ITEMS FOR REFLECTION FOR EACH STANDARD CAN BE FOUND AT

(1)

http://www.stjohns.edu/about/ir/apr

1. Reporting School/College: College of Professional Studies 2. Program Reviewed: Hospitality Management BS SI

3. Date Submitted to Department/Division Chair:

Overview: (Suggested limit 1 page)

This section will focus the review for your reader. Please summarize your program’s mission and its relationship to the mission of St. John’s University, your Department and School/College Strategic Plan, and the University’s 2008-2013 Strategic Plan. Identify similar programs regionally and nationallyand distinguish your program from them. Also summarize your findings as they relate to (1) market growth potential, (2) program quality, and (3) student learning. And, summarize any significant changes, achievements (by faculty and students and the program itself), and plans for the future.

The purpose of the hospitality management program is to prepare students for leadership careers in hospitality and tourism management, both nationally and globally, emphasizing the integration of theory and practical applications to satisfy the diverse needs of the industry.

The University mission suggests that academic programs have a commitment to academic excellence, global awareness, and a strong core curriculum. The hospitality management program reflects these ideals in that we have a curriculum based on standards set forth by the International Council on Hotel, Restaurant, and Institutional Education (CHRIE) and have developed courses that support the University’s Study Abroad program at the Rome campus. The College of Professional Studies’ mission suggests that we commit to student-centeredness and design, develop, and deliver professionally oriented undergraduate programs. We align ourselves with these goals by offering thoughtful and comprehensive advisement of students by faculty, and by constantly updating and revising our course curriculum to conform to current industry norms.

Hospitality Management programs come in various shapes and sizes, and have variety of curricular objectives. In the Northeast, the preeminent program is at Cornell University, long the gold standard in hospitality management education. As a highly competitive Ivy League institution, it is unrealistic to compare our program to theirs. Locally, New York University, New York City College of Technology, New York Institute of Technology, all offer hospitality management programs. We differentiate ourselves in that we (1) are a business and managerial based programs, (2) our location in the greater metropolitan area provides numerous internship opportunities for our students, and (3) the program’s location in the College of Professional Studies permits students to take elective courses in other disciplines that can be useful in achieving their career goals.

(2)

The viability of the Hospitality Management program on the Staten Island campus is questionable. Enrollment has never exceeded 27 students and it is not expected to grow in the near future. The small class sizes (anywhere from 6-20 in the most recent two

academic years), though pedagogically desirable, drains valuable resources in a time of financial exigency. Without a dedicated program director, let alone one stationed at the Staten Island campus, the future of the program is cloudy. The program must either receive additional resources to try and grow enrollment, continue but inform incoming students that most of their elective courses will only be offered on the Queens or Manhattan campuses, or the program should be suspended.

In the future, if the program on the Staten Island campus remains in place, the program and our faculty will strive to continue to achieve the strategic goals we have set for ourselves:

1. Continue to be responsive to the mission of the University and the College of Professional Studies.

2. Continue to provide thorough and thoughtful advisement for our students.

3. Expand internship options for our students, especially by developing contacts that will lead to internship opportunities outside the New York area and overseas. 4. Closely examine, and if necessary, adjust the hospitality management curriculum

to better reflect industry trends and the demands of employers. 5. Recruit qualified industry professionals to serve as adjunct faculty.

6. Closely supervise adjunct faculty to ensure that their curriculum aligns with our current course syllabi and is rigorous.

7. Encourage faculty to engage in professional development, especially activities which can improve the quality of their teaching.

8. Expand our global course offerings beyond the Rome campus. 9. Expand online course offerings

(3)

Standard 1. The purpose of the program reflects and supports the strategic vision and mission of St. John’s University and of its School/College. (When responding to this standard, please see Items for Reflection under this Standard.)

1a. Narrative: (Suggested limit 1 page)

The purpose of the hospitality management program is to prepare students for leadership careers in hospitality and tourism management, both nationally and globally, emphasizing the integration of theory and practical applications to satisfy the diverse needs of the industry.

The University mission suggests that academic programs have a commitment to academic excellence, global awareness, and a strong core curriculum. The hospitality management program reflects these ideals in that we have a curriculum based on standards set forth by the International Council on Hotel, Restaurant, and Institutional Education (CHRIE) and have developed courses that support the University’s Study Abroad program at the Rome campus. The College of Professional Studies’ mission suggests that we commit to student-centeredness and design, develop, and deliver professionally oriented undergraduate programs. We align ourselves with these goals by offering thoughtful and comprehensive advisement of students by faculty, and by constantly updating and revising our course curriculum to conform to current industry norms.

Hospitality Management programs come in various shapes and sizes, and have variety of curricular objectives. In the Northeast, the preeminent program is at Cornell University, long the gold standard in hospitality management education. As a highly competitive Ivy League institution, it is unrealistic to compare our program to theirs. Locally, New York University, New York City College of Technology, New York Institute of Technology, all offer hospitality management programs. We differentiate ourselves in that we (1) are a business and managerial based programs, (2) are located in the greater metropolitan area provides numerous internship opportunities for our students, and (3) are located in the College of Professional Studies which permits students to take elective courses in other disciplines that can be useful in achieving their career goals.

Our current enrollment on the Staten Island campus is 27 students; it has remained

essentially the same over the past three years (26, 24, 27). There probably still is potential to grow the program modestly, but without a dedicated faculty member on campus and without a program director, growth in enrollment is highly unlikely.

In the future, the program and our faculty will strive to continue to achieve the strategic goals we have set for ourselves:

1. Continue to be responsive to the mission of the University and the College of Professional Studies.

(4)

3. Expand internship options for our students, especially by developing contacts that will lead to internship opportunities outside the New York area and overseas. 4. Closely examine, and if necessary, adjust the hospitality management curriculum

to better reflect industry trends and the demands of employers. 5. Recruit qualified industry professionals to serve as adjunct faculty.

