AU Graduate School - Admissions FAQ

Curriculum Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

How long does it take for a proposal to be approved?
Why are some proposals returned with a request for revision?
For what common reasons are some proposals returned for revision?
Do I need to submit a syllabus with the proposal form?
When is it appropriate to use a shortened version of the proposal form?
Is the distance education supplementary form required?
Is a distance education course considered a new course or a revision of an existing course?
When does the Graduate Council Curriculum Committee meet?
When does the Graduate Council meet?
What course number should I assign to a new course?

Q. How long does it take for a proposal to be approved?

A1. Course Proposals: After approval at the college level, allow five weeks.

Course proposals submitted by the first of each month are reviewed by the Graduate Council Curriculum Committee (GCCC) within four weeks (see GCCC meeting schedule). Proposals approved by the GCCC are reviewed and voted on by the Graduate Council (GC) during the first week of the following month (see GC meeting schedule). So, a proposal submitted by September 1^st would likely be approved by the GC in the first week of October.

A2. Graduate Certificates: After approval at the college level, allow six to nine months.

Provost's Approval: After approval at the college level, allow one week.

A preliminary proposal form must be submitted prior to the submission of a certificate (see Curriculum Proposal Guide). Preliminary Program Proposals are typically reviewed within one week from the time of receipt by the Graduate School.

Graduate Council Approval: After approval at the college level, allow five weeks.

Graduate Certificate proposals submitted by the first of each month are reviewed by the Graduate Council Curriculum Committee (GCCC) within four weeks (see GCCC meeting schedule ). Proposals approved by the GCCC are reviewed and voted on by the Graduate Council (GC) during the first week of the following month (see GC meeting schedule). So, a proposal submitted by September 1^st would likely be approved by the GC in the first week of October.

Board of Trustees Approval: After approval by the Graduate Council, allow two to three months.

Graduate Certificates must also be approved by the Board of Trustees. For Graduate Certificates to appear on the Board’s agenda, the Graduate School submits the proposal to the Provost’s Office, at least one month before the meeting. The Board of Trustees meets five times per year, usually in September, November, February, April and June.

ACHE approval: After approval by the Board of Trustees, allow three to four months.

Before Graduate Certificates may be implemented, they must be submitted to the Alabama Commission on Higher Education as information items and appear on the Commission’s agenda. Information items must be submitted at least one month before the ACHE meeting. ACHE meets four times per year, in March, June, September, and December.

A3: Program Proposals: After approval at the college level, allow 13-15 months.

Provost’s Approval: After approval at the college level, allow one week.

A preliminary proposal form must be submitted prior to the submission of a full program proposal (see Curriculum Proposal Guide). Preliminary Program Proposals are typically reviewed within one week from the time of receipt by the Graduate School.

Graduate Council Approval: After approval at the college level, allow five weeks.

Proposals submitted by the first of each month are reviewed by the Graduate Council Curriculum Committee (GCCC) within four weeks (see GCCC meeting schedule). Proposals approved by the GCCC are reviewed and voted on by the Graduate Council (GC) during the first week of the following month (see GC meeting schedule). So, a proposal submitted by September 1^st would likely be approved by the GC in the first week of October.

Board of Trustees Approval: After approval by the Graduate Council, allow two to three months.

Programs approved by the Graduate Council are submitted through the Provost’s Office to the Board of Trustees. To be placed on the Board’s agenda, proposals must be submitted about a month before the meeting date. The Board of Trustees meets five times per year, usually in September, November, February, April and June.

ACHE Approval: After approval by the Board of Trustees, allow 10-12 months.

Programs approved by the Board of Trustees must be approved by the Alabama Commission on Higher Education (ACHE). ACHE requires the submission of a Notification of Intent to Submit a Proposal (NISP), which is reviewed by the Alabama Council of Graduate Deans (ACGD). A two-month waiting period is required between the submission of a NISP and the submission of a full-proposal, which is also reviewed by the ACGD. After comments have been received and the proposal has been evaluated by the ACGD, the proposal may be submitted to ACHE. The deadline for receipt of Graduate Program Proposals is typically four months before the next ACHE meeting. ACHE meets four times per year, in March, June, September, and December.

Q. Why are some proposals returned with a request for revision?

A. All proposals are initially reviewed by the chair of the curriculum committee. Most proposals do not require significant revision and are subsequently approved by the Graduate Council Curriculum Committee (GCCC) and the Graduate Council. When revisions are needed (typically to correct mistakes, to provide additional information, or to clarify points about which the committee as a whole may have questions), the curriculum manager requests that revisions be submitted--at least one week prior to the next meeting of the GCCC. If the revisions are submitted and adequately address the concerns raised by the initial review, the proposal remains on the agenda; if not, a representative may be invited to attend the committee meeting to answer questions, or the proposal may be deferred to a later meeting.

