Darla Moore School of Business

Business

CURRICULUM PLANNING AND EVALUATION

The curriculum for each degree program should be the result of a curriculum planning process and should be consistent with the school's mission.

Undergraduate

Leadership for the curriculum planning process is provided by the Undergraduate Program Executive Committee (UPEC). The committee consists of a faculty representative from each of the seven academic program areas, plus two ex-officio members.

During the recent curriculum planning process, UPEC and its various subcommittees provided the inputs for changing the program. Planning began in early 1995. External consultants (Dr. Robert Diamond of Syracuse University) provided curriculum design suggestions. At a March 1995 luncheon meeting held on campus, a cross-section of business leaders from the Columbia area provided written and oral comments on what skills and knowledge they would like future business school graduates to have.

A proposed generalized curriculum draft was provided to a wide range of business professionals in late 1995, leading to two focus groups in February 1996. These meetings, facilitated by Dr. Larry Salters, Director of the USC Career Center, and Dr. Leroy Brooks, Chair of UPEC, focused on such key issues as skills and knowledge requirements for college graduates; priorities to be addressed in the curriculum; how to link academic courses to skill development; and specific reactions to the proposed curriculum plan.

The process involved obtaining early and periodic input from the seven academic program areas and from other campus units likely to be affected by the revision. Task forces were formed within each functional area to study (1) the five prerequisite courses to be taken during a student's first four terms, and (2) the four "integrative core" courses to be taken during the fifth term. UPEC area representatives played key liaison roles on these task forces. The task forces focused on course content, with special emphasis on "inputs," i.e., skills and knowledge expected of students upon enrolling in a course, and "outputs," i.e., skills and knowledge possessed upon completing a course. Content adjustments were made to resolve discrepancies. Additionally, a separate task force studied integration of the set of four core courses.

Subcommittees from all academic/functional areas offering undergraduate degrees also reviewed and recommended changes to the outputs of all business core courses (33-34 hours). Their objective was to confirm inclusion of necessary prerequisite material in the core that would be needed for each of their majors.

The curriculum planning process varies according to program. For the MACC/MTAX programs, for example, an executive committee meets several times a year to discuss the state of the programs, including whether any changes in the curriculum need to be made. For the MHR program, curriculum planning is an ongoing process that includes two key groups: the Riegel and Emory Human Resources Advisory Council and the MHR Faculty Executive Committee.

Curriculum planning for MIBS rests primarily with the MEBS Faculty Executive Committee, which develops initiatives for curriculum change. Proposals are then forwarded to the faculty of The Darla Moore School of Business, then to the Graduate Council of USC, then, if appropriate, to the Higher Education Commission of the state of South Carolina.

The MBA Program's Faculty Executive Committee reviews the curricula and evaluates all recommendations for curriculum changes. This committee continually compares our programs' content and structure to other MBA programs around the world and ensures that accreditation standards continue to be met. Similar committees are in place for the other specialized master's programs.

All changes in master's program curricula must ultimately be voted upon by The Darla Moore School of Business faculty.

For the doctoral programs, the school has a Ph.D. Faculty Executive Committee (FEC) composed of one faculty member from each area of emphasis. The area FEC representative is responsible for polling faculty in his or her area regarding any policy changes suggested in committee, as well as relaying any requested curriculum changes from faculty to the FEC. The Darla Moore School of Business faculty must vote upon all final changes.

Monitoring of Programs for Effectiveness

Each degree program should be systematically monitored to assess its effectiveness and should be revised to reflect new objectives and to incorporate improvements based on contemporary theory and practice.

Undergraduate

The planning and implementation processes for the recently revised curriculum served as the model and foundation for ongoing processes of evaluating and monitoring the new program. As the program is phased in, UPEC remains in place as the coordinating group charged with oversight of the program. Area task forces are charged with studying content of advanced and elective courses. The Core Course Coordination Team, a subcommittee of UPEC, monitors and evaluates the content and integration of the fifth term set of four core courses. UPEC also is charged with maintaining the demand-driven requirement of the program by monitoring expectations of students, faculty, and prospective employers.

In accordance with the evolutionary implementation of this curriculum, at this writing (March 1999), several initiatives are under way. First, prerequisite courses (to the four integrative core courses) are being reviewed by the Chairman of UPEC in conjunction with faculty from the appropriate academic areas to determine the extent to which course outputs are being achieved and recurring themes incorporated into them. Second, the Core Course Committee of UPEC is looking to ensure that the four-course integrative core, to be begun in the fall of 1999, will include the required content. Third, core course instructors will meet later this spring or in early summer to ensure integration of those courses.

Additional monitoring of the program is to be carried out through required student evaluations of each course and questionnaires administered to graduating seniors. The undergraduate degree program is also monitored through the EBI Benchmarking Project and the EBI Exit Survey. The results are used by the Dean, the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, and the Director of the Undergraduate Division as "continuous improvement" inputs. Further, the faculty academic advisor to the undergraduate program monitors and evaluates program content and supervises the remaining phase-in steps for the program. The USC Career Center administers placement surveys. Also, plans are being formulated to survey business school alumni specifically about the new program when the phase-in is complete.

Graduate

Monitoring and evaluating the various master's programs is done in a variety of ways. For the MACC and MTAX programs, an annual report is provided to the Dean, and the Director of the School of Accounting reviews the faculty evaluations by the students each semester. Placement data are collected and updated each semester. For the MHR program, monitoring and evaluating is done mainly within the context of the program's semi-annual meetings with the HR Advisory Council. Because most members of the advisory council take interns from the program and hire its graduates, the council is well positioned to give feedback about the program's efficacy. Alumni meetings are also held every three years to get insight into how recent graduates view the program

For the IMBA program, students evaluate course instruction. An "exit" survey related to the Vienna portion of the program is administered when the students leave Austria. The IMBA Office administers another survey related to the Columbia portion of the program when the students graduate. Additionally, EBI Exit Surveys are completed annually. The results are used by the Dean, the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, and the managing director of the IMBA program as "continuous improvement" inputs. The International Placement Office annually conducts a placement survey of IMBA graduates.

The MBA/PMBA programs are monitored and evaluated through the EBI Benchmarking Project and the EBI Exit Surveys that are completed annually. The results are used by the Dean, the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, and the managing director of the MBA programs as "continuous improvement" inputs. In addition, employers are surveyed frequently for their feedback.

For the MIBS program, general oversight is the responsibility of the Faculty Executive Committee, which meets four to six times a year. Detailed oversight is the joint responsibility of the academic and managing directors. Evaluation of the program is continuous and is done through faculty evaluations, exit surveys, placement surveys, employer surveys, and alumni surveys. EBI Exit Surveys are completed annually. The results are used by the Dean, the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, and the managing director of the MIBS program as "continuous improvement" inputs. In addition, the International Business Advisory Council, a group of business leaders with a strong interest in the school's international programs, meets twice a year to review programmatic initiatives and give advice as to how the programs can be improved. The council was formed in 1985. The International Placement Office annually conducts a placement survey of MBS graduates.

The doctoral programs are monitored and evaluated in a variety of ways, including reviewing listings of first-time placement for graduating students, and also reviewing cumulative listings of first, second, and third placements for all alumni from the previous five years. Information on market demand is relayed through faculty contacts at other schools as well as from publications such as AACSB Newsline.