The academic review process outlined here provides a means by which academic departments and programs can engage in serious periodic self-evaluation, assess program quality and effectiveness, review strategies for development and improvement, and plan for the future.

During the late 1980s, the present academic review process was initiated following a review of the role of the advisory councils by administration and the Trustees. In response to the finding of the Gruen Report that the existing process of combining academic review with other functions of the advisory councils was often unproductive, the Board of Trustees endorsed the concept of separating out the academic review role. The President established the principle that serious academic review of the departments would be undertaken every five to seven years and accomplished through the vehicle of ad hoc committees composed of distinguished academics from outside institutions.

In 1993, the Strategic Planning Committee on Faculty Issues appointed by President Shapiro and chaired by Dean of the Faculty Robert Gunning further reviewed and defined the role of academic reviews. Please refer to appendix 1 for a summary of the Strategic Planning Committee recommendations. The recommendations of the Strategic Planning Committee on Faculty Issues are incorporated into every facet of the academic review process.

This guidebook has been prepared for department and program heads and department managers to provide them with basic information about the academic review process.

A thorough academic review will be scheduled every five to ten years as needed. Responsibility for initiating the academic reviews rests with the Dean of the Faculty. The Dean will consult with the Department Chair or Program Director to initiate the review, taking into account any factors that may optimize the review outcomes. Those departments that have not yet undertaken a review will be scheduled for their review as quickly as possible, within the next two to three years. Please refer to appendix 2 for a copy of the sample letter to the chair/director, containing summary guidelines for the academic review.

The academic review requires several months to complete since the self-study process touches the entire department and includes data gathering, discussion and reflection. Departments undergoing a review in the fall of the academic year should plan on completing their self-study during the preceding spring term and summer. Similarly, departments undergoing a review in the spring term should plan to engage in the self-study during the preceding fall term.

As the first part of the academic review, the department/program undertakes a serious self-assessment in the form of a self-study. The completed study should be limited to no more than 35 to 40 pages excluding the appendices. Since the self-study involves significant work and spans all aspects of a department or program, the chair/director is urged to appoint a team to guide the effort. This team should including both senior and junior faculty, and might include representation from undergraduate and graduate students and other staff members as deemed appropriate. The self-study should be shared with all members of the department's faculty and should represent a consensus, or it should state the nature of any differences if a consensus cannot be reached.

In addition to the basic self-study information discussed in detail below, the Dean of the Faculty will identify any additional issues that the self-study should address. The dean will communicate these additional issues to the department chair/ program director as soon as possible after the academic review has been scheduled.

The self-study should identify key issues facing the department or program; evaluate current strengths and weaknesses, both in teaching and research; and draft a plan for its development over the next decade or more. The self-study should include the following major sections:

2.  Scholarship and Research: Discuss the depth and quality of faculty scholarship. Is the department's quality relative to the top-rated programs in the discipline improving? What factors contribute to the department's or program's reputation. Examine the external standing of the department or program revealed by such indicators as the NRC rankings; the success of its faculty in competition for research grants, prizes and fellowships; its success in attracting graduate students; its success in student placement; and its role as an innovator and influence in its disciplines. How adaptable are the department's programs to changes in the discipline? If there has been a previous academic review, discuss the evolution of the department as a result of that review.

3.  Faculty: Discuss faculty recruitment and retention. Have there been any significant faculty hires or losses within recent years? Has the department/program successfully recruited and retained top-quality faculty members? What are the prospects for future faculty recruitment? The following issues should be covered as well:

• faculty diversity
• faculty teaching load
• role of part-time faculty
• mentoring and promotion of junior faculty
• quality of department's intellectual life
• age distribution and tenure flow

5.  Undergraduate Programs: Discuss the quality of undergraduate instruction both for concentrators and in service areas. Discuss undergraduate enrollment trends, trends in majors, class and precept size. How do the course offerings meet the needs of the students and the department? Describe the intellectual atmosphere for concentrators.

6.  Resources: Discuss the adequacy of both the facilities and the financial resources at the disposal of the department/program.

7.  Goals and Plans: Summarize the goals of the department/program and plans concerning curriculum, facilities, faculty development needs and aspirations for the next five to ten years. Discuss any anticipated changes in staffing.

8.  Appendices: Please include the following as appendices to the self-study:

• faculty c.v.s
• dissertation topics
• graduate student job placement
• senior thesis titles
• undergraduate placement
• course enrollments
• faculty grants

In order to provide members of the review committee ample time for its review, the self-study should be completed at least six weeks in advance of the scheduled outside review. Six weeks before the review, the department chair/program director should distribute copies of the self-study to the Dean of the Faculty, the Provost, the Dean of the College, Dean of the Graduate School, and send a copy to each of the external reviewers. A copy should also be given to the appropriate Associate Dean of the Faculty who will serve as secretary to the committee.

