Considerations for the Review of Credit Bearing Programs Procedure
|Office of Academic Affairs|
|Memoranda of Understanding, MOU|
The Cabinet, with the concurrence of the President’s Council, has recently developed a set of guidelines to be considered in establishing Memoranda of Understanding. The Council suggested that previous "considerations for the review of credit bearing programs" be reissued as a companion piece. Following is that set of considerations, sent on January 4, 1993, to PPBC, the Senate, and the President’s Council. The single change is the addition of item 17 regarding the potential contribution of a proposed program to other elements of the College.
- Does the program have academic integrity?
- Is the program content and quality such that it would be appropriate for development and implementation regardless of the funding mechanism? Could this program be integrated into the regular university offerings over the long term?
- Is the program distinctive in its content, structure, and clientele?
- Does the academic program responsibility (including content, admissions, staffing, and quality control) lie with ESC?
- Does this program build on the strengths of the university? Does the program contain some elements of mentoring or build on mentoring practice?
- Do we have, or can we obtain or develop, sufficient expertise in the program area to ensure that the program is of high quality?
- Is there an educational need which can be defined (and hopefully quantified)? Is such need of short or long duration? Is it sufficient to warrant the development of a program?
- Is there a definable audience which differs, in some way, from our regular students? (This is a SUNY criterion for academic approval of an IFR.)
- If special fees are to be charged, are there identifiable "special" services provided?
- Have full costs and benefits been established?
- Will the IFR generate sufficient resources to warrant its implementation?
- Can the program be "handled" efficiently in the ESC systems (admissions, student accounting, etc.)?
- Is the program "competitive" with other institutions? Is the level of this "competition" acceptable, given other needs for collaboration and cooperation?
- Does this program provide an opportunity for ESC to be "innovative" in some challenging and valuable way?
- Is there an evaluation mechanism, and a time for that evaluation, in the IFR proposal (or associated with it)?
- Will the program enhance the image and reputation of ESC?
- Will the program make a contribution (resources, contacts and collaborations, recruitment, etc.) to other components of the university?
Applicable Legislation and Regulations
Related References, Policies, Procedures, Forms and Appendices
Procedure: Guiding Principles and Their Implications for Pre-Structured Programs