MINUTES
ACADEMIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE
January 28, 2005
Present: Jo Crane, Martins Linauts, Kate Sojda, Andrea Hatch, Andreas Madlung, Betsy
Kirkpatick, Ann Wilson, Bill Kupinse, Brad Tomhave, Geoff Block, John Finney, Bob
Matthews, Ken Clark, Fred Hamel, Ross Singleton, Houston Dougharty, Dave Moore, Mirelle
Cohern, Jack Roundy
1. Minutes: The minutes of the December 3 meeting were approved with two corrections: 1)
Kate Sojda’s name was omitted from the list of spring Petitions Subcommittee members, 2) the
abbreviation for the Petitions Subcommittee (PC) was not explained in the minutes. With these
corrections, the minutes were approved.
2. Announcements: Finney announced the formation of a Hearing Board to resolve a grade
dispute. Chair Hamel will name the members of this board. Dates for spring meetings of the
full committee appeared in Finney’s announcement for this meeting, and met with full
committee approval: February 18, March 4, 25, April 8, 22, and May 6. All meetings will be
held at 4 pm, location TBA.
3. Petitions Committee Actions: Tomhave reported on six weeks of business, including the
January 4 meeting to handle academic sanctions for fall term. He noted that Petitions
Subcommittee meetings this spring would be held weekly on Wednesdays at 4 pm.
Date
12/6/04
1/4/05
1/13/05
1/24/05
YTD
Approved
8 (3 R)
16 (2 R + 10 PPT)
4 (1 R)
13 (4 R)
111 (22 R + 40 PPT)
Denied
1
3
3
0
25
No Action
0
1
0
0
1
Total
9
20
7
13
137
4. Pass/Fail Grade Option (Study Abroad and at Puget Sound): Hamel reopened our
discussion by reporting some history of ASC action on P/F, particularly in detailing a summary
of ASC action from academic year 2001-2002:
This review continued a discussion of Pass/Fail policy begun in the March 22, 2001 ASC
meeting. ASC members discussed the following proposed changes to the Pass/Fail policy: (a)
reduction of academic P/F courses from four to two; (b) a limit on the number of P/F courses a
student may take per term to one; (c) changing the requirement that a C- be earned to receive a
P in a P/F course; (d) permitting instructors to designate courses for A-F grading only; (e)
allowing P/F registrations on a "space available" basis only; (f) permitting no P/F in the major,
even in "surplus" courses not counted among requirements; and (g) making all non-academic
classes P/F only.
Action taken: The ASC passed (10-1) only item (b) above, which limits the number of academic
P/F courses a student may take per term to one, in addition to mandatory P/F. The decision
balanced a desire by committee members to continue to allow students broaden themselves by
exploring courses outside their major, while preventing students from "loading up" on P/F
courses, especially during their senior year, a use that did not meet the intended spirit of the
policy.
As we considered removing Jackson’s Dec. 3, 2004 motion from the table for deliberation,
Hamel shared an email from him expressing ambivalence about eliminating the P/F option
entirely. He thought we might have other options, (e.g, limiting the election of P/F to upper
division coursework only). He suggested forming a subcommittee to examine our options.
Singleton asked for a reminder as to how we moved from considering eliminating the P/F option
in study abroad to eliminating it university-wide. Roundy recalled from earlier minutes that the
Petitions Subcommittee (PC) had opened the larger question. Singleton inquired what provoked
the PC to do so. Tomhave replied that the PC sees several petitions every year requesting
switches from P/F to graded and graded to P/F credit, and these regularly seem out of step with
the philosophical basis for P/F. Dougharty specifically suggested that P/F seems to be used to
save the GPA, as opposed to motivating academic exploration. Kirkpatrick said the petitions
requesting changes to P/F are typically motivated by a desire to “focus on other courses,”
implicitly indicating the intention not to work as hard in the P/F class. Crane remembered from
an earlier discussion a faculty report that a significant number of students taking a course P/F had
negatively affected the “flavor” of the classroom experience for teacher and fellow students alike.
