Proposal Submitted to the UEPC by the Business Administration Department

Revised Business Programs

April 26, 2011

Contact Person: Barbara A. McGraw

Business Department Faculty Approvals: March 30th, April 6th and April 13, 2011

PCC Review and Approval (SEBA’s Internal Program Review):

April 14, 2011

UEPC Review: May 2, 2011

Proposed Implementation: Academic Year 2012-2013

! "!

I. HISTORY OF THIS PROPOSAL

A. Our Program Review and the Resulting Retreat On April 28, 2010, the undergraduate business department faculty met with Vice Provost Frances Sweeney to discuss the business department’s 2008-2009 academic year program review. Most of the faculty described the business department’s situation in such terms as “in serious trouble.” Although there had been an action plan in place since the program review was submitted, there had not been an overall discussion of a long-term strategic vision for the business department among faculty and administration for more than a decade. Consequently, business faculty morale was at an all-time low. In particular, the faculty noted that no resources had been directed to the undergraduate business department despite AACSB accreditation needs. As a consequence, the business department had not had not been able to compete effectively with comparable business programs in other institutions, and the business department had not retained its previous enrollment levels.

The undergraduate business department faculty stated that the business department situation required immediate attention. Consequently, they recommended that Provost Dobkin and incoming SEBA Dean Zhan Li be alerted to the problems and challenges the business department was facing as soon as possible. In response, VP Sweeney sponsored a business department retreat on May 8th. The seven and a half hour discussion that ensued produced a number of suggestions for improving the situation in the business department, including needed program upgrades to meet the needs of our 21st century students, AACSB standards, and the standards of the business education field generally.

B. Formation of the Task Force to Revise Business Programs

In summer 2010, the new SEBA dean, Zhan Li, together with Larisa Genin, began a review of the business department’s existing programs. Their initial comparison with other schools’ business programs and AACSB standards led to the forming of a task force to look into revising SEBA’s business programs based on the retreat notes and further research of comparison schools and AASCB requirements. In November, Barbara McGraw agreed to serve as chair of a Strategic Planning and Curriculum Task Force, and Rebecca Carroll, Yung Jae Lee and Larisa Genin joined as members. The task force prepared an initial plan of action and timeline and began its work. The task force commenced a more in-depth review of business programs at AACSB accredited comparable and competitor colleges to learn how their programs meet the discipline’s standards.

The task force’s process for developing revised business programs was collaborative. It involved everyone in the business department and included input from graduate business faculty. In addition, everyone at the College with a stake in the outcome or who might be affected by any change, no matter how small, was consulted and/or notified, as appropriate.

Consistent with prior practice at Saint Mary’s when program revisions are significant, the task force also consulted Provost Dobkin and SEBA Dean Li throughout the process to ensure that there would be support for the program revisions, if approved through the appropriate channels. The task force also presented its proposed revisions to Vice Provost Sweeney, who had supported the initiative to upgrade the business programs in the first place. (See Addendum A for a detailed account of task force activities and Addendum B, Support and Sign-Offs.) The proposed program revisions are the result of these efforts.

! #!

Now, after unanimous approval of the business department faculty and the unanimous recommendation of PCC (SEBA’s internal program review committee), we submit our proposal for UEPC review.

II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 1. Why Revisions Are Needed:

The current business administration programs:

! To not meet the standards of the academic business field and therefore do not deliver what SEBA and the College say they deliver—quality education;

! Do not compare well to the business programs offered by competitor schools in terms of what constitutes the programs and the number of programs offered;

! Do not meet basic AACSB standards; and

! Do not provide students with sufficient business program choices as compared with offerings at comparable institutions.

2. Program Revision Goals:

! To provide program coherence that is consistent with the mission and values of the College, including those reflected in the Academic Blueprint;

! To ensure that AACSB standards are met; and

! To achieve sufficient program quality to meet basic business education field standards.

3. Program Revisions:

! Establish a new business core consisting of 13 courses, three of which will double-dip with the College’s GE core curriculum.

! Increase concentrations from three to five, with four courses in each.

4. Impact on the College of the Proposed Program Revisions:

The proposed program revisions increase the number of required courses in the major from 15 to 17 courses. Our analyses show that this increase will not have a significant impact on other departments’ course section offerings. Course section offerings in other departments are unlikely to be impacted at all.

5. There is Precedent at Saint Mary’s for 17 or More Courses in a Major:

Other SMC departments require 17-18 courses for their majors. There is no policy requirement that majors limit courses to 15, particularly in the case of academic fields with several lower division requirements and specific subject-matter that must be covered in a credible major in that field (i.e., those courses cannot just be in a pool of electives).

6. Student Choice:

The addition of two new programs and the upgrade of existing programs give students interested in a business major at Saint Mary’s greater choices among attractive, field-credible business programming, with program coherence that meets overall Colleges goals.

! $!

7. Conclusion:

The business programs are currently deficient and must be upgraded to meet our students’ needs and basic business-field academic expectations by providing credible programs that compare well among peer institutions and meet AACSB standards. Quality should weigh heavily in the UEPC’s decision to permit the business department to revise its programs, particularly because the impact of the revisions on other departments’ section offerings will be insignificant, and most likely non-existent, and the failure to upgrade the business programs and gain AACSB accreditation would be detrimental to the College.

III. THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE PROPOSED NEW AND REVISED BUSINESS PROGRAMS

The proposed new business programs consist of a common business core for all programs, the general business major, and five concentrations: finance, marketing, global business (formerly international), entrepreneurship, and digital media. Three concentrations are existing programs, which are being revised; the last two are newly proposed programs. The following provides an overview of the program structure.

STRUCTURE OF THE REVISED BUSINESS PROGRAMS IN BRIEF

%&''&(!)*+,(-++!%&.-!

