Harvard University homepage
HARVARD.EDU
A wide shot of students taking notes during class.

HOME / FACULTY RESOURCES

Undergraduate Program Reviews

Undergraduate Program Reviews are conducted periodically to ensure that Harvard offers an education of the highest possible quality. 

On This Page

Guidelines
Process
Elements of a concentration
Guiding Questions
Collecting Evidence for Self-Study
Upcoming Program Reviews
Contact

The Educational Policy Committee periodically reviews all undergraduate academic programs. These reviews, required for accreditation, provide an opportunity to reflect on the needs of our students, to identify new developments in our fields, and to ensure that Harvard continues to offer an education of the highest possible quality.  

Guidelines

Each concentration and standalone secondary field engages in a review process once every six years. 

The review process overseen by the Office of Undergraduate Education is separate from the visiting committee process overseen by the Office of the Governing Boards, but the goal is for the processes to be complementary. Departments may find the undergraduate program review process helpful as they prepare to meet with the departmental visiting committee.

This collaborative process will enable departments not only to articulate a vision for the concentration or secondary field, but also to consult with colleagues across the FAS and within the OUE. The OUE looks forward to learning more about how to support each program, whether by providing funding for pedagogical innovations or creating collaborations with partner offices and programs, such as the Mignone Center for Career Success or the Academic Resource Center, the Mindich Program in Engaged Scholarship or the Lemann Program in Creativity and Entrepreneurship, and many more. 

Process

This graphic provides an overview of the steps of the process, which are described in detail below.

Download the review guidelines as a Word Document (.doc) →

A visual overview of the steps of the undergraduate review process. 1) Program faculty submit self-study report and student work samples. 2) Program meets with review committee. 3) The review committee releases report. 4) Program responds to committee report. 5) Program implements action steps, with support of OUE and division. 6) Program reflects on evidence.
Process Steps
  1. The department receives information about the upcoming review a year in advance. The review is timed in advance of the external visiting committee’s interim visit, to help the department prepare.
  2. The department is invited to meet with the Assistant Dean for Undergraduate Education for Program Improvement to discuss the process.
  3. If departments are interested, Institutional Research works with them to conduct focus groups of students and /or alumni in their programs. Institutional Research will also provide the department with Senior Survey results and other quantitative reports to inform the self-study process.
  4. The department nominates faculty colleagues they would like to serve on their committee. The Office of Undergraduate Education (OUE) appoints the committee on behalf of the Educational Policy Committee.  
  5. The department prepares a brief (~5 pages) self-study report based on a list of guiding questions about program goals, curriculum, teaching, and advising. The department also shares several samples of student work, ideally showing the progression of students through the key learning objectives of the concentration.  
  6. The department and committee meet for the review meeting, which is chaired by the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education. The agenda begins with introductions, then the Chair and DUS summarize their self-study, focusing on the areas on which they would most like advice. Committee members then share strengths of the program they observed, and the balance of the meeting is a collaborative discussion of focus areas.  
  7. After the meeting, the department receives a report summarizing the meeting. Departments are invited to respond to the report and its recommendations if they choose.  
  8. The department is invited to work with the OUE in implementing the goals that came out of the review process.

Elements of a Concentration 

The reviews will consider the following elements of a concentration identified by the Educational Policy Committee. 

  1. A concentration’s curriculum should follow a progression, with intermediate and advanced courses building on a foundation set by introductory courses. The curriculum for the entire concentration, as well as for each class, should be based on clearly designed learning objectives and support students with a range of preparation.   
  2. Small-group tutorials should serve as foundational courses, teaching students crucial disciplinary methods.  
  3. Best practices for teaching writing include providing a discipline-specific writing guide, using rubrics, and incorporating a revision into each assignment cycle.  
  4. Concentrations should help students develop research methods within courses and encourage them to engage in research opportunities outside courses.   
  5. Each concentration’s curriculum should prepare and encourage any interested and motivated student to write a thesis or some type of a capstone experience. Thesis guides that clearly communicate departmental expectations help advisors support students and, when posted publicly, provide a valuable preview of the process for interested students.   
  6. We encourage departments to partner with the Mignone Center for Career Success to help students explore career pathways.  
  7. An inviting, informative, and updated website is essential to drawing students to a concentration and setting clear expectations.  
  8. Teaching fellows should be trained both in general pedagogical methods and in discipline-specific elements.   Course assistants should also receive appropriate training for their more limited roles.  
  9. Strong advising is a crucial element of a concentration, from first year exploration through graduation.  
  10. Programs should have a consistent approach to getting feedback from students through a student advisory committee or other means.  

Guiding Questions 

Click each topic below to view questions intended to help guide the reflection and self-study process.  

