Academic program review self-study report department of Managerial Sciences
Download 117.98 Kb.
|
1 2
|
ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW SELF-STUDY REPORT Department of Managerial Sciences Reviewing AY 2010-AY 2012 November 23, 2013 APR CYCLE: 2013-2014 1 Where is Your Unit Now? 1.a Quality of undergraduate student attracted to the unit’s program Table 10 provides information on the quality of students attracted to the major in Managerial Sciences (MGS). This table summarizes data for all 255 B.B.A. graduates in FY 2013. The Table is divided into sections for students who started at Georgia State as freshmen (“native students”) and for students who transferred to Georgia State. For each category in Table 10, averages are provided for MGS majors, College of Business majors, and all Georgia State University Bachelor’s degrees. First, Table 10 shows the Freshman Index (a combination of high school GPA and either the SAT or the ACT, formula provided in Table 10). Second, it provides the cumulative GPA at four points in the student’s program: beginning of sophomore year, beginning of junior year, beginning of senior year, and at graduation. As shown in Table 10, the Freshman Index (FI) averages shows that our graduates have a lower FI than the GSU average and the College of Business average. This pattern is more pronounced in the averages for transfer students than for native students. We see no clear pattern in the cumulative GPA data. 1.a.1 Scholarship Support for Undergraduates Students who complete MGS 4590 Entrepreneurship Field Study receive a scholarship of $1000. This total amount of scholarship support averages approximately $20,000 per year. Managerial Science majors are also eligible for the following scholarships offered by the Robinson College of Business. Each year, MGS students are among the applicant pool for these scholarships.
1.a.2 Student Success and Satisfaction 1.a.2.1 Learning outcomes, including Core course outcomes The Department of Managerial Sciences teaches three core courses required of all Business Majors: MGS 3100 Business Analysis, MGS 3400 Managing People in Organizations, and BUSA 4980 Strategic Management. Learning objectives for these courses are provided in Appendix A. Learning outcomes for the B.B.A. degree in Managerial Sciences are listed in Appendix B. 1.a.2.2 Recruitment rates, input quality metrics, and advisement Recruitment of students is conducted centrally by the university. Initially, undergraduate advisement is provided centrally by the university. Once a student has attained more than 90 credit hours, advisement is provided centrally by the Robinson College of Business (RCB). We are concerned that 90 hours is completion of 75% of a student’s B.B.A. program. Degrees of freedom to consider internships, study abroad courses, and electives that may complement one’s major are greatly reduced by that point in time. 1.a.2.3 Retention rates and graduation rates Six-year graduation and retention rates for undergraduate majors are shown in Table 11. As shown in Table 11, the graduation rate for first time freshmen is 63.6% and the retention rate for first time freshmen is 66.7%. Both are slightly greater than the percentages for the College of Business and for the university. The six-year graduation and retention rates are also shown for declared majors in the department who had 42-56 hours in Fall Semester 2007. Both the graduation rate and the retention rate are 60.8%. These rates are slightly higher than the university percentage and slightly lower than the RCB percentage. The six-year graduation rate for “First-Time, Full-Time” freshmen MGS majors has increased in the three years of the self-study focus as follows:
This is a dramatic increase across three years, which is a heartening pattern. However, an absolute rate of 50% still indicates that half of entering freshmen majors did not graduate in six years. 1.a.2.4 Output quality metrics Placement rates and/or acceptances into advanced degree programs The following information is from a survey of all MGS BBA graduates in AY 2013. The survey response rate was 57% (N=145). For comparison purposes, we have also included all majors in the RCB. 
