Academic Affairs Policies

 

Select a Policy:
Policy No. 01 - New Degree or Major Programs

Academic Affairs Policy Statement No. 1,
New Degree or Major Programs

ASSOCIATED LINKS
New Degree or Major Programs Approval Routing Chart
New Degree or Major Programs Proposal Form

 

  1. References
    1. Academic Affairs Handbook, Board of Regents, University System of Georgia, July 1987.
    2. Bylaws of the University Council of the University of Georgia, 1988.
    3. Criteria and Procedures for New Programs, Board of Regents, University System of Georgia, updated January 2013.
      See http://www.usg.edu/academic_programs/new_programs
    4. Last updated April 2019.
  2. Policy
    1. Effective this date and until rescinded, programs of academic work shall not be added to the curriculum of the University of Georgia unless recommended by the University Curriculum Committee in accordance with the Bylaws of the University Council, submitted by the President of the University of Georgia to the Chancellor, and approved by the Board of Regents of the University System. Policy and implementing guidance outlined herein are applicable to all Academic Degree Programs involving 30 hours or more of course work in a field of study. The policy statement may be reproduced for local use. Minor programs (less than 30 hours of course work) and non-degree certificate programs shall be subject to separate policy statements and implementing guidelines. No provisions stated herein are intended to conflict with the Bylaws or the Academic Affairs Handbook.
    2. A formal proposal is required when academic units contemplate adding a new degree or major program to the curricula of the institution. The formal proposal should include the following:
      1. Forecast
      2. Academic Framework
      3. Rationale
      4. Mission Fit and Disciplinary Trends
      5. Description and Objectives
      6. Need
      7. Demand
      8. Duplication
      9. Collaboration
      10. Admission Criteria
      11. Curriculum
      12. Program of Study
      13. Waiver to Degree-Credit Hour Length (if applicable)
      14. Student Learning Outcomes
      15. Assessment
      16. Recruitment and Marketing Plan
      17. Enrollment Projections
      18. Faculty
      19. Fiscal, Tuition, and Estimated Budget
      20. Facilities/Space Utilization
      21. Tuition Differential Application (if applicable)
      22. Letters of Support
    3. Board of Regents' policy states that a baccalaureate degree must contain 120 semester hours (exclusive of physical education activity/basic health or orientation course hours that the institution may require). A baccalaureate degree program must require at least 21 semester hours of upper-division courses in the major field and at least 39 semester hours of upper-division work overall. All majors must be authorized by the Board of Regents. Master’s degrees are established at a maximum of 36 semester hours. Generally, master’s degrees at the university require between 30 and 36 hours. In some cases, exceptions may be made regarding the total number of hours required for a new program. Requests for an exception to offer a program with fewer than 30 hours or
      more than 36 hours will follow the same approval process as the new major proposal, and justification should be provided as part of the proposal.
    4. Any changes above the 120 degree-credit hour maximum for baccalaureate degree programs or the 36 degree-credit hour maximum for master’s degrees must be presented in the form of a request for waiver to degree-credit hour length through the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost with a rationale for such changes. The rationale shall include references to external accrediting body requirements that exacerbate the need and requirement to increase credit hours in a program. Exceptions to degree-credit hour requirements indicated above may be made only with approval of the Executive Vice Chancellor and Chief Academic Officer of the University System of Georgia.
  3. Responsibility
    1. Faculty
      The responsibility for developing a new degree or major program resides with the faculty in each academic unit; however, only academic programs which promise to contribute to or otherwise enhance the mission of the University of Georgia should be considered for development.
    2. Administrative
      It shall be the responsibility of each school or college to ensure that all proposals receive appropriate faculty review prior to submission to the next higher administrative level. Both the head of the academic unit and the appropriate dean of the school or college submitting a proposal must review all proposals before they are submitted to the next higher administrative level. The Office of Instruction shall be responsible for reviewing proposals and providing any needed internal and external coordination of procedures. This shall include making appropriate recommendations to the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost and the President of the University on program proposals that are transmitted to the Board of Regents for action. The Office of Instruction shall keep unit (library, institute, department, school, or college) heads informed of the current status of proposals as they move through the review stages required by governance procedures.
    3. Points of Contact
      Academic units contemplating the development of new undergraduate degree or major programs should consult with the Office of Instruction. For new graduate degree or major programs, academic units should consult with the Dean of the Graduate School.
  4. Procedure
    The Board of Regents requires the submission of a formal proposal in support of a new degree or major program. The proposal should be consistent with the University mission and follow the format provided on the forms attached to this policy.

    Proposals for new majors should be routed through the following approval sequence:
    1. Faculty of the academic unit proposing degree or major program
    2. Department Head or Director of academic unit proposing degree or major program
    3. Dean or Vice President of academic unit proposing degree or major program
    4. Graduate School Program Committee, if the major or degree program contains graduate courses
    5. Graduate Council, if the major or degree program contains graduate courses
    6. Dean of the Graduate School, if the major or degree program contains graduate courses
    7. Office of Instruction (for review)
    8. Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost
    9. University Curriculum Committee
    10. Executive Committee of the University Council
    11. University Council
    12. President
    13. Board of Regents

    Substantive Change Review: The Office of Accreditation and Institutional Effectiveness will evaluate the new major for substantive change as it moves through the approval sequence. If it is determined that the new major is a substantive change as defined by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC), additional approval will be required.
  5. System Review
    1. The Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs will, as deemed appropriate, seek the advice of outside consultants in evaluating a program proposal.
    2. As part of the review process for formal proposals, the Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs will disseminate to all University System of Georgia institutions, on a regular basis, a list of program proposals under consideration, and will invite interested parties to request a copy of the proposal for review and comment. Information received through this process will be considered in evaluating the proposals.

      Once approved, all programs will undergo a system review during the seventh year of operation. This review is designed to evaluate how well the program is meeting the expectations that were laid out in the formal proposal.
Policy No. 02 - Certificates

Academic Affairs Policy Statement No. 2, Certificates

ASSOCIATED LINKS
New Certificate Approval Routing Chart
New Certificate Proposal Form
External Certificate Proposal Form
Online Certificate Proposal Form
List of Approved Certificates

 

  1. References
    1. Academic Affairs Handbook, Board of Regents, University System of Georgia, 1987.
    2. Bylaws of the University Council of the University of Georgia, 1988.
    3. Academic Affairs Policy Statement No.1 on New Degree or Major Programs, the University of Georgia, 1989.
    4. Last updated April 2019.
  2. Policy
    1. Effective this date and until rescinded, certificate programs of academic work shall not be added to the curriculum of the University of Georgia unless approved in accordance with the Bylaws of the University Council of the University of Georgia and submitted by the President of the University of Georgia to the Office of the Chancellor, Board of Regents, for information.

      Policy and implementing guidance outlined herein are applicable to all certificate programs. Excluded from this policy are the certification activities of schools and colleges involving professional associations and state governments. No provisions stated herein are intended to conflict with the Bylaws of the University of Georgia or the Academic Affairs Handbook of the Board of Regents.

      For purposes of this policy, certificates may be offered by one existing academic unit or by multiple academic units.
    2. Formal Proposals
      1. Formal Proposal for Certificates Offered by One Academic Unit:

        A formal proposal is required when an academic unit contemplates adding a new certificate to the institution's curricula. The formal proposal will include the following:
        1. Purpose and Educational Objectives
        2. Need
        3. Student Demand
        4. Program of Study
        5. Student Learning Outcomes
        6. Assessment
      2. Formal Proposal for Certificates Offered by Multiple Academic Units:

        A formal proposal is required when multiple academic units contemplate adding a new certificate to the institution's curricula. The formal proposal will include the following:
        1. Purpose and Educational Objectives
        2. Need
        3. Student Demand
        4. Program of Study
        5. Student Learning Outcomes
        6. Assessment
        7. Faculty
        8. Facilities and Resources
        9. Budget
        10. Administration
      3. Board of Regents' approval is not required to establish a certificate program; however, prior notification to the Chancellor of the Board of Regents is necessary.
    3. Certificates are viewed as a complement or addition to an existing degree, rather than a free standing credential. Thus, to preclude certificates from usurping the traditional role of degrees, the following guidance is strongly suggested:
      1. Undergraduate certificates should be completed only by students who are making progress toward an undergraduate degree or by students who already have an undergraduate degree and wish to return for the sole purpose of securing a particular certificate.
      2. Graduate certificates should be completed only by graduate students who are either prospective candidates for a degree or non-degree candidates who hold a master's or a doctoral degree.
  3. Responsibility
    1. Faculty
      The responsibility for developing a new certificate program resides with the faculty.
    2. Administrative
      1. For Certificates Offered by One Academic Unit:

        The department head or director of the academic unit offering the certificate program will be responsible for ensuring the proposal receives the appropriate faculty review.
      2. For Certificates Offered by Multiple Academic Units:

        The dean(s) of the school(s)/college(s) participating in offering the certificate program will be responsible for ensuring the proposal receives the appropriate faculty review.
  4. Administration of the Certificate Program
    1. For Certificates Offered By One Academic Unit:
      The department head, director, or dean of the academic unit offering the certificate program will be responsible for administering the program.
    2. For Certificates Offered By Multiple Academic Units:
      1. Director
        Each certificate offered by multiple units shall be administered by a director. The director shall possess a scholarly record of achievements and a reputation befitting the position. He/she shall carry an academic appointment in a relevant department. The administrators appointing the director should consult with the interdisciplinary faculty and steering committee of the certificate, as well as other appropriate University officials before the appointment is made.

        In addition to managing the day-to-day operation of the program, the director will:
        1. Coordinate course offerings and maintain student records. He/she will act as a department head on curriculum matters (course proposals, changes, deletions, etc.).
        2. Coordinate and promote activities (seminars, speakers, receptions, etc.) associated with the program and do whatever is appropriate to secure extramural funding lines to support program activities.
        3. Consult with Steering Committee on matters of policy, planning, and resource requirements.
      2. Steering Committee
        In general, the Steering Committee will comprise senior faculty whose wisdom and experience are viewed to be valuable in assisting the director of the certificate. Here, faculty governance should not be restricted to specific problems but should involve the basic values associated with teaching, learning, and research.
      3. Faculty
        Any University of Georgia faculty may affiliate as members of a certificate program under procedures approved by the Steering Committee.

