaining to
poultry or receptive to changing their major to poultry (Student Focus) and (2) willing to
implement a poultry course within curriculum and advise students of post -graduate opportunities
within poultry (Advisor Focus). The hypothesis of this study was that students and advisors
within nonpoultry science majors (within CALS) at poultry science degree-granting universities
would be receptive to poultry curriculum to improve graduate opportunities.
The following questions guided this study:
• What are factors that influence students’ major choice?
• What factors correlate to students’ interest in their major?
• Would students have an interest in poultry?
• How do students perceive majoring in poultry science?
• What are advisors’ perceptions on students’ majors?
• What are advisors’ perceptions on factors influencing students to switch majors?
• What is advisors’ level of willingness to inform students about poultry
opportunities?
• Would advisors be willing to introduce students to opportunities within in poultry?
Methods
After submission to MSU’s Institutional Review Board (IRB), it was determined that the
study did not need IRB oversight (Appendix A). In order to meet the objective of this study, two
52
separate surveys were utilized in this study (Qualtrics, 2021). (1) Survey methodologies were
used to determine students’ interest in major, factors influencing major choice, and nonpoultry
students’ interest in poultry. Also, (2) survey methods were utilized to determine poultry and
nonpoultry advisors’ perceptions of students’ majors, factors influencing students to switch
majors, and nonpoultry advisors’ willingness to inform students about poultry opportunities.
Population
Based off the results from Chapter III, undergraduate students at the six universities
housing poultry science departments were surveyed. Each population from the six different
universities were determined by the number of potential recruits. Utilizing data from the previous
study in Chapter II, majors within CALS who had a number of 80 or higher potential recruits
were surveyed in addition to the students majoring in poultry science. The majors from each
university selected are as follows: MSU majors: ADS, BCH, AGB, FSNHP, and PO. University
“A” majors: Life Sciences, Animal Sciences, Biological Sciences, and Poultry Science.
University “B” majors: Animal Sciences, Apparel Merchandising & Product Development,
Human Nutrition & Hospitality Innovation, Agricultural Business, and Poultry Science.
University “C” majors: Animal Sciences, Biochemistry, Agribusiness, Biological and Agri
Engineering, Nutrition, and Poultry Science. University “D” majors: Agribusiness, Animal
Sciences, Biological Sciences, and Poultry Science. University “E” majors: Agribusiness,
Animal Science, and Poultry Science. Due to no response from universities D and E’s Offices of
Institutional Research and Effectiveness the majors selected were based off the other
universities’ population selections.
53
Variables, Measures, Instrumentation
Two web-based surveys were utilized to collect data from participants (i.e., students and
advisors) (Appendix D). Both surveys began with an opening statement thanking students for
their participation in the survey and were asked to answer the following questions to the best of
their ability. Participants were notified by clicking the “Next” button in the bottom right corner
of the survey, they consent to participating in this survey. All questions were presented in a
Multiple-Choice format; the option for fill-in-the blank was given if participants selected other
for elaboration. Both surveys ended with an open-ended question for any further elaboration or
thought pertaining to any question.
Nonpoultry and poultry undergraduate students
In total, the undergraduate student survey consisted of 39 questions (Appendix D).
Pertaining to the nonpoultry and poultry undergraduate student survey, participants were first
presented with introductory questions revolving around students’ current university,
classification, transfer status, and postgraduate goals.
Nonpoultry and poultry students
Interest in major
The next series of questions reflected on the student’s current major as well as if students
have ever switched majors. When participants were asked if students have changed their major at
their current university and selected “Yes” they were presented with a different series of
questions (8). The first two questions within this series reflected on how many times and how
often students changed their major. This was followed by what these students first majors were
upon admission to the university. The next question evaluated students’ satisfaction with their
54
most recent major change. Partipcants were then asked how much of an influence advisors have
on students seeking to change their majors. If participants selected “No” for, the last question,
participants were presented with an additional question which, evaluated if participants ever
considered changing their majors. If participants answered “Yes” they were then presented with
A different series of questions (2). The first asked participants in bulleted form as to why the
student did not follow through changing their majors. Finally, the second question asked how
likely participants are to change majors at their respective points in their college career.
Factors influencing major choice
Following these questions, the next set reflected factors influencing participants major
choice. If students responded “Yes” to a question, pertaining to if students switched their majors,
they were then given a series of questions (2). In a bulleted format, participants were requested to
select all factors which influenced the current major choice. This was followed by the same
questions and bulleted information as to what factors influenced students to change their majors.
Depending on if students selected “No” when asked if they changed their major, students
were then redirected to a different series of questions that reflected which factors influenced their
major choice. Students were then asked what factors influenced students’ major choice.
For those participants who selected “Yes”, when asked if they ever considered switching
their major, they were then asked which factors influenced them to consider switching majors.
Nonpoultry students
Pertaining to students’ current majors, those students who selected any major besides
poultry science were prompted the following questions after the previously mentioned ones
above.
55
Knowledge of poultry science
Participants were asked of their plans in taking a poultry course; followed by another
question, asking if participants ever considered majoring in poultry science. Participants were
then prompted to answer if they knew their university offered a poultry science major. Then
participants were presented two questions in bulleted form assessing students’ knowledge of the
post graduate opportunities and undergraduate opportunities within poultry. Students were asked
to click all bullet points that applied. After presentation of these two questions, participants were
then prompted with the following statement and question “All of the following careers as well as
the previous list applies to ALL poultry students. Knowing this, would you consider majoring in
poultry science?” This led into another question, which stated the economic impact, starting
salary, and job placement of the poultry industry, again, followed by the question “Knowing this,
would you consider majoring in Poultry Science?”
Interest in poultry
After students were exposed to the opportunities within poultry science, students were
then asked if interested in majoring in poultry science. Lastly, students were asked of their
interest in enrolling in a poultry course. Closing the survey, participants were given the
opportunity to elaborate on any part of the survey as well as add any additional comments.
Poultry students
After the introductory, interest in major, and factors influencing major, those students
who selected the major poultry science were redirected to a different series of questions from
nonpoultry majors. These partipcants were presented (3) questions that evaluated participants
56
status of whether or not they transferred into poultry science as well as how satisfied they are
with majoring in poultry science.
