II. PREPARATION OF NEW PROGRAM DOSSIERS
Preparation of new program dossiers requiring approval by the Ministry of Education, Leisure and Sport should be done in close collaboration with the Office of the Deputy Provost (Helen M.C. Richard, , tel. 398-2985). The following elements should be covered in the (complete) dossier, preferably in this order (the items listed reflect the criteria and evaluation methodology used by CREPUQ’s Commission d’évaluation des projets de programmes, CEP (please also refer to: ):
Suggested structure of new program dossiers
Table of contents
Executive summary (one-two pages)
1. PROGRAM IDENTIFICATION: degree level, discipline or field and degree designation, teaching and administrative unit(s) responsible.
Example:
Bachelor's program in Computer Engineering
B.Eng. Computer Engineering
Unit(s) responsible: Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Faculty of Engineering
2. MOTIVES FOR PROPOSING THIS PROGRAM
2.1 academic and cultural
2.1.1evolution of the discipline;
2.1.2originality of the proposal;
2.1.3definition of body of knowledge;
2.1.4links with other disciplines;
2.1.5future developments in the discipline.
2.1.6history and strength of the discipline at McGill
(provide information on other programs offered in the discipline, student enrolments, related programs, performance record of students/graduates and academic staff, list of research activities and support, etc.);
2.2socio-economic
(new proposals submitted to the MELS are also judged on socio-economic criteria. This issue should therefore be addressed explicitly and carefully.) Please document the following:
2.2.1clientèle (report on any available surveys);
2.2.2study of the labour market; demand for specialists in the field; current employment of program graduates in the case of ad hoc program; recent graduate employment trends; prospective employment opportunities (letters of support from future employers);
2.2.3is this a priority area as defined by government or other organizations;
2.2.4documents, persons or agencies consulted (attach supporting documentation);
2.3 institutional orientations
2.3.1how does the program proposal fit in the Faculty’s and the University's development plan and resource allocation;
2.3.2define vertical integration (within the discipline), horizontal integration (among several disciplines), and “complementariness” within disciplinary sector;
2.4 relevance to the university network
2.4.1why can existing programs offered at McGill and elsewhere not meet needs adequately?
2.4.2review similar programs offered elsewhere (attach descriptions) in Quebec, in Canada, and in the United States (and in Europe if necessary);
2.4.3originality and anticipated contribution of the proposed program taking into account similar and related programs and the needs they already meet;
2.4.4student mobility;
2.4.5inter-university collaboration, “complementariness”, relations with related programs already being offered;
2.4.6relevance to Quebec network.
For programs giving access to a profession, please indicate the state of negotiations with the professional bodies.
2.5. Timetable of program implementation and projected student enrolment
State expected date of implementation.
Forecast growth of student enrolment in table form, beginning with first year of implementation, over next five or six years.
Please indicate how many students will come from an internal redistribution of clientèles from other programs, and how many will be new students to McGill.
3. ACADEMIC DOSSIER
3.1 Program objectives
3.1.1general objectives (academic and professional goals for which students will be
prepared);
3.1.2specific objectives (specific knowledge, expertise, skills which students will
gain);
Please define them in detail so that all dimensions of the program may be fully understood.
The quality of a program is based on the adequate correlation between stated program objectives and the means selected for reaching those objectives. “Means” comprise various elements under the following section titles: Structure and academic regulations (le cadre), Academic activities (les activités), Staff resources (les ressources professorales et autres ressources humaines), and Physical Resources (les ressources matérielles).
3.2 Structure and academic regulations (Le cadre)
3.2.1 admission requirements and selection procedures (les conditions d’admission):
3.2.1.2 general and specific requirements;
4.2.1.3selection criteria;
4.2.1.3 selection process (tests if applicable etc.);
Admission requirements and selection criteria must ensure that students admitted to the program have the aptitude and the necessary preparation to pursue the program objectives. Undergraduate program dossiers must show the linkage with collegial training.
3.2.2 length of program (la durée du programme et le régime des études):
3.2.2.1total number of credits;
3.2.2.2credit distribution by term;
3.2.2.3 study mode (full-time/part-time);
Those elements must allow the student to meet specific program objectives while following appropriate progress through the program.
3.2.3supervision and evaluation of students, grading system (le mode d’évaluation des étudiants):
Academic regulations must include an evaluation process that will help ensure that students have met program objectives, on an intellectual and scientific basis, and on a professional basis if such is the case.
For graduate programs: procedures and policies for assigning thesis/research directors.
3.2.4 program administration (le mode de gestion du programme):
3.2.4.1name and composition of committee;
3.2.4.2role of committee (student guidance, program review...).
The body responsible (committee) should provide students with the appropriate supervisory structure (encadrement), ensure periodical program review and revise the program objectives and activities, if need be.