        Career/Reward Structure

        At least annually, the director of the certificate shall provide a report to the department chairperson of each faculty member who makes a significant contribution to the program. The department chairperson is encouraged to use the  input from such reports for faculty salary recommendations and tenure promotion decisions.
      4. Reporting Lines
        Certificates shall be administratively attached to a defined academic unit (e.g., institute, department, division, school, or college). Reporting lines shall be specified by the head of the unit and with the approval of the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost. Where no single pertinent knowledge base can be readily identified for a certificate, the mission or role of the certificate program may be used as criteria in establishing the reporting line of the director.
      5. Budget Lines
        With the approval of the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost, a certificate program may be authorized specific budget lines by the parent unit. Where no parent unit is determined to exist, budget lines may be secured directly from the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost. Under no  circumstances will a certificate program serve as promotion or tenure-initiating units. However, the certificate director may assist the head of the academic unit (where the rank of the certificate faculty member resides) in securing evaluations or letters of recommendation.
      6. Funding
        Funding sources for the certificate may be totally internal or extramural, or a mix of internal and extramural funds. The director of the certificate shall have fiscal responsibility and accountability for the program budget.
  5. Procedure
    Proposals for a new certificate program offered by one academic unit should be routed through the following approval sequence:
    1. Faculty of the academic unit proposing certificate program
    2. Department Head or Director of academic unit proposing certificate program
    3. Dean or Vice President of academic unit proposing certificate program
    4. Graduate School Program Committee, if the certificate program contains graduate courses
    5. Graduate Council, if the certificate program contains graduate courses
    6. Dean of the Graduate School, if the certificate program contains graduate courses
    7. Office of Instruction (for review)
    8. Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost
    9. University Curriculum Committee
    10. Executive Committee of the University Council
    11. University Council
    12. President
    13. Board of Regents (for notification)

      Proposals for a new certificate program offered by multiple academic units should be routed through the following approval sequence:

    14. Faculty of the academic units proposing certificate program
    15. Department Head(s) or Director(s) of academic units proposing certificate program
    16. Dean(s) or Vice President(s) of academic units proposing certificate program
    17. Graduate School Program Committee, if the certificate program contains graduate courses
    18. Graduate Council, if the certificate program contains graduate courses
    19. Dean of the Graduate School, if the certificate program contains graduate courses
    20. Office of Instruction (for review)
    21. Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost
    22. University Curriculum Committee
    23. Executive Committee of the University Council
    24. University Council
    25. President
    26. Board of Regents (for notification)

    Substantive Change Review: The Office of Accreditation and Institutional Effectiveness will evaluate the new certificate for substantive change as it moves through the approval sequence. If it is determined that the new certificate is a substantive change as defined by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC), additional approval will be required.
  6. Review and Termination
    1. A certificate is viewed to be an academic enterprise and, hence, subject to the program review process as defined in Academic Affairs Policy 4.12-2, UGA Program Review Policy. The Office of Accreditation and Institutional Effectiveness, in consultation with the Dean or Vice President of the academic unit which offers the certificate program, will determine when the certificate is to be reviewed. For certificates offered by multiple academic units, the dean(s) participating in the program will determine when the certificate is to be reviewed.
    2. Certificate programs which have no enrollment for a period of three years will be administratively terminated. The Office of Assessment will notify any program with no enrollment for a period of two years that the program will be terminated at the end of the third year. At the end of the third year with no enrollment, the Office of Assessment will notify the Office of Instruction to administratively process the termination of the certificate program.
Policy No. 03 - Minors

Academic Affairs Policy Statement No. 3,
Minors

ASSOCIATED LINKS
New Minor Approval Routing Chart
New Minor Proposal Form
List of Approved Minors
How to Add or Remove a Minor

 

  1. References
    1. Academic & Student Affairs Handbook, Board of Regents, University System of Georgia, April 2011 (2.3.1 Majors and Minors).
    2. New Degrees or Major Programs. Academic Affairs Policy Statement No. 1, the University of Georgia, October 1989.
    3. Adopted by the University Council, November 1989. Amended June 5, 1990; March 21, 1991; October 14, 1991, and April 28, 2017; approved by the Board of Regents November 1, 1991.
    4. Last updated April 2019.
  2. Objective
    The objective in instituting a minor field of study at the University of Georgia is to encourage and officially acknowledge the attainment by students of a fair measure of expertise and knowledge in more than one academic field.
  3. Policy
    1. The option to create a minor and the formulation of requirements for a minor are curriculum decisions; therefore, they should originate from the faculty of the academic unit offering the minor.
    2. Ordinarily, a minor may be offered only in a field for which there exists a corresponding major. Exceptions may be made if (1) the proposed minor is in a recognized academic field or discipline, and (2) the University has in place sufficient courses, faculty, and facilities for the offering of the minor.
    3. The availability and requirements of a minor will appear in the Bulletin. Proposals for a new minor should include the total number of hours required, along with the enumeration of any particular courses that are mandated or excluded, residency requirements (if any) for the minor courses, and grade requirements for minor courses if those requirements differ from the general University standard for credit (a D as the minimum passing grade). Board of Regents' policy states that a minor must contain 15 to 18 semester hours of coursework with at least 9 hours of upperdivision coursework (numbered 3000 or above). Courses taken to satisfy Core Areas I through V may not be counted as coursework in the minor. Core Area VI courses may be counted as coursework in the minor.
    4. A student may have more than one minor. Students must be currently enrolled in a major program to pursue a minor.
    5. The intent of establishing minor fields of undergraduate study is to offer students the opportunity to broaden their education through the minor field. The selection of a minor field of study should be made to fulfill this goal.
    6. A student may select a minor in consultation with the advisor in the major field. The student may then consult an advisor in the minor field, who can inform the student of remaining requirements for the minor. When the student has met the requirements for the minor, the advisor in the minor field will then certify that fact to the student's dean. The completed minor will be recorded on the student's permanent transcript but not on the diploma. For students completing a minor before graduation, the minor will appear on the transcript at the time of graduation. For students completing a minor after graduation, the statement shall appear on the transcript in chronological order following the courses taken subsequent to graduation.
    7. A student must be enrolled at the time a minor is approved by the University Council, or subsequent to that date, to receive credit for the minor.
  4. Procedure
    Proposals for new minors should be routed through the following approval sequence:
    1. Faculty of the academic unit proposing minor
    2. Department Head or Director of academic unit proposing minor
    3. Dean or Vice President of academic unit proposing minor
    4. Office of Instruction (for review)
    5. Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost
    6. University Curriculum Committee
    7. Executive Committee of the University Council
    8. University Council
    9. President
    10. Board of Regents (for notification)
Policy No. 04 - Deactivation, Reactivation, or Termination of Academic Programs

Academic Affairs Policy Statement No. 4, 
Deactivation, Reactivation, or Termination of Academic Programs

ASSOCIATED LINKS
Deactivation, Reactivation, or Termination Approval Routing Chart
Deactivation or Termination Proposal Form
Reactivation Proposal Form

 

  1. References
    1. Academic Affairs Handbook, Board of Regents, University System of Georgia, 1987.
    2. Bylaws of the University Council of the University of Georgia, 1988.
    3. This policy statement was approved by the University Council on October 11, 1990.
    4. Last updated April 2019.
  2. Policy
    1. This policy statement is applicable to all academic degree programs (to include interdisciplinary programs).
    2. Deactivation or Reactivation
      Effective this date and until rescinded, deactivation (temporary suspension) of an educational program, degree, or major may be approved by the President of the University of Georgia without obtaining Board of Regents' approval. Deactivation is for a period not to exceed two academic years to allow for program review, to consider enrollment problems, to deal with faculty shortages, or for other similar reasons. The President may subsequently reactivate the program within that twoyear period without obtaining Board of Regents' approval. However, the deactivation or reactivation will be reported to the Chancellor by the  resident. If the program has not been reactivated by the end of the second academic year, the President should take action to terminate the program. A deactivated program remains an authorized program at the institution, but new students are no longer permitted to enroll. The deactivated program will not be listed in the Bulletin.
    3. Termination
      A proposal for termination (discontinuation) of an educational program, degree, or major will be submitted to the Chancellor for review and recommendation for action by the Board of Regents. Termination means that the institution is no longer authorized to offer the program. Subsequent offering of the program must be initiated by a proposal for a new program.
    4. Guidelines
      Implementing guidelines for deactivation/reactivation and termination of academic programs appear as attachments to this policy statement. The policy statement and implementing guidelines for reinstatement are the same as those for new degree programs.

      Proposals to deactivate or terminate an academic program should include:
      1. A program abstract
      2. The reasons or rationale for deactivation/termination
      3. How faculty and staff will be impacted by the deactivation/termination
      4. Plans to allow currently enrolled students to complete a deactivated program
      5. Plans for reactivation of the program

        Proposals to reactivate a previously deactivated program should include:
      6. A program abstract
      7. The reasons or rationale for reactivating the program
      8. Departmental commitments to the reactivated program, including fiscal and physical resources
      9. A program of study and list of requirements for the program
      10. Documentation of student demand and the need for the program
    5. No provisions stated herein are intended to conflict with the Bylaws or the Academic Affairs Handbook.
  3. Responsibility
    Proposals for deactivation, reactivation, or termination of a program may be initiated by the faculty, a dean, or the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost. It is the responsibility of the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost to obtain input from the faculty in the impacted unit and include the recorded vote in the proposal. These actions should be prompted by recommendations from properly authorized program reviews or from other studies. Program reviews are authorized by the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost. Academic Affairs Policy Statement No. 1, New Degree or Major Programs, should be consulted for guidelines for program reinstatement, which requires submission of a proposal for a new program.
  4. Procedure
    Proposals may be initiated by faculty, department head/director, dean, Vice President, or Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost.

    Proposals for program deactivation/reactivation should be routed through the following approval sequence:
    1. Faculty of the academic unit proposing deactivation
    2. Department Head or Director of academic unit proposing deactivation
    3. Dean or Vice President of academic unit proposing deactivation
    4. Graduate School Program Committee, if the program contains graduate courses
    5. Graduate Council, if the program contains graduate courses
    6. Dean of the Graduate School, if the program contains graduate courses
    7. Office of Instruction (for review)
    8. Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost
    9. University Curriculum Committee
    10. Executive Committee of the University Council
    11. University Council
    12. President

      Proposals for program terminations should be routed through the following approval sequence:
    13. Faculty of the academic unit proposing termination
    14. Department Head or Director of academic unit proposing termination
    15. Dean or Vice President of academic unit proposing termination
    16. Graduate School Program Committee, if the program contains graduate courses
    17. Graduate Council, if the program contains graduate courses
    18. Dean of the Graduate School, if the program contains graduate courses
    19. Office of Instruction (for review)
    20. Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost
    21. University Curriculum Committee
    22. Executive Committee of the University Council
    23. University Council
    24. President
    25. Board of Regents

Substantive Change Review: The Office of Accreditation and Institutional Effectiveness will evaluate the program termination for substantive change as it moves through the approval sequence. If it is determined that the terminated major is a substantive change as
defined by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC), additional approval will be required.

