MINUTES
ACADEMIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE
September 26, 2005
Present: Martin Jackson, Kathryn Mcmillan, Ben Bradley, Kevin David, Gary Mccall,
Houston Dougharty, Ken Clark, Martins Linauts, Bill Kupinse, Brad Tomhave, Bob
Matthews, Fred Hamel, Dave Moore, Maria Sampen, John Finney, Andreas Madlung,
Jack Roundy
1. Minutes: Minutes of the September 9 meeting were approved as written, with
thanks to Martins Linauts for his secretarial service.
2. Announcements: Tomhave announced that the Registrar will no longer send
grade mailers to students since online grade delivery has superseded costly US mail
delivery. Roundy announced that on or about Oct. 1, the ASC-approved policy
requiring students to have advisors in the departments of their majors will be
implemented. The vehicle for implementing the change will be an online tool for
declaring majors that requires the simultaneous selection of an advisor.
3. Petitions Committee Actions: Tomhave reported PC actions through September
16, indicating that the results of the September 23 meeting will be reported at the
next full committee meeting.
Date
9/16/05
YTD
Approved
16 (4 R + 7 PPT)
16 (4 R + 7 PPT)
3
Denied
3
0
No Action
0
19
Total
19
4. Discussion of W/WF Policy: Chair Jackson opened the discussion with a
reminder of last year’s deliberations, which were inspired by a Faculty Senate (FS)
charge to look for consistency in the administration of the withdrawal policy after the
fourth week of classes. He noted that a subcommittee had been created to examine
withdrawal data over the summer and make a proposal to the full committee. The
subcommittee included Matthews, Tomhave, Kupinse, and last year’s chair, Betsy
Kirkpatrick. Matthews talked the committee through the proposal, whose four main
points are:
•
•
•
•
Move the W/WF decision point to week 6
Provide a mechanism for faculty and students to extend that deadline to week
10 upon written application by the student and agreement by the instructor,
with a written plan to address difficulties the student has encountered
Clarify the conditions required for a W to be assigned past the W/WF decision
point
Modify the course repeat policy to include course attempts, including courses
which are dropped for any reason past the “drop without record” decision point
Matthews explained that the subcommittee’s proposal arose as an attempt: 1) to
achieve consistency in the assignment of W/WF grades after the automatic W period,
and 2) to offer flexibility to faculty working with struggling students. He reported that
the subcommittee had met with Academic Vice President Bartanen this past summer
to discuss the substance of the proposal under discussion today. He indicated that
the subcommittee attempted to craft a policy that would encourage students to
“commit” to their courses (by modifying the course repeat policy) while at the same
time offering faculty flexibility in working with struggling students as they attempted
to overcome academic difficulties in their courses. Having explained goals and
means, Matthews talked the committee through proposed revisions of Logger
language. He concluded his introductory remarks by thanking Tomhave for providing
the subcommittee data on W/WF grading over the past two terms.
Roundy opened the questioning by asking how the subcommittee decided to define a
“course attempt” (for purposes of the course repeat policy) as any course in which a
student is still enrolled after the drop-without-record deadline. Wasn’t that an early
point of decision, with the potential to create an increased volume of petitions from
students wanting to take courses for a third time? Matthews replied that the
subcommittee thought it best to select a deadline that was already established in the
academic calendar, and felt that the new 6 week decision point for W/WF grading
would take us too far into term (given the goal of getting students to commit to their
courses). Tomhave added that he liked the notion of counting courses in which
students received a W as “attempts” since in his view we have considerable unhappy
experience with students beginning courses, abandoning them with W’s, and
attempting them again repeatedly. Roundy agreed that patterns of W’s in the same
courses have been problems for some students, and that the revised definition could
help with such situations.
Jackson noted in Tomhave’s W/WF data a significant disparity in the relative number
of W and WF grades awarded after the W/WF deadline. He asked whether the
subcommittee thought the proposed revisions in policy would address this disparity.
Kupinse thought the policy revision did now give faculty a clearer checklist of
guidelines for assigning W/WF grades, and that this could move us toward greater
balance. Jackson followed by noting that two written elements would now be required
for extensions of the W/WF deadline from 6-10 weeks. Did the subcommittee
envision forms for this? Kupinse and Tomhave agreed that at least one and perhaps
two forms might need to be developed to smoothly administer the new policy.
Finney asked for an account of the subcommittee’s meeting with Dean Bartanen.
