UMass Boston

What are substantial proposals?

Substantial proposals are the most common type of proposal. Typically, these include:

• New courses or programs
• Changes to existing courses or programs that fundamentally change their structure, design, or focus, that alter student experience, or impact other courses/programs. These include changes to:
  • Program structure, including changes to requirements or program name
  • WISER titles or WISER descriptions that impact their meaning and/or focus
  • Changes to course numbers that alter the level of the course (from 201 to 301, for example)
  • Course repeatability
  • Number of credits
  • Course pre-requisites
  • Cross-listing

The general guideline in deciding whether a proposal is superficial or substantial is whether or not the proposed change fundamentally changes the nature of a course or a program or student experience within that course or program. Please see the quick guide to whether a proposal is superficial or substantial for more help in determining what type of proposal you should submit. If you are still unsure whether your proposal is superficial or substantial, you should consult with your department/program chair and/or your school/college Senate chair. Alternatively, you can ask your college/school Curriculog representative. Collectively, they should help you to determine whether your proposal is superficial or substantial.

Please note that proposals for changes to existing courses only refer to the information included in WISER and the UMB course catalog. Faculty retain autonomy in regard to the specifics of the courses they teach, provided that content and pedagogy remain broadly consistent with the course as it is described in WISER.

Types of substantial proposal

There are ten types of substantial proposal:

• (uc1): UGRD Course Change – Substantial
• (gc1): GRD Course Change – Substantial
• (uc3): UGRD Course New
• (gc3): GRD Course New
• (up1): UGRD Program Change – Substantial
• (gcp1): GRD Program Change – Substantial
• (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
• (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

Review workflow for substantial proposals

Substantial proposals require multiple levels of review, which change depending on the type of proposal. You can view the review workflow for each type of proposal in the Curriculog system (click on the “new proposal” button and then click on the proposal type; the process steps will appear on the right of the screen). Reviewers at each stage of review have the ability to request changes to the proposal within their purview (see what the different levels of review do for more information on what each level of review looks for). Decisions and comments are required in Curriculog for each stage of review.

Substantial proposals must go through at least one stage of review at the department/program level and at least one stage of review at the college/school level. This means there must be substantial discussion and formal approval of the proposal in both the department/program and the college/school, however this is organized. Proposals should not move to the next level of governance review without this discussion and approval having taken place.

For colleges/schools that have two stages of review at the department/program level and/or the college/school level, decision makers for each stage in the Curriculog workflow will be distinct and each provide their own comment.

For departments/programs that do not have two stages of review at the department/program and/or college/school level, the existing review body at that level should make the decision for both in Curriculog. In these situations, the decision maker should note in the comments for the non-existent level: “<name of review body> has made the decision here because <program/department or school/college> does not have a separate <name of missing stage of review>.” For example, “Department chair has made the decision here because Classics and Religious Studies does not have a separate department curriculum committee.” However, having the same person act as decision maker for two levels of approval in Curriculog does not mean that proposals can move through a stage of review without discussion and approval; for example, if the originator and department chair are the same person and that department does not have a curriculum committee, the originator must still ensure that there is a discussion and approval of the proposal by the department before making the chair-level decision in Curriculog and sending the proposal onto the college/school.

Substantial proposals for changes to existing courses, new courses, and changes to existing programs typically take 4-8 weeks to complete, depending on the schedule of meetings and provided there are no significant issues with the proposal. If the proposal is for a new course that is seeking Gen Ed status or if it is related to a graduate course, the timeline for approval is typically 8-12 weeks, provided there are no significant issues. Proposals for new programs require off-campus approval and therefore take substantially longer (anywhere from six months to several years, depending on the type of program).

One of the reasons why the timeline for approval for substantial proposals is longer is because substantial proposals are dependent on the schedules of the various committees involved in each stage of review. Each committee meets once a month and will have their own deadlines for when they need to receive proposals in order to include them on their agenda. As such, it is useful to consult with your college Senate and, if relevant, Faculty Council, regarding the dates of these meetings (and those of any other relevant committees) as they will, in part, determine the timeline for proposal approval.