AGENDA

UW-GREEN BAY FACULTY SENATE MEETING NO. 5

Wednesday, 12 December 2001, 3:00 p.m.

Phoenix Room C, University Union

Presiding Officer: John Lyon, Speaker

Parliamentarian:    Professor Jerrold C. Rodesch

 

 

AUTOMATIC CONSENT

 1.         Minutes of UW-Green Bay Faculty Senate Meeting No. 4, November 14, 2001 (attached)

 

CHANCELLOR’S REPORT

 

ACTION ITEMS

1.         Policy for Granting B.A. and B.S. Degrees (attached)

            Presented by Professor David Littig

   

INFORMATION ITEMS

  1.         Proposed Policy Revision on Double Counting of Upper-Division Credits Required for Graduation (attached).      Presented by Professor David Littig

2.         Proposal on Admission Standards for New Freshmen (attached). Presented by Professor David Littig

3.         Report of the Provost   Presented by Interim Provost Carol Pollis

  4.         University Committee Report   Presented by Professor David Littig, Chair

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

ADJOURNMENT

 


MINUTES 2000-2001
UW-GREEN BAY FACULTY SENATE MEETING NO. 4 
Wednesday, November 14, 2001
Rose Hall 250, 3:00 p.m.

 

Presiding Office: John Lyon, Speaker

Parliamentarian:  Jerrold Rodesch, Secretary of the Faculty and Academic Staff

PRESENT

Clifford Abbott

Greg Aldrete

Derryl Block

Francis Carleton

James Coates

William Conley

Kevin Fermanich

Scott Furlong

Anthony Galt

Curt Heuer

Robert Howe

Andrew Kersten

Theodor Korithoski

Sylvia Kubsch

David Littig

Dennis Lorenz

John Lyon

Joseph Mannino

John Mariano

Jennifer Mokren

Illene Noppe

Gilbert Null

Carol Pollis

Kevin Roeder

William Shay

W. Bruce Shepard

NOT PRESENT: John Katers, Brian Merkel, Robert Nagy

REPRESENTATIVE: Robert Skorczewski, Academic Staff Committee

GUESTS: Interim Deans Cheryl Grosso and Jane Muhl, Associate Provost Timothy Sewall, Professors Jerry Dell and Jeffrey Entwistle

 

Speaker Lyon announced that the Senate meeting would adjourn automatically at 3:50 to permit the gathering of faculty for a General Meeting at 4:00 p.m. in this chamber.

 

AUTOMATIC CONSENT

  1.  Approval of Minutes of UW-Green Bay Faculty Senate Meeting No. 1, September 19;  Meeting No. 2, September 26; and Meeting No. 3, October 17, 2001

The minutes were approved without change.

 

CHANCELLOR’S REMARKS

  Speaker Lyon welcomed the Chancellor to his first Senate meeting.  He was greeted with applause.  He expressed pleasure on the occasion because he “grew up academically in a faculty senate.”   He looked forward to his role in talking about a wonderful institution and reporting on recent developments and future issues.  The warm welcome that he and his family received in coming to Green Bay had deeply impressed them.  He reciprocates the enthusiasm he has found in this welcome. 

  The Chancellor reported on several searches underway:

We have pulled back from our initial attempt to treat Campus Life in the 21st Century projects as a single package.  Our priorities need to be clear.  The Union and the Phoenix Sports Center are first on the list.  Those facilities are inadequate.  Students have agreed to tax themselves significantly to improve them.  The  Sports Center is an embarrassment.  Many high schools have better facilities.  Sports facilities are important for recruiting students and faculty.  The current locker rooms and training facilities, moreover, do not support a Division One athletics program.  

The Events Center is controversial.  Our proposal was seen in the community, justifiably, as competing with  the Resch Center.  We don’t want to compete.  We didn’t have a business plan in our initial proposal to operate an Events Center.  The only way to have operated the Center would have been to compete directly with the Resch Center to bring events to the campus.   We have a continuing need for community support, and this would discourage it.  We do need a facility to accommodate our commencements, and students want a place for  concerts.  We need a facility for women’s basketball and other sports.  We don’t need a 7,500 seat arena.  Our new plan will call for an Events Center with 3-4,000 movable seats.  The Chancellor invited comments and suggestions.

