UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY Policy for Self

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

Policy for Self-Supporting Graduate

Professional Degree Programs

Adopted: March 2018

SOURCE DOCUMENTS

UCOP Policy on Self-Supporting Graduate Professional Degree Programs (2016) and the

Final Report of the Joint Administration-Academic Senate Task Force on Self-

Supporting Graduate Professional Degree Programs (2017)

Attachment A: Campus Budget Template

Attachment B: Market Study Design Principles and Marketing Strategy at Launch

Attachment C: New Program Proposal Review Workflow

Attachment D: Sample MOU Templates

PURPOSE

In addition to the stipulations in this document, Self-Supporting Graduate Professional

Degree Programs (SSGPDPs) must meet the definitions, criteria, and procedures

specified in:

UCOP Policy on Self-Supporting Graduate Professional Degree Programs, and

UC Berkeley Procedures for Establishing a New Graduate Degree Program.

POLICY

I. General

A. Any academic unit authorized to offer a graduate degree program under

the jurisdiction of the Graduate Council (GC) and the Graduate Division

(e.g., departments, schools, colleges, graduate groups) may propose a self-

supporting graduate professional degree program (SSGPDP).

B. An SSGPDP is expected to follow relevant campus policies governing

teaching, faculty hiring and promotion, graduate education, etc.

C. An SSGPDP must have appropriate administrative structures—including

clear governance models and decision-making processes—in place to

adequately administer the program, similar to those provided for a state-

supported program, including identification of an academic unit head (i.e.,

Senate faculty who oversee the finances and administration of the

program), who is typically a sponsoring dean or department chair.

D. An SSGPDP should serve professionals seeking to advance in their career.

E. An SSGPDP should offer a professional master’s degree using

nomenclature suggested by the Coordinating Committee on Graduate

Affairs (CCGA) (e.g., “Master of [field]”), but may offer any relevant degree

title (e.g., M.S., M.A.) if justified by the discipline or workforce training

requirements.

F. In most cases an SSGPDP should offer a master’s program under the Plan

II capstone option (exam or project); it may offer a Plan I research thesis if

justified by the discipline or workforce training requirements,

expectations, or practices in the field.

G. An academic master’s degree program that solely or primarily leads to a

Ph.D. is not eligible for SSGPDP status; the GC has the authority to

determine whether a graduate program is eligible for SSGPDP status

under this definition.

H. An academic unit may offer one degree program under the same program

name with two tracks—one self-supporting and one state-supported—

provided both tracks use the same degree requirements (in order to offer

the same degree name), strong rationale outlining the need for both tracks

is provided, and the self-supporting track meets the criteria noted in

UCOP policy. Academic standards must be identical between the tracks;

however, the self-supporting track may include additional admission

requirements (e.g., work experience). Students in each track must be

accounted for separately in financial reporting processes. The self-

supporting track must be approved separately from the state-supported

track as a new program under this policy.

I. State-supported graduate programs discontinued for quality or academic

concerns are not eligible for conversion to SSGPDP status.

J. Memoranda of Understanding (MOU): The sponsoring dean or

department chair must enter into MOUs with all entities providing

administrative or academic services to the SSGPDP outside of the offering

unit. These MOUs must be updated regularly, such as when a new partner

is included or when an existing partnership is dissolved. The MOUs will be

filed with the Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost. The

Graduate Division and Office of the Vice Provost for the Faculty should be

provided with copies. Examples of required MOUs include but are not

limited to: distribution of revenue to partners; teaching and compensation

agreements with departments, deans, or graduate groups; administrative

activities; and partnering with an academic unit to allow for SSGPDP

student enrollment in state-supported courses and vice versa. See

Attachment D for sample MOU templates.

II. Faculty and Teaching Resources

A. The proportion of non-Senate faculty (e.g., adjunct faculty, lecturers,

visitors) to Senate faculty teaching in the SSGPDP should be determined

according to the specific pedagogical needs of the program and must be

approved as part of the proposal process and reviewed if concerns arise.

