Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36

As amended by 

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

Senate Apr 1, 1996 

OFFICE OF THE VICE-PRESIDENT, ACADEMIC

MEMORANDUM

To: ?

Senate

From: ?

D. Gagan, Chair.

Senate Committee on Academic Planning

Subject ?

Proposed Diverse Qualifications

Undergraduate Admission Policy

Date:

March 14, 1996

Action undertaken at the meeting of the Senate Committee on Academic Planning on

March 13, 1996 gives rise to the following motion:

•

Motion:

"That Senate approve and recommend to the Board of Gove

as set forth in S.96 -

28,

the proposed policy on unergtie

admissions, for a trial period from Sprg_Sentfr 1997 until

Fall Semester 1999, with a revii-acur in 1998, as described

in the attached p

' Terse Qualifications Undergraduate

Admissi

and that an appropriate committee be

eet5hshed for the adjudication of this policy."

Motion (as amended) 

"that Senate approve and recommend to the Board of Governors 

as set forth in 

S.96-28, 

the proposed policy on undergraduate 

admissions, for a trial period from Spring Semester 

1997

until 

Fall Semester 

1999, 

with a review 

by SCAP with report to Senate 

to occur in 

Summer Semester 1998 before thepolicy 

3

as described 

in the attached paper 'Diverse Qualifications Undergraduate 

Admission Policy' 

continues, 

and that an appropriate committee 

be established for the adjudication of this policy" 

SCAP 96-1

Memo from Nick Heath

Director of Admissions

Simon Fraser University

To:

Alison Watt, Secretary, SCAP

Date:

December 20, 1995

Subject: Attached admission proposal from SUAB

SUAB was instructed by Senate to route this through SCAP, if re-

submitting it to Senate. For this reason I request that you place this item

on a SCAP agenda as soon as it convenient.

Judith Osborne has reviewed this material and feels that it is ready for

the Committee's consideration. However, should there be any need to

refer the matter back, you should be aware that SUAB is now dissolved. I

suppose SCUS would be the appropriate body, in that event.

copy: Ron Heath, Judith Osborne

• ?

nh Dec 95

Simon Fraser University

To: SCAP

From: Nick Heath, Director of Admissions

Date: December 20, 1995

Subject: Diverse Qualifications Undergraduate Admission Policy -Proposed

Proposed Motion:

That Senate consider and approve the proposed policy on undergraduate

admissions, for a trial period from Spring Semester 1997 until Fall semester

1999, with a review to occur in 1998, as described in the attached paper 'Diverse

Qualifications Undergraduate Admission Policy' and that an appropriate

committee be established for the adjudication

this policy.

Background

Discussions began within SUAB in February 1994. A proposal was drafted and was

considered by Senate at its 19 September 1994 meeting. In the related debate, opinion

on the proposal was divided. Some Senators felt that wider discussion of the proposal

within the University was desirable before a decision was taken. Accordingly, the

proposal was referred back to SUAB, with instruction to consult widely.

SUAB has carried out its task, collecting 54 written submissions from within the SFU

community and 17 from school principals and counsellors from outside the university.

SUAB has considered each submission and has made changes to the proposal as a

result of the comments received. On October 17 1995, SUAB approved by majority vote

the following motion:

That SLIAB consider and approve the attached proposal to introduce a Diverse

Qualifications Admission Policy on a pilot basis, as described in SUAB 275 and

recommend it to Senate for consideration and approval

In September 1994, Senate stipulated that, if the proposal were to be re-submitted, it

should first be routed through SCAP. It is for this reason that the document is now

submitted for SCAP's consideration, with the expectation that SCAP will approve it and

forward it to Senate.

Rationale

Since 1988, the University has been selecting its new students from among the pool of

qualified applicants, using a single criterion, academic merit, as expressed by the

applicant's gpa. A consequence of this policy is to exclude some outstanding, qualified

applicants, whose qualities are not apparent from their gpas. These qualities could

include other forms of academic or creative achievement (e.g. publications),

community service and athletic or artistic ability. While the University must continue

to stress the importance of encouraging the highest levels of scholarship, the decisions

made at the margin are based on minute differences in gpa and cannot be reliably

,46

attributed to real differences in performance. A grade average difference of only 1%

will separate those admitted from those turned away, yet the measurement error in

provincial exams is reported by the Ministry of Education to be 4%.

Representatives of B.C.'s secondary school system have frequently commented

negatively on the University's apparent indifference to some of the outstanding

qualities and achievements of their graduates. Class Presidents, Valedictorians,

musicians and Olympic medallists have to be concerned about the elevated averages

needed for entry to SFU (recently approx. 78% from BC Grade 12, with 67% the

theoretical floor gpa). School principals report that one consequence of these elevated

averages is lower participation in school activities, and a chilling effect on those who

might otherwise take academic risks or heavier-than-normal course loads.

Many applicants need to work part-time because of the economic plight of their

families. A great number of applicants to the University, especially transfer students

and degree holders, have not only family responsibilities but might also have

significant professional, political or community involvement. The current process

makes no allowance for the special situations of these accomplished, mature learners.

