| 05/01/2024 |
Ionelee Brogna from SPS submits new program proposal: Dear OAPRA Team, I hope this email finds you well. Attached are the required documents for an add program application requiring NYSED approval for the MS in Entrepreneurship & Management. We do want to note that this program proposal underwent various revisions. As a result, prior titles are included in some of the documentation (primarily the memo of Dean approval and the external review documents). The syllabi are provided in two separate documents as requested by the GPC, but please let us know if they should be submitted as one document. We would be happy to merge them if a single document is the best format. Attached Documents: 1. NYSED Application for the Registration of a New Graduate or Undergraduate Program (DOCX) 2a. Syllabi: Required Courses (PDF) 2b. Syllabi: Elective Courses (PDF) 4. Curricular Requirements Form (DOCX) 5a. External Review Form (DOCX) 5b. Institution's Response to External Review Evaluation Report 5c. Rationale for Selection of External Reviewer 5d. External Reviewer's Resume/CV 5e. Signed Conflict of Interest Statement (DOCX) 6. Assessment Plan 7. Email Confirmation of School Approval from SPS Dean 8. Graduate Program Committee Approval Email The Non-NYS Authorization Form has been submitted online. If you have any questions, or if additional information is required, please do not hesitate to contact me. |
| 05/08/2024 |
Proposal is assigned to CK to review; CK notifies SPS |
| 05/10/2024 |
CK confirms responses to Non-NYS Authorization Form; Erica McGibbon responds: Hi Erica, I am writing to follow up on the response that was submitted on the Non-NYS authorization form for the MS Entrepreneurship & Management new program proposal. You selected “yes” for the following questions: Does the program or school plan to conduct any marketing or advertising for the program? This would not include any advertising or marketing conducted by the Office of Undergraduate Admissions. Will this program include or be associated with any field trips outside of NYS and within the US? Will any portion of the program be offered via distance education? Does the program have a non-classroom experience (e.g., internship, practicum, clinical)? Will these non-classroom experiences occur outside of New York State and within the US? If the experience will occur outside of NYS and within the US, do you foresee that more than 10 students per site per program may be placed? Will the non-classroom experience be coordinated by NYU? Warmly, Carina Hi Carina, I'm writing to confirm the responses quoted are accurate for the Non-NYS authorization form for the MS Entrepreneurship & Management new program proposal. |
| 06/24/2024 |
CK completes initial review, pings TW to review |
| 07/26/2024 |
TW completes review of CK feedback. |
| 08/06/2024 |
CK sends first round feedback & Specialized Intake form to SPS: Hi Ionelee, Many thanks for your patience in awaiting our review of the MS Entrepreneurship & Management proposal. We have completed our review and would like to share our feedback. Overall, the proposal is in good shape, but we ran into some issues when reviewing the external review response. It appears that the response that was submitted to OAPRA may be a later version of a response originally submitted by the reviewer and then revised after discussing with the proposal writer, as it seems that some updates were made to the proposal and the reviewer's report in response to a first draft report. Please send us that first draft report so that we can identify where the proposal has been updated in response to it. If you need to reach out to the reviewer for it, just let us know so we are aware that you'll be waiting to receive that from them. Please see below for a summary of our feedback on the rest of the proposal materials, and see attached documents for specific in-line comments, suggested revisions, and clarifying questions. Please make sure to accept/reject suggested revisions as appropriate, and make sure all comments are addressed. In addition, based on the responses to the Non-NY State Authorization form, we need a bit more information about what is being planned for this program for non-NY State activities. Please fill out the Specialized Intake form so that we can determine if we need to take any additional action to ensure compliance across state lines. Summary of proposal feedback: Enrollment projections: In the main new program application form, the enrollment numbers should reflect all formats being proposed. In the distance ed application, the enrollment numbers should be for distance ed students only. Please also make sure that any mention of enrollment in the narrative is in alignment with the numbers in the enrollment projection table. Specializations: Only registered concentrations can be required. Non-registered specializations (or tracks, pathways, etc.) can be recommended, but not required. Please let us know if you'd like the specializations listed in the proposal to be registered, required concentrations, or if you would like them to be non-registered and optional. Faculty Information: Please update the to-be-hired table to