Academic Standards Committee
Minutes
10/18/2012
The meeting was called to order at 8:35am.
Present: Lori Ricigliano, Brad Tomhave, Kristin Johnson, Duane Hulbert, Daniel Leasch
(student), Robin Jacobson, Dan Burgard, Debbie Chee, Landon Wade, Sarah Moore, Martins
Linauts, Ken Clark, Greg Elliott
Approval of Minutes: M/S/P to approve the minutes of the October 4, 2012 meeting.
Petitions Committee Report: The following report of the Petitions Sub-Committee and
the Petition Preview Team was submitted by Brad Tomhave, Registrar , for the period
09/27/2012 – 10/10/2012
The Petitions Sub-Committee held a meeting on October 3, 2011 with the following results:
2 Approved Late Adds
2 Approved Medical Withdrawals
4 Total Petitions
Registrar Approved: 1
Preview Team Approved: 2
Sub-Committee Approved: 1
Total Approved: 4
Sub-Committee Denied: 0
Total Petitions: 4
For the year to date, 36 petitions have been acted upon with 13 involving late registration and 18
involving registration with a schedule conflict. Of the 36 total petitions, 31 were approved and 5
were denied.
Additionally, a student who initiated a Medical Withdrawal petition did not complete her petition
and did not respond to subsequent inquiries. Therefore, her petition was withdrawn for inactivity
and a year dismissal was imposed.
For comparison, last year at this time 21 petitions had been acted upon with a total of 15 involving
late registration or registration with a schedule conflict.
2
Chairperson’s announcements (Kristin Johnson):


A report by Debbie Chee, Lori Ricigliano, and Ann Wilson regarding the 2012 Spring Survey
on student awareness of the academic integrity code will be forwarded to ASC members in
the very near future.
Brendan Lanctot, the Faculty Senate liaison to the ASC, has been in e-mail contact with the
committee chair regarding the senate charges to the committee. Lanctot will send minutes
of the Faculty Senate meeting, as the charges are still a bit vague. The issue of double degree
policy will need to be addressed, with the stipulation that the Curriculum Committee will be
kept in the loop. Sarah Moore pointed out that the double degree issue has possible financial
implications on merit aid in the 5th year – what would be the impact for better students?
Also, mid-term grades in the context of retention will be addressed.
Discussion of the DRAFT ASC survey on Course Scheduling (and implications for a common
hour):
The remainder of the meeting was devoted to discussion, commentary and brainstorming on the
course schedule survey drafted by Sarah Moore, and how a common hour relates. Rather than
summarize the conversation and potentially mis-represent any comments, the minutes here-with
simply record the ideas bantered around the table (to the best of the ability of the secretary de jour)
. One over-arching question/theme kept coming back - we need to know what the problem is
that we are trying to address. Is there a problem? Who/what is the motivating force behind
the charge regarding the course schedule and common hour? Only then can we proceed.
SM: The survey is kind of long; need to think about what we’ll do with the information when we get
it back. Are these the best questions to ask?
ML commented that he was surprised to see the issue of faculty presence (or lack of) on campus on
the survey.
SM: There is a problem with faculty presence on campus. For example, if teaching 2 days a week,
some faculty are on campus only 2-3 days a week.
DH: Days on campus may be a separate issue from schedule.
DB: What is people’s perception of the common hour?
SM: We should boil some of the questions down – consolidate some of them.
DB: Need to look at the problem vs benefits list.
RJ: First five sub-points under problems duplicate the first four items under benefits.
SM: To re-do course schedule is a huge deal; we must have a good reason to pursue it. What
are the problems people encounter with the current system? From the problem list, we can proceed
to fix the problems – the “rubbing points.” We want to get a sense of the specific problems. Is it
really a big enough problem to upset the whole system? Tweek vs re-design. We need to ask faculty
and others (administrators, Registrar, e.g.) what they see as the problems.
DB: Chemistry just submits schedule every year without messing with it.
3
SM: There is a constant conflict for the students – e.g. faculty may not get the room they need when
they want it, thereby affecting student schedules.
GE: Problems may be re-created with change. There is a cost to increasing Tuesday-Thursday
classes, and there will be a shakedown period. How problematic is the current schedule? The
common hour keeps coming up, but who keeps bringing it up?
SM: Primarily, the administration brings it up, but also faculty who may want to build more
connections.
