AA - Academic Program Review

Introduction

State law (see Texas Administrative Code in the Appendices) requires that all public doctoral programs and stand-alone master’s programs be externally reviewed on a 10-year cycle. Texas A&M University has elected to review all degree programs, including bachelor’s degrees, within the scope of the Academic Program Review (APR). Programs reviewed by an external accrediting body are not part of the formal APR process described here. However, the findings of the external accrediting body should be submitted to the Provost’s office as evidence of compliance with Texas Administrative Code for the accredited program. The APR process, coordinated in the office of the Provost and Executive Vice President, is an integral component of institutional effectiveness, which is defined as “the systematic, explicit, and documented process of measuring performance against mission in all aspects of an institution” and results in continuing improvement (Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, 7.1, Institutional Planning). APR aligns with, and complements, existing measures for assessment and quality enhancement. It facilitates discussion about change and strategies for improvement, and it provides the basis for making strategic decisions based on an extensive review from various constituents. APR is an opportunity to realign actions with current priorities of the university, colleges, departments, and programs as these are articulated in mission statements and strategic plans. APR underpins the process of achieving the university’s goal of continuously improving the quality of all academic programs in the pursuit of excellence.

APR Administrative Team

The APR Administrative Team provides a university perspective for review teams and programs undergoing review.

DR. ALAN SAMS

Interim Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs
(979) 845-4016
asams@tamu.edu
DR. ALICIA M. DORSEY
Associate Vice President for Academic Effectiveness and Planning and SACSCOC Accreditation Liaison
(979) 845-4016
amdorsey@tamu.edu
DR. TIMOTHY P. SCOTT

Vice Provost for Student Success
(979) 845-4016
t-scott@tamu.edu
DR. FUHUI TONG

Interim Associate Provost and Dean of the Graduate and Professional School
(979) 845-4016
fuhuitong@tamu.edu
MS. BETTYANN C. ZITO

APR Coordinator
(979) 845-4016
apr@tamu.edu

Responsibilities

The Office Provost and Executive Vice President

The Office of the Provost and Executive Vice President oversees the APR process. Responsibilities of the Office of the Provost Include:

Coordinating the 10-year review cycle in consultation with the Texas High Education Coordinating Board (THECB)
Approving nominations of external reviewers
Facilitating entry and exit interviews during on-site reviews
Providing funding for most review-related expenses
Submitting the Institutional Response to the THECB
Approving and distributing 1- and 5-year status reports
Communicating results to the President of Texas A&M University

The APR Coordinator

The APR Coordinator in the Office of the Provost is the primary point of contact for all review activities The APR Coordinator works directly with degree programs undergoing review to assist with preparations for the review and with monitoring progress throughout the entire review cycle. The specific responsibilities of the coordinator include:

Coordinating introductory meetings to initiate the review process
Scheduling academic program review dates in consultation with the degree program
Scheduling all meetings involving the APR Administrative Team
Extending formal invitations to potential reviewers on behlf of the Provost
Providing background material to deans, department heads/program chairs, and review teams
Reserving external review team lodging
Compiling a welcome packet with an itinerary for the external review team

The Offices of Graduate and Professional School and Undergraduate Studies

The Offices of Graduate and Professional School and Undergraduate Studies work with the Office of the Provost to provide support and guidance to degree programs undergoing review. They help ensure that reviews of degree programs and other educational and teaching priorities, faculty expertise and research priorities, and service and outreach programs are appropriate to the individual degree program undergoing review.

The College(s)

The college dean's responsibilities include:

Approving the degree program’s nomination of peer reviewers
Reviewing and approving the self-study
Meeting with the external review team on Monday
Participating in the exit meeting with the Provost and review team on Wednesday
Meeting, as appropriate, with the peer reviewers during the site visit
Participating in the post-review meeting with the APR Administractive Team
Approving follow-up correspondence from the degree program and monitoring strategies and outcomes in response to the APR.

