III. Academic Units

Any aggregation of academic programs organized as a school, college, division, or another title, that appoints faculty members who are members of the Academic Senate and who vote as a unit under Academic Senate Bylaw 55 shall be treated as an academic unit. 

III.A.  Departments

Actions involving departments are carried out on the ten established campuses and do not involve review by the system-level office. Such actions include creating a new department, changing the name of an existing department, and consolidating, transferring, or disestablishing an existing department. If approved by the appropriate agencies of the Divisional Academic Senate and by the campus administration, an action involving an academic program that appoints faculty who are members of the Academic Senate and who vote as a unit under Academic Senate Bylaw 55 shall be reviewed as an action involving a department.  Any proposed actions involving undergraduate or graduate degree programs associated with affected department(s) should be handled according to the procedures described for the proposed action for either undergraduate or graduate degree programs. All final campus actions involving departments should be reported by the Chancellor to system-level offices within a month of the action.

III.B. Schools and Colleges

III.B.1. Establishment of New Schools and Colleges

The establishment of new schools or colleges represents a significant outlay of resources, and should be given careful consideration by campus administration, Divisional and systemwide Academic Senates, system-level administration, and ultimately, the Regents. In the face of limited state support for new endeavors, rigor in the reviews of proposed new schools and colleges is very important.

Establishing a new school or college is a two-step process and takes at least two years to complete. At least one year before submitting a full proposal, proponents of the new school must submit a pre-proposal first to the Divisional Academic Senate, and, if approved, subsequently to the systemwide Academic Senate and to system-level Administration.6 Upon receipt by the systemwide Senate, the pre-proposal is reviewed by CCGA, UCEP, and the University Committee on Planning Budget (UCPB) as well as by any other systemwide standing committee selected by the Academic Council Chair. After campus proponents receive comments from both the systemwide Senate and system-level administration, the campus may prepare a full proposal. A full proposal is reviewed first by the Divisional Academic Senate and next (simultaneously) by systemwide Senate committees (CCGA, UCEP, UCPB, and any other chosen by the Academic Council Chair).

6 A pre-proposal is required in all cases except when a substantial philanthropic gift is offered, deemed necessary for establishment, and contingent on the school’s approval. In such cases, this requirement may be waived, and the campus will proceed directly to submission of a full proposal.

Approval of a new school or college requires favorable review by the systemwide Senate, review by designated state officials, approval recommendation by the President to the Board of Regents, and approval by the Board of Regents. If a campus fails to establish a new school or college within seven years of the date of Regental approval, it must submit a post-proposal.  The post-proposal updates the original proposal and must provide a clear, compelling justification for the school or college in the context of a budgetary and curricular environment that may have changed since initial Regental approval. 

Categories of Review

Every proposal and corresponding Senate review should address each of the following categories of review:

  1. Academic Rigor: The academic rigor of the proposed academic unit is of utmost importance. Equal weight should be placed on the academic merits of the program as on its financial aspects.
  2. Financial Viability: The proposal should stress the financial stability of the new school or college and should provide multi-year budgets with contingency plans in the event that proposed funding falls through. A detailed budget, including revenue sources, start-up costs, build-out costs, steady-state funding expectations, personnel costs, and capital costs/space needs must be provided. Failure to provide a detailed presentation and discussion of the budget will constitute cause for proposal rejection.
    1. FTE Requirements: The proposal should clearly indicate the number of full- time equivalent (FTE) faculty for each stage of development. This information should include the number of faculty FTEs needed at start-up, various stages of build-out, and steady-state. The balance between full-time faculty at various ranks and lecturers/other temporary or part-time teaching help also should be provided. The school’s financial plan should detail how FTEs will be funded, including whether any faculty will be shared with other units. The need for FTEs in particular specialties should be articulated. The proposal should highlight both the amount of time and the resources needed to hire new FTEs.
    2. Capital Requirements: All capital requirements must be carefully detailed and analyzed.
    3. Sources of Revenue: All sources of revenue must be detailed, including state and philanthropic support. A development plan should be submitted as well. 
  3. Need for the Program: The proposal must clearly state and make the case for a distinct need for the new school or college within the UC system. Specifically, it should demonstrate: 1) a clear societal need for professionals, researchers, faculty, or academics in the field; 2) student demand for the new school or college; and 3) why societal need and student demand are not fully met by existing UC units and programs. In addition, the proposal should: i) define how the school or college will address this unmet need/demand; ii) articulate how it would attract qualified, fully-competitive students; and iii) provide projections of employment opportunities for graduates of the new school or college. If UC already has a school or college of the same type as proposed, the proposal should include clear analysis of how the new entity would assume a necessary and perhaps even unique role in the University’s systemwide academic program. Comparisons with existing UC units or other schools/colleges of the desired rank/academic distinction should be included.
  4. Fit within the UC system and within the segments: The proposal should clearly articulate the fit of the school or college within the UC system as well as other public and private higher education segments in California. The proposal should stress how the new entity will fit within the overall academic profile of the campus—how it will enhance existing programs and how those programs will enhance the quality and development of the new school or college. The capital plan also should demonstrate how the proposal fits with the campus academic and strategic plans.

