1 of 7

Satisfactory Academic Progress Policy

Satisfactory Academic Progress (SAP) refers to the satisfactory of program requirements as established by the Graduate School. For all students in all programs, the Satisfactory Academic Progress Policy requires the maintenance of a cumulative grade point average of 3.0 or higher, timely completion of course work, as well as timely progress towards the degree.

A student who is not making Satisfactory Academic Progress (SAP), after the completion of two terms, will be placed on Academic Probation. A student who is not making SAP may be required to appear before the Committee for Academic Review (CAR).

Once a student has an Academic Probation status, the Committee for Academic Review and/or Program Academic Committee must approve a remediation plan for the student that is no more than one year in length. Failure to meet the terms of the remediation plan and/or return to satisfactory academic progress will result in a student’s dismissal.

Time to Degree Policy

Included in the requirements for SAP is a student’s adherence to the Time to Degree Policy. The length of time to complete the degree for each program (Time to Degree Policy) is summarized in the table below:

Degree

Usual Time (Years)

Maximum Limit (Years)*

*These time limits may be extended by one year when granted by the respective Program Director or a program committee for extenuating and/or compelling cases.

All programs also have Program Specific Satisfactory Academic Progress policies and these are detailed in their corresponding section of the Handbook.

Academic Standing

Students may be terminated from a degree program at any time if, in the judgment of the Graduate School or the Medical School, a student fails to make satisfactory progress towards the completion of the degree.

The status of suspension and dismissal are permanently reflected on a student’s academic record. Below are the categories of student standing:

Good Standing: A student will be considered in good standing if he/she/they is meeting minimal academic standards in terms of course performance and other expectations of their degree program.
Probation: Students in poor academic standing may be placed on Academic Probation. Once a student is placed on Academic Probation, degree progress must be made within a specific time period as detailed in the student’s remediation plan. If performance continues to be unsatisfactory, students will be dismissed from the program.
Suspension: Academic suspension may occur when the School withdraws the student for failing to maintain satisfactory academic progress or to meet standard educational requirements of the degree program. Students who are suspended from the School are required to spend a defined period of time away from the School. During this period, the student may be required to successfully complete activities defined by the Schools’ Dean, Promotions Committees (Medical School) or Committee for Academic Review (Graduate School), or Program Director, if they are to be considered for readmission to ISMMS. Students on suspension are not considered enrolled and are not eligible to register for additional courses or engage in further research.

Suspension and Dismissal

The Dean of the Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences can administratively suspend a student pending committee review or may administratively dismiss a student. Suspensions will generally be imposed for students who exhibit the following: failure to meet academic milestones, positive toxicology result, disruptive behavior, illegal behavior, egregious misconduct, or failure to meet administrative responsibilities (including financial obligations). Dismissal at the discretion of the Dean of the Graduate School may result when a student is convicted of a misdemeanor or felony, exhibits a serious breach of academic or professional conduct (including cheating) or following suspension. Any student who fails to comply with a directive to undergo an administrative evaluation or fails to fulfill the requirements that stems from this evaluation will be dismissed from the Graduate School.

Committee for Academic Review (CAR)

Students in graduate programs at ISMMS have been carefully selected for the demands of graduate study. Some students, no matter how qualified, may have difficulty in meeting the graduate program’s requirements, such as satisfactory completion of courses and other requirements within a given timeframe or maintaining standards of professional conduct at all times. Such cases will be reviewed by the appropriate program committee for possible remediation or disciplinary action. Processes for review of student performance/behavior are detailed below.

Each program should conduct an annual review of all students currently enrolled in their program. For students who are not making satisfactory academic progress or have not maintained acceptable standards of professional behavior, plans for remediation or dismissal should be developed as per program specific guidelines.

The Committee for Academic Review is the primary review/disciplinary body of the Graduate School. The committee meets when necessary. Meetings will be called by the Senior Associate Dean of Postdoctoral and Student Affairs or the Chair of CAR whenever a student review is necessary.

When a program has its own review/disciplinary process, student issues should be reviewed as per that program’s documented process. In such cases, CAR will play a role only if the student appeals a decision (see section below on the appeal process). When a program does not have its own process, CAR will be used for initial review.

