Report of the Academic Program Transformation Task
Force
Presented to President Ilene Busch-Vishniac
November 30, 2013
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Preface The Academic Program Transformation Task Force was established in March 2013 with a
mandate to review all academic programs at the University of Saskatchewan and assign
them to categories reflecting their priority to the institution. The task force comprised 20
members, including two students and 18 faculty members, drawn from a diverse range of
academic units and disciplines. Over the period from March to November 2013, the task
force adopted review criteria, designed templates as the basis for gathering information, and
reviewed a total of 485 programs.
This report reflects the deliberations of the task force. The task force assigned each program
to a quintile category. This allocation is set out in Appendices Four and Five, which show
these assignments by quintile and by unit. The table in Appendix Four includes brief notes
about each program that highlight some of the task force discussion.
Though the deliberations about programs were confidential, the task force attempted to be
as open as possible about other aspects of its work. This report contains a description of the
policies adopted and the process followed by the task force, and we comment on the
modifications that were made to the “Dickeson model” of program prioritization.
The prioritization process offered the task force a unique perspective on the academic
programs of the university, and we have taken advantage of this to include in our report
some observations on broad themes emerging from our review. We have commented, for
example, on interdisciplinary programs, on the possibility that overspecialization has
weakened some programs, and on Aboriginal programming.
We are grateful to the members of the data support team, whose assistance with data and
logistical issues was vital to the work of the task force. We also acknowledge the work of the
many, many people across the university who worked diligently to complete the templates
that were the basis of our review.
The members of the task force unanimously approved the report contained herein.
2
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Table of Contents Academic Program Transformation Task Force Members
4
Context for Program Prioritization
5
The Work of the Task Force
6
Quintile Scores for Each Program
11
Summary of the quintile scores
The scores
Application of the Dickeson model to the University of Saskatchewan
What does “prioritization” mean?
Unique circumstances of the College of Medicine
11
12
12
14
14
General Observations about Academic Programs at the University of Saskatchewan
15
Interdisciplinary programming
Toxicology programs
Interdisciplinary programs in the College of Graduate Studies and Research
Stronger links between related programs
Aboriginal programming
Graduation rates and completion times
Big programs and small programs
Number of programs within units
Three-year bachelor’s programs
Service teaching
Research, scholarly and artistic work
The value of strong programs
Program Prioritization in the Future
Regular prioritization
More up-front work
Audit of data
Diversity is important
Snapshot or trends
Standardized central data
15
17
17
18
18
19
20
20
21
22
22
23
23
23
23
24
24
24
25
Conclusion
25
Appendix One: Academic Program Transformation Task Force Criteria and Weightings
Appendix Two: The Program Template Used by the Task Force
Appendix Three: The Scoring Rubric Used by the Task Force
Appendix Four: Detailed Program Listing by Quintile
Appendix Five: Quintile Scores by Academic Unit
26
29
35
42
108
3
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Members Beth Bilson (co-chair), Professor, College of Law
Lisa Kalynchuk (co-chair), Professor, Department of Medicine
Scott Adams, Undergraduate student, College of Medicine
Sina Adl, Professor, Department of Soil Science
Paul Babyn, Professor, Department of Medical Imaging
Ralph Deters, Professor, Department of Computer Science
Pamela Downe, Associate Professor, Department of Archaeology and Anthropology
Markus Hecker, Associate Professor, School of Environment and Sustainability
John Kleefeld, Assistant Professor, College of Law
Dean Kolbinson, Professor, College of Dentistry
Ed Krol, Associate Professor, College of Pharmacy and Nutrition
Karen Lawson, Professor, Department of Psychology
Charles Maule, Professor, Department of Civil and Geological Engineering
Venkatesh Meda, Associate Professor, Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering
Pat Renihan, Professor, Department of Educational Administration
John Rigby, Associate Professor, Department of Management and Marketing
Jaswant Singh, Professor, Department of Veterinary Biomedical Sciences
Tom Steele, Professor, Department of Physics and Engineering Physics
Josie Steeves, Graduate student, Department of Educational Administration
Doug Thorpe, Associate Professor, Department of English
4
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Context for Program Prioritization In January 2013, President Ilene Busch-Vishniac announced that the University of
Saskatchewan would be undertaking a program prioritization process entitled TransformUS
as one of the strategies for making operating budget adjustments to confront a projected
$44.5 million deficit by the year 2016. In the press release accompanying the
announcement, the objective of the process was described in the following terms:
By reviewing all academic and administrative programs supported by the operating
budget simultaneously and equally against stated criteria, informed decisions can be
made to invest resources, make changes, or eliminate or reduce programs or
activities which rank as having lower priority according to these criteria.
This was not the first time that the university had stated an intention to reappraise the
investment of resources in academic programs. In 1999, the university embarked on a 6year process of Systematic Program Review; teams composed of external and internal
reviewers assessed 152 academic programs. The rationale for Systematic Program Review
as stated by then-Provost Michael Atkinson was in part to identify programs where
disinvestment or elimination should be considered.
In the first of three university integrated plans, A Framework for Action: University of
Saskatchewan Integrated Plan 2003-07, a new focus on aligning resources with academic
priorities was suggested:
But Integrated Planning and [Systematic Program Review] have both shown that the
University continues to do more in the academic and administrative areas than it can
properly sustain. We will, and must, make decisive judgments about our institutional
priorities and follow up on these decisions by shifting resources from areas of lowest
priority (even though these may still represent valuable intellectual and instructional
activities) to fields of greatest need and opportunity.
Though this statement was formulated in 2002, it states in succinct form the basis for the
program prioritization process in which the task force has recently engaged. The focus of the
work of the task force has not been on evaluation of the academic quality of programs, but
rather on how the resources invested in them reflect the priorities of the university as a result
of more than a decade of integrated planning.
In her announcement launching the TransformUS project, President Busch-Vishniac
indicated that the model adopted for the prioritization process would be that formulated by
Robert C. Dickeson and followed in a number of North American universities. In the
introduction to Dickeson’s book Prioritizing Academic Programs and Services: Reallocating
Resources to Achieve Strategic Balance, Stanley O. Ikenberry, President of the American
Council on Education, commented in terms that echo the language of A Framework for
Action:
The relationship between academic quality and financial resources has always been
apparent; an institution’s financial health is crucial to its academic quality. The
paradigm has shifted, however, or at least it has expanded, to recognize that
academic quality also is linked to purposeful and efficient utilization of resources.
Monies wasted or underutilized mean fewer dollars for the academic priorities of
5
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
greatest urgency. Using financial resources in purposeful efficient ways is precisely
what one seeks to do in the prioritization of academic programs.
At the heart of the Dickeson model lie two important assumptions: that the process should be
one focused on the relationship between resources and priorities, not on academic ranking
of programs; and that the process should be conducted by faculty members.
University Council approved program prioritization in principle on January 25, 2013, and a
process was put in place for the selection of members for two task forces, one for academic
programs and one for support services. The selection committee comprised the Provost and
Vice-President Academic Brett Fairbairn, the Vice-President Finance and Resources Greg
Fowler, and representatives of Council standing committees. Nominations were solicited
from the campus community, and 227 names were considered for membership on the two
task forces. In early March 2013, 22 appointments were made to the Academic Program
Transformation Task Force (20 faculty members and two students) and 25 to the support
services task force.1
As the membership of the task forces was being established, a data support team was also
being formed under the leadership of Assistant Provost Institutional Planning and
Assessment Pauline Melis. Members of the data support team were drawn from the
Institutional Planning and Assessment Office, Information and Communication Technology,
the Financial Services Division, the Human Resources Division, and the Office of the VicePresident Research. Their mandate was to provide the centrally available data the task
forces would require in the course of the review process.
The Work of the Task Force March and April. The academic program task force met in March for two days of workshops
facilitated by Larry Goldstein, a consultant familiar with the implementation of the Dickeson
prioritization process at a number of North American universities. During these two days, the
task force settled on the criteria and criteria weightings that would guide the review. The
criteria and weightings were circulated to the campus community, through a TransformUS
blog, through meetings with deans and department heads, and through town hall meetings
with faculty, staff and students. The criteria and weightings generated considerable
comment, and on the basis of this feedback, the criteria were revised and finalized. The final
version of the criteria and weightings is provided in Appendix One.
May and June. Over the months of May and June, the task force pursued a number of
important issues. One of these involved the formulation of a list of programs to be reviewed.
Though the term “program” had generally been used at the University of Saskatchewan to
refer to a grouping of courses leading to the award of a degree or other credential, the task
force adopted a broader definition based on the Dickeson model, which suggested that “any
institutional activity that consumes resources” should be treated as a program. This definition
would include the research activities of academic units and centres. The formulation and
refinement of a programs list was a critical part of the work of the task force at this stage.
1
Two members subsequently withdrew from the academic task force.
6
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Successive versions of the list were published, and amendments were solicited to make the
list as comprehensive as possible, with the proviso that programs which had come into
existence later than July 2009 should not be included in the review.2 There were also
discussions between the co-chairs of the academic programs task force and the support
services task force to determine the assignment of some activities with both academic and
administrative dimensions.
Over this period as well, the task force drafted a template for use in collecting information
about programs, a guide to assist in the completion of the template, and a scoring rubric to
inform the university community about the approach to be used in assessing the completed
templates. Drafts of the template and guide were posted on the TransformUS website, and
comments were solicited from the campus community.
Extensive discussion took place with the data support team about the kinds of centrally
available data that could be provided to units as they completed the templates, and which
would be useful to the task force in its deliberations. The task force and members of the data
support team also worked to create an online version of the template that would include links
to relevant statements of university strategic directions, and a workflow system that would
allow the process of template completion and approval to be tracked. Worksheets were also
developed containing customized data for each of the academic units responsible for
completing program templates.
An important component of this phase of the process was the selection of five programs to
test the utility of the template and guide. The programs chosen included a fine arts
undergraduate program, a social science undergraduate program, a professional program, a
master’s level program in an interdisciplinary school, and a doctoral program in a science
discipline (though unexpected circumstances meant that the last of these could not be used
in this pilot project). The sample programs were invaluable to the task force in evaluating the
draft template, and important revisions were made to the template as a result of this
experience. The task force is extremely grateful to the units who participated in this pilot.
Earlier in the process, e-mail addresses had been created for the task force co-chairs and for
the data support team, and both of these were the destination for many questions, both prior
to the distribution of finalized templates and worksheets, and over the summer as hundreds
of people across campus made their contribution to the completion of the templates for
review.
The questions asked and the concerns raised throughout these stages of the process
revealed a number of common themes. A high proportion of questions and comments
centered on the instruction from the task force that closely related programs would have to
be differentiated for the purpose of completing the templates. As the university has generally
tracked resources according to academic unit – usually departments, colleges or schools –
rather than by programs, this required those completing the templates to think in unfamiliar
terms and to undertake the challenging process of estimating what proportion of the
resources of a unit should be attributed to each program. In the College of Arts and Science,
for example, many departments had never devoted attention to the distinction between
three-year degrees and four-year degrees; indeed, many students are not actually enrolled
in either type of program until they have almost completed it. In some disciplines, there has
2
Some programs given formal approval later than this date were successors to similar programs that had been in
existence for some time; in those cases, the task force did review the templates and categorize the programs.
7
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
been little distinction between master’s level and doctoral programs in terms of courses
taught, faculty time or links to research activity.
Another concern was whether the process could accurately capture the amount of “service”
teaching carried out by many academic units, where the number of students who take
courses from unit faculty may bear little relation to the number who actually obtain a
qualification in that discipline. A number of units provide extensive support in this way to
programs in other departments or colleges.
Yet another set of concerns was expressed about whether the process could appropriately
take into account interdisciplinary instructional programs and research.
In developing the final template and scoring system, the task force considered all of these
concerns carefully. Though task force members recognized that it would be a challenge for
units to provide information in separate templates about closely related programs, we
concluded that examining each program separately would give us the best basis for deciding
on the relative priority of programs.
With respect to service teaching, the task force considered the possibility of asking units to
complete a separate template for a service teaching program. We concluded, however, that
the questions in the template connected with internal demand would permit units to provide
adequate information about their contribution to other programs, and that this
interdependence would be obscured if separate templates were completed.
The task force also decided that the invitation for discursive comments at a number of points
in the template would allow units to comment on the interdisciplinary aspects of their
programs.
The task force considered whether to ask units to complete additional templates for the
administrative work and public service carried out by faculty members. Given the absence of
helpful definitions of what public service contributions might legitimately be seen as integral
to the academic mission of the university, and given the variation in the way these activities
are reported and tracked, we decided that separate templates for public service would not
provide sufficiently useful information to justify the effort that would be required to complete
them. Furthermore, it was our view that where community engagement is an important
component of a particular program, the unit responsible for the program would be able to
provide comments on this in the template for that program. In the case of administrative
work, we decided not to require a separate template, but to ask units to record the
investment of faculty resources in administration as part of the calculation of costs of
programs.
The task force considered whether distinctive templates should be created for instructional
programs, research programs, and the activities of centres. We ultimately made the choice
to create a common template as a vehicle for gathering information about these different
types of program. This made it possible during the review for the task force to get a sense of
the research environment in which instructional programs are offered, and of the teaching
obligations of the unit in which research activity is carried out.
July. In early July, the final template, guide and scoring rubric were posted, and the
templates and worksheets distributed to those who would have a role in completing the
templates. Appendices Two and Three provide copies of the finalized version of the template
8
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
and scoring rubric used by the taskforce. Four information sessions were held in July and the
first week of August to answer questions about specific aspects of the templates or about the
university data that had been provided. The task force co-chairs and the data support team
also answered many e-mail inquiries from those designated to complete the templates. The
co-chairs of the task force had access to the templates as they were being completed, and
were in a position to offer advice in response to queries about various aspects of the
templates.
August. In August, the task force used a number of the completed templates as the basis for
discussion of broad assessment and rating issues, and engaged in a calibration exercise so
we could be confident that members of the task force were approaching the assessment of
the templates according to a common understanding of the criteria.
During this time, the task force also adopted a policy on conflicts of interest. According to this
policy, members would be regarded as having a conflict of interest in relation to rating
programs associated with their home academic unit or units, and programs associated with
academic units in which their spouses or partners have academic appointments. Under this
policy, task force members could also declare a genuine conflict of interest in relation to
other programs. Members absented themselves during discussion and categorization of
programs for which they had a conflict of interest.
The task force established ground rules for its deliberations, which emphasized the
responsibility of each member to prepare for and attend meetings, to contribute to the
discussion, and to make a conscientious effort to prioritize each program. Though the task
force acknowledged the value of openness and transparency concerning the process and
the criteria for the review, the ground rules included a commitment to strict confidentiality
concerning the deliberations about the programs themselves. This commitment to
confidentiality permitted the task force to have candid discussions and to make difficult
decisions.
September to November. Beginning in early September, the task force scheduled two
regular weekly meetings to begin assessing programs in earnest. The task force also
adopted stringent quorum and rating requirements. Each task force member was required to
provide a rating for every program, unless a conflict of interest had been identified. Meetings
of the task force could not be held unless 75% or more of the members were present, and in
order to place a program in a particular quintile, it was necessary to have the support of 75%
or more of members.
At each of the first two meetings in September, the task force considered a relatively small
number of templates to allow time for members to become comfortable with the procedures
and the application of the scoring rubric. At an early meeting the task force decided, in order
to remain on track to complete the work in the time allowed and in the interest of fairness,
that the review would be conducted on the basis of the templates as submitted; no further
information, clarifications or corrections would be sought or accepted from academic units.
There was extensive discussion by the task force of the implications for our rankings of
assessing templates containing confusing, incomplete or apparently incorrect information,
and we decided that the task force would have to make the best possible assessment on the
basis of the evidence proffered in the template. This decision was reached on the basis that
the task force had made considerable efforts to provide guidance and advice prior to the
circulation of the templates for completion, and had given units opportunities to raise any
questions they might have. The task force was also reassured in making this decision by the
9
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
fact that many units had evidently found it possible to provide clear and helpful information in
their templates.
Though the task force did not ask or permit units to revise their templates once the review
process was underway, we did have access to the centrally provided data, which allowed us
in some instances to confirm or understand the information provided in the templates.
The task force concluded early in its discussions that it was important that each member
review all of the programs, in order to ensure that the broadest range of perspectives
possible be brought to bear on the allocation of each program to a quintile. This meant that
in preparation for the weekly meetings, members of the task force would review
approximately 50 templates and provide provisional scores. This extensive preparation by
individual members for each meeting created a climate for vigorous discussion. At the
meetings, each template was considered separately and an effort was made to reach
consensus on the assignment of the program to a quintile. The final determination as to
quintile was noted, and brief notes recorded to reflect the rationale for the placement.
Members of the task force could also ask that a template be flagged for further discussion at
a later time.
After several weeks of reviews, a slightly fuller description of the characteristics of the
quintile categories was drafted and posted to give the campus community a better sense of
how the task force viewed the implications of placement in each of these categories. The
task force continued to discuss general issues emerging from the templates, both at its
regular meetings and at an additional Saturday meeting in early October.
For each agenda of the initial review, templates were selected by the co-chairs to reflect as
wide a range of programs as possible, and efforts were made not to include related
programs or programs from the same unit on any agenda. This helped to avoid bias in favour
of or against particular units. It also permitted the task force to consider each program in
isolation, and to examine the information provided about its quality, rationale and prospects.
A series of subsequent meetings, including a day-long Saturday meeting, was devoted to
revisiting the placement of the programs. In the second pass, the programs were considered
in relation to other programs within the unit. This enabled task force members to consider the
programs more holistically against the background of the unit, to identify any discrepancies
between related templates, and to assure ourselves that a consistent approach to evaluation
had been used. This second review also gave the task force a chance to consider whether
there were additional general themes that should be identified in the report.
Over the course of its mandate, members of the task force demonstrated an extremely
strong commitment to the prioritization project. During the preparatory phase from March to
August 2013, the task force met for approximately 50 hours in developing the template,
scoring rubric and other materials. During the review period from September 4, 2013 to
November 30, 2013, the task force met for an additional 90 hours, and individual members
spent many more hours reviewing the templates.
10
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Quintile Scores for Each Program Summary of the quintile scores. Table 1 shows the distribution of quintile scores by
number of programs and by program operating allocation as provided in the templates. At
the outset, the task force was asked to assign 20% of all programs to each quintile based on
an estimate of the costs associated with running each program. The task force made
considerable efforts to distribute the programs as evenly as possible among the quintiles but
it became clear to us as we progressed through the templates that it would not be possible to
arrive at an exactly equal distribution. There were several reasons for this. Programs vary
considerably in size. They also vary in the degree to which investment or disinvestment has
occurred or is occurring, and in the extent to which the resources they consume are
institutional resources. After wrestling with these considerations, we are confident that the
distribution of programs across quintiles is as even as it can be, but that does not mean that
the programs fell neatly into five equal slices either by number or by dollar value.
Table 1: Quintile Breakdown by Number of Programs and Operating Allocation
Quintile
Number of
Programs
Percentage
Breakdown
1
2
3
4
5
16
143
115
107
98
3%
30%
24%
22%
20%
Total Program Operating
Allocation as Provided in
Templates
$39,851,843
$64,226,272
$61,884,213
$18,301,329
$5,146,951
479
100%
$189,410,607
Percentage
Breakdown
21%
34%
33%
10%
3%
100%
The difficulties associated with assigning programs to quintiles were compounded by the
variation in the way financial information was reported in the templates, and by the evident
unreliability of some of the numbers provided to us. The university has made significant
efforts to create a data warehouse comprised of institutional data collected systematically
and according to uniform criteria, and they have made strides in this regard. We understood
from the beginning, however, that there are limitations to the information accessible at the
institutional level, and we were prepared to take these into account in assessing the
templates.
The task force encountered further challenges in interpreting the information provided by
units that resulted from using institutional data in connection with individual programs. These
variations may have resulted from misunderstandings about what the task force was asking
for, from a desire to focus positive attention on some programs rather than others, or from
other sources. In a number of cases, units indicated that there was no investment at all in a
particular program, and in some of these instances this assertion was at odds with the
discursive descriptions in the templates. In other cases, it was not clear where figures had
been drawn from or how they had been used, as they did not seem to be consistent with the
central data provided.
The task force decided early in its deliberations that we would have to rely on the information
provided to us in the templates once they had been submitted. We decided that it was
unrealistic to think we could undertake to clarify or correct the information in all of the
templates. We also thought that to inquire about particular templates where the issues were
11
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
more evident would be unfair to other units from whom additional information was not
sought. We did make our best efforts to understand and to interpret fairly the information in
each template. The task force dealt with these challenges as thoroughly as possible, and
took the variations in information into account as much as we could.
The scores. The quintile scores assigned to individual programs are provided in Appendix
Four. The programs are listed in alphabetical order by college and quintile score, so that all
programs assigned to quintile one appear first, followed by quintile two, and so on. We have
also included a brief set of notes with each listed program to provide the context under which
the quintile assignment was made. These notes are not meant to be comprehensive but
rather to highlight the salient features of the program that emerged during task force
deliberations and that influenced the ranking. It is also important to understand that these
notes could be either relative or absolute in nature. For example, a comment related to
“small number of students” could indicate a relative determination that the number of
students in the program is small relative to similar programs at the institution. Or, it could
indicate an absolute determination that the number of students in the program is too small to
be sustainable, such as the case for some elite programs or programs with one or two
students over the three-year period that was the subject of our review.
For those readers interested in viewing the quintile scores by unit, this information is
provided in Appendix Five.
Application of the Dickeson model to the University of Saskatchewan. The Dickeson
model provided the framework for the deliberations of the task force, and we followed the
basic principles outlined in Dickeson’s book and in the description conveyed to us by the
consultant at the outset of the process. The task force concluded that the framework
provides enough flexibility to apply the model in a fashion that is suitable to the
characteristics of a particular institution. To members of the university community who have
read about the Dickeson model or followed its application in other places, it will be evident
from our report that our process deviated slightly from a literal interpretation of the one
outlined by Dickeson.
One way in which our process may appear to have deviated from the Dickeson model has to
do with the characterization of the quintiles. In much discussion within the university, the
quintiles have been referred to as a hierarchy from “best” to “worst.” Indeed, the process as
presented to us by the consultant suggested that if the task force could not reach consensus
on placement in a “higher” quintile, consensus should be tried at successively “lower”
quintiles until an assignment could be made. After reviewing a number of templates,
however, we concluded that each of the quintiles represents a distinctive set of
characteristics, and that it would be preferable not to treat them as though they are a
descending scale. The fourth quintile is perhaps the best example of what we mean. In some
cases, the assignment of a program to the fourth quintile may have been “negative” in the
sense that the program seemed to be struggling or dysfunctional in the context of our
criteria, and needs to be fundamentally rethought if it is to survive; or it may have been
“positive” in the sense that, while it may not be a high priority for the university to continue to
maintain this program in its current form, it may benefit from synergies with other programs
or the addition of necessary structural support. It is clear from some templates that units
have already begun a process of refocusing or restructuring certain programs, and
placement in the fourth quintile was in these cases a sign of deference for a decision already
taken by a unit.
12
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
In some instances, the task force assigned programs to quintile four because the information
we had received in the templates was incomplete or unclear. In these cases, the placement
in quintile four indicates that the task force thought it would be necessary to investigate the
program more closely before deciding to take any action.
In some cases, placement in quintile five was also indicative of decisions taken by units to
suspend or eliminate a program, possibly in favour of other programs in the unit, or possibly
because it was no longer seen as meeting a need. There are, for example, a number of Post
Graduate Diploma programs still on the books in a number of areas; these may have been
seen at one point as providing transitional opportunities to graduate programs for
underqualified students, or as a reentry point for professional graduates wishing to upgrade
their credentials, but there has been virtually no enrolment in these programs for a number of
years, and it is our view that no useful purpose is served by retaining them. In other cases
where programs were assigned to quintile five, the commitment of resources to a program
was so low that we concluded it could not be a high priority for the unit, and that a placement
in quintile five would reflect this. We also assigned programs to quintile five in a handful of
cases where we received virtually no information about the program, and could not therefore
assign it to any other category.
Because this was a prioritization exercise, and our assessment was not exclusively focused
on the quality of programs or on the soundness of the objectives underlying the creation of
the programs, there are programs assigned to quintiles four and five that are closely aligned
with important university or community interests. Our assessment of these programs was
that, whatever their merits, they are not working in their current form, and that some other
means may have to be found to serve their stated objectives.
