AY 2014-2015 ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW SELF-STUDY TEMPLATE
Reporting School/College: College of Professional Studies
Program Reviewed: Administrative Studies 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)
CPS_ADMIN STU_BS_Q & 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
Program
2007
High School Average
2008
2009
1240
1000
1020
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
86
87
86
School/
College
977
1006
997
1017
1019
82
83
84
84
85
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
997
1017
1004
996
83
84
83
85
Total
University
1097
1087
1096
1104
87
87
88
89
TestTakers
SAT
Intended College Major
Social Sciences
Public Administration and Social Services
Professions
Mean
Scores
Number
Percent
(%)
Critical
Reading
Mathematic
s
Writin
g
2,069
1.5%
551
536
536
489
0.4%
445
440
441
* For further information, please visit http://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide.pdf.
2b.
Undergraduate 1st Year Retention Rate
CPS_ADMIN STU_BS_Q & SI
Self-Study Template 2
Fall
2003
2004*
2005
2006
2007
2008*
# Fresh
Program
33%
# Ret
%
100%
67%
4
3
75%
School College
75%
76%
72%
71%
71%
949
712
75%
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
2010
Returned
#
%
DNR
#
Total
%
2011
Returned
#
%
DNR
#
Total
%
Returned
#
%
2012
DNR
#
Total
%
ADS
1
Returned
DNR
#
%
#
%
0
0%
1
100%
Fall
2009
2010
2011
2012**
# Fresh
# Ret
%
School/
College - SI
78%
85%
86%
68
60
88%
Total University
78%
78%
76%
2757
2195
80%
* The % of students started in Fall 2012 and returned to the program in Fall 2013
CPS_ADMIN STU_BS_Q & SI
Self-Study Template 3
2c.
Undergraduate 6 Year Graduation Rate
Fall
1999
Program
2000
2001
2002
2003
50%
School/College
Average Rate
60%
55%
56%
52%
51%
University
64%
59%
61%
61%
58%
2004
Total
Graduated
#
ADS
2005
3
1
Total
%
2006
Graduated
#
33%
Total
%
1
2007
Graduated
#
%
1
100%
Total
Graduated
#
3
1
%
33%
Fall
2004
2005
2006
2007
School/College
Average Rate - SI
56%
58%
63%
65%
Total University
58%
58%
59%
55%
2d.
Graduate Standardized Test Scores
Not Applicable
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)
CPS_ADMIN STU_BS_Q & SI
Self-Study Template 4
2g.
Number of majors and minors enrolled over the past five years. See table below.
Fall
Number of
Students
MAJORS
2h.
ADS
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Majors
0
2
2
3
5
Minors
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
2
2
3
5
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
BS
3
2
2
2
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
Undergraduate
0
0
0
0
0
10/11
Degrees Conferred
CPS-UG-SI
ADS
CPS_ADMIN STU_BS_Q & SI
Administrative Studies
BS
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 52-Business, Management, Marketing,
and Related Support Services.
20092010
20102011
20112012
Bachelors
Local
4,149
National 358,293
4,315
4,362
365,093
366,815
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)
2k.
Please comment on the students’ competencies in the program. Support your responses using data provided
below and any other data available. (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
CPS_ADMIN STU_BS_Q & SI
Self-Study Template 6
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?
CPS_ADMIN STU_BS_Q & 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.
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)
CPS_ADMIN STU_BS_Q & SI
Self-Study Template 8
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
0
0
0
Minors
FT
2
PT
0
0
Majors
& Minors
Combined
0
0
# of FTE
Students
(Majors &
Minors)
0.00
0.00
Fall 2007
Total
2
FT
0
PT
2
0
Fall 2008
Total
2
FT
0
PT
3
0
Fall 2009
Total
3
FT
1
PT
4
0
Total
5
0
0
2
0
2
0
2
2
0
3
3
1
4
5
0.00
2.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
0.67
0.67
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.33
2.33
# of FTE
Faculty
assigned
to the
program
0
0
0
0
0
FTE
Student/
FTE
Faculty
Ratio
0
0
0
0
0
CPS_ADMIN STU_BS_Q & SI
Self-Study Template 9
Staten Island
Fall 2010
F
P
Majors
MAJORS
Fall 2011
Total
F
P
Total
1
FTE MAJORS
F
P
Fall 2013
Total
F
P
Total
Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors
2
3
1
1
Fall 2010
Total
Fall 2012
2
1
1
Fall 2011
2
1
1
Fall 2012
2
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
1
0.667 1.667
Fall 2010
1
Fall 2011
0.333 1.333
Fall 2012
1
0.333 1.333
1
0.333 1.333
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 SJU for all external reporting.
