Review and Reconsideration of Existing Graduate Programs

A process has been developed that follows current policies, structures and procedures in the Caspersen School for the review of existing and formulation of new programs. In the spirit of broad consultation, representatives of each of the three schools will be included throughout the process. It is expected that the review and reconsideration will address the design of new and existing programs and opportunities at the MA and PhD level. If an Area wishes, it might be possible for them to bring consultants early in the review process as they begin work on a redesigned program.

1. Conveners of the graduate programs in English and MHL will work with the Policy and Planning Committee (P&P), the Deans of the Caspersen School and the CLA and with the Provost to develop a timeline for the review and a set of questions to be addressed by area faculty. The institution will provide the necessary support (data and resources) to facilitate the review process. Involvement of graduate students in the area review and redesign process is encouraged but left up to the discretion of the area

2. An evaluation by an external team of reviewers will be a component of the review. These individuals should be nominated based upon their knowledge of the area and their appropriateness as reviewers for Drew programs. The names of X recommended, external reviewers, along with a rationale for each recommendation will be generated by area faculty and submitted to P&P. P&P will then forward the recommendations to the Deans of the Caspersen School and the CLA, and to the Provost who will add any additional names to the list from which she will make the final selection of 3-4 reviewers in consultation with the area. At the same time that an external team of reviewers is being appointed, one internal reviewer from the CLA and the Theological School will also be appointed by the deans of each school from among the members of Dean’s Council/CAPC and serve as part of the review for the duration of the review process.

3. A self-study and program proposal, prepared by area faculty and their conveners, will be submitted to P&P and to the Deans of the Caspersen School, the CLA, and the Theological School; and to the Provost. The self-study will also be forwarded to the external evaluation team.

4. During their campus visit, the reviewers will meet with:

• Area faculty
• Graduate students in the program under consideration
• Policy and Planning
• The Deans of the CSGS and the CLA
• The Provost and the President
• Selected faculty from other areas who have significant connections with the area

5. Following upon a review of relevant materials and the campus visit, the external evaluation team will submit a single written report to the Provost and to the Deans of the Caspersen School, the CLA and the Theological School.

6. After the report is received:

a) The report will be shared with the area faculty;

b) The Area faculty, working with their convener, will respond to the report’s recommendations, and submit their proposals for implementation to P&P;

c) P&P will review this implementation proposal and bring it to the next CSGS faculty meeting for a vote;

d) If the proposal is approved by the CSGS faculty, it will be forwarded to the Deans of the CSGS, the CLA and the Theological School and to the Provost.

e) As part of this review process the Provost will convene a meeting which will include the Deans of the CSGS, the CLA, and the Theological School; the internal reviewers; representative(s) of the area; and a student representative from the program being considered.

f) If the Provost and Deans wish to see substantive changes made in the proposal, they will return it to the Area which will have the opportunity to respond to the proposed changes.

g) The Proposal will be returned to P&P for review and will then be brought back to the CSGS faculty for a vote.

h) If the proposal is again approved by the faculty, the Provost will forward it with her recommendation to the President.

7. Based on the intentions of the areas the external team may serve a more consultative than evaluative role in the review process, with a view to helping areas redesign programs.

.