Year-End Report of 2010-11 Academic Standards Committee
The members of the 2010-11 Academic Standards Committee were: James Bernhard, Tim
Beyer, Debbie Chee, Kenneth Clark, Duane Hurlbert, Robin Jacobson, Betsy Kirkpatrick,
Benjamin Lewin, Emily A Levandowski (student), Martins Linauts, Marcus Luther (student),
Gary McCall (chair), Sarah Moore, Kali Odell (student, spring), Amy Odegard, Lori Ricigliano,
Jack Roundy, Brad Tomhave, Paula Wilson, and Bianca Wolf
During the course of the 2010-11 academic year, the ASC met every other week during the
semester with the Petitions sub-committee meeting every week as needed.
2010-11 ASC Charges from Senate:
1) Continue developing means of implementing the new honor code.
2) Continue exploring on-line study and note-sharing websites.
3) Review courses pre-approved for Foreign Language Requirement Substitution (annual
charge).
4) 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.
5) Explore mechanisms by which a staff member can report an incidence of academic
dishonesty
6) Revise the policy on awarding academic credit from accepted credit-by-examination
programs
Petitions Report (final report will be provided by Registrar)
Summary of Academic Violations and Hearing Boards Convened May 1, 2010 to April 31, 2011.
1.
One student who forged a diploma – referred to Dean of Students to their conduct
system.
2. One student alumni’s mother requested that a notation on the student’s transcript
be removed. Case re-reviewed by Dean Bartanen and initial sanctions were upheld.
3. Two cases of second violations of academic dishonesty reports were heard by
hearing boards
1
4.
One case of second plagiarism was not heard by board as student was dismissed
from graduate program. If the graduate program were to reconsider their decision
at a later date, a hearing board will be convened to review the evidence.
Charge: Implementing the honor code
As a result of work done prior to this academic year by a variety of campus sources, several
initiatives were recently implemented that strive to facilitate academic conduct and student
integrity. One example is the academic integrity tutorial now completed by the incoming
freshman class before arriving on campus as part of the “welcome website”. The ASC also
discussed a number of other potential initiatives, many of which involve further advocacy or
educational components directed at faculty and/or students. Examples include developing
discussion seminars for the dorm resident assistants to lead, encouraging faculty to incorporate
integrity statements in their syllabi, having students sign standardized integrity statements on
every exam, and incorporating elements of the honor code and principles as part of
Prelude/orientation. There was a general agreement that merely inventing more rules,
procedures, and “checklists” for the faculty and/or staff to enforce was likely to be ineffective in
advancing student integrity, and that the ultimate goal was to foster student ownership of the
honor code among the student body. The ACC acknowledged that lasting shifts in the
institutional culture may take several years to fully develop. The ASC did not progress beyond
initial discussions and no policy actions were suggested or taken on this issue. The ASC requests
a Senate charge to continue the discussion and development of effective and innovative
means to foster the implementation of the Honor Code.
Charge: On-line study and note-sharing websites
In 2009-10, the ASC engaged in some initial discussions about the student use of websites
devoted to note (and exam) sharing and other on-line study resources. The ASC held a discussion
this year and generally agreed in the futility of developing formal academic policies that aim to
limit or prevent students from using such internet sites. Moreover, the student members’
impression was that Puget Sound students don’t make much use of these websites. The ASC
should remain current and informed as to the existence and students’ uses of information
technology from resources external to the university, and weigh whether future policy actions are
warranted to maintain our academic standards.
The committee agreed that the best way to minimize students’ reliance and inappropriate use
of such websites is to render these websites irrelevant by the instructor’s careful consideration
and planning in their course design. For example, care can be taken to make the classroom
2
experience an indispensible element of the course (and hence foster attendance). In addition, the
ASC felt that the faculty could become better educated as to the existence of these types of
websites and how copyright laws protect their course materials from third party redistribution. To
assist faculty in these areas, training seminars such as the Wed at 4 series in CWLT and/or during
new faculty orientation could be targeted to help disseminate this information. These discussions
did not result in a plan of action on these matters. The ASC requests a Senate charge to
continue its discussions to develop a course of action(s) that facilitates faculty education and
provides practical guidelines and suggestions for course procedures to minimize the utility
of note-sharing and similar websites.
