MINUTES
ACADEMIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE
March 4, 2005
Present: Martin Jackson, Ross Singleton, Kate Sojda, Andrea Hatch, Andreas Madlung, Betsy
Kirkpatick, Ann Wilson, Bill Kupinse, Brad Tomhave, Geoff Block, John Finney, Bob
Matthews, Ken Clark, Fred Hamel, Dave Moore, Mirelle Cohern, Jack Roundy
Visitor: Ben Bradley (potential ASUPS designate to ASC in 2005-2006)
1. Minutes: The minutes of the January 28 meeting were approved as written.
2. Announcements: Chair Hamel announced that two new charges will be received from the
Faculty Senate shortly: 1) to consider means for achieving consistency in W/WF grading for
students who withdraw following the fourth week of term; and 2) to reevaluate class scheduling
with respect to approved time “blocks” for class offerings.
3. Petitions Committee Actions: Tomhave reported on five weeks of business, as follows:
Date
2/2/05
2/9/05
2/16/05
2/23/05
3/2/05
YTD
Approved
18 (4 R + 10 PPT)
6 (2 PPT)
3 (3 PPT)
8 (5 PPT)
2 (2 PPT)
148 (26 R + 62 PPT)
Denied
2
0
0
1
0
28
No Action
1
0
0
0
0
2
Total
21
6
3
9
2
178
4. Pass/Fail Grade Option: Jackson reopened our discussion by talking us through the report
of the subcommittee on P/F (attached). He concluded by noting that the subcommittee had not
addressed P/F in the context of study abroad.
Much of the ensuing conversation addressed the basic philosophy behind optional P/F: to reduce
the academic risk for students wishing to explore outside the department of their major or minor.
The subcommittee’s data analysis established that 18% of P/F enrollments over the past four
terms were in the department of a student’s major or minor. Given the basic philosophy of P/F at
Puget Sound, they characterized this 18% of enrollments as “abuse” of the P/F option. One of
the subcommittee’s proposed changes to P/F policy was to allow departments to control P/F
enrollments by course (making certain courses “graded only”) or by department policy
(prohibiting majors from taking department courses P/F).
Singleton said he thought departments already had authority to prohibit P/F enrollments.
Jackson replied that University policy mandates graded rather than P/F enrollment in courses
taken to meet major or minor requirements. But students may exercise the P/F option in
additional courses (courses characterized by the registrar as “excess”) in major or minor
departments. Hamel thought that the 18% taking courses P/F in their major departments might
be making “strategic” use of the P/F option, rather than abusing it. Jackson thought the clause in
P/F policy saying the “option is designed to encourage a student to explore courses in academic
areas outside the major or minor” is open to interpretation with respect to “excess” courses
within the major or minor department.
Sojda gave an instance in her own major department, business, where an argument could be
made that a student is “exploring” in a departmental course. If one’s emphasis is, say,
management, an upper division course in finance might be considered sufficiently distant in
method and topic to warrant consideration as “outside” the major. A subcommittee member,
Sojda said that the group had considered a policy recommendation to prohibit the use of P/F
within the major department unless a student petitions for departmental permission. Hatch said
she thought that in many departments (her example, history), the argument that a course in the
department would be genuine “exploration outside the major or minor” would not be credible.
Madlung said he could think of courses within his field, biology, that would represent true
exploration for certain biology majors. Singleton concurred, pointing to a math economics
course in his own department that he thought would represent true exploration for certain
economics majors. Jackson countered that he was skeptical that “exploration” by a biology
major in a biology course could be considered comparable to exploration by a biology major in a
religion course. Some concerns about protecting the “instructor blind” character of P/F were
expressed in a system where students had to seek permission to enroll with that option in
departmental courses, but Moore thought those concerns could be addressed by having the
department chair grant required permissions.
Jackson made the point that the subcommittee could not report with confidence on the reasons
students have elected P/F, making it difficult to determine how widespread “abuse” is. Tomhave
said that grade-option change petitions to the Petitions Committee confirm that in those instances
students are seeking to do less work in a given course, because the students tell us so in their
statements.
At this point Matthews said he’d like us to move forward, first by taking our Dec. 3 motion off
the table, second by considering if we wished to make certain courses graded-only (if the motion
to eliminate P/F failed), and third to consider an “extra step” (seeking permission) in the election
of P/F (again if the motion to eliminate P/F failed). Matthews then M (Tomhave S) to take the
Dec. 3 motion off the table. Singleton argued against the elimination of the P/F option, for the
sake of preserving an incentive to student academic exploration. After a bit of discussion of the
next necessary parliamentary step, he followed by calling the question. The committee P
(unanimously) the motion to take the Dec. 3 motion off the table.
We then began to debate this motion, recorded as follows in the December 3 minutes: “Jackson
. . . M (Matthews S): Elimination of the P/F option at Puget Sound.” Beginning discussion
on the motion, Cohen asked if Cascade could be programmed to prevent students from selecting
a course P/F, and was told it could. Singleton, returning to the question of whether “excess”
courses within an academic department could be viewed as “exploration beyond the major or
minor” for purposes of P/F, argued that they could. Jackson disagreed. Tomhave stated that he
thought this ambiguity in the current policy was another argument for eliminating P/F altogether.
