New Undergraduate program reviews

The process for developing new academic programs is lengthy, involves many steps, and can readily take up to 24 months from the time it is proposed to when it is approved for enrolment. The process is described in the New Program Approval Process and Timeline (pdf) document. Click on this link to see an overview of the New Program Approval Process flowchart (pdf).

*Note the suggested length for each step is a minimum and the timeline in sensitive to when in the calendar year the process is initiated.

As noted in Section C of the New Program Approval Process and Timeline (pdf) document, the proposed new undergraduate program is reviewed by an external team during a site visit. However, three documents must be prepared in advance of that visit:

The external reviewers are selected from those suggested in Volume III. Please note the criteria for choosing arm's length reviewers. The internal faculty reviewer, selected by the Associate Vice-President, Academic, does not have to be a specialist in the field of the program review, but should be at arm's length from the program in question. As a result, this individual will typically come from outside the Faculty of the program being reviewed.

The external reviewers should address the criteria in the External Reviewers' Report (doc) template and submit a report two weeks after the site visit. Upon receipt, the report is forwarded to the Department/School at which time they will have the opportunity to respond to the reviewers' comments, modify the report as required and prepare the document for approval at Senate Undergraduate Council and then Senate.

Following Senate approval, the proposal is sent to the Quality Council for their approval. If funding is required, a submission is made to MAESD (formerly MTCU). Institutional Analysis and Planning is involved in preparing additional documentation for these external approvals.

A Two-year Progress Report (doc) is required for all new programs. The purpose of this report is to report on implementation of the program, and to address any new issues which have emerged since approval. Copies of the Two-year Progress Report are sent to the Quality Council for information (or, if required, for decision). The new program also enters into the regular seven-year review cycle (check the program review schedule pdf for details).