3.3 Required academic activities
The correlation between program objectives and required activities remains the cornerstone of the evaluation of the quality of a proposed program, i.e. how will the proposed teaching activities allow students to reach each of the program objectives defined in section 3? Ability to demonstrate this relationship is crucial for convincing the CEP of the relevance of the proposed academic requirements and program coherence.
The quality of a program is also reflected in the scientific quality of the training being proposed.
3.3.1 Detailed description of program academic requirements: courses, laboratory work, internships (general/specialised nature of the courses, core courses, balance between required and optional courses (list of courses and course descriptions should be provided in this section).
3.3.2 Justification
3.3.3 Proposed areas of concentration;
3.3.4 Description of a typical sequence of courses or activities (examples of possible cheminements);
3.3.5 Internships if applicable: degree of relevance to program, supervision and logistics;
Undergraduate programs and professional master’s programs:
The CEP will pay special attention to the following considerations:
.general or specialised character of the proposed studies
.basic knowledge acquisition (formation fondamentale), if applicable;
.the relative importance of core (compulsory) and optional activities;
.the balance between theoretical and practical learning (courses, laboratory work, internships – and the internships’ pertinence to the program objectives, supervision and student encadrement;
.sequence of activities and level;
.professional aspects if degree grants access to a corporation and practice permit.
Research master’s and doctoral programs:
The CEP will pay special attention to the following considerations:
.relationship between program activities and research conducted by staff;
.link between teaching activities (courses and seminars) and student research activities (thesis or dissertation);
.student supervision and encadrement;
.academic environment (lectures, conferences, symposia, etc.).
4. RESOURCES
4.1 Staff resources required, available and projected
4.1.1 Teaching staff
The quality of a teaching program is based largely on the qualifications and output of the members of the professorial staff contributing to the program.
4.1.1.1 Academic staff in place (with title and FT/PT status) involved in the program (this may repeat the list provided earlier under section 2.1, but with a different focus). The CEP will pay particular attention to the following:
.individual qualifications of teaching staff (degrees, experience, publications or productions, research grants);
.characteristics of the teaching staff: ability to supervise students, coverage of all disciplinary and professional aspects of the program; forecasts with respect to the evolution of the professorial staff (growth, renewal);
.for master’s and doctoral programs: procedures and criteria for determining professors’ ability to teach in the program and to supervise research (theses, dissertations);
.particular situations in which developing institutions andsectors may not have a full complement of professorial staff for implementing the proposed program but may commit themselves to an addition of resources.
Other personnel: special attention will be paid to qualifications of lecturers, clinic supervisors, internship supervisors, affiliated professors/researchers, etc.
4.1.1.2 New staff required
- provisions for faculty growth and renewal;
- specific areas where new staff are required (i.e. aspects of the program to be covered).
4.1.2 Administrative and support staff
4.1.2.1 Staff in place
4.1.2.2 New staff required if applicable
4.2Physical and other resources required, available and projected
Physical resources should adequately support the students in their program activities. The CEP will pay particular attention to the following:
4.2.1 Library resources:
4.2.1.1quality of collections and quantity (provide assessment by Librarian in
charge);
4.2.1.2accessibility; assistance and reference services provided; access to resources available at other institutions.
4.2.2 Computer facilities:
4.2.2.1quality and quantity;
4.2.2.2accessibility;
4.2.2.3technical support; training and maintenance), networks.
4.2.3 Laboratories:
4.2.3.1quality and quantity of equipment and space;
4.2.3.2accessibility of external laboratories;
4.2.3.3pedagogical assistance and supervision;
4.2.4 Space
4.2.4.1 Teaching space: quality and quantity (classrooms, studios, laboratories);
4.2.4.2 Office space
(The form titled Space, Renovations and Equipment should be completed and attached).
For graduate programs, please add information regarding
f) study space: accessibility, tranquillity, proximity to departmental activities;
g) financial aid:
.assistance given students applying for external grants;
.availability of internal funds for students.
On questions of funding
Although new programs generally require additional resources (academic staff, support staff, library holdings, equipment), the MELS no longer allocates start-up funding for new programs. New programs are normally expected to generate new revenues to the University and the Faculty by virtue of budget formulae driven by student enrolment changes. While academic considerations should always be the primary factor in the development of new programs, economic considerations must also be developed so as to ensure the financial viability of the proposed program.
The program proposal may include an analysis of the probable evolution of:
a) the additional revenues to McGill, as generated by the RECU (Recensement des clientèles universitaires) and the MELS grant formula,
b) the additional revenues to the Faculty, as generated by the PBA formula,
c) the additional operating expenses associated with the implementation of the new program.
The data for a) and b) is generated by Real del Degan in the Office of the Provost ().
In general, the ongoing funding of new programs must fall within the enrolment-driven budgetary amounts calculated through the MELS formula. Furthermore, the internal funding formula determines the ongoing funding distributed to the faculties. Each faculty then has its own allocation mechanisms to departments.
