Guidance: Review of Low Completion Programs

Guidance: Review of Low Completion Programs

Purpose and Rationale

The review of low-completion programs is a standard part of UConn’s academic planning process. It forms part of a cycle, related to changing trends in academic fields, workforce needs, professional standards, and student demand. New programs are developed, the curriculum of current programs are updated and modified, and programs are closed or consolidated. This cycle is part of the normal operation of the University. For example, we no longer offer programs in Domestic Science. It is important that curriculum and program management cycles allow for innovation and ensure that programs are closed in a timely manner. This process does not target any particular disciplinary field and makes no assumptions about the programs. 

The University’s program portfolio contains programs of various sizes. Small programs may be healthy, and are sometimes intentionally small (e.g., limited by accreditation requirements, master’s programs offered only within a PhD program). Inclusion in this process is not a judgment on program quality. It is a check and balance to ensure that appropriate evaluation takes place for programs below a set threshold. It ensures timely identification of any concerns about the viability of programs in their current form where these are warranted.  

Thresholds for Low Completion Programs

Typically, programs are initially flagged for review if they are at or below the following five-year completion thresholds: 

  • Undergraduate majors: fewer than 100 completions 
  • Undergraduate minors: not currently reviewed 
  • Graduate certificates: fewer than 25 completions 
    • Includes all certificate programs under the graduate school; postbaccalaureate certificates, graduate certificates, post-master’s certificates, and sixth-year certificates. 
  • Master’s degrees: fewer than 50 completions 
  • Doctoral degrees: fewer than 10 completions 

Evaluation Process

The evaluation of low-completion programs proceeds in structured stages: 

  • Deans consult with academic units on identified programs. 
  • Outcomes may include continuation, consolidation, suspension, or closure. 
  • Programs slated for closure or suspension do not require a full evaluation report, but must follow the Guidelines for Archiving/Suspending, Closing/Terminating, or Reactivating Academic Courses or Programs (found in the Academic Affairs Governance Documents Library). 
  • Relevant curricular actions must be initiated in CourseLeaf CIM.  

  • For low-completion programs seeking continuation (with or without changes), units must prepare an evaluation report using the standard template. These reports include the following components: 
    • Update on actions and timeline from prior reviews (where relevant) 
    • Program enrollment and completion data 
    • Curricular data  
    • Program recruitment  
    • Academic program review or programmatic accreditation details (including program learning objectives and assessment activities) 
    • Student support and outcomes  
    • Program resources  
    • Timeline of planned work (if applicable for planned improvement or restructuring) 
  • Reports should use consistent terminology aligned with the Annotated Academic Programs Glossary (found in the Academic Affairs Governance Documents Library). 

  • Deans review unit reports, add a cover memo summarizing their recommendation, and determine whether to support continuation, suspension, or closure. 
  • Deans have full authority to suspend or close programs, provided actions are documented and processed according to Guidelines for Archiving/Suspending, Closing/Terminating, or Reactivating Academic Courses or Programs (found in the Academic Affairs Governance Documents Library). 
    • Teach-out plans must be developed for any proposed program closures. 

  • The Provost’s Office reviews all evaluation reports forwarded by deans. 
  • Where questions remain, the Provost convenes review meetings with deans and academic unit representatives. 
  • Outcomes are finalized through consultation between the Provost and the relevant dean. 

  • At the end of the Fall semester, deans submit summary reports of closure decisions and accompanying evaluation reports for continuations. 
  • Planned program closures are reported annually by the Provost to the Board of Trustees (BOT) in early Spring. 

Timeline

Actual timelines with specific dates will be posted in the Academic Affairs Governance Documents Library.  Below is an overview of actions that will typically be taken. 

  • Deans receive low-completion data and thresholds. 
  • Units notified; templates distributed; internal deadlines set. 
  • Academic units prepare evaluation reports. 

  • For monitored programs: Deans complete progress reports on proposed activities, such as recruitment initiatives and curriculum consolidation or redesign efforts.  
  • For newly listed low-completion programs: Deans finalize reports and submit closure/continuation recommendations or planned curriculum actions.  

  • Provost’s Office review of reports; follow-up requests and scheduling of review meetings. 
  • Provost-led review meetings with deans/units. 

  • Provost reports planned closures and consolidations to the Board of Trustees.

  • Ongoing monitoring and discussions on program enrollments.

Key Considerations for Academic Units

  • Transparency: Inclusion in the process reflects completion thresholds, not program quality. 
  • Opportunity for renewal: Evaluation reports can prompt the development of improvements (e.g., curriculum redesign, consolidation, outreach for student recruitment) or are an opportunity to report on already planned or ongoing efforts.  
  • Curricular health: The evaluation process verifies that small programs uphold a robust curriculum and effective structures to consistently deliver high-quality education, including providing support for students in achieving their post-graduation objectives. 
  • Resource alignment: Units should address how faculty, facilities, and budgets support the effective implementation of the program. 
  • Future viability: Units are expected to pursue and implement initiatives aimed at increasing enrollment and program completion, maintain the relevance of the programs and its effectiveness for students.