Motion from the AP Committee

November 29, 2006

Motion:

Attempted hours, instead of earned hours, should be used to determine GPA retention levels for warnings, probations, and suspensions for undergraduate students. On page 39 of the 2006-2007 catalog, under Requirements for Retention, the definition of credit level will be changed by replacing the paragraph
Academic retention is based solely on the cumulative GPA. The significance of the cumulative GPA varies according to the credit level, or cumulative earned credits, which is a combination of GPA credits earned at the university plus credits transferred from other institutions or obtained by testing.
by
Academic retention is based solely on the cumulative GPA. The significance of the cumulative GPA varies according to the credit level, or attempted credit hours, which is a combination of all credits attempted at the university plus credits transferred from other institutions or obtained by testing.
(Note: The use of italics above is just to make it easier to see where the paragraphs differ --- italics are not used in the actual paragraph in the catalog.) Furthermore, the table used to specify the GPA ranges for student retention categories (see p. 40 of the 2006-2007 catalog, under Student Retention Categories) will be replaced by the simpler table shown below. (This table has only five categories for credit level, as opposed to the eight categories currently in use. In merging the categories to create the new table, the GPA ranges used refect slightly higher standards.)


Credit Level

Warning
Cumulative
GPA range 		Probation
Cumulative
GPA range 		Suspension
Cumulative
GPA range
7-16 0.000-1.999
17-29 1.750-1.999 1.000-1.749 0.000-0.999
30-59 1.850-1.999 1.250-1.849 0.000-1.249
60-89 1.950-1.999 1.550-1.949 0.000-1.549
90+ 1.850-1.999 0.000-1.849


Rationale:

On January 21, 2004, the Faculty Senate approved the current system for determining when students get warnings, go on probation, and get suspended, and this system was implemented in Fall 2004. At the time, there did not seem to be a desire to create a system which would be more lenient --- the system was changed from what it was before in order to make it easier to understand and to be more compatible with the system used for graduation. It was generally agreed upon that the new system (the system currently being used) would be evaluated after it had been in place for a few semesters.

The Academic Procedures Advisory Committee (APAC) (a group of Assistant and Associate Deans and administrators chaired by Susan Jones) and the Academic Policies Committee have noted that the current system has resulted in appreciably fewer warnings, probations, and suspensions than what occurred prior to the changes in policy. Nevertheless, there are currently a lot of students who are doing very poorly in their coursework and not making good progress toward a degree. This is due to the fact that the current system is rather lenient for students who have only a small number of earned hours, and so some students who fail a lot of courses and accumulate only a small number of earned hours can continue to register for courses semester after semester because their numbers of earned hours remain low and suspensions are not triggered by their very low GPAs.

It can also be noted that the current system, based on earned hours, allows students to retake courses (even those they passed) in an attempt to raise their GPA and avoid suspension. (Students who retake courses that they pass do not get closer to a degree by accumulating more earned hours --- they just attempt to raise their GPA while keeping their earned hours constant (and it's possible that their earned hours can go down if they fail a course they had previously passed).)

All in all, the new system seems too lenient, and allows students to flounder and exploit certain loopholes. The Academic Policies Committee thinks that it will be better to have a system which will be better at identifying problem students earlier, so that such students can reflect on their situations and make some changes before they reach a point at which it will be very hard for them to raise their GPAs to the level required for graduation. At a time when admission to GMU is becoming more competitive, and it is desirable to have a higher graduation rate, it is not good to continue with a retention system that allows very weak students, who are not making reasonable progress towards a degree, to occupy space in classes while continuing to flounder in their studies.