One of the assumptions underlying our assignment of programs to quintiles was that, even
after the current round of budget adjustment through TransformUS and other projects has
come to an end, the university will continue to face financial uncertainty going forward. In
that context, the prospect would be that all programs across the institution would face
periodic cuts in resources. Thus, though the short descriptor of quintile three is “maintain
with decreased resources,” this designation seemed to us to capture what the destiny would
be for all programs without a prioritization process. In other words, assignment to quintile
three does not represent a “negative” assessment of the program, but a recommendation
that it should continue to be exposed to whatever vagaries the financial future of the
university might hold. It represents what we expect to be the norm in an environment of
budget reduction.
An assignment to quintile two, on the other hand, indicates that the task force concluded that
the program is of higher priority to the university, and it should therefore have at least its
current level of resources protected. Some have described quintile two as representing the
“status quo,” but we think this understates the positive quality of the assessment that has led
to an assignment to this quintile. The programs placed in quintile two are, in our view,
programs with manifest strengths, and of high priority to the institution, and programs that
should therefore be excused from the budget adjustments that might be undertaken in a
climate of financial exigency.
An assignment to quintile one indicates that the task force identified the program as one that
warrants additional investment by the university. Our assessment of these programs was
that they are strongly aligned with the priorities of the institution – in the broadest sense –
and that the units responsible for them had demonstrated that these programs could achieve
13
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
even more on the basis of additional investment. These programs were characterized by
excellent inputs and outcomes, vigorous research activity in the unit, and often a strong
national or international reputation. In addition to two of the university’s flagship research
centres, the programs in quintile one include undergraduate, graduate and research
programs in a variety of disciplines.
What does “prioritization” mean? Assessing programs according to a number of weighted
criteria is a complex endeavour, and the placement of any particular program in a quintile
would have to be explained by a combination of factors. Our assignment of programs to
quintiles represented, not an application of a precise mathematical formula, but an exercise
of judgment taking the range of criteria into account.
In this context, it must be remembered that our assignment was to create a priority ranking of
programs, not to assess them in terms exclusively of either their efficiency or their quality.
The use of the word “priority” has, we think, created some confusion when we have tried to
explain the nature and objectives of our process to members of the campus community. The
term “priority” does, of course, have resonance in relation to the university’s integrated
planning process and the formulation of strategic directions for the institution. One of the
criteria (Criterion 9) was focused specifically on university priorities in this sense. Units were
asked explicitly in the template to describe how the program is aligned with the strategic
directions of the university, and links were provided to the strategic directions and the three
integrated plans to assist with answering these questions.
This criterion was only one of ten, however, and the prioritization process in which we were
engaged was not disproportionately based on this factor. When the task force considered
what would give a program a higher priority for the university, it looked to the full range of
factors set out in the criteria – including demand, cost, revenues, size, quality of inputs and
outputs, and potential opportunities – in an effort to help the university answer the questions
“If we have to stop doing something we are doing or disinvest in something we are doing,
what might that be?” and “If we have limited resources to reinvest in academic programs,
where are the most strategic places to make that investment?”
Many, many programs in the university have become well-aligned with the strategic
directions stated through the integrated planning process, and the inclusion of the questions
associated with Criterion 9 in the template reflected the view of the task force that such
alignment should be a factor in considering every program. Given the budgetary impetus
behind the TransformUS project, however, even if 100% of the programs were found to be
strongly aligned with the strategic directions, the university would still need to make
decisions about where it should be disinvesting and reinvesting, and it is “priority” in this
sense that has been the focus of the deliberations of the task force.
Unique circumstances of the College of Medicine. It is important to make a specific
comment concerning the way the task force approached the assessment of templates from
the College of Medicine. During the life of the task force, various working groups in the
College of Medicine circulated several plans for significant restructuring and refocusing of all
units and programs within the College, including the biomedical sciences departments. The
impetus for these initiatives was the ongoing challenge faced by the College in meeting the
standards for accreditation and enhancing research activity and outcomes. Some of these
plans were put forward to University Council and approved in principle as a basis for reform.
14
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
One option for the task force, given the definition we had given to the quintiles, would have
been simply to place all programs in the College of Medicine in quintile four to signify that
they should be reformulated or restructured. After extensive discussion of the issue, the task
force decided that our mandate was distinct from the objectives of those overseeing the
structural changes in the College of Medicine. Our mandate is focused on the priority to be
attached to individual programs, not on the more general questions of the efficacy of
administrative structures or of specific college goals. In light of this conclusion, we decided
that we should assess the programs in the College of Medicine in the same way we
assessed all other programs.
In addition to the initial discussion of how our mandate related to the College of Medicine
programs, we faced some challenges with respect to the information we received concerning
those programs. In the case of a number of clinical departments, there seemed to be some
misunderstanding of the relevance of the TransformUS project to their programs, and a
review of their templates will show that the information we received concerning these
programs, with a few exceptions, was incomplete and provided limited guidance. A number
of these programs were assigned to quintile four because we did not have any basis on
which to allocate them to quintiles one, two or three. This was less true of the biomedical
science departments, whose templates generally contained more information. In some
cases, programs from these units were also allocated to quintile four because the template
led us to the conclusion that a reappraisal of these programs has the potential to strengthen
them.
General Observations about Academic Programs at the University of Saskatchewan After conducting a review of all academic programs at the University of Saskatchewan, the
task force identified a number of broad themes emerging from the templates. Though making
observations on these cross-cutting issues was not strictly required for the purpose of
assessing individual programs and placing them in categories, we have concluded that it
would be useful to include our comments in this report for two reasons. The first reason is to
provide some context for the assessments we made of individual programs. Our sense of the
common issues facing academic units helped to inform our assessment of the specific
programs for which those units are responsible. The second reason is that the task force
was in a unique position to observe academic activities in the university. To have each of 20
colleagues from all corners of the institution read and assess information on close to 500
programs, and then to have them engage in discussion of each of the programs and on the
programs as a body of activity, created a unique opportunity for this group to see program
characteristics that have implications cutting across disciplines and academic units.
We wish to emphasize that we understood our primary task to be the examination and
assessment of individual programs, and that is where our energies were largely directed. We
decided nevertheless to include in our report observations based on the broader themes
suggested by this review.
Interdisciplinary programming. For two decades or more, units within the university and
the institution as a whole have been exploring ways of bringing about greater exchange and
15
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
collaboration across disciplinary boundaries. In the case of research, scholarly and artistic
work, efforts have been made to develop practices that will draw on the expertise and
insights of different disciplines to provide more sophisticated answers to inquiry. New
approaches to instructional programming are aimed at enriching the experience of students
by helping them to see fruitful interconnections between different areas of study.
This interest in interdisciplinary programming is not, of course, unique to this university.
Granting councils, for example, have manifested a desire to see a reduction in the rigidity of
disciplinary boundaries in academic institutions, and this, along with other forces, has
induced universities across the country to develop strategies for encouraging
interdisciplinary activity.
At this university, there are now many examples of interdisciplinary instructional programs
and research initiatives, and of centres that are intended to foster interdisciplinary
collaboration. Some prominent examples, such as the Global Institute for Food Security and
the Global Institute for Water Security were established too recently to fall within our review
parameters, but the task force considered a number of other interdisciplinary programs.
Though it is impossible to make universally applicable generalizations about these programs,
as they vary considerably in size, objectives and resources, certain common features can be
identified.
In nearly all cases, programs had their origins in the enthusiasm of small groups of faculty
who wished to explore ways of working with scholars in other disciplines. What might be
called “first generation” interdisciplinary programs were generally established by working
within an existing allocation of resources. Faculty members might participate in a
coordinating governance body of some kind, teach or co-teach courses with interdisciplinary
components, or collaborate on interdisciplinary research projects in addition to the scholarly
work they carried out in their home unit. Academic units might agree to co-list courses, or to
provide limited administrative support for the interdisciplinary activity.
In later versions of interdisciplinary activity, such as the Priority Determination process of the
late 1990s, the university committed a number of new faculty appointments to
interdisciplinary initiatives, though these were still mainly housed in departments
representing a “core” discipline. With the advent of the interdisciplinary school model in the
mid 2000s, a different paradigm was followed; in this model, a number of faculty
appointments were made directly to the schools, and these schools – the School of
Environment and Sustainability, the Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy,
and the School of Public Health – also operate in dedicated facilities.
The task force categorized the interdisciplinary programs offered at the University of
Saskatchewan across the full range of quintiles. In some cases – a number of the
undergraduate biotechnology programs, for example – the academic units themselves
identified programs as failed interdisciplinary experiments, which had never created sufficient
student demand to remain sustainable, and which should be considered for elimination. In
the templates for these programs, the units typically commented that the students would
apparently prefer to receive a degree with a more traditional disciplinary label, although they
were prepared to enroll in selected courses with an interdisciplinary dimension.
Leaving aside these cases where the original predictions of student interest turned out to be
inaccurate, our general observation was that the interdisciplinary programs that did less well
in our assessment were those that were most heavily reliant on volunteer efforts of faculty to
16
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
sustain them. Many interdisciplinary programs could demonstrate that they had a strong
alignment with the strategic directions of the institution, but this was only one component of
our assessment. Some programs received lower scores because no significant investment of
dedicated resources had been made in them, and this was often linked to poor or uncertain
outcomes, low levels of demand from students or other constituencies, and an inability to
realize fully the collaborative potential of the program. Though participants in these programs
are bringing their good will to the enterprise, it is difficult for them to mount effective
programs without an adequate resource framework. To choose one example, the programs
in biomedical engineering are strongly linked to societal needs and draw on a range of
expertise across the university, but have struggled because there has been little direct
investment of faculty or administrative resources to support the programs.
In contrast, interdisciplinary programs based on dedicated resources tended to demonstrate
more vitality and stronger outcomes. Some of the interdisciplinary graduate schools, for
example, seem to have set a promising course, as evidenced by indicators such as the
growing numbers of students enrolled in their programs, their ability to explore and exploit
community partnerships, and the levels of research funding they are able to attract.
Toxicology programs. One area of interdisciplinary strength for the university is in the field
of toxicology, where there are a number of well-established programs. The task force noted
that the Toxicology Centre, currently a Type B centre, indicated its aspiration to be
restructured as an academic unit. The centre argued that this would make the links between
toxicology research and the undergraduate and graduate programs more direct and less
complicated. In light of the comments we have made about interdisciplinary programming in
general, the option of conversion to an academic unit in order to ensure more effective
coordination of interdisciplinary activity is an example of the kinds of reconfiguration that the
university might explore.
Interdisciplinary programs in the College of Graduate Studies and Research. The
College of Graduate Studies and Research has been responsible for overseeing a number of
interdisciplinary programs, including the generic interdisciplinary M.A., M.Sc. and Ph.D.
programs and several programs in toxicology. It will be seen from the table in Appendix Four
that, with the exception of the M.Sc. and Ph.D. programs in toxicology, we have suggested
that these programs should be considered for elimination. The enrolments in the two
master’s level programs have decreased in recent years, and this suggested to us that
students at that level are able to meet their objectives by other means. During this period, for
example, the enrolments in master’s level programs in the three interdisciplinary schools
have grown steadily, and it may be that the diverse programs in the schools are providing
adequate interdisciplinary options.
There has continued to be a cohort of students in the Ph.D. program, and we accept that it is
necessary to have some vehicle for students at the doctoral level whose interests do not
coincide with existing disciplinary – or even interdisciplinary – structures. We are not
convinced, however, that the current program structure is the most effective way to meet this
need. Though it was difficult to assess the templates for these programs, because faculty
time and most other resources associated with the instruction, mentoring and supervision of
students in the programs are drawn from other units, we did conclude that the diffusion of
responsibility for students enrolled in these programs weakens their focus and disguises the
commitment of resources dedicated to them.
17
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
The interdisciplinary climate has changed since these programs were first established.
Virtually all academic units are engaged in interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary activity
with other parts of the university. In this context, it seems that it would be possible to
accommodate the interdisciplinary interests of graduate students within other graduate
programs or under the auspices of academic units. The M.Sc. and Ph.D. programs in
toxicology are examples of programs that have benefited from well-defined links with the
Toxicology Centre, and from well-defined oversight roles for faculty associated with that
centre.
Stronger links between related programs. In recent years, the University of
Saskatchewan has taken steps to encourage greater collaboration and closer links across
academic units and disciplines. As we noted above, this has led to the establishment of
some strong interdisciplinary programs.
Our review across the spectrum of academic programs suggests that more steps could be
taken to foster links between academic units offering programs in related areas. We noted,
for example, that there are a number of programs in areas such as statistics, environment,
microbiology, immunology and public health. There may be a sound academic or practical
rationale for the retention of distinct academic units or programs in these areas, and we
acknowledge that the information we worked with may not have been extensive enough to
disclose these explanations. Our assessment of the programs did raise the question,
however, of whether university resources could be more effectively deployed if there were
greater collaboration between the units responsible for these programs and more
consolidation of the programs themselves. There are strong programs in all of the areas
mentioned above. In the case of teaching and research connected to environmental issues,
for example, there is an array of programs in the College of Agriculture and Bioresources,
the Department of Geography and Planning, the Department of Biology, the School of
Environment and Sustainability, the College of Engineering, and the Toxicology Centre, that
seem to have some common ground. Some of these programs, particularly at the
undergraduate level, seem to be in competition for a similar constituency of students and we
wonder whether they would not be made more effective by being linked or combined in a
more direct way.
Aboriginal programming. From the time of the first integrated planning exercises, the
university has acknowledged the importance of offering a positive learning environment to
the increasing number of Aboriginal students seeking post-secondary qualifications; creating
programs that will equip Aboriginal graduates to participate fully as provincial, national and
international citizens; providing all students, faculty and staff with skills necessary for living in
a diverse society; and fostering research on questions significant to Aboriginal Peoples.
In response to these imperatives, many units have established instructional and research
programs with an Aboriginal focus. The task force had an opportunity to examine these
programs and to consider whether they are assisting the university in meeting its goals. In
some respects, the proliferation of these programs in itself has led to an evolution in thinking
about what is required to make programs with an Aboriginal focus effective. The Department
of Native Studies, for example, which for some years provided a focus for the study of a wide
range of Aboriginal issues and a “home” for Aboriginal students, stated in some of its
templates that the unit is beginning to redefine the role it will play going forward, as programs
in diverse disciplines respond to demands the department felt it had to meet in the past. This
may provide the unit with opportunities to refocus its own vision for research and instruction,
and to concentrate on its unique strengths in a new way.
18
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Our assessment of programs with an Aboriginal focus placed them in the full range of
quintiles. As with other programs, their alignment with the stated strategic aspirations of the
university, albeit significant, was only one in the list of criteria on which our evaluation was
based. As with interdisciplinary programs, some of the programs with an Aboriginal focus
have languished because the unit or the university has not devoted sufficient resources or
attention to them, and some have apparently failed to tap into sufficient student demand to
make them sustainable. We recognize that there are particular challenges in recruiting
faculty with relevant expertise, and we are confident that decision-making bodies of the
university would take this into account in appraising whether a particular program should
continue or how it can be strengthened.
As our assignments of programs indicate, some programs focused on Aboriginal issues are
flourishing and merit continued institutional support. A number of units have taken innovative
steps, and have established instructional and research programs, as well as centres, that
confirm that the university is making progress in fulfilling the ambitions it has articulated in
relation to Aboriginal Peoples.
We should also note that some programs that do not claim to have a specifically Aboriginal
focus have succeeded in attracting increasing numbers of Aboriginal students. The template
asked for headcounts of Aboriginal students, as well as graduation numbers, and the
templates disclosed significant and growing numbers in disciplines from human resources to
computer science, and from education to engineering. The growing presence of Aboriginal
students in programs other than those with a specific Aboriginal focus suggests to us that the
university may be starting to develop a comprehensive response in meeting the aspirations
and interests of Aboriginal students.
Graduation rates and completion times. For a number of programs included in the review,
the task force noted a concern with graduation rates in comparison to the headcounts
recorded. In some instances, an explanation was provided; this might be, in the case of
undergraduate programs, that students had not completed an undergraduate program in
order to enter a professional college, or, in the case of graduate programs, that students had
transferred to a doctoral program rather than complete a master’s program. Even taking
these explanations into account, however, the task force concluded that the number of
programs with low graduation rates (or in the case of graduate programs, long completion
times) was a cause for concern for many obvious reasons, including the additional burden
placed on students with extra time in program and the extra resources required to support
them.
The task force was particularly struck by the low graduation rates for international students
and in some instances for Aboriginal students. In recent years, the university has placed a
high priority on increasing the diversity of the student body by recruiting higher numbers of
international and Aboriginal students. However laudable this may be as an objective, it is our
view that the goal is not accomplished solely by admitting students to programs, but will only
be achieved when these students are completing programs and obtaining qualifications in
proportionate numbers. We did not specifically gather information about the supports
provided by units to international or Aboriginal students, and we cannot therefore say
whether the supports currently provided are adequate or whether there may be some other
explanation for the numbers we have noticed. We did flag this, however, as a somewhat
troubling phenomenon, which the institution should be examining in more detail.
19
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Big programs and small programs. In the discussion of the prioritization process in the
university community, the question has been raised of whether this model of prioritization
“discriminates” against small programs. The criteria we have used do invite us to consider
the number of students in a program, the number of graduates, and the costs associated
with the program, and this does mean that some programs with extremely small headcounts
have not been ranked as having a high priority. The question is not whether there is
something undesirable about small programs as such, but whether the university can afford
to attach a high priority to sustaining programs that attract very small numbers of students.
There is also a question, in our view, about the vibrancy of the academic experience that can
be offered when only a handful of students are enrolled in the program.
In the case of a number of programs – particularly graduate programs – we have raised the
question in our comments as to whether, with existing faculty and other resources, it might
be possible to accommodate larger numbers of students in the program. Where the faculty
complement includes Canada Research Chairs and other faculty with protected research
time, or where there are clearly significant numbers of research-active faculty in a unit, we
have asked whether a graduate program is operating at optimal capacity.
There are also some examples of programs that have been designed to cater to very small
numbers of elite students. It is clear that the rigour and specific focus of these programs
embody important academic values; they provide rewarding instructional opportunities to
faculty and produce accomplished graduates. In an exercise like this one, however, where
we are considering priority in relation to financial cost as well as academic excellence, our
examination of these programs raises the question of whether elite programs of this kind can
be a high priority for an institution facing financial exigencies. This is a broad question that
lies beyond our mandate, and the decision-making bodies of the institution will have to
consider whether significant resources can be devoted to these boutique programs.
Number of programs within units. In addition to looking at individual programs, our review
gave us an opportunity to consider the range of academic programs offered by academic
units. In some cases – where, for example, the number of programs equals or exceeds the
number of faculty members – this led us to wonder whether the number of programs offered
by some academic units is beyond their capacity in terms of resources, or has resulted in a
dissipation of the focus of the units. At the undergraduate level in the College of Arts and
Science, for example, departments typically offer 3-year, 4-year and honours degrees, as
well as degrees at the master’s and doctoral level. In some cases, they will offer programs of
this type in more than one specialized area, so that a department may be trying to sustain a
dozen or more programs. Even for a department with a significant faculty complement,
maintaining this number of separate programs is a challenge. The templates indicated, for
example, that a unit with a faculty complement of 6 is offering 10 programs; in contrast,
another unit with 27 faculty members is sustaining 6 programs. The ratio of faculty
connected with individual programs covers a full order of magnitude, from .6 faculty
members to 6 faculty members. This kind of information caused the task force to question
whether the range of programs offered by some units can be sustained.
Our sense is that some academic units have developed programming that is
overspecialized. Though in some of the templates we reviewed it was argued that these
specialized offerings are necessary to attract new audiences of students, it seemed to us
that a number of these programs are struggling because the student demand they were
created to meet has not materialized. It was also argued in some of these templates that the
addition of these programs entails a negligible additional commitment of unit resources. Our
20
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
conclusion was, however, that these programs do constitute a drain on unit resources and
energy, and that in a number of instances, the return on these investments is questionable.
We do not suggest that it is impossible for departments to broaden their array of programs.
The Department of Psychology, for example, added a B.Sc. stream to its offerings several
years ago, and it has not proved beyond their capacity to sustain these programs in addition
to healthy programs on the B.A. side. It is also the case that some units have decided they
wish to focus their resources on a more limited number of programs in order to exploit
particular strengths and interests among their faculty and are taking steps to do so. This is
the declared objective of departments like Geography and Planning, Music and Drama.
We would encourage other academic units to look at the range of programs they offer with a
view to deciding whether all of them can be sustained as vibrant and distinct programs. It
may be, for example, that a unit could strengthen its undergraduate programs by creating
more specialized streams, options or clusters within programs rather trying to maintain a
host of independent programs. It is not clear why a unit’s academic objectives could not be
met by using this kind of strategy.
Three-year bachelor’s programs. A related issue has to do with the utility of three-year
bachelor’s degree programs. There was prolonged discussion about this in the task force,
and concerns were raised about whether a three-year credential provides a useful
preparation for students facing the demands of current society.
A number of units stated that they were unable to isolate the objectives or the costs of threeyear programs from those of other undergraduate programs, and their templates indicate
that minimal or no resources are invested in these programs. The task force was skeptical
about the claims that these programs are being offered at negligible cost, but we recognize
that for these units, the three-year program may not be accorded the priority given to other
programs. Other units, however, were able to articulate a persuasive rationale for a threeyear program – as preparation for a particular professional program, for example, or as a
vehicle for extensive service teaching – as well as to describe outcomes for students and to
identify the proportion of unit resources devoted to the program; templates from the
Departments of Native Studies and Psychology provide examples of this.
Our review of a range of three-year bachelor’s programs suggests that, for some units, the
elimination of the three-year degree program would permit them to focus more intensively on
four-year and honours programs, to the benefit of students wishing to specialize in the
discipline in a meaningful way. For others, however, the three-year program does represent
an important building-block in departmental offerings.
One possibility alluded to in some of the templates from the College of Arts and Science was
that of creating broader-based introductory three-year programs that would draw on the
expertise of individual departments without the need to maintain separate programs in each
discipline. This “general studies” model has been used at other institutions, and might be
considered here. This model might serve the purpose of preparing students for entry into
professional programs at least as well as the retention of discrete degrees in every
discipline.
The task force would recommend consideration – on a case-by-case basis – of the
possibility of eliminating three-year programs for which no positive justification can be made
21
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
in terms of service to an identifiable student constituency or support for the academic
objectives of a unit.
Service teaching. At the outset of the TransformUS project, some units raised questions
about how the templates would reflect the service teaching provided to other programs. We
considered this issue, and decided that rather than solicit separate templates for service
teaching activities, we would invite units to indicate their service teaching responsibilities in
the templates related to other programs.
Though some units have continued to express concern that their service teaching activity
would be insufficiently visible in the process, we found in our review that the description of
service teaching in the templates was enormously helpful in understanding the context in
which programs are offered. Service teaching in itself makes an obvious contribution to the
mission of the university by exposing students at both the undergraduate and graduate level
to perspectives beyond their chosen field of study. The information about service teaching
also gave us an insight into the wide range of activities to which some units are committed,
and the basis these activities might create for links across disciplines or administrative
entities. Some units carry out extensive service teaching obligations while at the same time
attracting large numbers of majors in their own programs and maintaining impressive levels
of research; the information in the templates about service teaching permitted the task force
to fully understand the achievements of such units, and to assign appropriate priority to their
programs.
Research, scholarly and artistic work. If it was novel for units to differentiate their
instructional activities as individual programs, it was perhaps even more unusual for them to
be asked to describe their research, scholarly or artistic enterprises in these terms. The
templates generally recorded the research metrics for the unit, although some units chose to
submit a template for more than one research program. These research metrics were helpful
in understanding the nature, scope and productivity of the research, scholarly and artistic
activities of the unit as a backdrop and support for instructional programs, particularly
honours and graduate programs.
The information also permitted the task force to assess the research programs themselves.
The integrated planning process from the beginning identified research intensiveness as a
planning goal, and emphasized the importance of indicators such as Tri-Agency funding and
peer-reviewed publications. It is clear from our review that these indicators have become the
currency of research activity in many units, and this made it possible for us to assess a wide
range of research programs in a consistent way.
Adjustments had to be made to consider research programs in clinical fields, and also for the
artistic work done in the fine arts departments. In the case of the fine arts units, many of the
templates contained helpful information about reputational criteria and public performance
that allowed us to appreciate the artistic work in these fields.
