Minutes
Academic Standards Committee
Policy Meeting
September 19, 2014
I.
In attendance: Jim Jasinski, chair; Jo Crane, Danny Laesch, Kelli Delaney,
Brad Tomhave, Landon Wade, Sunil Kukreja, Ann Wilson, Martins Linauts,
Ken Clark, Jan Leuchtenberger, Keith Ward, Drew Anderson, Lori
Ricigliano.
II.
Minutes from the September 5 meeting were approved.
III.
Tomhave presented the Petitions Subcommittee report for the period
9/5/14 to 9/16/14:
During the dates covered by this report, the following actions were taken on
petitions submitted to the Academic Standards Committee:
6 Approved Registrations with a Schedule Conflict
1 Approved Waiver of Minimum GPA required to undertake
an Independent Study.
Total Petitions
Registrar Approved: 0
Preview Team Approved: 7
Sub-Committee Approved: 0
Total Approved: 7
Sub-Committee Denied: 0
Total Petitions: 7
It is typical for the first petitions report of the fall semester to involve
registration-related petitions.
IV.
Jasinski noted that he would be out of town on Friday, October 17, when
the committee is schedule to meet, and he asked if someone else would
like to serve as chair that day or if the committee would prefer to
reschedule the meeting. The committee decided to reschedule for Friday
the 24th. So in October the committee will meet on the 3rd, 24th and 31st.
Ward volunteered to do minutes on the 3rd because he won’t be able to
attend on the 24th, when he would have been scheduled to do the
minutes.
V.
The committee next addressed a proposal brought by Kukreja to consider
a maternity/paternity leave policy for students. A student has asked if he
can take paternity leave when his partner delivers a baby, but there is no
VI.
formal policy for this. As things stand, he would be subject to the
separate policies of each of his professors. The student noted that there
is now a bereavement policy but no maternity/paternity leave policies.
Kukreja asked if the committee would consider whether a formal policy is
needed and, if so, how it should be formulated.
a. Jasinski asked if we couldn’t just apply FMLA to students as well.
Other members pointed out that the Act guarantees a worker’s job
security after leave, but how does that apply to students? They have
to turn in work by a certain time in order to pass the class, so any
leave would have to take into account the duration of the class and the
need to fulfill all requirements.
b. Jasinski asked if there were any arguments against moving forward on
this policy? The Committee members had no arguments against.
c. Wilson noted that the Physical/Occupational Therapy graduate
programs face this issue all the time. Students know they will not be
prevented from attending a birth and taking some time but they also
know that they have to complete a certain number of hours and can’t
pass clinical if they have not put in those hours within a certain time
period.
d. Jasinski asked if Wilson would be on a subcommittee that could work
on this policy. Wilson, Laesch, Crane, Wade and Kukreja volunteered
to be on the subcommittee. Wilson will convene the subcommittee
and Kukreja offered to coordinate the schedule. Jasinski asked that
they have some language for us to look at by the meeting in the middle
of November.
The Committee next moved to a discussion of summer sanctions.
Tomhave distributed a page showing the original text on Academic
Standing in the handbook as well as a revised version that includes new
information about when the ASC would review grades. The old and new
versions are:
Academic Standing (current)
A 2.00 minimum cumulative grade point average for undergraduates and
graduates, or a 3.00 minimum cumulative grade point average for graduate
degree candidates, is required to maintain “good academic standing.” The
Academic Standards Committee reviews the record of each student not
meeting the minimum standards. Non-matriculated students are subject to the
same policies.
Academic Standing (revised)
A 2.00 minimum cumulative grade point average for undergraduates and
graduates, or a 3.00 minimum cumulative grade point average for graduate
degree candidates, is required to maintain “good academic standing.”
Graduate degree candidates are also required to earn individual grades of at
least C. Additionally, undergraduates and graduates in good academic
standing are required to maintain a term grade point average of at least 2.00,
while graduate degree candidates are required to maintain a term grade point
average of at least 3.00. Non-matriculated students are subject to
undergraduate grade point average requirements.
The Academic Standards Committee reviews the record of each student not
meeting minimum standards and will assign academic sanctions as warranted.
Such reviews are scheduled within a reasonable time following: grade due
dates for the fall, spring, or summer terms; submission of a final grade to
replace an Incomplete or In-Progress grade; when a grade is corrected by an
instructor; and when a grade is assigned by a formal Hearing Board.
Committee discussion of the text included the following points:
a. A Committee member asked if the language needs to be consistent by
talking about grades or grade points but not both? Tomhave
responded that the choice of language was deliberate because the
policy on graduate students specifies a “C”, while other policies
specify grade point averages, so we need to use language that
conforms to the relevant policies.
b. A member suggested that the words “these grading events” before the
colon in the second sentence of the second paragraph be removed.
The Committee agreed.
c. Another member asked how this new language would affect the work
of the Registrar’s office. In practice, this would probably mean the
Registrar’s office would review the standing of all students who take a
summer class (which it does not do now). This would mean that a
student in good standing in May could do poorly in summer and get a
first warning at the end of summer (something that has not happened
consistently before). But improved performance in the summer
would not take a student off sanction, because the sanction policy
currently calls for review of status after fall grades are in. Even if a
student on sanction did well in the summer but then did poorly in the
fall, the summer wouldn’t take that student off sanction and make the
process start over in the fall. The poor work in the fall would be the
second offense.
d. Jasinski asked if the Committee should vote today or at the next
meeting. Tomhave asked that we sit on it for a week; changing this
language may require us to revise the language of the sanctions
because now that summer is in play we may need to clarify the
wording of the sanctions. We may need some explicit language about
what happens after the summer. There was also some question about
the use of the words “term” and “semester.”
e. Jasinski said we would hold off voting on this until the October 3
meeting.
f. Pages 8, 9 and 10 in the handbook describe warning, suspension etc.
policies. With the summer in play, we may need to clarify that
language. We may want to think about how we approach this
language before adopting this new language. Jasinski suggested that
all members review the language on sanctions in preparation for the
next meeting.
VII.
The Committee then moved to the next question on the agenda, about
whether we should change the policy that prohibits students from
transferring in credit from a Community College after the student has
already earned 16 units here. Under this policy, if a student has
progressed beyond the sophomore level, she can’t earn credit for a
summer course at a CC. But if she takes an intro (100 or 200-level)
course at a 4-year institution she CAN transfer it in. It seems like an
artificial distinction.
Tomhave said he thought he had some information that lays out the
arguments pro and con on this issue that he can bring next time. Also, a
committee member asked for statistics about how many times this issue
has come up.
Tomhave noted that past petitions often had to do with matters of
convenience for students, while the university’s policy is based more on
an academic argument.
Another member noted that we spoke at one time of this policy being a
holdover from an earlier time at Puget Sound when there were more
transfer and commuter students here.
Jasinski asked Tomhave to bring the information he has to help us
become acquainted with the issues. At the next meeting we will vote on
the academic standing language and on the credit transfer policy.
VIII.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:50 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Jan C. Leuchtenberger