In this section, we outline some of the flaws and inconsistencies of the data in support of Pathways.

The first document outlines problems with the data posted by the Provost Office on April 7, 2006. The data is described as incomplete, mistaken, and misleading.

The second document is a report from the Senate Subcommittee charged with reviewing a proposed Program Review Criteria document and the data posted by the Provost Office on April 7, 2006.  The Senate subcommittee finds the data inadequate to apply the discussed criteria.

The third document is a letter from SCAP, dated May 10, 2006, which expresses concerns about the data in support of Pathways and gives specific examples of data mistakes.

The fourth document, a Critique of Pathways, was sent by the University Senate to Fr. Wildes and the Board of Trustees on June 21, 2006.   This one outlines more data mistakes, and includes a very interesting analysis of the famous 2.28 document.  This analysis defines the 2.28 number as invalid. 

The 2.28 argument is further criticized in the fifth document, a memo, dated May 10, 2006, from The Assembly of the College of Arts and Sciences to Fr. Wildes, Dr. Harris, the Board of the Trustees, and the Faculty Senate.