AY 2014-2015 ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW SELF-STUDY TEMPLATE
Reporting School/College: St. John’s College
Program Reviewed: Mathematics MA 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
2b.
Undergraduate 1st Year Retention Rate
2c.
Undergraduate 6 Year Graduation Rate
LAS_MTH_MATH_MA_Q
Self-Study Template 1
2d.
Graduate Standardized Test Scores
Fall
2005
2006
Program
2007
2008
2009
397/693
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
See below
National
Comparison
The New Graduate Students GRE Verbal
Mean Scores
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Ir Grev Score
Ir Grev Score
Ir Grev Score
Ir Grev Score
Graduate School Arts & Sci old
491
500
new
497
532
154
153
New Graduate Students GRE Quantitative
Mean Scores
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Ir Greq Score Ir Greq Score Ir Greq Score Ir Greq Score
Graduate School Arts & Sci
old
585
566
new
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)
GRE
Intended Graduate Major
Mathematical Sciences*
Test-Takers
9,832
Mean Score (Verbal)
Mean Score (Quantitative)
154
162
*For further information, please visit http://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide.pdf.
LAS_MTH_MATH_MA_Q
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
10
15
12
8
5
Minors
0
0
0
0
0
Total
10
15
12
8
5
MAJORS
2h.
2005
MTH
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
MA
7
8
9
5
Number of degrees granted during the past five years. See table below.
Academic Year
Degrees
Granted
MA
SJC-GR
MTH
Mathematics
LAS_MTH_MATH_MA_Q
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
2
4
3
7
2
MA
10/11
11/12
12/13
Degrees
Conferred
Degrees
Conferred
Degrees
Conferred
1
1
6
Self-Study Template 3
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)
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
LAS_MTH_MATH_MA_Q
Self-Study Template 4
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.
Change, 2010-20
Fastest Growing Occupations
Percent
Numeric
Mathematicians
16%
500
Mathematical Technicians
6%
9,500
Occupations having the
largest numerical increase
in employment
Mathematical Technicians
Change, 2010-20
Percent
Numeric
6%
9,500
Changes, 2010-20
Grow faster than average - Increase 15 to 20.9%
Mathematicians
Percent
Numeric
16%
500
Changes, 2010-20
Grow more slowly than average - Increase 3 to 6%
Mathematical Technicians
Percent
Numeric
6%
9,500
*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
LAS_MTH_MATH_MA_Q
Self-Study Template 5
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)
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)
LAS_MTH_MATH_MA_Q
Self-Study Template 6
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
4
6
10
Minors
FT
PT
7
Fall 2007
Total
8
15
0
Majors
& Minors
Combined
4
6
# of FTE
Students
(Majors &
Minors)
4.00
2.00
FT
PT
5
Fall 2008
Total
7
FT
12
0
PT
2
Fall 2009
Total
6
FT
8
0
PT
3
Total
2
5
0
0
10
7
8
15
5
7
12
2
6
8
3
2
5
6.00
7.00
2.67
9.67
5.00
2.33
7.33
2.00
2.00
4.00
3.00
0.67
3.67
# of FTE
Faculty
assigned to
the
program
0
0
0
0
0
FTE
Student/
FTE Faculty
Ratio
0
0
0
0
0
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
4
3
7
4
4
Fall 2010
Total
Fall 2012
FTE MAJORS
LAS_MTH_MATH_MA_Q
8
4
5
Fall 2011
9
3
2
Fall 2012
5
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
4
1
5
4
1.333
5.333
4
1.667
5.667
3
0.667
3.667
Self-Study Template 7
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.
