MINUTES
ACADEMIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE
April 8, 2005
Present: Martin Jackson, Jo Crane, Ross Singleton, Kate Sojda, Andrea Hatch, Betsy Kirkpatick,
Houston Dougharty, Ann Wilson, Ken Clark, Martins Linauts, Geoff Block, Bill Kupinse, Brad
Tomhave, Bob Matthews, Fred Hamel, Dave Moore, Maria Sampen, Jack Roundy
1. Minutes: An addition error was found in the March 25 minutes. On March 9, the total
number of petitions considered was 6, not 21. Also, chair Hamel pointed out the while the March
25 minutes report that Alyce Demarais sent him an email regarding the W/WF grading question,
in fact another member of the Faculty Senate forwarded the Demarais email to him. With these
corrections, the minutes were approved.
2. Announcements: Kirkpatrick announced that a science and math symposium was taking
place at the same time as the ASC meeting. Member Madlung was absent from the meeting in
order to support students at the symposium, and Kirpatrick would have to leave early for the
same reason. Chair Hamel also reported on Faculty Senate (FS) action with respect to the ASC’s
decision to eliminate the P/F option at Puget Sound. In the FS meeting of March 28, a motion to
overturn the ASC decision had been made, with an agreement to discuss the matter more fully on
April 4 before a vote was taken. Jackson, chair of the ASC subcommittee on P/F, attended the
April 4 meeting and briefly discussed the ASC action. The FS then unanimously approved the
motion to overturn the ASC decision on P/F, principally on the grounds that what the ASC
characterized as “abuses” of P/F were insufficient reason to make such a dramatic change in
grading policy. The FS sent back to ASC no further P/F-related charges, though chair Hamel
reported that FS chair Bill Beardsley said he thought an ASC return to the P/F question would be
fine, perhaps with a more “incremental” approach to policy change.
Crane asked whether Jannie Meisberger’s request for guidance regarding P/F and study abroad
had come up in the FS conversation. Jackson said it had not. Moore asked that we return to P/F
at least to address the study abroad piece of the puzzle. He also thought that since P/F has arisen
so frequently in recent years we might want to reconsider some modification of our policy.
Singleton asked if we had decided earlier to approach the ad hoc study abroad committee for its
views on the P/F option for study abroad students. He thought feedback from that group, and
particularly its chair, David Smith, would be useful before ASC returned to the topic. Chair
Hamel offered to contact David Smith. Jackson suggested that chair Smith might be invited to
meet with us. Singleton thought this would be a good idea once the study abroad committee
discussed the matter among themselves.
3. Petitions Committee Actions: Tomhave reported on only one week of activity, given
cancellations of other meetings around Spring Break. He reported that the next meeting would
be held on April 13.
Date
4/6/05
YTD
Approved
8 (2 R + 5 PPT)
157 (26 R + 63 PPT)
Denied
2
34
No Action
0
3
Total
10
194
4. Proposal to Eliminate WF Grade: Hamel returned us to the motion made on March 25 to
eliminate the WF grade and move the deadline for withdrawal from classes to a point two weeks
following the midterm grading deadline. Tomhave reported on research done in the Registrar’s
Office (table attached) on withdrawal grading policies of sister institutions. Because his table did
not include data from WSU he had just received, Tomhave described their unusual arrangement,
which is to permit a maximum of four W grades during a student’s career, to be taken at any
time. Singleton noted that the UW’s system looks much like the one our proposal suggests; in
the early term, a drop is permitted without record, then for several weeks an automatic W is
awarded, and toward the end of term a student must accept an A-F grade without a withdrawal
option. Roundy reported that Colby College has an arrangement (for freshmen only) in which W
and WF grades are awarded at any point in the term. WF grades at Colby appear on the transcript
but do not count in the GPA. Tomhave said he thought the system embodied in the Singleton
motion most resembles the one at PLU.
Singleton said that as the motion maker he had become uncomfortable with allowing only two
weeks after midterm for students to withdraw with a W, and wondered if he could amend his
own motion to allow a longer period on the grounds that students would then have more time to
respond to academic jeopardy they learn about at midterm. He said he preferred PLU’s later cutoff date. Sojda preferred the earlier date of the motion, saying she thought a 12th week cut-off
was too late. Kirkpatrick said many of her frosh may have poor midterm grades because of an
early midterm, and won’t have information from a second exam to know if they have turned
things around by the proposed withdrawal deadline. Jackson said he thought a longer W period
makes sense, and that late in term, should problems arise, an incomplete grade could be the
solution to a legitimate student emergency. Tomhave said he thought our current W/WF system
allows student escape for legitimate emergencies. Hamel, scanning the table of sister
institutions, said he thought we look like an outlier, but also said he thought our W/WF system
works well. He was especially sensitive to Sojda’s hypothetical situation from our earlier
meeting in which a responsible and an irresponsible student receive the same W grade late in
term—he thought that would be unfair. For that reason, he was reluctant to see us allow a 12week W period in which students could freely walk away. Singleton replied that students don’t
walk away free with a W; they lose academic credit. Sojda answered that a student departing a
course late in term has already paid for it, so for her the only difference between two students
departing the course would be their grades—if an irresponsible fellow student also received a W,
she thought that person would be walking away free by comparison.
Tomhave said he didn’t know how many students we have dismissed because of WF grades
would still be with us if we eliminated that grade. He wondered if it would be good for them or
for us to still be enrolled. Hatch said she thought a benefit of a longer W period followed by
mandatory A-F grading would be the chance for struggling students to pull up their grades late.
