Voting Members Present: Gail Burd, Carol Feingold, Stacey Nelson, Clare Rowe, James Shockey

Non-Voting Members Present: Noris Montalvan, Celeste Pardee

Members not Present: Bill Conway, Anne-Marie Nequette, Lynne Tronsdal, Elizabeth Zegura

Visitor: Ann Parker, Director, Advising Resource Center

Recording Secretary: Noris Montalvan

Carol Feingold, Co-chair, called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m.

I. Approval of 1/20/04 Curriculum/Policies Subcommittee meeting minutes

• Annie Nequette and Carol Feingold submitted corrections to item VI (third and fourth bullets).
• Minutes, with the 2 corrections, were approved unanimously.

II. Discussion of proposed revision to the Academic Renewal Policy

• Members reviewed a table presented by Celeste Pardee, that summarized 57 applications for Academic Renewal in 2003:

• 6 applicants did not meet the eligibility criteria and were denied.
• 10 students had a GPA below 2.000 at the time they filed.
• Out of 8 students whose GPA increased after Renewal to 3.500 or higher, 2 students attained a 4.000 GPA.
• 44 students renewed 1 or 2 semesters; the rest renewed 3 or 4 semesters.
• There were 8 pre-majors (e.g., Pre-Education, Pre-Business) who may have taken Renewal to raise their GPA in order to be admitted to their majors. This was a target group about whom academic advisors were concerned.
• Regarding units removed from the student’s major during Renewal, 15 of the students lost 0 units in their major; 20 students lost 1-9 units in their major; 22 lost 10 or more units in their major.
• 50 of the applicants had accrued 87 or more units at the time they sought Renewal (thus, most were classified as seniors).
• Out of the 57 students, 8 students would have been eligible to graduate with Academic Distinction, if they had met all graduation requirements immediately after obtaining Renewal.