/-(0!)*+0! 1,(2(3-! 42.5-6,(7! /8&928! :(6.-;! <,7,628!

! =!

COMMON BUSINESS CORE (10 courses + 3 general education course double-dips) = 13 courses

Busad 10 Global Perspectives in Business and Society (GE/Core curriculum double-dip) Economics 3 & 4 (GE/Core curriculum double-dip) Acctg 1 & 2 Busad 40 Statistics Busad 123 Financial Management Busad 124 Marketing Busad 127 Business Communication Busad 181 Business Ethics and Social Responsibility Busad 131 Managing and Leading in Organizations Busad 132 Global Operations Management Busad 140 Strategic Management

CONCENTRATIONS AND GENERAL BUSINESS PROGRAM IN BRIEF

The new and revised business programs provide students with six choices: any one of five concentrations and the general business program.

Finance Concentration: Investments International Financial Management New Venture Financing Advanced Quantitative Methods

Global Business Concentration: Global Business International Financial Management Global Marketing Managing the Global Firm

Marketing Concentration: Applied Marketing Research Consumer Behavior Global Marketing Business in the Digital Age

Entrepreneurship Concentration: Entrepreneurship New Venture Financing Small Business Management Business in the Digital Age

Digital Media Concentration: Media, Technology, and Culture (This is a Comm course) Web Design and Interactive Art Experimental Interactive Media (These two are Art courses) Business in the Digital Age

General Business Program

(not a concentration) (For Students Who Choose Additional Program Flexibility)

Busad 180 Global Business Busad 120 Law and Business Two courses from the following Elective Pool: Busad 121 Advanced Legal Topics Busad 126 Applied Marketing Research Busad 175 Management Information Systems Busad 110 Entrepreneurship Busad 112 Small Business Management Busad 137 Advanced Quantitative Methods Busad 128 Consumer Behavior Econ 105 Micro-Economic Theory Econ 106 Macro-Economic Theory Econ 170 Industrial Organizations Econ 175 Multinational Enterprises (Econ 105 is a prereq.) Econ 130 Money, Finance, and Economic Crises (Econ 106 is a prereq.) Busad 136 Investments

! >!

DOUBLE/TRIPLE-DIPPING NEW CONCENTRATION TO DECREASE THE NUMBER OF NEW COURSES NEEDED

Finance/two double-dips: International Financial Management New Venture Financing

Global/ two double-dips: International Financial Management Global Marketing

Marketing/one double-dips and one triple dip: Global Marketing Business in the Digital Age

Entrepreneurship/one double-dip and one triple/dip New Venture Financing Business in the Digital Age

Digital Media/one triple-dip: Business in the Digital Age

Gen. Business: Elective Pool includes four of the new courses

DETAILED INFORMATION ON PROPOSED NEW AND REVISED PROGRAMS AND COMPARISONS WITH THE EXISTING PROGRAMS ARE

AVAILABLE IN THE ADDENDA

For more detailed information on the new programs, see the following Addenda: 1. Addendum C, Revised Programs and New Concentrations, provides comparisons with the existing business programs. 2. Addendum D, Course List, provides a list of new and revised courses, including their catalog descriptions and learning goals, where applicable, and courses from other departments that are part of the new digital media concentration.

IV. MOTIVATION FOR THE BUSINESS PROGRAM REVISIONS

A. Challenges We were motivated to make the changes to the business programs because the current programs do not meet business field standards, including AACSB standards. In addition, we were motivated to upgrade our programs because of the implications of the severe decline in enrollments we have been experiencing over several years.

)?@AB:@@!1A:C<!@DEB<EF<@!

F:G:F@AB/!DH:!:BFICC4:BD!<:%CAB:!DF:B<!

E%%@)!@DEB<EF<@!J!FE4A1A%EDAIB@!I1!1EAC?F:!

! K!

1. Meeting Business Field Standards

a. Comparison to Other Institutions, Generally

Our programs are not in line with what comparable business programs offer, and as a consequence are not competitive. The currently offered marketing, finance, and international concentrations do not offer sufficient courses and topic coverage in their knowledge areas, as the names of these concentrations imply, and as comparable programs at other schools show is customary. These inadequacies are reflected in: (a) the total number of courses required of business majors at other institutions and therefore topic coverage within programs (see Addendum E, Number of the Courses at Other Institutions), and (b) the total number of concentrations or majors offered at other schools (see Addendum F, Number of Concentrations/Majors at Comparable Institutions).

b. Deficiency of the Existing Business Core

The current business programs do not have a common business core beyond the basic lower division courses. This is not consistent with academic field practice. As a consequence, courses that are mainstay courses in the business core of other institutions are not uniformly covered in our existing programs. For example, courses in operations and organizations are always required in other colleges’ business cores. However, some of our current programs do not require those courses. In the financial services concentration, operations and organizations are only in a pool of electives. That is, students are not likely to have taken both and may not even have taken either. Similarly, there is no course in organizations in our existing marketing concentration. As a result, these programs do not currently meet business field standards.

c. Deficiencies in the Existing Three Concentrations

The existing finance concentration has very little finance in it beyond the basic finance course, some financial modeling, and a course in the economics department. This is because the concentration must do double-duty to cover strategic management topics (which would be covered in the new common business core in the proposed program). The only international finance subject is in an economics course that addresses the subject from an economics perspective, rather than a finance perspective, and the course is not required but is one of two electives. Similarly the investments subject is only covered in an economics course that is not required, but is the other of the two electives. A viable concentration needs both subjects. This existing concentration does not meet the quality standards of the business field.

The existing international concentration has so little international business in it that our faculty did not feel it was appropriate to offer it as “international business,” but only as “international.” This concentration does not meet the quality standards of the business field.

