AY 2014-2015 ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW SELF-STUDY TEMPLATE
Reporting School/College: Tobin College of Business
Program Reviewed: Finance BS SI
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)
1
STANDARD 2. The program attracts, retains, and graduates high quality students.
2a.
Undergraduate SAT and High School Average
SAT
2005
2006
High School Average
2007
2008
2009
Program
1051
1097
1009
1188
School/
College
1044
1072
1051
1125
University
1068
1075
1075
1087
2005
1217
2006
2007
2008
2009
86
85
88
89
90
1108
87
88
88
88
88
1092
86
87
87
87
89
Freshmen SAT Scores
Fall 2010
Finance
Fall 2011
1,095
Fall 2012
1,108
Fall 2013
1,223
1,114
Freshmen High School Average
Fall 2010
Finance
Fall 2011
90
Fall 2012
85
Fall 2013
86
89
SAT Scores
High School Average
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
School/
College SI
1111
1054
1116
1080
88
85
88
89
Total
University
1097
1087
1096
1104
87
87
88
89
2
Intended college major for 2012 college-bound seniors
TestTakers
SAT
Intended College Major
Business Management, Marketing, and Related Support
Services
Mean
Scores
Number
Percent
(%)
Critical
Reading
14,762
10.9%
474
Mathemati Tota
cs
l
511
985
* For further information, please visit http://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide.pdf.
2b.
Undergraduate 1st Year Retention Rate
Fall
2003
2004*
2005
2006
2007
2008**
# Fresh
# Ret
%
Program
57%
50%
75%
89%
100%
18
16
89%
School/
College
76
75
80
90
90
64
53
83%
78%
78%
78%
79%
76%
3268
2557
78%
University
Note* The % of students started in Fall 2004 and returned to the program in Fall 2005
** The % of students started in Fall 2008 and returned to the program in Fall 2009
2009
Total
Returned
#
FIN
2010
4
4
%
DNR
#
Total
Returned
%
100%
2011
#
4
4
DNR
%
#
Total
Returned
%
#
100%
2012
5
DNR
%
5
#
100%
Total
Returned
%
#
4
2
DNR
%
#
%
50%
2
50%
Fall
2009
2010
2011
2012**
# Fresh
# Ret
%
School/
College - SI
93%
85%
77%
42
36
86%
Total University
78%
78%
76%
2757
2195
80%
* The % of students started in Fall 2012 and returned to the program in Fall 2013
3
2c.
Undergraduate 6 Year Graduation Rate
Fall
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Program
45%
77%
100%
75%
57%
School/
College
Average Rate
67%
76%
78%
71%
64%
University
64%
59%
61%
61%
53%
2004
Total
2005
Graduated
#
FIN
6
Total
Graduated
%
2
#
33%
2006
8
6
Total
%
Graduated
#
75%
18
2007
10
Total
Graduated
%
56%
#
8
7
%
88%
Fall
2004
2005
2006
2007
School/College
Average Rate - SI
58%
68%
66%
68%
Total University
58%
58%
59%
55%
2d.
Graduate Standardized Test Scores
Not Applicable
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)
4
2g.
Number of majors and minors enrolled over the past five years. See table below.
Fall
Number of Students
2005
2006
2007
2008
Majors
72
81
99
125
83
Minors
0
0
0
0
0
Total
72
81
99
125
83
MAJORS
FIN
BS
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
57
31
28
24
1
5
29
29
BS/MBA
Total
2h.
2009
57
31
Number of degrees granted during the past five years. See table below.
Academic Year
TCB-UG
Degrees
Granted
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
BS
31
28
37
25
34
ECO
Economics
BS
10/11
11/12
12/13
Degrees
Conferred
Degrees
Conferred
Degrees
Conferred
13
18
15
5
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
Bachelors
Local
4,149
National 358,293
4,315
4,362
365,093
366,815
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)
6
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/Collegeplan 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.
7
Fastest growing occupations and occupations having the largest numerical increase in employment by level of
education and training projected.