Q. For what common reasons are proposals returned with a request for revision?

A1. The justification for graduate credit is stated as a description of a course.

The justification should indicate that the content of the graduate-level course is more advanced than that of undergraduate courses (or graduate courses at a lower-level) and fosters independent learning. The committee may take into account the following considerations:

a. Does the course make use of specific requisites?

b. Is the course content of sufficient depth to justify graduate credit (e.g., materials beyond the introductory level)?

c. Does the course help to develop the critical and analytical skills of students including their application of the relevant literature?

d. Does the course set rigorous standards for student evaluation?

Model Response (See Sample Proposal, field #20)

A2. Student learning outcomes are omitted.

Model Response (See Sample Proposal, field #16).

A3. A grading scale and rubric is omitted from the proposal.

Model Response (See Sample Proposal, field #19)

A4. Class participation is required but the criteria for the evaluation of such participation are absent from the proposal.

If class participation is expected and counts as a percentage of the grade, then how will class participation be evaluated? The committee expects to see what means will be used to assess participation and how the participation grade reflects differing levels of participation.

Model Response (See Sample Proposal, field #17)

A5. The distance education proposal does not adequately explain how the instructor will communicate with students.

Model Response (See Sample Proposal, field #17)

A6. The distance education proposal does not adequately address what technology will be used to communicate with students.

Model Response (See Sample Proposal, field #17)

A7. The proposal neglects to list affected programs.

Typically, courses are included in a program. As a result, the committee typically requests more information if field #12 is left blank or “N/A” is entered without an accompanying explanation.

Model Response (See Sample Proposal, field #12)

A8. The assignments / projects listed do not match the components of the course grade listed in the Rubric and Grading Scale section.

All assignments/projects described in field #18 should be included in field #19. Similarly, all component parts of the grade listed in field #19 should be described in field #18.

Model Response (See Sample Proposal, fields #18 and #19)

Q. Do I need to submit a syllabus with the proposal form?

A1. New courses

For new courses, a syllabus is not required if fields 16-19 are completed on the proposal form. The committee prefers to review the form rather than an attached syllabus.

A2. Revised courses

When substantive changes are made to the content of the course, committee members typically want to know: What is being changed? How does the revised course differ from the previous version? What is the reason for the change? The nature of the change and the rationale for it are best addressed in field 14, “Justification.”

When a course revision is submitted, include a syllabus especially if 1) the course is being revised for additional credit (e.g., a change from a three to a four-credit course) or if the level of the course is changing (e.g., from the 6000-level to the 7000-level).

Q. When is it appropriate to use a shortened version of the proposal form?

A. For some course revisions that do not affect the content of the course (e.g., changing the title, pre-requisites, or bulletin description), it is sufficient to complete fields 1-14 on the proposal form (fields 15-20 may be left blank).

Q. Is the distance education supplementary form required?

A. Yes. We plan to combine this form with the addition/revision form to eliminate duplication. Until this revision is complete, the supplemental form is required.

Q. Is a distance education course considered a revision of an existing course or a new course?

A. It is considered a new course.

Even though the distance education course will be remarkably similar to an existing course, the committee reviews the new course independently, focusing primarily on how it is delivered to students, with this question in mind: Does the distance education course provide an equivalent experience for the off-campus student?

The committee specifically looks for how the course provides for timely and appropriate interaction between teacher and students. How is this accomplished via distance? What specific technologies are used to facilitate this interaction? How are the technologies appropriate for the nature and objectives of the program? Of course, faculty are not limited to a single technology, but the committee does need to see demonstrated, by illustrative example, how interaction is facilitated.

Model Response (See Sample Proposal, field #17 and Addendum to the Distance Education Supplement)

Participation is another focus of the committee. How will students participate in class discussions, take quizzes or exams, or complete laboratory assignments (if applicable)? The committee would like to see demonstrated how the distance education student’s participation is comparable to that of the on-campus student. Additional explanation may be required for courses with laboratory components.

Model Response (See Sample Proposal, field #17)

The committee also considers how the expectations of the course will be met through the distance education environment. How will students access libraries, learning centers, and/or laboratories in a way that facilitates successful completion of the course?

Model Response (see Sample Proposal, Addendum to the Distance Education Supplement)

Q. When does the Graduate Council Curriculum Committee meet?

A. Fall 2011 Schedule

Sept. 30

Oct. 28

Dec. 2

Q. When does the Graduate Council meet?

A. Fall 2011 Schedule

Oct. 5

Nov. 9

Dec. 7

Q. What course number should I assign to a new course?

A. Choose a course number that does not duplicate an existing course number. See the course numbering guidelines for a more complete explanation of the course numbering system.

Last Updated: Feb 09, 2011