*All together due to students being prompted different sets of questions it should be noted that
no student answered more than 26 questions. Figure 4.1 illustrates the flow of questions students
received depending on student response (“yes” or “no” and “poultry” (green) or “nonpoultry”
(red) major).
57
Figure 4.1 Nonpoultry and poultry student survey question flowchart
58
Figure 4.1(continued)
59
Nonpoultry and poultry advisors and faculty
In total, the advisor/faculty survey consisted of 30 questions (Appendix D). Pertaining to
the nonpoultry and poultry faculty/advisor survey, questions (2) were utilized to differentiate
faculty who taught courses from those who only advised students within the department.
Participants who did not advise students are identified as “faculty” and those who indicated that
they advise students are identified as “advisors” throughout this thesis. After this questions
advisors and faculty were divided into two subcategories and redirected to their appropriate
series of questions. Participants were than categorized between poultry and nonpoultry. Thus,
providing a total of four subcategories: nonpoultry faculty, poultry faculty, nonpoultry advisors,
and poultry advisors. These subcategories will be utilized throughout this chapter in order to
display methods and results. Each subcategory questions began with the same introductory
questions evaluating institution, department, and total years of employment within department
and position.
Nonpoultry Faculty
Participants who indicated that they do not advise students and are nonpoultry faculty
were then asked a separate set of questions than those who indicated they were poultry faculty.
These questions assessed faculty’s knowledge of the post graduate opportunities for students
majoring in poultry science. Similarly, to the nonpoultry undergraduate survey this question was
presented in bulleted form and allowed participants to select all that applied. Upon completion of
the question, faculty were then prompted the following statement and question, “All of the
careers mentioned align with poultry science. Knowing this, would you consider inviting a
poultry personnel to guest lecture in one of your courses? Considering some of these career paths
align with your students’ interests.”
60
Poultry Faculty
Participants who indicated that they do not advise students and are poultry faculty were
then asked a series of questions. These questions assessed if faculty would consider offering a
general poultry course to nonpoultry students. They also evaluated if faculty would guest lecture
in a nonpoultry course in order to share the opportunities of poultry to nonpoultry students.
Lastly, these questions evaluated if poultry faculty would be interested in a joint production class
with other ag-related professors in order to increase exposure to nonpoultry students. Similarly,
to the undergraduate survey, this survey ended with the opportunity for participants to elaborate
on any portion of the survey or provide additional comments.
Nonpoultry and poultry advisors
Those participants indicated as advisors were presented with a series of questions
revolving around their perceptions on students’ majors, perception on factors influencing
students to switch majors, university logistics, and department logistics.
Perception on students’ majors
The next questions were determined by observations in Chapter II of this thesis. Advisors
were asked in their opinion to identify the semester most students change their major. The next
question presented required participants to share what majors most of their students will change
to. Partipcants were then asked to provide insight as to how advisors advise students who are
seeking to change their major.
Perception on factors influencing students to switch majors
The next series of questions were presented in a bulleted form and participants were
asked to select all factors in that contribute to students leaving their respective major. Along with
61
major choice questions also demonstrated what factors advisors advise students to take into
consideration when looking for a new major. Questions also numerically showed how many
students change majors within the advisors’ respective universities and departments.
Department logistics
The next series of questions provided insight as to if an exit survey is given to students
aside from graduation. Availability of student worker positions is very attractive to incoming
students thus leading to questions pertaining to whether student worker positions are available
within the respective departments. With internships being an important aspect of poultry
departments, questions also evaluated internships within these nonpoultry departments.
University logistics
There were also a series of questions (2) pertaining to the number of students which
dropout of the university from their respective department. This question was then followed up
by asking faculty what they feel are determining factors influencing students to leave their
respective universities.
Non poultry advisors’ willingness to inform students of opportunities within poultry
Again, similarly to the nonpoultry faculty and nonpoultry undergraduates, a question
presented numerous career options aligning with a poultry degree. Participants were asked to
select all they believe to be achieved by completing a poultry degree. Thus, participants were
displayed the following statement and question, “All of the careers mentioned align with poultry
science. Knowing this, would you consider advising student whose interest are within these
fields to major in poultry?” Nonpoultry advisors were then asked questions pertaining to their
willingness to introduce an introductory poultry course into their curriculum, counting as a social
62
science. Lastly, nonpoultry advisors were asked if they would be willing to allow a poultry
representative to guest lecture in an introductory course/seminar within the nonpoultry advisors’
departments.
Poultry Advisors
Poultry advisors were presented with a different series of questions than nonpoultry
advisors. These questions (3) question determined if poultry advisors would be willing to expose
nonpoultry students to poultry either through joint teaching an introductory course, guest
lecturing, or/and offering an introductory poultry course to nonpoultry students.
Recruitment
The last block of questions for this survey involves recruitment and were administered to
all faculty regardless of grouping. These questions gauged current internal recruitment practices
within the university and within the college at their corresponding university. The final question
for the survey ended with on open-ended question providing participants an opportunity to
elaborate on answers as well as provide any additional comments.
*All together due to advisors/faculty being prompted different sets of questions it should be
noted that no advisor/faculty member answered more than 25 questions. Figure 4.2 illustrates the
flow of questions advisors/faculty received depending on advisor/faculty response (“faculty” or
“advisor” (purple) and “poultry” (green) or “nonpoultry” (red) major).
63
Figure 4.2 Nonpoultry and poultry faculty/advisor survey question flowchart
64
Figure 4.2(continued)
65
Data Collection
Each majors’ department head was contacted a week in advance for permission to
distribute both surveys amongst their undergraduate students, faculty, and undergraduate
advisors. In two separate emails (Appendix B), department heads were sent the survey links
(student survey and faculty/advisor survey) along with instructions and a consent form
(Appendix C). Department heads were asked to distribute the survey to all undergraduate
students, faculty, and undergraduate advisors within their respective departments. Students,
faculty, and advisors were given four weeks to complete the survey. Department heads received
two reminders during the 4-week period and were asked to distribute them amongst their
participating undergraduate students, faculty, and undergraduate advisors.
Data Analysis
With collection of completed surveys from Qualtrics (Qualtrics, 2021), data were entered
in an Excel spreadsheet, and frequencies and percentages were obtained for all questions. ANOVA
was performed for three questions and measured variables using the GLM procedure in SAS (SAS,
Version 9.4); means were separated using Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) when P-
value was ≤ 0.05.