10. Identify a new Program Director

1b. What activities provide evidence that the program furthers the Catholic identity of St. John’s University? (Suggested limit 1/3 page)

The program furthers the Catholic identity of St. John’s University though our emphasis on professional preparation and ethical decision-making. The hospitality industry requires professionals who are willing and able to deal with individuals from widely varying ethnicities, cultures, and socioeconomic status. Students interested in a career in travel and tourism are often deployed in other countries and must have an appreciation of local customs. An emphasis on sound morals, ethics, and respect for all persons is an important part of the curriculum, staring from the introductory course, and emphasized in the

required course HMT 1007 (Hospitality Law and Ethics).

1c. What activities has the program undertaken to provide evidence of support for the Vincentian tradition and values? (Suggested limit 1/3 page)

As noted in the answer to the previous question, our program emphasizes sound morals, ethical decision-making, and respect for all persons from the very hospitality

management course. To date, none of our faculty has integrated service-learning into their courses, but there may be opportunities with local organizations that provide food and housing for economically disadvantaged individuals.

1d. What activities provide evidence that the program promotes the metropolitan character of the University? (Suggested limit 1/3 page)

Many of our faculty invite guest speakers into their classes that provide invaluable information for our students. Most of these speakers work in the greater metropolitan area, so our students are exposed to leaders in the hospitality management field that are centered in New York.

(5)

To date, most of our students that have chosen the internship option have completed their internship in the New York area. Our location in New York City and the partnerships that we have built over the past 10 years gives our students the opportunity to work with some of the best known hospitality organizations in the world, in the most recognized tourist destination in the world.

(6)

Standard 2. The program engages in ongoing, systematic planning that is reflective of the University and School/College strategic direction and priorities. (When responding to this Standard, please see Items for Reflection under this Standard.)

The mission of the hospitality management program is to prepare students for leadership careers in hospitality and tourism management, both nationally and globally, emphasizing the integration of theory and practical applications to satisfy the diverse needs of the industry.

Our mission will be achieved by paying close attention to the following strategic goals: 1. Continue to be responsive to the mission of the University and the College of

Professional Studies.

2. Continue to provide thorough and thoughtful advisement for our students. 3. Expand internship options for our students, especially by developing contacts

which will lead to internship opportunities outside the New York area and overseas.

4. Closely examine, and if necessary, adjust the hospitality management curriculum to better reflect industry trends and the demands of employers.

5. Recruit qualified industry professionals to serve as adjunct faculty.

10. Identify a new Program Director

2b. How does your program's strategic goals/objectives link to your School/College plan and the University’s 2008-2013 Strategic Plan, specifically related to Mission, Student Engagement, and Globalization. (Suggested limit 1 page)

Our strategic goals link to the University mission in a number of ways. Our Catholic and Vincentian identity are best illustrated in a curriculum which emphasizes sound morals, ethical decision making, and respect for all persons from the very first hospitality management course. Our metropolitan identity is promoted via our widespread use of guest speakers, most who work in the greater metropolitan area, and the selective use of adjunct faculty who are employed in the industry in the New York area.

Student engagement is achieved primarily through thorough and thoughtful advisement. All students with more than 60 credits are advised by our faculty, and those advisement sessions usually entail much more than just scheduling for next semester. Students are

(7)

eager to learn about career choices, internship opportunities, and what other steps they can take to improve their experience as a student.

Globalization is being achieved in four ways. First, international hospitality issues are emphasized in each of our courses. Second, we have developed a course for the Rome study abroad program (International Tourism Management: An Italian Approach, HMT 2001A) that ran during Summer Session II, 2009, and is scheduled to run during the same semester this year. Third, Dr. Minea Cho, has arrived on campus as a visiting scholar from Korea to work on research projects with Dr. Heidi Sung. Finally, our desire to establish relationships with internship sponsors overseas will permit some of our students to experience a work/study experience that would be unparalleled.

2c. How does your program’s strategic goals/objectives link to the University’s institutional focus to “transform the institutional culture to one in which the quality of

how we serve our students both in and out of the classroom is exceptional.” (Suggested limit ½ page)

The Division strives to serve our students effectively in the classroom in a number of ways:

• By recruiting qualified industry professionals to serve as adjunct faculty. They will provide a perspective of “doing it” that nicely complements the academic perspective that our full-time faculty offers.

• By encouraging faculty to engage in professional development that enhances their teaching, students will be exposed to new and dynamic teaching techniques. • An increase in the number of online courses will permit interested students to

enroll in hospitality management courses without the natural limitations and boundaries of traditional face-to-face classes.

Out of the classroom we offer our students thorough and thoughtful advisement, expanded internship options, and participation and leadership opportunities in the Hospitality Management Club.

2d. Describe the process for implementing program goals/objectives. (Suggested limit

½ page)

The Chair has embarked on a “quality control” initiative, which began when he was appointed last July. To date, the following steps have been taken to ensure that our program does its best to achieve its strategic goals:

1. All adjunct faculty, both new and continuing, were subject to a classroom evaluation of performance by the Chair. Additionally, all course syllabi were reviewed. The results were (or will be) discussed with each faculty member, and suggestions for improvement (where warranted) were identified. The Chair has expressed to all adjunct faculty that expectations are high, and that the Division

(8)

expects our adjunct faculty to perform at a high level of both instructional delivery and rigor.

2. Approximately five potential adjunct faculty were identified and interviewed. Although we would rather see an increase in full-time faculty to teach these sections, the reality is that we are most likely going to have to rely on adjuncts more than ever before.

3. All course syllabi are currently under review by full-time faculty. Ideally, each course has been assigned a faculty “leader” who is in charge of evaluating the course content, and guiding any adjunct faculty that may be teaching the course. In reality, with only one full-time tenure-track faculty member as of Fall, 2010, this is an enormous burden to place on a single faculty member. Without

additional faculty, syllabi review will have to happen a slower pace, which is not an optimal situation in an industry which changes rapidly.