When a program does not have an internal student performance review committee, a Program Director or other Graduate School leader will confer with the Senior Associate Dean for Postdoctoral and Student Affairs to determine an appropriate course of action. There are two possible courses of action:

The Senior Associate Dean and Program Director will perform a full review of the matter and render a judgment. When appropriate, a student should be given an opportunity to meet with the Program Director and Senior Associate Dean to make a statement and answer questions about the incident in question. If it is determined that some action needs to be taken, the Program Director and/or Senior Associate Dean are responsible for meeting with the student and providing him/her/them with both an oral and written summary of the actions taken. During this discussion, the student must be informed of the process available for an appeal of the decision (see below for details regarding the appeals process).
The matter will be referred to the Graduate School’s Committee for Academic Review. As a first step, the matter will be reviewed and triaged by the Senior Associate Dean for Postdoctoral and Student Affairs, the Director of the Office of Postdoctoral and Student Affairs, and the Chair of CAR (this group constitutes the “CAR Executive Committee”). This triage can result in three possible actions:
- When the matter under review does not fall within the jurisdiction of CAR, it is either returned to the program for action or directed to a different review group (for example Curricular Affairs, COPHE, etc.)
- When the matter under review is minor, routine, and/or does not require an investigation, the Executive Committee can propose a plan of action to the appropriate subcommittee of CAR for a vote of approval. This vote can be done at a meeting of the group or via email.
- When the matter under review requires a more in-depth review or an investigation, the Chair of CAR will call a meeting of the appropriate subcommittee of CAR for consideration of the matter. The Chair and Senior Associate Dean will work together to collect necessary documents to be distributed to the committee and invite guests to present pertinent information to the committee.
  - The Senior Associate Dean will also assign a senior senior Graduate School staff person to help guide the student through the CAR process. This person is not an advocate/advisor but serves only as a guide through the CAR (and possible appeal) process.
  - The student must be given an opportunity to make an in-person statement to the subcommittee and to answer any questions committee members might have.
  - The student should also be given an opportunity to invite faculty or other relevant people to speak to the subcommittee on the student’s behalf.
  - The student is allowed to bring an observer to the proceedings. This is person cannot answer/ask questions, but instead is there only to help the student remember what happened during the meeting.
- During the review, it is possible that the subcommittee requires additional documentation or would like to interview additional people. The Chair and Senior Associate Dean will make arrangements for such requests.
- Once the subcommittee has considered all available information, it will render a decision regarding the validity of the complaint against the student and provide a written plan for corrective action. This could include a remediation plan or disciplinary action. Once the committee has reached a decision, the CAR Chair and the Senior Associate Dean are responsible for meeting with the student and providing him/her/them with both an oral and written summary of the actions taken by CAR. During this discussion, the student must be informed of the process available for an appeal of the decision (see details regarding the appeals process).

As mentioned above, students under review must be informed in writing of any requirements for remediation or disciplinary actions taken by CAR. The student must sign a copy of the document to indicate that he/she/they has received it and understands the content. This signed document will be added to the student’s academic file.

Membership of CAR

Full Committee: The Committee for Academic Review will consist of a chairperson appointed by the Dean of the Graduate School, one of the Co-Directors (or their designee) of each MTA, one faculty representative from each training program (PhD in Clinical Research, MSBDS, MSBS, MS in Biostatistics, MS in Epidemiology, MPH, MSGC, MSCR, MHA, and MSHCDL).

Subcommittees of CAR: Since the educational process is considerably different for PhD students and master’s degree students, CAR is divided into two subcommittees, the PhD Subcommittee and the Master’s Subcommittee. These subcommittees hear cases that pertain to their respective students. In the event that a matter involves both MS and PhD students, the Chair of CAR has the authority to decide what group should preside over the investigation. For example, the Chair may decide to form an ad hoc committee consisting of members from each subcommittee.

Investigating subcommittees: If a matter under review by CAR requires an extensive investigation, the chair of CAR and the Senior Associate review could choose to empanel an Investigating Committee that will perform a full investigation, including collecting and assessing documentation and interviewing people with pertinent information. This could also include recommending a plan of action. The Investigating Committee will provide a written report of its investigation, findings, and recommendations to the subcommittee for review and decisions. The subcommittee should consist of at least three people. The subcommittee can also include ad hoc members if deemed necessary by the CAR chair and Senior Associate Dean. Ad hoc members could include members of the student’s training area or thesis advisory committee.

