During the 548th meeting of the Senate of Keene State College, where revisions to the Declaration of Major form were discussed again; an issue from The Equinox’s previous reporting on the KSC Senate’s October meeting.
“We met the week following the previous senate meeting, and we wanted to take up immediately a revision of the Declaration of Major form based on feedback that we received in the Senate,” said Senator Greg Knouff, professor of history and chair of the academic policy and standards committee.
Knouff and the academic policy and standards committee proposed a revision to the Declaration of Major form to include a brief warning, as noted in the meeting agenda:
“Once students have begun a program, they may change their major. Students who make substantial changes in their plans of study after the beginning of their Sophomore year (achievement of 40 or more credits) may find it difficult to complete degree requirements within the normal four-year period of study. Students are highly encouraged to discuss the change with an academic/faculty advisor[s].”
As in the previous meeting, senators voiced concern that the proposed changes could be misleading or unnecessary.
“I looked at some of our comparators after seeing it here again, and this isn’t language that we see elsewhere. Also, this isn’t really policy; it feels more editorial, and I fear if we put this in here, it looks like policy when it’s not, and it may be treated as policy when it’s not,” said Amber Davisson, chair of communication and philosophy.
Student Senator Nathan Hope shared concern, asking, “Is this something where we’re not already confident in the existing process and you feel we need to include this?”
In response to the concerns, Knouff clarified the intent behind the warning, explaining that it was meant to inform and guide students through major changes and help them stay on track for graduating.
“It was the consensus of the committee that we leave that in. We did have a substantial discussion about that, and members of the committee pointed out that for some programs that require a lot of credits, it’s a statement of fact. It’s not designed to be policy; it’s got the conditional language of ‘may find it difficult,’” said Knouff.
In support of adding the warning, Nicholas Germana, chair of the Curriculum Committee who has experience with academic advising, said, “From conversations I have with students, they certainly recognize it’s more difficult. I think it’s important that students have a really accurate picture.”
Several other senators also offered their perspectives, though their comments largely echoed their peers. The Senate went on to approve the revision, which will take effect on Jan. 2, 2026.
The second half of the meeting focused on the transfer of ISP courses to general education classes. Under the proposed changes by the Senate Curriculum Committee, these courses would no longer have prerequisites, giving students greater access to upper level classes.
“Looking at the courses that we’re going to have going forward, all the classes transferring from ISP to Gen Ed, none of them have prerequisites, so students are going to have a ton of options for upper-level classes that do not have prerequisites. If some of them do have prerequisites, our sense is that this is not going to be limiting for students,” said Germana.
Some senators voiced concern that while students are assigned advisors, they are not required to meet with them, which could allow students to enroll in upper-level courses that they may not be ready for.
“If I’m a first year, maybe I got advice in the fall semester, but the spring semester is coming up, and for whatever reason, I don’t meet with my advisor. If I just go in and pick in and pick four courses, and they’re a couple of 300-level and a couple of 400-level classes, I’m going to get enrolled in those courses,” said Senator Kirk Sanger, associate professor of nursing.
Several senators proposed the idea of a “barrier to register,” which would require students to get advisor approval before registering for classes. Provost and ex officio member Kirsti Sandy said they have experienced the issue from both sides.
“There are positives and negatives doing it, but I’ve come out at the end of this and realized I would rather have students register for the wrong course than not have them registered at all, because you can work with that,” said Sandy.
The discussion concluded with senators acknowledging the complexity of the issue, and no decisions were made before the meeting was adjourned. The Senate will meet again on Dec. 9 to continue its discussion.
Xander Noel can be contacted at
Hope is the managing executive editor of The Equinox and was not involved in the process of writing or editing this Equinox article.
