Reporting School/College: Tobin College of Business
Program Reviewed: Accounting MS Q
Date Submitted to Department/Division Chair:
Overview and Program Review Summary: Please summarize this program’s mission and its relationship to the vision and mission of St. John’s University, and the program’s School/College. Identify similar programs regionally and nationally and distinguish this program from them. In addition, summarize your findings as they relate to (1) program quality, (2) market growth potential, and (3) student learning. Also, summarize any significant changes, achievements
(by faculty and students and the program itself), and plans for the future. Finally, based on the information gleaned from the data in the self-study, give an overall rating of the program’s Enrollment/Market Potential by categorizing it as one of the following: (1) Enhance; (2) Maintain; (3) Reduce support, Phase out, Consolidate, or Discontinue.
(Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 1. The purpose of the program reflects and supports the strategic vision and mission of St. John’s
University, and the program’s School/College.
1a. What evidence can you provide that demonstrates that the program embodies the Catholic, Vincentian, and metropolitan identity of St. John’s University? www.stjohns.edu/about/out-mission .
(Suggested limit 1/3 page)
1b. What evidence can you provide that demonstrates that the program embodies the University’s vision. www.stjohns.edu/about/out-mission/vision-statement . (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
1c. What evidence can you provide that demonstrates that the program embodies the vision and mission of the program’s School/College? (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
Standard 1. Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 2. The program attracts, retains, and graduates high quality students.
2a - 2c. Undergraduate Only – Retention and Graduation Rates
TCB_ACC_ACCT_MS_Q Self-Study Template 1

2d. Graduate Standardized Test Scores
Program
School/College
Average Rate
2005
506
508
2006
531
511
Fall
2007
540
507
2008
533
522
2009
568
545
Regional Comparison n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
National Comparison n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Accounting MS Q
Tobin College of Business – Grad
Fall 2010
557
540
Fall 2011
575
563
Fall 2012
556
549
Fall 2013
552
542
General test percentage distribution of scores within intended graduate major field that is based on the profile of GMAT candidates, 2011-12.
GMAT®
Degree Pursued
Master's in Business
(MS, ,MSc, MA)
Gender 2010-11 2011-12
Men: Number 11,339 14,307
Mean Total
Score
553
553
12,609
17,422
Women:
Number
Mean Total
Score
552
557
Total: Number
Mean Total Score
23,948
552
31,729
555
2e. Please describe how the program compares with peer and aspirational institutions.
TCB_ACC_ACCT_MS_Q Self-Study Template 2

(Suggested limit 1/2 page)
Peers: Our program compares favorably to Long Island University in having more toxicology faculty, faculty who participate in toxicology at a national level, and better research facilities. We are comparable in many ways to the
University of the Sciences at Philadelphia, whose toxicology program is also in a college of pharmacy.
Aspirational institutions: Our external research funding for student training is less than Research 1 institutions such as
NYU or Rutgers. This reflects the difference in teaching responsibilities of the faculty and the missions of the institutions.
2f. If applicable, describe the program’s student performance over the past five years on licensure or professional certification exams relative to regional and national standards. (Suggested limit 1/4 page)
2g. Number of majors and minors enrolled over the past five years. See table below.
Fall
2009 Number of Students
Majors
Minors
Total
2005
40
0
40
2006
52
0
52
2007
78
0
78
D ACC
MAJORS ACC
ACC2
MS
MS
MS
Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013
Majors Majors Majors Majors
3 11
169
25
145
32
127
37
Total 194 177 167
2h. Number of degrees granted during the past five years. See table below.
135
38
184
2008
100
0
100
154
0
154
TCB_ACC_ACCT_MS_Q Self-Study Template 3

