GT Institute Review Committee
College of Sciences Conference Room, Tech Tower
The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. Members present included Steve Usselman, Paul Wine, Ron Arkin, Farrokh Mistree, Joe Hughes (liaison from the UCC), Jim McClellan, Andy Peterson (liaison from IGC), and John McIntyre. Absent from the meeting was Russell Gentry.
A discussion of program review assessment included the following points.
Ron Arkin indicated that the data profile was not described in sufficient detail. In the preamble to the criteria, Joe Hughes noted that we should include language to the effect that “portions of this information may also be used to satisfy handbook statutes for review." On the second page, he noted that the IRC is not charged with making determination that program is necessary.
Concerning the timing of the reviews and their completion:
- Farrokh—Make it an IRC requirement. Show how it fits into the Institute Strategic Plan.
- Joe—Keep it optional; the missions of the units are so diverse that all cannot address.
Concerning the Program Review Template:
- Strike “service;” just “courses” in A,B, and C
- Add D.[IRC] (If applicable) If program is responsible for its own major satisfying some portion of the year-end requirement, describe how this is accomplished and assessed.
Example: May be requirements in Gen Ed that are not course based but are part of the Gen Ed requirements.
- IV(3) Leave optional requirements in. They are in fact optional.
- Preamble: Clearly state that “optional” means optional—include it if you choose. May be useful in explaining unique attributes of your program.
Members of the committee instructed Joseph Hoey to make the above changes to the criteria and template, and to send it out without further ado to the programs undergoing review this year.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m.