4. Regular monthly meetings of the Division’s full time faculty have been, and will continue to be held. It is important that all members of the Division get on board with these initiatives, and also feel comfortable offering input as to how the Division and the program can best meet their strategic goals.

2e. What activities undertaken by the program provide evidence of monitoring the external and internal environment, specifically, what are the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats facing this program? How were these identified? What actions have been taken in response to these findings? What characteristics of the program suggest a competitive edge against other programs regionally and nationally? (Suggested

limit ½ page)

To date the program has not taken on any systematic SWOT analysis. At the present time, casual analysis identifies the following:

Strengths:

• Thorough and thoughtful advisement

• Curriculum which has a business and managerial focus

• Innovative courses such as Cruise Management and Wine Appreciation • New York location

• Ease in adding a business minor Weaknesses:

• Lack of a Program Director

• Only one full-time tenure-track faculty member (as of Fall 2010) • Low full-time faculty/student ratio

• Increasing reliance on adjunct faculty

• Lack of resources for faculty travel and professional development and extra-curricular activities for students

• No on-campus facilities such as a restaurant or a hotel • Low and stagnant enrollment

(9)

Opportunities:

• Increased study abroad opportunities in Rome, Paris, and elsewhere • Increased internship opportunities; working more closely and formalizing

articulation agreements junior colleges offering hospitality management such as with LaGuardia CC and Kingsborough CC

• Forging relationships with high schools that offer hospitality management, such as the High School of Hospitality Management in Manhattan

Threats:

• Continued competition from local schools offering hospitality management • Overall economic conditions may continue to deteriorate

• University budget exigencies

• Uncertain future of the role of the Staten Island campus in the University’s strategic plans

Our competitive advantage against other hospitality management programs lies in two primary arenas:

• First is our emphasis on management. Students are required to take general business courses in accounting, business law, management, marketing and economics as well as hospitality-specific courses such as hospitality marketing and hospitality law and ethics. Many programs include hands-on cooking classes, bordering on a trade-school atmosphere which is not what our program is about. • Second is our location in New York City. It is one of the most popular tourist

destinations in the world, which allow us to tap industry professionals as adjunct faculty and guest lecturers, are offers internship opportunities with some of the top hospitality organizations in the world.

2f. What is the market growth potential for the program? What internal and/or external sources support your response? (Suggested limit ½ page)

Enrollment in the program has remained remarkably constant over the past few years. It is currently at an all-time high – but that represents just 27 students.

It is the sense of the Hospitality Management faculty and the Chair that we cannot continue to offer the major on the Staten Island campus in its current form. One of three things need to happen:

• Plan 1: Allocate more resources to the program and attempt to grow

enrollment. A program director needs to be identified and charged with growing

enrollment on the Staten Island campus. During this phase, elective courses need to be offered and run with as few as five students.

• Plan 2: Continue the major, but with some changes. The major could be continued on Staten Island, but incoming students must be advised that most of their hospitality courses will only be offered on the Queens or Manhattan campus. • Plan 3: Suspend the program on Staten Island. Currently enrolled students

(10)

the Manhattan campus. After two or three years there will not be any hospitality majors remaining on the Staten Island campus.

Our desire would be Plan 1, but we understand that given the overall financial situation of the University and the uncertainty of the future of the Staten Island campus it is unlikely that additional resources will be forthcoming. The next-best option would be Plan 2, and if that proves to unsuccessful, it will be relatively easy to move to Plan 3.

Standard 3. The program provides a high quality curriculum that emphasizes and assesses student learning and engagement. (When responding to this Standard, please see Items for Reflection under this Standard.)

3a. Please indicate how the program curriculum is in alignment with the following three items: (Suggested limit 1 page)

1. Disciplinary standards

2. The 2008-2013 Strategic Plan areas of focus (Mission, Engagement, Globalization)

3. The University Core competencies

In the field of hospitality management, the organization responsible for setting

disciplinary standards is the International Council on Hotel, Restaurant, and Institutional Education (CHRIE). They oversee the accreditation of hospitality administration

programs through the Accreditation Commission for Programs in Hospitality Administration (ACPHA). The ACPHA suggests that programs develop curriculum which provide a common body of knowledge in hospitality administration. The list below identifies 15 areas of common knowledge, along with the course that has content which meets the standard:

1. Historical overview of the hospitality industry and the profession. HMT 1000 (Orientation to the Hospitality Industry), HMT 1003 (Food and Beverage

Service), and HMT 1005 (Travel and Tourism).

2. The marketing of hospitality goods and services. MKT 1001 (Principles of Marketing) and HMT 1030 (Hospitality Marketing).

3. The operations relative to the provision of hospitality goods and/or services,

including foodservice management and/or lodging management and related services. HMT 1001 (Principles of Hotel Operations), HMT 1002 (Front Office

Operations), HMT 1004 (Service Management), HMT 1020 (Restaurant Management), HMT 1061 (Event Management).

4. The study of decision making models for energy, maintenance, and

engineering situations within the hospitality industry. HMT 1050 (Hospitality

Facilities Management).

5. Accounting procedures/practices. HMT 1025 (Cost Controls), ACC 1007 (Fundamentals of Accounting I) and ACC 1008 (Fundamentals of Accounting II).

(11)

6. Financial management of hospitality goods and services. HMT 1025 and MGT 1003 (Financial Management).

7. The economic environment of profit and non-profit organizations. ECO 1001 ( Principles of Economics I), ECO 1002 (Principles of Economics II), MGT 1003. 8. The legal environment of profit and non-profit organizations. BLW 1001

(Law and Business) and HMT 1007 (Hospitality Law and Ethics).

9. Ethical considerations and socio-political influences affecting organizations. PHI 1020 (Ethics), SOC 1001 (General Sociology), and HMT 1007.

10. Quantitative methods. MTH 1021 (Introduction to Statistics), ECO 1001, ECO 1002, MGT 1003.

11. Management information systems and technology including computer

applications. CUS 1102 (Software Applications) and HMT 1075 (Hospitality

Information Technology).