Policy No. 05 - Undergraduate, Professional, and Graduate Areas of Emphasis

Academic Affairs Policy Statement No. 5, 
Undergraduate, Professional, and Graduate Areas of Emphasis

ASSOCIATED LINKS
Area of Emphasis Approval Routing Chart
Area of Emphasis Proposal Form

 

  1. References
    1. Areas of Emphasis policy statement recommended by the University Curriculum Committee, June 1992.
    2. Revised by the University Curriculum Committee, October 1994, January 1999, April 2004, and February 2017.
    3. Last updated April 2019.
  2. Objective
    The objective in instituting areas of emphasis at the University of Georgia is to officially acknowledge the attainment by students of a fair measure of expertise and knowledge of a specific nature within the major field of study.
  3. Policy
    1. The option to create an area of emphasis within a major or certificate and the formulation of requirements for the area of emphasis are curriculum decisions; therefore, they should originate from the faculty of the academic unit offering the major or certificate. Although graduate study by its very nature focuses on specialized areas of study, students may benefit from the formal recognition of specialized study that the official Area of Emphasis provides.
    2. The official designation shall be "area of emphasis."
    3. Only approved areas of emphasis will be included on the student’s official transcript.
    4. Proposals for a new area of emphasis should include a program of study and a list of requirements for the major.
  4. Responsibility
    The faculty of the academic unit offering the area of emphasis is responsible for developing areas of emphasis. Students will select areas of emphasis in consultation with an advisor.
  5. Requirements
    1. Undergraduate Area of Emphasis
      An undergraduate area of emphasis is a specialty within a major or certificate. It requires 12 or more semester-credit hours of upper-division courses (numbered 3000 or above) acceptable for satisfaction of the major degree requirements.
    2. Professional Program Area of Emphasis
      A professional program area of emphasis is a specialty within a major or certificate. It requires 9 or more semester credit hours of professional-level courses acceptable for satisfaction of the major degree requirements.
    3. Graduate Area of Emphasis
      Requirements for an area of emphasis within a graduate major or certificate will be established within the individual academic departments. It requires 9 or more semester credit hours of graduate-level courses acceptable for satisfaction of major degree requirements.
  6. Procedure
    Establishment of an area of emphasis should begin with the department or academic unit offering the major or certificate. Proposals for areas of emphasis should be submitted using the area of emphasis program form.

    Proposals for new areas of emphasis should be routed through the following approval sequence:
    1. Faculty of the academic unit proposing area of emphasis
    2. Department Head or Director of academic unit proposing area of emphasis
    3. Dean or Vice President of academic unit proposing area of emphasis
    4. Dean of the Graduate School, if the area of emphasis falls under a graduate program
    5. Office of Instruction (for review)
    6. Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost
    7. University Curriculum Committee

When a proposed area of emphasis affects another school, college, or department (by, for example, listing a course offered by another unit), the proposal should be circulated to that unit for sign-off prior to submission to the University Curriculum Committee.

Policy No. 06 - Changing Names of Academic Units

Academic Affairs Policy Statement No. 6, 
Changing Names of Academic Units

ASSOCIATED LINKS
Academic Unit Name Change Approval Routing Chart
Academic Unit Name Change Proposal Form

 

  1. References
    1. Academic Affairs Handbook, Board of Regents, University System of Georgia, February 1991.
    2. Statutes of the University of Georgia, May 1988.
    3. Bylaws of The University Council of the University of Georgia, May 1988.
    4. Curriculum Policies and Procedures, the University of Georgia, August 1992.
    5. Last updated April 2019.
  2. Objective
    The objective of these guidelines is to provide sufficient review by impacted academic units of proposed name changes.
  3. Policy
    1. Since changes in the names of departments, schools, colleges, centers, or institutes may have major impacts on the curriculum of the University as presented in University publications, they must undergo the same review as other curriculum changes. Changes should be undertaken only after thorough study and evaluation within the originating unit.
    2. Any change in name must first be approved by the originating unit and the appropriate academic dean or director. It is the responsibility of the originating unit and academic dean or director to assure that proposed names are appropriate for the discipline.
    3. The proposal should include:
      1. A cover letter from the dean or director of the unit requesting the proposed changes.
      2. A completed Proposal for Academic Unit Name Change form, which will include justification for the name change(s) and documentation of approval.
  4. Procedure
    Proposals for name changes should be routed through the following approval sequence:
    1. Faculty of the academic unit proposing name change
    2. Department Head or Director of academic unit proposing name change
    3. Dean or Vice President of academic unit proposing name change
    4. Office of Instruction (for review)
    5. Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost
    6. University Curriculum Committee
    7. Executive Committee of the University Council
    8. University Council
    9. President
  5. Evaluation Criteria
    At each stage, proposed names should be examined carefully according to the following criteria:
    1. Is the name consistent with the administrative structure of the University System and the University of Georgia?
    2. Does the proposed name substantially represent the discipline(s) being described?
    3. Does the name clearly communicate to those outside of academia the unit being represented?
    4. Does the name clearly differentiate the particular department, school, or college from other organizations at the University of Georgia?
Policy No. 07 - Institutes

Academic Affairs Policy Statement No. 7, 
Institutes

ASSOCIATED LINKS
Institute Approval Routing Chart
Institute Proposal Form

 

  1. References
    1. Academic Affairs Handbook, Board of Regents, University System of Georgia, July 1, 1986.
    2. Centers and Institutes policy statement approved by the University Council, January 26, 1993 and revised June 4, 1998 and December 2009.
    3. Last updated April 2019
  2. Definitions
    Institutes are organizational forms designed to further the university's instructional, research, and public service missions in ways that cannot be addressed through traditional structures, such as departments, schools, and colleges. Though institutes are an integral part of the university, their respective missions should not duplicate those of departments, schools, and colleges. Instead, they should offer programs or opportunities that cannot be offered at least as well through existing structures. The key ingredient of any institute is "value added."

    Institutes provide an organizational base for university mission-related activities in one or more academic areas. They pursue activities that may include, but are not limited to, interdisciplinary research involving faculty and students from a variety of internal administrative structures, offering credit courses, academic programs, or continuing education activities related to their area(s) of interest, or facilitating efforts of the department, school, college, or university to obtain extramural funding in specific areas. Institutes serve as a formalized link between the academic community and the professional community in the area(s) of interest.

    This definition of institute is not to be confused with use of the term "institute" in connection with adult and continuing education. One of several formats used to group adult learners for non-credit instruction or instruction earning CEU’s (continuing education units) is the institute. Institutes of this sort are typically conducted over a fixed period of time and address specialized areas of concern or practice, adding to the knowledge which participants already have on the subject.
  3. Responsibility
    1. Administrative Unit
      Institutes may be administratively located within a department, school, college, other unit, or report directly to a vice president. The most decentralized administrative level consistent with meeting the institute mission is preferred.
    2. Appointments
      Institute directors will be appointed with standard review processes which may vary depending upon the executive officer to whom the director reports. Tenure-track faculty who participate in institutes will be appointed to departments or schools in accordance with normal appointment procedures, with the exception that search committees will be formed jointly of department/school and institute faculty. Both entities must agree on the employment of a new tenure-track faculty member. Nontenure track faculty with time budgeted in an institute as well as in other units will have their promotions and merit raises managed in a manner determined at the time of appointment.

      Although some portion of tenure-track faculty time may be budgeted in an institute, tenure and promotion processes will be initiated through the relevant department or school. However, the department or school review process will be organized to reflect the advice and recommendation of an institute if one third or more of the faculty member's appointment is in the institute. Merit salary decisions for those faculty with time divided  between a department/school and an institute will be made jointly.

      Part of the time a tenure-track faculty member has budgeted in a department should include formal instruction. An exception to this teaching responsibility requires the approval of the appropriate department head and dean. This is to insure that institute tenure-track faculty have regular contact with the department in which tenure resides, and, in particular, with teaching.

      If a tenure-track faculty member is appointed jointly and the department wishes to recommend tenure but the institute does not wish to continue the appointment, then it will be the responsibility of the department, if tenure is approved in the university review process, to come up with the funds required to purchase the faculty time from the institute. If the department does not wish to tenure a person, even though the institute favors tenure, then tenure will not be awarded (other than through a successful appeal based principally, as our Guidelines now provide, on process). A position vacated because tenure was not awarded will not be allocated by the department for different purposes without the explicit knowledge of the institute director and the explicit approval of the cognizant department head, dean, or vice president. Similarly, if the services of a non-tenure track faculty member are not to be continued in an institute, and another unit sharing that person's services wishes to retain his or her services, then the other unit is responsible for obtaining any needed salary.
  4. Establishment of Institutes
    1. Criteria
      Establishment and maintenance of institutes must be based upon a defined program with measurable outcomes, defined policies and operating procedures, and a  defined review process. Their establishment is justified when it is clear that their respective missions support and enhance the programs of the university. Even then, they must have missions which demonstrably cannot be accomplished in an efficient and effective manner by existing departments, schools, colleges, centers, institutes, or other units.
    2. Proposals
      Proposals must include a narrative that states institute goals and describes how they will meet the above criteria; the statement of goals must include specific outcomes and criteria that will be used to measure progress toward the goals.

      The proposal must indicate the administrative unit and the leadership position within that unit to which the institute reports and must designate the process by which the institute will be reviewed. The institute may be reviewed: (a) as an independent unit in Program Review; (b) as part of the Program Review of the administrative unit; (c) by the administrative unit; or (d) in another specified and approved manner. Review should occur no less frequently than once every seven years.

