February 8, 2017

i

Rochester Institute of Technology 2017 Self-Study

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. vii

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 1

STANDARD I: MISSION AND GOALS ........................................................................................................... 8

CRITERIA 1: An accredited institution possesses and demonstrates the following attributes or activities: ................................................................................................................................. 8

CRITERIA 2: Institutional goals are realistic, appropriate to higher education, and consistent with mission ............................................................................................................................. 14

CRITERIA 3: Goals that focus on student learning and related outcomes and on institutional improvement; are supported by administrative, educational, and student support programs and services; and are consistent with institutional mission ....................................... 14

CRITERIA 4: Periodic assessment of mission and goals to ensure that they are relevant and achievable ................................................................................................................................ 15

STANDARD CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 17

STANDARD II: ETHICS AND INTEGRITY .................................................................................................... 18

CRITERIA 1: A commitment to academic freedom, intellectual freedom, freedom of expression, and respect for intellectual property rights, and .................................................... 18

CRITERIA 2: A climate that fosters respect among students, faculty, staff, and administration from a range of diverse backgrounds, ideas, and perspectives ................................................. 18

CRITERIA 3: A grievance policy that is documented and disseminated to address complaints or grievances raised by students, faculty, or staff. The institution’s policies and procedures are fair and impartial, and assure that grievances are addressed promptly, appropriately, and equitably ........................................................................................................................... 20

CRITERIA 4: The avoidance of conflict of interest or the appearance of such conflict in all activities and among all constituents........................................................................................ 22

CRITERIA 5: Fair and impartial practices in the hiring, evaluation, promotion, discipline, and separation of employees .......................................................................................................... 22

CRITERIA 6: Honesty and truthfulness in public relations announcements, advertisements, recruiting and admissions materials and practices, as well as in internal communications ....... 23

CRITERIA 7: As appropriate to mission, services or programs in place: ............................................. 24

CRITERIA 8: Compliance with all applicable federal, state, and Commission reporting policies, regulations, and requirements to include reporting regarding: ................................................ 26

ii

CRITERIA 9: Periodic assessment of ethics and integrity as evidenced in institutional policies, processes, practices, and the manner in which these are implemented ................................... 26

STANDARD CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 27

STANDARD III: DESIGN AND DELIVERY OF THE STUDENT LEARNING EXPERIENCE .............................. 28

CRITERIA 1: Certificate, undergraduate, graduate and/or professional programs leading to a degree or other recognized higher education credential, of a length appropriate to the objectives of the degree or other credential, designed to foster a coherent student learning experience and to promote synthesis of learning ....................................................... 28

CRITERIA 2: Student learning experiences that are: designed, delivered, and assessed by faculty (full-time or part-time) and/or other appropriate professionals who are: ..................... 30

CRITERIA 3: Academic programs of study that are clearly and accurately described in official publications of the institution in a way that students are able to understand and follow degree and program requirements and expected time to completion ...................................... 34

CRITERIA 4: Sufficient learning opportunities and resources to support both the institution’s programs of study and students’ academic progress ................................................................ 35

CRITERIA 5: At institutions that offer undergraduate education: A general education program, free standing or integrated into academic disciplines, that: ..................................................... 37

CRITERIA 6: In institutions that offer graduate and professional education, opportunities for the development of research, scholarship, and independent thinking, provided by faculty and/or other professionals with credentials appropriate to graduate level curricula ................ 39

CRITERIA 7: Adequate and appropriate institutional review and approval on any student learning opportunities designed, delivered, or assessed by third-party providers. .............. 40

CRITERIA 8: Periodic assessment of the effectiveness of programs providing student learning opportunities. .......................................................................................................................... 41

STANDARD CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 43

STANDARD IV: SUPPORT OF THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE ....................................................................... 44

CRITERIA 1: An accredited institution possesses and demonstrates the following attributes or activities: Clearly stated, ethical policies and processes to admit, retain, and facilitate the success of students whose interests, abilities, experiences, and goals provide a reasonable expectation for success and are compatible with institutional mission, including: ................................................................................................................................. 44

CRITERIA 2: Policies and procedures regarding evaluation and acceptance of transfer credits, and credits awarded through experiential learning, prior non-academic learning, competency-based assessment, and other alternative learning approaches ............................ 49

CRITERIA 3: Policies and procedures for the safe and secure maintenance and appropriate release of student information and records. ............................................................................ 50

iii

CRITERIA 4: If offered, athletics, student life, and other extracurricular activities that are regulated by the same academic, fiscal, and administrative principles and procedures that govern all other programs. ................................................................................................ 51

CRITERIA 5: If applicable, adequate and appropriate institutional review and approval of student support services designed, delivered, or assessed by third party providers. ................ 52

CRITERIA 6: Periodic assessment of the effectiveness of programs supporting the student experience ............................................................................................................................... 53

STANDARD CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 55

STANDARD V: EDUCATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT ................................................................ 57

CRITERIA 1: Clearly stated educational goals at the institution and degree/program levels, which are interrelated with one another, with relevant educational experience, and with the institution’s mission. .......................................................................................................... 57

CRITERIA 2: Organized and systematic assessments, conducted by faculty and/or appropriate professionals, evaluating the extent of student achievement of institutional and degree/program goals. ............................................................................................................. 58

CRITERIA 3: Consideration and use of assessment results for the improvement of educational effectiveness. Consistent with the institution’s mission, such uses include some combination of the following: .................................................................................................. 64

CRITERIA 4: If applicable, adequate and appropriate institutional review and approval of assessment services designed, delivered, or assessed by third-party providers ........................ 66

CRITERIA 5: Periodic assessment of the effectiveness of assessment processes utilized by the institution for the improvement of educational effectiveness .................................................. 66

STANDARD CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 68

STANDARD VI: PLANNING, RESOURCES, AND INSTITUTIONAL IMPROVEMENT .................................. 69

CRITERIA 1: An accredited institution possesses and demonstrates the following attributes or activities: institutional objectives, both institution-wide and for individual units, that are clearly stated, assessed appropriately, linked to mission and goal achievement, reflect conclusions drawn from assessment results, and are used for planning and resource allocation ................................................................................................................................. 69

CRITERIA 2: Clearly documented and communicated planning and improvement processes that provide for constituent participation and incorporate the use of assessment results ........ 70

CRITERIA 3: A financial planning and budgeting process that is aligned with the institution’s mission and goals, evidence-based, and clearly linked to the institution’s and units’ Strategic Plans/objectives ........................................................................................................ 70

CRITERIA 4: Fiscal and human resources as well as the physical and technical infrastructure adequate to support its operations wherever and however programs are delivered ................ 75

iv

CRITERIA 5: Well-defined decision-making processes and clear assessment of responsibility and accountability .................................................................................................................... 81

CRITERIA 6: Comprehensive planning for facilities, infrastructure, and technology that includes consideration of sustainability and deferred maintenance and is linked to the institution’s strategic and financial planning processes ................................................................................ 82

CRITERIA 7: An annual independent audit confirming financial viability with evidence of follow-up on any concerns cited in the audit’s accompanying management letter .............................. 82

CRITERIA 8: Strategies to measure and assess the adequacy and efficient utilization of institutional resources required to support the institution’s mission and goals ........................ 83

CRITERIA 9: Periodic assessment of the effectiveness of planning, resource allocation, institutional renewal processes, and availability of resources ................................................... 84

STANDARD CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 85

STANDARD VII: GOVERNANCE, LEADERSHIP, AND ADMINISTRATION ................................................. 86

CRITERIA 1: An accredited institution possesses and demonstrates the following attributes or activities: clearly articulated and transparent governance structure that outlines roles, responsibilities, and accountability for decision making by each constituency, including governing body, administration, faculty, staff and students; .................................................... 86

CRITERIA 2: A legally constituted governing body that: .................................................................... 87

CRITERIA 3: A Chief Executive Officer who: ...................................................................................... 91

CRITERIA 4: An administration possessing or demonstrating: ........................................................... 92

CRITERIA 5: Periodic assessment of the effectiveness of governance, leadership and administration ......................................................................................................................... 93

STANDARD CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 95

ADDENDUM .............................................................................................................................................. a

MSCHE SELF-STUDY STEERING COMMITTEE ......................................................................................... d

MSCHE SELF-STUDY WORKING GROUPS ................................................................................................ e

v

Rochester Institute of Technology 2017 Self-Study

Index of Tables Page

Introduction Table 1: Enrollment Growth 4

Standard I Table 2: Stakeholder Input Sources 9 Table 3: RIT Strategic Plan Transitions – Key Metrics 12

Standard II Table 4: 2015 Great Colleges for Work For Survey Questions 20 Table 5: The Ombuds Office: Student Conduct and Conflict Resolution Summary 20 Table 6: Student Affairs: Student Conduct and Conflict Resolution Summary 21 Table 7: Noel Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory 21

Standard III Table 8: RIT Three Mean Scores for Teaching Effectiveness Survey Items 30 Table 9: Sections Taught by Faculty Type: 2012-13 vs. 2015-16 31 Table 10: MSCHE Essential Skills and RIT’s General Education Student Learning

Outcomes 38

Standard IV Table 11: Annual Audits and Limited Scope Reviews 51

Standard V Table 12: DPQ and RIT’s Educational Goals Crosswalk 59 Table 13: Preparing Students for Successful Careers in a Global Society 60 Table 14: Summary of APR Data AY 2015-16 62 Table 15: General Education Assessment Participating Faculty 63

Standard VI Table 16: RIT Planning Assumptions 72 Table 17: RIT Key Input Sensitivity Test Parameters 72 Table 18: FY 18 Projections with Alternate Inputs 72 Table 19: Significant Projects Included in Financial Forecast 73 Table 20: Financial Projection Results 74 Table 21: 2014 Noel Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory Results 76 Table 22: RIT’s Total Spendable Cash and Investments to Debt Ratio 79

Standard VII none

vi

Rochester Institute of Technology 2017 Self-Study

Index of Figures Page

Introduction none

Standard I Figure 1: Annual Review Cycle 10 Figure 2: RIT’s Institutional Assessment Framework 16

Standard II none

Standard III none

Standard IV Figure 3: Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory: RIT Satisfaction Data 52

Standard V Figure 4: % of Programs that Met/Exceeded Student Learning Outcomes Benchmarks 61 Figure 5: % Programs Assessment Results Guide Improvements – Six Year Trends 65

Standard VI Figure 6: RIT’s Annual Planning and Budgeting Timeline 71 Figure 7: Budget Allocations Linked to Strategic Plan 75 Figure 8: Financial Metrics on Continuum between Median Baa- and Aaa-rate (Private) 79

Standard VII none

vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Reflect, Renew, Reaffirm

Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) prides itself on being an innovative global university, rich in a complementary array of rigorous, research-based, experientially-focused, and design-oriented programs. We are the second-largest producer of STEM graduates among private universities in the United States, we are the fourth oldest and one of the largest cooperative education programs in the country, and we created the world’s first Ph.D. program focused on sustainable production. Our most valuable assets, however, are RIT’s innovative students, staff, and faculty, many of whom seek to design, build, research, and realize new technologies and products that will impact the world. As such, continuous improvement is simply in RIT’s DNA.

The self-study process comes at a propitious time for the university. We are celebrating many extraordinary accomplishments under the ten years of leadership from President William Destler, we are looking to the future through an ambitious, yet achievable strategic plan, Greatness Through Difference, and we are looking forward to welcoming RIT’s tenth president this summer. These three milestones have all come together to make the writing of this Self-Study Report especially meaningful for the campus.

Our community enthusiastically embraced the Self-Study process as a way to affirm and demonstrate the university’s compliance with the Standards of Accreditation, examine strengths and opportunities for improvement, and reflect on the incredible story that has unfolded over the past ten years. In light of this, the Self-Study Report was specifically designed to yield three major outcomes:

1. Demonstrate how RIT meets the new MSCHE accreditation standards2. Advance RIT’s strategic priorities, identify gaps in the university’s readiness to implement such

priorities, and recommend opportunities to achieve institutional mission and goals3. Review RIT’s outcomes-based institutional assessment practices and make recommendations

to expand or refine institutional assessment practices to guide planning, resource allocation, and institutional improvement

An in-depth examination into these three areas of inquiry was conducted by eight Working Groups. These teams reviewed extensive documentation, analyzed data, interviewed individuals, and submitted initial reports to the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee offered feedback and then ultimately used the reports to inform and craft the Self-Study Report. The Self-Study draft was released to senior leadership, the board of trustees, and the main campus and international location communities at large for feedback. The Steering Committee worked to incorporate all feedback and suggestions into the final Self-Study Report.

This open and transparent process helped shape a reflective and honest report that will help the university celebrate accomplishments and plan strategically for the future.

What Did We Learn?

Outcome 1. Demonstrate how RIT meets the new MSCHE Standards of Accreditation The comprehensive Self-Study resulted in the strong conclusion that RIT fully embodies the Standards of Accreditation and associated Requirements of Affiliation (ROAs). Fourteen recommendations and 13 suggestions grew from this constructive probing and are offered to advance RIT’s mission and goals. These recommendations and suggestions were themed to better understand the significance to the university and reveal that RIT’s efforts should focus on four core areas:

viii

1. Strengthen Academic Quality 2. Improve Institutional Effectiveness: Evaluation and Assessment 3. Unify and Coordinate University Marketing and Communications 4. Enhance RIT Organizational Effectiveness and Efficiency

The core areas and associated recommendations and suggestions include:

1. Strengthen Academic Quality • Develop, support, and implement flexible options for funding models, staffing opportunities,

and policy provisions that support interdisciplinary teaching, research, and learning (Standard I Recommendation 1)

• Analyze sufficiency of current full-time faculty and use findings to develop and implement an action plan (Standard III, Recommendation 6)

• Provide competitive start-up packages and other resources to attract and retain faculty (for research and the new Carnegie classification) (Standard III, Suggestion 4)

• To the degree possible, increase the number of General Education courses available at international locations to provide more options for students across the perspective and immersion categories (Standard III, Suggestion 5)

2. Improve Institutional Effectiveness: Evaluation and Assessment

University level • Ensure 100% of administrative units develop and implement assessment plans (Institutional

Effectiveness Maps) and use results to improve unit efficiency. (Standard VI, Suggestion 10) • Disseminate the priorities and corresponding plans of work for leaders at all levels of the

organization on a consistent basis. (Standard VII, Recommendation 13) • Implement a regular internal evaluation process administered by each RIT governance group

(University Council, Academic Senate, Staff Council, and Student Government) to determine the body’s effectiveness as viewed by their respective constituencies. (Standard VII, Recommendation 14)

• Disseminate and communicate the results of the climate and employee engagement survey in a timely, consistent, and comprehensive way, and document actions taken based on survey results. (Standard VII, Suggestion 12)

• Implement a more formal and consistent upward appraisal process for all levels of administration on a regular cycle. (Standard VII, Suggestion 13)

Program level • Establish a plan for evaluating the benchmarks and the overall effectiveness of the new

academic program analysis process, paying particular attention to the efficacy of program action plans and their results (Standard III, Suggestion 6)

• Enhance usage of indirect data (e.g., NSSE, alumni surveys) by academic programs to support quantitative results on program quality. (Standard V, Suggestion 7)

• Enhance communication of university-wide and program assessment results and the use of results with students. (Standard V, Suggestion 8)

• Develop additional methods to engage, acknowledge, and reward faculty for supporting university and program educational outcomes. (Standard V, Suggestion 9)

ix

3. Unify and Coordinate University Marketing and Communications • Share central and consistent messages (university’s mission and vision) to drive core initiatives

(Standard I, Suggestion 1) • Develop a comprehensive website that directs constituents to the appropriate policy and

information regarding filing grievances and complaints and ensure resources are widely distributed (Standard II, Recommendation 2)

• Develop a coordinated marketing process that is consistent across all platforms and at all locations (Standard II, Recommendation 3)

• Require all programs to provide consistent program information that calibrates with official university bulletins across all locations (Standard II, Recommendation 4)

• Enhance the appeal to current and prospective donors to increase scholarships and mitigate financial challenges threatening student success (Standard II, Recommendation 5)

• Develop a plan to market and communicate the General Education Student Learning Outcomes to all locations. As these serve as the backbone to articulated “T-shaped abilities, this should be an integrated approach. (Standard V, Recommendation 8)

4. Enhance RIT Organizational Effectiveness and Efficiency

Processes • Curriculum, Catalog, and Registration Management: Implement a technology-based tool that

will eliminate currently used manual processes for moving new curriculum proposals and course proposals through the various review/approval bodies. (Standard III, Suggestion 2)

• Technology: Integrate technology replacements with more efficient space utilization and classroom upgrades to enhance different pedagogies and modalities. (Standard III, Suggestion 3)

• Transfer Pathways: Develop centralized transfer credit processes, tools, and infrastructure to enhance transfer pathways for prospective students. (Standard IV, Recommendation 7)

• Budget: Supplement the annual budget process by creating a document for use by leadership of the governance groups to cascade appropriate information to their constituents about new budget allocations and their alignment with the university’s strategic priorities. (Standard VI, Recommendation 9)

Practices/Policies • Faculty Service: Develop best practices and corollary expectations in support of faculty service

contributions at the university level (including ways deans can emphasize the role of college service and department chairs can ensure that service is reflected in tenure review, promotion expectations, and the merit process. (Standard VII, Recommendation 10)

• Shared Governance: Continue to actively seek out AALANA and female membership for the board to parallel the university’s diversity efforts across campus as outlined in the Greatness Through Difference: 2015-2025 Strategic Plan. (Standard VII, Recommendation 11)

• Shared Governance: Distribute agendas and approved minutes from board meetings to respective constituencies (University Council, Academic Senate, Staff Council, and Student Government). (Standard VII, Recommendation 12)

• Shared Governance: Investigate the feasibility of providing reasonable workload relief for governance leaders (course buy outs for Academic Senate and standing committee chairs and work reductions for chairs of Staff Council and Staff Council standing committees). (Standard VII, Suggestion 11)

x

These four focus areas are closely aligned to RIT’s mission and goals and we believe the recommendations and suggestions will inform the continued implementation of Greatness Through Difference over the next few years. The specific ways in which this work advances RIT’s priorities is further explored in Outcome 2.

RIT’s evidence of compliance with the Accreditation-Relevant Federal Regulations focuses on Requirements of Affiliation (ROA) 7-13 and 15. This is documented by a notation in the Self- Study Report highlighted in brown with the corresponding number of the requirement as displayed below:

[ROA 7] Statement of Mission and Goals Standard I [ROA 8] Evaluation of Educational and Other Programs Standards II, IV, V, VI [ROA 9] Assessment of Student Learning Programs Standards III, V [ROA 10] Institutional Planning Based on Institutional Standards I, III, IV, V, VI

Effectiveness and Improvement [ROA 11] Financial Resources Adequate to Support Standards VI

Institutional Mission [ROA 12] Disclosure of Governance Structure Standard VII [ROA 13] Conflict of Interest Standard VII [ROA 15] Core of Faculty to Ensure Continuity Standard III

and Coherence of Educational Programs

RIT’s documentation of compliance with ROA 1-6 and 14 was submitted to the MSCHE Compliance Portal prior to the Self-Study submission on January 10, 2017.

Outcome 2. Advance RIT’s strategic priorities, assess the university’s readiness to implement such priorities, and recommend opportunities to achieve institutional mission and goals.

RIT’s strategic planning process and the Middle States Self-Study process overlapped, which provided an opportunity to conduct our inquiry through the lens of Greatness Through Difference. To further this work and provide a level of support for the strategic plan implementation, RIT developed Research Questions linked to each of the seven Accreditation Standards and six of the strategic priorities designated for first tier implementation in 2015. Certain research questions closely connect to other key ongoing university initiatives: assessment practices, shared governance, and experiential education. This was seen as a cohesive way to provide a meaningful review and alignment between the Accreditation Standards and RIT’s strategic and tactical priorities.

It is important to point out that in 2016, these strategic plan implementation priorities shifted and expanded from 10 to 15. These 15 priorities were designated as the early implementation priorities over the next few years. There are six priorities specifically addressed through the research question analysis and the subsequent priorities assigned to them are noted here:

• “T-Shaped Graduate” (Priority 1) • “Interdisciplinarity” in academic programs, research, and partnerships (Priority 2) • “On-Time Graduation” (Priority 3) • “Largest Producer” of female, minority male, and deaf or hard-of hearing STEM bachelor degree

graduates (Priority 8) • “Inclusive Excellence” model of inclusive excellence for all faculty and staff in the areas of

professional development and promotion (Priority 10) • “Financial Needs of Low Income Students” (Priority 14)

xi

The Research Question Analysis assesses the university’s readiness to implement the six strategic plan priorities, and provides recommendations or steps to advance these six priorities to meet the university goals. In addition to this targeted Research Question Analysis, broader discussion of Greatness Through Difference (GTD) , its major goals, and 15 tier one priorities are highlighted throughout the Self-Study Report using {GTD: Priority Theme} as a visual marker to note the primary references to the linkages to the university’s priorities. In this way, we provide signposting to RIT’s Strategic Plan.

Outcome 3. Review RIT’s outcomes-based institutional assessment practices and make recommendations to expand or refine institutional assessment practices to guide planning, resource allocation, and institutional improvement.

RIT has spent considerable time and energy over the last ten years in developing its outcomes-based institutional assessment practices. The Self-Study process provided the ideal opportunity to review and analyze the current state of these assessment processes and practices and calibrate them with the renewed emphasis on periodic assessment within each of the Standards of Accreditation.

Working Group summaries affirmed that RIT’s efforts have been beneficial and have led to continuous improvement. The inquiries also provided additional insights into ways to expand, refine, or strengthen the effectiveness of a wider scope of institutional assessment practices and processes intended to guide planning, resource allocation, and improvement. The list of the Working Group recommendations and suggestions related to assessment is provided in the second theme (Improve Institutional Effectiveness: Evaluation and Assessment) in the Executive Summary.

This entire process was exceedingly valuable to a campus community dedicated to academic excellence and institutional effectiveness. Specifically, it has generated perspective on the benefit and promise of an RIT education and has led to a cohesive understanding and synergy around the implementation of Greatness Through Difference. We started this Self-Study journey with a theme and imperative: Reflect, Renew, Reaffirm. We believe we accomplished all three and know we are stronger because of this opportunity.

1

INTRODUCTION

Brief History of Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT)

RIT, a private co-educational institution, traces its roots to 1829 when Colonel Nathaniel Rochester and other leading citizens of what was then Rochesterville founded a literary society known as the Athenaeum. The Athenaeum charged members a five dollar annual fee to hear lectures by some of America’s best known orators – including Oliver Wendell Holmes, Horace Greeley, and Ralph Waldo Emerson. This organization merged with the Mechanics Institute in 1891 to become the Rochester Athenaeum and Mechanics Institute, later changed in 1944 to Rochester Institute of Technology. RIT became the first institution in New York State to grant the Associate of Applied Science Degree (1950). In 1953, the New York State Board of Regents authorized the university to offer the Bachelor of Science degree and three years later the Bachelor of Fine Arts degree was authorized. The first graduate degrees were offered in 1958, and the first doctoral degree program in 1992. Originally located in downtown Rochester, the university moved to the suburb of Henrietta in 1968 when a new campus was opened. The main campus in Henrietta now encompasses 240 academic, residential, and student life buildings on over 1,300 acres.

In 1966, RIT was chosen by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (now the Department of Education) as the sponsor for the National Technical Institute for the Deaf. In the 50 years since the establishment of NTID, thousands of deaf and hard-of-hearing young people have studied, lived, and worked with their hearing peers on the RIT campus. The presence of deaf and hard-of-hearing students adds a social and education dynamic not found at any other university.

Today we enjoy recognition as one of the world’s premier universities with a gifted student body from all fifty states and over 100 countries. Total enrollment in fall 2015 was 18,606, which includes 15,401 undergraduate and 3,205 graduate students. Ninety-one percent of the students were enrolled at RIT’s main campus and 9% were enrolled at its international locations. RIT’s main campus is comprised of a diverse community with 2,600 international students (14%), over 3,000 students of color (25.2%), and over 1,200 deaf and hard-of-hearing students (6.7%).

Our academic program portfolio, offered by 11 degree-granting entities, builds on the tradition of excellence in application-driven career education and includes a unique array of degree programs spanning the STEM disciplines, the liberal arts, fine arts, and photography, as well as health sciences, business, computing, game design, and film and animation.

RIT also has seven international locations at which RIT programs are delivered with the same high standards as the main campus. These locations are: Dubrovnik, Croatia: “RIT Croatia” (1997); Zagreb, Croatia: “RIT Croatia” (2011); Dubai, United Arab Emirates: “RIT Dubai” (2008); Pristina, Kosovo: “RIT Kosovo” (2003); Beijing, China: “Beijing Jiaotong University” (2015); Weihai, China: “Beijing Jiaotong University” (2015); and Santiago, Dominican Republic: “Pontificia Universidad Catolica Madre y Maestra” (1998). International locations are managed by a separate legal entity called the RIT Global Delivery Corporation (GDC). RIT main campus is responsible for providing ultimate oversight for the faculty, the curriculum, and the student services; the leadership team of each location coordinates all other operational aspects at these international locations.

This past year RIT was recognized as a top tier national university for the first time in the 34-year history of U.S. News and World Report rankings. The change is a result of the university’s reclassification from master’s-comprehensive to doctoral university (moderate research activity). RIT

2

also ranked 33rd among best value schools and was listed in the Princeton Review’s “Best 381 Colleges.”

Major Initiatives: 2007-2017

Over the past ten years, RIT has purposefully positioned itself as a leading international university that prides itself on innovation and creativity. The following initiatives have supported this transformational trajectory.

Greatness Through Difference: 2015-2025 Strategic Plan. With the conclusion of “Imagine RIT,” (the adaptation of 2005-2015 Strategic Plan, Category of One University), the campus community engaged in a year-long process of creating a new strategic plan that culminated in November 2014 with approval from RIT’s board of trustees. This Strategic Plan is ambitious and aspirational in scope, builds on RIT’s distinctive history, and envisions an RIT of the future powered by an intellectual and social diversity unmatched within higher education. It is guided by the following updated mission and vision:

Mission: Rochester Institute of Technology prepares its students for successful careers in a global society through a unique blend of curricular, experiential, and research programs delivered within a student-centric culture.

Vision: RIT will be a great world university whose academic portfolio, research agenda, and educational model align with the shifting needs of a complex planet.

Five intersecting dimensions constitute the plan’s framework and its aspirational objectives include such initiatives as increasing interdisciplinary research and teaching, significantly growing sponsored research, increasing on-time graduation rates, increasing the graduate student population, leading U.S. universities in the number of undergraduate STEM graduates, and closing the achievement gap for historically underrepresented minority students.

Experiential Education. RIT is a leader in experiential education, boasting the fourth oldest and one of the largest cooperative education programs in the world. More than 4,300 students (23%) participated in cooperative education in 2015, earning a salary as well as gaining valuable experience that prepares them for their future careers. In addition, students at RIT have the opportunity to participate in study abroad at over 400 programs in fifty countries, including at RIT’s several international locations, in graduate and undergraduate student research, and in internship options offered within select programs. The Strategic Plan calls for expansion of experiential learning opportunities with the goal that all undergraduate and graduate students will participate in at least one such experience before graduation.

Sustainability. As a signatory of Second Nature’s Climate Commitment, RIT pledged to become carbon neutral by 2030. This commitment is at the center of RIT’s sustainability strategy and its drive to be a living laboratory for sustainability innovation and best practices. RIT offers a number of sustainability related degree programs and concentrations, including one of the first Ph.D. programs in the country. All new buildings on campus are required to achieve LEED Silver certification or higher. The university continues to exceed this requirement with four LEED Gold and two LEED Platinum buildings, including the Golisano Institute for Sustainability. A 2 MW solar farm is the university’s most recent step toward carbon neutrality. Students at RIT are also deeply involved in sustainability efforts, as evidenced by an innovative program called “Goodbye Good Buy” in which outgoing students, rather than discard many of their belongings, can donate them so that incoming students can obtain the things they need at a good price. Many other student groups are devoted to sustainability, including Engineers for a Sustainable World and the eBike Fleet Team.

3

Interdisciplinary Teaching, Learning, and Research. RIT’s Strategic Plan places strong emphasis on interdisciplinarity. To advance this imperative, RIT’s vice president of research recently awarded significant internal grants in four signature areas of cross-disciplinary research: cybersecurity, personalized healthcare technology, the Future Photon initiative, and remote sensing with unmanned aerial vehicles. The Center for Multidisciplinary Studies (CMS) was recently renamed the School of Individualized Study (SOIS). This multidisciplinary academic unit provides students with the opportunity to design an interdisciplinary course of study at both the undergraduate and graduate levels and serves as an incubator for innovative interdisciplinary programming and delivery.

International Education. The focus on global education is consistent with RIT’s vision and mission as well as the new Strategic Plan. RIT focuses on international education throughout the curriculum with experiential opportunities such as Study Abroad and Co-op Abroad, and areas of concentration within the General Education Framework. The creation of an Office for Global Education and the recruitment of an associate provost for International Education and Global Programs in 2012 have provided the leadership and infrastructure for sustaining global education efforts and expanding international partnerships.

Diversity and Inclusion. In 2011 the Division of Diversity and Inclusion was established to provide leadership and additional support for ongoing university goals to diversify RIT’s students, faculty and staff and connect RIT’s diversity efforts to all aspects of the university. The division is now led by a vice president for Diversity and Inclusion who oversees the continuing implementation of the university’s Inclusive Excellence Framework. For the past three years, RIT has received the Higher Education Excellence in Diversity Award from INSIGHT Into Diversity magazine for its commitment and successful efforts in advancing diversity and inclusion.

Graduate Education. Recognizing the importance and the growth opportunities associated with graduate education, in 2007 the Office of Graduate Studies (renamed Graduate Education) was established and is led by a dean who reports to the provost. Together with the college deans and faculty, the office ensures that RIT’s graduate programs provide the highest quality educational experience for students. Growing the number of graduate students is a major Difference Maker outlined in the current Strategic Plan.

Marketing and Communications. In 2016 RIT created the Division of Marketing and Communications and hired a vice president and chief marketing officer (CMO) who is a member of the president's executive team. The creation of this new division is a reflection that RIT recognizes its national and international footprint is expanding rapidly and the need to strengthen the brand and visibility of RIT as a rising student-centered research university.

Major Campus Building Projects since 2007. In order to support RIT’s ambitious strategic initiatives, the last ten years have seen significant growth in the university’s physical plant. Overall, campus square footage has increased by 15% with 15 major building projects completed or in the budget for completion by 2017. Emphasis has been placed on providing comfortable and attractive student social and study spaces. An overview of campus growth can be seen in Major Building Projects, 2007-2017.

Enrollment Growth. Between 2005 and 2015, RIT grew its enrollment by 22%. Furthermore, the university increased student enrollment in targeted populations, including international students (+140%), AALANA students (+66%), and female students (+24%). Table 1 displays this ten-year growth pattern.

4

Table 1: Enrollment Growth

Enrollment Category* (Grad + Undergrad) 2005 2015 10 Year

# Change 10 Year

% Change Headcount (All Locations) 15,200 18,606 3,406 +22% Headcount (Main Campus) 14,376 16,842 2,466 +17% International Students 1,119 2,685 1,566 +140% AALANA Students* 1,165 1,938 773 +66% Female Students 4,478 5,537 1,059 +24% Headcount (International Locations) 824 1,764 940 +114% NOTE: AALANA students include underrepresented minority (URM) students: African American, Latino(a) American,

and Native American Source: MyAnalytics Institute Reporting Dashboard

Academic Initiatives

Semester Conversion. In 2010, RIT made the decision to move its academic calendar from a quarter to a semester model effective fall 2013. The semester conversion process required three years of preparation and entailed modifying all curriculum to fit a semester delivery model. There were many rationales for the conversion, including a desire to increase student retention, facilitate study abroad opportunities, and align RIT’s schedule with other institutions’ to support transfer students.

New Academic Program Development. Since the last decennial review, RIT has approved 4 new Ph.D. programs, 12 new master’s programs, 11 new baccalaureate programs, 5 new associate degrees, 10 new certificates, and 18 accelerated dual degrees for a total of 60 new programs. As part of the approval process, all new programs are required to demonstrate how they support the university’s mission and vision (see the Academic Portfolio Blueprint) and go through a rigorous process of administrative, governance, and peer review (see Approved New Academic Programs by Degree Type, 2007-2016).

General Education Framework. A new General Education Framework, designed as a student learning outcomes based model rather than a distribution model, was implemented in 2012. General Education courses give students the opportunities to develop critical thinking and communication skills, as well as to experience seven different “perspectives,” or ways of knowing: ethical, artistic, global, social, scientific principles, natural science inquiry, and mathematical.

Innovative Learning Institute (ILI). Responding to the need to extend RIT’s reach in the online area and facilitate the adoption of cutting edge technology in the teaching/learning process, the Innovative Learning Institute (ILI) was established in 2012. Through its two entities – Teaching and Learning Services and RIT Online – the ILI offers an impressive range of support to faculty designing online and face-to-face courses. Since 2013, student enrollment in online courses has risen 30% with an accompanying 27% increase in the number of online sections offered. In the 2015-2016 academic year alone, there was a 39% growth in online-only students as compared to the previous year.

edX Partnership. In 2016, RIT announced a partnership with edX, an online education platform, founded by Harvard and MIT in 2012. An internal advisory council comprised of faculty and staff guides RIT’s implementation and use of edX. The first collection of edX courses was offered in October 2016 as an XSeries in video game design. Most recently, RIT unveiled a MicroMasters program in Project Management through the edX platform to begin in January 2017.

