MINUTES
ACADEMIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE
December 3, 2004
Present: Jo Crane, Martins Linauts, Martin Jackson, Kate Sojda, Andrea Hatch, Andreas
Madlung, Betsy Kirkpatick, Ann Wilson, Bill Kupinse, Brad Tomhave, Geoff Block, John
Finney, Maria Sampen, Bob Matthews, Ken Clark, Fred Hamel, Ross Singleton, Houston
Dougharty, Dave Moore, Jack Roundy
Guest: Jannie Meisberger
1. Minutes: The minutes of the November 12 meeting were approved as written.
2. Announcements: There were none. Betsy Kirkpatrick, chair emeritus, presided until the
arrival of chair Fred Hamel, whose appearance was delayed by an urgent departmental matter.
3. Petitions Committee Actions: Tomhave reported on three weeks of petitions business, as
noted below. He also confirmed membership of the spring petitions subcommittee (PC): Geoff
Block, Andrea Hatch, Martin Jackson, Bill Kupinse, Pepa Lago, Martins Linauts, Bob
Matthews, Dave Moore, Maria Sampen, Ross Singleton, John Finney, Houston Dougharty,
and Brad Tomhave. The spring PC meeting time was tentatively set at 4 pm on Mondays, to be
held weekly unless no petitions require attention.
Date
11/15/04
11/22/04
11/29/04
YTD
Approved
7 (1 R + 1 PPT)
6 (1 R + 4 PPT)
3 (0 R + 0 PPT)
70 (14 R + 21 PPT)
Denied
3
1
0
18
No Action
0
0
0
0
Total
10
7
3
88
4. Pass/Fail Grade Option (Study Abroad and at Puget Sound): Finney opened the
conversation by welcoming Meisberger and explaining that this day’s conversation about
whether to eliminate the elective P/F grading option for students studying abroad could be
rendered moot by a decision to eliminate the elective P/F grading option at Puget Sound entirely.
Because the study abroad P/F question is more circumscribed, he recommended dealing first with
it, hoping to complete our discussion at this meeting, while the larger P/F discussion continues
into next term.
Finney and Meisberger explained that the study abroad P/F question arose with the Institute for
the International Education of Students (IES), which has mandated that all courses offered under
its umbrella be taken for a grade unless the home institution makes a case to allow its students to
elect P/F. IES would prefer that all students in its programs take all courses for a grade.
Meisberger explained that “mixed” study abroad classes of students, some taking them for a
grade and others taking them P/F, create a difficult classroom environment, where rigor is
challenged by some students taking it easy. She also noted that students who take study abroad
classes P/F and later go on to graduate school often find their study abroad coursework doesn’t
“count” from the perspective of the graduate school. Finney asked whether study abroad classes
are ever taught P/F only. Meisberger said no. Madlung pointed out that students studying at
German universities don’t receive grades. Meisberger responded that stateside institutions have
learned to deal with narrative assessments in the case of German institutions, and that the
German example does not prove prejudicial because the grade option is not available for students
studying abroad there. Madlung suggested, then, that the rule Puget Sound might implement
would prohibit P/F enrollment in cases where the graded option is available.
Jackson inquired whether Puget Sound accepts courses taken P/F from domestic institutions.
Tomhave answered yes. Dougharty asked whether courses taken P/F elsewhere counted toward
Puget Sound’s limit of four elective P/Fs. Tomhave answered “sometimes,” and indicated this
was a vexed question with institutions like Evergreen proving muddlesome in the context of our
rules. Singleton wondered how frequently P/F is elected by students studying abroad.
Meisberger said not often. Tomhave thought students used P/F abroad about as often as in
residence (that is, well under 10% of registrations). Singleton asked whether we ought to have a
study-abroad-specific reason for prohibiting elective P/F, if the option is to persist on campus.
Finney replied that the “rigor” argument might serve, proposing that the reputation of study
abroad as an experience could be at stake. Dougharty wondered if P/F in study abroad programs
is as rigorous as P/F at Puget Sound (where a C- is required for the P). Tomhave replied that he
didn’t know how common it is to require a grade higher than D- for the P at other institutions,
but said he knew we were not alone in imposing the higher standard. Meisberger excused
herself from the meeting as deliberation continued.
Kirkpatrick (acting chair) asked members if they wanted to continue addressing P/F strictly in
the context of study abroad, or to take on the larger question of whether P/F should persist as an
elective grade option at Puget Sound. Jackson suggested that within the study abroad context,
one option would be to eliminate the P/F option for IES programs, and another would be to
eliminate it for all study abroad programs. Singleton inquired as to how the rationale used to
justify elective P/F at Puget Sound would or would not fit for study abroad. Finney obliged by
reading the Logger rationale behind P/F: “The Pass/Fail grade option is designed to encourage a
student to explore courses in academic areas outside the major or minor. The breadth of a
liberal education is thereby enhanced (p. 27).” Singleton said he couldn’t see how that rationale
would apply any less to study abroad coursework than to coursework in residence. Finney
replied that the significantly more limited offerings of most study abroad programs give the
“exploration” rationale less force.