include the discipline and additional qualifications for each faculty member. Please also note we updated the hiring date to September 2025 from September 2024, as this program likely won't be approved prior to the start of the Fall 2024 semester. Can you please confirm the planned launch date for this program? Distance Ed form: This form is fairly well done, but some of the response could be a bit stronger, potentially using the recent AAS Distance Ed program proposals as a model. We have flagged some specific questions in the distance ed form. Curriculum Requirements Form: Please select only one CIP code and include the selection rationale. Please also make sure to use the latest version of this form for future proposals. Syllabi: The syllabi overall look great. We shared some guidance on the internship syllabi when the proposal was being reviewed at the GPC in the spring, but it doesn't appear to have been incorporated into the submitted syllabi. As written, the distinction between time spent on instructional activities, supplemental activities, and internship activities isn't clear. The internship syllabi should detail how the total number of supervised internship hours, instructional activity and supplementary hours relate to the credit awarded. Since the supervised internship hours far surpass the traditional credit hour formula, we recommend that you add the formula for internships for the program on each syllabi. Please let us know if you have any questions about the feedback provided. |
| 08/15/2024 |
Ionelee seeks clarity on Specialized Intake form, CK provides guidance: Hi Carina, For the Specialized Intake Form requested for the MS in Entrepreneurship & Management, is it acceptable for the listed program director responsible for program development to complete this form? I am not able to see all the required questions since this form is broken into pages, and want to ensure that all possible nuances specific to the program may be shared. Best, Ionelee |
| 08/15/2024 |
CK responds to SPS inquiry: Hi Ionelee, Thanks for checking in on this. It's fine for the program director to fill out this form, if they are more likely to have the needed details. For future reference, it's also fine for them to fill out the Non NY State Authorization form. We'll always confirm responses/details with our NYSED liaisons, regardless of who completes the forms. Warmly, Carina |
| 08/16/2024 |
Ionelee seeks guidance on preparing internship syllabi: Hi Carina, I have a quick question about your feedback for the MS in Entrepreneurship & Management internship syllabi. The instructional activity related to the credit awarded for these courses is the 3 class meetings and the additional instructional elements listed in the syllabi. I have attached a copy of these syllabi with tracked changes to identify proposed corrections to the formula and syllabus language to more accurately clarify the instructional time for these courses. Does this revision satisfy the requested clarification? Best, Ionelee |
| 08/20/2024 |
CK provides guidance on preparing internship syllabi: Hi Ionelee, Thank you for reaching out to clarify. In the future, would it be possible for you to use the original submission/feedback thread for proposal inquiries so that I might easily refer back to guidance and other details in my response? I'm going to paste in the guidance I shared in my feedback (which was also shared when the syllabi were reviewed at the GPC stage) so I can make reference to it in responding: "As written, the distinction between time spent on instructional activities, supplemental activities, and internship activities isn't clear. The internship syllabi should detail how the total number of supervised internship hours, instructional activity and supplementary hours relate to the credit awarded. Since the supervised internship hours far surpass the traditional credit hour formula, we recommend that you add the formula for internships for the program on each syllabi." The revisions in the attached syllabi don't address these issues. A few things seem to be happening in the internship syllabi (using the 3-cr as a specific example): As a reminder, the formula for 1 credit hour is 750 minutes of instructional time (15, 50-minute “hours” of required instruction) + 1500 minutes of supplementary time (30, 50-minute “hours” of required supplementary assignments) The formula for internship time (time spent working at the internship) does not need to be calculated in the same way that the lecture part of the course is; because the internship formula is determined by the school/program and varies, the formula should be included in the syllabi It appears that all 3 credits of the 3-cr internship are allotted to instructional activities and supplementary activities, and 0 credits seem to be assigned to the 135 hours (6750 min based on 50-min hour) spent working at the internship As an example, if the internship formula was "1 credit hour = 2550 minutes of supervised internship time (45, 50-minute “hours” of required instruction," then the 135 hours of internship time would be 3 credits, bringing the total credits to 6 The articulated minutes ("495 minutes of