Charge: Courses for foreign language substitution.
The ASC added REL 233 Japanese Religious Traditions to the list of preapproved courses as
well as corrected the course number for REL 222 Jihad and Islam. Major questions were raised
surrounding this whole substitution policy in light of the lack of approved substitution courses
being offered in 2011-12 due to budget and other staffing constraints. Inasmuch, qualified
students seeking approval of course substitutes for this requirement are essentially left scrambling
to propose suitable courses. A fundamental underlying issue is the sentiment that the faculty have
never articulated their rationale(s) or value(s) of including a foreign language requirement for
graduation. Inasmuch, how could either the ASC reasonably determine, or a student propose,
courses that constitutes an acceptable substitute for a foreign language? The ASC requests that
the Senate charge the Curriculum Committee with defining the rationale for the foreign
language requirement, and to clearly articulate why this requirement is valued. With these
guiding principles from the Curriculum Committee, the ASC can better work to develop a
more feasible process for identifying suitable substitute courses allowing students with
learning disabilities to fulfill this requirement.
Charge: Feasibility of common hour
The ASC addressed the feasibility of implementing protected common hours into the
academic calendar to facilitate a meeting time for campus wide governance, such as faculty
meetings, as well as special events, such as guest speakers or performances. To a lesser extent,
the committee also discussed the feasibility of scheduling the freshman writing seminars during
common blocks of time. ASC members consulted with their individual departments to identify
the feasibility, and the potential roadblocks and costs involved. The ASC report to the Senate of
3
its findings and deliberations is included as Appendix A. In short, the feasibility of implementing
a common hour under the current scheduling system was judged to be limited.
Charge: Staff reporting violations of academic integrity
This issue of whether staff have the authority to report suspected academic violations was
prompted by a particularly egregious event; a student presented a forged Puget Sound diploma to
the registrar. In spite of probable legal ramifications, no clear mechanism existed in our policies
on academic violations to address this rather unambiguous and serious violation of academic
integrity. The full committee had lengthy discussions about how suspected violations of
academic principles could be adjudicated when directly observed by staff members, but not
faculty. Other situations emerged during deliberations such as students cheating on exams
proctored by staff in the Center for Learning Writing and Teaching, however, the course
instructor being unwilling to pursue academic sanctions. Another notable example is an act of
plagiarism or other academic misconduct witnessed or discovered by library staff. The ASC
debated at length whether the expansion of the academic policy to allow for staff to report
violations of academic policies was a good solution, and what procedures would be required to
ensure a thorough and fair process. Certain ideas were rather well-developed and a subcommittee was formed with the intent of drafting more specific language and procedures. Due to
a number of concerns, the sub-committee began considering the possibility that the existing
policies and procedures for reporting violations of the student integrity code in effect already
granted staff the ability to report academic violations. However, the adjudication of an academic
violation determined by the Dean of Students office was less clear, especially in terms of how an
academic violation that arose as a result of reporting a student integrity violation would be
communicated with the Registrar and Associate Dean’s offices. It stands to reason we need
consistency with our current academic policies, academic violations, however they are reported
and arise to our attention. Notably, the suspected violation requires investigation, and verified
violations need to be properly documented and accounted for in the event of a future academic
violation. Since a policy for staff reporting academic violations could be routed through the
student integrity policies within the Student Affairs domain, the ASC determined that further
study is required to develop a well-crafted process. It is also noteworthy that the entire student
integrity code is presently under review and revision. The ASC requests the Senate charges the
2011-12 ASC with further exploration of establishing a policy and procedure for staff to
report violations of academic integrity. In addition, the adjudication and ramifications of a
violation should be clear, as well as consistent with existing policies for academic violations.
