Undergraduate Council
Academic Curriculum/Policies
Subcommittee Meeting

October 14, 2003

Voting Members Present: Gail Burd, Bill Conway, Carol Feingold, Stacey Nelson (student representative), Anne-Marie Nequette, Clare Rowe, Jim Shockey

Non-Voting Members Present: Jennifer Jenkins (for a portion of the meeting), Noris Montalvan, Celeste Pardee

Members Not Present: Lynne Tronsdal, Elizabeth Zegura

Recording Secretary: Noris Montalvan

Carol Feingold, Co-Chair, called the meeting to order at 3:40 p.m.

I. Introduction of new members

  • Stacey Nelson, student representative, a senior majoring in English and Chief of Staff for the President of ASUA.
  • Gail Burd, Associate Dean, College of Science.

II. Approval of 9/9/03 Curriculum/Policies Meeting Minutes

Bill Conway moved to approve the minutes and Annie Nequette seconded the motion. The motion was approved.

III. Review and/or vote on items identified as preliminary tasks

1. Proposal re: BA and BS Degrees—Policy on Maximum Units in the Major

  1. If approved, the full Council would send a memorandum to the colleges offering a BA or BS, recommending that each college either confirm or delete the 48-unit rule, as appropriate for their programs. If the college wants the 48-unit policy to be effect, it would be stated on the major APRRs. If the college does not want the 48-unit rule, they would so inform Curriculum and Registration, and Graduation Services would cease to monitor this policy for those majors. It has never been spelled out in the APRRs and that’s why advisors overlook this policy. It’s important for the colleges to reaffirm what they want.
  2. Only certain colleges offer a Bachelor of Arts and/or Bachelor of Science. It would not apply, for example, to a Bachelor of Science in Architecture. The only colleges offering BA and/or BS degrees are College of Agriculture & Life Sciences, College of Science, College of Humanities, College of Fine Arts, College of Social & Behavioral Sciences, and University College.
  3. Subcommittee representatives and associate deans from these colleges had no objections to the proposal.
  4. Bill Conway moved to approve the proposal and Clare Rowe seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. It will go to full Council as a consent agenda item.

2. Proposal re: Extension of CLEP Policy on Lower Level Exams to Lower Level Courses

  1. Since faculty from departments in the College of Humanities (CoH) raised this issue, the Subcommittee’s proposal recommends that CoH develop and implement a college policy.
  2. Last week Celeste Pardee presented this proposal to a group of CoH advisors for their input. They liked the idea of either creating a college-wide policy for language skill courses or establishing department policies (not college-wide). For 20 years, the Math Department has had an effective policy, which was modified when GRO was implemented, that is stated in the catalog along with the descriptions of first year math courses.
  3. A CoH policy needs to be encouraged, because language instructors are seeking a way to prevent students who have completed higher-level courses from taking lower level courses.
  4. Based on her experience in language courses, Stacey Nelson thought that a policy is urgently needed.
  5. Members agreed to send the proposal forward to full Council. Annie Nequette moved to pass the proposal as a consent agenda item, and Clare Rowe seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously.

3. Proposal re: AGEC students who file for Academic Renewal

  1. Jim Shockey drafted a proposal (see excerpts below) and met with Bill Fee, Director of Transfer Curriculum and Articulation. Bill suggested that the Subcommittee not follow up with Jim’s proposal for a variety of reasons. Basically, Bill did not think that it was a good idea to tamper with the AGEC. Instead, he suggested that we revise the Academic Renewal policy to bring it in line with those at ASU and NAU. The qualifications for Academic Renewal are found at: http://catalog.arizona.edu/2003-04/policies/acadrenw.htm. State community colleges would like to see similar academic forgiveness policies among ASU, NAU and UA. If Subcommittee members agree with Bill--not to pursue Jim’s proposal to protect the integrity of a student’s AGEC by prohibiting students from taking Academic Renewal for those terms containing courses used in the AGEC--Jim would be willing to explore revisions to the UA Academic Renewal policy to make it consistent with the policies of the other state institutions At this time, the Academic Renewal policy itself is not in question. Based on Bill Fee’s knowledge of articulation matters and words of caution, Jim had second thoughts about his original proposal:

FROM: Jim Shockey, Co-Chair, Curriculum/Policies Subcommittee

RE: UA's Academic Renewal Policy and AGEC

An issue was brought to the Undergraduate Council for possible review this academic year, which relates directly to the AGEC block transfer agreement. Consider as an example a UA student who left the University after one semester on academic probation and transferred to Pima Community College. While at the UA, this student had taken some foundation courses and had transferred them to Pima. For the sake of argument, suppose that student enrolled in ENGL 101 and SPAN 101, receiving grades of C and E, respectively. Thus, only the C in English transferred to Pima. After a time, the student completes all of the necessary requirements (including the UA ENGL 101 credit) to be an AGEC recipient. S/he then is readmitted to the UA to pursue a bachelor's degree.

