Office of the Provost

Dear Colleagues,

I recently provided an update on our academic program review process to the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board of Trustees and am writing to share the same update with you today. As you know, this cyclical process was resumed last year and this fall it will enter into its next stage.

First, revisiting the background: this effort is also colloquially known as the low-completion or low-enrollment process. One of the roles of the provost’s office is to help academic departments start and develop new programs, but also to review existing programs to help ensure they continue to remain relevant, draw student interest, and build strength so they can have as great an impact as possible.

We set standards to identify low enrollment programs, which are modest:  programs need to have awarded 100 or more undergrad degrees over a five-year period (in this case, 2018 – 2023), 50 or more masters degrees, 25 or more graduate certificates, and 10 or more doctorates over that same period.

This is the bar most of our academic programs need to meet and when they don’t, we need to engage with the program, the faculty, and the dean to ask some key questions: is the program appropriately small? Could it accommodate more students? Are there barriers to students entering or succeeding, such as confusing overlap with other programs or outdated curriculum? Is the program partnering effectively with Admissions? Does it need to create new pipeline programs?

Essentially: why is this program low-enrollment/low-completion and what can we do about it? This is basic “academic housekeeping” which was routine for many years at UConn but was dormant for a period of time amid transitions in the provost’s office before resuming last year.

During the first stage of this process, the decision was made to close seven graduate and three undergraduate programs. Several of these were graduate certificates that were not drawing students and had not been for some time. Others were already “in the freezer,” meaning inactive but not yet officially discontinued.

As a reminder, any decision on program closure is made by the faculty, the department head, and the dean. The primary role of the provost’s office in this process is to ask the question; the decisions are ultimately made collaboratively and a recommendation is then brought to the board of trustees if it’s determined that a change needs to be made.

The process has already had a positive impact: for example, one department streamlined its majors and curricula to make them much clearer and also simplified the pathways for students to enter its programs and be successful in them. Other programs have made similar changes aimed at reinvigorating the program, enrolling more students, and better supporting student success, which is the central goal of this work.

It should be noted that some programs are small by design for any number of reasons and have continued unchanged in light of that.

This fall, each academic program that was identified as low-enrollment/low-completion last year will be asked for an update regarding the steps that have been taken, or plans that have been made, to enhance their enrollment and completion rates going forward. This will be reviewed and evaluated by academic leadership with an eye on what is most likely to be effective.

Finally, it’s also important to point out that the benchmarks identified above are not the only measure used when evaluating the success or value of an academic program. For example, we are home to a number of programs that may not have a high number of majors in them, but very high numbers of students take courses in these programs to fulfill their general education requirements, which is invaluable to our students and to the institution. So the process is more holistic than a simple “all or nothing” approach.

Like PTR, this is a cyclical process we will repeat on an annual basis with the goal of using continuous evaluation to help support continued growth and success.

I’m grateful for the thoughtful participation of the deans and faculty in this process and the leadership of the provost’s office team in designing and implementing it and supporting the deans and faculty in their deliberations.

Sincerely,
Anne D’Alleva, Ph.D.
Provost & Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs