Document 1910018

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
President’s Letter
Table of Contents
Campus Map and Photographs
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 1
About USU ...................................................................................................................................... 4
USU at a Glance ............................................................................................................................. 6
Eligibility Requirements: NWCCU Compliance......................................................................... 7
1997 and 2002 NWCCU Commendations and Recommendations .......................................... 10
2007 ANALYSIS
Standard One: Mission and Goals, Planning and Effectiveness ................................. 13
1.A. Mission and Goals........................................................................................ 13
1.B. Planning and Effectiveness .......................................................................... 20
Standard Two: Educational Program and Its Effectiveness ....................................... 26
2.A. General Requirements .................................................................................. 26
2.B. Educational Program Planning and Assessment .......................................... 33
Policy 2.2. Educational Assessment .................................................................... 37
2.C. Undergraduate Program ............................................................................... 54
2.D. Graduate Program ........................................................................................ 57
2.E. Graduate Faculty and Related Resources ..................................................... 59
2.F. Graduate Records and Academic Credit....................................................... 60
2.G. Continuing Education and Special Learning Activities ............................... 61
2.H. Non-Credit Programs and Courses .............................................................. 69
Summaries of Academic Department Self-Studies ......................................... 71
College of Agriculture .................................................................................... 71
Agricultural Systems Technology Education ......................................... 71
Animal, Dairy, and Veterinary Sciences................................................. 73
Nutrition and Food Sciences ................................................................... 74
Plants, Soils, and Climate ....................................................................... 77
College of Business ........................................................................................ 80
Accountancy ........................................................................................... 80
Business Administration ......................................................................... 82
Economics............................................................................................... 83
Management and Human Resources ....................................................... 85
Management Information Systems ......................................................... 86
College of Education ...................................................................................... 88
Communicative Disorders and Deaf Education ...................................... 88
Elementary Education ............................................................................. 90
Family, Consumer, and Human Development ........................................ 91
Health, Physical Education, and Recreation ........................................... 92
Instructional Technology ........................................................................ 93
Psychology .............................................................................................. 95
Secondary Education .............................................................................. 96
Special Education and Rehabilitation ..................................................... 97
College of Engineering ................................................................................... 99
Biology and Irrigation Engineering ........................................................ 99
Civil and Environmental Engineering .................................................. 100
Electrical and Computer Engineering ................................................... 103
Engineering and Technology Education ............................................... 104
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering ............................................... 106
College of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences ........................................ 108
Art ......................................................................................................... 108
English .................................................................................................. 109
History .................................................................................................. 111
Interior Design ...................................................................................... 112
Intensive English Language Institute .................................................... 113
Journalism and Communication ........................................................... 115
Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning .......................... 116
Languages, Philosophy, and Speech Communication .......................... 118
Music .................................................................................................... 121
Political Science .................................................................................... 123
Sociology, Social Work, and Anthropology ......................................... 125
Theatre Arts .......................................................................................... 127
College of Natural Resources ....................................................................... 130
Environment and Society ...................................................................... 130
Watershed Sciences .............................................................................. 132
Wildland Resources .............................................................................. 134
College of Science ........................................................................................ 136
Biology ................................................................................................. 136
Chemistry and Biochemistry ................................................................ 138
Computer Science ................................................................................. 139
Geology................................................................................................. 141
Mathematics and Statistics.................................................................... 144
Physics .................................................................................................. 146
Honors Program ............................................................................................ 149
Standard Three: Students ............................................................................................ 151
3.A. Purpose and Organization .......................................................................... 151
3.B. General Responsibilities............................................................................. 156
3.C. Academic Credit and Records .................................................................... 161
3.D. Student Services ......................................................................................... 163
3.E. Intercollegiate Athletics.............................................................................. 177
Standard Four: Faculty ................................................................................................ 183
4.A. Faculty Selection, Evaluation, and Development ...................................... 183
4.B. Scholarship, Research, and Artistic Creation ............................................. 192
Standard Five: Library and Information Resources ................................................. 205
5.A. Purpose and Scope ..................................................................................... 206
5.B. Information Resources and Services .......................................................... 207
5.C. Facilities and Access .................................................................................. 215
5.D. Personnel and Management ....................................................................... 218
5.E. Planning and Evaluation ............................................................................. 221
Standard Six: Governance and Administration ......................................................... 223
6.A. Governance System ................................................................................... 223
6.B. Governing Board ........................................................................................ 223
6.C. Leadership and Management ..................................................................... 225
6.D. Faculty Role in Governance ....................................................................... 227
6.E. Student Role in Governance ....................................................................... 227
Policy 6.1. Affirmative Action and Non-Discrimination ................................... 228
Policy 6.2. Collective Bargaining ...................................................................... 228
Standard Seven: Finance .............................................................................................. 230
7.A. Financial Planning ..................................................................................... 230
7.B. Adequacy of Financial Resources .............................................................. 234
7.C. Financial Management ............................................................................... 236
7.D. Fundraising and Development ................................................................... 239
Standard Eight: Physical Resources ........................................................................... 241
8.A. Instructional and Support Facilities ........................................................... 241
8.B. Equipment and Materials ........................................................................... 248
8.C. Physical Resource Planning ....................................................................... 251
Standard Nine: Institutional Integrity ........................................................................ 254
2007 SYNTHESIS
Utah State University: Changes, Challenges and Plans ........................................... 259
List of Required and Suggested Supporting Documentation ................................................. 267
(See http://aaa.usu.edu/Assessment/Documentation_Sup.aspx for links)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Process
Organization of Self-Study
Utah State University initiated the task of
developing its NWCCU Self-Study in May 2005
with the appointment of a Planning Committee
consisting of:
The first section of the self-study is ―About
USU‖, which provides a brief overview of the
university. It is followed by a response to the
Eligibility Requirements and then a section that
discusses commendations and recommendations
made by NWCCU as a result of the 1997
accreditation visit and also recommendations
made by President George Dennison following
his 2002 interim review.
Craig Petersen (Director of Analysis,
Assessment, and Accreditation), Chair
Gary Kiger (Dean of Humanities, Arts, and
Social Sciences)
Sydney Peterson (President‘s Chief of Staff)
David Stephens (Former Dean of
Business)
Dennis Welker (Faculty Senate)
The largest segment of the document is the
―Analysis‖ section, which focuses on the nine
NWCCU accreditation standards. The final
section is designated as a ―Synthesis‖ in the
sense that it brings together the basic findings of
the self-study process. It starts with a brief
review of important events at USU since the
1997/2002 NWCCU site visits and then
considers the major challenges facing the
university and how the university is responding
or plans to respond to those challenges.
That group provided general oversight for
accreditation activities. In September 2005, a
Steering Committee was established which
includes the Planning Committee plus the nine
chairs (as shown in the ―Participants‖ section
below) of the committees charged with writing
the self-study sections addressing NWCCU
standards. In January 2006, the members of the
nine committees received an invitation from the
President to participate in writing the self-study.
All supporting documentation required by
NWCCU for the self-study is found at
http://aaa.usu.edu/Assessment/Documentation_S
up.aspx .
A goal was set by the Planning Committee that
the entire self-study document would not exceed
260 pages. Consequently, each of the nine
committees was given a maximum number of
pages for its section. Committees were asked to
focus on an analysis and assessment of their
standard as it relates to USU. Each committee
was also asked to submit a ―near-finished‖ draft
of its section by mid-March 2007, and this goal
was met. Self-studies for academic departments
were developed during that period and
summaries of these self-studies are included as
part of Standard Two.
Findings
In addressing the nine NWCCU standards,
challenges and recommendations have been
identified and are included at the end of the
major elements of each standard.
The synthesis section found at the end of the
self-study considers how the challenges and
recommendations from each standard interrelate
and provides a broader explanation of the major
challenges facing USU and also the university‘s
plans for responding to those challenges.
The next few months were used to conduct a
campus-wide review of the document. In midJuly, the required notice was published
requesting comments about the university.
1
Mary Doty (Counseling Center)
Brian Evans (Athletics)
Tiffany Evans (Student Involvement/Leadership)
Linda Gilgen (Children‘s House)
Stephanie Hamblin (University Advising)
Dave Hansen (Bookstore)
Steve Jenson (Housing Services)
Joan Kleinke (AAA Office)
Kevin Kobe (Campus Recreation)
Steve Mecham (Campus Police)
John Mortensen (University Advising)
Jeannie Pacheco (International Student Services)
Dallin Phillips (Student Services)
Jennifer Putnam (Admissions/Recruitment)
Carol Rosenthal (Academic Resource Center)
Steve Sharp (Financial Aid)
Patricia Stevens (Women‘s Center)
Suzann Thorpe (Student Services)
Jay Wamsley (Student Media)
Chuck Weaver (Dining Services)
Self-Study Participants
The following individuals participated in writing
the USU Self-Study:
Standard One: Mission and Goals
Juan Franco (VP Student Services), Chair
Joyce Albrecht (Advancement Office)
Ann Aust (Research Office)
Byron Burnham (Dean, Grad School)
Don Cooley (Dept Head, Computer Science)
Raymond Coward (Provost)
John DeVilbiss (Director, PR/Media Relations)
Kevin Dustin (Athletics)
Glenn Ford (VP Business)
Chuck Gay (Extension)
Stacie Gomm (Instructional Technology)
Gary Kiger (Dean, HASS)
Derek Mason (Faculty Senate)
Teresa McKnight (Innovation Campus)
Quinn Millet (President, ASUSU)
Craig Petersen (AAA Office)
Sydney Peterson (President‘s Office)
Larry Smith (Provost‘s Office)
Maure Smith (ASUSU)
Rory Weaver (Instructional Technology)
Standard Four: Faculty
Chris Fawson (Assoc. Dean, Business), Chair
Jeff Broadbent (Research Office)
David Paul (Research Office)
Russ Price (Research Office)
Ed Reeve (Faculty Senate)
Larry Smith (Provost‘s Office)
Gary Straquadine (Agriculture)
Irene Whittier (Human Resources)
Standard Two: Educational Program and Its
Effectiveness
Shelly Lindauer (Assoc. Dean, Grad School),
Chair
Byron Burnham (Dean, Grad School)
Kay Forsyth (Study Abroad Office)
Norm Jones (Dept Head, History)
Joyce Kinkead (Research Office)
Joan Kleinke (AAA Office)
Ronda Menlove (RCDE)
John Mortensen (Registrar)
Craig Petersen, (AAA Office)
Dan Peterson (Conference Services)
Larry Smith (Provost‘s Office)
Bill Strong (RCDE)
Standard Five: Library and Information
Resources
John Elsweiler (Acting Director, Library), Chair
Bob Bayn (Instructional Technology)
Lisa Berreau, (Faculty)
Steve Harris (Library)
Wendy Holliday (Library)
Will Popendorf (Faculty Senate)
Betty Rozum (Library)
James Sanders (Faculty)
Ed Stafford (Faculty)
Standard Three: Students
Standard Six: Governance and
Administration
Eric Olsen (Director, Student Center), Chair
Nazih Ali-Rashid (Student Support Services)
Diane Baum (Disability Resources)
Noelle Call (1st Year Experience)
Donna Crow (Career Services)
Jim Davis (Student Health)
Moises Diaz (Multicultural Office)
Martha Dever (Dept Head, Secondary Educ), Chair
Justin Atkinson (ASUSU)
Lee Burke (Government Relations)
John Kras (Faculty Senate)
Dave Ottley (AAEO Office)
Larry Smith (Provost‘s Office)
2
Standard Seven: Finance
David Cowley (Controller), Chair
Rick Allen (Controller‘s Office)
Steve Broadbent (Extension)
Cindy Durtschi (Faculty)
Larry Hipps (Faculty Senate)
Kelly Olsen (Controller‘s Office)
Whitney Pugh (Budget Office)
Joan Scheffke (Advancement)
Jeannie Simmonds (Advancement)
Joe Vandemerwe (Budget Office)
Standard Eight: Physical Resources
David Luthy (Associate Dean, Business), Chair
Lee Alder (Controller‘s Office)
Ben Berrett (Facilities)
Eileen Campbell (Facilities)
Steve Bilbao (Safety Office)
Dave Cowley (Controller‘s Office)
Stacie Gomm (Instructional Technology)
Kevin Grover (Instructional Technology)
Darrell Hart (Assoc. VP, Facilities)
Dale Huffaker (Real Property/Risk Management)
Jonathon Kadis (Instructional Technology)
Stan Kane (Campus Planning)
Lisa Leishman (Parking)
Dave Petersen (Facilities)
Kevin Phillips (Facilities)
Suzanne Pratt (Facilities)
Kathleen Robinson (RCDE)
Andy Shinkle (RCDE)
Roland Squire (Controller‘s Office)
Maurice Thomas (Faculty)
Standard Nine: Institutional Integrity
Eddy Berry (Faculty, SSWA), Chair
Stan Allen (Faculty)
Jennifer MacAdam (Faculty)
Russ Price (Research Office)
Craig Simper (University Counsel)
Larry Smith (Provost‘s Office)
Special Thanks for Editorial Assistance
Marilyn Bloxham
Linda Keith
Joan Kleinke
3
ABOUT USU
supporting those endeavors. The university‘s
mission statement affirms that ―academics
comes first‖ and its vision statement aspires that
USU will be ―internationally recognized for its
exceptional
learning
opportunities.‖
Furthermore, USU Board of Trustees policy
specifies that instruction of students is ―the
foremost activity of Utah State University.‖
Utah State University is part of a 10-institution
state system of higher education governed by the
Utah State Board of Regents. The university
also has its own Board of Trustees.
Founded in 1888 as the Utah Agricultural
College, USU officially became a university in
1957. The university awarded its first advanced
degrees in 1916 and bestowed its first doctoral
degrees in 1950. Over a period of 119 years,
nearly 700,000 students have enrolled as the
institution has evolved from a small, agricultural
college to a major university that is nationally
and internationally recognized for its intellectual
and technological leadership.
Classroom instruction, however, is only part of a
student's experience at USU. Since 1890,
students have participated in both academic and
social organizations. Students began publishing
a newspaper in 1902 and drafted a constitution
for student government in 1908, the predecessor
of the current Associated Students of Utah State
University. The goal of a land-grant college,
according to the institution's first president
Jeremiah W. Sanborn, is not just to provide
training for students, but to provide for their
"liberal education as ... citizen[s]." All 15
university presidents, from Sanborn through
current President Stan L. Albrecht, have
embraced that sentiment.
USU is located in the city of Logan in Cache
Valley, which is 80 miles north of Salt Lake
City. The surrounding area, including ski resorts,
lakes, rivers, and mountains, makes Cache
Valley one of the finest recreational
environments in the nation. For a region with a
population of about 100,000, the community and
the university support a surprising array of firstrate cultural offerings provided by visiting artists
and touring companies, faculty, students, and
members of the community. In addition, Cache
Valley is a very safe location—ranked as the
safest metropolitan area in the United States in
2006. The contributions of the university are
appreciated by the local residents, resulting in a
unique living-learning community for students,
faculty, and staff.
Seven of the last eleven Utah Carnegie
Professors of the Year came from USU. In
2007, USU was designated by the Princeton
Review as one of 165 ―America‘s Best Value
Colleges,‖ based on excellent academics,
generous financial aid, and low tuition.
Research
Research has been a distinguishing characteristic
of the university since the Utah Agricultural
Experiment Station began its operations in 1890.
Under a prior classification scheme, USU was
categorized as a Research I institution by the
Carnegie Foundation. Under the current system,
the university is designated a Doctoral Research
University—High Research.
As Utah's land-grant and space-grant institution,
USU currently has a faculty of 850 who provide
education for more than 23,000 undergraduate
and graduate students, including 10,000 served
at regional campuses and by distance education
throughout the state. The university offers a total
of 200 undergraduate, 90 masters, and 35
doctoral programs.
From land, water, and space to life enhancement, research permeates all of USU‘s seven
colleges and its 43 academic departments. The
university also supports a diverse number of
specialized centers and laboratories in the
Teaching
Teaching has always been the core component
of the university. USU faculty members are
committed to teaching and mentoring their
students, and the administration is committed to
4
sciences, education, business, arts, humanities,
agriculture, natural resources, and engineering.
Hands-on learning opportunities for students are
plentiful because of the scope of USU‘s research
activity. Last year, the university attracted nearly
$140M in external research funding. This level
of research activity, along with stellar faculty
mentors, enables more than 700 undergraduates
to pursue their own research projects every year.
Research also funds stipends and the purchase of
high-technology equipment that is available for
use by undergraduate and graduate students.
Facilities
USU occupies 7,000 acres of land, 400 of which
are on the Logan campus which has more than
200 buildings, with 63 devoted to academics.
The university also has three branch campuses
and maintains Extension Offices that provide
services to residents in each of Utah's counties.
Facilities at USU are continually being
expanded and improved. A new facility for the
College of Engineering was completed in 2004
and additional classroom and laboratory space
for Engineering is currently under construction.
A cutting-edge library and a Laboratory School
for elementary-age children opened in Fall 2005.
A world-class performance hall was added in
2006, and a 600-bed living-learning center
opened the same year in the heart of the campus.
The Utah Water Research Laboratory has
provided valuable research on water resources
since its inception in 1963. The lab's endeavors
have not only impacted Utah, but have attained
national and international reach and acclaim.
Currently, it has projects in all of Utah‘s 29
counties and in 40 other countries.
USU‘s Innovation Campus, just north of the
main campus, is growing rapidly as the
university and private industry partner to create
and market technology and to develop new
products and jobs for Cache Valley and the State
of Utah.
USU expertise has also had a major impact on
the nation's space program, where the Space
Dynamics Laboratory, associated with the
Center for Atmospheric and Space Sciences, has
worked closely with NASA since the early
1960s. The university's current emphasis in
space science and engineering research spans
nearly five decades. More USU projects have
been carried into space by NASA shuttles than
from any other university in the world. More on
USU research is at http://www.usu.edu/research.
Athletics
USU has a long and distinguished tradition of
participation in intercollegiate athletics. The
university is a member of the Western Athletic
Conference and has men‘s and women‘s teams
competing in 16 sports, providing opportunities
for 325 student-athletes. Currently, USU has the
highest graduation rate in the WAC.
Extension
Founded in 1907 as the Utah Cooperative
Extension Service, USU Extension disseminates
information through Extension Offices serving
each county. Involvement in outreach preserves
USU‘s historical land-grant tradition of
providing service to the state, nation, and world.
Development
In March 2007, USU announced the public
phase of the first comprehensive campaign in the
university‘s history. The goal for this effort is to
raise $200M by 2010--$55M for scholarships
and named faculty positions, $95M to enhance
programs, and $50M for new facilities.
The university has maintained an international
scientific presence since the aftermath of World
War II, when it was selected to help develop the
agricultural resources of Iran under the Point IV
Program. For more on USU Extension see
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/utahstate/ar0
7/index.php.
The next page, USU AT A GLANCE, provides
basic data about faculty, students, and finances
at USU.
5
USU AT A GLANCE
Established
1888
Colleges
New Freshmen (Fall 2006)
Female
Minority
International
Top 10% of HS Class
Average High School GPA
Average ACT Score
7
Academic Departments/Programs
43
Full-Time Employees (Fall 2006)
Instructional Faculty
Non-Instructional Faculty
Staff
Total Revenue (2005-06)
2,612
725
109
1,778
New Graduate Students (Fall 2006)
Female
Minority
International
Average GRE Verbal Score
Average GRE Quantitative Score
Average GRE Analytical Score
$434 million
Tuition and Fees
$62 million
Contracts & Grants $147 million
State Appropriations $145 million
Private Gifts
$7 million
Auxiliary Enterprises $28 million
Other
$35 million
Bachelor
Master
Doctoral
16,634
Main Campus
Undergraduate
Graduate
Continuing Education
(Less duplicates)
681
38.0%
2.7%
13.0%
496
653
607
3,230
847
81
Student Expenses (2006-07)
Main Campus
12,506
Continuing Education 4,128
Headcount Enrollment (Fall 2006)
56.3%
4.7%
1.4%
25%
3.5
23.7
Degrees (2005-06)
Research Expenditures (2005-06) $139 million
FTE Enrollment (Fall 2006)
2,562
UG Resident Tuition & Fees
$3,949
(30 credits)
UG Non-Resident Tuition & Fees $11,448
(30 credits)
Grad Resident Tuition & Fees
$3,735
(20 credits)
Grad Non-Resident Tuition & Fees $11,646
(20 credits)
23,623
14,444
12,779
1,665
10,109
(930)
6
Room and Board (Two semesters)
$4,400
Other Expenses
$4,380
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS: NWCCU COMPLIANCE
Utah State University is in compliance with
NWCCU requirements. Specifically:
6. Administration. The university provides
adequate academic, information technology,
social, medical, and other support services to
meet the needs of students, faculty, and
staff.
1. Authority. USU is authorized to operate
and award degrees by the Utah Board of
Regents.
7. Faculty.
More than 98% of
tenured/tenure-track faculty have terminal
degrees. As is evident in Standard 4.A.2, the
faculty are involved in all aspects of
curriculum planning and review, and also in
university governance.
2. Mission and Goals. USU‘s mission statement is published in the USU General
Catalog
and
also
online
at
http://www.usu.edu/president/missionstatem
ent/. The University role statement, as
defined by the Regents, is found at
http://utahsbr.edu/policy/r312.htm.
USU‘s student-faculty ratio is higher than at
peer institutions, but has declined in the last
few years. The faculty‘s instructional
workload is
consistent with Regents‘
policy for research universities. As
demonstrated by Table 4.4, the faculty are
very active in research, scholarship, and
creative activities.
3. Institutional Integrity. The university is
administered under policies and procedures
that result in respect for individuals and in a
non-discriminatory manner.
See the
Administrative Code and the Conduct of
Ethics Guide which are found at
http://www.usu.edu/aa/ethics/regulations.cf
m, the Faculty Code which is published at
http://www.usu.edu/hr/policies/ and the
Student Codes which is found online at
http://www.usu.edu/studentservices/studentc
ode/.
8. Educational Program. The university
offers a wide range of degree options at the
bachelor‘s, master‘s, and doctoral levels. All
program changes must be approved by the
Regents to assure that they are consistent
with the statewide master plan. Academic
departments undergo external reviews on a
regular basis, either by the Regents or by
specialized accrediting bodies. Policies for
the awarding of credits and requirements for
graduation at USU are consistent with those
of other institutions.
4. Governing Board. The Utah State Board
of Regents governs Utah‘s system of higher
education. The Board has 18 members, all
but two being appointed by the Governor.
Regents‘ policy does not allow members to
have a financial interest in activities relating
to higher education in the State of Utah.
9. General Education/Related Instruction.
All bachelor‘s degree programs require
completion of general education breadth and
depth requirements (designated by USU as
University Studies). The breadth education
core requires courses in computer and
information
literacy,
communication
literacy, and quantitative literacy. It also
5. Chief Executive Officer. The Board of
Regents‘ has final authority to appoint the
president of the university, who has a fulltime responsibility to guide the institution.
The president is not a member of the Board
of Regents or the USU Board of Trustees.
7
requires completion of breadth courses in six
different areas. The minimum number of
breadth course credits is 27.
http://aaa.usu.edu/Assessment/AssessmentLi
nks.asp.
13. Admissions. Policies and procedures
for admission to USU are published in the
General Catalog (pp. 16-21) and are online
at
http://www.usu.edu/admissions. The
university adheres to these policies.
The depth education requirements include
depth courses in two areas, and completion
of courses designated as communications
and quantitative intensive. Transfer students
with associate degrees and those with
appropriate course work may satisfy the
University Studies breadth requirements, but
all students are required to complete their
depth requirements while at USU.
14. Public Information. Public information
about USU is easily accessible and accurate.
Sources include the USU Homepage at
http://www.usu.edu, the General Catalog at
http://www.usu.edu/ats/generalcatalog/. The
USU Facts and Figures website which is at
http://aaa.usu.edu/FactsFigures provides a
broad range of information about the
university.
10. Library and Learning Resources. In
Fall 2005, USU opened the new MerrillCazier Library. This facility added
additional space and utilizes state-of-the-art
information technology. The university also
has student-access computer labs with more
than 1,000 stations, a high-speed campus
data network, and wireless connectivity.
15. Financial Resources. The analysis and
evidence provided in connection with
Standard Seven demonstrates that USU has
adequate financial resources to fulfill its
mission and is engaged in rigorous planning
to assure future financial stability. By law,
the university is required to balance its
budget each year.
11. Academic Freedom. Freedom and
independence of thought are guaranteed and
practiced at USU. University policy is at
http://www.usu.edu/hr/policies/section400/4
03.pdf. The Faculty Senate maintains a
committee on Academic Freedom and
Tenure charged with reviewing concerns
and complaints. During the last two years,
only one grievance was filed and it was
resolved by the Committee.
16. Financial Accountability.
USU
maintains financial records consistent with
Regents‘ policy and in compliance with
Utah and federal law. In addition to internal
audits, USU is audited by the State
Auditor‘s Office. All audit reports are
available for review.
12. Student Achievement. Since its interim
NWCCU evaluation in 2002, USU has made
significant progress in assessment of educational programs. All academic departments
have assessment websites that list program
learning objectives, provide outcomes data,
and indicate changes that were implemented
as a result of assessment activities. These
sites are accessible from the department
homepage and all of them use the same
format. To see the assessment websites for
all
academic
departments,
go
to
17. Institutional Effectiveness. In March
2007, the USU Board of Trustees formally
adopted a new mission and vision statement,
core values, and goals and objectives.
Corresponding to each objective is a set of
indicators and an office responsible for
monitoring achievement. Starting this year,
the Office of Analysis, Assessment, and
Accreditation will publish a report assessing
8
the extent to which goals and objectives
have been accomplished.
18. Operational Status. USU has operated
continuously since 1888.
19. Disclosure. USU regularly discloses the
information necessary for the NWCCU to
carry out its evaluation and accreditation
functions.
20. Relationship with NWCCU. USU
accepts and agrees to comply with the
standards and policies established by
NWCCU. The university agrees that actions
regarding the university‘s status with the
Commission may be made public.
9
ANALYSIS
1997 AND 2002 NWCCU COMMENDATIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
NWCCU’s 1997 Response to USU
5. The university and its constituencies are
especially commended for the exceptionally
attractive appearance of the campus, which, in
its superb natural setting, is most appealing.
Major efforts have obviously been made to
maintain and renovate buildings and grounds,
and staff and students clearly treat their
handsome physical campus with respect.
USU‘s last reaffirmation of accreditation by the
Northwest Commission on Colleges and
Universities occurred in 1997. In its report, at
that time, the Commission issued the following
General Commendations to the university.
(NWCCU, pp. 54-5) (The full report is found at
http://aaa.usu.edu/assessment/pdf/1997NWCCU
Response.pdf)
The 1997 report of the Commission also made
these General Recommendations to USU:
1. We commend Utah State University for
distinctive qualities that make it a special place
to learn, teach, and work. It is friendly, civil,
respectful, caring, and humane. Students have
good access to faculty. These qualities make the
university an unusually fertile place for teaching
and learning.
1. While the committee found assessment
activities are evolving in a generally positive
direction, institutional efforts are uneven and
coordination is lacking. Methodologies which
assess outcomes rather than inputs, and quality
rather than quantity, need to be improved in
some cases and implemented in others.
2. Utah State University is commended for its
designation as a Research I Institution, and for
increasing its grant and contract income level to
approximately $90 million. This is a major
achievement, which places the campus in a
national leadership position, and which makes a
significant contribution to the Utah economy
and to the educational progress of the institution.
2. Heavy reliance on outside funding appears to
have become an institutional mode of operation
in lieu of an appropriate level of state support.
This committee recommends that the
university‘s planning and budgeting process set
forth realistic requirements to achieve the
mission and goals of the institution, as a step
toward achieving increased state support,
particularly in its general operations budget. The
long-established reliance upon grant overhead
funds and rising student fees reflect, on one
hand, an admirable level of achievement and
commitment in the absence of adequate state
funding, but this reliance is placing USU in an
increasingly precarious position.
3. The committee commends Utah State
University for strongly supporting its mission by
establishing
and
maintaining
collegiate
programs providing graduate and baccalaureate
degrees to students at centers and branch
campuses throughout the state, including the
sparsely populated areas of the state.
3. The committee recommends that Utah State
University reexamine and reassess its substantial
number of graduate programs that have low
enrollments and low graduation rates, in order to
assure that these programs are of sufficient size
to offer an effective curriculum and a rewarding
educational experience.
4. The establishment of a university-wide
mentoring process for new tenurable faculty for
the purpose of guiding professional development
and career advancement is most commendable.
The long-term effects of this program will
enhance the educational experience of students
as well as the professional growth and scholarly
productivity of the faculty.
4. The committee recommends Utah State
University address the dissonance between the
10
university mission statement in its goal to
encourage cultural diversity, namely the
objective of Student Affairs to ―recruit and
retain minority students‖, and the actual
performance in achieving greater diversity in the
student body.
Dennison‘s final recommendation in 2002 was
that the ―university continue the development
and refinement of its assessment plan and
program to include specific learning outcomes
measures for its programs and integrate the
results into the institutional planning and
decision-making process.‖ (Dennison, p. 12)
NWCCU’s 2002 Response to USU
Recommendation #2. Reliance on Outside
Funding. Dennison concluded that he found
USU‘s ―response persuasive that ‗the
university‘s revenue picture is stable and this
stability is likely to be maintained. The creative
effort to identify new revenue streams as a result
of new strategic partnerships has helped the
university during difficult economic times and
contributed to this stability.‖ (Dennison, p. 5)
Recommendation #3. Graduate Programs
with Low Enrollment. Dennison found that
USU had conducted a systematic and thorough
review of its graduate programs which resulted
in discontinuing 12 master‘s programs and
mandating reviews for 18 other low-enrollment
programs. The university also implemented an
ongoing review process involving external
evaluators. (Dennison, p. 6)
In October 2002, George Dennison, president of
the University of Montana, visited the USU
campus and wrote the regular interim report for
the Commission (The full report can be seen at
http://aaa.usu.edu/assessment/pdf/2002NWCCU
Response.pdf.) Following are his observations
on progress made by USU on the four 1997
recommendations.
Recommendation #1. Assessment. In response
to a focused 1999 visit on assessment, Dennison
noted that the university had committed that
departments would have developed mission
statements and learning objectives for their
programs by 2002. He found that most
departments had accomplished these tasks and
posted them on the web, but observes that some
are difficult to access, many contain dated
information, and that there is little evidence that
the web postings ―focused specifically on
outcomes assessment as distinct from survey
results and curricular analysis, typically an input
variable.‖ (Dennison, p. 3)
Recommendation #4. Diversity. Dennison
noted that USU set a goal to double the number
of minority students and increase the proportion
of international students from four to ten percent
over the next ten years. To achieve these
objectives, the university appointed a Director of
Multi-Cultural Student Services for minority
student recruitment and retention and centralized
recruitment of international students under the
Office of International Students and Scholars.
He observes that the ―next regular evaluation
will afford an opportunity to evaluate this
strategy.‖ (Dennison, p. 7)
He concluded that ―For the most part, the
assessment tools in use across the campus
consist of surveys of students and/or employers
and faculty analyses of the results of the survey
in curricular discussions. Very few actual
outcomes assessments, whether of general
education or education in the major program of
study appear in the record.‖ (Dennison, p. 3)
USU Accomplishments Since 2002
―While these developments and activities
indicate progress toward satisfaction of the
Commission‘s Standard and Policy concerning
assessment, it appears that the university has yet
to develop outcomes measures for all programs
and gather the results useful to institutional and
programmatic decisions.‖ (Dennison, p. 5)
Based on Dennison‘s 2002 findings, the primary
activity where USU needed to focus its efforts
was assessment and significant progress has
been made since 2002. In 2004, the university
submitted a progress report and assessment plan
which was accepted by the Commission.
11
Centralized assessment activities are now
coordinated by the Office of Analysis,
Assessment, and Accreditation. More important,
each academic department has an assessment
plan in place which includes learning objectives,
outcomes data, and a plan for using the findings
for continuous improvement. Department
information is maintained on department
assessment web sites which use a standard
format and are accessible from the unit‘s
homepage. A site has been established which
shows all department assessment websites. See
http://aaa.usu.edu/Assessment/AssessmentLinks.
asp.
Details of USU‘s assessment activities are found
throughout the remainder of this self- study, but
especially under the analysis of Standards One,
Two, Three, and Four. The last section of the
USU Self-Study, entitled ―Utah State
University: Accomplishment, Challenges, and
Plans,‖ is a synthesis of the findings of the selfstudy process and provides an overview of the
university‘s current situation and prospects for
the future. A primary focus of that section is
USU‘s progress on assessment.
12
STANDARD ONE
INSTITUTIONAL MISSION AND GOALS, PLANNING,
AND EFFECTIVENESS
Utah State University (USU) is governed by the
Utah Board of Regents. The master plan for the
state system of higher education is found at
http://utahsbr.edu/policy/r312.htm, where USU‘s
role is specified as follows:
disseminates that knowledge through technical
assistance provided by Cooperative Extension
in each of the state's 29 counties. The landgrant mission also means that Utah State
delivers degrees through its regional campus
and by distance education methods.
Utah State University fulfills a unique role in
the Utah System of Higher Education as the
state's land-grant and space-grant university.
The land-grant designation makes Utah State
responsible for programs in agriculture,
business, education, engineering, natural
resources, sciences, and the traditional core of
liberal learning—humanities, arts, and social
sciences. The university gives particular
emphasis to programs involving the interaction
of land, people, and the environment.
Taken together, these designations as a landgrant and space-grant university also mean that
Utah State University has a leading role in
economic development of the state and the
region. These goals are realized through the
effective transfer of research from the
laboratory to commercial enterprises. To that
end, Utah State University has an aggressive
position in the identification of intellectual
property, the commercialization of new
technologies, and the development of research
programs that will be of benefit to the state. It
also brings government, business, and
education together on its Innovation Campus,
with the goal of stimulating economic
development.
Utah State University also is a ―Doctoral
Research University—high research activity‖
institutions as designated by the Carnegie
Foundation, meaning that in selected areas
historically associated with its designation as a
land-grant and space-grant university, it
provides doctoral and master‘s level education
and supports and expects of its faculty
significant research efforts. The university
offers a broad array of doctoral and master‘s
level degrees in areas appropriate to its
mission. Hands-on learning is also a hallmark
of its undergraduate programs.
USU‘s Regents-determined role in the Utah
System of Higher Education provides the context
to understand the specific mission and goals that
have been adopted by the university.
Standard 1.A Mission and Goals
1.A.1 Mission and goals understood and
periodically reexamined. During the 1990s,
USU did not have clearly stated goals to guide
policy and resource allocation decisions. In 2001,
a set of 10 goals were adopted to guide a process
called ―Compact Planning‖ that was introduced by
then-President Kermit Hall. (See page 20 under
Standard 1.B for additional discussion.) Because
these goals were primarily intended to assist with
short-term resource allocation for compact
planning, they did not provide adequate guidance
for strategic decision-making.
As a space-grant institution, Utah State
University plays a preeminent role in the
development of the sciences and engineering
associated with research and teaching about
outer space. These include the mission of the
Space Dynamics Laboratory and its related
components on the Innovation Campus.
Utah State develops knowledge as part of its
discovery mission, as reflected in research
generated by the Agricultural Experiment
Station and the Utah Water Research Lab, and
13
In September 2005, President Stan Albrecht
appointed a University Planning and Analysis
Committee charged with the responsibility of
proposing a strategic plan that would guide USU
over the next five years. The 20-person committee
was chaired by then-Vice President for Student
Services Juan Franco, and included 25
administrators, faculty members, students, and
staff who represented a broad spectrum of the
university community. In May 2006, the
committee proposed (1) minor revisions to USU‘s
mission statement, (2) a vision statement and list
of core values, and (3) a completely revised set of
goals and objectives for the university. These
documents were submitted for review and
comment to the central administration, deans, the
Faculty Senate, and (via email) 3,000 faculty and
staff. After considering the responses, the final
product of the committee was submitted to and
approved by the USU Board of Trustees on March
2, 2007.
Core Values. Utah State University is committed
to providing environments of opportunity that
value:
Following are USU‘s recently adopted mission,
vision, and core value statements. It is important
to note that, previously, USU did not have a
vision statement or written core values.
Leadership. At all levels of the university, we
value leadership built on trust, integrity, and
civility.
Learning & Discovery. Utah State University is a
thriving intellectual community achieving
excellence in the pursuit of knowledge both
through learning and inquiry. We believe that
innovations in teaching and research provide
students with opportunities for developing critical
thinking skills and outstanding scholastic and
creative achievement that will help ensure future
success.
Individual Development. We accept each learner
as unique and full of promise for intellectual and
personal growth. We foster individual success
and self-determination, and believe that educating
the whole person builds character, promotes
active involvement in the world, and produces
better citizens.
Diversity. Appreciation of diversity of thought
and expression are the foundation of a vibrant
intellectual environment. We respect all persons,
their differences, and the community they form.
Mission. Utah State University is one of the
nation’s premier student-centered land-grant and
space-grant universities. We foster the principle
that academics come first; we cultivate diversity
of thought and culture; we serve the public
through learning, discovery, and engagement.
Outreach and Access. As the State’s land-grant
university, we are committed to reaching across
all communities and offering opportunities to all
citizens. We value connections that benefit and
improve the quality of life for individuals,
families, and communities and that invigorate the
university.
Vision. Utah State University, as a state-wide
multi-campus system, will be internationally
recognized for its exceptional learning
opportunities and world-class research. We strive
to achieve the highest level of excellence in
learning, discovery, and engagement in an
environment of trust and respect. We endeavor to
expand educational access to a diverse
community. We seek to enhance the quality of life
for individuals and communities, by promoting
arts and cultural programming, by promoting
environmental sustainability, and by developing
the technologies of tomorrow to drive economic
development in Utah, as well as in the global
marketplace.
A key charge to the Planning and Analysis
Committee was to develop goals and objectives.
Listed below are the seven goals, followed by a
statement of objectives and specific actions
necessary to achieve them. The intent was to
make each objective assessable. Provided with
each goal are (1) Assessment, which lists the
specific sections of this self-study where
achievement of the objectives is analyzed, (2)
Indicators, which are measures or methods used
to assess each of the objectives, and (3)
14
Responsible person/office, which indicates who
can be contacted to obtain additional information.
d. Student responses to Graduating
Student Survey.
Responsible Offices: Provost, Vice President
for Research.
USU Goals and Objectives
1.3 Learning Infrastructure.
a. Expand and improve the use of
appropriate technology, both inside and
outside the traditional classroom setting.
b. Ensure that students have access to
state-of-the-art classroom, laboratory, and
library facilities.
I. Undergraduate Education: Provide quality
learning experiences that develop the intellectual
capacity, leadership ability, and civic awareness
of undergraduate students as citizen scholars.
1.1 Recruitment and Retention.
a. Recruit a diverse population of students
who will be successful.
b. Ensure that every student has access to
the educational and financial resources
needed to succeed.
Assessment: See analysis under Standards
2.A, 3.D, 5.A, 5.B, 5.C, 8.A.
Indicators:
a. Number of technology enhanced
classrooms.
b. Number of technology-delivered
courses.
c. Library holdings, both hard copy and
electronic.
d. Number of open-access computer
stations.
e. Student responses to Graduating
Seniors Survey.
Responsible Offices: Provost, Vice
President for Information Technology.
Assessment: See analysis under Standards
3.B, 3.D, 7.B.
Indicators:
a. Number of students from each ethnicity
category.
b. ACT scores and high school GPAs of
entering freshmen and transfers.
c. First-year retention and six year
graduation rates.
d. Proportion of students receiving
financial aid and amount of aid awarded.
Responsible Offices: Provost, Vice President
for Student Services.
1.4 Assessment. Ensure that each academic
department has an ongoing and effective
process for evaluating the extent to which
students achieve the learning outcomes of
its academic programs and for making
changes in curriculum and pedagogy
based on that information.
1.2 Student-Centered Learning Environment.
a. Ensure that students‘ abilities in
critical and creative thinking,
communication, teamwork, and the use of
technology improve as a result of their
undergraduate experience.
b. Enhance student-faculty interaction.
c. Provide innovative opportunities for
students to expand their experience and
education.
Assessment: See analysis under Standards
2.B, Policy 2.2, 4.A.
Indicator:
Number of departments with complete
and current assessment websites (See
http://aaa.usu.edu/Assessment/
AssessmentLinks.asp.
Responsible Office: Office of Analysis,
Assessment, and Accreditation.
Assessment: See analysis under Standards
2.B, 2.C, NWCCU Policy 2.1.
Indicators:
a. Student-faculty ratio.
b. Number of students funded for
undergraduate research projects.
c. Number of students participating in
study abroad, internships, etc.
II. Graduate Education: Strengthen all graduate
programs that build on university strengths
and address critical societal needs.
15
2.1 Recruitment. Attract a diverse population
of outstanding graduate students.
levels, enabling our students to be highly
successful in the marketplace.
Assessment: See analysis under Standard 2.F,
3.B.
Indicators:
a. Numbers of students from each
ethnicity category.
b. GRE/GMAT scores of new graduate
students.
Responsible Office: School of Graduate
Studies.
Assessment: See analysis under Standard 2.E.
Indicators:
a. Student responses to Graduate Student
Survey.
b. Placement of graduate students.
Responsible Office: School of Graduate
Studies.
2.5 Faculty and Facilities. Provide excellent
faculty and facilities to sustain, enhance,
and initiate graduate programs.
2.2 Financial Support. Provide competitive
stipends, tuition waivers, and health
benefits for qualified graduate students.
Assessment: See analysis under Standards 2.E,
4.A, 5.A, 5.B, 5.C, 8.A.
Indicators:
a. Number of faculty publications.
b. Number of faculty with terminal
degrees and institutions represented.
c. Student responses to Graduate Student
Survey.
Responsible Office: School of Graduate
Studies.
Assessment: See analysis under Standard 2.E,
7.B.
Indicators:
a. Number of research and teaching
assistantships and fellowships awarded.
b. Average amount of awards compared
to peer institutions.
c. Student responses to Graduate Student
Survey.
Responsible Office: School of Graduate
Studies.
III. Discovery: Promote excellence in research,
scholarship, and the creative and performing
arts.
2.3 Discipline Mastery. Ensure that graduate
students obtain focused and
comprehensive knowledge in a specific
field through classroom instruction,
research, and other innovative educational
experiences and venues.
3.1 Collaboration. Encourage synergy and
facilitate collaborative and cooperative
efforts among scholars with interests in
common problems.
Assessment: See analysis under Standard 4.B.
Indicators:
a. Research Matters Report.
b. Contract and grant awards.
Responsible Office: Vice President for
Research.
Assessment: See analysis under Standards
2.B, 2.D.
Indicators:
a. Evaluation of theses, dissertations, and
graduate student publications.
b. Placement of graduate students.
c. Student responses to Graduate Student
Survey.
Responsible Office: School of Graduate
Studies.
3.2 Program Development. Promote targeted
strategies to attract extramural funding
and aggressively build university
programs in proven and emerging areas.
Assessment: See analysis under Standard 4.B.
Indicators:
a. Total Research Expenditures.
2.4 Professional Development. Provide
excellent professional development
opportunities at the master‘s and doctoral
16
b. Research Expenditures in selected
areas.
c. Number of research proposals
submitted and funded.
Responsible Office: Vice President for
Research.
Responsible Offices: Vice President for
Information Technology, Vice
President for Extension and Agriculture.
3.3 Relevance. Encourage scholarship and
partnerships to address pressing social,
political, economic, and cultural issues.
4.2 Partnerships. Strengthen and build on
partnerships, both within and outside
USU, to meet the needs of individuals,
organizations, business, industry, local
and state government, as well as the
global market.
Assessment: Not specifically addressed in the
self-study.
Indicators:
a. Specific accomplishments of faculty
members and students.
Responsible Offices: Provost, Vice
President for Research.
Assessment: See analysis under Standards
2.G, 2.H.
Indicators:
a. Specific examples of new partnerships.
b. Recognitions of USU efforts.
Responsible Office: Vice President for
Extension and Agriculture.
3.4 Productivity. Develop strategies for
continuous increases in the quantity and
quality of research publications,
proposals, and artistic and creative
endeavors.
V. Economic and Social Impact: Improve the
quality of life and economic opportunities for
the citizens of Utah and the world through
education, research, and the creative arts.
5.1 Transfer/Commercialization. Expedite
technology transfer and the commercialization of intellectual properties created at
USU.
Assessment: See analysis under Standard 4.B.
Indicators:
a. Number and quality of faculty research
publications.
b. Number and quality of artistic and
creative endeavors.
Responsible Offices: Vice President for
Research; Office of Analysis,
Assessment, and Accreditation.
Assessment: See analysis under Standard 4.B.
Indicators:
a. Number of patents.
b. Amount of royalty income.
c. Growth in the Innovation Campus.
d. Number of USU spin-off businesses.
Responsible Office: Vice President for
Strategic Ventures and Economic
Development.
IV. Engagement: Enhance involvement in outreach and collaborative partnerships with
the communities we serve.
4.1 Technology. Utilize and enhance current
technologies to expand information,
education, and research opportunities for
a global society.
5.2 Local Economic Development and
Quality of Life. Promote economic
development and quality of life for
Utahns through the expansion of new
technologies and new businesses that
minimize negative impacts on the state‘s
unique environment while promoting
economic opportunity, and by expanding
the scope of the Innovation Campus.
Assessment: See analysis under Standards
5.A, 5.B, and 5.C.
Indicators:
a. Number and types of technologydelivered courses.
b. Use of technology for engagement
activities.
Assessment: Not specifically discussed in
Self-Study.
17
Indicators:
a. Growth in Innovation Campus.
b. Number of USU spin-off businesses
Responsible Office: Vice President for
Strategic Ventures and Economic
Development.
c. Number of regional campus/
distance education degrees earned.
Responsible Office: Provost.
6.2 Financial Aid. Enhance need-based
financial support for USU students
system-wide.
5.3 Human Capital. Provide human capital
to promote economic growth in Cache
Valley and the State of Utah, and to
strengthen the partnerships developed
on national and international levels.
Assessment: See analysis under Standard 3.D,
7.B.
Indicators:
a. Number of continuing education
students receiving financial aid.
b. Amount of aid received by continuing
education students.
c. Number of non-traditional students
receiving financial aid.
Responsible Office: Vice President for
Student Services.
Assessment: Not specifically discussed in
Self-Study.
Indicators:
a. Employment and Education Placement
Survey.
b. Number of students employed at the
Innovation Campus.
Responsible Office: Vice President for
Strategic Ventures and Economic
Development.
6.3 Diversity. Foster a campus culture that
attracts, promotes, and supports a diverse
university community in which to learn
and work.
5.4 Social/Cultural Experiences. Increase
social and cultural experiences through
the arts, culture, and international
diversity available at USU.
Assessment: See analysis under Standards
3.B, Policy 6.1.
Indicators:
a. Number of students of each ethnicity
category.
b. Number and types of diversity
activities.
Responsible Offices: ASUSU; Office of
Analysis, Assessment, and Accreditation;
Vice President for Student Services.
Assessment: See analysis under Standard 3.D.
Indicators:
a. Number of students and non-students
attending cultural events sponsored by
USU and the local community.
b. Number of multi-cultural activities
sponsored by USU.
Responsible Office: Vice President for
Student Services.
6.4 Non-Traditional Students. Expand
outreach efforts/programs to nontraditional students.
Assessment: See analysis under Standard
2.G.
Indicators:
a. Number and types of credit and noncredit programs offered.
b. Number of non-traditional students
served.
Responsible Offices: Provost; Vice President
for Student Services.
VI. Access: Expand educational opportunities for
a diverse community.
6.1 Statewide Access. Expand educational
programs statewide.
Assessment: See analysis under Standard 2.G.
Indicators:
a. Number of regional campus/
distance education programs offered.
b. Number of regional campus/
distance education students served.
VII. University Life: Ensure that the university is an exemplary place to learn and work
18
and that it values diversity by creating an
environment of civility, trust, and respect.
7.4 Safety. Provide a safe and caring
environment for all faculty members of
the university community.
7.1 Faculty and Staff. Attract and retain
a diverse population of outstanding
faculty and staff.
Assessment: See analysis under Standards
3.B, 3.D, 8.A, 8.B.
Indicators:
a. Student responses to Graduating
Seniors Survey.
b. Student responses to Graduate Student
Survey.
c. Freshman/Sophomore Survey.
d. USU Crime Statistics.
Responsible Offices: Office of Analysis,
Assessment, and Accreditation; Vice
President for Business and Finance.
Assessment: See analysis under Standards
4.A, 4.B, Policy 6.1, 9.A, Policy 9.1.
Indicators:
a. Number of faculty and staff in each
ethnicity category.
b. Analysis of faculty/staff turnover
numbers and causes.
Responsible Offices: Office of Human
Resources; Office of Analysis,
Assessment, and Accreditation.
7.5 Recognition. Provide incentives,
rewards, and recognition for the achievements and contributions of all members
of the university community.
7.2 Trust and Respect. Promote a university
environment in which every person is
treated fairly and with respect.
Assessment: See analysis under Standards
3.B, 6.D, 6.E, 9.A, Policy 9.1.
Indicators:
a. Student responses to Graduating
Seniors Survey.
b. Student responses to Graduate Student
Survey.
c. Freshman/Sophomore Survey.
d. Faculty responses to Faculty Surveys.
e. Matters handled by Campus Judicial
Officer and AA/EO Office.
Responsible Offices: Office of Analysis,
Assessment, and Accreditation; Vice
President for Business and Finance, Vice
President for Student Services.
Assessment: Not specifically discussed in
Self-Study.
Indicators:
a. Incentives for students, faculty, and
staff.
b. Recognitions of students, faculty, and
staff.
Responsible Offices: Provost, Vice
President for Business and Finance, Vice
President for Student Services.
7.6 Policies and Procedures. Foster policies
and procedures that are efficient and user
friendly.
Assessment: See analysis under Standards
3.B, 3.C, 3.D, 4.B.
Indicators:
a. Student responses to Graduating
Seniors Survey.
c. Freshman/Sophomore Survey.
b. Student responses to Graduate Student
Survey.
Responsible Offices: Provost, Vice
President for Business and Finance, Vice
President for Student Services.
7.3 Communication. Create and support
learning and working environments that
value and encourage open, honest, candid,
and civil communication.
Assessment: See analysis under Standards
3.D, 6.C, 6.D, 6.E, 9.A.
Indicators:
a. Matters handled by Campus Judicial
Officer and AA/EO Office.
Responsible Offices: Provost, Vice President
for Student Services.
19
1.A.2 Published mission statement. USU‘s
mission, vision, and core values are published in
the USU General Catalog (p. 3). These, along
with the university‘s goals and objectives are
prominently displayed on the university‘s website
at http://www.usu.edu/about/.
counties. These agents are closely connected to
the local communities and provide valuable
assistance to farmers, small business owners, and
consumers.
Moreover,
USU‘s
state-wide
extension program is closely coordinated with the
university‘s research activities. To move through
the ranks, extension agents must have active
research programs to ensure that they bring
current knowledge to their clients.
1.A.3
Documentation and publication of
progress. Starting September 2007, the Office of
Analysis, Assessment, and Accreditation will
publish an annual assessment of the status of each
goal and its associated objectives. This report will
be made available to the Board of Trustees and to
the central administration. It will also be posted at
http://aaa.usu.edu/Assessment/goal-assessment.pdf.
The
USU
Dashboard
(See
http://aaa.usu.edu/FactsFigures provides additional
information.
In addition to engagement through Cooperative
Extension, each faculty member‘s role statement
includes a service component that is evaluated as
part of the annual review process. Typically,
service is weighted at 10-20% in the evaluation.
Students are also actively involved in public
service. The ASUSU Services Vice President is
responsible for the Student Service Center which
coordinates service opportunities. In addition,
many USU students volunteer for service on their
own.
1.A.4 Consistency of goals with mission and
resources. USU‘s goals were formulated to
reflect the institution‘s mission as the state‘s landgrant university. In addition to goals focusing on
the traditional areas of learning, discovery, and
engagement, there are also goals that focus on
expanding the university‘s economic and social
impact, extending educational opportunities, and
improving the USU learning and working
environment for students, faculty, and staff. In
developing the seven goals and their associated
objectives, the Planning and Assessment
Committee considered USU‘s financial and
human resource constraints to ensure that the
goals and objectives represented realistic
aspirations for the university. The assessment
report mentioned in 1.A.3 will be used as a check.
1.A.7 Contemplated changes reviewed with
NWCCU. For many years, the Provost‘s Office
has communicated proposed changes to the
Commission. Information has been provided in a
timely and forthcoming manner, such that the
Commission appears to have been satisfied with
the university‘s responses.
Standard 1.B Planning and Effectiveness
1.B.1-5 Planning and evaluation. USU has
made significant progress in planning and
evaluation during the last five years. Although
much that has been put in place is relatively new,
these efforts provide a strong foundation for
planning the university‘s future and assessing
current successes and challenges.
1.A.5 Mission and goals direct activities. When
the planning process is fully-implemented, annual
requests for additional funding by colleges,
academic departments, and non-academic units
will be required to specify the goal and objective
addressed by the proposal. A key criterion for
funding will be a clear plan to assess how the goal
and objective will be furthered by the proposal.
Strategic Planning. In the early 1990s, USU
embarked on a planning process that involved
forming a general Strategic Planning Committee
and 16 subcommittees to focus on specific areas.
After several years of effort, in 1992 the
committee produced a planning document titled
Quest for Quality. In 1995, a revised draft, Focus
on the Future, was developed. Neither of these
documents had much influence on the direction of
the university, because they were essentially put
1.A.6 Public service. As Utah‘s land-grant
institution, USU is extensively involved in
outreach activities throughout the state. The
university has a large cooperative extension staff,
including agents serving each of Utah‘s 29
20
aside and forgotten. For the rest of the 1990s,
USU did not have a systematic and participatory
planning process. Planning was done within the
central administration and was relatively ad hoc.
under Standard 1.A (pages 13-14), in Fall 2005,
President Albrecht appointed the Planning and
Assessment Committee. During academic year
2005-06, that group developed a new set of goals
and associated objectives for the university. The
goals represent general aspirations for USU and
the objectives focus on specific and measurable
outcomes.
Each objective has associated
indicators to assess progress and each has a person
or office designated to monitor progress.
When President Kermit L. Hall became USU
President in January, 2001, he introduced a new
process―Compact Planning. This approach used
the term ―compact‖ in the sense of agreement,
wherein participants create a mutually satisfactory
plan. As implemented at USU, Compact Planning
involved each campus unit (120+) developing a
plan that focused on what it desired to accomplish
over the next three years. The unit leader then
―negotiated‖ this plan with the unit‘s supervisor
until agreement was reached. This negotiation
process was replicated at each level.
For
example, department heads conferred with their
deans and the deans, in turn, negotiated their
college plans with the provost.
In addition to providing overall direction for the
university, the goals and objectives will be used
for resource allocation. As individual units
submit requests to the central administration for
funding, their proposals will be evaluated based
on their relationship to the university goals and
objectives.
Evaluation of Educational Programs. Following
USU‘s 1997 accreditation visit, the Commission
noted that ―While….assessment activities are
evolving in a generally positive direction, institutional efforts are uneven and coordination is
lacking.‖ The Commission‘s 2002 Interim Report
suggested that USU should ―continue the
development and refinement of its assessment
plan and program to include specific learning
outcomes measures for its programs and integrate
the results into the institutional planning and
decision making process.‖ In April 2004, USU
submitted an Assessment Progress Report to
NWCCU which included a plan for upgrading the
assessment of its educational programs. (See
(http://aaa.usu.edu/assessment/pdf/2004progressre
port.pdf). Implementation and effectiveness of
that plan is discussed more fully under Standard
2.B (see pages 33-54), but is briefly reviewed
here.
To provide direction for the process, the central
administration proposed 10 broad university goals
that were to be addressed by the initiatives
contained in the plans. In 2002 and 2003, each
USU unit developed a complete compact plan. In
2004 and 2005 the units were only required to
submit those initiatives in their plans for which
they were requesting additional funding.
In 2003, President Hall established the Strategic
Investment Committee, with faculty representatives from each college, to review the initiatives
and make recommendations for funding. The
group performed this function for three years.
Each year, most of these dollars came from tuition
increases or internal reallocation of funds by the
central administration.
Although a substantial amount of funding was
provided through the Strategic Investment
process, most of it was allocated to broad-based
university proposals and individual colleges and
administrative units received little additional
support.
Consequently, campus support for
Compact Planning diminished, especially after the
departure of President Hall in January 2005.
Educational assessment activities are coordinated
by the Office of Analysis, Assessment, and
Accreditation. That unit administers a series of
annual campus-wide surveys that provides a
variety of assessment data and also works with
academic departments on assessment of general
education and in the disciplines.
With Compact Planning no longer a viable
alternative, USU needed to establish a new
approach for strategic planning. As discussed
Among the surveys periodically administered by
Analysis, Assessment, and Accreditation are
several nationally normed instruments:
21
CIRP Freshman Survey
National Survey of Student Engagement
Faculty Survey of Student Engagement
HERI Faculty Survey
received additional support in recent years. At the
time of USU‘s last accreditation, only three FTE
were assigned to institutional research—now there
are six FTE. The central administration has been
very supportive.
and a series of annual surveys that were internally
developed to meet the specific needs of USU:
1.B.9 Communication of institutional effectiveness. The most comprehensive source for
viewing USU information is the Facts and Figures
website which can be accessed by going to
http://aaa.usu.edu/FactsFigures. This site provides
data on alumni, budgets, employees, research, and
students. Both current and time series data are
available. It also includes survey results and
current organizational charts for each major unit
of the university.
Freshman/Sophomore Survey
Graduating Student Survey
School of Graduate Studies Survey
Employment/Education Placement Survey
Alumni Survey
Results of each of these surveys are found at
http://aaa.usu.edu/FactsFigures/surveys.asp.
Of
particular interest is the annual ―Survey of
Surveys‖ which summarizes important findings
from individual reports.
Another important source of information found on
the Facts and Figures website is the USU
Dashboard. Used for the last five years, the
Dashboard consists of 24 graphs that show USU‘s
performance over the last five year period in
critical areas of enrollment, admissions,
instruction, research, and finance. For many of
these measures, it also includes comparative data
for USU‘s peer universities. The dashboard has
proved to be a valuable tool in communicating the
performance of the university to governing bodies
and to the general public. It is reviewed at each
meeting of the Board of Trustees, periodically by
the Board of Regents, and is often discussed in
meetings with faculty, students, and alumni. An
example of the dashboard is found at the end of
this standard. The latest version can be found at
http://aaa.usu.edu/FactsFigures.
Although centralized assessment activities can be
useful, the essential assessment must be done at
the department level. USU‘s academic units have
made substantial progress in assessment since the
Commission‘s visit in 2002. To communicate its
assessment activities, each department has an
assessment website which is accessed by a link
from the department‘s home page. A common
format for these websites has been developed
which allows the department‘s assessment efforts
to be easily understood. Each website displays
the department‘s assessment plan, its program
learning objectives, a mapping showing how
learning objectives are met by specific courses,
outcomes data, and examples of change that have
been made as a result of the data collected. To aid
the 2007 visitation team, a website has been
created showing the individual links of each
academic department. View this site at
As noted under Standard 1.B, the Office of
Analysis, Assessment, and Accreditation annually
reports on progress in achieving university goals
and objectives. The first annual report can be
viewed at http://aaa.usu.edu/Assessment/goalassessment.pdf .
http://aaa.usu.edu/Assessment/AssessmentLinks.asp.
Departmental assessment efforts are discussed in
greater detail under Standard 2.B.
1.B.6-8 Institutional research. The Office of
Analysis, Assessment, and Accreditation is
responsible for institutional research at USU.
That office also has the major responsibility for
assessment and evaluation of strategic planning
efforts. Consequently, there is excellent
integration of these functions at the university.
Although the office is relatively small, it has
Summary
1. USU‘s recently adopted mission, vision, core
values, goals, and objectives will significantly
improve campus planning.
22
2. An effective process has been established to
assess achievement of USU goals and objectives.
3. The university has made substantial progress on
assessment of education programs in recent years.
Assessment is better coordinated and departments
are more actively involved in assessing their
educational programs.
4. Communication of institutional effectiveness is
documented by the university‘s Facts and Figures
website, the USU Dashboard, the Annual
Assessment of USU Goals and Objectives, and by
the assessment websites of individual academic
departments.
1.A and 1.B. Challenges and Recommendations
1. Because they were not formally approved until
March 2007, there is limited evidence regarding
progress on the new goals and objectives. The
annual assessment of USU Goals and Objectives
(first report available, September 2007) will
provide this information.
2. The new goals and objectives need to be
emphasized and more widely used by the campus
community. This can be achieved if the central
administration uses them for resource allocation
decisions, marketing, and communications.
3. Survey data collected centrally need to be more
effectively utilized. The annual Survey of Surveys
will make this information more easily accessible.
4. Academic departments need to continue their
efforts to assess educational programs. The
establishment of department assessment websites
with a standardized format will make it easier to
monitor progress.
Supporting Documentation
To see required documentation and exhibits, plus
other supporting information as specified by
NWCCU for Standard One, please go to
http://aaa.usu.edu/Assessment/Documentation_Su
p.aspx.
23
USU PERFORMANCE DASHBOARD - SEPTEMBER 2007
19000
18000
17000
16000
15000
14000
100
90
80
70
60
50
17,213
17,234
2002
16,634
17,110
16,583
2003
2004
2005
S
Doctorates Awarded
2006
85
81
59
64
30
28
26
24
22
20
69
RESEARCH
Student/Faculty Ratio6
02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07
T
24.8
22.7
22.9
22.5
22.4
S
Total Research Expenditures
180
156.3
160
140
145.9
141.2
134.2
121.6
120
100
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2002
2003
2004
2005
S
Endowment
In Millions of $
INSTRUCTION
T
In Millions of $
STUDENTS
FTE Students: Total USU6
80
70
60
50
40
30
72.2
61.1
53.5
53.5
2004
2005
43.9
2006
2003
2006
2007
ADMISSIONS
S
6000
5000
4000
z
3,586 3,668
4,066 4,068
4,128
20%
6000
5500
5,148 5,165
5,209
4,906
5000
2000
2003
2004
2005
2006
First-Year Retention Rate1
76%
2003
2004
2005
New Freshman Acceptance Rate6, 7
S
75%
70%
72%
90%
64%
85%
60%
80%
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
14%
13%
92%
88%
2002
94%
97%
2003
2004
2005
2006
1750
2003
30
25
20
15
10
5
1,960
1,903
1,750
1,634
2003
2005 2006
15%
2004
2005
2006
2004
2005
z
46% 47%
48%
3.40
43%
0.4
2002
2003
2004
2005
Faculty Headcount3, 6
1000
3.60
0.52
3.52
3.56
3.57
3.54
900
3.53
3.20
800
3.00
700
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
2006
834
829
z
2002
2003
864
870
834
2004
S
Private Giving
15
14
9
2003
2004
13
12
2005
31.3
25.2
30
20
13.2
16.3
2003
2004
17.2
10
2006
2005
S
Gross License Income
2005
2006
2007
1
659
800
495
492
600
400
356
280
2
3
4
200
2006
z
U.S. News and World Report
1,000
Tier Level
57%
9%
NATIONAL RANKING
1100
3.80
0.58
0.46
z
10%
02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07
2006
40
2002
In Thousands of $
0.64
New Freshman GPA6, 7
10%
5%
2003
FACULTY (FULL-TIME)
Six Year Graduation Rate: All Students1 z
12%
10%
10%
Patents Filed
1500
2004
20%
976
2002
FTE in Technology Delivered CE Courses2, 6 S
2000
87%
1,348 1,319 1,334
1,142
1300
900
2002
z
Alumni Participation in Giving
25%
1500
15%
1100
2250
95%
73%
69%
16%
14%
2500
100%
72%
1700
15%
2006
S
Research Proposals Submitted
5%
2002
z
z
10%
4,666
4500
2002
Classes with 50 Students or Greater6, 7
25%
6500
3000
68%
New Freshman Applicant Pool6, 7
In Millions of $
FTE Students: Continuing Education6
2002
2003
2004
2005
2002
2006
2003
2004
2005
2006
FINANCE
z
45%
2002
2003
2004
64%
42%
2005
4%
2002
4%
2003
4%
2004
5%
2005
z
5%
23.6
24.1
23.7
z
23.7
Total Compensation Compared to Peers4
-4%
-7%
16%
16%
16%
-9%
-8%
-9%
-8%
2005
2006
2002
2003
2004
2005
39%
37%
35%
33%
31%
29%
z
34%
33%
33%
32%
31%
2002
2003
2004
2005
6%
6%
6%
5%
3%
1%
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
127.8
124.3
02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
3,141
S
3,374
3,672
3,949
NOTES:
1 Based on cohorts entering one year (retention
rate) or six years (graduation rate) earlier.
Main Campus only starting 2003.
2 Continuing Education courses only.
3 Department Heads included starting Fall 2002.
4 Salary plus benefits, average for all ranks; peers
are Regent’s USU Peer Group.
5 Full-time resident entering freshman.
6 Fall Semester of year reported.
7 Main Campus only starting Fall 2002.
4,200
03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08
z
6%
140.5 142.1
123.2
Tuition & Fees5
2006
Minority Faculty6
7%
145
140
135
130
125
120
2006
Female Faculty6
S
Total State Funds
-13%
2004
7%
15%
-8%
-10%
2003
9%
14%
z
-1%
2006
Graduate Students: % of Total Enrolled6 z
20%
18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
23.1
2002
2006
Minority Students: % of Total Enrolled6
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
26
25
24
23
22
21
81%
53%
New Freshman Average ACT6, 7
In Millions of $
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
In Dollars
Graduation Rate: Student Athletes1
Students Receiving Federal Financial Ai z
60%
56%
52%
48%
44%
40%
TREND:
S higher
T lower
z no change
49.0% 48.0% 49.0% 49.0%
green = better
red = worse
black = neutral
45.3%
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Last Updated 9/6/2007
COMPARATIVE DATA
SEPTEMBER 2007
USU REGENT'S PEER INSTITUTIONS
NC
NM
ORE.
PENN.
STATE
STATE
STATE
STATE
OTHER
USU
AVERAGE
COLO.
STATE
IOWA
STATE
73%
48%
5%
12%
81
86%
69%
20%
18%
321
83%
65%
12%
20%
186
85%
66%
8%
18%
281
90%
70%
16%
23%
369
73%
46%
48%
20%
79
81%
60%
14%
15%
166
93%
85%
12%
14%
646
91%
77%
18%
18%
535
97%
47%
76%
43%
86%
42%
90%
46%
61%
48%
87%
46%
92%
48%
58%
35%
18/1
39%
15%
18/1
34%
18%
17/1
39%
16%
15/1
38%
10%
16/1
33%
16%
19/1
47%
11%
19/1
39%
19%
735
31%
6%
1,765
35%
12%
1,122
35%
9%
2,164
35%
13%
1,652
29%
13%
658
38%
16%
57.4
62.7
81.8
64.7
63.7
75.2
100.3
77.4
62.1
72.3
96.8
81.3
64.5
73.7
100.6
77.2
66.3
77.4
103.9
80.6
79.8
86.5
109.5
88.8
98%
85%
81.1
93.0
124.9
97.7
93%
85%
74.8
87.1
116.6
97.9
99%
99%
84.5
95.3
126.6
99.2
95%
88%
11%
138.1
3,949
11,449
4,400
17%
276.5
6,536
18,027
6,533
9%
156
9
0.49
3rd Tier
TEXAS
A&M UC-DAVIS
VPI
WASH.
STATE
BYU
U of U
91%
81%
49%
16%
413
88%
79%
14%
21%
366
84%
60%
13%
14%
170
92%
71%
9%
10%
79
81%
57%
10%
18%
276
77%
61%
68%
24%
68%
40%
77%
40%
70%
79%
91%
43%
17/1
30%
18%
20/1
21%
24%
19/1
34%
28%
16/1
22%
21%
14/1
40%
18%
21/1
49%
10%
14/1
36%
18%
1,610
38%
10%
3,000
33%
13%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2,110
29%
13%
1,802
40%
10%
1,316
20%
4%
735
35%
11%
52.8
81.8
72.2
60.9
61.6
64.8
84.8
64.4
68.2
81.4
120.2
81.4
67.3
76.0
107.4
80.1
67.9
76.5
114.0
93.5
65.8
79.3
110.8
84.1
60.3
69.2
92.0
70.7
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
64.0
74.6
103.4
74.7
83.0
96.3
126.6
99.6
96%
88%
64.4
75.2
87.9
74.2
89%
87.0
93.0
117.7
91.8
85%
65%
84.4
101.6
146.7
100.6
96%
72%
80.2
90.7
126.9
95.3
95%
89%
91.3
102.1
148.8
123.2
94%
98%
84.9
100.6
136.5
106.0
94%
76.8
88.0
114.9
89.6
89%
79%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
90%
85.9
99.2
134.5
99.0
87%
70%
30%
400.0
4,783
16,981
7,040
7%
147.8
4,230
13,803
5,576
17%
140.5
5,643
17,559
21%
4,717
16,245
6,602
16%
245.6
5,860
16,354
6,329
12,164
22,712
7,400
18%
420.5
6,966
15,216
7,660
12%
408.2
7,576
26,260
24%
239.6
6,973
19,049
4,766
17%
209.7
6,447
16,087
6,890
21%
N/A
3,620
3,620
10%
249.6
4,642
14,572
6,068
233
61
1.7
224
23
0.65
239
62
1.99
293
112
4.81
80
11
0.09
170
26
1.47
607
125
1.92
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
129
93
2.69
125
39
0.29
24
33
4.79
290
51
14.51
2nd Tier
2nd Tier
2nd Tier
2nd Tier
4th Tier
3rd Tier
1st Tier
2nd Tier
1st Tier
2nd Tier
2nd Tier
2nd Tier
3rd Tier
STUDENTS4
1
1st-Year Retention Rate (4-year avg. 2002-05)
6-Year Graduation Rate (4-year avg. 1997-00)1
% Minority Students (Fall 2006)
% Graduate Students (Fall 2006)
Doctorates Awarded (2005-2006)
ADMISSIONS4
New Freshman Acceptance Rate (Fall 2006)
New Freshman Yield (Fall 2006) Enrolled/Admitted
INSTRUCTION4
Student/Faculty Ratio (Fall 2006)
% Classes with 1-19 Students (Fall 2006)
% Classes with >= 50 Students (Fall 2006)
FACULTY4
Full-time
Faculty Headcount (Fall 2006)
% Female Faculty (Fall 2006)
% Minority Faculty (Fall 2006)
Full-time Instructional
Average Salary-In thousands (Fall 2006)2
Assistant Professor
Associate Professor
Professor
All Ranks
Average Total Compensation-In thousands (Fall 2006)2
Assistant Professor
Associate Professor
Professor
All Ranks
% of Instructional Faculty that are Full-Time (Fall 2006)
% Faculty with Terminal Degree (Fall 2006)
FINANCE
% of Alumni Who Give (2-year avg. 2004-05, 2005-06)
State Appropriations-In millions (FY 2006)
Undergraduate Resident Tuition & Fees-In dollars (2006-07)
Undergraduate Non-Resident Tuition & Fees-In dollars (2006-07)
Room and Board-In dollars (2006-07)
RESEARCH
Total Research Expenditures-In millions (FY 2004)
Patent Applications (FY 2004)
Gross License Income-In millions (FY 2004)
NATIONAL RANKING
U.S. News and World Reports (2007)
NOTE 1: USU's numbers on the Comparative Data may be 1-2 years behind those reported on the Performance Dashboard because more recent comparative data for our peers are not available.
1
Based on cohorts entering one year (retention rate) or six years (graduation rate) earlier.
Total compensation is salary plus benefits, average for all ranks; peers are Regent's USU Peer Group.
Non-LDS student tuition & fees at BYU
4
Main Campus only
2
3
H:\Compact Planning\Comparative Data\Comparative Data 2007\Excel Files\DH_comparative-SEPT07.xls
Last Updated: 9/6/2007
STANDARD TWO
EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM AND ITS EFFECTIVENESS
Utah State University has seven colleges and
43 academic departments and programs.
The university offers more than 200 majors
and during 2005-06 awarded 3,237
bachelor‘s, 849 master‘s, and 81 doctoral
degrees.
decision-making activities (USU
Policy Manual, 103.4 and General
Catalog, p. 4)
This chapter of the USU self-study is
organized as follows. The first section
addresses the elements and indicators for
Standard Two which focus on the resources
that support Utah State University‘s
educational programs, the policies that guide
them, and assessment of outcomes relating
to educational programs.
The second
section provides a brief description and
analysis of each of USU‘s 43 academic
departments and programs. As part of the
university
self-study
process,
each
department prepared its own self-study. The
complete documents can be found at
http://aaa.usu.edu/Assessment/DepartmentSelfStudy.asp.
USU is committed to assessing the
effectiveness of its educational programs to
assure that those degree recipients are well
prepared to be life-long learners and have
productive employment.
The following
policy has been adopted by the central
administration, Faculty Senate, and the
Board of Trustees:
The University is committed to timely
internal and external assessment of its
programs to assist in productive
academic planning and the fulfillment
of its mission and goals. To meet this
commitment, the University and all of
its units shall gather, analyze, and
publish data annually that relate to the
planning for and evaluation of the
accomplishment of the mission, goals,
and objectives of the University and
its units.
Such assessments are
intended to determine the extent to
which University programs meet their
goals and objectives and further the
mission of the University; to establish
a culture of evidence for assessment;
and to meet the standards of the
Regents, the Trustees, the Northwest
Commission
on
Colleges
and
Universities, and USU.
The
assessment process shall be a
continuous process which shall
involve faculty and other concerned
stakeholders
in
central
roles.
Furthermore, assessment results will
directly inform planning and other
Standard 2.A -- General Requirements
2.A.1 Commitment to high standards of
teaching and learning.
One way of
evaluating USU‘s commitment to excellence
in teaching and learning is to consider
resources that have been committed to this
endeavor, as evidenced by faculty numbers,
faculty quality, academic support programs,
and facilities support.
Faculty Numbers and Workload. As of Fall
2006, USU employed 834 full-time and 50
part-time faculty. Because the university
experienced a period of rapid growth during
the late 1990s and early 2000s, USU‘s
student-faculty ratio has been high in
relation to peer institutions. However, some
improvement has been made in recent years.
In 2001, USU‘s student-faculty ratio was
25.9, compared to 22.4 in 2006. The decline
26
is a result of a concerted effort by central
administration to hire more instructional
faculty and also a decline in enrollment.
fewer than 20 students, while only 15% have
50 or more students. In comparison to the
Regents‘ peer schools, 34% of classes have
fewer than 20 students and 18% have 50 or
more students. In recent years, USU has
excelled in state-wide competition for the
―Carnegie Professor of the Year.‖ Seven of
the last 11 Utah winners in this competition
have been USU faculty members.
Each year, the Board of Regents establishes
a system-wide tuition increase, but also
allows each institution to add an additional
increase, referred to as the Tier II tuition
increase. By using a substantial portion of
Tier II tuition revenues, USU was able to
hire additional full-time faculty between
2001 and 2006. Over the next two years, 40
more faculty members will be hired to serve
students at locations other than the Logan
campus.
As required by NWCCU, faculty vita are
available to the accreditation team at
http://aaa.usu.edu/assessment/facultyVita.asp.
Academic Support. USU provides a wide
variety of services for students with special
learning needs.
The university‘s
Supplemental Instruction Program funds
review sections for most of the large general
education courses taught on campus. In Fall
2006, 50 large courses were provided
support and more than 5,000 students
attended one or more sessions, more than
55% of the students in the classes.
Assessment of the program indicates that the
students who attended sessions earned
significantly higher grades than those who
did not attend.
There is no university-wide standard
teaching load at USU. The number of credit
hours taught by faculty varies substantially
from department to department because of
unit missions, growth, and policies.
However, the Board of Regents has set
minimum workloads for institutions under
its jurisdiction. For a research university
such as USU, the Regents have specified
that ―faculty contact hours in credit-bearing
teaching
activities
shall
average
approximately 10 hours per week.‖ This
total includes classes, labs, dissertations,
thesis, and individualized instruction. In
Fall 2006, USU met this requirement with
an average of 10.4 hours per week. This
compares to 10.0 hours at the state‘s other
research institution, the University of Utah.
USU‘s Academic Resources Center and
Student Support Services units provide help
for students with special learning needs.
Multicultural Student Services supports
students with different ethnic backgrounds
and the Disability Resource Center serves
students with disabilities such as hearing and
visual impairments. Standard Three provides
additional assessment information on these
programs.
Faculty Quality. Characteristics of the
faculty are discussed in greater detail under
Standard Four, but some basic data
demonstrate that USU has assembled a highquality faculty which has extensive
interaction with students.
Ninety-five
percent of instructional faculty are full-time
and 98% of that group have terminal degrees
in their discipline. Only 5% of student
credit hours at USU are taught by teaching
assistants. Forty-one percent of classes have
Facilities Support.
USU has excellent
facilities for teaching/learning. In Fall 2005,
a new library addition was added with
189,000 square feet of space and state-ofthe-art equipment, such as movable storage
shelves and automated checkout capability.
The university operates 11 open-access
27
USU‘s educational focus is consistent with
the direction provided by the Regents
Master Plan. The university is organized
with Colleges of Agriculture; Business;
Education
and
Human
Services;
Engineering; Humanities, Arts, and Social
Sciences; Natural Resources; and Science.
Courses and degree programs are offered
throughout the state by USU‘s Division of
Regional Campuses and Distance Education,
which served 10,109 students in Fall 2006.
The courses are delivered via face-to-face
instruction at several centers around the
state, by satellite, by television, and online.
computer labs with about 800 stations
available to students. The campus has a
high-speed backbone network and with
wireless access at most locations. Currently,
70% of general assignment classrooms are
technology-enhanced to allow instructors
more pedagogical options. Funding has been
allocated to upgrade the remaining teaching
stations.
Campus visitors often comment on how well
USU‘s educational facilities are maintained.
Classrooms that have been in use for many
years show few signs of wear.
The
condition of these facilities is a result of the
quality of construction, efforts of the
custodial staff, and the pride that USU
students and faculty take in their campus.
Although the condition of educational
facilities is excellent, space is scarce,
especially during prime teaching hours. In
particular, there is a need for additional
classrooms to accommodate classes of 100
students or more. This problem will become
more serious as the university continues to
grow.
USU‘s process of developing, approving,
and evaluating broad educational goals is
discussed under Standard One. Procedures
for making specific changes in curriculum
are considered under 2.A.7.
2.A.3 Coherence of program design.
USU is a traditional university with program
requirements similar to those at other
institutions in the United States. Most
programs have evolved over many years and
requirements are carefully reviewed by
faculty to determine changing needs and
compatibility with other programs.
2.A.2 Compatibility of educational goals
with institutional mission. The Regents
Master Plan designates USU as the state‘s
land-grant university. As such, USU is
responsible for programs in agriculture,
business, education, engineering, natural
resources, and sciences, while supporting
the traditional core of liberal learning—
humanities, arts, and social science. The
Master Plan specifies that USU is to give
particular emphasis to programs involving
the interaction of land, people, and the
environment.
The land-grant mission
implies that USU also has an important role
in
delivering
educational
programs
throughout the State of Utah. The Regents
Master
Plan
is
found
at
http://Utahsbr.edu/bor01g.html#section3.
Each USU program includes University
Studies (General Education) requirements,
major requirements, and electives, with a
minimum 120 credit hours needed for
graduation. Detailed requirement sheets are
available for each program. These sheets are
widely used by students to determine their
interest in and preparation for the program.
They are also extensively used by students,
faculty, and advisors to assess progress.
Major requirement sheets for each academic
program
at
USU
are
found
at
http://www.usu.edu/ats/majorsheets.
As
required by NWCCU, syllabi for each
course have been provided for review. (See
28
http://aaa.usu.edu/assessment/coursesyllabi.
asp.)
is also used to determine credits for those
courses that do not meet for 50-minute
periods.
(See
http://www.usu.edu/policies/pdf/Number-ofCredits.pdf)
2.A.4 Degree designations and learning
objectives. The General Catalog lists all
programs
and
degrees.
(See
http://www.usu.edu/generalcatalog/2007-2009).
Program length is determined by
departments and colleges using USU
requirements
which
are
found
at
http://www.usu.edu/policies/pdf/Bachelor%
27s-Req.pdf.
All
bachelor‘s
degree
graduates are required to complete an
approved academic program in one of the
seven resident colleges. Students must
complete a minimum of credits numbered
3000 or above, and a minimum of 120
credits of acceptable collegiate work, with a
minimum of 100 credits with a grade of Cor better. Academic majors are comprised
of up to 80 credits. Major requirement sheets
are at http://www.usu.edu/ats/majorsheets.
Degree designations are consistent with
those used for similar programs at other
institutions. Learning objectives have been
developed for each program and are posted
on the web sites of the academic
departments. For convenience, they are
accessible from a single site. To see the
learning objectives for any program, go to
http://aaa.usu.edu/Assessment/AssessmentLinks.asp
and click the ―Learning Objectives‖ button
for the department of interest.
The
―Mapping‖ button at that same site shows
which courses in the program curriculum
contribute to mastering each learning
objective.
All program-specific tuition and fees are
identified in advance and listed in the
schedule of classes.
Only those fees
approved by the Provost‘s Office and listed
in the schedule of classes may be collected,
and fees automatically expire at the end of a
three-year period unless they are reviewed
and reapproved by the Provost‘s Office.
Criteria and procedures to be used in the
establishment and approval of programspecific tuition and fees are available at
http://www.usu.edu/policies/pdf/CourseFees.pdf.
2.A.5 Concentrated format courses. Other
educational experiences, such as workshops,
institutes, short or concentrated format
courses, and conferences are also available
at USU. Because of the short time period in
which they are offered, these nontraditional
courses may not require extensive out-ofclass work by students. When little or no
out-of-class work is required, the standard
for credit for such courses is 20 contact
hours for each credit earned.
(See
http://www.usu.edu/policies/pdf/Number-ofCredits.pdf)
2.A.7
Design,
approval,
and
implementation of the curriculum. The
faculty has primary responsibility for design,
approval, implementation, and review of the
curriculum. Curricular changes may be at
the level of a course or a program.
Generally, changes in the curriculum begin
at the department level. In cases of
interdisciplinary initiatives, an interdepartmental or inter-college group may
2.A.6
Credit, program length, and
program-specific tuition/fees. Consistent
with NWCCU standards, one credit is
awarded for each three hours of student
work per week during a 15-week semester.
For traditional courses, this is interpreted as
one 50-minute class period plus two hours
of study per week per credit. One 50-minute
period per week during a semester equals
12.5 contact hours per credit. This standard
29
form to see a program change through to
approval. At the department level,
subgroups may oversee parts of the
curricula, or, in the case of smaller
departments, entire departments may
provide oversight.
more intensive review of a proposal to an ad
hoc subcommittee. All of these committees
meet on a monthly basis during the
academic year to ensure efficiency in the
process of reviewing curriculum changes.
The required forms for any proposal
delineate what the change includes: new
course; revised credit, title, number; addition
or removal of general education designation;
suspension of a course from the catalog;
Honors designation.
The Distance
Education
and
Electronic
Delivery
Subcommittee has particular responsibility
for tracking any courses or programs that are
delivered to regional campuses or sites or by
electronic means. In recent years, one
project has been the development of
evaluations
for
courses
delivered
electronically without a face-to-face
component.
From the department approval process,
changes are carried forth to the appropriate
college curriculum committee. Assuming
approval at this level, the changes move
forward
to
university
curriculum
committees. For any course that is to receive
University Studies designation, the approval
form is sent to the General Education
Subcommittee, which has broad-based
representation. This committee features
subcommittees responsible for various parts
of the general education program:
communications and quantitative literacy,
social sciences, sciences, fine arts,
humanities, and American Institutions.
Curricular changes above the course level
must be acted upon by the Faculty Senate.
Any program that has financial implications
must also be reviewed by the Faculty Senate
Budget and Faculty Welfare Committee.
The Executive Committee of the Senate first
hears the report of Educational Policies
Committee and then approves its placement
on the Senate agenda. Once passed by the
Senate, program changes proceed to the
USU Board of Trustees and, as appropriate,
to the Regents for approval, consent, or
information. These processes and forms are
accessible at the EPC web site.
A
Curriculum Handbook was recently
developed to consolidate information. (See
http://www.usu.edu/fsenate/epc/curriculum/
EPC_CurriculumHandbook5_10_07.pdf for
the Handbook.)
Approved changes are sent to the
Educational Policies Committee (EPC),
which is the primary curriculum body of the
university. Other committees that may be
stops along the path of approval to the EPC
include the Council on Teacher Education
for those classes that will be included in any
teacher licensure or certification program
and the Graduate Council. In each of these
committees, courses or programs are
reviewed thoroughly and may be approved
or sent back to the sponsoring department or
college for revision.
The Educational Policies Committee is
composed of four subcommittees: Academic
Standards, Curriculum, Distance Education
and Electronic Delivery, and General
Education. The Curriculum Committee
receives and reviews all course and program
proposals—undergraduate and graduate—
and reports its recommendations to the EPC.
The Curriculum Subcommittee may refer
New programs approved by the Board of
Regents are required to have a three-year
review, which is done by an external
committee with response by the department
30
hand with advisors and the Registrar‘s
Office to target problems and work on
solutions.
and college and forwarded to the state
legislature. Program review on a regular
basis is mandated by the Regents and is
carried out in a systematic manner by the
faculty with the guidance of the provost.
.
Curriculum
management
has
been
increasingly important at Utah State
University. In 2001, at the request of central
administration, the student government held
focus groups of students to obtain feedback
about every aspect of the university. Of
particular interest to this discussion was the
students‘ unhappiness with bottleneck
classes and delayed graduation both for
students who entered as first-year students
and for those who transferred.
2.A.8 Library and information resources.
The Merrill-Cazier Library is a central
service to the academic faculty and students.
The heart of the library‘s mission is to
support the university‘s teaching, research,
scholarly communication, and lifelong
learning aspects of the university‘s landgrant mission. While the library considers
the students, faculty, and staff of the
university as its primary stakeholders, as a
public institution it also offers service to the
general public.
The library maintains ties with university
faculty through subject librarians, who
typically are library faculty with specific
subject expertise. Collection development
responsibilities at the library are assigned to
subject librarians. These librarians are
responsible for guiding all collection
development for their assigned subjects.
Their responsibilities include selecting new
books, keeping track of current journal
subscriptions, and seeking out other
information resources that might be valuable
to the department. They collaborate with
faculty to create lessons that introduce
students to librarians, the library, and
develop research and information literacy
skills.
Several changes were made as a result of
this feedback. First, additional resources
were added to the programs where
enrollment was overwhelming (e.g.,
composition classes). Second, an intent-totransfer program was established with twoyear feeder schools so that advising from
both the sending and receiving institutions
was in place to ensure that every class taken
at the two-year institution counted toward
degree requirements. Third, a Graduation
Guarantee program was put in place, a
contractual arrangement whereby students
could be assured of getting the classes they
need to graduation schedule. Finally, the
USU General Catalog was revised to include
eight-semester plans for almost every degree
program. An associate vice provost was
appointed to oversee the curriculum
integration of RCDE with main campus
courses.
Other campus involvement will occur
beginning in 2008 with the hiring of a Dean
of Libraries‘ who will be a member of the
Dean‘s Council. Librarians serve on the
Faculty Senate and some of its committees:
Educational Policy Committee, General
Education Subcommittee, Graduate Council,
Professional Responsibilities and Procedures
Committee, and the Budget and Faculty
Welfare Committee.
The Academic Standards Subcommittee is
especially attuned to registration and
graduation issues and frequently brings to
the EPC recommendations to improve
academic processes. An ad hoc group, the
college associate deans also work hand-in31
The discussion in Standard Five presents the
program-level report, which includes
analyses of the library‘s performance in light
of goals to integrate library resources and
research skills into the learning process
throughout the university‘s instructional
programs.
any additions or deletions. The process is
delineated in policy, and the appropriate
forms must be filed for any such changes to
occur. Only those changes so approved by
the Educational Policies Committee, Faculty
Senate, and other bodies appear in the
General Catalog. The forms and processes
for additions and deletions are reviewed
regularly, particularly by the General
Education, Curriculum, and Educational
Policies Committees, and changes are made
when needed to improve the forms and
processes.
2.A.9
Course scheduling. Course
scheduling is the responsibility of the
Scheduling Division of the Registrar‘s
Office. Coordination of scheduling is based
on established time schedules designed to
capitalize on student accessibility and
availability of facilities. To meet students‘
scheduling needs, and to provide as few
course conflicts as possible, many programs
offer courses at several different times,
during several different semesters, and
through various delivery formats.
In
addition, many graduate courses are offered
in special time slots (for instance, meeting
only one evening per week, or on the
weekend) to provide students with the
flexibility they may need.
2.A.12 Program elimination. In the last
10 years, several programs have been
eliminated at the university, particularly in
the case of low enrollment or insufficient
faculty. In each case, institutional policy to
hold public hearings on the change has been
followed. Departments are responsible for
providing names of all students affected so
they may be present at the hearing and for
outlining the delivery of courses over a
multi-year time frame, if needed, so that no
student is adversely affected.
2.A.10
Credit for prior experiential
learning. USU does not grant credit for
prior experiential learning.
However,
matriculated students may challenge a
course for credit by taking a special
examination available at the University
Testing Center or by taking a departmental
examination. Credits earned through special
examinations cannot be used to meet the
minimum USU course requirement, but
credits earned through departmental
examinations may be used for this purpose.
Departments determine if a course is
appropriate for challenge. On this issue,
USU is in compliance with NWCCU Policy
2.3, Credit for Prior Experiential Learning.
(USU General Catalog, pp. 18-19)
2.A Challenges and Recommendations
As the university continues to grow, the
student-faculty workload will increase
unless additional instructional faculty are
hired. Finding resources to support these
new faculty will be a challenge. The
problem is exacerbated by growing salary
compression in many disciplines—salaries
from retirements are not adequate to attract
quality new hires. Tier II tuition revenue has
been helpful, but there are limits to how
much tuition and fees can be increased each
year.
A related issue is providing compensation
for existing faculty. USU salaries are
substantially below those of peer
institutions. When benefits are considered,
2.A.11 Additions and deletions of courses
and programs. Review and approval by the
university curricular bodies are required for
32
objectives for their programs by 2002.‖
Dennison found that certain departments had
accomplished these tasks and posted them
on the web, but that ―some are difficult to
access, many contain dated information, and
that there was little evidence that the web
postings focused specifically on outcomes
assessment.‖ (Dennison, p. 3).
His
recommendation was that, ―the University
continue the development and refinement of
its assessment plan and program to include
specific learning outcomes measures for its
programs and integrate the results into the
institutional planning and decision making
process‖ (p. 12. The entire NWCCU
response can be found online at
http://aaa.usu.edu/assessment/pdf/2002NWC
CUResponse.pdf).
the gap declines somewhat, but total
compensation for USU faculty members is
still below that of peer schools.
Operating funds for academic departments
are another concern. These units have gone
for many years without any significant
increase. Many of the departmental selfstudies found at the end of this standard
point to operating funds as one of their
greatest
challenges.
The
central
administration has made increases in
operating funds a priority and has committed
to provide funding that will increase
operating budgets by nearly 80% over a
five-year period.
Standard 2.B ─ Educational Program
Planning and Assessment
In 2004, the Commission requested that
USU provide a report documenting progress
and plans regarding assessment. This report
was accepted by the Commission and
continues to be the basis for the university‘s
assessment efforts.
USU has made
significant progress in assessment by
implementing the strategies proposed by the
plan. Details of the plan are considered in
Section 2.B.1 and progress is documented in
2.B.2, 2.B.3, and especially the discussion of
NWCCU
Policy
2.2,
Educational
Assessment.
