. ?
Minutes of a meeting of the Senate of Simon Fraser University held on Monday,
October 6, 1997 at 7:00 pm in Room 3210 WMC
Open Session
Present:
?
Blaney, Jack, President
pro tern
and Chair
Barrow, Robin
Absent:
Bawa, Parveen
Baert, Jessica
Boland, Larry
Beattie, Suzan
Bowman, Marilyn
Berggren, J. Len
Chan, Albert
Blazenko, George
Cleveland, William
Coleman, Peter
------
Dunstervil-le,- Valerie-----
------------------------
-D'Auria, -
John- - ------- - - - ?
- ?
-- -
Emmott, Alan
Dobb, Ted
Etherington, Lois
Giffen, Ken
Gagan, David
Hassan, Nany
Gillies, Mary Ann
Howlett, Michael
Jones, Cohn
Mauser, Gary
Jones, John
McInnes, Dina
Kanevsky, Lannie
Naef, Barbara
Kirczenow, George
Nip, Harry
. ?
Lewis, Brian
Reed, Clyde
Marteniuk, Ron
Sanghera, Balwant
Mathewes, Rolf
Segal, Joseph
Morris, Joy
Warsh, Michael
Ogloff, James
Whitbread, Katherine
Osborne, Judith
Wickstrom, Norm
Overington, Jennifer
Parmar, Neelam
In attendance:
Percival, Paul
Alderson, Evan
Peters, Joseph (representing B. Clayman)
Blackman, Roger
Peterson, Louis
Pierce, John
Tam, Lawrence
Waterhouse, John
Winne, Phil
Wong, Tim
Wortis, Michael
Yagi, Ian
Yerbury, J. Cohn
Watt, Alison, Director, Secretariat Services
Grant, Bobbie, Recording Secretary
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
IA
S.M.06/10/97
Page 2
Approval of the Agenda
The Agenda was approved as distributed.
Approval of the Minutes of the Open Session of July 7. 1997
The Minutes were approved as distributed.
Approval of the Minutes of the O
p en Session of September 15, 1997
The Minutes were approved as distributed.
Business Arising from the Minutes
There was no business arising frpir the Minutes.
Report of the Chair
There was
no
report from
, the Chair.
Reports of Committees
a)
Senate Nominating Committee
i) ?
Paper S.97-62 - Elections
Senate was advised that no further nominations were received with respect
to Senate paper S.97-
2.
Results of elections are as follows:
Senate Committee on Honorary Degrees (SCHD)
One Senator (at-large) to replace Jack Blaney, effective immediately, for no
specified term of office.
Candidates: A. Chan, G. Mauser, T. Wong
Elected:
?
Gary Mauser
Electoral Standing Committee (ESC)
One Senator (at-large) to replace Stan Shapiro, effective immediately, for no
specified term of office.
Elected by acclamation:
?
Albert Chan
b)
Senate Committee on Academic Planning
1) ?
Paper S.97-63 - External Review - School of Engineering Science (For
Information)
John Jones, Senator and Director of the School of Engineering Science was in
attendance in prder to respond to questions.
Senate was advised that changes affecting degree completion time and
changes to increase
student
intake were already in progress, and other
?
40
'4
??
S.M. 06/10/97 ?
Page 3
S
revisions will be incorporated into the School's forthcoming five-year
academic plan. SCAP was satisfied that the School was actively acting on
recommendations in the report.
In response to an inquiry about the high attrition rate, Senate was advised
that the high standards of a very selective admission process is an attraction
to students in itself and many students who leave Engineering Science do so
because they discover another discipline which they find more interesting.
The actual number leaving the School and leaving the University is very
small. ?
Concern was expressed that a significant number of students leave
because they can not maintain the required CPA of 3.0 and, considering the
extremely high standard of admission, opinion was expressed that this
implied that the demands on students in the program were too high in terms
- ?
- ?
-
of the number of-courses they are expected to take- each semester. It was noted
?