B. The 2016 UCOP policy affirms Senate faculty oversight of SSGPDPs and

states that, “Senate faculty who teach in SSGPDPs are appointed,

evaluated, and advanced under the same processes and criteria as are

other Senate faculty regardless of whether a portion of their regular

compensation comes from SSGPDPs.” To comply with this requirement,

each department with faculty participating in an SSGPDP must establish a

teaching policy for graduate education, approved by the department’s

Senate faculty in accordance with departmental policy and the department

chair or sponsoring dean, that addresses teaching in department-based

graduate programs, graduate groups, and SSGPDP programs. The

teaching policy should consider the balance between graduate teaching,

research, and mentoring, and it should weigh the potential impact on

Senate faculty teaching and service on behalf of state-supported programs,

as well as the impact of overload teaching on faculty research time. It

should directly address how overload teaching will be counted and

assessed (whether as teaching equivalent to that in state-supported

programs as mandated by UCOP policy or as service) to ensure the timely

advancement and promotion of Senate faculty. This policy is separate from

the SSGPDP teaching compensation plan.

To help ensure that Senate faculty who contribute to SSGPDPs receive

recognition for their efforts, units should clearly outline how teaching and

service activities undertaken for an SSGPDP were evaluated in relation to

other teaching and service activities (including summer overload) when

forwarding merit and promotion cases to the Committee on Budget and

Interdepartmental Relations and the vice provost for the faculty.

C. Teaching Compensation Plan: Each SSGPDP must develop a

compensation plan for teaching in the SSGPDP approved by the

department’s Senate faculty in accordance with departmental policy, the

SSGPDP director, and the sponsoring dean or department chair. In

developing a compensation plan, the SSGPDP should take into

consideration faculty workload based upon the total teaching load (per

department workload policies), the mentoring of graduate students,

service to the SSGPDP, and faculty salary and benefits. In cases of buy-out,

faculty health benefits and retirement compensation are paid

proportionally from the SSGPDP funding sources that cover the faculty

member’s salary.

The options for faculty compensation are:

1. Buy-out, whereby a portion of a faculty member’s normal teaching

commitment is exchanged for teaching in a SSGPDP (freeing up a

portion of regular salary for other use by the faculty member’s

home academic unit).

2. Overload payments, including additional compensation through

summer salary, per campus policies.

D. When an SSGPDP relies upon teaching from another academic unit,

written agreements regarding the teaching commitment of faculty

involved in that SSGPDP must be made between individual faculty who

will teach in the program, the director of the SSGPDP, and the chair of the

faculty member’s home department(s) (or dean of the faculty member’s

school). These agreements must take into consideration teaching and

service responsibilities on behalf of the home department and the

SSGPDP.

E. Funds from an SSGPDP may be used to hire ladder-rank faculty, provided

the appointment is made through regular appointment processes

consistent with all relevant academic personnel policies, including APM

190, Appendix F.

F. All faculty hired on SSGPDP funds are the responsibility of the academic

unit in which the faculty hold an appointment; therefore, should SSGPDP

funds become unavailable to pay the faculty appointment (e.g.,

discontinuation of the SSGPDP), the responsibility for the salary, merit

and promotion, and benefits for the ladder-rank faculty remains with the

academic unit in which the faculty holds an appointment. Deans and

department chairs should be aware that absorbing ladder-rank faculty

FTEs through separations would require negotiation with the campus and

could, in practice, constrain new hiring authorization after separation of

existing faculty.

In the case of faculty hired on contract or other limited-term

arrangements, the academic unit in which the appointment was made

would be expected to meet the terms of the contract or agreement and/or

follow the relevant lay-off procedures to ultimately eliminate the position.

This may require some amount of transition time and resources, and

must be considered in establishing a program reserve.

III. Admissions and Enrollment

A. An SSGPDP may allow for full and/or part-time enrollment, as approved

by the GC and in accordance with the Policy on Part-time Graduate Study

at the University of California, Berkeley, if applicable.

B. Students enrolling in an SSGPDP must be admitted by the Graduate

Division through regular admission processes, and meet the standards

and policies for enrollment and progress as established by the GC,

Graduate Division, and program.

C. Admission criteria may specify some type or period of work experience in

the field.

