Undergraduate Council Academic Programs Subcommittee Meeting

February 10, 2004

Members Present: Ara Arabyan, Bonnie Barber (Co-chair), Sandra Beeler, Paul Burkhardt, Byron Bissell, Wayne Decker, Carol Evans, Patti King, Cindy Rankin (Co-chair), David Tansik

Members Absent: None

Guest: Clare Roe, Fine Arts

Bonnie Barber called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m. A quorum was present.

Motion made by D. Tansik, seconded by C. Rankin, to approved the minutes of November 4, 2003, with recommended corrections for November 4^th. Motion passed.

Discussion of requests by departments to require a 3.0 major GPA for graduation and/or admission to the major

Requests have come from departments in response to updating program requirements for the new catalog, effective March 15, 2004. Among the requests are:

• 3.0 GPA in the major to graduate in Musical Theatre
• 3.0 GPA in the major and a cumulative 2.50 GPA to graduate in Theatre Education
• 3.0 GPA to be admitted to the Science Education program
• 3.0 GPA to be admitted to the Family Studies and Human Development major

Such requests have been evaluated, in the past, on an individual basis, whether by Randy Richardson or the chair of UGC, or a combination of individuals. However, there has never been a formal process for approval or even a decision about the need for approval. Departments request these changes based on such things as national standards or students are not entering the major as well prepared as they should be. This year, so far, four majors and 2 minors are requesting changes at one time. Some are for admissions requirements and others for graduation requirements. (P. King)

• Retailing has a 2.5 as well as Family and Consumer Sciences Education. School admission standards are different. There is inequity for students admitted to the school. However, it would be nice to have students who could write coherently. (B. Barber)
• When one program has a lower threshold for admittance students choose it, take the courses, and then change the major. (D. Tansik)
• Additionally, a minor has come forward from the ecology department requesting a 2.0 GPA in the minor for graduation. There is no policy on that. Another department wants to set admission requirements for the minor. We are suggesting that they set criteria that is equitable. (P. King)
• Is there a need to formalize the approval process for such changes or do we assume that departments are the best judge of such things. The Curriculum Office see these changes/requests across the university and tend to have a better perspective of the larger picture across campus. (P. King)
• Given what is already in place are we in danger of getting to the point where we are only serving the “best of the best” when our mission as an institution is to serve the students of the State of Arizona. Are we becoming more exclusive at little at a time. (P. King)
• Two issues are admission requirements and graduation requirements for the major. Is there a difference in the view of the two requirements? (B. Barber)
• There is nothing written down. In the past the view is that when graduation restrictions are applied it is because they are trying to fulfill a national or program standard. When admission standards are applied it is usually about restricting numbers. Sometimes it is to “get the best students”.
• What about retention and enrollment management which tend to be more top down. This seems to be very intimately involved with those. Recruitment and admissions is also involved. (P. Burkhardt)
• I don’t know if the committee has been together long enough to begin address our concerns yet. (P. King)
• If we continue to restrain admission to programs on campus to what departments does the burden fall for serving the other students. How do we keep a level playing field for all students yet allow departments to set standards? This is where admission vs. graduation standards differ. (C. Rankin)
• Last year the English department instituted two gateway courses where a minimum grade was required before students could enroll in other upper division courses in the major. Because enrollment into the upper division is manual, they have been able to control the enrollment. Students who could not pass these courses would not do well in the major. It wasn’t about numbers as much as student success in the major. (P. King)
• Prior discussions have been about the theory of these standards but no policy or process was ever passed. (P. King)
• Prior discussion focused on not using the GPA as an enrollment management tool. The admission should fund the departments that have demand. Dollars do not follow student load. (D. Tansik)
• Does this subcommittee feel that review of admission requirements and graduation requirements for the major  be by the administration, a faculty group, a combination of both, or enrollment management committee. Or, should it only be at the college level. However this is done, the outcome needs to be shared. (P. King)
• Was BPA forced to come to the UGC for approval of their admissions standards? (B. Bissell)
• It was passed at the Provost’s level and then came as an informational item to UGC. (P. King)
• Media Arts has gone through an academic program review and they were told to reduce their faculty/student ratio or they would lose their accreditation. Their proposal will be coming through the subcommittee.
• By having that proposal come though this subcommittee it puts the enrollment management burden on us. We should kick to back to the Provost just as BPA did. (D. Tansik)
• Our department is recognizing that students are just not prepared for their upper division courses. So faculty said to up the GPA to make sure that students are appropriately focused to succeed in their program. (C. Rankin)
• I wonder if it is appropriate to use the cumulative GPA for the major. I may not do well in my math or language classes but do well in the others. Students then go on to ace the major courses. So, I am not sure this is appropriate for admittance to the major. However, it seems to be the one that comes forward, possibly because it is an easy measurement. (P. King)
• Students take a national exam and are ranked. So many are then admitted and if you are not among them then you retest the next year. This is probably a policy issue. If you are too selective you do not get a good yield. University and ABOR needs to decide if they want 30,000 students or 40,000 students and then set the policy. (A. Arabyan)
• It is important to recognize that because some programs have been allowed to sent standards, that leaves other programs severely disadvantaged already. Programs that share students with interests, as children, might go to education or to family studies. If you are interested in couples and how they communicate you go to communications or family studies. Self defensively programs now have requirements that are not uniform across the institution.
• Yes, communications was inundated after BPA set their admission standards. (P. King)
• It is important that there be equity across departments if dollars do not follow credit hours. (B. Barber)
• There should be a standard set across the university that a 2.9 is the minimum GPA requirement for admittance to the major.
• It appears that we are shutting our doors whether advanced standing, GPA, or class size is the criteria. Someone needs to recognize this. Maybe it is driven by short term economics and maybe not. It appears that higher up admission does not recognize this as a problem. It is fair to say also the some of the strategies are not driven by enrollment management. In conversations with health science they are interested in creating an IDS program that is unusual and demanding. They want to do something unique and customize an education. Therefore, the students need to prove they are really fit to be admitted. If this subcommittee does nothing else it can at least say to the rest of the university that we consider this to be a real problem and it needs to be addressed. (P. King)
• The other thing that is happening is that minors are being closed to enrollment. This is definitely a domino effect from what is happening within the majors. (P. King)
• Is it that the enrollment management group is focused on admitting students and retain students exclusive of these problems? (P. King)
• What I have heard is that admissions is to get their numbers up. Perhaps we need to get Jerry Hogle and Lynne Tronsdal, who head the committee, come to UGC to discuss these issues.
• At some level, if everyone’s teaching load needs to increase because we cannot manage the number of students that there are without have classes of 200 for senior level courses. When that happens, faculty of any caliber will leave. There must be some way of rewarding faculty for the number of students taught. The economic disincentives here are incredible. If you are not getting any more for more students, why would you not want an enrollment cap. Focused Excellence will only contribute to the problem. It is a response of rational people to a very difficult set of circumstances and students are the ones caught in the middle. The retailing major has gone from 150 students to over 400 currently. How do you run a major like that and there is a GPA limit already. (B. Barber)
• I would be interest in how the student/course/faculty ratio has changed over the years. (W. Decker)
• How many departments have criteria in excess of university policy? (B. Barber)

