Framework and Guidelines for a Proposal to the APG

The Academic Planning Group (APG) is a group of faculty administrators on the President’s Cabinet who hold University-wide leadership roles with responsibilities for guiding the academic mission of the University as a whole.  Its members are the president, the provost (who, according to Chapter II.B of Rules and Procedures of the Faculty, chairs the meetings), the dean of the faculty, the dean of the College, the dean of the Graduate School, and the dean for research.  The vice provost for academic affairs serves as secretary.  Deputies of APG members and other members of their senior staff may be invited to attend APG meetings, depending on agenda items. The group meets approximately every other week during the academic year.  The group also convenes for a series of meetings over the course of a week during the summer.  

Rules and Procedures of the Faculty (Chapter III.B.5) stipulates the following: “A proposal to constitute a new department, school, institute, center, or program is in the first instance considered by the Dean of the Faculty, the Academic Planning Group, and the Faculty Committees on the Course of Study and on the Graduate School.  Their recommendations are reported to the Faculty.  If the Faculty approves the proposal, its action is reported by the President to the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board, which in turn reports to the full Board of Trustees for final action.”

As further stated in the Guidebook for Chairs, Directors, and Managers (in provision III.F.1), the APG “acts as the primary administrative review body for academic matters and advises the president and provost on all such matters. Through internal reporting as well as external academic reviews, the APG assesses and monitors the strengths and opportunities of the University’s academic departments and programs. All major questions of academic policy and all changes to institution-wide academic practice come before this group. All major proposals for academic programs and projects also come before this group, particularly any that present significant changes to existing programs or structures or that have significant implications for University resources or for fundraising priorities. Proposals for new academic departments and programs, for new degrees or other credentials, for new research centers and major research intiatives, for substantial new partnerships or other institutional commitments, or for other major new undertakings by academic departments or programs must be approved by this group before going through the remainder of the faculty or administrative approval process.” 

The APG regularly reviews proposals of an academic nature, considering whether the activity or entity being proposed is appropriate for the mission, reputation, structure, staffing, and resourcing of the University.  The APG also considers whether a proposed activity or entity would complement or compete with existing University activities and entities, either in name or mission. Depending on their nature, proposals to APG may require presentations by the faculty sponsor(s) and/or the appropriate academic administrator(s), such as a dean or a leader of an academic unit.

The process for proposals is typically iterative.  Proposals to the APG are often submitted by APG members themselves or by APG members on behalf of faculty members or academic administrators who have consulted with that APG member.  Faculty members or academic administrators who wish to make a proposal to the APG typically first consult with and submit a draft of the proposal to the relevant APG member(s) and/or the secretary, who may offer feedback on the proposal before determining whether it may be advanced to the full group for consideration.  Proposals still in early form may be advanced to an APG meeting to elicit input and feedback from the full group before additional work on the proposal is undertaken.   At the discretion and invitation of the APG, faculty members or administrators submitting a proposal may be asked to attend an APG meeting to discuss and answer questions about their proposal.  Because of the iterative nature of proposals, the timeline for their consideration is subject to meeting schedules, competing agenda items, and availability of supporting information that would inform the APG’s response.  

Proposals for the following types of new entities, initiatives, or endeavors start with APG review:

  • New academic units, degrees, minors, certificates, course codes, course offerings to non-degree populations, and other credentials or frameworks for credentials;
  • New research institutes, centers, programs, initiatives, or other substantive structures of an ongoing nature, either multi-year or permanent; 
  • New teaching and learning institutes, centers, programs, initiatives, or other structures of an ongoing nature, either multi-year or permanent; 
  • Substantial new external partnerships, agreements, or other institutional commitments that involve research, teaching and learning, or other aspects of the academic mission of the institution.

Not all new research or teaching initiatives or activities require proposals to or approval from the APG.  For example, certain grant proposals require that faculty commit to undertaking research activities through the creation of a center, or to educational activities through new instructional activity.  Depending on the specific grant requirements and how those requirements will be met administratively, APG review may not be necessary.  Often such grant requirements can be met through our existing departments and programs, without the creation of a new formal entity or offering in Princeton’s organizational structure.   The system for grant applications elicits information that assists the offices of APG members in determining whether APG approval may be necessary.  

