Academic Standards Committee Minutes
September 30, 1998
Present: Yvonne Swinth, Ken Clark, Wade Williams, Heping Liu, Stuart Smithers, Brad Tomhave, Peter
Wimberger, Peter Greenfield, Tom Gething, John English, Susannah Hannaford, Marianne Taylor,
Rochelle Nguyen, Jack Roundy
Guest: Barry Anton
1. Minutes: The minutes of the September 15 meeting were approved as written.
2. Announcements: There were none.
3. Petitions Committee: Tomhave submitted the following report, adding only that the main petitions
business has been late adds and course conflicts, a majority of which were handled by the Registrar
without recourse to committee deliberation:
Date
8/28/98
YTD
Approved
14
61
Denied
3
6
No Action
0
0
Total
17
67
4. Suspended Students and Leaves of Absence: Roundy briefly explained that this issue involved an
omission in the leave of absence policy (Logger, p. 12), which would allow students on academic
suspension to take leaves of absence. Since suspended students, like dismissed students, must file
petitions to the Academic Standards Committee for readmission before re-enrolling, they are by definition
ineligible for leaves. Roundy proposed language amending the Logger to read: “Leaves are not granted .
. . to students who have been suspended or dismissed from the University.” (MSP)
Approval of the policy change led Gething to inquire whether the revised policy should appear in the
WWW version of the handbook, effective immediately. Roundy asked whether a published change in
policy on the web would supersede the policy printed in this year’s Logger, given that Logger policies are
presumed to hold for the academic year in which they are promulgated. Gething replied that Logger
language allows for binding changes during the academic year, referring to the following paragraph in both
printed (p. 3) and online versions:
The University reserves the right to change . . . any . . . regulation affecting the
student body. Changes go into effect whenever the proper authorities so
determine and apply not only to prospective students, but also to those who, at
that time, are matriculated at the University.
English was uneasy with the notion of midyear changes, saying that they would make matters difficult for
students, who could not rely on published policy but would have to inquire further, department by
department, to be sure of the rules. Taylor pointed out that in the case of the policy change on leave of
absence, the ASC was merely clearing up an omission, rather than changing practice, so that publication
of this change will not, in effect, create two sets of rules.
English, having suggested that Logger jurisdictional issues be posed to the Senate, decided instead first
to inquire of Alan Smith his opinion on these questions. If a faculty ruling is needed, that ruling could later
be sought from the Senate.
5. Reexamine Issue of Class Scheduling: Guest Anton explained the concerns which led him to bring
this issue to the ASC at its last meeting of the spring. In essence, he said, the apparently merely logistical
matter of scheduling class times was in fact an issue of academic freedom. He narrated a Science in
Context scheduling problem he and two colleagues had by way of illustration; in brief, scheduling
guidelines enforced by the administration did not permit the teaching team of which Anton was a member
to offer their class outside established time parameters, which proved burdensome to each member of the
team. Anton’s question, then: who should have authority to set and manage the class scheduling
process? He thought that the administration and faculty should do so collaboratively.
Greenfield suggested that the inflexibility of current scheduling guidelines was largely due to space
constraints on campus, constraints that are likely to make revival of the “common hour” also difficult to
manage. English asked Tomhave what kinds of pressures there are on physical space, and he replied
that currently there are no free classrooms, either MWF or TTH, at the hours of 10, 11, 12, and 1.
Particularly in these middle four hours of the day, freeing up space for different scheduling patterns would
be quite difficult.
Smithers pointed out that he has chosen for pedagogical reasons not to offer 50-minute MWF classes
any longer, but rather to offer longer sessions twice a week, usually TTH. He said he couldn’t get as
much done as he liked in the 50-minute hour. He proposed that we might want to consider whether a
trend is building on campus toward more longer, twice-weekly offerings, and the implications that would
have for the redesign of our schedule.
Anton proposed that someone in the math department, like Rob Beezer, might do an optimization study
of our schedule, to see if more flexibility could indeed be introduced. Hannaford thought that Perry
Fizzano would be an ideal person to do such a study, given his particular expertise. English
acknowledged that such a study might be useful, and asked Tomhave whether he knew if Finney had
done these studies before. Tomhave said he had, and English agreed to ask Finney to bring study data
to the next ASC meeting. If after reviewing the Finney data another optimization study appeared
warranted, the ASC could approach Beezer or Fizzano. Roundy ended the discussion by inquiring
whether we could review the rules governing the use of non-classroom space (eg, Library 134,
McCormick) for classes during the busiest hours of the day; freeing up new spaces might relieve some
schedule inflexibility.
As we ended the discussion, English agreed that he would contact Bill Haltom to ask for more detail on
what was meant by the Senate charges regarding scheduling of a common hour and providing more time
for co-curricular activities. With that, we adjourned at 8:49.
Respectfully submitted by the ASC amanuensis,
Jack Roundy