PROS & CONS OF TARGET RESPONDEN:

BETWEEN COHORT AND ENTRY OF COHORT

(CASE STUDY IN ITB)

Angga Dinan A, Bambang Setia Budi, Sandro Mihradi, Brian Yuliarto

ITB Career Center, Office of Student Affairs, Institute Technology of Bandung

Email: tracer@pusat.itb.ac.id

ABSTRACT

Tracer Study was conducted by several universities in Indonesia as a requirement of the importance of

feedback from alumni for the improvement and management of the education system. Tracer Study

implementation that runs in Indonesia generally use Tracer Study guide published by the General Director of

Higher Education (DIKTI). However, in some cases the implementation of the Tracer Study in Indonesia in

terms of methodology there are differences in approach to the determination of the target respondent. At this

time in Indonesia, generally there are two approaches in the implementation of Tracer Study based on target

respondents. The first is using the cohort, and second with the entry of cohort as a target respondents. Both of

these approaches can be taken to obtain a good/high response rate along with its requirements/criteria

respectively. These approaches, both cohort and the entry of cohort, basically equal in an attempt to obtain a

high response rate. However, in its application, both of which require further discussion in view of both of

these approaches have each terms and criteria. In its implementation, both approaches had created

dichotomy due to the results of the acquisition of the data is considered not comparable because the two

approaches already different from the determination of the target respondent. Based on these conditions, the

discussion of the application of cohort and entry of cohort becomes important because in Indonesia there was

not any rule that oblige the use of either approach.

This paper aims to discuss in more detail the two approaches of the target respondents in the implementation

of Tracer Study, which is cohort and entry of cohort. Form of presentation/comparison between cohort and

entry of cohort in addition to the explanations will be displayed as well in the form of a comparison table

based on criteria which appear on both approaches. Comparison results of the analysis between the cohort

and the entry of cohort will be presented as well.

At the end of this paper we can conclude three things about entry of cohort as a target respondents in the

implementation of Tracer Study. First, entry of a cohort approach is much better in terms of obtaining high

response rate due to strong alumni networking. As example, ITB had achieved a response rate of 49% in 2012,

72% in 2013, 80% in 2014 and 92% in 2015. Secondly, data from the study based on entry of cohort as target

respondent can also be used to analyze the result based on cohort as target respondent. For example, in 2015

ITB has conducted Tracer Study of cohort 2012 based on the data obtain from previous study (based on entry

of cohorts 2006, 2007 and 2008). Third, based on our comparison of the results from the two approaches,

there is no significant difference, therefore statistically we might say that those approaches are comparable.

Keywords: Pros & Cons, Cohort, Entry of Cohort, Tracer Study, Responden, Methodology

Introduction

Tracer Study was conducted by several universities in Indonesia as a requirement of the importance feedback

from alumni for the improvement and management of the education system. Tracer Study implementation

that runs in Indonesia generally use Tracer Study guide submitted by the General Director of Higher Education

(DIKTI). However, in some cases the implementation of the Tracer Study in Indonesia in terms of methodology

there are differences in approach to the determination of the target respondent.

At this time in Indonesia generally there are two approaches in the implementation of Tracer Study when seen

from the target respondents. The first is using the cohort, and second with the entry of cohort as a target

respondents. Both of these approaches can be taken to obtain a good/high response rate along with its

requirements/criteria respectively.

Cohort by definition is a collection of people (group). In Tracer Study, cohort is an approach in the

implementation of Tracer Study which determines the target respondents based on years of graduates. The

year graduates commonly used in cohort approach is two years after graduation. Cohort approach in the

implementation of Tracer Study generally used by most universities in the world. In Indonesia alone, cohort

used on the implementation of Tracer Study by most colleges.

Entry of cohort is another approach in the implementation of Tracer Study which determines the target

respondents based on the incoming year (class). At the entry of cohort, years graduated from the target

respondents are in the range of 1-3 years. Entry of cohort approach in Tracer Study is not commonly used by

universities in the world, especially Indonesia. Entry of cohort approach so far in Indonesia recently used by

the Institute Technology of Bandung.

