Academic Regulations Committee
Academic Requirements Committee
Annual Report 1998-99
July 14, 1999
TO: Kenneth Williamson
Faculty Senate President
FROM: Tracy Bentley-Townlin, Chair
Academic Requirements Committee
Members: Larry Flick, Kim McAlexander, Jane Siebler, Neil Eldin, Kurt Peters,
Barbara Roth, Ataa Akyeampong, Heather Chermak or Ron Oliveira ( Ex-Officio:
Registrar)
SUBJECT: Annual Report 1998-99
The Academic Requirements Committee (ARC) met weekly during 1998-99, from one and one-half
hours to two and one-half hours, to review and make decisions on petitions from students requesting
exceptions to the academic regulations. A summary of these decisions appear at the end of this
report. In addition, the committee was involved with reviewing the academic regulations to determine if
the regulations support 21st century higher education programs. The committee also reviewed and
revised the standing rules for the committee. I would like to thank the committee for their hard work,
integrity and humor which allowed us to be successful.
Review of Medical Withdrawals:
The recommendations from 1997-98 requested continued discussions with the Student Health Center
concerning medical documentation of illnesses. At that time, it was the Health Center's policy not to
provide medical excuses for absenteeism from classes or exams. However, the ARC believed that
medical information is sometimes needed when a student requests a late withdrawal from an
individual course or from the term.
In summer of 1998, I met with Lora Jasman to discuss methods by which the committee would
receive information regarding an illness without having the Physican placed in the position of making
the decision of whether or not the student could have persisted in a class or for the term. A new form
was developed which appears to satisfy both Student Health Services and the ARC.
In November 1998, Maggie Niess and later Ken Williamson requested the committee to review all of
the academic regulations in light of the new budget model. Attached are the recommendations made
to the Academic Regulation Committee and the Faculty Senate.
Recommendations for 1999-2000
1. Post results of student's petition on the Web.
2. Investigate the possibility of having an ARC for Graduate students and one for Undergraduate
students.
3. Follow up with Academic Regulations Committee the recommendations for changes to the
academic regulations. Specifically:
a. extension of Incompletes beyond one year.
b. standardize deadlines for audits/ withdrawals and change of grading
4. Provide training for Faculty regarding Academic Regulations.
cc: 1998-99 Academic Requirements Committee
Barbara Balz, Registrar
Ron Oliveira, Associate Registrar
Leslie Burns, Director of Undergraduate Academic Programs
AR 1 b. 3) Written endorsement to the Academic Requirements Committee by the office of the dean
of the college in which the student wishes to register as a degree candidate. ARC does not
review special undergraduate admissions. Recommendation: Regulations Committee reviews
and identification of correct committee
AR 2. Credit from a two year institution (Undergraduate students) We did not have a concern with
AR 3. Credit from an unaccredited Institution. We did not have any concerns. It was noted that there
is no longer a 2d for AR 2. Recommendation: Regulations needs to revise.
AR 4. Classifying Students - No concerns
AR 5. Transfer from one college to another. No concerns
AR 6. Change in Credits Scheduled. No concerns
AR 7. Maximum and Minimum Registration.
a. The information in ( ) does not make sense. Needs to be revised.
a. 2) States that ARC approves petitions for over 24 credits. ARC usually adheres to
recommendation from the student's advisor and college dean. Recommendation:
Regulations need to review to see if this portion of AR 7 is still required. We propose
collapsing 1 and 2. Have the college be responsible.
AR 7 b. No concerns
AR 8. Late Registration - No concerns
AR 9. Admission to Class
a. - no concerns
b. - Why are audited coursed not shown on registration?
c. Have Regulations review the need to have a no-show-drop policy. We believe it is too
confusing for the students. Some students believe they will be dropped and fail to act.
Resulting in a petition. Is this policy still needed.
AR 10 - Eligibility
a. Students with disabilities can be considered full time while attending 3/4 time. This
accommodation is based on documentation.
b. is being reviewed by the Faculty Senate Academic Regulation Committee
AR 11 - Adding and Dropping Courses
a. no concern
b. no concern
c. discussion about not having any add /drop fees for the first week of the term. Should
students have the opportunity to check out a class prior to committing to the class.
ARC recommends Add/drop fees begin the 6th day of class.
AR 12 - Withdrawal from Individual Courses
a. needs to be clearer. Recommendation: Students may withdraw from a course with a W
grade after the tenth day of classes by the Friday of the seventh week of classes. Refer to
the calendar for time deadline.