5

RIT-Rochester Regional Health Collaboration. In 2008, RIT formed an alliance with Rochester Regional Health (RRH). The cornerstone of this alliance is the College of Health Sciences and Technology (CHST), which was formed in fall 2011 and provides a focused, interdisciplinary approach to health care education. RIT is RRH’s official academic affiliate and RRH is the university’s official affiliated clinical partner. RIT and RRH collaborate on education and research programs – a partnership that includes mutual access to each institution’s expertise and facilities. In fall 2015, Rochester Regional Health Family Medicine opened its doors on the RIT campus in a new clinic offering primary care services to the greater public.

Sponsored Research. Research and scholarship are integral to and integrated with the RIT student educational experience. They enhance academic offerings, create student research opportunities, and promote university and industrial partnerships and intellectual exchange.

Over the past five years, sponsored research dollars (not including earmarks) have increased over 100% from $36M to $73M. External research funding is provided by a variety of federal and state agencies, private foundations, and corporate sponsors including the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Education, the Department of Defense, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. RIT is a lead member on several of the federally sponsored National Network of Manufacturing Innovation institutes and hosts the New York State funded Center of Excellence in Sustainable Manufacturing, Center of Advanced Technology for Additive Manufacturing and Multifunctional Printing, and the New York State Pollution Prevention Institute.

This is a projected growth area highlighted in the Strategic Plan. By 2025, RIT expects to maximize support of its research programs by more extensive business and industry collaboration to yield $100M in total research funding annually.

Student Success Initiatives

Professional Advising. In 2010, the university overhauled its undergraduate academic advising paradigm and transitioned to a professional advisor model. A University Advising Office was established to oversee the professional advising system at the university and lead RIT’s undergraduate academic advising program and strategic student success initiatives. RIT’s professional advising staff has taken the university to a new level in terms of operationalizing a student-centered experience. RIT’s professional advising system is detailed further in Standard IV.

Student Innovation and Entrepreneurship. At the Simone Center for Student Innovation and Entrepreneurship students can explore innovative ideas, work with professors, and commercialize their ideas. The MAGIC Center is another place where students and faculty work across disciplines to explore and refine innovative ideas and bring them to production. Opportunities such as these, combined with other experiential learning opportunities, are reasons why RIT has an outcomes rate of over 95%. The outcomes rate describes the percentage of graduates who have entered the workforce, enrolled for further full-time study, are pursuing alternative plans such as military or volunteer service, or have chosen not to seek employment at this time. According to the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) 2016 report (page 9), the class of 2015 bachelor’s degree overall outcomes rate was 85.5%.

TigersCare. In order to facilitate an environment of mutual support and care, the Student Affairs division of RIT launched the TigersCare initiative to “reach out to those who are facing challenges and direct them to helpful resources on campus.” TigersCare seeks to “bring people together through

6

various programs and activities, to foster greater understanding and support.” Initiatives such as this one, combined with the reorganization of student health programs and services to a fully integrated health model, addition of a Case Manager to support students with complex health issues, and a comprehensive approach to Title IX compliance, including the hire of a full-time Title IX director, are examples of a holistic approach to supporting student life.

Student Life. RIT has invested significantly in the last ten years to enrich the student experience outside the classroom and provide additional opportunities for student leadership, engagement, success, and personal growth. University housing offers a variety of living accommodations and special interest living options to over 7,000 students. There are more than 300 student clubs and organizations on campus, providing opportunities for service, leadership development, and socializing, as well as 33 Greek letter organizations.

A variety of club sports, intramurals, recreational, and wellness programs are offered to meet the interests and needs of a diverse student population, with activities suited for all levels of ability. More than 50 percent of undergraduate students participate in intramural sports.

Approximately 600 male and female student athletes compete in the university’s 22 NCAA Division III teams and in two NCAA Division I teams (men’s and women’s hockey). The newly built, state of the art, Gene Polisseni Center seats 4,300 and is home to RIT’s hockey programs. The men’s team won its second straight Atlantic Hockey Association Championship in 2016 and advanced to the NCAA Regional Championships. In 2015, RIT’s Division III Athletic program was ranked in the top 15 percent nationwide. The average GPA for RIT student athletes is 3.2, which is above the overall university average; in 2015-16, 75 student athletes were recognized with Liberty League All-Academic team honors.

Leadership

Over the past ten years, RIT has been fortunate to have the visionary leadership of Dr. William W. Destler. Dr. Destler will retire at the end of the current academic year. A comprehensive position description containing an institutional profile of RIT, a list of university accomplishments under President Destler's leadership, and a robust description of desired characteristics for the new president guided the recruitment for Dr. Destler’s replacement. The presidential search committee, chaired by the immediate past chair of RIT's board and made up of a representative cross-section of the campus community, including students, faculty, staff, alumni, administrators, and the board of trustees, completed its work in January 2017 with the announcement on January 25, 2017 that Dr. David C. Munson, Jr. will be RIT’s tenth president, effective July 2017.

Conclusion

It is clear RIT is not content to rest on its laurels, but rather poised to lead American higher education into a time of change and re-evaluation. With a student-centered emphasis on experiential learning, research, interdisciplinary teaching and research, an ambitious Strategic Plan, and a history of strong leadership, RIT is well positioned to meet the challenges of a rapidly changing educational landscape.

Self-Study Process

The overall process was led by a diverse Steering Committee of seventeen members drawn from RIT faculty, staff, students, alumni, administrators, and the board of trustees. Eight working groups were formed to explore the expectations associated with each Standard of Accreditation and the Requirements of Affiliation. In addition, each Working Group included one member of an

7

international location or one member who possessed an expertise in at least one international location. Over seventy-five individuals brought diverse and valuable insight, perspective, and experience to this effort. However, the strength of our Self-Study Report rests not just on the hard work and dedication of the Self-Study “teams,” but also on the willingness of the campus community to be engaged in the process and provide robust feedback.

The Self-Study Report is arranged into nine chapters: an executive summary, introduction, and one chapter for each of the seven standards. An addendum follows and contains a summary of the 14 recommendations and 13 suggestions. Supporting evidence and materials are either linked directly within the text or located in the Documentation Roadmap. RIT’s evaluation team will access the Documentation Roadmap through Taskstream. However, a word version of the Documentation Roadmap is provided as a summary of the documents, policies, and procedures explored during the Self Study inquiry. Please note: RIT added a column called “People Library” to identify key contacts.

Recommendations and Suggestions. The Self-Study Report inquiry revealed opportunities for RIT to improve and strengthen its current programs, policies, or practices. Where appropriate, within the narrative for each Standard, Suggestions and/or Recommendations have been offered to enhance current quality and effectiveness. Both are highlighted in orange within the text. Recommendations are advanced where urgency and magnitude of need was compelling enough to expect that action would be taken and where we would hold ourselves accountable for taking such action. Suggestions, on the other hand, are intended to raise attention to areas where possible enrichment measures should be considered.

Requirements of Affiliation. As stated earlier, RIT’s evidence of compliance with Requirements of Affiliation 7-13 and 15 is documented by a notation in the Self- Study Report highlighted in brown with the corresponding number: [ROA 7].

RIT’s Strategic Plan. In order to provide some signposting throughout the report, RIT’s strategic priorities are discussed and highlighted throughout the Self-Study Report using {GTD: Priority Theme} (Greatness Through Difference) as a visual marker to note the primary references to the linkages to the university’s fifteen major and early implementation priorities. A summary of RIT’s Strategic Plan priorities and Standard alignment is provided here.

8

STANDARD I: MISSION AND GOALS

The institution’s mission defines its purpose within the context of higher education, the students it serves, and what it intends to accomplish. The institution’s stated goals are clearly linked to its mission and specify how the institution fulfills its mission.

RIT has a long history of strategic planning, which has provided a firm foundation for establishing clearly defined mission, vision, goals, and objectives. While this history spans many decades, the analysis here focuses on the most recent two Strategic Plans:

• Greatness Through Difference: 2015-2025 Strategic Plan developed in collaboration with faculty, students, and staff and approved by the Board of Trustees in November, 2014.

• Imagine RIT an adaptation of the 2005-2015 Strategic Plan Category of One University modified in 2007 to align with the vision of the new president, William W. Destler.

CRITERIA 1: An accredited institution possesses and demonstrates the following attributes or activities:

1a. Clearly defined mission and goals that are developed through appropriate collaborative participation by all who facilitate or are otherwise responsible for institutional development and improvement;

Each of the two strategic planning processes cited above resulted in establishing and/or reaffirming the mission and vision for the university. The Evolution of Mission and Vision Statements details the university’s mission and vision statements over the past two decades. These statements emphasize key themes of a student-centered university focused on career preparation within the context of a global society. RIT is currently guided by the following mission and vision, updated as part of the 2015-2025 Strategic Plan:

Mission: Rochester Institute of Technology prepares its students for successful careers in a global society through a unique blend of curricular, experiential, and research programs delivered within a student-centric culture.

Vision: RIT will be a great world university whose academic portfolio, research agenda, and educational model align with the shifting needs of a complex planet.

The 2013-2015 strategic planning process engaged stakeholders from across our university community. The university Strategic Plan Steering Committee included a diverse group of faculty, staff, students, administrators, alumni, and board of trustees members. Seven task forces, comprised of approximately 160 individuals with wide representation from each college and division, concentrated on major themes central to RIT’s mission: Curricular Innovation and Creativity, Global Engagement and International Education, Research and Graduate Education, Student Success, Diversity, Organizational Agility, and Alumni Engagement.

Based on the reports from these task forces, an initial draft of the Strategic Plan was created and shared widely with the community and the respective governance groups [ROA 7]. Strategic Plan Steering Committee Schedule, Agenda, and Minutes were all publicly available. In addition to being posted and discussed on the strategic planning wiki, opportunities for input and participation included: two campus forums; a full day meeting with the Alumni Association Board of Directors; meetings with the Trustee Strategic Planning Committee, President’s Roundtable, and Institute of Fellows; and the President’s Ask Me Anything (AMA) on Reddit (social media).

9

1b. Clearly defined mission and goals that address external as well as internal contexts and constituencies;

There is strong evidence the university emphasized the importance of identifying and engaging external and internal contexts and constituencies when developing its mission, vision, and goals over the past two planning processes. Looking back to 2005, an environmental scan (see Environmental Scan 2005-2015) identified nine major forces impacting RIT: economy, technology, culture, social responsibility, demography, competition, work force dynamics, governmental policies, and accreditation. Again, in preparing for the 2015-2025 Strategic Plan, external/internal scanning was done. (See Environmental Scan 2013-2025). The plan contains a specific section, entitled A Responsive University: The Context, which outlines how RIT is responding to ten major external demands. In developing a clear and concise set of mission, vision, and goals, RIT carefully analyzed the internal and external needs and opportunities as a prerequisite to the strategic planning process. [ROA 7]

In addition to scans, RIT also makes use of a number of key advisory boards to maximize input from external constituents. The President’s Roundtable, formed in 2001, is a select group of RIT’s most successful alumni and community advocates. Additionally, 41 active College Advisory boards across the university, including the Alumni Association Board of Directors, provide external perspective, expertise and guidance. In particular, the Office of Career Services and Cooperative Education’s Employer Advisory Board meets twice a year and provides input on labor force, economic market conditions, and evolving talent and educational preparation needs for business and industry. And finally, a newly formed West Coast Advisory Board was established to help guide RIT’s efforts to reach out to alumni, businesses, and industries on the west coast.

Surveying is also utilized. In April 2014, the university’s Division of Development and Alumni Relations surveyed alumni on proposed elements of the 2015 Strategic Plan including potential goals related to research, diversity, global presence, and scholarship. The results were presented to administrative and academic leadership and used as additional input in finalizing the plan.

The university deans, senior staff, and board of trustees engage with corporate stakeholders on a regular basis to ensure the university’s graduates and research programs are best aligned with their business needs. For example, over the last decade, two board of trustees delegations have traveled to Silicon Valley to engage face-to-face with corporate leadership.

Additional samples of the core data the university regularly collects from internal and external constituencies to inform planning and decision making are listed in Table 2.

Table 2: Stakeholder Input Sources

Institutional Assessment Data Sources Administration Schedule

Admitted Student Questionnaire (ASQ+) (All admitted freshmen) Biannual Cooperative Work Experience Supervisor Evaluation Semester Great Colleges to Work For Survey Biannual RIT Faculty and Staff Engagement and Climate Survey Biannual National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Biannual Noel Levitz Student Satisfaction Survey Biannual Alumni Surveys (College and RIT) Annual and Triannual Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education (COACHE) Biannual

10

1c. Clearly defined mission and goals that are approved and supported by the governing body;

The RIT Board of Trustees is an active and engaged board that meets annually in April, July, and November. The Strategic Planning Subcommittee of the board acts in a consultative and advisory manner to the board, drives the creation of the Strategic Plan, and provides ongoing guidance on the metrics used to measure expected outcomes. The university’s mission and goals were supported by the governing body as evidenced by the July 2014 board meeting agenda that was devoted almost exclusively to a review and discussion of the draft Strategic Plan. The board subsequently approved the plan at its meeting in November, 2014. Since that initial plan approval, there have been further refinements and revisions to some specific aspects of the plan including a minor revision to the vision and mission statements approved in June 2016 and a prioritization of the Difference Makers (goals/objectives). [ROA 7]

1d. Clearly defined mission and goals that guide faculty, administration, staff, and governing structures in making decisions related to planning, resource allocation, program and curricular development, and the definition of institutional and educational outcomes;

Mission and goals guide decision making throughout the university. This is particularly evidenced through the following key processes:

Planning and Resource Allocation. The Annual Review Cycle (see Figure 1), in place since 2007, demonstrates how mission and goals are annually assessed and aligned to the annual budget review cycle. The Strategic Planning Committee of the board of trustees reviews and recommends refinement to the goals based on current data and manages the continuous evaluation of the Strategic Plan. Moving forward, this process will remain the same. Because RIT’s Strategic Plan is dynamic, annual goals and targets are accelerated or modulated based on assessment findings and use of results. There is an established process for submission of and approval for modifications. [ROA 10]

Figure 1: Annual Review Cycle

11

A key component of this review cycle is the annual budget process, which sets a timeline annually for departments and programs to demonstrate their progress related to strategic institutional goals and to justify ongoing support in the context of balancing resources and mission. For example, the fiscal year 2017 budget process required that all incremental requests link to one of the five Strategic Plan dimensions. (See Budget Planning Process Standard VI, pages 69-72, for greater detail on these processes.) The Resource Allocation and Budget Committee of the Academic Senate is a standing faculty committee that focuses on university budget and resources. The committee is charged to review and assess RIT’s plan to fund the 2015-2025 Strategic Plan.

Curriculum and Curriculum Development. The Academic Program Profile, developed and approved by faculty, outlines requirements for new academic program development and approval. All new program proposals are specifically required to demonstrate how the program fits with and is central to the university’s mission and vision. This process is further highlighted in the discussion of the Academic Program Blueprint in Standard V, page 57.

Institutional and Educational Outcomes. Key Result Areas (KRA’s) and measurable outcomes were established as part of the previous RIT Strategic Plan 2005-2015. Metrics were established for 14 key goal areas that aligned to RIT’s mission. These were tracked and reported annually throughout the life of the Strategic Plan via a Scorecard, which was available to the campus on the president’s website. These metrics were reviewed regularly by the president’s Administrative Council and the board of trustees using the process outlined in Figure 1. The same type of process will be used with the new plan, Greatness Through Difference. However, in the current plan, Key Result Areas (KRA’s) are called Dimensions and strategic objectives are referred to as Difference Makers.

The university has transitioned to the new Strategic Plan. The current focus has been centered on organizationally aligning the objectives and establishing and resourcing priorities. Fifteen Difference Makers have been targeted as the priorities for first stage implementation, and implementation teams are developing action plans that include recommended metrics for measuring progress and desired end state. Given the aspirational nature of RIT’s Strategic Plan, it is expected that the portfolio of metrics will be a combination of both tactical and “big” reach metrics – some of which will be more abstract in how they are measured. An example of an Implementation Matrix for one Dimension sheds light on this process.

In addition to these new outcome metrics under development, Table 3 displays certain overarching institutional goals and metrics related to retention, graduation, and job placement that will carry forward from the previous Strategic Plan.

12

Table 3: RIT Strategic Plan Transition – Key Metrics Imagine RIT 2005-2015 Greatness Through Difference 2015-2025

Key Result Area

Goal Performance Commitment

Dimension &

Objective Difference Maker

1 Improve student retention and graduation rates

I.7* RIT will improve student retention, graduation, and on-time graduation rates.

89%: 2nd year retention rate 93%: First-year retention rate (percent of cohort) 2025

72%: graduation rate 80%: 150% program graduation rate (6/4 and 7.5/5) 58% on-time graduation rate (4/5)

4 Increase % of undergraduate students with employment post-graduation

IV. 1 RIT will be the university with the best placement rate & return on investment of US private universities

95% graduating undergraduates with employment or graduate school post-graduation

95% graduating undergraduates with employment or graduate school post-graduation

*language as of January 2017

1e. Clearly defined mission and goals that include support of scholarly inquiry and creative activity, at levels and of the type appropriate to the institution;

The RIT mission and vision clearly identify “research” as one of the three foundational foci of the university. The mission also promotes creative activity as one means to prepare students for successful careers. It is not surprising, given RIT’s new Carnegie classification (doctoral university – moderate research activity), that there is a strong focus on scholarly inquiry in the new Strategic Plan’s Difference Makers and objectives. {GTD: Sponsored Research and Signature Research} For a summary of RIT’s mission and goals in support of scholarly inquiry and creative activity, see the Strategic Plan Support for Scholarly Inquiry and Creative Activity.

Scholarship and research outcomes by students and faculty are supported by RIT’s mission and include:

• Prestigious fellowships received by students, including: the Barry M. Goldwater Scholarship, the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship, the Thomas R. Pickering Graduate Foreign Affairs Fellowship, the NASA Space Technology Research Fellowship, Fulbright Fellowships, and many others.

• A research endowment recently established (2015) to double the number of undergraduate students conducting full-time scientific research during the summer. This is a key Difference Maker in the Strategic Plan.

• Research expectations that are clearly articulated in faculty plans of work and supported by institutional policy, which states that faculty are “expected to engage in significant scholarship as measured by external disciplinary and professional standards of documentation, review, and dissemination,” further codified by RIT’s Faculty Employment Policies (E04.0).

• Financial support for scholarly activity: in 2016, the university invested $1M to promote cross-college interdisciplinary research, and RIT received 358 new sponsored research awards in 2016 from a variety of state, federal, corporate, and foundation sponsors, including $15M from the National Science Foundation and $3M from the National Institute of Health.

13

Analysis of the 2015-2025 RIT Strategic Plan provides further evidence of university-wide commitment to student-centered scholarly inquiry and creative activity. Although RIT meets this criteria, maintaining a strong position as a research university will require increasing current opportunities in the interdisciplinary research area. The following recommendation will further advance and accelerate this need:

Recommendation 1: Improve the collaborations and partnerships necessary for a robust interdisciplinary academic culture. This should include developing, supporting, and implementing flexible options for funding models, staffing opportunities, and policy provisions that support interdisciplinary teaching, research, and learning. {GTD: Interdisciplinarity}

1f. Clearly defined mission and goals that are publicized and widely known by the institution's internal stakeholders;

RIT’s mission and goals are publicized broadly, including on the president’s website and in the new Strategic Plan brochure. To ensure engagement and understanding, RIT stakeholders were provided regular updates using a variety of means, including the Strategic Plan website, an online discussion forum open to the RIT community, and through the president’s annual report on progress.

The 2015 Great Colleges to Work For survey results suggest that RIT’s mission is clearly defined and understood by faculty, staff, and administration, as 86% of the RIT survey respondents indicated a positive response to the statement, “I understand how my job contributes to RIT’s mission.” This was the fifth highest percent positive score of all of the survey’s questions and, according to the survey analysis, any item score above 75% is considered exceptional.

Despite ongoing strategies to promote and publicize the university’s mission and goals, the following suggestion is offered to help ensure that mission, vision, and goals are front and center in university marketing materials and reflected in the university brand:

Suggestion 1: Develop and implement a consistent method for sharing the university’s mission and vision across RIT’s internal and external constituencies so that mission and vision drive university core functions and are intentionally associated with RIT’s brand and reputation. {GTD: Marketing}

1g. Clearly defined mission and goals that are periodically evaluated;

RIT’s mission and goals have always been living documents continuously evaluated to address whether stated goals remain important to the university and help the university remain true to its mission. The Annual Review Cycle described in Figure 1 demonstrates the university’s intentionality toward reviewing and adjusting the elements of the Strategic Plan through a formative assessment process.

One example from the previous strategic plan cycle that speaks directly to the fact that this review actually results in adjustments can be seen in Key Result Area 1: “Student Success,” and its associated Goal 2b: “Enhance diversity to best-in-class levels.” The modification made included a change from a goal of 40% new female freshmen enrolls by 2015 to 37% new female undergraduate (freshmen and transfer) enrollees. This was deemed necessary because despite curricular offerings (two new engineering programs – chemical and biomedical) and other effective recruiting strategies designed to increase female enrollment, the increases were offset by substantial growth in male-dominated programs such as game design and development and declines and/or stasis in the percentage of female students in fields traditionally pursued in the College of Liberal Arts and Saunders College of Business. [ROA 10]

14

CRITERIA 2: Institutional goals are realistic, appropriate to higher education, and consistent with mission

Consistent with mission, RIT has five overarching strategic institutional goals known as “Dimensions,” (1) Career Education and Student Success; (2) The Student-Centered Research University; (3) Leveraging Difference; (4) Affordability, Value, and Return on Investment; and (5) Organizational Agility. Each is realistic but clearly aspirational, and designed to move the university along a trajectory of becoming a great world university.

The Career Education and Student Success dimension is appropriately first in the list because “cultivating student success” is a core mission of RIT. The career-focused nature of programs is a core element of RIT’s differentiation within the higher education marketplace. Student success continues as a paramount institutional imperative.

The Student-Centered Research University dimension combines the mission-critical activities of research, scholarship, artistic creation, and creative inquiry with teaching and learning across all degree levels and disciplines. By stating and meeting the intent of this dimension, RIT recognizes the centrality of teaching and learning while at the same time recognizing the complementary nature of research, scholarship, artistic creating, and creative inquiry.

The Leveraging Difference dimension recognizes RIT’s commitment to diversity and its importance to organizational growth and synergy. In addition to the standard racial and ethnic measures of diversity, RIT has expanded its definition to include, among other categories, gender and differing abilities. This dimension recognizes the demographic shifts and changes taking place in the college student population.

The Affordability, Value, and Return on Investment dimension recognizes the dramatic demographic changes as well as the growing concern nationally about the affordability and accessibility of a college education. Recognizing that costs cannot continue to escalate and that evidence of value (via outcomes) is critical, RIT is committing itself to addressing pricing practices, family financial capacity, and ensuring ample financial aid to accommodate qualified students from all income levels.

The Organizational Agility dimension expands RIT’s commitment to anticipate and respond to changes in the internal and external environments in which it operates and create a culture that is agile and efficient. [ROA 7]

CRITERIA 3: Goals that focus on student learning and related outcomes and on institutional improvement; are supported by administrative, educational, and student support programs and services; and are consistent with institutional mission

RIT’s mission, to “prepare its students for successful careers in a global society through a unique blend of curricular, experiential, and research programs delivered within a student-centric culture,” frames RIT’s overarching institutional Educational Goals (2010). The five Educational Goals are: critical thinking, global interconnectedness, ethical reasoning, creative and innovative thinking, and integrative literacies (scientific literacy, computational or digital literacy, mathematical literacy or numeracy, communication literacy, technical literacy, aesthetic literacy). In order to operationalize these goals, RIT faculty created an Academic Portfolio Blueprint (2013) that establishes the expectation that degree program learning goals must reflect in some way the five Educational Goals and be consistent with mission. The specific ways in which programs embed and assess these Educational Goals vary and are contextualized to particular fields of study and professions. {GTD: T-Shaped Graduate}

15

Both the degree-specific program learning outcomes (further discussed in Standard V) and the General Education Student Learning Outcomes (further discussed in Standard III) are aligned to these five university Educational Goals, ensuring a constant focus on assessing and achieving the Educational Goals and successfully accomplishing RIT’s mission.

These institutional Educational Goals are fully supported by administrative, educational, and student support programs and services described in Standards III, IV, and V.

CRITERIA 4: Periodic assessment of mission and goals to ensure that they are relevant and achievable

In addition to the Strategic Plan Annual Review Cycle discussed in Figure 1 and on pages 10-11, RIT’s Institutional Assessment Framework ensures that ongoing periodic assessment occurs (See Figure 2 on the next page). More detailed information and results for the academic and administrative university assessment processes are animated in Standards III, IV, V, VI, and VII.

16

Figure 2: RIT’s Institutional Assessment Framework

17

STANDARD CONCLUSION

RIT has done an exceptional job in defining its mission and ensuring that its stated strategic goals directly tie to the mission. Cyclic recalibration and alignment of goals with resources are accomplished through an established culture of critical self-assessment, broad collaboration, open dialogue with constituents, and formal processes. This is a strength for the university.

The analysis suggests that RIT fully meets all of the criteria in Standard I: Mission and Goals.

Through the Research Question Analysis undertaken in connection with Standard I, RIT’s new Strategic Plan priorities are further advanced by identifying institutional strengths and challenges and proposing tangible recommendations or steps to advance the priorities and meet the university’s goals. The research question analysis has been forwarded to the key university administrator responsible for implementation. We draw attention here to two recommendations that have particular salience for the implementation cycle:

1. Delivering on the promise in Strategic Plan Dimension 1 (Career Education and Student Success) requires continued assessment of the career success of RIT graduates. RIT should re-evaluate its current longitudinal data collection efforts that support its mission of career preparation. In particular, expansion of the alumni survey and continued leveraging of LinkedIn data are noted as important sources of information moving forward.

2. In order to achieve the Strategic Plan priorities in Dimension 2 (Student-Centered Research University), the development of a culture conducive to meeting the new demands of research is critical and requires a sustainable funding model. RIT’s Capital Campaign, Greatness Through Difference, makes Strategic Plan Dimension 2 a funding priority calling for raising $300 million. Without successfully realizing these incremental funds, achievement of this Strategic Plan Dimension 2 will be severely jeopardized. {GTD: Campaign}

18

STANDARD II: ETHICS AND INTEGRITY

Ethics and integrity are central, indispensable, and defining hallmarks of effective higher education institutions. In all activities, whether internal or external, an institution must be faithful to its mission, honor its contracts and commitments, adhere to its policies, and represent itself truthfully.

RIT has been proactive in creating an environment that encourages respect among its diverse populations. The university requires all constituents to maintain the highest standards of ethical conduct in all educational and business practices. Through policy, infrastructure, and action reviewed in examining this standard we show that we continue to develop, implement, evaluate, and revise programming in order to keep this culture informed, open, and vibrant.

CRITERIA 1: A commitment to academic freedom, intellectual freedom, freedom of expression, and respect for intellectual property rights, and

CRITERIA 2: A climate that fosters respect among students, faculty, staff, and administration from a range of diverse backgrounds, ideas, and perspectives

Academic and Intellectual Freedom, Freedom of Expression. RIT’s commitment to academic and intellectual freedom, and freedom of expression, is demonstrated clearly in RIT’s Principles of Academic Freedom (E02.0) policy. This policy states RIT is guided by the principles of academic freedom as articulated in the AAUP’s “1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure with the 1970 Interpretive Comments.”

Policy ensures all members of the RIT faculty are entitled to full freedom in their teaching, studies, research, and in the publication of the results of their research. They are also entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subjects and material relating directly to the course material. This assurance is further strengthened by the Provost’s Statement of Academic Freedom, as well as the Academic Senate’s approved statement on Academic Freedom.

Intellectual Property Rights. RIT’s Intellectual Property Policy (C03.0) protects the interests of both intellectual property creators and RIT, while also ensuring that the RIT community and society benefit from the fair and full dissemination of knowledge and innovation. RIT’s Externally Sponsored Projects Disclosure Policy (C01.0) and Copyright Policy (C03.2) also address intellectual property.

Institutional core values, related policies, and infrastructure, described here, further attest to RIT’s commitment to creating an inclusive and respectful environment.

RIT’s Core Values (P04.0) and The Honor Code (P03.0) make it clear RIT employees will treat everyone in the campus community with dignity and demonstrate inclusion by incorporating diverse perspectives into their work and studies. {GTD: Inclusive Excellence}

RIT’s Compliance Policy and Code of Ethical Conduct (C00.0) helps guide the conduct of members of the community, including trustees, in the pursuit of the university’s educational and research mission.

The Policy Prohibiting Discrimination and Harassment (C06.0) champions a learning, working, and living environment free from discrimination and harassment based on an individual’s group, class, or category. This policy also identifies resources available for individuals to report any instance of discrimination or harassment they may have experienced or have knowledge about.

19

The policy for Resolution of Conflicts and Concerns Among RIT Employees (C06.1) outlines ways to resolve workplace conflicts in a respectful and productive manner, procedures for resolution, and available resources.

RIT reinforces its unwavering commitment to creating and maintaining an inclusive environment through its Diversity Statement (P05.0) and Inclusive Excellence Framework. {GTD: Inclusive Excellence}

Through the Code of Conduct, the university expectations for community behavior are described and mandate that students are to be treated with dignity and respect by all persons involved in the conduct process. Other policies that guide student conduct include Student Academic Integrity Policy (D08.0), the Final Course Grade Disputes policy (D17.0), and the Student Conduct Process (D18.0).

RIT’s commitment to creating a respectful and diverse environment is backed by the dedicated resources and infrastructure devoted to achieving these goals, including:

Title IX Coordinator: All claims of Title IX violations are directed to a dedicated Title IX Coordinator for review, consistency of process, and complaint resolution. RIT Title IX Rights and Resources are outlined and available on the RIT Title IX website. The Student Gender-Based and Sexual Misconduct (D19.0) policy is RIT’s Title IX policy and sets forth procedures to be followed whenever an allegation of sexual discrimination is made by or against an RIT student.

Office for Diversity and Inclusion: The Office for Diversity and Inclusion is focused on fostering inclusive excellence through its programming efforts for students, staff, and faculty. RIT offers a number of diversity education programs, including Institutional Ally Competency Program, Unconscious Bias Programs, Research and Diversity Series, and Talking Race. A signature offering is a certificate program called “Bridges,” which is designed to strengthen work-related skills in specific competencies related to inclusive approaches, group dynamics and diversity, ally development and sustainability, and social change.

Human Resources. Human Resources professionals are the primary contact and method of resolution for employee relations issues, including complaints of policy violations. They provide advice and counsel to managers and employees for consistent application of university policies and procedures. The Human Resources website offers a portal to university policies and procedures to ensure that these policies are available for review by all student employees, staff, and faculty.

The Ombuds Office. The Ombuds Office provides a safe and confidential place for students, faculty, and staff seeking assistance and resolution for any kind of problem, dispute, or question.

Orientation and Training. RIT offers New Employee Orientation for all new staff and faculty at which time RIT’s Honor Code, Title IX, and Policy Prohibiting Discrimination and Harassment are reviewed. During orientation, new employees are made aware of the Ethics and Compliance Hotline. Students receive training in ethics, campus life, student conduct, Title IX, diversity, and multicultural sensitivity during new student orientation.

The Center for Professional Development offers training programs to enhance awareness and skills in embracing and fostering a climate of respect. Some of these programs include Hate Crimes: The Bully, the Bystander, and the Buddy; Using Reason to Resolve Conflict; and Building Respect and Civility in the Workplace.

University Climate Survey. Climate surveys are administered regularly to take the pulse of the university on key workplace issues. In 2012 and 2015 RIT faculty and staff participated in the Great

20

Colleges to Work For survey. In the Respect & Appreciation and Leadership categories, there were several questions that focused on assessing achievement of a respectful environment. The percent of positive responses (agree and strongly agree) from the survey respondents (displayed in Table 4) supports the conclusion that RIT fosters a respectful climate and shows a marked improvement from the last survey administration in 2012.

Table 4: Great Colleges to Work For Survey Questions Survey Question 2012 2015

At RIT, people are supportive of their colleagues regardless of their heritage or background. 74% 83%

The leadership of my college/division treats individuals with respect, regardless of gender, race, age, religion, or sexual orientation. 79% 85%

Senior leadership of the university treats individuals with respect, regardless of gender, race, age, religion, or sexual orientation. 63% 87%

CRITERIA 3: A grievance policy that is documented and disseminated to address complaints or grievances raised by students, faculty, or staff. The institution’s policies and procedures are fair and impartial, and assure that grievances are addressed promptly, appropriately, and equitably

RIT has a variety of policies and procedures that support complaint and grievance resolution in a fair, prompt, and equitable manner and provide anonymous and standard reporting protocols. In addition to policies, members of the RIT community are encouraged to contact an independently managed Ethics and Compliance Hotline if at any time they feel they have encountered a breach of ethical behavior.

Students. The RIT student complaint policy is well documented and clearly disseminated. RIT students have multiple pathways to address complaints or grievances. Tables 5 and 6 highlight information from the two major offices that support student complaints and grievances.

Table 5: The Ombuds Office: Student Conduct and Conflict Resolution Summary Grievance Policy

Grievance Procedure

Documentation &

Dissemination Fair & Impartial Grievances Addressed

Promptly, Equitably, Appropriately

Student Conduct Process (D18.0) Policy

Ombuds Office Policy (C24.0)

• The RIT Ombuds Office adheres to the International Ombudsman Association’s Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice and is: confidential, impartial, independent, and informal.

• The RIT Ombudsperson holds all information and student identity in strict confidence.