Results and Discussion
Nonpoultry and poultry undergraduate students
Data from this study were collected to determine students’ interest in major, factors
influencing major choice, nonpoultry students’ interest in enrolling in a poultry course, and
poultry students’ satisfaction with their current major. Of the total population of students
(n=584) within CALS, 527 students participated in the study and of those 90% completed the
66
online survey in full. As observed in Table 4.1, 40.75% of the responses were from MSU,
22.60% from University “A”, 2.05% from University “B”, 30.82% from University “C”, 1.71%
from University “D”, and 2.05% form University “E”. The Animal Science students represented
the largest response population with 26.71% of responses being Animal Science students.
Table 4.1 Number of undergraduate survey responses from each major at each university
Majors
MSU
University
“A”
University
“B”
University
“C”
University
“D”
University
“E”
Animal Sciences
56
0
0
99
0
1
Biochemistry
53
7
N/A
53
N/A
N/A
Agribusiness
18
N/A
0
0
0
7
Life Sciences
N/A
62
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Nutrition
13
N/A
N/A
1
N/A
N/A
Biological
Sciences
N/A
37
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
Poultry Science
20
12
12
1
10
1
Other
76
19
0
26
0
3
Total
238
139
12
180
10
12
Those indicated with N/A were departments not housed in CALS at that particular university,
therefore data was not collected. Those shown with a zero represents no response from that
particular major.
Nonpoultry and poultry students
Interest in major
When analyzing students’ interest in major, it was observed (Figure 4.3) that only 23% of
students indicated they changed majors at least once within their college career at their current
university. Of the 23% of students who changed their majors, those students came from the
following majors that are listed on the x-axis in Figure 4.4. As shown in Figure 4.4, the largest
number of students switched out of Biochemistry (31%) and Animal Science (22%); solidifying
the results found in Chapters II and III of this thesis. It is also noted that 76% of these students
came from a major within CALS. Of the students who had not changed their major, 36.32% have
67
thought about changing their major (Figure 4.5). However, as indicated in Figure 4.6, most
students just decided to stay in their current major.
Figure 4.3 Students who changed majors at their current university (n= 580)
68
Figure 4.4 Students first majors at their current university
These majors indicate which majors the 23% of students who changed their major originated
from (n= 133.)
69
Figure 4.5 Students who considered changing their major
This figure shows the students who didn’t change their major, if they ever considered changing
their major (n=446.)
70
Figure 4.6 Factors influencing students to not change their major
This figure shows the factors as to why students considering to change their major did not
follow through with it (n= 205.)
Factors influencing major choice
When evaluating all students, regardless of them changing majors or not, it was indicated
that “attending Graduate/Professional School” and “aligning with career aspirations” were the
top factors that influenced their current or past major choice. (Figure 4.7). Out of those students
who changed their major, 75.81% of students changed their major at least once, as observed in
Table 4.2. Of the students who changed their majors, 47.58% of students changed their majors
during their freshman year. This data supports findings in Chapter II. As observed in Figure 4.8
“Disinterest in old major”, followed by “Course work” and “Change in career goals” were the
top three factors as to why students changed their major. Knowing this, a great internal
marketing strategy for potential recruits would be to highlight the many diverse post-graduate
opportunities within poultry science, along with the coursework offered within the curriculums.
71
Figure 4.7 Factors influencing students’ who did not change their major, major choice
Factors which influenced students’ majors, for those students who selected “No” when asked if
they have changed the majors at their current university (n=449.) Factors are indicated on the x-
axis.
Table 4.2 Number of times students changed their major at current university (n=124)
Number of times changed
major
Percentage of students
Total n
1
75.81%
94
2
16.94%
21
3
4.84%
6
4
2.42%
3
5+
0%
0
72
Figure 4.8 Factors influencing students to change majors (n= 303)
As observed in figure 4.8, “Disinterest in old major” is indicated as the top factor as to why
students are changing their majors.
Utilization of Advisors
As observed in Table 4.3 most students (66%) did seek their advisor’s advice when
pursuing a major change, showing that advisors potentially have an influence on what major
students switch to, when looking to change majors. Despite students seeking advisors’ guidance,
87.10% of students already know what major they want to switch to before meeting with their
advisor, as observed in Table 4.3.
73
Table 4.3 Students’ utilization of advisors
Question
Yes (%)
No (%)
Total n
Students seeking
advisors’ help when
changing majors
66.13%
33.87%
124
Students already have
a new major in mind
when looking to
change majors
87.10%
12.90%
124
Nonpoultry undergraduate students
Nonpoultry students indicated that only 37% of students knew they could major in
poultry science even though it is offered at their university as seen in Figure 4.9. These results
compare to Berry et al., (1991) which indicated a potential lack of knowledge of the
opportunities within poultry. This could potentially be due to a lack of students enrolling in
poultry science and may potentially need to be addressed at the university admissions level.
74
Knowledge of poultry science
Figure 4.9 Students knowing poultry science is a major (n=443)
Interest in poultry
When evaluating students’ initial interest in poultry, only 16% of students had an
intention in taking a poultry course (Table 4.4). Proving students have an initial disinterest in
poultry. Only 12.87% of students considered majoring in poultry science (Table 4.4). Even
though this seems like a low percentage, this could numerically double or triple some poultry
departments (Wells et al., 2019).
75
Table 4.4 Students’ interest in taking a poultry course pre- poultry information
Question
Yes (%)
No (%)
Total n
Students taking or
plan on taking
poultry courses
16.18%
83.82%
513
Students who
considered majoring
in poultry science
12.87%
87.13%
513
After presented with poultry post-graduate opportunities and opportunities for current
poultry science majors, 71.08% of students demonstrated an interest in taking a poultry course
(Table 4.5). However, if the poultry course counted towards a credit (i.e., social science) within
their curriculum, 77% of students presented an interest in completing a poultry course
(Table 4.5). This was a complete turnaround from when students were first prompted this
question, proving this to be a potential measure that could be utilized to increase exposure of
poultry science to nonpoultry students.
