MINUTES
ACADEMIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE
October 15, 2004
Present: Jo Crane, Pepa Lago, Martins Linauts, David Moore, Betsy Kirkpatrick, Martin
Jackson, Kate Sojda, Andrea Hatch, Andreas Madlung, Ann Wilson, Bill Kupinse, Mirelle
Cohen, Bob Matthews, Brad Tomhave, John Finney, Ken Clark, Fred Hamel, Geoffrey Block,
Jack Roundy
1. Minutes: The minutes of the October 1 meeting were approved as written.
2. Announcements: There were none.
3. Petitions Committee Actions: Tomhave reported on actions taken in meetings held on
October 4 and 11, together with actions taken in those weeks by the Registrar (R) and the
Petitions Preview Team (PPT):
Date
10/04/04
10/11/04
YTD
Approved
7 (5 PPT)
2 (1 PPT)
47 (10 R + 21 PPT)
Denied
5
2
10
No Action
0
0
0
Total
12
4
57
Tomhave also announced that there would be no Petitions Subcommittee meeting on Oct. 18, but a meeting would be held on Oct. 25.
He then put forward a motion (full text attached): On behalf of the Petitions Subcommittee, I move that the Registrar’s Office be authorized to approve petitions regarding the completion of the Science in Context core prior to the completion of the second Natural
World core, under the following conditions: 1) the student must submit a petition; 2) the student must have completed the first Natural World core; 3) the student must have a reasonable plan explaining why the completion of the Science in Context core out of order is academically sound; and 4) the student must have a specific plan for completing the second Natural World core that explains, academically, why the completion of the Science in Context core out of order is appropriate for the particular student’s program of study.
Tomhave went on to explain that the Petitions Subcommittee recommended this delegation of authority because students almost always have the support of their advisors and their SCXT instructors for this waiver, and that this waiver is almost always approved by the Petitions
Subcommittee.
Roundy asked why the prerequisite couldn’t simply be eliminated if it is virtually never enforced. Tomhave responded by saying that the Curriculum Committee had been asked if the
Natural World prerequisite should be reaffirmed, and had in fact done so. The Curriculum
Committee did see a difference in the weight of this prerequisite as against, say, the prerequisite of Spanish 101 for enrollment in Spanish 102. But they continued to believe it was meaningful.
Sojda asked whether approval authority would be delegated only in cases where students petitioned before enrolling in the Science in Context class, or afterward as well. Only when

permission is sought in advance, Tomhave responded. Jackson defended the Natural World prerequisite, arguing that it created a useful “pressure” for students to take their science classes early (virtually all courses approved to meet Natural World are in the lower division), with the higher division Science in Context courses to follow. Crane added that though it is true that particular Natural World courses may not be directly relevant to a student’s Science in Context selection, Natural World courses all do teach the scientific method, a key building block for understanding the science of Science in Context. Hatch said that she was not persuaded of the need to do science early in a student’s career. Sojda thought that this prerequisite was a rather backward way to put pressure on students to take science early. Finney argued that since authority to impose this prerequisite lay with the Curriculum Committee (which had indeed reaffirmed it), and authority to waive academic policy lay with the Academic Standards
Committee, we should give our attention to conditions for waiver. And since the Petitions
Subcommittee virtually always approves these waivers, delegation of this class of petitions makes sense.
Moore supported the motion, but wasn’t sure the authority ought to be delegated to the registrar.
Finney offered the Petition Preview Team as an alternative. Jackson supported this, and added that a condition of approval be support of the advisor and the Science in Context course instructor. Tomhave accepted these ideas as friendly amendments, and MSP (unanimously):
The Petitions Preview Team be authorized to approve petitions for waiver of the second
Natural World prerequisite to the Science in Context core (under the conditions noted above), provided these petitions have the support of the student’s academic advisor and the instructor of the Science in Context course.
4. Policy to Require Advisor in the Major: Hamel reopened this discussion by distributing an analysis of feedback received from chairs regarding the requirement that students have an advisor in the major. ( Roundy distributed copies of this feedback, as well as a spreadsheet on advising loads by department.) Hamel noted that there was a near consensus supporting the requirement to have a “primary” advisor in the major, but varying views on whether to continue to allow the option of the “secondary advisor.” Crane reported that the chemistry department as a whole supported the requirement of a primary advisor in the major, but was mixed on the question of secondary advisors. Kirkpatrick explained that the reason her biology colleagues opposed the requirement was that it could increase upper division advisee caseloads, thereby “squeezing” the department out of freshman advising, an outcome the department really didn’t want. The critical advising moment for biology majors is early in their program, and so the department is committed to maintaining a significant presence in the freshman advising program. Roundy replied by referring to the advising load spreadsheet briefly, saying that he projects a likely increase in biology department advising caseloads of only a couple of students apiece should the requirement of a primary advisor in the major be approved. Jackson suggested that biology’s advising load problems, should they arise, might be alleviated by assigning a staff person or other departments’ faculty to assist. Crane indicated that chemistry advisors already work with biology advisees, and would be happy to continue that work. Cohen suggested that we might implement the new requirement, but exempt the biology department from it.
If we were to implement a requirement that the primary advisor be in the major, Lago wondered how we would handle double majors. Roundy replied that second majors, minor-only programs,

and Honors were examples of special cases that might make retaining secondary advisors practical. Crane pointed out that the problem with secondary advisors as a solution for double majors is that without the leverage of advising codes, secondary advisors tend to learn what their advisees are doing academically after the fact.
There was some discussion about how students would choose a secondary advisor in the new system. Roundy suggested that rather than offering students the choice to retain the former advisor as secondary, the system could direct them to select a primary advisor, then inquire whether they wished to name a secondary advisor, and if so, who. Jackson , returning to
Singleton’s early argument, said he thought the system would be “cleaner” if the secondary advisor were eliminated. Once the “primary” and “secondary” designations were eliminated
(replaced by “advisor”), we could decide to assign two advisors for students who had double majors. The advisor in the first major (the one we know is most likely to be completed) would have access to the advising codes, to assure that critical major advising takes place.
Sojda wondered why we were considering eliminating the secondary advisor option, arguing that students want it and should have it. Madlung reminded us of the possible “false sense of security” students might hold with a secondary advisor who “doesn’t do anything” if the student doesn’t check in, as they often don’t. Sojda replied that she didn’t see any strong reasons for eliminating the option, as it offers something students want at little cost or burden to anyone.
Crane pointed out that the secondary advisor option is, in effect, simply a means for giving certain faculty access to student records. Matthews argued for keeping the secondary advisor option to serve students with second majors and minors, as well as to record a faculty member’s willingness to work with given students.
Jackson reaffirmed his belief that it is “cleaner” to have a single advisor. He suggested a middle ground, an option whereby students could give faculty access to their academic records without the “secondary advisor” designation. Hamel drew our attention to another problem with the secondary advisor cited in our faculty feedback, that students don’t want their freshman advisors to “feel bad” when they are switching to major advisors, and tend to hang onto the freshman advisor as secondary for that reason. Hatch proposed “unhooking” the secondary advisor option from the major selection process altogether. In this model, when a student chooses a major and is required to select a new advisor, there would be no prompt inviting her to select a secondary advisor as well. The option to select a secondary advisor would still exist, however, for
“proactive” students with a good reason to seek one out. Cohen was still concerned about students’ possible misperceptions about secondary advisors; I wonder what my “secondaries” think I’m doing for them in the absence of contact, she said. Madlung affirmed the question in saying that none of his “secondaries” came to see him. Hatch responded by saying that she thought making the secondary advisor a proactive choice by students would, over time, melt away secondary advisees who didn’t make use of their advisors. Cohen expressed the concern that secondary advisees could become numerous enough to crowd out primary advisees in advisor caseloads. Roundy responded that the advising office would not limit primary advisees on the basis of a secondary advisee count. Sojda wondered if there really was a “workload problem” arising out of secondary advisees, given that faculty report relatively little contact with secondaries.

As we approached adjournment time, Finney suggested that Roundy draft a document indicating how the advising system would work with a mandate that students have an advisor in the major, both with and without the option of secondary advisors. He also offered to make a motion to reaffirm Logger policy requiring an advisor in the major, a suggestion Jackson supported with the understanding that implementation details could come later. With that, Finney MSP: That the Academic Standards Committee reaffirm the policy (Logger, p. 10) requiring students to have an advisor in the major (12 yes, 2 no, 2 abstentions).
With that we adjourned at 5 pm.
Respectfully submitted by the ASC amanuensis,
Jack Roundy

On behalf of the petitions sub-committee, I move that the Registrar's Office be authorized to approve petitions regarding the completion of the Science in Context Core, prior to the completion of the second Natural World Core, under the following conditions:
1.
The student must submit a petition.
2.
The student must have completed the first Natural World Core.
3.
The student must have a reasonable plan explaining why the completion of the
Science in Context Core out of order is academically sound.
4.
And must have a specific plan for completing the second Natural World Core that explains, academically, why the completion of the Science in Context Core out of order is appropriate for the particular student's program of study.
Discussion.
The prerequisite for completing the Science in Context Core was instituted by the faculty, reaffirmed by the Curriculum Committee, and is academically indefensible.
That is, the Science in Context Core asks for completion of the Natural World Core so that students bring some “maturity” to the class. However, the “maturity” is not recognized enough to make the lack of continuous content irrelevant.
So, while the Natural World prerequisite has been defended in general terms, when it comes to a specific student and course that student’s advisor and the SCXT instructor involved seem to always support a waiver of the prerequisite.
Given this authority, the Registrar’s Office would continue to enforce the prerequisite, would not advise students to avoid it by simply petitioning, but would work with those students who make an issue of the prerequisite and would be better served, academically, by a waiver of the prerequisite.