MINUTES of the Academic Standards Committee
March 10, 2010
Present: Sarah Apple-student, James Bernhard, Ken Clark, Betsy Kirkpatrick, Heidi
Kreiss-student, Ben Lewin, Martins Linauts, Donn Marshall (for Debbie Chee), Sarah
Moore, Maria Sampen, Brad Tomhave, Seth Weinberger, Ivey West-guest
advocate/informant, Linda Williams
The meeting was called to order by chairperson Seth Weinberger at 3:35 PM.
APPPROVAL of MINUTES: The Minutes from 2/24/2010 were approved with no
changes.
ANNOUNCEMENTS: Weinberger reported that the Faculty Senate has formally
approved the P/F Policy, to be implemented AY2010-2011. The committee was
reminded that the new policy eliminates P/F option for freshmen and sophomores,
and prohibits P/F grades in the department major or minor. Weinberger added that
the Senate is still considering additional action, as more fundamental changes are
desired by some faculty, for example, instructor permission for P/F. The Senate
must present the action on the new policy to the whole faculty for approval.
PETITIONS REPORT: Tomhave reported that the last two petitions meetings
were cancelled due to lack of petitions at this time of the semester. He submitted the
petitions subcommittee report as follows:
Petitions for the Period 02/18/2010 – 03/03/2010
The Petitions Sub-Committee met on February 24 to consider 2 petitions. The SubCommittee cancelled its meeting for March 3 for lack of business. The following actions
were taken on petitions:
1 Approved Late Add
1 Denied Late Add
2 Total Petitions
Registrar Approved: 0
Preview Team Approved: 0
Sub-Committee Approved: 1
Total Approved: 1
Sub-Committee Denied: 1
Total Petitions: 2
For the year to date, 158 petitions have been acted upon, 134 of which were approved
and 24 of which were denied. More than 40% of the total petitions are either Time
Conflicts (30) or Late Adds (38).
Of particular interest was the approved late add petition that served a “class action”
function to allow the Athletic Department to register 23 students in Advanced
Conditioning such that all students in the course were in compliance with NCAA
regulations and University registration and facility use policies.
BUSINESS: Weinberger reported, with satisfaction in his voice, that only 3 items will
remain on the agenda for the semester following today’s discussion of the Foreign
Language requirement waiver guidelines. The remaining agenda items are: 1.)
implementation of the Honor Code 2.) web-sites for on-line study sources for students,
and 3.) the academic climate and means for improving it.
Referring back to previous business, Weinberger made passing mention of courses in
excess of the major to be counted in GPA – other classes in major beyond the
requirements go in excess category but do count in GPA.
Attention now turned to the main agenda topic for the day:
FOREIGN LANGUAGE graduation requirement GUIDELINES for COURSE SUBSTITUTIONS
due to a Learning Disability:
Discussion was initiated by Weinberger by stating two questions: 1.) Should ASC create a
list of acceptable courses? and 2.) Should ASC require student to articulate rationale for
substituted courses?
Prior to this meeting, Ivey West (Center for Learning, Writing and Teaching) had
provided a draft document to committee members in preparation for discussing her
suggested deletions and additions to the Guidelines. Copies were made available at the
meeting as well.
West stated that the current process is so complex that it places undo burden on the
student. To her knowledge, no other northwest peer school has such an onerous
process. She recommends that the student should just go through the petition process
and not be required to submit the “rationale” statement. Many of these students are
dyslexic and have trouble writing, and the process penalizes those students. In many
cases, someone else writes the rationale paper (either Ivey West, or Lori Blake or a
parent, e.g.). West went on to say that other peer colleges allow students to pick
courses, or the foreign language department presents “cultural courses” that can
substitute for language courses. Mention was made that Lewis & Clark requires study
abroad as a substitute, but Puget Sound does not accept that approach.
Lively discussion ensued on the topic.
LW: How many students do this? IW: About 6-7 per year.
MS: If they have so much trouble writing the rationale statement, how do these
students survive writing in other courses? IW: With a lot of support from the Writing
Center.
SM: The proposal on the table is a similar version to what is now the case but not as
rigorous. It seems that some explanation is still needed. Would a course title be
enough? IW: Yes.
SM: Some short statement still should be required. BT: If the statement is not
convincing, the petition is not approved. IW: Could it be just a sentence?
SW: Would it be OK for Ivey West to file a recommendation – i.e. she writes the
rationale that a student presents to her? BT: ASC asks students to argue for themselves.
