Academic Curriculum/Policies Subcommittee Meeting Minutes, December 9, 2003

Undergraduate Council
Academic Curriculum/Policies
Subcommittee Meeting

December 9, 2003

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

Non-Voting Members Present: Jennifer Jenkins, Noris Montalvan, Celeste Pardee

Members Not Present: Gail Burd, James Shockey, Lynne Tronsdal

Recording Secretary: Noris Montalvan

Carol Feingold, Co-Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:15 p.m.

I. Approval of 11/04/03 Curriculum/Policies Meeting Minutes

Annie Nequette moved to approve the minutes and Elizabeth Zegura seconded the motion. The motion was approved.

II. Vote on sending the memorandum entitled, Readmitted UA Students With AGEC Who Seek Academic Renewal, to the Arizona Program Articulation Steering Committee (APASC) and Academic Advising Articulation Task Force (AAATF) (see memo)

Bill Conway made a motion to send the memo asking for input from the state community colleges, and Annie Nequette seconded the motion. The motion was approved.
APASC and AAATF will meet in February 2004. Celeste Pardee will send the memo to the chairs of both committees, requesting that they distribute it as an agenda item for discussion at their upcoming meetings. Members hope to have a response prior to the March Subcommittee meeting.

III. Discuss revising the Academic Renewal policy (found in the 2003 General Catalog at: http://catalog.arizona.edu/2003-04/policies/acadrenw.htm)

At November’s Subcommittee meeting, some members suggested that the UA Academic Renewal policy should be revised along the lines of ASU’s policy, in that eligibility should be restricted to students with lower GPAs.
Members thought that the motivation for many UA students to apply for Academic Renewal is to increase their GPA--for instance, from 3.50 to 3.70. If so, the removal of low grades from the cumulative GPA is simply a way to artificially inflate the GPA for graduation, but it shouldn’t be considered a way of permanently changing the GPA. Even though courses and grades are removed from the University’s GPA calculation, they remain on the UA transcript. Students who later apply to Law School or Medical School, for example, will find that their adjusted GPA is recalculated with all courses on the transcript, so Academic Renewal does not improve their chances for admission. Academic Renewal does not change the student’s academic record of course grades. It simply boosts their GPA for graduation purposes. Members agreed that Academic Renewal should not be used to graduate with Academic Distinction. This was not the original intent of the policy.
Data on the GPAs of students who have filed for Academic Renewal is needed in order for the Subcommittee to understand the GPA profile of students who take advantage of this option. Celeste has asked Sandra Knighton, Assistant Registrar, for this information.
Most members voiced support for a change in UA policy restricting the option of taking Academic Renewal to students with a GPA below 2.00. Others would consider a GPA cutoff of 2.50 qualify for Academic Renewal but no higher. The ASU policy states: All students with GPAs less that a 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 2003 General Catalog). If the UA adopted a similar policy, the college deans could approve petitions for Academic Renewal from students with higher GPAs. This was not viewed favorably.
Stacey Nelson was dismayed to learn that Academic Renewal has been used to increase students’ GPAs so they can graduate with Academic Distinction. She felt this was an unfair application of the policy, which is more appropriate for a student with a borderline GPA who would not graduate without it. She supported exceptions to the criteria only through the General Petition process.
Bill Conway reported that the General Petition Committee has occasionally granted early Academic Renewal to students with special circumstances; many of the exceptions have been for graduating seniors. When a new freshman or transfer student with medical problems or a documented family emergency accrues one or two semesters of poor grades, the General Petition Committee does not know if that student is capable of being successful at UA because the student has no record of ever earning good grades at the UA. In a case such as this, the General Petition Committee asks the student to prove that he can be successful here by completing at least two semesters with a GPA of 2.50 or better. Once the student proves that he can academically succeed, he may again apply for early Academic Renewal, and the Committee would approve it with the recommendation of the student’s college dean. The UA gives this student an opportunity to begin anew, but the student’s history has not been changed.
If the UA amends the policy to restrict Academic Renewal to students with a GPA below 2.00, exceptions could still be made through General Petitions. The Subcommittee agreed that this process should continue, as it assures consistency and uniformity in application of the standards to all colleges. Authority for exceptions needs to be delegated where it can be best exercised.
Elizabeth Zegura expressed a concern about offering the Academic Renewal option to students who are less successful, while depriving students who are more successful of that same option. What recourse would good students have when their grades are negatively impacted by medical or personal problems for one or two semesters? For students with an otherwise superb academic record, erasing a semester or two of low grades might make the difference between graduating with distinction or not. Could such students petition for Academic Renewal? Yes they could submit a General Petition, but a better option would be for them to file a petition for retroactive withdrawal from the affected terms. If approved, a petition for withdrawal would actually remove the poor grades from the transcript. Elizabeth agreed that as long as the retroactive withdrawal option exists, the Academic Renewal option should be restricted to students with a GPA below 2.00.
Celeste will draft a proposal for revising the Academic Renewal policy with the additional GPA condition. The draft proposal, along with the data on the GPAs of students who filed for Academic Renewal this year, will be provided for review and discussion at the January meeting.

