The audit and review of undergraduate programs at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee was established by action of the Faculty Senate on April 17, 1975 (Fac. Doc. No. 907A; amended by Senate Executive Committee May 30, 1975). The authority for audit and review was vested in the Academic Program and Curriculum Committee (APCC), which is to perform its duties relevant to audit and review in cooperation with the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
Section I: Guidelines
Schedule for Review
Undergraduate programs shall be reviewed in accordance with the Program Review and Accreditation Schedule that can be found on the Academic Program and Curriculum Committee’s webpage.
The Review Process
Undergraduate program review consists of the following steps:
- Informational meeting: In the Fall semester (Semester I) in the year prior to the review, the Office of Academic Affairs will host an informational meeting for department chairs of programs scheduled for review and appropriate Associate Deans. The purpose of the meeting is to review the guidelines and procedures to be followed. The Director of the Office of Assessment and Institutional
Research and the APCC chair/vice chair will also be invited to the meeting. - Data: The Office of Assessment and Institutional Research has created a data analytics dashboard where programs can find most of the information needed to create their self-study. Appendix A lists the data that should be included in the self-study.
- Preparation of self-study report: The department will prepare a self-study report, on which the review will be based, which will be due in the Office of Academic Affairs at the end of the Spring semester (Semester II). The self-study report will assess the program’s past (since the last review) and present efforts and accomplishments. The self-study report will also include the program’s plan for the future. In its self-assessment, the program will candidly discuss its effectiveness in achieving the program/department mission and objectives, contributing to school/college/UWM strategic priorities, showcase its accomplishments, and discuss present and future challenges. A summary of assessment of student outcomes in general education courses, if offered by the program, should be included as well as a summary of the most recent external accreditation report, if applicable. Resources available to the program will be discussed in the context of the full range of obligations of the department such as graduate education, research/scholarship, and service. The self-study report will ordinarily be 15-25 pages in length not including appendices. The self-study report should be submitted to the Dean’s Office sufficiently ahead of the end of the Spring semester to allow for a review by the Dean’s Office. The self-study report will be submitted to Academic Affairs with a cover letter from the Dean’s Office. Appendix B contains the suggested self-study framework and a list of questions to guide the development of the document.
- Formation of APCC review committee: APCC shall appoint a three-member review committee according to its procedures early in the Fall semester (Semester III) of the review year. The Chair of the review committee shall be a current member of APCC. The other members of the committee may be drawn from the APCC, its Subcommittee on Undergraduate Program Reviews, or from
UWM at large. - Review: The review committee members will review the self-study and other information such as program website, catalog, and additional information provided by the program, and conduct a site visit (see Appendix B for guidance). The site visit will consist of meetings with the constituencies of the program such as program faculty, staff, students, alumni, program’s advisory council, and the Dean. The chair of the review committee will call the meetings of the review committee. The chair will also develop the site visit schedule in collaboration with the department chair.
- Review report: After the site visit, the review committee will prepare its report. The report should be submitted to APCC, the department chair, and the Dean within one month of the site visit.
- Department/School/College Response: Within one month of receiving the review committee report, the department/school/college may submit a written response to APCC.
- APCC consideration of the review report and response: At its first scheduled meeting after the deadline for written response, APCC will consider the review report and response. It is expected that the process will be completed prior to the end of the Spring semester of the review year (Semester IV).
In hearings before the APCC, the program under review and the appropriate dean or director shall have an opportunity to respond, orally and/or in writing, to the report and recommendations of the review committee and to propose amendments and modifications. Drawing upon the work of the audit and review subcommittee and the responses from the program and the dean or directors, the APCC shall prepare or certify a final report with appropriate recommendations to be forwarded to the Provost and Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs, with a copy to the dean or director, department chair, and, if faculty action is required, to the UWM Faculty Senate. In the final report, APCC will recommend one of three outcomes with rationale:- Program is in good standing and is recommended for continuation.
- Program is recommended for a follow-up review in three years. If a follow-up review is recommended, APCC will identify the area(s) of focus for the follow-up review.
- Program is recommended to consider suspending enrollment.
- Action Plan resulting from the review: In the summer following the completion of the review, the Provost’s Office will schedule a meeting with the dean(s) to discuss the action plan with respect to the recommendations from the review.
Follow-up Reviews
Two years after closure of the full-scale review, the APCC Vice-Chair will contact the Department Chair or equivalent (Program Chair for interdisciplinary programs not housed in a single department) to obtain a progress report on implementation of the recommendations related to the focus area(s). Satisfactory progress in the implementation of those recommendations is reported to the Committee. If the
APCC finds that the progress toward implementation is not satisfactory, it shall consider appropriate recommendations and call for subsequent follow-up reports.
The APCC will also request a mid-cycle status report five years after the full-scale review. Programs that are professionally accredited could opt to synchronize the submission of the report with the re-accreditation report.
Follow-up reviews will be done as reviews of documents submitted by the program. There will be no site-visit as part of a follow-up review.
Revised by APCC
- September 2002
- December 2012
- December 2013
- February 2021
- May 2024