Approaches in determining the target respondents, both cohort and the entry of cohort, basically were good in

an attempt to obtain a high response rate. However, in its application, both of which require further discussion

in view of these approaches have the terms and criteria of each. The presence of these approaches are also

has been created a dichotomy, due to the results of the acquisition data was considered not comparable.

The dichotomy between cohort and entry of cohort appear due to the absence of provisions (rules of thumb)

that states the graduate years used for the target respondents. Cohort generally use 2 years after graduation

while the entry of cohort using the range of 1-3 years after graduation. Furthermore, cohort approach in

reality using a certain time frame as well. In 2 years after graduation means using the target respondents

(graduates) who graduated in may, july and October (ITB case study). Until now the standard reference in the

determination of the target respondent was based on the range of 1-3 years after graduation for Indonesia

and 1-2 years after graduation for the world (UNITRACE). With the reference and better understanding of the

cohort and entry of cohort then supposedly the dichotomy that emerged should not be a problem.

This paper basically aims to discuss in detail the two approaches, which are cohort and entry of cohort, as

target respondent. Detail discussion about these two approaches at the same time trying to answer questions

such as: (i)whether the entry of cohort approach require greater cost in its implementation, (ii)whether the

entry of cohort approach as a target respondents useful on a national scale, (iii)whether data result between

cohort and entry of cohort can be compared, (iv)does the dichotomy between these approaches should

emerged. At the end of the paper, which approach/method will be used can be adapted to the

circumstances/conditions each operator of Tracer Study. It is also expected at the end that the dichotomy,

which states the compulsion to use one of the approaches in determination of the Tracer Study target

respondent, does not need to be emerged.

Methodology

In this paper, the more detail discussion about the two approaches of target respondent, cohort and entry of

cohort, in the implementation of Tracer Study will be presented/compared. The form of

presentation/comparison between cohort and entry of cohort in addition beside explanations its will also be

displayed in the form of a comparison table based on criteria which appear respectively. The data analysis

result comparability between cohort and entry of cohort will also be shown using table.

Tracer Study implementation in Indonesia has led to a dichotomy between two approaches in determination

of target respondent, i.e cohort and entry of cohort. This dichotomy emerged as no fixed mandatory rule

regarding the use of target respondents related to graduate years. However, basically both approaches were

said to be as good in the strategy of achieving a high response rate. More details on these two approaches,

criteria and the conditions of each, are described herein.

A. Tracer Study with Cohort as Target of Responden

Cohort is an approach in the implementation of Tracer Study which determines the target respondents based

on graduates year. Graduates year which used in cohort were in the range of 1-3 years (source: Illah Sailah

2011) or 1-2 years (source: Schomburg, 2011) after graduation. Graduates year commonly used in cohort

approach in Indonesia is two years after graduation. Schomburg in the Handbook for Graduate Tracer Studies

suggest for the institution that organizes Tracer Study first time, preferably the amount cohort included is as

much as 5. But after that, the implementation of the Tracer Study should be sufficient to use one cohort in one

year.

Tracer Study Implementation using cohort is generally carried out for 1 year. This condition is in accordance

with the stages of graduate survey by Schomburg in the Handbook for Graduate Tracer Studies, which divides

the 3 phases of the survey, namely Concept & Instrument Development, Data Collection and Data Analysis &

Report Writing, with each time the implementation of these stages is 4 months (total 12 months).

Cohort as an approach in the determination of the target respondent was the first step in the implementation

of Tracer Study, in this case as the database. Alumni database generally obtained from when alumni was on

their graduates day. Data obtained from the graduation is merged with the data when applying to college the

first time to complement each other shortcomings. For some universities, this database also commonly added

to the database obtained from each of the Directorate of Education (Dirdik).

Tracer Study implementation with cohort as a target respondents using methods such as email blast, SMS

blast, contact by telephone and the interviews as a step to obtain a high respond rate. These methods

generally in the implementation have standard rules in every step of its use, for example, the language used

was formal. Frequency on doing email blast, SMS blast, contact by telephone and the interviews are generally

set according to the reference that has been determined as well, such as: the first contact with the alumni

conducted in the first week of Tracer Study implementation while the second contact made 7 days later then

the third contact made 7 days after the second contact and so on in accordance with the amount of the

maximum predetermined frequency.

