Senate Agenda, January 18, 2002 - EXHIBIT II, Appendix 1

Report on the OCGS Appraisal of Graduate Programs at The University of Western Ontario During the Third Cycle (1996/97 - 2002/03)

Prepared by the Faculty of Graduate Studies
Updated January 2, 2002

Starting in 1967, the publically funded Universities in Ontario agreed, voluntarily, to submit all proposed new graduate programs to a process of appraisal ("Standard Appraisal") financed and administered at arm's length by the Ontario Council on Graduate Studies (OCGS). The Universities agreed to put aside their autonomy, and to offer new graduate programs only where they had been found by OCGS to meet a minimum quality standard. In 1982, this appraisal process was extended to existing graduate programs, meaning the Universities agreed that currently offered graduate programs would be periodically appraised ("Periodic Appraisal") on a seven year cycle, and that the programs would be withdrawn, or measures taken to improve them, if they were found to be below the minimum quality standard.

Periodic and Standard Appraisals are undertaken by an Appraisals Committee consisting of 28 senior faculty with established scholarly reputations and experience in graduate affairs, who are drawn from the 17 publically funded Ontario Universities upon nomination by the Graduate Deans. The Committee is divided into 4 panels of seven members each, and each panel meets once a month in Toronto during the months of September through June. Each panel includes a member from each of the six broad disciplinary groups: Humanities, Social Sciences, Applied Sciences, Physical Sciences, Life Sciences, and Professional Disciplines. The panels evaluate the academic quality of proposed or existing graduate programs and for each program makes a recommendation to OCGS concerning the program's implementation, continuation or modification. The evaluation and recommendation is based upon consideration of a written brief supplied by the program through the Dean of Graduate Studies of the University, the reports of External Consultants sent to the University to review the program, and a written response to the External Consultants' reports provided by the Dean of Graduate Studies on behalf of the University. The External Consultants are established authorities in the discipline of the program under review, possess experience in graduate affairs, normally come from Universities outside of Ontario, and are chosen by the Appraisals Committee from a list provided by the program under review. Prior to 2000-2001, the Appraisals Committee sent External Consultants to approximately 30% of the programs submitted for review, and only did so if the Committee felt the need for advice from experts in the discipline of the program; as a result of a change in policy at OCGS, the Appraisals Committee now appoints External Consultants for all programs under review. In a further reversal of policy, OCGS now asks that where possible External Consultants visit together and write joint reports, rather than visiting and reporting independently as previously.

Recommendations from the Appraisals Committee are placed before OCGS for approval. Meetings of OCGS are held monthly from September through June, and are attended by the 17 Graduate Deans in Ontario. When OCGS votes to accept or reject a recommendation, it does so based upon whether or not the procedures of appraisal have been properly followed, and does not debate the substance of the recommendation; in this way conflict of interest is avoided and the appraisals process is maintained at arm's length from the graduate deans and the Universities. The work of the Appraisals Committee is facilitated by a full-time Executive Director and secretariat housed in the offices of the Council of Ontario Universities in Toronto; policies and guidelines are established by OCGS to define for the Appraisals Committee the criteria it should use to determine if programs meet the minimum quality standard.

The outcome of a Standard Appraisal of a proposed new graduate program is one of the following:

Approval by OCGS of the commencement of a new program is required by the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities before the Ministry will allow students registered in the program to be included in the University's BIU count.

The outcome of a Periodic Appraisal of an existing program is that the program is placed in one of the following categories:

A program judged of "Good Quality" is considered to have the following characteristics:

the faculty complement is appropriate for the level and scope of the program

core faculty are actively engaged in research in the disciplinary areas of the program

physical resources are adequate

enrollments are appropriate for the resources available

curriculum design is appropriate

students complete the program and in a timely manner

students' experience in the program is appropriate for the degree sought

The category of "Good Quality with Report" means that the program is of Good Quality at the time of the review, but that monitoring is required because significant changes are expected in the next seven years. Anticipated retirements are a frequent reason for requiring a report. Reports are usually due two or three years after the date of approval by OCGS of the Appraisal Committee's recommendation and must address issues identified by the Appraisals Committee.

