Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Educational Policy Committee’s Review and Recommendations: Priority Registration Presented to the Faculty Council Friday, January 11, 2013.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Educational Policy Committee’s Review and Recommendations: Priority Registration Presented to the Faculty Council Friday, January 11, 2013."— Presentation transcript:

1 Educational Policy Committee’s Review and Recommendations: Priority Registration Presented to the Faculty Council Friday, January 11, 2013

2 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

3 Priority Registration Subcommittee:  Theresa Raphael-Grimm  Jennifer Coble  Mark Schoenfisch  Bobbi Owen  Chris Derickson

4 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

5 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?

6 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

7 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

8 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

9 Basic PRAC Statistics  Number of Students Approved by PRAC since Fall 2010:  Number of Classes (Sections) that have exceeded 15% threshold TermTotalTermTotal Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring TermTotalTermTotal Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring

10 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

11 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

12 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?

13 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)

14 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).


Download ppt "Educational Policy Committee’s Review and Recommendations: Priority Registration Presented to the Faculty Council Friday, January 11, 2013."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google