All documentation must be reviewed and approved by the college dean before it is forwarded to the Provost Office.

The Degree Program

The degree program has significant responsibilities in preparing for the review and in executing the visit. To assist with this effort, degree programs should closely follow the procedures outlined below.

Months Prior
(10-12mo)	Choose Review Dates	Selected in consultation with APR Coordinator and dean’s office. The site visit begins Sunday and concludes Wednesday.
(9mo)	Nominating Members for the External Review Team	See “Nominating the External Review Team” pg 11.
(7-9mo)	Submit the “Charge to the External Review Team”	As the review team is finalized, the APR Coordinator will forward the “Charge to the External Review Team” template to the degree program to complete and return. It should briefly cover the degree program overview and degrees offered.
(7-8mo)	Organize, Initiate, and write Self Study	See “Preparing the Self-Study Document” pg 13.
(6mo)	Communicate with the External Review Team	After the review team is confirmed the Department Head or Program Chair (DH/PC) should communicate with the external review team about travel and timelines.
(2mo)	Submit draft Self-Study & Prepare for Site Visit	Submit a final draft of the Self-Study to the dean and APR Coordinator for review. Develop Itinerary - See “Sample Itinerary” pg 18. Reserve Meeting Rooms - Reserve meeting spaces for all meetings with the exception of the Entry, Exit, and Post-Review meetings. If available, the degree program may set up a room to allow office space for the reviewers. Arrange Transportation - Consult with reviewersfor transportation needs. Reviewers are also free to arrange their own travel but please be sure and advise the traveler that reimbursement will be processed after receipt of the final report may take 2-3 weeks. Arrange Campus and Facility Tours - Tours should be given of any major facility, centers, labs, etc. associated with the review. Arrange Meals & Reception for Review Team - See “Sample Itinerary” pg 18 and “Transportation, Meals and Lodging” pg 20 for more details. The APR Coordinator arranges breakfast only.
(1mo)	Prepare for Site Visit	Submit final self-study with dean’s signature of approval. The degree program will distribute the Self-Study report to faculty, staff and students (as appropriate). The APR Coordinator will distribute to the external reviewers, APR Administrative Team & upload to the APR website, http://apr.tamu.edu.

Months After

(1mo)

Prepare & Submit Departmental/Program Response to the External Review Team’s Report

The degree program should receive the final report from the review team within 21 days after the site visit and has 30 days to prepare a draft response for review. The College will have an additional 30 days to review and consult with the degree program as needed before submitting the final response to the APR Coordinator.

(3mo)

Attend and Lead Post Review Meeting

The Post Review meeting is scheduled by the APR Coordinator. Unless otherwise approved, only the provost, APR administrative team, dean, and DH/PC attend this meeting. The DH/PC leads this meeting and outlines the proposed response to the peer review team.

Years After

(1yr)	Prepare & Submit 1 Year Status Report	The degree program submits a 1-year status report addressing actions discussed in the Post Review Meeting. The Provost’s office forwards to 1-year status report to the external reviewers for their information.
(5yr)	Prepare & Submit 5 Year Status Report	The degree program submits a 5-year status report on actions taken and results of changes implemented as a result of the APR as outlined in the Institutional Response

The External Review Team

The external review team participates in and conducts the site visit. The role of the review team is to ensure the integrity of the academic program and make recommendations for improvement. The external review members will receive a $1,500 professional fee and will be reimbursed for all travel-related expenses by the Office of the Provost upon completion and transmittal of the final report of the Provost.

External Review Team Charge

Based on the data/information provided in the self-study report or gathered by the external review team, what are the degree program’s overall strengths and weaknesses?
How well do the degree program’s strategic goals align with those of its college and with those of Texas A&M University?
How would you compare this degree program with its peers? Specifically, is the curriculum directly related and appropriate to the mission and goals of the institution?
What improvements (including student learning and faculty development) has the degree program made since the previous program review?
With only current resources or a modest infusion of new ones, what specific recommendations could improve the degree program’s performance, marginally or significantly?

