Minutes
Academic Standards Committee
March 8, 2012
In Attendance: Paula Wilson, Lori Ricigliano, Duane Hulbert, Landon Wade,
Amy Odegard, Maddi Werhane, Kali Odell, Brad Tomhave, Sarah Moore, Dan
Burgard, Ann Wilson, Debbie Chee
Minutes: The minutes from the February 23 meeting were approved.
Petitions Committee Report: Brad Tomhave offered the Petitions Committee
Report for the period 02/15/2012 – 02/28/2012.
The Petitions Sub-Committee held meetings on February 15 and on February
21. The meeting scheduled for February 28 was cancelled because the single
petition that was pending was taken care of by the Petition Preview
Team. During this reporting period, the Petition Preview Team met on 2
occasions. The petitions work yielded the following results:
6 Approved Late Registrations
2 Denied Schedule Conflicts
1 Approved Waiver of “Last 8 Units Rule”
1 Approved Waiver of Class Standing Restriction on Comm College Transfer
Credit
1 Denied Appeal of Transfer Credit Evaluation
11 Total Petitions
Registrar Approved:
Preview Team Approved:
Sub-Committee Approved:
Total Approved:
2
2
4
8
Sub-Committee Denied: 3
Total Petitions: 11
For the year to date, 162 petitions have been acted upon with 46 involving late
registration and 31 involving registration with a schedule conflict. For
comparison, by February 25, 2011, 125 petitions had been acted upon with 21
involving late registration and 24 involving registration with a schedule conflict.
Of the 162 total petitions to date, 126 have been approved and 36 have been
denied.
Of particular interest was the denied transfer credit petition as the pertinent
issue concerned transferring credit for a course of two weeks
duration. Although the Sub-Committee did not take issue with the content and
contact hours of the transfer course, there was considerable discussion
concerning the amount of time necessary to present material, the additional
time students need to work with that material, and the question of whether the
minimum duration might also be related to the content or academic discipline of
the course.
Course Duration and Credit: Paula Wilson reported on the course duration
and credit discussion by an ad-hoc committee organized by Associate Dean Lisa
Ferrari with representation from ASC, IEC and the curriculum committees. The
discussion centered around the minimum class time required for one unit. She
will report back to ASC as soon as the ad-hoc committee has decided on what it
will recommend to the Faculty Senate regarding course duration.
Discussion on 1.0 GPA limit for freshman continuation: A discussion
ensued on the need to establish a 1.0 minimum GPA for freshman for
continuation past the first semester. Dan Burgard asked if statistics were
compiled for students with GPAs between 1.0-1.99 for the first semester.
Debbie Chee asked if there was a similar pattern for transfer students with 1.0
or less GPA, compared to freshman. Sarah Moore said yes, the patterns were
similar. The committee agreed that such a standard should be approved. Paula
Wilson said she would draft the language to begin the process of changing the
policy, thereby dismissing first semester students with less than a 1.0 GPA. Dan
Burgard asked if there was a concern over students with low GPAs withdrawing
from classes. (e.g. from 4 units down to 3). Brad Tomhave said there was
currently no provision for dismissal in the handbook, as related to quality
points. Sarah Moore said there is minimum threshold for continuation past the
first semester in quality points. She said if a student is dismissed after the
second semester, they have a better success rate if they make a “clean” return
in the fall of the following year. Also, readmitted students would follow the
guidelines for those on probation. Sarah Moore asked the committee if there
were other places these new guidelines should be published.
Discussion on guidelines for academic probation: Brad Tomhave said the
current policy was if a student’s term GPA was under the threshold of 2.0, the
student could still avoid probation if the cumulative total was more than 2.0.
Thus, a student with one “bad” semester could still succeed. Dan Burgard
suggested including language in the academic dismissal section of the handbook
to reflect this change. Brad Tomhave suggested a change in the policy on
probation with respect to the new GPA standard. He said he would draft the
changes on this policy and include them in the student handbook. Dan Burgard
asked if students should be disallowed to continue after two semesters of
suspension. Brad Tomhave responded yes, but if students are in the “gap”
between 1.0- 2.0, they can often escape attention. Under the current policy, the
only way a student could be dismissed is if they followed a 1.0 and a 1.5
semester with another 1.0 semester. Sarah Moore said many faculty members
were unaware of this probation and dismissal policy. She asked how this “gap”
could be closed. In reply, Brad Tomhave suggested placing all students under a
cumulative 2.0 GPA on warning. Dan Burgard asked how this policy would affect
for students with one good semester followed by several semesters of poor
performance. Sarah Moore asked whether these students ultimately graduate,
and if so, is it worth interrupting this behavior? Currently, the transcript
suggests a student could have all “F”s for a semester, and still continue. Brad
Tomhave will draft language to change the probation policy and present it at the
next ASC meeting.
The committee was adjourned at 9:00 AM.
Minutes submitted by Duane Hulbert