Although the marketing concentration is the strongest of the three existing concentrations, it too is lacking subject-matter that is always included in this field. For example, it does not have a consumer behavior course. This omission does not meet the quality standards of the business field. Further, there is an insufficient number of marketing courses overall to meet quality standards in this business field.

d. We Must Do Better

Although due to SMC’s 4-1-4 structure and small size, we cannot provide the number of offerings provided at other institutions, we can do much better than we are doing now, and that is

! L!

what we are aiming to accomplish with the proposed program revisions. We simply cannot continue to graduate students with degrees that do not reflect the knowledge-base that such degrees imply our students have achieved.

2. Reversing the Declining Trend in Enrollments

Our declining enrollments over the past several years also suggest a need for improvement. The decline is especially acute since 2007. The business programs have an enrollment problem that is well beyond what has been experienced in SMC generally. The number of business majors has decreased from 398 in 2002 and 378 in 2007 to 238 in 2010—a decline of 40% since 2002 and 37%

3. Meeting AACSB Standards and the Ramifications of Failure

Obtaining AACSB accreditation has been an important College initiative for many years. However, due to the above-described deficiencies, our programs do not meet AACSB standards. Programs must address the topics normally found in an undergraduate program, which our current programs do not (see Addendum G, AACSB Content Areas), and programs must be of sufficient quality. Although there is flexibility in how AACSB topics can be covered, doing so in a manner that is below basic business field standards does not bode well for obtaining AACSB accreditation. The proposed revised curriculum is designed to overcome deficiencies and support our efforts to achieve accreditation.

The College is scheduled to enter the next phase of the AACSB process in January 2013. Failing to address the fact that our programs do not meet AACSB standards is likely to result in the College being forced to re-start the accreditation process from the very beginning by completing the required eligibility application. (See Addendum H, Letter from AACSB.) The accreditation process usually takes 5-7 years from the beginning to the end. We might do better than that, considering our

! M!

efforts so far, but even a delay of three years would be costly and represent a disadvantage to the College.

If we fail to achieve accreditation, the College would need to continue to pour resources (e.g., new faculty hiring, faculty development) into the effort to maintain accreditation momentum, which would divert resources away from other College initiatives. Moreover, the College would continue to be non-competitive in attracting students and faculty because major competitors in the Bay Area all have AACSB accreditations, and AACSB accredited institutions from the east are starting to offer business programs in the Bay Area. However, after accreditation is achieved, maintaining accreditation is simpler and less costly.

It should also be noted that a decision on this proposal is urgently needed for us to meet our AACSB January 2013 deadline. Once approved, our new programs require us to (a) develop the new courses for the program, integrate existing courses into the global and responsible business foci of the new programs, and develop and begin to execute the implementation plan, while gathering the information required by AACSB, including assessment of all learning outcomes, and producing a detailed report. That is, there is a lot to accomplish during the 2011-2012 academic year, if we are going to have a good chance to achieve accreditation. Time is not on our side.

B. Opportunities

Although the deficiencies discussed above provided the initial motivation to upgrade the existing business programs, addressing those deficiencies have provided opportunities as well. Rather than merely aiming to be in lockstep with what other institutions are doing, we recognized that we could make improvements within the parameters of our competitor institutions and AACSB requirements, while fulfilling the goals of College’s Mission and Academic Blueprint, by creating programs that are coherent, integrated, and aligned with the liberal arts mission of the College.

1. Meeting AACSB Requirements in the Context of the College’s Values

One might think that the AACSB accreditation process is only a burden, one that imposes on institutions directives from the outside. However, that would be mistaken. Although AACSB requires institutions to meet high quality standards to achieve accreditation, its process is about raising standards within the context of an institution’s own mission. Consequently, meeting AACSB standards and requirements is not only a challenge, but also an opportunity to ensure that business

EE%@)!J!@4%!GEC?:@!

@4%N@!E%E<:4A%!)C?:OFABD!

%IH:F:BD!J!ABD:/FED:<!OFI/FE4@!

ECA/B:<!PADH!DH:!

CA):FEC!EFD@!

! QR!

department programs are integrated with SMC’s mission. (See Addendum I, AACSB International Initial Accreditation Standards.)

Expressly including Catholic and Lasallian values in the business curriculum has been an endeavor in the business department for many years that we aim to continue. We have reason to believe that our attention to the College’s traditions, together with the upgrading of our programs, will support a favorable accreditation result, even if our options are limited because of the College’s 4-1-4 and general education core curriculum structures.

The following is a list of some of the specific ways our faculty have committed to incorporate Lasallian/Catholic values in the business curriculum; this has been our approach since at least 2005. That is why, instead of merely revolving our revised and new programming only around technical “skills,” we aimed to create an integrated program that would better serve these values. (See Section VI below for more specifics on how we aim to accomplish this goal in the new programs.) Any concerns the UEPC members may have that the business faculty is not specifically engaged in serving the College’s Lasallian and Catholic values through its new programming and attaining AACSB accreditation hopefully are assuaged.

CATHOLIC AND LASALLIAN VALUES FOR BUSINESS EDUCATION AT SMC

(Original, 2005)

! Responsible Assessment of the Consequences of Business Activities: Business can be taught as a profession removed from its own consequences. To be consistent with the Catholic/Lasallian traditions of the College, all business courses should be taught in ways that take account of those consequences and invoke compassion for others and responsible action toward them.

! Informed opinions engaged in open-hearted dialogue in the search for the true and the good: It is important to involve our students in a vigorous, disciplined disputation and inquiry in an informed and engaged dialogue –– rather than to promote the idea that all opinions are equally worthy regardless of how uninformed they are or how closed those who hold them may have been to alternative perspectives before arriving at strongly held views. This includes valuing tradition and heritage in dialogue with new ideas of the present and future.

