AY 2014-2015 ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW SELF-STUDY TEMPLATE
Reporting School/College: St. John’s College
Program Reviewed: Biological Sciences PhD Q
Date Submitted to Department/Division Chair: September, 2015
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)
The Department of Biological Sciences (DBS) offers the Ph.D. degree in Biology, and as a program offering the
highest degree in academia it is fitting that we adhere to the highest standards of scholarship and instruction.
The Ph.D. Program is important to the University for several reasons:
1. The ability to conduct research at the highest level attracts highly qualified and motivated faculty to the
University.
2. The research of the program creates new and important knowledge that contributes to human well being.
3. The presence of highly qualified doctoral students, all of whom function as instructors in our undergraduate
laboratories, contributes to the quality of our undergraduate program. Indeed, it is impossible to separate the
quality of our undergraduate program from that of our graduate programs – they are intimately intertwined. In
fact, we would not be able to staff many of our undergraduate teaching labs without our doctoral students. Thus,
much of the credit for increasing the enrollment in our BS program goes to our doctoral students.
4. The significant increase in external funding received by the department since 2008 stands squarely on the
backs of our Ph.D. students, who do virtually all of the experimental work upon which that funding is
predicated. The doctoral students are also instrumental for engagement of our undergraduates in faculty
research.
Consistent with the St. John’s College and University strategic plans, this program stresses excellence in
education and high quality preparation for very competitive job market.
To date, our graduates have excelled in obtaining prestigious post-doctoral research positions, and, ultimately,
outstanding careers.
Recommendation: Enhance
Self-Study Template 1
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_PhD_Q
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)
Pope Francis noted, “scientific advancements can be used for the benefit of people”. Improving people’s lives
and environment requires the understanding and application of the basic scientific principles governing bodies,
minds, and ecosystems. The Ph.D. program in Biological Sciences seeks to train students in the life sciences
through a combination of didactic courses and extensive hands-on experiences in research laboratories. Much of
the research work, and nearly all of the didactic coursework pursued by our Ph.D. students is focused on
biomedical research, and many of our students will pursue careers in which they advance our knowledge of
human health and well being. This is in accordance with the SJU mission to improve people’s lives. Our goal is
to provide our students with the best possible education and training, so that they are competitive and successful
in their careers after completing Ph.D.
We make use of the vast scientific resources of the New York metropolitan area, and increasingly seek to
develop collaborative relationships with New York institutions and facilities that will help our students to
develop as competent scientists and achieve their research goals.
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)
PhD program in Biology stresses excellence in education and training and high quality preparation for
continuing one’s education or entering the workforce. The presence of highly qualified faculty and doctoral
students creates intellectually stimulating environment that also contributes to the quality and enrollment in our
undergraduate program.
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)
The DBS focuses on excellence in teaching and research, and on student engagement through participation in
faculty research in research laboratories. This is very natural for our Ph.D. program, since all our Ph.D. students
interact daily with their faculty mentors. Further, the Department sponsors research seminars by visiting
scientists where our students are exposed to the ideas of other research scientists and are afforded the
opportunity to network in preparation for taking the next step in their careers. We also conduct a weekly data
club presented by our Ph.D. students where students gain experience in presenting their research results.
Standard 1.
Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
Self-Study Template 2
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_PhD_Q
STANDARD 2. The program attracts, retains, and graduates high quality students.
2a.
Undergraduate SAT and High School Average
2b.
Undergraduate 1st Year Retention Rate
2c.
Undergraduate 6 Year Graduation Rate
2d.
Graduate Standardized Test Scores
Fall
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Program
530/573
453/650
430/727
452/654
347/720
School/College
Average Rate
481/561
494/569
465/551
501/588
472/577
Regional
Comparison
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
National
Comparison
See below
The National Overall Average is 457/586 and the National Average in the Specific Discipline is 484/625, based on those
tested between July 1, 2005 and June 30, 2008. The lower verbal scores and higher quantitative scores are most likely
due to high percentage of foreign-born doctoral students in our program.
