Academic Standards Committee Minutes
December 3, 2001
Present: Alyce DeMarais, Robin Foster, Tom Goleeke, Suzanne Barnett, Brad Tomhave, Jo Crane, Jack
Roundy, John Finney, Houston Dougharty, Lisa Goodner, Kathie Hummel-Berry
1. Approve Minutes: Foster clarified an item in the November 19 minutes, saying that Hans Ostrom
had told her the Faculty Senate was paying close attention this term to “selected issues of interest” under
consideration by faculty committees, and that our P/F discussion was one of them. With this clarification,
the minutes were approved as distributed.
2. Announcements: Finney announced the likelihood that another Hearing Board would have to be
constituted, possibly before the Winter Break but more likely shortly afterward. If possible, he would like
the same board that dealt with a case earlier this year to come together again.
3. Petitions Committee Report: Tomhave reported on 2 meetings since the last report, where 15
petitions were considered. He noted that only one of these petitions (for a class conflict) had been
handled administratively by the Registrar, bringing the total number of petitions handled by the Registrar
for the year to 31. He also announced two more petitions committee meetings for the year (Nov. 20 and
Nov. 27), and indicated that a fairly substantial number of petitions would be addressed in these two
meetings. He also reminded us that the Probation and Dismissal meeting held every term after grades
are posted would take place on January 4 between 9am – noon. Members of the fall petitions committee
are particularly needed at this meeting, but any member of the full committee is welcome to participate.
Date
11/20/01
11/27/01
YTD
Approved
7
2
91
Denied
3
3
29
No Action
0
0
0
Total
10
5
120
4. Audit Policy Revision: Foster invited Tomhave to explain his request that the committee revise our
audit policy to include the proviso that “law school alumni who graduated in August 1994 or earlier” be
included among those who may audit without tuition charge. Tomhave explained that this past summer
the Registrar had received a request to audit from a UPS Law School alum, and found that our audit policy
did not explicitly address that group. Telephone inquiries of Financial Services, Alumni Programs, and the
President’s Office revealed that no arrangements had been made to cover law graduates’ audit option in
the law school transfer agreement to Seattle University, and the consensus among the several offices
involved was that our audit policy (which already implicitly permits UPS Law School alums to audit free of
charge) should reflect the date of transfer as the cut-off for law school alum auditors. Finney noted that
because our audit policy appears in both the Logger and the Bulletin, this requested policy change, if
approved, would appear in both publications.
Barnett observed that the definition of “alumnus” has been a topic of interest in recent years, citing
someone she knows in the foreign service who did only one year of undergraduate study at Puget Sound,
and who completed his degree elsewhere, but who considers himself a Puget Sound alum. She
wondered if our definition of alumnus should include only those who hold our degree. Finney pointed out
that though the Bulletin does not make explicit this condition in its section on auditing, the Logger does,
through the phrase “alumni with Puget Sound degrees” (p. 46). Roundy inquired whether any promises
had been made to students who began study at the Puget Sound School of Law before its transfer, but
whose degrees were awarded by Seattle University. Tomhave said that no promises had been made,
and added that all student records for the School of Law were included in the transfer, so we no longer
have the means of establishing who began with us and finished with Seattle U. Foster then had this
question: If every student who graduated from the law school before the transfer received a Puget Sound
degree, and every student who graduated thereafter received a Seattle U. degree, why do we need new
policy language about alumni auditing? Doesn’t our current language cover law school alums already?
Tomhave and Finney replied that the policy does indeed already cover law school alumni, but explicit
language regarding date of transfer will make it easier for colleagues across campus to respond to audit
requests from law alums. Edgoose wondered whether it would be possible to get a list of all law school
alums from Seattle U. Tomhave replied that he has checked with their registrar, and getting such a list
would be difficult. Tomhave MSP (unanimously) “to include law school alumni who graduated in
August 1994 or earlier” among those who may audit without tuition charge in both the Logger and
the Bulletin as appropriate.
