- Maintained but monitored
- Reduced in support
- Suspended or eliminated
Source: Brian Nedwek
The academic program self-study process has produced a deeper understanding of the quality of our undergraduate and graduate programs. To ensure that the thoughtful work of our faculty can be translated into strategic choices in meeting the University’s mission and vision, program reviewers must analyze the studies and offer recommendations about a program’s future. Important judgments must be made to guide the allocation of our resources.
Informed by the program self-study, reviewers are asked to recommend one of five possible alternatives. A program should be:
The following guidelines are intended to reviewers in developing their recommendations. These guidelines reflect the integration of a wide range of academic quality indicators. These indicators intentionally are not weighted in favor of one factor over another. Rather, they should be viewed as suggestive of the current condition of a program taken as a whole.
Enhanced: These programs are strong contributors to the mission of the University; have a growing rate of student interest; and have a growing number of graduates in the past five years. Faculty members in these programs are fully engaged and show strong signs of vibrancy as reflected in their scholarship, teaching excellence, innovativeness in assessment practices, and service to the University’s communities. These programs embrace stewardship as reflected in their ongoing monitoring of curricula, levels of student satisfaction, alumni success, and responding to opportunities in the external environment. Finally, while the resources of the sponsoring department are adequate to support the current array of programs, enhancing the level of this program’s quality will require additional investment, e.g., one or more new full-time faculty, increased staff support, upgraded equipment and facilities, reallocated space, or faculty development funding.
Maintained: These programs are strong contributors to the mission of the University; have a steady rate of student interest; and have a steady number of graduates in the past five years. Faculty members are fully engaged and show evidence of vibrancy as reflected in scholarship, teaching excellence, innovativeness in assessment practices, and service to the University’s communities. Similar to Enhanced Programs, these programs embrace their stewardship role. The resources of the sponsoring department are adequate to support the current array of programs, including this specific program.
Maintained While consistent with the mission of the University, these programs
But Monitored: have not attracted sufficient interest among students and have not graduated at least 20 undergraduates or 10 masters-level graduate students annually for the past several years. Faculty vibrancy is uneven with only a few engaged in scholarly pursuits. The program curriculum is not subject to ongoing review in recent years and little evidence exists that innovation in pedagogy or assessment practices have been attempted. The resources of the sponsoring department are adequate to support its current array of programs, including this specific type of program.
Reduced in Although mission related, these programs have been unable to attract
Support: sufficient interest among students and have graduated less than 15 undergraduates or five masters-level graduate students annually for the past several years. Some evidence exists of faculty vibrancy, but the resources of the sponsoring department are better served in support of other programs in the current array.
Suspended or These programs may be mission related, but the level of student
Eliminated interest and rates of graduation are too low to support continuation of the program. Little evidence exists of faculty vibrancy and the resources of the sponsoring department are insufficient to support this program.
Directions to Reviewers:
Attached is the Program Review Transmittal Form to record the recommendation and the rationale in support of a recommended action.
For each program, please enter the Program Title and the Date Reviewed. Mark the box appropriate to the recommendation and enter the rationale in the space provided. Please be as specific as possible in developing your rationale. If at all possible, please keep your response to one page.
The completed Transmittal Form for each program along with the Program Self-Study should be submitted to the Office of the Dean in your college or school. The Office of the Provost will inform you of the deadline for transmitting the form and self-study.
Program Title: ____________________________________________
Date Reviewed: ____________________________________________
Enhance [ ]
Maintain [ ]
Maintain but Monitor [ ]
Reduce Support [ ]
Suspend or Eliminate [ ]
Rationale for Recommendation: