1. Home
  2. Graduate Education Policies
  3. GCAC Academic Policies
  4. GCAC-200 Programs and Curriculum Policies
  5. P1 - Graduate Curricular Proposal Requirements

P1 - Graduate Curricular Proposal Requirements

Policies

Procedure

Procedure

  1. General Procedures for All Graduate Program Proposals
  2. New Program, Option, and Minor Proposals
  3. Program Change Proposals
  4. Program Drop Proposals
  5. Proposals for M.A. and M.S. Degrees
  6. Proposals from Programs that Offer Both a Research Master’s Degree (M.A. or M.S.) and a Professional Master’s Degree
  7. Requirements for a Proposal to Adopt a Dual-Title Graduate Degree Program
  8. Requirements for a Proposal to Add or Change an Integrated Undergraduate-Graduate (IUG) Degree Program
  9. Requirements for New Extended or New Off-Campus Degree Programs and Extended or Off-Campus Delivery of Existing Degree Programs
  10. Elements of Proposals for Collaborative Graduate Degree Programs
  11. Graduate Course Proposal Procedures
  12. Expiration of Graduate Curricular Proposals

Guidelines

  1. Guidelines for Capstone Courses
  2. Guidelines for Professional Doctoral and Master's Degrees - Methods for Research Education Integration
  3. Guidelines for Graduate Course Substitutions
  4. Guidelines for Consultation on New and Revised Program and Course Proposals
  5. Guidelines for Graduate Program Learning Objectives (PLOs)

Procedure

  1. General Procedures for All Graduate Program Proposals
    1. Submit the program proposal form via CourseLeaf Curriculum Inventory Management (CIM) - Program Management.
    2. Prepare the proposal with the information shown below. The proposer is reminded that the members of the Graduate Council Joint Curricular Committee may not have knowledge of the field and is encouraged to provide as much documentation as possible for the reviewers.
  2. New Program, Option, and Minor Proposals

    New Program, Option (see GCAC-207 Degree Program Options), and Minor Proposals must contain the following:

    1. A short description of the program for public release. This description will be reviewed by the Provost and the Board of Trustees.
    2. A justification for the program. The proposal should include a statement regarding the necessity for the program, i.e., why the program should be offered; and information on the ability of the department to offer a quality program. Included in the section should be the projected size of the program and its impact on current course offerings and faculty load as well as additional faculty advising duties.
    3. The objectives of the program. The proposal should include an explanation of how the proposal meets the new educational objectives and/or strengthens existing programs of the college(s) and the University; what students may expect to accomplish through the new program; and a statement of how the new offering does not duplicate other degree programs within the department/college/University.
    4. A list of Program Learning Objectives. A graduate program’s learning objectives should reflect the Graduate Council Scholarly and Professional Goals for All Graduate Students. For each Program Learning Objective listed, state how it links to one or more of the five Scholarly and Professional Goals.
    5. A justification for the degree title used (see policy GCAC-217). The academic degree titles (M.S., M.A., Ph.D.) are to be used only for degree programs that are research-oriented. A professional degree title will be more appropriate for programs that, for example, emphasize practical application of knowledge; programs that emphasize professional development for advancement in specific careers but with a more practitioner orientation; programs that prepare students for licensure in a given field; and master's programs that are not intended to prepare students for doctoral study. If a professional master’s degree is being proposed, the degree title Master of Professional Studies (M.P.S.) should be used, unless the proposers provide evidence that a different degree title is well established nationally (existence of an accrediting body or a list of existing programs already using the degree title) or the proposers provide a justification for using a different degree title that satisfies the Joint Curricular Committee.
    6. A list of new courses to be established as a part of the new offering.
    7. A complete program statement. This should be an arrangement of courses in accordance with degree requirements, as well as non-course degree requirements for each degree proposed to be offered, and with identification of the pattern of scheduling. A list of the required courses, typical electives, etc., that will logically be taken by a student enrolling in the new program should be included. Courses being newly proposed should be distinguished from existing courses. The proposal must include a copy of the Bulletin description in a format suitable for inclusion in the Graduate Degree Programs Bulletin. A statement of admission requirements must be included, i.e., required test scores, minimum jr./sr. GPA, as deemed appropriate by the proposer.
    8. Accreditation: The proposal document must include information regarding any accrediting body for the proposed program area, i.e., is there an accrediting body or board (if so, please identify); or, if appropriate to the field, whether the program will prepare students for licensure in the field. Programs for which accreditation exists must pursue and achieve full accreditation.
    9. Consultation via CIM from departments affected, either by potential overlapping content or audience or by potential opportunities for collaboration (received during consultation phase).
    10. Written evidence of consultation with the Office for Research Protections regarding SARI requirements.
  3. Program Change Proposals

    Proposals outlining changes to an existing graduate program must contain the following:

    1. A justification for proposed changes, such as updating instruction, together with an indication of expected enrollments and any effects on existing programs.
    2. A list of Program Learning Objectives. A graduate program’s learning objectives should reflect the Graduate Council Scholarly and Professional Goals for All Graduate Students. For each Program Learning Objective listed, state how it links to one or more of the five Scholarly and Professional Goals.
    3. A revised version of the affected area showing both the old program requirements and the new program requirements (so that the reviewers can determine what specifically is being changed). The proposal should include a side-by-side comparison of admission requirements, number of credits required, specific courses to be taken, etc. A copy of the existing Graduate Bulletin description, with all changes marked (with track changes, for example), also must be included.
    4. Consultation via CIM from departments affected, either by potential overlapping content or audience or by potential opportunities for collaboration (received during consultation phase).
    5. Written evidence of consultation with the Office for Research Protections regarding SARI requirements, as necessary, depending on the nature of the proposed change(s). For example, addition of a new degree would require such consultation, but changes to existing degree requirements may not, unless the changes affect previously approved SARI requirements for the program.
  4. Program Drop Proposals

    Proposals for the termination of an existing graduate program must contain the following:

    1. A justification for the requested drop.
    2. A copy of the existing Graduate Bulletin description, with all changes marked (with track changes, for example), as applicable. If the entire graduate program or minor is being dropped, it is not necessary to include a revised Bulletin description, but if an option is being dropped, the revised Bulletin description is required.
    3. Consultation via CIM from departments affected by the proposed drop.
  5. Proposals for M.A. and M.S. Degrees

    Refer to the Research Degree Policies - Master’s (M.A., M.S.) in the GCAC-600 Research Degree Policies series.