5. Pass/Fail Grade Policy: Foster invited us to wrap up our work on this issue first by agreeing on the
final language of the motion passed on Nov. 19 and then by bringing back to the table all proposals for
action we had considered. A consensus was rapidly reached (without a vote) that the motion language
included in the Nov. 19 minutes could stand as written. Foster then itemized other proposals for action:
Reducing the total number of P/Fs allowed in a degree from four to two
Changing the requirement that a C- be earned to receive a P in a P/F class
Permitting instructors to designate courses for A-F grading only
Allowing P/F registrations on a “space available” basis only
Permitting no P/F in the major, even in “surplus” courses not counted among requirements
Making all non-academic classes P/F only
Members expressed little interest in further reducing the total number of P/F’s allowed in a degree, and
Barnett encouraged us not to pursue that idea further. Members likewise expressed little interest in
changing the C- requirement for a P. More discussion arose about the idea of permitting instructors to
designate courses for A-F grading only. Goodner was curious whether faculty would be obliged to supply
a rationale for this designation. Foster pointed out that requiring a rationale would have to be part of our
policy decision in that case. Edgoose thought this might be a good idea, since the requirement of a
rationale would establish a basis for student appeal. Finney doubted that we could constrain faculty
prerogative by requiring a rationale. Goodner objected that leaving the matter entirely to the faculty would
create an opportunity for abuse as problematic as the student abuse we have attempted to redress by
policy revision. Goleeke replied by saying that if we were to permit faculty to designate courses A-F only,
the faculty right to do so ought to be absolute.
Barnett said she had no interest in this idea at the moment because it seemed to her that permitting
faculty to designate courses for A-F grading only would subvert the rather carefully circumscribed policy
we have just finished refining. She said she’d need to be persuaded that student abuse of P/F was
serious enough to require this measure. Foster reminded members of her experience teaching PSYC
200 in which the number of P/F enrollees was responsible for changing the character of the course in
detrimental ways. An “A-F grading only option” would be one way to redress P/F abuse in a coursespecific way. Hummel-Berry responded be saying that a “space available” P/F policy might be a better
way to deal with this problem. Foster suggested that limiting the percentage of P/F enrollees might also
be a promising approach. In either case, Tomhave replied, students will find a way to evade our
limitations, in most cases by registering first for graded credit and then changing their grade options during
the add period. Foster mentioned that particular courses seemed to be particularly affected by P/F
enrollments, Art 147 being a prime example. Tomhave assented, saying that a pipeline effect is created
for that course, students lining up to take it P/F, and most commonly doing so as seniors (27 of them last
year). The Art Department has not complained about the heavy P/F enrollment, however. Goodner
inquired as to whether we could introduce new limitations only in courses where abuse has been
demonstrated. Tomhave replied by saying, “in for a penny, in for a pound:” he saw too many new
problems being created by attempting to control P/F enrollments course by course. Dougharty, noting his
experience with a school that offers faculty the option of A-F grading only, wondered how Puget Sound
faculty generally feel about this. None of the members present felt prepared to answer this question.
Foster objected to the practical obstacles noted by Tomhave, saying she wasn’t sure the practicalities
noted should drive our philosophical thinking about our academic policies. But since there didn’t seem to
be much momentum in the group behind the idea of creating an “A-F only” policy, Foster invited us to
move on.
Foster asked Tomhave what data we have about students taking courses in the major P/F after meeting
major requirements. Tomhave replied that it is done, but not often, and when it is done it is most
commonly by seniors. Hummel-Berry suggested that the best way to discourage P/F within the major is
through academic advising. As committee members seemed to have little interest in further restrictions
within the major, we left this idea behind, as well. Foster inquired whether there was any need to create
greater consistency in mandatory P/F for non-academic courses, and Finney replied that most of the
issues there had been resolved a few years ago. At present, there is only one exception to the mandatory
P/F for activity classes (COMM 292), an exception approved by the Curriculum Committee. With this, we
had exhausted Foster’s list of policy proposals, and decided not to put any further revisions to P/F policy
to a vote.
As we prepared to adjourn, Foster suggested that we could use a part of our first spring meeting to
consider appropriate agenda items for the term, and the order in which we would discuss them.
With this, the committee adjourned at 2:50 pm.
Respectfully submitted by the ASC amanuensis,
Jack Roundy