UMass Boston

Substantial changes to undergraduate or graduate programs

For proposals for substantial changes to existing majors, minors, certificates, or other programs, originators must fill out the correct form in the Curriculog system, either:

• (up1): UGRD Program Change – Substantial
• (gcp1): GRD Program Change – Substantial

In addition to this form, originators need to upload the following supporting documents. Please follow the formatting for each document name and include a header that specifies the date of the file’s composition and page numbers. This will help keep track of any changes throughout the governance process.

1. <Program Name>–Program Change Requirements

• A description of the proposed change, including a list of both existing requirements and new requirements (see new program/substantial program change requirements for more details).

• If the proposal makes changes to the requirements of the major or minor, please include a four-year plan to demonstrate that a student can still complete the program in a timely fashion or explain why the proposed change will not impact time to degree.
• If the proposal is part of a group of related proposals, please indicate at the top of the document which proposals should be considered together and why.

2. <Program Name>–Program Change Rationale

A rationale for the proposed change that explains how it improves upon the existing program and how it will impact students.

New programs that are under 30 credits

Proposals for new programs that are under 30 credits are typically proposals for new minors, new tracks/concentrations within an existing major, or new certificate programs. These types of proposals are more complex and require more stages of review, including off-campus acknowledgement. As such, they take longer to be fully approved; faculty should plan on this process taking 1-2 semesters.

Prior to drafting a formal proposal for a new program, the Department that will house the new program should meet with their college Dean to discuss the idea. The Dean will, in turn, notify the Provost of the Department’s intent. Once the idea has been discussed and given the go-ahead, the Program Director or Department Chair should develop a formal proposal that will be submitted for full governance review through Curriculog.

The upper administration evaluates proposals for new programs according to four key criteria: mission and vision; academics; sustainability; and collaboration. Faculty are strongly encouraged to read the New Program Proposal Evaluation Criteria before developing a formal proposal.

For proposals for new minors: The 1981 Memo on Minors Policy establishes certain requirements for new minors.

• New minors can only be offered by academic departments
• Minors must have a minimum of six courses
• At least two of the required courses must be at the 300 and/or 400 level
• No more than two courses can be at the 100 level
• Policies on transfer credits, pass/fail options, and GPA should be consistent with the major

For proposals for new programs (minors, concentrations, tracks, options, or certificates) that are less than 30 credits, originators must fill out the correct form in the Curriculog system, either:

• (up4): UGRD Program – New Minor, Concentration, Track or Certificate less than 30 credits
• (gp4): GRD Program – New Track, Option, or Certificate less than 30 credits

In addition to this form, originators need to upload the following supporting documents. Please follow the formatting for each document name and include a header that specifies the date of the file’s composition and page numbers. This will help keep track of any changes throughout the governance process.

1. <Program Name>–Program Description

A description of the proposed program that includes the following (see new program/substantial program change requirements for more details).

• An overview of the new program and program type (minor, track/concentration, certificate).
• A description of the program structure, which explains: the number of courses required; a list of required and elective courses; the course sequence and associated course credits; the capstone requirement, if any; any other program requirements; and a list of new courses necessary to launch the program (if any).
• A description of the policies that will govern the new program, including: how many courses can be transferred in for credit; any courses exempt from transfer credit; how many courses can double-count towards another program of study; how many courses and which courses can be taken pass/fail; the minimum GPA required to graduate with the program, if any; the minimum grade allowance for specific courses, if any.
• A description of the new program’s administration, which explains: how the new program will be governed; who will direct the program; who will be responsible for administrative duties associated with the program; and how students will be advised.

2. <Program Name>–Program Rationale

A rationale for the new program that explains:

• The demand and/or need for the new program.
• Why the new program is being proposed as a minor, track/concentration, or certificate.
• The educational value of the new program and how it will benefit students, faculty, the university, and/or the community.
• How the new program draws on existing faculty expertise.
• How the new program compares with similar programs at peer institutions.
• How the new program is distinct from related programs that already exist at UMB and/or how the new program will interact with existing related programs.
• The resources needed for the program, including faculty, classroom space, material resources (lab equipment, computers etc.)
• Anticipated enrollments for the first 2-3 years of the new program and the projected semester in which the new program will be available for enrollment.

