Committee on Academic Policies and Standards (CAPS)
Minutes for January, 22nd 2014
Members present: B. Butterfield, J. Dziak, P. Miller, R. Wolf, T. Docan-Morgan, R.
Gillis, D. Annino, and E. Strauss
Members excused: T. Seddon
Alternates: Allan Macpherson, James Peirce, Sherwin Toribio (not in attendance)
Consultants: P. Stovall, T. Walls, S. Keller, K. Elgin, A. Bloome, C. Burkehardt, S. Stine,
C. Brye, G. Herling, A. Dittman
Guests: none
1. B. Butterfield called the meeting to order at 8:37 a.m.
2. Motion to convene. Motion approved. (8-0-0-)
3. Roll call (8-0-0) to move to closed session as provided in section 19.85 (1)(a)
of Wisconsin Statutes, when: “deliberating concerning a case which was the
subject of any judicial or quasi-judicial trial or hearing before the
governmental body.”
4. CLS: 5 appeals, presented by P. Stovall, T. Walls, S. Keller, CLS
SAH: 9 appeals, presented by, C. Brye, C. Burkehardt, G. Herling, S. Stine, SAH
CBA: 3 appeals, presented by A. Dittman CBA
5. CLS #1: The committee heard the appeal of academic ineligibility. The
committee voted to deny the appeal. (0-8-0)
6. CLS #2: The committee heard the appeal of academic ineligibility. The
committee voted to approve the appeal. (6-2-0)
7. CLS #3: The committee heard the appeal of academic ineligibility. The
committee voted to approve the appeal. (7-1-0)
8. CLS #4: The committee heard the appeal of the course repeat policy. The
committee voted to deny the appeal. (2-6-0)
9. CLS #5: The committee heard the appeal of the repeat course policy. The
committee voted to approve the appeal. (8-0-0)
10. SAH #1: The committee heard the appeal of academic ineligibility. The
committee voted to approve the appeal. (6-1-1)
11. SAH #2: The committee heard the appeal of academic ineligibility. The
committee voted to approve the appeal. (7-1-0)
12. SAH #3: The committee heard the appeal of academic ineligibility. The
committee voted to deny the appeal. (0-8-0)
13. SAH #4: The committee heard the appeal of academic ineligibility. The
committee voted to approve the appeal. (5-3-0)
14. SAH #5: The committee heard the appeal of academic ineligibility. The
committee voted to approve the appeal. (5-3-0)
15. SAH #6: The committee heard the appeal of academic ineligibility. The
committee voted to deny the appeal. (0-8-0)
16. SAH #7: The committee heard the appeal of academic ineligibility. The
committee voted to deny the appeal. (0-8-0)
17. Motion to recess while in closed session until 1 p.m. Motion approved. (8-00)
18. B. Butterfield called the meeting to order at 1:05 p.m.
19. Motion to convene while in closed session. Motion approved. (8-0-0-)
20. SAH #8: The committee heard the appeal of academic ineligibility. The
committee voted to deny the appeal. (0-8-0)
21. SAH #9: The committee heard the appeal of academic ineligibility. The
motion fails. (4-4-0)
22. CBA #1: The committee heard the appeal of academic ineligibility. The
committee voted to approve the appeal. (4-3-1)
23. CBA #2: The committee heard the appeal of academic ineligibility. The
committee voted to deny the appeal. (0-7-0)
24. CBA #3: The committee heard the appeal of academic ineligibility. The
committee voted to deny the appeal. (0-7-0)
25. Motion to move into open session. Motion approved. (7-0-0)
26. Robert Wolf and Jan Von Ruden reported on the Sub-committee on Credit by
Exam Policy. The minutes were reported:
Committee on Academic Policies and Standards (CAPS)
Sub-committee on Credit by Exam Policy
Minutes for November 25, 2013
Members present: G. Herling, E. Strauss and R. Wolf
Guests: none
1.
R. Wolf called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.
2. Sub-committee Charge: Review UW-L’s policy on Credit by Exam and consider
revisions.