    Traditionally, the Master of Arts (M.A.) and the Master of Science (M.S.) degrees have been strongly oriented towards research and the creation of new knowledge. In the past, these degrees often served as the first step towards the research doctorate. As employers look to hire more individuals with advanced research training beyond the baccalaureate, and as new delivery methods expand the potential for students to successfully enroll in and complete Penn State graduate degrees, it is essential to ensure that M.A. and M.S. degree programs maintain Penn State’s reputation as a world-class research university and reflect its research mission, while enabling the University to meet the expanding needs of the workforce and be competitive with other institutions. The following guidelines for the M.A. and M.S. degrees are meant to ensure these programs meet essential standards of quality. All new program and program change proposals submitted must include a description of how the program will meet these requirements. All proposals for M.A. and M.S. degree programs must include evidence of:

    1. the active participation of tenure-line and/or research-active faculty in overseeing and teaching in the program;
    2. a low student/adviser ratio, with a high degree of one-on-one interaction;
    3. course work on research methodology and analysis;
    4. the same standards for the M.A. and M.S. degrees regardless of delivery method; and
    5. a culminating experience for the M.A. and M.S. degrees that demonstrates students have the capacity to conduct research, scholarly analysis, or creative scholarly investigations, and effectively communicate their scholarship.
  6. Proposals from Programs that Offer Both a Research Master’s Degree (M.A. or M.S.) and a Professional Master’s Degree

    Refer to the Research Degree Policies - Master’s (M.A., M.S.) in the GCAC-600 Research Degree Policies series and the Professional Degree Policies – Master’s in the GCAC-700 Professional Degree Policies series.

    Graduate Council recognizes a difference in purpose for the two types of master’s degrees, research and professional. In graduate programs that offer both a research master’s degree and a professional master’s degree, there should be a distinction between the academic requirements for each degree. It is not a sufficient distinction between the two degrees if all the degree requirements for both degrees are the same with the sole exception of a differentiated culminating experience.

  7. Requirements for a Proposal to Adopt a Dual-Title Graduate Degree Program (see GCAC-208 Dual-Title Graduate Degree Programs)

    A graduate program change proposal to adopt a dual-title graduate degree program must address the following:

    1. A listing of typical courses available (approved course title and course abbreviation/number) that are appropriate for the dual-title area of study should be provided.
    2. A statement should be made regarding the minimum number of 500- or 800-level (or maximum number, in the case of 400-level) credits that must be taken in the dual-title area of study.
    3. Administrative processes by which students will be admitted to and matriculate in the dual-title degree program in a coordinated manner with the graduate program must be delineated.
  8. Requirements for a Proposal to Add or Change an Integrated Undergraduate-Graduate (IUG) Degree Program (see GCAC-210 Integrated Undergraduate-Graduate (IUG) Degree Programs)
    1. In the Graduate Bulletin listing for each IUG program, the courses that will double-count for both degrees must be specified by course abbreviation and number. A list of courses that can be double-counted is acceptable, as long as the list is short (ideally between 6 and 8 courses, should be no more than 10). The courses that can double count must be at the 400, 500, or 800 level.
  9. Requirements for New Extended or New Off-Campus Degree Programs and Extended or Off-Campus Delivery of Existing Degree Programs (see GCAC-213 Residency and Related Policies for Off-Campus Degree Programs)
    1. Justification statement including:
      1. evidence of demand for the program in the new location, with market survey data if appropriate;
      2. the projected size of the program and its anticipated duration;
      3. evidence concerning the academic unit's ability to offer a quality program in an off-campus environment;
      4. a statement demonstrating the impact of the proposed new program or off-campus delivery of an existing program on other programs (undergraduate and graduate) offered by the academic unit (and in particular, on faculty load), as well as on programs offered by other units; and
      5. a statement indicating fiscal responsibility for the program.
    2. A program description in a format for the Graduate Bulletin that includes the following:
      1. a statement of admission requirements, e.g., standardized test scores, GPA, recommendations, etc. (Note - Admissions criteria for off-campus degree programs must be the same as those for the same degree program offered to students in residence);
      2. complete degree requirements;
      3. a list of required courses. In addition, a description of the course sequence and typical scheduling pattern should be provided, but need not be part of the Bulletin description. For proposals involving off-campus delivery of existing degree programs, if any changes to admission or degree requirements are being proposed as a result of off-campus delivery, a side-by-side comparison of the existing program requirements and the revised requirements must be provided, along with a statement justifying all proposed revisions; such proposals will undergo the full Graduate Council curricular review process.
    3. A statement demonstrating how the essential elements of residency (as defined in GCAC-213 Residency and Related Policies for Off-Campus Graduate Programs) will be achieved for off-campus programs.
    4. Program operation and maintenance including:
      1. identification of a program director who must be a member of the graduate faculty in the academic unit offering the degree;
      2. evidence of how academic advising, counseling, and learning support will be provided to students;
      3. description of available facilities including research facilities, libraries, technological resources, etc.; and
      4. a statement regarding any technological resources and related specifications that students will be expected to have (e.g., laptop and specifications for operating system, camera, etc.; internet access specifications; etc.).
    5. Consultation via CIM with other units affected by or that potentially would have interest in the proposed program. In addition, if the program is to be offered online or use technology as the primary delivery method to serve off-campus students, the World Campus must be consulted at the earliest possible stage of program development and a letter of consultation must be provided from the World Campus Director of Academic Affairs for Graduate Programs.
    6. Off-campus programs must incorporate a mechanism for assessing program quality through student surveys for feedback at critical milestones in the program as well as a student exit questionnaire at the time of graduation.