      Proposals should also contain:
      1. A Statement of Operating Procedures and Policies. These should include a description of the structure, the roles and responsibilities of any participating units, an advisory committee structure, and the processes for appointment or reappointment.
      2. A description of amounts and sources of anticipated income. Anticipated financial arrangements between the institute and other units, if any, should also be described. A projected budget covering the first three years of operation should be included and should detail expenditures and income expected.
      3. A description of the faculty and staff necessary to initiate its programs and maintain its operations for the first three years.
      4. A description of the physical resources that the institute will occupy and utilize during its first three years.
      5. A list of participating faculty, their home units, and their roles in the institute, including a description of the formal arrangements through which faculty will participate with the institute, will be evaluated for promotion, tenure, and salary increases, and the extent to which each affiliated faculty member will have his or her salary contained in its budget.
      6. Institutes that offer or plan to offer a degree program must have clear, formal agreements with home units of faculty that guarantee their availability to teach courses needed by students in the program.
      7. Letters of support from affected departments, schools, colleges, other units, and the administrator who will have oversight responsibilities.
      8. A description of the responsibilities of any participating units.
      9. Recommendations, if appropriate, for the creation of courses or degrees and how they are integral to the functioning of the institute.
  5. Procedure
    A proposal may be originated by any interested staff or faculty but, prior to submission for formal review, must be submitted for recommendations and comments to the heads of those units whose faculty and staff are involved.
    Proposals for new institutes should be routed through the following approval sequence where applicable:
    1. Faculty of the academic unit(s) proposing the institute
    2. Department Head(s) or Director(s) of proposed institute
    3. Dean(s) or Vice President(s) of proposed institute
    4. Dean(s), Director(s), or Vice Presidents(s) of units that include faculty participating in proposed institute
    5. Graduate School Program Committee, if the institute will offer graduate programs or courses
    6. Graduate Council, if the institute will offer graduate programs or courses
    7. Dean of the Graduate School, if the institute will offer graduate programs or courses
    8. Office of Instruction (for review)
    9. Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost
    10. University Curriculum Committee
    11. Executive Committee of the University Council
    12. University Council
    13. President
    14. Board of Regents (for notification)
  6. Annual Reports and Reviews
    1. Annual Reports
      Institutes should submit annual reports according to the accepted practices of their administrative unit.
    2. Reviews
      Institutes will undergo an initial review by the administrative unit, to be completed by the end of the third year of existence. The institute should summarize progress toward its stated goals and demonstrate how it adds value to the university. Thereafter, the institute shall be reviewed as part of the normal cycle of review as  specified in its initial proposal. Review should occur no less frequently than once every seven years.

      Institutes undergoing review must address any changes to resources, commitments, operating agreements, or elements as specified in the original proposal or most recent review.

      The review report for a third-year or normal cycle review of an institute must include a statement that continuation of the institute is either recommended or not recommended. If continuation is not recommended, the administrative unit head shall decide whether to invoke the process for dissolution, described below.

      Academic programs offered by Institutes will be reviewed under Academic Affairs Policy 4.12-2, UGA Academic Program Review Policy
    3. Documentation
      The annual reports and all reviews of an institute will be made available to the Office of Accreditation and Institutional Effectiveness.
  7. Recommendations for Significant Changes to Mission of Institute
    Recommendations either for significant changes in mission of institutes will be reviewed by the University Curriculum Committee, which in turn will make its recommendation to the Council.

    All recommendations for change require approval by the President before implementation.
  8. Dissolution of an Institute
    Recommendations for dissolution of an institute may be made either (1) as a result of periodic institutional review consistent with program review guidelines, or (2) through typical department, school or college, or institutional processes. Recommendations for dissolution will be made if an institute fails to meet the substantive conditions for its establishment or does not provide the "value added" requisite of a center or institute. Any such recommendations should follow Academic Affairs Policy Statement No. 8, Dissolution of Academic Units.
Policy No. 08 - Dissolution of Academic Units

Academic Affairs Policy Statement No. 8, 
Dissolution of Academic Units

ASSOCIATED LINKS
Dissolution of Academic Units Approval Routing Chart

 

  1. References
    1. The Board of Regents Policy Manual, University System of Georgia, 1993.
    2. Bylaws of the University Council of the University of Georgia, 1988.
    3. Last updated April 2019.
  2. Objective
    This document is intended to provide the general procedure for the dissolution of academic units. The term "academic unit" includes schools, colleges, departments, divisions, institutes, and any other unit the curriculum of which is under the auspices of the University Curriculum Committee.
  3. Procedure
    The dissolution of an academic unit is the process by which an existing academic unit ceases to exist and the faculty, students, staff, space, and other resources of the dissolved unit are reassigned. Such a process is regarded as significant and must be given serious consideration. The process is unrelated to "financial exigency" as defined by existing Regents' Policy. The dissolution of an academic unit is permanent, although it does not preclude the future creation of a very similar unit.
    1. Voluntary Dissolution
      A voluntary dissolution is initiated when an academic unit decides to dissolve itself.

      The motion to dissolve must be supported by a letter of endorsement, including a plan of implementation, from the relevant department head or from a faculty representative of the affected unit. Subsequent approval is required from the faculty, or the Faculty Senate (if applicable), within the structure of which the academic unit under consideration is a part. Approval is defined as receiving more "yes" votes than "no" votes. This vote must also be recorded (including abstentions) and transmitted with the letter of endorsement through the approval routing process. At each stage of the process, faculty members of the affected unit shall be given the opportunity to voice their concerns.

      Proposals for voluntary dissolution should be routed through the following approval sequence where applicable:
      1. Faculty of the academic unit(s) proposing the dissolution
      2. Department Head(s) or Director(s) of the impacted unit
      3. Dean(s) or Vice President(s) of the impacted unit
      4. Dean of the Graduate School, if impacted unit offers graduate programs or courses
      5. Office of Instruction (for review)
      6. Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost
      7. University Curriculum Committee
      8. Executive Committee of the University Council
      9. University Council
      10. President
    2. Involuntary Dissolution
      An involuntary dissolution may be initiated when:

      1. A Unit Head or Director, Dean, Vice President, or President originates a proposal to dissolve a unit,
        or
      2. There is a formal recommendation for dissolution resulting from an impartial substantive review of the academic unit.

        If the recommendation originates with an administrative officer, a review committee will be appointed to make an impartial substantive review of the unit and the basis for the dissolution.

        Following the recommendation for dissolution and the review of the academic unit, the head of the affected unit will have an opportunity to prepare a letter of response with supporting documentation.

        The initiating letter, unit head's letter, and the report of the review committee will be transmitted for consideration of dissolution to the Faculty Senate or to the entire faculty of the college or school of which the unit recommended for dissolution is a part. This vote (reporting yes votes, no votes, and abstentions) and any supporting documents will be forwarded to the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost, and the University Curriculum Committee. Any faculty members disagreeing with the majority vote may forward their response and supporting documentation to the University Curriculum Committee. The University Curriculum Committee will then forward its recommendation to the University Council. The University Council will forward its recommendation to the President. If the unit reports directly to the President, the dissolution will be forwarded to the
        Board of Regents as an information item.

        Proposals for involuntary dissolution should be routed through the following approval sequence where applicable:
        1. Department Head(s) or Director(s) of the impacted unit
        2. Dean(s) or Vice President(s) of the impacted unit
        3. Dean of the Graduate School, if impacted unit offers graduate programs or courses
        4. Office of Instruction (for review)
        5. Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost
        6. University Curriculum Committee
        7. Executive Committee of the University Council
        8. University Council
        9. President
  4. Implementation
    Implementation of the dissolution of an academic unit pertains to an allocation of associated faculty, staff, space, and other resources. The dissolution may be implemented in either of two ways: a) an academic unit may be dissolved in stages for the sake of current students or for other reasons, or b) a single date may be set for the complete dissolution. The originator shall include a plan for implementation as part of the proposal sent to the designated faculty, Graduate School Curriculum Committee and Dean (if the affected academic unit has a graduate program), Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost, University Curriculum Committee, University Council, Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost, and President.
Policy No. 09 - Establishing or Changing the Entrance Requirements or High-Demand Status of an Undergraduate Major

Academic Affairs Policy Statement No. 9, 
Establishing or Changing the Entrance Requirements or High-Demand Status of an Undergraduate Major

ASSOCIATED LINKS
Establishing or Changing the Entrance Requirements or High-Demand Status of an Undergraduate Major Approval Routing Chart
Establishing or Changing the Entrance Requirements of an Undergraduate Major Proposal Form
Establishing or Changing the High-Demand Status of an Undergraduate Major Proposal Form

 

  1. References
    1. Statutes of the University of Georgia, May 1988, p. 13-14.
    2. The University of Georgia Faculty Handbook, 1992, p. 7.
    3. Bylaws of the University Council of the University of Georgia, 1989, p. 3-6.
    4. Academic Affairs Handbook, University System of Georgia, Section 3.09.
    5. Policy Manual of the Board of Regents, University System of Georgia, Section 402.12.
    6. Last updated April 2019.
  2. Policy
    The University of Georgia recognizes as a general principle that students in good standing— whether students continuing at the University of Georgia or transfer students—should be allowed access to the major of their choice. Exceptions to this principle may be approved under one of two conditions. The first is when the educational resources and number of faculty are insufficient to provide a quality learning environment to all who wish to enroll. The second is when completion of the degree requires special skills or abilities, or satisfactory completions of required courses are demonstrably necessary for successful completion of the major.
    1. Entrance Requirements
      The operating policy has been developed in order to delineate the procedures and criteria applicable to requests for exception to the institutional principle of open access to all students in good standing. Each department, school, or college requesting an exception must fully justify the need for it and explain why the proposed entrance requirements are necessary to enhance the quality of education or
      assure greater likelihood of student success in completing the degree.

      The intent of the procedures and criteria is to assure that proposals to limit entry to majors (a) receive appropriate review at the school/college level, (b) are appropriate and fair, and (c) are evaluated for their potential effects on other programs.
    2. High-Demand Major Status
      The high-demand major is one which receives or expects to receive more applications for the major from fully qualified undergraduate students than the program can accommodate without endangering the quality of instruction offered.

      The intent of the procedures and criteria is to assure that high-demand majors are identified (a) after appropriate review at the school/college level, (b) are appropriate and fair to students seeking the major, and (c) are assessed for their potential effect on other programs.
  3. Procedure
    Proposals to establish/change entrance requirements, establish high-demand major status, or change high-demand criteria should be routed through the following approval sequence:
    1. Faculty of the academic unit proposing the entrance requirements
    2. Department Head of academic unit proposing the entrance requirements
    3. Dean of academic unit proposing the entrance requirements
    4. Head(s) of academic units impacted by entrance requirements (for information)
    5. Office of Instruction (for review)
    6. Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost
    7. University Curriculum Committee

      Each proposal must include a rationale justifying the need for such a requirement, an assessment of what effect the requirement will have on the major involved, and an estimate of anticipated effects on other majors within the University. The originating school/college should circulate the proposal to other pertinent schools/colleges for review and comments prior to submission to the University Curriculum Committee. The proposal will be reviewed by the University Curriculum Committee. They will evaluate the proposal to assure that it satisfies the criteria associated with this policy and is consistent with Board of Regents policy.