3. <Program Name>–Program Budget

A completed copy of the budget form. This is required, even if faculty do not anticipate any significant costs associated with the new program. Originators can get help completing this form from their department Chair, their college budget committee (if one exists), or their Dean’s office. Alternatively, Originators can reach out to the Faculty Council Budget and Long-Range Planning Committee for support and guidance.

4. <Program Name>–Four Year Plan

5. <Program Name>–Form A

This is a required form that will be sent to the State as part of the required off-campus acknowledgement process. Form A is available here.

New programs that are equal to or greater than 30 credits

Proposals for new programs that are 30 credits or more are typically proposals for new undergraduate majors or new graduate master’s or PhD programs. These types of proposals are the most complex and must pass through three stages of review:

• Preliminary on-campus review
• Phase I (full proposal for on- and off-campus review)
• Phase II (extended proposal for off-campus and external review)

Each of these stages of review requires different supporting materials, and existing materials must be revised to reflect any given feedback. As such, it is important that proposers read these instructions carefully so as not to delay what is already a long and complex review process.

Proposals that do not receive unanimous approval during the preliminary on-campus review are not eligible to proceed to Phase I. Phase I proposals that receive a negative review by the state may proceed to Phase II, although this will depend on the nature of the issues raised at the state level. If addressing the negative feedback requires changes to the program in ways that will impact student experience, the proposal must repeat Phase I and the changes be reapproved on campus before the proposal passes onto Phase II. If the issues raised by the state do not impact curriculum or student experience, the proposal may progress directly to Phase II, but it will undergo expanded review during Phase II to ensure that these concerns have been addressed.

Prior to drafting a formal proposal for a new program, the Department proposing the new program should meet with their college Dean to discuss the idea. The Dean will, in turn, notify the Provost of the Department’s intent. Once the idea has been discussed and given the go-ahead, the Program Director or Department Chair should begin work on the preliminary stage of a formal proposal.

The upper administration evaluates proposals for new programs according to four key criteria: mission and vision; academics; sustainability; and collaboration. Faculty are strongly encouraged to read the New Program Proposal Evaluation Criteria before developing a formal proposal.

For proposals for new programs that are 30 credits or greater, originators must fill out the correct form in the Curriculog system, either:

• (up3): UGRD Program – New Degree, Major, or Certificate greater than or equal to 30 credits
• (gp3): GRD Program – New Doctorate, Masters, or Certificate greater than or equal to 30 credits

The Curriculog forms for new programs 30 credits or greater are complicated to fill out. Please see the additional guidelines for completing forms up3 and gp3 to help with this part of the process. If you have any difficulty filling out these forms, please email your questions to curriculog@umb.edu.

In addition to this form, originators need to upload the following supporting documents. Please follow the formatting for each document name and include a header that specifies the date of the file’s composition and page numbers. This will help keep track of any changes throughout the governance process.

For preliminary on-campus review:

1. <Program Name>–Program Description

A description of the proposed program that includes the following (see new program/substantial program change requirements for more details).

• An overview of the new program and program type (BA, BS, MA, MS, PhD etc.).
• A description of the program structure, which explains: the number of courses required; a list of required and elective courses; the course sequence and associated course credits; non-course requirements (e.g. tracks/concentrations); the capstone requirement, if any; any other program requirements; and a list of new courses necessary to launch the program (if any).
• A description of the policies that will govern the new program, including: how many courses can be transferred in for credit; any courses exempt from transfer credit; how many courses can double-count towards another program of study; how many courses and which courses can be taken pass/fail; the minimum GPA required to graduate with the program, if any; the minimum grade allowance for specific courses, if any.
• A description of the new program’s administration, which explains: how the new program will be governed; who will direct the program; who will be responsible for administrative duties associated with the program; and how students will be advised.