4
Charge: Credit by Examination Policies
The ASC approved some relatively minor changes in the policies for the transfer of “credit by
examination”, effectively eliminating the transfer of such course credits awarded at other
institutions. This makes the transfer policy consistent with campus policies, in which credit by
examination is not awarded. In addition, we clarified the language of the policies pertaining to the
number and types of credits that could be earned by examination in tests, such as Advanced
Placement exams and their equivalent.
New Issue: Criteria for graduating with Honors
The ACS heard from a faculty member who expressed their concern over the existing criteria
for eligibility for university honors designation upon graduation. The sole criteria at present is
based upon the student’s cumulative GPA. Inasmuch, a student who was punished after
committing a serious violation of academic integrity in research conduct (that was not courserelated) remains eligible to graduate with honors. A faculty-initiated petition to deny honors to a
student who committed this type of violation failed on the grounds that the honors policy does not
consider any other criteria than the cumulative GPA. After some initial discussions, the ASC
unanimously felt the present GPA-only based criteria for honor designation is inconsistent with
the academic standards of the university, especially in light of the evolving emphasis on the honor
code and other elements of student conduct and integrity. The ASC requests the Senate charge
the 2011-12 ASC with further exploring the desired criteria for graduating with university
honors and revising the policies and procedures to be consistent with any revisions in the
criteria.
New Issue: Expanding the course attendance policy to include elements of course participation
A faculty member approached members of the ASC to propose the attendance policy be
expanded to allow a faculty to withdraw a student who is not participating in the course. (See
Appendix B) “Participation” may have broader connotations that include, such as showing no
interest in completing any of the course assignments, readings, or engaging in discussions, to the
extent that the student’s behavior is disruptive to the course and/or the student has no, or limited,
chance of successfully completing the course. The ASC discussed this proposal at some length,
with members somewhat divided as to whether expanding the attendance policy in this regard
5
was a good idea, or if it had the potential to present problems related to misinterpretation,
enforcement, or abuse by faculty. The ASC requests the Senate charge the 2011-12 ASC with
further exploration of the costs/benefits of expanding the attendance policy to include
elements of course non-participation and to clearly address how any specific
recommendations for changes in these policies minimize the potential for misuse of a
revised policy’s intent.
Ongoing Issue: Incomplete policy
The ASC feels that the existing policy remains problematic and is not in the best interest of
its students for the reasons articulated in the prior year’s reports to the Senate, as well as
communications and data provided to the Senate this year (see Appendix C). Moreover, the
existing policy is on the lenient end of the policy spectrum relative to peer institutions and
contrary to our pursuit of higher academic standards. The ASC requests the Senate charge the
2011-12 ASC with a careful review of the policy and to present data that indicates our
policy is ineffective and not in the best interests of our students and the pursuit of higher
academic standards.
Reflections on the role of the ASC in faculty governance and on Senate-ASC relations
The events that unfolded during the fall 2010 concerning the 2009-10 ASC’s actions on the
Incomplete policy seemed to be a turning point procedurally that has left the ASC in a bit of a
conundrum as to how it is expected to operate. The confusion does not lie in the expectations for
addressing the annual charges from the Senate, but rather in other issues that are brought to the
committee’s attention. Historically (at least in terms of the more recent history experienced by
those serving on the ASC over the past 5-10 years), the ASC has been the governance body that
considered issues as they arose and in which it appeared as though certain existing academic
policies might be insufficient in some way. Upon being made aware of such issues, the ASC
would study, discuss, and deliberate on approaches for solutions. After careful consideration, and
when deemed appropriate, the ASC might revise an academic policy in an attempt to address the
issue by improving or clarifying the policy in the best interest of the students, faculty, and staff
(e.g. the credit-by-examination issue). Moreover, the members of the faculty have “learned” to
bring their concerns over academic policies to the attention of the ASC, and may even offer
proposals for the ASC to consider (e.g. the concerns over the honors criteria and the nonparticipation proposal). In the past, these faculty-initiated concerns and proposals may, or may
not, have resulted in an ASC revision to policies.
