2009-10 Year-End Report for the Academic Standards Committee
The members of the Academic Standards Committee in 2009-10 were: Sarah Apple (student), James
Bernhard, Tim Beyer, Kenneth Clark, Debbie Chee, Doug Goodman, Katie Hamachek (student; fall only),
Heidi Kreiss (student), Ben Lewin, Martins Linauts, Betsy Kirkpatrick, Gary McCall, Sarah Moore, Jack
Roundy, Maria Sampen, David Scott (fall only), Brad Tomhave, Carolyn Weisz, Seth Weinberger (chair), and Linda Williams.
The ASC met every other week, while the petitions subcommittee met, as needed, every week.
The Academic Standards Committee received the following charges from the Faculty Senate for the
2009-10 academic year:
1) Violations of academic integrity occurring too late for Hearing Board actions before the following semester.
2) Policy on uses of reading period.
3) Policy allowing withdrawal of students from classes when absent on first day of classes.
4) Implementation of new honor code.
5) Policy on nature and purpose of independent study.
6) How courses in the department of major in excess of those required for the major should be counted in major GPA.
7) Means for improving the academic climate and its level of intensity on campus.
Petitions: [DRAFT ]
For the period May 1, 2009, to September 2, 2009, there were 62 petitions acted upon with 54 approved and 8 denied. Of these petitions about half were in the following 4 categories:
• 11 waivers of the rule requiring the last 8 units be completed in residence.
• 10 readmission/reinstatement from dismissal/suspension.
• 7 medical withdrawals.
• 5 returns from a medical or emergency administrative withdrawal.
For the period September 3, 2009 to May 5, 2010, there were 190 petitions acted upon with 153 approved, 35 denied, and 1 the Committee took no action on (this petition assumed approval of a petition that was denied so no action was taken on the issue raised). Of the 190 petitions, about half were in the following categories.
• 39 late adds.
• 34 time conflicts
• 16 medical withdrawals.
• 15 readmission/reinstatement from dismissal/suspension.
1

Hearing Boards: There were five hearing boards convened during the 2009-10 academic year – four for second violations of the university’s academic integrity policies and one for a grade dispute.
The grade dispute was prompted by a student’s claim that she was not given the same amount of time to take an exam as were other students in the class. The student claimed that had she be given the extra time her grade on the exam would have been higher which in turn would have raised her final grade. While the Board was extremely uncomfortable changing the final grade awarded by the professor, there was no question that the student received less time on the exam than other students and the Board was unable to determine any other suitable remedies. Reluctantly, the Board decided that the harm to the student outweighed the harm to the professor and changed the student’s final grade from a C+ to a B-.
The second hearing board involved a student who was caught cheating on two separate examinations on the same day. The student was dismissed from the university for the Spring 2010 semester, had a notation stating the reason for the dismissal placed on her transcript, and was required to meet with staff members from Academic Advising, the Dean of Students Office, and Disabilities Services prior to petitioning the Academic Standards Committee to return to the university.
The third board involved a senior who plagiarized unambiguously and extensively in two courses. The
Board changed the student’s grade in both affected classes to Fs, placing a notation on the transcript indicating the reason for the grade changes. Additionally, as the student no longer possesses sufficient credits to graduate and because the student’s cumulative GPA fell below 2.0 as a result of the grade changes, the student was barred from participating in the May 2010 Commencement Ceremony and placed on academic probation. Finally, as the sanctions resulted in the student being two credits short of the graduation requirements, the Hearing Board required that the student take one credit in a 2 nd
Year/Transfer Student section of either a Writing and Rhetoric or Scholarly and Creative Inquiry Seminar.
The fourth hearing board also involved a senior; but in this case the Board determined that the violations were less instances of intentional cheating than the result of a woeful ignorance of scholarly writing procedures and citation practices that one would expect a Puget Sound student, especially a senior, to possess. The student’s grade for the class in which the second instance of plagiarism occurred was changed to an F, and the student was required to work on two future assignments with staff members in the Center for Writing, Teaching, and Learning to ensure that her work comported to the standards of academic integrity. After requiring the student to perform several exercises in an effort to help her develop the missing skills, the Board determined that the student was making progress but still lacked a number of critical skills. Thus, the Board required the student to take a 2 nd Year/Transfer student Scholarly and Creative Inquiry seminar in Fall 2010 as the final credit needed to complete 32 units and graduate from the university.
The fifth hearing board was an unusual case, as it involved a second violation that occurred in Fall 2006.
The student had taken a leave of absence following that semester and at the time it was decided that the hearing board would be delayed until the student returned to the university; furthermore, a hold
2

