The New Deadlines in Letters and Science for Dropping and Adding Courses:

An Evaluation after One Semester

The purpose of this report is to evaluate in a necessarily preliminary fashion the new deadlines for dropping and adding courses, and for changing grading options and unit values in courses. The deadlines have fluctuated historically: Until 1966 the deadline was the third week of the semester. Under the quarter system, drops were also allowed through the third week, but beginning in fall 1973, the deadline was moved to the fifth week. The fifth week was retained as the dead-line when the campus converted back to the semester system in 1983. In fall 1992, the deadline was extended by the dean of L&S to the eighth week, and in fall 1996, the deadline was further extended to the last day of instruction. In fall 2002, the College returned to the eighth week deadline, with the notation retained from the former late drop policy.

After extensive consultation and debate, the deadlines were adjusted in the fall of 2005 as follows: for all but thirteen courses, the deadlines for dropping and adding courses, for changing the grading option from a P/NP to a letter grade, and for changing unit values were moved to week five. For a special group of courses, early drop deadline courses (EDD courses), the deadline for dropping only was changed to the end of week two. The grading option from a letter grade to P/NP was moved to week 10. All undergraduate colleges have adopted these deadlines, although there are slight differences in the way they are administered.

The changes aimed at accomplishing two goals: (1) The College sought to use its scarce teaching resources in the most efficient way possible by eliminating empty seats caused by students dropping a course at a point in the term when other students could not add the course. This goal was especially evident in the EDD courses, which are discussed below. (2) By moving all deadlines forward in the semester, the College sought to have instruction settle down at an earlier point in the term, thus improving the classroom experience for both instructors and students.

Ad (1): EDD courses were determined by asking departments whether they wanted a course or courses included on the EDD list. To be included on the EDD list courses had to possess the following characteristics: significant excess demand at the start of the term and a significant number of open seats at the end of the term. We also stated our preference for having only courses that were gateway courses to one or several majors included as EDD courses. After departments sent their suggestions, we checked the enrollment figures against data we compiled. In several instances we went back to departments and eliminated courses from the initial EDD list. The final list contained several courses that we had not anticipated being on the EDD list, and did not include several courses we had anticipated would be on the EDD list. With regard to the latter courses, we thought it best to allow departments to manage enrollments, and if the results were an efficient use of resources, then we would be satisfied with the results.

Table 1 gives us some notion of the efficiency we attained in the EDD courses. We are measuring efficiency by dividing the enrollment at the end of the course by the number of seats in the course. Obviously some courses have unusual enrollment procedures (Architecture 100A and 100B, for example) that do not enable us to see clearly why they were inefficient by our measurements. In other courses it is evident that the lack of efficiency was determined by the absence of excess demand during the enrollment period. For many courses we see efficiencies above 80% or even above 90%. Most of the courses with efficiencies below 80% are sections of language courses; since these courses have low enrollments, a few students dropping the course will result in a low efficiency by the measures we used. With the data we now have we went back to departments and asked them to reconsider whether the EDD designation is necessary for their courses. Because their enrollments are managed manually by the department, two courses (Architecture 100A and 100B) have been eliminated from the EDD list for next year, bringing the total number of courses on this list to eleven.

There may be another felicitous effect of the new drop deadlines in that gateway courses appear to be more fully enrolled than they have been in the past. Table 2 indicates that the campus used its resources in gateway courses fairly efficiently in the fall of 2005. None of the gateway courses were on the EDD list, although we initially expected several departments to place one or more of their gateway courses on the list. In past years we have noted that several of these courses operated inefficiently since there were many empty seats by the end of the drop deadline. Table 2 indicates that only Math 1B had significant excess demand during welcome week and more than 10% empty seats at week 8. Either departments paid more attention to efficiency in managing their courses – perhaps a by-product of the new drop deadline and the threat to place an inefficient course on the EDD list – or students, recognizing the value of these courses and reacting to the week 5 drop deadline by making a more serious commitment to their courses, did not drop in numbers as high as in past years. In either case the result has been salutary for the campus.

Other data similarly indicate that the shift in deadlines has been to the advantage of the campus and its students. Table 3 shows that students enrolled in approximately the same number of units in Fall 05 as Fall 04; there was a slight decrease in the average number of units attempted, but an increase in units according to the end-of-term data. Students therefore completed more units on average last fall than the previous fall. Fewer students dropped courses, however, and the average units dropped decreased slightly as well. Fewer students dropped multiple courses, indicating that classes were more settled earlier in the term (see below). Perhaps most heartening for the campus are the data collected in Table 4, which shows that fewer students dropped R&C courses, gateway courses, and lower-division courses in general. Students were obviously choosing more wisely and sticking to those courses that are most necessary for student progress.