6
As a consequence of the controversies and events surrounding the Incomplete policy (an
academic policy which remains problematic) a shadow was cast over the ASC that initially
soured the mood and served to paralyze the will of its members. Many ASC members expressed
confusion over what decision making role and actions were expected of the ASC by the Senate. A
reasonable interpretation of the Faculty Bylaws is that the above historical courses of action are
entirely consistent with the defined duties of the ASC. Moreover, the clear implications were that
the ASC’s motives and judgment in passing revisions to the Incomplete policy were questioned
by a minority of more vocal faculty, and perhaps eventually the students (via ASUPS
representatives). Due to a concerted effort by both Senate and ASC members (notably, Senate
Chair Steven Neshyba, Keith Ward, Bill Barry, Sarah Moore, Jack Roundy, Brad Tomhave,
Debbie Chee, among others) who recognized these developing tensions, a number of informal
exchanges occurred that I believe facilitated an improved interaction and morale between the
Senate and members of the ASC. The Senators that initiated these interactions should be
commended for their leadership, foresight, and good will. As a result, the mood of the ASC
improved, but still remained flat. As the academic year progressed, I would characterize the
mood as improving in the direction of cautious and apprehensive (I can at least speak for myself
as chair) in using the committee’s time to deliberate on issues that, while deemed important, were
not formal charges from the Senate.
For the ASC to function more efficiently and as a productive extension of the Senate, clarity
is sought regarding the Senate’s expectation for how the ASC should proceed with respect to
issues that arise outside the realm of its formal charges.
Clarity in the following would be insightful:
1. Should the ASC be more of an “issue framing” conduit for the Senate and less
“problem solving” when addressing novel issues brought to the committee’s attention?
2. Should the ASC redirect faculty to the Senate to express their concerns over academic
policies of a perceived problem and/or to propose a solution?
3. Should the ASC pass any changes in academic policies which are not directly
connected to a formal charge?
Respectfully submitted,
Gary McCall, Chair Academic Standards Committee, 2010-11
7
Appendix A:
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 10/26/10, 11/9/10 and 12/7/10 meetings. 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 classroom 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 having only a 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: Exercise Science, Business, Comparative
Sociology, Biology, Communication Studies, Music, Classics, Math and Computer Science,
Chemistry, Occupational Therapy, and Psychology.
Summary of department feedback: Generally, several departments expressed some ability to
adjust course scheduling to accommodate a common hour, somewhat dependant upon when that
hour would be designated. All represented departments expressed, to varying degrees, that
significant challenges exist in order to set aside a common hour within the confines of current
scheduling guidelines and/or existing campus facilities. There was a general consensus that such
significant hurdles exist in implementing a common hour under our current scheduling guidelines
that the university would need to undertake a comprehensive analysis to consider alternative
scheduling models that allow for a common hour while meeting the needs of every department’s
academic and co-curricular programs. In addressing the issue of feasibility, feedback from
departments also included views on the desirability of a common hour, particularly with concern
to whether or not the current campus ethos reflects a value for participation in governance and
campus-wide interactions. Inasmuch, some ideas below are aimed to foster a culture of greater
faculty interaction, participation in governance, and attendance of events should the campus
implement scheduling guidelines that allow for a common hour.
