Academic programs should be aligned with their missions, strategic plans,
and their institution’s goals and strategic directions.
Proposals for academic programs should reflect common criteria, quality;
centrality; comparative advantage; need (including accreditation, workforce
needs, etc.) efficiency and effectiveness; potential for growth and the
leveraging of resources.
Decisions to offer, change, or drop academic programs, when they have the
potential to affect other units within the University require extensive
consultation early in the program development stage.
Consideration and approval of academic program proposals should be carried
out by the Board of Regents or by appropriate-level administrator with
delegated authority from the Board.
Formal approval by the Board of Regents and the Coordinating Board is
required before new programs may be publicized or initiated.
This policy is intended to:
- Enhance quality, productivity, and efficiency in academic program development and implementation
- Ensure that program development is aligned with institutional, campus, college, mission,
strategic directions, and compacts
- Make explicit the criteria for academic programs and their connection related to policies
- Foster shared consultation and, where appropriate, joint planning across academic units
- Ensure thorough and timely review of proposals for approval at the appropriate level
This document summarizes guidelines and procedures for UT System
academic institutions as they work with the Office of Academic Affairs
on degree program change proposals. Two additional, critical resources
are at the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board web site:
There are three major categories of degree program change requests:
- Nonsubstantive program change requests
- Substantive baccalaureate and master’s
degree requests meeting the criteria for approval by the Commissioner of Higher
Education, and
- Doctoral program or other substantive
proposals requiring submission to the Coordinating Board at its quarterly meetings.
The Coordinating Board has defined nonsubstantive requests as those that meet
the following criteria:
- No implications for changes in institutional role and scope; conforms
to approved Table of Programs.
- No significant new costs.
- No issues of unnecessary duplication with programs at other institutions.
- Potential for high quality programming obvious from institution’s
previous experience in the same or closely related subject field.
In general these "nonsubstantive" requests are for changes in degree
designation for activity already being offered at the institution under other
approved program titles.
For nonsubstantive degree title change proposals, submit a letter with the president’s signature to the Executive
Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, prepared for the Executive
Vice Chancellor's signature. Nonsubstantive proposals will not
have to be submitted to the UT Board of Regents. If your
request is found to be in good order, it will be forwarded to
the Coordinating Board for staff review and approval by the
Commissioner on behalf of the Coordinating Board.
Questions frequently arise about approval requirements for changes
within currently authorized programs, such as the addition
of new options or concentrations, or the establishment of thesis
or non-thesis options. These do not normally involve changes in
degree titles, and may not require review or approval by the UT
System Office of Academic Affairs and the Coordinating Board. Some
program change proposals do not neatly or safely fit the categories
of "clearly exempt from review" and "must be
reviewed." Components are encouraged to send such program
proposals for informal review and comment by Office of Academic
Affairs staff, without going to the trouble of completing a formal
proposal. The essential information to send includes the curriculum
description (with course titles and numbers) and resource needs.
Following are the most recent informal guidelines in this regard
from the Coordinating Board.
For undergraduate programs, anything that approaches what
might be considered a major—usually more than 21 credit
hours—that will be specified in the catalog or
reflected in a variation of the degree title raises program
inventory questions and should be forwarded for review. But,
if there are option proposals of fewer than 21 hours that
could be construed as creating different programs, the Office
of Academic Affairs would be glad to look at these without
full nonsubstantive proposals. Just send a letter or fax with
the essentials as noted above.
Program options (concentrations, tracks, or whatever they may
be called) of twelve or fewer credit hours can be
established and advertised in the catalog without review
by the Office of Academic Affairs or the Coordinating Board.
Anything more than that in a graduate program begins to raise
questions of whether the Coordinating Board might classify it as
a separate program in their inventory, regardless of what you
are labeling the degree. These should be submitted to this office
and will most likely require routine review of Coordinating Board
staff.
A Caution
Establishment of concentrations in interdisciplinary programs
has caused some problems for universities in the past, and these are
good choices for informal review. As a general rule, if any change
could be considered creation of a new program and will be reflected
in the catalog as a program, then it should be submitted for Coordinating
Board consideration to get in their program inventory.
Program changes such as adjustments in the total number of credit
hours, addition or deletion of courses, or thesis or nonthesis options
for authorized degree programs do not require review or approval of
either the Office of Academic Affairs or the Coordinating Board, as
long as they are within normally accepted ranges for the type of program
that was authorized.
Under procedures adopted in January 1999 by the Coordinating Board,
most proposals for substantive program changes at the baccalaureate and
master’s level are eligible for approval at the Coordinating Board
staff level by the Commissioner on behalf of the Coordinating Board. These require fully-developed proposals using the
format
for substantive degree program requests on the Coordinating Board
Universities Division web site, and they are submitted to the UT System
Office of Academic Affairs.
During planning and proposal preparation for new programs,
address the criteria for program approval listed in the Coordinating
Board’s Rules and Regulations, Chapter 5
(www.thecb.state.tx.us/CBRules).
Information about potential duplication of programs in the state
can be most easily researched by using three different
Coordinating Board web sites:
- Find the most appropriate CIP code by using the "Index "
feature at the
Coordinating Board's Texas CIP Codes page.
- Access the list of all degree programs in the state by linking to the
Program Inventory web page, select the institutions to be searched by choosing from
the list in the Institutions dialog box, enter the appropriate CIP code, and then click
the Search Inventory button to obtain your results.
