THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT / THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK / ALBANY, NY 12234

 

 

TO:

Higher Education and Professional Practice Committee

 

FROM:

Johanna Duncan-Poitier

 

 

SUBJECT:

The Rockefeller University: Renewal of Institutional Accreditation by the Board of Regents and the Commissioner of Education

 

DATE:

January 23, 2007

 

STRATEGIC GOAL:

Goal 2

 

AUTHORIZATION(S):

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Issue for Decision

 

            Should the Regents renew the institutional accreditation of The Rockefeller University?

 

Reason for Consideration

 

            Required by State regulation.

 

Proposed Handling

 

This question will come before the Higher Education and Professional Practice Committee at its February 2007 meeting where it will be voted on and action taken.  It will then come before the full Board at its February 2007 meeting for final action.

 

Procedural History

 

            The Rockefeller University has applied for renewal of its institutional accreditation by the Board of Regents and the Commissioner of Education, pursuant to Subpart 4-1 of the Rules of the Board of Regents. 

 

Background Information

 

            The Board of Regents chartered Rockefeller in 1901 as The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research.  In 1954, the Board amended Rockefeller’s charter to authorize it to award doctoral degrees and in 1999 it added authority for master’s degrees.  In 1965, it changed the institution’s name to The Rockefeller University.  Today, Rockefeller offers M.S. and Ph.D. programs in the biological sciences and the physical sciences and participates with Cornell University Medical College and the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in tri-institutional M.D.-Ph.D. and chemical biology programs.  The Board of Regents has accredited Rockefeller since 1954.  The last institutional accreditation peer review visit was in 2002, when the Board renewed the University’s accreditation for a period ending on March 18, 2007.  Rockefeller has 210 full-time students in its degree programs (including those offered jointly with Cornell and Memorial Sloan-Kettering), 71 full-time faculty members, and about 500 postdoctoral researchers.  In 2004-05, its endowment was $1.6 billion, or $8.1 million per student, the largest endowment per student in the nation.  It had current assets of $68.2 million and current liabilities of $29.5 million, or $2.13 in current assets for every dollar of current liability. 

 

Recommendation

 

            It is recommended that the Board of Regents renew the institutional accreditation of The Rockefeller University for a period ending on February 12, 2017, because the University has undergone a site visit by a peer review team and the team, Department staff, and the Regents Advisory Council on Institutional Accreditation recommend it.

 

Timetable for Implementation

 

            If the Regents renew Rockefeller’s institutional accreditation, the accreditation will go into effect immediately.  On the basis of that action, the Department will renew the registration of its programs of study registered for general purposes pursuant to Part 52 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education.  Rockefeller is required to submit accreditation data reports annually and to submit a self-study at the mid-point of its period of accreditation.


Information in Support of Recommendation

 

Peer Review Visit.  In preparation for a site visit by a peer review team, Rockefeller prepared a self-study following the requirements for self-studies in the Handbook of Institutional Accreditation.  On October 18-19, 2006, a peer review team visited the University.  It reviewed the self-study; interviewed faculty, administrators, and students; reviewed documents and other information available on campus; and reviewed academic resources.  The team prepared a draft compliance review report of its findings and recommendations, which included six recommendations for actions to be taken in relation to accreditation standards.  The team found that Rockefeller met the standards for accreditation and made the following overall recommendation:          

 

Peer Review Team Recommendation: Accreditation for a period of ten years.

 

            The Department transmitted the team’s draft compliance review report to Rockefeller, giving it 30 days to prepare a written response correcting factual errors and addressing any other aspect of the report and any recommendations in it.  The draft report, Rockefeller’s response, and the Department’s preliminary recommendation for accreditation action became the final compliance review report.

 

            Regents Advisory Council Review.  As required by Subpart 4-1, the Department transmitted the final compliance review report, including its preliminary recommendation for accreditation action, for consideration by the Regents Advisory Council on Institutional Accreditation.  (The Advisory Council is established in §3.12(d) of the Rules of the Board of Regents “to review applications for accreditation and renewal of accreditation pursuant to Part 4 of this Title, and such other matters as the Department may ask it to review, and make recommendations to the Regents and the commissioner based on its review.”)  The Department’s preliminary recommendation was:

 

Department’s Preliminary Recommendation: Renew accreditation for a ten-year period.

 

On January 5, 2007, the Advisory Council met to review Rockefeller’s application and to make a recommendation to the Board of Regents on its accreditation.  In a public meeting, it met with representatives of the University, a representative of the peer review team, and the staff coordinator.  Following presentations by the University and the team, questions, and discussion, the Advisory Council made the following recommendation to the Board of Regents on accreditation action:

 

Regents Advisory Council Recommendation: Renew accreditation for ten years.

 

            Attachment A is the Final Compliance Review Report considered by the Advisory Council, including the Summary of the Application for Renewal of Accreditation and Preliminary Recommendation for Accreditation Action.

 

            Commissioner’s Recommendation.  Rockefeller did not appeal the Advisory Council’s recommendation.  Therefore, pursuant to Subpart 4-1, the Commissioner adopted its recommendation as his recommendation to the Board of Regents.

 

Commissioner’s Recommendation: Renew accreditation for a period of ten years ending on February 12, 2017.

 

            Attachment B sets forth the range of accreditation actions authorized in Subpart 4-1 of the Rules of the Board of Regents.

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                December 19, 2006

 

THE ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY

 

Summary of the Application for Renewal of Accreditation and

Preliminary Recommendation for Accreditation Action

 

            The Rockefeller University, 1230 York Avenue, New York, New York County, has applied for renewal of its institutional accreditation by the Board of Regents and the Commissioner of Education.

 

Preliminary Recommendation for Accreditation Action: Renew accreditation for a period of ten years.

 

Institutional Information: The Rockefeller University was chartered in 1901 as The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research.  In 1954, the Board of Regents amended Rockefeller’s charter to authorize it to award doctoral degrees and in 1999 it added authority for master’s degrees.  In 1965, the Regents changed the name of the institution to The Rockefeller University.  Today, Rockefeller offers M.S. and Ph.D. programs in the biological sciences and the physical sciences.  It also participates with Cornell University Medical College and the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in tri-institutional M.D.-Ph.D. and chemical biology programs.  The Board of Regents has accredited the University since 1954.  The last institutional accreditation peer review visit was in 2002, when the Board renewed the University’s accreditation for a period ending on March 18, 2007.  At the time of the October 18-19 visit, Rockefeller had 210 students in its degree programs (including those offered jointly with Cornell and Memorial Sloan-Kettering), 71 faculty members, and an estimated 500 postdoctoral researchers.

 

Reason for Recommendation: The peer review team examined Rockefeller’s self-study materials and other documents and, during the site visit, met with members of the faculty, students, the president, and the dean of the David Rockefeller Graduate Program and program staff.  In its report, the team made six recommendations to the University in relation to the standards for accreditation; in the team’s judgment, none of them rose to a level that materially affected Rockefeller’s substantial compliance with the standards and requirements for renewal of accreditation.  It recommended renewal of the University’s accreditation for a ten-year period.

 

            The Department transmitted the draft report to Rockefeller for review and comment.  The University accepted all six recommendations.  The final report includes the draft report, Rockefeller’s response, and this summary and preliminary recommendation.  Based on the self-study material and other material, the team’s report, and the University’s response, the Department makes the same recommendation as the peer review team.

 

 

 

                                                                                                DRAFT December 4, 2006

 

Report of an Accreditation Visit to The Rockefeller University

 

            On October 18-19, 2006, a peer review team visited The Rockefeller University, 1230 York Avenue, Manhattan (New York County), as part of an evaluation for renewal of the University’s institutional accreditation.  The team was composed of:

 


Joel D. Oppenheim, Ph.D.

Professor of Microbiology and Senior Associate Dean for Biomedical Sciences

Director, Sackler Institute of Graduate Medical Sciences

New York University

 

Peter Palese, Ph.D.

Professor and Chair, Microbiology

Mount Sinai School of Medicine

 

William Tansey, Ph.D.