In its 1997 response to USU, the NWCCU
team noted that ―While assessment activities
are evolving in a generally positive
direction, institutional efforts are uneven and
coordination is lacking.‖ (p.55. The
complete report can be found at
http://aaa.usu.edu/assessment/pdf/1997NWC
CUResponse.pdf).
Based on the team‘s recommendation, a
1999 visit was scheduled to review progress
on assessment. The resulting report found
that progress had been made, but noted that
much remained to be done, particularly in
the areas of developing outcomes measures
and linking assessment to meaningful
changes in educational programs.
2.B.1 Outcomes-based assessment plan.
USU has made significant progress in
assessment since the Commission‘s 2002
interim
report.
An
outcomes-based
assessment plan is in place and being
implemented. Accomplishments include:
In 2002, George Dennison, President of the
University of Montana, visited USU and
wrote the interim reaccreditation report for
the Commission. He observed that, ―in
response to the 1999 visit, the university
committed that departments would have
developed mission statements and learning
USU assessment/accreditation activities
are now centrally coordinated by the Office
of Analysis, Assessment, and Accreditation
and additional resources have been provided
to support this effort.
33
A strategic plan for assessment was
developed and adopted. The complete
assessment
plan
is
found
at
http://aaa.usu.edu/assessment/pdf/2004Progr
essReport.pdf.
Connections (All students in freshman
orientation class; every year)
A Facts and Figures web site was created
to provide ―one-stop shopping‖ for
frequently used facts and information about
USU. This site has become the primary
source for data about USU. It can be seen at
http://aaa.usu.edu/FactsFigures.
Graduating Seniors
students; every year)
(All graduating
Graduate Students
students; every year)
(All graduating
Freshmen/Sophomores (Random sample;
every year)
Employment/Graduate Education of
Recent BS/BA recipients.
(Annual
random sample)
Studies of specific components of USU‘s
general education, notably writing and
mathematics, have been initiated and
completed. Results are provided in the
discussion of NWCCU Policy 2.2 on page
37.
Alumni (Random sample; periodically)
Faculty/Course
Evaluations
course; every semester)
A systematic schedule for surveys
conducted by the Office of Analysis,
Assessment, and Accreditation has been
developed and implemented over the last
five years. The survey schedule includes:
CIRP
year)
(Every
Reports for all of these studies are at
http://aaa.usu.edu/FactsFigures/surveys.asp.
Finally, and most importantly, the
academic departments were given specific
guidelines for improving and focusing their
assessment efforts. These guidelines are
based on the model depicted in Figure 2.1.
(All new students; every other
NSSE (Random sample of freshmen and
Seniors; every other year)
34
Figure 2.1 Department Assessment Model
Learning Objectives
(What do we want to accomplish?)
Mapping of Objectives and Courses
(Is the curriculum designed to achieve the learning objectives?)
Outcomes Measures
(Does it really happen?)
Integrating Experience
Exit Interview
Other Measures
Data-Based Decision Making
(What is the process for making changes?)
(What changes have resulted from outcomes assessment?)
Web site
(Communication of process and results)
Program learning objectives identify the
knowledge and skills that students should
acquire as a result of going through the
program. They reflect the department‘s
goals for the program. The mapping is a
matrix that shows which learning objectives
are addressed by each course. The matrix
demonstrates that the curriculum is designed
to achieve those learning objectives.
Outcomes measures indicate the success of
the program in achieving its objectives, and
data-based decisions close the loop by using
outcomes data to identify program strengths
and weaknesses and make changes as
needed.
The department assessment web sites are a
critical component of USU‘s assessment
plan. The university policy is that
assessment activities in each department will
be presented in a systematic manner and be
easily accessible to the NWCCU review
team and any other interested party.
Accordingly, each department was assigned
to do the following:
1. Write/revise an assessment plan that
includes items 2-6 below.
2. Develop/refine learning objectives for
each of its programs.
35
3. Create a mapping (in most cases a matrix)
of learning objectives and courses. The
purpose of this mapping is to assure that the
department‘s curriculum is structured to
promote achievement of the learning
objectives.
Learning Objectives
Mapping of Learning Objectives
and Courses
Outcomes Data
Data-based Decisions (Continuous
Improvement)
4. Establish an integrating experience (e.g.,
capstone course, internship, student
teaching, national test, research or creative
project) for graduating seniors that requires
students to bring together the knowledge and
skills they have acquired. Most USU
academic departments already had such an
experience. The challenge was to use that
experience to evaluate the departments‘
programs in addition to evaluating
individual students.
Individual meetings were held with each
academic department head and also the
faculty of each unit to explain the process.
A comprehensive web site was created to
allow the NWCCU review team to evaluate
the assessment efforts of USU‘s academic
departments. The web site contains a link to
the home page of each department, indicates
whether the department has an assessment
link on its homepage, and whether the unit
has adopted the assessment web site format
described under #7 above. It also has links
for each department for the six categories
listed under #7 above.
5. Identify and begin collecting information
on other outcomes measures. The specifics
were left for the departments to decide, but
the units were encouraged to implement an
exit interview, conduct surveys of graduates
and employers, analyze the data from
nationally normed tests taken by their
graduates, and utilize information from
advisory groups.
By using this web site, the review team can
evaluate overall compliance with the
assessment model and also examine the
efforts of each department. Figure 2.2 is a
reproduction of part of that site. A ―Yes‖ in
the column labeled ―Assess Link on Home
Page?‖ means that there is a link to
assessment on the department‘s home page.
A ―Yes‖ in the column ―NWCCU Format‖
means that the department‘s assessment site
include a link for each of the topics shown
in the last six columns of the figure.
6. Develop an explicit procedure for using
the outcomes data in department decision
making and provide examples of data-based
decisions.
7. Maintain a user-friendly and up-to-date
assessment web site. This web site should
have a link from the department‘s homepage
web site and should include information on
items 1-6 above. The intent is that each
department‘s assessment web site will
include the following links, with the relevant
information available when the link is
accessed:
If there are no comments on the buttons on
those last six columns, the department has
met the requirement for that component of
assessment. Thus, as shown in Figure 2.2.,
all departments in the College of Agriculture
have web sites with the required
information.
The entire site is at:
http://aaa.usu.edu/Assessment/AssessmentLi
nks.asp
Mission Statement
Assessment Plan
36
Examination of that site indicates that, at the
time this self-study document went to press,
every academic department at USU had an
assessment web site which contained the
required information.
Figure 2.2 Department Assessment Web sites
also examples of changes that have been
made as a result of assessment activities. A
review of individual department web sites
indicates continuing and significant changes
to improve teaching and learning. Based on
observation and data, departments are
revising their major requirements, altering
the content of courses, and reallocating
resources based on changes in demand for
their programs.
2.B.2. Publication and achievement of
learning objectives.
Each academic
department at USU has published its
learning objectives on its assessment web
site. To review the learning objectives for
any
academic
program,
go
to
http://aaa.usu.edu/Assessment/AssessmentLi
nks.asp and click the ―Learning Objectives‖
button for the unit of interest. The same
web site has a button that shows ―Outcomes
Data‖ collected by each department for its
programs. A more extensive discussion of
these outcomes data is provided under
NWCCU
Policy
2.2,
Educational
Assessment.
NWCCU Policy 2.2 — Educational
Assessment
Policy 2.2, Educational Assessment, in the
NWCCU Handbook provides a useful
format
for
evaluating
educational
assessment activities (See NWCCU
Handbook, pp. 37-39). The discussion of
Policy 2.2 includes several categories, each
with outcome measures.
With minor
modification, the categories can be used to
make a systematic presentation of
educational assessment at USU. The
headings used in this section correspond to
those categories.
2.B.3
Evidence
of
continuous
improvement. The ultimate objective of
educational assessment is improvement of
teaching and learning. However, this does
not always imply change. In some cases
assessment activities may reveal deficiencies
in a program that need correction. But in
other situations, outcomes assessment may
validate the strengths of the program. As
shown in Figure 2.2, the site at
http://aaa.usu.edu/Assessment/AssessmentLi
nks.asp also contains a ―Data-Based
Decisions‖ link for each academic
department. These links show the process
that departments use for making change and
Characteristics of New Students In Fall
2006, USU had 2,639 new freshmen
students, 1,083 new undergraduate transfer
37
students, and 484 new graduate students out
of a total student population of 23,623.
rates for 2004-2006 are down slightly from
previous years when, at one time, it reached
98%.
Table 2.2 provides comparable
information about undergraduate transfer
students. Applications have decreased, but
enrollment held steady because the
accepted/enrolled rate increased.
Table 2.1 shows applications, acceptances,
and enrollment of new freshmen for 20032006. Applications and enrollment declined
in 2004 and 2005, but increased in 2006 and
appear to be up for 2007. The acceptance
Table 2.1 New Freshman Applications, Acceptances, and Enrollment, Fall 2003-2006
Number
Number
Number
Accepted/
Enrolled/
Year
Applied
Accepted
Enrolled
Applied
Accepted
2003
5,165
4,851
2,548
93.9%
52.5%
2004
4,906
4,491
2,183
91.5%
48.6%
2005
4,666
4,365
2,054
93.5%
47.1%
2006
5,209
5,029
2,562
96.5%
50.9%
Table 2.2 Undergraduate Transfer Applications, Acceptances, and Enrollment, Fall 2003-2006
Year
2003
2004
2005
2006
Number
Applied
2,132
2,083
1,657
1,746
Number
Accepted
2,033
1,960
1,543
1,670
Number
Enrolled
1,048
1,000
928
1,063
USU is the institution of choice for a high
percentage of the new freshmen. Results of
the 2006 CIRP Survey indicate that USU
was the first choice of a college or university
for 87% of the new freshmen students who
enrolled at USU that year. Ninety-five
percent of students responding to USU‘s
internal freshman/ sophomore survey in
2006 stated that USU had been their first or
second choice. About 40% percent of CIRP
respondents had applied only to USU and
another 40% had applied to no more than
two other schools.
Accepted/
Applied
95.4%
94.1%
93.1%
95.6%
Enrolled/
Accepted
51.5%
51.0%
60.1%
63.7%
USU. In recent years, the university has
tried to be more selective in its admission
policies. The success of this effort is
reflected in improving ACT scores and high
school GPAs over the six- year period.
Between 2001 and 2006, the mean
Composite ACT score increased by 1.4
points and the mean GPA increased by 0.16
points.
Table 2.3 provides information about the
academic preparation of new freshmen at
38
Table 2.3. New Freshman Composite ACT Scores and High School GPAs, Fall 2003-2006
Year Composite ACT
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
22.3
22.9
23.6
24.1
23.7
23.7
High School GPA
3.37
3.46
3.56
3.57
3.54
3.53
Table 2.4 focuses on the demographic
characteristics of new USU students. At all
three levels (freshman, transfer, and
graduate), the proportion of minority
students is low. Percentages of international
students at the undergraduate level are also
low, but represent 13% of new graduate
students. Note that a high percentage of
USU students come from Utah. Even at the
graduate level, the proportion is more than
half.
Table 2.4. Demographic Characteristics of New Students, Fall 2006
Female
Minority
International
Freshmen
56%
5%
1%
Transfer
45%
5%
2%
Students
Graduate
38%
3%
13%
Students
Information about graduate students is
provided in Table 2.5. Graduate school
enrollments have been relatively stable
during the last three years because the
enrolled/accepted rate has increased.
Admissions are somewhat selective, but the
accepted/applied ratio has been increasing.
Table 2.6 shows test results for new
From Utah
78%
73%
55%
graduate students coming to USU. GRE
scores over the last four years place USU
enrollees slightly above the national
averages. The data from the table indicate
that there has been a slight downward trend
in GRE Verbal and Analytical scores over
time.
Table 2.5. Graduate Student Applications, Admissions, and Enrollment, Fall 2003-2006
Number
Number
Number
Accepted/
Enrolled/
Year
Applied
Accepted
Enrolled
Applied
Accepted
2003
2,861
1,381
749
48.3%
54.2%
2004
1,936
1,053
680
54.4%
64.6%
2005
2,463
1,578
696
64.1%
44.1%
2006
2,564
1,991
681
77.7%
34.2%
39
Table 2.6. Mean Test Scores of Admitted Graduate Students, Fall 2003-2006
Graduate Record Exam
Miller
Analogies
Year
Verbal
Quantitative
Analytical
2003
518.4
655.2
621.9
50.8
2004
543.3
696.8
NA
51.8
2005
513.1
650.7
620.0
48.3
2006
495.6
653.0
606.6
50.3
In summary, the data indicate that USU is
not highly selective in admitting new
freshmen,
that those students have
adequate, but not outstanding academic
preparation, and that the quality of new
freshmen has improved over time. The
university is dependent on attracting
undergraduate transfer students and is not
highly selective in its admissions policies for
those students. Admission is more selective
at the graduate level.
value of the Connections course. About
two-thirds of the 2005 class agreed or
strongly agreed that they were satisfied with
Connections, while one-sixth disagreed or
strongly disagreed. About 60% said they
would recommend the course to other
students, while 20% said they would not.
These findings indicated that Connections
still was not fully meeting the needs of
students. Additional changes were made for
Fall 2006. The results of the 2006 survey
indicated greater satisfaction with the
course. Seventy-five percent indicated that
they were satisfied with the course and
nearly 70% said they would recommend it to
a friend.
Beginning to Mid-Program Assessment.
Freshman Orientation. In Fall 2006, nearly
60% of USU incoming freshmen took
Connections, the university‘s orientation
course. For most students, this course is
offered for four full days prior to the start of
Fall Semester and then students meet
periodically during the semester.
Communications Literacy. During Fall 2004
and Fall 2005, a comprehensive study was
conducted to determine the improvement in
student writing and research skills from the
time they started the freshman-level English
1010 (Introduction to Writing) course to the
time they completed the sophomore-level
English 2010 (Intermediate Writing) course.
The objective was to measure the value
added by the two courses.
Surveys of Connections conducted in Fall
2003 and Fall 2004 were designed to
measure the value added of the course by
administering a pre- and a post-test to all
students. The surveys indicated that the
knowledge gains from taking the course
were minimal and that students felt the
course was only partially meeting its
objectives. As a result, a substantial revision
of Connections was implemented in Fall
2005.
At the beginning of the fall term, students in
English 1010 were given an essay prompt
and assigned to write a 750- to 1000-word
essay. At the end of the term, students in
English 2010 were given the same
assignment. From the population of the
students, 200 essays were randomly selected
from each course. After the term was over, a
team of graduate students who had taught
The revised Connections course has been
evaluated the last two years using an online
survey. Students were asked to assess the
40
one or both of the courses was hired to regrade the essays. Each essay was
independently scored by two readers.
topics and teaching methods employed.
Study
reports
are
found
at
http://aaa.usu.edu/assessment/pdf/SubjectMa
steryStat1010andMath1050.pdf.
In the Fall 2004 study, the mean score for
the English 2010 essays was 24.2% higher
than for the English 1010 essays. However,
these simple comparisons may be spurious
because they don‘t take into account other
factors that could affect scores. For example,
students with good writing skills are more
likely not to take English 1010.
Computer and Information Literacy. USU‘s
Computer and Information Literacy (CIL)
requirement is that each student pass six
tests covering operating systems, email,
document
processing,
spreadsheets,
information resources, and ethics. In 2004, a
comprehensive assessment was conducted to
evaluate the CIL skills of students. At a
macro level it was determined that there was
considerable variation in first-time pass rates
for the tests. For example, 80% or more
passed the information resources and
document processing exams, but less than
40% were successful on the ethics test. An
analysis was conducted to evaluate student
competency for individual tasks within the
six tests.
Consequently,
a
more
sophisticated
approach using multiple regression analysis
was used which allowed the influence of
other factors to be quantified. The regression
model included variables such as gender,
age, and English ACT scores. After these
factors were taken into account, the analysis
found a 20% improvement in overall
English 2010 scores. Similar gains were
found using the Fall 2005 data. Reports
providing details about these studies are at
http://aaa.usu.edu/assessment/ValueAddedE
ngl.asp.
As a result, significant changes were made
in the CIL tests. These included deletion of
certain tasks that most students have
mastered, adding new tasks, and changing
testing procedures.
Quantitative Literacy. Students can satisfy
the Quantitative Literacy requirement of
USU‘s general education program by
successfully completing Math 1050 (College
Algebra) or Stat 1040 (Introduction to
Statistics). Each of these courses uses a
common final examination. At the end of
the spring semesters in 2004 and 2005, a
random sample of final exams for each
course was collected and the individual
questions re-graded by a single instructor.
These questions were then grouped by the
topics they covered.
General Education Overall. Each year,
those students responding to USU‘s
Freshman/Sophomore
and
Graduating
Student Surveys are asked a series of
questions that relate to general education.
Table 2.7 shows 2006 responses to a subset
of those questions. About a third of students
in both groups considered USU general
education requirements to be confusing, and
similar proportions expressed difficulty in
scheduling general education courses. Less
than 40% of each group thought that general
education courses were well taught and less
than half perceived that general education is
or was a useful part of their university
experience. It is interesting to note that there
is relatively little difference in the responses
Results of the analysis determined that there
was significant variation in student mastery
of individual topics. Based on the findings,
the Mathematics and Statistics Department
has re-evaluated the time allotted to specific
41
USU‘s general education needs to be
revisited.
of freshmen/ sophomores as compared to
graduating seniors. The data indicate that
Table 2.7. Student Survey Responses to General Education Questions
Question
General education
requirements are/were
confusing
I had difficulty
scheduling general
education courses
General education
courses are/were welltaught
General education
is/was a useful part of
my university
experience.
Freshmen/Sophomores
Agree/
Disagree/Strongly
Strongly Agree Disagree
30.3%
39.9%
Graduating Seniors
Agree/
Disagree/Strongly
Strongly Agree Disagree
32.5%
41.8%
31.8%
39.5%
28.5%
46.4%
39.6%
20.1%
36.9%
22.6%
49.7%
18.9%
46.6%
21.3%
into the nature of students‘ educational
experiences compared to students at peer
institutions. The NSSE peer institutions are
38 universities designated as ―Doctoral
Universities—high research‖ by the
Carnegie Foundation. Results below are
from the 2006 survey. The full report is at
http://aaa.usu.edu/FactsFigures/PDFs/Surve
ys/NSSE_FSSE2004.pdf.
End-of-Program Assessment
Current USU students as well as alumni
seem pleased with their experience at the
university. Nearly 90% of the respondents to
the 2006 Graduating Student Survey agreed
or strongly agreed that they were satisfied
with the education they received at USU.
More than 86% were satisfied with their
department, while
only 4% were
dissatisfied. When asked what they would
tell a graduating high school student about
USU, more than 96% would say it was great
or mostly positive.
Nearly 90% of
respondents to the 2006 Alumni Survey
would recommend USU to a relative or
friend who wants to attend college.
To simplify the task of interpreting NSSE
results, five benchmarks of effective
educational practices were developed by
NSSE—Level of Academic Challenge,
Active and Student Collaboration, StudentFaculty Interactions, Enriching Educational
Experiences, and Supportive Campus
Environment.
Educational Engagement (NSSE). The
National Survey of Student Engagement
(NSSE) is administered online every two
years to a random sample of USU freshmen
and seniors. The survey provides insights
NSSE results are most useful as they pertain
to seniors because these are the students
who have most fully participated in the
experience provided by their university.
42
USU benchmark scores for seniors compare
favorably with those of the peer group. The
mean score for USU was higher than the
peer average for four benchmark categories
and essentially the same for the fifth.
Time to Graduation. Table 2.8 shows time
and credits for USU bachelor‘s degree
recipients over a four-year period. Native
students are those who began their college
experience at USU.
Note that
approximately two-thirds of students who
ultimately receive their bachelor‘s degree
are transfer students. For native students, the
mean number of semesters to obtain a
bachelor‘s degree was 12.6 during 20052006. Mean number of credits earned in the
same period was 128.6, but this number
does not include AP, CLEP, and Concurrent
Enrollment credits earned prior to starting at
USU. The table indicates that there has been
little variation in these numbers over the
four-year period.
Peer comparisons are important, but it is
also helpful to look directly at what USU
students perceive and do—especially seniors
who have nearly completed their educational
experience at USU. Following are selected
NSSE responses from students in their
senior year:
66% reported that USU puts quite a bit or
very much emphasis on providing students
with academic support.
For transfer students who received a
bachelor‘s degree, the average number of
terms was 9.1 during 2005-2006, the
average credits earned at USU was 96.0, and
the average number of transfer credits was
51.0. There is no clear trend in these data
over the last four years. USU recently
enacted a ―Graduation Guarantee‖ policy
designed to encourage students to obtain
their degrees more rapidly. Under this
program, the university guarantees that the
required courses will be available when the
student needs them. If not, tuition is free for
extra courses needed to graduate (See the
description at http://www.usu.edu/graduate.
About one-fourth had participated in a
research project with a faculty member that
did not involve their coursework or program
requirements.
In a typical week, 42% spent 10 or fewer
hours preparing for class, while 23% spent
21 hours or more hours.
Less than 10% rated the faculty as
unavailable, unhelpful, or unsympathetic.
77% said that their USU experience
contributed quite a bit or very much to their
ability to write clearly, while 88% made the
same assessment about thinking clearly and
analytically, and 79% about working
effectively with others.
88% of seniors rated the quality of their
USU educational experience as good or
excellent.
87% said that if they could start over again
they would probably or definitely attend
USU.
43
Table 2.8. Time and Credits to Graduation for Bachelor’s Degree Recipients
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
892
759
861
Native Students
Average Terms at USU
12.6
12.9
12.7
Average Credits Carried at USU
122.1
121.6
122.0
Average Credits Earned at USU
128.6
127.4
127.8
1,520
1,604
1,748
Transfer Students
Average Terms at USU
9.1
9.4
9.5
Average Credits Carried at USU
90.9
94.1
95.7
Average Credits Earned at USU
96.0
99.1
100.7
Average Transfer Credits
51.0
48.3
47.4
2005-06
892
12.6
122.1
128.6
1,520
9.1
90.9
96.0
51.0
Department-Level Assessment. By far the
key aspect of ―End of Program‖ assessment
is what occurs in USU‘s academic
departments. It is the department faculty
who design the curricula, teach the courses,
and work with students. If improvement is
to be made, it will happen primarily at the
department level.
the review team and other interested
individuals, each department was requested
to establish an assessment web site based on
a standardized format.
To see a
consolidated web site showing details of
what has been accomplished, go to
http://aaa.usu.edu/Assessment/AssessmentLi
nks.asp.
Much of USU‘s educational assessment
effort is focused on the academic
departments. In Section 2.B.1, the basic
model was discussed. As noted in that
section, each department is to have learning
objectives, mapping to show how individual
courses support those learning objectives,
outcomes data that indicate success in
achieving learning objectives, and a process
for translating findings into curriculum
and/or pedagogical improvement. To assist
Table 2.9 summarizes USU assessment at
the department level. As of July 2007, when
this self-study went to press, every USU
academic department had an assessment
plan, learning objectives, a mapping of
objectives and courses, actual outcomes
data, examples of data-based decisions, and
regular external reviews.
44
Table 2.9 Assessment Activities of USU Academic Departments and Programs
Department
AGRICULTURE
ASTE
ADVS
NFS
PSC
BUSINESS
ACCT
BA
MHR
MIS
EDUCATION
AND HUMAN
SERVICES
COMD
ELED
FCHD
HPER
IT
PSYCH
SECED
SPER
ENGINEERING
BIE
CEE
ECE
ETE
MAE
HASS
ART
ENGL
HIST
IELI
ID
JCOM
LAEP
LPSP
MUSIC
PS
SSWA
THEAT
Assessment
Plan
Program
Learning
Objectives
Objective
/Course
Mapping
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
45
Outcomes
Data
DataBased
Decisions
Regular
External
Reviews
NATURAL
RESOURCES
ENVS
WS
WR
SCIENCE
BIOL
CHEM
CS
GEOL
MATH/STAT
PHYS
JOINTLY
ADMINISTERED
ECON
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Graduates in some departments are required
to pass licensure examinations. The pass
rates on professional certification licensure
examinations are shown in Table 2.10. Note
that in some fields, USU success rates
approach or equal 100%.
46
Table 2.10 Pass Rates on Professional Certification Licensure Examinations
EXAM
CPA
YEAR
2001
2002
2003
2004
PASS RATE
24%
36%
22%
54%1
Communicative Disorders—Audiology
03-04
04-05
05-06
100%
100%
100%
Communicative Disorders—Speech/Language
03-04
04-05
05-06
100%
100%
100%
Dietetics
03-04
04-05
05-06
100%
93%
100%
Fundamentals of Engineering
03-04
04-05
92%
86%
Nursing—LPN
03-04
04-05
05-06
100%
96%
100%
Nursing—RN
03-04
04-05
05-06
91%
89%
94%
Professional in Human Resources
03-04
79%
04-05
80%
05-06
87%
1
The result for 2004 is the percent of students who passed at least one part of the CPA exam.
USU‘s law and medical school aptitude
scores were slightly above the average for
all students taking the tests during the most
recent year for which data are available. But
USU students have been very successful in
gaining admittance to medical school. Over
the past four years, an average of 75% of
applicants
have
been
admitted.
Table 2.11 shows how well USU
undergraduate students who plan to continue
their
educations
have
done
on
graduate/professional school examinations.
For the last year for which data were
available, USU GRE scores for the verbal,
quantitative, and analytical sections were
about the same as the national average.
47
Table 2.11 Graduate/Professional School Admissions Examinations
Graduate Record Exam
(GRE)
2000-2001
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
available)
Number of
USU Students
Taking Exam
Mean Verbal Score
Mean Quantitative
Score
Mean Analytical
Writing Score
198
265
278
USU
482
484
492
ALL
476
476
470
USU
615
631
613
ALL
595
615
582
USU
*
*
4
ALL
*
*
na
400
474
475
609
598
4
4.37
(latest
* Analytical Writing Section first used in 2002-2003
Law School Aptitude Test
(LSAT)
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
Medical College
Admission Test (MCAT
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
Number of
USU Students
Taking Exam
137
150
145
Number of
USU Students
Taking Exam
34
20
46
38
Score
USU
153.6
152.2
154.4
ALL
152.2
152.2
152.7
Score
USU
27.9
29.7
28.2
27.6
Program Reviews and Specialized Accreditation. The Utah Board of Regents requires
that every USU academic department be
externally reviewed at least every seven
years. If the unit is associated with a
regional or national accreditation body, that
unit may conduct the review. Otherwise, the
reviews are organized by USU‘s Provost.
Table 2.12 shows departmental reviews
conducted since 1995-1996 and planned out
to 2014. The table indicates that USU has a
ALL
24.7
24.6
24.7
25
comprehensive program for departmental
reviews. Note that two major reviews are
scheduled in the same general timeframe as
that of NWCCU.
The Association to
Advance Colleges and Schools of Business
(AACSB) will review the College of
Business
in
2006-2007
and
the
Accreditation Board for Engineering and
Technology (ABET) will review the College
of Engineering in 2007-2008.
48
Table 2.12 Review Schedule for Academic Departments and Programs
Regents Reviews
Last
AGRICULTURE
ASTE
ADVS
NFS
Next
2005-06
1995-96
PSC
BUSINESS
BA
MHR
MIS
ACCT
EDUCATION &
HUMAN SVS
COMD
1994-95
***
ELED
2003-04
2011-12
FCHD
HPER
IT
2003-04
1992-93
2001-02
2011-11
***
2008-09
PSYCH
2001-02
2009-10
SECED
1996-97
***
SPER
2000-01
2008-09
ENGINEERING
BIE
CEE
ECE
ETE
MAE
HASS
ART
ENGL
HIST
IELI
ID
JCOM
LAEP
LPSP
2000-01
2000-01
1996-97
1988-89
1999-00
2004-05
2001-02
National
Accreditation
Agency
National Reviews
Last
Next
NCATE
CSREES
CADE
IFT
CSREES
2004-05
2003-04
2005-06
2002-03
2014-05
2013-14
2010-11
2012-13
AACSB
AACSB
AACSB
AACSB
1997-98
1997-98
1997-98
1997-98
2006-07
2006-07
2006-07
2006-07
ASHA
CED
NCATE
TEAC
AAMFT
Natl. Rec. Parks
2000-01
2005-06
2001-02
2006-07
2005-06
2005-06
2007-08
2010-11
2008-09
2011-12
APA
NASP
NCATE
TEAC
NCATE
TEAC
2005-06
2004-05
2001-02
2006-07
2001-02
2006-07
2010-11
2009-10
2008-09
2011-12
2008-09
2011-12
ABET
ABET
ABET
NCATE
Aviation Accred.
ABET
2004-05
2004-05
2002-03
2001-02
2004-05
2002-03
2007-08
2007-08
2007-08
2009-10
Engl. Lang. Accred
C. for ID Accred.
2000-01
2005-07
2007-08
2013-14
ASLA
2005-06
2007-08
2010-11
2007-08
2006-07
2008-09
2008-09
2006-07
2012-13
2008-09
49
MUSIC
PS
SSWA
THEAT
NATURAL
RESOURCES
ENVS
WS
WR
SCIENCE
BIOL
CHEM
CS
GEOL
MATH/STAT
PHYS
JOINTLY
ADMINISTERED
2000-01
2008-09
Amer. Music Therapy
Assoc.
Natl. Assoc. of Sch. of
Music
2002-03
2002-03
2000-01
2010-11
2010-11
2008-09
C. of SW Accred.
2006-07
2014-15
SAF
SRM
2000-01
1996-97
2007-08
2006-07
2012-13
2001-02
2012-13
2005-06
2005-06
2006-06
1995-96
2003-04
2000-01
2000-01
2001-02
2000-01
2007-08
ABET
2008-09
2008-09
ABET
2000-01
2001-02
2010-11
2011-12
2008-09
CSREES
ECON
***Regents Review Past Due
Dropouts/Non-completers. Table 2.13 shows
first-year retention rates and six-year
graduation rates going back to the cohort of
students who entered USU in Fall 1997. It
is important to consider one important
aspect of the data. USU has a high
proportion of students who are members of
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints (LDS). Many young LDS men and
some young women serve as missionaries
for their church. The young men typically
interrupt their schooling after their freshman
year and serve for two years. Young women
cannot leave until they are 21, and serve for
18 months.
individuals to be eliminated from the cohorts
for purposes of calculating retention and
graduation rates. Thus, the data shown in
Table 2.13 are adjusted to reflect students
leaving for missions.
The Utah Board of Regents has a
cooperative arrangement with the LDS
Church whereby young men and women
attending Utah colleges and universities and
serving missions are identified. Federal
government
procedures
allow
these
The six-year graduation rate is also not high
compared to similar institutions. The rate
has improved in recent years, but is still
about 50%. In the U.S. News 2007 Edition
of America‘s Best Colleges, one of the
criteria used to rank institutions is predicted
Even with the missionary adjustment, USU
first- year retention rates are low compared
to peer institutions. The rate peaked at
74.6% for the 2002 cohort, but has declined
slightly since that time. This decline is in
spite of the fact that USU has made a strong
effort since 2001 to improve retention by
increasing admission standards and by
contacting students who did not return.
50
USU‘s predicted rate was eight percentage
points higher than the actual rate.
vs. actual graduation rate. The predicted
rate is calculated using the demographic
characteristics of the institution‘s students.
Table 2.13. Retention/Graduation: Full-time, First-Time, Degree-Seeking Freshman Cohorts, 1997-2006
Year Initial Continued Continued Continued Graduated Continued Graduated Continued Graduated
Cohort to 2nd Yr
to 3rd Yr
to 4th Yr
in 4th Yr
to 5th Yr
in 5th Yr
to 6th Yr
in 6th Yr
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
1,856
2,214
1,899
2,038
2,328
1,883
2,358
2,028
1,906
2,375
66.5%
69.2%
68.0%
72.3%
69.6%
74.6%
73.1%
70.6%
72.2%
51.8%
55.8%
58.0%
57.8%
55.7%
61.8%
60.3%
57.9%
41.9%
46.9%
49.3%
48.1%
45.3%
49.4%
49.5%
22.7%
20.7%
22.9%
23.8%
21.7%
29.7%
20.4%
27.2%
27.9%
26.0%
25.0%
23.0%
34.5%
27.2%
37.1%
39.3%
36.6%
8.4%
38.0%
13.0%
11.0%
9.0%
42.5%
46.1%
47.4%
47.9%
Average first-year retention rate (Cohorts starting 2002-2005) = 72.6%
Average six-year graduation rate (Cohorts starting 1997-2000) = 46.0%
USU has extensively investigated the
reasons why more students do not return for
their second year. It was determined that
entering students with higher ACT scores
and high school GPAs were more likely to
return for their second year. This is not a
surprising result, but the university
responded to the finding by focusing on
improving the quality of its freshman class.
This effort has been successful.
unhappy with their experience at USU.
Very few students mentioned the quality of
the university or problems with class size or
scheduling as reasons for not returning to
USU.
In Fall 2006, USU established an ―Office of
First Year Experience and Retention‖ within
the Division of Student Services. The
purpose is to focus on retaining freshman
students. That office is engaged in research
as to why freshmen do not return and also is
responsible for developing programs to
improve retention. One example is an Early
Warning system that identifies students at
risk and intervenes to provide assistance.
About 20% of students who do not return for
their second year go on church missions
(but, as noted, these are not included in the
retention rate). About 10% transfer to
another college or university, about 70%
within the state of Utah. In 2002, telephone
calls were made to members of the Fall 2001
freshman class who did not return to
determine the specific reason. Several
hundred students were contacted. It was
determined that most reasons for not
returning were personal and involve the
local culture—missions and marriage. Most
reasons relating to academics involved
transfer to another school, usually for
financial purposes such as being closer to
home.
Relatively few students were
Employment and/or Graduate Education.
Successful placement in a degree-related job
or acceptance into a graduate program are
key outcomes measures for a university.
Each spring, the Office of Analysis,
Assessment,
and
Accreditation,
in
cooperation with the academic departments,
conducts a telephone survey of recent
graduates to determine if and where they are
employed and if and where they are
attending graduate school.
The survey
51
population consists of graduates who
received bachelor‘s degrees from July to
June of the previous year (e.g., the 2006
survey was based on degree recipients from
July 1, 2004 to July 30, 2005. The lag is
designed to give graduates a chance to get
established in a job or in school. Among the
important findings of the most recent study
are the following:
Fifty-one percent of those with full-time
jobs provided salary data. Department
median starting salaries range from $22,000
to more than $50,000.
For many questions, there is substantial
variation in the responses between colleges
and departments in the college. The entire
report, with college and departmental
breakdowns,
can
be
found
at
http://aaa.usu.edu/FactsFigures/PDFs/Surve
ys/EmploymentSurveyReport2004.pdf.
About 30% of USU graduates are
continuing their education as a full- or parttime student and 25% are enrolled in
graduate degree programs.
Employer Satisfaction. In 2005, the Utah
Board of Regents joined with Noel-Levitz,
Inc. to conduct a pilot survey of employer
satisfaction with graduates of colleges and
universities across the nation. USU was part
of this study. Surveys were mailed to nearly
300 USU employers. The response rate of
38% is typical of employer surveys, which
are very difficult to successfully complete.
69% of those continuing their educations
are in master‘s programs and 10% are in
professional programs such as medicine,
dentistry, and law. About 40% of the
students in graduate degree programs are
enrolled at USU.
Business is the most popular field of study
for those in graduate degree programs.
Although the sample was small, the results
suggest that employers are extremely
satisfied with their USU employees on an
absolute basis and also in comparison with
the 17 other institutions who participated in
the survey. On a satisfaction scale of 1 (Not
at all) to 5 (Extremely), mean responses to
those questions relating to overall
satisfaction are provided in Table 2.14. The
USU means are well above 4.00 (maximum
5.00) and higher than those for all
institutions. The complete report is found at
http://aaa.usu.edu/FactsFigures/PDFs/Surveys/
Noel-Levitz%20Report%202005_web.pdf.
About 14% of alumni who are not fulltime students do not have a full- or part-time
job, but many of these individuals are not
seeking employment.
The unemployment rate of recent alumni
looking for jobs is estimated at 2.5%, which
is below the nationwide rate of 3.0% for
college graduates.
Of those with full-time jobs, about 20%
indicated that their job is unrelated to their
USU degree.
Nearly two-thirds of those with full-time
jobs are working in Utah.
About 60% of those with full-time jobs are
working in the private sector. About 20%
are employed in public or private education.
52
their graduation, which Alumni Association
activities they have participated in, and their
allegiance to USU as compared to other
colleges and universities. Following are
important findings of the survey.
Table 2.14 Mean Responses to NoelLevitz Employer Satisfaction Survey
Question
USU
Total
Mean Sample
Mean
Overall satisfaction
4.23
4.11
with employee‘s
knowledge and
understanding
Overall satisfaction that 4.34
4.21
employee demonstrates
the qualities expected
from a college graduate
Overall satisfaction
4.14
4.12
with employee‘s skills
as they relate to the
requirements of her/his
job
Based on experience
4.42
4.17
with this employee,
how likely are you to
hire another graduate of
this school?
60% of alumni rated the current academic
quality of USU as excellent or very good,
while less than 1% rated academic quality as
poor. More than one-third believed USU‘s
academic reputation is improving, versus
only 2% who perceived that it is declining.
Nearly three-fourths of alumni stated that
they identify moderately or very closely
with USU overall. Younger alumni were
more likely to identify with their department
or individual faculty than were older
respondents.
Asked if they have an allegiance to
another university that is stronger than their
allegiance to USU, 21.0% agreed, 54.3%
disagreed, and 16.4% were neutral.
Employer satisfaction can also be evaluated
by examining company recruiting practices.
USU‘s Office of Career Services reports that
165 organizations made recruiting trips to
Logan in 2005-2006 and conducted nearly
1,500 interviews with USU students. A total
of 3,500 jobs were posted on USU online
employment site. These numbers are up
from the 122 firms, 1,400 interviews, and
2,360 job postings for 2003-2004.
Nearly 90% of the survey respondents said
that if they had to make the decision again,
they would still come to USU, and nearly
90% would recommend USU to a friend or
relative who wants to attend college.
Just over 80% agreed that USU had
prepared them well for their employment,
while about 5% disagreed.
Alumni Satisfaction and Loyalty. In Spring
2006, an online survey was conducted of
USU alumni.
Using the Alumni
Association‘s master email list, a survey was
sent to 15,000 graduates; 4,658 people
returned the survey.
Alumni generally believe that USU is
headed in the right direction. They perceive
that extension activities provide valuable
assistance, but don‘t believe that too much
emphasis is placed on research or on
athletics. Alumni are neutral or about
equally divided as to whether the university
should raise admissions standards and as to
whether they receive too many contacts
from USU asking for money.
The survey asked questions about alumni
perceptions of USU as it is today, attitudes
toward donating to the university, how much
contact alumni have had with USU since
53
department assessment and expand the
scope of centralized assessment activities.
Asked if the balance between conservative
and liberal views at USU is consistent with
their values, 38% agreed and 16% disagreed.
The rest were neutral.
Standard 2.C -- Undergraduate
Programs
Ten percent of the alumni respondents had
never been back on campus since their
graduation and another 28% had not been
back in the last five years. Almost onefourth reported that they have had no
involvement with USU during the last five
years.
2.C.1-3
General Education. USU
requires a general education experience for
all students receiving its degrees. Known as
University Studies, the program requires
students to complete lower division course
work in English composition and
mathematics or statistics, as well as taking
breadth courses in each of five areas:
humanities, physical sciences, life sciences,
social sciences, and arts. In addition,
students must take an "American
Institutions" course to comply with state
law. Two of the courses taken for breadth
must be "integrated breadth courses,"
designated with a USU prefix (e.g., USU
1300) and designed according to a set of
articulated intellectual and pedagogical
goals. These are called USU Courses. All
freshmen are expected to pass a computer
competency examination by the end of the
freshman year, even though no computer
courses are required.
Taken as a whole, the 2006 Alumni Survey
suggests that USU graduates are generally
loyal and have very positive feelings
towards the institution. However, there are
some causes for concern. About one-fifth
have a greater allegiance to another
university, probably because they have sent
their children elsewhere. Nearly 40% have
not been back on campus in the last five
years. The full report is found at
http://aaa.main.usu.edu/FactsFigures/PDFs/
Surveys/Alumni_Survey_2006.pdf.
2.B and NWCCU Policy 2.2 Challenges
and Recommendations
USU has made significant progress since the
last NWCCU review in assessing
effectiveness of educational programs. All
academic departments have an assessment
plan based on outcomes data and all have an
assessment web site that shows the status of
their assessment efforts. At the university
level, resources have been committed to
assessment and there is an ongoing and
systematic process in place for collecting
and analyzing data.
General Education does not end with the
sophomore year. All graduates of USU must
take two depth courses outside of their area
of specialization. Hence, humanists must
take a depth science and a depth social
science course. These courses, which must
be at the 3000 level or above, are selected to
reinforce both the learning acquired in the
breadth courses and the appropriate skills in
communication and quantitative reasoning.
Students
must
also
take
two
"communication intensive" courses and one
"quantitative intensive" course before they
graduate, no matter what their major may
be.
The University Studies Program is
explained at http://www.usu.edu/universitystudies.
The challenge for USU will be to sustain
these efforts, especially at the departmental
level. The intent is that the Office of
Analysis, Assessment, and Accreditation
will continue its monitoring of academic
54
Administration of General Education.
General education at USU is overseen by
the General Education Subcommittee of the
Educational Policies Committee. Made up of
voting representatives of colleges and the
chairs of the area committees, the committee
has several non-voting members who attend
ex-officio, such as the Registrar, the head of
University Advising Services, and the Vice
Provost for Undergraduate Education. This
subcommittee is charged with course
approval, assessment, and policy concerning
general education. All courses designated as
USU Courses are overseen by this
subcommittee, and its chair acts as the
academic head of the University Studies
Program, dealing with issues such as course
approval, articulations, and waivers. The
subcommittee has oversight teams for each
area of general education. The job of these
teams is to review syllabi submitted and to
advise the chair on questions concerning
their special charge. The criteria guiding
their recommendations are found at
http://www.usu.edu/universitystudies/course
inclusion/.
General
Education
Subcommittee membership/activities are at
http://www.usu.edu/universitystudies/contact/.
Currently, the Task Force is conducting a
system-wide conversation about general
education math courses, looking at content,
pedagogy, and level. Too many students are
failing to demonstrate sufficient mastery
across the system. USU is heavily engaged
in these efforts, and will change its courses
as a consensus emerges in the state.
USU uses a portfolio assessment of English
composition to show value-added between
the beginning of Eng 1010 and the end of
Eng 2010. The conclusion is that there is
significant value- added by general
education composition courses. In 2004 and
2005, USU conducted baseline assessments
to identify which topics and learning
objectives the students had and had not
mastered. The study results are found at
http://aaa.usu.edu/assessment/ValueAddedE
ngl.asp.
The Information Literacy goal of general
education has been assessed by a team from
the Library. Looking at all available syllabi
for general education courses, they inquired
into the use of all sources of information
literacy, from actual books to online data
bases. They have made a preliminary report
to the General Education Subcommittee, and
they are currently refining their report.
Findings are disappointing regarding library
use, and some departments, such as History,
are making changes in their syllabi to
require more library work, physical or in
cyber space. Because assessing general
education is difficult, the subcommittee and
the Office of Analysis, Assessment, and
Accreditation have worked together to begin
a process of Focus Group Interviews. The
process was begun in an attempt to discover
what USU students were experiencing in
their general education courses. The first
report from these focus groups was
completed in 2005 is found at
http://aaa.usu.edu/FactsFigures/PDFs/Surve
Assessment of General Education. USU
assesses general education in conjunction
with a program designed for the Regents'
Task Force on General Education. In 2000,
the task force conducted assessments of the
Utah system's performance in the area of
composition (Eng 1010 and 2010),
mathematics (Math 1050 and Statistics
1040), and American Institutions (History
1700; USU 1300; PS 1010; Econ 2700). The
task force did not report its results by
institution, but many institutions in the
system borrowed its models.
Results suggest that USU students look
much like those in the rest of the system as
assessed by the Regents' Task Force.
55
ys/Final%20Report%20Focus%20Groups%
202004-2005.pdf.
Advising Conference
Handbook.
and
an
Advisor
Because of this need to understand students'
critical thinking skills, in order to create a
more effective curriculum, the General
Education Subcommittee has requested that
the Collegiate Learning Assessment be pilot
tested at USU.
2.C.6 Developmental or remedial work.
USU offers only three remedial courses:
MATH 0900, ENGL 0010, and SPED 0100.
These courses do not carry university or
transfer credit.
The course most often taken is MATH 0900,
Elements of Algebra. This course is offered
for those students who may need a refresher
course to succeed in college-level
mathematics courses. Students who have an
ACT math score of less than 23 or an SAT
math score of less than 540 are required to
take a math placement exam to determine
what level of math is appropriate for them as
a starting point.
2.C.4 Transfer and acceptance of credit.
The policies guiding the acceptance and
transfer of credit are clearly articulated,
including the transfer of credit to fulfill
degree requirements. In that process, the
institution ensures that the credits accepted
are comparable to its own courses, and,
whenever patterns of transfer from other
institutions are established, articulation
agreements have been completed.
ENGL 0010, Writing Tutorial, provides
extra instruction for students whose score
on the ACT is 16 or less, or who are advised
into the course on the basis of a writing
diagnosis given the first day of class in
ENGL 1010.
Articulation decisions regarding the
application of transfer credit to both the
university core and major requirements are
handled by the individual academic
departments. Results are compiled and
maintained by the articulation team in the
Registrar‘s Office. Policies and procedures
are communicated to students and faculty
through the General Catalog, the Advisor
Handbook and online are found at
http://www.usu.edu/transfer.
SPED 0100, Strategies for Reading, is a
course for students who need improvement
in the reading, writing, and comprehension
skills that are essential for their academic
success.
2.C.5
Academic advising. Academic
advisement at USU is decentralized and
students are assigned to advisors according
to major. Some departments employee
professional advisors, while others rely on
faculty for advising. The Office of
University Advising (UA) coordinates
campus advising to ensure consistency in the
way advising is delivered campus-wide via a
New Advisor Orientation, ongoing Advising
Coordinating Committee meetings, an
advisor e-mail distribution list, an annual
2.C.7 Adequacy of faculty for educational
programs offered. USU has established
high standards for selection and retention of
full-time faculty. The adequacy of the
faculty to provide quality instruction at the
undergraduate and graduate levels is
discussed under Standards 2.A.1 and 4.A.
2.C.8 Pass rates and placement for prebaccalaureate vocational programs. Over
time, the number of pre-baccalaureate
programs offered by USU has declined until
only a few remain.
This outcome is
56
consistent with USU‘s status as a research
university. Students living in the local area
who want vocational programs have the
option of attending the Bridgerland Applied
Technology College, also located in Logan.
writing, math, and breadth courses. Some
students have to wait to obtain a place in
these classes and others find themselves in
courses with more than an optimal number
of students.
The pre-baccalaureate vocational programs
still offered by the university are associate
degrees and certificates in Agricultural
Machinery Technology and Ornamental
Horticulture, a certificate program in Dairy
Herdsmanship, a certificate program in
Aircraft Maintenance, and an associate
degree in Office Systems Support, only
available through the RCDE unit.
A third challenge associated with Standard
2.C is advising. More and better-trained
advisors are needed. Adding a large number
of advisors will be difficult, but it is possible
to provide existing advisors with better
training and to simplify the process by
developing better materials, especially those
that are accessible online. Peer advising has
also proven to be effective.
The number of students in these programs is
small. In 2005-2006, a total of 11
certificates and 28 associate degrees were
awarded through these programs.
The
programs exist because there is a demand in
their ―niche.‖ Almost all of the students
completing their certificate or associate
degree either find employment related to
their training or continue to study in
baccalaureate programs.
Standard 2.D — Graduate Program
USU has awarded master‘s degrees since
1914 and doctoral degrees since 1950.
Forty-two of the university‘s 43 departments
offer graduate degrees, which include 95
master‘s, 6 educational specialist, and 38
doctoral programs.
Nationally and
internationally
known
scholars
and
researchers participate in and support
graduate studies at USU. During 2005-06,
847 master‘s and 81 doctoral degrees were
awarded. Degrees and units offering them
are at http://www.usu.edu/academics/graduate.cfm.
2.C. Challenges and Recommendations
Currently, the weak link in educational
program assessment at USU is general
education. There has been very useful
analysis of specific parts of general
education, notably writing, mathematics,
and computer literacy, but more information
is needed about the effectiveness of the
University Studies breadth courses and how
they
interface
with
depth
course
requirements. The USU General Education
Subcommittee will work with the Office of
Analysis, Assessment, and Accreditation to
develop and implement a plan.
2.D.1
Graduate
programs
and
institutional mission. USU is one of two
public research universities in the State of
Utah. The Board of Regents‘ Master Plan
specifies that ―graduate study is a distinct
organizational element‖ at USU and that the
university shall ―offer graduate education of
national significance and prominence at the
master‘s and doctoral levels.‖ The plan
further designates that ―high priority will be
given to nationally recognized research and
professional programs which make scholarly
and creative contributions to the various
Another issue with respect to general
education is the challenge of finding funds
to provide enough seats in introductory
57
disciplines and which support master‘s and
doctoral programs of excellence.‖
departments to provide a rigorous and stimulating intellectual and physical environment
for all graduate students.
The School of Graduate Studies (SGS) is the
central administrative body that promotes,
supports, and reviews graduate education at
USU to ensure consistency and excellence in
all graduate programs. The SGS is headed
by the Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate
Studies who reports to the Provost and is a
member of the President‘s Executive
Committee. The SGS works closely with
the central administration, Graduate
Council, colleges, and the academic
2.D.2-3 Graduate program objectives
and requirements. Broad indicators of
minimal performance have been established
for graduate programs, which include
extensive classroom study, research
creativity
endeavors,
and
various
professional experiences. Table 2.15 shows
the indicators by programmatic level.
Table 2.15 Graduate Degree Requirements
Credits beyond last degree
Research/Professional
Experience
30 (plus language)
Thesis
60
Major Performance/Exhibit
30
Thesis
Major Paper (Plan B)
Master of Science
(Plan C)
33
Culminating Project or
Creative Work
Master of Education
36
Integrative Project
Doctor of Philosophy
Doctor of Education
60 with master‘s and 90
without disciplinary
master‘s
Dissertation
Educational Specialist
36 beyond a master‘s
Comprehensive Paper,
Internship
Degree
Master of Arts
Master of Fine Arts
Master of Science
(Plans A and B)
The majority of course work at the master‘s
level must be beyond the undergraduate
level and course work at the doctoral level
may include master-level course work, but
must include a majority of doctoral-level
courses. There are strict limitations on
undergraduate courses that can be used for
graduate study.
Standards of graduate study are set and
regulated by the USU Graduate Council, a
subcommittee of the Faculty Senate, which
approves Graduate Council actions. The
Council advises the Dean of the School of
Graduate Studies on exceptions or
adjustments to policy. Members of the
Council include the Dean of the School of
Graduate Studies and one faculty member
58
elected from each college, a representative
of the Faculty Senate and the Merrill-Cazier
Library, and two elected graduate students.
The relationship of the SGS, Graduate
Council, and the Faculty Senate are
specified
by
USU
Code
at
http://www.usu.edu/hr/policies/section100/1
05.pdf.
Approval of new graduate programs is
completed through a process that starts with
faculty committees and ultimately involves
the Board of Trustees and the Board of
Regents.
This process focuses on the
demand for the program, availability of
resources, and capacity to support advanced
study.
The
form
is
found
at
http://www.usu.edu/provost/forms/pdf/r401_
revised_10-21-04.pdf)
Each individual graduate student is
supervised by a graduate committee (three
faculty members at the master‘s level and
five at the doctoral level). The Graduate
Council has established guidelines for
membership on such committees.
Resources for graduate study at USU are
adequate. The new Merrill-Cazier library
offers 1,578,000 volumes, 189 electronic
databases, 12,369 paper serials, 27,542
electronic journals, and 175,000 electronic
books. These resources are also discussed
under
Standard
Five.
(See
also
http://library.usu.edu/main/portrait/index.ph
p)
Standard 2.E -- Graduate Faculty and
Related Resources
2.E.1-2 Adequacy of resources for
graduate programs.
USU does not
designate a graduate faculty. All tenure and
tenure-track faculty who meet the Graduate
Council‘s ―Guidelines for Supervisory
Committee Appointments‖ are eligible to
serve on USU graduate committees. Ninetyfour percent of instructional faculty on the
Logan Campus are full-time and 98% hold
terminal degrees in their field. Terminal
degrees have been earned from 58 different
U.S. universities and 29 faculty hold degrees
from international institutions.
Open-access computer labs supply a host of
software from graphics to statistical
packages that are available for graduate
student use. USU maintains 11 open-access
labs across campus. Additionally, there are
labs supported by individual departments
and research projects that are dedicated to
individual research and academic programs.
The campus is also served by wireless
Internet access points and near total
coverage is now available.
2.E.3-4 Graduate faculty. Faculty members
who supervise research activities, approve
programs of study, and engage in teaching
come from within the various academic
departments
within
the
university.
Supervisory committee composition is
required to be from within the specialization
except for a minimum of one and a
maximum of two committee members for
the PhD (five-person committee) and one for
a
master‘s
committee
(three-person
committee). Membership on a supervisory
committee is approved by department heads
Resources for graduate programs are
provided at the department, college, and
university levels. The SGS sets standards
and monitors how well they are met through
review of programs of study, comprehensive
or
qualifying
exams,
theses,
and
dissertations.
In
addition,
academic
department reviews are conducted on a
rotating basis by the Board of Regents and
by specialized accrediting bodies. Those
reviews include an examination of graduate
programs.
59
and the Dean of the School of Graduate
Studies.
the SGS. At the department level, each
application is reviewed to assure that the
student meets the requirements for the
proposed discipline of study. At the SGS,
applications are evaluated to ensure
compliance with university policies.
Faculty numbers, library resources, and
research space in support of a graduate
program are carefully considered when new
programs are proposed and when they are
reviewed. Programs that no longer have
sufficient resources to offer graduate
degrees, or for which demand has dropped,
are subject to termination. Responding to
recommendations in the 1997 NWCCU
Response to USU, all low-enrollment
graduate programs were reviewed and those
no longer considered viable were eliminated.
Admissions requirements are standardized at
minimal levels (some programs require
higher levels) for admittance to the SGS. A
bachelor‘s degree, three letters of reference,
and 40th percentile on the appropriate
admissions test (USU recognizes the GRE,
MAT, GMAT) are required. Additionally, a
minimum GPA of 3.0 in the last 60 semester
hours is required as reflected by an official
transcript. SGS monitors these requirements
by use of an electronic portfolio for each
student seeking admission. These portfolios
are accessible in real time by each of the
programs where admissions decisions are
initiated. Admissions requirements are listed
in the General Catalog and also at
http://www.usu.edu/generalcatalog/20072009/print/pdf/34GradStudies07.pdf.
2.E.5 Off-campus graduate programs.
Off-campus graduate programs are planned
and staffed by the various academic
departments on the main campus. Faculty
members deliver programs using several
technologies, including satellite and internet.
For PhD study, all students must be on the
Logan campus for at least three semesters
(with two consecutive). An EdD is offered
which includes a residency requirement of
three semesters. Many master‘s programs
require some form of campus experience,
such as intensive Logan-based workshops or
periodic visits with faculty on campus.
2.F.4 Graduation requirements
Program and graduation requirements are
in the USU General Catalog at
http://www.usu.edu/generalcatalog/20072009/print/pdf/34GradStudies07.pdf. These
requirements include number of years
allowed to graduate, the numbers of credits
(both in residency and level), and the
minimal levels of performance in course
work and on comprehensive exams and
defenses of terminal projects/papers.
2.E.6 Doctoral program faculty.
All
doctoral degree programs are staffed by core
faculty at the Logan campus with some
participation by faculty housed at regional
campuses. The governance of the programs
is the same as for all other graduate
programs offered by USU.
2.F.5 Graduate transfer credit. Transfer
credit is limited to 12 semester hours.
Exceptions to this policy may be requested
by departments with justification based upon
sound academic reasons.
Standard 2.F ─ Graduate Records and
Academic Credit
2.F.1-3 Admissions policies. Admission to
graduate study is a two-level process
involving both the academic department and
2.F.6
Graduate credit for prior
experiential learning. USU does not grant
60
credit for prior experiential learning.
However, the university does recognize the
value of internships and guided clinical and
field experiences. Only those courses
appearing on a student‘s program of study
and approved by his or her supervisory
committee may be used toward a graduate
degree.
improving graduate programs. Equipment
and research facilities funded by contracts
and grants both on campus and at the
university‘s Innovation Campus are an
integral part of the USU resource base.
Standard 2.G and NWCCU Policy 2.6. -Continuing Education and Special
Learning Activities
2.D, 2.E, and 2.F Challenges and
Recommendations
2.G. 1, 2, 4 Mission and organization.
USU has a 90-year history of delivering
knowledge and services to Utah‘s remote
areas. The Regional Campuses and Distance
Education (RCDE) unit provides quality
courses and degree programs throughout
Utah and the world. These courses are
delivered via face-to-face, interactive
broadcast,
online
instruction,
video
conferencing, independent study, and as
hybrid courses.
One of USU‘s goals is to increase the
number of qualified graduate students in its
programs, especially at the doctoral level.
Although the quality of graduate programs is
excellent and placement experiences have
been generally very positive, attracting
students in some areas is a challenge. An
ongoing concern is the amount and level of
financial aid that is available. Stipends and
benefits must be increased if USU is to
successfully compete for high-quality
students.
The university is currently
working to provide health insurance for
graduate students.
Historically,
RCDE
functions
were
subsumed under USU Extension, including
Cooperative Extension Services and
Continuing Education (CE). Programs were
administered by the Vice President for
Extension and Continuing Education. CE
provided classes for non-credit, credit, or
degrees in off-campus settings; evening
classes on the main campus; programs and
workshops in every county; independent
study courses; and conferences, seminars,
and workshops both on and off campus.
Another challenge is improving policies and
procedures
relating
to
admission,
monitoring, and graduating students. The
SGS is evaluating and revamping materials
and requirements to assure that students are
not unduly burdened by the process as they
go through their programs.
Finally, although USU provides a significant
amount of space for research and related
functions, growth in some graduate
programs is constrained by inadequacy of
laboratories and lack of offices for students.
In addition, library collections need to be
augmented to improve graduate study in
some disciplines. State appropriations will
never be able to meet these needs, but
USU‘s success in obtaining external funds is
a critical component in maintaining and
In 2006, the central administration
implemented
organizational
changes
whereby (1) Extension became part of the
College of Agriculture; (2) Conference
Services moved under Auxiliary and Service
Enterprise in Business and Finance; and (3)
RCDE was created and reported to the
Provost, confirming its core academic
mission of full and transparent cooperation
with Logan campus academic departments.
61
RCDE is administered by the Vice Provost
for RCDE on USU‘s Logan campus and
Executive Directors at regional campuses
and
centers
throughout
Utah.
Organizationally, this structure aims to
accomplish President Albrecht‘s vision of
―One
University,
Geographically
Dispersed.‖
2.G.
2,
6.
Finance,
contractual
relationships, fee structure, and refund
policies. Funding for RCDE comes from
legislatively appropriated line items. These
funds support courses and programs that are
budget related through four line item
centers: Uintah Basin Regional Campus,
Southeastern Utah Regional Education
Center, Brigham City Regional Campus, and
the Tooele Regional Campus.
RCDE‘s mission is to increase access to
higher education for students whose
circumstances make traditional study
impossible. Distance-delivered programs
include courses as well as undergraduate and
graduate degrees from many disciplines.
RCDE programs are designed, approved,
administered, and evaluated by sponsoring
academic departments.
All course
evaluations go to department heads, and
RCDE monitors technology delivery quality.
In FY 2006-07 RCDE was supported by a
line item budget of $17,283,500, a nearly
13% increase over FY 2005-06. With this
additional funding, RCDE was able to
increase enrollment, hire more faculty for
face-to-face and broadcast courses, produce
more online courses, purchase facilities, and
improve its technical delivery
Along with the state appropriation funding,
RCDE offers ―self-support‖ courses.
Students or their sponsors must pay the full
costs for the unfunded courses or programs.
2.G. 1, 2, 4 Regional campuses, centers,
and delivery sites. USU has Regional
Campuses at Brigham City, Tooele, and in
the Uintah Basin. Educational Centers are
located at Moab, Ogden, Price, and Salt
Lake City. The university also has in-state
delivery sites at Beaver, Castledale, Delta,
Ephraim,
Logan,
Milford,
Nephi,
Orem/Provo, Piute, Richfield, San Juan, St.
George, and Wayne. RCDE also delivers
courses to Utah high schools.
Student fees for RCDE students are separate
from main campus and support off-campus
programs. RCDE students paying fees have
full access to student services (e.g., library,
health services, student activities, and
computer labs). Fees are retained by the unit
from which the student is taking courses.
With the exception of year-long courses,
refund guidelines are the same for all
students.
In addition, courses and programs are
offered
regionally,
nationally,
and
worldwide, including programs in Hong
Kong, Singapore, and China.
2.G.2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 11 Program and course
approval,
credit,
and
evaluation
processes. RCDE submits all course and
program schedules for review and approval
to a secure web site. From this centralized
location, course approval requests are
viewed, changed, corrected, and approved.
Information can only be accessed by RCDE
program managers and by the select staff,
department
heads,
and
college
Individual campuses and centers are
discussed later in this section. A map of
RCDE‘s
locations
is
found
at
http://campuses.usu.edu/htm/locations and a
Division of Student Services staff profile is
provided in Table 3.1 under Standard Three.
62
administrators assigned to coordinate RCDE
schedules.
The university offers Continuing Education
Units (CEUs) or Professional Education
Units (PEUs). These non-academic credits
do not appear on academic transcripts. A
certificate is generated to document the
completion of this type of credit. RCDE
does not give credit for prior experiential
learning.
All courses require four levels of approval:
1. RCDE Administrator – Determines that
system course, financial detail, and report
coding are acceptable for submission and
upload.
2.G.5 Access to learning resources. RCDE
programs provide adequate access to
appropriate learning resources as indicated
below.
2.
RCDE
Executive
Director
–
Acknowledges submission and/or course
requests and verifies that course details are
correct and that instructor, facilities, and
funding are available.
Online Education
Curriculum. RCDE online courses follow
the university schedule, but are designed
with the flexibility to allow non-traditional
students to continue their full-time
employment while learning. Semester-based
online education offers three bachelor‘s
degrees: a second bachelor‘s degree is
offered in Communicative Disorders and
Deaf Education; a bachelor‘s degree is
offered in Psychology; and a bachelor‘s
degree in Family Life Studies is in the final
approval process. Two master‘s degrees are
offered: an MS in English Technical Writing
and an ME in Electrical or Computer
Engineering.
3. USU Department Head – Verifies
instructor qualifications and course syllabus
alignment with department, college, and
university standards and may also assign
instructors, monitor faculty load, and
manage degree program schedules.
4. USU College Administrator – Reviews all
RCDE course and schedule requests. This
individual is the liaison for RCDE programs,
faculty, and administration.
Each semester, approvals must be met
before RCDE courses are opened for
registration. Distinctions are made on
student transcripts between degree and nondegree credit.
USU courses numbered
below 1000 have zero credit hours. Such
courses are not transferable, not calculated
in a student‘s grade point average, and do
not count toward earned hours.
One
semester hour of credit is earned for each 15
hours of instruction.
Students at rural and remote locations can
fulfill all general education requirements
(University Studies breadth and depth
requirements) through online offerings.
Over 150 online courses are offered each
semester, and about 3000 students are
served.
Blackboard, Adobe Connect, and streaming
technologies
are
used
to
provide
opportunities paralleling on-campus courses.
Online courses provide enriched resources
to support faculty-student interaction
through asynchronous discussion rooms and
technology-mediated
interaction
with
instructors.
Academic departments determine the criteria
for evaluating student performance.
Departments
have
responsibility
of
determining that student learning and
achievement are comparable in breadth,
depth, and quality to the results of traditional
instructional practices on campus.
63
Assessment. Course evaluations are done at
the end of each semester in each class using
a special form developed to reflect the
unique characteristics of online education.
Reports go to the academic departments and
to RCDE, so that administrators can monitor
quality, allocate resources, and address
priorities.
programs are broadcast, including one
distance-delivered doctoral degree, nine
master‘s degrees, four bachelor‘s degrees,
five associate‘s degrees, and minors,
endorsements,
and
certificates.
Programming is scheduled by RCDE
through the Utah Education Network
(UEN).
Table 2.16 provides aggregated online
course evaluation data for Summer 2006 and
Fall 2006.
The
IB
curriculum
enables
USU
departments to serve remote sites that would
otherwise be denied access to education.
Distance-delivered programs parallel the
instruction found on the Logan campus, and
academic department heads monitor
instructional quality and other aspects of
delivery.
Table 2.16. Course Evaluation Data for
Online Classes.
Evaluation
Topic
Summer
2006
>90%
Course
Indicated
Instruction,
either
Content,
Excellent,
and
Very Good,
Grading
or Good
>90%
Indicated
Technology
either
Used in the
Excellent,
Course
Very Good,
or Good
Fall 2006
>90%
Indicated
either
Excellent,
Very Good,
It is common for instruction to be initiated
from sites other than Logan. Regardless of
broadcast origination site, department heads
on the main campus are responsible for
ensuring academic quality of distance
delivery. Centralized scheduling ensures that
students all receive the same number of
contact hours per credit.
or Good
>90%
Indicated
either
Excellent,
Very Good,
or Good
The IB curriculum is broadcast to all
regional campuses, several centers, and sites
in the Southeast and Southwest Regions.
While locations are USU sites administered
through the RCDE network, others are high
school sites accessible through UEN.
Course evaluation results indicate that
students in online courses are generally
satisfied with their interaction with faculty.
In Fall 2006, over 82% rated instructor
responses to their questions as at least good
and 80% said that their ability to access
audio, video, and/or graphics required for
the course was at least good.
Courses are taught from 8:00 A.M. to 10:30
P.M. to allow students to continue
employment while working toward a degree.
Distance doctoral courses are supported by
online instruction, telephone and email
communication, and cohort-based summer
experiences on the Logan campus.
Interactive Broadcast Program
Curriculum. The Interactive Broadcast (IB)
program serves approximately 2,300 USU
students each semester delivering courses to
rural and urban Utah sites via digital
satellite,
EDNET
Microwave,
and
interactive video conferencing.
Degree
Computer Equipment and Support. All
regional campuses and centers have
computers to support instruction. Sites are
informed of computer and software needs.
64
Executive Directors identify and address the
technology needs of their students.
Logan campus,
administrators.
and
to
the
RCDE
Telecommunications Equipment. Delivery
technologies vary in effectiveness, stability,
and capacity. Most IB classes were taught
via digital satellite with a phone bridge
system. These systems allow interaction
between an instructor and students at
multiple locations, but their complexity has
been problematic. When technology
problems
occur,
local
facilitators
communicate with staff at Technical
Operations Centers (TOC) at USU-Logan
and UEN in Salt Lake City. TOC staff have
the experience and knowledge to assess
problems, recommend solutions, or provide
centrally administered fixes. Implementing
suggestions is often the responsibility of onsite facilitators. When these individuals are
experienced and well-trained, the system
works well; but when facilitators are new,
there can be disruptions to course delivery.
Facilitator training is a key issue that needs
to be addressed.
Independent Study
USU Independent Study (IS) provides an
alternative means for traditional and nontraditional students to receive education.
Correspondence courses, utilizing both print
and online media in an open-entry/open-exit
format, are available. All print-based
courses are published to a CD Rom and
distributed to students when they register;
online media uses WebCT Vista.
Curriculum. IS offers 90 lower- and upperdivision undergraduate courses. The IS
Director works with academic departments
to ensure that syllabi, texts, and support
materials for IS courses are comparable in
content and quality to on-campus offerings.
IS registrations have averaged 500 per
semester. About half the total enrollments
are matriculated USU students, and about
half are nontraditional students. Nontraditional students come from almost every
state and many foreign countries. Demand
for an open-entry, open-exit format will
increase as more students continue their
education independently. Therefore, IS
intends to continue developing courses with
delivery that includes CD-ROM, online
Internet instruction (WebCT Vista), and
related technologies.
With significant funding from the 2007 Utah
Legislature, the IB delivery systems will be
upgraded to a system-wide IP Video
Technology with two-way video and twoway audio capabilities. UEN is converting
all education sites to IP Video, which will
allow students to be seen as well as heard by
the instructor and their peers. UEN will
convert 180 USU classrooms to the IP
Video Technology by Fall 2007. UEN will
also install dedicated internet connections.
Instructional quality, stability, and capacity
will be greatly enhanced with IP Video.
A database management system (DBMS)
was created in 1999 to improve management
of assignments and exams. Homework is
logged into the database when received from
students and logged in again when
instructors return graded work. Exams and
final grades are also tracked and scored
through the DBMS. Students can access the
DBMS at any time to check on their scores
and homework submissions.
Assessment. Interactive broadcast courses
are evaluated by students at the end of the
semester using the standard USU course
evaluation forms. Forms are provided to
course instructors, department heads on the
65
Assessment. In 2005, an IS course
assessment form was developed. The
process is unfinished because these courses
have no common date for beginning and
ending, and because of variability in content
and approach. Methods and a new procedure
are being explored.
information is provided to their students.
Admissions, financial aid, and career
placement are done in conjunction with the
Logan campus.
Library and Information Resources. The
Uintah Basin Regional Campus has an oncampus library located in the Student Center
in Roosevelt. Currently there are more than
20,000 books available at the library with 12
computers and library staff available to help
with other library search options.
Instruction, Resources, and Assistance
Faculty Interaction.
Face-to-face
instruction by RCDE faculty varies by
location. Full-time faculty have regular
office hours and encourage students to visit.
In addition, faculty members typically
provide students with telephone numbers
and email addresses for easy access; such
information is usually posted at faculty
offices and on course syllabi.
The USU Merrill-Cazier Library located in
Logan provides full access capability via
internet. Students borrow books and articles,
or obtain articles. Students may search
library collections, explore electronic
resources
(article
databases),
locate
electronic journal lists, search course
reserves, and access library databases. The
library provides distance library services via
phone, e-mail, or through subject librarians
who help with research.
Adjunct instructors agree to respond to
student inquiries in a timely manner, and
include in course syllabi information that
outlines how and when students can expect
to receive responses to assignments and
questions via office hours, online chat,
email, or phone.
All degree programs offered at the regional
campuses require one or more courses which
include library resources access instruction
as part of the curriculum.
Tutoring and Classroom Assistance. Both
face–to-face (some locations) and satellite
tutoring is available for math and statistics.
Teacher assistants are onsite during campus
hours to proctor exams.
Examinations
conducted onsite include out-of-class
testing, independent study exams, Computer
and Information Literacy (CIL), and a
variety of exams.
Computer Labs. Computer Labs at regional
campuses and centers are available to all
USU registered students and are open 74
hours a week. Computers have high-speed
Internet access using T-1 technology.
Specialized software facilitates course
assignments. Word processing, database,
media, and internet programs are available
at all locations.
Advising. To accommodate the needs of
students, the advising staff at each campus,
center, or site continues to grow. Advisors
receive quarterly training to assure that they
possess accurate information on admissions
procedures, academic processes, and
deadlines. RCDE advisors work closely
with the Logan campus departments and
colleges to ensure that accurate, up-to-date
Computer literacy exams are required before
a student accumulates 60 credits. Computer
literacy preparation courses are taught each
semester.
RCDE
hires
network
administrators and lab technicians who
66
provide computer and technical support,
especially for WebCT and online courses.
concurrent enrollment occurs in Logan.
More
information
is
found
at
http://logan.usu.edu/htm/concurrent.
This
site links to the New Century Scholarship, a
state program which allows students to
reduce the time to obtain a college degree,
and also contains policy and eligibility
standards for concurrent enrollment.
Bookstore.
Regional campuses have
bookstores onsite. The bookstores stock
course materials, texts, and school supplies
such as pens, paper, laptops. An ―Express-aBook‖ ordering system is available to all
students in conjunction with the USU Logan
Bookstore. Express-a-Book stocks course
materials and texts, then ships them as
students place orders.
Curriculum/Instruction.
Concurrent
enrollment courses can be used at USU and
at other institutions in the state and out of
state. Courses usually are limited to 1000
and 2000 levels. Textbooks, testing,
attendance, grading, and assignments are
parallel to the courses taught at USU.
Courses are taught by full-time USU faculty
at the regional campuses and part-time
faculty and/or high school faculty. Faculty
and courses are approved in advance by the
academic departments and are evaluated by
students using the approved form and then
by a department faculty member.
Student Complaint Resolution. End-of-term
course evaluations are given in every class.
Facilitators and classroom coordinators are
available to work with student concerns, and
academic advisors are available to discuss
problems. Regional campuses, centers, and
sites adhere to the same policies and
guidelines as the Logan campus in resolving
student grievances and complaints. These
policies are fully outlined in the Code of
Policies and Procedures for Students at
USU.
Course Delivery. USU delivers concurrent
education in a variety of ways. Classes are
offered to a wide audience through the Utah
Education Network, satellite systems,
EDNET, online delivery, and through
department- approved high school faculty.
Student
Government
Representatives.
Student government configurations differ.
At least one student is elected to represent
the student body locally. Representatives are
actively involved in campus or center
functions and attend weekly staff meetings
with local administrators.
Student
government sponsors local activities.
During the 2005-06 academic year, 26 fulland 46 part-time USU faculty members
taught concurrent enrollment classes, as well
as nearly 200 high school teachers. Ninetythree high schools were served, 480 course
sections were taught, and more than 40,000
student credit hours were generated.
Students. To enroll in concurrent education
at USU, students first meet with their high
school counselor. They should be high
school juniors in good academic standing
(defined as a 3.0 GPA in high school) and
have the appropriate high school classes as
prerequisites.
Concurrent Enrollment
Concurrent Enrollment is a cooperative
program between Utah‘s public and higher
education systems to help high school
students who plan to attend a post-secondary
institution. Students earn both high school
and college credits.
Each regional campus runs its own program
while adhering to policies of USU and the
state Board of Regents. Coordination for
67
Assessment.
Concurrent Enrollment
evaluated its program in 2005 through
student and parent surveys. The following
areas
were
identified
as
needing
improvement:
least 3 years or a minimum college
cumulative GPA of at least 2.0.
Students admitted through RCDE and who
later want to attend courses on the main
campus are required to complete at least 24
credit hours with a minimum GPA of 2.5
and meet college- specific requirements.
1. Academic advising
2. Concurrent enrollment web site
3. Marketing
2.G.12 Study abroad. USU has 29 bilateral
agreements with accredited international
universities and at least 26 of these are
currently active or have been active in the
past three years in exchanging and sending
students. In addition, faculty members
develop and lead student groups to
international destinations for language
immersion, research, and the pursuit of
specific academic course work interests.
A survey of concurrent enrollment teachers
and high school administrators is being
conducted.
2.G.10. Policies regarding admissions. At
USU, a separate IPEDS reporting number is
used for students enrolled exclusively
through the RCDE system.
The
classification is invisible to the students and
is only used as a reporting tool and identifier
of distance education student enrollment.
Students who apply through RCDE are
evaluated using the following criteria:
The Vice Provost for International Affairs
reviews all study abroad agreements before
they are signed by the President. Study
abroad programs are solely academic in
nature, and all courses are approved through
the respective department/college. Courses
offered are current university offerings, or, if
new, are approved through the Educational
Policies Committee. Credit is not offered
solely for travel.
1. Students apply directly through a RCDE
center and those who meet USU and College
admissions criteria are admitted.
2. New/freshman students who apply
directly through a RCDE center/site and do
not meet the university‘s criteria are
evaluated for admission using the following
criteria: An index score of 85 and above, or
an ACT score of 16 or above, or have been
out of school for 5 or more years, or
previous college GPA of 2.0 or above.
Upon returning from study abroad, students
are required to fill out an evaluation of the
program to assess the usefulness of program
materials, their academic experience, and
pre- and post-departure assistance. Further
qualitative data are collected from personal
interviews with returning students that not
only serve to validate the students‘
experiences, but serve to evaluate the
placement site and assist in accurately
portraying the opportunities as well as the
limitations of the programs for future
participants. Site visits are periodically
conducted, especially to new sites, to further
assess the institutions‘ capacity to
3. Students applying to an RCDE campus
with previous college experience (readmits/transfer students) and who do not
meet the university‘s criteria for admissions
into their requested major are evaluated
through the RCDE matriculation criteria.
The criteria for re-admits and transfer
students are as follows: out of school for at
68
adequately address the academic and local
arrangement needs of the students.
Tooele Regional Campus -- space
limitations and a need for more degree
programs and additional financial resources.
USU‘s study abroad programs conform to
Policy 2.4 (Study Abroad Programs) and
also NWCCU Policy A-6 (Contractual
Relationships with Organizations Not
Regionally Accredited).
Southwest Regional Center -- small
population scattered throughout a large
geographic area and the need to partner with
other state institutions.
Uintah Basin Regional Campus -integrated, coordinated and locally relevant
programs including a combination of faceto-face and technology-delivered bachelor‘s,
master‘s, and associate degrees.
2.G. Challenges and Recommendations
Challenges facing RCDE as a whole
include:
Developing a viable organizational
structure;
Enhancing partnerships with departments;
Integrating new faculty at regional
campuses;
Recruiting and retaining RCDE students;
and
Responding to new technologies and
methods.
Recommendations for meeting these
challenges include:
Combining RCDE and campus functions;
Hiring key personnel to fill restructured
positions;
Working in greater collaboration with
academic departments
Securing adequate financial resources.
Wasatch Front Regional Centers -- more
face-to-face and broadcast degree programs.
Standard 2.H -- Non-credit Programs
and Courses
2.H.1 Course and program approval and
administration. Conference Services assists
the colleges, departments, and faculty in
planning, staffing, and directing more than
120 conferences, workshops, and youth
activities at USU. These activities fall
inside and outside of the day school format
in terms of timing, length, location, or
audience, and are always offered under the
direction of faculty, departments, or
Conference Services management and
marketing teams. Included are conferences
and workshops that offer youth and adult
learning, continuing education programs,
summer credit workshops, professional
business institute programs, and classes
leading to endorsements in such areas as
business, gifted and talented education, and
youth organization administration.
Challenges facing specific components of
RCDE include:
Distance Education -- the need for more
courses, changes in delivery systems,
improved training, and better course
evaluations.
Brigham City Regional Campus -- address
issues related to area economic development
and transitioning from an agriculture
economy.
2.H.2 Records. Conference Services, as
well as specific academic departments,
maintain records which provide all details
69
about noncredit course/ workshop content,
length, level, and quantity of instruction.
2.H.3 Continuing education units. CEU
credit is offered by Conference Services for
noncredit academic programs.
These
programs align with USU goals and require
academic and faculty supervision in strict
accordance with university and CEU
policies, regulations, and procedures. The
expectations for each certificate program are
clear and well published, with each course
containing clearly stated learning outcomes
that are assessed by USU faculty.
Supporting Documentation
The required documentation and exhibits,
plus other supporting information for
Standard
Two,
are
found
at
http://aaa.usu.edu/Assessment/Documentation.asp.
70
SUMMARIES OF ACADEMIC DEPARTMENT SELF-STUDIES
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
Analysis and Assessment
Agricultural Systems Technology
and Education
Examples of the faculty‘s commitment to
learning excellence include:
The Agricultural Systems Technology and
Education (ASTE) Department is a relatively
small department, with two professors, four
associate professors, one assistant professor, and
four lecturers. The teaching mission is also
supported by six other educational professionals.
A) Instructors are dedicated professionals who
use resources effectively to equip students for
future successes. They:
Offer
agricultural
industry-sponsored
training events at the ASTE building to
ensure the latest technology and equipment
is available for study.
Consistently use resources to complement
student learning such as undergraduate
research grants and teaching assistantships,
assistance through the rhetoric associates
program, and web-based supplements.
Are instrumental in hosting two national
professional conferences in Utah (American
Association of Agricultural Educators and
NACTA) in 2008.
Include three faculty members with primary
assignments dedicated to teacher preparation
who have a combined average instructor
effectiveness score of 5.6 out of a possible
6.0 for Fall 2006.
The department offers six degrees in five
programs: Agricultural Education (BS), Family
and Consumer Sciences Education (BS),
Agricultural Machinery Technology (AAS),
Agricultural Systems Technology (BS & MS),
and Agricultural Communication and Journalism
(BS). ASTE has about 150 majors.
The faculty continues to provide exceptional
instructional environments for our students.
In 2005-06, the College of Agriculture‘s
Teacher of the Year and also Advisor of the
Year were from ASTE.
Two faculty members are Teaching Fellows
in the North American Teachers and Colleges
of Agriculture (NACTA) organization.
Faculty members utilize varied pedagogical
approaches in teaching ranging from skillbased outcomes in the AAS program to
theoretical models for graduate students.
Departmental faculty offer courses within
University Studies in the breadth and depth
areas of social sciences and science.
Faculty members are recognized as worthy
mentors, and currently serve as major
advisors to seven doctoral candidates in the
Curriculum and Instruction program within
the College of Education.
Faculty members conduct successful research
and extension programs.
B) The department is dedicated to the
development of pre-service and in-service
teachers of agriculture and family and consumer
sciences within the state and region. For
example:
Nearly 95% placement of teachers in
Agricultural Education and Family and
Consumer Sciences Education. Students are
actively recruited and accept positions in
other states including recent placements in
Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, Wyoming, and
Nebraska.
71
Conducting workshops using Agriculture in
the
Classroom
materials
reaching
approximately 700 pre-service teachers
annually at seven different higher education
institutions in Utah.
Attracting $150,000 in grants from the Utah
State Office of Education in the last three
years for projects that directly enhance
Career and Technical Education in Utah.
Developing a multimedia learning resource,
Growing a Nation: the Story of American
Agriculture with a $200,000 grant from
USDA to teach social studies via
agriculture. This useful resource has been
distributed to about 40,000 classrooms
across the United States.
Use of the satellite delivery system to tap
into faculty expertise at the Uintah Basin to
assist students in Logan.
Program Assessment and Improvement
Continual improvement is integral to the distinct
programs within the ASTE department. Each
program has specifically designed assessment
plans to help faculty members and
administrators analyze their roles within the
programs and make decisions for program
improvements.
Differences in the assessment plans become
apparent when analyzing each program‘s
objectives. The teacher education programs (Ag
Ed and FCSE) meet the objectives set forth by
the Utah State Office of Education and national
professional standards. Agricultural Machinery
and Ag Systems Technology programs adhere to
industry standards set forth by an advisory
council, while the Agricultural Communication
program meets objectives developed with input
from the USU Department of Journalism and
Communication. Faculty members then follow
all objectives through coursework, internships,
and extracurricular activities.
C) Co-curricular activities are integrated by
instructors, especially through the activities of
student organization activities.
Collegiate FFA club members (21 in 2006)
attend and assist with National Career
Development Events held at the National
FFA convention in Indianapolis.
ATA members provide formal mentoring
activities each semester for new students.
The Agricultural Machinery Technology
students attend weekly ‗work parties‘
overseen by a faculty member to assist in
professional development and to earn funds
for club activities.
Ag Tech Club takes a biannual tour of
United States agricultural equipment
manufacturers.
The capstone activities differ among programs.
The Agricultural Machinery, Ag Systems, and
Communication
programs
use
industry
internships while the teacher education programs
make use of student teaching. Programs also
require students to complete portfolios or senior
projects. Interviews are conducted by faculty
members in all programs. Faculty members
conduct specific and valid assessment activities
with the overall goal of improving the program
through continuous measurement and evaluation
of student objectives, course work, and
extracurricular activities.
Information is
reviewed annually at the department retreat to
assure that the ASTE programs are meeting the
needs of our students, the university, and our
industry partners.
D) The department offers a master’s degree that
is tailored to needs of students.
On-campus graduate students are provided a
rigorous research-based experience that
prepares them to primarily enter non-formal
agricultural education agencies (Extension,
NRCS, UACD). Nearly one-third of the
Agricultural Extension Agents in Utah have
degrees from ASTE.
A program delivered primarily at branch
campuses provides learning opportunities
for in-service teachers in agriculture, family
and consumer sciences, and other
disciplines.
Challenges and Recommendations
ASTE faculty members identified the following
priorities in a December 2006 faculty meeting.
72
Undergraduate students may presently graduate
with a BS degree in Animal Science, Dairy
Science, or Bioveterinary Science.
As a
consequence of the 2004 CSRESS review, the
department is in the process of combining these
three degrees into a single offering (BS degree
in Animal, Dairy, and Bioveterinary Sciences)
with four areas of emphasis (Animal and Dairy
Sciences, Bioveterinary Science, Biotechnology,
and Equine Science).
The department
anticipates approval for this single degree
program by Fall 2007.
Recruit students into the undergraduate
programs.
Market
the
new
Agricultural
Communication and Journalism degree
program.
Reduce redundancies within the teacher
preparation programs and give pre-service
teachers exposure to the teaching styles and
philosophies of our faculty members.
Align curriculum with needs of employers
and industry; reinforce important concepts/
standards (i.e., writing skills).
Increase the ability of faculty to succeed in
research through role-related research
assignments. Role assignments need to be
decoupled from budgetary lines.
Communicate and articulate research and
extension programs to the college and
campus and establish collaborative projects.
Continue to seek extramural research and
extension project funding.
Increase external and internal funding for
support personnel – especially research.
Limit service activities to an appropriate
level.
Analysis and Assessment
In November 2004, the department hosted a
review team consisting of five individuals
representing the United States Department of
Agriculture – Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service (CSREES).
Following a thorough critique, both verbal and
written reports were prepared by the CSREES
review team and delivered to the Provost‘s
Office, COA Dean‘s Office, and the ADVS
Department. This critique identified those areas
within the department with the greatest potential
to positively impact students, the people of Utah,
and the national and international communities.
It also identified those areas having the greatest
potential to increase the stature and reputation of
the department. Constructive criticisms were
offered for the department to consider as it
continues to move forward with its mission
statement. Much of the information that follows
is reflective of suggestions made by the
CSREES review team, but the department
remains ―a work in progress‖ as it makes every
effort to be proactive and retain its competitive
advantage as the state‘s land-grant university.
Animal, Dairy and Veterinary
Sciences
The Department of Animal, Dairy, and
Veterinary Science (ADVS) is one of the largest
on campus and is a complex and highly
diversified unit. The mission of the department
is to provide teaching, research, extension, and
professional services to support the animal
industries of Utah, the surrounding region, the
nation, and the international community.
Challenges and Recommendations
The ADVS Department currently consists of 34
faculty, 15 professional, and 57 classified
employees. As of 2006, there were a total of
263 students enrolled in ADVS. Approximately
235 were undergraduate majors, 28 were
graduate students (14 MS and 14 PhD), and 13
were enrolled in the Dairy Herdsman Program.
Many of these students were also employed by
ADVS during the academic year and summer
months.
The recommendations that follow were made by
the CSREES review team and the ADVS faculty
at an annual retreat that followed the review:
The current Department Head has served in his
position for eight years.
His leadership
capabilities and contributions to ADVS are well
recognized by the faculty, college, and central
73
administration. Support staff, undergraduate
students, graduate students, and stakeholders
were very positive with regard to the leadership
of the department head.
The entire ADVS faculty should undertake a
visioning process to create a 5 and 10 year
vision for the department.
Continue to actively involve external stakeholders and establish an external stakeholder
advisory committee that meets on a regular
basis.
Stakeholders should periodically
meet with the entire ADVS faculty to
discuss programmatic issues and not just for
social or political purposes. The role of the
advisory committee must be clear to all
before it is implemented to avoid
misunderstandings if recommendations are
not implemented.
Future faculty searches should take into
consideration needs relative to diversity, but
with the goal of finding the most qualified
individual for the particular position. It is
further recommended that USU and the
COA assume an obligation to provide
incentives for recruiting and retaining in
order to achieve diversity goals. Such a
commitment would be an important
reinforcement to attempts by the faculty to
make changes in faculty diversity.
Work to foster greater alumni relations
within the ADVS department.
Funding should be sought for the positions
needed to achieve accreditation of the Utah
Veterinary
Diagnostics
Laboratory.
However, these funds should be provided
through the State Legislature and not as part
of the Utah Agriculture Experiment Station
budget.
Be proactive and combine the Animal
Science, Dairy Science, and Bioveterinary
Science degrees into one departmental BS
degree offering, with areas of emphasis
under that degree.
Undertake an external review of the
curriculum and courses with the aim to
provide all of the needed courses without
duplication of subject matter.
Internationalize departmental programs,
where appropriate, particularly in view of
the number of students who have some
international experience or will get some
international experience.
Continue the Dairy Herdsman Program, but
on a self-supporting basis. Attempt to find
additional international support for the
program, including the course taught in
Spanish.
Recruit international graduate students and
develop international research ties.
Encourage the faculty to apply for Fulbright
Fellowships.
Encourage faculty to accept more students
who are paid from grant funds, and bring
those stipends in line dollar-wise with
comparable programs in the university.
Consider replacing retiring faculty with
basic scientists whose research focuses on
state and regional problems at the
production level.
Strive for training grants and program
project grants.
Continue developing new and innovative
methods to effectively deliver extension
information to end users.
Develop more curriculum-driven extension
programs to move beyond a less-focused
collection of activities and presentations.
Involve
non-extension
faculty
in
development and evaluation.
Economics—See College of
Business
Nutrition and Food Sciences
The Nutrition and Food Sciences Department is
located in its own building on the eastern edge
of the campus. The department offers BS, MS,
and PhD degrees. Areas of emphasis for BS
degrees include nutrition science (with a premed option), food science, food technology
management, biotechnology, and dietetics.
Graduate research degrees (MS and PhD) are
offered with specialization in Nutrition Science
or Food Science. The department also offers the
professional graduate degrees of Master of Food
Microbiology and Safety, and Master of
Dietetics Administration.
74
The department‘s undergraduate programs are
competency-driven with learning objectives that
lead to the professional competencies required
of graduates. The learning objectives follow
guidelines for curricular content and outcomes
of student learning as described by the national
organization specific to each program. An
assessment program is in place to document the
learning outcomes, and to formulate data-based
decisions that improve student learning. This
approach has led to very positive instructional
outcomes such as an unprecedented 100% pass
rate on the national registration exam by
graduates from the department‘s Coordinated
Program in Dietetics.
The department is a research-driven entity with
focus on molecular and cellular nutrition, public
health nutrition and epidemiology, microbiology
and food safety, dairy and muscle foods
processing, and dietetics administration. It
houses three externally funded research centers,
and the department‘s faculty lead two highimpact university research centers.
These
centers support undergraduate and graduate
research, produce new and innovative
technologies for transfer to private industry,
provide research funding for faculty, and
enhance the department‘s outreach activities.
The outreach and extension goal of the
department is to disseminate and apply scientific
knowledge in nutrition and food sciences to the
people of Utah and the nation, and the
department‘s faculty members direct three of the
largest programs in extension, including the
Expanded Food and Nutrition Education
Program, the Food Sense Nutrition Education
Program, and the Food Safety Program.
The department fosters and promotes a culture
of undergraduate learning outside the classroom.
Faculty members are dedicated to enriching
undergraduate learning experiences through the
Honors Program, service learning, and research.
Over the last five years, the department has
graduated 17% of university honors students,
hosted almost 15,000 hours of service learning
in the community, and sponsored 55 student
semesters of undergraduate research. These
programs provide important opportunities for
students to develop and practice their disciplinespecific knowledge and skills, and are invaluable
for development of life success skills, including
leadership, teamwork, time management,
problem solving, and communication.
The department houses two federally inspected
facilities for meat and dairy processing. These
two facilities provide learning and discovery
opportunities that enhance undergraduate and
graduate education in the department‘s degree
programs. They facilitate engagement with the
food industry, and reflect the department‘s
commitment to a safe and wholesome food
supply through science and innovation. Each
facility is self-sufficient for employees,
operation, and maintenance. Sources of income
include product sales and rental fees paid by
USU researchers and outside industry.
