Undergraduate Council Academic Programs Subcommittee Meeting

October 23, 2001
DAPS Conference Room

Members present: Byron Bissell, Barbara McKean, Peter Medine (Chair), Thomas Miller, Barbara Williams, Shaun O’Connor (Ex-Officio)

Members absent: Robin Strickland

Peter Medine convened the meeting at 3:35 p.m. He asked Shaun O’Connor for information about pending program proposals. Shaun reported three requests pending: transfer of the optics program back to the College of Engineering & Mines; a request to raise the admission standards of the BS program in computer science, and possible to establish a BA in same; and a request to establish a new minor in Asian-American studies, sponsored by the East Asian studies department. For each proposal she asked members for particular questions or concerns about the request that they would like addressed in each proposal.

Committee members asked for clarification about their role in the program review process. Shaun offered that this committee was asked to evaluate the academic merits of any proposal that comes before them, as well as determine if any existing programs or departments should be asked for input on a given request. Questions regarding resources available for a program, faculty expertise supporting a program, were also appropriate areas of inquiry. One member asked when the committee could turn down a proposal. Shaun replied that the committee could absolutely vote against a program if they were not convinced of its academic merits. The committee could also reasonably deny a request if the proposing faculty were not the appropriate faculty to offer a program, or if the proposed program duplicated the offerings in another department. Peter reminded the committee that as a subcommittee of the Undergraduate Council, they were reducing some of the burden of review for full council, and that the full council would also vote on any proposal that the committee reviewed.

Discussion then turned to the pending proposals. The committee agreed that the requested move of the BS with a major in optics from University College to COEM and OSC sounded quite sensible. Members would like assurances from OSC that the issues that prompted the 2000 transfer to UC have been resolved. One member asked to have verified that OSC faculty have participated in the decision to move the program back to COEM, and that they support it. Members asked to have a representative from OSC at the meeting when the proposal is reviewed. They also asked for background info on the 2000 transfer. Shaun offered to direct them to the on-line subcommittee and council notes from those meetings during which the proposal was reviewed. The question of UC’s support for the current proposal was also raised. Shaun will verify that UC supports the move.

Regarding the related proposals to further restrict admission to the BS CSC and to create a new BA CSC, the committee had several questions and concerns.

BS CSC restrictions:

What is the rationale for further restricting admission to the program?
Do admitted students generally succeed in the program under existing standards?
If claim is that current admission standards are not high enough to ensure adequate student performance in the major, or in the post-grad market, what evidence supports this claim? What evidence supports the belief that raising standards will change students’ experience?
Are there comparable admission standards to computer science programs at other schools? How are comparable programs managed at other schools? (peers)

If further restriction is forced by lack of faculty resources, demonstrate need for reduction:

What is current dept. FTE? How does this compare to FTE in other CoS departments?
How will reducing faculty load enhance students’ educational experience?
What alternatives to raising the GPA have been explored?
Will change to admission GPA be associated with more challenging program content?

BA CSC

Are there BA programs in computer science at UA peer institutions?
What distinguishes the proposed BA CSC from the existing BS? What distinguishes the two degrees at peer institutions?
What uniquely defines the BA CSC as a viable alternative to the BS?
Related to last question, what distinguishes the proposed BA CSC curriculum as a liberal arts curriculum?
How will the BA serve students, while at UA, and after they graduate?
How does the dept. expect the new program to affect overall departmental enrollment?

Questions regarding the undergraduate minor in Asian-American studies:

Who are the faculty who will be involved in developing and administering the program?
What is the projected enrollment?
Will new courses be required to support the program? If so, are the resources to support those courses already in place?
Are there comparable programs at other institutions? If so, how does the proposed curriculum compare to those of existing programs?

Shaun will raise these questions as she works with the department faculty who are developing the proposals.

The discussion then turned to the need for general policy governing enrollment restrictions in undergraduate programs. Barbara McKean noted that the BFAs in Theatre Arts and in Theatre Education should be added to the list of programs that restrict enrollment (see Appendix). She went on to talk about how the department manages enrollment in both programs, and that while other criteria for admission are determined by program content, the admission cap on the theatre arts major is dictated largely by the limited faculty resources. The BFA is a professional program preparing actors and other theatre professionals for a career in the theatre. In order to best serve the enrolled students, enrollment must be kept low enough so that students can get the kind of mentoring and other attention that is part of that preparation. Admission cannot be based solely on students’ talent or interest in the field. The department offers a BA for those students who are interested in theatre arts but who are either not interested in the professional program, or cannot gain admission to it.

Byron Bissell asked what policy has guided enrollment restriction in the past, and if there is any coherent university policy on restricting enrollment. Shaun replied that there is no existing university policy, and that past practice has been to make each decision on a case-by-case basis. Most arguments for limiting enrollment, either in colleges or in particular programs, have been based either on pedagogical reasons for limiting enrollment, on departmental resource limitations, or on both. The committee discussed the incoherence of using academic criteria, such as a high admission GPA, purely as an enrollment management device. Thomas Miller noted that academic restrictions on admission should reflect the rigors of the program of study, and not the dearth of faculty resources committed to that program. After much discussion, Tom offered a working draft for the policy text:

Draft policy on enrollment restriction in undergraduate programs
Proposals to restrict access to programs will be carefully assessed to avoid creating hardships for students. Programs should not raise admissions standards to reduce demands to teach undergraduates because such actions merely shift enrollment pressures to other departments. Proposals to limit access should be justified primarily by the rigors of the program or by the inability of the program to serve students adequately. Such points need to be documented with research tracking the performance of less prepared students or other factors. Research should also be provided on how the proposed reduction in the undergraduate teaching load of the program will serve students' needs, for example, because less prepared students have not succeeded in the program or less prepared students will not be able to meet the demands faced by graduates of the program.

