Standard III: An institution provides students with learning experiences that are characterized by rigor and coherence at all program, certificate, and degree levels, regardless of instructional modality. All learning experiences, regardless of modality, program pace/schedule, level, and setting are consistent with higher education expectations (I.1.001.MSCHE_Standards_RoA).
Summary Declaration
Syracuse University ensures that learning experiences are rigorous and coherent across modalities and offerings, and that students can complete their programs of study over time periods consistent with higher education norms. One of our strengths lies in our comprehensive policies and procedures that control the development and approval of curriculum and academic programs. These policies and procedures include a persistent, central role for the University Senate’s Committee on Curricula—a body that oversees all modifications, additions, and deletions from the academic curriculum. In addition to our own internal standards, the New York State Education Department (NYSED) imposes requirements and approval processes to which we adhere for all of our degree and certificate programs. Syracuse University, like other universities operating in New York State, must meet the regulatory standards of NYSED and New York State’s Board of Regents. Therefore, we believe that based upon the evidence we reviewed that Syracuse University is in compliance with Standard III.
Overview of Satisfactory/Exemplary Criteria
Criterion 3.1 pertains to the structure of academic programs in terms of length and coherency of learning experiences. Syracuse University offers more than 400 academic programs that result in a certificate or a bachelor’s, master’s, or doctoral degree. (III.1.001.Degree_Inventory). Schools and colleges administer certificate, undergraduate, master’s, doctoral, and professional degrees with oversight from the University Senate and coordination by the Office of the Provost. The University’s Graduate School also plays a special role in the administration of post-baccalaureate degrees. As the Graduate School’s website explains, “All Syracuse University graduate degree programs, with the exception of Law, are organized under the auspices of the Graduate School. Applications for admission are submitted to the Graduate School, which also confers degrees upon graduation.”
The University’s semester credit-hour requirements are within the conventional norms for higher education at each level and comply with credit-hour requirements of the New York State Education Department (III.1.002.Undergrad_Credit_Hours). In a minority of cases when the credit-hour requirements are higher, as in the five-year architecture program, this is communicated clearly to interested or prospective students beginning with recruiting materials and admissions processes. For example, the program description for architecture in the course catalog begins with the sentence, “The B.Arch is a 5-year professional degree in Architecture.”
Likewise, the University’s online programs operated in conjunction with 2U, an online program management provider, offer credit hours based on 10-week sessions. Note that the faculty of Syracuse University provides 100% of the academic content in these programs, while 2U provides services for marketing and video production as well as software tools for online content delivery. These online programs also meet the New York State Education Department requirements.
Ensuring coherence begins with a multistage process for introducing new courses, programs and/or certificates, as well as for changing the curricula within a program. This process applies to all Syracuse University courses offered on any Syracuse campus, including New York City, Los Angeles, Washington DC and the Syracuse Abroad centers. All schools and colleges within the University have committees on curricula that submit proposals for evaluation by the University Senate Committee on Curricula (SCC). The SCC imposes a required cross-college consultation process that ensures coordination. The SCC also uses a curriculum management tool, called Curriculog, that analyzes proposed changes with respect to their impact on existing curricula. Program additions, deletions, renaming, and substantive changes also undergo review with the NYSED Department of Higher Education and/or Office of the Professions. At all levels of review, consideration is given to the integrity of the program being proposed as well as its integration with associated programs and curricula. The SCC also helps the University to avoid duplication of courses and programs and helps to verify that new programs, curricula changes, and new courses meet the state credit-hour requirements. An academic assessment plan indicating how the curricula align with program learning outcomes is required along with the expertise, qualifications, and syllabi of the faculty involved in delivery of the curricula (III.1.003.SCC_CourseProposalForm).
Criterion 3.2 is concerned with the qualifications and development of the faculty who are charged with designing, delivering, and assessing the student learning experience. In keeping with our mission as a pre-eminent and inclusive student-focused research university, our faculty are productive scholars as well as rigorous teachers. In addition, faculty actively work to support student success through service on committees such as strategic planning, the Climate Assessment Planning Committee, the Student Success Council, and the Student Success Steering Committee.