Download the questions as a Word Document (.doc) →

Goals of the Program: Oversight and Review
  1. What are the intellectual goals and learning outcomes of the program? In other words, when students leave your program, what should they know and be able to do?  
  2.  How is the program shaped, led, and reviewed by its faculty? 
Curriculum
  1. What is the appropriate progression of courses, and what should students have accomplished on completion of each level? 
  2. How does the program provide students with an understanding of the methods, problems, and knowledge of an intellectually coherent discipline or field of study? What is the role of gateway courses (if any) in the program?
    • For programs offering both a concentration and secondary field, please answer with respect to both courses of study. 
  3. How does the curriculum address the varied backgrounds and career trajectories of its students? 
    • What is available to students with weaker backgrounds? 
    • What is available for students who are interested and capable of doing advanced work? 
    • How is the concentration structured for students who will not pursue a PhD in the field? 
    • What opportunities are available at Harvard and abroad for undergraduates bound for the PhD?
  4. How does the program build on the foundational skills students developed in Expository Writing to teach students the analytical, argumentative, and writing skills that are characteristic of the discipline? Visit the Writing Program website for more information about the Expository Writing curriculum. 
  5. If applicable, what is the role of tutorials in the program, and how are they staffed? 
  6. If the program contains both basic and honors tracks, how are the tracks defined? 
  7. What role does independent research play in the program? How are students trained to conduct research? What role do faculty play in supervising research? 
Teaching
  1. How are TFs who teach in the program trained? 
  2. How does the program use inclusive teaching practices to ensure that the curriculum is accessible to each student? 
  3. What kinds of pedagogical innovation are encouraged or supported by the program? 
  4. What types of assignments or tasks have been most useful in assessing whether each student has met the learning outcomes of your program(s)? 
  5. What gaps, if any, exist between your goals for student learning and the evidence of student learning? 
  6. What actions might you take, and what support would you need, to ensure that each student finishes the program able to demonstrate the desired learning outcomes? 
Advising
  1. How are prospective students advised about program requirements and opportunities? 
  2. What is the advising structure within the concentration and/or secondary? 
  3. How does advising within the program support students with a diverse range of backgrounds and needs? 
Future Goals for the Program
  1. What is going particularly well in the program? What are you most proud of? 
  2. What are the greatest challenges facing the program? 
  3. What is your vision for the program in the next five years? What opportunities and challenges would you like to address? How could the Office of Undergraduate Education or other University resources support your program?

Collecting Evidence for Undergraduate Program Review Self-Study

Programs receive the following reports by default, assuming they are available:  

  • Senior Survey results  
  • Enrollment demographics  
  • Department annual profile from the FAS Data Hub 

Programs may also request: 

  • Additional reports from Institutional Research
    • We are happy to set up a meeting with Institutional Research if you would like to explore other possibilities about how to use institutional data to inform the review process.
    • Institutional Research has the capacity to conduct formal focus groups with students or alumni for these reviews. Please reach out to oue@fas.harvard.edu if you would like to discuss this possibility. You may also wish to consider an informal focus group, discussed below. 
  • Basic information about alumni.  
    • The Harvard Alumni Association can generally share names, years, emails, general geographic location, and any current employer/industry data with academic department staff. Request by emailing haa_collegealumniprograms@harvard.edu. 
Collecting student / alum input

Programs have collected input from students and alums in different ways. Here are some ideas: 


  • Send a survey to alums of the program in the past ~10 years
    • Sample questions:
      • What skills did you gain from the concentration?
      • How have you applied these skills since graduation?
      • What would you like prospective concentrators to know?
      • What would you like the faculty to know to help us improve? 
  • Host an informal zoom focus group for alums
    • Email your alumni to invite them to join you for an hour on zoom to share feedback about the program. Use or modify the questions above. 
  • Host a lunch for graduating seniors
    • Ask seniors what they are taking away from the concentration. What were the most impactful learning experiences? What suggestions do they have for improvement?  
Looking at Student Work

Looking at student work together can yield very valuable insight into the skills students develop over their time in the concentration.

There are many ways to choose work for this activity. You could: 

  • Pick one essay or thesis and dive deeply into it
  • Choose a few seniors and look back at several pieces of their work each year in the program
  • Pick a few pieces of work from this year’s sophomores, juniors, and seniors as a cross-section of the program at the moment.  

The most important thing is just to choose some work so you can get started.

A sample 45 minute meeting agenda is below, adapted from the National School Reform Initiative’s ATLAS – Learning from Student Work tool. 

  1. Start by looking silently through the work (10 minutes) 
  1. Describe the work – what do you see? (15 minutes)
    • What were the students doing, and why?
    • What do the students understand and not understand?
    • How did the students interpret these assignments?
    • What is each student doing well, and where can they grow?  
  1. What are the implications of this work for teaching in our program? (15 minutes) 
    • How does this work represent the goals we have for our students in the concentration?
    • What steps could we take next with each of these students?
    • What teaching strategies might be most effective?
    • What else should we take away from this discussion? 
  1. Debrief the process (5 minutes)
    • How well did this process work? What could be improved? What would we do differently next time? 

Upcoming Program Reviews 

Fall 2025Spring 2026Fall 2026
African and African American Studies 
Art, Film, and Visual Studies 
Global Health and Health Policy 
Human Developmental and Regenerative Biology 
Linguistics		European Health, Politics and Societies 
Philosophy
English


Medieval Studies
Microbial Sciences
Mind Brain Behavior
Theater, Dance and Media
Environmental Science and Public Policy
VIEW FULL SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING REVIEWS (HARVARDKEY LOGIN REQUIRED)

Questions?

Contact the Office of Undergraduate Education at oue@fas.harvard.edu.

SEND AN EMAIL