A single admission criterion, while 'efficient,' is not necessarily fair in its distribution

of university places. More 'holistic' approaches are common, even within this

University. For example, selections for Education's PDP, and certain other limited

undergraduate programs, as well as all graduate programs, involve more diverse

criteria than gpa alone.

Resource limitations face all units in the University and a full-scale adoption of

broader admission criteria for every new undergraduate student would have a heavy

price tag. The current proposal attempts at a reasonable compromise between cost (very

modest) and benefit. The benefit, however, is mostly un-quantifiable, being in the

form of improved public and community image, enhanced activity by the student body

and a more diverse student body..

The only university in Canada which is known to have similar policy for general

admission is the University of Guelph, but many other universities, most technical

institutions and most colleges take into account a range of factors in determining

whom to admit to specific programs. For example the University of British Columbia

has adopted a similar policy for admissions to the Faculty of Forestry and is considering

the policy for other faculties. Guelph's experience is reported to have been very

positive and measurement of student performance following adoption of the policy

showed no adverse impact on performance levels.

Note: on "special" admission

Some members of the community have incorrectly interpreted the proposed policy as a

form of affirmative action, by which under-qualified applicants are given an

opportunity to enter under controlled conditions. It is important to recognize that Qniy

at plicants who alread

y meet university

entrance reauirements ,as established by

Senate, will be considered. This will mean that a Grade 12 student who has an average

of 70% or a degree holder with a 2.60 average and who has some outstanding attributes

will stand a reasonable chance of being admitted directly to SFU. Under present

policies, this student stands little chance, yet might be a better candidate overall than

one who is admitted.

Dec 1995 ?

• ?

4apr96

SUAB 275 revised

Diverse Qualifications Undergraduate Admission

Policy

Summary

The policy proposes that 10% of undergraduate students newly admitted to the

University shall be admitted on the basis of Diverse Qualifications.

Purpose

The purpose of the policy is to encourage applicants to participate in a broad range of

activities and services to society, through recognizing in the admission process their

achievements and contributions. This recognition must not have a negative effect on

academic performance of students at the university. Rather, it should promote an

enrichment of the university environment by encouraging applicants to focus less

narrowly on course work and promote a broader appreciation of worthwhile

intellectual, and socially-responsible activities or pursuits.

. ?

Policy statement and principles

Simon Fraser University seeks to admit not only applicants who are academically very

well-qualified but also those who meet minimum admission standards and have

• demonstrated commitment and/or excellence in other endeavours

and/or • presented a clear and valid reason for attending Simon Fraser University

and/or • have succeeded in their studies in spite of difficult circumstances.

1. Name

The name of the policy shall be the Diverse Qualifications Undergraduate

Admission Policy.

2. The policy shall not alter the trimester nature of the admission process or the

proportions of new students drawn from the various entry groups

Senate has approved admission targets for each semester, broken down into three

broad groups and into Science and non-Science faculties. These targets and the

resulting mix should not be changed as a result of this policy. The policy must

provide an opportunity for prospective new students entering any semester,

regardless of origin, goals or age.

3. The policy shall apply to all general university admissions, unless a faculty

(having separate admission requirements and targets) wishes to opt out

S ?

General university admission is currently broken down into two broad groups:

non-Science (APSC, ARTS, BUS, EDUC) and Science. The policy may be applied to

all faculties or only to one or other of these two groups, as Senate wishes.

Proposed Diverse

ualifications Undergraduate Admission Policy ?

December 1995

4. Two methods of determining admission shall be used

Normal academic qualifications, (i.e. the gpa or percent average based on the

secondary or post-secondary record) and

2) a combination of academic qualifications and Diverse Qualifications.

(Currently, only academic qualifications are used, and qualified applicants are

ranked accordingly by descending gpa. Offers are made in descending rank order

until all available places are filled.)

5. Academic qualifications alone shall be used for most decisions

Initially, it is recommended that 90% of admission decisions be based on academic

criteria alone, leaving the remaining 10% to be determined under the Diverse

Qualifications Policy. These proportions should be reviewed, based on experience

and might change over time.

For 95/96, this would give the following totals:

Admitted on Academic qualifications alone

4185 new students

Admitted under Diverse Qualifications

465 new students

Total planned admissions

4650 new students

6. The Policy shall recognize demonstrated excellence and the applicant's reasons for

believing that s/he will be successful

• Demonstrated excellence may be in a number of fields (e.g. academic, social,

athletic, artistic, professional);

• Reasons for success might be prior success in the face of difficult

circumstances (physical, psychological, social or economic) or an unusually high

level of motivation.

7. The Policy shall be applied only if the candidate meets the published admission

requirements

An applicant whose gpa is below the published minimum, who lacks the required

English test score, who has insufficient credit for admission or in any other way

has failed to meet the minimum requirements for admissions set by Senate shall

be ineligible for consideration under the Policy. Consequently, only those who are

otherwise 'turnaways' from the University shall be considered.