Tracer Study Implementation using cohort in the determination of the target respondent was commonly used

by universities in the world (mostly by the European countries that joined in UNITRACE). In Indonesia alone,

the universities which have been carrying out Tracer Study by using cohort are University of Indonesia

(experienced more than 5 years), Institute of Technology Sepuluh November (ITS), Bogor Agricultural

University (IPB) and mostly universities which have started implementing Tracer Study.

B. Tracer Study with Entry of Cohort as Target of Responden

Tracer Study implementation mostly has been conducted in various universities in the world, in Indonesia

particularly, by using cohort as target respondents. From whole Tracer Study implementation, the main issue

that emerged was the lack of response rate number. Currently response rate by 50% was said to be good, but

this number was only depict half of respondents/alumni characteristics and profile. Based on this issue,

Institute Technology of Bandung (ITB) as one of the Tracer Study operator seeks to solve this problem of

improving response rate. One of steps undertaken by ITB was to use entry of cohort as a target respondents.

The main reason to use entry of cohort due to conditions of ITB itself. At ITB, close relationship in class was a

culture that has been established since graduates first entry to university. It was develop and binding while

undergoing orientation and lectures. It was also brought up when they graduate, in work and until today.

(developed from INCHER - Schomburg)

Figure 1. Tracer Study Time

Entry of cohort is an approach in the determination of Tracer Study target respondent which based on the

entry class when go to university. The amount of class used in this approach is as much as one class for each

year. Meanwhile, the graduates year which used in the entry of cohort is in the range of 1-3 years after

graduation. 1-3 years span is basically in accordance with the provisions set forth in the General Director of

Higher Education (Dikti) Tracer Study guidelines presented by Mrs. Illah Sailah in 2011.

Figure 2. How to Choose Target Responden with Entry of Cohort (i)

The determination of class in the entry of cohort approach as Tracer Study target respondents required a

careful planning. The first step to determines the class still refers to the range of 1-3 years after graduation.

Supposely Tracer Study conducted in 2013, based on reference of the year of graduation ranges then class

which pick up as a target respondents are class 2006. Class of 2006 graduated from college in 2010 if they on

time. At ITB, alumni 2006 who delayed the graduation generally about 1-2 years. Alumni who are late up to 3

years were rarely and almost zero due to those who are late up to 3 years generally have problems that occur

regarding health reasons or other special case. The deadline for ITB students in study itself was maximum 6

years.

Figure 3. How to Choose Target Responden with Entry of Cohort (ii)

In the previous discussion, it has been mentioned if Tracer Study conducted in 2013 then the most appropriate

class for target respondents were class of 2006. Class of 2006 who graduate on time in 2010 when he became

the target respondents in 2013 they already passed 3 years. Alumni 2006 who graduated in 2011 is considered

to have two years of graduation and those who graduated in 2012 means has passed for 1 year. Based on the

reference range of 1-3 years after graduation in the Tracer Study implementation guide in Indonesia, then a

brief description above is still appropriate.

Figure 4. How to Choose Target Responden with Entry of Cohort (iii)

Technique of determining class in the following years conducting Tracer Study is the same. Tracer Study

Implementation in 2014 will used the class of 2007 while in 2015 the class used as a target respondents were

alumni of 2008. The important thing to note here is that any technique used in the determination of this class

remained essentially refers to range. In the previous discussion it can be noted that cohort approach was also

used range in determining target respondents. Its difference just lie in the ranges between them, entry of

cohort using years range while cohort based on month of graduate periode.

Entry of cohort approach in the implementation of Tracer Study is an innovation which trying to develop by

ITB, given cohort approach so far was very difficult to obtain a response rate greater than 50% (for bachelor

degree). Tracer Study operator who utilize the entry of cohort approach so far only ITB. Main reasons ITB use

and develop the entry of cohort approach in the determination of Tracer Study target respondent, among

others; (i)ITB trying to take advantage of networking that has been formed in the neighborhood of alumni

(bachelor degree) since they enroll to university, (ii) Indonesian culture of sharing, (iii)internet (social media)

used in Indonesia was quite high, (iv )looking for a new breakthrough in the implementation of Tracer Study in

order to overcome the difficulties that arise in improving the response rate.

Tracer Study Implementation using entry of cohort approach in the determination of target respondents,

based on ITB experience it is only need three months to held. During the three month time span, it was used

only for data retrieval. For the whole time, it start from preparation until reporting takes approximately 5

months (ITB case study).

Tracer Study Implementation using entry of cohort approach is advisable to use a surveyor. Surveyor is alumni

who were selected based on a representative of each program study and a recommendation from a friend of

his class. Surveyor was incorporated in the organizational structure of the Tracer Study as part of a big team.

The role of surveyors in the Tracer Study implementation was huge, especially related the effort to increase

response rate. Surveyor roles based on ITB experience among others; (i)assist in the completion and validation

of alumni database, (ii)encourage and invite friends from their class to fill in questionnaire, (iii)help provide an

explanation about Tracer Study to friends of their class, (iv)assist in the performance, provide feedback and

evaluation to secretariat team before, during and after the implementation of Tracer Study.

In the previous discussion it was known that the operator of Tracer Study obtain database respondent/alumni

from two to three sources, which are data collection from when alumni enroll the college, data collection

when graduation day and alumni database which was owned by the directorate of education (Dirdik)

respectively. The main problem of this method was data obtained had a very small validation. Validation was

small because the data obtained from all three sources not updated since alumni graduating from college

(Tracer Study conducted for alumni who have 1-3 years of graduation). A small database validation would

make it difficult to obtain a high response rate.

In the entry of cohort approach conditions above can be resolved by using the role of surveyors. Surveyor as

classmates certainly have a database of their own friends more updates. Database update from surveyor

makes enormous validation (ITB case study: data validation approaching 100%) making it possible to help

obtain a high response rate in the implementation of Tracer Study.

Planning and Preparation Tracer Study ITB Implementation

Close Questionaire and Data Analysis

Report

1st month 2nd month 3rd month

Planning StageWork plan preparation

Questionaire preparationRequest alumni database to Dirdik ITB and

PRODI ITB

Preparation StageQuestionaire trial and error

Surveyor selection and procurementUpdating alumni database by Surveyor

Upload alumni database to system

1st meeting with surveyor Email blast

Update alumni database Update questionaire

status

2nd meeting with surveyor Email blast

Update alumni database Update questionaire

status

3rd meeting with surveyor Email blast

SMS blast start on 2nd till 4th week

Contact by telephone on last week

Update alumni databaseiUpdate questionaire

status

Notification for closing the questionaire of Tracer Study

ITBData Processing

Data Analysis

Book of report preparation

Socialization the result of Tracer Study ITB

Book of report distribution

Figure 5. ITB Tracer Study Stages

Potentials owned by Indonesia that can be used as an approach in an effort to improve the response rate of

Tracer Study was like sharing culture and habits of the Indonesian people in accessing internet. For Indonesian

people, sharing culture, especially to detailed information on personal circumstances, were part in an effort to

build familiarity among individuals. The more detailed information provided, the more closely relationship

between one individual to another individual. On the other hand, the Indonesian people have a habit of

accessing the internet. Based on the description of Indonesian Internet Service Provider Association (APJII) in

2014 from 252 million Indonesian population about 88.1 million people registered using the internet. From

This total internet user, 87.4% use the Internet to access social media (source: Ansyari & Tri Haryanto, 2015).

Meanwhile in 2015, from 255.5 million of Indonesian people as much as 72.7 million people are active internet

users and 72 million of them use Internet to access social media.

The facts mentioned above was a general description of life pattern of the Indonesian people, especially the

alumni/graduate universities in Indonesia. Linkage of these facts with Tracer Study was to help the Tracer

Study team find a method that can be utilized and supported as a way of increasing the response rate. Based

on these facts as well, as one of the Tracer Study operator ITB using entry of cohort approach in determining

target respondents due to considered as support the above condition because it has a procedural concept

which was not only structural and formal, but also cultural and informal.

