My suggestion for Criteria 1

My summary of comments:

Points A and B will be very hard to write accurately and, in any event, it is unclear how to score.

Points C and F are redundant.

Point D, which asks for data, has a couple problems:

1. The five year time period seems arbitrary. It also isn't clear what the desirable outcome is here. For some programs growth is desirable, but for others flat enrollment means the program is operating at capacity.
2. This should be dropped because it is a very incomplete attempt at measuring program success in retaining students and because MSUM goes out of its way to educate students of all abilities.

Point G is very strongly tied to mission. If it is included it should be made clear what the institutional expectations are. As an alternative, ask about how well departments are meeting Student Learning Outcomes as published in the bulletin.

Point H should not simply include total courses. Number of sections or enrollment is more relevant.

Suggested draft as of 11AM, 2/4/09:

A. Put your department in the context of the university. This brief statement might include information about your department's history, evolution, or the extent to which your department meets the expectations of students. Put differently, this is the place to introduce yourself to the president and those on the review committees who are not familiar with your department.

B. Please make a statement regarding the maturity of the program. Could it be expected to grow with existing resources or is your department at capacity? The purpose is to set expectations and provide a context for interpreting enrollment data.

C. The data provided should include enrollments in courses. Number of courses alone does not measure teaching load.