The category of "Conditionally Approved" means that the program is not currently meeting the Good Quality standard, and that specified improvements must be made. Normally a Report is required after two or three years to demonstrate that the improvements have been made and Good Quality achieved.

The category of "Not Approved" means that a program fails to meet the Good Quality standard and that major improvements are required. In such cases admission of students to the program must be suspended, and a Standard Appraisal must occur before the program can be resumed; submission of a Standard Appraisal brief cannot occur before two years following the OCGS decision to accept a recommendation from the Appraisals Committee that a program not be approved.

OCGS is now in the third seven-year cycle of Periodic Appraisal of existing graduate programs, and this third cycle commenced in 1996-97.

In the 1996-1997 cycle the following programs were submitted for Periodic Appraisal:

The outcomes of these Periodic Appraisals was as follows:

Anatomy & Cell Biology

The program was approved to continue in September 1996 and categorized as Good Quality based upon the Appraisals Committee's review of the program's brief. In making its recommendation the Committee noted that masters times-to-completion appear to be long and indicated that at the time of the next Periodic Appraisal it will be looking for success in achieving timely completion rates.

Biochemistry

The program was approved to continue in November 1996 and categorized as Good Quality based upon the Appraisals Committee's review of the program's brief. In making its recommendation, the Committee noted that it expects the faculty complement to be maintained.

Classical Studies

The program was approved to continue in October 1996 and categorized as Good Quality based upon the Appraisals Committee's review of the program's brief. The Committee noted that success in maintaining quality in the following areas will be important for the success of the next Periodic Appraisal: productivity of the faculty; admissions standards; financial support of graduate students; the library budget.

Education (Counselling)

The program was approved to continue in March 1997 and categorized as Good Quality based upon the Appraisals Committee's review of the program's brief. The Committee noted that the Centres of Specialization and Research Groups, in particular the Counselling Psychology Research Group, have enriched the scholarly life of the program and serve to develop the research and scholarly activities of the graduate students.

Educational Studies

The program was approved to continue in March 1997 and categorized as Good Quality based upon the Appraisals Committee's review of the program's brief. The Committee noted that the Centres of Specialization and Research Groups have enriched the scholarly life of the program and serve to develop the research and scholarly activities of the graduate students.

Medical Biophysics

The program was approved to continue in March 1997 and categorized as Good Quality based upon the Appraisals Committee's review of the program's brief. The Committee's recommendation was contingent on the closure of the field of Membrane and Cellular Biophysics; the Committee also noted that continuation of the field of Hemodynamics and Cardiovascular Biomechanics would require replacement of anticipated retirements.

Microbiology & Immunology

The program was approved to continue in November 1997 and categorized as Good Quality based upon the Appraisal Committee's review of the program's brief, the reports of external consultants (Dr. B. Elliot, Queen's University; Dr. J. Menezes, Hospital Ste Justine, Montreal; Dr. S. Rosenberg, University of Alberta) sent to review the program and the University's response to the reports of the external consultants. The University was required to monitor times-to-completion in the program closely, and the Appraisals Committee will review progress in this area at the time of the next Periodic Appraisal.

Pathology

The program was approved to continue in November 1996 and categorized as Good Quality based upon the Appraisals Committee's review of the program's brief. The recommendation of the Appraisal Committee was contingent on the closure of the field in Oral Pathology.

Pharmacology & Toxicology

The program was approved to continue in June 1997 and categorized as Good Quality based upon the Appraisals Committee's review of the program's brief.

Physiology

The program was approved to continue in November 1996 and categorized as Good Quality based upon the Appraisals Committee's review of the program's brief. The Appraisals Committee indicated that at the time of the next Periodic Appraisal it will be looking for evidence of continued success in maintaining recent improvements in times-to-completion, as well as the implementation of measures to ensure breadth in the students' program of study.

In the 1997-1998 cycle the following programs were submitted for Periodic Appraisal:

In addition, the PhD program in Rehabilitation Sciences was submitted for Standard Appraisal and was approved to commence in June 1998

The outcomes of the Periodic Appraisals were as follows:

Business

The program was approved to continue in October 1997 and categorized as Good Quality based upon the Appraisals Committee's review of the program's brief. The Appraisals Committee indicated that it was impressed by the quality of the program's brief, and the space and resources available to students.

