Graduate Business Professional Fee Grant Program

Graduate Business Professional Fee Grant Program

College of Business Administration
San Diego State University

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Does the program favor awards to non-AQ faculty over faculty who are already AQ?

A: No, every proposal will be evaluated according to the stated criteria. However, this means that every proposal must include a justification for funding based on one or more of the five points of the Executive Order. Showing that a proposal will help CBA retain AACSB accreditation is one way to do that. Accreditation depends on achieving a high ratio of AQ faculty, so if a proposal includes non-AQ faculty who can become 2012-AQ as a result of the proposed activity the justification may be straightforward. A proposal from faculty who are already 2012-AQ may need to include additional lines of reasoning to tie it to the Executive Order.

Q: How long must a proposal be, and what will the format include?

A: Proposals will include the following:

1.The two-page cover form that identifies the investigators/participants; summarizes the
proposed budget; indicates a time line for the project; and states the point of the Executive
Order that it relates to.

2.An up-to-date and verified copy of Schedule B for all tenured/tenure-track
investigators/participants and a comparable for lecturers (currently under development by the
CBA Chairs committee)

3.A 3-page single-spaced (12 pt. font) discussion section, expanding on the items in the cover
sheet and organizedto help the reviewers evaluate it according to the stated evaluation
criteria.

4.If one or more of the investigators/participants are already receiving support under a different
grant program (including summer support for new faculty), one additional page must be
included to describe how the proposed activity significantly differs from the already-funded
project(s).

5.If one or more of the investigators/participants have received funding under THIS grant
program in a prior year, one additional page must be included for each such grant, describing
the outcomes and completion status.

The reviewers may ask the investigators/participantsfor additional information if it is needed to help evaluate the proposal.

Q: Who will review the proposals and make the awards?

A: A Graduate Fee Grant Committee (GFGC) will be formed to administer the program. This committee will consist of one representative from each department, plus the director of graduate programs and the CBA associate dean. This committee may choose to form sub-committees to review submitted proposals. All tenured/tenure-track faculty who submit proposals under this program must also agree (if called upon)to sit on such a subcommittee to review submitted proposals according to the stated evaluation criteria. Subcommittees will be constructed so that no one will review his or her own proposal. Once the various subcommittees have ranked the proposals assigned to them, the GFGC will determine the portfolio of applications to be funded, with the aim of maximizing the overall payoff to the CBA in terms of meeting the Executive Order and enhancing chances for maintenance of accreditation. The Steering Committee will serve as the place where faculty members may appeal a ruling by this grant committee. The Steering Committee decision will be final in all appeals.

Q: Is the pool of available funding subdivided in any way, such as between teaching activities, service activities and research activities?

A: No, all proposals will be evaluated on their merits and the degree to which they are in compliance with the Executive Order. The review process will aim at funding a portfolio of proposals that maximizes compliance with the Executive Order and helps ensure reaccreditation for the CBA.

Q: Are research activities favored over other projects that will benefit the CBA and help ensure successful reaccreditation?

A: No, with one exception: Faculty who are not AQ at the time of submission of the grant proposalmay only be considered for grants that will lead to category A-D publications.

Q: What is meant by a tenured/tenure-track faculty member having “2012-AQ” status?

A: This means that even if the tenured/tenure-track faculty member completes no further category A-D publications he/she will be considered AQ at the cutoff date for accreditation purposes. There are two ways this can happen:

1.The faculty member is a newly minted Ph.D. and thus automatically considered AQ for five
years from the date of the degree; and

2.The faculty member already has sufficient category A-D publications to be considered AQ in
2012, even if no more publications are added to the Schedule B.

Q: Will new faculty currently on summer support be eligible to participate? Will they receive the same consideration?

A: They will have to show how this proposal is different from activities they are already supported for. An extra page will be allowed for this.

Q: Can lecturers participate? Can staff participate?

A: Lecturers who are not AQ or PQ may submit proposals designed to help them attain this status. Currently AQ or PQ lecturers may be considered for projects that can be tied to one of the points of the Executive Order, including maintenance of AQ or PQ status for accreditation. Lecturers may only apply for reimbursement of direct expenses associated with their grant activity or a course release (if they are considered AQ or PQ at the time of submission). They may not apply for stipend awards. Staff may not participate.

Q: How does this money play into the 125% requirement?

A: It is part of the 125% limitation. Travel and equipment expenditures do not count toward the limit. Money can be put into an individual account to access for travel, equipment, etc. if it cannot be distributed as a summer stipend because of the limitation.

