News

Academic work group hears input from the community

Posted on Dec. 03, 2009, at 2:06 a.m.

The University of Maine Academic Program Prioritization Working Group held a forum for university input Wednesday, where community members offered advice on topics ranging from incoming student quality to objectives for the process.

President Robert Kennedy charged the work group in September to offer advice on how to optimize the academic programs and units at UMaine.

“We were forced into this from a number of different things, but it is very real,” Provost Susan Hunter said.

The work group released the preliminary draft of the criteria it will use to evaluate academic programs at UMaine on Nov. 16. Many of the questions and suggestions surrounded them. The criteria are the scholarly productivity of program’s or unit’s external funding, the student credit hours they offer, degrees they have awarded over the past five years, their links within the university, links outside the university, the characteristics of students when they came into the program and each one’s cost and revenue ratio.

One audience member suggested the work group establish a vision or goal of what they hope the criteria will be judged because none currently exists in the eight criterion.

“I feel like we’re being presented with criteria without a vision of where we’re trying to take the university,” the audience member said.

Hunter said an ultimate vision of the criteria and the process is part of what the work group is discussing.

One of the criteria — student characteristics — involves the quality of students coming into the university, based on their scores in high school and their admissions material. One audience member said that criteria is based on the assumption the students are all traditional students and doesn’t include non-traditional ones. The criteria does not include graduate students whose admissions information is much less concrete than that of undergraduates.

An audience member suggested the work group include criteria for the social or cultural diversity of programs and units.

“I’m really disturbed not to see that,” he said.

The external links criterion — specifically, quality of life and economic impact — was an issue for audience members, and one said it works well for majors framed around specific careers, but doesn’t cover those that involve a lot of changes or programs that don’t prepare students for a specific career.

Another audience member said what is essential to an educated person isn’t part of the criteria. Hunter said it will be part of the work group’s discussions, as will all of the comments heard.

Nate Wildes, a student senator, asked what will happen to students whose graduation requirements change as a result of the work group’s recommendations. Hunter said the university will make sure those students finish under their expected requirements before they introduce any new ones into a program.

“If we are at the point of eliminating a program, one of the responsibilities and obligations of the university is to finish off the students in the pipeline,” Hunter said.

One audience member said the work group needs to link the criteria to trends more than static criteria, which Hunter agreed with.

“You’re right,” said Hunter. “We’re looking at a static point rather than a rate change.”

Wildes took issue with the student characteristics criterion, because he said college students are different from when they were students in high school. Hunter said the goal of the criterion is to assess the attractiveness of a program based on the number and quality of students it attracts from high schools.

“This may not be the way to do it, but if people have ideas of how to do it, that would be great,” Hunter said.

Another audience member said he suspected a “great surge of marketing” that “will result in unintended consequences” once departments realize which ones may be favored over others.

Hunter said the weight or priority of one criteria over another, will be part of the work group’s agenda Thursday and is the major issue it is currently working on finalizing.

Hunter, in response to an audience question, said she had not planned to make the work group’s recommendations public, but would think about it.

The work group’s report will be available for public comment beginning Jan. 8 and will present the final version to Hunter on March 19.

This entry was posted on Thursday, December 3rd, 2009, 2:06 am. You can follow any responses to this article through the RSS feed.