Presentation on theme: "Educational Policy Committee’s Review and Recommendations: Priority Registration Presented to the Faculty Council Friday, January 11, 2013."— Presentation transcript:
Educational Policy Committee’s Review and Recommendations: Priority Registration Presented to the Faculty Council Friday, January 11, 2013
Charge Current PR policy set to expire at the end of 2012 EPC to examine current policy and determine whether Allow to expire (disappear) Propose renewal without changes Propose renewal with changes
Priority Registration Subcommittee: Theresa Raphael-Grimm Jennifer Coble Mark Schoenfisch Bobbi Owen Chris Derickson
Working Assumptions of Subcommittee: PR is useful and appropriate for specific populations of students Some accommodation for athletes is warranted given that they officially represent the University were recruited with agreement to participate must meet NCAA & Univ. eligibility requirements including semester credits and accumulated credits Not within EPC’s purview to consider general role of athletics in University life
Issues/Concerns: How successful is the current PR process in allowing Priority Registrants (PRs) access to courses given the limitations of their schedules? Who uses the system and in what concentrations? Does advantaging one segment of the undergraduate student body (PRs), disadvantage other members of the student body (non-PRs) and if so, to what extent?
Remember the actual advantage: PR Seniors 30 minutes before other seniors PR Juniors 30 minutes before other juniors PR Sophomores 30 minutes before other sophomores PR First years 30 minutes before others
Data Review: EXAMPLE Fall 2012 Statistics: 1,188 Total Students participated in PR (~5%) Athletic endeavors accounted for 83% of PR 721 athletes, 81 managers, 57 cheerleaders = 828 Non-season athletes were 220 of those 828 Other 17% of PRs included: ROTC Student teachers Students with disabilities Robertson Scholars
Example of Data Analysis: Fall 2012 Of 917 courses offered in Fall 2012, 48 (5.34%) exceeded 15% enrollment limit of PR students Some individual sections were higher but were below 15% when examined across all sections of a course Clusters (2 or >) were in: Portuguese4ENGL2 COMM6PHIL2 EXSS11PWAD2 MNGT3ARMY2
Basic PRAC Statistics Number of Students Approved by PRAC since Fall 2010: Number of Classes (Sections) that have exceeded 15% threshold TermTotalTermTotal Fall 2010863Spring 20111033 Fall 20111034Spring 20121068 Fall 2012832Spring 20131076 TermTotalTermTotal Fall 201084Spring 2011161 Fall 201187Spring 2012163 Fall 201287Spring 2013153
Basic PRAC Statistics (cont.) Number of Courses exceeding the 15% recommendation each Fall since 2010 = 22 Number of Courses exceeding the 15% recommendation each Spring since 2011 = 33 1 AFAM1 INLS5 PORT 3 ENGL1 JOMC1 SOCI 8 EXSS1 MATH1 SWAH 1 AFAM7 EXSS2 JOMC 4 COMM1 FREN2 MATH 6 EDUC1 INLS3 PORT 3 ENGL1 ITAL2 SPAN
Basic PRAC Statistics (cont.) Number of Courses exceeding the 15% recommendation each Fall semester since 2010 = 22 from 9 different departments Number of Courses exceeding the 15% recommendation each Spring semester since 2011 = 33 from 12 different departments 12 Courses from 6 different departments exceeded the recommended 15% threshold in every semester since Fall 2010
But, do data reflect advantage? Clearly PRs are represented in greater numbers in some courses Are those same courses highly desirable among non-PR students? Are high PR #’s reflective of courses within majors where PRs are more heavily represented?
Are non-PR students disadvantaged? Registration data cannot reveal this Are many non-PR students desiring Portuguese and being thwarted? The registration system has no way of recognizing the extent to which students are attempting to gain access to, and being denied, specific courses. Much of that info is: Anecdotal From advisors Exists outside of the PR (seat scarcity for other reasons)
EPC Recommendations: The practice of PR should continue No more than 5-6% of the undergraduate student body should participate in PR in a given semester Within the 5-6%, more students come from non-athlete categories of eligibility Examples include: Single parents (Women’s Center) Long-distance commuters (Parking Office or Dean of Students) Working students (?>25 hrs/wk) (Scholarships and Student Aid) Academic success students (Disability Services) Any course (not section) where the proportion of PR students in any semester, exceeds 15% of capacity will be slated for potential removal from PR eligibility in subsequent semester(s). Exception to 15% rule is for courses within highly PR populated majors PRAC (Priority Registration Advisory Committee) work with the registrar and EPC to determine which courses are problematic and need to be deemed ineligible One of the two faculty representatives to PRAC be a current (elected) member of, and act as liaison to, EPC The PR period for each eligible student exist for only 30 minutes. After that, the window be closed and any additional changes made only during that students regular, lottery-assigned registration time slot. The Priority Registration Policy be re-evaluated every 3 years with particular attention to any courses or sections in which priority registrants are over-represented. (Registration soft ware is now capable of tracking such activity).