Close
Close
Search this website

External Review

The second element of the Program Review process is the external review. During this stage the Division of Academic Affairs engages an external consultant and/or uses a recent specialized accreditation report. The external consultant is asked by the Provost to review, analyze, and write recommendations based on the program's self-study report and a campus visit when applicable.

The external review process brings an objective perspective to the program review process. The external consultant provides an outsider's view on the quality of the program, the program's self-study process, and the accuracy of the self-study document. 

This process confirms that the self-study document properly reflects the program components, the importance of external environmental trends, and the statements made about the profession as a whole. It may bring new and innovative program enhancements, teaching methodologies, and organizational structures. The recommendations are influential in decisions about the future directions of the program.

  • Nomination and Provost Selection of External Consultant

    The Department and Dean recommend the names of three to five external consultants for the Provost's selection. The University Graduate School provides input on the recommendations for the external review of Ph.D. programs. The nomination process begins with the program faculty as they are in the best position to suggest qualified consultants. Faculty know the field, the national experts, and the comparable degree programs. As a basis for the faculty nominations, the Department obtains the curriculum vitae and confirms the willingness of each of the possible consultants. The nominations (three to five for non-doctoral programs and an additional three to five for doctoral programs), with supporting documentation, should be forwarded to the Office of Academic Planning and Accountability (APA). APA compiles the nomination documentation and submits the package to the Provost and University Graduate School (as applicable). APA communicates the selection to the program and the consultant(s) (a team of two reviewers will be established if a doctoral program is under review). The nomination process should be completed within two months of the launch of the program review orientation.

    Supporting documentation provided by the program includes all the necessary curricula vitae and cover letters. The letter should specify the rank order of the nominees and contain a paragraph for each nominee detailing their qualifications. This summary should highlight the strengths that each nominee brings to improving the program based on the following criteria for the selection of external consultants.

  • Criteria for the Selection of External Consultants

    External consultants should have the following qualifications:

    • The highest degree in the relevant discipline and the rank of Associate Professor or higher.
    • Distinguished record in related research, teaching and service.
    • Have a national reputation in the field, as evidenced by published research and participation in national organizations in such roles as an officer or editorial board of major journals.
    • No existing conflicts of interest, such as a being a prospective candidate for a position at FIU.
    • Ability to undertake a site visit within the necessary time frame.
    • Experience with program review, institutional effectiveness, or accreditation desirable, if not essential.
    • Have recent administrative experience at a minimum of department chair.
    • Hold the rank of Associate Professor or higher.
    • Be from a university outside of Florida.
    • Have experience at an institution with the same/similar programs as those being evaluated.
    • Be from a FIU Benchmark institution, or a Doctoral / Research University- Extensive, or from a published nationally ranked program that the FIU Department aspires to be like.
  • Charge to External Consultant

    Example of charge to external consultant in invitation letter from Provost:

    • Are there external trends or conditions (academic, research, services) that would present opportunities or threats to the unit's ability to achieve its vision, mission, goals, and objectives?
    • From your perspective, is the unit prepared to meet the emerging needs of the field? Please explain your response.
    • From your perspective, is the unit's infrastructure (human, physical, and financial) sufficient to achieve its vision, mission, and goals? Please explain your response.
    • Specific questions relevant to the Academic Program under consideration.

    The external consultant's report to the Provost should address these topics as well as any other items that the consultant considers important. The written document should be sent to the Provost two weeks following the visit.