S.97-5
0 ?
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
OFFICE OF THE VICE-PRESIDENT, ACADEMIC
?
MEMORANDUM
To: ?
Senate
From: ?
D. Gagan, Chair
Senate Committee on Academic Planning
Subject: ?
Minimum admission averages
Date: ?
November 27, 1996
Action undertaken by the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies and the Senate
Committee on Academic Planning gives rise to the following motion:
Motion:
40 ?
"that Senate approve as set forth in S.97 -5 , the changes to the
?
policy on minimum admission averages."
SCUS 96 - 49
40 ?
Memo from Nick Heath,
Director of Admissions
Simon Fraser University
To: Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies
Date:
7 October, 1996
I
Subject: Minimum admission averages
The Ellis Report stated that British Columbia applicants should receive preferential
treatment in u/g admission. Specifically, general admission to the University
requires an admission average of 65% (2.40 gpa), but, for British Columbia students,
this is reduced to 60% (2.00). This 5% differential applies across the various
admission categories. (The differential was eroded for BC Secondary school
graduates when the BC admission requirement changed from 2.0 (C) to2.50 (C+) in
the 1970's.)
For practical reasons, the differential has been applied to the location of the school,
college or university attended, not the residence of the applicant. Hence an
international student attending a British Columbia college may be admitted with an
admission average of 2.0 but a British Columbia resident, who wishes to transfer
after one year at an Alberta university, requires a minimum average of 2.40.
This policy appears to give unequal university access to Canadians and might be in
breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Since 1988, when the University began to limit enrolment, these differentials have
become largely irrelevant for most applicants because elevated averages have been
applied across the board, regardless of the origin of the work. For instance, the
minimum average required of degree holders is 2.00 (B.C. degree) or 2.40 (degree
from elsewhere), but the typical elevated average applied is 2.50 for both groups.
In spite of the levelling effect of the Enrolment Limiting averages, there are a
number of applicants for whom the minimum averages make a significant
difference, such as:
• special admission programs in which the minimum average is used (e.g.
SCES program)
• Diverse Qualifications admission policy - applicants may only be considered if
they meet the minimum published average
• for financial aid, it can make a large difference in applying for assistance to
study outside B.C. whether the applicant was qualified but turned away, versus
not qualified for admission.
If the minimum averages are to be made consistent, some might argue that the
. higher averages be used (i.e.. 2.40 rather than 2.00 from a college). This would create
significant difficulty within the Provincial post-secondary system. It is unlikely that
the colleges or the Provincial government would accept that the admission standard
1.
-1
for college transfers should be substantially different from the minimum
continuance standards for our own students.
The current minimum averages are shown on. the attached Admission Target
?
40
Schedule for 97-1.
The following changes are suggested:
That the minimum averages required for admission should be:
• graduates from Canadian secondary schools:
?
67%
average taken over four or five 'academic' courses
• transfer students from college programs that are articulated with SFU:
?
2.00
average taken on all transferable work attempted, minimum 30 Cr.
• transfer students from a recognized university:
?
2.00
average taken on all transferable work attempted, minimum 30 Cr.
o
first degree graduates from recognized universities:
?
2.00
average taken on last two years of degree or post-degree work attempted
• holders of technical diplomas from recognized technical institutions or colleges:
65%
average taken on entire program
• visiting students from a recognized university: ?
2.00
average taken on all transferable work attempted, minimum 30 Cr.
This covers the majority of the admission categories. Further discussion is needed
to re-define policy for non-articulated College programs, such as are offered not only
in B.C. but in other provinces and countries, including Ontario's CAATs, Quebec's
CEGEPs and others.
nh Oct. 96
.
2.
0000.00-0
a, 0 e
a,
0)
O)QC)O)
?
0
0)
0C'JCJLflC)
M tn
co ?
IS
ca ?
cu ?
co
0 0 0 0
C C 0
cm N cm N
CO
4 ?
C
4
LO
c%J
CD
Cl
0
0 0 0 0
?
0a ?
0
0.0.0.0.
00.
co
N0 -
0-
0 U)
?
U)
0 ?
co
co
C) C) C) 0) ?
C') m ?
m
0
C')
?
U0
0L
C> t fl 0U)L ()
?
l.> U)
Cj
0
0•t0•
0 0 0 -.
0•
0 0 0
a, a,
0
a,
0C5JC'sJ(DC\j
ccic'ic, ?
Co
00D0
04
cD
04 ('4 ('4 co
co ('4
D00
0
('4
(0 ('4 C C ('.1
'!)
N-
a:
0
0 0 0 0 .Q 0 0 e 0
a, ('4 0
cm cm c q cm
cci co co C') C O C
O C') co co C') C 0
cci
co
0
C')
Z
?
24cnw
.
-l)
Ch
?
C
U)
U) ?
a,
Da,
U)
a>
0
()U)
u,(D
c
U)
:2
0)
3a,
_Ca
0
0
?
0
U)
E
U)
D
a,
:2
u,
U)
a>
cHo
<2
U)
2
a,
'
t,
0
-
-
0
-
C
CD
c22
a>
c2_ 2
g)33w
i-a,
.
8
'
a)
±00.0
a,
U)
C
-
a,
00w
a,
000w
0)
w
:
.2>
Z5
0
0
CL
mmd)
I-
I-
>
I
(.5
U)
C)
w
U)
Im
U)
I-
4
C)
co
0
I-
w
C,
U)<O)
C'C'4(O
I-
-j
0
LL
-J
-J
4
?
?
000-o
m
LO
0)
I-
E
L000
c.,Jc'.J
CR
co
co CM
o
<
00
LID
(\J
?
CJ
'U
C!,
Z
cc I-
C'.J ?
U) ?
co
(\, co
9
U)
c')C'4('J
E a r-
a,O)
C\j
?
C..jL)
I-
E
oo
(DC\IC'.J
0)
cl
0.
U)
U)
C.
U)
a ca
4
0c'JC
w
<Z
U)
C> C>
I- o
CM 0
0C.,C'J
S2o
-Joe
c.1OCO
4
'04 j -
0
0o0- .
0
0
co
0
as
a,
C
0)
C
CD
-D
C
0
,- a
2
cis
?
C
ci
o ?
(1)
.-
2 u,
CD
CD
cis
?
-0
. ?
<
U)
CL a,U)
0)
CD
E0
U)
a, -Da,
O Ea'
('4
-D.-
o
at5
>
?
a_U)
2
O
co
cna,
-c
000
U)C
0)
?
a,J
?
•_
EEO
C a o Z
?
0
c'i
a> 0 .0
C13
?
0 ?
0
• .C
>
CIS (n
0
=U)
CLO
U)
?
- co o ?
-
O)0 .=
a, .0
a,
D
.-
EU)
?
.
2
-0 o -
2
>D
0 C
0)-
0
0)
0
?
05
a, a_
w
t1
a,
0--
LI) oO>>
C
5 •
?
0 E
Co
I-
0
= 0 4
a,
a>
U)0
a,
g5U)
0
--
So
E 7
H
ZHDIfl0)ffl
0
a,
0) -a
C000
.- '-0
0
()
I-
C)
>
U)
a)
0
U)
U)
E
4
C)
w
0
U)
C
0
U)
C')
E
-D
4
0
0
0
a,
0
-C
a,
a,
I
P':4
04
C
0
U)
a,
>
c3.
