?

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

?

S.00-85

Senate Committee on University

Priorities

Memorandum

TO: Senate ?

FROM: John

Wate

Avla^lemic

Vice Presid

RE: External Review - Department of

?

DATE:

?

4 October ?

Biological Sciences

External Reviews of academic units are conducted under Guidelines' approved by

Senate. The review process is intended to ensure that the quality of the

department's academic programs and research is high, that members of the

department participate in the administration of departments, and that the

departmental environment is conducive to the department's objectives. Under

these Guidelines, Senate is expected to receive advice from the Senate Committee.

on University Priorities and to provide feedback to the unit and the Dean.

The following materials are forwarded to Senate for consideration:

• ?

The External Review Report

The response to the External Review Report by the Department

The comments of the Dean

The comments of the Vice-President, Academic

The recommendations from the Senate Committee on University Priorities

The Department Chair, Dr. N. Haunerland will be available at Senate as a resource

person.

Motion

That Senate concurs with the recommendation from the Senate Committee

on University Priorities concerning advice to the Department of Biological

Sciences on priority items resulting from the external review, as outlined in

SCUP 00-18a.

r

SCUP 00- 18a

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

.

?

Senate Committee on University Priorities

Memorandum

TO:

Senate ?

FROM: Jo

V

RE: External Review - Department of

?

DATE: ?

4

Biological Sciences

r

The Senate Committee on University Priorities has reviewed the External Review

Report prepared on the Department of Biological Sciences in May 1999, together

with the response from the Department and comments from the Dean and the Vice

President, Academic.

SCUP recommends to Senate that the Department and Dean be advised to pursue

the following as priority items:

?

1.

?

The Department of Biological Sciences should review the Master of Pest

Management program and determine whether to offer:

(a)

a course-based professional program, possibly with differential fees,

for an MPM degree, and/or

(b)

a research based program with standard fees for an MSc degree

Realistic expectations of requirements for course work and original research,

and the role of work experience, should all be considered in relation to the

type(s) of program(s) the Department decides to pursue.

?

2. ?

The Department of Biological Sciences should be encouraged to expand on its

initiatives for improving undergraduate student advising and should

institute a 3-semester student course plan to enable students to meet their

program requirements more efficiently.

?

3. ?

The Department of Biological Sciences should develop a more systematized

process for reviewing course scheduling and other curricular issues and

should incorporate periodic surveys of students on these issues into this

process.

.

?

C. ?

N. Haunerland

W. Davidson

---

.

SCUP 00-12

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

Office of the Vice President, Academic

?

MEMORANDUM

TO: Senate Committee on

?

FROM: J.M. Munro,

University Priorities

?

Vice President, Academic

SUBJECT: External Review, Department

?

DATE: August 31, 2000

of Biological Sciences

The report of the External Review Committee of the Department of Biological

Sciences was submitted in May, 1999 following the review visit on March 15-17, 1999.

The response of the Department was submitted on May 17, 2000 and the comments of

the Dean of Science on May 23, 2000.

My comments on this external review and the submission from the Department

and Dean follow.

1. The report is clear and easy to digest. It is comprehensive in its coverage but the

review of the undergraduate program takes 5 of 11 pages and research receives only

one short paragraph. There is no discussion at all of the adequacy of resources

provided to the Department; the reader is Left to speculate on possible conclusions to

be drawn from this omission.

2-.-The Department's governance arrangements are criticized but in my opinion the

Department and Dean are correct in their defense of them; Biological Sciences is well

within Simon Fraser's norm of collegial participation in departmental administration.

The Large size and complexity of Biological Sciences means that these processes can be

quite time-consuming but there is no evidence that they are unreasonably so.

3. The reviewers praise the undergraduate program's breadth but question the wide

diversity of options. They are critical of what they perceive as neglect of the

undergraduate program by some within the Department. Certainly, there is an

interesting imbalance between the brief treatment given the undergraduate program

in the self-study and the Lengthy analysis of the review committee. The Department's

response defends its record of attention to the needs of the undergraduate program.

Its relatively new mentoring program for undergraduate majors is certainly to be

commended (and perhaps imitated). The development of more structured and

comprehensive information on student experiences and impressions would have helped

3

---

2

considerably in illuminating the situation in this important part of the Department's

operations.

4.

The establishment of the new Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry

and the lengthy processes that preceded its formal creation have presented many

challenges for the Department of Biological Sciences. The Department's and Dean's

comments on the long run impact of DMBB and the interaction between the two

departments are sensible.

5.

Faculty workload practices are described rather differently by the reviewers and by

the Department. The reviewers suggest that workloads are unfair to active and

successful faculty members while the Department claims that teaching workloads will

be adjusted to reflect different Levels of research activity. It is not clear why this

hasn't occurred in the past since both the old and new Faculty Workload Policies

provide for this type of adjustment.

6.

The reviewers raise concerns about the structure and administration of the

Department's graduate programs. The Department's response indicates that solutions

to problems of program design and co-ordination are under active consideration. The

difficulties seem well within the capability of the Department to resolve.

7.

Overall, I share the view of the Dean that this is a successful department that

operates among the Largest undergraduate and graduate programs in the University

while maintaining an excellent record of faculty research scholarship. This is also the

opinion of the reviewers but it receives more expression in the first and Last

paragraphs of the review than in the body of the report.

?

0

cc. W.S. Davidson

N. Haunertand

1^1

---

/

?

scu 00-12

•

?

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

MEMORANDUM

To: J

.

Munro, V.P. Academic

?

From: W.S. Davidson, Dean

Faculty of Science

Subject:

?

External Review of

?

Date: May 23, 2000

Department of Biological Sciences

The Department of Biological Sciences was reviewed in March 1999 and the

committee's report was submitted in May of that year. The committee found

Biological Sciences to have a strong research presence in several areas, particularly

behavioural ecology, to be thriving, to be attracting large numbers of

undergraduates to a program that was considered one of the most comprehensive

in Canada, and to have a reputation for quality. It concluded that this Department

is doing a good job in its primary responsibilities: research and education at both

the undergraduate and graduate levels.

In the view of D. Gagan, the V.P. Academic at the time, the committee

focused their report on problem areas that seemed to require urgent attention to

. avert a looming crisis in the undergraduate program. He concluded that

"Presumably, the Dean of the Department (sic) will address these matters at the

earliest opportunity...". C. Jones, the Dean of Science at the time of receipt of this

report, indicated that he was "under-whelmed by it", and was disappointed that

the review committee did not bring any great vision of where Biology is heading

as a discipline and offered no advice as to how Biology at SFU could position itself

for the 21 century. C. Jones disagreed with D. Gagan's reading of the report and

concluded that the reviewers recognised the Department as having very strong

undergraduate, graduate and research programs.

Having read the report in detail myself and having had the opportunity to

discuss the review with an external member of the committee, my conclusion is

that Biological Sciences is indeed a strong Department with many laudable

attributes. The committee highlighted several points that could be improved and

this is the spirit in which the recommendations should be taken. I believe that the

Department, itself, has taken the comments of the review committee seriously and

adopted appropriate measures to improve itself where necessary. I endorse their

response to the external review.

•

---

I would like to take this opportunity to make some specific comments that

arise from the attached documents.

1.

Biological Sciences has embraced the Simon Fraser way of being

collegial and democratic in its decision-making process. I would not

wish to see this change. Streamlining committees will neither

disenfranchise nor overburden anyone.

2.

The comprehensive core of the undergraduate program is very

important. It should be emphasised more when we are recruiting

high school students. The cut back in the number of specialty streams

to three with a general biology option is a very positive move.

3.

Problems with scheduling and the availability of courses are not

unique to Biological Sciences. It more properly reflects the difficulty

of maintaining a trimester system in conjunction with the

simultaneous offering of a co-op and regular non-co-op option. This

must be a nightmare for course coordinators. The Department is

doing its best to come to grips with this. I consider the progress being

made more than satisfactory.

4.