Self-Study Template 3
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_PhD_Q
New Graduate Students GRE Verbal
Mean Scores
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Ir Grev Score
BIO
PHD
old
Fall 2012
Ir Grev Score
435
Fall 2013
Ir Grev Score
355
Ir Grev Score
580
new
430
150
New Graduate Students GRE Quantitative
Mean Scores
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Ir Greq Score
BIO
PHD
old
Fall 2012
Ir Greq Score
658
Fall 2013
Ir Greq Score
770
Ir Greq Score
660
new
800
152
As of August 1, 2011, ETS revised the GRE General Test with a new scoring scale. Prior to 8/1/11 on a scale of 200-800(old) and after 8/1/11 on a scale of 130-170(new)
New Graduate Students GRE Verbal
Mean Scores
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Ir Grev Score
Graduate School Arts & Sci
old
Fall 2012
Ir Grev Score
491
Fall 2013
Ir Grev Score
500
new
Ir Grev Score
497
532
154
153
New Graduate Students GRE Quantitative
Mean Scores
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Ir Greq Score
Graduate School Arts & Sci
old
Fall 2012
Ir Greq Score
585
Fall 2013
Ir Greq Score
566
new
Ir Greq Score
593
604
149
150
As of August 1, 2011, ETS revised the GRE General Test with a new scoring scale. Prior to 8/1/11 on a scale of 200-800(old) and after 8/1/11 on a scale of 130-170(new)
Comments: Refer to Charts 2a – 2d in your response. (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
2e.
Please describe how the program compares with peer and aspirational institutions.
(Suggested limit 1/2 page)
Self-Study Template 4
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_PhD_Q
The National Overall Average is 457/586 and the National Average in the Specific Discipline is 484/625, based
on those tested between July 1, 2005 and June 30, 2008. The lower verbal scores and higher quantitative scores
are most likely due to high percentage of foreign-born doctoral students in our program.
Comparison of our program with other institutions was hampered by the scarcity of public data from other
universities that we could use for comparison.
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)
N.A. Biology Ph.D. students do not take any licensure or professional certification exams.
2g.
Number of majors and minors enrolled over the past five years. See table below.
Fall
Number of Students
2006
2007
2008
2009
Majors
31
29
30
29
22
Minors
0
0
0
0
0
Total
31
29
30
29
22
MAJORS
2h.
2005
BIO
PHD
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
24
24
24
24
Number of degrees granted during the past five years. See table below.
Academic Year
Degrees
Granted
PHD
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
4
6
7
3
9
Self-Study Template 5
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_PhD_Q
SJC-GR
BIO
Biology
PHD
10/11
11/12
12/13
Degrees Conferred
Degrees Conferred
Degrees Conferred
8
2
3
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 26- Biological and Biomedical Sciences.
20092010
20102011
20112012
Doctorate
Local1
213
243
175
National
7,666
7,693
7,935
1
Local institution 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.
For more information please visit: http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/Default.aspx
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)
Since 2005, an average of 5 biology PhD students graduated every year. This value stayed constant in the more
recent years in contrast to local PhD graduation rate which decreased 20% between 2010 and 2012 while
nationally the graduation rate increased slightly (4%) during the same time period. The decrease in the number
of PhD students in 2011 correlates with the end of NIH training grant. The number of PhD student is tied to the
number of graduate assistantships offered by the university, which was constant during this time period.
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)
All PhD students are advised by the Graduate Director or the Graduate Dean in terms of course work. For the
PhD thesis, the mentor is the primary advisor of the student. The mentor, under the umbrella of the
departmental chair and graduate Dean, and in collaboration with the members of thesis committee, ensure that
Self-Study Template 6
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_PhD_Q
the PhD student is progressing towards successful defense of the thesis. In addition, the graduate education
policy committee (GEPC) is also involved in monitoring of the progress of graduate students towards the
defense of the thesis.
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)
Approximately 90% of the students accepted to the Ph.D. program successfully graduate with the PhD degree.
Approximately 90% of the students accepted to the Ph.D. program graduate within 6 years. Nationally, only
about 61% of Ph.D. students graduate within 6 years. Approximately 90% of our Ph.D. graduates find
employment after graduation.
