2005-06 Planning and Review Committee
Consultant Recommendation
I.
Degree: B.S. in Applied Science
Date of Review: February, 2006
Program Director: Forrest Schultz
PRC Consultants: Bill Murphy and George Acker
Purpose of the Review: To assess the quality of the B.S. degree program in Applied Science as
part of a five-year review cycle required of all new UW-Stout degree programs.
Committee Findings: The Planning and Review Committee recommends implementation of
committee recommendations and that a status report should be submitted by the program director
in three years (2008-09). The status report should address the progress achieved on the
recommendations of the committee.
II.
Abstract:
The Applied Science program offers an opportunity for students to become proficient with
products and processes that involve a merging of the traditional scientific fields of study in
biology, chemistry and physics. The program has identified several challenges to its success,
including low retention and graduation rates, required courses not scheduled on a consistent
basis, name recognition of the program among professionals, depth of preparation for graduate
work, and adequacy of laboratory facilities. The program is well positioned to assist students in
the growing fields of biotechnology and nanotechnology. More than half of recent graduates of
the program are seeking to attend graduate or professional school, with the majority of the others
employed within the scientific community.
The Applied Science program has proposed programmatic changes to improve retention and
scheduling. The program now offers students five areas of concentration: a) Biotechnology, b)
Materials Science, c) Scientific Laboratory Management, d) Scientific Sales and Support, and e)
Science Education. The program proposes to drop the Scientific Laboratory Management and
Scientific Sales and Support concentrations. These would be replaced with a Nanoscience
Concentration and a “No Concentration” option.
The program has recently defined a recruiting strategy, targeting both high school science
teachers and top science students. The program will use events such as the Wisconsin Science
Olympiad as a tool to identify and then recruit top students.
Program concerns include recruitment, retention and course scheduling issues, name recognition
of the degree, effective use of the advisory board, and laboratory facilities.
III.
Process Followed for Current Review:
The PRC consultants discussed the program review process with the program director. On
February 24, 2006, the program director, a partnering department chair, and the Dean of CAS met
1
with the PRC to present and discuss the program review report. This report was approved at the
May 5, 2006 meeting.
IV.
Previous Review: Since Applied Science is a new program, this is the first review.
V.
Program Review:
Program Strengths
1. Program director
Source
Key instructor survey and PRC consultants
observation
PRC student and key instructor surveys
2. Faculty expertise and commitment to
the program are frequently cited as
program strengths. Faculty are
perceived as accessible, eager to
answer questions, and committed to
student success
3. Effective combination of scientific
disciplines and lab experiences gives
students a strong foundation
4. The cross–disciplinary nature of the
program provides flexibility in meeting
both the needs of students and
business.
5. Class size provides good teacherstudent interaction
6. Advisory committee includes a
balanced number of business and
industry professionals
Program director’s report; student survey; program
committee survey and key instructor survey
Program director’s report; student survey; program
committee survey; and key instructor survey
PRC student survey
Program director’s report
Issues of Concern
1. Recruitment of students in numbers
and quality to sustain the program
2. Retention of students
3. Scheduling concerns, especially
courses scheduled unpredictably
4. Communication regarding the total
program and current requirements and
options among advisors, students and
faculty
5. “Lack of attention to people skills”
6. Depth of research background and
other preparation for advanced studies
(course content)
7. Name recognition of the degree
“Applied Science”
8. Frequency of Advisory Board meetings
9. Lab facilities are out-of-date, and
require reconfiguration to support
courses
Source
Program director’s report and student survey
Key instructor survey
Program director’s report and student survey
Student survey, program committee survey,
program director’s report and key instructor survey
Quote from program committee survey
Program director’s report; student survey; program
committee survey and key instructor survey
Program director’s report; student survey; program
committee survey and key instructor survey
Program committee survey
Program director’s report and key instructor survey
2
Recommendations for the Program Director
1. Seek recruiting opportunities to increase overall enrollment and to attract students whose
interests fit the program.
2. Develop and implement strategies to resolve the retention problem.
3. Work with the dean to address continuing course scheduling concerns. Required course
offerings across the disciplines need to be maintained on a consistent day and time from
semester to semester. This predictability allows students to plan schedules and will help
improve both retention and graduation rates.
4. Improve overall communication regarding program changes and status with advisors,
department chairs, participating faculty, and students.
5. Develop and implement program changes as needed to resolve the lack of people skills
previously identified by the advisory committee.
6. Work with deans and department chairs to resolve course content issues regarding research
depth and other preparation for graduate study.
7. Promote the UW-Stout definition of “Applied Science” to opinion leaders in the high schools
and elsewhere as part of overall recruiting and awareness efforts.
8. Work more closely with the program advisory board by meeting twice annually.
9. Continue to address the lab space and technical requirements through the new building
committee.
Recommendations for the Chairs of the Physics, Chemistry and Biology Departments
1. Work with the dean to address continuing course scheduling concerns. Required course
offerings across the disciplines need to be maintained on a consistent day and time from
semester to semester. This predictability allows students to plan schedules and will help
improve both retention and graduation rates.
2. Work with the dean to provide increased support for recruiting and retention efforts for
students, including improvement in name recognition of the program.
3. Assist in the process of improving communication about the program and its status within
your department and across the college.
4. Continue to address the lab space and technical requirements through the new building
committee.
Recommendations for the Dean
1. Work with the chairs to address continuing course scheduling concerns. Required course
offerings across the disciplines need to be maintained on a consistent day and time from
semester to semester. This predictability allows students to plan schedules and will help
improve both retention and graduation rates.
2. Provide increased support and funding for recruiting and retention efforts for students.
3. Assist in the process of improving communication about the program and its status among the
departments and across the college.
4. Continue to address the lab space and technical requirements through the new building
committee.
3