Program Selection and Evaluation
Program selection considers both the academic and strategic value of a program and the institutional resources required to support it.
The selection process includes the following steps:
- College review: Proposals are shared with the appropriate college deans or their designated reviewers for evaluation and prioritization based on academic and strategic goals.
- OGO evaluation: OGO Leadership Team reviews and scores proposals using a standardized Proposal Evaluation Rubric.
- Workload assessment: OGO evaluates the staffing resources required for each program using the Program Workload Matrix.
- Portfolio selection: Proposal evaluations, college priorities, and available OGO capacity inform the selection of programs for the upcoming cycle.
Deans and college leadership play an important role in identifying which programs most directly support their college's academic priorities and student needs.
Because OGO has limited staffing capacity, a favorable proposal evaluation does not guarantee selection. Some programs may need to be modified, deferred, or not offered in a given cycle.
The goal is to develop a sustainable and academically meaningful portfolio of programs that maximizes student opportunities while ensuring appropriate operational support, financial oversight, and risk management.
Program proposals are evaluated using two complementary tools designed to support a transparent, consistent, and resource-conscious selection process.
Program Proposal Evaluation Rubric
The Proposal Evaluation Rubric assesses the academic and strategic value of each program as well as the logistical viability.
Proposals undergo both college-level and OGO review, with consideration given to:
- Alignment with University strategy and college priorities.
- Academic quality, curricular integration, and contributions to degree completion.
- Opportunities for experiential and work-based learning.
- Student demand, access, affordability, and anticipated enrollment.
- Program leadership, design, and operational feasibility.
- Meaningful engagement with host communities and cultures.
- Health, safety, and risk management considerations.
Proposals will be consistently evaluated using a standardized scoring framework, which will inform program prioritization.
Each college will have a Dean's Designee who is responsible for the proposal review and scoring according to College goals and priorities. This may include financial approval for college-funded programming.
Dean's Designees are as listed below:
| College | Dean Designee |
|---|---|
| Chaddock + Morrow College of Fine Arts | Karla Hackenmiller hackenmi@ohio.edu Associate Dean |
College of Arts and Sciences | TBC |
| College of Business | Andrew Pueschel pueschel@ohio.edu Director, CIBED |
| College of Health Sciences and Professions | TBC |
| Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine | TBC |
| Honors Tutorial College | TBC |
| Patton College of Education | Connie Patterson patterc1@ohio.edu Associate Dean |
| Regional Higher Education | TBC |
| Russ College of Engineering and Technology | TBC |
| Scripps College of Communication | TBC |
| University College | TBC |
Program Workload Matrix
The Program Workload Matrix evaluates the amount of OGO staff support required to develop and administer each program.
Programs vary significantly in their operational complexity. The workload assessment considers factors such as:
- Whether a program is new or recurring;
- Program director experience;
- Budget and financial complexity;
- Logistical coordination, including transportation, accommodations, and onsite arrangements;
- Whether a program is using a provider such as WorldStrides;
- Student enrollment strategy and specialized advising requirements;
- Program locations, itinerary complexity, and risk management needs.
Each program receives a workload score reflecting the anticipated level of staff involvement. Lower scores indicate programs requiring less OGO support, while higher scores indicate programs requiring more extensive resources.
OGO's capacity is determined by the cumulative workload of the program portfolio, rather than a fixed number of programs. Consequently, the number of programs selected each cycle will depend on the types and complexity of the proposals received.