Academic Policy

The duties of the Academic Policy Committee as stated by Faculty Senate By-law XIX:

The Academic Policy Committee shall make recommendations to the Senate on matters of academic policy, including proposed new academic programs, changes in existing programs or in general School or College requirements, and policies affecting the academic work of the University, with the exception of matters referred to other committees of the Senate.

____________________________________________________

On this page, you will find:

  1. APC Bylaws 11.14.08
  2. APC Reporting Guidelines 2.12.13
  3. APC New Program Proposal Guidelines Jan 2012
  4. New Program Approval Form

The above items link to Microsoft Word documents of the same
information listed below.

____________________________________________________

By-laws of the Academic Policy Committee (Approved on November 14, 2008)

The Academic Policy Committee (hereafter APC) is a standing committee of the Faculty Senate (hereafter the Senate) concerned with academic programs and policies. In the following, “committee” shall refer to the APC, and “chair” to chair of the committee, unless otherwise noted.

1. Membership and offices: In accord with Senate by-laws and procedures,

a. The members of the APC are self-nominated and appointed by the Senate.

b. The membership of the committee shall elect a chair (who must be a senator), and may elect or designate other officers (possibly including a co-chair or vice-chair) who need not be Senate members.

c. The Chair of the Senate shall be an ex officio member of the APC.

d. The Chair shall, with the consent of the Executive Committee of the Senate, solicit members from unrepresented schools or colleges.

e. The Chair may ask a member who consistently misses scheduled meetings without excuse to resign from the committee, and may ask the Executive Committee to authorize such a member’s removal.

f. The APC recommends that each college/school EPC designate a formal liaison with the committee. Such liaison may be a member of the APC.

2. Responsibilities of the APC

a. Broadly speaking, APC responsibilities comprise review of programs (and in certain cases, courses), and consideration of issues of academic policies and practice, reporting appropriate recommendations to the Senate and to other parties as instructed by that body or the Executive Committee.

b. Programs subject to review are, broadly speaking, those that offer a credential on the final transcript, and those not the responsibility of any one school or college.

3. Review of programs and courses includes:

a. Review and approval of all new major programs awarding an undergraduate or graduate degree. (A major program is new if it offers a different degree, it is offered in a new discipline, or is offered by a new academic unit.)

b. Review and approval of all proposed dual-degree programs, and all programs with significant external components, taught outside the university campus.

i. Internships, cooperative education, student teaching, nursing practicums, field periods, and similar requirements do not count as a significant external component, unless the credit total for all external courses required by a program constitutes more than 1/3 of that program’s required credits.

c. Review and approval of virtual, on-line, or extern (off-campus) versions of any program that would itself require APC approval, even if an on-campus version of the program already exists; conversely, review and approval of on-campus versions of programs previously offered only externally, on-line or virtually.

d. Review and approval of substantial changes in major programs, in the following cases:

i. As instructed by the Senate or the Executive Committee,

ii. Where APC or Senate review is considered necessary or is requested by the (EPC) or Faculty Assembly of the school in which the program is offered,

iii. For major programs (such as Gerontology) or dual degree programs offered through multiple departments crossing school/college boundaries or in affiliation with other institutions (such as engineering programs), or

iv. Where in the judgment of the proponents issues of concern (as described in Section 5) may arise as a result of changes.[1]

e. Review and approval of new minor or certificate programs where any of the following conditions apply:

i. There is no corresponding major program granting a degree,

ii. The program crosses school/college boundaries, other than within an existing department, program, or framework,

iii. The program is to be offered in virtual, on-line, or extern format, or

iv. The program has been referred to the APC by the EPC or the Faculty Assembly of a particular school/college, or by the Faculty Senate.

f. Review and coordination of minor, certificate, and departmental honors programs requiring substantial additional resources, new courses, or staff.

i. The principal focus of APC review shall be (1) the adequacy of resources, including library, staff, classroom, and technology resources, and (2) interactions with related programs (including conflicts), especially interactions with programs in other schools.

