Office of Academic Programs
Orientation for
Academic Program Reviews
Purpose of Program Reviews
 Primary purpose is to evaluate academic excellence
 Emphasis on future-oriented strategic planning rather
than retrospective accounting
 Although reviews often identify resource issues faced by
academic units, it is not a process for requesting new
resources from UW
 Program review is mandated by the State of Washington
Higher Education Coordinating (HEC) Board and the
University; reviews at intervals of 10 years
 This is a review of CFR academic programs; not directly
related to College of the Environment discussions
Nature of the Review
 A collaborative process involving CFR faculty, staff,
and students; The Graduate School, and the Office of
Undergraduate Academic Affairs
 Combines self-assessment (self-study that engages
faculty, students and staff) and external evaluation
(site visit)
 Involves identifying high-quality review committee
members while avoiding conflicts of interest
 The Graduate School conducts the review, but all
academic programs are evaluated
The Review Process [1]
Notification of Scheduled Review
 Dean, CFR
Prepare Self-Study
 CFR Academic Review Committee
Initiate Review/Appoint Review Committee
 UW Graduate Faculty for internal members
 Peer institutions/programs for external members
Charge Meeting
 Internal reviewers, external reviewers by phone,
CFR reps, Graduate School reps, and Office of
Provost
The Review Process [2]
Site Visit
 Review committee meets with unit faculty,
students, staff, and others, as appropriate
 Exit interview between review committee, CFR
Dean, Associate Dean, Chair, Graduate School
representatives, and Provost’s Office
Review Committee Report (within 4 weeks)
 Submitted to Office of Academic Programs
Academic Unit’s Response (within 4 weeks)
 Response letter to review committee report
The Review Process [3]
Graduate School Council Review
Discussion with internal review committee
members, academic unit, GPSS, The
Graduate School Council, CFR Dean,
Associate Dean, and Chair
Response of Dean, CFR
Graduate School recommendations to Provost
Provost instructions to CFR
Review Committee
 Thomas P. Quinn, Review Committee Chair. Professor,
UW School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences
 Donald H. Miller, Professor, UW Department of Urban
Design and Planning
 William H. Rodgers, Jr. Stimson Bullitt Professor of
Environmental Law, UW School of Law
 C. Tattersall Smith, Dean and Professor, Faculty of
Forestry, University of Toronto
 Richard B. Standiford, Associate Vice President, Division
of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of
California, Berkeley
The Self-Study [1]
limit of 25 pages
Main Text
 Executive summary
 Organization and governance
 Faculty, teaching, and degree programs
 Diversity
 Research and creativity
 Collaborations and interdisciplinarity
 Future directions
The Self-Study [2]
Appendices
 Organization Chart
 Budget Summary
 Faculty
 Office of Academic Programs Summary Data
 Abbreviated Faculty Curriculum Vitae
 Strategic Plan
 Higher Education Coordinating Board Summary
 Optional appendices
Role of Graduate and Professional
Student Senate (GPSS) in Review Process
GPSS Survey and Roles
 Catalyst survey to graduate students 4 weeks before
site visit; encourage attendance at site visit
 Survey results to committee 2 weeks before site visit
 Facilitate site visit session with graduate students
and committee
GPSS sends report to:
 Graduate School Dean/Vice Chancellor, CFR, and
review committee
 Graduate School Council (before Council meeting)
The Site Visit




Includes meetings of review committee with faculty,
students, and key staff
Office of Academic Programs staff attend site visit
interview sessions with review committee
GPSS conducts pre-visit survey, encourages attendance
at site visit meeting, and facilitates graduate student site
visit meeting
Concludes with an exit discussion between Review
Committee, Dean, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs,
Chair, Graduate School reps, and reps from the Provost’s
Office
Visiting Committee Questions
 Is CFR doing what they should be doing?
 Is CFR doing these things well?
 How might CFR do things better?
 How should the University assist them?
Site Visit Morning Day 1
Monday, February 23
8:00-8:45
Dean and Associate Deans (107A Anderson)
8:45-9:30
Faculty Interviews (22 Anderson)
9:30-10:30 Non-tenured Tenure-track Faculty Interviews
(22 Anderson)
10:30-10:45 Break
10:45-12:00 Faculty Interviews (22 Anderson)
12:00-1:30 Lunch – Review Committee at Faculty Club
(or catered to conference room)
Site Visit Afternoon Day 1
Monday, February 23
1:30-2:15
Undergraduate Students (22 Anderson)
2:15-3:15
Graduate Students (22 Anderson)
3:15-3:45
Faculty Interviews (22 Anderson)
3:45-4:00
Break
4:00-5:15
Faculty Interviews (22 Anderson)
6:30 pm
Dinner – Review Committee Working Session
Site Visit Morning Day 2
Tuesday, February 24
8:00-9:00
Faculty Chair and Vice-Chair (22 Anderson)
9:00-10:00 Center Directors (22 Anderson)
10:00-10:30 Research and Center Staff (22 Anderson)
10:30-10:45 Break
10:45-11:30 Dean’s and Chair’s Office Staff (22 Anderson)
11:30-12:00 Dean (107A Anderson Hall)
12:00-1:00 Lunch – Review Committee at Faculty Club
(or catered to conference room)
Site Visit Afternoon Day 2
1:00-2:30
Review Committee Executive Session (22 Anderson)
2:30-4:00
Exit Discussion (22 Anderson):
Dean, CFR; Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, CFR; Chair of
the Faculty, CFR; Associate Dean, Office of Undergraduate
Education; Provost or representative, Office of the Provost; Vice
Provost for Academic Planning, Office of the Provost; Dean, The
Graduate School; Associate Dean, Academic Affairs and
Planning, The Graduate School; Senior Academic Programs
Specialist, The Graduate School
4:00-4:30
Review Committee Debriefing (with the above)
Review Process Timeline
 Site Visit
Winter Quarter, 2009
 Review Committee Report (4 weeks)
Spring Quarter, 2009
 CFR’s Response (4 weeks)
Spring Quarter, 2009
 Graduate School Council Review
Autumn Quarter, 2009 (next academic year)