TPC-Journal-V5-Issue1

The Professional Counselor /Volume 5, Issue 1 130 Results Research question one examined the top factors participants considered and wished they had considered more when making a counseling program enrollment decision ( n = 328). As shown in Table 1, results indicated the following rank order for the top 10 factors that influenced participants’ enrollment decisions: (a) location at 33.6%, (b) program accreditation at 14.0%, (c) funding/scholarships at 12.2%, (d) program prestige at 8.6%, (e) faculty at 7.7%, (f) program/course philosophy at 4.2%, (g) program acceptance at 3.9%, (h) faith at 3.9%, (i) schedule/flexibility at 3.6% and (j) research interests at 2.4%. The top 10 factors that participants wished they had considered more when making their enrollment decisions included the following: (a) “none” at 42.3%, (b) funding/scholarships at 15.2%, (c) program accreditation at 12.8%, (d) faculty at 6.8%, (e) research interests at 5.1%, (f) program prestige at 4.5%, (g) networking opportunities at 3.6%, (h) location at 2.4%, (i) schedule/ flexibility at 1.5% and (j) personal career goals at 1.2%. Further analysis indicated the following three factors that participants at non-CACREP-accredited programs ( n = 106) wished they had considered more when making an enrollment decision: (a) program accreditation at 31.8%, (b) “none” at 30.8% and (c) funding/ scholarships at 9.3%. Table 1 Counseling Students’ Enrollment Decision Factors Factors Participants Considered Factors Participants Wished They Had Considered More Factor ranked order % of n Factor ranked order % of n Location 33.6 None 42.3 Program accreditation 14.0 Funding/scholarships 15.2 Funding/scholarships 12.2 Program accreditation 12.8 Program prestige 8.6 Faculty 6.8 Faculty 7.7 Research interests 5.1 Program/course philosophy 4.2 Program prestige 4.5 Program acceptance 3.9 Networking opportunities 3.6 Faith 3.9 Location 2.4 Schedule/flexibility 3.6 Schedule/flexibility 1.5 Research interests 2.4 Career goals 1.2 Note. n = 328 Research question two explored participants’ awareness of CACREP accreditation prior to ( n = 308) and following enrollment ( n = 309) in graduate-level counseling programs. Before enrollment, only one quarter (24.7%) of the sample indicated being “familiar” ( n = 49) or “very familiar” ( n = 27) with CACREP accreditation. The remaining 75.3% of the sample reported less awareness of CACREP accreditation prior to enrollment, with these participants reporting only being “somewhat familiar” ( n = 93) or “not familiar” ( n = 139) with CACREP accreditation. In contrast, following enrollment in graduate-level counseling programs, nearly three quarters (73.1%) of the sample noted either being “familiar” ( n = 124) or “very familiar” ( n = 102) with CACREP accreditation. The remaining 26.9% of participants reported being “somewhat familiar” ( n = 66) or “not familiar” ( n = 17). Overall, the percentage of all students reporting that they were either “familiar” or “very familiar” with CACREP accreditation increased by 48.4% following enrollment in graduate-level counseling programs. Consideration was given to potential differences in familiarity with CACREP accreditation among (a) doctoral- and master’s-level students and (b) students attending CACREP- and non-CACREP programs. For those students enrolled in a master’s-level program ( n = 276), regardless of program accreditation status, 21%