ii. The APC shall, where possible and unless directed by the Senate, defer to the findings of the school/college Educational Policy Committee (EPC) and/or Faculty Assembly.

g. Review of other minor, certificate, and departmental honors proposals, for context and (non-binding) recommendations, and to determine if issues exist suggesting that further APC consideration is warranted.

i. If the APC deems that such consideration is warranted, it shall request approval of the Senate or the Executive Committee, and shall inform the proponents and the APC of the host school/college that such a request is pending.

h. Review of entirely new or highly revised school/college core curricula, for issues of resources and coordination with other campus units.

i. Review and approval of new or revised courses and programs not housed within any unit of the University; in particular, to review courses associated with a University Core Curriculum or required by the University (rather than its constituent schools and colleges) of all or most undergraduate majors.[2]

j. Consideration of any other course or program proposals assigned or remanded to the committee by the Senate.

4. Consideration of issues of academic policy and practice includes:

a. Matters referred to the committee by the Senate or by the Executive Committee.

b. With consent of the Executive Committee, matters referred by (1) the Dean of a school or college, the Provost, the Registrar, or other administrators, (2) the Faculty Assembly of a school or college, or its EPC, or (3) another committee of the Senate. In exceptional circumstances, with the approval of the Executive Committee, (4) an academic department, appealing a decision of the EPC or Faculty Assembly of a school or college, if the APC appears to have jurisdiction.

i. The APC may on its own initiative investigate and make recommendations on referral, where these matters touch on (1) the claimed duplication of courses (following previously approved procedures for this situation), or (2) programs running without having passed APC review and Senate approval, established in or after AY 2000-2001.

ii. Here and elsewhere, “APC initiative” requires a majority of quorate meeting or of an electronic poll of the committee membership.

c. With consent of the Executive Committee, matters initiated by the APC itself, to address perceived academic problems or violations of APC or Senate process or procedure, or situations creating serious problems with the concerns outlined in Section 3.

5. Concerns in the evaluation of programs, and of courses for which the APC has jurisdiction:

a. The clarity and quality of the overall proposal, and consistency of program structure across schools/colleges and disciplines, understood in the context of the demands of the discipline.

b. The academic quality of a program, and of its constituent courses, are the primary responsibility of the host department or program, together with the EPC and Faculty Assembly of the respective school(s) or college(s). The APC may nonetheless, where approval is required, consider these issues in making its recommendation(s) to the Senate.

i. The APC shall forward such recommendations to the EPCs of the school(s) or college(s), allowing sufficient time to address comments to the committee and/or the Senate.

c. The merits of the program, in terms of (1) academic coherence, (2) its market, both in terms of the prospective audience, and in terms of the prospects for its graduates, and (3) plans for evaluation and review of the program, including but not restricted to the Program Review process.

d. Compatibility with, and fit within, the academic and institutional goals and plans of the University.

e. The resources available to the program, including but not limited to (1) faculty, both current and required numbers, and expertise, (2) staff and released time and compensation for administration, (3) classrooms, lab and office space, (4) library, technology (software, hardware, TLTC support, and on-line and other materials), laboratory support, and other instructional and support materials, and (5) other program-specific resources and support.

f. Administrative support for the program, both in general, and as relates to (1) current and future staffing, (2) program promotion, including public relations, recruiting, marketing and advertising, and (3) specification of responsibility for assignment or acquisition of other needed resources.

g. Impact on and support needed from other schools and programs, including (1) cognate courses to be provided by other units, including possible cross-listing, (2) duplication of existing courses offered by other campus units, (3) competition for students currently pursuing existing programs, and (4) competition for other specific resources.

i. It should be noted that such other departments and schools have a right to be consulted, but no right either to prevent or to indefinitely delay consideration of and action upon a proposal, if in the judgment of the APC or the Senate the benefits of the proposed program outweigh the costs, or if the objection is judged frivolous. Such departments do however have the right to determine how often their own advanced courses will be offered, to evaluate the qualifications of prospective students, and when demand exceeds capacity, to prioritize course enrollment and limit class size.