Table 4.5 Students’ interest in taking a poultry course post-poultry information
Question
Yes (%)
Maybe (%)
No (%)
Total n
Students
indicating an
interest in
enrolling in a
poultry course
23.63%
47.45%
28.92%
491
Students interest
in taking a poultry
course if included
in their major
curriculum
77.39%
N/A
22.61%
491
The number of students indicating an interest in enrolling in a poultry course after informed of
the opportunities within poultry science (n= 491.) For the calculations of percentages and to keep
all results uniform, selected “Maybe” responses were considered and combined with “Yes”
responses.
76
To determine if there was a change in interest of poultry from before students were
presented with the bulleted information about opportunities within poultry; questions 23, 30, and
31 (Appendix D) were utilized. Question 23 asked students of their interest in taking a poultry
course before presented with information pertaining to poultry. Question 30 and 31 were
displayed after students were informed of the opportunities within poultry. Question 30 asked
students of their interest in completing a poultry course even if it was not included in their
major’s curriculum. Question 31 also asked students of their interest in completing a poultry
course if it was included in their curriculum. Universities “B,” “D,” and “E” were excluded from
this data analysis due to little or no responses for the following questions. A significant
difference was observed (P< 0.0001) when comparing Questions 23 and 30 (Table 4.6). This
indicated that students would be interested in taking a poultry course. A significant difference
was also observed when comparing Questions 23 and 31(Table 4.7). This demonstrates that
students want to take an introductory poultry course if implemented into their curriculum.
When determining if BCH and AS majors, alone, showed a significant difference
between these questions no significant differences were observed (P= 0.09), although this is
evidence of a trend and shows a numerical difference (Table 4.8). However, a significant
difference was observed (P=0.0366) between Questions 23 and 31(Table 4.9). This demonstrates
that students are willing to take a poultry course if it is implemented into the curriculum (i.e., a
social science credit) as opposed to the course not being in the curriculum. By incorporating an
already established poultry course as a social science credit into other majors’ curriculum,
exposure to poultry could increase. Thus, causing less effort and cost on department personnel,
as well as increasing students options in social science credit availability. This could potentially
77
appeal to students who are looking for a new major or expose them to a new career path that they
did not know existed.
Table 4.6 Significance of student interest in taking a poultry course prior to bulleted
information on careers
Have you taken or plan on
taking any poultry courses?
Would you EVER consider taking a poultry
course?
LSMEAN
LSMEAN
P-value
14.05
65.14
<0.0001*
*P ≤ .05
(All students from MSU, University “A,” and University “C”)
Table 4.7 Significance of student interest in taking a poultry course post bulleted information
on careers
Have you taken or plan on
taking any poultry courses?
Would you consider taking an
introductory poultry course if the credits
counted towards your CURRENT major
curriculum?
LSMEAN
LSMEAN
P-value
14.05
79.67
<0.0001*
*P ≤ .05
(All students from MSU, University “A,” and University “C”)
78
Table 4.8 Significance of student interest in taking a poultry course prior to bulleted
information on careers
Have you taken or plan on taking any
poultry courses?
Would you EVER consider taking a
poultry course?
LSMEAN
LSMEAN
P-value
21.65
75.80
<0.09
* P ≤ .05
(Only BCH and AS students from MSU, University “A”, and University “C”)
Table 4.9 Significance of student interest in taking a poultry course post bulleted information
on careers
Have you taken or plan on taking any
poultry courses?
Would you consider taking an
introductory poultry course if the
credits counted towards your
CURRENT major curriculum?
LSMEAN
LSMEAN
P-value
21.65
88.68
<0.03*
* P ≤ .05
(Only BCH and AS students from MSU, University “A”, and University “C”)
When asked if students would be interested in majoring in poultry science, again, only
23% of students showed an interest in majoring in poultry science after presented with the
opportunities for poultry science graduates (Table 4.10). This may seem like a small percentage
however, 23% is over 100 students who would potentially change to poultry, which would
double or triple some poultry departments. In addition, after being presented with the economic
impact, starting salary, and job placement upon graduation, 30.28% of students indicated an
interest in majoring in poultry science (Table 4.10).
79
Table 4.10 Students’ interest in majoring in poultry post poultry information
Question
Yes (%)
No (%)
Total n
Students’ interest in
majoring in poultry after
knowing poultry
opportunities
23.09%
76.91%
498
Students’ interest in
majoring in poultry
science after knowing
economic impact, starting
salary, and 100% job
placement upon
graduation
30.28%
69.72%
492
This table indicates students’ interest in majoring in poultry science after knowing of the
opportunities majoring in poultry science has to offer, showing only 23% of students would
major in poultry science. From these results, it was identified that students are interested in
taking poultry courses. In fact, 80% of AS and BCH show an interest in taking a poultry course.
From these data, it appears that even though students did not care to change their major to
poultry science, they were interested in taking a poultry course which could still lead to exposure
of poultry science. Perhaps if nonpoultry students who enroll in a poultry course decide to
change their major, they will already have some knowledge and exposure to the industry. More
and more nonpoultry graduates are finding employment within the poultry industry, by providing
these students with an introductory poultry course, this gives a bit of foundation and knowledge
of the industry they could potentially be entering in their future careers.
Poultry undergraduate students
In relation to current poultry science students, 88% of students are satisfied with majoring
in poultry science, as observed in Figure 4.10. More notably, 100% of students would not change
their major from poultry science (Figure 4.11). As demonstrated in Figure 4.12, 56.36% of
students selected poultry science as their first major. These results differ from Pardue, (1990),
which indicates less than 35% of respondents selected poultry science as their initial major,
80
demonstrating an increase in students’ interest in poultry. Those students who did not choose
poultry science as their first major, originally selected animal science, presented in Table 4.11,
indicating once again a potential target area for recruitment.
Figure 4.10 Poultry students’ satisfaction with major
Poultry science students are indeed satisfied with their major (n=51.) The answer choices
“Somewhat satisfied” and “Extremely satisfied” were combined in order to calculate percentage
of satisfaction.
81
Figure 4.11 Poultry students’ likeliness to change majors
This figure demonstrates that 100% of poultry science students are unlikely to change their
major (n= 51.) The responses “Extremely unlikely”, “Somewhat unlikely” and “Neither likely
nor unlikely” were combined as “Unlikely”.
82
Figure 4.12 Poultry science students who selected poultry science as their first major
This figure represents the number of students who selected poultry science as their first major
vs. those who did not (n=55.)