- -
that the mean credit hours taken by students in Engineering Science is almost
two times higher than the University average and the School was encouraged
to lower the workload on students. ?
It was pointed out that when a student's
average falls below the 3.0 threshold they are put on probation within the
program. This is not academic probation within the University and nothing
goes on the transcript. ?
An internal committee consults with the student to
address the problem and the student is given every opportunity to rectify the
before being asked to leave.
S
situation
Concerns were expressed about the response to the report from the School
which clearly indicated that they felt that the review had been an unfair
assessment. ?
Reference was made to the School's comments which implied
that the review committee may not have had complete or accurate
information and had provided a critique rather than a balanced evaluation. It
was suggested that such comments implied that there was a flaw in the way
in which review committees are structured or a flaw in the way in which the
review process works. Senate was assured that review teams were given very
specific instructions and information, much of which was based on the self-
study produced by the School/ Department. ?
In addition, the names of the
assessors are chosen from a list of names provided by the School/ Department.
It is felt that the system is set up to ensure that the reviewers not only have
full information about the School/ Department before they begin their review
but they may represent a similar philosophy of the School /Department itself.
Senate was reminded that the School of Engineering Science is also subject to
external accreditation by a professional accreditation body and a number of
issues that were addressed by the review team were issues that they wanted to
flag because they might also be issues for the national accreditation body. As
an example of the type of error the School took exception to, J
.
Jones referred
to the recommendation from the review team to reduce the required number
of credit hours to 120. ?
This would have placed the School below the
S
minimum number of units required for accreditation and Senators were
directed to further details on page 5 of the School's response. It was pointed
S.M. 06/10/97
Page 4
out however that according to the information on page 5, SFU's program
could be reduced by 10% and still remain within the accreditation
requirements. Senate was advised that the School felt that requiring the
absolute minimum for accreditation was not in the best interest of the
students.
Opinion was expressed that since the report and its interpretation seem to be
contentious it might be appropriate to hold another review with a panel of
assessors selected by an outside Engineering School. It was pointed out that
while the review was critical, it served a good purpose in that it resulted in an
extensive planning document for the School which included a complete
restructuring of its undergraduate and graduate curriculum. It was felt that
the result of the review has been positive and it was not necessary for the
University to go through the expense and time of another review.
c) ?
Senate Committee on Academic Planning/Senate Committee on
Undergraduate Studies
i) ?
Paper S.97-64 - Undergraduate Regulation Change - Duplication of
Courses
Moved by D. Gagan, seconded by L. Boland
"that Senate approve, as set forth in S.97-64, the following
additional limit on the duplication of courses:
Normally, a course may not be duplicated if the original grade is
higher than C-".
Senate's attention was drawn to the revised wording of the motion which
reflected the recommendation of SCAR to amend the wording from a C grade
to a C- grade.
James Ogloff, Senator and current Chair of SCLJS, and Roger Blackman,
former Chair of SCUS, were in attendance in order to respond to questions.
Senate was advised that the change had been proposed as a result of a review
of the regulation by SCUS in which it was revealed that many course
duplications took place merely to boost GPA. SCUS felt this was a resource
issue but primarily an equity issue. SCUS felt however that the inclusion of
the word 'normally' as a default option would allow waiver of this regulation
in appropriate cases.
Concern was expressed that students had not been informed nor consulted
about the proposal and no student was present at the SCUS meeting which
approved the recommendation. It was pointed out that student
S.M.06/10/97
Page 5
. representatives were present at some of the meetings at which this matter
was discussed and students were present at the SCAP meeting when this item
was considered.
Senate was advised that students were strongly opposed to this proposed
change. They felt it was too restrictive and took away their academic freedom
and choice. They also felt the change would likely result in more students
dropping courses before final exams in order to save their GPA by being
eligible to re-take the course in the future. It was pointed out that this would
likely create more paper work for the administration and cost the University
more than the proposed change in policy could save.
It was pointed out that students having difficulty in courses had other options
- - - - such- as -withdrawal -under extenuating- circumstances- and aegrotat grades-.