The department‘s graduate program is also very
productive, typically granting seven master‘s
and four doctoral degrees each year. This
productivity is directly related to the extensive
research programs headed by the department‘s
faculty members. All MS and PhD students
must be accepted into the research program of
an individual faculty member who acts as their
major professor and mentors toward degree
completion. Effective mentoring of graduate
students is a clear expectation of tenure-track
faculty, especially those with significant
research assignments.
Analysis and Assessment
The undergraduate programs are productive and
make efficient use of limited resources. The
student-to-faculty ratio for the department has
been 25% greater than for the university as a
whole, and almost 50% greater than at peer
research universities. Thus, the 37 baccalaureate
degrees granted each year by the department
represent a large return to the university, based
on its investment in faculty, and attests to the
dedication of the department‘s talented and
caring faculty members.
The department‘s faculty members make
significant contributions to the research and
extension missions of the university. Most
tenure track faculty members have a significant
75
research assignment, typically comprising 50%
of their role and partially funded through the
Utah Agricultural Experiment Station. From
2002 through 2006, the department‘s faculty
members were awarded more than $12 million
dollars in external funds to support their original
research.
During that same period, they
authored 143 separate articles, books, and book
chapters.
discontinuance will be reallocated to
departmental operating and other programs after
a careful assessment of needs. The department
expects to maintain productivity in its master‘s
and doctoral research programs, while
increasing enrollment in its Master of Dietetics
Administration program.
The department‘s culture of learning outside the
classroom is challenged by the extraordinary
time required of the faculty to mentor
undergraduate students in honors, service
learning, and research. The prevailing belief is
that participation in such programs is
undervalued in the process of tenure and
promotion. It is recommended that the message
continue to come forth from central
administration that effective faculty mentorship
of learning outside the classroom notably
contributes to achieving excellence in the
teaching domain. Additionally, the department‘s
extensive participation in learning outside the
classroom requires greater operating and
instructional resources as compared to
traditional classroom instruction.
It is
recommended that this be considered when
allocating additional operating funds.
The department‘s tenure-track faculty members
direct Extension programs that have garnered
$3.8 million in federal and state funding over the
last five years. Almost 64,000 stakeholders have
completed training to promote healthy eating,
and more than 1,000 food service workers have
completed food safety training prior to receiving
a food handlers permit. The programs have
produced more than 150 products such as
publications, compact disks, and videos.
Challenges and Recommendations
The challenges to the department are similar to
those faced across the university. Operating
funds do not cover costs of instruction and
operation; inadequate salary lines make it
difficult to recruit and retain the very best
faculty members, and workloads of faculty and
staff continue to increase, especially as
responsibilities previously handled centrally
now are the responsibility of the department
(i.e., purchasing, Banner). The department
recommends that continued priority be given by
the university to increasing the operating funds
allocated to the department, to increasing
salaries for faculty and staff, and to allocating
staff positions to meet the increased work loads
in the department.
The department is vigorously engaged in the
teaching, research, and extension missions of a
land-grant university, and effective coordination
of these efforts requires a great deal of
administrative nimbleness at the department
level. However, the procedures and policies
implemented by the university over the last few
years have often promoted centralized
administration, and decreased the department‘s
autonomy and flexibility to deal with
challenging issues occurring within the
department. It is recommended that policies be
reviewed and amended as necessary to increase
the department‘s ability to effectively reconcile
academic and administrative issues.
The department has taken a considered approach
that optimizes use of available resources to
obtain maximal and balanced outcomes from its
teaching and research programs. Current efforts
are to balance student numbers in the
department‘s undergraduate programs through
recruitment into nutrition and food sciences, and
limiting enrollment in dietetics. Additionally,
the department‘s program in Culinary Arts/Food
Service Management is under suspension at this
time, and resources released from program
It is a great challenge to maintain the
department‘s processing facilities, and many
similar facilities have disappeared from
universities across the country. The continuing
approach will be that processing facilities must
be self-sufficient for their personnel, operation,
and maintenance.
Final outcomes include
76
maintaining facilities at a level to continue to
qualify for grants of inspection. These facilities
are a boon to teaching and research. The
department also is committed to sustaining its
involvement in outreach activities such as
teaching and hosting short course and
conducting industry-sponsored projects.
the
soil-plant-atmosphere
continuum;
department members appreciate all components
and the biological and physical processes that
govern their interrelationships.
PSC offers a diversity of degree programs from
Associate of Applied Science to Doctor of
Philosophy. Courses are offered from the 1000
to the 7000 level in biological and physical
sciences to support department degree programs
(both on and off campus); University Studies
requirements; and courses in the soil, plant, and
atmospheric sciences serving students in the
Colleges of Agriculture, Natural Resources,
Science, and HASS.
A final challenge is the potential loss of federal
formula funds to the Utah Agricultural
Experiment Station. The conversion of formula
funds to competitive grants could result in the
loss of all not-yet-tenured faculty members in
the department, and that situation would
decimate the department‘s research programs,
and would severely cripple its academic
programs that require the department to maintain
a core faculty with a wide variety of expertise.
It is recommended that the university
administrators in key leadership positions take
proactive actions supporting the continuation of
formula funding.
In all degree programs (all levels, all
disciplines), a balance of academic and
experiential learning is encouraged. About half
of the department courses have formal
laboratory sections, and most of the others
incorporating experiential learning within the
lecture format. PSB is committed to a sciencebased curriculum. Students understand the
physical and biological sciences behind their
work, and courses are appropriately rigorous to
provide a solid foundation from which to
function in their chosen profession. Curriculum
goals include enabling students to become
lifelong learners through excellence in
communication,
quantitative
skills,
and
analytical reasoning.
Plants, Soils, and Climate
The Plants, Soils, and Climate Department
(PSC) at USU has 26 tenure-track faculty, five
non-tenured track faculty, and 21 support staff
(including technical support (14), secretaries (3),
and off-campus advisor/lecturers (2). For 200506 there were 158 undergraduate students and 26
graduate students.
Research: The majority of the personnel in PSC
are involved in research. There are strong
research programs within the core disciplines of
plant science, soil science, and biometeorology.
Within these key disciplines, core areas of
research involving multiple faculty members
include climatology, water conservation in
landscape horticulture, small grains breeding,
weed science, soil water and salinity, and forage
physiology. Lastly, there is a large diversity of
projects and collaborations at the individual
level. Each research faculty member has limited
research funds available through the UAES, but
research is primarily funded through external
sources, e.g., competitive grants, federal and
state earmarks, foundations, and other sources.
Graduate
and
undergraduate
student
participation in research is strongly encouraged,
The mission of PSC is to support the land-grant
mandate through teaching, research, and
extension programs involving the physical,
chemical, and biological mechanisms that
operate in the continuum of the soil, plant, and
atmosphere.
Teaching: Most faculty members teach, and
most of the teaching faculty have a greater than
50% role in research or Extension.
The
curriculum includes the disciplines of Plant
Science (including horticulture and crop
science), Soil Science (including biological and
physical aspects and hydrology), and
Biometeorology
(including
climate
and
environmental biophysics). The commonality is
77
as is publication of results. In addition to
individual projects, PSB faculty members
frequently participate as co-investigators on
sponsored research projects with faculty outside
the department and with federal cooperators.
Host department for the Western Sustainable
Agricultural Research and Education
program
Retention of 100-year-old field plots for
research
Ongoing collaboration with the USDAFRRL in research and joint facility
improvement
Recently filled positions in weed science,
soil physics, plant stress physiology, and
Extension landscape horticulture, fruit, and
soil specialists
Ability to respond to assessment and
reallocate positions to targeted areas such as
sustainable agriculture and undergraduate
advising, and continued reallocation of
positions to critical areas such as meso-scale
meteorology
Successful teaching programs such as the
off-campus horticulture program and the
professional master‘s degree program in
water-efficient landscape management
Multiple aspects of individual research and
Extension programs
Extension: The PSC Department has nine
Extension specialists, four professional staff, and
one classified employee funded through
Extension.
Assignments cover horticulture,
agronomy, soils, master gardener programs, and
the Utah Botanical Center. The PSC Extension
program is especially effective in collaborations
with county agents and local, state, and federal
agencies.
Analysis and Assessment
The PSC Department uses a number of means to
analyze and assess the quality of its programs.
Within the realm of teaching, these would
include exit interviews with undergraduate
students, course evaluations, open door policies,
certification programs, mentoring of junior
faculty members, participation in the USU
placement survey, overall student performance
in capstone courses, pre- and post-tests in
classes, and contact with external stakeholders
such as USDA-NRCS, FSA, UNLA, articulation
committees, professional societies, and USDACSREES reviewers. The department covers a
broad range of degree or career opportunities,
many of which have professional certifications,
but none of which have formal accreditation
programs.
Challenges:
Quality and quantity of office, laboratory,
classroom, greenhouse, and field facilities
Declining enrollments at both the graduate
and undergraduate levels
Capacity to offer competitive compensation
to staff, graduate students, and faculty
Long-term growth of the Utah Botanical
Center
Completion of the Utah Climate Center
initiative
Limited operating funds
Limited teaching FTEs and lack of
flexibility in allocating teaching FTE‘s
toward new degree options
Web site development and maintenance
An increasingly competitive funding climate
Effective mentoring of faculty, specifically
in the tenure and promotion process, and
generally in professional development
Decisions critical to the department, such as
defining vacant positions, are accomplished by
careful discussion in multiple faculty meetings
using the best information available.
Challenges and Recommendations
Successes:
Legislative recognition and funding of the
Utah Climate Center, including hiring a new
director
Federal ear-mark funding for the Drought
Management Initiative, the Utah Botanical
Center, and the Pasture Initiative
Recommendations and actions taking place:
Partner with USDA to build a new Ag
Science Building
Continue to grow the climate program
78
Collaborate with the college and Extension
to improve the web site, including
recruitment opportunities
Develop novel degree programs in
sustainable crop production and residential
landscape design to attract undergraduate
students and meet industry demand
Streamline existing degree programs to
foster retention
Develop recruitment programs focusing on
PSC‘s unique niches
Pursue additional university funding and
shifting role assignments to obtain flexibility
in developing new degree programs
Aggressively pursue external funding
sources, in addition to competitive grants
and existing earmarks
Improve undergraduate recruitment by
focusing on degree programs leading to
stronger employment opportunities
Increase engagement of senior faculty in
mentoring junior faculty for professional
success
Enhance enrollment through more creative
course offerings, such as organic agriculture.
Expand the use of operating funds for
standing graduate assistantships
Increase use of professional degree
programs in the department.
79
COLLEGE OF BUSINESS
School of Accountancy
ensured that students joining the program are
academically prepared to succeed.
The USU School of Accountancy (SOA) enjoys
a reputation as a high-quality accounting
program with a regional and national reputation.
The School was admitted as a member of the
Federation of Schools of Accountancy in 1983
and has special accounting accreditation by the
AACSB International.
The Master of Accounting (MACC) has also
prospered over the past five years, increasing in
enrollment from 31 to the current level of 55.
Incoming student quality has also remained
high. The average GMAT for incoming MACC
currently exceeds 600. This compares vary
favorably with other high-quality programs.
The School of Accountancy (SOA) offers the
bachelor‘s degree in Accounting, the Master of
Accounting, and an accounting specialization in
the USU MBA Program. School of Accountancy
programs are oriented toward professional
careers in accounting.
The undergraduate
accounting vision is to provide a sound technical
accounting framework that prepares students to
be successful in accounting, business, and
graduate school. The Master of Accounting
degree builds upon the technical accounting
framework of the bachelor‘s program to instill
professional skills, attitudes, and values.
School of Accountancy students have
distinguished themselves in various national
forums.
USU's Beta Alpha Psi chapter,
established in 1977, and the Institute of
Management Accountants student chapter,
established in 1984, have distinguished
themselves among the premier student
accounting organizations in the nation. USU
students consistently compete successfully in
regional and national student competitions
sponsored by these and other organizations. The
graduate student tax team placed among the top
six teams in the nation from 2001 through 2005
(they received honorable mention (top ten) in
2006). The undergraduate team was a top six
finalist in 2001, 2003, and 2004. They also
received honorable mention in 2005 and 2006.
SOA is active in various outreach programs that
provide educational opportunities throughout the
State of Utah through its distance education
delivery programs. SOA provides two College
of Business core courses in the bachelor‘s
degree in Business and, in addition, offers four
upper-division courses to support the accounting
option within this major. SOA also participates
in the MBA-Accounting Specialization offered
onsite in Orem, Utah. The department offers
five courses to support that program. Students
who
complete
the
MBA-Accounting
Specialization
meet
the
educational
requirements to sit for the Uniform CPA
Examination in the State of Utah.
The graduates have traditionally performed
above the national average on the Uniform CPA
Examination. During the previous five calendar
years (2001-2005) SOA graduates outperformed
the national average with the exception of 2004,
the first year of the new computerized
examination format. Because it was a transition
year for the exam, exam completion rates
nationwide were considerably below previous
years. Nevertheless, the SOA believes that its
performance levels on this exam should be better
than they are and is currently reviewing its
topical coverage and instructional approaches in
relation to the exam to ensure that students are
being prepared adequately.
Analysis and Assessment
The School of Accountancy has enjoyed strong
undergraduate enrollments over the past five
years despite the implementation of tighter
admissions policies. The effect of these higher
admission criteria has been very positive and has
Placement of SOA graduates continues to be
strong. For the combined years of 2004-05 and
2005-06, of those undergraduates for whom
80
placement information could be obtained, 92%
were either employed within three months of
graduation or were pursing additional education.
All graduate students were either employed
within three months of graduation or were
pursing advanced degrees.
presence of so many students with intercultural
backgrounds presents a unique opportunity to
build an international presence. In addition, a
marked increase in Hispanic immigrants offers
both a challenge and an opportunity for the SOA
to engage this new source of students from a
different culture and integrate this demographic
into our programs.
Over the past five years, the School of
Accountancy faculty has made significant strides
in the magnitude and quality of its research
programs. Historically, research productivity
has been hampered somewhat by the structure of
its faculty contracts. From about 1975 through
2002, the SOA structured its faculty
compensation packages using 11-month
contracts (9-month base plus the option of 2months summer) in order to partially
compensate for nine-month base salaries that
have been significantly below national averages
for Carnegie High Research institutions.
Because faculty members were generally
required to teach during all three semesters to
meet their contractual obligation, they had less
time available for pursing quality research
activities when compared with their colleagues
in other departments or at other universities.
Beginning with academic year 2003-04, all
tenure-track hires have been conventional 9month contracts. In addition, the contracts of
two research faculty members previously under
the 11-month contracts were converted to
conventional 9-month contracts. These changes
have contributed to a significant transformation
of the department‘s research orientation. During
that past four years, the department has hired
new faculty members from top accounting PhD
programs who have excellent research skills.
These faculty members have already achieved
considerable success in publishing in the elite
journals of their respective disciplines.
The SOA must continue to distinguish itself
within its market. Presently, it finds itself
competing on several fronts. It is uniquely
positioned between elite national programs such
as BYU at the high-end and emerging four-year
schools such as Utah Valley State University
(UVSU) and BYU-Idaho on the other end. Its
students typically compete for jobs with BYU,
University of Utah, and Weber State University.
While the SOA continues to draw students
throughout the State of Utah, it will face
growing undergraduate competition from UVSU
and BYU-Idaho.
In addition, convenience
providers such as Stevens-Henager and
University of Phoenix provide additional
opportunities for potential USU students. While
USU provides a traditional residential campus
environment that is attractive for many students,
its relative remoteness is a barrier to others.
Clearly, for many students the lower cost and the
convenience of living at home and attending
these emerging four-year schools will be a
tempting alternative.
The School of
Accountancy must effectively promote its
unique environment and learning culture and
ensure superior program quality to maintain its
competitive position. It is also clear that the
SOA must more aggressively develop
technology-enhanced delivery methods to meet
its outreach obligations and compete with
convenience providers.
One of the most difficult challenges facing the
School of Accountancy is building and retaining
a high-quality faculty that will ensure that our
programs continue to be seen by students and
employers as quality professional programs.
Historically, the College of Business (COB) and
the School of Accountancy have been below the
market in terms of faculty salaries. This limits
the pool of candidates that the SOA can attract.
This also makes the department vulnerable to
Challenges and Recommendations
The School of Accountancy is continuing to
develop its strategy to enhance student diversity
across ethnic, cultural, geographical, and
interdisciplinary, lingual, and geographical
dimensions. A source of untapped cultural
diversity comes from the intensive international
and multilingual experiences of a large
percentage of the Utah population.
The
81
faculty members departing for more lucrative
offers elsewhere. It will be essential to address
the salary inversion and compression issues as
well as the problem with salaries that are
significantly below the market.
fields of business, as well as training directed at
understanding the broader aspect of business as
it functions within our economy. Training is
specifically provided in five areas: (1) Finance,
leading to careers in banking, brokerage
activities and investment, and positions as
financial analysts in industry; (2) Marketing,
involving positions in sales, advertising,
retailing, distribution, and other similar
activities; (3) Operations Management, leading
to careers related to supply chain management,
operations planning and scheduling, project
management,
quality
management,
and
consulting; (4) Business Administration,
providing broad cross-disciplinary experience in
the core business areas of operations, finance,
and marketing, and (5) International Business
that provides students the opportunity to
leverage their international experience with
more in-depth study of issues specific to
business in an international context and
combining their academic experience with a
practical and/or cultural experience that further
enhances their international education.
Because the SOA is a professional school, it is
imperative that faculty members maintain
portfolios of relevant professional experience, as
well as significant professional interaction.
These are areas that will require some additional
commitment from faculty members as they keep
their professional knowledge current through
field research, consulting, and work within the
professional community. It will also be very
important to maintain visibility with the
professional community through involvement in
professional organizations.
Business Administration
The Department of Business Administration is a
multidiscipline department of the core business
functions (Finance, Marketing, and Operations)
dedicated to undergraduate and graduate
training, research, and community service. The
department seeks to increase its local, regional,
national, and international reputation. It is
committed to bridging the gap between business
and the wider social context in which it operates.
It educates constituents about the complex
issues businesses face and the responsibilities
and obligations they have to society. The
department infuses public policy issues
throughout its curricula and acts as a catalyst in
creating business leaders who are committed to
and knowledgeable about the role of business in
society in the larger context. In doing so, the
department builds upon an ingrained tradition
and culture of cross-discipline teaching,
research, experiential learning, outreach, and
cooperation to make contributions resulting in a
greater social good.
Analysis and Assessment
The department participates in various
assessment activities. These include: 1) a senior
student survey concerning professional competencies, 2) a university employment and
educations survey 3) a university graduating
student survey, 4) a core class assessment exam,
5) the ETS Major Field Test and 6) multiple
assessments through ACCSB, the accreditation
association for colleges of business.
Challenges and Recommendations
The heterogeneity of department organization
poses significant advantages for the stakeholders
of the department. The unique grouping in one
department of the core functional areas that
define a business enterprise allows the crosspollination of ideas that translates from the
classroom into the world of practical business
management. In addition, the functional area
diversity promotes cross-discipline research that
is actively encouraged and successful. The very
successful creation of the integrated Business
Administration degree and the International
The Department of Business Administration
offers programs that prepare students for
administrative
positions
in
business,
government, and other institutions. Specialized
training is provided within specific functional
82
Business major (an interdisciplinary, crossfunction,
cross-department,
cross-college
program) could only be accomplished by such a
diverse and integrated group.
outstanding teaching more times than any other
department.
In 2006, the number of students graduating from
the department was the sixth largest of all
departments at the university. Economics is
complementary to other business degrees and
fits well with other degrees offered by COB. The
disciplines of finance and economics have
similar theoretical and mathematical cores;
hence, the dual major option in COB has had an
11% growth. However, there has been a steady
decrease in the number of agribusiness majors.
The greatest challenge, however, is the small
number of faculty members in each academic
area which forestalls the breadth and depth of
course offerings that is characteristic of similar
programs in our comparison institutions. This
also means that small changes in the faculty, in
particular retirements, will have significant
effects on programs both at the department and
college level.
Economics graduate training emphasizes
economic theory, critical thinking, and
quantitative analysis. Theory and quantitative
methods are tools used in applied courses, in
theses and dissertations, and in other research
and extension activities. The department offers
the MA, MS, and PhD in economics and the MS
in applied economics.
As with many state universities, the opportunity
to increase the size of the faculty is minimal. It
is clear that state legislatures will not fill this
void and the department and college are actively
seeking ways to increase the value of the
education offered, assuming that outside
resource will follow value added programs.
The number of graduate students has increased
slightly over the past five years. Much of this
growth has been at the master‘s level in applied
economics and the international MBA. An
average of seven master‘s students and slightly
more than two PhDs graduate each year.
Currently 14 students are pursuing PhDs.
Economics
USU‘s Department of Economics has four core
missions: undergraduate training, graduate
training, research, and extension/ community
service. As a PhD-granting department at a
Carnegie high research activity level and a landgrant university, the department strives to
achieve and maintain a strong reputation for
excellence in each mission at all levels. The
department is jointly administered by the
colleges of Agriculture (COA) and Business
(COB).
Department faculty members engage in a variety
of theoretical, methodological, empirical, and
applied research projects. Faculty and graduate
student papers that characterize the breadth of
the research include agricultural economics;
agribusiness; farm produce traceability and food
safety; public finance; regional economics;
community
development;
resource
and
environmental economics; comparative systems
and economic history; applied microeconomics;
industrial organization, strategy, and the
economics
of
information;
applied
macroeconomics; and international trade.
The faculty is comprised of 13 full professors, 5
associate professors, 2 assistant professors, and
1 extension specialist. All faculty appointments
include teaching, research, and service
assignments; six faculty members have split
appointments with extension assignments.
Extension activities are an important part of the
overall mission of the university and department.
The applied research conducted by the
department‘s extension specialists provides
current information to client groups, particularly
in traditional fields such as farm management
The faculty has a long-standing reputation for its
outstanding teaching. Among numerous other
awards, economics professors have won the
university‘s Eldon J. Gardner Award for
83
and record keeping, value-added marketing, and
food certification.
seven FTEs, with faculty members producing an
average of 4.5 refereed journal articles per year
per FTE: higher than the goal of four articles per
research FTE. The quality of research, measured
by the prestige of journals accepting faculty
members‘ research, has also continued to
improve.
In recent years, extension programs offered by
the department have been largely driven by soft
money, mostly from the USDA‘s Risk
Management Agency. During the past five
years, more than $2M in contracts have come
from USDA and related agencies. Extension
faculty members have created crop and livestock
insurance education programs from their risk
management activities. This and other varied
programs draw thousands of participants—two
of the most popular being the Diversified
Agriculture Conference and the Income Tax
School.
While junior faculty members have played a key
role in increasing the level and quality of
research output, senior faculty members have
continued to contribute in important ways. One
of the most significant improvements during the
past 10 years is that articles published in
refereed journals have become more evenly
distributed between junior and senior faculty,
indicating improvement from top to bottom.
The amount of sponsored research monies has
increased during the past five years, averaging
more than $4M per year.
Analysis and Assessment
The growth in economics majors is tied directly
to the joint degrees in the COB to which college
advisors direct students interest in economics
and agribusiness. Steady declines in agribusiness
majors is a result of a major feeder school, Ricks
College, becoming a four-year institution.
Challenges and Recommendations
Salary compression at the professorial level is a
major concern and affects the retention of junior
faculty. Full professors‘ salaries average 30%
below those at peer institutions.
The national demand for PhD economists has
been flat during the past decade. While fewer
domestic students enter the program, the rapidly
expanding economies of China and India have
increased demand for professionals and
academics with American-based economics
graduate degrees. The department‘s PhD
population is similar to other doctoral programs
at USU and at other land-grant universities.
More than one-half of the faculty is either
eligible or will be eligible for retirement during
the next five years, presenting a significant
recruiting challenge and an opportunity for
strategic planning related to hiring decisions.
Challenges facing the graduate program center
on the limited number and dollar amounts of
assistantship stipends. Graduate stipends simply
are not competitive. Improving stipends may
come from expanding sources of soft money;
but, most soft dollars in the department are
generated by faculty members who do not teach
doctoral courses and have limited contact with
graduate students, particularly PhD students.
One strategy being considered is to use revenues
from distance education programs to augment
graduate student assistantships.
Department economists collaborate on contracts
and grants with faculty members from virtually
every college on campus, demonstrating that
their skills and expertise are valued. The quality
of faculty research is well recognized in the
profession and attested to by the positions
faculty members hold on journal editorial
boards, their leadership of professional societies,
and research awards.
The department has made significant strides in
publishing its research—exceeding targets
established by the department‘s Organization
and Governance document. In the past five
years, funded research averaged between six and
The department is served by a competent and
dedicated staff. However, there has been
significant turnover due to low salaries and
completion of schooling (either self or spouse).
84
The university‘s excellent benefits package
helps attract good staff. Perhaps more frustrating
is the inability to reward excellence with
appropriate salaries and salary increases.
exams on a regular basis and perform very well
relative to national norms.
Second, the Human Resource Certification
Institute (HRCI) provides an independent exam
to test the knowledge of students for the
undergraduate degree in Human Resources
(students take the exam on a voluntary basis)
and the MSHR degree (students are required to
take the exam).
Inadequate space makes it difficult for faculty
members to interact with graduate students.
Expanded office and classroom space currently
being planned may mitigate the problem.
Operating budgets will continue to need to be
augmented with soft money simply to maintain
current levels. Additional help from the colleges,
extension, and the UAES has allowed the
department to maintain up-to-date computer
operations and has contributed significantly to
supporting students, especially at the master‘s
level.
Third, each course syllabus defines learning
goals and outcome measures for each objective.
Learning objectives and assessment procedures
for the objectives are embedded in each course.
Programs and curricula are well conceived and
developed.
Departmental members meet
regularly as subcommittees within the
department to discuss the curriculum and to
coordinate its delivery. MHR has a culture of
continuous improvement.
Management and Human
Resources
The Management and Human Resources (MHR)
Department‘s offers undergraduate degrees in
Entrepreneurship and Human Resources and a
Master of Science degree in Human Resource
Management (MSHR) on campus. Beginning
Fall 2007, the Entrepreneurship degree will be
offered through RCDE across the state and the
MSHR degree will no longer be offered as a
distance education program. The department
also provides significant course work that
satisfies general education requirements for
students across the university, College of
Business (COB) core requirements for all the
undergraduate
degrees,
and
significant
coursework in the Master of Business
Administration (MBA).
For the 2006-2007 academic year the
department has lines for 12 full-time faculty
members and one full-time administrative
assistant. One new position has been added for
the 2007-2008 academic year. Two faculty
members resigned prior to the beginning of the
school year, so for the 2006-2007 academic year
the department had seven tenure-track faculty
members and three executives in residence
(lecturers). Beginning Fall 2007, there will be
10 tenure-track faculty members along with the
three executives in residence. Current tenuretrack faculty members are all active researchers.
The composition of the department is largely
assistant professors. The goal is to shelter junior
faculty, so the service load for senior faculty
members is relatively high. Five junior faculty
members have been lost in the last five years
who were on track for promotion and tenure.
They have been replaced by new faculty
members just out of PhD programs. Thus, the
single greatest challenge at this stage is retention
of high-quality faculty members and promotion
through the academic ranks.
Analysis and Assessment
Program assessment occurs at three levels. First,
many of the course sections are part of the
College of Business core. The college has welldefined learning goals and objectives. Each
learning goals and objective is mapped to
specific courses within the core curriculum.
Courses in the core are assessed with pretest/post-test comparisons. In addition, students
nearing graduation participate in ETS field
Departmental
constrained.
85
budgets and resources are
The department suffers from
serious salary inversion. Recently hired new
faculty members are paid more than senior
faculty. From an operating budget perspective,
we are able to meet the most crucial needs of
faculty and programs with frugal decision
making.
comparatively low salaries have created a
dysfunctional situation. The most productive
junior faculty members have left, decreasing the
overall per capita productivity of the department.
New faculty members have been hired at market
competitive rates. Departmental research and
teaching expectations are high. It is crucial to
the health of the department that both existing
and new faculty members continue to teach and
do research at excellent levels.
Challenges and Recommendations
Continue transition of the Management degree
to an Entrepreneurship Degree. The two major
challenges are getting professionally qualified
―entrepreneurs in residence‖ in place at each
remote site and student recruiting. This will
allow the program to grow without putting
excessive strain on the current faculty and
facilities.
If the college and university are unable to
correct the salary situation, strategies of
recruitment and performance expectations must
necessarily change to match our resources. The
department will cooperate with the college and
university to help enhance resources to correct
the inversion situation, and put salaries more in
line with national markets.
A new faculty member has been hired on
campus to support the continuing education
program. It is recommended that ―entrepreneurs
in residence‖ be hired at each regional campus
site. In addition, a recruiting program needs to
be put into place to recruit students at the
distance sites.
Operating budgets require enhancement. The
department will cooperate with the dean and
development officers to develop more sources of
discretionary revenues.
Stabilization of the MSHR program, given that it
will no longer be offered on the satellite through
continuing education is a challenge. Faculty
teaching assignments will change, since only
one section of each of the graduate courses will
be offered each year.
Management Information Systems
The Management Information Systems (MIS)
Department offers degree programs BS, BA,
MS, and doctoral degrees in MIS. An EdD in
MIS is available from the College of Education
and Human Services.
The department was authorized to hire an open
position in HR. During the coming year
additional emphasis will be placed on student
recruiting and ongoing program development.
There are three areas of emphasis in bachelor‘s
programs: technical, training, and managerial.
The MIS major is designed to prepare
individuals for positions as managers of business
information systems, including information
managers and supervisors, network managers,
web designers, electronic commerce developers,
systems analysts, applications programmers, and
systems trainers.
The technical emphasis
prepares students for more hands-on technical
positions while the managerial emphasis focuses
on managerial roles.
The training and
development emphasis prepares students to
become trainers within business and private
industry.
There is a need for continued development of
assessment and continuous improvement
activities. The college is in the self-study year
for
AACSB
accreditation.
Assessment
mechanisms for each course and program have
been developed and are in place for most
courses. The recommendation is that such
course assessments be continued and that
curriculum and program decisions be based on
data generated from the assessments.
Maintaining high research
expectations is important.
and teaching
Turnover and
86
Students in MIS must do more than memorize
and regurgitate facts. The department has
created a hands-on learning environment to
allow students access to the latest hardware and
software tools. The department has an
entrepreneurial culture and a can-do spirit that is
unsurpassed elsewhere; a great faculty that is
willing to take risks to continually make this a
better unit; and a commitment to innovation, not
only in its distinctive, integrated curriculum, but
in everything it does.
technology skills. Within each of these four
areas, key competencies have been identified
and specific learning goals established.
Analysis and Assessment
The department participates in various
assessment activities. These include: 1) a senior
student departmental survey concerning
professional competencies, 2) a university
employment and education survey 3) a
university graduating student survey, 4) a core
class assessment exam, 5) ETS Major Field Test,
6) multiple assessments through ACCSB, the
accreditation association for colleges of
business, and 7) analysis of all classes to map
them to the four areas mentioned above.
The department‘s graduates have readily found
employment in local, regional, and international
firms, major corporations, and government
agencies. Many of the alumni have distinguished
themselves by becoming partners, managers,
chief information officers, and other chief
executive officers in these organizations.
Challenges and Recommendations
The department maintains a comprehensive
teaching and learning assessment process to
ensure that such activities effectively support the
respective and complementary missions of the
College of Business and MIS. At the core of this
process are the teaching and learning goals for
both the undergraduate and graduate information
systems programs. These goals were developed
by faculty curriculum committees with
significant input by both the professional and
student advisory boards. They were also
influenced by the written pronouncements of the
IS2002 Model Curriculum, a joint effort by the
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM),
Association for Information Systems (AIS), and
Association of
Information Technology
Professionals (AITP).
One challenge is to finish the migration from an
office systems department into a world class
MIS department. The elimination this year of
the business education programs will help the
department to further concentrate on MIS
education. There are challenges in retooling
some faculty members and in getting others
more focused on our research and teaching
missions.
The department considers several characteristics
of the information systems profession which
have been relatively constant over time and have
been integrated into the curriculum. These are:
(1) business fundamentals; (2) analytical and
critical thinking; (3) ethical, interpersonal,
communication, and team skills; (4) and
Student enrollments have suffered the last few
years and it is important that we reverse that
trend. This is caused by a general downturn in
the IS market which is now starting to recover.
Retirements present a big challenge. Most
retirements have been from the business
education side. Salary compression at the senior
levels leaves less than half the dollars necessary
to hire a new assistant professor. The department
has four empty lines and money to fill only one
of them.
87
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES
Analysis and Assessment
Communicative Disorders and Deaf
Education
Since its last accreditation review, COMD-DE
faculty members have evaluated the department‘s
ability to accomplish departmental missions by
comparing its performance to standards
established by its national accreditation
agencies—the Council on Academic Accreditation
(CAA) in Audiology and Speech-Language
Pathology of the American Speech-LanguageHearing Association (ASHA), and the Council for
the Education of the Deaf (CED). This issue was
addressed at virtually every departmental meeting
or retreat.
Agenda items for the standing
committees as well as regular department meetings
allowed faculty members to consider the issues of
quality, currency, and effectiveness of the program
in meeting standards for national certification,
state licensure, and state standards for teaching
certification. Changes in academic and clinical
offerings emerged from discussions and concerns
related to the expanding scope of practice in
speech-language pathology and audiology, as well
as recent changes in CAA and CED standards and
requirements.
The Department of Communicative Disorders
and Deaf Education (COMD-DE) has three
divisions:
Speech-Language
Pathology,
Audiology, and Deaf Education. COMD-DE
offers the BS degree in Communicative
Disorders, MA and MS degrees in SpeechLanguage Pathology, the Professional Doctorate
of Audiology (Au.D.) degree, and the
PhD)degree in Disabilities Studies with an
emphasis in Speech-Language Pathology. The
BS degree in Communicative Disorders is the
preparatory degree for MA and MS degrees in
Speech-Language Pathology, the MEd Degree in
Deaf Education and the AuD degree in
Audiology. A master‘s degree is the minimum
degree required to be able to practice as a
licensed speech-language pathologist in the
United States. The AuD degree is the minimum
degree required to practice as a licensed
audiologist. The new PhD program trains
outstanding research scientists in the fields of
communication disorders and speech and
hearing sciences.
The quality measurement indicators of teaching
effectiveness—employer satisfaction, student
satisfaction,
graduate
survey
responses,
parental/patron surveys, as well as reports from
other accreditation and review reports—were used
to guide decision-making processes as department
programs were refined, restructured, or expanded.
Reports from the most recent Regents Review,
NCATE, State Department of Education review,
Council on Education of the Deaf, and ASHAESB were all reviewed and results used to assist
the faculty and staff in making appropriate
decisions regarding changes in academic and
clinical programs.
The COMD-DE department has approximately
25 faculty members (including clinical
supervisory staff) and 250 students at various
levels of academic training. Departmental
curricula are complemented by close interdisciplinary relationships with other College of
Education and Human Services (CEHS)
departments and numerous off-campus clinical
and teacher-training sites, including the National
Center for Hearing Assessment and Management, the Center for Persons with Disabilities,
the Emma Eccles Jones Center for Early
Childhood Education, and the Edith Bowen
Laboratory School.
Teaching and supervision evaluation data were
used to determine levels of student satisfaction
with their academic and clinical experiences at
each level of their preparation. The department‘s
excellence in teaching and supervision indicated
that its basic underlying philosophy and
preparation model was functioning well. COMD-
88
DE typically ranked first or second in the CEHS
for overall course quality and teaching
effectiveness, with a mean teaching rating score of
5.5 or better on a 6-point scale, well above CEHS
and university averages. In addition, COMD
faculty members received more teaching
excellence awards during the self-study period
than faculty in any other department in the College
of Education and Human Services (e.g., CEHS
Teacher of the Year, Mortar Board Top Prof,
Carnegie Professor of the Year nominee, and the
Alumni Professorship Award).
Intermountain West; the first cohort of
AuD students graduated in 2005.
In 2003, the department obtained funding
from the Utah State Office of Education to
offer a hybrid graduate program in speechlanguage pathology to 23 students
working under provisional certification in
public schools located in rural and remote
areas of the state. The outreach program
offered a combination of online and faceto-face instruction, as well as clinical
supervision via interactive distancelearning technology. Additional funding
for a new Outreach cohort of 27 students
was obtained in 2006.
COMD-DE maintained its position as the top
producer of speech-language pathologists,
audiologists, and teachers of the deaf in Utah,
graduating 284 students in the past five years.
Post-graduation surveys showed close to 100%
degree-related job placements and very high
applicability of training to the jobs. Also, 60% or
more of undergraduate COMD-DE majors
successfully earned admission to a wide range of
graduate programs in speech-language pathology,
audiology, and deaf education. Assessment data
from these program graduates indicated a high
degree of satisfaction with the preparation they
received during their pre-service training
experiences.
In 2006, the department developed an
innovative online second bachelor‘s
degree program to increase the potential
pool of applicants for graduate programs
in speech-language pathology; 12
foundational courses are currently
available through this program.
In 2006, the department responded to the
nationwide shortage of PhD faculty in
speech-language pathology by developing
a new speech-language pathology PhD
strand in the Disabilities Studies doctoral
program in the College of Education and
Human Services; the first doctoral student
was admitted in Fall 2006.
Likewise, employers‘ perceptions regarding the
preparedness of COMD-DE graduates for
professional practice were highly positive overall.
Careful analysis of employer feedback was used to
identify program strengths and respond to
perceived
weaknesses,
thus
continuously
improving the quality of the department‘s
programs. From a different perspective,
assessment data from parents of clients being seen
in the University Speech-Language-Hearing Clinic
and from clinic patrons also revealed very positive
results. Parent and patron data and comments
were helpful in providing feedback about service
provision of the COMD-DE preparation program.
In 2006, the department responded to
feedback from employers and alumni
regarding the need for additional training
in service provision for children with
cochlear implants. A new interdisciplinary
program was developed to provide such
training.
In response to identified state and national needs,
the department engaged in several new initiatives
during the self-study period:
Challenges and Recommendation
The department‘s primary challenges relate to
inadequate resources.
Consistent with data
collected campus-wide in 1999 from department
heads, deans, and 85% of all faculty, salary levels
In 2001, the Audiology division developed
and implemented the first doctorate of
audiology (AuD) program in the
89
for faculty are at least 20% below regional
averages for peer institutions, making faculty
recruitment and retention difficult. Improved
salaries are the #1 priority identified by COMDDE faculty and staff.
Salary compression,
especially at the associate and full professor levels,
is severe. Comparisons with peer departments at
research-intensive universities suggest that our
faculty teaching loads are excessively high (3
courses each semester, plus summer for the
majority of the faculty), making it difficult for
them to maintain desired levels of research
productivity. Heavy teaching loads have been the
norm for 20-30 years, and has become even more
problematic for the department as requirements for
tenure and promotion have become more stringent.
Without 2-3 more full-time faculty lines, teaching
loads will remain high and the department will not
only have difficulty recruiting and retaining top
scholars, but will be unable to expand existing
programs.
Elementary Education
The mission of the Department of Elementary
Education (ELED) is to (1) develop professional
educators and (2) advance knowledge in the
field of education. This mission is accomplished
through teaching, scholarly activity, and
professional service.
The department is
comprised of 17 faculty members with doctoral
degrees, 4 lecturers (1 PhD, 3 MS), 12 adjunct
faculty members (4 PhD, 8 MS), 3 professional
advisors (1 PhD, 2 MS), and 4 staff assistants.
More USU students major in Elementary
Education than in any other program. At any
given time there are more than 1,000
undergraduate and 200 graduate students. The
department awards more than 200 undergraduate
and 50 graduate degrees annually at the Logan
campus and four regional educational centers.
ELED is the only education program in Utah
that is accredited by the Utah State Office of
Education, Utah Board of Regents, Northwest
Association of Universities and Colleges, and
the National Council for the Accreditation of
Teacher Education. The ELED advisement
office has been recognized nationally and on
campus as one of the best student services.
Another challenge for the department relates to an
inadequate operating budget (approximately
$21,000 per year) that does not even cover the cost
of phones, office supplies, and copying. All other
department operations must be self-funded (e.g.,
computers, travel, equipment upgrades, and
acquisitions) from research overhead funds, salary
money from occasional open faculty lines, and an
income stream from our distance education
initiatives.
Analysis and Assessment
Performance data on teacher candidates and
graduates of the Department of Elementary
Education is gathered from a variety of sources
based on the Strands Framework of the SODIA
(Self, Others, Discipline, Implementation,
Application) program. Data are collected for the
program in general, the faculty and support staff,
and the facilities. These data come from multiple
measures, including course evaluations, student
exit interviews, faculty monitoring, school
district advisory board feedback, and
participation in external evaluation activities.
Finally, the department suffers from a severe
shortage of office and research space. We
currently have no open faculty offices and
virtually no available research space; this situation
will become more acute as three open faculty lines
are filled this year. The department would not be
able to house a major new grant at this point,
should a faculty member secure it. Nearly all
faculty members share research and lab space with
one another, making scheduling of projects and
overall space management, exceedingly difficult.
All site visitors affiliated with recent accreditation
reviews (e.g., the American Speech-LanguageHearing Association, Council for the Education of
the Deaf, Board of Regents Review) have
emphasized these challenges.
Findings from these assessment activities
suggest that students graduating from USU‘s
ELED programs are well prepared for their roles
in education, and in great demand by employers.
The faculty and staff are well respected for their
instruction and support services, but assume
90
higher teaching loads than their peers. The
support staff is outstanding, but the program
budget and facilities limit the ability to meet
increasing demands for teachers and teacher
leaders.
Family, Consumer, and Human
Development
The
Family,
Consumer,
and
Human
Development Department (FCHD), as its name
suggests, is an interdisciplinary department.
Instructional, research, and outreach efforts in
the department represent program areas in
marriage and family relations, human
development from infancy to later life, early
childhood
education,
family
financial
management, and marriage and family therapy.
Challenges and Recommendations
A recent study on Utah teacher supply and
demand revealed that the state is experiencing
the start a severe teacher shortage. As the
premier teacher preparation institution in the
state, USU teacher education departments are
being challenged to implement programs that
will result in more highly qualified teachers
entering the Utah job market. At the same time,
USU seeks to raise its national reputation as a
research institution. A major challenge for the
Department of Elementary Education is to find
ways to address local needs and interests, while
raising the bar of faculty scholarly productivity.
There are three undergraduate majors in the
FCHD department: Family, Consumer, and
Human Development (FCHD); Family and
Consumer Sciences; and Early Childhood
Education (teacher licensure offered jointly with
the Department of Elementary Education). The
department offers two master‘s degrees, the MS
in FCHD, and the Master of Family and Human
Development (MFHD). The PhD is offered in
FCHD.
Recently, the department has approved the
expansion of its undergraduate and graduate
distance education programs. More specifically,
we have increased capacity in the undergraduate
program by 25%, and initiated an alternative
route to licensure graduate program. At the same
time, the department has begun a differentiated
staffing model that enables faculty researchers to
increase the proportions of their roles devoted to
research. At the same time, faculty members
who excel in the teaching domain are able to
assume higher teaching loads.
Distance education offerings include the MFHD
taught via satellite, a distance bachelor‘s FCHD
taught via satellite, and a proposed new degree
in Family Life Studies to be delivered online
pending approval of the Utah Board of Regents.
As of Fall 2006, the department had 314
undergraduate students and 56 graduate
students. The number of undergraduate students
has decreased over the past five years, from a
high of 574 to the current level. Graduate
student numbers have been fairly stable over that
period.
Recommendations to be considered include
improving the technological infrastructure to
enable professors to develop and deliver online
and hybrid courses to audiences that are unable
to travel to regional campuses. Faculty members
are seeking external funding to support new
teacher training programs that are responsive to
rapidly changing school demographics.
In
particular, the proportion of Spanish-speaking
students in Utah schools is increasing
exponentially, and teachers are ill prepared to
effectively
educate
language-challenged
students. These proactive efforts to address
future educational needs are a hallmark of this
outstanding department.
There are 25 faculty members (19 PhD tenuretrack faculty members and six master‘s level
lecturers) in the department--six in the consumer
science area, seven in family relations, three in
marriage and family therapy, and nine in human
development. There are two term-appointment
research assistant professors in the human
development area, four adjunct faculty members,
and several instructors from the community who
teach a course periodically. The department has
two PhD tenure-track faculty at USU‘s Uintah
Basin Regional Campus.
91
students from across the country. Both of these
efforts would have the potential to increase
extramural funding by bringing in new PhD
faculty and by creating collaborations across
campus to be more competitive for extramural
dollars.
Analysis and Assessment
Declining undergraduate enrollments and classsizes could be seen as a concern, but this trend is
actually in the direction that the department
decided to go when undergraduate enrollments
became so large that it was difficult to meet the
teaching demands and maintain scholarly
productivity. The minimum GPA was raised to
3.0. This has resulted in stronger students being
in our majors, and faculty productivity has
increased.
For example, refereed journal
publications of the faculty increased from 29 in
2002 to 51 in 2006.
Graduate student
enrollments have not yet increased as desired,
which was also another goal for reducing
undergraduate enrollments in the department.
Health, Physical Education, and
Recreation
The Health, Physical Education, and Recreation
Department (HPER) fosters multiple roles and
best practices in science-based academic and
field-engaged career preparation in school health
education, community health education, physical
education teacher preparation, coaching
preparation, exercise science, corporate wellness, pre-physical therapy, and parks and
recreation administration. All of the majors are
content rich, laboratory supported and field
based, resulting in high-quality, professional
association-accredited, and solution-focused
curricula.
Challenges and Recommendations
Each of the strengths of the department‘s undergraduate and graduate programs can be built on
and enhanced. It is important to have smaller
class sizes, particularly in the upper-division
courses in the undergraduate major to enhance
the learning environment. Doctoral enrollments
in the graduate program must be increased so
that five or six doctoral students consistently
graduate each year. The excellent scholarly
productivity of the faculty needs to be
maintained and even enhanced. This will build
the national and international reputation of the
department. And, as always, financial resources
need to be increased in new ways in light of flat
public funding.
Analysis and Assessment:
Assessment of students consists of four
components beyond the course-specific content
examinations and assignments.
Each student completes the standard university
course/instructor evaluation form. This form is
administered to every class each semester. The
student is able to share candid and precise
reviews of the quality of the course, its content
and the ability of the instructor. Faculty
members use both the numbered indicators as
well as the narrative statements to improve and
sharpen the course experience.
Several initiatives are underway to address these
challenges. The proposed online degree in
Family Life Studies has the potential to provide
new funding for operating, graduate student
recruitment and funding, and perhaps to move
term faculty to non-E&G funding to make E&G
dollars available for a new PhD tenure-track
faculty line in marriage and family therapy. A
new faculty member in this area would facilitate
offering the PhD in Marriage and Family
Therapy, inasmuch as there is no doctoral
program in this field at a public institution in the
western United States. Developing an
interdepartmental program in Early Childhood
Education would also attract new doctoral
Each student, regardless of discipline area,
participates in a required capstone course. This
capstone course consists of one of several
culminating experiences, i.e., student teaching,
practicum, or internship or seminar for seniorlevel students. Students are assessed by faculty
to determine their readiness for the experience.
The supervision of the capstone experience
consists of both university faculty and field-
92
based professionals. Each experience has well
established objectives and multiple evaluations
occur during the course. Evaluation methods
include written assignments, site visits,
interviews,
observations,
performance
evaluations from supervisors in the schools and
field and graded assignments. Several feedback
points are designed into the experience.
assist in instruction and provide students
opportunities for class presentations. This
upgrade would include built-in projectors,
computers, and other assistive devices.
The third need is in the area of advising. Due to
recent budget cuts, funding for professional
advising was eliminated. With the large number
of students in HPER programs, there is a need to
maintain a professional advising office. One
full-time advisor or two half-time advisors
would ensure that students are adequately
advised and directed to complete their programs
in a timely manner.
All academic programs within the department
have created a course-by-competency outcomes
matrix. Within the matrix are the corresponding
primary and secondary courses to achieve that
competency outcome. This curriculum-based
competency plan reflects the purpose, value, and
need for each of the courses and the specific
objectives
of
those
achieving
these
competencies.
Instructional Technology
The Department of Instructional Technology
(IT) provides an environment in which graduate
students and faculty explore, develop, and
disseminate technologies of instruction and
information impacting education, business,
industry, and government.
Students in the various majors participate in an
exit interview with faculty members to
determine the effectiveness of the program and
measure satisfaction of the total program.
Students are identified randomly to complete a
final evaluation and visit with faculty members
on a one-to-one exit interview.
IT offers specializations in educational
technology, information technology, school
library media administration, instructional
development for training and education, and
interactive learning technologies. A program
emphasis in online learning communities in
education and training is also offered.
Challenges and Recommendations
There are three specific challenges that face the
department in order to provide continued and
increasing quality experiences for students.
The following degrees are offered by the
department: Doctor of Philosophy, Educational
Specialist, Master of Science in Instructional
Design, Master of Education in Educational
Technology. In addition, students can earn
endorsements in distance learning and school
library media administration.
The first is the need for one additional faculty
member to serve in the area of physical
education, specifically in the exercise science
curriculum. The physical education curriculum
has been experiencing a significant increase of
students interested in the exercise science
component. The program requires structured
laboratory experiences where large enrollment
lecture courses are reduced to smaller laboratory
courses. The addition of another exercise
science faculty member is critical to reduce the
class sizes and handle the increased load,
especially in laboratory experiences.
The second need is classroom updates in the
HPER Building. There have been relatively few
upgrades other than whiteboards in each of the
classrooms since the building was constructed in
1972. There is a need to update technology to
IT at USU is one of the leading instruction
technology departments in the nation. Faculty
members are influential in such areas as
instructional design theory and application,
learning objects, distance education, and
simulations. They are skilled in research,
evaluation, and software applications and
interested/committed to helping students
succeed. This reputation is not a self-appraisal.
The report of the last review conducted by the
93
State Board of Regents stated that ―the
department is clearly a top tier program. It is
easily in the top ten and probably in the top five
programs
in
national
reputation
and
recognition." (Board of Regents External
Reviewers Report, 2000).
Analysis and Assessment
The department uses several methods of data
collection on an ongoing basis. Exit interviews
with graduating master‘s and doctoral students
are held, all courses are evaluated with the
student course assessment forms, a Regents‘
review involving outside reviewers is completed
every seven years, and from time to time studies
directed at assessing needs of students are
conducted.
Association
for
Educational
Communications and Technology Association
for
Educational
Communications
and
Technology standards were developed in
conjunction with NACTE and Educational
Communications and Instructional Technologies
standards, providing initial standards (for
undergraduate
programs)
and
advanced
standards (for graduate programs).
The department‘s Center for Open and
Sustainable Learning (COSL) was approved
during the summer of 2005. Since its creation,
COSL has hosted more than $5M in externally
funded projects and engaged dozens of graduate
students in research and service opportunities
that give greater context and meaning to their
academic studies. COSL projects include:
A
traveling
―next
generation
bookmobile‖ with print-on-demand
technology which prints free copies of
classic literature and delivers them to
elementary school classrooms around
Utah
The design and development of
computer
software
that
helps
universities and organizations such as
the United Nations University, Kyoto
University, and Dutch Open University,
provide greater access to their
educational resources by the public
A series of youth-managed computer
labs established in rural parts of Nepal
where villagers can learn the basics of
computer literacy, nutrition, health care,
and ecommerce
The design and development of a series
of online tools that help teachers and
learners adapt open educational
resources for use in their own languages,
cultures, and contexts
Online services to connect the
educational resources in the National
Science Foundation‘s Digital Library to
other open educational materials like
MIT OCW and Wikipedia
Utah State University OpenCourseWare
where citizens and other nonregistered
people can get free and open online
access to more than 50 USU courses
(this number is constantly growing)
The department is committed to making databased decisions, improving the program. A
recent faculty discussion concerned the potential
merger of our program with the teacher
education component of the Management and
Information Systems (MIS) program. After
careful consideration and a fair amount of
division in faculty ranks, the department chose
not to participate in the merger. Looking back at
the recommendations of the past Regents‘
review committee, it is remarkable how closely
this decision matched their recommendations—
to avoid entangling assignments in the larger
university community and concentrate on doing
what we do well. Other decisions are often based
upon recommendations made in assessment
reports; however, it is worth noting that there is
no blind following of recommendations. Every
decision by the faculty requires careful scrutiny
on its own merits.
Challenges and Recommendations:
For a number of years the department enjoyed a
wonderful reputation and recognition nationally
on the basis of a strong and seasoned faculty.
Over the past few years, several of these
experienced faculty members have retired. The
young faculty hired to replace them are
enthusiastic, hard working, and productive.
They do not yet, however, have the widespread
94
name recognition that gave the department its
stellar reputation. This reputation for excellence
will be continued and enhanced as these new
faculty members grow in the profession.
Analysis and Assessment
1. The department has documented how faculty
members utilize student feedback from course
evaluations to improve their teaching.
An additional challenge for the department is the
inability to accommodate the growth of
numerous research projects funded through
extramural sources within the space allocated to
the department.
2. The department implements a highly detailed
annual merit ―point‖ system for evaluating
faculty members‘ performance in teaching,
service, and research. The system has extremely
high
inter-judge
reliability
(i.e.,
any
administrator could apply the same evaluation
criteria and could produce identical rank
orderings of our 19 full-time faculty members‘
performance).
The plan of the department is to (1) effectively
promote its programs to a national market to
ensure quality graduate students and a quality
reputation and (2) support research and the
acquisition of extramural funding by providing
space and appropriate rewards for productive
research.
3. Psychology ranks first in the college in
number of peer-reviewed publication per faculty
member.
4. Faculty members co-author over 70
publications and conference presentations with
students each year.
Psychology
The mission of the Department of Psychology is
to promote education and research into the
causes of behavior, cognition, and perceptual
processes and their interaction with the
environment. Psychologists are also concerned
with how the application of this knowledge can
be applied to education, employment, and
interpersonal relationships. At the undergraduate
level, the mission is to provide excellent training
for careers in child casework, analysis of
behavior, and entrance into graduate programs
that emphasize research and clinical practice.
Also, students often combine an undergraduate
emphasis in psychology with other majors or
minors, e.g., business or high school teaching.
Graduate degree programs prepare psychologists
for consultation, research, and clinical work in
diverse settings; e.g. hospitals, mental health
centers, private industry, government agencies,
and schools.
5. The department ranks in the top 14th
percentile among some 500 departments in the
United States in terms of the amount of external
funding generated by faculty members.
6. The department is a model of cost-efficiency;
i.e., for every tax-tuition dollar the department
receives, it produces more than four dollars in
external funding.
7. Faculty members involved students in
150,000 hours of service-learning projects
during the past 5 years.
8. Various post-graduation surveys from students
show very high degree-related job placement and
very high applicability of training to the job. Also,
25-30% of undergraduate students earn admission
to a wide range of graduate or professional schools.
The department offers degrees at the bachelor‘s,
master‘s, and PhD levels. Specializations at the
master‘s level include school psychology and
school counseling and, at the doctoral level,
clinical/counseling/school
psychology
and
research and evaluation methodology.
10. The department is one of the most diverse on
campus in terms of its ethnic and gender
composition. Over the past five years, 15 to 20
percent of PhD students have been Native
Americans.
95
11. The PhD program is the most competitive on
campus in terms of admissions. The program
receives an average of 88 applications per year;
though only about eight students can be admitted.
12. The department‘s academic programs are robust
and healthy, but exceed the teaching and resource
capacity of the faculty. The undergraduate program
has more than 500 majors and pre-majors, the MS
School Psychology program has 15 full-time
students, the Plan C MS program in PsychologySchool Counseling has 80 students‘ and the PhD
program has 55 students.
Challenges and Recommendations
The department‘s primary challenges relate to
inadequate resources. Site visitors affiliated with
recent accreditation reviews emphasized the
following:
Salary levels for the faculty are at least 20% below
regional averages for peer institutions, making
faculty retention difficult.
Salary compression, even at the assistant professor
level, is severe.
The student/faculty ratio has remained excessively
high for at least 15 years, pointing to a need for at
least 2-3 more full-time faculty lines.
The department has no state-funded operating
budget beyond basic salaries. As a result, research
funds and open positions funds are being used.
The department suffers from a severe shortage of
research space. Research offices/space is
inadequate for faculty members and the large PhD
program.
The undergraduate program needs to include a
higher proportion of courses with labs. About 18%
of courses include a lab, but normatively, this
figure should be about 30%, based on data from
peer institutions and normative standards of
training.
The department relies on the equivalent of 1.75
full-time academic advisement positions to serve
more than 600 majors and premajors.
96
A significant weakness of the department is its lack
of endowments for scholarships and instructional
support. A goal for the next five years should be to
double the amount of development funding coming
to the department through gifts and donations.
Presently, the department‘s total endowment is less
than $200,000.
Secondary Education
At the undergraduate level, Secondary
Education coordinates state-approved programs
for the secondary teacher licensure across
campus. The department offers the Secondary
Teacher Education Program (STEP), a sequence
of courses and field experiences designed to
prepare students for teaching careers in
secondary schools. The STEP program is fully
accredited by the Utah State Board of Education
and by the National Council of Accreditation of
Teacher Education. Students who successfully
complete the program are recommended for
secondary licensure in the State of Utah,
enabling them to teach grades 6-12. The
department also offers a minor or endorsement
in English as a Second Language, K-12, and
middle level endorsement jointly with the
Department of Elementary Education.
At the graduate level the department offers both
a Master of Science and Master in Education.
The MS is designed for students who are
interested in more traditional research and who
may plan to work toward a PhD or EdD. The
ME is designed to allow students more
flexibility in the design of their programs with a
choice of completing additional course work, a
portfolio, or a creative project. The department
also offers an EdS degree and participates in an
interdepartmental doctoral program coordinated
by the Dean‘s Office. Students can earn a PhD
or EdD in curriculum and instruction.
Faculty members are expected to engage in
research/scholarly activity and typically have a
20% research role.
programs in special education and rehabilitation
counseling are accredited nationally by NCATE
(National Council for Accreditation of Teacher
Education)
and
CORE
(Council
on
Rehabilitation Education).
Analysis and Assessment
Undergraduate students have a 100% pass rate
on the Professional Portfolio which they develop
as part of their program. Data are also collected
on teacher performance following graduation.
In special education teacher preparation, the
department offers bachelor and post-bachelor
licensing programs in mild/moderate disabilities,
severe disabilities, and early childhood special
education, as well as MS or ME in these fields.
Students may access these programs on campus
or through several distance education programs.
In addition, the department offers dual degree
programs with elementary education and
secondary education, and programs in which
students complete more than one licensing
emphasis in special education.
There are approximately 60 master‘s students
enrolled in course work. When a student has
successfully completed the requirements for
his/her program, a letter of completion is sent to
the graduate school indicating that the student
has completed all requirements for the degree.
Since Fall 1999, 117 students have completed
master‘s degrees in secondary education. Most
students in the master‘s program are employed
full-time and continue working in their schools
when they have finished their degrees. These
programs are evaluated via student surveys at
the time of graduation.
In rehabilitation counseling, the department
offers on-campus and distance education
master‘s programs that prepare students to take
the national Certified Rehabilitation Counselor
(CRC) exam.
No students are currently enrolled in the EdS
program. However, materials (program of study,
for example) have recently been updated and
students are now being recruited into the
program.
Finally, the department offers a doctoral
program in Disability Disciplines. The program
includes four specializations: special education,
applied behavior analysis with individuals with
disabilities, rehabilitation counseling, and
disabilities studies.
Challenges and Recommendations
It is important that the Department of Secondary
Education find permanent leadership and fill
open faculty lines in order to continue to meet
the needs of teaching and scholarly productivity.
It is also recommended that program evaluation
be expanded, particularly at the graduate level.
Analysis and Assessment
In general, the number of undergraduate students
in the department has decreased each year for
the last four years, while the number of graduate
students has increased each year. These changes
reflect a shift in licensing programs from oncampus to distance education-based programs
and a shift in focus to master‘s and doctoral
programs. The department has had a Special
Education doctoral program for many years. In
2002, that program was broadened into the
Disability Disciplines doctoral program. In the
reorganization, special education became one of
four specializations (others are applied behavior
analysis with individuals with disabilities,
rehabilitation counseling, and disabilities
studies).
Special Education and
Rehabilitation
The Department of Special Education and
Rehabilitation (SPER) offers educational
training programs for teachers, supervisors,
support personnel, rehabilitation counselors, and
others working with children and adults with
disabilities. The department is recognized as
one of the nation‘s most productive and
innovative research, development, and training
departments, leading the nation in distance
education for rehabilitation counseling. The
97
In the on-campus undergraduate programs,
evaluation data include student course
evaluations, student practicum evaluations, and
end of major course evaluations. In addition, a
comprehensive evaluation of student teaching
portfolios was undertaken in 2003. These data
have been used to make minor program
adjustments each year. In Fall 2006, a second
student teaching portfolio was undertaken. We
expect to have recommendations from that
review available for Fall 2007 implementation.
within a reasonable time period will continue to
challenge faculty members.
Graduate
programs
have
experienced
unprecedented growth during the past five years.
The principle challenge is to maintain program
quality while fostering additional growth,
especially within the doctoral program.
There are too few minority students in the
programs. To address this issue, the department
has begin to work with The National Center for
Culturally Responsive Educational Systems
(NCCRES). Faculty members from NCCRES
are on the doctoral program‘s advisory board. In
addition, a leading national expert in cultural
linguistic diversity in special education will
address students and faculty as part of the
department-sponsored 2007 Utah Conference on
Effective Practices in Special Education and
Rehabilitation.
Currently, the department has 12 FTE faculty
members, an advisor, a business manager, three
classified and one grant project staff members,
and a technology coordinator. Faculty members
average more than 1.5 refereed publications,
books, and chapters per FTE yearly, and some
$200,000 in external grants per FTE faculty
members. Moreover, both our extension
licensing programs and master‘s programs have
grown steadily over the last five years.
Recruiting minority faculty in the department is
a clear priority. There are few doctoral level
minority faculty and recruiting those individuals
is highly competitive. Although research funds
have become increasing difficult to obtain, the
department was recently awarded two doctoral
preparation grants and National Clearinghouse
of Rehabilitation Training Materials.
The department operations are spread
throughout the Emma Eccles Jones Education
Building and Human Services Research Center.
The annual operating budget for the Department
of Special Education and Rehabilitation has
decreased steadily over the last five years.
The most pronounced challenge in Support
Services is space for faculty members, doctoral
students, and projects. Currently, department
personnel are spread throughout the existing and
adjacent buildings. The new Emma Eccles Jones
Research Building has helped solve some of
these problems, but space will be an issue as
programs continue to grow.
Challenges and Recommendations
The principle challenge in undergraduate
programs is to maintain a viable on-campus
program while continuing to develop off-campus
programs. In addition, providing the depth of
training needed to develop an effective teacher
98
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
Increase efforts for recruitment of minority and
international students at the undergraduate level
is called for. This will be aided by the initiative
of the USU administration led by the Provost‘s
Office to provide for increased opportunity for
international students to study at USU, and also
to provide opportunities for USU students to
study abroad. Undergraduate students majoring
in Biological Engineering will be encouraged to
take advantage of Study Abroad opportunities.
Also, the department makes efforts to offer
international students opportunities to take
classes and to work on research projects in BIE
faculty laboratories.
Biological and Irrigation
Engineering
The mission of the Department of Biological and
Irrigation Engineering (BIE) is to teach students
preparing to become biological engineers how to
apply engineering principles and the knowledge
of biological sciences to the design, control, and
analysis of biological-engineered systems and to
solutions to biotechnology problems.
The
department also prepares students for entry into
other
professions,
including biomedical
engineering,
environmental
engineering,
medicine, and law. Three areas of emphases
within the department include: (1) biomedical,
(2) bioprocess, and (3) bioenvironmental
engineering.
Increase
work-study
and
cooperative
opportunities for undergraduate students. This
will involve making contacts with local private
industries involved in biomedical, bioprocess,
and bioenvironmental products and services.
The BIE Department has 14 full-time faculty
members, with three holding joint or adjunct
appointments in Civil and Environmental
Engineering, one with a joint appointment in
Nutrition and Food Science, and one in
agriculture extension with no teaching
responsibilities.
Recruitment of international students at the
graduate levels will be difficult due to new
regulations and difficulties obtaining admission
to the United States that frustrate international
students.
Increase efforts to recruit international students
at MS and PhD levels into BIE programs.
Discretionary monetary support from the Dean
of the College of Engineering is currently
available. The effort will include international
travel by engineering faculty members for
presentations and discussions with international
students to encourage them to submit
applications. Efforts will also be made to
collaborate with the USU Center for Integrated
Biotechnology for recruitment of students from
the Dominican Republic where the CIB has
submitted proposals for advanced degree
offerings at USU. Successful recruitment will
involve awarding larger stipend and/or
scholarship amounts for graduate students at the
MS and PhD levels.
Degrees offered include BS, MS, and PhD in
Biological Engineering, and MS and PhD in
Irrigation Engineering. The BS Biological
Engineering major is divided into a preprofessional program (freshman and sophomore)
and professional program (junior and senior).
Analysis, Assessment and Challenges,
Recommendations
Recruitment and retention of minority and
international students at the undergraduate level
will be difficult due to the current demographic
composition of Utah. Also, the historical and
current trend of low numbers of Hispanic
students continuing from high school to
university studies presents a challenge with
regard to communication skills, inspiration, and
motivation of Hispanic high school students.
Recruiting American doctoral students is a
challenge for several reasons: high earning
power with a BS degree, low graduate stipends,
99
and the relatively new graduate program in
Biological Engineering is not well known.
A challenge to improve and also maintain a BIE
web site has existed for several years.
The discretionary dollars provided by the dean
in 2007 will be used for BIE faculty members to
travel to targeted schools for presentations and
discussions with faculty and students.
Successful recruitment will involve awarding
larger stipends and/or scholarships for graduate
students at the MS and PhD levels.
The department needs to increase the operating
budget to allow the employment (part-time) of a
web-competent staff person to work with faculty
members to add technical content, to improve
presentation effectiveness, and to allow
continuous updating of information, news, and
events.
Integration or collaboration of the Irrigation
Engineering faculty members with the
Biological Engineering faculty members is a
challenge due to the different activities of the
two groups. The area most likely to accomplish
collaboration is in the conversion of irrigated
biomass to bio-fuels.
The current department operating budget
presents several challenges, including lack of
funds for student travel for field trips, lack of
sufficient number of teaching assistantships for
laboratory-intensive courses, lack of funds for
office supplies, and lack of funds for basic
laboratory supplies.
Exposing Irrigation Engineering faculty to
undergraduates in a formal classroom
environment is a challenge because these faculty
members historically have dedicated their
resources to graduate programs and international
projects.
A way must be found to increase the operating
budget in order to meet operating challenges.
Civil and Environmental
Engineering
Facilitate faculty members‘ involvement in
undergraduate courses through participation in
current courses, including Bioinstrumentation
(BIE 3000), Capstone Design I (BIE 3870), Soilbased Waste Management (BIE 5680), and
Biosensors (BIE 5910).
The Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering (CEE) offers two bachelor‘s
degrees: BS in Civil Engineering and in
Environmental Engineering. Both degrees are
accredited by the Engineering Accreditation
Commission of ABET.
Biological Engineering assistant professors
(2003, 2004, and 2005) struggle with teaching
the new courses in the undergraduate program to
an increasing number of students, due to a lack
of teaching experience.
The department also offers the graduate degrees
of Master of Engineering (ME), Master of
Science (MS), Civil Engineer (CE) and PhD in
Civil and Environmental Engineering. Graduate
specializations
include
environmental
engineering, fluid mechanics and hydraulic
engineering,
geotechnical
engineering,
hazardous waste management, structural
engineering and mechanics, transportation
engineering, water engineering, water resources
engineering, and hydrology.
Encourage full and associate professors to
mentor assistant professors in effective teaching
practices, including planning, executing, and
evaluating processes and procedures.
There is a challenge for the assistant professors
to develop research programs and refereed
journal articles. Senior faculty can help assistant
professors evaluate and select graduate students
to build a research enterprise.
CEE
encompasses
planning,
designing,
constructing, and operating various physical
works; developing and utilizing natural
resources in an environmentally sound manner;
providing the infrastructure which supports the
100
highest quality of life in the history of the world;
and protecting public health; and renovating
impacted terrestrial and aquatic systems from
the mismanagement of toxic and hazardous
wastes.
fluid
mechanics/hydraulics,
geotechnical,
structures, transportation, or water resources.
Analysis and Assessment
Both undergraduate programs are accredited by
the Engineering Accreditation Commission of
the Accreditation Board for Engineering and
Technology (EAC/ABET). The department has
implemented an ongoing process wherein the
goals, objectives, methods, and outcomes of the
academic programs are continually assessed.
The purpose of this assessment is to ensure that
timely and effective measures are identified and
implemented to assure the continued quality of
the educational experience provided by the
department.
The BS program is offered as an on-campus day
program. One co-op (internship) course is
available as a technical elective. Although the
department encourages students to have co-op
experiences as part of their degree program, it is
not a program requirement. The objectives of the
undergraduate programs in CEE are to graduate
engineers who have a solid educational
foundation with broad experiences in
engineering, the sciences, and the humanities;
and who are prepared to enter graduate school,
other professional training, or the workplace as
effective professionals. These graduates will
understand the significance of life-long learning
and the importance of ethical conduct and will
be qualified to assume roles of leadership in
business, community, government, and the
engineering profession, and will contribute
significantly to a global society as a whole.
The department employs several methods to
assess the quality of the two bachelor‘s
programs. Assessments are made prior to
graduation by measuring the performance of
students in each class. In addition, the results of
the FE exam, senior exit interviews, and faculty
review of student portfolios are used.
Postgraduate assessment of CEE graduates is
conducted up to six years after graduation.
Assistance from outside reviewers is also used to
make assessments.
Design is a cornerstone of engineering that
requires creative thinking, technical knowledge,
the ability to organize and solve complex
problems, and teamwork. Engineering design
activities begin during the first two years and
progress in-depth as each student‘s proficiency
increases. These design activities culminate in a
major senior design course, which integrates
past engineering coursework into a focused,
realistic design project. An important feature of
the senior design experience is that students
work in teams to complete the project.
Pre-graduation assessment methods include
students‘ grades, students‘ portfolio (including a
design project), performance on the FE exam,
evaluation of student extracurricular activities,
class evaluations, exit interviews, resumes,
student
society memberships,
volunteer
activities, and other documentation. Postgraduation assessments include records of
students advancing to graduate and/or
professional programs, performance on exams
required for admission to graduate programs
(GRE, LSAT, MCAT, etc.), employment after
graduation, and alumni surveys documenting
professional accomplishments and career
development.
Passing the Fundamentals of the Engineering
Exam (FE) is required for graduation in either of
the Bachelor of Science programs. Students in
the Civil Engineering program must establish
proficiency in at least four areas of civil
engineering. Proficiency is established through a
combination of material covered in required
courses, as well as by establishing depth through
the selection of technical electives. Proficiency
must be established in four of the following
engineering areas: environmental engineering,
Outcomes for CEE programs describe the
attributes that BS graduates should have at the
time of graduation so they will be in a position
to achieve program educational objectives
within several years of graduation. There are
101
five Civil Engineering Program Outcomes and
six Environmental Engineering Program
Outcomes that stress the physical science and
design aspects of civil and environmental
engineering and focus on professional areas that
reflect the breadth of civil and environmental
engineering practice, including the importance
of technical communication in being an effective
professional. ABET accreditation also requires
that BS engineering programs satisfy all 11
ABET Criterion 3 (a-k) requirements.
Civil Engineering program had a weakness in
meeting criteria of proficiency in areas of Civil
Engineering. The Environmental Engineering
program had a concern with low enrollment and
program support.
CEE then made curriculum changes concerning
course requirements and technical electives to
strengthen areas of proficiency in Civil
Engineering. To strengthen the assessment
process in both the Civil and Environmental
programs, changes were made to close the loop
from assessment to recommendation. The
concern for program objectives in the Civil
program was addressed by mapping objectives
to courses and the assessment process. The
Environmental program compiled a set of
recommendations and produced a plan of action
to increase undergraduate enrollment.
The department uses a continuous improvement
process for assessing its programs. The
continuous improvement process starts and ends
with the faculty. CEE faculty members teach
classes that make up the professional and
technical parts of the curriculum. Individual
instructors receive direction from the faculty as a
whole, and then are responsible to teach the
classes in accordance with the direction
received. The following steps are followed in
the process: (1) course notebooks are prepared
by individual faculty members; (2) outcome
notebooks are prepared by faculty assessment
teams; (3) outcomes are assessed by the outcome
assessment teams; (4) recommendations for
action are made by the Department Curriculum
Committee; and (5) CEE faculty take action in
view of recommendations.
A revisit and review by ABET of CEE
corrections was conducted during the 2004-2005
accreditation cycle. Except for the concern with
enrollment in the Environmental Engineering
program, all concerns and weaknesses were
resolved. Both Civil and Environmental
programs were then accredited by ABET until
September 30, 2009. A request to ABET by
January 31, 2008, will be required to initiate a
reaccreditation evaluation visit. A Self-Study
Report must be submitted to ABET by July 1,
2008, and the reaccreditation evaluation will be
a comprehensive general review.
Challenges and Recommendations
In general, recommendations for improvement
from the Department Curriculum Committee
could range from adding a new course or a
component to a specific class or set of classes, to
significantly improve the quality and quantity of
equipment (including computers) in a specific
laboratory.
The continual improvement process of the CEE
department has continued. As of January 1,
2007, recommendations and action have taken
place to: improve safety and safety awareness in
the Department‘s laboratories; initiate a set of
laboratory design experiments; introduce new
subject material on ethics and engineering
practice in existing undergraduate courses;
acquire new equipment for the department‘s
undergraduate
laboratories;
and
adding
additional engineering science courses to
improve.
The last ABET accreditation cycle for the
department‘s BS programs was in 2002-03. The
review identified several concerns and
weaknesses within the department and in the
department‘s assessment process. There was
concern regarding the program objectives for the
Civil Engineering program. The assessment
process was considered to be incomplete and
have a weakness for both the Civil and
Environmental Engineering programs.
The
The overall challenge for CEE is to continue
refining the assessment process and to continue
with the department‘s continuous improvement
program. The concern for increased enrollment
102
in Environmental Engineering is a nation-wide
challenge. The need for and the employment
opportunities for environmental engineers are
significant, and the solution for increased
enrollment will require efforts and resources that
are out of the institutional realm.
Analysis and Assessment
The assessment process in ECE is designed to
provide information about how the courses work
together to achieve local educational objectives
as well as ensure that the criteria of the ABET
accreditation body are achieved. The process is
designed to be a minimal burden on the faculty
while leaving flexibility to adjust courses and
curriculum to changing needs. The assessment
effort in the ECE department serves multiple
purposes. First is to ensure that the overall
curricular needs of the department are met: that
the courses taught cover the outcomes, that there
are no holes in the curricula and that the courses
flow together well. Second to ensure that the
ABET outcomes (a)-(k) of ABET Criterion 3 are
attained by each student. Finally, to work to
ensure that the department program objectives
are being attained by graduates. Because of
these multiple purposes, a variety of input data
are used in the assessment cycle. These include
the following:
Electrical and Computer
Engineering
Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE)
offers a balanced curriculum of class work,
laboratory work, and design experiences to
prepare students for careers in engineering. The
BS programs in Electrical Engineering and
Computer Engineering are accredited by the
Engineering Accreditation Commission of the
Accreditation Board for Engineering and
Technology (EAC/ABET). Research programs
in
the
department,
which
includes
undergraduates as well as graduate students, are
internationally acclaimed in the fields of
aerospace instrumentation and measurements,
communications, electro-magnetics, controls and
robotics, digital design, and signal and image
processing.
Faculty course assessments
Alumni survey
Industrial advisory committee
Senior exit interviews
Senior project jury form
Individual measurements of
outcomes of ABET Criterion 3
The following programs are offered by the
department:
BS in Electrical Engineering (EE)
BS in Computer Engineering (CE)
MS in EE
MS in CE
Master of Engineering (ME) with
specializations in EE and CE
PhD in EE
(a)-(k)
These assessment processes are under the
supervision of the department head, who
delegates operational responsibility to the chair
of the Assessment Committee. An important part
of the assessment process is that every course
has a set of outcomes associated with it. These
outcomes are driven by curricular needs,
research needs, and the program objectives. The
program objectives and how they are modified
are described in the full plan. The assessment
process is viewed as a dynamic, changing, and
even experimental process, which is modified as
we understand better what our goals are and how
to measure progress. The processes of
incorporating change are described in this
document and are themselves constantly
undergoing modifications.
The department currently has 20 faculty
members, consisting of six professors, three
associate professors, seven assistant professors,
one principal lecturer, two research associate
professors, and one emeritus professor teaching
half-time. There are 326 undergraduates and 111
graduate students enrolled.
103
Challenges and Recommendations
Engineering and Technology
Education
The ECE department is stronger than ever. It
had one of its largest graduating classes this year
with 72 BS, 54 master‘s, and 4 PhD degrees
awarded. A new MS degree in Computer
Engineering was recently approved, the first one
in the state. Last year, Hill Air Force Base
approached ECE about offering the ME program
at the base. The program is now being offered
through distance learning and 33 students
already enrolled.
The Department of Engineering and Technology
Education (ETE) offers highly successful
programs at the BS, MS, and PhD degree levels,
preparing engineering and technology education
teachers and offers specialists in aviation
technology either as professional pilots or
maintenance managers. BS, MS, and PhD
degrees are offered in engineering and
technology education; PhD and EdD degrees in
curriculum and instruction are offered through
the College of Education.
ECE is going global by recruiting graduate
students from all over the world. Joint degree
programs have been established with Hangzhou
Dianzi University in China, and the department
is in the process of setting up similar programs
with universities in Slovakia, Germany, and
India. ECE faculty members have visited several
countries in Asia and Europe to recruit students
and set up partnerships. The plan is to offer a
distance education ME program at some of these
partner schools.
With support from a $10M grant from NSF‘s
Center for Learning and Teaching, and many
other funded projects, the department works
with a community of informed and able
researchers and leaders across the country
improving research in emerging engineering and
technology education areas.
ETE values the integration of academic
knowledge with hands-on technical skills. This
is achieved by emphasizing the application of
scientific and technological principles in
extensive laboratory activities. The department
strives to ensure that all graduates obtain
employment to match their interests and
preparation. Industries, educational institutions,
and government agencies benefit from the
unique combination of knowledge and skill that
graduates take to the workplace. In addition, the
department works to improve retention of
freshman and sophomore students, improve the
K-12 preparation of potential engineering
students, and conducts research to improve
understanding of how students learn engineering
and technology concepts.
ECE also have some challenges. Students have
many choices of where to study, both at the
undergraduate and graduate levels. Therefore, it
is always a challenge to recruit high-quality
students. The faculty has to be not only very
good at what it does, but also it needs to market
itself. It is a challenge to maintain teaching
facilities with very little support from the state.
The department has been able to maintain stateof-the-art facilities by raising funds from federal
and private sources. Another challenge is to
recruit high-quality faculty members. Many
factors make this a challenge, including the
limited budget for salary and start-up packages,
geographic location, cultural issues, and the
department‘s lack of international visibility.
The MS degree program is primarily designed
for teachers in the areas of engineering and
technology education, and career and technical
education. The program develops leaders, and
prepares students for a PhD program or other
advanced graduate work. Its purpose is to
increase a teacher‘s background in current
educational theory and practice in engineering
In spite of the above challenges, the ECE
department has been improving in size, quality,
degree programs, and new initiatives. Research
expenditures are strong with about $2.4M last
year. Several faculty members have written
textbooks in the last few years and have received
national awards and honors. Students are highly
sought after and the placement rate is near 100%
before graduation.
104
and technology education, and career and
technical education.
surveys, and exit interviews to determine if the
assessment criteria are being met.
The PhD degree is a specialization in
Curriculum and Instruction (C&I) and is offered
through the College of Education. Students who
complete the specialization program receive a
degree with an area of emphasis in engineering
and technology education. This is a research
degree and is primarily chosen by people who
are seeking teaching/research positions in
colleges and universities. Depending on
students' professional goals and their ability or
inability to attend graduate school full time
during the academic year, they will either be
accepted into the EdD or PhD program.
The aviation program uses FAA exam pass rates
as an indicator of success. In 2006, the pilot
written tests had a 98% first-time success rate
and the pilot practical test a 78% first-time
success rate. Also in 2006, the maintenance
written and practical tests had a 100% overall
first-time success rate.
Challenges and Recommendations
During the past five years, major changes have
occurred in the department. Majors in Welding
Engineering Technology and Electronics/
Computer Technology have been discontinued
as have the associate degree programs in
Drafting and Aviation Mechanics. A new
emphasis in teacher education was launched and
the name of the department was changed to
Engineering and Technology Education
(formerly,
Industrial
Technology
and
Education). It takes time for people to become
familiar with the new name and to ―tell the
story‖ of the new direction. A new focus in the
department is conducting research in
engineering education. Over the past three
years, faculty members have embraced this new
direction and research results are showing great
promise.
The Aviation Technology program offers two
BS degrees: Aviation Technology-Professional
Pilot and Aviation Technology-Maintenance
Management. The program operates an FAA
Part 141 Flight School at the Logan-Cache
Airport. The program is accredited by the
Aviation Accreditation Board International
(AABI).
The department has approximately 267
undergraduate students and 24 graduate
students. The first-year retention rate for 2006 is
76% and the six-year graduation rate is 47%.
The department has 12 full-time faculty
members, with 75% of the faculty having
terminal degrees. Faculty rank is evenly
distributed between professor, associate
professor, assistant professor, and lecturer. In the
teacher education program, 100% of the
graduates receive opportunities for employment
while 80% of the aviation graduates receive
opportunities for employment.
Because of the specialized nature of the
departmental programs and the changes that
have been made, recruitment is a high priority.
ETE must continue to work on advertising and
recruiting quality student. It has been difficult
attracting majors to the ETE major because of
the difficulty in identifying with a changing
program and low salaries that are paid to
teachers.
Analysis and Assessment
The assessment plan for the teacher education
program uses standards written by the
International Technology Teacher Association
(ITEA), Council for Technology Teacher
Education (CTTE), and National Council for
Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE).
The department uses the Praxis exam, student
teaching experience, placement data, employer‘s
The cost of a degree in Professional Pilot is very
high since student must pay the cost of flight
training in addition to the typical tuition and
fees. Recruitment is a challenge and retention
will continue to be problem.
Despite the apparent high quality of graduates
that are being produced by the flight and
maintenance programs, there is room for
105
improvement. The professionalism of the
teaching-learning environment could be
improved dramatically to better prepare
graduates for the environment they will
encounter in the work force. Scheduling,
processes and procedures, neatness, and
appearance can be more highly disciplined and
structured. A number of advances in these areas
were made over the past year in both the flight
and maintenance programs, and more are
planned.
dynamics, aircraft design, spacecraft orbital
mechanics, spacecraft attitude motion and
control, aircraft and spacecraft propulsion
systems, space system design, thermal
management of space deployed systems, and the
space environment. Mechanical Engineering
graduates who choose the aerospace engineering
specialization may pursue careers in aircraft
design and development, aircraft flight testing,
spacecraft and space systems design, and
spacecraft trajectory design and analysis, as well
as traditional mechanical engineering fields.
The aviation program needs to advance its
academic standing and value to the university
through research and publication, both of which
are currently lacking.
The new fleet of
technologically advanced airplanes and the
facilities available in the maintenance lab are
more than adequate to support vital research
efforts in both the flight and maintenance areas.
Computational engineering prepares students to
be proficient in the theory and fundamentals of
engineering, as well as in advanced simulation
techniques
and
numerical
methods.
Computational engineering encompasses the
design, development, and application of
computational systems for the solution of
physical problems in engineering and science.
Computational engineering prepares students to
solve problems of complex systems in
engineering and technology by means of
computational
modeling,
analysis,
and
simulations. Students graduating with this
emphasis will also earn a minor in mathematics.
Those students who complete the computational
engineering emphasis will be prepared to pursue
careers in all fields of mechanical engineering,
including design, simulation, and modeling, and
will also be prepared for graduate studies.
The curriculum needs to be expanded to include
subject areas not currently offered, including
airport management, aviation/organizational
safety, as well as aviation/airport security and
international comparative studies.
Mechanical and Aerospace
Engineering
The Department of Mechanical and Aerospace
Engineering (MAE) provides graduates with a
foundation of knowledge and experience upon
which to build successful careers in mechanical,
aerospace, computational, or manufacturing
engineering, or other fields where a strong
engineering background is required or desirable.
Undergraduate programs emphasize mechanical
engineering fundamentals and computer-based
problem solving, while teaching students to
learn, synthesize, and communicate engineering
information. Graduate programs emphasize
fundamental and applied research, providing
students with enhanced preparation for
engineering practice, research, and education.
Manufacturing engineering concentrates on the
theory of manufacturing systems, including
manufacturing
processes,
design
of
manufacturing systems, product design,
productivity, quality, and life cycle analysis.
Principal
areas
of
emphasis
include
manufacturing automation, machining theory,
mold flow analysis, and materials joining, as
well as flexible manufacturing systems and
computer-integrated manufacturing. Manufacturing engineers are prepared to pursue product
and process design careers in virtually all
manufacturing industries, including electronics,
food processing, and petroleum industries.
Aerospace engineering focuses on atmospheric
and space flight. Included are such disciplines
as computational fluid dynamics, experimental
fluid mechanics, aerodynamics, aircraft flight
Mechanical engineering deals with the creation
of the mechanical systems and machines that
serve society. Areas of emphasis include solid
106
mechanics, thermal/fluids, and dynamics and
control. The solid mechanics emphasis is
concerned with the mechanics of displacement
and stress analysis combined with material
science for selection of an optimum design.
Included are studies of elasticity, plasticity, and
failure in traditional metals and high-tech
composite materials. The thermal/fluids
emphasis is concerned with the transport of
mass, momentum, and energy in solids, liquids,
and gasses. Included within its scope are the
fundamental studies of thermodynamics, heat
transfer, and fluid mechanics. The dynamics and
control emphasis is concerned with describing
and controlling mechanical systems. Included
within its scope are the studies of dynamics,
kinematics, vibrations, control theory, hydraulics
and pneumatics, electromechanical systems, and
machine design.
guidelines, numerous curriculum changes have
been made as part of our continuous
improvement process.
In general, changes deal with strengthening
applications; hands-on laboratory experience;
redesigning the capstone design sequence;
broadening some courses; and adding sections of
some courses to accommodate graduation
schedules; emphasizing teamwork, engineering
analysis, critical design presentation; final report
writing; and design and shop drawings in the
senior design project—getting away from
machine shop or cad program design; adopting a
more stringent policy that allows students to
repeat a course only once; and strengthen
student exposure to professional/ethical issues in
the curriculum by requiring it in three courses.
Graduates who select the broad mechanical
engineering specialization are prepared to pursue
careers in such widely diverse disciplines as
aerospace, automotive, building, chemical,
defense, electronics, environmental engineering,
food processing, heating and air conditioning,
heavy equipment, machine tools, manufacturing,
nuclear, petroleum, public utilities, and solar
energy.
The assessment data show that MAE graduates
are competitive in many arenas.
They
consistently rank high in intercollegiate design
competitions; they have a relatively high passing
rate on the national Fundamentals in
Engineering exam; they are enjoying excellent
careers; they are entrepreneurs; they earn
terminal degrees at prestigious institutions; they
have earned other professional degrees in
medicine, law, and business.
Analysis and Assessment
Challenges and Recommendations
The MAE faculty meets with an Industrial
Advisory Board annually to (1) discuss desired
competencies of USU/MAE graduates, (2)
identify competency gaps and strengths of
students and graduates, and (3) note areas of
emphasis based on faculty expertise, student
strengths, and market demands.
The department‘s greatest challenge is to
manage its dynamic growth in enrollments and
research productivity. Required undergraduate
classes are too large for maximum learning.
Budget constraints prevent the department from
developing the support infrastructure needed for
such growth. Since 2003:
The MAE department head conducts senior exit
interviews. Key outcomes of these interviews
are presented to the faculty during its spring
retreat held after graduation.
Undergraduate enrollment increased
24%;
Graduate student enrollment increased
59%, including 100% increase in PhD
candidates;
Faculty research productivity as
measured by research publications,
winning
research
grants,
patent
applications, and students involved in
research has more than doubled.
Based on input from the USU/MAE Advisory
Board, senior exit interviews, student course
evaluations, alumni surveys, nationally based
comparative data on the fundamentals of
engineering exam, student design competitions,
annual faculty retreats, and ABET accreditation
107
COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES, ARTS, AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
Graduate student enrollment, a resource for
teaching the Foundations courses, has dropped
significantly. Without competitive stipends and
tuition waivers, the fate of the program is in
danger of further diminishment. Art graduate TA
stipends are at roughly 25 per cent of national
levels. The ability to attract students nationally
and internationally is based solely on the
research and creative efforts of the faculty and
their individual reputations as artists.
Art
With approximately 350 majors, Art is the
largest department in the Caine School of the
Arts. The department offers five degrees (BS,
BA, MA, BFA, MFA) and eight emphasis areas
(Ceramics, Painting, Print-making, Photography,
Graphic Design and Illustration, Art Education,
and Art History) These programs share a
common first-year Foundations program, but
maintain separate studios and curricula.
Although art is intrinsically equipment and
technology intensive, funding is inadequate.
Much of the department‘s equipment is older
than the building that houses it. In past years,
the department managed what might be called
―appropriate technology‖, such as kilns, wood
shop, foundry, printmaking studios, etc. But the
advent of the computer and other technologies
have made it impossible to adequately meet
student and faculty needs with a budget that has
not increased since the 1980‘s. Indeed, it is
impossible to maintain the existing equipment,
let alone replace or update it. A wood shop
technician is needed for the safety of students
and faculty. A specialist in running the facility
who also holds the MFA would offer seminars
on operating safely the dangerous saws, drills,
etc., as well as be able to teach Foundations
classes requiring these technical skills.
The department has 15 tenure or tenure-track
positions, 3 coordinators/professional staff, 4
temporary lecturers, 4 part-time instructors, and
2 office staff. For AY 2007-08, two of the
tenure-track positions will be undergoing a
national search, one sabbatical is in place, and 2
part-time instructors will be joining the faculty.
Analysis and Assessment
The Art Department faculty has changed
dramatically in recent years. It has lost key
individuals to other institutions because of low
salaries. There is a disproportionate ratio of
untenured to tenured faculty, as retirements
occur and new faculty members take their place.
Temporary replacements have not been very
effective in building programs and recruiting
students. Hiring and retaining quality faculty
will become more difficult as university
standards become higher, while salaries do not
keep pace with peer institutions.
Space issues plague the department. While
some the studios, notably printmaking, painting,
and ceramics are adequate, other spaces do not
support their areas nearly as well. The sculpture
program languishes in the University Reserve
garage in an under-equipped space that should
be 4-5 times larger. Flexible exhibition and
critique space is also missing. Finally, the most
immediate and glaring issue remains the lack of
a dedicated laboratory gallery for students and
faculty. The Tippets Gallery has become a
shared location for music recitals, wedding
receptions, job fairs, etc. Without a committed
gallery site for the BFA senior project and MFA
thesis exhibitions, or a space available to art
To maintain credible programs curriculum, there
needs be a minimum of two positions in each
area. Because they serve the entire department
(and the campus at large), the number in Art
History needs to be greater. There is a pressing
need for dedicated foundations positions, which
will also serve other departments. Serving
majors is also a challenge. The limited number
of instructors necessitates a smaller program.
