Undergraduate Council
Academic Curriculum/Policies
Subcommittee Meeting

November 4, 2003

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

Non-Voting Members Present: Patti King, Noris Montalvan, Celeste Pardee

Members Not Present: Lynne Tronsdal

Guests Present: Bill Fee, Director, Curriculum & Articulation Services; Sandra Knighton, Assistant Registrar, Office of Curriculum & Registration; David Padgett, Director, Curriculum & Articulation Services, Pima Community College

Recording Secretary: Noris Montalvan

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

I. Approval of 10/14/03 Curriculum/Policies Meeting Minutes

Bill Conway moved to approve the minutes, and Clare Rowe seconded the motion. The motion was approved.

II. Discussion of policy options regarding AGEC students who file for Academic Renewal

  • Guests were introduced (see above).
  • The following three options were reviewed:
  1. Prevent UA students from taking Academic Renewal to retroactively remove courses from their GPA and credit requirements that were incorporated into the Arizona General Education Curriculum (AGEC). A policy of this kind would require the UA to find out which UA courses were used to complete an AGEC certified by an Arizona community college.
  2. Adopt the interim solution that was developed last spring by Curriculum & Registration—allow Academic Renewal, provided that the student makes up any courses used to meet the general education foundation requirements of freshman composition and mathematics (the only courses used in an AGEC that can be identified without contacting the community college).
  3. Allow AGEC students to process an Academic Renewal only after the student produces a list of the UA courses that were used by the community college toward the AGEC. The student would then be advised to make up all UA courses that were included in the AGEC.
  • Dave Padgett commented that if the number of students with an AGEC who seek Academic Renewal is not large, less that 50 students per year, he would give UA the list of courses used in an AGEC certified by Pima Community College. If that helps solve the problem for UA, his office would be glad to provide that service.
  • Sandra Knighton reported that during 2002, there were 104 Academic Renewals processed; so far this year, 120 have been processed. Most of the renewals are from students who attended prior to 1988 and wish to delete course work up to 1990. From these, there are probably only a half dozen students a year who have an AGEC. We anticipate this number will increase, but it would still not be a large number. The community colleges began offering the AGEC in 1998, but an AGEC could include UA courses completed prior to 1998.
  • Would Pima Community College object when the UA disregarded courses from a student’s record, if those courses had been used to complete the AGEC? Pima Community College would not object as long as UA recognized the conditions of the AGEC--that the student has completed the lower division General Education requirements. Academic Renewal policies set by UA—requiring a student to repeat a course, make a substitution, or use a higher-level course—would not affect the AGEC. Academic Renewal might result in fewer units on the student’s academic record, but the student would still have an intact AGEC. Pima Community College would be concerned, though, if the University adopts a policy that prohibits AGEC students from processing an Academic Renewal.
  • Bill Fee distributed a scenario where a student with an AGEC had processed an Academic Renewal to improve his GPA. The Subcommittee was disturbed to learn that a student could use the Academic Renewal process to raise his GPA in order to graduate with Magna Cum Laude. Some members were opposed to the use of Academic Renewal for obtaining honors. It should be available to help a student with a lower GPA to meet the 2.000 graduation requirement, and possibly to help a "C" student to raise his graduation GPA to a C+ average. The UA might want to limit the eligibility of students based on their GPA.
  • The Academic Renewal policy should be equitable for students who stay at the UA for their entire academic career and for those UA students who leave, earn an AGEC, and return to the UA to complete a bachelor’s degree. It is unfair for readmitted students, who already have the benefit of the AGEC, to obtain an extra benefit of Academic Renewal without having to make up for the lost courses. Continuing UA students, who do not have the benefit of an AGEC, are required to make up any courses removed through an Academic Renewal.
  • The policies at NAU and ASU state that only students with less than a 2.000 GPA can receive Academic Renewal. ASU’s policy states: Academic renewal is a university policy administered for the purpose of recalculating the ASU cumulative GPA of undergraduate students who have been readmitted to a degree program after an absence of at least five continuous calendar years including summer sessions and who have completed in good standing a minimum of 12 college-approved additional hours in residence within three semesters after reentry. Students may have the former academic record before the five-year absence (including transfer credits) accepted in the same manner as if the credits were transfer credits. That is, earned hours are carried forward for up to 60 hours of credit in which a grade of "C" or higher was earned. The cumulative GPA is based only on credits earned subsequent to the student’s reentry. All graduation residency, academic recognition residency and GPA requirements must be fulfilled after academic renewal. All students with GPAs below 2.00 are eligible to petition for academic renewal. Individual colleges may elect to entertain petitions for academic renewal from students with ASU GPAs above 2.00. College standards committees have final authorization on academic renewal petitions. (from the ASU General Catalog)