Degrees Granted
MS
04/05
20
05/06
17
Academic Year
06/07
29
07/08
50
08/09
52
TCB-GR
2010-
2011
Master's
2011-
2012
10/11
Degrees
Conferred
117
11/12
Degrees
Conferred
128
12/13
Degrees
Conferred
88
5i (1). Below is comparison degrees conferred data for local and national institutions based on data retrieved from the
IPEDS website. This is based on the Classification of Instructional Program (CIP) Code of 52-Business, Management,
Marketing, and Related Support Services.
2009-
2010
ACC2 Accounting MS
Local 4,898 5,532 5,719
National 177,684 187,213 191,571
1 Local institutions include: Adelphi University, Columbia University, CUNY Queens College, Fordham University,
Hofstra University, Iona College, C.W. Post University, Manhattan College, New York University, Pace University,
Seton Hall University, Stony Brook University, and Wagner College.
Comments : Based on the data in 2g and 2h, how do these trends compare to institutional, regional and national patterns? (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
2i. What mechanisms are in place to monitor students’ progress toward degree? And, to what extent is there a collaborative effort to provide quality advising and support services to students? (Suggested limit 1/4 page)
2j. If available, provide information on the success of graduates in this program as it relates to employment or attending graduate school. (Suggested limit 1/4 page)
TCB_ACC_ACCT_MS_Q Self-Study Template 4

2k. Please comment on the students’ competencies in the program. Support your response using data provided below and any other data available. (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
Standard 2. Additional comments if needed: (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 3. The program engages in ongoing systematic planning that is aligned with the University and
School/College planning, direction, and priorities.
3a. How does your program’s strategic goal/objectives link to your School/College plan and the University’s strategic plan? http://www.stjohns.edu/about/leadership/strategic-planning
3b. What is the evidence of monitoring the external and internal environments, specifically what are the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats facing the program? How were they identified? What actions have been taken in response to these findings? What characteristics of the program suggest a competitive edge against other programs regionally and nationally?
3c. What is the current and future market demand for the program? Support your response using the data provided below or any other internal or external sources to justify your response.
TCB_ACC_ACCT_MS_Q Self-Study Template 5

Fastest growing occupations and occupations having the largest numerical increase in employment by level of education and training projected.
Fastest Growing Occupations
Bookkeeping, Accounting, and
Auditing Clerks
Change, 2010-20
Percent
14%
Numeric
Occupations having the largest numerical increase in employment
259,000 Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks
Change, 2010-20
Percent Numeric
14% 259,000
Projected Changes in Related Occupations (2010 – 2020)
Changes, 2010-20
Grow faster than average - Increase 15 to 20.9%
Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks
Percent
14%
Numeric
259,000
*For more information please visit: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.toc.htm
Standard 3. Additional comments if needed: (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 4. The program provides a high quality curriculum that emphasizes and assesses student learning and
engagement.
4a. Please indicate how the program curriculum is in alignment with the following three items:
(Suggested limit 1/2 page for each of the three categories below)
1.
Standards within the discipline
2.
Curriculum integrity, coherence, academic internships, teaching excellence, teaching vibrancy, and study abroad experiences.
3.
The University Core competencies
4b. The syllabi for the courses within this program incorporate the suggested elements of a syllabus – an example of which can be found at the following St. John’s University Center for Teaching and Learning link. (Suggested limit 1/3
page) http://stjohns.campusguides.com/content.php?pid=71651&sid=984766
4c. Describe the assessment model currently in place for the program and indicate the extent to which disciplinary and core knowledge, competence, and values are met, as well as findings and action plans for improvement. For reference, visit WeaveOnline – https://app.weaveonline.com//login.aspx
; Digication – https://stjohns.digication.com
(Suggested limit 1/2 page)
TCB_ACC_ACCT_MS_Q Self-Study Template 6