108
historians for curating shows, the professional
installation experience over a period of time is
unavailable. The department seeks to regain the
Tippets and rehabilitate this space or to find new
space at another location.
plan. Developing more space for sculpture,
dedicating a space for critique of projects and
finding better accommodations for artists-in
residencies would enhance quality in all areas.
● Technology. Technological improvements,
such as replacing outmoded and nonworking
computer equipment, providing more digital
projectors, scanners, and support materials will
be mandatory to maintain the continued success
of the faculty instruction and research. In a
visual arts program, keeping abreast of the
current developments in technology is crucial,
especially for Graphic Design, Photography, Art
Education and Printmaking, as well as for other
educational technology use in the classrooms.
Challenges and Recommendations
● Student Recruitment. USU‘s isolated location makes it difficult to maintain an effective
recruiting effort. Marketing the program as a
more personal, tutorial experience may be a key.
Constant updating and redesigning of the website to attract a diverse, culturally informed, and
well-prepared group of undergraduate students is
necessary. Working on strategies for portfolio
reviews, attending graduate fairs, developing the
alumni base, etc. must be targeted for graduate
admissions and retention. Faculty development
is also crucial to attracting good students.
● Graduate Stipends. Compared to nationally
competitive programs or peer institutions, the
recruitment at USU suffers dramatically due to
low profile of support funding for graduates. If
the ability to target new development funds for
first year graduates were made a priority, the
department could build a significant and highly
successful program in the immediate future.
● Faculty Recruitment. Establishing a wider
pool of adjunct faculty, diversifying the current
makeup of probationary faculty and, most
importantly, adding two more crucial positions
is an important direction to pursue. After the
Printmaking and Art History searches are
completed, a position in Digital Photography,
one of the healthiest programs in terms of
enrollment, will be pursued. A new hire in
Foundations/Drawing and Painting lesson the
reliance upon adjunct faculty and provide
leadership for the Foundations students.
English
The Department of English is committed to
studying the history, theory, and teaching of
literature and language; to developing the
practice of writing in creative, academic, and
professional environments; and to promoting an
interdisciplinary perspective on diverse cultures.
This commitment is carried out in a professional
learning community that fosters interaction of
students, faculty, alumni, and interested external
constituents and that integrates technology into
its educational and administrative activities. As
the largest arts and humanities unit on the USU
campus, the department has an important role in
providing liberal arts education.
It offers
academic programs for majors on the bachelor‘s,
master‘s, and doctoral levels, and it supplies
courses that meet communication and
humanities requirements for University Studies.
As a unit in the state's land-grant university, the
department supports an outreach program that
includes distance education, opportunities for
● NASAD Accreditation. The department‘s
national accrediting agency, the National
Association of Schools of Art and Design, has a
highly recognized program for accrediting
university and college art institutions and
departments. Parents and prospective students
are increasingly aware of NASAD accreditation,
and acceptance into this program would improve
recruitment efforts and quality control.
● Facilities. With an improved venue for
student and faculty exhibitions, either through
the upgrade and dedicated gallery space at
Tippets, or relocating the lab, the most important
capstone experience for both undergraduate and
graduate students, as outlined by NASAD
guidelines, would be cemented into the degree
109
professional training, and the dissemination of
research and creative activity to academic and
community audiences.
designed in 1911 as an irrigation building and
later housing the colleges of Engineering and
then Education, Ray B. West was never
remodeled to meet the needs of the English
Department.
Consequently,
classrooms,
laboratory spaces, and faculty offices, while
perhaps suiting the former occupants, do not in
any way meet the demands of a growing
department in the 21st century.
Analysis and Assessment
Although very diverse in its programs, the
department today enjoys harmony and dynamic
vitality in its programs and activities. All
programs share a commitment to the responsible
integration of technology into higher education,
reflected in the numerous initiatives in online
education underway across the department. The
department's cohesiveness is also the result of
ongoing assessment procedures in all programs
over the last eight years, an activity that has
given the faculty a renewed sense of common
mission and purpose. Two master‘s programs,
Technical Writing and Folklore, have national
reputations and continue to gain strength; the
new PhD program in Theory and Practice of
Professional Communication is off to a strong
start.
Likewise, the department's operating budget is
wholly inadequate to its size and mission. In Fall
2006, the department had 79 FTE in
instructional faculty and staff plus 14 FTE in
tutors and computer consultants working in the
Writing Center (total department headcount is
130 employees). All of these individuals are on
site and require supplies and support. The
department‘s operating budget for 2006-07 is
$86,121. Across the university, the average
figure for operating per FTE is $2,785. The
average figure for English is approximately
$926 or a mere one-third of the average on this
campus.
The undergraduate program in English education
has been singled out in College of Education
accreditation reviews as a successful model of a
cooperative program in teacher education. The
undergraduate technical and professional writing
program enjoys notable success in job
placement. The undergraduate programs in
literary studies and American studies have
increased the numbers of majors substantially
and are on their way to recognition. The
graduate program in literature and writing has
undertaken a major reassessment and revision of
its program over the last two years. Finally, it
should be noted that among students, especially
undergraduates, English is a program of choice
rather than last resort, and English students
across the board do well in terms of academic
performance and job placement.
Graduate student stipends are so low that the
department cannot compete for good graduate
students. Faculty salaries at all ranks are
approximately 20% below those of peer
institutions. Several areas in the department are
understaffed at the moment, and the department
has little opportunity to acquire new positions.
The last concern is the university library.
Despite the dedicated efforts of the library's
staff, the collections and research facilities
remain inadequate to the needs of a research
university.
A second major area of concern is curriculum
management. The department attempts to offer
too many specialized programs without the
necessary faculty staffing. In part, this situation
is a result of constricted hiring caused by severe
budget cuts to the College of Humanities, Arts,
and Social Sciences. In part, it is a result of the
success of the department: student demand is
high, and the department works very
successfully to meet student needs. However,
the department must consider reducing the size
of its curriculum so that it can better manage
staff needs.
Challenges and Recommendations
The department also has concerns: resources
pose a major problem. The building in which the
department is housed (Ray B. West) is
completely inadequate to its needs. The building
itself is dilapidated and dangerous. Originally
110
The department has assigned a faculty member
to serve as assistant department head for external
instruction. This person‘s early efforts will be to
negotiate a comprehensive history degree to be
offered at all regional campuses. The plan is to
add two new PhD lines in history at these
campuses.
History
The History Department offers BA/BS, with a
general history emphasis and a history teaching
emphasis. It offers minors in the same programs,
along with minors in classical civilization, Latin,
and Greek. On the graduate level, it provides an
MA/MS in History, and it cooperates in the
MSS degree.
Faculty members also teach online courses as far
away as China. Others provide outreach to
history teachers to increase knowledge of
American history. This project, funded by the
U.S. Department of Education, has reached
some 50-100 teachers annually since 2001.
Its 20 tenure-track faculty members, one senior
lecturer, and one visiting instructor all have
PhDs. They offer a wide range of courses. With
a standard load of 2/2, which is a mix of one
large survey, one small seminar, and two upper
division courses, they teach a set of courses that
are defined geographically, chronologically, or
thematically. The department has its greatest
depth and strength in the modern American
West, the classical world, and early modern
Europe. Three faculty members also provide
courses in Latin and Classical Greek.
History‘s graduate program is small, very
successful within its limits, and poorly funded.
Our students place very well, but we have
trouble recruiting our top candidates because we
cannot offer competitive stipends or a PhD.
Analysis and Assessment
Student surveys, institutional data, results from
the capstone course, and graduate placement
suggest that the History Department is doing an
effective job of meeting its goals as a teaching
unit.
The department expects all of its tenure-track
faculty members to define their primary area of
excellence as research, as befits a research
university. The department has long had clear
expectations for tenure and promotion, and its
faculty members regularly exceed the basic
expectation.
Faculty productivity, measured in terms of
books, articles, translations, grants, fellowships,
editing journals, conference participation, and
consulting is consistent and healthy across the
faculty. Budget constraints depress the levels of
professional activity in the department.
A fine research department, History is a very
fine teaching department, as well. With group
teaching evaluations consistently above the
average for the university and the college, and
with a number of nationally recognized teachers
on its faculty, it attracts undergraduates. In
recent years it has experienced rapid growth in
the number of majors and minors, officially
numbering 300 in Fall 2007, creating a staffing
problem. It does not depend on adjuncts or
graduate students to teach its surveys. History is
ethically committed to front loading the
curriculum, and to treating nontenure-track
faculty members as full members of the
community.
Challenges and Recommendations
There are three challenges facing the History
Department
Insufficient operating money reduces faculty
development support and the number of students
that can be taught. The annual ―one-time‖
budget reductions based on total budgets have
created a major crisis.
Restoration of budget cuts and augmentation of
the budgeted operating money is necessary.
History is heavily engaged in fulfilling USU‘s
land-grant mission, with three members of the
faculty at the Uintah Basin Regional Campus.
111
Staffing is a challenge as the major has grown
rapidly. It is becoming very difficult to provide
enough seats for majors, general education
students, and other ―users‖ of History‘s services,
such as International Business and International
Relations.
The Interior Design Program educates students
for entry into the profession by fostering
learning environments that are progressive and
innovative, while based in the knowledge of
traditional aesthetics and historical precedent.
The program emphasizes foundational technical
skills as well as the study of art and design.
Additionally, the program promotes global
awareness, sustainability, and the recognition of
diverse cultures as they relate to interior design.
More faculty members are needed in proportion
to the growth of the major and the insatiable
demand for General Education courses.
The department is heavily weighted toward 20th
century American and European history. Only
seven people cover the entirety of history before
about 1880, and our Colonial America person is
retiring. The geographical field distribution is
equally problematic. Outside of Europe and the
United States, we have one faculty member per
continent. This is especially troubling in the area
of Asian history, since our Asian historian is .5
FTE.
Program faculty members are active in creative,
professional,
and
research
endeavors,
contributing new knowledge both to the
classroom and the field in general. Their work
has also received national awards. Because of
the quality of its faculty and students, the
program is on its way to establishing a national
reputation.
New faculty members who are added must work
in chronological and geographical areas not now
represented in the department.
Over the past few years, the program has made
progress toward moving from a program to a
department in the College of Humanities, Arts,
and Social Sciences. It has a large number of
majors, and demand for the program continues
to increase.
Analysis and Assessment
Interior Design
Student surveys reveal that undergraduate
students find jobs in their field and are generally
satisfied with the curriculum. Additionally, the
program offers both undergraduate and graduate
students the chance to study abroad, visit major
design centers in the United State (such as New
York and Los Angeles), and interact with
nationally and internationally known designers.
Utah State University‘s Interior Design Program
is the only accredited interior design program in
Utah. Student interest in and demand for the
program is high. It has been in existence since
1980 and recently emerged as a stand-alone
program when the College of Family Life was
dissolved in 2002-03. The program has typically
had three tenured faculty (with one two-year
period in which there were two). During the
period of the self-study, the program had one or
two lecturers, one staff person, four to seven
graduate students, and 116-215 undergraduate
majors.
Both undergraduate and graduate students have
been extraordinarily successful in international,
national, and regional design competitions. This
fact is a testament to the students‘ talents, the
value of the curriculum, and the guidance of the
professors in the Interior Design Program.
The program provides an undergraduate degree
and a master‘s degree. Students can follow one
of two paths for their undergraduate degree: the
studio emphasis or the design sales and
marketing emphasis.
While faculty numbers are small and teaching
course loads are too heavy, the faculty has a
record of scholarly and service productivity.
The program‘s teaching evaluation scores are
routinely at and frequently above college and
university averages.
112
classes. Despite these challenges, the story of
the Interior Design Program in the last few years
is one of accomplishment and growth.
The program is housed in suitable office space,
and the regular classrooms it teaches in are
adequate. However, it is severely understaffed,
under-funded, and its studio classrooms are
overcrowded and inadequate.
Intensive English Language
Institute
Challenges and Recommendations
The Intensive English Language Institute (IELI)
is an academic English as a Second Language
(ESL) program for international graduate and
undergraduate students who have been admitted
to Utah State University and for students who
want to study English for personal and
professional reasons. IELI also serves visiting
scholars, post-doctorates, and government and
corporate-sponsored students. In addition to
intensive language education, IELI provides
training for international teaching assistants and
is involved in teacher education projects at USU
and abroad. IELI serves the world community
through program and curriculum development,
teaching, and consulting.
Compared to other departments on campus and
at peer institutions and given its number of
majors, Interior Design is greatly understaffed.
This reality is a major challenge when it comes
to staffing the necessary graduate and
undergraduate courses. Also, in the past, course
loads have been too heavy (from 20 – 27 credits
per year in some cases). The recommendation in
the face of this challenge is to increase the
faculty and staffing. The program needs a
director, three more tenure-line faculty
members, a lecturer, and a staff person.
The program is significantly under-funded in
four areas: funding to cover all course offerings
(especially courses taught by lecturers and
adjuncts), funding for graduate students, travel
funding, and funding for classroom equipment.
Under funding in these areas has a deleterious
effect on both teaching and research. The
recommendation is to work with USU
administration to increase funding sources in
each of these areas.
The major goal of the IELI program is to
provide students with the language skills and
cultural orientation necessary to be successful
students in the USU classrooms and willing
participants in the university community. To
accomplish these ends, the core program is one
of academic English, informed by faculty
investigations of university classroom practice.
Implicit in all classroom teaching is a cultural
orientation to American values, the American
educational system, and aspects of campus life
in general.
Because it emerged from another department
and college and also due to its growth and
development, the Interior Design degrees need
some realignment. The program will review its
undergraduate studio emphasis with an eye
toward instituting a BFA for that emphasis. It
needs to change the title of its master‘s degree
from the old ―Human Environments (Interior
Design)‖ to a degree that simply reads ―Interior
Design.‖
Interior Design also needs to
strengthen the graduate program through an inhouse curricular review and the hiring of the
aforementioned tenure-line faculty members.
The activities of IELI directly support the
university‘s current mission to provide highquality instruction, encourage cultural diversity,
and internationalize the campus.
IELI teaches ESL courses with emphasis on
language learning, study skills, and cultural
awareness to non-native speakers of English for
the purpose of satisfying the language
proficiency requirement for study at USU.
Finally, the program needs to maintain its
national (Council for Interior Design
Accreditation, CIDA) accreditation and find
more studio space for its overcrowded studio
All IELI courses are credit bearing, and IELI
offers a three-semester program of 18 credit
113
hours per semester at each of four levels—
beginning (Level 1), low intermediate (Level 2),
high intermediate (Level 3), and advanced
(Level 4). The skill courses are in reading,
writing, speaking, and listening. The Topics
courses at Levels 1-3 and the Cross-Cultural
Perspectives course at Level 4 are content-based
courses designed to offer practice in all of the
language skills. A placement exam is given to
determine level of English language ability.
completing
the
IELI
program.
Some
international students are admitted for English
Only. Residents who have completed high
school in the United States are not required to
take IELI courses; however, these students often
elect to do so or their advisors recommend that
they enroll.
As shown by the table below, a majority of IELI
students are from East Asia. Recently, however,
many have come from Saudi Arabia and the
Dominican Republic.
IELI faculty members participate in the
Undergraduate Teaching Fellows Program,
International Teaching Assistant Workshops, the
Masters of Second Language Teaching (MSLT)
program offered by the Language Department,
distance education in China, teacher training
workshops for teachers of English in foreign
countries, and special programs for high school
graduates or college students in other countries
who are on the USU campus.
Country of Origin of IELI students (Fall, 20012006)
Country Number
Country Number
Argentina
2
Japan
135
Brazil
7
Korea
233
Cambodia
10
Lebanon
4
Chad
2
Malaysia
5
Chile
8
Mexico
14
China
72
Nigeria
4
Columbia
2
Oman
3
Congo
6
Pakistan
1
Cuba
1
Peru
5
Czechoslovakia 4
Puerto Rico
2
Dominican
Russia
1
Republic
62
Saudi Arabia
39
El Salvador
4
Somalia
1
Ethiopia
9
Spain
11
Gaza
1
Taiwan
87
Guatemala
2
Thailand
25
Hong Kong
15
Ukraine
1
Hungary
2
United Arab
India
6
Emirates
2
Indonesia
1
Unkown
13
Italy
3
United States
40
Ivory Coast
3
Venezuela
15
All IELI faculty members hold tenured or
tenure-track positions. The faculty has an 87.5%
teaching role and the other 12.5% is divided
between scholarship and service. Members of
the faculty present papers at local, regional,
national, and international conferences; write
textbook chapters, textbooks, and software for
teaching activities; and serve as officers in
professional organizations. Members of the
faculty also serve on committees such as the
Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
Undergraduate Curriculum Committee and the
Benefits and Welfare Committee of the Faculty
Senate.
Faculty members have received Advisor of the
Year honors from the College of Humanities,
Arts, and Social Sciences (HASS) and one
member was named Advisor of the Year for
Utah State University. One faculty member has
been honored as Teacher of the Year for the
HASS, and the Utah State Board of Education
honored another for use of technology in the
classroom. IELI students are from countries
outside of the United States for whom English is
a foreign language. Other students are U.S.
residents for whom English is not their heritage
language.
International students are preadmitted to the university conditional upon
Successes
Establishment of distance education
projects in two universities in China
Establishment of a relationship with the
Master of Second Language Teaching
(MSLT) program to bring graduate
student instructors into IELI and to
provide
opportunities
for
IELI
professors to teach in the MSLT
program
114
The faculty‘s scholarly accomplishments and the high level of involvement
in professional organizations given their
87.5% teaching load
Donors willing to provide scholarships
for IELI students
Enrollees struggle with high tuition costs for
IELI courses and no resident summer tuition
during the summer for IELI students.
The department recommends developing and
funding a recruiting plan, adopting the same
reduction in summer tuition for IELI students as
it gives other international students, and
arranging visits by administrators to campus
departments to learn how to serve them better.
Analysis and Assessment
At the end of each semester, students in each
level are given a survey to evaluate the IELI
program and student services. These surveys are
compiled and used to implement change as
necessary. Records of students‘ GPAs are kept
for three semesters after they leave IELI. This
information shows progress after IELI.
Journalism and Communication
Journalism and Communication (JCOM)
produces undergraduates who specialize in
print/web journalism, broadcasting, and public
relations/corporate
communications.
The
department also has a small graduate program to
prepare students for PhD programs at other
schools or to sharpen professionals‘ skills in
mass communication.
Each semester, faculty members assess two
Level 4 skill areas of reading, writing, listening,
and speaking by analyzing exercises from these
courses.
At the end of each semester, faculty members
respond to a survey about the appropriateness of
the textbook and the objectives on their syllabi.
Analysis and Assessment
The JCOM program enjoys a reputation
throughout the Intermountain West for
producing students with excellent skills in the
mass media as well as grounding in current
issues of free expression, diversity, and law. The
Pacific Northwest Newspaper Association
described JCOM in 1998 as ―the best
professionally oriented journalism program in
Utah,‖ and while that accolade is nearly a
decade old, there is much evidence to suggest it
is still true. JCOM graduates continue to receive
entry-level newspaper, television, and PR jobs
throughout the country. In 2005, USU students
won more awards in the Society of Professional
Journalists Mark of Excellence contest than
students from the University of Utah or Brigham
Young University, and, in 2006, USU students
were named Utah PR Student of the Year by the
Public Relations Society of America and by
Richter 7, a major Salt Lake City PR firm.
In monthly faculty meetings, faculty members
discuss curriculum, student progress, program
review, textbooks, and other issues.
Student evaluations and peer evaluations are
conducted.
Faculty members give midterm grades to the
students and notify them of their standing.
Challenges and Recommendations
Declining enrollment at both the undergraduate
and graduate level is due to a lack of a university
recruiting plan for international students.
Budget cuts affect hiring new faculty and
operating of the program.
The program needs a budget line item to support
an office assistant to help the student advisor.
The JCOM major has proved popular with
undergraduates. The number of majors has risen
from just over 100 in the mid-1990s to more
than 300 in 2006, including those students in the
115
―premajor core‖ who have expressed interest in
declaring journalism. While the number of
broadcasting and print majors has held relatively
steady, the majority of growth has occurred in
the public relations sequence, which was created
in the mid-1990s. However, while the number of
majors has increased dramatically, the number
of faculty has held steady. The number of filled
faculty lines was nine in 1995, and it is nine in
2007. (A 10th line, opened early in the decade,
remains unfilled because of university and
college budget cuts.) Thus, the student-faculty
ratio remains an ongoing concern.
The JCOM department will face these
challenges by relying on its strengths: its
reputation for producing top-notch graduates; its
creative and adaptive faculty; and its ability to
use its own communication skills to market itself
to the university, the community, and the state.
The department hopes to fill its open faculty line
when economic conditions improve, and to
attract excellent new colleagues from top
journalism schools. The department will best
position itself to achieve its goals by working
with the College of HASS and the central
administration, keeping the department an
integral part of USU.
JCOM faculty members have an excellent mix
of academic and professional achievements.
Five of the nine faculty members have PhDs.
Eight of nine have extensive backgrounds of
work in print media, broadcasting, or public
relations. They enjoy national reputations in
their field—one was a Pulitzer Prize juror.
Another was president of the American
Journalism Historians Association. They
contribute to the department‘s high profile at
USU, in Utah, and in the region.
Landscape Architecture and
Environmental Planning
The Department of Landscape Architecture and
Environmental Planning (LAEP) is the only
such program in the Intermountain West. At the
undergraduate level, the department offers a
Bachelor of Landscape Architecture (BLA)
degree. Graduate degrees include a Master of
Landscape Architecture (MLA) and the Master
of Science in Landscape Architecture and
Environmental Planning (MS).
Challenges and Recommendations
JCOM faces a variety of challenges in the next
few years. Half the department faculty members
are nearing retirement age. The physical
facilities are in need of upgrades. But, the appeal
of the major shows no sign of declining, as
communication jobs remain popular and are
forecast to expand in numbers in Utah in the
next decade.
Analysis and Assessment
LAEP has long been recognized as a national
leader in the education of landscape architects.
The department has produced more than 1,300
graduates since its founding in 1939, and boasts
a community of alumni practicing in some 40
states and 10 countries. Graduates with both the
BLA and MLA degrees are highly sought after
for employment in private and public practice,
as well as in academia. Many former LAEP
students now hold top executive positions in
leading corporations, or serve in managerial
positions with government agencies such as the
National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, and
Bureau of Land Management.
Faculty members will need to find ways to bring
in new sources of revenue to augment the JCOM
department budget. They will need to bring
changes to the curriculum to keep abreast of
changes in subject matter, software, law, and the
changing nature of American newsrooms to
―integrate‖ or ―converge‖ the various forms of
mass media. Finally, an ongoing challenge is to
achieve national accreditation, which would
raise the profile of the department even higher
and make the JCOM department eligible for
large grants from foundations.
BLA recipients have been very successful in
pursuing graduate degrees. Though not
necessary for a professional career, 20-25% of
graduates seek a second degree in the field.
116
Among
graduates
seeking
immediate
employment, recent placement has been 100%.
Degree recipients from USU are distinguished
both by their creative problem-solving skills and
abilities as well as their understanding of
practical hands-on application. Students are
instilled with an environmental ethic and a
commitment to sustainable development of the
earth‘s resources.
cross-disciplinary collaborations. Junior faculty
members have continued the bridge-building
tradition, developing new connections with
other departments on campus, federal and state
agencies, and foundations. Several faculty
members are active in organizing exchange
programs with European universities.
All faculty members had professional experience
in landscape architecture or planning prior to or
during their time at USU. Three retain active
consulting practices, with projects varying from
residential scale to thousands of acres. Faculty
members frequently are asked to joint venture
with private practitioners in the state. Others
pursue research/creative activities, interacting
with colleagues at other universities, both
domestic and foreign, and with various
government agencies. Faculty members are also
active in professional organizations (ASLA,
CELA, AIP, APA, SER, TWS and others),
national, state and local advisory boards and
other organizations. Five faculty members are
licensed landscape architects, one an ACIP.
The department enjoys an excellent reputation
on campus and in the region. It has been
designated a Center of Excellence by the State
Board of Regents. The faculty is well grounded
in the body of knowledge of landscape
architecture, resulting from their efforts and
experience in research and practice. All faculty
members have the terminal degree in their
field; MLA degrees (8) and MUP (1) and the
department head holds a Juris Doctor. Six
faculty members also have bachelor‘s degrees
in landscape architecture. In addition, two
faculty members have second master‘s degrees,
one in urban design and one in fisheries and
wildlife biology.
Challenges and Recommendations
Resident in the faculty are specializations that
are compatible with the department‘s teaching,
research, and service missions. The diversity of
specializations has made it possible for the
department to accommodate a variety of student
interests. It has also helped sustain diverse and
significant research and environmental field
service
programs.
Professional
degree
qualifications and a diversity of specialization
have helped the department attract high-quality
students.
The practice of landscape architecture is heavily
based in computer applications: Computer Aided
design (CAD), Geographic Information Systems
(GIS), 3-D Simulation, and various other
simulation and analysis programs. The cost of
maintaining current software and hardware for
the program is not adequately addressed in the
central budgeting process, leaving our overhead
budget vastly inadequate to deal with the annual
costs. In addition, the faculty must expend time
annually maintaining currency in the software
for both teaching and research purposes. This is
particularly problematic for senior faculty who
began teaching before computer use became
integral to the profession.
The faculty, particularly senior members, has
built cooperative bridges with many
departments on campus over the past 30 years.
These associations have lead to reciprocal guest
lectures, interdisciplinary seminars, studios,
enhanced class access, research projects, an
interdisciplinary certificate program, and a
proposed joint master‘s degree offering.
LAEP‘s faculty-student ratio needs to be
reduced. It is critical for the department to obtain
additional full-time faculty lines in order to meet
accreditation standards. In addition, the current
demand for landscape architects vastly outstrips
the current graduating class. With additional
faculty lines the department could increase its
The faculty has also been instrumental in
guiding the development of the new School of
the Arts, a consortium of arts-related
departments that promises improvements in
117
graduating class in both the graduate and
undergraduate cohorts.
An active and effective alumni advisory board
provides the department with the outside and
professional perspective.
In order to attract top graduate students, it is
necessary for the department to increase
graduate student funding. This can be
accomplished by endowed graduate student
fellowships, and also by increasing research
funding. In order to increase the ability of
faculty members to apply for and complete
more research grants, the department must
reduce teaching demands to a 10-12 credit load
per year.
The low level of faculty and staff funding and
support funding, combined with high teaching
loads is not conducive to high department
morale. The department lacks a budgetary
model that incorporates the provision of
essential computer software, hardware, and
peripherals.
The department lacks significant gender,
racial, and cultural diversity within the student
population.
Another issues is that faculty salaries lag
behind national averages at comparable
institutions. The salaries for landscape
architects are increasing rapidly nationally, a
situation which will make it difficult for the
department to recruit new faculty members
upon imminent retirements.
Challenges and Recommendations
Begin an inclusive long-range planning process
to foster better communication among the
faculty, and develop a plan to guide future
actions and decisions.
Analysis and Assessment
Reduce studio class sizes to be in line with
recommended 15-1 faculty/student ratio.
Among the strengths of LAEP are the skills of
a dedicated faculty and staff.
Reestablish systematic reviews of curriculum
and courses by the faculty.
LAEP faculty members and students work
with people in complementary research
centers on campus which allows students
(particularly at the graduate level) to
specialize in a particular knowledge area.
Take steps to more effectively and consistently
integrate computer applications at critical points
of the curriculum.
The department graduates students who have
a strong breadth and depth of skills and
knowledge and are highly regarded in the
field.
Identify steps to clarify student internship
process and availability.
Explore methods to establish a centralized image
collection that would be accessible to both
faculty and students.
Community outreach programs for both
graduate
and
undergraduate
students
incorporate real projects into the classroom.
Languages, Philosophy and Speech
Communication
The department has excellent facilities that
allow studio teaching formats as well as
traditional lectures.
Languages,
Philosophy
and
Speech
Communication (LPSC) is an eclectic
department that offers 5 majors and 10 minors at
the undergraduate level and 1 graduate program,
a master‘s degree in Second Language Teaching
(MSLT). The French, German, and Spanish
Faculty members and students have improved
access to computers and technology through
the donation of software by ESRI. Students
are required to own their own computers.
118
majors/minors and the Speech minor all have an
additional teaching emphasis option. The
department has 23 regular tenure-track faculty
members, two full-time lecturers, three part-time
lecturers and one visiting professor. Fourteen of
these 29 faculty members are females and 15 are
male. Of those who are tenure track, seven are
full professors (this includes the department
head and one faculty member who is on longterm disability), 10 are associate professors, and
6 are assistant professors. Tenure-track faculty
members are all active in research and student
advising. In addition, the department routinely
employs six graduate teaching assistants and
roughly 11 adjunct professors every semester.
majors are distinct enough that class
requirements are entirely separate (whereas most
other departments have certain basic or method
courses that can be used to cover requirements
in multiple degrees or areas of emphasis) smaller
majors such as German and French need to
cover entire programs with very few faculty
members (the French program currently has two
and the German program 2.5 instructors). On the
other hand, the largest major, Spanish, is faced
with long student waiting lists to get into courses
and ―bottleneck‖ courses that serve as key
prerequisites.
The Philosophy and Speech Communication
programs also deal with a high student demand,
due in part to the number of ―service‖ courses
and the increase in Speech Communication
majors (roughly 300% rise in five years). It is
also worth noting that the increase of majors has
occurred even when there has not been a
corresponding increase in the number of
students at USU.
The department has 301 undergraduate majors
spread across five majors (French, German,
Philosophy,
Spanish,
and
Speech
Communication) and more than 800 minors
spread across 14 options (Chinese, French,
French teaching, German, German teaching,
Japanese, linguistics, philosophy, Portuguese,
Russian, Spanish, Spanish teaching, speech
communication teaching, and organizational
communication). Eighteen students are enrolled
in the MSLT program.
The MSLT graduate program has maintained a
steady number of students who have
successfully moved on to doctoral programs or
careers in language teaching. The increased
pressure on faculty members to meet the needs
of the undergraduate programs has also placed a
strain on the MSLT program as it uses faculty
from a variety of department programs to meet
its programmatic needs.
LPSC also fulfills a high level of service for
other programs in the university. It does this by
providing faculty members to teach in USU
general courses, Honors courses, and in
extension and distance education courses. It
offers undergraduate courses that meet specific
requirements in at least 26 other degree or
certificate programs.
A further indication of the service nature of the
department is the 800 minors in 14 different
areas, creating a need for faculty members with
a wide variety of language expertise and varying
backgrounds. It is difficult to run a minor
without at least one full-time person in that
language. This basic need has been met in all
areas except Chinese, which is increasingly
becoming a key language in world affairs.
Overall, the department is growing and
effective, however it faces increasing structural
pressures.
Analysis and Assessment
The department has shown consistent growth
over the last five years in terms of majors and
minors. The number of majors has grown by
over 60 percent. This reflects a program that is
active and vibrant. Student learning is treated
seriously, attested to by the department winning
the university‘s teaching excellence award. The
number of faculty members as a whole is
slightly down from where it was. This creates
increasing pressures to meet programmatic
needs, makes classes larger, and gives each
professor more advisees. Because the five
The faculty as a whole maintains a consistent
and up-to-date record of research. The
publication rate over the past five years and
beyond indicates a faculty that is active
119
respected in their respective fields. In just the
last five years, the faculty has published 11
books, more than 60 journal articles, and 30
book chapters, and has given hundreds of
research presentations at conferences. In
addition, the online journal DECIMONONICA is
housed in the department. Faculty research is as
varied as the departmental areas of emphasis and
range from work on social ethics to medieval
culture to persuasive communication to issues of
teaching language and literature.
The first challenge has been met through a
variety of means. The two largest majors have
both taken actions to help control their numbers;
the Spanish major has increased its GPA
requirements for both admittance and
graduation, and the Speech Communication
major accepts new majors only through a
competitive application process. Increased
funding for adjuncts (and currently in the case of
the German program the hiring of a visiting
professor) has helped with some issues related to
all five of the majors. These steps are only of
limited help. It is a credit to the faculty and the
quality of the programs that students continue to
join in increasing numbers despite higher GPA
requirements and other application requirements,
but with the increase of new freshmen it would
appear that numbers will not be going down
anytime soon. In addition, adjuncts are useful
for lower-division courses, but cannot be
expected to cover the higher-division courses or
engage in the advising and mentoring that
students need. The most important solution is
hiring more faculty members (most of whom
would simply be replacing those who have
retired or left for other reasons).
The teaching pressure on faculty members
constrains the time they can spend at researchrelated projects, but faculty members help
balance this tension by involving undergraduates
in research projects and sponsoring an annual
departmental student research symposium. On
the whole, the faculty has been doing an
excellent job in coping with the high teaching
demands and maintaining an active research
agenda. It should be noted that the faculty also
has a consistent record of service to the
university, their academic fields, and to the
community. Evidence suggests that faculty
members, as a whole, are engaged and active
citizens in the various communities to which
they belong.
The second challenge would also be less of a
problem with the hiring of more faculty
members since part of the challenge created by
the diversity of the department is that each area
needs to have enough qualified faculty members
to run the program appropriately. Currently, the
French major has the greatest programmatic
needs as there are only two full-time faculty
members in that area and Spanish has the most
pressing need in terms of bottleneck courses and
meeting student class demands. Hiring in both
French and Spanish would simply be replacing
faculty members who have left. The need for
new faculty members, versus replacement hires
for unfilled lines, is greatest in Chinese and
Speech Communication. Because China is
growing in global importance, there is interest
from the local communities and the state to
develop this area.
The staff and facilities for the department are
sufficient to meet their needs. There are areas of
concern, such as inconsistent technology in the
classrooms and the need for advising help in the
office; however, these do not prevent faculty
members from doing their jobs and doing them
well.
Challenges and Recommendations
The key challenges facing the faculty and the
degree programs of the department are: 1)
Increasing pressures created through the limited
number of faculty members to meet the needs of
the already large and increasing number of
students; 2) The diversity of the major and
minor programs; 3) The need to maintain
realistic expectations of research and service
given the demands noted in number one; and 4)
the inconsistent technology in classrooms.
The number of majors and service courses, such
as the public speaking course, would suggest
that an additional line (lecturer or assistant
professor) is needed. In addition to the hires, it is
120
important for the department to find some
courses that can fill requirements for multiple
programs, thus allowing for more efficient use
of the existing faculty.
western civilization and other cultures to future
generations, and contribute to the growth and
vitality of those traditions through creative
artistic activities and research, enrich the cultural
and educational life of the regional community,
and serve the physical and mental health needs
of citizens with disabilities.
The third challenge is to maintain reasonable
research/service expectations given increasing
teaching pressures. To do this, it is important
that faculty role statements are clear and
appropriate. It also needs to be recognized that
the faculty does not have ready access to
graduate students to assist and collaborate on
research (the current graduate program is a oneyear program that is not research oriented. It is a
much-needed, professionally focused program
for the development of language instructors, but
does not provide a resource for research that
other graduate programs have).
Faculty and Staff. The department employs 18
tenured or tenure-track faculty members, a
resident string quartet, approximately 45 parttime instructors, and three full-time staff
members. Each of the string quartet members
teaches privately as do the other part-time
instructors.
The department offers the Bachelor of Music
Degree in Music Education, Performance, and
Piano Pedagogy; and the Bachelor of Science
Degree in Music Therapy. The department‘s
more unique programs include the Music
Therapy and Guitar Programs which are
internationally renowned, among the largest
such programs in the country, and the only
programs of their kind in the state. No graduate
programs are offered.
The faculty as a whole cannot be expected to
have the same research output as faculty in
programs that have much lower student-toteacher ratios and/or large research-oriented
graduate programs. However, this does not mean
that research is unimportant. The importance of
research is demonstrated by the ongoing
productivity of the faculty. The development of
research-oriented graduate programs is one
possibility, but this would be difficult given the
current number of faculty.
In addition to preparing 320 music majors for
professional careers, the largest portion of the
department‘s
annual
SCH
production
(approximately 8,366) is generated in providing
non-music majors with diverse general
education offerings, group and individual
instrumental and vocal instruction, and
performance opportunities in a wide range of
ensembles. Three different music minors (Basic,
Elementary School Music, and Composition) are
provided in order to meet specific program
needs of students.
The fourth challenge relates to technology and
can be met through university support for
classroom upgrades as well as continued efforts
by the department to fund (through alumni and
grants) equipment that can be used in the
classrooms. Up-to-date equipment does not
replace quality teachers, but it plays an
important support role and should continue to be
developed.
The Music Department contributes to the
cultural and educational life of the university
and community by providing more than 80
musical events showcasing students, faculty, and
internationally renowned artists each academic
year. Such events include concerts, recitals, and
festivals, as well as joint musical ventures with
community-based groups such as the Cache
Chamber Orchestra, Cache Children‘s Choirs,
and the Northern Utah Choral Society. Other
successful department/community collaborations
Music
In the context of a comprehensive land-grant
university, the mission of the Department of
Music is to develop and maintain nationally
recognized programs in Music Education, Music
Performance, and Music Therapy. This is done
in order to transmit the musical tradition of
121
include the Suzuki String Program and the
Summer Music Clinic, both of which engage
pre-university age students and enhance
educational opportunities for university students.
The Wassermann Festival has achieved an
international reputation as it brings the finest
piano performers and pedagogues to campus to
work with university and community students.
competitions than have students from any other
music program in the nation.
Analysis and Assessment
The number of music majors has increased
dramatically from 136 majors in 1989-90 to 320
majors in 2006-07. The reaccreditation report
from the National Association of Schools of
Music (NASM) in 2001 cited the need to expand
the department‘s facilities and to increase the
number of faculty members due to the
department‘s
excessive
faculty
loads
(approximately 15 credits per semester). At that
time, the department had 261 majors and 21
tenure-line faculty members.
Problems
addressed by NASM have become more severe
as the department now only has 18 tenure-line
positions and 320 majors. The NASM also cited
the important need to increase operating budgets
for the department in the areas of equipment and
instrument repair and maintenance, student
group and faculty travel, and general faculty
budgets. Unfortunately the department‘s
operating budgets have decreased since the
NASM report in 2001. On the positive side,
student government recently approved a new fee
to increase dollars to operate the band.
Music faculty and students as well as guest
artists are actively involved in outreach
programs for individuals of all ages (i.e.,
preschool children through older adults in
nursing homes). The USU Youth Conservatory,
an outreach program of the piano area, provides
piano training and early music education to more
than 300 Cache Valley children while providing
valuable teacher training to USU piano students.
The Music Therapy program provides services
to individuals in a wide range of human service
programs throughout Cache Valley.
The
Department is also proud to contribute the Aggie
Athletic Bands as service to the university.
Measures of student success include job and
graduate school placements, success on a
national board certification exam, and honors
received by students in competition with
students from other institutions. Placement
survey data consistently indicate that at least 90
percent of music major graduates either obtained
employment related to their degree or are
enrolled in graduate programs. One hundred
percent of music education majors who pursue
employment are hired.
While the department has worked creatively to
utilize its facilities, the existing space is now
being used to the maximum extent possible and
there is a need for additional programming
space.
Challenges and Recommendations
USU graduates frequently earn graduate
fellowships and scholarships at some of the
nation‘s most prestigious conservatories and
schools of music. Examples during the past few
years include a voice student at Yale University
and the Metropolitan Opera‘s Internship
Program, a percussionist at the Boston
Conservatory of Music, and a pianist at The
Juilliard School of Music. One hundred percent
of the music therapy graduates passed the
National Board Certification Exams. Students
from various programs within the department
consistently receive top honors in state, regional,
and national competitions. USU piano students
have won more MTNA national piano
While a full faculty load for the university is 12
credits per semester including teaching,
scholarly/creative activity, administration, and
service, the average load for teaching only in the
Music Department is still slightly higher than 15
credits per semester. The department must
recover its three vacant faculty positions as
university enrollments increase and budgets are
restored. Moreover, additional positions are
needed in the future to reduce over-burgeoning
teaching loads.
The department‘s severe space constraints limit
student‘s practice and rehearsal times and the
122
faculty members‘ abilities to develop creative
programming. For example, the string faculty
has begun to establish a new Suzuki Program
that already meets the needs of 75 young
children in the community as well as those of
our string majors who receive supervised
training in teaching these children. Expansion
of this program would assist in generating new
revenues for Music Department scholarships;
however, space is not adequate to maximize this
opportunity. Such a model is already in place
with the piano area‘s Youth Conservatory and
the department will continue to creatively
explore options for this string program. The
department‘s overall space needs are as follows:
standards, innovative and respected research,
and diligent commitment to service intended to
improve the community, the state, the nation,
and beyond.
Political Science is home to three separate
undergraduate majors--Political Science, Law
and Constitutional Studies (LCS), and
International Studies (IS), as well as two
graduate degrees--MS and MA in Political
Science and a Master of Social Science degree.
In 2006, undergraduate majors numbered 315,
and master‘s students numbered 22. The
addition of LCS and IS majors over the last five
years resulted from the desire to provide a more
focused and structured response to demands
from students for better preparation in these
fields.
1) Classroom space is not adequate to meet
enrollments--three additional large
classrooms are needed.
Analysis and Assessment
2) Practice rooms and rehearsal spaces are
insufficient--ten more practice rooms,
one more large rehearsal hall, and three
medium-sized ensemble rehearsal rooms
are needed.
Few political science departments of this size in
the nation can claim the diversity of political
thought and policy perspective or the wide range
of faculty backgrounds as in this department.
The department is composed of eight men and
seven women faculty members from Canada,
Australia, China, Dominican Republic, and the
United States. There are three full, seven
associate, two assistant professors, one senior
lecturer, and two lecturers.
3) At least four new faculty office/ studios
are needed immediately.
4) The department would like to establish
an on-campus music therapy clinic
which would serve the needs of our
students and individuals from the
community with disabilities as well as
generate revenue for the Music Therapy
Program.
This commitment to diversity is incorporated in
the instructional methods used as well as the
range of research approaches employed by
faculty members. Instructional efforts stretch
beyond the classroom, as students are
encouraged to experience the challenges of
resolving questions in a variety of government
and private internships in Salt Lake, in
Washington D.C., and overseas. Students and
faculty members are encouraged to get involved
in real-world problem solving to more fully
comprehend the relationship between theory and
practice. The Political Science Department
clearly advances the university‘s goal of
―serving the public through learning, discovery,
and engagement.‖
A master plan for the expansion of the music
wing has been developed and the department is
hopeful that funding for future expansion may
be generated through the university‘s capital
campaign.
Political Science
The Political Science Department carries
forward a tradition of dedication to
undergraduate and graduate education, reflected
in its enthusiasm for teaching, rigorous academic
The department has many indications of success.
Faculty members have generated more than
123
$1.2M in grant funding over the last five years.
They have published numerous books,
monographs, journal articles, and chapters
contributing to research in the discipline and
many faculty members have been tapped as
expert advisors or participants in professional or
governmental
policy
associations
and
commissions. Several members of the
department have been recognized with
university or college research and teaching
awards.
own tracking data on a sample of former
students.
Over the last five years, the data collected from
all of these sources reflect quite positively on the
department. Students think political science
courses and the political science faculty is
superior and that the courses they took were
challenging and required more writing than
other courses in the university.
Challenges and Recommendations
In 2002, a university committee selected the
Political Science Department as one of two
winners of the first Departmental Teaching
Award. The committee selected the department
on the basis of its ―commitment to sustained
excellence in teaching and learning, an ongoing
assessment and improvement of teaching and
learning quality, faculty development for
teaching, provision of resources for students,
and, lastly, linking discovery, creative activity
and engagement with teaching and learning for
the benefit of students.‖
However, examination of these data suggests a
number of potential problems as well.
First, the department‘s primary assessment tool
is somewhat deficient in assessing the overall
value of the majors and has been far too focused
on the success or failure of individual courses
and faculty members. As a result, the department
met on several occasions and designed a new
exit survey instrument that was implemented
Spring 2007.
Few departments are as committed to ―the
principle that academics come first.‖ Among the
many attributes that reflect commitment to
teaching excellence, the classroom evaluations
of our university peers focused on management
of class time, engagement of students, respect
for students, and preparation for class. Teaching
enthusiasm, rigor, and knowledge of subject
were measured, as were communication,
effective use of teaching aids, and student
attendance.
A second weakness emerging from the surveys
is student perception of insufficient career
counseling. As a result, the department has
implemented a semester-long course, Careers in
Government, that brings back alumni working in
the public and private sector to discuss their jobs
and what best prepared them while at USU to do
what they are currently doing. Additionally,
faculty advisors distribute an 85-page booklet
prepared by the American Political Science
Association on Careers and the Study of
Political Science to all new majors as part of
their early advising with majors.
To continue to measure effectiveness in meeting
their educational goals, the department has relied
on a series of instruments to assess student
mastery. It conducts a set of exit surveys each
year with all graduating seniors and a follow-up
face-to-face interview with a sample of the
graduating class, conducted by the department
head. In addition, Political Science requires a
capstone seminar experience that contains an
extensive research project intended to evaluate
students overall mastery of their subject matter.
Additionally, the department has examined the
data compiled in the university-wide
employment survey for alumni along with its
A final weakness discovered in assessment is a
trend towards students arriving in the capstone
seminar inadequately prepared for writing longer
research papers. The faculty held a number of
discussions over the last two years to consider
the reasons and potential solutions for this
problem with the following results. First, at
least part of the problem is a university-wide
problem with student writing skills that will
require a university solution. Second, students
may have fewer opportunities for longer writing
projects in political science than was possible
124
several years ago. Over the last five years, the
growing size of many of our upper-division
course (50 or more students in each) along with
a rise in plagiarism resulting from access to the
Internet, has driven many faculty members to
substitute narrower and shorter writing
assignments for the broad research paper. The
department has not settled on a comprehensive
solution to this part of the problem though we
continue to explore options.
As of Fall 2006, there were 27 faculty lines in
the department: 15 in Sociology (one vacant), 5
in Social Work (one vacant), and 7 in
Anthropology (two filled at 50% time). In
combination, the department serves more than
400 undergraduate majors and 30 full-time
graduate students. Collectively these programs
have produced some 9,000 student credit hours
during the fall semester in each of the past five
years.
Overall, the Department of Political Science is a
demonstrated success with students, with its
academic peers, and with policymakers at all
levels of government. Despite this success, it
continues to make efforts to improve student‘s
educational experiences.
Analysis, Assessment, and Challenges,
Recommendations
As Anthropology moves into the 2007-2008
academic year, it will face major challenges in
attempting to serve the needs of students. Two
faculty members in Anthropology will be on
50% phased retirement, and a third has
transferred from the main campus to the Uintah
Basin Regional Campus. To insure that
Anthropology can serve the major and the
university in both current and projected
capacities, it will be important to hire new
faculty members to fill existing positions. In
addition, Anthropology is currently in the early
stages of developing plans for master‘s program
in applied anthropology. The ability to succeed
with this proposal will be heavily dependent
upon approval to fill the faculty lines that have
been allocated to Anthropology.
Sociology, Social Work, and
Anthropology
The Department of Sociology, Social Work, and
Anthropology (SSWA) is a diverse, tripartite
department with a tradition of excellence in
teaching, research, and service.
Anthropology offers the BA and BS degrees.
The program provides course work in cultural
anthropology,
biological
anthropology,
archaeology, and linguistics, and houses the
Museum of Anthropology and Museum Studies
Area Certificate.
The primary challenge confronting Social Work
will be to incorporate the anticipated new Master
of Social Work (MSW) program (expected to
enroll a first cohort of students in Fall 2008)
without damaging the undergraduate program.
The existing demand for the undergraduate
major is substantial, and a similar demand is
anticipated for the MSW. Ensuring that both
programs operate at high performance levels
will require careful management. Also, there is
a need to augment scholarship funds for an
increased number of students. In addition, it
would be beneficial to expand undergraduate
course offerings beyond the required courses
and seven electives that are currently offered, as
well as to reduce the class size for some courses.
Social Work is a professional undergraduate
degree program offering the BSW degree that is
accredited by the Council on Social Work
Education. The program meets requirements
established by the State of Utah for certification
of social service workers.
The Sociology program offers BA and BS
degrees at the undergraduate level, and MA,
MS, MSS, and PhD degrees at the graduate
level. Areas of concentration in the sociology
PhD
program
include
demography,
environmental and natural resource sociology,
social change and development, and social
problems and inequality.
The primary challenge confronting the
Sociology undergraduate program involves the
125
ability to meet growing demand for courses.
Several Sociology faculty members have
reduced teaching loads as a result of
administrative assignments or involvement in
funded research, so the unit is constrained in its
ability to offer added course sections. As a
result, class sizes have grown larger than most
would consider ideal, and students are often
closed out of courses they wish to take. Also,
the resignation several years ago of a faculty
member in the area of criminology, and
subsequent use of that line to absorb a tenured
faculty member with a full-time administrative
appointment whose expertise is not in
criminology, has limited the department‘s ability
to meet demand for courses in this area of
emphasis. The department attempts to meet the
growth in demand for Sociology courses through
selective use of part-time instructors and
doctoral students. The need for additional
faculty strength in the area of criminology will
be addressed in three to five years when faculty
retirements should allow reconfiguration of a
position to cover that area.
effectively meet the needs of our students and
various communities in the 21st century. In
planning for a future graduate program, a
strategic plan has been adopted for hiring that
will maintain the high quality of the
undergraduate program while also permitting the
development of a focused and well-funded
graduate program. It is essential to the mission
that Anthropology be permitted to fill these
positions in a timely manner. Additional faculty
positions will likely be needed further down the
line to grow the graduate program, contingent on
the success of this program.
The management demands involved in
incorporating the expected MSW are the first
concern for the Social Work program. A related
concern will be insuring that faculty members
who teach in the MSW program are well
integrated into the Social Work program as a
whole. Both existing and newly hired social
work faculty members are projected to
participate in both the graduate and
undergraduate programs. It is anticipated that
the undergraduate program will benefit from the
enhanced course offering possibilities that a
larger pool of faculty will provide.
The challenge confronting the Sociology
graduate program involves the limited
availability of funding needed to increase
graduate student stipends and support an
expanded number of graduate students.
Graduate assistantship funding is extremely low
relative to the stipends offered by competing
universities. As a result the department is often
unable to recruit the very best graduate
applicants to the program. Limited availability
of departmental funds and funds derived from
research projects constrain the ability to expand
graduate enrollments beyond approximately 30
students. This makes it difficult to offer some
graduate courses as frequently as might be ideal
due to the potential for under-enrollment. In
future years the Sociology faculty will need to
become more successful at securing extramural
research funding that provides graduate
assistantship support.
Recent turnover in the Sociology faculty
associated with retirements, resignations, and
departures for administrative appointments has
generated a substantial change in faculty
demographics. As of Fall 2006, seven of the 13
tenure-track faculty members in Sociology were
untenured. The infusion of highly competent,
recently trained colleagues has made the
Sociology program more exciting and dynamic
than in previous years. As these new faculty
members gain experience and as their
accomplishments expand over time, the
visibility and reputation of the program can be
expected to grow. At the same time, the fact that
a majority of Sociology faculty members are still
at early career stages creates challenges. For
example, the level of success in securing
extramural research funding, critical to our
ability to sustain the Sociology graduate
program, is not as high as it is likely to be in the
future as these junior faculty members develop
stronger research credentials.
Anthropology will be affected by transitions
associated with the retirement of three senior
faculty members and the hiring of new faculty
members. This represents a tremendous
opportunity to reshape the program to
126
expand considerably during the next several
years following approval of the MSW program.
Although all department faculty members have
access to the department‘s three staff assistants,
their desks are located some distance from the
Anthropology and Social Work offices, and their
commitment to a range of departmental tasks
results in a tendency for many faculty members
to rely primarily on student staff (or themselves)
for clerical work. It would be desirable to hire
50%-time dedicated staff assistants for both
programs. However, doing so in the foreseeable
future is unlikely given current budget
constraints.
Theatre Arts
Theatre Arts provides quality training in a
modified conservatory environment for undergraduate and graduate students who are pursuing
careers as professional theatre practitioners, high
school drama coaches, college and university
instructors
of
design—scenic,
costume,
lighting—and technical theatre and stage
management. Many students seek additional
graduate training. The program also provides
quality cultural enrichment through a season of
theatrical productions for the university and
surrounding communities and serves as a
showcase for the university in promoting the
institution's cultural image via the Caine School
of the Arts.
The general USU student
community is served by the department through
university studies and liberal arts courses. The
department also provides service to the
departments of Secondary and Elementary
Education with support training for statemandated oral language arts curriculum.
The Museum of Anthropology currently
functions through the direction of a quarter-time
faculty director and a 75%-time coordinator. The
museum has no dedicated operating budget.
Although a modest (under $15,000/year)
allocation of departmental funds provides
coverage of some expenses, the Museum
depends largely on grants and donations. Due to
the small allocation of faculty time, the
coordinator position is essential for the daily
operation of the museum. Unfortunately, this
position is not permanent, but must be funded
from various sources on an annual basis. This is
extremely problematic, given that these
resources tend to be drawn from the limited
education and general budget of the department,
or pieced together from one-time monies with no
guarantee that funds will be available the
following year.
At present, the department serves approximately
100 majors, including eight graduate students,
the maximum permitted by current levels of
department funding. It offers a BA degree in
general theatre studies and the pre-professional
BFA degree with specializations in acting,
theatre design (scenery, lighting, costumes) and
technical practice, and theatre education;
graduate degrees include a non-specialized MA
and MFA degrees in Theatre Design and
Technical Practice.
Shortfalls in departmental operating budgets
have been recurrent in recent years, and will
become increasingly problematic as positions
are filled, thereby eliminating the ability to draw
upon vacant position funds to cover operating
costs. A recently announced plan by central
administration
to
increase
departmental
operating budgets, along with plans to address
institutional budget shortfalls that have required
annual budget hold-backs, could partially
address this dilemma.
Physical facilities include the 670-seat thrust
stage of the Morgan Theatre, the 370-seat
historic Lyric Theatre in downtown Logan, and
an 85-seat flexible black box studio stage.
Supporting facilities include a scene shop,
costume shop, design studio/lighting lab,
dressing rooms, multipurpose (dance, voice,
movement, rehearsal) studio, and a small
departmental library. The department‘s operating and equipment and maintenance funding
Currently the department is confronted by
limitations and problems associated with office
space for faculty members and graduate
students, laboratory space, and the space
allocated to museum. Space needs are likely to
127
from E&G sources was $26,469 at the beginning
of the current fiscal year, approximately onefourth of which is used to operate the summer
Old Lyric Repertory Company.
engaged in separate acting and scenecraft
training, make a field trip to the Utah
Shakesperean Festival, and produce their own
showcase production. The OLRC is celebrating
its 41st season this summer.
Utah State Theatre produces four mainstage
plays each year: a musical, a classical play, a
contemporary piece, and a work from the
modern canon. The Children‘s Theatre hosts
5,000-7,000 children from the primary grades
who are bused to Fine Arts Center.
A
conservatory series produces graduate studentdirected productions, original plays and
readings, and venues of one-act plays. Also for
the public are a bill of six one-act plays and four
independent student production produced by the
department‘s student organization, the Theatre
Student Association (TSA).
Invitation to
participate in the artistic program at most levels
is also made to non-majors as well as to the
community-at-large, although majors retain
priority in casting.
The faculty is made up 10 full-time and one
part-time instructors--five women and six men.
A support staff includes two administrative
assistants, one whose primary duties are as an
accountant and business manager of the
department and production programs, and one
who is primarily a receptionist/secretary
dedicated to serving faculty needs; a publicity
director; a scene shop foreman/technical
assistant, and a costume shop manager.
Analysis and Assessment
While the number of major and graduates has
remained relatively constant over the past 5-7
years, the department has experienced a
significant decline in generated credit hours.
This is partly due to the institution of a new
University Studies program, partly due to
changes in staff assignment, and partly due to
the increasing complexity of university
operations with no increase in staffing and a
reduction in operating monies.
Funding for Utah State Theatre productions
comes from a fee assessed to all registered
students (about 56%), public ticket sales (26%),
the Marie Eccles Caine Foundation for the
children‘s theatre (6%), work grants (9%), and
the rental and sale of sets and costumes (3%).
The fee assessed to all students is split 50-50%
with the Music Department.
Choices for staffing and replacing vacant faculty
positions over the past five years have favored a
mission that emphasizes theatre production over
a more general liberal arts study.
Visiting Artistic/Master Class and Visiting
Company program are funded by the Marie
Eccles Caine Foundation. As many as six top
professionals come each year, and a major
company—Actors from the London Stage,
SITI—come for one- or two-week residencies
two out of three years.
Retention rates for the department have
increased substantially, and graduating students
report a high level of success in finding
employment. Moreover, the appointment of a
faculty member in movement for theatre and
dance brings the department much closer to
conforming to standards for accreditation by the
National Association of Schools of Theatre
(NAST). Finally, the department compensates
for the relatively isolated geographical location
by involving faculty and students in programs of
the KCACTF.
The Old Lyric Repertory Company is a summer
program producing five works in an 11-12 week
period. A company of approximately 50 is made
up of advanced and graduate students both from
the department and other programs nationally.
From one to four professional Actor‘s Equity
Association performers are hired as well. A
separately funded apprentice program for 10-12
students who have completed their junior or
senior year of high school is associated with the
program. These students support the OLRC, are
128
Challenges and Recommendations
Under the new banner of the Caine School of the
Arts, the department is challenged to balance
training in the traditional theatre canon while at
the same time working under the scrutiny of
sister institutions by engaging in more
contemporary, cutting edge work of discovery.
It must do this while attempting to reverse a
trend of declining attendance by paying patrons
in the community. While the present studentinstructor ratio is a very healthy and appropriate
one for study in the arts, the department could
well support about a one-third increase in the
number of student majors with the present
faculty without a significant decrease in quality.
Proactive recruitment and retention remain as
priorities.
Theatre Arts is deceptively complex in its
operation because its primary instructional
―tools‖ are two producing theatre organizations-Utah State Theatre and the summer Old Lyric
Repertory Company. This requires management
of many more accounts than other departments.
The operation of the department and these two
organization should be partitioned more than
they are today as the complexity of all three is
more than one person should be expected to
manage well. More delegation of responsibility
is warranted.
A major challenge of the department is working
in an aging facility—40 years old--that requires
a number of safety and fire code upgrades.
Expansion of the program at this time is mostly
limited by studio, rehearsal, and storage space
and by equipment needs. The department
depends heavily on gifts and grants from
foundations and the Utah Arts Council for its
summer repertory program and to offer unique
opportunities beyond generic theatre training
such as the artist-in-residence program that
brings students in contact with practicing
professionals.
129
COLLEGE OF NATURAL RESOURCES
The number of student credit hours generated by
the department has dropped by nearly half since
2002, reflecting the downturn in majors and the
offering of several lower-level general education
courses in only one term, the latter driven by the
need to transition several faculty members from
a predominantly teaching role to a balanced
research and teaching role. Although recruiting
of undergraduate majors has increased in
intensity over the past two years, it has been
confined largely to Utah and adjacent states and
has not yet translated into increases in student
numbers. Thus, it would seem advantageous to
mount a recruiting campaign that targets premier
high schools and community colleges across the
country, especially those focused on natural
resources and the environment, and develop a
long-term relationship with them. Minority
institutions should be included among these. The
number and size of scholarships, which are
quite modest at present, need to increase.
Environment and Society
The Department of Environment and Society
(ENVS), the first of its kind in the country, has
been in existence since July 2002 when the
College of Natural Resources underwent a deep
reorganization. Faculty and staff, numbering
about 25, are focused on the human dimensions
of natural resources and the environment in an
interdisciplinary context.
Analysis and Assessment
ENVS offers four bachelor‘s degrees, four
master‘s degrees, two doctoral degrees, and two
graduate
certificates.
These
include
Environmental Studies (BS), Geography
(BS/BA, MS/MA), Recreation Resource
Management (BS, MS, PhD), Bioregional
Planning (MS), Human Dimensions of
Ecosystem Science and Management (MS,
PhD), Natural Resource and Environmental
Education (Cert.), and NEPA (Cert.). The
department also participates in the university
Interdisciplinary Studies (BS/BA) and Ecology
(MS, PhD) degree programs and in the college‘s
Master of Natural Resources degree program.
The department mounted an aggressive
outcomes-based assessment of its academic
programs in the first year of its existence, which
has continued through the present.
This
assessment has resulted in several changes to the
curricula. These include requiring most
undergraduate students to participate in the
department‘s professional orientation and
capstone courses; increased experiential learning
through internships, service-learning projects,
and the capstone course in collaborative
problem-solving; the creation of specializations
in the geography and environmental studies; the
formation of the first student chapter of the
International Association for Society and
Natural Resources; and increased early
involvement in holistic, integrative thinking
across cultures and national boundaries. Other
changes under consideration include the merging
of two or more of the undergraduate degrees to
enhance integrative learning, increased emphasis
on analyzing complex real-world problems, and
enhanced public involvement skills.
Undergraduate enrollments, drawn largely from
Utah and adjacent states, have declined about
45% since 2002, paralleling the situation
nationally. Some 90% of these students are
residents of Utah and about 40% transfer in from
two-year colleges, located mostly in Utah.
Graduate enrollments are higher than when the
department originated, but have experienced a
downturn over the past two years due to a
turnover in faculty and the fact that geography
faculty in other CNR departments have
increasingly fewer of their students enrolled in
the Geography MS degree program. Currently,
graduate students constitute nearly a third of
total enrollment, and more than 25% of graduate
student enrollment is at the PhD level. Women
make up about 40% of the enrollment, while
minorities constitute less than one percent.
The core (i.e., tenured and tenure-track) faculty
members in the department have on average 20
130
years of university experience, with 14, 43, and
43% at the assistant, associate, and full professor
levels, respectively. Twenty percent are women
and none are minorities. The number of faculty
decreased from 16 to 14 from 2002 to 2006 due
to retirements and resignations, with two or
possibly three more leaving in 2007, and another
two projected to retire within the next one to
three years. Thus, nearly half the faculty will
likely have turned over within the first eight
years of the department‘s existence. Moreover,
the department head position is turning over in
2007. This situation presents both challenges
and opportunities, not the least of which in the
latter category being an increase in
representation by women and minorities.
National searches are currently underway for a
department head and for three faculty members
in
the
areas
of
recreation
and
tourism/economics, sustainable living, and
human geography, with at least two more faculty
searches slated for the 2007-2008 academic
year.
journals and other outlets, reflecting the
diversity in their expertise.
The involvement of ENVS faculty in extension
and outreach/service is also diverse. The
department‘s largest extension program,
Outdoor Recreation and Tourism (ORT), is also
its oldest, followed by the Sustainable Living
and Master Naturalist programs. A major
challenge for ORT is that of securing additional
base funding from the state to expand its efforts
and leverage funding from other sources. This
funding will be pursued through the legislative
process in 2008. The Sustainable-Living
Program is in somewhat of a holding pattern
with the retirement of its director in 2004.
Hopefully, this position will be filled during the
current search for her replacement and the
program will move forward again. The Master
Naturalist Program is in its infancy, but shows
great promise. Other programs with an outreach
thrust in the department, although not formally a
part of USU Extension, include geography
education, natural resource and environmental
education, natural resource and environmental
policy, and Tehabi. The geography education
program is being challenged by the retirement of
its director this year, while the other three
programs are challenged by the fact that they are
largely soft-money driven.
ENVS faculty members have contributed about
40% of the student credit hours generated in the
college, with the majority of these hours coming
from general education courses. The intent is to
reduce teaching loads in the future as faculty
members shift to increased effort in research and
scholarship. This shift also has implications for
the number of undergraduate degree programs
maintained. Moreover, it is one reason (along
with increased quality), for a recent change in
undergraduate student advising, whereby
curriculum matters are now handled by only
three faculty members, but with the entire
faculty still available for career advising.
Challenges and Recommendations
The ENVS department has worked diligently to
improve itself since its inception, and has in
place a formal process to assess the degree to
which improvement has occurred, and as a
result, has implemented appropriate changes.
The greatest challenges seem to be building
community and a culture of collective
responsibility, creating an environment that is
efficient and relatively stress-free, and securing
adequate financial resources to operate the
department and provide additional resources for
faculty and staff development. The first two of
these challenges is being met through continued
dialogue and experimentation, coupled to
readings and workshops. One outcome has been
the streamlining of a system of shared
governance.
The third is more complex,
requiring efforts on several fronts, including
ENVS faculty members have been recognized
widely for their teaching and advising
excellence, including one as Utah and USU
teacher of the year, another as USU teacher of
the year, and two each as college teacher and
advisor of the year, respectively. Faculty
members are likewise involved in a wide array
of research and development activities in this
country and abroad, supported mostly by
competitive grants and contracts that currently
total more than $6 million. Faculty members
publish in a wide array of peer-reviewed
131
increased grant, contract, and development
activity; increased general funding from the
state; and securing the opportunity to maintain
open positions when necessary.
Watershed Sciences
The Department of Watershed Sciences was
created during the reorganization of the College
of Natural Resources in July 2002. The original
name of the department was Aquatic,
Watershed, and Earth Resources. The current
name was adopted in July 2006. The department
consists of seven faculty budgeted from the
education and general fund, one faculty
members funded mainly from the university
extension program, and one funded mostly from
the Agricultural Experiment Station. Two
additional faculty members have half-time
appointments in Watershed Sciences and halftime appointments in other academic units.
Operations of the department are supported by
two office staff who are challenged to meet the
needs of the approximately two dozen faculty
members and professional staff and more than
100 students they serve. Thus, an attempt is
being made to find the resources to support
another half-time position or its equivalent. The
continuity of professional staff is challenged by
the fact that these positions are largely softmoney funded. Less than three percent of the
budget is available for operating the department,
largely the result of a state policy in place for
well over a decade that precludes annual
increases in operating funds for institutions of
higher learning. This, in turn, discourages
administrators from converting salary dollars to
operating dollars. The central administration of
the university is well aware of this problem and
is working diligently to find alternative sources
of funding for operating the academic
departments. ENVS‘ goal is to have 10-15% of
budget available for departmental operations.
Watershed Science is the study of the physical,
chemical, and biological processes associated
with the movement of water across the
landscape. Clean and adequate water supplies
are an essential element of human societies.
Understanding the interaction among water,
earth materials, and plants and animals is
essential to the management of natural,
agricultural, and urban ecosystems.
The
Department of Watershed Sciences offers
comprehensive educational opportunities for
undergraduates and graduate students interested
in fisheries science, aquatic ecology, the
understanding of our watershed ecosystems.
Departmental faculty members provide expertise
in fish biology, the management and
conservation of aquatic ecosystems, and analysis
of the water cycle.
At present, the space designated for
administering the department is adequate, but is
not capable of housing an additional staff
person. The quality of the teaching space is less
than desirable in many classrooms due to the
lack of audio-visual aids for computerized
delivery, especially in an interactive and distant
learning mode, and an absence of seats that are
movable. Exceptions are the department‘s two
undergraduate and graduate teaching studios
devoted solely to collaborative problem-solving.
Faculty members have adequate, although quite
modest, office space. In contrast, space for
laboratory activities is insufficient, with five
faculty members having no laboratory space and
another seven sharing space with one or more
other faculty. There does not seem to be any
immediate solution to this problem, and it may
have an adverse effect on recruiting new faculty.
The department offers two undergraduate degree
programs, the BS in Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences, and the BS in Watershed and Earth
Resources. Graduate degree programs include
MS and PhD degrees in Fisheries Biology,
Watershed Science, and Ecology. The degree
programs help students learn how water links the
physical, biological, and geographic aspects of
watersheds that are necessary to understand and
manage water supply, water quality, and
ecosystem health. Graduates of these degree
programs become scientists and managers for
natural resource agencies, professionals with
consulting and nonprofit environmental firms,
132
and teachers
universities.
and
researchers
at
major
The Watershed Sciences extension program has
also been instrumental in helping communities
in the state come into compliance with EPA
regulations on sewage and storm water
management. Two of the extension personnel in
the department were awarded special
commendation by the governor in 2004 for their
work in the development of "Stream Side
Science," a new watershed curriculum for all 9th
grade students in the state.
The Fisheries program was ranked third in the
nation by the Faculty Scholarly Productivity
Index. The inaugural FSP index report, released
in January 2007 and based on data from 2005,
rates faculty members‘ scholarly output
including the number of books and journal
articles published and awards received. The
department was tied for third place in fisheries
science and management behind number one
University of Washington and number two
University of Minnesota. The FSP index ranks
7,294 doctoral programs in 104 disciplines at
354 institutions.
Analysis and Assessment
Undergraduate majors in the Department of
Watershed Sciences have ranged from 23 to 33
students since the inception of the department in
2002. These students are split equally into the
FAS and WES degree programs. The number of
graduate students in the department varies
between 40 and 60 students. Graduate students
are recruited from a national pool. The strong
research reputation of the faculty, along with
excellent fellowship opportunities provided by
the Quinney Foundation allows recruitment of
outstanding graduate applicants.
The department collaborates extensively with
entities on and off campus. The department is
an integral part of the USU Water Initiative.
Three federal research groups are housed within
our department. The Utah Cooperative Fisheries
and Wildlife Research Unit (USGS), the
National Aquatic Monitoring Center (US-BLM),
and the Fish and Aquatic Ecology Unit (US-FS)
link the dominant federal and state natural
resources agencies with the department and
provide research opportunities to faculty
members and employment opportunities to
students.
Students earning BS degrees from the
department find employment with natural
resource agencies, consulting firms or enter
graduate programs in aquatic sciences. Since
2002, almost half of these graduates went on to
graduate schools. Another 30% were employed
by natural resources agencies.
Students
graduating with a master‘s degrees found
employment with governmental natural resource
agencies, continued their education in PhD
programs, or became employed by private
consulting firms or non-governmental agencies.
The extension program in water quality has been
very successful in having an impact on our state
water quality agencies, in helping communities
comply with environmental regulations, and in
shaping the K-12 educational systems through
teacher training and curriculum development.
The Water Quality Extension Team in the
Watershed Sciences Department has been
implementing a series of water quality
monitoring stations in the Bear River Watershed
to test the effects of improved agricultural
practices on water quality. Real time information
from these stations is displayed in the Bear
River Watershed Information web site in a
program jointly funded by the National Science
Foundation, the Environmental Protection
Agency, and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
The nine PhD students who finished their
degrees since 2002 are continuing in their
careers as post-doctoral research associates or
faculty members at academic institutions, or
work for governmental agencies or private
consulting firms. More than 80% of the students
attaining the bachelor‘s and 95% of graduate
students completing degrees are still working in
the profession.
133
groups proposing to host a National Ecological
Observation Network site (NSF-NEON) in
northern Utah,
and
an
intermountain
hydrological observatory under the direction of
NSF and CUAHSI. The challenge is to
encourage faculty members to become involved
in these activities that will define much of the
nation's environmental research during the
coming decades.
Challenges and Recommendations
Recent changes in the profession have made it
clear that a graduate degree is the entry into
professions of fisheries and watershed science.
The department has a number of objectives that
need to be addressed to meet the challenge of the
changing educational needs of the profession.
Additional focus is being placed on graduate
education by emphasizing the PhD program, by
recruiting from a national pool of applicants for
graduate degrees, and by increasing research
activities to fund the graduate program.
One of our largest challenges will be to maintain
research funding in this era of shrinking federal
budgets. Without continued funding at current
levels, the research and graduate education
program in the department will become greatly
diminished. Even operating funds will largely
disappear if funding rates drop precipitously.
The department has done an excellent job in
providing the next generation of agency leaders,
but has generally failed in providing similar
numbers of future academic leaders. Current
efforts to enhance the number of PhD students in
the program will help address this issue. There
is also a need to increase the number of postdoctoral researchers that work in research
laboratories. A commitment has been made to
increase the number of master‘s students in the
department by becoming more involved in the
Master of Natural Resources degree.
Wildland Resources
The Department of Wildland Resources
integrates teaching, research, and extension
programs in forest, range, and wildlife sciences.
The focus is applied ecology in terrestrial
ecosystems, with a particular emphasis on
solutions for the conservation and sustained use
of natural resources on our rapidly changing
planet.
While most of the department‘s
activities are directed at the needs of the people
of Utah, there are numerous collaborations with
individuals and institutions in other states and
continents. With a faculty and staff of some 55
personnel, the department is currently training
166 undergraduates and 105 graduates. The
department benefits from strong collaborations
with federal and state agencies, to the extent that
three publicly funded research units are
incorporated into the fabric of the department:
the Utah Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, the
National Wildlife Research Center‘s Predator
Field Station, and the Jack H. Berryman
Institute. This concentration of research effort
represents a ―research engine‖ that generates
more than $5.7M per year in externally funded
awards.
The research and extension programs in the
department are among the best at USU and
compare favorably with similar programs across
the country. The publication rate of the faculty
is high, rates of external funding for research
and extension is extensive, and outreach
programs reach natural resource professionals,
community leaders, K-12 teachers and students,
and individual citizens.
Even with these
successes, goals have been established for the
next five years. The department does not have
strong contacts with the Utah Division of Water
Quality. The objective is to establish an
internship program where graduate students
would be funded by the agency and then have
opportunities to begin full-time employment.
The department also seeks additional
opportunities to form closer alliances with the
U.S. Geological Survey to work on research
projects concerning water quality and toxicology
of organisms in the Great Salt Lake. The
Watershed Sciences Department also has the
opportunity to become involved with research
Wildland Resources offers four bachelor‘s
degree programs: Conservation and Restoration
Ecology, Forestry; Rangeland Resources, and
134
Wildlife Sciences, and four graduate degree
programs at master‘s and doctoral levels:
Ecology, Forestry, Range Science, and Wildlife
Biology. Undergraduate enrollments have been
stable since 2002 and are mainly represented by
residents of Utah. By contrast, graduate
enrollments have been increasing steadily (64%
increase since 2002) and are well represented by
out-of-state and international students, with a
greater proportion of female students (40%) than
among undergraduates (25%).
on the atmosphere of discovery and creativity
that is nurtured by the faculty and graduate
students. The department is internationally
recognized for its expertise in the management
of semi-arid rangelands, and is nationally
recognized for its expertise in mitigating humanwildlife conflict.
Challenges and Recommendations
The major challenge facing the department is its
limited operating budget, which is currently only
27% of actual operating expenditures. The
shortfall is made up from the overhead /indirect
costs levied from research awards, which is not
the most strategic use of such funds. It is
strongly recommended that departmental
operating budgets should be reviewed across the
USU campus.
Analysis and Assessment
The curricula of the undergraduate programs of
the Department of Wildland Resources were
extensively revised in 2003 to meet changing
market needs and environmental issues. The
effectiveness of the degree programs is
constantly assessed through various means and
the data are reviewed in annual department
retreats. Furthermore, the department is
currently accredited with the Society for Range
Management and the Society of American
Foresters,
which
both
have
rigorous
accreditation criteria. Follow-up surveys show
that 76% of employed graduates with recently
awarded BS degrees from the department are
employed in positions related to the training they
received as undergraduates, while 22% are
continuing their education. Only 7% of recent
BS graduates from the department, excluding
those continuing as full-time students, are
unemployed for whatever reason (including
maternity). Such information indicates that the
department‘s undergraduate programs are both
relevant and effective.
An additional (and related) challenge is the
relatively high degree to which the salaries of
tenured and tenure-track faculty members are
leveraged with congressionally directed funding
for the Utah Agricultural Experiment Station
and the Berryman Institute. While an immediate
solution is intractable, the Department of
Wildland Resources is striving to reduce the
problem by redistributing whatever education
and general funds become released when senior
faculty members retire. If new faculty members
are hired using external funds, then the
appointments do not provide eligibility for
tenure.
Finally, a significant challenge experienced
since early 2006 is the ―teething trouble‖
associated with transition to the campus-wide
―Banner‖ software package for administration.
Although the accounting and student records
sub-systems are becoming more user-friendly
and reliable, the human resources sub-system is
still highly problematic.
The growing graduate program, with far more
students turned down (due to lack of space and
funds) than can be accepted, together with the
diverse demography of the graduate student
body, indicate the graduate programs are indeed
world renowned.
The department‘s strengths in research can be
assessed from the impressive amount of research
funds generated through competitive awards. A
further indication is the congregation of federal
and state researchers that have been positioned
in the department by their agencies to capitalize
135
COLLEGE OF SCIENCE
200 pre-nursing students and most do not
receive Biology degrees or enter nursing
programs.
Biology
The Department of Biology is large and diverse,
with 34 full-time tenured or tenure-track faculty
members, more than 800 undergraduate
students, and almost 70 graduate students. The
department offers undergraduate Biology
degrees in four emphasis areas and a degree in
Public Health. The department has a significant
service teaching and advising load and is
responsible for the university‘s highly successful
pre-medical/pre-dental program. Research is
carried out by faculty members, professional
staff, and graduate and undergraduate students in
emphasis areas spanning microbiology to
ecosystems. Department research staff are
affiliated with the Utah Agricultural Experiment
Station, the USU Ecology Center, and the USU
Center for Integrated BioSystems. Faculty and
research staff also collaborate with the USDAARS Bee Biology and Systematics Laboratory.
Hispanic and other students underrepresented in
the sciences comprise approximately two
percent of the college/department student
population, while the regional population is
about ten percent. This discrepancy needs to be
addressed. Also, part-time adjunct faculty
members without research programs are
teaching some important introductory and
advanced courses. More full-time faculty
members are needed to teach these courses.
The department needs to recruit students from
underrepresented populations by developing a
departmental program involving advising staff
and faculty, identify mechanisms to improve the
efficiency of pre-nursing advisement, and
request maintenance of current full-time faculty
positions and additional faculty positions to
address the demands for course instruction.
Analysis and Assessment
The department needs to continue to increase
the quality of graduate students. For example,
the department now requires GRE scores in the
50th percentile as opposed to the 40th percentile
several years ago. The department also now
requires an analytical writing score of 3.5 or
above.
The department continually performs analyses
and assessment of its undergraduate program,
graduate
program,
curriculum,
faculty
development,
and
staff
development.
Information from analyses is used in a formative
assessment where recommendations are
integrated into programs as quickly as possible.
The intent is to identify needs and challenges
and effectively address those challenges.
Priorities emerging from assessment include
continuing to improve graduate programs;
increasing participation of underrepresented
populations; increasing the mentoring of junior
faculty members; improving
departmental
development/ advancement efforts; developing a
space allocation/acquisition strategy.
Recruiting graduate students into the department
is challenging because stipends provided by the
department are lower than the national average.
Graduate student recruiting is also challenging
because students are not provided health
insurance and most other research institutions
provide insurance.
To meet these challenges, the department must
continue to increase the quality and direction of
the graduate programs with the new director and
graduate
programs
committee,
develop
recruiting tools such as a departmental preapplication to improve early interactions with
Challenges and Recommendations
The department needs to actively recruit
students even without additional personnel or
funds. The department advises approximately
136
potential students, continue upgrading the
Biology web site, and seek development/
advancement funds for graduate student
fellowships, travel, and insurance. Also, seek
NIH or NSF graduate training grants.
changing the mechanisms for regional faculty
evaluation to one that includes the department
head and the executive director, enabling
regional faculty members to be more involved in
department activities even though they are
significant distances from the Logan campus,
establishing
effective
mechanisms
for
communication beyond email and telephone
calls, and providing regional campus faculty
members with access to research laboratories,
research equipment, and students so they can
develop research programs.
Faculty salary compression reduces incentive for
mid-career and senior faculty, an ongoing
department challenge. Recruiting the highest
quality new faculty is very challenging because
salaries and laboratory start-up packages are not
competitive. National success rates for funding
are the lowest in the last 10 years for the NIH,
NSF, USDA, and DOD, which makes it very
difficult for faculty members to garner funding
to support research programs and train students.
Additional ethnic minority and women faculty
need to be recruited to address diversity
challenges in student recruitment.
The department intends to maintain promotion
and tenure committees for untenured regional
campus faculty members and to staff those
committees with members predominately from
the Logan campus in an effort to provide the
best recommendations and evaluations of
regional campus faculty members. Also, have
faculty and administrators on the main campus
regularly visit regional campuses and centers
and collaborate with the Vice Provost for
Regional Campuses Distance Education.
To address these challenges, the department
needs to foster the development of female
associate professors to facilitate promotion to
professor, aggressively seek development/
advancement funds for named or endowed
professorships, actively recruit highly qualified
ethnic minority and women candidates, and
provide incentives for grant-writing training for
beginning and established investigators.
Staff salaries are well below national averages.
Staff members continue to confront challenges
associated with full adoption of the Banner
database system for budget and personnel
management. They are being tasked with more
responsibility related to research administration
while constricting budgets limit travel to
research administration training workshops.
The Biology-Natural Resources building was not
designed as a science building and was never
adequately upgraded. In some of the research
areas this has become a safety issue. Laboratory
space is limited and needs to be upgraded; multiuser equipment is limited and there are
significant needs in the areas of bioinformatics
computing, microscopy, genomics; and some
faculty members need to publish more and
garner more extramural funds to support their
research.
The department needs to provide career
development and advancement opportunities for
staff
via
training, seek
development/
advancement funds to support staff travel and
training, and actively seek funds to increase staff
salaries.
The E&G operating budget has decreased by
more than 60 percent in the last seven years,
resulting in an inability to fund at an acceptable
level some of the departmental priorities,
including multi-user equipment purchases,
necessary laboratory upgrades, faculty travel,
and a departmental seminar program.
Solutions may lie in increased faculty and staff
training in research administration, and
encourage faculty members to submit multi-user
equipment grant proposals.
Challenges at regional campuses and in distance
learning including providing course offerings
equivalent to those on the Logan campus,
The Biology department supports central
administration‘s initiative to increase department
137
E&G budgets. Ways will be sought to reduce
spending on phones and copying. The
department is investing in development/
advancement efforts, including establishing a
Department Advisory Board to grow current and
established new scholarship endowments, and to
obtain an endowment for a named professor
position.
recognition would make the department a
magnet for graduate students. These students
would be well trained, would publish a number
of papers during this training, and would move
on to first-rate positions. TA and RA stipends
would be nationally competitive and the
department would be able to offer a number of
prestigious and well-paying fellowships. An
optimal number of graduate students would be
roughly 50. Undergraduates will be trained not
only in the formalities of the discipline, but most
will actively participate in research.
Chemistry and Biochemistry
The Chemistry and Biochemistry Department
trains students at both undergraduate and
graduate levels in these two related disciplines.
BS, BA, MS, and PhD degrees are offered in
both areas. The number of undergraduate majors
nears 200; graduate student enrollment lies in
the 35-50 range. The department offers a great
deal of service teaching to majors in other
departments. There are a small number of
faculty members in the department, 16.4, plus
one full-time lecturer. The quality of the
instructional program is high, with an emphasis
on undergraduate research. The latter is made
possible by a high level of research productivity
by the faculty, who have established a strong
visibility on the national level.
For the department, 150-200 undergraduate
majors is optimal. It is not a matter of quantity
alone, but the goal is to graduate well-educated
young men and women. It is also hoped that the
vast majority of these students will remain in
chemistry upon graduation, whether graduate or
medical school, or a chemistry-related job.
The department should have a fully functional
infrastructure.
With the introduction of a
laboratory manager and NMR manager, the
department has the beginnings of a satisfactory
infrastructure. Other job tasks that require
attention include a webmaster to periodically
update and redesign the department‘s web site.
To better standardize undergraduate advising
and to free up faculty time, a staff advisor would
be very useful. A salaried glassblower is another
needed position.
It might be best to present a vision of what this
department could be, so as to set a context for
the analysis that follows. A faculty of some 25
would be optimal for a Department of Chemistry
and Biochemistry at USU. This group would be
best balanced by 7-8 biochemistry faculty
members and 18 in chemistry. The faculty
would be complemented by two or three
research faculty members, funded by external
grants generated by these faculty members.
Most of these faculty members would be
actively engaged in research, with adequate
external funding and graduate students. The
department‘s research program would have
access to a full range of modern research
equipment.
The department will have a close relationship
with its alumni, as well as with emeritus faculty
members. Particularly successful alumni will be
held as inspirations to our students, and brought
into department decision-making. In addition to
helping with development efforts, these
individuals will serve as a resource to the
department in terms of giving advice on
curricular matters, internships for students, and
acquisition of fairly new instrumentation.
Analysis, Assessment, and Challenges,
Recommendations
While it is unlikely a reputation in all subfields
of chemistry and biochemistry could be
established, niches are certainly possible--areas
in which research and expertise is recognized as
amongst the finest in the world. This sort of
The department is well on its way to meeting its
undergraduate population goal. With the recent
implementation of the Biochemistry BS, the
number of majors has already reached the lower
138
end of our target (150) and is rapidly climbing
toward 200. The educational quality has not
suffered with this increase; however, saturation
has already been reached in terms of
incorporating the biochemistry students into
active research labs. It is thus critical that at
least one or two more biochemistry faculty be
recruited. Another bottleneck is the lack of an
experimental physical chemist on the faculty; if
not solved, this problem will soon lead to a
major deficiency in the undergraduate chemistry
program, as there will be no qualified person
available to teach the relevant lab courses.
national funding for research may cause a
lowering in productivity, as there will be fewer
funds available to support students and other
research expenses. Another challenge for this
department lies in the retention of our most
productive faculty members. Low faculty
salaries add to the problem. The university has
just begun to address the latter issue by
providing a pool of retention funds, but this pool
is not consistent. The recent switch to meritbased faculty salary increases ought to help to
some degree as well, provided it continues.
The level of support services is marginal. The
most essential services are covered, but it
remains to be seen if even this level will be
maintained. The magnetic resonance lab
manager position is funded by two other units on
campus, and their continued support is not
guaranteed. The department‘s lab manager
position was carved out of other lines, at the
expense of faculty lines. There is no budget for
the glassblower position; the current occupant is
temporary. A full-time staff position for undergraduate advising is not available, although such
a position would help a great deal in this
activity.
With faculty members teaching at capacity in
order to cover lower-level and service courses,
the department is severely limited in its ability to
teach the upper-level specialty courses, both at
the undergraduate and graduate levels. This
limitation has compounded the problem in that
one faculty position had to be converted into a
lecturer position in order to fulfill serviceteaching responsibilities.
With regard to graduate students, enrollment
targets are not being met. While the recruitment
of students into the physical sciences is a
national problem, there are certain issues that
further complicate the problem here. The
location of the university as a whole puts off a
certain cohort of students. The small number of
faculty members presents a very limited range of
options for new students as they compare
various universities. This problem is not limited
to research areas, but also to the availability of
appropriate graduate-level courses. This problem
could be alleviated by an increase in faculty.
Low stipends, and the absence of health
insurance lowers the level of competitiveness, a
problem which could be solved in part with an
infusion of funds. A new problem on the horizon
is the university‘s trend toward reducing their
assistance with tuition waivers. Some of these
problems could be alleviated by increased
external funding, but the national trends in this
regard are pointing toward lower and lower
levels of funding.
Computer Science
The mission of the Department of Computer
Science is to maintain a program of excellence
in teaching, research, and service. At the
undergraduate level, students are given the
opportunity to obtain a well-founded
understanding of the principles and theories of
the science of computing. The curriculum
includes a University Studies program that gives
students the social, ethical, and liberal education
needed to be positive contributors to society as a
whole.
Students receiving bachelor's degrees in
Computer Science are ready to enter the work
force as productive computer scientists or
continue their education at the graduate level.
Their foundation in computer science is such
that they can be lifelong learners in their chosen
field. At the graduate level, students receive both
Faculty productivity has held its own over a
number of years and is expected to continue.
But the aforementioned problem of reduced
139
quality and technically current instruction and
leading edge research opportunities. In addition
to responsibilities for program excellence and
professional development, faculty members are
committed to service through continuing
education programs and research. At the
department level, students, faculty, and the
program itself are continually assessed to assure
that the mission and outcome objectives are
being fulfilled.
not to the degree some programs have
experienced.
Computer Science Majors
Level
Fall 2001 Fall 2005
BS
307
253
MS
128
68
PhD
0
16
TOTAL 435
337
Data for Fall 2006 indicate
improvement in enrollment.
Analysis and Assessment
Since 1998, the department has offered an
ABET-approved (Accrediting Board for
Engineering and Technology) curriculum. Under
ABET guidelines, assessment is a significant
and continuous process. Numerous program
improvements had been made based on these
assessments as shown at: www.cs.usu.edu.
a
further
In the 1980s and early 1990s the department
generated considerable SCH‘s in non-majors
classes. With the changes in the university‘s
general education program, the switch to
semesters in 1998, and with some departments
choosing to offer departmental courses in
computing, there has been a decline in
enrollment in such classes.
In 2001, the State of Utah initiated the
Governor‘s Computer Science and Engineering
Initiative. Based on funding from this initiative,
the department has added seven faculty
positions. There are now 19 faculty positions
(one not filled), and two lecturer positions in the
department. Also in 2001, the department
received approval to begin offering a PhD in
Computer Science. As might be expected, it has
taken time to build this program and to attract
candidates. There are now 19 PhD students in
the program, with the goal being 25-30. During
2006, the department graduated its first two
PhDs. The goal, once the program is fully
developed, is to graduate three to six per year.
In terms of faculty, the governor‘s initiative in
science, technology, and engineering has had a
significant impact--faculty has increased from
12 to 18 positions and faculty demographics
have changed. In 2001, all faculty members
were tenured; in 2007, nine faculty members are
untenured. These new faculty members have
added significant energy and vitality to all
programs of the department. With these new
faculty members, the department has been able
to add the bioinformatics option to the
undergraduate program and strengthen all of the
current options. The department is also seeing an
increase in publications and external funding.
There have obviously been challenges brought
on by these changes, but overall, the governor‘s
initiative has given the department the funding
needed to significantly improve its programs at
all levels.
Over the last 15 years, the department graduated
more master‘s candidates than any other
department in the College of Science. In 2004,
with the changes in visa requirements, there was
a significant drop in enrollment. However, the
department‘s master‘s program remains the
largest in the college.
Challenges and Recommendations
The challenges of the department are really
nothing more than goals--find additional space,
increase enrollment of majors and SCHs, and
find additional revenue sources.
At the undergraduate level, enrollment in
computer science has seen a national decline.
Data indicate that there has been as much as a
70% decline in freshman enrollment. This
department‘s enrollments have also declined, but
140
As expected, the increase in faculty size has
required extremely efficient utilization of the
department‘s current available office and lab
space. Each new faculty member has required an
office, lab space, and space for graduate
students. The available space for such activities
is now zero square feet. As the PhD program
grows, and should more faculty be added, it is
imperative that the department acquire
additional office and lab space. Because of the
current space situation on campus, the only way
to address this need is with a new structure.
Hopefully, the new building planned east side of
the quad will allow the department to acquire
additional space, or to move into the new
facility.
or university level. The department has initiated
a twice-yearly department newsletter. It is sent
to all alumni. The response has been very
positive to this newsletter, and we are hopeful
that, over time, direct department contributions
will increase. The department has also begun to
more actively participate in the advancement
process. Two trips to meet with alumni were
carried out last year, and more are planned for
this year.
Overall, the department has experienced
significant improvement since the last NWCCU
visit. This year‘s ABET visit was highlighted
by positive evaluations in all areas of the
program. The reviewers were particularly
complimentary of the department‘s efforts in the
area of objectives and their assessment. The PhD
is now graduating students, and the BS and MS
programs remain strong. While enrollment has
dipped slightly, it is still relatively high.
Computer Science is certainly not a small
department in terms of enrollment. There is
however, capacity to increase enrollment. It is
anticipated that the recent positive publicity
about computer science as a career will increase
enrollment. For 2007-8 the department is adding
new general education courses in computational
science and computer security to increase the
number of non-major SCHs generated.
Indirectly, it is expected that the department‘s
goal to increase research funding will increase
enrollment at the graduate level by making more
funds available for research assistantships.
Finally, the department is aggressively pursuing
an expansion of its distance program, both
within the state and internationally.
The department is fully aware of the challenges
it faces over the next decade. It is working to
meet those challenges by viewing them as
opportunities. It is a stronger department today
than yesterday, and all members of the
department are confident that tomorrow will see
further improvements.