He put off remarks on the Learning Experience until the Faculty Meeting that would follow the Senate’s session, but he wanted to raise two issues that were emerging from discussions he has had on campus as he seeks to meet and talk individually with everyone:  

ACTION ITEMS

  1.  Resolution on the Granting of Degrees

Senator Heuer moved and Senator Galt seconded a resolution to grant degrees to the students who have completed their programs in time for the Winter 2001 Commencement.  The motion passed unanimously.

  2.  Changes in Requirements for Honors   Presented by Professor David Littig

  A resolution prepared by the University Committee had been distributed.  Littig summarized its purposes. There is no change in cum laude or magna cum laude criteria.  The summa cum laude designation is changed.  At the present time students graduate summa cum laude when they have a 3.75 GPA and have completed an honors project.  The honors project requirement will be eliminated.   The GPA is raised to 3.85. (Part A of the resolution).  Because honors projects are currently conducted within interdisciplinary programs some students have felt themselves unqualified to carry them out when they have only minors in these programs.  Hundreds of students who qualified by virtue of GPAs in recent years did not undertake honors projects.  The new criteria for cumulative GPA will require 60 credits in residence and no longer exempt UW Colleges transfers from this standard (Part B of the resolution).     Honors projects for distinction in the major will be retained, to be renamed “honors in the major,” and criteria for this are provided (Part C of the resolution). 

  Senator Abbott moved and Senator Heuer seconded adoption of Parts A and B.

Senator Galt wanted to make sure that students will be adequately recognized for honors work.  Will it be announced at graduation and included in transcripts?  We shouldn’t do anything to discourage student honors projects. These are extremely valuable.  Senator Furlong was concerned that raising the GPA standard for summa cum laude would limit our ability to recognize some of our best students.  Couldn’t we modify the proposal to 3.85 or 3.75 with honors in the major?  Senator Kubsch agreed.  Abbott spoke against this, saying that the GPA criterion was clear and sufficient, and honors projects in the major provided an adequate opportunity for recognizing exceptional students. 

Furlong moved to amend the resolution, adding the phrase “or 3.75 with successful completion of honors in the major” after “3.85 or higher” in bullet three of Part A of the resolution.  Galt seconded the amendment.  Put to a vote, the amendment carried 15 in favor, 11 opposed, with no abstentions.

The amended resolution carried, 15 in favor, two opposed, with four abstentions. 

Parts A and B having been adopted, Abbott moved adoption of Part C, seconded by Senator Mannino.  Senator Aldrete suggested that, because such projects are important and we should encourage students to do them, perhaps the GPA should be lowered.  No one responded to the suggestion, the vote was taken, and the resolution carried, 24 in favor, none opposed, no abstentions.

   

  DISCUSSION ITEM

  1.  Policy for Granting B.A. and B.S. Degrees  Presented by Professor David Littig

The matter had been discussed previously as an information item.  The University Committee revised the proposal on the basis of that discussion.  The faculty of major programs will be given responsibility to assign a degree title to their graduates, subject to Senate approval.  The B.A. degree will be the default if the program does not make a recommendation.  Programs may also request the Senate to permit students to choose their own degree titles, subject to the approval of an advisor.  Students with two majors will choose which is their first major and that will determine the degree title.  Littig was asked to clarify several matters and did so.  Students who receive two degrees will have separate designations for each. 

Senators were invited to pose additional questions with the promise that the University Committee will obtain answers for the next Senate meeting when the item will appear for action.      

 

INFORMATION ITEM

1.  Report of the Provost

Provost Pollis summarized recent highlights from the Student Affairs area, including sponsorship of an expanded Leadership Series.  Applications for admission of new freshmen are up 10 percent with a record number of housing contracts.  Transfer applications have been closed, the earliest ever.  The number of judicial affairs cases is up.  Student Support Services has obtained additional grant funding.  The women’s basketball team has been ranked number one nationally in Division One for its grade point average (3.48). The Student Government Association has appointed a committee to study our needs for a Child Care Center and identify our options.  The Provost also mentioned the appearance of the report of a study conducted by the American Association of Higher Education on Post-Tenure Review.  We were one of the institutions studied.  The report shows we lack clarity about the purposes of post-tenure review and its outcomes since it was adopted here in 1993.  It is a sobering report and a good starting point for us to reexamine this issue.

 

ADJOURNMENT

  The meeting was adjourned by the Speaker at  3:58 p.m. in order to convene the general meeting of the faculty.