      All approved proposals will become effective subsequent to appearing in the Bulletin.
  4. Evaluation Criteria
    1. Entrance Requirements
      1. All proposed entrance requirements must be consistent with school/college, University, and University System regulations. A school/college may choose not to require any entrance requirements to the major if they wish.
      2. The proposed entrance requirements must be supported by adequate academic justification. Some reasons which may be considered are as follows:
        1. Limits are required to maintain a high quality of instruction.
        2. There are limitations on physical facilities and resources, especially when special resources are required which cannot be augmented (e.g., laboratories or studios).
        3. Limits are required to maintain professional accreditation requirements.
        4. Special skills or abilities are required to complete major courses (e.g., performing arts such as dance, musical performance, or creative art).
      3. The proposed entrance requirements must relate to the rationale for imposing those limits. Some examples of requirements which may be used are as follows:
        1. Overall GPA, either as a fixed value or a variable one dependent on the number of hours completed. It is preferable to have requirements more specific to the degree rather than just overall GPA.
        2. Completion of certain prerequisites with a grade of C or better when such courses are  demonstrably necessary to successfully complete the major.
        3. Documentation of career goals.
        4. Documentation of special skills or abilities which are necessary to successfully complete the major (e.g., performing skills in the performing arts).
        5. Experiential prerequisites (such as a portfolio of in-school experiences for teacher preparation programs).
    2. High-Demand Major Status
      1. Criteria for Creation of a High-Demand Major

        The proposal must include adequate academic justification. The responsible program shall report its capacity for undergraduate students, along with the specific factors which constrain capacity. Some illustrative factors which may constrain capacity are listed below.
        1. Limits are required to maintain a high quality of instruction.
        2. Physical facilities and resources are limited, especially when specialized facilities cannot be augmented (such as laboratories or studios).
        3. Limits are required by professional accreditation requirements.
        4. Special skills or abilities are required to complete courses in the major (for example, performing arts such as dance, musical performance, or creative art), and the resources to impart such skills are limited.
      2. Criteria for Selection of Students to Enter High-Demand Majors
        Faculty of a high-demand major must establish and apply uniform criteria for selecting among all qualified applicants (whether native or transfer) those to be admitted to the majors. In the event all applicants have met selection criteria, then those students judged by the faculty to be most excellent with respect to the criteria should be those selected. Selection criteria should be demonstrably related to successful completion of the major and should conform to the following guidelines:
        1. Proposed selection criteria must be consistent with school/college, University, and University System policies and regulations (for example, those related to diversity).
        2. Selection criteria may include a grade point average (GPA) in a specific course or group of courses related to successful completion of the major. An overall GPA is not specific to the major and may not be included as a selection criterion.
        3. Statements of purpose may be included as selection criteria.
        4. Documentation of special skills, abilities, or experiences necessary to complete the major may be selection criteria.
        5. Selection must be based on consideration of more than one type of criteria (for example, not just grade point average in a specific course or group of courses) and must be supported by an appropriate rationale.
  {No content to show for Policy #10}
  {No content to show for Policy #11}
  {No content to show for Policy #12}
Policy No. 13 - Syllabus

Academic Affairs Policy Statement No. 13, Syllabus

  1. Reference
    1. Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, Principles of Accreditation, 9.6 and 10.1.
    2. Last revised February 2020.
  2. Objective
    Students must be provided written information about the goals and requirements of each course, the nature of the course content, and the methods of evaluation to be employed.
  3. Master Syllabi
    A master syllabus must be available for each course. The master syllabus will include items a-g listed below. The master course syllabus will be provided as part of the application for new courses and for course changes (when the nature of the proposed change affects the course syllabus) and will be included on the course application submitted through the automated course approval process (CAPA).Elements of a master syllabus include:
    1. Course title and number as they appear on the course application.
    2. Course description as it appears on the approved course application in CAPA.
    3. Prerequisites, corequisites, and cross-listings for the course, if applicable.
    4. Course objectives or expected learning outcomes for students of the course. If a course is approved to fulfill a University-wide requirement, the learning outcomes for that requirement should be stated on the syllabus.
    5. Topical outline for the course.
    6. Reference to the University Honor Code and Academic Honesty Policy and a statement as to what behavior unique to the course could be academically dishonest. The three professional schools, School of Law, College of Veterinary Medicine, and College of Pharmacy, may reference their own academic honesty policies.
    7. The syllabus must include these statements:

      UGA Student Honor Code: "I will be academically honest in all of my academic work and will not tolerate academic dishonesty of others." A Culture of Honesty, the University's policy and procedures for handling cases of suspected dishonesty, can be found at www.uga.edu/ovpi. Every course syllabus should include the instructor's expectations related to academic honesty.

      The course syllabus is a general plan for the course; deviations announced to the class by the instructor may be necessary.

      Mental Health and Wellness Resources:
      • If you or someone you know needs assistance, you are encouraged to contact Student Care and Outreach in the Division of Student Affairs at 706-542-7774 or visit https://sco.uga.edu. They will help you navigate any difficult circumstances you may be facing by connecting you with the appropriate resources or services. 
      • UGA has several resources for a student seeking mental health services (https://www.uhs.uga.edu/bewelluga/bewelluga) or crisis support (https://www.uhs.uga.edu/info/emergencies). 
      • If you need help managing stress anxiety, relationships, etc., please visit BeWellUGA (https://www.uhs.uga.edu/bewelluga/bewelluga) for a list of FREE workshops, classes, mentoring, and health coaching led by licensed clinicians and health educators in the University Health Center. 
      • Additional resources can be accessed through the UGA App. 
  4. Course Syllabi
    Faculty are responsible for ensuring the course syllabus is accessible to all students. A course syllabus is not required for dissertation, thesis, seminar, directed study, and internship courses. In addition to the information as it appears in the master syllabus, the course syllabus will include information for the specific teacher and body of students. The course syllabus will include the items a-f listed below. Department chairs/heads have final approval of the course syllabus and may authorize a faculty member to modify the course syllabus, if (a) expected learning outcomes are not modified, and (b) all required elements of a course syllabus are present. Elements of a course syllabus include items a-g listed above and the following:
    1. Principal course assignments, such as required reading, papers, other activities, and the week of the course in which these assignments are expected to be completed and submitted.
    2. Specific course requirementsfor grading purposes, which may include written and oral tests and reports, research papers, performances or other similar requirements, and/or participation requirements.
    3. Grading Policy: Specify how the final grade will be determined with respect to weights or course points assigned to various course requirements.
    4. Attendance Policy: Any specific requirements for attendace should be stated.
    5. Required course material, including texts.
    6. Policy for make-up of assignments/examinations.

      In addition to the above elements of a course syllabus, the instructor should add for each section taught: (a) instructor name, and (b) instructor accessibility to students (such as office hours, office location, telephone number, and/or e-mail address).
  5. Course Syllabi for Online Courses

    In addition to the information above, the course syllabi for online courses (courses with an E-suffix) should also include the following:
    1. Instructor Name
    2. Instructor Accessibility to Students: email address, telephone number, when the instructor will be available online, how frequently the instructor will respond to email from students.
    3. Principal Course Assignments: Specify how assignments should be submitted and in what format. Outline how the course will function and what will be expected of the student.
    4. Specific Course Requirements for Grading Purposes: Written and oral tests and reports, research papers, performances, or other similar requirements, participation requirements, if any.
    5. Participation Policy: Specify the participation policy for the course. State whether the course will be asynchronous, synchronous, or a combination. If there are specific requirements for online participation, these should be stated; if online participation is to be weighted for the final grade, the syllabus should state what the weight or course points will be.
    6. Indicate if the course will be primarily:
      • Asynchronous
      • Synchronous
      • Both asynchronous and synchronous
    7. Required Course Material, Including Texts: Include Technology Requirements and Required Technical Competence
    8. Exam Policy/Policy for Make-Up Examinations: Specify how exams will be administered and how the identity of the student will be verified for exam purposes.
  6. Student Access to Previous Course Syllabi

    Departments and programs will make the course syllabus of the most recent offering of each course under each instructor readily available for inspection by students who may wish to enroll in the course in the future. Departments and programs will make these course syllabi available to students on a website accessible by students.

    Instructors should submit a syllabus via the online syllabus system each semester. The Office of Instruction will make these course syllabi available in the Bulletin.
Policy No. 14 - General Education Core Curriculum

Academic Affairs Policy Statement No. 14, 
General Education Core Curriculum

  1. References
    1. Statutes of the University of Georgia, Article IV, Section 2.
    2. Bylaws of the University Council of the University of Georgia, Section IIIB4.
    3. University of Georgia Academic Affairs Policy 2.04-4, Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes
    4. Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement, Section 8.2.b Commission on Colleges, Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.
    5. Task Force on General Education and Student Learning, 2004.
    6. Updated March 2017 and April 2019.
  2. Objective
    The University of Georgia’s overarching educational goal is to educate our students to be critical thinkers and intentional learners and to become  intellectually engaged, discerning, and independent. Students should acquire the tools, skills, and knowledge to continue learning throughout their lives. Given the complexity and uncertainty of the future, we affirm that a general education is the foundation for learning.
  3. University of Georgia General Education Curriculum
    The focus of a general education at the University of Georgia should be the development of broad knowledge that can be brought to bear in novel and changing circumstances. The curriculum should provide the foundation for future studies by giving students a substantive introduction to broad and important areas of academic inquiry. General education should engage the student’s intellect and curiosity. The University of Georgia’s general education curriculum should empower the student to participate in debate and advocacy of issues critical to community, state, and nation.
    1. Foundation Courses (9 hours)
      Foundation courses for the general education curriculum will be characterized by verbal and quantitative competencies required in the following courses as specified by the University System Board of Regents policy:

      English Composition I
      English Composition II
      Mathematical Modeling

      The following more advanced mathematical courses may be required for certain majors:

      Pre-calculus
      Analytic Geometry and Calculus and Differential Calculus Laboratory Calculus I for Science and Engineering
      1. Students will be able to express ideas in writing with clarity and fluency.
      2. Students will have the ability to express, manipulate, and apply mathematical information, concepts, and thoughts using appropriate mathematical forms, including numeric, graphical, verbal, and symbolic forms for solving a variety of problems.
    2. Life and Physical Sciences (7-8 hours)

      (Must include one life science and one physical science)

      Scientific reasoning will be characterized by knowledge and application competencies in scientific method, laboratory techniques, mathematical principles, and experimental design to natural phenomena.