D. State-supported and self-supported students may enroll in the same

course, including cross-listed courses, as long as a separate accounting for

the self-supporting and state-supporting costs is made. For courses that

are part of the regular program of study and offered by another academic

unit, the SSGPDP must have an MOU in place with the participating

state-supported academic unit as to how costs will be reimbursed or

revenue from the SSGPDP shared in a manner that offsets the cost of the

SSGPDP student participation in the course. SSGPDP students must

receive approval from the SSGPDP prior to enrolling in state-supported

courses; it is the responsibility of the SSGPDP to monitor student

enrollment and it must reimburse or share revenue in accordance with

any MOUs. State-supported students may enroll in a self-supporting

course, provided they either pay the per-unit fees associated with that

course (as specified in the MOU for the SSGPDP) or their enrollment is

detailed in a courtesy agreement.

E. Courses offered as part of an SSGPDP will be opened to qualified students

from other programs if there are spare seats. No preference in enrollment

may be given to members of any non-University organization. Courses

offered by an SSGPDP are subject to the authority of the Academic

Senate; development, modification, and withdrawal of courses are guided

by the policies and processes of the Committee on Courses of Instruction.

F. Students may dual enroll in a self-supporting and a state-supported

degree program, provided they pay the tuition and/or fees associated with

each program in which they are enrolled. Students will not be required to

pay double compulsory campus fees or health insurance fees. Programs

must adhere to the deadlines established by the Registrar to ensure

tuition, fees, and charges are assessed in a timely manner. Admission to

each program must be separate and distinct using regular admission

processes for each program.

G. SSGPDP students may file for the Parenting Leave with Re-enrollment

following the established policies and procedures from the GC and

Graduate Division.

H. SSGPDP students may not register In Absentia.

I. Refund of fees should follow the regular deadlines and schedules

established for all other programs on campus.

IV. Assessing Financial Viability

A. In general, it is expected that SSGPDPs will be fully supported from the

fees collected from students in the program

B. Funds from sources other than SSGPDP revenues (“non-SSGPDP funds”)

may be used to support an SSGPDP as long as they are not state funds or

derived from the tuition or fees collected from state-supported students

(i.e., disallowed funds). Other funds may be used as seed funding or to

cover limited-term costs. Endowment funds or other permanent funding

sources may be used to defray ongoing operation costs. Consistent with

UCOP policy, the Chancellor must approve the use of non-disallowed

funds to subsidize SSGPDPs.

C. Fees must be levied such that they cover all program costs, are based on a

full and accurate assessment of program costs, and are consistent with

the market analysis. Fees must account for any campus charge for public

and common goods and services.

D. A program must maintain a prudent reserve to carry the program through

low enrollment years or a planned discontinuance. Surplus revenue, net

revenue minus program costs and a planned deposit to program reserves,

will remain with the academic unit offering the program to be distributed

as specified in any MOUs and can be used to support the academic

mission of the unit.

E. All students in on-campus SSGPDP programs (including hybrid programs

that offer 50% or more of their courses on-campus) should be charged the

Student Services Fee. Programs wishing to obtain a waiver for their

students must submit a request to the Office of the Vice Chancellor of

Finance – Chief Financial Officer.

F. All students must be covered by health insurance through the Student

Health Insurance Plan (SHIP), or private or employer-provided plans. A

SHIP waiver must be completed by those covered by private or employer-

provided insurance by the deadline established; students are responsible

for paying the SHIP and Health Services fees if their waiver is denied.

V. Student Financial Support

A. While SSGPDP proposals should explicitly consider the expected post-

graduation income and the ability of the target population for the

program to afford tuition, they must realistically assess the program’s

costs, including any return-to-aid for low-income students.

B. Students enrolled in an SSGPDP are eligible for teaching and research

appointments as outlined in Graduate Division policies (“Graduate

Student Academic Appointments”), the UC-UAW contract for academic

student employees, and other related policies.

VI. New Program Proposals

New program proposals must follow the process outlined here. Proposals to

convert a state-supported program to SSGPDP are considered similar to new

program proposals and must follow the same process; in addition, they must

provide a plan for transitioning entirely to self-supporting status after three

years.

A. If the viability of a proposed SSGPDP is not clearly demonstrated at each

step, the proposal shall not continue as-is and revision of the proposal

and a new, positive review will be required to proceed to the next step of

the process.

