Public Information

Student Achievement

The Bachelor of Science in Regional Planning strives to prepare students for leadership positions as professional planners. Program graduates acquire ethical and conceptual knowledge, as well as a broad range of technical skills, land use, environmental training to articulate community problems and plan for sustainable communities.

Program Outcome 4: Community Resiliency and Sustainability

Integrate knowledge of issues related to community resiliency and sustainability, such as social equity, inclusion, diversity in society and the environment, the human-environment interaction, public participation, and social justice.

Direct Assessment Indicator 1: Analysis of Internship Supervisor Evaluation

Data Source: RGPL 493 internship (data collected by Dr. B. Okey)

RGPL 493 Internship is required by the BS Regional Planning program. Students work as interns in various county, municipality, and other regional level planning agencies/ departments (e.g., Indiana County Office of Planning and Development regularly recruits interns from our program). Our department provides a Post-Internship Evaluation Form to on-site supervisors, who are required to evaluate students after the internship is completed. For this assessment, Post-Internship Evaluations are analyzed for seven students who completed their internships between May 2019 and July 2020.

Level of ranking obtained by seven students across the evaluation categories is reported below.

Evaluation Categories Rankings
Sample
Size

1

2

3

4

5

6

NA

Communication with on-site supervisor

6

1

7

Cooperation with site personnel

6

1

7

Enthusiasm toward assigned responsibilities

7

7

Reliability in completing assigned tasks

6

1

7

Initiative to take on additional responsibilities

6

1

7

Skill in utilizing facilities and equipment

4

3

7

Basic knowledge of field

3

4

7

Effort to improve knowledge of field

6

1

7

Flexibility/Adaptability

6

1

7

Response to criticism

6

1

7

Leadership potential

4

3

7

Overall on-site performance

7

7

Ranking Explanation:

1. Superior performance
2. Above average performance continued improvement over the course of the
3. Average level of performance, commitment to improve.
4. Average level of performance, minimal effort to
5. Less than satisfactory
6. Unacceptable level of performance
NA. Insufficient evidence to evaluate in this category.

 

Evaluation Categories Summary

Communication with on-site supervisor

86% students exhibited superior performance; 14% students performed above average

Cooperation with site personnel

86% students exhibited superior performance; 14% students performed above average

Enthusiasm toward assigned responsibilities

100% students exhibited superior performance

Reliability in completing assigned tasks

86% students exhibited superior performance; 14% students performed above average

Initiative to take on additional responsibilities

86% students exhibited superior performance; 14% students performed above average

Skill in utilizing facilities and equipment

57% students exhibited superior performance; 43% students performed above average

Basic knowledge of field

43% students exhibited superior performance; 57% students performed above average

Effort to improve knowledge of field

86% students exhibited superior performance; 14% students performed above average

Flexibility/Adaptability

86% students exhibited superior performance; 14% students performed above average

Response to criticism

86% students exhibited superior performance; 14% students scored NA as there was insufficient evidence

Leadership potential

57% students exhibited superior performance; 43% students performed above average

Overall on-site performance

100% students exhibited superior performance

Program Outcome 2: Analytic, Design, and Communication Skills

Apply written, oral, graphic, and visual communication skills in preparation and presentation of plans and research.

The capstone course RGPL 498: Planning Practicum taught in the fall semester is used to determine program student achievement. The course introduces students to the process of formal inquiry and helps them develop the skills needed to read and evaluate the research of others. Students are exposed to the development of structured questions to guide inquiry, bibliography research to set their inquiry in the context of the work of other scholars, research design, and the selection of research methods, and takes them through the development of an original research project paper. The course uses three assessment indicators: 1) Portfolio, 2) Research Paper, 3) Research Presentation to determine mastery of Program Outcome 2: Analytic, Design and Communication skills: Apply written, oral, graphic, and visual communication skills in preparation and presentation of plans and research. A summary of performance of graduating seniors follows:

Summary of Indicator 1: Portfolio

Students are required to develop a Professional Portfolio, that includes a Résumé, Reflective Essay on the major, Highlights of at least six of their best work (projects/papers), and 2) Research Project Paper.

Eight student portfolios were evaluated by three faculty members and two external evaluators over the fall and spring semesters of AY 2018-19. The average evaluation scores are reported here. Out of eight students, five students (62.5%) exceeded expectations of the evaluators and three students (37.5%) met expectations of the evaluators.

Summary of Indicator 2: Research Paper

Eight student research papers were evaluated by the instructor of the course. Out of eight students, four students (50%) exceeded requirement by scoring more than 90%, three students (37.5%) met the requirement by scoring in between 80-89%, and one student (12.5%) met the requirement but below expectation by scoring in between 70-79%.

Summary of Indicator 3: Research Presentation

Eight students presented their research orally to a jury of at least two faculty members and the instructor. The average evaluation scores are reported here. Out of eight students, five students (62.5%) exceeded expectations of the evaluators and three students (37.5%) met expectations of the evaluators. In addition, students are required to present their research papers at the annual IUP Scholars Forum2, sponsored by the Graduate School during Research Week, prior to a final grade for the course. During the 2019 Scholars Forum, two students received university awards—one for oral presentation and another for best poster.

2021–22 Tuition and Fees

In-State Residents, per full-time academic year

$13,354

Out of State Residents, per full-time academic year

$19,107

 

Student Retention Rate

Percentage of students who began studies in fall 2020 and continued into fall 2021

100%

 

Student Graduation Rate

Percentage of students graduating within 4 years, entering class of 2017

80%

Percentage of students graduating within 6 years, entering class of 2015 (for accredited undergrad)

50%

 

Number of Degrees Awarded

Number of degrees awarded for 2020-21 Academic Year

5

 

AICP Certification

Percentage of master’s graduates taking the AICP exam within 5 years who pass, graduating class of 2016

NA

Percentage of bachelor’s graduates taking the AICP exam within 7 years who passed, graduating class of 2014 (for accredited undergrad)

66%

 

Employment

Percentage of full-time graduates obtaining professional planning, planning-related, or other positions within 12 months of graduation, graduating class of 2020

To be announced