Academic Standards Committee Minutes
November 14, 1997
Present: Barry Bauska, Ken Clark, Kate Evans, John Finney, Tom Gething, Susannah Hannaford,
Martins Linauts, Mary Morgan, Rochelle Nguyen, Jack Roundy, Stuart Smithers, Tanya Stambuk,
Marianne Taylor
1. Minutes: Minutes of the October 31 meeting were approved as written.
2. Announcements: Finney reported that the Hearing Board handling a case of academic dishonesty
has now completed its work.
3. Petitions: Morgan reported that the Petitions Committee has not met since Oct. 24, and that she has
handled three petitions herself, including a medical withdrawal, since the last meeting. A handful of
petitions were to be considered at the close of the full committee meeting today.
4. Audit Policy: Finney distributed a draft revision of audit policy which both defines “alumni/ae” eligible
for free audits and permits students to submit requests for audit registration anytime during the add
period. Morgan pointed out that in the past, former Puget Sound students who had completed 9 or more
units were considered alumni by University Relations, and some of these former students were permitted
to audit classes free of charge. Finney’s policy revision would permit free audits only for former students
with Puget Sound degrees. The ASC ratified unanimously both the redefinition of alumni and the change
in registration policy for audits, and spent only a little additional time tinkering with policy language in order
to clarify distinctions between paying and non-paying auditors. At this point the committee MSP the
revised audit policy (attached to these minutes).
5. Class Attendance Policy: Bauska reintroduced this discussion as Finney distributed a draft revision
of policy which was under ASC consideration at the end of the 1996-97 academic year. As Bauska
explained, our current class attendance policy serves us well in cases where students fail to attend just
one class and their instructors need leverage to deal with that problem, but doesn’t provide us an
institutional tool for dealing with students who attend none of their classes, remaining on campus and
often distracting fellow students from their academic responsibilities, or worse. In the spring of 1996, the
ASC passed but never implemented a revised policy that would have permitted the Registrar or Academic
Advising to disenroll students who attended none of their classes. It was not implemented because it
appeared to transfer enrollment prerogative from the faculty to administrators. A year later, as Roundy
pointed out, the 1996-97 revision was never voted on because at the last ASC meeting of the year,
members couldn’t resolve questions about whether non-attending students should be allowed a hearing
before being disenrolled or whether an exit interview should be added to the policy statement.
Scanning the 1996-97 draft, Smithers raised a limited objection to a policy that would automatically
disenroll the non-attending student because, as the instructor in such a case, he would want to be free to
assign an “F” grade. He argued that students may learn more by accepting the grade consequences of
their delinquency than by being disenrolled, particularly if disenrollment may lead to negotiations with
faculty about whether they should receive “W” or “WF” grades.
Evans raised another objection in the form of a question: “What recourse would a non-attending student
have if that student didn’t want to leave campus (as the policy dictates)?” Gething and Finney noted that
this situation has never arisen; whenever non-attenders have been disenrolled from all their classes, they
have left campus without objection.
To Smithers’ question, “What is the rationale for wanting to disenroll non-attenders?”, Finney replied that
these students are doing neither themselves nor their fellow students any good by making a mockery of
their academic lives, and they often become serious problems in their living communities and around
campus, as well. Roundy added that non-attenders in many cases become non-attenders because of
psycho-emotional disorders that cry out for intervention. Such students may be in denial about their
condition; disenrollment may be a way of interrupting their dysfunctional behavior, and may help them to
face the problems that have led them into trouble. Gething added that Student Affairs staff have often
found that non-attenders are the same people with whom they have had to work on other issues, and
disenrollment can be a useful tool in bringing about a more expeditious solution to other problems.
Hannaford wondered whether the Student Affairs Division ever resorted to “forcible medical withdrawal”
with students who had psycho-emotional disorders that caused inappropriate behaviors. Gething replied
that they could do so only if the students’ behaviors were dangerous to themselves or others.
Refining his objection, Smithers said two things about a wholesale disenrollment policy bothered him: 1)
the faculty member may lose control of the decision about whether a student may remain in his or her
class, and 2) the faculty member may lose the prerogative to assign an “F”, rather than a “W” or “WF.”
Bauska and Gething both wondered whether an “F” could be awarded to a student who had been
disenrolled. Morgan stated that the “WF” was the grade of choice in such cases, since it indicates that
the student has both withdrawn from the course and failed it, but agreed that faculty have the final say on
what grade they wish to award. Smithers expressed support for a complete disenrollment policy in the
case of the unhealthy student, but declared himself reluctant to collaborate in the disenrollment of an
otherwise healthy, but lazy, student who might learn responsibility better by collecting the “F’s” he or she
has earned. Bauska wondered if there was a way for a faculty member to stand up for a student facing
imminent disenrollment. Finney replied that the student would be permitted to remain a student if even
one of his or her instructors wished to keep the student in class.
At this point, Bauska recommended that the committee continue the discussion at the next meeting. In
support, Finney added that at the next meeting we should at least take up the question of whether
disenrolled students should be given exit interviews.
Bauska also reported that Roundy had asked to add an item to the ASC agenda regarding the
assignment of multiple academic advisors and the requirement that all students with declared majors have
an advisor in their major department. Roundy agreed to attach his memo of request to the minutes of this
meeting.
With that, Bauska declared the meeting adjourned at 9:53.
With this, we adjourned the meeting at 9:45.
Respectfully submitted by the ASC amanuensis,
Jack Roundy
Request for Review of Advisor Assignment Policy
Jack Roundy
11/14/97
Given the expeditious manner in which we are moving through the ASC agenda this year, I hope we have
time to consider the following proposal this fall. I don't think it will be controversial, but I think it should
have ASC blessing anyway.
Now that we have the ability to record more than one advisor for any given student, I believe we should
make it policy that all students must have an advisor in their major or majors, once they have declared.
We have not made this policy in the past because we knew that some students form attachments to
advisors outside their major areas and wish to maintain the advising relationship with those advisors. Now
that we can record multiple advisors, such students could keep their former advisors while choosing a new
one within their major department.
Many faculty have urged me to advocate a policy of mandatory departmental advising over the years, and
I have always resisted because of what I knew about student retention and the importance of maintaining
productive student/faculty relationships. We are no longer faced with an either/or situation, however, so I
think we should move swiftly to institute a new advisor assignment policy.
An ancillary benefit of the capability to assign multiple advisors will be that students doing double majors
can have advisors in both.
Under a new policy, we would need to maintain the notion of "advisor of record," I believe, since we'll need
to know to whom to mail registration forms and the like, but I think we could grant signatory power to any
of a student's declared advisors.
I'd like it if we could institute the new policy beginning with the start of next semester.
The Bulletin, page 198, would need slight modification for next year. It would need to read something like,
"When students select a major, they *must* choose a new advisor in their discipline of choice, or request
that a new advisor be assigned for them. Students may have more than one advisor, as in the case of
double majors, for example, but only the students' advisors of record may approve registration for
classes."