In formulating their response, the review team members will address the items in the charge. Additionally, they will be asked to make specific recommendations that they believe should be addressed in a follow-up with the APR administrative team and college dean.

Academic Review Process

Degree programs scheduled for an Academic Program Review are contacted approximately one year in advance of their review to allow ample preparation time. The process is initiated with an introductory meeting between the APR Coordinator, the degree program, and interested college representative to convey expectations and provide tools to prepare for review.

The Academic Program Review process is outlined in detail on the following pages. The process can be conceptualized into five stages:

Nominating members for the external review team
Preparing the self-study
Establishing the itinerary for the on-site visit
Generating the response document
Attending post-review meeting and reporting

Template: Nominating the External Review Team

Nominating the External Review Team

An important task for the Degree Program is to develop a list of 8 to 10 potential reviewers. Nominees should be professionally prominent individuals who have experience not only with undergraduate and graduate programs, but also with teaching, research, and engagement or service components as appropriate. Programs should identify a diverse group of nominees from peer or aspirant peers. When appropriate, nominees may also be from business or government. A team member who participated in a previous review is recommended, but not required. Degree Programs should coordinate their nominees in consultation with the appropriate college dean.

The memorandum identifying the list of potential reviewers will contain the following information:

Preferred potential reviewers
Complete job title, rank, and name of a reviewer’s department or program
Nominee’s principal area of scholarly activity (related to degree program being reviewed)
Name of university or organization
Contact information (full mailing address, e-mail, and telephone number)
Preference for chair of external review team (top 2 choices)

When the nominee list is finalized, submit the nomination list to the Provost, through the college dean, APR Coordinator, and Vice Provost for Academic Affairs. The deans are responsible for certifying that the list of candidates meets the requirements as listed in the previous paragraph.

Upon receipt of the college-approved peer review candidates, the APR Coordinator will forward the list of candidates to the Provost for approval. After approval by the Provost, the APR Coordinator will invite the reviewers.

Review team members selected from the list of potential reviewers will be chosen according to the following criteria:

Number of Reviewers per team:

Bachelor’s or Master’s programs only = 2 reviewers total
Master’s + Ph.D. program(s) = 3 reviewers total
Bachelor’s + Master’s + Ph.D. programs = 4 reviewers total
At least 2 external reviewers with subject matter expertise must be employed by institutions of higher education outside of Texas.
External Reviewers must be part of a program that is nationally recognized for excellence in discipline; they will be asked to benchmark Texas A&M’s programs based on discipline-specific rankings and other publicly available comparisons to graduate programs.
External Reviewers must affirm that there exists no conflict of interest related to the program under review.

Preparing the Self-Study Document

The Program’s faculty prepare the self-study prior to review. This study provides detailed information about the program and includes an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. The self-study is the faculty’s opportunity for self-evaluation and reflection both on historical data (the past five years) as well as a strategic path forward (the next five years). Degree programs are encouraged to commit themselves to specific, long-range planning in the self-study. An analysis of each major section of the self-study helps reviewers put the program data into context within the college and larger institution.

A final draft self-study must be submitted to the dean and Provost’s office two months before the on-site visit.

Programs should follow closely the self-study outline provided on the next page. This outline ensures that key elements required by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) are addressed. Previous self-study documents, which may be helpful, can be found at http://apr.tamu.edu. Please note that requirements may have changed since previous self-studies were completed. The APR Coordinator may assist in the self-study process, and the Office of Data and Research Services (DARS) will provide data to be utilized in the self-study.

Contents of the Self-Study Report

The degree program’s self-study will be your external review team’s primary source of information. In addition to presenting the information requested in tables, charts, and narratives, the degree program should complete each section with an analysis.

Organize the self-study report according to the order of required items as listed.