was placed on the student’s academic records. However, the student requested his Puget Sound transcript in order to transfer to a different institution and the hold was not observed. When the student again requested his Puget Sound transcript in Fall 2010 (this time to apply to graduate school) the hold was noticed and a hearing board was convened. As the student has already graduated from college, and as the failure to observe the hold on his academic records was the responsibility of Puget
Sound, the Board felt that it could not impose such sanctions as would normally be warranted by the nature of the offenses, including changing the final grades in the concerned classes or dismissing the student. However, the Board believed that the egregious nature of the plagiarism undermined the integrity of the Puget Sound transcript and warranted some kind of sanction. In the end, the Board added language to the student’s transcript indicating that the student had committed acts of academic dishonesty in the two classes.
Violations of Academic Integrity Occurring Too Late for Hearing Board Actions Before the Following
Semester: This issue arose when a student was charged with a second violation of the Academic
Integrity Policy in the Fall semester but the Hearing Board could not be convened until the Spring semester. The Board was not sure if it would be appropriate to suspend the student for the Spring semester as the student had been allowed to return to campus, enter (and pay for) student housing, and register (and pay for) for classes. Given that the question of fairness revolved more around the financial commitment made by the student rather than the issue of allowing the student to stay, the ASC decided to leave the policy unchanged, with the understanding that in such cases the Hearing Board could recommend that the student’s money for classes and room and board be refunded (such recommendations are almost always followed). It was urged that students in this circumstance be made aware that, if they choose to return to school pending a Hearing Board, that dismissal would be a possibility.
Timeliness of Filing Academic Integrity Violation Reports: Building on the previous issue, the ASC also added the following language to the Academic Integrity Policy encouraging faculty to file academic integrity violation reports in a timely manner: Because other processes and subsequent decisions that affect student enrollment may be connected to receipt of a faculty member’s report, faculty should make every effort to complete and send the report to the Registrar immediately.
Appropriate Use of Reading Period: The issue of the appropriate use of reading period was considered by the ASC. Specifically, the language currently governing reading period does not seem to allow faculty to hold official review sessions during the period. After much discussion, the language was changed to read: The reading period is intended to provide students with time to reflect on their semester’s academic work and to prepare for final examinations. This time must be free from competing demands of class meetings, tests, deadlines for course work, and other activities. Optional review sessions in which new course material will not be introduced are allowed. Requests to waive this policy must be submitted in writing to the Dean of the University.
3

Application of 300-level Courses in the Department of Major to the Upper Division Requirement: The
ASC discussed the issue of whether 300-level classes in a student’s department of major that cannot be applied to the major should be applicable to the Upper Division Requirement. After consultation with the Curriculum Committee, the ASC passed new language governing the Upper Division Requirement that reads: Earn at least 3.00 academic units outside the department of first major and requirements of first major at the upper-division level.
Changes to the Pass/Fail Grade Option: The ASC considered a number of possibilities for changing the
P/F grade option, including: 1) No P/F courses in department of major; 2) No P/F courses for freshmen or sophomores; 3) Permission of instructor required (either at instructor or course level); 4) Lowering the number of P/F courses students may take from 4; 5) Raising the grade required to “pass” from C-.
The ASC passed language adopting the first two changes: No Pass/Fail courses shall be taken in the department of major or minor and The Pass/Fail grade option is only available to juniors or seniors.
The faculty has delayed implementation of the ASC’s two changes. The ASC hopes that these issues will be resolved one way or another early in the 2010-11 academic year so that a final decision on Puget
Sound’s Pass/Fail policy can be made.
The ASC decided that the issue of instructor permission should be discussed by a broader body, either the Faculty Senate or the Full Faculty, as the Committee could not reconcile the desire to protect instructors with the desire to preserve the intent and spirit of the P/F option.
Policy Allowing Instructors to Withdraw Students Absent on the First Day of Class: The ASC considered whether this policy was fair, given that Puget Sound allows and encourages students to “shop around” for classes during the first week of the semester. However, given the early date for end of the add period and the problems facing students on waitlists, there was also a need to preserve this policy so faculty can properly manage their class rolls. The ASC decided that the policy was a good one, and that the responsibility to inform professors of their intentions should lie with the students, but that more could be done to notify students of the policy. The ASC decided that the Office of Academic Advising would send an e-mail message to students immediately prior to the first day of classes, informing them of the policy and encouraging them to notify their professors if they intend to miss the first day of class while “shopping” for classes.
Foreign Language Substitution Policy: The ASC wrestled with the thorny question of the policies concerning the substitution of the foreign language requirement for students with learning disabilities that preclude them from successfully learning a language and fulfilling the requirement. The ASC considered that students with such learning disabilities often have a difficult time justifying how their
4