1. Discussion by Campus Leadership: Toward the end of each

academic year, the Council of Deans will reserve time at a meeting

to discuss potential SSGPDP proposals. A dean whose unit is

considering or developing an SSGPDP will be invited to present

his/her ideas to the Council of Deans for discussion. The GC Chair

will join the Council of Deans for this discussion, and they will

collectively assess how the proposed program aligns with the

campus’s strategic vision for graduate education, its financial

viability and financial model, and other elements of the proposed

program.

2. Market Study: A comprehensive market study based on empirical

data must be completed either by New Academic Ventures at

Berkeley (NAV-B) or a third party that addresses: the target

audience for the program, demand for the program, level of fees

that potential students may be willing to pay for the program,

existing programs that would compete for the target audience, and

potential program enrollment. The market analysis should also

identify the optimal program features, such as number of intakes,

program format, and electives. NAV-B needs to review any market

studies performed by a third party. See Attachment B for details.

3. Proposal Preparation: Following procedures outlined by the GC

and consistent with the CCGA Handbook, the lead proposer,

faculty, and sponsoring dean or department chair prepare a full

proposal in consultation with the Graduate Division. Preparation

includes development of the academic program, budget, teaching

compensation policy, faculty commitments, and required

MOUs/written agreements. The proposal must be approved by a

majority vote of the faculty in the department or school that will

host the program, in accordance with that unit’s bylaws.

a. Academic Program: Refer to GC and CCGA requirements.

b. Budget: Proposers need to consult with the Office of the Vice

Chancellor of Finance – Chief Financial Officer on budget

preparation. All academic and administrative activities must

be reflected in the financial plan and funded appropriately

for the size of the program. Additionally, proposers need to

identify an acceptable funding source (i.e., one that does not

include disallowed funds per UCOP policy). For examples of

the components of activities that should be established and

funded by SSGPDP resources, consult the SSGPDP Campus

Budget Template (Attachment A). Proposers may also be

required to submit the budget template required by UCOP.

c. Teaching Compensation Plan: Each SSGPDP must develop a

compensation plan for teaching in the SSGPDP. See section

II.C. for details.

d. Required MOUs/written agreements. See section I.J. and

Attachment B for details.

4. Academic Senate Review and Approval: After the proposal is

finalized, the Vice Provost for Graduate Studies/Dean of the

Graduate Division submits it to the GC for review. The GC requests

proposal revisions and consults with the Committee on Academic

Planning and Resource Allocation. Once GC review is completed,

the GC forwards the proposal to other Academic Senate committees

for review and approval.

5. Administration Approval: Once Academic Senate review is

completed, the Vice Provost for the Faculty reviews the proposal for

approval.

6. Coordinating Committee on Graduate Affairs (CCGA) and

UCOP Review and Approval: The Vice Provost for the Faculty

submits the approved proposal for review and approval by CCGA

and by UCOP. Other approvals may be necessary (WASC Senior

College and University Commission or Assembly of the Academic

Senate). Depending on the timing of the submission, the fee

proposal may be submitted to UCOP for approval, as well.

7. Campus Notification: After the campus is notified that the

proposal has been approved by UCOP, a director for the SSGPDP is

appointed and major and course codes are requested. If not already

submitted, the fee proposal is submitted to UCOP for approval.

Admissions are opened as regular processes allow.

8. Program Review: The GC reviews new programs after three

years, and thereafter on a regular schedule. Program Reviews

include a campus audit or budget review if requested by the Vice

Provost for Graduate Studies/Dean of the Graduate Division or

Academic Senate. SSGPDP fees are approved on an annual basis by

UCOP and coordinated by the Office of the Vice Chancellor of

Finance – Chief Financial Officer.

VII. Periodic Review, Suspension of Admissions, and

Discontinuance Procedures

Suspension of admissions and discontinuance of a SSGPDP follows a process

similar to that used for other graduate programs as outlined in the Compendium

and the Berkeley Review Process Guide, with the following exceptions:

A. Periodic Review: The GC reviews new SSGPDPs after three years, and

thereafter on a regular schedule of departmental review or more

frequently if deemed appropriate by the GC based upon prior review

outcomes. Program reviews include a campus audit or budget review if

requested by the Vice Provost for Graduate Studies/Dean of the Graduate

Division or Academic Senate. At the discretion of the GC, the Committee

on Academic Planning and Resource Allocation may be asked to review the

financial data and the Committee on Budget and Interdepartmental

Relations may be asked to review the faculty staffing, while the Divisional

Council (DIVCO) will be responsible for the final review outcome.

