Cal Poly Academic Program Review (APR) for Graduate Programs
Revised Oct 25, 2004

Guidelines for Appointment & Functioning of Reviewers

Academic Program Review involves both internal (i.e., Cal Poly) and external reviewers. All reviewers are expected to have some familiarity with the discipline/field of the program under review, although not every member of the review team must have formal credentials in that discipline/field.

Unless a review by an external accrediting team (or equivalent) is being conducted concurrently, at least two external reviewers and one internal reviewer are preferred for a graduate program review, although a single external reviewer plus one internal reviewer may suffice when a small program is under scrutiny. There may be an advantage to utilizing the same team of reviewers to conduct simultaneous reviews of undergraduate and graduate programs in a particular discipline or field. When there is an external accreditation team, one internal reviewer is appointed.

In the absence of a concurrent accreditation review, the APR reviewers are selected in the following manner:

Nominations of persons to serve as the two (or occasionally one) external reviewers may originate in the program under review, but they must be endorsed by the College Dean before being forwarded to the Vice Provost (as the Provost's designee), who makes the final selection. Whenever possible, curricula vitae accompany the nominations (at a minimum, brief resumes). The Vice Provost reserves the right to consider alternative nominations from other sources.

Once selections have been made, formal invitations are issued by the College Dean, who oversees all necessary logistics and is responsible for the payment of expenses, including external reviewers' stipends (typically $500 per person).

Nominations of one or more Cal Poly faculty members from outside the college of the program under review to serve as the internal reviewer are submitted by the program, with the endorsement of the College Dean, to the Chair of the Academic Senate. The Senate Executive Committee makes the selection. Internal reviewers are considered to be performing university service and do not normally receive a stipend.

When a review by an external accrediting team (or equivalent) is being conducted concurrently, there is normally no need to appoint additional external reviewers. However, an internal (or "institutional") reviewer is appointed. The precise role played by the internal reviewer varies, depending on the rules and wishes of the external team. In some cases, the internal reviewer is invited to become, in effect, a full member of the team; in others, the internal reviewer has relatively little interaction with the external team. In either case, it is the internal reviewer's responsibility to ensure that items of interest to the university, but not necessarily to the external team, are adequately addressed in the review (see Guidance for Deans, Department Heads/Chairs, and Faculty). The internal reviewer's report is typically completed after he/she has had an opportunity to see the external team's report.

For more information, contact Valene Mathews in the Office of Academic Programs.