AY 2014-2015 ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW SELF-STUDY TEMPLATE
Reporting School/College: St. John’s College
Program Reviewed: Biological Sciences PhD 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)
Self-Study Template 1
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_PhD_Q
STANDARD 2. The program attracts, retains, and graduates high quality students.
2a.
Undergraduate SAT and High School Average
2b.
Undergraduate 1st Year Retention Rate
2c.
Undergraduate 6 Year Graduation Rate
2d.
Graduate Standardized Test Scores
Fall
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Program
530/573
453/650
430/727
452/654
347/720
School/College
Average Rate
481/561
494/569
465/551
501/588
472/577
Regional
Comparison
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
National
Comparison
See below
The National Overall Average is 457/586 and the National Average in the Specific Discipline is 484/625, based on those
tested between July 1, 2005 and June 30, 2008. The lower verbal scores and higher quantitative scores are most likely
due to high percentage of foreign-born doctoral students in our program.
Self-Study Template 2
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_PhD_Q
New Graduate Students GRE Verbal
Mean Scores
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Ir Grev Score
BIO
PHD
old
Fall 2012
Ir Grev Score
435
Fall 2013
Ir Grev Score
355
Ir Grev Score
580
new
430
150
New Graduate Students GRE Quantitative
Mean Scores
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Ir Greq Score
BIO
PHD
old
Fall 2012
Ir Greq Score
658
Fall 2013
Ir Greq Score
770
Ir Greq Score
660
new
800
152
As of August 1, 2011, ETS revised the GRE General Test with a new scoring scale. Prior to 8/1/11 on a scale of 200-800(old) and after 8/1/11 on a scale of 130-170(new)
New Graduate Students GRE Verbal
Mean Scores
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Ir Grev Score
Graduate School Arts & Sci
old
Fall 2012
Ir Grev Score
491
Fall 2013
Ir Grev Score
500
new
Ir Grev Score
497
532
154
153
New Graduate Students GRE Quantitative
Mean Scores
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Ir Greq Score
Graduate School Arts & Sci
old
Fall 2012
Ir Greq Score
585
Fall 2013
Ir Greq Score
566
new
Ir Greq Score
593
604
149
150
As of August 1, 2011, ETS revised the GRE General Test with a new scoring scale. Prior to 8/1/11 on a scale of 200-800(old) and after 8/1/11 on a scale of 130-170(new)
Comments: Refer to Charts 2a – 2d in your response. (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
2e.
Please describe how the program compares with peer and aspirational institutions.
(Suggested limit 1/2 page)
Self-Study Template 3
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_PhD_Q
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
31
29
30
29
22
Minors
0
0
0
0
0
Total
31
29
30
29
22
MAJORS
2h.
2005
BIO
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
PHD
24
24
24
24
Number of degrees granted during the past five years. See table below.
Academic Year
Degrees
Granted
PHD
SJC-GR
BIO
Biology
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
4
6
7
3
9
PHD
10/11
11/12
12/13
Degrees Conferred
Degrees Conferred
Degrees Conferred
8
2
3
Self-Study Template 4
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_PhD_Q
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 26- Biological and Biomedical Sciences.
20092010
20102011
20112012
Doctorate
Local1
213
243
175
National
7,666
7,693
7,935
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.
For more information please visit: http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/Default.aspx
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)
Self-Study Template 5
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_PhD_Q
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?
Self-Study Template 6
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_PhD_Q
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
Change, 2010-20
Percent
Numeric
Biochemist and Biophysicists
31%
7,700
Biomedical Engineers
62%
9,700
14%
10,900
Biological Technicians
Occupations having the
largest numerical increase
in employment
Biological Technicians
Change, 2010-20
Percent
Numeric
14%
10,900
Projected Changes in Related Occupations (2010 – 2020)
Changes, 2010-20
Grow much faster than average – Increase 21% or more
Percent
Numeric
Biomedical Engineers
62%
9,700
Biochemist and Biophysicists
31%
7,700
Changes, 2010-20
Grow much faster than average – Increase 7 to 14.9%
Biological Technicians
Percent
Numeric
14%
10,900
*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
Self-Study Template 7
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_PhD_Q
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.
Fall 2005
Fall 2006
# Majors/
FT Faculty
FT
PT
Total
Majors
21
10
31
Minors
FT
18
PT
11
0
Majors
& Minors
Combined
21
10
# of FTE
Students
(Majors &
Minors)
21.00
3.33
Fall 2007
Total
29
FT
16
PT
14
0
Fall 2008
Total
30
FT
18
PT
11
0
Fall 2009
Total
29
FT
19
PT
Total
3
0
22
0
31
18
11
29
16
14
30
18
11
29
19
24.33
18.00
3.67
21.67
16.00
4.67
20.67
18.00
3.67
21.67
19.00
3
1.00
22
20.00
# of FTE
Faculty
assigned
to the
program
0
0
0
0
0
FTE
Student/
FTE
Faculty
Ratio
0
0
0
0
0
Self-Study Template 8
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_PhD_Q
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
7
17
24
21
3
Fall 2010
Total
Fall 2012
FTE MAJORS
24
23
Fall 2011
1
24
22
Fall 2012
2
24
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
7
5.667
12.667
21
1
22
23
0.333
23.333
22
0.667
22.667
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 STJ for all external reporting.
Self-Study Template 9
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_PhD_Q
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
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
3420
55%
3279
50%
3515
58%
3268
61%
3458
62%
PT Faculty
2849
45%
3215
50%
2585
42%
2125
39%
2163
38%
Total
6269
100%
6494
100%
6100
100%
5393
100%
5621
100%
Taught
FT Faculty
% consumed by
Non-Majors
63%
59%
59%
53%
52%
Fall 2005 – Fall 2007 includes Scientific Inquiry courses.
