Progression Requirements

Opinions on matters of interest to the university and higher education.

Share your thoughts on this topic or other issues with the provost.

At the University of Tennessee students are often faced with an unusual situation. A 2.0 or C average maintains a student in good standing on the campus, and students who achieve a 2.0 or greater are eligible for graduation on the basis of GPA. But students who are in good standing frequently find that they are excluded from many of the departmental majors and programs in which they would like to enroll.

The reason for these various exclusions is the progression requirements instituted by departments and programs over the years (in some majors called “entrance requirements”). These requirements vary from major to major; some departments demand a cumulative GPA that exceeds the accepted norm for good standing on the campus; others require a GPA above a 2.0 in one or more courses required for the major. Some make maintenance of a GPA above 2.0 a requirement for retention in the major.

Some of these restrictions may be justified. I can think of two legitimate justifications: (1) the department is at capacity and unable to take on more majors while still doing a respectable job of education; (2) the department needs to maintain a predetermined student-faculty ratio in the major or in courses pertaining to the major in order to receive accreditation from a national or regional accreditation organization.

As a general principle the Knoxville campus should oppose progression requirements for majors. Our goal, however unrealizable, should be that every student in good standing should be able to choose his/her major and graduate with a degree in that discipline from the University of Tennessee. Progression requirements unfairly restrict students who are otherwise in good standing, forcing them into disciplines that they do not prefer and preventing students from attaining their educational goals. The existence of these requirements has the effect of requiring certain units to educate students with lower GPAs, while colleagues in other units educate students who have performed at higher levels. They thus place an unfair burden on one segment of the faculty willing to teach all students who satisfy campus standards. Finally progression requirements hinder student progress to degree and undoubtedly have a negative impact on student retention.

Some faculty members have told me that progression requirements are necessary to enhance the profile of a department or major. I do not agree. In my view the excellence of any academic unit is related much more closely – and much more importantly – to the research profile of its faculty, the graduate program and its prominence in the discipline, and the national and international reputation of a unit, not to the GPAs of the undergraduates the faculty teach.

Other faculty members have claimed that faculty morale will be diminished if professors are forced to teach “less talented” students. In fact, in the retention report from 2001 one can read about the “costs to faculty and staff morale” that would be caused by removing progression requirements.This sort of reasoning strikes me as odd and counter to the goals we ought to foster on our campus. It is the obligation of the faculty to teach all students, including those who do not perform at the highest levels, to inspire all types of students, not just those who are high achievers, and to assist all students in achieving their career goals. After all, it is not much of a challenge to teach students who are performing well; the real measure of an educator is to teach a student who needs our assistance, and to make that student better.

I have therefore collected from the deans of the colleges on campus a report on the progression requirements that obtain in their departments, and I am looking, where possible, at their impact on the undergraduate population. Unless the requirements relate directly to issues of capacity or accreditation, departments should be encouraged to eliminate them. For those units that have capacity or accreditation issues, I have asked what it would take to increase capacity and satisfy student demand. The Provost’s Office will be following up on this issue, but I welcome the input of the university community through this forum.

31 Jan. 2007