Matthews replied that the meeting had come about because Dean Bartanen had
expressed a number of concerns about ASC deliberations in a memo last spring (text
appended to the May 6, 2005 ASC minutes on the Web), concerns which had led her
to hope that the current W/WF policy could be reaffirmed in a way that preserved
faculty prerogative. The subcommittee met with her to clarify the ways in which
proposed policy changes had evolved from the spring discussions of the full
committee. Matthews said the subcommittee presented the basic substance of the
proposal under discussion and that she asked a number of clarifying questions. He
reported that she had not sent the committee word of her views after the discussion,
though during the meeting she had made some suggestions about changes in
language. Finney asked, did she like this proposal? Matthews replied that he did not
wish to speak for her, but said he did not recall her raising objections to it in the
meeting. Tomhave, likewise saying he did not wish to speak for her, did venture to
guess that if she were a member of the ASC, she would not be likely to vote for it.
Sampen asked whether an ASC vote to approve this policy would send it on to the FS
for their vote. Finney replied that the revised policy would go into effect unless the FS
chose to do something about it. Madlung asked how students would come to know
about the revised policy, particularly the option to extend the W deadline from 6 to 10
weeks. Matthews replied that since the default deadline would be 6 weeks, it would
be natural for the student and instructor to have a conversation at that point, and the
faculty member could suggest an extension if one was warranted (he emphasized that
the faculty member would have to support an extension). Tomhave opined that our
experience with the number of students who don’t even know the add deadline
suggests that many would be unaware of this one, as well. Sampen wondered if
faculty would have to announce the extension option early in term in their classes.
Hamel wondered how many students would see the 6 to 10 week extension as a “free
pass,” a new way to defer the consequences of lack of effort and commitment to their
courses, to defer a looming WF. Kupinse pointed out that the extension would not be
something students could simply elect, but rather something they would have to work
out with their instructors. Hamel thought the number of requests might be daunting,
given that any student would naturally prefer a safe W to the risk of a WF. Sampen,
looking at Tomhave’s data, suggested that the great majority of grades awarded
between weeks 6-10 are W grades currently. Jackson concurred that any student
who understood the 6-10 week extension option would likely petition for one, making
for a high volume of such appeals.
Matthews thought the requirement of a written plan for an extension, together with
the tightening of the course repeat policy, would limit the number of requests. Hamel
agreed that these would exert countervailing pressures, but guessed that the lure of
the W would outweigh them. He was also not persuaded that faculty would say “no”
very often. Jackson wondered whether extension requests would have to be made
before the end of the 6th week, or could they be made in week 7 or 8. Matthews
replied that they must be made by the end of week 6. So at the point of the request,
the student would receive either an extension or a W?, Jackson asked. Tomhave said
no, that the overall intent of policy would remain to keep students in the classes they
have enrolled for, and so the student might also choose to remain in the class.
Dougharty, pointing out that those of us who work regularly with students in
academic difficulty know all of the names on the W/WF list Tomhave supplied, said
what he like best about the proposed policy on exemptions is that it would require
students to engage in conversation with their instructors about remedying their
academic challenges. Clark wondered whether this policy change would oblige him to
make a grade projection for all of his students at week 6. Matthews replied that the
new policy would require the faculty to do nothing more at week 6 than they currently
do at week 4, unless and until a student comes forward with an extension request.
David inquired whether the ASC has considered simply moving the W/WF deadline
forward to week 6, without the other policy provisions. Matthews replied that this
simple change had been considered by ASC last year, but some members were
troubled by the fact that faculty and students would lose the opportunity to work on
turning things around with an inflexible week 6 deadline.
Finney spoke against an extendable W/WF deadline, calling it a “bad dream,” and
stating that he could not conceive of any defensible rationale for a variable withdrawal
policy. Sampen asked if he had an alternative in mind. Finney replied that the
current policy made good sense to him, though he thought the subcommittee had
done good work addressing more explicit criteria for the assigning of W/WF grades.
In his rational world, he said, the W grade after the W/WF deadline would only be
assigned when a circumstance beyond the student’s control arose and the student
couldn’t complete the course; at no point would a student’s current grade come into
the question. Dougharty replied that the reality of the current policy is that students
usually do opt out (most typically with W grades) because they are doing poorly in
their courses. Sampen stated that she appreciated the “accountability” inherent in
Finney’s argument, but didn’t believe the faculty as a whole would accept it. David
observed that the proposed policy change would essentially place our blessing on a
current de facto reality, that some students hang around in courses not doing much
until late in term, then seek and receive W grades when withdrawing. Finney said he
thought ASC would do well to “make a stand,” affirming that our current policy makes
good sense, but simply isn’t consistently enforced. Working toward that consistency
might be a better use of our energies.
As the hour was growing late, Jackson then proposed adjournment, with the
understanding that we will return to this issue at our next meeting.
