The UCLA College is considering revising its drop policy.
Currently, we have what might be called a “no-fault”
drop policy: Students who find themselves in a course for which
they are unsuited may drop ““ without having to prove
extenuating circumstances ““ until they take the final exam.
The proposal under consideration would move the deadline for
“no-fault” drops to the end of fourth week, after which
students would be able to drop only if they petitioned successfully
on grounds claiming extraordinary hardship.
I’m against the proposal. Let me explain why.
At UCLA, students pre-enroll in courses, usually without
receiving any academic advising from faculty and often after being
shut out of their first choice. Inevitably, in such a situation,
some students get in over their heads. Moreover, it is common for
students not to get substantive feedback until sixth week ““
by which time, if the proposal passes, the handcuffs will have been
locked and the key thrown away.
Of course, things might be different if UCLA worked the same way
as some of the private institutions (such as Harvard and Penn) that
advocates have appealed to in defense of the proposal. But at those
institutions, students get quite a bit of help with course
placement. And at Harvard students don’t even enroll until
they have had a chance to attend several lectures. But given the
pressures UCLA students face on the front end of the
course-selection process, pressures that are exacerbated by the
need to maintain expected cumulative progress, it makes sense to
provide maximum flexibility at the back end and allow students who
find themselves in an unmanageable situation to exit without
bureaucratic complications.
So if the proposal is adopted, the campus will be giving up
something important in terms of flexibility. What are we getting in
return? In a recent Viewpoint submission, the chair of the faculty,
Robin Garrell, and secretary of the faculty, Ray Knapp, gave three
reasons for considering the new policy.
First, they claim an earlier deadline would lead to students
being more committed to their courses. But commitment has to be
earned by the faculty, and when it hasn’t been, it cannot be
imposed by handcuffing students to their seats. Moreover, the
simple truth is that the proposal will have no noticeable effect on
the vast majority of courses. Currently, 2.7 percent of students in
non-impacted courses drop after week four (as compared with 1
percent of students in impacted courses who drop after week two).
These numbers suggest that very few students are fence-sitting,
entertaining a late drop as a serious possibility. As things stand
now, the vast majority of students already know that they are in
the course for the long haul.
Second, they claim that an earlier deadline would increase
access to classes. But it is hard to see how this is true. Those
familiar with impacted courses know that the deadline for dropping
these courses is set at the end of week two precisely to enable
students to fill the vacated seats while there is time to catch up
on the missed work. If the deadline is set in week four, that
advantage essentially evaporates. In fact the present proposal has
the disadvantage of making every course “semi-impacted”
(i.e. lost flexibility, burdening counselors with petitions)
without a compensating advantage of significantly increased
access.
Third, the faculty claim that an earlier deadline would be more
fair, because a) it would even the playing field between the UCLA
College and the three other schools at UCLA that enroll
undergraduates, and b) it is easier for students from affluent
backgrounds to “grade shop” than for students from less
affluent backgrounds. As to a), it does seem to me that there is
some unevenness in the present arrangement. But I do see that this
is the UCLA College’s problem rather than the other
schools’ problem (especially given the relative sizes), and I
am sure that the problem is not so extensive in scope as to justify
removing the administrative flexibility that has proven valuable to
the UCLA College.
As to b), it is my sense that the proposed change will hurt
students from less affluent backgrounds more than those from more
affluent backgrounds, if only because a strong secondary
preparation helps students figure out more quickly what courses are
appropriate and recognize more easily when they’ve landed in
the wrong course.
“No-fault” drops have worked well for the UCLA
College over the past decade, and are particularly valuable now
when overcrowding already reduces the range of choice that students
can exercise in selecting classes. Before we give this up, we
should be certain that we ““ both faculty and students ““
are getting something tangible in return.
Carriero is a member of the UCLA College’s Faculty
Executive Committee. If you have an opinion on this issue, e-mail
Bernice Ines, the student representative to the committee at
[email protected].