Sections of the self-study denoted with * are required by the State of Texas ( see “Characteristics of Texas Doctoral Programs” and Texas Administrative Code Rule § 5.52). Some data are provided by Data and Research Services (DARS) whereas the Program will be have the information related to learning outcomes and assessments or degree program evaluation metrics for faculty performance evaluation. Please contact the APR Coordinator if you need guidance in gathering information.

External Review Team Charge
Executive Summary of the Self-Study Report (1-2 pages)
Introduction to degree program
- Brief degree program history
- Mission, strategic plan, goals
- Administrative structure
- Degree program appendices
  - Facilities (including space and equipment)
  - Finances
- External program accreditations (if applicable)*
- Date of last APR External Review*
- Analysis
  - Describe how the Program’s strategic plan creates a path forward for excellence.
  - Describe the alignment of the degree program’s strategic goals and priorities with college and institutional goals and priorities. Attach the degree program’s current strategic plan or, if unavailable, the strategic plan for the college.
  - Describe how the curriculum is appropriate for the level and type of degree awarded by the program.
  - List and briefly discuss 1-3 improvements made since the previous APR and describe the results of those improvements.
Academic Programs and Curricula
- Programs Offered.
- Program curricula (including duration and comparisons to peers).
- Admissions criteria (doctoral students)*.
- Number of degrees awarded per year (most recent 5 years).
- Average time to degree (most recent 5 years).
- Academic enhancement / high-impact opportunities for students.
- Assessment of student learning outcomes (all degree levels).
- Analysis: Briefly discuss improvements made based as a result of the department/program’s assessment of student learning outcomes (all degree levels).
Faculty Profile
- Core faculty defined as appropriately credentialed individuals integral to the program, such as those who teach courses, mentor students, or serve on committees
  - Number of core faculty*
  - Core faculty / student ratio*
  - Publications (most recent 5 years)*
  - External grants (most recent 5 years)*
  - Teaching load*
- Faculty other than core (as defined above)
  - Number
  - Faculty / student ratio
  - Publications
  - External grants
  - Teaching load
- Faculty diversity*
- Faculty qualifications (i.e., expected qualifications for faculty hired by the degree program).
- Analysis: Is the number of full-time faculty members adequate to support the mission of the institution and to ensure the quality and integrity of its academic programs? Using the degree program’s standards (i.e., Departmental/Program Evaluation Metrics for faculty teaching, research, and service as submitted to the provost, as well as other relevant data such as annual reviews and Academic Analytics or other benchmark services), discuss the faculty’s overall performance.
Student Profile
- Doctoral, Masters, and Baccalaureate
  - Enrollment, including % of full-time students*
  - Student diversity / demographics
  - Retention rates
  - Number of degrees per year*
  - Graduation rates*
  - Average time to degree (most recent 5 yeas)*
  - Average institutional financial support provided*
  - % of full-time students with institutional financial support*
  - Student publications / presentations (most recent 5 years)*
  - Employment profile (in field within one year of graduation; most recent 5 years)*
- Analysis: Discuss the degree program’s contribution to the land grant mission of the university as described in the strategic plan. Discuss the degree program’s progress and efforts related to retention, time to degree, degrees awarded, and placement upon graduation as specified in the institution’s strategic plan.
Concluding Observations
Appendix
- Faculty CVs (abbreviated versions are preferred)
- Institutional Profile (Official documentation will be provided by the Office of the Provost that includes a letter from the President, the SACSCOC institutional summary, and the most recent SACSCOC financial profile).

Data and Research Services (DARS) Reports for Degree Program

Data provided will cover the most recent 5-year period, and will include the information summarized below. Note that some reports will vary based on structure of degree program as well as the quality of data available.