    Additional Requirements for New Extended or New Off-Campus Degree Programs

    1. Objectives of the program including:
      1. an explanation of how the new program meets the educational objectives and/or strengthens existing programs of the college(s) and the University;
      2. an explanation of why this program is appropriate for off-campus delivery;
      3. a description of what students may expect to accomplish through the new program; and
      4. a statement of how the new offering does not unnecessarily duplicate other degree programs.
    2. A list of new courses to be established as a part of the new degree program.

    Additional Requirements for Online Graduate Courses and Graduate Degree Programs, Hybrid Graduate Courses, and Blended Graduate Degree Programs

    Information technology available in the 21st century has presented higher education with a host of new educational opportunities. Accompanying them, however, are a host of potential issues. Key among them is the issue of maintaining a high standard of instructor-student engagement in graduate education. In determining the standards for instructor-student engagement, a number of factors need to be taken into account.

    1. Technology-enhanced graduate education can come in many forms, such as: resident courses supplemented by information technology applications; blended learning formats that involve some resident and some online students in the same “classroom”; completely online courses.
    2. Online education does not necessarily mean asynchronous and self-paced learning, or the absence of instructor-student interaction.
    3. While technology provides myriad opportunities to enhance education, it is up to the instructor and standards groups to choose the best way to deploy the technology.

    For students enrolled in off-campus degree programs, and eligible for and seeking federal financial aid, the Federal Register requires “significant instructor-initiated interaction” for courses to qualify as distance education (versus correspondence courses), including online courses. Proposals that involve distance-delivery of courses must describe the kinds of instructor-initiated interaction that will occur in each course, including: mode of communication, frequency of communication, and expectations for student responses. Proposals must describe all student course deliverables and graded artifacts for the course. Proposals also must describe any special considerations needed in order to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (for example, audio or video content or interactive web content).

  10. Elements of Proposals for Collaborative Graduate Degree Programs (see GCAC-214 Collaborative Graduate Education Programs with Institutions Outside of the United States)

    Programs must first determine which of the two allowable models indicated in GCAC-214 Collaborative Graduate Education Programs with Institutions Outside of the United States will be proposed for the collaborative international program. Once the model has been selected, a detailed proposal containing the information listed below must be developed and submitted for review and approval by Graduate Council. The proposal must include a justification for the offering; information on program administration and coordination; and program-specific recruitment, admission and degree requirements. The following elements, A to H, must be included in the proposal, adapted to either of the two models selected (CI-CGDP or CI-IUGDP):

    1. Cover Sheets. Creation of a CI-CGDP or CI-IUGDP constitutes a program change which requires that a proposal be submitted for the curricular review process and approval by Graduate Council.
    2. Justification. The justification for proposing a collaborative program must include the following information:
      1. Motivation for creating the collaborative program. This should include information that addresses:
        1. Need for the offering and market demand. Provide estimates of how many students will participate in the offering per year and over the first five-year period of program operation if approved.
        2. Statement on how the proposed collaborative offering fits into the mission of the graduate program and/or college.
        3. Explanation of the value added by having a formal collaboration beyond existing means to provide students with an international experience.
        4. A brief description of the academic nature of the collaborative program, including model selected, (i.e., Concurrent Degree or Integrated Undergraduate-Graduate Degree Program).
      2. Program/Institution Quality: Because approval for a collaborative graduate program affords the international institution special privileges not available otherwise (e.g., double-counting of courses towards both degrees; exception to the limit of 10 credits that can be transferred into a graduate degree program), collaborative programs are limited to institutions of appropriate stature.
        1. Name, location, and nature of the institution and specific academic unit with which the Penn State graduate program is proposing to collaborate.
        2. Quality of the collaborating institution (documented evidence of the quality of the international institution; include any ranking or rating by a recognized, qualified, independent entity or accrediting body).
        3. Quality of the specific academic program to be included in the collaboration. Include specific metrics/indicators, for example: how selective is the program in admitting graduates/undergraduates (i.e., number of applications versus number of offers of admission)? What is the yield (number of acceptances versus number of offers)? What is the median GPA of admitted students? What are the median standardized test scores (if appropriate) of admitted students? Other quality indicators?
        4. Indicators of faculty quality at the collaborating institution.

        NOTE: Faculty serving on Penn State graduate student committees must be approved as Special Members or qualified for graduate faculty membership (see GCAC-100 Graduate Faculty Membership); and if teaching Penn State graduate courses must members of the Graduate Faculty or receive special approval to teach a graduate course.

