Planning and Review Committee 2000-2001
I.
Program Reviewed:
B.S. in Apparel Design/Manufacturing
Program Director:
Donna Albrecht
PRC Consultants:
Robert Horan and Howard Nelson
Date of Review:
January 2001
Purpose of review:
The review was conducted to assess the quality of the Apparel
Design/Manufacturing degree program as part of the ongoing seven-year
review cycle of every UW-Stout program.
Committee findings:
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS: The committee cannot recommend the
Apparel Design/Manufacturing program for continuation at this point.
The committee recommends that the dean evaluate the program and
report on his findings in April 2001.
FINAL FINDINGS: The committee recommends conditional
continuation of the Apparel Design/Manufacturing program through
2003-04 with the stipulation that the program director submits interim
reports as specified and a full PRC program review is conducted again in
2003-04.
II.
Abstract
The program in Apparel Design/Manufacturing prepares students for careers in the sewn products
industry. It is the only program of its kind in the University of Wisconsin System. The program
includes a Professional Core (23 credits); a Technical Core (29 credits, includes a 1 credit
required field experience); concentrations in Apparel Design and/or Apparel Manufacturing (13
credits each), and a minor, specialization or emphasis area (15 credits). The program utilizes
seven laboratories, including textiles, textiles evaluation, apparel design, apparel CAD, historic
costume, and apparel production. The program offers international study in London (11-16
credits) and study tours to points of fashion interest within the U.S. Student work is displayed in
two fashion shows each year. The program was re-certified by the American Apparel &
Footwear Association’s Professional Leadership Council in 1995; this certification results in an
annual donation of scholarship monies and Internet advertising.
The committee recommends that the Dean of CTEM evaluate the Apparel Design/Manufacturing
program and report on his findings to the PRC in April 2001.
III.
Process Followed for Current Review
Using guidelines developed by the PRC, information regarding the Apparel
Design/Manufacturing program was gathered from the program director, instructors, students,
advisory committee members, employers, and university data on enrollment, program cost, and
placement. One of the consultants met with the program director, and the program director
appeared before the PRC on January 19, 2001 to present a summary of her self-study report and
1
to respond to concerns. The student survey includes thirty respondents; the advisory committee
survey includes eighteen respondents, and there were three key instructors within the department
and two outside the department.
IV.
Previous Review
The program in Apparel Design/Manufacturing was last reviewed by the PRC in 1993-94. Jim
Miller and Richard Tafalla served as consultants. Since that review, as part of the restructuring of
the university, the Apparel Design/Manufacturing program was relocated to the College of
Technology, Engineering and Management. The 1993-94 review noted program strengths in
student satisfaction with class size, faculty accessibility, and availability of hands-on learning
opportunities; placement rates; state of the art facilities and equipment; reputation of program and
faculty; key instructor and advisory committee support; “associate affiliate” recognition by the
American Apparel Manufacturing Association’s Education Committee, and a new advising
program which redistributed advising duties. The 1993-94 report identified three opportunities
for program enrichment: the replacement of Dr. Frasier, a key instructor, and the use of part-time
adjunct faculty; limitations of computer workstations and software and student complaints about
access to those technologies. Finally, the last PRC review made two recommendations. Those
recommendations and the actions taken in response to them are identified below.
1. “The program director should continue to investigate means of increasing student access to
workstations or laboratories, including but not limited to exploring possible intradepartmental and intra-campus use of CAD and other useful applications at accessible sites.”
ACTION: Data unavailable.
2. “As hiring opportunities arise, the department should continue to explore means of providing
faculty with industry credentials, in either adjunct or permanent positions.”
ACTION: Data unavailable.
V.
Program Review
A. Program Strengths
1. Program size. Student surveys indicate a general satisfaction with the relatively small size of
the program, which permits increased attention for students and makes graduation within four
years feasible.
2. Practical emphases of the program. Students, faculty, and advisory board respondents
praised the practical nature of the program: the use of laboratories, the relationships with
industry, and the technical information imparted and used in classes. Manufacturers and
merchants appear to believe that there is a strong need for this program.
B. Issues of Concern
1. Purpose. The Apparel Design/Manufacturing program was restructured in 1996 following
the relocation of the program in CTEM. The Apparel Design/Manufacturing curriculum was
revised in 1999. Student and faculty data suggest serious tensions within the Apparel
Design/Manufacturing program. During her visit to the PRC, the program director described
faculty relations by saying, “There is turmoil here;” in her report, she suggested the faculty
2
and staff undergo “conflict resolution.” One student wrote, “Professors bash one another and
that isn’t teaching us so much.” The committee is especially disturbed by reports that
students have been drawn into differences between faculty members.
Two of the departmental faculty identify weaknesses in curricular structure and sequence; the
other suggests a closer relationship with industry through the advisory board. Advisory board
members themselves cite relationships with industry as a strength and inadequate resources
(e.g., labs, equipment, staff) as the program’s weakness; advisory board members also seem
unaware of the degree of student discontent. Finally, and most disturbing, the student
responses are the lengthiest and the unhappiest this consultant has encountered in four years
of PRC reviews. (For a quick comparison: the AY 2000 General Business student
respondents numbered 122; their remarks filled thirteen pages. The Apparel
Design/Manufacturing student respondents numbered thirty, and their responses filled ten
pages.).
