Minutes
Academic Standards Committee
Policy Subcommittee Meeting
March 6, 2014
In attendance: Jan Leuchtenberger, Ann Wilson, Drew Anderson, Mary Rose Lamb, Keith Ward, Karl Fields,
James Jasinski, Debbie Chee, Landon Wade, Brad Tomhave, and Sunil Kukreja.
Student Austin Scharff attended the first part of the meeting to propose a change in transfer policy that
would allow credit for courses completed through Running Start, that were not used to complete a high
school graduation requirement, to be generally transferable.
Before Austin began his presentation, a committee member asked Brad Tomhave to explain the university’s
policy about accepting Running Start credit and why Austin’s college Geology course credit was not accepted.
Brad explained students who completed college courses as part of the Running Start program while they were
high school students may transfer that credit to Puget Sound if it was more advanced than what is normally
earned in high school. In this case, “more advanced” means that it exceeds what would be required based on
a model of a four-year prep curriculum followed by the university. Austin met the requirements of his own
high school and the Geology course was in excess of his own high school’s requirements, but it was not in
excess of what we consider to be the model college preparatory science curriculum which is four years of
science ( Austin’s high school did not require four years).
A committee member asked how a student could earn through Running Start a science credit we would
accept? Brad explained that one way would be to complete the requisite science courses at high school, then
take college courses (in which one college quarter equals more a year in high school), so two years at college
would have been worth more than two years of high school and the excess would have been accepted.
Austin then presented his argument:
The university’s policy is illogical and a better policy would make the university more competitive with the
Running Start community.
Current policies are dismissive of running start students. Students perceive that the credits they have earned
are being taken away from them. The credits are seen by students as a means of socio-economic and
academic mobility and any policy that takes them away is viewed as inhibiting students’ sense of social
mobility.
Most private universities outside of Washington will accept running start credits at face value.
The complexity of the UPS policy is baffling; Running Start credits can’t be used for the core. UPS is more
expensive than colleges that do take the credits, and that makes UPS less desirable to prospective students.
The “double-dipping” policy is appropriate and justifiable – students shouldn’t be allowed to use credit both to
fulfill high school requirements and also receive college credit. Running Start students can understand the
rationale for this policy. This policy should be used at Puget Sound. Austin would like to propose that Puget
Sound accept up to 8 units of Running Start credit while observing this policy of rejecting any credit that
satisfied a requirement for high school.
1
Puget Sound should also take parents’ feelings into account – parents see Running Start as something like a
scholarship because it should allow students to finish sooner.
Running Start students considering Puget Sound would find it undesirable because of the complexity of the
policy for transferring credit, because of the academic requirements that often exceed those of other
universities of similar standing, and because of the high price.
So why is Austin here despite all of these disadvantages? He wanted to be near home, wanted small private
school for small classes. He was interested in IPE and P&G, and IPE is only available here. He did his research
on professors and their research. Even though his parents were against UPS because of transfer policies, he
convinced them he could work around the policy and get what he needed. He also got a scholarship, which
helped convince his parents. Most students would not go to similar efforts to find a way to come here, so UPS
policy is probably turning off potential students.
The current policy is impractical in the way the definition of “advanced” is applied to determine whether work
will be accepted. The UPS definition of “advanced” is not based on the content of the course but on whether
or not a student has completed four years of science in high school. Austin got credit for course work that he
was required to do in high school but didn’t get credit for the geology course. The Intro to literature course he
took in Running Start was equated to a junior level English course in high school but also accepted by UPS, so
he got double credit.
A Committee member asked Brad if the fact that Austin received credit for the literature course was
inconsistent.
Brad noted that Austin took two English classes in his junior year so they were counted as high school credit,
and the intro to literature course was seen as excess to high school requirements and therefore counted.
Austin pointed out if he had taken the literature course after graduating he would have gotten credit. He
could have not done the course and been lazy during high school but instead was doing important work.
Austin added that the policy is too complex – only Rusty Horton knows how to apply the policy and no one
else on campus understands it. He suggested capping running start credit at 8 units.
A member asked why would you cap it at 8 when you made the socio-economic argument about how it helps
families pay for college?
Austen said he would do that because there is something to be said for UPS wanting to give students the UPS
experience and not get half of their college experience before coming. He values being here and thinks it’s
important to be here three years, not two, but the university still needs to give value to work put into Running
Start.
A Committee member asked about his argument that parents and students are “socialized” that Running Start
gives students two years of college and because of that our policy is incongruent – is that our fault or Running
Start’s fault for misleading or poorly articulating the program’s value rather than UPS’s fault? Should we
change our policy because of that?
2
Austin said he doesn’t think the university should completely reject what Running Start says or does. He
thinks the university should take a middle road where some is accepted and some isn’t, and that conforms
with his proposal for a modified double-dipping policy.
A Committee member asked if this a significant problem, are we losing students because of our policy? What
are the policies at our peer institutions?