8. Applicant information shall be voluntary and self-reported

Applicants may choose whether or not they wish to provide detailed personal

information for consideration under the Policy. A Personal Information Profile

(PIP) may be submitted giving the following information:

• a 250 word statement of the reasons for wishing to attend Simon Fraser

University and why success is likely;

• a summary of notable activities and achievements;

. ?

• the names and addresses of two persons who could verify the information.

• At least one letter of reference.

This information shall be taken into considered in the adjudication process.

Proposed Diverse Qualifications Undergraduate Admission Policy ?

December 1995

Adjudication and Appeals

Adjudication shall be by a specially selected joint committee of the faculties. The

University shall establish a such a committee. A suggested structure is given in

Appendix 4. The Committee to Review Undergraduate Admissions shall

continue to hear admissions appeals, where there are significant special

circumstances.

10. Scoring

Scoring of PIPs shall be holistic. Guidelines should be used to achieve reasonable

consistency in the ranking of candidates. (See Appendix 2). The adjudication

committee will be expected to refine these guidelines in the light of experience.

11.

Interviews

Candidates will not be interviewed. Given the difficult logistics and low reliability

of interviews, these are believed to be not worthwhile.

12.

Review period

The policy shall be in place initially for three years, starting Spring Semester 1997,

with a review by SCAP with a report to Senate to occur in Summer Semester 1998

before the policy continues. If the policy is not renewed, it will lapse after Fall

semester 1999. The policy may be renewed for two year periods, with review at the

end of every other year (i.e. 2000 etc.)

Procedure

All applicants shall be invited to submit a Personal Information Profile with their

applications. Submission of the PIP shall be voluntary. It shall be made clear to

applicants that reference will be made to the PIP only for determining admission cases,

under the Diverse Qualifications Admission Policy. Further, applicants shall be

advised that admission under the Policy is limited to 10% of admissions and that those

to be considered must meet minimum university entrance requirements. Applicants

who feel that their applications might be marginal should submit a Personal

Information Profile. University staff may offer general advice on the desirability of

submitting a Personal Information Profile, but will not give specific advice prior to a

formal assessment of admissibility.

Applicants must submit the Personal Information Profile by the deadline for

submitting an application for admission. The University will not accept late

submissions or changes.

The Personal Information Profile is recorded as a received admission document by the

Office of the Registrar and filed, retained temporarily and eventually destroyed

according to the Registrar's document retention schedule (usually 12 months).

Applications shall be assessed, as at present, on academic qualifications, and offers

made to fill 90% of the target for that semester. Normally, this will be achieved before

Proposed Diverse Qualifications Undergraduate Admission Policy

5 April ? Summer applications

The release of new and continuing student to the registration system is usually

complete by the above dates. Typically, the admission target is adjusted after analysis

of the registration data. Consequently, by these dates, the admission gpa (sometimes

referred to as the 'cut-off gpa') will be known for that semester, even though not all

decisions will have been made.

All applicants whose applications are complete and who are technically admissible, but

who have not been selected because their admission gpa falls below the 'cut-off gpa',

(i.e. currently coded as 'DL' - Deferred Limited Enrolment) shall compete for the

remaining 10% of places. This pool of applicants is the total number of remaining

qualified applicants and it shall include both those who have and who have not

submitted a Personal Information Profile.

Scoring, ranking and selection of applicants should take place within approximately 10

days, with admission offers released around the following dates:

Registration prospects for those selected and offered admission will be reduced

compared with those admitted under academic qualifications alone. It is not easy to

correct this unless all offers are processed earlier or if scoring for all Personal

Information Profiles is done on receipt. If so, a much larger number of Profiles must

be scored, because the initial admission decision will not yet be determined. Hence

delaying the scoring greatly reduces the number of applicants' PIPs to be scored,

because most will be admitted on academic qualifications alone.

Adjudication of applications

When the Director of Admissions has determined the number of offers to be made

under the Policy for a particular admission group and has determined the admission

gpa for the semester, the following must happen in the time frame indicated:

Score the Personal Information Profiles for all Deferred Limited Enrolment

applicants - (time required 5 days);

Rank the Deferred Limited Enrolment applicants by Basis of Admission using

the admission GPA (time required 0.5 day);

The adjudication committee meets and determines new rankings (1 day)

Director of Admissions makes sufficient offers to fill the remaining places -

(time required 5 days).

Proposed Diverse Qualifications Undergraduate Admission Policy

December 1995

t o ?

Adjudication of ranked candidates

A small adjudication committee, consisting of representatives from each faculty and

from the student body, is suggested (See Appendix 4). If the scoring and ranking have

taken place prior to the meeting of the committee, the time spent on adjudication can

be minimized and the committee can focus on marginal cases, exceptions and a review

of outcomes.

Appeals

The Committee to Review Undergraduate Admissions adjudicates appeals, where

there are special circumstances.