  • UA is the only one of the three public institutions that does not require the student to leave and come back in order to be eligible for Academic Renewal. Is the UA’s policy too lenient in this respect? Bill Fee favors relaxing the policy in another way--by not deleting the credit, only the grades, and counting the credit as though it were transfer credit. ASU students do not have to retake any of the courses removed by the Academic Renewal, because the credit remains to meet the degree requirements. The Subcommittee disagreed with this policy. The UA, as a Research I Institution, should have more stringent policies. Focused Excellence has stated that the three Universities do not have to be alike. They can have different policies in keeping with their missions.
  • The Subcommittee requested further data on the GPAs of students who have filed for Academic Renewal. How many of the students have a low GPA versus the number with a high GPA? Members would also be interested in knowing the reasons that students file for Renewal. This brought out a related concern--multiple complete withdrawals. The initial assumption was that students who were struggling would withdraw, but a high proportion of students with a 3.8 GPA and above also take multiple complete withdrawals. Students who file multiple withdrawals do not necessarily have medical reasons for withdrawing. This issue is on the Subcommittee’s list to be reviewed in the future.
  • Academic Renewal policy was designed to allow students to remove consecutive semesters of courses (not individual courses), because if there were extenuating circumstances that negatively affected the student’s academic work, all courses would have been affected. If the student experienced personal or family problems for a period of time, the policy allows the student to remove a block of courses from the academic record. ASU’s philosophy seems to be to encourage students to stay at ASU, not to improve their GPA as high as they want. If the student’s GPA were below 2.000, ASU’s policy would retain the student through degree completion. This might be a good philosophy for UA to adopt. According to some Subcommittee members, UA students have too many options (retroactive withdrawals, GROs, and Academic Renewal) for erasing poor academic work. Other than a medical withdrawal, there are few valid reasons for deleting a block of courses from the transcript. The "lifesaver" reason for Academic Renewal is better than the "improving GPA" reason.
  • Stacey Nelson stated, from a conscientious student’s perspective, that it detracts from all the work a student does by giving some students the "gift" of an Academic Renewal to increase their GPA. Academic Renewal is a great option for students with a low GPA who are trying to meet the basic graduation requirement. But it should not be a means for a student with a high GPA to qualify for graduation with honors. All grades should ordinarily calculate into a student’s graduation GPA.
  • Academic Renewal does not help students when they apply for graduate school. It is the practice of graduate schools to recalculate the graduation GPA. Graduate and professional schools use all grades, even those removed by Academic Renewal.
  • With David Padgett’s approval, members agreed that the UA would not deny a student with an AGEC the option of taking Academic Renewal. As long as the UA knew which UA courses were used in the AGEC, advisors would inform students that they would have to retake or find substitutions for those particular courses, just as they would tell any other UA student applying for Academic Renewal. For example, if ENGL 101 were included in the term to be erased, the student would check with the Writing Program Coordinator about substituting a writing course that might have ENGL 101 as a prerequisite. A substitution would enable the student to progress toward graduation without retaking freshman composition. David added that each of the community colleges requires at least one intensive writing course beyond freshman composition as part of the AGEC. Most students take more that one intensive writing course. If the UA were to ask the community colleges to identify other intensive writing courses, the UA Writing Program Coordinator might approve one of those as a substitution for ENGL 101 or 102.
  • If the UA permits Academic Renewal for students with an AGEC, pending verification of UA courses, would other community colleges be receptive to identifying the UA courses that were used in the AGEC? David Padgett thought that it would not be a problem. The Transfer Student Ombudspersons (members of the statewide Academic Advising Articulation Task Force) should have access to that information and would be willing to help the student in obtaining Academic Renewal.
  • While the UA has an interim policy in place, the Subcommittee would like to have a policy that can be clearly stated in the General Catalog for the benefit of students and advisors. Members proposed expanding the interim policy to include all UA courses used in a certified AGEC (not merely freshman English and mathematics), provided the UA is able to obtain a list of the UA courses from the community college. The policy should include not only AGEC, but also any other block General Education transfer programs. For example, the General Education Committee has approved the IGETC block transfer program from California, which is similar in concept to the AGEC. So far UA has not seen any students with IGETC. California’s program may be just the tip of the iceberg. The UA will continue reviewing block transfer General Education programs from other states to help recruit transfer students.
  • Celeste Pardee will draft a proposal on AGEC students who file for Academic Renewal that reflects this discussion. Subcommittee members will vote via email; if the proposal is approved, Celeste will forward the proposal to Bill Fee to take to the statewide articulation groups for more input.
  • The Subcommittee will continue discussion of the Academic Renewal Policy at their next meeting.