The mentoring program is obviously very successful and the

Department is taking steps to improve its approach to advising

students in general.

5.

The emphasis on practical experiences for undergraduates requires

careful coordination of support staff. This is the most important

training a student can receive as it pulls together the theory and

provides an opportunity for instructors to share their passion for the

subject. The Department should strive to make this area of education

work more smoothly.

6.

The relationship of Biological Sciences and Molecular Biology and

Biochemistry is evolving as MBB adjusts to being a Department.

There will be much overlap and I am pleased to see a willingness and

desire to share courses through cross-referencing and team teaching.

7.

The recruitment of more graduate students holding their own

external scholarships is an issue for every Department in the Faculty

of Science. This is something that I will be discussing with the new

Dean of Graduate Studies. The previous Dean of Graduate Studies

was very supportive of this and initiated methods of encouraging it.

We will build on this in the years to come.

?

. .3

'a

---

8. The Department has revised its course requirements for graduate

students in light of the external review. However, the review

committee did not seem to understand what it calls professional

graduate programs, namely the MPM and the MET. I, myself, am

confused with regard to what one should realistically expect from

someone in the MPM program. Professional programs at the

graduate level often have substantially higher fees and are more

course based than a traditional MSc. There is usually a lower

expectation for original research. The latter is often a research paper

or a small project rather than a full scale thesis. I have met with the

MPM group of faculty and it seems that they are divided in their

expectations of students. By and large they want the students to take a

large number of courses, complete the equivalent of an MSc thesis,

not pay a substantial increase in fees over the regular MSc, and have

the degree classified as a professional program. This is not practical.

It is time for a revision in how the MPM program is offered. It may

be appropriate to have a course based, professional program with

differential fees for an MPM degree and an alternative route for a

research intensive, non-professional program with standard fees for

• ?

an MSc degree. The NET is in its second semester and is a co-op/work

placement program. It is too early to say how it will develop.

Finally, I would remind everyone to read again the Summary of the review

committee. Simon Fraser has good reason to be proud of its Department of

Biological Sciences. I am pleased to see the Department adopting strategies to

maintain its position of one of quality with an excellent reputation.

hM

P

W.S. Davidson

Attachments

C

?

N. Haunerland

0

---

ScUP 00-12/

(RECEIVED

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY (

MAY 2000

S

?

DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGICAL SCIE&3E

MEMORANDUM

To: Willie Davidson

?

From: ?

Norbe

Dean of Science

?

Chair

Subject: External Review

?

Date: ?

05/17/00

Enclosed please find the off

icial

Department response to

t he External Review Report, as

requested by

t

he VP Academic, Jock Munro.

The document was approved unanimously by the Department at today's meeting. Please

forward this report, with your comments, to Jock Munro before the SCAP meeting on June

15.

S

---

ppartment of Biological Sciences

?

External Review Response

EXTERNAL REVIEW

DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES

?

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT RESPONSE

?

MAY 17,2000

PREAMBLE

The Department of Biological Sciences was reviewed on March

15-17,

1999. The written

report of the external reviewers was received in May, 1999. The report was disseminated to all

faculty members, representatives of the graduate student and undergraduate student caucus, as

well as to technical and office staff members. Following an initial response to the Senate

Committee on Academic Planning, the standing committees of the Department considered the

relevant sections and recommendations of the report. Following extensive consultation, the

Department approved and implemented an array of changes. This report is the official response by

the Department and comments on the external review in general and on the specific

recommendations.

OVERVIEWThe

Department

?

was generally pleased with the overall tenor of the external review, which

0

attests to the high quality of all aspects of our Department. The research performance of the

Department and its faculty was seen as outstanding, and both graduate and undergraduate

programs were regarded to be of high quality. Based on the written documentation provided by

the Department and a three day visit by the Review Committee, several possible improvements

were suggested by the Committee, especially with regard to Department administration and

undergraduate teaching matters. While these comments are very valuable, it should be noted that

due to the brevity of the site visit and discussions with personnel the external referees may not

have had a complete understanding of the "corporate culture" at Simon Fraser University, which

appears to differ significantly from that of their home institutions. This is especially obvious in the

sections that deal with administrative issues, but also in some aspects of undergraduate teaching.

ADMINISTRATION

The review committee noticed that many changes in administrative structures had been

implemented in response to the previous external review, which had recommended a more open

decision-making process. While realizing the vastly improved atmosphere in the Department, the

committee felt that the Department now relies too much on committees, and does not give enough

administrative and decision-making power to the Chair. Cited as examples for administrative

"overkill"

are the Departmental Tenure Committee and the process by which new faculty

positions are identified and filled. The committee made the

following recommendation:

Recommendation

#1:

We recommend that the administrative structure be streamlined and

,"I

---

Del2artment of Biological Sciences

?

External Review Response

that the Chair move to regain some

of

the final decision making authority from committees

that should more rightly be advisory to the Chair. Decisions should

of

course be

communicated in an open fashion and the rationale for all actions should be explained to

the Department.

It is obvious that the committee was not familiar with the democratic decision-making

process that is typical for our institution. Some of the committees that were singled out as overly

democratic (e.g., Tenure Committee) are regulated by University policies, and not subject to

Departmental modifications. Others were especially instituted to aid the Chair in making

necessary, but potentially unpopular, decisions. Nevertheless, the point that large and numerous

committees contribute to the overall workload of our faculty is a valid one. We will attempt to

reduce the membership of committees, where appropriate. This has already been initiated in the

current academic year on a trial basis, and if no serious disadvantages emerge, the membership of

the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, the Strategic Planning Committee, and of the

Appointments Committee will remain reduced. Specific reference is made to the hiring process:

Recommendation #2: We recommend that the Chair and Dean carefully examine the

rationale for the hiring plans put forward by the Department. We present this viewpoint

because the democratic procedures now in place in the Department favour maintenance

of

the status quo and could disenfranchise minority opinions, which, although held by fewer

individuals, may have greater merit. The democratic process could impede the deployment

of

faculty appointments to create new research initiatives, it could impede hiring in areas

where there are critical teaching deficiencies, and it could lead to self-propagation

of

.

groups. While this point

of

view may be a contentious one, our collective opinion as

individuals who have all had administrative experience, is that there are times at which

movement in directions other than those supported by the majority may be a necessary

course for a department to follow. Such independent action might be near impossible to

achieve under the current administrative system.

These concerns were certainly considered when the specific hiring policies were established.

In fact, the Appointments Committee was established specifically to assure that minority opinions

are considered and to prevent self-propagation of groups. The composition of the committee (half

elected, half appointed by the Chair) gives the Chair significant influence. The committee

recommendations, which are developed in consultation with the Department, cover several faculty

positions available over a period of a few years, to allow for long-range planning. The envisioned

danger of block-voting by strong groups in the Department is reduced, because the recommended

hiring plan as a whole is subject to Departmental approval, not individual faculty positions.

Provisions also exist to take advantage of unexpected opportunities outside of the hiring plan.

Strong departmental support is necessary for such positions, to prevent uncontrolled proliferation

into areas that are not consistent with the Department's mandate and long-term vision. Although

the current hiring process requires much consultation and discussion, is has the potential to lead to

a widely shared consensus. At this time, the Department does not intend to alter these procedures.

UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS

The Committee praised our philosophy of offering a comprehensive undergraduate program

. in Biological Sciences that encourages specialization at the upper level, and ranked our program

as one of the most comprehensive undergraduate Biology curricula in the country. It recognized

the efforts and resources needed to maintain such a program for the large number of students that

/0

---

Department of Biological Sciences

?