As a University, we draw a distinction between internal, dynamic research and educational activities that are ad hoc in nature and that any single faculty member, existing department, or existing unit or entity may engage in – and may reasonably refer to as an initiative for internal purposes or as a center for grant requirements – and more formal, named units or entities that external audiences may reasonably interpret as an ongoing (either multi-year or permanent) feature of the University.  Only the latter require APG review and approval.

Proposals are reviewed by the APG first for approval before they are transferred to the appropriate body or office for additional faculty governance review and/or administrative review and consultation before subsequent implementation.  For example, after APG approval, proposals for new instructional programs or credentials will be transferred to the Committee on the Course of Study (for undergraduate matters) or the Faculty Committee on the Graduate School or its appropriate subcommittee (for graduate matters), or to both.  Proposals for new research entities will be transferred to the Office of the Provost for resourcing and other administrative review and to the Office of the Dean for Research, which may also consult with the University Research Board.  Proposals for new entities that will have a named faculty director or otherwise will fall under the oversight of the Office of the Dean of the Faculty will be transferred to that office.  Proposals for new external partnerships, agreements, or other institutional commitments of an international nature will be transferred to the Vice Provost for International Affairs and Operations.  Multiple governance bodies or administrative offices may need to review a proposal after the APG’s review to fully determine when, how, and to what extent a proposal may be fully implemented.

APG review focuses on the institutional value, relevance, and feasibility of a proposal, considering questions in the following areas:

  • Genesis and Rationale: How did this proposal come about?  What is the history of relevant activity at Princeton? Why is raising our profile in this area important?  Is Princeton distinctively situated to excel in this area, and if, so, in what specific ways or approaches?
  • Organization and Sustainability: How should this proposed endeavor be led and organized?  What kind of faculty research profile or administrative expertise is necessary in the leadership?  Is this a proposal for which only one candidate might be a suitable leader, or is it in an area with a pool of talent? Is there a critical mass of faculty to sustain this, and will they continue to have sufficient interest in and commitment to the proposal relative to their existing obligations? What additional structures or roles, if any, would be necessary for the various types of activities proposed; which would be the most important in priority, and why?
  • Institutional Context: Where would this be located/administered?  What is its scale and scope, and how will it fit with and relate to existing activity and organizational units?  Who here already works in this area or adjacent areas, and what specific connections have been or can be built to support it?  Are there existing units or offices at the University that have a significant interest and should reasonably be consulted, and are they supportive?  Are there alternatives to starting a separate and new program? Could many of the same goals of this proposal be realized by working within existing structures?
  • Timeline: What is the proposed timeline for ramping up to or building something like this? Are there downsides to moving too quickly or benefits to waiting? If this were sequenced, what would that look like?  Should activity be piloted or incubated before becoming permanent?
  • Assessment: How will success be assessed, and on what timeframe? Are there specific metrics or inputs that the University should consider when reviewing the sustainability of this endeavor in the future?   What would be the process and costs for ending the effort if unsuccessful?

There is no set or required format or template for an APG proposal that must be followed in all cases.  A  first draft of a proposal submitted to the APG should typically require no more than ten pages, depending on the scope of the proposal.  The questions above are intended as prompts to help guide the development of a proposal; they are not necessarily exhaustive or indispensable in all cases.  

Resource requirements are normally included in a proposal, although the APG does not serve primarily as a budget approver or financial body.  Such information helps APG members understand the proposed scope and institutional commitment required, especially for central funding or fundraising authorization.  This information also allows APG members to assess the proposal’s feasibility before considering or advancing it further.  Similarly, curricular requirements, where relevant for a new program or credential, are generally included to help APG members understand the relevance and rigor of the proposal, although the APG does not serve primarily as a faculty committee for specific curricular review.  

Any questions about a proposal and its recommended contents or the need for a proposal may be addressed to the APG secretary or relevant APG member.