h. Program-form-specific considerations

i. For dual-degree and interdisciplinary programs, the degree of fit between components, the clarity of division of resources and responsibilities, and a demonstration of commitment from both/all parties.

ii. For dual-degree programs conferring both undergraduate and graduate degrees, the number and fraction of dually-counted credits.

iii. For programs with a significant external component[3], the level of support and commitment from the other institution, and documentation of that support.

iv. For on-line and virtual programs or courses, issues of content, uniformity, and integrity, as well as faculty and administrative support.

v. For extern programs, the adequacy of facilities, and the credentials of instructors if not SHU faculty.

i. Other context-specific factors.

j. Minors and certificates that correspond to existing major programs and which have as their audience the current student population, and which do not match one or more of the special situations discussed in paragraph h above, applicable criteria should be limited to c (3), e, and g above, and criterion f to the extent it affects these, together with issues raised by the relevant EPC or Faculty Assembly or the Faculty Senate.

i. For criterion c (3), such programs require only a statement that the program will undergo Program Review with the corresponding major program. An alternate initial review date may be proposed if the major Program Review date is not appropriate.

ii. The APC shall give due deference to the findings of the relevant EPC and/or Faculty Assembly relative to criteria e, f, and h.

6. Program proposals

a. The APC shall develop[4] forms, guidelines and timelines for the submission of major proposals.

i. Program proponents shall follow this structure or equivalent to the extent possible.

ii. Proponents may request waiver, and the committee may waive various aspects of this structure, where, in the determination of the APC, or at the direction of the Senate or the Executive Committee, they do not apply.

iii. The APC may in exceptional cases require additional documentation or signatures specific to the nature or contents of the proposal.

iv. Proponents of proposals for minors, certificates, and departmental honors should consider these forms as guidelines for required information, according to the degree of review required.

b. Following established custom, the APC may consider a proposal approved by the EPC of a school or college in parallel with its consideration by the Faculty of the School or College, with the agreement of said EPC, provided that no final committee action shall be taken on the proposal until and unless it is approved by said Faculty.

c. All proposals and supplementary documentation become the property of the committee to use in pursuing its deliberations. However, the proponents retain final control of the content of the proposal, and can prevent distribution of materials outside of the University community.

d. While proposals may offer multiple program alternatives, the APC shall consider each program separately.

i. Each of the following constitutes a separate proposal: a major (with a degree and a subject), a minor, a certificate primarily for matriculated students, a certificate primarily for non-matriculated students or continuing education, a departmental honors program, a dual-degree program, a virtual or extern version of any of the above.

ii. The APC may at its discretion consider the following as a single proposal: (1) multiple comparable tracks in a major or in a minor, (2) multiple comparable certificates within a single program, (3) multiple programs offered in collaboration with another institution or institutions, if their Seton Hall components are largely identical. Widely divergent tracks in a major program will ordinarily be considered separate proposals.

iii. The proponents may request that items separated by the committee be voted upon collectively, and the committee shall take a vote on any such request.

iv. If a proposal has been separated, and all parts approved, the proponents may request that the proposal (or any parts thereof) be forwarded to the Senate in a single motion, and the committee shall take a vote on such request.

e. Proposals should be considered in a timely manner, in the order received (as a new or as a revised proposal).

i. Proposals requiring only brief consideration may be given higher priority; should issues arise making this impossible, the priority of such a proposal will be governed by its submission date.

ii. Priorities may be modified at the direction of the Senate or its Executive Committee, or by consent of all parties concerned, or by unanimous consent of the committee.

iii. The proponents may at any time prior to the final vote request postponement of consideration of the proposal pending revision of the proposal or submission of supplementary or clarifying information, and may at any time prior to the committee recommendation to the Senate withdraw the proposal. (Thereafter, the proposal becomes the property of the Senate, and may only be withdrawn by its leave.)