course meetings" + "1755 minutes of instructional elements" = 2250 total) seem to conflate instructional activities/time (activities involving the course instructor, e.g., lectures and synchronous or asynchronous online discussions groups, or activities not directly involving the instructor but are required and record student attendance, such as online tutorials) with supplemental activities/time (activities that students complete on their own, e.g., homework assignments, papers, reading and other class prep, etc.). Much of the above guidance can be found on the OAPRA site: Credit Hour Guidance. It might be helpful to keep that page handy when reviewing syllabi whenever you're preparing to submit a proposal to OAPRA. The Syllabi Expectations Tip Sheet is also useful to have at the ready (though SPS is already doing a great job of structuring the syllabi to have all the necessary elements). I hope this is helpful for you in updating the internship syllabi, but please don't hesitate to reach out if you need additional clarity. Warmly, Carina |
| 08/27/2024 |
SPS response to OAPRA proposal feedback: Hi Carina, Thank you again for your thoughtful and thorough review of these documents. Following up on the external review, I attached the first draft of the external review, along with a PDF of the email where Erica requested a minor revision to the external review. Our partner within the academic unit, Shoshana Bass, has filled out the Specialized Intake form as requested. In response to your proposal feedback: Enrollment Projections: Enrollment projections in the proposal have been reviewed for consistency and adjusted in the new program application, rationale, and distance education application. Specializations: The department has chosen to adjust the curriculum to reflect optional specializations and adjusted the proposal language accordingly. Faculty Information: The faculty-to-be-hired table has been updated to include the requested information. Currently, the planned launch date for this program is Fall 2025. Thank you for updating the date for the start of job duties to September 2025. The department also added a note to the proposal that some faculty may start their appointments one semester before the program launch. Distance Ed Form: We have included the distance education application because the department intends to have online offerings in the program but anticipates needing one to two years after the initial launch for online offerings to reach 50% or more. Enrollment projections have also been updated to indicate that the department does not anticipate offering distance education for more than 50% of the curriculum in the program's first year. Given that the department does not anticipate offering distance education immediately upon the launch of the program, what is OAPRA's guidance on the timing of applying for distance education for this program? Can distance education be included in this initial NYSED application or must this format be applied for at a future date? Curriculum Requirements Form: One CIP code has been chosen with the appropriate rationale included. This form has also been updated to reflect the change to optional specializations. Syllabi: We are sharing new copies of the syllabi since prerequisites were updated and co-requisites were added to some courses due to the change to optional specializations. Additionally, we have adjusted the internship syllabi in response to your feedback to clarify the instructional time for these two courses. As always, please let us know if any additional information is needed. Best, Ionelee |
| 10/18/2024 |
SPS updates proposed launch date for program: Hi Carina, I hope this email finds you well. The department would like to update the launch date noted in the NYSED application for the MS in Entrepreneurship & Management to Fall 2026. This adjustment to the launch date is intended to allow an appropriate amount of time to prepare for program launch upon NYSED approval. Best, Ionelee |
| 10/21/2024 |
CK completes second round review of updated proposal, pings TW to review: I have completed my review of SPS's response to OAPRA feedback. Some of my previous concerns still stand (re: internship credits and external review response), and they have updated their approach to the Distance Ed format. Below are the main items/concerns; specific docs are linked below, here is a link to the full TW Edits folder: Distance Ed: They don't plan for it to be 50% or more online at launch; likely won't be earlier than 1-2 years after launch. Some courses will be offered online at launch, but less than 50%. They would like to know whether they can still go forward with registering in the Distance Ed format now, or must wait until they are ready to offer 50% or more online. They did make the requested updates to the Distance Ed form (strengthening the responses modeled on the updates made to the recent AAS proposals in Hospitality Mgmt and Health Admin), including to the enrollments (0 enrollment for year 1, if considering year 1 to be the same year 1 as the in person program) Internship syllabi: They continue to struggle with a formula for the (optional) internships. In my