AY 2014-2015 ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW SELF-STUDY TEMPLATE
Reporting School/College: College of Professional Studies
Program Reviewed: Computer Science BS 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.
CPS_COMP_SCI_BS_Q
Self-Study Template 1
2a.
Undergraduate SAT and High School Average
SAT
2005
2006
2007
High School Average
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Program
1131
1150
1136
1089
1112
86
88
87
86
88
School/
College
977
1006
997
1017
1019
82
83
84
84
85
University
1068
1075
1075
1087
1092
86
87
87
87
88
Freshmen SAT Scores
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Computed
computer science
Fall 2012
Computed
1,097
Fall 2013
Computed
1,094
Computed
1,109
1,145
Freshmen High School Average
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
High School
computer science
Fall 2012
High School
86
Fall 2013
High School
87
High School
87
SAT Scores
87
High School Average
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
School/
College - Q
1013
1014
1025
1028
84
84
85
86
Total University
1097
1087
1096
1104
87
87
88
89
CPS_COMP_SCI_BS_Q
Self-Study Template 2
Intended college major for 2012 college-bound seniors
TestTakers
SAT
Intended College Major
Mean
Scores
Number
Percent
(%)
3,095
2.3%
Computer and Information Sciences and Support
Services
Critical Mathematic
Reading
s
482
Writin
g
516
457
* For further information, please visit
http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/NY_12_03_03_01.pdf.
2b.
Undergraduate 1st Year Retention Rate
Fall
2003
2004*
2005
2006
2007
2008**
# Fresh
Program
School/
College
University
# Ret
%
80%
78%
74%
78%
64%
44
36
82%
75%
76%
72%
71%
71%
949
712
75%
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
CUS/B/S/T/Z
43
2010
Returned
DNR
#
%
#
%
32
74%
11
26%
CPS_COMP_SCI_BS_Q
Total
44
2011
Returned
DNR
#
%
#
%
34
77%
10
23%
Total
40
2012
Returned
DNR
#
%
#
%
25
63%
15
38%
Total
33
Returned
DNR
#
%
#
%
24
73%
9
27%
Self-Study Template 3
Fall
2009
2010
2011
2012*
# Fresh
# Ret
%
School/
College - Q
74%
74%
71%
766
575
75%
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
Program
2000
2001
2002
2003
78%
61%
71%
56%
Average Rate
60
55
56
52
University
64
59
61
61
65%
School/College
Fall
2004
2005
2006
2007
School/College
Average Rate - Q
53%
52%
50%
47%
Total University
58%
58%
59%
55%
2004
Total
Graduated
#
CUS
2005
47
CPS_COMP_SCI_BS_Q
26
Total
%
55%
42
2006
Graduated
#
%
21
50%
Total
40
2007
Graduated
#
%
26
65%
Total
Graduated
#
21
7
%
33%
Self-Study Template 4
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)
2g.
Number of majors and minors enrolled over the past five years. See table below.
Fall
Number of Students
2005
2007
2008
2009
Majors
221
169
153
156
167
Minors
6
5
7
14
9
227
174
160
170
176
Total
MAJORS
2006
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
CUS
BS
122
110
94
103
CUSB
BS
18
24
22
30
CUSC
BS
1
CUSF
BS
2
2
1
CUSG
BS
2
2
2
CUSH
BS
CUSM
BS
3
1
CUSS
BS
7
8
14
12
CUST
BS
5
10
6
7
CUSW
BS
2
3
1
2
CUSZ
BS/MBA
4
7
145
161
Total
CPS_COMP_SCI_BS_Q
1
162
160
Self-Study Template 5
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Minors
Minors
Minors
Minors
MINORS
CUS
Total
2h.
4
9
12
12
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Total
Total
Total
Total
166
169
157
173
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 BS
114
72
39
36
33
CPS-UG-Q
10/11
11/12
12/13
Degrees Conferred
Degrees Conferred
Degrees Conferred
CUS
Computer Science
BS
10
14
14
CUSB
Computer Science
BS
7
8
6
CUSC
Computer Science
BS
CUSF
Computer Science
BS
1
CUSG
Computer Science
BS
1
CUSH
Computer Science
BS
CUSM
Computer Science
BS
1
CUSS
Computer Science
BS
4
4
3
CUST
Computer Science
BS
1
1
1
CUSW
Computer Science
BS
1
1
1
26
30
29
Total
CPS_COMP_SCI_BS_Q
1
1
1
2
1
Self-Study Template 6
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 11-Computer and Information Sciences
and Support Services.