Respectfully submitted,  

Jerrold Rodesch, Secretary of the Faculty and Academic Staff



Faculty Senate Action Item #2, 11/14/01;  Approved as Amended, Document #01-03, 11/14/01

 

CHANGES IN REQUIREMENTS FOR HONORS

 

  A proposal to change criteria for honors designation is as follows:

Part A:  Honors requirements for students who earn baccalaureate degrees are:

·        Cum laude designation requires a cumulative grade point average from 3.5 to 3.749 [unchanged]

·        Magna cum laude designation requires a cumulative grade point average of 3.75 to 3.849 [unchanged]

·        Summa cum laude designation requires a cumulative grade point average of 3.85 or higher or 3.75 with successful completion of honors in the major [changes from 3.75 or higher; eliminates requirement of successful completion of a senior honors project (the xxx-484 course number is thus eliminated) in an interdisciplinary program]

Part B:  The cumulative grade point average must be achieved on the basis of a minimum of 60 regularly graded (not P/NC or audit) credits taken in-residence at UW-Green Bay. [eliminates a special provision for students with associate degrees from UW-Colleges]

 

If the above proposal is approved, then a further proposal is

Part C:  “The title of all xxx-478 courses be changed from ‘Distinction in the Major’ to ‘Honors in the Major’ and the prerequisite is a minimum GPA of 3.5 for all courses required for the major, and a minimum of 3.75 for all upper-level courses required for the major.”

 


Faculty Senate Action Item #1, 12/12/01                                                                       

POLICY FOR GRANTING B.A. AND B.S. DEGREES

 

The Faculty Senate of University of Wisconsin-Green Bay endorses the following:

The faculty of each major shall transmit to the Faculty Senate for its approval the title of the degree to be awarded upon completion of each of their approved programs of study.

If the faculty of a major does not specify their choice of the degree to be awarded upon completion of one of their approved programs of study, the Registrar shall assign a B.A. to that program of study.

The faculty of a major may request permission from the Faculty Senate to allow its students a choice of the title of the degree with approval of their faculty advisor.

If a student completes the requirements for two or more majors, the student shall select one of the majors as his/her first major.  The title of their degree shall be that of the first major.

 


Faculty Senate Information Item #1, 12/12/01

Proposal to Revise the Policy on the Double Counting of Upper-Division Credits and Establish a Minimum Number of Upper-Level Credits

The University Committee received a memorandum dated October 16, 2001, from Interim Provost Pollis recommending a change to UW-Green Bay’s policy on double counting of credits and establishing a minimum number of upper-division credits required for graduation.  The recommended change of the double counting policy reflects the desire to eliminate administrative and student tracking of credit requirements for the fulfilling of major and minor degrees.  Whereas the University Committee achieved consensus with regard to the above change (Part A of the proposal below), there was considerable debate regarding changes in the minimum number of upper-division credits required for graduation.  Arguments ranged from having no requirements to the recommended 30 credits, to a graduated system that increases the number of upper-division credits based upon the number of majors and/or minors selected by the student.  The rationales spanned the desire to offer students maximum flexibility to holding degree requirements to high standards.  Thus, Part B of this proposal has several options.

  Part A:

“For the purpose of satisfying course requirements for all majors, minors, and certificate programs there shall be no restrictions on how any course can satisfy multiple requirements.”

  Part B:

Option a:  “There shall be no minimum number of upper-division credits required for graduation.  All students must complete 120 credits in order to graduate.”

  Option b:  “All students will complete a minimum of 30 upper-division credits of the 120 credits required for graduation.”

  Option c:  “The number of upper-division credits required to graduate is dependent upon students’ choices of major/minor combinations.  Students must take a least one interdisciplinary major or minor or professional major to fulfill the requirements toward graduation.  All students must complete 120 credits in order to graduate.

Students who take a single major:  30 upper-division credits with a minimum of 24 credits in the major.

Students who take one major and a minor:  36 upper-division credits within the major and minor.

Students who take two majors:  42 upper-division credits within the majors.