Implementation Date

Diverse Qualifications Admissions will start with admissions for Spring 1997.

Proposed Diverse Qualifications Undergraduate Admission Policy ?

December 1995

Appendix 1

(Note that this Profile may be developed in paper form and/or as an electronic form

for use on the World-Wide-Web)

Personal Information Profile (Draft)

Surname (Last or family name)

Given names_________________

Is your application for admission a)previously submitted?_________

b) attached?

(indicate which)

Diverse Qualifications Admission Policy

Each semester, Simon Fraser University receives many more applications than can be

accepted. Academic performance is the main criterion for admission and is used

exclusively in 90% of cases. However, we recognize that some candidates have other

attributes and achievements which should be recognized in determining admission.

Accordingly, Simon Fraser University seeks to admit not only applicants who are

academically very well-qualified but also those who meet minimum admission

standards and have:

• demonstrated commitment and/or excellence in other endeavours

and/or • presented a clear and valid reason for attending Simon Fraser University

10 ?

and/or • have succeeded in their studies in spite of difficult circumstances.

We invite you to provide any additional information that could help us make a fair

admission decision. We guarantee to respect your personal privacy, as required by law,

and we shall destroy all copies of this Profile within 12 months of the start of the

semester you have applied for, whether or not you are admitted to the University.

INSTRUCTIONS

You are advised to submit a Personal Information Profile if you have concern that you

will not be selected for admission, based on your academic record alone. University

staff will be able to advise you in general of the grade range in which the Personal

Information Profile has been relevant in past semesters, but cannot predict future

demand for admission, so you will have to judge whether completing this Profile to

support your application is worthwhile.

What you write and how the information is presented may affect our admission

decision, so we urge you to review this Personal Information Profile carefully before

responding. The Profile must be completed neatly and legibly. You should answer all

parts without assistance from others. You may respond on a separate sheet but, if so,

you must clearly identify and number the points you wish to make, as shown on this

Profile and you must limit the length of each response to the number of words

indicated on the Profile.

Proposed Diverse Qualifications Undergraduate Admission Policy ?

December 1995

The Profile must be received by the University by the application deadline for the

semester for which you are applying. (Applicants for Summer Session must meet the

Summer Semester deadline.)

Referees

Please list two people who could verify the information you have submitted. One

should be an educator (e.g. teacher, counsellor, college or university instructor or

administrator) who knows you well. The other reference could be someone from your

community such as a group leader, coach or individual who is aware of your personal

situation. At least one letter of reference must be included. Any letters submitted

should support the statements you have made in your Profile and should not be

general character references. All such materials become the property of the University

and will not be returned to you.

Please note that Personal Information Profiles submitted after the deadline date cannot be considered

RETURN THIS PROFILE, PLUS ANY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION TO:

ADMISSIONS, OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

BURNABY, BC V5A 1S6

Please do not submit the Profile by FAX

PLEASE TYPE (OR NEATLY PRINT) YOUR RESPONSES

Why do you think you will be successful at Simon Fraser University? You may

comment on your choice of program or specialization, any career plans you may

have and any difficulties you have overcome related to your education.

(250 words maximum)

List and describe any awards, honours or recognition that you have received for

either academic endeavours or other activities.

Award or Distinction

Granting Body Reason Granted Calendar Year

/Organization

3. List

up to three

significant interests and activities. For example, you may wish to

include clubs or organizations, athletics, community or volunteer work, career or

professional experience and any other skills development or activity in which you

Proposed Diverse Qualifications Undergraduate Admission Policy

December 1995

. ?

have been involved. Indicate the level (e.g. national or local) of activity and of

commitment, if possible.

Level of Involvement ?

(Hrs/wk) ?

(Calendar Yrs)

How have these activities contributed to your personal growth and capability? Are

there are other factors which you consider to be highly significant?

(100 words maximum)

Freedom of information and protection of privacy

The information on this form is collected under the authority of the University Act (R.S.B.C. 1979,c.419)

and is needed to process your application for admission. The information will be used to select candidates

under the Diverse Qualifications Undergraduate Admission Policy. The information you provide is subject

to verification by Simon Fraser University. If you have any questions about the collection and use of this

information contact the Director of Admissions, Office of the Registrar, (604) 291-3224.

Declaration

I certify that all information that I have provided is true and complete and was

. prepared entirely by me. I consent to the disclosure of information on this form to the

referees I have named, when necessary to verify my statements. I understand that any

misrepresentation may result in cancellation of my admission or registration status.

Signature ?

Date

Proposed Diverse Qualifications Undergraduate Admission Policy

December 1995

• ?

Appendix 2

Scoring guidelines - Personal Information Profile

The PIPs shall be scored holistically, i.e. they shall receive an overall rating for the

impression they leave on the reader, with reference to the following guidelines. The

scorer shall choose the overall score category which best represents the applicant's

accomplishments and potential. The achievement of a 'high' score in one category is

not sufficient for the overall score to be 'high'. Applicants shall be scored as follows:

High (one or more statements might apply)

• presents a cogent and well-developed educational plan

• demonstrates very strong academic interest, which corresponds with the

University's program

• demonstrates excellence in performance at a high level

• has contributed strongly in a leading role to the community or profession

• has received significant recognition from recognized regional or national

organizations

• has overcome great difficulties in achieving her/his educational objectives.

Medium (one or more statements might apply)

. ?

• presents a clear, sound educational plan

demonstrates an academic interest which corresponds with the University's

program

• demonstrates a high level of proficiency in performance at a local or regional level

• has contributed significantly to the community or profession

• has received significant recognition from recognized local or community

organizations

• has overcome significant difficulties in achieving her/his educational objectives.

Low (one or more statements might apply)

• presents no clear educational plan

• demonstrates little academic interest in the disciplines which make up the

University's program

• lacks other notable contributions or achievements

• has overcome only routine difficulties in achieving her/his educational objectives.

• has not submitted a PIP

The weighting of the factors relative to the gpa shall be at the discretion of the

adjudication committee. The guidelines for scoring shall be developed further in the

light of experience and in accordance with the wishes of the adjudication committee.

Proposed Diverse

ualifications Undergraduate Admission Policy

December 1995

• ?

Appendix 3

Feasibility

SUAB did not attempt to estimate the costs of implementation in detail. This estimate has

been prepared by the Director of Admissions. This assumes that the PIP will be scored by

an Admission Officer, within the Office of the

Registrar.

How many PIPs must be scored?

New admission ?

New students ?

'Turnaways'

applications (typical) ?

(typical) ?

(qualified but no spaces)

The pool of students to be considered under the policy will be all 'turnaways' plus 10% of

It is estimated that 50% of applicants will submit a PIP. Therefore, the number of PIPs to be

Hence about 700 PIPs will require scoring for a Fall semester, and 200 or fewer for other

semesters.

How much will this cost?

This will require approximately 0.5 additional professional staff positions ($25,000 incl.

benefits). This estimate includes the anticipated increase in time required to explain and

discuss the process with applicants. There could be a substantial increase in the volume of

paper and documents to be received and handled within the Office of the Registrar.

However, these increases can be absorbed without additional clerical staff, partly because of

improved efficiency, resulting from technological changes in the normal processing of

documents. These new technologies include Electronic Data Interchange of transcripts and

WWW electronic admission applications. Additional printing, paper and distribution

costs are inevitable, in the order of $5,000 p.a. Other costs will include enhancements to

the student computerized record system and to track the processing and scoring of PIPs.

A faculty member or student who sits on the adjudication committee will be expected tc

do so as part her/his service to the University, without (additional) remuneration.

Meeting expenses are likely to be limited to covering audio visual equipment, coffee etc.

and a light lunch, assuming the meetings are lengthy.

Staffing ?

$25,000

Printingand distribution

$5,000

Meetings ?

750

Total annual cost (estimated)

$30,000

Proposed Diverse Qualifications Undergraduate Admission Policy ?

December 1995

Appendix 4

Diverse Qualifications Adjudication Committee

Standing committee reporting annually to SCUS.

Academic (or designate) Ex-officio

Undergraduate Student

Elected

1 yr

by Senate

Undergraduate Student

Named by the

1 yr

Student Society

Purpose and responsibilities:

1) ?

To adjudicate admission

decisions under the University's Diverse Qualifications Undergraduate

Admission Policy.

2) ?

Where necessary, to provide

general direction in the interpretation of such policies.

3) ?

To recommend to SCUS changes or additions to the Policy

Proposed Diverse Qualifications Undergraduate Admission Policy ?

December 1995

. ?

Membership Notes:

If a Faculty is not a participant in the Diverse Qualifications Undergraduate Admission Policy, that

faculty shall not elect a Faculty member to the committee.

If no Lay member of Senate is available to serve, Senate may elect a general member of the community to

serve in that position.

Responsibilities of the Registrar (or designate)

1. To serve as Secretary.

To participate in the evaluation, review and development of the Policy and associated procedures,

including the collection and analysis of statistical data concerning outcomes.

To administer the policy and provide the necessary support services.

Committee meetings are scheduled at least once per semester.

Appendix to

SCAP 96-1

;- ?

_-:_ ?

---

Proposed Diverse Qualifications Admission Policy

Some comments by L.K.Peterson

(A minority report)

The Diverse Qualifications Admission Proposal came before

Senate in September 1994. It was referred back to SUAB, and thence

to a sub-committee of SUAB, of which I am a member. The sub-

committee has attempted to implement or recognize the various

comments made about DQAP, and has probably done its best, given

the differing philosophies of the members, in preparing the current

revisions. Nevertheless, a "sense of unease" remains.

