To:Members of Senate

Date:March 22, 2006

To:Members of Senate

From:Alan Harrison

Provost and Vice-President (Academic)

Re:Discredits and the Three Failure Rule

1.Definition of a Discredit

Under current regulations a discredit is defined as follows:

6.3Discredits

A discredit is:

a) a course registration that results in a grade of F, FND, ABS, UNS, or

b)a course registration that results in a grade other than Wdn, Aud, IP, DNC in a course that may only count once for credit in the degree and that is subsequently repeated, or

c)a course registration that results in a grade other than Wdn, Aud, IP, DNC in a course precluded by a course used to fulfill degree requirements

Discussions at the meetings of the Joint Committee about discredits concluded that there was no justification for including in the definition repeated or precluded courses completed with a passing grade. There is also no reason to consider a course with a passing grade as a discredit. In fact, it seems likely that this part of the definition is a relic from an earlier set of academic regulations; it is no longer relevant.

It is proposed that the definition of discredit be changed by the deletion of parts (b) and (c).

2.Suspension for Failing a Course Three Times

As part of the New Rules approved in June 2000, a student is suspended or ineligible to return to his/her degree if the student has failed one specific course on three occasions. The regulation has been subject to a thorough re-examination as part of the work of the Joint Committee this winter.

There is no question that a student who has failed a single course on three or more occasions is not achieving academic success. However, a closer examination reveals an uneven landscape. Multiple failure of the same course is most common in Engineering. Outside of Engineering, cases are not frequent. Most often we find a student doing well overall who persists, for some reason, trying unsuccessfully to pass a specific course. These students would be better served by more focused academic advising triggered by early warning signs. The Student Academic Success Centre is already implementing such an intervention strategy. With this advising process in place, it is recommended that the three failure rule be deleted.

In the case of Engineering, the discussion at the Joint Committee suggests that there are steps that can be taken in the management of the BEng program that will address the problem of multiple failure of the same course. The Joint Committee agreed that this would take time and so proposes to allow engineering one year to develop appropriate strategies. Implementation of the removal of the three failure rule will therefore be postponed in Engineering only, for one year.

It was proposed

That the “three failure rule” be deleted from the criteria that result in Suspension or Ineligible to Return with the exception that this rule will continue to apply to students in the BEng degree up to and including the performance evaluation at the end of the Winter Term 2007.

Faculty boards were asked to consider this proposal. The reply was one of general support but with concerns that students persistently failing must be guided to successful strategies. SASC is engaged in providing this guidance. Engineering is directed to make a proposal to SCASP by December 2006 on how it intends to address issues arising from the removal of the three failure rule.