Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9

To ? 

SENATE 

Subect ? 

FACULTY OF ARTS - PHILOSOPHY 

I ?

300-3 REVIEW 

From

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES 

Date DECEMBER 13, 1972 

MOTION: ? 

"That Senate approve the recommendation of 

the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies 

that Philosophy 300-3 be continued in the 

calendar for one more year, and that it be 

further reviewed after being offered for a 

second time in Spring 1973 and before it is 

offered again.' 

SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

.7J.9

MEMORANDUM

SENATE ? 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES 

From

......................................................

.. ?

... ?

...............................

... ?

......

I ...... ?

......................

FACULTY OF ARTS - PHILOSOPHY 

?

DECEMBER 13, 1972 

?

Subject ?

300-3 REVIEW 

?

. .. 

?

Date ?

With the introduction of Philosophy 300-3, Senate 

required that the course be reviewed by the Senate Committee 

on Undergraduate Studies before further offering. 

The Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies 

recommends to Senate that Philosophy 300-3 be continued in the 

calendar for one more year, and that it be further reviewed 

after being offered for a second time in Spring 1973 and before 

it is offered again. 

.

SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

D.H. Sullivan, 

Dean 

?

?

From,... N.

Swartz, Chairman 

Undergraduate Studies Committee 

Faculty of .... 

... Department of Philosophy 

Subject .......

PHILOSOPHY 

.......................................................................

Date

........

9ybe1,,,0 

.1972 . 

This memorandum 

is in 

response to the request sent to you 

from I. Mugridge, Chairman of SCUS, (2 November, with copy 

to this Department) for an assessment of Philosophy 300. 

I would 

like in 

this regard to provide your office with the 

following 

information.

1.

Dr. Mugridge's request came much earlier in the academic 

year than this Department had anticipated and on such 

short notice that we were unable to secure written assess- 

ments of the course from the students in the evening 

session of it. 

2.

The'course is just now being offered for the first time; 

• ? 

it is being offered in both the ordinary day session and 

again in the Continuing Education Programme. It is thus 

now only two-thirds completed. 

3.

The day-time enrolment is 11; the evening enrolment is 4. 

It bears remarking, however, that the low enrolment in 

the

evening

session has been explained in this way: 

Philosophy 300 was offered in that programme with little 

or no advertising; and students did not seem to receive 

or grasp the information that this course has no specific 

?

-

requisites. The day-time enrolment, however, would seem 

to be satisfactory for a course with no history. 

4.

The opinions of the day-time students are attached and 

are seen to be unanimous: the course is a chalengir.; 

one, it is adapted to their greater sophistication, and 

it

fills 

a genuine need in their liberal arts education. 

In sum, 

in

light of the short history and favourable respcns 

we should like to see the course continued. It does seem zo 

be fulfilling a need of the more seasoned student who missed 

philosophy the 'first time round'. Whetherit will prove in 

the long run the best way to meet this need is a question 

which can be answered only after the course has been offered 

a few more times. 

Jo c n

?

"Q/ . 

?

iman twartz 

?

uhy ?

Arts (

PHILOSOPHY 300

This course is advantageous for upper level students in 

that it gives them an introduction to philosophy at a level 

better suited to them. 

The class is small and therefore each student is given an 

opportunity to contribute to the lectures. 

I think it would improve the course if it was com 

pletely 

a

seminar course. 

The textbook is difficult to understand. I often have to 

read sections over several times and they are still not always 

clear. 

The lectures stimulate the students into thinking. 

Pro: 

- Good instructor 

- Allows upper level students a look into philosophy 

and I feel this is valuable 

- Topics are highly interesting but there must be a 

better book 

- Good course! 

Con

- Format could be changed to seminar course - take it 

out of room 5030 and put it in seminar room 

- The 

book is 

unintelligible! 

.

***

.

2.

.

??

1 think the idea of the course is basically sound. It 

enables students to meet specific upper-level requirements 

in a course that requires no pre-requisites. The subject matter 

is perhaps slightly over-ambitious for a one semester course - 

especially a survey course. The textbook leaves much to be 

desired; it seems both too elementary and too complex at the 

same time. Perhaps a better idea would be to explore the same 

subject matter as it is presented by the people who did some 

of the original work in the various fields, i.e., look at some 

primary sources. 

It is worth exploring the idea of a seminar rather than 

two lectures and a tutorial although the present method is 

adequate. 

***

I think the idea behind Philosophy 300 is a good one. I 

feel that the course would be most effectively conducted as a 

seminar - more 

or less 

the same way that it is conducted 

presen13Ly. 

I have 

a low opinion of the course text - it is very poorly 

. ?

written and dull. 

It is too bad that a grading system requiring essays, etc. 

has to be used. I feel I have derived a lot of benefit from 

discussions in the course, but little from doing essays - little 

exercises in 

mental gymnastics. 

I feel the professor has been excellent and wouldn't 

hesitate to recommend courses given by him. I don't think 

Philosophy 300 would have been so successful as it was (for me) 

with a different professor (from my association with out-of- 

philosophy department professor anyway). 