• The same RIT process for students is followed for faculty, staff, and others who seek services from the RIT Ombuds Office.

• The number of individual cases (one student may have multiple visits, but is counted as one case) ranges between 165 – 185 and approximately 30 to 40 one-time visitors per year.

• The total number for the last five years is estimated at 1,000 cases.

• The Ombuds Office is working with the governance groups to create a satisfaction survey to administer in 2016-17 to gather data on services, including if they are prompt, appropriate, and equitable.

21

Table 6: Student Affairs: Student Conduct and Conflict Resolution Summary Grievance Policy

Grievance Procedure

Documentation &

Dissemination Fair & Impartial Grievances Addressed

Promptly, Equitably, Appropriately

Student Conduct Process (D18.0) Policy

Code of Conduct outlines all expectations of student behavior

• The Noel Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) is administered biannually at RIT. The data show a positive increase in students’ perception that RIT’s disciplinary procedures are fair. (See Table 7)

• The number of complaints resolved range from 582-758 per year and average approximately 675 cases per year.

• The total number for the last five years is estimated at 3,375 cases.

• All individuals or groups are informed of their rights to utilize various appeals options when available.

• When possible, outcomes include both educational and reflective components to assist students in learning from the conflict

Student satisfaction with RIT’s disciplinary procedures, as measured by the Noel Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory, has improved over the last ten years and has met or exceeded the national average for the past six years (See Table 7).

Table 7: Noel Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory (based on 7 point scale) Noel Levitz Item Year RIT Mean National Mean

63. Student disciplinary procedures are fair 2006 4.7*** 4.9 2008 4.8*** 5.0 2010 5.1 5.1 2012 5.3*** 5.2 2014 5.3* 5.2 2016 5.3 5.3

*statistically significant to the 0.01 level between RIT mean and national mean ***statistically significant to the 0.001 level between RIT mean and national mean

In addition, the following avenues are also available to students for reporting grievances and complaints: the Public Safety Office, Student Conduct Office, and Title IX Coordinator.

Staff. The Staff Grievance Procedure (E30.0), and Resolution of Conflicts and Concerns Among RIT Employees (C06.1) policies outline the formal procedures available to staff to deal promptly with grievances and complaints. The policies are publicly available on the Governance Policy Library web page.

In RIT’s recent Great Colleges to Work For survey results, item 53: “RIT's policies and practices ensure fair treatment for faculty, administration and staff,” was rated positively by 68% of the RIT community and was slightly higher than the Carnegie Class Peer Score of 64%.

Faculty. The Faculty Grievance (E24.0) policy provides an orderly and formal internal resolution process for a faculty member or a group of faculty members who allege existing policies, procedures, or practices have been violated, misapplied, misinterpreted, or unfairly administered. The policy affords the grievant with appropriate degrees of confidentiality during, and following, the conclusion of the process (see Records Management Policy C22.0). The policy is also available on the Governance Policy Library web page. Other RIT faculty policies refer to the Faculty Grievance policy as a source of

22

resolution; e.g., the Policies on Tenure (E05.0), Dismissal of a Tenure-Track Faculty Member for Cause (E23.0), and Dismissal of a Non-Tenure-Track Member for Cause (E23.1).

RIT has documented and disseminated policies and procedures for all three constituency groups that are fair and assure prompt and equitable resolution. Even though this is the case, there currently is not one central location that is easily accessible by all community members to access policies and procedures for filing complaints. The following recommendation will help remedy this gap:

Recommendation 2: Develop a comprehensive website that directs constituents to the appropriate policy and information regarding filing grievances and complaints. RIT should furthermore ensure that this central archive is widely distributed to all constituents on a regular schedule.

CRITERIA 4: The avoidance of conflict of interest or the appearance of such conflict in all activities and among all constituents

The Bylaws of RIT (B00.1) include two separate articles that define how RIT avoids conflicts of interest. Article XXII, “Conflicts of Interest,” defines the conflicts of interest policy, discusses disclosure of conflicts of interest for members of the board of trustees and employees of RIT, and outlines methods for approving contracts involving potential conflicts of interest. Article XVII, “Conflicts of Interest Committee” (of the board of trustees), defines the membership and duties of the Conflicts of Interest Committee. This Committee reports to the full board of trustees, at least annually, concerning conflicts of interest that have been disclosed by trustees, and contracts and transactions involving conflicts that it has approved.

The avoidance of a real or perceived conflict of interest in all activities and among all constituents is further assisted via a separate Individual Conflict of Interest and Commitment (ICIC) Policy (C04.0) that requires all RIT faculty and staff to self-disclose potential, real, or perceived conflicts of interest to their immediate supervisor and requires any conflict to be removed or managed as described in the operating procedures section of this policy. Administration of the ICIC policy and disclosure process is overseen by the newly formed Office of Compliance and Ethics. And finally, concerns of any ethical issues including conflicts of interest can be submitted anonymously to RIT’s secure Ethics and Compliance Hotline.

As of May 13, 2016, the Conflict of Interest and Commitment compliance statistics indicated 91% completion of the ICIC questionnaire. Of those completed, 5.6% showed a potential conflict of interest. Upon further review, only .4% of the completed submissions resulted in identified conflicts requiring management plans.

CRITERIA 5: Fair and impartial practices in the hiring, evaluation, promotion, discipline, and separation of employees

Human Resources takes the lead in assuring the university follows fair and impartial practices for each stage of the employment life-cycle.

Hiring. Managers work closely with Human Resources units to ensure the hiring process is aligned with university guidelines. The Human Resources website contains an entire section dedicated to Recruiting, Interviewing, and Hiring and articulates the university’s expectations and guidelines. Faculty Employment Policies (E04.0) outline guidelines and expectations related to hiring processes for the various faculty ranks. The Office of Faculty Recruitment (OFR) was created to provide support, direction, and training to search committees conducting faculty searches, partly in an effort to diversify RIT’s faculty by recruiting women and faculty of color. The Nepotism (E01.2) policy and

23

Individual Conflict of Interest and Commitment Policy (C04.0) ensure applicants who are related to university employees “are considered for employment in the same manner as all other applicants.”

Evaluation. The Annual Review of Faculty (E07.0) policy establishes guidelines for the fair evaluation of the performance of each full-time faculty member, which in turn informs annual merit decisions. A recently revised Staff Performance Appraisal (E27.0) policy mandates that staff receive formal communication regarding their performance through an annual, documented, performance appraisal process.

RIT follows a merit-based salary increment process. Human Resources provides guidelines and information to assist managers in implementing the merit process in a fair manner based on performance and results measured against the individual’s plan of work. These guidelines and other compensation-related communications are available to all employees on the Human Resources website. Staff can grieve salary adjustments via the Staff Grievance Procedure (E30.0), and faculty can appeal salary according to the Faculty Grievance (E24.0) policy.

Promotion. Policies on Faculty Rank and Promotion (E06.0) provide general guidelines and procedures required for promotion to the next faculty rank as defined in Faculty Employment Policies (E04.0). Policies on Tenure (E05.0) outline the criteria upon which tenure decisions are made and the processes followed. Staff promotions are made on an individual basis and coordinated through Human Resources.

Promotions or increases for faculty and staff outside of the Annual Merit Review Process must be reviewed with the Human Resources Services Manager in order to ensure consistent application of RIT’s compensation policies and practices for all employees.

Discipline. Performance-related discipline for staff is guided by the Staff Performance Improvement plan process. Performance-related discipline for faculty falls under the Dismissal of a Tenure-Track Faculty Member for Cause (E23.0) and the Dismissal of a Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Member for Cause (E23.1) policies. The policy references the Compliance Policy and Code of Ethical Conduct (C00.0) and spells out a clear procedure for dismissal of a faculty member for cause.

Separation. The Staff Performance Improvement Plan ensures consistency of treatment across the institute and mandates that all terminations be reviewed and approved by the assistant vice president of Human Resources, the vice president of the employee’s organization, and the General Counsel of the university prior to implementation. In cases where non-performance related separations occur as a result of position elimination, obsolete skills, or business reasons such as reorganizations, these decisions must be supported by a solid business case and are reviewed by the assistant vice president of Human Resources and RIT’s chief legal officer to ensure consistency in similar situations. Dismissal of a Tenure-Track Faculty Member for Cause (E23.0) and Dismissal of a Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Member for Cause (E23.1) outline the basis for which dismissal may occur as well as the process that must be followed.

CRITERIA 6: Honesty and truthfulness in public relations announcements, advertisements, recruiting and admissions materials and practices, as well as in internal communications

In spring 2016, RIT created a new Division of Marketing and Communications and hired its first vice president and chief marketing officer (CMO). This new position is responsible for the coordination of all RIT internal and external communications as well as the marketing and branding of the university. One of the chief responsibilities of the vice president is to ensure the university is honest and truthful in all of its communications, marketing strategies, and branding initiatives. RIT has a

24

detailed policy regarding ethics and integrity that is reflected in its high-level admissions publications, in its PR and news releases, and in its internal communications. However, given the increasing complexity of communications via social media and the changing consumption patterns of future students and parents, the hiring of the new CMO and the creation of the new division is clearly a step forward for RIT. {GTD: Marketing}

All high-level recruitment publications feature a Nondiscrimination Statement as well as a statement that the Advisory Committee on Campus Safety will provide information about crime statistics on campus and directs the reader to the website where this information can be found. Additionally, RIT’s Graduate and Undergraduate Admissions Offices follow the National Association for College Admission Counseling Statement of Principles of Good Practice, and the Offices of Graduate and Part-time Enrollment Services follow the National Association of Graduate Admissions Professionals (NAGAP) Best Practices for Graduate Enrollment Management Professionals. Curriculum information in the undergraduate and graduate bulletins are reviewed and approved through the provost’s office. And finally, RIT adheres to the National Association of Colleges and Employers standards for collecting and reporting outcomes data on graduating students.

RIT’s Core Values (P04.0) include a commitment to honesty and truthfulness in formal communications. All advertising, public relations, and news material released by RIT adhere to the ethics guidelines and values in the Governance Policy. RIT’s University News Services (UNS), the source of official communication from campus, follows the code of ethics guidelines of professional associations such as the American Marketing Association, the Public Relations Society of America, and the Society of Professional Journalists. UNS also adheres to RIT’s Principles of Academic Freedom (E02.0) and Statement for Academic Freedom.

Moving forward, given RIT’s growing complexity and expanding national and global footprint, additional steps to guarantee that all external and internal communications are coordinated appropriately are needed and should include:

Recommendation 3: Develop a coordinated process for all marketing (public relations, advertising, publications, media, and social media) that is consistent across all of RIT’s locations and all internal and external marketing communications platforms. {GTD: Marketing}

Recommendation 4: Require all colleges and degree-granting units to provide consistent program information on their websites, during open-house informational sessions, and through other college level communiques that calibrates with the official university bulletin at the main campus as well as the international locations.

CRITERIA 7: As appropriate to mission, services or programs in place: 7a. To promote affordability and accessibility, and 7b. To enable students to understand funding sources and options, value received for cost, and methods to make informed decisions about incurring debt

To promote affordability and accessibility, RIT has made significant strides to contain student costs and increase access for low-income students. The Office of Financial Aid & Scholarships disbursed approximately $311 million to 13,600 students in 2014-2015, compared to $192 million to 11,500 students in 2005-2006. Of the $311 million disbursed, 52% came from RIT scholarships and grants compared to 38% in 2005-2006. {GTD: Financial Needs}

25

At RIT, 32% of the full-time, first time degree-seeking undergraduates who enrolled in fall 2014 received Pell grants. To address affordability concerns and reinforce RIT’s commitment to assist with the financial needs of low-income students among other initiatives, RIT has further responded with the following:

• Student loan counseling that has resulted in a decrease in our three-year federal student loan default rate from 5.2% to 4.2% in one year (the national rate is 11.8%)

• Partnerships with the “Say Yes to Education Syracuse and Buffalo” as well as the recently launched program in North Carolina

• Creation of the Rochester City Scholars Program, which offers full tuition coverage for qualified students

• Participation in the National GEM Consortium enabling qualified students from underrepresented communities to pursue graduate education in science and engineering

• Pilot program between RIT and Monroe Community College (MCC) called the RIT-MCC-RCSD Transfer Connect, offering a pathway to higher education for Rochester City School students not immediately admissible to RIT

• Commitment to on-time graduation as a strategic priority

RIT has also excelled in communicating affordability to prospective students via its Financial Aid & Scholarships brochure, financial aid presentations at Admissions Open Houses, RIT’s Net Price Calculator and information about financial literacy, Financial Aid Counselor participation in annual College Goal Sunday, and other FAFSA completion workshops sponsored by local agencies.

In addition, RIT has been consistently recognized by several external guides and rankings for its value and affordability. The most recent edition of the U.S. News College Rankings ranked RIT 33rd among national universities in its “Best Value Schools” category. Princeton Review’s 2016 edition of Colleges that Pay You Back recognized RIT for providing students with a superb education and excellent career preparation at an affordable price. The Fiske Guide to Colleges 2017 rated RIT a “Best Buy” based on academic ratings and price. According to Kiplinger’s Personal Finance 2016 edition, RIT ranks among the country’s best 300 values for a private college education; RIT ranked 80th on the list of private universities.

Looking to the future, Dimension 4 of the Strategic Plan: Affordability, Value, and Return on Investment outlines a tuition containment program and a capital campaign drive for additional scholarship support for promising low-income and underrepresented students, as well as a guarantee that no student in good standing within 15 credits of graduation need drop out because of insufficient funds for the remaining tuition. {GTD: Financial Needs}

RIT has clearly demonstrated its commitment to the affordability goal by addressing price and student financial capacity, by ensuring ample financial aid to accommodate high-need students, and by providing our graduates with the skills and knowledge necessary to succeed in careers that will justify the expense of their undergraduate or graduate education. At the same time, Moody’s has identified RIT’s ability to raise funds specifically for scholarships for targeted populations as an area of opportunity. This is very important if RIT hopes to accomplish its enrollment goals. Given this, and given the prominence of the theme of diversifying RIT’s student body in the Strategic Plan (Leveraging Difference), RIT is strongly encouraged to:

Recommendation 5: Strengthen the message and improve the appeal to current and prospective donors to increase scholarship funds and mitigate ongoing financial challenges threatening student success for populations with the greatest needs and for populations included in our strategic enrollment goals. {GTD: Financial Needs and Largest Producer}

26

CRITERIA 8: Compliance with all applicable federal, state, and Commission reporting policies, regulations, and requirements to include reporting regarding: 8a.The full disclosure of information on institution wide assessments, graduation, retention, certification and licensure, or licensing board pass rates

The Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 contains numerous federal reporting and disclosure requirements for information from various administrative areas of institutions of higher education. In order to make this information readily available, RIT installed a Consumer Information/Student’s Right to Know web page, which is designed to provide quick access to student, financial, student outcomes, and institutional information including: retention, graduation, and licensure/board pass rates for relevant programs. A newly created position, assistant vice president for Compliance and Ethics, leads and monitors compliance actions. See also RIT’s Compliance & Ethics website for a detailed account of RIT’s compliance efforts.

8b. The institution’s compliance with the Commission’s Requirements of Affiliation

RIT’s presentation of evidence for compliance with the Requirements of Affiliation was undertaken through:

1. Verification of institutional compliance with accreditation-relevant federal regulations 2. The institutional Self-Study Report

Requirements of Affiliation 1-6 and 14 are addressed through the expanded compliance review process and 7-13 and 15 are addressed directly through the Self-Study in the related Standards.

8c. Substantive changes affecting institutional mission, goals, programs, operations, sites, and other material issues, which must be disclosed in a timely and accurate fashion.

Several substantive changes have occurred at RIT over the past decade, primarily related to either the creation or discontinuance of additional international locations. Most recently RIT opened two new international locations in Weihai and Beijing, China and both were reported to MSCHE through the substantive change process.

8d. The institution’s compliance with the Commission’s policies

RIT reviewed each of the Commission’s policies and developed a compliance crosswalk to ensure compliance with the Commission’s Requirements of Affiliation.

CRITERIA 9: Periodic assessment of ethics and integrity as evidenced in institutional policies, processes, practices, and the manner in which these are implemented

There is ample evidence of periodic assessment. First, RIT’s Policy B05.0 Development, Review, Approval, and Promulgation of University-Level Policies mandates that all university level governance policies be systematically affirmed or, if needed, revised on a regular review cycle. As a result, all policies must be reviewed within five years of the last review and affirmation.

Examples of such revisions that include modifications made to ethics and integrity policies are: the Policy Prohibiting Discrimination and Harassment (C06.0) and the Resolution of Conflict and Concerns Among RIT Employees (C06.1). The Faculty Grievance (E24.0) policy, was revised two years ago in response to issues related to policy scope, clarity regarding timelines and confidentiality.

27

RIT systematically collects data on complaints and grievances, analyzes that data for trends and patterns, and reports to the larger community through University Council. The Office of Student Conduct as well as the Ombuds Office both report to University Council on an annual basis.

The way in which Ethics and Integrity policies are implemented is also assessed by Human Resources based on a review of the number of referrals made or supervisory consults requested in reference to the Honor Code, Diversity Statements, and Diversity Policies. RIT’s Division of Diversity and Inclusion is committed to evaluating and revising programming in order to keep the Inclusive Excellence Framework operational and vibrant, as outlined in RIT’s Diversity Statement (P05.0). In short, RIT is “responsible for building an inclusive environment where membership in the community allows for faculty, staff, and students to reach their fullest potential, both professionally and personally.” {GTD: Inclusive Excellence}

Lastly, RIT periodically assesses ethics and integrity via the existence of an Ethics and Compliance Hotline that allows students, faculty, and staff to anonymously report activities that may involve misconduct or violations of university policies or applicable regulations or contractual obligations. This hotline is independently operated for RIT by EthicsPoint, a third-party vendor, to maintain the anonymity of those who report irregularities or concerns.

STANDARD CONCLUSION

After a review of RIT policies and procedures as well as interviews with key stakeholders, it is apparent that RIT consistently meets Standard II. The university prides itself on being:

• Guided by its mission and goals that in all cases are arrived at collaboratively and with great transparency

• Truthful in its marketing and advertising of itself and with regard to the claims that it makes both internally and externally

• Committed to intellectual freedom and intellectual property, and takes every step to ensure that the integrity of its students, staff, and faculty is maintained

• Clear in its expectations that employees and students will treat each other equitably and with the utmost respect

• Compliant with all federal, state, and MSCHE policies and Requirements of Affiliation

Through the Research Question Analysis undertaken as part of the Self-Study, RIT’s Strategic Plan priorities are further advanced by identifying institutional strengths and challenges and offering tangible recommendations or steps to achieve university goals. The analysis and recommendations contained in the Research Questions inquiry have been forwarded to the key administrative leader responsible for implementation. We highlight here research question recommendations that have not been previously discussed because of their import for the ongoing success of the university in meeting its strategic intents related to affordability.

• Develop transparent and comprehensive measures to contain costs at the university that involve all members of the campus community. This is important because every dollar that provides operating budget relief contributes to keeping down tuition costs and supporting affordability targets. {GTD: Financial Needs}

• Conduct robust analysis to determine the funding level necessary to ensure students in good standing who approach graduation, and yet find themselves short of funds to continue to completion, can be supported financially. This speaks to both the affordability and the on-time graduation goals. {GTD: Financial Needs and On-Time Graduation}

28

STANDARD III: DESIGN AND DELIVERY OF THE STUDENT LEARNING EXPERIENCE

An institution provides students with learning experiences that are characterized by rigor and coherence at all program, certificate, and degree levels, regardless of instructional modality. All learning experiences, regardless of modality, program pace/schedule, level, and setting are consistent with higher education expectations.

The quality of the student learning experience lies at the heart of the university’s enterprise and our desire to provide a world-class education. Inquiry for Standard III, therefore, concentrated on the extent to which our educational offerings, particularly the content, breadth, depth, and rigor of the curriculum, reflect and promote the university’s mission. The scope included the programs and related learning opportunities, including distance education, in place to support student learning at RIT Henrietta, RIT Croatia, RIT Dubai, and RIT Kosovo. Offerings at RIT’s newest locations in China commenced in fall 2016 and are not included.

In the past five years, increased efforts have been directed to the integration of programs at global locations with the main campus. The associate provost for International Education and Global Programs together with RIT deans and department chairs now regularly meet remotely and face-to-face with their global location counterparts specifically to ensure that course syllabi, program goals, and curricular requirements are clearly understood and that the academic program is delivered with the same degree of quality, rigor, and coherence at all locations. The same analysis is done for programs offered in an online format. In this instance, RIT Online works with academic programs to make sure that the online curricula offerings are of a high quality, that faculty responsible for delivering the curricula are effectively supported, and that sufficient academic support services are offered to students.

CRITERIA 1: Certificate, undergraduate, graduate and/or professional programs leading to a degree or other recognized higher education credential, of a length appropriate to the objectives of the degree or other credential, designed to foster a coherent student learning experience and to promote synthesis of learning

RIT’s academic program portfolio includes: 81 baccalaureate, 72 master’s, 22 associate, 8 certificate and 18 advanced certificate, 8 doctoral, 1 diploma program, and 48 dual degrees. RIT also offers 28 online programs. These instructional programs are designed to provide students with rigorous and coherent learning experiences appropriate to the credential awarded. Rigor, appropriate length, coherence, and synthesis of learning are reviewed and assured through intentional oversight at the college and university levels.

Such oversight is accomplished in a variety of ways. First, RIT is guided by New York State Education Department (NYSED) laws, regulations, and requirements as well as MSCHE guidelines. NYSED has a separate application process for online degree programs, which further ensures that the quality of such offerings is calibrated and comparable to face-to-face offerings. These are built into and expanded upon by RIT’s Charter of Academic Governance (B02.0). Second, RIT’s Policies for Curriculum Development and Review (D01.0) and the procedures detailed in the RIT Academic Program and Curriculum Management website provide comprehensive guidance for all curricular actions and assure that faculty drive the curricular process. Among other things, internal policies and requirements assure rigor is not diminished when students choose double majors (D01.2), undergraduate dual degrees (D01.3) or customize their degree programs in the School for Individualized Studies. [ROA 9] Third, program composition and degree length are detailed in RIT’s

29

undergraduate and graduate degree requirements and Graduation Requirements (D12.0) and include specific credit hour parameters. Associate degree programs range from two to two and one-half years; baccalaureate programs range from four to five years total, depending on co-op requirements; master’s programs normally require 30-36 credit hours; and doctoral programs require a minimum of three academic years of full-time graduate level study after the baccalaureate degree.

For all courses, RIT provides specific guidance for how credit hours are assigned and translated to contact hours, including expectations for student effort in various types of instructional models (e.g., lecture/seminar, laboratory, mixed format of lecture and lab or studio and lab, and clinicals).

Fourth, all proposed new program ideas follow a preliminary Concept Paper Development and Review stage that includes information on program need, curriculum design, enrollment projections, and a budget estimate. The process requires community vetting and a final decision by the president and provost regarding approval to move to full proposal development. Concept papers must specify how the new degree program aligns with the characteristics and criteria of RIT’s Academic Portfolio Blueprint (APB) that includes centrality to mission, marketability, quality, and fiscal viability. [ROA 9]

The identification of program goals and student learning outcomes is another hallmark of RIT programs and speaks directly to coherence and synthesis. Assessment begins at the course level. RIT’s Course Outline Form requires that information be provided about the measurable student learning outcomes for the course, how the outcomes contribute to the goals of the academic program, and how they will be assessed in the course. All programs must develop and implement a Program Level Outcomes Assessment Plan (PLOAP) to ensure program outcomes are met. This is further discussed in Standard V. [ROA 9]

Additionally, as students progress toward graduation, they demonstrate learning outcomes associated with RIT’s Educational Goals at the level appropriate for their particular degree and discipline. These include: critical thinking, global interconnectedness, ethical reasoning, creative and innovative thinking, and integrative literacies (scientific literacy, computational or digital literacy, mathematical literacy or numeracy, communication literacy, technical literacy, aesthetic literacy). [ROA 9]

The well-established assessment processes, further discussed in Standard V Criteria 8, support student learning outcomes achievement. The way student learning outcomes cascade across three levels (course, program, and university) contributes to a coherent learning experience for students. Course-embedded assessment contributes to program level assessment of student learning that culminates in the university level Progress Reports process through which RIT demonstrates how it consistently meets NYSED and MSCHE requirements. [ROA 9]

In addition to RIT’s required program design and assessment expectations, many undergraduate and graduate degree programs incorporate curricular elements recommended by their program advisory boards or required by their specialized accrediting bodies discussed later in Criteria 8.

A review of the program descriptions, typical course sequences, course titles, and course descriptions contained in the Undergraduate and Graduate Bulletins and the Course Descriptions catalog clearly demonstrates that undergraduate and graduate degree programs promote synthesis of learning. For example, some programs provide students with a broad academic base complemented by hands-on laboratory activities and cooperative education experiences; others include a deep focus on courses/topics of interest, and culminate with a senior project or other experience. This might be a capstone or portfolio course.

30

In order to be approved by NYSED, every RIT graduate degree program must require a culminating and synthesizing experience that integrates the concepts and theories introduced earlier in the program. Master’s degree programs frequently give students the option of completing either a thesis, a capstone project, or a comprehensive exam.

Cooperative work experiences (co-ops) continue to be a distinguishing feature of RIT’s undergraduate degree programs. Currently, 56 undergraduate programs (70%) require a co-op, and three graduate programs require co-op. Co-ops are also available to students in programs not requiring it. These practical experiences serve as a synthesizing component, providing an opportunity for students to apply what they have learned in their classes. Undergraduate and graduate programs also promote other forms of experiential learning in the form of student research, study abroad, required practicums, clinical experiences, internships, and student teaching. [ROA 9] {GTD: Experiential Learning}

CRITERIA 2: Student learning experiences that are: designed, delivered, and assessed by faculty (full-time or part-time) and/or other appropriate professionals who are: 2a. Rigorous and effective in teaching, assessment of student learning, scholarly inquiry, and service, as appropriate to the institution’s mission, goals, and policies

As explained earlier in this Standard and again in Standard V, RIT faculty are both the curriculum architects and assessors at the course and program levels.

RIT utilizes a variety of approaches to evaluate whether faculty are rigorous and effective in carrying out these areas of responsibility. By policy, RIT full-time faculty are evaluated by their department chairs annually (Annual Review of Faculty, EO7.0). [ROA 15] Details on evaluation processes and criteria are provided in Criteria 2e.

With respect to teaching effectiveness, one source of input comes from student ratings. Using SmartEvals, a third-party online platform, students rate full-time and part-time instructors on seven standard questions. University aggregated results are consistently above 4.0 on a 5-point scale on all questions. See Table 8 below for three year trends on all survey items. Results of student ratings are required by policy (E07.0) to be included in the annual performance review. [ROA 15]

Table 8: RIT Three Mean Scores for Teaching Effectiveness Survey Items

RIT Survey Item AY 2013-14 n= 90,843

AY 2014-15 n=93,060

AY 2015-16 n= 98,446

1. The instructor enhanced my interest in this subject 4.0 4.0 4.02 2. The instructor presented the course material in an

organized manner 4.10 4.17 4.14

3. The instructor communicated the course material clearly 4.10 4.11 4.09 4. The instructor established a positive learning

environment 4.20 4.26 4.27

5. The instructor provided helpful feedback about my work in this course 4.0 4.06 4.06

6. The instructor supported my progress in achieving the course objectives 4.10 4.17 4.16

7. Overall, this instructor was an effective teacher 4.10 4.18 4.17 Survey Scale: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree

A report in spring 2017 is expected from a subcommittee of the Academic Senate on the operational effectiveness and user satisfaction of this online system since its adoption three years ago.

31

Another source of input is peer review of teaching. Departments establish peer review procedures and schedules. Globally, RIT Croatia has in-class peer assessment and RIT Dubai and RIT Kosovo conduct end of year faculty evaluations. All faculty discuss their teaching during their annual evaluation process and during the promotion and/or merit review process.

Adjunct faculty are primarily evaluated for reappointment by the department chair using student ratings and other information on teaching effectiveness.

Program Level Student Learning Outcomes Assessment (discussed more fully in Standard V), is conducted by faculty on an annual basis according to an established assessment schedule. Annual results highlighting student learning outcomes achievement and how data are used to guide improvements in curriculum, pedagogy, and practices are shared with academic unit leadership (Progress Reports). [ROA 9]

2b. Qualified for the positions they hold and the work they do

RIT has instituted a rigorous set of guidelines regarding faculty qualifications. These guidelines calibrate with the NYSED standards for baccalaureate, master’s, and doctoral level programs, which require that faculty members teaching at the certificate, associate degree, and baccalaureate levels hold at least a master’s degree in an appropriate field and have the background for in-depth teaching, curriculum development, and program evaluation responsibilities. At the doctoral degree level, faculty are expected to possess a terminal degree. Moreover, as RIT has increased its graduate education program portfolio and expanded faculty scholarship expectations, requiring a terminal degree for all full-time faculty is now the norm. Today, 71% of full-time faculty across all ranks, and 82% of all tenured/tenure-track faculty hold a terminal degree.

Evidence that RIT adheres to these guidelines can be found in the Undergraduate and Graduate Bulletins that display program faculty by rank and degree. For approval by NYSED of new degree program proposals, a listing of each faculty member teaching in the program is required. This list must provide the courses they will teach, highest earned degree, discipline, and additional qualifications that demonstrate professional competence relative to the specific program.

2c. Sufficient in number

As of fall 2015, RIT had 1,068 full-time, 24 part-time, and 452 adjunct faculty. At the provost’s directive, RIT strives to have 50% of its class sections and credit hours taught by tenured or tenure-track faculty; 25% by full-time non-tenure-track faculty (lecturers, research, and visiting faculty); and 25% by adjunct faculty. Tenure-track faculty have scholarship and service requirements as part of their workload. Whereas, the primary role of non-tenure-track faculty lecturers is teaching, so increasing the proportion of lecturers increases the number of sections that can be taught by full-time faculty. The table below, drawn from the annual Instructional Activity Report, compares the percentages of sections taught by faculty type. While the percentage of sections taught by adjuncts has remained steady, the percentage of sections taught by tenured or tenure-track faculty has declined. [ROA 15]

Table 9: Sections Taught by Faculty Type: 2012-13 vs. 2015-16 2012-13 2015-16

Adjunct instructors 23% 23% Tenured/Tenure-Track faculty 51% 44% Non-tenure-track faculty 25% 36%

32

There is concern about the trend in the number of tenure track faculty and the effect it might have on RIT’s ability to be both student-centric and research intensive. The provost has commissioned a committee on the Future of Faculty to examine this question and suggest fiscally responsible and innovative solutions that may help reverse this trend without compromising RIT’s commitment to student success and research.

When surveyed about the adequacy of faculty resources for the delivery of programs and courses, several colleges indicated they were stretched considerably, in particular when delivering upper level program courses and service courses. This stress on resources is resulting in other college initiatives being underfunded or postponed. According to the 2015 Great Colleges to Work For survey, 38% of RIT faculty and staff believe their department has adequate faculty or staff to achieve their goals. While this percentage is the same (38%) as faculty and staff at RIT’s peer institutions, it remains an area of considerable concern. (See also Criteria 4 regarding sufficient faculty.) [ROA 15]

An important factor in the analysis of the sufficiency of faculty headcount is consideration of diversity. Diversification of faculty has been a hiring and retention priority over the past ten years. The results, however, have been less than desired and remain an area of concern. In an effort to better understand whether this is a recruitment or a retention issue, further internal analysis has been conducted and additional internal processes developed. For example, a Faculty Search & Selection Process Review Task Force studied the faculty recruitment processes through the lens of optimizing RIT’s faculty recruitment efforts and preserving its goals to hire the best candidates and enhance inclusive excellence aspirations. In fall, 2014, the committee provided the final report and recommendations. The provost and associate provost for diversity and inclusion have used the recommendations to chart a path forward related to recruitment. And, while RIT has become a national model in recognition of its faculty diversity recruitment efforts, there has been less success in the area of retention. In order to address this, a number of steps have been taken:

• Improved onboarding and mentoring; required mid-tenure review; available AALANA faculty affinity groups (AALANA Faculty Advisory Council)

• Creation of the AALANA Faculty Associate. College deans and department chairs provide formal guidance to assist junior faculty in reaching tenure and promotion

• Better tracking of AALANA faculty is providing rich data, shared and discussed with Executive Level sponsorship (Board of Trustees, President’s cabinet, and Deans), to assist in better monitoring progress and developing strategies to address concerns

In response, the provost and each dean now establish concrete college faculty diversity goals. The dean is accountable to meet or exceed the faculty diversity goals for the college and is evaluated on this metric as part of the annual performance review. {GTD: Inclusive Excellence}

Another important university endeavor expressly designed to increase the representation and enhance the career advancement of women faculty in STEM and social and behavioral science disciplines is the NSF ADVANCE Institutional Transformation Grant that RIT received in 2011. A focus of this five year grant has been on women faculty of color and deaf and hard of hearing faculty. Associated programming and research have centered on transforming RIT’s culture. Impact to date has been particularly robust in the areas of faculty policy revisions, salary equity analysis, unconscious bias training, and increases in the number of women filling leadership positions.

33

2d. Provided with and utilize sufficient opportunities, resources, and support for professional growth and innovation

RIT provides faculty and staff opportunity for professional growth and innovation through formal policy, internal grants, and investments in faculty support units. Along with these institute level support structures, faculty are also supported at the college level by deans and department chairs through plans of work customized to draw upon the vast resources RIT provides.