With respect to the clinical units, it was far more difficult for us to satisfy ourselves that
expectations are being met for research programs. Many of the templates submitted from
clinical units acknowledged the importance of clinical research, sometimes as a requirement
for accreditation, but in a number of these cases, the templates suggested that the unit had
not succeeded in developing respectable levels of research intensiveness. There are clearly
challenges in marrying the clinical and research missions, and we do not claim that we were
able to gain a complete understanding of these challenges in the course of our review. We
22
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
did conclude, however, that if the university is to achieve the desired intensity of research in
all fields, including clinical fields, new and more effective strategies will have to be
formulated for promoting clinical research.
The value of strong programs. As a result of our review, we would say that there is much
to celebrate in the programs offered at the University of Saskatchewan. We saw evidence in
many templates of exceptional student and research outcomes, strong community
engagement, national and international reputation, and effective use of resources. In the
case of programs that may not have received the hoped for quintile assignment, we suggest
that these very strong programs may provide inspiration and guidance for re-imagination or
re-conceptualization.
Program Prioritization in the Future In this report, we have outlined both strengths and limitations in the prioritization process.
The members of the task force were aware that we had been given a unique opportunity to
scan all of the university’s academic programs, to see them in relation to each other and to
consider how they fit with the academic priorities of the institution. The diversity of
perspectives on the task force promoted vigorous and stimulating discussion, and the
intensity of the schedule produced an immersive effect that permitted us to recognize the
wide range of academic activity at the University of Saskatchewan. On the other hand, as
we have noted, there were some limitations and some anomalies in the data we were
working with. Although the task force worked hard to understand all of the templates and to
assess them fairly, we have noted some instances in which we could not interpret the
information provided to us.
We are confident that the process we followed has resulted in a report that contains
information that will support the decision-making actors of the university as they develop
options for the strengthening, restructuring, reducing or elimination of programs. Indeed, we
would expect that a program prioritization process of some kind would recur in the future. We
would like to comment about modifications that might be made to strengthen this kind of
initiative, and also to mention some features of the current process that should be retained in
future iterations of prioritization.
Regular prioritization. The current prioritization process was adopted in a climate of
financial exigency, and represented one aspect of a set of budget adjustment initiatives. It is
our view that an institution of the size and complexity of this university would do well to
consider on a regular basis the relative priority of the programs it offers, quite aside from
financial exigencies. As we have noted, since establishing the current sequence of
integrated planning, the university has stressed the importance of identifying priorities, and
some version of the prioritization process we have just engaged in could be a significant
component of the planning process. In addition, though a process focusing on individual
programs was unfamiliar to the university community, many who had a role in completing
templates commented on the value of this process in deepening their insight into the
activities of their units.
More up-front work. The time pressures for the review itself – that is, the period from
September to November – was, as we have said, a positive aspect of the process. The
brevity of this period permitted the task force to concentrate intensively and to develop a
23
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
sense of the entire range of programs that probably could not have been achieved in any
other way.
We are less convinced, however, that the earlier part of the process – the work that was
done between March and August – needed to be compressed into such a short period. For
example, the task force is satisfied that the template we created, though not perfect,
provided a basis for presenting the information needed for meaningful review. In retrospect,
however, it would have been desirable if it had been possible to brief academic units more
fully and provide them with more assistance as they prepared to fill out the templates. In the
time available, the task force did provide as much guidance as possible, but a more
extended introductory period would have allowed for additional and more targeted interaction
with those responsible for completing the templates.
Audit of data. One feature that might improve this process would be the introduction of an
audit of completed templates before they are reviewed. This would help to ensure that
information in the templates is recorded in a way that accurately reflects the data available,
that it is recorded in a consistent way, and that any missing data can be obtained. The data
support team was helpful to the task force in explaining the basis for the centrally-generated
data that had been supplied to the units, but we had no systematic way of ensuring that the
templates were as complete and clear as they could be. We understand that there will
always be some variations in the way the same indicators are recorded and understood by
academic units and at the institutional level, but we think some kind of audit process prior to
the review would increase the degree of uniformity of the information examined.
Diversity is important. The process used for selecting task force members was, as we
have indicated, somewhat complicated. One of the successes of this process, in our view,
was to produce a task force representing a broad spectrum of disciplinary backgrounds,
experience and institutional roles. It should be emphasized here that members of the task
force did not see themselves and did not conduct themselves as advocates or champions for
programs in their own unit or discipline. Their knowledge of the culture and conventions of
different parts of the institution was invaluable, however, in promoting a healthy appreciation
of the diversity of academic activity. In this context, we would like to note the valued
contribution made by the two student members of the task force, as the involvement of
students was not a feature initially contemplated when the task force was conceived. Student
groups on campus were interested in the project from the time it was announced, and they
lobbied hard to have students included on the task forces. The inclusion of the
undergraduate and graduate student voice was an important asset to the task force.
Snapshot or trend. The task force concluded early in its discussions that examining a single
moment in the life of an academic program would not provide a full picture of it. The template
was thus designed to gather data covering a three-year period – the years 2009-2010, 20102011 and 2011-2012. The questions related to some criteria also permitted units to provide
additional information about the history, evolution and prospects of the program. The
templates in this form provided the task force with much information, and a sense of the
dynamic of the programs over time. The choice of the three-year frame for much of the data
was partly influenced by our awareness of the burden for units of completing a number of
templates in an unfamiliar framework. It would probably be helpful, however, in any future
version of program prioritization to take an even longer chronological period into account.
This would permit the reviewers to understand more fully the evolutionary trends in the
programs, but it would in our view require that additional support be offered to units in
completing the templates.
24
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Standardized Central Data. Though the task force had the benefit of extensive and
illuminating data in the prioritization process, we suggest that future iterations of the process
would be enhanced by continuing institutional strategies to develop standardized ways of
reporting and tracking data for such things as instructional activities and research metrics.
We are convinced of the benefits of a review of institutional activity on the basis of programs,
and, as we have said, we think there would be value in carrying out some version of
prioritization in the future. If the decision-makers in the institution agree with this conclusion,
it would be helpful to have program data recorded and tracked in a consistent way.
Conclusion With the submission of its final report, the task force has completed its review of academic
programs. It is our expectation that the report, along with all of the templates that formed the
basis for our assessments, will be released for examination by faculty, staff and students.
We have placed a high value on the transparency of this process, and we hope that we have
been able to meet that objective.
The ratings and recommendations contained in the report will provide a source of information
for the senior leadership of the university as they develop an implementation plan for making
some of the decisions that will be necessary in order for the institution to meet its financial
targets. Within the limits of our mandate, the task force has learned much about the current
range of academic programs, and we hope that what we have learned will provide a sound
basis for the choices that decision-makers will have to make. We should emphasize,
however, that it was not part of our task to make final determinations about where new
investments of resources should be made, where disinvestment should occur, where
restructuring or reconfiguration should take place, or where consideration should be given to
the phasing out of programs. Extensive further assessment and consultation will be
necessary before those decisions can be made, and the task force will not have a role,
except as interested members of the university community, in those decisions.
25
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
APPENDIX ONE: ACADEMIC PROGRAM TRANSFORMATION TASK FORCE CRITERIA AND WEIGHTINGS 26
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix One—Criteria and Weightings
Criterion
Weighting
History, development and expectations of the program: This criterion will focus
on both historical factors and expectations regarding future prospects for the
program.
This criterion will allow the task force to consider information about the origins and
evolution of the program, including whether there have been recent reconfiguration
or restatement of the objectives of the program.
5%
External demand for the program: This criterion will focus on factors related to
the level of external interest and opportunities available to the program. Under this
criterion, the task force will focus on such factors as the links between the program
and professional and accrediting bodies; the present and future level of interest in
the program as indicated by student applications or inquiries or societal demand;
or the connections with potential funders or employers of graduates.
11%
Internal demand for the program: This criterion will focus on the interest within
the university in the program’s offerings. The task force will consider, for example,
the degree to which the program includes service teaching for other programs, or
the importance of the program to other units within the university.
10%
Size, scope and productivity of the program: This criterion will address the size
of the program in terms of its service to students, production of research, scholarly
and artistic work, and breadth of curriculum. In connection with this criterion, the
task force will ask for information concerning such indicators as the credit units
taught, students served by the program, number of faculty and staff, output of
creative scholarship and artistic work, and the scope of the program’s objectives.
12%
Quality of program inputs and processes: This criterion will focus on the
various inputs and processes employed by the program in meeting its objectives.
The task force will look for evidence concerning the quality of such inputs as
students, faculty, equipment and facilities, and indicators of quality of processes
such as pedagogy.
6%
Quality of program outcomes: This criterion will focus on the success of the
program’s accomplishments. The task force will ask those offering the program to
comment on the appropriate measures of success and to demonstrate how the
achievements of the program can be assessed according to these measures.
18%
27
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix One—Criteria and Weightings
Criterion
Weighting
Revenue and other resources generated by the program: This criterion will
focus on the revenues that are attributable to the program’s efforts. The revenues
considered under this criterion will include tuition and grant revenue tied to student
enrolment, Tri-Agency and other research funding, fees and cost recovery
charges, sponsorships, endowment income and private donations. Consideration
will also be given to the generation of other resources for the program, such as inkind contributions.
10%
Costs and other expenses associated with the program: This criterion will
focus on the expenses incurred by the program in conducting its activities. Units
will be asked to give a comprehensive view of the costs of programs, including
assigned overhead, travel and administrative costs, and salaries. Consideration
will also be given to demonstrable efficiencies in the way programs are delivered.
8%
Impact, justification and overall essentiality of the program: This criterion will
allow the program to describe its importance to the institution and the value it
creates through its efforts. Under this criterion, the task force will be asking
academic units to indicate how their programs are aligned with University of
Saskatchewan priorities and to indicate what risks would be created for the
institution were the program to be eliminated.
14%
Opportunity analysis of the program: This criterion will allow the program to
describe the additional contributions it could make with specified additional
resourcing or reconfiguration. Units will be asked to outline significant additional
contributions that a program could make with enhanced resourcing of a particular
kind, or if it was reconfigured in a particular way.
6%
28
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
APPENDIX TWO: THE PROGRAM TEMPLATE USED BY THE TASK FORCE 29
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Five—Quintil
2012-13 Academic Programs Prioritization Template
Program name:
Home Department/College:
Department Head/Director:
Dean:
Has this program been formally proposed to the Academic Programs Committee of
Council for elimination? If yes, briefly describe the likely impact of the elimination of the
program on other University of Saskatchewan programs. [50 words]
[Please note that if the answer to this question is yes, the program will be automatically
placed in the fifth quintile, and the rest of the template need not be completed.]
Criterion 1 – History, Development, and Expectations (5%)
1.1 Describe the origins, history, and key accomplishments of the program. [50 word max]
1.2 What key changes have been made to the program over the past five years or are planned
for the future? [100 word max]
Criterion 2 – External Demand (11%)
2.1 Is there a limit to admissions to this program? Yes □ No □
2.2 How many applications do you typically have per student admitted? ___
2.3 Describe the current and anticipated external demand for this program. [100 word max]
Criterion 3 – Internal Demand (10%)
3.1 Provide the requested numbers as indicated in the table (data provided centrally)
Departmental Service Teaching Activity
Within Department
Within College
Inter-College
Total 3CUE Teaching
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
3.2 Describe the demand for this program within the University in terms of courses offered,
which include non-majors, research support or other services provided to other units. [50 word
max]
3.3 What was the average teaching load in 3 cu equivalents per faculty member in your
department in 2011-12? ____
3.4 How would other programs be affected by elimination of this program? [75 word max]
Criterion 4 – Size, Scope, and Productivity (12%)
4.1 Provide the requested numbers as indicated in the tables (data provided centrally).
2011-12 Complement Size
Total Department
Percent Attributed Total for Program
to Program
(Amount x Percent)
Faculty/Librarians
Research
Senior University Admin.
Senior College Admin.
Administrative/Professional
30
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Five—Quintil
Support
Sessional Lecturers
Residents/Interns
Students (Non-research)
Other
4.2 Provide the requested numbers as indicated in the tables (data provided centrally)
Student Metrics
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
Degrees /Credentials Granted
Aboriginal
Out of Province
International
Student Headcount
Aboriginal
Out of Province
International
Average Annual Tuition Rate Per Student
Estimated Annual Tuition Revenue
(Total Students x Average Annual Rate)
4.3 Provide the requested numbers as indicated in the tables (data provided centrally)
Research Metrics (Department Level)
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
Total non Tri-Agency research revenue ($)
Total Tri-Agency research revenue ($)
Total number of grants and contracts
Percent of faculty holding external
research funding
The metrics below will be provided by the unit
Percent of faculty holding Tri-agency
funding as a Principal Investigator
Average number of published peerreviewed books per faculty member
Average number of published peerreviewed journal articles per faculty
member
Average number of peer-reviewed
scholarly and artistic works per faculty
member
Average number of published/completed
non peer-reviewed books, journal articles,
book chapters, and scholarly/artistic
works per faculty member
4.4 Add any comments that would help us understand the significance of these figures. [50 word
max]
31
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Five—Quintil
Criterion 5 – Quality of Program Inputs (6%)
5.1 Comment on the formal recognitions and awards for teaching and/or research, scholarly and
artistic work achieved by faculty and staff in this program at the local, national, and international
levels. [75 word max]
5.2 For programs with limits on admission or specific admission standards, including
undergraduate honours programs, what is the usual entering average/GPA for students in the
program? ____
5.3 Comment on awards or competitive scholarships won by students in this program or other
indicators of student quality. [50 word max]
5.4 Describe any special equipment, facilities, and/or technology associated with this program.
[50 words]
5.5 Describe any initiatives undertaken during the past three years to enhance quality,
innovation, student engagement, and creativity in this program. [75 word max]
5.6 Describe how the program objectives and curriculum meet the expectations of the discipline
in terms of breadth, depth of coverage and interdisciplinary nature. [50 word max]
Criterion 6 – Quality of Program Outcomes (18%)
6.1 Is accreditation, certification or registration by a professional body required? Is it available?
Has this program been accredited, certified or registered? [50 words]
6.2 Consider the work of the program over the past three years. Describe how success would
be measured in your discipline and outline the achievements that have been realized during this
time. This could include research, scholarly and artistic work, student graduation rates, students
going on to advanced degrees, student engagement, program and accreditation reviews, etc.
Focus on external measures of quality where possible. [250 word max]
6.3 Discuss the success of this program relative to similar programs at other universities. [75
word max]
Criterion 7 – Revenue and Other Resources Generated by the Program (10%)
7.1 Provide the requested information as indicated in the table (data provided centrally).
2011-12 Revenue
Total Department
Percent Attributed
Total for Program
to Program
(Amount x Percent)
Operating Allocation
Grants & Contracts
Student Fees
Donations
Other
Total
7.2 Describe any additional resources that support this program. [50 word max]
7.3 Are there one-time revenues included in the 2011-12 figures that should be noted? If yes,
please explain. [50 word max]
32
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Five—Quintil
Criterion 8 – Costs and other Expenses Associated with the Program (8%)
8.1 Insert the requested information as indicated in the tables (data provided centrally).
2011-12 Salaries & Benefits Total Department
Percent Attributed Total for Program
to Program
(Amount x Percent)
Faculty/Librarians
Research
Senior University Admin.
Senior College Admin.
Administrative/Professional
Support
Sessional Lecturers
Residents/Interns
Students (Non-research)
Other
Benefits
Total Salaries and Benefits
8.2 Insert the requested information as indicated in the tables (data provided centrally)
2011-12 Non-salary
Total Department
Percent Attributed
Total Amount x
Direct Costs
to Program
Percent
Operational
Supplies and
Expenses
Travel
Scholarships,
Bursaries and Prizes
Other
Total Non-Salary
Expenses
8.3 Are there any other costs associated with this program? [50 word max]
8.4 Are there one-time costs included in the 2011-12 figures that should be noted? If yes,
please explain. [50 word max]
8.5 Please describe the administrative work, including work within the unit, within the University
and outside the University, performed by faculty members in your unit. [75 word max]
8.6 Please indicate what proportion of the total resources of your unit are devoted to this
program.
Criterion 9 - Impact, Justification, and Overall Essentiality of the Program (14%)
9.1 How does this program align with the strategic directions of the University? (link to website
that provides IP1, IP2, IP3 and strategic directions documents). [150 word max]
9.2 What makes this program valuable? [100 word max]
33
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Five—Quintil
Criterion 10 – Opportunity Analysis of the Program (6%)
10.1 What opportunities exist to strengthen or reconfigure this program in the context of its
contributions to the University’s strategic directions and integrated plans (link to website as
described in question 23)? [100 word max]
10.2 What opportunities exist for greater collaboration or efficiencies in the delivery of this
program? Is there overlap with other programs at the University? [100 word max]
Approvals
Dept Heads/Deans (Non-Departmentalized College)/Program Heads/Directors only. I
agree with the information provided in this template. _____
Please add any additional information about this program that you would like us to know. [100
word max]
Deans/Vice-Deans (Arts and Science) only. I agree with the information provided in this
template. _____
Please add any additional information about this program that you would like us to know. [100
word max]
34
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
APPENDIX THREE: THE SCORING RUBRIC USED BY THE TASK FORCE 35
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Criterion 1 (5%):
History,
Development and
Expectations
Criterion 2 (11%):
External Demand
Academic
Programs
Research
Programs and
Centres
Appendix Three—Scoring Rubric
1
2
3
4
5
The evidence
provided suggests
a significant weakness within this
category.
The evidence
provided suggests a
cause for concern
within this category.
The evidence
provided suggests
an average level
within this category.
The evidence
provided suggests
strong performance
within this category.
The evidence provided
suggests exemplary
performance within this
category.
Little to no key
accomplishments,
declining program,
no prospects for
future growth.
Program profile
entirely in the past,
present program
seems stagnant.
Modest accomplishments, uncertain
present direction,
program has
tended to unfold
with little planning.
Some notable past
accomplishments,
viable current program, some
prospects for future
growth.
Distinguished history,
dynamic ongoing
initiatives, solid
prospects for future
growth.
Little or no
evidence of
demand for
entrance to the
program or
demand for its
graduates.
Low demand for
entrance to the
program and/or low
demand for its
graduates. These
low rates are likely
to remain stable or
decrease.
Moderate demand
for entrance to the
program and/or
moderate demand
for its graduates.
These moderate
rates are likely to
remain stable.
High demand for
entrance to the
program and/or
high demand for its
graduates. These
high rates are likely
to remain stable or
increase.
Very high demand for
entrance to the program
and very high demand
for its graduates. These
very high rates are likely
to remain stable or
increase.
Little or no
evidence of current
or anticipated
external demand
for this research
program or centre.
Low evidence of
current or
anticipated external
demand for this
research program
or centre.
Moderate evidence
of current or
anticipated external
demand for this
research program
or centre.
Strong evidence of
current or
anticipated external
demand for this
research program
or centre.
Very strong evidence of
current or anticipated
external demand for this
research program or
centre.
36
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Criterion 3 (10%):
Internal Demand
Academic
Programs
Research
Programs and
Centres
Criterion 4 (12%):
Size, Scope and
Productivity
Appendix Three—Scoring Rubric
The program
offerings are not
needed to support
other academic
program
requirements or
options.
The program
provides little
service teaching
and includes few
offerings that are
required or optional
for other programs.
The program
provides a
moderate amount
of service teaching
and includes some
offerings that are
required or optional
for other programs.
The program
provides a high
amount of service
teaching and
includes some
offerings that are
required or optional
for other programs.
The program provides a
very high amount of
service teaching and/or
includes offerings that
are required or optional
for a variety of other
programs.
Little or no
evidence of
demand for this
research program
or centre within the
University.
Low evidence of
demand for this
research program
or centre within the
University.
Moderate evidence
of demand for this
research program
or centre within the
University.
Strong evidence of
demand for this
research program
or centre within the
University.
Very strong evidence of
demand for this research
program or centre within
the University.
Very low enrolments, few majors
produced, very low
teaching activity,
very low research,
scholarly, and/or
artistic productivity.
Low enrolments,
low teaching
activity, low
research, scholarly,
and/or artistic productivity, given the
size of the faculty.
Moderate enrolments; moderate
teaching activity,
moderate research,
scholarly, and/or
artistic productivity.
High enrolments;
high teaching
activity, high
research, scholarly,
and/or artistic
productivity.
Critical mass of highly
productive faculty, very
high enrolments in both
majors and non-majors.
Very high research,
scholarly, and/or artistic
productivity.
37
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Criterion 5 (6%):
Quality of Inputs
Little or no
evidence of faculty
awards/
recognition; very
low entering
student averages
and little or no
evidence of
student awards/
scholarships;
program quality is
severely limited
due to inadequate
facilities; no or few
initiatives to
improve quality
have been
undertaken in the
last three years.
Low evidence of
faculty awards/
recognition; low
entering student
averages and low
evidence of student
awards/
scholarships;
program quality is
limited due to
inadequate
facilities; few
initiatives to
improve quality
have been
undertaken in the
last three years.
Appendix Three—Scoring Rubric
Moderate evidence
of faculty awards/
recognition;
moderate entering
student averages
and moderate
evidence of student
awards/
scholarships; the
program has
access to adequate
facilities; some
initiatives to
improve quality
have been
undertaken in the
last three years.
Strong evidence of
faculty awards/
recognition; high
entering student
averages and
strong evidence of
student awards/
scholarships; the
program has
access to good
facilities; evidence
of enhanced
program quality in
the last three years.
Very strong evidence of
faculty awards/
recognition; very high
entering student
averages and very strong
evidence of student
awards/ scholarships; the
program has access to
superior facilities;
evidence of enhanced
program quality in the
last three years.
38
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Criterion 6 (18%):
Quality of
Outcomes
Appendix Three—Scoring Rubric
Notable
deficiencies in
accreditation, other
program reviews,
or comparisons
with similar
programs.
Weaknesses noted
in accreditation,
other program
reviews, or
comparisons with
similar programs.
No weaknesses
noted in
accreditation, other
program reviews, or
comparisons with
similar programs.
Some strengths
noted in
accreditation, other
program reviews, or
comparisons with
similar programs.
Extensive strengths
noted in accreditation,
other program reviews,
or comparisons with
similar programs.
The program
shows little or no
faculty success in
research, scholarly
or artistic output
and little or no
student success,
as measured by
such things as
engagement
surveys,
graduation rates,
hire rates, or
tendency to pursue
further studies in
the program
discipline, over the
three year time
period.
The program shows
either some faculty
success in
research, scholarly
or artistic output or
some student
success, as
measured by such
things as engagement surveys,
graduation rates,
hire rates, or
tendency to pursue
further studies in
the program
discipline, over the
three year time
period.
The program shows
faculty success in
research, scholarly
or artistic output,
with output steady
or increasing over
the three year time
period. The
program also
shows student
success on at least
some relevant
measures over the
three-year time
period, or an
improving trend in
that time.
The program shows
marked faculty
success in
research, scholarly
or artistic output.
Output has been
steady or increasing
over the three year
time period, and is
of consistently high
quality. The
program also shows
student success on
most relevant
measures over the
three-year time
period, or an
improving trend in
that time.
The program shows
exemplary faculty
success in research,
scholarly or artistic
output. Output has been
increasing and is
consistently of very high
quality. The program also
shows exemplary student
success on all or most
relevant measures over
the three-year time
period, or a marked
improvement in that time.
39
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Criterion 7 (10%):
Revenue and
Resources
Criterion 8 (8%):
Costs and
Expenses
Criterion 9 (14%):
Impact,
Justification, and
Overall Essentiality
Appendix Three—Scoring Rubric
The total revenue
generated is far
below the prorated
median revenue
1
generation.
The total revenue
generated is below
the prorated
median revenue
generation.
The total revenue
generated approximately equals the
prorated median
revenue generation.
The total revenue
generated is above
the prorated
median revenue
generation.
The total revenue
generated is well above
the prorated median
revenue generation.
Both cost categories (i.e., Salary
total, Direct Costs
total) substantially
exceed the
prorated median
level of these
2
costs.
One of the cost
categories
substantially
exceeds the
prorated median
level of these costs.
The costs are
approximately
equal to the
prorated median
level of costs within
each category.
One of the cost
categories is substantially lower than
the prorated
median level of
these costs.
Both cost categories are
substantially lower than
the prorated median level
of these costs.