B. Suspension of admissions and discontinuance of the SSGPDP may be

recommended by either the dean of the administering unit or by the GC

through DIVCO based upon either current lack of financial viability or

expected future lack of financial viability, as well as for lack of student

interest, lack of academic rigor or lack of market need. The Vice Provost

for Graduate Studies/Dean of Graduate Division will make the final

determination about suspending admissions in consultation with the

Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost and Chair of the GC. The proposed

discontinuance of a SSGPDP will follow campus and system-wide

procedures.

C. A phase-out plan must be developed in consultation with program faculty,

students, and staff that identifies the steps and costs necessary to guide the

remaining students to successful completion of the program. The plan

should note the responsibilities of the faculty, the responsible academic

unit, and the sponsoring dean or department chair throughout phase-out.

Attachment A: Campus Budget Template

NB: This template is subject to change on the recommendation of the Office of the Vice Chancellor of Finance - Chief Financial Officer.

Pro Forma Income Statement Years 1-10: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Revenue

Program Fee Revenue -$ 1,560,000$ 2,712,000$ 3,648,000$ 3,960,000$ 4,104,000$ 4,248,000$ 4,392,000$ 4,536,000$ 4,728,000$

Financial Aid Contra Revenue -$ -$ -$ (364,800)$ (594,000)$ (718,200)$ (849,600)$ (878,400)$ (907,200)$ (945,600)$

Total Revenue -$ 1,560,000$ 2,712,000$ 3,283,200$ 3,366,000$ 3,385,800$ 3,398,400$ 3,513,600$ 3,628,800$ 3,782,400$

Expenses

Internal Expenses

Teaching Expenses

Faculty Online Course Development 120,000$ 160,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$

Ladder Faculty Online Teaching - - - - - - - - - -

Lecturer Online Teaching - - - - - - - - - -

Ladder Faculty Classroom Teaching - 60,000 60,000 60,000 120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000

Lecturer Classroom Teaching - 36,000 36,000 36,000 72,000 72,000 72,000 72,000 72,000 72,000

GSIs - Online Teaching - - - - - - - - - -

GSIs - Classroom Teaching - 108,000 216,000 252,000 288,000 288,000 288,000 288,000 288,000 288,000

Total Teaching Expenses 120,000 364,000 392,000 428,000 560,000 560,000 560,000 560,000 560,000 560,000

Other Academic Expenses

Classroom Space - 39,000 67,800 91,200 99,000 102,600 106,200 109,800 113,400 118,200

Other - External Facilities Costs - - - - - - - - - -

Total Other Academic Expenses - 39,000 67,800 91,200 99,000 102,600 106,200 109,800 113,400 118,200

Administration and Services Staff

Total Admin Staff Headcount - 3.00 4.50 6.00 6.00 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50

Admissions - 118,400 177,600 236,800 236,800 296,000 296,000 296,000 296,000 296,000

Student Support - 59,200 118,400 118,400 118,400 177,600 177,600 177,600 177,600 177,600

Career Services - 59,200 59,200 118,400 118,400 118,400 118,400 118,400 118,400 118,400

Other Staff, Variable (e.g., admin support) - 74,000 111,000 148,000 148,000 185,000 185,000 185,000 185,000 185,000

Other Staff, Fixed (e.g., Director) 148,000 148,000 148,000 148,000 148,000 148,000 148,000 148,000 148,000 148,000

Misc. Staff Expenses - 30,000 45,000 60,000 60,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000

Physical Space for Admin Staff - 4,500 6,750 9,000 9,000 11,250 11,250 11,250 11,250 11,250

Other Costs - - - - - - - - - -

Total Administration and Services Staff 148,000 493,300 665,950 838,600 838,600 1,011,250 1,011,250 1,011,250 1,011,250 1,011,250

Marketing and Recruitment

Marketing Staff 236,800 236,800 236,800 236,800 236,800 236,800 236,800 236,800 236,800 236,800

Advertising 83,333 208,333 291,667 339,583 352,083 364,583 377,083 389,583 404,167 412,500

Total Marketing and Recruitment 320,133 445,133 528,467 576,383 588,883 601,383 613,883 626,383 640,967 649,300

