University of South Alabama Late Course Withdrawal Policy: Proposed

Faculty Handbook and Policy Committee Spring, 2007

The Faculty Handbook and Policy Committee hereby proposes to change the University of South Alabama’s Late Course Withdrawal policy. The change would be to require that after the conclusion of the Course Add/Drop period during a semester, but prior to the Course Withdrawal deadline, students seeking to withdrawal from a course must secure the signature approval of the instructor of the course from which they wish to withdraw.

The rationale for this proposal is detailed in the following sections below:

I. Current University of South Alabama Course Withdrawal Policy

II. Comparison of the Current University of South Alabama Course Withdrawal Policy with Other Institutions’ Course Withdrawal Policies

III. Problems with the Current Course Withdrawal Policy at the University of South Alabama.

IV. Proposed Revision to the Current Late Course Withdrawal Policy.

V. Possible Drawbacks to the Proposed Change

VI. Results of Logit Regression analysis on withdrawal deadline and graduation rate.

VII. Summary of Other Institutions’ Late Course Withdrawal Policies as of Spring, 2007

I. Current University of South Alabama Course Withdrawal Policy

The University of South Alabama currently allows students to withdraw from a course at any time between the start of the semester and the course withdrawal deadline. In the spring of 2007, the course withdrawal deadline is April 6th, which is the end of the 13th week of the semester (recent semester deadlines have ranged from the end of the 12th week to the last day of the semester). Students who withdraw from a course during this period receive a “WD” on their transcript. There is no further academic penalty. Students do not pay an extra fee for withdrawing. There is no signature requirement, or any requirement that they consult with any member of the faculty, staff, or administration before withdrawing. There is no limit on the number of courses a student may withdraw from during their academic career at U.S.A.

Up until the withdrawal deadline, students can drop a course at any time from an internet-enabled device by accessing PAWS.

II. Comparison of the Current University of South Alabama Course Withdrawal Policy with Other Institutions’ Course Withdrawal Policies

The Committee compared the University’s course withdrawal policy with the policies of 38 regional universities, including all the universities from the two lists of U.S.A. “reference institutions”. A summary of this comparison is attached. The Committee can provide a copy of any of the listed institution’s policy statements upon request.

Overall, the University of South Alabama has the most lenient late course withdrawal policy of any of the comparison institutions. Its withdrawal deadline is among the very latest. The academic and financial consequences of withdrawing are as lenient as those of any other institution. And the procedural requirements for withdrawing from a course after the first four weeks of class are as lenient as those of any other institution, and far easier than most institutions’ procedural requirements. Below is a summary of some other institutions’ policies.

i. Course Withdrawal Deadlines

The large majority of universities have course withdrawal deadlines during or before the 10th week or 60% point of a regular semester. 21% of institutions (8 of 38), had later deadlines. Only one university was found that clearly had a later withdrawal deadline than U.S.A.: Missouri State. However, Missouri State imposes a possible academic penalty, since instructors may fail late withdrawing students.

ii. Academic or Financial Penalties for late Course Withdrawal

Numerous institutions surveyed have significant academic penalties for late course withdrawal. Many allowed instructors the option of assigning students an “F” or “WF” (withdrawal-fail) during the late withdrawal period.

Some institutions also impose modest financial penalties for late course withdrawal. For instance, the University of Alabama-Birmingham imposes a $30.00 fee, while Rice University imposes a $50.00 fee.

A few universities limit the number of courses that can be dropped during an academic career at that university to four.

iii. Procedural Requirements for Late Course Withdrawal

Nearly all of the institutions surveyed imposed one or more procedural requirements for late course withdrawal, from filling out a form and returning it to the registrar, to securing the signature approval of several faculty and administration members. Few universities allowed students to withdraw entirely on their own at any time prior to the withdrawal deadline, as U.S.A does.

Procedural requirements for students ranged from the requirement that students submit a withdrawal form or letter (as at the University of Alabama-Birmingham), to the requirement that students secure the signature approval of the course instructor, the student’s advisor and the student’s dean (as at the University of Texas at Austin). More typically, institutions require that students secure the signature approval of the course instructor (e.g., U. of Missouri-Columbia, University of Tennessee, Tulane University, Rice University), or the student’s advisor (Mississippi State University), or the student’s Dean (University of Mississippi after 25th day of regular semester). About 32% of universities surveyed (12 of 38) require a faculty or administrator’s signature approval for late withdrawal.

The Committee was especially struck by the fact that well-regarded regional public and private research institutions, such as the University of Texas at Austin, Rice University, Tulane University, the University of Tennessee, and the University of Missouri-Columbia, all required that at least one faculty or administrator approve late course withdrawal. Clearly, these institutions consider the choice to withdraw late from a course to be a serious academic decision, and not one for a student to decide at any time, in any mental state, and without consulting anybody.

III. Problems with the Current Course Withdrawal Policy at the University of South Alabama.

After discussions with University of South Alabama faculty members and students, and after a review of some of the research literature on undergraduate student retention rates, average time-to-degree, and undergraduate graduation rates, the Committee identified a number of known or likely problems with the current University of South Alabama course withdrawal policy.

i. The withdrawal process is too easy, and allows impulsive or hasty decisions.

As noted, the current course withdrawal process enables students to withdraw at any time on PAWS. Thus for example, students can withdraw from a course the night before a difficult assignment is due, or they can withdraw from a course while at a bar using an internet-enabled cell phone.