Program is strategically marginal,
has low visibility,
and makes little
attempt to connect
with the rest of the
University or stakeholders external to
the university.
Program is uneven,
with only some
points of contact
with stakeholders
external to the
university and /or
alignment with only
one key strategic
initiative.
Program is active
and vibrant, though
not visibly aligned
with strategic
directions and with
modest connections
to stakeholders
external to the
university.
Program is either
very well aligned
strategically, or very
well connected with
stakeholders
external to the
university.
Program is well aligned
with University’s strategic
directions, has strong
connections to
stakeholders external to
the university, and
performs a critical role in
delivering the university’s
mandate.
1
Prorated median level of revenue generation = median of Total Department Revenue (all departments across university) x % of resources attributed to program
under review. The median of Total Department Revenue would be provided centrally, and this calculation could be included on the template. This calculation
would put revenue generation into a university-wide comparative context and would provide a common standard for scoring.
2
Cost Categories: Salary & Benefits; Non-Salary Direct Costs. Prorated median level of salary costs = median level of Total Salaries & Benefits (provided
centrally) x % salary attributed to program under review. Prorated median level of non-salary direct costs = median level of Total Non-Salary Direct Costs
(provided centrally) x % salary attributed to program under review.
40
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Criterion 10 (6%):
Opportunity
Analysis
Appendix Three—Scoring Rubric
Little or no
potential for
reconfiguration
and alignment with
strategic
directions.
Some potential for
reconfiguration and
alignment with
strategic directions.
Moderate potential
for reconfiguration
and alignment with
strategic directions.
Strong potential for
reconfiguration and
alignment with
strategic directions.
Very strong potential for
reconfiguration and
alignment with strategic
directions.
Little or no
potential for finding
opportunities for
greater efficiency
or collaboration.
Some potential for
finding
opportunities for
greater efficiency or
collaboration.
Moderate potential
for finding
opportunities for
greater efficiency or
collaboration.
Strong potential for
finding
opportunities for
greater efficiency or
collaboration.
Very strong potential for
finding opportunities for
greater efficiency or
collaboration.
41
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
APPENDIX FOUR: DETAILED PROGRAM LISTING BY QUINTILE 42
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 1)
QUINTILE 1: CANDIDATES FOR ENHANCED RESOURCING
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Animal and Poultry
Science
Animal and Poultry
Science
Research
Excellent research funding, high productivity. Room for future growth. Could be a
leading program on campus.
College of Agriculture
& Bioresources
Crop Development Centre
(CDC) - Type A Centre
All activities
High calibre of research, high demand. Positive stakeholder feedback. National
reputation for innovation.
Soil Science
Soil science
Research
High proportion of faculty with Tri-Agency funding; exemplary funding overall. Strong
publication rate. Highly collaborative. Involvement of undergraduates in research.
International reputation. Strong connections with industry.
Chemistry
Chemistry
PhD
Student head count high but lower graduation numbers. Strong research in
department. Involvement of students in teaching. Excellent student outcomes.
Chemistry
Chemistry
Research
A fine example of a strong research program. Faculty engaged in important issues.
Strong research metrics, including Tri-Agency funding. Research linked to key
university facilities.
College of Arts &
Science
Institute of Space and
Atmospheric Studies –
Type A Centre
All activities
A long-established centre with an international reputation. Much of the current focus
is on study of climate; makes important links. Offers unique research opportunities to
students.
College of Arts &
Science (Dean's office)
Toxicology
BSc (4 year
major)
Plans for incorporation of Aboriginal students. High student headcounts. Decline in
Tri-Agency funding, but large amount of alternative funding. Faculty conduct research
in other units. Well aligned with priorities. Unique in Canada.
College of Arts &
Science (Dean's office)
Toxicology
BSc (honours)
Quality of inputs strong. Strong alignment with university priorities. Good student
outcomes. Strong impact. Good research funding and output. Good collaborations
with other units.
43
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 1)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
English
English
BA (honours)
Good enrolment. Faculty inputs strong. Prestigious teaching awards for faculty. Good
initiatives, involvement of students in research. Aligned with university priorities. High
amount of service teaching. Strong research activity. Engagement in Aboriginal
initiatives. Impressive strategic planning.
Physics &
Engineering Physics
Physics
Research
Increasing research funding, good scholarly output. Strong infrastructure. High quality
faculty. Resource investment in research. Links with other units. Aboriginal links.
Psychology
Psychology
BA (4 year
major)
Commitment to student engagement in research, including non-honours students.
Good graduation numbers. Good description of program as a distinct from other unit
programs. High service teaching combined with high number of majors. Has survived
well with addition of BSc program. Employable students. Highly efficient program.
Civil and Geological
Engineering
Civil engineering
BEng
Students in high demand from employers. Alignment with university priorities. Links
with industry. Potential for growth. Appropriate investment of faculty resources.
Generates revenue. Good tracking of student accomplishments.
Mechanical
Engineering
Mechanical engineering
BEng
High grant success, although some dip in past year. Good enrolments. Good external
demand. Capstone course making interdisciplinary use of expertise. Clear tracking of
student success. Awareness of extracurricular projects of students.
College of Pharmacy
and Nutrition
Pharmacy
BSc (Pharm)
Signature area, showcase program. High student numbers. Student engagement.
Strong outcomes. Cost effective, high student ratio. Strong experiential component.
University-Wide
Vaccine and Infectious
Disease Organization International Vaccine
Centre (VIDO-InterVac) Type B Centre
All activities
Flagship, world-class facility. Outward-looking, strong partnerships with rest of
institution. Excellent research productivity. Essential national facility.
44
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 1)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Western College of
Veterinary Medicine
Veterinary medicine
DVM
Good student numbers. Program strong in all dimensions. High demand. Flagship in
western Canada. Expensive program but effective use of funds. Importance of clinical
services.
45
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 2)
QUINTILE 2: CANDIDATES FOR MAINTAINING WITH CURRENT RESOURCING
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Animal and Poultry
Science
Animal science
BSA (major)
Good internal demand. Excellent scholarship awards. Good faculty inputs. Attracts
good number of out of province students.
Animal and Poultry
Science
Animal science
MSc
Productive faculty. Graduates highly employable. New infrastructure. One of the
strongest MSc programs. High cost for program, but good outcomes. Top up of
tuition an innovative idea.
Animal and Poultry
Science
Animal science
PhD
Concern about slow graduation rates. Strong research culture, infrastructure in
farms. Good research funding but some drop in Tri-Agency. Addressing completion
time would alleviate capacity problem.
Bioresource Policy,
Business and
Economics
Agribusiness
BSc (major)
Good student demand, good Aboriginal numbers. Employability of graduates. Solid
research in unit, though some recent decline in Tri-Agency funding. Engagement of
students. Strong statement of opportunities. Investment of faculty resources
suggests commitment to program.
Bioresource Policy,
Business and
Economics
Agribusiness
Diploma
Very good demand. Solid scholarly output. High quality faculty. Good employment
prospects for graduates. Potential for increasing Aboriginal enrolment.
Bioresource Policy,
Business and
Economics
Agricultural economics
MSc
Highly rated in program reviews. Good outcomes for students. Strong external
demand. Evidence of national and international reputation.
College of Agriculture
& Bioresources
Feeds Innovation Institute Type A Centre
All activities
Independent funding for centre. Engaged with industry, strong community
engagement. Strong external demand for their work. Interdisciplinary dimension.
College of Agriculture
& Bioresources
Indigenous people's
resource management
Certificate of
Proficiency
External funding initially. Strong demand from Aboriginal community, success in
transitioning to jobs. Future funding status in question.
46
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 2)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
College of Agriculture
& Bioresources
Prairie horticulture
Certificate of
Successful
Completion
Seem to use resources efficiently, generating revenue. Links with industry. No
allocation from university; uses external resources. Strong ties to community,
raises profile of university. Innovative collaboration model.
Food and
Bioproduct Sciences
Food and
Bioproduct Sciences
BSA (major)
Alignment with university priorities and Agbio signature areas. Dip in research
funding. Relevance to external constituencies. Experiential and team-based
learning. Large number of international students is a positive sign.
Food and
Bioproduct Sciences
Food and
Bioproduct Sciences
MSc
Good student demand, strong external demand. Significant international student
population. Addressing decline in revenues. Aligned with university focus on food
security. Graduation rate low. Some potential to combine with MSc in applied
microbiology.
Food and
Bioproduct Sciences
Food and
Bioproduct Sciences
Research
Some decrease in Tri-Agency funding. Unique in Canada, well maintained
infrastructure. Good links with industry. Large though fluctuating grants from
industry.
Plant Sciences
Agronomy
BSA (major)
Good student numbers, research strength in department. Solid program.
Realignment in program offers potential. Demand going up. Alignment with
university programs. High tuition revenue. International relevance.
Plant Sciences
Agronomy
Diploma
Laddering into BSA valuable. Tri-Agency funding fairly low, but good level of other
grants. Good alignment with signature areas in Agbio. Upward trend in student
numbers. Recent restructure having positive impact on enrolment. Non-traditional
students.
Plant Sciences
Horticultural science
BSA (major)
Strong research. Focus on undergraduate experience, good trajectory for
enrolment. Well aligned with university priorities. International component.
Plant Sciences
Plant sciences
MSc
Long history of agricultural success stories. Strong relationship with CDC.
Employability of graduates. Good external demand. Strong research.
47
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 2)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Plant Sciences
Plant sciences
PhD
Renewal of program. Good enrolment in program, though could be larger with this
size faculty and given links with CDC. Strong research profile in unit to support
program. Good record of scholarships for students. Strong alignment. Potential for
growth.
Plant Sciences
Plant sciences
Research
Highly relevant research, strong funding, high productivity. Significant faculty
engagement. Link with CDC. Tri-Agency could be higher, good non-Tri-Agency
funding.
Soil Science
Environmental science
BSA (major)
Research metrics strong. Strong student numbers, solid graduation rates. Good
Aboriginal engagement. Question whether there would be value in greater
consolidation of environment programs across campus. Strong demand evident.
Modest investment of faculty resources.
Soil Science
Resource science
BSc RRM
(major)
Experiential learning a prominent feature, increasing student numbers. Good
internal demand. Excellent research metrics.
Soil Science
Soil science
MSc
Good research support. Graduation rates in relation to headcount a concern, hard
to reconcile with information in template. Good external demand. Strong inputs.
Soil Science
Soil science
PhD
Low completion rate. Strong program, strong research metrics. Number of students
growing. Good employability and student outcomes.
Archaeology &
Anthropology
Anthropology
MA
Approved by Council in 2009. Moving in positive direction. Recruiting going well,
evidence of demand. Improving Tri-Agency record. Community engagement.
Archaeology &
Anthropology
Anthropology
Research
Good collaborative projects. Good trend in research funding and output.
Importance to external community.
48
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 2)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Archaeology &
Anthropology
Archaeology
MA
Considerable student interest, but some concern about completion rates. TriAgency funding showing very positive trend. Alignment with priorities. Good
investment in scholarships.
Art & Art History
Studio art
BFA (honours)
Good student engagement in research, strong community connections. High
demand. Good graduation rates. Effort to make Aboriginal focus more prominent.
Experiential component significant.
Art & Art History
Studio art
MFA
Low capped enrolment, good demand, limited by space. Cross-disciplinary
connections, known nationally and internationally. Weakness in faculty output.
Arts & Art history
Art & Art History
Research
Contribution to cultural life of community. Fairly good output. New Aboriginal art
historian, potential for Aboriginal engagement. Fair level of funding. Need to make
research vision more coherent. Solid base to build on.
Biology
Biology
BSc (4 year
major)
Strong student numbers. Department carries service teaching load, has good
research profile. Stepping stone to other programs, more interdisciplinary links
could be made.
Chemistry
Chemistry
BSc (4 year
major)
Some clear strengths are evident. However, some information in the template is
not specific to the program but reported at the unit level.
Chemistry
Chemistry
BSc (honours)
Research metrics strong. Good comparators provided with other universities. Low
number of Aboriginal students, despite focus on Aboriginal engagement in
department. Strong attention to student experience in program. Evidence of strong
teaching. Links with industry. Potential for more students.
Chemistry
Chemistry
MSc
Research strong, excellent faculty inputs. Good student awards. Graduation rates
fluctuating, but good student headcount.
49
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 2)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
College of Arts &
Science
Humanities Research Unit Type A Centre
All activities
Small unit. Innovative events. Serves important purpose. Makes good connections
at low cost. Helping to galvanize research. Uses funding strategically.
College of Arts &
Science
Subatomic Physics Institute
(SPIN) - Type A Centre
All activities
Largely sustained by grants, very productive on that basis. Strong activity, vigorous
group of researchers. Attracts good funding.
Computer Science
Computer science
BSc (4 year
major)
First Nations summer camp. Good demand, high quality teaching. Strong research.
Good student numbers.
Computer Science
Computer science
BSc (honours)
Good demand. Strong research profile. Good graduation rates. Good rationale for
this program. Good progress to graduate school. Strong faculty inputs, awards for
students. Not clear how much research students are doing.
Computer Science
Computer science
MSc
Good student demand. Sound support from faculty resources. Some links with rest
of university. Good research output.
Computer Science
Computer science
PhD
High demand from industry. Good student numbers. Strong research funding.
Prestigious student awards. Concern about graduation rate.
Computer science
Computer science
Research
Strong research funding and outputs. High external demand for research outputs.
High cost of program balanced by expenditures. Innovative research subject
matter. Involvement of graduate students in faculty research. Weak case for
opportunity.
Drama
Drama
BFA
With modest faculty complement, strong graduation rate and good student
numbers. Good employment prospects. Strong community engagement during
course of degree. Potential for working through proposed Centre for Prairie Theatre
Studies. Fairly high costs.
50
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 2)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Drama
Drama
Research
High output in production area. Artistic work outcomes not clear. Community
impact evident. Persuasive links to strategic directions. Valuable Aboriginal
playwright in residence program.
Economics
Business economics
BA (honours)
Good indicators, solid program. Modest research metrics. Positive revenue.
Service teaching. Strong community engagement. Internship available.
International partnership.
Economics
Economics
MA
Good number of students. Strong program with internship feature, employability for
graduates.
English
English
BA (4 year
major)
Well-rounded demand, good student headcount. High service teaching. Steady
graduation rate. Little evidence concerning students in this specific program.
Internship program component. Good faculty inputs.
English
English
MA
Student headcount decreasing, but have increased completion rates. Good
recognitions and awards for faculty and students. Good outcomes for graduates.
Good alignment with university directions. Community engagement. Research on
upward trend, reasonable Tri-Agency funding. Project option gives flexibility to
students.
English
English
Research
Good Tri-Agency funding and identification of research priorities. Some areas of
template focused on unit rather than research program. Good research output.
Strong record of faculty accomplishments. Sense of vibrancy, research culture
moving in right direction. Research in unit with extensive teaching commitment.
Geography & Planning
Geography
MSc
Growing, potential for further growth. Allocated grant revenue to research program.
Indication of small faculty commitment. Strong research profile. Involvement of
students in publications.
51
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 2)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Geography & Planning
Geography
PhD
Good demand. Strong inputs. Well-defined outcomes, with evidence of success.
Some concern about slow graduation rates, efforts being made to reduce
completion times.
Geography & Planning
Regional and urban planning
BA (4 year
major)
Good student engagement, active student body. Unit refocusing on this program,
program growing. Well-aligned with priorities. Strong external demand. Generates
good tuition revenue. Concern about completion rates.
Geography & Planning
Regional and urban planning
BA (honours)
Program seems to be functioning well. Represents the direction that the
department is moving in. Good demand and outcomes.
Geography & Planning
Geography
Research
Strong investment of faculty resources. Strong research funding, good publication
rates. No indication of internal demand, may be missed opportunity. Well-aligned
with university signature areas.
Geological Sciences
Geology
BSc (4 year
major)
Solid research metrics. Good scholarship support. Good number of Aboriginal
students. Little evidence of investment of faculty resources, not clear what
resources devoted to program. Good number of out of province students, suggests
good reputation for program. Well-aligned with strategic areas.
Geological Sciences
Geology
BSc (honours)
Strong inputs in unit. Good student demand, increasing. Good alignment with
university priorities. Strong research profile. Good outcomes.
Geological Sciences
Geology
Research
Strong identification of opportunities. Research metrics very strong. Good faculty
inputs with number of CRCs. Good investment of faculty time in research. Good
infrastructure, template may have undersold internal demand.
History
History
BA (honours)
Strong internal demand. Good student numbers, good completion rate. Good
investment of faculty resources. Somewhat general description of outputs. Strong
research metrics. New hires in strategic areas.
52
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 2)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
History
History
MA
Refocus of courses to emphasize research skills. Some weakening of MA program
due to emphasis on PhD. Lack of Aboriginal students a concern, as is long time in
program. Somewhat costly program. Strong research profile. Alignment with
university priorities. Good links with other units.
History
History
PhD
Redesigned program to align with university priorities. Engagement with rest of
university. Slow completion rates. Strong student numbers. Excellent faculty inputs,
research record. Reputation in Aboriginal history, have attracted good number of
Aboriginal students.
History
History
Research
Presence of CRCs dynamic addition. High indicators of success for humanities
research, journal editing. Limited collaboration with other units. Aligned with
university priorities.
Music
Music
BMus (4 year
major)
Well-established program. Low student numbers. Outcomes for students not
entirely clear. Strong performance emphasis supports program. Possibility of
regaining students with strengthening of this stream. Unit indicates refocus on this
stream.
Music
Music
Research
Considerable potential, good basis for increasing strength. Quality of inputs high.
National and international reputation. Performance emphasis.
Music
Music education
BMus
High quality students. Program outcomes excellent. Emphasis on experiential
learning. Significant portion of resources devoted to program. Employment for
graduates.
Native studies
Native studies
BA (3 year
major)
Good explanation of service teaching, showing essentiality of introductory courses.
Need to explore links with other units, avoid overlap. Potential for collaboration.
Good Aboriginal student numbers.
53
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 2)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Native studies
Native studies
BA (4 year
major)
Enrolment decreasing, unit attributes this to specialized Aboriginal programming in
other units. Taking steps to address this with new courses. Good community
engagement. High service teaching. Clearly aligned with Aboriginal objectives of
university. Well connected with other units.
Native studies
Native studies
PhD (special
case PhD)
High market demand. Headcount rising. Prospect of developing Aboriginal
scholars. Aligned with university priorities. Hard to predict what graduate levels will
be, as program reestablished in 2008. Some research funding, publication record
somewhat low, but commitment to community engagement may influence this. Unit
should consider whether to regularize.
Native Studies
Native studies
Research
Overall output quite low, though acceptable. Potential for greater opportunities.
Direction positive, new hires starting to make contribution. Attracted major national
conference, vote of confidence. Strong community engagement.
Physics &
Engineering Physics
Engineering physics
BEng (major)
Recent refocusing of program to link with resources in other parts of university.
Good student numbers. Students benefit from up-to-date facilities.
Physics &
Engineering Physics
Physics
BSc (honours)
Excellent research climate, good experiential learning component. Low student
numbers may reflect challenging program. Good investment. Objective of recruiting
more students. Idea of combined BA/MA program worth pursuing.
Physics & Engineering
Physics
Physics and
engineering physics
MSc
Strong faculty awards, research profile. Good graduation rates, though no
explanation for drop-off in student headcount. Good faculty investment in program.
Local to international demand.
Physics &
Engineering Physics
Physics and
engineering physics
PhD
Somewhat low graduation rates. Concern about overall number of doctoral
students given faculty complement and strong inputs. Strong support for students,
strong research in unit. Good infrastructure for student research. Good external
demand. Fairly costly program, though good tuition revenue.
54
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 2)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Psychology
Psychology
BA (3 year
major)
Strong research profile. Popular program, high number of students. Generates
revenue. Teaching awards for faculty. Engagement of students in research,
suggests strong commitment. Strong external demand.
Psychology
Psychology
BA (honours)
Strong program, attracts good student numbers for honours program. Engagement
of students in research distinctive feature. Department carries considerable service
teaching.
Psychology
Psychology
BSc (4 year
major)
Strong student demand, increasing numbers. Good Aboriginal component. Fits in
strategic areas well. Experiential opportunities for students. Moving in very positive
direction.
Psychology
Psychology
BSc (honours)
Focus on undergraduate research. Faculty allotment to program is low, though will
perhaps increase as enrolment increases. Still hard to predict student demand.
Possibility of online courses freeing resources for honours supervision. Still
developing.
Psychology
Psychology
MA
Good graduation rates for MA level program. Good allocation of resources showing
strong commitment. High external demand. Some decline in research revenues,
still strengths in research program. Distinctiveness of this program not clearly
described.
Psychology
Psychology
PhD
Graduation rates increasing. Healthy amount of faculty resources devoted to
program. Some drop in research funding, but steady in terms of publications.
Strong outcomes for students in terms of awards, scholarships. Large student
numbers, clearly strong demand.
Psychology
Psychology
Research
Good external review of program. Wide range of research topics. Some decline in
research funding but evidence of solid outcomes. Solid diverse program.
55
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 2)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Religion & Culture
Linguistics
BA (4 year
major)
Department making efforts at positive change in this program. Some evidence of
demand for graduates. Appears to be strength of unit.
Sociology
Sociology
BA (3 year
major)
Good student headcount and graduation rate. Aboriginal student number strong in
both headcount and graduation. Good demand. Unit defined well as distinctive
program.
Sociology
Sociology
BA (4 year
major)
Aligns with strategic directions of institution. Good Aboriginal focus. Prudent use of
resources. Innovative.
Sociology
Sociology
BA (honours)
Strong research metrics, strong faculty inputs. Success of students. Links with
community. Good Aboriginal numbers, attention to Aboriginal themes. Adapting to
changing times, pursuing new themes. Good investment of faculty resources.
Student engagement in research.
Sociology
Sociology
MA
Strong student numbers. Community and social relevance. Good comparators. Unit
seems to plan program ahead, tracking trends.
Sociology
Sociology
PhD
Department has strength in research providing a sound foundation for graduate
programs. Strengths in signature areas (health, Aboriginal issues, etc.)
Sociology
Sociology
Research
Strong Tri-Agency funding, increasing faculty involvement. Good infrastructure,
engagement with community. Commitment of faculty time. Some concern about
low publication rate.
Dentistry
Dentistry
Post graduate
general practice
residency
Funding from external source. Provides important community service. High cost to
support small number of students. High public service component. Arguably could
be larger program. Template does not explain links with mission of university
clearly.
56
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 2)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
College of Education
Aboriginal Education
Research Centre (AERC) Type A Centre
All activities
Strong research funding, efficient use of resources. Creating links and providing
focus for expertise. May need to consider successorship issues. Strategic with
respect to university priorities.
College of Education
Saskatchewan Educational
Leadership Unit (SELU) Type A Centre
All activities
Excellent community engagement. International reach. Large amount of funding,
non-Tri-Agency funding. Large output of contract work. Clearly has impact.
College of Education
Teacher education
BEd
Some weakness in research. Innovative programs for Aboriginal students, antiracist education. Limited external demand.
Curriculum Studies
Theory and practice in
curriculum research, design,
implementation, evaluation,
and instructional leadership
MEd
Strong demand, good graduation rate. Program generating revenue. Recent
positive change indicative of dynamic program.
Educational
Administration
Educational administration
Research
Strong Tri-Agency funding. Engagement with community and campus. Good
internal and external demand. Good applied component. Fared well in international
comparisons.
Educational
Administration
Educational leadership;
school improvement and
school effectiveness;
organizational analysis;
school, family, and
community partnership;
educational finance and law
MEd
(Educational
Administration)
Large numbers of students. Serves evident need. High commitment from faculty.
Use of technology. Good Aboriginal enrolment. Good publication rate.
57
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 2)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Educational
Administration
Educational leadership;
school improvement and
school effectiveness;
organizational analysis;
school, family, and
community partnership;
educational finance and law
PhD
Strong investment of faculty. Good enrolment with good graduation rates, though
some reservations about graduation rates for international and Aboriginal students.
Reasonable Tri-Agency funding. Good alignment with priorities. Strong external
demand.
Educational
Foundations
Aboriginal Education; Adult
and Lifelong Learning; Social
& Ecological Justice;
Foundations of Education
MEd
(Educational
Foundations)
Quality of inputs strong. Good statement of opportunities. Good numbers, good
graduation rates. Increasing Aboriginal student numbers. Good Tri-Agency funding.
