Received by SCAP January 31, 2006  

These are the criteria used by the Deans to evaluate programs in their colleges.

 

Program Review Criteria

Loyola University New Orleans

(Showed up at SCAP on March 21, 2006)

April 5, 2006

Decisions will be made on the totality of the program. SCAP has determined that while the

following criteria could apply to every program, they do not apply equally across the board to all

programs. Therefore no set weights apply universally. In making the kinds of complex decisions

the university will face in the coming weeks, the institution should be able to weigh all of the

factors and decide which factors, if any, are especially relevant in any particular case. Therefore,

the criteria must be applied with flexibility in the context of the overall health and viability of the

university and in support of its goals.

 

Criteria for program review include quantitative and qualitative data originating from many

sources within and outside the university. These criteria can be used to review programs for a

variety of reasons including review to (1) assure or enhance quality and success of program, (2)

decide upon elimination of program, (3) consider program for suspension, (4) consolidate

programs to eliminate redundancy in the university, and (5) reorganize programs to meet college

and/or university goals. Data used to apply this review will come from many sources within and

outside of the university. Sources of information may include Admissions, Student Records,

Physical Plant Facilities Management, Institutional Research, Finance and Administration,

University Library, Annual Reports for Faculty and Colleges, College Program Reviews, NSSE,

peer reports, Accreditation Agency Reviews, Delaware Studies, and others.

 

1. Centrality to mission of the university

One qualitative criterion is judgments concerning centrality of a major/program to the mission of

the university. Input from the entire campus community is important in arriving at judgments

concerning centrality. Important elements for review in looking at centrality to mission of the

university could include

1.1 extent to which the program responds directly to the written mission of the university

1.2 extent to which the program responds indirectly to the written mission of the university

(4.05.06, SCAP Version) Page 2 of 4

 

2. Reputation and quality of Program

Qualitative in nature but based on quantitative data are several other criterion categories.

Reputation or overall quality of majors/programs is an overall judgment based on several areas

including current and potential faculty quality, demand for graduates, and quality of students

participating in the major/program. Judgments concerning reputation by knowledgeable

individuals external to the university such as colleagues at other universities, graduate

admissions, and employers are also sources regarding reputation. Important elements for review

in looking at reputation and quality of program could include

2.1 national recognition of program

2.2 recognition of faculty within program for teaching, service, and scholarship 1

2.3 demand for, and placement of, graduates

2.4 quality of students in program

2.5 rankings by outside reviewers

2.6 rankings generated by deans of colleges

 

3. Service to majors, minors, other programs and/or the common curriculum

When researching enrollment information, it is also important to review programs for class sizes

at each class level in order to more easily separate demand by majors within the program from

demand by other programs, common curriculum and other students. The extent that courses

serve non-majors, as well as their own majors, should be included in the review process. It is

understood that not all programs will provide service to non-majors. Important elements for

review in looking at service to minors, other programs and/or the common curriculum could

include

3.1 students enrolled at each course level (e.g., 100, 200, 300, & 400 level)

3.2 students enrolled in introductory common curriculum and advanced common curriculum

1 Scholarly productivity is central to the assessment of faculty quality. Publications in refereed

journals and other scholarly contributions subjected to external review, grants received in national

competition, individual research rewards and recognitions, participation in national events, and

offices held in regional and national professional organizations are indicators of attainment. The

quality of teaching in the program should be judged on the basis of tangible information to the

extent possible, such as student evaluations, alumni evaluations, evaluations made by a reviewing

group (for example, by an accreditation team), and special teaching awards and recognitions given

to individuals in the unit. Other faculty functions may be included in the assessment of quality but

must be addressed in terms of specifics. Public service also may be included in the assessment of

quality.

(4.05.06, SCAP Version) Page 3 of 4

 

4. Demand for Program

A major criteria category has to do with student numbers. Demand for programs can vary over

time so it is important to review programs regularly to make sure our mix of programs is

addressing the needs of potential students. Important elements for review in looking at demand

for program could include

4.1 demand for majors/programs shown in recruitment/admissions information

4.2 actual enrollment statistics including number of majors and minors

4.3 number of degrees awarded

4.4 national trend data

 

5. Impact on the community and the recovery of New Orleans

Similar to or in some cases identical with centrality is a judgment concerning the impact that

majors/programs have on our New Orleans community. Again input from the campus and from

the greater community should be included in reaching these judgments. Important elements for

review in looking at impact on the community could include

5.1 extent to which groups in the community call upon program for assistance

5.2 extent of outreach by program within the community

5.3 proclivity of graduates to remain and work within the community

 

6. Revenues and expenses of the Program

Another major criteria category involves revenue and expenses associated with the offering of

majors/programs and courses. Revenue net of financial aid (i.e., net revenue actually received) is

important to review. Reviewing instructional expenses associated with faculty teaching

individual courses is also important. In addition, instructional expenses related to operations,

specialized equipment for the program, library collections and services, space requirements and

other resource needs specific to the program must be considered. Information for these analyses

may be found in quantitative data that are collected and analyzed by the university through

various offices including Admissions, Student Records, University Library, Physical Plant

Facilities Management, Institutional Research, and Finance and Administration. Important

elements for review in looking at revenues and expenses of the program could include

6.1 tuition revenues net of financial aid

6.2 faculty expense for courses

6.3 specialized instructional expenses such as those listed above (e.g. operations, specialized

equipment for the program, library collections and services, space requirements and other

resource needs specific to the program)

6.4 external grant funds received

6.5 impact upon fundraising

(4.05.06, SCAP Version) Page 4 of 4

 

7. Competitive advantage created by Program

A final set of qualitative judgments relates to a major/program having a location and/or

competitive advantage existing in Loyola compared to similar major/programs at other schools.

Arriving at this judgment requires using some of all of the other criteria information. Important

elements for review in looking at competitive advantage created by program could include

7.1 extent to which program differentiates us from our competitors

7.2 extent to which program enhances our reputation

7.3 extent to which program attracts superior students

 

8. Comparison of the program to instructional expense norms at other universities

External benchmarking of Loyola’s instructional expenses compared to other similar universities

is highly desirable where possible. This allows judgment on whether or not a program is in line

with other comparable universities. If there are reasons for variations from norms, they will be

considered in making decisions. Important elements for review in comparing programs to norms

from other universities could include

8.1 using validated information reported by other universities

8.2 comparing with like groups such as

a. other Jesuit universities

b. peer institutions

c. other private institutions