      Study of the sciences will ensure that students gain an understanding of the natural, scientific, and technologically-oriented world of which they are a part, and that they be able to engage critically and ethically with future scientific innovation. At least one of the physical science or life science courses must include a laboratory. Student will be able to:

      1. Demonstrate an understanding of basic knowledge, principles, and laws in the natural sciences.
      2. Explain how knowledge is constructed in the sciences using the scientific method
      3. Locate and evaluate reliable sources of scientific evidence to construct arguments, to apply scientific knowledge, and to critically assess real-world issues.

      In addition to the learning outcomes above, on completion of a course with a laboratory experience, students will be able to:

      Laboratory
      1. Demonstrate proficiency in experimental science by making observations, understanding the fundamental elements of experiment design, generating and analyzing data using appropriate quantitative tools, using abstract reasoning to interpret data and relevant formulae, and testing hypotheses with scientific rigor.
    3. Quantitative Reasoning (3-4 hours)
      Quantitative Reasoning and mathematics will be characterized by knowledge and application competencies in logic, critical evaluation, empirical approaches, analysis, synthesis generalization, modeling, and verbal, numeric, graphical, and symbolic problem solving. Study of Quantitative Reasoning will ensure that students gain an understanding of the world from multiple viewpoints, and that they be able to pursue critical analyses and argumentation to logical conclusions. Students will be able to:
      1. Express and manipulate quantitative information, concepts, and thoughts in verbal, numeric, graphical, computational, and symbolic form to frame and devise a solution to a problem.
      2. Evaluate conclusions drawn from or decisions based on quantitative data.
    4. World Languages and Global Culture, Humanities and the Arts (12 hours)
      World Languages and Global Culture will be characterized by an understanding and appreciation of the world from different linguistic, cultural, literary, and aesthetic perspectives. Humanities and the Arts will be characterized by an exploration and appreciation of the ways people document and understand the human experience through literature, philosophy, religion, architecture, and the visual and performing arts. Students will be able to:

      World Languages and Global Culture (9 hours)
      1. Understand contemporary cultures and people(s) outside of the U.S.

      Humanities and the Arts (3 hours)
      1. Describe, interpret, and appreciate literary and artistic works and their contexts.
      2. Analyze the impact and role of artistic and literary production and achievement on our understanding of the human condition.

    5. Social Sciences (9 hours)
      Study of the Social Sciences will ensure that students gain an awareness and understanding of the complex, dynamic nature of the social, political, institutional, and economic systems that drive a culturally diverse and globally connected world. Students will be able to:
      1. Identify and explain the fundamental concepts of social policy at either the local, national, or global scale.
      2. Interpret interconnections among and difference between social institutions, groups, or individuals.
  4. Procedure
    1. Matters related to objectives, goals, requirements, and general education are the responsibility of the University Curriculum Committee. Consideration of these matters should follow consideration and recommendation by the Committee.
    2. The University Curriculum Committee will review proposals of courses from the faculties of the University which they view as appropriate for meeting the general education objectives.
    3. Courses approved by the University Curriculum Committee for the inclusion in the general education curriculum of the University shall be forwarded through the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost for approval by the University System of Georgia Council on General Education. Courses approved for inclusion in the general
      education curriculum will be reviewed by the University Curriculum Committee on a regular basis to ascertain their continued relevance to the general education outcomes.
    4. Assessment
      Assessment should comply with Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC) Principle 8.2.b, and University of Georgia Academic Affairs Policy 2.04-4, Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes.
  {No content to show for Policy #15}
Policy No. 16 - Dual Degree Programs

Academic Affairs Policy Statement No. 16, 
Dual Degree Programs

ASSOCIATED LINKS
Dual Degree Approval Routing Chart

 

  1. References
    1. Academic Affairs Handbook, Board of Regents, University System of Georgia, July 1987.
    2. Bylaws of the University Council of the University of Georgia, 1988.
    3. Degrees, Policy Manual Section 3.8, Board of Regents, University System of Georgia.
    4. Program Length, Core Requirement, Principle 9.2, Resource Manual, Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges.
    5. Dual Degrees, Academic Affairs Handbook Section 2.3.9, Board of Regents, University System of Georgia.
    6. Agreements Involving Joint and Dual Academic Awards, Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, July 2018.
    7. Program Content, Core Requirement, Principle 9.1, Resource Manual, Southern Association of College and Schools Commission on Colleges.
    8. Quality and Integrity of Academic Credentials, Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges Policy Statement, December 2018.
    9. Post-baccalaureate rigor and curriculum, Principle 9.6, Southern Association of Schools and Colleges Commission on Colleges.
    10. Last revised April 2019.
  2. Policy
    Policy and implementing guidance outlined herein are applicable to all dual degree programs. No provisions stated herein are intended to conflict with the Bylaws of the University of Georgia or the Academic Affairs Handbook of the Board of Regents.
  3. Definition
    A dual degree program is a combination of two separate approved degree programs, including undergraduate/undergraduate, undergraduate/graduate,
    undergraduate/professional, graduate/graduate, and graduate/professional. Upon completion of a dual degree program, a student will be conferred with the two separate degrees included in the dual degree program. This does not preclude individual students from completing multiple degrees.

    This policy applies both to dual degrees within the University of Georgia and to agreements between the University of Georgia and another degree granting institution of higher education. When an agreement exists to offer a dual degree program between the University of Georgia and another institution, each institution will award a separate program completion credential that bears only its name, seal, and signature.

    1. Undergraduate/Undergraduate Dual Degree Programs
      Courses may count in more than one undergraduate program of study.
    2. Bachelor’s/Master’s Dual Degree Programs
      A maximum of 12 credit hours of graduate coursework may be counted towards an undergraduate degree and also used to satisfy requirements for a graduate degree program of study. The resulting dual degrees will consist of 120 credit hours counted towards the undergraduate degree and 30 credit hours counted towards the graduate degree, with up to 12 credit hours of overlapping graduate coursework.

      Graduate courses counted towards the undergraduate degree must be appropriate for that degree program, consistent with SACSCOC core requirement, Principle 9.1, that degree programs embody a coherent course of study and the SACSCOC Policy on Quality and Integrity of Undergraduate Degrees. Conversely, the integrity of the graduate program must be maintained, despite inclusion of dual  achelor’s/master’s students in graduate courses, per SACSCOC Principle 9.6 (Post-baccalaureate Rigor and Curriculum). Programs will set appropriate admissions standards to ensure that dual bachelor’s/master’s students are adequately prepared for graduatelevel coursework.
    3. Bachelors/Professional Dual Degree Programs
      Courses may be used to satisfy the requirements for both an undergraduate degree and a professional degree.
    4. Graduate/Graduate Dual Degree Programs
      Graduate courses in excess of the 30-hour minimums may be counted in both graduate degrees in a dual degree program.
    5. Graduate/Professional Dual Degree Programs
      Courses may be used to satisfy the requirements for both a professional degree and a graduate degree.
  4. Responsibility
    1. Faculty
      The responsibility for developing a new dual degree program resides with the faculty in each academic unit. Such proposals should be submitted when faculty identifies a need or an interest that is best served by offering two degree programs in a dual degree program.
    2. Administrative
      It shall be the responsibility of each school or college to ensure that all proposals receive appropriate faculty review prior to submission to the next higher administrative level. Both the head of the academic unit and the appropriate dean of each school or college submitting a proposal must review the proposal before it is  submitted to the next higher administrative level. The Office of Instruction shall be responsible for reviewing proposals and providing any needed internal and external coordination of procedures. This shall include making appropriate recommendations to the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost and the President of the University on program proposals which are transmitted to the Board of Regents for information. The Office of Instruction shall keep unit (institute, department, school, or college) heads informed of the current status of proposals as they move through the review stages required by governance procedures.
  5. Procedure
    Proposals for new dual degrees should be routed through the following approval sequence:
    1. Faculty of the academic unit(s) proposing the dual degree
    2. Department Head(s) or Director(s) of academic unit(s) proposing the dual degree
    3. Dean(s) or Vice President(s) of academic unit(s) proposing the dual degree
    4. Graduate School Program Committee, if the dual degree includes graduate programs
    5. Graduate Council, if the dual degree includes graduate programs
    6. Dean of the Graduate School, if the dual degree includes graduate programs
    7. Office of Instruction (for review)
    8. Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost
    9. University Curriculum Committee
    10. Executive Committee of the University Council (for information)
    11. University Council (for information)
    12. Board of Regents (for notification)

Substantive Change Review: The Office of Accreditation and Institutional Effectiveness will evaluate the new dual degree for substantive change as it moves through the approval sequence. If it is determined that the new dual degree is a substantive change as defined by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC), additional approval will be required.

Policy No. 17 - External Education

Academic Affairs Policy Statement No. 17, 
External Education

ASSOCIATED LINKS
External Education Approval Routing Chart
External Education Proposal Form

 

  1. References
    1. Academic Affairs Handbook, Board of Regents, University System of Georgia.
    2. Bylaws of the University Council of the University of Georgia, 2005.
    3. Last updated April 2019.
  2. Objective
    This policy (1) advocates a case-by-case evaluation of external education opportunities rather than an across-the-board approach in favor of external education, (2) does not mandate any particular use of internal resources for format or delivery of external education, and (3) provides for more coordination of external education.
  3. Definition
    External education is defined to include any credit-bearing course or program of which more than 50% is delivered primarily at locations other than the Athens campus. It is defined by the Board of Regents as face-to-face instruction and interaction between instructor and student when both are located in an environment external to the Athens campus, including established external education campuses.