Total Internal Expenses 588,133 1,341,433 1,654,217 1,934,183 2,086,483 2,275,233 2,291,333 2,307,433 2,325,617 2,338,750

Payments to BRCOE or Outside Vendor for Services (if costs listed, provide detailed cost breakdown as separate spreadsheet)

Payment to Vendor 1, e.g., online course development -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Payment to Vendor 2, e.g., marketing and recruitment -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Payment to Vendor 3, e.g., technology support -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Total Payments to Contract Provider(s) - - - - - - - - - -

Program Indirect Expenditures

Campus Assessment -$ 234,000$ 406,800$ 492,480$ 504,900$ 507,870$ 509,760$ 527,040$ 544,320$ 567,360$

Total Program Indirect Expenses -$ 234,000$ 406,800$ 492,480$ 504,900$ 507,870$ 509,760$ 527,040$ 544,320$ 567,360$

Total Expenses 588,133$ 1,575,433$ 2,061,017$ 2,426,663$ 2,591,383$ 2,783,103$ 2,801,093$ 2,834,473$ 2,869,937$ 2,906,110$

Program Net Revenue (588,133)$ (15,433)$ 650,983$ 856,537$ 774,617$ 602,697$ 597,307$ 679,127$ 758,863$ 876,290$

Cumulative Program Net Revenue (588,133)$ (603,567)$ 47,417$ 903,953$ 1,678,570$ 2,281,267$ 2,878,573$ 3,557,700$ 4,316,563$ 5,192,853$

Cumulative Campus Assessment -$ 234,000$ 640,800$ 1,133,280$ 1,638,180$ 2,146,050$ 2,655,810$ 3,182,850$ 3,727,170$ 4,294,530$

Cumulative Total University Net Revenue (588,133)$ (369,567)$ 688,217$ 2,037,233$ 3,316,750$ 4,427,317$ 5,534,383$ 6,740,550$ 8,043,733$ 9,487,383$

Program Breakeven Year 3

Maximum Investment (603,567)

Program Net Present Value (NPV) (years 1-10) 1,742,997$

Program Terminal Value (NPV of years 11+) 894,174$

Total NPV 2,637,171$

PROPOSED PRO FORMA INCOME STATEMENT - SELF-SUPPORTING GRADUATE PROFESSIONAL DEGREE PROGRAMS (SSGPDP)

SAMPLE HYBRID PROGRAM

Attachment B: Market Study Design Principles and Marketing Strategy at

Launch

What criteria should be used to ensure that the market study is capturing

the appropriate population?

Selecting the appropriate population—or the right sample in marketing parlance—is essential to

the research process. Academic or administrative units undertaking marketing research should

plan to allocate a budget to working with a professional firm that supplies panels. While

potentially expensive, these companies will undertake the significant task of recruiting and

screening the target audience. Departments should avoid the impulse to survey current students

or alumni for quantitative surveys, as these populations come with significant research biases.

Specific criteria that researchers should utilize and that program proposal reviewers should

assess will vary depending on the specific SSGPDP being proposed. For example, a campus-

based part-time program geared toward early career professionals in the Bay Area might want to

include the following demographic conditions in the survey criteria:

• Age: At least 22 years old

• Academics: Earned undergraduate degree

• Work experience: 2–10 years

• Location: Within 20 miles of campus

• Employment Status: Full-time

More general criteria to include simply for analysis:

• Gender

• Race

• Current Occupation

• Current Industry

• Income

These last three are particularly important for a program designed to facilitate a career change.

The responses will help determine if a respondent has the financial means and basic background

to make the switch.

In addition, a quality survey will seek to screen for respondents’ attitudes and beliefs. This

includes querying whether respondents intend to pursue additional education in the next

several years. Other elements include:

• Clearly defined set of research objectives

• Balance of secondary and primary data

• Mix of qualitative and quantitative methods guided by those objectives

• Carefully procured and screened sample for each research component

• Appropriate emphasis on enrollment forecasting and market sizing as well as program

interest

• Professional survey software

What criteria should be used to evaluate the results of the market survey to

ensure sufficient interest in the program?