Comparative Literature

The program had been approved to commence in June 1994 and was approved to continue with the categorization of Good Quality in May 1998 based upon the Appraisals Committee's review of an abbreviated brief. The Appraisals Committee indicated that at the time of the next Periodic Appraisal it will be assessing the cohesion of the program and the effectiveness of its leadership, and will be looking for evidence that the program has achieved maturity sufficient to distinguish itself from other literature programs in the University.

French

The program was approved to continue in November 1997 and categorized as Good Quality based upon the Appraisal Committee's review of the program's brief. The Appraisals Committee indicated that at the time of the next Periodic Appraisal it will be looking for evidence of successful attention to the issues of times-to-completion and attrition in the program.

Geology

The program was approved to continue in March 1999 and categorized as Good Quality based upon the Appraisal Committee's review of the program's brief, the reports of two external consultants (Dr. R.M. Clowes, University of British Columbia; Dr. D.S. Chapman, University of Utah; McGill University) sent to review the program in April and June 1998, and the University's response to the reports of the external consultants. The Appraisals Committee noted the number of approaching faculty retirements and expressed the hope that the hiring of replacements would respect the need to ensure suitable expertise in the fields of the graduate program; an assessment of whether the faculty resources are sufficient for the scope of the program will be a focus of the next appraisal. The Committee also noted that efforts are being made to improve times-to-completion in the program, and will be looking for evidence of improvement at the time of the next appraisal.

Geophysics

The program was approved to continue in May 1999 and categorized as Good Quality with Report based upon the Appraisal Committee's review of the program's brief, the reports of two external consultants (Dr. R.M. Clowes, University of British Columbia; Dr. D.S. Chapman, University of Utah; McGill University) sent to review the program in April and June 1998, and the University's response to the reports of the external consultants. The Report is due April, 2002, and must address whether the Department's hiring plan to renew faculty in the face of retirements has been implemented; in the absence of such implementation it is expected that the Geophysics program will be closed and integrated as a field into the Geology program. The Report must also provide details of the implementation of a qualifying examination into the program.

Kinesiology

The program was approved to continue in October 1999 and categorized as Good Quality with Report based upon the Appraisal Committee's review of the program's brief, the reports of three external consultants (Dr. C. Alain, University of Montreal; Dr. R. Moore, University of Colorado; Dr. J. Duda, Purdue University) sent to review the program in September and October 1998, and January 1999, and the University's response to the reports of the external consultants. The Report is due May 2001, and must provide evidence that the program has introduced a sufficient number of graduate courses to meet the needs of the students, and must provide details of the faculty hired in each of the Bioscience and Socio-cultural fields of the program.

Molecular Biology

This collaborative program was approved to continue in April 1998 and categorized as Good Quality based upon the Appraisals Committee's review of the program's brief.

Spanish

The program was given Conditional Approval to continue in January 1999 with a Report due in December 2000. This was based upon the Appraisal Committee' review of the program's brief, the reports of two external consultants (Dr. R.A. Young, University of Alberta; Dr. J. Perez-Magallon, McGill University) sent to review the program in April 1998, and the University's response to the reports of the external consultants. Conditional approval to continue was given contingent on the University hiring two additional faculty approved by the Faculty of Graduate Studies to participate in the program, and freezing the enrolment until such hiring had occurred. The requirements of the Report were that it must provide the CVs of the faculty hired and details of how graduate courses have been developed to replace double-numbered courses offered concurrently to graduate and undergraduate students.

Theoretical Physics

This collaborative program was approved to continue in April 1998 and categorized as Good Quality based upon the Appraisals Committee's review of the program's brief.

In the 1998-1999 cycle the following programs were submitted for Periodic Appraisal:

A Report was also submitted on the graduate program in Plant Sciences (MSc, PhD).

In addition, two proposed new programs were submitted for Standard Appraisal. These were the PhD program in Education Studies, which was approved to commence in March 1999, and the Joint PhD program in Educational Studies (to be offered in collaboration with Brock University, Lakehead University and the University of Windsor), which was approved to commence in October 1999.

