4.1 Programs and Degrees

A. Credit Hour Policy (Credit Hour Definition)

As a postsecondary institution, Piedmont University is responsible for defining a credit hour and for ensuring that the credit hours awarded for courses and programs conform to commonly accepted practices in higher education. The University adheres to the federal definition of a credit hour as published by the United States Department of Education in the Federal Register (75FR66832) on October 29, 2010. The Department defines a credit hour as:

1. An amount of work represented in intended learning outcomes and verified by evidence of student achievement that is an institutionally established equivalency that reasonably approximates not less than:

a. One hour of classroom or direct faculty instruction and a minimum of two hours of out-of-class student work each week for one semester; or

b. At least an equivalent amount of work as required in paragraph (1) of this definition for other academic activities as established by the institution, including laboratory work, internships, practica, studio work, and other academic work leading to the awarding of credit hours. (34 CFR 600.2)

For the purposes of this definition, an instructional hour equates to 50 minutes, the unit of measure used by the National Center for Education Statistics Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS).

Course Length

The institutional established equivalences to the federal definition of the credit hour at Piedmont University are listed below.

1. Direct instruction courses must include one 50 minute period with the instructor, which is 750 minutes for each credit hour awarded.

Fifty (50) minutes x 15 weeks = 750 minutes

The standard expectation for direct instruction classes is that students will spend a minimum of two hours outside the classroom for each hour spent in class.

2. For laboratory classes, labs must meet for a minimum of 50 minutes per week, or 750 minutes, over the course of the semester.

(50 x 1) x 15 weeks = 750 minutes = 1 credit hour

Unless otherwise specified by professional accreditation standards, the formula for awarding credit hours for internships, practica, clinicals, and studio work is the same as the formula for laboratory classes.

3. Combined lecture/laboratory courses should be designed in accordance with the guidelines outlined above, even if there is no discrete break between the lecture and laboratory components for the course.

This credit hour policy applies to all courses at the undergraduate and graduate level that award academic credit (i.e., any course that appears on an official transcript issued by the University) regardless of the mode of delivery including, but not limited to, self-paced, online, and hybrid. Academic units are responsible for ensuring that credit hours are awarded only for work that meets the requirements outlined in this policy.

Courses that are offered on a schedule other than the full 15-week semester are prorated so they contain the same number of hours as if the course were scheduled for a full semester. To maintain the integrity of the instructional program, care must be taken when scheduling short courses so that there is adequate time for student to complete homework assignments or laboratory work, internships, practical, clinicals, and studio work.

Program Length

For the purposes of this policy, Piedmont University has established the following standards for program length:

Degree Type	Minimum Credit Hours
Baccalaureate	120 semester credit hours
Master’s	30
Specialist	30
Doctoral	60

B. General Education

Recommendations and requests for changes to General Education graduation requirements and/or General Education courses may be initiated by an individual faculty member, an academic school or department, or a faculty committee.

Procedures to initiate a request for modification of general education requirements and courses are as follows:

General Education Procedure for Curriculum Changes:

A general education curriculum change is a substantial change to existing general education curriculum categories and outcomes.

1. A Department, College, School, Committee, or the Faculty Senate prepares and submits proposal to the General Education Committee.

2. General Education Committee Chair adds proposal to agenda for next committee meeting. Documents are sent out to committee members.

3. General Education Committee discusses the proposal and uses the monthly meetings to get feedback from departments and schools/colleges.

4. General Education Committee debates and then votes on the proposal. A majority of members is needed for the proposal to pass.

5. The proposal then goes to Faculty Senate. Faculty Senate decides what should happen to the proposal based on discussion and vote. If the proposal passes, then it goes to the Faculty Assembly.

6. The Faculty Assembly is introduced to the new proposal in a first reading. In a second meeting, the Faculty Assembly debates and votes.

7. The Vice President for Academic Affairs signs off on the change which is then communicated to the Registrar, departments, faculty and students.

General Education Procedure for Course Changes:

A general education course change is a non-substantial change involving the addition and/or removal of a course in existing general education curriculum categories and outcomes.

1. Faculty member teaching the course submits Core Curriculum Course Selection form and syllabus to Department Chair for signature.

2. Department Chair signs form and sends to General Education Committee.

3. General Education Committee Chair adds the course addition/removal proposal to the next meeting’s agenda for a first reading and discussion. Documents (form, syllabus, and rubric if applicable) are sent out to committee members, departments, and schools/colleges for feedback.

4. At the next meeting, General Education Committee Chair introduces proposal for a course to be added/removed to/from category. The proposal is debated and voted on within the meeting. If it passes with a 2/3 majority of the total number of committee members, it passes and goes on to the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences for approval and signature. If it passes with a simple majority, it then goes to Faculty Senate and follows the procedure outlined in the policy for General Education Curriculum Changes beginning with step 5 (above).

