Academic Honesty Policy
Adler University seeks to establish a climate of honesty and integrity. Any work submitted by a student must represent original work produced by that student. Any source used by a student must be documented through required scholarly references and citations, and the extent to which any sources have been used must be expressly stated in the work. The University further considers resubmission of work done partially or entirely by another, as well as resubmission of substantial or entire portions of one’s own work done in a previous course or for a different professor, to be academic dishonesty. It is the student’s responsibility to seek clarification from the course instructor about what assistance may be used to complete an assignment, examination, or project and what sources may be used. Students found guilty of academic dishonesty or plagiarism shall be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal from the University.
Academic misconduct generally includes plagiarism and research misconduct-but academic misconduct is more broadly defined to refer to any action that involves illicit, unauthorized, fraudulent, or inappropriate behaviors designed to provide an undue advantage or otherwise aid in whole or part with the completion of required work at the Adler University. Students who commit academic misconduct, including plagiarism or research misconduct, are subject to a failing grade for the assignment and course and, potentially, immediate dismissal from their program and Adler University.
For the purposes of this policy, plagiarism is the submission, in whole or part, of unoriginal material, represented as original and as the work product of the individual student. Definitions are provided below for the following four types of plagiarism. These definitions are arranged by general level of severity, with auto-plagiarism generally being the least severe form of plagiarism, and fraudulent plagiarism typically being the most severe. That said, all occurrences of plagiarism, whether inadvertent or intentional, will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and students should be advised that the potential for sanctions up to and including immediate dismissal from Adler University exists for each type of plagiarism.
Resubmission of work done for one course, assignment, or task for another. This form of plagiarism does not typically involve the submission of the work of others, but, instead, consists of representing as new work what has been previously submitted.
Minimally rephrasing, paraphrasing or revising the work of others without proper citation or credit.
Substantial utilization of the published or unpublished work of others without permission, citation, or credit-also known as “cut and paste” or “patch writing.”
Purchasing or otherwise acquiring a work in its entirety and submitting it as one’s own is considered the most extreme and egregious form of plagiarism.
Additionally, definitions are provided below for five categories of research misconduct, which involves the misrepresentation of data or material in research. These definitions are also arranged by general level of severity, with misrepresentation of effort or contribution generally being the simplest form of research misconduct, and data fabrication or falsification typically being the most severe. That said, all occurrences of research misconduct, whether inadvertent or intentional, will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and students should be advised that the potential for sanctions up to and including immediate dismissal from Adler University exists even for a first offense of research misconduct.
- Misrepresentation of how much effort was expended, or the extent of original contribution made to a research project in which multiple contributors took part.
- Withholding data or materials involves the refusal to make available for inspection, raw data and sources for student research.
- Data manipulation involves the suppression or changing of study data to facilitate a desired outcome.
- Data fabrication involves the intentional production of false or invented study or research data and representing such data as genuine.
- Data falsification involves the intentional alteration of study or research data and representing such data as genuine.
Academic misconduct allegations will result in referral to the appropriate Student Development Committee. Depending on the severity of the academic misconduct at issue, the level of training, and circumstances associated with the misconduct, consequences will range from failure on specific assignments, or required supplemental education, to dismissal from the student’s program and Adler University. Students should be advised that violations can be intentional or inadvertent, and ignorance of this policy or of any restrictions in place in a particular situation regarding the means by which any assignment, examination, or project can be completed , will be no defense to an allegation of academic misconduct. For that reason, it is imperative that students promptly raise any questions or doubts regarding permitted methods or assistance to the appropriate instructor or advisor.
Annual Student Review Process
Core Faculty in the Department of Clinical Psychology (PsyD Program) review students annually. The areas of review include academic performance, training, and professional comportment. Students receive written feedback from the Department, noting any needs for improvement, which are addressed with the academic advisor.
Basic Student-Trainee Competencies Policy
Adler University expects that socially responsible practitioners will demonstrate competence within and across a number of dimensions. Faculty, training staff, supervisors, and administrators have a duty and responsibility to evaluate the competence of students across multiple aspects of performance and functioning. In consequence, ongoing evaluation addresses student progress not only in the academic arena, but also in other areas of professional development related to skills and attitudes.
