MINUTES
ACADEMIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE
October 24, 2005
Present: Martin Jackson, Kathryn McMillan, Kevin David, Gary McCall, Houston
Dougharty, Alison Tracy Hale, Ben Bradley, Ken Clark, Martins Linauts, Bill Kupinse,
Bob Matthews, Fred Hamel, Dave Moore, John Finney, Brad Tomhave, Jack Roundy
1. Minutes: Chair Jackson offered two corrections to the October 10 minutes: 1)
originally, the minutes were incorrectly dated Oct. 3, and 2) in the second to last
paragraph, remarks attributed to him were not clear—his intended distinction was
between students who come to a course unprepared, for whom he can see the value of
offering an extension of the W to the 10th week, and students who don’t do the work in
a course, for whom he does not favor such an extension. With these corrections, the
minutes of the October 10th meeting were approved.
2. Announcements: David reported a conversation with Barry Anton, Faculty
Senate chair, in which Anton inquired whether the ASC would be considering class
scheduling this year. Jackson replied that this item was among our 2005-06 charges.
Matthews wondered if the matter was not more appropriately the province of the
Curriculum Committee. Jackson said there was some question as to whether ASC
would take up the scheduling question, given that class scheduling might be more
properly in the purview of the administration.
3. Petitions Committee (PC) Actions: Tomhave reported the following PC actions,
and announced that the next meeting of the PC would be held on October 28:
Date
9/30/05
10/14/05
10/21/05
YTD
Approved
5 (2 PPT)
6 (3 PPT)
1 (1 PPT)
36 (5 R + 18 PPT)
Denied
1
5
3
14
No Action
0
0
0
0
Total
6
11
4
50
4. Discussion of W/WF Policy: Chair Jackson returned us to our discussion of point
3 of the W/WF subcommittee motion (put forward by Matthews) for modifying the
current policy, following our approval of point 1 and rejection of point 2 at our
previous meeting (see all four points below).
•
•
•
•
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
Jackson reminded us that we were taking up the subcommittee’s work to revise the
language of the W/WF policy to make practice more consistent with policy, though the
basic premises of assigning W/WF grades were not to be materially changed. McCall,
bearing in mind our earlier conversation about making WF the default grade after the
sixth week, proposed promoting language of the revised policy that refers to the WF
grade to the front of our explanation of the conditions of withdrawal grading to be
clear that WF is the default. He suggested that conditions for securing a W after the
6th week follow, as exceptional. Jackson offered revised language for the third
paragraph of the revised policy, consistent with McCall’s intent: “After the sixth week
of the semester, the WF is given except as noted below,” with the conditions for
awarding the W to follow. McCall made it clear his goal was to state “up front” that
the WF was to be awarded unless all exempting conditions applied.
Hamel made the point that many students and faculty don’t read the academic
handbook, and expressed skepticism that handbook revisions would change current
practices in withdrawal grading.
Jackson asked us to consider the larger question he thought we faced: should faculty
have any discretion to assign the W after the 6th week, or should that decision be
delegated to another body? He believed the committee to be split on this question.
David said he had earlier recommended handing this decision to the registrar or
another party because faculty need “backup” in denying students W grades after the
automatic W deadline. He was not sure today about surrendering grading discretion,
but thought the problem of supporting faculty in awarding WF grades was still an
issue. Hamel also wondered who should decide when the “unusual circumstances”
condition applies in a given case? Clark voiced his view that faculty should retain
grading discretion in awarding W/WF grades because they know best what has
unfolded in their courses and what a given student’s circumstances are. Tracy Hale
concurred, noting that she generally develops a relationship with a student that she
wishes to honor in making grading decisions.
David suggested that the ASC has already set a precedent for taking certain
withdrawal grading decisions out of faculty hands in the Medical Withdrawal policy.
Dougharty concurred that both the Medical Withdrawal and Emergency
Administrative Withdrawal policies give the ASC final grading discretion, but only on
an “all or nothing basis.” When students petition for these sorts of exits, all of their
courses are graded equivalently (with W’s). He argued that some students face
circumstances demanding greater flexibility in partial withdrawals. Hamel asked
whether the determination of “unusual circumstances” might not be better left to
Student Affairs, Academic Advising, and the Registrar. Dougharty replied that he’d
prefer to leave discretion in the hands of faculty, who can engage in dialogue with
student services staff to learn whether a legitimate case for “unusual circumstances”
can be made. Matthews argued for discretion remaining with faculty, saying that
Puget Sound’s culture is based on student/faculty relationships, and that such
discretion honors those relationships. McMillan said that the one-on-one personal
relationship between faculty and student might make the divulging of “unusual
circumstances” easier for a student than putting those circumstances before a group
of people she does not know. Tomhave countered that sometimes student affairs
professionals like Dougharty actually know a good deal more about a student’s
“unusual circumstances” than the faculty do. One advantage of processes like
Medical Withdrawal is that fuller information is known and documented, and some
consistency in applying standards can be achieved through experience over time.