External Review Response

choose our Department. Concerns were expressed that undergraduate teaching is not a high

priority of the Department, and that this results in organizational difficulties. These conclusions

stem from the perceived brevity with which the undergraduate program was covered in the self

study, the lack of knowledge about undergraduate matters by some faculty members, and

comments from individual students, faculty, and staff. In the report, particular attention is placed

on course scheduling and time-table preparation, and it is suggested that students are frequently

unable to fulfill their course requirement in a timely manner. The committee recommends:

Recommendation #3: The Department should work to streamline the processes

of

course

scheduling and timetabling. The schedule should provide access to the common core

courses in at least two out

of

every three semesters, and the courses required for specific

program streams should be offered in at least one semester every year, including a full

schedule in the summer semester. The Department should pay particular attention to

co-

o p

students and students in the Honours program to ensure that they are able to complete

their program and course requirements in a timely manner. Revision

of

the Honours

program requirements should be undertaken so that students can complete Honours

programs within a normal four-year period. Through a combination

of

regular course

scheduling, flexibility within streams and improved academic advising, all undergraduate

students should be assured

of

being able to complete their degree requirements within four

years (eight course semesters).

Undergraduate teaching is a high priority of the Department, and tremendous efforts have

been made since the last review to modernize and improve our curriculum. The stream structure

that is seen as very positive by the reviewers was introduced only four years ago. With many

options available for the students, it was impossible to anticipate all possible conflicts and

problems, but our course scheduling has improved dramatically over the last four years. With the

establishment of the Course Planning Group four years ago, a process is now in place by which

course offerings are decided primarily based on program needs and student interest, rather than

faculty preferences. Summer offerings are a high priority for the Department, but here the

selection of courses is especially important to assure that it is worthwhile for students to register.

In our opinion, the increasing popularity of our summer offerings can be seen as evidence that we

are on the right track. We are committed to offer required courses at least once a year, and to offer

less popular optional courses at least once over a two-year period. We publish our course

offerings generally two years in advance, so that students can plan their program well ahead of

time. Thus, we wholeheartedly agree with this recommendation, and we will continue to work

towards improving our undergraduate course offerings and scheduling. All undergraduates can

fulfill their degree requirements in a four-year period, with enough flexibility to accommodate

several CO-OP terms, if they carry a full course load

(15

credits) in all terms. Faculty regulations

specify an additional 12 credits for Honours students, who therefore need one additional semester

to complete their degree requirements. With a good selection of both core and optional courses

available in the summer terms, it should be no problem for Honours students to graduate in four

calendar years.

The committee suggested that some scheduling problems may arise from the stream structure,

which the Department introduced relatively recently. While generally supporting the streams and

the underlying philosophy, the committee questioned the number and selection of the streams and

recommends a re-design:

Recommendation #4: The Department should review the design

of

the undergraduate

'II

---

Department of Biological Sciences

?

External Review Response

curriculum with the aim of

reducing the number

of

streams and rationalizing the overall

. curriculum. The Committee supports the current scheme

of

a general core with upper

division specialization, but recommends a maximum

of

three specialty program streams.

Specialized courses from discontinued streams could continue to be offered according to

demand as part

of

a general biology stream, or as options within other specialty streams.

In designing the revised undergraduate curriculum, the Department should give due

consideration to the long-term impact

of

the establishment

of

the new Department

of

Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, and to the potential inclusion

of

a program stream

in environmental biology in collaboration with the new program in Environmental

Science. In all revisions, primary consideration should be given to the academicl

educational needs of the students rather than the research interests of the faculty. As an

end result, a curriculum should be designed that can be efficiently and effectively offered

given the current levels

of

technical/teaching support, laboratory teaching space, and

faculty teaching loads.

Again, this recommendation is widely supported in the Department. When the streams were

introduced in 1997, it was agreed to evaluate student interest and logistical problems after a period

of four years. Potential problems were anticipated especially in the Plant Biology and the Marine

Biology streams that could result in the elimination of these streams should they prove to be not

viable. The Undergraduate Curriculum Committee has now initiated such a review, and the

elimination of these streams and modifications of the remaining streams are now under

discussion. Most likely, the outcome will be consistent with the recommendation by the external

review committee, with three specialty streams (Cell and Molecular Biology, Physiology, and

• ?

Ecology/Evolutionary Biology) and the opportunity to complete an individual program in the

General Biology Stream.

The committee singled out as a particular strength of our undergraduate program the

emphasis on laboratory courses. It recognized that these offerings depend on a high level of

support provided by the Department, especially the professional teaching support staff. They felt,

however, that the communication between technical support staff and faculty should be improved.

Recommendation #5: Laboratory courses, and therefore technical assignments, must be

made well in advance, schedules determined and content

of

laboratory exercises finalized,

with no last minute changes. The laboratory program is large and complex, and the

administration

of

it is not a simple matter. As such, we recommend that the laboratory

coordinator be relieved

of

student advising duties so that full attention can be devoted to

the smooth delivery

of

the laboratory courses. A obvious corollary is that the role

of

advising students must return to reside with faculty members.

We agree with this recommendation, and already comply with most of its details. All courses

are scheduled two years in advance, and "last minute" staff changes are made only in

extraordinary situations (e.g., sickness of a technician etc.). After the previous review, the position

of a Head Technician was created, especially to improve the communication with faculty and the

planning of the laboratory requirements. In some upper division specialty laboratory courses,

experiments are regularly updated or modified, to reflect changes in relevant technologies. This

certainly requires additional efforts by the instructors and the technicians, but continued updating

is necessary if we want to offer a contemporary program.

We agree that the laboratory coordinator should be freed from the day to day duties of student

(/2

---

Department of Biological Sciences

?

External Review Response

advising, and devote more of his time to the teaching program. The review committee suggests

further that the advising duties should be assigned to faculty members instead:

Recommendation #6: The Department should establish a group of faculty advisors for

formal advising of students concerning the undergraduate curriculum. These advisors will

provide formal authority for student transfers into programs, course changes, etc. and will

interface with mentors to provide general advice on curriculum. All students should be

required to consult with an advisor prior to registering in a Majors or Honours Program

in the Department. Students should see an advisor to receive detailed information about

program choices and course selections early in their second year so that they can plan

their final two years to efficiently complete their course requirements.

Such a model has been used by the Department for the last two years, with two faculty

members who were no longer active in research serving as part-time faculty advisers. With their

retirement, there are no appropriate individuals left in the Department who can provide this

service on a long-term basis. Because of the complex curriculum and associated technical details,

it is impractical to assign faculty on a rotating basis to these duties. We have therefore decided to

create a separate undergraduate advisor position, as a part time staff position similar to those used

by many other departments at SFU. This advisor, who will work closely with the undergraduate

secretary, will be in charge of providing technical advice to students, checking credentials, course

clearances, transfer credits, etc. Individual faculty members will continue to serve as mentors, as

suggested by

the external report:

Recommendation

#7: The Department should maintain and strengthen the faculty

mentoring program. Faculty members should be encouraged to participate and should be

provided with the necessary information for informal (i.e. nonsigning authority) advising

concerning the undergraduate programs, courses, etc.

Faculty mentoring was introduced by the Department 3 years ago, at which time all but three

faculty members expressed their willingness to participate. Since then, all students have been

assigned a mentor when declaring their Major in Biological Sciences. The extent to which

students take advantage of this program varies widely, however, as does the enthusiasm of our

faculty members. It is now time to review the various aspects of the program and adjust the

procedures so that all interested students have easy access to their mentors.

The Committee questioned the impact of the new Department of Molecular Biology and

Biochemistry on the undergraduate program in the Department of Biological Sciences. It sensed

conflicting views on this issue, ranging from virtually no changes to a complete transfer of all cell

and molecular research and teaching to the new department. The committee recommended:

Recommendation #8: The Department

of Biological Sciences should give careful

consideration to the effect that the establishment of the new Department of Molecular

Biology and Biochemistry will have on its own teaching and research activities in this

area. It should work closely with the new department to develop a formal, long-term plan

for coordination of curriculum and teaching resources to avoid duplication of courses and

programs.

The lack of consensus is not surprising, as important details of the formation of the new

Department are still unclear, among them the exact faculty complement. Molecular approaches

are used increasingly in most disciplines of the Biological Sciences, and it is safe to predict that

/13

---

Department of Biological Sciences

?