PLEASE NOTE: a new program proposal dossier intended to be submitted to CREPUQ and to the Quebec Ministry of Education, Leisure and Sport is not the appropriate venue for negative comments on the inadequacy of resources in place or on any difficulties internal to the University.
APPENDICES should include:
I Descriptions of other programs offered by McGill in the discipline;
II Descriptions of related programs offered by McGill;
III List and descriptions of courses in adjacent programs;
IV Descriptions of similar programs offered elsewhere;
V Pertinent regulations;
VI Letters from external experts or bodies consulted, if available;
VII Letters of support (from prospective employers, agencies, other universities...);
VIII List of equipment available, if appropriate;
IX Research funding in comparable departments in other Quebec universities;
X Curricula vitae of all academic staff members involved in the program, including lists of publications.
Please note that in order to keep paper consumption and printing costs to a reasonable level, C.V.s should be presented in as compact a format as possible (please save on paper).
In addition, the following will be required:
- a list of four to six possible external evaluators (this list will be submitted along with the dossier to CREPUQ's Commission d'évaluation des projets de programmes);
- a one-to-two page summary of the proposal
DOSSIERS FOR “MODULATED”/FAST-TRACK EVALUATION BY CREPUQ’S CEP
The letter accompanying the dossier must state the reasons which the University believes that the proposed program should be submitted to the fast-track evaluation process and indicates to which of the various categories the proposal belongs. The University may attach to the dossier all other information which it deems useful: any relevant program review report, for example. Regarding the completeness of the dossier, experience has shown that it is preferable to submit a “complete” dossier (as for a complete evaluation) in order to avoid being asked to submit additional information at a later stage.
a)Proposal by a university to offer in an autonomous fashion and without modification another university’s program which it already offers by means of an “extension”, with full agreement of that other university (the CEP will focus its attention on the staff and physical resources which enable the university to offer the program):
Required in dossier:
- Brief presentation of the program (with detailed statement of objectives and activities)
- Motives for implementing the program
- Description of clienteles (enrolment, graduation rates)
- Academic staff resources: information should enable the CEP to assess the adequacy of staff resources with respect to program objectives, in particular on staff expertise in relation to teaching activities. For example, program promoters may wish to submit a table showing how staff expertise is linked to the academic activities which they will be responsible for. Curricula vitae could also be appended (in the abridged format required by granting agencies).
- Other staff resources: such information will enable the CEP to judge whether the need for laboratory work and/or internships is well met. Support and administrative staff are excluded from this evaluation.
- Physical resources: such information will enable the CEP to verify the adequacy of such resources in relation to program objectives and activities; recent reports prepared by directors of relevant services could be appended.
- Budget
- Consent of parties and, if applicable, reports from experts, support letters, and list of persons consulted.
Will be evaluated by CEP:
-academic staff resources
-other human resources
-physical resources.
b)Proposal by two or more universities to turn an existing program into a joint or inter-university program OR a proposal by one university to join two or more universities already offering a program jointly (CEP will focus its attention on the way the partnership will be managed and on the new partner’s staff and physical resources):
Required in dossier:
- Brief presentation of the program (with detailed statement of objectives and activities)
- Motives for implementing program
- Nature and management of partnership (interaction among institutions, impact on students)
- Academic staff resources at new partner-institution: such information should enable the CEP to judge whether academic resources are adequate for meeting program objectives, in particular with respect to staff expertise in relation to teaching activities. For example, program promoters may wish to submit a table showing how staff expertise is linked to the academic activities which they will be responsible for. Curricula vitae could also be appended (in the abridged format required by granting agencies).
- Physical resources at new partner-institution: such information should enable the CEP to verify the adequacy of such resources in relation to program objectives and activities; recent reports prepared by directors of relevant services could be appended.
- Budget
- Consent of parties, experts’ reports, support letters, list of persons consulted.
Will be evaluated by CEP:
-the partnership management as defined by the institutions involved, the ability of those institutions to manage that partnership, the ability of the proposed model to bring added-value to the program
-academic staff resources assembled by the new partner
-physical resources assembled by the new partner.
c)Proposal by a university to offer a new program in which about two thirds of the credits are made up of existing activities, organized so as to meet new needs (CEP will focus its attention on the academic advantages and coherence of the new program being proposed, on the relation between program objectives and proposed activities, as well as on staff resources):
Required in dossier:
- Program identification
- Field(s) of study
- Motives for program proposal
- General and specific objectives
- Program structure
- Required activities
- Academic staff resources
- Reports of experts consulted in a formal cyclical review exercise or excerpts from recent reports underlining need to meet new demands
- Support letters, list of persons consulted.
Will be evaluated by CEP:
-scientific relevance of proposed program
-coherence of program
-relation between program objectives and activities
-capacity of staff to offer the program.