Lita Annenberg Hazen Professor of Biological Sciences

Director of Graduate Studies

Watson School of Biological Sciences

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

 

Byron P. Connell, M.A., Staff Coordinator

Associate in Higher Education

Office of College and University Evaluation

State Education Department


 

Rockefeller submitted self-study materials in advance of the visit.  This report sets forth the team’s findings on the basis of the review of those materials, and other materials, as well as its activities during the site visit.  During the visit, the team met with the president, the dean of graduate and postgraduate studies, other members of the administration, both senior and junior faculty, and students.

 

            Team Recommendation:  Accreditation.  The team recommends that the Board of Regents renew the accreditation of The Rockefeller University for ten years.

 

 

Introduction and Summary of Recommendations

 

            The Rockefeller University was chartered in 1901 as The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, the first biomedical research center in the United States.  In 1954, the Board of Regents amended Rockefeller’s charter to authorize it to award doctoral degrees and in 1999 it added authority for master’s degrees.  In 1965, the Regents changed the name of the institution to The Rockefeller University.  Today, Rockefeller offers M.S. and Ph.D. programs in the biological sciences and the physical sciences.  It also participates with Cornell University Medical College and the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in tri-institutional M.D.-Ph.D. and chemical biology programs.  The Board of Regents has accredited the University since 1954.

 

            The last institutional accreditation peer review visit was in 2002.  This report cites the recommendations in the report of that visit, with the University’s response.

 

            Enrollment.  Between fall 1997 and fall 2006, enrollment increased by 53.3 percent.  Table 1 shows enrollments during that period.  All students are full-time.

 

Table 1

 

Year

Ph.D. Students

Tri-Institutional

M.D/Ph.D. Students

Other Tri-Institutional Students

Total Enrollment

1997

107

30

--

137

1998

104

35

--

139

1999

102

35

--

137

2000

116

35

--

151

2001

131

40

--

171

2002

137

34

 5

176

2003

132

34

 5

171

2004

144

42

 7

193

2005

144

46

10

200

2006

146

54

10

210

Source: Rockefeller University, 2006.

 

At the time of the visit, 54.3 percent of the students were male and 45.7 percent, female.  Their average age was in their early 20s.  Nearly 60 percent were citizens of the U.S.; the other 41 percent came from 37 foreign countries.    

 

            In addition to doctoral students, the University has several hundred postdoctoral researchers employed in its laboratories.

 

Summary of Recommendations

 

·        The Department and Rockefeller should work together to assure that the University’s Annual Data Reports are received by January 31 each year.

 

·        The official student evaluations of courses should be shared with the Dean’s Office to allow some (mild) quality control.  At the present time, only the course director appears to see these comments.  If an individual is appointed to oversee the curriculum as a whole, this individual could also be responsible for reading the evaluations and maintaining quality control across all the courses.

 

·        Rockefeller should publish statements of policy with respect to academic freedom, working conditions, workload, opportunities for professional development, affirmative action, evaluation of teaching and research, termination of appointment, and faculty responsibility to the institution.

 

·        Although there are now several hundred postdoctoral fellows, there is no office or person exclusively dedicated to dealing with issues related to postdoctoral fellows.  Considering the large number of postdoctoral fellows and the recent national movement to improve the quality of life and educational experiences for this unique group of scientists, it may be time for Rockefeller to create an office (or an additional hire within the Administrative Office of the Graduate Program) exclusively dedicated to dealing with issues related to postdoctoral fellows, in order to further facilitate scientific interactions and make the educational experience of postdoctoral fellows at Rockefeller even more rewarding.

 

·        The team encourages Rockefeller to take more advantage of its unique location to recruit minority candidates locally.

 

·        The next edition of the catalog should provide the missing relevant required information.

 

 

General Observations

 

Findings.  Rockefeller has been a scientific leader for many decades.  Discussions with the President and the Dean made it clear that excellence in science is the ultimate goal.  It was also stated that the number of students in the Graduate Program will not be increased dramatically in the future.  Rather, the number of approximately 200 as a student body was felt to be more or less ideal, and the goal continues to be to maintain the extraordinary level of achievement with respect to both faculty and students.  The President voiced one initiative, to expose both students and faculty to writers, philosophers and journalists in order to develop better communication of scientists with the outside world.  This plan is aimed at further improving the performance of students and faculty in a more and more complex world.

 

 

Institutional Mission

 

The institution shall have a clear statement of purpose, mission, and goals that shall be reflected in the policies, practices, and outcomes of the institution.

 

Findings.  Rockefeller’s mission is described in The Rockefeller University Strategic Plan (June 2005) as “sustaining the founding vision in an era of 21st century science.”  The mission of the Graduate Program is to:

 

1.)  Recruit the best students regardless of citizenship

2.)  Subject students to minimal bureaucracy

3.)  Provide generous professional and personal support

4.)  Strongly encourage interactions

5.)  Mentor students carefully

 

The Dean made a powerful statement as to the uniqueness of the Rockefeller program by highlighting the feature of attracting the best international students and recognizing that bureaucratic burdens can be a major threat to scientific progress.

 

Recommendations:

 

None.  The University meets the standard.

 

 

Assessment of Student Achievement

 

The institution shall prepare and continuously implement a plan for the systematic assessment of its effectiveness in promoting the quality of student achievement and development.  Such assessment plan shall include but need not be limited to: graduation rates and, as pertinent to institutional mission and programs, state licensing examination results and job placement rates.  The institution shall provide to the department on request and in all applications for accreditation and renewal of accreditation, evidence of its implementation of the plan and its effects on the quality of student achievement in relation to its mission and goals.

 

Findings.  Student achievement at Rockefeller is viewed as superb.  This is evidenced by the structure of the program and the documented student successes as well as by the unique and important contribution that the Graduate Program makes to the scientific enterprise at the University.  Indeed, at the site visit, there was universally enthusiastic support of the graduate program from the President, senior and junior faculty, and administrative staff.  Students interviewed were similarly enthusiastic about the program and their experiences at Rockefeller in general.

 

Oversight of student progress after the period of coursework is excellent.  All students in the program are required to meet with their Faculty Advisory Committee (FAC) annually (although this can be more frequent if required).  The FAC for each student generates a report that is provided to the student, research mentor, and the Dean’s Office.  The student-focused administrative structure of the program ensures that these reports are reviewed carefully.  The average time to graduation is ~5.5 years, which is considerably shorter than the national average for students in the biological sciences (6.7 years in 2004, according to Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities: Summary Report 2004).

 

The President expressed a desire to reduce the period of Ph.D. training at Rockefeller to around five years, principally through more vigilant monitoring of FAC activity and reports.  Evidence of this movement is provided by the demonstration that, over the past few years, mean time to graduation has been decreasing.  The team supports this objective, and encourages the institution to work hard to make this objective a reality.

 

Student success in terms of publications and outside recognition is outstanding.  Rockefeller students have successfully competed for extramural funding (in 2003, for example, Rockefeller students received seven of the 49 Howard Hughes predoctoral fellowships offered nationwide).  In the last five years, four students have won the prestigious Weintraub Award for thesis research.

 

It also is worth noting that the administrative staff of the graduate program do a commendable job at monitoring students after graduation.  The comprehensive database of alumni and the published alumni index are testament to Rockefeller’s interest in the long-term success of students.

 

Recommendations:

 

None.  The University meets the standard.

 

The institution shall annually submit:

 

(i)         timely and accurate statistical information as prescribed by the commissioner;  

(ii)        additional specified reports, including data related to persistence and graduation rates, state licensing examination results, job placement rates, and other evidence of the quality of student achievement;

(iii)       record of compliance with its program responsibilities under HEA Title IV (including student default rate data, and the results of audits and program reviews);

(iv)       record of student complaints and their outcomes; and

(v)        other information pertaining to an institution's compliance with the standards prescribed in this Part, as determined by the department.

 

Findings.  The State Education Department has no record of receiving Rockefeller’s Annual Data Reports for 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, or 2006, or its mid-term self-study, which should have been received in 2004-05.  However, it appears that the Department did not remind Rockefeller to submit the reports and did not send Rockefeller a notice in 2003-04 specifying the content of the mid-term self-study. 

 

Recommendations:

 

1.      The Department and Rockefeller should work together to assure that the University’s Annual Data Reports are received by January 31 each year.