Student Data

Student enrollment by degree program (by semester and academic year)
Student demographics (gender, ethnicity, domestic vs international) by level (by semester and academic year)
Average SAT/GRE scores and GPA for enrolled students by level; also compared to the average for the affiliated academic college (by semester and academic year)
Degrees awarded by degree program (DARS will attempt to pull by semester and academic year)
Number of applied/admitted/enrolled students for degree program by degree program and by level (fall semesters only)
Average time to degree by degree program (by academic year)
Average retention rates by degree program (by academic year)
First time in college by Texas high school

Faculty Data

Average annual faculty salary by rank (by academic year converted to nine- month salaries); this will include full-time faculty only and will be divided among tenured/tenure-track individuals and non-tenure-track individuals
Average faculty salary by rank relative to TAMU, and relative to peer institutions comparable degree programs; this will include full-time faculty only
Faculty demographics (gender, ethnicity, age) by rank (divided by full time and part-time)
Teaching load per faculty rank by level (by academic year)
Faculty to student ratio; also compared to other degree programs within the affiliated academic college (fall semesters only, using STAR-Semester Teaching Analysis Report created by DARS)

Other Data

Semester credit hours taken by major (regardless of degree program) by level (by semester and academic year).
Semester credit hours taught in degree program courses (regardless of major of student taking the course) by level (by semester and academic year).
Courses taken by major
History of courses taught
Outside-degree program students by gender and level
Outside-degree program students summary by gender and level

Establishing the Itinerary for the On-Site Visit

External reviewers arrive in College Station on Sunday afternoon and depart Wednesday afternoon. The site visit consists of Entry/Exit Interviews with the APR Administrative Team, various meetings with the dean of the college (or designee), DH/PC, faculty members, and students, and tours of degree program facilities. Below is a sample itinerary. This is a suggested itinerary and is flexible with the exception of the breakfasts that are scheduled by the APR Coordinator.

Sample Itinerary

Establishing the Itinerary for the On-Site Visit

Transportation

The degree program is responsible for arranging all transportation for the external review team. Transportation should be arranged at least two months prior to the review to help defray costs. Arrival time should be scheduled for reviewers to attend a welcome dinner Sunday evening and depart after lunch on Wednesday. Degree programs should book flights using standard administrative business practice. Reviewers are at liberty to schedule their own flights as long as they travel economy class and do not exceed $600. Reimbursement will be provided after receipt of the external review team’s final report. Arrangement of one rental car for the review team is allowed if needed. The degree program is also responsible for escorting the external review team to and from Easterwood Airport.

Meals

The degree program is responsible for arranging lunches, dinners, and the reception for the external review team. Meals should be arranged approximately one month prior to the visit. Meals should not be extravagant and should be fiscally responsible. Any expenses for alcohol will be covered by the degree program. See “Sample Itinerary” for more specifics regarding meal arrangements and note the different options to be utilized for lunches. The APR Coordinator is responsible for arranging breakfasts.

Lodging

Lodging is arranged by the APR Coordinator.

Expenses

The Provost’s Office will subsidize some of the expenses incurred by the degree program. The APR Coordinator will request a 02 account during the month of August prior to the APR cycle. Funds will be transferred into the account to be used by the degree program at their discretion.

Expenses covered by the degree program

	Estimated Expense
Self Study Report Copying, binding, mailing costs, however, it is recommended this document be shared electronically	$100
Airfare	$600 per reviewer
Rental Car Expenses for one rental car for the use of the team if necessary	$135
Welcome Dinner Welcome Dinner with review team, DH/PC and degree program representatives/committee (size of delegation to join review team is at DH/PC's discretion)	$250
Degree Program Reception	$400
Meals During Review Lunches and Dinners	$200

Expenses paid by the Provost's Office

To be paid/reimbursed once the external review team's final report is received in the Provost's Office

ERT Professional Fee	$1500 per reviewer
ERT Reimbursements Any expenses incurred by the ERT member such as parking, mileage, rental car (if needed) from IAH or Austin to College Station, and meals during travel. NO ALCOHOL

Lodging and breakfast will be coordinated and paid by the Provost's Office.