In making my own comments, I must acknowledge the

thoughtful and careful critiques of many concerned people, who have

identified the strong and the weak points of the proposal. My list of

acknowled

ments includes Nazmjn Bhatia, Marilyn Bowman, Kate

Braid, Bruce Brandhorst, Bruce Clayman, Charles Crawford, Frank

Cunningham, Thelma Finlayson, Jo-Anne Hallam, Laurine Harrison,

Roberta Mason, Milton McClaren, Klaus Rieckhoff, Norman

Swartz,

Dick Woldring, plus many others who provided brief but cogent

remarks. I have attempted to gain some "expertise" on matters

relating to student performance, by consulting with Professor Harvey

Mandel, Director of the Institute on Motivation and Achievement at

York University. His research findings may provide useful guidelines

relating to university admissions policies.

Given the importance of the Admissions Policy in identifying

the values of the University, changes must be done with the greatest

of care. The goals and hence the admission criteria are likely to

differ among departments or faculties, hence a common policy

imposed upon all is likely to be defective and counter productive in

one or more cases. For these reasons a provision for opting out

(of

DQAP) should be given more emphasis.

The concept of "roundedness" has merit in some circles, while

the "work ethic" is lauded in other cultures. Our stated Purpose

should avoid any undesirable cultural massaging. Some outstanding

scholars are not the least bit "rounded", but achieve their pinnacles

of fame by virtue of a single-minded focus and dedication to a

chosen pursuit. If extra-curricular activities are to be encouraged,

this should surely be done among the academically most able

students, not as an afterthought for those low on the academic scale.

One respondent vigorously countered the serious charge that SFU's

admissions "favours students who contribute little- to their school or

communities", noting instead that the "academic top scorers are often

the stars in extra-curricular activities, including sports".

I strongly disagree with the statement that the "feedback (to

the original proposal) was overwhelminly positive". Many

respondents expressed considerable unease, particularly with the

difficulty of evaluating "excellence in other endeavours", "reasons for

being successful", and "difficult circumstances" in any consistent way.

The danger that economically disadvanta

ed students are likely to

suffer unfair treatment, and/or those with English as a second

language,

was

noted. In fact, not one of the Faculties at SFU fully

endorsed the DQA proposal, although various individuals did

comment. The Dean's Advisory Committee of the Faculty of Science

concluded that the effort and cost would be out of proportion with

the possible beneficial outcomes of implementin

DQAP. It seems

The impact upon public ima

e is by no means clear or certain.

Those whose hopes are raised, then dashed by rejection, will carry a

disappointment for a long time. Neighbours whose offspring are

"jumped" by others with lower academic marks will be most

unhappy. Many will perceive unfairness in the subjectivity of

decisions based on DQAP.

Is the "Personal Information Profile" important or not? (see

"Policy Statement ifS). If it is important, it should be a common

requirement, not a voluntary one. If it is voluntary and

unimportant, then the matter of participation in extra-mural

activities is unimportant, something that we really do not take

seriously (lip service). Given the extreme shortage of student places,

the validation of claims becomes very important. "Some persons are

diffident in self-advertising, while others revel in it". Thus I believe

that interviews should be mandatory, contrary to what is stated in

"Policy Statement 1l".

The apparent philosophy of DQAP is out of line with the public

call for more attention to the "academic essentials" in schools, and

with the Education Ministry's moves in the direction of more and

better performance testing. This move is surely a response to the

public image of schools "wasting taxpayers' money" on non-academic

activities. Scholastic Aptitude Testing, as used by many places, could

1(0.

be considered. Mature Applicants, who attended school in a different

era, should be in a separate category from current high-schoolers.

The proposed DQAP, alone in a single institution in British

Columbia, will do nothing to foster a renaissance of the intellectual

calibre of the community at large. Programs within the University

would have to incorporate broadened concepts of the meaning of

education, to include "allowance" or "recognition" for extra-curricular

participactions. Institutions of higher learning in B.C., though

autonomous, should develop a common front. I quote Professor

Milton McClaren:

"It is within our capacity as an institution to send

different messages to our community and to stimulate a

different sort of secondary school environment for all

students, whether university-bound or not.

We should

enlarge the focus of the current proposal on Diverse

Qualifications to address this possibility".

Louis K. Peterson

27th September,

1995.

)7.

Memo from Nick Heath

Director of Admissions

Simon Fraser University

To: ?

SCAP

Date:

February 20, 1996

ISubiect: Experience with Diverse Qualifications at Guelph

The University of Guelph has provided the attached statistical analysis of their

'Student Profile Form' admissions for 1992 - 94. The characteristics of these

new students conform closely with the students who would be admitted to SFU

under the Diverse Qualifications Admission Policy, if it were approved.

Ann Hollings of the Student-Environment Study Group at the University of

Guelph states:

"We matched them (SPF students) with students in the same degree programs

who had been admitted 1% to 2% above the required averages for these

programs. We have been tracking each cohort since 1992, and have followed

them through semester by semester, comparing semester averages, dropout

rates, failure rates, cumulative averages, etc. ....the bottom line is that SPF

students tend to persist better in the early stages, although their marks are

001

marginally lower than comparison groups. By third year they have usually pulled

up to the same academic level, and are virtually indistinguishable from the

comparison groups by then.