12. The planning for, the utilization of, and the management of human resources

including the understanding of human behavior. MGT 1001 (Principles of

Management) and HMT 1010 (Human Resource Management in Hospitality). 13. Organizational theory, foundations of management, leadership theory,

strategic management, and exposure to critical thinking skills. MGT 1001 and

HMT 1010.

14. Effective communication including both oral and written form. SPE 1000C (Public Speaking), ENG 1000C (English Composition) and ENG 1006 (Effective Business Writing),

15. A provision of sufficient areas of specialization to allow students to develop a

depth of knowledge and/or a broad exposure to the diverse segments of the industry. Elective courses such as International Cuisines (HMT 1040), Wine

Appreciation and Management (HMT 1022), and Cruise Operations Management (HMT 1073) are just a few of the courses that students can take to specialize their curriculum.

The curriculum aligns with the 2008-2013 Strategic Plan areas of focus in several ways. First, many of our hospitality management courses continue discussions about ethical behavior, both as a citizen and as a manager, which began in PHI 1020. Specifically, HMT 1000, 1003, 1005 and 1007 include a number of case studies in which students are asked to place themselves in the position of an employee and are faced with an ethical dilemma. Second, an emphasis on group work, with close faculty guidance, is designed to enhance the levels of student engagement in the classroom. Finally, we have developed a course for the Rome study abroad program (International Tourism Management: An Italian Approach, HMT 2001A) that ran during Summer Session II, 2009, and is scheduled to run during the same semester this year.

As above, the following required courses are aligned with the University’s Core Competencies:

1. Demonstrate the ability to think critically. This is achieved first through virtually every course in the University core sequence, especially SCI 1000 (Scientific Inquiry) and PHI 1000 (Philosophy of the Human Person). In the

(12)

hospitality sequence, students are presented with several case studies in their hospitality management courses (HMT 1003, 1005, and 1007).

2. Demonstrate proficiency in information literacy. The business core for hospitality management students includes CUS 1102 (Software Applications). Throughout their hospitality management course sequence, students are required to do research for assignments and term papers, in which they will likely utilize common business-based retrieval systems (ProQuest, EBSCOhost, and

ABI/Inform). There also is a required course, HMT 1075 (Hospitality Information Technology) in which students learn industry-specific information retrieval and database systems.

3. Demonstrate the ability to write skillfully. Beside the University core composition course (ENG 1000C), hospitality management students are also required to take ENG 1006 (Effective Business Writing). In their hospitality management sequence, writing assignments are stressed throughout, and students with difficulties are encouraged to seek out assistance from their instructor, peers, or the Writing Center.

4. Demonstrate skill in oral presentation. Besides the University core (SPE 1000C – Public Speaking for the College Student), virtually every course in the

hospitality management sequence requires students to prepare and present material in class.

5. Demonstrate the ability to use quantitative reasoning Students will be initially exposed to this in their Scientific Inquiry class (SCI 1000C), and then again in their social science courses in the distributed core (SOC 1001, General Sociology; and PSY 1001, General Psychology). The two general economics courses (ECO 1001 and ECO 1002) will also require the use of quantitative reasoning, as will the required statistics course, MTH 1021 (Introduction to Statistics).

3b. Please describe the comprehensive assessment model currently implemented for the 2009-2010 academic year for the program through WeaveOnline. Be sure to include how many objectives have been indicated for each program, the number of objectives being measured with findings and action plans for this assessment cycle, and the time it will take in this model to complete assessment of all objectives. (Suggested limit ¾ page) The current assessment cycle has identified five goals and 26 objectives for our

hospitality management students:

1. Demonstrate knowledge of the principles of the hospitality industry

• Objective 1: Understand the importance of knowledge to success in hospitality and management

• Objective 2: Demonstrate knowledge of cultural dimensions of hospitality management

• Objective 3: Explain the importance of knowledge of sociology for hospitality managers

• Objective 4; Discuss the social, political, and economic significance hospitality, travel and tourism has in society

(13)

• Objective 5: Describe the multidisciplinary nature of the hospitality industry

2. Demonstrate competency in management and leadership dimensions of hospitality

• Objective 6: Differentiate between management and leadership, management as a process in hospitality organizations, and hospitality leader behavior

• Objective 7: Identify the characteristics than make up a leader

• Objective 8: Identify the administrative structure in hospitality organizations • Objective 9: Differentiate between administrators and managers and explain the

roles that managers play in hospitality organizations.

• Objective 10; Demonstrate the dynamics of the decision making process

3. Demonstrate knowledge of how economics, accounting, and finance affect the hospitality industry

• Objective 11: Identify basic principles & theories of economics and their relationship to all hospitality organizations

• Objective 12: Identify the development of economic trends in hospitality organizations from their inception to their current status

• Objective 13: Identify the foundations of financial management

• Objective 14: Demonstrate knowledge of finance in the hospitality industry • Objective 15: Demonstrate knowledge of facility management

• Objective 16: Demonstrate the ability to use basic tools of financial management • Objective 17: Demonstrate the ability to understand and interpret financial

statements

4. Demonstrate knowledge of the diversity of, and synergy that may occur, between

food service, travel, lodging, and tourism industries

• Objective 18: Identify business models of restaurants, hotels, resorts, and other hospitality enterprises

• Objective 19: Demonstrate knowledge of the history and evolution of the hospitality industry and hospitality organizations

• Objective 20: Identify and explain how new technologies have blurred the differences between food service, travel, lodging, and hospitality industries

5. Demonstrate knowledge of the legal issues affecting hospitality organizations and propose possible courses of action for the organization to take

• Objective 21: Identify ethical and legal issues affecting various hospitality organizations

• Objective 22: Describe situations that are ethically ambiguous and the actions one would undertake

• Objective 23: Identify local, national, and global current events and explain their ethical impact on hospitality

(14)

• Objective 24: Identify and develop skills and experiences relevant to achieving career goals, especially attitude toward professional preparation.