RIT’s commitment to professional growth and innovation is evident in its policies for Effective Teaching Development (E10.0), the Annual Review of Faculty (E07.0), and Faculty Leave for Professional/Career Development (E18.0). These official policies and practices outline RIT’s resolve to further faculty growth throughout their careers by supporting professional development, promoting performance improvement, and encouraging advanced study, research, and creative pursuits. Examples of faculty grant opportunities provided by RIT include both Faculty Education and Development (FEAD) funds and Provost Learning Innovations Grants (PLIG). {GTD: Innovation}

In addition to departmental and college level support for faculty development, faculty are provided with a number of RIT funded opportunities to explore and improve teaching:

• The Wallace Center houses the Faculty Career Development unit that helps guide faculty though the different career stages. Services offered include new faculty orientation, faculty mentoring, and leadership development. Their website outlines all available opportunities.

• The Innovative Learning Institute (ILI), through its sub units of RIT Online and Teaching and Learning Services, provides faculty with direct and active consultation on flexible teaching modalities utilizing technology and pedagogies. Special programming for faculty developing on-line courses called GOLD is provided each term. Their website outlines all available opportunities.

• During the 2015 calendar year, the Wallace Center and ILI offered 125 events to promote professional growth and enhance teaching to 2,068 faculty and staff attendees.

• The Office of Educational Effectiveness annually offers four mini-grants for faculty to focus on assessing student learning.

RIT’s Office of Sponsored Research Services also provides workshops for faculty seeking external grant funding. Programs vary by college and include: faculty research funds, faculty led experiences abroad grants, and sponsored research seed funding.

Staff members are able to access professional development through HR’s Center for Professional Development, which offers more traditional corporate style training focused on higher education and career advancement strategies. The development of career ladders for staff is a focus at RIT. Also, some colleges provide additional funds to their staff for professional development.

Results from the 2015 Great Colleges to Work For survey and the 2013 COACHE survey both indicate RIT offers faculty adequate opportunity for professional development. In the Great Colleges survey, the question: “I am given the opportunity to develop my skills at RIT” had a 74% positive response. This response scored above peer institutions. On the COACHE survey question regarding areas in need of institutional improvements, professional development was not noted in that category.

2e. Reviewed regularly and equitably based on written, disseminated, clear, and fair criteria, expectations, policies, and procedures

34

All RIT full-time (tenure track and non-tenure track) faculty (main and international locations) are reviewed at least once a year by their department chairs/directors as well as their deans. Reviews are based on expectations provided in faculty plans of work as well as outlined in university tenure (E05.0) and promotion (E06.0) policies. Faculty responsibilities regarding teaching, scholarship, and service are outlined in the Faculty Employment Policies (E04.0).

At the RIT main campus, the review of pre-tenure faculty includes both an annual assessment of progress toward tenure and a mid-tenure review during the third year of the six-year probationary period. While there are some exceptions (e.g., adding tenure clock time for maternity leave), most tenure-track faculty in their sixth year are evaluated for tenure and promotion to associate professor. [ROA 9, 15]

RIT’s array of policies, processes, and practices are built on the proposition that faculty quality is key to academic program excellence. Qualified faculty who are rigorous and effective in teaching and evaluation of student learning develop and deliver the student learning experience, have access to professional development opportunities, and are reviewed regularly and equitably based on written, disseminated, clear, and fair criteria.

There is work ahead, though, to ensure that a sufficient number of full-time faculty continues to be a strength for RIT. RIT’s enrollment growth, expansion of degree program offerings, and promotion of minors and double majors are expected to continue at the same time that intentional reductions in teaching loads are being made to accommodate expanding scholarship requirements. Colleges are beginning to express critical concern about the sufficiency of current full-time faculty to achieve RIT’s mission and strategic priorities. In light of this:

Recommendation 6: Given RIT's projected growth and strategic initiative to strengthen its position as a leading research university, conduct further analysis into the sufficiency of current full-time (tenured/ tenure track) faculty as compared to non-tenure track faculty and utilize findings to develop and implement a staffing action plan.

CRITERIA 3: Academic programs of study that are clearly and accurately described in official publications of the institution in a way that students are able to understand and follow degree and program requirements and expected time to completion

RIT’s academic programs, course curricula, policies, and standards are described in the Undergraduate and Graduate Bulletins and the Course Descriptions catalog. These bulletins provide students with a clear, coherent, and comprehensive source of information to use in planning their education. An annual university-wide centralized bulletin review process conducted by the Provost’s Office ensures the information in each publication is current, accurate, and consistent across all university level delivery platforms. Academic requirements in the Student Information System (SIS) are reflected in the university’s degree audit system and Academic Advising Report (AAR) for every degree program offered by the colleges and academic units. Current oversight is a labor intensive process that involves many offices and considerable data transfer actions. Because of this, guaranteeing 100% accuracy can be difficult and is an area ripe for a technology solution.

The degree audit Academic Advising Report (AAR) in SIS is the most comprehensive source of information for students’ degree requirements and can be accessed by students and advisors alike. The AAR is designed to be a consistent tool to track the status of completion of degree requirements, which automatically updates for students/advisors to see. Illustrative of this functionality, examples of Academic Advising Reports for students in the Bioinformatics BS,

35

Bioinformatics BS – molecular option, and Bioinformatics MS programs display the information that is available in each AAR.

To further support student understanding of degree requirements, no new first year undergraduate students and transfer students can register for next term classes until they meet with their advisors in the fall semester to plan and learn about program requirements and university resources.

While not uniform, additional information about program requirements is sometimes found in student handbooks posted on college websites (e.g., College of Science) and at the program level (e.g., the Chester F. Carlson Center for Imaging Science and the Thomas H. Gosnell School of Life Science).

Given the multiple review and oversight processes and the increase in programs and courses, reliance on consistent and accurate information is paramount and should be accomplished in as seamless and agile a way as possible. The university should seriously consider the following suggestion as a way to ensure expected accuracy and efficiency:

Suggestion 2: Implement a technology-based tool that will eliminate currently used manual processes for moving new curriculum proposals and course proposals through the various review/approval bodies. Such a tool can ensure the information flow and transfer is streamlined in a consistent and accurate way for SIS, university bulletins, and academic program websites.

CRITERIA 4: Sufficient learning opportunities and resources to support both the institution’s programs of study and students’ academic progress

The faculty in each of RIT’s academic programs are responsible for identifying the minimum set of learning opportunities necessary for a student to earn a degree in a particular field of study. This set of opportunities (required courses, labs/studio work, experiential learning, and capstone project) is documented in Table 1a/1b when a program is proposed or revised. Sample learning outcomes and curriculum maps are also typically developed. An example of the form these take is provided in the examples from the bioinformatics BS and MS degree programs, and the engineering Ph.D. program. In each example, the courses where the desired learning outcomes are introduced, reinforced, mastered, and assessed are identified. These maps are tied to the program descriptions and typical course sequences, which appear in the Undergraduate and Graduate Bulletins, as seen in the bioinformatics degree programs.

According to the 2015 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), 74% of RIT responding seniors said they participated or planned to participate in an internship, co-op, field experience, student teaching, or clinical placement before graduation. Thirteen percent participated or planned to participate in study abroad, and 29% worked or planned to work with a faculty member on a research project prior to graduation. The university organizes itself to specifically support these special learning opportunities in several ways.

To increase accessibility, RIT has focused on increasing its online offerings through creation of RIT Online. RIT has been successful in this area, reporting close to 10% growth in online headcount for the 2014-15 academic year and an increase of 39% in 2015-16. RIT has also seen growth in the total number of online offerings provided and is utilizing the online platform to offer campus-based students more flexibility, particularly through a campaign to increase the number of General Education courses offered online. Best practices in online education is led by RIT Online and supported through the Innovative Learning Institute (ILI) and Teaching and Learning Services (TLS). Among other things, this unit oversees program/course development guidelines, student support,

36

online concierge services, and assessment of student satisfaction. RIT uses the nine hallmarks of quality for distance education, contained in MSCHE’s Interregional Guidelines for the Evaluation of Distance Education (Online Learning), as a basis to gauge whether it is using best practice related to ensuring the quality, integrity, effectiveness, student success, student support, and provision of resources to support online offerings. This analysis is reviewed annually and provides evidence that online learning is held to the same standard as on-the-ground learning.

Program directors, deans, and faculty oversee curriculum management and are responsible for ensuring all programs and courses meet the standard of quality established for on-campus instruction. This includes assuring that courses are offered at intervals that allow for timely program completion. Given the growth in online offerings in the last three years, assessment of the current state of affairs was recently carried out by the ILI. The first Summit for Experienced Online Faculty was held in September 2016. Overall findings included agreement that opportunities exist for ILI to:

• Educate the RIT community at large about the realities and successes of the online mode • Help departments define practices around peer evaluation of online teaching practices • Uncover data that supports or refutes the assumption that student course evaluations are

lower for online faculty • Organize opportunities for faculty across disciplines to come together with peers to compare

online experiences These opportunities will serve as an action agenda moving forward.

RIT also provides additional learning opportunities through the Simone Center for Student Innovation and Entrepreneurship, which offers experiences that foster a mindset toward creativity and transformational thinking, and through RIT Global programs, offered through the Office of International Education and Global Programs (OIE). Opportunities include study abroad, exchange programs, fellowships, and coursework at RIT international locations. OIE works closely with the administration and faculty to achieve RIT’s strategic goal of internationalizing the campus through nurturing culture knowledge competencies and engaging in international research.

When new degree programs are created, departments work with RIT Finance and Administration to create program financial projections and finalize requests for incremental resources for new faculty and staff, the library, and General Education. Technology installed in general purpose classrooms to support teaching across campus are centrally funded and supported by Teaching and Learning Services.

Additional resources can be requested through the annual RIT budget process described in Standard VI. Over the past three years this process has resulted in a number of facility and equipment upgrades across the campus. Additionally, the Innovative Learning Institute (ILI) surveys faculty regularly regarding academic technology utilization, satisfaction, and desired improvements. The resultant data informs decisions about technology planning and funding for centrally supported academic technologies provided by ILI and general purpose classrooms managed by the registrar.

Demand for resources continues to grow and challenges resource availability. This has already been noted as pertains to faculty headcount. Other current themes related to resource requirements within colleges include the need for more staff, better faculty start-up packages to increase quality hiring, more effective space allocation for labs and faculty research needs, and more dedicated student space. Because of budget limitations, fiscal restraint and good stewardship are particularly necessary for colleges that deliver General Education courses or other service courses while also managing to offer their own degree courses.

37

For discussion of additional resources to support students, please see Standard IV.

Given the demand for increasing resources and in light of limited fiscal parameters, the university is strongly invited to consider the following suggestions so that quality program delivery and hiring continue:

Suggestion 3: Integrate technology replacements with more efficient space utilization and classroom upgrades to enhance different pedagogies and modalities.

Suggestion 4: In order to achieve Strategic Plan objectives relative to increasing faculty diversity and excellence in teaching and research as a means to further distinguish RIT’s academic and research portfolio and its position within the new Carnegie classification, provide competitive start-up packages and other resources (i.e. research space) to attract and retain faculty. {GTD: Sponsored Research and Signature Research}

CRITERIA 5: At institutions that offer undergraduate education: A general education program, free standing or integrated into academic disciplines, that: 5a. Offers a sufficient scope to draw students into new areas of intellectual experience, expanding their cultural and global awareness and cultural sensitivity, and preparing them to make well-reasoned judgments outside as well as within their academic field 5b. Offers a curriculum designed so students acquire and demonstrate essential skills including at least oral and written communication, scientific and quantitative reasoning, critical analysis and reasoning, technological competency, and information literacy. Consistent with mission, the general education program also includes the study of values, ethics, and diverse perspectives

The move to a semester calendar offered a unique opportunity to reconsider the General Education requirements in place for well over 20 years. A General Education Task Force was charged in 2010 to design a new General Education (GE) Framework that would incorporate the General Education Student Learning Outcomes approved in 2009 and provide students with opportunities to demonstrate achievement of these same learning outcomes. Implemented in fall 2012 and revised in 2015, RIT’s framework moves away from a strictly distributive model to an outcomes-based and integrated learning model with three key domains: (1) Essential (foundational) Elements: Critical Thinking and Communication; (2) seven Perspective course categories designed for breadth; and (3) a required three-course Immersion sequence designed for depth. RIT’s General Education Committee is charged with providing oversight for the General Education Framework. RIT students at international locations follow the same General Education requirements as the main campus students, but the variety of courses offered is much more limited. A brief description of these three domains follows.

Essential (Foundational) Elements. Communication and Critical Thinking student learning outcomes are considered the foundational pillars of the GE Framework. Every GE course is expected to provide learning experiences to achieve at least one student learning outcome within each pillar. See the Essential Elements and Perspective Outcome Alignment.

Perspectives. The seven Perspective categories promote different ways of knowing about the world. Courses in these categories introduce students to the breadth of disciplines in liberal arts and sciences (methods, concepts, and theories) and provide opportunities for students to demonstrate the associated General Education student learning outcomes in the seven areas.

Immersions. Students have an opportunity for deeper study and integrative learning experiences through the Immersion. An Immersion is a series of three related courses, designed to be a

38

broadening experience, to draw students into new areas of intellectual engagement. As of fall 2015, there are 61 immersions that students may choose.

The GE Framework intentionally offers RIT students opportunities to expand their cultural and global awareness and their cultural sensitivity while preparing them to make well-reasoned judgments. Every undergraduate student is required to take a course from the Ethical perspective category and from both the Social and Global perspective categories. Courses in the Ethical category focus on ethical aspects of decision-making and argument, whether at the individual, group, national, or international level. Because RIT expects its graduates to be leaders in their careers and communities, these courses provide students with an understanding of how ethical and rational issues can be conceived, discussed, and resolved. Courses in the Global and Social perspective categories encourage students to see life from a perspective wider than their own and to understand the diversity of human cultures within an interconnected global society.

The GE Framework also maps closely to those skills labeled as essential in Criteria 5b and enables students to acquire and demonstrate essential skills including at least oral and written communication, scientific and quantitative reasoning, critical analysis and reasoning, technological competency, and information literacy (Table 10).

Table 10: MSCHE Essential Skills and RIT’s General Education Student Learning Outcomes

MSCHE Criteria 5b Skills RIT’s General Education Student Learning Outcome

Cultural awareness and sensitivity

• Analyze similarities and differences in human experiences and consequent perspectives (Ethical Perspective)

Global awareness • Examine connections among the world’s populations (Global Perspective) Oral Communication

• Express oneself effectively in presentation, either in spoken standard American English or sign language (Communication Pillar)

Written Communication

• Express oneself effectively in common college level written forms using standard American English

• Revise and improve written products (Communication Pillar) Scientific Reasoning • Apply methods of scientific inquiry and problem solving to contemporary

issues and scientific questions (Natural Science Inquiry/Scientific Principles Perspective)

Quantitative Reasoning

• Perform college level mathematical operations or apply statistical techniques • Comprehend and evaluate mathematical or statistical information

(Mathematical Perspective) Critical Analysis & Reasoning

• Analyze or construct arguments considering their premises, assumptions, contexts, and conclusions, and anticipating counterarguments

• Reach sound conclusions based on logical analysis of evidence (Critical Thinking Pillar)

Technological Competency

• Academic Program Outcome (Educational Goals: Integrative Literacies – Technology)(Educational Program Outcome)

Information Literacy

• Use relevant evidence gathered through accepted scholarly methods and properly acknowledge sources of information (Communication Pillar)

Values & Ethics • Identify contemporary ethical questions and relevant positions (Ethical Perspective)

Diverse Perspectives

• Examine connections among the world’s populations • Analyze similarities and differences in human experiences and consequent

perspectives (Global Perspective)

39

Enhancing the design and delivery of the RIT student learning experience is one of the key priorities within the Strategic Plan (Difference Makers I.1 and I.5). It is expected that this will take the form of what the Strategic Plan labels the development of T-Shaped graduates: graduates with a learning experience characterized by disciplinary depth and breadth across multiple skills and competencies and with opportunities for expanded experiential learning experiences. {GTD: T-Shaped Graduate}

The research questions undertaken for this standard specifically examined the degree to which RIT is currently positioned to achieve this vision. The current General Education framework serves as a strong backbone to the T-Shape initiative. Even so, integration and formal documentation of T-Shape skills were identified as a gap in the university’s current readiness but have now been addressed by the T-Shape Implementation Team. The status of the initiative was presented to the campus, and a final report is expected in March 2017. The research question recommendations related to the expansion of experiential education have been included in the charge to the team focusing on this priority.

Oversight. The General Education Framework and affiliated curriculum are overseen by the General Education Committee, which is comprised of elected members from each of the nine colleges, representation from the Provost’s Office, Office of Educational Effectiveness, and the Dean’s Council. The General Education Committee follows a review and approval process for all General Education courses and those courses designated in an appropriate perspective category. This process requires substantiation that each course meets a specific learning outcome goal. Additionally, the Faculty Associate to the provost for General Education assists with oversight, revisions, and assessment of the General Education Curriculum and associated student learning outcomes.

Assessment. The success of RIT’s General Education program can be attributed to the involvement of faculty at every stage of the assessment process. For a full description of the General Education Assessment Plan and process, see Standard V pages 62-64. [ROA 9]

RIT’s General Education program clearly draws students into new areas of intellectual experience and offers a curriculum designed for students to acquire and demonstrate essential skills. Our analysis did uncover a concern related to the degree of student course choice at RIT’s international locations. Because of this, RIT is urged to consider the following:

Suggestion 5: To the degree possible, increase the number of General Education courses available at international locations to provide more options for students particularly across the perspective and immersion categories.

CRITERIA 6: In institutions that offer graduate and professional education, opportunities for the development of research, scholarship, and independent thinking, provided by faculty and/or other professionals with credentials appropriate to graduate level curricula

As articulated in RIT’s Strategic Plan and as evidenced in the strategic plans of many of the colleges, research and innovation are earmarks of an RIT graduate education.

All on-the-ground and online programs at the master’s level require a thesis, project, or comprehensive exam to demonstrate independent thinking, research, or scholarship. Culminating experiences may also require clinical internships, field work, or exhibitions of artistic and innovative accomplishments. Doctoral programs require original research that prepares students for continuing scholarship in an academic discipline, independent investigation of a topic significant to their field of study, production of an appropriate creative work, or verified development of advanced professional skills.

40

The Office of Graduate Education promotes research, creative practice, and experiential learning opportunities for graduate students and leads in creating a community where students and faculty can engage together in those activities. An example of this is the annual Graduate Research and Creativity Symposium that showcases students’ scholarly work and creativity and provides awards for excellence. {GTD: Graduate Education}

Graduate students are provided opportunities to present at regional, national, and international conferences with the support of their faculty advisor, and travel reimbursement funding for students to attend conferences is available through the Office of the Dean of Graduate Education. In a recent survey conducted by the dean, graduate students indicated they have sufficient opportunities and resources. [ROA 15]

Faculty who teach courses and oversee research must have the credentials specified in Criteria 2b and as detailed on the RIT Academic Program and Curriculum Management website. [ROA 15]

Faculty engaged in scholarship and research are expected to generate resources to support graduate students from grants. Together with the resources provided by the faculty, the university provides the infrastructure, space, and organizational commitment to support graduate education and achieve the objectives of RIT’s 2015-2025 Strategic Plan Dimension Two: The Student-Centered Research University. For example, RIT has 204,757 square feet dedicated for research. In addition to college space, The Albert J. Simone Center for Student Innovation and Entrepreneurship “enhances innovation and entrepreneurship activities on RIT's campus, including RIT's Student Incubator and the Venture Creations Incubator.” {GTD: Signature Research}

The newly formed MAGIC Spell Studio “is intended as a university wide, multi- and cross-disciplinary center in which faculty, staff, and student researchers, artists, and practitioners come together to create, contextualize, and apply new knowledge in a multitude of related fields and disciplines as appropriate to STEM, the Arts & Humanities, and their intersection.” In the future, the MAGIC Spell Studio will provide a public-private partnership in support of commercialization of student work, and a future facility is planned to house the Studios. {GTD: Interdisciplinarity and Innovation}

RIT sponsored research funds, which grew to $73M in FY2016, support graduate student financial aid, merit scholarships, and endowed scholarships, as well as faculty research projects. Additionally, Sponsored Research Services provides the infrastructure for faculty and students seeking external grant funding. The current Strategic Plan (Dimension Two and Difference Maker II.2) focuses on conducting “government-funded, interdisciplinary, high-impact research” and “collaborating more extensively with business and industry to yield $100M in total research funding annually.” {GTD: Sponsored Research}

In 2014-2015, RIT provided over $18M in merit scholarships and graduate tuition remission to approximately 2,200 graduate students. Program-specific scholarships are available and students apply to the program or are awarded a scholarship based on merit. Support to encourage a broad range of under-represented students to pursue graduate studies is available as well as funding for research and travel. In addition, Ph.D. students who are recipients of tuition scholarships and graduate assistant positions are allocated resources from the university in their first year and are supported through faculty resources for the remainder of their research. {GTD: Graduate Education}

CRITERIA 7: adequate and appropriate institutional review and approval on any student learning opportunities designed, delivered, or assessed by third-party providers

41

Not applicable. RIT learning opportunities are not designed, delivered, or assessed by third-party providers.

CRITERIA 8: Periodic assessment of the effectiveness of programs providing student learning opportunities.

RIT uses a number of continuous improvement processes to ensure assessment of the effectiveness of its academic programs. This is a university priority as evidenced by RIT’s Strategic Plan, Difference Maker I.4, which calls for RIT to ensure academic quality through an outcomes-based assessment model designed to ensure continuous progress in student learning and academic success.

Most importantly, one of the three stated goals of this Self-Study was to review RIT’s outcomes-based institutional assessment processes and make recommendations to expand or refine such practices to guide planning, resource allocation, and institutional improvement. Such recommendations are built into the narrative in Standards III, IV, V, VI, and VII.

All programs conduct program level outcomes assessment (expanded upon in Standard V) and participate in a three-tiered annual program review and renewal process. Many graduate and undergraduate programs also go through specialized accreditation processes, utilize external advisory board review, and seek regular feedback from alumni and employers as detailed below.

Academic Program Review. In 2010, the RIT Academic Senate approved a comprehensive Academic Program Review Framework. However, this process was put on hold until 2015 so the university could complete the calendar conversion process. As part of calendar conversion, an expedited program review was conducted to determine program viability for every degree offered in the quarter system. As a result 88 programs were not converted. After semester conversion concluded in 2013, a modification to the Program Review Framework was undertaken. A stream-lined three-tiered approach was established, geared toward continuous improvement. [ROA 8, 10] In Tier 1, program level data are categorized as either trigger or supporting metrics, each with benchmarks. Undergraduate program trigger metrics are: three-year average overall student headcount (full-time and part-time); overall student headcount change over three years; and program revenue surplus/deficit. Supporting metrics include learning outcomes and student success outcomes. {GTD: Best Placement Rate}

Tier 2 analysis involves a deeper examination of programs that are “flagged” through Tier 1 analysis. Metrics here include more detailed data on enrollment, student success, instructional activity, faculty, and revenue/expense. Tier 3 applies only to programs flagged through Tier 2 analysis that are recommended for a comprehensive review, along with programs voluntarily wanting to take on this comprehensive approach. At the time of implementation in 2015, it was expected that no more than ten programs would undergo this comprehensive Tier 3 review each year.

The first academic program analysis for undergraduate programs was conducted in the fall of AY 2015-2016 and revealed that the overwhelming majority of RIT undergraduate programs are effective in reaching established university benchmarks. Of the 120 programs, 22 programs did not meet one or more of the trigger metrics and were asked to provide a response to the provost outlining actionable steps to be taken to address the concerns raised. No programs were flagged for Tier 2 or Tier 3 examination. The academic program review process for graduate programs will begin in spring 2017.

Given the recent implementation of the new three-tiered academic program review process, further analysis and assessment of the process and results are warranted in order to understand if it is

42

achieving the espoused goal of strengthening RIT’s academic program portfolio. Because this is an important process in the constellation of educational quality assessment, the university should:

Suggestion 6: Establish a plan for evaluating the benchmarks and the overall effectiveness of the new academic program analysis process used, paying particular attention to the efficacy of program action plans and their results.

Specialized Accreditation. In addition to participating in RIT’s program level outcomes assessment and annual academic program analysis processes, 69 of RIT’s degree programs are accredited by professional accrediting organizations and are reviewed by these bodies on a scheduled periodic basis. Specialized accreditation often includes an extensive self-study and verifies programs meet standards stipulated by both the accrediting body and RIT’s internal assessment practices (see the list of Accreditation Agencies and Degree Programs). For example: all engineering and computer science BS programs are accredited by the Accrediting Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), graduate and undergraduate business programs are accredited by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), and the National Association of Schools of Art and Design (NASAD) sets standards for many of the AOS, BFA, and MFA programs in the College of Imaging Arts and Sciences and NTID. RIT Dubai received accreditation for its electrical and mechanical engineering bachelor’s programs from ABET.

Program Advisory Boards. These boards typically include leaders from industry and academia, including alumni, and are widely used across the university. At least five of RIT’s colleges (COS, SCB, KGCOE, GCCIS, and NTID) have advisory boards that report directly to their deans. Selected advisory board examples from two colleges are provided here: GCCIS, NTID. Several academic programs (imaging science, color science, computer engineering, software engineering, and biomedical engineering) have chartered advisory boards to periodically review and comment on issues related to the curricula.

Cooperative Education. Information about the quality of academic programs also comes from information collected by the Office of Career Services and Cooperative Education. Each time a student completes a registered co-op, the Office of Career Services and Cooperative Education has both the student and the employer evaluate the experience. These evaluations provide unique insights into the caliber of RIT’s degree programs. Programs are able to directly access and analyze the student and employer evaluation results to inform or guide program decisions. Employer satisfaction results for the past five years shows that co-op employers have consistently rated RIT student preparation and performance within the range of 4.2 to 4.39 on a 5.0 scale. These results are included on the Student Indicators section of the provost’s Academic Quality Dashboard. This dashboard is another tool used by the Education Committee of the board of trustees, the provost, deans, and program faculty to track quality indicators and recommend action when needed.

Alumni. RIT gathers data from its triennial Alumni Survey. In 2014, an Academic Experience Module was added to the survey in order to provide better optics on the quality of academic program learning outcomes. Alumni reported RIT was most effective in preparing them in the following areas: problem solving, critical thinking, technology, teamwork, and creative and innovate thinking. {GTD: T-Shaped Graduate} (Results from this module are provided here.) Additionally, several programs periodically survey their alumni after they have been in the workforce for a number of years, to have them reflect on how well their RIT education prepared them for their chosen careers.

Further and more detailed information about RIT’s educational effectiveness assessment results are discussed in Standard V. [ROA 8, 10]

43

STANDARD CONCLUSION

The quality of the learning experience for RIT students continues to be one of our greatest hallmarks. The documentation review and the accompanying analyses contained in this standard demonstrate this and present a compelling case that the design and delivery of the learning experience of RIT students are characterized by rigor and coherence at all program, certificate, and degree levels, regardless of instructional modality. This examination further corroborates that all learning experiences, regardless of modality, program pace, schedule, level, and setting are consistent with higher education expectations. [ROA 8, 9, 10, 15]

Because RIT’s Strategic Plan calls for expanding current opportunities for research and scholarly work, RIT will need to pay attention in future years to prioritizing its human and fiscal resources to accomplish this mandate.

Through the Research Question Analysis undertaken as part of the Self-Study, RIT’s new Strategic Plan priorities are further advanced by identifying institutional strengths and challenges and offering tangible recommendations or steps to achieve university goals. The results of this analysis have been discussed within this standard, particularly in Criteria 5 where the T-Shaped Student Experience and Experiential Education requirements are covered. No recommendations have been advanced, as this initiative is currently in the hands of the T-Shape Tiger Team that will identify recommendations when their research and analysis is finished.

44

STANDARD IV: SUPPORT OF THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Across all education experiences, settings, levels, and instructional modalities, the institution recruits and admits students whose interests, abilities, experiences, and goals are congruent with its mission and educational offerings. The institution commits to student retention, persistence, completion, and success through a coherent and effective support system sustained by qualified professionals, which enhances the quality of the learning environment, contributes to the educational experience, and fosters student success.

Driven by the university’s mission and core values, RIT is committed to establishing and supporting student-centered, inclusive, and seamlessly connected opportunities for all students beginning at admission and continuing through graduation. Characterized by the utilization of high impact practices and well-orchestrated networks of support for an inclusive student life experience, the university promotes student success in and outside of the classroom.

Student support and services have grown extensively over the past ten years and are now a hallmark of the RIT experience. RIT’s support of the student experience is not only evident at the main campus, but also at RIT’s international locations. Students at international locations receive support for their learning experiences as well as have access to a wide range of services that make their experiences more rewarding both academically and personally.

Standard IV criteria were analyzed to determine if RIT recruits and admits students consistent with its mission and educational programs and whether we commit to their retention and completion. This inquiry concentrates on RIT’s support of the student learning experiences.

CRITERIA 1: An accredited institution possesses and demonstrates the following attributes or activities: Clearly stated, ethical policies and processes to admit, retain, and facilitate the success of students whose interests, abilities, experiences, and goals provide a reasonable expectation for success and are compatible with institutional mission, including: 1a. Accurate and comprehensive information regarding expenses, financial aid, scholarships, grants, loans, repayment, and refunds.

As discussed in Standard II, RIT’s admissions process and retention programs are based on RIT’s Core Values (P04.0), Code of Conduct, and ethical standards. With respect to information communicated on financial aid and other types of financial actions, the university understands the importance of providing potential and current students, and their families, with information regarding RIT’s costs and fees. In addition to costs associated with attendance, RIT outlines additional information that applies to scholarships, grants, and loans. Clear and concise publication of expectations, policies, and possibilities with regard to university expenses and financial aid, including scholarships, grants, and loans, and refund policies, are provided in a variety of ways, each in accordance with industry standards. In particular RIT follows the practice standards promulgated by the National Association for College Admissions Counselors for practice and communication of such material.

The most prominent and transparent information is easily located on the Admissions website. For prospective students and their families this is both procedurally and intuitively the starting point for considering applying to RIT. Information on costs, as well as opportunities for other forms of financial aid, are clearly listed and represent RIT’s commitment to establishing a student-centered and transparent experience from the point of initial contact with the university. For both new and returning students, the Office of Financial Aid provides specific extensive information on its website. In addition to listing all appropriate deadlines and links to relevant forms, the website includes a step-

45

by-step guide for both undergraduate and graduate students regarding availability of aid. Specific information is outlined as it relates to international students, recognizing the additional complexities international students face in identifying aid options.

A number of additional locations and publications referencing expenses and aid options can also be accessed by students, including Scholarships & Grants, Loans, Need-based Grants, 2016-2017 Cost of Attendance, Federal Student Aid, and Tuition and Fees 2016-2017.

1b. A process by which students who are not adequately prepared for study at the level for which they have been admitted are identified, placed, and supported in attaining appropriate educational goals.

Accepted students demonstrate their ability to be successful based on prior academic and personal achievements. RIT recognized that academic rigor varies among secondary schools, mastery of the English language differs among international and deaf students, socio-economic conditions impact student preparation, and all students may encounter challenges with coursework throughout their time at the university. In addition, research provides evidence that underrepresented populations may be at a disadvantage. As such, RIT has established both a system of early alerts and appropriate support services to assist students.

Starfish, RIT’s Early Alert system, allows the course instructor to easily inform a student that he or she might be at-risk in specific areas within the course. Advisors assigned to the student also receive notification of the instructor’s concern. Instructors and advisors can then take a coordinated approach to help students utilize campus resources and develop an action plan.

Specific support programs for students potentially at risk include those offered by the Multicultural Center for Academic Success (MCAS): Summer Bridge Program, the Rochester City Scholars Program, and the Higher Education Opportunity Program. In addition, two programs in RIT’s College of the National Technical Institute for the Deaf (NTID): Summer Vestibule Program and Career Exploration Studies, as well as The English Language Center and RIT’s Academic Support Center are key components of the University’s support network for student success. RIT operationalizes its identification and support of students through these programs and their success as outlined below. {GTD: Achievement Gap and Financial Needs}

Student Support Programs. The Summer Bridge Program is a four-week academic enrichment, confidence and community-building program that consists of credit-bearing courses, supplemental education, exposure to research, and pipelines to co-curricular and community service programs. The Undergraduate Admissions Office recommends accepted students for candidacy to the Summer Bridge Program based on secondary school academic performance. In addition, an admitted student may apply for the program independently. Students who complete the summer program have access to an MCAS Advising Coach with whom they will meet on a regular basis to discuss academic progress and services available to support their success.

Spectrum Support Program. The Spectrum Support Program seeks to support collegiate success for students entering degree programs who identify with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). This program provides individualized and small group support to assist students with the initial transition to life at RIT and help ensure continued success through graduation.

The Rochester City Scholars program provides support for students whose secondary school was located in the Rochester City School district and who may not be fully prepared for college level studies. Students selected as Rochester City Scholars are provided a highly structured and supportive

46

college transition experience. Scholars are expected to participate in an on-campus enrichment program that begins in the summer prior to the start of their first year. During the academic year, Scholars participate in regular meetings with an advisor in MCAS who assists in connecting the student to campus resources.

Students are recommended to RIT’s Higher Education Opportunity Program (HEOP) by the Undergraduate Admissions Office using economic and academic performance criteria as defined by the State of New York. Course of study and placement for the summer program is determined by scores on math and writing tests as well as desired major. Participants are expected to attend a four-week summer program consisting of credit and non-credit coursework and programs designed to assist them with making the transition to college life. Additional support for academic success includes access to 1:1 tutoring and the possibility of a reduced course load for up to the student’s first full year of college.