Kirkpatrick wondered how many students actually do P/F for the reason stated in the Logger.
Tomhave replied that the last time ASC studied P/F, he ran some numbers, and his analysis
suggested that a third of students electing P/F could clearly be said to be violating the spirit of the
option. With the remaining two-thirds, the election of P/F could be construed to be within the
spirit, though the reasons for student choices were not transparent in the data. Kupinse wanted
to know how Tomhave determined abuse of P/F by the one third cited. Tomhave replied that
these students elected P/F for courses in their major or minor departments. Sampen observed
that these facts might argue for a prohibition of the use of elective P/F within the major or minor.
Tomhave said that from the registrar’s point of view, the disappearance of P/F would be
welcome because P/F “complicates our lives.” Every year there are students who cannot
graduate because they have taken a class P/F and have misunderstood one of the rules applying to
it (most commonly, the requirement of a C- for the Pass). Finney asked Sojda and Hatch what
they thought the student view of P/F was. Sojda said she thought P/F was an option most
commonly chosen by good students taking courses outside of their major, with the P/F as grade
protection and a way of apportioning more of their time to graded courses (while doing less work
in the P/F course). Tomhave found it hard to see enrollment in Psychology 101 P/F as a senior
fitting the Logger rationale. And he noted PC experience with students asking to change a grade
option from graded to P/F; students typically say the change will give them a chance to focus
more on their other courses. Sojda argued that Psychology 101 might be considered a breadth
experience for a senior non-major. Hatch said that she saw students using the audit option more
than P/F to explore outside their majors.
Sampen wondered how veteran Puget Sound faculty thought P/F affected their classes. Jackson
said that since P/F is officially “instructor blind,” that’s a hard question to answer. Block spoke
up to confirm his understanding that neither core nor major requirements may be met with P/F
(correct), and then said he wasn’t hearing arguments against the principle underpinning P/F, but
rather concerns about abuses of it. Tomhave responded that in the end, we may never know
whether a student would have taken an “exploratory” course anyway if the P/F option didn’t
exist.
Singleton asked whether study abroad grades were ever calculated in the Puget Sound GPA.
Finney said yes, when the study abroad program is ours (ILACA, Pac-Rim), courses often appear
on the transcript just as if they were taught in residence, complete with grades. Roundy said that
as a graduate school advisor he fairly commonly encounters students who do not know that all
transcripts from all credit-bearing work attempted are required in an application to graduate or
professional school. So a student should not assume that an elective P/F taken abroad will not be
seen in an application to graduate school later, though some may be under that impression.
Finney returned us to the reason that P/F is up for ASC deliberation again this year—that the PC
experience with students attempting to change their grade option to P/F revealed their primary
reason was to “manipulate GPA” rather than to explore outside their major. Sojda responded
that indeed, a student may want to protect her GPA, but if the P/F indemnity gets her into a
broadening course, that fits the spirit of the option. Finney then put forward his own position on
P/F, characterizing it as a “failed experiment from the 70’s,” born of the laudable goal of
encouraging students to broaden themselves but resulting in the abuse of students choosing not to
work as hard in classes that may not be broadening at all. Jackson asked what the PC record
was on requests to change grade option from P/F to graded and vice versa. Tomhave replied that
this year two requests to move from P/F to graded had been approved, while one request to move
from graded to P/F had been approved and another denied. Dougharty made the point that the
PC sometimes approves “stress reduction” requests to move from graded to P/F, acknowledging
that these decisions do not accord with Logger policy, but rather are driven by the circumstances
in a student’s life.
Matthews said he opposed P/F, but given that we have it, is also troubled by the inconsistency of
a passing grade between graded and P/F. Why should a D- not be passing under P/F if it is in a
graded course? How did this disparity arise? Tomhave didn’t know the history, but said the
difference is responsible for students failing to graduate every year. Nonetheless, he found the
notion of giving a P to a student earning a D “distasteful.” Finney said that the C- minimum has
been in place as long as he has been here.
Jackson said he was ready to M (Matthews S): Elimination of the P/F option at Puget Sound.
Singleton replied that he supported the Logger rationale for P/F and would oppose eliminating it.
Moore asked if students are cautioned about P/F’s various pitfalls when they register for it.
Tomhave replied that they are, though the message is brief and refers students to the Logger for
further information. Block asked us to consider whether our view is that the principle of P/F is
flawed or that we lament student abuse of it. Finney replied that he liked the philosophy
underlying P/F, but he was convinced that the percentage of abusers ran closer to 90% than the
percentage Tomhave cited. Moore replied that though P/F is technically “instructor blind,”
students in his classes had sometimes “leaked” their P/F status to him, and he found that they
consistently performed at a C level to “get by.” He opposed any move to lower the C- minimum
if P/F is retained.
As the hour of adjournment approached, Hamel suggested that we return to this topic in the
spring. Roundy noted that a motion had been made, and inquired whether it needed to be
formally tabled. Finney M (Kirkpatrick S) to table the motion to eliminate the P/F option at
Puget Sound (19 in favor, 1 opposed). Motion carried.
We adjourned at 5:00.
Respectfully submitted by the ASC amanuensis,
Jack Roundy