! Serving Social Justice: Business can be a noble calling for service in the world, or it can be a selfish enterprise. The former would be a Catholic/Lasallian approach to business. We can inspire students to think of their roles in the business world as developing or participating in activities that improve peoples' lives. And we can help the students to see that through business they can be social justice oriented, for example, by being involved in such things as the development of micro-economies in the third world or participating in economic development in underprivileged urban environments. With such goals in mind, students might be inspired to make a difference in the world using their business knowledge.

! Social Responsibility: Saint John Baptist de La Salle emphasized the importance of "commercial schools" to the upward mobility of those who otherwise would be left behind. At SMC this includes awakening our faculty and students to a sense of social responsibility in business endeavors, rather than a belief in a kind of social Darwinism that lauds the survival of the fittest in a system that leaves the vulnerable behind. This also would include being aware of public policies affecting business that undermine opportunities for social mobility (e.g., unavailability of education; minimum wage laws that do not reflect a just wage for work done).

! Education for Freedom: The faculty needs to be wary of the danger of preparing students to become mere cogs in an amoral business/economic system, but rather to help them learn to think creatively and critically so that students can work in the business world from a sense of inspired freedom to pursue their goals.

! Inherent Worth of Human Beings: Human beings are inherently worthy. This fundamental reality and principle must be at the core of a Catholic/Lasallian business curriculum. For example, teaching supply and demand as if it is fact of nature, as opposed to a public policy choice, often serves to justify what would otherwise be unjust treatment of the poor. An example would be tolerating rising heating fuel prices in the northeast without addressing the need to serve the poor through a harsh winter. Another example is using

! QQ!

language in the classroom (or elsewhere) that undermines the human person, for example language that supports the idea that a human being is like a product to be marketed, bought and sold.

! Tolerance: This arises out of the respect for persons principle. A Catholic/Lasallian business curriculum should teach tolerance that works toward embracing difference as a positive value in society. This should be reflected in the way students dialogue with each other in difficult discussions, as well. It should also inform discussions about the globalization of business. Questions should be raised about the globalization of American-style market capitalism from a perspective of tolerance of others' views and cultures.

! Subversive to Class: A central theme in De La Salle's mission is to continually strive to look beyond socially constructed boundaries, such as class, gender, etc., and always to remember that every young man and woman has the potential to make a difference in the world. This theme should be reflected in the business curriculum.

! Gratuity: This is the idea of fostering giving that expects nothing in return. There are many narratives in the business world that reflect this principle. Such stories should be told.

2. Contributing to SMC’s BOS and Academic Blueprint Goals; Coherent and Integrated Programs; Aligning with the Liberal Arts

In addition to deepening the understanding of and commitment to the College’s mission, among the goals of College’s Building-on-Strengths (BOS) Strategic Plan and the Academic Blueprint are (1) enhancing student’s opportunities for success, (2), increasing the quality reputation of the College and its academic programs, (3) strengthening the global and ethical engagement of our students, and (4) building leadership that advances social justice. The proposed business curriculum is aimed to accomplish these goals.

A purely technical, skills-based business program would not be a good fit with the liberal arts tradition of our College and therefore its BOS Strategic Plan and Academic Blueprint. Focused on College core values and goals, the business faculty are committed to making connections between the business programs and the liberal arts. Too often our students indicate to us that they think their liberal arts courses are not relevant to their future careers. We make an effort to disabuse them of that notion. The new programs enhance that effort, specifically by creating integrated programming around the themes of global and responsible business. Providing programs with a global and responsible business theme, beginning with the Global Perspectives in Business and Society course, integrating that theme throughout, and culminating in the Strategic Management course not only contributes to the College’s global engagement goal, but makes connections to social, political, religious and cultural, geographical, and environmental concerns. Further, the new curriculum contributes to the goals to strengthen ethical engagement and build leadership that advances social justice by introducing these topics at the beginning of the new curriculum in Global Perspectives, furthering that goal in the revised Business Ethics and Social Responsibility course, and tying it all together in the Strategic Management course. In addition, the required Business Communication course contributes to enhancing student’s opportunities for success by making excellent writing and speaking in the business curriculum a central goal of the business core.

Lastly, with broader coverage of required business topics and more substantial subject coverage in the revised and new concentrations, the proposed business curriculum will be of similar quality to that of other comparable institutions and meet AACSB standards, while remaining true to the College’s values and traditions. This will enhance the business program’s chance to contribute to increasing the quality reputation of the College. Further, attaining AACSB accreditation itself will undoubtedly enhance the quality reputation of the College nationally and globally.

! Q"!

V. IMPACT OF THE INCREASE FROM 15 TO 17 COURSES ON OTHER DEPARTMENTS

A. Impact Assessment Based on Actual Elective Courses Taken By Current Business Major Seniors During Their Tenure at SMC

An analysis of the increase from 15 to 17 courses reveals that the impact on other departments’ course section offerings would be very small, and probably there would be none at all.

1. Student Elective Choice Are Distributed Among Department Course Offerings Over Four Years

The following bar chart shows our analysis of non-business electives taken by current business seniors who have met the 36-course requirement to graduate, a total of 85 students. These business student enrollments in non-business electives are shown over these students’ four years (sometimes five years) of college study. (Data Source: Student Program Evaluations.)

STUDENT ELECTIVES IN NON-BUSINESS COURSES OVER FOUR YEARS OF STUDY

!

Note: The 104 quarter credit activity courses have been divided by 4 to convert to full credits for comparison with full credit courses.

R! QR! "R! #R! $R! =R! >R! KR! LR! MR!

D&628!@6*S-(6+!:3&(0!E33670!O+T3U0!@&30!

O&8,6,3+!E.6!

P&'+60!%&''0!H,+60!

R! QR! "R! #R! $R! =R! >R! KR! LR! MR!D&628!@6*S-(6+!

E(6U.&0!