Ad (2): We have no data that would conclusively demonstrate the beneficial impact of the earlier deadlines on instruction. However, anecdotally faculty have informed the Undergraduate Division that they welcomed the change and report that instruction was indeed facilitated by having less movement into and out of courses at later points in the term. Table 5 provides some evidence that instruction settled down at an earlier point in the term. In Fall 2004 there were 4154 drops between weeks 5 and the end of the term; in 2005 that number was reduced, as expected, to 365. Quite obviously instructors could count on a more stable class earlier in the term in Fall 05 compared with Fall 04. A further indication that classes very likely settled down earlier is contained in Table 3, which indicates that after the census last fall only 13% of students in Letters and Science dropped courses, compared with 18% from the pervious fall. At the very least this data point demonstrates once again that we are dealing with a small fraction of the students who find it necessary to alter their study lists at a later point in the term. We conclude from the data available that the new deadlines have had a beneficial impact on undergraduate education since we believe there would be general agreement that establishing the enrollment of a course earlier in the term enhances the pedagogical effectiveness of instruction.

For the staff in the Undergraduate Division workload was also a consideration in the change of the deadlines. There was a fear that the earlier deadline would lead to a significant increase in the number of petitions presented for late actions and therefore to a substantial increase in the workload for the office. This fear was fortunately not realized (see Graph 1). While there was a slight increase in the total number of petitions for late and retroactive actions in fall 05 as compared with fall 04, there were fewer late and retroactive petitions presented in fall 05 than in fall of 03, despite the fact that the deadlines for fall 05 contained three additional weeks for potential late actions. The number of petitions for late drops last fall was comparable to the number of petitions in fall of 03. In addition, the effect of the earlier deadlines appears to have spread out the work more evenly over the period from the fifth week to the end of term. Gone is the severe spike during the last two weeks of the term that we see in the previous three years. Workload, therefore, has not become an issue with regard to the new deadlines. Although students may have to consult more extensively with advisers prior to the deadlines to make certain they are in the appropriate courses, the increase in petitions to drop courses has been moderate and in line with what one would expect given three additional weeks during which students must request late actions. Moreover, if students are obtaining the advice they need earlier in the term and making wiser decisions prior to the new deadlines, then the policy change has furthered our goal of bringing students into contact with professional advisers before they encounter academic difficulties.

We were able to assess statistically some of the concerns students raised with regard to the change in the drop deadline. In general we are convinced that the process of establishing study lists was smoother than adversaries of the change predicted. Students were able to select courses during the five-week period; there were no horror stories, despite predictions on the part of nay-sayers, concerning students unable to settle their study lists before week 5. Nor did we find any adverse effect on student performance. With regard to students who perform at the highest level in L&S, 842 students earned a term GPA of 3.930 or higher in 13+ letter-graded units (or the accommodating minimum for DSP students) during fall 2005. The GPA of 3.930 has been used to determine the top 4% of the freshmen class for several semesters, and the fact that it was still applicable in fall 2005 indicates that student performance in that term was similar to student performance in previous terms. Other data indicate enhanced student performance under the new deadlines. As Table 6 demonstrates, students received a greater number of grades of A, and fewer D’s and F’s. The average GPA in the College increased from 3.236 to 3.281 from the fall of 2004 to the fall of 2005, another indication that the new deadlines had no adverse impact on student performance. Indeed, since there was no increase in average GPA from the fall of 2003 to the fall of 2004, the deadlines may have even contributed to an improvement in student performance. One piece of evidence that indicates students at the low end of the performance scale did not suffer under the new deadlines was the number of students on probation or subject to dismissal. Table 7 shows that there were fewer students on probation because they received a GPA of less than 1.5 in the fall of 2005 than in the fall of 2004. There were also fewer students subject to dismissal under both the 1.5 and 2.0 categories. There was a slight increase in 2.0 probations, but the increase was not great and in general 2005 continued the downward trend in probations and dismissals we have witnessed over the past few years. The evidence therefore points to no adverse effect on grades owing to the introduction of the new deadlines.

There was no appreciable impact on DE-Cal courses, another student concern. The change in procedures for offering DE-Cal courses, which required students to submit course proposals well in advance of their being offered, helped to eliminate any conflicts with the new deadlines. We do note that the data in Table 4 suggests there may have been a slight decrease in DECal courses added near the drop deadline. Although not every course numbered 98 or 198 is a DECal course, many are. Anecdotally we had heard from undergraduate major advisers that many students formerly dropped a regularly offered course and added a DE-Cal course during the eighth week, a procedure that has questionable educational value and that was evidently employed less frequently last fall.

We do not have the ability to measure whether the new deadlines placed our undergraduates at a competitive disadvantage in gaining admission to professional and graduate schools – another student fear frequently voiced when the new deadlines were discussed – but the rising average GPA, the consistent performance at the upper end of GPAs, and the increase in the number of A’s, all cited above, suggest no negative impact in the competitiveness of Berkeley students.

