Computerized Records and Registration - Topics for Discussion - 10/19/95
What follows is a list of some of the more important decisions that must be made in the transition
to a computerized records and registration at Puget Sound.
Should advising remain mandatory in the new system?
If the answer to this question is yes then further questions will have to be answered.
Should all transactions currently requiring signatures continue to be mandatory? How
should all an electronic "signature" be requested and given?
What will be included in an electronic advising file, and in what form will it appear?
Many (if not all) of the paper advising resources currently distributed to advisors could be
replaced by electronic ones in the new system. What pieces of information should be
provided electronically? In what form will they be easiest to use?'
Once computerized registration is in place, who will be permitted to use it?
Continuing on-campus students will of course be allowed to register themselves. But
what about new freshmen? What about new transfer students? What about students who
are on study abroad or other leaves of absence? How will we register these students in
the
new system?
What will be the rules for access to electronic student records?
How will FERPA rules be interpreted for access in an electronic environment? Students
and their advisors now receive copies of academic records, as well as individuals with a
"need to know." Who should be on that list in the new system? Will we need to add
department chairs to it? The system will allow us to assign multiple advisors to students.
Should we offer that option? If so, should secondary advisors have electronic access to
students' academic records?
How will exceptions, waivers, and petitions be handled in an electronic environment?
How will department chairs record and communicate exceptions and waivers of degree
requirements? How will degrees be cleared? Will the petitions process change?
MINUTES
ACADEMIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE
October 19, 1995
Present: Sarah Moore, Ann Ekes, Jeanette DiScala, Ron Van Enkevort, Tanya Stambuk, Stuart
Smithers, Bryan Davis, Inger Brodey, Jack Roundy
Guests: Raney Ellis, Brad Tomhave
1. Minutes: The minutes of the October 5 meeting were approved as written.
2. Announcements: There were none.
3. Petitions: Tomhave submitted a report for the October 10 meeting of the Petitions
Subcommittee without further comment:
Date
10/10/95
YTD
Approved
Denied
No Action
1
7
0
52
14
0
4. Honor Code/Integrity Code: Brodey reported on decisions taken by the committee working
on the code, which this year includes Ekes and DiScala. The committee proposes that changes
be undertaken in two phases, the first for fall 1996 and the second for fall 1997. Four steps
would be taken in the first phase:
a. DiScala will combine language from the Integrity Code with language from the
Academic Honesty policy, without substantive change. She will limit the "itemizing" of offenses
currently in the Academic Honesty policy in favor of a more global statement of expectations,
but will leave examples of plagiarism in the text for their explanatory power.
b. The committee will approach Prelude and Passages leaders (faculty, staff and students)
to explore how new students might be exposed to the code during orientation.
c. The committee will approach supervisors of peer advisors and orientation leaders to
explore ways in which student leaders can communicate the importance of the code to new
students.
d. The committee will explore with the Informal Committee on Teaching the possibility
of giving one session to the topic of plagiarism, in order to clarify and give more visibility to our
policies for faculty.
The second phase, to be undertaken later, may involve such changes as including our Honor
Code in the Viewbook, making it part of new faculty orientation, and making formal assent to it
part of freshman orientation. These ideas will be refined at a later date.
DiScala made it clear that her integration of the Integrity and Academic Honesty policies would
not involve substantive changes, but would clarify and rationalize what we have. She and
Brodey suggested that proposals for substantive changes in the combined code might come later,
when it enjoyed greater visibility in the community. They proposed that once the text of the
combined code was ready, ASC could review it and send it forward to the full faculty, student
government, and the Board of Trustees for approval. Van Enkevort and Smithers wondered
aloud what process would be necessary for the revised code to be approved; they thought that
since the revision didn't involve substantive changes and fell within the usual purview of ASC,
neither a full faculty vote nor endorsement by the Board of Trustees would be necessary. Van
Enkevort suggested taking the code through review by ASC and sending it on to the Faculty
Senate, as usual, and letting the Senate decide whether further approvals were necessary.
Roundy suggested involving students in the process of revision at an early date, so as to give
them some ownership in the "cultural change" Brodey hoped would come of our new emphasis
on the code.
4. Computerized, Decentralized Academic Records and Registration System: At Moore's
request, Roundy provided the committee with a list of important questions regarding the new
system which emerged from a meeting Finney, Tomhave, Ellis and Roundy held on Tuesday
(attached).