In addition to familiar (i.e., most UW-Stout student reviews of programs) complaints about
inadequate resources, Apparel Design/Manufacturing students criticize the program director,
the faculty, the quality of advising, the length of time to degree, the nature of the program,
and the curriculum structure in some detail. More than other students we can think of, those
in Apparel Design/Manufacturing seem to lack the confidence they are being properly
prepared for careers. We sense in their comments a suspicion they have been let down by
their faculty, their program, and the university. The program director observes that these
student respondents experienced a change in the mission of their program in 1999. The
committee feels that the 1999 program revision doubtless accounts for some of the students’
unhappiness, and the committee wonders why students enrolled in the old program were not
offered the option to continue and complete it. In addition, student complaints about the
purpose of the program (“manufacturing” rather than “design”) are echoed in faculty remarks
and in the comments of advisory board members. These echoes suggest that intellectual,
professional, and political differences have not been resolved in the process of program
revision. Consequently, the committee believes the stakeholders of this program have failed
to achieve a common sense of purpose, and the committee shares the program director’s
concern about the future of the Apparel Design/Manufacturing program.
2. Program size/program cost. The program director, advisory board members, faculty, and
students identify the small program size (eighty students) as a problem. Low enrollments
were identified as a problem with an earlier incarnation of this program in 1988; progress
since that time has been downward—from 123 students in 1990 to 85 students in 1999. Since
1995, the Apparel Design/Manufacturing program has cost more per credit than the university
average. In 1999, the program cost $118.92 per credit, a 23% increase over 1998; the
university averages were $96.08 per credit and a 10% increase. Since AY 1995, Apparel
Design/Manufacturing students have attempted fewer credits than the average UW-Stout
student.
Since the 1993-94 review of the program, student and advisory board perceptions of the
quality of lab equipment have changed: what were then seen as the best facilities in the
industry are now regarded as the worst labs on campus. The committee wonders whether the
perceived drop in quality results from curricular revisions that changed the program from a
sewing-based program to a manufacturing design program—leaving the program in the
position of lacking basic equipment to produce lab experiences relevant to the restructured
program. Because the Apparel Design/Manufacturing program has justifiable, longstanding
needs for space, current technology, and laboratory maintenance, the size/cost issue is
3
significant. A small cohort of students will require a variety of laboratories with current
technology—and their concomitant need for maintenance—just as a large cohort will. The
program director and the advisory committee have identified student recruitment as their first
priority. The committee concurs with this judgment. However, the committee is concerned
about the vagueness of the program’s strategy to accomplish this goal. Further, given the
range and the tone of student discontent discussed above, student recruitment might well be
jeopardized by the dissatisfaction of current students. Given this, the committee believes that
more specific and creative recruitment strategies are required.
3. Need for the program. The committee feels that the need for the Apparel
Design/Manufacturing program, as it is presently structured and managed, is unclear. The
program director’s account (1.1.b) lacks detail, and placement rates from 1994-99 seem
inconsistent. Most important, the debate regarding the program’s identity appears not to have
been resolved during the process of program revision. The mere existence of Stout programs
depends upon employer needs; their continued vitality depends upon a clear, shared sense of
purpose. At best, that purpose is reflected in the curriculum, in the program’s co-curricular
activities, and in the interpersonal relations through which the program comes alive. In
contrast, the Apparel Design/Manufacturing program appears to reflect confusion and
dissension.
Recommendations for the Dean
The committee is unable to recommend continuation of the Apparel Design/Manufacturing
program based on the data gathered for this review. The committee instead recommends that
the Dean complete a status report this spring (April 2001) responding to the question: Should
the Apparel Design/Manufacturing program be continued?
If the Dean responds affirmatively, a plan will be needed which addresses the following
concerns: the improvement of faculty relations to a level reflecting the professionalism
expected of all Stout faculty; the improvement of student faculty relations such that those
relations promote student achievement and pride; the adoption of a curriculum which has the
support of faculty, students, and advisory board members; the improvement of student
advisement to the satisfaction of students in the program; immediate and extensive student
recruitment, and marketing which reflects the actual purpose of the program.
4
Addendum—April 20, 2001
In response to the Dean’s prompt decision and recommendation for action to improve the
Apparel Design/Manufacturing program, the committee recommends that the Apparel
Design/Manufacturing program director report to the PRC on said actions according to the
following schedule:
Year One (2001-2002): An interim program status report with three parts:
Part 1 Describe the strategies used to assess their effectiveness in:
a)
advisement
b)
student-faculty relations.
To offer an example of how one might proceed, the program director might
decide to convene a student advisory board that would provide opportunities for
student interaction and as a source of ideas for program renewal.
Part 2 PRC will re-administer the student survey to the students in the Apparel
Design/Manufacturing major in the beginning of the Spring 2002 semester. The
program director will need to interpret the findings.
Part 3 PRC will re-administer the faculty surveys (one to faculty in the major and the
other to faculty who service the major) in the beginning of the Spring 2002
semester. The program director will need to interpret the findings.
Year Two (2002-2003): A second interim program status report with two parts.
Part 1 A report that describes the Apparel Design/Manufacturing program's change in
mission. The Apparel Design/Manufacturing program director, along with the
dean, will describe how the clarification of the program mission is reflected in
the curriculum and also in the composition of the program advisory committee.
Part 2 A report on student recruitment efforts.
a) The Apparel Design/Manufacturing program director will describe the steps
taken to improve student recruitment and to ensure that students are being
recruited based on the program's mission.
b) Describe the results of student recruitment efforts.
Year Three (2003-2004): Complete the full PRC program review process.
5