1. Issues with scheduling a common hour among departments 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 from 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
8



a need to prioritize scheduling of events and/or meetings for common hour to eliminate
conflicts, e.g. between competing committees and/or events
an apparent lack of value and/or motivation for attending university-level meetings and
events in light of other demands
graduate clinical programs in OT/PT may have additional constraints, such as the already
fulltime use of clinical labs and patients facilities, that would preclude the ability to block
off time(s) in which these courses and clinics could not be scheduled
2. What it would require to overcome perceived problems and 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
 more fully-electronic equipped classrooms
 changing the schedules for other non-course specific activities, such as community
music, athletics, music ensembles
 adopting a new fundamental schedule structure, e.g. a student proposal was made for a
block course schedule. Another idea was to have more two day/wk teaching options, e.g.
MW and TTh courses- leaving F open works on other campuses. But, could we deliver
our entire curriculum in fours days?
 creating a culture that encourages attendance and participation in university
business/governance, perhaps by increasing the role and type of participation expected of
faculty at university-level meetings.
 more compelling content at university-wide gatherings or committee meetings; the
common hour has to be “worth it.”
 allow for a “semi-protected” common hour in which courses taught by visiting faculty
could still be scheduled
 allow faculty to teach during a scheduled common hour only once per academic year to
promote the implementation of a common hour while balancing with some unavoidable
scheduling constraints in specific departments
Summary of desirability of common hour: While its clear that many faculty and departments
support the idea of a common hour, it seems that many other constraints on time and/or facilities
put a strain on the enthusiasm for overcoming these obstacles, and hence the judgment as to the
feasibility is diminished. Inasmuch, it would be insightful to further explore whether some
departments and/or faculty members place less value on participating in faculty governance
and/or attending campus-wide events and why. Some ASC members feel that 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 to overcome the perceived barriers to implementing a common
hour.
In short, there are major obstacles to instituting a common hour and efforts to do so seem
unrealistic at this time. Establishing a “voluntary/semi-protected” common hour may be more
practical and make more sense as a first step. Further, if the desirability of a common hour is to
facilitate participation in faculty governance, particularly attendance at faculty meetings, then,
based on departmental feedback, the value of such participation needs to be more clearly
articulated and promoted among faculty.
9
Appendix B:
Documents and Correspondence Regarding Non-Participation in a Course
Email from Jack Roundy to Gary McCall on 3/8/11
I spent 20 minutes on the phone with Bill Breitenbach this morning discussing
his views of our proposed action (I thought it a kindness to vet anything called
the “Breitenbach Supplement” with its namesake). Bill’s points were these:




He’s not sure he likes “participation” to describe what he’s after,
though when I suggested that the choice of “participation” was made to
create a large enough vessel to carry the various forms of nonfeasance,
he understood—but then he said, “Why not use the word ‘nonfeasance’?”
His principal reason for wanting a new tool in his toolbox was to save
non-productive students from the consequences of their inaction. What
he has in mind is the ability to drop a non-performing student before the
6-week deadline so the student does not have to eat a WF when the
grade outcome of the course will quite likely be to fail.
He was sympathetic to my concern about creating a tool that could be
used by a temperamentally-challenged instructor to get rid of a student
who was annoying but not otherwise failing to participate in a
course. The “window of opportunity” that was of greatest interest to him
for the “mercy drop” was between the end of the “drop without record”
period and the end of the “automatic W” period, since he feels one
usually knows who is not performing a couple of weeks into term, and
after the sixth week, the automatic WF takes “mercy” out of the
equation. But he suggested that setting a two-week grace period at the
beginning of term and leaving the drop option open for the balance of
term would be fine, anyway.
He is happy we are working on this issue, but has a plan for future
instances that he will implement and feels good about. He intends to
send a very clear message to non-performing students as the end of the
“automatic W” period approaches telling them that they are not passing
and that he recommends their dropping to secure the W. Should they
fail to heed him, he will at least have offered them a graceful exit, and
they are then responsible for the consequences of their decision.
Gary, my calendar does not now show when our next ASC meeting will take
place. Can you remind me of date, place and time?
Thanks.
