The joint Graduate Council oversees the joint academic and research resources of University of Maryland Baltimore and the University of Maryland Baltimore County.
Overview and Purpose ▾
The Council of Graduate Schools notes that graduate program review has five general purposes: quality assurance, quality improvement...
accountability, identification of strategies for improvement, and provide the institution with information for prioritization of resources. Reviews share certain key characteristics:
- Program review is evaluative, not just descriptive. It requires academic judgments about the quality of the program and the adequacy of its resources. It goes beyond assessment of minimum standards to subjective evaluations of quality by peers and recognized experts in the discipline or field.
- Review of graduate programs is forward-looking; it is directed toward improvement of the program, not simply assessment of its current status. It makes specific recommendations for future changes, as part of the long-range plans of the institution, the department, and other coordinating units.
- Programs being reviewed are scrutinized on the bases of academic strengths and weaknesses, not on their ability to produce funds for the institution or generate development for the state. Finances and organizational issues are relevant, but only as they affect the quality of the academic program.
- Program review is an objective process. It asks graduate programs to engage in self-studies that assess, as objectively as possible, their own programs. It brings in faculty from other institutions to review the self-studies and to make their own evaluations.
- Graduate program review is an independent process, distinct from any other review. Data collection and parts of the self-study may often serve a number of review purposes. However, to be effective, graduate program review must be a unique, identifiable process that stands on its own, draws its own set of conclusions, and directs its recommendations to the only individuals with the power to improve graduate programs: the faculty and administrators of the institution.
- Program review results in action. Based on the reviewers’ comments and recommendations, as well as the program faculty’s response to the review report, the institution develops and agrees on a plan to implement the desired changes according to a specific timetable.
Incorporating these characteristics, successful graduate program review answers the following questions:
- Is the program advancing the state of the discipline?
- Is its teaching and training of students effective?
- Does the program meet the institution’s goals?
- How is it assessed by experts in the field?
At UMB Graduate Program Review includes an internal self-study and an on-site review by an external site team.
John Basile, School of Dentistry
Charlotte Bright, School of Social Work
Susan dosReis, School of Pharmacy
Pei Feng, School of Dentistry
Erin Golembewski, Sr. Associate Dean of Graduate School
Bruce Jarrell, Dean of Graduate School
Meg Johantgen, School of Nursing
Katia Kontrogianni, School of Medicine
Megan Lynch, Graduate Student Association
Francis Palumbo, School of Pharmacy
Brian Cullum, Chemistry & Biochemistry
Jeffrey Halverson, Associate Dean of Graduate School
Kathleen Hoffman, Mathematics & Statistics
Anita Komlodi, Information Systems
Nancy Miller, Public Policy
Chintan Patel, Computer Science & Electrical Engineering
Steve Pitts, Psychology
Roy Prouty, Graduate Student Association
Janet Rutledge, Dean of Graduate School
Craig Saper, Language, Literacy & Culture
Denise Atkinson, UMBC
Jill Barr, UMBC
Terry Brimer, UMB
Keith Brooks, UMB
Shirl Curtis, UMBC
Lisa Morgan, UMBC
Brian Thompson, UMBC