83
Table 4.11 Movement of current poultry science students who switched into poultry science
from another major
Major
Number of students
Animal Science
9
Political science
1
Agriculture Education
1
Chemistry
1
Biology
2
Engineering
2
Agribusiness
1
Health
2
Total
19
84
Open-ended Question
From the open-ended question at the end of the survey, students expressed interest in
poultry science as seen in Table 4.12.
Table 4.12 Open-ended student responses
Open ended questions
“…I do find poultry production very interesting…”
“Poultry science will always have a demand and will always be waiting on me it I want to
make that decision.”
“… I don’t really have a specific future plan. So, seeing that poultry could also be a part of
that list is nice.”
“…I would consider taking a class of it [poultry science] if it counted towards my current
degree.”
“I have a focus in meat science, and I think that poultry should be included in the curriculum.
It seems strange to me that we do not study the most widely consumed protein or the
industry.”
“…I would 100% major in poultry science.”
“I would have done this [major in poultry science] if I had known about it when I first got to
college. In too deep now to change.”
“I considered poultry science as one of my top 3 major choices, but I didn’t know where I
could go with the major. I feel if this department is a bit more thoroughly explained to
incoming freshman and others, it would gain more interest…”
“There are tons of opportunity within this major with so many different career paths.
Everyone I know that gets into it have absolutely loved it.”
“I plan on minoring in Poultry Science. I was originally going to double major, but minoring
was more possible…”
At the end of the survey, students were provided an open-ended question; this table shows
several highlighted responses.
85
Not all questions presented in the online survey (Appendix D) were represented in these
results due to either simply being introductory questions, repeating other questions, or not
holding enough significance for the objectives of this study. A total of 10 questions were
removed from analysis.
Advisors and Faculty
The data from this study were collected to determine advisors’ perceptions in students’
major choice, factors influencing students to switch majors, as well as willingness to expose
students to poultry. Of the total population (n=110) of advisors and faculty within CALS,
seventy-four advisors/faculty fully participated and completed the online survey, providing a
response rate of 67.27%. Of the advisor and faculty who responded, as observed in Table 4.13,
11.25% of the responses were from MSU, 17.27% from University “A”, 4.55% from University
“B”, 18.18% from University “C”, 13.64% from University “D”, and 10% form University “E”.
Table 4.8 deems the total number of responses both faculty and advisors, 65.45% of the
responses being from advisors and 34.55% from faculty. In Table 4.14, the distribution of only
faculty responses can be identified. Table 4.15 shows the distribution of responses for advisors
only.
86
Table 4.13 Number of advisor/faculty survey responses from each major at each university
Majors
MSU
University
“A”
University
“B”
University
“C”
University
“D”
University
“E”
Biochemistry
2
0
N/A
5
N/A
N/A
Animal Science
3
0
0
4
5
4
Agribusiness
7
N/A
1
1
3
2
Life Sciences
9
N/A
0
2
N/A
N/A
Nutrition
7
8
4
4
5
5
Biological and
Argi
Engineering
N/A
5
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Biological
Sciences
N/A
6
N/A
N/A
2
N/A
Poultry Science
N/A
N/A
N/A
4
N/A
N/A
Total
28
19
5
20
15
11
This table observes the number of advisor/faculty survey responses from each major at each
university. Those indicated with N/A were departments not housed in CALS at that particular
university, therefore data was not collected. Those shown with a zero represents no response
from that particular major.
87
Table 4.14 Number of non-advisor faculty survey responses from each major at each
university
Major
MSU
University
“A”
University
“B”
University
“C”
University
“D”
University
“E”
Biochemistry
1
0
N/A
2
N/A
N/A
Animal
Science
1
0
0
2
3
2
Agribusiness
1
N/A
0
0
0
1
Nutrition
2
N/A
0
2
N/A
N/A
Poultry
Sciences
2
3
0
2
3
2
Life Sciences
N/A
2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Biological
Sciences
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
0
N/A
Biological and
Agri
Engineering
N/A
N/A
N/A
2
N/A
N/A
Total
7
5
0
10
6
5
This table outlines the number of non-advisor faculty survey responses from each major at each
university. Those indicated with N/A were departments not housed in CALS at that particular
university, therefore data was not collected. Those shown with a zero represents no response
from that particular major.
88
Table 4.15 Number of advisor survey responses from each major at each university
Major
MSU
University
“A”
University
“B”
University
“C”
University
“D”
University
“E”
Biochemistry
1
0
N/A
3
N/A
N/A
Animal Science
2
0
0
2
2
2
Agribusiness
6
N/A
1
1
3
1
Nutrition
7
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
Poultry
Sciences
5
5
4
2
2
3
Life Sciences
N/A
3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Biological
Sciences
N/A
6
N/A
N/A
2
N/A
Biological and
Agri
Engineering
N/A
N/A
N/A
2
N/A
N/A
Total
21
14
5
10
9
6
This table outlines the number of advisor survey responses from each major at each university.
Those indicated with N/A were departments not housed in CALS at that particular university,
therefore data was not collected. Those shown with a zero represents no response from that
particular major.
Non-advisor faculty
Nonpoultry
Similar to the student survey, nonpoultry faculty were then prompted with a series of
information in bulleted form of opportunities for students within poultry; these included careers
aligning with poultry and opportunities with majoring in poultry science. Faculty were then
asked, “Knowing this, would they consider inviting a poultry personnel to guest lecture in one of
their courses?”. As presented in Figure 4.13, 76.47% of nonpoultry faculty selected “Yes” for
the previous stated question.
89
Figure 4.13 Nonpoultry faculty’s willingness to allow a poultry personnel to guest lecture in
one of their courses
This graph shows nonpoultry faculty’s willingness to allow a poultry personnel to guest lecture
in one of their courses (n=17.)
Poultry
In regard to exposing nonpoultry students to poultry science, 90.91% of poultry
faculty are willing to offer an introductory poultry course for nonpoultry students (Table 4.16).
Similarly, 90.91% of poultry faculty, are willing to guest lecture in courses for other majors
pertaining to opportunities within poultry science (Table 4.16). Surprisingly, 100% of faculty
indicated an interest in offering a joint production class with an Animal Science or other ag-
related professor, in order to increase exposure of poultry science to nonpoultry students (Table
4.16). This data suggest that poultry faculty are on board to exposing nonpoultry students to
poultry science, as well as meeting the student demand for poultry courses as found in the
undergraduate survey.