20092010
20102011
20112012
Bachelors
Local
409
420
457
National
39,589
43,072
47,384
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)
CPS_COMP_SCI_BS_Q
Self-Study Template 7
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)
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.
CPS_COMP_SCI_BS_Q
Self-Study Template 8
Fastest growing occupations and occupations having the largest numerical increase in employment by level of education
and training projected.
Change, 2010-20
Fastest Growing Occupations
Percent
Numeric
Computer System Analysts
22%
120,400
Network and Computer
System
28%
96,600
Occupations having the
largest numerical increase
in employment
Computer System
Analysts
Change, 2010-20
Percent
Numeric
22%
120,400
Projected Changes in Related Occupations (2010 – 2020)
Changes, 2010-20
Grow Much Faster Than Average - Increase 21% or More %
Percent
Numeric
Computer System Analysts
22%
120,400
Network and Computer System
28%
96,600
*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)
CPS_COMP_SCI_BS_Q
Self-Study Template 9
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
196
25
221
157
Minors
6
6
5
Majors
& Minors
Combined
202
25
227
162
# of FTE
Students
(Majors &
Minors)
202
8
210
162
FT
PT
Fall 2007
Total
12
FT
PT
169
143
5
7
12
174
150
4
166
150
10
Fall 2008
Total
153
147
7
14
10
160
161
3
153
161
# of FTE
Faculty
assigned to
the program
0
0
0
FTE Student/
FTE Faculty
Ratio
0
0
0
Fall 2010
F
P
Majors
MAJORS
Fall 2011
Total
F
P
Fall 2012
Total
F
P
FT
5
CPS_COMP_SCI_BS_Q
10
163
155
5
160
144
9
9
3
FT
PT
Total
156
164
3
167
14
8
1
9
170
172
4
176
164
172
1
8
5.25
2.67
21
173
8
22
Fall 2013
Total
1
Total
3
F
P
Total
Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors
153
PT
Fall 2009
145
160
2
Majors
162
Self-Study Template 10
Fall 2010
Total
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
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
FTE MAJORS 157 3.333 160.333 168 1.667 169.667 161 0.333 161.333 182 0.667 182.667
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 includes both first and second majors.
This methodology is used by SJU 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
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
4188
45%
2841
35%
2883
38%
2304
38%
2427
42%
PT Faculty
5202
55%
5352
65%
4698
62%
3744
62%
3351
58%
Total
9390
100%
8193
100%
7581
100%
6048
100%
5778
100%
FT Faculty
% consumed by
Non-Majors
77%
80%
81%
73%
69%
Fall 2005 – Fall 2007 includes credits/courses for Scientific Inquiry.
CPS_COMP_SCI_BS_Q
Self-Study Template 11
Credit Hrs Taught
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
F-T Faculty
2,061
42.2%
2,223
40.5%
2,094
39.4%
2,028
40.2%
P-T Faculty (inc
Admin)
2,820
57.78%
3,270
59.53%
3,225
60.6%
3,015
59.8%
Total
4,881
100%
5,493
100%
5,319
100%
5,043
100%
% Consumed by
Non-Majors
3,156
64.7%
3,243
59.0%
3,258
61.3%
2,934
58.2%
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
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
53
38%
57
44%
47
43%
46
47%
FT Faculty
62
42%
PT Faculty
86
58%
87
62%
73
56%
62
57%
52
53%
Total
148
100%
140
100%
130
100%
109
100%
98
100%
Fall 2005 – Fall 2007 includes credits/courses for Scientific Inquiry.