The NTID Summer Vestibule Program (SVP) is designed specifically to orient, identify, and place deaf students into their academic programs of study with an individualized academic plan and an understanding of the preparation necessary for successful degree completion. Students take placement tests in reading, writing, and math in order to determine readiness for particular majors and/or degree level. Students determined to be inadequately prepared for their desired course of study are placed in the Career Exploration Studies program. This program offers deaf students who have been identified as underprepared for their desired course of study the opportunity for intensive academic attention and support. A professional staff member works with students individually and assists the students in making appropriate academic program decisions. Students take introductory and foundation courses in various majors as well as General Education courses to support on-time graduation while addressing gaps in academic preparation. {GTD: On-Time Graduation}

During their first semester at RIT, all new first year students are enrolled in either the YearOne course or the Freshman Seminar course for NTID associate degree students. Each serves as an interdisciplinary catalyst for first-year students to access campus resources, services, and opportunities that promote self-knowledge, leadership development, social responsibility, and life skills awareness. In addition, the Academic Support Center provides a complement of programs for all students including study skill development, academic coaching, tutoring, and supplemental instruction offerings.

Students with challenges due to their English language skills are identified using a number of tests outlined on the English Language Center (ELC) website. Students enrolled in the ELC are placed according to their level of mastery.

When considering comparisons of persistence rates for communities served through these programs, it appears these initiatives are making an impact. First to second year persistence rates of students of color at RIT have improved from 81.7% to 83.2% over the ten-year period of 2004 to 2013. The persistence of students within the HEOP program have increased first to second year persistence from 86.4% to 96% during the same time period. For deaf students over the same ten years at the associate degree level, persistence rates have improved from 65% to 75.1%, while at the bachelor level rates have improved from 73.9% to 90.8%.

Comparisons with national norms also validate the impact of these efforts. Overall retention rates for the Summer Bridge Program are at 81%, and the Rochester City Scholars at 74%. The five year graduation rates for Summer Bridge participants is 60% and for HEOP participants 72%. Comparatively, national rates of graduation for students from similar populations are reported at 32%

47

over six years. The College of NTID’s most recent annual report indicates that NTID students graduate at rates of 39% at the Associate degree level, and 69% at the Bachelor degree level. The graduation rates for NTID students are significantly above national rates for all students, 29% and 59% respectively. {GTD: Achievement Gap}

1c. Orientation, advisement, and counseling programs to enhance retention and guide students throughout their educational experience.

The university offers comprehensive orientation, advisement, and counseling programs and services to guide and support students throughout their educational experience. In addition to these services, there are other units on campus that provide targeted orientation and advising for specific populations they serve, including MCAS, NTID, and International Student Services (ISS). {GTD: On-Time Graduation}

All international locations have orientation programs. Health and counseling services are different from the main campus because of the health care framework in the different countries. None of the international campuses assesses health fees and there are not campus-based health and counseling centers; however, academic advisors serve as general advisors and refer a student to a health care system, as appropriate.

Orientation. The New Student Orientation Program creates experiences to promote the successful transition of new students and their families. To achieve this, they:

• Coordinate a comprehensive orientation program for new and transfer students • Collaborate with university and community partners • Advocate for the needs of new students and their families • Connect new students to academic, cultural, and social resources that contribute to student

success.

Prior to the fall/spring orientation program, students can select to participate in one of the DiscoveRIT pre-orientation programs. Initiated in 2009 with one offering consisting of 21 student participants, the program has since grown to include more than 20 offerings serving 230 participants.

All graduate students participate in orientation events to help their transition. The Office of Graduate Education conducts both a fall and spring orientation for new students and provides pertinent information on various topics including research (National Science Foundation and Fulbright) and teaching assistantships.

Advisement. Undergraduate academic advising at RIT is a major university priority. In 2009, the University Advising Office was charged to coordinate processes for undergraduate advising and has since led efforts to strengthen and standardize undergraduate advising and related student success initiatives. {GTD: On-Time Graduation} The Undergraduate Advising Mission articulates the university’s advising philosophy and defines its goals. The advising model provides every undergraduate student with a professional academic advisor. There are currently 49 full-time and seven part-time academic advisors on staff. The University Advising Office leads three major initiatives that are designed to advance RIT’s commitment to a more sustainable, effective, and consistent approach to undergraduate student success. Each of these has been designed and developed in partnership with all colleges and undergraduate degree-granting units as well as with University Studies, a unit that allows undecided students to sample various potential majors without losing time to degree completion. These initiatives are:

48

• A web-based tool for faculty to alert at-risk students in their courses, and for advisors to support them

• A more intentional outreach and tracking process to support non-registered students • A commitment that first year and transfer students will have mandatory meetings with their

advisors each term in the first year in preparation for registration

Additionally, advisors have reported that the enhancements to advising processes outlined above have allowed advisors to monitor students more closely during a term, support them holistically, and hold them accountable for their performance.

The campus calendar shift from quarters to semesters in fall 2013 makes comparisons prior to conversion a little more challenging. However, in general, students recognize their advising experience as a consistently positive one. In reviewing the RIT New Student Academic Advising Survey from 2013 to present, more than 90% of students have consistently agreed that “overall” they are “satisfied with the academic advising experience.” In the 2015 administration of the National Survey of Student Engagement NSSE Advising Module Analysis, RIT’s students rated their advisors well above average for 1) being available when needed and 2) listening closely to their concerns and questions. In these instances RIT’s ratings outperformed advisor ratings from RIT’s peer institutions.

Graduate academic advising is coordinated at the program level and services are tailored to the specific discipline and type of degree (Ph.D., MFA, MS, etc.). The Office of Graduate Education partners with graduate program directors to support graduate student success and advising. Given the university’s strategic focus (Decision Maker II.4) on growth of the graduate student population, the graduate student advising experience is an area of ongoing review. {GTD: Graduate Education}

Counseling. Counseling and Psychological Services (CPS) provides free, confidential, and personalized services for currently enrolled undergraduate and graduate students on the main campus. The team of licensed mental health professionals offers a variety of services such as individual and group counseling, crisis intervention, and referrals to outside resources to help students grow and thrive as they navigate the daily challenges of college life. The staff of CPS offers students a safe, welcoming, and respectful environment, striving to deliver services that respect the dignity, unique strengths, and worth of every individual.

1d. Processes designed to enhance the successful achievement of students’ educational goals.

The university demonstrates a commitment to supporting each student’s achievement of his or her educational goals. Processes are integrated into many university departments and operations for students enrolled in RIT’s traditional academic programs. University and college-based advising, as indicated in the previous criteria, are ways that RIT provides for these processes in formal and consistent ways.

RIT provides numerous curricular pathways, programmatic options, academic policies, and supporting units with the opportunity to explore, enhance, articulate, and pursue distinctive and general educational goals. Of particular note are:

• University Studies is an undeclared program option that serves new-to-RIT students in their first or second year of undergraduate study in their major exploration journey and current RIT students who wish to re-explore other major options available to them at RIT. Each college also has its own exploratory program for students who are sure about a general discipline but unsure about which major field they wish to pursue.

49

• The School of Individualized Study (SOIS) offers academic customization, acceleration, and alternative pathways to courses and degrees for students whose degree goals traverse traditional curricular boundaries.

• The Honors Program provides students of exceptional ability and ambition opportunities to embed enrichment activities into traditional degree paths and the chance to work in community with faculty partners and other Honors students.

• The McNair Scholars Program specifically addresses the needs of students from underrepresented groups, supporting their identification of pathways to graduate and professional school

• The Simone Center for Student Innovation and Entrepreneurship provides resources and faculty expertise to support students in the development of ideas from the beginning stages all the way through to commercialization.

The Office of Career Services and Cooperative Education supports students seeking co-ops to advance their educational goals. In addition to the services provided by this department, departments across RIT provided on-campus co-op opportunities to more than 400 students during the 2014-15 academic year. The Student Success Steering Committee provides leadership in identifying strategies and actions needed to foster a culture of student success. In particular, at the provost’s request the Student Success Steering Committee created a special On-Time Graduation Task Force of 45 individuals from across the university to develop recommendations aimed at the implementation of RIT’s On-Time Graduation (OTG) Strategic Plan objectives. Recommendations include multi-term registration, policy revisions, technology based advising tools, and changes in curriculum design and delivery of gateway courses. {GTD: On-Time Graduation}

Additionally, the current Strategic Plan has RIT deeply invested in a process to identify core T-Shaped professional competencies distinctive from disciplinary proficiencies and technical expertise that will further equip students for success. {GTD: T-Shaped Graduate}

At the graduate program level, the Office of Graduate Education develops practices and processes to enhance the successful achievement of students’ educational goals, including a strong focus on research support as evidenced by the workshops and events offered annually, such as: NSF Workshop, Fulbright Mingle and Talks, Library Resources, Presenting Research, Faculty Mentoring, Literature Review, Thesis Writing, and Graduate Research Symposium. {GTD: Graduate Education}

CRITERIA 2: Policies and procedures regarding evaluation and acceptance of transfer credits, and credits awarded through experiential learning, prior non-academic learning, competency-based assessment, and other alternative learning approaches

The university recognizes and communicates a number of options with regard to the review and receipt of transfer and other credit toward degree. As one step for prospective new and transfer students, the Undergraduate Admissions Office provides a clear indication of institutions with which RIT has official articulation agreements. Also for the benefit of prospective and current students, RIT lists the different ways a student can be evaluated for transfer credit. These processes are outlined in RIT’s publications and include advanced placement (AP) tests, credit for experience, transfer credit review, credit by examination, competency-based assessment, and prior learning guidelines. Specific university requirements and processes for credit for experience, prior learning, and credit by exam are covered in the university Admission policy (D02.0).

50

Consistent and clear information for prospective students interested in advanced placement credit is provided by the registrar in table format, based upon AP exams results. An extensive list of AP classes, the range of acceptable scores, and the course articulation for which each score is correlated is updated annually. The site also clarifies that final credit evaluations are made at the academic program level. Subject-specific information regarding AP credit is also available at the academic program level.

Academic programs at RIT are very diverse in nature and design. All degrees require distinctive and specialized learning outcomes. Consequently, program faculty and administrators expect a degree of autonomy when granting pre-college or transfer credit through the options outlined above. Therefore, while it may not be prudent to fully standardize the credit review process, it appears worthwhile for RIT to consider a more standardized approach for explaining the process and criteria for credit review. The School of Individualized Study (SOIS) provides a step-by-step guide to help prospective students preliminarily assess and determine whether or not seeking credit for experience is a viable pursuit. This could become a model for each academic program to adopt when articulating its criteria, process, and any additional considerations for evaluating credit.

Because this is an area where there is considerable room for improvement, the following recommendation is provided:

Recommendation 7: Develop centralized transfer credit processes, tools, and an infrastructure to enhance transfer pathways and communication about these pathways for prospective students.

CRITERIA 3: Policies and procedures for the safe and secure maintenance and appropriate release of student information and records.

The university is earnest in its efforts to establish, communicate, and maintain the security of student information and records. Consistent with federal laws governing student records and privacy, RIT’s Educational Records (D15.0) policy ensures that student information and records are appropriately protected. The information surrounding student records and their release is readily available to both university employees and students.

In its policy, RIT specifically designates offices as accountable for maintaining policy and procedures in compliance with all associated laws. Circumstances surrounding the sharing or release of these records, as well as information regarding students’ access to their records, are all outlined in a clear format including:

• A complete listing of the policies governing the files maintained • A specific description of the types of records kept • The office where the records are kept • The identity of the person responsible for the record • Identification of those persons who have access to the records

To reinforce RIT’s records management and security of student information, the university’s department of Institute Audit, Compliance, and Advisement (IACA) periodically performs department audits and limited scope reviews (LSRs) as displayed in Table 11. These may include (when applicable) an independent assessment of the adequacy and effectiveness of the procedures in place to promote and monitor compliance with RIT policies and relevant regulations that safeguard student information and records. Completed audits and limited scope reviews are reported through department and divisional channels, and ultimately to RIT’s board of trustees. They provide students and university

51

personnel with reasonable assurance that student information and records are protected, appropriately maintained, and released only under specific and appropriate conditions.

Table 11: Annual Audits and Limited Scope Reviews FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016

Audits 4 2 4 2 4 2 Limited Scope Reviews 1 0 2 6 2 2

CRITERIA 4: If offered, athletics, student life, and other extracurricular activities that are regulated by the same academic, fiscal, and administrative principles and procedures that govern all other programs.

The Division of Student Affairs has primary responsibility for regulating and supporting athletics, student life, and other co-curricular activities. Through the work of its 22 administrative units, the division adheres to all university academic, fiscal, and administrative principles and procedures. Two units with a central role in providing oversight and administrative support for students participating in the campus community are Intercollegiate Athletics (IA) and the Center for Campus Life (CCL). Each department has established a number of practices and operations to ensure appropriate guidance, coordination, review, and monitoring are provided in support of student involvement.

Athletics. The university’s athletic competition and participant compliance is governed by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). As a university with both Division I and Division III athletics teams, RIT is held to the most stringent of standards in consideration of each division’s regulations. In accordance with NCAA regulations, trainings inclusive of Title IX and hazing prevention are held, required, and tracked for all student-athletes. Specific to academic standards as both a DI and a DIII athletics program, RIT adheres to two separate NCAA academic eligibility procedures. For Division I athletes, academic eligibility standards include both progress towards degree and minimum GPA. For Division III athletes, academic eligibility is determined through a combination of academic department and intercollegiate athletics administration. The athletic department’s most recent NCAA audit (spring 2016) reinforced its compliance with all standards and regulations.

Student Life and the Co-curricular. The Center for Campus Life (CCL) serves as the primary steward for all activity initiated by Student Government recognized clubs and organizations. Utilizing Campus Labs Collegiate Link (CLC) technology since 2013, CCL has written and maintains the documentation for a comprehensive online communication system that gathers, shares, and tracks fundamental planning, resource, and compliance information regarding the leadership and activity of RIT’s more than 250 clubs, 33 fraternities and sororities, and 11 major student organizations. In addition to the use of The Link at RIT, the department’s organizational structure provides for pathways supporting student involvement, and does so ensuring satisfaction of RIT’s expectations for internal controls, risk management, and fiscal practices.

The Center for Leadership and Civic Engagement prepares students to exercise leadership as member of a rapidly changing global community by building meaningful connections between the RIT campus and the surrounding community.

Campus Life is one of several departments and functional areas maintaining central responsibilities for creating and supporting students’ co-curricular involvement. In addition to CCL, the Center for Residence Life (CRL) and RIT’s Wellness and Recreation (CWR) programs invest significant resources to ensure students are involved in dynamic and meaningful ways with staff, their peers, and RIT’s vast services and facilities. These efforts continue to improve student participation and engagement.

52

In fall 2015, individual participant tracking data indicated 48% of RIT students attended either a program sponsored by the Center for Campus Life or the Center for Residence Life. The tracking of unique student participation in intramural programs (rosters) indicates an 11% growth since 2012.

Data from RIT’s administration of the Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory supports the claim that the quality of the student experience has improved as these opportunities and interactions have expanded over time. From 2012 to 2014, RIT’s students consistently surpassed the national private four-year college average on metrics for the questions that probe the following: (1) “Overall satisfaction with your experience at RIT thus far,” and (2) “If you had it to do over, would you enroll at RIT again?” And, the results of a 12-year longitudinal review of students’ ratings for Concern by RIT for the individual, Student Centeredness, and Campus Life, are charted in Figure 3.

CRITERIA 5: If applicable, adequate and appropriate institutional review and approval of student support services designed, delivered, or assessed by third party providers.

The university provides effective internal student services to the student population and uses one third party vendor for student support services, RIT transportation/shuttle service. This contracted third party is utilized due to the potential cost of the repairs, goods, facilities, and staffing needed to support this operation. It would be cost prohibitive recognizing that transportation services are not part of the university’s core business.

First Transit Transportation currently provides the shuttle system that runs throughout campus with scheduled stops at all RIT apartment complexes, residence halls, NTID, Barnes & Noble, Park Point, The Province, and all academic areas throughout the school year. Students are able to utilize this service free of charge. Consistent with university policy and practice, initial procurement and contracting for the service are governed by RIT’s established policies for such business activity. Once secured, the operation is closely monitored on a daily basis by the RIT Office of Parking & Transportation Services (PATS), with one staff member in the department accountable for assuring each aspect of the contract is honored both in spirit and action. At the contract’s conclusion, the determination of either renewal with current or initiation of an alternative vendor is made after PATS enlists feedback from a variety of additional campus partners including, but not exclusively, Student Government, International Student Services, Residence Life, and Housing Operations.

Figure 3: Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory: RIT Satisfaction Data

53

CRITERIA 6: Periodic assessment of the effectiveness of programs supporting the student experience.

In addition to the measures and tools previously mentioned throughout this Standard IV narrative, a number of assessments are regularly conducted at the university to evaluate the effectiveness of the programs and activities outlined above. Internally developed university assessment tools are utilized to specifically evaluate areas including academic advising, first year student experiences, and graduate student life. RIT’s University Assessment Council (described in Standards I and VII) facilitates an annual Institutional Effectiveness Progress Report process that provides an opportunity for every administrative unit at RIT to report on how it has evaluated and improved aspects of the program or service, driven by evaluative data.

Seeking national comparisons for quality of student life and experience, RIT regularly administers the Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory and the National Survey of Student Engagement. Each has provided the university with evidence of success and community trends. As a result, endeavors to improve program and service delivery, student pride, and student satisfaction, and to clarify priorities for continuous improvement to student life are more accurately informed. [ROA 8, 10]

RIT’s International Locations. Programs, courses, and faculty selection at RIT international locations are directly overseen by the curriculum governance structure at RIT’s main campus. Curricular oversight and approval is retained by faculty at the main campus; new courses and program offerings are approved through RIT’s main campus academic review processes. In addition, all faculty teaching at the additional locations must be approved by the relevant academic department on the main RIT campus. Each of the international locations operates with its own management team and a system of governance that interfaces with the main campus both at the board level and through the academic governance process.

Campus facilities range from placement within existing commercial and office buildings to independent campuses. Housing opportunities in each location vary in accordance with space and the cultural setting in which the campus is located. Overall, students attending the international locations are primarily commuting students.

The university’s international portfolio is an area experiencing growth and strategic attention. With different operational, funding, and governance structures, facilities, and cultural influences, direct comparisons among the international locations with the main campus are not appropriate. Rather, a review of the mechanisms, both established and emerging that appropriately support the student experience, is provided below.

Academic Support for the Student Experience. As the RIT academic standards are extended to the international locations, so are the expectations of academic support for the student experience. The RIT international location campus facilities all include library facilities, space for students to study, academic support, career support, student activities, and a structured English Language program. In addition to the campus libraries, all students studying at the international locations have access to selected electronic library resources and databases available through the RIT Wallace library. All students are included in the RIT Student Information System (SIS), and faculty and students have access to the campus-wide course management system, myCourses, to support both on-campus and online course delivery.

Academic advising support is provided centrally by each international location with a strong connection and support to the RIT main campus academic department and advising team. As outlined,

54

RIT employs a professional advising model complemented with faculty who serve as advisors for career development and professional course selection. This model has been extended to all international locations and ensures that all students have immediate access to faculty and staff knowledgeable of the curriculum. Maintaining this connection at the home campus also ensures faculty and staff are familiar with the local environment and cultural considerations for students at each international location. The university also works closely with all international locations to implement the required cooperative education program and career service support.

Academic advising and career services staff from the international locations regularly travel to RIT’s main campus to learn best practices and train with the academic departments, career services office, and the University Advising Office. Training and procedural review also include adherence to RIT’s FERPA policy. Appropriate management of student information and use of the student information system are included in this training protocol.

Student Life. All of RIT’s international locations have focused efforts to support active Student Government (SG) organizations. Although structures vary in accordance with location, all international locations have active Student Government organizations elected by students from each campus. SGs at the international locations also focus efforts on improving the quality of life for students on their campuses. This is accomplished through participation in their shared governance system, organizing events, and addressing student concerns and suggestions regarding the student experience. Additionally, student governments engage in service opportunities within their local communities. As an example, the RIT Croatia Student Government Executive Committee has an established relationship with the Croatian Student Council of Universities.

In 2012, for the first time student government representatives from RIT international locations came together to share their ideas and challenges. Since that time there have been two additional Global Consortiums, each held at a different location. The outcome of these gatherings has been ongoing collaborations among the SG leaders using videoconferencing technology leading to increased student engagement across locations and the discussion of issues common for student leaders, as well as the differences, much like in a typical complex global organization. A few examples of the tangible results of the consortium meetings are links to the SG websites from homepages, sharing of the RIT PawPrints technology, and online discussions regarding voting, orientation programs, and event planning. In addition, the 2016-17 Global Scholars Program participants doubled to 60 from the previous year.

Student clubs and organizations at the international locations, similar to the main campus, enrich the overall student experience. Organizations vary from location to location, with most focusing on the professional, cultural, religious, charitable, and wellness interests of the students. Examples of co-curricular organizations include:

• RIT Croatia: Basketball Club, Handball Club, Soccer Club, Arabic Club, Martial Arts Club, Idea Club, Choir, Volleyball Club, Media Club, Gaming Club, IT Club

• RIT Dubai: Music Club, Humanitarian Club, Palestinian Cultural Club, South Asian Student Association, Arab Orients Club, Electronics Club, Gaming Club, Media Club, Film Club, Drama Club, Soccer, Basketball

• RIT Kosovo: Charity Club, Dance Club, Economists’ Club, Environmental Club, E-Sports Club, Media Club, Model United Nations Club, Music Club, Sports Club, Visual Arts Club

Inaugurated in 2015, the student life professionals at each location, in collaboration with SG leaders, have collaboratively developed, organized, and implemented the One Spirit Global Event. Utilizing

55

real-time interactive technology, students at RIT locations around the globe unite for a one day cultural and activity exchange. All students have the opportunity to connect with their RIT peers around the world, creating broader cultural understanding and an expanded appreciation for what it means to be “at RIT.”

Facilities to enhance student life at the international locations also vary by location. For example, the RIT Dubai campus currently has a combined total of nine men’s and women’s sports clubs with either on-location facilities or access to facilities through a contractual agreement. In accordance with local customs and regulations, the on-campus gym has designated time for males and females separately. The RIT Croatia Zagreb location also has a gym with workout equipment in the main building for students. While gyms and activity facilities are not common to each campus, most of the campuses have established student lounges for both studying and gathering purposes.

Evaluating Effectiveness in Support of the Student Experience. The university’s guiding principles, standards, and program goals and outcomes are also applied to all international locations. In order to establish assessment that is consistent and inclusive of RIT’s international locations, each academic program in these locations completes an outcomes assessment plan. Evaluations of RIT university goals, program outcomes, and General Education learning outcomes are conducted by the RIT Educational Effectiveness Assessment Office (EEA). Similar to their work with the main campus, the EEA Office works closely with the leadership of the international locations and program chairs to formalize and implement annual assessment plans. University academic programs in all locations use a common template developed collaboratively by the Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Committee. Consistent with the main campus, 100% of the academic programs at the international locations have completed assessment plans that include program goals and student learning outcomes.

The international locations were included in the National Survey of Student Engagement and, while offered in the past, they have opted out of the Noel Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory as many of the questions seem less relevant to their students and campus environment. The RIT Kosovo campus is piloting the 2016 Noel Levitz Inventory and, in collaboration with the main campus, will analyze its usefulness and cultural/campus relevancy. Results of the NSSE data are used in the international location assessment planning process as previously outlined in this report. In addition to the RIT standards and assessment reviews, international locations are also subject to local accreditation and assessment from the countries in which they reside.

Even though the international locations are fairly recent additions to RIT, it is clear that all locations share in adhering to the overall university core values in support of creating a student-centered organization. Students at RIT locations around the world are served in ways that pay acute attention to their success in and outside of the classroom. As RIT expands on its home campus and internationally, it will be important to maintain RIT’s recognized ethic of care.

STANDARD CONCLUSION

Over the past decade, RIT engaged in a number of deliberate enhancements to operations and practices, generating meaningful improvement in the university’s support of the student experience. Thus, the university meets, and in several ways extends beyond, the criteria for Standard IV. The one recommendation to develop centralized transfer credit processes, tools, and infrastructure will enhance transfer pathways for prospective students.

56

Through the Research Question Analysis undertaken as part of the Self-Study, RIT’s Strategic Plan priorities are further advanced by identifying institutional strengths and challenges and offering tangible recommendations or steps to achieve university goals. Two key Strategic Plan priorities were closely aligned to this Standard: on-time graduation and university efforts to meet enrollment goals.

On-Time Graduation. Analysis related to this priority resulted in strong support by the Self-Study Steering Committee for embracing the recommendations advanced by the On-Time Graduation Task Force. {GTD: On-Time Graduation}

Enrollment Goals. RIT’s readiness to meet strategic institutional enrollment goals for new and continuing student populations, specifically to be the largest producer of female, minority male, and deaf or hard-of-hearing with bachelor’s degrees in STEM disciplines among private colleges in the US, is dependent on our ability to bridge current gaps and concerns discussed in the research question narrative. This includes the downturn in the national high school graduation demographics and RIT’s difficulty in competing in the marketplace for AALANA and female students pursuing STEM disciplines, not to mention the real costs associated with recruitment of these populations. This Strategic Plan goal is closely linked as well to Dimension Three: Leveraging Difference and Difference Maker III.5. {GTD: Largest Producer} Recognizing the centrality of this particular goal to RIT’s desired national profile, the recommendations put forward from the Research Question analysis are fully supported and include:

• More merit scholarships for all students to keep pace with competitors, and especially for female, and AALANA students

• Increased need-based aid to assist the growing population of students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds

• Continued discussions on RIT curricula and graduation requirements with an eye toward the question of whether we are making it too difficult for students to graduate on-time by requiring so many required courses necessary in some STEM majors

• Continued evaluations of RIT STEM courses where fail rates and D grades are higher than the norm to understand whether the course requirements are too difficult or the grading system is not consistent with other courses

57

STANDARD V: EDUCATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT

Assessment of student learning and achievement demonstrates that the institution’s students have accomplished educational goals consistent with their program of study, degree level, the institution’s mission, and appropriate expectations for institutions of higher learning.

An assessment culture has really taken root at RIT, both in form and function, and this Self-Study process has served as a catalyst for us to reflect on our core assessment processes. As a result, we can point to a collective institutional commitment to integrating best assessment practices at all levels of the institution and see clearly that we have moved well beyond foundational stages. We are able to see concretely how assessment results improve quality, drive resource decisions, and strengthen the natural connection between curriculum, pedagogy, and student achievement.

Student learning assessment for all of RIT’s academic programs, regardless of program delivery mode or location, follow the same assessment policies, practices, and annual reporting processes.

Faculty at the international locations (RIT Croatia, RIT Dubai, and RIT Kosovo) work closely with program faculty on the main campus to follow the assessment plan developed for the program and curriculum. We are in the early stages of developing an assessment plan for the two degree programs at RIT’s newest international locations, Beijing and Weihai, China. This is being guided by our China Assessment Strategy.

CRITERIA 1: Clearly stated educational goals at the institution and degree/program levels, which are interrelated with one another, with relevant educational experience, and with the institution’s mission.

Here, we discuss three categories of learning goals: RIT’s Educational Goals, academic program level learning goals, and General Education student learning goals.

Educational Goals. RIT’s mission, to “prepare its students for successful careers in a global society through a unique blend of curricular, experiential, and research programs delivered within a student-centric culture,” clearly frames our overarching institutional educational goals. In order to operationalize the mission, in 2010 the RIT community articulated five educational (or institutional) goals deemed essential to preparing students for successful careers: critical thinking, ethical reasoning, global interconnectedness, creative and innovative thinking, and six core integrative literacies: mathematical, scientific, computational or digital, aesthetic, communication, and technical. {GTD: T-Shaped Graduate}

Following this, RIT faculty developed an Academic Portfolio Blueprint (2012) that established the expectation that degree program goals would be interrelated to the five Educational Goals and consistent with the mission. Programs are required to map these institutional goals at least once to their degree programs; however, the specific ways in which programs embed and assess these Educational Goals vary and are contextualized to particular fields of study and professions.

Degree Program Goals. In addition to the requirements outlined in the Blueprint, all degree programs are required to have clearly articulated program goals and a Program Level Outcomes Assessment Plan (PLOAP) in place. The PLOAP provides a tool and opportunity to align and map to RIT’s five Educational Goals and at the same time articulate program level learning outcomes. This ensures a systematic way to link the Educational Goals and degree program goals. This mapping also demonstrates and provides affirmation that the Educational Goals for the university are integrated and aligned with degree program goals. Extensive additional guidance and information on program

58

learning outcome assessment requirements are housed on the Academic Program Management website that is used by the entire university community.

All PLOAPs are housed electronically in Taskstream, RIT’s assessment management system, and documented in the archived program workspaces. [ROA 10] Program workspace examples in Taskstream evidence exactly how the degree program goals are mapped to RIT’s Educational Goals (see the Educational Goals Alignment).

Ensuring visibility and transparency of program level goals is an important priority to RIT. In order to advance heightened visibility, colleges and degree-granting units were asked to make degree program goals public on college or department website pages. [ROA 8] This multi-year initiative is still in progress. To date, 98% have posted program goals on public websites. Samples of the websites with program goals include:

• www.rit.edu/gccis/academics/program-outcomes (GCCIS) • www.rit.edu/dubai/academics/computing-security (RIT Dubai) • https://cias.rit.edu/schools/american-crafts/undergraduate-ceramics (CIAS) • www.rit.edu/science/documents/sopa-program-learning-outcomes (COS)

General Education (GE) Student Learning Goals. RIT’s General Education goals, associated Framework, and 16 learning outcomes have been fully covered in Standard III, Criteria 5. Suffice it to point out that the GE Student Learning Outcomes are mapped to the required Essential and Perspective course categories within the Framework (Perspective/Outcome Alignment). This alignment provides opportunities for students to achieve all expected GE student learning outcomes. [ROA 9]

CRITERIA 2: Organized and systematic assessments, conducted by faculty and/or appropriate professionals, evaluating the extent of student achievement of institutional and degree/program goals. 2a. Define meaningful curricular goals with defensible standards 2b. Collect and provide data on the extent to which they are meeting these goals 2c. Support and sustain assessment of student learning outcomes and communicate the results of this assessment to all stakeholders

Institutional Educational Goals. As a quality check for relevance and best practice, Lumina’s Degree Qualification Profile (DQP) was mapped to RIT’s Educational Goals (Table 12) on the next page. Similar to RIT, the DQP’s learning outcomes are organized within five broad, interrelated categories. Overall, RIT’s five Educational Goals align very closely with the DQP, with the addition of one RIT signature category: creative and innovative thinking. {GTD: T-Shaped Graduate}

59

Table 12: DPQ and RIT’s Educational Goals Crosswalk Degree Program Qualification Category (DQP) RIT Educational Goals

Specialized Knowledge – fields of study Degree Program Goals –majors or fields of study Integrative Literacies*

Broad and Integrative Knowledge Integrative Literacies* Intellectual Skills (analytic inquiry, use of information resources, engaging diverse perspectives, ethical reasoning, quantitative fluency, and communicative fluency

Critical Thinking Ethical Reasoning Integrative: Mathematical & Communication

Civic and Global Learning Global Interconnectedness Applied and Collaborative Learning Required/Optional research, capstone projects, co-

operative work experiences, internships, study abroad

Institution Specific Creative and Innovative Thinking * a. Scientific b. Computation or Digital c. Mathematical d. Communication e. Technical f. Aesthetic

The support for the assessment of RIT’s Educational Goals is evidenced by both processes and instruments. The Educational Goals are intentionally aligned to the program level goals and ensuing assessment within the programs. The Educational Goals are directly aligned to the General Education Student Learning Outcomes and assessed at the course level.

These integrated and systematic approaches are both cost effective and help sustain assessment over time. See RIT Assessment Processes, which highlights some of RIT’s instruments and other processes that support and sustain the assessment of RIT’s overarching mission and five Educational Goals. {GTD: Outcomes Assessment Model}

RIT also uses indirect assessment strategies to collect data related to achievement of these educational goals. A couple of examples of university level data used to provide insight on educational goal achievement as reported by employers, students, and alumni include:

• Employers rate RIT students (see Table 13) very positively on overall work performance as they indicate 92% would hire an RIT student based on his or her co-op work. Of the students seeking work in the graduating class of 2015, the placement outcome rate (employed and/or accepted to graduate school) was 93% for undergraduates and 94% for graduate students.

• Overall, alumni reported RIT was most effective in the following educational areas: problem solving, critical thinking, technology, teamwork, and creative and innovative thinking.

60

Table 13: Preparing Students for Successful Careers in a Global Society Preparing Students for Successful Careers in a Global Society

Co-op Evaluation Employer Survey

2013-14

Alumni Survey and RIT Educational Goals

2014

Outcomes Data Most Recent Class of 2015

% Employers responded “yes” would hire an RIT student based on cooperative experience

“How effective was RIT in preparing you in the following areas?” (Scale 1 Poor to 4 Excellent)

Number of undergraduate and graduates employed or in grad school

Results 91.7% % Rated RIT Good (3) or Excellent (4) as Effective in: • Critical Thinking 86% • Creative/Innovative 78% • Ethical 71% • Integrative Literacies:

• Technology 83% • Quantitative 78% • Communication 67% • Writing 65%

Undergraduate: • 78.3% Employed • 14.3% Graduate School • Total: 92.6%

Graduate: • 85.9% Employed • 7.6% Graduate School • Total = 93.5%

In addition, the Academic Quality Dashboard, designed in collaboration with the Education Core Committee of the board of trustees, is used by the provost and his team to identify, track, and report to key stakeholders on key university quality performance indicators. Annually, the provost also communicates this information and facilitates a discussion with the Education Core Committee of the board of trustees. [ROA 8, 10]

Degree Program Goals. Curricular goals and standards (program level student learning benchmarks) are set by program faculty and are informed by guidance from the New York State Department of Education (NYSED) that requires that “the design of each curriculum and degree programs as a whole, are coherent, implement the philosophy, purposes, and educational objectives of the program and institution, and are consistent with professional expectations in the field.”