The conscientiousness, objectivity and knowledge of the academic review committee is at the very heart of the academic review process. The committee should consist normally of four individuals, major figures in the field whose recommendations and advice will be taken seriously both by departmental faculty and by the administration.

The Chair or Director will recommend to the Dean a tentative slate of at least six eminent scholars who would be suitable committee members. The scholars on this list should broadly define the subfields within the department. From the recommendations, the Dean will choose a chair for the advisory committee.  Working with this chair and the department chair, three (or occasionally more) other members of the committee will be identified and invited by the dean.

The Dean of the Faculty, after consultation with the Chair or Director, will decide on a proposed time frame for the outside review (usually a period of a month or so within which the review might take place rather than an explicit date). Once the committee has been selected and its members agree to serve, the chair or director is responsible for settling on a particular date that is most suitable for all parties, for making arrangements for the travel and housing of the committee, and for other administrative details of the review. A draft copy of the schedule for the Committee's meeting should be sent to the Dean of the Faculty no later than two weeks prior to the review.

The Dean of the Faculty sends a letter of invitation to each committee member. The Department sends the final schedule for the review along with details concerning accommodations and meeting locations when they are finalized.

Normally the review extends over two days, with the members of the committee arriving the evening before for an informal dinner or post-dinner meeting with members of the department. The committee meets with the Dean of the Faculty (and the Provost, Dean of the College, Dean of the Graduate School, as available) early the next morning, to receive a detailed charge, and then undertakes a round of meetings with members of the department (senior faculty, junior faculty, and students) and with individuals from other departments or programs as appropriate. These meetings will extend through the remainder of the first day and through the morning of the following day. Please refer to appendix 3 of this document for sample meeting schedule.

After a private session to discuss initial findings among themselves, the committee concludes the on-site portion of its review with a final interview with the Dean of the Faculty (along with other available senior administrators or their designees) to report in a preliminary and informal way on the results of the review and to answer any questions the administrators might have.

The chair of the committee writes a confidential report to the Dean of the Faculty, preferably within three weeks after the conclusion of the review. The report should be a single report of the committee and should cover the following areas:

• Assessment of strengths and weaknesses of the department
• Review of plans for future development
• Examination of Graduate Program
• Examination of Undergraduate Program
• Faculty issues
• Recommendations

Upon receiving the Committee's report, the Dean of the Faculty forwards it to the chair or director of the department/program, the President, and the Academic Planning Group (consisting of the Provost; the Deans of the Faculty, Graduate School, College, and School of Engineering; and the Chair of the University Research Board). The Dean invites the chair or director to discuss the report with departmental faculty and to submit a formal response, including a plan for implementing the report's recommendations, within a few months. (The chair or director may invite departmental faculty to read the committee's report and recommendations in their entirety, or at his or her discretion may summarize portions of the report for departmental discussion. The report is confidential and should not be made available to anyone other than regular departmental faculty members.) The Dean and other members of the APG may discuss specifics of the report with the chair or director and other departmental faculty members as necessary.

The Dean of the Faculty will send letters of appreciation for service and honoraria to each Committee member upon receipt of the report of the Committee. Completed W-9 Forms are required for every individual receiving an honorarium. Committee members should fill in a W-9 form and return it to the department manager before the end of the session. The completed forms should be forwarded to Sandra Gillette, Assistant to the Dean of the Faculty.

The implementation plan of outside review recommendations will be reviewed annually during the early fall meeting between the Dean and the Department Chair. In addition, the Dean of the Faculty will provide an annual summary report of the academic reviews undertaken to the Board Academic Affairs Committee.

The University will reimburse reasonable expenses incurred in connection with the Academic Review Committee members' work. Committee members should submit all travel-related expenses directly to the department/program for reimbursement.

The department/program should charge all related costs for the Academic Review Committee meetings initially to departmental accounts and subsequently submit a single interdepartmental invoice to the Office of the Dean of the Faculty for reimbursement. The invoice should be sent to the Office of the Dean of the Faculty, 301 Nassau Hall.

Departments/programs will be reimbursed for the following items:

Travel Expenses
The department/program will be reimbursed for reasonable travel expenses for Committee members. Reimbursement of airfare expense is limited to economy class fare in accordance with University policy governing travel expenses. Copies of the paid travel vouchers should be attached to the interdepartmental invoice when it is submitted to the Office of the Dean of the Faculty for reimbursement.