VWC2(7!

X,(-+0!Y*88!

O-.Y20!1*88!

0"=!E36,Z0!

! Q#!

What we see is that many students use their elective opportunities to take quarter credit activity courses (e.g., tennis, golf, basketball, pilates, yoga, dance, meditation).1 The remaining electives are spread across the departments, with a preference for courses in art, psychology, and history.2 The wide distribution of student electives across departments, including quarter credit courses, over four years reveals that the impact of a decrease in business student enrollments would be small in any one department for any one course section with the highly likely result that there would be no section cancelations due to an increase in business major requirements. This is because any decrease in business student elective enrollments would also be spread across the spectrum of course offerings over four years.

2. Analysis of Specific Students’ Elective Choices and Specific Department Impact

To understand the elective distribution better and to show that course sections in non-business departments are highly unlikely to be negatively impacted, we studied the distribution of business students’ enrollments in history, art and psychology – the departments’ whose courses were most frequently taken as electives by these students during their studies at Saint Mary’s, other than quarter credit courses.

The following charts illustrate the course distribution and shows, first, that nearly all courses were lower division courses; second, that the psychology and history course section enrollments were distributed primarily over the four semesters of the freshman and sophomore years, and, third, the art course section enrollments were distributed primarily over the two semesters of the senior year.

[SEE CHART ON NEXT PAGE]

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Q!This study does not include courses retaken due to failing a course or to increase the grade in a course. Asbjorn and David approved omitting such courses as they do not contribute to fulfilling students’ 36 unit requirement to graduate. This study also does not include courses transferred from other institutions. "!The reason for the psychology and history preference is highly likely to be because students believe they are meeting an Area C requirement that they actually don’t need, as their two economics courses fulfill that requirement. In such case, either the students took those social science courses before declaring the business major or otherwise didn’t understand that their free elective could have been taken in any subject, not just in a social science. If they did understand this, the distribution of business student enrollments across the College would have been even greater. !

! Q$!

DISTRIBUTION OF ACTUAL COURSES TAKEN IN

HISTORY, PSYCHOLOGY, AND ART

Spring 2007

LP

LH

LP

Fall 20073 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010

LH LP

LP

LH

LP LH

LP

UH LP

LH LP

LH UH

LP

LA

LA LA

LA LP

LA

LA

LH LP

LP

LP LH

LH

LP

LP

LA

UH

LA

LA LA LP LA

LA LH LA

LA LA UA

LA LA LP LH LP

LA LP LA

Spring 2008 Spring 2009 Spring 2010 Spring 2011

LEGEND:

U = Upper Division course H = History course A = Art course

L = Lower Division course P = Psychology course

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!#!The Marketing and International concentrations will no longer require choices among psychology, sociology, and anthropology. Both the sociology and anthropology department chairs have signed off saying they do not expect a negative impact, with the anthropology chair being glad our students won’t be in those classes. The psychology chair indicated that she does not know the impact. However, as shown below the psychology department has very high enrollments in its lower division courses, which is what these students take. Consequently, it is extremely unlikely that there would be any section cancelations on this account. These requirements involve only a very few student enrollments here or there over four years. For example, over the four years for the students we studied there were: 4 politics, 1 history, 2 jan term double-dips, 2 econ, 4 religious studies. 1 anthro. As the detailed study in Section V of this proposal shows, these small levels of enrollments do not have any affect on course section offerings.!

! Q=!

NUMBER OF LOWER DIVISION COURSES OFFERED IN HISTORY, PSYCHOLOGY, AND ART AND ENROLLMENT NUMBERS FOR EACH

The following analysis proves that even when using the most severe (and implausible) assumptions, there would not have been a negative impact on section offerings in history, psychology, and art due to the two-course increase in the business major. Analysis of enrollments in these departments’ course section offerings for the current academic year reveals that there are sufficient enrollments in each to withstand the loss of the business student enrollments. (Data Source: Section Availability Report, Registrar’s Office.) (Nearly all of the courses taken by the business students studied were lower division courses.)

HISTORY: The average class size for the history department for 2009-2010 was 19.3. Four lower division course sections were offered in history in fall 2010, with enrollments of 32, 17, 34 and 35; and four lower division history courses were offered in spring 2011, with enrollments of 32, 13, 10, 28.

PSYCHOLOGY: The average class size for the psychology department for 2009-2010 was 24.72. The psychology department offered 14 lower division course sections in fall 2010, with enrollments in all but two sections ranging from 30-40 and the remaining two sections with 20; and eleven lower division psychology course sections in spring 2011, with enrollments ranging from 21-30, one exception with 9 enrollments (which was the fourth section of a course).

ART: The average class size for the art department for 2009-2010 was 20. In fall 2010, two of the three offered lower division art courses were over-enrolled by two and three students, respectively. And the one lower division art history course offered was over-enrolled by two. The third course had 15 students in it. Spring 2011 evidenced similar enrollments with the one lower division art history course section being over-enrolled by three and the three lower division art courses having 17, 20, 20 students respectively, the latter two over-enrolled by two.

H,+6&.T!1288!"RQR! $!C<[!

#"\QK\#$\#=!

@;.,(7!"RQQ! $!C<[!!#"\!Q#\QR\!"L!

O+T3U&8&7T!1288!"RQR! Q$!C<[!!

#RW$R\!"R\!"R!!

@;.,(7!"RQQ! QQ!C<[!!"QW#R\!M!

E.6!1288!"RQR! $!C<[!

"#\"Q\!"R\Q=!!

@;.,(7!"RQQ! $!C<[!"$\"R\"R\QK!

! Q>!

All but two of the art courses taken as electives by the business students studied were in art practice courses (digital media, sculpture, painting, drawing), and it should be noted that seven of the business student enrollments in art were taken by two students. Consequently, a two-course reduction in available electives would not have resulted in a total decrease in enrollments for those students in any case.