The External Review Team's Final Report

Once the external review team completes the site visit, and based on state reporting requirements, the Chair has 21 days to transmit the final report to the Provost and Executive Vice President.

The Response Document

The APR Coordinator will forward the external review team’s final report to the degree program, the college, and other relevant parties upon receipt. The degree program has 30 days to provide a draft written response on the external review team’s report to the dean. During this time, the DH/PC will share the response with the faculty and provide the opportunity for input and discussion. The degree program will then submit the report to the college dean. The college will then have 30 days to submit the final degree program response to the APR Coordinator.
The degree program must address all recommendations identified in the external review team’s report. If the external review team has made a recommendation with which the degree program disagrees, that too should be addressed in the response.
Note that the response must be a stand-alone document such that individuals could read the response without having seen the self-study or the external review team’s final report. Therefore, the recommendations shall be extracted verbatim and copied into the response. For example:

1. Recommendation: XXXXXXXXXXXX.
Degree program response: xxxxxxxxxx.
Action item: xxxxxxx. (Including, as appropriate, implementation, action plan and timing).

Post-Review Meeting and Reporting

The goal of the post-review process is continuing institutional improvement as a result of the APR. Post- review consists of a post-review meeting, submission of an institutional response, and submission of both 1-year and 5-year status reports.

THE POST-REVIEW MEETING

The post-review meeting is held within 90 days after the site visit. This meeting is led by the DH/PC and attended by the APR Administrative Team and the college dean (or designee). With prior approval, the DH/PC may invite other degree program or college personnel as appropriate. The post-review meeting provides the DH/PC the opportunity to present and discuss the Degree Program Response and the proposed actions based on the external review. The APR Administrative Team, college dean, and DH/PC will subsequently reach consensus on what actions are to be taken.

Final Report

Institutional Response

The outcomes of the Post-Review meeting, as well as the degree program response, will be outlined in the Institutional Response. The Institutional Response includes actions to be taken and discussion of any resources necessary for implementing the plan. The Provost’s Office will submit the Institutional Response to the THECB as required.

1 Year Status Report

Approximately one year after the site visit, the degree program submits to the Provost, through the dean, a 1-Year Status Report addressing actions taken as discussed in the Post-Review meeting and the Executive Summary. The Provost forwards the 1-year status report to the external review team for their information.

5 Year Status Report

Approximately five years after the site visit, the degree program sends to the Provost, through the dean, a status report on actions taken and results of changes implemented as a result of APR as outlined in the Institutional Response.