      3. Compatibility between the collaborating institution and the Penn State system
        1. Verification from Graduate Enrollment Services of the equivalency of the undergraduate degree offered by the collaborating institution (i.e., does the collaborating institution offer an a four-year undergraduate degree program equivalent to a Penn State baccalaureate degree? Is the institution accredited or recognized by the appropriate body within their country?).
        2. Equivalency of course credits in terms of class contact hours, out-of-class effort, grading scale, etc.
        3. Alignment of the academic calendars. For example, is the collaborating institution on a semester versus term or other system (if so, what system), and what is the comparability in terms of length of the instructional period and starting/ending dates for each?
        4. Curricular description of the relevant programs of study offered at the collaborating institution.
        5. Compatibility/potential for integration of the programs: Identify any significant cultural and educational differences, if any; address how these may affect students’ success in the program and how these will be managed/reconciled.
      4. Program Administration and Coordination
        1. Outline plans for administration and coordination of the program. (The proposal must include a designated coordinator to oversee the collaborative program, and specify a procedure to ensure the terms of the agreement are met.) Programs are cautioned that failure to sustain detailed oversight and record keeping of such complex entities may compromise students’ ability to complete the program.
        2. Describe resources needed to create and maintain the program (staffing, administrative costs, student funding, etc.), including any additional fees or differential tuition rate that may be justified given the need for greater, more complex institutional support.
        3. Describe the marketing plan for the collaborative program.
        4. Describe the general nature of participation of faculty from the collaborating institution, including teaching responsibilities for Penn State courses, serving on graduate student committees, etc.
        5. Describe mechanisms for sustaining the collaborative program and a pre-planned schedule and criteria for assessment of success/limitations. NOTE: A “sunset clause” for the collaborative program should be established; i.e., it is recommended that agreements be established for a five-year period, with periodic review and renewal.
        6. Specify the delivery method for the program (e.g., in residence; distance learning (describe method of delivery such as video-conferencing); blended (describe); fully online via the World Campus; etc.). NOTE: Programs not previously approved for off-campus delivery of the graduate degree program must address required guidelines for approval of such delivery as well. (See GCAC-213 Residency and Related Policies for Off-Campus Degree Programs.)
      5. Model-Specific Program Recruitment, Admissions and Degree Requirements

        Specify the model selected for the program collaboration and provide information related to recruitment, admissions and degree requirements for that particular model, i.e., either a Collaborative International-Concurrent Graduate Degree Program (CI-CGDP) or a Collaborative International-Integrated Undergraduate-Graduate Degree Program (CI-IUGDP). It is important to carefully and thoroughly review the specific guidelines for the respective model selected (CI-CGDP, Appendix A1; CI-IUGDP, Appendix A2), and include all of the information required, as appropriate for that model. A summary of the elements to be included for each model are as follows:

        1. Timing of Recruitment and Admission
        2. Criteria for Admission
        3. Degree Requirements and Plan of Study
        4. Other Program Requirements
        5. List of Courses to be Transferred From the Collaborating Institution to the Penn State Degree
        6. Student-Specific Expectations
        7. Degree Conferral
        8. Graduate Student Handbook Statement

        IMPORTANT NOTES:

        For admission to the J. Jeffrey and Ann Marie Fox Graduate School, an applicant must hold either (1) a bachelor's degree from a U.S. regionally accredited institution or (2) a postsecondary degree that is equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate degree earned from an officially recognized degree-granting international institution. An academic unit proposing a CI-IUGDP program must consult with the Office of Graduate Enrollment Services in the Graduate School and include a confirmation from that office that the degree offered by the collaborating institution meets this requirement. Similarly, the baccalaureate/post-secondary degree held by applicants to a CI-CGDP must meet this requirement.

        International applicants must take and submit scores for the TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language) or the IELTS (International English Language Testing System), and meet the established minimum scores required by the Fox Graduate School and graduate program with the exception of individuals who have received a baccalaureate or a master's degree from a college/university/institution in any of the following: Australia, Belize, British Caribbean and British West Indies, Canada (except Quebec), England, Guyana, Republic of Ireland, Liberia, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Scotland, the United States, and Wales, per Graduate Council policies. (See GCAC-305 Admission Requirements for International Students.)

        For both program models, the proposal to be submitted refers to a standing offering that will be created within an existing Penn State graduate program, and that must be approved through curricular review by Graduate Council.

      6. Funding Mechanisms and Logistics

        Describe how students enrolled in the collaborative program will be supported. Is the collaborative program projected to be fully revenue-generating? Are assistantships available for student support at both institutions?

      7. Consultation

        Evidence of consultation with other relevant Penn State units also may be required. Collaborations involving incoming international students should be reviewed at an early stage by the UOGP’s Directorate of International Student Advising. Other offices which can provide valuable advice, and whose approval may be required, are the University Registrar, Office of the Bursar, Office of Undergraduate Education, and the World Campus (in particular, the Director of Academic Affairs for Graduate Programs). In some cases, such as where issues of technology transfer or intellectual property are implicated, review by the Office of Sponsored Programs or General Counsel’s office also may be required. If the proposed program may affect another academic unit at Penn State, such as when there is an existing Penn State collaboration at the overseas institution, that unit also should be consulted. The UOGP and Fox Graduate School can provide guidance on appropriate review and consultation.

