The Academic Planning Committee’s deliberations on budget reductions have been guided, as in previous budget reduction considerations, by the General Issues Section of the Procedures to be Invoked for Significant Budget Reallocations and Reductions adopted February 10, 1993.
The Committee discussed approaches to the budgetary crisis and is of the general opinion that more focus on revenue enhancement to meet the reductions rather than exclusive focus on reductions could be helpful. To that end, it passed the following resolution:
In almost all cases where circumstances beyond a student’s control are involved, the appropriate grade is an Incomplete. There is no cost associated with an Incomplete.
The very generous withdrawal policy of the University justifies either the levy of a fee for repeating a course or a fee for withdrawals. The APC proposes a fee for repeating a course in the amount of $50.00, in addition to tuition. Those declaring a semester of academic bankruptcy will have no fees assessed.
Since students still have a large part of their educational costs supplemented by state tax support, the Committee believes that course retakes are a financial burden that should be more substantially shared by those students availing themselves of this option. Approximately 3,600 students each year repeat a course. This does not include students repeating courses that are intended for multiple registrations and does not include incomplete grades. Students who have legitimate reasons for not completing a course are held free by the incomplete, which is also designed to deal with situations beyond a student's control. The generous withdrawal policy of the university also makes it unnecessary for a student to stay in a course where their performance is poor. Therefore students repeating a course in which they previously withdrew would not be assessed the fee. Since only retakes at the university are of additional cost to the institution, retakes at other universities would not be considered. The suggested fee was set low but, even then, would generate about $180,000 annual income. Higher fees would not be unreasonable and, of course, provide higher yield. The fee has the advantage of assessing only those students who are using the resources of the university beyond the norm and it may encourage better performance the first time courses are taken. In summary, the proposed fee would only be charged for students who received a grade, other than I or W, and then repeated the course at UNL.
The Academic Planning Committee concurs with the following budget reduction proposals:
