Academic Standard Committee Meeting
Dec 7, 2010
Present: Bill Barry, James Bernhard, Debbie Chee, Duane Hulbert, Betsy Kirkpatrick, Emily
Levandowski, Ben Lewin, Martins Linauts, Marcus Luther, Gary McCall, Sarah Moore, Amy
Odegard, Jack Roundy, Brad Tomhave, Rob Wellington, Paula Wilson, Bianca Wolf
Organization. The meeting convened at 8:00 am in the McCormick Room of the library.
Business
Minutes. The minutes from the 10/26/10 and the 11/09/10 ASC meetings were approved.
Petitions Report. Petitions for the Period 11/17/2010 – 11/30/2010
The Petitions Sub-Committee met on November 30, 2010, with the following results:
1 Denied Readmission or Reinstatement
2 Denied Schedule Conflict Registrations
1 Approved Withdrawal with a W Grade
4 Total Petitions
Registrar Approved: 0
Preview Team Approved: 0
Sub-Committee Approved: 1
Total Approved: 1
Sub-Committee Denied: 3
Total Petitions: 4
For the year to date, 51 petitions have been acted upon with 15 involving late registration and 16
involving registration with a schedule conflict. (For comparison, by December 2, 2009, 83
petitions had been acted upon with 22 involving late registration and 17 involving a schedule
conflict.)
Of the 51 total petitions, 12 were denied and 5 of those denials were for schedule conflicts, 2 for
late registration, and 2 for undertaking an internship prior to at least junior class standing.
Of particular interest was a petition denied last week to allow a student to return early from a 1
year dismissal. Given the extensive readmission process, it is unusual for a student to have a
readmission petition denied. In this case, the Sub-Committee was impressed with the student’s
progress, but the student had 3 terms of poor academic performance and the Committee
encouraged the student to petition again and with the benefit of sustained and consistent
improvement.
Policy change to allow staff to report incidents of academic integrity. Gary McCall
announced that a letter was sent to the chair of the senate to request a charge to change the
policy. Bill Barry stated that the senate has charged ASC and the committee will get official
notification. Barry added that the senate asked whether this right should be extended to students.
Report on proposed common hour. ASC members had been asked to poll their respective
departments to investigate the feasibility of a common hour. McCall compiled the responses and
distributed a Report on Common Hour Feasibility (attached as an appendix). James Bernhard
said the chair of the Math Department gave six reasons why it wouldn’t work; the main reason is
because there is not enough physical space in the computer classrooms and classes are
scheduled all hours of the day. Duane Hulbert added that music groups use the rare hours when
students are available to schedule practice. Members of the committee agreed a common hour
would require significant restructuring. Sarah Moore stated that we would either need to adopt a
whole new scheduling system or do some sort of halfway thing in which departments generally try
to avoid a certain hour.
It discussed that we need to not only consider whether a common hour is feasible, but also
whether it is desirable. Moore pointed out that, as a faculty member at Puget Sound, it is not part
of the culture to attend faculty meetings; there would have to be a change in how people view this
part of their work. Realistically, it would require a shift in normative behavior. Not everyone who is
available goes to faculty meetings. Jack Roundy added that faculty meetings were well attended
when the core was being developed; however, meetings are now poorly attended. Perhaps
faculty would come if there were incentive. It was agreed that feasibility and desirability of a
common hour are two separate matters, and addressing the culture may be a more complicated
issue.
McCall agreed to work on this report further and distribute it to the entire committee.
Block schedule proposed. Rob Wellington, a current student at Puget Sound, presented his
idea for changing the current semester system to a block schedule. He proposed that students
would take one course at a time for a 3.5 week block, totaling 9 courses per year (allowing
students to take one more class per year). Each class would meet between 8am and 3pm for at
least 1.5 hours per day. Rob pointed out problems with the current schedule, including: 1) no
common hour, 2) faculty and students are spread too thin, and 3) not conducive to adding more
innovation/depth to classes. Two colleges in the country currently have a block system, Cornell
College and Colorado College. If Puget Sound offered a block system it would be the only
university on the west coast with a block system, which would give the university a distinction.
After presenting the idea, Wellington asked the committee, “Where do we go from here? How do
we make the happen?”
