Minutes
Academic Standards Committee
January 26, 2012
In Attendance: Paula Wilson, Ann Wilson, Lori Ricigliano, Dan Burgard, Duane Hulbert, Debbie Chee,
Kali Odell, Maddi Werhane, Landon Wade, Brad Tomhave, Sarah Moore, and Ellen Peters
Minutes: Approval of the December 5, 2011 minutes were adjusted and approved. As described below,
the language passed at the December 5, 2011 meeting on the topic of “Staff Reporting of Violations of
Academic Integrity” was again revised at this January 26, 2012 meeting. A note to this effect was
inserted in the 12/5/11 meeting minutes, and the final revised language is included in these minutes.
Petitions Committee Report: Brad Tomhave offered the Petitions Committee Report for the period
11/29/2011 – 01/13/2012
The Petitions Sub-Committee held meetings on December 12, December 21, January 4, and January
13. During this time, the Petitions Preview Team also met on 4 occasions. The petitions work yielded
the following results:
7
6
3
3
9
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
3
1
1
43
Approved Readmissions or Reinstatements
Denied Readmissions or Reinstatements
Approved Re-enrollments from a Medical Withdrawal
Approved Registrations with a Schedule Conflict
Approved Medical Withdrawals
Denied Medical Withdrawal
Approved Waivers of the “Last 8 Units” Requirement
Approved Course Repeat for Second Time
Approved Waiver of 6-Year Rule
Approved Waivers of Minimum GPA Required for Independent Study
Approved Waivers to take Regular Course as Independent Study
Denied Withdrawal after Last Day of Class
Approved Withdrawals with a W Grade
Denied Withdrawal with a W Grade
Denied Appeal of Transfer Credit Evaluation
Total Petitions
Registrar Approved:
Preview Team Approved:
Sub-Committee Approved:
Total Approved:
03
11
19
33
Sub-Committee Denied: 10
Total Petitions: 43
For the year to date 95 petitions have been acted upon with 8 involving late registration and 23
involving registration with a schedule conflict. (For comparison, by January 13, 2011, 95 petitions had
been acted upon with 15 involving late registration and 18 involving registration with a schedule
conflict.)
Of the 95 total petitions to date, 73 have been approved and 22 have been denied.
The Petitions Sub-Committee also placed 108 academic sanctions on undergraduate students based on
their fall grades:
34
12
2
42
6
0
11
Warning
Suspension
Suspension/Probation
Probation
Continued Probation
Semester Dismissal
Year Dismissal
The Petitions Sub-Committee placed 4 academic sanctions on graduate students:
2 Probation
2 Continued Probation
The Petitions Sub-Committee for the spring semester will meet Tuesdays at 11:00 and consists of: James
Bernhard, Tim Beyer, Debbie Chee, Greg Elliott, Robin Jacobson, Ben Lewin, Sarah Moore, Amy Odegard,
Kali Odell, Brad Tomhave, Madeleine Werhane, and Bianca Wolf
The Sub-Committee held its first meeting on January 24 and the results of that meeting will be reported
at the next Academic Standards Committee meeting.
Integrity Code Implementation Committee
The subcommittee recommends surveying students to learn how they know about academic integrity.
The short survey will be included in the campus-wide Spring Survey, administered by the office of
Institutional Research.. Members of the subcommittee are Debbie Chee, Lori Ricigliano, and Ann Wilson.
Dismissal Policy for New Students
Prompted by work of the Retention Taskforce, Sarah Moore and Debbie Chee asked the ASC to consider
developing a policy that would dismiss new students after the first semester if the GPA is under a
designated limit. Our current policy allows new students to continue to the second semester no matter
their GPA. For example, under current policy, if a new student fails all of his or her classes, this student is
allowed to continue the next term. A great deal of faculty and staff time is spent trying to support these
students over the year, and the RTF has asked whether this effort ultimately serves such students and is
a good use of university resources – resources that might be better directed toward students who are in
a better position to benefit from additional attention and support. The RTF has asked if it would be
better to change the policy so that students with extremely deficient fall grades are dismissed after the
first term (with the possibility to petition to allow for exceptions, as warranted).