With respect to Criterion 3.2a, evidence of rigor and effectiveness in teaching arises from a diverse range of evidence such as licensure pass rates, assessment data, summative course evaluations, and grade distributions. For example, in the July 2016 bar examination, Syracuse University College of Law graduates achieved an 89.5% pass rate (III.2.012.Law_FAQ). All departments ask students to complete evaluations at the end of each course. Questions are not standardized across the institution. Rather, each department and in some cases each course offers a set of uniquely appropriate questions targeting students’ learning experiences and the effectiveness of the instructor (III.2.002.StudentRating_Manual). Results of these surveys are collected centrally and collated. They are then delivered back to departments and used in faculty performance reviews. Grade distributions show meaningful variation of final grades across academic units, departments, and individual courses (III.2.001.Grade_Statistics).
| Female | Male | Total | |||||||||
| School College | Academic Career | Academic Level | Student Count | Cum. GPA | Sem. GPA | Student Count | Cum. GPA | Sem. GPA | Student Count | Cum. GPA | Sem. GPA |
| Arts & Sciences | Undergrad | Freshman | 628 | 3.2186 | 3.1642 | 379 | 2.8360 | 2.6966 | 1007 | 3.0823 | 2.9976 |
| Sophomore | 689 | 3.3349 | 3.3155 | 508 | 3.0880 | 3.0175 | 1197 | 3.2369 | 3.1973 | ||
| Junior | 531 | 3.2883 | 3.2249 | 387 | 3.0918 | 3.0485 | 918 | 3.2157 | 3.1598 | ||
| Senior | 858 | 3.3661 | 3.4208 | 580 | 3.2177 | 3.2175 | 1438 | 3.3112 | 3.3456 | ||
| Total | 2706 | 3.3352 | 3.3483 | 1854 | 3.1457 | 3.1161 | 4560 | 3.2646 | 3.2617 | ||
| Graduate | Graduate | 436 | 3.7415 | 2.1117 | 333 | 3.7200 | 2.0285 | 769 | 3.7331 | 2.0789 | |
| Total | 436 | 3.7415 | 2.1117 | 333 | 3.7200 | 2.0285 | 769 | 3.7331 | 2.0789 | ||
| Architecture | Undergrad | Freshman | 26 | 2.8087 | 2.8323 | 28 | 2.8077 | 2.5806 | 54 | 2.8081 | 2.6996 |
| Sophomore | 57 | 2.9326 | 3.0814 | 38 | 2.9621 | 3.0154 | 95 | 2.9434 | 3.0571 | ||
| Junior | 43 | 3.1841 | 3.3295 | 40 | 2.9966 | 3.1383 | 83 | 3.0929 | 3.2365 | ||
| Senior | 121 | 3.3370 | 3.4054 | 120 | 3.2067 | 3.2607 | 241 | 3.2773 | 3.3392 | ||
| Total | 247 | 3.2540 | 3.3369 | 226 | 3.1419 | 3.1892 | 473 | 3.2030 | 3.2696 | ||
| Graduate | Graduate | 40 | 3.3578 | 3.2276 | 54 | 3.3904 | 3.3146 | 94 | 3.3765 | 3.2775 | |
| Total | 40 | 3.3578 | 3.2276 | 54 | 3.3904 | 3.3146 | 94 | 3.3765 | 3.2775 | ||
| Engineering & Computer Sciences | Undergrad | Freshman | 36 | 3.0309 | 2.9059 | 165 | 3.0473 | 2.9515 | 201 | 3.0441 | 2.9427 |
| Sophomore | 82 | 3.1694 | 2.9026 | 251 | 3.0345 | 2.8916 | 333 | 3.0680 | 2.8943 | ||
| Junior | 64 | 3.1392 | 2.8777 | 247 | 3.0579 | 2.8857 | 311 | 3.0764 | 2.8839 | ||
| Senior | 148 | 3.2500 | 3.4577 | 443 | 3.2342 | 3.2708 | 591 | 3.2386 | 3.3222 | ||
| Total | 330 | 3.2099 | 3.2617 | 1106 | 3.1589 | 3.1214 | 1436 | 3.1720 | 3.1574 | ||
| Graduate | Graduate | 241 | 3.5495 | 2.7449 | 821 | 3.4880 | 2.8906 | 1062 | 3.5025 | 2.8564 | |
| Total | 241 | 3.5495 | 2.7449 | 821 | 3.4880 | 2.8906 | 1062 | 3.5025 | 2.8564 | ||
Spring semester 2017: Excerpt from campuswide mean GPA report provided to Senate Committee on Instruction by the Office of the University Registrar. Represents the College of Arts and Sciences, the School of Architecture, and the College of Engineering and Computer Science.
