AY 2014-2015 ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW SELF-STUDY TEMPLATE
Reporting School/College: Tobin College of Business
Program Reviewed: Taxation MS Q
Date Submitted to Department/Division Chair:
Overview and Program Review Summary: Please summarize this program’s mission and its relationship to the vision
and mission of St. John’s University, and the program’s School/College. Identify similar programs regionally and
nationally and distinguish this program from them. In addition, summarize your findings as they relate to (1) program
quality, (2) market growth potential, and (3) student learning. Also, summarize any significant changes, achievements
(by faculty and students and the program itself), and plans for the future. Finally, based on the information gleaned
from the data in the self-study, give an overall rating of the program’s Enrollment/Market Potential by categorizing it as
one of the following: (1) Enhance; (2) Maintain; (3) Reduce support, Phase out, Consolidate, or Discontinue.
(Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 1. The purpose of the program reflects and supports the strategic vision and mission of St. John’s
University, and the program’s School/College.
1a.
What evidence can you provide that demonstrates that the program embodies the Catholic, Vincentian, and
metropolitan identity of St. John’s University? www.stjohns.edu/about/out-mission. (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
1b.
What evidence can you provide that demonstrates that the program embodies the University’s vision.
www.stjohns.edu/about/out-mission/vision-statement. (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
1c.
What evidence can you provide that demonstrates that the program embodies the vision and mission of the
program’s School/College? (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
Standard 1.
Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 2. The program attracts, retains, and graduates high quality students.
2a.
Undergraduate SAT and High School Average
Not Applicable
2b.
Undergraduate 1st Year Retention Rate
Not Applicable
2c.
Undergraduate 6 Year Graduation Rate
Not Applicable
TCB_ACC_TAX_MS_Q
Self-Study Template 1
2d.
Graduate Standardized Test Scores
Fall
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
School/College
Average Rate
508
511
507
522
545
Regional Comparison
n.a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
National Comparison
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Program
Fall 2010
Taxation
MS
Q
Fall 2011
454
Fall 2010
Peter J.Tobin Coll of Bus-Grad
540
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
530
Fall 2012
563
549
Fall 2013
471
505
Fall 2013
542
General test percentage distribution of scores within intended graduate major field that is based on the profile of GMAT
candidates, 2011-12.
GMAT®
Degree Pursued
Gender
Master's in Business
(MS, MSc, MA)
Men: Number
Mean Total
Score
Women:
Number
Mean Total
Score
Total: Number
Mean Total Score
TCB_ACC_TAX_MS_Q
2010-11
2011-12
11,339
14,307
553
12,609
552
553
17,422
557
23,948
31,729
552
555
Self-Study Template 2
2e.
Please describe how the program compares with peer and aspirational institutions.
(Suggested limit 1/2 page)
2f.
If applicable, describe the program’s student performance over the past five years on licensure or professional
certification exams relative to regional and national standards. (Suggested limit 1/4 page)
2g.
Number of majors and minors enrolled over the past five years. See table below.
Fall
Number of Students
2006
2007
2008
2009
Majors
46
33
59
54
52
Minors
0
0
0
0
0
Total
46
33
59
54
52
MAJORS
2h.
2005
TAX
MS
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
67
42
57
49
Number of degrees granted during the past five years. See table below.
Academic Year
Degrees
Granted
MS
TCB-GR
TAX
TCB_ACC_TAX_MS_Q
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
31
30
22
52
35
Taxation
MS
10/11
11/12
12/13
Degrees Conferred
Degrees Conferred
Degrees Conferred
4
8
8
Self-Study Template 3
Below is comparison degrees conferred data for local and national institutions based on data retrieved from the IPEDS
website. This is based on the Classification of Instructional Program (CIP) Code of 52-Business, Management, Marketing,
and Related Support Services.
20092010
20102011
20112012
Master's
Local
4,898
National 177,684
5,532
5,719
187,213
191,571
1
Local institution include: Adelphi University, Columbia University, CUNY Queens College, Fordham University,
Hofstra University, Iona College, C.W. Post University, Manhattan College, New York University, Pace University,
Seton Hall University, Stony Brook University, and Wagner College.
Comments : Based on the data in 2g and 2h, how do these trends compare to institutional, regional and national
patterns? (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
2i.
What mechanisms are in place to monitor students’ progress toward degree? And, to what extent is there a
collaborative effort to provide quality advising and support services to students? (Suggested limit 1/4 page)
2j.
If available, provide information on the success of graduates in this program as it relates to employment or
attending graduate school. (Suggested limit 1/4 page)
TCB_ACC_TAX_MS_Q
Self-Study Template 4
2k.