 

Job Placement Rates

 

Graduate-only institutions.  If, in the judgment of the commissioner, there is a sufficient cohort of students, based on the most recent data submitted to the department, an institution whose mission includes the preparation of students for employment and that offers no programs below the master’s degree that reports job placement rates, including civilian and military occupations, below 80 percent, and that has not shown an improvement over the preceding year of at least three percent, shall prepare and submit a plan to improve student achievement in terms of job placement rates.  Such plan shall include but need not be limited to: strategies and timelines intended to achieve at least 80 percent or a three-percent annual improvement within a period not to exceed two years at an institution where the longest program is at least two years duration, eighteen months at an institution where the longest program is at least one year but less than two years in duration, or twelve months at an institution where the longest program is less than one year in duration.

Findings.  Between 1959 and 2002, 75 percent of Rockefeller’s Ph.D. recipients entered careers in academe; 19 percent entered business, law, publishing, or government; and six percent entered pharmacological biotechnology.  Two of its alumni have won Nobel prizes; 23 are members of the National Academy of Sciences.  It is clear from the uncommonly superb science at Rockefeller and the very high retention rate in academics that Rockefeller graduates are able to exceed common expectations in terms of establishing careers in research science.

 

Recommendations:

 

None.  The University meets the standard.

 

 

Curricula

 

Integrity of credit.

 

(i)         Each course offered for credit by an institution shall be part of a general education requirement, a major requirement, or an elective in a curriculum leading to a degree or certificate.

(ii)        Credit toward an undergraduate degree shall be earned only for college-level work.  Credit toward a graduate degree shall be earned only through work designed expressly for graduate students.  Enrollment of secondary school students in undergraduate courses, of undergraduates in graduate courses, and of graduate students in undergraduate courses shall be strictly controlled by the institution.

(iii)       The institution shall assure that credit is granted only to students who have achieved the stated objectives of each credit-bearing learning activity.

 

Findings.  In general, the curriculum and course-work offerings are superb.  A large variety of courses are offered (grouped into six major categories) and it is clear that most students are able to select a group of courses that will meet their needs.  (It also is evident that faculty mentors provide assistance to students in selecting the courses).  Quantitative aspects of biology are somewhat underrepresented in the curriculum, although a non-credit “Math Course for Biologists” is offered that appears, based on the course description, to provide remedial instruction in this area for interested students.

 

Recommendations:

 

None.  The University meets the standard.

 

Curricular goals and objectives

 

(i)         Institutional goals and the objectives of each curriculum and of all courses shall be carefully defined in writing.

(ii)        Each curriculum shall show evidence of careful planning. The content and duration of curricula shall be designed to implement their purposes.

(iii)       Course descriptions shall clearly state the subject matter and requirements of each course.

 

Findings.  The curriculum of Rockefeller’s Graduate Program is designed with the specific intention of allowing students to tailor their education experience to their own interests and requirements.  In addition to three mandatory courses — Seminars in Modern Biology, Experiment and Theory in Modern Biology, and Ethics — students must satisfactorily complete seven units of coursework (each unit roughly corresponds to 12 lectures).  Coursework must be completed by the end of the second year.

 

The Student Guide contains a comprehensive list of the courses being offered, their credit values, course objectives, expectations, prerequisites, and methods of assessment.  Distinct from the Student Guide, a detailed set of syllabi were provided to the team that describe the course work offerings for 2005-2007.  In general, these syllabi, which are provided to the students, are extremely comprehensive.  Although they vary in depth depending on the courses, each syllabus typically lists individual lectures, required reading, expectations with respect to background knowledge, evaluation methods, and sample questions.  Based on the provided documentation, it is clear that courses are well organized, and that issues relating to effort, intensity, prerequisites, and methods of assessment are satisfactorily documented.

 

Recommendations:

 

None.  The University meets the standard.

 

Assessment of success in achieving goals and objectives

 

There shall be a written plan to assess, no less than every five to seven years, the success of faculty and students in achieving institutional goals and curricular objectives and to promote improvement.  Such assessment shall include systematic collection, review and use of quantitative and qualitative information about educational programs, including at least some information that directly addresses learning outcomes, and shall be undertaken for the purpose of improving student learning and development.

 

Findings.  The team was given a sample graduate student file that contained a comprehensive set of documents relating to student progress throughout the program.  A significant portion of this file was dedicated to student assessments and evaluations.  When courses are completed, students typically receive a grade and a written evaluation that both supports the grade and offers constructive criticism.  Detailed records of courses taken and grades received are maintained.  Evidence of careful monitoring and recording of student progress is provided in the student file, which also contains the results of annual evaluations, FAC reports, and descriptions of the thesis defense examination.  Academic transcripts, and statements-in-lieu of transcripts, are exceptionally comprehensive.

 

Although the coursework is comprehensive and well organized, the team notes that there is no formal mechanism in place for course development, integration, and standardization.  Similarly, there does not appear to be a teaching faculty member who is responsible for the curriculum as a whole.  At the completion of each course, both the course and the relevant faculty are evaluated by the students.  The team was provided with sample evaluation forms that appear adequate and generally indicate a willingness of the faculty to receive constructive criticism.  Faculty interviewed during the site visit expressed the opinion that these evaluations are a useful mechanism for course improvement.  It is evident, however, that the evaluation forms are not standardized and, while they may give individual faculty members a sense of how to improve their courses, they are not generally structured to provide the program administration with a sense of the effectiveness of a particular course.  Moreover, it is unclear who (apart from teaching faculty) reads the evaluations, and what action would be taken, for example, if a course or its instructor was to receive a poor evaluation.

 

The team recognizes the unique flexibility of the Rockefeller program and the benefits of the minimal hierarchy that is in place; however, it suggests that the program consider placing a faculty member (or committee) in charge of the curriculum.  This individual could be responsible for recruiting new faculty to teach courses, coordinating the development of new courses (for example, in response to student demands or the changing landscape of biological research), monitoring course content and student assessment mechanisms, and reviewing course evaluations.

 

Recommendations:

 

2.      The official student evaluations of courses should be shared with the Dean’s Office to allow some (mild) quality control.  At the present time, only the course director appears to see these comments.  If an individual is appointed to oversee the curriculum as a whole, this individual could also be responsible for reading the evaluations and maintaining quality control across all the courses.

 

Program length, credit, and other requirements for degrees

 

For each curriculum, the institution shall assure that courses will be offered with sufficient frequency to enable students to complete the program within the minimum time for degree completion for each degree level identified in this paragraph.

 

(i)         Associate degree programs shall normally be capable of completion in two academic years of full-time study, or their equivalent in part-time study, with an accumulation of not less than 60 semester hours.

(ii)        Baccalaureate degree programs shall normally be capable of completion in four academic years of full-time study, or, in the case of five-year programs, five academic years of full-time study, or their equivalent in part-time study, with an accumulation of not less than 120 semester hours.

(iii)       Master's degree programs shall normally require a minimum of one academic year of full-time graduate level study, or its equivalent in part-time study, with an accumulation of not less than 30 semester hours.  Research or a comparable occupational or professional experience shall be a component of each master's degree program.  The requirements for a master's degree shall normally include at least one of the following: passing a comprehensive test, writing a thesis based on independent research or completing an appropriate special project.

(iv)       The master of philosophy degree shall require completion of all requirements for the degree of doctor of philosophy except the dissertation, and shall require that the student have been admitted to candidacy in a doctor of philosophy curriculum offered by the institution conferring the master of philosophy degree.

(v)        Doctoral programs shall require a minimum of three academic years of full-time graduate level study after the baccalaureate degree, or their equivalent in part-time study.  Doctoral studies shall include the production of a substantial report on original research, the independent investigation of a topic of significance to the field of study, the production of an appropriate creative work, or the verified development of advanced professional skills.

 

2002 Report Recommendation:

 

·        Develop a policy that will lead to a greater proportion of students having research experiences in multiple labs through research rotations.

