Academic Standards Committee

2001-2002 Annual Report

Submitted July 20002 by Richard Kerper, Chairperson

The Committee held wo days of hearings for students' appeals of their dismissals, lasting from 8:00 AM - 6:00 PM, after fall semester and spring semester. This year the fall semester hearings were held on January 16 & 17, 2001. The spring semester hearings were held on June 5 & 6, 2002. The Committee does not keep formal minutes of the hearings, but each appellant leaves with a letter stating the results of the appeal.

Comparative data on the Committee's actions at the fall meeting, prepared by Phyllis Koenig at the direction of the Acting Registrar, Candace Deen, is included in this report. Three students appealed their hearing results to the chair of the Committee. The chair upheld two of the decisions and, based on additional documentation that had not been presented to the panel, permitted one student to return as a part-time student. A report of the actions at the spring meeting will be presented to the Faculty Senate at the first meeting of the fall semester.

Process

The Committee modified its process during the past year in two ways. First, the chair of the Committee did not sit on any of the three subcommittees. The chair received subcommittee reports immediately following the subcommittee chairs' oral reporting of decisions to students and produced official letters stating the results and recommendations for future academic success. Students left the venue with this letter, enabling them to change their course schedules and follow-up in other areas. Previously, students did not receive this letter for seven to fourteen days. Second, students who believed that they did not receive an "appropriate or fair" hearing could appeal subcommittees' decisions to the chair. This action resulted in no students using the University's general appeal process to have their case heard at the administrative level, keeping decisions regarding academic standards in the hands of the faculty. In previous semesters, three to five students routinely appealed the faculty decision to the Associate Provost and in most cases were permitted to return under strict conditions.