AY 2014-2015 ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW SELF-STUDY TEMPLATE
Reporting School/College: St. John’s College
Program Reviewed: Philosophy 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_PHI_PHIL_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
2005
2006
High School Average
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Program
School/
College
1014
1057
1074
1069
1097
85
87
88
88
88
University
1068
1075
1075
1087
1092
86
87
87
87
88
SAT Scores
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
SAT
Test-Takers
Intended College Major
Mean Scores
Number Percent (%) Critical Reading
Philosophy and Religious Vocations
252
0.2%
Mathematics
Total
505
1029
524
* 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
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
LAS_PHI_PHIL_BA_SI
Self-Study Template 2
2009
Total
2010
Returned
#
DNR
%
#
Total
2011
Returned
%
#
DNR
%
#
Total
%
2012
Returned
#
DNR
%
#
PHI
Total
Returned
%
1
#
%
1
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%
* The % of students started in Fall 2012 and returned to the program in Fall 2013
2c.
Undergraduate 6 Year Graduation Rate
Fall
1999
2000
2001
2002
Program
2003
0%
School/
College
Average Rate
74%
65%
60%
69%
58%
University
64%
59%
61%
61%
58%
Fall
2004
2005
2006
2007
School/College
Average Rate - SI
56%
74%
65%
58%
Total University
58%
58%
59%
55%
LAS_PHI_PHIL_BA_SI
Self-Study Template 3
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)
2g.
Number of majors and minors enrolled over the past five years. See table below.
Fall
Number of
Students
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Majors
2
2
0
1
2
Minors
7
12
3
11
4
Total
9
14
3
12
6
MAJORS
MINORS
Total
LAS_PHI_PHIL_BA_SI
PHI
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
BA
1
1
3
2
Total
1
1
3
2
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Minors
Minors
Minors
Minors
Philosophy
8
8
4
2
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Total
Total
Total
Total
9
9
7
4
Self-Study Template 4
2h.
Number of degrees granted during the past five years. See table below.
Academic Year
Degrees
Granted
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
BA
0
0
2
0
1
Note: there are no students who have graduated from this program between the 10/11 – 12/13 academic years.
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 38-Philosophy and Religious Studies.
20092010
20102011
20112012
Bachelors
Local
256
255
265
National
12,504
12,836
12,651
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)
LAS_PHI_PHIL_BA_SI
Self-Study Template 5
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.
LAS_PHI_PHIL_BA_SI
Self-Study Template 6
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)
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_PHI_PHIL_BA_SI
Self-Study Template 7
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
Fall 2005
FT
PT
Majors
2
0
Minors
7
Majors
& Minors
Combined
9
0
# of FTE
Students
(Majors &
Minors)
9.00
0.00
Fall 2006
Total
FT
PT
Fall 2007
Total
FT
PT
2
2
0
2
0
7
11
1
12
3
9
13
1
14
3
9.00
13.00
0.33
13.33
3.00
Fall 2008
Total
0
FT
PT
0
0
3
11
0
3
11
0.00
3.00
11.00
Fall 2009
Total
1
FT
PT
Total
1
2
2
11
4
4
1
12
6
0
6
0.33
11.33
6.00
0.00
6.00
# of FTE
Faculty in
program
0
0
0
0
0
FTE
Student/FTE
Faculty
Ratio
0
0
0
0
0
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
LAS_PHI_PHIL_BA_SI
1
1
2
2
5
5
4
4
Self-Study Template 8
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
F
Total
F
Total
F
Total
F
Total
Minors
Minors
Minors
Minors
Minors
Minors
Minors
Minors
MINORS
9
9
11
11
Fall 2010
Total
MAJORS/MINORS
FTE MAJORS
7
7
Fall 2011
2
Fall 2012
2
Fall 2013
F
Total
F
Total
F
Total
F
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
10
10
13
13
12
12
6
6
Fall 2010
Total
Fall 2013
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
F
Total
F
Total
F
Total
F
Total
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
10
10
13
13
12
12
6
6
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 major.
