UNR Faculty Senate 2011-12
Academic Standards Committee
Report
Members
Justin Blum, Libraries
Charles Coronella, Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering
George Danko, Mining Engineering
Dana Edberg, Information Systems
Ann Keniston, English (Committee Chair)
Susan Lentz, Criminal Justice
Paul Mitchell, Journalism
Keri Ryan, Civil Engineering
Jeffrey Thompson, Geography
Kristi Van Gorder, College of Liberal Arts
Maggie Ressel, Libraries, Executive Board Liaison
1

The following report is a summary of the recommendations of the 2011-2012 Academic Standards Committee.
The report is organized according to the charges we were given this year. (A complete list of our charges is in
Appendix A.) We have already submitted reports related to two of them (the Chancellor’s Low-Yield Proposal in October and the Dismissal/Appeals Process in October). What follows is our response to the remaining charges, which are divided into five main groups:

Part One deals with issues related to the Academic Integrity website and reporting (for information purposes)

Part Two deals with issues related to the 120-credit proposal (needs Faculty Senate action)

Part Three deals with our recommendation about the continued existence and makeup of the Academic
Standards Committee (for information only)

Part Four deals with the one additional charge we have not already addressed, the charge related to the declaration of a major by the completion of 60 credits.(needs action)

Part Five reports on the status of a report on interdisciplinarity from the 2009 committee’s report (for information)
PART ONE
Charge 1ai : We were asked to do the following in relation to hold-over issues from previous years in relation to the Academic Integrity reporting system and web site:
1.
Verify completion of Academic Integrity website (including recommendations a-h) hosted by Sally
Morgan’s office.
The particular issues mentioned in the report from last year related to the website included the following
2009-2010 Committee Recommendation:
UNR should have a single webpage regarding Academic Integrity (AI) hosted by the Faculty Senate.
Any unit who wants to address academic integrity should link to this single webpage. The website should contain: a. A brief Code of Ethics for students; b. A copy of pp. 72-73 from the 2010-11 UNR General Catalogue “Section IV: “Academic
[Standards] Integrity”; c. A copy of the NSHE Board of Regents Code: Title 2, Chapter 6; d. A link to the Office of Student Conduct “Academic Standards for Students” (this part also contains NSHE policy) e. The ASUN student “Honor Code”; f. A link to examples of academic integrity issues (plagiarism) from other University websites e.g., Purdue, Northwestern, etc.; g. Student and faculty responsibilities to prevent and reduce academic dishonesty on campus; and h. Sample language for use in course syllabuses concerning academic integrity.
Response:
We have redesigned the web page substantially, retitling it “Academic Standards” (rather than
“Academic Standards for Students”) and including three main links, one to the Academic Standards Policy, a second entitled “Resources for Students” and a third entitled “Resources for Faculty.” The Student page includes the following: information on Citing Sources (both a document adapted with permission from the MIT handbook and a list of links from the UNR Knowledge Center); information on Avoiding Plagiarism (also
2

