Voting Members Present: Gail Burd, Bill Conway, Carol Feingold, Stacey Nelson, Anne-Marie Nequette, Clare Rowe, James Shockey

Non-Voting Members Present: Noris Montalvan, Celeste Pardee

Members not Present, Lynne Tronsdal, Elizabeth Zegura

Recording Secretary: Noris Montalvan

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

I.   Approval of 2/10/04 Curriculum/Policies Subcommittee meeting minutes

Annie Nequette moved to approve the minutes, and Stacey Nelson seconded the motion. The motion was approved.

II.  Discussion of proposal regarding UA students with AGEC who seek Academic Renewal

• The Subcommittee had approved a tentative proposal for revising the Academic Renewal Policy at their 11/4/03 meeting (see minutes) but tabled the proposal while seeking input from the state community colleges. 

• Celeste Pardee had sent the proposal to two state groups for their consideration:  the Arizona Program Articulation Steering Committee (APASC) and the Academic Advising Articulation Task Force (AAATF).  She then attended the 2/25/04 AAATF meeting and requested input on the proposal.  Community college representatives agreed that the plan is manageable and that their articulation offices could provide the UA with a list of UA courses used in a student’s AGEC whenever a UA student with a certified AGEC applies for Academic Renewal. The APASC representative also had no objections to the proposal. The community colleges were informed that, upon implementation of this proposal, Graduation Services would be the unit requesting AGEC course information. 
• Celeste then drafted a proposal for the Subcommittee to review.  If approved, the following statement would be added to the General Catalog and to the Petition for Academic Renewal: 

Students approved for Academic Renewal for a semester or term in which necessary courses are disregarded, including those used in a certified Arizona General Education Curriculum (AGEC), are responsible for satisfying the degree requirements fulfilled by those courses, either by retaking those courses or meeting those requirements by other approved means.

• A concern was expressed that "approved means" in the last line was too vague.  The specific ways for students to make up the courses to be disregarded should be listed.  It was suggested that the statement be changed as follows: 

Students approved for Academic Renewal for a semester or term in which necessary courses are disregarded, including those used in a certified Arizona General Education Curriculum (AGEC), are responsible for satisfying the degree requirements fulfilled by those courses. To complete their degree, students have the following options:

• Repeat the same courses to fulfill the requirements;

• Select different courses, with the college advisor’s approval, that do not apply toward another degree requirement;

• For mathematics and foreign language, verify that proficiency has been established with a higher level course that has been completed for the student’s major or minor;

• For freshman composition, submit a portfolio of writing samples to the Writing Program coordinator for review and possible completion of this requirement.

• If a student does not want to make up the AGEC courses “lost” in the Renewal process that are required for the complete AGEC, the student should not file for Academic Renewal. 
• Bill Conway moved to approve the revised policy statement, and Annie Nequette seconded the motion. The motion was approved.

III. Discussion on the double use of courses between a Major and Minor or between two Majors in the student’s academic program

• Summary of the issues:  It’s possible for a student to earn a major and minor some courses counted twice--toward the major and minor.  With numerous cross-listed courses, the double use of courses among graduating students has increased.   The following are examples where a major and minor may be completed within the same department by double dipping the courses:  Geography and Geographic Information Science (approved by UGC when the GIS minor was established); Near Eastern Studies and Arabic; East Asian Studies and Chinese.  In addition, departments share many cross-listed courses that are often simultaneously applied to the major and minor (or second major):  Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics and Chemistry; Microbiology and Molecular & Cellular Biology; Sociology and Criminal Justice; Judaic Studies and Religious Studies; Mexican American Studies and Spanish.  Advisors have questioned:  (1) the use of a subset of courses from the major that are renamed as a minor (or second major); (2) a second field with few, if any, unique units; (3) the implication from the student’s transcript that the second field (minor or second major) represents additional course work. 
• Celeste reported an extreme case of double dipping between 2 majors.  The Judaic Studies advisor was alerted to the fact that students could complete their 41-unit major, and, with a few adjustments by the Near Eastern Studies department, could graduate with the JUS and NES majors with no additional courses in NES.  As a result of a couple JUS/NES double-major graduates, the Judaic Studies Department developed its policy prohibiting the double use of courses used in their major.  Near Easter Studies does not restrict the double use of courses in their major, so students pursuing majors in both departments may be given contradictory information about the double use of courses. 
• In Spring 2001, the full Council considered whether to develop a University-wide policy on the double use of courses between a major and minor or between 2 majors.   At that time there was insufficient support for a University policy, so some colleges and/or departments took the initiative in developing their own policies. As more and more units set restrictions on the double use of their courses, a list was compiled for the benefit of academic advisors (see “College and Department Restrictions on Double Dipping,” http://advising.arizona.edu/DoubleDippingPolicies.html). 
• Problems with multiple college policies:  Even with this list, advisors report that they and their students have a hard time keeping track of all the departments with restrictions. The information is not easily accessible to students, since few colleges/departments have added their policies to their Web sites. The lack of a University-wide policy means that the information is not on the major Academic Program Requirement Reports (APRRs). Those students who do not see an advisor early in their planning process are unaware of any double-dipping policy.  Students who change majors or add a major/minor in the middle of their college career may be caught between conflicting department policies.  Sometimes students do not find out that they are in violation of a college/department policy until they apply for degree candidacy.  Now that 8 colleges (or departments in those colleges) have set restrictions, it may be time to revisit this issue.  It would be simpler for students if there were a University-wide policy.
• How do students perceive the double use of courses within their academic program?  Stacey Nelson thought that a University-wide policy restricting double dipping could initially be a problem but that students would accept it.  She knows of students who have applied a couple courses to their major and also to their minor so that they could graduate on time.  She perceives double dipping as unfair, but if students can find a shortcut, they will.
• Jim Shockey asked what the UA actually grants with a degree consisting of a major and minor? If the degree means that the student has taken the course work that certifies knowledge in 2 fields, and the completed course work happens to overlap, it does not alter the fact that the student knows what he needs to know.  Members might prefer that the major and minor be independent sets of courses.  But if the UA degree is based upon knowledge, not unique course work, then double dipping is acceptable.
• That may have been the philosophy that drove the decision three years ago.  While the UGC upheld the General Education policy restricting the double use of courses, it left restrictions between a major   and minor up to the colleges.
• Gail Burd mentioned that any restriction on double dipping could be a resource issue for the College of Science.  There is currently considerable overlap of courses required for majors in the biological sciences, for example. If students were not allowed to apply some of the same courses to Biochemistry and MCB, and they had to take 15 additional units for the second major, she doubted that departments could meet the demand.  Double dipping has increased as resources have shrunk. 
• More input is needed.  Members agreed to obtain feedback from advisors, faculty, department heads, and deans--especially from those colleges that are not posted on the list. Celeste will send a request to the full Council, asking members to seek input from their colleges prior to the 3/23/04 UGC meeting.  She will raise the question at the 3/10/04 UPAC meeting and will also check with Patricia MacCorquodale, Dean of the Honors College, regarding Honors students with double majors.

