Academic Standards Committee
March 26, 2004
Present : Mirelle Cohen, John Finney, Fred Hamel, Martin Jackson, Betsy Kirkpatrick, Andreas Madlung,
David Moore, Jack Roundy, Maria Sampen, Ross Singleton, Brad Tomhave, Ann Wilson, Kate Sojda
(student), Emma Archer (student)
Absent: Geoffrey Block, Houston Dougharty, Michael Johnson, Martins Linauts, Bob Matthews
APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S/P The minutes of the meeting of March 12 approved with two corrections. Those corrections have been made and are reflected in the copy of the minutes of the March 12 th
meeting that is posted on the
Web.
ANNOUNCEMENTS Kirkpatrick reminded committee members that the next meeting 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 Approved
3/10/04 to 3/23/04 2
Denied
0
No Action
0
Total
2
YTD 74(44*, 37**) 37 1 193
*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.
DISCUSSION OF ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS TO PARTICIPATE IN
INTERCOLLEGIATE CLUB SPORTS
Finney reported that the Petitions Committee had recently dealt with a petition regarding the eligibility requirements for participation in intercollegiate sports. According to the policy regarding eligibility for student athletics on page 26 of The Logger , students must successfully complete “at least six units of course work during the two preceding terms of attendance.” Finney indicated that this policy is intended to apply to varsity athletics, which are governed by the policies of the NCAA rather than club sports, which are not subject to the same regulations. Significant discussion ensued about whether or not the same rules for eligibility should apply to intercollegiate sports. Finney proposed changing the wording in the present policy to clarify that it only applies to varsity sports and volunteered to draft a revision for the committee to consider and vote on at the next meeting.
DISCUSSION ABOUT REQUIRING ACADEMIC IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR STUDENTS
WHO HAVE RECEIVED ACADEMIC WARNINGS
Roundy asked the committee to consider adding language to the current policy on Academic Warning (p.
21 of The Logger ) that would require students who receive academic warnings to develop an academic improvement plan as all students on academic probation are required to do. The reason for this is to ensure that students who have received an academic warning meet with their advisors to discuss how they plan to improve. There was significant discussion about the present policy, the implications of revisions to this policy, and the impact that this change might have on the Academic Advising Office. Roundy explained how academic improvement plans are currently tracked for students on probation and indicated that the same process could also apply to students who receive warnings without placing an undue burden on the
Advising Office. Roundy volunteered to draft language to include the requirement of an academic

improvement plan for students who receive academic warnings for the committee to consider and vote on at a future meeting.
DISCUSSION OF SATISFACTORY PROGRESS TOWARD A DEGREE
The committee reviewed a letter from Mary Rose Lamb concerning a situation that she has encountered with an advisee who remains in “good academic standing” despite the fact that she drops classes in order to avoid failing and is consequently only completing half of the courses she attempts. Lamb questions whether a student who does this repeatedly is really making progress toward a degree. She proposes that the committee consider revising the Academic Warning statement on page 21 of The Logger to include a statement such as “A student whose cumulative grade average is 2.00 or higher who drops two or more courses during the semester receives an academic warning letter.”
Finney suggested that adhering to faculty grading policies should prevent situations such as this from happening by appropriately assigning a “WF” grade if the student is indeed failing at the point at which he or she withdraws from the course. Jackson asked if there were any data to suggest how often a situation such as this occurs. Tomhave estimated that no more than five students per semester would fall into this category. Singleton wondered if this particular situation would best be handled through normal advising channels rather than by changing policy. Significant discussion ensued about the present policy, the faculty grading policies and advising of students in similar situations. Kirkpatrick indicated that she sensed that the committee was not in favor of changing policy based on this single instance and planned to respond to
Mary Rose Lamb accordingly.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ann Wilson