Accreditation agencies also provide guidance. Forty percent of RIT’s career and professional undergraduate and graduate degree programs carry specialized accreditation through 15 specialized accreditation bodies. These specialized accrediting bodies have unique standards for assessing academic quality and student learning.

RIT’s Academic Program Assessment Planning Guide is an important further source of guidance to faculty on developing curricular goals and setting defensible student achievement benchmarks. The guide suggests strategies or best practices for setting benchmarks (e.g., accreditation or licensure standards, previous student work samples, or pilots to help inform the benchmark). Based on the implementation of program assessment plans and annual submission of data, RIT program faculty systematically collect and provide data on the extent to which programs are meeting the established benchmarks for the program goals. Samples of Program Goals on PLOAPS are provided on the Office of EEA website.

Programs designate a data collection cycle articulated in each PLOAP. In addition to internal management of the PLOAP, programs provide data on their assessment results to the university on a regular basis. This reporting process is referred to as RIT’s Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Progress Report (PR) and is designed as an annual reporting tool to collect data on the extent that

61

academic programs are meeting the benchmarks set for each program goal. Oversight for RIT’s PR is provided by the Office of EEA. The expected percentage of programs meeting their benchmark goals is set at the university level and tracked as part of the Strategic Plan KRA Scorecard. Based on the most recent report, RIT exceeded its annual goal for the percentage of programs meeting or exceeding benchmarks for the fifth consecutive year. See Figure 4 for six year data trends. [ROA 8, 10]

Because data collection and reporting are time intensive, the university has allocated a number of university level resources to help programs accomplish these steps as follows:

Coordinating Committee. In 2005, the Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Committee (SLOAC) was created to facilitate and support program level assessment efforts. The committee is comprised of representatives from the nine RIT colleges, two degree-granting units, and the Director of Educational Effectiveness Assessment. SLOAC members provide assessment leadership and liaison support to their individual colleges and degree-granting units. On an annual basis, the committee develops an assessment work plan that responds to the needs of the university and unique needs of particular programs within each college.

Program Assessment Tool. Creation of each Program Level Outcomes Assessment Plan is aided by the use of a template designed by the Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Committee (SLOAC). This ensures that every new program proposal contains a program level assessment plan with learning outcomes, measures, and benchmarks and is required by policy for new program design and approval. In addition, every academic program uses this template to refine program level assessment plans as was accomplished during the 2013 semester conversion review and approval process. Having a common format supports a consistent and sustained focus on assessing program level student learning outcomes. [ROA 8, 9] The office of Educational Effectiveness Assessment (EEA) is entrusted to provide training and support to faculty in the development of their Program Level Outcomes Assessment Plans (PLOAP).

Academic Program Review. In 2014, based on newer and more streamlined approaches to program review taking hold in higher education, the provost’s leadership team recommended that RIT develop a tiered program analysis and review process that would be more agile and less resource intensive.

Tier 1 is composed of a number of quantitative metrics including data collected directly from the annual Program Level Outcomes Assessment Progress Report process — in particular whether programs are meeting their benchmarks and using results to guide improvements. If a program has reported meeting benchmarks and using data for improvements, for two of the three most recent

40% 56%75% 83% 92% 93%

2009-10* 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15Actual Goal

75% 65% 85% 90%

55%

Figure 4: % of Programs that Met/Exceeded Student Learning Outcomes Benchmarks

62

years than the program is rated “Yes” on the two indicators identified above. Table 14 provides a summary of the first year results. [ROA 10]

Table 14: Summary of APR Data AY 2015-16

Program Indicators UG Programs Reported Meeting Benchmarks at least 2/3 Consecutive Years

Meeting Student Achievement Benchmarks 92 (100%) Practicing Data-Driven Continuous Improvement 82 (89%)

The Academic Program Review Tier 1 database is accessible by all colleges and degree-granting units.

Communication of assessment results to stakeholders (Stakeholders Communication) is the centerpiece of the assessment model at RIT. The Provost’s Academic Quality Dashboard downloads information from these reports. [ROA 8] The main vehicle for this is the annual Program Level Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Progress Reports that are shared widely and used by each college and program as the platform from which to decide how to use results for improvement.

Complementing these approaches are two targeted recognition programs: the Student Learning @ RIT Assessment Grant, which is designed to promote innovative approaches or improved practice in the assessment of student learning in academic programs and General Education courses, and the Excellence in Student Learning Outcomes Award, which recognizes an academic degree program that is committed to best practices in assessment, improving student learning, and continuous program improvement.

General Education Student Learning Goals. Similar to the assessment processes for program level outcomes, the General Education assessment process is designed by faculty to measure the extent to which student learning outcomes are being met. This process is outlined in the university General Education Assessment Plan and relies on multiple forms of data, including direct and indirect measures, and a combination of internal/external evaluators, including faculty, employers, and students. Student learning outcomes are assessed at least once every three years on a prescribed schedule for both the main campus and international locations, with adjustments made as needed due to the number of courses offered in each semester at international locations.

The Office of EEA asks participating faculty to complete an electronic data collection form for assessment results. These data are then aggregated and analyzed to determine the extent to which RIT students are achieving the GE Student Learning Outcomes.

RIT provides credible evidence of how faculty use student learning outcomes data to determine improvements to teaching and learning that impact student success. The majority of the improvements involve making changes to curriculum, revising individual General Education courses, adding or revising instructional strategies, and directly addressing students’ learning needs. See the General Education Samples: Use of Assessment Results for examples of improvements.

Evidence of the extent to which students are meeting the GE Student Learning Outcomes is documented in RIT’s General Education Assessment bi-annual reports and summarized in the General Education Student Learning Outcomes Scorecard (2009-2016).

While there is some variation in benchmarks based on the outcome and rubric criteria, RIT has set the appropriate level of achievement, defined to be the majority of students meeting the "competent" or "acceptable" level on the specific outcome related rubric. Refinement of rubrics and benchmarks is included as part of the ongoing review of the assessment process.

63

There are key university-wide initiatives, systems, processes, and practices in place to support, sustain, and advance General Education (GE) outcomes assessment. The Office of EEA is the primary university resource for GE assessment and reporting and is charged to implement the General Education Assessment Plan. The assessment schedule and support resources are outlined on the EEA website. Here we highlight a few of the major support mechanisms in place:

General Education Committee (GEC). The faculty-based GEC reviews curricula and General Education course proposals from across the university, ensures ongoing monitoring and assessment of the General Education courses, and ensures ongoing review of the General Education curriculum framework. The GEC also reviews and approves the General Education Assessment plan and cycle.

Course Proposal Form. In order to clarify the connections and build foundations between the General Education courses and program (majors) courses, faculty now use a newly developed RIT Course Proposal Form, approved by the GEC and University Curriculum Committee, to align General Education student learning outcomes to undergraduate course learning outcomes and identify assessment methods. This form is used by programs for proposing courses for approval at the college and university levels. The GEC reviews all courses to determine approval for GE credit.

The Office of the Registrar maintains the GE approved course database (and aligned outcomes). Since the 2013 implementation of the new Student Information System (SIS), faculty and students are now able to search by Perspective categories for courses that meet specific outcomes.

General Education Faculty Engagement Model. The Office of EEA uses a Faculty Engagement Model to ensure each General Education Student Learning Outcome has its own faculty team from across the university with expertise in the related discipline. This model uses the teams to help guide the processes for assessment planning as well as for analyzing and using the results. While increasing numbers of faculty have participated, as illustrated in Table 15, faculty involvement remains a priority.

Table 15: General Education Assessment Participating Faculty Gen Ed Assessment Cycle # Faculty Participate

Cycle 1: 2009-2010 31 Cycle 2: 2010-2012 29

Cycle 3: 2012-2014* 45 Cycle 4: 2014-2016* 93

* Includes faculty from main campus and international locations

General Education Faculty Associate. The addition of a General Education Faculty Associate, appointed by the Provost’s Office, provides direct support for implementing the General Education Framework. The focus of the position includes course and curriculum development review and assistance with the assessment of the General Education Student Learning Outcomes.

All of these support practices help steer communication to stakeholders about process and results. Actual communication takes several forms:

General Education Report. General Education results are documented and communicated through RIT’s bi-annual General Education Assessment Report. This report is reviewed and approved by the General Education Committee, and the results are also presented to the provost, the board of trustees Education Core Committee, colleges and degree-granting units including participating faculty, and other stakeholders including: Academic Senate, Student Government, and SLOAC. All of the reports are available on the General Education section of the Office of EEA website.

64

General Education Assessment Website. The Office of EEA maintains the GE assessment website, which is the primary resource for faculty. The National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA) featured this website and highlighted it as “a service intended to point others to promising practices in innovative and transparent online communication of student learning outcomes assessment.” {GTD: Outcomes Assessment Model}

Curriculum information is found on the RIT’s General Education website. [ROA 8]

University infrastructure, resources, and capacity are strong and demonstrate that RIT has been systematically collecting and providing data on the extent RIT students are achieving both the General Education and degree program goals. Convincing evidence contained in websites, reports, presentations, and processes affirm that results are regularly communicated to the participants and key stakeholders. The communication and attendant follow-up action on program level outcome results are particularly vigorous. The one area that requires further strengthening is communication at the university level about General Education outcomes. Because the communication is not as robust as it could be, the following recommendation should be effected:

Recommendation 8: Develop a plan to market and communicate the General Education Student Learning Outcomes to RIT’s main campus and international locations. This is critical for successful articulation and accomplishment of the newly envisioned T-Shaped competencies in so far as existing General Education learning outcomes serve as the backbone to the T-Shape competency concept. {GTD: On-Time Graduation and T-Shaped Graduate}

CRITERIA 3: Consideration and use of assessment results for the improvement of educational effectiveness. Consistent with the institution’s mission, such uses include some combination of the following: 3a. assisting students in improving their learning; 3b. improving pedagogy and curriculum; 3c. reviewing and revising academic programs and support services; 3d. planning, conducting, and supporting a range of professional activities; 3e. planning and budgeting for the provision of academic programs and services; 3f. informing appropriate constituents about the institution and its programs; 3g. improving key indicators of student success, such as retention, graduation, transfer, and placement rates; 3h. implementing other processes and procedures designed to improve educational programs and services.

Consideration and use of results for improvement have been major ongoing foci for RIT, particularly in the last few years as our assessment culture has matured. The two major assessment processes (General Education and Degree Program) described above yield actionable data at the course, program, and university levels. Closing the loop on these results is really where time and effort have been placed.

We showcase here some examples of how academic degree program and General Education assessment results are considered and used to improve educational effectiveness.

Program Level Outcome Assessment Results. Consistent methods to measure how programs are utilizing data-driven approaches to improve their courses and programs have been operationalized at RIT’s main campus and international locations. On an annual basis, academic programs provide

65

information about how they used assessment results to guide changes related to curriculum, instruction, or assessment that led to improved student learning. Assessment results are disaggregated by location so that localized discussions and actions can occur. This information forms the heart of the annual Program Level Outcomes Assessment Progress Report. [ROA 8, 10]

In RIT’s most recent reporting year, all three international locations reported increases in how results were used. On the main campus, 92% of the academic programs shared specific examples of how they demonstrated program level, data-driven continuous improvement related to curriculum and teaching. Main campus actions are discussed with program faculty at international locations so that seamless improvement plans can be crafted. The most recent annual reports showcase how programs are using assessment results to improve student learning, pedagogy, curriculum, services, or assessment processes. The six year trend data on this indicator is summarized below in Figure 5.

The Degree Program Samples: Use of Assessment Results provide solid illustrations, drawn from the reporting process, of how assessment results have guided improvements across a cross section of undergraduate and graduate programs. It should be noted that programs report most often on using results to guide improvements to curriculum and pedagogy.

General Education Outcome Assessment Results. Faculty Teams review the GE assessment results annually (as applicable per outcome) and consider potential changes that will lead to improvement.

The General Education bi-annual assessment reports include examples, by individual outcome, of how the General Education assessment results are considered and used to guide changes and decisions related to: pedagogy, curriculum, services, or assessment processes to improve student learning. See the General Education Samples: Use of Assessment Results. [ROA 9, 10] In general, based on assessment findings, faculty have recommended workshops be developed around assessment strategies including design of assignments and rubrics.

It is important to note that assessment results show the achievement benchmarks established for the GE outcomes have been consistently met or exceeded in five perspective categories, have improved in five categories, and have not been met in two. (Achievement Trends).

Other assessment. RIT also considers major university outcomes such as retention, graduation, and placement. The provost’s Academic Quality Dashboard regularly collects and shares these data. Colleges are held accountable to meet university benchmarks related to these indicators.

90% 80% 84% 79% 92% 82%

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15Actual Goal

Figure 5: % Programs Assessment Results Guide Improvement – Six Year Trends

85% 100% 100% 100%

85% 85%

66

Other supporting processes and procedures designed to assess and improve educational support programs and services are fully described in Standard III (Academic Program) and Standard IV (Advising Model, Early Alert, Degree Audit, Year One, Multicultural Center for Academic Success, Learning Assistants Program).

The university has a tradition of embracing continuous quality improvement with all of its business practices. This has led to the creation of an evolving culture and infrastructure that values the use of assessment results and which continues to expand and recognize the role assessment plays in guaranteeing educational effectiveness. This imperative will always need to be kept in the foreground, celebrated, and advanced in whatever ways are possible. With that in mind, the following suggestions are worthy of consideration:

Suggestion 7: Enhance usage of indirect data (e.g., NSSE, alumni surveys) by academic programs to support quantitative results on program quality.

Suggestion 8: Enhance and expand communication of university-wide and program assessment results and the use of results with the campus community.

CRITERIA 4: If applicable, adequate and appropriate institutional review and approval of assessment services designed, delivered, or assessed by third-party providers

Not applicable. RIT does not use third-party providers for assessment.

CRITERIA 5: Periodic assessment of the effectiveness of assessment processes utilized by the institution for the improvement of educational effectiveness

RIT tries to periodically evaluate the effectiveness of assessment practices. We refer to this as assessing the assessment. Our capacity to do this has increased over time, and we know we still can improve in this area.

RIT’s annual assessment process for academic programs is evaluated annually by all programs in all locations. The goal for the evaluation is to determine how meaningful, manageable, and sustainable the process is for the university and for the program. These practical goals provide the foundation for the analysis of the assessment processes.

Over the past six years, evidence in the form of SLOAC meeting agendas, meeting minutes, and work plans demonstrates the ways in which the assessment processes have been annually examined and improved. Recommendations and improvements to the process are also highlighted in the SLOA Progress Report (PR) summaries that are published annually. A sample of the improvements made over the years includes: [ROA 8, 9, 10] {GTD: Outcomes Assessment Model}

• Data Collection Instrument: Refined the instrument used to collect program assessment results multiple times based on academic program user feedback. Changes included: clarifying language, restructuring and reordering questions.

• Data Collection System: Piloted a new electronic assessment management system (Taskstream) for data collection within two colleges and then evaluated this change via survey. The responses indicated using the system was efficient and practical.

• Reporting: Modified the SLOA PR timeline based on survey feedback and to better meet the needs of academic programs. Because the data lags a year behind, the report is now completed before the start of the next calendar year. Dates changed from launching in October to September and also collecting in December rather than January.

67

• Quality: Developed a rubric to evaluate the robustness and quality of SLOA Progress Report (PR) submissions to articulate the university vision of using data for continuous improvement to learning and programs.

• Faculty Resources: Made ongoing improvements to the comprehensive repository of web resources for program faculty based on Progress Report results and feedback. The resources now include guidance and materials related to the assessment process, rubrics, and assignment guidelines. The website was featured by the National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment in 2014 in the categories of Centralized Assessment Repository and Communication.

In addition to an internal review of academic program level assessment processes, RIT also looks to specialized program accreditors for periodic feedback. Currently, all of the accredited programs have met standards related to assessment (see the Accreditation Agencies and Degree Programs for accreditation status). In some instances our assessment processes have been cited as exemplary. For example, in 2014 the ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission commended RIT’s university-wide comprehensive assessment management system.

The periodic review has been effective not just because there is evidence of ongoing improvements, but also the revisions made resulted in advancement in university goals related to student learning.

Based on an analysis of the program assessment processes, it was determined RIT demonstrates strong alignment with these principles of practice. The full analysis is available in the Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Assessment Processes. [ROA 8, 9, 10]

Likewise, periodic evaluation of RIT’s General Education assessment processes is conducted by the Office of EEA in conjunction with General Education Faculty Teams, the Faculty Associate for General Education, and the General Education Committee.

The General Education Assessment Process is analyzed annually by the Office of EEA and the GEC with input from participating faculty. Feedback is used to make revisions to the process. The selection process for assessment opportunities has been improved as RIT established an integrated database (SIS) that maps courses to GE Student Learning Outcomes and streamlined methods for data collection and sampling. This supports the efficient collection and analyses of data on student learning outcomes. Faculty from RIT’s international locations requested additional support, mentoring, and resources as well as increased connection to faculty from the main campus teaching similar courses. The Office of EEA built outcome specific “toolkits” to further support all participating faculty.

Ongoing evaluation of the assessment process itself was established as a component of RIT’s GE Assessment Plan. [ROA 8, 9]

Periodic assessment of our processes is of particular importance as it aligns squarely with RIT’s Self-Study outcome #3 and RIT’s Strategic Plan Difference Maker I.4:

• Self-Study Outcome #3: To review RIT’s outcomes-based institutional assessment practices and make recommendations to expand or refine institutional assessment practices to guide planning, resource allocation, and institutional improvement.”

• Strategic Plan Objective I.4: RIT will lead higher education with a bold model for ensuring academic quality through a unique outcomes-based assessment model designed to ensure continuous progress in student learning, graduate success, stakeholder satisfaction, and academic excellence.

68

As RIT moves its assessment focus and effectiveness to the next level, it will be important to continue the momentum in play and take additional steps to be sure that solid faculty involvement in all aspects of the process is enhanced. In order to achieve this desired level of engagement, it is suggested that RIT:

Suggestion 9: Develop additional methods to engage, acknowledge, and reward faculty for supporting university and program educational outcomes.

STANDARD CONCLUSION

Over the past ten years, RIT has focused on the centrality of assessment to educational effectiveness. Based on a review of the extensive data, materials, reports, processes, and practices, RIT addresses in an outstanding way all expectations contained in Standard V. The university is building a culture of assessment that is systematic, sustainable, and meaningful. We also understand that maintaining the momentum and capitalizing on our success is something we must continue to do. This is a critical priority and one of our greatest challenges. As we noted in our 2012 Periodic Review Report, we acknowledge the significant accomplishments to date, but are also humbled by what we believe remains to be achieved. The recommendation and suggestions made in this chapter will further solidify our current efforts.

In addition to the analysis undertaken to assess compliance with Standard V criteria, two research questions aligned to Standard V were chosen by the university. This additional Research Question Analysis and examination generated two additional recommendations not covered in this chapter, but worth animating here:

1. Develop additional training and support such as workshops to guide programs in their assessment efforts, with a focus on using assessment results for continuous improvement and “closing the loop.”

2. Continue to build and expand the next phase of assessment at RIT to enlarge how programs are using continuous improvement to further enhance student learning.

69

STANDARD VI: PLANNING, RESOURCES, AND INSTITUTIONAL IMPROVEMENT

The institution’s planning processes, resources, and structures are aligned with each other and are sufficient to fulfill its mission and goals, to continuously assess and improve its programs and services, and to respond effectively to opportunities and challenges.

Alignment of the university’s planning processes with the resource allocation processes continues to evolve and mature. This calibration has been made stronger because of ongoing assessment. Leadership’s primary intent continues to be to apportion its scarce financial resources to those activities that most directly support the university’s long-term strategic priorities. As noted in the Periodic Review Report (2012), our ability to set targets and achieve higher levels of financial performance continues to be dependent on constant assessment of where costs can be contained and where resources might be re-deployed. This dynamic continues today.

What follows is a discussion of the data reviewed and conclusions reached in examining Standard VI, including recommendations and suggestions for enhancement of RIT’s business practices.

CRITERIA 1: An accredited institution possesses and demonstrates the following attributes or activities: institutional objectives, both institution-wide and for individual units, that are clearly stated, assessed appropriately, linked to mission and goal achievement, reflect conclusions drawn from assessment results, and are used for planning and resource allocation

As discussed fully in Standard I, RIT has a rich history of planning and establishing clearly stated institutional objectives. This is evidenced by the decennial university Strategic Plans and division/ college strategic planning documents. All units of RIT operated within the university’s Strategic Plan, Category of One University/Imagine RIT and recently transitioned to Greatness Through Difference. Both Strategic Plans, as discussed in Standard I (pages 8-10), demonstrate clearly stated objectives within broader priority goals.

The Difference Makers and their subordinate objectives within the current Strategic Plan represent those outcomes necessary for the university to be successful in realizing the overall vision of Greatness Through Difference. In order to phase in implementation and align planning with resources, each Difference Maker has been categorized as tier 1, 2, or 3 depending on the established implementation priority, and each will have a corresponding “scorecard” that measures progress towards achieving the intended objective. Moving from the university level to the divisional level, administrative unit objectives are then tied to mission, vision, and overarching strategic goals. One example of how this flow occurs can be seen in the Strategic Plans (2015-2020) developed by Student Affairs and RIT Croatia.

Institutional objectives are assessed appropriately by key stakeholders against predetermined targets. As noted in Standard I, the previous Strategic Plan (Category of One University/Imagine RIT) sub goals had an annually-revisable target, clearly documented within an accompanying KRA Scorecard. Documenting annual assessment of progress towards institutional objectives and oversight by key stakeholders is essential and is the goal of the annual Strategic Planning Review Cycle, which was also fully discussed in Standard I. Difference Makers within the current plan have been prioritized, and objectives within each Difference Maker are, in turn, being prioritized. The framework under which each objective will be assessed has been established. Implementation Matrices (example provided) are in development for the priority objectives, along with identified accountability and responsibility, a preliminary action plan, and a not-yet-developed set of scorecards. The university’s Strategic Plan and goals are reviewed on an ongoing basis and changes to both long-term and intermediate

70

performance targets may result from this iterative review cycle process. Priority objectives also serve as a guide in allocating resources.

The process by which divisional objectives are assessed happens formally at the administrative unit level through what is called the Institutional Effectiveness Framework and assessment process. Each division uses its Institutional Effectiveness Map to align to RIT's mission, vision, and goals as well as to RIT's Inclusive Excellence Framework.

Planning and resource allocation is closely calibrated with the institutional strategic objectives and is illustrated in the university Budget Planning cycle, including the Budget Hearing process, as discussed in Criteria 3 below. The university’s Strategic Plan drives these allocations because it is used by the university Budget Committee and division/college leaders as the main criteria for evaluating resource requests. The presentation delivered by the division of Enrollment Management and Career Services for the FY 2017 budget process illustrates how divisions specifically tie requests to strategic goals. [ROA 8, 10, 11]

CRITERIA 2: Clearly documented and communicated planning and improvement processes that provide for constituent participation and incorporate the use of assessment results

Clear documentation and constituent participation in the strategic planning processes has been well documented and discussed in Standard I (pages 8-10). There is also strong commitment by university leadership to strengthen planning and improvement processes by utilizing data-driven models that emphasize assessment of outcomes.

RIT's Planning and Budgeting Cycle outlines integrated functions of annual financial planning and resource allocation as discussed in Criteria 3 below. At the unit level, the Institutional Effectiveness mapping process includes a feedback stage where constituents contrast achievement of goals against areas needing improvement.

Further evidence of the effectiveness of RIT’s leadership in communicating the planning process can be found in the results from the Chronicle of Higher Education’s Great Colleges to Work For survey. In particular, the statement, “Faculty, administration and staff are meaningfully involved in institutional planning,” gives testimony to such effectiveness. The results show a positive response of 58% for this question that exceeded our peer benchmark score by 8%.

CRITERIA 3: A financial planning and budgeting process that is aligned with the institution’s mission and goals, evidence-based, and clearly linked to the institution’s and units’ Strategic Plans/objectives

RIT’s annual Planning Cycle and Budget Hearing Process, also discussed in Criteria 5 below, are the primary vehicles for effective allocation of financial resources to realize the university’s strategic goals.

Budget requests are expected to align to the Strategic Plan and support divisional, college, or university missions. The Budget Hearing Request Form intentionally links requests to Greatness Through Difference, by requiring alignment between requests and an appropriate strategic dimension.

The annual Planning and Budgeting Process begins in December of each year and culminates at the following November’s board of trustees meeting where the final budget for the, then current, fiscal year is approved by the full board of trustees.

71

Figure 6 lays out the typical sequencing/timing of the various phases, followed by a chronology of activities. This iterative process begins with high level, long-range assumptions and projections, and proceeds to lower levels of granularity and eventually a detailed budget that the operating units utilize to ensure that the university meets a balanced budget. RIT operates on a permanent budget basis, meaning that operating units carry forward their expense budgets from one year to the next with global adjustments for merit pay, benefits expense, and other university-wide impacts. In the annual budget process the administration vets proposals for new spending which, if approved, are added to each unit’s operating budget.

Budget hearings conclude in mid-March and requests for incremental funding are summarized by the Budget Office. For example, with the FY17 hearings, well over 300 specific requests for additional funding were made. With an emphasis on the university’s strategic goals, the Budget Office prepares a draft allocation of the available funds to requests that it deems will make the most improvement or progress in key strategic result areas. Funding requests without a specific connection to the university’s strategic goals are generally not eligible for funding. This draft allocation is provided to the provost and the senior vice president of Finance & Administration as a “straw man” from which they prepare a revised allocation to be shared with the president. The president approves the final allocations. In all of the phases, the allocation decisions take into account the current performance on the key result measures and their relation to the university’s expected targeted levels of performance.

The Finance Committee of the board of trustees is charged to ensure that the new budget allocations included in the preliminary budget mesh with the university’s Strategic Plan. The Finance Committee approves the preliminary budget and recommends its approval by the full board of trustees. After adoption by the full board of trustees, the Budget Office publishes the allocations to the budget officers in each college and division.

Setting the parameters for each budget year is accomplished through a collaborative, constituent based process. The Budget Planning Committee is the body that accomplishes this by setting the constraints within which the budget is to be prepared and by participating in the budget hearing process. The Budget Planning Committee is cross-functional and consists of the university president, provost, and senior vice president of Academic Affairs representing all the colleges, senior vice

Figure 6: RIT's Annual Planning and Budgeting Timeline

Long Range ModelingNext Fiscal Year Modeling

Detailed Enrollment ForecastsPreliminary Budget AssumptionsBoard Approval - Planning Assumptions

College/Divisional Budget HearingsPreliminary Resource AllocationsPreliminary Budget PreparedBoard Approval - Preliminary Budget

Final Budget PreparedBoard Approval - Final Budget

JUNMAYAPRMARDEC JAN FEB NOVOCTSEP AUGJULPlanning PhaseFinancial Modeling

Preliminary Planning

Budget Hearings & Preliminary Budget

Final Budget

72

president for Finance & Administration, senior vice president for Enrollment Management and Career Services, assistant vice president for Budget and Financial Planning Services, president of the Academic Senate, chair of the Resource Allocation and Budget Committee of the Academic Senate, Student Government president, and chair of Staff Council.

The committee reviews the latest projections from the university’s long-range planning model, a proprietary ten-year model created by the Budget Office and anchored by the most recent set of published financial statements. The inputs take two forms: planning assumptions and significant projects.

Planning assumptions included in the model are typical for what one would expect for institutions of higher education: enrollment, tuition rates, etc. In addition, they also include forecasts of external factors, such as health care inflation, utilities inflation, the results of fundraising activities, etc. While there are numerous input variables, the major assumptions for the FY2017 planning cycle are displayed in Table 16, along with the projected value set points.

The university tests the sensitivity of its financial planning projections by changing various forecast parameters to ensure that its financial plans are robust, producing acceptable results even if one or more assumptions vary from the baseline estimates. Table 17 outlines how RIT tests three key inputs: enrollment growth, health care cost inflation, and endowment returns.

Each test is done independently, isolating only the effect of one change on the results. Table 18 shows terminal year (FY18) and the cumulative impact of changing each assumption.

Table 18: FY 18 Projections with Alternate Inputs

Financial Result Baseline

Projection FY18

FY18 Projections with Alternate Inputs

Enrollment Health Care Inflation

Endowment Return

Operating Surplus - $ M $14.0 $13.2 $13.4 $13.9

Operating Surplus - % 2.44% 2.31% 2.33% 2.42%

Table 16: RIT Planning Assumptions Assumption Projected Value(s)

Enrollment 0.8% Growth / Approximately 100 students annually Tuition Rates 3.3% annual increase in all published rates Institutionally-funded Student Aid Aid discount rate (unfunded aid/tuition) increases by .60% annually Salary Merit Increases 2.8% annual increase for Faculty & Staff Benefits Inflation Health Care +9% annually. Endowment Returns & Distributions

Long-term endowment average return = 6%. Distribute 5% of previous 20-quarter average value.

Table 17: RIT Key Input Sensitivity Test Parameters

Input Assumption Baseline Lower Sensitivity

Enrollment Growth (annual) 0.8% 0.6%

Health Care Inflation (annual) 9.0% 10.0%

Endowment Return (annual) 6.0% 5.0%

73

Operating results are relatively insensitive to the test changes, with the largest reduction in projected operating surplus being $800K. As a final test, all three unfavorable scenarios are incorporated into one test case to see how taken together they would impact RIT’s projected surplus. The result was an unrestricted operating surplus of $12.4 M or 2.17% of revenues, indicating that RIT is, given its size, well-positioned to resource its mission even should it face a more unfavorable set of circumstances than currently expected.

The other inputs considered are significant university projects, typically capital in nature. Table 19 describes the significant projects that were included in the financial forecast described later in this section.

Table 19: Significant Projects Included in Financial Forecast Project Description Status

Expansion of Global Village $17 M addition for upper class housing Planned to be open

Fall 2019.

MAGIC Spell Studio

$21 M facility for interdisciplinary education/research in interactive media and gaming (largely funded by NYS)

Scheduled completion Summer 2018.

The net of these factors is the amount of budget funds available to allocate to current activities and further the university’s Strategic Plan.

Two vital components of this financial resource planning model at the university are the enrollment planning process and financial projections analysis.

Enrollment Planning. Enrollment planning is a collaborative annual process among the divisions of Enrollment Management and Career Services, Finance and Administration, and Academic Affairs. Enrollment Management and Career Services, in consultation with each of the deans, develops annual projections for incoming students utilizing prospective student data (inquiries, applications, and deposits). Enrollment history, capacity, and market conditions impacting current and future enrollments are also reflected. These projections are released in January.

The enrollment planning process is guided by the Principles Underlying Growth Strategies, approved by the board of trustees in 2001. These 14 principles provide strategic direction to the university's plans for student recruitment and retention.

The actual enrollment figures for the fall academic term are used as the basis for the final budget presented for board of trustees approval in November. Any significant deviations from the preliminary enrollment estimates are accommodated in a new spending plan that typically either: (a) makes additional budget allocations if the enrollment is above the preliminary estimate, or (b) consumes a portion of the budget contingency if enrollment is below the estimate. As with the main budget allocations, any additional allocations are made in light of the current university goals and priorities.

Enrollment growth has been steady despite market demographics. Since 2011, our overall headcount has increased 3.8%, with graduate enrollments accounting for the largest portion of this increase. Greatness Through Difference establishes an expectation for further growth at the graduate level by 30%. We recognize, however, that as our academic profile increases, we are competing for increasingly talented students with institutions that have firmly established reputations and financial resources greater than ours. Additionally, the decline in the number of high school graduates in the Northeast coupled with the geographic and racial/ethnic shifts within student populations present

74

challenges to our enrollment goals, particularly related to the racial/ethnic and geographic composition of our students. We are carefully monitoring the competitive practices at other institutions, federal and state policies, and growing price sensitivity among prospective students and their families in order to assess their impact on our institution.

Given the challenges associated with enrollment, continuing and sustaining the progress RIT has made in improving its graduation rate remains crucial. Over the past five years, for example, RIT has increased its six-year graduation rate from 63.6% to 66.5% (see the RIT Freshman Graduation Rates MyAnalytics).

Continuing RIT’s tradition of affordability and access is a key Difference Maker in the current Strategic Plan. We have been successful thus far with respect to affordability as witnessed by our ranking as 33rd among national universities in providing a great education at a great price. Moving forward, striking the right balance between affordability and our capacity to invest in research, a diverse faculty and student body, and other strategic priorities will be a challenge

Financial Projection Analysis. Financial Projection analysis focuses on the projection for RIT’s unrestricted operating margin as a measure of the university’s continued financial health and the soundness of its financial plans. RIT’s operating surplus for the year ending June 30, 2015, was $21.3 million. In evaluating plans, the university aims to deliver an operating margin of at least 2.5%. (It should be noted that this measure is taken directly from the university’s audited financial statements and is, therefore, calculated in a manner different from the method that Moody’s uses.) With the planning inputs and incorporating the projects noted above, RIT’s baseline projected financial results calculated for three fiscal years are summarized in Table 20.

The forecasted surpluses are above or near the target in all years, returning to our long-term mean and goal by the end of the timeframe.

