MINUTES
ACADEMIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE
Nov. 7, 2005
Present: Martin Jackson, Kathryn McMillan, Kevin David, Gary McCall, Houston
Dougharty, Ken Clark, Andreas Madlung, Greta Austin, Maria Sampen, Martins
Linauts, Bill Kupinse, Bob Matthews, Fred Hamel, Dave Moore, Jack Roundy
1. Minutes: Hamel asked for clarification of the October 24 minutes in regard to
whether the committee had actually rejected point 2 in the W/WF Subcommittee
proposal or reintroduced the “extension” option in its work on point 3. Several views
were exchanged, resulting in a consensus that the minutes accurately reported the
rejection of item 2, and modifications of item 3 were not in fact a “back door” means
for reintroducing the “extension” option.
2. Announcements:
There were none.
3. Petitions Committee (PC) Actions: Roundy reported that Tomhave had
requested a deferral of his PC report this week because he had to be away at a
conference. He will bring a full report of all PC actions to date to the next full
committee meeting.
4. Discussion of W/WF Policy: Chair Jackson returned us to our discussion of point
4 of the W/WF subcommittee motion (put forward by Matthews) for modifying the
current policy, following approval of point 1, rejection of point 2, and approval of a
amended version of point 3 at our two previous meetings (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
Matthews explained that the rationale for including courses from which students have
withdrawn as “attempts” vis a vis the course repeat policy arose out of concern for
students’ repeated enrollments in the same course, without earning credit or making
academic progress (academic policy restricts students to repeating a course only
once). Kupinse added that while this action would discourage students from repeated
fruitless enrollments (another incentive in the subcommittee’s proposal for students
to “commit” to the courses they register in), students with good reasons for more than
two “attempts” at a course were still free to petition for permission to enroll a third
time. Roundy spoke in favor of this proposal from his experience of students
persisting in academic programs for which they were not suited, collecting serial W’s
in the same courses and ignoring advice to choose an alternative academic program.
Matthews clarified the reason for the last two sentences in the proposed revision,
explaining that we wanted to be sure students knew that a W could not replace any
other grade, including WF, because students might try to use withdrawal as a means
of expunging unsatisfactory grades otherwise. Madlung, suggesting that the volume
of petitions for course repeats would rise if W grades counted as attempts, wondered if
the PC was ever likely to deny them (these petitions are usually successful).
Dougharty replied that requiring a petition for a course repeat after withdrawal would
generate earlier conversations with students pursuing courses of study they are not
successful in. He said we would be able to intervene earlier with students who are
“beating their heads against a brick wall” in their studies. Given our “better grade
option” course repeat policy, Moore wondered if a student earning a W in the first
attempt at a course would keep that grade if he subsequently earned a WF in it.
Matthews replied that that was not the subcommittee’s intention. There was some
conversation about whether a W can be considered a “grade.” Jackson suggested that
we could look further into that question, and into editing the text to prevent that
outcome, outside of the full committee. Austin suggested that while we are making
clarifying edits, we might improve Logger language to help students understand W
grades and their implications. Jackson asked Matthews if he would accept as a
friendly amendment the proviso that a W may not trump a subsequent WF.
Matthews said he would. Jackson then M (Roundy S) P (unanimously) the
amended point 4 of the subcommittee proposal. Jackson added his understanding
that the subcommittee would do some editorial housekeeping on the approved parts
of their proposal, bringing the revised policy back to full committee for a final vote.
Jackson then M (David S) the proposal he circulated to the committee by email,
to wit, modifying the third paragraph of the policy statement: “During the sixth
through twelfth weeks of the fall and spring terms, a grade of W may be awarded
. . . [here follow the conditions for an approved W].” In addition, make the
assignment of a WF after the twelfth week a non-petitionable rule. Jackson
acknowledged Roundy’s email reply recommending W’s only by petition after the
twelfth week. Roundy offered this option as a compromise in the spirit of Dean
Bartanen’s letter affirming the importance of giving students some way out when
faced with true emergencies late in term. Jackson restated his argument that the use
of Emergency Administrative Withdrawal (EAW), Medical Withdrawal (MW), and the
Incomplete (I) should cover any conceivable student emergency that late in term. He
also restated his belief that many of the late withdrawals we see are not of the sort
envisioned by Dean Bartanen, but are in fact of the “lingering” variety. He added his
concern about the PC logistics of handling late withdrawal petitions in a timely way.
Moore asked if Dean Bartanen had replied to Jackson’s emailed suggestion, and
Jackson replied that she had not. David pointed out that either Jackson’s proposal or
Roundy’s compromise would have the effect of taking grading out of faculty hands.
Were there not several committee members concerned about this? Madlung added
that he did see a conflict between our academic policy, which assigns to faculty full
responsibility for grading, and either the Jackson or the Roundy proposal. Matthews
countered that he didn’t think these revisions took grading out of faculty hands, but
rather imposed a new deadline. He added that he would vote against the Jackson
proposal because he felt it didn’t allow enough flexibility for managing “unusual
circumstances.” Austin wondered if we could accept the Jackson proposal, but allow
petitions for “truly exceptional circumstances.”
Matthews suggested addressing the problem of late-term petitions by permitting
withdrawals after the twelfth week, but mandating that the withdrawing student
would be definitively out of the course at that point. The student would have to
accept whatever withdrawal grade was subsequently decided (W or WF), after the
petition was reviewed. Dougharty suggested that this practice would neatly parallel
MW and EAW, in which the student is affirmatively withdrawn at the moment of filing,
and grade determination follows in due course. He supported the Matthews idea,
together with the petition option. Kupinse worried that the PC would be swamped by
petitions, given the number of late-term W’s we currently see. Jackson repeated his
difficulty in imagining student circumstances that would not be addressed by MW,
EAW, or I. Dougharty reminded us that MW and EAW are “all or nothing options;”
students must withdraw from all courses to benefit from these policies. Sampen
pointed out that I’s are not always appropriate, particularly in certain courses, and
that when an I is awarded, a W cannot replace it later (if the work is not completed,
the I becomes an F). Hamel concurred that the I was not appropriate for all
students—often the student simply needs to be “out of the course.” For that reason,
he supported the petitionable W late in term. Jackson again invited examples of
circumstances in which a late-term W made sense. Roundy offered an example of a
student currently battling mononucleosis. Austin offered the example of a student
dealing with a peer suicide or extraordinary illness.
Matthews offered his suggestion of permitting irrevocable withdrawal after the
twelfth week, with the option of a petition presenting exceptional circumstances
beyond the student’s control to receive a W, as a friendly amendment to
Jackson’s motion. Jackson accepted this friendly amendment. The committee
passed the amended motion unanimously.
We adjourned at 8:55.
Respectfully submitted by the ASC amanuensis,
Jack Roundy