previous guidance I shared that the internship formula need not conform to the standard/lecture formula (and I also shared the lecture formula and the credit hour guidance web page), but whatever the formula, it should be included in the syllabus. In the updated syllabus they seem to have 1) miscalculated the time spent in lecture and 2) not given the formula for how ~100 hours spent at the internship equals 2.5 credits (my calculation: 6000 minutes for 2.5 credits is 2400 minutes, or 40 hours, per credit, which aligns approximately with the practice of some labs or studios where all the instructional time is spent in lab or in studio rather than a portion of time allotted to in-class activities and a portion to supplemental activities). For this I might suggest that I draft this language for them using the information they provided. But I am concerned that they aren't getting it from my guidance. External review: In our first round of feedback, we asked them for the "original" version of the external review as the review report appears to have benefited from the reviewer having received supplemental program information in addition to the proposal (we didn't give any additional guidance on the review and response at that time as we needed further info in order to provide guidance). The original version of the review doesn't differ from what was submitted to OAPRA, so presumably that supplemental info was given outside of that document. I suspect that the reviewer may have reached out with clarifying questions, as much of what is asked in NYSED's external review form is not asked in the NYSED new program form (which seems an oversight on NYSED's part and we might consider giving guidance to schools to use the questions in the external review form as a guide in preparing any proposal that requires an external review, if the requested detail isn't otherwise provided as in PhD proposals or licensure Masters proposals). The reviewer then wrote their review incorporating the additional info. The issue this triggers is that the external review makes (positive) comments on processes that are not mentioned in the proposal. I have prepared a few helpful documents for the external review issue: A draft of very specific guidance for the school to update both the proposal and the institutional response to the external review (this draft also includes my working notes, which are an outline of what the external review process should look like, and what the process appears to have been for this program) A CK/OAPRA edits version of the external review report that flags all items that do not currently appear in the proposal, that should be added, including guidance on the suggested sections where the supplemental info fits; also includes guidance on responding to additional reviewer concerns and items the reviewer did not speak to A CK/OAPRA edits version of the institutional response that re-formats the response to make clear what questions/concerns are being responded to, and includes bullet points for each item that should be responded to, with draft answers where possible. |
| 12/02/2024 |
TW completes review, pings CK in Asana: drafted the comments below last month and never pressed send. My apologies if we've already discussed some of the notes before. Can you review my comments prior to our meeting tomorrow so we can discuss. External Review: I've modified the approach here a bit. Distance Ed: program formats registered with NYSED should be reflective of the way the program will operate at launch for new programs, or within the next year, for program changes. Internship syllabi: I might recommend drafting the language but not sharing it until you meet with SPS to discuss credit hour and how to calculate it or provide the comments and then meet with them at a time that works for your schedule. As you noted, it is important that the liaison understands credit hour so OAPRA is responsible for catching all of these errors when they get to us. |
| 12/20/2024 |
CK shares feedback/guidance with SPS: Hello SPS Colleagues, Many thanks for your patience in awaiting OAPRA's feedback/guidance on this proposal. As always, we appreciate your efforts in working at the school level and with OAPRA to prepare high quality proposals. This proposal review has taken us significantly longer than expected due to the previously noted issue with the external review process (the bulk of our proposal review was completed in October). It took some time for us to identify the issue that the external review report includes information not available in the proposal, suggesting that the reviewer received program information outside of the formal proposal. We then needed to strategize our approach to this issue for when we submit the proposal to NYSED to ensure the review process with NYSED goes smoothly. The rest of the proposal is in fairly good shape, with just a few additional items for follow up. Please see below for a summary of our feedback/guidance on the external review and the rest of the proposal materials, and see attached documents for specific in-line comments, suggested revisions, and clarifying questions. Please make sure to accept/reject