Geology
The Department of Geology consists of 11
headcount faculty (9.75 FTE), covering all of the
major disciplines within the solid earth sciences.
One FTE-headcount resides in the dean‘s office
and one 0.5 FTE-headcount is a lecturer, which
reduces the number of faculty contributing to the
research mission of the department to 8.25 FTE
and nine headcount.
In general, for any university department, the
revenue sources are research funding and
advancement. Tuition monies do not come
directly to a department and are not generally
part of the formula. The department‘s current
research funding level is under $1M per year.
The department goal over the next four years is
to double this amount. At the end of the first half
of this fiscal year, funding was at 75% of the
total for last year. Significant progress is being
made. Obviously, the department must continue
to support this goal through salary and
promotion incentives.
Three undergraduate degrees are offered, BS
Geology
(general,
hydrogeology,
and
geoarcheology
emphases),
BS
Applied
Environmental Geosciences, and BS Earth
Science Composite Teaching; and three graduate
degrees, MS in Geology, MS Applied
Environmental Geosciences, and PhD in
Geology. The department has had an advanced
The department has somewhat less control of its
destiny in terms of fund raising through
advancement. Much of this is done at the college
141
degree program in geology at the master‘s level
for more than 75 years, making it one of the
older graduate degree programs on campus. In
addition to teaching our majors, a variety of
general education courses are taught, including
University Studies and Honors courses.
to the educational mission, challenges to the
research mission, and challenges resulting from
budgetary or facility-related issues.
Challenges to the education mission include low
projected enrollment growth in Utah over the
next decade, competition from Tier Two
institutions for undergraduate majors, increased
competition for graduate students nationally, and
resources for building our expanded graduate
programs.
The greatest strength of the department is its
faculty. They are strongly committed to the
department and the institution, and they are
dedicated teachers and researchers. The
department prides itself on the excellent
relationships maintained between the Geology
faculty and university students, both majors and
non-majors alike.
Challenges to the research mission include flat
to negative funding availability at the National
Science Foundation and other funding agencies,
a lack of the modern equipment and facilities
needed to sustain robust research programs in
geoscience, insufficient technical staff support,
and competition for graduate students nationally.
The Department of Geology has a strong
commitment to high-quality teaching at both the
undergraduate and graduate levels. Geology was
awarded the first USU Department Teaching
Excellence Award in 2003 and our faculty
members commonly lead the College of Science
in teaching evaluations. In addition, one junior
faculty member won a national teaching award
in 2005 that is the most prestigious within the
geosciences (only one is awarded annually).
Challenges resulting from budgetary or facilityrelated issues include low operating budgets,
insufficient staff support (both clerical and
technical), lack of space needed for growing
research and education programs, and the lack of
modern research and analytical equipment.
The department has a strong commitment to
research. Faculty members have identified four
program areas in which the department has
perceived strengths, each of which encompasses
a variety of disciplines within the earth sciences:
tectonics/geophysics,
sedimentation
and
sedimentary systems, surficial processes, and
petrology/geochemistry.
Recommendations. Geology‘s advisory board
assists with program evaluation, establishment
of realistic goals, and development of the
resources needed to achieve those goals. The
department has worked with this board over the
last three years to build a vision and to draft
recommendations for how to achieve that vision.
These recommendations are listed below.
The department enjoys strong support from its
alumni through contributions to our various
endowment funds and from private foundations
for equipment purchase. In 2003, Geology
established an advisory board to advise on
programmatic issues and to assist with
development efforts. As a result, private giving
has expanded to $350,000 over the last two
years.
The department needs to build its undergraduate
major programs through proactive recruitment
efforts at high schools, contacts with undeclared
students and students in other science or
engineering majors who are seeking to change
majors, and seeking transfer students from
community colleges. The department must also
seek to increase the number of majors through
programs at the regional campuses, building on
the new initiative to bring faculty members at
those campuses under the departments in Logan.
The Uintah Basin Energy Education and
Research Center will be a central focus of this
objective.
Analysis, Assessment and Challenges,
Recommendations
Challenges facing the department may be
divided into three broad categories: challenges
142
The increasing competition from smaller schools
for undergraduate majors requires that USU
expand its graduate programs. The Geology
Department sees opportunities for increased
graduate education opportunities through its new
graduate degree programs. To be competitive
nationally, the department must increase TA
salaries, and must also increase its recruiting
efforts for graduate students. The Geology
Department also needs to increase the number of
research associates through an increase in grant
funding.
students, and could, when needed, teach courses
within the department.
One area of potential growth for department
faculty is within the Regional Campus system.
These faculty members will now be part of the
department on the Logan campus and the
department is committed to integrating them into
its teaching and research mission. This could
include collaborative research efforts, remote
course offerings delivered both to and from the
regional campuses, and team taught classes that
involve joint field experiences for the students.
A fundamental long-range goal in research
funding is to increase funds to about $100,000
per year per full-time faculty member. This
increase in funding level is needed to enhance
productivity and support the growing graduate
program. In order to be competitive at this level,
the department must make provision for
systematic improvements in research facilities
and in upgrading or replacing research
equipment.
One way to attract high-level research-oriented
faculty is with endowed chair positions. The
Geology Department is currently working
toward securing sufficient endowment funds to
support two chairs with funds for summer
salary, research assistants, and travel.
Geology needs to expand its office staff to at
least two full-time employees. The department
also needs a full-time technician to manage the
teaching and research labs, and maintain the
research equipment. This position will become
critical if new analytical equipment is acquired,
as discussed below. Finally, the department
needs a 25% to 50% time computer systems
manager to deal with our growing computer
network.
The fundamental goal in endowment funding is
to sustain or increase the level of private funding
to Geology endowment accounts to support
graduate and undergraduate students, equipment
purchases, and other department priorities. The
main focus of this effort will be on the Legacy
Endowment (which has greater flexibility) but
all endowments are targeted for growth up to
certain levels.
A second objective is to gain administrative
authority over all space in the Geology Building.
Without this space, Geology will have no room
for its program to grow, and the department will
have difficulties even if its programs remain the
same size. The Geology Department needs to
renovate space in the geology building so that it
is more suited to their current needs, and to
utilize space that is not being used optimally at
this time.
Geology‘s long-term hiring goal is to build
baseline faculty to 12 FTE positions. This will
provide the breadth needed to address
curriculum needs at both the undergraduate and
graduate levels, as well as some of the depth
needed for the graduate program. New faculty
members are especially needed to meet existing
requirements in core geology courses and in
areas where we have no current faculty
members.
To compete nationally, the department must
increase the research equipment available in the
department. Department faculty members must
take the lead in preparing equipment proposals
to NSF for these needs. Some of this equipment
has applications outside of geology and the earth
sciences, so it will be a resource for the entire
campus.
The department also needs to recruit and retain
research faculty members who can support
themselves, and who will contribute to the depth
and breadth of departmental expertise. These
research faculty members will be a significant
resource for graduate and undergraduate
143
The Uintah Basin Energy Education and
Research Center (UBEERC) initiative represents
a significant opportunity to achieve faculty
integration in the near term. The UBEERC is a
collaborative effort that seeks to create a multidisciplinary research center on energy-related
issues that enhances the educational mission of
the Uintah Basin Regional Campus.
mathematics, computational mathematics, and
statistics, with a recent strong increase in the
number selecting the actuarial science option,
but with a corresponding steady decline in pure
mathematics majors over the past five years.
The number of students in the graduate program
peaked at 41 in 2002 but has declined slowly but
steadily since then to 33 supported by the
department. The MS program in Statistics has
little difficulty attracting students, with several
doing graduate degrees in other disciplines at the
same time. The MS Mathematics programs
have held steady recently, but there has been a
significant decline in the number of PhD
mathematics students, and a decline in statistics
PhD students. These latter trends are a function
of faculty retirements and departures, which
have reduced the department‘s ability to offer
advising and teaching of PhD-level courses and
hindered recruitment by reducing visibility of
the program.
Mathematics and Statistics
The Department of Mathematics and Statistics
provides undergraduate major programs in
mathematics, statistics, and mathematics
education, with specialized emphases in
computational mathematics and actuarial
science, plus composite majors in mathematics
and statistics, and mathematics and statistics
education.
Graduate programs include MS degrees in Mathematics, Statistics, and Industrial Mathematics,
and a math program designed for secondary
education teachers. The PhD program is in
Mathematical Sciences with specializations in
pure and applied mathematics, statistics, college
teaching, and an interdisciplinary option.
The department would be at capacity with 36
full-time tenure-track professors or lecturers. It
has 32, but two are leaving and, typically, two
are on sabbatical. Visiting faculty members are
used as temporary replacements. There are four
unfilled tenure-track position lines and two more
will be added to that list by Summer 2007.
Teaching loads average two courses per
semester for tenured faculty members, 2-1 loads
in some years for untenured people, and three
per semester for lecturers. In a typical semester,
about 55-60 sections are taught by regular or
visiting faculty members.
Research areas among the faculty members of
the department cover a broad spectrum of the
fields of mathematics and statistics, but certain
areas would be considered strengths. These
include
differential
geometry,
discrete
mathematics, differential equations, numerical
methods, mathematics education, computational
and graphical statistics, bioinformatics, linear
models, and experimental design.
The department has a huge service load at both
the lower and upper divisions--110-120 sections
of mathematics and statistics are offered each
semester. About 30-35 of the 55+ sections not
taught by regular faculty are taught by supported
graduate instructors (TAs), almost all teaching at
the pre-calculus service level, as only 3-5
experienced TAs are capable of instructing
calculus or statistics courses in a typical
semester. The remaining 20-25 sections are
taught by temporary lecturers who are hired each
semester.
Currently, the department has 32 full-time
faculty members--22 who are tenured, 6 at the
assistant professor level, and 4 permanent
lecturers.
Analysis and Assessment
The department has 160-200 undergraduate
majors, more than half in the mathematics or
composite teaching option. The remainder
spread somewhat evenly among traditional
144
Over the last few years, the upper division and
graduate service load has ballooned, with the
addition of six to seven sections each year for
majors in other departments. Recently, course
offerings at the 6000-level have been limited to
the minimum needed to graduate MS students in
two years. In recent years, there has been no
possibility of funding more courses for doctoral
students. As a result, PhD courses have been
taught as overload, usually without any
compensation or a teaching break.
courses for majors and graduate students. The
split would need to be 60-40% between
mathematics/math education and statistics.
Pre-calculus demand was stable for the past few
years because of the decline in total number of
students at USU. This will change if the current
year increase in total enrollment continues. The
upper-division service load was always beyond
the resources of the department and is
increasingly so now with two more departures
this summer.
The department‘s overall teaching load is by far
the highest of any department at USU, in terms
of total sections, student credit hours, and (for
the most part) section sizes. The present
situation, with six unfilled permanent position
lines, an increasing service load, uncertainty
about availability of temporary lecturers, and
difficulty in graduate student recruitment,
indicates that the department will not be able to
meet service and major demands for Fall 2007.
The pre-calculus load can be reduced by
eliminating remedial courses, increasing the size
of some general education courses, hiring two
or three permanent lecturers to handle more of
the basic courses, and hiring more TAs.
None of these solutions help with the upperdivision service load where lecturers and TAs
cannot be used and section numbers and sizes
are too large already. The only solution here is
to receive new resources for faculty members
who can instruct at this level.
Despite high teaching and service roles, research
productivity has remained steady over the past
five years. While funded grant dollars varies
wildly from year to year, there has been success
by researchers in mathematics education and
interdisciplinary groups with whom the
department‘s applied mathematicians and
statisticians conduct collaborative research. A
number of pure mathematicians are regularly
funded in their own right.
The department has difficulty ―standing out‖ for
potential graduate students and possible new
hires because of the combination of losses in key
research areas (applied and numerical
mathematics, differential equations and analysis,
computational and graphical statistics) and the
inability to conduct searches for the last two
years.
Staff resources are being strained to the breaking
point and office space is exhausted in Lund Hall
and the part of the Geology Building shared with
another department. If all six open positions
were filled immediately, there would be no
available offices except those currently occupied
by graduate students.
To stand out, the department should identify
research areas that are or can soon be strengths
with one or two new hires and concentrate in
these areas. Encourage ongoing research and
grant writing, especially of a collaborative
nature, to make the department more visible and
viable. Effectively recruit graduate students by
in-person contacts, campus visits, and more
appealing advertising strategies.
Challenges and Recommendations
The primary instructional challenge is that the
department will be unable to meet the demand
for majors‘ courses as of Fall 2007.
Mathematics is seldom seen as a primary career
opportunity, although statistics and actuarial
science offer higher than normal employment
and salary possibilities. Most majors are in
Mathematics Education, with almost certain
employment on graduation, but relatively low
Of the six unfilled positions as of Fall 2007, two
need to be filled each year for the next three
years if the department is to offer needed
145
salaries if they stay in the Intermountain
West.
Physics
The Department of Physics is a relatively small
department both by USU standards and by
comparison with regional and similar
institutions. The department has 16 tenured
faculty members, a research faculty of five, a
staff of five, and 81 undergraduate majors and
35 graduate students. The department provides a
large educational service component, and
provides a variety of undergraduate degrees as
well as MS and PhD degrees. Research
specializations include space research, surface
and nano physics, gravitation and field theory,
plasma fusion and EM theory, non-linear
dynamics, and physics education.
The department must improve its visibility in
high schools and among freshmen, and better
elucidate career opportunities and graduate
school potential for mathematics/statistics
majors. Visits by faculty members to local
schools, career fairs, and science week activities,
etc. have shown promise.
Graduate stipends are competitive, but
recruitment to other than the Statistics MS
program is difficult.
However, improved
recruitment is essential both for enrollment in
6000+ courses and research programs that need
qualified graduate students.
All faculty members are expected to provide
high-quality teaching and research. Recently,
the department won the university‘s Award for
Teaching Excellence. Physics faculty members
have a solid research publication record, bring
in a relatively large amount of external grants
to support their research, and produce a
relatively large number of undergraduate and
graduate degrees.
Solutions include increasing attendance at
conferences and career fairs, locally and out-ofstate; improving personal contacts that are most
productive at persuading potential students to
study in the department; improving outdated
web site information on the graduate offerings
and research interests of faculty members;
increasing simple advertising techniques to
feeder schools in the Intermountain West;
replacing missing faculty members to further
enhance the viability of quality research with
incoming graduate students; and illustrating
more effectively the success graduate students
have in job placement and academe.
Analysis and Assessment
Over the past decade the department has made
measurable progress in certain areas, needs to
expand in others, and has a major problem
looming in the not-so-distant future. Analysis is
mainly based on comparisons with peer
university physics departments as well as a
strong desire to continue to provide support for
USU‘s mission as a research university.
Staff is insufficient for such a large department.
Office space and meeting rooms are exhausted
or nonexistent. Operating budget is insufficient
for costs of copying, phones, travel to
conferences, and other support activities.
The undergraduate program has grown to
probably its largest size ever and is found to be
offering a very satisfactory set of first degrees in
physics. In comparison, the graduate program is
stable but is too small and is set to expand.
Faculty research productivity, e.g., external
research funding of over $200,000/FTE/year,
indicates that growth in the graduate program
could be readily supported.
The budget cuts of recent years have reduced the
department‘s operational budget to about onethird of its original level. This reduction must be
undone as much as possible with ongoing
replacement funds. Salaries for technical support
staff must be increased.
Demographics of the undergraduate physics
students shows between 27% and 30% are
146
female, while the minority representation is
between 2.5% and 4.1%. Nationally, the female
representation appears reasonable while the
minority representation is unfortunately quite
low, but consistent with physics departments in
general and the demographics of USU. At the
graduate level, despite the fact that the
production of graduate degrees per faculty
member is relatively high, the principal finding
is that the graduate program is too small
compared to regional and comparable
institutions. This appears to be directly related to
the relatively small number of TAs available to
support incoming graduate students. Moreover,
the present graduate students find an academic
core set of courses offered regularly while the
majority of elective-specialization courses are
mostly taught informally and infrequently. Low
class size and availability of faculty members to
teach such elective courses combine to create a
less than ideal situation.
leveraging recently donated scholarship funds to
aggressively recruit and retain both female and
minority students. It also plans to continue to
exert pressure to identify faculty candidates
taken from these under-represented groups.
The principal problem with academic programs
is the size of the graduate program. By
comparison with regional and comparable
institutions the physics program is simply too
small, leading to a number of problems. Increase
of the graduate student population is currently
prevented by the small number of TA positions
available. Because this resource is controlled
outside the department, the recommendation is
to work with the USU administration to increase
the TA budget to allow for at least three more
positions and to increase the value of existing
TA stipends to maintain competitiveness.
Growth of the graduate program would directly
contribute to USU‘s status as a research
university.
Productivity of the faculty is readily determined
to be high in both teaching and research. For
example, the department has recently been
awarded the USU Teaching Excellence Award
and the average external research funding level
is over $200,000/FTE/year. However, the
department‘s current productivity is in peril in
the near future since one-third (5) senior faculty
members will, in the next few years, have
exceeded the standard retirement age. This is
likely the single biggest issue facing the
department.
Challenges and Recommendations
Compared to regional and comparable
institutions nationwide, the USU Physics
Department is rather small. An increase of
faculty size by three would move the
department from small to average, a ranking
that it has already achieved with its research
achievements. Such growth would also support
an increase in the graduate program. A related,
but much more serious problem stems from the
faculty age profile: in the near future one-third
of the tenured faculty can be expected to retire.
The seriousness of this problem has several
facets. These senior faculty members are key
researchers with national reputations and
associated external funding success. Even if
each is replaced with a junior tenure track
faculty member, the external funding profile,
the level of RA support, and the number of
graduate students being mentored will likely
decrease until the junior faculty settle in over
many years. The recommendation here is to
increase the faculty and/or to begin now to
recruit junior faculty to fill anticipated
retirements.
Representation by women and minorities is an
ongoing problem both with the faculty and
student demographics. The department plans on
This represents an opportunity to bring the
faculty size to regional and nation averages: It
is proposed to replace retirements with 2-for-1
Physics has a staff of five led by an
administrative assistant, an extremely effective
student advisor, and teaching laboratory
technician who is a much-sought-after physics
demonstration guru. During the past three years,
as USU implemented the Banner system, the
staff, although over stretched, has supported the
department‘s operation flawlessly. A constant
problem is a general lack of university-provided
IT support services for departmental operations.
147
or 3-for-2 hires-to-retirements ratios. In
general, a senior faculty salary is larger than the
junior faculty salary and, although it is
recognized that additional funding would be
needed, the actual salary impact to realize a
faculty increase, e.g., by three, would not cost
nearly the full amount. Without some
mechanism for mitigating the upcoming
retirements, it is not clear whether Physics can
continue to supply its significant contribution to
USU‘s research mission.
The recommendation for staff support pertains
to the ongoing problem of finding cost-effective
information technology support. Physics does
not have a designated expert, nor is a full-time
position justified. Moreover, it appears that a
solution to this infrastructure problem is needed
campus-wide.
Despite these challenges, faculty members in the
department are optimistic. They are willing to
continue to excel and execute the plans outlined
above. The department is contributing
significantly to USU‘s vision, and believes it is
well placed and ready to do even more. The
recommendations provided here are aggressive,
need USU administrative support, and promise
to help the USU College of Science to go to the
next level.
148
HONORS PROGRAM
The Honors Program provides students with an
enhanced track for meeting lower- and upperdivision course requirements. Students and
faculty members work together in intensive
seminars, experimental classes, interdisciplinary
courses, writing projects, and special activities.
Members of the program earn Honors credit on
their transcripts and pursue one of three Honors
degrees to be discussed later.
school GPA of 3.91 and an average ACT
composite of 29. The overall USU freshman
GPA was 3.53 and the ACT composite, 23.7.
Honors students comprised about 5% of the
undergraduate population at the Logan campus.
In the past few years, the USU Honors has
grown into a large, robust program with more
than 600 students. Honors offers each breadth
and depth course at least once per year and is
working to meet increased student demand for
courses. Students may complete an Honors
degree in nearly any major on campus.
Honors in University Studies with Departmental
Honors: 27 total Honors credits, comprising
lower-division Honors credits from the
program's approved course list plus completion
of an approved upper-division Departmental
Honors Plan (including a senior thesis/project).
Honors degrees: Students work toward one of
three Honors designations. The requirements are
as follows:
Departmental Honors: 15 total Honors credits in
an approved upper-division Departmental
Honors Plan (including a senior thesis/project).
Incoming Presidential Scholars are enrolled in
―A Taste of Honors‖ to try out the Honors
Program in their first semester. This approach
has proven to be very effective in recruiting and
retaining USU‘s best students. Approximately
93% of the first-year students enrolled in ―A
Taste of Honors‖ return to USU for the second
year and nearly 65% return to the Honors
program.
University Honors: 27 total Honors credits,
comprising lower-division Honors credits from
the program's approved course list plus
completion of an individually designed upperdivision plan (including a senior thesis/project).
Students take designated Honors classes, most of
which meet general education requirements, and
do individualized work in their major that
culminates in a senior thesis or project to fulfill
the Honors requirement. Honors offers a variety
of courses each semester, including at least
breadth courses, depth courses, math, and
English.
The benefits Honors provides students include
being an Undergraduate Teaching Fellow for
Honors breadth classes; priority registration; a
wireless computer ―lab‖ with free printing;
additional advising from the Honors staff; a
community of like-minded students, and social
events.
Honors
House
in
the
new
Living/Learning Center provides an opportunity
for Honors students to live together.
Analysis and Assessment
Honors graduated 65 students in the 2005-2006
academic year, which translates into more than
500 graduates overall, 150 of them in the last
five years. The Honors designation is placed on
students‘ diplomas as well as their transcripts.
Honors has seen remarkable growth in the past
five years, resulting from aggressive recruitment
techniques that included automatically admitting
all students who meet eligibility requirements
into Honors. Also, the application process was
moved to later in the fall semester rather than
before students enter USU. The need for
aggressive recruitment has passed, as Honors
In Fall 2006, Honors freshmen comprised 16%
of the freshman class and had an average high
149
has achieved its goals regarding enrollment and
visibility/reputation on campus. As a result, this
policy was terminated in the 2006-7 school year.
opportunities for students in every major on
campus. The downside to this move, however,
was that space was lost. The computer lounge is
now sharing space with an endowed Honors
Study Lounge in the Merrill-Cazier Library.
Prior to 2003, Honors had few students doing
Honors in either the Business or Engineering
colleges. Working closely with the associate
deans of each college, college-wide Honors
plans were developed to encourage more
students to pursue Honors. There has been great
growth in these two colleges as a result of these
efforts.
In a new recruitment phase, the next challenge is
branding Honors to incoming freshmen to
ensure that the most dedicated and ambitious
students who wish to earn Honors designation
are recruited and retained.
Further challenges include the inability to hire
additional staff due to declining budget,
although Honors now has significantly more
students than it did five years ago. Honors has
come to rely on a small army of undergraduate
workers, and is exploring innovative ways to
solve the staffing problem, such as hiring a
graduate assistant. Compared to peer institutions
with Honors Programs or colleges of similar
size, the program is understaffed.
In Spring 2004, it was determined that nearly a
quarter of students were on Honors probation
due to GPAs below 3.5. After reviewing the
policy at peer institutions and a review by the
Honors Advisory Board, the minimum GPA was
lowered to 3.3, resulting in only 13% of students
on probation. At the same time, probation
sanctions were strengthened, notifying students
each summer of their status and removing
students whose GPA fell below 2.5.
In reaction to a budgetary crisis from the
university level, as well as growing concern for
quality control and to maintain a level of control
of the mentoring of Honors students, the number
of students an Honors faculty member may
mentor in any given semester was reduced to
four.
Finally, Honors is engaged in fundraising to
provide more support for students. One of the
critical moments in an Honors student‘s degree
is the decision to complete an Honors thesis;
many students drop out of Honors at this time.
Through fundraising, Honors is now able to
offer two scholarships to encourage students to
complete an Honors thesis of high quality.
As Honors has continued to grow, the Honors
staff has been able to concentrate on other issues
instead of recruitment. Starting Spring 2005,
graduates were asked to complete a graduation
survey to determine how many students are
going to graduate school, internships, have a
foreign language, etc.
The staff continues to work to raise the quality
of Honors work: each Honors contract is now
reviewed at beginning and end of the project. An
Honors Thesis Handbook has also been
developed, which serves as a guide to students
embarking upon the thesis and includes
resources, including a timeline.
Challenges and Recommendations.
The goal of the Honors Program is to become an
example of innovative teaching, undergraduate
research, and prestige fellowship applications at
USU.
Perhaps the most daunting challenge in the past
five years was moving the Honors Program. The
previous location, the Merrill Library, was
demolished and Honors spent three years
without a permanent home until space was
procured in the basement of Old Main. This
new, higher-profile location is essential to the
fulfillment of the Honors mission to provide
150
STANDARD THREE
STUDENTS
Poet and columnist John Ciardi observed that ―a
university is what a college becomes when the
faculty lose interest in students.‖ USU has been
a university for half a century, but administrators
and faculty members have never lost sight of the
primacy of students. The university‘s mission
statement affirms that ―academics come first‖
and the vision statement aspires that USU will
be ―internationally recognized for its exceptional
learning opportunities.‖ The USU Board of
Trustees
formalized
the
university‘s
commitment to excellence in teaching by
approving a ―Policy on Quality Instruction,‖
which states, in part:
quality of life of USU students. The motto of
DSS is ―Let us do everything we can to help the
student be successful.‖ Student Services
encourages ―positive and realistic self-appraisal,
intellectual development, appropriate personal
and occupational choices, clarification of values,
physical fitness, the ability to relate
meaningfully with others, the capacity to engage
in a personally satisfying and effective style of
living, the capacity to appreciate cultural and
aesthetic differences, and the capacity to work
independently and interdependently.‖ DSS also
assists students in overcoming ―specific
personal, physical, or educational problems or
skill deficiencies‖ and provides opportunities for
comprehensive leadership development. Further,
DSS is committed to increase the diversity of the
campus community and to recruit and retain
minority students.
The Board of Trustees views the
instruction of students as the foremost
activity of Utah State University. It is
proud of the outstanding levels of quality
achieved throughout the institution in
preparing graduates to enter the
professions, graduate programs, and
leadership positions in all walks of life….
3.A.1 Organization of student services is
consistent with USU’s mission and goals. DSS
includes 22 units that provide services and
support to students. The units within the division
are typically the first to contact potential
students and the last to communicate with
graduating students. A brief description of each
unit, along with its web site URL, follows:
By endorsing this statement, the Board
desires that faculty, department heads,
and deans be aware of its interest in and
support of their dedicated efforts to offer
Utah State students the highest possible
quality of instruction.
Academic Resource Center provides services
and programs that enhance students' academic
performance and eases their transition to USU.
These services address the academic and
developmental needs of students and are offered
in collaboration with university faculty, staff,
and students. (http://www.usu.edu/arc/)
This section considers the demographic
characteristics of USU students and the services
that the university provides to assist them with
their educational, financial, and social needs. It
also evaluates USU‘s intercollegiate athletic
programs.
Admissions/Recruiting Office oversees recruitment,
undergraduate
admissions,
and
scholarships. The office provides daily campus
tours; engages in outreach activities, including
high school visits, open houses, and college
fairs. (http://www.usu.edu/admissions/)
Standard 3.A – Purpose and
Organization
The Division of Student Services (DSS) is vital
in providing services that enhance and support
the university‘s academic mission and the
151
Campus Recreation provides students, staff,
and faculty with facilities and programs for
recreational activities. The areas of emphasis in
Campus Recreation are General Campus
Recreation and Outdoor Recreation Center
(ORC) (http://www.usu.edu/camprec/).
The
Outdoor Recreation Center provides the
expertise and resources needed to enjoy the
outdoors surrounding USU‘s impressive
location. (http://www.usu.edu/orc)
in a manner that promotes independence and
dignity. (http://www.usu.edu/drc)
Financial Aid Office helps students finance
their education through grant programs, workstudy, student loans, scholarships, and student
employment. (http://www.usu.edu/finaid)
GLBT Services focus on the academic, social,
and cultural skills needed by lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgendered students to remain
in school. As this unit develops, it will promote
campus-based groups that educate and raise
awareness about sexual orientation, as well as
foster relationships within the community to
help students thrive as they pursue future
educational, career, and life goals. Web site
under construction.
Career Services assists students and alumni in
exploring and pursuing meaningful careers over
a lifetime. This is accomplished by providing a
broad range of developmental programs and
events.
(http://www.usu.edu/career). The
Testing Center, in Career Services, administers,
scores, interprets, evaluates, and utilizes the
results of various examinations useful in life and
career planning. The center offers the following
admission exams: ACT, Actuarial, GMAT,
GRE, LSAT, MAT, MCAT and the TOEFL. It
also offers the following exams for credit:
CLEP, Advance Placement, Foreign Language,
GED and Certification exams. Placement exams
for Math, Statistics and English are also
administered.
Multicultural Student Services (MSS) focuses
on USU‘s commitment to cultural diversity and
the recruitment, retention, and development of
Native American, African-American, AsianAmerican, Pacific Island and Latino students.
(http://www.usu.edu/multiculture)
Office of Student Conduct supports the
mission of the university by providing programs
and services designed to meet the educational
and developmental needs of students in relation
to community standards, civility, accountability,
diversity, respect and, truth. This unit serves as
the central coordinating office for the
university‘s student code violations and
maintains student disciplinary records. Web site
under construction.
(http://www.usu.edu/testing_services)
Children’s House provides high-quality child
care and education programs for the young
children of students, staff, and faculty.
(http://www.usu.edu/childrenshouse)
Counseling Center supplies confidential mental
health services to students on the USU campus.
The services include individual, group, and
relationship counseling; crisis and consultative
sessions; psycho-educational assessments; and
informational presentations about student mental
health issues. Services are free for qualified
students. (http://www.usu.edu/counseling)
Outreach Coordination is a new unit that
enhances the communication and resources
between Student Services on the USU main
campus and the USU Regional Campuses and
Distance Education. This unit focuses on
assessing the needs of our Regional Campus
colleagues and then providing information and
resources to enhance their daily operations. Web
site under construction. GEAR Up is a precollege-age program that prepares students to
enter and succeed at the university level. Gear
Up provides junior high and high school
students with tutoring, mentoring, academic and
career preparation, as well as UBSCT and ACT
Disability Resource Center provides qualified
persons with disabilities equal access to
university programs, services, and activities as
required by the Americans with Disabilities Act
and Rehabilitation Act. The center affirms the
right of persons with disabilities to obtain access
152
preparation, financial aid and scholarship
workshops, and campus tours. Web site under
construction.
simply enjoy life. The center is a clearinghouse
for student involvement and for leadership
opportunities
(http://www.usu.edu/asusu/).
Academic Service Learning, part of SILC, is a
credit-bearing educational experience where
students can gain a broader understanding of
course content, earn a deeper appreciation of the
discipline, help meet community needs, reflect
on service activities, and develop an enhanced
sense
of
civic
responsibility.
Many
opportunities for service-learning are available
for USU students.
(http://www.usu.edu/generalcatalog/20072009/print/pdf/95AServLearn07.pdf)
Registrar’s Office provides the campus
community with information and services in
registration, academic records, scheduling of
classes, graduation, veterans services, and
microfilm/imaging. These services are provided
to on-campus students as well as regional
campus students. Services are available online or
in person. (http://www.usu.edu/registrar)
Retention and First-Year Experience is
charged with improving student success and
retention. Its programs and services are designed
to integrate students into the academic
community of USU. Established in Fall 2006,
the office is poised to have an impact on
students at the time of entrance to the university,
through the first year, and throughout their
college experience. (http://www.usu.edu/rfye)
This office also manages the Student
Orientation, Advising, and Registration (SOAR)
program. (http://www.usu.edu/soar
Student Publications The Utah Statesman, the
primary student media vehicle, is a newspaper
published three times weekly during the
academic year. The Utah Statesman is also
published online, updated regularly, and emailed to a subscription list. The Online
Statesman receives approximately 4,500 hits
per day during the academic year.
(http://www.utahstatesman.com)
Student Support Services seeks to support
disadvantaged students who have potential to
meet the challenges of higher education by
strengthening and developing their academic and
self-management skills. Its focus is to insure that
participants in the program have a realistic
chance to persist in school and graduate from
USU. It provides services to enhance students'
academic success, personal skills, and social
skills. (http://www.usu.edu/sss)
Student Health and Wellness Center provides
a clinic for primary health care for students at
USU. To accomplish this, the center provides
the services of a psychiatrist, doctors, nurse
practitioners, physician‘s assistants, nurses,
laboratory technologists, health educators,
pharmacists, and dietitians. The goal is to help
students achieve and maintain wellness while at
USU.
(http://www.usu.edu/health/HOME.html)
The Wellness Center, housed with the Health
Center, assists USU students, staff, and faculty
in developing the life skills necessary to enhance
their personal wellness and their ability to be
successful in five areas of life: physical,
mental/emotional, social, economic, and
spiritual. The center is located north of the
Romney Stadium. (http://www.usu.edu/swc)
Taggart Student Center (TSC) is the
community center of the university for all
members of the university family--students,
staff, faculty, administration, alumni, and guests.
As the "living room" or the "hearthstone" of the
university, the TSC provides for the services,
conveniences, and amenities that members of the
university family need in their daily life on
campus and for getting to know and understand
one another through informal association outside
the classroom. (http://www.usu.edu/tsc). The
Card Office, located in the TSC, is where
students receive their USU ID cards. These
cards allow students access to many campus
resources and events and can be used for debit
Student Involvement and Leadership Center
(SILC) helps students discover a wide array of
extracurricular opportunities designed to round
out their educations. Whether students are
longtime theater junkies, committed to service,
or interested in a new sport, there are countless
ways to get involved, meet new people, and
153
and dining accounts. This office also provides
customer service assistance, information, maps,
and problem-solving aid to students, staff
members, and visitors.
http://www.usu.edu/usucard/customer.html.
Honors gives undergraduates the opportunity to
pursue enhanced course work in their University
Studies requirements, as well as their area of
major study. A limited number of new freshmen
are invited to join the Honors Program each year
and continuing students may join if they
maintain a minimum GPA of 3.0.
(www.usu.edu/honors)
University Advising provides information
regarding USU requirements, academic policies
and procedures, academic program planning,
transfer articulation agreements, and services
provided by the university. It also manages the
Peer Advising Program and provides advising
for undeclared students.
(http://www.usu.edu/advising)
Housing Services supplies comprehensive
housing services for a variety of students
including singles, family, summer citizens, and
conference participants.
(http://www.housing.usu.edu/)
Utah Conservation Corps is dedicated to
improving public lands and the communities that
surround them through partnership projects,
service, and education. (http://www.usu.edu/ucc)
Office of International Students and Scholars
serves as the primary link between the students
and the local and governmental agencies around
the world. The office provides admission
assistance, advising on immigration matters as
well as academic, personal, and social
adjustment issues of international students,
scholars, and their families.
(http://www.oiss.usu.edu/)
Women’s Center and Re-entry Student
Services serves as an advocate for women,
educating various campus and community
constituencies on the changing status of women
and gender-based issues through a variety of
programs and activities. The center provides
services and opportunities for women and men,
and demonstrates USU‘s commitment to being
an inclusive and equitable campus community.
(http://www.usu.edu/womencenter/)
Parking and Transportation Services oversees
sale of parking permits, physical maintenance of
parking lots and structures, enforcement of
parking regulations, parking-related issues with
event management, and university-wide shuttle
service. (http://www.usu.edu/parking/)
The following units are not a part of the
Division of Student Services, but provide
important support services for students.
USU Police Department consists of 12 fulltime police officers, three full-time fire
marshals, and two administrative support staff.
The primary mission is to provide for public
safety needs of the campus and also incident
response services. (http://www.usu.edu/usudps)
USU Bookstore has the responsibility to
provide goods and services at the lowest
possible prices consistent with sound business
policy. Its diverse selection of books, collegiate
clothing, and supplies reflects the wide variety
of backgrounds and interests that are found at
the university. (http://www.bookstore.usu.edu)
3.A.2 Division of Student Services Staff. The
Vice President for Student Services leads DSS.
He/she reports to the university president and
attends the vice presidents‘ meeting and the
president‘s Executive Committee. As this is
written, the vice president is serving in an
interim role after having significant experience
and history with Student Services at USU.
Dining Services provides for the residential,
catering, and general food services needs of
students, faculty, and staff. It also provides
catering services for both on- and off-campus
clientele. (http://www.usu.edu/dining/)
Since the last accreditation in 1997, USU has
had two vice presidents and three interim vice
presidents of Student Services. The university
154
has also had two changes of presidents. Because
of organizational and philosophical differences,
there have been departments shifted in and out
of Student Services during the last 10 years.
This has been disruptive to staff efforts to
develop a consistent priority on assessment. In
the future, the organizational structure should be
much more stable.
107 professional staff, 11 graduate assistants, 3
pre-doctoral interns, and 74 support staff. Most
units employ work-study students, student
employees, and paraprofessional student
employees. Table 3.1 shows the DSS staff
profile. An organization chart is found at
http://aaa.usu.edu/FactsFigures/OrgCharts/vp_st
udent_services.pdf and DSS staff vitae are at
http://aaa.usu.edu/Assessment/DSSVita.aspx.
In addition to the vice president and interim
associate and assistant vice presidents, DSS has
Table 3.1. Student Services Staff Profile
Female
Male
Degrees: Ph.D,
Ed.D.
MD, JD, MSW
MA, MS
BA, BS
AA, AAS,
Certificate, etc.
Years Experience in
field:
None
less than 5
5 – 10
11 – 15
16 – 20
more than 20
Full-time: 9/10
months
12 months
Part-time: 9/10
months
12 months
Professional
73
35
Support
63
11
Student
197
26
Other
28
33
12
6
41
47
1
29
3
2
3
4
1
15
7
27
22
18
35
18
1
34
14
4
8
11
13
82
5
7
91
2
49
1
4
9
9
Performance appraisals are conducted annually
in DSS, with written job descriptions as the
basis for these evaluations.
The annual
appraisals assist in implementing salary
increases and staffing changes.
70
43
3
4
4
approved by the unit head and/or vice president,
depending on the scope of the policy. When
appropriate, university legal counsel is consulted
and their guidance is followed.
Several policy and fee boards involve students,
faculty, and staff. The Taggart Student Center
Policy Board is made up of 10 voting members,
of which five are students and the chair of the
board is a student. This board meets at least
three times a year and serves as an advisory
3.A.3 Policies and procedures for student
development programs and services. Existing
policies and procedures within DSS comply with
and support the policies and procedures of USU.
When new policies are created, they are
155
committee on all matters of Taggart Student
Center policy.
monies, grants and donations/gifts. The staff has
received modest salary increases; however,
operating budgets have remained unchanged for
the last 20 years. With increased costs for
telephone services, postage, and computer
technology, resources are scarce. University
fiscal management and monitoring procedures
are followed by all DSS units. Grants are
monitored by both the university and the funding
agency.
The Student Fee Board is made up primarily of
students and is responsible for providing
students with direct input into decisions
regarding the disposition of student fees and acts
based on the following principles:
(a) Students should pay fees to support facilities,
programs, and/or activities that they desire.
Student fees should not generally be used for
programs or services that can be supported by
state or auxiliary funds.
Standard 3.B – General
Responsibilities
3.B.1 Characteristics of the USU student
population and provision for learning and
special needs. Table 3.2 shows the USU student
profile from Fall 2003 to Fall 2006. Data are
grouped by students on the main campus,
students registered for regional campus and
distance education (RCDE) courses, and USU
totals. All students who take any courses on the
main campus are included in the ―Main
Campus‖ column. Students who take any
RCDE courses are included in the ―RCDE‖
column. The ―USU Total‖ column eliminates
the duplicates (e.g. if a student is taking both
main campus and RCDE classes, they are only
counted once in the total column).
(b) Budget information regarding the disposition
of student fees should be easily available for
public review.
(c) There should be a process by which new and
present fees can be evaluated.
The Campus Recreation Policy Board is an
advisory and policy-making body that oversees
the recreation and activity facilities on campus.
The Campus Recreation unit is almost entirely
funded by student fees. This board ensures that
student fees are used wisely and has three voting
student members and is chaired by a student.
3.A.4
Human, physical, and financial
resources for student services. The majority of
DSS units are located in the Taggart Student
Center (TSC)--a three-story building centrally
located on the campus next to the parking
terrace and the University Inn. Several units are
located in the bottom of the University Inn. The
original TSC building was completed in 1952
with additions completed in 1964, 1987, and
1997. Design and placement of offices and units
located in the TSC is to have as many student
services located in one building as possible,
making student access to services easier. It also
helps units communicate more effectively and
better coordinate services and functions.
Funding for DSS comes from several major
sources: education and general funds, student
fees, fees for services, federal government
(financial aid), operating and maintenance
156
TABLE 3.2. USU Student Profile--Fall 2003 - Fall 2006
ENROLLMENT
Headcount
FTE
F 03
16,460
13,565.9
USU - MAIN CAMPUS
F 04
F05
F 06
16,130
14,458
14,444
13,146.6 12,515.5 12,505.7
Regional Campus/Distance Education
F 03
F 04
F05
F06
7,014
7,778
10,022
10,109
3,667.8 4,066.6 4,067.7 4,128.0
F 03
23,474
17,233.7
USU - TOTAL
F 04
F 05
23,908
23,107
17,213.2 16,583.1
F 06
23,623
16,633.7
TIME STATUS
Full-Time
Part-Time
Total
F 03
12,341
4,119
16,460
USU - MAIN CAMPUS
F 04
F05
12,740
11,867
3,390
2,591
16,130
14,458
F 06
11,607
2,837
14,444
Regional Campus/Distance Education
F 03
F 04
F05
F06
1,303
1,297
2,480
2,132
5,711
6,481
7,542
7,977
7,014
7,778
10,022
10,109
F 03
13,644
9,830
23,474
USU - TOTAL
F 04
F 05
14,037
13,301
9,871
9,806
23,908
23,107
F 06
13,050
10,573
23,623
DEGREE-SEEKING
Degree-Seeking
NonDegreeSeeking
Total
F 03
16,318
USU - MAIN CAMPUS
F 04
F05
F 06
15,069
14,162
14,167
Regional Campus/Distance Education
F 03
F 04
F05
F06
2,109
4,703
4,540
3,948
F 03
18,427
USU - TOTAL
F 04
F 05
18,041
17,354
F 06
17,216
277
14,444
4,905
7,014
5,047
23,474
5,867
23,908
6,407
23,623
CLASS LEVEL
Freshmen
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
UG Unclassified
Undergraduate
Total
Master
Doctoral
Grad. Unclassified
Graduate Total
Total
F 03
3,419
2,980
3,106
4,408
45
F 06
3,321
2,594
2,667
4,059
138
Regional Campus/Distance Education
F 03
F 04
F05
F06
499
698
626
641
476
757
750
679
409
804
736
704
770
1,488
1,346
1,163
3,670
4,261
4,352
4,702
F 03
3,918
3,456
3,515
5,178
3,715
USU - TOTAL
F 04
F 05
3,601
3,531
3,353
3,093
3,392
3,120
5,368
5,144
4,280
4,412
F 06
3,876
3,074
3,137
4,856
4,832
12,779
1,025
571
69
1,665
14,444
5,824
55
0
1,135
1,190
7,014
7,889
1,897
69
254
2,220
10,109
19,782
2,014
539
1,139
3,692
23,474
19,994
1,993
591
1,330
3,914
23,908
19,300
2,688
623
496
3,807
23,107
19,775
2,892
637
319
3,848
23,623
GENDER
Male
Female
Total
F 03
8,605
7,855
16,460
USU - MAIN CAMPUS
F 04
F05
8,018
7,527
7,331
6,931
15,349
14,458
F 06
7,663
6,781
14,444
Regional Campus/Distance Education
F 03
F 04
F05
F06
2,755
4,324
4,047
3,902
4,259
5,992
5,975
6,207
7,014
10,316
10,022
10,109
F 03
11,360
12,114
23,474
USU - TOTAL
F 04
F 05
11,472
10,925
12,436
12,182
23,908
23,107
F 06
11,144
12,479
23,623
ETHNICITY
Am. Ind./AK Native
Asian/Pac. Islander
Black, non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Minority Total
White, non-Hispanic
Other/Unspecified
Non-Resident Alien
Total
F 03
78
229
91
300
698
14,529
329
904
16,460
USU - MAIN CAMPUS
F 04
F05
65
62
220
199
93
88
317
305
695
654
13,551
12,387
311
393
792
1,024
15,349
14,458
F 06
59
204
107
287
657
12,422
522
843
14,444
Regional Campus/Distance Education
F 03
F 04
F05
F06
89
119
96
102
49
146
125
110
27
37
46
54
149
236
225
260
314
538
492
526
5,766
8,907
8,198
8,311
639
585
432
519
295
286
900
753
7,014
10,316
10,022
10,109
F 03
167
278
118
449
1,012
20,295
968
1,199
23,474
USU - TOTAL
F 04
F 05
180
154
342
304
119
119
517
502
1,158
1,079
20,882
19,402
869
799
999
1,827
23,908
23,107
F 06
157
305
150
526
1,138
19,928
1,013
1,544
23,623
142
16,460
13,958
1,959
539
4
2,502
16,460
280
15,349
296
14,458
USU - MAIN CAMPUS
F 04
F05
3,068
3,031
2,919
2,600
2,971
2,704
4,542
4,337
20
65
13,520
1,226
521
82
1,829
15,349
12,737
1,078
554
89
1,721
14,458
USU - MAIN CAMPUS
GEOGRAPHIC
ORIGIN
Utah
Other U.S.
U.S. Unknown
Foreign
Unknown
Total
F 03
11,094
4,217
216
923
10
16,460
AVERAGE AGE
Undergraduate
Graduate
F 03
22.4
31.5
F 04
10,584
3,749
187
811
18
15,349
F05
10,659
2,995
69
576
159
14,458
5,613
10,316
8,008
926
129
1,253
2,308
10,316
5,482
10,022
7,810
1,698
104
410
2,212
10,022
6,161
10,109
Regional Campus/Distance Education
F 06
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
USU - MAIN CAMPUS
F 04
F05
F 06
22.4
22.4
22.2
29.8
30.0
29.9
F 03
5,707
739
97
266
205
7,014
F 04
8,340
1,307
137
327
205
10,316
F05
8,280
856
20
462
404
10,022
F06
Regional Campus/Distance Education
F 03
F 04
F05
F06
23.4
23.3
23.0
22.5
41.5
38.9
38.3
38.6
157
5,753
23,107
USU - TOTAL
F 03
16,801
4,956
313
1,189
215
23,474
F 04
17,762
4,561
307
1,058
220
23,908
F 05
17,973
3,520
83
982
549
23,107
F 06
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
F 03
22.7
34.7
USU - TOTAL
F 04
F 05
22.6
22.5
35.2
34.9
F 06
22.2
34.9
Total
23.8
23.3
23.3
23.1
AVERAGE ACT
COMPOSITE
New Freshmen
F 03
23.6
USU - MAIN CAMPUS
F 04
F05
F 06
24.1
23.7
23.7
AVERAGE HIGH
SCHOOL GPA
New Freshmen
F 03
3.56
USU - MAIN CAMPUS
F 04
F05
F 06
3.57
3.54
3.53
26.5
26.8
24.6
24.7
Regional Campus/Distance Education
F 03
F 04
F05
F06
20.9
19.8
20.5
20.0
F 03
23.5
USU - TOTAL
F 04
F 05
23.7
23.5
F 06
23.4
Regional Campus/Distance Education
F 03
F 04
F05
F06
3.25
3.02
3.12
3.0
F 03
3.54
USU - TOTAL
F 04
F 05
3.52
3.51
F 06
3.49
Considering USU total enrollment, females
constitute a slight majority of students and
about five percent are minority students.
About four percent of USU students are
international students.
Three-quarters of
USU‘s students come from Utah, while 15%
to 20% of the student body comes from out of
state. The average age of undergraduate
students is 22 and the average age of graduate
students is almost 35.
26.4
26.0
24.5
opportunity to take a course entitled
―Strategies for Academic Success‖ taught by
the DRC learning disabilities specialist.
This class is also offered in an online format.
Students report that this instruction is very
helpful.
The Disability Resource Center administers a
small scholarship program which includes two
endowed scholarships and other awards based
on private donations and funds earmarked for
disadvantaged students. These scholarships
are offered to both on-campus and distance
education students.
The Disability Resource Center (DRC) works
closely with more than 600 students each
year. The number of students served has
remained fairly constant over the past five
years, with the greatest increase in the number
of students with learning disabilities and
psychiatric conditions. Students report that
the services that the DRC provides are helpful
and effective. Customer service surveys gave
the unit a performance rating average of 4.7
on a 5-point scale. However, one challenge
faced by the DRC is providing enough
interpreters for deaf students.
Student Support Services is a federally funded
program serving disadvantaged students by
providing holistic and integrated services. The
focus of this office is to insure that
participants in the program have a realistic
chance to persist in school and graduate from
USU. To accomplish these objectives, the unit
provides services such as academic advising,
course selection, tutoring, financial aid
planning, instruction in mathematics, and
studying and reading skills development.
Providing services in these areas corresponds
to the university‘s mission to support
student‘s intellectual development, personal
growth, and community advancement.
The six-year graduation rate for students with
disabilities at USU is 44% compared with an
institutional rate of 47%. According to the
National Center for Education Statistics, the
nationwide graduation rate for students with
disabilities is 53%.
Students with disabilities must meet USU
admission standards. However, there is an
opportunity for students who do not meet
these standards to attend USU through the
Distance Education programs.
Distance
Education students with disabilities are
provided with DRC services such as sign
language
interpreters,
note
takers,
accommodated
testing,
and
assistive
technology. Distance Education students at
the Logan campus are also afforded the
The Student Support Services program is
filled yearly to its maximum number of 190
participants, determined by federal funding.
Retention rates among the program
participants have met the stated program goal.
Based on the Annual Performance Report for
the academic year 2003-2004, the retention
rate for the program participants was 79%.
For the year 2004-2005 the retention rate was
73%, and for 2005-2006, it was 81%.
158
24.3
Based on a longitudinal evaluation study, 72%
of the Student Support Services participants in
the Fall 1999 cohort had graduated by Spring
2005 and 75% of the participants in Fall 2000
cohort had graduated by Spring 2006. Student
Support Services participants have continued
to have a high graduation rate compared to
both the general population and the eligible
non-participants.
vice presidents, and members of student
government. Meetings are held quarterly, the
agenda and order of business are set by students,
and the meeting is chaired by the student body
president. Central administration is responsive to
the recommendations of student leaders, takes
them under advisement, and directs them to
appropriate offices for resolution.
Faculty involvement in the development of
polices through student services occurs several
ways. The Campus Recreation unit currently has
two committees--the Campus Recreation Policy
Committee and the Campus Recreation Fee
Committee--that meet to review and update
policies, budgets, review and approve/
disapprove requests, and advise the unit. There
is one faculty representative on the Campus
Recreation Policy Committee. The Student
Media Board is an advisory board that helps
select the leadership of student media and directs
the bylaws by which those media are supervised.
Faculty members sit on this board and
periodically meet with the student leaders of
student-funded media to monitor their success.
USU‘s 2006 Graduating Students Survey
showed that more than 50% of graduating
students are married and almost 25% have at
least one child.
The Children‘s House
provides a service for some of these married
students. The goal of the House is to provide
and maintain a high-quality inclusive early
care and education program for young
children of students, staff, and faculty
parents of Utah State University. Planning
is in progress to expand USU daycare
offerings for students and faculty.
3.B.2. Student role institutional governance.
The Associated Students of Utah State
University (ASUSU) is comprised of 16 elected
and 5 appointed student leaders. The body
consists of the student body president, nine vice
presidents, and seven senators representing each
academic college, four program directors, and an
administrative assistant. The charge of this body
is to share in the overall governance of the
institution. The university takes pride in the
close relationship it has established and
maintained with student government and there is
a spirit of shared governance and collaboration.
The student body president is a voting member
of the University Board of Trustees. ASUSU
representatives serve on many key university,
faculty, and administrative committees and
boards.
The Taggart Student Center Policy Board is
chaired by a member of ASUSU and has three
other ASUSU members, as well as a faculty
representative.
3.B.3 Policies on student responsibilities and
rights. Information on student responsibilities
and rights is found in ―The Code of Policies and
Procedures for Students at Utah State
University‖ (Student Code). The Student Code
contains specific sections on students‘ rights and
responsibilities. It addresses misconduct matters,
honor code or academic violations, and provides
for a student grievance procedure. Matters
dealing with the Student Code are handled by
the Campus Judicial Office. The code
establishes a board for each of the above matters
and this board is fully functioning. It is made up
of four students and two faculty or staff. Hard
copy of the code is available at the Campus
Judicial
Office
and
also
online
at
http://www.usu.edu/studentservices/studentcode/
This involvement allows student leaders input
into decisions regarding all facets of the
university. Student leaders identify research and
study campus problems, write legislation, and
make specific proposals to faculty, directors,
department heads, deans, and central
administrators. The research and legislation
passed by ASUSU is presented to the Staters‘
Council which consists of the president, provost,
159
The mission of Risk Management Services
(RMS) is to assist university administrators,
managers, and other personnel in the prevention
or minimization of unintentional losses and to
obtain timely and equitable recovery of insured
losses. Along those lines, RMS provides active
consulting to individual students, student
groups, and student advisors to help ensure that
student activities are conducted in a manner that
mitigates the risk of a loss of property or
infliction of personal injury.
3.B.4. Safety and security of students and
their property. USU does all that is possible for
the safety and security of its students and their
property. The university has its own police
department with full peace officer status to
better serve the campus community. The USU
Police Department has a close working
relationship with the Logan City Police
Department and other law enforcement agencies
throughout the valley to further enhance the
safety of students. The mission of the USU
Police Department is to protect life and property,
provide service, and provide the campus
community with a peaceful and safe
environment. To accomplish this mission, the
department provides 24-hour police coverage of
the campus, including a 911 emergency dispatch
center.
In addition, the university has a Risk Control
Committee representing a wide cross section of
the campus. This committee studies university
activities and makes recommendations to student
groups and their advisors to diminish loss
exposures. In the event that a student is injured
through the sole negligence of the university,
USU has a $10 million personal injury liability
policy in place to settle any claims.
The USU Police respond to and investigate all
reports of crime and suspicious circumstances
on campus, conduct routine preventive patrols,
provide services, lock buildings, conduct crime
prevention
programs,
provide
traffic
enforcement, provide security and crowd control
at special events, and enforce appropriate
university rules and regulations.
3.B.5. General catalog. USU publishes a
General Catalog every two years that contains
information essential to students and prospective
students, including the university mission and
role statement; admission, registration, financial
aid, and residency policies and procedures;
students‘ responsibilities; degree programs;
degree-completion requirements; transfer credit
guidelines; course descriptions; tuition, fees, and
other charges; refund policies; the Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA);
and other items relative to attending the
institution or withdrawing from it.
To keep the students and others informed, the
USU Police Department provides a weekly
police blotter which is published in the campus
newspaper. In addition, in the first issue of the
newspaper each academic year, information
detailing how to stay safe and keep property safe
is published. The department web site includes
information on crime statistics and crime
prevention programs. This web site is found at
www.usu.edu/usudps.
In addition, the General Catalog covers
information on student activities, including
student government, athletics, student services,
academic support programs and services, and
special academic programs. The catalog also
contains information on student conduct and
academic honesty. Hard copy is available, but
students are encouraged to access information
online at http://www.usu.edu/ats/generalcatalog/.
The Fire Marshal division of the USU Police
Department consists of three individuals; one
Fire Marshal and two Deputy Fire Marshals.
Their primary responsibilities include building
inspection to ensure fire code compliance, fire
extinguisher maintenance, responding to alarms,
and fire prevention instruction. They also
provide consultation for facilities planning and
code compliance in new construction and
remodeling projects.
All entering freshmen receive the General
Catalog when they participate in Student
Orientation,
Advising,
and
Registration
(SOAR), which is required of all new freshmen.
At SOAR, students are taught how to use the
160
catalog and are shown where to look up specific
topics such as degree requirements, registering
and withdrawing from classes, course
descriptions, and available student resources.
Questions were asked relating to ease and
friendliness of processes. Many suggestions
were obtained and shared with providing
departments. Improvements were made. During
Spring 2007, the student council focus was on
inclusiveness. Surveys are being used to gather
information which will be used to enhance
programs and offerings for all students. These
processes will be ongoing with additional
students and a constant focus on improvement.
3.B.6 Appropriateness, adequacy, and use of
student services and programs.
A staff
member in the office of the Vice President for
Student Services has been given the charge to
train and consult with the units to see that each
uses CAS standards to evaluate and complete
self-studies annually. This is a recent assignment
given by the vice president. Some units have
been using CAS standards for assessment since
the last NWCCU accreditation and their web
sites display this information.
Service Teams. In Fall 2006, DSS identified
three service team groups that share in like
service offerings--Student
Life,
Student
Assistance, and Enrollment Management. The
purpose of these teams is to enlarge horizontal
communications among and between the units
with the outcome of enhanced student service
and inclusiveness. These teams meet monthly
and report their progress to the overall directors
meetings.
In addition, the Office of Analysis, Assessment,
and Accreditation (AAA) administers or
coordinates a series of university-wide surveys
to collect information on the demographic
characteristics, activities, attitudes, and opinions
of current and former USU students. Some
surveys include questions regarding services and
offices within DSS. Survey reports are at
http://aaa.usu.edu/factsfigures/surveys.asp.
Diversity Organization. Currently, there is
discussion about the organizational structure of
diversity and how well the division is meeting
the needs of all students. The goal is one of
integration and sharing in knowledge and
understanding of others. Realignment of the
traditional structures is being reviewed.
3.B. Challenges and Recommendations
Diversity issues are always a concern on any
campus. While the campus is largely
homogeneous in nature with a predominant
culture, there are students from some 90
countries and virtually every state in the nation.
This diversity raises a need for inclusiveness
among all the students. Questions dealing with
safety, acceptance, and quality of student life are
always issues needing constant evaluation.
Standard 3.C – Academic
Credit and Records
This is a dynamic time for USU and particularly
for student services. Several approaches are
being explored and programs being implemented
to address this changing environment. Among
the more recent efforts are the following:
3.C.1 Evaluation of student learning and
award of credit. The standard for academic
course credit, as identified by NWCCU and
followed by USU, is that one credit be awarded
for three hours of student work per week during
a 15-week semester. For traditional courses, this
is interpreted as one 50-minute class period plus
two hours of study per week for each credit.
This standard is also used to assign credits for
courses that do not meet for 50-minute periods.
Student Advisory Council. In Fall 2006, a DSS
Student Advisory Council was formed. This
student group consists of 25 students selected
from 20 different student groups on the campus.
During fall semester, the group focused on
processes and procedures required of students.
3.C.2 Criteria for evaluating student performance and achievement. The criteria for
evaluating undergraduate student performance is
program or unit driven. Criteria for evaluating
theses and dissertations are primarily established
at the department level. Uniform thesis and
161
dissertation evaluations are encouraged through
established
practice
of
three-member
supervisory committees for master‘s candidates
and five-member supervisory committees for
doctoral candidates. Ordinarily, committee
members must have full-time faculty (tenure
track) appointments at the assistant professor
level or higher. Others may serve on supervisory
committees with the approval of the department
head and graduate dean. Central monitoring of
evaluation criteria takes place within the School
of Graduate Studies. It is the role of the
Graduate School to ensure that standard
practices are followed in thesis/dissertation
format
(i.e.,
presentation).
Upon
recommendation of the graduate dean, theses
and dissertations can be made available for
outside review. The university requires all theses
and dissertations be archived at University
Microfilms International.
Continuing Education Unit (CEU) or
Professional Education Unit (PEU) is available.
This is non-academic credit and is not recorded
on the academic transcript of a student. A
certificate is generated to document completion
of this type of credit.
3.C.4 Transfer credit. Course equivalency
decisions are made by the academic
departments. USU has articulated the entire
catalogs from its top 17 feeder institutions. In
addition, many other institutions have been
identified for which USU will accept an
associate degree as satisfying the General
Education portion of the University Studies
requirements. Transfer Credit Guidelines and a
summary of Transfer Articulation Agreements
are found in the General Catalog.
The Utah legislature has mandated a ―common
course numbering system for all state schools.
Schools have recently implemented this
program, which will facilitate common lowerdivision course numbers and the same course
materials being covered at all institutions in the
Utah System of Higher Education. USU
maintains a comprehensive articulation web site
at http://www.usu.edu/transfer.
3.C.3 Clear and well publicized distinctions
between degree and non-degree credit. All
courses numbered below 1000 are remedial
courses, will not satisfy baccalaureate
requirements, are nontransferable, and are not
calculated in GPA. USU courses numbered
1000 or above are degree credit and may be
applied toward a degree. If there are limitations
on degree credits counting toward a degree, they
are clearly spelled out. (For example,
lower/upper division credit meeting minimum or
maximum hours allowable for majors, minors,
and USU requirements for graduation.)
Students may appeal to have credits evaluated
from an institution that is not regionally
accredited through the Registrar‘s Office. A
course description is given to that office and
forwarded to the appropriate academic
department for special consideration. If
departmental approval is granted, the credit
recommendation is forwarded to the Registrar
and the credit is posted to a student‘s record. If
credit is denied, students are notified that the
department will not accept the credit.
Such distinctions are publicized in the General
Catalog. Student transcripts clearly note when
any credit awarded is non-degree credit.
Remedial courses display the @ symbol next to
the course grade. The transcript indicates that
the @ symbol designates the course as a
remedial course and that the credits are not used
in calculating the grade point average and do not
count toward a student‘s earned hours.
Additionally, institutional publications explicitly
indicate if credit will not be recognized for a
degree. In particular, limitations on creditbearing courses counting toward a degree taken
by non-matriculated students are found in the
General Catalog.
3.C.5 Security of student records, admission
and programs. Student records are classified
into the following categories:
Paper copies. Original paper transcripts exist
for ALL academic records through 1980.
Microfiche/Microfilm. In an effort to preserve
the records and data maintained therein, 1:1
copies of all records were made and are
162
continuously maintained in three locations--one
localized in the Registrar‘s Office, another in the
archives in the Merrill-Cazier Library, and the
final backup storage copies are stored in an offsite storage facility in Salt Lake City.
the documents are scanned, they are stored in a
vault in the Registrar‘s Office. One of the
biggest challenges in this area is the result of the
document imaging system being down for
approximately 18 months.
Electronic Imaging--Electronic Student Records
System (Banner/Sungardhe). Electronic imagine
of all paper documents determined to be
academic records are stored by electronic means.
An optical storage system is in place to meet all
federal records compliance needs. This
information is backed up incrementally on a
weekly basis and in a three-tier rotation
schedule. The database and other vital files are
backed up locally and on external storage.
Processes are being finalized to insure off-site
storage and also disaster recovery needs.
Since the system was brought back into
functionality several months ago, the imaging
backlog has been eliminated for the Registrar‘s
Office. Efforts are now being made to eliminate
the imaging backlog from the Admissions Office
by August 2007. In the interim, the records that
are ready to scan are currently stored in the vault
in the Registrar‘s Office. Documents that are
not ready for scanning are still maintained in the
Admissions Office.
A goal has been set to have a long-term
document imaging plan in place by June 2008
that will allow Admissions and Registration to
use one system that will meet the needs of both
offices. Another goal is to store more recent
CDs and DVDs of archived records in a secure
storage facility, such as Perpetual Storage.
Student Data Records System (Banner/
Sungardhe). Since 1980, USU has been using
electronic systems to manage student records.
At this time, efforts were made to convert
information from the above resources to an
electronic data set. This process is still in
progress. All new records are maintained and
stored electronically from 1980 forward and
efforts are made to digitize/convert archived
pieces. In conjunction with IT Services best
practices, all records are only accessible by
parties authorized to do so. Students have
access permission as it pertains to their student
data and in accordance with FERPA guidelines.
University employees and officials have
permission delegated pertinent to their function
as it pertains to these records.
Standard 3.D – Student Services
3.D.1
Student admission policies.
The
institution adopts student admission policies
consistent with its mission as both a land-grant
and research university. Students attending the
university for the first time are admitted on the
basis of an index score, which is a reflection of
high school grades and ACT or SAT scores (See
Table 3.3). Entering students must have an
acceptable index score in order to be admitted.
Current USU policies regarding the index score
are that students having an index score of 90 or
higher are very likely to be admitted. Students
must have an ACT composite score of 18 or
higher, regardless of what their overall
admission index score is. A cumulative grade
point average of 2.5 or higher in high school
coursework is also required. In cases where the
applicant is younger than 25 years, official
ACT/SAT results are also required. Exceptions
to the preceding regulations are made for
applicants who have not graduated from high
school who may substitute GED scores.
These data are stored in a non-disclosed backup
location locally and one being developed offsite
for disaster and other recovery needs.
3.C. Challenges and Recommendations
Academic records are maintained by the
Registrar‘s Office. Copies of older records are
maintained offsite with Perpetual Storage in Salt
Lake City. USU currently stores microfiche and
microfilm securely in this facility.
Recent documents are scanned and saved
electronically using PaperClip software. Until
163
Transfer students are admitted to USU if they
have at least 24 semester credits earned at
another institution (or at one of USU‘s regional
campuses) and a transfer GPA of 2.50 or higher.
Those with GPAs between 2.20 and 2.49 are
considered on an individual basis. However,
many USU undergraduate majors require higher
GPAs for admission.
Enrollment Management Team and recommendations are forwarded to the university‘s
Executive Committee for approval. The
Admissions Committee works closely with the
Vice President for Student Services to ensure all
requirements remain consistent with the
institution‘s mission and goals. The USU
Admission‘s Report required by NWCCU is at
http://aaa.main.usu.edu/Assessment/Standard_T
hree/Standard%20Three-TABLE%201Admissions%20Report.pdf .
Requirements for admission to the university
and its programs are reviewed annually by the
Table 3.3. Admissions Index
various public and private sources are
administered by program staff and serve to
retain students.
3.D.2 Attention to ethnic, socioeconomic, and
religious diversity. The institution offers
various support services to attract and retain a
diverse student body. Multicultural Student
Services (MSS) is a retention-based office that
supports and involves students. MSS provides a
freshman orientation program which serves from
60 to 90 new students annually. The office also
provides life skills transition courses for new
students, serving between 50-75 new freshmen.
Instructors serve as secondary advisors,
facilitating connections to appropriate campus
departments as well as academic tutors. The
courses also offer a peer mentoring component
which involves approximately 70 students and
mentors.
Scholarships and stipends from
Multicultural representation on the university
student council is offered by the ASUSU
Diversity and Organizations Vice President.
MSS also provides six different ethnic
organizations to promote student development
and enhance the social/cultural environment on
campus. Each organization sponsors 15 to 20
annual events, including heritage weeks,
socialization events, ethnic celebrations, service
projects, and other programs to promote cultural
understanding. Programs are publicized on
campus and in the greater community, and in
164
many cases draw hundreds of participants.
Additional community outreach efforts include
hosting
of
low
socioeconomic,
firstgeneration/ESL, and Native American students
to campus.
international students and scholars. American
students, faculty and members of the community
are also invited to participate in all of the
activities. A two-day orientation session is held
to assist new students with all of the processes
necessary to have a successful academic
experience at USU. The OISS also initiates
focus groups to receive feedback from the
students.
USU is part of the GEAR UP statewide
education program, with the university serving
northern Utah. GEAR UP stands for Gaining
Early
Awareness
and
Readiness
for
Undergraduate Programs. It is a discretionary
grant program designed to increase the number
of students who are prepared to enter and
succeed in postsecondary education.
International students participate in various
programs organized through the OISS and the
International Student Council (ISC). Several
hundred students presented programs to some
3,000 people in the Logan area through schools,
clubs, churches, and community organizations.
The ISC represents the interests of international
students on campus and is organized under
OISS. The council sponsors activities and carries
out such programs as International Education
Week, field trips, the International Banquet, Mr.
and Mrs. International Pageant, and many other
activities. International students also organize
associations representing their own countries
when there are large numbers of students from
the same country. These organizations provide
support groups and social contacts with other
individuals of similar ethnic or national interests.
They also promote their own national
observances and help provide programs for the
community.
The GEAR UP program at USU serves
approximately 130 Cache Valley students four
days a week at six school sites. The main
services provided by GEAR UP are mentoring
students daily, tutoring of core subjects: math,
science, reading, and writing daily; workshops
about higher education and careers monthly; and
monthly educational activities or field trips. The
program also provides 2-5 mentors and tutors for
each site (based on the number of students in the
program at the school site and based on need),
making a ratio of approximately 4-to-1
mentor/tutor to GEAR UP student, for more
personal tutoring and mentoring opportunities.
GEAR UP also provides services for the parents
of the students in the program. Parents are
invited to certain workshops and meetings with
GEAR UP personnel to talk about their student
and his/her educational progression and
intentions as well as general topics such as
financial aid and scholarship opportunities.
The OISS offers programs such as the
International Peer Mentoring Program and the
English Conversation Program. The Community
and University Friends of International Students
and Scholars (CUFISS) provide activities for
international students and opportunities for
students who express an interest in visiting an
American home. Arrangements are made to
invite the students into homes for dinners and
other social gatherings. The International
Friendship Committee, a group of volunteer
women from the community, provides a weekly
program for the wives of international students
and scholars.
The Office of International Students and
Scholars (OISS) functions to help international
students and scholars adjust to life at USU and
to organize programs that will involve the
students and scholars in the university and the
community. More than 800 students, scholars
and their families from 71 different countries are
on USU‘s campus each year. The OISS assists
students
with
admissions,
immigration,
academic, housing, cultural, and social
adjustments, as well as personal advising and
help with procedural matters. To help students
adjust to life at USU and in the United States, a
variety of programs are available to the
3.D.3 Placement policies and procedures.
USU has developed a placement system to assist
each student in identifying the appropriate
course for English, mathematics and statistics,
165
and foreign languages. This information is
explained to students in the General Catalog.
English placement is based on an English ACT
score or SAT verbal score. Students are not
eligible to take the university‘s sophomore
writing course (English 2010) until after they
have earned 30 credits. If a student does not
have an ACT or SAT score, or has not taken an
articulated course, he/she may enroll in English
1010.
programs including grants, work-study, student
loans, scholarships, and student employment.
The office administers federal programs in
accordance with federal requirements. It helps
students complete federal aid applications,
verifies reported information, assesses need,
makes federal awards, administers scholarships,
oversees work-study payroll, coordinates aid
across campus, and monitors required academic
progress according to federal regulations and
state requirements.
Math placement is based on Math ACT or Math
SAT scores. These scores designate the
appropriate place to begin within the math
sequence of the institution.
The Banner enterprise software system is used to
make awards and transmits data electronically to
the Registrar‘s and Controller‘s offices for
registration and disbursement. It records all
transactions for auditing and reconciliation of
accounts. All financial aid programs are audited
annually in accordance with federal and state
requirements. Institutional accountability is
ensured by the following ongoing assessments:
3.D.4 Continuation or termination from
programs, and appeal processes. The General
Catalog outlines the requirements for
continuation in, or termination from, its
educational programs. Definitions of academic
good standing, as well as probation, suspension,
and dismissal, are clearly listed. The policy and
procedure for readmission following academic
suspension is specified, too. Additionally, the
General Catalog records the policies of each
academic college and department regarding the
necessary requirements to remain in good
standing. The Code of Policies and Procedures
for Students at Utah State University clearly
states the university‘s policies regarding
termination from the university for nonacademic violations.
Annual A-133 Audits
State of Utah audits
USU audits
Student Satisfaction Survey
Quality Control of Verification
Staff feedback from daily interaction
with students
Audits for the past two years have given the
Financial Aid Office a clean bill--zero findings.
3.D.5 Graduation requirements and the
Student-Right-to-Know Act. Institutional and
program graduation requirements are stated
clearly in the General Catalog and on the major
requirement sheets (www.usu.edu/majorsheets).
Academic advisors and college deans, or their
representatives, verify that a student has met all
of the university and program graduation
requirements.
Rights and responsibilities of
students are printed in the Schedule of Classes
every semester. The Student Right-to-Know Act
is at http://www.usu.edu/righttoknow/.
Assessment is discussed in weekly staff
meetings, training sessions, and annual retreats.
Changes are proposed and endorsed by the staff
in these meetings. Some specific examples of
assessment-based change:
Staff reorganization, combining phones/
front counter to more effective handle
incoming questions which is done more
and more online.
Implementation of ACG and SMART
grants.
Counselors now handle specific portions
of the alphabet to give continuity in
service to students.
All forms have been revised.
3.D.6. Financial aid programs: effectiveness
and accountability. The Financial Aid Office
helps students finance their education at USU
through federal, state, and institutional aid
166
Financial aid information is available to
students on the Internet.
state. The last two audits had no findings of
noncompliance.
The specific objectives and plans for financial
aid assessment are as follows:
Objective #3: Train staff to meet changing
demands. Staff members provide email feedback
on the daily electronic training program and
participate in open twice-weekly staff meetings
and weekly functional group meetings.
Paperwork is checked for accuracy with a
quality control program. Students are invited to
appeal decisions of staff and provide feedback.
Survey results are at http://www.usu.edu/finaid.
Objective #1: Provide accurate, timely service to
students. A random-sample survey of students
is conducted biannually to assess overall
satisfaction with financial aid services.
Computer reports are run at least weekly to
monitor timeliness of student awards and
disbursement of aid.
3.D.7. Information regarding the categories of
financial assistance. Total financial aid
awarded from 2002-06 is shown in Table 3.4. A
complete report of historical changes in financial
aids awards at USU is can be found online at
http://aaa.usu.edu/Assessment/Standard_Three/Fin
ancial%20Aid%20Stats.pdf.
Objective #2: Maintain compliance with federal
law. Random student files are reviewed for
accuracy and compliance with regulation.
Annual compliance audits are conducted by the
Table 3.4. Total Financial Aid Awarded—2001-02 to 2005-06
YEAR
PELL
GRANT
FFEL
LOANS
SEOG
GRANT
WORK
STUDY
PERKINS
LOAN
LEAP
GRANT
UCOPE
GRANT
TOTAL
01-02
02-03
03-04
04-05
05-06
15,906,614
18,519,208
19,332,019
18,455,292
15,717,722
27,050,070
28,205,309
30,506,718
31,387,045
30,766,587
830,288
928,385
773,374
991,519
808,562
1,011,306
1,573,297
1,373,646
1,094,420
1,346,755
1,715,407
3,067,730
3,395,752
4,337,057
2,509,800
218,681
276,569
279,530
314,163
316,800
480,935
427,466
149,944
254,156
322,622
47,213,301
52,997,964
55,808,964
56,833,952
51,788,868
In a 2006 survey, the majority of USU students
(51%) considered the Internet their primary
source of financial aid information, followed by
personal contact with financial aid staff (33%),
and printed information (6%). The office
maintains detailed information on the internet
(http://www.usu.edu/finaid/); is staffed for
email, phone, and in-person consultation; and
distributes printed material in the office, through
mailings, and in recruiting and outreach
programs. The university catalog and class
bulletin also provide detailed aid information.
The office is open to the public during standard
business hours and sends staff members to
public meetings throughout the state.
gave the office the highest rating; over 90%
gave it the highest or next highest ratings (on a
five-point scale).
Survey research of financial aid recipients shows
ever-increasing satisfaction over the years with
the services offered through the USU Financial
Aid Office. In the 2006 survey, half of students
Every student receiving a student loan must
complete an online loan counseling program
before receiving their first disbursement.
Students also complete exit counseling
3.D.8 Student loans and institutional loan
default rate.
The Financial Aid Office
regularly reconciles student loan accounts and
monitors student borrowing. Students receiving
Stafford loans receive regular disbursement
notices from the state guaranty agency and from
the office.
As calculated by the U.S.
Department of Education, the university‘s latest
cohort default rate for Stafford loans is1.2%-much lower than the average national rate of
5.1%.
167
requirements when they finish their studies or
drop below half-time enrollment.
http://aaa.main.usu.edu/FactsFigures/PDFs/Surv
eys/ConnectionsSurvey2006.pdf
3.D.9. New student orientation. Orientation
for incoming students is offered as a three-part
process. First, Student Orientation, Advising,
and Registration (SOAR) is mandatory for
incoming freshmen and optional for transfer
students. SOAR assists with the enrollment
process and provides a comprehensive
orientation to the university. SOAR options
include a concise one-day program, a more
extensive
overnight
program,
and
a
comprehensive four-day orientation with an
outdoor element. An online orientation with an
advising component is also available for
students unable to attend an on-campus
orientation. A special session is held for
returning adult students.
The final program, Peer Mentoring (introduced
through SOAR and Connections), provides
incoming freshmen with a peer mentor who
keeps in weekly contact during the first year.
Peer mentors send weekly e-mails containing
dates and deadlines, a list of campus and
community events, and helpful tips. During
2006, 89% of Connections students agreed or
strongly agreed that these weekly contacts from
their peer mentor were informative.
Graduate students are invited to attend
orientation sessions administered by their
individual academic departments.
3.D.10
Academic and other educational
program advisement.
USU utilizes a
decentralized model for academic advising. The
University Advising (UA) Office reports to the
Vice President for Student Services and serves
undeclared, undeclared business, undeclared
science and general studies students. In addition
to advising students who have not yet selected a
major, other services provided by UA include
peer advising and publications such as the
Advisor Handbook.
This office is also
responsible for coordinating a monthly advising
meeting to disseminate information to academic
departments. Prior to the beginning of each fall
semester the unit provides an advising
conference for both new and experienced
advisors.
Parent and family orientation is offered
concurrently with most SOAR sessions. In
2006, 97% of SOAR participants indicated that
their questions about attending Utah State had
been satisfactorily answered.
Also, 97%
indicated that they knew how and when to pay
their tuition and fees, and 98% felt comfortable
modifying their course schedule in the future,
following their attendance at SOAR.
The second program, University Connections, is
an optional first-year experience course offered
the week before school begins. The course is
designed to give a more in-depth orientation,
including study skills and time management
strategies, tips on working with professors, and
information on clubs and organizations. The
course is also offered during the semester in an
eight-week format. Special sections are in place
for athletes, honor students, and certain majors.
Instructors include seasoned, tenured faculty,
tenure-track faculty, and experienced DSS
administrators and professional staff.
Academic departments within each college
provide advising for pre-professional and
professional major students. At USU, many
departments utilize a mixture of both full-time
professional advisors and faculty advisors, while
some departments only use one type of advising.
These advisors deliver information with regard
to major requirements, minors, and internships.
Many departments also employ peer advisors.
In 2006, 57% of incoming freshmen (1,454
students) took the course, filling it to capacity.
In Fall 2007, new sections are being added to
accommodate the demand. Eighty percent of
Connections students agreed or strongly agreed
that the class helped ease their transition to
college. The latest survey report is found at
Students have an opportunity to meet with an
academic advisor at or after new student
orientation. Students are instructed on how to
find and contact an advisor for a program they
may be interested in. This information is located
168
in the General Catalog.
They are also
encouraged to meet with their academic advisor
each semester prior to registration.
programs, services, and events which are
delivered in a student-centered environment.
This mission is met through:
Both paper and electronic resources are
continually updated with pertinent advising
information, including but not limited to, the
General Catalog, major requirement sheets, and
departmental web pages.
Career exploration and counseling,
Co-op/internship opportunities,
Career employment/recruitment, and
Testing and assessments.
In order to develop lifelong career search skills
for students and alumni, Career Services
provides
one-on-one
career
coaching
appointments, an online networking and jobposting system (CareerAggie), customized
workshops and panels, alumni contacts, virtual
mock interviews, on-campus recruiting,
fairs/expos, ―satellite‖ advising locations,
teacher credential files, and a computer lab in
the career library.
The Academic Resource Center provides
services and programs that enhance students'
learning skills, strategies, and attitudes. The
center uses varied instructional approaches
appropriate for the diverse skills and learning
styles of USU students. All programs promote
student success by helping the student identify
and correct habits that hinder achievement of
educational goals and stress active participation
and personal responsibility for academic
outcomes. During the 2005-06 school year:
The staff at Career Services has a group of
highly trained advisors, counselors, support
staff, and student career peers. Specific college
assignments allow advisors to facilitate the
career development of students by maintaining
relationships with faculty, employers, and
alumni for co-op/internship and permanent
career positions.
1. Math/statistics tutoring was provided for
1,221 different students who participated in
9,431 tutoring sessions.
2. Supplemental instruction was attend by 7,676
different students who attended at least one SI
session. On average, 50% of registered students
attended an SI session in those courses for which
it was available.
Career exploration programming includes
assessment instruments, one-on-one interprettations with specially trained career counselors,
workshops in small and large class settings, and
a career exploration course. Outreach and
training to academic advisors facilitates referrals
of students needing help in selecting majors and
exploring careers.
During the 2005-2006
academic year, more than 1,700 assessments
were given using the following assessment
instruments: Strong Interest Inventory (289),
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (587), Skill Scan
(234), and computer programs, Career Lift-Off
& DISCOVER (636).
3. Psychology 1730 (Strategies for Academic
Success) was completed by 271 students, with
93% earning a C+ or higher. Nearly 86%
showed skills improvement based on pre- and
post-ACT Study Skills assessment.
4. Individual study skills consultations were
provided for 145 different students for a total of
786 contact hours; 99% of these students said
they gained increased confidence in their ability
to complete course work for which they sought
assistance.
Formal co-op/internship programs exist in all
seven colleges on campus representing 43
academic departments and some 55 faculty coop/internship coordinators working to support
the academic and ―real-world‖ experiences of
students.
USU‘s co-op/internship process
3.D.11 Career counseling and placement
services. Career Services supports the mission
and goals of USU by assisting students and
alumni in exploring and pursuing meaningful
careers over a lifetime. This is accomplished by
providing a broad range of developmental
169
consists of goal setting, on-site visit, and a final
report and evaluation. Approximately one-third
of students participate in experiential activities
over the course of their education. During 20052006, 2,244 students enrolled for a total of 7,429
credit hours.
3.D.12 Professional health care and health
education. The Student Health and Wellness
Center provides evaluation and management for
common health problems for students, as well as
specialized care in the areas of orthopedics,
women‘s health, psychiatry, sports medicine,
and injuries.
During the 2005-2006 recruiting year, 165
employers conducted 1,462 interviews, which
represent a 17% increase in campus recruiting
over the previous year. USU continues to host
the state‘s largest career fair attracting some 180
employers and more than 2,500 students. In that
same year, 10,212 students/alumni career
changers, 5,849 employer contacts, and 1,314
alumni mentors actively used CareerAggie to
search for jobs.
The center uses a staff consisting of boardcertified physicians, nurse practitioners,
physician‘s assistants, nurses, certified nursing
assistants, health educators, pharmacists,
laboratory
and
radiology
technologists,
dietitians, physical therapists, and prevention
specialists to make professional health care and
relevant health education available to students.
The administrator is board certified in both
emergency medicine and family medicine, and
has more than 16 years experience with student
health services. Other physicians on the staff are
board certified in internal medicine, obstetrics
and gynecology, orthopedic surgery, and
psychiatry. The center is funded by student fees
and nominal fees for supplies and medications,
and
provides
same-day
services
for
appointments and walk-ins.
Testing is administered in a secure area. During
the 2005-2006 academic year, 3,366 tests were
given, including: ACT Residual/ National
(585/423), TOEFL (64), GRE (651), LSAT
(107), MCAT (80), CLEP (45), GED (120), FE
(197), Praxis II (550), MAT (127), and Math
Placement (417).
In order to continue improving the services
offered to the various audiences, a
comprehensive program of assessment and
evaluation is undertaken throughout the year.
Each major program/event is evaluated by
attendees, and an overall satisfaction survey is
conducted each semester. Results show that
overall, 72% of students were very satisfied or
satisfied, 16.9% were somewhat satisfied, and
11.1% were unsatisfied. Annually, these and
other data are reviewed by the staff for making
improvements to programming.
In addition to general health care and illness
screening, the Health and Wellness Center
provides licensed dietitian, licensed pharmacy,
certified x-ray, and CLIA-certified clinical
laboratory services. Within the past six months,
the laboratory successfully completed a biennial
CLIA state certification and received state
recertification. An accredited physical therapy
service is contracted from a community vendor.
The center also houses and administers the
Student Health Insurance Plan and the Sexual
Assault and Anti-Violence Information office
for the campus.
Additionally, Career Services staff members are
involved in regional/national associations and
user groups, spend time benchmarking with
other centers to assess programming trends and
issues. Career Services continuously fosters
positive partnerships with students, alumni,
faculty, staff, administrators, employers, and the
greater community. These partnerships are
critical in helping students and alumni discover
their career potential.
Both the health and wellness sides of the center
periodically assess the effectiveness of their
services, using outcome surveys and postassessments. A recent survey conducted three
times each year indicated that students were
very satisfied with the range of services
provided and the timely availability of those
services. The overall impression of the center
was 4.88 on a 5-point scale and none of the
questions received a response of less than 4.
170
The center sees more than 80 percent of patients
on a same-day appointment basis.
appointment times. Students on the waiting list
are contacted toward the end of each semester
and offered a follow-up consultation while they
are waiting for services. Some staff and trainees
also perform psycho-educational assessments,
which include accommodation recommendations
(if applicable) and service referrals for students
with learning disabilities or other learning
challenges.
The University Counseling Center (UCC) is a
free, confidential service available to USU
students carrying a minimum of six regular
credit hours at the time of service. The center
has been continuously accredited by the
International Association of Counseling Services
(IACS) since 1996. The center is staffed by
seven doctoral-level staff members, four of
whom are currently licensed psychologists and
three of whom are currently certified psychology
residents preparing for licensure within the year.
The UCC takes an active role on campus in
order to (1) better identify students in need of
UCC services; (2) educate the campus
community on students‘ mental health
challenges and needs; and (3) promote a healthy,
positive environment within the campus
community. The center‘s outreach efforts are
accomplished through a variety of means. The
center offers formal center liaisons to key areas
around campus, including Housing, Athletics,
Multicultural Office, International Office, GayLesbian Resource Center and campus GLBT
communities, sororities/fraternities, Health and
Wellness Center, Disability Resource Center,
Academic Resource Center, Women‘s and ReEntry Student Center, Student Involvement
Office, and others).
It also has two full-time office support staff, as
well as multiple levels of supervised trainees.
Trainees include three full-time pre-doctoral
interns from around the continent (The center‘s
internship has been accredited by the American
Psychological Association since 1999, and fully
accredited since 2002); two half-time doctoral
graduate assistant therapists who are 4th or 5th
year doctoral students in psychology at USU;
four to six doctoral practicum students (3rd year
doctoral students at USU); and eight to twelve
undergraduate peer trainers who conduct largescale outreach efforts (e.g., depression and
anxiety screening days, eating disorder
awareness week, relationship building programs,
finals stress relief, etc.) and also conduct
structured one-on-one student life-skills training
sessions (e.g.: stress management, social skills,
distress tolerance/emotion regulation).
The center also maintains informal liaisons with
numerous other groups and individuals; attends
campus-wide activities sponsored by other
organizations; conducts one-time consultations
for anyone on campus in relation to a particular
issue or concern regarding a student or students‘
well-being; conducts large-scale outreach efforts
(e.g., screening days); conducts educational
presentations for campus classes and groups. As
time permits, the center personnel meet with offcampus groups to further university/community
relations and promote mental health awareness.
Personal mental health counseling/therapy is
provided in individual, group (structured and
unstructured), and couples formats. While the
center generally embraces a brief-therapy
approach, clients who have need and will likely
benefit from extended services continue to be
seen. If a more intensive treatment is required,
beyond what collaborative university efforts can
provide, referrals are facilitated by the therapist
of record or the center‘s clinical coordinator.
The UCC assesses effectiveness of its services
by satisfaction and outcome questionnaires. The
mean number of sessions per student is seven
(7), and the modal session number is six (6).
For this reason, the Client Satisfaction Survey is
administered at the 6th session. Administered at
intake, 6th, 12th, and 18th sessions (when
applicable) is an assessment and outcome
instrument called the College Adjustment Scales
(scales measure levels of depression, anxiety,
Although the UCC maintains a small waiting list
during high-use times for both intake sessions
and ongoing services, students are informed at
their first contact of alternative treatment
options, as well as of the center‘s daily crisis
171
past or present suicidal ideation, substance
abuse, self-esteem, interpersonal problems,
family problems, academic problems, and career
problems). Administered at intake and every 3rd
session thereafter is the Outcome Questionnaire45 (OQ-45; M. Lambert). There is an average
drop in points on the OQ-45 from 81 to 69. This
represents an average decrease of 22 points. The
drop must be at least 15 points to be considered
recovered. Thus, on average, UCC clients can
be said to have recovered at their 6th session
(N=343).
mentoring, and leadership and service
opportunities.
A well-trained team of
professional and peer staff also provide
numerous opportunities for social and
educational activities, which build the
community and supplement and support formal
classroom experiences. Live-in staff members
are also trained to assist students with a variety
of issues such as roommate conflicts, eating
disorders and other mental health issues, and
personal safety.
Within Housing Services, Residence Life strives
to create educational opportunities outside of the
classroom to challenge and support residents
individually while creating a cohesive
community in each living area. From 20002005, the average number of programs offered
by staff members annually was 660. A total of
15,680 residents attended these programs
annually for an average of 26 residents per
program. The current average staff-to-student
ratio in the residence halls is 1:28.
Staff
members are selected during an in-depth process
yearly and trained on various topics ranging
from CPR and first aid to conflict resolution and
consistent policy enforcement.
Results on the College Adjustment Scales
demonstrate a similar trend, with clients
reporting less distressing symptoms on all scales
(except the self-esteem scale, which remained
the same) at the 6th session (N=345).
Additionally, at the 6th session, Client
Satisfaction Survey results indicate that 97% of
clients agree/strongly agree that their therapist
has a good understanding of their problems;
96% agree/strongly agree that they are satisfied
with their therapist; 95% agree/strongly agree
that they are satisfied with center reception and
phone contacts; 90% agree/strongly agree that
they are coping better since starting therapy;
88% agree/strongly agree that their problems
have changed for the better because of therapy;
75%
agree/strongly agree
that
social
relationships have improved since starting
therapy; 62% agree/strongly agree that their
academic performance has improved since
starting therapy; and 47% agree/strongly agree
that their physical health has improved since
starting therapy. (N=138; agreement ratings=
strongly disagree; disagree; neutral; agree;
strongly agree; not applicable/don‘t know.)
The Association of College and University
Housing Officers International (ACUHO-I)
Educational Benchmarking Inc. Survey indicates
the following results for Spring 2006. Students
were satisfied with the extent that living on
campus
enhances
social
networking,
interpersonal skills, and appreciation of
diversity.
Students also reported overall satisfaction with
staff members. Safety and security received the
highest mean scores with students reporting high
satisfaction. Housing installed Onity electronic
lock system in 2002 in all single housing
buildings to increase the safety and security of
on-campus residents. Each time a lock is opened
the card used leaves an electronic signature that
identifies the owner of the card used to open the
lock. This audit trail can be used in the event of
a crime such as theft to identify the card(s) used
to gain access to apartments or buildings.
3.D.13 Student housing. The benefits of living
on campus extend beyond the size and quality of
the facility. Students do not go to college for the
housing. They attend college for the academic
and social experience. The value of the oncampus Residential Life program includes more
than just a place to sleep and study--it includes
academic support services to assist students in
their academic success: computer labs, highspeed internet access, educational programming,
peer tutors (math and writing), academic
advising and career counseling, faculty
172
Also in 2002, fire sprinklers as well as new or
upgraded smoke and heat alarm systems were
installed in all single housing buildings. The
system is tied to the fire department, and the
moment an alarm goes off the fire department is
notified. The fire department can access a
control panel that identifies the exact location of
the detector triggering an alarm when they
arrive. The system is louder than the previous
systems and can be linked to bed shakers and
flashing lights for students with disabilities.
Safety and security inspections are completed
each semester to be sure all life safety
equipment is functioning properly and to ensure
health standards are in place.