Students at Adler University must demonstrate a basic set of core interpersonal, personal, and intellectual skills, as well as attitudes and values, representing the baseline competencies of socially responsible practitioners. It is expected that students will further develop these competencies as they progress through the program. These core skills and attitudes include the following:
- Interpersonal skills: The student demonstrates the ability to listen to and to be empathic with others, to form relationships, and to interact respectfully with others in spite of differing experiences, values, backgrounds, or points of view.
- Expressive skills: The student demonstrates the ability to appropriately communicate ideas and feelings in oral, non-verbal, and written forms.
- Cognitive skills: The student demonstrates appropriate problem-solving ability, critical thinking skills, organized reasoning, intellectual curiosity, and flexibility.
- Affective skills: The student demonstrates an ability to tolerate and manage internal states, uncertainty, and interpersonal conflict.
- Reflective skills: The student demonstrates the ability to examine and consider personal motives, attitudes, behaviors, and their effect on others. A reflective skill of special relevance is the ability to be open to and to integrate feedback.
- Personal skills: The student demonstrates a strong work ethic, motivation to learn, personal organization, punctuality, and appropriate self-presentation.
- Attitudes: The student demonstrates the desire to help and advocate for others, to be open to new ideas, and to act with honesty and concern for ethics.
It is the responsibility of the faculty to determine the readiness of each student to advance. The Center for Learning and Teaching is available to students who need assistance. Students may be referred to the departmental Student Development Committee for initial remediation. Ongoing concerns are addressed through the Student Comprehensive Evaluation Committee.
Federal student loans require a student to maintain at least half-time enrollment as defined by their academic program. Federal work-study does not require at least half-time enrollment. Enrollment status definitions are as follows, with all measures being taken on a per term basis.
Only credits required for degree or certificate completion count in a student’s enrollment status for the term.
|Less Than Half-Time
|All Adler Graduate- Level Programs
Exceptions to credit hour requirements for enrollment status are as follows:
- Chicago, Vancouver, or Online Campus graduate students registered for practicum, practicum continuation, dissertation proposal (non-Psy.D students only), dissertation, full-time internship, internship continuation, or externship satisfy the full-time enrollment definition.
- Chicago, Vancouver, or Online Campus graduate students registered for dissertation proposal continuation (non-Psy.D students only), doctoral dissertation continuation, or half-time internship satisfy the half-time enrollment definition.
- Important Note: Effective beginning in the 2017-2018 academic year, dissertation proposal and dissertation proposal continuation have been removed as exceptions to credit hour requirements for enrollment status for PSYD students.
Enrollment Status Considerations When Retaking Coursework
Please note that for the purposes of determining a student’s enrollment status, there are special considerations for students who are repeating coursework:
- A student who has failed a course (grade of F, or grade of NC in a credit/no credit course) can have the repeated failed course calculated in their enrollment status as many times as it is necessary to get a passing grade. See the next bullet for an exception.
- A student who is retaking a previously passed course to improve their grade in it may have exactly one repetition of that course included in their enrollment status. In the case when a student retakes the previously passed course to improve their grade and fails the second time, the student may not be paid for retaking the class a third time.
The faculty plays an integral role in effective and responsible instruction and training in providing careful, detailed, timely and thoughtful feedback and evaluation of students work. The policies pertinent to grading, as outlined in the Academic Catalog, are as follows:
Traditional letter grades are given for most of the courses offered. A limited number of courses are evaluated on a pass/no pass basis. The grading system for the Chicago Campus is as follows:
Grade Corrections and Grade Appeals
Leave of Absence
Professional Communication Skills
Excellent communication skills are a necessity for today’s practitioners and are foundational to their professional success. In order to ensure that Adler University students will be ready to become tomorrow’s leaders, written and oral communications are evaluated throughout students’ educational and training experiences, from admission to graduation. Adler University offers all students opportunities to develop their communication skills through academic coursework and support services.
While students are held to the highest communication standards in the classroom and professional training contexts, they are also encouraged to consider appropriate methods of communication in other contexts, specifically e-mail, text messages, and social networking. In a technologically connected world, students must understand that virtual personas are rarely private. Information sent or posted electronically may reach potential or current employers, clients, classmates, colleagues, or teachers, causing serious and irreparable harm to an individual’s personal or professional reputation. While all members of the Adler University community are entitled to their own opinions and have the right of free speech, they are urged to use electronic communication platforms thoughtfully and with caution so as not to harm the University’s or their own standing.