Criterion 3.2b refers to the qualifications of faculty members. Detailed policies and procedures related to hiring, promotion, and tenure ensure that faculty are qualified at the point of hire, and that they demonstrate effectiveness over time in teaching, scholarly inquiry, and service. There are multiple layers of review at the institution level, and individual schools and colleges enforce their own policies as well (III.2.003.BoT_Decision_Promotion_Tenure; III.2.004.Office_Provost_Tenure_Promotion, III.2.005.Tenure_Promotion_Checklist, III.2.006.Faculty_Personnel_Policies _Procedures_iSchool, III.2.007.Promotion_Tenure_Review_Procedures_Arts_Sciences).
In reference to Criterion 3.2c, evidence of a sufficient number of faculty may be demonstrated by reference to the University’s student-faculty ratio. At 16:1, our ratio is aligned with other U.S. universities as reported in the Common Data Set. The distribution of faculty at the unit level is evident in department profile data (III.2.008.Department_Profile_Data), which provides ratios of organized classes per faculty member and semester credit-hour productivity per faculty member. Variation across disciplines comports with norms at other universities and primarily reflects differing demands of scholarly activity across disciplines.
In the case of Criterion 3.2d, Syracuse has a generous research leave policy, which provides tenured and tenure-track faculty with opportunities for professional renewal. Research leave is available for one semester at full pay with benefits, or for an academic year leave at half pay with benefits (III.2.013.Leave_Policies). Tenure-track and tenured faculty may take administrative leave for personal business, government service, or family needs (III.2.009.Faculty_Manual_Research_Admin_Leave). Initiatives such as the future professoriate program (a professional development program for doctoral students), faculty recognition programs, the University Lectures, and the Human Resources Department’s “WorkLife and Organizational Development” program (III.2.010.HR_Professional_Development) add to faculty and staff growth opportunities. Each school also supports faculty through professional development funds and specific seminars/experiences that enrich, expand, and stimulate professional growth and innovation.
With respect to Criterion 3.2e, the Faculty Manual clearly describes both the criteria and processes for appointments, promotions, and tenure (II.1.001.Faculty_Manual). Deans report annually on pre-tenure faculty in a form that includes a performance appraisal of teaching, advising, research, and service. (III.2.011.NonTenured_Faculty_Annual_Report)
Criterion 3.3 refers to the efficacy of academic program publications. University materials for academic programs are abundant, clear, accurate, and accessible, and mechanisms for students to audit their own progress are under constant revision. The self-study working team developed a rubric to assess program publications (III.3.001.Prog_Pubs_Rubric) and used the rubric to evaluate a sample of undergraduate and graduate programs for clarity and accuracy in the materials students use to track their degree requirements.
Reviewed publications covered the length of a student’s career, from prospective student to matriculation to graduation, and included program websites (III.3.001.Prog_Pubs_Rubric), school/college degree checklists (III.3.002.Newhouse_UG_Core_Checklist), major requirement checklists (III.3.003.Check_Sheet_Sample_1), and the course catalog (III.3.004.Course Catalog). These sources were found to be complete and consistent. The course catalog serves as the primary reference, and the catalog is updated for each academic year. Many schools and colleges, however, provide additional resources, such as degree checklists and major requirements worksheets. (III.3.005.Check_Sheet_Sample_3, III.3.006.Newhouse_AdvisingToDo, III.3.007.Graduation_Processing_Process_Documentation_Student_Select; III.3.008.Graduation_Processing_Process_Documentation_Pop_Select; III.3.009.Posting_Degrees_Process).
Many programs use recently implemented enterprise advising and degree audit systems. The Orange SUccess advising system (based on Hobson’s “Starfish” product) gives students an electronic tool to request advising or other support related to course selections, intra-University transfer, disability accommodations, and on-campus residence conflicts. The system gives undergraduate advisors and faculty a shared platform for monitoring student progress and success. Faculty can track attendance, for example, or flag a student for poor performance. Once a concern is initiated, both the student and an advisor are notified. An enterprise degree audit system (Degree Works by Ellucian) makes real-time, accurate information about progress toward the degree available to students in a self-service mode. In Degree Works, students can view their degree program in terms of required courses that are outstanding or completed, and grades received for courses taken, as well as other information.