GOING DEEPER INTO ART COURSE ENROLLMENT DATA

A more specific analysis of the impact on art course section offerings (the most impacted department) reveals that art department course section offerings would not have been negatively affected even without any business student enrollments. What we found is that those enrollments are distributed across several courses. The chart below shows the distribution.

ACTUAL ART COURSES THE BUSINESS STUDENTS WE STUDIED TOOK

Spring 2010

Art 10

X

Art 30

X

Art 50

Art 12

Art 20 Art H 001 Art H 145

Fall 2010

Art 10 (sculpture)

Art 30 (drawing) Art 50 (digital)

X X X

Art 12 (design)

X

Art 20 (painting)

X X

Art H 001 (survey)

Art H 145 (renaiss)

Spring 2011

Art 10 (sculpture)

X X X X X

Art 30 (drawing)

X X X X

Art 50 (digital)

X

Art 12 (design)

Art 20 (painting) Art H 001 (survey)

X

Art H 145 (renaiss)

X

! QK!

The chart shows that the only art course sections with significant business student enrollments were Art 10 and Art 30. However, both of those courses tend to be over-enrolled and were over-enrolled in spring 2011, by two for a total of 20 students. The art department chair, Peter Freund, informed me that “those courses tend to fill up.” Consequently, even if we assume that every business student had not enrolled in Art 10 and 30 (unlikely), and we add enrollments for both spring 2010 and 2011 together, and we assume that no other students wanted to take Art 10 and Art 30 (unlikely), the worst case scenario would have been six and five fewer students in those courses, respectively, with 14 and 15 students remaining, respectively. Therefore, even making unlikely assumptions, course sections would not have been canceled, even in the department with the most business student enrollments.

Further, in the special case of art courses (which appear to be popular with business students), it is likely that the shortfall in business student art course electives, if any, that might be the result of the two-course increase in the business program would be offset. The implementation of (a) the new business programs because of the new digital media concentration, which requires two art courses, and (b) the two-course art understanding requirement of the new core curriculum will support enrollments in that department by business students and others.

B. Even Worst Case Scenario Assumptions in the Aggregate Reveal Minor Impact

Using Fact Book data for the 2009-2010 academic year, we find that (a) there were 624 course sections, not counting January Term, Seminar, Activity Courses, and Business sections, (b) the average class size was 20.16 students, and (c) there were 238 business majors. We assumed that elective choices would have been taken across all four years, thus the average impact of the two-course increase would be .5 courses per student per year. This is what we found: If the business students took all available electives outside of the business department, and none of their electives were activity courses, and all business student elective enrollments were aggregated in as few sections as possible in each year, the highest possible number of sections that would be impacted in any year would be six. In other words, even under the most implausible assumptions in the aggregate, at most there would be an impact of less than 1% of all available sections, excluding January Term, Seminar, activity courses, and business sections, for any academic year (freshman, sophomores, juniors, and seniors).

!

D&628!B*'9-.!&Y!@-36,&(+[!>"$!"RRMWQR!@-36,&(+!F-;.-+-(6,(7!A';236[!>!"RRMWQR!!

! QL!

Also it is important to note that the College is experiencing increasing enrollments overall. Consequently, the impact of a decrease of business students across non-business sections is likely to be offset by the increase in overall student enrollments, in any event. Evidence of this is that the enrollment increase in fall 2010 prompted the College to add more than forty (40) new sections to the undergraduate course offerings.

C. Conclusion on the Impact of the Two Additional Business Major Requirements

The analyses provided above clearly show that the impact of a two-course increase in the business major would have at most a very small impact on sections offered by non-business departments, and most likely none at all. Consequently, a “substantial impact argument” against the new and revised business programs is not meritorious.

VI. WHY THE BUSINESS MAJOR NEEDS 17 COURSES

A. Why There Are 17 Courses in the Business Major and Why the Particular 17 Courses Are Included

AACSB requires that a business program provide coverage of numerous topics. (See Addendum G, AACSB Content Areas.) Although there is flexibility in how a department may cover those topics, there is only so much embedding of those topics that can be done in the business major. We found that the least number of courses needed to cover those AACSB topics is 17. Here’s why:

First, AACSB does not require that all of its required topics be met only in the business department. At some institutions content areas for the business major are included in their general education core, for example, basic economics courses, ethics, or additional communication courses. An example of such an institution is USF. At other institutions, the business major has specifically designated courses in other departments, which include AACSB content areas. An example of such an institution is Gonzaga University.

We do not have this option at Saint Mary’s College because specific courses covering AACSB content areas, e.g., economics, are not required in the general education core. Therefore, we must include those content areas in the business major required courses.

Second, there are certain standard content areas that must be covered in the business department. As shown above in Section IV. A., the current business programs are deficient in this regard. That is why we have proposed the new business core consisting of 13 courses.

Of the 13 courses in our common business core, 11 courses are uniformly required in the business field, as shown by a review of comparable institutions. Addendum J, Comparable Institution Business Courses, shows that all comparison colleges require courses in statistics/quantitative analysis, financial management, marketing, organizations, ethics/social responsibility, operations management, and strategic management, and two accounting courses, as well as least two economics courses.

Third, all comparable programs also require either an introductory course or a course providing a global perspective or both. (See Addendum J, Comparable Institution Business

! QM!

Courses.) We combined those two features in our proposed introductory course: Global Perspectives in Business and Society.

Fourth, about half of the programs we studied require a communication course (writing and/or speaking) beyond two basic writing/communication courses. The business department faculty has concluded that clear communication in writing and speaking is of critical importance in the business major at Saint Mary’s. The Business Communication course is especially needed in our business major because the students coming to Saint Mary’s include many who are especially ill prepared in this area. It will also fulfill the writing-in-the-discipline requirement of the new core curriculum.