Anti-racist education, Aboriginal focus innovative.
Educational
Psychology & Special
Education
Special education
Post-degree
Certificate in
Education
(Special
Education)
Strong student numbers. Use of online courses, apparently attractive to students.
Good Aboriginal student numbers. Modest faculty inputs. Partnership with CCDE,
taught by sessionals with input from faculty. Serves a specific purpose, meets
important need in education system.
Chemical and
Biological Engineering
Chemical engineering
BEng (major)
Strong student numbers and graduate rates. Good research funding, above
benchmarks. Strong external demand. Emphasis on experiential learning, good
facilities for that. Investment of faculty resources identified as a priority. Aboriginal
student numbers strong.
Chemical and
Biological Engineering
Chemical engineering
MSc
Somewhat hard to tell demand for this program. Modest number of students for
good-sized faculty. Solid research support, fairly high productivity. Solid program,
links with industry. Employability of graduates. Initiative to attract female students.
58
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 2)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Chemical and
Biological Engineering
Chemical engineering
PhD
Strong funding from industry, economic relevance to province. Modest Tri-Agency
funding. Solid publication rates. Weaknesses in description of student outcomes.
Good international student numbers. Low attrition, good student numbers.
Civil and Geological
Engineering
Civil and geological
engineering
Research
Strong research program. Important links with industry. Significant research
funding confirms this.
Civil and Geological
Engineering
Civil engineering
MSc
Low graduation rate a concern, not fully explained. Evidence of high demand.
Good research prospects with industry chairs. Good inputs. Engagement with local
economy, good employment for graduates.
Civil and Geological
Engineering
Civil engineering
PhD
High demand, good research opportunities for students. Strong faculty. Publication
rate could be improved.
Civil and Geological
Engineering
Geological engineering
BEng (major)
High market demand, links with industry. Good research. Good student numbers,
targeted for increased enrolment. Quality of program inputs has some weaknesses.
College of Engineering
Ron and Jane Graham
Centre for the Study of
Communication - Type A
Centre
All activities
High level of student interest. Dynamic program, adapted to industry needs. Solid
funding. Opportunities for students in regular programs to gain minor specialization.
Experiential learning component. Little scholarly output.
Electrical and
Computer Engineering
Electrical and computer
engineering
Research
Positive trajectory, evidence of future need, developing well. External demand not
distinguished from graduate programs. Strong funding, publication rates. Strong
collaboration. Limited internal demand.
Electrical and
Computer Engineering
Electrical engineering
BEng (major)
High market demand for graduates. Prospects for growth of program. Backed by
good research program, though drop in Tri-Agency. Well aligned with priorities.
Engaged with industry.
59
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 2)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Electrical and
Computer Engineering
Electrical engineering
MSc
Good demand and student success on graduation. Good research output. Good
ties with industry. Good international demand, good graduation rates for
international students. Good integration of science with other aspects.
Electrical and
Computer Engineering
Electrical engineering
PhD
Graduation rate of international students a concern. Reasonable time to completion
otherwise. Good demand. Good success with Tri-Agency scholarships. Strong
faculty inputs, good research metrics. Good connections with industry.
Environmental
Engineering
Environmental engineering
BEng (major)
Quite new program, with good enrolment, suggesting strong demand. Student
outcomes good. Students engaged in program.
Mechanical
Engineering
Mechanical engineering
MSc
Strong student demand, good outcomes. Excellent research metrics. Good
completion rates. Initiative to reduce completion time. Good facilities.
Mechanical
Engineering
Mechanical engineering
Research
Interest of industry, attracts grants. Solid inputs. Question about impact of research
outside Canada.
College of Graduate
Studies and Research
Toxicology
MSc
Strong research metrics, though some dip in Tri-Agency funding. Well-ranked in
Canada. Strong external demand. Alignment with priority areas. Convincing case
for opportunities. Good faculty inputs. Good student numbers. Given quality of
inputs, should have more students.
College of Graduate
Studies and Research
Toxicology
PhD
Strong research support, some softness in Tri-Agency funding. 100% placement
rate for graduates. Good Aboriginal student numbers though modest numbers of
students overall. Parts of template not separate from MSc program. Allocation of
resources not clear. Good alignment with university priorities.
Law
Law
JD
Good external demand, good facilities, self-reliant on tuition fees, good outreach to
the broader community. Developing research culture.
60
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 2)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Anatomy &
Cell Biology
Anatomy & Cell biology
Research
Good research output. Enhancing research with new hires. Focus on student
engagement in research positive. CRCs have enhanced potential. Alignment with
priorities, signature areas. Solid trajectory.
Community Health &
Epidemiology
Community health &
epidemiology
Research
Some confusion about Tri-Agency figures. Research program needs more focus as
distinct from graduate program. Solid research foundation to build on, good
momentum. Alignment with Aboriginal research a strength.
Community Health and
Epidemiology
Health sciences
MSc
Good productivity. Good demand for program. Strong community engagement.
Solid student outcomes.
Community Health and
Epidemiology
Health sciences
PhD
Strong faculty and student awards. Excellent strategic initiatives. Graduation rates
rather weak. Good community engagement. Strong research funding, more than
half of faculty holding research grants.
College of Pharmacy
and Nutrition
Nutrition and dietetics
BSc (Nutr)
Sound program that meets important needs in the province. There is a demand for
program graduates. Good integration of internship program.
College of Pharmacy
and Nutrition
Nutrition and dietetics
MSc
Increasing trajectory of funding, building momentum. Good outputs for size of
faculty. Student advancement and professional placement good. Graduation rates
of concern. Limited commitment of faculty time.
College of Pharmacy
and Nutrition
Nutrition and dietetics
PhD
Dynamic program, good assessment of opportunities. Good numbers in program,
increasing. Good research metrics as support for program. Limited links with other
parts of institution. Template indicates fairly low investment in PhD program.
College of Pharmacy
and Nutrition
Nutrition and dietetics
Research
High level of faculty activity in research. Strong relevance to society needs. Strong
research funding and productivity for relatively small number of faculty.
Interdisciplinary dimension is a strength.
61
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 2)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
College of Pharmacy
and Nutrition
Pharmacy
MSc
Experience of students positive. Graduation rate relatively low, trying to reduce
completion time. Good investment in scholarships.
College of Pharmacy
and Nutrition
Pharmacy
Research
Strong research metrics, good publication rate. Good output with small number of
faculty also committed to professional program. Good culture of research
mentorship. Some decline in research funding noted.
Accounting
Accounting
BComm (major)
Steady high enrolment, high graduation rates, obviously attractive to students.
Good investment of faculty resources. Good Aboriginal student numbers. Research
profile weak, a concern in discipline that is changing rapidly. Employability of
graduates, aligned with market demand. Weak case for alignment with university
directions.
Accounting
Accounting
MPAcc
Unique in western Canada. Links with profession. Draws students to U of S. No
indication of links with research. Efficient generation of revenue.
Edwards School of
Business
Aboriginal business
administration
Certificate of
Proficiency
Not clear what resources are devoted to this; administration included in the support
services template. Lacks direction. Transition to BComm for Aboriginal students
very important. Reaching into high schools. Should be clearer indication of faculty
commitment.
Edwards School of
Business
Business administration
Certificate of
Successful
Completion
Program provides service to profession, links to business community. Good
student numbers. No specific evidence of student outcomes. Low investment of
faculty resources for number of students.
Edwards School of
Business
Centre for the Advancement
of Accounting Education Type A Centre
All activities
Research connection unclear. Draws external donations, involvement of students
in experiential learning. Some funding directed to research. Set up in 2009, still
developing.
62
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 2)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Finance &
Management Science
Finance
BComm (major)
Strong student numbers, good graduation rate. Good Aboriginal enrolment. Good
faculty inputs. Student-managed portfolio innovative idea, other experiential
initiatives. Limited research output. Question about why not attracting non-TriAgency funding. ESB flagship program.
Human Resources &
Organizational
Behaviour
Human resources
BComm (major)
Research metrics showing life, increasing Tri-Agency success. Good demand,
students from outside province. Employment prospects for graduates. High
numbers, good graduation rates. Strong Aboriginal student numbers. Experiential
components. Potential links with JSGS.
School of Public Policy
Public administration
Master of Public
Administration
(MPA)
Very healthy new program, good student numbers. Good faculty inputs. Focus on
experiential learning. Very cost effective. Internship a positive feature.
School of Public Policy
Public policy
Master of Public
Policy (MPP)
Innovative interdisciplinary programming. Strong external demand, high calibre of
students. Strong faculty inputs, attracting students. Competitive nationally.
School of Public Policy
Public policy
PhD
Strength of faculty. Increased student numbers, though no graduates to date.
Strong research funding and output.
School of Public Policy
Public policy
Research
High productivity in research. Could make stronger case for alignment, links with
other aspects of university. Several chairs, strong potential.
Environment and
sustainability
Environment and
sustainability
PhD
Program still new, promise of success. Starting to graduate students. New faculty
hires, good research trajectory. Considering links with other programs. Inputs
strong, might accommodate higher number of students in this program.
Environment and
sustainability
Environment and
sustainability
Research
Increasing Tri-Agency funding. Good publication rate. Good plans for future,
beginning to act on them. Alignment with university priorities. Evidence concerning
internal demand somewhat disappointing.
63
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 2)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Environment and
Sustainability
Sustainable environmental
management
MSEM
Program underlines strong potential of SENS. Growth in student numbers. Addition
of service learning.
University-Wide
Canadian Centre for Health
and Safety in Agriculture
(CCHSA) - Type B Centre
All activities
Strong research metrics, brings in considerable funding. Good research output.
Positive external review. Good alignment with community needs. Involvement of
students not clear. Weak links with other parts of campus and no case made for
alignment with university priorities.
University-Wide
Centre for the Study of Co–
operatives - Type B Centre
All activities
Productive, well focused. National leader that generates strong funding.
Community engagement. Consonant with sense of place: Saskatchewan is the
center of co-op movement.
University-Wide
Community-University
Institute for Social Research
(CUISR) - Type B Centre
All activities
Very active, unique approach. Built on collaboration with community. Engagement
of Aboriginal community. Strong research and training focus. Publications strong
for a centre. Success at attracting funding. Not entirely successful at describing
alignment with priorities, though clear potential.
University-Wide
Indigenous Land
Management Institute (ILMI)
- Type B Centre
All activities
Not clear what resources devoted to program, or what links with graduate
programs. Good outcomes. Important research issues. Dean very supportive.
Central role in facilitating research in this area.
University-Wide
Toxicology Centre - Type B
Centre
All activities
Strong faculty inputs. Drop in Tri-Agency funding in last couple of years. Good
levels of research funding otherwise. Indication of desire of unit for academic unit
status.
Veterinary Biomedical
Sciences
Veterinary biomedical
sciences
MSc
Solid program. Good student numbers and graduation rates. Good publication rate.
Aligns well with university priorities. Good faculty inputs, faculty awards and
student awards. Some decline in Tri-Agency funding. Good description of student
outcomes. Question whether over-reliant on small number of productive faculty.
64
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 2)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Veterinary Biomedical
Sciences
Veterinary biomedical
sciences
PhD
Good student outcomes. Strong faculty and student awards. Relatively expensive
to run. Good completion rates and student demand.
Western College of
Veterinary Medicine
Canadian Co-Operative
Wildlife Health Centre - Type
A Centre
All activities
Program highly regarded, generating funds. Plans to improve Aboriginal links.
Somewhat unclear where activities focused, though important contributor to
monitoring of wildlife diseases. Self-supporting.
65
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 3)
QUINTILE 3: CANDIDATES FOR RETAINING WITH REDUCED RESOURCING
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Bioresource Policy,
Business and Economics
Agricultural economics
PhD
Graduation rate low, but good enrolments. Strong external demand. Outcomes
indicate positive review, but little specific evidence. Strong research funding,
though decline in Tri-Agency. Good alignment with university priorities.
Bioresource Policy,
Business and Economics
Bioresource policy,
business and economics
Research
Inputs strong. Reasonable level of funding, particularly non-Tri-Agency, but TriAgency funding dropping. Publication rate dipping. High external demand. Quite
costly for modest output. Good alignment with university priorities.
Food and
Bioproduct Sciences
Applied microbiology
MSc
External demand good. Fairly strong inputs. Good research metrics, but concern
about trending of research funding. Modest student numbers given size of faculty.
Some potential to combine with MSc in food and bioproduct sciences.
Food and
Bioproduct Sciences
Food science
BSc (major)
Research strengths. International student demand. Question about distinctiveness
of program.
Plant Sciences
Applied plant ecology
BSA (major)
High quality, but expensive program for the number of students. Question about
efficient use of resources. Research metrics strong. Accreditation an asset.
Plant Sciences
Crop science
BSA (major)
Good growth in student numbers. High external demand, evidenced by
employment of graduates. Alignment with priorities but not a strong case for
opportunities.
Archaeology &
Anthropology
Anthropology
BA (4 year
major)
Recent reconfiguration makes it somewhat hard to assess current state of
program. Promising external partnerships.
Archaeology &
Anthropology
Anthropology
BA (honours)
Research engagement of students. Modest enrolment and does not seem to be
growing. Solid program, rebooted in 2009. Concern about whether this represents
an efficient use of faculty resources for small number of students.
66
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 3)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Archaeology &
Anthropology
Archaeology
BA (4 year
major)
Low graduation numbers. Seems to be backstop for honours program. Some
interesting courses, drawing in students, not specifically for this program.
Archaeology &
Anthropology
Archaeology
BA (honours)
Completion rate good, numbers steady though fairly low. Undergraduate
involvement in research. Upward trend in Tri-Agency funding. Good connection
with community. Limited case for outcomes. Strong faculty awards. Little evidence
of recent innovation, weak statement of opportunities.
Archaeology &
Anthropology
Archaeology
BSc (4 year
major)
Good opportunities for students (e.g. Wanuskewin), but lack of evidence of
student success. Decreasing enrolment and graduation numbers. Significant
decrease in tuition revenues. Encouraging trend in research funding.
Archaeology &
Anthropology
Archaeology
BSc (honours)
Weak investment of faculty resources. Fair research profile. Strong students.
Focus on plains and boreal forest well aligned with university priorities. Low
student numbers.
Archaeology &
Anthropology
Archaeology
Research
Case for external demand weak. High proportion of faculty holding grants. Upward
trajectory for research metrics. Importance to cultural preservation in western
Canada. No strong description of research output.
Art & Art History
Art history
BA (4 year
major)
Low graduate rates. Low commitment of faculty resources. Program incorporating
different perspectives. Encouragement of research culture. Student engagement
with community. Efforts to align with university priorities.
Art & Art History
Art history
BA (honours)
Impressive refocusing on university priorities and community needs. Student
numbers small, not growing. Modest research metrics. Good commitment of
faculty resources. May be costly for small student numbers.
Art & Art History
Studio art
BA (3 year
major)
Strong external demand, connection with high schools. Good internal demand,
increase in enrolment. Division with 4-year degree not clear. Good Aboriginal
student numbers.
67
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 3)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Art & Art History
Studio art
BA (4 year
major)
Waitlist for introductory courses, extensive service teaching. Aboriginal faculty
member has supported refocus to that area. Community outreach, links to artistic
community. Viewed as "holding tank" for BFA, suggests this is a lower priority for
unit. Low graduation numbers not explained.
Biology
Biology
BSc (3 year
major)
Low graduation rate not explained. Popular feeder for different options. Aboriginal
student numbers strong.
Biology
Biology
BSc (honours)
Revenue and cost allocations seem to be out of balance. Reasonable
commitment of faculty resources, but cost seems high. Enrolment dropping.
Biology
Biology
MSc
Template lacks information specific to program. Recent decline in number of
graduates and research funding. Strong investment in scholarships.
Biology
Biology
PhD
Good external demand, though few out-of-province students. Research metrics
respectable. No indication of internal demand. Low graduation rates. Quality of
students not articulated.
Biology
Biology
Research
Template lacks information specific to program. Research output could be better.
Somewhat cavalier responses to some template questions.
Chemistry
Chemistry
BSc (3 year
major)
Strong internal demand, good external demand. Good graduation rates and
Aboriginal student numbers. Strong research profile. Limited case made for this as
a distinct program. Links with SIAST.
Computer Science
Computer science
BSc (3 year
major)
High internal demand. Strong research metrics. Drop in student numbers raises
concern about prospects for future. Question of how 3 yr program fits in suite of
programs in unit.
68
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 3)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Economics
Business economics
BA (4 year
major)
Information in template mostly about unit, not program. Research metrics modest.
Good Aboriginal involvement. Career internships positive. Hard to identify outputs
from this program. Strong internal demand.
Economics
Economics
BA (3 year
major)
High graduation rates, good number of Aboriginal and international students.
Enrolment declining, suggests demand decreasing. Good service teaching.
Apparent redirection to 4-year program.
Economics
Economics
BA (4 year
major)
Research funding low. Good range of faculty involvement. Student numbers
reasonable, student inputs seem strong, good graduation rates. Solid program but
costly.
Economics
Economics
BA (honours)
Good number of students. Internship dimension. Template not specific about
inputs and outputs of this particular program. Weakly aligned with university
priorities. Modest research.
English
English
BA (3 year
major)
High level of service teaching. Outreach initiatives. Students involved in research.
Strong inputs. Meets expectations. Student numbers steady. Aboriginal initiatives
have not borne fruit to this point.
English
English
PhD
High quality of students. Graduation rate slow. Some lack of focus in template on
PhD program as such. Strength in faculty.
Geography & Planning
Environment and society
BASc (4 year
major)
New program, result of refocus of programs. Has potential for success. Research
strength in unit. Increase in students promising. Still in development.
Geography & Planning
Environmental earth
sciences
BSc (4 year
major)
Priority area for unit. Degrees increasing, but headcount unclear. Unit needs to
focus on recruiting into program. Little evidence of alignment with industry.
Number of programs in unit may be inhibiting growth. Aligned with research
interests of unit. Good faculty research and teaching.
69
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 3)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Geography & Planning
Geography
MA
Slow graduation rates. Disinvestment in favour of MSc. Possible future related to
planning focus. Good research, positive trajectory. Limited research output from
students, despite low course requirements.
Geological Sciences
Geological sciences
MSc
Good student outcomes. Somewhat low graduation rates. Could accommodate
more students on strength of this faculty complement. Research metrics in unit
strong. Good pathway to PhD program.
Geological Sciences
Geological sciences
PhD
Research strength in department. Graduation rates suggest long completion time
in program. Long-established program.
Geological Sciences
Geophysics
BSc (4 year
major)
Program has strong inputs but high attrition rate. Committee recognized that this
program aligns well with provincial need and is attractive to employers. No clear
indication of potential for growth.
Geological Sciences
Geophysics
BSc (honours)
Strong industry demand. High attrition rate. Small student numbers, limited
demand. Students have won prestigious awards. Strong research metrics in
department. Limited alignment with priorities, and modest assessment of
opportunities.
History
History
BA (3 year
major)
Good internal demand, but no real discussion of external demand. Good research
funding. Not credible that no cost associated with program. Unit encouraged by
students moving to 4-yr program. Some Aboriginal students.
History
History
BA (4 year
major)
Low completion rates explained by role to prepare students for further programs.
Good strategic rethinking, headed in right direction.
Mathematics & Statistics
Mathematics
BSc (3 year
major)
Value-added as component of other programs. Apparently small assignment of
faculty resources. Helpful comparison with other universities.
70
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 3)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Mathematics & Statistics
Mathematics
BSc (honours)
High level of service teaching, clear internal demand from rest of university. Little
indication of student involvement in research. Good student outcomes. Low
enrolment in this particular program.
Mathematics & Statistics
Mathematics and statistics
MSc
Reasonable research funding, well-established program. Good involvement of
faculty. Might explore other sources of funding. Publications not particularly
impressive given size of faculty. Weakness in case for alignment.
Mathematics & Statistics
Mathematics and statistics
Research
Solid program, good student enrolment. Good level of Tri-Agency funding,
concern about number of publications. Apparently cost-efficient. Good external
demand.
Mathematics & Statistics
Statistics
BSc (4 year
major)
Student numbers have dropped. Weak evidence of innovation in program. Strong
service teaching in unit. Large number introductory courses in different units potential synergies from consolidation. Small investment of faculty resources.
Employability of graduates positive.
Music
Music
BMus (honours)
Long history of program. Good quality faculty. Very low demand, apparently few
students. Plans to develop academic stream (musicology etc.). Significant
performance component.
Native studies
Native studies
MA
Seems to be serving students well. National comparison was a nice addition to the
template. However, research output does not meet expectations and no
established demand.
Philosophy
Philosophy
BA (honours)
Increased outreach to community. Steady graduation rate, fairly small student
numbers, but high quality of students. Costly program for small number of
students. Modest evidence of quality of teaching inputs.
Philosophy
Philosophy
MA
Student numbers fairly solid, perhaps slightly high investment of faculty resources.
Good outreach.
71
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 3)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Physics &
Engineering Physics
Physics
BSc (3 year
major)
Well prepared template. Very solid unit, good research metrics. Low student
numbers, question whether cost for this number of students can be sustained.
Physics &
Engineering Physics
Physics
BSc (4 year
major)
Strong research, strong faculty inputs to support undergraduate programs. Strong
demand, gives graduates diverse opportunities. Number of graduates somewhat
low and student outcomes not clear.
Political Studies
Political studies
BA (4 year
major)
Good Aboriginal student involvement in program. Very modest research. Good
internship program, experiential component. Evidence of strong teaching. Not
clear how this is distinct from other programs.
Political Studies
Political studies
BA (honours)
Good student numbers, good graduation numbers. Clearly an attractive program.
Good faculty investment in program. Research productivity low. Strong teaching
record. Weak case concerning external demand.
Dentistry
Dentistry
DMD
Research metrics very low, need to develop research program. Could develop
more links with campus community. Conditional accreditation. Generates strong
tuition revenues. Providing dental care to underserviced populations is a strength
of the program.
Curriculum Studies
Curriculum Studies
Research
Some international grants, but fairly low Tri-Agency funding. Good engagement
with units across university. High costs associated with program in comparison
with outputs. Downward trend in funding is a concern.
Educational Foundations
Educational foundations
Research
Good faculty investment in research. Good quality of inputs, strong outputs.
Modest research funding for amount of faculty investment. Very engaged,
interdisciplinary. Relatively new faculty. Positive direction.
Educational Psychology &
Special Education
Educational psychology &
special education
MEd
(Educational
Psychology)
Solid enrolment. Good research profile. Somewhat costly for online-based
program. Excellent external demand. Distance learning.
72
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 3)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Educational Psychology &
Special Education
Educational psychology &
special education
Research
Large number of graduate students. Low publication rate for time invested. Small
amount of Tri-Agency funding, generated by small number of faculty. Aboriginal
focus promising. Lack of cohesion in research approach, not convincing that
"diversity is a strength."
Educational Psychology &
Special Education
School and counselling
psychology
MEd (School
and Counselling
Psychology),
Thesis Option
only
Good student numbers, though some recent decrease. Good employment
opportunities, good service to those in profession. Some weakness in faculty
inputs. Generates revenue for unit. Small investment of faculty time for number of
students.
Chemical and Biological
Engineering
Biological engineering
MSc
External demand persuasively presented. Indications of student employability,
industry demand. Modest enrolment. Modest Tri-Agency funding. Solid publication
rate, though some decline in peer-reviewed articles.
Chemical and Biological
Engineering
Biological engineering
PhD
Research funding quite low for program, but strong links with external
constituencies. Good potential for linking with priorities. Quite costly program.
Question about completion rate in relation to headcount. Apparent downward
trend in publications.
College of Engineering
Professional
Communication Option
(PCO)
Electrical and Computer
Engineering
Computer engineering
Demand from students, popular option. Strong financial support from private
donors. Attractive to AgBio. Some weaknesses in faculty inputs in terms of
scholarly strength, though plan to strengthen through chairs etc. Links with
industry, possible mining focus. Question of whether there might be more efficient
ways to achieve goal.
BEng (major)
High student financial support. Student numbers of concern, demand not clear.
Narrow range of connections within university. Strong links with industry. Student
outcomes could be improved.
73
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 3)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Mechanical Engineering
Mechanical engineering
MEng
Good research metrics. Low graduation rates, enrolment still low. Outcomes
vague, though program appears to have momentum. Demand from international
students.
