Assessment Details
Academic Year: 2020-2021 Level: Graduate
Campus Department: Morrissey College of Arts & Sciences [UG and Grad]
Program Type: Major [UG] / Program [Grad]
Program Name: Sociology PhD (Link)
Description of Data Collection:
Direct assessment: MA theses/papers; PhD dissertations; PhD area exams; publications
Indirect assessment: Surveys of MA and PhD students; surveys of faculty; data on alumni current positions
The Graduate Studies Committee selects the means of assessment each semester depending on the formal learning outcome under consideration.
Review Process:
On a continuing basis, the Graduate Studies Committee (comprised of 3-4 faculty members and 1-2 PhD students) collects direct and/or indirect assessment data in response to concerns raised by the Sociology Graduate Student Association (SGSA) and/or the Sociology faculty. The Graduate Studies Committee interprets the aggregate data so as to assess overall departmental success regarding the formal learning outcomes, and makes recommendations. The committee’s recommendations are discussed at faculty meetings and meetings of the SGSA and amended as necessary. Changes are agreed upon during faculty meetings either informally (i.e., recorded in the minutes) or formally (i.e., voted upon and recorded in the Guide to Graduate Study: http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/cas_sites/sociology/pdf/bluebook.pdf)
Resulting Program Changes:
AY2019-20
This year’s assessment indicated that although most of our PhD students are making timely progress toward completing their degrees, a small number struggle to meet benchmarks within a reasonable timeframe. This is related to goal 1a, since PhD students who run out of funding before completing their degrees are unable to get placed in academic positions. The evidence supporting this conclusion comes from multiple years of data from our annual review of PhD students. Therefore, the graduate studies committee developed a proposal for a good standing policy, got feedback from the PhD students, and then passed the new policy through a faculty vote. It is now part of our official graduate policy document.
This year’s assessment also indicated that some of our graduate students are interested in acquiring credential to certify their skills in advanced quantitative methods (also related to goal 1a). Evidence of this comes from feedback from our graduate student representatives on the grad studies committee. We are, therefore, working on a proposal for a certificate reflecting these skills to present to the Graduate Educational Policy committee.
Last year’s assessment indicated some unevenness in our mentoring of new graduate teaching fellows, who teach their own courses (Goal 1e). We assessed the effectiveness of the pilot program by conducting an open-ended survey of teaching fellows at the end of the spring semester, as well as by meeting with the Director of Undergraduate Studies. In response to these findings, we instituted a formal policy change centralizing the mentoring of graduate teaching fellows.
Date of Most Recent Program Review:
AY2019-20
This year’s assessment indicated that although most of our PhD students are making timely progress toward completing their degrees, a small number struggle to meet benchmarks within a reasonable timeframe. This is related to goal 1a, since PhD students who run out of funding before completing their degrees are unable to get placed in academic positions. The evidence supporting this conclusion comes from multiple years of data from our annual review of PhD students. Therefore, the graduate studies committee developed a proposal for a good standing policy, got feedback from the PhD students, and then passed the new policy through a faculty vote. It is now part of our official graduate policy document.
This year’s assessment also indicated that some of our graduate students are interested in acquiring credential to certify their skills in advanced quantitative methods (also related to goal 1a). Evidence of this comes from feedback from our graduate student representatives on the grad studies committee. We are, therefore, working on a proposal for a certificate reflecting these skills to present to the Graduate Educational Policy committee.
Last year’s assessment indicated some unevenness in our mentoring of new graduate teaching fellows, who teach their own courses (Goal 1e). We assessed the effectiveness of the pilot program by conducting an open-ended survey of teaching fellows at the end of the spring semester, as well as by meeting with the Director of Undergraduate Studies. In response to these findings, we instituted a formal policy change centralizing the mentoring of graduate teaching fellows.
Attachments (if available)