(source: eMarketer.com, 2014)

Figure 6. Internet User in the World (Forecast)

Structural and cultural means that Tracer Study conducted not only based on/in accordance with applicable

regulations, but also pay attention to or take advantage of the prevailing culture. Utilization of the prevailing

culture was very meaningful because it can be a decisive factor in improving the response rate. For example, in

some countries who was quite thick with the privacy acts, the response rate can be ascertained small because

respondents are less likely to fill in a questionnaire which asking something personal. Another example,

Indonesia is a country that does not apply privacy acts and has a great culture of sharing. In Indonesia, sharing

stories/experiences/personal conditions to others was not a taboo but it was something important as part of

personal admiration. Sharing culture if utilized properly it has potential to help increase response rate in Tracer

Study implementation.

(source: wearesocialsg, 2015)

Figure 7. Internet User in Indonesia

Meanwhile, formal and informal meaning that in Tracer Study, procedures for its implementation was not only

adapted to the need to follow the applicable procedures, but also are more flexible/rigid with the intention of

creating the familiarity conditions. In general, all procedures such as making contact with alumni, sending

letter of application to fiil in questionnaire, evaluation and reporting on implementation of Tracer Study were

often held with formal. These conditions create a rigid environment due to communication that occur therein

were not build intimacy. An informal approach, for example in ITB, occurs because of the role of surveyors in

each procedure of Tracer Study implementation. Surveyor's been said before was a classmate of alumni

themselves so the communication that occurs every time they make contact, either update database, email

blast, request to fill in questionnaires, encourage to filling in questionnaires, SMS blast and contact by

telephone was more to intimacy form. The informal approach makes the request for filling in questionnaire to

alumni avoid any form of enforcement.

The approach to alumni, especially when making contact through social media was a procedural concept which

properties were cultural and informal in Tracer Study. This concept provides an opportunity for ITB to

aggressively make contact on social media as part of the effort to improve the response rate in the Tracer

Study implementation to be based on facts shown that alumni until now always connected with social media,

such as facebook, whats up, twitter , etc.

(source: wearesocialsg, 2015)

Figure 8. Media Social Use by Indonesian

There is one interesting thing related entry of cohort approach in Tracer Study, which is the question: "Are the

funds needed to conduct Tracer Study with entry of cohort approach requires substantial funds?". This

question is often heard (ITB case study) due to in conducting Tracer Study with entry of cohort approach

involves the role of surveyors who are considered if they were given wages it will affect the amount of funds

needed. For ITB itself, surveyors was a part in the organizational structure and working as part-time

employees, while the ability to reward surveyor because Tracer Study ITB team obtain sufficient funds to be

used in the implementation of Tracer Study. Funds were given as a form of attention from ITB which considers

the implementation of Tracer Study provide ample feedback to the development of education systems and

institutions. In addition, the use of the surveyor was not a necessity in the entry of cohort approach but this

was only one otherway. The main thing to note in the entry of cohort approach was that this approach

emphasizes the networking (in bachelor degree), which were much stronger and have been entrenched in

Indonesia, and given so much potential to be developed in the implementation of Tracer Study in Indonesia. So

for the amount of funds on the entry of cohort approach should not use large amounts of funds but rely on the

method used in its development.

Tracer Study Implementation generally provide a picture of the graduates/alumn condition. Entry of cohort

approach alone can give an overview of two things to graduates/alumni. The first can give an idea of the class

conditions/criteria, and the second provides a description of the graduates conditions/criteria. Specifically for

a description of the graduates conditions/criteria, on the entry of cohort approach it can be seen after Tracer

Study conducted for 3 years (ITB case study).