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)
Biology Ph.D. students graduated with a cumulative GPA similar to or slightly higher than graduate students of
St John’s college and campus wide. This reflects on the thorough screening and selection of highly qualified
Ph.D. candidates accepted in the program.
Self-Study Template 7
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_PhD_Q
Standard 2.
Additional comments if needed: (Suggested limit 1 page)
Financial support: in the last 3-4 years, fellowship of our PhD students have increased from $15,000 to
$24,000/yr; which was instrumental in attracting high-quality graduate students. There is certainly some room
for increasing graduate student fellowships considering the high cost of living in New York City.
Diversity of Biology Ph.D. students: over the last 5 yrs, the average non-resident doctoral student ratio is 70%
of the total doctoral student body.
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
The College’s “Strategic Direction” as defined in the document linked to above, emphasizes its role in teaching
the university core, creating new programs of study, improving retention and graduation rates, and increasing
enrolments.
University Core: This Is a Ph.D. program, the only one remaining in the basic sciences at St. John’s University.
As such, it has little to do with the core curriculum. Our graduate students are however critical to the laboratory
courses offered for our undergraduates, since they are the primary instructors in undergraduate laboratories for
our 750 majors and also for physics, chemistry, and pharmacy program students who take biology lab courses.
New Programs of Study: Biology is burgeoning with new methods and areas of study, not to mention increasing
new avenues of interdisciplinary work combining biology with physics, chemistry, and information science. At
the Ph.D. level, entering new areas of science generally requires the recruitment of faculty with recent
postdoctoral experience in the new fields. Those in biology include genomics, RNA biology, systems biology,
synthetic biology, and computational biology. During a 5 year period in which the department, servicing 750
undergraduate majors, has been reduced to 9 full-time tenure track faculty, expanding into these new areas has
been out of the question. The faculty of the DBS stand ready to discuss these opportunities with any interested
parties.
Retention and graduation rates: At least 80 % of Ph.D. students enrolled within the past 5 years remain in the
program, left after sitting for the M.S. Comprehensive Exam, or have defended their Ph.D. theses.
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?
Self-Study Template 8
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_PhD_Q
Strengths: The faculty of the DBS are extraordinarily well trained and competent for the supervision of Ph.D.
level graduate students. In spite of an increasingly challenging funding environment since the Recession of
2008, the Department’s external funding has increased 5.6X during this period (see 5g below), even as the
number of research-level faculty has dropped precipitously.
Weaknesses: The number of faculty actively pursuing research is dangerously low. Space to accommodate new
research efforts is extremely limited, and the Department has not had enough hires to make up for faculty lost to
retirement even as undergraduate enrolment of Biology majors has increased. The physical state of St. Albert’s
Hall is challenging, with gross overheating/air conditioning in some areas and none in others, insufficient
electrical service, particularly in some labs that have not been renovated since St. Albert Hall was built in the
1950s, insufficient central instrumentation spaces and technical support for instrumentation.
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.
Our Ph.D. gradates correspond most closely to the “Biochemist and Biophysicist” category in the Bureau of
Labor Statistics “Fastes Growing Occupations” Table, below. A 31% increase in Ph.D. level
biochemists/biophysicists is predicted for the United States between 2010 and 2020.
Fastest Growing Occupations
Change, 2010-20
Percent
Numeric
Biochemist and Biophysicists
31%
7,700
Biomedical Engineers
62%
9,700
14%
10,900
Biological Technicians
Occupations having the
largest numerical increase
in employment
Biological Technicians
Change, 2010-20
Percent
Numeric
14%
10,900
Self-Study Template 9
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_PhD_Q
Projected Changes in Related Occupations (2010 – 2020)
Changes, 2010-20
Grow much faster than average – Increase 21% or more
Percent
Numeric
Biomedical Engineers
62%
9,700
Biochemist and Biophysicists
31%
7,700
Changes, 2010-20
Grow much faster than average – Increase 7 to 14.9%
Biological Technicians
Percent
Numeric
14%
10,900
*For more information please visit: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.toc.htm
Standard 3.
