ACADEMIC PROGRAM
REVIEW
VISION 2020
The New Gold Standard of
University Performance
Board of Trustees:
Strategic Issues Committee
Mike Sherman
Rex Ramsier
December 2, 2013
Pathways to Success will Achieve Vision,
Mission, and Aspirational Goals
The University of Akron Vision
…to set a new standard for public research universities in
adding economic value and enriching lives.
The University of Akron Mission
…to ensure student success and leverage our region’s unique
assets in the creation of knowledge and application of research
that benefits humankind.
Academic Implementation
Academic Program Review
Internal reallocation of resources
Data informed
Achieving Distinction
Strategic allocation of resources
Transinstitutional interdisciplinary collaborations
Pathways to Success
 The Akron Experience:
Academic & Inclusive
Excellence
 Global Relevance
 Interdisciplinary Clusters of
Entrepreneurial Innovation
 Connectivity for Economic
Vitality
 Community and Campus
Enhancement &
Engagement
 Diversified Revenue to
Support Growth
2
Achieving Academic Distinction
(Interdisciplinary Clusters of Entrepreneurial Innovation)
Regional Solutions
–urban life
-education
Liberal
Education
Talent Development
-human condition
-entrepreneurship
Partners: UPA, ABIA,
Industry
Partners: UPA, APS, SEI
Human
Condition
Health
Science &
Technology
Innovation
-community
health/accountable care
-simulation/clinical
research
Partners: ABIA
Innovation
Technologies
-advanced materials &
devices
-advanced energy
Partners: ABIA, Industry
Connectivity for Economic
Vitality
3
Ensuring Academic Excellence
Informed by Academic Program Review Outcomes
Invvest
Converge,
Disinvest
Sunset
Maintain
Invest
Move $ to Maintain and Invest
4
The Program Review Process …
 Is data driven based on:
 Student related benchmarks
 SCH’s
 Headcounts
 Degrees
 Faculty related benchmarks
 Sections taught
 SCH’s generated
 Research Expenditures
 Input from all academic units
 Meetings with department
chairs/school directors
 Goal – provide actionable
recommendations to Provost to help
guide decision-making.
5
Sample Datasheet
6
Sample Datasheet
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
337
404
438
491
483
13.7%
13.7%
12.0%
12.8%
11.7%
42
36
26
40
41
70
60
69
72
79
% UA headcount earning degrees
12.5%
8.9%
5.9%
8.1%
8.5%
% Ohio headcount earning degrees (excl UA)
21.9%
15.9%
17.0%
15.5%
17.3%
33
43
49
67
53
4.1%
6.3%
6.0%
7.0%
5.8%
11
10
9
6
22
12
21
18
26
27
% UA headcount earning degrees
33.3%
23.3%
18.4%
9.0%
41.5%
% Ohio headcount earning degrees (excl UA)
35.3%
50.5%
37.8%
40.5%
51.8%
11
12
5
18
21
2.6%
2.5%
0.8%
2.8%
3.1%
UA - Doctoral Degrees
3
4
2
0
1
Min expected degs based on state proportion
2
1
1
2
2
% UA headcount earning degrees
27.3%
33.3%
40.0%
0.0%
4.8%
% Ohio headcount earning degrees (excl UA)
16.5%
10.6%
11.8%
11.7%
11.9%
UA - UG Headcount (All Majors)
PERCENT OF OHIO UG MAJORS
Undergrad Majors UA - Bachelor's Degrees
and Degrees
Min expected degs based on state proportion
UA - Master's Headcount
PERCENT OF OHIO MASTER'S MAJORS
Master's Majors UA - Master's Degrees
and Degrees
Min expected degs based on state proportion
UA - Doctorate Headcount
PERCENT OF OHIO DOCTORAL MAJORS
Doctoral Majors
and Degrees
7
Sample Datasheet
$50,235
$75,289
$5,000
$56,390
$32,350
$69,230
$12,345
$5,000
$58,340
$26,786
$100,456
$67,000
$128,744
$80,439
$10,000
8
Possible Outcomes
• Invest (replace/increase faculty; grow programs)
– High demand for the program(s); high degree completion
rate
– Research is increasing
– Partnerships and collaborations
• Maintain (may involve internal realignment)
– Service unit for the campus
– Steady enrollment and degree production
• Disinvest (sunset programs/unit/no replacement faculty)
– Declining enrollment in courses/majors
– Decreased demand for program(s)
– Low research productivity
9
Timeline of Academic Program Review
(APR)
• ’05-’10: Formative/Developmental Review
– Faculty involved in the process
• ’10-13:
Summative/Evaluative Review
– In consultation with faculty, updated all program data and
actions and provided input/feedback on previous APR
– Programs reassessed by APR Committee
• Meet with the chair/director
– APR Committee issued recommendations
• In consultation with faculty the chair/director provides
response via dean
• Dean meets with OAA to discuss recommendations
– Reconciles recommendations, including VPR/DGS
– Finalize recommendations
10
Implementation Timeline
• Dec 2:
Update BOT
• Dec/Jan ‘14:
Finalize recommendations/develop
tactics and communications strategies
• Jan16: Campus communication alerting to
meetings with affected units
• Jan 20-15: Dean/Provost/OAA meet with
affected programs
11
Implementation Timeline (cont’d)
• Jan 17:
BOT Committee update: Executive
Session
• Feb 5:
BOT action/resolution as appropriate
• Feb 6:
Update Faculty Senate on APR
recommendations
• Feb 7:
Update campus on APR recommendations
12
Outcomes APR: Context
• Dean develops overall implementation tactics
– All students complete their programs of study
– All faculty who are tenured transition to assignments in
consideration of their skills/abilities
13
In the meantime:
• Converged a college with the College of Arts &
Sciences
• Converged two colleges into a College of Health
Professions
• Moved programs amongst the colleges
• Program or institutional self-deactivation of
programs
14