Brad said we know we occasionally lose a student because of this policy, also sometimes students with
associate degrees get a better deal at other universities and we lose those. Students shop for the best
arrangement. We also know we are admired by some peer institutions where colleagues wish they could do
the same and give all of their students the fuller experience of their own place like we do – if they’re only
there for two years they can’t do that. We also know we gain a few students who think we are being more
discerning (though we probably don’t gain as many as we lose). Changing our policy could free some of Rusty’s
time – other schools won’t change their policy because it is too time consuming.
Could our admissions people do a better job explaining this policy to people? Yes. But Brad also said
admissions people are not coming to say we need to change the policy because we just lost a great student to
another institution because of this.
A member remarked that this is not just a policy conversation, but also a socio-economic conversation. We
may be losing some students who won’t look here because of this policy.
Austin pointed out that we have some programs others don’t have and we also have a unique cultural
experience that schools that would accept all Running Start credits do not, and these are important points. By
taking geology Austin says he was trying to live up to the liberal arts spirit of Puget Sound by taking a course
out of his comfort zone and getting himself ready to take the most advantage of programs at UPS that could
not be gotten elsewhere. Austin emphasized that he is trying to be very engaged on campus, and not trying to
finish in two years – he really appreciates what is offered.
The Committee thanked Austin and Jim Jasinski for their presentation and they left.
The Committee approved the minutes from February 20.
Brad Tomhave gave the Petitions Report for the Period 02/13/2014 – 02/26/2014
During the dates covered by this report, the following actions were taken on petitions submitted to the
Academic Standards Committee:
8 Approved Late Adds
1 Denied Late Add
2 Approved Registration Changes from Audit to Credit
2 Approved Medical Withdrawals
1 Approved 2nd Repeat of a Course
1 Approved Drop without Record
15 Total Petitions
Registrar Approved:
1
3
Preview Team Approved: 6
Sub-Committee Approved: 6
Total Approved: 13
Preview Team Denied: 1
Sub-Committee Denied: 1
Total Petitions: 15
The Late Add petition denied by the Petition Preview Team involved a student whose study abroad program
starts later in the semester and the student sought to audit a language course for only a portion of the
semester. The Preview Team, in coordination with the instructor, allowed the student to attend the class for a
few weeks which effectively denied the petition.
One of the 2 students whose registration was changed from audit to graded was invited by an instructor to do
so when space opened in the class. The other student asked for a registration change when that student’s
preparation for another class, which was assumed to be adequate, turned out to be insufficient. Therefore,
after the student dropped the one course, the student asked for regular registration in the audited course.
For the year to date, 183 petitions have been acted upon with 166 approved and 17 denied. For comparison
with last year, as of February 27, 2013, 180 petitions had been acted upon with 159 approved and 21
denied. As a further comparison, last year, 59 schedule conflict petitions had been considered and this year,
only 20 schedule conflict petitions. This year, we have 63 late add petitions as compared to 32 late add
petitions at this time last year.
The Committee dealt with one other old business item: Karl Fields reported that he heard from Brad Dillman
that the dual degree policy and new withdrawal policy that were approved by both ASC and Curriculum
committee and would become policy 30 business days after minutes from both committees were posted, but
minutes from the Curriculum Committee have not yet been posted so the count of the 30 days has not yet
begun. The easiest way to proceed would be to put it on the agenda of the Senate on March 10 to include
motions to enact them so they can be included in the graduation bulletin. But the Senate could decide to
change them once they are brought to it. Still, it seems the best use of time. Brad pointed out that next year’s
calendar has already been set and enacting the withdrawal policy later might change things so we might want
to alert the Curriculum Committee about that.
The Committee then continued discussion of Austin’s petition:
A member said Austin makes valid points about how students and parents will see us but as another member
said, we can hold ourselves to a higher standard and don’t need to change. But the point has been made that
many of the Running Start students are very good students and do we want to lose them?
The double-dip policy makes sense but so does the current policy.
The policy applies broadly not only to Washington Running start but also to similar programs around the
country.
How do other schools deal with this? Do we need to tweak ours to have more consistency?
4
Brad doesn’t think we have a consistency problem, but rather a complexity problem, as Austin noted. Should
it be this complicated? Is there a simpler policy we could use? The no double-dipping policy that allows eight
units would be simple.
Using the framework that assumes 24 credit requirements in high school is actually very fair to everyone, but
so difficult to explain that nobody understands it. Is it the language that is difficult or is it that it is in the
admission guidelines section when it’s really a transfer policy?
The idea that we are losing Running Start students to this does not take into account the fact that we look
deeply at these kinds of students and offer more aid to many of them, so the loss of money is not as
straightforward as implied by the inability to transfer credits. But if parents don’t even come because they
perceive us as completely rejecting Running Start, perhaps we do lose them.
The Chair suggested we continue discussion of the policy at the next meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 5 pm.
5