• Objective 25: Conduct an accurate self-assessment of ability, achievement, motivation, and work habits to calculate the most advantageous career path. • Objective 26: Demonstrate the integration of hospitality management theory into

practical application during the internship experience.

3c. From the 2008-2009 Assessment Plan (WeaveOnline) indicate what action plans the program has implemented to meet indicated targets. (Suggested limit ½ page)

There were no action plans planned, on-hold, or terminated from the 2008-2009 Assessment Plan.

(15)

Standard 4. The program has the faculty resources required to meet its mission and goals. (When responding to this Standard, please see Items for Reflection under this Standard and complete the following chart(s).)

At the present time, the viability of the Hospitality Management major on the Staten Island campus is extremely questionable. Enrollment has remained constant over the past few years, and there is unlikely to be any “growth spurt” around the corner. Classes have been offered with as few as 6 students, far below the typical minimum of 15. Fiscally, it is a disaster for the Division because as faculty resources are siphoned to Staten Island, they might be more effectively used on the Queens campus.

Overall, we have become more reliant on adjunct faculty to teach our courses. As our faculty has been cut from three to two, the time and energy spend on student advisement (both curriculum and career) has expanded to take up much of the faculty’s time. If we are to achieve our mission as a program, College, and University, we must strive to continue to provide hands-on guidance for our students. This is becoming harder and harder to do given our teaching workloads.

Our program would benefit greatly from the addition of at least one more tenure-track faculty member, preferably two … which would simply bring us back to our staffing level of 2008. There is no reason why this faculty member could not be brought in under the “Industry Professional” tenure-track of CPS. Doctorally-qualified candidates in hospitality management are not in great supply. If the Staten Island program is to survive, one of those faculty would be assigned the task of promoting the program and increasing enrollment in a last-ditch effort to save it.

According to the ACPHA standard, “The faculty is numerically sufficient to achieve the objectives of the program and to perform the responsibilities assigned to it: Instruction, advisement, academic planning, curricular development, and program direction” (ACPHA Guide to Accreditation, 2008). As of right now, that is not the case with our program.

(16)

4b. What is the student to full-time faculty ratio based on number of majors and minors in the program and the number of full-time faculty assigned to the program? For full-time faculty assigned to the program, please provide the most recent year and previous years if available.

The number of majors and minors can be found below.

Full-time faculty by program is only available through departmental records.

Please complete the table below and provide additional information in 4e if that may help to explain the pattern of this ratio.

# Majors/ FT

Faculty

Fall 2005 Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009

FT PT Total FT PT Total FT PT Total FT PT Total FT PT Total

Majors 19 3 22 18 2 20 24 2 26 22 2 24 26 1 27 Minors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Majors & Minors Combined 20 3 23 19 2 21 24 3 27 23 2 25 27 1 28 # of FTE Students (Majors & Minors) 20.00 1.00 21.00 19.00 0.67 19.67 24.00 1.00 25.00 23.00 0.67 23.67 27.00 0.33 27.33 # of FTE Faculty assigned to the program 1 1 1.3 1 1 1.3 1 2 1.7 2 1 2.3 1 3 2.0 FTE Student/ FTE Faculty Ratio 16.2 15.1 14.7 10.3 13.6

Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 # of FTE faculty assigned

to the program

FTE Student/FTE Faculty

(17)

Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 F Total F P Total F P Total F P Total

Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors Majors

MAJORS 20 20 18 1 19 9 1 10 5 2 7

Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 F Total F P Total F P Total F P Total FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE Total FTE MAJORS 20 20 18 0.333 18.333 9 0.333 9.333 5 0.667 5.667

Important Notes:

FTE Students = Number of FT Students + (number of PT Students/3) FTE Faculty = Number of FT Faculty + (number of PT Faculty/3)

This methodology is used by STJ for all external reporting.

The figure for majors includes first and any second majors.

If your department provides service instruction to support the core curriculum, please explain in the context of student credit hours taught, 4c, and courses taught, 4d, and 4e below.

4c. How many credit hours has the department delivered by full-time faculty? How many credit hours has the department delivered by part-time faculty (including

administrators)? What percent of the total credit hours consumed were by non-majors?

Credit Hours Fall 2005 Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009

Taught # % # % # % # % # % FT Faculty 2481 81% 2427 80% 2640 78% 2343 68% 2229 63% PT Faculty 588 19% 618 20% 750 22% 1128 32% 1290 37% Total 3069 100% 3045 100% 3390 100% 3471 100% 3519 100% % consumed by Non-Majors 21% 21% 18% 19% 13%

(18)

4d. How many courses has the department delivered by full-time faculty? How many courses has the department delivered by part-time faculty (including administrators)?

Courses Fall 2005 Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009

Taught # % # % # % # % # %

FT Faculty 27 75%

28 74% 30 71% 31 65% 29 62%

PT Faculty 9 25% 10 26% 12 29% 17 35% 18 38% Total 36 100% 38 100% 42 100% 48 100% 47 100%

4e. Narrative: Provide any additional information about the student (majors &

minors)/full-time faculty ratio, credit hours delivered and courses taught by full-time and part-time faulty that may be helpful to understand the noted trends above. (Suggested

limit ½ page).

The aggregated nature of the data above does not accurately reflect the situation on the Staten Island campus. Enrollment has been relatively constant over the past three years, but has never exceeded 27 students. It is questionable whether the program can continue to be a viable offering on the campus unless enrollment grows significantly.

Without a full-time faculty member dedicated to the campus, someone out there “pounding the pavement” to help market the program, it is likely that enrollment will remain about the same. This presents a number of problems, the most important of which is the small class size. Although it may be desirable pedagogically, the fiscal realities suggest that running classes with 6,7,8,9 students (which has occurred quite often over the past five years) is not sustainable

It is possible that expanding online offerings may ease the problem somewhat, but the long-run viability of this program, and the Staten Island campus in general, have led the faculty of the Division to come to the conclusion that the best course of action is to suspend the Hospitality Management major indefinitely. Existing students will be serviced through selective offerings on-campus as well as offerings on the Manhattan campus and online.