Students were also concerned that the new deadlines might discourage experimentation in courses outside of a student’s major field of study. It is difficult to quantify experimentation from the data we have available: intended majors are not possible to identify, so we can’t tell which students in a given course are taking it as preparation for a major and which are taking it in the spirit of free exploration. Students may experiment in a course, deciding to drop it prior to the fifth-week deadline, or experiment and remain in a course. It is quite possible, however, that student concerns with experimentation, which the College wants to encourage as an important part of a liberal arts education, were addressed by the revision of the original plan to include an extended period, up to the end of the tenth week, for the change of grading option from letter grade to P/NP.

Finally, students expressed a strong concern that the new deadlines would result in tremendous stress and increased mental illness among the student population. We have no statistical evidence, but our chief contact at the Tang Center reports that most counselors did not notice a difference this year, and that she personally does not believe that it has caused a great many students to come in seeking help.

The claim that students in disadvantaged groups – disabled students, student parents, underrepresented minority students, first-generation students, first-year students, transfer students, and students on financial aid – would be negatively impacted by the change in deadlines was one of the most frequently voiced concerns. In speaking with the disabled students’ office, however, we have found that they did not have any trouble accommodating to the new deadlines. To date we have received no statistical evidence that lower-income students, minority students, first-generation students, or students on financial aid were disproportionately impacted by the change in deadlines. Some individuals continue to advance this claim, but to date no one, despite repeated requests, has produced any data that shows a disproportionate impact on disadvantaged students. Indeed, there is prima facie evidence that changes in the deadlines for dropping courses have been beneficial to low-income students. Since low-income students have the most difficulty taking courses in the summer and incur substantial financial burdens if courses are unavailable for them, necessitating extra semesters in residence, the fact that the new deadlines have increased capacity in impacted and gateway courses has been a distinct financial and educational benefit for them. Until evidence that counters these assumptions is brought to the attention of the College, we will have to assume that the change in deadlines was at worst neutral with regard to the most disadvantaged students on campus, and that they have been perhaps advantaged slightly because of the increased availability of courses.

We pursued this matter, however, with students at the TRSP (Transfer, Re-entry, and Student Parent) Center in November of 2005, and found that there were two complaints among this group. The first concerned the fees assessed for dropping and adding classes after the third week. These fees are not assessed or collected by, nor do they benefit, the Undergraduate Division or the College of Letters and Science. In the past, when students had to go to departmental staff to drop and add courses, they were often able to secure a waiver of these fees, although it is not clear that the waiver was administered appropriately in all cases. Since one of the innovations with the new deadlines is that it enables students to drop and add courses without staff assistance until the end of the fifth week, students often did not receive a waiver in the fall of 2005. Although the fee is rather small ($10), for low-income students it may be a genuine hardship. Temporary accommodations were made for many students ex post facto last fall, but the fee issue remains a sore point for some students. Since students in L&S and not staff are now attending to changes in study lists until the end of the fifth week (and the end of the tenth week in changing from a letter grade to a P/NP option), the campus might do well to reexamine its policies in fee assessment for the period during which students control their own study lists through Telebears.

Students at TRSP also objected to the fact that they can no longer sign up for a full study list of 13 or more units, receive full financial aid based on this normal study list, and then drop below the minimum number of units (13 in L&S), retaining the financial aid received. When the drop deadline was week 8 and the financial aid deadline was week 5, students had the opportunity to drop below 13 units between weeks 5 and 8 and essentially keep money for full financial aid while enrolling in less than a full load of courses. While the change in the deadlines was not aimed at eliminating this practice, its elimination is a felicitous by-product of the change. Students who never intended to enroll in a minimum study list were deceiving the federal and state governments (with Pell and Cal grants, respectively) by their actions in the past, and that we have eliminated this practice certainly does not detract from the new policy. The good news for students is that for eight of the past ten semesters financial aid has found a way to make up the difference between the funding given for part-time status and full-time status. Since the changes in the deadlines, there has been no negative impact on financial aid for our students with the lowest income.

It is precipitous to call the changes in the deadlines for dropping and adding courses, and for changing units and grading options, an unmitigated success. After a single semester the data is too thin to draw definitive conclusions. We will continue to evaluate this policy as more data become available to us, and we encourage anyone who has sound statistical information about the policy to contact the Undergraduate Division. All the indicators we have been able to gather thus far, however, demonstrate that the policy has accomplished its stated goals and that the negative effects feared by students and some staff members have not materialized.

Tables available upon request: contact Alix Schwartz at 642-8378 or alix@Berkeley.edu.

-Robert C. Holub, Dean, Undergraduate Division, College of Letters and Science

Return Home