Criterion 3.4 is concerned with learning opportunities and resources being sufficient to support programs of study and students’ academic progress. As an institution in New York State, Syracuse University is accountable to the New York State Education Department’s regulations to measure learning opportunities and resources for our students. In concert with these regulations, the resources available at the University are managed by two main divisions: the Office of Academic Affairs (III.4.001.Provost_Org_Chart_Placeholder), and the Division of Enrollment and the Student Experience. Four University Senate committees provide oversight: Academic Affairs, Computing Services, the Library, and Student Life. These committees serve as liaisons to the University units responsible for learning resources, communicate with the Senate concerning the needs of those units, and make recommendations to the units as needs arise.
The University demonstrates sufficient supportive resources as evidenced by usage statistics for several of the services. The Libraries (III.4.002.Libraries_Annual_Report) had 8,000 interactions with students in 2015-16 through 373 library instruction sessions, and students conducted more than 17 million database searches. In the Division of Enrollment and the Student Experience (II.2.001.Div_of_Student_Affairs_2014-2015_Annual_Report), 2,301 students (10.7 percent) utilized the Office of Student Assistance, 948 students (4.4 percent) lived in the learning communities, 1,986 students (9.2 percent) utilized the Counseling Center, and 5,470 students and alumni utilized career counseling sessions through Career Services. Syracuse University supports academic advising and program planning through advising offices in each college (III.4.004.Advising_Architecture, III.4.005.Advising_Arts_and_Sciences, III.4.006.Advising_Engineering_and_Computer_Science, III.4.007.Advising_Falk, III.4.008.Advising_iSchool, III.4.009.Advising_Newhouse, III.4.010.Advising_School of Ed, III.4.011.Advising_University_College, III.4.012.Advising_VPA, III.4.013.Advising_Whitman), which provide in-person support and guidance. The Degree Works (III.4.014.Degree_Works_Example) and Orange SUccess (III.4.015.OrangeSUccess_Example) systems mentioned above were implemented with advising support specifically in mind. In addition, there are a number of additional tutoring, health and wellness-related, career-related, and other support programs and offices listed and briefly summarized in this document. (III.4.016.Support_Programs_and_Offices)
Summer 2017 website excerpt: The Center for Learning and Student Success announces its free group tutoring program for courses that students find challenging.
Criterion 3.5 refers to a general education program of appropriate scope to support a broad-based intellectual experience. We confirm that through our Liberal Arts Core (LAC) and compliance with New York State standards, we offer a general education program that is consistent with our mission; includes the study of values, ethics, and diverse perspectives; and ensures that students acquire a range of essential skills. The Rules of the New York State Board of Regents, section 3.47(c), stipulate that “undergraduate degrees shall be distinguished … by the minimum amount of liberal arts content required for each degree. The required liberal arts core shall not be directed toward specific occupational or professional objectives.” The rule also details what proportion of each degree type (e.g. BA or BS), ranging from one-quarter to one-half, must be devoted to the liberal arts core. (III.5.001.NYSED_LiberalArts). Neither NYSED nor the Syracuse University Senate (III.5.002.Senate_Committee_Curricula) will approve academic programs that fail to meet this standard. Thus, all undergraduate programs, even those outside the College of Arts and Sciences, offer a core curriculum. NYSED supplies a list of content areas that do and do not qualify as liberal arts core. The list is a high-level guide, so the Liberal Arts Core (LAC; III.5.003.Liberal_Arts_Core_Course_Catalog; described below) in the College of Arts and Sciences serves as the general education reference for all undergraduate programs at Syracuse University.
The LAC has three fundamental elements: (1) Liberal Skills, which focuses primarily on writing, language, and quantitative skills; (2) Divisional Perspective, which ensures disciplinary breadth; and (3) Critical Reflections, which prepares students to think critically, and to do so in the context of social and ethical issues. The Standard III working team developed a rubric to assess the University’s LAC against the Middle States essential skills list. As evidenced in the completed rubric (III.5.004.Rubric_Liberal_Arts_Core_Review), the working team determined that the LAC addresses the Middle States essential skills list in all areas. Assessment of LAC skills takes place primarily within LAC courses, and learning outcomes in assessment plans of academic disciplines that teach LAC courses reflect LAC skills. In addition, the College of Arts and Sciences has written an assessment plan for LAC skills apart from particular courses or degree programs. Assessments at this level of aggregation are not yet fully executed.