including information from the MIT handbook and Knowledge Center links and seminars); and information on
Finding Information Resources (from the KC). We have also adapted and in some cases retitled information already on the page, including Getting Help with Assignments and FAQ for students.
The Faculty links include the following: Classroom Resources (links to classroom activities from other web sites and a worksheet on proper citation); sample syllabus language; a document entitled “Filing Charges of
Academic Dishonesty,” along with a timeline for faculty, a sample notification letter, and a list of possible penalties for faculty); the materials from MIT and the KC included for students; a document entitled “How
Faculty Can Support Student Integrity” adapted from the current web page; and a link to the new MyNevada on-line reporting form (see next point below); and a FAQ for faculty.
According to Sally Morgan, director of the Office of Student Conduct, UNR does not have an honor code or code of ethics, so these documents were not included on the site.
Sally Morgan has approved these new documents and feels that because there is no substantially new information, the revised links and pages can be uploaded immediately. She is in the process of doing so, with the goal of having everything up and running by the beginning of the summer term so that any difficulties can be worked out before the beginning of the Fall 2012 term.
Charge 1aii: We were asked to do the following in relation to Academic Integrity issues:
Investigate with UNR IT available online methods of reporting instances of academic dishonesty without FERPA violations.
Response:
Last year’s efforts to devise an online reporting system ran into difficulties because of FERPA compliance issues. Working with Melisa Choroszy, Shannon Ellis, and Sally Morgan, we have devised a link that faculty can access via the Early Alert System in PeopleSoft/the MyNevada system to file a confidential report on student dishonesty. This material can be accessed by the Office of Student Conduct. We were reassured that this mode of reporting did not violate any FERPA policies. The new link should be available for piloting during the summer term and should be fully available (along with any necessary instructions for its use) by the Fall 2012 semester.
PART TWO
Charge Ib: We were charged with several tasks following the approval of the 120-credit degree limit by the
Board of Regents, including the following:
Review of other graduation requirements related to total credits (specifically 40 Upper Division and track RFA for residency change from 32 to 30 upper division).
Response: With help from the UNR Registrar’s office, we’ve found a single instance in the general catalog requiring updating, to reflect the new default that all baccalaureate degrees are earned in 120 credits. The resident credit requirements for graduation appropriately stipulates completion of “30 upper-division credits in residence.” See http://www.cis.unr.edu/ecatalog/Default.aspx?article_list_id=25682
3

However, there is an authorized exception applicable to preprofessional students indicated on this page in need of updating. It is given below
1.
Preprofessional students who complete at least 96 90 credits in residence at the university may transfer a maximum of 32 30 semester credits of satisfactory course work from an accredited professional school toward a bachelor's degree. In order to apply the transfer credits, such students must satisfy all department, college and university requirements for graduation.
The suggested changes are indicated. The changes are consistent with scaling the baccalaureate degree from 128 credits to 120 credits.
Charge 1bii: We were charged to do the following:
Research the development of the campus-based portion of the process for exceptions to the 120 credit limit (accreditation).
Response: A policy designed by Vice Provost Bill Cathey was reviewed by our committee and small changes were made; this policy was approved by the Faculty Senate in December and is now in the administrative manual. (see Appendix B).
Charge Ibiii: We were charged to do the following:
Research the development of a campus-based early warning and support system for programs that are near the degree production thresholds detailed in the BOR proposals.
Response: The first requirement of the new BOR policy (attached in Appendix C) stipulates that the administration will develop a policy in consultation with the faculty senate. No administrative procedure is yet in place, and Bill Cathey is leading the administration’s efforts in this matter.
The policy indicates that each program should be reviewed every three years. However, since the review is likely to be fairly straightforward, simply counting graduates, it may not be difficult to do the review more frequently.
Thresholds for baccalaureate and for combined master’s and doctoral programs are specified. Therefore, it will be necessary for Institutional Analysis to produce a chart annually showing annual degrees awarded for all academic programs on campus. The thresholds are given as total degrees over three years, and therefore
Institutional Analysis should produce, as part of this chart, three-year totals, starting in 2015 (three years after the beginning for this new policy.) Those three totals can be shown as running totals, alongside the annual degree production.
The regents designate baccalaureate programs as “low-yield” if there aren’t at least 20 degrees awarded over a three-year span. I suggest that programs producing fewer than 7 degrees in any single year be contacted.
Similarly, any program with sum of master’s and doctoral degrees fewer than three in any year should be contacted by the provost’s office.
Working with the chair and the dean, a determination should be made early on: a) The program is stable, but had low graduation numbers one year. No action required. b) Graduation numbers are not likely to increase, but the program can make a solid case for exemption, as described in the policy. c) The dean and administration have identified this program as an area for future growth, and are committed to provide the resources to build the program to the necessary threshold.
4

