Supplementary Review Results

Nihon University

Basic Information of the Institution
Ownership: Private

Accreditation Status
Year of the Review: 2021
Accreditation Status: unaccredited

Location: Tokyo, Japan

Nihon University

Supplementary Review Resultsfor Nihon University

Overview
Regarding Nihon University, as the “Summary of the Emergency Review to Ensure
Fairness in Admissions to Medical Programs” published by MEXT on December 14,
2018 uncovered issues in student selection for medical programs, we established aninvestigative subcommittee inside the University Accreditation Committee in 2019and investigated the validity of the results from the 2017 University Accreditation(certified evaluation and accreditation). Since the investigation identified major
issues in student enrollment, governance, and internal quality assurance under the
University Standards, the determination of the 2017 University Accreditation Results
stating that the University conformed to the University Standards was overturned,
and the University was deemed noncompliant. This Supplementary Review assesses
the improvements made in response to the issues identified in the Investigation
Results for the Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Nihon University
regarding the criteria of student enrollment, governance, and internal quality
assurance, which were the reasons for the denial of accreditation, and also assesses
the improvements made regarding the two areas of serious concern and 13
suggestions for improvement, including those related to student enrollment, that were
presented in the previous University Accreditation.
In terms of the issues concerning student selection, Nihon University has
developed the Guidelines for Ensuring Fair Student Selection and established agovernance structure for entrance examination-related tasks in general through the
Headquarters Entrance Examination Supervision Committee that is responsible for
examining important matters pertaining to student recruitment and entrance
examinations, as well as revising the system for checking student selection-related
operations in individual faculties. In addition, the University has established theInvestigation and Verification Committee for School of Medicine General Entrance
Examinations under its corporate headquarters in response to a request from the
School of Medicine, which underwent an emergency investigation by MEXT. This
committee is responsible for verifying measures for recurrence prevention andimprovement and confirming the implementation status of recurrence prevention
measures, and has prepared the Investigation and Verification Committee Report. In
order to improve the issues regarding student selection conducted in 2019, the1Nihon University

University has notified additional successful candidates of their individual ranking,contacted the candidates in accordance with the Additional Successful Candidate
Phone Response Manual, and disclosed the second stage examination scores to
unsuccessful examinees. Furthermore, under the leadership of the president who was
appointed in 2020, the University has developed an internal quality assurance systemand formulated the Nihon University Internal Quality Assurance Policy and Nihon
University Internal Quality Assurance Promotion Regulations, aiming to create asystem for ensuring the quality of education and research. As a result, the JUAA
admits serious issues identified in the Investigation Results for the Department ofMedicine, School of Medicine, Nihon University of 2019 have been improved.
However, since October 2021, during the Supplementary Review period,
serious governance issues have been identified at Nihon University, which has castsignificant doubt on the assessment results on governance under the University
Standards. For this reason, we decided to conduct an additional investigation
regarding these issues to check the University’s governance in general.
Regarding the issues of university management, Nihon University launched aninternal investigation committee led by an auditor to clarify the facts from thecorporation side. Additionally, the University established a third-party committee inaccordance with the guidelines of the Japan Federation of Bar Associations,conducting a further investigation into the facts and causes and formulating
recurrence prevention measures. The University also established the Nihon
University Revival Meeting composed of outside experts, in response to the direction
from MEXT. The University published the investigation report and inquiry reportcompiled by the third-party committee on March 31, 2022 and is making efforts
toward developing a sound university governance structure. However, even though
all trustees, councilors, and auditors have decided to step down and the University isplanning to launch a new governance structure by July 2022, the specific details arestill under consideration, and the current trustees and others will temporarily continue
serving until the establishment of the new structure. Therefore, an appropriate
governance structure is still not in place.
As described above, the additional investigation showed that Nihon University
has serious issues related to governance under the University Standards, on the basisof which we have determined that the University does not comply with the University
Standards.
(1) Issues identiﬁed in the 2019 investigation results2