Besty Kirkpatrick pointed out that a block schedule would require more intensity and it takes time
for some ideas to sink in; students often need the processing time. Although, Kirkpatrick noted,
she was intrigued by the idea. Bernhard added that we are already going way to fast in classes
and we are not limited by class time; students need to go home and digest the material. We have
three week summer classes and they can’t cover as much material as a full semester. Hulbert
agreed that the same is true for music. It would be difficult to learn music theory in a three week
block. Moore pointed out that we already have a model for the block the system, summer school,
and faculty say they can’t cover as much material.
It was also mentioned that it would be complicated to switch from the semester system to the
block system. It would be difficult to make the transition and unfair to current students. Colorado
College implemented the change in one year. It would be a dramatic change for Puget Sound to
adopt this schedule so quickly.
McCall suggested that Wellington should try to seek out faculty to support the block system.
Perhaps the idea would have more support if there were faculty members on his side.
Credit by examination policy.
Brad Tomhave raised the issue for discussion. Puget Sound allows eight total units of credit by
examination, but it needs to be cleaned up. McCall asked the committee whether the ASC should
proceed by 1) requesting a charge from the senate or 2) spending several meetings discussing
the issue and find out later that the senate isn’t interested. Barry suggested that the ASC should
identify the problem and possible solutions, then ask for a charge from the senate. The committee
agreed that ASC should be able to come to a quick consensus and send it to the senate. McCall
will forward the issue to the senate and request a formal charge, should the senate concur.
Betsy Kirkpatrick moved to adjourn the meeting.
Notes taken by Amy Odegard
Appendix
ASC Report on Common Hour Feasibility
Senate charge to the ASC: Consider the feasibility of a class schedule that would both
implement a common hour for teaching first-year seminars and allow for a “common hour” for
faculty governance and/or campus-wide events.
Summary of ASC deliberations: The full committee deliberated on the charge during portions
of the XXX and XX mtgs. Several members expressed difficulty in implementing a common hour
or hours into their dept course schedules. We agreed that the feasibility of common hours for
seminars required a much more in depth analysis, likely by the Registrar, in terms of the
availability and scheduling of class spaces. Given the perceived difficulties in scheduling even a
single common hour for campus-wide events/faculty governance, the ASC proceeded with
addressing the issue of a only common hour for events/governance. Each faculty member was
asked to consult with his/her department members and report back on the feasibility within their
department. The specific instructions were to identify: 1) the issues/problems of scheduling for a
common hour, and 2) what it would require to overcome these problems. Although not a directive
of the Senate charge to ASC, input pertaining to the desirability of a common inevitably surfaced
as well.
Departments represented by ASC members include: Exercise Science, Business, Comparative
Sociology, Biology, Communication Studies, Music, Classics, Math and Computer Science
Summary of department feedback: Generally, Exercise Science, Comparative Sociology,
Classics, Business, and,…….expressed some ability to adjust course scheduling to accommodate a
common hour, somewhat dependant upon when that hour would be designated.
1. Issues with scheduling a common among departments hour included:
• coordination and dependency of scheduling with consideration for when other
departments’ courses were scheduled if/when these courses presented potential conflicts
with course scheduling within the home department of a student’s major
o similar issues exists for avoiding conflicts in scheduling courses/labs even within a
major, esp. for science department labs
• courses are already scheduled essentially 8 am- 5 pm; inasmuch there is no available time
for a common hour
• limited or no staff support for classes and labs offered after 5 pm
•
•
only time(s) available under current schedules are considered undesirable, e.g. 8 am on
Fridays
a need to prioritize scheduling of events and/or meetings for common hour to eliminate
conflicts, e.g. between competing committees and/or events
2. What it would require to overcome perceived problems a make a common hour feasible?
• offering more courses and other scheduled events after 5 pm, with even more labs lasting
as late as 10 pm
• even better coordination of equipment already shared between labs and among courses
•
•
•
•
eliminating the number of sections offered for a course
increasing class/lab enrollment limits, which may require additional lab (and even
building) space and/or lab equipment, such as more computers or other hardware in labs
changing the schedules for other non-course specific activities, such as community music,
athletics, music ensembles
adopting a new fundamental schedule structure, e.g. more two day/wk teaching options,
MW and TTh courses, so F is open works in other places- but could we deliver our entire
curriculum in fours days?
Desirability of common hour:
• lack of value(s) for attendance of university-level meetings by some (many?) faculty in
light of their other work-related demands translates into less motivation for exploring
feasibility and/or implementing difficult scheduling constraints. Inasmuch, such faculty
would need to be convinced of the value of a common hour and there would need to be a
corresponding shift in the institutional culture.