Darla Moore School of Business
Economics
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, Chairman 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.
Graduate
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 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 school of business faculty must vote upon all final changes.
Monitoring 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. The Chairman of UPEC is reviewing first, prerequisite courses (to the four integrative core courses) 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. 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.
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.
The accounting facultv should develop curricula to the accounting unit's mission and the particular objectives of each program.
As a unit of The Darla Moore School of Business, the School of Accounting works within the administrative structure of USC in establishing and revising its curriculum. The school's curriculum changes are initially subject to approval at the DMSB level and, after passing that hurdle, approval at the University level.
All curriculum proposals from the School of Accounting must initially be approved by the Undergraduate Program Executive Committee or the MACC/MTAX Executive Committee. Significant proposals are then voted on at a called faculty meeting of the DMSB.
There is a constantly increasing knowledge base in the various specialty course areas in accounting (financial, managerial, auditing, etc.). Consequently, we now have faculty who are particularly knowledgeable in a given area study the need for new courses or course revisions in their specialty. Proposals from this group or subcommittee are referred to the school's curriculum committee. After due consideration and approval, proposals are discussed with the entire School faculty at a called faculty meeting. If the recommendations receive a majority vote, they are then referred to the appropriate DMSB curriculum committee (which includes one School of Accounting faculty member).
Consistent with the School of Accounting's Mission Statement, the accounting faculty engage in a continuous process of program review.
The undergraduate accounting program was significantly restructured in 1997. Work on this revision began in 1993 with a two-day faculty retreat. This was followed by a specific change to the School of Accounting undergraduate curriculum committee, which included directives that the group: 1. Review the undergraduate curriculum and develop proposals for a comprehensive curriculum revision consistent with the DMSB's revised curriculum and the accreditation guidelines of AACSB, and 2. in making its recommendations, attempt to increase the systems content of courses available to accounting majors, and 3. develop an undergraduate curriculum consistent with South Carolina's 150-hour requirement for the CPA exam. In addition, the revision states that the undergraduate program should serve the following three types of students:
The undergraduate curriculum committee met several times with professionals to get feedback on content and delivery systems for the classes and the design of curriculum, and to react to the various proposals.
In carrying out its charge, the Curriculum Task Force worked within the framework of the School of Accounting Mission Statement and the AACSB Accreditation Standards for Business and for Accounting. The members also familiarized themselves with the material calling for change in accounting education that had been drafted by the AECC.
The ensuing discussion within the faculty took place over several years. Initial proposals were discussed and debated at faculty meetings, with changes in the proposals occurring frequently.
Just as other faculty in the DMSB have the right to vote on curriculum proposals of the School of Accounting, so do the accounting faculty have input in the proposals of other DMSB units. These proposals are distributed in hard copy or via e-mail well before any faculty votes are taken. Additionally, the School of Accounting faculty members who sit on the Undergraduate or Graduate Curriculum Committees share the deliberations of these committees with accounting faculty while discussions are in initial stages. Consequently, our committee representatives have a "feel' for the accounting faculty views on the proposals and can inject this content into ongoing committee discussions of curriculum proposals.
Accounting faculty, members should be involved in ongoing processes to ensure that accounting education programs reflect the current needs of the profession, business, and other organizations and society.
The School of Accounting's curriculum planning, review, and revision process is open and often informal.
While planning is an ongoing process and review occurs with some regularity, any one of the curriculum processes may be initiated as a result of input from students, faculty, or external constituents, or as a result of mandates from the Board of Regents or the Board of Accountancy. Most curriculum processes involve the entire School of Accounting. Occasionally a faculty committee will review an issue and make recommendations to the School of Accounting. Before formal votes are taken, an attempt is made to reach consensus by compromise and negotiation.
The Friends of the Accounting Department (FAD) serves as an advisory board to the School of Accounting. Its membership consists of a diverse group of private, public, and governmental accounts. A curriculum committee of FAD meets with the School of Accounting curriculum committees to evaluate and modify the undergraduate and graduate programs. The importance of FAD cannot be overstated. Its members worked very closely with the accounting faculty in the development of the new undergraduate curriculum, and participated in the development of the systems track for undergraduate majors. FAD is currently involved in establishing an internship program.
Faculty Professional Activities
Faculty of the school benefit from a number of activities that enhance our ability to keep our curriculum at a level that meets the needs of both our students and the employers who will eventually recruit them. Such activities include:
Active involvement of our faculty with the profession through a) Teaching or attending continuing professional education programs. b) Reading current professional literature. c) Taking an active leadership role in professional organizations such as the AICPA, the IMA, the IM, the South Carolina Association of CPAs (locally and at the state level), and others.
Discussions with members of the Friends of the Accounting Department Board, particularly with members who serve on the accounting curriculum review committees of these boards.
Discussions with alumni at events such as the School of Accounting/Beta Alpha Psi Alumni banquets in May and December.