Respectfully submitted by the ASC amanuensis,
Jack Roundy
To: Academic Standards Committee
From: ASC W/WF subcommittee
Subject: Report
At its meeting on May 6, 2005, the Academic Standards Committee created a
subcommittee consisting of Bill Kupinse, Betsy Kirkpatrick, Bob Matthews, and Brad
Tomhave to review issues of concern with the current W/WF policy.
Current policy
(from the on-line edition of the Logger, page 29 in the printed version (AY 2004 –
2005), and http://www.ups.edu/x4727.xml#withdrawal on the University’s web
site:
Withdrawal Grades
Withdrawal without record on the permanent academic record is permissible through the first two
weeks of the fall and spring terms when a student completes official withdrawal procedures.
Withdrawal Passing (W) is granted during the third and fourth weeks of the fall and spring terms
when a student completes official withdrawal procedures.
After the fourth week of the fall and spring terms, a grade of W may be granted by the instructor if
a student completes official withdrawal procedures, if there have been unusual circumstances
beyond the student’s control and the student’s work has been of passing quality.
Withdrawal Failing (WF) is given when (1) a student withdraws from a course after the fourth week
of the fall or spring terms without unusual circumstances beyond the student’s control; (2) the
student is failing; or (3) the student does not complete official withdrawal procedures.
Completing official withdrawal procedures after the last day of regularly scheduled classes is not
allowed.
Withdrawal deadlines for summer and in-service courses are published in class schedule brochures.
When a student abandons a course without completing official withdrawal procedures, the instructor
assigns an appropriate grade, normally the “W” or ”WF.” If the instructor does not assign a grade,
a grade of “WF” is entered.
The subcommittee reviewed data on the current use of the withdrawal policy by students
at the University of Puget Sound kindly provided by Brad Tomhave, reviewed the
withdrawal policy currently in effect, reviewed a memorandum written by the Academic
Vice President to the ASC, and reviewed the related discussions in the Academic
Standards Committee during the Spring term. The subcommittee paid particular attention
to the following issues:
1. The current policy has not followed consistently in all cases by faculty colleagues.
This might cause difficulties for colleagues who follow the current policy more
carefully.
Page 1
2. The current decision point at week 4 may be too early in the term to provide a
student with a significant assessment of progress (for example, a first exam).
3. The current policy may not give faculty colleagues the flexibility to work with
students in difficulty in the early part of the term.
4. Any revised policy should address the often conflicting desire to ensure
consistency in the application of a policy and the flexibility desired by colleagues
in working with students.
In its discussions during the Spring term, the Academic Standards Committee had
considered moving the W/WF decision point (currently week 4 of the term), assigning a
WF as is currently done but not counting it in GPA calculations, permitting withdrawals
only in exceptional circumstances (current policy), and doing away with WF altogether.
To ensure consistency in the application of the policy, the possibility of asking for
documentation before assigning a W after the fourth week was also raised and discussed.
At the end of the semester, several suggestions had been turned down, but the Committee
wanted to pursue the issue in the next academic year. Accordingly, as described above, a
subcommittee was developed to discuss the issue during the summer months.
Beginning in July, the subcommittee met several times to discuss the committee’s charge
and to decide whether changes to the policy should be proposed. The subcommittee also
met with Academic Vice President Kris Bartanen on August 19, 2005, to discuss
concerns she had raised with the earlier proposed changes to the W/WF policy. In its
discussions, the subcommittee considered reasons for the current policy and concluded
that the justification for the current policy included:
1.
2.
3.
The goal of keeping students seriously and actively involved in the courses to
which they had committed themselves, both for the student’s benefit and for
the benefit of the other students in the class,
The avoidance of frequent repetition of a withdrawal-return “try-out” policy,
which was felt to be detrimental to the student and unfair to the students who
did not have the financial resources to do this, and
Provide some flexibility to faculty to deal with exceptional circumstances.
The subcommittee recommends a revision to the current policy which
1.
2.
3.
4.
Moves the W/WF decision point to week 6,
Provides a mechanism for faculty and students to extend that deadline to week
10 upon written application by the student and agreement by the instructor,
with a written plan to address difficulties the student has encountered.
Clarifies the conditions required for a ‘W’ grade to be assigned past the
W/WF decision point, and
Modifies the course repeat policy to include course attempts, including
courses which are dropped for any reason past the “Drop without record”
decision point.
Page 2
The subcommittee proposes the following language for the Logger:
Modifications to the section on ‘Withdrawal Grades’ (changes in mark-through or
bold):
Withdrawal Grades
Withdrawal without record on the permanent academic record is permissible through the first two
weeks of the fall and spring terms when a student completes official withdrawal procedures.