Courses Taught
Fall 2010
Number
Fall 2011
Percent
Number
Fall 2012
Percent
Number
Fall 2013
Percent
Number
Percent
F-T Faculty
36
43.4%
41
44.1%
39
43.3%
36
41.9%
P-T Faculty (inc
Admin)
47
56.6%
52
55.9%
51
56.7%
50
58.1%
0.0%
Total
83
CPS_COMP_SCI_BS_Q
100%
0.0%
93
100%
0.0%
90
100%
0.0%
86
100%
Self-Study Template 12
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
2005
FT
2006
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
Male
9
50%
28
61%
Female
9
50%
18
Total
18
100%
Black
0
Hispanic
FT
2007
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
37
8
53%
25
56%
39%
27
7
47%
20
46
100%
64
15
100%
0%
1
2%
1
0
0
0%
2
4%
2
Asian
0
0%
2
4%
White
18
100%
40
Unknown
0
0%
Total
18
100%
Tenured
9
Tenure-Track
FT
2008
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
33
9
56%
25
61%
44%
27
7
44%
16
45
100%
60
16
100%
0%
2
4%
2
0
0
0%
2
4%
2
2
0
0%
2
4%
87%
58
15
100%
38
1
2%
1
0
0%
46
100%
64
15
100%
50%
9
10
6
33%
6
Not Applicable
3
17%
Total
18
100%
FT
2009
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
34
9
60%
23
61%
39%
23
6
40%
15
41
100%
57
15
100%
0%
2
5%
2
0
1
6%
0
0%
1
2
0
0%
2
5%
84%
53
15
94%
37
1
2%
1
0
0%
45
100%
60
16
100%
67%
10
11
5
33%
5
3
0
0%
18
15
100%
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
32
9
60%
20
71%
29
39%
21
6
40%
8
29%
14
38
100%
53
15
100%
28
100%
43
0%
2
5%
2
0
0%
1
4%
1
1
7%
0
0%
1
1
7%
0
0%
1
2
0
0%
2
5%
2
0
0%
1
4%
1
90%
52
14
93%
33
87%
47
14
93%
25
89%
39
0
0%
0
0
0%
1
3%
1
0
0%
1
4%
1
41
100%
57
15
100%
38
100%
53
15
100%
28
100%
43
69%
11
11
73%
11
12
80%
12
5
31%
5
3
20%
3
3
20%
3
0
0
0%
0
1
7%
1
0
0%
0
15
16
100%
16
15
100%
15
15
100%
15
Gender
Ethnicity
Tenure Status
CPS_COMP_SCI_BS_Q
Self-Study Template 13
2010
FT
2011
PT
T
#
%
#
%
Male
7
54%
20
80%
Female
6
46%
5
20%
Total
13
FT
2012
PT
T
#
%
#
%
27
6
46%
23
85%
11
7
54%
4
15%
38
13
FT
2013
PT
T
#
%
#
%
29
7
50%
22
81%
11
7
50%
5
19%
40
14
FT
PT
T
#
%
#
%
29
7
50%
20
77%
27
12
7
50%
6
23%
13
41
14
Gender
25
27
27
26
40
Ethnicity
Black
0%
1
4%
1
1
7%
1
4%
2
3
1
7%
2
8%
3
0%
1
1
7%
0
0%
1
85%
34
11
79%
21
81%
32
2 or More Races
1
4%
1
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
Hispanic
0%
1
Asian
8%
0%
American Indian/Alaskan Native
1
8%
White
11
85%
Unknown
Total
1
1
23
0%
13
4%
1
0%
1
4%
1
0%
1
1
8%
92%
34
11
85%
0%
25
0%
1
8%
0%
0
1
3
23
0%
38
13
4%
1
0%
1
4%
1
0%
1
1
7%
1
4%
2
11%
3
1
7%
2
7%
0%
1
1
7%
85%
34
11
79%
0%
27
0
23
0%
40
14
0%
27
0
0%
41
14
26
40
Tenure Status
Tenured
11
85%
11
10
77%
10
10
71%
10
11
79%
11
Tenure-Track
2
15%
2
3
23%
3
4
29%
4
3
21%
3
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
Not Applicable
Total
CPS_COMP_SCI_BS_Q
13
13
13
13
14
14
14
Self-Study Template 14
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
30,000
Fiscal Year
External
Funding
09/10
10/11
11/12
12/13
$ Amount Program
$ Amount Department
-
-
14,000
-
5h.
Please comment on the table below that shows trends in overall course evaluations instructional vibrancy for
your program (if available), your college and the university. (Suggested limit ½ page)
Overall Evaluation (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
Computer
Science BS (Q)
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
CPS_COMP_SCI_BS_Q
Self-Study Template 15
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).
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)
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)
CPS_COMP_SCI_BS_Q
Self-Study Template 16
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_COMP_SCI_BS_Q
Self-Study Template 17