Linkage to Institutional Goals

Linking budget requests to the goals and objectives of RIT’s Strategic Plan is standard operating procedure. For FY 2017, the budget hearings produced over 330 specific requests for new funding, totaling over $20 million, a combination of operating funding and capital requests. The administration allocated $8.1 million in new spending to fund 88 line items (incorporating 31.5 new FTE faculty and staff positions). Decisions to allocate funding are based on the potential impact that the deployment of additional resources on a particular proposal would have on the university’s goals. In the FY17 cycle, budget allocations were mapped to the five Dimension Areas under Greatness Through Difference as displayed in Figure 7. Also displayed in Figure 7 is a summary of the three preceding budget cycles (FY14-FY16), which demonstrate similar alignment to the four Key Result Areas under Category One/ Imagine RIT.

Table 20: Financial Projection Results

Financial Result - $ Millions Baseline Projected FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18

Tuition & Fee Revenues $282 $295 $305 $314

Total Revenues $524 $542 $558 $574

Total Expenses $503 $522 $541 $560

Operating Surplus $21.3 $19.9 $17.0 $14.0

Operating Surplus - % 4.07% 3.68% 3.05% 2.44%

75

It should be understood that the number of “connections” shown for each fiscal period exceeds the number of line item allocations, because many initiatives support more than one strategic goal. [Note that these figures do not include significant physical plant investments, such as new academic buildings, plant infrastructure, etc. While such investments are important to the university’s strategy, their inclusion would skew this analysis by virtue of the size of these expenditures.]

Allocation of available incremental funding among the strategic planning priorities is fluid, depending upon the opportunities that present themselves. As such, there is no pre-determined apportionment of where funding will flow. Rather, resources are provided in each budget cycle to those areas facing increasing demands (e.g., through enrollment increases, compliance demands, etc.) or proposals that are seen to have the most direct relationship to improvements in the Key Result Areas and measures associated with the Strategic Plan.

CRITERIA 4: Fiscal and human resources as well as the physical and technical infrastructure adequate to support its operations wherever and however programs are delivered

Fiscal Resources

One measure of adequacy of fiscal resources is demonstrated by rankings and recognition. While more granular and program-specific rankings can be seen in the aforementioned web page, here we note that RIT is ranked 7th for “Best Universities – Master’s (North region)” by U.S. News and World Report; recognized as a Campus Sustainability Leader on the College Sustainability Report Card; and ranked 36th in “The Most Technologically Advanced Universities in the World” by Great Value Colleges.

53 $3.4 13.8

28 $1.1 4.5 16 $1.1 4.0

34 $1.9 7.3 13 $0.6 1.8

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

144 Connections $8.1 Million 31.5 FTE Positions

Organizational AgilityAffordability, Value, and ROILeveraging DifferenceStudent-Centered Research UniversityCareer Education & Student Success

FY17 Budget Allocations by Dimension Area (n=88)

95 $2.7 16.6

73$1.7

6.9

59

$2.3 7.1

58$3.2 16.5

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

285 Connections $10.0 Million 47 FTE Positions

Stakeholder SatisfactionOperational ExcellenceInnovationStudent Success

FY14-FY16 Budget Allocations by Key Result Areas (n=101)

Figure 7: Budget Allocations linked to Strategic Plan

76

Additional evidence of adequacy can be derived from RIT’s Noel Levitz (NL) Student Satisfaction Inventory results displayed in Table 21, showing a relatively high degree of satisfaction (based on a 7 point scale).

It is important here to remember that the smaller this gap between importance and satisfaction, the better a university is doing at meeting student expectations.

Another indicator of fiscal adequacy comes from the university’s strong financial position. In the most recently completed fiscal year, FY16 (year ended June 30, 2016), RIT had an unrestricted operating surplus of $23.5M and an operating margin of 4.2% on $555.2M in operating revenues. This performance follows surpluses of $8.8M, $12.4M, and $20.6M in fiscal years FY13 through FY15, respectively. This consistent bottom-line performance can be largely attributed to the rigor of the annual budget preparation process. The university has a legacy of being run soundly and conservatively, with FY16 being the 45th consecutive year with an operating surplus on a budgeted funds basis. An analysis of the university's financial performance and position follows and provides additional evidence that fiscal resources are adequate to support objectives. [ROA 11]

Revenues. Net tuition is the single largest component of the university's operating revenues, accounting for 53.3% of total operating revenues and 83.2% of discretionary revenues (excluding auxiliary operations and restricted grant and contract revenues) in FY 16. These proportions have remained fairly consistent since FY13 (54.0% and 82.2%, respectively). As such, enrollment predictability remains vital to managing the university's financial resources. The Budget Office works closely with Enrollment Management and Career Services utilizing the annual enrollment projection figures as the basis for the preparation of the operating budget. FY16 gross tuition was up 6.7% driven by a rate increase of 3.8% and higher enrollment.

RIT’s tuition rate increases from FY13 through FY16 have averaged 3.8%, compared to 4.9% in the prior four years. The university’s progress in reducing tuition rate increases has coincided with the need to increase allocations to unfunded student aid at an average annual rate of 7.8% since 2013. This is an average increase of $11.0M per year. Notable in these efforts is that RIT's published undergraduate tuition rate remains in the lower half of its peer group (Association of Independent Technological Universities).

The university continues to pursue higher levels of funding for sponsored research. Total Government Grant and Contract revenue was $106.5M in FY16; up 16.0% since FY13 including $67.5M from a congressional appropriation for operating the National Technical Institute for the Deaf ($62.1M in FY13). Excluding this appropriation from both periods, other sponsored program revenues were up 31.4% over the same time frame, reflecting steady growth.

Table 21: 2014 Noel Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory Results

Noel Levitz Survey Item RIT Score

Importance Satisfaction 7: The campus is safe and secure for all students 6.39 6.16 18: Library resources and services are adequate 5.7 5.71 23: Living conditions in the residence halls are comfortable

(adequate space, lighting, heat, air, etc.) 6.15 4.89

26: Computer labs are adequate and accessible 6.31 5.81 28: Parking lots are well-lighted and secure 5.64 5.61

77

The university’s endowment has continued to increase in value since recovering from the market downturn in late 2008. As of the end of FY16, the market value of the endowment’s investments was $756.9M compared to $671.1M at the end of FY13. The university’s endowment spending policy is to appropriate for distribution 5% of the endowment’s average fair value over the prior 20 quarters through March of the preceding year in which the distribution is planned. According to this policy, the total spending distribution should be at least equal to 3.5% but not greater than 5.25% of the beginning of year portfolio market value. The total spending distribution for FY16 of $30.2M represented 4.0% of beginning of year endowment market value and 5.5% of total revenues. The endowment’s unrestricted spending distribution is smaller at 2.6% of unrestricted revenues. The university anticipates similar distributions going forward. With a focus on diversifying our revenue base and an ongoing capital campaign, the university has a target of achieving a $1B endowment by FY25.

External Fundraising Campaign. In addition to receipt of funding through tuition and fees and endowment income, RIT relies on external support to enhance the infrastructure, teaching, and research agendas of the university. Further, to support the bold goals of the Greatness through Difference strategic plan, the university has established a forward-thinking fundraising campaign. This campaign, also entitled “Greatness through Difference,” currently seeks to raise $700M in seven years from all external sources. Deemed a “blended campaign,” this initiative is designed to leverage the various philanthropic, government, and research initiatives already used to support the university and to grow them exponentially in the coming years. The Campaign is enacting a culture shift across the university wherein every faculty and staff member has an opportunity to contribute to the overall success of the university through external partnerships and funding. {GTD: Campaign}

Since the blended campaign was launched in July of 2013, the university has raised gifts, grants, and commitments of $357M. Slightly ahead of the fundraising goal, the campaign is showing early signs of success. Most importantly, the objectives of the campaign are well matched to the goals of the strategic plan. The four pillars and related goals of the campaign align to four of the five university Strategic Dimensions: (1) Career Education and Student Success ($195M); (2) A Student-Centered Research University ($300M); (3) Leveraging Diversity ($85M); and (4) Affordability ($120M). Support under the Campaign is carefully mapped to each of these four funding pillars and 22 objectives. Progress toward goals is being monitored monthly through the Executive Campaign Cabinet, led by the president. The funding goals remain fluid and under consideration until the Campaign moves from the quiet phase and into the public, announced phase, likely to take place in the 2017-2018 academic year.

Operating Expenses. Like most universities, salaries, wages, and benefits comprise a significant portion of operating expenses. Compensation related expenses totaled 69.0% of operating expenses in FY16, up from 67.9% in FY13. Annual merit wage increase pools have been modest over this time frame, typically ranging from 2.0% to 3.0%. The cost of employee benefits is becoming a more significant expense. The bulk of these expenses are split amongst four major categories: health care, retirement plans, payroll taxes, and tuition benefits. Benefit costs have increased 9.9% since FY13, including medical/prescription drug expenses increase of 14.0%. The most common budget funding request is for additional faculty and staff positions to support the university's growth and new programmatic initiatives. Because salaries and wages are a sizable portion of the expense base and due to the relative difficulty of eliminating positions once created, managing these allocations is critical to achieving the university's goal of a balanced operating budget.

78

Reported interest expense in FY16 was $9.4M ($11.7M in interest payments, less $.04M in capitalized interest and $1.9M non-cash amortization of debt issuance costs). As calculated according to Moody's methodology, RIT's FY16 annual direct debt service coverage was 4.4 times and the debt service to operating expenses ratio was 3.2%. These ratios compare very favorably to those for similar institutions; the median ratios for private colleges and universities with a Moody’s A rating in FY15 were 2.9 times and 4.9%, respectively. Moody’s has not yet issued median ratios for FY16. RIT has a long history of strategically structuring its borrowing to match debt duration with the lives of assets being funded. This is manifested in a conservative amount of long-term debt (see External Agency Ratings and Benchmarks section for more information).

The university has a strong balance sheet, ending FY16 with $1.12 billion in net assets, 66% of which are in the unrestricted classification. Subtracting out net investment in plant, approximately one-third of RIT's total net assets are expendable. As defined by Moody's, RIT's FY16 spendable cash and investments represented 1.5 times operating expenses, compared to 1.4 times for the median Moody’s A-rated institution in FY15.

Cash balances at year-end FY16 were up $10.3M versus prior year to $48.5M, largely due to increased cash from operations and financing activities somewhat offset by lower acquisitions of property, plant, and equipment. RIT continues to invest in campus facilities to support enrollment growth and key new initiatives as can be evidenced by the increase in net fixed assets at an average of 3.5% annually since FY12. Capital acquisitions were $24.1M in FY16. Management has shifted its capital spending focus to the renovation and refurbishing of existing space for smarter and enhanced utilization of its physical assets.

During fiscal year 2013, RIT entered into an agreement with the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York (DASNY) whereby DASNY issued $146.0M in revenue bonds (2012 Series). The agreement is a general secured obligation of the university. The bonds were issued at a premium of $22.2M. Proceeds were used to advance refund (pay in advance) a portion of the university’s 2002B Series bonds totaling $10.9M and a portion of its 2008A Series bonds totaling $76.1M. The remainder of the proceeds provided funding for the construction of a new ice arena, renovations and improvements to academic facilities, and the acquisition of on-campus residential housing. The new bond issue, coupled with scheduled principal payments, brought outstanding long-term debt principal to $270.5M at year-end FY13, up $54.7M from FY12. The university has continued to be current with its required debt payments. As of the end of FY15, outstanding long-term debt principal was $260.2M. In early FY17, RIT entered into a taxable loan agreement and related variable-rate multiple draw term note with a commercial bank to partially finance several capital projects, including the construction of new student housing. Under the terms of the agreement, the university may borrow in total $25.0M over the period through and including July 12, 2018. The borrowing is not expected to significantly impact our liquidity metrics or result in any ratings action by Moody’s.

By most measures, RIT still has a conservative amount of debt and adequate financial resources to service it. As can be seen in Table 22, the university’s total spendable cash and investments to debt ratio has been favorable to the median Moody’s A-rated private institution in each of the past five years, as has its debt to total capitalization ratio.

79

External Agency Ratings and Benchmarks. In December 2015, Moody's reaffirmed its A1 rating on the University's outstanding revenue bonds (See Moody’s Credit Rating). In their analysis, among other factors, they noted the following strengths in RIT's financial position: established market niche in technology, engineering, health sciences, and cooperative education; strong unrestricted liquidity; consistently positive operations; and an experienced and fiscally disciplined management team. [ROA 11]

RIT's goal is to maintain or improve the Moody's A1 rating on its outstanding debt both to realize lower interest rates when placing new debt and to act as a gauge on the level of debt in our capital structure. Moody’s overall ratings are based on many factors and RIT's strengths become apparent when RIT's metrics are compared to other private institutions rated by Moody’s. The circles in the figure below show RIT's FY15 metrics compared against the same metrics for various ratings categories. As noted previously, Moody’s has not yet published median data for FY16. In all areas, the university compares favorably to the median Moody’s A-rated institution, and some of its metrics compare favorably to the median AA-rated institution.

The first three metrics gauge the university’s total level of debt. RIT is well positioned on each of these areas. The debt service coverage ratio measures how many times our cash flow can pay the required principal and interest on outstanding debt. RIT’s coverage ratio of 5.6 times surpasses the median for all Moody’s ratings. The spendable cash and investments to debt ratio is a measure of balance sheet strength. RIT’s ratio of 3.1 times exceeded that of the median A-rated institution (1.8 times) and is approaching the median Aa-rated institution’s ratio (3.3 times). Our debt represented 18.3% of total capitalization, compared to the median A-rated institution’s metric of 20.4% and the median AA-rated institution’s 15.8%.

The next metric gauges operating profitability. RIT’s operating cash flow margin, as defined by Moody’s, was 14.5% in FY15, compared to 15.1% for the Moody’s median for similarly rated institutions, but similar to the 14.6% for AA-rated institutions.

Table 22: RIT’s Total Spendable Cash and Investments to Debt Ratio Spendable Cash and Investments to Debt Debt to Total Capitalization

RIT Median A-Rated Institution RIT Median A-Rated

Institution FY12 2.7x 1.5x 18.9% 23.3% FY13 2.5x 1.8x 20.4% 21.4% FY14 3.0x 1.9x 18.9% 19.9% FY15 3.1x 1.8x 18.3% 20.1% FY16 3.3x Not yet published 17.9% Not yet published

Figure 8: Financial Metrics on Continuum between Baa- and Aaa-rate (Private)

Debt Service Coverage

Spendable Cash and Investments to Total Debt

Total Debt to Total Capitalization

Operating Cash Flow Margin

Age of Plant Baa Aaa Aa A

80

Finally, Moody's gives RIT a very healthy rating for age of facilities, suggesting a lower exposure to required future investments in infrastructure. Together, these measures point to a strong financial base, but one in which managing operations has been and will continue to be important.

While reaffirming the A1 rating, Moody's further noted challenges for RIT including a highly competitive northeast undergraduate student market, the need for continued strong operations and revenue growth to support investment to remain competitive, and historically weak fundraising relative to peers. The agency indicated that a rating increase might be warranted if RIT were to experience a substantial increase in flexible financial resources to better cushion expenses and planned debt or strengthened brand as evidenced by increased geographic diversity, net tuition per student, and fundraising.

Human Resources

RIT has 1,081 full-time faculty and 2,382 full- and part-time staff. Because of the number of instructional staff, RIT is able to maintain a healthy student-to-faculty ratio of 13:1. RIT continues to observe and analyze data relative to instructional activity (Instructional Activity Report) as a way to measure adequacy of instructional resources. These data include percent of student credit hours (SCH) taught by full-time faculty and student class-size. At RIT, 78% of SCH are delivered by full-time faculty and only 1% are delivered by teaching assistants. Lastly, aggregate data for the university indicate that the percentage of faculty who have received a rating of meeting or exceeding university standards for teaching effectiveness, as measured by chairperson evaluation, was 97.6% for 2015-2016.

RIT’s record of student retention and graduation can also be used as proxy indicators for the adequacy of its human resources (see RIT Freshman Persistence Rates MyAnalytics). Notably, RIT’s freshmen one-year retention rate of 87% for the fall 2015 cohort compared favorably to four-year non-profit institutions that retain 80%. RIT’s six-year graduation rate for the fall 2009 cohort was 70%, which compares favorably with four-year non-profit institutions who graduated 65% for the fall 2007 cohort. RIT draws a connection between these successes with student persistence to degree with appropriate and qualified human resources focused on student success. Furthermore, RIT remains mindful of the aforementioned student-to-faculty ratio, as the university’s program catalogues grow at each level of study, recently being placed into the Carnegie classification of doctoral-granting, moderate research activity.

When queried about the adequacy of human resources on the Great Colleges to Work For survey, 38% of faculty and staff provided a positive response to the question: “My department has adequate faculty/staff to achieve our goals.” The national peer benchmark score for this question was also 38%. Despite favorable comparison to benchmark response, this is definitely an area where RIT must continuously assess adequacy and use the institutional effectiveness assessment processes to guide new resource requests and repurposing of current resources. This has been pointed out in other sections of the Self-Study and recommendation 6 in Standard III directly addresses this. The ambitious nature of the Strategic Plan makes adequacy of human resources a continuing concern.

Infrastructure

Over the past four years, RIT’s infrastructure has grown, physically and technically, to support the growth in student enrollment and growth in the program portfolio (see Major Campus Building Projects 2007-2017). The academic space to student ratio has grown from 51 square feet to 56 square feet over this same time period. The research space to faculty FTE ratio has similarly grown, from 105 square feet

81

to 149 square feet. Observational evidence tied to these metrics include the additions made to Louise Slaughter Hall for the College of Health Sciences and Technologies, the completion of Institute Hall for research and STEM programs, the completion of Sustainability Hall to support the programs in advanced manufacturing and sustainability, and Rosica Hall to support research programs affiliated with the National Technical Institute for the Deaf. Future initiatives include an expansion of Global Village and MAGIC Spell Studio.

Technology

RIT’s technology infrastructure is robust and fully supports the operations of the university. The network is supported by two data centers: a primary “green” data center built in 2013 with a sustainable cooling system, along with a legacy back-up data center. The university’s network (see the Technology Roadmap for Data Network Services) backbone is provided through both wired and wireless technology across the campus. Campus servers provide a robust connection to the public that supports online courses and remote access. Many institutions commonly run close to 100% of their respective network bandwidths. RIT’s ITS infrastructure team reports that the percentage commodity internet bandwidth utilization compared to max capacity based on 95th percentile monthly data is 21%, while peak monthly backbone utilization based on fifteen-minute sampling is 50%. These network usage rates indicate an infrastructure that is more than adequate and exceeds commonality in this area. Classroom technology supports current operations. In an effort to ensure adequate classroom-related technology, a biennial Faculty Use of Technology survey is administered: the most recent survey queried whether or not RIT should launch a full learning management system replacement, or supplement current offerings in support of academic program delivery. An illustration of feedback utilized to make improvements includes: the integration of a video platform into myCourses and Google integration into myCourses.

Another example of RIT’s commitment to increase its technical infrastructure in support of graduate education enrollment goals is the online graduate application initiative. To date, this project is in mid-implementation and expected to streamline the graduate application and review process {GTD: Graduate Education}

CRITERIA 5: Well-defined decision-making processes and clear assessment of responsibility and accountability

RIT’s mechanism for the planning and allocation of resources has been well described in Standard I and here in Standard VI. As noted, responsibility for the Planning Cycle rests with the university Budget Committee. The Finance Committee of RIT’s board of trustees is ultimately accountable for the effective allocation and management of approved resources and the priorities to which they are allocated.

While the annual Planning Cycle demonstrates a structured decision-making process with responsibility and accountability identified, transparency following the planning and budgeting cycle can be strengthened considerably so that the university community clearly understands the nature and scope of the budget decisions. To that end, the following recommendation is offered:

Recommendation 9: Supplement the annual budget process by creating a document for use by leadership of the governance groups to cascade appropriate information to their constituents about new budget allocations and their alignment with the university’s strategic priorities.

82

CRITERIA 6: Comprehensive planning for facilities, infrastructure, and technology that includes consideration of sustainability and deferred maintenance and is linked to the institution’s strategic and financial planning processes

RIT’s comprehensive planning for facilities, infrastructure, and technology are best evidenced by near and long-term planned activity and expenditures with respect to operation.

The Facilities Capital Plan documents the current conditions of facilities on RIT’s main campus and serves as a planning tool to ensure preservation of existing assets to promote ongoing safe and efficient operation. Furthermore, this planning document, coupled with the FY16-17 Projects Summary, highlights various areas of planned deferred maintenance. Given the criticality of facilities expenditures to the overall financial operation of RIT, information related to immediate and deferred expenditures is integrated into the annual Planning Cycle.

The Information and Technology Services (ITS) Capital Plan lists FY16-21 planned expenditures pertaining to the data center discussed in Criteria 4, network and telecommunications infrastructures, student information systems, and F&A staff computer equipment replacement plan.

The Innovative Learning Institute’s (ILI) goals and expectations drive the unit’s educational technology strategic direction and is notably linked to Greatness Through Difference, with parenthetical references to Difference Makers. With respect to classroom and learning technology handled by ILI, a comprehensive upgrade plan is kept with respect to each classroom and indicates carryover or unplanned upgrades. The Information & Technology Services (ITS) capital plan is notably rolled into the divisional budget hearings described in Criteria 5.

And finally, the university has made sustainability a priority while continuing to build. A number of new construction projects have achieved LEED certification, and the implementation of RIT’s green data center is just one indication of RIT’s continued consideration of sustainability. We believe these initiatives indicate RIT’s planning for facilities, infrastructure, and technology take seriously the university’s commitment to sustainability.

CRITERIA 7: An annual independent audit confirming financial viability with evidence of follow-up on any concerns cited in the audit’s accompanying management letter

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) LLP conducts an annual independent audit of RIT’s consolidated financial statements and has expressed an unmodified opinion on those financial statements in each of the last four years. In FY16, FY15, and FY13, no management letter was issued to RIT by PwC. In FY14, a management letter was issued addressing an internal control matter, subsequently attended to and not referenced in the following years, indicating evidence of the university’s follow-up on the matter. [ROA 11]

The consolidated financial statements provided to PwC document unrestricted operating surpluses, most recently reporting a FY16 surplus of $23.5M. As noted earlier, while surpluses ranged from $8.8M to the more recent $23.5M between FY13 and FY16, a well-established history of surplus indicates financial stability and general viability. RIT’s consistent in-the-black performance can be largely attributed to the rigor of the annual budget preparation process. RIT’s recent Moody’s credit rating affirmation of A1, which cited an experienced and fiscally disciplined management team, is also evidence of financial stability.

83

CRITERIA 8: Strategies to measure and assess the adequacy and efficient utilization of institutional resources required to support the institution’s mission and goals

The university embraces multiple strategies to assess the adequacy and utilization of resources. The annual Review Cycle outlined in Figure 1 of Standard 1 provides the articulation between annual planning and budget processes. A critical component of the Review Cycle is that it keeps the university’s Strategic Plan dynamic and updated based on regular assessment.

The process of changing Category of One University to Imagine RIT is an excellent example of a decision to move away from goals that were inherently unmeasurable towards goals whose effectiveness could be assessed and measured. The accompanying KRA Scorecard provided the means to assess progress towards goals, subject to revision, per the annual Review Cycle. This same process will be followed with the new Strategic Plan: Greatness Through Difference.

Another strategy that helps assess adequacy and efficient utilization of resources is the use of data analytics. One exemplar of this approach is RIT’s data warehousing efforts. The entire data warehouse effort was awarded Computerworld magazine’s Laureate Medal, a clear indication of an exemplary effort to advance academic reporting and manage institutional data. Another example of data analytics is the implementation of RIT’s Admissions Reporting Repository, whose purpose is to consolidate and summarize raw data stored in PeopleSoft Customer Relationship Management (CRM) and PeopleSoft Campus Solutions (CS). The Repository now allows for the evaluation of admissions initiatives and monitors performance against institutional objectives.

RIT also systematically analyzes data and leverages information through a series of university, college, and department dashboards (MyAnalytics Dashboards) and data visualizations that are used to monitor performance in key areas such as enrollment, retention, academic performance, and instructional activity. Data from the dashboards inform the allocation of additional human, fiscal, or physical resources. (See both the Instructional Activity Report and the MyAnalytics Snapshot Retention.)

As evidence that RIT assesses the adequacy and efficient utilization of divisional resources to support the university’s mission and goals, each division examined its efficient use of resources as summarized in the Divisional Resource Utilization Summary Report.

The Institutional Effectiveness (IE) Plans described earlier in this standard follow a format that requires administrative unit objectives, in support of division objectives, to align to a strategic dimension of Greatness Through Difference. As of fall 2016, 87% of units have completed their IE maps. For further information, see Standard VII, page 93.

The annual Academic Program Analysis (APA) Process, an integral part of Academic Program Review (described in Standard III), also includes metrics and data on program unit revenue and expense as appropriate and relevant to the type of program. This data provides the opportunity to inform future resource allocation processes. A screenshot of compiled program data and additional detail for one program displays the number of metrics triggered and other specific data collected. [ROA 8]

Another robust source of data that informs the efficient use of RIT’s institutional resources is the provost’s Academic Quality Dashboard which is published every year. In addition, RIT is conducting a space utilization study with a report due at the end of the spring semester. These data sources help to provide a picture of an institution that takes seriously its commitment to assess and continuously improve its institutional resource use.

84

CRITERIA 9: Periodic assessment of the effectiveness of planning, resource allocation, institutional renewal processes, and availability of resources

Periodic assessment of the effectiveness of planning, resource allocation, renewal, and resource availability has been thoroughly described in this standard and, in some cases, in other standards. Here we briefly highlight some of the key processes.

Annual Review Cycle. The annual Review Cycle represents one of the highest level processes on campus that allows for the assessment of planning effectiveness, resource allocation, institutional renewal processes, and availability of resources (also described in Standard I).

Administrative Unit Assessment. The Office of Educational Effectiveness Assessment, through the administrative unit assessment process, coordinates the Institutional Effectiveness (IE) mapping process referenced in Criteria 8. This is the mechanism by which administrative units align their divisions’ goals and the Greatness Through Difference strategic dimensions and adjust goals and approaches based on results.

Institutional Effectiveness Annual Reporting. The administrative unit’s annual Institutional Effectiveness Administrative Unit Assessment Progress Report demonstrates how each administrative unit is supporting the university’s mission and goals and uses data to drive improvement processes. The progress report summarizes unit objectives, the assessment used, how key findings influenced continuous improvement, and subsequent impact on services, processes, or resource allocations. These reports provide two-stage support for Criteria 9. While administrative units are required to report on continuous improvement and resource allocation, the University Assessment Council (UAC) evaluates each progress report and prepares a university level summary.

Financial Rating/Satisfaction Surveying. RIT obtains an annual credit rating by Moody’s, and its affirmation of A1 indicates the university’s financial outlook is stable. The A1 rating is firmly based on RIT’s ability to leverage its reputation in technology, engineering, design, health sciences, and cooperative education to modestly increase enrollment and revenue above the rate of inflation. Furthermore, Moody’s affirms that RIT’s planned investment in programs and facilities supports its continued success in achieving positive operations and increasingly flexible financial resources. RIT’s goal is to maintain or improve the A1 rating. In partial response to Moody’s citing of RIT’s fundraising relative to peers, RIT recently launched its current, ambitious capital campaign. Funding beyond current operations is required to advance the university as outlined in the Strategic Plan, and the capital campaign represents a dedicated financial attempt to realize the funds necessary. {GTD: Capital Campaign}

The university also utilizes the results from student and staff satisfaction surveys (Noel-Levitz and Great Colleges to Work For) to assess levels of effectiveness and initiate needed changes. Results from these surveys have been discussed throughout this Self-Study.

Given the importance of the administrative unit assessment process to the alignment of unit planning priorities with the Strategic Plan, the present completion rate of 87% requires improvement. With that end in mind, the following suggestion warrants serious consideration:

Suggestion 10: Initiate steps to ensure that by 2018, 100% of administrative units develop and implement assessment plans (Institutional Effectiveness Maps) and use results to improve unit efficiency.

85

STANDARD CONCLUSION

We are confident that RIT’s institutional planning processes, resources, and structures are aligned and clearly linked to the university’s mission and goals, with ongoing assessment ensuring movement in the direction of the Strategic Plan. In short, RIT meets, and in many cases substantially exceeds, the criteria for Standard VI.

Most importantly, mechanisms and infrastructure are in place to help facilitate assessment within administrative units. This is notably seen through the coordination provided by a central assessment office, the Institutional Assessment Framework, the Annual Review Cycle, the Institutional Effectiveness process, Administrative Unit progress reporting, and the oversight provided by the University Assessment Council.

Resource requests are tied to and subsequently evaluated based upon their alignment with the Strategic Plan.

RIT’s five previous consolidated financial statements indicate net budget surpluses, while many universities have either operated in the red or needed to draw additional endowment funds to support operations. In times of fiscal austerity, RIT is well positioned to move forward financially, which is a critical necessity as RIT implements its Strategic Plan and enjoys its new Carnegie classification.

Through the Research Question Analysis undertaken as part of the Self-Study, RIT’s new Strategic Plan priorities are further advanced by identifying institutional strengths and challenges and offering tangible recommendations or steps to achieve university goals.

In the case of the research questions posed for this standard, no gaps were noted or recommendations advanced.

86

STANDARD VII: GOVERNANCE, LEADERSHIP, AND ADMINISTRATION

The institution is governed and administered in a manner that allows it to realize its stated mission and goals in a way that effectively benefits the institution, its students, and the other constituencies it serves. Even when supported by or affiliated with governmental, corporate, religious, educational system, or other unaccredited organizations, the institution has education as its primary purpose, and it operates as an academic institution with appropriate autonomy.

RIT enjoys a vibrant, qualified, and engaged team of leaders, administrators, and trustees. In many ways, this is one key reason why RIT has remained true to its mission and catapulted to international stature in a relatively short period of time.

In examining the criteria for this standard, a comprehensive examination of documentation, bylaws, policies and procedures; analysis of RIT’s current governance structure; and meetings with administrative leadership and members of RIT’s board of trustees were conducted. The lens for this analysis was governance, leadership, and administration at RIT’s Rochester campus. RIT’s international locations, their system of governance, and their interaction with RIT and RIT Global Delivery Corporation is described in the RIT International Locations Overview.

CRITERIA 1: An accredited institution possesses and demonstrates the following attributes or activities: clearly articulated and transparent governance structure that outlines roles, responsibilities, and accountability for decision making by each constituency, including governing body, administration, faculty, staff, and students;

RIT’s shared governance system includes a board of trustees, University Council, Academic Senate, Staff Council, and Student Government. Each of these bodies has a well-defined purpose and membership that are clearly articulated and defined in RIT’s By-Laws and each of their respective charters, which are publically available in RIT’s online Governance Policy Library;

• The Board of Trustees is represented by members who are not employees of RIT and whose primary function is to oversee the “business, property, and affairs of the Institute.” Board members are listed on the president’s website.

• University Council, chaired by the president, includes representation from administration, Academic Senate, Staff Council, and Student Government.

• The Academic Senate is the governance arm of the faculty composed of voting representatives from each college elected by their constituents as well as representatives from all other governance groups except the board of trustees.

• Staff Council is the governance arm of the non-faculty employees of campus. University staff are divided into blocks, each electing representatives to Staff Council. Staff Council also includes the chair of Academic Senate (or delegate) and the president of Student Government (or delegate).

• Student Government is composed of student representatives from the colleges elected by their peers, representational student organizations, and other student body communities. It also includes the chair of Academic Senate (or delegate) and the chair of Staff Council (or delegate) who are non-voting members.

The regular and publicly advertised meetings of the Academic Senate, Staff Council, and Student Government and the minutes from these meetings provide a means for open and meaningful communication. [ROA 12]

87

Examples of recent critical decisions shaped by the governance process include: conversion from the quarter system to the semester system, development of RIT’s Strategic Plan, endorsement of the university’s code of conduct, deliberation and recommendation regarding proposed undergraduate and graduate degree programs, creation of the Innovative Learning Institute (ILI), passing a tobacco restriction policy, and the update of the university’s governance policy library.

Examination of RIT’s bylaws, charters, polices, and practices make it clear that RIT has a strong history of shared governance. This analysis did uncover a concern, however, about the perceived devaluing of university service and associated diminished involvement by faculty in governance activities. In order to avoid further reticence “to serve,” the following recommendation is proffered:

Recommendation 10: Develop best practices and corollary expectations in support of faculty service contributions at the university and local level including specific expectations for ways that deans can express the importance of the role of college service and department chairs can ensure that service is reflected in the criteria for tenure, promotion, and rewarded in the merit process.

CRITERIA 2: A legally constituted governing body that: 2a. Serves the public interest, ensures that the institution clearly states and fulfills its mission and goals, has fiduciary responsibility for the institution and is ultimately accountable for the academic quality, planning, and fiscal well-being of the institution;

RIT is governed by an active and informed board of trustees consisting of 49 members including the president of the university and representatives of the Alumni Association board of directors, the Women’s Council, the National Advisory Group of the National Technical Institute for the Deaf, and 31 individuals holding emeritus or honorary status. The responsibilities of trustees are clearly articulated and publicly available in the RIT By-Laws and communicated on the board of trustees website. These responsibilities include assuring “financial viability” and overseeing “fiduciary conduct” as well as evaluating the “state of the university relevant to its vision and mission.” The board of trustees also takes an active role in both the development and assessment of the university’s Strategic Plan as described in Standards I and VI. In addition, the board of trustees regularly monitors key educational and academic quality outcomes including graduation and placement rates.

