Master of Business Administration (Financial Services)

possible after full implementation. 2 Refers to either a faculty, a department, or a graduate programme.Roles and responsibilities for reviews conducted under the auspices of Senate are as follows:iiiiThe Office of Institutional Affairs coordinates and supports the process, while the Vice-Chair ofSenate oversees the review process on behalf of Senate.The Senate Academic Priorities and Budget Committee (SAPBC) considers the reports by theinternal review committee and by the external reviewer(s) as well as the faculty's initial response tothe review and then decides whether to accept the report or not and what action, if any, should berecommended to Senate based on the report.The SAPBC also considers the follow-up reports and determines whether further action is expected.The Vice-President Academic and Provost reports to the SAPBC on the status of recommendationswithin a year to eighteen months following the review.Roles and responsibilities for reviews conducted by faculties, including the Faculty of Graduate Studies, aretypically as follows:iiiThe Associate Dean of the faculty in question coordinates reviews of its constituent departments.The Faculty Council of the faculty in question considers the reports by the internal review committeeand by the external reviewer(s) as well as the unit’s response to the review.The Dean of the faculty in question monitors follow-ups to recommendations resulting from a review.The reports on reviews conducted by Senate are distributed, as appropriate, to the President, Vice-PresidentAcademic and Provost, relevant deans, department heads and school directors, faculty members, theSAPBC, and other decision makers. They are also available for examination in the Senate Office.Dissemination of reviews conducted by Faculties follows a similar pattern at the Faculty level. As well, thesereports are filed with the Office of Institutional Affairs. The Vice-President Academic and Provost receivescopies of departmental and school reviews from a number of faculties.4. ASSESSMENT OF DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY’’S QUALITY ASSURANCE POLICIES ANDPROCEDURES4.1 How well is the institution’s policy achieving what it set out to accomplish in the area ofquality assurance?Based on the documentation provided, Dalhousie’s quality assurance policies have generally beenimplemented according to the procedures outlined in its policies. Specifically, the process whether led bySenate, a faculty or the Faculty of Graduate of Studies, has included, as per the University’s policies: a selfstudy,student, staff and faculty input, an internal review committee, external reviewers, a final report withrecommendations, and a follow-up process to the report.Dalhousie’s quality assurance policy is designed to allow each faculty to develop its own terms of referenceand assessment criteria as long as these follow the basic criteria outlined in the Guidelines for Unit Reviewswhich were approved by Senate in 1985. This is a strength of Dalhousie’s policy as it recognizes thedifferences among disciplines and the autonomy of each faculty by allowing each faculty to tailor its reviewpolicy to reflect its individual mission and values. Two notable examples include the Faculty of Health97