    3. For Collaborative International-Concurrent Graduate Degree Programs (CI-CGDP), the following must be included in the program proposal:
      1. Timing of Recruitment & Admission: Indicate the timing for recruitment to the CI-CGDP (e.g., will the concurrent program be marketed to prospective students as a “package” or will applicants to each institution be admitted to the respective degree program first and then recruited into the CI-CGDP?). What will be the sequence/timing of attendance at Penn State versus the collaborating institution? If admission is not on a rolling basis, indicate the timing of admission of new CI-CGDP students into the Penn State degree (e.g., fall semester each year). Specify how and when Penn State faculty will participate in the admissions process at the collaborating institution and vice versa.
      2. Criteria for Admission to the CI-CGDP: Describe the requirements for admission into the CI-CGDP, consistent with a high degree of selectivity in the admissions process. Admission criteria must specify that students must apply to and meet admission requirements of the Penn State graduate program in which they intend to receive their graduate degree.
      3. Degree Requirements & Plan of Study: Provide a side-by-side comparison of the graduate degree requirements for students in the Penn State graduate program alone versus the Penn State graduate program in the context of the CI-CGDP, including a clear indication of the specific courses and number of credits derived from the collaborative graduate degree that will be double-counted for the Penn State degree. The complete plan of study for both the Penn State and collaborator concurrent degrees, including which specific courses will be double-counted (applied to both degrees), should be delineated by completing the “Collaborative International-Graduate Degree Program Plan of Study Form” and attaching the form to the proposal. Any common agreements, such as the required completion of a specific portion/sequence of courses for one program before advancing to begin the other, should be noted in the stated plan of study.
      4. Other Program Requirements: Delineate any other program requirements (beyond courses) that involve or are contributed by the collaborating institution (e.g., if concurrent Penn State Ph.D. and collaborator M.S. degrees are to be offered, what is the culminating experience [thesis, scholarly paper, etc.] required for the partner M.S.?).
      5. List of Courses: Include a list of courses required for both collaborating institutions for the CI-CGDP. Courses from a collaborating international institution to be consistently transferred into the Penn State graduate degree and double-counted must be specified by completing the “Collaborative International Graduate Degree Program Transfer of Credit Form” and attaching the form to the CI-CGDP proposal. Course credits from the collaborating institution to be double-counted must be equivalent to course credits at Penn State.
      6. Student-Specific Expectations: Specify student-specific expectations, including expected time to degree for the entire collaborative program. (Note: Student-specific expectations of units offering a collaborative program must be included in the program’s Graduate Student Handbook).
      7. Degree Conferral: Proposals should state that the expected timing of degree conferral for both degrees is at the completion of the entire CI-CGDP, and articulate a statement to be included in all program materials, including the Graduate Student Handbook, that confirm that if all of the requirements for one degree are satisfied before those of the other degree, and if these meet the requirements for the degree when not offered as a concurrent program, then that degree may be conferred in cases where the student may not be able to complete the second degree.
      8. Graduate Student Handbook: Proposals for CI-CGDPs should include the section of the Graduate Student Handbook related to the CI-CGDP, and should articulate a statement to be included in all program materials that confirm that if all of the requirements for one degree are satisfied before those of the other degree and if these meet the requirements for the degree when not offered as a concurrent program, then that degree may be conferred in cases where the student may not be able to complete the second degree.
    4. For Collaborative International-Integrated Undergraduate-Graduate Degree Programs (CI-IUGDP), the following must be included in the program proposal:
      1. Timing of Recruitment & Admission: Indicate when in the undergraduate degree program students will be recruited and admitted to the CI-IUGDP. Students should have progressed sufficiently in their undergraduate programs to demonstrate their potential to successfully meet the considerable demands of a CI-IUGDP, typically after completing at least two years of undergraduate study. In order to avoid expectations that admission into the undergraduate degree program guarantees admission into the graduate program, students should not be recruited into a CI-IUGDP prior to admission into the undergraduate program. If admission is not on a rolling basis, indicate the timing of admission of new students into the CI-IUGDP (e.g., fall semester each year). Specify how Penn State faculty will participate in the admissions process at the point where the students are to be considered for the collaborative program.
      2. Criteria for Admission: Describe the requirements for admission into the CI-IUGDP, consistent with a high degree of selectivity. Admission criteria must specify that students must apply to and meet admission requirements of the Penn State graduate program in which they intend to receive their graduate degree. Students selected to participate in the CI-IUGDP must be recommended and endorsed in writing by appropriate faculty of the international institution and must complete Penn State’s graduate application, pay the application fee, meet the Fox Graduate School’s minimum requirements for admission (see GCAC-301 Qualifications for Admission) and the admission requirements of the graduate program to which the student is applying, and be approved for admission at Penn State.
      3. Degree Requirements and Plan of Study: Provide a side-by-side comparison of the graduate degree requirements for students in the graduate program alone versus in the CI-IUGDP, including a clear indication of the specific courses and number of credits derived from the undergraduate degree and graduate degree respectively, which will be double-counted for both degrees. In the case of courses to be double-counted from the undergraduate program, specify the designated course number and title at the collaborating institution; the equivalent Penn State course level (e.g., 400- or graduate (500/800) level) and if graduate level, whether equivalent to 500 or 800 (professionally oriented) graduate courses; and equivalent credits on a semester basis.

        NOTE: Course credits from the collaborating institution to be double-counted must be equivalent to course credits at Penn State. As many as twelve of the credits required for the master's degree may be double-counted (applied to both undergraduate and graduate degree programs), with a minimum of 6 credits required to be double-counted. At least 50% of the course credits proposed to count for both degrees must be at the graduate (500- or 800-) level. The thesis or other culminating/capstone experience and any related credits (e.g., SUBJECT 600, THESIS RESEARCH) may not be double- counted.