Clare Rowe was asked to comment on the changes to the graduation requirements for Musical Theatre and Theatre Education. There are four program for the BFA. Programs are very small and very competitive. A portfolio and/or audition are required for admittance. There is also a BA offered in the department.

The subcommittee points of interest need to go forward to the administration. There needs to be an official confrontation about enrollment management, requirements for admission, and better admission criteria. A list of subcommittee concerns should be drawn up and sent to Jerry Hogle along with an invitation to attend the next UGC meeting.

Report on the 3/2 program proposed by the Graduate College

Patti King reported on the meeting involving Bursar’s Office, Financial Aid, Curriculum and Registration and other interested organizations. Highlights of the meeting included:

• Students will start with a three year program at the undergraduate level then enter the graduate level for two years and graduate with both the undergraduate and master’s degree.
• Original proposal was very open-ended.
• Undergraduate Council supported it.
• When it comes to implementation, however, there will be very strict criteria

• Students must have a high minimum GPA, possibly 3.5
• X number of UA credits completed prior to admission
• Meant for students who would have wanted to complete a Master’s program anyway
• Must continue working methodically toward completion of the Bachelor’s even though taking graduate level courses
• Predicts not more than 100 students within 5 to 6 years
• Possibly 6 or 7 departments currently interested in the 3/2 program. Perhaps 12 at the most.
• Curriculum will be set by the departments. Students will have to adhere to it.
• A university wide minimum criteria for 3/2 programs will be established

• The programs subcommittee and the undergraduate council will be involved because of the changes to the bachelor’s degree. Graduate level work will now take the place of one year of undergraduate work.
• Tom Hixon suggested that an Ad Hoc committee be formed of both graduate and undergraduate members to review the programs and approve or deny based on the approved criteria.
• This is a bonus to the undergraduate programs involved. (C. Rankin)
• Will the criteria agreed on for the 3/2 program be the same as other 3/2 programs across the country? (C. Rankin). That is a good question and one that needs to be investigated as the criteria develops (P. King)

The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 P.M.

Respectfully submitted by Sandra Beeler