QCAA received the following commentary on the FAS proposal to raise the external credit allowance from 6.0-units to 12.0-units. (See “Motion Regarding Revisions to the Academic Program Regulation” in the FAS Faculty Board Agenda package for Friday, November 21). We are grateful to the readers who submit such analyses to us and invite others to do the same. 

This motion will be voted on at tomorrow’s FAS Faculty Board. A reminder that every tenure-stream and term and continuing adjunct faculty member in FAS has a vote. You can attend the meeting online or in person. Please show up and ensure your voice is heard! 

Friday, November 21, 2025, at 2:30 p.m., Jeffery Hall Room 128, live stream zoom link. Meeting ID: 997 5865 7092; Passcode: 388880.

After the meeting, QCAA members will gather at the Grad Club for a much-needed Week 11 social. All are welcome! 

At the October 24 Faculty Board Meeting, Associate Dean Dorit Naaman presented a notice of motion regarding the plan to allow FAS to double the number of courses students can take in other faculties. Dr. Naaman explained the rationale by pointing to increased student choice, issues with students mistakenly exceeding the current 6-unit cap, and the need for FAS to compensate other faculties for the “subvention” that they are receiving. 

The proposed raise in external course credits is designed to reduce the total number of units taught in the Faculty of Arts and Science. By potentially relegating a substantial portion of unit credits to other faculties, the university plans to reduce the footprint of the Faculty of Arts and Science. The feedback loop introduced by such a measure will eventually shrink program size and faculty complement. The whole measure threatens the sustainability of smaller and emerging departments. 

Members of Faculty Board were quick to pick up on the problems with this proposal, noting that FAS has already lost 200 seats to other faculties as part of the strategic enrollment plan. They also asked whether the financial implications of this loss have been accounted for and why members of the Dean’s office continue to use the language of “subvention,” which suggests that FAS–-not the budget model–is somehow responsible for its financial predicament. 

Beyond the big picture diminishment of FAS, the proposed regulation entails a number of specific problems related to planning, curriculum, and educational quality:

  • Unit level planning, including the yearly planning of major, options, and supporting courses, is structured on the existing 6.0-unit cap. Raising the cap disrupts the balance, and could lead to increased scheduling conflicts and weaker advising alignment. 
  • Many students take many courses in their chosen discipline far beyond the requirement of their major. Raising the caps could lead to students filling in their electives outside the faculty and reduce their incentive to take more advanced courses in their own discipline. 
  • Advising and planning work will be adversely affected, since departments rely on correct enrolment patterns based on historical data. The original 6.0-unit caps helps maintain advising clarity: students know that only 2 courses of outside-Faculty credit count toward their degree program/plan, which simplifies progression tracking, reduces risk of miscounted credits, and supports stronger planning.
  • The proposal could incentivize other Faculties to “poach” students or courses, reshaping internal power and resource dynamics and potentially shrinking FAS’s course offerings and attractiveness to prospective students.
  • Part of the rationale for extending the cap to 12.0 units is that it “allows for the elimination of duplicate courses being offered by multiple Schools/Faculties.” One can’t help but wonder if this means the FAS offering of these “duplicate courses” are the ones on the chopping block.
  • Students may interpret a larger limit as permission to treat their degree as a loosely defined “open” credential. The proposal also potentially increases the risk of students delaying commitment to a major, taking too many exploratory courses outside their discipline, and falling behind in major prerequisites.
  • Breadth should not be explored at the cost of depth. Interdisciplinary exploration is an important part of undergraduate education at Queen’s—but that must complement rather than substitute disciplinary depth. The current 6.0‐unit cap strikes the right balance; raising it to 12 undermines it.

We must ask: who benefits most from this change? If the answer is not our students’ disciplinary strength, major completion rates, and post‐graduate/graduate outcomes, then we should oppose it.

Leave a comment