Matthews wondered how many students take a course P/F. Tomhave speculated that it might be
5%, though Finney thought the percentage was significantly lower than that. A few remarks
followed from Sojda, Moore, and Kupinse regarding the audit as an alternative vehicle for
curricular exploration. As the question of P/F “abuse” was raised, Tomhave recounted a recent
story of a student who had elected the P/F option in a required class in his major, clearly a
violation of the principle of exploration (and a violation of university policy).
Cohen asked how graduate schools viewed P/F, commenting that they certainly couldn’t be
impressed with P/F grades. Roundy reported on a conference of law school admission
professionals he attended in the summer, noting that their view of P/F varied from neutral to
negative, but indicating that the P/F grading was always noticed. Dougharty wondered what
schools comparable to Puget Sound are doing with P/F. Roundy reported a recent unsystematic
web scan in which he found policies similar to Puget Sound’s. Dougharty replied that we would
want to know trends among our sister institutions if we are considering a “hard line” on P/F.
Hamel expressed his view that Jackson’s subcommittee idea was a good one. Matthews
endorsed the idea as well, for the purpose of data collection. He was especially interested in
knowing how students are using the P/F option in aggregate, to help us decide among the several
options noted in the 2001-2002 summary report. Sojda wanted to be sure, if we choose the
option of allowing faculty to mandate letter grading in their courses, that we don’t allow
differential faculty policies among multiple sections of the same course (e.g., Math 271). Hatch
suggested that in our data analysis we should examine class standing to see, for example, how
many students electing P/F are seniors (perhaps hoping to “coast” in their final year?). Moore
was also concerned about lower division students electing P/F in courses that might later prove to
be requirements in a minor, perhaps. Singleton defended seniors enrolling P/F, arguing that such
students might still be explorers, not “coasters.” Finney said he thought that P/F abuse had
declined since the policy of one P/F per term was instituted—we no longer have wholesale spring
P/F registrations among seniors. Roundy thought that a genuine desire both to explore outside
the major and to protect the GPA could and did coexist in the same students electing P/F.
Hamel asked if there was consensus to create a P/F subcommittee. Matthews M (Clark S) P to
form a subcommittee to consider the questions raised in this discussion, bringing the results
to the full committee for deliberation. Hamel solicited volunteers, and found several, as
follows: Matthews, Moore, Tomhave, Sojda, Hatch. Jackson was rewarded for suggesting the
subcommittee by nomination in absentia.
Hamel then asked whether the committee was disposed to address the narrower study abroad P/F
question immediately. Moore was in favor of resolving this “separate” issue immediately.
Singleton said he wasn’t sure it was separate, given that our own study abroad programs appear
in our own curriculum, and thus could be implicated in a prohibition against P/F in study abroad
programs. Cohen thought we could limit the prohibition to IES, whose explicit policies brought
the matter to our table in the first place. Singleton argued that since we affiliate with several
IES-like programs, it would be inconsistent of us to institute a P/F prohibition only with IES.
Madlung responded that IES was the only one of those programs explicitly requesting the
prohibition. Finney proposed a compromise in which IES-bound students could register P/F
only if they petitioned for permission to do so. Hamel suggested that since an easy resolution to
the study abroad P/F question did not appear in view, we might leave that matter to our
discussion following the work of the P/F subcommittee.
Finney suggested that we add to the subcommittee’s charge an examination of the purpose of
P/F, and its relevance to study abroad. Matthews felt that the subcommittee’s work ought to be
gathering data, and that policy and philosophy questions ought to remain the province of the full
committee. Singleton suggested that a committee currently working on study abroad issues
could be a source of input, and this idea was quickly embraced. Roundy requested a
subcommittee reporting date for the minutes, and consensus was reached that the report would be
presented on March 4.
With that, we adjourned at 4:46.
Respectfully submitted by the ASC amanuensis,
Jack Roundy