Nihon University

The improvements made regarding the issues raised in the Investigation Results forthe Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Nihon University are described
below for individual items in the University Standards.
First, regarding student enrollment, when selecting additional successful
candidates for the Department of Medicine, School of Medicine in the student
selection process, it used to be customary for the dean of the School of Medicine orhead of the secretariat at the time to arbitrarily give preference to applicants from the
School of Medicine’s alumni who had passed the first stage examination on the basisof an alumni list obtained from alumni association members. Regarding this issue,
the University formulated the Guidelines for Ensuring Fair Student Selection in 2018
in response to suggestions from MEXT, in which measures for ensuring fairness wereset forth in the following five areas: organization and structure, recruitment
guidelines, application documents, interviews, etc., and determination of acceptance.
Regarding determination of acceptance in particular, the guidelines prohibit uniform
or discriminatory treatment based on attributes, as well as restricting access tomaterials pertaining to the determination of acceptance and stating the need forappropriate consideration when handling such materials. In addition, starting withthe 2019 entrance examinations, a system was put in place that allows the president
to confirm the fairness of determination results by making it mandatory for the scoresand ranking of examinees, including additional successful candidates, to besubmitted when reporting the successful candidates to the president, additional
successful candidates are notified of their ranking and that information is announced
on the website, and the examination scores are disclosed to all unsuccessful
examinees regardless of whether they have made a request. The University has
strived to disclose information related to the determination of acceptance andadditional successful candidates, announcing additional successful candidates
according to the ranking while checking whether such candidates wish to enroll inaccordance with the Additional Successful Candidate Phone Response Manual. The
University has also revised its student selection criteria: transcripts are only used for
determining suitability and do not affect the score, and the point allocation andevaluation method for interviews and essays are set forth in the Transcript Evaluation
Procedure Guidelines and the Interview Examination Evaluation Criteria. The
situation of entrance examination procedures, such as determination of interview
scores, is reported to the faculty council as necessary to ensure transparency. The
University has made it so that during the preparation of determination of acceptancerelated materials and additional successful candidate lists, the relevant data can only3

Nihon University

be viewed or edited in the presence of the chairpersons and vice-chairpersons of the
School of Medicine Entrance Examination Supervision Committee and the School of
Medicine Entrance Examination Implementation Committee, thereby preventing any
arbitrary judgements from being made.
Following the wishes of the dean of the School of Medicine who was appointed
in 2020, the School of Medicine General Planning and Information Committee
formulated a proposal titled “Utilization of the Nihon University Common
Examination (N) Entrance Examination and Revision of Second Stage Examinations
for Improved Efficiency in Nihon University’s School of Medicine Entrance
Examinations” (March 3, 2021) and submitted it to the university headquarters. The
proposal states that the selection method unique to the School of Medicine (AIndividual Method should be abolished starting from the 2022 student selection, andthat the student selection method should be changed to include a first stage
examination based on an academic examination according to the N Common
Examination Method and a second stage examination based on an academic test andinterview unique to the School of Medicine. The proposal also states that the aptitude
test (psychological test) and essay that are conducted in the second stage examination
should be abolished, and that mathematics (essay format) and foreign language(English) tests should be introduced as academic tests for evaluating logical thinking
skills. From the above, we have determined that the School of Medicine and thewhole University are working to prevent recurrence, the issues related to enrollmentthat were identified have mostly been improved, and efforts for further improvement,such as the introduction of new student selection methods, have been made.
Next, the following issues were raised regarding governance: despite that thedetermination of additional successful candidates is the responsibility of the Schoolof Medicine Entrance Examination Management Committee, decisions were madeby the dean of the School of Medicine, the chairperson of the School of Medicine
Entrance Examination Implementation Committee, and the head of the secretariat
without any clear determination criteria being set, and the faculty council had no wayof knowing that alumni were given preference when selecting additional successful
candidates. In response to this, the University reviewed the organizational structure
for entrance examinations in the 2018 faculty council, replaced the chairpersons of
the School of Medicine Entrance Examination Management Committee and the
School of Medicine Entrance Examination Implementation Committee, andimproved its checking system by newly appointing two vice chairmen for the Schoolof Medicine Entrance Examination Implementation Committee. In 2019, the faculty4