* We also believe that Faculty Senate should still discuss the need for this regulation. ARC is still
split on requesting that the deadline be extended until the Friday prior to Finals Week instead of the
seventh week.
AR 13 Withdrawal from the University
a. needs clarification. Recommendation:
a. Any student in good standing (See AR 22) is entitled to withdraw without prejudice at any
time prior to and including the Friday prior to the beginning of Final Week. Refer to
calendar for time deadline.
b. confusion about withdrawing with I grades due to an emergency. Recommendation: place
c. Under AR17 or craft a new AR to deal with I grades.
AR 14 Attendance
There was no proposed changes. There was discussion about what % of the grade can be
based on attendance. Some faculty believe that they can not use attendance to when calculating a
students' grade. Perhaps Jennifer Cornell's (CLA Curriculum Committee) recommendation of Feb 20th
should be considered.
AR 15 Honesty in Academic Work
No concerns
AR 16 - Final Week
In general - we believe that Regulations should review AR 16. What is written is not
happening in practice. There are final exam given during dead week.
c. Final examination may not be changed to the week preceding Final Week without
approval of the Academic Requirements Committee. This is definitely not happening. If
Regulations should decide to keep A. & B. we question why ARC needs to approve this.
AR 17 Grades
There was a question about "I"s. The policy states....The I is only granted at the discretion of
the instructor. If a student misses the final without notification and approval acceptable to the in to the
instructor, the instructor will report the grade that is appropriate for the requirements of the course.
The instructor states the deficiency and the deadline for completing the missing work on the grade
roster. The additional time awarded shall in no case exceed one calendar year...... The wording
seems to indicate that extensions of I's should not happen. Should I's be granted after one year? If it
is acceptable... what is reasonable time limit for an extension beyond the first year? Because this is
an academic decision, ARC has authorized the Registrar to approve these petitions if approved by
instructor and department. Due to new forms, there is no place for the faculty to document the
deficiency. Regulation needs to redefine where, if necessary, the deficiency needs to be recorded.
Part II - An instructor may move to correct a grade erroneously given by filing a Change of
Grade Card in the Registrar's Office. The Academic Requirements Committee routinely reviews grade
changes. I believe the registrar has been authorized to do this if the is a grade and instructor and
head adviser or dean approval.
AR 18 Alternative Grading Systems
The committee had no concerns
AR 19 Grade Points
Recently revised, no concerns
AR 20 Repeated Courses
Recently developed, no concerns
AR 21 Honor Roll
No concerns
AR 22 Satisfactory Academic Standing
No concerns
AR 23 Special Examination for Credit
a. Some discussion to reconsider whether or not a student can take an exam for credit in the
term in which he or she completes requirements for graduation.
b. should be reexamined in light of the PASS (Proficiency Based Admission System) which
will be in effect at OSU in Fall 2001. Students coming in from high school at a higher
proficiency level may wish to test for credit. Currently our regulations does not allow
credit based on work done in high school.
AR24 Special Examination for Waiver
No concerns
AR 25 Institutional Requirements for Baccalaureate Degrees
In general, distance education changes some of the AR requirements. Deadlines for add/drops
etc. are different. Need clarification on the timelines for distant education classes and overlays.
Recommendation: Registrar and distance education develop consistent timelines.
f. Academic Residence:
1. Residence needs to be redefined in light of distance education
2. Concern about National Student Exchanges. NSE courses should be treated in
the same manner as International Exchange course. NSE courses should count
as OSU credit.
3. A student must be enrolled in (not at) OSU, in regular standing,....
h. Restrictions
5) does this include summer school? Policy not clear.
AR 26. Concurrent and Subsequent Baccalaureate Degrees
No concern
AR 27 Subsequent Credentials
No concern
AR 28 Substitutions.
Substitutions for institutional requirements may be made only with the approval of the dean of
the college... and of the Academic Requirements Committee. This is not happening. Regulations
need to be revised to reflect current policy. Recommendation: Remove ARC. The final decision
remains with the Dean of the College.
AR 29 Graduation Exercises
No concerns
AR 30 Auditing Courses
We propose a major revision of AR 30. Student should be able to sign up to audit a class.
The professor can make the decision whether to grant permission or not. The time allowed to audit a
course should be changed. Recommend that the deadline to audit a class be changed to the same
dates as changing to S/U grading and withdrawing from a class.