Mechanical Engineering
Mechanical engineering
PhD
Low and declining graduation rate, not clear why completion rate low. High
external demand, application numbers. Employable graduates. Quite costly
program, investment of faculty resources should lead to higher completion rates.
Kinesiology
Exercise and sport studies
BSc (Kin)
Information in template difficult to interpret - student numbers across programs in
College not indicated. Some indication of strong demand, good student inputs.
Costly.
Kinesiology
Exercise and sport studies
BSc (Kin)
(Honours)
Steady numbers. Internal demand quite high, good connections with other units.
Difficult to interpret figures in template with respect to cost allocation, investment
of faculty resources.
Kinesiology
Kinesiology
MSc
Good student demand, transition to PhD. Modest research metrics, several faculty
excused from research. Decline in Tri-Agency funding of concern. Dropping
graduation rates.
Kinesiology
Kinesiology
PhD
Strong faculty inputs. Scholarships effectively used. Good student numbers
suggest high demand. Student successes outlined. Allocation of resources not
clear. Modest level of Tri-Agency funding, seems to have declined. Weak case for
essentiality or innovation.
Kinesiology
Kinesiology
Research
Evidence of efforts to build research. Modest Tri-Agency funding. Outcomes
strong in terms of presentations, conferences. Research concentrated within few
faculty members. High donations.
Kinesiology
Kinesiology/Education
BSc (Kin)/BEd
High demand, good retention. Employment opportunities. Difficult to interpret data
provided in template.
74
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 3)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Law
Law
LLM
Program has high costs. Graduation rate of concern (time to completion too long).
Strong collaborative initiatives in place and good Aboriginal engagement, good
demand.
Law
Law
Research
Upward trajectory in research metrics but outcomes still low. New faculty
stimulating activity.
Anatomy & Cell Biology
Anatomy & cell biology
BSc (3 year
major)
Question whether demand for program will change when requirements for
admission to Medicine changed to 4 yr. Steady enrolment.
Anatomy & Cell Biology
Anatomy & cell biology
BSc (4 year
major)
Graduation rates a little low, but potential for future growth. Solid program with
strengths, good entry point into professional programs. Question about outcomes
for students who do not pursue professional streams.
Anatomy & Cell Biology
Anatomy & cell biology
BSc (honours)
Good evidence of external demand. Template did not distinguish between
honours and 4-yr program. Student numbers decreasing, program quite small to
start with. Good experiential learning options.
Anatomy & Cell Biology
Anatomy & cell biology
MSc
Monetary award to students who publish is an innovative idea. Number of
students small for number of faculty, especially considering the presence of
CRCs. Solid research metrics, but could support more graduate students.
Anatomy & Cell Biology
Anatomy & cell biology
PhD
Solid program. Unit has 3 CRCs, student numbers low in this context. Might use
resources to strengthen program, recruit more students.
Biochemistry
Biochemistry
BSc (honours)
Research trajectory good, higher student numbers. Somewhat low graduation
rates. Unit suggesting that this might be amalgamated with another program.
Evidence concerning internal and external demand not convincing. Little analysis
of opportunities.
75
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 3)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Biochemistry
Biochemistry
MSc
Good graduation rates. Solid program. Weak analysis of opportunities, lack of
explanation of external demand. Research output trending in right direction. Clear
indication of opportunities for students.
Biochemistry
Biochemistry
Research
Good research funding, increasing research output. No strong case for alignment
with university priorities. No evidence of external demand. Good faculty
investment in program. Little information about faculty inputs. Question whether
could be more cost effective.
Family Medicine
Family medicine
Residency
Apparently costly program. Good distributive learning focus. Initiatives in
community engagement. Low research output.
Medical Imaging
Medical imaging
Residency
Good external demand, demonstrated internal demand, some collaboration with
other units. Low research metrics, lack of investment in research. Good outcomes
for students, meets their objectives. Weak case for alignment with university
priorities.
Medicine
Internal medicine
Research
Helpful information in template. External funding from diverse sources but TriAgency funding could be improved. Provides some indication of research vision.
Microbiology &
Immunology
Microbiology & immunology
Research
Strong research profile but involves small proportion of faculty. Output not strong
given protected time for research. Culture of student involvement in research,
fostering research culture in department.
Microbiology &
Immunology
Microbiology & immunology
BSc (4 year
major)
Seems to have relevance to other university programs, potential for collaboration,
but this has not been realized. Low student demand. Perhaps overlap with related
programs limits enrolments. No compelling argument made for external demand.
Limited assessment of opportunities.
76
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 3)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Microbiology &
Immunology
Microbiology & immunology
BSc (honours)
Little evidence given of internal and external demand. Little evidence of
engagement of students in research. Quite good enrolment, good graduation rate,
though recent dip.
Microbiology &
Immunology
Microbiology & immunology
MSc
High demand for program is noted, but few students admitted. Concern about
whether program operating at optimum capacity. Little evidence concerning
student outcomes. Dip in research funding. Alignment with university directions
vague.
Microbiology &
Immunology
Microbiology & immunology
PhD
Research metrics could be better given protected time for research and resources
attached to this program. Small program given size of faculty. Question whether
basis for more consolidation of microbiology programs across campus. Little
interaction with VIDO or other university units. Weak analysis of opportunities.
Physical Medicine &
Rehabilitation
Physical medicine &
rehabilitation
Residency
Good student numbers. Student satisfaction, good environment established.
Stable program.
Physiology
Physiology & pharmacology
BSc (3 year
major)
Combined program has some strengths. Good student numbers, increase in
Aboriginal students. Good experiential components. Solid inputs. Unit notes that
restructuring in Medicine may have impact.
Physiology
Physiology & pharmacology
BSc (4 year
major)
Good student numbers, including Aboriginal students. Good internal demand.
Modest research outputs, drop in Tri-Agency funding. Limited case made for
future prospects. Signs that combined program having success, seems to be a
positive model for other basic science units in college to consider.
Physiology
Physiology & pharmacology
BSc (honours)
Good student numbers. Combination of resources from two units has had positive
effect on enrolment. External demand not well described. Investment of faculty
resources unclear.
77
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 3)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Psychiatry
Psychiatry
Research
Positive trajectory of Tri-Agency and non-Tri-Agency funding. On verge of moving
forward in significant way. Some weakness in research metrics given proportion of
time members of unit have for research. Clear social importance of research,
good opportunities to meet community need.
Psychiatry
Psychiatry
Residency
Strong history, high external need. High cost. Need for stronger links with
research to galvanize it. Decline in student numbers with no explanation. Question
about external reputation.
College of Nursing
Nursing
BSc (Nursing)
Costly program. Some weakness in quality of inputs. Supports for Aboriginal
students. Innovative outreach to remote areas.
College of Nursing
Nursing
Post degree
BSN
Well-aligned with university priorities. Potential for increased demand. Good
numbers of Aboriginal students but difficult to figure out enrolment from template
information. Not described in distinctive terms.
College of Pharmacy
and Nutrition
Pharmacy
PhD
Information on graduate rates not consistent. Research reasonable, strengths in
unit. Given faculty numbers, three research chairs, would expect larger number of
students completing program. Good information about quality of students, strong
outputs.
Edwards School of
Business
Business administration
MBA
Strong program from point of view of students. Link with faculty research output
not clear. Clear external demand. Numbers of students increasing. Self-contained
program, potential for links with other programs. Student outcomes not defined.
Finance & Management
Science
Finance
MSc
Good student employability. Strong demand for thesis. Good student numbers.
Low investment of resources. Good inputs and outcomes for students. Developing
research culture.
Finance &
Management Science
Operations management
BComm (major)
Very high demand in business sector. Student numbers small, but growing. Costs
somewhat high. Limited research in unit.
78
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 3)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Management & Marketing
Management
BComm (major)
Stable program, good numbers. Research output low, should be improved to
support undergraduate program. Good employment prospects. Opportunity
analysis somewhat weak. Good Aboriginal student numbers, with completion.
Generates revenue.
Management & Marketing
Marketing
BComm (major)
Impressed by strong external demand, service teaching. Good case for
essentiality. Focus on Aboriginal business opportunities. Strong student numbers,
though some downturn. Young faculty, promising for research, promising
trajectory.
Environment and
sustainability
Environment and
sustainability
MES
Growth in demand from industry. Research metrics good. Good student
scholarships. Strong student demand but could accommodate more students
given faculty involved. Somewhat low graduation numbers. Somewhat weak
internal demand.
School of Physical
Therapy
Physical therapy
MPT
High market demand for graduates. Steady graduation rates and enrolment. Good
Aboriginal student numbers. Aligned with health priorities of university. Good
publication rates. Experiential learning component significant for professional
preparation. Seems to be a somewhat costly program.
School of Physical
Therapy
Physical therapy
Research
Concern that clinical service may interfere with research progress. Research at
this moment not convincing but good potential in the future with recent hires.
Good focus on collaboration. Well organized template.
School of Public Health
Public health
Master of public
health
Student numbers growing, solid graduation rates, though low rates for
international students. Use of distance education a positive. Demand for
graduates not clear. Question whether costly for number of students. Accreditation
not yet obtained. Fairly new program, difficult to evaluate.
79
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 3)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Large Animal
Clinical Sciences
Large animal clinical
sciences
MSc
Reasonable demand. Research output quite modest. Relatively low number of
graduates from program. Emphasis on clinical load, need balance with academic
research.
Large Animal
Clinical Sciences
Large animal clinical
sciences
PhD
Low enrolment, low graduation rate. Low investment of faculty resources. Market
demand strong. Good faculty inputs, reasonable funding.
Large Animal
Clinical Sciences
Large animal clinical
sciences
Research
Good faculty inputs. Modest research output. Good funding, not eligible for a lot of
Tri-Agency. High level of clinical obligations. Unclear how faculty are focused on
research activity. May need more protected time for research and to focus
research vision.
Small Animal
Clinical Sciences
Small animal clinical
sciences
MVetSc
Coupled with residency program, strong external demand. Research in unit weak.
Potential offered by new research chairs. Record of students achieving
certification. Costly program.
Veterinary
Biomedical Sciences
Veterinary biomedical
sciences
Research
Research metrics sound. Credit given to graduate students for involvement. Little
information about how research program connects with other units. Some decline
in research funding. Reliant on small number of research-active faculty.
Alignment with university priorities could have been stronger.
Veterinary Microbiology
Veterinary microbiology
MSc
Good research metrics, good funding. Evidence of funding for students. Low
graduation rates, explained by transfers to PhD. Seems to be a somewhat costly
program.
Veterinary Microbiology
Veterinary microbiology
PhD
Good internal and external demand. Costly program. Recent attention to
graduation rates showing positive effect. Good publication rate by students.
Taking steps to re-evaluate program.
80
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 3)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Veterinary Microbiology
Veterinary microbiology
Research
Quite high productivity, strong relationship with VIDO. Strong research funding.
Nothing distinctive about program. No indication of research link with external
stakeholders. No strong case for alignment with priorities.
Veterinary Pathology
Veterinary pathology
MVetSc
Costly program for small number of students. Evidence of student advancement
and success. Specialized program. Need to develop different model to
accommodate external demand.
81
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 4)
QUINTILE 4: CANDIDATES FOR RECONFIGURING FOR EFFICIENCY/EFFECTIVENESS
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Bioresource Policy,
Business and Economics
Resource economics &
policy
BSc RRM (major)
Some lack of direction in program. Small student enrolments, no graduates in
review period. New program, slow development. Alignment with priorities. Some
research strength. Dean suggests it could be combined with soil science version
of this program.
Food and
Bioproduct Sciences
Applied microbiology
PhD
Department has good research. Resources stretched to offer a large number of
graduate programs. Graduation rate seems low despite strong demand for
program. Potential to combine with PhD in food and bioproduct sciences.
Food and
Bioproduct Sciences
Food and bioproduct
sciences
PhD
Low enrolment, low investment of faculty resources in this program. Number of
students low considering amount of research funding. Unit suggests might be
advantageous to merge with other PhD program. Decline in research output.
Soil Science
Soil science
BSA (major)
Small but stable program. Some sign of decline in student headcount, graduation
rates, may indicate a decline in demand. Somewhat costly for small student
numbers. Unique program nationally but this is not increasing external demand.
Dean acknowledges need for recruitment effort.
Art & Art History
Art history
BA (3 year major)
Low student headcounts. Potential for enhancing Aboriginal enrolment, recent
hiring of Aboriginal faculty member. Lack of clearly distinct vision for this program.
Suggest unit focus on higher level programs. Question of whether demand can be
created.
College of Arts & Science
Centre for Algebra, Logic,
and Computation (CALC) Type A Centre
All activities
Good faculty inputs. National profile through conferences. Link to research
productivity not clear. Allocation of faculty resources to graduate students not
clear. Value added of centre structure not clear.
82
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 4)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
College of Arts & Science
Centre for HighPerformance Computing
(HPC) - Type A Centre
All activities
More a service than an academic activity. Opportunity exists to develop academic
mandate. Provides important resources to campus community.
College of Arts & Science
Institute for Computer and
Information Technology Type A Centre
All activities
Low level of current resources and formal commitment of faculty time. Reasonable
level of output. Links to industry offer potential, but centre needs dedicated
attention.
College of Arts & Science
Social Research Unit Type A Centre
All activities
Role in facilitating research in sociology. Modest costs. Difficult to interpret metrics
provided. Lack of clarity about what activities carried out. Serves one department.
Alignment with university goals.
College of Arts & Science
(Dean's office)
Northern studies
BA (3 year major)
Very important program but not working in its present form. Does not seem to
serve northern communities well. Requires fundamental change to reach its
potential.
College of Arts & Science
(Dean's office)
Northern studies
BA (4 year major)
Program could do better with more focus, resources. Aligns with university
priorities. Attracts students from out of province but low student headcount is a
concern.
Drama
Drama
BA (4 year major)
Good engagement with community, contribution to cultural scene a strength of the
department. Good student numbers, though somewhat low graduation rates.
Focus on BFA more than this program suggests there has been some
disinvestment here.
Economics
Economics
Research
Tri-Agency funding low and declining. Limited publication rate, perhaps too much
focus on commissioned reports. Unit might develop academic research vision.
83
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 4)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Geography & Planning
Environment and society
BASc (honours)
Unique interdisciplinary program, refocus of department. Links with other
environmental programs. Low student demand. Little commitment of resources
given claim that this is an important new program. Need to figure out how to
attract the students they expected.
Geography & Planning
Environmental earth
sciences
BSc (honours)
Might have more strength combined with other programs. Low student demand.
Research numbers declining. Unclear that sufficient resources dedicated to the
development of this program.
Geography & Planning
Geography
Cooperative
Education
Program
Attracts small number of students, suggests fairly low priority. Experiential learning
aligned with university priorities. Strong potential, would benefit from investment,
greater attention.
History
Classical, medieval and
renaissance studies
Research
Template did not provide research metrics specific to this program. Difficult to
judge. Overlap with history research program, not clear what aspects are
independent.
Interdisciplinary Centre for
Culture and Creativity
(ICCC)
Interdisciplinary Centre for
Culture and Creativity
(ICCC) - Type A Centre
All activities
Relatively new initiative, effort to promote interdisciplinary programming. Template
does not make strong case that aspirations behind centre coming to fruition. Does
not seem to be attracting significant funding. Might be over-resourced.
Interdisciplinary Centre for
Culture and Creativity
(ICCC)
Women's and gender
studies
BA (4 year major)
Significant changes in faculty configuration in this area. Small though steady
student numbers. No strong case for internal demand. Some good external links.
Suggest unit focus here rather than 3-year or honours.
Interdisciplinary Centre for
Culture and Creativity
(ICCC)
Women's and gender
studies
Research
Concern with lack of Tri-Agency activity, though SSHRC eligible. Small faculty
complement, short of critical mass. Interdisciplinary links. Focus in template on
graduate program being introduced, less on research. Some alignment with
priorities.
84
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 4)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Languages, Literatures,
and Cultural Studies
French
BA (3 year major)
Research metrics low. Enrolment, graduate numbers modest. Vice-Dean raises
question of sustainability. Little evidence concerning student outcomes.
Languages, Literatures,
and Cultural Studies
French
BA (4 year major)
Important subject matter, alignment with university priorities. Collaboration with U
of R promising. Online courses planned, shows initiative. Low enrolments for
program of long standing. Low research metrics, weak faculty inputs. Creation of
large technologically assisted classes a promising direction.
Languages, Literatures,
and Cultural Studies
Languages
Research
Department has long history. New faculty working to establish research focus.
Limited focus on research in template, no apparent research plan. Limited
research funding.
Languages, Literatures,
and Cultural Studies
Modern languages
BA (4 year major)
Increasing student numbers, new configuration has had impact. Positive trend.
Research metrics a concern. Weak case for alignment with university priorities.
Question of whether adequate investment of resources. Strong service teaching at
this level.
Mathematics & Statistics
Mathematics
BSc (4 year
major)
Low graduation rates. Reference to low standards of students in major. Strong
service teaching by department. Not strong evidence of alignment with university
priorities. Very low allocation of resources.
Mathematics & Statistics
Mathematics and statistics
PhD
Program seems to lack vision. Relatively few degrees conferred and student
headcount is low for faculty complement size. No clear plans for the future.
Music
Music
MMus
Enrolment fairly low, some decline. Clearly articulated expectations. Strong
program inputs. Strong faculty, increasing RSAW. Strong community engagement.
Unit acknowledges need to take steps to regain enrolment in some areas,
reconfiguration supported by Vice-Dean.
85
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 4)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Native Studies
Native studies
BA (honours)
Very low student numbers. Department has been engaged in important revising
and planning. High amount of service teaching does not translate into honours
students. Program would need to have more distinctive focus.
Philosophy
Philosophy
BA (3 year major)
Very small program. Decreasing headcount, low research metrics. High degree of
service teaching. Weak case for societal demand. Might focus on 4-yr, honours
programs, or rethink this program.
Philosophy
Philosophy
BA (4 year major)
Low graduation rate, but high amount of service teaching. Focus of unit seems to
be on honours program. Foundational discipline in university indicated by demand
from other programs. Weak case for alignment. Unclear graduate outcomes.
Limited research output, even considering small faculty numbers.
Philosophy
Philosophy
Research
Strength in community outreach. Well prepared template. Low research metrics.
Clear plan for future growth a positive step.
Political Studies
Political studies
BA (3 year major)
Little evidence of external demand. Good student numbers. Difficulty of making 3yr program distinctive. Role as feeder program may have value. Modest research
metrics.
Political Studies
Political studies
MA
Concern about graduation rate, suggests retention problem. Funding not a match
with time in program. Good student headcount, obviously attracts students. No
indication of market demand. Alignment with university priorities vague. TriAgency funding low.
Political Studies
Political studies
Research
Low research funding, poor research output. New hires may lead to renewal. In
need of developing research vision.
Political Studies
(Interdisciplinary)
Aboriginal public
administration
BA (4 year major)
This is an important program for the province, but few degrees conferred.
Retention rate is low. Demand is low. Overly dependent on sessional lecturers.
86
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 4)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Political Studies
(interdisciplinary)
Aboriginal public
administration
BA (honours)
Poor enrolment. Important to institutional priorities, but need to provide adequate
faculty support. Program needs re-conceptualization and a more supportive
research environment.
Political Studies
(Interdisciplinary)
International studies
BA (4 year major)
Popular program, good Aboriginal enrolment. Graduation rates a concern. Tuition
revenue not clear. Little investment of faculty or administrative resources. Strong
alignment with university priorities. Modest research profile.
Political Studies
(interdisciplinary)
International studies
BA (honours)
Program attractive to students. Change in focus suggested is desirable. More
resources would be necessary to allow program to achieve potential. Suggest that
unit re-consider large number of programs being offered.
Political Studies
(interdisciplinary)
Public administration
BA (4 year major)
Good number of Aboriginal students but otherwise modest student numbers. Low
graduate rates. Unclear vision. One of few undergraduate programs in this area
nation-wide. Potential for collaboration with JSGS. Low research output.
Religion & Culture
Linguistics
BA (3 year major)
Faculty making efforts to reconfigure. Small program, Vice-Dean indicates
potential for further reconfiguration. Outcomes for graduates identified.
Religion & Culture
Linguistics
BA (honours)
Newly organized in this form. Small investment of faculty resources, perhaps
because of small faculty complement. Student numbers very low. Limited research
in unit. Template does not demonstrate coherent alignment with university
directions.
Religion & Culture
Linguistics
MA (special
case)
Relatively new program. Struggle to develop. Some good collaborative
opportunities, with FNUC etc. Seems to be some student interest. Very modest
research. Low investment of faculty resources suggests might be difficult to
sustain full MA program.
Religion & Culture
Linguistics
Research
Low level of research funding and publications. No clear vision for future growth.
New faculty could spark renewed emphasis.
87
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 4)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Dentistry
Dentistry
Research
Unit acknowledges weakness of research. Hard to predict whether adding
Associate Dean will enhance research. Exceedingly little evidence of research
activity. Hiring needs to take research into account.
Biomedical Engineering
Biomedical engineering
MEng
Relevant program, but needs stronger leadership and dedicated resources. Fits
with university priorities, but lacks appropriate support.
Biomedical Engineering
Biomedical engineering
MSc
Good level of growth, good prospects. Would benefit from more structure.
Perhaps should consider placing this under the auspices of VPR to realize
potential. This area is in demand nationally but requires significant resources for
the U of S to contribute to this mission.
Biomedical Engineering
Biomedical engineering
PhD
Low graduation rates. Would benefit from more dedicated resources. Question of
supervisory role of CGSR. Need for more leadership from medical sciences, more
formal structure. See MSc comments.
Biomedical Engineering
Biomedical engineering
Research
Data on research output not provided. Growth in demand, some positive
indications of initiatives. Poorly positioned in university, needs resources to make
impact.
Biomedical Engineering
Biomedical engineering Type B Centre
All activities
Lack of resources to make this a vigorous interdisciplinary entity. Need for
champion or additional commitment. Subject matter well aligned with university
priorities, would provide considerable opportunities. Not sustainable with current
configuration.
Chemical & Biological
Engineering
Chemical & biological
engineering
Research
Limited information in template. Seems to be well-funded program, but information
not included. Evidence of considerable research output, but unit indicates that this
is allocated to graduate programs.
88
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 4)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Civil and Geological
Engineering
Civil engineering
MEng
Student numbers low in relation to inquiries about program, evidence of some
demand among part-time students. Small investment of faculty/sessional
resources or other resources devoted to this program.
College of Engineering
Engineering
Entrepreneurship Option
(EEO)
New program, difficulties in establishing program with Edwards. Few metrics
provided. Serious scheduling and curricular issues, possibly should have worked
this out before program launched.
College of Engineering
Engineering Professional
Internship Program (EPIP)
Little evidence of assessment of student experience or student satisfaction. No
compelling description of mission. Efficient use of resources. Industry interest
strong. High student demand.
College of Engineering
Saskatchewan Centre of
Excellence in
Transportation and
Infrastructure - Type A
Centre
All activities
Good research profile. Links with students not clear. Doing well at stimulating
research. Links with industry, creation of business opportunities. Link with
government. Question whether high university priority should be placed on this
form of activity.
Native Law Centre
of Canada
Type A Centre
All activities
External demand well stated. Research could be stronger. Unique role in Canada.
Important program, needs stronger links with college and a coherent research
vision.
Anesthesiology
Anesthesiology
Research
Need increased focus of faculty to make strides in research. Output has been low.
Some lack of clarity of information. Some indication of development of research
infrastructure.
Anesthesiology
Anesthesiology
Residency
Data confusing, number of residents overstated. Little indication of research
support. Weak case for essentiality of program. Need for revised focus on this
program.
89
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 4)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Biochemistry
Biochemistry
BSc (4 year
major)
Clear external demand though student outcomes not clear. Template suggests
lack of respect for these students. Pathway to professional programs. Fairly solid
student numbers, including Aboriginal students. Weak case for alignment with
university priorities.
Biochemistry
Biochemistry
PhD
Graduation rates low, particularly among international students. Costly program
for number of students. Recent improvement in research metrics would justify
having more students. High quality students, little information about quality of
faculty.
College of Medicine
Health sciences
MSc
Recently restructured. Somewhat early to assess, but student numbers not strong.
No faculty data in template. Combination of clinical graduate programs a good
idea. Challenges caused by apparent lack of anyone to take ownership.
College of Medicine
Health sciences
PhD
Small number of graduates tied to newness of program. Promising consolidation
of previous program in clinical areas. Lacks structure, need to create focus.