 

University’s Response: We have established a rotation schedule to facilitate and encourage laboratory rotations.  When they first arrive in early September, students choose a lab in which to work in consultation with the dean and Director of Educational Affairs.  In early November, the students meet again with the Director and discuss their lab experience.  At this point, there are three options: 1, Change to another lab for further experience; 2, Extend the rotation in the current lab; 3, join the current lab as a thesis student.  This plan provides students with an easy mechanism to rotate, and has increased the number of students with experience in multiple labs.

 

Findings.  As part of the mandatory coursework, students participate in a “Tri-Institutional Ethics Course” with students from the Weill Medical College of Cornell University and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.  The syllabus provided to the team indicates that the course goals and objectives are appropriate, and the written feedback provided also suggests that students that take the course are generally satisfied with its content and approach.  At the visit, however, students interviewed felt that this course did not meet their needs or its own objectives.  They noted that a significant portion of the curriculum was geared towards medical students rather than research scientists, that the large class sizes were not conducive to discussion, and that some topics were dealt with in a superficial manner.

 

The team recognizes the difficulties in structuring appropriate ethics training for Ph.D. students, and also acknowledges the Dean’s sincere commitment to enhance the quality of this training at Rockefeller.  It notes, however, that the current approach to ethics training is less than optimal.

 

Recommendations:

 

None.  The University meets the standard.

 

Suggestion for Institutional Improvement:

 

·        The team encourages the School to develop an ethics course that parallels its superb scientific courses in terms of suitability, depth of analysis, intimacy, and programmatic oversight. 

 

 

Faculty

 

Competence and credentials

 

(i)         All members of the faculty shall have demonstrated by training, earned degrees, scholarship, experience, and by classroom performance or other evidence of teaching potential, their competence to offer the courses and discharge the other academic responsibilities which are assigned to them.

(ii)        At least one faculty member teaching in each curriculum culminating in a bachelor's degree shall hold an earned doctorate in an appropriate field, unless the department determines that the curriculum is in a field of study in which other standards are appropriate.

(iii)       All faculty members who teach within a curriculum leading to a graduate degree shall possess earned doctorates or other terminal degrees in the field in which they are teaching or shall have demonstrated, in other widely recognized ways, their special competence in the field in which they direct graduate students.

 

Findings.  Over the past century, Rockefeller has been home to 23 Nobel laureates, seven of whom are current members of the faculty.  There have been 12 National Medal of Science recipients and about 20 Lasker Award winners; at the present time, there are 32 members of the National Academy.  Clearly, having almost half their faculty as National Academy members is unique for any institution in the country.

 

Recommendations:

 

None.  The University meets the standard.

 

Adequacy to support programs and services

 

(i)         The faculty shall be sufficient in number to assure breadth and depth of instruction and the proper discharge of all other faculty responsibilities.

(ii)        To foster and maintain continuity and stability in academic programs and policies, there shall be in the institution a sufficient number of faculty members who serve full-time at the institution.

(iii)       For each curriculum the institution shall designate a body of faculty who, with the academic officers of the institution, shall be responsible for setting curricular objectives, for determining the means by which achievement of objectives is measured, for evaluating the achievement of curricular objectives, and for providing academic advice to students.

(iv)       The ratio of faculty to students in each course shall be sufficient to assure effective instruction.

 

Findings.  There are 71 heads of laboratories.  At Rockefeller, formal teaching is voluntary.  For the fall and spring of 2006-07, eight courses are being taught.  Each of the course directors is highly qualified to be the director or coordinator of the program, with six out of eight having more than nine years of full-time service at the University.  The two junior directors of courses appear to be highly motivated and enthusiastic colleagues.  The ratio of faculty members (lab heads) to students at the time of the site visit was 1:2.9, which is more than adequate to support the program.

 

Recommendations:

 

None.  The University meets the standard.

 

Evaluation and professional responsibilities

 

(i)         The teaching and research of each faculty member, in accordance with the faculty member's responsibilities, shall be evaluated periodically by the institution.  The teaching of each inexperienced faculty member shall receive special supervision during the initial period of appointment.

(ii)        Each member of the faculty shall be allowed adequate time, in accordance with the faculty member's responsibilities, to broaden professional knowledge, prepare course materials, advise students, direct independent study and research, supervise teaching, participate in institutional governance and carry out other academic responsibilities appropriate to his or her position, in addition to performing assigned teaching and administrative duties.

 

2002 Report Recommendations:

 

·        Implement a policy and process aimed at the evaluation of teaching in a consistent and on-going fashion.

 

University’s Response: We will initiate a policy whereby students in each course fill out a form evaluating the quality of the course and the instructors.  This evaluation policy will be monitored by the Director of Educational Affairs.  Evaluation forms will be shared with the instructors of the course to try to improve course content, student participation, and instructor performance.

 

·        Provide a forum in which junior faculty are given the opportunity to request input and advice regarding their teaching from those with significant experience and success in teaching.

 

University’s Response: At the end of each semester, we will invite junior faculty who are lecturing for a lunch to discuss teaching methods and strategies.  The lunch will be attended by the Dean, who has extensive experience in teaching at the graduate school level, and by other selected senior faculty.  

 

Findings.  As a result of the earlier recommendation, a formal course evaluation by students was initiated.  It appears, however, that only course directors have access to the evaluations.  Junior faculty members are asked to participate in teaching but there is no formal process of making sure that the teaching load is equally distributed.  All teaching appears to happen on a voluntary basis; nevertheless it seems to work out very well.

 

            On all levels, faculty satisfaction appears to be very, very high.  Six junior faculty and six senior faculty met with the team.  Uniformly, they expressed happiness with the administration and had high esteem for the students.  They were satisfied with their teaching loads and their interactions with the students.  They felt that the program had tremendously improved over the last six years, ever since the incumbent became the Dean.  A minor comment concerned the wish that there would be a bit more structure in the rotations of the students (presently students are not required to do a rotation in a laboratory).  When asked what could be improved upon at Rockefeller and what changes might be instituted to enhance academic life, one junior faculty responded by saying: “What is there not to like at Rockefeller?”  Other than the fine-tuning of some procedures, there did not appear to be any issue of major concern for either the junior or senior faculty.  In fact, the senior faculty feels that they represent the Administration of Rockefeller and that they are Rockefeller!  It sounds almost too good to be true; however, that was what the team came away with from this visit.

 

Recommendations:

 

None.  The University meets the standard.

 

 

Resources

 

Facilities, equipment, and supplies

 

(i)         The institution shall provide classrooms, administrative and faculty offices, auditoria, laboratories, libraries, audio-visual and computer facilities, clinical facilities, studios, practice rooms, and other instructional resources sufficient in number, design, condition, and accessibility to support its mission, goals, instruction, programs, and all other educational activities.

(ii)        The institution shall provide equipment sufficient in quantity and quality to support administration, instruction, research, and student performance.

 

2002 Report Recommendation:

 

·        Establish a graduate student office or lounge area for the use of first year graduate students.

 

University’s Response: We will work with the Vice-President for Facilities . . . to establish such an office.  We will supply the office with a computer that is connected to the internet, and a coffee machine.

 

Findings.  The Rockefeller University 15-acre campus is located on the east side of Manhattan at 66th Street and York Avenue (on the East River).  It comprises 21 buildings, including eight research buildings (including the 20-bed Rockefeller University Hospital), an auditorium, administrative offices, and residence buildings. 

 

By any criteria the resources available to students, support staff and faculty are outstanding.  These include: state-of-the-art research laboratories (with more coming online);  modern  “in-house “ resource centers that provide centralized, high-quality laboratory services as well as other resources (DNA sequencing) provided by outside companies and/or through consortia agreements with other universities and research institutions (e.g., NYU’s Courant Institute); access to up-to-date library and computer facilities; and, for those involved in clinical and translational-based research, a unique hospital facility, Rockefeller University Hospital.