90
Table 4.16 Poultry faculty’s willingness to expose nonpoultry students to poultry
Question
Yes (%)
No (%)
Total n
Willingness to offer an
introductory poultry
course to nonpoultry
students
90.91%
9.09%
11
Willingness to guest
lecture in nonpoultry
courses about poultry
opportunities
90.91%
9.09%
11
Willingness to offer a
joint production class
with another ag-related
professor
100%
0%
11
Advisors
Perception on students’ majors
In reference to students changing majors, advisors indicated that most students change
majors within their sophomore year (Table 4.17). This differs from previous data which
concluded that students change majors in their freshman year. Advisors deemed spring semester
of students’ freshman year to be the semester most students drop out of the university entirely
(Table 4.18). With students deciding to change majors or dropout so early in their college
careers, early intervention is needed to recruit these students into a potentially “better-fit” major
potentially increasing CALS and university retention. This supports the idea of introducing
students to poultry within an introductory course, as this period of time is when students would
most likely take these courses.
In regard to students seeking to change their major, advisors suggest students to
consider, “Interest” and “Career availability”, as seen in Figure 4.14. Advisors who selected
“Other” pertained to graduation timelines and students already knowing what they wanted to
91
change their major to. In reference to students switching majors, advisors indicated that most
student change their major to Animal Science followed by Agribusiness (Figure 4.15). However,
Chapters II and III indicated that Animal Science and Agribusiness are majors with lower
retention rates. Suggesting that advisors are advising students to change into majors that already
have retention issues.
Table 4.17 The semester in which most student switch majors is seen at students’ spring
semester of their sophomore year (n= 49)
Semester
Percentage
Fall Freshman
6.52%
Spring Freshman
19.57%
Fall Sophomore
30.43%
Spring Sophomore
36.96%
Fall Junior
4.35%
Spring Junior
2.17%
Fall Senior
0%
Spring Senior
0%
92
Table 4.18 The semester in which most students drop out of the university entirely is seen at
students’ spring semester of their freshman year (n= 48)
Semester
Percentage
Fall Freshman
6.52%
Spring Freshman
28.26%
Fall Sophomore
13.04%
Spring Sophomore
23.91%
Fall Junior
13.04%
Spring Junior
8.70%
Fall Senior
4.35%
Spring Senior
2.17%
93
Figure 4.14 Topic suggestions by advisor when guiding students on switching major (n=116)
This graph shows the topic suggestions by advisors when guiding students on switching majors.
These factors are represented on the x- axis.
94
Figure 4.15 Advisors indicate most common majors’ students switch into from their respective
department (n=41)
The following graph shows the top majors in which most student switch into according to
advisors
Perception on factors influencing students to switch majors
When observing what factors influenced students to switch majors, it was recorded that
“Change in career goals”, followed by “Course work” and “Disinterest” were the top three
factors as to why students changed their major (Figure 4.16). This aligns with the student
responses as well as Cole and Fanno’s (1999) study. The advisors who selected “Other” as a
factor, identified “low salary in career” and “lack of research opportunities” as a factor of why
students are leaving their major. It is important to note that these areas are focal recruitment
areas of poultry science, due to poultry having 100% job placement after graduation, and higher
starting salaries. By advisors understanding post-graduate opportunities for poultry graduates,
perhaps nonpoultry advisors could advise those students looking to change majors to consider
poultry due to diverse post-graduate opportunities. Majoring in poultry science could potentially
95
be a “better-fit” for some students if their career goals align with poultry science. In regard to
students dropping out of the university, advisors select “Poor academic standing” and
“Coursework” as the top two leading factors, as demonstrated in Figure 4.17.
Figure 4.16 Advisors identify factors which influence students to leave their current major
(n=106.) The following graph indicates these factors which are represented on the
x-axis.
96
Figure 4.17 Advisors identify factors which influence students to leave their respective
universities entirely (n=137)
The following graph indicates these factors which are represented on the x-axis. The elaboration
for the option “Other” is considering students’ finances.
Nonpoultry advisor willing to inform students about opportunities within poultry
Same as the students, after these questions, nonpoultry advisors were then prompted with
a series of information in bulleted form of opportunities for students within poultry. These
included careers aligning with poultry and opportunities with majoring in poultry science.
Advisors were then asked, “Knowing this, would they consider advising students of the
opportunities with majoring in poultry science and post graduate employment within the
industry.”
After presented with poultry post-graduate opportunities and opportunities for current
poultry science majors, 67% of advisors would be willing to advise students about the
97
opportunities within poultry when seeking to change majors, as seen in Table 4.19. This can be
deemed beneficial as identified previously that 66% of students seek their advisor’s guidance
when pursuing a major change. Advisors are even more willing to invite a poultry guest lecturer
into an introductory course/seminar within their department, with 87% selecting “Yes”, as
observed in Table 4.19. From this table (4.19) it can be concurred that advisors are willing to
advise and expose students to the opportunities within poultry science. However, when prompted
if advisors would be willing to allow an introductory poultry course into their curriculum, 77%
of advisors were not receptive to this notion (Table 4.19). The results from this data, indicate that
there is a clear disconnect between nonpoultry students and advisors. With 77% of advisors
hesitant in allowing a poultry course into their curriculum and 77% of students who indicated
that they want a poultry course in their respective majors’ curriculum.
Table 4.19 Nonpoultry advisors’ willingness to expose students to poultry
Question
Yes (%)
No (%)
Total n
Willingness to advise students about
the opportunities within poultry
66.67%
33.33%
30
Willingness to allow a poultry guest
lecture in an introductory
course/seminar within their department
86.67%
13.33%
30
Willingness to allow an introductory
poultry course within their curriculum
23.33%
76.67%
30
Poultry advisors willing to expose nonpoultry students to poultry
Through data collected, 100% of advisors would consider offering an introductory
poultry course to nonpoultry students (Table 4.20), guest lecture in courses for other majors
(Table 4.20) and hold a joint production class with an animal science or other ag-related
professor (Table 4.20); all in hopes to increase exposure to poultry. By poultry personnel acting
98
on these aspects it could potentially add to their promotion and tenure packets as service to the
department. An increase in poultry student numbers will also lead to an increase in potential
research and recruitment funds.