The outcomes of the Periodic Appraisals and the Report were as follows:

Astronomy

The program was approved to continue in June 1999 and categorized as Good Quality with Report based upon the Appraisal Committee's review of the program's brief. The Report is due May 2002, and must provide evidence that the University has adhered to the plan for faculty renewal described in the program's brief.

Communication Sciences & Disorders

The program was approved to continue in January 2000 and categorized as Good Quality with Report based upon the Appraisal Committee's review of the program's brief, the reports of external consultants (Dr. Y. Joanette, Institute de gériatrie de Montréal; Dr. A. Durieux-Smith, University of Ottawa) sent to review the program in May and June 1999, and the University's response to the reports of the external consultants. The Report is due November 2002, and must provide evidence that: the objectives and curriculum of the MSc and MClSc streams have been differentiated in accordance with the plans articulated in the University's response to the External Consultants; the plans to reduce the need for the preparatory year have been effective; faculty resources for the program have been protected in the face of new programs and increased enrolments in the Faculty of Health Sciences; effective leadership of the program has been achieved; the issue of financial support of students in the MSc stream has been resolved.

Engineering Science

The program was approved to continue in January 2001 and categorized as Good Quality based upon the Appraisal Committee's review of the program's brief, the reports of External Consultants (Dr. G.A. Dumont, University of British Columbia; Dr. J. Jones, Simon Fraser University; Dr. A.E. Elwi, University of Alberta) sent to review the program in April, May, and November 1999, and the University's response to the reports of the External Consultants.

Epidemiology & Biostatistics

The program was approved to continue in March 2001 and categorized as Good Quality with Report based upon the Appraisal Committee's review of the program's brief, the reports of External Consultants (Dr. P.N. Corey, University of Toronto; Dr. S. Shapiro, McGill University; Dr. R. West, Memorial University) sent to review the program in October 1999, and January and March 2000, and the University's response to the reports of the External Consultants. The Report is due in December 2002, and will describe how the program has added to the current strength of the Biostatistics field through increased interaction with Western's graduate program in Statistics.

Family Medicine

The program was approved to continue in September 1999 and categorized as Good Quality with Report based upon the Appraisal Committee's review of the program's brief. The Report is due June 2002, and must provide evidence that the program's conversion to a distance delivery format has been achieved successfully, that a plan to ensure infrastructure for the program has been developed and implemented, and that steps have been taken to reverse the decline in the number of female and visa students enrolled in the program.

Neuroscience

The program was approved to continue in April 1999 and categorized as Good Quality based upon the Appraisals Committee's review of the program's brief. The addition of two fields to the program (Pathology and Imaging) was also approved.

Nursing

The program was approved to continue in January 2000 and categorized as Good Quality based upon the Appraisal Committee's review of the program's brief submitted in July 1998, a revised brief submitted in October 1999, the reports of two external consultants (Dr. J. Storch, University of Victoria; Dr. L. Gottlieb, McGill University) sent to review the program in February and March 1999, and the University's response to the reports of the external consultants. The outcome of the Periodic Appraisal was a proposal by the School of Nursing, approved by the Internal Appraisals Committee of the Faculty of Graduate Studies, and by OCGS, to direct the focus of the program exclusively on the masters level preparation of Nurses for entry into Nursing Doctoral programs; prior to this decision, the program was also designed to provide professional upgrading to Nurses in practice. Accordingly, the emphasis on research has been increased, and the part-time stream of the program has decreased in size.

Orthodontics

The program was approved to continue in December 2000 and categorized as Good Quality based upon the Appraisal Committee's review of the program's brief, the reports of external consultants (Dr. E. Rossouw, University of Toronto; Dr. W. Wiltshire, University of Manitoba) sent to review the program in October and November 1999, and the University's response to the reports of the external consultants. This recommendation will go to OCGS for approval in October 2000. The Appraisals Committee is recommending that enrolment in the program not be increased above present levels unless additional faculty and physical resources are available.