5. If approved by the General Education Committee, the form then goes to the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences for approval and signature.

6. If approved, the form then goes to the Vice President for Academic Affairs for approval and signature.

7. The Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs notifies Registrar, faculty member, department chair, dean and Gen Ed committee chair that the course has been approved for inclusion in/removal from the general education curriculum. The general education curriculum. General education curriculum model, WebAdvisor, and Student Planning are updated. Information is shared via PilgrimNet, schools/colleges, and department chairs.

C. Other Curriculum/Programs/Degrees

Recommendations and requests for changes to academic programs, other than General Education graduation requirements and/or General Education courses, may be initiated by an individual faculty member, an academic college, school or department, or a faculty committee. In initiating a request for such changes, the procedures are defined and administered as follows:

The initiator prepares a New Program Proposal or Substantive Change to an Existing Program Form and/or other form(s) as may be required by the Vice President for Academic Affairs.*
The completed form(s) and proposal are submitted to the appropriate academic unit-level administrator (e.g., department chair, school dean or associate dean, or committee chair). Where proposals affect several academic units within or across colleges, the units are encouraged to collaborate on the proposal.
The appropriate academic administrator (department chair, committee chair, school dean or associate dean) holds a vote on the proposal among the faculty in the unit. Following each vote (whether positive, negative, or forwarded with no recommendation), the administrator provides the result to their next higher-level academic administrator. When the vote is positive, the administrator who held the vote will send the proposal, their own recommendation, the results of the faculty vote, and the completed form(s) to the next-higher-level administrator, whose review is based on the general policies, operations, and financial aspects of the university as a whole.
Given that University academic units have different internal organizations, the following guidelines clarify the appropriate flow for curricular proposals from lower to higher-level units:
1. College of Arts and Sciences: There are usually two levels of units for faculty votes on curriculum proposals. The first level is the department. Votes within the department are conducted by the department chair or an associate dean. Following department-level votes, proposals are forwarded to the dean of the college. The dean or dean’s designee then holds a second vote at the school level—either the School of Humanities and Sciences or the School of Fine Arts, as appropriate. Curricular proposals deemed to have college-wide impact are to be voted on at yet a third level—the entire faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences.
2. Walker College of Business: For purposes of curricular votes, the academic unit is the college as a whole. The dean of the college or the dean’s designee conducts the vote among the unit faculty.
3. College of Education: There are usually two levels of units for faculty votes on curriculum proposals. The first level is the department. Votes within the department are conducted by the department chair or an associate dean. Following department-level votes, proposals are forwarded to the dean of the college. The dean or dean’s designee then holds a second vote at the college level.
1. College of Nursing and Health Sciences: For purposes of curricular votes, the academic unit is normally the school—either the Daniel School of Nursing and Health Sciences, the School of Health Sciences, or the School of Rehabilitative Sciences. Votes within the school are conducted either by the college dean or the dean’s designee. Curricular proposals deemed to have college-wide impact are to be voted on at a second level—the entire faculty of the College of Nursing and Health Sciences.
2. University Committees: With the exception of the General Education Committee, which follows a distinct curriculum change policy, committees of the University with faculty representation from different colleges are to follow a uniform curriculum change process. The committee chair holds the vote among committee members and provides the results to the Vice President for Academic Affairs.
If the curriculum proposal approved within one college or committee involves curricular changes significantly impacting faculty, students and/or curriculums in one or more other colleges, the Vice President for Academic Affairs will direct that the proposal be submitted to the affected colleges for faculty vote. Where colleges are not able to resolve disagreements over curricular changes, the Vice President for Academic Affairs will convene the Academic Leadership Council to review the proposal to assure the broadest perspectives on the matter and to assist with adjudication of the disagreement.
The Vice President for Academic Affairs may also convene the Academic Leadership Council to initiate university-wide curriculum changes for programs other than General Education that are not housed within any individual college.
When required and/or appropriate, the Vice President for Academic Affairs will forward curriculum change recommendations to the President. When required and/or appropriate, the President will present the proposal to the Board of Trustees for approval. Upon approval from the Board of Trustees and/or the President, the change(s) is (are) submitted to the Vice President for Academic Affairs who will make the required notifications as outlined on the proposal documents, including to the Registrar, to be recorded in all appropriate University documents.
At any time in the above process, the proposal may be returned to the appropriate unit or person(s) for revision and resubmission.

*For substantive changes requiring approval by the SACSCOC Executive Council of the Board of Trustees (which meets year-round), submission deadlines are as follows:

January 1 for changes to be implemented July 1 through December 31 of the same calendar year, and
July 1 for changes to be implemented January 1 through June 30 of the subsequent calendar year.

Changes requiring approval cannot be implemented until approved by the SACSCOC Board of Trustees.