 

EXPLANATION OF CURRENT DOUBLE COUNTING POLICY

Support level:  Supporting credits/courses between a major and a minor may not be duplicated unless they exceed the minimum of six unduplicated credits for each major or minor.  In other words, there must be at least six unique credits in both programs for a total of 12 unique credits.  The same is true of supporting credits between two minors (6 each) and between two majors (6 each)

˙       between major and major:  12 unduplicated credits

˙       between major and minor:  12 unduplicated credits

˙       between minor and minor:  12 unduplicated credits

Example:

Minor in Environmental Sciences:                                  Minor in Psychology

Required:                                                                      Required:

362-102  Intro to Environ Science – 3 credits   820-102 Intro to Psychology

600-260 Introductory Stats – 4 credits             600-260  Introductory Stats or 255-204

Assuming a student with both minors wouldn’t want to take both math and social science statistics, they would have to add one more support course to either one of the minors to reach the double counting rule.  Similar problems exists between minors in Env Science and Sociology, and also with minors in Psychology and Sociology. There exists the potential for problems between minors in Geography and Urban & Regional Studies, History and Humanistic Studies, History and SCD, Sociol and SCD and Political Science and Public Administration.

I found only one potential problem at the support level with a major and minor (see example below) and NO problems between majors and majors.

Psychology Major                                            HUD Minor

Required 820-102                                            Choose One:  481-210 or 820-102

Choose one: 255-205 or 600-260                    Choose One:  156-100, 478-102 or 900-202

Choose one: 478-102 or 478-313

 

Upper-Level:  Within the minima, upper-level credits between a major and minor may not be duplicated.  The major requires 24 unduplicated upper-level credits.  The minor requires 12 unduplicated upper-level credits for a total of 36 unique upper-level credits.  Upper-level credits in excess of 24 minimum for a major and 12 for a minor may be duplicated. 

Example:

Major in Biology requires 24 upper-level credits which is the minimum.

Minor in Environmental Science requires 12 credits which is the minimum.

  Although 362-363 meets a requirement in both the major and minor above, it can’t be double counted because both programs are at the university minimum.

·Within the minima, six upper-level credits may be duplicated between two majors.

Example:

Major in Political Science requires 24 upper-level credits (minimum).

Major in Public Administration requires 24 upper-level credits.

A student could use the following two courses for both majors.

835-406  State and Local Government

835-378 Environmental Law

·  Within the minima, upper-level credits between minors may not be double counted.  In other words, there must be 12 unique upper-level credits in each minor.

Example:

Upper-level Psych minor- 15 crs                                   Upper-level Hum Dev minor-12 crs

820-306 Psych of Perception                                       481-331  Infancy & Early Childhood

820-330 Social Psych                                                  481-332  Middle Childhood

481-331 Infancy & Early Childhood                             481-343  Adulthood & Aging

820-435  Abnormal Behavior                                       481-345  Human Sexuality

820-401  Psych of Women

In the above example, it is permissible to have 481-331 count in both minors because 12 unique credits exist in both.

In summary: 

University minimum requirements at the upper level: 

˙       major and a minor:  36 unduplicated upper level credits

˙       major and major:  42 unduplicated upper level credits

minor and minor:  24 unduplicated upper level credits 

 

Attachment A

Upper-Level Credit Requirement to graduate from other Universities

 

UW-Stevens Point – 40 credits required at the 300-400 level

UW-LaCrosse – 40 credits  …….

UW-EauClaire – 43 credits  ……….

Central Michigan University – 40    ……..

UW-Madison – 60 credits at the intermediate, advanced or intermediate/advanced level. (note:  this does not exclude 100 and 200 level courses)

University of Minnesota – None

St. Norbert College– None

DePaul University – None

University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill – None

Northern Michigan- None, however they do have the following double counting rule…..

Double Counting Rule

Students cannot use the same course to fulfill a requirement in more than one major, or a major and a minor, or in more than one minor. 

1.  If a course is required for both a major and a minor, the major requirement will take precedence over the minor and an appropriate substitution must be made in the minor with the written approval of the minor department.

2.  If a course is required in two majors or two minors, the first designated major or minor will take precedence over any subsequent major or minor and appropriate substitutions must be made with the written approval of the head of the second major or minor department.