External Review Response

their use will increase in the Department, even after some molecular biologists have elected to

join the new Department. It is widely recognized that there will be a great overlap between the

two departments, much more so than with any other unit on campus. Although the administration

has discouraged joint appointments all faculty members who will transfer to the Department of

Molecular Biology and Biochemistry are committed to retain strong ties to our Department. The

departments recognize the shared interest in various courses, and propose to cross-reference the

core Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, and Genetics courses. A motion was passed by the

Department of Biological Sciences that specifies close coordination of course offerings between

our Course Planning Group and the Chair of the new Department of Molecular Biology and

Biochemistry. Furthermore, a formal agreement has been reached that faculty members of each

unit will receive full teaching credit for appropriate courses taught in the other Department, when

assigned by mutual agreement of both Chairs. This will allow the departments to use faculty

teaching expertise optimally, independent of their Departmental affiliation. Biological Sciences

majors enrolled in our Cell and Molecular Biology stream have many options in their program,

including several MBB courses. Similarly, several BISC courses are recommended as options for

Molecular Biology and Biochemistry Majors. Because of this flexibility it is conceivable that

occasionally students will select a mixture of courses that could meet the graduation requirements

of both, the BISC B.Sc. and the MBB B.Sc., but this will not be the norm. In spite of all

similarities between the research and teaching programs one should recognize that the focus of

the Department of Biological Sciences lays more on function, while the Department of Molecular

Biology and Biochemistry is concerned primarily with structural aspects.

. ?

GRADUATE PROGRAMS AND RESEARCH

We noted that the Committee found our graduate program to be of very high quality. The

reviewers concluded that its size is well in line with other research intensive departments, and that

the quality of our students is very good. The committee voiced strong disagreement with the

suggestion by senior administrators that the Department should seek a smaller graduate program

with students of higher standards. Although the proportion of students funded through external

scholarships was seen as very good, the committee recommended a more aggressive strategy to

attract

scholarship holders:

Recommendation #9: The Department, through the Graduate Scholarships Committee,

should be more aggressive in pursuing graduate students who hold major scholarships

and should ensure that eligible scholarship holders are aware

of

the availability

of

top-up

funds.

While the Department is in full agreement with this recommendation, it feels somewhat

constrained by current University policies. Unlike the home universities of some of our reviewers,

who award significant top-up scholarships to any NSERC scholarship winners, SFU currently

offers top-up funds only for the first year of graduate studies, and only for students who have an

admission offer from a competing institution. In our view, it seems to be counter-productive to ask

students who have already decided to work here to seek competing offers, in order to have access

to these funds. One possibility, currently under discussion in the Faculty of Science, is to alert all

NSERC scholarship winners of graduate studies possibilities at SFU via individual e-mail

messages. Nevertheless, with only minor financial incentives it may be impossible to effectively

. ?

compete with other Universities employing this strategy (e.g., Alberta) who have access to large

endowment funds for this purpose.

/ 4

---

Department of BioIoical Sciences

?

External Review Response

The review panel valued our research and scholarly activity highly, and found that the

Department ranks very well against other Biology Departments in the country. While research

productivity varies between individuals, the Committee was not concerned about the few

individuals who no longer maintain an active research program as these are generally close to

retirement. The Committee strongly endorsed the intention of the Department to assign increased

teaching or administrative duties to those individuals who contribute significantly less in the area

of research and graduate supervision:

Recommendation #10: The Committee supports the efforts being made by the Department

to adjust work loads appropriately by assigning increased teaching and service duties to

individuals whose research programs have become inactive, as judged by a lack

of

quantifiable evidence

of

productivity, lack

of

external grant support, graduate student

supervision and directed research project student supervision. The Chair with the support

- of

the Dean should take decisive action in this regard.

In the current process of course and teaching assignments the workload policy is followed

closely, and faculty members without graduate students and/or undergraduate research supervision

will be assigned one or two additional courses per year. Further adjustments will be made in

future years. Provided that these efforts are supported by the senior administration, more balanced

workloads for all faculty members will be achieved.

The review committee found that the number of graduate courses required for our graduate

students is higher than usual in Biology programs, and noted the difficulties of offering sufficient

numbers of relevant graduate courses. They recommend:

Recommendation

#11: The Department should take steps to alleviate the problems being

programs

encountered

by making

by graduate

more

students

graduate

as

course

they try

offerings

to

fulfill

available.

the course

These

requirements

graduate courses

of

their

?

0

should not necessarily be specialty content courses, unless student numbers warrant.

Rather the Department should offer a small number of general interest graduate courses.

As an example, a graduate seminar course (or small number of seminar courses) could be

offered in which all graduate students participate for each year that they are in the

program. The course should emphasize seminar presentations by the graduate students

With an audience

of

both graduate students and faculty, and should be graded with

feedback and evaluation provided by the academic staff. The Department could also

consider introducing a 'core' course for graduate students which could stress scientific

writing, development

of

graduate research proposals, preparation of grant proposals,

preparation

of

poster presentations slides etc. Additional graduate course offerings could

be designed as special topics courses involving discussion

of

subjects reflecting the

research programs

of

small groups

of

academics. These special topics courses would

provide a useful means to introduce graduate students to the research being conducted by

other staff members in the Department, an area which graduate students felt they had little

appreciation

of

at present.

We generally agree with these assessments, and have initiated steps to address the problems

mentioned. The creation of graduate courses of broader interest is currently under consideration

by the Graduate Studies Committee. The high course requirements and the lack of relevant

courses is particularly problematic for students with only a B.Sc. degree who enter directly into

the Ph.D. program, or those who transfer from an M.Sc. to the Ph.D. program, since they muse

II,

---

Department of Biological Sciences

?

External Review Response

complete 8 more credits beyond the M.Sc. before graduation. These requirements are seen as

excessive, and we have now reduced the requirements by 5 credits. For some areas, courses

jointly offered with other departments (e.g., Kinesiology. MBB) can be advantageous, especially

if neither Department alone has enough interested graduate students to justify such a course. In

such cases, team teaching is often required. This causes some administrative problems (e.g., who

will get teaching credit) that are especially difficult to solve when different Faculties are involved.

The Department encourages these efforts and hopes that Faculty boundaries will become more

permeable to allow for increased team teaching efforts.

The committee addressed communication as another area of concern of our graduate students.

They felt that many deadlines are not communicated well, and that graduate students are not made

aware of the various support available to them in case of conflicts. Thus, they recommended:

Recommendation #12: The Department should deal with the various issues relating to

• communication with graduate students by preparing a graduate student handbook

outlining Departmental policies or procedures and covering issues such as funding levels

for students, scholarship opportunities and application procedures, and conflict resolution

procedures. If resources permit, a Departmental newsletter would also improve

communication throughout the Department as a whole.

Effective communication is certainly of utmost importance, and we strongly support these

suggestions. In fact, our measures already include most of these suggestions, and go well beyond.

A graduate handbook is handed out to all new graduate students, and annually we have a half-day

orientation for new graduate students that introduces many of the relevant topics. All graduate

• students are alerted by repetitive e-mail messages of important events and deadlines. Two

graduate students represent the graduate caucus in the Department Graduate studies committee,

and are thus aware of all important developments. Graduate students also serve on faculty search

committees, and meet separately with all potential candidates.

The report continues with a note about professional programs. The committee feels that the

commitment to the M.P.M and M.E.T. program should be revisited. It alerts the Department that

resources, including qualified faculty, will be required to maintain these programs, and that this

may be difficult to balance with our commitment to research excellence. It anticipates strong

disagreements about this in the Department, and cites this as another reason for adopting a less

democratic leadership style.

The Department is well aware of the difficulties in reaching a consensus on these issues.

However, we believe that the proper balance is achievable through open discussions in good faith.

