At UMBC, the creation and evolution of academic programs are faculty-driven endeavors rooted in our commitment to shared governance. While many curricular updates are handled internally, some academic program changes require formal coordination with the University System of Maryland (USM) and the Maryland Higher Education Commission (MHEC).
The Office of the Provost serves as the primary liaison for these internal and external reviews, ensuring that all new initiatives align with UMBC’s mission and are supported by sustainable resource planning.
Need Assistance?
For guidance on new programs or curriculum changes, please reach out to the Provost’s Academic Program Development team at academicproposals@umbc.edu.
New Courses and Changes to Existing Courses
Proposals for new courses or modifications to existing ones follow a review path through departmental, college-level, and university-wide committees. Please contact your department administrator or the Undergraduate Council and Graduate Council for specific guidance.
New Academic Programs
An exploratory conversation with the Assistant Vice Provost for Curriculum Development is suggested before proposing a new academic program. Appointments can be scheduled here.
A new academic program requires successful completion of the following steps.
STEP 1
Program Concept Note
If a college/school’s leadership supports a faculty member’s idea for a new program, they submit a Concept Note to the Program Concept Group, a body of internal stakeholders, by way of academicproposals@umbc.edu.
Once the concept is greenlit, the Faculty Lead writes a letter of intent (LOI).
USM Circulation Period: The Office of the Provost submits the LOI to the USM. It is circulated to other USM institutions for a review period.
MHEC LOI Review (Graduate Only): For graduate programs, the LOI is also submitted to MHEC for an initial review.
STEP 2
Full Proposal Development & Internal Governance
Upon successful completion of the LOI stage, the full proposal development begins. Upon proposal completion, it is routed for internal approval by key stakeholders, the Provost, and the President.
STEP 3
USM/MHEC Review
After institutional approval, the Provost’s Office submits the proposal to USM and MHEC. MHEC circulates the proposal statewide. Once approved, implementation begins to prepare for enrollment.
Standalone certificates that require new coursework or do not reside within a parent degree are treated as a new academic program and follow the full process outlined above.
Substantial Modification to Existing Programs
MHEC defines a substantial modification as a change to more than 50% of major coursework, establishing or substantially revising an Area of Concentration, or offering an existing program at a new location (off-campus/regional higher education center). Departments should first consult with the Office of the Provost to determine if revisions meet this threshold. Substantial modifications require full internal approval and submission to USM and MHEC for approval.
Non-Substantial Program Modifications
These include changes that do not trigger the 50% MHEC threshold, such as a new certificate in an existing degree program, modality change, program title change, CIP/HEGIS code change, or program discontinuation or suspension. UMBC may be required to notify MHEC of changes in this category. Please consult the Office of the Provost before making any changes.
Program Development Timeline
Developing a new program is an intensive endeavor that requires significant commitment and coordination across the university. Successful teams often dedicate a full year or more to drafting, incorporating feedback from stakeholders, and addressing budget and resource requirements. One should plan for at least 12 months of consistent development, writing, and refinement to move a proposal through the necessary internal and external approval stages.
Actual approval times can shift based on a variety of internal and external factors that naturally arise during the development process. In addition to sustained proposal development, progress depends on specific committee meeting schedules and any revisions requested during the internal shared governance process. Finally, external requirements from the USM and MHEC play a significant role in the launch date.