College of Medicine
Medicine
MD
Accreditation is a serious concern. College re-structuring. Low investment of
faculty resources in support of program. Commendable Aboriginal student
numbers and graduation rates. Offers clear opportunities with effective restructuring. Should strive to be a flagship.
Family Medicine
Family medicine
Research
Low research productivity. High external demand. Sense of social obligations of
profession, strong case for alignment. Quite good inputs. Absence of Tri-Agency
funding or other funding. Low investment of resources in research program.
Medical Imaging
Medical imaging
Research
No strong evidence provided for research intensiveness, but potential is noted.
Recognition that progress has been made toward the development of a research
culture. No Tri-Agency funding a concern.
90
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 4)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Medicine
Cardiology
Fellowship
Little information in template. Statement of potential not supported. Little evidence
of research.
Medicine
Internal medicine
Residency
Limited information. No evidence provided for assertions of potential. Requires
additional focus on research. Not clear how students engaged in research.
Medicine
Neurology
Residency
Limited information. No case made for importance of program. Outcomes not
clear.
Medicine
Respirology
Fellowship
Limited information provided. No explanation for how fellowship differs from
residency. No information about outcomes.
Microbiology &
Immunology
Microbiology &
immunology
BSc (3 year
major)
Small program, steady graduation rates. Moderate research metrics. Description
of student outcomes does not seem focused on students in this program. Limited
investment of faculty resources. Concern about whether change in Medicine
admissions standards will have negative impact on enrolment. Weak case for
external demand. No strong case for alignment with university priorities.
Obstetrics, Gynecology &
Reproductive Sciences
Obstetrics, gynecology &
reproductive sciences
Residency
No research output. Few initiatives or opportunities. Indicate aspiration to increase
research culture. Little information about how students are faring, or what size of
program is.
Pathology & Lab Medicine
Pathology & lab medicine
Research
Little evidence in template of research activity. Importance of research to
community is noted. Some increase in research funding, but low number of faculty
getting funding. Need to focus on a research vision. Potential activity from new
hires.
Pathology & Lab Medicine
Pathology & lab medicine
Residency
Rationale provided for program not persuasive. Lack of compelling evidence.
Important training for future pathologists, tied to clinical service. High demand.
Program in need of remediation.
91
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 4)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Pediatrics
Pediatrics
Research
Low research commitment from faculty, low funding for large number of faculty.
Discussion in template of potential, but little current output. Area of high social
importance. Faculty need time for research to realize potential.
Pediatrics
Pediatrics
Residency
Very little information about actual program. Low research metrics. No evidence
about how many residents.
Pharmacology
Pharmacology
MSc
Declining research metrics, low level of funding. Difficult to identify student
numbers in this program as distinct from PhD, though numbers seem low. Low
graduation rates for international students. Very low investment of faculty
resources in program.
Pharmacology
Pharmacology
PhD
Some issues about level of research funding. Importance of PhD students in unit
not clear. Costs high for apparent number of students. Loss of devolved funding a
concern.
Pharmacology
Pharmacology
Research
High allocation of resources to research. Somewhat low output given the
resources. Modest research funding. Some evidence that new faculty will
galvanize research.
Physiology
Physiology
MSc
Limited evidence of demand. Research funding and publications generally low.
Unit looks to graduate students to carry weight of research, questionable
environment for students. Graduation numbers low, given size of faculty. Would
expect more faculty research given low teaching loads.
Physiology
Physiology
PhD
Program very small compared to number of faculty. Faculty have protected time
for research, few students in relation to that. Little evidence of demand. Weak
case for alignment with university priorities.
92
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 4)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Physiology
Physiology
Research
References to collaborative research. Strong investment of faculty time. Some
CIHR funding. Modest publication rate for amount of time devoted. No strong case
for alignment with university priorities. Unit aware of need to promote research
culture and increase productivity.
Surgery
General surgery
Residency
Important for accreditation. Little information provided in template, difficult to
assess.
Surgery
Neurosurgery
Residency
Important for accreditation. Little information provided in template, demand not
clear and outcomes not described.
Surgery
Orthopedic surgery
Residency
Important for accreditation. Little information provided in template, student
numbers and outcomes not specified.
Surgery
Surgical foundations
Residency
Important for accreditation. Little information provided in template, not clear how
this differs from general surgery residency program.
College of Nursing
Nursing
MN - Nurse
Practitioner
Program
Template does not distinguish among students in the three MN programs.
Appears to be low demand. Purpose of program not clear.
College of Nursing
Nursing
MN Course
Based
Template does not distinguish among students in the three MN programs.
Demand apparently strong for this program. Research funding dropping a bit,
publications modest. Recognition of teaching. Online offerings, distributed
teaching. Good Aboriginal headcount, low graduation rate. Unit intention to review
program.
College of Nursing
Nursing
MN Thesis
Based
Template does not distinguish among students in the three MN programs. Unit
considering what to do differently, not sure how directions fit with thesis based
program. Purpose of program not clear.
93
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 4)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
College of Nursing
Nursing
Nurse
Practitioner Post Graduate
Degree
Specialization
Certificate
Administrative artifact, created for students with Master's degree. Small demand,
but assists at creation of Master's credential. Almost no students have taken this
route, clearly need to change to attract enrolment.
College of Nursing
Nursing
PhD
Argument about growing own faculty through PhD program not persuasive.
Increasing number of students. Case for future opportunities weak. New program,
level of success unclear.
College of Nursing
Nursing
Research
Unit making efforts to develop research culture, though evidence of actual
achievement not strong. Tri-Agency funding low and in decline. Concern about
proportion of faculty engaged in research. Output low given allocation of faculty
resources to research.
Accounting
Accounting
Research
Modest research output. Faculty effort to upgrade qualifications, potential for
future. Need for strategic decisions about improving research. Focus on
pedagogical research endorsed by Dean. Would benefit from rethinking,
reallocation of resources.
Edwards School of
Business
Centre for Strategic
Financial Management Type A Centre
All activities
Centre is part of effort to increase research intensiveness of college but it is not
clear how well this is working. Research in college quite low in general.
Finance & Management
Science
Finance
Research
Low research funding, somewhat difficult to understand why funding not obtained
in this area. Template suggests low investment of faculty time, needs to be given
greater priority. New faculty offer potential for improvement. Well-articulated
benchmarks, but evidence not entirely convincing.
94
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 4)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Human Resources and
Organizational Behavior
Human resources
Research
External demand not clear. Weakness in research output, little evidence of
research activity. New hires, increase in activity in last year recorded. Good
potential.
Management & Marketing
Management & marketing
Research
Low research outputs, low research funding. Weak description of research
objectives. Not clear why unit doesn't have access to non-Tri-Agency funding.
Need to explore links with industry. Some new hires may bring about change.
School of Public Policy
International trade
Master of
International
Trade (MIT)
Relatively new program. Growing student numbers, suggests demand. Lack of
connection with other programs. Little information about faculty inputs involved in
program and resources invested. Link of research metrics with program not clear.
Cost recovery basis, but cost of program not well reflected in template.
School of Public Health
Vaccinology &
immunotherapeutics
MSc
Publication record good but decline in Tri-Agency funding. Numbers of students
somewhat small, not clear why graduation rates low. Not clear whether adequate
demand for program. No case for internal demand or alignment with other
university interests.
School of Public Health
Vaccinology &
immunotherapeutics
PhD
Relatively new program. Weak explanation of internal demand and weak links with
other parts of university. Important area from point of view of university priorities.
Not clear how costs and revenues align. Question of whether unit should consider
consolidated PhD program given small size.
School of Public Health
Biostatistics
MSc
Program fairly new, enrolment increasing. No description of research support for
program. Relatively little information in template, difficult to assess. Question
about whether there might be value in consolidation of statistics programs.
School of Public Health
Biostatistics
PhD
New program, but small enrolment raises concern about whether this has taken
off as expected. Lack of information in template. Program a collaboration between
units, but template does not provide strong evidence of collaborative spirit.
95
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 4)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Library
Library
Research
Unit clearly making an effort to create and maintain a research culture, though
research activity remains limited. Unit has allocated research time in assignment
of duties but this may not be sufficient.
University-Wide
International Centre for
Northern Governance and
Development - Type B
Centre
All activities
New centre, template really about master's program, does not reveal much about
Type B centre.
Large Animal
Clinical Sciences
Large animal clinical
sciences
MVetSc
Unit indicating potential for change to MSc plus residency. Decline in demand in
favour of other programs.
Small Animal
Clinical Sciences
Small animal clinical
sciences
Research
Very limited research funding, little focus on research. Low research output. Weak
statement of alignment with university priorities. Clearly focus on clinical services
rather than research. Mentions possibility of dedicated research appointments.
Veterinary Pathology
Veterinary pathology
MSc
Unit considering whether to have MVet/DVM combination. Clearly some
uncertainty about future of program.
Veterinary Pathology
Veterinary pathology
PhD
Low external demand. Fairly low student numbers, small number of graduates for
well-established program. Question whether program is a priority for unit. Modest
research metrics.
Veterinary Pathology
Veterinary pathology
Research
Template focused on students, not research. Weak case for alignment with
university priorities. Decline in Tri-Agency, increase in non-Tri-Agency funding.
96
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 5)
QUINTILE 5: CANDIDATES FOR PHASING OUT, SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Animal and Poultry
Science
Animal science
MAgr
No demand. Unit indicates intention to terminate program.
Bioresource Policy,
Business and Economics
Agribusiness
BSc (honours)
Small program, supported by limited resources. Possibility of combining this with
other programs to generate critical mass. Decline in research metrics.
Bioresource Policy,
Business and Economics
Agricultural economics
BSA (honours)
Elite program. Very low enrolment, question about whether this is sustainable with
such a small number of students.
Bioresource Policy,
Business and Economics
Agricultural economics
BSA (major)
Weak internal demand, low student numbers. Not clear what inputs go directly to
this program. Downward trend in research. Overlaps with agribusiness and could
potentially be combined with BSc.
Bioresource Policy,
Business and Economics
Agricultural economics
MAgr
Extremely low demand, no investment of resources. Dean indicates program
underutilized.
Bioresource Policy,
Business and Economics
Agricultural economics
PGD
No demand, no potential demand.
College of Agriculture &
Bioresources
Agricultural biology
BSA (honours)
Research metrics not included. No resources dedicated. Question whether
students could be accommodated in other programs. Lack of dynamism.
College of Agriculture &
Bioresources
Agricultural biology
BSA (major)
Low enrolments, modest research outputs. No faculty resources dedicated to this
program. Incomplete data in template.
College of Agriculture &
Bioresources
Centre for Northern
Agroforestry & Afforestation
- Type A Centre
All activities
Was once productive, has run its course. Funding expired, centre is really no
longer in existence.
97
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 5)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Food and
Bioproduct Sciences
Food and bioproduct
sciences
MAgr
No demand for program. Weak case for continuation. Unit suspended admission.
Doubts about prospects for future.
Food and
Bioproduct Sciences
Food science
BSc (honours)
Internal demand quite strong. Faculty allocation quite low. Low enrolment raises
question about demand and whether this program can provide adequate
experience for small number of students.
Soil Science
Soil science
MAgr
Department clearly intending to disinvest, no demand.
Soil Science
Soil science
PGD
No demand, no students entered in program. Unit indicates intention to eliminate.
Archaeology &
Anthropology
Anthropology
BA (3 year
major)
Recent reconfiguration. Small faculty commitment to this program. Template
focused on unit and not this program. Low demand, despite reconfiguration.
Archaeology &
Anthropology
Archaeology
BA (3 year
major)
Small student numbers, not clear where program fits in array of unit programs.
Unit has indicated desire to eliminate program.
Biology
Biology and biotechnology
BSc (4 year
major)
Template contained little information. Suggests lack of unit commitment to
program.
Biology
Biology and biotechnology
BSc (honours)
Unit indicates change of focus, low interest in program, possible elimination.
College of Arts & Science
(Dean's office)
Northern studies
BA (honours)
Vice-Dean indicates essentiality to northern outreach. Stronger investment of
resources needed to assist program to thrive. Little student demand for program
in current form. Might concentrate on getting 4-yr major stable, reintroduce
honours program when resources justify it.
Computer Science
Computer science
PDSC
Little evidence of student demand, question whether program in existence. Unit
indicates this model has been superseded.
Computer Science
Computer science
PGD
Very low student demand, no potential demand.
98
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 5)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Computer Science
Computing
BSc (4 year
major)
No demand, unit indicates students prefer accredited programs. No investment
from unit.
Computer Science
(Interdisciplinary)
Bioinformatics
BSc (4 year
major)
Limited number of students. Example of interdisciplinary program that should
have broad appeal, but perhaps needs to be refreshed to appeal to more
students. Few resources allocated to this program by unit.
Computer Science
(Interdisciplinary)
Bioinformatics
BSc (honours)
Good external demand but very low enrolment in program. Only one additional
class for honours. Unit allocates few resources.
Drama
Drama
BA (3 year
major)
High profile department, well-connected in profession. Small number of students.
Vice-Dean raises question of sustainability of program as currently operating. Not
clear what opportunities exist for graduates of this particular program.
Drama
Drama
BA (honours)
Very low enrolment, creates question of whether program sustainable. Despite
strengths in unit, hard to justify devoting resources to this program as it stands.
Unit should focus on BFA side.
Drama
Drama
MA (special
case)
Interesting ideas for future development, but hypothetical in light of very low
demand. No evidence that demand exists. Need to build stronger case for
program.
Economics
Economics
PDSC
Very low demand. Little investment. Template focused on department, not on this
program. Tri-Agency decline.
Economics
Economics
PGD
No demand for this program, no investment in it. No prospect of future demand.
Geography & Planning
Geography
BA (3 year
major)
Department has been refocusing direction away from this and related programs.
Rationale presented for retention of this program - that the College desires it - is
not persuasive.
99
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 5)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Geography & Planning
Geography
BA (4 year
major)
Unit indicates change of focus in department. Have identified this program for
disinvestment. Focus on programs in new areas.
Geography & Planning
Geography
BA (honours)
Unit indicates wish to phase out this program. Very low student demand. Unit
refocusing on other programs.
Geography & Planning
Geography
BSc (3 year
major)
Low headcount, serving limited purpose. Unit redirecting focus, not clear how this
program would connect with newer programs.
Geography & Planning
Geography
BSc (4 year
major)
Unit indicates desire to phase out program. Changes endorsed by Vice-Dean.
Geography & Planning
Geography
BSc (honours)
Department has disinvested in program, refocused to other areas. Persistently
low student enrolment.
Geological Sciences
Geological Sciences
PGD
Dean notes low demand, program has no prospects.
Geological Sciences
Geology
BSc (3 year
major)
Low enrolments, unit indicates demand will remain low because it does not lead
to accreditation. Suggestion of low level of commitment to this program.
Geological Sciences
(Interdisciplinary)
Palaeobiology
BSc (4 year
major)
Small enrolment, few graduates. Disinvestment by partner departments raises
question about sustainability.
Geological Sciences
(interdisciplinary)
Palaeobiology
BSc (honours)
Quality of students high but little demand. Limited course offerings. Disinvestment
by partner departments raises question about sustainability.
History (interdisciplinary)
Classical, medieval and
renaissance studies
BA (4 year
major)
Low number of students. Few direct resources allocated to program. Potential to
become a stream within history programs.
History (Interdisciplinary)
Classical, medieval and
renaissance studies
BA (honours)
Graduation rate low. Possibly more effective combined with other program, e.g.
as specialization in history.
100
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 5)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Interdisciplinary Centre for
Culture and Creativity
(ICCC)
Women's and gender
studies
BA (3 year
major)
Alignment with university priorities, but low student numbers. No evidence that
demand increasing. Very low research metrics. Lack of focus. Aboriginal
engagement claimed but not supported by student numbers. Not sustainable.
Interdisciplinary Centre for
Culture and Creativity
(ICCC)
Women's and gender
studies
BA (honours)
Small faculty complement makes it hard to accomplish goals of program.
Possibility of combining this program with others might be considered. Very low
research metrics.
Languages, Literatures,
and Cultural Studies
French
BA (honours)
Unsustainably low student numbers in program. Very low research metrics.
Strong students.
Languages, Literatures,
and Cultural Studies
Modern languages
BA (3 year
major)
Very low demand, insufficient resources, lack of focus.
Mathematics & Statistics
Mathematical physics
BSc (honours)
Very small number of students, elite program. Question whether investment can
be sustained for small number of students. Could perhaps be a stream in regular
Math or Physics honours programs.
Mathematics & Statistics
Statistics
BSc (honours)
Low student numbers, question whether separate honours program distinct from
major necessary. Program in existence for long time, has not succeeded in
attracting numbers.
Music
Music
BA (3 year
major)
Insufficient resources and demand for sustainable separate program. Focus of
unit on other stream of programs. Reputational risk of poorly-subscribed program
of this kind.
Music
Music
BA (4 year
major)
Adjustments made in program. Consumes few resources. No recent graduates,
minimal demand. Transition to BMus could be done without this program.
101
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 5)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Music
Music
BA (honours)
Good faculty, strong opportunities for collaborations. Student numbers in honours
program not clear but demand apparently very low. Not having significant impact.
May not align with unit priorities.
Music
Music
MA
Unit has no plans for future of this program, have redirected focus to other
programs. Little demand for program. Little external demand.
Political Studies
(Interdisciplinary)
Public administration
BA (honours)
Costly for small number of students. Lack of distinctiveness in program. Difficult to
ascertain demand for graduates. Some Aboriginal students. Department needs to
think about allocation of resources.
Religion & Culture
Religion & culture
Research
Almost no research funding. No coherent research vision. Potential for linking to
external demand, but failing to meet those needs at present. Might consider
leaving research leadership to affiliated units.
Religion & Culture
Religion & culture
BA (3 year
major)
Low student demand, low research metrics. Vice-Dean supports phasing out.
Religion & Culture
Religion & culture
BA (4 year
major)
Low enrolments. Very low research metrics. Impact on other programs not
persuasive. Consuming high level of resources. STM links are sustaining
program.
Religion & Culture
Religion & culture
BA (honours)
Claims of demand not supported by evidence, low student numbers. Low
research metrics.
Religion & Culture
Religion & culture
MA
Student numbers have grown slightly from negligible base. Focus on Asia unique.
Change from special case basis in 2010. Weak research profile raises concerns
about sustainability of graduate program.
Biomedical Engineering
Biomedical engineering
MEng (Clinical)
Doubtful that this program has any concrete form.
Biomedical Engineering
Biomedical engineering
PGD
No graduates, no investment in program.
102
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 5)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Chemical and
Biological Engineering
Biological engineering
BEng (major)
Program suspended. Some faculty transferred to other unit.
Chemical and
Biological Engineering
Biological engineering
MEng
Not active in 20 years, no demand, no prospects of increasing demand.
Chemical and
Biological Engineering
Biological engineering
PGD
No demand for this program, no prospects for future demand.
Chemical and
Biological Engineering
Chemical engineering
MEng
Small number of students. Industry demand not at master's level. Unit attaches
fairly low priority to this program.
Chemical and
Biological Engineering
Chemical engineering
PGD
Absence of demand, no potential demand. Unit not interested in continuation.
Civil and Geological
Engineering
Civil engineering
PGD
Extremely limited enrolment. Little evidence of any systematic efforts to reshape
it.
Electrical and Computer
Engineering
Electrical engineering
MEng
Low demand. Low investment of faculty resources, redirecting resources to thesis
stream. Low graduation rate. Unit intention to replace this program.
Electrical and Computer
Engineering
Electrical engineering
PGD
Little student demand, lack of commitment of resources.
Environmental
Engineering
Environmental engineering
MEng
Still students in program but have suspended admissions. Unit not committed to
program. No investment. No apparent external demand.
Environmental
Engineering
Environmental engineering
MSc
Suspension of admission to program. No indication of demand, or prospect of
demand.
Environmental
Engineering
Environmental engineering
PGD
Program suspended because of low demand. No students currently in program.
Likely to be eliminated.
103
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 5)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Environmental
engineering
Environmental engineering
PhD
Unit has already suspended program. Low student interest, low faculty
engagement in current configuration.
Environmental
Engineering
Environmental engineering
Research
Uncertainty about direction. Unit considering whether to reinvest in area.
Establishment of SENS raises question of future of program. No indication of
research output or focus on research in this area.
Environmental
Engineering
Environmental engineering
- Type A Centre
All activities
Formal steps taken to eliminate program.
Mechanical Engineering
Mechanical engineering
PGD
Low student demand, little indication of any future demand. Unit not committed to
program.
College of Graduate
Studies and Research
Individual interdisciplinary
graduate programs
MA
Low enrollment. Does not seem to be necessary at MA level given new
interdisciplinary programs in schools and other units across campus.
College of Graduate
Studies and Research
Individual interdisciplinary
graduate programs
MSc
Low enrollment. Does not seem to be necessary at MSc level given new
interdisciplinary programs in schools and other units across campus.
College of Graduate
Studies and Research
Individual interdisciplinary
graduate programs
PGD
No demand.
College of Graduate
Studies and Research
Individual interdisciplinary
graduate programs
PhD
Some enrollment, but student outcomes not strong. Little Tri-Agency funding
among students. Suggest that graduate programs within disciplinary units find
ways to accommodate these students.
College of Graduate
Studies and Research
Toxicology
PGD
Little demand, no real evidence of potential for this program.
Kinesiology
Physical education studies
BSc (Kin)
Significant decrease in enrollment in favor of flagship exercise and sport studies
program and combined BSc Kin/BEd.
104
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 5)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Kinesiology
Physical education studies
BSc (Kin)
(Honours)
No enrollment. Unit indicates possibility of re-directing resources to exercise
studies programs.
Biochemistry
Biochemistry
BSc (3 year
major)
Question whether change in Medicine admissions standards will have negative
impact on student numbers in this program. Unit seems to support elimination of
program, not focusing on quality of program. Not investing resources.
Biochemistry
Biochemistry
PGD
Little information in template. Clearly no demand, no prospects for improvement.
Biochemistry
Biochemistry and
biotechnology
BSc (4 year
major)
Lack of commitment to program from unit. Unit resources redirected to other
programs.
Biochemistry
Biochemistry and
biotechnology
BSc (honours)
Unit suggests no distinctiveness from regular biochemistry degree. Unit has little
commitment to program.
Biochemistry
Biomolecular structure
studies
BSc (4 year
major)
No demand, enrolment suspended.
Biochemistry
Biomolecular structure
studies
BSc (honours)
Program has been identified for disinvestment. Low demand, little enrolment.
Medicine
Rheumatology
Fellowship
Unit indicates not enough resources available to continue program.
Microbiology &
Immunology
Biotechnology,
microbiology & immunology
BSc (4 year
major)
Small number of graduates, small student headcounts and enrolment declining.
Possibly other BSc program would accommodate students with this interest.
Discussion of outputs generic, suggests not focusing on this as a program.
Microbiology &
Immunology
Biotechnology,
microbiology & immunology
BSc (honours)
Low faculty commitment, low enrolment, no critical mass for honours program.
Template does not provide focus for this program.
Obstetrics, Gynecology &
Reproductive Sciences
Obstetrics, gynecology &
reproductive sciences
Research
Low productivity. Weak research record, program is struggling.
105
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four—Detailed Program Listing (Quintile 5)
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Surgery
Surgery
Research
No template provided
College of Nursing
Centre for the Advancement of the Study of
Nursing Education and
Interprofessional Education
- Type A Centre
All activities
Objectives of centre not clear as distinct from mandate of college. Little evidence
of success at promoting faculty research.
Accounting
Accounting
MSc
No enrolment in last three years. Unit suggests possibility of resurrection, but
plans not clear.
Edwards School of
Business
Executive business
administration
Certificate of
Successful
Completion
Little commitment of faculty resources. Unit indicating not much future for this
program in its current form.
School of Public Health
Public health
Research
Declining Tri-Agency funding a concern. Respectable publication rate. Virtual
absence of information in template, though some indication of activity. Template
makes no case for essentiality of program. No indication of investment of faculty
time or operating allocation. Little indication of links with Community Health and
Epidemiology, although there should be obvious connections.
School of Public Health
Epidemiology
PhD
Student headcount promising, though still low. Decrease in Tri-Agency and nonTri-Agency funding a concern. Little evidence of investment in this program.
