All Posts Tagged With: "university education"
So you failed your exams, now what?
Understanding academic probation, what it means and what to do about it
As exams wrap up across the country, most students are looking forward to patio nights and a stress-free summer. But some students are dreading their final grades after a not-so-perfect year.
A failed class, a flunked exam, or a mediocre grade-point average are outcomes no student wants to have come May. But what are the actual consequences of an ‘F’ on your transcript? Or missing required credits to move on to your next year or to graduate?
While most students may have heard of “academic probation,” not everyone knows what it entails. The first thing to remember is failing a class doesn’t mean you need to pack up your textbooks and join the circus, and getting put on academic probation won’t necessarily cripple you academically, if you seek help.
“The whole point of academic standings is to identify students who are at risk and then make them aware of the services that are available in obtaining better academic grades,” University of Calgary’s associate vice-provost (enrolment) and registrar David Johnston said. “When we admit a student, we want them to graduate.”
Academic probation is just one of many possible academic standings a full-time student can be assigned at the end of the year. In many cases the bad outweighs the good. At most schools, the only desired outcome is “In Good Standing,” which means you’re in the clear. There are varying degrees of unsatisfactory standings that come with conditions for the following school year, ranging from meeting benchmark grade-point averages, to withdrawing for a year.
In addition to “In Good Standing,” most universities include “Academic Probation” and “Failed” as the three possible standings. And the conditions of these standings are typically outlined in the university’s academic rules and regulations. Students receive notice of their standing in the summer, after grades are calculated through a mailed letter or an online transcript.
At a school like Calgary’s, when a student’s grade-point average is less than 1.70, the equivalent of a C-, students are put on a probationary period. This is typical of most schools, though the grade-point average threshold varies.
“The purpose, of course, of the first warning is to get them on track academically,” Johnston said. He said it’s normal for first-year students to come into university unprepared for the heavy course-load and higher academic standards than they are accustomed. First-year students, he said, are the largest group his school sees placed on academic probation.
Since grades are dealt with at the faculty level, it’s not clear exactly how many students each year are put on academic probation at each school.
It’s often just a matter of showing students their current learning styles aren’t working, associate dean of the faculty of science at the University of British Columbia Paul Harrison said. “Universities are pretty selective of who they invite in,” he said. “Students deep down have the skills if they apply themselves. Unfortunately some of them don’t.”
He said students also usually come out of high school with limited exposure to their chosen program or knowledge of the university’s expectations for them.
Manager of the Student Academic Success Centre at Carleton University, Kathleen Semanyk said besides academics, there could be any number of circumstances that prevent students from meeting program requirements. “We hear everything from ‘We’ve had a serious illness in my family,’ ‘I’ve lost a loved one,’ ‘I had to find a second job,’” Semanyk said. “It’s really common for students to think they’ve hit the end of the academic road.”
Johnston said, what also tends to happen is students may find their chosen program is not as well suited for them as they had hoped. “It’s aptitude and interest,” Johnston said. “If you don’t have an interest it’s hard to apply yourself.” Just the same, students may find their skill set doesn’t match what their program asks of them.
Reality check for a big idea
What the provinces think of the Big Five’s revolutionary ideas for university reform
Diane McGifford, Manitoba’s minister of advanced education and literacy, has a bone to pick with Canada’s “so-called big five” universities. She’s not alone.
Last month, the presidents of five of Canada’s largest universities approached Maclean’s for an interview. Over the course of a 90-minute video conference, the presidents of McGill University, the Université de Montréal, and the universities of British Columbia, Alberta and Toronto, outlined their vision for a veritable revolution in Canada’s post-secondary system—one that could, they claimed, launch our universities to the top of the international ranks. The one-size-fits-all-mentality that governs higher education policy, they argued, must be replaced with a model that funnels research dollars to top-performing schools and lets the rest focus on undergraduate education. And to get there, they went on, Canada needs an aggressive, national innovation strategy.
These bold propositions, coming from five of Canada’s most distinguished academics, have created a buzz, not least among other universities who are unwilling to cede research hegemony to a handful of large schools. But one thing is clear: without support from the provinces—which, more than any other sources, fund post-secondary education—the Big Five’s big ideas are unlikely to be translated into action. So Maclean’s asked provincial education ministers to give us their impresssions of the proposals.
In short, they’re not impressed.
All the ministers interviewed were adamant that no “strategy that zeroes in on just five” institutions is likely to be championed by the provinces, as John Milloy, Ontario’s minister of training, colleges and universities, explained. But the degree of opposition ran the spectrum from more to less muted criticism. Milloy “has trouble with the idea” that Canada has fallen behind in the first place. Rob Norris, Saskatchewan’s minister of advanced education, employment and labour, finds “the specifics [of the proposal] a little bit adrift.” And Manitoba’s McGifford is “skeptical” of what she feels, quite simply, is “not a very good idea”: the division of universities into research and non-research institutions.
For McGifford, the proposal reeks of too much federal influence. A cohesive national strategy on post-secondary innovation, she says, would allow the feds to encroach on a domain that constitutionally belongs to the provinces. “It would almost demand a federal education minister,” McGifford explains, “and that would be a huge political problem.” She concedes that those provinces with a Big Five school might be more inclined to back the proposed reforms. But in her case, the call is clear: “We don’t want a federal minister dictating or directing us in this field of post-secondary education.”
For Saskatchewan’s Norris, the source of discontent is not that the plan entails too much federal co-operation, but that it allows for too little. He wants “a pan-Canadian approach” built on more “inclusive dialogue” among all provinces. A two-tiered initiative that focuses on just a few schools, he says, can’t serve as a foundation for a national crusade. Instead, he adds, we need “shared objectives” that jurisdictions can address together.
Reactions from the Big Five’s home provinces were decidedly more mixed. Ministers from B.C, Alberta and Ontario (Quebec’s education ministry declined to comment) were in agreement that universities are not the breeding grounds for innovation that they could be. B.C.’s minister of advanced education and labour market development, Moira Stilwell, summed it up with the example of Finland—“the poster country of national innovation.” “They hire 16 R & D [research and development] people per 1,000 workers,” she says. “In B.C., we hire about 4.5.” The ministers also concede that a more focused national discussion would be helpful.
Still, the ministers tempered those concessions with the more politic observation that each institution is special and has a place in Canada’s post-secondary family. Sure, big universities, with their more extensive infrastructure, are likely to attract research dollars. But Alberta, B.C. and Ontario argue that the best strategy for directing funds is still the current peer-review system, which evaluates every research proposal on the basis of its merit (and under which, by the way, the Big Five already attract a substantial portion of funding). “I have trouble with the idea of somehow carving out a sum of money for particular institutions,” Ontario’s Milloy cautions. “I prefer to have the situation that’s in place.” The three also touched on a range of other concerns: that specialization would diminish the quality of undergraduate education, for example, or that a national innovation strategy would threaten universities’ intellectual autonomy.