Fifth, two other standard content areas that are nearly uniformly required are business law and management information systems. We did not include courses in these two critical areas because doing so would bring the total number of courses to 19, which we understand is not possible to accomplish at Saint Mary’s. Therefore, we have chosen to embed those topics throughout the courses in the proposed business core to ensure that the topic areas are covered, even if we cannot offer required courses in those content areas.

Sixth, our concentrations need to have sufficient area coverage to be of viable quality from the perspective of the business field. Comparison institutions have 5 to 6 courses in their concentrations or majors, in addition to the courses in their business core. Consequently, we should have at least 4 courses in our concentrations for our programs to be credible in the business field as having sufficient quality. (See Addendum F, Number of Concentrations/Majors at Comparable Institutions.)

Seventh, a business major consisting of only 15 courses is below business field standards. Adjusting the number of credit units represented in those courses, using Saint Mary’s registrar’s conversion rates, the number of required courses in our business major is currently below business field standards.4 On that basis, comparison institutions require from 17 to 23 course credits (converted). (See Addendum J, Comparable Institution Required Business Courses.) If our proposed business program revisions were adopted, our business program would meet only the minimum number of units represented by our competitors, and if it were not adopted, our programs would be deficient in this regard.

B. Why We Chose Global Perspectives and Business Communication Over Courses in the Legal and Regulatory Environment of Business and Management Information Systems As the above analysis shows, it would better serve our business students if we could require business law and management information systems in addition to the 17 courses we are proposing to require. However, we understand that 18-19 required courses for the major would be very difficult to accommodate at Saint Mary’s College. Consequently, we had to make some tough choices. As you already know, we had to eliminate the requirement of a specific math course in our major. We also had to decide among four business topic areas which two should take precedence. The following provides the reasons why we chose the two of the four that we did. In general, see Addendum L, How Courses in the Common Business Core Serve Our Aims.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!$!The registrar’s conversion rate is calculated by dividing the total number of units required for a student to graduate from an institution with an undergraduate degree by our 36 units.

! "R!

1. Why We Chose Global Perspectives in Business and Society Over a Course in the Legal and Regulatory Environment of Business First, our view, consistent with the College’s goals and values, is that it is important for business students to gain an understanding of the global context of business (e.g., social, political, religious, geographical, and environmental), and how business can serve social justice or perhaps undermine it. In these ways, our aim is for this course to set the stage for conversations about the responsibility of business to its communities—global and domestic—throughout our curriculum and in other courses the business students take at Saint Mary’s, culminating in the capstone strategic management course. This provides continuity and integration of global and responsible business themes throughout the curriculum.

Second, our view is that it important for business students, from the outset, to understand that the liberal arts courses they will be taking in various disciplines over the course of their years at the College are relevant to their business education and careers following graduation. This course serves to create a business curriculum link to the liberal arts at the outset in that it introduces business in the context of liberal arts disciplines.

Third, our view is that it is important for us to participate in the new general education core curriculum. Our view is that non-business students should also be provided an opportunity to develop a global mindset and understand the global context of business and its potential impact on the societies it touches.

Fourth, as stated earlier in Section IV.B.1., this course serves the College’s BOA Strategic Plan and Academic Blueprint goals.

However, the legal and regulatory environment of business is an important AACSB content area. (See Addendum J, Comparable Institution Required Business Courses, which shows nearly all comparable institutions requiring a course or a half-course in this content area.) Consequently, the loss of a stand-alone required course requires that we embed legal and regulatory environment topics throughout the curriculum to make up for this lack. The common business core courses that will need to address legal and regulatory topics relevant to their content areas will include: (1) Global Perspectives in Business and Society, (2) Financial Management, (3) Marketing, (4) Business Ethics and Social Responsibility, (5) Global Operations Management, and (6) Strategic Management. Although embedding the law and regulation topics in pieces throughout the curriculum is not as good as having a stand-alone course, our view is that we can sufficiently meet the AACSB content area criteria this way.

That said, if Global Perspectives were eliminated from our program, we would lose an important piece of the legal and regulatory context of business content area—that related to global institutions. Moreover, the rationale that we would provide to the AACSB for choosing this course over a law and regulation course (i.e., serving the College’s strategic goals) would be lost. For both reasons, if we were required to remove this course from our proposed program, we would need to reconsider the omission of a required business law course and propose adding it. Therefore, the removal of the Global Perspectives course would not reduce the number of proposed required courses overall. That is, embedding the important legal and regulatory environment of business AACSB content area into other courses could only be justified if there were an overriding reason for failing to include it.

! "Q!

2. Why We Chose Business Communication Over a Course in Management Information Systems

We chose the Business Communication course over Management Information Systems for one major reason: too many of our students do not write at the college level. This issue has been acknowledged College-wide. As we understand it, it is the reason for the writing-in-the-disciplines requirement of the new general education core curriculum, which we propose to meet with this course. For many years, significant writing assignments have been required in most of the business courses. But that has not been enough to overcome the significant lack of writing ability exhibited by our students. We strongly believe that it is critical for our students to have a stand-alone course in Business Communication, so they understand how important good, clear writing is for their future, and are given an opportunity to excel in writing in the business discipline. (See Addendum K, Student Writing Assessment, which was prepared for AACSB reporting, and which shows how serious the business student writing problem is.)

However, management information systems is a very important AACSB content area. (See Addendum J, Comparable Institution Required Business Courses, which shows every comparable institution requiring a course in this content area.) Consequently, the loss of a stand-alone required course in this area requires that we embed management information topics throughout the curriculum to make up for the lack. The common business core courses that will need to address management information topics relevant to their content areas will include: (1) Financial Management, (2) Marketing, (3) Global Operations Management, and (4) Strategic Management. Although embedding management information topics in pieces in these courses is not as good as having a stand-alone course, our view is that we can sufficiently meet the AACSB content area criteria this way.