1. Resubmission after brief deferral by the proponents shall be treated as equivalent to revision at committee request; resubmission after lengthy postponement or withdrawal shall be considered as a new proposal.

iii. iv. A minor revision of a proposal may be accorded higher priority.

iv. v. Discussion of committee procedural issues, issues arising under Section 2(c), and/or matters affecting the conduct of committee business may at the discretion of the APC or at the direction of the Senate take precedence over the consideration of program proposals.

f. While a proposal is under review, the APC may

i. Distribute copies of the proposal or any supporting documentation to, and solicit responses from, any administrator, department or individual who in the judgment of the committee has a legitimate interest in that proposal, using the following protocol.

1. Nothing shall be distributed without (a) a committee vote in favor of this action, or (b) approval of the proponents, or where these cannot be obtained in a timely fashion (c) authorization by the Executive Committee.

2. The committee shall inform the proponents, and shall inform the Executive Committee in cases that may be controversial.

3. Where possible, the proponents shall have the opportunity to request changes in the set of materials to be distributed (but not in the content of individual documents) or to the distribution list, or to request that the distribution be deferred pending revision of the proposal, or submission of supplementary or clarifying information, with the understanding that this may postpone action on the proposal.

4. The right to provide clarifying information or rationales is retained by the proponents, and the proponents may at their option either send this information to recipients, or request and require that the committee do so.

5. The committee may accompany the documents with a precis and/or a list of open issues or questions, which shall also be shared with the proponents.

6. Responses to committee requests shall be shared with the proponents. In exceptional cases (e.g., to protect non-tenured faculty), the chair shall provide a summary of responses.

ii. Request that the proponents supply additional information, consult with named entities or individuals, or revise the language or structure of the proposal, and the committee may use the response as input to their decision.

g. Once a proposal is in final form, and in the absence of proposals with higher priority, deliberation should ordinarily be complete within two meetings.

7. Development of recommendations on other issues

a. The APC shall as requested under Section 4 develop recommendations, policies, procedures, guidelines, surveys or other documents as necessary to address the given concern.

b. The APC may seek input on such issues from any campus entity, including but not limited to academic and other departments, and individual faculty and administrators.

c. The APC shall, as instructed by the Senate or the Executive Committee, work with other committees of the Senate or other University bodies in developing recommendations, policies, or procedures.

d. The APC may seek formal or informal review of draft recommendations from members of the Executive Committee or other Senate committees or their chairs, from the Parliamentarian of the Senate, or from other entities or individuals with consent of the Senate or the Executive Committee.

8. Quorum

a. A gathering of more than 50% of the membership conducted by the chair or a designee shall constitute a quorum for all business. An initial meeting of more than 50% conducted by the convener shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of selecting a chair and other officers.

b. A meeting of 40% of the committee membership, conducted by the chair or a designee, shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of deliberation. Such a quorum may conduct a vote, but such a vote must be confirmed by an electronic ballot.

c. An electronic ballot may be called for:

i. Dependent on receipt of some document or information requiring urgent action or reconsideration of a decision.

ii. As a result of a substantive motion conducted at a meeting under (b) above.

iii. At the request of any member of the committee, with consent of the majority of committee members present.

iv. A committee member excused from a meeting may request an electronic ballot on any issue to be considered at that meeting, and the request shall be considered if the issue is in fact addressed.

A vote of more than 50% of the membership shall constitute a quorum for electronic ballots.

d. Members who have asked to be excused for the term due to class or other conflicts shall not count either against or for the quorum, other than for electronic ballots.

e. Conflicts of interest

i. A member who is a proponent, or who has another potential conflict of interest, may recuse him/herself on a given issue, or may be asked by the chair or the committee to do so. A member may seek the advice of the committee on whether a given matter rises to the level of a serious conflict of interest.

ii. A member who stands recused on given matter

1. Shall not cast a vote, and shall not count either for or against a quorum, and the recusal shall not be considered a lack of unanimity on question.

2. If recused as a proponent, or as a representative of another interested department, or in another professional capacity, may participate in discussions open to proponents, at his or her discretion, but shall, absent permission of the chair and the committee, not participate in executive sessions.

3. If recused for personal rather than professional reasons, shall ordinarily not participate in discussions of the question.