***

I think that the basic idea of Philosophy 300 is worthwhile. 

I've found this the most enjoyable course I've ever taken, both 

in form and content. I think the emphasis on thinking process, 

as opposed to context, is very valuable and is all too seldom 

seen at the university level. I think that a lot of this is due 

to the instructor. The format could be changed from a lecture/ 

tutorial to a seminar, although the course was conducted practicly 

in a 

seminar fashion this semester anyway. As a basic text, the 

book is a little vague, but it's all right as a background if 

it's supplemented and explained in the lectures. In general, 

I think it's an excellent course. 

***

.

Since I began this course with less than a knowledge of 

philosophy-having been misled by the likes of Tofler, I am 

satisfied with 

having

my total incomprehension of philosophy 

exposed. 

As I would prefer to under-go a purge of mind among more 

understanding persons than generally attend 100-level courses, 

Philosophy 300 has also satisfied that preference. 

I have very much enjoyed the course primarily because of 

the instructor 

and

the informal nature of the structure. I 

find the book without illumination, uninterpreted by the 

instructor, but not completely useless. 

I haven't the faintest idea if I have learned anything. 

Everytime I think or assume I have moved forward, I seem to 

have gone backwards. The fault lies with me, however, not 

with the class. 

I would like to see the course based upon more extensive 

background material that could fill in substantial gaps in the 

text-book. 

The instructor, not being omnipotent, can't always carry 

the weight of explaining everything in a manner that can be 

readily understood by all. 

Necessarily, this is based on personal reaction, and so, 

as a "last-semester" DNL student, this course is adequate 

(perhap4 even more than that) to my needs. It's an upper level 

course worth three units (outside my major!); it has touched, 

though slightly, 

,

on a few points covered in semantics in 

linguistic courses;. but, best of all, to one who has had only 

Philosophy 102 (in the way of philosophy courses), this course, 

(300) has introduced me to a range of philosophical rob1ems 

I had previously only imagined might exist(?), - actually, had 

only passed over briefly in past reading and study.. Being no 

. .

?

4.

deep thinker (inte, 

quite a bit out of 

last semester, I'd 

philosophy course, 

Liectual type), I have nevertheless gotten 

the course I believe. If this weren't my 

give serious thought to taking another 

just for "the joy of it all". 

The only problem with the course is the text, - better 

to have several authors, with. selected readings from each, 

or a collection of essays, etc. 

As to the Lecturer/T.A., no problem. Having ha a sum 

total of two philosophy courses, two philosophy lecturers, 

one philosophy T.A.,. (and exposure to a substitute philosophy 

lecturer!), 

I come 

t& .: 

-the..astouridirig conclusion that these 

guys are "okay" guys "(except for that 

one substitute lecturer)!! 

In all seriousness - 

(Is this a 

perfect hallucination?) 

Basically, 

the idea of giving an introduction to 

philosophy at the 300-level is a good one. However, the 

•

?

course miht be made more enjoyable if the book were changed 

in favour perhaps, of a set of notes mimeographed by the 

lecturer. Though.some grasp of technical terminology is 

essential to a study of any field, the course as it stands, 

is too cluttered up with it. Since only a clerical distinc- 

tion exists at present between tutorials and lectures in 

this 'course, there is no need to perpetuate the "two-lectures, 

one-tutorial" concept. Instead, three seminars a week would 

be more suited to the spirit in which the course has been and 

should be given. 

SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

MEMORANDUM

0 ?

Dean D.H. Sullivan, 

Dean of Arts 

Ian Mugridge, 

Chairrnn, 

Senate Committee on Undergraduate 

Studies 

Date ?

2

November, 1972 

At its meeting of 6th December, 1971, Senate 

p

assed the following 

Motion: 

"That Senate approve Philosophy 300-3 to be offered on an 

experimental basis, with review to be conducted by the 

Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies within the first 

year of offering with further recommendation then to be 

made by Senate." 

This Committee will be meeting on Thursday, 9th November and 

Tuesday, 1 

1

4th November; I would like to include a review of this course 

on the Agenda for the second meeting. I would therefore appreciate 

receiving, in time for distribution to the Committee before 11th November, 

a report on the effectiveness of PhilosoPhy 303 and the desirability 

of continuing to offer it. 

I. f&iridge 

c.c. Jr. H.M. Evans, Registrar 

Dr. R. Bradley, 

A/Chairman, Department of Ph iloscphy 

md

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

/jIJC-

MMOAUM

Wo

?

SENATE 

?

From 

_SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES 

Subject

_CURRICULUM AND CALENDAR CH 

?

Date DECEMBER 2, 1971 

- DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY 

The Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies approved the 

submission of the Department of Philosophy as set forth in SCUS 

71-22, 

with the exception of Philosophy 300-3, and recommends approval to 

Senate. 

The Committee recommends also that Senate approve Philosophy 

300-3 to be offered on an experimental basis, with review to be con- 

ducted by the Committee within the first year of offering with further 

recommendation then to be made to Senate. 

.