Credit Hrs Taught
Fall 2010
Number
Fall 2011
Percent
Number
Fall 2012
Percent
Fall 2013
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
F-T Faculty
3,423
57.6%
3,596
56.5%
3,847
64.1%
4,351
69.1%
P-T Faculty (inc
Admin)
2,515
42.4%
2,774
43.5%
2,158
35.9%
1,944
30.9%
0.0%
Total
% Consumed by
Non-Majors
5,938
3,039
100%
51.2%
0.0%
6,370
3,416
100%
53.6%
0.0%
6,005
2,883
100%
48.0%
0.0%
6,295
2,999
100%
47.6%
Self-Study Template 10
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_PhD_Q
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
Fall 2005
#
Fall 2006
%
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
46
58%
54
68%
41
66%
43
64%
FT Faculty
48
59%
PT Faculty
34
41%
34
43%
26
33%
21
34%
24
36%
Total
82
100%
80
100%
80
100%
62
100%
67
100%
Fall 2005 – Fall 2007 includes Scientific Inquiry courses.
Courses Taught
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
F-T Faculty
44
65.7%
56
57.7%
P-T Faculty (inc
Admin)
23
34.3%
41
42.3%
0.0%
Total
67
100%
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
42
58.3%
45
62.5%
30
41.7%
27
37.5%
0.0%
97
100%
Fall 2013
0.0%
72
100%
0.0%
72
100%
Self-Study Template 11
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_PhD_Q
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)
Departmental Plan
2005
FT
2006
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
Male
10
63%
11
69%
Female
6
38%
5
Total
16
100%
Black
0
Hispanic
FT
2007
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
21
10
63%
9
50%
31%
11
6
38%
9
16
100%
32
16
100%
0%
1
6%
1
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
Asian
3
19%
3
19%
White
13
81%
11
Unknown
0
0%
Total
16
100%
Tenured
13
Tenure-Track
FT
2008
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
19
10
59%
6
50%
50%
15
7
41%
6
18
100%
34
17
100%
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
6
3
19%
8
44%
69%
24
13
81%
10
1
6%
1
0
0%
16
100%
32
16
100%
81%
13
13
2
13%
2
Not Applicable
1
6%
Total
16
100%
FT
2009
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
16
10
63%
9
60%
50%
13
6
38%
6
12
100%
29
16
100%
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
11
3
18%
1
8%
56%
23
14
82%
8
0
0%
0
0
0%
18
100%
34
17
100%
81%
13
13
2
13%
2
1
1
6%
16
16
100%
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
19
10
59%
10
59%
20
40%
12
7
41%
7
41%
14
15
100%
31
17
100%
17
100%
34
0%
1
7%
1
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
4
3
19%
6
40%
9
4
24%
8
47%
12
67%
22
13
81%
8
53%
21
13
76%
9
53%
22
3
25%
3
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
12
100%
29
16
100%
15
100%
31
17
100%
17
100%
34
76%
13
13
81%
13
15
88%
15
3
18%
3
0
0%
3
2
12%
2
1
1
6%
1
3
19%
0
0
0%
0
16
17
100%
17
16
100%
16
17
100%
17
Gender
Ethnicity
Tenure Status
Self-Study Template 12
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_PhD_Q
2010
FT
2011
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
Male
9
60%
11
61%
Female
6
40%
7
39%
Total
15
FT
2012
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
20
10
71%
10
48%
13
4
29%
11
52%
33
14
FT
2013
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
20
11
73%
10
53%
15
4
27%
9
47%
35
15
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
21
12
75%
8
42%
20
13
4
25%
11
58%
15
34
16
Gender
18
21
19
19
35
Ethnicity
Black
0%
1
6%
1
0%
0%
0
0%
0%
0
0%
2
11%
2
Hispanic
0%
1
6%
1
0%
0%
0
0%
1
5%
1
0%
1
5%
1
13%
10
56%
12
67%
16
20%
11
58%
14
25%
9
47%
13
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
33%
19
33%
19
37%
19
75%
7
37%
19
2 or More Races
0
0%
0
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
Asian
2
Native American
White
0%
13
Unknown
Total
87%
6
0%
15
0%
18
2
14%
14
0%
12
0
86%
7
0%
33
14
0%
21
3
0%
12
0
80%
7
0%
35
15
0%
19
4
12
0
0%
34
16
19
35
Tenure Status
Tenured
12
80%
12
11
79%
11
12
80%
12
13
81%
13
Tenure-Track
2
13%
2
2
14%
2
2
13%
2
2
13%
2
Not Applicable
1
7%
1
1
7%
1
1
7%
1
1
6%
1
Total
15
15
14
14
15
15
16
16
Self-Study Template 13
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_PhD_Q
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
1,224,543
1,153,444
732,355
269,960
352,950
$ Amount
Program
$ Amount
Department
Fiscal Year
External
Funding
09/10
10/11
11/12
12/13
793,607
1,521,924
$ Amount
Program
$ Amount
Department
572,250
-
Self-Study Template 14
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_PhD_Q
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)
Biological
Sciences
MS/PHD (Q)
Saint John’s
College
Total Graduate
Overall Evaluation (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
Instructional Vibrancy (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
3.82
4.22
4.35
4.03
4.59
4.35
4.23
4.26
4.19
4.37
4.40
4.40
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)
Self-Study Template 15
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_PhD_Q
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)
Self-Study Template 16
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_PhD_Q