Change, 2010-20
Fastest Growing Occupations
Percent
Numeric
Personal Financial Advisors
32%
66,400
Financial Analysts
23%
54,200
Financial Managers
9%
46,300
Occupations having the
largest numerical increase
in employment
Personal Financial Advisors
Change, 2010-20
Percent
32%
Numeric
66,400
Projected Changes in Related Occupations (2010 – 2020)
Changes, 2010-20
Grow Much Faster Than Average - Increase 21% or More
Percent
Numeric
Personal Financial Advisors
32%
66,400
Financial Analysts
23%
54,200
Changes, 2010-20
Grow About as Fast as Average - Increase 7 to 14.9%
Financial Managers
Percent
Numeric
9%
46,300
*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
8
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)
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.
# Majors/
FT Faculty
Majors
Minors
Majors
& Minors
Combined
# of FTE
Students
(Majors &
Minors)
# of FTE
Faculty
assigned to
the
program
FTE
Student/
FTE Faculty
Ratio
# of Total
FTE Faculty
in the
Department
FT
68
Fall 2005
PT
Total
4
72
0
68
4
68.00
1.33
FT
75
Fall 2006
PT
Total
6
81
0
FT
94
Fall 2007
PT
Total
5
99
0
FT
121
Fall 2008
PT
Total
4
125
0
FT
79
Fall 2009
PT
Total
4
83
0
72
75
6
81
94
5
99
121
4
125
79
4
83
69.33
75.00
2.00
77.00
94.00
1.67
95.67
121.00
1.33
122.33
79.00
1.33
80.33
1.28
1.18
1.46
1.65
1.34
54.21
64.99
65.57
74.13
59.92
35.67
34.33
33.00
30.33
31.67
9
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
Total
F
Total
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
54
3
57
30
1
Fall 2010
MAJORS/MINORS
FTE MAJORS
31
29
Fall 2011
29
29
Fall 2012
29
Fall 2013
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
Total
F
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
54
3
57
30
1
31
29
29
29
29
Fall 2010
Total
Fall 2013
F
MAJORS
Total
Fall 2012
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
Total
F
Total
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
54
1
55
30
0.333
30.333
29
29
29
29
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.
The figure for majors includes first and any second majors.
10
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
Taught
Fall 2005
#
Fall 2006
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
5760
66%
5985
68%
6042
64%
7170
78%
5949
75%
PT Faculty
2985
34%
2826
32%
3351
36%
2049
22%
2028
25%
Total
8745
100%
8811
100%
9393
100%
9219
100%
7977
100%
FT Faculty
% consumed
by
Non-Majors
62%
Credit Hrs Taught
66%
Fall 2010
Number
Fall 2011
Percent
Number
59%
56%
Fall 2012
Percent
Number
Fall 2013
Percent
Number
Percent
F-T Faculty
5,409
75.7%
4,869
78.7%
4,200
70.3%
4,659
76.7%
P-T Faculty (inc
Admin)
1,740
24.3%
1,317
21.3%
1,776
29.7%
1,416
23.3%
0.0%
Total
7,149
100%
0.0%
6,186
Fall 2010
% Consumed by
Non-Majors
4,107
57.4%
100%
Fall 2011
3,591
0.0%
5,976
100%
0.0%
6,075
Fall 2012
58.1%
3,900
57%
65.3%
100%
Fall 2013
3,582
59.0%
11
5c.
Below you will find the number of courses the department has delivered by full-time faculty and part-time
faculty (including administrators).
