Undergraduate Academic Council
Meeting: UAC Meeting Tuesday, Oct 7th 2008, 3:00-4:00P.M., Campus Center 375.
Members Present: Jane Kessler, Robert Keesee, Maria Brown, Greg Stevens (guest),
Dan White, Maria Moon, Sue Faerman, Nicholas Fahrenkopf (grad student), Joan Savitt
(Chair), Steven Doellefeld (staff) and Sue Phillips (guest).
Review of the minutes: The minutes of the 9/16 meeting were reviewed and approved.
Report from the Chair: The Chair attended one of the Going Forward Plan sessions
where the group gave improving student writing a high priority. She also reported on
some of the topics that were discussed at the Senate Executive Committee’s Oct. 6
meeting. The status of the Writing Proposal was briefly discussed at the SEC meeting.
Also at the SEC, she asked the Provost if the need to improve writing had come up in
other going forward meetings to date and was told that it had come up at all of them. The
Chair also reported that the SEC had asked UAC members to revise the three bills that
UAC wished to present at the upcoming Senate meeting. The Chair circulated via email
possible text to members reflecting the sense of the SEC’s comments prior to the Oct. 7
meeting so that the Council could consider them in advance. That text is copied below:
Bill 1: syllabus changes. Rationale OK; SEC basically agrees but thinks the wording could be
better.
"Instructors who do not INTEND TO USE PLUSSES AND MINUSES IN CONJUNCTION WITH
A-E GRADING must ANNOUNCE the scale that will be employed."
Bill 2: Rationale OK. SEC objected to calling this an appeal since the student had been
disqualified automatically at the end of the semester. They absolutely wanted the requests to go
through CAS, but we were already at that point ourselves.
"Once an incomplete grade has been changed to a grade not lower than a C, the student may file
A REQUEST FOR INCLUSION ON THE DEAN'S LIST WITH THE COMMITTEE ON ACADEMIC
STANDING of the UAC."
Bill 3: Grade changes after graduation affecting honors: Changes were requested in both the bill
& the rationale. SEC strongly opposed the concept of requiring students to initiate this action.
They felt it was the obligation of UA to find these students and honor them appropriately.
BILL: "PERIODIC REVIEWS OF GRADE CHANGES AFTER GRADUATION WILL BE MADE.
Students who have received a change of grade following graduation may appeal for graduation
with honors through the Registrar's office IF THEY HAVE NOT ALREADY RECEIVED NOTICE
FROM THE REGISTRAR THAT THEY HAVE QUALIFIED FOR SPECIFIC HONORS."
CHANGES TO THE RATIONALE:
There is no current language.... We note that existing policy requires...A student might chose to
graduate... ALL OKAY UP TO THIS POINT.
ADD: A professor might change a student's grades after discovery of an error in calculations.
The student might not know about such a change, and so would not know to request the
Registrar to award a degree with appropriate honors.
ADD: Further, it is UA's obligation to recognize the achievements of its graduates whenever
merited. UA's computer system can and should be programmed to produce reports indicating
which students who have had changes made in their grades have subsequently qualified for
honors.
ADD: Recognizing that the Registrar's Office might not have the capacity to seek out the newly
qualifying students on a frequent basis, this bill allows students to request consideration of their
case themselves.
DROP: It is UAC's intention that the student initiate this appeal....(This was the point that was
strongly protested by the SEC.)
Each of the bills was discussed by UAC.
Bill 1: The suggested wording of the bill was discussed at length, and the vote of the
Council was that the word “annouce” would not suffice. The Council agreed upon the
following wording, with an email vote to follow:
Instructors who do not intend to use the full A-E grading scale, including plusses and minuses,
must include the scale that will be employed on the syllabus.
Bill 2: UAC determined that an appeal rather than a request was the proper path, just as it
would be in cases of dismissal notices, which are also determined automatically. The
Council agreed upon the following wording, with an email vote to follow:
Once an incomplete grade has been changed to a grade not lower than a C, the student may file
an appeal for inclusion on the Dean's List with the Committee on Academic Standing of the
Undergraduate Academic Council.
Bill 3: UAC’s discussion of this bill included the following points: that an instructor who
made an unexpected/unrequested change in a student’s favor would surely tell the
student; and that the wording should not require an action by the Registrar that was not
within its current scope of duties or within its budget to accomplish. Council members
also offered suggestions for reworking the rationale, including moving the statement
about UA’s obligation to recognize the merits of its students to the beginning of the text.
Although there was consensus about the approach that UAC would take in responding to
the SEC’s suggetions, final wording was not determined. The Chair said she would
attempt a new text and circulate it by email for review and revote.
S/U Grading, continuation of discussion
The Council also continued its previous discussions of issues with the UA system of S/U
Grading. There have been a number of appeals for S/U changes, either changing from AE grading to S/U grading or vice versa, with the majority of these requests coming from
graduating seniors. The question was raised as to why UA keeps the optional S/U grading
at all and it was argued that students use the optional S/U grading as a means of
manipulating their GPA. Others on the Council did not agree with this. Rather than
undertaking a full review of UA’s grading system, the Council agreed that the fairest way
to deal with matter at this time would be to move the date by which a student may elect
A-E or S/U grading in all classes be extended to have the same deadline as the date for
withdrawal so that students would have sufficient information to decide which action
would be most to their benefit: drop, use A-E, or use S/U. It was also determined that the
earliest this policy could go into effect would be the spring, 2009 semester, so that both
students and faculty could be made aware of the changes. A bill will be drafted by the
Committee on Admissions and Academic Standing. One of the members agreed to draft
the bill. Once the bill is drafted and a rationale is written, members can vote on it via
email.
Second Bachelor’s Degree:
The Council revisited the issue of students applying for a second bachelor’s degree and
not completing it. It was agreed that in many cases, students apply for a 2nd bachelor’s
degree to take requisite courses needed for their intended graduate field of study. Some
members believe that students apply for 2nd bachelors only in order to obtain financial
aid. Other members did not agree with this. The fact that students are not moving swiftly
to the completion of their second degree or enrolling for credits each semester could also
be seen as a real-world problem for students who are working full-time.
There was consensus on the council that admissions for such degrees should not ever be
conditional, so that a student should be able to enter the academic department
immediately. It was understood that this rule would mean that prerequisite coursework
would therefore have to be completed without the benefit of financial aid. There was also
consensus that the academic department itself must make the decision to admit, subject of
course to the student’s application also being considered by the Office of Admissions.
The concept that a committee with representatives of some academic departments should
be formed to make recommendations for admission into all majors was rejected.
The Chair agreed to convey the sense of UAC’s deliberations on this topic to the Chair of
the Committee on Admissions and Academic Standing whose schedule prevents her from
attending UAC’s Tuesday meetings. This issue will be further discussed when a policy
has been drafted.
Meeting adjourned at 4:05pm