As mentioned in the Executive Summary, UMB’s self-study had five goals: to provide the Middle States Commission on Higher Education with the information and analysis necessary to make a decision about the institution’s reaccreditation; to identify institutional strengths and weaknesses relative to each accreditation standard and to use that information to make
recommendations for improvement; to identify how UMB’s accredited academic programs assess student learning outcomes and the results of these assessment activities; to understand the impact of UMB’s centralization/decentralization of services on student support services,
advancement and development, support for research, and achievement of institutional goals; and to identify institutional activities that can increase entrepreneurial income, such as private philanthropy, external support for research, commercialization of technology, and new partnerships.
Each of these goals is discussed below.
1. Provide the Middle States Commission on Higher Education with the information and analysis necessary to make a decision about the institution’s reaccreditation.
The Steering Committee and the Work Groups believe that they have provided sufficient information and analysis for the Commission to conclude that UMB meets the MSCHE
Standards for Accreditation.
• Standard 1: Mission, Goals, and Objectives. UMB has a clearly defined mission that defines its purpose within higher education in Maryland. UMB and its schools have goals and objectives that are consistent with that mission, relate to external as well as internal contexts and constituencies, focus on student learning, and foster institutional improvement.
• Standard 2: Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal. The University and its schools have clearly stated goals and objectives that are used for planning, resource allocation, and institutional renewal. Implementation and evaluation support the development and change necessary to improve and maintain institutional quality.
• Standard 3: Institutional Resources. UMB has the human, financial, technical, physical facilities, and other resources necessary to achieve its mission.
• Standard 4: Leadership and Governance. UMB’s system of governance, within the context of USM and including the governance structures in the schools, clearly
defines the roles of institutional constituencies in policy development and decision making. The governance structure includes an active governing body with sufficient autonomy to ensure institutional integrity and to fulfill its responsibilities of policy and resource development.
• Standard 5: Administration. UMB’s administrative structure and services facilitate learning and research/scholarship, foster quality improvement, and support the institution’s organization and governance. The President reports to the governing body and provides institutional vision and leadership.
• Standard 6: Integrity. UMB, because of the extent and sensitivity of its research involving human subjects, has very highly evolved ethical standards including academic and intellectual freedom.
• Standard 7: Institutional Assessment. UMB has developed and uses planning processes that assess overall effectiveness. Ongoing assessment of outcomes is accomplished through annual reviews including several state-mandated processes:
Managing for Results, Performance Accountability, and Peer Assessment.
• Standard 8: Student Admissions. UMB’s schools have very competitive admissions standards and, therefore, the students who are admitted are highly qualified and have very appropriate backgrounds for our programs.
• Standard 9: Student Support Services. UMB and its schools provide a wide range of targeted student services intended to meet the needs of a highly diverse student body.
• Standard 10: Faculty. UMB has an outstanding faculty with responsibilities for instruction, research, and service. Faculty are responsible for the curricula in all UMB programs and schools.
• Standard 11: Educational Offerings. All of UMB’s professional educational offerings are accredited by the appropriate national bodies. Learning is student- focused, and extensive resources are provided to support the curricula.
• Standard 12: General Education. Since UMB has no general education requirements, this standard does not apply to UMB.
• Standard 13: Related Educational Activities. UMB has few related educational activities other than delivery of two programs – Social Work and Nursing – at the two USM Regional Education Centers at Shady Grove and Hagerstown. These programs meet all the same standards as the on-campus programs.
• Standard 14: Assessment of Student Learning. UMB meets this core standard since professional education accreditation requirements mandate assessment of student learning outcomes. However, the self-study did identify the need to detail how PhD programs assess student learning outcomes in their self-studies.
2. To identify institutional strengths and weaknesses relative to each accreditation standard and to use this information to make recommendations for improvement.
Regarding the Institutional Effectiveness Standards, the Steering Committee concluded that these processes were strong and well grounded. The objectives for improvement are clearly stated and reflect conclusions drawn from assessment results. The improvement objectives are directly linked to the mission/strategic plan of the University or of the individual school. The decision-making processes and the authorities that institute planning and renewal are clearly defined and support the principle of shared governance. All planning appears to consider the economic, political, and social environment in which UMB operates. There is definite evidence of the changes resulting from continuous improvement efforts. Almost all planning employs an analysis of best practice models and benchmarks applied to the specific improvement effort.
There is substantial evidence of quality improvement activities and significant documentation of
improvement efforts at the University and school levels. There is substantial and frequent review of resource allocation decisions; although, as should be expected, there is not consistent
agreement about the wisdom of these resource allocation decisions.
In regard to the Educational Effectiveness Standards, the Steering Committee concluded that UMB should be characterized as very strong for the following reasons: the high national rankings for all UMB schools produced by our outstanding faculty and programs; the recent dramatic increase in extramural funding, which is the “report card” for research universities; the success with which all professional programs achieve professional accreditation; the rigorous monitoring of student learning outcomes established with reference to professional accreditation standards; the consistent use of information on student learning outcomes by faculty and
administrators in program planning and curriculum change; and, finally, the extensive structures and personnel in all schools and programs to identify when students have academic or clinical difficulties and follow up with student support services.
An area identified for improvement is the review of the PhD programs. While all PhD programs are reviewed by an external site team on the basis of an internal self-study, at present the requirements of the self-study do not place sufficient emphasis on assessment of student learning outcomes. The Graduate School is establishing a committee to consider how to strengthen the graduate program review process.
3. To identify how UMB’s accredited academic programs assess student learning outcomes and the results of these assessment activities.
We discovered that although there is no single approach to assessing student learning outcomes, each school has a clear, well-publicized assessment plan that is applied consistently.
In all of the professional programs, students must demonstrate mastery of skills in addition to mastery of knowledge. The outcomes of these assessments are consistent across the schools. No significant deficits were identified after all programs were reviewed. However, as mentioned above, the standards by which PhD programs conduct their reviews will be strengthened.
4. To understand the impact of UMB’s centralization/decentralization of services on student support services, advancement and development, support for research, and achievement of institutional goals.
The basic conclusion of the self-study was that UMB’s hybrid or centralized/
decentralized services to students, research, and development is functional for the campus and its schools. The balance between centrally provided and school-provided services is continuously reviewed to ascertain what changes might increase effectiveness. The balance is also affected by the resources and unique environments within which schools operate. For example, the School of Social Work relies more on central development services than does the School of Law, which has a different development program. Similarly, the Dental School has decided it would be more effective to delegate most of the responsibility for information technology services to the central technology office. In contrast, the School of Nursing is focusing on developing in-house
information technology services unique to its programs. Both approaches are effective and easily implemented within the existing structure.
It was also the conclusion of the Steering Committee and the Work Group that the balance between school and central student support services worked well to meet student needs.