Physics

The program was approved to continue in January 2000 and categorized as Good Quality based upon the Appraisal Committee's review of the program's brief, the reports of the external consultants (Dr. A. Delgarno, Harvard University; Dr. W. Plummer, University of Tennessee; Dr. G. Rostoker, University of Alberta) sent to review the program in May, June and July 1999, and the University's response to the reports of the external consultants. A condition of approval was that the program cease to advertise the field of Atomic and Molecular Physics.

Plant Sciences

This program had been approved to continue in November 1996 and categorized as Good Quality with Report based upon the Appraisal Committee's review of the program's brief submitted in June 1995, the reports of external consultants (Dr. C. Peterson, University of Waterloo; Dr. D.H. Vitt, University of Alberta; Dr. A.W. Galston, Yale University) sent to review the program in April and June 1996, and the University's response to the reports of the external consultants. The Report was due December 1998 and was to provide evidence that faculty renewal consequent on retirements had occurred, that planned program restructuring had occurred, and that concerns raised by graduate students had been addressed. The program was approved to continue in June 1999 and categorized as Good Quality based upon the Appraisals Committee's review of the Report submitted.

In the 1999-2000 cycle the following programs were submitted for Periodic Appraisal:

Reports were also submitted on the Graduate Programs in Journalism, Philosophy and Zoology.

The outcomes of the Periodic Appraisals and the Reports were as follows:

Computer Science

The program was approved to continue in October 2000 and categorized as Good Quality based upon the Appraisal Committee's review of the program's brief submitted in July 1999, the reports of external consultants (Dr. H. Muller, University of Victoria; Dr. J. Fritz, University of New Brunswick; Dr. J.G. Rokne, University of Calgary) sent to review the program in February and March 2000, and the University's response to the reports of the external consultants. The Appraisals Committee indicated that at the time of the next Periodic Appraisal it will be expecting a report on how the program has acted on issues raised by the External Consultants, which were: retention and attrition of students; the need for more physical resources; overhaul of the comprehensive examination.

Environmental Science

The program was Approved to Continue in January 2001, with an addendum Report based on the Appraisal Committee's review of the program's brief submitted in July 1999, along with additional information subsequently requested from the University. The Report is due in November 2002 and must address a number of issues. These include: a description of the outcomes of changes underway to the program's courses and administrative structure; clarification of which programs are participating in the collaborative program, and evidence of their support; data on the number of students participating in the program; indication of compliance with collaborative program guidelines being established at OCGS.

History

The program was approved to continue in December 2000 and categorized as Good Quality with Report based upon the Appraisal Committee's review of the program's brief submitted in July 1999, the reports of the External Consultants (Dr. A. Ray, University of British Columbia; Dr. J. Reed, Harvard University; Dr. R.A. Rempel, McMaster University) were sent to review the program in April 2000, and the University's response to the reports. The Report is due in October 2003, and must either: provide the CVs of the newly hired faculty, along with a firm plan, including a senior administration commitment of resources, for future appointments; or describe the restructuring of the program to reduce present coverage, so that the program is viable within existing resources. The Appraisal Committee noted the seriousness of the issues of faculty renewal and the need to encourage increased participation of the core faculty in the program, and asked that the Report also: redefine the program's fields, ensuring the viability of core faculty to support them; provide the names of the core faculty associated with each field; indicate the number of PhDs admitted annually to each of the fields; describe changes to the structure of the masters and doctoral programs and the impact of these changes on times-to-completion.

Journalism

This program had been approved to continue in November 1996 and categorized as Conditionally Approved based upon the Appraisal Committee's review of the program's brief submitted in June 1995, the reports of external consultants (Dr. E.F. Einsiedel, University of Calgary ; Dr. T.F. Simon, Michigan State University) sent to review the program in February and March 1996, and the University's response to the reports of the external consultants. A Report was required by October 1999, but was deferred with permission to April 2000, and was to provide: a faculty staffing and development plan, including an outline of efforts to encourage faculty research and their ability to attract research funding; a description of how the curriculum has been revised to integrate the professional and academic courses in the program, taking into account the changing character of the communication industries. The Appraisals Committee recommended that program be approved to continue and categorized as Good Quality based upon a review of the Report submitted in April 2000. This recommendation was approved by OCGS in October 2000. In making its recommendation, the Appraisals Committee signalled that at the time of the next appraisal it wishes the Periodic Appraisal brief to address the following issues: the appropriateness of the high proportion of non-tenure stream faculty delivering the program; the appropriateness of the balance between academic and professional elements of the program; the qualifications of the core faculty.

