3.6 Creation and Elimination of Academic Programs
3.6.1 Creation of Academic Programs
New degree programs or new major programs of academic work shall not be added to curricula of an institution unless recommended by the president of the institution concerned, the Chancellor, and the Committee on Academic Affairs, and approved by the Board.
Programs that provide academic credit but award certificates rather than degrees must be approved based on guidelines issued by the Chancellor. These guidelines will be provided to the presidents and chief academic officers by the Chancellor (BoR Minutes, May 2004).
Ph.D. programs shall be limited to research universities (BoR Minutes, 1954-55, pp. 102-03; July, 1996, p. 17). Comprehensive universities do not normally offer Ph.D. degrees. In exceptional cases, however, they may offer the Ph.D. when:
- The program supports the central mission of that university;
- There is demonstrated demand for the program;
- There is demonstrated need for graduates of the program; and,
- There is assurance of high academic quality.
(BoR Minutes, April 2008)
All such program proposals will be subject to Board approval processes for graduate programs. The USG chief academic officer will seek counsel from appropriate USG leaders and other research universities, and then make recommendations to the Chancellor and the Board of Regents as to whether a comprehensive university has met these criteria (BR Minutes, April 2008).
In the case of applied doctorates, the Chancellor may recommend exceptions to the above policy under guidelines adopted by the USG chief academic officer.
3.6.2 Termination of Academic Programs
The termination of educational programs, degrees, or majors shall be submitted to the Chancellor for review and recommendation for action by the Board of Regents. Subsequent reinstatement of a program must be submitted as a proposal for a new program, as noted in Section 3.6.1 of this Policy Manual.
A temporary suspension of an educational program, degree, or major may be approved by a president for a period not to exceed two (2) academic years to allow for program review, to consider enrollment problems, to deal with faculty shortages, or for other similar reasons. The imposition and removal of a temporary suspension shall be reported to the Chancellor.
3.6.3 Comprehensive Academic Program Review
Each USG institution shall conduct academic program review on a periodic basis. Consistent with efforts in institutional effectiveness and strategic planning, each USG institution shall develop procedures to evaluate the effectiveness of its academic programs through a systematic review of academic programs, to address the quality, viability, and productivity of efforts in teaching and learning, scholarship, and service as appropriate to the institution’s mission. The review of academic programs shall involve analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data, and institutions must demonstrate that they make judgments about the future of academic programs within a culture of evidence.
The cycle of review for all undergraduate academic programs shall be no longer than seven (7) years, and for all graduate programs no longer than ten (10) years. Programs accredited by external entities may substitute an external review for institutional program review, provided the external review meets USG and institution requirements for program review. If an external accreditation entity’s review cycle for undergraduate programs is ten (10) years, the ten-year review cycle may be used for that program only. No program review cycle at any level shall exceed ten (10) years.
The USG chief academic officer must approve each institution’s plan for the conduct of a complete cycle of program review and may require changes in the plan, providing adequate time for the change to be implemented. Each institution shall conduct program review according to the terms of its approved plan, with annual updates and requests for changes to the plan as necessary. Requests for changes to the plan will be reviewed and approved by the USG chief academic officer. Updates to Comprehensive Program Review Schedules will be provided as notification items to the USG chief academic officer.
Planning and conduct of academic program reviews shall be used for the progressive improvement and adjustment of programs in the context of the institution’s strategic plan and in response to findings and recommendations of the reviews. Adjustment may include program enhancement, maintenance at the current level, reduction in scope, or, if fully justified, consolidation or termination. Actions taken as the result of reviews and strategic plans shall be documented as provided below.
Each institution shall submit an annual program review report to the USG chief academic officer, which shall include a list of academic programs reviewed and a summary of findings for programs reviewed during the previous year. The institution must summarize actions taken both as the result of current reviews and as follow-up to prior years’ reviews. For each review, institutions must establish that the program has undergone review and is meeting rigorous standards. The report must identify quality, viability, and productivity parameters measured, and the findings relative to internal standards, the institution’s strategic plan, and, as appropriate, external benchmarks.
The USG chief academic officer shall monitor annually a small number of performance indicators for academic programs and shall initiate dialogue with the chief academic officer of the institution when programs do not meet the guidelines defined by the indicators. If further investigation justifies additional study, the institution may be asked to conduct an off-cycle review of such programs.