d)
Graduation numbers are unlikely to increase, and it’s likely that the program will be designated “lowyield” two years hence.
Each of those outcomes has a concomitant administrative response.
PART THREE
Of the remaining standing charges we were given, only one required a response:
Charge 2 : We were asked to do the following:
Make recommendations on the future status, organization, structure, and charges of the ASC. Consider whether the committee is necessary and effective, and how could it be improved.
Response: The committee’s consensus was that the committee is necessary and effective; it seems the best forum to address issues related to academic standards. We recommend that the committee continue to follow the current structure, in which the work of the committee is handled by subcommittees and then approved by the full committee.
PART FOUR
Charge 6: We were asked to do the following:
Conduct extensive review and revision of current academic progress standards, specifically considering undergraduates being required to declare a major by the time they have completed 60 credits to decrease a delay in graduation for these students and increase the 4 year graduation rates.
Response: After reviewing our current standards, researching the standards at comparable schools, and evaluating existing information on the academic progress of degree students, the Academic Standards
Committee believes that students should be required to declare a major prior to the completion of 60 credits.
While comparatively few students do not declare a major prior to their junior year and a new policy may seem unnecessary to provide a deadline for those students, we believe that such a policy supports the university’s focus on undergraduate degree completion.
The key reasons for our recommendation to create this policy are:

Enforce existing implied policy: Students who have not declared a major are required currently to have academic advising every semester before registering for courses. Since students are not able to register without advisement, this process creates an “implied” policy that it is not acceptable to continue at the university as a degree-seeking student without declaring a major. By establishing a clear policy that all students must declare a major by the completion of 60 credits, we make an explicit rather than implicit policy.
5


Distribute advising load to most appropriate unit: Undeclared majors are advised by the university advising center, while declared majors are advised by the administrative unit of the major. Advisors within a given administrative unit (College, department) are best able to help students understand the most effective course choices for a given major, while the general university advising center may not know all the differences among courses within different disciplines.

Make best use of financial aid funding: Students classified as “degree seeking” are eligible for financial aid whether they have a declared major, while “non-degree” students are not eligible for financial aid.
According to financial aid regulations, degree-seeking students must complete their degree within a reasonable time frame so federal regulations limit funding to no more than 150% of the average length of a degree program. If a degree program is 120 credits, then financial aid terminates at 180 credits. Requiring a student to declare a major at 60 credits makes it clear that a defined program of study is necessary for both graduation and funding.

Align university policy with comparable institutions: Five out of nine comparable schools require declaration of major within a reasonable time frame for degree-seeking students. See appendix D.

Highlight the focus on degree completion.
Graduation rate and time-to-degree-completion are key metrics to evaluate student progress for the university. This new policy helps students who might delay graduation better understand the need to declare a major and create a path to degree completion.
While our committee is unanimous in our recommendation, we believe that the faculty senate should be aware of the following issues when makings its final decision on whether to create a new policy.

The number of students who do not declare a major by the completion of 60 credits is relatively small. As of 2011, about 7.6% of junior and 2.2% of senior students had not declared a major. See appendix E for information about the extent of the “problem.”

Students may not declare a major because they are trying to qualify for that major. Some majors have GPA requirements and students who have not declared a major may be trying to raise their GPA to meet that requirement. If we force a student to declare a major, then the student may have to declare a temporary major until able to qualify for the desired major.

The relationship between declaration of major and time to graduate is not clear. For example, appendix C provides information about the time to graduate. Appendix F shows the graduation rate for cohorts from
Fall 2005, 2006 and 2007 and the time it took them to graduate by August 31, 2011. Appendix F also shows the percentage of students who declared a major in General Studies (BGS). It does appear there is correlation between delay in declaration of a major and a degree ultimately earned in General Studies. The last page of Appendix F provides demographic information about the three cohorts used for the evaluation.

Existing policy requires a student to be advised prior to registration if the student has not declared a major.
If new policy is created, then it should go beyond existing policy and disallow a student from registration without exceptions.
If the senate decides to accept our recommendation, then here are our recommendations for implementation:

Create pre-majors for each major that has an admission requirement. Those majors that have an admission requirement should have a “place-holder” major that students can declare until the admission requirement is met.

Evaluate majors on an ongoing basis. Those colleges with majors that have an exit requirement must regularly review student progress and move those students who do not continue to qualify to “pre-major” status.

Make a policy for transfer students. We recommend that students who transfer into the university with 60 credits or more should be given a semester to declare a major.
6


Make the policy visible. Publicize the policy on the university website and during freshman orientation.
We recommend that students who have not declared a major be sent a computer-generated email message at the beginning of each semester.