Appeals Process

Students have the right to appeal actions taken by a review committee or the Dean of the Graduate School. Refer to Figure 1 for the appeals process hierarchy.

Students may direct an appeal to the committee or person immediately above the committee/person who rendered a decision. All appeals must be made in writing with a detailed description of the basis for the appeal no more than 15 days after a decision is communicated. In reviewing appeals, the Committee for Academic Review or the Dean of the Graduate School will consider whether the decision below was arbitrary or capricious, including whether proper procedures were followed. An appeal to the Dean of Academic and Scientific Affairs may only address whether proper procedures were followed and whether the sanction is appropriate. The Dean of Academic and Scientific Affairs will accept factual findings by previous reviews.

A person hearing an appeal may choose, at his/her/their sole discretion, to convene an ad hoc committee to hear the appeal. The person/committee hearing an appeal may collect any information deemed necessary to render a decision. The student will be given an opportunity to meet with the person/committee hearing the appeal. At the conclusion of the appeal process, a written decision will be issued.

NOTE: Grade appeals do not utilize this process. Instead, grade appeals should follow the Graduate School Grade Appeals Process.

Program-Specific Criteria for Satisfactory Academic Progress

In addition to the Graduate School Satisfactory Academic Progress policy, each program has its own program-specific criteria, and these are found in each program’s chapter:

Ph/D in Biomedical Sciences and Neuroscience
MD/PhD Program
Clinical Research Program
MD-MSCR/Portal Program
MS in Biomedical Sciences
MS in Biomedical Data Science
MS in Biostatistics Program
MS in Genetic Counseling
MS in Healthcare Delivery
Master in Health Administration
Master of Public Health
Master of Science in Epidemiology

Committee for Academic Review (CAR)

The Senior Associate Dean and Program Director will perform a full review of the matter and render a judgment. When appropriate, a student should be given an opportunity to meet with the Program Director and Senior Associate Dean to make a statement and answer questions about the incident in question. If it is determined that some action needs to be taken, the Program Director and/or Senior Associate Dean are responsible for meeting with the student and providing him/her/them with both an oral and written summary of the actions taken. During this discussion, the student must be informed of the process available for an appeal of the decision (see below for details regarding the appeals process).
The matter will be referred to the Graduate School’s Committee for Academic Review. As a first step, the matter will be reviewed and triaged by the Senior Associate Dean for Postdoctoral and Student Affairs, the Director of the Office of Postdoctoral and Student Affairs, and the Chair of CAR (this group constitutes the “CAR Executive Committee”). This triage can result in three possible actions:
- When the matter under review does not fall within the jurisdiction of CAR, it is either returned to the program for action or directed to a different review group (for example Curricular Affairs, COPHE, etc.)
- When the matter under review is minor, routine, and/or does not require an investigation, the Executive Committee can propose a plan of action to the appropriate subcommittee of CAR for a vote of approval. This vote can be done at a meeting of the group or via email.
- When the matter under review requires a more in-depth review or an investigation, the Chair of CAR will call a meeting of the appropriate subcommittee of CAR for consideration of the matter. The Chair and Senior Associate Dean will work together to collect necessary documents to be distributed to the committee and invite guests to present pertinent information to the committee.
  - The Senior Associate Dean will also assign a senior senior Graduate School staff person to help guide the student through the CAR process. This person is not an advocate/advisor but serves only as a guide through the CAR (and possible appeal) process.
  - The student must be given an opportunity to make an in-person statement to the subcommittee and to answer any questions committee members might have.
  - The student should also be given an opportunity to invite faculty or other relevant people to speak to the subcommittee on the student’s behalf.
  - The student is allowed to bring an observer to the proceedings. This is person cannot answer/ask questions, but instead is there only to help the student remember what happened during the meeting.
- During the review, it is possible that the subcommittee requires additional documentation or would like to interview additional people. The Chair and Senior Associate Dean will make arrangements for such requests.
- Once the subcommittee has considered all available information, it will render a decision regarding the validity of the complaint against the student and provide a written plan for corrective action. This could include a remediation plan or disciplinary action. Once the committee has reached a decision, the CAR Chair and the Senior Associate Dean are responsible for meeting with the student and providing him/her/them with both an oral and written summary of the actions taken by CAR. During this discussion, the student must be informed of the process available for an appeal of the decision (see details regarding the appeals process).