Additional comments if needed: (Suggested limit 1 page)
The 5.6X increase in external funding received by the department since 2008 stands squarely on the backs of
our Ph.D. students, who do virtually all of the experimental work upon which that funding is predicated. The
opportunity to supervise a research program involving Ph.D. students as an attractor of the most motivated and
highly trained and competitive faculty cannot be overstated. This in turn benefits students in all programs
served by the DBS.
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
1. Standards within the discipline: All Ph.D. students are required to study a core curriculum consisting
of three courses: Core A, Biochemistry; Core B, Molecular Biology; Core C, Cell Biology. All three are taught
by instructors who are experts in their respective fields, using current graduate level texts. Additional
coursework is taken from a selection of courses that focus on the areas of research strength in the Department,
i.e. Cell/Molecular Biology and Biochemistry. Further, since doctoral education places great emphasis on
developing research skills under the tutelage of an experienced mentor, all doctoral students will rotate through
2 different laboratories during their first year in the program in order to meet potential mentors (and vice versa).
We have established rules for faculty who serve as mentors for our Ph.D. students, allowing only those
researchers with publications from previous students and with current or recent extramural funding to be
Self-Study Template 10
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_PhD_Q
mentors. Additionally, we have implemented a policy that all graduating students must have an accepted first
author paper and an accepted second paper that they don’t have to be a first author on. These rules are meant to
improve the competitiveness and success rate of our Ph.D. students, keep faculty members accountable, and to
increase the caliber of the department.
2. Curriculum integrity, coherence, academic internships, teaching excellence, teaching vibrancy, and
study abroad experiences: Graduate training in the sciences is primarily a hands-on experience. The courses that
a student takes occupy only a small part of that student’s time – he/she belongs in the laboratory learning how to
think and function like a scientist. Thus, many of the important aspects of Mission and Globalization are out of
reach for this population of students. On the other hand, graduate students are (or should be) completely
engaged in the research and scholarship enterprise of the Department. Additionally, many students interact with
researchers from across the globe through email contact or at annual society meetings. In a less formal venue,
we hold Data Club weekly. In this informal setting (pizza and soda) students and faculty discuss current
research results in a non-threatening environment that encourages students of every level to participate.
Thanks to a very generous gift from Drs. Haldar, who were long time members of the Biology faculty,
the department has set up the Haldar Publication Award, which each year honors graduate students who have
published a paper.
3. The University Core competencies: The University core competencies (critical thinking, information
literacy, oral and writing skills and quantitative reasoning) are a virtual description of an outstanding scientist,
and our coursework and mentoring is dedicated to developing these very skills in our graduate students. All of
our students will take at least one (and possibly more) 700 level course. Courses at this level are essentially
literature courses in which the students read current literature, present papers to the class, analyze experiment
and design next-steps. Simultaneously, most students are working in research laboratories where mentors are
dedicated to developing these competencies in their mentees.
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
The syllabi for the courses in the MS and Ph.D. programs were updated in the fall of 2014 and contain
the suggested elements of a syllabus. These syllabi are all uploaded to the syllabus drive and follow a similar
format. They have the following sections: Title page with St. John’s letterhead, Prerequisites, Corequisites,
Course Goals and Learning Outcomes, Format and Procedures, Course requirements, Units of Instruction,
Bibliography, and New York State Education Department requirement.
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)
The Department has established three goals that include a total of 9 measurable objectives in this review
cycle. We assess knowledge of foundational principles through the examinations in the 3 core classes (Core A,
Biochemistry; Core B, Molecular Biology; Core C, Cell Biology) and through Doctoral Qualifying
Examination. The Doctoral Qualifying Examination is oral and involves presentation of experimental plan for
doctoral research, including preliminary data, design of experiments and knowledge and justification of the
proposed methods. The Doctoral Qualifying Examination is administered by the GEPC Committee.
Self-Study Template 11
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_PhD_Q
The second and third areas of interest involve the process of science from design of experiments to
presenting the results. For doctoral students this is assessed initially on a rubric completed by the faculty
member overseeing the student’s research rotation. While we have had a number of students score poorly in this
respect (they left the program subsequently), overall more than 80% of students receive acceptable evaluations
in this important realm.
