Site Team Report

14. The North Central Association Criteria

The team carefully reviewed Michigan Tech's compliance with the General Institutional Requirements and the Criteria for Evaluation. Because of the special focus of the institutional self-study, the patterns of evidence for each of the criteria are found in several places. The team found that all of the GIRs and criteria were met.

Criterion One: Purposes and Mission

Michigan Tech meets this criterion, as was discussed in Chapter Two of this report.

Criterion Two: Organization

The University meets the requirements for Criterion Two. Through an organizational structure and process linkages between allocation of resources and planning, the University has effectively organized human, financial, and physical resources for accomplishing its purposes. Human resources include a well qualified Administration and an independent Board of Control, a faculty appropriately qualified for undergraduate and graduate teaching and research assignments, and a well qualified professional and support staff. Details supporting the satisfaction of this criterion are found in Chapters Three, Seven and Thirteen (Undergraduate and Graduate Education, Distance Education), Chapters Four and Five (Recruitment and Retention, and Student Life), Chapters Six and Nine (Faculty, Professional and Unionized Staff), Chapters Ten - Twelve (Informational Technology, Financial Environment, Physical Plant)

Criterion Three: Educational and other purposes

Michigan Tech meets the requirements for Criterion Three. This section discusses assessment in the major, and the educational effectiveness of the Schools and Colleges.

General education and its assessment have been discussed in Chapter Three. There is a program for student assessment in the major in place. Comments are made in the following sections of the separate schools and colleges, as well as the chapters on undergraduate and graduate education. The program was developed by the faculty. There is significant faculty support for the program. Two important features: (1) there is a working method for evaluating the effectiveness of the assessment programs, allowing for rapid evolution/improvement of the program; and (2) it is the stated plan of the Provost to consider assessment-driven programmatic changes as a significant component in his budget allocations.

In its current form, each Department has established its own goals and assessment instruments. The Assessment Council, comprised of ca. 25 representatives from different university departments and programs, plays an active and constructive role in the assessment of the assessment. An important feature of the Council's work is that it is currently undertaking a systematic review of each department's assessment report derived from the 1996-97 measures. The peer-review (i.e., by other Council members) of each program provides a constructive way for departments to modify their goals and instruments. Already some of the departments indicate that they may improve their programs by borrowing ideas from other departments. In this way the system evolves and also has the potential of becoming more uniform across the campus.

NEXT