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.

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.

1. External Review Team Charge
2. Executive Summary of the Self-Study Report (1-2 pages)
3. 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.

4. 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).

5. 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.

6. 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.
7. Concluding Observations

8. 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).

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

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

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