C. Comparison

Table of Comparison between Cohort and Entry of Cohort for Target Responden in Tracer Study (TS)

No Activity Cohort Entry of Cohort Information

1 Concept Structural Structural & Cultural

Structural and formal more leads to follow in accordance with applicable regulations

2 Characteristic Formal Formal & Informal

Cultural and informal more leads to conform with the existing culture and not bound by the terms

3 Data Collection Long, mostly 1 year 3 month, could be less

Time need for data retrieval using the entry of cohort could be less if the data obtained are sufficient

4 Networking Hard (difference in class)

Easy (one class)

Networking on the entry of cohort was easi because it has been formed since the entry to college and also due classmates

5 Surveyor Recruitment None Exist

Surveyor chosen based on the recommendation of their classmates

6 Database Sort

Source based on data when graduate day and initial data when enroll to college

Source: Dirdik, Program Studi and Surveyor

At some colleges who are using cohort, the database also obtained from each Dirdik

7 Update Database

Hard Much Easier

Update by admin Update by surveyor

Update line long Update line only one

8 Database Validation Small validation Validation could reach

100%

9 Questionaire Trial and Error

Random object Test by surveyor who currently will become target responden too

Input random Input from surveyor input from surveyor representing contemporaries

10 Informing Tracer Study Hard Easy

By Operator Tracer Study

By Operator Tracer Study dan Surveyor

11 Asking and Motivating to fill in Questionaire

By admin By surveyor

Time based on provision

Can be done at anytime

12 Data Check Admin Admin and surveyor

13 Report

Exist Exist

Only show cohort profil Shown cohort and entry of cohort profil

Comparability

Cohort and entry of cohort had a different approach in the determination of Tracer Study target respondent.

This difference will make an impact on the acquisition of data analysis results. Cohort approach gives data

analysis results of the alumni based on their graduate years while entry of cohort more likely to give a picture

about alumni based on their entry class.

Differences in results of the analysis tends to pose question, "Was data analysis of these two approaches could

still be compared?". Seeing the discussion above which provides information that entry of a cohort approach in

the implementation of Tracer Study if conducted after 3 years then data analysis about alumni based on their

graduates years can also be obtained. Data analysis results based on alumni graduates years if we compared

with the data analysis result based on alumni entry class shown not much different/almost similar. In

conclusion, the results of data analysis using either approach, cohort or entry of cohort, both can be

compared.

Data Result Comparability between Cohort and Entry of Cohort

In 2015, ITB conducting Tracer Study thoroughly for the fourth time with target respondent was the entry of

cohort 2008. In analyzing the results, ITB not only did it for the entry of cohort 2008 only, but also did it for

cohort 2012. It is quite possible to be done considering Tracer Study conducted using entry of cohort approach

after three years of operation can also be analyzed for the cohort (ITB case study). For cohort 2012, in ITB case

study, was graduate of three entry of cohort, namely 2006, 2007, and 2008. The three entry of cohort in 2015

has been done Tracer Study before by ITB.

This paper will show the results of a comparative data analysis results between cohort 2012 with entry of

cohort 2006, 2007 and 2008. Data analysis results of this comparison are shown in the following table:

Table of Data Analysis Comparison between Cohort and Entry of Cohort

No Data Keterangan Cohort Entry of Cohort

2012 2006 2007 2008

1 Total responden Complete 80% 72% 80% 92%

2 Job status

Work 68% 70% 66% 66%

Work and self-employed

5% 6% 5% 5%

Not working/continuing study

21% 19% 22% 22%

Entrepreneur 6% 5% 7% 7%

3 Suitability of lecture with work

Suitable 72% 75% 70% 74%

4 Time looking for work

Before graduate 3,99 4,38 4,3 4,22

After graduate 2,65 2,27 2,4 2,78

5 Time needed for getting a job

Before graduate 3,65 2,93 3,27 3,62

After graduate 4,38 3,85 4,21 4,37

6 Category of company

Local 17% 17% 17% 18%

National 41% 47% 39% 43%

Multinational 42% 36% 44% 39%

7 Category of business

B = Mining B (23%) B (22%) B (21%) B (20%)

M = Profesional services

M (12%) M (13%) M (12%) M (12%)

C = Processing industry

C (10%) C (10%) C (12 %) C (11%)

J = Information J (9%) K (10%) F (9%) F (10%)

F = Construction F (9%) F (9%) J (8%) J (10%)