Sub-committee Proposal: Allow an unlimited number of credits by exam toward total
credits, but allow only 30 credits by exam to count toward a specific degree.
3. Prior to our meeting, the sub-committee requested feedback from administrative
staff from each college and the university. We also received some feedback from
college chairs.
Arguments considered:
a. There is value to a residential program that is difficult, if not impossible, to
duplicate through an exam. Students receiving too many credits through exams
may not receive the same education as those engaged in a UW-L residential
program.
b. UW-L has an exceptional reputation with the implied value to its
courses. Offering too many credits by exam may dilute brand quality. Although
this is a very good argument for many substitutions for UW-L credits, there are
only a handful of students that receive notable credits by exam and these
students seem to do very well in their subsequent coursework.
c. UW-L Associate Registrar Jan Von Ruden provided data from the last four
years including students with notable numbers of credit by exam. In the last four
years, there were twelve? students with notable credits and most of those
students have done very well. This is not a large number of students, but they
appear to be very good students.
d. Credit by Exam Policies at other UWS institutions are generally stated, ‘the
student may receive X credits by exam,’ with X varying by university. Another
policy format does not limit credits by exam, but requires a specific number of
credits that are not credit by exam.
e. Most UW-L programs require 120 credits; some programs require more. The
policy should be appropriate for all programs.
f. It would make sense to match the number of credits by exam to some
benchmark. The sub-committee suggests one year of courses or 30 credits.
g. Finally, it may be useful to consider the appeals process for this policy. The
standard appeals process is through CAPS, which generally is fine. However, an
issue arises because most credit by exam scores are released during summer
months when CAPS is not easily assembled, making exceptions to the policy
complicated. This was the driving factor for reviewing the credit by exam
policy. Maybe a sub-committee of CAPS could handle appeals to this policy
during the summer.
h. Further considerations: At this time, there is not much data to warrant
dramatic changes in our policy. However, there is a perception by the subcommittee that availability of credits by exam may increase. If this materializes,
then it may be useful for CAPS to revisit the policy. Additionally, in addition to
the data provided by the Registrar, it would be useful to know how credits by
exam affect students’ residential credits (more accurately, credits not by exam).
For example, if a student earns 30 credits by exam, do they attend UW-L for
three years or does it have a much less significant impact, ie., they stay four
years, finishing with two or more degrees and around 150 credits.
4. The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 pm.
R. Wolf motioned to amend the credit by examination policy to read “no limit”. Motion
approved (4-3-0). The amendments are proposed as such:
CREDIT BY EXAMINATION AND RETROACTIVE CREDIT POLICY
All credits earned by examination or through retroactive credit will have full academic value, i.e., they will count tow
for graduation and, if applicable, fulfill prerequisite requirements for advanced courses, General Education require
requirements and/or major/minor requirements.
B. Credit will be entered but no grade will be recorded on the permanent academic record.
C. Credits earned in this manner will not be counted in determining the grade point average. D. Credits earned by examination will not be counted as part of a student's course load.
E. A maximum of 32 semester credits earned in this manner at other accredited institutions will be accepted as t
Restrictions: 1. The maximum credits one may earn by examination is 32 credits; 16 for an associate degree. 2. No student will be permitted to attempt to receive credit by examination for a particular course more than once.
earn credits by examination only after admission to and enrollment at UW-L. A student will be regarded as 'regular
enrolled' after attending on a full-time or part-time basis and paying the appropriate fees in a regular semester or s
one who has received a final grade in a course or an 'incomplete' may earn credit by examination for the same cou
may not receive credit by examination or retroactive credit for a course they are auditing or have audited at UW-L.
has withdrawn from a UW-L course after the first four weeks may earn credit for the course by examination. Se
www.uwlax.edu/admissaions/html/creditbyexam.htm for specific types of credit by examination and retroactive cre
procedures.
27. Motion to adjourn. Motion approved. (7-0-0)
28. Meeting was adjourned at 3: 19 p.m.