Satisfactory Academic Progress
Student Referral Policy
Summary of Procedures, Rights, and Responsibilities:
General Notification Procedures
Students shall be notified, either in writing or in-person, that they have been referred to the SDC by the person making the referral. However, there may be exceptions, such as automatically-generated referrals by the Registrar due to grades. In most cases, the content or basis for the SDC referral and/or SCEC meeting will have previously been discussed with the student.
Referrals to the SDC are sent to the Office of Student Affairs and the SDC within the student’s respective Department.
The SDC and SCEC meetings are not legal proceedings and as such students cannot bring legal representation. However, the student may invite their advisor. Additionally, the student may bring a liaison from the Office of Student Affairs, as described below.
Students will receive a copy of the SDC Referral incident description completed by the person who has made the SDC referral.
A student will be informed about their SDC referral via letter (email) from the SDC, which will include whether a meeting is required, and what the next steps are.
Meeting with the SDC or the SCEC
Except for extenuating circumstances, all SDC and SCEC meeting are conducted in-person, face to face. Meetings may be held via a video conferencing platform (e.g., Skype-for-business) in circumstances where it is not feasible for the student to attend in-person. Requests for an online meeting must be approved by the SDC or SCEC in advance.
The SDC and SCEC meetings cannot be re-scheduled, in the absence of extenuating circumstances. The SDC and SCEC meetings are of the highest priority above practicum, work, and school, excluding an extenuating circumstance. The SDC and SCEC reserve the right to request documentation to support the extenuating circumstance rescheduling request. Students who refuse to meet with the SDC, or do not attend without providing acceptable documentation of an extenuating circumstance, will be automatically referred to the SCEC. Students who refuse to meet with the SCEC, or do not attend without providing acceptable documentation of an extenuating circumstance, may be dismissed from the program.
If a student does need to meet with the SDC or SCEC they can generally expect a minimum 20-minute meeting with faculty members of the SDC or members of the SCEC.
During an SDC or SCEC meeting, a student is allowed to take notes, but may not audio/visual record.
Students may bring a written statement and/or notes to the SDC or SCEC meeting. The student shall decide whether or not to submit this written statement to the SDC or SCEC.
Students are encouraged to think of strategies that will help them address the concerns stated in the SDC referral, and to share these with the SDC or SCEC during the meeting.
During the meeting, the SDC or SCEC will seek and consider the student’s input in creating a remediation plan or other resources to assist the student, as warranted and as feasible.
Advisor Role & Potential Dual Roles
A student may invite their advisor to the SDC or SCEC meeting. This is strongly encouraged as it is the advisor’s role to listen to the concerns raised and provide support to the student (e.g., discuss the SDC process, help the student prepare for an SDC/SCEC meeting, provide appropriate assistance to the student in fulfilling a remediation plan, etc.). When asked, the advisor may also provide any additional relevant information or insight that the advisor believes will facilitate the SDC’s or the SCEC’s decision-making process. Your advisor will usually be asked to provide you with support after the meeting itself, depending on the outcome and recommendations from the SDC or the SCEC. However, it is ultimately the student’s decision of whether their advisor will be present during the SDC or SCEC meeting.
An SDC or SCEC member will recuse themselves as a committee member if they are affiliated with the student as their advisor, or as the referral source. Recusal shall mean the faculty member will not be present during the meeting (unless invited by the student; see below), nor make decisions about the outcome of the referral. When an SDC or SCEC member is also the student’s faculty advisor, the member of the SDC or the SCEC may still attend the meeting solely in their advisor role, if invited by the student. The student’s advisor may then remain after the meeting to provide additional information, if requested by the SDC or SCEC, but will not be allowed to vote as an SDC or SCEC member.
Optional Student Liaison
For any reason, a student may request a staff liaison from the Office of Student Affairs to aid with the SDC or SCEC process, but must do so by sending an email to the Associate Vice President of Student Affairs (AVPSA) at least 5 business days in advance of the scheduled SDC or SCEC meeting. The purpose of the liaison is to serve as a resource for the student in situations where students may not want to seek support from their advisor, or perhaps feel they need additional support beyond what their advisor is able to offer. For example, this may occur when the advisor is the person who has referred the student to the SDC. However, the liaison is not intended to replace the student’s advisor. Further, the SDC and SCEC retain the right to speak with the student’s advisor. In situations where a liaison is requested by the student within the allotted timeframe, the student may meet with the liaison before the meeting with the SDC (or SCEC) to ask questions and obtain additional support. The student may also request that the liaison attend the SDC (or SCEC) meeting, though this is the student’s decision. Students are also encouraged to meet with the liaison after the SDC (or SCEC) letter has been received by the student.