This approach has served us well during the past and has contributed to the current stature of our

Department. Indeed, the current deliberations about future hiring address the concerns raised by

the reviewers. We anticipate that we can hire within the next few years at least three additional

faculty members that will strongly contribute to the two professional programs and establish

vigorous, well funded research programs. It is obvious that conflicting interests require the

willingness to compromise, but the current climate in the Department gives ample reason to be

optimistic. The Center for Environmental Biology was created to coordinate the needs of the two

professional programs and to strengthen areas of mutual importance. It is anticipated that the

impact on the undergraduate teaching program will be minimal, because of the development of

S ?

partially overlapping curricula and the commitment of the founding faculty of the M.E.T. to

contribute initially to some of the new courses in addition to their regular teaching From the

---

Department of Biological Sciences

?

External Review Response

recent experience in planning teaching assignments, both professional programs can indeed be

mounted without the addition of excessive resources. It is essential, however, that the CEB faculty

members show strong commitment to the professional programs, by teaching the required courses

and supervising professional graduate students. Continued success of these programs relies on

both the addition of new faculty and increased efforts of existing faculty.

CONCLUSIONS

In their final summary, the reviewers reiterated their highly positive impressions of the

Department, in all major areas of our mandate, namely research, undergraduate teaching, and

graduate teaching. They stressed that the recommendations should be seen as suggestions to

strengthen the Department, and not as an indicator of a

"problem-plagued Department".

As

detailed above, we appreciate this review and feel that many of these suggestions are indeed

helpful in maintaining or improving the quality of our programs.

The Department was troubled, however, by the synthesis of this review issued by Dr. David

Gagan, Vice President, Academic, on May 10, 1999. In his assessment, the report is focused on

"serious problems" "that appear to require urgent attention",

and

"the perception... that

undergraduate teaching is not a priority

of

the Department".

In our view, these statements

are not

supported by the report. In contrast, the review offers reassurance that the general quality and

overall direction of the Department is very good. While improvements are indeed possible, we

believe that the Department is certainly on the right track, and that radical changes are not

desirable. This should be clear from the external review itself and our response given in this

document. Building on this review document the Department will, in the Fall of 2000, develop the

next Academic Plan. This will address the future directions for the Department, including our

teaching programs and faculty hiring plans, and other emerging opportunities.

This document was unanimously approved by the Department of Biological Sciences at the

Department Meeting on May 17, 2000.

Department of Biological Sciences

//7

0

---

scu 00-12

.

?

EXTERNAL REVIEW - DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGICAL

SCIENCES - SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

An external review of the Biological Sciences Department at Simon Fraser University

was conducted on March 15-17, 1999. Members of the Review Team were:

Dr. Susan Jensen (Chair), Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta;

Dr. Daphne Fairbairn, Department of Biology, Concordia University;

Dr. William Driedzic, Ocean Sciences Centre, Memorial University;

and Dr. Michael Words, (Internal Member), Physics Department, Simon Fraser

University.

OVERVIEW

As an overall impression, the Committee found the Department of Biological

Sciences to be thriving, with a strong research presence in several areas, most notably

behavioural ecology, a high quality group of graduate students, and an undergraduate

program that attracts large numbers of students.

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

The Committee heard repeated references to the atmosphere in the Department, and

how much it has improved since the time of the last review. This appears to be a tribute

to changes that were instituted since the last review, in particular in opening up the

administration of the Department to rely on more democratic, committee-based decision

making processes as opposed to the previous system, which was seen to be top-down,

secretive and prone to favoritism.

However, the Review Committee questions the possibility that

the Department may

have "overshot the mark" to some extent in its present heavy reliance upon committee-

based decision making and the need for majority support from the Department as a whole

before actions can be taken. The need for consultation and communication are

paramount, but the Department faces a number of challenges in the near future, and it

may prove difficult to respond rapidly and effectively in an administrative environment

which relies so extensively upon majority approval.

The democratic, but heavily bureaucratic, administrative structure within the

Department may also be overburdening the academic staff with administrative duties and

taking up time that could be better spent on teaching and research. Finally, this system

may prevent the Chair from making decisions that are in the best interest of the

Department but may not necessarily represent the majority view. As an example of how

there may be too many committees with too many members, the appointments committee

. ?

consists of the Department Chair, four additional staff members appointed by the Chair,

and the four members of the strategic planning committee. The membership of the

appointments committee is subject to ratification by ballot of the Department, their

---

EXTERNAL REVIEW - DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGICAL

?

SCIENCES - SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

An external review of the Biological Sciences Department at Simon Fraser University

was conducted on March 15-17, 1999. Members of the Review Team were:

Dr. Susan Jensen (Chair), Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta;

Dr. Daphne Fairbairn, Department of Biology, Concordia University;

Dr. William Driedzic, Ocean Sciences Centre, Memorial University;

and Dr. Michael Words, (Internal Member), Physics Department, Simon Fraser

University.

OVERVIEW

As an overall impression, the Committee found the Department of Biological

Sciences to be thriving, with a strong research presence in several areas, most notably

behavioural ecology, a high quality group of graduate students, and an undergraduate

program that attracts large numbers of students.

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

The Committee heard repeated references to the atmosphere in the Department, and

how much it has improved since the time of the last review. This appears to be a tribute

to changes that were instituted since the last review, in particular in opening up the

administration of the Department to rely on more democratic, committee-based decision

making processes as opposed to the previous system, which was seen to be top-down,

secretive and prone to favoritism.

However, the Review Committee questions the possibility that the Department may

have "overshot the mark" to some extent in its present heavy reliance upon committee-

based decision making and the need for majority support from the Department as a whole

before actions can be taken. The need for consultation and communication are

paramount, but the Department faces a number of challenges in the near future, and it

may prove difficult to respond rapidly and effectively in an administrative environment

which relies so extensively upon majority approval.

The democratic, but heavily bureaucratic, administrative structure within the

Department may also be overburdening the academic staff with administrative duties and

taking up time that could be better spent on teaching and research. Finally, this system

may prevent the Chair from making decisions that are in the best interest of the

Department but may not necessarily represent the majority view. As an example of how

there may be too many committees with too many members, the appointments committee

consists of the Department Chair, four additional staff members appointed by the Chair,

and the four members of the strategic planning committee. The membership of the

appointments committee is subject to ratification by ballot of the Department, their:

Iq

---

P]

•

??

recommendations for hiring priorities are subject to ratification by the Department via

?

secret ballot, and ultimately, any decision to hire a new staff member must again be

decided by a vote of the Department as a whole. Another example of administrative

"overkill" is the departmental tenure committee that evaluates faculty members for

contract renewal and takes much if not all of the responsibility for decisions away from

the Chair. As a result, the position of the Chair has been reduced to one of a

Departmental administrator with little scope to provide real leadership.

. ?

Recommendation #1: We recommend that the administrative structure

?

be ?

streamlined and that the Chair move to regain some of the final decision making

authority from committees that should more rightly be advisory to the Chair.

Decisions should of course be communicated in an open fashion and the rationale

-

for all actions should be explained to the Department.

A related issue that speaks to the potential for a "tyranny of the majority" can be seen

in the number of research groups that have emerged in the Department. Some of these

have formal administrative structures whereas others are self-defined with only informal

status. Each of these groups either wants to sustain or to increase the number of

individuals in their unit. Some of the research groups link directly to undergraduate or

graduate teaching programs whereas others are quite separate. There is no question that

large critical masses of faculty members with common research interests can achieve

world class stature such as the Behavioural Ecology Group. However, there is a trade off

•

?

?

between the establishment of high-powered research foci and the maintenance of the?

necessary person-power required to deliver breadth in an undergraduate biology

curriculum. The route that the Department pursues should be consistent with the

University's goals as a whole.

• ?

Recommendation #2: We recommend that the Chair and Dean carefully

?

examine the rationale for the hiring plans put forward by the Department. We

present this viewpoint because the democratic procedures now in place in the

Department favour maintenance of the status quo and could disenfranchise

minority opinions, which, although held by fewer individuals, may have greater

merit. The democratic process could impede the deployment of faculty

appointments to create new research initiatives, it could impede hiring in areas

where there are critical teaching deficiencies, and it could lead to self-propagation

of groups. While this point of view may be a contentious one, our collective

opinion as individuals who have all had administrative experience, is that there

are times at which movement in directions other than those supported by the

majority may be a necessary course for a department to follow. Such independent

action might be near impossible to achieve under the current administrative

system.