Small Animal Clinical
Sciences
Small animal clinical
sciences
MSc
Solid job prospects for graduates, but very low enrolment. Modest research
support for master's program. Question whether special case model would be
more appropriate.
Veterinary Pathology
Veterinary pathology
PGD
No information in template. Obviously no interest in program.
106
Academic Programs Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Four— Detailed Program Listing (Not Reviewed)
PROGRAMS SUBMITTED BUT NOT REVIEWED
Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Notes
Bioresource Policy,
Business and Economics
Aboriginal agriculture and
land management
PGD
Too new to be evaluated by the task force
Biology
Environmental biology
BSc (4 year major)
Too new to be evaluated by the task force
Biology
Environmental biology
BSc (honours)
Too new to be evaluated by the task force
Medicine
General internal medicine
Fellowship
Too new to be evaluated by the task force
School of Public Health
Public health
Master of Public Health,
Distance Program
Too new to be evaluated by the task force
107
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
APPENDIX FIVE: QUINTILE SCORE BY UNIT 108
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Five—Quintile Scores by Academic Unit
APPENDIX FIVE: QUINTILE SCORES BY ACADEMIC UNIT COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE & BIORESOURCES
Department
Fields of Study
College of Agriculture & Bioresources
Agricultural biology
Agricultural biology
Centre for Northern Agroforestry & Afforestation - Type A Centre
Crop Development Centre (CDC) - Type A Centre
Feeds Innovation Institute - Type A Centre
Indigenous people's resource management
Prairie Horticulture
Program Type
Quintile
BSA (honours)
BSA (major)
All activities
All activities
All activities
Certificate of Proficiency
Certificate of Successful Completion
5
5
5
1
2
2
2
Animal and poultry science
Animal science
Animal science
Animal science
Animal science
Research
BSA (major)
MAgr
MSc
PhD
1
2
5
2
2
Aboriginal agriculture and land management
Agribusiness
Agribusiness
Agribusiness
Agricultural Economics
Agricultural Economics
Agricultural Economics
Agricultural Economics
PGD
BSc (honours)
BSc (major)
Diploma
BSA (honours)
BSA (major)
MAgr
MSc
Animal & Poultry Science
Bioresource Policy,
Business & Economics
not reviewed
5
2
2
5
5
5
2
109
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Department
Appendix Five—Quintile Scores by Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Agricultural Economics
Agricultural Economics
Bioresource Policy, Business and Economics
Resource economics & policy
PGD
PhD
Research
BSc RRM (major)
5
3
3
4
MSc
PhD
BSA (major)
MAgr
MSc
PhD
Research
BSc (honours)
BSc (major)
3
4
2
5
2
4
2
5
3
Agronomy
Agronomy
Applied Plant Ecology
Crop science
Horticultural science
Plant Sciences
Plant Sciences
Plant Sciences
BSA (major)
Diploma
BSA (major)
BSA (major)
BSA (major)
MSc
PhD
Research
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
Environmental science
Resource Science
Soil science
BSA (major)
BSc RRM (major)
BSA (major)
2
2
4
Food & Bioproduct Sciences
Applied microbiology
Applied microbiology
Food and bioproduct sciences
Food and bioproduct sciences
Food and bioproduct sciences
Food and bioproduct sciences
Food and bioproduct Sciences
Food science
Food science
Quintile
Plant Sciences
Soil Science
110
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Department
Appendix Five—Quintile Scores by Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Soil science
Soil science
Soil science
Soil science
Soil science
MAgr
MSc
PGD
PhD
Research
Quintile
5
2
5
2
1
111
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Five—Quintile Scores by Academic Unit
COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCE
Department
Fields of Study
Program Type
Quintile
Centre for Algebra, Logic, and Computation (CALC) - Type A Centre
Centre for High-Performance Computing (HPC) - Type A Centre
Humanities Research Unit - Type A Centre
Institute for Computer and Information Technology - Type A Centre
Institute of Space and Atmospheric Studies - Type A Centre
Social Research Unit - Type A Centre
Subatomic Physics Institute (SPIN) - Type A Centre
Northern studies
Northern studies
Northern studies
Toxicology
Toxicology
All activities
All activities
All activities
All activities
All activities
All activities
All activities
BA (3 year major)
BA (4 year major)
BA (honours)
BSc (4 year major)
BSc (honours)
4
4
2
4
1
4
2
4
4
5
1
1
Anthropology
Anthropology
Anthropology
Anthropology
Anthropology
Archaeology
Archaeology
Archaeology
Archaeology
Archaeology
Archaeology
Archaeology
BA (3 year major)
BA (4 year major)
BA (honours)
MA
Research
BA (3 year major)
BA (4 year major)
BA (honours)
BSc (4 year major)
BSc (honours)
MA
Research
5
3
3
2
2
5
3
3
3
3
2
3
College of Arts & Science
Archaeology & Anthropology
112
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Department
Appendix Five—Quintile Scores by Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Quintile
Art history
Art history
Art history
Studio art
Studio art
Studio art
Studio art
Art & Art History
BA (3 year major)
BA (4 year major)
BA (honours)
BA (3 year major)
BA (4 year major)
BFA (honours)
MFA
Research
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
Biology
Biology
Biology
Biology
Biology
Biology
Biology and biotechnology
Biology and biotechnology
Environmental biology
Environmental biology
BSc (3 year major)
BSc (4 year major)
BSc (honours)
MSc
PhD
Research
BSc (4 year major)
BSc (honours)
BSc (4 year major)
BSc (honours)
3
2
3
3
3
3
5
5
not reviewed
not reviewed
Chemistry
Chemistry
Chemistry
Chemistry
Chemistry
Chemistry
BSc (3 year major)
BSc (4 year major)
BSc (honours)
MSc
PhD
Research
3
2
2
2
1
1
Art & Art History
Biology
Chemistry
113
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Department
Appendix Five—Quintile Scores by Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Quintile
Computer science
Computer science
Computer science
Computer science
Computer science
Computer science
Computer science
Computer science
Computing
Bioinformatics
Bioinformatics
BSc (3 year major)
BSc (4 year major)
BSc (honours)
MSc
PDSC
PGD
PhD
Research
BSc (4 year major)
BSc (4 year major)
BSc (honours)
3
2
2
2
5
5
2
2
5
5
5
Drama
Drama
Drama
Drama
Drama
Drama
BA (3 year major)
BA (4 year major)
BA (honours)
BFA
MA (special case)
Research
5
4
5
2
5
2
Business economics
Business economics
Economics
Economics
Economics
Economics
Economics
BA (4 year major)
BA (honours)
BA (3 year major)
BA (4 year major)
BA (honours)
MA
PDSC
3
2
3
3
3
2
5
Computer Science
Drama
Economics
114
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Department
Appendix Five—Quintile Scores by Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Quintile
Economics
Economics
PGD
Research
5
4
English
English
English
English
English
English
BA (3 year major)
BA (4 year major)
BA (honours)
MA
PhD
Research
3
2
1
2
3
2
Environment and society
Environment and society
Environmental earth sciences
Environmental earth sciences
Geography
Geography
Geography
Geography
Geography
Geography
Geography
Geography
Geography
Geography
Regional and urban planning
Regional and urban planning
Geography
BASc (4 year major)
BASc (honours)
BSc (4 year major)
BSc (honours)
BA (3 year major)
BA (4 year major)
BA (honours)
BSc (3 year major)
BSc (4 year major)
BSc (honours)
Cooperative Education Program
MA
MSc
PhD
BA (4 year major)
BA (honours)
Research
3
4
3
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
English
Geography & Planning
115
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Department
Appendix Five—Quintile Scores by Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Quintile
Geological Sciences
Geological Sciences
Geological Sciences
Geology
Geology
Geology
Geology
Geophysics
Geophysics
Palaeobiology
Palaeobiology
MSc
PGD
PhD
BSc (3 year major)
BSc (4 year major)
BSc (honours)
Research
BSc (4 year major)
BSc (honours)
BSc (4 year major)
BSc (honours)
3
5
3
5
2
2
2
3
3
5
5
History
History
History
History
History
History
Classical, medieval and renaissance studies
Classical, medieval and renaissance studies
Classical, medieval and renaissance studies
BA (3 year major)
BA (4 year major)
BA (honours)
MA
PhD
Research
BA (4 year major)
BA (honours)
Research
3
3
2
2
2
2
5
5
4
ICCC - Type A Centre
Women's and gender studies
Women's and gender studies
All activities
BA (3 year major)
BA (4 year major)
4
5
4
Geological Sciences
History
Interdisciplinary Centre for
Culture and Creativity (ICCC)
116
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Department
Appendix Five—Quintile Scores by Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Women's and gender studies
Women's and gender studies
BA (honours)
Research
5
4
BA (3 year major)
BA (4 year major)
BA (honours)
Research
BA (3 year major)
BA (4 year major)
4
4
5
4
5
4
Mathematical physics
Mathematics
Mathematics
Mathematics
Mathematics and statistics
Mathematics and statistics
Mathematics and statistics
Statistics
Statistics
BSc (honours)
BSc (3 year major)
BSc (4 year major)
BSc (honours)
MSc
PhD
Research
BSc (4 year major)
BSc (honours)
5
3
4
3
3
4
3
3
5
Music
Music
Music
Music
Music
Music
Music
BA (3 year major)
BA (4 year major)
BA (honours)
BMus (4 year major)
BMus (honours)
MA
MMus
5
5
5
2
3
5
4
Languages, Literatures, and Cultural Studies
French
French
French
Languages
Modern languages
Modern languages
Quintile
Mathematics & Statistics
Music
117
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Department
Appendix Five—Quintile Scores by Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Quintile
Music
Music education
Research
BMus
2
2
Native studies
Native studies
Native studies
Native studies
Native studies
Native studies
BA (3 year major)
BA (4 year major)
BA (honours)
MA
PhD (special case PhD)
Research
2
2
4
3
2
2
Philosophy
Philosophy
Philosophy
Philosophy
Philosophy
BA (3 year major)
BA (4 year major)
BA (honours)
MA
Research
4
4
3
3
4
BEng (major)
BSc (3 year major)
BSc (4 year major)
BSc (honours)
Research
MSc
PhD
2
3
3
2
1
2
2
BA (3 year major)
BA (4 year major)
BA (honours)
4
3
3
Native studies
Philosophy
Physics & Engineering Physics
Engineering physics
Physics
Physics
Physics
Physics
Physics and engineering physics
Physics and engineering physics
Political Studies
Political studies
Political studies
Political studies
118
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Department
Appendix Five—Quintile Scores by Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Quintile
Political studies
Political Studies
Aboriginal public administration
Aboriginal public administration
International studies
International studies
Public administration
Public administration
MA
Research
BA (4 year major)
BA (honours)
BA (4 year major)
BA (honours)
BA (4 year major)
BA (honours)
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
Psychology
Psychology
Psychology
Psychology
Psychology
Psychology
Psychology
Psychology
BA (3 year major)
BA (4 year major)
BA (honours)
BSc (4 year major)
BSc (honours)
MA
PhD
Research
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
Linguistics
Linguistics
Linguistics
Linguistics
Linguistics
Religion and culture
Religion and culture
Religion and culture
Religion and culture
Religion & Culture
BA (3 year major)
BA (4 year major)
BA (honours)
MA (special case)
Research
BA (3 year major)
BA (4 year major)
BA (honours)
MA
Research
4
2
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
Psychology
Religion & Culture
119
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Department
Appendix Five—Quintile Scores by Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Sociology
Sociology
Sociology
Sociology
Sociology
Sociology
BA (3 year major)
BA (4 year major)
BA (honours)
MA
PhD
Research
Quintile
Sociology
2
2
2
2
2
2
COLLEGE OF DENTISTRY
Fields of Study
Program Type
Dentistry
Dentistry
Dentistry
DMD
Post graduate general practice residency
Research
Quintile
3
2
4
120
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Five—Quintile Scores by Academic Unit
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
Department
Fields of Study
Program Type
Quintile
Aboriginal Education Research Centre (AERC) - Type A Centre
Saskatchewan Educational Leadership Unit (SELU) - Type A Centre
Teacher Education
All activities
All activities
BEd
2
2
2
Curriculum Studies
Theory and practice in curriculum research, design, implementation,
evaluation, and instructional leadership
Research
MEd
3
2
Educational leadership; school improvement and school
effectiveness; organizational analysis; school, family, and
community partnership; educational finance and law
Educational Administration
MEd (Educational Administration)
PhD
2
2
Research
2
Aboriginal Education; Adult and Lifelong Learning; Social
& Ecological Justice; Foundations of Education
Educational Foundations
MEd (Educational Foundations)
2
Research
3
Educational Psychology & Special Education
School and Counselling Psychology
MEd (Educational Psychology)
MEd (School and Counselling
Psychology), Thesis Option only
Post-degree Certificate in Education
(Special Education)
Research
3
3
College of Education
Curriculum Studies
Educational Administration
Educational Foundations
Educational Psychology
& Special Education
Special education
Educational Psychology & Special Education
2
3
121
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Five—Quintile Scores by Academic Unit
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
Department
Fields of Study
Program Type
Quintile
College of Engineering
Engineering Entrepreneurship Option (EEO)
Engineering Professional Internship Program (EPIP)
Professional Communication Option (PCO)
Ron and Jane Graham Centre for the Study of Communication - Type A Centre
Saskatchewan Centre of Excellence in Transportation and Infrastructure - Type A Centre
4
4
3
2
4
Biomedical engineering
Biomedical engineering
Biomedical engineering
Biomedical engineering
Biomedical engineering
Biomedical Engineering - Type B Centre
Biomedical Engineering
MEng
MEng (Clinical)
MSc
PGD
PhD
All activities
Research
4
5
4
5
4
4
4
Biological engineering
Biological engineering
Biological engineering
Biological engineering
Biological engineering
Chemical engineering
Chemical engineering
Chemical engineering
Chemical engineering
Chemical engineering
Chemical & Biological Engineering
BEng (major)
MEng
MSc
PGD
PhD
BEng (major)
MEng
MSc
PGD
PhD
Research
5
5
3
5
3
2
5
2
5
2
4
Biomedical Engineering
Chemical and Biological Engineering
122
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Department
Appendix Five—Quintile Scores by Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Quintile
Civil engineering
Civil engineering
Civil engineering
Civil engineering
Civil engineering
Geological engineering
Civil and Geological Engineering
BEng (major)
MEng
MSc
PGD
PhD
BEng (major)
Research
1
4
2
5
2
2
2
Computer engineering
Electrical engineering
Electrical engineering
Electrical engineering
Electrical engineering
Electrical engineering
Electrical and Computer Engineering
BEng (major)
BEng (major)
MEng
MSc
PGD
PhD
Research
3
2
5
2
5
2
2
Environmental engineering
Environmental engineering
Environmental engineering
Environmental engineering
Environmental engineering
Environmental Engineering
Environmental Engineering - Type A Centre
BEng (major)
MEng
MSc
PGD
PhD
Research
All activities
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
Mechanical engineering
Mechanical engineering
BEng
MEng
1
3
Civil and Geological Engineering
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Environmental Engineering
Mechanical Engineering
123
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Department
Appendix Five—Quintile Scores by Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Mechanical engineering
Mechanical engineering
Mechanical engineering
Mechanical Engineering
MSc
PGD
PhD
Research
Quintile
2
5
3
2
COLLEGE OF GRADUATE STUDIES AND RESEARCH
Fields of Study
Program Type
Individual interdisciplinary graduate programs
Individual interdisciplinary graduate programs
Individual interdisciplinary graduate programs
Individual interdisciplinary graduate programs
Toxicology
Toxicology
Toxicology
MA
MSc
PGD
PhD
MSc
PGD
PhD
Quintile
5
5
5
5
2
5
2
COLLEGE OF KINESIOLOGY
Fields of Study
Program Type
Exercise and sport studies
Exercise and sport studies
Kinesiology
Kinesiology
Kinesiology
Kinesiology/Education
Physical education studies
Physical education studies
BSc (Kin)
BSc (Kin) (Honours)
MSc
PhD
Research
BSc (Kin)/BEd
BSc (Kin)
BSc (Kin) (Honours)
Quintile
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
124
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Five—Quintile Scores by Academic Unit
COLLEGE OF LAW
Fields of Study
Program Type
Law
Law
Law
Law
JD
LLM
Research
Native Law Centre of Canada - Type A Centre
Quintile
2
3
3
4
COLLEGE OF MEDICINE
Department
Fields of Study
Program Type
Quintile
Health Sciences
Health Sciences
Medicine
MSc
PhD
MD
4
4
4
Anatomy and cell biology
Anatomy and cell biology
Anatomy and cell biology
Anatomy and cell biology
Anatomy and cell biology
Anatomy and cell biology
BSc (3 year major)
BSc (4 year major)
BSc (honours)
MSc
PhD
Research
3
3
3
3
3
2
Anesthesiology
Anesthesiology
Residency
Research
4
4
Biochemistry
Biochemistry
BSc (3 year major)
BSc (4 year major)
5
4
College of Medicine
Anatomy & Cell Biology
Anesthesiology
Biochemistry
125
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Department
Appendix Five—Quintile Scores by Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Quintile
Biochemistry
Biochemistry
Biochemistry
Biochemistry
Biochemistry and biotechnology
Biochemistry and biotechnology
Biomolecular structure studies
Biomolecular structure studies
Biochemistry
BSc (honours)
MSc
PGD
PhD
BSc (4 year major)
BSc (honours)
BSc (4 year major)
BSc (honours)
Research
3
3
5
4
5
5
5
5
3
Health Sciences
Health Sciences
Community Health & Epidemiology
MSc
PhD
Research
2
2
2
Family Medicine
Family Medicine
Residency
Research
3
4
Medical Imaging
Medical Imaging
Residency
Research
3
4
Cardiology
General Internal Medicine
Internal Medicine
Internal Medicine
Neurology
Respirology
Rheumatology
Fellowship
Fellowship
Residency
Research
Residency
Fellowship
Fellowship
4
not reviewed
4
3
4
4
5
Community Health and Epidemiology
Family Medicine
Medical Imaging
Medicine
126
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Department
Appendix Five—Quintile Scores by Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Quintile
Biotechnology, microbiology and immunology
Biotechnology, microbiology and immunology
Microbiology and immunology
Microbiology and immunology
Microbiology and immunology
Microbiology and immunology
Microbiology and immunology
Microbiology & Immunology
BSc (4 year major)
BSc (honours)
BSc (3 year major)
BSc (4 year major)
BSc (honours)
MSc
PhD
Research
5
5
4
3
3
3
3
3
Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences
Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences
Residency
Research
4
5
Pathology & Lab Medicine
Pathology & Lab Medicine
Residency
Research
4
4
Pediatrics
Pediatrics
Residency
Research
4
4
Pharmacology
Pharmacology
Pharmacology
MSc
PhD
Research
4
4
4
Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation
Residency
3
Microbiology & Immunology
Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences
Pathology & Lab Medicine
Pediatrics
Pharmacology
Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation
127
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Five—Quintile Scores by Academic Unit
Physiology
Physiology
Physiology
Physiology & Pharmacology
Physiology & Pharmacology
Physiology & Pharmacology
Physiology
MSc
PhD
BSc (3 year major)
BSc (4 year major)
BSc (honours)
Research
4
4
3
3
3
4
Psychiatry
Psychiatry
Residency
Research
3
3
General Surgery
Neurosurgery
Orthopedic Surgery
Surgical Foundations
Surgery
Residency
Residency
Residency
Residency
Research
4
4
4
4
5
Psychiatry
Surgery
COLLEGE OF NURSING
Fields of Study
Program Type
Nursing
Nursing
Nursing
Nursing
Nursing
Nursing
Nursing
Nursing
BSc (Nursing)
MN - Nurse Practitioner Program
MN Course Based
MN Thesis Based
Nurse Practitioner - Post Graduate Degree Specialization Certificate
PhD
Post-Degree BSN
Research
Quintile
3
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
128
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Five—Quintile Scores by Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Quintile
Nursing
Centre for the Advancement of the Study of Nursing Education and
Interprofessional Education (CASNIE) - Type A Centre
5
COLLEGE OF PHARMACY AND NUTRITION
Fields of Study
Program Type
Nutrition and dietetics
Nutrition and dietetics
Nutrition and dietetics
Nutrition and dietetics
Pharmacy
Pharmacy
Pharmacy
Pharmacy
BSc (Nutr)
MSc
PhD
Research
BSc (Pharm)
MSc
PhD
Research
Quintile
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
2
EDWARDS SCHOOL OF BUSINESS
Department
Fields of Study
Program Type
Aboriginal business administration
Business administration
Business administration
Centre for Strategic Financial Management - Type A Centre
Centre for the Advancement of Accounting Education - Type A Centre
Executive business administration
Certificate of Proficiency
Certificate of Successful Completion
MBA
Quintile
Edwards School of Business
Certificate of Successful Completion
2
2
3
4
2
5
129
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Department
Appendix Five—Quintile Scores by Academic Unit
Fields of Study
Program Type
Quintile
Accounting
Accounting
Accounting
Accounting
BComm (major)
MPAcc
MSc
Research
2
2
5
4
Finance
Finance
Finance
Operations management
BComm (major)
MSc
Research
BComm (major)
2
3
4
3
BComm (major)
Research
2
4
BComm (major)
Research
BComm (major)
3
4
3
Accounting
Finance & Management Science
Human Resources & Organizational Behaviour
Human resources
Human Resources
Management & Marketing
Management
Management & Marketing
Marketing
JOHNSON-SHOYAMA GRADUATE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY
Fields of Study
Program Type
International trade
Public administration
Public policy
Public policy
Public policy
Master of International Trade (MIT)
Master of Public Administration (MPA)
Master of Public Policy (MPP)
PhD
Research
Quintile
4
2
2
2
2
130
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Five—Quintile Scores by Academic Unit
SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY
Fields of Study
Program Type
Environment and sustainability
Environment and sustainability
Environment and sustainability
Sustainable environmental management
MES
PhD
Research
MSEM
Quintile
3
2
2
2
SCHOOL OF PHYSICAL THERAPY
Fields of Study
Program Type
Physical therapy
Physical therapy
MPT
Research
Quintile
3
3
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Fields of Study
Program Type
Public health
Epidemiology
Public health
Public health
Vaccinology & Immunotherapeutics
Vaccinology & Immunotherapeutics
Biostatistics
Biostatistics
Research
PhD
Master of Public Health
Master of Public Health, Distance Program
MSc
PhD
MSc
PhD
Quintile
5
5
3
not reviewed
4
4
4
4
131
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Five—Quintile Scores by Academic Unit
WESTERN COLLEGE OF VETERINARY MEDICINE
Department
Fields of Study
Program Type
Quintile
Canadian Co-Operative Wildlife Health Centre - Type A Centre
Veterinary medicine
DVM
2
1
Large animal clinical sciences
Large animal clinical sciences
Large animal clinical sciences
Large animal clinical sciences
MSc
MVetSc
PhD
Research
3
4
3
3
Small animal clinical sciences
Small animal clinical sciences
Small Animal Clinical Sciences
MSc
MVetSc
Research
5
3
4
Vet Biomedical Sciences
Vet Biomedical Sciences
Vet Biomedical Sciences
MSc
PhD
Research
2
2
3
Veterinary microbiology
Veterinary microbiology
Veterinary microbiology
MSc
PhD
Research
3
3
3
Veterinary pathology
Veterinary pathology
Veterinary pathology
Veterinary pathology
Veterinary pathology
MSc
MVetSc
PGD
PhD
Research
4
3
5
4
4
Western College of Veterinary Medicine
Large Animal Clinical Sciences
Small Animal Clinical Sciences
Vet Biomedical Sciences
Vet Microbiology
Vet Pathology
132
Academic Program Transformation Task Force Report
Appendix Five—Quintile Scores by Academic Unit
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY
Fields of Study
Program Type
Library
Research
Quintile
4
UNIVERSITY-WIDE
Fields of Study
Program Type
Quintile
Canadian Centre for Health and Safety in Agriculture (CCHSA) - Type B Centre
All activities
2
Centre for the Study of Co–operatives - Type B Centre
All activities
2
Community-University Institute for Social Research (CUISR) - Type B Centre
All activities
2
Indigenous Land Management Institute (ILMI) - Type B Centre
All activities
2
International Centre for Northern Governance and Development - Type B Centre
All activities
4
Toxicology Centre - Type B Centre
All activities
2
Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization - International Vaccine Centre (VIDO-InterVac) - Type B Centre
All activities
1
133