4f. Explain the representative nature of faculty in terms of demographics, tenure and diversity? (See departmental information on next page)

The table below represents aggregated data for both sport management and hospitality. This narrative will consider only hospitality management faculty.

One of our full-time faculty is an Asian female, the other a white male. They are both tenured. Given the small sample size, there seems to be little reason to engage in a discussion of the extent of our faculty diversity.

(19)

Departmental Data

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

FT PT Total FT PT Total FT PT Total FT PT Total FT PT Total

# % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % Gender Male 6 75% 6 86% 12 5 63% 5 71% 10 5 63% 3 75% 8 6 67% 7 78% 13 5 63% 7 70% 12 Female 2 25% 1 14% 3 3 38% 2 29% 5 3 38% 1 25% 4 3 33% 2 22% 5 3 38% 3 30% 6 Total 8 100% 7 100% 15 8 100% 7 100% 15 8 100% 4 100% 12 9 100% 9 100% 18 8 100% 10 100% 18 Ethnicity Black 1 13% 0 0% 1 1 13% 0 0% 1 0 0% 0 0% 0 1 11% 2 22% 3 1 13% 2 20% 3 Hispanic 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 Asian 1 13% 0 0% 1 1 13% 0 0% 1 1 13% 0 0% 1 1 11% 0 0% 1 1 13% 0 0% 1 White 5 63% 7 100% 12 6 75% 7 100% 13 6 75% 4 100% 10 6 67% 6 67% 12 5 63% 7 70% 12 Unknown 1 13% 0 0% 1 0 0% 0 0% 0 1 13% 0 0% 1 1 11% 1 11% 2 1 13% 1 10% 2 Total 8 100% 7 100% 15 8 100% 7 100% 15 8 100% 4 100% 12 9 100% 9 100% 18 8 100% 10 100% 18 Tenure Status Tenured 2 25% 2 4 50% 4 4 50% 4 5 56% 5 5 63% 5 Tenure-Track 3 38% 3 1 13% 1 2 25% 2 2 22% 2 2 25% 2 Not Applicable 3 38% 3 3 38% 3 2 25% 2 2 22% 2 1 13% 1 Total 8 100% 8 8 100% 8 8 100% 8 9 100% 9 8 100% 8

(20)

2010 2011 2012 2013 FT PT T FT PT T FT PT T FT PT T # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % Gender Male 4 57% 7 54% 11 6 67% 12 67% 18 5 71% 11 100% 16 4 57% 9 90% 13 Female 3 43% 6 46% 9 3 33% 6 33% 9 2 29% 0% 2 3 43% 1 10% 4 Total 7 1 13 20 9 18 27 7 11 18 7 10 17 Ethnicity Black 1 14% 1 8% 2 2 22% 2 11% 4 1 14% 1 9% 2 0% 1 10% 1 Hispanic 0% 0% 0 0% 0% 0 0% 0% 0 0% 0% 0 Asian 1 14% 0% 1 1 11% 0% 1 0% 0% 0 0% 0% 0

American Indian/Alaskan Native 0% 0% 0 0% 0% 0 0% 0% 0 0% 0% 0 White 5 71% 12 92% 17 6 67% 16 89% 22 6 86% 10 91% 16 7 100% 9 90% 16

2 or More Races

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander

Unknown 0% 0% 0 0% 0% 0 0% 0% 0 0% 0% 0 Total 7 13 20 9 18 27 7 11 18 7 10 17 Tenure Status Tenured 4 57% 4 4 44% 4 3 43% 3 3 43% 3 Tenure-Track 3 43% 3 3 33% 3 3 43% 3 4 57% 4 Not Applicable 0% 0 2 22% 2 1 14% 1 0% 0 Total 7 7 9 9 7 7 7 7

(21)

4g. What evidence exists that the program’s faculty have engaged in research and scholarship on teaching or learning in the program’s field of study? (Suggested limit ½

page)

Dr. Heidi Sung has been actively involved in academic research. Below is a sample of her recent activities:

• O’Brien, K. M. & Sung, H. H. Destination image as a tool for marketing and promoting tourism destinations. Working paper.

• Jackson, F. H. & Sung, H. H. Employee turnover in the U. S. lodging industry: A survey approach. Working paper.

• Sung, H. H., Hsu, C. H. C. (2009). The effects of traveler an trip characteristics on trip purposes: Classifying international travelers to Hong Kong. Submitted to

Tourism Management.

• Sung, H. H., Chon, K. S., & Lee, J. (2009). Traveler geographic origin and market segmentation: Classification models for international visitors to Hong Kong. Submitted to Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly. • Sung, H. H., Hsu, C. H. C., & Lee, J. (2009). Classification models for

international visitors by travel arrangement: Full package, partial package, or no package tours. Submitted to Journal of Travel Research.

• Han, K. S., Sung, H. H., Seo, K. M., & Min, J. E. (2009). An ethnic cuisine across cultures: Application of diffusion of innovation theories. Proceedings of the

Asia-Pacific Council on Hotel, Restaurant, and Institutional Education 2009 Annual Conference, Singapore.

• Han, K. S. & Sung, H. H. (2008). Ethnic cuisines in the global marketplace: An analysis process of Korean food from cross cultural perspectives. Proceedings of

the 2008 ISTTE Conference, Dublin, Ireland.

• Sung, H. H. (2008). Field trips and hands-on training in tourism and hospitality education: Risk management and liability issues. Proceedings of the 2008 ISTTE

Conference, Dublin, Ireland.

4h. What initiatives has the program initiated in the past five years to promote faculty development? (Suggested limit ½ page)

Other than encouraging faculty to take advantage of workshops offered by the Center for Teaching and Learning and the E-Studio, a lack of travel funds has stifled any

opportunities for faculty to attend and participate in regional or national conferences, workshops, or seminars.

