GT Institute Review Committee

Meeting Minutes, May 16, 2002

College of Sciences Conference Room, Tech Tower


A meeting was held in the College of Sciences Conference Room on May 16, 2002, at 10:00 a.m. Members present included Steve Usselman, Russell Gentry, Joseph Hoey, Farrokh Mistree, and Paul Wine.


Randy Engle, Chair of the School of Psychology, who had been unable to attend the program review meeting on April 15, presented his comments about the program review process.


A. External Review Committee

1. Four-member committee: three of the four were made up of world-class scholars, the fourth was someone local—in this case, someone from UGA.

2. The committee spent a lot of time looking at the strategic plan but did not look at the questions in the documentation.

3. The visiting committee did not look at CETL evaluations but did interview students and faculty members.

4. The department did a large amount of work for the external review committee, and it was loosely connected to what was required in the document—not what the BOR wants.


B. Comments About the Document

1. The document was extensive and costly to the department to complete.

2. The charge to IRC should be to “do no harm” to the departments.

3. As the number of pages increase, the less likelihood of anyone reading it increases.

4. The strategic plan should be on the first page of the document.

5. Very little transfer of data between what was required from the external review committee and the document was seen.

6. Dr. Engle will look at the document’s questions and forward his comments to the IRC.

C. Comments about the Process

1. He would like to see resistance to more bureaucracy.

2. He doubts that it will be easier in the future—there is little institutional memory and in five years, questions might be different.

3. BOR’s level of assessment used for “world-class institutions” should not be the same as used for colleges like Kennesaw State University.

4. The department did not learn anything from the process that they already did not know.

5. BOR’s objectives may be different than the department’s objectives—projections of how many students they will need in three years are silly.

6. Deans, Provost, and President are more interested in answers to the two following questions:

·         Number of grant dollars per faculty members

·         Number of credit hours taught by faculty members

Dr. Engle gives that information directly to them, and the strategic plan shows those numbers and how they have changed over the last five years.

7. In the future, the department will conduct its own paper student evaluations on the faculty in order to gain data for new faculty. CETL online evaluations tend to identify only really horrible or really good faculty members. The department will encourage students to complete the online evaluation also but think that the paper evaluations will give the students the message that the department takes teaching seriously.

8. Maybe the external review committee and the program review should not be done at the same time because they are slightly connected. A local (UGA/GSU) staff member could come separately and do the BOR evaluation, but it would be looked at as something to get out of the way.


During the remaining time the IRC members discussed what was learned from the program review presentations and discussed how to proceed. 


A. Learned from the program review presentations meeting:

1. The departments received more value from the external review committee process than from the data driven process.

2. Schools that have professionally accredited visits had a much easier time with the process.

3. A greater focus needs to be made on the strategic plans that speak to the institute’s objectives.

4. Guidelines could be formed for external review process that could substitute for BOR data driven requirements.


B. Deadlines:

1. June 15 is the deadline to report to the Provost.

2. June 30 is the deadline to report to the BOR


C. Committee members will use Farrokh Mistree’s May 16 memo as a guide for each program assessment to see if the departments have satisfied the requirements of the following categories:

1. Self Study

2. External Committee Appointed

3. External Committee Report

4. Dean’s Commentary on External Committee’s Report

5. IRC Briefed

Added to this list of requirements will be Graduate and Undergraduate Committees’ responses. Steve Usselman will follow up with those committees. The IRC members will e-mail their results to each other.


D. Joseph will send out a summary to John McIntyre.


E. Joseph will make suggestions in his report that are faculty driven, institute driven, not BOR driven and get written acceptance from BOR.