1.a.2.5 Ethnic and gender diversity Ethnic and gender diversity data are provided in Table 12. The proportion of male undergraduate graduate students in the self-study time period was as follows: FA 2010 49% FA 2011 45% FA 2012 48%
Survey results from current undergraduate students appear in Appendix C, and results from the undergraduate alumni survey are provided in Appendix D. Results from alumni indicate that 61% of respondents either “agree” or “strongly agree” with the statement “My program of study has made a positive contribution to the quality of my life,” and 57% agree” or “strongly agree” with the statement “Overall, I was satisfied with my degree program.” In responses to questions focusing on the application in the workplace of skills learned in the degree program, 97% were using writing and speaking skills,” 87% were using the ability to analyze problems, and 88% were using the ability to make informed decisions. One set of responses regarding the use of research skills was interesting. While only 28% listed this skill on their resumes and only 30% discussed this skill during job interviews, 67% said they used the skill on the job. For the current undergraduate students, respondents rated “overall quality of undergraduate courses in the department” as an average of 4.9 on a 6-point scale (1=poor, 6=excellent) and rated “overall quality of undergraduate instruction in the department” as an average of 4.7. Respondents seemed pleased with “Faculty Interaction.” For example, results indicate that 71% of respondents either “agree” or “strongly agree” with the statement “Faculty in the department motivate me to do my best,” and 79% “agree” or “strongly agree” with the statement “Faculty in my department are appropriately prepared for the courses they teach.” The one potential weakness in faculty interaction was that only 34% of respondents either “agree” or “strongly agree” with the statement “In my department, students have opportunities to do research-related activities with faculty.” 1.a.2.8 Curriculum Quality 1.a.2.8.a Syllabi, degree requirements, advisement procedures Syllabi for Department of Managerial Sciences undergraduate courses are provided separately in The MGS Compendium of Syllabi. The degree requirements for the undergraduate major in Managerial Sciences are provided in Appendix E. See Section 1.a.2.2 for a summary of advisement procedures. 1.a.2.8.b List of courses The list of undergraduate courses offered by the Department of Managerial Sciences is provided in Appendix F. 1.a.2.9 Contribution to the Core curriculum/general education outcomes No courses in the university Core Curriculum are under the domain of the Department of Managerial Sciences. The department is actively involved in teaching the Junior-Year Business Core required of all B.B.A. majors in the College of Business. This involvement includes teaching approximately 30 sections per year of MGS 3100 Business Analysis and 30 sections of MGS 3400 Managing People at Work. Additionally, we teach the Capstone course for all B.B.A. students; this also totals to approximately 30 sections per year of BUSA 4980 Strategic Management. 1.a.3 Signature Experiences 1.a.3.1 Research practicums None 1.a.3.2 Urban service learning programs None 1.a.3.3 Internships and Career Development The Department of Managerial Sciences offers two semester-length opportunities for students to conduct an interactive project with a specific company. These two are MGS 4395 HRM Field Study and MGS 4590 Entrepreneurship Field Study. In each course, the student works on a specific project (an HRM project for the HRM Field Study, a project with an entrepreneurial venture for the Entrepreneurship Field Study). Additionally, many MGS faculty have strong ties to the business community and stay in touch with alumni. Through these informal connections, faculty host speakers, arrange site visits, publicize job openings and internships, promote informational interviews, and foster networking. 1.a.3.4 Study abroad In the three-year self-study time window, the Department of Managerial Sciences has offered at least two Study Abroad trips per year. In May Session each year, a trip goes to Greece and Turkey. Additional trips go to variable locations. These Study Abroad trips are listed under the course title of MGS 4860 Management Studies Abroad. Trips and number of MGS undergraduate participants for each offering in the three years are as follows:
Another way of measuring Study Abroad participation is to count the number of MGS majors who participated in a Study Abroad experience, regardless of whether the Study Abroad was sponsored by the MGS Department (i.e., MGS 4860) or by other units at Georgia State University. Counting by this method yields the following numbers:
1.a.4 Honors College In addition to the GSU Honors College, the Department of Managerial Sciences also participates actively in the College of Business Honors Program. 1.a.4.1 Honors courses and Honors add-ons taught by faculty Honors courses and Honors add-ons for the three-year time window of the self-study appear in Appendix G. All of these are for the College of Business Honors Program. As shown in Appendix G, we have taught 9 Honors Courses and 21 Honors add-ons in the three-year time period. 1.a.4.2 Honors Faculty Fellows None 1.a.4.3 Honors students in the major Numbers of MGS students participating in the RCB Honors Program and the GSU Honors College for the three years of the self-study are as follows:
