Review of Academic Performance:
Foundations Level

Policy 565.20

Policy Statement

The Advancement Committee will review the cumulative academic progress of each medical student at least twice within each curricular segment to ensure that students are meeting both quantitative and qualitative standards in accordance with Policy 560.00 Satisfactory Academic Progress.

Specific to the Foundations Level of the Curriculum:

  1. Students must satisfactorily complete the requirements of Foundations Level Year One to progress to Foundations Level Year Two by vote of the Advancement Committee.
  2. Students must satisfactorily complete the requirements of Foundations Level Year Two to progress to the Clerkship Level by vote of the Advancement Committee.
    This includes passing the End of Foundations (EOF) Level Clinical Skills Examination (CSE). To be eligible to take the EOF CSE, students must be making satisfactory academic progress. A student failing the CSE after one attempt must retake the exam. A student failing on the second attempt will be referred to the Advancement Committee.
  3. The USMLE Step 1 Exam may only be taken after the successful completion of all Foundations Level courses and academic requirements. Students must take the Exam in accordance with Policy 540.70 USMLE Examinations. This exam should be taken prior to the start of the Transitions to Clerkship course, unless formally approved for a delay per Policy 540.70.

All unsatisfactory academic performances in Foundations Level courses will be reviewed by the Advancement Committee at its regularly scheduled meeting, provided that the meeting date is no sooner than seven days from notification of of the student of the unsatisfactory performance.

Policy Elaboration

Criteria for advancement review will include a student's academic record, including assessments, numerical grades, narrative comments and completion of requirements.

Any failure to meet Satisfactory Academic progress in the Foundations Level may result in referral to the Advancement Committee for review. Grounds for referral are outlined below.

Informal Review

An informal review is designed to help students develop a plan to return to Satisfactory Academic Progress before a student is escalated to a level that may be captured in a student’s permanent record. Students are expected to engage in the process actively and professionally, sharing in the goal to return the student to academic success.

The following will prompt an informal review by the Advancement Committee:

  1. Three Foundations Level grades of Marginal Pass (course and/or Foundations of Clinical Science (FoCS) course single block grades).
  2. Single FoCS block grade of Fail.*
  3. Any grades of Incomplete.
  4. Unsatisfactory academic progress despite a passing grade (e.g., referral for identified patterns of concern).

An informal review is appropriate when the Advancement Committee is made aware of concerns regarding a student’s academic progress as indicated above. Students will be notified of the Committee’s concerns in writing at least seven days in advance of the meeting and asked to develop and submit a formal academic improvement plan to the Committee, including specific dates and timelines for return to Satisfactory Academic Progress and the resources they intend to call upon. The Committee will review the student’s complete academic record and proposed written remediation plan. Where the Committee believes the student has created a comprehensive and well thought out remediation plan, the Committee will offer its endorsement and communicate that endorsement to the student in writing. If the Committee does not feel the proposed remediation plan addresses the concerns raised, they will communicate their concerns to the student in writing and ask that the remediation plan be resubmitted.

A student’s failure to respond to the Committee’s informal review notice and submit a remediation plan for endorsement may result in the Committee commencing a formal review of their academic performance. Additionally, failure of a student to successfully remediate to Satisfactory Academic Progress will result in the Committee commencing a formal review.

Procedures for an informal Advancement Committee review are outlined in Policy 565.10 Advancement Committee Procedure and Review of Academic Performance.

*All FoCS single-block failures have pre-approved standardized remediation plans. For students who receive a single-block failure, the student will meet with the Course Director and the Associate/Assistant Dean for Students to discuss the provided pre-approved plan. Should the student wish to appeal or change anything in the plan, they may do so, and present the revised plan to the Advancement Committee for review at the next scheduled meeting.

Formal Review

The following will prompt a formal Advancement Committee review:

  1. Failing to successfully remediate to Satisfactory Academic Progress following Advancement Committee endorsement of a remediation plan
  2. Course grade of Fail.
  3. Subsequent indicators of unsatisfactory progress after any previous referral to the Committee (e.g., additional grades of Marginal Pass, Incomplete, and/or Fail).
  4. Unsatisfactory academic progress despite a passing grade (e.g., referral for identified patterns of concern).

Procedures for an Advancement Committee review are outlined in Policy 565.10 Advancement Committee Procedures and Review of Academic Performance. 

Remediation

Only the Advancement Committee can approve a course and/or block remediation plan. Remediation is considered a contract between the Course Director and the student. The remediation plan must include the following, at a minimum:

  1. Requirements the student must fulfill to achieve the course objectives. Clearly stipulated requirements may substitute for a full version of the course.
  2. Explicit dates and/or final deadline for achieving said objectives/requirements.

Students must successfully complete any in-progress remediation plans for Foundations Level Year One courses or blocks prior to beginning Foundations Level Year Two.

Students must successfully complete any in-progress remediation plans for Foundations Level Year Two courses prior to beginning their Clerkship Level.

Students may not remediate two courses simultaneously.

Any student who fails a course twice, as a result of an unsuccessful course remediation or repeat, will be dismissed from the Larner College of Medicine.

A student may withdraw from a Foundations Level course in accordance with Policy 560.00 Satisfactory Academic Progress (“Course Withdrawals” section).

Applicability of the Policy

Foundations Level Students

Related Larner College of Medicine Policies

Related University of Vermont Policies

Not Applicable

Related Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) Standard(s)

  • 9.4 Assessment System
  • 9.6 Setting Standards of Achievement
  • 9.9 Student Advancement and Appeal Process

History

  • 5/20/2014 Policy Adopted/Affirmed [Medical Curriculum Committee]
  • 5/24/2016 Policy Revised [Medical Curriculum Committee]
  • 3/21/2017 Policy Revised [Medical Curriculum Committee]
  • 6/20/2017 Policy Revised [Medical Curriculum Committee]
  • 9/19/2017 Policy Revised [Medical Curriculum Committee]
  • 12/19/2017 Policy Revised [Medical Curriculum Committee]
  • 9/18/2018 Policy Revised [Medical Curriculum Committee]
  • 6/18/2019 Policy Revised [Medical Curriculum Committee]
  • 8/20/2019 Gender Neutral Language Edit [Medical Curriculum Committee]
  • 12/17/2019 Reformatted [Medical Curriculum Committee]
  • 8/18/2020 Policy Revised [Medical Curriculum Committee]
  • 9/18/2023 Policy Revised [Medical Curriculum Committee]
  • 11/21/2023 Policy Revised [Medical Curriculum Committee]
  • 12/19/2023 Policy Edit [Medical Curriculum Committee]
  • 9/17/2024 Policy Edit [Medical Curriculum Committee]

Policy Oversight

Assistant Dean, Pre-Clinical Curriculum; Associate/Assistant Dean for Students

Previous | Next