In situations where the student has requested a liaison to attend the SDC or the SCEC meeting, the liaison may not answer questions for the student, nor provide any additional information, unless requested by a member of the SDC or the SCEC, and the student has given assent.
The liaison shall have no decision-making powers in the SDC or SCEC outcomes, and cannot be a member of the SDC or the SCEC.
In situations where the Office of Students Affairs is unable to provide the student with a staff liaison, the Program Director or Department Chair, after consultation with the student and prospective designee, shall appoint another University employee to assist the student as a liaison. Because finding another designee may require more time, the timeline stated in Student Referral Process Chart may not apply, but will not circumvent the SDC process.
Outcomes & Remediation
The SDC and the SCEC will review all referrals as a committee in order to make decisions.
In some circumstances, the SDC or the SCEC may request additional informational from the student after the meeting concludes before a decision is made.
A letter which contains feedback from the SDC or the SCEC will be sent to the student, their advisor, the Office of Student Affairs, the Department Chair, and the respective Training Department. The letter will state the decision(s) of the SDC or the SCEC, requirement(s) for the student, and timeline(s) for completion.
If a student has questions about the content of the SDC or the SCEC letter, the student should contact the SDC of the SCEC via the email address which the letter was sent from. Students are also encouraged to meet with their advisor, or the staff liaison from the Office of Student Affairs, to discuss these questions.
In some situations, students will be required to meet with their advisor or other faculty and staff to assist with a remediation process. These individuals may be asked to provide updates on the student.
The SDC or the SCEC may follow-up with both the student and the advisor at the end and start of semesters to track the remediation process, as needed, depending on the remediation.
Students who fail to complete their remediation in the timeframe stated in the SDC letter will be contacted to discuss the next possible steps, including potential referral to SCEC. Students who fail to complete their remediation in the timeframe stated in the SCEC letter may be dismissed from the program.
SDC & SCEC Appeals
Students have the right to appeal the decisions made by the SDC or the SCEC. A student may appeal the decision based on the following criterion:
- There is procedural error identified that indicates a substantial breach of institutional processes or procedures.
- There is new information of a substantive nature that was not available at the time the decision was made. New information may require documentation.
- The initial decision is biased or in violation of stated student rights.
Students who wish to appeal for reasons stated above must present an appeal, in writing, within 10 business days of the initial decision date.
Students who wish to appeal are encouraged to consult with their advisor and/or the Office of Student Affairs.
For SDC appeals, the appeal should be directed to the Department Chair. Students must submit an appeal clearly stating the grounds for the appeal and any supporting statement or documentation. The Department Chair will decide if a meeting with the student is necessary. The Department Chair may also speak with the referral source, or any other individual relevant to the SDC referral. The Department Chair will render a written decision to the student within 10 business days of receipt of the appeal letter. The University reserves the right to extend the decision date depending on the circumstances in order to conduct a full review. This extension will not exceed 30 business days. The Department Chair can, at his/her/their discretion convene an appeal review committee to review any appeal decisions. All decisions on SDC appeals are final.
In situations where the Department Chair is also the person who referred the student to the SDC, the Department Chair shall recuse themselves, and the appeal shall be directed to the Vice President of Academic Affairs (VPAA).
For SCEC appeals, the appeal should be directed to the Vice President of Academic Affairs (VPAA) or the Vice President of Administration (VPA). Students must submit an appeal clearly stating the grounds for the appeal and any supporting statement or documentation. The Vice President will decide if a meeting with the student is necessary. The Vice President may also speak with the referral source, or any other individuals relevant to the SCEC referral. The Vice President will render a written decision to the student within 10 business days of receipt of the appeal letter. The University reserves the right to extend the decision date depending on the circumstances in order to conduct a full review. This extension will not exceed 30 business days. The VPA or the VPAA can, at his/her/their discretion convene an appeal review committee to review any appeal decisions. All decisions on appeals are final.
Withdrawal in Good Standing