Please comment on the students’ competencies in the program. Support your response using data provided
below and any other data available. (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
Standard 2.
Additional comments if needed: (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 3. The program engages in ongoing systematic planning that is aligned with the University and
School/College planning, direction, and priorities.
3a. How does your program’s strategic goal/objectives link to your School/College plan and the University’s strategic
plan? http://www.stjohns.edu/about/leadership/strategic-planning
3b.
What is the evidence of monitoring the external and internal environments, specifically what are the strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats facing the program? How were they identified? What actions have been taken
in response to these findings? What characteristics of the program suggest a competitive edge against other programs
regionally and nationally?
3c.
What is the current and future market demand for the program? Support your response using the data
provided below or any other internal or external sources to justify your response.
Fastest growing occupations and occupations having the largest numerical increase in employment by level of education
and training projected.
TCB_ACC_TAX_MS_Q
Self-Study Template 5
Change, 2010-20
Fastest Growing Occupations
Percent
Numeric
Tax Examiners, Collectors and
Preparers and Revenue Agents
7%
5,500
Accountant and Auditors
16%
190,700
Occupations having the
largest numerical increase
in employment
Accountant and Auditors
Change, 2010-20
Percent
Numeric
16%
190,700
Projected Changes in Related Occupations (2010 – 2020)
Changes, 2010-20
Grow faster than average - Increase 15 to 20.9%
Accountant and Auditors
Percent
Numeric
16%
190,700
Changes, 2010-20
Grow About as Fast as Average - Increase 7 to 14.9%
Tax Examiners, Collectors and Preparers and Revenue Agents
Percent
Numeric
7%
5,500
*For more information please visit: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.toc.htm
Standard 3.
Additional comments if needed: (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 4. The program provides a high quality curriculum that emphasizes and assesses student learning and
engagement.
4a.
Please indicate how the program curriculum is in alignment with the following three items:
(Suggested limit 1/2 page for each of the three categories below)
1. Standards within the discipline
2. Curriculum integrity, coherence, academic internships, teaching excellence, teaching vibrancy, and study
abroad experiences.
3. The University Core competencies
4b.
The syllabi for the courses within this program incorporate the suggested elements of a syllabus – an example of
which can be found at the following St. John’s University Center for Teaching and Learning link. (Suggested limit 1/3
page) http://stjohns.campusguides.com/content.php?pid=71651&sid=984766
4c.
Describe the assessment model currently in place for the program and indicate the extent to which disciplinary
and core knowledge, competence, and values are met, as well as findings and action plans for improvement. For
reference, visit WeaveOnline – https://app.weaveonline.com//login.aspx; Digication – https://stjohns.digication.com
(Suggested limit 1/2 page)
TCB_ACC_TAX_MS_Q
Self-Study Template 6
4d.
What, if any, external validations, e.g. specialized accreditations, external awards, other validations of quality
has the program received? (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
Standard 4.
Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 5. The program has the faculty resources required to meet its mission and goals.
5a.
Below you will find the number of students enrolled as majors and minors in the program. Please complete the
table by adding the number of full-time faculty assigned to the program. Then calculate the student to full-time faculty
ratio.
Fall 2005
# Majors/
FT Faculty
FT
PT
Fall 2006
Total
FT
PT
Fall 2007
Total
FT
PT
Fall 2008
Total
FT
PT
Fall 2009
Total
FT
PT
Total
M.S. Taxation
Majors
# of FTE
Students
15
31
46
5
28
33
35
24
59
15
39
54
33
19
52
15.00
10.33
25.33
5.00
9.33
14.33
35.00
8.00
43.00
15.00
13.00
28.00
33.00
6.33
39.33
M.B.A. Business Taxation
Majors
# of FTE
Students
2
4
6
0
3
3
0
3
3
0
2
2
1
2
3
2.00
1.33
3.33
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.67
0.67
1.00
0.67
1.67
Total Graduate Taxation - Queens
Majors
# of FTE
Students
17
35
52
5
31
36
35
27
62
15
41
56
34
21
55
17.00
11.67
28.67
5.00
10.33
15.33
35.00
9.00
44.00
15.00
13.67
28.67
34.00
7.00
41.00
# of FTE
Faculty
assigned
to the
program**
2.58
3.50
3.75
2.58
3.17
FTE
Student/
FTE
Faculty
Ratio***
11.11
4.38
11.73
11.11
12.93
TCB_ACC_TAX_MS_Q
Self-Study Template 7
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2013
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
MAJORS
46
21
67
27
Fall 2010
Total
Fall 2012
FTE MAJORS
15
42
39
Fall 2011
18
57
26
Fall 2012
23
49
Fall 2013
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
46
7
53
27
5
32
39
6
45
26
7.667
33.667
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
# of FTE faculty assigned
to the program
FTE Student/FTE Faculty
Ratio
Important Notes:
FTE Students = Number of FT Students + (number of PT Students/3)
FTE Faculty = Number of FT Faculty + (number of PT Faculty/3)
This methodology is used by SJU for all external reporting.