Our SPF students are usually admitted with 3% to 5% below cutoff, most

programs allow for 10% of the incoming class to be admitted. Our tracking has

not included students admitted on compassionate grounds."

This appears to

confirm that the SPF policy

at Guelph has

had no obvious

negative impact

on academic performance.

Other effects of the SPF policy

appear to have

been positive, according to

staff in their

Registrar's Office.

nh Feb 96

student-environment sludy group

Student Profile Form,

Fall 1994

Comparisons between SPF students and the comparison group were carried out on a similar basis as

in previous years. The comparison group consisted of students with admission averages up to 1%

above cutoff (rather than 1.5%), since the number of students falling in this range provided a large

eiIough group for comparison by program and specialization.

Overview of SPF and Comparison groups

There were 253 SPF students (172 female, 81 male), and 285 comparison students (188 female and

97 male). Distribution by sex, program and group are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1

A total of 11 students withdrew without penalty during the Fall 1994 semester,

SPF and 6

comparison group. In Winter

95,

both groups carried an average of 4.8 courses, a slightly heavier

course load than in for the F92 and F93 groups. Table 2 summarizes admission averages, Semester

1 averages and average mark drop by program, sex and group.

spj941aeh1sesg/octl7195

1q.

Table

student-environme,u study group

Item ?

SPF ?

Comparison

Sigiiificanee

Admission average

Overall ?

77.7%

80.4%

Females ?

Males ?

Semester 1 average

Females

Males

Average

drop between admission

average and semester 1

Females

Males

Withdrawals during F94

Overall

Females

Males

Females

Males

98.8%

97.9%

Winter

overall

average

Females

Males

<.10, N5 No sig$flcant difference.

Table 3

Aendemic Review Dedsions and WithdI-dWaIS (by end of Winter 1995)

SPF

Comparison

Total

Deferred pending privilege

Failed course(s) - WD

C-reqt notmet -pecial

C-reqt not met - WD pgm

Withdrawal, no penalty (W95)

(Numbers too small for statistical tests

of differences.)

spj941aeh1sesg/octl7195

A0.

Table

F94

W95

Program/Sex

SPF

Comp.

Sign.

SPF

Qmip.

Sign.

BSc(Agr)

55.2%

BSc(Eng)

BASc

BComni

58.3%

BCoinm(Coop)

64.0%

BSc

68.1%

BSc(Env)

60.8%

59.0%

66.8%

62.1%

student-environment study group

***p<.0135, ** p<. 05 , * p<.JO,NSNosignificantdifference.

The P94 groups show the same early pattern of academic performance as we have seen in the

previous two studies. At this point is is impossible to detect any potential trend, but it seems safe to

assume that we

can expect most of the SPF group to persist in their studies, and to gradually pull up

their marks over the next

few semesters.

spJ941aeh1sesg1octl7/95

studm-enwfrvmnent - gmp

Student Profile Forms: Fall 1993

Background

Comparisons were made on the same basis as for the Fall 1992 group; students with admission

averages of no more than 1.5% above the cutoff for their programs were selected for the comparison

group. Comparison students were available in each program/specialization combination in which SPF

students were registered.

Overview of SPF

and comparison groups

There were 246 SPF students

(157

female, 89 male), and 333 comparison students (240 female, 93

male). Distribution by sex, program and group are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1

Females

Males

Total

Program

SPF

Comparison

SPF

Comparison

BSé(Agr)

BSc(Eng)

BASe

BComm

118

257

BSc

163

BSc(Co-op)

4 ?

BSc(Env)

Total

157

240

579

T- .

tests and chi-square tests were used to assess differences in academic performance based on group.

There were enough students in most programs to support the use of these statistics in determining

differences by program. In each semester the average course load for each group was consistent at

about

4.5.

Table 2 summarizes the differences overall.

spf931sesg1aehfeb14195

Table

student-environment study group

Item ?

SPF ?

Comparison

Significance

Admission

average

Overall ?

Semester 1 average (F93)

Overall ?

675%

66.7%

Average mark drop between admission

average and semester

Overall

Withdrawals during

Overall ?

Overall ?

average (W94)

Overall ?

83%

683%

Change in average between F93 and

W94

Overall ?

Withdrawals

W94

Overall ?

45% ?

Cumulative average after 2 semesters

(W94)

Overall

67.7%

ri]

spJ931sesg/aeh/febl4/95

studenvbvwne,u swdy group

continued...

Table 2 (continued)

Item ?

SPF ?

Comparison

Sigiifficanee

Registered

Overall ?

Overall

67.5%

Cumulative average

F94

Overall

67.5%

W94

Overall ?

and F94

Overall ?

p O5,

*p<..1O,NSNo significant difference.

Table 3 summarizes the Academic Review Decisions for both groups for W94 and F94. Most involve

requirement to withdraw from programs because of course failure or failure to meet C requirement,

or deferrals or special status for the same reason.

