Purdue Graduate School Program Pre-Proposal

Indiana Commission for Higher Education Check list of Criteria to Be Used by the Commission in Taking Action on New Degree Programs

--- As Passed, August 10, 2012 ---

The Purdue Graduate School’s pre-proposal is a subset of the full proposal. Only the items printed below in black should be included in the pre-proposal, i. e. sections 1, 2 (excluding 2.c.iv and 2.c.v), and 5, and appendix A and C. The items printed in red font are the additional items that should be included in the full proposal. The full proposal, excluding the cover page, signature page, executive summary and appendices, is constrained by the Indiana Commission on Higher Education (ICHE) to be between 8 and 15 pages. This page constraint should be kept in mind when writing the pre-proposal.

Failure to address the checklist of topics and follow the format provided below may result in a rejection of the pre-proposal.

Format and Checklist Criteria for New Degree Pre-Proposals

  1. Characteristics of the Program
  1. Campus(es) Offering Program
  2. Scope of Delivery (Specific Sites or Statewide)
  3. Mode of Delivery (Classroom, Blended, or Online)
  4. Other Delivery Aspects (Co-ops, Internships, Clinicals, Practica, etc.)
  5. Academic Unit Offering Program
  1. Rationale for Program
  1. Institutional Rationale (e.g. Alignment with Institutional Mission and Strengths)
  2. State Rationale
  3. Evidence of Labor Market Need
  4. National, State, or Regional Need
  5. Preparation for Graduate Programs or Other Benefits
  6. Summary of Indiana DWD and/or U.S. Department of Labor Data
  7. National, State, or Regional Studies
  8. Surveys of Employers or Students and Analyses of Job Postings
  9. Letters of support (nominally five letters are sufficient)
  1. Cost of and Support for the Program (see Table 1)
  2. Costs
  1. Faculty and Staff
  2. Facilities
  3. Other Capital Costs (e.g. Equipment)*
  1. Support
  1. Nature of Support (New, Existing, or Reallocated)
  2. Special Fees above Baseline Tuition
  1. Similar and Related Programs
  2. List of Programs and Degrees Conferred
  1. Similar Programs at Other Institutions
  2. Related Programs at the Proposing Institution
  1. List of Similar Programs Outside Indiana
  1. Articulation of Associate/Baccalaureate Programs (TSAP)
  2. Collaboration with Similar or Related Programs on Other Campuses
  1. Quality and Other Aspects of the Program
  2. Credit Hours Required/Time To Completion
  1. Exceeding the Standard Expectation of Credit Hours
  2. Program Competencies or Learning Outcomes
  3. Assessment
  4. Licensure and Certification
  5. Placement of Graduates
  6. Accreditation
  1. Projected Headcount and FTE Enrollment and Degrees Conferred (see Table 2)

Programs and Completions Worktable

(Backup table for Budget and Fiscal Planning only - not distributed to Board of Trustees or ICHE)

Appendix A

Curriculum and Requirements

  • Admission Requirements
  • Curriculum Requirements
  • Sample Curriculum
  • Existing courses in the proposed curriculum
  • Courses to be added

Appendix B

List relevant program faculty members and administrators. Include area of specialization for each faculty member.

Specify:

  • Degree Title
  • CIP Code
  • Diploma Information

* Please consult the library resource questionnaire available at: http://www.ipfw.edu/offices/oaa/programs/curriculumdev.html

Appendix C

Specific courses will need to be set up when a new degree program is approved. Include Form 40G’s for any of the following courses that you will need: Special Topics, Variable Title/Variable Credit Courses, Independent Study Courses, and Research Credit Courses. You will need to contact the Registrar’s Office to obtain available course numbers. These course requests may be approved administratively by the Graduate School and do not require signatures of the head and dean.

Pre-proposals are reviewed by a Pre-Proposal Review Committee composed of (a) the chair of the relevant Graduate Council Area Committee, (b) a regular area committee faculty member, and (c) a member from the Graduate School. Normally, pre-proposals are reviewed within one week of receipt. One revision may be allowed. The area committee chair reports the recommendation of the committee to the dean of the Graduate School to either (a) request a full proposal or (b) return the pre-proposal unapproved. If the pre-proposal is not approved, it may be revised and resubmitted the following academic year.

School Degree Proposal Review Criteria and Checklist

  1. New degree programs should be in alignment with the university's mission and address a national, regional, or State need. [explained in section 2]

Does the rationale for the program have merit and is it consistent with the mission of the school?

  1. Sufficient job opportunities should be available for students who graduate from the program. Graduates are expected to be employable in their field or study. [sections 2 and5f]

Do the job opportunities for graduates justify having the program?

  1. The program should have sufficient institutional resources to support students (as needed), support faculty members, and provide facilities to sustain the program in steady state. [section 3]

Is the proposed program sustainable?

  1. Facilities should be adequate to support the academic quality of the program. [section 3]

Are the facilities adequate to support the program?

  1. Programs should have an appropriate number of credit hours. [section 5]

Are the credit hours appropriate?

  1. Proposals should provide sufficiently detailed learning outcomes, defining competencies students are expected to have after graduation. [section 5]

Are the learning outcomes appropriate?

  1. New programs are expected to attract and enroll a sufficient number of students to justify the university investment in the program. [section 6, table 2]

Are the enrollment projections reasonable?

  1. New degree programs are expected to have high quality and rigor, comparable to campus peers or aspirational peer institutions. [Appendix A and section 5]

Does the curriculum have sufficient quality and rigor?

  1. Faculty with appropriate expertise should be in place, sufficient in number to support targeted enrollments. [Appendix B]

Does the program have sufficient faculty with appropriate expertise?

  1. A ClP code should be proposed that is appropriate for the degree. [Appendix B]

Is the CIP code specified by the proposer appropriate?