Course Numbering & Naming

  Changing Courses ~ Recommendations and Cautions


  When changing the title or content and the new course is intended to be  different from the one it is replacing, a new number should be issued.  Reusing numbers is not recommended. Otherwise, students, advisors and manual  auditors may simply assume the new course has been renamed and mistakenly  count it as a repeated course, leaving students short of hours to graduate.


  Same title, different number, different content :

  Reuse of the same title for a different course is not recommended. For  example, MATH 125 Statistics to MATH 255 Statistics would not be  recognizable as different courses by advisors or students and they might  assume equivalence.

  Same title, same number, different content:

  Slight changes in content happen naturally as courses evolve and different  instructors teach the course. Major changes in content, however, require a  change in title and number.

  Same title, different number, same content:

  e.g., LITR 365 Reading & Writing Texts to LITR 310 Reading & Writing Texts -  If the course is intended to be the same course (equivalent in Banner with  appropriate beginning and end dates) it will be recognizable as the same  course for advisors and students. It is also easier for the department and  Registrar's Office to manually audit these as equivalent courses.   If, however, the course is intended to be a different course (not equivalent  in Banner), the same name will cause considerable confusion among students,  advisors and auditors.

  Different title,   different number, same content:

  e.g., ILR 451 Wage and Salary Administration to EMRE 420 Compensation and  are to be equivalent courses in Banner. One course could be used to repeat  the other, but advisors and students may not recognize these courses as the  same course or taking both courses without realizing the equivalency might  result in leaving the student unexpectedly short of hours to graduate. This is the most confusing change for students, advisors, and auditors and is  least fair to students.

  Different title, same number, same content:

  e.g., ARTH 103 Landscape Art to ARTH 103 Portraits of the Land. The new  course would be read electronically and audited as the same course  regardless of title change. Students and advisors, not recognizing this as  the same course might repeat it inadvertently, or, conversely, not realize  the course can be taken and counted as a repeated course.

  Different title,   different content, same number:

  e.g., SPAN 462 Narrativa del Exilio to SPAN 462 Latin American Women  Writers. Since the content is different, these should not count as  equivalent courses for repeat purposes, but the computer will recognize them  as the same course and count them as equivalent. It would not be clear to  advisors or students how the course should be counted.

  Changing Upper and Lower Divisions

  Lower to upper division, same course content, same title:

  e.g., EDLS 110 Principles of Education to EDLS 301 Principles of Education.  This is the correct procedure and does not result in a technical or advising  problem.

  Upper to lower division, same course content, same title:

  e.g., EDLS 301 Principles of Education to EDLS 201 Principles of Education. Possible problem: A student completes 301 with a 1.0, thus earning the  three upper division hours, but needs to repeat the course to count toward  the major. Upon repeating the course, along with the 1.0, the upper division  hours are excluded from the student's record. This leaves the student  unexpectedly short 3 hours of upper division work which the student and the  advisor may have already considered complete by virtue of the previous 1.0  grade.