AY 2014-2015 ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW SELF-STUDY TEMPLATE
Reporting School/College: St. John’s College
Program Reviewed: Biological Sciences MS 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)
Self-Study Template 1
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_MS_Q
STANDARD 2. The program attracts, retains, and graduates high quality students.
2a.
Undergraduate SAT and High School Average
2b.
Undergraduate 1st Year Retention Rate
2c.
Undergraduate 6 Year Graduation Rate
2d.
Graduate Standardized Test Scores
Fall
2005
Program
2006
2007
2008
2009
460/725 449/653 435/588 437/690
School/College
Average Rate 481/561 494/569 465/551 501/588 472/577
Regional
Comparison
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
See below
National
Comparison
The National Overall Average for verbal is 150.6 and a quantitative of 151.9, based on those tested between August 1,
2011 and April 30, 2013.
New Graduate Students GRE Verbal
Mean Scores
BIO
MS
old
new
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Ir Grev Score
Ir Grev Score
Ir Grev Score
Ir Grev Score
443
480
620
155
150
Self-Study Template 2
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_MS_Q
New Graduate Students GRE Quantitative
Mean Scores
BIO
MS
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Ir Greq Score
Ir Greq Score
Ir Greq Score
Ir Greq Score
old
683
673
720
new
152
158
As of August 1, 2011, ETS revised the GRE General Test with a new scoring scale. Prior to 8/1/11 on a scale of 200800(old) and after 8/1/11 on a scale of 130-170(new)
New Graduate Students GRE Verbal
Mean Scores
Graduate School Arts &
Sci
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Ir Grev Score
Ir Grev Score
Ir Grev Score
Ir Grev Score
old
491
500
new
497
532
154
153
New Graduate Students GRE Quantitative
Mean Scores
Fall 2010
Ir Greq Score
Graduate School Arts &
Sci
old
new
585
Fall 2011
Ir Greq Score
566
Fall 2012
Ir Greq Score
Fall 2013
Ir Greq Score
593
604
149
150
As of August 1, 2011, ETS revised the GRE General Test with a new scoring scale. Prior to 8/1/11 on a scale of 200800(old) and after 8/1/11 on a scale of 130-170(new)
Self-Study Template 3
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_MS_Q
General test percentage distribution of scores within intended graduate major field that is based on the performance of
seniors and non-enrolled college graduates who were tested on the verbal and quantitative examination.
GRE
Intended Graduate Major
Test-Takers
Mean Score (Verbal)
Mean Score (Quantitative)
Biological and Biomedical
Sciences*
38,183
153
153
Health and Medical Sciences*
54,995
150
149
* For further information, please visit http://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide.pdf.
Comments: Refer to Charts 2a – 2d in your response. (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
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
Majors
2006
2007
2008
2009
15
17
14
11
12
15
17
14
11
12
Minors
Total
MAJORS
BIO
MS
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
14
12
15
14
Self-Study Template 4
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_MS_Q
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
MS
0
8
7
4
7
SJC-GR
BIO
Biology
MS
10/11
11/12
12/13
Degrees
Conferred
Degrees
Conferred
Degrees
Conferred
9
3
12
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 26- Biological and Biomedical Sciences.
20092010
20102011
20112012
Master's
Local1
414
510
544
National
10,725
11,327
12,415
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.
For more information please visit: http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/Default.aspx
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)
Self-Study Template 5
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_MS_Q
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
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?
Self-Study Template 6
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_MS_Q
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.
Fastest growing occupations and occupations having the largest numerical increase in employment by level of education
and training projected.
Fastest Growing Occupations
Change, 2010-20
Percent
Numeric
Biochemist and Biophysicists
31%
7,700
Biomedical Engineers
62%
9,700
14%
10,900
Biological Technicians
Occupations having the
largest numerical increase
in employment
Biological Technicians
Change, 2010-20
Percent
Numeric
14%
10,900
Projected Changes in Related Occupations (2010 – 2020)
Changes, 2010-20
Grow much faster than average – Increase 21% or more
Percent
Numeric
Biomedical Engineers
62%
9,700
Biochemist and Biophysicists
31%
7,700
Changes, 2010-20
Grow much faster than average – Increase 7 to 14.9%
Biological Technicians
Percent
Numeric
14%
10,900
*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
Self-Study Template 7
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_MS_Q
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, 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)
Self-Study Template 8
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_MS_Q
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
4
11
15
Minors
FT
PT
4
Fall 2007
Total
13
17
0
Majors
& Minors
Combined
4
11
# of FTE
Students
(Majors &
Minors)
4.00
3.67
FT
PT
1
13
Fall 2008
Total
FT
14
0
PT
1
Fall 2009
Total
10
FT
11
0
PT
6
Total
6
0
12
0
15
4
13
17
1
13
14
1
10
11
6
6
12
7.67
4.00
4.33
8.33
1.00
4.33
5.33
1.00
3.33
4.33
6.00
2.00
8.00
# of FTE
Faculty
assigned
to the
program
0
0
0
0
0
FTE
Student/
FTE
Faculty
Ratio
0
0
0
0
0
Fall 2010
F
P
Majors
MAJORS
Fall 2011
Total
F
P
Fall 2012
Total
F
P
Fall 2013
Total
F
P
Total
Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors
11
3
14
10
2
12
10
5
15
12
2
14
Self-Study Template 9
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_MS_Q
Fall 2010
Total
FTE MAJORS
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
11
1
12
10
0.667 10.667
Fall 2010
10
1.667 11.667
Fall 2011
12
Fall 2012
0.667 12.667
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.