 

Upper-level credit total from May 2001 grads with selected interdisciplinary majors

(no minors)

HUD – 37

HUD – 63

HUD – 34

HUS – 52

Individual Major – 37

Individual Major – 30

Info Sci – 48

SCD – 46

SCD – 32

COA – 39

COA – 42

Env Sci – 45

Urban & Reg - 38

 

Research on Double Counting

Institute Research, 9/13/2001

In May 2001, UW-Green Bay graduated 258 undergraduate students who started in Fall 1996 or later and who completed the great majority of their course work at this campus.  Students who transferred more than 6 credits in to UW-Green Bay have been excluded from this summary.  Those 258 students completed 302 majors.  That is, 44 students, or 17% of the 258 students, completed a double major.  The following five tables summarize information about the 302 majors completed by this relative select set of students (e.g. largely “traditional” freshmen).

Table 1 shows that the average student in this study completed 55.9 upper division credits, which represented 42% of all of the credits they completed.   Upper division credits completed range from a low of 25 to a high of 100.  Students who complete a single interdisciplinary major have the lowest average number and percent of upper division credits.  Students who earn a major and one or more minors complete more upper division credits.  Within this category, there is almost no difference in the credit-completion patterns between disciplinary and interdisciplinary majors.  Students who complete two majors, with or without additional minors, complete the most upper division credits.

 

Table 1   [Number of Upper Division Credits by Type of Major/Minor]

 

Type of array completed

 

Majors in this type

Percent of all majors

Upper Division Credits Completed

Mean Number

Minimum Number

Maximum Number

Mean Percent

Single interdisciplinary major

48

16%

43.8

25

100

33%

Single interdisciplinary major and one or more minors

111

33%

57.7

30

90

43%

Single disciplinary major and one or more minors

55

18%

55.3

30

86

41%

Two majors, with or without additional minors

88

29%

60.8

45

86

46%

Total

302

100%

55.9

25

100

42%

If UW-Green Bay decided to set a minimum requirement for upper division credits, the number of students impacted would, of course, depend on where the University established the minimum (see table 2).  A minimum requirement of 30 or more credits would impact 1% of graduates under our current policies.  A minimum requirement of 40 or more credits would impact 9% of graduates.  The majority (75%) of students who would be negatively impacted would be those who have completed a single interdisciplinary major.  They would be required to complete more of their electives in upper level courses whereas they currently have greater latitude when deciding how to complete those electives.

Table 3 shows that the types of program options students typically complete are not indepen- dent of the academic area of the major.  In the Humanities, students are most likely to complete a disciplinary major and a minor.  In Natural Sciences, the most common pattern is to complete a single interdisciplinary major.  For example, in this particular sample of students,  61% of 18 Human Biology majors and 38% of 16 Environmental Science majors completed no additional majors or minors.  In the Social Sciences, the most common pattern is for students to complete two majors.  For example, double majors were completed by 59% of the Human Development

Table 2  [If Minimum Requirement of Upper-Level Credits]

 

Type of array completed

 

Majors in this type

Percent completing 24 - 30

Percent completing 31 - 40

Percent completing 41 - 50

Percent completing 51 - 60

Percent completing 61 - 70

Percent completing 71 - 100

Single interdisciplinary major

48

6%

38%

31%

15%

8%

2%

Single interdisciplinary major and one or more minors

111

0%

4%

19%

37%

26%

14%

Single disciplinary major and one or more minors

55

0%

5%

38%

24%

16%

16%

Two majors, with or without additional minors

88

0%

0%

14%

41%

27%

18%

Total

302

1%

8%

23%

32%

22%

14%

   

majors, 63% of  the Public Administration majors, 63% of the Political Science majors, 75% of the Social Change and Development majors and 76% of the Psychology majors.  The most common pattern for the professional programs is completing an interdisciplinary major and a minor.  Both the Business Administration major and the Elementary Education major both require that students complete a minor, and those large programs dominate the summary for the Professional Studies area.  Interestingly, none of the 22 Elementary Education graduates and only 10% of the 48 Business Administration graduates completed a second major rather than a minor.  None of the nursing graduates completed any additional programs.  40% of the Social Work graduates completed an additional minor (and none completed an additional major).

Table 3  [Type of Degree by Area]

Area of Major

Students

Percent of majors from this academic area completing:

Single interdisciplinary major

Single interdisciplinary major and one or more minors

Single disciplinary major and one or more minors

Two majors, with or without additional minors

Humanities

59

12%

24%

37%

27%

Natural Sciences

61

31%

15%

30%

24%

Social Sciences

83

6%

23%

13%

58%

Professional Studies

97

15%

71%

4%

9%

Individual Major(1)

2

100%

-

-

-

Total

302

16%

33%

18%

29%

(1)     There are no Interdisciplinary Studies graduates from the Extended Degree Program included in this report.  They do not typically graduate in five years or less, and very transfer in a large amount of course work.