Q: Can stipends or course releases be requested? Can other expense items be included? Are there minimum or maximum funding levels that may be requested under this program?

A: Stipends and/or course releases may be requested, as well as other expenses (such as for travel, data, or equipment). Summer stipends are limited to 20% of the individual faculty member's base salary. A faculty member may request no more than 2 course releases during an academic year. Course releases from this grant, combined with course releasesthat the faculty member may have earned from other CBA activities may not serve to bring the faculty member down to a course load below 12 units for a given academic year. Faculty members seeking the 20% summer stipend may not seek a course release in addition to the stipend. Other options for faculty might be requesting a 10% summer stipend plus one course release; or requesting two course releases and no summer stipend. The reviewers will seek to maximize the overall benefit to the college from the portfolio of grants, and it is unlikely that extremely large requests could be funded while still meeting that objective. All course release requests are subject to the approval of the faculty member's department chair.

Q: Can a faculty member be included on more than one grant proposal?

A: Yes, but the per-person stipend limitation and / or course release limitation will apply. Faculty that are not 2012-AQ are encouraged to submit only one proposal.

Q: Are there any other restrictions on receiving grants in the form of stipends or course release?

A: Yes. Faculty who are not AQ at the time of their grant submission may only request course release time for their efforts. Lecturers who are not AQ or PQ at the time of their grant submission may only request direct expense reimbursements for their efforts associated with grant activities. Lecturers who are AQ or PQ at the time of their submission may also request course release time (to be paid at the rate of what they are currently compensated for teaching a class - subject to the approval of their department chair), but they may not request a stipend.

Q: Will there be a “wish list” of possible service projects that will meet the Executive Order and that will be especially valuable to the CBA?

A: The steering committee encourages other CBA committees to form and promulgate such lists relative to their own areas of responsibility. Any grant proposal can cite such wish lists as evidence of merit and to show how the proposal is tied to the Executive Order.

Q: Can grant proposals include non-CBA investigators/participants?

A: Yes. All participants and their roles and responsibilities must be identified in the proposal. The funding request must be broken down to show the amount due to each co-investigator, and no funding may be requested for non-CBA investigators.

Q: What process will be followed to approve and implement this grant program?

A: The steps are as follows:

1. The Steering Committee completes a draft of the grant-program document.

2. Steering Committee submits draft to Central Administration for review and feedback - April
30, 2010.

3. Based on final feedback from central administration,the roll-out plan will be announced to
the faculty.

Q: What if I have further questions?
A: Please send them to one of the members of the CBA Associate Dean/Grad Fee Grant Committee.
Q: Couldn't the program be structured to recognize and reward faculty that have made and continue to make outstanding contributions to the college? It seems unfair that they cannot be recognized.
A: We are required to make all grant awards "forward looking" and not based on past performance. But, awards are available for service and teaching activities that go toward the meeting the executive order and these activities can therefore be recognized and rewarded under the program.
Q: Won't this program make it difficult for department chairs to staff their courses, due to course-release awards?
A: The department chairs must approve all requests for course release time before it can be given to a faculty member under this program.
Q: Why does the program equate a course release to 10% of base salary, rather than the actual cost of replacing someone in the classroom?
A: This was done for several reasons. For one thing, it tends to encourage stipends rather than course releases to minimize the problem of staffing courses. For another, it benefits the college by allowing more than one lecturer to be hired to replace a released tenured/tenure-track faculty member.

Q: This program may place a lot of pressure on chairs to approve course releases, and could lead to acrimony if they are not given. Shouldn't there be guidelines and criteria written in advance to determine when course releases will be granted?
A: It was decided that writing such guidelines would be difficult, and may lead to introducing unintended additional areas of conflict. The steering committee decided that it would be best to let the program run for one year to see what kinds of additional adjustments or policies may be needed in this area.

