Appendix G



Revisions to Senate Policy 54-10 and 54-20: Good Standing and Academic Warning


Implementation: Upon approval by the Senate and development of procedures when applicable.


On September 9, 2014, the University Faculty Senate approved changes to Faculty Senate Policy 54-00 and related policies to streamline and clarify processes governing students’ academic progress. Following their adoption, implementation of the new/revised Senate Policies 54-00, 54-10, and 54-20 was contingent on development of relevant Academic Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual (AAPPM) policies and is now awaiting integration into the new LionPATH student information system. During that time, it has become apparent that the way in which the policies are worded could have the unintended consequence of rendering a small number of student athletes ineligible for competition, even though those students would be eligible under Faculty Senate Policy 67-00, the Big Ten, and the NCAA requirements. Several modest changes are proposed to address this conflict between Senate policy 54‑10, 54-20, and 67-00 Policies while preserving the constructive intent of the changes made in 2014.

Discussion and Rationale

The problem with the current wording is that it implies a student must always have a cumulative grade-point average of at least 2.00 to be in “Good Standing.” “Good Standing” is defined by the institution, and required by the NCAA for athletic eligibility. Senate Policy 67-00 states a student athlete in the first year can be at or above 1.80 as of the second semester and be eligible to compete, and at or above 1.90 in the third and fourth semesters to be eligible. Beginning the fifth semester, student athletes must have at least a 2.00 cumulative GPA to be eligible.

To bring the two policies into alignment, a change in wording is proposed to state a minimum cumulative GPA of 2.00 is needed during entrance to major and at graduation. Thus, during semesters two through four, student athletes can fall slightly below 2.00 and still be eligible to compete. This change then supports Senate Policy 67-00. In Senate Policy 54-20, a similar objective is met through a change in wording that stipulates improvement of the cumulative GPA to 2.00 or above as the requirement to remove the warning status rather than to “return to good standing.”


The Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid proposes that the following revisions be made to Senate Policies 54-10 and 54-20.

Please note that the following contains bold text for additions and strikeouts indicating deleted text. Deleted text is notated with [Delete] [End Delete].

Revised Policies

54-10 Good Standing

[Delete] A student is considered to be in good academic standing if the student’s cumulative grade-point average is 2.00 or higher.  [End Delete]

A student must have a cumulative grade-point average of 2.00 or higher to be considered in good standing to declare a major and to graduate from the University.

A student will receive notification at the end of each semester when his/her semester grade-point average drops below a 2.00.

54-20 Academic Warning

Academic warning serves as official notification that a student has failed to earn a 2.00 cumulative grade-point average. A student placed on academic warning will have a hold placed on his/her registration and will be required to meet with an academic adviser in order for the registration hold to be removed.

A student in academic warning status may continue to enroll for classes as long as the semester grade-point average continues at a 2.00 or higher. To remove [Delete] return to good standing from a notification of [End Delete] academic warning, the cumulative grade-point average must be 2.00 or higher. A student in academic warning who fails to maintain a semester grade-point average of 2.00 or higher will be academically suspended (54-40).

Effective Date

Upon corresponding changes to AAPPM policy and incorporation into LionPATH.


  • Charles Abdalla
  • Steven Andelin
  • Martha Aynardi
  • Daniel Beaver
  • Clark Brigger
  • Wei-Fan Chen
  • Madhuri Desai
  • Maura Ellsworth
  • Galen Grimes
  • Anna Griswold
  • Michel M. Haigh, Chair
  • Harold Hayford, Vice Chair
  • Robert Kubat
  • George Samuel
  • Douglas Wolfe