Student Regulations Committee

November 19, 2007

Minutes (Amended)


Present:     Voting Members:              Jeff Streator (Chair), Bill Drummond (Secretary), Mitch Keller, Ray Vito, Eli Riddle, Nikhil Dewan

                  Non-voting Members:       Reta Pikowsky (Registrar)

                  Guests:                              Stephanie Ray (for John Stein, Dean of Students)

Absent:      Voting Members:              Peter McGuire, Thomas Habetler, Larry Jacobs,

                  Non-voting members:       Doug Williams (EB Liaison)



  1. The meeting began shortly after 1:15 pm.
  2. The minutes of October 29, 2007 were approved.
  3. Freshman Summer Session and the Grade Substitution Policy

    This is an issue of when the “clock” starts for counting the terms in residence in section (V) (C) (1) and (2).

    The committee voted to change section (V) (C) (1) to read “first two terms in residence (first three terms for those who begin in the Freshman Summer Session)” and section (V) (C) (2) to read “first four terms in residence (first five terms for those who begin in the Freshman Summer Session).”

      The committee voted to delete (current) section (V) (C) (6) of the regulations, which    reads:  The grade substitution policy (including, but not limited to, course eligibility, number of courses, time limits, and deadlines) is not subject to exceptions and may not be petitioned to the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee.

  1. Academic Standing--General

    Academic warning (differs only in maximum allowable load, 16 rather than 21).  Ray said this was an advising issue, not an intervention issue.  Reta’s concern is that a student can’t have a bad term.  Several committee members believe if you don’t put it on the transcript, it won’t get students’ attention.  We need to provide the extra information that the student’s recent performance makes it more likely that he or she will be put on academic probation.  The students on the committee said it is better to keep this, since it helps students to straighten out if they’re doing badly.

    According to Reta, one significant problem with the existing policy is the ambiguity about “academic average” in section (VI) (C) (1).  If we mean cumulative, we should say cumulative.  We need to qualify all references to “academic average.”  The existing policy is a term by term policy.  One possibility is to use cumulative GPA rather than the term GPA.  Jeff argued that this is an intervention issue, so we should continue using term GPA rather than cumulative GPA.  Mitch suggested that there might be cases where cumulative GPA should trigger probation of people just at the margin, even if they have a marginal but acceptable term. 

      For the next meeting committee members should read through the entire academic standing regulation (section (VI) (C)) to understand the proposed changes and the proposed new sub-sections 9 and 10:

      Proposed sub-section 9: Students who are on readmission contracts must meet the GPA requirement listed on the contract to avoid being dropped.

      Proposed sub-section 10: Students who are on departmental contracts will be reviewed by the major school before enrollment in the term will be permitted.


  1. Academic Standing—Probation & Dismissal for Unsatisfactory Scholarship  


      Sections (VI) (C) (5) (2) and (VI) (C) (6) (4) should read “below 1.00” as opposed to “1.00 or below” since Banner is programmed only for those cases below 1.00. 

The committee voted to change “1.00 or below” to “below 1.00” in sections (VI) (C) (5) (2) and (VI) (C) (6) (4).

  1. The meeting adjourned at 2pm.



Submitted by Bill Drummond 11/26/2007

Revised by J. Streator 1/29/2008