For SSGPDPs there is an important distinction between interest amongst the target population

and the actual size of that population. A well-designed survey using a professionally-procured

sample will indicate interest in the proposed program, but that is separate from determining the

quantity of those individuals in the market for the proposed program. For example, the survey

may reveal that 90% of respondents have a highly favorable impression of the program. That in

itself, however, does not yield sufficient insight into the number of people at that 90% threshold.

For this latter objective, specific criteria that researchers should utilize and that program

proposal reviewers should assess include the following, all of which should match the specific

SSGPDP proposed. For example, a fully online degree targeting mid-career professionals would

include the following relevant information:

• IPEDS data: This determines the number of degrees granted in the field by the number

of institutions. As directional data, it is helpful if the proposed SSGPDP is in an area that

is relatively big and growing. Niche programs are difficult to market, and large ones with

small growth rates are likely saturated.

• Online advertising estimators: Several vendors will provide free tools to estimate the

number of students actively searching for a type of degree program. Even if the program

does not utilize this type of marketing, it’s helpful to assess whether there are hundreds

of thousands of searches per year (as is the case for established degrees like MBAs) or

hundreds per year, which can be the case for an offering in a new field.

• Job market: Most professional degrees will appeal to students seeking career

advancement or transition. Assessing the availability and growth in job postings is the

most direct way to understand if graduates will have opportunities. Several services now

compile and aggregate many online job postings nationally.

The market study should estimate not only demand but also enrollments. Procuring a strong

sample for the market study and using the criteria above will yield a general market interest and

size but competition, admissions standards, and natural attrition will often winnow this larger

pool into a much smaller cohort. SSGPDP proposals should show evidence of modeling the

entire marketing and application process; the following framework is just one example with

sample numbers provided for clarity.

Number

Type

Definition

2,100

Leads

Total number of students

expressing interest

20%

Application Start Rate

Percentage of leads that

begin an application

420

Application Starts

The product of 20% x

2100

25%

Application Submit Rate

Percentage of starts that

finish an application

105

Application Submits

The product of 25% x 420

30%

Admit Rate

Percentage of applicants

that are admitted

Admits

The product of 30% x 105

75%

Yield

Percentage of admitted

students that attend

Enrollments

The product of 75% x 32

Marketing Strategy at Launch

In addition, when programs prepare to launch, they should note the following:

• Academic units should prepare for a significant marketing effort to launch and maintain

an SSGPDP. These programs will typically require building awareness and potentially

more intensive outreach to compel students to attend. The specific marketing strategies

will depend on the nature of the market; if an academic unit is the first to offer a unique

program, marketing must provide credibility and clear outcomes whereas an SSGPDP

entering a very crowded field will need to provide a powerful alternative.

• Regardless of the specific strategies, marketing an SSGPDP will likely require a major

institutional push and advertising investment. This means engaging senior academic

leaders and faculty in media relations and PR, as well generally heavily repurposing

existing channels such as the website and social media. Advertising is commonly the

best means for reaching a larger number of students. As more universities use this tool

for growing SSGPDPs, however, the cost increases.

• Planning the marketing strategy and modeling the costs may require additional skillsets

than currently employed by an academic unit to enroll an existing program. As such,

academic leaders may wish to engage with internal or external partners.

• The marketing and admissions departments should collaborate closely to ensure a

shared vision of a successful student. An SSGPDP may attract a very different population

that requires creative messaging from marketers and new evaluation rubrics from

admissions. For instance, a program may attract a more experienced working population

than a current state-supported equivalent, which means more heavily weighing

professional skills.

16!

Attachment C: New Program Proposal Review Workflow

! ! !

! amd!

! ! ! !

!!!!!!!!

^!As!of!July!1,!2017,!the!WASC!Senior!College!and!University!Commi ssion!requires!all!new!degree!programs!to!complete!a!brief!

Substantive!Change!Screening!Form.!These!forms!will!be!submitted!during!campus!review!of!the!proposal.!WSCUC!staff!will!

review!the!form!to!d etermine!if!the!proposed!program!represents!a!change!significant!enough!to!warrant!"substantive!change!

review".!If!subs tantive!change!review!must!be!conducted,!the!campus!will!assist!with!completion!of!that!process.!

*!GC:!Graduate!Council,!CAPRA:!Committee!on!Academic!Planning!and!Resource!Allocation,!BIR:!Committee!on!Budget!and!