IW: Could it be just a sentence or two? Statements tend to be bounced back to student
in initial step if not “longer.”
DM: Burden of getting this accommodation is higher than any others. IW: Agree.
DM: Should we consider a number of suggested “series” of courses from ASC. SW: That
is the rational behind agenda item 5a (Create a “list” of acceptable replacements). ASC
could create a list of courses offered regularly that would be acceptable. IF the student
wants other courses, then a rationale would be needed.
SM: The disability is the rationale. Does this fall into the petitionable category? If yes,
then we do need a rationale. Maybe foreign language should not be a petitionable item.
Weinberger then suggested an alternate method/approach. Once a disability is
documented, then no petition would be needed as is the case for other
accommodations at present. The current policy was implemented in 2006, and prior to
that, Ivey West simply made decisions herself. West stated that she has always objected
to the current policy. To that, Tomhave responded that West does not have the
authority to excuse students from academic requirements. Deciding on academic
substitutions is the purview of the ASC. Marshall suggested that perhaps ASC could
meet with West on a monthly basis (or as needed) to address the issue of substitute
courses.
Moore stated that we need to consider on what basis we’re saying that writing the
rationale is too difficult. Are we saying, 1.) These are students who don’t have the ability
to make an argument, or 2.) We are asking them to do something none of us can do –
i.e. rationalize substitutions. The language requirement is just language with no cultural
content for the Core, so how can anyone write a rationale regarding “cultural content?”
We need to clarify exactly what we want them to write. The former argument is
something that the Petitions committee had struggled with accepting while the latter
argument is a more valid basis for changing the approval process.
MS: Why don’t we take the essay out but still retain the petition with a brief statement,
thereby fulfilling the letter of the law but not require the depth of explanation? BT: The
ASC needs to make a decision, so what are the criteria? SM: What we need is some
evidence that the student has given some thought to the choice – doesn’t need to be
deep. MS: How about a form that asks what class is chosen and why? BT: That already
exists. BL: A pre-set list gets around petition since the list is approved by ASC. IW: We
still retain petition process but chose from a list.
BT: An issue that should be explored is the number of years of high school language on a
transcript, but why can’t language be accomplished in college?
SM: Whether or not we have a list, there is another “can of worms”, that being approval
of courses already taken. SW: ASC doesn’t like being in the position at the last minute
when graduation is imminent. SM: The number of attempts at a language course and
any W grades are a consideration, as opposed to simply not doing anything about it until
it is too late.
BK: A problem with a list is the scenario in which a student has already taken a course
from a list….what then? SM: We’d have to sort it out. It doesn’t really matter when you
take a language course or a list course.
Weinberger then asked West to explain her rationale for recommendations…What do
you look at? West replied that she relies on testing data that is no more than 3 years
old.
SW: So where are we now? JB: Do we have a list at this time? SW: No, we don’t. The
faculty has never elucidated criteria for the foreign language requirement therefore it is
difficult to make a list. MS: Perhaps a subcommittee should go to the foreign language
department and request a list of courses they deem acceptable. IW: When the
requirement was first established, foreign language wanted nothing to do with it. BK:
How about if the Curriculum Committee makes a list?
West provided a handout listing substitution courses that have been used since 2005.
Weinberger, in an attempt to come to some conclusion before time ran out, suggested
that a sub-committee be formed that would create a list of 8-10 courses offered
regularly that could be used as substitution. If the ASC approves the waiver of the
requirement, then the student can pick from the approved list.
BK: What type of courses would work? Logic? It uses symbols. BT: Computer science
courses as substitute for foreign language has been rejected by the faculty. MS: Foreign
language representative should be involved. BT: There are actually three “language
departments” that would need to be represented – Classics, Asian Studies and Foreign
Languages.
Tomhave asked what would be ideal courses…what does West think is reasonable for
the students to accomplish? West responded that she tries to recommend courses she
feels the student can pass.
Weinberger then asked for volunteers for a sub-committee to formulate a LIST.
Those who volunteered were Brad Tomhave, Ivey West, Betsy Kirkpatrick and Sarah
Moore. Tomhave will solicit volunteers from the current Petitions sub-committee who
were not in attendance at the general meeting. Weinberger left it to the sub-committee
to self-organize.
No action was taken, nor recommendation made, on the question of the student
statement / rationale.
The hour now being 4:30, Ken Clark moved to adjourn.
Respectfully submitted by scribe of the day,
Martins Linauts