4. Shall receive all minutes and reports, but not confidential communications; but this policy may be overridden in a specific instance by a decision of the chair and committee.

f. The Chair of the Senate, as an ex officio member of the committee, shall not count either against or for the quorum, including on electronic ballots.

g. Any member may request a secret ballot, or an anonymous electronic ballot, on any issue.

9. Deliberations and Voting

a. The APC shall meet weekly, assuming sufficient business, insofar as is compatible with the University schedule, in the absence of extraordinary factors.

b. The committee dies with the Senate, unless

i. Extended by the Senate, along with other committees, to a date certain, no later than the beginning of the next fall term, or

ii. Unless requested by the committee and approved by the Senate, to consider fixed agenda items, to be completed by a date certain, no later than the beginning of the next fall term.

iii. The Senate may nonetheless direct, possibly at the committee’s request, that specific items of business be carried over in their present state to the subsequent academic year and its Academic Policy Committee. In the absence of such directions, proposals must be evaluated de novo.

c. The APC shall aspire to consensus on most issues, and for most issues shall deliberate as a committee of the whole.

d. Proponents and other interested parties shall be invited to attend deliberations, but will not be present for the vote. The APC may invite interested parties on its own initiative, informing the proponents in a timely fashion of said invitation.

e. Unanimous quorate votes shall be reported as unanimous, possibly with a given number of abstentions. Other votes shall be reported by the count of the yeas and nays.

i. Electronic votes shall be reported as having been conducted electronically.

f. The committee may approve a program or recommendation, approve with reservations, report without recommendation, or reject.

i. It is preferable that the committee rarely if ever report proposals without recommendation.

ii. Rather than taking action, the committee may instead ask for guidance from the Senate on a particular proposal or recommendation, preferably by identifying a set of questions or requests for clarification.

iii. The committee may recommend that another committee of the Senate be charged (or co-charged) with consideration of the question.

g. The committee may instruct the chair (or the secretary, if there is one, or a designee) to convey committee reservations or endorsements in addition to reporting the vote.

h. Following each meeting, the chair, other officer or designee shall prepare draft minutes, to be circulated to committee members, guests, and other interested parties. Such minutes shall be revised as needed, and final minutes shall be circulated no later than the second meeting following the given meeting.

10. Reports to the Senate

a. Reports to the Senate shall be made in timely fashion, and report

i. Business conducted during the interval since the last report (ordinarily monthly),

ii. All actions and recommendations of the body,

iii. Any pending issues or proposals on which the APC seeks guidance or authorization.

iv. All motions resulting from committee business and requiring Senate approval. The committee shall include a request of the secretary that the text of such resolutions and supporting documentation be forwarded to appropriate administrators and other parties, including the Program Review Committee for proposals requiring review on or by a specific date. Programs approved should be forwarded to the Registrar, after approval by the Provost and/or the Board of Trustees, as required.

v. Any procedural or advisory actions not part of the deliberation of other motions, and not requiring Senate action (e.g., election of officers, setting of regular meeting times, receipt of communications, advisories of lack of jurisdiction), to inform the Senate and the faculty, and for possible Senate review.

b. The committee may at its discretion forward proposals and/or supporting materials to the Secretary of the Senate (or other designee) to post or mail for Senate consideration, or request of the proponents or the originators that they do so, severally.

c. For successful program proposals, the committee shall request that the proponents prepare a brief executive summary to be mailed to the secretary and to the chair of the committee. The chair may copy this summary to committee members and other interested parties.

d. The chair or a designee shall be present to provide requested clarification or additional information on proposals or on APC actions.

e. The chair or a designee shall keep records of all committee reports, and to the extent practical, all correspondence, minutes, and other documents.

[1] This can be positive–using the APC and the Senate to argue for additional library funding, marketing, or other support–or prophylactic–using the APC to certify that possible conflicts have been resolved.

[2] Note that this does not apply to courses in the University Honors program, which lies within the jurisdiction of the College of Arts & Sciences.