Senate was advised that SCUS had considered both options and felt them to
be inappropriate alternatives to course duplication because retroactive
withdrawal essentially rewrites the transcript and aegrotat grades should only
be used in exceptional cases. According to figures from Analytical Studies, 1/3
of all students attempt at least one duplication. Based on this figure, it was
suggested that a significant number of students would likely appeal this
regulation resulting in a significant increase in costs and paperwork for the
University.
Reference was made to SCUS's concern about equity and opinion was
expressed that the creation of a regulation allowing waivers created an
inequity between students who were aware of the appeal process and those
who were not. It was also pointed out that the waiver procedure in itself was
inequitable due to inconsistencies in application between different
departments. It was noted that the Calendar is available to everyone and
students have a responsibility to familiarize themselves with policies and
regulations. Reference was made to SCUS's concern about the inequity of
students using course duplications to gain access and remain in limited
enrolment programs; it was suggested that it is unlikely that such students
would be able to stay in a program by upgrading a few courses. Furthermore,
some hold the view that limited enrolment programs were inequitable by
their definition. Opinion was expressed that the proposed policy
discriminates against better students since it allows a C- student who
occasionally gets a D to upgrade by course duplication but prevents an A-
student who occasionally gets a C to upgrade by the same procedure. In order
to eliminate inequities completely, it was suggested that course duplications
should be restricted all together but, since this was not the issue, it was
suggested that there ought to be a procedure in place whereby a student who
is taking a course as a duplicate is put at the end of the registration priority
system so it would not be possible for that student to take the place of a
student taking the course for the first time.
S.M.Q6/1O/97 ?
6
Page 6
Reference was made to SCUS's concern about courses being duplicated merely
environment,
to boost GPA.
appeared
Opinion was
to be
expressed
in contradiction
that this statement,
to a University's
in an academic
goal of
?
is
teaching and transferring knowledge to students. It was felt that the proposed
change would dissuade students from increasing
their
knowledge and skills
rather than encouraging
them
to do better and gain a better understanding.
In response to an inquiry
about
regional comparisons with respect to course
duplication procedures, Senate was advised that SCUS had canvassed,
t
h
r
ough the Registrar's Office, a number of upjv?rsities across Ca
.
ada and
ther
e appeared to be ri
p
consistency in the
way
dplictes are handled.
Inquiry was made
as t whether
o
not
in f
ormation
was
available with
respect to what fraction
of
student
s
retaking
a
course act
a
Uy
i
mprove
d
their
grade, the reasons for retaking courses, success rates and so fqrth. Senate was
advised that although
this info
r mat i
on
was
not a
vai
l
abl
e
at
the
present time,
SCUS did have detailed information ava
i
labl
e which
cou
l
d
he provided to
Senate.
Moved by D. Ggan,
secQ p
d4
by P. Percival
"that this matter be referred
ha ck
to the Senate Committee on
Undergraduate Studies for reconsideration. Reconsideration
will
include
the arguments presented by Senate and, if a motion
comes hack to Senate, additional
documentation
will
be
provided and
t
h
e concerns
raised by Senate will he addressed
more directly"
It was suggested that if
the motion to refer is approved, SCUS also be directed
to identify high enrolment courses in which a student repeating a course
act
ua
ll
y displaces someone as opposed to courses which have
plenty
of space.
Suggestion was also
m
a d e
t
h at
SCUS consider the possibility of simply
decreasing
the
number of duplications allowed from five to two.
The wisdom of referral was questioned since SCUS already had had
considerable discussion based on the extensive information available to them
wh
ic
h
related to many of the issues raised by Senate. It was pointed out,
however, that Senate was unaware of the information and the intent of the
motion to
refer
was to ensure that some of the information was provided to
Senate.
Question was called, and a vote taken. ?
MOTION TO REFER CARRIED
ii) ?
