Academic Standards Committee
March 12, 2004
Present: Houston Dougharty, John Finney, Fred Hamel, Martin Jackson, Betsy Kirkpatrick, Martins
Linauts, Andreas Madlung, Bob Matthews, David Moore, Jack Roundy, Maria Sampen, Ross Singleton,
Brad Tomhave, Ann Wilson, Kate Sojda (student), Emma Archer (student), Stuart Smithers (guest)
Absent: Geoffrey Block, Michael Johnson
APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S/P The minutes of the meeting of February 27were approved as written.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Kirkpatrick indicated that she had again invited Stuart Smithers to attend the
meeting to help clarify issues related to the Asian Studies proposal (see below).
Kirkpatrick reminded committee members that the next two meetings of the
Academic Standards Committee will be in the McCormick Room of the library.
PETITIONS COMMITTEE REPORT
Actions on petitions are as indicated on printouts submitted to Wilson and summarized below.
Date
2/25/04 to 3/2/04
Approved
2
Denied
3
No Action
0
Total
5
3/3/04 to 3/9/04
2(2**)
1
0
5
YTD
72(44*, 37**)
37
1
191
*or ** Parenthesized numbers indicate the number of the stated approvals done by the Office of the
Registrar (*) as authorized by the Academic Standards Committee for resolution of specific issues of
registration or by the Petitions Preview Team (**) according to established guidelines.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF ASIAN STUDIES PROPOSAL FOR “WITH DISTINCTION”
NOTATION FOR STUDENTS COMPLETING THE NEW INTERDISCIPLINARY EMPHASIS IN
ASIAN STUDIES
Stuart Smithers presented the committee with a revised proposal to consider granting some type of
recognition for students who complete the Interdisciplinary Emphasis in Asia Studies. Smithers proposed
that a student who completes the Interdisciplinary Emphasis in Asia Studies according to the criteria listed
below be recognized as a “Robert Trimble Distinguished Asia Scholar” in recognition of Mr. Trimble’s
significant contributions to the University and the Asian Studies program. In order to be eligible to receive
this recognition, a student would need to meet the following requirements:
1. GPA in Asian Studies courses of 3.50 or above
2. Completion of all Asian Studies courses with grades of “C” or above
3. Successfully complete and present a senior thesis through Asian Studies 489, Asian Studies 370 or
an approved research course, seminar or independent study in a department participating in the
program.
The designation would be modeled after the Honors Program’s Coolidge Otis Chapman Honors Scholars,
which is intended to foster independence and scholarship and which appears on the transcript of students
who complete that program. Smithers indicated that he had checked with Dean Barry regarding the
changes from the original proposal and was informed that the change was acceptable to the Curriculum
Committee.
ACTION Jackson M/S/P that the committee accept and approve the revised proposal as written.
DISCUSSION OF WHEN MAJOR PAPERS ARE DUE DURING FINALS WEEK.
Finney began the discussion by reminding the committee of the faculty policy regarding final exams that
states that if a final is given, it must be given during finals week. If a paper is to serve as the final, it must
also be due during finals week. While this policy covers final exams and papers that serve as final exams, it
does not address situations in which a paper is not in lieu of a final exam, but is during final exam week.
Finney indicated that when he is asked about this, he advises that all papers that are due during final exam
week should be due during the final exam period; that is, on or after the regular scheduled final exam time
for that course. Tomhave reminded the committee that the last day of the term is published as being the
last day of the final exam period. The committee informally affirmed that Finney’s interpretation of faculty
policy on this issue should continue as he described.
MODIFICATION OF TRANSFER CREDIT EVALUATION POLICY FOR COURSES
OFFERING LESS THAN SIX WEEKS OF INSTRUCTION.
The committee considered a proposal brought forth by Tomhave that would modify the provision in the
current Transfer Credit Evaluation Policy that refuses to award transfer credit for “intensive” courses
offering fewer than six weeks of instruction. Tomhave informed the committee that this provision in the
policy was adopted when the faculty changed from four to six week summer school terms. He stated that
the provision requiring six weeks of instruction is cumbersome to enforce and may not be a good reason for
denying a course transfer credit. He reviewed the history of the ASC Petitions Committee in approving or
denying summer courses that violate this provision in the current policy since it was adopted and elaborated
as to the reasoning behind the Petitions Committee’s decisions for approval or denial of such requests.
Finney asked the shortest amount of time that the Transfer Evaluator would consider to be appropriate for
transfer credit. Tomhave replied that 3 weeks and 30 hours of instruction for 3 credit hours would be the
minimum acceptable for a course to be transferrable.
Kirkpatrick asked if the petitions process and subsequent approval or denial of a course typically occurs
before of after a student has already completed a course. Tomhave responded that Kathleen Campbell
works with the student to determine credit based on seat time provided that the student comes to her before
taking the course. He does not anticipate that dropping this provision will have much of an impact on the
work load of the evaluator.
ACTION Tomhave M/S/P that the Transfer Credit Evaluation Policy be modified to remove the
provision for refusing transfer credit for courses offering fewer than 6 weeks of instruction.
Having addressed all items on the agenda, the meeting was adjourned at 12:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ann Wilson