It should be noted that the Internal Member of the Committee, Dr. Michael Wortis,

did not share with the External Members the concern that the level of departmental

. ?

democracy might be excessive. Rather he felt that the administrative system described

above is quite typical of that seen in many departments at Simon Fraser University. As

---

such, this may represent a question of University culture which, while atypical elsewhere

in the country,. is quite in keeping with practices at Simon Fraser University.

UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS

The Committee commends the Department for the quality and popularity of its

undergraduate programs. Many of the recommendations of the previous review have been

implemented, and the Department has worked diligently to maintain standards in the face

of increasing enrollments and static funding levels. It is a large undergraduate program,

with 628 declared and intended Majors and Honours students, which represents 55% of

all undergraduate science majors at Simon Fraser University. All students are required to

complete a core curriculum that includes nine biology courses, ranging from

"Introduction to Biology" in the first year, to "Evolution" at the 400-level. This stands

out as one of the most comprehensive required core curricula currently offered in biology

in Canada. It reflects a philosophy that all students of biological sciences require a broad

knowledge of the major fields of biology before specializing in a modem research

discipline. The Committee commends the Department for providing this view of biology

to students in an age of increasing specialization and division.

However, the Committee did identify several problem areas that may jeopardize the

continued success of the undergraduate program. Most of these problems stem from a

perceived lack of attention on the part of the Department to undergraduate education.

Throughout the three-thy review process, the Committee was struck by the emphasis on

research, and particularly on promotion of the needs of various research groups. This

emphasis was manifest in our schedule of appointments, which included interviews with

no less than six research groups as well as a number of individuals associated with the

Department primarily in a research capacity. The issues raised by these groups and

individuals focussed on research facilities, hiring priorities and graduate training. Issues

concerning undergraduate programs were clearly of lower priority. Although we met with

representatives of the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee and the Course Plinning

Group, no individual or group came before the Committee specifically to discuss

problems with the undergraduate curriculum or with undergraduate training in general.

When the Committee raised particular issues, many faculty and senior staff seemed

unaware of problems, or dismissed student-raised concerns as having no foundation.

However, informal discussions with other faculty members revealed a recognition that

the undergraduate curriculum needed attention. Lack of emphasis on the undergraduate

program is also evident in the Self Study Report which devoted only five of 63 pages to

undergraduate teaching/programs and provided no quantitative information on student

quality or success of the program. Issues such as retention rates, time to completion of

degrees, employment outcomes for B. Sc. graduates, high school averages for entry into

programs, etc. were paid scant attention. This is in sharp contrast to the lengthy

presentation of statistics for graduate programs. Because of this general lack of emphasis

on undergraduate issues, the Committee is concerned that several problems are not being

adequately addressed and may impair the development of undergraduate education in the

Biological Sciences.

---

4

•

??

The undergraduate students informed the Committee that "many students" are unable

?

to complete their degree requirements in four years (eight semesters) because required

courses are not scheduled frequently enough, or are scheduled in conflict with other

courses required for their degrees. The CO-OP coordinator indicated that this was also

the case for Biology CO-OP students who must generally take at least one extra semester

of course work because insufficient course offerings are available in the summer terms. It

was estimated that only half of biology CO-OP students complete their CO-OP

requirements; many drop out because they are unable to complete their program

requirements in a timely manner. In order for CO-OP students to graduate on time, they

must be able to attend school full time over at least one summer semester, and yet the

Department of Biological Sciences offers relatively few courses in summer. A review of

the course schedules for 1997 and 1998 exemplifies the difficulties that students face.

Only half of the core courses, and very few of the courses required within specific

program streams were offered in summer. Although there are problems of this sort in all

of the program streams, the Plant Biology stream is particularly remiss. This stream has

five required BISC courses, in contrast to two for the other streams. One of these was not

offered at all over the six semesters in 1997-98, and two others, were offered only once.

Clearly, it is nearly impossible for students in this program to complete their upper

division requirements in two years.

Department officials seemed unaware of the problems that students have been

encountering. They suggested that few students actually experience these difficulties, and

•

?

?

that when they do it is because the students choose to work part time or full time during?

at least one school semester. (The students argued that they worked because they could

not get the courses they need to graduate!) The faculty members also seemed ill informed

about the processes of timetabling (during what hours and in what rooms the courses are

taught) and scheduling (which courses are taught in which semesters), often stating that

the timetabling was done by the registrar's office. In fact, the Chair schedules BISC

courses on the recommendation of the Course Planning Group, and the Departmental

laboratory coordinator constructs the timetable in consultation with the Chair. However,

setting the timetable does also involve working within the constraints imposed by the

limited availability of classroom space. There was also resistance to our suggestion that

more courses could be offered in the summer semester because of a perception that

enrollments are low in summer. However, a review of statistics for 1997-98 reveals an

average class size of 67 for core courses and 60 for non-core courses offered in summer.

For the core courses, this represents 43% of enrollment in comparable courses offered in

the fall or spring semesters, but for non-core courses the comparable percentage is

115%:

enrollments are higher in summer! Clearly the demand is there for summer courses.

• ?

Recommendation #3: The Department should work to streamline the

processes of course scheduling and timetabling. The schedule should provide

access to the common core courses in at least two out of every three semesters,

and the courses required for specific program streams should be offered in at least

one semester every year, including a full schedule in the summer semester. The

. ?

Department should pay particular attention to CO-OP students and students in the

Honours program to ensure that they are able to complete their program and

---

5

course requirements in a timely manner. Revision of the Honours program

requirements should be undertaken so that students can complete Honours

programs within a normal four-year period. Through a combination of regular

course scheduling, flexibility within streams and improved academic advising, all

undergraduate students should be assured of being able to complete their degree

requirements within four years (eight course semesters).

The Committee recognizes that the six upper division program streams have only

recently been introduced. However, the design of the streams indicates little planning for

a coherent undergraduate curriculum. Some streams reflect an organism bias (i.e. Plant

Biology), while others focus on levels of organization (i.e. Cell and Molecular Biology,

Ecology), or on particular biomes (Marine Biology). The distribution of students among

streams is very uneven, and supports our view that the streams were designed to suit the

research interests of faculty members rather than to meet student demand. Plant Biology

again stands out, having more required BISC courses than any other program stream, but

only three students enrolled, and a schedule of courses that is inadequate to allow

students to complete their degrees in a timely manner.

Offering six streams at the undergraduate level has major resource implications for

the Department because each stream includes a minimum of two required advanced

laboratory courses (with the exception of the general biology stream). In total, 13

advanced laboratory courses must be offered every year just to satisfy the core

requirements of these streams. To avoid conflicts and allow CO-OP students to take these

courses, at least some must be offered in the summer semester, as well as in fall and

spring. In addition to scheduling difficulties, offering this plethora of required laboratory

courses strains Departmental resources with respect to space, technical assistance, supply

budgets, teaching assistance, and faculty teaching loads.

• ?

Recommendation #4: The Department should review the design of the

undergraduate curriculum with the aim of reducing the number of streams and

rationalizing the overall curriculum. The Committee supports the current scheme

of a general core with upper division specialization, but recommends a maximum

of three specialty program streams. Specialized courses from discontinued

streams could continue to be offered according to demand as part of a general

biology stream, or as options within other specialty streams. In designing the

revised undergraduate curriculum, the Department should give due consideration

to the long-term impact of the establishment of the new Department of Molecular

Biology and Biochemistry, and to the potential inclusion of a program stream in

environmental biology in collaboration with the new program in Environmental

Science. In all revisions, primary consideration should be given to the

academic/educational needs of the students rather than the research interests of

the faculty. As an end result, a curriculum should be designed that can be

efficiently and effectively offered given the current levels of technical/teaching

support, laboratory teaching space, and faculty teaching loads.

