TO:            FACULTY SENATE
FROM:      ACADEMIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE
DATE:       FEBRUARY 6, 2001
RE:            RESULTS OF APPEAL HEARINGS

On the reverse side of this sheet, you will find the numerical results of the hearings held in response to the appeal of dismissals from the University following the Fall 2000 semester. The Registrar prepared the tables.

The information shows that more dismissals (n - 123) occurred following the Fall 2000 semester than have occurred during the previous 10 Fall semesters for which information is available. Previously the range was 89 - 120 with a mean of 108.6.

During this round of hearings, 58 out of 123 students appealed their dismissals. The Committee approved 70.6% of the appeals, permitting 41 students to return to the University for the Spring 2001 semester. Previously the percentage of approvals ranged from 55.990 to 84.1 % with a mean of 67.9%.

After the recent hearings, the final number of students dismissed was 82. This is the highest number dismissed since the Fall 1991 semester. The number of final dismissals has ranged from 57 - 90 since the Fall 1989 semester.

Issues

1. The hearings are complicated when students have contacted professors and have been told that a change of grade will be filed. Many of these students arrive with a three-quarter-page letter explaining to the Committee that a change of grade will be filed, the new grade, and the reasons for the change. In most cases, the reasons do not assist the Committee in guiding the student to improved academic performance. Since it would take professors less time to file a change of grade form than to write a letter, we suggest that whenever possible professors file the changes before the hearings are held.  In many cases, the filing of a change of grade means the difference between dismissal and continuation on academic probation. Without the grade being certified by the Registrar prior to the hearings, some students are needlessly appealing their dismissals and traveling many miles to do it.

2.  Faculty, students, and parents have brought the composition of the Committee to our attention.  Currently, faculty from the School of Science and Mathematics dominate the Committee (Science & Mathematics - 7; Arts & Humanities - 2; Education - 2 (including chairperson); Non-school - 1). This dominance could vary from time to time. It might be suggested that perspectives on students' academic situations vary in part due to the disciplines of which we are a part Faculty Senate should consider the advantages and disadvantages of retaining the current system of electing members, whereby all seats are open to all faculty in the University. The allocation of some or all seats by Schools is one alternative to the current electoral system.

3. The on-line Governance Manual does not reflect the current composition of the committee. The conflicting information relates to the number of elected members. The Governance Manual states 7, but we elected 11.
 

2/6/01