Now suppose that after several years this student realizes that s/he is eligible to file for Academic Renewal from that one UA semester. This would remove the unwanted E from the GPA calculation, but would also remove the C in ENGL 101. The problem, from a technical standpoint, is that one of the courses used to complete the AGEC no longer has credit.

Based upon initial discussions in the Curriculum and Policy Subcommittee of the Undergraduate Council, we would like to know how practical it would be to create a policy preventing UA students from retroactively withdrawing (via Academic Renewal, General Petition, or any other means) from classes which were incorporated into a block transfer agreement.

We understand that a new policy of this kind would force the UA to "look inside" the AGEC, which is not allowed as part of the agreement with the community colleges. But we believe that permitting students to take such actions would devalue the AGEC itself, which is not in the best interests of the community colleges.   Indeed, we are in no way trying to influence how the AGEC is constructed initially, but are seeking to close a loophole that could permit a student to graduate with a transcript revealing that some degree requirement have not been met.

  1. Last spring Patti King, Celeste Pardee and Bill Fee met to discuss this problem. It was recognized that an interim solution was needed. Advisors should counsel students applying for Academic Renewal on the impact it would have on their graduation progress. If the student did not have an AGEC, s/he would have to make up English, Math, language courses, and any other course that satisfied a degree requirement. In the meeting with Bill Fee it was realized that the only courses in the AGEC that could be identified would be freshman composition and mathematics. The interim proposal does not state that the student has to retake ENGL 101/102; the student has progressed beyond freshman English and it would not make sense to retake the same course.   The UA Writing Program coordinator would look for anther writing course to substitute for the requirement. If a student lost MATH 110, College Algebra, in Academic Renewal, s/he might have to retake College Algebra because the student might not be prepared to take a higher level Math. The UA needs to ascertain that the foundation requirements are met.
  2. To qualify for Academic Renewal, 5 years has to lapse since the semester(s) to be removed. If a student wants to eliminate a semester of poor grades because of health problems, the student would submit a General Petition to take Academic Renewal earlier than the 5-year minimum. For documented health reasons, the General Petition Committee will first require that the students take a certain number of units at the UA and obtain a 2.50 GPA or better. Once a new UA record has been established, under these kinds of circumstances the General Petition Committee has waived the 5-year requirement for Academic Renewal. Academic Renewal leaves the grades on the transcript, so the actual academic history is not changed, but the calculation of the GPA is changed.
  3. Bill Conway had thought that Bill Fee would support the Subcommittee’s proposal. Bill Fee had agreed to the interim policy (see item "b" above), but disagreed with the Subcommittee’s solution to the loophole. The proposal drafted by Jim Shockey proposed that Academic Renewal should not be approved for any semester that contained courses that applied to the AGEC. This would necessitate that the UA academic advisor ask the community college which UA courses were used in the AGEC; the AGEC would be opened but not changed. If UA courses were in the AGEC, the Academic Renewal would not be approved for that particular semester. Jim Shockey’s argument was that that would protect the AGEC rather than diminish it. Bill Fee thought it was politically dangerous to pursue this. His argument is that certain UA policies have a negative impact on some transfer students, that these instances upset the community college advisors, and that those advisors have the impression that the UA is not transfer student friendly.
  4. Jim Shockey reported that the Academic Renewal requirements differ among the 3 universities: UA requirements: 5 years have to pass since the semester the student wants to delete, the student has to earn 30 UA units with a 2.50 GPA; NAU: 5 years plus an absence from the institution, 12 units with a 2.50 GPA, with no grade lower than a "C" (Note: NAU will only allow Academic Renewal if the student has a cumulative GPA below 2.00. A student can only use it to get back in good standing.) ASU: 5-year absence from the institution, application for Academic Renewal must be filed within the first 12 months after returning to the institution. Jim could not verify that ASU has a credit or GPA requirement. Considering the requirements of NAU and UA, the Subcommittee did not feel that the UA was more restrictive. Members did not think that students should have to leave the University in order to qualify, but they believe that students should prove that they can attain a 2.50 GPA to qualify.
  5. Carol Feingold stated that students shouldn’t have the best of both policies (i.e., AGEC and Academic Renewal) without experiencing the consequences. If the student wants the benefit of the AGEC, then all courses used for AGEC completion must remain on the transcript with credit. If the AGEC student wants the benefit of Academic Renewal to raise the UA GPA, then the student either needs to make up the courses that meet UA requirements (e.g., retake them or take courses approved as substitutions) or the student cannot apply Academic Renewal to those terms containing courses used in the AGEC. Annie Nequette, referring to the interim policy, was concerned about assuming that Tier One and Tier Two requirements have been satisfied.
  6. If members wish to review the UA Academic Renewal policy, Jim Shockey will draft a proposal to begin the Subcommittee’s discussion.
  7. Gail Burd stated that the College of Science is encountering a problem that the Subcommittee might want to add to the list. Transfer students with an AGEC tend to have a difficult time completing 42 upper division units, in addition to completing their basic chemistry, physics, calculus requirements and still graduate in four years. Gail did not think that an AGEC was a good thing for students in her college. Students with science majors should follow the UA transfer guide for their specific major, completing lower division biology, chemistry and physics instead of the AGEC, so that they can finish in four years. Celeste Pardee said that Ann Huber, Director of the Transfer Center, has been informed about this problem by CoS advisors. Other colleges have expressed similar concerns about AGEC completion, such as Fine Arts, Architecture, and Engineering.
  8. Bill Fee, in conversation with Jim Shockey, pointed out that no course taken here will transfer or be used in an AGEC by any community college if the grade is below a "C." Even with Academic Renewal, the course no longer has credit, but the course remains on the transcript with a grade of "C" or better. The UA has not degraded the content of the curriculum that is included in the AGEC; the student is simply not getting credit for one or two of the courses.
  9. Celeste Pardee questioned the consistency and fairness for students who complete UA General Education requirements on campus, having stayed here the entire time, as opposed to students who leave the UA and come back with an AGEC. Students who stay at the UA and do not have an AGEC but who apply for Academic Renewal are advised that if they want Academic Renewal, they will have to make up any courses that were used to satisfy degree requirements. Unless the UA closes the AGEC loophole, it’s to the student’s advantage to leave the UA and return with an AGEC.
  10. Gail Burd proposed an alternate option--to not permit students with an AGEC to process an Academic Renewal, or to require that the student produce a list of the courses that were used by the community college toward the AGEC. Members did not believe that students would know which UA courses or community college courses were used in AGEC completion. However, this option should be taken into consideration.
  11. Jim Shockey proposed that the Subcommittee continue this discussion at the next meeting with Bill Fee. The Subcommittee will present the 3 options currently on the table—the interim policy, Jim’s proposal, and Gail’s proposal--for Bill’s input. Celeste Pardee will invite Bill Fee to the next Subcommittee meeting.