Music

In October 2000 OCGS approved a recommendation from the Appraisals Committee that the program be approved to continue and categorized as Good Quality with Report based upon the Appraisal Committee's review of the program's brief, the reports of external consultants (Dr. M. Cyr, University of Guelph; Dr. K. Hamel, University of British Columbia; Dr. J. Richmond, University of Florida) sent to review the program in April 2000, and the University's response to the reports of the external consultants. The Report is required by October 2003, and must provide information on measures taken to reduce times-to-completion in the program, and on faculty renewal, especially in the Composition area.

Occupational Therapy

The program was approved to continue in January 2000 and categorized as Good Quality based upon the Appraisals Committee's review of the program's brief. The Appraisals Committee indicated that at the time of the next Periodic Appraisal it will be looking for a report on the following issues: the impact of the newly introduced Occupational Therapy MClSc program and the Rehabilitation Sciences PhD program on the MSc program, especially on the faculty supervisory loads; the appropriateness of the faculty complement.

Philosophy

This program had been approved to continue in November 1996 and categorized as Good Quality with Report based upon the Appraisal Committee's review of the program's brief submitted in June 1995. The Report was due August 1999 and was to provide evidence that measures to improve times-to-completion in the program had been successful. The program was approved to continue in January 2000 and categorized as Good Quality based upon the Appraisals Committee's review of the Report submitted.

Physical Therapy

The program was approved to continue in January 2000 and categorized as Good Quality based upon the Appraisals Committee's review of the program's brief. The Appraisals Committee indicated that at the time of the next Periodic Appraisal it will be looking for a report on the following issues: the impact of the newly introduced Rehabilitation Sciences PhD program and the possible move to the graduate level of the current undergraduate professional BSc program in Physical Therapy, on the MSc program, especially on the faculty supervisory loads; the appropriateness of the faculty complement.

Sociology

In October 2000, OCGS approved a recommendation from the Appraisals Committee that the program be approved to continue and categorized as Good Quality with Report based upon the Appraisal Committee's review of the program's brief, the reports of external consultants (Dr. E. Gee, Simon Fraser University; Dr. V. Piché, Université de Montréal; Dr. V.F. Sacco, Queen's University) sent to review the program in March and April 2000, and the University's response to the reports of the external consultants. The Report is required by October 2003, and must provide information on faculty renewal, given retirements expected over the next three years.

Software Engineering

This is offered as a joint collaborative masters program by graduate programs at Universities which are members of the Consortium for Graduate Education in Software Engineering (CONGESE). Members of the consortium are: Carleton University, the University of Ottawa, Queen's University, the University of Toronto, the University of Waterloo, The University of Western Ontario and York University. The program was approved to continue in November 2001 following successful Periodic Appraisal of the parent Computer Science programs at each of the participating universities.

Visual Arts

The program was approved to continue in March 2000 and categorized as Good Quality based upon the Appraisals Committee's review of the program's brief. The Appraisals Committee signalled that at the time of the next appraisal it wishes the Periodic Appraisal brief to address the issue of the appropriateness of the faculty complement.

Zoology

This program had been approved to continue in June 1996 and categorized as Good Quality with Report based upon the Appraisal Committee's review of the program's brief submitted in June 1995. The Report was due February 1999 and was to demonstrate how the field of Animal Physiology and Biochemistry was to be supported given the faculty retirements scheduled to occur in these areas. The program was approved to continue in June 1999 and categorized as Good Quality based upon the Appraisals Committee's review of the Report submitted.