Overview of the Pre-Proposal

The Compendium requires a pre-proposal at least one year before the full proposal. The pre-proposal is separate from any documents that accompany the Five-Year Planning Perspective, and should address the categories of review noted above. Even though it will be shorter than the full proposal, it must contain sufficient detail to allow the Divisional and systemwide Senates to complete an initial evaluation of the proposed academic unit.

Details of the Pre-Proposal Process

  1. If the proposed new school or college has not been listed on the Five-Year Planning Perspective, it should be added to the planning lists and a description drafted and transmitted to the Provost at the time the campus begins to review the pre-proposal.
  2. At least one year before a proposal for a new school or college is approved on the campus, a pre-proposal is submitted to the local Divisional Academic Senate. If the Divisional Senate approves the pre-proposal, the Chancellor submits it to the Provost, who forwards it to both Academic Affairs and the systemwide Academic Senate.
  3. CCGA, UCEP, UCPB, and any other relevant committees selected by the Council Chair provide to the Academic Council formal comments on the pre-proposal.
  4. UCOP Academic Affairs provides comments to the proponents of the new school or college with a copy to the Academic Council Chair. In addition and upon request, UCOP will provide the pre-proposal upon request to state officials and agency staff (e.g., Governor, Department of Finance, Legislative Analyst).
  5. Academic Council’s comments along with a cover letter from the Academic Council Chair will be sent to the proponents of the school or college with copies to the Provost and the Divisional Senate Chair.

Overview of the Process for Submission of the Full Proposal

After incorporating comments on the pre-proposal, campus proponents of the new school or college forward the full proposal to the Divisional Senate. If the Divisional Senate approves the full proposal, the Chancellor forwards it to the Provost and the Academic Council Chair for review.

Details of the Full-Proposal Process

  1. After incorporating comments on the pre-proposal, campus proponents of the new school or college submit the full proposal to the Chair of the Divisional Academic Senate for review and comment.
  2. If the Divisional Senate approves the full proposal, the Chancellor forwards it to the Provost and the Academic Council Chair for review. A concurrent review (i.e., simultaneous review of the proposal by the Divisional Senate, the systemwide Senate, and Academic Affairs) is not permitted.7
  3. Designated staff from Academic Affairs complete an independent financial and budgetary analysis of the proposal which is sent to the Academic Council Chair and the chairs of CCGA, UCPB, and UCEP. The Council Chair is responsible for distributing the UCOP analysis to any other Senate committees reviewing the proposal.
  4. UCOP will provide the proposal upon request to state officials and agency staff (e.g., Governor, Department of Finance, Legislative Analyst).
  5. The CCGA Chair convenes a Senate subcommittee with the chairs of UCEP, UCPB, and any other participating Senate committees to coordinate/expedite these reviews, as appropriate. All reviews should comment on the categories of review noted above. Ordinarily, the Senate committees will be expected to complete their reviews within 60 days of receipt of the proposal.
  6. The proposal should include at least two internal reviews from experts within the UC system. If there are less than two internal reviews, or if the internal reviews are not rigorous enough, the CCGA Chair may request additional internal reviews.
  7. CCGA will request two external discipline expert reviews and will incorporate these comments in its overall report.
  8. Senate review committees report their recommendations to the Academic Council. If review committees do not concur in their final recommendations, then the Academic Council Chair acts as an arbiter.
  9. The Academic Council Chair reports the Senate recommendations to the Provost with copies to the Divisional Chair, the chairs, and analysts of the committees that reviewed the proposal, and Academic Affairs.
  10. If the proposal is rejected by Academic Council, the Provost informs the Chancellor. The Chancellor decides whether to resubmit a revised proposal to the Divisional Senate or withdraw the proposal completely. If Academic Council makes its approval contingent on the resolution of key issues raised by the reviews, the Provost works with the Chancellor to resolve these issues. The Provost recommends approval or rejection of the proposal to the President.
  11. If Academic Council approves the proposal, the President prepares a Regents’ Item for the next Board meeting recommending approval of the school or college to the Regents. The Academic Council Chair checks the Regents’ item for accuracy.
  12. If the Regents approve the proposal, the Provost reports the approval to the Chancellor and other stakeholders.8