DH: Perhaps we should approach it from the opposite direction. Question to Brad Tomhave – is
there a “thin spot” where a common hour could fit in?
BT: No – we’re not even close; even 8:00am is thick. Thompson Hall schedule is fairly well worked
out and packed in, but other buildings seem to change more as departments change courses that
are offered.
LR: (to BT) – Do we have to up-end the system or can we tweek it?
BT: Certain things could change to ease room demand, but where would those courses go? (Dining
Services has indicated more need for 12:00 classes to ease lunch demand). Everyone is in
competition for rooms. Puget Sound does not “allocate” hours/rooms – faculty prefer a “free
market” system.
DB: What about electronic classrooms? What is the problem here? Do we need more budget to
upgrade?
BT: Yes, we could use more budget for upgrades.
SM: And then we need to also consider the replacement cycle for Tech Services.
GE: What if we acted like we WERE going to do something, and then ask how the changes would
impact faculty (e.g. present the “Breitenbach plan”). Also, what will we do with the common hour?
SM: Problem with the Breitenbach plan is how would it impact in a broader way? An individual
faculty could see the impact on them, but don’t have insight on departmental level, for example.
GE: Changes could be made within departments.
SM: We may need the same framework but different rules. We could assign time blocks, but that is
not what we do.
DL: Is there interest in student input? Will a common hour promote interactions?
SM pointed out a short list of common hour activities on the survey (department meetings, campuswide faculty meetings, standing committee meetings, campus-wide events/speakers, and other
varied activities). There is not a ubiquitous interest in a common hour.
RJ: Phrase the questions so that faculty think about implications, not just “would you like….”
followed by yes/no answer.
LR: When Library was designing a new web-page, it presented three possibilities; that approach
worked well.
4
SM: Do we really have a problem? With a survey, we would see the level of problem and if it is
worth proceeding. We need to ask others (e.g. students, admission office) what problems they see.
Do we try to so something if not a large number of people see a problem?
DC: Presenting options might help generate interest and input.
GE: Thompson Hall sort of has a common hour.
DH: Music department has some “sacred” time.
KJ: What about drafting a different survey that focuses on the Breitenbach plan (should we
have a new name/title for this?)?
SM: We could try it; what is difficult is that we’re asking people to think about issues they really
don’t think about in a broad sense. What does it all mean? It is hard to have an immediate reaction
(such as one would have when presented with three versions of a web-page).
DC: Could the Communications Office help in designing a survey?
RJ: There should be a list of problems/benefits to give background and then present the
Breitenbach plan.
DB: We’ll get low response rate if the questions are not “stimulating.”
LR: Survey may not be the right vehicle. What about a focus group?
LW: Start at the department level and then bring it to a faculty meeting so we all see what the
different departments encounter.
DC likes the idea of focus groups. However, faculty meeting may not be the best place for discussion
– we would need a facilitator.DC:
LR: Perhaps someone from Institutional Research could facilitate.
SM: We still need to know what the problem is. When the Breitenbach plan was presented 6
years ago, there was an immediate reaction, but it disappeared. The issue becomes very
complicated when actually trying to figure it out. We get a few more 2 days/week options, but not
that many. Maybe asking chairs is a better approach than asking individuals.
BT: There are flaws in the Breitenbach plan. The one-day a week class (on Wednesday afternoon) is
one item of good change.
KC: Maybe we are trying to do too much at once. What about limiting the survey to 2 questions; 1.)
Do you have a problems/issues with the current schedule? 2.) What do you think about a common
hour?
DC: We’re not sold on a common hour. What about bringing in someone else who is “gung-ho” on
the idea of a common hour?
DB: Perhaps bring in someone from another institution that DOES have a common hour.
KJ: Preface the survey with “These colleges have a common hour…..” and then proceed.
DB would like to hear from someone who has a common hour.
5
KJ reminded the committee about LR research that common hour could be used for different
purpose each week.
SM: A common hour could have a different “reason”. We don’t have a compelling vision of the
common hour, therefore it is hard to get enthusiasm. What is the motivation behind this change?
KJ: Who should I ask from the Faculty Senate?
SM: If it is important to get faculty input, do a shorter draft survey for the next ASC meeting
and decide who else to invite for input.
DB: ASC members could ask colleagues at other colleges on the list of with common hours for their
input.
And with that, Linauts moved to adjourn at 9:25.
Respectfully submitted,
Martins Linauts