The U. T. Board of Regents has vested in the president of each component institution the responsibility and authority for academic program leadership at that institution, within the overall policy and standards articulated by the Board. The Academic Affairs Committee and Health Affairs Committee of the U. T. Board of Regents consider and report to the full Board on matters of academic planning and instruction at the nine general academic institutions and the six health institutions. This document describes the principles and standards that are used for program proposal review by the Academic Affairs and Health Affairs Committees and the staff of the Executive Vice Chancellors for Academic Affairs and Health Affairs in support of the work of the Committees.

The original policy, approved at the August 12, 1999, Board of Regents' meeting, included standards for only the nine general academic institutions. The February 15, 2001, amendment added the six health institutions to the policy.

Academic Program Approval Standards

The standards used for review and approval of academic program proposals are derived from three overarching principles that guide decisions about program goals, design, and implementation at the U. T. System institutions. These principles are:

1. New university degree and certificate programs should be consistent with the higher education goals and mission of the State of Texas, The University of Texas System, and the offering institution. This principle has implications not only for which programs should be offered by U. T. institutions, but also for how they are designed and delivered so as to be responsive to the needs of students, parents, and the private and public sectors.

2. U. T. degree and certificate programs should be of excellent quality. Program design, resources, and implementation plan, judged critically in view of the stated goals for a particular program, should compare favorably with State, national, and international standards and competing programs. In general, they should exceed minimum standards of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board or appropriate accrediting bodies.

3. Academic programs at U. T. institutions should represent good investments and efficient use of public and private resources. Program choice, design, and implementation plans should reflect wise use of institutional and interinstitutional or shared resources.

Applying these principles of excellence to review of proposed new academic degree or certificate programs, the Academic or Health Affairs Committee approves proposals that provide good evidence of meeting the following standards:

A. Standards Relating to Goals, Need, Fit

1. Program goals and educational objectives are clear.

2. Connections between proposed program goals and State and U. T. System goals and mission are strong and convincing.

3. Program goals advance institutional mission and strategic plan. Program is on the approved Table of Programs.

4. Program would meet a well-documented unmet need related to present or future manpower or social needs or regional priorities.

5. Program complements and builds upon existing university programs, strengths, and resources.

B. Standards for Quality of Implementation

1. Design of the degree or certificate program reflects under-standing of state-of-the-art in the discipline.

2. Resources, including faculty, facilities, special equipment, field placement sites for internships, library and information access, and others as necessary, are adequate to deliver program of excellent quality, meeting or exceeding Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) standards and those of other professional accrediting bodies where applicable.

3. Faculty responsible for program design and delivery have appropriate, relevant content expertise, scholarship records, and other professional experience and credentials.

4. New graduate programs are built upon demonstrated competence in related areas at the undergraduate or (where appropriate) master’s level.

5. Program implementation and delivery plans are responsive to student needs and supportive of student retention and graduation, in light of program goals and resource availability.

6. The program proposal includes a plan for periodic program evaluation focusing on the program objectives, productivity, faculty and resources, changes in environment such as competition and delivery modes, student outcomes, retention, and graduation.

7. An efficient administration plan for the program is described, with clear accountability and appropriate roles for faculty committees and unit administrators.

8. Interdisciplinary, cross-departmental, or cross-college programs are supported by administrative reporting structures likely to preserve interdisciplinary cooperation.

C. Standards for Costs and Revenues

1. Proposal presents clear, logically consistent estimates of program costs and revenues.

2. Prospective student demand adequate for an efficient program is convincingly demonstrated, with specific attention to competing programs, other providers, and other delivery systems.

3. Proposal establishes growth potential to generate adequate resources to support program costs from State formula funding sources after the first three years and, where appropriate, from non-State sources.

4. Available interinstitutional, shared resources are utilized where appropriate.

5. Overall program costs are justifiable in light of potential program benefits and impact.

D. Compliance Standard

Proposal complies in content and format with Coordinating Board rules and instructions for program authorization, so that approval is not likely to be delayed or complicated unnecessarily at that level.

E. Additional Standards for Doctoral Programs

1. There is a sufficient base of sponsored research programs in place to support student and faculty research.

2. Proposal presents convincing plans for recruitment of a critical mass of very talented students, carefully screened in accord with the goals of the program.

3. Proposed program addresses preparation for graduates’ future roles of teaching, research or creative endeavor, and work in nonacademic professional settings as appropriate.

4. Appropriate student support is available and/or there is a convincing plan for development of future support.

5. Because of the high level of resource requirements for doctoral programs, particularly rigorous attention must be applied to almost all approval standards in this document.

Last reviewed June 2001