2. <Program Name>–Program Rationale

A rationale for the new program that explains:

• Why the new program is being proposed as an undergraduate or graduate degree.
• The demand and/or need for the new program.
• Why existing programs at other campuses in the UMass system or at other public or private institutions within UMB’s service area cannot meet this need.
• How the new program is distinct from related programs that already exist at UMB and/or how the new program will interact with existing related programs.
• The educational value of the new program and how it will benefit students, faculty, the university, and/or the community.
• How the new program fits with the university’s mission and strategic plans.
• How the new program draws on existing faculty expertise.
• How the new program compares with similar programs at peer institutions.
• The resources needed for the program, including faculty, classroom space, material resources (lab equipment, computers etc.).
• Anticipated enrollments for the first 2-3 years of the new program and the projected semester in which the new program will be available for enrollment.

These two documents should be viewed as a vehicle by which the proponents of the new program can, in a general way and without significant expenditure of time and resources, “make the case” for their proposed program. Their main purpose is to provide the various on-campus review bodies with sufficient descriptive and contextual information about the program to allow them to make an informed judgment about whether the proposal has sufficient merit to warrant the preparation of a Phase I proposal. Specifically, the preliminary on-campus review application should address the extent to which there is a need for the degree program and the ways in which the proposed program is consistent with and serves to advance the stated mission and goals of the campus and the university.

The program description and rationale developed for the preliminary stage of review may be modified for subsequent levels of review, and they will be the foundation for materials needed for the Phase I stage of review.

Preliminary proposals are reviewed by: the proposing department’s curriculum committee and department Chair; the Dean’s Office, and the Provost’s Office.  If the preliminary proposal is approved by all of these levels of review, you may advance to Phase I.

For Phase I (full proposal for on- and off-campus review):

As you prepare materials for Phase I, be sure to address any feedback received during the preliminary on-campus review. Phase I of the proposal process includes a full review by all relevant on- and off-campus review bodies. It is the most substantial part of the application process and will require coordination between your department Chair and Dean’s office.

When the proposal reaches Phase I, originators need to upload the following supporting documents. Please follow the formatting for each document name and include a header that specifies the date of the file’s composition and page numbers. This will help keep track of any changes throughout the governance process.

1. <Program Name>-Letter of Intent Phase I

The LOI must follow this template. You may use your program description and rationale from the preliminary stage of review to complete the LOI.

2. <Program Name>–Form A Curriculum

Form A outlines the program for the new curriculum. Form A is available here. You may use your program description and rationale from the preliminary stage of review to complete Form A.

3. <Program Name>-Form B Goals

Form B describes the program’s goals, objectives and assessment. Form B is available here. You may use your program description and rationale from the preliminary stage of review to complete Form B.

4. <Program Name>-Form C Enrollments

Form C describes the projected program enrollments. Form C is available here. You may use your program description and rationale from the preliminary stage of review to complete Form B.

5. <Program Name>–Form D Budget

Form D is a budget form. Form D is available here. Form D is required, even if faculty do not anticipate any significant costs associated with the new program. Originators can get help completing this form from their department Chair, their college budget committee (if one exists), or their Dean’s office. Alternatively, Originators can reach out to the Faculty Council Budget and Long-Range Planning Committee for support and guidance.

Phase I proposals are reviewed by: the proposing department’s curriculum committee and department Chair; the college/school Program Committee and the college/School Senate; the Dean’s Office; The Budget and Long-Range Planning Committee and Faculty Council (if a graduate program); the Provost’s Office; the Chancellor's Office; and the President's Office. 

If the Phase I proposal is approved by all of these levels of review, you may advance to Phase II. If the Phase I proposal receives negative feedback at any stage of the on-campus review process, these concerns must be addressed before the proposal can continue through the system. If the Phase I proposal receives negative feedback at the state level, it may proceed directly to Phase II, although this will depend on the nature of the issues raised by the state. If addressing the negative feedback requires changes to the program that will in any way impact student experience, the proposal must repeat Phase I and the changes be reapproved on campus before the proposal passes onto Phase II. If the issues raised by the state do not impact curriculum or student experience, the proposal may progress directly to Phase II by addressing these concerns in the Full Academic Proposal (see attachment one below), but it will undergo a more involved review during Phase II to ensure that these concerns have been addressed.