0

---

•

??

Within the Biological Sciences Department, all students are required to take two

laboratory or field courses at the 300-level, and two at the 400-level, in addition to the

labs included in the core curriculum. To accommodate this, the Department offers many

intermediate and advanced laboratory courses; at least 24, 300- and 400-level laboratory

courses are listed in the current calendar. In addition, an average of eight students enroll

in directed research projects each semester. This emphasis on practical, hands-on

experience is a clear strength of the curriculum and should prepare the students well for

employment or post-graduate research. However, in a strongly research-oriented

department where tenure-stream faculty members have relatively low teaching loads, this

emphasis on practical experience for undergraduates is possible only because of strong

support from non-research staff and graduate teaching assistants. The Committee was

impressed with the level of teaching support provided within the Department. This

includes

5.5

Laboratory Instructors who teach in the labs and assist in course revision and

design, as well as

4.5

laboratory technicians who prepare laboratory materials. Graduate

teaching assistants lead tutorial sections, demonstrate in laboratory sections, and assist

with grading. This high level of qualified, professional teaching support is clearly one of

the strengths of the Department. However, the communication channels between the

technical support staff and academics, which are necessary to co-ordinate such a major

laboratory program, appear fragile. For instance, there seems to be a lack of advance

planning and clarity in terms of what laboratory exercises are to be conducted in certain

courses, and an inefficiency in the deployment of laboratory resources with respect to the

timetabling of courses.

Recommendation

#5:

Laboratory courses, and therefore technical

assignments, must be set well in advance, schedules determined and content of

laboratory exercises finalized, with no last minute changes. The laboratory

program is large and complex, and the administration of it is not a simple matter.

As such, we recommend that the laboratory coordinator be relieved of student

advising duties so that full attention can be devoted to the smooth delivery of the

laboratory courses. A obvious corollary is that the role of advising students must

return to reside with faculty members.

The Department is large and the undergraduate program is extremely diverse. Under

these conditions, undergraduate students rely on one-on-one or small-group interactions

with faculty and staff. Such interactions provide students with a sense of identity, and

provide a much-needed source of advice and guidance through the complex curriculum.

The Department recognizes this need and has several programs in place to foster close

contact with the undergraduate students. Small-group tutorials have long been a feature

of the undergraduate courses and seem to be greatly appreciated by the students. Given

the complexity of the undergraduate curriculum and the constraints implied by

integration with the CO-OP Program, undergraduate students in Biological Sciences also

require regular contact with an undergraduate advisor. The current system of advising

seems inadequate. At present, due to recent faculty retirements, the laboratory

coordinator is doing all of the advising although he does not teach in the curriculum and

. ?

is not a member of the Departmental undergraduate curriculum committee or the course

planning group. As such, the knowledge and insights to be gained from discussions with

---

7

students and from timetabling activities are not necessarily available to the academic

faculty members making decisions about curriculum and scheduling, and vice versa.

Shortcomings in this advising process may be responsible for failure of students to

complete their degree programs in the prescribed time. Furthermore, a lack of appropriate

feedback between the advisor and the faculty committees may perpetuate inefficient

curricula and schedules.

Recommendation #6: The Department should establish a group of faculty

advisors for formal advising of students concerning the undergraduate curriculum.

These advisors will provide formal authority for student transfers into programs,

course changes, etc., and will interface with mentors to provide general advice on

curriculum. All students should be required to consult with an advisor prior to

registering in a Majors or Honours Program in the Department. Students should

see an advisor to receive detailed information about program choices and course

selections early in their second year so that they can plan their final two years to

efficiently complete their course requirements.

More general advice is provided by the newly instituted "mentorship" system, which

assigns a faculty mentor to meet with each program student once or twice per year for

informal guidance. Students spoke highly of this program, and the Department should be

encouraged to continue and expand it. General advertising of the mentorship program as

well as improved communication with individual students to advise them of their mentor

assignment are essential to ensure that all students are able to take advantage of the

opportunity of interacting with a mentor.

Recommendation #7: The Department should maintain and strengthen the

faculty mentoring program. Faculty members should be encouraged to participate

and should be provided with the necessary information for informal (i.e. non-

signing authority) advising concerning the undergraduate programs, courses, etc.

The Committee detected a considerable disparity of opinion concerning the potential

impact of the new Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry on undergraduate

programs within the Department of Biological Sciences. Some faculty members and

research groups were of the opinion that there would be no effect whatsoever; the Cell

and Molecular Biology stream in Biological Sciences would remain unchanged, and

students wishing to study molecular and cell biology would continue to enroll in

Biological Sciences. Other faculty members predicted that all research and teaching in

cell and molecular biology would soon be transferred to the new department, leaving the

present Department of Biological Sciences essentially as a Department of "whole

organism" biology and ecology. Still others assumed that cell biology would remain in

Biological Sciences but that molecular biology would be split between the two

departments. To further confuse the issue, the Self-Study Report states that, at a

Departmental retreat in February 1998, "there was near unanimous agreement that

division into smaller departments would be counterproductive." During the course of our

visit to the Department, we were unable to discern any actual plan for dealing with the

emergence of the new department, nor any consensus about the final structure of the

---

8

•

?

Department of Biological Sciences. Will it be feasible or even.desirable to maintain a

stream in Cell and Molecular Biology within the Department of Biological Sciences? If

so, will molecular biology continue to be offered as a joint program between

departments, or will separate programs evolve within each department?

Recommendation #8: The Department of Biological Sciences should give

careful consideration to the effect that the establishment of the new Department of

Molecular Biology and Biochemistry will have on its own teaching and research

activities in this area. It should work closely with the new department to develop a

formal, long-term plan for co-ordination of curriculum and teaching resources to

avoid duplication of courses and programs.

GRADUATE PROGRAMS AND RESEARCH

The Committee judged the quality of graduate education offered at Simon Fraser

University to be of a high standard. This impression was reinforced by our discussions

with graduate students. We found them to be generally well satisfied with their graduate

studies although some specific concerns were raised which will be addressed later in the

report. At the outset of the review, both the quality and number of graduate students in

the Department, were

"flagged"

as areas on which the Committee might wish to

comment. A graduate student population of about 140 students for

45

faculty members is

well in line with what might be found at other research intensive universities. This is

S

especially true in biological sciences departments that have strong ecological programs

such as that at Simon Fraser University, since numbers of graduate students per faculty

member in ecology tend to be higher than in other areas of the discipline.

The Committee understands that the vagaries of provincial government funding

formulae in British Columbia mean that there are no financial rewards associated with

having increased graduate student numbers. Furthermore, the numbers of graduate

students per faculty member may be higher in Biological Sciences than in other

Departments in the Faculty of Science. However, these factors do not take away from the

basic finding that the numbers of graduate students are not unusually high. Furthermore,

the Departmental policy of requiring guaranteed funding for all graduate students puts a

practical limit on the numbers of students accepted and helps ensure that the quality of

students remains high. The proportion of graduate students holding scholarships that

provide the majority of their financial support averages about 30%, which seems quite in

line with what would be expected for a University of this size and situation (proximity to

UBC). In this regard, the Dean of Graduate Studies is to be commended for taking

aggressive measures to ensure that external scholarship levels are topped up to keep them

competitive with those being offered by UBC. Despite the availability of these measures,

the Department of Biological Sciences has been slow to take advantage of these top-up

funds to attract scholarship holders. In part, this is because some of the Department's

stronger researchers have no trouble attracting as many scholarship students as they can

supervise, and so recruitment bonuses are not necessary. However, the numbers (30%

S ?

major scholarship holders) indicate that this cannot generally be the case, and regardless,

the graduate student scholarship holders could no doubt put these extra funds to good use.

---

(

9

• ?

Recommendation #9: The Department, through the Graduate Scholarships

Committee, should be more aggressive in pursuing graduate students who hold

major scholarships and should ensure that eligible scholarship holders are aware

of the availability of top-up funds.

