Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- committees:curriculum:dates [2015/01/23 15:11] – external edit 127.0.0.1
+++ committees:curriculum:dates [2015/01/28 16:04] (current) – judi
@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
   * Fall 2017 entry (2016 pilot offerings?) Feb 12 BUGS, April 6 Senate
   * Fall 2018 entry (2017 pilot?)
+  * external reviewer- prior to senate and bugs
+        * nov 2014.. to make the vue book 2016
+        * are the people available
+        * submit candidates- academic with curricular/management experience
+        * person usually has to physically come here
+        * arms length-
+        * could launch major early but won't be in recruiting information (soft launch)
+  * Calendar for 2016/2017 window is passed... but could be added with exceptions if we were through approvals fall 2015
+  * Approval from provost
+    * draft proposal to provost
+    * external reviewer names (may contact them to see if they are available and willing) 3 names
+    * don't have to finish all of the consultation
+  * 4-6 weeks minimum time at provosts office
+  * bugs- dean sits on bugs  (minimum 4 weeks prior to bugs)
+      * someone from the department comes to bugs
+      *support of unit
+      *student consultation
+      *consultation with other units
+      *market study from coop
+      *consult with admission services
+      *potential revision... somewhat unlikely only for big holes
+      *new factor learning outcomes for each new course,  tied to assessment
+  * mtcu document needs to be created prior to senate
+  * senate- last step internally- that by fall 2015
+  * after senate goes to mtcu for funding approval
+      * just because it is in the SMA doesn't guarantee funding
+      * very interested in labour market... looking to stats can information even though it is doing less research
+      * expedited review for things in the SMA (4 months time)
+      * computing is in non-core
+      * must submit to government to funding
+      * core is programs that should be available at all institutions
+  * and quality council- look at external reviewer,  look at program, are the revisions appropriate, external reviewer's concerns addressed, could raise their own flags
+      * quality council can reject the program
+ * new courses
+    * bcomp program committee April after good friday submit to AVPA.. all curriculum change, schedule of studies
+    * library review for new course... order of operations depends on Joe
+    * if the library assessment is pending can still go to BUGS
+    * trial offering can go through Patricia's office
+ * course revisions
+ * library
+ * general timelines
+ * colisting courses
+      *crosslisting-  don't recognize in undergraduate calendar
+      *require Patricia's approval
+      *two separate course outlines and assessed separately
+      *outcomes can be similar
+      *can make your graduate program look weak if you aren't
+ * 1500 early