1 / 23

Preliminary Authority Requests

Preliminary Authority Requests. An overview of the Coordinating Board criteria and review process. Criterion (a)(1).

yoshi-byers
Download Presentation

Preliminary Authority Requests

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Preliminary Authority Requests An overview of the Coordinating Board criteria and review process Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (2008)

  2. Criterion (a)(1) (1)A demonstrated need for a future program in terms of present and future vocational needs of the state and the nation.(Provide short- and long-term evidence of the need for graduates in the job market.) • STAFF REVIEW: Staff conduct research to confirm workforce projections using sources such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Texas Workforce Commission, and professional associations. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (2008)

  3. Demand: Civil engineers in U.S. • “Below is the 1 selected occupation for which the typical postsecondary-education or training category is Bachelor's degree, sorted by Average annual job openings due to growth and total replacement needs, 2006-2016.” Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (2008)

  4. Demand: Civil engineers in Texas (TWC) Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (2008)

  5. Supply: Annual # of Graduates in Civil Engineering (Source: www.nsf.gov and CB) Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (2008)

  6. Criterion (a)(2) (2) Whether the proposed addition would complement and strengthen existing programs at the institution. • STAFF REVIEW: This criterion is highly dependent on the institution’s response. (One example would be if an institution proposed a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering. That program could complement and potentially strengthen an existing program in electrical engineering.) Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (2008)

  7. Criterion (a)(3) (3) Whether a future program would unnecessarily duplicate other programs within the region, state, or nation. (Identify similar programs and explain how the future program would not unnecessarily duplicate them.) • STAFF REVIEW: Staff conduct research to confirm whether existing programs have the capacity to accept additional students. NOTE: CB Rule 5.45(2): “The offering of basic liberal arts and sciences courses and degree programs in public senior institutions is not considered unnecessary duplication.” Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (2008)

  8. Existing Civil Engineering Programs (undergrad) Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (2008)

  9. Criterion (a)(4) (4) Whether a critical mass of students and faculty is likely to be available to allow the program to be offered at a high level of quality and to become self-sufficient on the basis of state funding. (Provide evidence of student demand for the program. In addition, provide evidence that an adequate number of high-quality faculty would be available.) • STAFF REVIEW: Staff estimate the formula funding generated by enrollment based on student demand. Staff estimate the cost of the program (e.g., faculty salaries and other costs one might expect in such a program), and do an analysis to determine whether the program could become self-sufficient within five years based on formula generation. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (2008)

  10. Criterion (b)(1) A demonstrated regional, state, or national unmet need for doctoral graduates in the field, or an unmet need for a doctoral program with a unique approach to the field. • STAFF REVIEW: Staff conduct research to confirm workforce projections for individuals trained at the doctoral level using sources such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics, professional associations, Texas Workforce Commission (primarily for professional degrees, not research-oriented degrees), and other sources to determine whether an unmet need exists. Staff determine whether there is capacity to accept additional students in existing programs across the country. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (2008)

  11. Demand: Physicists (Source: BLS) • “Below is the 1 selected occupation for which the typical postsecondary-education or training category is Doctor's degree, sorted by Average annual job openings due to growth and total replacement needs, 2006-2016.” Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (2008)

  12. Supply: Annual # of Graduates in Physics (Source: www.nsf.gov) Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (2008)

  13. Criterion (b)(2) Evidence that existing doctoral programs in the state cannot accommodate additional students (or that accessibility to these programs is restricted), or that expanding existing programs is not feasible or would not best serve the state. • STAFF REVIEW: Staff conduct research to confirm whether existing doctoral programs have capacity to accept additional students. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (2008)

  14. Criterion (b)(3) If appropriate to the discipline, the institution has self-sustaining baccalaureate- and master’s-level programs in the field and/or programs in related and supporting areas. • STAFF REVIEW: Using PREP as a resource, staff confirm whether existing related programs at the institution have sufficient enrollments to sustain themselves. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (2008)

  15. Criterion (b)(4) The program has the potential to obtain state or national prominence and the institution has the demonstrated capacity, or is uniquely suited, to offer the program and achieve that targeted prominence. • STAFF REVIEW: Some indicators of the potential to attain state or national prominence would be the presence of established scholars, well-equipped facilities, or other unique features of the institution (e.g., its proximity to certain resources) or the proposed program that might enable the program to achieve prominence. Emphasis should be on the currency and impact of faculty scholarship, as well as on faculty productivity. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (2008)

  16. Criterion (b)(5) Demonstrated current excellence of the institution’s existing undergraduate and graduate degree programs and how this excellence shall be maintained with the development and addition of a high-quality doctoral program. (Measures of excellence include the number of graduates and graduation rates that match or exceed those at peer institutions.) Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (2008)

  17. Criterion (b)(5) (cont.) STAFF REVIEW: • Staff examine the productivity of existing programs that would feed into the proposed doctoral program. The CB would expect high levels of productivity for feeder programs. • Staff also research the number of graduates in existing programs across the institution and the institution’s graduation rates compared to peer institutions and the statewide averages. • Staff review the productivity of existing doctoral programs at the institution. The CB would expect all existing doctoral programs to be graduating students regularly with the graduation rates and average time-to-degree matching or exceeding those at peer institutions. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (2008)

  18. Criterion (b)(5) (cont.) STAFF REVIEW: • In addition, institutions should be aware of the 18 Characteristics of Doctoral Programs developed by the Graduate Education Advisory Committee and demonstrate use of the characteristics for ongoing evaluation of existing doctoral programs for quality improvement. • Staff review annual reports for recently approved doctoral programs at the institution to determine whether satisfactory progress is being made. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (2008)

  19. Criterion (b)(6) Satisfactory placement rates for graduates of the institution’s current doctoral programs, with comparison to peer group placement rates when available. • STAFF REVIEW: The CB would expect high placement rates for graduates in existing doctoral programs in jobs that are closely related to the disciplines. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (2008)

  20. Criterion (b)(7) How the program will address Closing the Gaps by 2015. • STAFF REVIEW: The CB would expect the proposed doctoral program to help the state achieve its goals of increasing research and research expenditures, if applicable to the discipline. (Some disciplines, e.g., English literature, do not have opportunities for external research funding.) Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (2008)

  21. Criterion (b)(8) Institutional resources to develop and sustain a high-quality program. • STAFF REVIEW: The CB would expect a high level of institutional commitment to building resources in faculty, facilities/labs, library holdings, and other areas critical to the success of a high-quality doctoral program. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (2008)

  22. Criterion (b)(9) Where appropriate, a demonstration of plans for external accreditation, licensing, or other applicable professional recognition of the program. • STAFF REVIEW: If applicable, the institution should provide a plan for obtaining external programmatic accreditation, such as APA accreditation, and a timeline for obtaining it. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (2008)

  23. Kevin Lemoinekevin.lemoine@thecb.state.tx.us512-427-6226 Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (2008)

More Related