Appendices

Texas Administrative Code

In accordance with the requirements of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, Commission on Colleges, each public institution of higher education shall have a process to review the quality and effectiveness of existing degree programs and for continuous improvement.
The Coordinating Board staff shall develop a process for conducting a periodic audit of the quality, productivity, and effectiveness of existing bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degree programs at public institutions of higher education and health-related institutions.
Each public university and health-related institution shall review all doctoral programs at least once every ten years.
1. On a schedule to be determined by the Commissioner, institutions shall submit a schedule of review for all doctoral programs to the Assistant Commissioner of Academic Quality and Workforce.
2. Institutions shall begin each review of a doctoral program with a rigorous self-study.
3. As part of the required review process, institutions shall use at least two external reviewers with subject-matter expertise who are employed by institutions of higher education outside of Texas.
4. External reviewers must be provided with the materials and products of the self-study and must be brought to the campus for an on-site review.
5. External reviewers must be part of a program that is nationally recognized for excellence in the discipline.
6. External reviewers must affirm that they have no conflict of interest related to the program under review.
7. Closely-related programs, defined as sharing the same 4-digit Classification of Instructional Programs code, may be reviewed in a consolidated manner at the discretion of the institution.
8. Institutions shall review master’s and doctoral programs in the same discipline simultaneously, using the same self-study materials and reviewers. Institutions may also, at their discretion, review bachelor’s programs in the same discipline as master’s and doctoral programs simultaneously.
9. Criteria for the review of doctoral programs must include, but are not limited to:
  1. The Characteristics of Texas Public Doctoral Programs;
  2. Student retention rates;
  3. Student enrollment;
  4. Graduate licensure rates (if applicable);
  5. Alignment of program with stated program and institutional goals and purposes;
  6. Program curriculum and duration in comparison to peer programs;
  7. Program facilities and equipment;
  8. Program finance and resources;
  9. Program administration; and
  10. Faculty Qualifications.
10. Institutions shall submit a report on the outcomes of each review, including the evaluation of the external reviewers and actions the institution has taken or will take to improve the program, and shall deliver these reports to the Academic Quality and Workforce Division no later than 180 days after the reviewers have submitted their findings to the institution.
11. Institutions may submit reviews of graduate programs performed for reasons of programmatic licensure or accreditation in satisfaction of the review and reporting requirements in this subsection.
Each public university and health-related institution shall review all stand-alone master’s programs at least once every ten years.
1. On a schedule to be determined by the Commissioner, institutions shall submit a schedule of review for all master’s programs to the Assistant Commissioner of Academic Quality and Workspace.
2. Institutions shall begin each review of a master’s program with a rigorous self-study.
3. As part of the required review process, institutions shall use at least one external reviewer with subject-matter expertise who is employed by an institution of higher education outside of Texas.
4. External reviewers shall be provided with the materials and products of the self-study. External reviewers may be brought to the campus for an on-site review or may be asked to conduct remote desk review.
5. External reviewers must be part of a program that is nationally recognized for excellence in the discipline.
6. External reviewers must affirm that they have no conflict of interest related to the program under review.
7. Closely-related programs, defined as sharing the same 4-digit Classification of Instructional Programs code, may be reviewed in a consolidated manner at the discretion of the institution.
8. Master’s programs in the same 6-digit Classification of Instructional Programs code as doctoral programs shall be reviewed simultaneously with their related doctoral programs.
9. Criteria for the review of master’s programs must include, but are not limited to:
  1. Faculty qualifications;
  2. Faculty publications;
  3. Faculty external grants;
  4. Faculty teaching load;
  5. Faculty/student ratio;
  6. Student demographics;
  7. Student time-to-degree;
  8. Student publication and awards;
  9. Student retention rates;
  10. Student graduation rates;
  11. Student enrollment;
  12. Graduate licensure rates (if applicable);
  13. Graduate placement (i.e. employment or further education/training);
  14. Number of degrees conferred annually;
  15. Alignment of program with stated program and institutional goals and purposes;
  16. Program curriculum and duration in comparison to peer programs;
  17. Program facilities and equipment;
  18. Program finance and resources;
  19. Program administration.
10. Institutions shall submit a report of the outcomes of each review, including the evaluation of the external reviewer(s) and actions the institution has taken or will take to improve the program, and shall deliver these reports to the Academic Quality and Workforce Division no later than 180 days after the reviewer(s) have submitted their findings to the institution.
11. Institutions may submit reviews of graduate programs performed for reasons of programmatic licensure or accreditation in satisfaction of the review and reporting requirements in this subsection.
The Coordinating Board shall review all reports submitted for master’s and doctoral programs and shall conduct analysis as necessary to ensure high quality. Institutions may be required to take additional actions to improve their programs as a result of Coordinating Board review.

