Academic , Non-Cognitive and Professionalism Review Process
Home > Resources > Academic , Non-Cognitive and Professionalism Review Process
Academic, Non-cognitive, and Professionalism Review Process
Approved by Executive Curriculum Committee: September 27, 2005
Modified 11/28/05
The policy as outlined below describes the necessary steps when reviewing students for academic, non-cognitive, and/or professionalism concerns. There are pre-review assessment steps that must occur prior to making a decision as to whether or not a formal review is necessary or appropriate. The pre-review assessment is a data-gathering, fact-finding step to assure that there is sufficient information to send the concern on for formal review.
Pre-review Assessment
If an academic, professionalism or non-cognitive concern is brought to the attention of anyone in the Medical Center, and if the concern cannot be resolved with the individual or individuals involved, then the concern should be discussed with a Program/Clerkship Director, member of the Dean’s staff, member of the Honor and Professionalism Council, or member of the Executive Committee of the Professionalism Council for guidance to assure that the pre-review assessment has occurred and sufficient information collected to warrant referral for formal review and to determine to which review body it should be referred.
Pre-review assessment should include talking with all parties involved and review of pertinent materials. If through this assessment process, it is determined that there has been a failure to meet the standards, a formal Level I or HPC Level I/II referral is required.
Academic reviews are typically triggered by exam or performance data that does not meet stated requirements. With course or clerkship failures resulting from failure to meet academic standards, the pre-review involves the review of pertinent data, but may not require a meeting with the student. Prior to referral the student would have received performance data, feedback and stated standards. Failure of an academic standard, including USMLE Step 2 CK or Step 2 CS failures, should automatically go to the appropriate Level I Student Review Committee. USMLE Step 1, which is a College rather than a specific program requirement, is handled by the Dean’s staff and the process of remediation is described in the Student Handbook.
Emergency or egregious behavior (actions that put patients, students, faculty, staff and/or oneself at personal or professional risk) may require immediate handling by the Dean and/or his designee.
Students in dual degree programs, who encounter academic, non-cognitive, and/or professionalism difficulties in either component of their program, must also go through the College of Medicine formal review process. For these students, the results of the review process may be communicated to the other program as appropriate.
Formal Review Level Assessment
Below are the formal levels of review, with the higher levels used in cases of recommendations for repetition of a major portion of the curriculum or dismissal for academic, non-cognitive, and/or professionalism issues.
Level I: Academic Program Student Review Subcommittee. Each Academic Program has a Student Review Subcommittee charged with initial and on-going review of students in that academic program. When a student fails to meet an academic, non-cognitive or professionalism standard, the student is subject to review. The process, designed to be timely and fair, is a review by faculty, and not a legal proceeding. Unless there is a recommendation for repetition of a significant portion of the curriculum or dismissal, the review process may end here. However, depending on the severity of the difficulties, the review may proceed to other levels.
Level II: Academic Standing Committees. There is an Academic Standing Committee for the first two years (Preclinical Academic Standing Committee) and one for Med III/IV (Clinical Academic Standing Committee). The appropriate committee reviews all recommendations for repetition of a significant portion of the curriculum or dismissal. Recommendation for repetition or dismissal may come from an Academic Program, Student Review Subcommittee, or from the Deans’ staff. Recommendations may be for failure to meet academic standards (including failure to meet USMLE requirements in a timely manner), non-cognitive standards and/or professionalism standards. If the student is recommended for dismissal, the review process is forwarded to the Level III Academic Review Board.
Level I/II: Honor and Professionalism Council Review Board (HPCRB). As an alternative to the above levels, there is an Honor and Professionalism Council Review Board that is student-run with faculty representation that reviews breaches in academic misconduct/professionalism standards. Referrals to this level may come from one of the levels above or directly from the Dean’s staff, Honor and Professionalism Council, Executive Committee of the Professionalism Council, or a Program/Clerkship Director. If a student is recommended for dismissal, the review process is forwarded to the Academic Review Board. If the recommendation is for something other than dismissal, the student may appeal the decision to the Executive Committee of the Professionalism Council.
Level III: Academic Review Board. The Academic Review Board reviews all dismissal recommendations to ensure completeness of significant information available to the appropriate Academic Standing Committee or the HPCRB and to ensure that the College’s policies and procedures have been followed. The Academic Review Board either forwards the recommendation to the Dean of the College of Medicine and Public Health or returns the decision to the Academic Standing Committee or HPCRB for re-evaluation.
Level IV: Dean. The Dean dismisses the student or returns the decision to the Academic Review Board for re-evaluation. The Dean may delegate this authority to the Vice Dean for Education. In the event that a student demonstrates behavior felt to be significantly harmful to patients, students, staff, or faculty, the Dean may suspend or dismiss a student without using Levels I, II, or III of the review process.
Approved by Executive Curriculum Committee: September 27, 2005
Modified 11/28/05