Interdepartmental!Relations ,!DIVCO:!Divisional!Council.!

Discussion!at!

Council!of!

Deans!

meeting!!

Development!

of!proposal!

(in!

consultation!

with!

Graduate!

Division)!

Academic!Senate!

review!(GC,!

CAPRA,!BIR,!

DIVCO*)!

Vice!

Provost!for!

the!Faculty!

Review!

CCGA!

revi ew!

UCOP!

revi ew!

Academic!Council!

revi ew!!

CAMPUS^

SYSTEMWIDE

Commission!

of!complete!

market!study!

Development!

of!complete!

financial!

model!

Attachment D: Sample MOU Templates

NB: This sample is provided as a possible template. Academic units are welcome to

substitute their own MOU or modify this template as needed to best suit their needs.

-------------------------

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

Enrollment of Students from the Master of [name of degree program]

The [name of academic unit] agrees to allow students from the Master of [name of

degree program] to enroll in the following courses as long as seats are available.

Students from state-supported programs shall not be denied seats in favor of self-

supporting degree students.

[list courses]

In consideration for each enrolled student, an amount equal to the UC Extension

Concurrent Enrollment fee will be charged (current rate is [amount] per unit). The

current concurrent enrollment fee can be found at

https://extension.berkeley.edu/static/studentservices/concurrent.

This MOU will become effective on [date] and will be in effect for [x] years, with renewal

based on the mutual agreement of the deans/department chairs. Responsibility to meet

the terms of this MOU shall pass to all future deans/department chairs.

This MOU may be terminated before the expiration of the initial term or a renewal term

upon written agreement of all parties.

Authorizing Signatures and Dates

______________________________

Signature

______________________________

Print Name

______________________________

Title and Program

______________________________

Date

______________________________

Signature

______________________________

Print Name

______________________________

Title and Program

______________________________

Date

______________________________

Signature

______________________________

Print Name

______________________________

Title and Program

______________________________

Date

______________________________

Signature

______________________________

Print Name

______________________________

Title and Program

______________________________

Date

NB: This sample is provided as a possible template between an SSGPDP and faculty

from another academic unit and her/his dean/department chair when that faculty

member will teach in the SSGPDP. Academic units are welcome to substitute their own

MOU or modify this template as needed to best suit their needs.

-------------------------

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

Master of [name of degree program]

This Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) establishes an agreement with [list

academic unit with degree program] to allow faculty from [list academic unit of faculty] to

develop and/or teach courses offered by the Master of [name of degree program],

hereafter referred to as “the Program”.

I. Responsibilities with Respect to Faculty Effort

A. [Dean/Chair] of [name of home academic unit of participating faculty

member below] commits to ensure that [list course(s)] will be taught and

refreshed as needed by Professor [name] so that the course can be

provided to the Program per the terms of this MOU.

[Specify how this teaching will count toward a participating faculty

member’s teaching obligation in her/his academic unit(s).]

B. Professor [name] agrees to develop and teach the course for [number]

years for the Program, with development beginning [term/month and year]

and teaching starting in [term/year].

II. Payment for Faculty Effort*

A. [Specify how the faculty will be compensated for their time]

III Term and Termination

This MOU will become effective on [date] and will be in effect for [x] years, with

renewal based on the mutual agreement of the deans/department chairs.

Responsibility to meet the terms of this MOU shall pass to all future

deans/department chairs.

This MOU may be terminated before the expiration of the initial term or a renewal

term upon written agreement of all parties.

* APM 662 (Additional Compensation: Additional Teaching) may apply.

Authorizing Signatures of Deans/Department Chairs and Participating Faculty

with Dates

______________________________

Signature

______________________________

Print Name

______________________________

Title and Program

______________________________

Date

______________________________

Signature

______________________________

Print Name

______________________________

Title and Program

______________________________

Date

______________________________

Signature

______________________________

Print Name

______________________________

Title and Program

______________________________

Date

______________________________

Signature

______________________________

Print Name

______________________________

Title and Program

______________________________

Date

______________________________

Signature

______________________________

Print Name

______________________________

Title and Program

______________________________

Date

______________________________

Signature

______________________________

Print Name

______________________________

Title and Program

______________________________

Date