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
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
5048
71%
4407
64%
4292
63%
3415
49%
3899
58%
PT Faculty
2051
29%
2476
36%
2574
37%
3625
51%
2801
42%
Total
7099
100%
6883
100%
6866
100%
7040
100%
6700
100%
FT Faculty
% consumed
by
Non-Majors
LAS_MTH_MATH_MA_Q
96%
93%
96%
96%
97%
Self-Study Template 8
Credit Hrs Taught
Fall 2010
Percent
4,535
62.6%
2,915
45.4%
37.4%
3,508
54.6%
2,713
Number
Percent
0.0%
Total
Fall 2012
Number
F-T Faculty
P-T Faculty (inc
Admin)
Fall 2011
7,248
% Consumed by
Non-Majors
100%
6,956
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
3,574
49.8%
3,494
47.5%
3,603
50.2%
3,862
52.5%
0.0%
6,423
96.0%
100%
6,122
95.3%
Fall 2013
0.0%
7,177
100%
6,893
96.0%
0.0%
7,356
7,096
100%
96.5%
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
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
59
70%
59
70%
50
60%
50
65%
FT Faculty
60
76%
PT Faculty
19
24%
25
30%
25
30%
34
40%
27
35%
Total
79
100%
84
100%
84
100%
84
100%
77
100%
LAS_MTH_MATH_MA_Q
Self-Study Template 9
Courses
Taught
Fall 2010
Number Percent
Fall 2011
Number
Fall 2012
Percent
Number
Fall 2013
Percent Number Percent
F-T Faculty
51
68.0% 47
59.5% 46
59.7% 43
54.4%
P-T Faculty
(inc Admin)
24
32.0% 32
40.5% 31
40.3% 36
45.6%
Total
75
0.0%
0.0%
100% 79
100%
0.0%
77
100%
0.0%
79
100%
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)
LAS_MTH_MATH_MA_Q
Self-Study Template 10
Departmental Plan
2005
FT
2006
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
Male
17
89%
6
60%
Female
2
11%
4
Total
19
100%
Black
0
Hispanic
FT
2007
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
23
17
85%
10
67%
40%
6
3
15%
5
10
100%
29
20
100%
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
Asian
1
5%
2
20%
White
17
89%
6
Unknown
1
5%
Total
19
100%
Tenured
15
Tenure-Track
FT
2008
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
27
18
95%
9
69%
33%
8
1
5%
4
15
100%
35
19
100%
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
3
2
10%
2
13%
60%
23
18
90%
11
2
20%
3
0
0%
10
100%
29
20
100%
79%
15
13
4
21%
4
Not Applicable
0
0%
Total
19
100%
FT
2009
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
27
16
94%
10
67%
31%
5
1
6%
5
13
100%
32
17
100%
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
4
1
5%
2
15%
73%
29
18
95%
9
2
13%
2
0
0%
15
100%
35
19
100%
65%
13
14
6
30%
6
0
1
5%
19
20
100%
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
26
16
94%
10
71%
26
33%
6
1
6%
4
29%
5
15
100%
32
17
100%
14
100%
31
0%
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
3
0
0%
2
13%
2
0
0%
3
21%
3
69%
27
17
100%
11
73%
28
17
100%
9
64%
26
2
15%
2
0
0%
2
13%
2
0
0%
2
14%
2
13
100%
32
17
100%
15
100%
32
17
100%
14
100%
31
74%
14
14
82%
14
14
82%
14
4
21%
4
2
12%
2
2
12%
2
1
1
5%
1
1
6%
1
1
6%
1
20
19
100%
19
17
100%
17
17
100%
17
Gender
Ethnicity
Tenure Status
LAS_MTH_MATH_MA_Q
Self-Study Template 11
2010
FT
2011
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
17
100%
8
67%
25
0%
4
33%
4
FT
2012
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
16
100%
9
56%
25
0%
7
44%
7
FT
2013
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
16
100%
9
53%
0%
8
47%
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
25
16
100%
9
47%
25
8
0
0%
10
53%
10
33
16
Gender
Male
Female
Total
17
12
29
16
16
32
16
17
19
35
Ethnicity
Black
0%
Hispanic
0%
0%
0
0%
1
6%
1
0%
0
0%
0
1
6%
1
0%
1
6%
1
0%
1
5%
1
6%
2
13%
3
6%
3
18%
4
6%
2
11%
3
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
75%
27
71%
27
94%
16
84%
31
2 or More Races
0
0%
0
Native
Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
Asian
1
American
Indian/Alaskan
Native
White
0
0%
1
8%
1
0%
3
25%
4
6%
0%
0
67%
24
0%
16
Unknown
Total
0%
94%
8
0%
17
0%
12
1
0%
15
0
94%
0%
29
16
12
1
16
6%
1
0%
15
1
94%
12
0%
32
16
0%
17
1
15
0
0%
33
16
19
35
Tenure Status
Tenured
13
76%
13
12
75%
12
13
81%
13
13
81%
13
Tenure-Track
1
6%
1
2
13%
2
1
6%
1
1
6%
1
Not Applicable
3
18%
3
2
13%
2
2
13%
2
2
13%
2
Total
17
17
16
16
16
16
16
LAS_MTH_MATH_MA_Q
16
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
-
-
-
160,359
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)
Mathematics
(Q)
Saint John’s
College
Total Graduate
Overall Evaluation (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
Instructional Vibrancy (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
4.08
4.23
4.14
4.01
4.57
4.85
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).
LAS_MTH_MATH_MA_Q
Self-Study Template 13
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. (Suggest 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)
LAS_MTH_MATH_MA_Q
Self-Study Template 14