(22)

4i. The table below shows the amount of external funding received by the department. External Funding Fiscal Year 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 $ Amount Program 0 0 0 0 0 $ Amount Department 0 0 0 0 0 External Funding Fiscal Year 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 $ Amount Program $ Amount Department _- _1,000 _- _-

If available, please provide the dollar amount of externally funded research for full-time faculty supporting the program under review. (Program dollar amounts are only available through departmental records.)

Comments (Suggested limit ½ page)

The type of faculty that we attract to our program has a lot to do with the lack of funding. Active researchers are discouraged from joining our faculty when they find out that the typical teaching load is 12 credits per semester AND expected to do advisement, AND that opportunities for research reductions are few and far between. Given the fact that most semesters faculty will have three, if not four preparations, our faculty are required to put an inordinate amount of energy towards their teaching load. The first area which will suffer is their research program.

(23)

Standard 5: The program attracts, retains, and graduates high quality students. (When responding to this Standard, please see Items for Reflection under this Standard.)

As noted in the previous section, enrollment in the hospitality management program on the Staten Island campus has remained stable over the last three years. We see nothing in the macro environment that is likely to cause that to change.

The academic profile, retention rates, and graduation rates published below mean very little given the sample size. For example, in 2008 we had two very bright freshmen (97 HS average and 1180 boards) and they both returned. We should draw no conclusions from that or any of the other data.

Without any compelling evidence one way or another, the sense of the Division is that our retention and graduation rates are probably in line with College and University averages. The following may be factors:

• Thorough and thoughtful advisement. All students with more than 60 credits are advised by our faculty, and those advisement sessions usually entail much more than just scheduling for next semester. Students are eager to learn about career choices, internship opportunities, and what other steps they can take to improve their experience as a student.

• We have offered hospitality management courses as part of the University’s study abroad program in Rome during Summer Session I.

• A growing internship program. While not required, more and more students are taking the internship path to satisfy their elective requirements.

5b. Undergraduate SAT and High School Average

SAT High School Average

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Program 1030 1077 1180 96 91 97 School/ College 963 959 973 990 1020 82 82 82 83 84 University 1068 1075 1075 1087 1092 86 87 87 87 88

Freshmen SAT Scores

Fall 2011 Fall 2013 Computed Computed

hospitality management 940 1,200

(24)

Freshmen High School Average

Fall 2011 Fall 2013 High School High School

hospitality management 87 99

SAT Scores High School Average

2010 2011 2012 2013 2010 2011 2012 2013 School/ College - SI 997 1017 1004 996 83 84 83 85 Total University 1097 1087 1096 1104 87 87 88 89

Intended college major for 2012 college-bound seniors

SAT Test-Takers Mean Scores

Intended College Major Number Percent (%) Critical Reading Mathematics Writing

Business Management,

Marketing, and Related Support Services

14,762 10.9% 474 511 470

* For further information, please visit http://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide.pdf.

5c. Undergraduate 1st Year Retention Rates

Fall 2003 2004* 2005 2006 2007 2008** # Fresh # Ret % Program 50% 100% 100% 67% 2 2 100% School/ College 81% 82% 77% 87% 85% 138 108 78% University 78% 78% 78% 79% 76% 3268 2557 78%

Note* The % of students started in Fall 2004 and returned to the program in Fall 2005 ** The % of students started in Fall 2008 and returned to the program in Fall 2009

2009 2010 2011 2012 Tot al Return ed DNR Tot al Return ed DN R Tot al Return ed DN R Tot al Return ed DN R # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % H MT 4 2 50 % 2 50 % 1 1 100 %

(25)

Fall 2009 2010 2011 2012** # Fresh # Ret % School/ College - SI 78% 85% 86% 68 60 88% Total University 78% 78% 76% 2757 2195 80%

* The % of students started in Fall 2012 and returned to the program in Fall 2013

5d. Undergraduate 6 Year Graduation Rate

Fall 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Program 100% 100% 0% 100% 25% School/ College Average Rate 69% 63% 78% 76% 65% University 64% 59% 61% 61% 58% Fall 2004 2005 2006 2007 School/College Average Rate - SI 56% 58% 63% 65% Total University 58% 58% 59% 55% 2004 2005 2006 2007

Total Graduated Total Graduated Total Graduated Total Graduated

# % # % # % # %

HMT 1 1 100% 1 1 100% 3 2 67%

5e. Graduate Standardized Test Scores

Not applicable.

5f. Narrative: Please describe how your program compares with your peer and aspirational institutions. (Suggested limit ½ page)

Without retention and graduation data from our peer institutions, it is unclear how a meaningful comparison can be made.

(26)

5g. If applicable, describe your program’s student performance over the past 5 years on licensure or professional certifications exams relative to regional and national

standards. (Suggested limit ¼ page) Not applicable.

5h. Number of majors and minors enrolled over the past five years? Please complete the table below.

Fall Number of Students 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Majors 22 20 26 24 27 Minors 1 1 1 1 1 Total 23 21 27 25 28

Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013

Majors Majors Majors Majors

MAJORS HMT BS 20 19 10 7

5i. Number of degrees granted during the past five years. Please complete the table below. Degrees Granted Academic Year 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 Undergraduate 4 9 5 8 10 10/11 11/12 12/13 Degrees Conferred Degrees Conferred Degrees Conferred

(27)

5i (1). Below is comparison degrees conferred data for local and national institutions

based on data retrieved from the IPEDS website. This is based on the Classification of Instructional Program (CIP) Code of 52-Business, Management, Marketing, and Related Support Services. 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Bachelors Local 4,149 4,315 4,362 National 358,293 365,093 366,815 1

Local institution include: Adelphi University, Columbia University, CUNY Queens College, Fordham University, Hofstra University, Iona College, C.W. Post University, Manhattan College, New York University, Pace University, Seton Hall University, Stony Brook University, and Wagner College.