Table 4.20 Poultry advisors’ willingness to expose nonpoultry students to poultry
Question
Yes (%)
No (%)
Total n
Willingness to offer an
introductory poultry course to
nonpoultry students
100%
0%
16
Willingness to allow a poultry
guest lecture in nonpoultry
courses
100%
0%
16
Willingness to offer a joint
production class with another
ag-related professor
100%
0%
16
As mentioned previously throughout this Chapter, students are willing to learn about
poultry and poultry professors are willing to offer courses to these students; however, their
respective advisors are hesitant in granting students the ability to partake in this opportunity.
Recruitment
At the end of the survey, all participants were prompted to provide insight to their
internal recruitment practices. Data collected indicates that 47.83% of faculty and advisors are
actively internally recruiting within their colleges (Table 4.21) and 45.65% are actively internally
recruiting within their university (Table 4.21). As these data present, there are potentially large
areas within universities’ backdoors to recruit students. By practicing internal recruitment, less
resources will be utilized, along with personnel, cost, and time, deeming to be an efficient form
of recruitment well worth utilizing. Internal recruitment has the potential to decrease university
99
dropout rates, increase CALS retention, as well as aiding to meet demand for qualified
employees within the poultry industry.
Table 4.21 Advisors practicing internal recruitment
Question
Yes (%)
No (%)
Total n
Practicing internal
recruitment within
their college
47.83%
52.17%
46
Practicing internal
recruitment within
their university
45.65%
54.35%
46
100
References
Barkley, A. P., & Parrish, D. (2005). The Selection of a Major Field of Study in the College of
Agriculture at Kansas State University (No. 378-2016-21442).
Berry, J., Reynells, R., Hewlett, M., Pescatore, T., & Bell, D. (1991). Retention of Poultry
Faculty and Poultry Departments. NACTA Journal, 35(2), 21-24.
Chapman, D. W. (1981). A model of student college choice. The Journal of Higher
Education, 52(5), 490-505.
Cole, L., & Fanno, W. (1999). Survey of early leavers: Implications for recruitment and
retention. NACTA journal, 53-56.
Herren, C. D., Cartmell, D. D., & Robertson, J. T. (2011). Perceptions of influence on college
choice by students enrolled in a college of agricultural sciences and natural
resources. NACTA Journal, 55(3), 54-60.
Malgwi, C. A., Howe, M. A., & Burnaby, P. A. (2005). Influences on students' choice of college
major. Journal of education for business, 80(5), 275-282.
Pardue, S. L. (1990). Enrollment trends and recruitment strategies for undergraduate programs of
poultry science. Poultry Science, 69(4), 563-567.
Porter, S. R., & Umbach, P. D. (2006). College major choice: An analysis of person–
environment fit. Research in higher education, 47(4), 429-449.
Qualtrics. 2021. Qualtrics Software. Accessed Feb. 2021 https://www.qualtrics.com
Rayfield, J., Murphrey, T. P., Skaggs, C., & Shafer, J. (2013). Factors that influence student
decisions to enroll in a college of agriclture and life sciences. NACTA Journal, 49(1), 88-
93.
SAS Institute Inc 2013. SAS/ACCESS® 9.4 Interface to ADABAS: Reference. Cary, NC: SAS
Institute Inc.
Snetsinger, D. C. (1992). Poultry science training—what industry needs. Poultry science, 71(8),
1308-1312.
Thielen S.L. 2012. Factors influencing urban students to major in agriculture. Ph.D. Diss. Kansas
State Univ., Manhattan, Kansas.
Wells, J. B. (2019). Assessment of Recruiting Methods to Enhance Poultry Science
Undergraduate Programs. Mississippi State University.
101
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION
Summary
The poultry industry is constantly expanding. The National Chicken Council predicts that
the consumption of poultry will be 114.1 pounds per year in 2022; surpassing beef and pork
(National Chicken Council, 2021). With the industry increasing there comes a high number of
jobs needing to be filled by poultry science graduates; however, with only 110 graduates each
year this creates a challenge (Wells et al., 2019). As previously mentioned, there has been a
decline in poultry departments due to decrease interest and support leading to 44 departments
becoming only 6 nationwide (Beck 1992). Therefore, recruiting students into poultry science
departments is necessary to meet this demand. Many efforts have been focused on external
recruitment strategies; with little to none on the possibility of internal recruitment within CALS
departments at the six remaining poultry degree granting universities.
In Chapter, II an evaluation of retention trends in CALS departments at MSU was
performed to determine possible areas of internal recruitment. With utilization of the GPS
software, it was determined that most students change their major or leave the university within
their freshman year. A university retention rate of 59% was calculated amongst CALS students.
It was also determined that the BCH and AS departments at MSU have the lowest retention rates
within CALS, with having the greatest number of students leaving the major (72%) and leaving
the university (71%). Thus, providing a total of 145 potential recruits; this number could
102
numerically triple MSU’s poultry science departments. Results from this study led to the
subsequent study in Chapter III, to see how these trends at MSU compared to the five other
poultry degree granting universities.
In Chapter III, the six poultry degree granting universities’ Offices of Institutional
Research and Effectiveness were contacted in order to obtain their corresponding universities’
CALS retention rates. These results solidified results found in Chapter II, utilizing the GPS
software, BCH and AS were observed to have the lowest retention rates within the college at
MSU. When comparing MSU to the other universities, Animal Science departments readily
proved to have one of the lowest retention rates. Again, justifying being a potential target area
for internal recruitment; with a total of 1089 students across all 4 universities that submitted data.
However, students’ perceptions of poultry science needed to be evaluated, thus leading to the
study in Chapter IV.
In Chapter IV, it was determined that 23% of students changed their major at least once;
out of these students 31% were BCH majors and 22% were AS majors. Students indicated that
their change of major was due to a disinterest in their old majors followed by coursework and a
change in career goals. Only, 37% of students knew that they could major in poultry science
even though it was offered at their university. Before presented with information of the
opportunities within the poultry industry only 16% of students were interested in enrolling in a
poultry course, however after presented with the information this percentage jumped to 71.08%.