IV. Update on proposal to add a requirement on Minimum University Credit in the Major (see the proposal)

Faculty Senate approved the revised proposal on the Major Average on December 1, 2003.
Under the amended policy, college deans will continue to manage the major GPA of their students. Appeals for exceptions to the required 2.00 GPA will go to the college dean for approval. As requested by the Provost, Graduation Services will submit a list of the deans’ exceptions to the V.P. of Instruction following each graduation date. The Curriculum/Policies Subcommittee would also like to review any exceptions (on an annual basis) in order to determine how this management plan is working.
Since the effective date for the revised Major GPA policy (as well as the proposed Minimum University Credit in the Major policy) is Fall 2004, how will the University community be informed about the change? Celeste Pardee will present both changes to the University Professional Advisors Council (UPAC) at their 12/10/03 meeting. The campus community needs to know about the amended policy because department curriculum committees may want to revise the 2004 Academic Program Requirements Reports (APRRs) for their majors. Celeste suggested that either Jim Shockey or Gail Burd could send an announcement to other college associate deans. Jennifer Jenkins suggested that it also be sent on a 3D memo. Before sending a 3D memo, it would be good to see what happens with the Minimum University Credit proposal. If that proposal is approved by the Instruction & Curriculum Policy Committee (ICPC) and the Faculty Senate in January, the memo could address both changes at the same time.
Regarding the proposal for University Credit in the Major, ICPC raised the following questions at their November meeting:

(a) Would the proposed requirement for 18 University Credits apply to a second or third major, in addition to the first? Yes, Celeste has clarified the proposal by adding this statement: This requirement applies to any and all majors in the student’s academic program.

(b) How would the 18 units be distributed among the major, pre-major, and/or professional core? Based on the Subcommittee’s comments, Celeste added the following paragraph to the proposal: Each department curriculum committee should determine the minimum number of University credits (units in residence) that are required in the major, pre-major, and/or professional core—as defined on the Academic Program Requirements Report. The distribution of units among the components of the major will be stated on each APRR.. The total for major- related course work cannot be fewer than 18 units, but the department has the discretion of requiring more units. Good examples may be found on the major APRRs in the Eller College of Business & Public Administration. Other colleges will need to determine the distribution of University Credits.

Bill Conway reported that another ICPC concern dealt with the fourth bullet under Rationale for the new policy: Implementation of this policy may eliminate the need for the troublesome policy that 18 of the final 30 units taken for the degree must be University Credit, which, for example, has prevented students from accepting quality internships located outside of the Tucson area, as well as Study Abroad experiences, during their final year of study. The Subcommittee agreed that this statement was incidental to the proposal and could be removed.

V. Items to be reviewed and discussed at the next Subcommittee meeting:

(a) Proposal to establish a Minor Grade point Average – tabled by Full Council on 4/22/03

(b) Admission of transfer students and readmits with junior standing who are undecided on a major.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

Edited by C. Pardee

12/19/03

Return to the Undergraduate Council main page

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