While informed by the LAC, programs outside of Arts and Sciences also have specialized accrediting bodies that mandate school-wide general education outcomes. Architecture, Engineering, Law, Public Communications, and Management have common outcomes found in all undergraduate programs; in Education, Sports and Human Dynamics, and Visual and Performing Arts, the general requirements of the non-accredited programs share outcomes with the accredited programs. Evidence of this is found in the assessment plans. For example, in Public Communications, the first 12 outcomes of each bachelor’s-level program are shared by all programs and reflect compliance with Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass Communications standards (III.5.005.Newhouse_Mass_Communications_PhD_AAPlan).
In order to verify the suitability of liberal arts requirements in programs outside of Arts and Sciences, the Standard III self-study working team reviewed a sample of programs, with a rubric developed for each to assess the integration of a general education program (III.5.004.Rubric_Liberal_Arts_Core_Review). The self-study team found that programs aligned with the standards of the LAC and with the Middle States skills list, although opportunities for strengthening appeared for technological competency and information literacy (see description in the next section of the University-wide shared competencies).
Criterion 3.6 relates to graduate and professional education. Recognizing that opportunities for development of research, scholarship, and independent thinking take different forms in different disciplines, we affirm that such opportunities are diverse and abundant, and guided by faculty who are well qualified. University resources and programs that support research and scholarship include sponsored research with sponsored expenditures of $76.2 million in 2015, (III.6.001.2015_Annual Report Final_OSP), research centers (with more than 30 centers currently on campus) (III.6.002.Research_Centers), faculty and professionals providing scholarly expertise and collaborative opportunities (searchable at, III.6.003.Experts_Office_of_Research_Site), and graduate and professional degree requirements designed to support involvement in research or scholarship appropriate to the field of study (III.6.004.Graduate_School_Policies_Requirements_Site).
The number of students successfully completing graduate and professional degrees that require discipline-specific participation in an appropriate research or scholarship experience provides concrete evidence of student participation in these opportunities. For example, PhD, EDD, DPS, and MS granting programs in the University produced an average of 160 PhD theses, 1.3 EDD theses, 3.3 DPS theses, and 71 MS theses in academic years 2012-2013 through 2015-2016 (III.6.005.Dissertations_and_Thesis). Many additional metrics of student participation, such as co-authorship of scholarly work and conference participation, are documented and assessed at the department or college/school level. University-wide metrics of scholarly productivity further substantiate research and scholarship opportunities and productivity across the University, with the total number of Web of Science documents from Syracuse University having risen from ~500 in 1980 to between 1,100 and 1,300 over the most recent five years, with normalized citation impact per year remaining high (III.6.006.NextGeneration_InCites_Report). Note that Web of Science is a large database of scholarly publications and citations published by Thomson Reuters.
Fall 2017 website excerpt: Welcome screen from the experts.syr.edu research portal showing more than 25,000 publications and more than 1,500 grants by the 645 Syracuse University faculty who are registered with the portal service.
The research productivity (III.6.006.NextGeneration_InCites_Report) generated from Syracuse University is evidence of the quality of our faculty as well as the availability of opportunities for students. Our transition in the Carnegie Basic classification from High Research Activity in the 2010 classification to Highest Research Activity (a.k.a. R1) in the 2015 ranking demonstrates that our research enterprise is strong and growing. All tenured and tenure-track faculty must have terminal degrees, and commensurate with our peers, the percentage of total instructional faculty with a terminal degree is high at 90 percent.
Criterion 3.7 is concerned with institutional oversight of learning opportunities designed, delivered, or assessed by third-party providers. In all partnerships with third parties, the University relies on institutional curriculum development and examination protocols and maintains ongoing oversight that covers all credit-bearing courses, including transfer credits from accredited institutions, courseware development by partner organizations, and study abroad courses provided by overseas partner institutions, including those universities we partner with at our eight overseas centers. Additionally, the responsibility to monitor and approve all academic credit given for internships and capstone courses relying on third parties is performed by faculty responsible for the course. We classify these learning opportunities into two categories: (a) substantial third-party involvement in credit-bearing coursework, and (b) internships and capstone courses for credit.