1.a.4.4 Student participating in the GSU Undergraduate Research Conference In the three-year self-study time period, Prof. Butler has sponsored one MGS student in the Undergraduate Research Conference. Additionally, Prof. McClurg has sponsored a project by a team of undergraduate and graduate students for the University System of Georgia Human Resources Research Consortium. 1.a.5 Undergraduate programs within the GSU context 1.a.5.1 Programs undertaken jointly with other units at GSU The Department of Managerial Sciences participates in the junior-year core of required courses for all undergraduate majors in the College of Business. We participate by staffing MGS 3100 Business Analysis and MGS 3400 Managing People at Work. Additionally, we teach the Capstone course required of all business majors—BUSA 4980 Strategic Management. 1.a.5.2 Areas of substantial overlap/redundancy with other units at GSU None. 1.b Quality of graduate students attracted to the unit’s programs Tables 3 and 4 provide summary information on quality of students attracted to the department’s graduate programs. For the Ph.D. program, the GRE and GMAT scores indicate that we are admitting applicants with quite promising test scores. For the MBA program, the data in Tables 3 and 4 should be interpreted as having less than optimal utility. It is our interpretation that the enrollment numbers shown in Table 2 are incorrect and suggest a pattern that is a data recording artifact rather than a dramatic downward trend in MGS MBA enrollments. There are two tracks to the MBA program (Flex MBA and PMBA), and they record concentrations differently. In the Flex program, the predicted concentration is captured from the original admission application and is recorded. Students frequently change from their original prediction of what their concentration might be, and those changes aren’t captured by admissions and original enrollment data. In the PMBA, no intended concentration is recorded upon admission, and the concentration is selected after most of the required core is completed. Therefore, data in Tables 3 and 4 (and Tables 2 and 5 as well) are not totally accurate, and, when there is a shift in ratio of Flex MBA students to PMBA students (as there has been in the self-study three-year time window), spurious patterns can appear in Table 2 through Table 5 data. As an alternate indicator of number of MBA students, we have composed Table 13. This table compares total number of MBA graduates in each year of the self-study time window. Being a post hoc measure, there should be no inaccuracies in recording the concentration selected (and followed) by each MBA student. Therefore, assigning students to a particular department should be 100% accurate. As shown in Table13, the number of graduates for the department increases each year. Additionally, the MBAs awarded by the Department of Managerial Sciences as a percentage of total RCB MBAs awarded increases each year as well. Additionally, we have distilled a portion of the information in Table 1 as an index of enrollment. This information appears below. We totaled the number of students enrolled in MGS-prefix courses at the 8000-level for each of the three years. Although this measure also has some inaccuracies (i.e., it doesn’t separate MGS majors from non-majors taking electives), it does add to our conclusion that the enrollment data in Table 2 are misleading.
For the MS program, the quality numbers in Tables 3 and 4 vary because they are based on fairly small numbers. Indeed, the bigger concern is not the quality, but the quantity of admitted and enrolled students. Each of the four tracks in the MS program (Business Analysis, Human Resource Management, Operations Management, and Organizational Change) was developed at a time when the MS programs were able to “piggy-back” on the vast array of electives offered to the huge MBA population (approximately 1400 students in the mid-1990s). We offered 6-10 relevant courses as MBA electives within each of the four content areas that could be configured into a MS program of study. Therefore, the cost of providing an MS program was essentially nil. However, the number of MBA students has decreased significantly since the 1990s (875 in Fall Semester 2013), and the number of MBA electives has contracted as well. Therefore, we are no longer in a position to offer a 30-hour program of study (i.e., 10 courses) in any of the four content domains we currently have. Programs of study are, of necessity, reaching further afield to find courses to complete programs of study. We recognize that such a situation is not ideal and should be changed in the immediate future. 1.b.1 Expanding Support for Graduate Programs 1.b.1.1 Total numbers of graduate students by year, degree program, and concentration in the period of the Self-Study These numbers appear in Table 2. Our masters programs are classified as “Professional Programs,” and are discussed further under heading 1.b.2.1. The pattern in Table 2 indicates that the number of Ph.D. students has remained fairly constant at an average of 10 throughout the three-year review time frame. This level is intentional in order to maintain a reasonable Ph.D. student to faculty ratio. 1.b.1.2 Percentage of graduate students compared to total number of students in the department According to data from the APR Dashboard, the percentage of graduate students compared to total student in the department was: 2010-2011 14% 2011-2012 13% 2012-2013 7% (For more detail, see Table 14.) However, because of the problems in recording numbers of MBA student accurately, these percentages and any pattern among them are assumed to be inaccurate. Another way to capture the nature of this proportion is to count actual degrees granted to department majors. These numbers appear below.
