Academic Standards Committee Minutes
11 September 2002
Misner Room (Collins Library)
Present
Suzanne Barnett, Geoffrey Block, Houston Dougharty, John Finney, Paul Huo,
Michael Johnson, Elizabeth Kirkpatrick, Carol Merz, Jessica Page, Jane Marie
Pinzino, Steve Rodgers, Brad Tomhave, Terin Walton-Rantz
Absent:
Johanna Crane, Thomas Goleeke, Kathie Hummel-Berry, Jack Roundy, Ann
Wilson
As designated convener Finney began the meeting at 8:02 a.m. and invited committee members
to introduce themselves. Finney named the five colleagues unable to attend this first meeting and
noted ongoing schedule conflicts for two of the five.
Chair. By paper ballots for nomination and election the committee elected Merz as chair. Merz
presided as of 8:13 a.m.
Secretary. By paper ballots for nomination and election the committee elected Barnett as
permanent secretary for the year.
Meeting time. Wednesday at 8:00 a.m. is not open for Crane, who has a class, and is not open
every week for Hummel-Berry. With the suggestion that Crane might serve as a member of the
Petitions Committee during the fall semester, even though she is unable to attend the meetings of
the full committee, and with the knowledge that Hummel-Berry often can attend the meetings of
the full committee, the committee set the ongoing meeting time as every other Wednesday at
8:00 a.m. (Next meeting: Wednesday, 25 September 2002)
[In preparation for the next meeting committee members can review the minutes for the 2001-02
committee’s final meeting, 6 May 2002:
www.ups.edu/dean/zzzz/CommMinutes/ASC/0102/asc0506m.html. Also available for review is
the final report of the 2001-02 committee:
www.ups.edu/dean/zzzz/CommMinutes/ASC/0102/asc0102final.html.]
PETITIONS COMMITTEE
Committee members expressed interest in serving on the Petitions Committee this semester and
reached the following membership, which by design during the academic year includes at least
six faculty members and the two student members of the full committee:
Fall 2002
Block, Crane (?), Dougharty, Finney, Huo, Johnson, Kirkpatrick, Page, Pinzino, Rodgers,
Tomhave, Walton-Rantz. The Petitions Committee can meet on Mondays at 8:00 a.m.; Tomhave
stated that the packets for review will go to each member on the Friday preceding each Monday
meeting.
Tomhave reported that the last meeting of the spring 2002 Petitions Committee while classes
were still in session was on 26 April, with four meetings of the spring committee following the end
of classes. He added that a summer 2002 committee met four times, with three of the four
meetings included in this report. Tomhave then reported Petitions Committee actions as indicated
on printouts submitted to Barnett and summarized below.
Date
05/04/02-05/10/02
05/11/02-05/17/02
05/18/02-06/05/02
Approved
4 (1*)
8 (2*)
3
Denied
0
4
1
No Action
0
1
0
Total
4
13
4
2
06/06/02-06/27/02
06/28/02-07/11/02
07/12/02-08/15/02
08/16/02-08/28/02
9
9 (4*)
10 (2*)
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
10
10
10
2
* Parenthesized numbers indicate the number of the stated actions done by the Office of the
Registrar as authorized by the Academic Standards Committee for resolution of specific issues of
registration.
YEAR-END SUMMARY
Date
Approved
08/16/01-08/28/02
275 (89*)
Denied
63 (2*)
No Action
1
Total
339
Tomhave then explained that actions done by the Office of the Registrar in response to petitions
“under prescribed conditions” is by delegation of authority by the Academic Standards
Committee. He distributed a document enumerating specified conditions, and the committee took
action to renew the delegation of authority:
ACTION:
Tomhave M/S/P that the committee again endorse the authority delegated
to the Office of the Registrar [to act on petitions]. Note: The document
appears with these minutes as appended below.
Tomhave announced that the fall semester probation-dismissal meeting of the Petitions
Committee would take place after 7 January 2003. Also attending this meeting will be colleagues
from the Office of Academic Advising.
AGENDA ITEMS FOR THE YEAR
Finney distributed a document including charges to the committee from the Faculty Senate (items
1-7) and adding recommendations for the faculty in the report of the Retention Committee (items
8-11), along with three “other possible charges” (items 12-14). Note: The document appears with
these minutes as appended below.
Reduction of the work of the Petitions Committee? Finney then elaborated on item 14
(“Consideration of offer from academic administrative officers to relieve faculty of some of the
student petition burden”) and distributed a document outlining the offer, which comes in the
context of the Fall Faculty Conversation on 26 August 2002 with regard to faculty time. Note: The
document appears with these minutes as appended below. The offer had its origin in discussion
by Academic Dean Terry Cooney and Associate Academic Deans Bill Barry and John Finney.
The specific offer is as proposed by Finney and would involve the “triumvirate” of Finney,
Associate Registrar Brad Tomhave, and Director of Academic Advising Jack Roundy serving as a
small group to review petitions and to approve “those the faculty are likely to approve”; any
petition for which this group cannot agree on such approval or any petition judged to be lacking a
needed component would go on the Petitions Committee. In any event, the small group of three is
accountable to the Petitions Committee and to the Academic Standards Committee. Finney
proposed the possibility of a trial period, perhaps during the current fall semester.
Pinzino expressed appreciation for this proposal and welcomed the idea. Dougharty added his
appreciation for the effort and pointed out that it could allow earlier resolution of some petitions.
Kirkpatrick stated that the proposal for the initial review by the small group extends the routine
delegated authority potentially to all petitions; the principle would be that when the small group is
in doubt, the petition would go to the Petitions Committee. Block observed that the effect of the
proposal is that one committee will approve petitions while another committee will deny petitions.
He welcomes the offer, which will mean that the Petitions Committee will deal only with petitions
that are problematic. After Merz’s reminder that the committee might accept the offer on a trial
basis, the committee took action as follows:
3
ACTION
Kirkpatrick M/S/P to take up the offer to relieve faculty of some [petition]
decisions on a trial basis under conditions as stated on the handout
document.
Dougharty M/S/P adjournment and the meeting ended at perhaps 8:51 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne W. Barnett
16 September 2002
WY144;asiabook1:ASCmins
APPENDED DOCUMENT 1
ACADEMIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE
AUTHORITY DELEGATED TO THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR
as of FALL 1998 and reaffirmed Fall 2002 (9/11/2002)
1. INDEPENDENT STUDY
The Associate Registrar may approve independent study petitions provided:
The independent study will be supervised by the student’s major department as indicated
by department code for the independent study and by the instructor’s department
affiliation.
The student’s cumulative gpa is 2.67 or higher.
The student has maintained good academic standing.
The student’s major gpa is 3.00 or higher.
The student has enthusiastic instructor and advisor support.
The independent study instructor had another class with the student in which the student
earned a grade of ‘B’ or higher.
The Independent Study Contract and all required supporting documents complete the
requirements described in the Independent Study Policy section of the Logger.
2. LATE ADD
The Registration Staff may extend a grace period up to the end of the 2nd week of the Fall or
Spring semester to allow a student to register for a course without completing a Late Add Petition
provided:
The student made arrangements to do so with the staff on or before the last day to add.
The student has been attending the class in question since either its first or second
meeting.
In the judgement of the staff, the student has a good reason for not having registered on
time.
4
Following the 2nd week of class, a student may only register with an approved Late Add Petition.
The Associate/Assistant Registrar may approve such petitions until the last day for students to
drop with an automatic 'W' provided:
The student has been attending the class in question since either its first or second
meeting; or the student is changing sections of a continuously attended
class; or the student is changing levels within a Mathematics or Foreign
Language sequence.
The student can present a reasonable explanation for not having registered on time.
The student has no prior Late Add Petition.
NOTE: The “drop-back” period in Language and Mathematics courses is 1 month to allow
students and faculty time to properly assess each student’s placement. No petition is required
within this period.
3. TIME CONFLICT
The Registration Staff may approve petitions to register for courses having time conflicts in the
following combinations:
Lecture class and a portion of a lab class provided the lecture is fully attended and the
missed lab is made-up at another time.
Lecture class and a portion of a Music performance group provided the lecture is fully
attended and the performance is made-up with another group, attended
late, or missed on only one day.
Lecture class and a portion of a PE activity provided the lecture is fully attended and the
missed PE activity will be made-up at another specific time.
Lecture class and a portion of a studio Art class provided the lecture is fully attended and
the missed studio is made-up at another time.
Lecture class and a portion of a Business Leadership Seminar provided the lecture is
fully attended and the missed Seminar is made-up at another time.
Two studio Art classes provided one is fully attended and the missed portion of the other
is made-up at another time.
Lab class and a PE or Music activity provided the lab is fully attended and the activity will
accommodate the lab.
Lecture class and an audited class provided the lecture is fully attended and no more
than 1 hour of the audit is missed and the student can compensate for that missed hour.
Note: CRDV 203 Career Awareness is an activity course, but is to be considered a lecture
course.
The Registrar’s Office may approve a petition for courses having time conflicts to help a student
who is a victim of circumstance resulting from a faculty-initiated course schedule change.
The Academic Standards Committee reserves the authority to deny any time conflict petition and
to approve petitions for the following combinations:
5
Two conflicting lecture classes (unless one is to be audited with no more than an hour
missed). The Registration Staff should advise the student that these petitions are
sometimes approved under exceptional and compelling circumstances with
overwhelming support from both instructors and the advisor.
Lecture class and a full lab. Exceptional circumstances with overwhelming support,
particularly from the lab instructor, must be presented. This is to
overcome the Committee’s natural reluctance to approve this petition
because it results in the lab instructor having to teach an additional
independent lab and in the student being deprived of a full laboratory
experience.
Any course combination for consideration by the Registrar’s Office that does not meet the
guidelines for Registrar’s approval.
APPENDED DOCUMENT 2
Academic Standards Committee
Charges and Possible Charges
2002-2003
Charges from the Faculty Senate:
1.
Review the "Response to Instances of Plagiarism and Other Acts of Academic Dishonesty".
2.
Review the Emergency Medical Withdrawal policy. This charge was made to the 20012002 ASC but was not reviewed because the policy had not been used.
3.
Address a request by the Biology Department that students enrolled in Biology 392, Junior
Seminar, be exempted from the requirement to pay for academic overloads greater than
4.25 units.
4.
Discuss whether any remedies are needed for students in the classes of 2004 and 2005
who may have been unable to take 100-level courses because the courses were filled by
upper-level students but also because, owing to policy changes, upper-level students must
register last for 100-level courses. [That is, to what extent are some students unfairly
caught between two different policies?]
5.
Reconsider scheduling-restrictions on seminars vs. labs (i.e., why must three-hour
seminars be scheduled at 3:00 p.m. or later?)
6.
Examine the consequences--for advisors and advising--of students now being able to drop
and add courses on-line, without having to inform their advisors. (Might the Logger, for
example, need to include even stronger language indicating that the ultimate responsibility
for taking appropriate classes and graduating on time lies with the student?)
7.
Reconsider the policy which requires all students to have an advisor in their majors. [Note:
Normally the Senate is reluctant to have a committee reconsider a policy the committee just
approved the previous year, but in the fall faculty conversation and elsewhere, several
colleagues have noted a dramatic and potentially unwarranted increase in the number of
their advisees.]
Recommendations for the Faculty from the Retention Committee:
8.
The committee recommends that the Academic Standards Committee revise its policies for
students on academic warning or probation so that such students are required to meet
6
either with someone in Academic Advising or with their faculty advisor to develop a plan for
academic improvement.
9.
The committee recommends that the faculty review the status and policies relating to
reading period because reports by students and other members of the campus community
suggest that at least some portion of students view reading period as a time for partying
rather than studying.
10.
The committee heard from students, faculty members and staff members that some
students leave the University because they are not being challenged intellectually in their
lower-level courses. The committee respectfully asks the faculty to consider this concern.
11.
The committee asks all faculty members to participate in the early alert system. Because
only twenty percent of the faculty currently do so, the committee believes that many
students may not be receiving the timely help that might enable them to be academically
successful.
Other Possible Charges:
12. From ASC committee member Alyce DeMarais (on leave fall 2002): the Faculty Planning
Group discussed the idea of midterm grades. The members were concerned about the
inconsistency surrounding the "U" midterm grades: some faculty assign a U for a midterm
grade of F, others for D or F, and still others for a C or lower. We thought this would be a
good discussion topic for the ASC; should a campus-wide system for the assignment of U
midterm grades be set?
13.
Proposed adjustment in the Language of Study Abroad Policy (see handout; Associate
Dean Barry will meet with the committee).
14.
Consideration of offer from academic administrative officers to relieve faculty of some of the
student petition burden (see handout from Associate Dean Finney).
APPENDED DOCUMENT 3
Offer to Relieve Faculty of Some of the Student Petitions Burden
Proposed by Associate Dean John M. Finney
September 11, 2002
Introduction:
The faculty, at the August 26, 2002 Fall Faculty Conversation, discussed possible ways of
relieving some of the pressures on their time. In this context the faculty expressed strong interest
in “reducing faculty participation in governance to essential functions” as a means of creating “a
culture of trust.” In response, the academic officers tried to think of ways they could help to
facilitate this. One idea was to offer to relieve faculty of some of the burden dealing with student
petitions.
The Offer:
The Petitions Subcommittee of the Academic Standards Committee meets for up to two hours
every week to consider student petitions. Some kinds of petitions are regularly approved. The
offer is for academic administrative officers to take over initial responsibility for the review of
student petitions. In cases where the student’s case is strong and experience indicates the
petitions committee has in the past consistently approved similar petitions, the academic
administrative officers will approve the petition on behalf of the faculty. In cases where the
general will of the faculty is unclear or where the academic administrative officers are inclined not
to approve, the petition will be brought to the petitions committee.
7
The goal is to reduce the number of petitions the subcommittee needs to review, thereby saving
faculty time. The petitions committee would continue to meet as required, to review the more
difficult petitions, and to receive summary reports of petitions approved by academic officers.
This arrangement could be viewed as an extension of authority already delegated to the
Registrar’s Office, to approve late registration and time conflict petitions when certain conditions
are met.
All authority to approve petitions rests with the faculty and the faculty could terminate the
arrangement at any time.
How it Might Work:
Students would continue to prepare full petitions, documenting their cases and making their
arguments as they do currently. The Associate Dean, the Associate Registrar, and the Director
of Academic Advising would meet each week to review petitions. They would approve petitions
they unanimously agree are uncontroversial and would likely have been approved by the petitions
committee. If agreement is not unanimous, the petition would be forwarded to the committee.