The question of how our peers deal with these issues was raised. Departments requesting permission to restrict enrollment could be asked to supply information about how comparable departments at peer schools deal with the problem. It was also suggested that any department that gains permission to restrict enrollment should be asked for an assessment of the effects a few years after the fact. In particular, they should be asked how the changes have resulted in improved quality in undergraduate education.

Peter Medine noted that UA has a dynamic student body, and that over the years levels of student proficiencies have changed. He suggested that because of our increasingly diverse student body, UA may deal with a wider range of student preparation and ability than our peers do. He offered his own impression that the top of the range today is better prepared for university than they were 25 years ago, and the bottom of the range rather more ill prepared than they were 25 years ago. In considering how to deal with enrollment restrictions, perhaps we need to address how UA can better serve students at both ends of the range.

Byron Bissell asked how restricting enrollments in undergraduate programs is consistent with President Likens’ goals for UA.

Shaun will try and find answers to questions regarding institutional policy on enrollment restriction. The committee will continue to discuss the issue and to refine the policy text at the next meeting.

Meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by Shaun O’Connor

Appendix

Draft by Shaun O’Connor

Summary info

There are a total of 41 (77) undergraduate programs that in some way restrict enrollment. UA offers 125 (161) baccalaureate programs. Restricted programs comprise 32.8% (47.8%) of undergraduate programs.

The lower counts cited in the first paragraph include only official ABOR-approved major/degree pairs. The higher counts in parentheses include all the secondary education and music programs that are officially options within the ABOR-approved programs, but function as independent programs on campus. Students and faculty probably perceive these programs as individual programs, which is why the higher counts are included here:

Total program counts are approximate.

Units with general undergraduate admission standards higher than UA norm

#	College	#Programs	Notes
1	CAPLA	1	sophomore admission to professional phase is selective, cap exists, enrollment determined by college resources; typical admission GPA in a given year is 3.0 or higher
2	Eller	13	advanced standing, minimum GPA 2.75 among other criteria, enrollment cap of 800 per academic class on 10 business programs, as yet no cap on public administration enrollment
3	Nursing	1	sophomore admission, minimum GPA of 2.75 among other criteria
4	Education	8	advanced standing, minimum GPA of 2.5 among other criteria, admission competitive, most students have 3.0 or higher
5	Engineering	9	HS GPA of 3.0; also, advanced standing requirements include minimum GPA above 2.0 for 6 programs at this writing
6	S. of Health Professions	2	admission to major/advanced standing, minimum GPA of 2.25
7	S. of Music & Dance	3	All professional programs require successful audition prior to admission. (At this writing there are 3 professional programs, one of which includes 23 options in various areas of performance)

	TOTAL 7 units	38	All programs listed either cap enrollment, restrict admission on the basis of GPA higher than UA standard 2.0, or both

Individual programs with enrollment restrictions/cap/competitive admission:

#	Dept.	Program	Notes
1	Computer Sci.	BS Computer Sci.	admission competitive, sophomore year, minimum GPA 3.00 among other admissions criteria
2	S. of Art	BFA Studio Art	admission competitive, portfolio, no direct freshman admission (BA), minimum GPA 3.00 among other admission criteria
3		BFA Art Ed.	minimum GPA 2.5 for admission to required education courses
4	Media Arts	BFA Media Arts	admission competitive, no direct freshman admission, minimum GPA 2.5 for admission to advanced standing
5		BA Media Arts	minimum GPA 2.5 for admission to advanced standing
6	S. of Fam. & Cons. Sci.	BS Retailing & Consumer Sci.	advanced standing requirement of 2.6 for upper-division RCSC courses; 2.75 for Eller College courses required for the major
7		BS Fam. & Cons. Sci. Ed.	minimum GPA of 2.5 required for admission to required College of Ed courses and student teaching
8	Communication	BA Comm.	admission based on GPA 2.5 or greater in two intro courses (COMM 101 and 288 at this writing), with at least a C in both courses, at least a B in one.
9	C. of Pub. Hlth.	BSH Hlth. Ed.	admission to the major/advanced standing based on GPA of 2.25 for community health option, 2.5 for school health option, among other criteria.
10	Journalism	BA Jour.	B or better required in all freshman composition courses
11	Optical Sciences	BS Optics	GPA of 2.5 or higher, over specified pre-major course work, required to achieve advanced standing in the major
12	Theatre Arts	BFA Theatre Arts	Audition and portfolio review, yearly for some options; cap of 25 students (class or total?)
13		BFA Theatre Ed.	Audition and portfolio review for admission, 2.5 GPA for admission to advanced standing, 2.5 GPA for continuing status in good standing (cap?)

	Total	13 programs	All admission and/or advanced standing requirements for these programs are higher than UA standard; most initially raised academic bar in order to reduce resource burden on department

Return to the Undergraduate Council main page

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