Jack
Jack Roundy, PhD
10
Director of Academic Advising
University of Puget Sound
Howarth Hall 114
1500 North Warner
Tacoma, WA 98416-1074
Phone: 253.879.3651
Fax: 253.879.3478
The following is a draft by Brad Tomhave as to how the Attendance Policy might be revised:
Registration and Attendance/Participation
Non-Attendance
As described in the “Preregistration” section above, if a student fails to attend the first class
session or to notify the instructor in advance of a first-day absence, the instructor may ask
the Registrar to drop the student form the course, thereby freeing a place for another
student.
Regular class attendance is expected of all students. Absence from class for any
reason does not excuse the student from completing all course assignments and
requirements.
An instructor who notes a significant pattern of absence on the part of a student
should submit a Student Alert to the Office of Academic Advising, who will contact and
inform the student of the instructor’s concerns. When non-attendance is in the instructor’s
judgment excessive, the instructor may levy a grade penalty or may direct the Registrar to
drop the student form the course. If a student is dropped for non-attendance after the sixth
week of class, a WF grade is automatically assigned.
Moreover, when non-attendance is excessive, as described in the preceding
paragraph, in all of a student’s academic courses, the student is considered to have
voluntarily withdrawn from the University. The Registrar will then officially drop the
student from all registered courses and will so inform the student. Once dropped from all
courses, the student is required to leave campus. If a student is dropped from all registered
courses after the sixth week of class, a WF grade is automatically assigned.
Non-Attendance/Non-Participation (DRAFT)
As described in the “Preregistration” section above, if a student fails to attend the first class
session or to notify the instructor in advance of a first-day absence, the instructor may ask
the Registrar to drop the student form the course, thereby freeing a place for another
student.
Regular class attendance and participation is are expected of all students. Absence
from class for any reason does not excuse the student from completing all course
assignments and requirements.
An instructor who notes a significant pattern of absence or a significant failure to
submit assignments on the part of a student should submit a Student Alert to the Office of
Academic Advising, who will contact and inform the student of the instructor’s concerns.
When If, after the Student Alert, a student’s continued absence or a student’s continued
failure to submit an assignment non-attendance is, in the instructor’s judgment, excessive,
the instructor may levy a severe grade penalty or may direct the Registrar to drop the
11
student fromorm the course. If a student is dropped for non-attendance or nonparticipation after the sixth week of class, a WF grade is automatically assigned.
Moreover, when non-attendance, or non-participation is excessive, as described in
the preceding paragraph, in all of a student’s academic courses, the student is considered to
have voluntarily withdrawn from the University. The Registrar will then officially drop the
student from all registered courses and will so inform the student. Once dropped from all
courses, the student is required to leave campus. If a student is dropped from all registered
courses after the sixth week of class, a WF grade is automatically assigned.
12
Appendix C:
Documents pertaining to policy on incomplete grades
ASC comments on Incomplete Policy
At the Sept 13 Senate meeting, a senator expressed concerns over the Incomplete Policy the
ASC passed in 2009-10, which moves the deadline for completing and submitting
Incomplete grades to early in the semester that follows the Incomplete. These concerns and
others were addressed further at the Oct 11, 2010 Senate meeting.
The concerns over the new Incomplete policy were:
1) adds a faculty burden during an already busy first week of classes because this
incomplete coursework must be graded, etc.
2) makes (unfair) assumptions about students that request an Incomplete and the
quality of the student’s work. Also, there is less time for a student finish work for a
Fall Incomplete (4-5 wks) than a Spring Incomplete (3 months), this means an
inherent element of unfairness is built into the policy.
3) assumes that students procrastinate completing the Incomplete with a deadline
that is ~6 weeks into the semester (referring to the former policy)
Accompanying data provided by the Registrar examined the past five years of Incomplete
vs. “on time” grades were used to address these concerns and support the following
assertions.
