Academic Standard Committee Meeting
Jan 18, 2011
Present: Bill Barry, James Bernhard, Tim Beyer, Debbie Chee, Duane Hulbert, Betsy
Kirkpatrick, Emily Levandowski, Ben Lewin, Marcus Luther, Gary McCall, Sarah Moore,
Amy Odegard, Lori Ricigliano, Jack Roundy, Brad Tomhave, Paula Wilson, Bianca Wolf
Organization. The meeting convened at 8:00 am in the McCormick Room of the library.
Business
Betsy Kirkpatrick made a motion to approve the minutes from the 12/07/10 ASC meeting,
and several people seconded the motion.
Petitions Report.
Brad Tomhave reported on the petitions for the Period 12/01/2010 – 01/13/2011
The Petitions Sub-Committee met on December 7, 2010; December 15, 2010; January 4,
2011; and January 13, 2011, with the following results:
8 Approved Readmission or Reinstatement
1 Denied Readmission or Reinstatement
5 Approved Re-enrollment from Medical Withdrawal
1 Denied Re-enrollment from Medical Withdrawal
1 Approved Schedule Conflict Registration
1 Denied Schedule Conflict Registration
10 Approved Medical Withdrawals
8 Approved waivers of “Last 8 Units Rule”
2 Approved waivers of the “6-Year Rule”
4 Approved waivers of Independent Study Minimum GPA Requirement
1 Approved Withdrawal with a W Grade
1 Denied Withdrawal with a W Grade
1 Approved retroactive adjustment of Withdrawal Date
44 Total Petitions
Registrar Approved: 0
Preview Team Approved: 9
Sub-Committee Approved: 31
Total Approved: 40
Sub-Committee Denied: 4
Total Petitions: 44
For the year to date, 95 petitions have been acted upon with 15 involving late registration
and 18 involving registration with a schedule conflict. (For comparison, by January 14,
2010, 121 petitions had been acted upon with 22 involving late registration and 21
involving a schedule conflict.)
Of the 95 total petitions, 16 were denied and 6 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 interest was the petition from a student asking to have a retroactive adjustment to the
withdrawal date. The student argued that he thought he had been already and
automatically withdrawn before his instructors initiated withdrawal for non-attendance.
Based on exceptional circumstances, the Committee accepted the student’s argument
and agreed to adjust the withdrawal date but to a later date than requested by the
student. Student grateful nonetheless.
Also of interest was a denied time conflict petition. The Committee and faculty
associated with the petition were concerned about the substance of the statement
resulting in wider attention to the petition. The conflict was resolved without need of a
petition and the student was subject to a semi-official meeting with the Assistant Dean of
Students and the Registrar with a satisfactory conclusion.
In addition to acting on petitions, the Sub-Committee reviewed grades for Fall 2010 and
placed the following counts of academic sanctions on undergraduate students:
29 Warning
2 Suspension
1 Suspension/Probation
46 Probation
3 Continued Probation
3 Semester Dismissal
3 Year Dismissal
87 Total
The Sub-Committee, in consultation with the Director of Graduate Studies and with the
program director for each graduate student, placed the followed sanctions on graduate
students:
3 Probation
2 Continued Probation
5 Total
The Sub-Committee deferred a decision on possible sanctions for both an undergraduate
and a graduate student pending the conclusion of Hearing Boards tentatively scheduled
for January 21, 2011.
ASC meeting times and organization. McCall asked the committee if they would like to
continue the same meeting time for the spring semester. The meeting time was changed
to Thursdays at 9am. The ASC committee will meet every other week, with the next
meeting scheduled for 9am on Thursday, Feb 3.
ASC meeting dates
2/3 in Wheelock 101
2/17 in Wheelock 201
3/3 in Wheelock 101
3/31 in Wheelock 101
4/14 in Wheelock 101
4/28 in Wheelock 101
The spring petitions subcommittee will meet Fridays at 3pm.
Amy Odegard asked if there will be a new secretary for the spring semester. There were
no volunteers, so Odegard will continue as secretary.