Withdrawal Passing (W) is granted during the third through sixth week of the fall and spring
terms when a student completes official withdrawal procedures. Students may formally apply
to the instructor for an extension of this decision point to week 10, contingent upon the
approval of the instructor and a written plan to address the student’s difficulties in the
course. Students following an approved extension may withdraw with an automatic ‘W’
through the tenth week of the term.
After the sixth week of the fall and spring terms, or the tenth week if an extension has been
approved, a grade of W may be granted by the instructor if (1) a student completes official
withdrawal procedures and (2) there have been unusual circumstances beyond the student’s
control, in which case the student must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the instructor
that exceptional circumstances exist, and (3) either the student’s work has been of passing
quality or the exceptional circumstances prevent the student from completing work of
passing quality.
Otherwise, withdrawal Failing (WF) is given when (1) a student withdraws from a course after the
sixth week of the fall or spring terms without an extension and without unusual circumstances
beyond the student’s control; (2) the student is failing; or (3) the student does not complete official
withdrawal procedures.
Completing official withdrawal procedures after the last day of regularly scheduled classes is not
allowed.
Withdrawals at any point past the date for withdrawal without record count as a ‘course
attempt’ if the student re-registers for the course.
Withdrawal deadlines for summer and in-service courses are published in class schedule brochures.
When a student abandons a course without completing official withdrawal procedures, the instructor
assigns an appropriate grade, normally the”WF.” If the instructor does not assign a grade, a grade
of “WF” is entered.
Policy on course repeats and proposed modifications:
Current policy (Re-registration for the Same Course, page 55 in the 2004 – 2005 Logger,
http://www.ups.edu/x4741.xml#reregistration):
Page 3
Re-registration for the Same Course
A student may repeat a course one time. The credit will apply only once toward a degree, and the
highest passing grade received is computed in the grade average. Both grades remain on the
permanent academic record.
Exceptions to this policy are independent study, cooperative education, physical education activity,
and varsity sports courses, CTA 292, music performing groups, and other courses that the catalog
states may be repeated for credit.
Students should note, however, that only one English 101 course and only one course from the
series Philosophy 101 through 110 may be counted toward the degree.
A student may ask to repeat a course at another institution by submitting a Transfer Evaluation
Request to the Office of the Registrar (Jones 009) listing the Puget Sound course to be repeated.
Permission may be granted subject to the student’s status and with the specific approval of the
appropriate academic department. (Some departments do not allow Puget Sound courses in which
the student earned a low grade to be repeated at another institution). If a Puget Sound course is
then repeated at another institution, and if the grade earned elsewhere is the higher of the two, the
Puget Sound grade will be removed from the grade average, but the transfer grade will not be
computed in the grade average. Credit for the Puget Sound course will be removed and replaced by
the transfer credit, even if there is a difference between the two. (See section on Transfer
Information for other policies governing transfer credit.)
Proposed changes to the current policy (changes again in bold):
Re-registration for the Same Course
A student may repeat a course one time and although both courses and grades remain on
the student’s permanent academic record, the course with the higher grade is included in
unit and grade point average calculations. This policy allows students to take a course
again to improve a grade or to complete a course for which the student previously
received a ‘W’ or ‘WF’ grade. If a student attempting to improve a grade earns the same
grade again, then the more recent grade is included in the appropriate calculations. W
never replaces any letter grade, including a ‘WF’.
An attempt of a course occurs when a student enrolls for a course and withdraws after
the date for withdrawal without record.
Exceptions to this policy are independent study, cooperative education, physical education activity,
and varsity sports courses, COMM 292, music performing groups, and other courses that the
catalog states may be repeated for credit.
Students should note, however, that only one English 101 course and only one course
from the series Philosophy 101 through 110 may be counted toward the degree
(paragraph deleted).
A student may ask to repeat a course at another institution by submitting a Transfer Evaluation
Request to the Office of the Registrar (Jones 013) listing the Puget Sound course to be repeated.
Permission may be granted subject to the student’s status and with the specific approval of the
appropriate academic department. (Some departments do not allow Puget Sound courses in which
the student earned a low grade to be repeated at another institution). If a Puget Sound course is
Page 4
then repeated at another institution, and if the grade earned elsewhere is the higher of the two, the
Puget Sound grade will be removed from the grade average, but the transfer grade will not be
computed in the grade average. Credit for the Puget Sound course will be removed and replaced by
the transfer credit, even if there is a difference between the two. (See section on Transfer
Information for other policies governing transfer credit.)
Page 5