In order for a program change to be included on the Common App used by prospective university students, Piedmont’s Undergraduate Admissions Office must be notified no later than May 31 of the calendar year prior to the implementation of the change.

Procedures:

See above.

D. Academic Program Accountability Policy

The long-term success of Piedmont University depends upon stable enrollments in academic programs to ensure the financial viability of the institution. While certain majors will historically attract smaller enrollments than others, nevertheless an appropriate balance between the desirability of a major/program or its place within a liberal arts curriculum and its usefulness and/or financial viability must be maintained. Each year key performance indicators will be evaluated for each program, including majors and concentrations, in their respective areas.

These KPIs will include the following statistics from the previous five years complied by the Registrar’s Office, the Office of Institutional Research, the Academic Deans, Undergraduate and Graduate Admissions, and the Vice President for Academic Affairs:

Provided by Undergraduate and Graduate Admissions:

Number of Applications for the program from prospective students (from TargetX, etc.)

Provided by Institutional Research:

Program completion data from national data systems (from IPEDS and Emsi)
Labor market analysis for the program (from Emsi);

Provided by Registrar’s Office:

Number of students enrolled in the program;
Retention of students in the program (headcount and percentage) by class year;
Retention of students from the program at the University (headcount and percentage) for students who have switched to a different program;
Graduation rate of students in the program/headcount;
Faculty/student ratios for all courses;

Provided by Vice President for Academic Affairs:

Faculty credit hours generated; and,

Provided by Academic Deans:

Pass rates for professional programs (where applicable).

Each fall, the Vice President for Academic Affairs, the Senior Vice President of Administration and Finance, the Director of Financial Aid, and the dean of each college/school will examine the APAP reports as part of their review of all annual reports. Based upon their review, an academic program deemed to be of questionable viability will be designated an underperforming program.

The Vice President for Academic Affairs, in concert with the respective academic dean, will notify any program chairs of this determination soon after the review. The departmental faculty will then be responsible for developing and implementing a corrective action plan.

They may call upon the resources of any office of the University to develop and execute their action plan. The program will be reassessed at the end of the second academic year after the year of notification. (This gives a half year to develop plan and two years for execution.)

Underperforming programs that have not made improvements within the allotted time will be designated Closed. Departmental faculty may appeal this determination by providing data from state, regional, and national sources to prove that the program is still viable. The appeal will be reviewed by the Vice President for Academic Affairs. In the absence of a positive appeal, the Vice President for Academic Affairs will notify the President who will suspend admission to the program. The Academic Dean will work with the faculty of the program to develop a teach-out strategy and identify a date that the program will close.

Subsequent reinstatement of a program must be submitted as a proposal for a new program, as noted in Policy 4.1.C (Piedmont University Policies).

In exceptional circumstances, the President may, with the approval of the Board of Trustees or its Executive Committee, authorize the temporary suspension of an educational program, degree, or major for a period not to exceed two (2) academic years to allow for program review, to consider enrollment problems, to deal with faculty shortages, or for other similar reasons.

E. Substantive Change Policy

Purpose

The University is obligated to report certain academic and administrative changes to the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC), and in many instances must seek approval before initiating the change.

This Policy and related Procedures are designed to ensure that all substantive changes are reported to the Commission in a timely fashion.

Policy

As delegated by the University’s Board of Trustees, development and oversight of academic programs culminating in the awarding of academic degrees from Piedmont University are governed by appropriate Faculty Bylaws. Once formally approved by appropriate faculty governance entities, new degree, major, minors; substantive changes to an existing program; or the establishment of joint or dual degree programs are implemented by the University’s administration in consultation with those faculty.

Review and Approval Process

Departments, programs, faculty, staff, or administrators considering new academic programs or revision of existing programs are strongly encouraged to meet with the appropriate faculty governance body (if required), Dean(s), and Vice President for Academic Affairs as early as possible in the development process to discuss program changes, resource needs, and substantive change documentation, as required. Proposals for all new programs must include justification and rationale based on the University’s mission, institutional plan, available resources, and the needs of students.

Sponsoring department, program, or faculty committees develop a proposal as outlined in the Guidelines for New Program Proposal or Substantive Change of an Existing Program available in the Vice President for Academic Affairs Office.

Proposals bearing appropriate approvals from department, program, or committee chairs are then passed to the respective Dean, Vice President for Academic Affairs, President, and Board of Trustees (if required) for administrative review and approval.

Responsibility for Reporting Changes

After receiving appropriate approvals, the Vice President for Academic Affairs Office will submit the changes in writing to the University’s Accreditation Liaison, to assure that appropriate changes are communicated to SACSCOC as required by SACSCOC Policy and/or federal law.

All official communications with SACSCOC will be conducted by the university’s designated SACSCOC Liaison. The Accreditation Liaison will prepare notification to SACSCOC for the University President’s signature, and will track the subsequent correspondence to its completion, keeping all affected parties informed of the progress. All official documents submitted to SACSCOC must be addressed to the President of SACSCOC.

