AY 2014-2015 ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW SELF-STUDY TEMPLATE
Reporting School/College: St. John’s College
Program Reviewed: Mathematics BA 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)
LAS_MTH_MATH_BA_SI
Self-Study Template 1
STANDARD 2. The program attracts, retains, and graduates high quality students.
2a.
Undergraduate SAT and High School Average
SAT
High School Average
2005
Program
2006
2007
2008
2009
820
1150
1090
1310
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
81
91
87
90
School/
College
1014
1057
1074
1069
1097
85
87
88
88
88
University
1068
1075
1075
1087
1092
86
87
87
87
88
Freshmen SAT Scores
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Computed
math
Fall 2012
Computed
1,195
Fall 2013
Computed
1,100
Computed
1,117
1,375
Freshmen High School Average
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
High School
math
Fall 2012
High School
90
Fall 2013
High School
80
High School
88
SAT Scores
99
High School Average
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
School/
College - SI
1079
1113
1097
1104
87
88
88
90
Total
University
1097
1087
1096
1104
87
87
88
89
LAS_MTH_MATH_BA_SI
Self-Study Template 2
SAT
Test-Takers
Intended College Major
Mean Scores
Number Percent (%) Critical Reading
Mathematics and Statistics
1,056
0.8%
Mathematics
Total
602
1114
512
* For further information, please visit http://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide.pdf.
Undergraduate 1st Year Retention Rate
2b.
Fall
2003
2004*
Program
2005
100%
2006
2007
2008**
# Fresh
# Ret
%
100%
100%
3
2
67%
School/
College
76%
70%
79%
83%
77%
102
86
84%
University
78%
78%
78%
79%
76%
3268
2557
78%
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
MTH
2
2010
Returned
#
%
2
100%
DNR
#
Total
%
2
2011
Returned
DNR
Total
#
%
#
%
1
50%
1
50%
2012
Returned
#
1
DNR
%
#
%
0%
1
100%
Total
4
Returned
#
%
4
100%
DNR
#
%
Fall
2009
2010
2011
2012**
# Fresh
# Ret
%
School/
College - SI
85%
71%
85%
53
45
85%
Total University
78%
78%
76%
2757
2195
80%
LAS_MTH_MATH_BA_SI
Self-Study Template 3
2c.
Undergraduate 6 Year Graduation Rate
Fall
1999
2000
Program
100%
50%
School/
College
Average Rate
74%
65%
60%
69%
58%
University
64%
59%
61%
61%
58%
2004
Total
MTH
#
%
3
100%
Total
2002
2003
0%
2005
Graduated
3
2001
2006
Graduated
#
Total
%
1
2007
Graduated
#
%
1
100%
Total
Graduated
#
2
1
%
50%
Fall
2004
2005
2006
2007
School/College
Average Rate - SI
56%
74%
65%
58%
Total University
58%
58%
59%
55%
2d.
Graduate Standardized Test Scores
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)
LAS_MTH_MATH_BA_SI
Self-Study Template 4
2g.
Number of majors and minors enrolled over the past five years. See table below.
Fall
MAJORS
2h.
Number of
Students
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Majors
7
4
5
4
3
Minors
0
1
1
0
0
Total
7
5
6
4
3
MTH
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
BA
1
BS
3
Total
4
3
6
2
3
5
2
6
11
Number of degrees granted during the past five years. See table below.
Degrees
Granted
BA
Academic Year
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
1
1
0
1
0
11/12
Degrees Conferred
SJC-UG-SI
MTH
Mathematics
BA
1
Note: there are no students who have graduated from this program between the 10/11 and 12/13 academic years.
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)
LAS_MTH_MATH_BA_SI
Self-Study Template 5
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_BA_SI
Self-Study Template 6
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
Percent
Numeric
Occupations having the
largest numerical increase
in employment
Mathematicians
16%
500
Mathematical Technicians
Mathematical Technicians
6%
9,500
Fastest Growing Occupations
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_BA_SI
Self-Study Template 7
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)
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
Fall 2005
FT
PT
7
Minors
Fall 2006
Total
FT
7
PT
Fall 2007
Total
FT
4
4
0
1
PT
Fall 2008
Total
FT
5
5
4
1
1
1
PT
Fall 2009
Total
FT
4
3
PT
Total
3
0
0
Majors
& Minors
Combined
7
0
7
5
0
5
6
0
6
4
0
4
3
0
3
# of FTE
Students
(Majors &
Minors)
7.00
0.00
7.00
5.00
0.00
5.00
6.00
0.00
6.00
4.00
0.00
4.00
3.00
0.00
3.00
# of FTE
Faculty
assigned
to the
program
0
0
0
0
0
FTE
Student/
FTE
Faculty
Ratio
0
0
0
0
0
LAS_MTH_MATH_BA_SI
Self-Study Template 8
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
F
Total
F
Total
F
Total
F
Total
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
MAJORS
5
5
2
2
6
6
11
11
Fall 2012
F
Total
Minors
Minors
MINORS
2
2
Fall 2010
Total
MAJORS/MINORS
Fall 2011
FTE MAJORS
LAS_MTH_MATH_BA_SI
Fall 2013
F
Total
F
Total
F
Total
F
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
5
5
2
2
8
8
11
11
Fall 2010
Total
Fall 2012
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
F
Total
F
Total
F
Total
F
Total
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
5
5
2
2
8
8
11
11
Self-Study Template 9
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.
The figure for majors includes first and any second majors.
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
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
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_BA_SI
96%
93%
96%
96%
97%
Self-Study Template 10
Credit Hrs Taught
Fall 2010
F-T Faculty
P-T Faculty (inc
Admin)
Fall 2011
Number
Percent
4,535
62.6%
2,915
45.4%
37.4%
3,508
54.6%
2,713
Number
Percent
0.0%
Total
7,248
% Consumed by
Non-Majors
Fall 2012
Percent
Number
Percent
3,574
49.8%
3,494
47.5%
3,603
50.2%
3,862
52.5%
0.0%
100%
6,956
Number
Fall 2013
6,423
96.0%
0.0%
100%
6,122
7,177
95.3%
6,893
100%
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).
Credit Hours
Fall 2005
Fall 2006
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
Taught
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
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_BA_SI
96%
93%
96%
96%
97%
Self-Study Template 11
Credit Hrs Taught
F-T Faculty
P-T Faculty (inc
Admin)
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Number
Percent
4,535
62.6%
2,915
45.4%
37.4%
3,508
54.6%
2,713
Number
0.0%
Total
% Consumed by
Non-Majors
Fall 2012
7,248
6,956
100%
96.0%
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
3,574
49.8%
3,494
47.5%
3,603
50.2%
3,862
52.5%
0.0%
6,423
6,122
100%
95.3%
Fall 2013
0.0%
7,177
6,893
100%
96.0%
0.0%
7,356
7,096
100%
96.5%
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_BA_SI
Self-Study Template 12
Departmental Plan
2005
2006
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
Male
17
89%
6
60%
Female
2
11%
4
Total
19
100%
Black
0
Hispanic
2007
FT
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
2008
FT
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%
2009
FT
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_BA_SI
Self-Study Template 13
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_BA_SI
16
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.)
External
Funding
Fiscal Year
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)
Overall Evaluation (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
Instructional Vibrancy (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
Mathematics
3.81
4.17
4.15
4.30
4.39
4.25
(SI)
Saint John’s
3.95
4.01
4.00
4.28
4.33
4.33
College
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).
LAS_MTH_MATH_BA_SI
Self-Study Template 15
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_BA_SI
Self-Study Template 16