Earlier drop deadline beneficial

The Faculty Executive Committee of the UCLA College is
considering a proposal to change the late-drop policy for
non-impacted courses.

Currently, undergraduates are allowed to drop non-impacted
courses through the fourth week of the quarter with no transcript
notation. Drops between the last day of fourth week and the final
exam require a pro-forma petition and result in a transcript
notation (e.g. “Course Dropped ““ Week 8″).

Under the revised policy, students would be allowed to drop
non-impacted courses through the fourth (or perhaps fifth) week,
and later only by a petition documenting extraordinary
circumstances. The deadlines for dropping impacted courses or
adding courses would not be changed.

Many College faculty believe that an earlier drop deadline is in
the best interest of our students. Why?

An earlier deadline would be more fair. As it is now, an
engineering student has only until the fourth week to drop a math
class, while a biology student in the same class has until the 10th
week. That’s not fair. Revising the policy would level the
playing field.

And what about “grade shopping”? Students who are
financially well off but not doing as well as they’d like may
be able to drop a course late and simply retake it, while students
who are working their way through school may not be able to afford
either the extra fees or the extra time to stay five years.
Shopping for grades shouldn’t be common practice, and the
ability to do so shouldn’t relate to the ability to pay.

An earlier deadline would also increase access to classes.
Demand for many classes is high, but because of budget cutbacks,
access is limited. A student who stays enrolled in a high-demand
course for nine or 10 weeks and then drops it is taking a seat away
from another student who is committed to completing the course.

Additionally, wait-listed students would get better access. This
is important at times like now, when resources are scarce.

An earlier deadline would improve the quality of the educational
experience. By allowing a course to be dropped up to the final
exam, the current policy has the unintended effect of enabling
deferred decision-making around papers to be written, books to be
read, etc. The current policy encourages absenteeism, as students
know they can simply drop the course the day of the final.

The educational experience is far better when the participants
are fully engaged with the course and fully committed to learning
throughout. An earlier drop deadline would encourage students to
commit to their courses earlier and manage their study time
better.

In sum, many faculty believe that an earlier drop deadline would
be more fair, and would provide greater access and a higher-quality
educational experience.

The Faculty Executive Committee will discuss the policy and
decide whether to implement changes at its May 6 meeting. Any
revisions to the current policy would take effect in the 2005-2006
academic year.

Garrell is a chemistry professor and Faculty Executive
Committee chairman. Knapp is a musicology professor and Faculty
Executive Committee secretary. E-mail comments about the proposal
to the Academic Affairs Commission at [email protected].