Table 4 suggests that for all areas except Professional Studies the number of upper division credits a student completes is mostly a function of how many majors and minors are completed. That is, the averages do not vary much between the Humanities, Natural Sciences and Social Sciences.  The number of upper division credits completed by students in Professional Studies is, however, much larger in all categories except the Nursing and Social Work students who complete a single interdisciplinary major.

 

Table 4  [Upper-Division Credits by Major]

Area of Major

Average Upper Division Credits, by Area

Average Upper Division Credits, by Area and type: 

Single interdisciplinary major

Single interdisciplinary major and one or more minors

Single disciplinary major and one or more minors

Two majors, with or without additional minors

Humanities

52.6

39.4

48.0

54.0

60.6

Natural Sciences

50.7

42.3

49.1

54.0

58.4

Social Sciences

54.1

45.2

50.5

50.0

57.4

Professional Studies

63.2

48.3

62.7

82.8 (1)

83.6

Individual Major

35.5

35.5

-

-

-

Total

55.9

43.8

57.7

55.3

60.8

(1)     The only professional program categorized as a disciplinary major is Accounting, which requires 71 upper division credits and an additional interdisciplinary program.  The average of 82.8 is what one would expect based on University policy: 71 upper division credits from Accounting and an additional 12 unduplicated upper-division credits from a minor.

Table 5 provides one final piece of information: time to degree.  Overall, 56% of the majors included in this analysis were completed in four years or less.  Over two-thirds of students who chose to complete a single interdisciplinary major completed their work in four years.  The highest percent is found in the Humanities, where 86% of 19 students in this area and type graduated within four years.  Adding a minor to an interdisciplinary major drops the four-year graduation rate from 67% to 59%.  In this study, more students who completed double majors got done in four years than students who completed a disciplinary major and a minor (57% versus 38%).  The very low four-year graduation rates for the Professional Studies areas in some of the types (25% and 11%) might help explain why relatively few students in that academic areas complete second majors.

 

Table 5  [Time of Degree]

Area of Major

Percent Graduating in Four Years or Less

Four-year Graduation Rate, by Area and type: 

Single interdisciplinary major

Single interdisciplinary major and one or more minors

Single disciplinary major and one or more minors

Two majors, with or without additional minors

Humanities

53%

86%

57%

36%

56%

Natural Sciences

51%

63%

67%

39%

40%

Social Sciences

63%

40%

58%

45%

71%

Professional Studies

56%

73%

59%

25%

11%

Individual Major

50%

50%

-

-

-

Total

56%

67%

59%

38%

57%

 


  Faculty Senate Information Item #2, 12/12/01

 

PROPOSAL

Admissions standards – New Freshmen

Objective

Modify admission standards to refine the admission process targeted toward improved retention.

 

Guidelines  

 

Standards

 

High School G.P.A (cumulative) = 2.25

AND

ACT score = 17

 

* Minimum institutional standards may be waived for students who qualify and participate in the E.O.P. program.

·         Regular admissions  Create an index based on the factors noted below; admit highest ranking indices based on established targets.

 

 

High School G.P.A (cumulative)   = 3.25  

OR    

ACT score  = 23

 

            ** Specific standards for G.P.A and A.C.T. are subject to change by the Assistant Dean for Enrollment Management based on the applicant pool and enrollment circumstances.

 

Recommended by the Enrollment Management Committee -- May 31, 2001

   

A Review of Institutional Research on

Admission Standards for New Freshmen

 

In the past three years, UW-Green Bay’s Enrollment Management Committee (EMC) has explored the implications of relying heavily on applicants’ high school class ranks during the admission process.  During the past year, the EMC specifically explored the issue of developing admission standards that would support the goals of improved retention and graduation rates. In Spring 2001, the EMC drafted a proposal for a new set of admission standards for new freshmen.  This report highlights the research that led to and supports the new standards.  

Minimum institutional standards

  UW-Green Bay is not in a position to fully meet the needs of all potential students.  Students with weak academic preparation are and have been encouraged to attend a UW College.

  The comprehensive schools in the UW System publish minimum standards of scholastic achievement

 (See: uwhelp.wisconsin.edu/admin/Rankfram.htm):

1.        Seven schools directly admit students based on class ranks (including UW Green Bay) 

2.        Four schools admit using both high school rank and ACT score

3.        UW-Eau Claire, UW-La Crosse and UW-River Falls use both and have some of the highest second year retention rates among the comprehensives school. 

 

The proposal suggests setting minimum standards for the ACT score (17) and the high school G.P.A.(2.25).

1.        Predicting scholastic performance is more effective when using multiple measures.

2.        High school G.P.A. has the greatest correlation with retention into the second year.

3.        Research shows that students with “imbalances” between their ACT scores and high school G.P.A.s may be at most risk for poor performance, and suggests that evaluating both measures will be useful.

4.        The percent of students who are successful in their first semester and who are retained into their second year jumps from 9% for students with an ACT score of 16 to 24% for students with an ACT score of 17

5.        NCAA requirements for regular admission for student athletes correspond to an ACT score of 17. 

6.        In recent years, only about 2% of new students had high school G.P.A.s lower than 2.25.  Only 20% of them have been successful in the first semester and retained into the second year, compared to 58% of the students with at least a 2.25.

7.        Alternatives:

a.        Students failing to have both of the minima who qualify for the special services provided by E.O.P. may still be admitted, after that program individually reviews their applications. 

b.       Students who are not eligible for E.O.P. can begin their college careers at a UW college and transfer to UW-Green Bay after proving their abilities.

 

For additional information see: www.uwgb.edu/iresearch/enroll/EMCWorkingPaper.htm.

 

Elimination of use of high school rank

The proposal moves away from reliance on the high school class rank as an admission criterion.

1.                    High school rank lacks reliability.  (e.g. students with similar preparation and achievement have different high school ranks due to variance in size and quality of schools, not ability).

2.                    High school rank lacks predictive validity for UW-Green Bay.

3.             Many high schools districts no longer rank their students. 

 

For additional information see: www.uwgb.edu/iresearch/enroll/EMCVariableComparison.htm


Regular Admissions -- index

  The proposal suggests creating an index based on four categories of factors: academic preparation, academic challenge, extra- and co-curricular activities, and contribution to UW-Green Bay’s campus life and mission. 

1.        Research revealed that several non-cognitive factors are statistically related to retention here at UW-Green Bay.

2.        Inclusion of academic challenge is based on: 

a.        National research has documented that the rigor of a student’s high school curriculum is a very important predictor of college success.

b.       Research on data collected from UW-Green Bay students when they take the ACT exam found that some measures of academic challenge do relate to retention.

3.        Inclusion of extra- and co-curricular activities is based on:

a.        Research on the results from the national survey of non-cognitive factors found significant differences for students with strong leadership experiences and involvement in community service. 

b.       Research on UW-Green Bay students using the ACT survey found that engagement relates positively to performance. 

4.        The Learning Experience Initiative highlights the connection between academic performance and wider engagement in the campus and Green Bay communities. 

5.        Inclusion of potential contribution to the campus community reflects the campus’s commitment to diversity and other enrollment goals.  

 

One model of assigning students points based on academic challenge, extra-curricular and diversity components showed that these extra factors do relate positively to student performance and retention. 

For additional information, see:

www.uwgb.edu/iresearch/enroll/EMCVariableComparison.htm. www.uwgb.edu/iresearch/enroll/EMCWorkingPaper.htm.

Answers in the Toolbox: Academic Intensity, Attendance Patterns, and Bachelor’s Degree Attainment, by Clifford Adelman, June 1999, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

 

Priority Admission

The proposal suggests that students with high ACT scores or high school G.P.A.s will be admitted on a priority basis, without indexing the additional factors referenced above.

1.        Students with high academic achievement have very high levels of retention and academic performance.

2.        Evaluating the additional factors will take staff time, especially in the first years. 

3.        Being able to publish some criteria reflecting a ‘guaranteed’ admission for high-quality applicants is important, especially in the UW-System. 

 

The proposal suggests initially providing priority admission to students with an ACT of 23 or a high school G.P.A. of 3.25 -- the average values from our recent cohorts of new freshmen.  Over time, specific levels used to decide who will receive priority admission will be modified based on research, qualifications of the applicant pool, and enrollment circumstances.

For additional information see: www.uwgb.edu/iresearch/enroll/EMCWorkingPaper.htm

 

08/22/01- DF/SN