While convenient for students, the Committee does not regard this convenience as serving either the students’ or the University’s long-term interests. Significant academic decisions ought not to be made when a student is frustrated, fatigued, or looking for a way to get out of a difficult assignment. At a minimum, a policy that extends the process of course withdrawal will give students the opportunity to reflect on their decision. Ideally, it will provide the opportunity to make this important decision in consultation with a faculty member who understands their situation.

ii. Withdrawing students are not necessarily informed of their course standing or of the academic consequences of withdrawal.

Experience reveals that students are frequently mistaken about the grade they are receiving in a course while the course is ongoing. They may believe that they are earning a higher or a lower grade than they actually are.

If a student is mistaken about the grade they have in a course, and they are considering withdrawing from that course, it is likely that they are underestimating their grade in the course, since students can be expected to be more likely to drop a course that they feel they are doing poorly in.

Even students who are in fact performing poorly in a course frequently may be unclear about their prospects for successfully completing the course. For instance, they may not be aware of additional learning opportunities such as office hours or tutoring sessions, or they may not know the nature or difficulty of upcoming assignments.

Finally, students might be unaware of the academic consequences of withdrawing from a course. They may be unclear about whether a course is required for their degree. They may be unaware of the frequency with which a required course that they plan to withdraw from will be offered, or of the difficulty of getting into a required course in the future. They may not realize that withdrawing from a course may increase the amount of time that they will need to complete their degree.

Because the current course withdrawal policy requires no interaction between the student and his or her instructor or advisor, it provides no opportunity to remedy such misunderstandings.

iii. Instructors and advisors are not informed of the reasons for a student’s course withdrawal.

It is impossible to say with any certainty what proportion of students withdraw from courses for which reasons, since the current policy allows students to withdraw without communicating their reasons to anyone. It is thus also difficult for instructors to glean why students might withdraw from their courses. Students simply disappear from classrooms and rosters, and any further contact an instructor may have with a student who has dropped is likely to be coincidental. As a result, instructors have no way of knowing why students are withdrawing. Consequently, they have no way of knowing if or how their courses could be revised to improve student retention.

iv. Students are more likely to drop courses for reasons not related to poor academic performance or personal hardship.

The Committee received numerous reports from instructors at U.S.A. that students would routinely drop courses for reasons not connected with their academic performance or personal hardship. Students were reported dropping courses that they were successfully completing for reasons such as:

- dissatisfaction with the prospect of a grade below an “A” or “B”

- an unwillingness by the student to complete a difficult late-term assignment

- a feeling on the part of the student that the instructor was too demanding.

Rather than work harder to complete a course, students may elect to take the easy way out and drop it.

Furthermore, since there is no penalty for late withdrawal, a lenient policy may encourage students to register for courses that they do not intend to complete. Thus, with no restriction on course withdrawal, students who might otherwise successfully complete a course can, and do, drop it for reasons other than severe personal hardship.

v. Fewer courses are completed in a given semester.

Many courses at the University of South Alabama are full at the end of the course add/drop period. When students withdraw from such courses after the add/drop period, these courses are no longer available to other students who may have otherwise enrolled in them.

vi. The current policy has a probable adverse effect on the University’s student retention rate.

The Committee did not find any empirical studies directly examining the relationship between late course withdrawal policies and student retention rates. Nonetheless, the Committee considers there to be at least two good reasons to believe that a lenient late course withdrawal policy may adversely impact undergraduate student retention rates.

First, a large body of research literature has found a strong correlation between poor academic performance and higher attrition rates. Students who withdraw from a course have failed to successfully complete that course and have not made progress toward their degree. To the extent that a lenient course withdrawal policy increases the rate at which students will withdraw from courses they might otherwise successfully complete, as the Committee believes, such a policy can be expected to have an adverse effect on the retention rate.

There is a second and independent reason to believe that a lenient policy adversely affects student retention rates when compared with less lenient policies that require signature approval from a faculty member or dean. The signature requirement offers an opportunity for further advising and interaction with faculty. Moreover, when an instructor’s or advisor’s signature is required, the student must interact with those faculty members who are best informed about the student’s academic situation. A large body of research literature on retention has found a strong positive correlation between retention and the frequency of student’s interaction with faculty. A signature requirement for late withdrawal provides the opportunity for such interaction at a crucial point in the student’s academic career. By adopting a lenient withdrawal policy that requires no student-faculty consultation, the current University policy forfeits a potentially valuable opportunity for the personal contact between a student and his or her instructor or advisor.

vii. The current policy has a probable adverse effect on the University’s average time-to-degree.

As noted above, a lenient withdrawal policy makes it easy for students to withdraw from a course that they might otherwise successfully complete. A student who has withdrawn from a course will typically have to take another course at a later time in order to complete the requirements for their degree. The result is an unnecessarily extended undergraduate academic career.

Required courses that are infrequently offered, but which a student drops for reasons other than poor academic performance or severe personal hardship, can unexpectedly extend a student’s time-to-degree by one or more semesters. So can required courses that are frequently offered but overenrolled. Moreover, institutions with no limit on the number of courses from which a student can withdraw (such as the Univeristy of South Alabama) enable students to get in the “habit” of withdrawing from courses for convenience-related reasons, thereby greatly extending their time-to-degree.

viii. The current policy has a probable adverse effect on the University’s graduation rate.

For reasons following from those indicated above, a lenient course withdrawal policy can be expected to have an adverse effect on graduation rates compared with less-lenient policies, especially those policies that require faculty or advisor signature approval. Students who are not retained by the University will obviously not graduate from it. And students whose time-to-degree is extended beyond what they anticipate face added challenges to graduation, and may be expected to be less likely to graduate.

IV. Proposed Revision to the Current Late Course Withdrawal Policy.