Enforce the policy. The senate must decide whether there will be exceptions to the policy. If exceptions are allowed, then it will probably take significant resources to process the exceptions. We recommend that no exceptions be allowed to ensure enforcement of the policy.
PART FIVE
We have been asked to report on the following action taken regarding a recommendation submitted as part of the 2009-10 Academic Standards Report:
Academic Standards Committee: Regarding Interdisciplinary Program Administration
Further and more sustained study should occur if the Provost believes it should occur. A campus-wide ad-hoc committee, rather than the Academic Standards Committee, might be better able to address the issues raised by this study as well as other pertinent issues.
Response by the Provost’s Office on February 3, 2012:
7

Appendices
Appendix A:
Academic Standards Committee (ASC)
Charges, 2011-12 Academic Year
Purpose: The Academic Standards Committee monitors, conducts studies, and makes recommendations on matters such as admission standards, grading practices, degree requirements, academic status, scholarships, and related issues.
Chair to meet with the Executive Board in March 2012. Report due for Presentation to Faculty Senate in April, 2012.
Standing Charges:
1.
Review ASC charges over the prior three years, and recommendations adopted by the Faculty Senate.
Report on the implementation status of these recommendations. a.
Regarding Academic Integrity: i.
Verify completion of Academic Integrity website (including recommendations a-h) hosted by Sally Morgan’s office. ii.
Investigate with UNR IT available online methods of reporting instances of academic dishonesty without FERPA violations. b.
If proposed policies are approved by the Board of Regents regarding 120 credit degree limit and low yield program review, investigate: i.
Review of other graduation requirements related to total credits (specifically 40 Upper
Division and track RFA for residency change from 32 to 30 upper division). ii.
Research the development of the campus-based portion of the process for exceptions to the 120 credit limit (accreditation). iii.
Research the development of a campus-based early warning and support system for programs that are near the degree production thresholds detailed in the BOR proposals.
2.
Make recommendations on the future status, organization, structure, and charges of the ASC. Consider whether the committee is necessary and effective, and how could it be improved.
3.
Upon request by the Executive Board, review any proposals affecting ASC objectives, and report recommendations to the Executive Board within six weeks after receipt of any request for review.
4.
Upon request by the Executive Board, serve as a sounding board for the Executive Board for issues related to ASC charges and objectives.
5.
Appoint a liaison from the ASC to the Core Curriculum Board, and another liaison to the Academic
Advising Advisory Board. Facilitate communication, as appropriate, between these boards and the
Faculty Senate.
Additional Charges:
6.
Conduct extensive review and revision of current academic progress standards, specifically considering undergraduates being required to declare a major by the time they have completed 60 credits to decrease a delay in graduation for these students and increase the 4 year graduation rates.
8

7.
No later than September 30 th
, following review of the approved RFA for changing catalog language and implementation of a form for Undergraduate University Dismissal for academic probation, propose charges for the University Release from Dismissal/Appeals Committee to include (but not limited to) the following: a.
Committee service term, number of faculty and criteria (if any) for faculty to recruit to the committee. b.
Beyond GPA, should any other criteria be considered by this committee for appeal of a dismissal or readmission following the year’s dismissal period? If so, please specify. For both, include the process for obtaining college/dean input/approval for use in the decision. c.
Requirement to report the number and nature of the appeals each semester/year to the Faculty
Senate Executive Board. d.
Making a recommendation to the Faculty Senate, in year three, to maintain this committee or combine the charge with the special admissions committee, based on the number and nature of appeals.
8.
Review Chancellor Klaich’s proposed policy regarding Low yield programs and make recommended revisions, if any, by October 10th.
Appendix B:
120-credit exemption policy for UCCC, approved in December 2011.
Board of Regents Handbook
Title 4, Chapter 16
Section 38. NSHE Bachelor’s Degree Requirements (Effective Fall 2012)
1. The standard number of credits required for receipt of a baccalaureate degree from an NSHE institution shall be 120. Credit requirements for each degree, including a four-year plan of study, shall be published in the institution’s catalog.
Rev. 250 (09/11) Title 4, Chapter 16, Page 23
2. Institutions with a compelling reason for exceeding the 120-credit standard in a particular academic major may request an exception to the provisions of this section from the Chancellor.
3. Exceptions to the 120-credit degree standard may be approved if evidence submitted to the Chancellor (Note: approval will be established at the institution, subject to periodic monitoring by the chancellor) supports the necessity of more credits under at least one of the following circumstances: a. The program is appropriately defined as a five-year baccalaureate program; b. Professional accreditation requirements stipulate a higher number of credits or require coursework that cannot be realistically completed within 120 credits; or c. A program is governed by certification or licensure requirements that result in the necessity for credits in excess of 120 over four years.
4. Institutions will report periodically to the Board of Regents the number of credits required by their academic programs and the rationale for continuing exceptions to the 120-credit standard.
Procedure:
University Procedure
9