Overnight Accommodations/Meals
The department/program will be reimbursed for up to two nights overnight accommodations, made for a Committee member. Departments are encouraged to use the Nassau Inn, to the extent possible, when arranging accommodations. Copies of the paid invoice and hotel bill should be attached to the interdepartmental invoice when it is submitted to the Office of the Dean of the Faculty for reimbursement.)

Luncheon or Dinner Meetings
The department/program will be reimbursed for luncheon or dinner expenses incurred in connection with the Committee meeting. Departments are encouraged to use Prospect House or the Department of Dining Services for meal planning.

Call Sandra Gillette, Assistant to the Dean of the Faculty (8-3020) with questions concerning expense reimbursement.

The basic ideas and goals of the academic review procedure were defined in the Report of the Strategic Planning Committee on Faculty Issues (1993) as follows:

1. All healthy departments and programs plan; all engage in serious periodic self-evaluation. The initiative toward more systematic and more regular departmental review predated the appointment of the strategic planning committee on faculty issues. Recognizing the merits of that initiative, the committee focused its attention on procedures and criteria.
2. To be effective, any process of review must begin within departments and programs themselves. On a regular five- or six-year cycle, every academic department and major academic program will be asked by the Dean of the Faculty to undertake a serious self-assessment. In the course of that process each will be expected to identify the key issues facing it, to evaluate its current strengths and weaknesses, both in teaching and research, and to draft a plan for its development over the next decade or more. Each department and program will identify and focus on a different set of core concerns; nevertheless, some benchmark concerns should underlie every self-study.
3. With regard to scholarship and research, the self-study should address, among other issues: the fields covered by the department or program and the depth and quality of its scholarship; anticipated developments in the discipline and closely related areas of inquiry and scholarship; appointment strategies; and comparison of the department or program with those of other institutions. The external standing of the department or program should be examined as it is revealed by such indicators as the success of its faculty in competition for research grants, prizes, and fellowships; its success in attracting graduate students and its record in placing them at the finest colleges and universities; and its role as an innovator and an influence in its disciplines.
4. With regard to teaching, the self-study should address the coverage of both undergraduate and graduate teaching; the quality of instruction within the department or program; changes in instruction over the last several years, including changes in format (lectures, preceptorials, seminars, etc.) and changes in the faculty (tenured faculty, untenured faculty, visitors, and lecturers) teaching in those formats; the balance among specialized courses, service courses, and general liberal arts courses; effectiveness in attracting and retaining both graduate students and undergraduate concentrators; effectiveness in training both concentrators for advanced study in the field and those who intend to go into less specialized but related careers.
5. The committee spent considerable time on the question of differential teaching and advising loads among the various departments. The teaching setting differs among disciplines: in some the primary focus is the laboratory, in others the lecture hall, or preceptorial, or seminar room; in still others an important component is the one-on-one relationship between student and advisor. The mix will inevitably vary, and no uniform formula can be prescribed. The committee felt, nonetheless, that departments with particularly large and particularly small ratios of faculty to undergraduate concentrators, to graduate students, and to course enrollments, were a matter of special concern. At both the highest and lowest extremes, it is necessary to reexamine carefully the balance between teaching and research. Particularly for departments at the extremes of these measurements, the issue of teaching load, in the broad sense, will form an essential part of the department's self-evaluation.
6. The committee examined a number of quantitative measures useful in evaluating teaching efforts: undergraduate course ratings, surveys of graduating seniors, faculty/student ratios, and teaching load studies. The Office of the Dean of the Faculty will provide these data at the beginning of the review process. These data are not transparent; they require interpretation. Nonetheless, it seems clear that no serious self-study can proceed without reference to these statistical and comparative base lines.
7. The second stage of the review process is external. In conjunction with the internal review, an outside review committee will be appointed by the Dean of the Faculty. External review committees will consist of a select number of leading figures in the field, chosen by the Dean of the Faculty in close collaboration with the department or program under review. In advance of the visit of the review committees, they will be provided with both the department's self-study and a charge from the administration summarizing critical issues for the review. The final agenda for the review committee will be set by the Dean of the Faculty, the chair of the department, and the chair of the review committee. The committee will visit the campus, consult closely with faculty and students, deliberate among themselves, and file their written reports with the President and with the reviewed department.

The Strategic Planning Committee on Faculty Issues underscored the unique nature of the academic review process and emphasized that this process is completely distinct from the business handled by department advisory councils.