[3] “External” includes the Seton Hall School of Law or other SHU units not subject to Senate jurisdiction.

[4] In fact, has developed.

____________________________________________________

APC Reporting Guidelines (Final, February 12, 2013)

The Academic Policy Committee (APC) provides the following guidelines to assist Schools, Colleges, Departments, and other divisions in determining when to report new programs and changes to programs to the APC and the Senate.  In general, as its primary task, the APC reviews proposals for new and modified programs (and in certain cases, courses) and makes appropriate recommendations to the Senate.  Programs subject to review are, broadly speaking, those that offer a credential on the final transcript, and/or those not the responsibility of any one school or college.

In reviewing these programs on the Senate’s behalf, APC looks to the Faculty Guide[1] and to the Committee’s Bylaws, particularly sections 2 and 3.  In any case where these Guidelines conflict with the Guide or the Bylaws, those documents control; these Guidelines are merely advisory.

APC and Senate review primarily involves the following items, which should be reported to APC.[2] Departments and Department chairs have the primary responsibility to report to APC.

a.  Review and approval of all new major programs awarding an undergraduate or graduate degree.  (A major program is an academic major or concentration).  A major program is new if it offers a different degree, it is offered in a new discipline, or is offered by a new academic unit.

b.  Review and approval of all proposed dual-degree programs, and all programs with significant external components, taught outside the university campus.

i.  Internships, cooperative education, student teaching, nursing practicums, field periods, and similar requirements do not count as a significant external component, unless the credit total for all external courses required by a program constitutes more than 1/3 of that program’s required credits.

c. Review and approval of virtual, on-line, or extern (off-campus) versions of any program that would itself require APC approval, even if an on-campus version of the program already exists; conversely, on-campus versions of programs previously offered only externally, or on-line.

d. Review and approval of substantial changes in major programs (“major” meaning an academic major or concentration)

i. Major programs include dual degree programs offered through multiple departments crossing school/college boundaries or in affiliation with other institutions (such as engineering programs);

ii. In particular, changes to programs should be reported where issues of concern (as described in Section 5 of the Bylaws) may arise as a result of those changes.  These may include, but are not limited to: the consistency of program structure across schools/colleges and disciplines; the compatibility of the program with, and fit within, the academic and institutional goals and plans of the University; the resources available to the program; and the impact on and support needed from other schools and programs.

iii.The following must  be reported:

1. All changes in any inter-college or cross-institutional programs.

2. Changes that potentially conflict with programs offered by other colleges.

3. Changes that require new university resources, including but not limited to library resources or faculty lines.

4. Institution of new tracks or substantial changes in existing tracks,

5. Changes that affect more than one-third of the courses required for a program.

The following need not be reported:

1. Changes that were deemed by the EPC of the College not to require a vote by the Faculty of the College, unless they meet one of the criteria above.

2. The following categories of small changes, unless they meet one of the criteria above:

a. Changes in the title of a program or program track (but see (2) and (4) above).

b. Changes in titles of courses or prerequisites for individual courses;

c. Other minor changes in catalog description or layout of the program or its constituent courses, including the numbering of courses;

d. Changes in the expected ordering of courses in the program;

e. Movement of courses between elective and required status;

f. Changes in number of credits or semesters for a course, or minor changes in the number of credits for a program, except for changes to reduce the size of an undergraduate major or graduate program below 30 credits;

g. Changes in the presence or nature of a capstone experience, seminar, independent study or research experience, field period, or related program component;

h. Changes in constraints on class size, method of delivery,  or course content for component courses—except insofar as changes such as adding on-line delivery for on-campus courses or programs (or vice-versa) require review as specified elsewhere in this document; or

i. Changes in the entrance qualifications for a program or its courses, including criteria for internal transfer, unless the changes interfere with requirements of another program, whose students typically take the specified course or courses as a cognate course.

