MINUTES
ACADEMIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE
September 24, 2001
Present: Houston Dougharty, Katie Danielson, Alyce DeMarais, Julian Edgoose, Robin
Foster, Jack Roundy, Brad Tomhave, John Finney, Ron Fields, Lisa Goodner, David
Lupher, Tom Goleeke, Kristi Hendrickson, Doug Goodman, Suzanne Barnett
Guest: Bill Barry
1. Approve Minutes of May 2 and September 10: The minutes of the May 2 and
September 10 meetings were approved together, with the single correction that Suzanne
Barnett was present at the meeting of September 10. Online minutes have already been
amended accordingly.
2. Announcements: Chair Foster invited us all to welcome new student member Lisa
Goodner to the committee. Finney announced that Steve Rodgers has resigned from
the committee for medical reasons. Barnett asked if we should seek another faculty
committee member to replace him. Foster offered to look into that possibility.
3. Petitions Committee Report: Tomhave reported on 2 meetings since the last
report, making a total of 36 petitions considered in 2001-2002. Eighteen of these
petitions were late adds or time conflicts handled as routine administrative matters by
the Office of the Registrar.
Date
9/10/01
9/18/01
YTD
Approved
16
14
30
Denied
2
4
6
No Action
0
0
0
Total
18
18
36
4. Study Abroad Internship Credit Limit Waiver: Guest Barry asked the committee
to consider a waiver of the one-unit credit limit for internships in the case of the Arcadia
Dublin Parliamentary Internship (Logger, p.61: “No more than one unit of credit may be
assigned to a practicum, internship, or cooperative education placement.”) He explained
that this program offers 15 semester hours total, 9 of which are earned in relevant
coursework and 6 of which are earned in an internship with a member of the Irish
Parliament. In discussing credit transfer issues with Jannie Meisberger and Kathleen
Campbell, Transfer Credit Evaluator, he learned that the 6 semester hours earned in the
internship would ordinarily yield 1.5 units of Puget Sound credit. He noted that three
precedents for this waiver are already on the books (IES London and Madrid, and
Arcadia London). He also noted that while he was seeking a waiver of the one-unit limit
for a single internship, he was not asking that the limit on total internship credit allowed
toward the degree (2 units) be altered. Should a student earn 1.5 units in an internship
through Arcadia Dublin, s/he would be allowed to earn no more than .5 units of
additional internship credit at Puget Sound.
Fields inquired whether Barry was asking ASC’s formal approval, and Barry replied
that he was. Edgoose inquired whether the ASC had approved the three prior instances
in which credit limit waivers were granted, and Barry replied that he didn’t know.
Edgoose followed up by asking whether Barry was asking for general authority to grant
waivers of this kind, or whether the ASC was to confine itself to this particular case.
Barry replied that he was asking for a waiver for only Arcadia Dublin. Goleeke asked
how many students were involved, and Barry replied that only one had expressed
interest at this point, though the waiver would allow others to pursue this option.
Barnett expressed support for this waiver, citing her wish to encourage study abroad
and her belief that a program like this might be a good option for certain students
pursuing external fellowships, but worried aloud a bit about this precedent “opening the
floodgates” for students using internship credit to meet academic requirements.
Danielson thought that this option would be limited enough and inconspicuous enough
to the general student body that the “floodgates” problem was not likely to arise.
Edgoose asked again whether the committee wanted to authorize Barry to grant
waivers as the need arose. Foster thought granting such authority might be problematic
for a variety of reasons. Barnett then MS (vote reported later) “to allow for reasons
peculiar to the Arcadia Dublin program the transfer to Puget Sound of up to 1.5
units of academic credit for internships related to that program.” Goodman
inquired whether the committee should simplify internship credit policy by setting a 2unit limit both for individual internships and total credit allowed. Finney urged that the
committee not take up this issue at this time, since it involved a policy change, rather
than a waiver, and was deserving of the kind of research and deliberation we would not
be able to give it today. Fields called the question. P (unanimously) the Barnett
motion.
5. New Core Access Limitation for Continuing Students: Guest Barry requested
committee action also on a proposed amendment to Bulletin policy (p. 12) regarding
limitations on which students could elect to meet new core requirements when they are
introduced in fall 2003:
Each student is subject to (a) degree requirements published in the Bulletin at the
time of graduation, or (b) to degree requirements applicable at the time of
matriculation, or (c) to degree requirements listed in any Bulletin published
between the student’s matriculation and graduation, provided that no more than
six years separate matriculation and graduation. The exception to this statement is that
the new core being implemented Fall 2003 may not be selected by students matriculating as
freshmen prior to summer 2003, or as sophomore transfers prior to summer 2004, or as junior
or senior transfers prior to summer 2005. Students should be aware that specific
courses applicable to the Core will fulfill the Core requirements only during
the semester(s) that they are officially listed in the Bulletin or class
schedule [proposed addition in italics and underscored].
