The Office of Academic Affairs
External Review of Colleges and Schools
Purpose
Chancellor Cigarroa’s Framework for Advancing Excellence throughout The University of Texas System
includes nine major areas of focus. One area addresses Faculty, Administrators, and Staff
Excellence. As part of this Framework focus area, the U. T. System and institutions are required to
conduct college/school external evaluations, specifically, “to review and strengthen plans to provide
for holistic external reviews of each institution’s college or schools, similar to organized research
unit reviews as provided in Regents’ Rule 40602.”
A work group of provosts and deans convened to assist U. T. System staff in the development of a
process to meet the requirements of the Chancellor’s Framework for external college reviews. The
general charge to the group was to develop a review process that ensures that colleges and schools
are organized to maximize student success.
Review Process

Institutional reports submitted to specialized accrediting bodies that include college- or schoollevel accreditation reviews will satisfy the U. T. System external review reporting requirement.
Specialized accrediting bodies that include college-level review are listed in Appendix A.

Each college or school under review shall do a self-study that examines key success metrics
within the college/school and the factors that may affect a student’s ability to be successful in
college and ultimately earn a degree. A template is included in Appendix B as a guide for the
self-study.

Two reviewers external to U. T. System shall review the self-study, conduct a campus visit, and
write a report outlining their findings. The university should select individuals who can bring
critical judgment and objectivity to the process and are able to compare the college to similar
colleges at other institutions. One reviewer should be from a discipline within the college being
reviewed; the other should have expertise in student success initiatives. The report shall be
forwarded to the president and provost of the institution. The president and provost, in
consultation with the dean of the college or school, shall determine how or whether to
implement any recommendations in the report. The external reviewers’ report and an
institutional response to the report shall be submitted to the Executive Vice Chancellor for
Academic Affairs for review and acceptance.
Self-Study Guidelines
Key Student Success Metrics
1
The self-study must include a careful analysis of key student success metrics1. The Office of Strategic
Initiatives (OSI) is building departmental and college-level dashboards to assist institutions with
obtaining the data associated with certain metrics. Institutions may also use their own data to obtain
program-, department-, and college-level metrics that they would like to include in a college or
school’s self-study. The OSI dashboards are scheduled to be launched in November 2013.
The following student success metrics are required to be included in a college or school’s self-study.
Appendix C includes the definitions used at U. T. System for each student success metric listed
below. Other metrics, such as data on student engagement from the National Survey of Student
Engagement (NSSE), data on critical thinking skills from the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA),
etc., may also be included. Appendix D includes a sample analysis of one of the student success
metrics.
Metric
Persistence Rates of
Juniors
Completion Rates of
Juniors2
Things to Consider:
 Characteristics shared among non-persisting students
 Effects of financial aid
 Registration bars on persistence
 Administrative barriers to completion, including
availability of required courses
 Quality of advising
 Number or percentage of students switching majors or
dropping out
Average Number of
Semester Credit Hours
to Graduation
 Administrative barriers, including availability of required
courses
 Quality of advising
 Full-time versus part-time status
 Quality of advising