CPS_ADMIN STU_BS_Q & 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
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
5193
54%
4821
50%
4710
49%
4257
46%
4386
49%
PT Faculty
4452
46%
4875
50%
4842
51%
4995
54%
4644
51%
Total
9645
100%
9696
100%
9552
100%
9252
100%
9030
100%
FT Faculty
% consumed by
Non-Majors
Credit Hrs
Taught
95%
Fall 2010
95%
98%
Fall 2011
98%
Fall 2012
99%
Fall 2013
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
F-T Faculty
3,111
34.8%
3,042
34.9%
2,676
28.3%
2,508
27.7%
P-T Faculty
(inc Admin)
5,832
65.2%
5,685
65.1%
6,771
71.7%
6,537
72.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Total
8,943
100%
8,727
100%
9,447
100%
9,045
100%
% Consumed
by NonMajors
8,871
99.2%
8,310
95.2%
7,182
76.0%
7,965
88.1%
CPS_ADMIN STU_BS_Q & SI
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
Taught
Fall 2005
#
Fall 2006
%
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
51
50%
49
51%
46
48%
45
48%
FT Faculty
53
52%
PT Faculty
48
48%
50
50%
47
49%
50
52%
49
52%
Total
101
100%
101
100%
96
100%
96
100%
94
100%
Courses
Taught
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
F-T Faculty
32
34.4%
31
34.4%
33
30.8%
31
27.9%
P-T Faculty
(inc Admin)
61
65.6%
59
65.6%
74
69.2%
80
72.1%
0.0%
Total
93
100%
0.0%
90
100%
0.0%
107
100%
0.0%
111
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)
CPS_ADMIN STU_BS_Q & SI
Self-Study Template 12
Departmental Plan
2005
FT
2006
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
Male
9
60%
27
93%
Female
6
40%
2
Total
15
100%
Black
0
Hispanic
FT
2007
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
36
8
57%
28
93%
7%
8
6
43%
2
29
100%
44
14
100%
0%
6
21%
6
0
1
7%
0
0%
1
Asian
1
7%
1
3%
Native American
0
0%
0
White
11
73%
Unknown
2
Total
FT
2008
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
36
8
57%
20
95%
7%
8
6
43%
1
30
100%
44
14
100%
0%
4
13%
4
0
1
7%
0
0%
1
2
1
7%
1
3%
0%
0
0
0%
0
21
72%
32
12
86%
13%
1
3%
3
0
15
100%
29
100%
44
Tenured
15
100%
Tenure-Track
0
Not Applicable
Total
FT
2009
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
28
7
54%
25
100%
5%
7
6
46%
0
21
100%
35
13
100%
0%
4
19%
4
1
1
7%
0
0%
1
2
1
7%
1
5%
0%
0
0
0%
0
24
80%
36
12
86%
0%
1
3%
1
0
14
100%
30
100%
44
15
13
93%
0%
0
1
0
0%
0
15
100%
15
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
32
7
54%
25
93%
32
0%
6
6
46%
2
7%
8
25
100%
38
13
100%
27
100%
40
8%
4
16%
5
1
8%
5
19%
6
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
2
1
8%
1
4%
2
1
8%
1
4%
2
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0%
1
4%
1
15
71%
27
11
85%
19
76%
30
11
85%
20
74%
31
0%
1
5%
1
0
0%
1
4%
1
0
0%
0
0%
0
14
100%
21
100%
35
13
100%
25
100%
38
13
100%
27
100%
39
13
13
93%
13
13
100%
13
13
100%
13
7%
1
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
1
7%
1
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
14
100%
14
14
100%
14
13
100%
13
13
100%
13
Gender
Ethnicity
Tenure Status
CPS_ADMIN STU_BS_Q & SI
Self-Study Template 13
2010
FT
2011
PT
T
#
%
#
%
Male
9
90%
18
67%
Female
1
10%
9
33%
Total
10
FT
2012
PT
T
#
%
#
%
27
7
88%
19
58%
10
1
13%
14
42%
37
8
FT
2013
PT
T
#
%
#
%
26
7
88%
21
62%
15
1
13%
13
38%
41
8
FT
PT
T
#
%
#
%
28
6
75%
17
61%
23
14
2
25%
11
39%
13
42
8
Gender
27
33
34
28
36
Ethnicity
Black
3
30%
1
4%
4
3
38%
1
3%
4
3
38%
1
3%
4
3
38%
1
4%
4
Hispanic
1
10%
1
4%
2
1
13%
2
6%
3
1
13%
1
3%
2
1
13%
1
4%
2
0%
0
0%
0%
0
0%
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
1
3%
1
0%
1
3%
1
0%
0
0%
0
50%
29
88%
33
50%
31
91%
35
50%
26
93%
30
2 or More Races
0
0%
0
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
Asian
0%
Native American
0%
1
4%
1
60%
24
89%
30
White
6
Unknown
0%
Total
10
0%
27
4
0
0%
37
8
8
0%
33
4
0
0%
41
8
100%
8
8
0
34
0%
4
0
0%
42
8
28
36
100%
8
7
88%
7
1
13%
1
0%
0
Tenure Status
Tenured
8
80%
8
Tenure-Track
2
20%
2
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
Not Applicable
Total
10
CPS_ADMIN STU_BS_Q & SI
10
8
8
8
8
8
Self-Study Template 14
8
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
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
Administrative Studies
(Q/SI)
College of Professional
Studies
Total Undergraduate
Instructional Vibrancy (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.04
4.09
4.14
4.34
4.33
4.43
4.01
3.21
4.07
4.27
4.29
4.35
Note: Instructional 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 /3page)
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)
CPS_ADMIN STU_BS_Q & SI
Self-Study Template 15
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)
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)
CPS_ADMIN STU_BS_Q & SI
Self-Study Template 16