Letter of A & S Dean, Dr. Francis Scully to Dr. Walter Harris, Provost

[Widely distributed by Dean Scully to all A&S Faculty

February 6, 2006

Dr. Walter Harris

Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs

Office of the Provost, Campus Box 7

Loyola University New Orleans

Dear Walter:

I am reluctantly submitting the materials you requested of deans: the A&S Program Matrix and the Ranking of Programs. I have discussed the Matrix and the ranking

with both my College Planning Team and my Council of Chairs. Both groups unanimously recommended that I not submit these (emphasis mine) because they do not know

how they will be used.

The following items are at the heart of their concerns:

· faculty uncertainty that the centrality of programs to mission will be the principal component in program evaluation,

· the need for program evaluation at all levels in all divisions and offices in addition to evaluation of academic programs,

· the vagueness of the process to be used,

· frustration that the evaluative criteria used in the Program Matrix are not equally applicable across programs,

· concern that interrater variability will not provide reliable evaluations of programs across departments, colleges, offices, or divisions..

Walter, I believe that program review is important and that appropriate resources should be distributed to the programs that are the most important to the mission of the

university. However, if those resources are decreased to one program and increased to another without any clear understanding about how the decisions to do that have

been made, then there will be confusion and distrust among the faculty about the motives of administrators. I know you do not want to draw out the program review process.

Neither do I, but I believe the review can be done in a timely manner and include a discussion with faculty about the exact process of arriving at the difficult decisions that

will need to be made to ensure the integrity of programs essential to this university.

In the end administrators will need to make the very difficult decisions about distributing limited resources. I am prepared to abide by that, but my faculty want assurances

that the programs in their college are reviewed fairly and with an understanding of the centrality of the humanities, the sciences, and the fine arts in the mission of any

liberal arts university. They also want assurances that program evaluation will be carried out at all levels in all divisions of the university.

I suggest that the ratings of deans and vice presidents be distributed widely, opened to the faculty and staff for comments for a week, and all of this considered by you

and the president in the next phase of evaluation. When any recommendations about reallocation of resources are made, I suggest those decisions also be opened to

faculty comments and that similar iterations be made as necessary throughout the review process. In this way the tough final decisions will be made with transparency

and clear communication throughout the process.

Walter, I am ready to support you in this difficult process as best I can, but, if decisions are not made in the light of day, administrators will lose faculty confidence

and this is not something we can afford to squander in these difficult times.

Sincerely,

Frank E. Scully, Jr., Dean

________________________________________________Evaluations and Conclusions by A&S Dean Program Mix ACADEMICPROGRAMS INPUTS TO DECISIONS (EVALUATIVE CRITERIA) Internal External Cost/RevenueRelationship DecisionsonTargetGoals PotentialFacultyQuality Centrality ServicetoNon-majors LibraryHolding FacilitiesandEquipment Demandby Majors DemandforGraduates LocationalAdvantage ComparativeAdvantage CommunityImpact Biology Adequate High Medium Average High/Stable High/Stable No No Medium Chemistry Strong High High Average Medium/Stable High/Stable No No Medium Classical Studies Adequate High Medium NA Low/Stable Medium/Stable NA No Medium Communications B.S. Strong High Low Excellent High/Stable High/Stable Yes Yes High M.A. Mass Comm. Strong Medium Low Average Low/Stable Medium/Stable No No Medium Drama & Speech Weak High Low Average Medium/Decreasing Medium/Stable NA No High Education & Counseling B.S. Adequate High Low Average Medium/Stable High/Growing Yes No High Grad. Elementary weak High low Average Medium/Decreasing Medium/Stable Yes No High Grad. Secondary weak High low Average Medium/Decreasing Medium/Stable Yes No High Grad. Counseling Strong High Low Average High/Growing High/Growing Yes Yes High English Excellent High High NA High/Stable Medium/Stable NA Yes/Writing Medium History Strong High High NA Medium/Stable Medium/Stable NA No Medium Math & CS Mathematics Strong High High NA Low/Stable Medium/Stable NA No Medium Computer Sci./CIS Strong High Low Average Medium/Decreasing Medium/Decreasing No No Medium Modern Foreign Lang. French Adequate High High Average Medium/Stable Medium/Stable Yes No Medium German Adequate High High Average Low/Stable Medium/Stable NA No Low Russian Weak Weak High Average Low/Stable Low/Stable NA No Low Spanish Strong High High Average Medium/Stable Medium/Stable NA No Medium Japanese Adequate Medium High Average Low/Stable Medium/Stable NA No Low Philosophy Excellent High High NA Medium/Stable Medium/Stable NA No Medium Physics Adequate High High Poor Low/Decreasing High/Stable NA No Medium Political Science Weak High Low Excellent High/Stable Medium/Stable Yes No High Psychology Adequate High Low Average Medium/Stable Medium/Stable NA No Medium Religious Studies B.A. Excellent High High NA Low/Stable Medium/Stable NA No Medium M.A. Excellent Medium Low NA Low/Stable Medium/Stable NA No Medium Sociology Strong High Medium NA Medium/Stable Medium/Stable NA No High Visual Arts B.F.A./B.A. Strong High Low Poor Medium/Stable Medium/Stable Yes No Medium B.A. Graph. Des. Strong High Low Average Medium/Growing High/Stable Yes No Medium

Overall Ranking of Programs

in the College of Arts and Sciences

(by Arts and Sciences Dean, Without Input)

Criteria for Overall Ranking:

1. Demand for the Program, i.e., Value in Recruitment for University

2. Recognition (Measurable Success) of the Program’s Students or Graduates

3. Adequacy of Faculty to Sustain Demand for Program

4. Quality of Faculty Scholarship

5. Quality of Faculty Teaching

6. Centrality of Program to the Mission of the University

7. Involvement of Faculty in Innovative Teaching, curricular development, or programs that enhance Retention (PIES, FYE).

Rank:

First Quintile:

Communications

Counseling, M.A.

English

History

Philosophy

Second Quintile:

Biology

Chemistry

Psychology

Religious Studies, B.A.

Sociology

Spanish

Third Quintile:

Education, B.S.

French

Mathematics

Political Science

VISA, Graphic Design

Fourth Quintile: Fifth Quintile:

Classics Education, Graduate

Computer Science M.S., Mass Communications

Drama Japanese

German Religious Studies, M.A

Physics Russian

VISA, BFA/BA

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________