Includes Online learning students.
TCB_ACC_TAX_MS_Q
Self-Study Template 8
5b.
Below you will find the credit hours the department has delivered by full-time faculty and part-time faculty
(including administrators) and the total credit hours consumed by non-majors.
Credit Hours
Fall 2005
Fall 2006
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
Taught
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
FT Faculty
3550
68%
3718
69%
4576
71%
5602
81%
5488
74%
PT Faculty
1698
32%
1669
31%
1906
29%
1312
19%
1905
26%
Total
5248
100%
5387
100%
6482
100%
6914
100%
7393
100%
% consumed
by
NonMajors
32%
Credit Hrs Taught
32%
Fall 2010
Number
Fall 2011
Percent
Number
29%
41%
Fall 2012
Percent
Number
Fall 2013
Percent
Number
Percent
F-T Faculty
5,751
77.1%
4,571
66.6%
4,621
76.5%
4,684
79.0%
P-T Faculty (inc
Admin)
1,706
22.9%
2,293
33.4%
1,423
23.5%
1,245
21.0%
0.0%
Total
7,457
100%
0.0%
6,864
Fall 2010
% Consumed by
Non-Majors
1,620
TCB_ACC_TAX_MS_Q
21.7%
100%
Fall 2011
1,446
21.1%
0.0%
6,044
100%
0.0%
5,929
Fall 2012
1,344
22%
22.2%
100%
Fall 2013
1,431
24.1%
Self-Study Template 9
5c.
Below you will find the number of courses the department has delivered by full-time faculty and part-time
faculty (including administrators).
Courses
Fall 2005
Fall 2006
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
Taught
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
FT Faculty
56
68%
59
70%
65
73%
66
79%
71
73%
PT Faculty
26
32%
25
30%
24
27%
18
21%
26
27%
Total
82
100%
84
100%
89
100%
84
100%
97
100%
Courses Taught
Fall 2010
Number
Fall 2011
Percent
Number
Fall 2012
Percent
Number
Fall 2013
Percent
Number
Percent
F-T Faculty
69
76.7%
80
70.2%
80
79.2%
80
80.8%
P-T Faculty (inc
Admin)
21
23.3%
34
29.8%
21
20.8%
19
19.2%
0.0%
Total
TCB_ACC_TAX_MS_Q
90
100%
0.0%
114
100%
0.0%
101
100%
0.0%
99
100%
Self-Study Template 10
5d.
What is the representative nature of faculty in terms of demographics, tenure and diversity? (See departmental information on next
page). How well does this support the program? (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
2005
FT
2006
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
Male
14
74%
11
61%
Female
5
26%
7
Total
19
100%
Black
1
Hispanic
FT
2007
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
25
14
70%
14
78%
39%
12
6
30%
4
18
100%
37
20
100%
5%
0
0%
1
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
Asian
3
16%
1
6%
White
15
79%
14
Unknown
0
0%
Total
19
100%
Tenured
16
Tenure-Track
FT
2008
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
28
15
71%
11
73%
22%
10
6
29%
4
18
100%
38
21
100%
0%
1
6%
1
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
4
0
0%
3
17%
78%
29
17
85%
10
3
17%
3
3
15%
18
100%
37
20
100%
84%
16
18
3
16%
3
Not Applicable
0
0%
Total
19
100%
FT
2009
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
26
14
70%
9
82%
27%
10
6
30%
2
15
100%
36
20
100%
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
3
3
14%
1
7%
56%
27
17
81%
13
4
22%
7
1
5%
18
100%
38
21
100%
90%
18
18
2
10%
2
0
0
0%
19
20
100%
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
23
15
71%
12
86%
27
18%
8
6
29%
2
14%
8
11
100%
31
21
100%
14
100%
35
0%
2
18%
2
0
0%
2
14%
2
0
0%
1
9%
1
0
0%
0
0%
0
4
3
15%
1
9%
4
3
14%
1
7%
4
87%
30
16
80%
6
55%
22
16
76%
10
71%
26
1
7%
2
1
5%
1
9%
2
2
10%
1
7%
3
15
100%
36
20
100%
11
100%
31
21
100%
14
1000%
35
86%
18
17
85%
17
17
81%
17
3
14%
3
3
15%
3
4
19%
4
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
20
21
100%
21
20
100%
20
21
100%
21
Gender
Ethnicity
Tenure Status
TCB_ACC_TAX_MS_Q
Self-Study Template 11
2010
FT
2011
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
14
70%
9
82%
Female
6
30%
2
18%
Total
20
FT
2012
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
15
71%
12
75%
27
8
6
29%
4
25%
31
21
FT
2013
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
17
71%
11
92%
10
7
29%
1
8%
37
24
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
18
72%
12
100%
8
7
28%
36
25
Gender
Male
11
23
16
12
28
0%
12
30
7
37
Ethnicity
Black
0%
Hispanic
0%
Asian
American Indian/Alaskan
Native
3
White
17
15%
2
1
0%
85%
7
18%
2
0%
0%
0
0%
9%
4
0%
0
64%