suggested revisions as appropriate, and make sure all comments are addressed. If you make any suggested additions/deletions, please accept all those revisions before sending us the updated docs. Summary of proposal feedback: External Review: Attached are 3 docs related to this process: the external review report, the institutional response, and OAPRA guidance on making updates to the relevant materials. We suggest you read the guidance doc first, before going to the other docs to review the comments. If, after reviewing these documents, you think it would be helpful to have a meeting to go over what's needed, I'd be happy to set up a time to meet Jan 8 or later. Distance Ed: Since this program will not be offered in the distance ed format at time of program launch, we have removed the application from the proposal at this time. Please plan to re-submit the Distance Ed application when you have identified a launch term for it. Format: You have indicated in the program application that you would like to register the program in both standard and accelerated format. Though students will have the opportunity to take a January term or summer term course to complete the program earlier than designed, this is not quite in the spirit of the accelerated program format, so we suggest that this program be registered as being offered in the standard format (for reference, a good example of an accelerated program is NYU's BS Nursing, which has a 4 year standard program and a 2 year accelerated program). Please also note that, for NYSED purposes, if a program is designed to be completed on a full time schedule, it should be registered as a full time program. Programs should only be registered as part time if they are only available part time. Internship Syllabi: Based on the edits you made after the initial round of feedback, we have drafted credit formula language for the internship syllabi to make clear the portion of the internship spent in course meetings vs. internship activities, and how the internship activity credits are calculated. We drafted this language for the 3 credit internship, so once you have reviewed/confirmed it there, please apply it to the 1.5 credit internship syllabus. Please let me know if you have any questions, and if you would like to meet to go over the external review process for this proposal. We wish you all a very restful holiday break! Warmly, Carina |
| 01/02/2025 |
Erica McGibbon responds to CK feedback: Hi Carina, Thanks for your thoughtful feedback, as always. My preliminary responses to your suggested revisions are as follows: Response to Summary of proposal feedback: External Review: I was able to follow your guidance across the three documents (external review, institutional response, and proposal document). Your suggested format for the Institutional Response and recommendations to make relative updates to the proposal in the Resources Section are all well-received. I will work with the department to update all documents accordingly. Distance Ed: We are going to meet with the academic department to reconfirm plans for the distance education format, i.e. implementing upon launch or later. In light of the timeline of review (originally intended for Fall 2025), it may very well be the case that the distance education format is better suited upon launch (now closer to Fall 2026). In the case of the latter, we would like the Distance Education Application re-added to the application. Format: Thank you for your guidance here. Standard will be the format on record and we will adjust the application accordingly. Internship Syllabi: Thank you for your review of the credit integrity statements for the internship syllabi. However, since the courses in the program typically meet on a 14-week schedule, not 15 weeks, I have adjusted the formula accordingly and will review it with the academic department before sending you the finalized update. And lastly, Consultation Scheduling: Jan 8th at 2pn We gladly take you up on the offer to meet to discuss the external review and final items needed to be addressed. We here at SPS are free on January 8th at 2pm. Might you let me know if that works for you? Best, Erica |
| 01/07/2025 |
CK responds to Erica M meeting request: Sorry to keep you waiting on this, today was my first day back after the holiday break. I'm able to meet tomorrow at 2pm. If you have any specific questions, feel free to send them my way. |
| 01/07/2025 |
Erica M sends updated proposal docs: Hi Carina, Pardon the double email. We've just wrapped up our meeting with the department and they would like to proceed with the distance education format upon launch. The proposal has been updated to reflect this, and the distance education formation application re-added. I have also taken the liberty to create a cover sheet "Consultation Notes" which outlines all of the requested revisions, action taken, and where they can be found in the attached revised documents. Best, Erica |
| 01/08/2025 |
