ÃÛÌÇÖ±²¥

Approved: November 2019

The College of Engineering and Applied Science engages in reviews of all new academic credentials (degrees, degree subplans, minors, and certificates), as well as changes to these credentials over time. It also conducts reviews for new and updated course proposals as well as the creation of new programs or departments within the college. The authority to conduct these reviews comes from a combination of Regent Law, Campus policies, our College Rules, and the need to conform to standard operating procedures of campus-level entities, such as the Office of Undergraduate Education, the Graduate School, and the Office of the Registrar.

The CEAS academic review process has a standard structure with only minor variations. The main difference in the workflow is determined by the type of students supported by a proposal under review, either undergraduate students or graduate students, but sometimes both populations at once (e.g. Bachelor’s Accelerated Master’s programs).

For the creation of new programs: If a unit intends to create a new academic program, the originating unit first creates a short description of intent, and sends it to the Senior Vice Provost for Academic Planning and Assessment, and to the relevant CEAS Associate Dean(s), for review and feedback before developing a full proposal. If given approval to move forward, the unit can then engage in the workflows described below.

Undergraduate and Graduate Academic Review Workflows

For undergraduate programs, the review workflow consists of the following steps:

1.    The originating unit creates a full proposal and reviews and approves it internally.
2.    The unit’s Associate Chair for Undergraduate Education sends the approved proposal to the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education.
3.    The Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education sends the proposal to the Undergraduate Education Council (UEC) for review and approval.
4.    Once approved, the Dean writes a letter of support for the proposal.
5.    The proposal then moves to the Office of Undergraduate Education for review and approval by the Academic Affairs Advisory Committee.
6.    The proposal then moves to the Senior Vice Provost for Academic Planning & Assessment; the Senior Vice Provost determines any remaining steps associated with the campus-level review process and will oversee that process. This process may include coordination with ÃÛÌÇÖ±²¥ System, the Regents, and the State of ÃÛÌÇÖ±²¥.
7.    Once approved, the proposal heads to the Office of the Registrar (as well as possibly additional offices) for implementation, often with active participation of faculty and staff of the originating unit.
 
For graduate programs, the review workflow consists of the following steps:

1.    The originating unit creates a full proposal and reviews and approves it internally.
2.    The unit’s Associate Chair for Graduate Education sends the approved proposal to the Associate Dean for Graduate Programs.
3.    The Associate Dean for Graduate Programs sends the proposal to the Graduate Education Council (GEC) for review and approval.
4.    Once approved, the Dean writes a letter of support for the proposal.
5.    The proposal then moves to the Graduate School for review and approval by the Graduate School’s Executive Advisory Council (EAC).
6.    Once approved by the EAC, the proposal goes to the Senior Vice Provost for Academic Planning & Assessment; the Senior Vice Provost will determine any remaining steps associated with the campus-level review process and will oversee that process. Again, this process may include coordination with ÃÛÌÇÖ±²¥ System, the Regents, and the State of ÃÛÌÇÖ±²¥.
7.    Once approved, the proposal heads to the Graduate School and the Office of the Registrar (as well as possibly additional offices) for implementation, often with active participation of faculty and staff of the originating unit.

The above information specifies the formal academic review process. For some proposals, certain steps can be skipped or otherwise expedited. For proposals supporting both undergraduate and graduate students, the process is combined such that both the UEC and GEC must review and approve the proposal and, in addition, the campus level process will involve both the Graduate School and the Office of Undergraduate Education.

Please note, however, that the formal process simply documents the approval chains needed to bring a new program into existence; it does not describe how these proposals are actually created.

The best path to success in all cases is for the originating unit to get in touch with the relevant Associate Dean(s) as soon as possible after deciding to pursue the creation of a proposal. The Associate Deans will pull in all relevant stakeholders to perform early (and highly iterative) informal reviews of the proposal—helping it to develop over time into a full proposal—to help increase the chances of a successful review at the college and campus levels. For instance, the creation of new degree programs and certificates will often require that market analysis be undertaken to inform the proposal and that college financial officer(s) and the Office of Budget and Fiscal Planning be engaged to assist in the creation of budgets along with reviewing the feasibility and viability of the proposed program. These steps need to happen DURING the creation of the full proposal BEFORE it is approved by the originating unit. Early engagement of the Associate Deans will ensure that these steps occur.

In the near future, this entire process will be supported by a system being developed by the Office of the Registrar in close coordination with the Senior Vice Provost for Academic Planning & Assessment. This system will support the review of statements of intent for new programs by the Senior Vice Provost as well as the full undergraduate and graduate academic workflows outlined above and with provisions for supporting the informal, iterative process that campus, colleges, and units engage in to create these proposals and see them to implementation.