 

“In-House” Resource Centers include:

 

1.      Bio-Imaging

2.      Flow Cytometry

3.      Genetically Engineered Mouse Phenotyping Core

4.      Genomics

5.      High Throughput Screening

6.      Laboratory Animal Center (including gene targeting and transgenic activities)

7.      Monoclonal Antibody Core

8.      Proteomics

9.      Spectroscopy (including an NMR facility)

10. Glass Washing Services

 

Rockefeller provides subsidized housing for all Ph.D. students.  Housing includes single rooms, double and triple suites with a shared kitchen, and one-bedroom apartments.  All have high speed computer access lines.  Students in the tri-institutional programs live in Cornell University housing during the first two years; those subsequently affiliating with Rockefeller then may live in Rockefeller housing.  The Brook Astor Student Life Center provides a TV lounge, full-size kitchen, conference table, sofa, and ping-pong table for the exclusive use of graduate students.

 

Recommendations:

 

None.  The University meets the standard.

 

Library and information resources

 

(i)         The institution shall provide libraries that possess and maintain collections and technology sufficient in depth and breadth to support the mission of the institution and each curriculum. 

(ii)        Libraries shall be administered by professionally trained staff supported by sufficient personnel. Library services and resources shall be available for student and faculty use with sufficient regularity and at appropriate hours to support the mission of the institution and the curricula it offers.

 

Findings.  The Rockefeller University library has a collection of about 52,000 print titles and 660 current journals.  Its primary purpose is to support research.  It focuses on the following areas:

·        Biochemistry, structural biology, and chemistry

·        Molecular, cell, and developmental biology

·        Immunology, virology, and microbiology

·        Medical sciences and human genetics

·        Neuroscience

·        Physics and mathematics

 

About 550 of the 660 journals are available electronically.

 

            Rockefeller faculty, staff, and students have 24 hour access to the library seven days a week and are able to use automated equipment to check out books in the absence of library staff.  (The library is staffed from 9:00 A.M. until 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday.)

 

            Rockefeller maintains reciprocal library agreements with the Weill Cornell Medical College and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.  The Weill Cornell library focuses on health science, medical education, and biomedical research.  The Sloan-Kettering library focuses on cancer research, education, and patient care.  The on-line Tri-Cat library catalog includes all three collections and Rockefeller faculty, staff, and students have borrowing privileges at the other two libraries.     

 

Recommendations:

 

None.  The University meets the standard.

 

Fiscal capacity

 

The institution shall possess the financial resources necessary for the consistent and successful accomplishment of its mission and objectives at the institutional, program and course levels.

 

Findings.  With an endowment in 2005 of $1.6 billion, Rockefeller had the largest endowment per student in the nation, $8.1 million per student.

On the basis of a review of Rockefeller’s audited financial statements for 2004-05:

·        The balance sheet indicated that it had $30.2 million in cash and $22.2 million in average monthly expenses.  The average monthly revenue was $28.6 million.

·        The University had current assets of $62.8 million and current liabilities of $29.5 million, or $2.13 in current assets for every dollar of current liabilities. 

·        The University earned $76.2 million in unrestricted net income on $342.6 million in total unrestricted revenue.  This represents a 22 percent net income ratio.

·        The University had a federal composite score of 3.0, which is interpreted as “financially healthy.”  The composite score for the previous year was also 3.0.

 

Recommendations:

 

None.  The University meets the standard.

 

 

Administration

 

Responsibilities

 

(i)         Responsibility for the administration of institutional policies and programs shall be clearly established.

(ii)        Within the authority of its governing board, the institution shall provide that overall educational policy and its implementation are the responsibility of the institution's faculty and academic officers.  Other appropriate segments of the institutional community may share in this responsibility in accordance with the norms developed by each institution.

(iii)       Academic policies applicable to each course, including learning objectives and methods of assessing student achievement, shall be made explicit by the instructor at the beginning of each term.

(iv)       The institution shall provide academic advice to students through faculty or appropriately qualified persons.  The institution shall assure that students are informed at stated intervals of their progress and remaining obligations in the completion of the program.

(v)        The institution shall maintain for each student a permanent, complete, accurate, and up-to-date transcript of student achievement at the institution.  This document will be the official cumulative record of the student's cumulative achievement.  Copies shall be made available at the student's request, in accordance with the institution's stated policies, or to agencies or individuals authorized by law to review such records.

 

Findings.

 

Responsibility for Administration.  According to Rockefeller’s organization chart, nine vice-presidents and all heads of laboratories report directly to the President of the University, who reports to the Board of Trustees.  The Vice President for Academic Affairs is responsible for the operation of faculty searches and of the Faculty Council’s tenure and promotion recommendations.  The Vice-President for Educational Affairs and Dean of the Graduate School is responsible for administering the graduate and postdoctoral programs, including the admissions process.

 

            The faculty is organized around laboratories rather than around a conventional departmental structure.  All tenured faculty and other heads of laboratories are members of the Faculty Senate.  The Senate elects a 12-member Faculty Council from its ranks, including nine tenured and three non-tenured heads of laboratories.  The Council reports directly to the President.  It works with the Graduate Dean with respect to the Graduate Program.  The Council makes all recommendations on tenure, which go to the President and then to the Board of Trustees.

 

As discussed in other sections of this report, graduate education is an important component of Rockefeller’s overall mission.  The President and the Dean of the Graduate Program very positively and powerfully reinforced this to the team during the visit.

 

      The Graduate Program’s Administrative Office is directed by the Dean of Graduate and Postgraduate Studies and Vice President for Educational Affairs.  He is assisted on the academic side by an Associate Dean and an administrative staff of five. This office has multiple responsibilities, including:

 

1.      Recruitment of students and insuring a diverse population of applicants;

2.      Processing all applications (now > 700);

3.      Organizing visits of accepted candidates;

4.      Supplying academic advice and mentoring to all students,

5.      Organizing and coordinating all coursework schedules, student registration, and research rotations;

6.      Helping out with Human Resources to supply “goods and services” (i.e. housing, counseling, professional development) to both graduate students and postdoctoral fellows;

7.      Organizing and running a formal summer program for undergraduate students from around the U.S. (a strong recruitment tool);

8.      Organizing and coordinating other Graduate Program-specific events (e.g., pre- and postdoctoral retreats, special lecture series);

9.      Coordinate activities with the Tri-Institutional MSTP and Chemical Biology Training Programs.

 

By all accounts (student, faculty, and the team’s own observations) this office does an outstanding job.  The Dean and Associate Dean provide superb leadership and the other Office members interact very well to seamlessly carry out the myriad functions listed above.  The team notes that this represents a major improvement since the last accreditation report.

 

While the team did not directly discuss the financial remuneration to the administrative staff of the Graduate Program Office, this group of individuals was very impressive in their level of productivity and the professionalism with which they carried out their jobs and certainly should be rewarded accordingly.

 

Recommendations:

 

None.  The University meets the standard.

 

Published policies

 

 The institution shall establish, publish and enforce explicit policies with respect to:

 

(i)         academic freedom;

(ii)        the rights and privileges of full-time and part-time faculty and other staff members, working conditions, opportunity for professional development, workload, appointment and reappointment, affirmative action, evaluation of teaching and research, termination of appointment, redress of grievances and faculty responsibility to the institution; and

(iii)       requirements for admission of students to the institution and to specific curricula, requirements for residence, graduation, awarding of credit, degrees or other credentials, grading, standards of progress, payment of fees of any nature, refunds, withdrawals, standards of conduct, disciplinary measures and redress of grievances.

 

2002 Report Recommendations:

 

·        Establish a student ombudsman to ensure that students feel their issues and concerns are being championed within the University.

 

University’s Response: We have a Student Representative Committee (SRC) that functions to direct concerns and issues to the dean’s Office.  The SRC has a representative from each year, and an MD/PhD representative.  The dean meets with this committee every 2 months, and it has become a valuable mechanism to discuss issues as they arise.  On occasion, the Postdoctoral fellows Association representatives meet with the SRC and the dean if the issues also impact that group.  The meetings have been very successful in establishing better communication between the students and the Dean’s Office. 

 

·        Establish a consistent policy for ensuring that students are receiving adequate feedback of their performance in their courses. 

 

University’s Response: We will establish a policy whereby each course director will provide an evaluation form for the students in their course, in addition to the grade.  This policy will be monitored by the Director.

 

Findings.

 

Faculty-Related Policies.  The team had the statements of Policy Governing Appointments and Promotions adopted in July 2004 and of Policy Governing the Appointments and Promotions of Heads of Laboratories adopted in December 2005.  Both address the establishment of laboratories, appointments and promotions, and faculty grievance procedures.  However, neither includes statements with respect to academic freedom, working conditions, workload, opportunities for professional development, affirmative action, evaluation of teaching and research, termination of appointment, and faculty responsibility to the institution.

 

Student-Related Policies.  The David Rockefeller Graduate Program Student Guide, 2006-2007 sets forth policies concerning students, including degree requirements, standards of conduct, and disciplinary and grievance procedures.  All students are fully funded; therefore, there is no need for policies concerning payment or refund of tuition or fees.

 

Recommendations:

 

3.      Rockefeller should publish statements of policy with respect to academic freedom, working conditions, workload, opportunities for professional development, affirmative action, evaluation of teaching and research, termination of appointment, and faculty responsibility to the institution.

 

 

Support Services

 

The institution shall assure that whenever and wherever the institution offers courses as part of a curriculum it shall provide adequate support services, taking into account its mission and the needs of its students.

 

2002 Report Recommendation:

 

·        Ensure that new students have developed an appropriate plan of study upon their arrival at the University by having them work with the Director for Educational Affairs to develop such a plan.

 

Institutional Response: Incoming students meet individually with the Dean and the Director to plan their fall courses and lab rotations.  They then meet again with the Director in early November to plan their next semester’s courses and lab rotations.  This arrangement has worked well this year to help students have a more productive first year.

 

Findings.  As discussed above in both the Resources and Administration sections, all support services, whether they are research or student oriented, are very professionally managed and coordinated to facilitate a smoothly operating and effective research environment.

 

Rockefeller places a premium on student independence.  Students are responsible for many key elements of their own education, such as assembling a collection of courses, determining whether and where to perform laboratory rotations, and organizing thesis committee meetings.  It is clearly evident, however, that this independence is supported by institutional mechanisms to mentor students, respond to grievances, monitor student progress, and enhance the scientific environment and culture for graduate students in general.  Despite the bulk of the responsibility for the education process falling on individual students, therefore, ample procedures are in place to insure that no student “falls through the cracks” and that students graduate in a timely manner.

 

Upon entering the program, students are assigned a faculty mentor who is largely responsible for helping students select courses and rotations.  Although the extent to which students interacted with their mentors varied on a case-by-case basis, it was clear from discussions with both faculty and students that this mechanism is important and fully functional.  Some students interviewed expressed difficulties in scheduling meetings with the assigned mentors; however, this was a minor concern.  Impressively, students also meet regularly with the Dean and Associate Dean during the first year, and the environment is clearly such that — at any subsequent time during a student’s tenure — students feel free to approach the Dean, or other faculty, for informal mentoring.  Overall, therefore, sufficient mechanisms are in place to mentor students. The team does suggest, however, that the administration consider expanding the number of faculty acting as mentors each year both to reduce the number of students each faculty member advises, and to increase the probability that students will take full advantage of meeting with their mentors and benefiting from the experience.

 

One issue where students expressed some concern was in dealing with the tensions that may arise between students and research mentors at the completion of rotations.  Because rotations are not required and can be of flexible length, students can experience difficulty in exiting rotations.  Concern was expressed that, if a student is finishing one rotation and moving onto another, the faculty advisor of the first rotation typically assumes that the student does not want to join that laboratory for their thesis research (which may not be true).  This can create problems if multiple students, rotating on different schedules, wish to join a particular laboratory.

 

Another issue that was raised was that students do not always know when to end a rotation, and may feel pressure to extend the rotation to simply move the project along.  The team suggests that these pressures could be relieved by more up-front discussion between the students and the rotation advisors — perhaps agreeing, in advance, on a project and an initial timeframe.  The team also suggests that academic mentors could play a more proactive role in advising students on how to deal with this issue, and other potential issues that commonly arise during the rotation periods.

 

Recommendations:

 

4.      Although there are several hundred postdoctoral fellows, there is no office or person exclusively dedicated to dealing with issues related to them.  Considering the large number of postdoctoral fellows and the recent national movement to improve the quality of life and educational experiences for this unique group of scientists, it may be time for Rockefeller to create an office (or an additional hire within the Administrative Office of the Graduate Program) dedicated exclusively to dealing with issues related to postdoctoral fellows, in order to further facilitate scientific interactions and make their educational experience even more rewarding.

 

 

Admissions

 

(1)        The admission of students shall be determined through an orderly process using published criteria that shall be uniformly applied.

(2)        Admissions shall take into account the capacity of the student to undertake a course of study and the capacity of the institution to provide the instructional and other support the student needs to complete the program.

(3)        Among other considerations, the admissions process shall encourage the increased participation in collegiate programs at all levels of persons from groups historically underrepresented in such programs.

 

Findings.  Rockefeller seeks “students who have a natural curiosity about science and who have demonstrated aptitude, enthusiasm, and commitment to research.”  The Program guide clearly outlines the process for admission (which is carried out on-line), details information to be provided, and encourages students to take a GRE advanced subject test and to submit evidence of proficiency in English.  The admissions criteria are accurately described and, based on information provided at the visit by the Assistant Dean, faithfully reflect the criteria used by the Admissions Committee.

 

Over the period, 1996-2006, Rockefeller accepted less than 12 percent of the applicants for admission to the Ph.D. program, according to the self-study materials.  About one-third of those accepted enrolled.  Table 2, below, shows the number of applications, acceptances, and enrollments for each of the years 1996-2006.

 

Table 2

 

Year

Applications

Acceptances

Enrollments

Proportion of Applications Accepted

Proportion of Acceptances Enrolled

1996

415

51

27

12.3%

52.9%

1997

496

52

21

10.5%

40.4%

1998

486

46

16

9.5%

34.8%

1999

613

60

15

9.8%

25.0%

2000

535

90

30

16.8%

33.3%

2001

580

85

24

14.7%

28.2%

2002

531

83

26

15.6%

31.3%

2003

655

75

25

11.5%

33.3%

2004

640

78

29

12.2%

37.2%

2005

690

70

22

10.1%

31.4%

2006

721

70

21

9.7%

30.0%

Source: Rockefeller University, 2006.

 

Information provided at the site visit detailed the process that is used to review applications.  An initial triage process is performed by the Dean and Assistant Dean to eliminate approximately half of the applications from further consideration.  Although this is a lot of work for two individuals to perform, it is important for maintaining consistent admissions standards, and saves other admissions committee members a significant amount of work.  Moreover, any member of the admissions committee can “rescue” a triaged application, ensuring fairness across the board.  Following this initial process, applications are sent out to the admissions committee, where each application is read in depth by two faculty members.  After this review process, the committee then meets, applications are ranked, and decisions on offers made.

 

Faculty interviewed during the site visit expressed satisfaction with the admissions review process, and stated that it is generally very successful at identifying students with both the intellectual capability to do well at Rockefeller and also the suitability for a self-motivated course of study that Rockefeller encourages.  Rockefeller does not generally interview students before making offers; however, it does have the ability to do so.  For example, in cases where faculty are not familiar with particular institutions and educational systems (such as mainland China), telephone interviews have been made.  The functionality of the admissions process is testified by that fact that, in the last five years, only two students admitted through the program have been asked to leave because of failure in coursework.  This is a singularly impressive feat.

 

In 2005-06, out of the 720 applications that were received, 70 offers for admission were made, 50 of them (71.4 percent) to U.S. citizens or permanent residents.  Undergraduate grade-point averages typically ranged from 3.5 to 4.0.  Fewer offers are made to foreign students, typically because the success rate for recruiting foreign students into the program is higher than for U.S. students.  Indeed, out of the 20 students that entered the program, 40 percent (eight entrants) were foreign.  Universally, the caliber of the students recruited into the program is very high.

 

Recruitment of underrepresented minorities continues to be a weakness in the recruitment process, as it is for many comparable institutions.  In 2005-06, five of the 50 U.S. applicants accepted were underrepresented minorities; however, no underrepresented minorities were successfully recruited into the program.  Although it is evident from the supporting information and from discussions held during the site visit that recruitment of minority students is taken seriously, and that the number of offers that are being made to minority candidates is increasing, the team encourages Rockefeller to do more.  The statistics provided indicate that offers were not made to roughly 35 minority candidates, many of whom had GRE and GPA scores comparable to applicants who received offers.

 

Information provided at the site visit reveals that minority candidates are not considered any differently from other applications as far as the triage and ranking processes go.  This policy, however, may require some reconsideration, especially given the likelihood that many minority candidates have simply not had the opportunity to develop as impressive transcripts as other applicants.  In these instances, more focused consideration of the application, and perhaps a personal interview, may be required.  In this vein, a significant portion of the minority applicants that were not made offers came from local New York City institutions; it would presumably be fairly straightforward to interview these candidates. 

 

Recommendations:

 

5.      The team encourages Rockefeller to take more advantage of its unique location to recruit minority candidates locally.

 

 

Consumer Information

 

The following information shall be included in all catalogs of the institution:

 

(1)        Information shall be provided on financial assistance available to students, costs of attending the institution, the refund policy of the institution, and the instructional programs and other related aspects of the institution.  Information shall include programs of financial assistance from State, Federal, institutional and other sources.

(2)        Cost of attending the institution for each of the cost categories listed below shall be provided.  Estimates, so indicated, may be used where exact figures are unavailable or inappropriate.  Where summary information is provided, an institutional office where detailed information can be obtained shall be identified.

 

(i)         Tuition and fees. Information shall be provided on all assessments against students for direct educational and general purposes.  A brief description of the purpose of any mandatory fee shall be included if the purpose of such fee is not apparent from its name.  Course fees and lab fees shall be clearly identified.  Conditions under which nonmandatory fees need not be paid shall be clearly stated.

(ii)        Books and supplies.  Estimated costs of textbooks, books, manuals, consumable supplies and equipment, which a student should possess as a necessary corollary to instruction, shall be provided.  Separate estimates shall be provided for major program categories for which such costs vary more than 25 percent from the average for the entire institution.

(iii)       Room and board.  Costs of housing and food services operated by the institution shall be provided where such services are available.  Estimated costs of similar accommodations available in the community shall also be provided.  These figures shall be consistent with estimated student budgets prepared by the institution's financial aid office.

(iv)       Other living expenses.  Estimated cost of personal expenses applicable to students devoting primary efforts to pursuit of educational objectives shall be provided.  This estimate shall be consistent with similar figures defined by the institution's financial aid office.

 

Findings.  Rockefeller provides full financial support for every student admitted, covering tuition and fees and all other charges, and including a $26,750 per year stipend.  Therefore, the catalog does not list charges or provide a refund policy.  Because the University fully funds all students, it does not participate in State and Federal student financial aid programs. Therefore, it does not provide information about such programs in the catalog.

 

Recommendations:

 

None.  The University meets the standard.

 

(3)        The institution shall state its policy concerning refunds due to failure of students to complete an academic term for any reason.  The policy shall include the percentage or amount of tuition, fees, institution-operated room and board, and other assessments to be refunded after specified elapsed periods of time.

 

Findings.  Not applicable.

 

Recommendations:

 

None.

 

(4)        The instructional programs of the institution shall be described accurately.

 

(i)         Degree, certificate and diploma programs.  A list of degree, certificate and diploma programs shall be provided.  The list shall be consistent with the inventory of registered degree and certificate programs maintained by the Department.  The list shall contain at least the official approved program title, degree, HEGIS code number, and shall be preceded by a statement that enrollment in other than registered or otherwise approved programs may jeopardize a student's eligibility for certain student aid awards.

(ii)        Program descriptions.  Each degree, certificate or diploma program shall be described in terms of both prerequisites and requirements for completion.

(iii)       The academic year in which each instructional offering (course) is expected to be taught shall be indicated.

(iv)       Program related facilities.  A general description of instructional, laboratory and other facilities directly related to the academic program shall be provided, in addition to general information describing the total physical plant.  Narrative and/or statistical information shall be provided about library collections and facilities, student unions, and institution-operated eating-places.  Hours of operation, including holiday and vacation schedules, shall be provided.

(v)        Faculty and other instructional personnel.  Regular resident faculty shall be listed by rank, with the highest degree held by the faculty member and the institution by which such degree was granted, and department or major program area to which such member is assigned.  An estimated number of adjunct faculty and teaching assistants in each department or major program area shall be provided.

(vi)       Recruiting and admission practices.  The process and criteria for the recruitment and admission of students to the institution and to specific curricula, as required by subparagraph (iii) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) of this section and by subdivision (h) of this section, shall be published.

(vii)      Academic calendar.  The academic calendar of the institution, and of specific curricula, if different, shall be published.

(viii)      Grading.  The grading policy of the institution, and of specific curricula, if different, shall be published.

(ix)       Student retention and graduation.  Information on student retention and graduation rates shall be provided based on a summary of the most recent cohort survival statistics (e.g., percentages of those students enrolled at the end of the spring term, percentages of freshman classes that graduate in four, five and six years) available to the institution for at least full-time undergraduates.  Statistics shall be computed in a manner consistent with data reported to the department through its higher education data system.

(x)        Outcomes for former students.  Summaries of employment outcomes, advanced study, and student professional and occupational licensing examination results compiled by or provided to the institution shall be provided.  The student cohort year or years, or date of examinations shall be included.  Data displays on employment outcomes shall be by major or discrete curricular area.

 

2002 Report Recommendation:

 

·        The University should assure that the next edition of the Graduate Program catalog includes all pertinent information required by this standard.

 

University’s Response: We will ensure that the next edition of the Graduate Program catalog lists the University’s program in a manner consistent with the list of those programs in the Inventory of Registered Programs.

 

Findings.  The David Rockefeller Graduate Program 2006-2007 catalog provides information on the University and its facilities, the faculty, student life, and admission requirements and procedures. The catalog does not list the University’s academic programs in a manner consistent with the list of those programs in the Inventory of Registered Programs (program title, degree, and HEGIS code).  Courses are described.  The catalog does not provide information on student retention and graduation; however, the team believes that such information is less important at an institution exclusively focused on doctoral study in the sciences than at an undergraduate institution.  Rockefeller does not use grades; therefore, the catalog does not describe a grading policy.   

 

Recommendations:

 

6.      The next edition of the catalog should provide the missing relevant required information.

 

Advertising

 

(i)                  Advertising conducted by or on behalf of an institution shall not be false, misleading, deceptive, or fraudulent and shall be consistent with the provisions of Article 22-A of the General Business Law.  Advertising and promotional material shall not leave false, misleading, or exaggerated impressions of the institution, its personnel, its facilities, its courses and services, or the occupational opportunities of its graduates.

(ii)                The primary emphasis of all advertisements and promotional literature shall be the educational services offered by the institution.  Such advertising and promotional literature shall clearly indicate that education, not employment, is being offered by the institution.

(iii)               Statements and representations in all forms of advertising and promotion shall be clear, current, and accurate.  To the extent that statements of facts are made, such statements shall be restricted to facts that can be substantiated.  Materials to support statements and representations in advertising and promotion shall be kept on file and shall be available for review by the Department.

(iv)              Any endorsement or recommendation shall include the author’s identity and qualifications and shall be used only with the author’s consent.  No remuneration of any kind for any such endorsement or recommendation shall be paid for such endorsement or recommendation.

(v)                References to the New York State Board of Regents in any advertisement or promotional literature shall comply with the requirements of Section 13.11 of this title and subdivision (m) of this Section [§4-1.4 of the Rules of the Board of Regents].

 

Findings.  Information on the Rockefeller Web site, and the information provided to College Source Online and Peterson’s Guide to Graduate Programs, 2006-07, appeared relevant to the University’s mission and programs and did not conflict with this standard.

 

Recommendations:

 

None.  The University meets the standard.

 

 

Student Complaints

 

(1)        The institution shall establish, publish, and consistently administer internal procedures to receive, investigate, and resolve student complaints related to the standards prescribed in this Part.

(2)        The institution may have informal means by which students can seek redress of their complaints.

(3)        The institution shall have a formal complaint procedure that shall include, but need not be limited to: steps a student may take to file a formal complaint; reasonable and appropriate time frames for investigating and resolving a formal complaint; provision for the final determination of each formal complaint to be made by a person or persons not directly involved in the alleged problem; and assurances that no action will be taken against the student for filing the complaint.

(4)        The institution shall maintain adequate documentation about each formal complaint and its disposition for a period of at least six years after final disposition of the complaint.  Assessment of the disposition and outcomes of complaints shall be a required component of any self-study required by this Part and shall be a consideration in any review for accreditation or renewal of accreditation.

 

 

2002 Report Recommendation:

 

·        The University should assure that records of the disposition of student complaints are retained for at least six years.

 

University’s Response: The University will make sure that all records of student complaints are retained for six years.

 

Findings.  The Student Guide spells out the grievance process in great detail, including appeals.  The team met with eight junior students and six senior students.  As was the case with the faculty, the level of satisfaction appears to be extraordinarily high for both junior and senior level students.  The students love the flexibility of the program and the freedom they enjoy in pursuing different research directions.  The students are very enthusiastic about this program.  Again, a minor concern was that perhaps a bit more structure could be put into the rotation process.  Also, some guidance regarding rotation etiquette might be provided by the Dean’s Office.  Finally, the ethics course given at another institution did not get high marks from the students.  Again, the level of satisfaction on the part of the students was impressive, and they felt the Dean’s Office was wonderful in promptly solving any problem they might encounter.  They found the bureaucracy to be minimal.

 

Recommendations:

 

None.  The University meets the standard.

 

 

HEA Title IV Program Responsibilities

 

(1)        Information provided to the department by the Secretary concerning the institution's compliance with its HEA Title IV program responsibilities, including but not limited to annual student default rate data, financial or compliance audits conducted annually by the Secretary, and program reviews conducted periodically by the Secretary, shall be a consideration in a review for accreditation or renewal of accreditation, or in an enforcement review. 

(2)        An institution shall have a procedure in place to ensure that it is in compliance with its program responsibilities under Title IV of the HEA and shall maintain a record describing such procedure.       

(3)        An institution shall maintain a record of its compliance with its program responsibilities under Title IV of the HEA over the previous 10 years, unless the department determines that there is good cause for a shorter records retention period. This record shall include: student default rate data provided annually to the Secretary by the institution; financial or compliance audits conducted annually by the Secretary; and program reviews conducted periodically by the Secretary.  The institution shall submit information from this record of compliance to the department on a periodic basis as determined by the department.

 

Findings.  Not applicable.  Rockefeller does not participate in HEA Title IV programs.

 

Recommendations:

 

None.

 

 

Teach-out Agreements

 

Any teach-out agreement that an institution has entered into with another institution or institutions shall be submitted to the department for approval.  To be approved, such agreement shall:

 

(1)        be between or among institutions that are accredited or pre-accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency;

(2)        ensure that the teach-out institution(s) has the necessary experience, resources, and support services to provide an educational program that is of acceptable quality and reasonable similar in content, structure, and scheduling to that provided by the closed institution;

(3)        ensure that the teach-out institution(s) can provide students access to the program and services without requiring them to move or travel substantial distances.

 

Findings.  Not applicable.

 

Recommendations:

 

None.

 

 

Public Disclosure of Accreditation Status

 

An institution that elects to disclose its accreditation status shall disclose such status accurately and include in its disclosure the specific academic and instructional programs covered by that status and information identifying the commissioner and the Board of Regents as its institutional accrediting agency.  Such information shall include the address and telephone number of the department.

 

Findings.  Rockefeller’s disclosure of its accreditation status complies with this requirement except for listing the Department’s telephone number. 

 

Recommendations:

 

None.  The University meets the standard.

 

 

 

 

 

14 December 2006

 

Mr. Joseph P. Frey

Assistant Commissioner

New York State Board of Regents and Commissioner of Education

89 Washington Avenue

Albany, NY 12234

 

Dear Mr. Frey:

 

This letter is in response to the draft report of the review team that visited The Rockefeller University on October 18-19, 2006.

 

Response to Recommendations

 

1.  The Department and Rockefeller should work together to assure that the University’s Annual Data Reports are received by January 31 each year.

 

We will work with the State Education Department to ensure that the University’s Annual Data Reports are submitted by January 31 each year.

 

2.  The official student evaluations of courses should be shared with the Dean’s Office to allow some quality control.  If an individual is appointed to oversee the curriculum as a whole, this individual could also be responsible for reading the evaluations and maintaining quality control across all courses.

 

We will require that all student evaluations of courses be shared with the Dean’s Office in addition to the course director.  The Assistant Dean will be responsible for reading the evaluations and maintaining quality control across all courses.

 

3.  Rockefeller should publish statements of policy with respect to academic freedom, working conditions, workload, opportunities for professional development, affirmative action, evaluation of teaching and research, termination of appointment, and faculty responsibility to the institution.

 

We will add the required information to University policies.

 

4.  It may be time for Rockefeller to create an office (or an additional hire within the Administrative Office of the Graduate Program) exclusively dedicated to dealing with issues related to postdoctoral fellows.

 

We have established a five-point plan to better address postdoctoral-related issues:

1.                             The Dean and Assistant Dean are available for individual meetings with postdocs to discuss academic issues as well as to provide career guidance.  These opportunities will now be widely advertised to the postdoc community. 

2.                             The Dean and Assistant Dean maintain a list of alumni in various fields who have volunteered to be contacted by postdocs for career guidance or advice on other issues.  The Deans will put postdocs in touch with these members of our wide alumni network as appropriate.

3.                             We will sponsor career seminars and symposia for postdocs and advertise similar extensive offerings through the New York Academy of Sciences. 

4.                             We will establish a “Career Resource Library” with books and useful web information on various careers, CV writing, interviewing, etc. that postdocs may use to do career-related research on their own.

5.                             We will continue to provide postdocs with assistance on employment and visa issues through Rockefeller’s Human Resources Office.

 

5.  The team encourages Rockefeller to take more advantage of its unique location to recruit minority candidates locally.

 

The draft accreditation report mentions that in 2005-06, no underrepresented minorities were successfully recruited into the program.  We did, in fact, recruit one African-American male into the program in 2005-06.  However, we do realize that minority recruitment is an important aspect of our recruitment process that needs strengthening.

 

We have established ties with local undergraduate colleges (such as Hunter College and Brooklyn College) to recruit local minority candidates.  These include visits by undergraduate minority students to Rockefeller, where they are given an introduction to the graduate and summer research programs, hear short research talks by current minority graduate students, and are taken on laboratory tours.  Rockefeller plans to continue and expand these efforts by having minority graduate students and representatives of the Dean’s Office visit local colleges to meet with minority candidates there.

 

6.  The next edition of the catalog should provide the missing relevant required information.

 

We will ensure that the next edition of the Graduate Program catalog lists the University’s programs in a manner consistent with the list of those programs in the Inventory of Registered Programs.

 

Thank you for your thorough analysis of our program and helpful suggestions.  Please let me know if you would like any additional information.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

Paul Nurse

President

 

 

cc:       Barbara D. Meinert

            Byron P. Connell

            Sidney Strickland

            Emily Harms

 

 

 

 

Attachment B

 

Rules of the Board of Regents

 

Subpart 4-1, Voluntary Institutional Accreditation for Title IV Purposes

 

§4-1.2 Definitions.

 

As used in the Subpart:

 

(a) Accreditation means the status of public recognition that the Commissioner of Education and the Board of Regents grant to an educational institution that meets the standards and requirements prescribed in this Subpart.

 

(b) Accreditation action means accreditation, accreditation with conditions, probationary accreditation, approval of substantive changes in the scope of accreditation, and denial, revocation, or termination of accreditation.

 

(c) Accreditation with conditions means accreditation that requires the institution to provide reports and/or submit to site visits concerning issues raised in a review for accreditation, provided that such issues do not materially affect the institution’s substantial compliance with the standards and requirements for accreditation. 

 

(d) Adverse action or adverse accreditation action means suspension, withdrawal, denial, revocation, or termination of accreditation or preaccreditation.

 

(q) Probationary accreditation means accreditation for a period of time, not to exceed two years, during which the institution shall come into compliance with standards for accreditation through corrective action.