4. Guidelines and Agreement Form for Independent Study 

  1. Clare Rowe had drafted the Independent Studies Proposal Form, but requested suggestions on the guidelines.
    The Humanities Program had given her the following guidelines:
  • Freshmen are not allowed to take Independent Study.
  • The Independent Study course must not significantly duplicate material offered in a regular course scheduled by the department that semester.
  1. Regarding the signatures, it was asked if the Project Advisor and Degree Advisor were both necessary. The Degree Advisor oversees the student’s entire academic program, whereas the Project Advisor oversees the content of the Independent Study.
  2. The value of this form is that the student’s responsibilities are clearly identified and a copy would be on file in the department office, in the event that the project advisor who is supervising the Independent Study leaves. There would be a record of the agreement, especially if the grade is an Incomplete.
  3. In her e-mail, Elizabeth Zegura stated that the form in her department contains a rule against doing basic language courses through an Independent Study course. It is also their policy that Independent Studies should be for no more than 1 or 2 units. Her thoughts were that having the 399 and 499 numbers available for legitimate course substitutions is helpful at times and that there are other instances where having the option of an Independent Study for crises in scheduling or course cancellation is very helpful.
  4. Clare Rowe will work on the guidelines to accompany the Independent Study Proposal Form and email it to the Subcommittee. If the Subcommittee agrees, they may vote online, but if further discussion is needed it will be brought back to the next Subcommittee meeting.

5. Change of Grade Policy

  1. Celeste reported that the English department has asked the Council to review the Change of Grade Policy. Currently the only acceptable reason for a Change of Grade is miscalculation of grade. Based on the number of faculty (in addition to those in English) who question the current policy, Celeste asked if this should be added to the Subcommittee’s list of issues. The English department faculty will consider drafting a proposal.
  2. Carol Feingold agreed that if we receive a proposal, it should be given priority and that the English department representative should be invited to the November meeting.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p. m.

Return to the Undergraduate Council main page

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