That said, if Business Communication were eliminated from our program, the rationale that we would provide to the AACSB for choosing this course over a management information systems course (i.e., the serious need to address writing ability) would be lost. For that reason, if we were required to remove this course from our proposed program, we would need to reconsider the omission of a required course in management information systems and propose to add it. Therefore, the removal of the Business Communication course would not reduce the number of proposed required courses overall. That is, embedding the important management information systems AACSB content area in other courses could only be justified if there were an overriding reason for failing to include it.

VII. PRECEDENT AT SAINT MARY’S FOR MORE THAN 15 COURSES

There are unique circumstances for the business major, as there is for other majors at the College, for more than 15 required courses in the major. That is why there is precedent at Saint Mary’s for more than 15 required courses. Additional courses are justified in some fields of study because those fields require more specific subject-matter coursework to be credible programs in their fields among peer institutions and academic field expectations than may be the case for other fields. Such programs also require more lower division courses for students to gain the competencies needed to succeed in upper division courses. Examples of such fields at Saint Mary’s include:

! ""!

" Chemistry/Environmental Concentration: 18 plus 4 labs .25 each

" Chemistry: 17 courses plus 4 labs .25 each

" Biology: 17 courses plus 4 labs .25 each

" Math BS: 16 courses

The business field is like the science field. Specific subject-matter is required and several lower division courses are needed to prepare students for the upper division subject-matter. All business programs at comparable institutions require at least two lower division economics courses, two lower division accounting courses, and at least one statistics course before the student can begin taking upper division courses. As shown in detail above, our proposed programs can barely meet the requirements of the field with only 17 courses. We really need 19, but are doing our best to fit AACSB content areas within a 17-course load. None of our competitors offer less than 19 courses (17 adjusted) and many offer more courses. (See Addendum E, Number of the Courses at Other Institutions, and Addendum, J Comparable Institution Required Business Courses.)

VIII. STUDENT CHOICE

A. Availability of Student Options

Through our business student surveys (nearly 300 students), student focus group, and SEBA student advisory council discussions, we have learned that our students want more business program choices. Furthermore, our competitor institutions offer between 5 and 11 concentrations. (See Addendum F, Number of Concentrations/Majors at Comparable Institutions.) That is why the revised business programs provide five, rather than only the three existing concentrations, while retaining the more flexible general business major, which includes electives.

In addition, students interested in business can choose a split major or an individualized major. Students can minor in business, rather than major in business.5 Students can choose a double major and take an additional course in some semesters, courses during the summer, or an additional semester to accomplish this, all of which students do now, if they do not come to Saint Mary’s with transferred credits from another institution or with high school AP course credits. That would not change.

What is most important is that if a student chooses to major in business, we should provide what we advertise we provide—quality business programming that meets basic business field standards. Otherwise, we are not fulfilling our responsibility as educators in a Lasallian College dedicated to student-centered learning.

B. Transfer Students, Students Declaring Late, and Study Abroad Addendum M, Student Program Plans, shows how transfer students, students declaring the major late, and studying abroad can be accommodated in the business major with the addition of two courses. Admittedly, these options are not as easily accomplished for the business students as they are for students who choose a liberal arts 12-credit major. That has always been the case and will not be much different with the addition of the new courses. However, these options are easier to accomplish for the business majors than they are for students in certain science majors, where !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!5 As soon as the revisions to the business major and its new courses are set, our next step will be to modify our business minor to make it more accessible to students majoring in other disciplines.

! "#!

there are required course sequences that make flexibility much more difficult. Consequently, this should not be a reason to retain deficient business programs at the College.

IX. SPECIFIC ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED IN THE UEPC CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR MEMO

After a meeting with the UEPC Chair, Vice Chair, SEBA Dean, SEBA Associate Dean, and me on April 8, 2011, the UEPC Chair and Vice Chair sent a five-page memo of questions for us to address in making our case for raising the number of courses for the business major from 15 to 17 courses. The issues raised in the UPEC Chair/Vice Chair Memo have been addressed for the most part throughout this proposal, but specific responses can be found in Addendum N, Responses to UEPC Chair/Vice Chair Memo.

X. RESOURCE NEEDS

The implementation of the new programs will require faculty time to develop the new courses and revise existing courses so that faculty are prepared when the new program courses are offered, starting in fall 2012. In addition, a strategic plan for implementation of the revised and new programs will need to be developed. Any compensation for these activities is expected to be resolved in a manner consistent with the policies of SEBA and the College.

Designated faculty oversee the existing concentrations and serve as advisors for students enrolled in the existing concentrations. That practice will continue, and a faculty member will need to be designated to serve in that capacity for the two new concentrations. If the number of students in the concentrations increases, the workload for oversight and advising for each concentration may increase. In that event, workload issues for such faculty designees may need to be revisited.

The undergraduate business administration program is currently in need of a marketing professor, whether or not the business programs are revised. The Digital Business course may require hiring a new PQ (professionally qualified) lecturer, depending on the availability of Barry Eckhouse, who teaches digital media topics in Graduate Business. If he is not available, another alternative would be to attempt to find a new marketing hire (referenced above) who also has a background in digital media.

XI. LIBRARY REVIEW

Sharon Radcliff has prepared the library review for the business program revisions and new concentrations. (See Addendum O, Library Review.)

XII. CONCLUSION

As shown in detail above, because the impact on the College’s non-business course sections would be minimal, if any at all, and there is a clearly demonstrated need to upgrade the business programs to meet business field, fulfill AACSB requirements to attain accreditation, and to provide our students with the quality education we purport to provide as our first responsibility, the UEPC and Senate approval of the new business programs is warranted.