1) Of the approximate 10,000 grades assigned each semester, only 1% are initially
designated as Incomplete. The ASC recognized instances can occur in which a
faculty member feels an additional burden to grade materials and submit the final
grade during the first two weeks of classes of the ensuing semester. Thus, the new
policy was expanded to allow a faculty member to initiate a petition to extend the
deadline for an Incomplete.
2) While assumptions about the quality of a student’s academic work was not a
driving force behind the policy change, the data support that student’s who request
Incompletes perform lower academically based on overall GPA. Students granted
Incompletes have a mean GPA of 2.2 as compared to 3.2 for students completing
courses on time. Not surprisingly, grades awarded for Incompletes are
disproportionately D and F grades (26% of grades are below a C-) whereas only
2.6% of grades are below a C- in students who complete courses on time.
With regard to the imbalance of time available to complete a Spring vs. Fall
Incomplete grade, the data support that students score below a C- more often (30
vs 23%) when the ensuing grade is completed in the Fall semester. Moreover, the
incidence of F grades is generally HIGHER with MORE time, i.e. Fall Incompletes are
less likely to get a F grade than are Spring Incompletes. Thus, students performed
worse, not better, when they had the summer months available to finish an
Incomplete.
3) The data from Spring 2010 Incomplete grades shows that of the 57 Incompletes
awarded, 22 had completed their courses as of 9/13/10 (and thus within the
deadline of the new policy) and no grades were below a C-. The data from past
semesters strongly suggests that students who have yet to complete their
Incomplete from Spring will disproportionately receive D and F grades. Thus, it
13
seems that the “better” students get the work done earlier (and are not penalized
by the new policy) whereas the potentially poorer student takes longer to finish the
Incomplete; whether this is due to procrastination or other life challenges, can’t be
discerned by the data. We also can’t say for sure the students likely to receive
lower grades under the old (existing) policy will score higher with the new policy,
but one might speculate they could have more time to focus on the current
semesters courses, and are therefore well-served by this intent of the new policy.
Summary and a word on the background for the policy change.
The fundamental motivating factor to revise the policy was that it did not serve
the academic interests of our students to have a deadline that extended so far into
an ensuing semester. This supposition was based on numerous historical
observations by the Academic Advising office that students seemed to struggle
academically while carrying the additional load of the coursework from a prior
semester’s Incomplete(s). The data provided support this supposition. These are
poorer than average students, based on GPA, and they more likely to receive a
grade below a C-, and especially F, in courses assigned as Incomplete. Limited data
from Spring 2010 indicate that students completing their work earlier in the
ensuing semester will perform better, and support the argument that giving poorer
students more time (and thus carrying a residual load) will likely be academically
counterproductive. Inasmuch, the new policy does not penalize the better student
and intends to better serve the interest of the struggling student.
In terms of the earlier deadline becoming a burden to faculty, the new policy
allows for a faculty member to petition for an extension to the deadline in the event
an unforeseen burden on their time is imposed. Allowing the faculty to request an
extension also addresses other concerns raised in the ASC’s deliberations on the
policy change. These concerns related to the student’s potential inability to
complete the work and/or request the extension themselves due the original
problem lingering, especially in the case of the shorter break between Fall and
Spring semesters. The Registrar and Academic Advising offices both have offered
“safety net” procedures that could be implemented in terms of notifications to
students, faculty, and faculty advisors that a deadline was approaching for
submitting the incomplete coursework with the intent of allowing adequate time to
request extensions if necessary.
The ASC also considered our Incomplete policy relative to selected peer
institutions. Generally, our prior policy with a deadline at mid-semester, was the
most lenient. The higher the academic reputation of a school, the more likely the
deadline for submitting Incomplete work would occur prior to (Reed, Whitman in
some instances) or early in the ensuing semester (Lewis and Clark, Willamette). In
this respect, our new policy is consistent with a more rigorous academic standard,
a stated desire of Puget Sound and a specific interest of the ASC.
14