Finney attempted to reframe our discussion, saying he thought the crux of our
problem with inconsistent W/WF grading (and the reason the topic was before us) was
the built-in conflict between a faculty member’s compassion for a student and a
“harsh” grading policy. He though faculty would prefer to retain grading discretion,
but would prefer exemption from the “hard decision” of awarding the WF. He
wondered if we might find a resolution in retaining faculty authority over the grade a
student is earning at the point of withdrawal, while putting determination of “unusual
circumstances” in the hands of another faculty body. David said whatever we did, he
hoped it would result in fewer W grades at the end of term, which he doubted were all
justified by “unusual circumstances.” Tracy Hale said that when she has given W
grades late in term, they have typically been to psycho-emotionally fragile students
with what she believed were “unusual circumstances”—she wondered whether
obliging these students to make their cases to another faculty body would simply
cause them to disappear and accept failing grades instead.
Saying that he was hearing continuing division on the question of whether faculty
ought to retain full discretion in W/WF grading, Jackson asked us to return to the
subcommittee proposal. Jackson offered a friendly amendment to the Matthews
proposal (second by Finney), to wit: 1) to amend paragraph 2 to read:
“Withdrawal Passing (W) is granted during the third through sixth week of the
fall and spring terms when a student completes official withdrawal procedures.
After the sixth week of term, a grade of WF is given except as noted below;” 2) to
amend paragraph 3 to read: “After the sixth week of the fall or spring terms, a
grade of W may be granted only if . . . [here follow the conditions for W grades];
and 3) to amend the unusual circumstances clause of the policy to read: “. . .
there have been unusual circumstances beyond the student’s control, in which
case the student must demonstrate in writing to the satisfaction of the
instructor that exceptional circumstances exist.” He argued that a standard form
should be used to carry out the “in writing” clause of his amendment, a) for its
educational value for the student, and b) for its value as a record for both student and
faculty member of the grading decision. He said the form would be used simply in the
transaction between the faculty member and student. Matthews accepted the
proposed changes as a friendly amendment. Tomhave recommended breaking up
the paragraphs as another friendly amendment, but no action was taken on this
suggestion. As a point of clarification, Jackson and McCall returned to the latter’s
earlier suggestion of beginning with the WF as a default, and agreeing that this is
what Jackson’s friendly amendment did, concurred in the elimination of paragraph 4
in the subcommittee’s revision.
Kupinse then proposed a further friendly amendment, adding a clause to
Jackson’s revision 3, above, to wit: “After the sixth week of the fall or spring
terms, a grade of W may be granted only if all of the following conditions are met
. . .” His rationale was that there has been some confusion about whether meeting
only one of the conditions is sufficient to justify a W grade, where the policy intends
that all three must be in place. Jackson and Matthews accepted Kupinse’s friendly
amendment.
Hamel stated again that he wasn’t persuaded that these language changes would lead
to changes in grading practices. He suggested that we might direct our energies
either 1) in these sorts of language revisions, or more radically, 2) toward eliminating
“by the instructor” in the clause identifying who may award a W grade, allowing
another body to take that responsibility. He also recommended strengthening
“unusual circumstances” by defining what such circumstances might be. Matthews
replied that he was in favor of leaving “by the instructor” in place, since he favored
retaining faculty grading discretion. Tracy Hale wondered whether we could so
arrange things that a faculty member could opt out of the grading decision when she
felt unprepared to make it, in such cases passing along the decision to the PC?
Jackson responded that he thought faculty discretion was something we were going to
have to live with in this matter. Clark said he thought our best choice at this point
was to sharpen the language of our policy and see how it works. Jackson added that
student services staff can continue to assist faculty in determining the stickiest
question, whether “unusual circumstances” do in fact exist. Finney suggested that
we take a vote on the revised motion, and then ask the subcommittee to elaborate the
“unusual circumstances” definition (following Hamel’s suggestion). Hamel concurred,
also suggesting that we might ask the PC to handle withdrawal requests in weeks 14
and 15, when the current practice of awarding late W grades seems most dubious.
Matthews replied that the W/WF subcommittee had considered referring late W
requests to the PC, but concluded that timely responses to these requests could not
be guaranteed in that narrow window late in term. Tomhave affirmed this timeliness
concern, and Hamel withdrew the suggestion. Jackson suggested that we move to a
vote, and Moore asked for the record that we bring the “form” to be used in requesting
a late W back to the committee for discussion at a later time.
Matthews then called the question on a vote to approve the proposed
amendments to point 3 of the subcommittee’s proposal. The vote to call the
question was approved unanimously. A subsequent vote to approve the proposed
amendments then passed unanimously. Matthews then called the question on a
vote to approve the amended point 3 of the subcommittee’s proposal. The vote
to call the question was approved unanimously. A subsequent vote to approve
the amended point 3 of the subcommittee’s proposal then passed unanimously.
As the hour was growing late, a move to adjourn was approved by acclamation at
8:57.
Respectfully submitted by the ASC amanuensis,
Jack Roundy