(a) Substantial third-party involvement in credit-bearing coursework. This category includes transfer credits earned at other academic institutions, study abroad courses provided by partner institutions and faculty, and the University’s partnership with 2U, a firm specializing in working with universities on delivery of online education. Syracuse University has a robust system for ensuring adequate and appropriate institutional review and approval of transfer credits from other academic institutions. The University registrar sets and communicates the parameters of transfer credit acceptance, including compliance with NYSED rules and the stipulation that transfer credits come from accredited institutions and programs or from those for which articulation agreements exist (III.7.001.Course_Catalogue_Transfer_Credits).
Individual schools, colleges, and degree programs are charged with deciding which transfer credits will be accepted within these University parameters, with faculty having the primary responsibility for setting the guidelines for the acceptance of transfer credits. (III.7.002.Transfer_Student_Info_Arts_and_Sciences).
Study abroad course review and approval undergo a similarly rigorous process to ensure high-quality student learning opportunities. Syracuse University has more than 60 World Partners as well as partnerships with local universities in the cities where our overseas centers are located. These courses are vetted by appropriate departments on campus to determine that they are rigorous enough for Syracuse University credit. MOUs for these third-party providers are reviewed and approved at the provost level for curricular rigor, student safety, and cultural learning opportunities.
Several schools within Syracuse University (Whitman School of Management, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, the iSchool, and the Newhouse School of Public Communications) have partnered with 2U, a firm that assists academic institutions in delivering online courses and programs. In this arrangement, Syracuse University faculty retain responsibility for the content of the courses and instructional interactions, while 2U recruits students and provides an online learning management system and technical assistance. (III.7.003.2U_2016_Form_10-K) This division of responsibility ensures that Syracuse University faculty are responsible for the quality and rigor of courses and programs. Within schools, undergraduate and graduate program directors, department chairs, and deans ensure that program quality meets the standards expected of all academic programs.
(b) Internships and capstone courses for credit. These programs generally involve students learning through work and project-based experiences in a non-academic setting. All courses for academic credit, including internship and capstone courses, are approved by Syracuse University faculty curriculum committees, which ensure that credit-hour requirements are met and that learning objectives and outcomes are clearly and adequately described (III.7.004_University_Senate_Curricula_Committee_Guidance_New_Courses_Course_Changes). When students complete internships and capstones at an external employer, responsibility for assessing student performance remains with the Syracuse University faculty member, with input from the students’ supervisors.
For example, in the Sport Management Program in the Falk College, students complete a 12-credit capstone course where they work full time with a sport organization (III.7.005.Sport_Management_Senior_Capstone). Performance is evaluated on the submission of an extensive capstone portfolio by the student and an oral presentation; and this is supplemented with a performance evaluation provided by the supervisor to the Sport Management faculty member responsible for the course.
Criterion 3.8 is concerned with assessment of program effectiveness. Our current assessment planning process, which manages assessment planning for all academic programs, co-curricular programs, and functional units, is extensive and centrally coordinated. Please review section 5 of this chapter for full details of our assessment processes. The assessment reporting cycle is annual for all academic programs (biannual for most co-curricular and functional areas). Systematic academic program review occurs annually, with approximately one-quarter of the University’s academic programs evaluated each year. Curriculum committees in schools and colleges have primary responsibility for collecting evidence and making recommendations to maintain, improve, merge, or close each academic program. Deans review these recommendations and may support or override the curriculum committees’ decisions. Deans refer their evaluations to the provost in December of each year. The University registrar conducts another form of review through its reporting to schools and colleges of experimental courses that have been offered two or more times but are not yet regularized, as well as reporting courses in the catalog that have not been offered in a number of years.
On an annual cycle, the Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment guides and tracks processes of curriculum mapping, gathering assessment evidence, program review, and stimulating program improvements. In addition, the office provides development resources, such as assessment workshops with national experts and assessment consulting for individual units.
In addition to the University assessment planning process, Syracuse University has 24 programs that are accredited by outside bodies (III.8.001.SU_Accreditation_Schedule_06-2016), and all have been successfully renewed at their most recent review. Each of these accrediting bodies requires program faculty to reflect regularly on their curriculum and program overall for purposes of assessment and improvement. For example, the American Association of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) requires extensive program assessment for business, management, and accounting programs. Specifically, section 6B of the Whitman School of Management’s December 2015 accreditation report (III.8.002.AACSB_Report_Whitman) reflects extensive, critical evaluation by Whitman faculty on the school’s programs. Importantly, external accrediting bodies incorporate the review of expert external faculty in the field.