Finally, mastery of the entire scientific enterprise is demonstrated by the completion of a research
program designed by the student in collaboration with his/her mentor, the preparation of a written report of the
research (the dissertation), a successful oral presentation and defense of the work (the dissertation defense), and
the acceptance of 2 papers for publication in the scientific literature.
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.
Fall 2005
Fall 2006
# Majors/
FT Faculty
FT
PT
Total
Majors
21
10
31
Minors
FT
18
PT
11
0
Majors
& Minors
Combined
21
10
# of FTE
Students
(Majors &
Minors)
21.00
3.33
Fall 2007
Total
29
FT
16
PT
14
0
Fall 2008
Total
30
FT
18
PT
11
0
Fall 2009
Total
29
FT
19
PT
Total
3
0
22
0
31
18
11
29
16
14
30
18
11
29
19
24.33
18.00
3.67
21.67
16.00
4.67
20.67
18.00
3.67
21.67
19.00
3
1.00
22
20.00
# of FTE
Faculty
assigned
to the
program
0
0
0
0
0
FTE
Student/
FTE
Faculty
Ratio
0
0
0
0
0
Self-Study Template 12
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_PhD_Q
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2013
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
MAJORS
7
17
24
21
3
Fall 2010
Total
Fall 2012
FTE MAJORS
24
23
Fall 2011
1
24
22
Fall 2012
2
24
Fall 2013
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
7
5.667
12.667
21
1
22
23
0.333
23.333
22
0.667
22.667
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
# of FTE faculty assigned
to the program
8
8
9
10
FTE Student/FTE Faculty
Ratio
1.6
2.8
2.6
2.3
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 STJ for all external reporting.
Self-Study Template 13
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_PhD_Q
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
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
3420
55%
3279
50%
3515
58%
3268
61%
3458
62%
PT Faculty
2849
45%
3215
50%
2585
42%
2125
39%
2163
38%
Total
6269
100%
6494
100%
6100
100%
5393
100%
5621
100%
Taught
FT Faculty
% consumed by
Non-Majors
63%
59%
59%
53%
52%
Fall 2005 – Fall 2007 includes Scientific Inquiry courses.
Credit Hrs Taught
Fall 2010
Number
Fall 2011
Percent
Number
Fall 2012
Percent
Fall 2013
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
F-T Faculty
3,423
57.6%
3,596
56.5%
3,847
64.1%
4,351
69.1%
P-T Faculty (inc
Admin)
2,515
42.4%
2,774
43.5%
2,158
35.9%
1,944
30.9%
0.0%
Total
% Consumed by
Non-Majors
5,938
3,039
100%
51.2%
0.0%
6,370
3,416
100%
53.6%
0.0%
6,005
2,883
100%
48.0%
0.0%
6,295
2,999
100%
47.6%
Self-Study Template 14
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_PhD_Q
5c.
Below you will find the number of courses the department has delivered by full-time faculty and part-time
faculty (including administrators).
Courses
Taught
Fall 2005
#
Fall 2006
%
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
46
58%
54
68%
41
66%
43
64%
FT Faculty
48
59%
PT Faculty
34
41%
34
43%
26
33%
21
34%
24
36%
Total
82
100%
80
100%
80
100%
62
100%
67
100%
Fall 2005 – Fall 2007 includes Scientific Inquiry courses.
Courses Taught
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
F-T Faculty
44
65.7%
56
57.7%
P-T Faculty (inc
Admin)
23
34.3%
41
42.3%
0.0%
Total
67
100%
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
42
58.3%
45
62.5%
30
41.7%
27
37.5%
0.0%
97
100%
Fall 2013
0.0%
72
100%
0.0%
72
100%
Note: It appears that the values for the credit hours (5b) and courses (5c) the department has delivered by fulltime faculty and part-time faculty (including administrators) describes the undergraduate program and not the
Ph.D. program.
Self-Study Template 15
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_PhD_Q
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)\
The department has undergone very significant personnel changes within the last 4 years. In the 2010 VSO we have lost 4 faculty
members and in the 2014 VSO we have lost 5 faculty members. In addition, 2 faculty members became administrators since 2010.