In Fall 2006, a new 500+ bed Living Learning
Center was opened in the center of campus. This
new facility will provide higher end housing to
students in proximity to their classes. It is
expected to play an important role in revitalizing
the central campus.
3.D.14 Food services. USU Dining Services is
a university owned and operated auxiliary
service. It offers a variety of dining options with
locations all over campus. Residential Dining
operates seven days per week during the regular
academic semesters and serves as the food
service platform for conference business during
the summer months.
―Fifteen Minute Maintenance‖ is Residential
Facilities trouble call, rapid response program.
The most significant overall performance
indicator is the average response time. The
response time indicates the difference between
the time a trouble call is received from a
customer and the time a maintenance technician
arrived at the residence requesting service. The
average takes into account all daytime calls from
all maintenance crews. For the 2005-06 budget
year, the overall average response time was
12.29 minutes. For the 2006-07 budget year
through the end of September, the average
response time was 13.02 minutes. Consistently,
USU Housing scores very high on the ACUHOI benchmarking survey for resident satisfaction
in terms of maintenance response. The most
current survey results indicate a mean in this
area of 6.36 on a 7-point satisfaction scale.
The Junction located in central campus is one of
two residential dining facilities for on-campus
residents. A variety of meal plans are available
for students who live on and off campus. The
Junction offers a wide variety of menu options
including a variety of healthy choice entrees.
The Marketplace Dining facility opened in the
Fll 2006. It is the second residential dining
facility located in the Taggart Student Center
and is open to students, faculty and staff, and
other visitors to USU campus. The new
Marketplace has a variety of fresh made-to-order
options from a variety of Mexican, Mongolian
grill, salad, soup, and sandwiches. There is also
a huge breakfast selection.
The HUB food court is the main eatery on the
first floor of the Taggart Student Center. It offers
a variety of menu items from many well known
food chains such as: Hogi Yogi, Taco Time,
Pizza Hut, Teriyaki Stix, Sunset Strips, and Café
Ibis. It also offers selections from the Grill and
our famous Hazel‘s Bread.
Family Student Housing is a part of the
Residence Life program with resident assistants
held to the same job requirements as those in
single housing, with a slightly higher staff-tostudent ratio (1:52 families). Theme housing is
the umbrella term for our living/learning
communities which include academic lifestyles,
community lifestyles, and freshman interest
goups.
Fourteen themes are offered for
approximately 450 students. The Residence
Hall Association strives to enhance the overall
quality of the program by representing residents
and is dedicated to advocacy, leadership,
programming, and conference opportunities for
residents.
The Quickstop is an on-campus convenience
store. It offers a variety of grab and go items
such as candy bars, fountain and bottled soda,
hot dogs, polish sausages and USU‘s famous
Scottsman Dog.
The QuadSide Café located on the first floor of
the Merrill-Cazier Library features a wide
173
variety of menu options, including freshly made
panini‘s and wraps. The Quadside Café also
offers salads, desserts, specialty drinks, and
coffee.
accessible. This machine is located in the newly
renovated fitness center. The facilities in the
HPER building are accessible to persons with
disabilities, including free weights and
swimming pools. The hours of operation in
these facilities provide access for evening and
weekend students.
The Skyroom restaurant is an eight-time
recipient of the National Association of College
& University Food Services' Loyal E. Horton
Dining Award. This award is given to the
campus specialty restaurant recognized as "Best
in the Business." The Skyroom has been a part
of USU campus since the 1940s when the
Taggart Student Center was first erected. It
serves a variety of sandwiches and entrées, as
well as a traditional buffet. The Skyroom is
located on the 4th floor of the Taggart Student
Center.
The Outdoor Recreation Center (ORC) partners
with Common Ground which is a communitybased organization that provides outdoor
recreation opportunities to persons with
disabilities. The ORC offers discount rental
rates to Common Ground participants.
The Utah Conservation Corps (UCC) received a
grant to fund the Access to Service Program.
This program provides persons with disabilities
opportunities for summer employment to work
alongside other AmeriCorps employees. This
work is outside in the Wasatch-Cache National
forest conducting accessibility surveys so the
people with disabilities can better access trails,
campgrounds, and programs.
Dining Services also has a catering unit which
can assist with any type of event from a morning
coffee break, gourmet lunch, or a buffet dinner.
The management staff of USU Dinning Services
combines more than 70 years of food service
experience across all lines of the business. USU
Dining Services is a major employer of USU
students and ensures that each food service
worker has a minimum of a food handler‘s
permit before serving the public.
The Women‘s Center offers volunteer and
internship opportunities for women and men.
Many participants are older, re-entry students.
There is an active chapter of Pinnacle National
Honor Society that provides scholarships for reentry students. In 2007, four of the scholarship
recipients will attend regional campuses.
Dining Services works closely with the
Department of Nutrition and Food Science to
provide internships and a working classroom
environment. Dining Services is a sponsor of
USU Athletics and assists Admissions Office
and student organizations with their catering
needs.
Many of the programming and activities offered
by Student Involvement and Leadership Office
are offered in the evenings and weekends so that
more students can attend and participate.
3.D.15 Co-curricular activities, especially for
students with special needs. DSS is committed
to providing programs and activities for all
students. Some of the individual efforts are as
follows:
3.D.16 Joint governance of co-curricular
programs. Associated Students of Utah State
University (ASUSU) is the student governing
body and is responsible for student clubs. Each
year, ASUSU maintains the registration of more
than 200 student organizations. Student
organizations are classified in the following
categories:
All regional campus students have the
opportunity to receive a USU ID Card that
allows them access to all campus activities and
facilities accessible to on-campus students.
Academic/Career
Ethnic and Cultural
Fraternities/Sororities
Campus Recreation has recently purchased a
special weight machine that is wheelchair
174
building and maintaining trails, engaged in
community environmental education, historic
barn preservation, bicycle lending, and disaster
relief.
Intramural/Recreational/Sports
Religious
Community Service
Leadership Development
Residence Hall Government
Disability Awareness
Honors
Peer Assistance
Women's Issues
Entertainment/Social
International
Performing/Fine Arts
The Outdoor Recreation program, in response to
a growing need for outdoor equipment and
programs, has increased its equipment rental
inventory and programs such as providing four
backcountry yurts, unique to USU. To solicit
additional student opinions, Campus Recreation
and students from Management and Human
Resources conducted a satisfaction survey
during Spring 2007.
Student organizations can be accessed through
the
ASUSU
Website
at
http://www.usu.edu/asusu/.
Clubs are open to all students. Recently, student
government noticed a need to better serve a
diverse student body and support student groups,
so it created the ASUSU Diversity and
Organizations Vice President executive council
post. This position has the responsibility of
serving
as
the
official
liaison
for
underrepresented student populations on the
main campus and through the continuing
education program. The student advocate works
with the RCDE student chairperson who is
charged with representing students attending
classes at USU regional campuses.
3.D.18 Bookstore. The University Bookstore is
owned and operated by USU. It is expected to
be self-supporting with no subsidies from
institutional budgets. The store exists to support
the educational mission and goals of the
institution by providing students easy access to
textbooks, reference materials, general reading
books,
educational
supplies,
computer
hardware/software and related supplies,
electronic calculators and devices, universityrelated merchandise, and other educational
materials. Student, faculty, and employee group
representatives have opportunity to serve on the
Bookstore Advisory Committee which provides
an annual report of store operations to the
Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate. The
committee has contributed to the store‘s
strategic plan and evaluated results of customer
initiatives impacting primarily students.
3.D.17 Student recreational and athletic
needs. Campus Recreation oversees the Nelson
Fieldhouse; Health, Physical Education and
Recreation Building; intramural sports, club
sports; the Outdoor Recreation Center;
recreation
instruction;
and
the
Utah
Conservation Corps. ―Something for Everyone‖
is its motto. During 2005-2006, Campus
Recreation had a combined participation count
of 200,752.
Recent accomplishments include a complete
remodel of existing facilities, expanded use of
radio frequency classroom response systems that
facilitate real-time teaching and student
participation, hardware and software for
podcasts, and the expansion of store operations
to Regional Campuses, providing students the
convenient walk-in access to educational
materials.
Campus Recreation is unique compared to
recreation departments at other colleges and
universities. The unit has evolved since 2000 to
offer programs above and beyond sports
programs and fitness facilities to include strong
conservation and outdoor recreation programs.
Since 2000, the Utah Conservation Corps
program has graduated 226 AmeriCorps
members who have served 197,900 hours
3.D.19 Student Media. The university has a
Student Media Board, comprised of staff and
students, to advise and define policies for
established student media which receive student
funding from university fees. This board
175
provides for a defined relationship between
student media and the university at large.
has caused programmatic challenges. This has
been compounded by university-wide budget
cuts over the past several years. Since 2002,
there have been several permanent and one-time
budget cuts imposed on the division. It has been
stated several times over the past few years that
institutions which were once classified as public
institutions subsidized with private support are
becoming more like private institutions
subsidized with public funds.
The Utah Statesman is published three days each
week during the semester and prints 6,000
copies each issue. The newspaper is assigned,
designed, edited, and written entirely by a
student staff, headed by an editor in chief, who
is selected by the Student Media Board. All staff
members are directed by student editors, under
the general direction of a faculty adviser or
director, who reports to the Vice President for
Student Services. Production of the newspaper
and related activities is an extracurricular
experience, not a laboratory activity or
connected to an academic department.
While it is very difficult to find permanent
solutions to operating budget challenges, DSS is
attempting to provide one-time seed money to
handle immediate challenges. Departments that
are able to charge a fee for a portion of service
rendered, are encouraged to do so as long as the
charge doesn‘t jeopardize services and access.
Continual review of organizational structure is
conducted to look for economies of scale and
combining of functions. One-time dollars are
made available to enhance efficiency that will
save on-going funding needs. As additional
budget costs are considered, across-the-board
cuts will not be administered routinely, but
rather a close analysis of which units are able to
carry the biggest burden based on budget size
and ability to generate funds. Throughout this
challenge, accolades should be given to directors
and their respective staffs for providing top-rate
service to students and faculty.
The Utah Statesman is primarily funded through
advertising sales. A small "class fee" is assigned
to all students at USU as part of the student fee
process, currently $1.50, to assist with funding
and to keep on-campus advertising rates at a
nominal level. All advertising sales and business
activities are conducted by a student staff, under
the direction of the faculty adviser. The
Statesman is primarily distributed on the USU
campus, with a minimal mailed subscription list
and eight downtown distribution locations.
3.D. Challenges and Recommendations
Staff compensation is a major challenge for the
Division of Student Services. Using 2001-2002
salary range data provided by the Office of
Human Resources as the comparative base, the
division was shown to have salaries well below
market averages for the area. For 2006-07, 51%
of classified staff and 49% of professional staff
are below predicted salary levels.
Student Services has had three vice presidents in
the last nine years with the current interim vice
president just being appointed as vice president.
All of these individuals had very different styles
and focuses. During the past year, enrollment
services units were moved under the direction of
Student Services. During this same time, several
auxiliary departments were moved to the
business and finance areas. With all of these
changes, organizational stability is a challenge
and a clear structure and direction is needed.
For the past several years, DSS has tracked
salary equity for division employees. This
information is backed with detail analysis in
order to track each staff member, regardless of
status or gender. With these data, each staff
member is identified and reviewed for equity
adjustments as possible.
DSS has come together in many significant ways
during the past year. The alignment of units
with Student Services and business and finance
areas appears to make sense for the university,
and goals appear to have more focus. In 18
months, the vice president will be retiring. Prior
to that time, a clear job description will be
Most state-funded units within DSS have not
had increases in operating budgets for 18-20
years. With increases in student enrollment, this
176
developed for the new vice president.
Depending on this description, organizational
changes will be made now or deferred until a
new vice president is in place. This is a critical
and exciting time that will set the direction for
the division.
In Fall 2005, a group of 12 students retained the
services of an attorney. They informed the
university that if the number and quality of
interpreters did not improve within a short
period of time, they would take legal action.
USU initiated an immediate national search for
full-time interpreters. A series of meetings and
telephone conferences took place in Spring 2006
to address the complaints. In spite of these
efforts, a lawsuit was filed in June 2006.
As mentioned in section 3.A.2, since the last
accreditation there have been several changes in
leadership at the head of DSS. As a result,
emphasis and consistency on assessment have
been lacking. Some units have continued to
conduct annual assessment of programs. Others
have done little and some have done nothing.
In the past year, USU has taken the following
steps to improve the quality of services offered
to deaf and hard of hearing students. Additional
interpreters have been hired, video remote
interpreting equipment has been purchased,
additional options for note-taking have been
made available, focus groups have been held,
and the DRC has worked with university legal
counsel to resolve the legal challenges. In April
2007, the lawsuit was settled and USU agreed to
provide one certified interpreter for each two
deaf students, hired three full-time interpreters,
and modified the university‘s grievance
procedure.
As stated in 3.B.6, the current vice president has
given a staff member the charge to bring all
units in DSS current on CAS standards and to
help them with annual self-studies using CAS
standards as the guide. All of the unit directors
have met with the staff member in charge of
assessment, and reviewed the CAS standard
specific to their responsibilities. They are
currently in the process of completing their selfstudy.
For years, the Disability Resource Center has
worked with deaf and hard of hearing students to
provide mandated services such as sign language
interpreters and note-takers. Providing mandated
programs has presented many challenges for the
university. The number of qualified interpreters
in northern Utah is very limited, so USU has
relied heavily on university students, who also
work as interpreters, to meet the needs of USU
deaf students. At USU, note-taking services are
provided by both volunteer and paid note-takers.
Standard 3.E Intercollegiate Athletics
USU fields intercollegiate athletics teams in
seven men‘s and nine women‘s sports. During
2006-07, 325 student athletes competed. Since
2005, USU has been a member of the Western
Athletics Conference. The university leads the
league in academic all-conference selections and
graduation success rate. USU student athletes
have a cumulative GPA above 3.0.
Deaf students and sign language interpreters
have complained for many years that there were
not enough qualified interpreters to provide
effective services. They expressed these
complaints by writing letters to the president,
Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity and to the
director of the Disability Resource Center. On
several occasions there were meetings with
students, interpreters and administrators. The
university was unable to meet the student
demand because of limited human and financial
resources.
3.E.1 Exercise of institutional control. As
required by the Board of Regents, the athletics
director and faculty athletics representative
report directly to the university president. The
president, in turn, reports via an athletics
subcommittee to the Board of Trustees.
The university also has an Athletics Council
which is organized consistent with NCAA
regulations and serves in an advisory capacity to
the president. As specified by the university
code, the council includes the president as a
nonvoting member, the Vice President for
177
Administrative Affairs, the Vice President of
Student Affairs, the Provost, the Director of
Athletics, a senior woman administrator, the
department head of Health, Physical Education
and Recreation; a representative of the
University‘s Alumni Council, the Student Body
President, the Student Body Vice President for
Athletics, two male and two female student
athletes, six faculty members (three women and
three men) who are elected by the Faculty
Senate, and the NCAA Faculty Athletics
Representative.
as informational resources for the committee.
The Committee conducted internal reviews in
1999 and 2002 and an in-depth review was
conducted in 2005 by the compliance director
from the Big West (USU‘s former conference)
office.
The reports and recommendations of the first
two reviews were reported to the Athletic
Council via the Provost and were included in the
NCAA Certification Interim Report. The
committee reported that Athletics had defined
procedures,
established
procedures
of
monitoring, and a commitment by individuals
associated with rules compliance and student
athlete academic support services to follow the
established policies.
The chair and the vice chair of the council must
be members of the faculty and are elected
annually by the council. The council is
organized with three working subcommittees,
whose membership rotates among the council
members, but have permanent chairs. These
subcommittees are: Academics, Eligibility and
Student Welfare, chaired by the Provost;
Administration and Budget, led by the Vice
President for Administrative Affairs; and
University Relations, chaired by the Vice
President for Student Services. The Council
meets monthly when school is in session.
Minutes of the meetings are submitted to the
Faculty Senate as part of the Council‘s annual
report in the fall of each year.
The suggestions made by the committee in both
reviews were incorporated into the program. The
most significant change that resulted from the
2002 review was to investigate moving the
reporting line for the compliance coordinator
outside of Athletics, or at least establish, at a
minimum, a dual reporting line to include
administrative oversight outside of Athletics.
This suggestion was also made by the Big West
Council to all member institutions. The
compliance coordinator now reports to the
Athletics Director and the Faculty Athletics
Representative. The last review, conducted by
the Big West Commissioner for Compliance,
was an in-depth process involving campus and
department personnel. The report was submitted
to the Athletics Director, compliance
coordinator, and Athletics personnel involved
directly with compliance. Suggestions are
currently being implemented in preparation for
the upcoming 2006-2008 NCAA Certification
Process.
Input and suggestions are also provided to the
Athletics Office administrators and the Athletic
Council by the Student Athlete Advisory
Committee (SAAC). The SAAC is composed of
representatives from each sport team and meets
bimonthly with Athletics administrators.
Constitution, purposes, and organizational
details for the Committee can be found at
http://www.usu.edu/sas/SAAC.htm.
An additional part of governance is provided by
an Athletic Compliance Committee which
conducts a review of all compliance areas as per
NCAA requirements. The committee includes
the Faculty Athletics Representative; members
from the university‘s offices of registration,
admissions and financial aid; and additional
members as deemed relevant. The Senior
Associate Athletics Director, Compliance
Officer, and Assistant Athletics Director for
Student Services from the Athletics Office serve
Finally, it should be noted that both the original
NCAA Certification Report (1997) and the
interim report (2002) found Utah State to be in
compliance with the NCAA operating principles
for governance.
USU is currently being reviewed for
recertification by the NCAA, with a site visit set
for September 2007. The NCAA Self-Study is at
178
http://www.usu.edu/provost/news/pdf/USU_NC
AA_Certification_SelfStudy.pdf.
and formulates recommendations on proposals
to the athletics director and university president
in order to establish USU‘s voting position that
will be submitted to the WAC conference.
3.E.2 Distribution and review of policies
relating to intercollegiate athletics. Athletics
policies and procedures can be found in the
Policy
and
Procedures
Manual
at
http://utahstateaggies.cstv.com/compliance.html.
In addition, reviews and updates are provided to
the staff via written notices, email, regular
meetings, and subscriptions to the NCAA News.
The compliance coordinator also provides other
avenues of education, including meeting with
each team prior to its season to review and
certify the information on the NCAA Student
Athlete Statement; regular (written and email)
question and answers to coaches, staff, boosters,
and area high schools on rules; coaches‘
meetings for updated rule interpretations; and
forwarding of notices from the NCAA and
WAC.
Accountability for compliance is listed as a job
responsibility for athletic coaches and staff and
each must sign the NCAA Institutional
Certification of Compliance annually indicating
their commitment to the rules and obligation to
report any knowledge of violations. The
processes for dealing with a reported violation
can vary depending on the nature of the
violation. This information is available in the
Athletics manual and NCAA compliance
guidelines. Members of the support staff are
responsible for being knowledgeable of rules
that relate to their specific area of responsibility.
Additional publications of information available
include the by-laws and governance of the Big
Blue Scholarship Fund, (which is administered
within Athletics), a Catastrophic Incident
Procedure Manual, a combined compliance/
student athlete service manual, and a student
athlete handbook provided to each student
athlete annually.
The Athletic Office web site provides links to
several other items of related information: the
department mission statement, a condensed rule
brochure for boosters, the official recruiting visit
policies required by the NCAA, and compliance.
The student-athletes services (SAS) link
provides a description of all available services
and additional important links to provide help to
the student athlete. http://www.usu.edu/sas/.
In addition, all coaches must pass the annual
NCAA recruiting test before being allowed to
recruit for the university. Education for the test
is provided by practice tests supplied by the
NCAA. The compliance coordinator also
includes legislative update reviews at the
coaches‘ meetings and via regular office
communications. Arrangements for the dates
and times of the test, which is now taken via an
NCAA web site, are made by the compliance
coordinator. Testing is monitored by the Faculty
Athletics Representative.
The compliance coordinator conducts periodic
audits of record keeping required by each sport
in areas specified by the NCAA. This process is
evaluated and improvements suggested through
the required (every four years) NCAA
compliance review, is already detailed under the
section on governance. It can be concluded that
input and oversight of rules, policies and
procedures is structured to be broad based and
includes individuals outside Athletics.
During each cycle of the NCAA legislation
process, the compliance coordinator, Senior
Associate
Athletic
Director,
Faculty
Representative, and the Associate Athletics
Director for Student Athlete Services, seek input
from their respective professional groups, the
coaches, certain staff, student representatives,
and from the Athletic Council, as appropriate,
regarding opinions on new proposals. There are
also conference calls for further discussion with
compliance staffs of other WAC institutions, and
the WAC staff. Afterward, the group discusses
3.E.3 Responsibility for admissions, degree
requirements, and financial aid awards for
student athletics.
USU is committed to
following the NCAA, WAC, and institutional
policies and procedures regarding admission,
179
financial aid, academic standards, and degree
requirements. All students, including those who
may be recruited, are admitted in accordance
with university established admissions policies
and procedures. Therefore, all Athletics staff
members, as well as other university staff (e.g.
faculty athletics representative, financial aid
administrators, admissions director, registrar,
internal auditor, and academic advisors) and
boosters are involved in this commitment.
level, as implemented as part of the self-study,
has resulted in increased fiscal responsibility at
all levels throughout Athletics.
Finally,
oversight by the university administration has
forced monthly accountability of all variations
from the budget, thus promoting sound fiscal
operations within Athletics.
3.E.5 Fair and equitable treatment of both
male and female athletes. The intercollegiate
athletic program at USU is based upon an
educational, not a business model. It does,
however, seek to generate a considerable portion
of the revenue necessary to reach an expected
level of excellence consistent with university
and conference standards.
3.E.4 Athletic budget development, approval,
and auditing. All financial transactions for
Athletics follow university policy and processes,
which provide oversight from university
administrators up through and including the
Board of Trustees. For example, Athletics‘
monthly results of financial operations are
prepared at the Athletics Office level with the
assistance of University Financial Services to
ensure the accuracy of the information; the
consolidated report is then forwarded to
Athletics for review. The annual budget is
submitted to the Athletics Council and
subsequently submitted to the Board of Trustees
for approval. Athletics undergoes a financial
audit each year and the audit report is provided
to
athletics
administrators,
university
administrators, and the Board of Trustees.
USU‘s athletic program has undergone periodic
review and change to match the university‘s
growth, changing requirements of the NCAA,
and changes in the landscape of conference
memberships during the last several years. As of
Fall 2005, all of USU‘s athletic programs
compete at the NCAA Division IA level as a
member of the Western Athletic Conference,
which includes eight other institutions. In
addition, there are some additional affiliate
institutions in certain sports.
The university competes for conference
championships in the following sports: men‘s
and women‘s basketball, men‘s and women‘s
cross country, men‘s football, men‘s golf,
women‘s gymnastics, women‘s soccer, women‘s
softball, men‘s and women‘s tennis, men‘s and
women‘s track and field (indoor and outdoor),
and women‘s volleyball. The program has
undergone several reviews, including the annual
required Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act
(EADA) report to ensure continued compliance
with Title IX participation guidelines.
The Athletics Office is primarily funded by the
revenues from ticket sales to athletic events.
Football and men‘s basketball account for onethird of the department budget. In addition to
these revenues, moneys from university student
fees and tuition, private donations, NCAA
distribution, broadcasting rights, and corporate
sponsorships fund the budget. The office‘s
fiscal strength lies in the great tradition of its
athletic teams over the last 30 years.
The fiscal challenges faced by Athletics include
maintaining the high number of tickets sold to
the two revenue-producing sports, which is
directly connected to success on the playing
field. As the cost of doing business in athletics
continues to rise, the office is also faced with the
challenge of increasing the amount of income
from revenue streams other than ticket sales.
The significant increase in oversight by sport
administrators at the program and administrative
Financial aid is awarded in all sponsored sports
at the maximum levels allowed by NCAA
regulations. Athletic financial aid was reviewed
by the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in 1998
which required a three-year process of yearly
updates and, in 2001, received a final notice that
the Title IX federal guidelines had been met.
The awarding of financial aid also continues to
be monitored, including strategies for meeting
180
the new NCAA membership requirements. As
funding is available, there is equal opportunity
for male and female student athletes to apply for
fifth-year and summer school aid to assist them
toward graduation goals. In addition, all support
services are equally available to all student
athletes.
except in the sport of football, which is
contracted by the Athletics Director. The
conference office does not develop master
schedules in the sports of cross country, golf,
gymnastics, tennis, and track and field. The
season‘s competition for those sports is
scheduled by the coach of the sport. The
Western Athletic Conference does require
member institutions that sponsor gymnastics and
tennis to compete against each other a minimum
of one time during the regular season. This
requirement can be met at a single competition
or at a multiple-opponent event (i.e., dual meet).
The Athletics Office was in the second group of
pilot schools when the NCAA created the
CHAMPS/Life Skills program. Student athlete
welfare has been significantly enhanced through
all phases of this program (academics, athletics,
career development, personal development, and
community service). The objective is to create a
positive collegiate experience for a student
athlete, as well as to promote the whole person
via programs in each of the life skills
components.
The procedure to be followed for scheduling can
be found in the Athletics Office policy manual,
and is as follows: the coach of each sport is
responsible for scheduling the number of
contests as defined and required by the NCAA
membership criteria for sponsoring that sport.
This information is in the NCAA manual. While
it is difficult to schedule between institutions
with varied academic calendars, coaches are
expected to keep the number of classes missed
to a minimum. Except for competition scheduled
by the conference office, coaches are not to
schedule contests during final test weeks.
The cornerstone of this program is the Student
Athlete Mentoring program, known as SAMs.
This is a unique program which was created by
Athletics staff members and professionals in the
Wellness Center, and accesses several other
professionals available on campus and in the
community. The main goals of SAMs are met
through a class for incoming new student
athletes who are mentored in life skills by
exemplary
student
athletes
who
are
upperclassmen and who have been trained to be
peer counselors. With the addition of a life skills
coordinator position, the entire program, and in
particular the Aggie Ambassadors (community
outreach), has become one of excellence.
Additional details about all parts of the life skills
programs (CHAMPS, SAMs, life skills class,
Aggie Ambassadors and a new CHAMPS
competition) are available on the Athletics web
site at http://www.usu.edu/sas/lifeskills.htm.
The university recognizes excused absences
from classes for official university-sponsored
activities. The Student Athlete Services (SAS)
unit helps coordinate communication by
providing official notices for the student athlete
to give to their class instructor prior to missing
the class. The student athlete is expected to
communicate with the instructor at the
beginning of the semester about the possibility
of missed classes, what the acceptable process
will be for making up missed exams, and take
responsibility for obtaining any other class
information that might be missed. The SAS unit
educates student athletes about the importance
of attending class when not traveling and
demonstrating respectful attitudes in the
classroom. The importance of these efforts is
emphasized at a fall orientation meeting and by
a presentation by a university professor in the
SAMs (life skills) class.
3.E.6 Scheduling of intercollegiate practices
and competition. Competition schedules are set
by the conference office, coaches, and the
Athletic Director. The Western Athletic
Conference sets master schedules for
competition between member institutions in
men‘s and women‘s basketball, football, soccer,
softball and volleyball. Additional nonconference competition in those sports is
scheduled by the coach of the respective sport,
The relevance of this training to success in the
classroom is periodically included in discussions
181
men‘s basketball contests, the need
competitive teams is extremely important.
and reviews within Athletics and from SAS
academic reports which are subject to review by
a subcommittee of the Athletic Council.
for
Athletics is continually recruiting high-caliber
student athletes. Coaching staffs are also being
closely scrutinized to ensure they are developing
teams that will be successful in the Western
Athletic Conferences. Aggressive marketing of
both programs is being employed to maximize
attendance and revenue.
3.E. Challenges and Recommendations
Athletics is continually challenged to recruit and
maintain an ethnically and gender-diverse staff.
Ensuring that a diverse set of personnel are
available on staff will enhance the excellence of
the department and also provide role models to
student-athletes.
Supporting Documentation
Athletics will work closely with the USU
Affirmative Actions and Equal Opportunity
Office to solicit candidates for positions. It will
continue to advertise nationally to ensure
individuals across the nation know of open
positions.
To see required documentation and exhibits,
plus other supporting information as specified
by NWCCU for Standard Three, please go to
http://aaa.usu.edu/Assessment/Documentation_S
up.aspx.
Finances for athletics continue to be an ongoing
concern. With primary funding responsibility
resting on ticket sales of men‘s football and
182
STANDARD FOUR
FACULTY
Faculty members are the university‘s most
important resource. The knowledge base and
work ethic that they bring to the classroom and
to their research endeavors determine the quality
of Utah State University.
and another 5% were awarded by the University
of Utah. Institutions granting at least 10
terminal degrees held by full-time USU faculty
are Oregon State, Brigham Young, Wisconsin,
Texas A&M, Michigan, Arizona, Texas,
Washington, Colorado State, Indiana, Cornell,
Arizona State, and UC Berkeley. For additional
detail, see Standard Four, Required Exhibit 2, at
http://aaa.usu.edu/Assessment/Documentation_Sup
.aspx.
The first section of this standard focuses on
faculty selection, evaluation, development, and
autonomy. The second considers issues and
policies associated with faculty scholarship,
research, and artistic creation.
The university expects to receive ―the full-time
professional services of each faculty member as
described in the role statement to the extent
prescribed by his or her appointment.‖ (USU
Policy Manual, Section 404.1.2 (1), hereafter
designated as Manual) On occasion, special
needs within the university may demand
services above and beyond that covered by a
faculty member‘s role statement. In such
circumstances the university may choose to
employ ―faculty members for temporary
assignments on supplemental appointments with
additional salary covering professional services
beyond a standard load. Commitment for such
extra service must have the specific approval of
the appropriate department head, supervisor,
director (where applicable), dean, or vice
president, and the specific approval of the
Provost and the President.‖ (Manual, Section
404.1.2 (7))
Standard 4.A. Faculty Selection,
Evaluation, and Development
4.A.1. Faculty qualifications/commitment.
USU has a highly qualified faculty. As shown in
Table 4.1, 100% percent of professors and 98%
of associate and assistant professors on the main
campus have earned terminal degrees in their
field. Ninety-three percent of those degrees are
at the doctoral level and 7% are master‘s degrees
considered to be terminal in the faculty
member‘s discipline. For additional detail, see
Standard Four, Required Exhibit 1, found at
http://aaa.usu.edu/Assessment/Documentation_S
up.aspx.
USU faculty members hold terminal degrees
from 128 U.S. and 29 foreign universities. Less
than 9% of those degrees were earned at USU
Table 4.1. Faculty Rank, Terminal Degrees, and Years of Service
Full-Time
Part-Time
Percent With
a Terminal
Degree
Professor
238
9
100%
19
24
Associate Professor
198
6
98%
12
16
Assistant Professor
189
4
98%
3
5
Rank
183
Median Years
of Service at
USU
Total Years of
Teaching
USU has taken steps to clarify issues that might
arise regarding conflict of commitment by
faculty members. In 2003, revisions were made
to the university‘s policy on conflict of interest.
The purpose of this policy clarification was to
―prevent a conflict of interest from harming the
University and/or the employee.‖ (Manual,
Section 307.1) This policy provides guidance
about how the university identifies, evaluates,
and manages conflicts of interests that have the
potential to undermine the university‘s
commitment to transparency in discharging its
fiduciary obligations to stakeholders—including
faculty, staff, and students.
This result may partially reflect concerns at the
time the survey was administered which was
after two years of zero percent salary increases
stemming from tight state budgets. Conditions
have improved since that time.
4.A.2 Faculty participation in planning and
governance. Faculty participation is integral to
university governance, including program
development and evaluation. There is shared
responsibility in the governance of the university
with a meaningful role for the faculty. This role
includes participation in decisions relating to the
general academic operations of the university,
such as budget matters and the appointment of
administrators. Faculty members also actively
advise in the determination of policies and
procedures governing salary increases.
Turnover at USU is low; only three percent of
the faculty left the university for other positions
in 2006. Often, those who leave are drawn away
by higher salaries rather than dissatisfaction with
USU. Table 4.1 provides information on years of
service at USU by the faculty. The median term
of service for professors is 19 years and for
associate professors it is 12 years. These
numbers indicate that the university has an
experienced faculty that is committed to the
institution.
The formal mandate for exercise of faculty
authority is found in the Manual: ―Subject to the
authority of the Board of Regents, the Board of
Trustees, and the President, faculty shall
legislate on all matters of educational policy,
enact such rules and regulations as it deems
desirable to promote or enforce such policies,
and decide upon curricula and new courses of
study. The legislative power will normally be
exercised by the Faculty Senate. In all matters
except those within the authority of the Faculty
Senate, the faculty retains original jurisdiction.‖
(Manual, Section 401.9.2)
The Senate is
empowered to act for and represent the faculty
in all matters of educational policy, including
requirements for admission, degrees, diplomas,
and certificates; and in curricular matters
involving relations between colleges, schools,
divisions, or departments.
How does the faculty feel about USU? During
the 2004-5 academic year, USU participated in
the HERI Faculty Survey, probably the most
widely used survey of university faculty in the
United States. Nearly 50% of USU full-time
faculty members completed the survey,
including 227 who teach at least one
undergraduate course. HERI results for those
227 faculty members will be cited several times
in responding to Standard Four.
More than one-third of the HERI respondents
reported that they had received at least one firm
job offer in the past two years. This proportion
is higher than the 25% for faculty at other fouryear public universities and attests to the quality
of the USU faculty. Nearly 80% of the USU
respondents said that, overall, they were
satisfied or very satisfied with their job,
compared to 75% at peer institutions. However,
during the previous two years, 56% had
considered leaving USU for another institution,
higher than the 47% at other public universities.
The Faculty Senate is comprised of the
following members: (1) 55 faculty members
elected by and from faculty members eligible to
vote in Senate elections; (2) the president and
the provost of the university or their designees;
(3) 8 appointees of the president who are vice
presidents and/or deans, 6 of whom must hold
faculty appointments and must be designated
annually preceding elections to the Senate; (4)
chairs of the Academic Freedom and Tenure
Committee, the Budget and Faculty Welfare
184
Committee,
and
the
Professional
Responsibilities and Procedures Committee, if
they are not one of the faculty members elected
to the Senate; and (5) 3 students, who shall
include the Associated Students of Utah State
University (ASUSU) President or a designee, the
ASUSU Vice President for Academic Affairs or
a designee, and the Graduate Student Senate
(GSS) President or a designee. (See Manual,
Section 402.3.1)
Budget and Faculty Welfare Committee
Professional Responsibilities and
Procedures Committee
Educational Policies Committee
Faculty Evaluation Committee
In addition to committees and councils reporting
to the central administration and the Faculty
Senate, each college and department appoints
faculty members to standing and advisory
committees to solicit strategic faculty input on
academic planning and curriculum issues that
impact programs administered at the college and
department level.
Faculty involvement in governance is carried out
primarily through the councils, committees, and
boards. These bodies are advisory to the
appropriate administrator, usually the chair of
the council, committee, or board. However, if
the body formulates educational policies, these
actions are referred to the Faculty Senate for
final action. University councils that involve
non-administrative faculty as members include:
HERI Results. Forty-two percent of USU
respondents to the HERI Survey agreed
―strongly‖ or ―somewhat‖ that faculty members
are sufficiently involved in campus decision
making, compared to 45% at other public
universities. Fifty-four percent said that
relationships with central administration were
―satisfactory‖ or‖ very satisfactory‖ vs. 52% at
peer institutions. Only 11% said that the
statement ―faculty are typically at odds with
campus administration‖ is very descriptive of
USU, slightly less than the 15% rating at other
public universities. The current administration
has made considerable effort to involve faculty.
Consequently, it is likely that faculty responses
would be somewhat more supportive now than
when the HERI Survey was administered in
2004-5.
Athletics Council
Council on Teacher Education
Graduate Council
University Research Council
University Libraries Advisory Council
University Assessment Coordinating
Council.
In addition, faculty members serve in an
advisory role on the:
Honors Program Advisory Board
University Scheduling Committee
Calendar Committee
Bookstore Committee
Honorary Degrees and Awards
Screening Committee and Parking
Policy Committee.
4.A.3 Faculty workloads and opportunities
for growth and renewal. In the appointment of
faculty members, two types of terms are used:
(a) an appointment on an academic year basis
and (b) an appointment on a fiscal year basis.
Academic year appointments are the standard
appointments for faculty members who have
major role assignments in teaching. Faculty
members on academic year appointments may
be absent from campus between terms after they
have fulfilled the professional responsibilities of
their role assignments. Fiscal year appointments
are made for teaching, research, extension,
library, or administrative assignments, or for a
combination of such assignments.
Some of these groups are responsible to the
Faculty Senate and are appointed by the Senate.
In addition, the Senate appoints advisory,
standing, and ad hoc committees as it deems
necessary to carry out its duties. Senate standing
committees include:
Executive Committee
Committee on Committees
Academic Freedom and Tenure
Committee
185
It is expected that department heads and deans
will ensure that faculty workload assignments
are consistent with the goals of the institution
and the talents and competencies of the faculty.
Faculty role assignments are reviewed annually
with the department head, and annual
expectations for performance are set based on
each faculty member‘s negotiated role
statement. The role statement is prepared by the
department head, agreed upon between the
department head and the faculty member at the
time he or she accepts an appointment, and
approved by the dean. It includes percentages
for each area of professional service (Manual,
Section 404.1.2). These percentages define the
relative weight to be given to performance in
each of the different areas of professional
service.
knowledge. Credit toward sabbatical leave
begins the day the tenured or tenure-eligible
faculty member is employed as an instructor or
higher rank; but sabbaticals are not granted until
tenure has been attained. A faculty member must
be employed with the rank of instructor or
higher for six years at the university to be
eligible for a sabbatical leave. Additional
sabbaticals are earned at the rate of one
sabbatical leave for every six years of
professional service to the university.
Compensation for sabbatical leaves is 80% of
salary for leaves of two or more semesters and
100% for one-semester leave periods. A
program plan is expected six to nine months in
advance of the leave. Approval is required at
department and college level before the
Provost‘s Office forwards the leave request to
the Board of Trustees for final approval. A midterm report and a final report are required.
Except when there are extenuating circumstances, faculty member are expected to study at
locations other than their regular place of
employment during most of their sabbatical.
Role statements serve two primary functions.
First, the faculty member can gauge his or her
expenditure of time and energy relative to the
various roles the faculty member is asked to
perform in the university. Second, role
statements provide the medium by which the
assigned duties of the faculty member are
described and by which administrators and
evaluation committees can judge and counsel a
faculty member with regard to allocation of
effort. (See Manual, Section 405.6.1) Each year,
the faculty member's role assignment provides
for the detailed implementation of the
professional services of the faculty member as
described in the role statement.
About 40 USU faculty members apply and are
approved for sabbatical leave each year.
Although the university policy provides for
sabbaticals every six years, if all eligible faculty
were to apply, it would not be possible to fund
these requests.
Starting Fall 2007, the university will sponsor a
Teaching Academy designed for new faculty.
This one-semester group experience will present
principles of high-quality teaching by using
lectures from ―master‖ college teachers, reviews
of best practices, and group discussions.
There is no universal rule governing faculty
teaching loads across the diverse disciplines and
academic units represented on campus. In many
departments, new faculty members are given a
reduced teaching load for at least one term.
Across the university, the overall average
teaching load per week is 10 contact hours and
just over 9 course credit hours (including all
varieties of independent study) per semester.
Both figures meet the standard set by the State
Board of Regents for Utah‘s two research
universities.
HERI Results. Two-thirds of HERI respondents
viewed their teaching load as ―satisfactory‖ or
―very satisfactory,‖ slightly higher than the 62%
at other public universities. But only 42%
believe the university provides enough support
for faculty development, less than the 49% at
peer institutions. The mentoring of new faculty
is considered to be a high priority at USU by
half of the respondents vs. 41% of those at the
other schools.
Sabbatical leaves are available to USU faculty to
renew, update, and broaden the individual's
teaching, research, or professional skills and
186
4.A.4 Faculty salaries and benefits. USU does
not use a salary scale. Faculty salaries in
individual departments reflect market conditions
of supply and demand and also university
priorities. Consequently, there is substantial
variation between disciplines. However, all
compensation decisions comply with relevant
legal, regulatory, and university policy
requirements. Adjustments to faculty salary are
made using one the following criteria:
higher of $3,500 or 6% of their base salary.
Faculty advancing from associate to full
professor receive the higher of $4,500 or 10% of
their base salary.
Comparative Compensation. Salaries at USU
are less than those at the peer institutions. Table
4.2 shows average salary and total compensation
for 2006-07 compared to various peer groups.
Salaries at the professor level range from 16% to
23% below, for associate professors 12% to 15%
below, and for assistant professors 6% to 10%
below.
(1) Merit adjustments. Faculty members may
receive a merit adjustment based on job
performance. Merit adjustment guidelines
approved by the university's administration are
distributed each year prior to the preparation of
annual department operating budgets. The
guidelines apply to all university faculty
members, regardless of the source of funds from
which employees are paid.
When total compensation (salary plus benefits)
is compared, the differences become smaller
because USU has a more generous benefit
package than most other universities. Benefits
represent 37% of salary at USU compared to
25% on average for the comparison groups.
However, even considering total compensation,
USU is 9% to 18% below at the professor level
and 7% to 9% below for associate professors.
However, total compensation is much more
competitive for assistant professors. Part of the
differentials is offset by the lower cost of living
in Logan, Utah—about 5% below the average
for the entire United States.
(2) Equity adjustments. Faculty members may
receive an adjustment when there is a significant
difference between the employee's current salary
and a higher targeted or projected salary
established
by
formal
studies.
The
administration provides annual guidance as to
what constitutes an equity adjustment. Funds for
these adjustments come primarily from
departmental resources, but may also come from
centrally held funds targeted for this purpose.
In recent years, the base salary problem was
compounded by a lack of state money for salary
increases. In 2002-3 and 2003-4, faculty and
staff received no increase.
State budget
conditions have improved and the legislature
approved a 3.5% increase for 2007-8, plus 1.5%
which was used for selectively applied equity
adjustments.
(3) Promotional adjustments. Faculty members
may receive a promotional adjustment based on
advancement in faculty rank. The current
compensation structure for rank advancement is
as follows. Faculty members advancing from
assistant to associate professor receive the
Table 4.2. 2006-07 Salary and Compensation (USU as percent of comparison group)
Comparison Group
Prof .
Salary
Assoc. Asst.
Prof .
AAUP Survey (Public doctoral)
77%
85%
91%
82%
91%
98%
AAUP (Mt. Region public doc.)
84%
88%
94%
91%
96%
103%
Ten USU Regents Peers
82%
86%
90%
88%
93%
98%
187
Compensation
Assoc.
Asst.
As noted above, salaries for professors at USU
are relatively lower than for faculty at the
associate and assistant ranks.
This salary
compression poses a problem, because there is
little saving when retiring senior faculty are
replaced. In some disciplines, such as those in
the College of Business, the situation has gone
beyond compression and has become salary
inversion, with market salaries for new faculty
members actually being higher than those of
senior faculty members with many years of
experience. In response to the high cost of
replacing business faculty members, in Fall
2007, the college will implement a tuition
surcharge.
service, individual emphasis will vary within
and among academic departments as described
in each faculty member's role statement.
In 2006, an improved role statement process was
implemented. To better reflect university policy,
role statement templates were developed,
reviewed, and implemented for new faculty
members. This approach will improve mentoring
new faculty members as expectations are more
clearly and uniformly presented. Workshops
have been conducted to explain the new role
statement process.
An intensive annual review process for pretenure faculty members occurs throughout the
conventional pre-tenure probationary period of
six years. However, up to nine years of total
probationary period will be allowed if the
candidate was in a tenure-eligible position at
another accredited college or university prior to
joining USU‘s faculty. At any time during the
tenure process a tenure-eligible faculty member
can request an extension of the pre-tenure
probationary period for one year for reasons
including, but not limited to, medical needs of
the faculty member or a family member or
family responsibilities (including birth of a child
or adoption). This extension may be requested
twice, so long as the total pre-tenure
probationary period does not exceed nine years.
In conventional cases where a faculty member
has been at USU in pre-tenure status for six
years, the seventh year is either a year that
commences tenure status or a year of
employment under a terminal contract. The
annual review process of tenure-eligible faculty
is presented in detail in the Manual, Section
405.6.
Another important salary issue involves gender
differentials. Periodically, the Office of
Analysis, Assessment, and Accreditation
conducts a comprehensive gender equity study.
These studies indicate that when factors such as
discipline and years of service are statistically
accounted for, female faculty and support staff
members in some categories earn less. The
central administration has responded to these
findings by providing funds to reduce the
differentials.
4.A.5 and NWCCU Policy 4.1 Evaluation of
faculty performance. All tenure-eligible faculty
members are systematically evaluated on an
annual basis by their department head and their
tenure and promotion advisory committee.
Those in a pre-tenure probationary status are
expected to demonstrate evidence of teaching
effectiveness and fulfillment of instructional and
other
faculty
responsibilities—including
research, service and/or extension assignments
where applicable. To retain their faculty
appointment, faculty members must present
evidence of effectiveness in all of the
professional services which he or she performs,
and must present evidence of excellence in the
major emphasis of his or her role statement.
Tenured faculty members who have not reached
terminal rank status (i.e., professor, librarian,
extension professor, extension agent) are
reviewed for promotion in a systematic
evaluation process that is triggered by a request
by the faculty member to his/her department
head to form a promotion advisory committee.
This systematic review process is outlined in
Sections 405.8.2 and 405.8.3 of the Manual.
Annual faculty reviews are based on the extent
to which the faculty member performs her or his
role assignment. Although tenured and tenureeligible faculty members are expected to carry
out the major university functions of teaching,
research/creative endeavor, extension, and
188
All tenured faculty members meet with their
department head on an annual basis to discuss
their annual role assignment and discuss
consideration for merit increases to salary,
where applicable. (See Manual, Section
405.12.1) In addition, each tenured faculty
member is subject to a five-year post-tenure
review. The basic standard for this appraisal is
whether the faculty member under review
discharges conscientiously and with professional
competence the duties appropriately associated
with his or her position as specified in the role
statement. About one-fifth of tenured faculty
members undergo post-tenure review each year.
To assess teaching performance, all reviews
include an analysis of standardized course
evaluations and, in many cases, peer assessment
of teaching competencies. In some units,
evaluations include a review of course syllabi
and other discipline-specific assessment tools.
To assess research and creative activity as part
of the tenure and promotion process, letters from
external reviewers who are experts in the
candidate‘s field are required to evaluate the
candidate's published work and/or creative
endeavors, and recognition and standing among
his or her peers. Otherwise, research and
creative productivity are assessed using
discipline-specific standards related to how
scholarly work is distributed through various
channels of dissemination and scholarly
recognition. Post-tenure reviews rely largely on
assessment by department peers, but some
colleges also solicit external letters.
This post-tenure review is discipline- and role
statement-specific to evaluate 1) teaching,
through student, collegial, and administrative
assessment; 2) the quality of scholarly and
creative
performance
and/or
research
productivity; and 3) service to the profession,
the university, and the community. Upon
completion of its review, the review committee
for tenured faculty members submits a written
report to the department head or supervisor, who
forwards a copy to the director (where
applicable), dean, or vice president. A copy of
the committee's report is then sent to the faculty
member. (See Manual, Section 405.12.2) The
Provost‘s Office works with each academic
college to monitor compliance with the posttenure review process.
Evaluation of service is included, but is the most
subjective part of the faculty review process.
Activity reports and vitae normally list service
activities to the institution, the discipline, and
the community. Faculty members who have
done extensive service in some forum are
welcome to, and often do, submit letters from
individuals in a position to comment on the
extent and quality of that service. Occasionally,
letters from external reviewers comment on
service to the discipline rendered at the national
and international level.
Faculty peers, colleagues external to USU,
students, and administrators have defined roles
in all faculty evaluation processes. However, the
process is primarily driven by faculty peers,
academic peers, and department administrators
who are experts in the fields within their
discipline.
Table 4.3 below summarizes tenure review
process outcomes at USU over the past five
years. In recent years, the process has become
more rigorous and has resulted in a greater
number of denials.
Table 4.3. Tenure and Review Outcomes
Review
Year
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Number of
Candidates
50
33
37
52
54
Promoted
49
31
30
50
45
Percent
Promoted
98
94
81
96
83
189
Denied
1
2
7
2
9
Percent
Denied
2
6
19
4
17
Sixty-eight percent of USU respondents to the
HERI Survey ―somewhat‖ or ―strongly‖ agreed
that the criteria for advancement and promotion
at USU are clear; about the same proportion as
those at other public institutions.
department head, determines the need
for and general parameters of faculty
appointments congruent with their
mission and role.
The department head appoints a
screening committee of not less than
five members. A majority, and, where
possible all five members, must be
appointed from among the faculty of the
department or other academic unit.
In consultation with the department head
and the faculty of the academic unit, the
screening committee prepares the job
description and advertising in accord
with university regulations.
The screening committee (comprised of
faculty members) screens applicants
according to the job description and
identifies a suitable pool of candidates,
those to be further considered by the
faculty and pertinent administrators.
Before an offer can be made to a
candidate, the candidate is interviewed
on the campus or site of employment by
the academic unit's faculty and pertinent
administrators.
When the investigation of candidates
has been completed, the screening
committee solicits recommendations
from faculty members and pertinent
administrators.
4.A.6 Recruitment and appointment of fulltime faculty. USU Policy Manual, Section 404,
(http://www.usu.edu/hr/policies/section400/404.
pdf) governs the recruitment and appointment of
full-time faculty. The university is committed to
take sufficient time to seek, and then to
investigate
thoroughly,
candidates
for
appointment to assure that only highly qualified
people are employed, and to assure there is no
discrimination against any candidate on the basis
of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age,
veteran status, marital or parental status, or any
sensory, physical or mental disability or
handicap.
Faculty positions are advertised in media most
likely to reach qualified persons who may have
an interest, including those that will encourage
minority and female applicants. In addition to
candidate-initiated
applications,
faculty
members are invited to submit nominations; and
the screening committee is obligated to identify
qualified
candidates
by
encouraging
nominations
and
aggressively
pursuing
promising nominees.
During the 2006 academic year, the Office of
Human Resources migrated to an electronic job
posting and application process. This change
makes the university‘s faculty recruitment and
appointment processes more transparent. In
addition, the office provides electronic access to
the university policies and administrative
procedures that govern the recruitment and
hiring process.
After fully engaging faculty in a thorough search
and review process, the department head
forwards to the dean a recommendation for an
offer of employment from the list of acceptable
candidates recommended by the screening
committee. If the dean and provost are in
agreement, they recommend the appointment of
the candidate to the Board of Trustees. This
process ensures a thorough review of the
candidate‘s qualifications by representatives of
each field or program and representatives of the
broader institution.
With regard to recruitment of qualified faculty,
Section 404.3 of the Manual outlines the process
whereby tenured or tenure-eligible faculty
members are recruited to USU. Faculty-driven
components of this process are as follows:
Retention of high-quality faculty members is a
high priority. USU has worked to increase
faculty retention in a number of ways. A recent
five-year, $3M NSF Advance Grant has allowed
The faculty of departments and other
academic units, in conjunction with the
190
for the mentoring of female faculty throughout
the tenure and promotion process. In addition,
the university recognizes that dual career
assistance (DCA) is critical to sustaining its
commitment to recruiting and retaining highly
qualified and competitive staff and faculty
members. The DCA policy applies to situations
in which there are existing positions to
accommodate the common interests of the
institution and the couple seeking DCA. It also
covers instances in which a new position may be
created to utilize the qualifications and
occupational interest of a dual career couple. In
the latter case, funding from the recruiting and
receiving units (academic or administrative) and
the Office of the Provost is often necessary for
leveraging the establishment of such a position.
the respondents said that their autonomy and
independence was ―satisfactory‖ or ―very
satisfactory,‖ vs. 87% at peer schools.
In 2006, the Faculty Senate adopted a policy to
accommodate students when course content
conflicts with their expressed religious, social,
or cultural views. (See Manual, Section 403.3.1
(3)). This policy protects the academic freedom
of the faculty while respecting the core beliefs of
the student. It is a compromise for both faculty
and students, but one that has resolved a
sensitive issue with a clear, step-by-step process.
4.A.8 Qualifications of part-time faculty. The
faculty of departments and other academic units,
in conjunction with the department head,
determines the need for part-time and adjunct
faculty appointments. The department head
makes a recommendation to the dean, who then
seeks the approval of the provost to make an
offer of employment. Ultimately, all faculty
appointments are subject to the approval of the
Board of Trustees. The process of engaging
faculty peers in the review of academic and
professional credentials of applicants for parttime and adjunct faculty appointments ensures
consistency between qualifications and the
innate demands of the academic role assignment.
4.A.7 and 4.B.7 Faculty academic freedom.
The university supports academic freedom
principles including the right to teach, study,
discuss, investigate, discover, create, and publish
freely. USU‘s stated policy is that ―persons
having a formal association with the university
shall not be involved in acts which violate the
academic freedom or constitutional rights of
others, or the standards and regulations of the
university or the State Board of Regents.‖ (See
Manual, Section 403.2.3) Through its policies
and practices, the university has demonstrated its
commitment to maintaining an atmosphere in
which intellectual freedom and independence
exist. It is widely understood that, at USU,
faculty members have broad latitude to
determine the content and pedagogical methods
for their individual courses. Moreover, there is
an established tradition that faculty can write
and speak out on controversial issues without
fear of reprisal.
There is substantial variation among academic
departments in the use of part-time faculty
members. Disciplines with heavy service course
demands at the freshman level, such as
Mathematics and Statistics, English, and
departments that offer larger number of activity
courses, make far greater use of part-time
instructors than do departments in engineering
and the sciences. USU‘s goal is to have as many
courses as possible taught by full-time faculty
members. During Fall 2006, 65% of student
credit hours were generated in courses taught by
regular faculty. Thirty percent came from
courses taught by adjuncts and less than 5%
from graduate teaching assistants.
The Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee
of the Faculty Senate is charged with reviewing
complaints or concerns pertaining to academic
freedom (See Manual, Section 402.12.3 (1)).
Because of a lack of issues, the committee meets
infrequently. During the past two years, only
one grievance was filed and that issue was
resolved using the committee‘s prescribed
procedures.
Data from the HERI Survey
indicate that faculty members believe academic
freedom exists at USU. Ninety-two percent of
4.A.9 and 4.A.10 Orientation and evaluation
of part-time faculty. Except for a formal letter
of appointment from the president which the
faculty member receives when initially
appointed to a given position and rank,
191
notification of reappointment and information
about the position comes from the faculty
member‘s academic department head. The
Office of Human Resources, in conjunction with
the provost, provides opportunities for part-time
and adjunct faculty members to participate in
faculty and new employee orientation sessions.
Human Resources also maintains an electronic
home page that provides links to sites that
clarify the rights, responsibilities, and conditions
of employment. Additional information that is
more specific to the individual‘s role assignment
occurs through direct communication with the
appropriate department head.
promote hiring and mentoring of women in
science and engineering is a significant
achievement for the university.
Hiring
minorities has always been difficult. When
faculty positions are available, the university
will continue to be proactive in advertising and
otherwise searching for candidates.
Faculty salaries at USU are below those at peer
institutions. After two years without salary
increases, recent appropriations from the
legislature have at least kept pace with inflation.
USU‘s attractive benefit practice makes total
compensation somewhat more competitive.
However, increases in health care costs have
required the university to ask faculty members to
pay an increasing share of those costs.
To ensure that high-quality instruction is being
provided, all courses taught by part-time faculty
are evaluated using the same instrument and
procedures as for the full-time faculty.
Appointments for part-time faculty are renewed
annually, based on funding and performance,
unless the faculty members are given notice of
non-renewal in accordance with the Manual,
Sections 407.7 and 404.1.2 (4).
USU‘s student-faculty ratio is high compared to
peer institutions.
For several years, the
administration has levied additional tuition
increases (referred to as Tier II tuition increases)
to generate funds to hire additional faculty. This,
combined with a leveling in enrollment growth,
has allowed the ratio to decline somewhat. Over
the next two years, 40 additional faculty will be
hired to meet enrollment increases at regional
campus and for distance education courses.
The most recent revision to university policies
that govern the appointment of part-time and
adjunct faculty occurred in 1999. Individual
departments and colleges regularly review their
internal policies concerning the use of part-time
and adjunct faculty based on demand for their
courses and available funding.
Standard 4.B. Scholarship, Research,
and Artistic Creation
4.A. Challenges and Recommendations
4.B.1 Faculty engagement in scholarship,
research, and artistic creation. Retention,
promotion, and tenure criteria at USU focus on
the core academic mission of the university to
ensure that faculty members are engaged in the
various dimensions of learning, discovery, and
engagement. The determination of what
constitutes significant contributions to knowledge is vested primarily within the department
and discipline of the faculty member.
USU has a quality faculty, but maintaining the
standard may be a challenge because recruitment
is difficult in some disciplines. In some
departments, salaries that must be offered for
new faculty are higher than those earned by
some senior faculty. The College of Business
has responded to this problem by levying a
tuition surcharge for its upper-division courses,
starting Fall 2007. Some help on retention was
provided by the 2007 Utah Legislature which
appropriated 1.5% of the university salary base
to be used for equity adjustments.
Faculty engagement in scholarship, research,
and artistic creation at USU has experienced
impressive growth over the past 10 years.
Productivity is clearly reflected in USU‘s
contract and grant revenues over this period,
which increased more than 50%, from about
USU‘s goal is to have a diverse faculty. Some
progress is being made in attracting women and
the Advance Grant received from NSF to
192
$97M in FY 1997 to more than $147M in FY
2006. Based on NSF data, USU recently ranked
first overall in aerospace research and
development, and USU‘s College of Education
and Human Services was ranked second in the
nation in externally funded research programs.
The outstanding effort of USU researchers is
reflected in the national comparisons, especially
among its closest peers, non-medical land-grant
universities as shown in Table 4.4.
The Institute for Antiviral Research
(Agriculture) develops treatments and
therapies for infectious diseases,
including West Nile virus, animal
smallpox, Middle Eastern and African
viruses, mad cow disease, SARS, bird
flu, and serious respiratory viruses.
Center for Persons with Disabilities
(Education and Human Services) has
been a leader in the disability field for
35 years. Approximately 70 CPD
programs currently operate throughout
Utah and across the nation as part of a
national network focused on improving
life for people with disabilities and their
families.
Utah Water Research Laboratory
(Engineering), with nearly 250 projects
conducted each year, has a presence in
all 29 Utah counties and 40 countries.
Ecology Center (Natural Resources) is
a major leader in the National
Ecological
Observatory
Network
(NEON), a nation-wide system designed
to observe ecological change.
Table 4.4. USU’s National Rankings for
Research Expenditures
Category
Federal
Research
Ranking
(2004)1
Aerospace research and
Number 1
development (all universities)
overall
Education (all universities,
Number 2
FY 2008)
overall
Private and public universities
Number 77 of
640
Public universities
Number 48 of
389
Land-grant universities
Number 20 of
73
Land-grant, non-medical
Number 10 of
universities
59
1
In the past 10 years, USU‘s faculty members
have also embraced opportunities to engage
undergraduate
students
in
cutting-edge
scholarship, research, and artistic endeavors.
With support from the Vice President for
Research (VPR) and numerous faculty mentors,
undergraduate research at USU has significantly
enhanced student learning, discovery, and
engagement by creating hands-on learning
opportunities in students‘ chosen fields of study
(See 4.B.6).
Additionally, undergraduate
research is now an integral part of campus
course offerings. Faculty members have created
a number of credit-bearing courses, including
Undergraduate Research (USU 4900), in which
students can earn credit while gaining research
experience. USU also offers a course on
Most recent year for which these data are
available
A large portion of sponsored-award growth is
attributable to USU‘s Space Dynamics
Laboratory (SDL), which is part of the USU
Research Foundation. Since its founding in
1959, SDL has enabled significant scientific and
military advances using sophisticated sensors on
more than 400 research payloads ranging from
rocket-borne sensors to space shuttle
experiments and satellite systems. SDL has
more than doubled its yearly revenues over the
past decade, and its annual budget currently
represents about one-third of total USU contract
and grant revenues.
USU faculty members efforts also have given
rise to a number of nationally and internationally
recognized centers, institutes, and organizations.
Examples from selected colleges include the
following:
Research Ethics (USU 6900) for advanced
undergraduates and graduate students to educate
and guide responsible research conduct. In 2003,
the undergraduate research program helped the
193
Department of English secure a grant from the
Northern Rockies Consortium for Higher
Education (NORCHE) to integrate research
ethics more thoroughly in its research writing
class, English 2010.
creation productivity. The data are listed by
college and are for faculty members on the
Logan campus who have an appointment that
includes a research or artistic expectation (i.e.,
lecturers and instructors, administrators, etc., are
not included).
Table 4.5 (on the next page) provides data on
faculty research, scholarship, and artistic
194
Table 4.5. Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activities of USU Faculty
July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006
Books
USU
USU
AG
BUS
ED
ENG
HASS
NR
SCI
TOTALS
%
74
4
1
79
52
2
0
54
87
14
1
102
67
2
4
73
122
30
9
161
39
2
0
41
109
4
2
115
550
58
17
625
88%
9%
3%
100%
Books
Edited
0
1-2
>2
Total
AG
68
8
3
79
BUS
50
3
1
54
ED
90
9
3
102
ENG
67
4
2
73
HASS
142
16
3
161
NR
39
2
0
41
SCI
105
10
0
115
USU
TOTALS
561
52
12
625
USU
%
90%
8%
2%
100%
Chapters
in Books
0
1-2
3-5
>5
Total
AG
44
23
9
3
79
BUS
36
13
4
1
54
ED
59
32
9
2
102
ENG
50
15
3
5
73
HASS
92
50
13
6
161
NR
26
12
2
1
41
SCI
74
31
7
3
115
USU
TOTALS
381
176
47
21
625
USU
%
61%
28%
8%
3%
100%
Reviewed
Articles
0
1-2
3-5
6 or more
Total
AG
8
26
24
21
79
BUS
5
25
11
13
54
ED
19
40
25
18
102
ENG
8
26
19
20
73
HASS
69
49
18
25
161
NR
4
15
12
10
41
SCI
12
46
31
26
115
USU
TOTALS
125
227
140
133
625
USU
%
20%
36%
22%
21%
100%
Performances
0
1-2
3-5
6 or more
Total
AG
72
2
2
3
79
BUS
50
3
0
1
54
ED
94
5
3
0
102
ENG
64
4
1
4
73
HASS
111
12
13
25
161
NR
41
0
0
0
41
SCI
107
5
1
2
115
USU
TOTALS
539
31
20
35
625
USU
%
86%
5%
3%
6%
100%
Presentations
0
1-2
3-5
6 or more
Total
AG
12
13
24
30
79
BUS
6
16
16
16
54
ED
15
18
24
45
102
ENG
3
21
19
30
73
HASS
23
59
40
39
161
NR
4
8
12
17
41
SCI
16
26
40
33
115
USU
TOTALS
79
161
175
210
625
USU
%
13%
26%
28%
34%
100%
Written
0
1-2
>2
Total
NOTE Data are for full-time faculty on the main campus who have professorial rank.
195
Although there are variations by college, the
aggregate results portray a productive faculty.
Eighty percent published at least one refereed
article and 21% had six or more. More than one
in ten had a book published during the year and
nearly 40% wrote book chapter. Nearly 90%
made a scholarly presentation, and more than
60% made three or more presentations.
Patents, copyrights and creative works
Research misconduct
Other USU policies are also closely related to
scholarship, research, and creative activity at the
university. Standards of ethical conduct for
faculty are clearly articulated in Policy 403.3
and cover obligations that faculty have to
students; to the university; to the general
citizenry; and in relation to professional
scholarship, research, and creative endeavor.
These expectations for ethical conduct are
clearly articulated and available for review.
4.B.2-3 Policies and procedures regarding
scholarship, research, and artistic creation.
USU is committed to maintaining high standards
of integrity and ethical practice in scholarship,
research, and artistic creation. To ensure these
standards are kept, USU has developed
extensive written policies guiding faculty
conduct, created committees and offices to
support federal compliance standards, and has
involved faculty at all levels of university
operations to provide feedback and assistance in
formulating research policy.
The university conflict of interest policy (Policy
307) was established to help faculty avoid,
disclose and/or manage financial conflicts,
conflicts of commitment, and conflicts of
allegiance. Policy 307 has the specific objective
of enhancing:
The integrity of institutional research;
The quality of the institution's
educational program; and,
The viability of the institution's outreach
mission, especially as it relates to
information diffusion and technology
development and commercialization
Written Policy
USU‘s research policy (Policy 306) was ratified
by the Board of Trustees in September 2004.
The policy provides guidance to the university‘s
research community as they initiate and
implement research programs and provides them
the information they need to conduct business
properly within and outside the university. The
document also communicates USU‘s positions
and expectations to both the university audience
and to the public, and it helps to establish a
higher degree of openness in the operation of the
university. Issues covered by the policy include:
In addition, Policy 307 is designed to prevent a
conflict of interest from harming the university
and/or the employee.
USU Offices and Committees
In keeping with USU‘s institutional commitment
to promote ethics and integrity in scholarship,
research, and artistic activities, the university
has created and maintained various units to
ensure these activities are conducted in
appropriate, safe, and effective ways. The
Sponsored Programs Office reports directly to
the VPR and has responsibility to ensure all
sponsored-research programs are in compliance
with university, state, and federal regulations. In
addition, the VPR has a federal compliance
officer who manages issues related to
compliance with federal standards for ethical
conduct of research. In an effort to improve
campus-wide coordination of compliance
training and awareness, in 2006 the VPR and the
Harmony with USU‘s institutional
mission
Sources of research support
Criteria for submission, approval, and
negotiation of contracts and grants
Proprietary information, data and
research
Publication policy
Secret or national defense research
Consulting activities and outside
interests
Use of human participants in research
Use of animals in research
Safety and health in research
196
Vice President for Business and Finance created
an Integrative Compliance Committee chaired
by the compliance officer. This committee has
reviewed compliance needs in numerous
administrative units and is working to develop
web-based faculty training programs.
The LARC offers a complete range of services
to researchers at USU, including comprehensive
animal care and husbandry, instruction in proper
animal handling, disease diagnosis, euthanasia
and
animal
disposal, animal
records,
information, and consultation. Space is also
provided for researchers to conduct short- and
long-term research. These services ensure that
no research work is jeopardized through
inadequate animal husbandry practices, that the
animals used in research are treated and cared
for in a humane manner, and that federal funding
for research involving animals is not jeopardized
through inadequate or inhumane care or
treatment of research animals. Campus demand
for LARC space and services has been growing
steadily for years, and increased by 20% in
2006. As a result, efforts are underway to create
additional animal housing space at USU.
The Institutional Review Board (IRB) is charged
with protecting the rights and welfare of human
research participants at USU. All research
involving people, including unfunded research,
must be reviewed in accordance with the Code
of Federal Regulations. USU has a Federal
Wide Assurance with the National Institutes of
Health that commits USU to comply with
applicable federal regulations governing human
participants in research and which is required for
Department of Health and Human Servicesfunded research. This Assurance is renewed
every five years.
The IRB documents
compliance with federal regulations by
maintaining a database of all research protocols
submitted and of actions taken by the IRB.
The Environmental Health & Safety Office
(EH&S) is a USU service unit that provides
expertise and guidance for compliance with
federal, state, and local safety and health
regulations, as well as current professional
practices and guidelines. Its goal is to prevent
injuries, illnesses, and environmental damage
through the recognition, evaluation, and control
of potential hazards arising from university
activities. Services include assisting in
compliance with regulations and training
university personnel and students in appropriate
safety measures. In 2006, for example, EH&S
provided safety training to approximately 1,124
faculty, staff, and students in 36 courses.
General topic areas include biological,
radiological, occupational, and chemical health
and safety.
All faculty members involved in human subjects
studies must complete an online training course
(CITI Course in the Protection of Human
Research Subjects) prior to initiation of the
research. In addition, written policies and
procedures established by the IRB that are
congruent with federal guidelines have been
instituted to address procedures such as yearly
continuing review, reporting of adverse events,
changes in research methods and objectives, and
conflicts of interest of researchers.
The Institutional Animal Care and Use
Committee (IACUC) is charged with ensuring
USU's compliance with the Animal Welfare Act
and all other regulations concerning the care and
use of research and teaching animals. All
protocols involving animals used in research,
teaching, and training must be approved by the
IACUC prior to initiating the protocol or any
activities associated with it. The IACUC also
has supervisory responsibilities over the USU
Laboratory Animal Research Center (LARC),
which supports university animal research,
testing, and teaching by providing resources for
animal procurement, housing, husbandry and
care, health care, and disposal.
EH&S also interacts with many governmental
regulators in the course of normal university
business,
including
the
Environmental
Protection Agency, State of Utah-Department of
Environmental Quality, Division of Radiation
Control, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Centers for Disease Control, and
the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Many
of these entities perform routine and
unannounced inspections and require written
programs, documented training, permits, and
197
numerous reports of differing types that the
EH&S Office completes on behalf of the
university.
purposes to be expended through the Research
Office. (See Policy 105.2.1 (9))
Future Plans
USU will continue to encourage faculty and
students to maintain high ethical standards and
comply with applicable university and federal
requirements. Several new initiatives are in
place or in progress to provide accessibility to
resources and information in these areas,
including the following:
As mentioned in Section 4.B.1, students
are now offered classes that cover
responsible conduct of research, and all
students are exposed to research ethics
in English 2010, which is required for
all undergraduates.
The Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC)
provides USU with federally mandated reviews
of all work involving recombinant DNA
performed at USU or by USU researchers. The
IBC is made up of scientists with expertise in
plant and animal genetics as well as community
representatives. The IBC reviews and approves
recombinant DNA research at USU to ensure it
is performed in accordance with the NIH
Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant
DNA Molecules. The IBC has developed
standard operating procedures to guide the
submission and review process for approval of
recombinant DNA work. USU also has several
other major research committees, including the
Biohazards Committee, Chemical Hygiene
Committee, Radiological Safety Committee, and
University Safety Committee, that perform
similarly specialized services for the institution.
In 2007, USU will begin offering the
Graduate Scholars Certificate. The
program, provided by the USU School
of Graduate Studies, in conjunction with
the Office of Compliance Assistance, is
designed to give all graduate students a
basic overview of scholarly research and
publication. Topics covered by the
program include responsible conduct of
research, research ethics, working with
animal and human research subjects,
authorship and peer review, and
proposal/grant-writing skills. Students
working for the Graduate Scholars
Certificate must complete on-line
training modules and attend an
orientation and four Scholars‘ Series
Forums held throughout the year.
Faculty Involvement
Faculty members play a key role in the
development of university research policies and
practices, the most important of which takes
place in their roles as independent, self-directed
scholars and researchers. Faculty members also
fill multiple roles of collegial engagement, as
members and leaders of ad hoc advisory
committees designed to provide administrators
at all levels with feedback on strategic research
policies and practices.
Additionally, faculty members serve on the
University Research Council, which advises the
VPR in all matters pertaining to research and
other scholarly or creative activity of the
university. The Research Council has specific
responsibility for: 1) formulation of policy,
including research priorities and procedures for
attaining them; 2) encouragement and
stimulation of research in the context of
instruction and other goals of the university; 3)
monitoring, reviewing, and evaluating crosscollege research programs in the university; and
4) recommending to the VPR the allocation of
all funds available for research and related
The Research Office is currently writing
a self-study that is required to apply for
accreditation by the Association for the
Accreditation of Human Research
Protection Programs (AAHRPP). USU
will apply for AAHRPP accreditation by
the end of 2007.
4.B.4 Support for scholarship, research, and
artistic creation. Central administration, deans,
department
heads,
and
others
share
responsibility for helping faculty members
succeed in their scholarly, research, and creative
activities. At USU, support for these endeavors
198
is provided through numerous means, including
facilities and physical resources, funding,
recruitment and retention efforts, and other
services.
program support, and other research-related
services.
Eventually, about 90% of the
university‘s total F&A collected is applied to
colleges and departments, and the remaining
10% is used to fund university-wide research
services.
Facilities and Physical Resources
USU administration strives to provide faculty
with the best facilities possible in which to
conduct all types of scholarly activities. This
dedication is demonstrated in several building
projects and expansions completed in the past
decade for researchers, scholars, and artists.
Research facility expansion is continuing at the
Innovation Campus, where USU‘s BioInnovations Research Institute (BIRI) is located.
The current 33,000 square-foot facility will soon
be expanded by 85,000 square feet and will
house several of USU‘s USTAR research
programs in the coming years.
In FY 2006, USU recovered approximately
$21.3M in F&A costs. As has been the case for
several years, just over half of this money was
generated by, and returned to, the USU Research
Foundation (USURF). USURF, a wholly owned
subsidiary of the university, is a major not-forprofit organization with large-scale research
programs (most notably the Space Dynamics
Laboratory) that seeks to contribute to the
fundamental strength of research and
development at the university. A cooperative
working relationship with USURF is essential
for accomplishing the research mission of the
university, and F&A funds recovered by the
Foundation are vital to its continuity and growth.
In addition to an office, laboratory (if needed),
and office support services, faculty members
have access to a high-speed, broadband
computer network on campus, which connects to
the fastest available Internet technologies.
Faculty members also have access to a
comprehensive set of library services that
support scholarly activity. In addition, the
provost and VPR invest in strategic initiatives
where access to information has created a
bottleneck to research and creative endeavors.
This is manifest in the recent acquisition of the
Wharton Database to support research in the
College of Business and IEEE databases for
College of Engineering.
Recruitment and Retention
Effective faculty recruitment and retention is
vital to the mission and goals of USU, and the
Research Office has provided direct support for
the recruitment and support of experienced
scientists. The VPR recognizes the strategic
importance of such hires and is working to
develop more formalized mechanisms to
promote similar opportunities in the future. The
Research Office also supports faculty
recruitment and retention by providing about
$1.2M annually in seed grant funds for internal
projects that support faculty development and
enhance faculty success in securing extramural
funds.
Funding
USU recovers a portion of the indirect or
facilities and administrative (F&A) costs from
most external grants to pay the overhead costs of
research, and then uses those funds to support
university research programs. Most of the
facilities and administrative costs collected are
returned to the units that generated these funds
(although some funds are allocated to colleges
that do little sponsored research) to support
program development, new faculty start-up,
faculty seed grants, faculty travel to conferences,
and related needs. Other portions are used to
help pay for graduate student support,
undergraduate research, international research
Research Support Services
The responsiveness and efficiency of research
support services has also improved over the past
10 years. USU‘s Sponsored Programs Office
(SPO) is responsible for supporting and
protecting the university and individual
researchers as they propose, submit, and
administer externally funded sponsored research
projects. This role puts SPO in a unique
situation to interact with virtually every college,
department, research center, and administrative
unit at USU. Furthermore, the interdependent
199
nature of contracting requires accountability
among all these units if research endeavors are
to be successful.
benefit of the inventor, the university, and the
community. By effectively commercializing
technology, TCO provides additional revenue to
the university, its departments, faculty, and staff
and also works to stimulate local job creation
through forming new businesses.
In 2004, the Research Office provided SPO with
resources for augmenting staff and enhancing
management practices to better assist USU
researchers. SPO policies and procedures are
posted on the web (http://spo.usu.edu/), and that
site was recently revised to enhance proposal
development and provide more user-friendly
interfaces to its information. Specific services
offered by SPO now include editing grants,
developing budgets, negotiating contractual
terms and conditions, completing required
forms, tracking pending proposals, notifying
researchers upon award, working closely with
the Controller‘s Office to assure accounts are set
up properly, and negotiating with sponsors to
protect the researcher and university.
The TCO has been part of USU for many years,
but in 2003 a number of strategic human and
financial resource initiatives were implemented
to increase the value and visibility of USUderived technologies. USU restructured the
faculty promotion and tenure process so that
patents can count like peer-reviewed research
publications in the review process. Recently
(FY 2006), the university appointed Dr. Ned
Weinshenker to the newly created position of
Vice President for Strategic Ventures and
Economic Development. Dr. Weinshenker is
responsible for leading the TCO, as well as
Innovation Campus, and overseeing the USTAR
Initiative at USU.
A ―single point of contact‖ approach allows
researchers to easily identify their assigned SPO
administrator and allows SPO administrators to
familiarize themselves with the unique needs of
the researchers and become better versed with
sponsor-specific regulations. In addition, SPO
has developed a series of monthly and quarterly
workshops related to grant writing, locating
funding opportunities, industry contracting, and
electronic research administration. Finally, SPO
is currently implementing an electronic proposal
development and grants management system
(GAMS) that will interface directly with
http://www.grants.gov and provide an electronic
approval and routing system that is now required
by the federal government.
In the wake of these changes, licensing and
royalty revenues have doubled ($247,291 in FY
2003 vs. $494,523 in FY 2006), and significant
gains have been realized in the number of
patents filed (17 in FY 2003 vs. 27 in FY 2006)
and issued (3 in FY 2003 vs. 8 in FY 2006).
Twelve new companies have been formed in the
past four years, including four in FY 2006
(Alaero Design, Inc.; Plasma Containment
Company, LLC; Matrix Manufacturing, and
VistaTech, Inc). With USTAR researchers now
working on the USU campus, along with a very
favorable technology transfer climate for our
more traditional faculty members, it is expected
that technology and commercialization activity
will continue to grow at a rapid pace.
Like other research universities, USU is placing
greater emphasis identifying, protecting, and
commercializing university-derived intellectual
property. The Technology Commercialization
Office (TCO) is responsible for commercializing
university technology and creative works,
assisting faculty and staff in understanding the
technology transfer process, and complying with
its requirements. The TCO complements USU
research and outreach activities by developing
and commercializing technologies for public
benefit, while it also strives to extract the fair
market value of intellectual property for the
Faculty and student research is also fostered
through an improved series of communications
about USU research. Since 2003, a marketing
team in the Research Office has focused on
conveying the importance and impact of USU
research through print publications, web media,
and special events. Research communicators at
USU are working to create campus-wide
awareness of research activities, collect data that
quantifies its impacts, highlight and recognize
outstanding researchers, and convey the benefits
200
of research to legislators and other key
audiences. The flagship outcome of this work is
―Research Matters,‖ an annual report for the
general public that documents the economic and
academic benefits of USU research efforts.
compared to just 78% at peer universities.
Eighty-three percent say that a satisfactory or
very satisfactory aspect of their job is the
opportunity to develop new ideas—slightly
higher than the 79% at other public institutions.
4.B.5 Incentives for scholarship, research,
and artistic creation. USU faculty members
are expected to contribute to the generation of
new knowledge. Role statements articulate the
contributions that the faculty should make to
meet the academic mission of the institution and,
as noted earlier, they serve two primary
functions. First, the faculty member can gauge
his or her expenditure of time and energy
relative to the various roles the faculty member
is asked to perform in the university. Second,
role statements provide the medium by which
the assigned duties of the faculty member are
described and by which administrators and
evaluation committees can judge and counsel a
faculty member with regard to his or her
allocation of effort. Advancement in rank and
salary increases reflects the extent to which the
faculty member fulfills her or his role statement.
4.B.6 Consistency of sponsored research and
funded programs with mission and goals.
Though sponsored programs are essential at any
research institution, research is a keystone of
USU‘s mission of learning, discovery, and
engagement. USU research activities involve
and support both graduate and undergraduate
student learning experiences by providing
stronger faculty, better access to scholarly
facilities and resources, and more opportunities
for participation in research. Sponsored research
and funded programs also lead to new
discoveries and technological innovations.
Further, USU faculty members are actively
engaged in the community, nation, and world to
help solve practical problems for people and
businesses. These outcomes are completely
consistent with the university‘s greater mission,
which is to be one of the nation's premier
student-centered land-grant and space-grant
universities by fostering the principle that
academics come first, by cultivating diversity of
thought and culture, and by serving the public
through these activities.
The VPR supports faculty recruitment and
retention by providing approximately $1.2M
annually in seed grant funds for internal projects
that support faculty development and enhance
faculty success in securing extramural funds.
Moreover, the VPR returns 30% of recovered
facilities and administration dollars directly to
the colleges, departments and investigators that
generate them to support program growth.
Student Education
The most fundamental mission of USU is to
provide exceptional learning opportunities for
both undergraduate and graduate students. The
university recognizes that learning and discovery
through undergraduate research experience is a
critical component of undergraduate education.
The undergraduate research program at USU
supports the university‘s mission by providing a
supportive environment where students and
faculty may engage across the campus in
meaningful research, scholarly, and creative
achievements.
An important incentive for scholarship, research,
and artistic creation is USU‘s Intellectual
Property Policy found in the Manual, Section
327. Adopted in 1999 and revised in 2003, this
policy was designed to stimulate faculty
productivity by providing the opportunity for
financial reward. Basically, it gives faculty
generous legal rights to their intellectual
property.
Though undergraduate research has long been an
essential part of the USU campus culture, handson learning is now a hallmark of USU‘s
undergraduate programs. Efforts to bolster
undergraduate research activity have intensified
over the past decade. After assessment in 2000,
USU faculty members know they are expected
to be productive in generating new knowledge
and funds to support their efforts. Eighty-three
percent of HERI respondents agree that pursuing
extramural funding is a high priority of USU,
201
the VPR created an associate vice president
position to oversee undergraduate research and
provided funding to support an array of research
opportunities. Following are examples of USU
initiatives that focus on student research:
USU faculty and administration have
worked to expand research-related
employment opportunities for students.
At present, about 700 undergraduate
students work in research positions on
the Logan campus. The 2006 National
Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)
found that 26% of USU seniors have
worked on a research project with a
faculty member outside of course or
program requirements, a higher percent
than the 38 Carnegie Peer Institutions
who participated in the survey.
For 35 years, USU has provided
financial support to student researchers
through the Undergraduate Research
and Creative Opportunity (URCO)
program. Each semester, about 25
students are awarded up to $1,000 to
conduct their own research projects and
are required to report on their results at
the end of the year.
In 2007, USU celebrated the seventh
annual Research on Capitol Hill event at
the State Capitol, created to demonstrate
to legislators the value of a research
university to undergraduate education.
Dozens of USU students participate
annually in this event, which was
established when an internal analysis
revealed that state government officials
did not effectively understand how
research and teaching are integrally
linked.
USU also gives students the opportunity
to present their work on campus at the
annual Student Showcase, held each
April as part of Research Week. In this
rapidly growing event, students prepare
posters and presentations that are shared
with the student population, special
visitors, faculty, and fellow student
researchers.
Recent changes to USU‘s Honors
program now require all graduating
students to complete a senior thesis and
presentation.
This requirement has
increased the number of independent
student
research
projects
being
conducted on campus and has created
additional opportunities for studentfaculty collaboration.
Strengthening graduate programs at USU is just
as important as undergraduate education, and it
serves an additional symbiotic role, as graduate
students are the primary work force in a research
university. Doctoral students are typically the
most skilled and experienced collaborators for
faculty research projects. Therefore, one of
USU‘s goals is to infuse new energy into
graduate programs, particularly at the doctoral
level. To achieve this goal, the VPR partnered
with the School of Graduate Studies in 2003 to
enhance graduate student recruitment and, where
feasible, grow the number of doctoral students in
existing programs. Prior to 2003, the Research
Office had provided about $130,000 in graduate
research fellowships. In FY 2006 the Vice
President for Research contributed more than
$250,000 to support graduate student
fellowships, recruitment, and travel.
In 2004, USU restructured its most
prestigious scholarship to focus on
research and creative activity, which
resulted in the University Undergraduate
Research Fellowship. These awards
carry an annual stipend in addition to the
Presidential Scholarship that is tuitionbased. Research Fellowships extend
across the campus disciplines and
provide individual faculty mentorship.
In FY 2006, support was provided to 97
undergraduate Fellows, and the program
will attain its full complement of 130
students in FY 2007.
USU has also worked to provide research and
recognition opportunities for graduate students,
and an example of that effort is the annual
202
Graduate Student Paper and Poster Symposium.
Now in its tenth year, the event has been
integrated into the campus-wide Research Week
and since then has experienced nearly 100%
increases in participation for three years running,
with more than 100 participants in 2007.
has enabled recruitment of two senior scientists
to come to USU, and significantly expanded
NCHAM's capability to secure extramurally
funded research related to identification of, and
services for, children with permanent hearing
loss.
Discovery and Engagement
Research outcomes at USU are often measured
in terms of their academic or societal impact,
which demonstrates the importance of discovery
and engagement to the university‘s mission.
Researchers across campus are recognized for
their ability to contribute to their field of
knowledge or to serve their local or global
community, not just their ability to create wellfunded projects. The VPR works to encourage
projects that create a tangible impact within the
state through the Community University
Research Initiative (CURI). CURI funds are
one-year grants awarded to faculty members
who design projects to improve the lives of
citizens in the State of Utah. In addition to these
funded projects, the Research Office maintains a
database of noteworthy projects that have
tangible positive impacts, as determined by
deans and department heads.
Economic Impact
Over the past 20 years, the engagement mission
of research universities has been universally
expanded to include the requirement of bringing
knowledge outcomes to the marketplace. As
mentioned in Section 4.B.4, USU has made
significant strides in updating its Technology
Commercialization Office to help it work more
intensely and efficiently. On a larger scale USU
has also been a leader in the Utah Science,
Technology and Research (USTAR) Initiative.
One of the most significant initiatives
accomplished at Utah State in the past decade,
USTAR was passed in 2005 by the Utah State
legislature. USTAR is an innovative and farreaching initiative designed to bolster Utah‘s
high-tech economy by investing in university
research programs, up to $400 million over the
next 10 years. As these investments are made,
USU will expand its research capacity and create
more opportunities for scientific discoveries that
will lead to new technologies and businesses. At
the same time, world-class researchers and
equipment will be brought to USU‘s students.
In addition to funding individual projects, the
Research Office has worked to create several
interdisciplinary initiatives to address larger,
more complicated problems. For instance, a
water research initiative was established in 2003
to address the multifaceted issue of water quality
and scarcity in Utah. The initiative brought
together environmental researchers, engineers,
political scientists, and others across campus to
create a multi-pronged approach to Utah water
issues. A similar task force was created in 2006
to address energy issues in the state.
In addition to significant building funds,
USTAR includes $6 million of on-going funding
to support the research focus areas identified by
USU and approved by the USTAR Governing
Authority.
Thus far, USU faculty and
administration have set up USTAR teams based
on intelligent systems engineering, advanced
nutrition, three-dimensional imaging and
biofuels, and are working with USU faculty and
administrators to propose additional initiatives to
USTAR‘s governing authority.
Other notable recent research initiatives at USU
include the Center for High Performance
Computing (HPC) and National Center for
Hearing
Assessment
and
Management
(NCHAM). The HPC, which was established in
FY 2006, utilizing funds from an NSF major
research instrumentation grant and the Research
Office, will enhance research and education at
all levels at USU. Funding provided by the
Research Office to NCHAM in 2005 and 2006
4.B.7. Academic Freedom.
under 4.A.7.
See discussion
4.B. Challenges and Recommendations
USU faculty members have an impressive
record of generating external funding for
203
research. There is a clear upward trend that is
expected to continue.
However, external
funding is heavily dependent on a relatively
small number of research areas, especially
funding that comes to the Space Dynamics
Laboratory. As such, USU is vulnerable to
changes in congressional appropriations in these
areas. The VPR and SDL are working jointly to
diversify sources of federal funding.
increased if USU is to successfully compete for
top students. Plans are underway to provide
medical insurance as a benefit for graduate
students.
Supporting Documentation
To see the required documentation and exhibits,
plus other supporting information as specified
by NWWCU for Standard Four, go to
http://aaa.usu.edu/Assessment/Documentation_S
up.aspx.
2. The university desires to increase the number
of students in its graduate programs, especially
at the PhD level. Improvements have been made
in stipends, but these need to be further
204
STANDARD FIVE
LIBRARY AND INFORMATION RESOURCES
The library‘s newly formulated core values
reinforce its commitment to fostering an
atmosphere of learning and research.
The Merrill-Cazier Library marks the physical,
academic, and intellectual center of Utah State
University, providing an environment rich in
resources and technology to on-campus and
distance students and faculty.
In February,
2007, the magazine Campus Technology listed
best practices of 101 universities in three
areas—smart classrooms, connectivity, and
administrative information technology. USU‘s
Merrill-Cazier library topped the list in the smart
classroom category—Harvard was second.
Universal Access: We view collections broadly
and strive to provide the greatest possible access
to information resources. We remove barriers
and provide equal access to information
regardless of format or location.
Intellectual Freedom: We value expression and
exploration of ideas and seek to represent
diversity within our collections. We respect the
individual’s right to privacy and their freedom
to obtain and use information from all points of
view without restriction.
The library‘s recently updated mission and
vision statements best outline its role as both a
place and portal for the academic endeavor.
Mission: The Merrill-Cazier Library connects
people with information. Serving the university
community, the Library is dedicated to the
pursuit of knowledge. We support inquiry,
discovery, and engagement by providing access
to quality resources, and by facilitating the use
of information in teaching, learning, and
research.
Lifelong Learning: The Library plays a vital
role in formal and informal learning. We
empower individuals to pursue intellectual
development and to engage in scholarship
throughout their lives.
Service: Helping people is our highest goal.
We anticipate and respond to the needs of our
varied communities by providing quality
information services. We treat all users with
respect.
Vision: The Merrill-Cazier Library is the
intellectual center of Utah State University. As
both a physical and virtual destination, we
create collaborative, engaging environments for
learning and scholarship.
We embrace
innovation and continually adapt to changing
user needs. Applying our expertise in collecting,
organizing,
managing,
preserving,
and
providing access to human knowledge, we are
an integral partner in the academic enterprise.
Collaboration/teamwork: We value collaboration to enhance productivity, solve problems,
and
stimulate
individual
growth
and
organizational development. We show respect
toward staff and patrons, operating with
integrity and encouraging open communication.
The library is a campus destination that brings
the university community together for study and
intellectual exchange and fosters community
interaction. Students and faculty utilize
numerous resources such as open seating, group
study rooms, multimedia suites, wireless
connectivity, and other computer resources.
Creativity: Balancing respect for tradition with
opportunities arising from change, we strive to
support an environment where creativity thrives.
We encourage critical thinking in the pursuit of
knowledge, and we value resourceful, innovative
thinking in carrying out the functions expected
of the Library.
205
The library maintains a dynamic web site
(http://library.usu.edu) that directs students and
faculty to a variety of research tools such as the
library catalog, research databases, electronic
journals, digital collections, course reserves,
special collections, and research tutorials and
tips.
tradition of the university, the library‘s
collection strengths are in the areas of
agriculture,
natural
resources,
science,
engineering, fine arts, and education. The
Library is actively working to enhance the
collections in the areas of humanities and social
science.
USU also has devoted substantial planning and
resources to other areas of information
technology. Among the most important
accomplishments are the following:
No instrument has been in place to assess faculty
satisfaction with the library‘s collection, but
graduate and undergraduate students have been
routinely surveyed.
The annual Graduate
Student Survey consists of questions regarding
the student‘s USU experience.
In those
questions that dealt with the library‘s collection
and information resources, the 2006 survey
showed that the majority of respondents (90.3%)
were very, mostly, or somewhat satisfied with
the availability of library collections (books and
journals) in their fields of study. Ninety percent
of the respondents were very, mostly, or
somewhat satisfied with the availability of
electronic databases. The survey showed that
90.9% of the respondents were very, mostly, or
somewhat satisfied with the availability of
materials through interlibrary loan. Lastly, 92%
of the respondents were very, mostly, or
somewhat satisfied with the helpfulness of
library/learning resources staff. In the area of
computer technology, 68.5% of the respondents
agreed or strongly agreed that they were
satisfied with the computer facilities available to
graduate students. These numbers have been
consistent over the last several years and
demonstrate the overall satisfaction of graduate
students with their library experiences.
