Academic Standards Committee Report For 1997-1998
The following is a report of the activities of the University Academic Standards Committee during
the now-ending academic year, 1997-1998. Included as well is a brief menu of suggested agenda
items for the 1998-99 Committee membership to examine and perhaps to act upon.
I. Petitions:
The committee entertained just under 250 petitions this year--a slight increase over last
year. The number of annual petitions has been trending steadily downward over the past decade;
it is too soon to tell whether that trend is reversing, or whether the numbers may now be stabilizing
in this region. A full summary of the actions taken can be obtained from the Associate Registrar's
office; in round numbers, however, about 80% of all petitions were granted; of the remaining 20%,
17% were denied; and no action was taken on 3% of the petitions received.
II. Hearing Boards:
On three occasions during the year Hearing Boards were constituted to hear student
academic petitions that could not be resolved short of this step. These cases involved two grade
complaints and an alleged incident of academic dishonesty. All three issues were successfully
resolved by the Hearing Board process.
III. Actions Taken by the Committee:
(For the most part, the work of this year's committee was dedicated to clarification of university
academic policies as articulated in the university bulletin/catalogue and in the Logger)
1. Medical Withdrawal Policy.
A great deal of the committee's time and energy was expended on working toward a clearer
articulation of the university's medical withdrawal policy, especially as regards those students with
psycho-emotional disabilities. Working closely with Ivey West, Coordinator of Disability Services,
several stages of revisions were worked through--concerning the medical withdrawal itself and the
conditions for re-entry as well. Policies were articulated and appropriate forms created for each
stage of the process (see minutes of 10/17/97 and 2/27/98). (This process began in September
1997 and was concluded in February 1998.)
2. Policy on Class Conflict Petitions.
The issue here concerned students who wish to enroll in two classes whose meeting times
overlapped. After some discussion it was determined that in cases where both faculty members
involved have approved overlapping or conflicting student schedules, authority to approve these
requests would be delegated to the Registrar's Office. In the case of any questionable situations,
the Registrar's Office would refer the petition to the Academic Standards Committee. Basically,
this will render de iure a procedure that has been followed de facto already. (This work was
conducted in October 1997.)
3. Policy on Reinstatement for Students Dismissed for a Full Year.
Discussion here centered on an apparent conflict between the written word and the practiced
policy regarding those students who have been dismissed from the University for academic
reasons for a full year. According to the Logger, "The student may petition for a re-admission
after one term away." In practice, however, such students sometimes file for immediate
reinstatement (rather than waiting the semester described). These petitions are almost always
denied. It was proposed that year-long dismissals ought, as a matter of policy, not be petitionable
before that one-semester hiatus has been completed. The Registrar, however, argued that
currently all "non-petitionable rules" describe the nature of the University degree, and that these
cases would not fall into that category. He also argued that allowing (even if they are nearly
always denied) such petitions to be made gives the student an opportunity both to be heard and to
hear in turn that "time away from the university" is in his or her best academic interests. In the
end, the Committee decided not to alter the policy as it is currently described. (October 1997)
4. Policy on Audit Registration
In response to a variety of questions that have arisen over the years, the Committee attempted to
clarify audit registration policies. These involved two primary categories: 1) a clarification of the
designation "alumnae/alumni" ("alums" are currently allowed to audit courses on a space-available
basis); and 2) clarification of when--during the registration and add/drop periods--students may
sign in for audit status. (The policy, as revised November 1997, is referenced in the minutes of
11/14/97)
5. Class Attendance Policy
Committee discussions focused on what to do about those students who simply stop attending
classes: Can or should they be dis-enrolled? Should such students be accorded a "hearing"?
Should some kind of "warning letter" be part of the process? The outcome of our discussions was
a Revised Registration and Attendance/Participation Policy (see minutes of 12/5/97). (This work
was conducted in November and December 1997)
6. Policy on Declaring a Major and Selecting an Advisor.
At the request of the Office of Academic and Career Advising, a statement that allows a student to
have more than one advisor (as might be useful for a student with a major and a minor or a
double major) was added to the current text in the University Bulletin regarding Declaration of
Major. See minutes of 12/5/97. (Work of November and December 1997).
7. Policy Regarding Activity Unit Grade Inclusion in Cumulative GPA in Overload
Situations.
The title of this section is quite long; here's a short explanation of what it is all about: Since
students can only take a total of 1.5 activity units which are counted for credit, a failing grade in
one of those courses, if received after the 1.5 units has been reached, is not calculated as part of
one's g.p.a. ("Oh, F, Where is Thy Sting?" asked a member of the Registrar's Office). After
considerable discussion, it was determined that an F on a transcript is sting enough. This is not,
it turns out, a problem that comes up very often (there have been something like eight cases over
the last decade), and so no further action was taken at this time, except to ask the Registrar's
Office to monitor the situation in case it does become more of a problem somewhere down the
line. (January 1998)
8. Review of Academic Dishonesty Policy Language (Logger).
Those Sections in the Logger devoted to "Responses to Instances of Plagiarism and Other Acts
of Academic Dishonesty" and "Hearing Board Procedures" were revised primarily with an eye to
clarifying the steps to be taken by faculty in responding to cases of apparent academic dishonesty
and by student and instructor when a case goes before a Hearing Board. Revised versions of
each statement can be found in minutes of 2/27/98 (This work was of January and February
1998).
9. Review of Independent Study Policy.
Current policy allows students to undertake Independent Study projects if they have attained the
level of Junior standing and a grade point average of 3.0. A number of "exceptions" to those
standards have been made by the petition process, and so the registrar's office asked the
Committee whether it wished to amend the policy. After some discussion it was decided to leave
the current wording in place. This sets a sort of normative benchmark, and still allows for
students with strong proposals,, or strong work in a department (whatever their cumulative gpa
might be) to undertake such a project. (Discussions of February 1998)
10. Study Abroad Evaluations.
This issue was referred to the Committee by the Study Abroad Committee, which noted that
students are expected, as part of the Overseas Study Programs, to complete an evaluation of the
program in which they took part. The Study Abroad Committee wanted to require such
evaluations prior to registering for the next term's classes, with the provision that a student could
not register until such an evaluation had been filed. Our Committee chose not to require such
stern "penalties;" since we do not require evaluations of classes here, even when a professor is
"up for evaluation." Accordingly, we drafted a statement that speaks of requiring such
evaluations, but does not speak of penalties for failing to submit them. A version of our wording is
in the minutes of 2/27/98. (Work of February 1998).
11. Discussion of Procedures for Establishing Scheduling of Classes.
In response to a request from members of the faulty-at-large, the Committee discussed the
University's class scheduling processes. The guidelines regarding times and days are often seen
as difficult for faculty to accommodate. At the same time there is a practical (logistical)
consideration: there are only so many classrooms, of appropriate sizes; there do need to be
classes offered throughout the day etc. This issue seemed to be one in which the pedagogical
and logistical needs of the University run head-long into each other. Clearly no easy solutions
were in sight, and it was recommended that this issue be passed along to next year's committee.
IV. Recommendations to the Academic Standards Committee for 1998-1999
The following topics were put forward as recommendations for next year's committee:
1. Near the end of next Spring semester, review the new Medical Withdrawal and Re-entry
policies.
2. Clarify language regarding the right of a "suspended" as opposed to a "dismissed" student to
take a leave of absence.
3. Re-examine the issue of class scheduling procedures (described in item 11 above).
4. Examine the pass-fail system, its uses and implications.
5. Re-examine the idea of an Ethics or Honor Code for the University.
Respectfully submitted,
Barry A. Bauska
Chair
Academic Standards Committee
4/30/98