Files were photocopied, scanned, and ocr programs run. Any errors in
the transcription are regretted.
UNIVERSITY ACADEMIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE, 1979-80 Annual Report to the Faculty
Apart from considerations which led to motions on the withdrawal date and
change in the number of graded hours required for graduation (see Assembly
Minutes of March 5), the ASC has focused its attention
this year on curricular offerings and academic procedures that seem to
compromise the University's stated goal of providing its students with
a quality education. Responses to this solicitation reinforced the committee's
own questionings and provided some specifics. A summary of these responses,
insofar as they were of a general nature, has been made and a copy will
be placed on file in the Provost's office for those wishing to consult
it. We should, however, like to identify here the chief areas of voiced
concern, and our sense of the appropriate disposition of them for further
consideration and possible action:
1) Unethical faculty and GTF behavior--this is not the proper domain of
the ASC, and shoUld be handled by Heads, Deans, etc.
2) Unprofessional instruction: instrUctors seemingly unqualified to teach
the courses they are teaching, departments teaching courses unsuited to
their areas, profes-sors lending their names to courses really being taught
by GTFs, ets.--such matters might best be considered by departments, deans,
and the University Curriculum Committee.
3) Courses offered at inappropriate levels, with double listings, etc.-perhaps
this is a joint concern of the University Curriculum Committee and the
ASC.
4) The continuin-g absence of control over open-ended courses throughout
the University, but especially in non-departmental programs and centers
which do not offer degrees or have accreditation--perhaps this is a joint
concern of the ASC and ARC.
5) The presence of non-academic faculty on important academic committees,
such as the ARC, SRC, and ASC, unless such personnel are required ex officio
to serve as sources of information to such committees.
6) The integrity of academic transfer credits, particularly from community
colleges this would seem to be a matter of the Registrar and Admissions.
7) Course credit and grading: e.g., credit for symposia, usually of one
weekend duration, which provide no mechanism for evaluation of the students'
learning (one member of the ASC did not feel such credits unsuitable);
post-hoc addition of credit; insufficient work demanded of students per
credit hour; academic credit for working; instructors' abuse of uncontrolled
grade-changing--perhaps such matters are a joint concern of ASC and ARC.
8) Statewide policies that contribute to the lowering of academic standards:
funding policy based upon head count; low level of high school graduation
requirements--perhaps such matters are best dealt with at the administration
level.
The committee has encouraged the Registrar, who is an ex officio member
of it and several other committees where academic standards are involved,
to the ASC's attention lapses from academic standards that tUrn up in those
other committee's deliberations. We should also encourage those committees'
chairers, especially those of the ARC and SRC, when confronted with violations
of academic standards, to acquaint Heads and Deans with these violations,
as we believe most such cases escape their attention. Respectfully submitted,
Sam Boggs Jodi Ann Bradbury Robert Freeman Stanley Greenfield, Chairman
Wanda Johnson Kevin Swan