- Check for other recently proposed and pending degree programs: view the
Coordinating Board web site list of pending proposals for new degree programs under
Program and Administrative Proposal Tracking and follow the directions
listed on the page.
In general, bachelor’s and master’s degree proposals are eligible
for staff-level approval at the Coordinating Board if they meet the following criteria:
- they are on the approved Table of Programs,
- they are of high quality and meet SACS and other accrediting agency standards,
- adequate practicum placement sites are available if applicable,
- there is demonstrated student interest and job market need,
- there are no program duplication issues,
- five year cost is less than $1 million, and
- no new special item funding would be required.
To submit proposals in this category, send four originals signed
by the president, using the
substantive change proposal format on the Coordinating Board web site to
the Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, prepared for signature
by the Executive Vice Chancellor. This form includes all information needed from your president.
System administration staff has been delegated authority by the Board of Regents to review and approve Bachelors and Masters proposals. Please allow System Administration staff at least thirty days to review and make any recommendations for changes.
If approved by the Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, , proposals
will be forwarded to the Coordinating Board, where they may be
approved by the Commissioner, denied approval, or forwarded to
the Coordinating Board for consideration at a quarterly meeting.
Referral to the Board may be prompted by an expression of concern
from any institution.
Proposals for new doctoral programs are submitted for review and approval at
regular meetings of the UT System Board of Regents and the
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.
The following criteria will be used in the review of doctoral proposals by System administration sfaff.
Institutional Mission and Strategic Goals
- In what ways is the proposed doctoral program consistent with the institution’s
mission?
- How does the doctoral program support the strategic direction and compact?
- Does the program relate to other institution’s programs?
- If your institution has a Master’s program in the areas, is it producing a
significant number of graduates?
- What are the implications? Impact to other units colleges or campuses?
- National, State and Regional Need
- What is the need and demand for the program? Are similar programs offered at
other systems? If so, how do you justify the replication of programs?
- Evidence that the program meets societal needs and expectations
- Evidence of consultation with potential employers or professional organizations
- Employment data (availability of jobs for graduates)
- Enrollment data for similar programs
- Data reflecting student interest or demand, both short and long term
- Projected number of applicants for the program
- Projected number of degrees to be conferred per year at full operation
- Is it possible to offer this program as a collaborative/cooperative with another
institution/entity?
- Program Quality and Assessment
- Core Faculty
- What’s their publication record in refereed journals?
- What’s their record in successfully securing substantial extramural
funding to support their research program (if applicable to the field)?
- Is the proposed group diverse in forms of sub-specialties within the
discipline, level, and experience? Is it demographically diverse?
- Do faculty have terminal degrees from a variety of well-regarded institutions?
- Do faculty have prior experience directing dissertations?
- Are there any accrediting standards in regard to the minimum number
of faculty? If so, how many?
- Doctoral Curricula
- What is the full curricular plan, including specific courses, number of
credits by course and instructional faculty?
- What is the plan to assess learning outcomes and its relationship to the program?
- Are there any practica, internships, and clinical placements associated
with this program? If so, describe arrangements made with organizations
for student placements. Include supervision plans...
- Are there any accrediting standards, related to curriculum, that must be
met? If yes, what is the plan to achieve those standards and the
timetable to achieve them?
- Learning Assessment
- What are the learning outcomes for the program?
- How will the outcomes be measured? How often?
- How will instructors, faculty continue to improve teaching and learning?
- What about graduation rates, and average time-to-degree? How those
be measured? What standards will be applied?
- Institutional and Financial Support for the Program
- Is the program within the capacity of unit’s resources?
- Have resources been allocated to support the proposed program? How?
- If additional resources are needed, how will the program leverage existing
resources to attract new resources?
- What steps will be taken to insure the program is operated economically and
efficiently?
- What current resources (facilities, equipment, and library materials) would
contribute to the program?
- What resources would need to be added?
- Student Quality and Financial Support
- What measures do you expect to see of incoming students? (admission exam scores? Others?)
- What measures do you expect to use to evaluate the success of the program?
Number and/or percentage of graduates placed in a job after graduation?
- How many students will be supported yearly? What are the national
expectations within this field for student support?
- Number of TA’s, GRA’s, IA’s positions available dedicated to support
graduate students.
- Allocation of dollars to support students
- What’s the specific plan to recruit high quality graduate students?
When planning and preparing doctoral program proposals,
carefully consider the criteria for approval listed in the
Coordinating Board Rules and Regulations,
Policies & Procedures Manual pg. 11 & CB Rule 5.46, including the questions noted above.
The Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
is available for consultation and can be especially helpful in
early stage planning. Research potential duplication of program
issues using the web sites identified earlier in this document.
To submit proposals in this category, send five originals with the
president’s signature, using the
substantive change proposal format on the Coordinating Board Universities
Division web site to the Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs,
prepared for signature by the Executive Vice Chancellor. All substantive
proposals must be accompanied by the two completed
cost forms
included on the web site and a
Certification of Adequacy of Financing signed by the university president.
To expedite processing in the Office of Academic Affairs and help to
present your proposed program in its best light, also include a draft of the two page
Recommendation and
Background Statement to be included in the Board of Regents a
genda materials. Allow System Administration staff at least thirty
days prior to Regents agenda deadlines for proposal review. If
necessary, administrative staff can work with a near-final draft
to reduce lead time requirements.
