ACADEMIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE MINUTES
7 APRIL 2003
Shelmidine Room, Collins Library
Present
Suzanne Barnett, Geoffrey Block, Alyce DeMarais, Houston Dougharty, Kathie
Hummel-Berry, Carol Merz (chair), Steve Rodgers, Jack Roundy, Lori Blake (for
Brad Tomhave), Ann Wilson
Absent:
John Finney, Michael Johnson, Elizabeth Kirkpatrick, Jane Marie Pinzino, Kate
Sojda, Terin Walton-Rantz
At 8:06 a.m. Merz called the meeting to order and immediately turned attention to the minutes of
the last meeting.
Minutes. Hearing no corrections or additions, Merz declared that the minutes for the
meeting of 24 March 2003 will stand as submitted.
PETITIONS COMMITTEE
Reporting for Tomhave, Blake reported that the PC meeting of 26 March involved three petitions,
with three approvals, two of which were done ahead of time by the Triumvirate of the committee’s
academic-administrative members (Finney, Tomhave, and Roundy). The PC meeting of 2 April
involved eight petitions, with eight approvals, three of which were done beforehand by the
Triumvirate. [The five petitions approved by the Triumvirate were in the categories of late-add
after the automatic ‘W’ deadline, medical withdrawal, appeal of transfer credit ruling, and
“miscellaneous.”]
Actions on petitions are as indicated on printouts submitted to Barnett and summarized below.
Date
03/12/03-03/26/03
03/27/03-04/02/03
Approved
3 (2**)
8 (3**)
The 2002-03 year-to-date figures are as follows:
08/29/02-04/02/03
170 (47*, 73**)
Denied
0
0
33
No Action
0
0
Total
3
8
0
203
* or ** 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 or done by the administrative Triumvirate (**) according to established
guidelines.
EVALUATING THE WORK OF THE ASC ADMINISTRATIVE TRIUMVIRATE IN APPROVING
PETITIONS. General discussion of how the committee might accomplish a review of the
Triumvirate approval system, new this year as a way to reduce the burden on the PC by
administrative approvals of petitions deemed likely to be approved by the PC itself, yielded the
following matters of consensus: (1) The review must precede any revision of procedures. (2) The
committee looks to Tomhave for a report on numbers of approvals this year compared to
numbers of approvals in previous years in the specific categories and subcategories of approvals
by the Triumvirate this year.
Some inquiries and ideas surfaced in discussion, as follows: Are we experiencing an “approvals
creep” upward (Merz)? No “gross changes” seem to have emerged (DeMarais). Should the
Triumvirate be judging petitions involving such matters as the waiver of a core requirement, or
appeal of a transfer credit ruling, or waiver of the last eight units in residence (Barnett)? The
Triumvirate system has resulted in fewer petitions considered by the PC itself, which serves the
quality of conversation about each case (Dougharty). Perhaps two PC meetings a year, at the
2
start of each semester, could consider all petitions, with no prior approvals by the Triumvirate (but
with recommendations by the Triumvirate), thus to reaffirm the PC role in the petitions process
(Barnett). This could function as a twice-yearly review of the Triumvirate system (Roundy).
ADVISING AND ON-LINE ADD/DROP. This agenda item came to the committee at the
beginning of the fall semester from the Faculty Senate, which has requested that the ASC do the
following: “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?)”
Roundy stated the Advising Review Committee, appointed and convened by the Academic Dean,
has not yet addressed this issue and that the ASC might wait until later to deliberate this charge.
Committee members agreed. In informal discussion, Barnett raised the issue of a student’s being
able to effect an advisor change on-line with no requisite communication ahead of time with either
the former advisor or the new advisor. On a related matter, Roundy said that students have
wondered why a code number is needed for dropping a course.
MIDTERM GRADES. This issue, which originated in ASC discussion early last fall, was prompted
by perceived inconsistency in the assignment of the “U” midterm grade; faculty have varied
standards for the determination of a “U,” which leads to the question of whether we should set a
common standard of what a “U” means. Roundy welcomed the prospect of ASC reaffirmation of
midterm grade policy and expressed appreciation for the “ambiguous ‘U’” as promoting discovery
of students in trouble. Dougharty’s inquiry about the percentage of each midterm grade being
given led to the realization that the number of midterm grades submitted by faculty members has
declined with on-line submission. This is inconsistent with any effort to let a student officially know
about a judgment of unsatisfactory performance at midterm. Barnett wondered if sending midterm
grade reports to all students, not just those with a “U” or “F,” would encourage more submissions
of midterm grades and also allow all students to audit their registrations.
Merz commented that we need some numbers for our next meeting re: trends in midterm grade
submissions.
At 8:55 a.m. the meeting dissolved.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne W. Barnett
9, 14 April 2003
WY144;asiabook1:ASCminsAPR7’03