8 Company work type

Government (NGO) 22% 25% 20% 23%

Non-profit organizations

2% 1% 2% 2%

Private company 66% 65% 67% 65%

Own company 9% 9% 11% 10%

9 Position

Director 1% 2% 2% 2%

Owner 6% 5% 7% 7%

Manager 5% 6% 6% 6%

Staff 86% 86% 83% 84%

Apprentice 2% 1% 2% 2%

10 Average income

Work 9,2 millions 12,4 millions 8,8 millions 9,1 millions

Work and self-employed

8,7 millions 7,4 millions 6,6 millions 8,6 millions

Entrepreneur 6,9 millions 8,3 millions 8,3 millions 7,7 millions

Based on data analysis results from table above, it can be seen that the results of cohort and entry of cohort

not much different/almost similar. This shows that the analysis which is based on cohort or entry of cohort

approach basically gives the same results so it remain comparable.

Conluding Remark

Discussion on approaches to the determination of Tracer Study target respondent, which are cohort and entry

of cohorts, giving some conclusions that can be drawn. The first results of the discussion can be concluded

from this paper is that by using the entry of cohort approach on Tracer Study implementation will certainly

give a higher yield in the acquisition of response rate. Some reasons that support in acquisition high response

rate were due to entry of cohort approach basically have an obvious networking (networking had been formed

before), so that early validation of the target respondents database value can approach up to 100%. Validation

of target respondents database of close to 100% will provides an opportunity for Tracer Study operator to be

able to obtain a high response rate (more than 50%).

At the end of this paper, it can be drawn a conclusion that data analysis results on the implementation of

Tracer Study ITB using cohort and entry of cohort approach were not much different/almost similar. For

example, time needed to get a job for ITB alumni cohort 2012 or entry of cohort 2006, 2007 and 2008 shows

averaged result between 3 - 3.5 months before graduation and 4 months after graduation. Another result is in

suitability of lecture with work, data analysis results from cohort and entry of cohort give a value of 70-75%

suitable.

The final conclusion of this paper proved that cohort and entry of cohort approach, its use does not give

trouble in comparability based on data analysis results shown above and the result itself not much

different/almost similar. Here shows that the dichotomy of the necessity of using one approach to the

determination of Tracer Study target respondent does not need to be emerged for some point it was

unreasonable and irrelevant. Entry of cohort approach also had an advantage which was able to provide two

analysis, both cohort and entry of cohort, if the Tracer Study implementation had been conducting at least 3

times (ITB case).

REFERRENCE

Budi, Bambang Setia. 2014. Tracer Study: Urgency, Problem, and How to Increase Response Rate. Presented

in Training for Tracer Study Team of UNPAD at WISMA UNPAD CIMANDIRI on Monday, 3 November 2014.

Bandung.

Sailah, Illah. 2011. Perlunya Tracer Study untuk Pendidikan Tinggi. Jakarta (Direktur Pembelajaran &

Kemahasiswaan Ditjen Dikti ).

Schomburg, Harald. 2003. Handout for Graduate Tracer Studies. International Centre for Higher Education

Research (INCHER-Kassel) University Kassel. Germany.

Schomburg, Harald. 2010. Concept and Methodology of Tracer Studies – International Experiences.

Presentation at Workshop in Sinaia 2-4 June 2010. International Centre for Higher Education Research

(INCHER-Kassel) University Kassel. Germany.

Schomburg, Harald. 2011. Design of Regular Graduate Tracer Studies for Individual Institutions. International

Centre for Higher Education Research (INCHER-Kassel) University Kassel. Germany.

Schomburg, Harald. 2011. Methodology and Methods of Tracer Studies. International Centre for Higher

Education Research (INCHER-Kassel) University Kassel. Germany.

Syafiq, Ahmad dan Sandra Fikawati. Progress and Development of Tracer Study in Indonesia. Penerbit

Universitas Indonesia. Jakarta.

http://teknologi.news.viva.co.id/news/read/606550-riset--masyarakat-indonesia-rajin-gunakan-jejaring-

sosial accesed on August 31, 2015.

https://id.techinasia.com/laporan-pengguna-website-mobile-media-sosial-indonesia accesed on October 5,

2015.