Moore asked that we begin with, "Should advising be mandatory in the new system?" Roundy
explained that some schools with computerized systems require students to meet with advisors
before beginning self-registration, while others make such meetings optional. If Puget Sound
wished to maintain its current "mandatory" system (where signatures are required for
registration), it could do so by issuing registration "codes" to advisors, who would give them to
students after advising. This code would constitute an advisor's electronic signature.
The conversation began with a brief discussion of add/drop, since it would be possible to arrange
the new system to accept adds and drops electronically, as well. Van Enkevort and Smithers
argued against allowing electronic add/drops after the beginning of the semester, saying that
faculty could maintain better control over class enrollments by continuing the current system.
They both thought such control was important, for several reasons.
Smithers continued by saying he wasn't sure we needed to keep our mandatory advising system.
At a moment in our institutional life when we are trying to make students more independent and
responsible, perhaps we should allow students to seek out advising when they feel they need it,
rather than forcing it on them. Van Enkevort followed by saying that he doesn't make advising
"mandatory" for his advisees in the full sense as things are now. He works very closely with his
freshmen, but he allows his upperclassmen to act much more independently, and does not check
everything they do. Van Enkevort wondered aloud whether the word "mandatory" really fit his
practice, or the practice of many of his colleagues.
Smithers suggested that we might want to encourage a new ethic among our students by
describing our system as "voluntary," though still requiring students to pick up registration codes
from their advisors. Moore added that students should be setting the tone for advising. Van
Enkevort said that he was comfortable with the current system, and that insofar as registration
codes function like signatures, he'd be happy to continue advising as he now does. But he agreed
with Smithers that we need to send students a stronger message about taking responsibility for
their own academic careers. Brodey liked the idea of using codes but redefining advising as
"voluntary;" she was concerned about those students who don't make the most of their educations
(seriously exploring in the liberal arts, doing significant upper division work), however, arguing
that advisors must engage these students and challenge them to be more serious. Voluntariness
should not mean disengagement in such cases. Smithers didn't agree that our students are
insufficiently aware of the liberal arts, arguing that they hear about them constantly from all of
us.
Davis was asked his opinion, and said that students don't routinely receive encouragement to
explore through the liberal arts, nor are the curricular opportunities of Puget Sound clearly
explained to them. DiScala asked him whether he would like to have an advisor "force" him to
see and take advantage of liberal arts opportunities. Davis replied that he would, because an
advisor should be a "second pair of eyes," to help him see things he wouldn't see otherwise, even
though the academic decisions he makes must be his own. He added that missing the
advisor/advisee interaction would be horrible. Moore suggested that the "gatekeeping" function
of using registration codes (as signatures are currently used) would ensure the contact Davis
found so important.
Van Enkevort pointed out that some of the most important advising he does is with nonadvisees. He added that he thought the most important role he fills is as an advisor in his
discipline, where his expertise lies. He didn't hold with those who argue for pushing the liberal
arts; he argued instead for seeking greater depth, as opposed to breadth, in the educations of our
students. Smithers wondered whether advising relationships would work better under a
mandatory or a voluntary system. He asked Davis whether he thought a voluntary system would
fail to assure contact between advisor and advisee. Davis said he didn't know. He described his
situation, in which he has an advisor of record outside his major, because he has developed a
friendly personal relationship with her, while at the same time he works with an informal advisor
in his major, who explains the requirements he must meet. He said that regular meetings with his
advisors are very important to him, but he's not sure whether changing the system from
mandatory to voluntary would change that.
Moore summed up the discussion by saying that she believed the committee consensus was that
the new system should retain a "gatekeeping" mechanism (in this case, registration codes),
though we need not describe the system as "mandatory." In fact, as many members indicated in
describing their advising styles, our current system offers great latitude in the degree of
"mandatoriness" with which advisors advise.
Ellis gave the committee some general guidelines to think about as we move forward in the
development of the new system. The new system, he said, can 1) enhance the strengths of the
current system, 2) shore up weaknesses in it, 3) eliminate the "drudgery" of our ways of doing
business, and 4) offer features that will catch potential problems before they arise (as in checking
for prerequisites or major requirements). He recommended that we assess the system we devise
by these measures.
As the hour was growing late, Moore adjourned the meeting at 8:57, calling the next meeting for
Nov. 2, and suggesting that we could begin by discussing add/drop under the new system.
Respectfully submitted by the ASC amanuensis,
Jack Roundy