Academic Standards Committee Minutes
October 8, 2001
Present: Houston Dougharty, Katie Danielson, Alyce DeMarais, Julian Edgoose, Robin Foster, Jack
Roundy, Brad Tomhave, John Finney, Ron Fields, Lisa Goodner, Tom Goleeke, Kristi Hendrickson, Doug
Goodman, Suzanne Barnett, Kathie Hummel-Berry, Jo Crane
1. Approve Minutes of September 24: Foster explained two corrections already posted to the
September 24 minutes, both in the second paragraph of item 5, clarifying an inquiry made by Foster and
an explanation given by Finney. Fields also pointed out that an inquiry attributed to him in the second
paragraph of item 4 should have been attributed to Foster. The minutes were then approved with these
corrections.
2. Announcements: There were none.
3. Petitions Committee Report: Tomhave reported on 2 meetings since the last report, where 23
petitions were considered. Of those 23 petitions, 6 were late adds handled as routine administrative
matters by the Office of the Registrar.
Date
9/25/01
9/18/01
YTD
Approved
14
3
47
Denied
1
5
12
No Action
0
0
0
Total
15
8
59
4. Online Advising and Registration Policy Review: Foster introduced the topic by referring to the
Roundy document (attached) outlining advising and registration issues that the ASC considered in 199596 when it imagined the development of online (or web) registration. With this fall’s introduction of web
registration, Roundy noted the four following areas in which academic policy decisions need to be made:
mandatory advising, schedule changes following registration, registration of special groups, and special
recommendations of the 1995-96 ASC.
Mandatory advising: Roundy opened this discussion by saying that the new web registration environment
offers us the opportunity to reconsider whether students should still be required to meet with an advisor
before registering for classes. He stated that in his experience institutions with the healthiest advising
systems require advisor contact at least once each term before registration. If mandatory advising is to be
preserved, it can be implemented by replacing the advisor signature either with registration “codes” unique
to every student which could be given to the student after advising, or with a web tool advisors can use to
“clear” students for registration once advising has occurred.
Danielson strongly endorsed mandatory advising meetings, saying that a key defining element in the
Puget Sound culture is one-on-one interactions between students and faculty, and that our advising
system ought to preserve that. She added that she does not favor the move to web registration, given its
impersonal nature. Hummel-Berry also supported mandatory advising meetings, acknowledging that in a
voluntary system students could still meet with their advisors, but speculating that under the pressure of
time and inconvenience, there would be an “erosion” of advising contact. Goodman suggested that one
approach might be to require advising contacts for freshmen and sophomores, while making that contact
voluntary for juniors and seniors. Hummel-Berry responded by saying that even under a mandatory
system, the advisor could determine which students she needed to meet with at length (perhaps lower
division students), “clearing” the others without extended meetings. Barnett endorsed maintaining our
current advising policies as we move to the web environment, but worried about giving students the
freedom to make any registration changes they like after registration without advisor consultation.
Goodman noted that a web registration environment (and the tools by which advisor clearance to register
would be granted) would also make advising by email a workable option.
Foster also supported continuing the mandatory advising policy, pointing out that those students likeliest
to avoid advising meetings in a voluntary system might well be those who most need to meet with an
advisor. She also endorsed Danielson’s point that personal interaction between students and faculty is a
hallmark of our culture, and ought to be supported by our policies. Sensing consensus, Edgoose inquired
whether a vote was needed to reaffirm mandatory advising. Finney, Roundy, and Foster didn’t think so,
since this would not constitute a policy change. Goleeke wondered if this fall’s move to a dramatically
different advising and registration system wasn’t significant enough to warrant an ASC vote. Foster
asked if anyone wished to speak against maintaining mandatory advising, and since no one spoke, noted
a consensus in support of retaining our mandatory advising system.
Registration changes – advisor approval: Roundy stated that the next decision to be made was whether
advisor consultation will be required for registration changes after initial registration. The easiest system
to administer would be one in which students could freely modify their schedules after their first advising
meeting. Finney noted that the 1995-96 ASC had supported giving advisors email notification of all
registration changes made by advisees after initial registration, to preserve advisor oversight. Goodman
said he liked the email notification concept, and would especially like it if the autogenerated email also
included the advisee’s email address, so the advisor could easily fire off a message to the student if he
noted any problems with the schedule change. Edgoose asked whether an advisor could stop a schedule
change in this system, and Roundy noted that the 1995-96 ASC had considered giving advisors to option
to void schedule changes proposed by students. Roundy saw a number of practical difficulties with this
arrangement, however, chiefly in the constraints it would put on students. Hummel-Berry suggested that
if we were to institute an advisor approval step for schedule changes, it could be time delimited (the email
notifying the advisor of the student’s proposed change would indicate that the change would go through
within 24 hours unless voided by the advisor). DeMarais thought that introducing an advisor approval
step would put students trying to make schedule changes at a disadvantage, especially where time and
space in classes were at a premium, and suggested that we forego that added step. Foster agreed,
saying that this would further complicate the lives of students already struggling with scheduling
difficulties. Barnett and Hendrickson also supported allowing students to make changes without advisor
consultation after the initial advising meeting, so long as email notification of those changes is given.