4d. What, if any, external validations, e.g. specialized accreditations, external awards, other validations of quality has the program received? (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
Standard 4. Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 5. The program has the faculty resources required to meet its mission and goals.
5a. Below you will find the number of students enrolled as majors and minors in the program. Please complete the table by adding the number of full-time faculty assigned to the program. Then calculate the student to full-time faculty ratio.
# Majors/
Fall 2005
FT Faculty FT PT Total FT
Fall 2006
PT Total FT
Fall 2007
PT Total FT
Fall 2008
PT Total FT
Fall 2009
PT Total
MS Accounting
31 47 78 37 63 100 119 35 154 40 17 35 52
# of FTE
Students 15.00 8.33 23.33 17.00 11.67 28.67 31.00 15.67 46.67 37.00 21.00 58.00 119.00 11.67 130.67
MBA Public Accounting
76 14 29 43 17 20 37 21 23 44 41 13
# of FTE
Students 31.00 15.00 46.00 14.00 9.67 23.67 17.00 6.67 23.67 21.00 7.67 28.67 41.00 4.33
MBA Business -- Controllership
54
45.33
# of FTE
Students 1.00 0.00
1
1.00
Total Graduate Accounting Queens
0
0.00
1
0.33
1 0 2
0.33 0.00 0.67
2 0 1
0.67 0.00 0.33
1
0.33 0.00
0 1
0.33
1
0.33
Majors 117 31 65 96 48 69 117 58 87 145 160 49 209
# of FTE
Students 47.00 23.33 70.33 31.00 21.67 52.67 48.00 23.00 71.00 58.00 29.00 88.00 160.00 16.33 176.33
# of FTE
Faculty assigned to the program**
FTE
Student/
FTE Faculty
Ratio***
3.92
17.94
5.58
9.44
6.17
11.51
5.83
15.09
7.17
24.59
TCB_ACC_ACCT_MS_Q Self-Study Template 7

MAJORS
F
Majors
Fall 2010
P Total F
Fall 2011
P Total
Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors
Fall 2012 Fall 2013
F P Total F
Majors Majors Majors Majors
P Total
Majors Majors
FTE MAJORS
156 38 194 146 31 177 127 40
Total
Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013
# of FTE faculty assigned to the program
FTE Student/FTE Faculty
Ratio
Important Notes:
FTE Students = Number of FT Students + (number of PT Students/3)
FTE Faculty = Number of FT Faculty + (number of PT Faculty/3)
This methodology is used by SJU for all external reporting.
167 139 45 184
F
FTE
Fall 2010
P Total
FTE FTE
F
FTE
Fall 2011
P Total
FTE FTE
F
FTE
Fall 2012
P Total
FTE FTE
F
FTE
Fall 2013
P Total
FTE FTE
156 12.667 168.667 146 10.333 156.333 127 13.333 140.333 139 15 154
TCB_ACC_ACCT_MS_Q Self-Study Template 8

5b. Below you will find the credit hours the department has delivered by full-time faculty and part-time faculty
(including administrators) and the total credit hours consumed by non-majors.
Credit Hours Fall 2005 Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009
Taught
FT Faculty
# % # % # % # % # %
3550 68% 3718 69% 4576 71% 5602 81% 5488 74%
PT Faculty
Total
1698 32% 1669 31% 1906 29% 1312 19% 1905 26%
5248 100% 5387 100% 6482 100% 6914 100% 7393 100%
22% % consumed by Non-Majors/Minors 32.1 32% 31.7 32% 28.8 29% 40.6 41%
Credit Hrs Taught
F-T Faculty
Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
5,751 77.1% 4,571 66.6% 4,621 76.5% 4,684 79.0%
P-T Faculty (inc
Admin)
Total
1,706 22.9% 2,293
0.0%
33.4% 1,423
0.0%
23.5% 1,245
0.0%
21.0%
0.0%
7,457 100% 6,864 100% 6,044 100% 5,929 100%
Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013
% Consumed by
Non-Majors
1,620 21.7% 1,446 21.1% 1,344 22.2% 1,431 24.1%
TCB_ACC_ACCT_MS_Q Self-Study Template 9