Document Routing Template

Self Study Documents

College of Agriculture and Life Sciences

2019	2012	AGEC	Agricultural Economics
2017	2010	ALEC	Agricultural Leadership, Education, & Communication
2018	2011	ANSC	Animal Science
	2015	BAEN	Biological & Agricultural Engineering
2021	2014	BCBP	Biochemistry & Biophysics
2022	2015	ENTO	Entomology
	2015	ESSM	Ecosystem Science and Management
	2004	FRSC	Forest Science
2020	2013	HORT	Horticultural Sciences
	2017	MGsc	Master of Geoscience
	2016	NFSC	Nutrition and Food Science
2018	2011	PLPM	Plant Pathology and Microbiology
	2003	POSC	Poultry Science
	2013	RPTS	Recreation, Parks, and Tourism Science
	2016	SCSC	Soil and Crop Sciences
	2017	WFSC	Wildlife and Fisheries Science

2018	2011	AERO	Aerospace Engineering
	2015	BMEN	Biomedical Engineering
2018	2010	CHEN	Chemical Engineering
2019	2012	CVEN	Civil Engineering
2017	2012	CSCE	Computer Science and Engineering
	2016	ECEN	Electrical and Computer Engineering
	2016	IDIS	Industrial Distribution
2021	2014	ISEN	Industrial and Systems Engineering
	2019	ITDE	Iterdisciplinary Engineering
2020	2013	MEEN	Mechanical Engineering
2022	2015	NUEN	Nuclear Engineering
	2018	OCEN	Ocean Engineering
2021	2014	PETE	Petroleum Engineering

College of Geosciences

College of Liberal Arts

2021	2013	ANTH	Anthropology
	2015	COMM	Communication
	2016	ECON	Economics
	2016	ENGL	English
2017	2010	HISP	Hispanic Studies
	2010	HIST	History
	2019	INTS	International Studies
	2014	PERF	Performance Studies
2017	2008	PHIL	Philosophy
	2015	POLS	Political Science
	2010	PSYC	Psychology
2021	2014	SOCI	Sociology
	2016	WGST	Women's and Gender Studies

	2018	BIMS	Biomedical Science
2019	2012	BIMS	Biomedical Science (Graduate)
2020	2013	STJR	Science and Technology Journalism
	2001	VIBS	Veterinary Integrative Biomedical Science
		VLCS	Veterinary Large Animal Clinical Science
	2009	VPAT	Veterinary Pathobiology
		VTPP	Veterinary Physiology and Pharmacy
	2019	VPHE	Veterinary Public Health Epidemiology
		VSCS	Veterinary Small Animal Clinical Science

George Bush School of Government and Public Service

Interdisciplinary Programs

	2012	AGRI	Agribusiness
	2017	BIOT	Biotechnology
		-	Engineering Systems Management
		ENST	Environmental Studies
	2010	FSTC	Food Science and Technology
2021	2014	GENE	Genetics
	2016	MARB	Marine Biology
2018	2012	MSEN	Materials Science and Engineering
2021	2014	MEPS	Molecular and Environmental Plant Science
	2017	NRSC	Neuroscience
	2000	NUTR	Nutrition
		SPSC	Spatial Sciences
2022	2015	TOXI	Toxicology
		-	University Studies
2020	2012	WMHS	Water Management and Hydrological Science

	2019	ARCH	Architecture
2019	2009	MLPD	Land Development
2019	2009	URSC	Urban Science
	2019	VIZA	Visualization

2020	2013	EAHR	Education Administration and Human Resource Development
2019	2011	EPSY	Educational Psychology
	2015	HLKN	Health and Kinesiology
2018	2010	TLAC	Teaching, Learning, and Culture

2017	2009	ATMO	Atmospheric Science
2019	2012	GEOG	Geography
2017	2009	GEOL, GEOP	Geology and Geophysics
	2016	OCNG	Oceanography
	2015	ENVP	Environmental Programs

	2020	EDHP	Education for Healthcare Professional
			Medical Science

2017	MARB	Marine Biology
2015	MARM	Marine Resource Management
2019	MARA	Maritime Administration
2018	MAST	Maritime Studies
2021	MART	Maritime Transportation

2015	2008	BIOL	Biology
2020	2012	CHEM	Chemistry
	2009	MATH	Mathematics
	2016	PHYS	Physics
2022	2015	STAT	Statistics