AY 2014-2015 ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW SELF-STUDY TEMPLATE
Reporting School/College: St. John’s College
Program Reviewed: Sociology BS S.I.
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_SOC-SOC_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
1100
1099
1104
1001
1089
87
87
85
88
85
School/
College
1104
1099
1085
1093
1093
88
88
88
88
89
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
Social Sciences
2,069
1.5%
Mathematics
Total
536
1087
551
* 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
Program
# Ret
100%
%
#DIV/0!
School/
College
76%
70%
79%
83%
77%
102
86
84%
University
78%
78%
78%
79%
76%
3268
2557
78%
Note* The % of student started in Fall 2004 and returned to the program in Fall 2005
** The % of student started in Fall 2008 and returned to the program in Fall 2009
LAS_SOC-SOC_BA_SI
Self-Study Template 2
2009
Total
SOC
2
2010
Returned
DNR
#
%
#
%
1
50%
1
50%
Total
2011
Returned
#
DNR
%
#
Total
2012
Returned
%
#
%
DNR
#
Total
%
Returned
#
%
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
74%
65%
60%
69%
58%
University
64%
59%
61%
61%
58%
2005
Graduated
#
SOC
LAS_SOC-SOC_BA_SI
100%
School/
College
Average Rate
2004
Total
2003
Total
2006
Graduated
%
#
1
%
Total
2007
Graduated
#
%
Total
Graduated
#
%
0%
Self-Study Template 3
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)
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
9
10
12
10
6
Minors
5
3
3
6
3
Total
14
13
15
16
9
MAJORS
SOC
BA
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
6
3
3
BA/MA
Total
LAS_SOC-SOC_BA_SI
2
1
6
3
3
3
Self-Study Template 4
MINORS
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Minors
Minors
Minors
Minors
Sociology
2
4
3
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
2h.
10
8
13
7
6
Number of degrees granted during the past five years. See table below.
Academic Year
SJC-UG-SI
SOC
LAS_SOC-SOC_BA_SI
Degrees
Granted
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
BA
1
4
3
4
2
Sociology
BA
10/11
11/12
12/13
Degrees
Conferred
Degrees
Conferred
Degrees
Conferred
4
1
1
Self-Study Template 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 45-Social Sciences.
20092010
20102011
20112012
Bachelors
Local
3,417
National 137,582
3,423
3,322
142,145
143,422
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_SOC-SOC_BA_SI
Self-Study Template 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/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?
LAS_SOC-SOC_BA_SI
Self-Study Template 7
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
Social and Human Service
Assistants
28%
106,00
Social and Community Service
Managers
27%
35,800
Occupations having the
largest numerical
increase in employment
Social and Human Service
Assistants
Change, 2010-20
Percent
28%
Numeric
106,00
Changes, 2010-20
Grow much faster than average – Increase 21% or more
Percent
Numeric
Social and Human Service Assistants
28%
106,00
Social and Community Service Managers
27%
35,800
*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
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)
LAS_SOC-SOC_BA_SI
Self-Study Template 8
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
8
1
9
8
Minors
5
5
3
Majors
& Minors
Combined
13
1
14
11
# of FTE
Students
(Majors &
Minors)
13.00
0.33
13.33
# of FTE
Faculty
assigned
to the
program
1
3
FTE
Student/
FTE
Faculty
Ratio
LAS_SOC-SOC_BA_SI
2
6.67
FT
PT
2
Fall 2007
Total
FT
PT
10
11
3
3
2
13
14
11.00
0.67
11.67
1
3
2
5.835
1
Fall 2008
Total
FT
PT
12
10
3
6
1
15
16
14.00
0.33
14.33
1
3
2
7.2
0
Fall 2009
Total
FT
PT
Total
10
6
6
6
3
3
0
16
9
0
9
16.00
0.00
16.00
9.00
0.00
9.00
1
3
1
3
2
8
2
4.5
Self-Study Template 9
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
6
6
3
Fall 2010
Total
Minors
F
P
2
MAJORS/MINORS
2
9
1
FTE MAJORS
4
4
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
F
F
Total
10
6
Fall 2011
Total
6
3
3
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
F
Total
F
P
Total
F
Total
F
Total
8
8
12
1
13
9
9
7
7
Fall 2010
Total
Total
3
Minors Minors Minors Minors Minors Minors Minors Minors
Fall 2010
Total
3
Fall 2011
F
MINORS
3
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
F
Total
F
P
Total
F
Total
F
Total
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
8
8
12
0.333
12.333
9
9
7
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.
The figure for majors includes first and any second majors.