Ionelee Brogna sends follow-up after consultation meeting: Hi Carina, Thank you for taking the time to meet with us today to discuss the MS in Entrepreneurship & Management. During our meeting, I mentioned that the draft of the proposal that SPS shares with the external reviewer is not an exact match for the NYSED application submitted to OAPRA. SPS has traditionally shared the full proposal draft prepared for the GPC with the external reviewer, which includes additional appendices and also the distance education application. I am sharing the draft of the MS in Entrepreneurship & Management that was originally shared with the external reviewer. Please let us know if there are any sections of the full SPS program proposal template that OAPRA would advise SPS to include in the version of the NYSED application that SPS submits to OAPRA for future programs. We appreciate all of your insight and support. Best, Ionelee |
| 01/24/2025 |
CK completes review of updated proposal, pings TW in Asana |
| 01/31/2025 |
TW completes review of updated proposal, pings CK in Asana |
| 02/05/2025 |
CK contacts SPS to confirm FT format: Hello All, This proposal is very nearly ready for submission to NYSED. There is one important detail to finalize. In our previous review of the sample course sequence, we neglected to highlight a potential issue in what is presented as the "standard" version of the course sequence. As structured, with 13.5 credits in the first and second semesters, and 3 credits in the third/final semester, this program could not be registered with NYSED as a full-time program, making it ineligible for certain types of federal financial aid (for NYSED purposes, 12 credits per semester is considered full-time). As you may be aware, graduate programs with less than 12 credits per semester are able to attain the equivalent of full-time status by identifying additional, non-credited work in a given semester; the academic context in which such equivalence is typically applied is non-credited work in preparation or support of the capstone project. However, in the currently identified standard course sequence of this program, the capstone is completed in the second semester, so it would not make sense to add an additional 9 hours worth of non-credited work in the third semester. In our previous guidance on format, we noted that the sample course sequence presented as the "accelerated" version did not appear to be actually accelerated (which is more likely to represent a significantly condensed and/or advanced standing curriculum). We would like to expand on this guidance to recommend that the course sequence originally proposed as "accelerated" appear in the final proposal as the standard, full-time version of the program. We are recommending this version of the sample course sequence because it more clearly aligns with NYSED's definition of full-time program status. As with any program, individual students may opt to complete the program on a slower or faster schedule (depending on availability of courses). Alternatively, you might consider moving Launchpad II to the final semester and noting how there is a full-time equivalent amount of non-credited work being done in that semester (depending on the nature of the culminating experience in Launchpad II, that could be reading, research, group or advisor meetings, prototyping, etc.). If there are 4.5 credits of coursework that term, you would need to show that 7.5 credits worth of non-credited work is expected in that term. Let us know how you would like to proceed and we can either provide additional guidance if needed, or make the related updates to the proposal and package it for NYSED submission. |
| 02/05/2025 |
Erica McGibbon confirms FT format, requests to review final proposal before submitting to NYSED: Hi Carina, I have discussed this with the department and they are good to proceed with the following: the course sequence originally proposed as "accelerated" appear in the final proposal as the standard, full-time version of the program. That said, we welcome you making the related updates to the proposal. However, might you share the final version with the related updates with us for review before NYSED submission? We are keen to review it and make sure we are on the same page of what will be sent to NYSED. I have attached the original submission from May 2024 which we believe contains the sample plans you are referring to, but let me know if there is a different version you have in mind. |
| 02/05/2025 |
CK shares udpated proposal form: Hi Erica, Thank you for your quick response on this. Attached is the final version of the NYSED form for this proposal showing the updated sample program schedule. This version of the schedule does match what appears in the initial proposal that was submitted to us (though the sample schedules in that proposal showed different sample schedule versions for specializations and didn't note them as accelerated or otherwise). Let me know if this looks ok to you and if so, we can send to NYSED. |
| 02/05/2025 |
Erica McGibbon confirms final version of sample course sequence. Good Morning Carina, Thank you for sending the updated document. The department has reviewed the sample schedule section and has given the OK. With that, we are all good to go. Please let us know when the application materials have been submitted to NYSED. |
| 02/07/2025 |