 Financial obstacles, including lack of institutional support
 Number of students who switched majors
Number of Degrees
Awarded
 Number of degrees awarded adequate to meet the
institution-level goals for degree production
Number of Majors
 Number of majors adequate by program to produce the
target number of degrees awarded
Average Number of
Semesters to
Graduation
Factors That May Affect Student Success
Many factors contribute to a student’s ability to earn a baccalaureate degree. When conducting the
self-study, institutions should include an analysis of relevant factors to determine areas where
improvements can be made or appropriate interventions can be developed that have the potential to
positively impact student success. The following is a brief list of factors that have been found to
The number of metrics available to be aggregated to the college level is limited. The metrics selected are seen as
“student success-oriented”, or indicators of movement towards completion (i.e., persistence rate) or through completion
(i.e., number of degrees awarded) of a baccalaureate degree.
2 The metric Completion Rate of Juniors was selected in lieu of Graduation Rate because the junior cohort includes all
students classified as juniors, including transfer students, while Graduation Rate only includes first-time, full-time students.
1
2
affect student success. The self-study report is intended to allow colleges/schools to investigate the
issues that are important and unique to them. Colleges/schools may add or remove factors, as
appropriate. Targets for each factor must be identified, along with the college/school’s plans and
timelines to meet those targets. Colleges/Schools might also consider analyzing the characteristics of
successful students to identify common factors that may foster successful completion of a degree.
Factor
Admissions Criteria
Gateway Courses
Guiding Questions
Are the college/school’s
admissions criteria in line with
its mission and goals for
student success?
How is the college addressing
the D/F/W rates within its
gateway courses?
Things to Consider:
 The degree to which the
college/school maintains
consistency with its mission as it
revises admissions criteria
 Quality of advising
 Availability and quality of
academic support services
 Faculty awareness and inclusion
in addressing the issue
 Quality of advising
 Orientation instructions and
expectations
Math Course
Sequence
Are students adequately
planning their math course
sequence to avoid semester
overload or graduation delays?
Program Course
Sequence
Are students adequately
planning their prerequisites to
avoid semester overload or
graduation delays?
 Quality of advising
 Quality of degree plan templates
 Presence of course rotations
Financial Aid
Does the college/school
adequately support students
financially?
 Financial assistance availability
 Methods used to determine aid
packages
Availability of
Academic Maps
Does each degree program
provide students with an
academic map?
Student
Engagement
How engaged are students in
the college/school?
 Are all required courses offered
regularly enough so that both new
and continuing students may
progress in a timely fashion?
 Are the degree program
requirements too rigid? Too
flexible?
 How does the degree program
handle requests for course
substitutions?
 Is the current process flexible
enough so as not to hinder
student progress?
 How do you know that students
are engaged?
 What opportunities do student
have to do internships, service
learning, study abroad, etc.?
 Are courses delivered in ways that
promote active student
engagement?
3
College/School
Policies
Do the policies and procedures
that are in place support
effective and efficient processes
towards improving student
success?
Other Factors?
 Whether the governance structure
of the college/school is optimally
conducive to efficient operations
and continuous improvement.
 The degree to which the people
responsible for continuous
improvement processes are
empowered to implement
recommended changes.
 At what levels and how often the
continuous improvement process
occurs.