LAS_PHI_PHIL_BA_SI
Self-Study Template 9
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
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
FT Faculty
5892
50%
6459
53%
6021
51%
7185
56%
6636
58%
PT Faculty
5802
50%
5694
47%
5874
49%
5595
44%
4731
42%
Total
11694
100%
12153
100%
11895
100%
12780
100%
11367
100%
% consumed
by
Non-Majors
97%
Credit Hrs
Taught
Fall 2010
Number
F-T Faculty
96%
Fall 2011
Percent
54.2%
Number
6,093
Fall 2012
Percent
95%
96%
Fall 2013
Percent
Number
Percent
52.0%
5,589
49.6%
48.0%
5,682
50.4%
5,811
45.8%
6,048
49.8%
5,370
5,121
0.0%
Total
100%
0.0%
12,141
LAS_PHI_PHIL_BA_SI
96.5%
11,721
0.0%
100%
11,181
96.5%
10,779
0.0%
100%
11,172
% Consumed
by Non-Majors
Number
50.2%
6,051
P-T Faculty (inc
Admin)
95%
10,698
100%
11,271
95.7%
96.2%
10,848
Self-Study Template 10
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
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
72
54%
74
54%
80
54%
77
58%
FT Faculty
55
50%
PT Faculty
56
50%
61
46%
62
46%
67
46%
55
42%
Total
111
100%
133
100%
136
100%
147
100%
132
100%
Courses Taught
Fall 2010
Number
Fall 2011
Percent
Number
Fall 2012
Percent
Number
Fall 2013
Percent
Number
Percent
F-T Faculty
69
55.6%
75
52.8%
70
50.0%
72
51.1%
P-T Faculty (inc
Admin)
55
44.4%
67
47.2%
70
50.0%
69
48.9%
0.0%
Total
124
100%
0.0%
142
100%
0.0%
140
100%
0.0%
141
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_PHI_PHIL_BA_SI
Self-Study Template 11
Departmental Plan
2005
FT
2006
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
Male
16
84%
17
89%
Female
3
16%
2
Total
19
100%
Black
0
Hispanic
FT
2007
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
33
19
90%
21
91%
11%
5
2
10%
2
19
100%
38
21
100%
0%
1
5%
1
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
Asian
0
0%
0
0%
White
18
95%
17
Unknown
1
5%
Total
19
100%
Tenured
14
Tenure-Track
FT
2008
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
40
18
82%
22
85%
9%
4
4
18%
4
23
100%
44
22
100%
0%
1
4%
1
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0%
0
0%
89%
35
21
100%
22
1
5%
2
0
0%
19
100%
38
21
100%
74%
14
13
2
11%
2
Not Applicable
3
16%
Total
19
100%
FT
2009
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
40
22
85%
24
83%
15%
8
4
15%
5
26
100%
48
26
100%
0%
1
4%
1
0
0
0%
2
8%
2
0
0
0%
2
8%
96%
43
22
100%
19
0
0%
0
0
0%
23
100%
44
22
100%
62%
13
14
2
10%
2
3
6
29%
19
21
100%
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
46
21
84%
20
80%
41
17%
9
4
16%
5
20%
9
29
100%
55
25
100%
25
100%
50
0%
1
3%
1
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0%
2
7%
2
0
0%
2
8%
2
2
0
0%
4
14%
4
25
100%
3
12%
28
73%
41
26
100%
22
76%
48
0
0%
20
80%
20
2
8%
2
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
26
100%
48
26
100%
29
100%
55
25
100%
25
100%
50
64%
14
17
65%
17
17
68%
17
3
14%
3
3
12%
3
3
12%
3
6
5
23%
5
6
23%
6
5
20%
5
21
22
100%
22
26
100%
26
25
100%
25
Gender
Ethnicity
Tenure Status
LAS_PHI_PHIL_BA_SI
Self-Study Template 12
2010
FT
2011
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
Male
20
87%
23
85%
Female
3
13%
4
15%
Total
23
FT
2012
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
43
20
83%
26
81%
7
4
17%
6
19%
50
24
FT
2013
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
46
19
83%
25
86%
10
4
17%
4
14%
56
23
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
44
19
83%
25
89%
44
8
4
17%
3
11%
7
52
23
Gender
27
32
29
28
51
Ethnicity
Black
0%
1
4%
1
4%
3
11%
4
Asian
0%
3
11%
American
Indian/Alaskan
Native
0%
Hispanic
White
1
22
96%
2 or More Races
0%
2
6%
2
4%
2
6%
3
3
0%
3
9%
0%
0
0%
19
70%
41
1
4%
1
23
96%
24
0%
2
7%
2
4%
3
10%
4
3
0%
3
10%
0%
0
0%
75%
47
1
22
96%
21
0%
1
4%
1
4%
3
11%
4
3
0%
3
11%
3
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
72%
43
96%
20
71%
42
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
1
4%
1
1
22
Native
Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander
Unknown
Total
0%
23
0%
27
0
0%
50
24
1
32
3%
1
0%
56
23
0%
29
0
0%
52
23
28
51
Tenure Status
Tenured
17
74%
17
16
67%
16
15
65%
15
15
65%
15
Tenure-Track
1
4%
1
2
8%
2
2
9%
2
2
9%
2
Not Applicable
5
22%
5
6
25%
6
6
26%
6
6
26%
6
Total
23
23
24
24
23
23
23
LAS_PHI_PHIL_BA_SI
23
Self-Study Template 13
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
20,000
Fiscal Year
External
Funding
09/10
10/11
11/12
12/13
$ Amount
Program
$ Amount
Department
6,000
12,000
-
22,000
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
Philosophy (SI)
Saint John’s
College
Total
Undergraduate
Instructional Vibrancy (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.95
4.01
4.00
4.28
4.33
4.33
4.01
3.21
4.07
4.27
4.29
4.35
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_PHI_PHIL_BA_SI
Self-Study Template 14
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_PHI_PHIL_BA_SI
Self-Study Template 15