In either case, standard procedure would be to request a
corroborating letter from a physician.
These are not 'excuses' for poor work (one does not give credit for
poor work under any circumstances) but justifications for extending
an assignment or, if necessary, granting an incomplete until the
student is capable of doing the work assigned.
If there is someone in your department is knowledgeable in
psychopharmacology they might provide input on how likely that side
effect is (if they're on opiates it's pretty clear). If it's not
documented in the literature one might be skeptical.
At 9:33 PM -0600 2/24/08, Claudia Stanny wrote:
In response to the comments about the student who requested an
adjustment in a deadline because his/her medication was changed and
created some nasty side effects.
I wonder - how would you respond if the student has written that he/she
had been in an auto accident and the pain medication prescribed for
their injuries has interfered with their ability to concentrate?
How do these two excuses differ? Are we holding students culpable for
problems related to treatment of mental illnesses but understand when
medical problems "outside their control" interfere with their ability to
study?
Claudia J. Stanny, Ph.D.
Director, Center for University Teaching, Learning, and Assessment
--
The best argument against intelligent design is that people believe in it.
* PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Department 507-389-6217 *
* 23 Armstrong Hall Minnesota State University, Mankato *
* http://krypton.mnsu.edu/~pkbrando/ *
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