      4. Other Program Requirements: Delineate any other program requirements (beyond courses) that involve or are contributed by the collaborating institution. (For example, if an undergraduate thesis or other culminating experience is required for the undergraduate degree, describe.)
      5. List of Courses: Include a list of courses required for both collaborating institutions for the CI-IUGDP. Courses from a collaborating international institution to be consistently transferred into the Penn State graduate degree and double-counted must be specified by completing the “Collaborative International Graduate Degree Program Transfer of Credit Form” and attaching the form to the CI-IUGDP proposal. Course credits from the collaborating institution to be double-counted must be equivalent to course credits at Penn State. Students should be directed to first fulfill basic undergraduate requirements so that if, for some reason, they cannot continue in the integrated program they will be able to receive their undergraduate degree without a significant loss of time.
      6. Student-Specific Expectations: Specify student-specific expectations including expected time to degree for the entire collaborative program. (Note: Student-specific expectations of units offering a collaborative program must be included in the program’s Graduate Student Handbook.)
      7. Degree Conferral: Proposals must reflect that the undergraduate degree must be conferred at least one semester prior to the conferral of the graduate degree, and the original undergraduate diploma must be presented to Graduate Enrollment Services for verification. Proposals must also articulate a statement to be included in all program materials, including the Graduate Student Handbook, that confirms that if all of the requirements for the undergraduate degree are satisfied before those of the graduate degree, and if these meet the requirements for the undergraduate degree when not offered as an integrated program, then the undergraduate degree may be conferred in cases where the student may not be able to complete the graduate degree.
      8. Graduate Student Handbook: Proposals for CI-IUGDPs should include the text for the section of the Graduate Student Handbook related to the CI-IUGDP, which should articulate a statement to be included in all program materials that confirms that if all of the requirements for the undergraduate degree are satisfied before those of the graduate degree, and if these meet the requirements for the undergraduate degree when not offered as an integrated program, then the undergraduate degree may be conferred in cases where the student may not be able to complete the graduate degree.
  11. Graduate Course Proposal Procedures
    1. All graduate course proposals must be initiated in CourseLeaf Curriculum Inventory Management (CIM) - Course Management, and all consultation on each course proposal must be obtained via CIM. No hardcopy submission of graduate course proposals is required at any point in the Graduate Council curricular review process.
    2. After a course proposal has been approved through the program-specific and college-specific curricular reviews and reviewed by the Director of Graduate Council Administration, it will be included on the next meeting agenda of the Graduate Council Joint Curricular Committee. After each Joint Curricular Committee meeting, feedback from the Committee is entered directly into the course proposal in CIM and the proposal is returned to the proposer via CIM for further action. The proposer’s response via CIM is required.
    3. Course change proposals and course drop proposals undergo expedited review on behalf of the Joint Curricular Committee. The timing of this review is not dependent upon the monthly meeting dates of the Joint Curricular Committee. However, if there are any issues or concerns about these proposals, they may be forwarded to the co-chairs or the Joint Curricular Committee for full review.
    4. After approval by the Graduate Council Joint Curricular Committee, course proposals are published in the Graduate Council Curriculum Report; a 30-day comment period follows publication. New courses are effective the semester following the expiration of the comment period.
  12. Expiration of Graduate Curricular Proposals
    1. All prospectuses and program, course, and certificate proposals that are pending action by the proposer and on which no action has been taken during the prior two academic years will automatically expire. The expiration dates will be determined by academic year at the beginning of each Fall semester. For example, a proposal whose last action by the proposer was in the 2016-17 AY will expire at the beginning of the Fall semester of 2018-19 . At the beginning of each Fall semester, the Fox Graduate School will send notifications of proposals that have expired and will be inactivated at the end of that semester unless further action is taken by the proposer.
    2. For prospectuses: If a prospectus expires and the accompanying program proposal was never submitted to the Fox Graduate School, a new prospectus must be submitted to move forward. The prospectus must undergo another 30-day review period by ACGE members.
    3. For program, course, and certificate proposals: Expired proposals will be inactivated and returned to the proposers. In order to move forward with the proposal, the proposal must be resubmitted and all consultation and required signatory steps must be redone. If a Cost Analysis form is required, this must also be resubmitted with updated signatures.