Lead Time Required

A six-month lead time for SACSCOC approvals is required for many changes. Approved documents must be submitted to the Accreditation Liaison at least seven (7) months before implementing any substantive change for new programs in order to assure that deadlines are met. The Liaison can determine if a full six (6) months will be required for approval; some changes will require only notification to SACSCOC before they are implemented.

Approvals to offer existing programs at new locations must be submitted to SACSCOC three (3) months in advance of offering coursework at said location. Coursework may not begin at any location with prior SACSCOC approval.

Definitions of Substantive Changes

A substantive change is a significant modification or expansion of the nature and scope of an accredited institution. Under federal regulations, substantive change includes the following.
Frequent changes at this University have been emboldened.
Any change in the established mission or objectives of the institution
Any change in legal status, form of control, or ownership of the institution
The addition of courses or programs, including certificate programs that represent a significant departure, either in content or method of delivery, from those that were offered when the institution was last evaluated
Entering into a collaborative academic arrangement that includes only the initiation of a dual or joint academic program with another institution (See SACSCOC Policy and Procedure on
“Agreements Involving joint and Dual Academic Awards” at: https://sacscoc.org/app/uploads/2019/08/JointDualAwards.pdf
Entering into a contract by which an entity not eligible for Title IV funding offers 25% or more of one or more of the accredited institution’s programs (See SACSCOC Policy and Procedure on “Agreements Involving joint and Dual Academic Awards” at: https://sacscoc.org/app/uploads/2019/08/JointDualAwards.pdf
The addition of courses or programs of study at a degree or credential level different from that which is included in the institution’s current accreditation or reaffirmation
A change from clock hours to credit hours
A substantial increase in the number of clock or credit hours awarded for successful completion of a program
The establishment of an additional location geographically apart from the main campus at which the institution offers at least 25% of an educational program. (This includes Early University High School and dual enrollment programs at high schools. “Programs” include Associate degrees and/or Certificate programs.)
When a location geographically apart from the main campus first offers more than 50% of any educational program. This includes Early University High School and dual enrollment programs at high schools. “Programs” include Associate degrees and/or certificate programs.
Relocating a main or branch campus or an off campus site
The establishment of a branch campus
Closing a program, off-campus site, branch campus or institution
Entering into a collaborative academic arrangement to offer courses or programs or a dual or joint academic program with another institution
Acquiring another institution or a program or location of another institution
Adding a permanent location at a site where the institution is conducting a teach-out program for a closed institution
Entering into a contract with an entity not certified to participate in USDOE Title IV programs
Initiating a degree completion program.

For a complete explanation of required actions, a glossary of terms and the specific requirements for each type of change, see the SASCOC current policy on Substantive Changes at https://sacscoc.org/app/uploads/2019/08/SubstantiveChange.pdf.

Review of the Effectiveness of the Policy and Procedure: Reports of compliance and the effectiveness of this Policy and the related Procedure will be made annually in January to the President, and senior administrators.

Responsible Authority: The Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs is responsible for communicating, publishing and implementing this policy.

F. Admissions Policies

Every student admitted to any program within the university must meet the requirements for the respective degree and/or program as outlined in the university catalog. Applicants must submit transcripts of all secondary and university work and must follow the application procedures specified by the institution to which they are applying.
Admissions policies will be reviewed biennially by the Faculty Senate Admissions and Standards Committee to ascertain that policies are adequate and support the mission and vision of the university.

Recommendations and requests for changes to admissions requirements may be initiated by the admissions department, an academic school or department, or a faculty committee.

1. The initiator will prepare a written proposal and submit to the respective dean and Vice President for Academic Affairs.

2. The proposal is then submitted to the appropriate department chair and/or committee within the respective schools. Where proposals affect several academic units, the units are encouraged to collaborate on the proposal.

3. The department chair, after conducting a vote (positive, negative, or forward with no recommendation) among the departmental faculty, sends his/her recommendation, the results of the departmental vote, and response to the proposal to the appropriate dean whose review is based on the general policies, operations, and financial aspects of the school as a whole. The dean, after conducting a vote among the college/school’s faculty, will make a recommendation to the Vice President for Academic Affairs.

4. The dean’s recommendation, the results of the departmental and school votes, and response to the proposal are submitted to the Vice President for Academic Affairs whose review is based on the general policies, operations, and financial aspects of the University as a whole. The Vice President for Academic Affairs shall solicit recommendations in the form of a vote from the Faculty Senate and also consult with the Deans Council regarding proposed changes.

5. At any time in the above process, the proposal may be returned to the appropriate unit or person(s) for revision and resubmission.

Up one level

Section 4 - Faculty and Academic Policies and Procedures