Nihon University

council established the School of Medicine Entrance Examination Supervision
Committee Rules and the School of Medicine Entrance Examination Implementation
Committee Rules. At the university-wide level, the Headquarters Entrance
Examination Management Committee discussed a governance structure for entrance
examination-related tasks in general led by the president. As a result, it was decided
that the vice-president and the Headquarters Entrance Examination Management
Committee supervise deans and Faculty Entrance Examination Supervision
Committee, and individual faculties have been encouraged to develop theirorganizational structure. At the same time, the Admissions Division, Office ofAcademic Affairs has conducted a survey on all faculties and graduate schools to
confirm that fairness is ensured in student selection, working on improving student
selection-related governance procedures. Going forward, we hope the Headquarters
Entrance Examination Management Committee functions as a permanentorganization responsible for managing, verifying, and ensuring fair student selection.
The School of Medicine Entrance Examination Management Committee Rules
stipulate that the committee must verify the implementation status of entrance
examinations, so we hope the committee continues to work with the faculty council
and other organizations to conduct verification and make improvements in student
selection on a consistent basis.
As for internal quality assurance, it was noted that fairness was not adequately
ensured in department and graduate school specific student selection procedures, andthe University was requested to ensure student quality as well as review theeffectiveness of its internal quality assurance system so that it could demonstrate that
education and learning at the University satisfy the appropriate standard. Under thepresident who was appointed in September 2020, the University developed aninternal quality assurance system in order to improve the quality of education,
research, and governance and earn social recognition and trust for its humanresources development activities and research achievements. In addition, it
formulated the Nihon University Internal Quality Assurance Policy and a conceptual
diagram, and in the same year, established the Nihon University Internal Quality
Assurance Promotion Regulations. According to the policy and regulations, theUniversity Internal Quality Assurance Promotion Committee is to be established as
the organization responsible for promoting internal quality assurance on a universitywide level, Faculty Internal Quality Assurance Promotion Committees are to beestablished as organizations responsible for internal quality assurance in individual
faculties, etc. The aim is to make improvements and enhance quality on a consistent5

Nihon University

basis by having the organizations responsible for internal quality assurance cooperatewith existing organizations and activities and verify/identify areas that require
improvement on a university-wide basis. At the university-wide level, the University
Assessment Expert Committee oversees measures for improvement based on checks
and reviews, the University Assessment Section supports internal quality assurancerelated activities, and the University is considering introducing inspections byoutside experts. Therefore, the JUAA hopes the University conducts external
evaluations and makes its internal quality assurance system function in a permanentand consistent fashion. It should be noted that the University made changes to its
internal quality assurance system in 2022. Specifically, the University Assessment
Expert Committee was abolished, and its functions were transferred to the University
Check and Review Committee.
Regarding faculty and faculty organization, one of the two areas of serious
concern raised in the previous University Accreditation, the University has
appropriately improved the issue of the lack of research supervisors in the Major inCommerce, Graduate School of Commerce (Doctoral Program) by creating the
Graduate School Faculty Placement Plan and conducting appointment procedures inaccordance with the plan in 2020. As for student enrollment, in response to the issueof quota management, the University has reduced the number of students repeating
the same year by providing learning guidance to underachieving students in the
Department of Law, College of Law (First Division) and conducting meetings withthe parents of such students. In the Department of Physical Education, the University
has sufficiently improved the ratios of student enrollment to the student enrollment
cap by ensuring quota management when conducting entrance examinations.
Regarding the Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, although the average ofratios of freshman enrollment to the freshman enrollment cap in the last five years
has improved, the ratios of student enrollment to the student enrollment cap have notbeen improved sufficiently. Therefore, further improvement is needed. Furthermore,most of the issues raised in the 13 suggestions for improvement have been rectified.
However, further measures for improvement are required as the qualification
examination criteria for faculty, degree award policies, curriculum design andimplementation policies, and credit substantiation measures are inadequate in somedepartments and graduate schools.
The JUAA provides the recommendations below regarding these matters that
require further improvement. Going forward, the JUAA hopes the University
leverages the internal quality assurance policy and system it has established to make6