TW submits proposal to NYSED: Dear Colleagues, Please find attached a new program and distance education proposal from New York University for MS Entrepreneurship and Management. We look forward to hearing from you. |
| 04/18/2025 |
Kathleen Egan (NYSED) sends feedback to OAPRA: To: Assistant Vice Provost Becker, I am an Associate in Higher Education in the Office of College and University Evaluation (OCUE) on the Higher Education Team. I am assisting Ellen Stevens, the Associate formally assigned to New York University in our office, with the review of program proposals. I have completed an initial review of NYU’s proposal for a new program in Entrepreneurship and Management leading to a Master of Science (M.S.) degree award. Additional information is required to continue the review: 1. It does not appear that the University has identified current faculty capacity necessary to launch the proposed MS program and be in compliance with faculty regulations. In the proposal, the University lists one faculty member as the program director who is assigned to teach 4 courses in the program. No other existing faculty are listed as able to teach any of the other courses required of or optional in the program. Six adjunct faculty are listed as to be hired (TBH) but not until “September 2026 or later.” Anticipated launch for the program is Fall 2026. We appreciate the University’s assertions that “at launch, the courses would primarily be taught by adjunct faculty…recruited by the program director according to need and based on enrollment.” However, the University must demonstrate at the time of OCUE proposal review that sufficient faculty are in place to initiate the proposed program’s curriculum. Although the Department understands the issues related to hiring staff for a prospective program, a proposed program must meet the Faculty registration standards outlined in Section 52.2(b) of Commissioner’s Regulations at the time of registration. Please explain the contingency plan to ensure faculty coverage for all new courses in the proposed curriculum, if TBH faculty are not onboarded as anticipated. Can current faculty or the faculty involved with program design and course development be available to cover initial course offerings if necessary? In addition, please provide an updated faculty table reflecting current coverage for all courses in the proposed curriculum. 2. In the Rationale section of the proposal, the University states the following: “This program is aligned with the graduate admissions process and criteria, which will be similar to other NYU SPS Division of Programs in Business division graduate programs and include the following: ● Undergraduate degree, with threshold GPA …” Please provide an explanation of “threshold GPA” that will be provided to interested students. Is this a GPA that changes from year to year? If so, how is it determined? We ask that you provide the requested information via email response within 30 business days (June 2, 2025), as the Department will deny registration of the proposed program (pursuant to section 52.1(l) of Commissioner’s Regulations) if a satisfactory response is not provided in that time. The application will not be retained. If the Department denies registration, the institution may submit a new proposal at a later date when it is able to demonstrate compliance with all standards. I look forward to your response. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. ~Kathleen Kathleen F. Egan (she/her) Associate in Higher Education Office of College and University Evaluation (OCUE) New York State Education Department |
| 04/18/2025 |
CK sends NYSED feedback + OAPRA guidance to SPS: Good afternoon, SPS liaisons, We have received some feedback on this proposal from NYSED. Please see attached document for NYSED's feedback/inquiries and OAPRA guidance on responding. Their feedback is related to having sufficient faculty to teach courses at launch and about clarifying an admissions detail. Please send your response to us by end of day Friday, May 2; let us know if you have any questions as you prepare the response. Warmly, Carina |
| 04/22/2025 |
SPS responds to NYSED feedback: Dear Carina, Apologies for not confirming receipt sooner as we got straight to work on this request. Please see attached the department's response. If the response is sufficient, you have our support to send to NYSED. However, if additional information or suggested edits are needed, please be in touch with Mary and Ionelee (copied here) in my stead. I will be out of the office starting EOD today and returning on May 5th. As always, we appreciate your partnership. Best, Erica |
| 05/20/2025 |
CK finalizes response to NYSED; TW sends: Dear Kathleen, As always, we appreciate NYSED's attention to program details in an effort to ensure consistency and quality for the student experience. Attached is a document with responses to your inquiries, including an updated faculty table. Please let us know if you have any additional questions or feedback on this proposal. Regards, Titilayo |
| 05/22/2025 |
NYSED sends approval email; AB forwards to OAPRA on 5/27; CK sends approval notifications to relevant stakeholders. |