    The definition of external education does not include non-credit-bearing courses, including continuing education courses under the auspices of the Vice President for Public Service and Outreach.
  4. Responsibility
    1. Instructional Units
      1. The academic instructional units and faculty will retain control and authority over the initial decision of whether to offer courses or programs at locations other than the Athens campus and which courses or programs to offer.
      2. The substantive content of the courses or programs, as well as the staffing of those courses or programs, is the responsibility of the academic instructional unit.
    2. Approved Off-Site Locations
      The substantive content of courses offered at approved locations other than the Athens campus, such as established External Education Campuses and other offcampus sites, will be determined by the schools and colleges, instructional units, and faculty who will retain control and authority over the courses offered.
    3. Study Abroad
      1. The substantive content of courses offered in Study Abroad programs will be determined by the schools and colleges, instructional units, and faculty who will retain control and authority over the courses and programs offered.
      2. Primary oversight for Study Abroad and Field Study programs resides with the Associate Provost for International Education in conjunction with the academic units and faculty. Although these programs fall within the definition of external education, they have oversight issues and needs that are distinct from courses offered domestically. The Vice President for Instruction has responsibility for facilitating academic approval of courses included in Study Abroad and Field Study programs.
  5. Procedure
    1. Courses
      Any course that is approved through the University course approval process (CAPA) may be offered at locations other than the Athens campus. Individual courses do not require additional approval to be offered at locations other than the Athens campus.
    2. Programs
      1. Majors

        The Board of Regents requires that a program must have approval as an External Degree to be offered at locations other than the Athens campus. An External Degree is a program of which more than 50% is offered at locations other than the Athens campus. Courses and/or degree programs offered externally must adhere to the guidelines, criteria, and nomenclature contained in the document “External Instruction in the University System of Georgia: Policies and Procedures” as adopted by the Board of Regents on February 2, 2005, and as thereafter amended. The designation of a location other than the Athens campus as a campus, center, or consortium, requires approval by the Board of Regents.

        Per Board of Regents policy, all programs that offer more than 50% of the courses in the program at locations other than the Athens campus, require approval as an External Degree. A proposal for a program that will be offered at locations other than the Athens campus should include the following:
        1. Needs Assessment
        2. Admission Requirements
        3. Program Content
        4. Student Advising
        5. Resident Requirements
        6. Program Management
        7. Library and Laboratory Resources
        8. Budget
        9. Program Costs Assessed to Students
        10. Accreditation

        Programs that will be offered at locations outside the United States should contact the Office of International Education for additional requirements.

        Proposals for new external degrees should be routed through the following approval sequence:
        1. Faculty of the academic unit proposing the external degree
        2. Department Head or Director of academic unit proposing the external degree
        3. Dean or Vice President of academic unit proposing the external degree
        4. Graduate School Program Committee, if the external degree is a graduate program
        5. Graduate Council, if the external degree is a graduate program
        6. Dean of the Graduate School, if the external degree is a graduate program
        7. Office of Instruction (for review)
        8. Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost
        9. University Curriculum Committee
        10. Executive Committee of the University Council
        11. University Council
        12. President
        13. Board of Regents, for administrative approval

        Substantive Change Review: The Office of Accreditation and Institutional Effectiveness will evaluate the external degree for substantive change as it moves through the approval sequence. If it is determined that the new external degree results is a substantive change as defined by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC), additional approval will be required.
      2. Certificate Programs
        A certificate program that has been approved according to Academic Affairs Policy Statement No. 2, Interdisciplinary Certificate Programs, may be offered at locations other than the Athens campus.

        A proposal to offer a certificate program at locations other than the Athens campus requires University of Georgia approval as an External Certificate. Proposals for new external certificates should be routed through the following approval sequence:
        1. Faculty of the academic unit proposing the external certificate
        2. Department Head or Director of academic unit proposing the external certificate
        3. Dean or Vice President of academic unit proposing the external certificate
        4. Graduate School Program Committee, if the external certificate is a graduate program
        5. Graduate Council, if the external certificate is a graduate program
        6. Dean of the Graduate School, if the external certificate is a graduate program
        7. Office of Instruction (for review)
        8. Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost
        9. University Curriculum Committee
        10. Executive Committee of the University Council
        11. University Council
        12. President
        13. Board of Regents (notification only, if new certificate)

    Substantive Change Review: The Office of Accreditation and Institutional Effectiveness will evaluate the new external certificate for substantive change as it moves through the approval sequence. If it is determined that the new external certificate is a substantive change as defined by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC), additional approval will be required.
  6. Guidelines for External Education
    1. Courses or programs must meet the following requirements to be considered appropriate to be offered at locations other than the Athens campus:
      1. All external education, as defined in this policy, should be offered in conjunction with a UGA degree or certificate program.
      2. External education offerings may be provided only by existing academic units (instructional units, schools, or colleges). No new instructional unit, school, or college will be created for the purpose of offering external education courses or degrees.
    2. The following factors should be taken into account when deciding whether or not a course or program is appropriate to be offered at locations other than the Athens campus. This is a balancing process that in some cases will point in favor of external education, while in other cases it will not.
      1. Important reasons to offer courses or programs at locations other than the Athens campus include, but may not be limited to, the following examples:
        1. An improved or enhanced learning experience for currently enrolled students.
        2. The ability to reach students the University otherwise would not be able to reach, permitting the University to extend degree programs or course work to qualified students who desire a UGA experience but who otherwise would not be able to access one.
        3. An improved learning environment for faculty, who may welcome the opportunity to enhance their instructional or research programs.
        4. To assist the University in carrying out its mission of serving the entire state of Georgia, both in terms of our land grant status and our charter.
      2. Important reasons to be cautious about offering courses and programs at locations other than the Athens campus include, but may not be limited to, the following examples:
        1. Dilution of resources.
        2. The time-intensive nature of many external education offerings may interfere with faculty time for research and instruction on the Athens campus, resulting in a less satisfactory environment for faculty.
        3. Less faculty time for instruction on the Athens campus and/or research activities may dilute the educational experience for Athens campus students.
Policy No. 18 - Reorganization of Academic Units

Academic Affairs Policy Statement No. 18, 
Reorganization of Academic Units

ASSOCIATED LINKS
Reorganization of Academic Units Approval Routing Chart

 

  1. References
    1. The Board of Regents Policy Manual, University System of Georgia, 2006.
    2. Bylaws of the University Council of the University of Georgia, 2006.
    3. Last updated April 2019.
  2. Objective
    This document provides the general procedure for the change of organizational structure of an academic unit. Changes of organizational structure include reorganization, or transfer of academic units, or any reassignment or transfer of a group of faculty for the purpose of academic restructuring.
  3. Policy
    1. The organizational structure of academic units is tied to academic programs and the educational mission of the University. Faculty governance plays a central role whenever the organizational structure of an academic unit changes, affirming the importance of an appropriate faculty voice in carrying out the University’s educational mission.
    2. Academic units subject to this policy include schools, colleges, and departments.
    3. A proposal for change in the organizational structure of an academic unit shall be justified in terms of the academic mission of the University. If changes are proposed for administrative or fiscal reasons, the proposal should be mindful of disciplinary and interdisciplinary integrity.
    4. These guidelines are not meant to be invoked upon the reassignment of an individual faculty member. When a reassignment involves five or more faculty members in the same academic unit and is involuntary, the faculty may appeal to the next level of administration with a copy to the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost that the reassignment is a result of a change in organizational structure and request that the unit comply with this policy and submit a proposal for reorganization.
    5. No organizational change shall be implemented prior to approval of the University Council and the President of the University. If, at any time in these procedures, the Executive Committee of University Council finds that implementation of the structural change has begun before approval of the University Council, the Executive Committee shall not forward the proposal until such implementation has been reversed.
    6. For use in this policy, faculty shall consist of the Corps of Instruction as defined in the Board of Regents Policy Manual, 302, http://www.usg.edu/regents/policymanual/300.phtml and ex-officio members as designated by the University of Georgia Statutes http://www.uga.edu/provost/us.html.
  4. Procedure
    Proposals for reorganizations should be routed through the following approval sequence:
    1. Faculty of the academic unit(s) proposing the reorganization
    2. Department Head(s) or Director(s) of academic unit(s) proposing the reorganization
    3. Dean(s) or Vice President(s) of academic unit(s) proposing the reorganization
    4. Graduate School Program Committee, if the reorganization will include graduate faculty
    5. Graduate Council, if the reorganization will include graduate faculty
    6. Dean of the Graduate School, if the reorganization will include graduate faculty
    7. Office of Instruction (for review)
    8. Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost
    9. University Curriculum Committee
    10. Executive Committee of the University Council
    11. University Council
    12. President

    If the proposal for reorganization begins at a level beyond department, the routing above shall be followed from that point forward.

    Faculty in the unit are entitled to vote on the proposal. Related departments affected by the proposed change should be identified and given an opportunity to submit views on the proposal.

    If the faculty in the unit vote to reject the proposal, an external review panel shall be established according to the process specified in this policy. After the external review panel submits a report, the faculty in the unit shall have another opportunity to vote. The record of the vote and the external review panel report shall be added to the proposal and the proposal shall follow the routing specified above.

    Voting: In accordance with the provisions of this policy and as set forth in the proposal, faculty in the unit shall hold a meeting to discuss the proposed change and to vote, as individuals, on the proposal. All votes are anonymous and shall be recorded and reported by the number voting to approve, the number voting to reject, and the number abstaining. If more than one unit is affected, the vote of each unit will be recorded separately. The number of faculty eligible to vote shall also be reported.
    1. Faculty Approved Vote: If two-thirds of the eligible faculty in the unit vote to approve the proposal, the proposal shall follow the process provided in section 4. of this policy.
    2. Faculty Rejected Vote: If the reorganization plan is not approved by two-thirds of the faculty, then it will be considered to have been rejected, the procedure shall be interrupted, and the following shall be conducted:
      1. External Review Panel: The proposal shall be submitted to the Office of the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost so that the Provost may select and convene a review panel external to the unit of at least three experts
        selected from nominations by the academic unit’s faculty, dean’s office, if applicable, and Office of the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost. At least one external review panel member must be from the nominations of the affected unit’s faculty. The cost of the review panel will be the responsibility of the academic unit that originated the proposal. The selection, visit, investigation, and report of this external panel shall be coordinated by the Office of the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost. The external review panel shall give ample opportunity for all faculty in the unit to have their voices heard in the review process. The report of the panel shall include a discussion of the academic merits of the proposal and be completed within four months.
      2. External Review Panel Report: The final report shall be delivered to the Office of the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost, University Curriculum Committee, and the originator of the proposal. The originator of the proposal shall be given an opportunity to change the proposal in accordance with the recommendations of the review panel. The proposal and report of the External Review Panel shall be distributed to all faculty within the unit and related faculty identified in the proposal. The faculty in the unit shall have a new opportunity to vote on the proposal. A record of all votes, whether to approve or
        reject, shall be included in the proposal.
      3. Vote to Reject after External Review: A vote to reject shall not stop consideration of the proposal, but such votes shall be taken into consideration at each step of the review procedure.
  5. Format for the Proposal
    Any proposed change in the organizational structure of an academic unit must be in writing and be presented to the faculty in the unit, Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost, and President of the University as well as the department heads, deans, and vice presidents who are directly affected by such change.