He added that students electing the P/F option fail those classes at twice the University average.
P/F, he said, is a “complicated” option, and eliminating it would simplify everyone’s lives.
Singleton countered that this simplification of our academic program might well come at the
expense of students’ welfare, given that it would increase the risk in academic exploration.
Tomhave replied that students could still engage in academic exploration, but without the P/F
incentive not to work very hard. Madlung said he believed that the elimination of P/F would
discourage students from exploration outside their majors and minors. Hatch said she did not
favor eliminating P/F, but still recommended the audit as an alternative for exploring students.
Hamel said he did not find the “strategic” use of P/F by students within their major or minor
departments as “necessarily bad.” Sojda said that she didn’t necessarily favor eliminating P/F
but did favor strengthening the limitations on P/F within the major. She didn’t think that the
audit offered equivalent exploration incentive, given that students taking courses for credit have
earlier enrollment access and do earn academic credit for P/F courses. Kupinse acknowledged
that the elimination of P/F could reduce student freedom to explore academically, but argued that
protecting a student bound for graduate school (who may not yet know it) from the negatives of
P/F, and further shoring up Puget Sound’s claim to academic rigor would be benefits of such a
decision. Hamel thought that another approach might be to reduce the number of courses
students could choose to take P/F from four to two, given the subcommittee’s discovery that few
students currently take more than two anyway. Matthews then called the question.
In a vote by show of hands, then, P: Elimination of the P/F option at Puget Sound (10 for, 6
against, 1 abstention). Following the vote, a number of members encouraged chair Hamel to
alert Faculty Senate chair Bill Beardsley of this decision, anticipating the likelihood of a strong
faculty and student reaction to this decision.
With that, we adjourned at 5:00.
Respectfully submitted by the ASC amanuensis,
Jack Roundy
ASC Subcommittee on Pass/Fail
March 4, 2005
On January 28, 2005, the Academic Standards Committee passed a motion forming a
subcommittee to consider the questions related to the Pass/Fail policy and to bring results
to the full committee for deliberation. Appointed to the subcommittee were Andrea
Hatch (student), Martin Jackson (Math/CS), Bob Matthews (Math/CS), David Moore
(Psychology), Kate Sojda (student), and Brad Tomhave (Associate Registrar). A date of
March 4, 2005 was set for a report from the subcommittee.
Information
Current P/F policy is embodied in the following language from the 2004-05 Academic
Handbook:
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. Students who wish to exercise the Pass/Fail grading option must do so at the
Office of the Registrar or through Cascade web on or before the last day to add classes.
A student may take on a pass/fail basis a total of four (4) academic courses (with a limit
of one per term) and up to 1.5 activity units in the minimum of thirty-two (32) units
required for graduation. Any mandatory pass/fail academic course will count as one of
the four courses allowed toward graduation. Almost all activity courses are mandatory
pass/fail. A maximum of one academic course may be taken pass/fail per term in addition
to any mandatory pass/fail course. A student planning to go to graduate or professional
school is advised not to use the Pass/Fail option in academic courses.
Pass/Fail registrations are "blind" and are not reported to the instructor. Those students
registered for Pass/Fail receive a "P" if the instructor submits a grade of "C-" or higher
and receive an "F" if the instructor submits a grade of "D+" or lower.
Courses taken pass/fail will not fulfill University Core Requirements. All courses
counting toward the academic major or minor must be taken for a letter grade unless they
are mandatory pass/fail. Graduate students may not apply pass/fail credits toward a
graduate degree.
If a student's grade is "Pass," credit will be given for the course and included in total
hours of credit, but will not be included in the calculation of the grade average. If a
student's grade is "Fail," it will be included in the calculation of the grade average.
The subcommittee collected the following information on which to base discussion:
• minutes from relevant ASC meetings during Academic Year 00-01 and 01-02;
• data on P/F enrollments for Fall 03, Spring 04, Fall 04, and Spring 05 (provided
by Brad Tomhave); and
• a sample of P/F policies at comparable and next-level institutions (provided by
Andrea Hatch).
The full committee has noted the discussions and actions on Pass/Fail that took place in
the ASC during the 00-02 academic years. The subcommittee finds that these prior
discussions were detailed and comprehensive. The minutes of March 22, 2000 contain an
attachment in the form of a useful memo from John Finney giving a history of the P/F
policy at UPS. The final action taken by the ASC was “to limit the number of P/F
courses a student may take per term to one, in addition to mandatory P/F.” Over the
course of its discussions, that version of the ASC also considered six other changes to the
P/F policy: (1) reducing the total number of P/Fs allowed in a degree from four to two,
(2) changing the requirement that a C- be earned to receive a P in a P/F class, (3)
permitting instructors to designate courses for A-F grading only, (4) allowing P/F
registrations on a “space available” basis only, (5) permitting no P/F in the major, even in
“surplus” courses not counted among requirements, and (6) making all non-academic
classes P/F only. None of these changes was adopted.