Matthews said his stake in this decision was not to write a rule that reduces his flexibility to
work with struggling students. In that spirit, Singleton said, he would like to amend his motion
to extend the W period to the 12th week, like PLU’s policy. Matthews said that Singleton’s
proposed amendment was OK with him as seconder. Lacking a parliamentarian, we did not
know whether an amendment by the motion maker was permissible.
The discussion continued, with Sojda arguing for a deadline one week after midterm. Clark
responded that he gives his second midterm in the 11th week, and said he’d favor that week as a
deadline. Hatch said she found it hard to believe students wouldn’t know how serious their
problems in a course were before the 11th week; if they haven’t been putting the work in all term,
an 11th week W allows them to avoid the consequences. She said she was uncomfortable moving
the W from the 4th week to the 11th with this policy change. Moore said he didn’t always know
why his students were struggling, and more time for them to turn things around would be good.
Sampen asked about our policy on repeating courses, and the feature allowing a student to
replace a poor grade in the GPA by retaking the course. Doesn’t the possibility of a repeat
provide an out for a student who must accept an A-F grade after midterm? Matthews said there
were instances where the repeat was not helpful, as in the case of an upper division course he
offers only every other year—few students would be around long enough to take this course
again if they did poorly the first time. He added that he liked the motion as written, but
wondered if we shouldn’t have the option of a petition to withdraw for extenuating
circumstances, with the requirement that the instructor report the current grade on the petition.
Moore returned our discussion to the charge given by the FS, which was to address the question
of “consistency” in withdrawal grading. He thought a cut-off for withdrawal was one way to
achieve consistency. He also pointed out that we differ from sister institutions in how early in
term the W deadline is. He suggested moving the WF period back to the 6th week, then
continuing the W/WF system (with a WF not counted in the GPA) or replace it with a Late
Withdrawal grade.
Hamel said we might also look at how to make the implementation of our current policy more
consistent. Crane replied that she didn’t think we could police faculty W/WF grading. Hamel
said he was not persuaded that we couldn’t hold faculty to demonstrate their rationale for grading
decisions. He said he was also reluctant to have us forward another wholesale academic policy
change to the FS, given their reaction to our decision on P/F policy. Sampen wondered if we
could ask the FS to clarify what they would like us to do, in light of this discussion? Crane
added that we could forward Tomhave’s table as background. Hamel replied by invoking
Finney’s remark that our W/WF policy has been around for at least 30 years, which says
something about its durability. Tomhave replied that inconsistency in WF grading has been
around just as long. Moore argued that it is impossible to achieve consistency with the policy as
it is. Hamel responded that consistency may not assure fairness. Jackson suggested that a
longer W period, at the very least, could make the W/WF decision easier and clearer. Singleton
agreed, saying we could extend the W period to the 12th week, and keep the WF thereafter if that
seemed more palatable. Tomhave replied that the major problem with consistency is the case of
a single student, having done the same amount of work in all her classes (usually very little), who
then approaches her four instructors and receives differing answers on withdrawal grading. This
inconsistency is manifest at any point in term. Roundy concurred, saying it was his experience
that this inconsistency persists through the last day of classes. Singleton retracted his suggestion
that the WF be retained for any part of the term. Crane said it made sense to move from the W
deadline, wherever we set it, to A-F grading, then.
Sampen, thinking about the use of petitions for a W grade after a later deadline in term (say, 12
weeks), said she believed the petition process could create timing issues for students who would
not know whether to go to class while waiting for a decision. Hatch thought this problem could
be addressed by having a 10-week W period followed by a 2-week LW period (by petition),
followed by A-F grading to end the term. At this point Hamel recommended that we continue
our discussion at the next meeting, being careful to supply a solid rationale for any decision we
might make that would significantly alter our policy. He said he thought the FS might return the
matter to us if our rationale for change was not well articulated. Matthews, as a parting shot,
said he was becoming more and more convinced that we should not add a petition step to our
withdrawal policy. Roundy requested that Hamel contact the FS chair to invite senators to read
ASC minutes so as to advise us if they have an approach in mind for us in addressing the W/WF
charge.
With that, we adjourned at 5:00.
Respectfully submitted by the ASC amanuensis,
Jack Roundy
University of Puget Sound
Colorado College
Gonzaga University
Pacific Lutheran University
Reed College
Seattle Pacific University
Seattle University
University of Washington
Washington State University
Whitman College
Whitworth College
Willamette University
Williams College
Drop without Record
Failure
No Withdrawal - Grade Earned
Late Withdrawal (by petition),
otherwise non-punitive Unofficial
Withdrawal
Late Withdrawal (by petition with
$50 fee), otherwise grade earned
or failing "unofficial withdrawal."
Drop with "W'
Withdrawal with Failing Grade
Week
1
DWR
DWR
DWR
DWR
DWR
DWR
W
DWR
DWR
DWR
W
Week
2
DWR
F
DWR
DWR
DWR
W
W
DWR
DWR
DWR
W
Week
3
W
F
W
W
DWR
W
W
W3
DWR
DWR
W
W
W
W
DWR
F
GR
LW
V
W
WF
Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
W
WF
WF
WF
WF
WF
WF
WF
WF
WF
WF
WF
W
W
W
W
W
W
DWR DWR DWR
W
W
W
W
W
W
W4
W5
W6
DWR DWR DWR
DWR DWR DWR
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
GR
LW
W7
W
W
W
W
W
W
GR
LW
W8
W
W
W
W
W
W
GR
LW
GR
W
W
W
V
W
GR
GR
LW
GR
W
W
W
V
W
GR
V
W
GR
V
GR
GR
V
GR
GR
V
GR
GR
F
F
F
F
F
W
W
W
W
GR
GR
GR
GR
GR