    The proposal shall include the following:
    1. Originator of the proposal and name of academic unit.
    2. A diagram of the organizational structure before and after the proposed change.
    3. Goals/objectives the change is expected to accomplish.
    4. Rationale for change. This shall include an analysis of the impact of the proposed change on the academic mission of the university. Where appropriate, reference shall be made to the strategic plan of the university, strategic plan of the unit to be changed, strategic plan of any unit of which the affected unit is a subunit, and any relevant 5-year plans.
    5. Impact on faculty, staff, students, and programs.
    6. List of faculty within the unit.
    7. Designation of related faculty and units that shall be informed of the proposal and given an opportunity for response.
    8. Timeline for approval and implementation of the change. This timeline shall include the vote of the faculty in the unit and allow time for input from related departments allowing ample time for their consideration while, at the same time, ensuring the progress of the proposal.
    9. Implementation plan.
    10. Resource implications (faculty lines, staff positions, space, equipment, moving expenses, remodeling expenses, etc.) available upon request.
  {No content to show for Policy #19}
   {No content to show for Policy #20}
Policy No. 21 - Online Education

Academic Affairs Policy Statement No. 21, Online Education

ASSOCIATED LINKS
Online Education Approval Routing Chart
Appendix A: E-Suffix Policy
Appendix B: Individual Course Syllabus
Appendix C: Online Education Proposal Form

 

  1. References
    1. Academic and Student Affairs Handbook, Board of Regents, University System of Georgia, Policy 2.3.7.2, Distance Learning Approval Procedures.
    2. Board of Regents Policy Manual, Board of Regents, University System of Georgia, Policy 3.3.3, Instruction Offered Externally.
    3. Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, Principles of Accreditation 2018 Edition, Principle 10.6 a-c.
    4. Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, Policy Statement on Distance and Correspondence Education, August 2018.
    5. Bylaws of the University Council of the University of Georgia, 2005.
    6. University of Georgia Academic Affairs Policy 2.01-13, Course Syllabus Policy.
    7. University of Georgia E-Suffix Policy, University Curriculum Committee.
    8. Approved by the University Council on April 27, 2010, and by President Michael F. Adams on May 13, 2010. Effective fall semester 2010.
    9. Revised by the Curriculum Committee and approved by the University Council on September 27, 2017, and by President Jere W. Morehead on October 4, 2017.
    10. Last updated April 2019.
  2. Objective
    This comprehensive policy ensures that courses and programs delivered through online education are equivalent in content, level, rigor, and overall educational quality to courses and programs taught in regular classroom instruction. This policy also ensures that courses and programs delivered through online education meet requirements of the University System of Georgia (USG) and Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC).
  3. Definition
    In keeping with Board of Regents and SACSCOC definitions, online education is a formal educational process in which the majority of instruction occurs when students and instructor are not in the same place and instruction is delivered using technology. It may be synchronous or asynchronous. The definition of online education does not include noncredit-bearing courses.
  4. Responsibility
    1. Instructional Units
      1. The academic instructional units and faculty are responsible for deciding whether to offer courses or programs through online education, which courses or programs to offer, and what method of delivery to pursue.
      2. The substantive content of the courses or programs, as well as the assignment of qualified instructors for those courses or programs, is the responsibility of the academic instructional unit, which has primary responsibility for maintaining the quality and integrity of all instruction in its area regardless of the course format or method of delivery.
      3. The instructional unit is responsible for assigning instructors for online education courses and programs who meet the same qualifications as instructors who provide regular classroom instruction.
    2. Identity Verification
      1. Faculty assigned as instructors for online education courses are responsible for ensuring that each student who registers in the course is the same student who participates in, is assessed for attainment of student learning outcomes, and receives credit for the course. This identity verification can be accomplished by using the University-provided learning management system with secure log-in and password, or by using graded tests and assignments that are administered face-to-face, or by using UGA email. Another system may be used under the following circumstances: it must be accessed through the University-provided learning management system or provide for verification of student identity by secure UGA log-in and password. Third-party verification services, emerging
        technologies and practices shown to be effective in verifying student identity, and pedagogical practices such as video-based assignments that establish student identity may be used to verify student identity for testing and exams.
      2. If students will incur any additional fees related to identity verification, the instructor is responsible for providing that information to the course sectioning officer for entry into the Athena systems so that students will be informed of those fees when they register.
    3. Central Administration
      The central administration is responsible for providing instructor’s access to an online learning management system that can be used for all online education courses and supports student verification by secure log-in and password. The Office of Instruction, through the Office of Online Learning and the Center for Teaching and Learning, has central responsibility for supporting online education and promoting best practices.
  5. Procedure
    1. A course or program may not be offered through online education unless it has been approved through the University’s curriculum approval process.
    2. Courses
      A course in which the majority of instruction is delivered through online technology is considered to be an online education course. At UGA, courses in which more than 95% of the instruction is delivered through online technology require an Esuffix in order to notify students that these courses may be taken from non-campus locations (Appendix A). When offering an online education course, units must provide additional information in the syllabus as outlined in the online education individual course syllabus (Appendix B).
    3. Programs
      A program in which more than 50% of the courses are delivered through online education is considered an Online Degree in keeping with Board of Regents policies, which require notification of all Online Degrees. The program must be approved through the University’s program approval process.

    Approvals for courses and programs to be offered through online education will follow the established course and program approval processes. Course proposals will use the CAPA approval process.

    Proposals for new online courses will be approved through the Automated Course Approval Process (CAPA). Proposals for new online programs should be routed through the following approval sequence:
    1. Faculty of the academic unit proposing the online program
    2. Department Head or Director of academic unit proposing the online program
    3. Dean or Vice President of academic unit proposing the online program
    4. Graduate School Program Committee, if it is a graduate program
    5. Graduate Council, if it is a graduate program
    6. Dean of the Graduate School, if it is a graduate program
    7. Office of Instruction (for review)
    8. Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost
    9. University Curriculum Committee
    10. Executive Committee of the University Council
    11. University Council
    12. President
    13. Board of Regents (for notification)
  6. Guidelines for Distance Education
    1. Courses and programs offered through online education must comply with SACSCOC policies and principles regarding distance education. In addition, courses or programs must meet the following requirements to be considered appropriate for online education:
      1. All online education, as defined in this policy, should be offered in conjunction with a UGA degree or certificate program.
      2. Online education offerings may be provided only by existing academic units (instructional units, schools, or colleges). No new instructional unit, school, or college will be created for the purpose of offering online education courses or degrees.
      3. Online education courses and programs are subject to the same standards, policies, and procedures as all UGA courses and programs, including the protection of privacy for students in compliance with the expectations of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and the accessibility standards in the Americans with Disabilities Act.
      4. Accreditation standards should be viewed as establishing minimum requirements but not necessarily as high as the standards the University wants to achieve with its online education offerings.
      5. The syllabus for an online education course should include the additional information listed in Appendix B.
    2. The following factors listed below should be taken into account when deciding whether or not a course or program is appropriate for online education. This is a balancing process that in some cases will point in favor of online education, while in other cases it will not.
      1. Important reasons to offer online education include, but may not be limited to, the following examples:
        1. An improved or enhanced learning experience for our currently enrolled students.
        2. The ability to reach students the University otherwise would not be able to reach, permitting the University to extend degree programs or course work to qualified students who desire a UGA experience but who otherwise would not be able to access one.
        3. An improved learning environment for faculty, who may welcome the opportunity to enhance their instructional or research programs.
        4. To assist the University in carrying out its mission of serving the entire state of Georgia, both in terms of our land grant status and our charter.
      2. Important reasons to be cautious about online education include, but may not be limited to, the following examples:
        1. Dilution of resources.
        2. The time-intensive nature of many online education offerings may interfere with faculty time for research and on-campus instruction, resulting in reduced productivity in assigned duties.
        3. Less faculty time for on-campus instruction and/or research activities may dilute the educational experience for on-campus students.
Policy No. 22 - Changing Names of Academic Programs

Academic Affairs Policy Statement No. 22, 
Changing Names of Academic Programs

ASSOCIATED LINKS
Academic Program Name Change Approval Routing Chart
Academic Program Name Change Proposal Form

 

  1. References
    1. Academic Affairs Handbook, Board of Regents, University System of Georgia, February 1991.
    2. Statutes of the University of Georgia, May 1988.
    3. Bylaws of The University Council of the University of Georgia, May 1988.
    4. Curriculum Policies and Procedures, the University of Georgia, August 1992 
  2. Objective
    The objective of these guidelines is to provide sufficient review by impacted academic units of proposed academic program name changes.
  3. Policy
    1. Since changes in the names of academic programs may have major impacts on the curriculum of the University as presented in University publications, they must undergo the same review as other curriculum changes. Changes should be undertaken only after thorough study and evaluation within the originating unit.
    2. Any change in academic program name must first be approved by the originating unit and the appropriate academic dean or director. It is the responsibility of the originating unit and academic dean or director to assure that proposed names are appropriate for the discipline.
    3. The proposal should include:
      1. A cover letter from the dean or director of the unit requesting the proposed changes.
      2. A completed Academic Program Name Change form, which will include justification for the name change(s) and documentation of approval.
  4. Procedure
    Proposals for academic program name changes should be routed through the following approval chain:
    1. Faculty of the academic unit proposing name change
    2. Department Head or Director of academic unit proposing name change
    3. Dean or Vice President of academic unit proposing name change
    4. Graduate School Program Committee, if the proposed name change is for an academic program that includes graduate courses or programs
    5. Graduate Council, if the proposed name change is for an academic program that includes graduate courses or programs
    6. Dean of the Graduate School, if the proposed name change is for an academic program that includes graduate courses or programs
    7. Office of Instruction (for review)
    8. Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost
    9. University Curriculum Committee
    10. Executive Committee of the University Council
    11. University Council
    12. President
    13. Board of Regents, for administrative approval
  5. Evaluation Criteria
    At each stage, proposed names should be examined carefully according to the following criteria:
    1. Does the proposed name substantially represent the discipline(s) being described?
    2. Does the name clearly communicate to those outside of academia the area of study being represented?
    3. Does the name clearly differentiate the particular academic program from other programs at the University of Georgia?
    4. Are proposed prefixes clearly related to the name and subject matter represented?