During the same time, we were able to hire only 3 faculty members. At the present time (Fall 2014), the Department has 8 tenured, 2
tenure-track, and 1 contract faculty members. Thus, the department is 73% tenured. We are 73% white, 27% Asian, and 73% male.
Our faculty represents a wide variety of geographic origins, coming from across the United States, Europe, and China.
The department currently has no black or Hispanic faculty. We hope to remedy this situation by hiring members of minority groups as
the positions become available. However, we realize that competition for highly qualified minority scientists is fierce and many other
departments have the same goal. The Department would also like to increase the number of female faculty members. The recruitment
of highly qualified faculty members is aided by the fact that we have a doctoral program. On the other hand, the limited availability of
laboratory space and very modest start-up package make the recruitment more challenging.
Self-Study Template 16
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_PhD_Q
Departmental Plan
2005
FT
2006
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
Male
10
63%
11
69%
Female
6
38%
5
Total
16
100%
Black
0
Hispanic
FT
2007
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
21
10
63%
9
50%
31%
11
6
38%
9
16
100%
32
16
100%
0%
1
6%
1
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
Asian
3
19%
3
19%
White
13
81%
11
Unknown
0
0%
Total
16
100%
Tenured
13
Tenure-Track
FT
2008
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
19
10
59%
6
50%
50%
15
7
41%
6
18
100%
34
17
100%
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
6
3
19%
8
44%
69%
24
13
81%
10
1
6%
1
0
0%
16
100%
32
16
100%
81%
13
13
2
13%
2
Not Applicable
1
6%
Total
16
100%
FT
2009
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
16
10
63%
9
60%
50%
13
6
38%
6
12
100%
29
16
100%
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
11
3
18%
1
8%
56%
23
14
82%
8
0
0%
0
0
0%
18
100%
34
17
100%
81%
13
13
2
13%
2
1
1
6%
16
16
100%
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
19
10
59%
10
59%
20
40%
12
7
41%
7
41%
14
15
100%
31
17
100%
17
100%
34
0%
1
7%
1
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
4
3
19%
6
40%
9
4
24%
8
47%
12
67%
22
13
81%
8
53%
21
13
76%
9
53%
22
3
25%
3
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
12
100%
29
16
100%
15
100%
31
17
100%
17
100%
34
76%
13
13
81%
13
15
88%
15
3
18%
3
0
0%
3
2
12%
2
1
1
6%
1
3
19%
0
0
0%
0
16
17
100%
17
16
100%
16
17
100%
17
Gender
Ethnicity
Tenure Status
Self-Study Template 17
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_PhD_Q
2010
FT
2011
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
Male
9
60%
11
61%
Female
6
40%
7
39%
Total
15
FT
2012
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
20
10
71%
10
48%
13
4
29%
11
52%
33
14
FT
2013
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
20
11
73%
10
53%
15
4
27%
9
47%
35
15
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
21
12
75%
8
42%
20
13
4
25%
11
58%
15
34
16
Gender
18
21
19
19
35
Ethnicity
Black
0%
1
6%
1
0%
0%
0
0%
0%
0
0%
2
11%
2
Hispanic
0%
1
6%
1
0%
0%
0
0%
1
5%
1
0%
1
5%
1
13%
10
56%
12
67%
16
20%
11
58%
14
25%
9
47%
13
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
33%
19
33%
19
37%
19
75%
7
37%
19
2 or More Races
0
0%
0
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
Asian
2
Native American
White
0%
13
Unknown
Total
87%
6
0%
15
0%
18
2
14%
14
0%
12
0
86%
7
0%
33
14
0%
21
3
0%
12
0
80%
7
0%
35
15
0%
19
4
12
0
0%
34
16
19
35
Tenure Status
Tenured
12
80%
12
11
79%
11
12
80%
12
13
81%
13
Tenure-Track
2
13%
2
2
14%
2
2
13%
2
2
13%
2
Not Applicable
1
7%
1
1
7%
1
1
7%
1
1
6%
1
Total
15
15
14
14
15
15
16
16
Self-Study Template 18
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_PhD_Q
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)
Most of the program faculty attend annual scientific meetings in their discipline and specifically attend the
sessions on pedagogy at those annual meetings. The workshops sponsored by St. John’s Center for Teaching
and Learning are also well-attended by the program faculty. Faculty have participated in university workshops
on Blackboard, podcasting, and Ped1, the distance learning course.