7 The Chancellor should send the proposal to the Provost, systemwide Senate/Council Chair, CCGA Chair, UCEP Chair, and UCPB Chair. 

8 The Provost sends notice of the approval to the Chancellor with copies to the Senate/Council Chair, Divisional Chair, Divisional Director, CCGA Chair, UCEP Chair, UCPB Chair, Senate Executive Director, CCGA analyst, UCEP analyst, UCPB analyst, campus registrar, and campus contacts (include faculty proponents).

Process for Submission of the Post-Proposal

If a campus proposal to establish a new school or college is approved by the Regents, but not established within seven years of the date of that approval, the campus must resubmit the original proposal along with a post-proposal to its Divisional Senate. If the Divisional Senate approves the post-proposal, steps #2-13 are followed above. The post-proposal addresses the changes in the budgetary environment, the academic field(s) and related curriculum, as well as the need for and fit of the proposed school or college since the submission of the original proposal.

III.B.2 Name Changes of Schools and Colleges

Typically, simple name changes of schools and colleges are sought in order to accommodate popular and accepted changes in the nomenclature of an academic field or discipline (e.g., updated terminology used by current scholars in that area).  A simple name change may not be used to accommodate substantial curricular changes or resource requirements of a school or college. (If substantive programmatic changes are associated with the name change, the campus should follow the procedures in Section IV. Reconstitutions of Academic Programs and Academic Units.) To initiate the process for a simple name change, the Dean of the school or college submits a rationale and justification of the name change to the Divisional Chair for approval. If the simple name change is approved by the Divisional Senate, it is forwarded to the Academic Council Chair.

Details of the Process

  1. Upon approval by the campus administration and the Divisional Senate, the Chancellor sends the proposal to the Provost and the Council Chair. CCGA, UCEP, and UCPB assess whether the change is substantive and advise the Council Chair. If substantive programmatic/curricular changes or a substantial need for new resources are associated with the name change, the campus must follow the procedures in Section IV. Reconstitutions of Academic Programs and Academic Units.
  2. If the name change does not present substantive programmatic/curricular changes or a substantial need for new resources, the Academic Council Chair places the name change proposal directly on the Academic Council agenda and then notifies the Provost of Council’s favorable review. The next step in this "simple name change" process is # 6 below.
  3. If there are substantive programmatic/curricular changes or substantial new resources are indicated, the Council Chair notifies the Provost that the Senate wishes to review the proposal. CCGA, UCEP, UCPB, and any other Senate committees designated by the Council Chair, conduct a full review of the proposal.
  4. The CCGA Chair convenes a Senate subcommittee with the chairs of UCEP, UCPB, and any other participating Senate committees to coordinate/expedite these reviews, as appropriate.
  5. Senate review committees report their recommendations to the Academic Council. If review committees do not concur in their final recommendations, then the Academic Council Chair acts as an arbiter. The Council Chair notifies the Provost of the outcome of the Senate review.
  6. The Provost recommends approval or rejection of the proposal to the President.
  7. If approved, the Provost notifies the campus and other stakeholders.9

9 The Provost sends notification of the outcome of the review to the Chancellor, with copies to the Council Chair, CCGA Chair, UCEP Chair, UCPB Chair, Senate Executive Director, CCGA analyst, UCEP analyst, UCPB analyst, campus registrar, and campus contacts (including faculty proposer).