.01
Initiation of Program Reviews
A.
Programs Subject to External Review
Programs
subject to external reviews for accreditation or similar purposes shall
submit a copy of their external review material to the Graduate Studies
Committee for its comments. The Graduate Studies Committee may request
additional information to supplement the external review. Every effort
will be made to avoid duplication of the effort required in external
review should internal review be deemed appropriate.
B.
Evaluation of New Programs
As
part of the proposal for approval of a new program, 70.00.04.1H. provides
for the formal evaluation of these programs. The period for review will
be, in general, five years after the first students are admitted to
the program. Teaching units may propose a shorter or longer period in
their program proposals. The evaluation will follow the criteria set
forth in the proposal for approval of the program.
C.
Triggered Program Reviews
1.
Triggered reviews will be initiated and coordinated by the Graduate
Studies Committee as a method of maintaining program quality.
a.
A report on each graduate program will be prepared annually for the
Graduate Studies Committee by Institutional Research based on the following
criteria (subject to periodic review and modification by the Graduate
Studies Committee):
·
admission rates
·
conversion rates
·
average grade point average of newly enrolled students
·
average scores on GRE or other standardized exams of newly enrolled
students
·
total program enrollments
·
program completion rates
b.
Should the Graduate Studies Committee determine that there has been
a substantial decline in any one of the above indicators from one year
to another or a steady decline in two or more of the above indicators
over a period of two years, the Graduate Studies Committee will ask
teaching units for an explanatory note concerning program performance.
c.
Should the explanation prove satisfactory to the Graduate Studies Committee,
the committee will so inform the teaching unit with a copy to the relevant
dean and the Provost. Otherwise, the Graduate Studies Committee will
institute a detailed and substantive program review, which will rely
on the criteria outlined in 70.20.02 below. No program will be subjected
to such a review more often than once in five years.
d.
Should the Graduate Studies Committee determine that there has been
a continued substantial decline in one or more of the above indicators
subsequent to a satisfactory explanation as indicated in 70.20.01.C.1.a
in the previous year, a detailed and substantive program review will
be instituted by the Graduate Studies Committee, relying on the criteria
outlined in 70.20.02 below.
D.
Requested Reviews
Serious
concerns about the quality of a program or about the resources available
for a program may cause a teaching unit or the Provost to request a
program review. Such a review will be subject to the criteria and procedures
described below.
GO
TO TOP
.02 Criteria for Program Review
A.
While considerable flexibility should be given to teaching units in
determining the information content, presentational structure, and timing
of the review, in general the following data will be expected:
1.
Teaching source materials
·
enrollment trends
·
adjunct to full-time faculty ratio
·
number of teaching unit faculty who are teaching in the program
·
peer review data, particularly from the National Research Council or
similar academic organizations with recognized expertise
·
percent of teaching unit faculty recently chairing completed dissertations
or theses
·
curricular innovations
2.
Research source materials
·
trend/level in national department rankings
·
trend/level in faculty productivity
3.
Student quality source materials
·
trend in percent of students enrolled full-time
·
placement outcomes
·
trend in average GRE (or other standardized test) scores of incoming
students
·
trend in average grade point average of incoming students
·
trend in admission rate (as a percent of applicants), conversion rates,
completion rates, and total enrollments
4.
Net program cost source materials
·
tuition-income/program-costs measured over a five year period
·
average class size within the program and within the teaching unit
5.
Competitive issues
·
trends in discipline enrollments nationwide
·
information on competitive programs national and locally
6.
Special factors
·
centrality to the university mission
·
interlocking relationships, if any, between graduate and undergraduate
programs
·
relationships with other university programs, including interdisciplinary
programs
·
success in attracting external funding
·
special or unusual achievements by the program, such as research and
public service projects, including those involving students.
GO
TO TOP
.03 Procedures
A.
The teaching unit will prepare the review in consultation with relevant
administrators and other teaching units. Two months will be allowed
for this preparation.
B.
The review will be submitted to the relevant Educational Policy Committee
for comment.
C.
Within two weeks the review will be forwarded to the dean of the major
teaching unit involved for comment. Within one week, the comments of
the dean, together with the review, will be forwarded to the Graduate
Studies Committee.
D.
Within one month, the Graduate Studies Committee will issue its recommendations
to the teaching unit, to the major teaching unit, and to the Provost,
where relevant.
Note:
The time lines in section 70.20.03 are subject to adjustment in accordance
with the academic calendar.
Senate action, December 2000. Provost approval,
February 2001.