The board of trustees carries out its responsibilities through a committee structure. The board is led by an Executive Committee that meets monthly and a structure that includes core committees, subcommittees, and special function committees. The five core committees are Education, Enrollment Management & Career Services, Finance, Student Life, and University Relations. Complementing the five core committees are six subcommittees (Building and Grounds, Development, Endowment, Executive Compensation, Government Relations, and Research/Graduate Programs) and five special function committees (Audit, Committee on Trustees, Conflicts of Interest, Diversity, Global Delivery Corporation, and Strategic Planning).

The powers and duties of the committees and subcommittees are defined in RIT’s By-Laws. The president and other administrative officers provide support and information to the committees. [ROA 12]

2b. Has sufficient independence and expertise to ensure the integrity of the institution. Members must have primary responsibility to the accredited institution and not allow political, financial, or other influences to interfere with their governing responsibilities;

This criteria is discussed in detail later in Criteria 2g and 2h, and that discussion provides evidence the board of trustees is informed by principles of good practice in board governance, including selection

88

of members based on their expertise, and complies with a conflict of interest policy to ensure impartiality.

2c. Ensures that neither the governing body nor its individual members interferes in the day to day operations of the institution;

The president is charged by the board of trustees with the overall management of the university. Detailed conversations with the current and past board of trustees chairpersons on this specific topic provided further evidence that the board of trustees relies on the president and his senior officials to execute the day-to-day responsibilities and operations of the university. The current and past chairs felt strongly that mechanisms are in place to ensure there is no interference by the board of trustees with the day-to-day operations of the university. Conversations also revealed that the oversight role of the board of trustees and alignment with conflicts of interest policies and procedures are discussed among the trustees on an annual basis.

2d. Oversees at the policy level the quality of teaching and learning, the approval of degree programs and the awarding of degrees, the establishment of personnel policies and procedures, the approval of policies and by-laws, and the assurance of strong fiscal management;

Not unlike governing boards at other universities, RIT’s board of trustees delegates a limited number of the specific responsibilities outlined in Criteria 2d to the president and assigns to its Core Committees other key operational oversight responsibilities. For example, through the authority vested in the president by the board of trustees, the president approves degree programs, the awarding of degrees, and establishment of certain personnel policies and procedures.

The Education Committee of the board of trustees concerns itself most particularly with the quality of teaching and learning and the establishment of personnel policies and procedures that support the academic mission. The board of trustees By-Laws stipulate that this committee provide the necessary advice and support to ensure that: “(c) Internal and external assessment of academic program quality and expected student learning outcomes are ongoing and systematically scheduled, reviewed and acted upon; (d) Research, scholarship and the general intellectual climate of the Institute are strong and active; (e) Effective policies and procedures exist related to academic programs, including faculty recruitment, appointment, evaluation, development, compensation, tenure and promotion.” The committee regularly reviews RIT’s Academic Quality Dashboard to ensure that key educational outcome benchmarks are met, including retention, graduation, diversity, job placement, alumni satisfaction, and teaching quality. Focus on Academic Program Review, General Education learning outcomes assessment results, and Program Level Outcomes assessment results are standard agenda items, and meeting minutes reflect this. The meetings of the Education committee include the provost, the deans of each of the RIT colleges, other academic leaders and the chair and vice chair of the Academic Senate.

The Executive Committee of the board of trustees is tasked with the ultimate approval of board policies and By-Laws, and the Finance Committee and the Audit Committee are tasked with assurance of strong fiscal management, the achievement of which has been adequately described in Standard VI. In this way, the board of trustees oversees and approves directly or by delegation each of the components of this criteria.

89

2e. Plays a basic policy-making role in the financial affairs to ensure integrity and strong financial management. This may include a timely review of audited financial statements and/or other documents related to the fiscal viability of the institution;

Ultimate oversight of the university’s financial affairs rests with the board of trustees with major responsibility residing with the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee is staffed by the university’s chief financial officer (CFO) and treasurer who serves as an ex officio, non-voting member. The Finance Committee, along with its two subcommittees, Endowment and Buildings and Grounds, is responsible for directing the investment of funds, preparation of budgets and financial plans, monitoring personnel policies and practices, and reviewing new construction proposals and financial matters related to RIT property. The Finance Committee vets and presents annual budgets to the full board of trustees for review and approval, including annual salary, tuition, and other fee increases. One of the key result areas tracked on the board’s 2005-2015 Strategic Plan Scorecard was maintaining a balanced budget. In the five years reflected on the document, the university met or achieved this goal each year.

Additional financial oversight is provided by the Audit Committee. This committee periodically assesses the internal controls and accounting systems, recommends any changes it deems appropriate, and provides advice to the Division of Finance and Administration. Every five years, the Audit Committee researches and recommends an independent external consultant and recommends an independent auditor for the university.

RIT’s By-Laws stipulate that “The Board of Trustees shall direct the President and the Vice President and Chief Financial Officer to present at the Annual Meeting of the board of trustees an annual report certified by a firm of independent public accountants selected by the board of trustees. This report shall be filed with the minutes of the Annual Meeting of the board.”

The Audit Committee is also responsible for reviewing any special audits by federal, state or local government entities. Additional evidence related to independent audits is provided in detail in Standard VI Criteria 7.

2f. Appoints and regularly evaluates the performance of the Chief Executive Officer;

This criteria is discussed in detail below in Criteria 3a.

2g. Is informed in all its operations by principles of good practice in board governance;

The board of trustees is a member of the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB) and uses this affiliation as a source of guidance on good practice related to operations as well as the selection, orientation, and evaluation of board members. The majority of trustees have experience as high-level executives or leaders in business, law, education, and the healthcare industry, giving them an understanding of the difference between oversight and operations. Because of considerations associated with academe (e.g., tenure, shared governance, academic freedom) one of the factors considered in selecting new trustees is experience in higher education. Upon joining the board of trustees, each new member is assigned an established trustee as a mentor by the Committee on Trustees. Each trustee is elected for a four-year term after which the possibility of renewal exists but is not automatic. The Committee on Trustees is also responsible for the evaluation of individual trustees and the board of trustees’ overall performance. At the end of each four-year term, each board member submits a self-evaluation for review and consideration. Article II, Section 3 of B00.1, Rochester Institute of Technology By-Laws, identifies the process for the removal of a trustee due to

90

misconduct, incapacity, or neglect of duty. Under normal circumstances, board members move to Emeritus status at the age of seventy.

To ensure a balanced board of trustees, the board maintains detailed information regarding membership. Key characteristics tracked include diversity, alumni status, and wealth/access to wealth. Currently the board of trustees membership is 9% AALANA and 28% female. By 2017, the AALANA membership goal is 15% and the female membership goal is 35%. RIT is below the national average numbers for AALANA (13.5%), but exceeds the average for women members (24.9%) among doctoral/research institutions’ boards.

As RIT has long recognized the importance of diversity to organizational growth and synergy, the following recommendation advances this organizational philosophy at the board of trustees level.

Recommendation 11: Continue to actively seek out AALANA and female membership for the board of trustees to parallel the university’s diversity efforts across campus as outlined in the Greatness Through Difference: 2015-2025 Strategic Plan. {GTD: Inclusive Excellence}

2h. Establishes and complies with a written conflict of interest policy designed to ensure the impartiality of the governing body by addressing matters such as payment for services, contractual relationships, employment, and family, financial or other interests that could pose or be perceived as conflicts of interest;

To ensure the integrity of the board of trustees, comprehensive conflicts of interest policies and procedures put strong measures in place in an effort to avoid unethical or inappropriate influence and allow for transparency and awareness of potential areas of concern. Articles XVII and XXII of RIT’s By-Laws defines the role of the Conflicts of Interest Committee and the university’s Conflicts of Interest policy for trustees and officers. RIT’s By-Laws clearly define “conflicts of interest” and the requirements associated with each, including disclosure and the approval of contracts and transactions involving potential conflicts of interest. This policy and procedure were discussed thoroughly in Standard II. The Conflicts of Interest Committee reports at least annually to the full board of trustees. [ROA 13]

2i. Supports the Chief Executive Officer in maintaining the autonomy of institution.

The CEO/president has a strong, collaborative relationship with the board of trustees, especially with key members that serve in board of trustees leadership/chairperson roles. Additionally, the president’s senior management team works with the leadership of the appropriate committees to guide the university forward and build foundations for new initiatives.

During the course of this inquiry process, community members expressed the desire to be better informed about the work of the board of trustees given the important role the board plays and the defining decisions the board is involved with. In order to achieve greater transparency, the following recommendation is offered:

Recommendation 12: Charge governance representatives (Academic Senate, Staff Council, Student Government) to regularly distribute agendas and approved minutes from board of trustee meetings to respective constituencies to facilitate wide-spread communication and understanding of board activities.

91

CRITERIA 3: A Chief Executive Officer who: 3a. Is appointed by, evaluated by, and reports to the governing body and shall not chair the governing body;

The role of the president is defined in Article II, Section 2 of the RIT By-Laws. The president is considered to be part of the university faculty as indicated in the Charter of Academic Governance (B02.0) policy and is also a member of the board of trustees. The board of trustees is empowered to elect the president of the university according to Article XX, Section 1 of the By-Laws. This section also prevents the president from serving as the chair of the board of trustees. Article XXIII, Section 2

provides for an annual performance evaluation of the president as well as a proposal for the president’s compensation to be prepared by the chair of the board of trustees and presented to the Executive Compensation Committee. The annual performance evaluation is currently performed through the distribution of a survey by the chair to all trustees. Input from the trustees is reviewed and compiled into the official appraisal by the chair of the board of trustees. The RIT president is confirmed by the board of trustees at the annual meeting in November. Executive compensation is directly aligned with performance as the Executive Compensation Committee reviews salary information and makes recommendations for the president and other officers of the university based on benchmark data. [ROA 13]

3b. Has appropriate credentials and professional experience consistent with the mission of the organization;

To ensure the selected president is qualified and carries the appropriate credentials for the position, in 2006 a position profile was developed as part of the search for the university president. William W. Destler was selected as the university’s ninth president in 2007. He holds a bachelor’s degree and a Ph.D. in applied physics. Prior to joining RIT, he was senior vice president and provost at the University of Maryland as well as an accomplished professor and scholar.

This position profile was recently updated in summer 2016 in preparation for the search for RIT’s tenth president. Dr. David C. Munson, Jr. was selected and will begin serving as RIT’s president on July 1, 2017. Munson has 38 years of experience in higher education, which includes serving as the Robert J. Vlasic Dean of Engineering at Michigan from 2006 to 2016. Munson earned his BS degree in electrical engineering (with distinction) from the University of Delaware in 1975. He earned an MS and MA in electrical engineering from Princeton in 1977, followed by a Ph.D. in electrical engineering in 1979, also from Princeton.

3c. Has the authority and autonomy required to fulfill the responsibilities of the position, including developing and implementing institutional plans, staffing the organization, identifying and allocating resources, and directing the institution toward attaining the goals and objectives set forth in its mission;

RIT’s current and previous presidents have demonstrated the authority to develop and implement institutional plans. With the input of campus community stakeholders, as fully described in Standard I, RIT’s current president prepared and released RIT’s Greatness Through Difference: 2015-2025 Strategic Plan that outlines the goals and objectives of the university for this ten-year period.

The president recommends the annual operating budget to the board of trustees and has consistently approved staffing, capital, and operational budgets based on planning priorities. The process guiding this has been explained fully in Standard VI.

92

3d. Has the assistance of qualified administrators, sufficient in number, to enable the Chief Executive Officer to discharge his/her duties effectively; and is responsible for establishing procedures for assessing the organization’s efficiency and effectiveness.

RIT’s president is supported by a cabinet of qualified and experienced administrators as well as various vice presidents and advisors. Article XX of the RIT By-Laws empowers the president to delegate powers and duties to the vice presidents. See the Credentials Summary for a summary of the credentials and experience of the current President’s Administrative Council.

CRITERIA 4: An administration possessing or demonstrating: 4a. An organizational structure that is clearly documented and that clearly defines reporting relationships;

Comprehensive organizational charts for the university are in place and available to the RIT community on the Human Resources website. The charts depict both supervisory reporting relationships and departmental structure.

4b. An appropriate size and with relevant experience to assist the Chief Executive Officer in fulfilling his/her roles and responsibilities;

The qualifications of the administration have been addressed in Criteria 3d; the Credentials Summary provides information on the relevant experience of each member of the president’s cabinet. To determine whether the administration of the university is of appropriate size, a comparison with other universities, including benchmark schools, was undertaken in 2015 by Academic Senate’s Resource Allocation and Budget Committee. The results of the study are discussed in the May 7, 2015 minutes of the Academic Senate and indicate that the administrative structure of the university is of appropriate size.

4c. Members with credentials and professional experience, consistent with the mission of the organization and their functional roles;

This has been sufficiently addressed in Criteria 3d and 4b above.

4d. Skills, time, assistance, technology, and information systems expertise required to perform their duties.

The executive level administrative team is highly skilled in disciplinary and management expertise. In addition, the RIT Information and Technology Services (ITS) organization provides the technology, skilled support, skills transfer, and information systems expertise required to support university administrators in the performance of their duties. RIT Production Services provides the technical support, web development, video production, and photography services that the administration requires for all of its outreach and community engagement activities. Access services, a unit comprised of sign language interpreters, C-print operators, and note takers, provides support for more than 1,200 deaf and hard-of-hearing students and more than 130 faculty/staff in the classroom and RIT community events.

4e. Regular engagement with faculty and students in advancing the institution’s goals and objectives;

The president and other senior leaders engage with the RIT community and external stakeholders on a regular basis, both formally and informally. The president’s annual Welcome Back and State of the

93

University Addresses are open to the entire campus and made available on the president’s website. The president’s Open Administration Series provides an opportunity for administrative leaders from different divisions to report periodically on the initiatives of the division and its efforts toward the efficiency and effectiveness of the university. Input on planning and initiatives is obtained from all stakeholders by a variety of methods, including but not limited to open forums, meetings of governance groups, websites, and surveys.

The regular Provost’s Town Hall Meetings are just one example of how RIT’s leadership engages the community in active discussion on RIT’s new and ongoing academic initiatives. Further evidence of community engagement in university-wide goals/objectives can be seen in the methodology used to draft the Strategic Plan. The plan was drafted over the course of a year and included participation from alumni, industry partners, employers, and retirees as well as faculty, staff, and students.

RIT’s leadership is visible on campus and interacts informally and socially with faculty, staff, and students in dining halls, at athletic competitions, and at signature RIT events such as Imagine RIT. Liberty Hill, the home of the president, is a frequent venue for special community events, including student events such as the Orientation and Residence Life leader picnic, Rochester City School District (RCSD) Welcome, Multicultural Center for Academic Success (MCAS) Summer Bridge Program, Student Government Picnic, and the Senior Picnic. Other stakeholders are also included in these special meetings, including events such as Institute of Fellows annual meeting and the Women’s Council annual meeting.

Recruitment for key administrative hires always involves a representative search committee and final candidates typically present at an open campus forum after which feedback by the search committee is solicited.

One of the best practices to advance the university’s strategic goals and objectives is communicating key priorities and objectives on a regular basis. To further accomplish this level of transparency, the following recommendation is offered:

Recommendation 13: Disseminate the priorities and corresponding plans of work of key university leaders at all levels of the organization on a consistent basis. This will help to ensure a sense of shared responsibility for the strategic priorities as well as make clear to the campus community that campus leadership is actively engaged in making these strategic priorities a reality.

4f. Systematic procedures for evaluating administrative units and for using assessment data to enhance operations.

As primarily explained in Standard VI, the Institutional Effectiveness (IE) assessment process, developed by RIT’s University Assessment Council, is a planning tool to help administrative units track and assess progress to objectives and tie their results to the planning and budgeting processes. All administrative units are required to complete an IE map that identifies measurable unit goals and aligns to RIT’s Strategic Plan dimensions, mission, and goals. This assessment process provides another means for monitoring the performance of RIT’s administrative units and is one piece of RIT’s ongoing planning and assessment in both the academic and administrative areas.

CRITERIA 5: Periodic assessment of the effectiveness of governance, leadership and administration

RIT’s annual faculty/staff performance review process requires a formal individual assessment for academic and administrative employees at all levels. For senior administration, the president

94

summarizes the results of these assessments for the Executive Committee and Executive Compensation Committee of the board of trustees. As noted in Criteria 2g and 3a, the president receives a formal annual assessment by the board of trustees, and the Committee on Trustees evaluates individual trustees and overall board of trustees’ performance.

In addition to the annual performance review required for administration and leadership, RIT’s Human Resource department encourages upward appraisals to facilitate two-way performance communication. Staggered upward appraisals for the deans and department chairs are conducted through the Office of the Provost, and upward appraisals are also done periodically within some administrative units. Upward appraisals are not required through policy, though, and are voluntary, which leads to a lack of consistency across the university.

Since 2009, climate and engagement surveys have been administered on a regular basis by the Human Resources department. These surveys include items that assess satisfaction with leadership, administration, and governance. The 2015 Great Colleges to Work For survey addressed these dimensions with a number of core belief statements that speak to the issue of effectiveness. Three such core belief statements are: “Senior leadership of the university provides a clear direction for RIT's future;” “Our senior leadership of the university has the knowledge, skills, and experience necessary for institutional success;” and “Senior leadership of the university shows a genuine interest in the well-being of faculty, administration, and staff.” In 2015 RIT scored equal to or above its peer benchmark institutions in all of these core belief statements.

Mirroring the questions pertaining to senior leadership, RIT added customized questions to the survey to assess leadership and diversity at the college and division level. Examples of core belief statements around diversity are: “The leadership of my college/division treats individuals with respect, regardless of gender, race, age, religion, or sexual orientation;” and “Senior leadership of the university treats individuals with respect, regardless of gender, race, age, religion, or sexual orientation.” As these are customized questions, there are no benchmark comparisons, but results in 2015 for leadership at the college and division level are in line with the results for senior leadership.

In the fall of 2012, the climate and engagement survey was supplemented with the Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education (COACHE) survey, designed specifically for faculty and administered through the Office of the Provost. The COACHE survey, developed and based at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, gathers robust data about faculty experiences on campus, including data related to leadership and governance. The COACHE dashboard results pertaining to leadership and governance address leadership issues at the departmental, divisional, and senior level, including decision making, faculty input, and administrative priorities. Areas of strength, where RIT ranked above its peers, included senior leadership’s communication of priorities and divisional leadership’s ensuring faculty input. Areas of concern, where RIT ranked below its peers, included pace of divisional and departmental decision making and stated priorities.

Survey results are used to guide institutional change. For example, the 2012 COACHE survey was used to guide discussions at the university and college level and initiate change related to expanded clarity around promotion and tenure procedures/criteria and institutional goals related to post-tenure mentoring and appreciation and recognition of faculty. Action plans based on the climate and engagement survey are de-centralized across campus and developed and implemented by the individual units and departments with integration into annual work plans and institutional

95

effectiveness (IE) maps. Because of the de-centralization, however, survey results and local action plans are not always disseminated in a timely manner.

Survey instruments and direct calls for input from the community are used by RIT’s governance groups to connect directly with their constituents and increase the effectiveness of governance at RIT. A 2015 Staff Council survey distributed to all RIT staff assessed the level of staff engagement and satisfaction with Staff Council and solicited input on issues that should be addressed. Each year, the Academic Senate actively solicits input from the campus community on committee charges that, in turn, determines the yearly plan of work for the Senate. This outreach to the faculty community indirectly identifies areas where satisfaction may be lacking. Senate has not to date adopted a formal method to address constituent satisfaction. In 2014, Student Government began to formally ask their constituents to provide input on matters of concern. To accomplish this, the student government established an online petition site, PawPrints, which allows any community member to raise issues of importance to them that can then be presented to administration for discussion and resolution.

After an evaluation of RIT’s formal assessment processes, relevant policies, and in-person interviews, we conclude that RIT meets Criteria 5 expectations. Notwithstanding, periodic assessment calls for continual updating of practices. With that focus, a few areas in need of improvement surfaced and deserve further action to bolster the ongoing effectiveness of the governance structure:

Recommendation 14: Implement a regular internal evaluation process administered by each RIT governance group (University Council, Academic Senate, Staff Council, and Student Government) to determine the body’s effectiveness as viewed by their respective constituencies.

Suggestion 11: Investigate the feasibility of providing reasonable workload relief for key governance leaders in the form of a possible course buy-out for (a) the chair of Academic Senate as well as for the chairs of the standing committees of Academic Senate, and (b) a work reduction for the chair of Staff Council and the chairs of Staff Council standing committees.

Suggestion 12: Disseminate and communicate the results of the climate and employee engagement survey in a timely, consistent, and comprehensive way. Additionally, RIT leadership should formally document and disseminate the actions taken based on survey results.

Suggestion 13: Implement a more formal and consistent upward appraisal process for all levels of administration on a regular cycle.

STANDARD CONCLUSION

As a result of the examination of RIT’s governance, leadership, and administrative structure, we are confident RIT abundantly meets, and in most areas exceeds, all of the criteria for Standard VII. In doing so, RIT demonstrates that it is governed and administered in a manner that allows it to realize its stated goals and effectively benefit the university, its students, and other constituencies it serves. [ROA 12, 13]

Through the Research Question Analysis undertaken as part of the Self-Study, RIT’s new Strategic Plan priorities are further advanced by identifying institutional strengths and challenges and offering tangible recommendations or steps to achieve university goals.

The research questions analysis and associated action steps have been forwarded to the key administrator responsible for strategic implementation. Three of the recommendations from the

96

Research Question Analysis are found in this Standard on pages 87 and 95. The two recommendations that have not been included and are worth repeating here are:

• Continue to make the implementation and assessment “scorecard” for the Strategic Plan publicly available on the president’s website to ensure transparency and to keep the campus community informed of progress.

• Require all governance groups (Academic Senate, Staff Council, Student Government, University Council and Board of Trustees) to post their agendas, meeting minutes and related documents in RIT’s Digital Archive for preservation and compliance with RIT’s Record Retention Policy.

a

ADDENDUM: RIT SELF-STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

STANDARD I: MISSION AND GOALS

Recommendation 1: Improve the collaborations and partnerships necessary for a robust interdisciplinary academic culture. This should include developing, supporting, and implementing flexible options for funding models, staffing opportunities, and policy provisions that support interdisciplinary teaching, research, and learning.

Suggestion 1: Develop and implement a consistent method for sharing the university’s mission and vision across RIT’s internal and external constituencies so that mission and vision drive university core functions and are intentionally associated with RIT’s brand and reputation.

STANDARD II: ETHICS AND INTEGRITY

Recommendation 2: Develop a comprehensive website that directs constituents to the appropriate policy and information regarding filing grievances and complaints. RIT should furthermore ensure that this central archive is widely distributed to all constituents on a regular schedule.

Recommendation 3: Develop a coordinated process for all marketing (public relations, advertising, publications, media, and social media) that is consistent across all of RIT’s locations and all internal and external marketing communications platforms.

Recommendation 4: Require all colleges and degree-granting units to provide consistent program information on their websites, during open-house informational sessions, and through other college level communiques that calibrates with the official university bulletin at the main campus as well as the international locations.

Recommendation 5: Strengthen the message and improve the appeal to current and prospective donors to increase scholarship funds and mitigate ongoing financial challenges threatening student success for populations with the greatest needs and for populations included in our strategic enrollment goals.

STANDARD III:

Recommendation 6: Given RIT's projected growth and strategic initiative to strengthen its position as a leading research university, conduct further analysis into the sufficiency of current full-time (tenured/ tenure track) faculty as compared to non-tenure track faculty and utilize findings to develop and implement a staffing action plan.

Suggestion 2: Implement a technology-based tool that will eliminate currently used manual processes for moving new curriculum proposals and course proposals through the various review/approval bodies. Such a tool can ensure the information flow and transfer is streamlined in a consistent and accurate way for SIS, university bulletins, and academic program websites.

Suggestion 3: Integrate technology replacements with more efficient space utilization and classroom upgrades to enhance different pedagogies and modalities.

Suggestion 4: In order to achieve Strategic Plan objectives relative to increasing faculty diversity and excellence in teaching and research as a means to further distinguish RIT’s academic and research portfolio and its position within the new Carnegie classification, provide competitive start-up packages and other resources (i.e. research space) to attract and retain faculty.

b

Suggestion 5: To the degree possible, increase the number of General Education courses available at international locations to provide more options for students particularly across the perspective and immersion categories.

Suggestion 6: Establish a plan for evaluating the benchmarks and the overall effectiveness of the new academic program analysis process used, paying particular attention to the efficacy of program action plans and their results.

STANDARD IV:

Recommendation 7: Develop centralized transfer credit processes, tools, and an infrastructure to enhance transfer pathways and communication about these pathways for prospective students.

STANDARD V:

Recommendation 8: Develop a plan to market and communicate the General Education Student Learning Outcomes to RIT’s main campus and international locations. This is critical for successful articulation and accomplishment of the newly envisioned T-Shaped competencies in so far as existing General Education learning outcomes serve as the backbone to the T-Shape competency concept.

Suggestion 7: Enhance usage of indirect data (e.g., NSSE, alumni surveys) by academic programs to support quantitative results on program quality.

Suggestion 8: Enhance and expand communication of university-wide and program assessment results and the use of results with the campus community.

Suggestion 9: Develop additional methods to engage, acknowledge, and reward faculty for supporting university and program educational outcomes.

STANDARD VI

Recommendation 9: Supplement the annual budget process by creating a document for use by leadership of the governance groups to cascade appropriate information to their constituents about new budget allocations and their alignment with the university’s strategic priorities.

Suggestion 10: Initiate steps to ensure that by 2018, 100% of administrative units develop and implement assessment plans (Institutional Effectiveness Maps) and use results to improve unit efficiency.

STANDARD VII:

Recommendation 10: Develop best practices and corollary expectations in support of faculty service contributions at the university and local level including specific expectations for ways that deans can express the importance of the role of college service and department chairs can ensure that service is reflected in the criteria for tenure, promotion, and rewarded in the merit process.

Recommendation 11: Continue to actively seek out AALANA and female membership for the board of trustees to parallel the university’s diversity efforts across campus as outlined in the Greatness Through Difference: 2015-2025 Strategic Plan.

c

Recommendation 12: Charge governance representatives (Academic Senate, Staff Council, Student Government) to regularly distribute agendas and approved minutes from board of trustee meetings to respective constituencies to facilitate wide-spread communication and understanding of board activities.

Recommendation 13: Disseminate the priorities and corresponding plans of work of key university leaders at all levels of the organization on a consistent basis. This will help to ensure a sense of shared responsibility for the strategic priorities as well as make clear to the campus community that campus leadership is actively engaged in making these strategic priorities a reality.

Recommendation 14: Implement a regular internal evaluation process administered by each RIT governance group (University Council, Academic Senate, Staff Council, and Student Government) to determine the body’s effectiveness as viewed by their respective constituencies.

Suggestion 11: Investigate the feasibility of providing reasonable workload relief for key governance leaders in the form of a possible course buy-out for (a) the chair of Academic Senate as well as for the chairs of the standing committees of Academic Senate, and (b) a work reduction for the chair of Staff Council and the chairs of Staff Council standing committees.

Suggestion 12: Disseminate and communicate the results of the climate and employee engagement survey in a timely, consistent, and comprehensive way. Additionally, RIT leadership should formally document and disseminate the actions taken based on survey results.

Suggestion 13: Implement a more formal and consistent upward appraisal process for all levels of administration on a regular cycle.

d

Middle States Steering Committee

Karen A. Barrows, MBA, ‘04 Secretary of the Institute and Chief of Staff

Bob Finnerty, MS, ‘07 Chief Communications Officer

Joan Graham, Ph.D. Assistant Vice President for Institutional Research and Policy Studies

Paula Grcevic, MFA Professor, National Technical Institute for the Deaf

Clyde Hull, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Saunders College of Business

Bridget Hurley Undergraduate Student, Student Government Representative

Keith Jenkins, Ph.D. Interim Vice President & Associate Provost for Diversity & Inclusion

Sandra Johnson, Ed.D. Senior Vice President for Student Affairs

Michael Laver, Ph.D. Co-chair, Associate Professor, College of Liberal Arts

Christine Licata, Ed.D. Senior Associate Provost for Academic Affairs

Edward A. Lincoln, MS, ‘79 Assistant Vice President for Enrollment Management

Yin Pan, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Golisano College of Computing and Information Sciences

Thomas W. Smith, Ph.D. Professor, College of Science

Kim Sowers, MBA Director of Project Management Office, Information & Technology Services

Gregory Van Laeken, MBA, ‘08 Business Manager and Analyst for Global Programs

Kim VanGelder, BS ‘86 Trustee: Chief Information Officer and Vice President, Eastman Kodak Company

Anne G. Wahl, Ed.D. Co-chair, Assistant Provost for Assessment and Accreditation

Self-Study Working Groups Standard 1: Mission and Goals Sharon Lonthair, Chair Managing Director, Development and Alumni Relations Callie Babbitt Assistant Professor, Golisano Institute for Sustainability Marc Goldman Associate Director, Residential Education David Wick Assistant Vice President for Research and Student Success, Office of Diversity and Inclusion Elizabeth Perry Assistant Professor, Biomedical Sciences, College of Health Sciences and Technology Phillippa Thiuri Powers Health Profession Opportunity Grants Coordinator, Institute of Health Sciences and Technology Meredith Smith Associate Vice President, Government and Community Relations Steering Committee Liaison: Ed Lincoln

Standard 2: Ethics and Integrity Pat Didas, Chair Assistant Vice President, Institute Audit, Compliance & Advisement Barbara Hoerner Director of Foundation Relations Joe Johnston Director, Student Conduct and Conflict Resolution Kim Kurz Chairperson, Assistant Professor, ASL & Interpreting Education, National Technical Institute for the Deaf Robert Osgood Program Director, Associate Professor, Biomedical Sciences, College of Health Sciences and Technology Judy Rolwing Senior Human Resources Manager Ellen Shady Director of University Publications Steering Committee Liaison: Bob Finnerty

Standard 3: Design and Delivery of the Student Learning Experience Marianne Gustafson, Chair Associate Dean for Curriculum & Special Projects, National Technical Institute for the Deaf Elizabeth Hane Associate Head, Associate Professor, School of Life Sciences, College of Science Joe Pow Associate Director, Imaging Science, College of Science Ian Webber Director, Teaching & Learning Services Tracy Worrell Associate Professor, School of Communication, College of Liberal Arts Rebecca Johnson Instructional Design Researcher & Consultant, Teaching & Learning Services Susan Chan Academic Coordinator, Imaging Science, College of Science Steering Committee Liaison: Tom Smith

Standard 4: Support of the Student Experience Karey Pine, Chair Senior Director of Campus Center Lynne Mazadoorian Director, University Advising Office Nancy Bernardo Assistant Professor, School of Design, College of Imaging Arts and Sciences Jeff Cox Director, International Student Services Carla Dilella Executive Director, Housing Operations and Global Initiatives James Hall Executive Director, School of Individualized Study Marian Nicoletti Sr. Assoc. Director of Transfer Admissions Scott McVean Sr. Associate Director of Intercollegiate Athletics Daniel Cosentino Interim VP for Academic Affairs & Director of RIT Academic Programs, Kosovo Steering Committee Liaisons: Sandy Johnson, Bridget Hurley

e

Self-Study Working Groups Standard 5 - Educational Effectiveness Assessment Linda Tolan, Chair Senior Associate Dean, College of Applied Science and Technology Leah Bradley Assistant Director of Educational Effectiveness Assessment Bill Brewer Director, Exercise Science Program, College of Health Sciences and Technology David Martins Associate Professor, English & University Writing Program Director Risa Robinson Department Head, Professor, Mechanical Engineering, Kate Gleason College of Engineering Michael Yacci Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Golisano College of Computing and

Information Sciences Nilay Yildirim Senior Research Associate, Institutional Research & Policy Studies Khalid Khawaja Vice President for Academic Affairs, RIT Dubai Steering Committee Liaisons: Joan Graham, Paula Grcevic

Standard 6 - Planning, Resources, and Institutional Improvement Rich Dirmyer, Chair Assistant Vice President, Institutional Research, Assessment and Strategy Jodi Boita Director, Assessment, Technology Communications Kevin Dudarchik Director, Information & Technology Services, Applications Development John Moore Assistant Vice President, Facilities Management Services Bill St. Jean Associate Director for Campus Programs Diane Ellison Associate Vice President for Graduate, International, & Part-time Enrollment Services Shawn Sturgeon Associate Dean, RIT-Croatia Steering Committee Liaisons: Kim Sowers, Greg Van Laeken

Standard 7 - Governance, Leadership, and Administration Shirley Bower, Chair David Bagley Matthew Lynn

Sylvia Perez-Hardy

Lauren Shields

Kristen Waterstram-Rich

Director of RIT Libraries Senior Director, Residence Life Chair, Associate Professor, Department of Science & Mathematics, National Technical Institute for the Deaf Associate Professor, Computing Security, Golisano College of Computing and Information Sciences Administrative Assistant to the Dean, Golisano College of Computing and Information Sciences Interim Associate Dean, Professor, College of Health Sciences and Technology

Steering Committee Liaison: Karen Barrows

Compliance Steve Morse, Chair Assistant Vice President for Finance and Budget, National Technical Institute for the Deaf David Bond Director, Sponsored Research Services Erika Duthiers Assistant Vice President for Compliance & Ethics and Deputy General Counsel Marty Lawlor Senior Lecturer, Director of Executive MBA Programs, Saunders College of Business Patricia Poteat Lecturer, Department of Service Systems, College of Applied Science & Technology Sue Provenzano Assistant Vice President to the Provost Tim Rupright Senior Research Associate, Institutional Research & Policy Studies Steering Committee Liaison: Keith Jenkins

f