Timeline
Each college or school shall be reviewed at least every ten years. The U. T. System Office of
Academic Affairs has developed a 10-year schedule for the review of all colleges/schools at the U.
T. System general academic institutions. (See attached.) The self-study, external review, and
institutional response to the external review must be completed during the academic year identified
in the 10-year review schedule.
4
Appendix A
Accrediting Bodies that Include College-Level Reviews
U. T. System will accept reports prepared for the following accrediting bodies in satisfaction of the
external college review:3

Accrediting Body for Engineering and Technology (ABET)

Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing

Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE)

Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (CCNE)4

Council on Social Work Education (CSWE)5

American Bar Association (ABA)

Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB)

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE)

National Office for Arts Accreditation (NOAA):6
o National Association of Schools of Art & Design (NASAD)
o National Association of Schools of Music (NASM)
o National Association of Schools of Dance (NASD)
o National Association of Schools of Theater (NAST)
Others may be added if we can confirm that they accredit above the level of the degree program up to and including
the administrative unit commonly known as a college or school. Program-centered accreditation processes do not satisfy
the goals of this external review initiative. The external college review is not intended to duplicate program-centered
accreditation processes, but rather focuses on student success indicators aggregated to the college/school level. This
perspective ensures that activities beyond the scope of the program (and the department in which the program is
housed) are assessed as they too play a role in student success.
4
Satisfies the external college review only if nursing programs are housed under a College or School of Nursing.
5 For universities with Schools of Social Work with only social work programs (UT Arlington and UT Austin).
6
All four accreditation reviews combined (NASAD, NASM, NASD, and NAST) satisfies the external college review
requirement for the College of Fine Arts at The University of Texas at Austin.
3
5
Appendix B
Self-Study Template
Prior to recruiting individuals to perform an external review, the college/school must conduct a selfstudy. This template is intended as a guide, and there may be additional information that the
college/school will want to note as it develops its plans to address any areas in need of
improvement.
Part I: Overview
Please provide a brief overview of the college/school mission, organizational and leadership structure, and student
demographics.
Part II: Goal Alignment
Has the college/school identified a process to align college-level student success goals with institutional goals? How well
are the goals aligned?
Part III: Student Success Metrics
Each college/school is asked to assess its performance on a number of key student success metrics. How well is the
college/school doing with respect to the U. T. System metrics, as well as other metrics identified at the institution level
and/or the college/school level?7
Part IV: Factors Affecting Student Success
What factors are affecting student success in your college/school? And what measures are you taking to address them?
Part V: Findings and Plans for Improvement
Note that the System has no benchmarks or targets for the student success metrics required in this review.
Colleges/Schools may identify their own targets, as appropriate.
7
6
Appendix C
Student Success Metric Definitions
The following student success metrics are required in a college or school’s self-study. The U. T.
System Office of Strategic Initiatives will provide the data for each institution at the college or
school level and at the department level. OSI uses the following definitions.
Persistence Rate of Juniors – Percent of junior-level, degree-seeking students of declared majors by 6digit CIP code enrolled in at least 12 SCH in their junior year and still enrolled at the same or
another institution, in the same or other program, one academic year later.
Completion Rate of Juniors – Junior-level, degree-seeking students who enrolled in a minimum of 12
SCH in the Fall of their junior year who graduated with a Baccalaureate degree from the same
institution or another U. T. System institution after four academic years, reported by whether the
student graduated in the same program or graduated in a different program (identified by a 6-digit
CIP code). Flex entry students are excluded.
Average Number of Semesters to Graduation – Every student who earned a baccalaureate degree in
specific majors (identified by a 6-digit CIP code) at a public general academic institution was traced
back to when the student first enrolled at a U. T. System institution. For each of these students, the
number of fall and spring semesters attended were totaled.
Average Number of Semester Credit Hours to Graduation – Every student who earned a baccalaureate
degree in specific majors (identified by a 6-digit CIP code) at a public general academic institution
was traced back to when the student first enrolled at a U. T. System institution. For each of these
students, the number of college-level semester credit hours attempted (excluding developmental
education credits) were totaled for fall, spring, and summer semesters.
Number of Majors – Number of undergraduate declared majors in the program by 6-digit CIP code
for Fall and Spring semesters. Flex entry and dual credit students are excluded.
Number of Degrees Awarded – Number of baccalaureate degrees awarded by 6-digit CIP code.
7
Appendix D
Sample Student Success Metric Analysis
Persistence Rate of Juniors
Step 1: Assess the most recent persistence rate of juniors in the College.
Discussion Question: What might be affecting persistence?
Step 2: Analyze the persistence rate for the College and for the departments or programs in the
College.
Discussion Questions:
A. Are some degree programs exhibiting lower rates of persistence than others?
B. Which programs exhibit persistence rates lower than the College average and the
institutional average?
Step 3: Analyze the different types of students who did not reenroll from the previous semester.


Analyze the breakdown of students who did not reenroll from the previous semester.
Analyze the breakdown of academically eligible students from the previous semester.
Discussion Questions:
A. What trends do you observe?
B. What can be done to increase persistence rates in the next year?
C. What next steps should be taken?
Step 4: Identify Potential Enrollees from Academically Eligible Group
 Contact eligible students who have no registration holds and students who require major
advising.
 Forward list of students with financial, admissions, and financial aid holds to Enrollment
Management for further action to determine potential pool.
 Forward list of students with holds to Student Affairs to determine potential pool.
8