III. Update on recommendations passed by Full Council: 48-unit rule, extension of CLEP policy, and major GPA proposals

  • Celeste Pardee is polishing both memos with the recommendations that were approved by full Council. The one concerning the 48-unit rule will be sent to the five colleges that offer the BA and/or BS degrees. The one concerning the extension of the CLEP policy to language courses will be sent not only to the College of Humanities, but also to the Colleges of SBS and Education, which also offer introductory language courses. These are UGC recommendations, not policy revisions, so there are no further steps in the approval process. The colleges will receive the official recommendations from Jennifer Jenkins, UGC chair, and colleges will then make their own policy decisions.
  • The Provost’s Management Group (PMG) approved two of the major GPA proposals. Jennifer Jenkins will present those proposals at the November 19, 2003 Instruction & Curriculum Policy Committee (ICPC) meeting as consent agenda items. If approved by ICPC, it will go to Faculty Senate, and if approved by Faculty Senate, Celeste will see that the General Catalog statement is revised. However, the PMG did not approve the way the major GPA would be managed—with exceptions made only through the General Petition process. Since the Subcommittee initiated the management proposal, members have the option of submitting another proposal addressing the way exceptions are managed.
  • The Provost asked the Curriculum Office to present to the Vice Provost for Instruction, at the end of each semester, the degree packets of students graduating with a GPA lower than 2.000 in their major. Bill Conway asked if the Subcommittee could also monitor those cases on an annual basis. There is a lot of inconsistency among the colleges, with respect to approving exceptions to the major GPA requirement. It would be good to look at the reasons and patterns in the colleges. The Subcommittee could then notify full Council of the findings. Celeste agreed that the information sent by the Curriculum Office to the Vice Provost for Instruction would be submitted to the Subcommittee.

IV. Revised guidelines and agreement form for Independent Study

  • Clare Rowe presented the revised Independent Studies Proposal Form.
  • The next step is to send the form to the Graduate Council since graduate level Independent Study courses are currently listed. Does the Graduate College want faculty to use this form?
  • Census dates only exist in the Fall and Spring Semesters; an equivalent date should be noted for Summer Sessions. Celeste will send a suggestion to Clare for the next version of the form.

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

Edited by C. Pardee

11/17/03

Return to the Undergraduate Council main page

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