Nihon University

improvements toward further development of its program.
(2) New issues identified in 2021
The JUAA conducted an investigation on the new issues identified in 2021 regarding
governance under the University Standards. The investigation showed that theserious issues described below contributed to the numerous perfidies. Therefore,
radical improvement is required in these areas.
First, trustees and councilors were preferentially appointed in accordance withthe former chairman’s wishes, and trustees were not appointed/dismissed
appropriately. For instance, the recently arrested former trustee resigned from theposition of trustee and councilor due to abuse of authority in 2018 but was later
reappointed as a trustee and councilor. In addition, the former chairman abused his
authority over personnel matters to force individuals who did not comply with his
wishes to be transferred to other departments. Thus the University’s personnel system
did not function properly. As personnel decisions were arbitrarily made by particular
officers in this way, the University needs to correct the situation to ensure appropriate
and fair personnel decisions.
Also, the Board of Councilors and auditor failed to exercise checks on the
Board of Trustees. As the school corporation, the parent body of the University, was
not governed appropriately, the University should correct the situation by clarifying
the system for appropriately checking the status of operational execution by the
Board of Trustees, trustees, etc. and creating a new governance structure.
Owing in part to the long incumbency of the former chairman, many agendasof the Board of Trustees were regarded as fixed policies of the former chairman, andproposals were approved without adequate discussion. Therefore, under thegovernance structure of the school corporation, which is closely involved in theadministration of the University, the trustees failed to perform their mutual checking
function. Since the University intends to create a new and functioning governancestructure, including a system for checking the Board of Trustees, the JUAA hopes it
develops and implements effective, concrete measures for improvement to achievesound university management.
The issues related to the University’s governance structure described above arepresented as issues requiring improvement in the recommendations. The Nihon
University is committed to revive itself, swiftly implementing initiatives with the aimof launching a new governance structure by around July 2022. Therefore, the JUAA
hopes it maintains efforts and implements measures for revival going forward.

7

Nihon University

Suggestions for Improvement
Student Enrollment
 The ratio of student enrollment to the student enrollment cap in the Departmentof Medicine, School of Medicine was high at 1.01 in 2020. This should be
improved.
Faculty and Faculty Organization
 Qualification examination criteria for faculty have not been established in the
Graduate School of Science and Technology, Graduate School of Medicine,
Graduate School of Bioresource Sciences, and Graduate School of Veterinary
Medicine. This should be improved.
Educational Program and Learning Outcomes Even though the knowledge and skills to be acquired in the Graduate School ofEngineering are presented in the degree award policy of the respective degree
programs, the contents are almost identical. This should be improved.


Regarding the curriculum design and implementation policy, the ideas on
curriculum design and implementation are unclear in the College of Law (regularprogram, distance learning), College of Commerce (regular program, distancelearning), Graduate School of Art (Master’s Program, Doctoral Program),
Graduate School of Medicine, Graduate School of Pharmacy, Graduate Schoolof Integrated Basic Sciences (Master’s Program, Doctoral Program), andGraduate School of Economics (Master’s Program, Doctoral Program). Thisshould be improved.

In the Doctoral Program of the Graduate School of Law, research work is not
appropriately combined with course work. In view of the purpose of the graduate
school system, the Doctoral Program should provide a suitable educational
program.



Verification of credit substantiation (e.g., the maximum number of credits thatstudents can register for in a year) is insufficient in the College of Science andTechnology and the College of Industrial Technology. This should be improved.
The College of Engineering reduced the number of credits that students can

8Nihon University

register for in a year in 2022. However, this measure is relaxed for highachievers. Therefore, the university should verify the effectiveness of its credit
substantiation activities along with the appropriateness of this measure.
Recommendations
University Management and Finance As personnel decisions related to trustees and staff were arbitrarily made byparticular officers, the University must correct the situation to ensure appropriate
and fair personnel decisions.


The Board of Councilors and auditor failed to exercise checks on the Board ofTrustees, and governance was not performed appropriately. The University mustcorrect the situation by developing a system for appropriately checking the statusof operational execution by the Board of Trustees, trustees, etc.

Members of the Board of Trustees did not conduct adequate discussion, and thetrustees failed to perform their mutual checking function. The University intends
to create a new and functioning governance structure, including a system forchecking the Board of Trustees. Therefore, the JUAA hopes it develops andimplements effective, concrete measures for improvement to achieve sounduniversity management.

9