In the 2000-2001 cycle the following programs were submitted for Periodic Appraisal:

In addition, four new programs and a new program field were submitted for Standard Appraisal and a request was submitted to change the name of the MA in Visual Arts to the MA in Art History. This name change was approved by OCGS in March 2001. The new programs and field were:

In addition, in the 2000-2001 cycle Reports were submitted for the following programs:

The outcomes of the Periodic Appraisals and the Reports were as follows:

Geography

In June 2001 OCGS approved a recommendation from the Appraisals Committee that the program be approved to continue and categorized as Good Quality with Report based upon the Appraisal Committee's review of the program's brief, the reports of external consultants (Dr. D. Barber, University of Manitoba; Dr. N. Roulet, McGill University; Dr. B. Warf, Florida State University) sent to review the program in February and April 2001, and the University's response to the reports of the external consultants. The Report is required by May 2004, and must provide information on faculty hiring that has occurred as well as plans for future faculty hiring, particularly as it impacts on the field of Human Geography. The Report must also describe curriculum restructuring that has occurred, especially at the masters level where a need was identified to provide students with an opportunity for in-class intellectual interaction with a critical mass of other students.

Kinesiology

This Report was submitted in May 2001; following its review the Appraisal Committee of OCGS recommended that the program be approved to continue and categorized as Good Quality. This recommendation was accepted by OCGS in November 2001.

Political Science

In September 2001 the Appraisal Committee recommended that the program be approved to continue and categorized as Good Quality based upon the Appraisal Committee's review of the program's brief submitted in July 2000, the reports of external consultants (Dr. C. Andrew, University of Ottawa; Dr. J. Jennings, University of Birmingham, U.K.; Dr. Wolinetz, Memorial University) sent to review the program in May and June 2001, and the University's response to the reports of the external consultants. The Appraisals Committee indicated that at the time of the next Periodic Appraisal it will be expecting a report on 1) the viability of the local government field, and faculty renewal in this area; 2) the effect on the program of a proposed expansion of the PhD enrolment; 3) the effect of measures to increase the research culture in the program. The Appraisal Committee's recommendation was accepted by OCGS in September 2001.

Public Administration

This Appraisal is still in progress.

Spanish

The Report was submitted in November 2000; following its review, the Appraisal Committee recommended that the program be categorized as Good Quality and that the issues of faculty resources and course offerings be re-examined at the time of the next Periodic Appraisal. This recommendation was accepted by OCGS in January 2001.

In the 2001-2002 cycle the following programs have been submitted for Periodic Appraisal:

In addition, two new collaborative programs, two new PhD programs and one new MA/PhD program were submitted for Standard Appraisal, and a letter of intent was submitted for a new section of the Executive MBA program to be offered in downtown Toronto. OCGS has also been asked to approve a change in the name of the MEd in Counselling so that it can be known as the MEd in Counselling Psychology. The new programs were:

In addition, in the 2001-2002 cycle Reports must be submitted for the following programs:

The Periodic Appraisals are all still in progress. At the time of the last review of the programs submitted for Periodic Appraisal, the Appraisals Committee made the following recommendations and specific comments:

Anthropology

Good Quality

Applied Mathematics

Good Quality

Chemistry

Good Quality

Economics

In making its recommendation that the program be approved and categorized as Good Quality, the Appraisals Committee noted that the number of fields listed (12) is large for the number of faculty available (29) and expects that the University will wish to review the fields and restructure them before the next Periodic Appraisal.

Journalism

Conditionally Approved

Library & Information Science

In making its recommendation that the program be approved and categorized as Good Quality, the Appraisals Committee indicated that the average time-to-completion in the doctoral program is high and that efforts should be made to reduce it.

Mathematics

Good Quality

Statistics

Good Quality

In the 2002-2003 cycle the following programs will be submitted for Periodic Appraisal:

At the time of the last review of these programs the Appraisals Committee made the following recommendations and specific comments:

English

In making its recommendation that the program be approved and categorized as Good Quality, the Appraisals Committee commented on the high standards for student recruitment and on the care taken to incorporate graduate students into the academic life of the department and to involve them in the research work conducted by faculty members. The Committee also noted with pleasure the policies regarding the financial support of graduate students.

Philosophy

Good Quality with Report

Plant Sciences

Good Quality with Report

Psychology

Good Quality

Theory & Criticism

In making its recommendation that the program be approved and categorized as Good Quality, the Appraisals Committee indicated that it hoped efforts will continue to include other relevant areas, such as History.

Zoology

Good Quality with Report

In addition, in the 2002-2003 cycle a Report must be submitted for each of the following programs: