MINUTES
ACADEMIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE
November 12, 2004
Present: Jo Crane, Martins Linauts, Martin Jackson, Kate Sojda, Andrea Hatch, Andreas
Madlung, Bill Kupinse, Bob Matthews, Pepa Lago, Brad Tomhave, John Finney, Maria Sampen,
Ken Clark, Fred Hamel, Ross Singleton, Houston Dougharty, Dave Moore, Jack Roundy
1. Minutes: The minutes of the October 29 meeting were approved as written.
2. Announcements: There were none.
3. Petitions Committee Actions: Tomhave reported that no subcommittee meetings had been
held since the last full committee meeting, so term totals hold as reported on October 29:
Date
YTD
Approved
54 (14 R + 21 PPT)
Denied
14
No Action
0
Total
68
4. Policy to Require Advisor in the Major: Hamel reopened this discussion by asking
members to consider a revision in the language of the policy approved on Oct. 29, as follows:
“A student is required to have an advisor in the department of his or her major. Students
have the option of selecting a secondary advisor to assist in planning for minors, special
programs, or other academic matters. A secondary advisor is not required and in many
cases may not be necessary. If a student double majors, however, the student is required to
have a secondary advisor in the department of his or her second major.” Hamel explained
that his revision was intended to simplify our policy by reducing the “types” of advisor from
three to two. Roundy supported Hamel’s approach, saying that he had met with a programmer
from OIS who confirmed that a system with three types of advisor would be more complicated to
program and more confusing for students.
Matthews suggested that we might modify the language appearing in the Oct. 29 minutes to
reduce advisor “types” to two, and to indicate that “an advisor must be chosen for each additional
major selected” (to cover the advisor in the second major and, potentially, the advisor in the third
major). Finney MS approval of the Hamel motion, adding the thought that Puget Sound ought
not to permit more than one major, as that runs counter to our liberal arts philosophy. Matthews
replied that he saw value in a second major in some cases, but interpreted Hamel’s revised
language to imply that no more than two majors would be allowed, which he did not think was
Hamel’s intent. Asked if students ever declared a third major, Tomhave replied that it
sometimes happened, but rarely. Tomhave then proposed a further revision of policy, suggesting
the requirement of an advisor in the first major, with the option of a secondary advisor for second
majors, minors, and related academic purposes. Singleton replied that it was his understanding
we had already decided to require an advisor in the second major as well as in the first, and
Hamel affirmed this understanding. Dougharty suggested an alternative last sentence in
Hamel’s revised policy statement to assure that students have an advisor in each major chosen:
“If a student has more than one major, however, the student is required to have a
secondary advisor in each additional major.” Singleton and Matthews affirmed that this
alternative language addressed their concerns and Finney accepted this language as a friendly
amendment to his motion. MSP to approve the Hamel language as amended in
implementing the requirement that students have an advisor in the department of their
major (16 in favor, 2 opposed).
5. Discussion of Graduation Valedictorian: Finney gave some background for the proposal
(attached) that a valedictorian be named each year based on grade point average. President
Thomas this past spring requested the names of graduating seniors with the highest GPAs (there
were two owing to a tie), and recognized them at a commencement weekend dinner. He
proposed that the honor be institutionalized, and Finney developed the proposal under review.
Because the Academic Standards Committee has academic honors within its purview, President
Thomas decided to seek the committee’s endorsement of the proposal before implementing it.
Roundy supported the proposal but suggested we find a different means for breaking ties, since
highest honors are intended for those who have performed best qualitatively within the
coursework selected, rather than those who have taken the largest number of classes. Sojda
inquired how frequently ties occur. Tomhave and Finney replied that they occur occasionally,
and Tomhave added that the registrar routinely factors units earned into rankings for everyone in
a graduating class. Madlung didn’t see any problem with using number of units to break ties,
since it is a quantitative measure, just as the GPA is.
Singleton inquired why we haven’t had the tradition of a valedictorian at Puget Sound.
Matthews thought that we did have a valedictorian many years ago, but haven’t had one
recently. Finney speculated that the tradition of a valedictorian may have lapsed owing to
discomfort at having the student with the highest GPA automatically selected to give the
commencement address. Our current practice is to select a commencement speaker from among
interested students with GPAs above 3.5, a practice Dougharty and Finney said works well.
Sampen wondered how common the tradition of the valedictorian is these days, saying that
neither of the institutions she attended had kept it. Dougharty said he hoped we would not adopt
a policy under which a valedictorian selected by GPA would automatically become
commencement speaker.
Singleton wondered why, if we want to honor a valedictorian, we have decided we do not
necessarily want that person to be the commencement speaker. Does this tell us that we don’t
really believe the student with the highest GPA is necessarily our best? Sojda thought GPA too
narrow a measure for selecting the commencement speaker, arguing that the person selected
should have contributed in meaningful ways to our community as well as having excelled
academically. Finney thought perhaps the language of the proposal might be a sticking point –
using “valedictorian” as a synonym for the student with the highest GPA. Singleton added that
he thought the honoring of a valedictorian by GPA at commencement could compromise the
message we would prefer to send, that excellence should be measured by more than GPA.
Dougharty thought there was room for a GPA valedictorian, though we might want to recognize
that person solely through the commencement program, in the same way that the Arete award
winner is recognized (the ASUPS selection for the most noteworthy contributor to student life).
Finney thought we could name a valedictorian by GPA but leave the student speaker selection
process as it is. Sojda thought that would be OK, but she seconded Dougharty’s argument for
selecting student speakers on a broader set of criteria. Clark, responding to another member’s
observation that adding a valedictorian to our current list of honorees was a “harmless”
opportunity, argued that it was “better than harmless,” serving as a message that we value
academic excellence.
Noting again that a stumbling block in our conversation was the term “valedictorian” (one who
gives a valedictory address), Jackson suggested that we might instead institute a “President’s
Award for Academic Excellence,” skirting the problem of speaker selection. Hatch thought this
made sense, saying that she thought others shared her notion that “valedictorian” denoted
someone both with the highest GPA and the honor of addressing fellow graduates at
commencement.
Finney then asked whether a workable compromise might be to have ASC recommend that the
president name a student recipient (to be determined by GPA) of the president’s award for
academic excellence, to be honored at convocation. Matthews, still unsure that GPA was the
best measure of excellence, suggested a committee might consider who among our top students
should receive the honor. Clark suggested that we might name two valedictorians: one called
the Class Valedictorian to be chosen as commencement speaker through the process now in
place, the other called the Academic Valedictorian to be chosen by GPA and honored at
convocation. Hamel concluded the conversation by asking Finney to convey the essence of our
conversation to President Thomas, with our recommendation that we not use the term
“valedictorian” in naming our student GPA honoree. No motion was made, nor was a vote
taken.
We adjourned at 4:55.
Respectfully submitted by the ASC amanuensis,
Jack Roundy
Commencement Valedictorian
Proposal for Academic Standards Committee Review
September 2004
Last year President Thomas expressed interest in honoring the class valedictorian during
commencement weekend. Since then John Finney helped develop the current proposal,
which President Thomas endorses and asks the Academic Standards Committee to
review.
First we note the dictionary definition of valedictorian: "One who pronounces a
valedictory address; especially, in American colleges, the student who pronounces the
valedictory of the graduating class at the annual commencement, usually the student who
ranks first in scholarship" (Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1998). We have
typically two student speakers who play a valedictory role (at convocation and
commencement), but their selection has not been based on scholarship alone. President
Thomas’s interest is in identifying the graduate with the highest grade average and
honoring that person as our specifically named valedictorian. The tasks at hand then are
to consider (1) how operationally the class valedictorian is identified and (2) how the
valedictorian is honored and what role that person may play in commencement weekend
activities.
The proposal is that we define the class valedictorian as the graduate with the highest
cumulative grade average at the end of the fall term prior to commencement. The
cumulative grade average is computed the same way it is computed for university honors
except that a student must by the time of graduation have earned 30 graded units in
residence (instead of only 16) and must by the end of the fall term prior to
commencement have completed at least 26 graded units in residence. (For purposes of
selecting the valedictorian, any credits earned toward the degree through study abroad
will count toward the required 30). An unintended effect of the residency requirement is
to exclude most students from eligibility who transfer to Puget Sound. An intended
effect is to eliminate from consideration students who bring in multiple AP or IB or
community college credits as incoming freshmen and who decide to use them to
abbreviate their time at the university. (Our very best students typically bring in some
AP or other credit but do not use it to graduate early). Transfer and AP/IB grades are not
computed in the university grade average and the valedictorian's grade average should be
based on more than two years' credits. Identifying the valedictorian at 26 units is still just
a couple units beyond three years' work. Requiring 30 graded residence units total rather
than 32 allows up to two units of activity, internship, and other pass/fail courses or AP or
IB or transfer courses to be included in a 32-unit degree. The grade average will be
computed to three decimal places and rounded to two. In the case of a tie or multiple ties
the valedictorian will be the student whose grade average is based on more(most) graded
units as of the end of fall term prior to the May commencement. Eligible for the
valedictorian honor will be first-baccalaureate degree seekers who apply for graduation
by the end of fall term (this is generous because the published deadline for applying is the
previous September), who will participate in the May commencement, who did not
participate in a prior May commencement, and who will graduate at the May
commencement or on the immediately following August degree date or who did graduate
on the immediately preceding December degree date. To be eligible a student must be on
track to meet all degree requirements by the expected December, May, or August degree
date.
With regard to the role the valedictorian might play commencement weekend, we wish
not to hardwire any specific role into this proposal. The valedictorian honor would
certainly be listed in the Convocation Program as well as the Commencement Bulletin
and the valedictorian might be expected to stand up and be recognized at both
ceremonies. One idea is to use the valedictorian as the student speaker at the academic
convocation, where academic achievement and honors are the major themes. The current
method of selecting the student commencement speaker has worked well and seems to
produce someone seen by the graduates as "representing them" more generically than the
valedictorian perhaps would. It also allows some preview of the person's abilities as a
public speaker. A "valedictorian certificate" much like a diploma in appearance could be
easily crafted that could be presented to the valedictorian during the commencement
ceremony.