• Gail Burd reported that College of Science advisors do not perceive any problem with the current policy and do not want to change it. They believe that all students should have an option of taking Academic Renewal or petitioning for retroactive withdrawal from those semesters during which they earned poor grades. Since the General Petition Committee rarely approves petitions for retroactive withdrawal, advisors want to protect what they believe is the student’s right to remove poor grades through Academic Renewal. Gail did not think that advisors would be concerned about the 8 students who attained a GPA of 3.500 or higher after taking Renewal, as much as they were concerned about restricting ways for students to improve their GPA. College of Science advisors would say that it does not make sense to change the policy for 8 students.
• Clare Rowe stated that the advising coordinator in the College of Fine Arts would like to leave the Academic Renewal Policy as is. If this option were restricted to students with less than a 2.000 GPA, more students would file General Petitions for exceptions to the policy, and they fear that petitions for exceptions would be denied.
• Jim Shockey added that advisors in Social and Behavioral Sciences also object to any changes to the existing Academic Renewal Policy.
• The College of Nursing advisors, according to Carol Feingold, would not object to the proposed change. Faculty members were unaware that students could graduate with Academic Distinction via the Academic Renewal process. It seems that this use of Renewal would devalue those students who earn Distinction with all the grades on their transcripts. Carol pointed out that 30 students attained a GPA above 3.000 after taking Renewal; this is a substantial increase. Over half of the students seem to have applied for this option to make their GPA look better, not to meet graduation requirements.   What is the basis for the opposition by other college advisors?
• The advisor for Computer Science, the only department in College of Science with a pre-major, has voiced her concern for those students who earn poor grades as freshmen. Even after they earn higher grades, their GPA might be less than a 2.500, so they do not meet admission standards for the major. The advisor often suggests Academic Renewal to Pre-Computer Science students who have struggled to raise their GPA for years. Without this option to remove a block of poor grades, they would not be admissible to Computer Science.
• What is the purpose of Academic Renewal? When the Subcommittee discussed this in December and January, members agreed that the purpose was to help students graduate who would not graduate otherwise. For example, of the 2003 applicants, the target population would be the 10 students with a GPA below 2.000. After taking Academic Renewal, all of these students had a GPA above 2.000. Many students have not taken any courses in their major during the semesters to be removed via Academic Renewal, primarily because that is their first or second semester at the UA. Most of the renewal course work is in General Education. Therefore, academic renewal is less likely to improve the students’ major GPA.
• When the Academic Renewal Policy was established, over 30 years ago, graduation requirements were different; for instance, 125 credits were required for a degree (as opposed to 120 today), and General Education was college-specific (instead of University-wide). Also, there were fewer options for academic relief. Thirty years ago, Academic Renewal was the primary way for students to get a fresh start. Today another "grade forgiveness" avenue is available--GRO (Grade Replacement Opportunity). In 2003, 21students removed only one semester with Academic Renewal. During those semesters, many students only completed two or three courses. Those students could have filed for GRO to remove the grades from 3 courses to improve their GPA.
• When determining the purpose for offering Academic Renewal, Celeste urged members to consider present academic conditions, as opposed to what might have been the purpose over 30 years ago. It is a policy that may need updating in light of the current philosophy of UA faculty and advisors.
• Ann Parker, from the Advising Resource Center, spoke for advisors who believe that students should be allowed to decide if they want to improve their GPA. Students might have a bad semester due to personal reasons. Should the University deny those students an opportunity to raise their GPA? They might be 4.000 students who had a bad semester, and that semester is preventing them from graduating with a 4.000 GPA. She does not blame a good student for wanting to graduate with a 4.000 GPA. Ann also understands the faculty point of view--that there are many good students who did not have a bad semester and who earned Academic Distinction with all of their grades.
• Stacey Nelson shared the proposed policy change with other ASUA students. Most did not know about Academic Renewal. Once they understood how students could use Renewal to raise their GPA for graduation, they thought that it was unfair to other students who are not at the University long enough to qualify. Most of the ASUA students are not at the University more than 4 or 5 years, so they cannot speak for the nontraditional students who return after an absence. This a philosophical issue--whether one thinks that those returning students deserve some extra help or whether all students who had a bad semester should accept it and graduate with the lower GPA. The ASUA students are very opposed to Academic Renewal as it stands, since some students can use it to graduate with Academic Distinction. However, they are not opposed to students using it to meet minimum graduation requirements or for admission to their major. They also mentioned the GRO as an option for improving the GPA. Stacey would like to see Academic Renewal changed.
• Jim commented that if some students are misusing the policy, he does not have any objection to changing the policy. If it is revised, the Subcommittee should collect similar data on the applicants after a year to see what effect the change has had.
• Celeste had called the director of an advising center at NAU to find out if their Academic Renewal Policy had deterred students from filing for Renewal for the purpose of improving their graduation GPA. She was told that their Student Information System does not accommodate two GPAs for students who filed for Academic Renewal (i.e., an adjusted GPA and the non-adjusted GPA) as it states in their catalog.   NAU does have a GPA standard for graduation with Academic Distinction, but that GPA must be obtained with no failing grades. The Subcommittee agreed to disregard NAU’s model because it is not functional.
• There is another way to address members’ primary concern—the use of Academic Renewal to graduate with Academic Distinction. What about disallowing graduation with Academic Distinction for students who take Academic Renewal? If a student has an Academic Renewal "flag," the system could be programmed to drop off the designation of Academic Distinction based on the graduation GPA, such as Magna Cum Laude.
• The Subcommittee agreed that this measure should resolve the problem. The Academic Renewal policy could be amended with the statement:

Any student who takes Academic Renewal is ineligible for graduation with distinction (i.e., one of 3 designations, beginning with Cum Laude), even if the student’s grade-point-average at the time of graduation is 3.500 or higher.

• Gail Burd moved to approve this revision to the Academic Renewal Policy and Stacey Nelson seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. Celeste will send the revised proposal via e-mail to the Subcommittee to review. With their approval, it will be forwarded to full Council as a consent agenda item.

