AttachmentD
Academic Standards Committee
Final Report
AY 2011-2012
The members of the 2010-11 Academic Standards Committee were: James Bernhard (spring),
Tim Beyer, Debbie Chee, Greg Elliott, Duane Hulbert, Robin Jacobsen, Benjamin Lewin, Gary
McCall (fall), Sarah Moore, Kali Odell (student), Amy Odegard, Lori Ricigliano, Brad Tomhave,
Landon Wade, Madeleine Werhane (student), Ann Wilson (co-chair), Paula Wilson (co-chair),
and Bianca Wolf. Bill Barry was the Faculty Senate Liaison to the ASC.
The ASC met every other week during the 2011-2012 academic year with the Petitions Subcommittee meeting every week as needed.
2011-12 ASC Charges from Senate:
1. The ASC will explore the desired criteria for graduating with university honors and
revise the policies and procedures to be consistent with any revisions in the criteria.
2. The ASC will continue the discussion and development of effective and innovative
means to foster the implementation of the Honor Code. As a subset of this charge, the
ASC will 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.
3. The ASC will further explore 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.
Petitions Report (report provided by Registrar)
For the period April 23, 2011, to August 31, 2011, 64 petitions were acted upon with 53
approved and 11 denied. Of these petitions, more than half involved the following four
categories:
12 reinstatements or readmissions from suspension or dismissal;
10 late registrations;
7 withdrawals after the automatic W period;
6 registrations with schedule conflict.
For the period September 1, 2011, to April 24, 2012, 188 petitions were acted upon with 148
approved and 40 denied. Of these petitions, more than half involved the following four
categories:
37 registrations with a schedule conflict;
30 late registrations;
19 medical withdrawals;
16 reinstatements or readmissions from suspension or dismissal.
Summary of Academic Violations and Hearing Boards (report provided by Registrar)
Summary of six actions taken by Hearing Boards convened between May 1, 2011, and April 30,
2012.
A student who had reported an illness during enrollment six years ago was discovered
during fall 2011 to have feigned that illness. A Hearing Board reviewed the facts and
assigned failing grades in courses in which an accommodation for that illness had been
made.
A student successfully disputed an instructor’s grade.
Four cases of second acts of plagiarism where heard by Hearing Boards with academic
sanctions imposed in each case.
Progress Report on 2011-2012 ASC Charges from Faculty Senate
Charge 1
The ASC will explore the desired criteria for graduating with university honors and revise the
policies and procedures to be consistent with any revisions in the criteria.
ACTION: The committee examined language used to define the criteria for university honors at
other universities and compared those criteria to Puget Sound’s. It was apparent that grade point
average was the only criteria for conferring university honors, thus the committee decided not to
add additional criteria. The committee discussed how to handle instances in which students who
were eligible for university honors but whose actions may have violated either academic
integrity or the student integrity code and determined that the Hearing Board procedures used to
address matters of academic integrity gave the Hearing Board the authority to disqualify a
student from receiving university honors as a sanction if appropriate. To clarify this, the
committee changed the language in the Academic Handbook regarding Hearing Board Matters in
Procedures of Academic Integrity to read:
“The Hearing Board may find the allegations not to be factual, or the Hearing Board may
impose sanctions. Sanctions include, but are not limited to, warning, reprimand, grade penalty,
removal from the course or major, disqualification from receiving university honors, probation,
dismissal, suspension and/or expulsion.”
Charge 2
The ASC will continue the discussion and development of effective and innovative means to
foster the implementation of the Honor Code (Student Integrity Code). As a subset of this charge,
the ASC will 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.
ACTION: A subcommittee was formed to review ideas that had been proposed by the full
committee in AY 2010-2011 and decided that more information was needed. In particular, the
subcommittee was interested in understanding how and when Puget Sound students become
aware of issues related to academic integrity and where they can go to receive assistance if
needed. The subcommittee drafted five questions related to academic integrity that were added to
the Spring Survey that is given annually to current undergraduates. The ASC will be reviewing
the data from the survey when it becomes available to discuss the next steps with respect to
developing effective and innovative means to foster the implementation of the Honor Code
(Student Integrity Code).
