Public Information

The Planning Accreditation Board requires this information to be posted for the Master of Urban and Regional Planning Program. Our strategic plan for 2018-2021 will be updated in 2022. The department voted to delay updating the strategic plan due to uncertainties related to the duration of the pandemic.

2021-2022 Master's Program Tuition and Fees
In-state residents, per full-time academic year $8,924.00
Out-of-state residents, per full-time academic year                                                                           $24,643.00

 

Master's Student Retention Rate
Percentage of students who began studies in fall 2020 and continued into fall 2021 100%

 

Master's Student Graduation Rate
Percentage of students graduating within 4 years, entering class of 2017                                                  90%

 

Number of Degrees Awarded
Number of degrees awarded for 2020-2021 Academic Year                                                                          12

 

AICP Certification
Percentage of master’s graduates taking the AICP exam within 5 years who pass, graduating class of 2016 100%

 

Employment
Percentage of full-time graduates obtaining professional planning, planning-related, or other positions within 12 months of graduation, graduating class of 2020 86.0%

 

Student Achievement

As part of our most recent reaccreditation from 2018 and our academic program review in 2021, coupled with the lack of university support for graduate recruitment and retention during the pandemic, the program will be undergoing a strategic plan in 2022 to search for new ways of recruitment that are low-cost, but also likely low-reward based on our targeted email campaigns.  In addition to pandemic-related course delivery issues, the accreditation standards for our program are currently be revised, with final adoption to also occur in 2022. Given the state of flux on several different levels, it was decided to keep the assessment format as is for the time being to report on the past year.

Student portfolios are tied to student learning outcomes and accreditation.  The full-time students that participated in the spring, 2021 planning project course were the cohort that began our program in fall of 2019.  A majority of their education was impacted directly by the pandemic, not just due to course delivery being either partly or wholly online, but also significantly limiting our more traditional program offerings related to community engagement and other activities hampered by the pandemic.

Findings and recommendations regarding the learning outcomes assessment process:

1.       In reference to the findings from the learning outcomes assessment from 2017 as well as the academic program review, we are continuing to emphasize the curriculum map as it pertains to learning outcomes and student coursework despite the pandemic-related issues that prevent or severely curtail our community engagement activities that exist at the core of many of our classes.

2.       Suggestions implemented from last year’s guidelines into this year’s guidelines require students to spend 2-3 pages discussing each item, which appears to provide them with enough space to provide depth on their understanding of each learning outcome. While the students rate themselves relatively high across all categories, it appears that the instructor of record may not critically review the student work. This issue will be addressed once the new accreditation guidelines that govern the portfolio class are finalized.

3.       It will take at least another two years (by Spring 2023) of portfolios to gauge both faculty and student understanding of the new learning outcome guidelines based on the new curriculum standard adoption versus the 2017 curriculum standards. This process will enable us to take a more longitudinal approach to tracking student assessment, especially by focusing on diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Findings and recommendations regarding the learning outcomes themselves:

1.       Students continue to rate their achievements relatively high. In the future, the rubric needs to be tightened as to how to rate their knowledge base.  The students may not be well-versed in critically implementing the rubric. There needs to be an external, more critical tool to examine portfolio knowledge quality, but this issue needs to be addressed under the new Planning Accreditation Board guidelines, which will require this course to be completely overhauled, as well as several additional course modifications.

Of the three broad learning outcomes, all of the summary scores continue to be relatively similar. Some changes in scores compared to previous years may be more indicative of pandemic-related issues due to lower community engagement and/or course delivery modifications.