1. Since the last NWCCU review, IT services
have been consolidated and the position of Vice
President for Information Technology and Chief
Information Officer created.
2. 70% of general assignment classrooms have
been computer-mediated to include instructional
technology. Funding has been identified to
upgrade the rest of the teaching stations.
3. A system of open-access computer labs with
nearly 800 stations is maintained, some of them
open 24 hours per day.
4. The university has a high speed data
communications backbone, with wireless access
available at most locations on campus.
5. An antiquated SIS+ administrative software
system was recently converted to the new SCT
BANNER product. This effort was difficult, but
ultimately successful in improving access to data
for information and management purposes.
6. A successful transformation from WebCT to
Blackboard Vista course management software
was made during Summer 2007. This transition
was necessitated by the merger of the two firms.
In a similar survey conducted on students
graduating with bachelor‘s degrees, the Library
posted favorable numbers, but not to the extent
of the graduate survey. The 2006 survey
reported that 68.4% of the respondents agreed or
strongly agreed that ―the library has the books,
journals, and material I need.‖
Sixty-two
percent of the respondents agreed or strongly
agreed that library staff members were available
and helpful. Overwhelmingly, the respondents
were satisfied or very satisfied with the
computer facilities available to students. These
numbers indicate general satisfaction of students
with the Library and information resources.
Standard 5.A – Purpose and Scope
5.A.1-3. Information Resources and Core
Collection. The library‘s collection extends
from the traditional core materials of research
journals and monographs to an extensive
collection of electronic resources. Following the
206
Standard 5.B – Information Resources
and Services
still not able to acquire the journals faculty
members have identified as essential.
5.B.1 Selection, acquisition, organization,
and maintenance of equipment and materials.
Table 5. 2. Serial Subscriptions
Serials
FY98 FY02
Number of Current
Serials – Purchased
4,646
4,393
Number of Current
Serials – Received
10,220
8,948
General Collection Statistics. The library houses
more than 1.5 million volumes. In addition to
the resources housed in the Merrill-Cazier
Library, students have access to three
independent branch libraries, the Quinney
Natural Resources Research Library, the Young
Education Technology Center, and the Moore
Library at Edith Bowen Laboratory School.
Access to materials in the Uintah Branch Library
is provided through a courier service. For FY06,
the library paid for 3,696 individual print or
online subscriptions and received an additional
8,673 titles at no cost, for a total of 12,369 serial
subscriptions. In addition, electronic access is
provided to more than 30,000 journals.
Total
Number
Current Serials
FY06
3,696
8,673
of
14,863
13,341
12,369
As the demand for electronic resources grows,
the purchasing preference of the library for
indexes, abstracts, and serials has shifted to
electronic formats. The library switches serials
to electronic format whenever the publisher has
agreed to participate in Portico or can otherwise
demonstrate the security of its archive. In
addition, all indexes and abstracts are now
purchased in electronic format, representing a
shift from a decade ago when there were few
online databases.
Representative years are shown in Table 5.1 for
the number of volumes held and the number of
monographic volumes purchased. Fiscal year
1998 shows a high of some 16,000 volumes
purchased. The average number of monographic
volumes purchased over the past five years has
been 12,202.
Areas of Emphasis and Specialty
General overview: The library collections
contain more than 1,575,000 total volumes,
including 693,000 monographic volumes
(books), 333,000 serial volumes, 308,000
government documents, more than 100,000
maps, 12,369 current serial subscriptions, more
than 30,000 electronic journals, and access to
more than 200 bibliographic, text, and
informational databases. The Library is a
regional depository of U.S. government
publications, and, thus, has extensive holdings of
U.S. agency documents, maps, and periodicals.
The library also includes other materials in
special formats and genres. The library Media
Collection houses audio and visual material,
including educational and feature films, music
audio, and slides, all available for loan to
members of the university community.
Table 5.1. Total Volumes and Monographs
Added
Monographs
FY98
FY02
FY06
Volumes
held
June 30 Year End
1,417,185 1,457,649 1,578,271
Number of
Monographic
Volumes
Purchased
16,607
11,016
13,009
Similarly, the data in Table 5.2 represent the
same years for the library‘s serials holdings.
Like all academic libraries, the library has
struggled with the high inflation of journal costs
over the past 20 years. This has resulted in a
decline of some 1,000 subscriptions since FY98.
The library has been able to augment these
subscriptions with electronic access through
consortial purchases but in many instances is
Special Collections and Archives
The Special Collections and Archives division
houses the library's primary source collections,
rare book collection, the Fife Folklore Archive,
and the University Archive. The division is also
207
home to the library's preservation lab. The lab
treats an average of 700-800 volumes per year,
performs preservation microfilming, and advises
the library on preservation issues. The historical
collections include 325,000 photographs, 18,000
linear feet of manuscripts, and 1,000 maps.
These materials primarily focus on the history
and development of the intermountain region,
with special emphasis on agriculture, the
environment, the Mormon experience, and the
development of USU. The division also houses
80,000 monographic volumes.
raisonnes, and special format materials,
including video and audio media. Students and
faculty members have access to the materials in
the Art Book Room with assistance from the
staff and may, by arrangement, borrow selected
materials for a limited time period. The
collection focuses mainly on western modernist
and abstract expressionist monographs and
exhibition catalogues. The Marie Eccles Caine
Foundation has generously funded the bulk of
this collection.
The Art Book Room‘s most recently acquired
collection is the James L. Prestini Design
Library Collection, a gift from Kathryn Caine
Wanlass. A solid core collection, it contains an
impressive range of classic works on design and
art, many now out of print. The Prestini Design
Library will become an integral part of the larger
arts information environment at USU.
Noteworthy collections include the papers of
Utah and Mormon historians Leonard J.
Arrington and S. George Ellsworth, the second
largest holding of Jack London material in the
country, and the library and manuscripts of
Czech statesman Thomas Masaryk. Highlights
of the photographic collections include the
Compton Studio collection, a massive visual
catalog of northern Utah covering 80 years, a
complete set of the Wheeler's Geographic
Survey stereo views, plus significant
photographs of the development of USU. The
Fife Folklore Archive holds the work of
folklorists Austin and Alta Fife, the Skaggs
cowboy poetry collection, as well as numerous
folklore book collections and student papers.
This collection is one of the premier folklore
archives in the nation. The division holds the
recently acquired Peter van der Pas history of
science rare book collection, as well as
numerous other rare western monographs and
rare English landscape and history volumes.
Beat Literature and Little Magazine
Collection
In 1999, the library received the Beat Poetry and
Little Magazine Collection, a purchased gift of
the Marie Eccles Caine Foundation. This
important collection chronicles the "Beat
Movement" in American literature, culture and
history. The core collection consists of various
primary sources including some 2,300 books and
pamphlets; 1,400 Beat magazines; 150
anthologies and approximately 35 broadsides
and posters. In 2003, the Marie Eccles Caine
Foundation added another 2,675 books,
broadsides, and periodicals. This collection has
been used by History and English department
classes with regularity, and the library has lent
some rare and important items to USU‘s Nora
Eccles Harrison Museum and other institutions
for exhibition.
The division currently has the majority of the
collection guides cataloged in the library's online
catalog. In addition, most of the finding guides
can be found on the division's web site in a
searchable, HTML format. The division is
working on a statewide initiative to create a
searchable union catalog of guides, encoded in
Encoded Archival Description. The Division is
also aggressively digitizing portions of the
collection for inclusion in the Mountain West
Digital Library.
Electronic Resource Collection
The library supports electronic resources
covering every area of the university‘s
curriculum. While many of the resources are
locally licensed, the library also participates in
major consortia database offerings from the
Greater Western Library Alliance (GWLA), the
Utah Academic Library Consortium (UALC),
and the Utah Pioneer statewide online library in
order to leverage scarce resources. Access is
Art Book Room Collection
The Art Book Room collections include art
exhibition catalogues, book art, catalogue
208
not represented in the library‘s online catalog.
The Special Collections materials are accessible
via a card catalog and are currently the focus of
a retrospective cataloging project. In the five
years of this project, more than 60% percent of
this card catalog has been checked, and more
than one-third of these items had no online
catalog record. All of these missing items have
now been added to the online catalog. Two large
gift collections, one on design and the other on
the history of science, are in the processing
stages. The office has contributed authority
records through the local NACO funnel, and
staff members are currently undergoing training
to serve as independent NACO contributors.
provided to more than 27,500 licensed and 3,290
open-access e-journal titles; 189 licensed and 53
open-access electronic reference sources; and
175,300 electronic books. More details on at
http://library.usu.edu/elecres/nerhome/.
Digital Library Program
The library has a relatively new department
which digitizes materials owned by the library
and hosts them on the web. Materials are
selected based upon their uniqueness, research
merit, potential for curriculum support, and
appeal. Copyright restrictions, condition of the
materials, and extent of data available to
describe the materials factor into material
selection also. Typically, collections spotlight
historical photographs, journals, historic
newspapers, letters, and other interesting items
from Special Collections and Archives. By
digitizing these one-of-a-kind or rare materials,
the Digital Library opens them to users
everywhere, enhances access by subject and
keyword searching, and reduces wear and tear
on the originals.
Electronic Resource Access
Access to all electronic resources is made
available via the full-text packages (including ejournal portals and e-books) are grouped
alphabetically, by broad subject, and by genre.
All e-journals are tracked in a third-party
vendor‘s database system, which produces A-Z,
publisher, and subject lists of e-journals. The
same third-party database also tracks coverage
information for specific journal titles and
produces OpenURL links in the library‘s citation
databases, promoting electronic access to full
text whenever it is available. The library
recently exported brief MARC records for
electronic journals from the Library‘s Electronic
Resource Management System (ERMS) into the
catalog. With the ability to easily refresh these
records, the public now has improved access to
current holdings of electronic journals.
Government Documents
The library serves as the Regional Depository of
U.S. government publications for the State of
Utah. The year 2007 marks the 100th anniversary
of USU‘s Regional Depository status. The
greatest strength lies in the collection‘s historical
significance. The collection includes a number
of congressional series that date back to the
founding of the nation, as well as a substantial
collection of historical documents issued by
agencies that for many decades conducted the
bulk of scientific work in the United States:
Smithsonian Institute, USDA, the Geological
Survey, and the Army Corp of Engineers.
The library serves the entire university
community and has a mandate for openness,
accessibility, and service to the people of the
State of Utah. Accordingly, the library makes
every attempt to negotiate electronic resource
licenses that permit both remote access to
current faculty, students, and staff and onsite
access to visitors. With only one or two
exceptions, all resources available to the oncampus community are also available to the
distance community. Students and faculty who
are remote from the Logan campus can
authenticate as authorized users by means of
either the university‘s proxy server or a VPN
client. Both of these services are maintained
Collection Access
Cataloging
The library strives to make material available to
patrons in a timely manner. Newly acquired
materials are cataloged to national standards and
are available to patrons within 14 days. The
Cataloging Office has no backlog of current
acquisitions needing processing. Only pre-1976
government documents and the Special
Collections materials acquired before 1980 are
209
outside of the Library by the Office of Network
and Computing Services.
In an effort to offset the rising cost of
information in electronic format, the library has
sought partners to finance the purchase of
selected resources.
The most successful
partnership has been with the USU Research
Foundation. Beginning in FY03, the Research
Foundation has annually contributed nearly
$90,000 toward the purchase of Web of Science
and more recently IEEE‘s Electronic Library
(IEL). Financial constraints prevented them
from continuing their contributions effective
FY07. In addition, the College of Engineering
and the Vice President for Research committed
to funding a total of $10,000 of the annual cost
of IEL.
Materials Funding
The funding received by the Library from the
state in the form of Education & General funds
(E&G) has declined in recent years. An analysis
of fiscal years 1998, 2002, and 2006 shows that
the support received from the state decreased by
$64,546, yet the overall library funding
increased by nearly $1.2M.
Table 5.3
summarizes funding sources from these years.
Support from the Vice President for Research
was essentially eliminated, as was the one-time
funding the library had received from the
President‘s office for several years. These onetime sources were replaced by ongoing funds
from Tier Two Tuition starting FY05. Students
approved an increase in their tuition with the
stipulation that the Library receive $1M in
FY05, $1.2M in FY06, $1.4M in FY07, and
$1.6M in FY 08.
The library has been active in an annual
fundraising phonathon. For five weeks each
year the parents of students are called by the
university‘s phonathon group. Each night a
member of the library staff is present to answer
questions and motivate the callers.
This
program has raised $75,000 annually for
collection support.
Table 5. 3. Funding Sources
Library
Materials Budget
FY98
FY02
FY06
Continuing E&G
$1,860,072
$1,854,460
$1,795,526
Regents Support
Research Support
$325,000
$513,752
$500,800
$350,000
$200,000
$5,000
$500,000
$0
President's One-time
Funding
Ongoing Tier Two
Tuition
Student Fees
Development
(Phonathon)
$1,200,000
$190,000
$225,000
$318,000
$85,000
$50,000
$90,000
Research Found.
(IEEE)
Engineering (IEEE)
Total Funding
Collection Development
Collection development at the library is,
foremost, focused on serving the needs of
teaching and learning. The program is designed
to serve the interests and needs of the campus,
state-wide extension and regional campuses, and
to a lesser extent community interests. The
Library Collection Development office is
comprised of 22 librarians and staff members
who are responsible for maintaining and
developing collections in specific, assigned
subject areas, and for providing outreach to
academic departments and units.
Book Acquisition
USU subject librarians are allocated funds to the
purchase books that meet the teaching and
research needs of their assigned areas. Faculty
members and students may submit requests
directly to their subject librarian or through an
online form. Requests are evaluated by the
subject librarian.
$89,980
$5,000
$2,810,072
$3,343,212
$4,004,306
Unfortunately, financial constraints at the
university prevented the library from receiving
the additional $200,000 for FY07 and the
guarantee of future increases is uncertain.
The library acquires many books through an
approval plan with Blackwell‘s Book Services.
The plan supplies books in designated subject
210
areas at a discounted price and lessens the need
to select books on a title-by-title basis.
Librarians, faculty, and students are encouraged
to review books received on approval. The
approval profile is periodically adjusted to
ensure that appropriate materials are purchased.
Table 5.4 summarizes book acquisitions data for
FY06.
presenting data and soliciting input. In the 2006
fiscal year, a survey instrument was developed
to allow students and faculty to submit a list of
the most important journals for their research
and teaching. These data were used to identify
possible cancellations and a wish list of journals.
5.B.2 Resources and services contribute to
abilities of students, faculty, and staff.
Table 5. 4. Book Acquisitions Data, FY 2006
Total
Average
Fund
Number
Cost
Cost
Approval
7,856
$346,410
$44.10
Firm Order
5,448
$340,666
$62.53
Total
Books
13,304
$687,077
$51.64
Reference Services
Reference Service in the library encompasses
the range of methods by which librarians assist
patrons with their informational needs. As is
typical of academic libraries, librarians
emphasize instructing users about the research
process. The reference librarians believe that an
important aspect of their mission is to teach
people about specific information sources and to
help them to understand effective research
processes. Librarians engage in reference
transactions in person at the reference desk as
well as by phone, via email, and using instant
messaging (IM) for online chat exchanges.
While students, faculty, and staff are the primary
clientele, anyone may ask for reference
assistance via these channels.
The library selectively acquires electronic books
(e-books). A pilot project was started in FY
2007 to acquire e-books from NetLibrary based
on patron interest. This ―patron-driven
acquisition‖ will provide books on medicine and
biotechnology, based on how frequently e-books
in these areas are accessed and used.
Significant numbers of library materials are
acquired through the support of donors. The
areas receiving the largest support are art and
literature. The Caine Foundation has a long
history of supporting library collections.
Additional donors include the Elsner family,
Wells Fargo, and former president Stan Cazier.
Table 5.5. Materials Allocations, FY 2006
% of
Format
Allocation
Total
Books
(including
approval)
$794,961
20%
Electronic Resources
$653,987
17%
Journals
$2,505,656
63%
The librarians participated in a Live Chat
reference service from 2002-2005 as part of a
cooperative effort funded by the Utah Academic
Library Consortium. The service enabled 24/7
access to online assistance through a national
consortium of academic libraries and operated
using the 24/7 software. A steep price increase
for the software along with scant evidence of
USU students‘ use of the service led to the
discontinuation of Live Chat. E-mail and a
recently initiated IM option are more cost
effective and still enable USU students to reach
librarians conveniently using online methods.
―Contact us‖ on the library‘s web site at
http://library.usu.edu/main/library_information/
lists the reference desk phone number, email
address, and a link to a web page with
explanation of IM choices.
The library has undertaken a number of journal
cancellations in recent years due to the high
inflation on journal prices. Librarians involve
faculty and students in the review process,
Librarians also offer research consultations in
which students, faculty, or other researchers
meet individually with a librarian.
These
interactions represent an intersection between
Journal Acquisition
Journal expenditures constitute 63% of the total
materials budget. Many electronic resources are
serial in nature and including these brings the
expenditure to 80% of the total budget (See
Table 5.5).
211
reference service and library instruction because
they often result in one-to-one teaching about
the research process and general and specialized
information sources.
Research consultation
appointments often result from class sessions
because students may contact the librarian who
met with their class, or they may learn in class
about the availability of subject librarians whom
they later consult for personal assistance.
Library Instruction
The library instruction program promotes the
information literacy of students and faculty at
USU. Through individual library sessions,
librarians play an active role in teaching students
and faculty how to find, evaluate, and effectively
use a wide range of information sources.
Between 1997 and 2004, an average of 531
sessions were taught each year, representing an
average 11,526 contact hours with students (see
Table 5.6). In 2005-2006, that number increased
to 853 sessions and 17,193 contact hours.
Librarians taught sessions for 421 different
courses in 38 departments, representing all
colleges at the university. In 2004, USU had
more library instruction participants per student
than any of its peer institutions, and ranked
second in instruction sessions per student.
In Spring 2004, Reference Services initiated a
Library Peer Mentor program in which students
were hired to assist librarians in providing
reference service. The rationale for this program
stems in part from research that shows students
are more comfortable seeking assistance from
their peers and also from librarians‘ desire to
explore various means of reaching students
effectively. The program is funded by USU‘s
Undergraduate Teaching Fellows program.
Library peer mentors join librarians at the
reference desk, help with library instruction
classes, and assist with collection management
projects. A few peer mentors have taken the
opportunity to develop credit-bearing internships
based on their work in the library. Three
students who worked as library peer mentors are
pursuing master‘s degrees in library and
information science.
Table 5.6. Library Instruction Statistics
Category
FY 98 FY 02
Total # Classes
545
559
Total # Student Contact
Hours
12,586 11,898
FY 06
853
17,193
Since 2004, the program has expanded its role
significantly, largely through a coordinated
curriculum development project that integrated
information literacy instruction into two required
courses, English 1010 (Introduction to Writing)
and English 2010 (Intermediate Writing). Most
of the increase in instruction sessions and
contact hours can be attributed to the new
English composition curriculum.
The Information Desk is located at the entrance
of the building which also opens into an
Information Commons. The Information
Commons houses 150 computer workstations,
the print reference collection, and study rooms.
A full description of the facility appears
elsewhere in this document. The Information
Desk is staffed by both library personnel and
student computer consultants who are hired by
the computer lab services on campus. Users can
get assistance in the Information Commons from
library staff or student computer consultants
anytime the library is open. Reference librarians
collaborate with student lab services managers
to train the consultants so that they can answer
basic questions about the library and locating
materials. Many of these students are also
exposed to library instruction in their courses,
and that experience reinforces their knowledge
of typical student research needs in the library.
Before 2004, librarians usually taught only one
or two sessions for each section of English
composition. In English 1010, librarians now coteach a three-week problem-based learning
research project that is embedded in every
section of the course (see Table 5.7). A similar
approach is used in English 2010. Librarians
work with individual instructors to create
assignments and activities that provide
integrated learning. These sessions are usually
team-taught over the course of four to eight
library visits.
212
faculty in traditional campus settings. It has
handled more than 40,000 requests since 1990.
Table 5-7 English 1010 and 2010 Sessions
314
350
Distance learners have access to much of the
library‘s collection. Service is available via a
toll-free number and web-based forms. The
online catalog and electronic resources are
available to distance learners, and delivery of
books, government documents, and journal
articles is by document delivery service.
Reference assistance and instructional services
are provided on demand.
248
300
250
153 140
200
150
English 1010
81 97
English 2010
100
50
0
FY 98
FY 02
FY 06
Learning assessments show that USU students
are directly benefiting from the instruction. In
October 2005, the program finalized an
assessment plan, which outlines goals and
methods for assessing student learning and
programmatic effectiveness. Several assessment
activities were undertaken according to the plan.
Both formative assessments, such as short oneminute papers and student reflections, and
summative assessments that measured student
performance by examining their actual work
were used.
The emergence of electronic resources has
greatly enhanced DELS‘s ability to provide
services to the distance learner. Consortial
agreements have broadened the scope of
electronic resources accessible for research and
instruction. Resource sharing and reciprocal
agreements have given off-campus students
access to the collections of all academic libraries
in Utah. By working with the Faculty Assistance
Center for Teaching, DELS has been
incorporated into various faculty Blackboard
courses. It has assisted faculty members with
electronic course reserves and curriculum
development for the distance learner. Table 5.8
provides data about some of the services handled
by DELS.
Detailed results of these assessments can be
found in the section 5.E. In general, these
assessments show that students in English 1010
(usually freshmen) have difficulty identifying
and using a wide range of information sources in
their work, but they improve by the end of
English 2010. Students in discipline-specific
courses consistently identified learning about
additional information resources as a result of
library instruction. The results of these
assessments have been used to clarify learning
goals and revise the curriculum and instructional
strategies in English 1010 and 2010. As a result
of publications and conference presentations
about the English composition curriculum,
librarians have served as consultants to other
libraries interested in implementing a similar
program on their campuses.
Table 5. 8. DELS Comparative Statistics
Category
FY
FY
FY
Totals
98
02
06
since 1990
Books
342
675
501
6,568
Articles
1,036 2,977 2,342
2,7392
Total
Requests
1,884 4,250 3,096
40,792
Patrons
152
513
411
6,211
Literature
Searches
55
359
208
2559
Interlibrary Services
Interlibrary Services provides materials for
academic, curricular and research needs to the
faculty, staff and students in an efficient and
cost-effective manner. Two consortial agreements (UALC and GWLA) provide rapid article
and book delivery.
Distance Education Library Services (DELS)
Since 1990, DELS has been providing library
services to off-campus USU students, faculty,
and staff. It is guided by the philosophy that
members of the distance learning community are
entitled to library services and resources
equivalent to those provided for students and
In FY06, nearly 2,700 patrons were served by
Interlibrary Services. That year, 15,362 borrow-
213
ing requests were processed with a 95% fill rate
and 18,115 lending requests were processed with
a 62% fill rate. Requests from USU users are
processed the day of receipt. The unit was a top
performer in the GWLA Data Points Report for
Fall 2006, exceeding the standards for GWLA
service. This year 98% of books sent were
received by the fifth referral day and 99% of
articles sent were received by the third referral
day.
policies of the Library to the university. The
Council membership consists of eight faculty
members, one from each college and extension
with one undergraduate and graduate student
appointed by the provost.
Library Instruction
The Library Instruction Program collaborates
with faculty members to assess the needs for
instruction and to get feedback for programmatic
improvement. In 2004, the Instruction Program
conducted a needs assessment to determine
learning goals for information literacy in English
1010 and 2010. This included a formal survey of
English instructors that asked them to identify
the most important learning outcomes for
students in both courses. The results of the needs
assessment were used to design an integrated
information literacy curriculum for English 1010
and 2010.
5.B.3 Policies documented, updated and
available. The library utilizes its dynamic web
site to maintain the policies, regulations, and
procedures that assist in the operations and
decision-making of the library. The web site
consists of many informational resources:
General Information
http://library.usu.edu/menu.php?menu=3
Library Departments and Staff
http://library.usu.edu/main/library_informati
on/phone_directory.php
In 2005 and 2006, the Instruction Program hired
faculty and academic support staff members to
serve as Information Literacy Fellows. These
Fellows worked with librarians on a focused
curriculum development project (one for English
1010 and 2010, and one for at-risk students).
Working closely with faculty and staff has
enabled the library to better meet the needs of
students and instructors by improving
communication and developing curriculum that
instructors can easily integrate into their courses.
Policies and Procedures
http://library.usu.edu/main/policies/index.php
Collecting and Acquiring Materials
http://library.usu.edu/coldev/index.php
Frequently Asked Questions
http://library.usu.edu/main/faqs/index.php
The library also conducts regular meetings with
English instructors and other faculty members in
order to share ideas about teaching strategies,
changing student needs, and assessment ideas.
Faculty members provide feedback on teaching
through an online survey. Individual librarians
use this survey data to focus on areas of
improvement in their teaching. It is also used
programmatically to assess both curricular and
logistical issues in the design and delivery of
information literacy instruction.
Research Tips and Tutorials
http://library.usu.edu/instruct/tutorials/index.
php
5.B.4 Faculty, staff, and student participation
in planning.
Library Advisory Council
Once the position of Vice Provost for Library
Services is in place, the Library Advisory
Council will advise him/her regarding (1)
meeting the learning, instruction, and research
needs of students, faculty, and staff; (2)
formulating library policies in relation to
circulation, services, and the collection
development of resources for instruction and
research; and (3) communicating the needs and
Subject Librarians
A librarian is assigned to each academic unit on
campus. These librarians are available to faculty
and students for consultation on a variety of
topics, including in-depth research assistance,
evaluating collection needs for research and
214
teaching, and discussing library policies and
procedures. Librarians often discover, through
these discussions, ways in which library services
can be enhanced and improved.
As resources have migrated to a web
environment, the library has continued to stress
the importance of access and service to the
university community. The library web site is
utilized as an avenue to an ever-growing array of
information and services. The user has access to
locally developed digital and archival files as
well as national resources, such as WorldCat,
Digital Dissertations, and ArtStor. As
technology demands continue to expand, the
library will purchase the means needed to satisfy
user needs.
Annually, librarians coordinate with academic
units to review journal subscriptions. As part of
this review, the subject librarian schedules a
meeting with the department to discuss current
funding and journal needs. Through these
discussions a plan for managing journal
subscriptions is developed. Departments may
cancel a greater number of titles than necessary
in order to add more relevant journals. Faculty
and students may submit information about
journal needs through an online form.
Additionally, the library utilizes technology to
expand options for communicating with patrons.
Reference queries may be submitted via email
and instant messaging. Remote users are given
the opportunity to submit request via web forms.
The library attempts to keep in touch with
students using technology familiar to them. To
further this goal, it has established a MySpace
account to reach the student population.
A similar process is followed for reviewing new
online databases.
Trials of prospective
databases are established for campus review.
Faculty and students are then invited to submit
responses through an online form. Library staff
base decisions about which databases to license
for campus in part on these responses.
5.B. Challenges and Recommendations
Faculty and students have input about selecting
books for the collection. The library has an
approval plan which provides new books on
selected subjects from approximately 1,400
North American and 600 British publishers.
Faculty, students, and librarians are notified
when new books arrive and may suggest which
should be added to the collection. Faculty and
students may submit requests for books either
directly to their subject librarian or through an
online form.
Internal library funding needs to be improved.
This will be accomplished by collaborating with
the university administration to work with the
Utah Legislature.
Development funding needs to be increased.
Library staff will work with the Vice President
for University Advancement as part of USU‘s
Comprehensive Campaign.
Collection development polices need to be
finalized. This goal is nearing completion.
5.B.5. Computing/Communication Services.
The library has been at the forefront of
technology issues. Its Information Systems
office is a highly service-oriented group that
recognizes the need for the library to be on the
cutting edge of technology issues. The library
was one of the first academic libraries in Utah to
offer an online catalog. At one point, it housed
and provided access to the Wilson electronic
databases for the Utah Academy Library
Consortium (UALC). This early endeavor was
the predecessor for the UALC cooperatively
purchased databases that currently are shared
throughout Utah and Nevada.
The library‘s collections must be assessed to
assure that they meet curriculum needs. This is
an ongoing assessment activity by library staff.
Standard 5.C - Facilities and Access
5.C.1 Availability of resources to all students
and faculty. The Merrill-Cazier Library was
completed in September 2005. It was a threeyear, $42 million project that replaced the
Merrill Library and incorporated the Cazier
Science and Technology Library. The new
215
305,000 square foot library stands as a campus
destination and the intellectual center of campus.
The new building incorporates the latest in
information and technological developments,
providing an open learning environment with
natural light. Users enjoy a technology-rich
setting, generous study spaces, wireless access
and an automated storage and retrieval system –
the BARN.
Group Study Rooms
Student collaboration has increased as higher
education places more emphasis on team
building and group projects. The library
recognized the lack of adequate group study
rooms in the Merrill Library and Cazier Science
and Technology Library as a serious deficiency.
This was further confirmed by surveys that
showed 86% of respondents wanted group study
space. The need for more cooperative learning
spaces was stressed during the library planning
phases. As a result, 32 group study rooms with
whiteboards are available for students. The
rooms seat from 4 to 12 and can be reserved for
two hours. As noted earlier, the 13 group study
rooms in the Information Commons are
equipped with computer workstations. The four
largest rooms have 32-inch flat panel monitors,
enabling groups of 12 to work on projects
together. There are two multimedia suites (PC
and Mac) on the first floor for graphic design
and video/audio editing. The remaining 19 group
study rooms are situated throughout the library
and offer the user a variety of opportunities to
work in partnership.
Surveys and focus groups were conducted
during the planning stages of the building. The
outcomes of these assessments where used to
guide decisions regarding public areas. The
survey results showed that an overwhelming
majority (93%) wanted individual seating and
86% wanted access to group study rooms.
Seventy-six percent wanted access to food and
drink, while 62% desired wireless connectivity.
These results and other information were used to
guide the library and architects in the design and
construction of the building.
Information Commons
Occupying the first floor, the Information
Commons is a collaborative endeavor between
the Library and Information Technology‘s
Student Lab Services. The Information
Commons consists of 150 computer workstations, 13 group study rooms equipped with
computers, and two multimedia suites. The
reference collection is interspersed within the
workstations, allowing user-ready access to
useful materials as they work on projects. The
Commons facilitates engagement and inquiry.
Comfortable seating and study tables are
available throughout. This seating allows users
to utilize wireless connectivity and work
individually or in small groups.
In addition to the group study rooms, the library
has five viewing rooms for students to watch
DVD or VHS materials that are required for
courses. These have a variety of equipment to
accommodate different formats and seat 4-8
individuals.
The library also provides more than 1,500
general seats that are arranged around an open
environment with tables, carrels, and lounge
seating.
Library Wireless Connectivity
The library has proactively planned for wireless
connectivity. Staff worked with the university‘s
Information Technology group to provide
wireless connectivity throughout the newly
constructed areas and when possible within the
older areas. A total of 24 wireless hubs were
installed during the building construction. At
present, there are only a few areas within the
library without wireless access. The librarians at
the Information Commons desk work with the
lab consultants to set up student and faculty
laptops for access.
In conjunction with the Information Commons,
the library has a traditional computer lab that
contains 53 computer workstations. The surveys
conducted during the building planning showed
that 83% wanted a traditional computer lab.
This lab has filled an essential need for overflow
from the Information Commons as well as
provided a quieter setting for individual work.
216
multiple labs. There are also 161 wireless access
points that serve campus buildings. The nearterm goal is to have 400 wireless access points
covering all of campus with substantial outside
coverage, including student housing. There are
also 44 kiosks at various strategic locations on
campus that provide for incidental access to the
Internet. The practical result is that anyone in
the campus community can have access to the
campus network and the Internet at any time
from any place.
The BARN
The Borrower‘s Automated Retrieval Network
(BARN) is a high-density automated storage and
retrieval system for library materials. This
warehouse-type space allows the library to store
materials in a cost-effective and climatecontrolled manner. This innovative solution will
accommodate collection growth through 2025.
It was felt that an on-site automatic storage and
retrieval system was a better option than off-site
storage, which would have required a 24-hour
turnaround time to access materials.
The
library‘s bound journals, approximately 170,000
less frequently used books, and most of the
microforms are in the BARN, stored in call
number order. In response to user surveys, the
library worked with the manufacturer, Daifuku,
to develop the ability to browse books and
journals. This unique feature allows a user to
request a shelving unit and browse the materials
as you would in open stacks. At full capacity,
the BARN will hold 1.5 million items. It
currently houses nearly 500,000.
Technology-Enhanced Classrooms
A decade ago, most USU classrooms utilized
overhead projector and chalkboard technology,
although a few of the larger teaching stations
were equipped with LED projectors and
computers. During the last few years, significant
progress has been made to computer-mediate
USU‘s
general
assignment
classrooms.
Currently, more than 70% of these classrooms
have LED projector/ computer technology
available for instructors and funding has been
allocated to equip the rest.
The BARN has received very positive support
from the faculty and students. It is highly
efficient with a general response time of five
minutes from request initiation. Students and
faculty members request their items from the
BARN through the library‘s online catalog. In
order to deal with demand, books are retrieved
from the first floor Circulation Desk and
journals are accessed from the second floor
Serials Desk. The BARN provides the library
with the added bonus of usage statistics for the
bound journal collection. The library can run
reports that identify the titles that have the
highest demand from the BARN. This has been
useful during collection evaluation for potential
serial cuts.
In addition to the centrally assigned classrooms,
a number of departmental classrooms (those
funded and maintained with departmental funds)
are also computer-mediated.
5.C.2 Documentation of cooperative agreements. The library is actively engaged in
cooperative relationships designed to extend
services and resources to the students and
faculty. The library‘s consortia memberships
have created agreements that facilitate access to
collections and information resources.
Utah
Academic
Library
Consortium
Established in 1971, the Utah Academic Library
Consortium (UALC) is a collaboration of all
public and private academic libraries in
accredited institutions of higher education in the
State of Utah. UALC has been a pioneer in
setting up services that enhance the collections
of its membership. One of its first endeavors
was to establish an interlibrary loan agreement
among members, which led to a reciprocal
borrower‘s agreement. The agreement extends
onsite circulation privileges to students and
faculty of fellow UALC institutions.
Campus-wide Data Network
A campus network is served by two one-gigabit
connections to the Utah Education Network.
Students have open access to the campus
network and the Internet in a number of ways on
campus, including access from student housing.
There are 11 academic buildings with student
Open Access Labs that contain a total of 793
computers and a variety of software. Several
locations, such as the Business Building have
217
For the last 10 years, UALC has been working
with the Utah State Library Division, the Utah
Education Network, the Utah State Office of
Education, and the Utah State Office of Higher
Education to establish Pioneer: Utah’s Online
Library, a network of electronic products
available state-wide. Pioneer has become a
vital, up-to-date information resource for
students and citizens. UALC has extended
Pioneer by creating an academic version that
offers access to scholarly resources and
electronic journals. As a consortium, UALC has
made great strides in providing electronic
resources such as:
BioOne, EBSCOHost
Databases,
JSTOR,
MLA
International
Bibliography, NetLibrary e-books, Project
MUSE, and PsycInfo.
staff members are informed about technology
changes and a plan is being implemented.
Greater Western Library Alliance
The library is member of the Greater Western
Library Alliance (GWLA). GWLA is a nonprofit consortium of 31 research libraries located
in the Midwest & western United States.
Members share a common interest in scholarly
communication, interlibrary loan, shared
electronic resources, cooperative collection
development,
digital
libraries,
staff
development, and continuing education.
5.D.1 Adequacy of library and information
resources staff. The recruitment and retention
of staff has been a challenge in recent years.
While there have been many job opportunities
within the library, the university‘s location and
cultural climate often hinders the library‘s
ability to attract and hire quality staff. The
library has utilized the university‘s Appointment
of Opportunity to hire experienced librarians for
some key positions. In the next 10 years, there
will be significant turnover of staff caused by
retirements. The challenge will be recruiting
staff members who have the skills to replace
experienced employees.
The relevance of the library as a location, while
user needs shift to electronic formats must be
addressed. Library staff members recognize this
trend and continue to build electronic data
collections.
The library must build on consortium successes
and programs. By working with other libraries
and other units on campus, the library will be
able to anticipate and meet future needs.
Standard 5.D – Personnel and
Management
Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resource
Coalition
SPARC, developed by the Association of
Research Libraries, is an alliance of academic
and research libraries and organizations working
to address issues related to the scholarly
publishing community. The library is a full
member of SPARC and supports endeavors to
create a more open and diverse marketplace for
scholarly
communication.
The
library
preferentially
purchases
SPARC-endorsed
publications. In addition, the library has utilized
SPARC‘s resources to educate the university
community about scholarly communication
issues.
The library has not been able to increase the
overall number of staff working within the
library, as shown in Table 5.9. It has reassigned
staff to address changes in workflow and deal
with the emerging emphasis of technology on
library operations.
Table 5. 9. Library Staffing Comparison
Category
5.C. Challenges and Recommendations
The library must continually adapt to the everchanging needs of technology. The new MerrillCazier Library incorporates state-of-the-art
information technology. Although maintaining
this status will be a funding challenge, library
FY 98
FY 02
FY 06
Faculty/Professional
42.21
43.30
41.80
Classified
28.10
29.90
28.80
FTE Student Assistants
33.48
28.90
30.40
103.79
102.10
101.00
Total Staffing
218
5.D.2 Technical support staff. The Director of
the library reports to the Provost with the title of
Dean of Library Services. This allows the library
to have a direct interaction with university
administration. The dean is a member of the
Dean‘s Council. In addition to the dean, the
library administration consists of three associate
directors who comprise the Executive Council,
and eight unit heads. The Executive Council
meets weekly and the complete team meets
monthly.
The Staff Development Committee conducts
monthly training sessions that range from
Microsoft Office applications to webcasts on
library issues. The committee also conducts the
monthly Table Talks, which is an open forum
that allows staff who have recently attended a
conference, seminar, or workshop to share what
they have learned or experienced.
To support travel, the library offers each
professional $1,000 toward out-of-state travel.
This allocation assists with registration, airfare,
and accommodations. The staff member has the
option of using the allocation for a single
conference or spreading it over multiple events.
In addition, the library covers in-state travel for
staff to attend the Utah Library Association
annual conference. These travel allocations
have allowed the staff to become involved with
various associations. Members of the staff have
served or held a variety of appointments within
state, regional and national associations.
The majority of USU librarians have faculty
appointments and participate in the university‘s
promotion and tenure process. The review
process for librarian promotion and tenure is
outlined in the University Faculty Code found at
http://www.usu.edu/hr/policies/section400/405.p
df. The remainder of librarians, because of their
specific assignments or duties, hold professional
status.
Salaries and competitive wages have been an
increasing concern for recruitment and retention.
The library has worked relentlessly over the past
years to raise salaries across all groups. In some
instances positions have been eliminated in
order to provide adequate compensation to
remaining staff. Currently, the entry-level salary
for librarians stands at $35,000. The classified
employees starting salary has also been raised to
reflect a new university standard that has been
proposed but not yet implemented. The library
most recently raised its minimum wage for
student assistants to $6.00.
5.D.4
Organizational linkages reinforce
institutional mission and goals. For decades,
the library has collaborated with information
technology service providers across campus to
provide the students and faculty with a
technology-rich environment. One of the first
computer labs for students was in the Merrill
Library, and, when the Cazier Science and
Technology Library was built, a student
computer lab was located in the basement. That
lab is still part of the new library. As discussed
earlier (see 5.C.1), the Information Commons is
a cooperative venture between Information
Technology‘s Student Lab Services and the
library. This joint endeavor began during the
planning stages of the library and continued
through design and construction. The
Information Commons Committee continues to
meet monthly to discuss issues and concerns.
5.D.3 Development opportunities for library
and information resources professional staff.
The library has encouraged and supported staff
that are pursuing their education, especially
graduate programs in librarianship. Flexible
schedules are offered and modest amounts of
travel funding are provided. Four staff members
have completed their MLS degrees through
regional programs offered by the University of
North Texas and Emporia State University.
Three of the four have continued their
employment with the library after their
graduation. Currently, four other staff members
are enrolled in MLS graduate programs.
5.D.5 Library and information resources
staff involved in curriculum development.
The library has representation on the Education
Policies
Committee, General
Education
Subcommittee, Graduate Council, Budget and
Faculty Welfare Committee, and Distance
Education and Electronic Delivery Subcommittee. The function of the Education
219
Policies Committee is to approve specific course
changes, additions, or deletions. The librarian
provides input related to the impact of courses
and the ability of the library to support the
curriculum.
The
General
Education
Subcommittee approves courses for the general
education curriculum. The librarian, who is a
voting member, provides the subcommittee with
recommendations for how to best meet the
information literacy requirement of the general
education curriculum. The Graduate Council
establishes regulations and standards for
graduate study and advises the Dean of the
School of Graduate Studies on exceptions or
adjustments to policy. The librarian, who is an
ex-officio member, provides the council with
library information regarding new graduate
programs.
The Budget and Faculty Welfare Committee
reviews the financial and budgetary implications
of proposals for changes in academic degrees
and programs. The library representative can
address the financial issues of the library during
the review of degrees and programs. The
Distance Education and Electronic Delivery
Subcommittee makes recommendations on
matters pertaining to distance and electronic
education. It also assists the faculty and
administration in identifying problems, trends,
and opportunities for USU in these areas. As a
representative, the librarian provides the
subcommittee with the information about library
services and resources available to the distant
student.
can choose a book that meets both the writing
and information literacy objectives of the
curriculum.
5.D.6 Adequacy of financial support. Overall,
the library budget has risen slightly in recent
years, but it continues to play catch up to cover
journal inflation. The university administration
and students have directed 2nd Tier Tuition to the
library which provided a secure substitute for
previous one-time funding. Since the inception
of the Student Library Fee, students have
generously increased the fees that are earmarked
for library acquisitions. The Utah Academic
Library Consortium has been successful in
receiving funds from the Utah Legislature that
has been distributed as permanent base funding
to the library and as ongoing funding to the
Consortium. Consortia funding is used for
database licensing. These funding sources have
eased the library‘s budgetary stress but have not
prevented it from cutting nearly 1,000 journals
from its collection since 1998.
As shown in Table 5.10, library expenditures
have increased from $6,063,514 in 1998 to
$7,579,003 in 2006. A majority of this increase
was directed toward journal inflation. The
university has faced cuts across all units, but the
library has tried to minimize the impact to its
materials budget by taking the shortfalls from
operating/maintenance and freezing positions.
Table 5.10. Library Expenditures by Major
Category
Category
Librarians have been invited to sit on ad hoc
committees to provide input for curricular
decisions. They have served on the Common
Literature Experience Committee for the last
two years, making recommendations for books
that all freshmen are required to read as part of
orientation and other first-year courses.
Librarians are regularly consulted in the design
of Connections, the freshman orientation
program. The English Department has also
asked the library to provide recommendations
for the textbook selection for English 1010 and
2010. New textbooks for these classes will be
selected in 2007, and the English Department
has sought the advice of librarians so that they
FY 98
FY 02
FY 06
Library Salaries
$2,322,914
$2,478,519
$2,819,295
Library
Materials
$2,890,128
$3,062,289
$4,189,290
$759,208
$686,254
$485,983
$6,063,514
$6,329,151
$7,579,003
Operating/
Maintenance
Total
Expenditures
The strides the library has made in enhancing
revenue have been notable, but fall below the
increases seen by its peers. Table 5.11 indicates
that peer libraries averaged a 27% increase to
their total library expenditures from 1998 to
220
Standard 5.E – Planning and Evaluation
2005. Materials expenditures for the same
period increased 29%. Merrill-Cazier came in
below these averages at 13% and 21%,
respectively. The library continues to spend a
large percentage of its total budget on materials,
at 50%. The average for the peers was 45% of
total expenditures. Only Iowa State and Texas
A&M spent a greater percentage on materials.
Table 5.11. Peer Comparison Percent Change,
FY98 to FY05, in Library Expenditures
Total
Library
Expenditures
Materials
Expenditures
% Budget
that is
Materials
CaliforniaDavis, U of
10%
8%
36%
Colorado State
39%
38%
46%
Iowa State U
New Mexico
State U
No. Carolina
State U
Pennsylvania
State U
20%
44%
52%
48%
9%
32%
37%
29%
38%
35%
38%
38%
Texas A&M U
Virginia
Polytechnic Inst
Washington
State U
40%
69%
51%
13%
9%
47%
17%
26%
41%
Utah State U
Average of
peers
13%
21%
50%
27%
29%
45%
5.E.1 Involvement of users, staff, faculty, and
administrators in planning. The university
engaged in a process called ―compact planning‖
between 2001 and 2004. Though not strategic
planning, the process involved units in
developing proposals for funding based on areas
of self-identified strategic need. The process did
not involve any formal planning in which the
institution took a critical look at the library or
through which users, staff, faculty, and
administrators were involved in assessing and
planning for library needs.
However, the
process did result in a significant change in the
model of funding the library that made
permanent $900,000 of formerly one-time
funding and brought $100,000 in new, ongoing
funding for library acquisitions.
In the 2006-07 academic year, the Merrill-Cazier
Library, itself, has been engaged in two critical
planning activities. First, the library undertook
the process of strategic planning. As a result of
numerous focus groups and steering group
discussions, the library revised its mission
statement, articulated it values, and crafted a
vision statement. The final phase of the process
will be completed by the end of FY 2006-07
with the outlining of the library‘s strategic
initiatives, goals, and objectives.
The second critical planning activity is the
administration of LibQUAL+ which took place
in late March 2007. Administering the survey
for the first time, the library anticipates
collecting baseline date on the quality of library
services to students and faculty. Data will be
used to inform and shape the final draft of the
library‘s strategic plan.
5.D. Challenges and Recommendations
Recruitment and retention of quality staff is a
concern because salaries are not competitive.
Additional funding will be sought and merit
adjustments provided to key staff.
Erosion of library funding in the face of
increased inflation and changing state priorities
presents a challenge. Library staff members will
continue to evaluate each periodical to
determine use. Where electronic formats can
provide cost savings, they will be utilized in the
future.
5.E.2 Use of management and technical
linkages for planning. Until 2001, the library
was part of a larger unit, Information and
Learning Resources, which also included
information technology, computing services
(including instructional computing), telecommunications, and media production units. As
part of reorganization of the information
technology division, the library became a
separately administered unit reporting directly to
221
the Provost. With this reorganization, the
communication and coordination across units
was reduced. However, the units have worked
collaboratively with respect to planning and
implementing the information technology
infrastructure for the new library building.
a variety of sources in their research and writing.
The results of the value-added assessment
resulted in significant curriculum changes and
increased library instruction sessions for English
1010 and 2010, as discussed in section 5.B.
In 2005-2006, librarians again scored student
work, including research plans and bibliographies. In English 1010, students generally
scored in the ―needs improvement‖ range, which
was not surprising given that this assessment
measured their entering level of skill. Librarians
were concerned, that students were not using a
rich range of resources in bibliographies even
after library instruction. Consequently, the
assignment was revised and the number of
library sessions increased. The new assignment
is now being taught and assessed.
The collaboration was evident in the partnership
to establish an information commons that
replaced the stand-alone computer lab. The
information commons is a successful, jointly
administered program that is highly valued by
the students. This year, the Faculty Assistance
Center for Teaching reverted to the control of
Information Technology but remains housed in
the library.
The library and the Office of Information
Technology are currently working on a joint
proposal to create an institutional repository, and
will bring that proposal to the university
administration for approval in late Spring 2007.
The Library Instruction Program also engaged in
programmatic assessment in 2006. Librarians
completed an analysis of general education
syllabi to see whether and how information
literacy was integrated into these courses. The
results showed that fewer than half of the total
syllabi analyzed had any information literacy
assignments. Science courses were especially
lacking in information literacy components. As
a result of this assessment, a task force was
formed in November 2006, comprised of faculty
members and librarians, to investigate ways to
integrate information literacy instruction into the
general education requirements more effectively.
5.E.3 Assessment of library, adequacy, and
utilization. The Library Instruction Program has
a formal assessment plan and uses this plan to
assess student learning and programmatic
effectiveness. The plan includes formative
assessments that address what students learned
at the end of a given library instruction session
(or series of sessions). Summative assessments
have been used to gauge what students learned
by the end of the semester or over a course
sequence, English 1010 and 2010.
5.E. Challenges and Recommendations
In 2004 and 2005, the program partnered with
the English Department to conduct a valueadded assessment of changes in student learning
and behavior between the time students enter
English 1010 and complete English 2010. In
both years, students at the end of English 2010
scored higher on assessment essays, and the
most significant gains were found in the use and
documentation of evidence. A citation analysis
of sample essays showed that English 2010
students were more likely to cite sources of
information (45% in English 2010 and 16% in
English 1010). Most of the sources used were
from the Web. The heavy emphasis on web
sources in the essays suggested that students
were not learning about the need to find and use
The library must better utilize information from
assessments and evaluation. Several staff
members have specific assessment assignments.
It is important that university administrators
perceive the library as a continuing institutional
priority. Recent successes in obtain funding for
the Merrill-Cazier Library are an indication of
commitment to the unit.
Supporting Documentation
Required documentation and exhibits, plus other
supporting information for Standard Five, are at
http://aaa.usu.edu/Assessment/Documentation_S
up.aspx.
222
STANDARD SIX
GOVERANCE AND ADMINISTRATION
Utah State University is governed by the Utah
Board of Regents, its own Board of Trustees,
and by its university administrators. The faculty
participates in governance through the Faculty
Senate and the students through the Associated
Students of Utah State University (ASUSU).
three community colleges, four comprehensive
primarily undergraduate universities, and two
research universities). Each institution has its
own role statement that has been approved by
the Utah Board of Regents. The policies and
procedures for operation of the System are
clearly defined by the Regents.
Standard 6.A – Governance System
Standard 6.B – Governing Board
6.A.1 Governance authority, responsibilities,
and relationships. Details of responsibilities of
the Board of Regents and the Board of Trustees
are found in Section 6.B of this document. The
responsibilities of university administrators are
discussed under Section 6.C.
6.B.1 Representation on governing boards.
The Utah Board of Regents was formed in 1969
as a governing body for the Utah System of
Higher Education. It is made up of 18 members.
Fifteen members and one student member are
appointed by the Governor of Utah and two
additional non-voting members from the State
Board of Education are appointed by the Board
chair. The Regents elect a new chair every two
years, and the Commissioner of Higher
Education serves as the executive officer.
Provisions for change in membership of the
board are governed by the Utah Code.
6.A.2 Understanding of roles. Although there
may be periodic differences in priorities, the
various constituents in the university community
have a clear understanding of their relative roles
and generally work together very effectively.
The roles of Trustees, administrators, faculty,
and staff are clearly and directly outlined in the
USU Policy Manual which has subsections with
1) General Information Policies, 2) Authority
and Amendment Policies, 3) Personnel Policies,
4) Faculty Policies (the Faculty Code), and (5)
Operating Policies. The Manual is published at:
http://www.usu.edu/hr/policies/.
The USU Board of Trustees consists of eight
members who are appointed by the governor and
approved by the Utah State Senate. In addition,
the USU student body president and the USU
alumni president serve as trustees during their
terms of service, one year and two years,
respectively. The eight appointed members serve
four-year terms and can be reappointed for a
second term by the governor. They come from
various private business and professional
interests. A university staff member serves as
the secretary to the Board. No trustee can be an
employee of USU. Membership of the Board is
shown at http://www.usu.edu/trustees/members.
6.A.3 Faculty, staff, and student input. Most
university policy-making committees include
faculty and student representation, and staff are
also included where appropriate. The university
has a history of cooperative and participatory
governance. The USU Policy Manual specifies
the rights of faculty and staff. The role of
students is outlined in the Code of Policies and
Procedures for Students at USU published at
http://www.usu.edu/studentservices/studentcode/
The president, provost, vice presidents, and
representatives of USU employee groups meet
with the Trustees during regularly scheduled
meetings. They provide information and
participate in the discussion, but do not vote.
The university president represents the interests
6.A.4 Multi-unit governance. The Utah System
of Higher Education includes 10 public colleges
and universities (one applied technology college,
223
of the institution to the Trustees and participates
in trustee retreats.
3. Research and training grants,
4. Audits, program reviews, and
accreditation reports,
6.B.2 Board acts only as committee of the
whole. Both the Board of Regents and the USU
Board of Trustees have subcommittees to
facilitate their work. But these subcommittees
are only empowered to make recommendations
to the entire board, which then takes formal
action. In certain circumstances, the executive
committees of the boards can take formal action
in behalf of their respective bodies.
5. Some academic program changes, and
6. Financial reports.
Board of Trustee‘s responsibilities are found at
http://www.usu.edu/trustees/bylaws/.
6.B.4. Board oversight of institution’s CEO.
The Regents‘ bylaws designate that ―The State
Board of Regents, after consulting with the
Institutional Board of Trustees, shall appoint and
hire a President for each‖ institution of higher
education in Utah.‖
6.B.3. Board roles defined and published. The
Board of Regents oversees policy development,
the establishment of procedures, executive
appointments, budget and finance, legislative
proposals, and government relationships, and
performs administrative unit and program
approvals for higher education in the state. It
also designates the mission and role of each
institution.
The Regents determine presidential salaries and
require that ―performance of each president will
be comprehensively evaluated following the first
year of his or her tenure (during year 2) and
every four years thereafter (during years 6 and
10). Either the Regents or a president may also
request a comprehensive evaluation at a shorter
interval.
Board of Regents‘ bylaws that define duties,
responsibilities, operating procedures, ethical
obligations, and the organizational structure are
located at http://www.utahsbr.edu/policy/r120.htm.
By state statute, the USU Board of Trustees has
four responsibilities:
6.B.5. Board review of missions, programs,
and significant changes. Major changes in
mission, policies, and programs must be
approved by the Board of Regents. Relevant
policies are addressed in their bylaws located at
http://www.utahsbr.edu/policy/r120.htm. More
information on this topic is found under 6.B.3.
1. Facilitate communication between the
institution and the local community,
2. Assist with fund-raising and development,
3. Strengthen alumni and community
identification with the institution, and
6.B.6 Board self-evaluation. The two boards
are not legally required to evaluate themselves,
but each is continually engaged in this process.
An examination of board policies indicates that
they are periodically reviewed and modified.
4. Select honorary degree recipients and
commencement speakers.
In addition, the Trustees have been given delegated authority by the Regents to approve
actions relating, but not limited, to the following
topics:
The USU Board of Trustees typically engages in
self-evaluation when a new chair is elected to a
two-year term. In 2002, members of the Board
participated in a number of sessions with an
external consultant. The result was a substantial
modification in the procedures of the Board. For
example, items that are likely to be noncontroversial are now placed on a consent
agenda to allow time for more extensive
1. Institutional operating policies,
2. Physical facilities and property,
224
discussion of other issues. The Board also
revised its structure to allow more detailed
examination of topics by committees prior to
meeting as an entire board.
2. Assembling faculty and administrative
staff;
3. Maximizing the achievement of university
objectives;
6.B.7. Board assurance of
institutional
staffing/organization. The Regents authorize
the president of the university, with approval of
the Board of Trustees, to appoint and prescribe
the duties of faculties, staffs, officers, and
employees of the university. By Regents‘ policy,
the president fixes salaries and reports on
personnel actions as required by the Regents.
These Regents‘ polices can be viewed online at
http://www.utahsbr.edu/bor01g.html.
4. Promoting high morale and professional
ethics among University personnel; and
5. Establishing and maintaining standards
that contribute to educational, research,
and service functions of the university.
Section 104 of the Policy Manual also defines in
clear terms the responsibilities and duties of the
following administrators in addition to the
President: University Provost and Executive
Vice President, Vice President for Business and
Finance, Vice President for Extension, Vice
President for Research, Vice President for
Student Services, Vice President for University
Advancement, Vice President for Information
Technology, Vice President for Strategic
Ventures and Economic Development, DeanSchool of Graduate Studies, Department Heads,
Directors of Research Units, and Director of
Athletics.
6.B.8 Board reviews of financial matters.
USU‘s annual budget, long-term financial plans,
and audit reports are regularly reviewed by the
Board of Trustees.
6.B.9. Board involvement in accreditation.
The Board of Trustees receives the results of
college, departmental, and specialized accredittation reviews. The Board also receives periodic
updates on NWCCU accreditation issues (e.g.,
outcomes assessment) and activities (e.g., the
2007 10-year reaffirmation of accreditation
review).
6.C.3. Selection, qualifications and evaluation
of administrators. USU administrators are
appointed by the president in conjunction with a
national search process to ensure that the most
highly qualified and capable talent for each
position is secured. The university does its best
to offer competitive compensation to attract and
retain quality administrators who will provide
outstanding leadership to the benefit of the
educational, research, extension, and service
programs of the greater university community.
Standard 6.C – Leadership and
Management
6.C.1. Full-time chief executive officer. The
chief executive officer of Utah State University
is the president. This is, without doubt, a fulltime position.
6.C.2. Defined roles for administrators. The
Regents have delegated to the president overall
authority and responsibility for carrying out the
Regents‘ policies and procedures with advice
and approval of the Trustees. Responsibilities of
the president are clearly articulated in the USU
Policy Manual, Section 104, ―The University
President and Other Officers.‖ In brief, the
president is responsible for:
One of the primary overall responsibilities of the
president is to report on various university
functions and operations to the Regents and
Trustees. Notable among these is evaluation of
administrators. According to section 104.3.5 of
the University Policy Manual, the president is to
report to the Regents and Trustees on the ―the
performance of the administrative officers,
including the provost, the vice presidents, deans,
directors, department heads, and other principal
administrative assistants.‖ In addition, Section
1. Directing and supervising public relations;
225
104.3.6 mandates that the president will review
―with the Trustees an evaluation of the
qualifications and abilities of the provost, the
vice presidents, deans, directors, department
heads, and other principal administrative
assistants. This review shall be made not less
than once each year and it shall always precede
reappointment of the individuals evaluated.‖
and informational needs. Department heads
have a Department Head Executive Committee
to discuss issues of importance to their
departments and the provost attends a subset of
these meetings on a regular basis.
Effective and honest communications are a top
priority of the current president as evidenced by
unprecedented opportunities for discussion with
many faculty groups in a variety of venues. For
example, the president and provost pledged to
meet with every academic department this year
and this series of meetings is nearly complete.
The provost met with every college executive
committee this year to discuss ways to improve
the tenure and promotion process of faculty.
6.C.4. Relationship of advancement activities
to mission and goals. All USU administrators
are keenly aware of the mission and purpose of
the university to provide high-quality
undergraduate
and graduate instruction,
excellent general education, and specialized
academic and professional degree programs,
engage in outstanding basic and applied research
to benefit society, and outreach to Utah's citizens
through extension and service programs. USU‘s
advancement activities are in keeping with the
constant pursuit of improvement in resources
and opportunities to meet these goals.
To further make the tenure and promotion
process more transparent, the provost held
meetings with subsets of faculty; e.g., all nontenured and tenure-track faculty and associate
professors with particular interest in promotion
to full professor. In addition, the provost has
been meeting with groups of full professors to
discuss issues of concern to them to provide the
provost with further insights on the perspectives
of these senior and experienced faculty
members. The new Vice Provost of Faculty
Development and Diversity also provides
regular opportunities for groups of faculty to
meet and discuss topics relative to quality of life
and university morale.
The Vice President for University Advancement,
under the authority of the president, works with
all other administrative elements of the
university to promote a positive image of the
university, inform alumni and the public of the
breadth and quality of programs and university
activities, and acquire funds to directly address
institutional needs to enhance the operations and
reputation of the university in congruence with
its mission.
These forms of communication are welcomed by
administrators and faculty alike and contribute
to building trust between them, improving
morale in the work environment, and increasing
vigor in the attainment of the university mission.
6.C.5-6. Coordination among units and
timeliness of decision-making process. USU‘s
routine operations and the operations and
activities of administrators facilitate cooperative
working relationships and encourage open communication and timely decision making at all
levels of administration, beginning with the
president. For example, the president convenes
a biweekly Executive Council of the provost and
vice presidents. The provost convenes a weekly
Deans Council. The Faculty Senate meets once
monthly which is preceded by a monthly Faculty
Senate Executive Committee meeting; the
president and provost regularly attend both of
these Faculty Senate meetings; other
administrators may be invited to attend as
deemed necessary for comprehensive discussion
6.C.7. Use of institutional research results.
Effective planning capabilities are important to
the university leadership and dependent on
accurate and timely institutional research.
Several administrative units share responsibility
for reporting on aspects of student, research, and
financial data; they include the Office of the
Registrar; the Office of Analysis, Assessment,
and Accreditation; and the Office of Budget and
Finance.
226
In addition, USU recently completed the
transition to the Banner central computing
system. One vitally important component of the
Banner system is the establishment of the
Banner Reporting Warehouse. This Warehouse
is the official reporting tool for Banner data.
The data in the warehouse are refreshed nightly.
Reports are run against warehouse data instead
of the live data so that service on the live system
does not slow when detailed (and resource
intensive) reports are run. Several users have
access to the Banner Reporting Warehouse such
that they are able to build reports. These
developed reports are available in a web-based
instance so that many users can run the reports
without having to have the training needed to
build them. The Banner Reporting Warehouse
is well built and has been an incredible asset to
USU by providing access to constantly updated
and accurate institutional data.
The Handbook states:
―The Senate shall have the power to act for and
represent the faculty in all matters of educational
policy, including requirements for admissions,
degrees, diplomas, schools and certificates, and
curricular matters involving relations between
colleges, divisions and departments.‖
―The Senate shall also have the following
powers: (1) To receive and consider reports from
faculty committees and from any council,
department, division, administrative officer,
library or college, and to take appropriate action.
(2) To consider matters of professional interest
and faculty welfare and to make recommendations to the president of the university and other
administrative officers. (3) To propose to the
president amendments or additions to these
policies.‖
The Faculty Senate has a strong voice in those
decisions that typically fall under the authority
of faculty (e.g., curriculum, admissions, exam
schedules). In addition, many other USU
decision-making committees include faculty and
staff representation.
6.C.8. Access to personnel policies. The Office
of Human Resources maintains USU‘s policies
on the appointment, evaluation, retention,
promotion, and termination of staff. This
information is easily accessible online at
http://www.usu.edu/hr/policies/section300/.
Standard 6.E – Student Role in
Governance
6.C.9. Adequacy of administrative and staff
salaries and benefits. Administrative salaries at
USU are slightly lower than at comparable
institutions across the country. However, there
has been substantial improvement in recent
years and salaries appear adequate to attract and
retain qualified people. Staff salaries are low
compared to national norms, but are consistent
with local market conditions. USU‘s benefit
package makes the total compensation package
more attractive.
Students play a vital role in governance at USU.
Serving alongside members of the faculty and
administration on a variety of committees, they
provide input and vote on issues that involve the
student body. Virtually no decision concerning
the student body is made without first educating
its constituents and obtaining their input.
The main body of student government is
ASUSU (Associated Students of Utah State
University). ASUSU consists of the Executive
Council and Academic Senate. Under the
direction of Student Services, both bodies hold
weekly meetings and members serve on a
variety of university and ad-hoc committees.
Standard 6.D – Faculty Role in
Governance
The role of the faculty in university governance,
planning, budgeting, and policy development is
described in the Faculty Senate Handbook at
http://www.usu.edu/fsenate/Handbook/Faculty%
20Senate%20Handbook%202006-2007.pdf.
The role of the Executive Council is to enhance
the quality of student life as it pertains to administrative and legislative issues. The body is
227
chaired by the Student Body President and
includes the Executive Vice President, Student
Advocate Vice President, Academic Senate
President, Academic Senate Pro tempore,
Diversity and Organizations Vice President,
Athletics Vice President, Service Vice President,
Programming Vice President, Graduate Studies
Vice President, and Public Relations Director
(ex-officio). In weekly Executive Council
meetings, students may present bills and
resolutions to be discussed and voted on by the
body. If a piece of legislation passes, it is
presented to administration for approval.
action. Discrimination and/or harassment are
prohibited based on race, color, national origin,
gender (including sexual harassment and
pregnancy), religion, age, disability, and
veterans‘ status. Additionally, USU prohibits
academic or employment decisions based on
sexual orientation. The Office of Affirmative
Action/Equal Opportunity provides training in
these areas and also deals with resolution of
conflicts. More information on services of this
office is at http://www.usu.edu/aaeo.
Members of the Executive Council also serve on
many other university committees. The Student
Body President serves as an ex-officio member
of the Board of Trustees, the governing board of
USU. The University Student Fee Board,
chaired by the Student Advocate Vice President,
proposes the allocation of student fees to the
university administration. Stater‘s Council,
comprised of university vice presidents and
members of Executive Council, provides a
forum where current issues and legislation are
discussed.
There is no collective bargaining at USU.
Hence, Policy 6.2, Collective Bargaining is not
relevant.
The Academic Senate deals primarily with
issues involving academics and the University
Honor Code and is comprised of the Academic
Senate President and senators from the seven
academic colleges. Each senator represents
his/her college in weekly Academic Senate
meetings, and in conjunction with the dean and
other college administration, makes decisions
regarding the colleges. Members of the
Academic Senate also serve on the USU Faculty
Senate.
Recently, the involvement of the USU Board of
Trustees was revisited. The way the Board did
business was adjusted to involve them more
directly in discussion of issues at the university.
The change involved implementing a consent
agenda where reports were independently
reviewed by board members prior to the meeting
and only discussed if needed. This left more
time for discussions of strategic issues. This
method of addressing business was also adopted
by the Faculty Senate.
Policy 6.1 -- Affirmative Action and Nondiscrimination
The USU Faculty Senate has successfully
encouraged the provost to hold public meetings
to address faculty issues and concerns.
Currently, meetings are scheduled and held for
particular groups on topics of interest to them
(e.g., guidelines for tenure and promotion with
assistant professors.).
NWCCU Policy 6.2 Collective Bargaining
6.A to 6.E: Summary
USU has a high level of involvement of the
stakeholders in its governance. The Board of
Regents and the Board of Trustees have clearly
defined roles, outlined in the bylaws for each
group. The roles for these boards are
periodically revisited.
Utah State University is an Affirmative Action/
Equal Opportunity employer. Selection and
promotion standards for faculty and staff are
defined and reviewed on a regular basis. These
standards are based on principles which consider
qualifications and aptitudes as they pertain to the
requirements of the position and also take into
consideration the principles of affirmative
6A to 6E: Challenges and Recommendations
The Board of Regents may find its ability to
govern at times limited by legislative decisions.
228
This challenge cannot be easily addressed at the
university level. The Trustees are constantly
challenged to be effective participants in making
university policies. The Board‘s success in this
endeavor is largely determined by its relationship with the president.
The Faculty Senate faces some challenges with
regard to continuity in their governance. Each
president serves one year as president-elect and
the following year as president of the senate.
Thus, continuity in leadership exists only from
the experiences of the president-elect as a
member of the executive board prior to the year
as president.
The one-year term as president of the Senate is
consistent with other institutions. It is
recommended that the president serve a term as
past-president during the academic year
following the term as president. As past
president, the individual would continue as a
member of the Executive Committee. In this
way, each individual would have three years of
involvement in the governance of the Senate.
Supporting Documentation
To see required documentation and exhibits,
plus other supporting information as specified
by NWCCU for Standard Six, please go to
http://aaa.usu.edu/Assessment/Documentation_S
up.aspx
229
STANDARD SEVEN
FINANCE
Utah State University‘s financial strengths
include a diverse source of revenues which
provide the ability to respond to changing
economic conditions. As shown in current year
financial statements, the university relies upon
non-operating revenues, state appropriations,
and private gifts to meet its cost of operations
and provide funds for the acquisition of capital
equipment.
Education and General
Uintah Basin Regional Campus
Southeastern Utah Center
Brigham City Regional Campus
Tooele Regional Campus
Agricultural Experiment Station
Utah Water Research Laboratory
Cooperative Extension
Educationally Disadvantaged
The State of Utah continues to experience a
stable economy with sizeable revenue surpluses.
Expectations of sustained economic stability in
the foreseeable future improve the opportunity
for increased legislative funding support for
USU priorities. Fall 2006 enrollment indicates
that recruiting efforts have been successful,
resulting in one of the largest first-year classes
in recent history, along with a 10% increase in
transfer students. Initial results for Fall 2007
appear promising.
The university budgets the funds using this line
item structure. Most legislative appropriations
have intent associated with them (e.g., salary
and benefits) and USU prepares its budgets so
that this intent is reflected. Instructions during
the budget process from the Regents generally
guide the institution on any expectations from
the legislature or Regents on how the funds
should be budgeted. Budget instructions from
the Regents are generally less prescriptive than
the legislature‘s. The state uses an incremental
budget approach. This system allows the
university to match the budget with strategic
priorities. Other than the prohibition placed on
moving funds between line items in the budget,
the university has autonomy to effectively plan
and budget.
The administration believes that USU‘s sound
financial position will continue to enable the
university to accomplish its mission of being
one of the nation‘s premier student-centered,
land-grant and space-grant universities.
Appropriated dollars include state tax funds and
tuition and fees. The university collects the
tuition and fees, but the legislature has actual
control of that money. If the university collects
more tuition than was authorized by the
appropriation, the university has the authority to
retain and allocate those funds for strategic
purposes. If tuition collections are below the
appropriated amount, the university implements
plans to address the shortfall in revenue by
reducing
expenditures,
increasing
other
revenues, or drawing upon reserves (or a
combination of the three).
Standard 7.A – Financial Planning
7.A.1 Autonomy in budgeting and financial
planning. Utah Board of Regents‘ policies and
procedures establish the governance and
financial framework for all public institutions of
higher education in the state. (See
(http://www.utahsbr.edu/bor01g.html, -- Section
1. System Governance (R100 - R199) & Section
5. Business and Financial Affairs (R500 R599))
The Utah State Legislature appropriates money
to USU using a line item structure. Following
are the list of line items:
The Board of Regents establishes tuition and fee
rates for higher education institutions. The
Regents require that the institution‘s Board of
230
Trustees ratify any proposed tuition by the
institution‘s president prior to submitting the
proposal to the Regents. A common factor in
determining these increases has historically been
proposed changes in faculty/staff compensation.
immediately view possible outcomes of strategic
decisions.
Building projects are separated by category and
cost, prioritized, and then submitted for funding
requests to the legislature through the Board of
Regents and the State Building Board.
In recent years, two tuition-related policies have
increased the flexibility of the institutions to
address critical programmatic and institutional
needs. A graduate tuition surcharge enables the
institution to charge additional tuition to specific
graduate programs. This has helped offset the
costs of these programs. Additionally, the Board
of Regents has implemented a two-tier system of
tuition rates. The first tier is a standard increase
that applies to all public higher education
institutions and largely is earmarked for
compensation. The Board of Regents sets the
amount of this increase. The second tier increase
is proposed by the president, with Board of
Trustee ratification. This increase addresses
institutional priorities and student initiatives.
The institution‘s president has flexibility in what
is proposed. The graduate surcharge and the Tier
II tuition approach have provided the institution
with funding that has been used for strategic
initiatives.
Projects that qualify as capital improvement
projects (remodeling or repair projects costing
less than $1,500,000; site and utility
improvements costing less than $1,500,000; or a
new facility with a total construction cost less
than $250,000) are submitted annually to the
Division of Facilities Construction and
Management for funding through the state
capital improvement program.
Projects that qualify as capital development and
new facilities are submitted to the Board of
Regents and the State Building Board for
funding requests to be appropriated by the State
Legislature. The university demonstrates that
such requests meet the standards of approved
academic and facilities master plans. Such
justification considers information relating to
student enrollments, space utilization, structural
obsolescence, operational influences, and
operating budget constraints. The campus master
plan is presented to the Regents for approval on
a biennial basis.
Starting Fall 2007, another option will be implemented. Salaries for new hires in the College of
Business have risen to the point where funds
available when senior faculty members retire are
not adequate to fund the position. To generate
additional revenue, the college will impose a
surcharge on its courses.
Cash funded depreciation is utilized by the
university for service accounts that purchase
capital assets. The depreciation is set aside for
replacement of future capital assets. Each
service unit is required to develop a five-year
capital equipment replacement plan to be
updated annually. In addition, auxiliary units of
the university set aside funds on an annual basis
for the repair and replacement of capital assets.
7.A.2. Financial planning for the future. The
university monitors major revenue and expense
trends. Major budget categories such as
investment income, utility costs, financial aid,
and intercollegiate expenditures are projected
over a five-to-six year timetable. Also
considered are unexpected contingencies which
can always occur (e.g., Hurricane Katrina‘s
effects on energy costs). Strategic modeling is
done to examine various strategic options and
their long-term impacts on the university‘s
financial
condition.
Tuition
increases,
enrollment changes, and legislative funding
increases are conservatively factored into the
model. This approach allows the university to
7.A.3 Budget process and budget distribution.
USU develops and implements budgets on an
annual, fiscal-year cycle, which begins July 1
and ends June 30. All units, regardless of
funding sources or activity, budget on this cycle.
At the beginning of the fiscal year, the university
publishes the annual budget and distributes it to
each administrative unit.
231
At the monthly Board of Trustees meeting, a
―Certificate of Treasurer‖ report is presented by
the Vice President of Business and Finance. This
report details the current financial status of the
university. This report reflects budget
adjustments and changes to date. It also provides
a snapshot look at the year-to-date budget for the
university.
Step 6 (Nov.) Higher
education
requests
presented to the Governor
Step 7 (Nov/Dec) Budget hearings with:
1) Legislative Fiscal Analysts
2) Governor's Office of
Planning and Budget
3) Local legislators
4) Other key legislators
In the budget development process, technical
policies, guidelines, and processes are clearly
defined and distributed. Following is a general
budget development timeline:
The president presents the total
USU budget request to various
individuals to gain their support.
Step 1 (May) Administrative hearings with
VPs and deans
Step 8 (Jan/Feb) Budget hearing with the
legislature
Colleges and divisions present
their area budget requests to the
central administration
Step 9 (Feb/Mar) Final legislative
decisions
Legislature approves the final
appropriations bills.
Step 2 (June) Administrative decisions on
new budget request
Step 10 (Mar) Administration allocates budget
The
central
administration
reviews the college and division
area requests and selects the
highest priority items for the
total USU request.
Central administration allocates
the legislative appropriation to
the colleges and divisions.
Step 11(Mar/May) Budget Office assembles new
budget
Step 3 (Aug.) Budget hearing with USHE
Commissioner
Budget Office sends allocation
information to colleges and
divisions and processes their
responses.
The president presents the total
USU budget request to the State
Commissioner
of
Higher
Education.
Step 12 (May/June) Final budget approval by
Trustees
Step 4 (Sept.) Budget hearing with Board of
Regents
Additional budget information
is presented to the Board of
Trustees for its approval.
Along with the Commissioner‘s
presentation of the total system
of higher education‘s budget
request, the president presents
the total USU budget request to
the Board of Regents.
Prior to the fiscal year end, a summary of the
adjusted budget, reflecting all adjustments and
changes, is formally presented and approved by
the Board of Trustees and the Board of Regents.
Step 5 (Nov.) Final Regents' budget request
decisions.
7.A.4. Debt or capital outlays. Existing debt is
reviewed annually and reported in USU‘s
232
audited financial report. Independent auditors
review debt every year, which includes a review
of compliance with debt covenants, and
assurance that debt principal and interest
payments have been made according to contract.
Annual Bond Disclosures reports are required
for all bond issues and are prepared by the
university.
The reports present historical
revenue information as well as future revenue
projections based on debt service requirements.
Campus Facilities Master Plan to the Board of
Regents biennially. This plan is used in the
Board‘s review process for new projects.
7.A. Challenges and Recommendations
USU has experienced some financial challenges
over the last few years. For two years, the
legislature did not provide faculty and staff
salary increases. During that same period,
enrollment declines and other factors required
that five separate budget cuts totaling over $30
million be implemented. Because salary and
benefit expenses were relatively fixed, these cuts
had to be taken from unit operating budgets,
which were already inadequate.
Internal debt reviews are conducted by the
university on a monthly basis so that
management can monitor current debt service
ratios and have time to respond to any
downward trends.
One of the reviews is a
monthly report prepared by the Controller‘s
Office that calculates debt service ratios based
on year-to-date revenues for bonded auxiliaries.
Another is a monthly meeting held between the
Associate Vice President of Auxiliary Services
and the auxiliary managers. The monthly report
from the Controller‘s Office is discussed, and
any variances between budgeted and actual
revenues are evaluated.
The situation has improved substantially in the
last two years. Because of the improved state
economy, the legislature appropriated modest
salary increases the last two years and has
funded other critical needs. Enrollment has
stabilized, which has reversed the downtrend in
tuition revenues. And a major comprehensive
campaign kicked off its public phase in March
2007. The university has the opportunity to build
on this momentum to carry it into the future.
The Board of Regents has several policies that
control, justify and limit the use of debt for the
university‘s capital outlay purposes. USU is
currently developing an institutional policy on
debt management that will provide universityspecific procedures.
As is true for any major institution of higher
education, the university faces several
challenges. The university is experiencing great
growth in its regional campus system.
Implementing appropriate financial structures at
these distant sites will need to be addressed in
order to insure long-term viability for these
campuses.
Proposals for significant new capital financing
projects are assessed using the following
criteria: (1) how the project relates to the
university mission, (2) the justification for the
project, (3) whether the project has a defined,
supportable plan of costs approved by
management, and a proposal for servicing the
debt that includes projected revenue streams or
the creation of budgetary savings.
For the past few years the university has been
without a formal strategic budgeting structure
and process. The university needs to find a
process that will include the appropriate
stakeholders. This structure will assist the
university in making disciplined, strategic
decisions for resource allocation, and will help
find campus-wide solutions to financial
challenges. Most of all, it is important that the
university continue to educate legislators about
the necessity of supporting the university.
All capital projects funded in whole or in part
from adjustments in student fees, incurring of
contractual debt, or the disposal or exchange of
land or other capital assets must be reviewed and
approved by the Board of Trustees. The
proposals are then forwarded to the Board of
Regents for review and approval. As part of this
process, the university is required to submit a
233
net assets ratio. A strength factor of 3.0 is
considered adequate whereas, 5.0 or above is
considered vibrant. The composite financial
index is the weighted total of the four strength
factors. Over the past five years, except for
FY2005, the university’s composite financial
index has been above 3.0, indicating adequate
financial strength. In FY2005, the university’s
financial statements reflected the loss of a major
contract in the Utah State University Research
Foundation, the utilization of some reserves to
preserve programs pending state appropriations
and tuition increases, and the issuance of $52
million of revenue bonds. All of these factors
had an impact on the individual strength factors
of the university and subsequently on the
composite financial index.
Standard 7.B – Adequacy of Financial
Resources
7.B.1. Diversity of funding sources. USU has
established and maintains diverse sources of
funding.
State appropriations, tuition, and
student fees primarily fund the instructional
mission of the university. State appropriations,
federal appropriations, as well as federal, state,
and local government and private grants and
contracts fund the research mission of the
university. The university’s cooperative
extension/community outreach mission is
funded primarily from federal and state
appropriations, with additional funding coming
from government grants and contracts.
Gifts and earnings from the endowment and cash
management investments support elements of all
three missions. The university’s auxiliaries are
self-supporting and provide adequate income to
service debt, maintain facilities, and provide
needed services to students.
Adjustments were made in fiscal year 2006 and
the university’s composite financial index
returned to a level above 3.0, indicating
adequate financial strength. The composite
financial indices for the last five years are as
follows:
7.B.2. Adequacy of resources to meet debt
service requirements. The university enters
into debt only when the benefiting unit or
enterprise can demonstrate adequate revenue/
funding sources to provide for the debt service.
This approach protects funding committed to
educational purposes from the risk of being
redirected to the payment of debt not directly
related to the educational purposes.
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
4.85
3.36
4.00
1.63
3.29
7.B.4. Transfers and interfund borrowing.
Transfers between the major funds are made to
comply with debt service requirements and
provide for total project funding; i.e., matching
for grants and contracts. The university has
some funds designated for interfund borrowing
such as the Capital Projects Fund. All interfund
borrowings are documented by an interfund
borrowing agreement and carry an interest rate
equal to one percent over the University’s Cash
Management Investment Pool return.
USU provides detailed disclosure of its debt in
the annual audited financial statements as part of
Note I. Bonds, Notes, Contracts and Other Noncurrent Liabilities. In addition, each of the
university’s revenue bonds requires the filing of
a continuing disclosure statement annually.
These include analysis of operations and debt
service coverage for the prior five years and
projections for the next five years.
7.B.5. Adequacy of financial resources. The
university faces an ongoing challenge in
generating funds sufficient to meet its academic
offerings. As previously mentioned, budget cuts
were imposed in the early part of this decade.
These cuts had a direct impact on virtually all
parts of the university. One area, however, was
protected: faculty. The president made it clear
7.B.3. Financial stability. The university uses
data from the financial statements to establish
four strength factors that make up a composite
financial index. Each strength factor is also
monitored separately. The strength factors are
derived from the 1) primary reserve ratio, 2) net
income ratio, 3) viability ratio, and 4) return on
234
that it was important that the university‘s
academic integrity be maintained. Another
decision the state legislature made in the early
part of the decade was to cease funding
enrollment growth, often referred to as ―access.‖
The only additional income the university now
receives with additional growth of enrollment is
the new tuition paid by the student. These
factors have combined to present challenges for
the university.
of the processes in place today. With the
exception of waivers, none of the institution‘s
aid is ―unfunded.‖ All other aid either comes
through loans or grants of some sort. A portion
of the grants administered by the institution are
funded by institutional resources, i.e., tuition.
The amount of tuition used for these purposes is
closely watched and a finite budget is
determined by the president in consultation with
the Vice President of Business and Finance, the
Vice President of Student Services, and the
president‘s office staff.
7.B.6. Financial aid planning. The institution
has implemented several measures to strengthen
its budgeting for financial aid. Using a five to
seven year horizon, major budget commitments,
such as financial aid, are analyzed and projected.
The institution‘s Enrollment Management Team,
including the Office of Admissions and the
Office of Financial Aid, collaborates on
significant issues related to financial aid and
scholarship budgets, which mitigates unexpected
challenges. When new programs are proposed,
the institution is able to predict more closely the
effects on net tuition.
7.B.7. Financial reserves. The university‘s
Primary Reserve Strength Factors (PRSF) for
the past five years have been:
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2.26
2.36
2.60
0.77
2.40
The average Primary Reserve Strength Factor
for the university‘s peer institutions for fiscal
year 2006 was 2.99. The university‘s primary
reserve is greater than or equal to six of its ten
peer institutions, indicating a relatively strong
position. However, the objective is to establish
primary reserves sufficient to raise the factor
above 3.00. Continued efforts are being made to
accomplish this goal.
Strategically setting scholarship budgets based
on tuition discounting is a new concept to the
institution. The institution has provided statutory
waivers for many years, which is a form of
discounting. Understanding the institutionally
funded aid, which is also part of a discount, is a
new effort. The institution now budgets for all
institutionally funded aid at the beginning of the
year. In the past, institutional commitments for
financial aid were addressed on a clean-up basis,
with no strategic assessment of the appropriate
level of funding.
In regards to debt service, the university has
established a contingency fund in the pledged
auxiliaries of approximately $1,200,000 that
serves as a reserve for both debt service and
auxiliary capital needs. These funds have been
set aside specifically for this purpose. In
addition to the contingency fund, the individual
auxiliary operations maintain a combined
balance of approximately $4,000,000 that serves
as a reserve for both debt service and auxiliary
capital needs.
In the current climate, a decision on the budget
for these scholarships is made before the
recruiting cycle begins. During the academic
year, regular reports are provided by the Office
of Admissions on recruiting and admissions
efforts. These reports allow the administration to
make informed decisions about needed changes
to the budget for institutional-fund aid.
The fund balance of the university‘s Overhead
Reimbursement Funds at June 30, 2006 was
$11,434,314.
This fund balance, although
largely committed internally, would be made
available to cover any shortfall the university
might have in meeting debt service on the
Noel-Levitz, a national consulting firm, visited
the campus in 2004 and provided several
recommendations on enrollment management.
The campus used this experience to shape many
235
university‘s research revenue bonds. It is not
likely that the Overhead Reimbursement Funds
would be needed since the debt service coverage
on the research revenue bonds has been more
than 7.8 for the five years which ended June 30,
2006.
appropriate balance; and 4) prioritizing its
academic offerings to match with the available
funding while developing all avenues for
funding these programs through state
appropriation, tuition increases, and scholarship
funding from outside sources.
7.B.8. Auxiliary enterprises. Auxiliaries are
governed by Board of Regents‘ policies R525
and R526 and, in some cases, relevant bond
covenants. The university operates all auxiliary
enterprises as self-supporting entities whereby
each enterprise pays all related direct costs and
is allocated a portion of centrally funded indirect
costs.
Standard 7.C – Financial Management
7.C.1. Financial reports to governing body.
USU issues an annual audited financial report
for each fiscal year which is filed with the Office
of the Commissioner of Higher Education. This
is in accordance with Regents‘ Policy R561,
"Accounting and Financial Controls." The Board
also requires each president and institutional
Board of Trustees to establish and maintain a
system of internal accounting and operating
controls for their institution.
Supplemental financial reports are included in
the university‘s Annual Financial Report
disclosing the financial results of each auxiliary
operation. In addition, financial results for the
auxiliary enterprises are reported annually to the
university‘s Board of Trustees and to the State
Board of Regents.
Each year institutions submit a prioritized list of
projects for funding through the state capital
improvement program. Institutions must
demonstrate the need for such requests including
information related to student enrollments,
operational inefficiencies, and operating budget
constraints (Regents‘ Policy R710, "Capital
Facilities‖). The Associate Commissioner of
Finance and Facilities prepares and submits to
the Regents an annual report summarizing all
institutional and system-bonded indebtedness,
relative to nationally recognized standards for
financial strength, associated with institutional
or system revenue bonds (Regents‘ policy R590,
"Issuance of Revenue Bonds for Facilities
Construction or Equipment").
7.B. Challenges and Recommendations
Challenges that the university faces include; (i)
maintaining the diversity of funding sources at a
time when federal research funding is being
diverted to other national needs such as the war
effort, (ii) balancing tuition dollars with state
appropriations while staying price competitive
during a period of time when prospective student
numbers are stable to only slightly increasing,
(iii) managing debt financing to enhance and
maintain the university‘s facilities while
maintaining adequate reserves to remain
financially viable, and (iv) generating funds
sufficient to meet its academic offerings.
Regents‘ Policy R510, "Tuition and Fees,"
provides guidelines for institutions including the
requirement that all general student fees are
subject to Regents‘ approval, in conjunction
with annual determination of tuition rates. The
Regents consider any projected tuition increase
each fall as part of the Board's budget
recommendation to the governor and the
legislature for appropriations for the next fiscal
year.
To meet these challenges, the university is 1)
broadening its research base and developing
research resources outside of federal funding
sources, i.e., the State of Utah USTAR program;
2) communicating its needs for state
appropriations to the State Legislature so there is
a clear understanding of what impact lower
appropriations have on tuition rates, while at the
same time adhering closely to its enrollment
management plan; 3) monitoring its reserves in
relation to debt financing to maintain the
A report of auxiliary enterprises operations,
covering the completed actual year and the
236
current budget year, is provided annually by
each institution as part of the regular Board of
Regents budget process (Regents‘ Policy R550,
"Auxiliary Enterprises Operation and Accountability"). Throughout the year, USU's Office of
Budget and Planning provides a series of
standardized reports to the Commissioner of
Higher Education. The reports deal with
financial information, including, but not limited
to, enrollment, budgets, tuition and fees, tuition
waivers, expenditures, and endowment performance.
7.C.2. Centralization of financial control.
The Vice President for Business and Finance is
the university's Chief Financial Officer,
reporting directly to the president. He provides
administrative oversight and leadership for
several offices, including Budget and Planning,
Facilities, Auxiliary Services, Financial
Services/Controller's Office, Human Resources,
Real Property and Real Estate Management,
Risk Management, and Public Safety. In
addition, the Vice President for Business and
Finance is designated by the Board of Trustees
to serve as the Public Treasurer for USU.
The university begins the process of establishing
budget priorities in the spring to be submitted to
the Regents in the fall. As Chief Executive
Officer of the university, the president works
closely with the Provost, the Vice President of
Business and Finance, Deans and other Vice
Presidents, along with the Office of Budget and
Planning to prioritize the future financial needs
of USU.
University business functions are organized
under the Vice President for Business and
Finance. Each functional area is directed by a
designated officer who is well qualified through
their experience in his/her respective areas of
responsibility.
Functional areas are separated by purpose to
promote efficiency in specific business areas.
Regular meetings are held between areas to
promote teamwork and to increase the flow of
information between functions. When issues or
projects arise, affected or defined areas are
expected to cooperate to develop an expedient
solution or resolution.
Each institution furnishes the Regents a copy of
its investment policies and procedures as
approved by its institutional Board of Trustees.
USU recently developed its own institutional
policies for investments, "Investment Policies,"
and "Investment Guidelines and Investment
Groupings." The policies were developed in
accordance to Regents' Policy R541.
These
new policies were approved by the Board of
Trustees on October 20, 2006, and the Board of
Regents on October 26, 2006.
In response to institutional growth, increases in
research and sponsored programs, the level of
annual state appropriations, the impact of new
laws, and the continued development of new
reporting requirements, USU‘s business
organization continues to be flexible, responsive,
and highly adaptive to change and increasing
complexity.
USU's Vice President for Business and Finance,
as the designated public treasurer, submits
monthly and quarterly reports to the Trustees
and to the Regents. Reports submitted to the
Regents include a transmittal letter stating that
the Chief Executive Officer has reviewed the
reports. This is in accordance with Regents‘
Policy R541. USU submits a summary report of
its money management activities for the year
annually to the Commissioner of Higher
Education. The report includes an auditor's
opinion regarding the fairness of presentation of
the report in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles and compliance with the
State Money Management Act and other related
laws (Regents‘ Policy R541).
7.C.3. Institutional control of expenditures
and income. All funds coming to USU become
institutional funds and are accounted for under a
system of fund accounting that requires
accountability by source and purpose. The use
of institutional funds is subject to institutional
policies and procedures, including proper
planning, budgeting, accounting, and auditing.
State-appropriated funds are administered
through the University‘s Office of Budgeting
and Planning. Contract and grant funding is
administered
through
the
University‘s
237
Sponsored Programs Office.
The Student
Financial Aid Office is responsible for the
administration of all financial aid funds and
works closely with the various colleges and
departments to control the award, disbursement,
and monitoring of such funds for the university
as a whole.
7.C.9. Audit by state agency. By law, state
colleges and universities are audited under the
direction of the State Auditor‘s Office. Over the
past several years, the State Auditor‘s Office has
contracted the audit out to an independent audit
firm. All funds of the university are included in
the annual financial audit conducted by the
independent audit firm. The independent audit
firm and the State Auditor‘s Office conduct the
federal OMB Circular A-133 audit jointly. This
audit is then rolled under the state-wide OMB
Circular A-133 audit for publication and
distribution.
7.C.4. Policies regarding cash management
and investments. USU recently revised and
implemented two policies regarding cash
management and investments: "Investment
Policies" and "Investment Guidelines and
Investment Groupings." The policies were
updated in accordance with statutes and rules
such as the Board of Regents‘ Investment Policy
(R-541), the State Money Management Act, the
Uniform Management of Institutional Funds
Act, and the Rules of the State Money
Management Council.
These policies were presented and approved
USU's Investment Advisory Committee
September 11, 2006, the Board of Trustees
October 20, 2006, and the Board of Regents
October 26, 2006.
7.C.10. Financial aid audits. Federally funded
financial aid is audited by the State Auditor‘s
Office under the OMB Circular A-133 statewide audit. USU receives and responds to a
report regarding the A-133 and follows up on
any recommendations made under that audit.
The university‘s annual audit includes within its
scope all non-federal financial aid. A management letter is issued as part of the annual audit.
by
on
on
on
7.C.11. Internal audit and control. The USU
internal audit program is established and
governed by Internal Audit Services‘ charter.
