Partner Institution Selection (Jointly Conferred Academic Awards) Guidelines
As specified in Procedure 1 in the Jointly Conferred Academic Awards Policy
Before the detailed planning work for a proposed jointly conferred award occurs, in-principle approval that the proposed partner institutions are suitable partners is required from the Deputy Vice-Chancellor & Vice-President (Academic), on advice of an ad hoc Institutional Partnerships Committee.
Faculties interested in developing a jointly conferred program with other partner institutions, whether local, national or international, must prepare a submission addressing the criteria below. The purpose of this concept phase of the process is to enable the University to be satisfied that the proposed partner institutions "have the academic standing to deliver jointly conferred programs to the required academic standards, the financial standing to sustain them, the reputation to complement the University, and the legal standing to contract to their delivery", as required by Principle 1.2 of the policy.
Submissions must address the Criteria below. The submissions must include enough information to enable the Institutional Partnership Committee to make an assessment of the institution's suitability. Of course, some institutions are much more well known than others; and it is a matter of judgement how much evidence is provided. Examples of the type of evidence that could be submitted are given in the right-hand column below.
|
Criteria specified in Procedure 1.2.3 of the Jointly Conferred Awards Policy |
Examples of possible suitable evidence |
|
1. is one with which the University has legal power to confer jointly an academic award (ie it is a university or registered training organisation or is an institution specified in a regulation[1]) |
* Documentation from Partner Institution or in public domain |
|
2. has legal authority itself to confer jointly an academic award |
* Legal documentation provided by Partner Institution, or in public domain: eg its enabling legislation |
|
3. has an overall academic standing comparable to that of the University or to an aspect of its academic activities |
* National or international rankings * AEI National Office of Overseas Skills Recognition, UK NARIC |
|
4. has robust academic quality assurance procedures |
* Academic Board or equivalent, and evidence of processes OR external accreditation process * Discipline external accreditation reports * AUQA reports * Business Plans |
|
5. has sound overall management and administration |
* Annual Reports and Financial Statements * Strategic Plan * Organisational Structure * Policies, particularly student related, eg misconduct, complaints and appeals |
|
6. has adequate teaching and learning infrastructure and academic and pastoral support |
From partner institution, details of: * Library resources and support * IT resources and support * Disability and counselling support * Accommodation and financial advice * Publications/information for students * Social/sports facilities * Research infrastructure (where partnership is for higher degree by research programs) |
|
7. is experienced at or capable of delivering comparable programs at the appropriate level |
* Documentation from partner institution or in public domain * For higher degree by research programs: evidence of research strengths and research collaboration in relevant area/s |
|
8. is financially stable |
* Annual Reports and Financial Statements |
|
9. has the capacity to address cultural differences, where relevant |
* Public domain material on international student induction and support * Equity and diversity policies * Counselling support |
|
10. provides a safe environment for students |
* Health, safety and wellbeing policies * Availability of student counselling * Emergency Response Plans and support * Security/campus police presence * Mental health intervention policies |
For further information contact:
* Where proposed partners are international: the Pro Vice-Chancellor (International)
* Where proposed partners for coursework programs are local or national: the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Learning & Quality)
* Where proposed partners for higher degrees by research are local or national: the Dean of Graduate Studies.
This document is a component of Jointly Conferred Academic Awards Policy
http://www.adelaide.edu.au/policies/1184
Policy Control Information
| RMO File No. | 2007/2108 |
|---|---|
| Policy custodian | Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President (Academic) |
| Responsible policy officer | Pro Vice-Chancellor (Student Experience) |
| Endorsed by | Academic Board |
| Approved by | Vice-Chancellor and President |
| Related Policies | Fees Policy
Brand and Visual Identity Policy Policy for the Administration and Award of Doctoral Degrees Governed by Coutelle de These Agreement |
| Related legislation | University of Adelaide Act (SA) 1971, s6 |
| Superceded Policies | Policy for the Administration and Award of Double Badged Doctoral Degrees |
| Effective from | 19 November 2012 |
| Review Date | 31 December 2015 |
| Contact for queries about the policy | Pro Vice-Chancellor (Student Experience), Professor Denise Kirkpatrick, ext: 33025 |
Hardcopies of this document are considered uncontrolled. Please refer to the University Policy and Procedures website for the latest version.