IV. Discussion on whether the UA General Education Program needs to be satisfied for a second Bachelor’s Degree (see policy in the General Catalog: http://catalog.arizona.edu/2003-04/policies/degreeapp.htm)

• The policy states: Candidates for a second bachelor's degree at The University of Arizona  . . . must meet all requirements for the second degree. This includes General Education requirements. Second degree students are currently advised as any transfer student, regardless of whether they have a bachelor’s degree from another institution. If the student (from another institution) cannot satisfy the UA foreign language or science requirement with transfer courses, the student must take foreign language or science courses to meet the UA’s requirement.
• Gail Burd expressed concern about students pursuing 2 degrees at the UA (e.g., College of Science and College of Fine Arts) who have completed the General Education for one program but are being held to the General Education requirements for the secondary degree program.  It would seem reasonable that the General Education requirements could be more flexible for the secondary degree.  This is not possible under the current General Education Committee’s policy—that each UA degree must be treated as a separate entity, complete unto itself.
• Many advisors believe that transfer students, not necessarily those with a prior degree, have an edge when it comes to completing UA General Education requirements, because substitutions can be made with transfer courses.  When the General Education Committee approved the current General Education Program, it was with the mandate that no substitutions could be made with UA courses.  All UA courses to be used in Tier One and Tier Two had to be approved by the Committee.  Shouldn’t there be more flexibility for UA students to complete the requirements with UA courses?
• The concept of a University-wide General Education Program is a good one, for it should allow students to change from one major or college to another without taking additional Gen Ed courses.  In practice, this can be difficult, as a NATS course taken for a College of Humanities major would clearly not meet College of Science major requirements.  Another problem for the student who is admitted to the College of Science after completing Gen Ed is that the student may not meet the 42-unit upper division requirement.  Students in the College of Science need to take all Tier Two courses as upper division to meet the University requirement.
• Stacey Nelson noted that General Education is a major topic for the Committee of Eleven. They have been seeking input from administrators, such as President Likens and Provost Davis, on the General Education Program.  One of the Provost’s objectives is to establish a reporting line for the General Education Committee.  The Committee of Eleven feels very strongly that changes are needed in General Education, because students question the integrity and academic rigor of Tier One and Tier Two courses. Some students have complained that Tier One courses are easier than their high school classes, while others claim that Tier One and Tier Two do not prepare them for their major courses.
• The Colleges of Nursing and Fine Arts asked the Council to address the policy with respect to transfer students with a prior degree.  If a student earns a degree that includes a general education program elsewhere, does that student need to satisfy the UA General Education Program? 
• Policy issues related to General Education are tricky because the role of the General Education Committee is unclear. Is this a policy-making body or a course-approval processing body?  
• Since the General Education Program is being evaluated and possibly revamped, the Subcommittee decided to table this issue for now.  However, the Colleges of Nursing and Fine Arts brought this issue forward, so Carol Feingold and Clare Rowe will seek more information from their colleges and will bring details to the next Subcommittee meeting.

Carol Feingold adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m.

Edited by C. Pardee
3/17/04

Return to the Undergraduate Council main page

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