Scholarly activity within the Department, as reflected through the usual means of peer

reviewed publications, presentations, external grant support, etc., is on

the whole, very

good. The Department as currently structured would rank very well against other

Biology/Biological Science Departments across the country. As with all departments

there are some individuals whose productivity falls below the norm. However, a number•

of the individuals who fall into this category will reach retirement age in the near future.

As such, with appropriate hiring the overall research productivity of the Department

should remain strong in the coming years.

As is common in all universities, faculty members come under ever increasing

pressure to participate fully in the research, teaching, and administration activities of the

University. This can result in inequities in workload among faculty members because of

the variable success rates that they achieve in their research activities. There is a danger

that the most active researchers can end up being "rewarded" for their success by carrying

the lion's share of duties related to graduate student supervision, undergraduate student

project supervision, and management of large externally funded research programs, with

no compensating reduction in formal teaching assignments. The Committee recognizes

that the Department's 3-year plan dated Nov. 29, 1997 states "faculty whose research

programs are no longer productive should expect to assume a greater teaching and service

load until their research programs are revitalized". Furthermore, the University as a

whole has just adopted a new policy, A30.03 Tenure-Track Faculty Workload Policy,

which specifically reinforces this principle. However, the current practice in the

Department of Biological Sciences is that all faculty members have almost equivalent

formal teaching loads regardless of their activities in other areas. While efforts are

underway to move in the direction of equitable workloads rather than equal teaching

loads, this is apparently meeting with stiff resistance from some of the faculty members

affected.

Recommendation #10: The Committee supports the efforts being made by

the Department to adjust work loads appropriately by assigning increased

teaching and service duties to individuals whose research programs have become

inactive, as judged by a lack of quantifiable evidence of productivity, lack of

external grant support, graduate student supervision and directed research project

student supervision. The Chair with the support of the Dean should take decisive

action in this regard.

The numbers of required courses for graduate programs in the Department, as

specified by the University/Faculty, seem on the high end of normal for graduate

programs in Canada. In Biological Sciences, in particular, this situation is exacerbated by

the existence of one, and soon to be two, course based Masters programs that have even

4^7

---

• ?

heavier course load requirements. The conventional Masters program requires a

minimum of four graduate courses, the Ph. D., a minimum of three graduate courses,

while the professional Masters programs specify a minimum of ten graduate courses.

Graduate students find it a burden fulfilling the course requirements of their programs

because of the few graduate courses of relevance to their programs that are offered

regularly. Graduate course offerings relevant to the professional Masters programs are

quite specifically directed to students of those programs, and so are of little use to the

general graduate student population. However, they do tax the teaching resources of the

Department, and mean that few broadly based and more widely accessible graduate

courses can be offered. As a result some students appear to have been forced to take

courses with little or no relevance to their studies, leading them to question whether they

were taking "courses for courses sake".

.

?

Recommendation #11: The Department should take steps to alleviate the

problems being encountered by graduate students as they try to fulfill the course

requirements of their programs by making more graduate course offerings

available. These graduate courses should not necessarily be specialty content

courses, unless student numbers warrant. Rather the Department should offer a

small number of general interest graduate courses. As an example, a graduate

seminar course (or small number of seminar courses) could be offered in which

all graduate students participate for each year that they are in the program. The

•

?

course should emphasize seminar presentations by the graduate students with an

audience of both graduate students and faculty, and should be graded with

feedback and evaluation provided by the academic staff. The Department could

also consider introducing a 'core' course for graduate students which could stress

scientific writing, development of graduate research proposals, preparation of

grant proposals, preparation of poster presentations, slides etc. Additional

graduate course offerings could be designed as special topics courses involving

discussion of subjects reflecting the research programs of small groups of

academics. These special topics courses would provide a useful means to

introduce graduate students to the research being conducted by other staff

members in the Department, an area which graduate students felt they had little

appreciation of, at present.

Another area of concern identified by graduate students relates to issues of

communication of information, and these concerns were echoed by other groups of

Department members as well. In an example specific to graduate students, they felt that

opportunities for scholarships were being missed because of insufficient notice of

competition deadlines and inadequacies in the application process. They also felt that

incomplete, lost or late applications were jeopardizing their ability to compete

successfully for these scholarships. In part, this may reflect the increasingly diverse

workload of the office staff responsible for graduate student scholarship applications and

. ?

so it may be necessary to adjust job assignments to put greater resources in support of this

activity. A second area of potential concern for graduate students was that, when disputes

.2g

---

arise between students and supervisors or others, appropriate means for conflict

resolution are not well understood.

Recommendation #12: The Department should deal with the various

issues relating to communication with graduate students by preparing a graduate

student handbook outlining Departmental policies or procedures and covering

issues such as funding levels for students, scholarship opportunities and

application procedures, and conflict resolution procedures. If resources permit, a

Departmental newsletter would also improve communication throughout the

Department as a whole.

The present and future commitment of the Department to professional course based

Masters programs also needs to be revisited, and if upheld, it needs to be recognized as a

commitment requiring resources. The Department already appears to be experiencing

difficulties in delivering sufficient numbers of courses at both the undergraduate and

graduate level with adequate frequency to meet student needs. The course based Masters

programs add to this burden. The need to service these programs will also require a

Departmental commitment to appropriate academic hiring in coming years. This need

may be difficult to balance against the current "research excellence above all" approach

to hiring. While the existing complement of academic staff may insist that they can offer

the required courses with no additional burden on the Department, it follows that there

must be an ongoing commitment to replace all academic vacancies associated with these

programs with new, full time faculty members who can teach the necessary courses. If a

decision is taken to continue these professional Master's programs, then the Department

must follow through by providing operating and academic resources to make this

possible. In terms of hiring new academic staff, it may mean that the current practice of

letting the Department as a whole set priorities for hiring will be unworkable unless there

is clear support from the majority for maintenance of these programs.

SUMMARY

• In closing, the Review Committee would like to restate our overall finding, that the

Department of Biological Sciences is doing a good job in all three of its main areas of

endeavour, research, undergraduate and graduate education. A review, almost by

definition, focuses on problems and areas of concern, and so this report necessarily draws

attention to changes that we believe could strengthen the Department. However, we do

not want to leave a mistaken impression that we found a problem-plagued Department. In

contrast, Committee Members came into this review process with a high opinion of the

quality of the Department, and our experiences during the course of the three-day review

served only to reinforce that impression.

0

---

12

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

1.

The administrative structure of the Department should be streamlined to remove

some of the final decision-making authority from committees, and restore it to the Chair.

2.

The Chair and Dean should examine carefully the rationale for the hiring plans

put forward by the Department because the need to obtain majority approval from faculty

members could impede hiring in areas of critical importance to the Department.

3.

The Department should work to streamline course scheduling and timetabling to

ensure that all undergraduate students are able to complete their degree requirements

within four years (eight course semesters).

4.

The Department should review the design of the undergraduate curriculum with

the aim of reducing the number of streams to three, and rationalizing the overall

curriculum.

5.

Laboratory courses should be scheduled, and the content of laboratory exercises

should be established, well in advance of the courses being offered.

6.

The Department should establish a group of faculty advisors for formal advising

•

?

of students concerning the undergraduate curriculum.

7.

The Department should maintain and strengthen the faculty mentoring program.

8.

The Department should work closely with the new Department of Molecular

Biology and Biochemistry to coordinate teaching efforts and avoid duplication of courses

and programs.

9.

The Department should be more aggressive in pursuing graduate students who

hold major scholarships and should ensure that all of their eligible scholarship holders are

aware of the availability of top-up funds.

10.

The Department should proceed with its plans to adjust workloads appropriately

by assigning increased teaching and service duties to individuals whose research

programs have become inactive.

11.

The Department should offer more general interest graduate courses to alleviate

the problems being encountered by graduate students as they try to fulfill the

requirements of their programs.

12.

The Department should deal with the various issues relating to communication

with graduate students by preparing a graduate student handbook.

.

30