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
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
3420
55%
3279
50%
3515
58%
3268
61%
3458
62%
2849
45%
3215
50%
2585
42%
2125
39%
2163
38%
FT Faculty
PT Faculty
Total
% consumed by
6269 100% 6494 100% 6100 100% 5393 100% 5621 100%
Non-Majors
63%
59%
59%
53%
52%
Fall 2005 – Fall 2007 includes Scientific Inquiry courses.
Self-Study Template 10
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_MS_Q
Credit Hrs
Taught
Fall 2010
Number Percent
Fall 2011
Number
Fall 2012
Percent
Number
Fall 2013
Percent Number Percent
F-T Faculty
3,423
57.6% 3,596
56.5% 3,847
64.1% 4,351
69.1%
P-T Faculty
(inc Admin)
2,515
42.4% 2,774
43.5% 2,158
35.9% 1,944
30.9%
Total
% Consumed
by NonMajors
5,938
3,039
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100% 6,370
100%
51.2% 3,416
53.6% 2,883
6,005
0.0%
100%
6,295
48.0% 2,999
100%
47.6%
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
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
46
58%
54
68%
41
66%
43
64%
FT Faculty
48
59%
PT Faculty
34
41%
34
43%
26
33%
21
34%
24
36%
Total
82
100%
80
100%
80
100%
62
100%
67
100%
Fall 2005 – Fall 2007 includes Scientific Inquiry courses.
Self-Study Template 11
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_MS_Q
Courses
Taught
Fall 2010
Number Percent
Fall 2011
Number
Fall 2012
Percent
Number
Fall 2013
Percent Number Percent
F-T Faculty
44
65.7% 56
57.7% 42
58.3% 45
62.5%
P-T Faculty
(inc Admin)
23
34.3% 41
42.3% 30
41.7% 27
37.5%
Total
67
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100% 97
100% 72
100%
0.0%
72
100%
Self-Study Template 12
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_MS_Q
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
10
63%
11
69%
Female
6
38%
5
Total
16
100%
Black
0
Hispanic
FT
2007
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
21
10
63%
9
50%
31%
11
6
38%
9
16
100%
32
16
100%
0%
1
6%
1
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
Asian
3
19%
3
19%
White
13
81%
11
Unknown
0
0%
Total
16
100%
Tenured
13
Tenure-Track
FT
2008
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
19
10
59%
6
50%
50%
15
7
41%
6
18
100%
34
17
100%
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
6
3
19%
8
44%
69%
24
13
81%
10
1
6%
1
0
0%
16
100%
32
16
100%
81%
13
13
2
13%
2
Not Applicable
1
6%
Total
16
100%
FT
2009
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
16
10
63%
9
60%
50%
13
6
38%
6
12
100%
29
16
100%
0%
0
0%
0
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
11
3
18%
1
8%
56%
23
14
82%
8
0
0%
0
0
0%
18
100%
34
17
100%
81%
13
13
2
13%
2
1
1
6%
16
16
100%
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
19
10
59%
10
59%
20
40%
12
7
41%
7
41%
14
15
100%
31
17
100%
17
100%
34
0%
1
7%
1
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
4
3
19%
6
40%
9
4
24%
8
47%
12
67%
22
13
81%
8
53%
21
13
76%
9
53%
22
3
25%
3
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
12
100%
29
16
100%
15
100%
31
17
100%
17
100%
34
76%
13
13
81%
13
15
88%
15
3
18%
3
0
0%
3
2
12%
2
1
1
6%
1
3
19%
0
0
0%
0
16
17
100%
17
16
100%
16
17 100%
Self-Study Template 13
Gender
Ethnicity
Tenure Status
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_MS_Q
17
2010
FT
2011
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
Male
9
60%
11
61%
Female
6
40%
7
39%
Total
15
FT
2012
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
20
10
71%
10
48%
13
4
29%
11
52%
33
14
FT
2013
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
20
11
73%
10
53%
15
4
27%
9
47%
35
15
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
21
12
75%
8
42%
20
13
4
25%
11
58%
15
34
16
Gender
18
21
19
19
35
Ethnicity
Black
0%
1
6%
1
0%
0%
0
0%
0%
0
0%
2
11%
2
Hispanic
0%
1
6%
1
0%
0%
0
0%
1
5%
1
0%
1
5%
1
13%
10
56%
12
67%
16
20%
11
58%
14
25%
9
47%
13
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
33%
19
33%
19
37%
19
75%
7
37%
19
2 or More Races
0
0%
0
Native
Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
Asian
2
Native American
White
0%
13
Unknown
Total
87%
6
0%
15
0%
18
2
14%
14
0%
12
0
86%
7
0%
33
14
0%
21
3
0%
12
0
80%
7
0%
35
15
0%
19
4
12
0
0%
34
16
19
35
Tenure Status
Tenured
12
80%
12
11
79%
11
12
80%
12
13
81%
13
Tenure-Track
2
13%
2
2
14%
2
2
13%
2
2
13%
2
Not Applicable
1
7%
1
1
7%
1
1
7%
1
1
6%
1
Total
15
15
14
14
15
15
16
16
Self-Study Template 14
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_MS_Q
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 1,224,543 1,153,444 732,355 269,960 352,950
Department
External
Funding
Fiscal Year
09/10
10/11
11/12
12/13
793,607
1,521,924
$ Amount
Program
$ Amount
Department
572,250
-
Self-Study Template 15
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_MS_Q
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)
Biological
Sciences (Q)
Saint John’s
College
Total Graduate
Overall Evaluation (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
Instructional Vibrancy (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
3.82
4.22
4.35
4.03
4.59
4.35
4.23
4.26
4.19
4.37
4.40
4.40
4.14
4.16
4.30
4.37
4.39
4.52
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 1/3 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. (Suggested limit 1 page)
Self-Study Template 16
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_MS_Q
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)
Self-Study Template 17
LAS_BIO_BIO.SCI_MS_Q