Areas of Continuous Improvement and Recommendations
With reference to Criterion 3.2, although our faculty count and student-faculty ratio are satisfactory and consistent with other research institutions, we are pursuing a question internally of the desired proportion of tenured and tenure-track faculty relative to non-tenure track faculty (most of whom serve in instructional roles).
Criterion 3.5 pertains to general education. As noted above, a review of the University’s general education program confirmed that the Liberal Arts Core is well-conceived and its influence reaches beyond the College of Arts & Sciences. Ample evidence indicates, however, that this distributed model—in which other schools and colleges adapt the Liberal Arts Core to their own needs—creates challenges for ensuring that students develop the essential skills mandated by Middle States, particularly when they change majors midway through a program of study. When the academic strategic plan draft was finalized in June of 2015 (I.1.002.Trajectory_to_Excellence), one of the primary themes was the student experience, and the first goal under that theme was to “Boldly instill in all undergraduate students those core competencies and values, and provide the dynamic learning experiences, that drive intellectual excellence, feed creativity, and cultivate the skills needed to excel.” The following year, 2015-16, a committee of faculty, students, and other institutional representatives developed a preliminary list of shared competencies for undergraduate and graduate education that reflect our mission and values and fully articulate the goal of the strategic plan (III.5.009.Overview_of_Competencies). The competencies are framed in the context of Syracuse University’s commitment to ethics and integrity as well as its mission and international best practices. Recommendation 2 in Chapter 5 promotes the completion of the current process to develop and implement campus-wide shared competencies. When complete, these competencies will transcend the curricula of specific schools, colleges, and programs to give all students the critical skills that inform academic, personal, and professional success. The actions in Recommendation 2 address the opportunity areas related to criterion 3.5.
The 2016-17 academic year was devoted to working with the University community on refinement and adoption of these campus-wide competencies, and on developing a pilot assessment plan. Based upon a pilot assessment project, we have begun to develop an ongoing, iterative process that examines authentic student work for evidence of student mastery of core competencies at the undergraduate and graduate levels, and then uses academic program and co-curricular curriculum maps to identify changes or interventions that will improve skills. For these efforts to succeed, a broad base of faculty and other community members will have to participate on a rotating basis by refining rubrics, scoring student work, interpreting assessment results, identifying changes needed, or implementing solutions. The schedule below guides our efforts:
- Spring 2017: Drafted rubrics for communication, critical thinking/reasoning, and information and technology competencies and collected student work for a pilot assessment
- Summer 2017: Mapped draft competencies to current undergraduate programs of study; scored student work for the pilot assessment
- Fall 2017: Processed results of pilot assessment; convened ad hoc committee of University Senate to develop final recommendations; committee met twice
- Spring 2018: Ad hoc committee completes its work and issues draft recommendations; University Senate will evaluate ad hoc committee recommendations
- Summer 2018: Score student work for second phase of pilot assessment
- Fall 2018: Draft remaining rubrics and evaluate second pilot assessment
- Ongoing: Full assessment of two competencies per year on a repeating cycle; report on results of assessment provided to school/college curriculum committees
Criterion 3.8 relates to periodic assessment of program effectiveness. Our systematic program review process began in January 2017 (III.8.003.Systematic_Program_Review_Advice), following a strategic planning recommendation that we examine the number of distinct degree programs we have in place. In coordination with the Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment, the program review process was developed to ensure that we take a broad view of all programs. The program review process considers a variety of factors under the broad criteria of quality, centrality, demand, and cost-effectiveness and ensures that all academic programs are reviewed twice within each eight-year Middle States accreditation cycle. This process incorporates student learning data from assessment plans, and it considers a number of other kinds of evidence designed to provide a holistic assessment of each program in the context of other programs at the University, thereby ensuring our portfolio is both current and effective. This process is designed to encourage faculty buy-in by allowing programs choice in the data points to be considered, but it also establishes common data points that provide benchmarking across all programs (III.8.003.Systematic_Program_Review_Advice).
We have identified areas where our program review process could be easier to accomplish, more robust in content, and more transparently communicated. Program review will continue on an established schedule (III.8.004.OIRA_Program_Review_2017), with improvements to the process introduced in each succeeding cycle. In Chapter 5, Recommendation 1 documents these planned improvements.