Earlier this year, the UNC System revised its Academic Program Review (APR) policy, requiring that all 16 constituent institutions complete portfolio reviews at least every seven years. Unlike UNC Greensboro’s and UNC Asheville’s reviews, concluded earlier this spring in response to budget constraints, the new policy is focused on helping ensure that each institution is providing the best degrees possible for the state’s and students’ needs.
Under the new policy, UNC schools are tasked with more regularly considering the state’s higher-ed needs.The purpose of the new policy is to align the UNC System with the “needs of the people of North Carolina in their academic degree program development, approval, and discontinuation actions.” It aims, too, to gauge “the relation of [each] program to the distinctiveness of the campus and the mission of the campus.” The policy characterizes this work as “ensuring graduates are equipped with the knowledge, values, and skills necessary to lead responsible, productive, and personally satisfying lives.” Under the new policy, the UNC System and constituent institutions are tasked with more regularly considering those needs, as well as doing so during the development and approval processes for new programs. The revision seems to be a well-placed effort to bolster the state’s public universities, thus ensuring competitive standing in relation to peer institutions while also providing the best-quality education for students.
Prior to this change, there was no system-wide policy regarding APRs. Instead, practices varied by institution. However, academic reviews are not uncommon in higher ed. A report by Hanover Research (HR) has found that many colleges conduct such reviews at five-to-seven-year intervals. David English, chief academic officer for the UNC System, shared that “the revised policy is not designed to be a reaction to ‘critical’ and ‘emergency’ situations.” Unlike the aforementioned reviews at UNCG and UNCA, ongoing reviews are intended to help constituent institutions avoid dire situations and be more forward-thinking.
While APRs may go by different names (academic program planning, academic portfolio review, academic prioritization program, performance control assessment, or strategic directions task force review), in essence they are all the same. As HR concluded in its study, such reviews are an act of self-examination designed to ensure effectiveness in areas of resource management, efficiency, and long-term planning. They are an opportunity for strategic thinking.
Often, such reviews occur in one of two forms: either as an internal self-evaluation conducted by the institution or as an external evaluation performed by a committee of academic peers and experts. Another option, combining the two, is to conduct both an internal and an external evaluation and compare the findings, sometimes known as a comprehensive evaluation.
The UNC System’s policy requirement is best described as a comprehensive exam.The UNC System’s policy requirement is best described as a comprehensive exam. Each institution is tasked with “identifying academic program needs … formulating proposals to meet those needs, and … evaluating the alignment of their own academic program inventory with the needs of the state.” The UNC System Office acts as the “principal advisor to the Board of Governors,” evaluating the reports and proposals received from the constituent institutions. It also assists by keeping a pulse on academic needs throughout the state, as compared to academic offerings system-wide. From there, the Board of Governors conducts an evaluation of the materials presented and makes a final decision on the presented APR proposals, ultimately determining the “functions, educational activities, and academic programs of the constituent institutions, including the degrees to be awarded.” The common thread throughout the entire process is “the alignment between the University System’s academic program portfolio and [the state’s] emerging workforce and societal needs.”
APRs are not unique to public universities and can take place at private institutions, as well, although it does seem that public universities are more likely to garner news coverage when undertaking such processes. Duke University’s graduate school, for example, has an external review policy and periodically “evaluate[s] the research and teaching—undergraduate, graduate, and professional—of all academic programs within the University.” Across the country, Stanford appears to conduct reviews by department, per the wording of this review policy.
It is common for APRs to inspire pushback and displeasure from faculty, staff, and students, as we saw with both UNCG and UNCA. (The Martin Center’s own coverage can be read here, here, and here.) This reaction is not surprising or necessarily unfounded. What faculty member or student wants his or her program to be cut or favorite professor to be without a job? However, since universities have a quality standard to maintain, and since they are ultimately businesses that must meet certain financial benchmarks to survive, it is wise and necessary to take a look at whether all program offerings are meeting the mark for academic quality and budgetary success.
A few well-known schools have recently made the news for their portfolio reviews and resulting cuts: the University of Southern Mississippi (USM), the University of Connecticut (UConn), and West Virginia University (WVU). In the Magnolia State, USM’s faculty has voted “no confidence” in the program review, a move that echoes UNCG’s experience. More than half of UConn’s programs are potentially on the chopping block during its ongoing program review, significantly more than the approximately eight percent of programs cut by WVU in 2023.
It is wise and necessary to take a look at whether all program offerings are meeting the mark for academic quality and budgetary success.WVU’s review received national attention and much pushback due to the seemingly extreme nature of the cuts. Facing a $45-million deficit, due in part to declining enrollment, WVU conducted a program review with the intention of reducing costs. The resulting cuts saw the loss of 28 academic programs and 143 faculty members. It would seem that, by implementing this policy now, the UNC System is hoping to avoid dire situations like WVU’s and UConn’s financially motivated reviews.
Portfolio reviews shouldn’t be considered inherently bad. Regularly assessing the offerings and productivity of a university could help avoid more extreme situations down the line, as schools can’t offer more than they can afford. By ensuring that the best-quality programs are available and by properly managing funds, universities can bolster their most successful departments and provide a better overall experience.
Ashlynn Warta is the state reporter for the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal.
This article was originally published at www.jamesgmartin.center
