THE EXTERNAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC)

I. Composition and Selection

1. The ERC is normally comprised of two persons. The unit under review is solicited for the names of 2-4 Nominators. Nominators should be national leaders within the discipline of the unit who are familiar enough with the unit to assist PRP in selecting ERC members. The unit may instruct the PRP Chair as to the sub-disciplines that it wishes the two members of the ERC to represent.

2. The PRP Chair will contact a minimum of two Nominators and ask each to nominate 10-15 candidates in the sub-discipline area(s) specified by the unit, who would be appropriate and competent reviewers of the unit. Nominators will be encouraged to recommend individuals who are acknowledged experts in the discipline or profession represented by the unit. Nominees should be interested in, and broadly knowledgeable of, issues in higher education. If possible, nominees should be drawn from other AAU institutions and comparable universities.

3. The names of nominated individuals are then presented to the Self-Study Team, which may strike names from the nominee list for any reason and rank order the remaining nominees. Any professional or personal relationship of the nominee with members of the unit must be noted by the unit.

4. The PRP makes final selections no later than Spring Break. The Associate Vice Chancellor extends the initial invitation on behalf of the institution, followed-up by correspondence from the Chair's Assistant.

5. Once the ERC members have accepted the University's invitation, the unit is informed of the ERC composition.

6. External Reviewers are compensated in a manner consistant with the Fiscal Rules of the University of Colorado.

7. The Assistant to the Panel Chair works with reviewers in scheduling dates, arrangements for transportation, lodging and meals.

1. Prior to their arrival, external reviewers receive the following: these Procedures; the unit’s Self-Study Report; the Internal Review Report; and the Final Report on the unit from the Previous Cycle review.

2. All members of the External Committee must be present at the visit. If a member cancels, this will require the selection of an individual to fill the vacancy and the visit will be rescheduled if necessary. In extraordinary circumstances, it may be possible to utilize tele- or video- conferencing for one member of the ERC.

3. The External Committee visits are scheduled while classes are in session, early in the Fall semester. On arrival, reviewers are provided complete itineraries of scheduled interviews. If the reviewers want to hold additional interviews, the Chair’s Assistant will make the necessary arrangements.

4. The Chair of the ERC is selected by the reviewers at their first meeting in Boulder and becomes the lead writer of the report.

5. Reviewers typically arrive in Boulder on the afternoon of the first day and attend a dinner meeting with the Panel Liaison and the IRC Chair. The Liaison briefs the reviewers on procedures, the planned agenda, and answers any questions. The IRC Chair discusses IRC findings.

6. The following day is spent meeting with students, faculty, and staff from the unit under review. The reviewers (either together or separately) typically meet with a number of small groups of faculty, undergraduate students as a group, graduate students as a group, and staff as a group. Especially in small departments, the external reviewers meet all of the faculty members at some point during their visit. Any faculty member from the unit under review may request a private meeting with an external reviewer. The reviewers may also meet with members of the IRC or the Self Study Team. Lunch meetings can be arranged with members of the unit or members of the PRP. Following dinner, the reviewers shall have a free evening for their own discussions.

7. Interviews continue on the final day with members of the unit, deans and other administrators. An Exit Interview with the Chancellor or Provost is scheduled and attended by the Primary and Secondary Liaisons and the PRP Chair.

1. The External Review Committee submits a single, joint report, agreed upon by each of its members, within 10 days after their departure. This is sent to the Office of the PRP Chair.

2. The External Review Committee’s report normally includes four general areas of concern about program quality, as follows:
   
   

   1. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Scope of the Unit - The unit’s research and scholarly efforts should reflect appropriate degrees of specialization or comprehensiveness. Very small units may be justifiably specialized, and their work may suffer if they attempt to be too general or comprehensive. Regardless of a unit’s focus, its intellectual goals should be current and creative. External reviewers will be asked to address the unit's scope, its national standing or ranking, and be asked to comment on the unit's own assessment of its national standing.

   2. Curricular Offerings - Are the undergraduate and graduate curricula contemporary and appropriate for the unit? Are the training opportunities at both the graduate and undergraduate levels appropriate for an AAU public university?

   3. Personnel - Are the faculty well trained and competent? Is their work creative, significant and valuable? Is the unit exercising appropriate standards in regard to recruitment and retention of its faculty?

   4. Leadership - Are the administrators of the unit able to maintain a productive and appropriate climate for work? Is the unit’s administrative structure appropriate?

   5. Assessment of Unit Plans and Progress Toward Unit Goals -  How well does the unit meet its goals, and the teaching and scholarly goals of the University? Does the unit appear to be a stronger or more influential unit on the national scene than it was at the time of its last review? A unit's plans are an important reflection of its strength and ability to progress. At times, ERC panalists feel compelled, as members of their discipline, to advocate the unit's plans for growth. At the same time, the University relies on the ERC members to provide an independent assessment of the merits of a unit's plans for faculty growth. These plans should be evaluated in terms of how realistic they are, whether they reflect creative insights into the potential of the unit to contribute to the discipline and the University. Where would limited investment in the unit provide the greatest return?

3. When the Panel Chair receives the report, it is forwarded to the chair of the unit. The unit has 14 days to make written comments to the Panel, for the correction of factual errors only.