Guidelines

  1. Guidelines for Capstone Courses
    1. Culminating experiences are governed by two Graduate Academic Policies: GCAC-642 (for research master’s culminating experiences) vs GCAC-742 (for professional master’s culminating experiences)
    2. For research master’s degrees, a capstone course is one of three approved options for the culminating experience (in addition to a thesis based on original research or a research-oriented scholarly paper/essay). The capstone course option must contain a work product that demonstrates evidence of analytical thinking and synthesis of knowledge within the field of study.
    3. For professional master’s degrees, a capstone course is one of many, varied culminating experiences available to a program for demonstrating evidence of analytical ability and synthesis of material. Thus, far more latitude may be granted in the design and execution of such courses (compared to capstone courses for research master’s degrees).
    4. Specifically, the Graduate Council Joint Curricular Committee recommends proposers of capstone courses consider the following before submitting their course for review:
    5. For Research Master’s Capstone Courses
      1. The course should be a 500-level course and conform to the definition of 500-level courses outlined in GCAC-204.
      2. The work product required in the research master’s capstone course should make up a significant percentage of the final grade for the course. Furthermore, this product should highlight each student’s individual competency in all key skill areas of the program (in much the same way a thesis or scholarly paper would). While group projects are not strictly discouraged, JCC requires that proposers identify how the individual participation of students will be assessed in cases where group projects are used. Assessment of the individual student achievement over a broad range of topics is paramount and must be stressed in the proposal.
      3. Capstone courses should specifically instruct students in the processes of analytical thinking and synthesis of knowledge. Course learning objectives should portray high-order skills (see Bloom’s taxonomy) and should guide students towards the creation of the culminating work product. As the work product is replacing a thesis or scholarly paper, proposers are reminded that this product should be on a pedagogical level equivalent to those other culminating experiences.
      4. As would the completion of a thesis or scholarly paper, a capstone course should occur at the end of the student’s progression through a program. This is not to say that an occasional student might need an additional course beyond their capstone semester, or that courses cannot be taken in concurrence with a capstone course. Nevertheless, safeguards such as prerequisites or recommended preparation should be implemented to assure that students do not enroll in a capstone course until they have completed most – if not all – of the program’s coursework, and that such occurrences are exceptions to the regular course of study.
      5. Unlike the thesis or paper option, capstone courses should not rely heavily on students working in an independent manner. Rather, capstone courses should contain significant instructor interaction with students, guiding them along the course of their culminating work product. This interaction can be through formal instruction but can also be though regular discussion and consultation with the student during the formulation and refinement of the work product. Proposals should outline specific plans for instructor-student or student-student engagement, particularly if formal instruction occupies only a portion of the course’s contact hours. Capstone course credits should reflect both “contact time” and outside work required by the course.
      6. While not required, JCC encourages capstone course proposers to consider mechanisms for preserving and sharing students’ final work products in whatever form may be appropriate.
    6. For Professional Master’s Capstone Courses
      1. The course should be an 800-level course and conform to the definition of 800-level courses outlined in GCAC-204.
      2. Given the diversity of available culminating experiences for professional master’s degrees, capstone courses are considerably less defined than the research master’s capstone courses. However, proposers should emphasize how the students in the professional master’s capstone course will demonstrate evidence of analytical ability and synthesis of material, as required of all professional degree culminating experiences.
      3. While group projects are not strictly discouraged in professional master’s culminating experiences, the Joint Curricular Committee strongly encourages proposers to identify how the individual participation of students will be assessed in cases where group projects are used. Assessment of the individual student achievement over a broad range of topics is paramount and must be stressed in the proposal. It is suggested that group projects be used only where such interpersonal skills are emphasized and assessed as critical to the educational process for a particular professional degree.
      4. A professional degree capstone course should occur near the end of the student’s progression through a program. This is not to say that an occasional student might need an additional course beyond their capstone semester, or that courses cannot be taken in concurrence with a capstone course. Nevertheless, safeguards such as prerequisites or recommended preparation should be implemented to assure that students do not enroll in a capstone course until they have completed most – if not all – of the program’s coursework, and that such occurrences are exceptions to the regular course of study.
      5. Capstone courses should not be entirely “independent study” experiences. While it is perfectly reasonable that other culminating experience products can be accomplished through independent study (and using appropriate course designations), a capstone course should contain significant instructor interaction with students. This interaction can be through direct instruction, regular discussion, or consultation during any project that the student has been assigned. Capstone course credits should reflect both “contact time” and outside work required by the course.
      6. While not required, JCC encourages capstone course proposers to consider mechanisms for preserving and sharing students’ final work products in whatever form may be appropriate.
  2. Guidelines for Professional Doctoral and Master's Degrees - Methods for Research Education Integration
    1. Refer to GCAC-700 Degree Requirements - Professional Doctorate and GCAC-731 Degree Requirements - Professional Master's.
    2. There are several possible methods (and combination of methods) for integrating appropriate research education into a professional doctoral or master’s degree program. Examples include but are not limited to:
      1. Integration of relevant research in the field and corresponding literature into 800-level courses and assignments*
      2. Integration of appropriate research methods modules into 800-level courses and assignments*
      3. Capstone projects/papers that require foundational research
      4. Non-credit workshops, seminars, and conferences
      5. For-credit 500-level research seminars and courses
      6. Participation in professional research associations, clubs, or competitions
      7. Publications in appropriate outlets (as determined by the program)
    3. The type, level, and quantity of possible methods for research education integration into a particular professional doctoral or master’s degree program should be at the discretion of the program leadership to ensure proper alignment to the program goals and needs of the program audience.

      *As described in GCAC-204 Graduate Course Definitions: 500- vs. 800-Level Courses, for courses in which research and practice are intertwined, designation as 500 or 800 level is determined by the domain reflecting the majority of the content. In professional doctoral and master’s degree programs, discipline-specific research and practice content may be intertwined throughout the program within the 800-level courses.

  3. Guidelines for Graduate Course Substitutions

    1. As stated in GSAD-930 Exceptions to Graduate Council Academic Requirements, the Dean of the Graduate School delegates authority to graduate program heads to provide exceptions to program-specific requirements that have been approved through the Graduate Council curricular process?that exceed or are in addition to?Graduate Council minimum requirements. Graduate program heads are specifically allowed to make exceptions to required courses listed in the graduate program’s Degree Requirements, including both approving substitutions for a required course and waiving the requirement for specific courses.

      As the faculty governance body responsible for reviewing, evaluating, and approving or rejecting all graduate program and course proposals that have been submitted for curricular review, the Graduate Council Joint Curricular Committee recommends, as a guideline, that graduate program heads limit the number of course substitutions to a maximum of 2 or 3 courses per student. Program heads may provide additional flexibility under extenuating circumstances. The graduate program head is expected to maintain detailed records for each course substitution granted.

      A reasonable number of course substitutions allows for flexibility in the curriculum to address the individual needs of students. Excessive course substitutions undermine the principle of faculty governance in curricular review. Course substitutions should not be a used to avoid submitting a program proposal to update the graduate program’s Graduate Bulletin listing through the curricular review process.