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: Office of the Dean of the Faculty, 9 Nassau Hall

DATE: January 15, 2000

TO: Department Chair/Program Director and Department Manager

FROM: Sandra Gillette

SUBJECT: Summary Guidelines for __________ Academic Review

Following are summary guidelines to assist you in planning your Academic Review Meeting.

• The Chair/Director will recommend to the Dean of the Faculty at least six eminent scholars who would be suitable members of the Committee, and will discuss with the Dean suggestions for the charge to the Committee and the meeting agenda.
• The Dean will decide upon the membership of the Committee and recruit potential Committee members. When the Committee membership is settled, the department manager will contact me and members of the Committee to coordinate the dates of the review. A letter will be sent from the Dean of the Faculty to committee members confirming the dates of the meeting, committee constitution, and the charge to the committee.
• At least six weeks before the scheduled review, the Chair/Director should complete a self-study of the Department, sending copies of the study to the Dean of the Faculty, the Provost, Dean of the College, Dean of the Graduate School, Associate Dean of the Faculty, and all members of the Academic Review Committee.
• A draft copy of the schedule for the Committee's meeting should be sent to the Dean of the Faculty no later than two weeks prior to the review.
• The Dean (and the Provost, Dean of the College, Dean of the Graduate School, and Associate Dean of the Faculty, as available) will meet with the Committee early on the first day of the review to discuss the charge. At the end of the second day, the Dean of the Faculty (along with other available senior administrators, or their designates) will meet with the Committee to receive a preliminary report on its findings and recommendations. These two meetings will be held in Nassau Hall.
• After the opening charge, the Committee should meet separately (and without anyone else present) with the following groups and any other groups or individuals whom you think it important for the Committee to meet:
• Chair/Director of the Department/Program
• Senior Faculty
• Junior Faculty
• Graduate Students
• Undergraduate Students
• The Committee should have at least one hour to meet alone to discuss their findings before their final meeting with the Dean of the Faculty and senior administrators.
• The Dean will send letters of appreciation for service and honoraria to each Committee member upon receipt of the report of the Committee. Completed W-9 Forms are required for every individual receiving an honorarium. Committee members should fill in a form and return it to the department manager before the end of the session. The completed forms should be forwarded to me. (A sample W-9 is attached.)
• Department expenses associated with the Academic Review are to be paid by the department and submitted for reimbursement via a single interdepartmental invoice to the Office of the Dean of the Faculty. These charges should be processed promptly. (Detailed guidelines on reimbursement procedures are attached.)

More detail about academic reviews can be found in the Chair's Guidebook (a copy of which is now on our webpage) and in the Academic Review Guidelines also available on the web. Please call or email me (3020 or gillette@princeton.edu) if you need additional information or if I can be of assistance.

Attachments
cc: Dean of the Faculty

The University is prepared to reimburse reasonable expenses incurred in connection with the Academic Review Committee members' work. Committee members will be reimbursed for reasonable expenses for food and accommodations while they are in Princeton, and for their travel expenses. Please ask the Committee members to submit all travel-related expenses directly to the department.

Departments are responsible for scheduling travel arrangements, hotel accommodations, and luncheons or dinners in connection with the Academic Review Committee meeting. Please use Prospect House or the Department of Dining Services for meeting luncheons or dinners.

The department should charge all related costs for the Academic Review Committee meetings initially to departmental accounts and subsequently submit an interdepartmental invoice to the Office of the Dean of the Faculty for reimbursement. To facilitate the processing of departmental reimbursements, please submit all expenses through a single interdepartmental invoice. The invoice should be sent to the Office of the Dean of the Faculty, 301 Nassau Hall.

Departments will be reimbursed for the following items:

Travel Expenses
The department will be reimbursed for reasonable travel expenses for Committee members. Reimbursement of airfare expense is limited to economy class fare in accordance with University policy governing travel expenses. (Please attach copies of the paid travel vouchers to the interdepartmental invoice for reimbursement.)

Overnight Accommodations/Meals
The department will be reimbursed for any overnight accommodations, for up to two nights' stay, made for a Committee member. Departments are encouraged to use the Nassau Inn, to the extent possible, when arranging accommodations. (Please attach copies of the paid invoice and hotel bill to the interdepartmental invoice for reimbursement.)

Luncheon or Dinner Meetings
The department will be reimbursed for luncheon or dinner expenses incurred in connection with the Committee meeting. Departments are encouraged to use Prospect House or the Department of Dining Services for meal planning.

Return to Table of Contents

Last revised: November 2006