proposed alternative courses satisfy the “spirit” of the requirement, especially as the faculty has not defined the spirit of the requirement. Also, the ASC considered whether it should create a pre-approved list of substitutions and whether students, especially underclassmen who may not yet have selected a course of study, should be allowed to count courses that apply towards their major towards the requirement. A subcommittee was created to attempt to develop a list of “pre-approved” courses that could be used as substitutes for the foreign language classes once a substitution was approved.
The subcommittee created a list of 21 courses in 6 areas that could be used to satisfy the foreign language requirement once a substitution has been granted. The proposal was that if a student’s petition for a substitution is granted and if the student selected 2 courses in one area from the preapproved list, there would be no need for the student to provide a justification for the courses being used as a substitution. However, if a student chooses to use courses other than the pre-approved ones to fulfill the requirement, the student would then be expected to provide a justification as to how the selected courses satisfy the requirement.
The ASC passed this proposal at its last meeting and will be asking the Faculty Senate to consider endorsing it at the final meeting of the Senate so that the policy can go into effect next year without fear of being overturned. The proposal is included following this report.
Additionally, the ASC added language to the University Requirements section of the Academic
Handbook to encourage students who might need to substitute courses for the foreign language requirement to get the proper assistance. Following subpoint C (but listed as a separate paragraph and not subpoint D) will appear the following: Students with learning disabilities that affect the ability to learn a foreign language should consult with the Coordinator of Disabilities Services.
Final Examination Policy: The ASC clarified the language concerning the administration of final examinations to make more explicit that final exams are to be given only during the scheduled exam period. The ASC thus adopted the following language: In all classes in which a final examination is given, the final examination may be given only during the time period assigned. The final examination is not to be given during the last week of classes or the reading period. No exceptions to the final examination schedule can be made by the instructor…. Requests to waive any part of this final examination policy must be submitted in writing by the faculty member to the Dean of the University.
Policy on Incomplete Grades: It was brought to the ASC’s attention by the Office of Academic Advising that the policy on incomplete grades was problematic as it allowed students to wait until deep until the semester following the incomplete grades to finish the courses, which increased the burden on students. The ASC amended the current policy on Incomplete Grades in the following ways: 1) The work required to finish the Incomplete must now be completed no later than the Friday of the first week of the next regular semester; 2) Instructors must submit permanent grades to replace the Incomplete no later than the end of the Add period following receipt of the work; 3) Changes to either of these
5

deadlines can only be approved by a petition to the Academic Standards Committee; 4) If the Registrar’s
Office has not received either a permanent grade or an approval of an extension by the end the Add period, a grade of F will be recorded.
Final Exam Lengths: Pursuant to a mid-year charge from the Faculty Senate, the ASC discussed lengthening final exams from 2 hours to 3, but declined to take any action.
Policy on Independent Study: The ASC has identified several problems with the current policies regarding Independent Study proposals: 1) That many students seem to use IS to “make up” credit deficiencies, which does not seem to be in the spirit of an Independent Study; 2) That IS often seem to be used as “off-the-books” courses which are not vetted by the Curriculum Committee; 3) That in some departments excessive numbers of IS proposals can lead to faculty overloads for which faculty are not paid; 4) That there often seems to be little consistency between IS proposals for .25, .5, or 1.0 credits and that the ASC is not the body to make such determinations.
The ASC decided that many of these issues were outside of the purview of the ASC and better dealt with by the Curriculum Committee and recommended to the Senate that the CC be tasked with considering the existing process and policies governing IS; furthermore, the ASC recommended that the Curriculum
Committee or a subcommittee thereof review all IS proposals. The ASC also recommended that the issue of the faculty load be referred to either the Senate or the Full Faculty.
Counting Classes in the Department of Major But Not Applied to the Major in the Major GPA: The ASC discussed how “excess” courses in the major should count towards the major GPA. However, after discussion it was determined that fixing the “problem” (if indeed there even is a problem) would create more problems than it solved. The ASC decided to take no action.
Deadline for Submitting Grade Disputes: In order to clean up a loophole in the language concerning grade disputes, the ASC adopted language requiring students who seek to dispute a grade to formally request a hearing board no later than the 5 th week in the semester following the disputed grade. The language also requires that the hearing board be convened in the same semester as the request; exceptions to the policy can only be approved by the Dean of the University. The new policy reads: It is the responsibility of the student to initiate the grade dispute process and, if the dispute cannot be resolved between the instructor and the student, to request a hearing board to adjudicate the dispute. A student’s intention to dispute a grade through a hearing board must be brought in writing to the Dean of the University no later than the end of the fifth week of the semester following the term in which the disputed grade was given. Normally, the hearing board is to be convened by the end of the semester following the term in which the grade was given. Any changes to this policy must be request by the
6