III. Discussion of the proposal to establish a Minimum Minor Grade Point Average

• Advisors in the College of Science agreed with the proposal and thought that the management of the 2.000 GPA should rest with the college deans, as does the major GPA. Gail asked about tracking the minor GPA. As soon as a student declares a minor and completes UA courses from the minor APRR, the GPA is reported on the SAPR.
• Advisors in the College in Social & Behavioral Sciences had no objections to the proposal, and the SBS Curriculum Committee liked the proposal. Faculty and professional staff in the Colleges of Nursing and Fine Arts are in favor of it.
• Jim Shockey moved to approve the draft proposal, and Clare Rowe seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously, including Annie Nequette’s vote in absentia.   The proposal will be sent to full Council as a consent agenda item.

IV. Review data from peer institutions on University Credits required for a degree

• Bill Conway had asked Curriculum & Registration to research the number of credits in residence required for a bachelor’s degree at UA peer institutions. Data presented by Celeste indicate that the UA is in line by requiring 30 University Credits: 3 institutions require fewer than 30 units, 6 other institutions require 30 units, and 5 institutions require more than 30 units. Members were satisfied that no change is needed.   Bill will let the Subcommittee know if he wants to pursue this issue.

V. Consider the addition of a new status to the probation policy: College Academic Probation

• Gail asked members how their colleges place students on probation if their cumulative GPA meets minimum academic standards but their major GPA does not meet college standards. This is an issue in the College of Science. She would like the flexibility of placing students on probation when they are not making satisfactory progress in their major-related courses.
• The current policy in the College of Nursing is that the student must have a minimum GPA of 2.700 for admission. When the students start their major course work, they are required to get a grade of "C" or better. If they earn less than a "C," they have to repeat the course. They are allowed to repeat two courses. The third time that the student earns less than a "C" grade, the student is disqualified from the college.
• Gail expressed concern over the possibility of grade inflation under such a policy.
• Theatre Arts has programs that require the students to maintain a GPA of 3.000 or above. The entrance requirements are so strict that "C" students are not admitted. Clare did not think that grade inflation has occurred in that department.
• Currently, a college can notify students that they have been placed on "college probation," but this status is not stated on the student’s transcript. If the colleges would like a "college academic probation" placed on the transcript, this status would have to be formally approved and described in the General Catalog. Gail clarified that the College of Science would not ask that the college probation status appear the student’s transcript.
• Per the General Catalog http://catalog.arizona.edu/2003-04/policies/acaprog.htm#Probation):  

Probation or Disqualification by Special Action:
Upon recommendation of the dean of the college, a student may be placed on academic probation or may be disqualified at any time for neglect of academic work.

• The College of Science can take appropriate "probation" action under this Catalog provision. Gail asked that this item be removed from the Subcommittee’s list of policy issues.

VI. New Business and Announcements

• Carol encouraged the Subcommittee to respond the General Education questions sent to the Undergraduate Council by Jerry Hogle.
• Noris announced that the Subcommittee will be reviewing the Biennial Course Review Retention Forms after the deadline, March 15.
• Celeste reported that Faculty Senate had approved UGC’s proposal to add a requirement for a minimum of 18 University Credits in the major.
• The College of Agriculture and Life Sciences has responded to UGC’s request that the colleges establish their own policies concerning the 48-unit rule in the major. Paul Kohn sent a memo that the College of Agriculture & Life Sciences reaffirms that no more than 48 units within the major field may be counted toward the degree. This policy applies to all BS degrees offered in the College.   Four other colleges have yet to respond on this policy question.

Carol adjourned the meeting at 4:55 p.m.

Edited by C. Pardee
2/18/04

Return to the Undergraduate Council main page

The UA Undergraduate Council, http://w3.arizona.edu/~uge/ugc/
Send us your questions and comments.