Brad Tomhave provided two data sets. The first gave all P/F enrollments (for courses
with optional P/F) for the terms Fall 2003, Spring 2004, Fall 2004, and Spring 2005 listed
by course. For each enrollment, the data set included the A-F grade assigned by the
instructor, the P/F grade, the student’s GPA, the student’s class standing, and the
student’s declared majors/minors. In analyzing this data set, the subcommittee counted
the number of P/F courses taken in the same department or program in which a student
has a declared major or minor and counted the number of students for whom the assigned
A-F grade was greater than the GPA. Results are summarized in the following table.
Term
F03
S04
F04
S05
TOTAL
Number of
courses in
Number of P/F major/minor
courses
dept.
68
88
45
114
315
Percent of
courses in Number of assigned
major/minor grades greater than
dept.
student GPA
14
23
2
17
56
21%
26%
4%
15%
18%
Percent of assigned
grades greater than
student GPA
26
31
14
38%
35%
31%
71
35%
The distribution of A-F grade assigned by the instructor is given in the following table.
This table also includes a distribution of A-F grades assigned in Spring 2002 (which was
most recent at hand as this report was written).
Grade
Percent for all P/F
(F03, S04, F04)
Percent for non P/F
(Spring 2002)
A
A- B+
B
B- C+
C
C- D+ D D-
F
I
W
10% 12% 16% 20% 15% 8% 10% 4% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 3%
21% 20% 17% 18% 8% 5% 5% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 2%
The second data set listed all current students who have or are enrolled in a course using
the P/F option. For each student, information is listed on the course, class standing, and
declared majors/minors. There are a total of 174 currently enrolled students who have
used or are using the P/F option. Of these, four are sophomores, 18 are juniors and 152
are seniors. Of the 174 students, 149 have one P/F course, 22 have 2 P/F courses, 3 have
3 P/F courses, and none have 4 P/F courses (the maximum allowed toward a degree).
In comparison to the sample of P/F policies examined, the UPS policy is typical. A limit
of 4 P/F courses counting toward a degree and a limit of one P/F course per semester
were common in the sample. Some institutions have more restrictive policies (for
example, Bard College has no P/F option outside of the music program).
Issues
The subcommittee briefly discussed general principles for the existence and use of any
grading system. Grades are used by students for self-understanding, by the university for
monitoring progress toward and award of a degree, and by external users (such as
employers and graduate schools) for making judgments on students as applicants.
A rationale for P/F as an option is given in the Academic Handbook: to encourage a
student to explore courses in academic areas outside the major or minor. The
subcommittee presumes this encouragement to be in the form of reduced risk to the
student’s cumulative GPA. Several lines of reasoning against P/F emerged:
1. A student may use P/F not in accordance with the stated rationale in one of
several ways. First, a student may exercise the P/F option in a course not outside
the major or minor. Second, a student may exercise the P/F option with the
primary goal of reducing workload.
2. In using P/F, a student may unknowingly do harm in one of several ways. The
student may earn an A-F grade higher than the current GPA and thus forfeit an
opportunity to increase GPA. External users may view the presence of a P/F
grade on a transcript negatively.
3. Audit is available as a low-risk opportunity to explore courses outside the major
or minor.
Information available to the subcommittee shows that about 18% of recent P/F
courses are taken in the major or minor area. The subcommittee did not have a means
of determining the primary motivation for each student choosing to exercise the P/F
option. The subcommittee feels that the number of students taking P/F in the major
or minor area is worthy of some attention.
About one-third of the students using the P/F option were assigned an A-F grade
greater than the current GPA. A crude comparison of the distribution of assigned
grades for courses taken with the graded option exercised and the distribution for
courses taken with the P/F option exercised shows a downward shift. The
subcommittee notes that if the P/F option were not available and there were no
change in enrollment patterns or student effort levels, the overall impact on GPA may
be small. A change in one grade level in a one-unit course produces a change in GPA
of 0.031 when averaged over the 32 units required for graduation.
Conclusions
Some members of the committee favor eliminating P/F as a grade option (but not P/F
in courses for which it is mandatory). These members argue that the known abuse
and potential abuse together with the known harm outweigh the potential benefit of a
P/F option, arguing that the potential benefit is unknown because we cannot know
what a student would take if P/F is not an option.
In addition to a proposal to eliminate P/F as an option, the subcommittee discussed
two other approaches to modifying the current P/F policy:
1. Give departments control over two aspects of P/F. Allow departments to
determine if P/F is an option for each course. Allow departments to determine if
a student majoring or minoring in the department can use the P/F option within
the department. (Here, department should be read broadly as department, school,
or program.)
2. Raise some barriers for a student to exercise the P/F option. One idea here is to
require an application for the P/F option. Components of this application might
include (1) explicit confirmation that the course is not in the major or minor, (2) a
written justification responding to the rationale in the P/F policy, and (3) the
course plan to be taken if the application is denied.