Policies on credit by examination. Gary McCall submitted the report on credit by exam
to the Senate (attached as an appendix). McCall reported that the Senate agreed that
the ASC should move forward with the issue. Bill Barry added that the Senate questioned
whether the word “similar” or the word “same” should be used when stating the University
will not award credit for two examinations in a similar/same subject.
Tomhave pointed out that if paragraph C is eliminated, there is no limit to the credit by
exam. It was proposed that the policy should state that a student can earn a maximum of
8 total units via credit by examination. For example, a student can’t get credit for both AP
and IB biology. McCall asked whether it would be a good idea to include an example,
such as the one stated above, in the policy. Barry suggested the wording could be
changed to, “the university will not award credit for two similar exams.” Roundy made a
motion to approve the substance of the change and allow Tomhave to fine-tune the
language. The motion was approved.
Change in the academic integrity policy to allow staff to report violations. McCall
informed the committee that the Senate has charged the ASC with making adjustments
to the policy in the academic handbook. The Senate asked whether students should also
be allow to report violations; although, the Senate minutes indicate that this was not a
large issue. Barry added that the Senate debated whether students should be able to
report, but there was not a consensus; they thought the ASC should discuss it. Emily
Levandowski, the student representative to the ASC, pointed out that an integrity code
already exists for students to report violations. It was added that students can currently
report an incident, and it is investigated, but it is a different process. Barry asked what
would happen if students want to report even if the professor doesn’t act? Should there
be a mechanism?
Sarah Moore clarified that sometimes a faculty member doesn’t actually witness a
violation, and don’t feel comfortable sanctioning an act that they didn’t witness; we want
to create an avenue for this to be reported.
McCall reviewed the proposed flow chart for dealing with reports of academic integrity
(from the 10/26/2010 ASC minutes). He also raised the question as to whether the report
should always be included in a student’s file. McCall said he would refresh everyone’s
memory and summarize the issues at the next meeting.
James Bernhard moved to adjourn the meeting.
Notes taken by Amy Odegard
Appendix: Credit-by-Examination
The University of Puget Sound does not offer examinations for the purposes of awarding
credit but does recognize certain credit-by-examination programs:
A. Advanced Placement (AP) Examinations.
B. International Baccalaureate (IB) Examinations.
C. Credit earned by examination in a subject and at an institution for which the
University would otherwise award credit as a transferable course.
The scores required and credit awarded for specific AP and IB examinations is listed
on the University’s website and may be found by searching for “Advanced Placement
Policy” or “International Baccalaureate Policy.”
Regardless of the program, 8.00 units is the maximum that will be applied to a
baccalaureate degree from a credit-by-examination program.
TWO ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION:
1. Should paragraph C be eliminated from the Credit-by-Examination Policy?
First, the Puget Sound faculty does not award credit for an examination administered
at the University of Puget Sound. Therefore, the policy to transfer credit-by-exam
credit does not conform to the general principle of, “If what a student earned credit for
there is like what a student can earn credit for here, then that credit will transfer.”
Second, while the policy is clear that Puget Sound will transfer credit earned through
an examination in a specific subject, it is not necessarily clear on a transcript that
such a method was used by the transfer institution to award their credit. For example,
in Summer 2010, a student submitted a transcript from the University of Wisconsin –
Madison that included “Test Credits” for the Spanish courses that were preparatory to
the Spanish course the student placed into and completed.
2. Assuming an interest in eliminating paragraph C, for the purpose of clarity, should the
“regardless of the program” sentence be revised?
A student may receive a maximum of 8.00 total units earned through Advanced
Placement and/or the International Baccalaureate Examinations and, for a student
who completes examinations in both programs, the University will not award credit
for two examinations in a similar subject.
First, the use of “from a credit-by-examination program” implies that a student could
receive as many as 8 units for AP results and as many as another 8 units for IB
results and that is not intended.
Second, if a student took both the AP examination in English and the IB examination
in English, there is no policy to plainly prevent a student from receiving credit for both
examinations. However, just as the Advanced Placement Policy limits AP students
who take both English examinations to receiving credit for only a single English
examination, it seems consistent for policy to limit students taking both AP and IB
examinations to receiving credit for only a single examination in the examined subject.