Academic Standards Committee Minutes
January 30, 2002
Present: Alyce DeMarais, Robin Foster, Tom Goleeke, Suzanne Barnett, Brad Tomhave, Jo Crane, Jack
Roundy, John Finney, Houston Dougharty, Lisa Goodner, Kathie Hummel-Berry, Julian Edgoose, Karen
Porter, Ron Fields, David Lupher, Katie Danielson
1. Set Full Committee Meeting Time: Foster asked us first to choose a time for our regular meeting,
and after much discussion and a close vote, we chose Monday mornings at 8am. This term’s meeting
schedule will be February 11, 25, March 8, 22, April 5, 19, and May 3. Petitions Committee members will
include: Suzanne Barnett, Jo Crane, Katie Danielson, Alyce DeMarais, Houston Dougharty, Julian
Edgoose, John Finney, Tom Goleeke, Lisa Goodner, Karen Porter, and Brad Tomhave, convener.
Tomhave will contact subcommittee members with a meeting schedule.
2. Approve Minutes: There was some confusion about the Dec. 3 minutes, which in one version posted
on the web included incorrect Petitions Committee meeting dates and lacked a list of attendees, but in
another had complete and correct information in these areas. Roundy promised to try to clear the version
problem up before the next meeting. The Dec. 3 minutes in the corrected version were approved as
distributed.
2. Announcements: Finney reported that a Hearing Board convened in mid-December took the
unprecedented step of issuing a one-term dismissal to a first-year student for multiple plagiarism
infractions in a single class. The student was invited to apply for reinstatement in the coming summer. If
he does so, a Hearing Board will consider his application. Hummel-Berry reported that a member of the
faculty has asked the Faculty Senate to discuss the new web add/drop procedures on the grounds that
they are burdensome for instructors. She speculated that the Senate might refer the matter to the ASC.
3. Petitions Committee Report: Tomhave reported on 4 meetings since the last report, including the
January 7 Probation and Dismissal meeting. Of the 39 petitions considered over this time period, only one
(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 32.
Date
12/4/01
12/12/01
1/7/02
1/17/02
YTD
Approved
9
9
6
6
121
Denied
3
1
1
4
38
No Action
0
0
0
0
0
Total
12
10
7
10
159
4. Tuition Refund Policy Change for Medical and Emergency Administrative Withdrawals: Finney
requested that we remove language in the Medical (MW) and Emergency Administrative Withdrawal
(EAW) policy statements in the Logger (pp. 48-49) that promises “a pro rata refund of tuition based on
the official date of withdrawal.” He reported that he, Dougharty, and members of the Student
Financial Services staff had all agreed that this promise creates unnecessary problems in working with
withdrawing students. In the first place, any withdrawing student may receive a pro rata refund based on
the date of withdrawal, and though the pro rata schedule for MW and EAW cases has been a bit more
generous than the standard schedule, the differences are not significant. Because of refund policy
confusion, Student Financial Services has recently decided to use a single schedule in the future. In the
second place, all agree that the pro rata refund promise in the Logger has prompted many students
recently to seek MW relief though their circumstances have not really warranted it. Finney
Moved/Seconded (vote reported later) to strike the phrase noted above from our policy language.
In clarifying Finney’s request, Barnett and Foster asked if all mention of financial consequences of
withdrawal should be removed from the Logger (e.g., p. 74), but Finney didn’t think that was necessary.
Tomhave pointed out that once the pro rata schedules are conflated, no reason will remain for a student
to seek a MW before the end of the fourth week of term (Automatic W withdrawal deadline), since the sole
remaining benefit of MW will be the guarantee of “passing withdrawal” grades. Would it make sense for
our policy statement to reflect that? Hummel-Berry noted that indeed students returning from MW face
more “hoops” before re-enrollment than students who simply withdraw, and Tomhave concurred.
Roundy and Finney didn’t think the MW policy would need modification on that basis, however, since it is
so unlikely that students will elect the more cumbersome MW process early in term when they understand
that it confers no benefit. Finney was asked about our experience with the EAW in this regard, and
replied that it has never been used. At this point Foster called for a vote on the motion, which
Passed unanimously. Barnett, curious about recent MW patterns, asked Tomhave whether numbers
had risen in the fall, and whether 9/11 had influenced those numbers. He replied that indeed numbers
were up; in fact, as many students took MWs this past fall as had done so in the entire 1998-99 academic
year.
5. Agenda Items for Spring 2002: Foster next asked us to consider agenda items for spring, and
members quickly reached consensus that we would begin with items that could be handled expeditiously:
a. Review the Course Repeat policy
b. Consider a policy change to permit extensions for Leaves of Absence (Logger, p. 62-63)
Finney explained that two features of our Course Repeat policy are worthy of reconsideration: that
students may repeat any course for any reason (e.g., may repeat a course in which they have received an
A- in hopes of earning an A); and that the higher of the two grades earned in a repeated course is the
grade that is counted, rather than the more recent grade, as is the case at many institutions. Barnett
proposed the more radical idea of eliminating course repeats altogether, citing the inherent unfairness that
results when we offer a course only once, making it impossible for a student in that course to avail herself
of the option. Lupher and Hummel-Berry thought that the student should take the responsibility for
considering the consequences of taking a one-time-only class, and that this was not a reason for
eliminating the course repeat option.
Tomhave explained that the Leave of Absence policy change would permit students to be extended
beyond the current two-year maximum. We agreed that we would tackle more complex items next, in the
following order:
c. Review issues surrounding Late Add petitions
Foster suggested that we tackle this item early, since it is early in term that these issues arise so
prominently. Foster and Tomhave also noted that late adds constitute fully 1/3 of all petitions considered.
Foster identified two major topics we might consider: repeated petition filings to add the same course, and
ways in which the Petition Committee workload might be lightened if patterns of routine approval can be
identified, allowing the committee to delegate approval to the Registrar. A particular case led to the first
topic. Foster described a situation in which a student repeatedly filed late add petitions throughout a full
semester, in the end completing the course without being enrolled in it. With each petition the student
attempted to address every objection of the Petitions Committee, and because only the student
communicated with the instructor, the instructor in effect encouraged the student to persist. Foster and
Finney thought the ASC might want to communicate directly with the instructor as well as the student in
cases like this, and perhaps also find a way to make the denial of a late add petition more definite.
With respect to identifying regular patterns in which the Petitions Committee approves late adds,
Tomhave noted that the ASC has already delegated many such approvals to the Registrar. Foster
supposed that additional instances might be found. Barnett argued first that the Petitions Committee
should not delegate so much of this work that it doesn’t get a good feel for how students are behaving and
what sorts of relief they are seeking, and second that the delegation of approval authority should not lead
to slippage in the honoring of deadlines. Edgoose supported the examination of late add patterns so we
can first see what sorts of cases are approved before making delegation decisions.
d. Response to instances of plagiarism
This topic, originally proposed by Barnett, has been deferred for some time. Recent experience (see
Announcements above) makes it timely.
e. Review recent requests for distance learning transfer credit (Logger, p. 81)
We agreed when we last revised this policy that we would review it periodically, and this will be one of
those reviews.
f. Review withdrawal policy and specifically the Emergency Administrative Withdrawal Policy
Though among those items we should be able to address quickly, we agreed to defer the review to the
end of the term, largely because the policy has yet to be used, and a test case may emerge this term.
When asked by Foster whether we need this policy if it has never been used, Finney replied that it is just
by chance that we’ve yet to use it. He was confident that the occasion for using it will arise.
With this, the committee adjourned at 9:30 pm.
Respectfully submitted by the ASC amanuensis,
Jack Roundy