24
2 or More Races
Native Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander
14%
3
0%
17
81%
10
13%
2
0%
0%
0
0%
19%
6
0%
0
63%
27
1
Unknown
Total
3
2
0%
20
1
11
9%
1
21
21%
2
0%
18
75%
6
25%
3
0%
1
8%
1
0%
0
0%
1
8%
1
17%
7
20%
3
25%
8
0%
0
0%
0
50%
24
58%
26
0%
0
1
0%
31
5
3
1
16
6%
1
24
0%
19
76%
7
1
0%
37
5
1
12
8%
1
0%
36
25
12
37
Tenure Status
Tenured
15
75%
15
15
71%
15
15
63%
15
16
64%
16
Tenure-Track
3
15%
3
4
19%
4
7
29%
7
8
32%
8
Not Applicable
2
10%
2
2
10%
2
2
8%
2
1
4%
1
Total
20
20
21
21
24
24
25
TCB_ACC_TAX_MS_Q
25
Self-Study Template 12
5e.
What evidence exists that the program’s faculty have engaged in research and scholarship on teaching and/or
learning in the program’s field of study? (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
5f.
What initiatives have been taken in the past five years to promote faculty development in support of the
program? (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
5g.
The table below shows the amount of external funding received by the department. If available, please provide
the dollar amount of externally funded research for full-time faculty supporting the program under review. (Program
dollar amounts are available through departmental records.)
Fiscal Year
External Funding
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
$ Amount Program
$ Amount Department
Fiscal Year
External
Funding
09/10
10/11
11/12
12/13
$ Amount
Program
$ Amount
Department
-
-
-
-
5h.
Please comment on the table below that shows trends in overall course evaluation and instructional vibrancy for
your program (if available), your college and the university. (Suggested limit ½ page)
TCB_ACC_TAX_MS_Q
Self-Study Template 13
Overall Evaluation (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
Instructional Vibrancy (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
Taxation (Q)
-
-
-
-
-
-
Tobin College
of Business
4.09
4.24
4.25
4.36
4.49
4.50
Total Graduate
4.14
4.16
4.30
4.37
4.39
4.52
Note: Institutional Vibrancy is the average of the first 14 questions on the course evaluation, with questions pertaining
to course organization, communication, faculty-student interaction, and assignments/grading. All course evaluation
questions range from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).
5i.
What percentage of full time faculty assigned to this program have terminal degrees or industry certifications
renewed within the past 2 years? Comment. (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
Standard 5.
Comments: Indicate to what extent the program has the faculty resources required to meet its mission
and goals. Include references from 5a – 5i. (Suggested limit 1 page)
Standard 5.
Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 6. The program has adequate resources to meet its goals and objectives. And, it is cost-effective.
6a.
Narrative/Supportive Technological Environment - Comment on classrooms and labs meeting industry-standards
for quality and availability of hardware, software, and peripherals; library space, holdings and services; science
laboratories, TV studios, art/computer graphic labs; etc. (Suggested limit 1 page)
6b.
Narrative/ Supportive Physical Environment - Comment on level of faculty and student satisfaction with HVAC;
faculty and student satisfaction with classroom lighting, crowdedness, and acoustics; flexible teaching environments,
and faculty offices, etc.. (Suggested limit 1 page)
6c.
To what extent has the University funded major capital projects, e.g., renovations, which are linked directly to
the program during the past five years? (Bulleted list)
6d.
If external data that describes the cost effectiveness of the program has been provided by your School/College
Dean, please comment on the program’s cost-effectiveness. (Suggested limit 1 page)
TCB_ACC_TAX_MS_Q
Self-Study Template 14
Standard 6.
Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 7. Effective actions have been taken based on the findings of the last program review and plans have
been initiated for the future.
Comments: (Suggested limit 1page)
TCB_ACC_TAX_MS_Q
Self-Study Template 15