LAS_SOC-SOC_BA_SI
Self-Study Template 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
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
1446
44%
1536
47%
2079
62%
1998
59%
2898
77%
PT Faculty
1824
56%
1764
53%
1290
38%
1380
41%
870
23%
Total
3270
100%
3300
100%
3369
100%
3378
100%
3768
100%
FT Faculty
% consumed
by
NonMajors
74%
Credit Hrs Taught
Fall 2010
Percent
2,046
55.9%
1,617
44.1%
Number
2,175
1,761
0.0%
Total
3,663
% Consumed by
Non-Majors
LAS_SOC-SOC_BA_SI
2,433
66%
Fall 2011
Number
F-T Faculty
P-T Faculty (inc
Admin)
71%
100%
66.4%
Fall 2012
Percent
55.3%
44.7%
Number
2,358
1,149
0.0%
3,936
2,568
69%
100%
65.2%
Fall 2013
Percent
67.2%
32.8%
Number
2,112
936
0.0%
3,507
2,085
67%
100%
59.5%
Percent
69.3%
30.7%
0.0%
3,048
1,935
100%
63.5%
Self-Study Template 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
Fall 2005
Taught
#
Fall 2006
%
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
20
48%
26
59%
29
63%
36
80%
FT Faculty
25
56%
PT Faculty
20
44%
22
52%
18
41%
17
37%
9
20%
Total
45
100%
42
100%
44
100%
46
100%
45
100%
Courses Taught
Fall 2010
Fall 2012
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
27
58.7%
35
62.5%
41.3%
21
37.5%
F-T Faculty
P-T Faculty (inc
Admin)
Fall 2011
19
0.0%
Total
46
100%
Number
34
18
100%
Percent
Number
Percent
65.4%
33
67.3%
34.6%
0.0%
56
Fall 2013
16
32.7%
0.0%
52
100%
0.0%
49
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)
Departmental Data
LAS_SOC-SOC_BA_SI
Self-Study Template 12
Departmental Data
2005
FT
2006
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
Male
7
64%
8
50%
Female
4
36%
8
Total
11
100%
Black
1
Hispanic
FT
2007
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
15
7
64%
10
59%
50%
12
4
36%
7
16
100%
27
11
100%
9%
5
31%
6
1
0
0%
0
0%
0
Asian
0
0%
2
13%
White
10
91%
9
Unknown
0
0%
Total
11
100%
Tenured
10
Tenure-Track
FT
2008
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
17
7
54%
9
60%
41%
11
6
46%
6
17
100%
28
13
100%
9%
5
29%
6
2
0
0%
0
0%
0
2
0
0%
1
6%
56%
19
10
91%
11
0
0%
0
0
0%
16
100%
27
11
100%
91%
10
10
0
0%
0
Not Applicable
1
9%
Total
11
100%
FT
2009
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
16
7
50%
7
64%
40%
12
7
50%
4
15
100%
28
14
100%
15%
3
20%
5
2
1
8%
0
0%
1
1
0
0%
2
13%
65%
21
10
77%
10
0
0%
0
0
0%
17
100%
28
13
100%
91%
10
10
1
9%
1
1
0
0%
11
11
100%
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
14
7
50%
4
50%
11
36%
11
7
50%
4
50%
11
11
100%
25
14
100%
8
100%
22
14%
2
18%
4
2
14%
2
25%
4
1
7%
1
9%
2
1
7%
0
0%
1
2
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0%
1
13%
1
67%
20
11
79%
8
73%
19
11
79%
5
63%
16
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
15
100%
28
14
100%
11
100%
25
14
100%
8
100%
22
77%
10
10
71%
10
10
71%
10
3
23%
3
4
29%
4
4
29%
4
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
11
13
100%
13
14
100%
14
14
100%
14
Gender
Ethnicity
Tenure Status
LAS_SOC-SOC_BA_SI
Self-Study Template 13
2010
FT
2011
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
Male
5
42%
7
70%
Female
7
58%
3
30%
Total
12
FT
2012
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
12
6
46%
6
55%
10
7
54%
5
45%
22
13
30%
5
2
15%
1
FT
2013
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
12
6
43%
5
63%
12
8
57%
3
38%
24
14
27%
5
2
14%
8%
0%
1
1
1
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
11
6
43%
4
40%
10
11
8
57%
6
60%
14
22
14
25%
4
2
14%
2
20%
4
7%
0%
1
1
7%
0
0%
1
7%
0%
1
1
7%
0
0%
1
0%
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
75%
16
71%
8
80%
18
2 or More Races
0
0%
0
Native
Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
Gender
10
11
8
10
24
Ethnicity
Black
2
17%
Hispanic
1
8%
0%
1
Asian
0%
0%
0
0%
0%
0
American
Indian/Alaskan
Native
0%
0%
0
0%
0%
0
70%
16
73%
18
White
9
Unknown
Total
75%
3
7
0%
12
0%
10
10
0
77%
3
8
0%
22
13
0%
11
10
0
71%
2
6
0%
24
14
0%
8
10
0
0%
22
14
10
24
Tenure Status
Tenured
8
67%
8
9
69%
9
11
79%
11
12
86%
12
Tenure-Track
4
33%
4
4
31%
4
3
21%
3
2
14%
2
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
Not Applicable
Total
12
LAS_SOC-SOC_BA_SI
12
13
13
14
14
14
14
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
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
$ Amount
Program
$ Amount
Department
70,000
Fiscal Year
External
Funding
09/10
10/11
11/12
12/13
$ Amount
Program
$ Amount
Department
-
2,500
1,000
-
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)
Sociology (SI)
Saint John’s
College
Total
Undergraduate
Overall Evaluation (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
Instructional Vibrancy (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
4.28
4.45
4.31
4.37
4.53
4.61
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_SOC-SOC_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_SOC-SOC_BA_SI
Self-Study Template 16