Academic Standards Committee Minutes
February 15, 2001
Present: Houston Dougharty, Katie Danielson, Scott Bailey, Alyce DeMarais, Doug Goodman, Kristi
Hendrickson, Robin Foster, Jack Roundy, Brad Tomhave, John Finney, Steve Rodgers, David Lupher, Jo
Crane
Guest: Carol Lentz
1. Minutes: The minutes of the January 31 meeting were approved as written.
2. Announcements: Bailey reminded members that Kevin Powell would be giving a lecture on
American multiculturalism this evening (8 pm, Kilworth) as part of the Black History Month celebration.
Foster alerted the committee to a soon-to-arrive agenda item from the Faculty Senate. In response to
Connie Hale’s report on her survey of the role of instructors on campus, the Senate will ask ASC to
review that issue. The question devolves upon the ASC because the Faculty Code names only this
committee as having oversight responsibilities vis a vis instructors.
3. Petitions Committee: Tomhave reported petitions committee actions as below, adding that in the
past three weeks 18 petitions have been approved as routine registration matters in the Office of the
Registrar, for a total of 78 approvals and one denial over the course of this academic year.
Date
1/30/01
2/6/01
2/13/01
YTD
Approved
17
26
7
187
Denied
2
2
2
33
No Action
Total
0
1
0
2
19
29
9
222
4. Academic Probation and “Representation in University Activities”: At committee request,
Roundy presented a further revision of the Logger policy statement on Academic Probation (see
attached). He reported that he had recently done a survey of the probation policies of institutions in the
northwest, and noted that a common approach of 4-year private institutions was to require probational
students to meet with advisors and develop plans for academic improvement. Accordingly, he proposed a
similar approach with a Puget Sound flavor, drafting language that stated an “expectation” that probational
students would meet with an advisor and develop an improvement plan. Further, he proposed that
compliance with such a plan could be considered as a relevant consideration if the Academic Standards
Committee had to decide whether to continue a probational student for a second term. Such language
would not “require” an improvement plan (granting the student the freedom to resolve their academic
issues independently), but would clearly articulate the University’s intent to engage the student in
improving his or her academic fortunes, as well as its intent to make productive engagement a factor in
further ASC deliberations about that student’s academic progress.
Goodman noted that the Roundy text allowed probational students to develop improvement plans either
with their academic advisors or with a counselor from ACA, and recommended that such improvement
plans be developed only with an ACA counselor. He explained that faculty advisors often meet with
advisees only briefly around registration time, and suggested that ACA could assure timely and
appropriate development of plans as a supplement to advisor/advisee interactions. Foster agreed, saying
that the proposed policy implied the development of “a document” recording the improvement plan, and
that in many cases such plans devised with faculty advisors would probably not be recorded. If ACA were
to work out these plans with students, documents could be created in every case. At this point Roundy
distributed the current version of the Academic Self-Assessment form used in ACA to record student
improvement plans.
Though supportive of the substance of the Roundy proposal, Finney expressed certain editorial concerns
about how the proposed new language would fit into the Logger policy statement. Roundy agreed to work
with him in breaking the text up and fitting it into the most appropriate places. Foster proposed that a final
vote on policy changes could await these revisions, though the essential substantive issues could be
resolved at this meeting.
Dougharty proposed that the “compliance” language be modified. Rather than “compliance with these
plans,” he proposed that “compliance with these expectations” be considered by the ASC in deciding
whether to continue probational students. With this change, the student would understand that we expect
full engagement in the counseling process; otherwise, s/he might assume that because s/he did not
choose to develop a plan, its absence would not be noted in further ASC deliberations.
Rodgers, following on Goodman’s suggestion, recommended that probational students be expected to
meet both with their academic advisor and with an ACA counselor. This would assure both that students
develop a plan for improvement and that they benefit from the disciplinary insights of a faculty member
(who would know best, for example, which courses within a student’s major would be reasonable choices
in the context of their current academic difficulties). Rodgers then MS that the Roundy text be
approved with the substitution of “and” for “or” in the sentence directing students to meet with an
academic advisor or an ACA counselor.
Dougharty then pointed out that the Roundy revision neglected the matter that generated our
deliberations in the first place, namely restrictions on activities that impinge on students’ academic
commitments. He proposed adding a sentence with the following general sense: “In developing
improvement plans, probational students are encouraged to limit cocurricular activities and employment
commitments that could prove impediments to their academic success.” Hendrickson suggested that
this general caution could actually be built into the Academic Self-Assessments ACA used with probational
students in developing improvement plans, thus obviating the need for such a statement in the Logger.
Foster agreed, proposing that Roundy undertake a revision of the Academic Self-Assessment that
included both 1) consideration of limitations on cocurricular activities and employment, and 2)
consideration of reduced courseload, in each case with the goal of improving a student’s chances of
success by reducing his or her commitments. Finney added that the Self-Assessment could include,
alongside the student signature, a line to the effect of: “I hereby agree to abide by the terms of this
improvement plan.”
Tomhave noted that Roundy’s proposed policy change did not establish a clear relationship between the
development of improvement plans and the terms of academic dismissal. Finney added that he felt
strongly that no editorial or policy revisions should weaken the clear dismissal language: “A student whose
cumulative grade average remains below 2.00 by one or more quality points the second consecutive term
is dismissed from the University.” (Logger, p. 43) He did not believe the Roundy proposal compromised
this policy, however, noting that the ASC often exercises its discretion in continuing on probation
borderline students who are technically eligible for dismissal but who have improved their academic
performance. So long as no new Logger language implied that an academic improvement plan
indemnified a student from the standards of probation and dismissal, Finney believed the proposed
revision would not compromise standing policy.
As we approached the end of the hour, Tomhave pointed out that the policy revision we were developing
could meet some serious opposition in the Faculty Senate, given how significantly it changed the status
quo. The most serious change is that it removes all restrictions on student activities for probational
students, so, for example, a probational student would be eligible to be student body president. Foster
thought that since our research had uncovered no demonstrable connection between participation in
student activities and academic success, the policy change would ultimately meet with approval. Finney
asked Dougharty if he saw any problems with the proposed change, and if the change established clear
distinctions between academic and conduct probation. With a smile, Dougharty said the change seemed
fine to him, and did in fact clearly distinguish the two kinds of probation, leaving the Student Affairs
Division, who continue to impose activity restrictions, as the “bad cops” on campus.
With this, Dougharty M/Crane S tabling the Rodgers motion pending 1) the integration of the
Roundy proposal into the Logger text, and 2) the revision of the Academic Self-Assessment, both
of which Roundy promised to bring to the next ASC meeting.
With that we adjourned at 8:55 am.
Respectfully submitted by the ASC amanuensis du jour,
Jack Roundy