As we are in the early stages of considering such a policy change, we asked Ellen Peters, Director of
Institutional Research, to present data to the ASC to illustrate the issue. Ellen distributed a chart that
plots first term (fall) gpa against second term (spring) gpa as a means of gauging whether or not
students with low fall gpa are able to improve the following term.
Using data from 3341 students accumulated during a 5-year period, the data show that students with a
fall gpa under 1.0 rarely earn greater than a greater than 2.0 the next semester. In the rare instances
where students did earn > 2.0 (only 3 of 41), further examination revealed that these students
ultimately left the university or were dismissed. To explain in greater detail, this chart is comprised of
five years of data and accounts for 3,341 students. Ellen used a gpa increment of 0.50 to divide the
students and has she grouped the students on Leave of Absence (LOA) and withdrawals together (in
purple). The chart can be viewed in four quadrants and Ellen has color coded the quadrants. Blue
designates the students who earned above a 2.00 in the fall term and the spring term. Green designates
the students who earn below a 2.00 in the fall term, but above a 2.00 in the spring term (or took a LOA,
withdrew, or did not return). Red designates the students who earned above a 2.00 in the fall term, but
earned below a 2.00 in the spring term. Finally, black designates the students who earned less than a
2.00 in both fall and spring terms.
The ASC just began to digest the chart to understand the issue when the conversation was tabled to
discuss the December 5 minutes. Further discussion is needed so as to more carefully consider any gpa
threshold that might be linked to a first-semester dismissal policy. Attached is the chart provided by
Ellen.
December 5 Minutes
Discussion occurred about the language ASC passed at the December 5th meeting as related to the topic
of Staff Reporting of Violations of Academic Integrity. Bill Barry offered an edit to the last sentence of
the paragraph. In particular, Bill was concerned the sentence was too prescriptive and the phrase
“among other actions” was too vague about the degree of discretion given to the Associate Dean.
Throughout the discussion, new language was developed (see below) to give the Associate Dean
discretion to determine if a violation of Academic Integrity occurred. If so, he or she will file a report.
Response to Violations of Academic Integrity
(The new language, passed on December 5, 2011, is italicized with the deleted sentence
stricken. The revised new language developed in the meeting on January 26 is in bold.)
If a faculty member has reason to suspect a violation of academic integrity, the following actions
are taken:
A. The faculty member may consult with the department chair, program director, or the
Registrar regarding his or her suspicion of a violation. The faculty member may also consult with
a library liaison for assistance.
B. The faculty member notifies the student that she or he suspects a violation of academic
integrity and that an appropriate response will be made.
C. If a staff member has reason to suspect a violation of academic integrity, the staff member
will report his or her concern in writing to an Associate Academic Dean not otherwise involved
with the appeals or hearing board process. If the incident took place in the context of a course,
the Associate Academic Dean will bring the incident to the attention of the instructor. If the
instructor does not elect to pursue the matter further because he or she did not witness or
discover the incident, or if the incident occurred outside of a course, then the Associate Academic
Dean may substitute for the faculty member in responding to violations of academic integrity. In
this role, the Associate Academic dean will, among other actions, submit an Academic Integrity
Incident Report and request that a Hearing Board be convened to impose sanctions. If the
Associate Dean determines that a violation of academic integrity has or may have occurred, he
or she will submit to the Registrar an Academic Integrity Incident Report and will request that
a Hearing Board be convened to investigate and possibly impose sanctions if appropriate.
Ann Wilson motioned to replace the last sentence and approve the language; Dan Burgard seconded;
unanimously passed.
Paula Wilson motioned to approve the December 5 minutes as adjusted; Duane Hulbert seconded;
unanimously passed.
The meeting adjourned at 9:15am.
Submitted by Debbie Chee