Foster inquired of Roundy whether this decision would constitute a change of policy, and he said it would.
Barnett then MSP (unanimously) that advisor consultation (“approval” the original word used: see
below) no longer be required for changes of registration after an advisee’s initial registration, and
that advisors receive email notification of such changes when they occur.
Special groups – graduate students: Tomhave requested that the committee take up the mandatory
advising question with respect to graduate students before moving on to issues of instructor approval of
schedule changes. Current policy permits graduate students to register for classes without advisor
consultation. Hummel-Berry thought her PT colleagues would be happy to add a mandatory advising
step to the process for the sake of consistency and simplified programming across the entire web
registration system. If registration “codes” were to be used, for example, a registration mailing could both
inform new PT students of the classes they would need and provide the registration code they required to
register. Edgoose pointed out that things were a bit different in Education (specifically in the MAT
program), where all advisors advised all students, rather than working strictly on an assigned advisor
basis. Nonetheless, he thought that the plan of mailing registration instructions and codes to new
students would work fine in Education, as well. Asked to speak for her OT colleagues, Hummel-Berry
said she thought this plan would meet with their approval as well, but would report back if there were a
problem with it. Edgoose MSP (unanimously) to make the policy for registration clearance
(“approval” the original word used: see below) for graduate students the same as that for
undergraduates.
Interlude: Tomhave expressed some concern with committee use of the word “approval” in its
deliberations about advisor/advisee consultation. He noted that the advisor signature we have always
required does not necessarily imply that the advisor agrees with the decision an advisee is making.
Further, the student remains responsible for her own academic choices, regardless of the signature her
advisor affixes to a registration or add/drop form. Barnett quickly supported his observation, noting the
distinction between “consent” and “consultation,” and affirming that her advising signature indicated the
latter. Roundy added that he frequently found himself giving students his signature for actions he strongly
disapproved in his advising notes. With committee support he agreed to make the language of the two
motions already approved reflect that “approval” in our mandatory advising system means “approval to
register following advising,” not “approval of a student’s academic choices.”
Registration changes – instructor approval of drops and adds: Roundy introduced this topic by pointing
out that instructor approval of drops and adds is now required at certain times, and a decision about
whether to continue the requirement must be made. Regarding drops, an instructor’s signature is required
beginning on the first day of classes (instructor signature on neither adds nor drops is required before
then). Roundy pointed out that in the first four weeks of classes, this signature requirement is chiefly
useful to the instructor, to help her keep track of who is in her class. After the fourth week, the signature
requirement can be important to the student as well, since the decision about whether the student will
receive a W or WF is in the hands of the instructor, and the student should be apprised of it.
Barnett said she’d like to see the instructor approval policy for drops remain as it is. Finney pointed out
that, once again, the instructor signature on a drop does not signify approval, but knowledge of the action.
A student is always free to remove himself from a class (up to the last day of classes, that is), but our
required signature policy exists to ensure that the instructor knows when he does so. He added that it
would be easy enough to notify instructors of drops in the same way that we plan to notify advisors,
without requiring consultation. Goodner worried about the confusion students might face if we eliminate
the required meeting with the instructor; they might well drop a class and never know they were going to
receive a WF until they received their grades. Hummel-Berry added that conversations between
instructors and students often give the former a chance to put the decision into perspective for a student,
to relieve anxiety about the student’s academic standing, and on occasion to persuade the student to
remain in the class. Foster returned to the point that there are two distinct periods for drops after classes
have begun, and our policy could allow “free” drops in the first period (when the W/WF decision was not at
stake), while requiring it later. Tomhave wasn’t sure faculty wanted to have to remember what week it
was while working with withdrawing students, and thought there might be good reasons to insist that
students have conversations with instructors when they drop regardless of date.
Fields said he’d like to continue requiring instructor approval of drops from day one. Early in term, he’d
like to have the drop policy remain to help him monitor available space in his classes. Later on, he’d like
to continue to force conversations with potential droppers because of the panic they often experience
when they get their first grades, and the chance he has to relieve some of that panic, perhaps keeping a
student in the class. Foster asked then if there was consensus on continuing the instructor approval in
our drop policy. DeMarais inquired whether we would be using instructor “codes” to carry out the policy.
Tomhave answered that transaction codes would be used for adds and drops, and answering Edgoose’s
question, affirmed that the use of these codes in place of signatures would not constitute a change in
policy. He also affirmed that add/drop forms and signatures would still be accepted for students and
faculty who wanted to use them. Goodman added his support to continuing the requirement that
instructors sign off on drops, whatever means we use.
With this, the committee adjourned at 2:59.
Respectfully submitted by the ASC amanuensis,
Jack Roundy