Guidelines on the Approval of Disciplines, Programmes and Courses

A. Background to the <strong>Guidelines</strong>
1. Re-focusing the Approvals Process
All programmes 2 must be approved by the Undergraduate or Postgraduate Studies Committee on behalf
of Senate before they can be offered to students. The issues that the Committees consider are formally
written down in guidance notes and programme template forms (as provided in appendices to these
guidelines), but not all matters are considered to the same degree of detail and current practices have
been shaped both by the judgements of the committee members and by the customs of the Faculty
Boards and Postgraduate Studies Committee (pre-August 2002), which existed before present Studies
Committees.
Since the current Undergraduate and Postgraduate Studies Committees were established (August
2002), as part of the restructuring of the institution and its committees, the University has changed
significantly. The Schools, which were formed as part of the restructuring, are now integrated and wellmanaged
units, and have generally robust systems in place for managing the approval, monitoring and
delivery of programmes. Therefore many of the traditional aspects of approval add little value to the
scrutiny already in place in the Schools. On the other hand, expansion of the number of programmes
delivered off-campus and the evolving flexible methods of delivery on-campus, both of which are in line
with the institution’s strategic plan, pose new risks for the University, as these are areas where Schools
are in general less experienced and so School processes may be less secure.
It is, therefore, appropriate to refocus the effort of Undergraduate and Postgraduate Committees in its
programme approval function to consider areas where the Committees could add greatest value and
where there is greatest risk to the University.
Restructuring the Academic Year (RAY) provides an opportunity to re-focus approvals processes,
whereby the more routine, secure aspects are devolved to Schools, while the Committees consider
areas where there could be a risk to academic quality and standards. There is an additional impetus to
ensure that approval processes are as efficient as possible ahead of the significant University-wide
programme changes which Schools will introduce as part of RAY. The streamlining of approvals
processes will also be integral to the development of the new Student Administration Service (SAS),
which will be implemented, along with RAY, from September 2008.
2. Approval in Principle of the Revised Process
Before preparing the detailed guidelines below, the underlying principles were discussed at the Learning
and Teaching Board (LTB), Quality Enhancement and Standards Committee (QESC), Undergraduate
Studies Committee (USC) and the Postgraduate Studies Committee (PSC) in October 2006. There was
broad agreement on the underlying principles, though recognition that much of the detail needed to be
agreed. Of particular importance was the need to ensure that, wherever possible, the Committees should
oversee School processes and only exceptionally review the detailed evidence.
At the Senate meeting on 25 October 2006:
1. Senate approved in principle that the approval of courses (content, assessment etc) should be
devolved mainly and possible entirely to Schools.
2. Senate approved in principle that the USC and PSC would continue to be responsible for the approval
of programmes and for ensuring the coherence, currency and completeness of the academic content
and for academic standards.
- In addition the Committees will be explicitly responsible for the consistency of programmes,
alignment with the University strategy and the sufficiency of resources and expertise for the
modes of study and locations of study being proposed.
- The additional responsibilities will mainly involve the Committees checking the School
processes, as was agreed for the approval of new programmes in Dubai.
2
Approval of disciplines (where a new discipline is being offered) is the responsibility of the Planning and Management Executive, given
that a new discipline is likely to require significant levels of start-up costs.
Discipline, Programme and Course Approval <strong>Guidelines</strong> (including Programme Proposals for Restructuring the Academic Year) 4