Courses
Taught
FT Faculty
Fall 2005
#
Fall 2006
%
69
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
68
68%
72
69%
76
75%
69
71%
66%
PT Faculty
36
34%
32
32%
33
31%
25
25%
28
29%
Total
105
100%
100
100%
105
100%
101
100%
97
100%
Courses Taught
Fall 2010
Number
Fall 2011
Percent
Number
Fall 2012
Percent
Number
Fall 2013
Percent
Number
Percent
F-T Faculty
64
75.3%
71
77.2%
63
71.6%
71
78.0%
P-T Faculty (inc
Admin)
21
24.7%
21
22.8%
25
28.4%
20
22.0%
Total
0.0%
85
100%
-
0.0%
92
100%
-
0.0%
88
100%
0.0%
91
100%
12
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
#
%
#
%
Gender
Male
Female
23
5
82%
18%
20
3
87%
13%
Total
28
100%
23
Ethnicity
Black
Hispanic
Asian
White
Unknown
1
0
9
18
0
4%
0%
32%
64%
0%
Total
28
100%
Tenure Status
Tenured
Tenure-Track
Not Applicable
Total
23
5
0
28
82%
18%
0%
100%
FT
2007
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
43
8
22
6
79%
21%
16
3
84%
16%
100%
51
28
100%
19
0
2
7
14
0
0%
9%
30%
61%
0%
1
2
16
32
0
1
0
9
18
0
4%
0%
32%
64%
0%
23
100%
51
28
100%
23
5
0
28
25
3
0
28
89%
11%
0%
100%
TCB_ECO_FIN_BS_SI
FT
2008
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
38
9
22
5
81%
19%
16
2
89%
11%
100%
47
27
100%
18
0
1
5
11
2
0%
5%
26%
58%
11%
1
1
14
29
2
0
1
9
17
0
0%
4%
33%
63%
0%
19
100%
47
27
100%
25
3
0
28
24
3
0
27
89%
11%
0%
100%
FT
2009
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
38
7
21
5
81%
19%
11
2
85%
15%
100%
45
26
100%
13
0
2
4
11
1
0%
11%
22%
61%
6%
0
3
13
28
1
1
0
9
16
0
4%
0%
35%
62%
0%
18
100%
45
26
100%
24
3
0
27
23
3
0
26
88%
12%
0%
100%
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
32
7
21
5
81%
19%
15
2
88%
12%
36
7
100%
39
26
1000%
17
100%
43
0
1
5
6
1
0%
8%
38%
46%
8%
1
1
14
22
1
1
0
9
16
0
4%
0%
35%
62%
0%
0
1
6
9
1
0%
6%
35%
53%
6%
1
1
14
25
1
13
100%
39
26
200%
17
100%
43
23
3
0
26
24
2
0
26
92%
8%
0%
100%
Self Study Template 13
24
2
0
26
2010
FT
2011
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
Male
19
79%
9
82%
Female
5
21%
2
18%
Total
24
FT
2012
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
28
18
78%
10
83%
7
5
22%
2
17%
35
23
9%
2
1
4%
7
30%
14
FT
2013
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
28
19
79%
14
93%
7
5
21%
1
7%
35
24
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
33
22
81%
9
90%
31
6
5
19%
1
10%
6
39
27
Gender
11
12
15
10
37
Ethnicity
Black
1
4%
Asian
American Indian/Alaskan
Native
7
29%
White
15
2 or More Races
Native Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander
1
Hispanic
0%
0%
0
1
9%
8
0%
0
63%
8
73%
23
0%
1
9%
1
0%
Unknown
Total
1
0%
0%
1
0%
0
2
17%
9
0%
0
61%
9
75%
23
0%
1
8%
1
0%
1
24
11
35
23
96%
23
22
0%
0
4%
1
1
24
23
0%
0%
0
0%
1
7%
1
7
29%
4
27%
11
0%
0
16
67%
9
60%
25
0%
1
7%
1
0%
1
12
35
24
96%
22
22
0%
0
2
4%
1
0%
0%
0
0%
1
10%
1
9
33%
1
10%
10
0%
0
17
63%
8
80%
25
0%
0
0%
1
15
0%
39
27
10
37
92%
22
23
85%
23
8%
2
2
7%
2
0%
0
2
7%
2
24
27
Tenure Status
Tenured
23
Tenure-Track
Not Applicable
1
Total
24
TCB_ECO_FIN_BS_SI
23
24
27
Self Study Template 14
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
$ Amount
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
Program
$ Amount Department
Fiscal Year
External
Funding
09/10
10/11
11/12
12/13
$ Amount
Program
$ Amount
Department
TCB_ECO_FIN_BS_SI
-
10,000
7,562
10,000
Self Study Template 15
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)
Overall Evaluation (Spring)
Instructional Vibrancy (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
2011
2012
2013
Finance
4.96
4.15
3.92
4.25
4.48
4.34
(SI)
Tobin College
3.95
3.98
4.00
4.22
4.26
4.2i8
of Business
Total
4.01
3.21
4.07
4.27
4.29
4.35
Undergraduate
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)
TCB_ECO_FIN_BS_SI
Self Study Template 16
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)
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_ECO_FIN_BS_SI
Self Study Template 17