AY 2014-2015 ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW SELF-STUDY TEMPLATE
Reporting School/College: St. John’s College
Program Reviewed: Sociology MA 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.
2a.
Undergraduate SAT and High School Average
2b.
Undergraduate 1st Year Retention Rate
2c.
Undergraduate 6 Year Graduation Rate
LAS_SOC_SOC_MA_Q
Self-Study Template 1
2d.
Graduate Standardized Test Scores
Fall
2005
Program
2006
2007
340/415
426/504
2008
2009
400/473
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
New Graduate Students GRE Verbal
Mean Scores
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Ir Grev Score
Sociology
MA
old
Fall 2012
Ir Grev Score
430
Fall 2013
Ir Grev Score
357
Ir Grev Score
457
new
148
153
New Graduate Students GRE Quantitative
Mean Scores
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Ir Greq Score
Sociology
MA
old
Fall 2012
Ir Greq Score
645
Fall 2013
Ir Greq Score
520
Ir Greq Score
633
new
162
155
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 200-800(old) and after 8/1/11
on a scale of 130-170(new)
Based on students with valid scores in BANNER - therefore n maybe small in some cases.
LAS_SOC_SOC_MA_Q
Self-Study Template 2
New Graduate Students GRE Verbal
Mean Scores
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Ir Grev Score
Graduate School Arts & Sci
old
Fall 2012
Ir Grev Score
491
Fall 2013
Ir Grev Score
500
new
Ir Grev Score
497
532
154
153
New Graduate Students GRE Quantitative
Mean Scores
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Ir Greq Score
Graduate School Arts & Sci
old
Fall 2012
Ir Greq Score
585
Fall 2013
Ir Greq Score
566
new
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 200-800(old) and after 8/1/11 on a scale of 130170(new)
GRE
Intended Graduate Major
Sociology*
Test-Takers
3,921
Mean Score (Verbal)
152
Mean Score (Quantitative)
148
* For further information, please visit http://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide.pdf.
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)
LAS_SOC_SOC_MA_Q
Self-Study Template 3
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
21
33
38
29
35
Minors
0
0
0
0
0
Total
21
33
38
29
35
Note: There were 7 BA-MA students as of Spring 2010.
MAJORS
2h.
SOC
MA
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
31
31
36
37
Number of degrees granted during the past five years. See table below.
Academic Year
Degrees
Granted
MA
SJC-GR
SOC
Sociology
LAS_SOC_SOC_MA_Q
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
7
11
11
13
18
MA
10/11
11/12
12/13
Degrees
Conferred
Degrees
Conferred
Degrees
Conferred
18
11
15
Self-Study Template 4
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
Master's
Local
1,066
1,105
1,141
National
16,368
17,081
17,734
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_MA_Q
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?
LAS_SOC_SOC_MA_Q
Self-Study Template 6
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
Change, 2010-20
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
Numeric
28%
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_MA_Q
Self-Study Template 7
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
11
10
21
Minors
FT
12
PT
21
0
Majors
& Minors
Combined
11
10
# of FTE
Students
(Majors &
Minors)
11.00
3.33
Fall 2007
Total
33
FT
16
PT
22
0
Fall 2008
Total
38
FT
7
PT
22
0
Fall 2009
Total
29
FT
22
PT
13
0
Total
35
0
21
12
21
33
16
22
38
7
22
29
22
13
35
14.33
12.00
7.00
19.00
16.00
7.33
23.33
7.00
7.33
14.33
22.00
4.33
26.33
# of FTE
Faculty
assigned
to the
program
0
0
0
0
0
FTE
Student/
FTE
Faculty
Ratio
0
0
0
0
0
LAS_SOC_SOC_MA_Q
Self-Study Template 8
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2013
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
MAJORS
18
13
31
Fall 2010
Total
Fall 2012
FTE MAJORS
19
12
Fall 2011
31
22
14
Fall 2012
36
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
19
4
23
22
4.333 22.333
Fall 2010
10
37
Fall 2013
F
18
27
4.667 26.667
Fall 2011
27
3.333 30.333
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.
LAS_SOC_SOC_MA_Q
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
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
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
F-T Faculty
P-T Faculty (inc
Admin)
71%
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Number
Percent
2,046
55.9%
1,617
44.1%
Number
2,175
1,761
0.0%
Total
% Consumed by
Non-Majors
3,663
2,433
LAS_SOC_SOC_MA_Q
66%
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 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
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
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
Number
Fall 2011
Percent
Number
Fall 2012
Percent
Number
Fall 2013
Percent
Number
Percent
F-T Faculty
27
58.7%
35
62.5%
34
65.4%
33
67.3%
P-T Faculty (inc
Admin)
19
41.3%
21
37.5%
18
34.6%
16
32.7%
0.0%
Total
46
100%
0.0%
56
100%
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)
LAS_SOC_SOC_MA_Q
Self-Study Template 11
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_MA_Q
Self-Study Template 12
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_MA_Q
12
13
13
14
14
14
14
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
$ Amount
Funding
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
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)
Overall Evaluation (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
Instructional Vibrancy (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
Sociology (Q)
4.25
4.17
4.40
4.43
4.31
4.59
Saint John’s
College
4.23
4.26
4.19
4.37
4.40
4.40
Total Graduate
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).
LAS_SOC_SOC_MA_Q
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_SOC_SOC_MA_Q
Self-Study Template 15