When it is unclear whether a change should be reported, please consult with the chair of the APC.

e. Review and approval of new minor or certificate programs where any of the following conditions apply:

i.  There is no corresponding major program granting a degree,

ii.  The program crosses school/college boundaries, other than within an existing department, program, or framework,

iii.  The program is to be offered i on-line, or externally.

f.  Review and potential coordination of minor, certificate, and departmental honors program proposals or changes, especially when they require substantial additional resources, new courses, or staff.  (See Bylaws sections 3.f. and 3.g.)

g.  Review of entirely new or highly revised school/college core curricula, for issues of resources and coordination with other campus units.

h.  Review and approval of new or revised courses and programs not housed within any unit of the University; in particular, to review courses associated with a University Core Curriculum or required by the University (rather than its constituent schools and colleges) of all or most undergraduate majors.


[1] APC looks particularly to Article 12.2, which says that the entire full-time faculty are primarily responsible for (e) Review and coordination of all college curricula and academic programs, including continuing education; and (f) Review and approval of all university degree programs, existing and proposed.

[2] This description is not meant to provide an exhaustive list of APC’s responsibilities.  For example, APC also considers issues of academic policies and practice (Bylaws 2(a) and 4), which include: matters referred to the Committee by the Senate, the Executive Committee, or by certain other entities with consent of the Executive Committee; matters touching on the claimed duplication of courses or programs running without APC and Senate review; and, with Executive Committee consent, matters involving perceived academic problems or violations of APC or Senate processes, or situations creating serious concerns related to the review of programs and courses.

____________________________________________________

APC New Program Proposal Guidelines (Revised as of January, 2012)

The nature of the APC review is to ensure due diligence in program planning. Programs subject to review are, broadly speaking, those that offer a major, minor, or certificate credential on the final transcript. We realize that new programs may differ in size, scope, resource needs, and potential revenue projections. For example, the amount of detail required for a new minor or certificate program that leverages existing resources will likely be much less than the detail required for a new major degree granting program with significant internal or external resource needs or one that does not correspond to an existing program. As such, these suggested sections should be used to format and structure your proposal but should also be viewed as guidelines and not as strict requirements. Proposals should be reviewed and approved by the Chair of the Department and Dean of the College in which the program will be offered, the College Educational Policy Committee, or equivalent, the appropriate Faculty Body, and the Dean of the Library, prior to submitting the proposal to the APC. Applicants should be prepared to present their findings to the APC committee and answer questions. Please contact the chair of the APC and/or the APC by-laws for further clarification and possible exemptions. Program proposals should include the following sections.

1. Program overview, rationale, and expectations – This section should include an overview of the program, a justification for the program as understood in the context and demands of the discipline and academic and institutional goals and plans of the University, and should also define program objectives and expectations.

2. External and internal market assessment – This section should include components relevant to the desired program target market(s). This section could cover such items as national, local, and regional demand for the program, competitive institutional benchmarks, employment opportunities, and projections and likelihood for new and current student enrollments. If the target is the current student population external assessment is not required.

3. Internal impact – This section should describe the impact on and support needed from other schools and programs. Support may include cognate courses to be provided by other units and possible cross-listings, duplication of existing courses offered by other campus units, and competition for students in other existing programs.

4. Program needs– This section should describe resource needs relevant to meeting the desired program objectives. Considerations may include such things as faculty numbers, current and future library holdings, instructional support and materials, facilities and classroom space, equipment and technology, and administrative needs. Depending on the size and scope of the program proposal, more or less information will be required.

5. Program evaluation – This section should describe how the program will be evaluated, in light of the stated objectives and goals. Applicants should detail the need for any outside accreditation needed to open a new or expand/modify an existing program.

6. Statements of support – Proposals should include: statements from the Chair of the Department and Dean of the College in which the program will be offered confirming adequate planning and resource availability; a statement from the Dean of the Library, after consultation with the library liaison to the unit proposing the new program, confirming that current and future library resources are available to support the program, evidence that the program has been reviewed and approved by the College Educational Policy Committee, or equivalent, and the appropriate Faculty Body. Programs requiring significant internal or external resources should also include a statement of acknowledgment from the Provost’s office.

____________________________________________________

Academic Policy Committee Documents

New Program Approval Form