5i(2).

Fastest growing occupations and occupations having the largest numerical increase in employment by level of education and training projected.

Fastest Growing Occupations

Change, 2010-20 Occupations having the largest

numerical increase in employment

Change, 2010-20 Percent Numeric Percent Numeric

Hotel, Motel and Resort Desk Clerks

7% 108,900 Hotel, Motel and Resort Desk Clerks

7% 108,900

Projected Changes in Related Occupations (2010 – 2020) Grow about as fast as average - Increase 7 to

14.9%

Changes, 2010-20 Percent Numeric

Hotel, Motel and Resort Desk Clerks 7% 108,900

*For more information please visit: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.toc.htm 5j. Narrative: How do these trends compare to institutional, regional and national patterns? (Suggested limit ¼ page)

As the University enrollment has remained constant, our enrollment has roughly done the same.

There is little systematic data about the number of hospitality management programs and their enrollment. Data available from the Department of Education is aggregated to the point where overall trends are hard to ascertain. Our casual observation is that hospitality enrollment in trending upwards.

(28)

5k. What mechanisms are in place to monitor students’ progress toward degree? And, to what extent is there a collaborative effort to provide quality advising and support services to students. (Suggested limit ¼ page)

College policy is that all students with more than 60 credits are advised by our faculty, and those advisement sessions usually entail much more than just scheduling for next semester. Students are eager to learn about career choices, internship opportunities, and what other steps they can take to improve their experience as a student.

This has not been the case on Staten Island. With only an “itinerant” full-time faculty, splitting time between Queens and Staten Island, advisement has been handled by the CPS Dean’s Office. Although this is superior to no advisement at all, it is unreasonable to expect the advising deans to have the same level of knowledge about the program and the industry than faculty. It is just another example of students on the Staten Island campus being less-serviced than those in Queens.

It has been suggested that we take on the additional burden of advising sophomores (currently handled by the CPS Dean’s Office). This would allow more opportunities for student-faculty interaction at a critical point in the student’s career …. A time where changing majors is still an option. Unfortunately, given the current demands on a faculty already stretched too thin, this has not been given serious consideration at this time.

(29)

Standard 6. The program has adequate resources to meet its goals and objectives. (When responding to this Standard, please see Items for Reflection under this Standard.)

Although financial data is not available at the program level, departmental information is provided below for your reference.

Department Information - Earned Income/Direct Instruction Expense Ratio

(FY 2013 data not yet available)

FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 $ From Grants 0 0 0 0 0 Earned Income from Instruction 3,268,696 3,780,678 4,692,259 5,066,571 5,400,254 (by student credit hours taught) General Fees (includes lab fees) 109,095 138,988 162,577 172,105 224,768 Direct Instructional Cost 663,000 686,000 787,000 901,000 1,003,000 (Departmental Budget) Earned Income/Direct Instructional Expense Ratio 5.09 5.71 6.17 5.81 5.61

(30)

FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012

$ FROM GRANTS - - 1,000 -

EARNED INCOME FROM

INSTRUCTION (By student credit

hours taught) 5,854,330 5,596,565 6,118,193 7,278,682

GENERAL FEES (includes Lab

Fees) 248,688 251,876 265,172 310,281

DIRECT INSTRUCTIONAL COST

(Departmental budget) 1,120,000 1,097,000 1,090,000 1,310,000 EARNED INCOME/DIRECT INSTRUCTIONAL EXPENSE RATIO 5.45 5.33 5.86 5.79

While we are not privy to the financial data from other Programs, it appears that the Division of Hospitality, Tourism, and Sport Management is a cash cow. The decline in the earned income/budget ratio from 2006-2008 are likely due to the increase in sections required by the Graduate Sport Management program, instituted in 2007. We expect the ratio to stay in the 5.6-6.0 range for the foreseeable future.

To be fair, much of this surplus must be attributed to the Sport Management program. In 2008 38% of our faculty were appointed in Hospitality Management, while only 22% of the students in the program were Hospitality Management students. When separating the data out for the Staten Island campus, the results more accurately reflect the situation:

• During the Spring, 2009 semester, six courses were offered on the Staten Island campus. Two were taught by full-time faculty, four by adjuncts. Total enrollment was 96, an average of 16 per class.

• During the Fall, 2009 semester, five courses were offered. Four were taught by adjunct faculty, one by full-time faculty. Total enrollment was 48, an average of less than 10 per class.

(31)

• As of this writing, in Spring 2009 semester, four courses were offered. Two were taught by full-time faculty, two by adjuncts. Total enrollment is 50, an average of 12 ½ per class.

Hospitality management courses on Queens average more than 20 per class; sport management classes average more than 30. It is clear that the Hospitality Management program on Staten Island is far more costly to maintain than any of our other

undergraduate programs.

The Division would like to address two important issues as it pertains to our budget. First, there has not been any money available for travel over the past two academic years. Faculty who wish to present papers and commiserate with colleagues at academic

conferences have been unable to receive any academic support. If we expect faculty to be active researchers and get the program in the mix nationally, the University must provide some sort of support in this area. Second, there does not seem to be any Divisional control over the budget. The Chair believes that if a Division is awarded a budget, he should be permitted to allocate said budget in a ways that he sees fit. Arbitrary decisions such as no travel money and no professional dues money take discretion away from myself – supposedly the person who is closest to the Division and knows what is best for it – and back on the Administration, who may not see our needs in the same light.

6b. To what extent has the University funded major capital projects, e.g., renovations, which are linked directly to the program during the past five years? (Bulleted list.)

There have been no capital projects linked directly to this program in the past five years. Faculty office atmosphere has improved considerably with the move to Rosati Hall a few years ago.

Standard 7. The program has taken effective actions based on the findings of the last program review. (When responding to this Standard, please see Items for Reflection under this Standard.)

This is the first time that the Hospitality Management program has been subject to Program Review since its inception.