This did not prove to be a significant difference; however, when asked if students would be
interested in completing a poultry course if it counted towards their curriculum, 77% of students
selected “Yes” (P=0.03). From this data, it was indicated that students are not necessarily
inclined to taking a poultry course unless it counts towards their curriculum such as a social
103
science credit. Only 23% of students indicated, a want to major in poultry science after presented
with the opportunities available when majoring in poultry science. Again, 23% may seem like a
small percentage; however, this could numerically double or even triple some poultry science
departments. Even though some students were not interested in majoring in poultry science, they
were interested in enrolling in a poultry course which could lead to exposure of poultry science.
This in turn would plant a seed into these students, and perhaps if these students decide to change
their major, they know poultry science is now an option for them. Also, with preexposure these
students might be more inclined to major in poultry or at the very least work within the industry
one day. This coursework could also aid those students who choose to work within the industry
in providing some poultry knowledge prior to their career in the industry. Unfortunately, even
with students showing an interest in enrolling in a poultry course, nonpoultry advisors (77%) are
hesitant to allowing poultry into their curriculum; showing a disconnect between students and
advisors.
From these findings, internal recruitment can be a new recruitment strategy amongst
CALS departments, specifically poultry science, in order to increase CALS retention, and
university retention, as well as the number of poultry science students. With an increase in
poultry science students comes an increase in poultry graduates, thus potentially meeting the
demand for qualified poultry employees. Poultry science departments should take advantage of
internal recruitment practices amongst the continuation of current external recruitment strategies,
for optimal chances of increasing student numbers. In addition, the goal of this study is not to
“take” students from other departments but rather potentially place those students who would
leave those departments or university anyway and place them into poultry departments. Internal
recruiting will in turn potentially increase university retention. Without continuation of recruiting
104
students into poultry science departments, there will cease to be poultry science graduates and
potentially delay future advancements within the poultry industry.
Limitations
Findings support the statements presented above, but there are limitations to this research.
When utilizing the GPS software only first-time freshman were utilized for this study. Due to
poultry science students mostly being transfer students, it might be of interest to look at transfer
student retention trends and possibly compare each study. By including transfer students, this
would answer if transfer students came into the major/university knowing what they want to do
as well as compare these findings to freshman. Students’ demographics were not included in this
study and could potentially be a factor to investigate. It is also important to note that when
utilizing the GPS software several majors were excluded due to either the termination or creation
of these majors. The return rate for the Offices of Effective Institutional Research was only
66.67% representing only four out of the six poultry degree granting universities. However,
when viewing these universities, they house, numerically, the four largest poultry departments.
When viewing the undergraduate survey responses, there were only 584 with 527
students who fully completed the survey; this being much less than half of the population of
students contacted. Not every department contacted completed the survey; in fact, several
department heads were not supportive of the survey; and did not pass the survey on to students or
faculty. Disclosing the benefits of completing this survey might assist head of departments’
willingness to distribute the surveys. Thoroughly explaining to heads of departments that this
research is not an attempt to “steal” nonpoultry students but rather provide those students who
are already planning on leaving with a practical option could potentially lead to gaining their
support. Within the responses, three of the six poultry degree granting universities only had
105
poultry science undergraduate responses and those only exceeding ten responses total. MSU was
the only universities that had a response from all majors contacted. Again, the universities that
housed the highest number of responses were the universities with the numerically larger poultry
departments. The advisor survey responses followed suit with the undergraduate survey
responses. With only 110 advisors and faculty responses, and only seventy-four fully completing
the survey. However, unlike the students’ survey, four out of the six universities had a
representative from each department contacted to complete the survey.
Aside from the number of responses collected, one must take into consideration that those
completing the survey are only currently enrolled students. As well as some students were not
necessarily in the major observed but housed in the same department as those who were. Also,
when viewing responses, not all surveys were completed, hence why the response numbers vary
throughout this thesis. It is also possible that some questions were repeated or not phrased
correctly and could have swaying answers depending on verbiage. Another limitation is the
limited amount of data in the current study. With only receiving data form the six poultry science
degree granting universities, small variations in survey data have the potential to have large
impacts on results obtained.
Future Research
Even though limitations within this research exist, these data provide leverage/foundation
for future research. Future researchers should take into consideration the ability to gather
retention trends within CALS at universities. A collective database that archives longitudinal
data about universities and colleges could be helpful for future research in collecting/ observing
these trends. If data were managed properly, higher quality data could be obtained to help further
these departments and universities in student numbers. Future research should consider all land
106
grant universities; primarily focusing on those with an animal science department. Perceptions of
current enrolled students are observed in this study; however, looking at past students might be
beneficial. Another factor might also be gaining industry insight on how beneficial taking a
poultry course would be in relevance to success within the industry. It might also be important to
analyze how marketable graduates from other majors are compared to poultry science graduates
or even those with poultry science minors within the industry.
In order to close the gap between nonpoultry students and advisors, a solution would be a
poultry course into their respective curriculums and/or developments of partnerships between
departments, universities, and industry personnel. All which can potentially lead to revising
curriculums in order to accommodate students, and developments of poultry science certificate
programs. All of these have been proven to be affective in many other programs (Kennedy &
Agnew, 1998; Lower & Quarles, 1975; Payne, 1923; Tully, 1937; Anderson, 1953; Johnson et.
al, 2017; Cannon et. al, 2001; Lohman, 2007; Bosworth, 2011; and “Prospective Students”,
2021). As proven through previous literature and data collected, if 10% of students are recruited
through communication with a department representative the other 90% may go through poultry
certificate programs. It may be beneficial and more effective to primarily focus on creating
poultry certificate programs (“Prospective Students”, 2021). As it is not feasible to create more
poultry science departments, developing poultry certificate programs would be a suitable
compromise. Creating a poultry certificate program would educate AS and other major students
from land grant universities without a poultry science department. A certificate program may
also be beneficial for industry personnel to utilize as a training tool for nonpoultry science
graduates (Wickenhauser, 2021). This will also allow the industry to spark partnerships amongst
universities in order to help universities in providing more qualified employees for the industry.
107
Along with creating partnerships between universities and the industry, another form of future
research would be surveying industry personnel for insight as to what skills/knowledge graduates
need in order to be successful within the industry. “Consolidation has further removed industry
from its contacts with the college administration and diluted academic influence in the poultry
complex.” (Bigbee and Shaffner, 1972). A lack of industry support and partnerships can
potentially aid in the decrease of poultry graduates.