The subcommittee discussed the issue of providing faculty education and suggested procedures
to minimize the utility of note sharing and similar websites and reported back to the full
committee that it would be difficult to come up with any meaningful suggestions other than to
ensure that the information that could be obtained through such sources did not constitute a
substantive part of the course. The full committee agreed and the issue was not discussed further.
Charge 3
The ASC will further explore 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.
ACTION: The committee spent considerable time discussing and establishing such a policy and
the following procedures were drafted and will be added to the Academic Handbook Response to
Violations of Academic Integrity:
“If a staff member has reason to suspect a violation of academic integrity, the following actions
will be taken:
A. If the incident took place outside the context of a course, 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. In this context, the Associate Academic Dean will
follow procedures outlined above for the faculty member in responding to the allegations.
If the Associate Dean suspects 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.
B. If the incident took place in the context of a course, the staff member will report his or
her concern in writing to both the instructor of the course and to an Associate Academic
Dean not otherwise involved with the appeals or hearing board process. The instructor
of the course and the Associate Academic Dean will consult on how to proceed with the
allegation. If the instructor elects to pursue the allegation, he or she will follow the
procedure outlined above in points 1-5. If the instructor does not elect to pursue the
matter further because he or she did not witness or discover the incident, then the
Associate Academic Dean may substitute for the faculty member in responding to the
allegation. If the Associate Dean suspects 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.”
Dismissal Policy for New Students
Prompted by work of the Retention Task Force, Sarah Moore and Debbie Chee asked the ASC to
consider developing a policy that would dismiss students after the first semester if the GPA is
under a designated limit.
ACTION: The committee discussed the problem of students who perform poorly in their first
semester at Puget Sound. The committee invited Ellen Peters, Director of Institutional Research
to share her research on 3,341 students accumulated over a five-year period. The data show that
students who earn less than a 1.0 GPA their first semester rarely earn greater than a 2.0 semester
GPA the following term.
The committee drafted new policy regarding students who earn less than a 1.0 GPA their first
semester. Further, the committee drafted changes to the Academic Handbook “Academic
Standing’ section to distinguish new students from existing students.
This new subsection, “New Undergraduate Students” would immediately follow the second full
paragraph in the major section titled “ACADEMIC STANDING.”
NEW UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
New students entering Puget Sound with freshman, transfer, or non-matriculated status
who earn a grade point average below 2.00 for their first semester at Puget Sound will be
placed on Academic Probation or will receive Academic Dismissal as described below:
Academic Probation
If the grade point average for a new student is between 1.00 and 1.99, then the student is
placed on Academic Probation.
Academic Dismissal
If the grade point average for a new student is below 1.00, then the student is dismissed
for one semester. The student may petition the Committee for readmission at the end of
the dismissal period provided the student can present a reasonable plan for academic
improvement. The student also has the option to petition for immediate readmission.
The Committee expects such a student to present a compelling argument and a
compelling plan for academic improvement. The guidelines for submitting a readmission
petition are provided to a student upon notification of dismissal.
CONTINUING UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
After new freshman, transfer, or non-matriculated students complete their first semester
of attendance, they are categorized as continuing students in terms of this policy on
academic standing. Continuing undergraduate students are subject to the sanctions of
Academic Warning, Academic Suspension, Academic Probation, or Academic Dismissal
as described below:
Subsections titled “Academic Warning,” “Academic Suspension,” “Academic
Probation,” and “Academic Dismissal” continue as before. The final subsection,
“Academic Expulsion” has been revised slightly so as to make clear that both new and
continuing students could be expelled under the extreme conditions noted.
Academic Expulsion
A new or continuing student may be dismissed and precluded from ever returning to the
University. Expulsion is the most severe sanction available to a Hearing Board or to the
Academic Standards Committee and may be levied, for example, in response to a severe
case of academic dishonesty.
Respectfully submitted,
Ann Wilson, Paula Wilson, Co-Chairs, Academic Standards Committee, 2011-2012