Minutes
Academic Standards Committee Meeting
December 2, 2009
Present: Seth Weinberger, Debbie Chee, Ben Lewin, Betsy Kirkpatrick, Gary McCall, Sarah
Moore, Maria Sampen, David Scott, Brad Tomhave, Ivey West, Tim Beyer
Student Representatives: Katie Hamachek, Sarah Apple
Minutes from November 18th were approved
Announcements
1) There was an issue raised in the Senate regarding the pass/fail wording change. The issue is
whether the committee correctly interpreted faculty sentiment regarding pass/fail. SW will
communicate results of this discussion.
Petitions Committee Report for the period 11/12/2009 – 11/25/2009
The Petitions Sub-Committee met on November 18 with the following results:
3 Approved Late Adds
1 Approved Reinstatement from Suspension
1 Approved Re-enrollment from a Medical Withdrawal
2 Approved Time Conflicts
1 Medical Withdrawal
2 Approved waivers of the “Last 8 Units Rule”
1 Approved Completion of FL Requirement with Substitute Courses
11 Total Petitions
Registrar Approved: 0
Preview Team Approved: 8
Sub-Committee Approved: 3
Total Approved: 11
Sub-Committee Denied: 0
Total Petitions: 11
Academic Integrity Violations Reporting
1) New language drafted by SM was circulated aimed at providing a sense of urgency to filing
Academic Integrity Violations. This was approved.
Reading Period Policy
1) There was an issue raised with the adopted language for the reading period policy. That is, it
is not clear that the adopted language could allow final exams to be administered during
reading period. This would be in direct conflict with the final exam policy.
2) SW and SM outlined the final exam policy. Final exams must be taken during the time period
assigned and cannot be given during the last week of classes or the reading period. No
exceptions can be made for individual students. Any exceptions to this policy must be
submitted in writing to the Dean of the University.
a. Students with three final exams on the same day are not exempt from this policy (BK,
SM).
b. Students with disabilities must seek exceptions in writing from the Dean (KH, IW).
3) SW queried whether this is something that needs to be amended. SM noted that while the
policy is clear, the procedure for exceptions is not clear. SM suggested that the wording
should be made more clear to protect faculty, in particular specifying who does what.
a. The general consensus was that wording changes would not be interpreted as a
change in the policy itself. Thus, it is unlikely that would be an increase in requests
for exceptions if wording changes were made (GM, SM, SW, BK).
b. The issue of classes with multiple sections that administer the same final was raised
(SA), and whether this was truly problematic (MS) or fair (GM). It was suggested that
“sections” should be added to drafted verbiage (DS).
c. SM suggested that SW draft new verbiage that addresses the concerns raised by (1)
adopted language for reading period policy, and (2) discussion from this meeting. SW
will draft new verbiage which will be voted on during the next meeting.
Foreign Language Requirement Waiver
1) There is a petition to changes in the Foreign Language Requirement waiver policy. The
current waiver policy requires students to propose two courses that will effectively meet the
spirit of the foreign language requirement (e.g., a literature class and a culture class). This
policy is not working.
a. SW raised the question of whether the committee should propose a package of
courses that fulfill this requirement. SM noted that there are at least two issues with
this:
i. Practical problems with maintaining an accurate list of courses as existing
courses are taken off the books and new ones are added.
ii. One goal of having students select a series of courses is to have students think
critically about how these courses are connected. This goal would no longer
be possible.
b. Other issues were also raised:
i. Students have the guidelines, however, they don’t use the guidelines very
well. This can result in incomplete petitions (SM).
ii. Because there is no timeline specified, seniors sometimes try to put courses
together to have their foreign language requirement waived (SM).
iii. The faculty has not articulated a clear purpose of the foreign language
requirement, so it seems counterintuitive to ask students to articulate a clear
connection and purpose for their proposed courses (SM).
iv. Students are required to write a cogent essay that motivates why and how the
courses selected fulfill the foreign language requirement. This may be difficult
precisely for those students who wish to waive the foreign language
requirement due to a language related disability (IW).
v. Major courses cannot be used to waive the requirement. This may present
problems for students who don’t have a clear major path (IW).
2) There was discussion on how to address the issues with the current waiver policy:
a. MS noted that this seems like an advising issue. Could IW have a list of classes to
advise students who are in this position? SW noted that thinking about how the
courses are related and why they fulfill the foreign language requirement is important.
b. IW noted that having an oral versus a written report might alleviate some of the issues
students face. BT noted that students are often quite anxious before a committee.
c. GM queried whether having a series of questions to guide students would help. IW
noted that students with disabilities may have difficulties with the process of putting a
written report together, so this may not alleviate difficulties.
d. IW suggested that it would be most useful to have a list of courses so that students
don’t have to qualify a series of courses. SW noted that this is similar to a major –
students take the required courses without having to qualify why – it is prespecified
for them.
e. SM noted that the real problem is how to get students to pass the hurdle of the ASC.
It is difficult for students to come up with the connections between the courses. SW
noted that it may be beneficial to be more specific about the reason for this process
for students.
f. DS queried how many students who have difficulty with processing language take
this option. IW noted that it was many, if not all.
g. MS reiterated her earlier point about this being an advising issue. Doing away with
the essay, but having an advising list for IW, would simplify the process for
everyone.
Minutes submitted,
Tim Beyer