According to this charter, ―Internal Audit
Services derives its authority directly from the
Board of Trustees and the president. Internal
Audit Services is authorized to conduct such
reviews of university organizational units or
functional activities as necessary to accomplish
its objectives. Internal Audit Services is
authorized access to all records, personnel, and
physical properties relevant to the performance
of audits and reviews.‖
7.C.5. Use of accepted accounting principles.
The university‘s accounting system is widely
used by the national university and college
community.
The system is designed and
maintained by SunGard Higher Education to
specifically meet the accounting requirements of
universities and provides for a fully integrated
system, including finance, human resources, and
student information. The accounting system
provides for the dual needs of USU because it is
fully functional for both fund accounting and for
recording, categorizing, summarizing, and
reporting financial transactions in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles,
using the economic resources measurement
focus and the accrual basis of accounting. The
independent auditor‘s reports indicate that the
university‘s financial statements are in
conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles.
Internal Audit Services has two distinct but
compatible functions:
1) Serve as a control function by examining and
providing assurance to management and
appropriate external bodies concerning the
adequacy and effectiveness of established
controls, such as university policies and
procedures and standards of other research
institutions.
7.C.6-8. Not applicable to public institutions of
higher education.
2) Provide consulting and operational auditing
services with the goal of assisting university
238
departments in better fulfilling their mission and
objectives.
management letter is issued at the end of the
audit.
Internal Audit Services serves the university in a
manner consistent with the standards for the
Professional Practice of Internal Auditing.
Ethical standards of the auditors conform to the
standards of conduct as defined in the Code of
Ethics of the Institute of Internal Auditors and
associated standards of the university.
The management letter, which includes the
university's written responses, is addressed to
the Board of Trustees, the Audit Committee, and
the president. The contents of the letter are then
formally presented to the Audit Committee
which meets twice each year to review both the
internal and external audits.
The Chief Audit Executive reports directly to the
president and the Board of Trustees‘ Audit
Committee. Annual audit plans are approved by
the president and the Audit Committee. Active
oversight for the auditing program is provided
by the president and the Audit Committee and is
dynamically adjusted to address current needs.
7.C.13. Availability of audit reports. All audit
reports are available for review as part of any
accreditation process and may be requested from
the university’s Associate Vice President for
Financial Services.
Internal Audit Services has a staff of three
auditors. Internal audit activities consist of
internal control reviews, financial examinations,
compliance audits, and procedural reviews.
Internal Audit Services also provides informal
advice and counsel on internal control matters
and administers an ethics and compliance
hotline. Internal Audit Services is considered an
integral component of the financial and
management control system.
Challenges facing financial management for the
university include the growth of the institution,
expansion of reporting requirements, balancing
the benefits of controls against the costs,
forecasting future economic conditions, and
identifying new variables when making financial
decisions, all with limited resources. These
challenges are not new; management will
continue to find opportunities for improvement
when developing solutions by drawing on past
experience, utilizing exceptional personnel, and
maintaining a resourceful attitude.
7.C. Challenges and Recommendations
7.C.12. Evaluation of audit recommendations.
Auditors report any noted opportunities for USU
to strengthen internal controls and operating
efficiency in their annual management letter.
The institution takes seriously such observations
and the auditors' recommendations for
improvement.
Standard 7.D – Fundraising and
Development
On March 2, 2007, President Albrecht
announced the public phase of the first
comprehensive campaign in Utah State
University‘s history. The quiet phase of the
campaign began on July 1, 2003, and the
campaign will conclude on December 31, 2010.
The goal for this 7.5 year effort is to raise $200
million.
Before the university formalizes appropriate
responses, the auditors' observations and
recommendations are discussed by top financial
management, including the Vice President for
Business and Finance, the Associate Vice
President for Financial Services, the Director of
Accounting and Financial Reporting, and
members of USU's Audit Committee.
This campaign will serve to quantify those very
important private contributions while focusing
on certain initiatives that will make the
university even better. In the course of planning
and implementation, the Office of University
Advancement has engaged in an effort to bring
USU's written responses include specific current
and future actions by the institution to correct
the noted observations. Often, observations
have already been rectified by the time the
239
all of the fundraising policies and procedures
into a common set of practices. This effort has
resulted in a much clearer understanding of
USU‘s position today and its plan for the future.
Act, the laws and rules of Utah State University,
and those of the State of Utah.
7.D.3. Relationship to fundraising foundations. The USU Development Foundation is
the arm of the institution that solicits and accepts
contributions on behalf of Utah State University.
The Foundation is governed by a separate Board
of Trustees, consisting of alumni and friends of
the university. The current Chairman of the
Board of the USU Development Foundation is
Jonathan Bullen, and there are currently 30
members of the Board. The university president
and the Chair of the USU Board of Trustees are
ex officio members of the Foundation Board.
The Utah State University Foundation operates
under separate bylaws from those of the
university.
7.D.1. Fundraising policies. USU‘s development program is headed by the Vice President
for University Advancement who reports
directly to the president. Development activity
is distributed across the university with area
officers assigned to colleges and other units
where fundraising efforts have an impact. Area
staff are accountable to their deans or directors
for successful execution of those programs. The
central development staff is responsible for
coordination and oversight of all fundraising and
alumni relations activity at the university. All
staff are also accountable to the Vice President
for University Advancement who ensures that
all fundraising and alumni relations activity
adhere to university and government policies
and regulations as well as guidelines adopted by
CASE and other professional organizations that
serve the development and alumni relations
community.
7.D. Challenges and Recommendations
It remains a challenge and an opportunity to
balance the needs of the institution with the
philanthropic wishes of donors. USU will
continue to push for success in the new
comprehensive campaign. To date, more than
$110M has already been contributed, and this
year has been the most profitable fundraising
year in the university‘s history. That success,
coupled with the reinvigoration of the USU
Development Foundation, will ensure USU‘s
continued ability to raise private money to
support the opportunities for students at the
university.
7.D.2. Administration of endowment and life
income funds.
The Utah State Uniform
Management of Institutional Funds Act, Section
13-29 of the Utah Code establishes the
university‘s Board of Trustees as the governing
board responsible for the investment and
administration of endowment and life income
funds held by the university. This is also the
case for the USU Development Foundation. The
university‘s Board of Trustees and the
Foundation‘s Board of Trustees have established
investment committees to provide investment
direction and establish spending rules for the
endowment funds.
Supporting Documentation
Required documentation and exhibits, plus other
supporting information for Standard Seven are at
http://aaa.usu.edu/Assessment/Documentation_S
up.aspx.
Accounting for the endowment funds is the
responsibility of the Associate Vice President
for Financial Services/Controller. The Vice
President for Business and Finance reports the
investment activity to the Board of Trustees.
These reports include the assertion by the Vice
President for Business and Finance that the
university is in compliance with the Utah State
Uniform Management of Institutional Funds
240
STANDARD EIGHT
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Utah State University is committed to
providing a functional and effective learning
environment with high-class and wellmaintained physical resources. The building
inventory summary provided as Figure 8.1
indicates the number of buildings and their
gross square feet (GSF) by building
category. The entire building inventory is
provided under Standard Eight, Required
Exhibit
#2,
which
is
found
at
http://aaa.usu.edu/Assessment/Standard_Eig
ht/Building%20Inventory.pdf.
gas emissions and the second focuses on
developing actions that will move the
institution toward neutrality. To facilitate the
process, the president established a campuswide Sustainability Committee charged with
leading this endeavor. The committee has a
website at http://www.usu.edu/sustainability
that shows progress to date.
Table 8.1. Building Inventory Summary
Building Category
Gross Square Feet
Administrative,
Academic and
Research Buildings
2,758,365
Libraries (4—1
central and 3
independent branch
libraries)
304,262
Theatres/Museums
58,443
Athletics/Recreation 285,526
Residential (28)
1,309,841
Support (31)
509,897
Innovation Campus
(6)
238,817
Off-Campus
Research Facilities
(35)
730,231
Instructional and support facilities, including
facilities off the primary campus and
facilities owned by other entities, are
assessed in this section. Maintenance and
operation activities are also described and
reviewed.
Standard 8.A -- Instructional and
Support Facilities
8.A.1. Sufficient instructional facilities.
USU‘s
campus
facilities
include
approximately 6.2 million square feet of
building space as shown in Table 8.1. This
includes 8,742 stations (seats) in designated
classrooms, 266 instructional laboratories,
and 502 research laboratories. Table 8.2
shows that there has been a steady increase
in facilities. Details concerning cost and
sources of funds are available in the Capital
Facilities Summary of Major Projects
Report under Standard Eight, Required
Exhibit
#4,
which
is
found
at
http://aaa.usu.edu/Assessment/Documentatio
n_Sup.aspx .
USU is also committed to being an environmentally responsible institution and
recognizes the need to be more ―green.‖
President Albrecht is one of the charter
signatories to the American College and
University
President‘s
Climate
Commitment. The university is developing
an action plan that will allow it to achieve
climate neutrality as soon as possible. The
first part of this plan involves completing a
comprehensive inventory of all greenhouse
241
(1:00 p.m. Tuesday and Thursday). Nearly
all classrooms are also used during the
afternoon until 4:30 p.m. Therefore, new
classroom requests are accommodated only
in the early morning or later in the afternoon
and evening. There is a need for additional
classroom space at ―prime‖ times.
In
addition, there is a need for at least one
additional large (200+ seats) technologyequipped classroom because a large
classroom has been removed incident to the
construction of the David A. Sant
Engineering Building.
Table 8.2. Facilities Additions Since 2000
Academic/Research
GSF
Year
Merrill-Cazier
289,644
2005
Library
Russell/Wanlass
19,650
2005
Performance Hall
Engineering
106,759
2003
Building
Edith Bowen
79,024
2003
Laboratory School
John A. Widtsoe
84,554
2000
Hall (Chemistry)
Eccles Science
36,680
2000
Learning Center
Innovation Campus Buildings
Molecular Building
33,194
2004
Administration
29,698
2003
Building
Calibration and
44,926
2002
Optical Research
Lab
Residential Buildings
Living Learning
72,907
2006
Center
Living Learning
83,745
2007
Center
Institutional
12,403
2001
Residence
(President‘s House)
Other Facilities
Utah Botanical
22,963
2006
Center
Stadium Concession 1,296
2005
Stand
Stadium Ticket
551
2005
Booth
Central Energy Plant 37,675
2001
Additional facilities in the planning stage
include:
Agricultural Science/Classroom Building
David A. Sant Innovation Engineer Building
Early Childhood Development Center
Emma Eccles Jones Center for Early
Childhood Studies
Health, Physical Education and Recreation
Renovation and Addition
Utah Science Technology and Research
(USTAR) Facilities
Biology and Natural Resources Renovation
Information Technology Building
Business Building Addition
Details about each of these planned
additions
(including
projects
under
construction) are found under Standard
Eight, Required Exhibits #4, found at
http://aaa.usu.edu/Assessment/Documentatio
n_Sup.aspx.
The planned Agricultural Science Classroom
Building is of particular note. This building
is a top priority for capital development. It
will be built on the east end of the historic
quad and will contain approximately
250,000 square feet of classroom and
laboratory space. The intention is to replace
the existing Agricultural Science Building
(80,000 square feet) that has seismic and
ADA deficiencies.
With this building
addition, the availability of appropriately
sized classrooms at ―prime‖ time and near
the center of the campus will improve
significantly.
The sufficiency of instructional facilities is
indicated by the Classroom Utilization
Studies under Standard Eight, Suggested
Materials #1, which is found at
http://aaa.usu.edu/Assessment/Documentatio
n_Sup.aspx. These studies indicate that
virtually all class-rooms are utilized from
9:30 a.m. Monday, Wednesday, and Friday
(9:00 a.m. Tuesday and Thursday) until
12:30 p.m. Monday, Wednesday, and Friday
242
8.A.2 Adequacy of instructional facilities.
All facilities at USU are designed based on
assessments from user departments and
state guidelines from the Utah Division of
Facilities Construction Management. This
process ensures that there is a match
between intended and actual use of facilities.
Facilities are renovated and upgraded as
they age. Table 8.3 lists recent facilities
renovations,
upgrades,
and
other
improvements. This listing indicates a
comprehensive attempt to keep facilities
adequate.
Residential Buildings
Fire and Safety
Improvements
2002
Other Facilities
Romney Stadium
Phase II
2006
Utah Botanical
Center Shade House
2006
Living/Learning
Center, Parking
Terrace and Carousel
Square Remodel
2005
Romney Stadium
Phases I and III
2004
Nelson Fieldhouse
Mezzanine
2004
Romney Stadium
Turf
2004
Spectrum
Floor/Carpet
2004
University Inn
Renovation
2004
Nelson Fieldhouse
Renovation
2003
Cogeneration/Chilled
Water
2003
Spectrum
Scoreboard
2002
Utah Botanical
Center Pavilion and
Restroom
2001
Student Health
Services Remodel
2001
NR II Annex
(Services Building)
2001
Table 8.3. Renovations, Upgrades and
Expansions
Academic/Research
Year
Buildings
Agricultural
Buildings Relocation
Lab Animal
Research Center
Biology/Natural
Resources Remodel
John A. Widtsoe
(Chem.) Remodel
Brigham City
Campus Remodel
General Inside
Wiring Upgrade
Fiber Optic
Enhancements
Lab Animal
Research Center
Room Addition
Water Lab Fire
Damage Repair
Taggart Student
Center Chiller
Taggart Student
Center Main Floor
Renovation
Bookstore
Renovation
Animal Science
Pavilion
Student Health
Service Remodel
Edith Bowen
Renovation
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2004
2003
2003
Most facilities at USU are adequate for
instruction and some are exceptional. A
structure worthy of commendation is the
Merrill-Cazier Library.
The magazine
Campus Technology lists best practices of
101 universities in three areas--smart
classrooms, connectivity, and administrative
information technology. USU tops the list
in the smart classroom category, followed
by Harvard University.
2003
2002
2002
2002
2002
There is a need for more electronic
technology for teaching in USU classrooms.
Section 8.A.4 discusses efforts to implement
2001
2001
243
additional technology-mediated classrooms.
The desire is to bring technology mediation
to all classrooms. A substantial number of
classrooms have been upgraded in the last
two years. Currently, about 70% of USU‘s
general assignment classrooms have some
level of technology mediation.
Some other combination
of Projector, DVD/
VCR, Computer, and/or
Document Camera
8.A.3 Adequacy of furnishings of facilities
for students, faculty, and staff. Facilities
are furnished in a manner that results in the
greatest efficiency and effectiveness given
their primary use. For example, classrooms
are typically equipped with tablet-arm chairs
to facilitate a standard lecture format. Many
classrooms have moveable chairs that
provide a degree of flexibility to allow
students to work in groups.
Other
classrooms are equipped with tables to
maximize surface area for work where a
number of items can be accessed at the same
time.
A
special
committee
has
made
recommendations for extending the level of
technology to the rest of USU‘s teaching
stations, and funding has been identified for
this purpose. The committee determined
that each classroom should contain a
projector, computer, laptop connection,
DVD/VCR, sound system, and a document
camera.
Table 8.4 shows the configuration of
technology that is provided in technologymediated classrooms. The classrooms that
have the highest levels of technology
include interactive conferencing that can be
used for distance education classes.
Technology-mediated
classrooms
are
discussed in Section 8.A.2 of this report.
Internet access is considered in Section
8.B.1.
The university has established a central
budget for classroom chairs and other
classroom furnishings such as tables and
blinds. This budget for maintenance and
upgrade of instructional facilities is
managed by Campus Facilities, along with a
regular schedule of maintenance and
upgrades.
In addition to the centrally assigned
classrooms discussed above, a number of
departmental classrooms (those funded and
maintained with departmental funds) are
also mediated with instructional technology.
Table 8.4. Technology Levels in Mediated
Classrooms
Percent of all
Equipment Mediated
Rooms
Projector, Computer,
DVD/VCR, Document
Camera, Instructor
Sound System, Student
Microphones,
Interactive
Conferencing and
Instructor Camera
Projector, Computer,
DVD/VCR Document
Camera & Instructor
Sound System
Projector, Computer &
Document Camera
20%
Colleges and departments are responsible to
ensure the adequacy of their office
furnishings. A Surplus Property Office
provides for the redistribution of furnishings
and surplus equipment. This allows those
units with relatively fewer resources to
obtain used items. Maintenance items, such
as carpeting and painting, are handled
according to the programs described in
Section 8.A.4 of this report.
18%
Furnishings are generally adequate for work,
study, and research by students, faculty, and
staff. However, there are differences in
style and wear depending on the age of the
facility.
40%
22%
244
meetings is then used for planning and
improving the work.
8.A.4 Maintenance and operation of
instructional facilities to ensure quality
and safety. Campus facilities are extremely
well maintained relative to their age. One
reason is the established processes used for
management, maintenance, and operation of
these facilities. Another is that students,
faculty, and staff at USU take pride in the
appearance of their campus.
A series of programs are in place for
inspecting facilities. Customer service visits
are used to discuss maintenance efforts over
the past year and needed improvements for
the upcoming year. If there are any high
priority situations needing to be addressed,
adjustments are made or maintenance is
scheduled. Building audits are conducted
with regard to cleaning, preventative
maintenance, deferred maintenance, and
retro-commissioning as described below.
The physical adequacy of facilities is
monitored and maintained through the
Facility Condition Analysis Program
required by the Utah State Legislature.
Buildings over five years old are inspected
by an external consultant and a report is
prepared. These reports, housed in the
Facilities Office, are the basis for
developing specific projects, budgets, and
priorities for improvements and renovations.
Cleaning audits are performed once each
month by Facilities Maintenance managers
and coordinators. They are designed to
evaluate the efforts of the Team Cleaning
crews in the custodial area. A major part of
these cleaning checks consists of performing
Hazard Communication audits, wherein
custodial closets are inspected to make sure
that the required equipment is present,
chemicals are mixed and labeled properly,
and Material Safety Data Sheets are
maintained.
The USU facilities organization provides for
the management, maintenance, operation,
planning, design, and construction of
instructional facilities.
The Facilities
Operations division coordinates and
manages routine cleaning and care to
buildings, grounds, and utility systems along
with other specific departmental services
such as minor remodeling projects.
Cleaning audits are done in three-month
cycles, with a manager doing the job the
first month, a coordinator the second, and
finally both working together the third. They
employ a Building Audit Form, on which
the tasks of all four of the building‘s team
cleaners are rated. Through these audits,
maintenance managers, as well as cleaning
teams, will learn which tasks they are
performing well and which need
improvement.
The Facilities Operations and Maintenance
directors and the Customer Service
Supervisor work directly with their campus
customers. They systematically select a
campus building and meet with the deans,
department heads, and directors who work
in that building. These meetings take place
once a year in each major campus building.
In these meetings, numerous issues relating
to operations and maintenance are discussed,
including
cleaning,
landscaping,
renovations,
snow
removal,
budget
problems, and whatever else might need
attention. Cost information over the past
year and the three-year average for the
individual building is shared along with the
categories in which funds were utilized. In
addition, facilities internal audit data are
shared to check against the customers‘
perceptions. Customer feedback from these
Concerning preventive maintenance audits,
approximately
30,000
Preventative
Maintenance (PM) Work Orders are
automatically generated each year. The
number of PM orders generated differs
depending on the particular piece of
equipment or building situation. The Senior
Coordinator of PM and Utilities holds a
biweekly meeting with representatives from
all shops; in these meetings they discuss PM
requirements for a particular building.
245
(Generally, only one building is discussed
per meeting.) A list of all PM for that
building is generated and each shop is asked
to audit the list to ensure that they are up to
date. If shop representatives discover that
any changes are necessary, they bring these
to the meeting and the Senior Coordinator
updates the list accordingly. Also, if shop
representatives, while doing PM work,
notice that something is not as it should be,
this information is taken to the Senior
Coordinator and the PM list will be updated
to reflect current conditions.
safety codes, and Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) specifications in
cooperation with the State of Utah Division
of Facilities Construction and Management
(DFCM, see http://dfcm.utah.gov/). The
USU Facilities Design and Construction
organization works closely with DFCM and
coordinates actual project design and
construction for capital development
projects and capital improvement projects.
They work closely with architects,
engineering firms, and campus customers.
They also provide necessary inspections and
coordinate contractor meetings.
Retro-commissioning audits relate to the recommissioning program. All new buildings,
upon completion, undergo a commission
inspection by the contractor to make sure
that all systems are functioning correctly.
However, as time passes, the mechanical
system may gradually go out of balance.
When this occurs, a full-time recommissioning team is organized, consisting
of one plumber; a mechanical engineer; and
two heating, ventilating, and airconditioning workers. This team identifies
particular buildings that would benefit from
a retro-commission inspection and goes
through a list of specific tasks needed to be
accomplished within those buildings. It then
inspects the mechanical systems of each
building, attempting to return them to their
original settings. The two top goals with
regards to re-commission inspections are the
comfort, satisfaction, and safety of the
building‘s occupants and the saving of
energy.
The Disability Resource Center (DRC)
assists in achieving compliance with the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The
DRC
provides
services
and
accommodations to students, faculty, and
staff. They provide supportive services to
individuals with disabilities including
adaptive equipment, readers, academic
assistance,
counseling,
transcribers,
interpreters, and advocacy to ensure equal
access to education, employment, and other
university programs.
DRC provides facilities-specific services in
the following ways.
Architectural and
program reviews assist with the removal of
barriers and assist with arranging access,
including writing desks, chairs, and
alternative class locations. Equipment loans
makes available for check-out, including
tape recorders, hand-held magnifiers, AlphaSmart, and other small devices for learning
assistance. Communication support is
provided by Sorenson VRS, TTY, and
assistive listening devices. Assistive
technology is provided by the Assistive
Learning Center located in the MerrillCazier Library. Trained technicians are also
available to work with students.
These procedures ensure that management,
maintenance, and operation of facilities will
be adequate to provide the continuing
quality and safety necessary to support USU
educational programs and support services.
8.A.5 Facility access by physically
disabled. Facilities are constructed and
maintained with due regard for health and
safety and for access by the physically
disabled. All new facilities are constructed
in compliance with all building design
standards and building codes, health and
8.A.6 Adequacy of physical facilities off
the primary campus. The university has
significant instructional activity off the main
campus. The physical facilities at these sites
are generally appropriate to the programs
246
offered. However, off-campus programs are
experiencing growth, and keeping pace is a
challenge.
classrooms and a science lab. About
700 students are enrolled at Tooele.
Uintah Basin, located 250 miles southeast of
Logan, has a location in the city of
Roosevelt and a location in the city of
Vernal.
Facilities in Roosevelt
include a 25,000 GSF classroom
building
and
a
7,500
GSF
administration building. Those in
Vernal include a 40,000 GSF building
that houses classrooms, offices,
bookstore, and a computer lab.
Approximately 3,800 students are
enrolled at the Uintah Basin.
As a land-grant university, USU is
committed to expanding and enhancing the
educational opportunities of the citizens of
Utah. Therefore, the university has facilities
at its Innovation Campus and a number of
off-campus research facilities as listed in the
Building Inventory Summary (Table 8.1)
discussed in Section 8.A.1. In addition, the
university has Regional Campuses, Distance
Education Centers, and other locations that
offer academic credit as described under
Standard 2.G.2.
Distance Education Centers and other
education delivery locations are scattered
throughout the State of Utah to fulfill the
university‘s land-grant role. Centers are
located at Moab (300 miles south of Logan),
Ogden (50 miles south of Logan), Price,
(200 miles south of Logan), and Salt Lake
City (80 miles south of Logan). Other
distance education locations are at Beaver,
Castledale, Delta, Ephraim, Logan, Milford,
Nephi, Orem/Provo, Piute, Richfield, San
Juan, St. George, and Wayne. A map
showing the location of Regional Campuses,
Distance Education Centers, and other
service locations, including a brief
explanation of their offerings, is at
http://campuses.usu.edu.
Regional Campuses are located in Brigham
City, Tooele, and Uintah Basin. Courses at
Regional Campuses are offered face-to-face
with instructors; interactive video delivery
where classes originate from one of several
locations throughout the state; and online
with courses administered by faculty
assigned by the campus departments.
Details concerning Regional Campuses and
Distance Education can be viewed at
http://campuses.usu.edu.
Following is
information about facilities at USU‘s
Regional Campuses.
Brigham City, located 25 miles south of
Logan. Facilities include three
buildings with 21 classrooms,
administrative offices, a computer lab,
bookstore, child care center, and a
fitness center. Approximately 2,000
students are enrolled at Brigham City.
In general, facilities at other distance
education centers and locations are shared
with local educational institutions or
governments. Office space and access to
rooms/classrooms is the typical facilities
arrangement. Finally, there are some special
programs that use facilities provided by
sponsoring organizations. For example, the
Alliance-MBA Program uses classroom
facilities made available by Utah Valley
State University (UVSU) and the Utah
Association of Certified Public Accountants
(UACPA).
Tooele, located 114 miles south of Logan.
Facilities consist of one building with
nine classrooms, a broadcast room,
two computer labs, a small library,
and
administrative
offices.
Classrooms are also used at two of the
local high schools in the evening.
Groundbreaking for a new classroom
building adjacent to the present
building is scheduled for Spring 2007.
The new building will contain seven
8.A.7 Educational facilities owned and
operated by other entities.
USU
leases/rents facilities as listed in Table 8.5.
247
Most of these facilities are used in direct
support of campus-based or distance
education academic programs.
The maintenance and operation of facilities
is commendable.
Maintenance and
operation of facilities are handled
systematically with user-centered programs
that operate effectively with limited budgets.
A proactive approach addresses issues for
the physically disabled.
A variety of
programs are in place to ensure that problem
areas are discovered quickly and that routine
maintenance is done on schedule.
Table 8.5. Leased/Rented Facilities
Facility (Use)
Location
Hanger (Flight
program)
Logan
Innovation Campus
(Offices and labs in
various buildings)
Logan
Jamestown Building
(Early Intervention
Classroom)
Logan
Center for Persons
with Disabilities
(Classroom and
Office)
Salt Lake City
Graduate Center and
Continuing
Education
(Classroom and
office)
Salt Lake City
Nutrition and Food
Science
(Office)
Salt Lake City
Development Office
(Office) Continuing
Education
Salt Lake City
Facilities owned and operated by other
organizations or individuals that are used for
educational purposes are relatively limited
in scope. Facilities discussed in this section
range from being superior to generally
adequate for instruction.
USU, as a public institution, shares in the
resources made available for many purposes,
including transportation, public safety,
health, welfare, and other public services
provided for the citizens of the State of
Utah. As a result, resources to support
maintenance and other facilities needs may
be marginally adequate. Therefore, it has
been a challenge to keep maintenance
programs at the desired level.
Standard 8.B -- Equipment and
Materials
8.A. Challenges and Recommendations
The university has, on the whole, adequate
space for instruction and support functions.
However, classrooms are used at capacity
during ―prime time‖ so new classroom space
is needed to provide flexibility in class
scheduling. Also, at least one additional
large classroom (200+seats) is needed.
Progress has been made to provide
technology enhancements for teaching in
classrooms. However, there is a need to
continue technology enhancements to
classrooms.
Recommendations
for
expanding the number of technologymediated classrooms have been made by a
special committee and funding has been
approved.
Equipment and materials that support
instruction are discussed and assessed in this
section, including the systems used to
manage them. These include the planning
and budgeting process as well as inventory
control and equipment maintenance and
upgrade.
Also, the use, storage, and
disposal of hazardous materials are
described and assessed in this section.
8.B.1
Equipment
suitability
and
availability. The Office of Budget and
Planning gives primary support to the
leadership of the university in identifying,
obtaining, and allocating education and
general resources. The university‘s strategic
plan helps with the alignment of unit plans
and objectives with resource requests and
248
allocations. The annual budgeting process
puts plans into effect.
Network. Students have open access to the
campus network and the Internet in a
number of ways on campus, including
access from student housing. There are 11
academic buildings with student Open
Access Labs that contain a total of 793
computers and a variety of software. Several
locations, such as the Business Building
have multiple labs. There are also 161
wireless access points that serve campus
buildings. The near-term goal is to have 400
wireless access points covering all of
campus with substantial outside coverage,
including student housing. There are also 44
kiosks at various strategic locations on
campus that provide for incidental access to
the Internet. The practical result is that
anyone in the campus community can have
access to the campus network and the
Internet at virtually any time and from any
place.
Funding for much of the educational
equipment, such as technology-mediated
classrooms and technology infrastructure,
comes from central sources. Funding for
laboratory and administrative equipment is
generally the responsibility of respective
units. Other funding for facilities and
equipment may come from other sources
such as contracts and grants.
Table 8.6 shows the additions, disposals,
and balances of capital equipment. The
balances represent book balance at cost, not
net book balance (cost less depreciation).
The data show a steady increase, albeit at a
modest rate.
Table 8.6. Capital Expenditures for
Equipment
Year
Additions
Disposals
2002
$9,038,499
($6,600,769)
$91,988,100
2003
7,842,233
( 7,941,525)
91,888,808
2004
9,532,339
( 3,313,955)
98,107,192
2005
8,242,529
( 5,657,488)
100,692,233
2006
13,784,990
(11,788,548)
102,688,675
Taken as a whole, equipment and materials
(including computing and laboratory
equipment) are adequate and available to
meet educational and administrative
requirements. However, there
is
considerable diversity across campus
because of budget priorities, expenditure
choices, and availability of contract-grant
monies.
Balance
8.B.2 Maintenance, control, inventory,
replacement,
and/or
upgrade
of
equipment. Maintenance of building
equipment is discussed in Section 8.A.4.
Maintenance of instructional technology is
the responsibility of the Vice President for
Information Technology for general
assignment classrooms and of individual
departments for special use classrooms. The
equipment is generally maintained in proper
operating condition, inventoried, and
controlled as described below, and is
replaced or upgraded as needed consistent
with budget allocations.
An area of ―equipment‖ that has become
critical to achieving educational goals and
objectives is information technology. Many
learning and management functions rely on
an effective information technology
infrastructure much like other types of
equipment rely on electrical power. The
Office of the Vice President for Information
Technology is responsible for planning and
installing current and new information
technology in support of teaching, research,
and outreach functions.
This includes
supporting the delivery of data, online
course offerings, and video management.
Inventories are maintained in accordance
with the Equipment Inventory Policy
Manual, under Standard 8, Suggested
Materials #2, which is found at
A campus network is served by two onegigabit connections to the Utah Education
249
http://aaa.usu.edu/Assessment/Standard_Eig
ht/Equipment%20Inventory%20Policy%20
Manual.pdf. Equipment that costs at least
$1,000 and is in the care and custody of the
university is maintained under inventory
control. Equipment that costs at least
$5,000 that is owned or will be owned by
the university is capitalized and depreciated.
Research and Laboratory Safety programs
recognize that some of the substances
needed for researchers to conduct their
studies are hazardous or require special
handling. The EHS supports these research
activities by helping scientists use and
dispose of their substances safely.
Maintenance and Construction Safety
programs recognize that the campus consists
of a variety of classrooms, labs, offices, and
other workspaces where students, faculty,
and staff often spend much of the day
working, learning, and studying. The EHS
supports these functions by helping keep the
campus facilities safe, secure, and
comfortable.
Equipment Management Services is notified
when equipment is purchased and
appropriate information is added to the
equipment database. Annual audits are
conducted of all capitalized equipment to
determine the condition, location, and
existence of the equipment. A bi-annual
inventory of non-capitalized equipment is
conducted to determine existence, location,
and condition.
Equipment that is
determined to be excess is sent to Surplus
Sales and Equipment Management Services
is notified to remove the property from its
database.
Environmental Programs recognize that the
university campus is nearly a city in itself
and is committed to doing its fair share to
keep the environment clean and safe. The
EHS works to create a pattern of
environmental conscience that is helpful for
the university and the entire community by
monitoring and regulating air and water
quality, recycling, and hazardous waste.
8.B.3 Use, storage, and disposal of
hazardous materials. USU is committed to
a proactive program of compliance with
laws and regulations, as well as current
professional practices and guidelines that
protect the environment. By monitoring and
regulating air and water quality, by
recycling, and by hazardous waste use,
storage, and disposal, an environmental
sensitivity is created and maintained at
USU. A university priority is the prevention
of injury, illnesses, and environmental
damage through the recognition, evaluation,
and control of potential hazards arising from
university activities.
Chemical safety is inherently linked to other
safety
issues
including
laboratory
procedures, personal protective equipment,
electrical safety, and fire safety. To meet its
commitments and goals, the Environmental
Health and Safety Resource Center (EHS)
manages the programs in the general areas
discussed below. Table 8.7 contains a
comprehensive listing of specific elements
included in these programs.
Additional information about the program
areas
in Table 8.7 is available at the
Environmental Health and Safety Resource
Center
Internet
site
at
http://www.ehs.usu.edu/about. For example,
hazardous waste storage guidelines include
information about containers, lids, labels,
storage, and container maintenance. In
addition, hazardous waste pick up guidelines
provide for requesting pickup over the
Internet by providing location and other
information about the type of waste,
container, and other information essential
for safe handling.
Table 8.7. Environmental Health and
Safety Resource Center Areas of Concern
Anthrax
Asbestos
Battery Recycling
Benzene
Biological Safety and Waste
250
Blood-borne Pathogens
Carcinogens
Chemical Exposure Assessment
Chemical Spill Guidelines
Chemical Waste
Confined Spaces
Cranes, Hoists and Lifts
Emergency Response Information
Fall Protection
Formaldehyde
Hazard Communication
Hazardous Waste Pick Up Guidelines
Hazardous Waste Storage Guidelines
Indoor Air Quality
Laser Safety
Lead
Lockout or Tagout
Material Safety Data Sheets
Mercury Thermometer Replacement
Noise and Hearing Conservation
OSHA Standards
Personal Protective Equipment
Powered Industrial Trucks
Radiation Safety
Radiological Waste
Recycling
Spill Prevention/Handling
Training
Trenching and Excavation
8.B. Challenges and Recommendations
Suitable equipment and materials are
available to meet educational and
administrative requirements, even though
resources vary across campus.
Major
equipment is systematically inventoried and
controlled. Data about equipment additions
and disposals indicate a continuing
investment in equipment at a modest rate.
The Environmental Health and Safety
Resource
Center
is
proactive
in
administering programs for the use, storage,
and disposal of hazardous materials as well
as administering a number of other programs
that deal with health, safety, and the
environment.
Challenges with regard to equipment and
materials are essentially the same as those
facing facilities in general. That is, budget
allocations for equipment and materials may
be marginally adequate from time to time,
and there are differences in the availability
of resources across campus because of
access to external monies from fundraising
or contracts and grants. When particular
needs arise, there is a concerted effort to
meet those needs.
An example of
redirecting resources for perceived needs is
the work of the special committee on
classroom technology described in Section
8.A.2.
Recycling is a campus-wide program that
strives to maximize the reuse of resources
while minimizing environmental impact
whenever it can be prudently accomplished.
Recycling programs include flammable
liquids used as fuel, fluorescent light tubes,
mercury, glass, aluminum, paper, batteries,
and precious metals. Recycling bins are
located on each floor of every building on
campus.
The containers are centrally
located and are serviced on a daily to weekly
basis. The university operates a 10,000
square foot Recycling Center which
annually recycles approximately 26 percent
of the total waste stream. For the fiscal year
2005-06, a total of 665 tons of material were
processed.
Standard 8.C -- Physical Resources
Planning
The Campus Master Plan is discussed in this
section, including the processes in place for
the acquisition and renovation of facilities.
Considerations for access by people who are
physically impaired and access to facilities
by special constituencies are explained.
Finally, involvement by the university‘s
Board of Trustees and the Board of Regents
is described.
8.C.1 Campus Master Plan consistent
with
educational plan and updated
periodically. The USU Campus Master
251
Plan,
which
is
published
at
http://fac.usu.edu/departments/planning/mas
terplan/Master%20Plan%202006.pdf
is
consistent with the mission, vision, core
values, goals, and objectives of the
university as indicated in Standard One.
renovation. The chair of the committee is
the Provost. Members of the Committee
represent academic areas of the university
plus Facilities, Facilities Planning, and
Business and Finance.
8.C.3 Physical resource planning for
special constituencies and security.
Physical resource planning addresses access
to institutional facilities for special
constituencies including the physically
impaired and provides for appropriate
security arrangements. This effort is led by
the Disability Resource Center as described
in Section 8.A.5 of this report and in
cooperation with Facilities as described in
Section 8.A.4 concerning preventive
maintenance, re-commissioning, and related
programs. Policy statements concerning
special issues and constituencies, including
security, are available under Standard Eight,
Required Exhibits, #4
found at
http://aaa.usu.edu/Assessment/Documentatio
n_Sup.aspx
The Campus Master Plan defines the
campus structure and organization of land
uses, including general land and building
area
requirements
necessary
to
accommodate long-range enrollment growth
consistent with the mission, core values,
goals, and objectives of USU. The plan sets
out a development framework that is based
on compactness and efficient use of land so
that future growth can be effectively
managed. The plan is made up of eight
constituent elements: program capacity, land
use, open space/civic structure, development
density, circulation/parking, infrastructure,
community interface, and future land needs.
The Plan is updated approximately every
five years by the University Physical
Resources
Planning
Committee
in
cooperation with Facilities Planning and an
external consultant.
8.C. 4 Governing board and involvement
of other groups in planning physical
facilities. Governing board members and
affected constituent groups are involved, as
appropriate, in planning physical facilities.
Planning reviews and subsequent approvals
take place for significant facilities
undertakings by the Board of Trustees.
Approvals are also required by the Board of
Regents, the State Building Board, and the
legislature for facilities paid for in whole or
in part by state appropriations or that will
receive state operations and maintenance
funding. As indicated in Section 8.A.,
various constituent groups are involved in
planning for new facilities.
8.C.2 Physical facilities development and
major renovation planning. State funding
is provided by the legislature in accordance
with the Capital Facilities Qualification and
Prioritization Process. The university‘s fiveyear plan is provided under Standard Eight,
Required
Exhibit
#4,
found
at
http://aaa.usu.edu/Assessment/Documentatio
n_Sup.aspx.
Physical facilities development and major
renovation planning include plans for the
acquisition or allocation of the required
capital and operating funds. The University
Physical Resources Planning Committee
(UPRPC) advises the president in planning
physical development on campus, including
review of building sites, parking lots, and
major landscape projects.
No major
physical change is made on the campus
without this committee‘s approval. The
committee also establishes priorities for the
construction of capital facilities and major
8.C. Challenges and Recommendations
A systematic process is in place for the
physical development of the university
consistent with its mission and goals. Plans
are in place for new facilities and major
renovations.
A cross section of key
leadership is involved in these processes.
252
As with other areas of physical resources,
budgetary concerns represent a challenge.
The fact that the State Legislature cannot
immediately fill all physical plant needs
means that a significant portion of new
construction must be financed from private
sources or fundraising efforts, and the
construction of new facilities must usually
wait for adequate funding. To help alleviate
this challenge, the university has recently
initiated a comprehensive campaign.
Supporting Documentation
Required documentation and exhibits, plus
other supporting information specified for
Standard
Eight
are
found
at
http://aaa.usu.edu/Assessment/Documentatio
n_Sup.aspx.
253
STANDARD NINE
INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRITY
Utah State University as an institution of higher
education strives for high ethical standards in
every aspect of its mission of learning,
discovery, and engagement. The university
endeavors to establish an atmosphere of ethical
conduct,
trust,
and
respect
among
administrators, faculty, staff, and students.
USU‘s mission statement states that ―We foster
diversity of thought and culture.‖ This statement
presumes institutional integrity in that, without
it, the mission itself is not feasible.
The USU Policy Manual, found at
http://www.usu.edu/hr/policies/ covers all staff,
including faculty and administrators, as well as
students employed by the university and
includes issues related to affirmative action/
equal opportunity, employee privacy, grievance
procedures, reductions in force, and misuse of
university property, but it does not include a
Code of Ethical Conduct for staff, per se.
Stewardship of university resources is carried
out according to the guidelines established by
the National Association of Colleges and
University Business Officers, which is found at
http://www.usu.edu/aa/ethics/pdf/manual.pdf.
Moreover, the university‘s recently adopted core
values stress that ―we value leadership built on
trust, integrity and civility‖ and also promote the
idea that ―Appreciation of diversity of thought
and expression is the foundation of a vibrant
intellectual environment.‖
The USU Board of Trustees, is governed by bylaws that address Board responsibilities (See
http://www.usu.edu/trustees/bylaws/). Trustees
report to the Board of Regents of the Utah
System of Higher Education, which maintains
policies and procedures that include statements
of institutional governance, academic and fiscal
affairs, and personnel. These are found at
http://www.utahsbr.edu/bor01g.html.
9.A.1. High ethical standards. Evidence for
compliance is provided in the Administrative
Code of Conduct and the Ethics Guide, at
http://www.usu.edu/aa/ethics/regulations.cfm.
The Ethics Guide provides statements regarding
fiscal responsibility and good business practices
that apply broadly to the campus community.
Compliance with regulations of organizations
and external agencies is managed by the Office
of Compliance Assistance, whose web site is at
http://www.usu.edu/aa/compliance/. This office
oversees the Institutional Review Board for
Human Participants in Research; IACUC;
training for and oversight in other arenas of
responsible conduct of research; overview for
management of individual conflicts of interest;
and compliance with federal invention reporting.
Through the Office of Compliance Assistance,
USU has applied for accreditation of its human
research protection program. The USU animal
research facility is already accredited.
Faculty are governed by the Faculty Code in the
USU Policy Manual, Section 403, found at
http://www.usu.edu/hr/policies/section400/403.p
df. The Faculty Code includes statements
regarding academic integrity; policies and
procedures that relate to privacy issues (FERPA
and HIPAA); policies and procedures related to
sexual harassment; and workplace professsionalism, among other topics.
The Student Code covers the rights and
responsibilities of USU students, It is found at
http://www.usu.edu/studentservices/pdf/Student
Code.pdf.
On an institutional level, USU has established an
integrative compliance committee consisting of
254
The Provost‘s Office maintains a Faculty
Resources site with a Syllabus Resources link at
http://www.usu.edu/aa/faculty/ that is regularly
updated in response to changes in state and
federal regulations. The Faculty Resources site
has a link to Ombudsperson Resources that
supports implementation of requirements
outlined in the Faculty Code. That site also
includes information on campus resources,
promotion and tenure, dual career systems, posttenure review, new faculty orientation, and USU
regulations and policies.
officials in all major compliance areas, including
Internal Audit Services, and is focusing greater
attention on compliance in its business practices.
In addition, Internal Audit Services maintains a
Compliance Hotline through which reports of
unethical conduct can be made anonymously.
Utah State University requires affirmative action
training regarding all Affirmative Action/Equal
Opportunity protected categories. This training
is required of all employees, from administrators
to students, to promote the ethical treatment of
all individuals at the institution. Training
focuses on discrimination and harassment
prevention, with a particular emphasis on sexual
harassment prevention.
Furthermore, the
AA/EO Office provides assistance in other areas
of affirmative action and leadership training.
For example, every search committee for faculty
and administrators receives an affirmative action
briefing on best practices to promote the
broadest possible opportunities for attracting
diverse candidates for open employment
positions.
The university has several methods for resolving
disagreements in the workplace. One approach is
a mediation system, established by the Provost‘s
Office, as an alternative to the formal grievance
process for faculty. Details can be found at
http://www.usu.edu/aa/faculty/faculty_mediation.cfm
.
There are also formal grievance procedures
available for staff (USU Policies and Procedures
Manual, Sec. 325), faculty (Sec. 407) and for
students (Student Code of Conduct, Article VII.)
The Student Code, which covers the rights and
responsibilities of students, is kept up to date at
http://www.usu.edu/studentservices/pdf/Student
Code.pdf.
USU‘s commitment to institutional integrity is
highlighted by the Ethics Guide, included in the
Administrative Code of Conduct, which states
that ―actions of every member of the University
Community reflect on the institution itself.
Employees and students at USU are strongly
encouraged to apply sound moral judgment
when making decisions, especially when those
decisions are made on behalf of the University.‖
Employees of USU are provided the opportunity
to file complaints or grievances against the
institution and its units whenever necessary.
The institution takes seriously its responsibility
to provide due process any time an employee
raises concerns about unfair treatment.
Procedures for filing and processing a grievance
are articulated in the employee policy manual at
http://www.usu.edu/hr/policies/section300/325.p
df.
9.A.2 Evaluation of policies and publications
relating to institutional integrity. The USU
Policy Manual, which is maintained at
http://www.usu.edu/hr/policies/, guides general
policies, personnel, faculty, and operating
policy. In each section of the Manual there are
dates showing when a particular policy was first
adopted and when it was most recently changed.
For example, the policy on intellectual property
and creative works originated January 24, 1997,
and was last revised, January 11, 2002. Policies
regarding the Faculty Senate and its committees,
were adopted July 1, 1997; revised November
16, 2001; revised April 29, 2002; and revised
again August 31, 2006.
Some ethical issues relating to relationships are
addressed in the USU Policy Manual, including
sexual harassment and a discussion of interpersonal relationships. But other aspects of
interpersonal or foundational ethical principals
are not addressed specifically in the Manual.
Examples of such interpersonal relationships in
relation to faculty-student relations, or facultyfaculty relations include, but are not limited to,
mentor-trainee relationships, co-authorship, and
collaborations. Examples for staff include
255
mentoring relationships, trainee relationships,
and other types of group and work relationships.
The Ethics Guide referred to in 9.A.1 provides
foundational definitions of ethics, but has been
directly applied only to administrators.
data has been made more challenging by the
greater integration of the USU branch campuses
with the USU main campus.
However,
integration of the academic programs at the
branch campuses with those at the main campus
will increase the accuracy and consistency with
which the delivery of academic services occurs
throughout the USU system.
Many departmental web sites provide links to
foundational and relational statements of ethics
that are endorsed by disciplinary professional
associations. The Office of Compliance
Assistance and the Human Resources Office are
aware of the limitations of the USU Policy
Manual. Both offices intend to begin providing
guidance on these issues.
Over the last three years, USU has been phasing
in the Banner information management system
that permits access by university offices to a
unified source of institutional data. The Banner
Reporting Warehouse is the official reporting
tool for Banner data. Data in the warehouse are
refreshed nightly. Reports are run against
warehouse data instead of the live system so that
service on the live system does not slow when
detailed and computer-resource intensive reports
are run. Several users have access to the Banner
Reporting Warehouse and are responsible for
building reports templates. These templates are
available on web-based sites so that multiple
users can run the reports without having the
training required to build them. Thus, the Banner
Reporting Warehouse ensures that up-to-date
and accurate data about the institution are
generally available to people who have a
responsibility for reporting to constituents and
the public at large.
9.A.3 Representation of USU to the public
and to students. The online version of the USU
General Catalog is updated regularly and can be
seen at http://www.usu.edu/ats/generalcatalog/.
The Office of Public Relations and Marketing
(See http://www.usu.edu/prm) is charged with
communicating the purpose and function of
USU as a land-grant institution and provides
news releases, strategic communications
planning, branding, and the like. Over the past
several years, USU has made a commitment to
update and provide consistent branding
throughout
its
promotional
materials,
publications, and other statements as evidenced
by the Think campaign which was adopted for
USU advertising.
9.A.4 Policies on conflict of interest. USU has
an individual conflict of interest policy found at
http://www.usu.edu/hr/policies/section300/307.p
df. The Office of Compliance Assistance
provides
education
and
guidance
for
management of conflicts where appropriate. The
conflict of interest policy applies to all
employees of the university. USU has drafted,
and will soon adopt, an institutional conflict of
interest policy.
Where inaccuracies in data reporting occur, they
tend to be found in documents utilized primarily
within the institution. For example, when
majors in a particular academic discipline are
counted, only individual majors are counted, not
double majors, thus the number of majors in a
field may be undercounted in some disciplines,
thereby underestimating the demand for those
programs.
USU‘s proposed conflict of interest policy is
flexible in that it focuses on finding ways to
manage conflicts where they occur. Where such
conflicts cannot be managed, the Office of
Compliance Assistance helps find an effective
method of resolving the conflict.
Accurate reporting of institutional data is the
obligation of the Office of Analysis,
Assessment,
and
Accreditation
(See
http://aaa.usu.edu). A variety of measures are
maintained on the site, with particular emphasis
on monthly updating of the USU Performance
Dashboard. The task of maintaining and
presenting up-to-date, accurate, and consistent
256
in multiple places on the university‘s web sites.
Compliance, particularly with responsible
conduct of research issues, is well managed.
Increased attention is being paid to accuracy of
data management. Grievance and mediation
services are well documented and there is a
strong institutional and individual commitment
to due process procedures. Students seem to
find USU, as advertised, to be student friendly.
The Utah Board of Regents is governed by a
similar policy regarding conflict of interest. See
http://www.utahsbr.edu/policy/r925.htm.
9.A.5 Academic freedom. The university‘s
statement on academic freedom is published at
http://www.usu.edu/hr/policies/section400/403.p
df. This policy describes the nature of academic
freedom and augments the discussion with
professional obligations and responsibilities to
both students and to the institution. The USU
Faculty Senate maintains an active Academic
Freedom and Tenure Committee and an active
Professional Responsibilities and Procedures
Committee.
Among USU‘s weaknesses are that there is no
defined code of conduct for staff per se, nor yet
an institutional conflict of interest statement,
although the latter has been drafted and awaits
adoption. Academic freedom is protected, but
there is some concern about the extent to which
it is valued. Finally, at this point in time, USU
lacks written guides and training opportunities
regarding interpersonal ethical principles.
In 2005, USU participated in the nationally
normed Higher Education Research Institute
(HERI) Survey. Ninety-two percent of the
faculty who responded regarded autonomy and
independence at USU as satisfactory or very
satisfactory, compared to 87% at other public
universities. Eighty-three percent felt similarly
about opportunities to develop new ideas, versus
79% at other institutions. About 64% indicated
that their opportunity for scholarly pursuits was
satisfactory or very satisfactory, the same proportion as at other public universities that participated in the survey.
USU is striving to achieve high ethical standards
in relation to its mission. For the most part, the
university has been successful in articulating and
achieving these standards and therefore believes
that it is in compliance with NWCCU Policy 9.1
Institutional Integrity. In areas where it has not
yet succeeded, USU is generally aware of and
working to correct these omissions.
Supporting Documentation
However, only about 15% of the USU faculty
respondents agreed with the statement ―There is
respect for the expression of diverse values and
beliefs‖ as ―very descriptive‖ of USU, versus
about 30% at other public universities. These
seemingly contradictory statements indicate that
there is respect for academic freedom and its
associated rights and responsibilities at USU, but
faculty feel that free expression is not highly
valued. USU‘s pursuit of diversity in the hiring
of faculty and recruitment of students, as well as
Utah‘s rapidly changing demographics, may
produce changes in this perception regarding
free expression.
To see the required documentation and exhibits,
plus other supporting information as specified
by NWCCU for Standard Nine, please go to
http://aaa.usu.edu/Assessment/Documentation_S
up.aspx.
9.A Challenges and Recommendations
A frank assessment of institutional integrity
shows strengths and weaknesses. The strengths
of USU‘s commitment to integrity can be found
in extensive documentation that is easily found
257
SYNTHESIS
UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY
CHANGES, CHALLENGES, AND PLANS
Each of the nine NWCCU standards focuses on
a specific area. In responding to these standards,
the USU Self-Study analyzes and assesses the
issues raised by each. In contrast, this section is
a SYNTHESIS that crosses the boundaries of
the individual standards. It is intended to provide
a broad perspective of important changes at
USU since the 1997 and 2002 NWCCU site
visits and also the primary challenges facing the
university today and how it plans to respond.
In spite of the semester conversion impact,
enrollment increased over the 10-year period.
Fall term headcount enrollments have grown by
about 11% since 1997 and the number of FTE
students increased by about 9%.
The last few years have been especially
challenging for USU. The number of students
graduating from Utah high schools dropped and
the legislature imposed much more restrictive
requirements for out-of-state students to gain
residency status for tuition purposes. As a
result, from Fall 2004 to Fall 2005, headcount
enrollment declined 3.4% and FTE enrollment
by 3.7%.
CHANGES SINCE 1997
USU has changed significantly over the last 10
years. Among the most important issues/changes
experienced by the university since the
1997/2002 NWCCU reviews are the following:
There is evidence that the downward trend will
not continue. Fall 2006 headcount increased by
2.2% and FTE enrollment was essentially the
same as the previous year. Early indications are
that enrollment totals will be up for Fall 2007.
Enrollment growth prospects are especially
bright at USU‘s regional campuses and for
distance education.
Change to Semester Calendar. After many
years on the quarter system, USU, by Board of
Regent mandate and along with all of the other
institutions in the Utah System of Higher
Education, switched to a semester-based
academic calendar in Fall 1998. As the result of
extensive preparation the previous two years,
few administrative problems were encountered
in making this transition and a successful effort
was made to assure that students were not
unfairly disadvantaged by the change. A benefit
of making the calendar change was that, as part
of the process, department faculty undertook a
comprehensive review of their curriculums and
significant changes were made in the structure of
programs and in the content of courses.
Student Body Demographics. Females made
up 53% of the USU student body in Fall 1997—
the same as 2006. The proportion of minorities
increased slightly from 4.1% to 4.8% and the
proportion of international students increased
from 4.5% to 6.5%. Primarily because of the
growth in regional campuses and distance
education, the proportion of students who were
full-time dropped from 60% in 1997 to 55% in
2006. The graduate student population declined
slightly from 18% of the student body in 1997 to
16% in 2006.
Enrollment Trends. Enrollment growth at
USU the last 10 years has been slower than
during the previous decade. Between Fall 1997
and Fall 1998, the university experienced an 8%
decline in FTE enrollments. This substantial
drop is similar to the experiences of most other
institutions that had previously converted to
semesters. It was not until Fall 2000 that FTE
enrollments returned to the pre-conversion level
of Fall 1997.
In 2001, USU raised admission standards with
the goal of improving the quality of its freshman
class. The average freshman ACT score was
22.3 in 2001 vs. 23.7 in 2005 and 2006. The
average high school GPA of new freshman
increased from 3.37 in 2001 to 3.53 over the last
two years.
259
Research Activities. In the past decade, USU‘s
research program has significantly improved and
expanded. This is most evident in extramural
funding growth of 56%, from $91.3M in FY
1997 to $142.9M in FY 2006. In 2004—the
most recent year for which comparative data are
available—USU ranked 10th in the nation in
federal research funding among non-medical
land-grant institutions and was 48th among
public institutions nationwide.
learning is now a hallmark of undergraduate
programs at USU. Results of the 2006 NSSE
survey indicate that 26% of USU seniors had
worked on a research project with a faculty
member outside of regular course or program
requirements—a higher proportion than the
average for all of the university‘s Carnegie Peer
Institutions who administered NSSE that year.
Technology Commercialization. Changes in
the role of research universities over the past 20
years have made technology commercialization
and economic development a fundamental
mission of USU. Over the past five years,
university administrators have been working to
provide encouragement and incentives for the
creation of new inventions and technology.
USU has experienced a major change of culture
through the implementation of communication
initiatives, development of a new research
policy, creation of other policy changes that put
patents on level ground with publications for
tenure
and
promotion
purposes,
and
implementation of better royalty shares for
faculty inventions.
Areas of excellence include aerospace research
and development in the College of Engineering
and Space Dynamics Lab (USU has had more
experiments in space than any other university in
the world) and in educational research in the
College of Education and Human Services.
The most recent major research accomplishment
achieved by the university is the Utah Science,
Technology and Research (USTAR) Initiative,
which has been called the most important
research and economic development program
established in the State of Utah in a generation.
USTAR is designed to increase university
research capacity by adding talent and facilities,
generating federal grant dollars to increase
research volume, and accelerating discovery and
invention aligned with existing Utah industry
clusters. Immediate benefits of USTAR are
already being realized at USU, with $6 million
in annual ongoing funding being invested in
developing research teams and facilities in the
areas of intelligent systems engineering,
advanced nutrition, and bio-fuels.
USU‘s research park has been a focus of much
of USU‘s technology commercialization efforts.
After 15 years of slower development, growth of
the research park was fast-tracked in 2001 when
its name was changed to Innovation Campus.
Since that time, important new facility and
infrastructure projects have been completed or
are underway and adjacent land has been
acquired to allow for expansion from 38 acres to
more than 150 acres at full build-out.
Over the long-term, Utah‘s research programs
will receive $400 million over the next 10 years
as a result of USTAR, which will result in
increases in extramural funding and grants, IP
disclosures and patents, and license options and
companies. USTAR will also dramatically
increase the strength and standing of USU‘s
research programs through the recruitment of
world-renowned scientists and research teams
and the creation of highly important and visible
research outcomes.
Results from technology commercialization
changes at USU have been impressive. In the
past four years, license royalties have doubled,
patent filings have seen major increases, and a
dozen new start-up companies have been
created.
In 2006, USU established the position of Vice
President for Strategic Ventures and Economic
Development and hired Dr. Ned Weinshenker to
direct the activities of the TCO, Innovation
Campus, and the USTAR Initiative.
Another important research accomplishment is
the expansion of research opportunities for
students, especially undergraduates. Hands-on
260
New Facilities. Several major facilities have
been added since 1997. USU‘s Logan campus
looks much different today than it did in 1997.
The most important are:
few of the larger teaching stations were
equipped with LED projectors and computers.
Currently, over 70% of classrooms have LED
projector/computer technology available for
instructors and funding has been allocated to
equip the remaining teaching stations.
Widstoe Chemistry Building (2000)
Eccles Science-Learning Center (2000)
Emma Eccles Jones Education Building (2000)
Campus-wide Heat Plant (2001)
Edith Bowen Laboratory School (2003)
Engineering Building (2003),
Merrill-Cazier Library (2005)
Russell/Wanlass Performance Hall (2005)
500-Bed Living/Learning Center (2006)
The university now has computer labs across
campus with nearly 1,000 stations and a highspeed data transmission network that extends
across the campus, including student
dormitories. In 2005, primary administrative
computing functions were shifted from SIS+ to
Banner, a significant and somewhat disruptive
change, but one that was ultimately successful in
improving data access and processing. In 2007,
the Merrill-Cazier Library topped Campus
Technology’s list of 101 best practices in the
category of ―smart classrooms.‖ During the next
academic year, all of USU‘s satellite-based
distance education courses will be replaced by
Internet-based courses.
In addition, the following facilities are under
construction or are in the design phase:
1. The first major renovation of the football
stadium in 30 years is currently underway
2. The David G. Sant Engineering Innovation
Building is being built using a combination of
private, state, and federal funds and will be
finished in 2008.
Budgets and Finance. USU experienced some
financial challenges during the last 10 years.
For two years in the early 2000s, the legislature
did not provide for salary increases, which had
an impact on faculty and staff morale. This
situation has improved recently because of the
strong Utah economy. Salary increases for 200607 and 2007-08 were above the national average
for public universities.
3. Square footage on the Innovation Campus has
more than doubled, with additional facilities
under construction and a new Bio Innovation
Research Building in the design phase.
4. State funding has been obtained to develop
plans for a new Agricultural Science Building
with construction scheduled to begin in 2008.
Salaries were not the only concern. Enrollment
declines and other factors required that five
separate budget cuts totaling more than $30M be
implemented between 2001 and 2006. A
substantial portion of these cuts was absorbed by
the central administration, but departments also
were affected. Because salary and benefit
expenses are relatively fixed, these cuts had to
be taken from unit operating expenses, which
were already inadequate. To partially mitigate
the budget problem, additional tuition increases
(designated as Tier II) were implemented after
consultation with student leaders.
5. A groundbreaking ceremony was recently
held for a joint USU/Utah College of Applied
Technology facility in Vernal.
6. A new classroom building is in the planning/
design stage in Tooele.
Information Technology. Ten years is several
lifetimes for technology. To accommodate the
increasing importance of information technology at USU, the position of Vice President
for IT/CIO was established in 1999. This change
has improved campus technology planning.
Advancement. USU‘s endowment is small
relative to comparable institutions. Following a
―quiet phase,‖ USU‘s first Comprehensive
Campaign was announced in March 2007 under
In 1997, most USU classrooms utilized overhead
projector and chalkboard technology, although a
261
the banner of ―Honoring Tradition. Securing
Our Future.‖ The goal is to raise $200 million by
December 2010 with the money to be used for
increasing scholarships, improving programs,
and building facilities. To date, some $110M has
been contributed. Fiscal 2006 was the most
successful fundraising year in the university‘s
history.
more visible and to more fully integrate them
into the intellectual and cultural life of the
university and the community.
In 2005, the positions of Vice President for
Extension and Dean of Agriculture were
consolidated to reflect the overlap between the
functions of these two entities. At the same
time, the Division of Continuing Education was
moved from Extension, placed under the
supervision of the Provost, and renamed
Regional Campuses and Distance Education
(RCDE). The purpose for shifting RCDE
functions to the Provost was to better integrate
them into the academic fabric of the university.
It also reflects USU‘s commitment to expanding
and improving RCDE programs.
Athletics. In 1997, USU athletic teams were
competing as part of the Big West Conference.
After the 2000 season, the Big West dropped
football and USU became a football independent
for two years. During the 2003 and 2004
seasons, the university associated with the Sun
Belt Conference for football only. On July 1,
2005, USU joined the Western Athletic
Conference and now competes as part of that
organization in all sports. The move to the
WAC has been very positive for the university.
USU currently leads the league in academic allconference selections and graduation success
rate. USU‘s 300+ student athletes have a
cumulative GPA above 3.0.
The creation of a Vice President for Information
Technology/CIO and a Vice President for
Strategic Ventures and Economic Development
have already been mentioned.
It should be noted that there also have been
important changes in central administration
personnel since 1997. USU has had two new
presidents, four provosts (two interim), and 12
changes of vice presidents. Changes in top-level
administrative personnel always create some
challenges, but the transitions have not been
disruptive.
USU is currently being reviewed for
recertification by the NCAA, with a site visit set
for September 2007. The NCAA Self-Study is at
http://www.usu.edu/provost/news/pdf/USU_NC
AA_Certification_SelfStudy.pdf.
Environmental Sustainability. USU recognizes
the need to be more ―green.‖ President Albrecht
is one of the charter signatories to the American
College and University President‘s Climate
Commitment. Moreover, the President has
established a campus Sustainability Committee
to identify and implement means whereby the
university can reduce its environmental impact
and also assist local communities in achieving
this goal.
Planning. When the NWCCU team visited in
1997, USU did not have a strategic plan in place.
In the early 2000s, a process called ―Compact
Planning‖ was used for several years. In Fall
2005, a taskforce was established by the
President to develop a strategic plan which
included mission and vision statements, core
values, goals, and objectives. The proposals of
the taskforce were formally adopted by the USU
Board of Trustees in March 2007.
Administrative Structure and Personnel. In
2002, the College of Family Life was eliminated
by assigning its departments to other colleges.
This change was implemented to improve the
integration of academic disciplines and to reduce
administrative expenses. In 2005, the university
created the Caine School of the Arts with the
College of Humanities, Arts, and Social
Sciences. The objective was to make the arts
Assessment. The NWCCU 1997 and 2002
responses to USU indicated the need for
assessment efforts to be significantly improved.
As a result, the Office of Analysis, Assessment,
and Accreditation was established with the
responsibility of engaging in centralized
assessment activities and also assisting academic
and other departments with assessment.
262
USU‘s academic departments have become
much more involved in assessing their programs.
Specifically, all departments have developed
assessment plans and learning objectives and
now collect outcomes data that contribute to
continuous improvement. This information is
maintained on department web sites and has
been consolidated for review by the site team at
A related issue is salary compression in some
disciplines. In business, the market demand for
new faculty is so great that potential hires often
command starting salaries greater than the
retiring faculty they are hired to replace. This is
a nation-wide issue and the USU College of
Business has responded by imposing a surcharge
on its courses to generate additional funding to
attract high-quality junior faculty.
http://aaa.usu.edu/Assessment/AssessmentLinks.asp.
Increase Financial Aid.
Recent tuition
increases at USU have been greater than at any
other time in the university‘s history (but less
than the average increase for western land-grant
universities over the same period). Students
were heavily involved during the decisionmaking process and they accepted Tier II tuition
increases as necessary to maintain the quality of
educational offerings at USU.
CHALLENGES AND PLANS
The sections of this self-study that focus on the
nine NWCCU accreditation standards all include
challenges and plans for improvement. Some of
these are narrowly focused on specific areas,
while others are found under several standards
and/or relate to the university in a wider context.
Following are broad challenges and plans
extracted from the self-study that are especially
important for USU at this time:
To offset the tuition impact, the university is
attempting to increase the amount of financial
aid available to students. The administration is
working with the Regents to increase legislative
appropriations for financial aid and one of the
three primary goals of USU‘s comprehensive
campaign is to generate additional money for
scholarships. Also, the higher tuition rates make
USU students eligible for larger federal grants
and loans.
Increase Faculty Salaries.
Almost every
academic department‘s self-study identified low
faculty salaries as a challenge. Compared to
Regent‘s Peer Institutions, USU professors make
18% less, associate professors 14% less, and
assistant professors 10% less. Because USU
offers a generous benefit package, when salary
plus benefits are compared, the total
compensation gap is reduced to 12% for
professors, 7% for associate professors, and just
2% for assistant professors. It should also be
noted that the cost of living in Cache Valley is
less than for many of the locations where the
peer institutions are located. Comparing total
compensation to AAUP doctoral universities in
the Rocky Mountain Region, USU is 9% below
for professors, 4% for associate professors, and
3% above at the assistant professor level.
Graduate stipends and benefits are also an issue
at USU. Some academic departments have had
significant challenges in attracting the highest
quality graduate students because their stipends
are below those of peer institutions. The Dean
of the School of Graduate Studies is working
with the Vice President for Research to fund
increases in graduate student stipends and to
provide health insurance for graduate students as
part of their financial aid.
Increase Operating Budgets. The operating
budgets for academic departments and other
units have remained essentially constant for
many years, which means that they have
substantially declined in terms of inflationadjusted dollars. Departments adapted by cutting
back on services, imposing fees on students,
and/or using money that is available because of
faculty vacancies. The central administration is
University-wide, it will be difficult to eliminate
the compensation gap, especially for senior
faculty. However, legislative appropriations and
internal reallocation during the last two years
have allowed the central administration to award
selective merit adjustments beyond basic salary
increments.
263
actively involved in mitigating the problem.
Starting July 1, 2007, departments will receive
significant infusions of ongoing operating
dollars. Over a five-year period, this funding
will increase unit operating budgets by 80%.
Even at present enrollment levels, USU has a
high student-faculty ratio compared to peer
institutions. Some progress has been realized on
the Logan campus by using Tier II Tuition funds
to hire additional faculty. Because of the growth
in regional campus and distance education
enrollments, there is a pressing need for
additional teachers at other locations. Over the
next two years, 40 new faculty members will be
hired to serve RCDE students.
Another budget issue is that operation and
maintenance funds for new facilities have been
inadequately funded. Although construction
money has been provided for facilities by the
state or by private donors, ongoing support for
O&M is often not fully funded. This problem is
compounded by increasing costs, particularly for
heat and electricity. The last legislative
appropriation included additional funding for
heat and power, but the university needs to
explore alternative solutions. One possibility is
energy conservation. As part of its sustainability effort, USU has significantly reduced its
energy costs and is committed to becoming even
more energy efficient in the future.
A related issue is bottlenecks in some general
education classes, especially composition, math,
and University Studies breadth courses. Tier II
Tuition money has funded additional sections
and new freshman enrollments are being more
closely monitored to anticipate needs for
additional sections. Classroom space is another
concern. Most large classrooms (i.e., 100+
students) are fully utilized during prime teaching
hours, which will make it difficult to
accommodate future enrollment growth. Some
of this pressure will be alleviated when the new
Agricultural Science Building is finished. In the
short term, the university is considering ways to
more efficiently schedule classroom space.
Manage Enrollment. In Fall 2006, USU ended
a three-year enrollment decline. The freshman
class was up 23% over the previous year and the
number of transfer students increased by 10%.
A key part of this turnaround was recruiting
additional out-of-state students—up 41% at the
freshman level and 27% for transfers. Part of
this growth resulted from a change in the
eligibility requirements for in-state tuition.
During the last two legislative sessions, USU
administrators have been successful in getting
residency requirements relaxed and in obtaining
waivers for out-of-state students.
Another
contributing factor was an expansion and
refinement of recruitment efforts.
Increase Student Diversity. Increasing the
number of minority students on the Logan
campus will continue to be a challenge.
However, there has been some growth in the
number of Hispanic students. Cache Valley has
a large and growing Hispanic population that
represents a pool of potential minority students
for USU. As the children in these families reach
college age, the challenge will be to prepare
them for higher education. The university is an
active participant in Governor Huntsman‘s K-16
alliance which is focusing on this issue.
Enrollments of Native American students at
USU‘s Uintah Basin campus are increasing and
the university has entered into a partnership with
the College of Eastern Utah that is designed to
prepare Native American students for college.
USU is likely to experience moderate enrollment
growth on the Logan campus over the next few
years. Enrollment at regional campuses and in
distance education is projected to increase at a
faster rate than on the main campus.
USU also has become more focused on student
retention and graduation. In 2006, the Office of
Retention and First Year Experience was
established as part of Student Services. This
unit is charged with improving freshman
orientation activities and improving the first year
retention rate at USU.
Increase Faculty Diversity. Six percent of
USU faculty members are minorities and 32%
are female. These proportions have changed
little over the last 10 years, although the
university has had modest success in increasing
the number of female faculty in the sciences and
264
in engineering. Recruiting and maintaining
minorities has proven especially difficult
because Cache Valley has few minority
residents with whom they can associate. It will
be very challenging to significantly increase the
number of minority faculty.
revenue for USU. But care must be taken to
assure that the sources of contract dollars are
sufficiently diversified to mitigate serious
problems if funding from important sources is
no longer available.
In the future, the university must rely more
heavily on private philanthropy and on funding
from commercial ventures. This need makes it
imperative that the Comprehensive Campaign be
successful and that additional income be
generated from patents, royalties, and spinoff
enterprises.
In contrast, USU is moving aggressively to
recruit and retain female faculty. In recent years,
gender-based salary gaps have been identified
and funds have been used to mitigate them. In
addition, USU faculty received a $3M, five-year
NSF Advance Grant in 2003 to mentor female
faculty in the sciences and engineering.
Maintain Assessment Activities. USU has
made significant progress in assessment. Some
assessment activities have been centralized and
academic departments are much more involved
in assessing their programs than they were three
years ago. The challenge will be to maintain this
momentum. Achievement of USU‘s new Goals
and Objectives must be rigorously assessed each
year. The first Assessment of USU Goals and
Objectives will be available when the NWCCU
Review Team comes to campus and will be
published annually thereafter.
Strengthen Financial Position. The university
experienced difficult financial times between
2002 and 2005. There were no salary increases
for two years and budget cuts further reduced
unit operating funds. Fortunately, there has been
a turnaround in the last two years as the Utah
economy has strengthened and legislative
appropriations have increased. The recent Tier
II Tuition increases have been extremely helpful
in maintaining and building programs. At the
present time, USU is in a much stronger
financial situation than it was a few years ago.
The university‘s general education program
needs to be more carefully examined, especially
the impact of breadth and depth courses and how
they interface with each other. This task will be
initiated Spring 2008.
During the last decade, most public universities
have been forced to behave more and more like
private institutions and USU is no exception.
Currently, one-third of total revenue comes from
state appropriations and another 14% is
generated by tuition. Contracts, grants, and
federal appropriations are the largest revenue
source at 36%. The rest comes from auxiliary
enterprises, private donations, and miscellaneous
sources.
Perhaps most important, academic departments
must continue to improve their assessment
efforts. This task is made easier because the
departments have already developed learning
objectives and assessment plans and have
established well-organized assessment web sites.
Contracts and grants will continue to be an
important and, hopefully, growing source of
265
UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY NWCCU SELF-STUDY
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
(Website is at http://aaa.usu.edu/Assessment/Documentation_Sup.aspx. Changes in URLs
will be monitored and updated until the date of the team visit.)
STANDARD ONE: MISSION & GOALS, PLANNING AND EFFECTIVENESS
Required Documentation
1. Mission, Vision, Core Values
2. Goals and Objectives
3. 2007 Assessment of Progress on Goals and Objectives
4. Surveys
Survey of Surveys: What Do We Know About Current and Former USU Students?
Other Surveys
5. Assessment of Educational Programs
USU Overall
Policy on Quality Instruction
Policy on Assessment
Assessment Plan
Outcomes Data
General Education
Mission
Objectives
Outcomes Data
Academic Departments
Assessment Websites
Best Practices
Required Exhibits
1. Goals and Objectives
2. Regent's Master Plan
Other Documents and Information
1. Facts and Figures About USU
2. USU Capital Campaign
STANDARD TWO: EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM & ITS EFFECTIVENESS
A. General Requirements and Undergraduate Program
Required Documentation
1. Procedures for Measuring Educational Program Effectiveness
USU Goals and Objectives
USU Educational Program Assessment Plan
USU Progress Report on Assessment to NWCCU
2. Assessment of Educational Program Outcomes
Annual Assessment of USU Goals and Objectives
Academic Department Assessment Websites
Survey of Surveys: What Do We Know About Current and Former USU Students?
Freshman Orientation Class Survey
Freshman/Sophomore Survey
Graduating Student Survey
267
NSSE Survey
Employment/Education of Recent Graduates Survey
Noel Levitz Employer Satisfaction Survey
Alumni Survey
Impact of Supplemental Instruction
Value Added by General Education Required Writing Courses
Subject Mastery in General Education Required Math/Stat Courses
General Education Focus Groups
Results of Professional Certification Licensure Examinations
Results of Graduate/Professional School Admissions Examinations
3. Degree Programs
Added
Deleted
4. Number of Degrees Granted by Program
2006-07
2005-06
2004-05
5. General Education Program Mission
6. General Education Program Goals
7. Course Syllabi
8. Faculty Vita
Required Exhibits
1. Learning Objectives for Degree Programs
2. Educational Policies Committee (Responsible for Curriculum)
Procedure
Minutes
3. Academic Department Self-Studies
4. Teacher/Course Evaluations
Evaluation Form
Summary Results
5. NWCCU Accreditation Self-Studies and Commission Responses
1997 USU Self Study Report
1997 NWCCU Response
1997 NWCCU Affirmation of Accreditation Letter
2002 USU Interim Self-Study Report
2002 NWCCU Response
2004 USU Progress Report to NWCCU
6. Admission and Retention Requirements
7. Policy for Maintenance of Student Records
8. Policy for Awarding of Credit
9. Policy for Transfer of credit
10. Policy for Remedial Work
11. Advising Materials
Advising Process
Major Requirement Sheets
12. Grade Distribution Studies
13. Policies Governing Public Service
Suggested Materials
1. Entering Freshman/Transfer Student Ability Measures
2. Research Funding
2005-06
2004-05
2003-04
B. Graduate Program
268
Required Documentation
1. Graduate Catalog / Graduate Bulletin
2. Information Specified Below:
Graduate Degrees Offered
Graduate Admission Requirements for Master's/Doctoral Degrees (See pg. 101-102)
Graduate Requirements for Advanced Degrees (See pg. 106-109)
Graduate Faculty by Schools or Programs: USU does not designate a graduate faculty
3. Assessment Outcomes for Graduate Programs
School of Graduate Studies Student Survey
Required Exhibits
1. Policy on the Acceptance of Graduate Credit, Including Transfer Credit
2. Policy on the Granting of credit for Internships, Field Experience or Clinical Practice: Determined at the
department level.
C. Continuing Education and Special Learning Activities
Required Documentation
1. Organizational Chart
Regional Campuses & Distance Education Organizational Chart
2. Summary Listing of Off-Campus Programs, Directors, Sites, and Enrollments
Regional Campuses & Distance Education Degree Programs
Regional Campuses & Distance Education Combined Directory
Annual Online Course Enrollment
Interactive Broadcast Course Enrollment
3. Policy and Procedures for Institutional Approval of Off-Campus & Special Programs & Courses
Required Formal Approval of Academic Programs
Memorandum of Understand with USU Departments
Required Exhibits
1. Catalogs, Brochures, Announcements, & Class Schedules for Special Programs
General Catalog, Regional Campuses & Distance Education
Schedule Bulletin & Distance Education
Schedule Bulletin Uintah Basin
2. Policies Regarding the Awarding of Credit Based on Prior Experiential Learning
Credit for Military Service (See pg. 19)
3. Policies that Address All Items of Standard Indictor 2.A.10 regarding Award of Credit
Credit for Military Service (See pg. 19)
4. List of All Courses and Programs taught by Nontraditional Instructional Formats for the Past Three Years
Annual Online Course Enrollment
Interactive Broadcast Course Enrollment
5. Budgetary Information & Financial Arrangements Relating to Continuing Education/Special Learning Activities
6. Studies Demonstrating Comparability of Outcomes for courses or Programs Offered Under Concentrated of
Accelerated Time Frames, or Other Nontraditional Instructional Formats
Dissertation Abstract--The Other Side of Distance Education: Learner Interaction at Remote Sites
Dissertation--The Other Side of Distance Education: Learner Interaction at Remote Sites
Uintah Exec Summary 2000 Survey
7. Policies Regarding Admission, Transfer or Prior Earned Credit, Credit by Exam, etc
Admission Requirements
Undergraduate Admission Distance Education
Admission for Non-matriculated Undergraduates
Admission to Graduate Programs
Nontraditional Admission
Transfer Student Admission and Transfer Credit
Transfer Articulation Policies
Articulation Agreements for Transfer Credits
Advanced Placement (AP)
Credit by Examination
269
College-Level Examination Program (CLEP)
Foreign Language Examinations, Placement in Language Courses, and Proficiency Tests
8. Sample Transcript
9. Contractual Agreements with Other Institutions
MOU Palmyra Education Center
MOU Utah Valley State College
MOU Partnership Plan for Tooele County
MOU Round River conservation Studies
MOU Shipley Group, Inc.
MOU Teton Science School
10. Criteria and Procedures for Admission of Students and Awarding of Credit; Procedures for Maintenance of
Student Records
Admission for Undergraduates
Admission to Graduate Programs
Awarding of Credits
11. Catalogs, Brochures, and Announcements for Continuing Education Courses/Programs & Special Learning
Activities
General Catalog, Continuing Education
Schedule Bulletin Distance Education
Schedule Bulletin Uintah Basin
12. Criteria & Procedures for Registration of Students & Awarding of Units; Procedures for Keeping Student
Records
Registration Procedures
Schedule Bulletin Distance Education
Keeping Student Records
13. Procedures for Involving Appropriate Institutional Personnel in Program Approval & Development
Required Formal Approval of Academic Programs
Memorandums of Understanding with Departments & Programs
Other Documents and Information
1. Self-Study Reports
Brigham City Campus
Tooele Campus
Uintah Basin Campus
Southeast Region
Southwest Region
Wasatch Front Region
Logan Center
STANDARD THREE: STUDENTS
Required Documentation
1. Organizational Chart
VP Student Services Organization Chart
2. Student Handbook: Not Available
University Policies (Schedule Bulletin)
3. Summaries of Student Characteristics
4. Student Retention and Rate of Graduation Data
Retention Graduation Report
5. Admissions Report (Table #1)
6. Student Affairs Staff Profile (Table #2)
7. Procedures for Policy Development
ASUSU Constitution
Taggart Student Center Policy Manual
Required Exhibits
1. Policies & Procedures on Student Conduct, Athletics, Student Fees, Tuition Refunds
Student Code
270
Student-Athlete Advisory Committee Constitution
Student Athletes Compliance Information
Tuition, Fees, and Refunds
2. Statistics on Financial Aid
Types of Aid and Amounts Available
Default rates from U.S. Department of Education
3. Financial Aid Reviews
State of Utah Office of the State Auditor
4. NCAA Division 1 Graduation Report
5. Mission and Goals of Each Unit
Academic Resource Center
Academic Service Learning Center
Admissions/Recruiting
Campus Recreation
Card Office
Career Services
Children's House
Counseling Center
Disability Resource Center
Financial Aid
GEAR UP Education Program
GLBT Services
Multicultural Student Services
Office of Student Conduct
Outdoor Recreation Center
Outreach Coordination
Registrar's Office
Retention and First Year Experience
Student Health Services
Student Involvement & Leadership Center
Student Publications
Student Support Services
Student Wellness Center
Taggart Student Center
Testing Services
University Advising
Utah Conservation Corps
Women's & Re-Entry Center
6. Evidence of Goal Attainment of Each Unit (Unit Self Studies)
Academic Resource Center
Academic Service Learning Center
Admissions/Recruiting
Campus Recreation
Card Office
Career Services
Children's House
Counseling Center
Disability Resource Center
Financial Aid
GEAR UP Education Program
GLBT Services
Multicultural Student Services
Office of Student Conduct
Outdoor Recreation Center
Outreach Coordination
Registrar's Office
Retention and First Year Experience
271
Student Health Services
Student Involvement & Leadership Center
Student Publications
Student Support Services
Student Wellness Center
Taggart Student Center
Testing Services
University Advising
Utah Conservation Corps
Women's & Re-Entry Center
7. Evidence of the Impact of Student Services on Students
8. Institutional Publications
Campus Security Act
Cleary Report 2006
USU Police Statistical Reports
Drug Free Schools and Colleges Act
Drug Free Workplace Act
Student Right-To-Know Act
Student Right-To-Know Data
Suggested Materials
1. Recognized Student Organizations
2. Strategic Plan for Student Services
3. Constitution for Student Government
4. Sample Copies of Student Publications
5. Resumes of Professional Staff in Student Services
STANDARD FOUR: FACULTY
Required Documentation
1. Statistics on Faculty and Administration Characteristics
Employee Profile
HERI Faculty Survey 2004-05
2. Institutional Faculty Profile (Table #1 and #2)
Institutional Faculty Profile
Number & Sources of Terminal Degrees
3. Salary Data for Faculty
4. Policy and Procedures on Evaluation of Faculty
Tenured & Term Appointments: Evaluation, Promotion & Retention
5. Representative Examples of Institutional/Public Impact of Faculty on Scholarship:
Research Matters 2006 Publication
Research Matters 2005 Publication
Research Matters 2004 Publication
Extension 100 Years
6. Summary of Significant Artistic Creation, Scholarly Activity & Research
Required Exhibits
1. Faculty Handbook
Faculty Policies
2. Policy on Academic Freedom
Academic Freedom/Professional Responsibility
Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee
3. Faculty Committees and Membership
Policy Faculty Senate & Its Committees
Faculty Senate Committees
Councils & Committees Handbook
4. Course Evaluation Forms & Summary Reports
5. Current Professional Vitae
272
6. Criteria/Procedures for Employing, Evaluating & Compensating Faculty in Special Programs:
Faculty Appointments
Tenured/Term Appointments: Evaluation, Promotion & Retention
Wage & Salary Administration
7. Copies of Doctrinal Statements Required for Employment, Promotion, and Tenure
8. Policies Governing Employment, Orientation, and Evaluation of Part-time Faculty
Faculty Appointments
Tenured/Term Appointments: Evaluation, Promotion & Retention
Wage & Salary Administration
Academic Due Process
9. Summary Reports of Faculty Involvement with Public/Community Service
Extension 100 Years
10. Policies Regarding Scholarship & Artistic Creation
Academic Freedom/Professional Responsibility
Conflict of Interest
Councils, Committees, and Boards
Sponsored Programs Office
Intellectual Property/Creative Works
Technology Commercialization Office
11. Policies Regarding Research Activity:
Academic Freedom/Professional Responsibility
Conflict of Interest
Councils, Committees & Boards
Sponsored Programs Office
Intellectual Property/Creative Works
Technology Commercialization Office
12. Faculty Role in Developing/monitoring Policies & Practices Scholarship, Artistic Creation & Research
Composition and Authority of the Faculty
Faculty Senate & Its Committees
HERI Faculty Survey 2004-05
Suggested Materials
1. Statistics on Faculty Retention and Turnover
HERI Faculty Survey 2004-05
Faculty Tenure Review Outcomes
STANDARD FIVE: LIBRARY AND INFORMATION RESOURCES
Required Exhibits
1. Service Hours
Merrill-Cazier Library
Computer Labs
Classroom & Multimedia Services
2. Policies & Procedures for Development & Management
USU Library Policies
Collection Development
Frequently Asked questions
3. Statistics on Use of Library & Other Learning Resources
Circulation Statistics Report 2006
Computer Labs
Classroom & Multimedia Services 2004-2005 Report on USU Classrooms
4. Statistics on Library Collection & Inventory of Other Learning Resources
Library Collections/Inventories/Budget
WCA Conspectus Peer Library Holdings
5. & 6. Assessment Measures Used to Determine the Adequacy of Facilities/Holdings/Instruction
WCA Conspectus Peer Library Holdings
273
Library Annual Instructional Assessment Reports
Freshman/Sophomore Student Survey 2007 (See pg. 16 & 17)
Graduating Student Survey 2006 (See pg. 20-23)
School of Graduate Studies Survey 2006 (See pg. 16 & 17)
7. Data Regarding Number & Assignments of Library Staff
Library Organizational Chart
Computing Services Organizational Chart
8. Chart Showing the Organization Structure for Managing Libraries
Vice Provost for Libraries Organization Chart
Detailed Library Organizational Chart
9. Comprehensive Budgets for Library & Information Resources
Library Collections/Inventories/Budget
Information Technology Budget
10. Vitae of Professional Library Staff
11. Formal, Written Agreements with Other Libraries
GWLA Reciprocity Agreement
GWLA Roles & Responsibilities
GWLA Strategic Plan
GWLA Bylaws
UALC Lending Agreement
UALC Reciprocal Borrowing Agreement
12. Computer Usage Statistics Relating to the Retrieval of Library Resources
Library Collections/Inventories/Budget
Web Statistics
13. Printed Information Describing User Services Provided by The Computing Facility
Computer Labs
14. Studies or Documents Describing the Evaluation of Library & Information Resources
Library Annual Instructional Assessment Reports
STANDARD SIX: GOVERNANCE AND ADMINISTRATION
Required Documentation
1. Board & Committee Membership
Utah Code
Board of Regents Membership
Board of Trustees Membership
2. Organization Charts
All Organizational Charts
USU President Organizational Chart
USU Provost Organizational Chart
Required Exhibits
1. Articles of Incorporation & Bylaws
Board of Trustees Bylaws
2. Board Policy Manuals, Agenda & Minutes
Board of Regents Policies
Board of Regents Agendas/Minutes
Board of Trustees Bylaws
Board of Trustees Agendas
Board of Trustees Minutes
3. Administrative Policy Manuals
USU Policy Manual
4. Administrative Position Descriptions
5. Staff Handbook
Links for New/Prospective Employees
Faculty Senate Handbook
6. Salary & Benefits Data for Administration & Staff
274
Administration
Crafts & Trades
Office Support
Service & Labor
Technicians
Professional
7. Multi-College System--Not Applicable
8. Collective Bargaining Agreements--Not Applicable
9. Constitutions, Bylaws, Agendas, & Minutes for Faculty & Staff Organizations
Faculty Senate Policies
Faculty Senate Minutes
Professional Employees Association Bylaws/Minutes
Classified Employees Association Bylaws/Minutes
Currently Active Committees & Task Forces
10. List of Currently Active Committees/Task Forces with Names & On-Campus Phone Numbers of Chairs
2006-07 Councils & Committees Handbook
Suggested Materials
1. Reports to Constituencies
Annual Budget Report
Extension 100 Years
Research Matters 2006
Presidential Address at Founder's Day 2007
Presidential Address at Founder's Day 2006
Inaugural Address
2. Constitution of Student Association
STANDARD SEVEN: FINANCE
Required Documentation
1. Current Funds Revenues (Table #1)
2. Current Funds Expenditures & Mandatory Transfers (Table #2)
3. Summary Report of Revenues & Expenditures (Table #3) (Optional for Public Institutions, Not Included)
4. Sources of Financial Aid (Table #4)
5. Undergraduate Enrollment, Tuition, & Unfunded Financial Aid (Table #5) (Private Institutions Only)
6. Revenues (Table #6) (Private Institutions Only)
7. Expenditures (Table #7) (Private Institutions Only)
8. Assets, Liabilities & Net Assets (Table #8) (Private Institutions Only)
9. Operating Gifts & Endowments (Table #9)
10. Capital Investments (Table #10)
11. For Proprietary Institutions Only
12. Debt Service Schedule for Past Three Years
2006 Annual Financial Report (See pg. 35-37)
Debt Service Allocation
13. Endowment and Life Income Fund Report for Past Three Years
14. Financial Statements Provided on an Accrual Basis
2006 Annual financial Report (See pg. 25)
15. List and Description of Financial & Management Reports Regularly Provided to Governing Board
2006 Annual Financial Report
2005 Annual Financial Report
2004 Annual Financial Report
Required Exhibits
1. Financial Section of the IPEDS Report for Past Three Years
2. Summary of Latest Audited Financial Statement, Auditor's Management Letter, Last Completed Audited
Financial Report
Management Letter
2006 Annual Financial Report
275
2005 Annual Financial Report
2004 Annual Financial Report
3. Detailed Current Operating budget, Including Budget for Off-Campus Programs etc.
4. Current Operating Budgets for Auxiliary Organizations
06-07 Auxiliary Services Budget
5. Default Rate for the Two Most Recent Years as Provided by the U.S. Department of Education
STANDARD EIGHT: PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Required Documentation
1. Campus Map
Campus Map
Map Legend
Regional Campuses & Distance Education
Regional Campuses & Centers Map
Required Exhibits
1. Policy Statements Concerning:
Access Control
Advertising
Bicycles & Skateboard
Campus Walkway Safety
Closure of the University
Drugs & Alcohol-Free Workplace
Employees with Disabilities
Employment of Convicted Felons
Political Activity
Safety & Health
Smoking
Storage/Disposal of (Non-Hazardous) Equipment, Materials, & Supplies
Use of Candles & Open Flames
Use & Security of University Property
Violence in the Workplace
Visitors
2. Schedule for Replacement of Instructional Equipment & Maintained Inventories
Building Inventory
Capital Improvement 2009 Proposals
Classroom Technology Priority Queue
3. Campus Facilities Master Plan & Maps the Indicated Changes
Campus Master Plan
Capital Facilities Qualification & Prioritization Process 2007-08
Capital Improvements 2009 Proposals
4. Annual & Long-Term Plans for Remodeling, Renovation, & Major Maintenance
Master Plan
Planned Major Additions or Capital Improvements
Capital Facilities Major Projects Detail
Capital Facilities Qualification & Prioritization Process 2007-08
Capital Improvements 2009 Proposals
5. Major Property Additions or Capital Improvements of Past Three Years & Plans for Next Three Years
Property Acquisitions 2005-07
Capital Improvements Proposed 2009
Suggested Materials
1. Space Utilization Studies
Classroom Utilization MWF
Classroom Utilization TH
Space Allocation by Unit
276
2. Measures Utilized to Determine the Adequacy of Facilities for USU's Programs & Services
Facilities Condition Analysis Program
Surplus Sales
Equipment Inventory Policy Manual
APPA Award for Excellence Application
3. Other Documents & Information
Facilities Organizational Chart
Campus Safety & Special Needs Offices
Environmental Health & Safety Resource Center
Research & Laboratory Safety
Maintenance & Construction Safety
Environmental Programs
Disability Resource Center
State of Utah
Utah Division of Facilities & Construction Management
Capital Facilities Qualifications & Prioritization Process
STANDARD NINE: INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRITY
1. Academic Freedom
USU Policy Manual (#403)
Faculty Standard
Faculty Senate (Academic Freedom)
Faculty Senate (Conflict Resolution)
2. Conflict of Interest
USU Policy Manual (#307)
Compliance Assistance
Board of Regents
Human Subjects Research
3. Fair Treatment
Due Process for Faculty
Due Process for Employees
Due Process for Students
Complaint Resolution
4. Promotional Materials
General Catalog
USU Homepage
Future Students
Public Relations & Marketing
About USU
5. Codes of Conduct, Statement of Ethical Behavior
Administration
Faculty
Employees/Staff
Students
Auditors
277