For Phase II (extended proposal with external evaluators):

Phase II of the proposal process includes further review by the state and by external reviewers. Because the process no longer involves faculty review at UMB, the Phase II process does not use Curriculog. Rather, originators should coordinate with the Provost’s Office to set up a One Drive folder to which they will upload the required materials.

Originators will also need to establish a team of 2-3 external reviewers who collectively embody senior leadership experience in higher education or in the industry, expert scholarship in the discipline of study, and terminal degrees in the field. Originators need to obtain prior approval for the external review committee from the Board of Higher Education in advance of submitting the Phase II proposal. Please see Section III of the Full Academic Proposal for more details.

When the proposal reaches Phase II, originators need to upload the following supporting documents to the One Drive folder. Please follow the formatting for each document name and include a header that specifies the date of the file’s composition and page numbers. This will help keep track of any changes throughout the governance process. Some of the materials are duplicates/revised versions of those uploaded for Phase I, while others are new documents (that may or may not be based on elements of the Phase I proposal materials).

1. <Program Name>–Full Academic Proposal

The full academic proposal must follow this template. You may use your program description and rationale from the preliminary stage and the LOI from Phase I to complete the Full Academic Proposal.  If the state raised concerns in Phase I, these must be addressed in question eight of the full academic proposal. If the state did not raise concerns, originators do not need to answer this question.

2. <Program Name>–Form A Curriculum

Reattach (an updated) Form A from Phase I. You will need to provide a narrative outlining the information summarized on Form A for question three in Part I of the Full Academic Proposal (attachment 1 above). If anything has changed from Phase I, you should explain the updates in your answer to this question.

3. <Program Name>-Course Syllabi

Combine the syllabi for all courses in the program into one document. Please follow the course summary template provided by the Board of Higher Education for each syllabus.

4. <Program Name>-Form B Goals

Reattach (an updated) Form B from Phase I. You will need to provide a narrative outlining the information summarized on Form B for questions three and seven in Part I of the Full Academic Proposal (attachment 1 above). If anything has changed from Phase I, you should explain the updates in your answer to this question.

5. <Program Name>-Form C Enrollments

Reattach (an updated) Form C from Phase I. You will need to provide a narrative outlining the information summarized on Form B for question four in Part I of the Full Academic Proposal (attachment 1 above). If anything has changed from Phase I, you should explain the updates in your answer to this question.

6. <Program Name>-Form E Program Faculty

Form E explains who will teach in the program and the qualifications required to do so. Form E is available here. You will need to provide a narrative outlining the information summarized on Form E for question five in Part I of the Full Academic Proposal (attachment 1 above). You may use your program description and rationale from the preliminary stage of review to complete Form E.

7. <Program Name>-Faculty Vitae

Combine the CVs for all faculty who will teach in the program into one document. Please follow the resume template provided by the Board of Higher Education for each CV.

8. <Program Name>–Form D Budget

Reattach (an updated) Form D from Phase I. You will need to provide a narrative explaining the budget and its underlying assumptions in Part II of the Full Academic Proposal (attachment 1 above). If anything has changed from Phase I you should explain the updates in your answer to this question.

9. <Program Name>-Form F Program Review Questions

Form F is the report(s) from the external review committee. These reports must be submitted exactly as provided to the institution by the external review team. They must also be submitted as a Microsoft Word document (not pdf).

10. <Program Name>-Institutional Response to External Review

The originating department should formulate a response to the report(s) of the external review committee. This response should speak to any questions or concerns raised by the external reviewers and explain how the program has been adapted to address these issues.

In addition to review by an external committee, Phase II proposals are reviewed by: the proposing department and department Chair; the Dean’s Office, the Provost’s Office, and the state Board of Higher Education. Once the proposal has successfully passed Phase II, it can become an official program at UMB and begin enrolling students.