student no later than the end of the fifth week of the semester following the term in which the disputed grade was given and approved by the Dean of the University.
On-Line Course “Study” Sites: The ASC briefly considered the implications of on-line study sites such as
Course Hero ( www.coursehero.com
) and NoteHall ( www.notehall.com
). The former site was of particular interest to members of the ASC, as students not only post their own class notes there, but also assignments, exams, and papers. The ASC identified two issues: 1) The legality of posting information
(i.e. copyright issues); 2) How the university should approach and deal with the existence and growth of such websites. After a short discussion, in which the chair stated his intention to join one of the sites in order to take a closer look at what is posted there, the ASC closed the issue, noting that the university, perhaps the ASC or the Full Faculty, will need to think more broadly about the implications of these sites and how they fit into our conception of Academic Integrity. The Associate Dean has also asked the Dean of the University to learn more about potential copyright issues from the legal counsel of the university.
Implementation of the New Honor Code: The ASC worked with the library staff to develop wording for signs to be posted in Collins Library to remind students of the honor code and the responsibilities of academic integrity. The language eventually decided upon is:
As a member of the Puget Sound community, I have pledged to conduct myself responsibly and honorable in my academic activities.
Want to know more about citation practices, research skills, and academic integrity? Get an overview and take a quiz to test your knowledge at the Academic Integrity @ Puget Sound page on the Collins
Library website. For help, ask a reference librarian or send an e-mail to libref@pugetsound.edu.
Signs with this language will be placed in the library; the Office of the Dean of Students expressed an interest in placing the signs, or similar ones, in the residence halls.
The ASC noted that one method of implementing the new honor code – the pop-up screen that will be presented to students for affirmation during the registration process – was delayed due to a survey that needed to be conducted. However, the screen will be implemented next year; this will result in students reaffirming – and being reminded of – their pledge and the Code itself before each semester.
The ASC also discussed other methods of implementing the honor code, including: Putting the honor code and a place for students’ signatures on Blue Books; requiring students to sign a statement indicating their compliance with the honor code on all work handed in; suggesting faculty place the honor code on syllabi and/or discuss it in their classes.
7

Recommended Charges to the 2010-11 Academic Standards Committee:
1) Continue developing means of implementing the new honor code.
2) Continue exploring on-line study and note –sharing sites and considering responses.
3) Review courses pre-approved for Foreign Language Requirement Substitution (annual charge).
Respectfully submitted,
Seth Weinberger
Chair, Academic Standards Committee, 2009-10
8

Foreign Language Graduation Requirements Guidelines
For Course Substitutions Due To A Learning Disability
Students seeking a substitution for the foreign language requirement must:
1.
Provide documentation of a learning disability that affects their ability to learn a foreign language to the Coordinator of Disabilities Services. The documentation must be current, thorough, and prepared by an appropriate and qualified diagnostic professional. For details on documentation requirements see: http://www.pugetsound.edu/academics/academicresources/disabilities-services/ .
2.
Submit a completed Academic Standards Committee petition form (available in the Registrar’s
Office) including signatures and recommendations from both the student’s faculty advisor and the Coordinator of Disabilities Services.*
3.
Propose two courses to substitute for the foreign language requirement. Students are expected to propose courses that they have not already taken and that are outside of the Core
Requirements and the first major. Students may select two courses from the pre-approved list below or compose an argument for two other related courses with a cultural component. This explanation should accompany the completed petition form.
* If the Coordinator of Disabilities Services does not support a petition, students may still pursue the substitution by writing a statement to include with their petition explaining their history with learning a foreign language and why they feel unable to complete the requirement successfully. The committee will then evaluate the petition and make a decision, either supporting or rejecting the proposal.
Foreign Language Substitution Pre-Approved Options
Students shall select two courses from any one area:
Chinese Civilization: ART 278/Survey of Asian Art; HIST 245/Chinese Civilization; HIST
246/Chinese History 1600 to the Present; REL 234/Chinese Religious Tradition
Japanese Civilization: ART 278/Survey of Asian Art; HIST 247/Japanese Tradition; HIST
248/Modern Japan
Classics: CLSC 210/Greek Mythology; CLSC 211/Ancient Greece; CLSC 212/Roman History; CLSC
222/Greco-Roman World; CLSC 225/Gender & Tradition in Rome; CLSC 230/Classical Tradition;
HUM 210/Power & Culture in Periclean Athens and Augustan Rome
Islam: REL 212/Islam; REL 221/Jihad and Islam
Latin America: LAS 100/Introduction to Latin American Studies; HIST 280/Colonial Latin
American History; HIST 281/Modern Latin America
Ancient Israel: REL 200/History and Literature of Ancient Israel; REL 201/History and Literature of the New Testament
9