Q: Why have rolling application dates? Why not have a single deadline for all applications?
A: The steering committee wanted to make the program accessible to as many faculty as possible. Junior faculty have extra burdens in the summer and fall related to preparing their PDS and may find it hard to apply on a fall schedule. The approach of batching the proposals and considering them in four cycles adds an extra level of accessibility and flexibility in the program that would not exist if only one deadline were specified. Each faculty member will be able to take into consideration his or her own status and limitations, and will not be locked out of applying if unable to submit a proposal by any particular deadline.
Q: Is there a conflict of interest in the makeup of the review committee? Could the review be done by FERP faculty instead?
A: The language in the program limits the potential for conflicts by ensuring that no one reviews his orher own proposal. Given the possibility that every faculty member (including FERPs) could apply, it is not possible to find a subset of the faculty that would be guaranteed to have no conflict. FERP faculty could not be paid extra for doing the reviews.
Q: Can there be multi-year projects under this program?
A: Yes, but funding cannot be committed in one year for awards to be given in a future year. Multi-year projects should be broken into pieces with milestones that can be assessed year-by-year, and applications should be submitted in each year to seek funds for the next milestone activity.
Q: Shouldn't there be a cap on the overall size of a project, so that one team of faculty cannot use up the entire budget?
A: The steering committee decided to leave the program as flexible as possible, and to use the experience gained during the first year to determine whether any adjustments are needed.
Q: Should there be consideration of past performance on PDC grants in awarding grants under this program?
A: This is not allowed under the restriction that this cannot be a merit-based award program.
Q: Is it possible to adequately assess a project on just a three-page proposal? Shouldn't the proposals be longer?
A: There are many pros and cons on this question. Given the large number of proposals likely to come forth, the steering committee opted to follow the practice used by several other grant programs. It was felt that the 3-page single-spaced proposal was a reasonable tradeoff, allowing the program to run and minimizing the application burden on the faculty.
Q: Some of the points in the executive order do not seem to align with faculty activities that could take place under this program. Shouldn't there be more guidance as to what is needed?
A: The program is aimed primarily at activities related to maintenance of accreditation and retention, as stated in Section 1 items a-d. Also, various CBA committees are intending to put forth lists of activities that are needed to fulfill their areas of responsibility and concern.

Q: Why do stipends have to be paid in the summer? Does this prelude teaching summer sessions?
A: The 125% rule applies to this award, which could limit the ability to also teach in summer sessions. However, possibilities exist to allocate the award to non-teaching days other than summer, so that maximum flexibility can be retained. Faculty should consult with their chairs for specific guidance.
Q: Shouldn't the program prevent non-AQ faculty from receiving stipends until they become AQ?
A: This feature was removed from an earlier draft of the program to satisfy the restriction that it cannot be a merit-based award program. Non-AQ faculty may only apply for a course release and not a stipend.
Q: Couldn't the first round of funding be awarded in summer 2010 instead of waiting until summer 2011?
A: It is important that the process be structured so that all faculty have a fair chance of competing for the available funding. Rushing the program into operation and awarding some of the money during the upcoming summer break would not give adequate time for some faculty to formulate their projects and write their proposals, and it would not be possible for the review committee to know how the early proposals compare in quality to those that will be forthcoming in the fall. The steering committee decided to use a one-year lagged model, so that awards for 2010-11 will be funded by the 2009-10 graduate-fee revenue.

Q. The first "pot of funds" for which the application deadline is June 15th and the decision is made by June 30th comes from the 2009-2010 graduate fee funds. I assume that is why the Steering Committee is trying to set the deadline & the decision-making process prior to the end of this fiscal year.
A. That is correct. We wanted to be able to distribute a portion of these funds this summer. Waiting until August 30 would have precluded us from distributing funds until next summer.
Q.Will there still be up to 50% of the CURRENT pot left in (carried over from) the current budget to allocate to those faculty who submit applications by August 30th?
A. Yes, but 8/30 submissions might not be able to receive funds until next summer.
Q. If the funds wither away on June 30th, it makes sense to allocate ALL funds to the June 15 applicants and August 30th applicants will dip into the 2010-2011 grant allocation pot. If funds are indeed TRANSFERABLE into the 2010-2011 academic year, then it makes sense to push the deadline for ALL to August 30th to allow faculty adequate time to prepare.
A. We have put a lot of thought and debate into this issue. We feel that the current solution satisfies a majority of concerns. The 2009-10 funds do carry over to the 2010-11 year. However, we feel that there is no reason to withhold funds from deserving proposals that may come in on June 15. This process will not preclude faculty members from the 2009-10 funds, should they decide to submit a proposal in August. They can apply for course release and a stipend to be paid out next summer.
Q. For the proposals submitted by 6/15, will the priority be given to the ones that money can be spent in this summer?
A. No. The Graduate Fee Grant Committee will prioritize the proposals based on the criteria stated in the grant. The timing of when money can be spent from the grant is not part of the criteria that the committee will use in making fundingdecisions.
Q. For faculties that have already scheduled to teach two summer classes, will they be excluded from getting stipends this summer?
A. All faculty are subject to the 125% salary cap limitation. The timing of when funds can be received from the grant, relative to previously existing teaching commitments, must be worked out between the individual faculty member and Deb Tomic/Stephanie Smith.