Paper S.97-65 - Undergraduate Curriculum Revisions - Mathematics
and Statistics
S.M.06/10/97
Page 7
Moved by D. Gagan, seconded by C. Jones
"that Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board of
Governors, as set forth in S.97-65, the following changes in the
Department of Mathematics and Statistics:
1) Proposed B.Sc. Major and Honors Degree in Statistics
ii) Proposed B.A. Major and Honors Degree in Statistics
iii)
Proposed Minor in Statistics through the Arts and Science
Faculties"
Question was called, and a vote taken.
?
MOTION CARRIED
Senate received information that SCUS, acting under delegated authority,
approved the following changes: i) change in- prerequisite -for STAT 403;-ii-)
title change for STAT 330 and 350; iii) change in number, description, and
prerequisite for STAT 440
iii) Paper S.97-66 - Undergraduate Curriculum Revision - Chemistry (For
Information)
Senate was advised that in accordance with the new rules for curriculum
revision, request has been received, under the signature of five Senators, that
is
?
revision,
changes in Senate paper S.97-66 be provided in more detail and be brought
forward for consideration at the next meeting of Senate. The item was
therefore removed from the agenda and will be brought forward to the next
meeting.
iv)
Paper S.97-67 - Revisions - B.Sc. Program at the University College of the
Fraser Valley (For Information)
Senate received information that SCUS, acting under delegated authority,
approved the following revisions to the B.Sc. Minors program offered at the
University College of the Fraser Valley: new courses CHEM 231, 323, 411, 422,
451,455.
d)
?
?
Senate Committee on Academic Planning/Senate Graduate Studies ?
Committee
i)
?
?
Paper S.97-68 - Cohort Option for the Masters Degree under Special?
Arrangements
Moved by D. Gagan, seconded by J
.
Peters
"that Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board of
Governors, as set forth in S.97-68, a cohort option for the Masters
Degree under Special Arrangements"
S.M. 06/10/0
Page 8
Evan Aldersonwas in attendance hi order to respond to questions.
?
is
Senate was advised that the intent
Of
the proposal was to introduce masters
level work to targeted audiences without having to design a permanent
program which may not be warranted by the nature of the specific needs of
the targeted group.
It was pointed out that nothing prevents an indivIdual or a targeted group
front individually doing such a ptogram thtough the existing special
arrangements procedures and inquiry was made as to why a cohort program
of this kind was necessary; It va stressed that th tie of the existing pedal
arrangements procedure for a group of people resulted in significant
resource issues, whereas the intent of having the cohott format is to acquire
e
xternal funding
e
Senate
program
was provided with details of a sampl
which is being explored with interest being expressed by the Faculties of Arts,
Business Administration and Applied Sciences, and interest with respect to
external funding expresed by the Vaflcbtivëi oüftdatioh.
It was stressed that the thhdrt främéi
. Otk ptoirides an oppoftunilty to Platt
responsive programming which will be carefully vetted for resources by the
Dean of Graduate Studies and carefully vetted academically by the Senate
Graduate Studies Committee Reference was made to the statement that the
program should include as much as possible regularly offered SFU courses,
and inquiry was made 69 to what will be done whh oUrse requfred for the
program do hot ëxit. Explanation was provided that special arrangement
numbers will be Used in order to design any highly specialized special topics
courses that are needed, and that there wasno intent to introduce new
Calendar courses without full Senate approval. Concern was expressed abut
quality and whether or not the proposal would result in the creation of a
whole range of special topic programs that have not gone through the normal
academic approval procedures. Senate's attention was drawn to page two of
the documentation where it explicitly stated that the admission criteria,
degree requirements, ähd any other special conditions fot a proposed cohort
program must be approved by the SGSC and may not be below the minimum
admission and degree requirements of regular graduate programs It was felt
that the SGSC which
is
made
tip of all graduate chairs from across the
University is a good point of delegation for this kind of issue.
Question was called, and a vote taken.
?
MOTION CARRIED
ii)
?
Paper S.97-69 - Graduate Curriculum Revisions - Engineering Science
(For Informatioh) ?