Proposals for exceeding the standard 120 credits for a bachelor’s degree originate with the faculty of the program, go through the normal college curriculum review process, and require approval by the dean of the college or deans of cooperating colleges in the case of interdisciplinary programs.
The proposal should be in the form of a memo to the provost. Once a college-approved proposal has been received by the provost’s office, it will be forwarded to the University Course and Curriculum Committee for a recommendation based on the criteria established by the Board of Regents policy.
The provost will make the final decision for this institution .
Proposal Guidelines
The proposal memo should include the following information:
*Brief description of the existing program and any significant curricular changes that have taken place in the last decade.
* Summary of consultations with other similar academic programs in NSHE regarding requirements for the bachelor’s degree.
* Data relevant to the request. This might include, but not be limited to, average time to degree, average number of credits at graduation, alumni/employer survey data, comparisons with comparable programs at other universities, national trends, etc. (UNR data can be provided by the Institutional Research Office.)
*Rationale for exceeding the standard 120 credits, emphasizing items related to the Board of Regents criteria.
*Current catalog copy with modifications indicated, if required
*Plan to periodically monitor the rationale for continuing an exception to the 120-credit standard. (See item 4 in the NSHE Handbook
Appendix C:
Low-Yield Academic Program Review – Effective Fall 2012
Additions appear in boldface italics ; deletions are [stricken and bracketed]
Section 5. Low-Yield Academic Program Review
1.
Each President, in consultation with the Faculty Senate, shall develop procedures for reviewing academic program productivity at least every three years in accordance with the provisions of this section.
2.
Academic programs that are at least 10 years old shall be designated as low-yield if the number of degrees granted is below the following levels: a.
Associate programs must award at least twenty degrees in the last three consecutive years. Certificate programs in the same field may be considered in the evaluation of the associate program productivity. b.
Baccalaureate programs must award at least twenty degrees in the last three consecutive years.
10

c.
Master’s and Doctoral programs must jointly award at least eight degrees in the last three consecutive years.
3.
Academic programs designated as low-yield shall be reviewed in consultation with the Faculty Senate within three years of the program reaching these thresholds to determine whether there are sufficient factors to support the program’s continuation or merger with other programs. In accordance with the provisions of this chapter, the institution may recommend to the Board the elimination of the program, in which case every effort shall be taken to allow current students to graduate and faculty to be placed in other programs if feasible.
4.
A program may be exempted from the low-yield designation if it meets any of the following criteria: a. Central to the educational or research mission of the institution; b. Meets a demonstrated workforce or service need of the state or geographical region served by the institution, including and projected future needs of the state or region; c. Demonstrates an increase in student demand through a pattern of increasing enrollment of majors; d. Productivity in the receipt of external grants and contracts related to the program, e. Supports underrepresented student or community groups, and f. Other criteria as defined by the institution.
5.
The President shall report annually to the Chancellor all programs designated low-yield and the results of the institutional review process of such programs.
RENUMBER SECTIONS 5 THROUGH 23 AS SECTIONS 6 THROUGH 24.
Effective Fall 2012.
Appendix D
University Policy
University of
Arizona
Arizona State
University
Oregon State
University
Students must declare a major in a degree program prior to earning 60 units or before attaining junior standing. Incoming transfer students with a minimum of 60 transferable units have one semester at the University before they need to declare a major in a degree program.
Students may remain designated as exploratory track status until they complete 45 credit hours. Students who have not declared a major by the time they have completed 45 credit hours are placed on administrative hold, which prevents registration for future ASU semesters, until the student has declared a major.
UESP does not impose a deadline on our students; we want you to go through the process of deciding on a major at the pace that is best for you. Many UESP students declare at the end of the first year or the beginning of the second year, but some declare as early as a couple weeks in to the term. It's all up to you. When you feel ready, declare. There is one limitation though, you can't graduate from OSU with a UESP major, so eventually you will need to choose a path.
11