5c. Below you will find the number of courses the department has delivered by full-time faculty and part-time faculty (including administrators).
Credit Hours Fall 2005 Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009
Taught
FT Faculty
# % # % # % # % # %
3550 68% 3718 69% 4576 71% 5602 81% 5488 74%
PT Faculty
Total
1698 32% 1669 31% 1906 29% 1312 19% 1905 26%
5248 100% 5387 100% 6482 100% 6914 100% 7393 100%
22% % consumed by Non-Majors/Minors 32.1 32% 31.7 32% 28.8 29% 40.6 41%
Total 7,457 100% 6,864 100% 6,044 100% 5,929 100%
Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013
% Consumed by
Non-Majors
1,620 21.7% 1,446 21.1% 1,344 22.2% 1,431 24.1%
TCB_ACC_ACCT_MS_Q Self-Study Template 10

5d. What is the representative nature of faculty in terms of demographics, tenure and diversity? (See departmental information on next page). How well does this support the program? (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
Departmental Data
Gender
Male
Female
Total
Ethnicity
Black
Hispanic
Asian
White
Unknown
Total
#
14
5
FT
%
74%
26%
2005
#
11
7
PT
%
61%
39%
1 5% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0%
3 16% 1 6%
Total
25
12
1
0
4
0
0
0
0%
0%
0%
1
0
3
6%
0%
17%
15 79% 14 78% 29 17 85% 10 56%
0 0% 3 17% 3 3 15% 4 22%
1
0
3
0
0
3
0%
0%
14%
0
0
1
0%
0%
7%
0
0
4
0
0
3
0%
0%
15%
2
1
1
18%
9%
9%
27 17 81% 13 87% 30 16 80% 6 55%
7 1 5% 1 7% 2 1 5% 1 9%
2
1
4
0
0
3
0%
0%
14%
2
0
1
14%
0%
7%
22 16 76% 10 71%
2 2 10% 1 7%
17
4
0
21
2
0
4
26
3
19 100% 18 100% 37 20 100% 18 100% 38 21 100% 15 100% 36 20 100% 11 100% 31 21 100% 14 1000% 35
#
14
6
FT
%
70%
30%
2006
#
14
4
16 18 90%
3
0
19
2
0
10%
0%
20 100%
PT
%
78%
22%
Total
28
10
#
15
6
FT
%
71%
29%
#
11
4
18 18 86%
2
0
20
3
0
14%
0%
21 100%
2007
PT
%
73%
27%
Total
26
10
3
0
21
#
14
6
3
0
FT
%
70%
30%
15%
0%
20 100%
2008
#
9
2
18 17 85%
PT
%
82%
18%
Total
8
#
6
FT
%
29%
2009
#
2
17 17 81%
3
0
20
4
0
19%
0%
21 100%
PT
%
23 15 71% 12 86%
14%
Total
27
8
19 100% 18 100% 37 20 100% 18 100% 38 21 100% 15 100% 36 20 100% 11 100% 31 21 100% 14 100% 35
Tenure Status
Tenured 16 84%
Tenure-Track 3 16%
Not Applicable 0 0%
Total 19 100%
TCB_ACC_ACCT_MS_Q Self-Study Template 11