 Drs Chris Bazinet and Anne Dranginis were named National Academies Education Fellows in the Life
Sciences in 2012 after spending one week at Yale University at an intensive workshop in teaching methods
in Biology sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, the Institute of Medicine, the National
Research Council and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. Drs Bazinet and Dranginis shared their
experiences by producing a seminar at St. John’s Center for Teaching and Learning for the benefit of the
university community.
 In 2013, Dr. Vancura attended 3-day conference sponsored by the Association of American Colleges and
Universities (AACU) “Transforming STEM Education: Inquiry, Innovation, Inclusion, and Evidence.
 Dr. Schramm attended several national conferences on the subject of assessment in higher education,
sponsored by the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AACU), the Middle States
Commission on Higher Education, and the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
(ASBMB).
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)
The Department believes that faculty development occurs in 3 stages: (i) hiring the best faculty, (ii) mentoring
the new faculty, and (iii) supporting faculty and providing opportunities for professional growth.
• The Department has hired 3 tenure-track faculty within the last 4 years. All of these new faculty members
already became effective classroom instructors and engage students in their laboratories. Two of these faculty
already secured a significant extramural funding.
• The most important aspect of faculty development for science faculty is laboratory research, which has been
supported in terms of funds and time by the University and the Department. The Department established a new
program that provides incentives for faculty to teach well and to publish: an additional distribution of
departmental funds is given to faculty who (i) receive high student evaluation of their courses, and (ii) publish
original papers.
• Senior faculty members mentor new hires. Dr. Vancurova mentors Dr. Yu, who was hired in 2012. In 2014,
Dr. Yu obtained his first NIH grant.
• The program has rescheduled departmental seminars to encourage attendance by faculty as well as students.
These weekly seminars are given by noted research scientists from another institution, who typically spend part
of the day visiting individual faculty in their offices and laboratories before or after the seminar. These visits are
rich sources of information and collaboration for faculty.
• The program also sponsors a weekly Data Club at which graduate students take turns presenting their research
data, which is discussed by members of the program.
• Scientific equipment has been obtained for use by faculty of the entire program and housed in shared facilities
set up and maintained by the program. These are major pieces of equipment that are ordinarily too expensive for
an individual laboratory, and are suitable for shared use. They include scintillation counter, Typhoon imager,
Self-Study Template 19
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_PhD_Q
and a real time PCR instrument, which were all purchased with funds from the university’s Science Advisory
Committee.
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
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
1,224,543
1,153,444
732,355
269,960
352,950
$ Amount
Program
$ Amount
Department
Fiscal Year
External
Funding
09/10
10/11
11/12
12/13
793,607
1,521,924
$ Amount
Program
$ Amount
Department
572,250
-
The external funding is primarily from NIH (National Institutes of Health) and NSF (National Science
Foundation) to support research of the program faculty. After a steady decline since 2004/2005 until
2010/2011, the Department, despite being severely understaffed, was able to reverse the trend and achieve the
highest level of external funding in 2012/2013. The Department considers the external funding to be extremely
important, because it provides engagement opportunities for our students and contributes to the academic
reputation of the entire University.
Self-Study Template 20
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_PhD_Q
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)
Biological
Sciences
MS/PHD (Q)
Saint John’s
College
Total Graduate
Overall Evaluation (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
Instructional Vibrancy (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
3.82
4.22
4.35
4.03
4.59
4.35
4.23
4.26
4.19
4.37
4.40
4.40
4.14
4.16
4.30
4.37
4.39
4.52
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).
The overall course evaluations and instructional vibrancy in Biological Sciences are quite comparable to the
values for St. John’s College and University. The year-to-year variation is probably due to the relatively small
number of graduate classes in Biology.
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)
100% of full time faculty assigned to the program have terminal degree (PhD).