University of
Oregon
Washington
State
University
University of
Washington
University of
California at
Davis
Colorado State
University
Idaho State
University
Students are required to complete at least one major to graduate from the UO. You can read about the various majors in the list of majors and minors. You should declare a major when you are ready. However, it is a good idea to declare it by the end of winter term during sophomore year in order to avoid adding extra time and expense to your college education.
Upon completion of 24 semester hours, and meeting department, program, or school certification requirements, a student may certify in an academic major with the approval of the appropriate academic department, program, or school, and upon notification to the
Student Advising and Learning Center. Departments, programs, or schools may require additional criteria beyond the minimum 24 hours for certification and a grade point average higher than the minimum of 2.00. Typically, students with 60 or more semester hours should be certified into a major. Consult the catalog for specific certification requirements.
Must declare a major by the time they have earned 105 credits, which is about one quarter into your junior year. If you aren't able to declare your intended major by that time a hold will be placed on your registration. Transfer students who enter with 105 or more credits are expected to declare a major before their second quarter at the UW, or obtain an extension from an adviser.
To remove the hold, you either have to declare a major or seek a "premajor extension."
To request a premajor extension, you must meet with an adviser either in the UAA
Advising, Office of Minority Affairs and Diversity Counseling Services, or in the department to which you wish to gain admission.
You will be granted a premajor extension if your adviser decides that you are pursuing a reasonable goal, are taking appropriate courses and other steps toward your intended major, and have a good chance of gaining admission to your intended major.
You will receive a warning letter from the University as you approach 105 credits, if you have not yet declared a major. If you complete 105 credits and are still coded premajor, you will not be able to register for the next quarter. To avoid registration delays, meet with the appropriate adviser at least one quarter before you complete 105 credits. tudents must declare a major by the time they have completed 90 units. Failure to declare a major at this point may result in a hold on further registration.
While it can be important to explore majors it is equally important to declare a major by 45 credits. By the time a student has reached 45 credits they have met their All University
Core Curriculum requirements (AUCC) and need to be taking required courses in their major. In order to graduate on time, you must declare a major by 45 credits. This is typically half-way through your second year.
Declaring your major by 45 credits will help you progress toward graduation and have more purpose in taking classes. In addition, there are some classes that can not be taken unless you have declared the major.
At ISU, a student must declare a major by the time they reach Junior status with 58 credits.
12

Appendix E
Comparison of undeclared new freshmen who declare a major after one year versus those who do not.
Fall 2007 Cohort
SAT ACT Credits
N
High
School
GPA
First Year Percent Percent Percent Percent
Declared
Undeclared
Fall 2008 Cohort
1619
659
N
3.366
3.314
High
School
GPA
Combined
1051
1037
SAT
Combined
23.0
22.1
ACT
UNR GPA
2.851
2.753
First Year
Completed
26.3
24.8
Credits
Washoe
41%
44%
Clark
25%
23%
Rural
17%
16%
Other
State
17%
17%
Percent Percent Percent Percent
Declared
Undeclared
Fall 2009 Cohort
1770
523
Declared
N
1656
3.376
3.312
High
School
GPA
3.366
Combined
1062
1030
SAT
Combined
22.8
22.1
ACT
UNR GPA
2.963
2.899
First Year
Completed
27.3
26.3
Credits
Washoe
41%
50%
Clark
24%
22%
Rural
19%
12%
Other
State
16%
16%
Percent Percent Percent Percent
Combined Combined UNR GPA Completed Washoe
1066 22.9 2.904 27.7 44%
Clark
21%
Rural
18%
Other
State
17%
Percent
Male
47%
49%
Percent
Male
45%
49%
Percent
Male
47%
Percent Percent
Female Minority
53%
51%
23%
20%
Percent Percent
Female Minority
54%
51%
24%
20%
Percent Percent
Female Minority
53% 25%
Undeclared 516 3.320 1050 22.6 2.901 26.8 53% 19% 15% 13% 45% 55% 23%
13