Gender
Male
Female
Total
Ethnicity
Black
Hispanic
Asian
American Indian/Alaskan
Native
White
2 or More Races
Native Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander
Unknown
Total
Tenure Status
Tenured
Tenure-Track
Not Applicable
Total
FT
2010
PT
# % # %
Total FT
2011
PT
# % # %
Total
#
FT
%
2012
PT
# %
14 70% 9 82% 23 15 71% 12 75% 27 17 71% 11 92%
6 30% 2 18% 8 6 29% 4 25% 10 7 29% 1 8%
20 11 31 21 16 37 24 12
0% 2 18%
0% 0%
3 15% 1 9%
2
0
4 3
0%
0%
14%
2
3
13%
0%
19%
2
0
6 5
0%
0%
21%
3
2
25%
0%
17%
0
7
3
Total FT
# % #
2013
PT
%
Total
28 18 72% 12 100% 30
8 7 28% 0% 7
36 25 12 37
0% 1 8%
0% 1 8%
5 20% 3 25%
1
8
1
0% 0% 0 0% 0% 0 0% 0%
17 85% 7 64% 24 17 81% 10 63% 27 18 75% 6 50%
1 1
0% 1 9%
20 11
15 75%
3 15%
2 10%
20
1 0% 1 6%
31 21 16
15 15 71%
3
2
20
4
2
21
19%
10%
1
37 24
4
2
21
15 15 63%
7
2
24
0%
29%
8%
1
12
8%
0 0% 0%
24 19 76% 7 58%
1
1 0%
36 25 12
15 16 64%
7 8 32%
2 1 4%
24 25
0%
16
8
1
25
0
37
0
26
TCB_ACC_ACCT_MS_Q Self-Study Template 12

5e. What evidence exists that the program’s faculty have engaged in research and scholarship on teaching and/or learning in the program’s field of study? (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
5f. What initiatives have been taken in the past five years to promote faculty development in support of the program? (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
5g. The table below shows the amount of external funding received by the department. If available, please provide the dollar amount of externally funded research for full-time faculty supporting the program under review. (Program dollar amounts are available through departmental records.)
Fiscal Year
External Funding
$ Amount Program
$ Amount Department
04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09
Fiscal Year
External
Funding 09/10
$ Amount
Program
$ Amount
Department
10/11 11/12 12/13
- - - -
5h. Please Comment on the table below that shows trends in overall course evaluation and instructional vibrancy for your program (if available), your college and the university. (Suggested limit ½ page)
Overall Evaluation (Spring) Instructional Vibrancy (Spring)
2011 2012 2013 2011 2012 2013
4.25 4.37 4.29 4.46 4.54 4.55 Accounting (Q)
Tobin College of Business
Total Graduate
4.09
4.14
4.24
4.16
4.25
4.30
4.36
4.37
4.49
4.39
4.50
4.52
TCB_ACC_ACCT_MS_Q Self-Study Template 13

Note: Institutional Vibrancy is the average of the first 14 questions on the course evaluation, with questions pertaining to course organization, communication, faculty-student interaction, and assignments/grading. All course evaluation questions range from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).
5i. What percentage of full time faculty assigned to this program have terminal degrees or industry certifications renewed within the past 2 years? Comment. (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
Standard 5. Comments: Indicate to what extent the program has the faculty resources required to meet its mission and goals. Include references from 5a – 5i. (Suggested limit 1 page)
Standard 5. Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 6. The program has adequate resources to meet its goals and objectives. And, it is cost-effective.
6a. Narrative/Supportive Technological Environment - Comment on classrooms and labs meeting industry-standards for quality and availability of hardware, software, and peripherals; library space, holdings and services; science laboratories, TV studios, art/computer graphic labs; etc. (Suggested limit 1 page)
6b. Narrative/ Supportive Physical Environment - Comment on level of faculty and student satisfaction with HVAC; faculty and student satisfaction with classroom lighting, crowdedness, and acoustics; flexible teaching environments, and faculty offices, etc.. (Suggested limit 1 page)
6c. To what extent has the University funded major capital projects, e.g., renovations, which are linked directly to the program during the past five years? (Bulleted list)
6d. If external data that describes the cost effectiveness of the program has been provided by your School/College
Dean, please comment on the program’s cost-effectiveness. (Suggested limit 1 page)
TCB_ACC_ACCT_MS_Q Self-Study Template 14

Standard 6. Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 7. Effective actions have been taken based on the findings of the last program review and plans have
been initiated for the future.
Comments: (Suggested limit 1page)
TCB_ACC_ACCT_MS_Q Self-Study Template 15