Minutes
Academic Standards Policy Subcommittee
March 27, 2014
In Attendance: Drew Anderson, Debbie Chee, Ken Clark, Greg Elliott, Karl Fields (chair),
Mary Rose Lamb, Jan Leuchtenberger, Lori Ricigliano, Brad Tomhave, Landon Wade, Keith
Ward, Ann Wilson
Karl Fields called the meeting to order at 4:00 PM.
Minutes: Minutes for the meeting of March 6, 2014 were approved.
Petitions Committee Report for the Period 02/27/2014 – 03/19/2014:
During the dates covered by this report, the following actions were taken on petitions submitted
to the Academic Standards Committee:
6 Approved Late Adds
1 Approved Medical Withdrawal
1 Approved Concurrent Enrollment
8 Total Petitions
Registrar Approved: 1
Preview Team Approved: 7
Sub-Committee Approved: 0
Total Approved: 8
Preview Team Denied: 0
Sub-Committee Denied: 0
Total Petitions: 0
The concurrent enrollment petition was from a student compensating for a leave of absence in
order to take an elective through an extension program. The late registration petitions involved 3
students changing sections, a late addition to the Orchestra for a student recruited and preparing
to join after mid-term, a student registering for a BLP seminar, and a student attending an upperlevel Spanish class without benefit of audit registration.
For the year to date, 191 petitions have been acted upon with 174 approved and 17 denied. For
comparison with last year, as of March 13, 2013, 187 petitions had been acted upon with 164
approved and 23 denied. As a further comparison, last year, 59 schedule conflict petitions had
1
been considered while this year, only 20 schedule conflict petitions have been considered. This
year, we have 69 late add petitions as compared to 33 late add petitions at this time last year.
Old Business: Karl Fields reported that the Senate approved recommendations from the policy
subcommittee on revisions to the policies on dual degrees and course withdrawal.
Discussion item: University policy regarding violation of academic integrity. With a draft still
under development, it was decided to postpone this conversation until the meeting on April 10.
Discussion item: Continued discussion of university policy regarding accepting transfer credits.
The committee decided to focus its discussion on the policies specific to accepting transfer
credits from Running Start, leaving for the time being any issues related to transfer credits from
online courses, experiential courses, Advanced International Certificate of Education courses,
Advanced Placement credits, or credits from International Baccalaureate programs. The lead
question asked whether the current policy is broken. The consensus of the committee was no;
however, questions were raised outside of the policy itself, specifically to the way the policy is
conveyed to students and other stakeholders.
Brad Tomhave commented that there may be ways to “optimize” (lower case) the system, but the
matter of time it takes to evaluate Running Start credits is not the issue; rather, it is a policy
matter.
Discussion turned to how the policy intersects with work in Admission. Questions posed
included:
How many students do we turn away because of the current policy on accepting Running
Start credits, and should such a question have anything to do with academic policy?
How does Admission explain the policy to prospective students and their parents? Is it
coming across clearly? If not, how do we make it clearer?
It was noted that students applying for admission are given information “up front” about
transferring credit, although there sometimes is an issue of timing in determining what transfer
credits are accepted and how. (This determination can vary from completing an evaluation prior
to an admission decision, to students’ arrival on campus if information arrives late.)
With a consensus that the policy specific to accepting Running Start credits does not appear to be
broken, the committee moved to a second question: Is there a better, clearer way to communicate
the policy, either by Admission the Registrar, or both? Some points which were raised:
The most important point of clarity to be made is that faculty policy makes provisions for
transferring selected Running Start credits.
2
The Registrar’s Office uses guidelines for an optimal high school college preparatory
curriculum and, depending upon a student’s course selection and intended program of
study at Puget Sound, may exercise judgment in determining Running Start courses that
may be transferable.
While there may be some merit in developing a guide sheet for prospective students and
their parents on an ideal high school curriculum looks like and how any transfer credits
may be evaluated, there equally are issues in turning incoming students into evaluators,
particularly in those cases in which equivalencies are not present but are assumed by
interpreting a published guide sheet. Instead, it is most effective to work with students
who need some extra attention. There already is considerable contact with students
through correspondence, meetings during registration, and the like. It is more effective to
work with students on an as-needed basis.
About one-quarter of incoming students bring transfer credits from Running Start,
summer exploratory program, college in the high school programs, etc.
What does Admission have to say about the policy and its clarity? Does Admission feel
it can convey the policy accurately or easily? The Registrar has not received signals from
Admission that the current policy is impeding the institution’s ability to recruit the
students it wants.
Are there access issues? That is, does the current policy raise issues with access
programs, recruiting students from particular demographic groups, first-generation
students, etc.? To this point, such a concern has not been presented formally to the
Registrar.
According to Brad Tomhave, Austin’s petition was the first to come forward in a long
time among students to argue that, with the exception of double counting, our policy does
not make sense.
We are dealing with not just an admission policy, but an operational one. There appears
to be a disconnect between these policies. Admission focuses on the curriculum one
needs to be competitive in applying to Puget Sound, whereas the Registrar uses in “ideal
curriculum” when evaluating transfer credit, which has a higher standard.
Would it be helpful developing an online brochure (“Estimate your running start credits”)
for Washington-State Running Start students while noting that each is still handled on
case-by-case basis? Brad Tomhave thought this was possible, noting that some
institutions offer the option to prospective students to self-enter information. Hesitancy
remained, however, that sharing the institution’s methodology can lead to more conflicts.
One alternative may be to give only rules and basic principles as guideposts. It was
suggested that Admission be approached for a response about this possible option.
3
Brad Tomhave recommended that the committee make a policy decision on what it wants
enforced and then ask administrators, Admission, and the Registrar to implement it effectively.
It was decided by consensus that Karl Fields would send Jenny Rickard the following questions,
accompanied by an invitation to come to the committee’s next meeting: how is the policy
currently explained, is Admission comfortable with the policy, is Puget Sound yielding the kind
of students it wants from the current policy, and does financial aid change if more transfer units
are accepted?
Ever diligent, Karl Fields asked the committee if it also wanted to consider online courses or
experiential courses, extension programs, credit by examination (Advance Placement),
International Baccalaureate, work experience, practica and cooperative education programs, and
Advanced International Certificate of Education (the “Oxford Program”). By consensus, the
committee affirmed it wished to focus for the time being on transfer credits from Running Start.
Not satiated, the committee raised another issue regarding transfer credit, that of the policy
allowing transfer credits from community colleges only through the sophomore year. The
reasoning behind the original policy, as explained by Brad Tomhave, was that community
college is intended for a student’s first two years; the remainder of a student’s course of study
should be completed at a baccalaureate institution. Points raised in the discussion that followed:
Should the policy be changed to accept 100 and 200-level courses at any institution
during a student’s four years as opposed to the current policy that restricts acceptance of
community college credits to the first sixteen units? Would this raise quality issues?
Courses outside of the policy have been approved through the filtering system of
petitions. When asked, the petition is normally approved.
Are there some access issues, such as when a student does not live near a four-year
institution? According to Brad Tomhave, that has been considered when reviewing
petitions.
Would content equivalency be a fairer measure than the current rule?
Is the policy rooted in the institution’s history, when transfer students comprised a
significantly larger percentage of the student body and when the university had a
requirement that each student had to complete 8 units at Puget Sound (instead of the
current 16), as well as complete the last four on campus (as opposed to the current 8-unit
requirement)? Given that the nature of the institution has changed, might we consider
doing away with the policy?
It was decided by consensus that continued discussion on the issue was warranted.
The meeting adjourned at 5:00.
4
Respectfully submitted,
Keith Ward
5