Barry explained that this amendment, designed to direct class cohorts through the core
requirements in place when they begin their Puget Sound careers, has been implicit in
faculty deliberations about the new core all along. As an administrative matter,
furthermore, this amendment would make it easier for the University both to make the
transition from one core to the other more smoothly, with sufficient teaching resources
available, and to predict the appropriate number of course offerings in each area,
assuring that we can meet students’ curricular needs. Foster inquired if students would
have to meet their major requirements from the same Bulletin as their core requirements with this
new restriction, or would they still be free to choose any Bulletin in effect while they are students
for major requirements. Finney replied that students could still choose any applicable Bulletin
for major requirements, as the new restriction applies only to the core. Finney expanded on
Barry’s remarks, adding that we’ve never before had students who wished to move from an old
core to a new, but with the coming core requiring fewer classes than the current one does, this
could change. And because we haven’t the teaching resources to offer the full suite of both cores
simultaneously, we must place access restrictions to allow an orderly transition from old to new.
Barry added that the Curriculum Committee’s primary concern in this regard has been the
University’s ability to accommodate students in new freshman courses.
Foster asked what ASC should do with this proposed new language. Barry asked that
we approve it and send it on to the Faculty Senate for their endorsement. Hendrickson
MSP (unanimously) to adopt this policy language for the Bulletin and forward it
on to the Senate. Goodman inquired we needed to make this change in the Logger, as
well. Finney indicated that the Logger language is identical, and that he would edit this
new language into that text in due course. Dougharty, noting that this language
addresses core policy in a particular window of time, asked if he was correct in assuming
that it would “go away” at some point after the transition is complete. Finney indicated
that he routinely edits out language that addresses time-bound issues when it is no longer
relevant and when its removal will not alter policy. He anticipated he would do so with
this language, as well.
6. Attendance Policy Revision: Roundy explained his request for an added sentence
to the attendance policy. For about a decade, ACA has managed an Alert Program for
use by faculty whose students have “disappeared” from their classes. This program is
not mentioned in any of the University’s official literature, however, and faculty often
learn about it only after they might have made good use of it. Roundy requested,
therefore, that the policy language be amended as follows:
Regular class attendance is expected of all students. Absence from class for any
reason does not excuse the student from completing all course assignments. An
instructor who notes a significant pattern of absence on the part of a student is encouraged to
submit a Student Alert to the Office of Academic and Career Advising, which will contact and
inform the student of the instructor’s concerns. When non-attendance is in the
instructor’s judgment excessive, the instructor may levy a grade penalty or may
direct the registrar to drop the student from the course [proposed new language
in italics and underscored].
Hendrickson worried that this language might lead a student to believe that an
instructor must file an Alert before moving to the next mentioned step in the policy,
which is not its intent. Barnett suggested that we could avoid this inference by
substituting “may submit” for “is encouraged to submit” in the proposed new language.
Goodman noted that ACA might take the additional step of advertising the Student
Alert program to faculty at about 10th day, when final class lists are released. Roundy
noted that ACA does advertise the program at about that time. Edgoose MSP
(unanimously) the adoption of the proposed new language with the change
proposed by Barnett.
7. Online Advising and Registration Policy Review: Foster invited Roundy to
introduce this topic, acknowledging as time was short that we wouldn’t have time to
discuss it today. Roundy explained the policy review document that had been circulated
to members, saying he had “mined” the ASC proceedings of 1995-96 for policy-related
decisions having to do with the implementation of online (or Web) advising and
registration. He briefly pointed out areas in which processes made possible by
technology could alter advising and registration policies: adding classes, dropping classes,
and registration of special groups from a distance (study abroad, leave of absence, new
transfer students), for example. He also noted that the new web tools would make it
possible to require all students to have an academic advisor in the department of their
major, should we wish to do so. Barnett added that the requirement of an advisor’s
signature for registration is another important topic for consideration during this policy
review.
As time was growing short, the committee adjourned at 2:50.
Respectfully submitted by the ASC amanuensis,
Jack Roundy