.
S.M.06/10/97
Page 9
. Senate received information that the SGSC, acting under delegated authority,
approved the following revisions: i) New course - ENSC 858; ii) Description
changes - ENSC 852, 861, 887; iii) Change in requirements for the M.Eng.
Program; Change in requirements for Ph.D. Qualifying Examination.
iii)
?
?
Paper S.97-70 - Graduate Curriculum Revisions - History (For
?
Information)
Senate received information that the SGSC, acting under delegated authority,
approved the following revisions: i) Deletion of HIST 800, 811, 812, 813; ii)
New courses - HIST 893, 894, 895, 896, 870, 871; Change of title - HIST 826, 886,
and 887.
-- -
?
?
- - - - - -- iv-)---- Paper-S.97-71---Graduate CurriculumRevisions-PoliticalScience (For
?
Information)
Senate received information that the SGSC, acting under delegated authority,
approved the following revisions: new courses - POL 837, 894.
v)
Paper S.97-72 - Graduate Curriculum Revisions - Psychology (For
Information)
.
?
?
Senate received information that the SGSC, acting under delegated authority,
?
approved a prerequisite change to PSYC 886.
vi)
Paper S.97-73 - Graduate Curriculum Revisions - Sociology and
Anthropology (for Information)
Senate received information that the SGSC, acting under delegated authority,
approved a change in Calendar statement re registration in SA 840 and 841.
vii)
Paper S.97-74 - Graduate Curriculum Revisions - Biological Sciences
(For Information)
Senate received information that the SGSC, acting under delegated authority,
approved the deletion of BISC 808, 810, 811, 814, and 861.
viii)
Paper S.97-75 - Graduate Curriculum Revisions - Mathematics and
Statistics (For Information)
Senate received information that the SGSC, acting under delegated authority,
approved a change to the elective courses for the M.Sc. Program.
e) ?
Senate Committee on Academic Planning/Senate Graduate Studies ?
i
sCommittee /Senate Undergraduate Studies Committee
S.M.06/10/97
Page 10
Moved by D. Gagan, seconded by A. Chan
?
I a
"that Senate approve, as set forth in S.97-76, the proposed
revised Terms of Reference of the following committees:
i)
Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies
ii) Senate Graduate Studies Committee
iii) Senate Committee on Academic Planning"
Senate was advised that the proposed changes arise out of alterations made
approximately one year ago in the Senate procedures dealing with curriculum
matters and bring the terms of reference of all three committees into
conformity with the revised procedures.
Question was called,, and a vote taken.
?
MOTION CARRIED
6.
Other Business
Opinion was expressed that policies such as the harassment policy and the
policy on research ethics have an impact on academic programs and, since
academic programs were the responsibility of Senate, concern was expressed
that such policies were being implemented without Senate's approval.
Specific reference was made to recent changes in the research ethics policy and
inquiry was made as to why these revisions had not been brought forward to
Senate for consideration/ approval prior to implementation. Senate was
advised that the inquiry would be referred to SCAR for consideration.
Concern was expressed about the design of the room in which meetings of
Senate were held. It was felt that the amphitheatre format made it difficult to
make eye contact and inquiry was made as to whether or not it was possible to
go back to the previous arrangement (such as that used when Senate met in
Klaus Rieckhoff Hall) whereby Senators sat around a table and were able to
face each other. In response to an inquiry from the Chair as to the preference
of Senate, there appeared to be a majority opinion that the previous
arrangement/ room was a better arrangement. It was pointed out however
that one of the reasons Senate had been moved from Strand Hall was because
the size of Senate had outgrown Klaus Rieckhoff Hall. The Chair advised
that this item would be taken under the advisement by SCAR.
7.
Information
The next regularly scheduled meeting of Senate will take place on Monday,
November 3, 1997.
The Open Session adjourned at 8:15 pm and the Assembly moved directly into
Closed Session.
Alison Watt
Director, Secretariat Services