  4. Guidelines for Consultation on New and Revised Program and Course Proposals
    1. In reviewing new course and program proposals, The Graduate Council’s Committee on Programs and Courses (GC-CPC) assumes that the proposers have identified a sufficient level of interest that justifies the creation of the course or program prior to the submission of the proposal to the GC-CPC.
      The approval of the Graduate Program Head signifies that the entire program faculty has been consulted; in programs with subdisciplines this consultation should include faculty from all subdisciplines.
      Finally, the GC-CPC expects that all proposers will undertake consultation with faculty and academic leaders external to their program for all new and revised programs and course proposals. Broadly speaking, consultation shall be requested from all units with a known or perceived interest in the subject field. External consultation serves multiple primary purposes.
      External review of course proposals
      1. Ensure that the course structure (format, course learning objectives, assessment of student learning, etc.) provides a high-quality learning opportunity for Penn State graduate students.
      2. Allow content experts to provide input into the content, particularly for important items that might be missing.
      3. Ensures that the course does not inappropriately duplicate existing courses at Penn State.
        1. Some duplication of instruction is inevitable, but the GC-CPC is concerned with keeping such duplication to a minimum.
      4. Serve as an announcement to other units that might have an interest in their students taking the course.
      External review of program proposals
      1. Ensure that the program structure (format, program learning objectives, assessment of student learning, etc.) provides a high-quality learning opportunity for Penn State graduate students.
      2. Allow disciplinary experts to provide input into the structure of the program, particularly for important content that might be missing.
      3. Ensures that the program does not inappropriately duplicate existing programs at Penn State.
      In the interest of efficient review, proposers are encouraged to include all appropriate consultations prior to submission of the proposal to the GC-CPC. Proposals without consultation may be returned.
  5. Guidelines for Graduate Program Learning Objectives (PLOs)
    1. Graduate program proposals must include a list of program learning objectives (PLOs) that fundamentally derive from the broad goals outlined in
    GCAC-201 Scholarly and Professional Goals for All Graduate Degree Students.
    1. Know: Demonstrate appropriate breadth and depth of disciplinary knowledge, and comprehension of the major issues of their discipline;
    2. Apply/Create: Use disciplinary methods and techniques to apply knowledge, and – if appropriate to the degree – create new knowledge or achieve advanced creative accomplishment.
    3. Communicate: Communicate the major issues of their discipline effectively;
    4. Think: Demonstrate analytical and critical thinking within their discipline, and, where appropriate, across disciplines; and
    5. Professional Practice: Know and conduct themselves in accordance with the highest ethical standards, values, and, where these are defined, the best practices of their discipline.
    These PLOs should be expressed as a list of evidence-based, measurable objectives that focus on the knowledge, skills, and attributes developed by the student through successful completion of the program. The following guidelines describe the general structure of program learning objectives for graduate proposals:
  • Each of the five goals listed above should be identified as the primary goal for at least one PLO.
    1. Programs should use the appropriate keyword(s) above to identify the primary goal for each PLO.
    2. Programs may have multiple PLOs with the same primary Graduate Council goal.
    3. Programs may optionally identify secondary Graduate Council goals for each PLO, but are not required to do so.
  • For programs offering multiple degrees, each degree should have a distinct set of PLOs.
    1. PLOs should reflect differences in degree level (doctoral/master’s) and educational focus (professional/research) of the degree being awarded.
    2. While there may be some overlap, there should be some PLOs that are unique to the degree being awarded.
    3. All degrees are expected to have PLOs even if they are not part of the annual assessment process (e.g., accredited degrees and programs that do not admit directly to the master’s degree).
  • 5-8 PLOs for each graduate degree is typical.

There are several resources available to help in crafting high-quality PLOs, including:

Further Information

CourseLeaf Curriculum Inventory Management (CIM)

Developing Graduate Program Proposals

GCAC-206 Graduate Program Proposal Requirements

Graduate Course Proposal Submission

Guide to Creating Learning Objectives for Graduate Courses and Programs

Overview of the Graduate Council Curricular Review Process

Revision History

  • Revised by the Committee on Programs and Courses, Mary 2023. Effective immediately.
    • Added Guidelines for Graduate Program Learning Objectives
  • Revised by the Committee on Programs and Courses, January 2023. Effective immediately.
    • Added Guidelines for Consultation on New and Revised Program and Course Proposals
  • Revised by the Graduate School, June 2022. Effective immediately.
    • Replace references to the Curriculum Review and Consultation System (CRCS) and the program proposal signature form with the CourseLeaf Curriculum Inventory Management (CIM) system.
  • Revised by the Committee on Programs and Courses, March 2022. Effective immediately.
    • Added Guidelines for Graduate Course Substitutions
  • Revised by the Graduate Council, March 2021. Effective immediately.
    • Added Guidelines for Professional Master's Degree - Methods for Research Education Integration.
  • Revised by the Committee on Programs and Courses, October 2020. Effective immediately.
    • Added Procedure 6 on Proposals from Programs that Offer Both a Research Master’s Degree (M.A. or M.S.) and a Professional Master’s Degree.
  • Revised by The Graduate School, September 2020. Effective immediately.
    • Added Procedure 8 on Requirements for a Proposal to Add or Change an Integrated Undergraduate-Graduate (IUG) Degree Program.
    • Revised Procedure 5 to add a reference to the Research Degree Policies - Master’s (M.A., M.S.) in the GCAC-600 Research Degree Policies series.
  • Revised by The Graduate School, March 2020. Effective immediately.
    • Revised Procedure 1 to allow electronic submission of program proposals.
  • Revised by The Graduate School, Nov. 2019. Effective immediately.
  • Revised by The Graduate School, June 2019. Effective immediately.
    • Added Procedure 12 on Expiration of Graduate Curricular Proposals.
  • Revised by the Committee on Programs and Courses, March 2019. Effective immediately.
    • Added Guidelines for Capstone Courses.
  • Revised by the Committee on Programs and Courses, Dec. 2018. Effective immediately.
    • Revised Procedure 2.e. to expand the ability to request professional degree titles other than the Master of Professional Studies (M.P.S.).
  • Revised by The Graduate School, Aug. 2018. Effective immediately.
    • Revised Procedure 2 to add a requirement for a short description of the program for public release and for a list of Program Learning Objectives.
    • Revised Procedure 3 to add a requirement for a list of Program Learning Objectives.
  • Revised by the Committee on Programs and Courses, Feb. 2018. Effective immediately.
    • Added Procedure 5 on Proposals for M.A. and M.S. Degrees.
  • Revised by the Committee on Programs and Courses, 2014.
  • Revised by the Committee on Programs and Courses, 2008.
  • Revised by the Committee on Programs and Courses, 2003.
  • Prepared by the Committee on Programs and Courses, 1996.
  • Editorial revisions to reflect the new name of the Fox Graduate School, July 19, 2024