This information suggests a decreasing pattern over five years, but the actual percentages are greater than those with the method of counting current students. 1.b.1.3 Graduate student financial support, by type GTA, GRA, etc. In the three-year review window, we averaged 19 GRAs, 1 GLA, and 6 GTAs per semester. There was almost no variance in any category across years. (source: APR Dashboard) This distribution suggests that we are providing significant support to faculty research (GRAs), limited support to faculty teaching (GLA), and significant support to Ph.D. students gaining experience in teaching (GTAs). 1.b.1.4 Ratio of graduate students to faculty These ratios are provided in Table 5. As noted previously under Section 1.b, these ratios carry a degree of “noise” because of the variations in the process of identifying the intended and actual concentrations selected by MBA students. 1.b.2 National Reputation in Professional Degree Programs 1.b.2.1 Number of graduate students in professional degree programs by year, with % growth Numbers of students enrolled in the two professional degree programs—the MBA and the MS—are shown in Table 2. Again, as explained in Section 1.b, these numbers suggest a pattern for the MBA program that we believe is spurious. As stated under Section 1.b, we believe that Table 13 provides a more accurate picture. Table 2 illustrates a three-year pattern of decline in MS program enrollments. In addition to the percentage trends, the raw numbers indicate that the Operations Management concentration and the Organizational Change concentration are on the brink of losing critical mass in enrollments. 1.b.2.2 Pass rates on national credentialing examinations We are aware of no national credentialing exams relevant to our graduate students. 1.b.3 Student Success and Satisfaction 1.b.3.1 Learning outcomes Learning outcomes for each of the graduate programs and concentrations are determined through the on-going program assessment process. Assessment plans for each graduate program in the department are provided in Appendix H through Appendix P. The assessment for the Ph.D. program (Appendix P) is a college-level assessment rather than a department-level assessment. 1.b.3.2 Recruitment rates, admission requirements and procedures and advisement Recruitment rates are shown in Table 4. The caveat explained under Section 1.b applies here as well. The MBA program is administered centrally by the Robinson College of Business. Therefore, all admissions and advising are done by a dedicated staff at the college level. This dedicated staff also handles most admission and advising for M.S. students as well. On occasion, this staff involves faculty in admissions decisions on borderline applicants. Also, each M.S. student has a faculty advisor who must approve their Program of Study and send the documentation to the college-level advising office. For the Ph.D. program, the department has a faculty member designated as the department’s Ph.D. Coordinator. This person oversees decisions regarding admissions and advises all Ph.D. students. The college has a central Ph.D. office that advises Ph.D. students in some of the non-academic concerns (e.g., immigration status, appropriate formatting of dissertations). 1.b.3.3 Retention rates, graduation rates, and output quality metrics For our masters degrees, the 5-year retention and graduation time-window seems to be the most informative. The five-year retention and graduation rates are shown in Table 15. For the MBA concentrations within the department, these data show that, in five years, 89% of students graduated and 93% were retained. Interestingly, the retention rate grows from year 3 to year 4 and grows again from year 4 to year 5. This pattern suggests that students in the MBA (a solely part-time MBA program) do not necessarily enroll for contiguous terms from entry until graduation. However, leaving school for one or more semesters is usually followed by returning with the intent of graduating. Given the potential disruptions that part-time MBA students face such as being transferred by their employer to another city, we are pleased to note that the 5-year retention rate is 93%. Again, the challenges of classifying MBA students as being within a given concentration (and therefore within a given department) described under Section 1.b suggest that interpretations of Table 15 data for MBA students are more tenuous than ideal. Table 15 also shows the retention and graduation rates for our M.S. students. The 5-year retention rate is 57% and the 5-year graduation rate is also 57%. Because the actual number of students was small (entering cohort of 7), we compared to entering cohorts in the previous and following years (not provided in table format). What we found was that the retention rate levels to about 60% in year 2 and remains there for successive years. We believe that the difference in retention rates between the MBA program and the M.S. program is likely to come from two possible sources: (1) The MS numbers are so small that finding a reliable pattern is more difficult. (2) MS students are more likely than MBA students to enroll and then realize that they are not a good match to the program. Since 2004, we have admitted 25 students to the Ph.D. program. Of those students, 6 have graduated and 9 are still in the program. Of the remaining students, 6 withdrew for various personal reasons, and 4 were terminated for poor performance. Although the number of Ph.D. students admitted yearly is small, we have realized a need to do better at screening potential applicants. In the past three years, we have been attracting more qualified applicants and we have developed a better screening protocol. The new protocol requires screening all applicants that are on our “short list” with a Skype interview. The most promising applicants are asked to Skype with multiple faculty members and are invited to an on-site interview if possible. We believe that this protocol has reduced the number of Ph.D. students entering the program who are not a good match to a researched-oriented program and career. 1.b.3.4 Placement rates The majority of our masters students are part-time students who have full-time jobs as they attend school. Therefore, we do not keep placement data for these individuals. We receive anecdotal information from some graduates who have received promotions or changed employers upon graduation or afterwards. Data in Table 2 indicate that we have had six Ph.D. graduates in the self-study time window, and here are their placements:
We consider the first four on this list to be quality placements. The fifth was a student who had interviews at more preferable schools (e.g., Louisiana State University), but chose based on family and location. The one graduate with a temporary faculty appointment in our own department entered the job market late, and, being “out of cycle,” did not acquire a long-term opportunity. This graduate is currently actively looking for placement. Generally, we are pleased that we are preparing Ph.D. graduates who are able to compete well in the entry-level academic market. 1.b.3.5 Ethnic and gender diversity Ethnic diversity by year in the self-study time period is provided in Table 16. The proportion of male graduate students in the self-study time period was as follows: FA 2010 50% FA 2011 46% FA 2012 44%
Survey Results from graduate alumni appear in Appendix Q; for current masters students (MBA and M.S.), in Appendix R; and for current Ph.D. students, in Appendix S. Results from graduate alumni (all MBA and M.S. alumni) indicate that 88% of respondents either “agree” or “strongly agree” with the statements (a) “My program of study has made a positive contribution to the quality of my life,” and (b) “Overall, I was satisfied with my degree program.” In general, the results of this survey indicate that responding graduate alumni are pleased with their experience at Georgia State University. For the current masters students, respondents rated “overall quality of graduate instruction in the department” as an average of 5.1 on a 6-point scale (1=poor, 6=excellent). The biggest concern in this student group was that “availability of graduate courses in the department” was rated as 3.5 (same scale), with 38% selecting a rating of “2” on the 6-point scale. Some free response written comments echoed this same concern. This concern is consistent with our concern that the M.S. program has lost critical mass to the point where needed courses cannot be offered with reasonable frequency. In the survey of current Ph.D. students, students rated the faculty interaction an average of 5.5 (6-point scale) across all dimensions. Regarding program quality, students were most concerned about funding for conference presentations and availability of graduate courses; however, each of those was rated an average of 4.0. 1.b.3.8 Student publications and presentations A list of presentations and publications by Ph.D. students is provided in Appendix T. As shown in this list, graduate students are active in presenting papers each year at important national conferences as well as regional and more focused conferences. Refereed publications are present in the list, but less common. In part, with the time lag for the review process, refereed publications are frequently accepted after the student has graduated. 1.b.3.9 Student accomplishments: exams, theses, dissertations, projects, grants, prizes, and awards
1.b.3.10 Student outcomes after graduation: admission into further graduate education, postdoctoral fellowships, employment See response to 1.b.3.4 1.b.4 Graduate programs within the GSU context 1.b.4.1 Programs undertaken jointly with other GSU units Within the Robinson College of Business (RCB), the department is an active participant in the MBA program and the Executive Doctorate in Business program. Our faculty members also participate in the MBA/JD degree program and the MBA/MHA (Masters of Health Administration) program. Additionally, the RCB is in the process of launching a Master of Science in Business Analytics; this is an interdisciplinary program drawing from faculty expertise in multiple departments. Our department faculty is quite involved in planning and delivering this program. 1.b.4.2 Areas of overlap/redundancy with other GSU units None. 1.c.1 Success of the Unit’s Research Culture 1.c.1.1 2CI hires, Regents Professors, Alumni Distinguished Professors, eminent scholars, and endowed professors None. 1.c.1.2 Levels of external and internal funding Direct Cost Expenditures for Federal Funding: 
(Source: APR Dashboard) Internal funding: Average of $15,000 per year. 1.c.1.3 National/international rankings of the unit The Mays College of Business at Texas A&M University (http://mays.tamu.edu/mgmt/productivity-rankings/) ranks Management Department research productivity based on eight specified premier journals in the domains of OB/HR and Strategic Management. In their ranking, Georgia State University was ranked 15th (of 160 schools) in the most recent year (2012) and ranked 33rd overall for the past five years (2008-2012). Unfortunately, this particular ranking does not address Operations Management or Business Analysis; however, it is one source of ranking information. Directory: ~wwwapa -> sacs -> apr reviews -> current apr reviews -> Date Submitted Date Funded apr reviews -> Gsu service/Education Center Review Survey sacs -> University police action plan (Immediate) Strategy sacs -> Senior Faculty Associate to the Provost One Park Place Download 117.98 Kb. Share with your friends:
|
1 2