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)
The number of faculty actively pursuing research at the level required for training Ph.D. students is low. DBS
has no space for new research-level faculty and space to accommodate new research efforts and shared
equipment is extremely limited, and the Department has not had enough hires to make up for faculty lost to
retirement. The physical state of St. Albert’s Hall is challenging, with gross overheating/air conditioning in
some areas and none in others, insufficient electrical service, particularly in some labs that have not been
renovated since St. Albert Hall was built in the 1950s, insufficient central instrumentation spaces and technical
support for instrumentation. There are frequent leaks from the 3rd floor; this often damages our expensive
research equipment. In addition, we need more space and support from the Animal Care Facility. Research
space and resources should be allocated on the basis of research productivity.
Standard 5.
Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
Self-Study Template 21
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_PhD_Q
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)
Ph.D. program in Biology has been designated a program of distinction in St. John’s College. PhD Biology
students are essential for teaching undergraduate laboratories, they are involved in research and their work
contributes significantly to the scholarship of the Department, since the majority of the experimental work is
performed by PhD students. The significant increase in external funding received by the DBS since 2008 should
be to large part credited to our Ph.D. students, who do virtually all of the experimental work that is required for
the funding. In addition, Ph.D. Biology students are responsible for training and supervising undergraduate
students performing research in our labs, thus significantly contributing and enhancing engagement of our
undergraduate students.
Our Ph.D. program has two major challenges: number of faculty members with competitive active research
program and the amount of available research laboratory space. Space to accommodate new faculty members
and shared equipment is extremely limited, which undermines the Ph.D. program, scholarship and publication
output of Ph.D. students and faculty, extramural funding, and engagement of undergraduate students.
The physical state of St. Albert’s Hall is extremely poor: insufficient temperature control in most rooms,
unreliable electrical service (voltage fluctuations), frequent leaks from old pipes, etc. St. Albert’s Hall is one of
the oldest buildings on campus (built in 1950s or 1960s); this sharply contrasts with most other colleges and
universities, where the science buildings are typically the most recently built. The space in the Animal Care
Facility is also inadequate.
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)
Please see above.
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)

None
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)
The Total Revenue of the Ph.D. Program is $48,974, the Direct Expenses are $139,596, and the corresponding
Contribution Margin #1 is negative $90,622.
Self-Study Template 22
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_PhD_Q
However, considering the importance of our PhD students and program for the enrollment in our undergraduate
program, as well as the faculty scholarship, it is important to enhance our PhD program so that we can stay
competitive with neighboring universities.
The PhD program is closely intertwined with the BS and MS programs. We would not be able to staff our
undergraduate laboratory classes without our PhD students and consequently we would have to decrease
enrollment in our undergraduate program. Thus, cost effectivenes of all our programs (BS, MS, PhD) combined
provides a better information about financial effectiveness of DBS.
The cost effectiveness of all 3 programs in DBS (BS, MS, PhD): The Total Revenue is $16,085,901, the Direct
Expenses are $6,639,790, and the corresponding Contribution Margin #1 is 9,446,111.
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)
One of the previous program reviews awarded the Ph.D. Program in Biology the “Program of Distinction”
status. After losing 10 faculty members to two rounds of VSO during the last 5 years, we almost became the
“Program of Extinction”. However, this unprecedented faculty turnover also gives us the opportunity to
reenergize and reshape the DBS and the Ph.D. program. We were already able to hire 5 highly qualified faculty
who have already made a major contribution to the Ph.D. program, DBS, College, and University. Dr. Moller,
hired in 2011, is currently serving as a Vice Provost for Graduate Education and Research. Dr. Yu, hired in
2012, already secured $495,000 grant from the NIH.
We will stay focused on maintaining a high level of teaching, scholarship, research and external funding.
We will hire and give tenure to highly qualified faculty who, in addition to teaching, will publish, obtain and
maintain extramural funding, engage students in research in their laboratories, and become outstanding mentors
to our Ph.D. students. We will continue to encourage, promote, and support faculty/student research and
scholarship which we view as a critical component of success for the Ph.D. program, Department, College, and
University. Faculty/student research and extramural funding are also very important factors that determine the
academic reputation of the University, which, in turn, is important for student enrollment.
Self-Study Template 23
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_PhD_Q