Total Number of
Undecided Students
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
2011
1270
833 (65.6%)
313 (24.6%)
96 (7.6%)
28 (2.2%)
2010
1221
822 (67.3%)
287( 23.5%)
82 (6.6%)
31 (2.5%)
2009
971
642 (66.1%)
220 (22.7%)
75 (7.7%)
34 (3.5%)
2008
1213
752 (62%)
334 (27.5%)
93 (7.7%)
34 (2.8%)
2007
1567
978 (62.4%)
463 (29.5%)
94 (6%)
32 (2%)
2006
1600
1051 (65.7%)
420 (26.3%)
94 (6.4%)
32 (1.6%)
14

Appendix F
Graduation and Demographic Data Regarding Undeclared Students
Graduation Data
Term
Fall 2005 Freshman
Standing
Undeclared
Declared
N
1116
2490
Graduated Rate
541 48.5%
Time to Degree
4.6
BGS degrees
34
BGS Percentage
6.3%
1224 49.2% 4.5 31 2.5%
Fall 2006
Fall 2007
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Undeclared
Declared
Undeclared
Declared
Undeclared
Declared
Undeclared
Declared
Undeclared
Declared
Undeclared
Declared
Undeclared
Declared
Undeclared
Declared
Undeclared
Declared
Undeclared
Declared
420
2120
102
2398
24
3793
978
415
2050
94
2437
19
3729
1051
2533
2446
463
2169
94
2576
260 62.7%
1341 65.4%
59 62.8%
1805 74.1%
7 36.8%
3243 87.0%
432 41.1%
1090 43.0%
277 66.0%
1364 64.3%
52 51.0%
1788 74.6%
15 62.5%
3266 86.1%
160 16.4%
585 23.9%
250 54.0%
1299 59.9%
58 61.7%
1874 72.7%
6
214
5
17
53
6
99
5
21
41
4
93
109
4
238
23
16
34
51
8
3.6
3.4
2.9
2.6
2.0
1.5
3.8
3.8
3.4
3.2
2.9
2.4
3.7
3.5
3.2
2.7
3.4
1.5
4.4
4.2
6.1%
3.9%
11.5%
5.5%
40.0%
6.6%
3.1%
13.1%
3.8%
13.6%
6.0%
57.1%
7.3%
5.3%
1.5%
0.9%
8.4%
3.2%
6.9%
5.0%
15

Senior
Demographic Data
Undeclared
Declared
31
3852
Average
19 61.3%
3275 85.0%
Term
Fall 2005
Fall 2006
Standing
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
N
1116
415
94
19
1051
420
102
24
Age
18.6
20.5
22.7
27.4
18.6
20.3
22.8
23.6
Fall 2007 Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
978
463
94
18.5
20.4
22.8
Senior 31 25.5
SOURCE: Student Information System; PBA Degrees Granted
Database
489
241
54
18
Male Femal e
553 563
200
51
215
43
12
501
237
57
16
7
550
183
45
8
489
222
40
13
America n
Indian
10
4
1
0
3
3
0
8
0
16
3
1
2.6
1.4
3
187
15.8%
5.7%
Pac
Islander
63
11
3
2
53
32
7
2
58
26
8
1
Asian /
Hispani c
95
29
9
1
79
28
8
2
94
33
8
1
31
17
1
1
0
42
6
1
0
Blac k
24
11
2
Unknow n
158
49
14
0
129
58
13
6
99
57
17
3
686
326
59
25
Whit e
758
309
65
16
739
293
70
14
Non-
Resident
Alien
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
3
0
16