|Fisher PhD programs rated best at OSU
Of the 90 doctoral programs at Ohio State, all three of Fisher’s PhD programs were recognized among the very best at the university in a far-reaching Doctoral Program Assessment led by Pat Osmer, vice provost for graduate studies and dean of the Graduate School.
Fisher's three programs were among the 12 rated as “high quality,” which means “they stand out in terms of their planning, focus and potential to enhance the standing of the university,” according to the report. Fisher offers doctoral level degrees in Accounting and Management Information Systems, Business Administration and Labor and Human Relations.
“The most significant and tangible result of this rating is that additional resources will flow to our PhD programs as individual students qualify for enhanced graduate fellowships,” said Steve Mangum, interim dean of the college.
Conducted by a 13-member faculty committee, the doctoral program assessment was a result of follow-up recommendations and findings in a March 2007 university report, “Funding Models for Doctoral Education Based Upon Quality.”
In July 2006, former Provost Barbara R. Snyder charged the faculty committee who were the authors of the report to “present several possible models for distributing funding to high quality programs, that takes into consideration the opportunities to ‘seed’ doctoral programs that with increased stature, will contribute to enhancing the reputation of this university.”
Programs were assigned one of six classifications from “high quality” to “candidates for disinvestment and elimination.”
“A review like this is unprecedented at an institution of our size and stature,” Osmer told a reporter for onCampus, the university-wide newspaper. “It was thorough and rigorous and was taken very seriously because high-quality doctoral programs are a key to the overall strength of the university. Strengthening these programs is the primary reason for the assessment.”
Seventeen university programs earned a “strong” label — close to “high quality,” but each needs to address issues of program focus or structure. Sixteen programs were categorized “good,” and 11 could not be assessed because they were either too new or in a state of transition. The remaining 29 have been told they must reassess or restructure for a wide variety of reasons, and five have significant problems and are candidates for disinvestment or elimination.
“Our programs' top ratings are a direct result of all the hard work of faculty and staff,” Mangum said. “While it takes the effort of many to achieve such a success, special recognition goes to Ingrid Werner for her dedicated and creative leadership.”