Table 3

SPF ?

Comparison ?

Total

W94

Table 4 shows average marks by degree program for each semester.

spj93/sesg/aeh/febl4/95

sfl4dent-envimnmeiu study group

Table 4

F93

Degree ?

SPF

Comparison Sign.

SPF

SigIL

BSc(Agr)

53.3%

54.9%

61.3%

5&4%

BSc(Eng)

71.8%

BASc

BComm

62.7%

66.4%

65.4%

67.0%

64.2%

67.9%

BSc

BSc(Co-op)

BSc(Env)

W95

BSc(Agr)

BSc(Eng)

BASc

BComm

BSc

BSc(Co-op)

73.8%

BSc(Env)

10NSNosficantthfference

SnTnnuny

Superficial examination of the tables indicates a fairly consistent pattern of SPF averages below those

of the comparison group, although these differences are not always statistically significant. Given the

known relationship between incoming averages and university averages, this is not an unexpected

result. The drop between high school and Semester 1 averages was identical for both groups and was

comparable to the overall drop.

SPF students tended to catch up somewhat by Semester 2; those in BSc(Agr) in particular managed

to achieve averages about 3% above the comparison group. SPF students in the BSc program,

although still performing below their comparison group, narrowed the gap considerably in Semester

Although Semester 2 (W94) drop-out rates were higher for SPF students, F94 re-registration rates

were identical for both groups, overall, by degree program and by sex. And despite the tendency of

spj931sesgJaeh/febl4195

student-envbvn,nent study group

SPF students to perform academically a few percentage points below the comparison group, there

is no reason to doubt their ability to persist to graduation, since the indication from the Fall 1992

group is that the differences will decrease over time. The last two items in Table 2 show that SPF

students steadily improve on their Semester 1 marks while the comparison group shows a steady

decline.

spffi31sesg1aeh(ebJ4195

Student Profile Form, Fall 1992

Background

student-envfronment study group

SPF students were compared to students who had achieved slightly over the required

admission average. The cutoff point varied by degree program and in some cases by

specialization within degree program. Students with admission averages of no more than

1.5% above the required cutoff for their degree/specialization combination were used as

the comparison group. Groups were matched on sex, degree program and specialization.

In the few cases for which no exact comparison was available, the match was made using

a specialization with the same cutoff within the same program.

Overview of SPF and Comparison Groups

There were 70 students in the SPF group

(53

female, 17 male), and

195

in the comparison

group (156 female, 39 male). Table 1 summarizes distributions by sex, program and group.

Table 1

Rmales

Program

SPF ?

Comparison

SPF

Comparison

B.Sc.(Eng.)

B.Sc.(Agr.) Co-op

Results

SPF students, overall and within gender, had significantly lower admission and Grade 13

averages. Since the groups were defined on the basis of their admission averages, this is

not an unexpected result. However, SPF students achieved Semester 1 grades which were

not significantly different from the comparison group, and had significantly lower mark

drops than the comparison group. Their dropout and returning rates were not significantly

different from those of the comparison group. Average number of courses in each semester

was steady at about

4.5

courses, with no differences between SPF and comparison groups.

Table 2 tracks the progress of both groups over all semesters to date.

spj921sesgIaehfeb14I95

student-environment

study group

Table

(continued)

Item ?

SPF

Comparison

Significance

Average

Overall ?

67.9%

Cumulative average

Overall ?

Change

Overall

Change

Overall

Average

W94

Overall ?

Cumulative average

W94

Average in

Overall ?

Cumulative average

P94

Overall ?

Registered in

Overall

Change

P94

,p J

rence.

spj921sesg1aeh1feb14195

student-environment study group

Table 3 summarizes the Academic Review Decisions for both groups for each semester.

Because the numbers are relatively small, the decisions are grouped together; most involve

requirement to withdraw from programs because of course failure, failure to meet C

requirement, or deferrals or special status for the same reasons. Percentages in brackets

indicate

percent of each group registered in that semester,

who had an Academic Review

Total

W94

Table 4 shows academic performance by degree program and semester.

68.5%

403%

68.5%

65.4%

57.8%

55.7%

58.9%

573%

spJ921sesg/aehfeb14195

student-environment study group

W95

SPF Comp.

Sign.

SPF Comp. ?

Sign.

69.5%

68.7%

66.9%

75.2%

are not shown programs only have 1 student in either the 5FF or the

comparison

group.

In some of these analyses, particularly those in Table 4, the numbers of SPF and

comparison students are too small to offer any statistical evidence of differences between

groups. A visual inspection of the various measures suggests that, while SPF students tend

to perform at a marginally lower academic level than comparison students in the early

semesters, they persist in their studies, and by third year manage to perform at the same

or an even higher academic level.

There are a few points of concern, for example the 10.8% of SPF students under

Academic Review in W94; however, there is no particular trend to indicate that SPF

students are a greater risk overall. It perhaps should be noted that all of these students,

both SPF and comparison groups, represent the lower end of admissions in terms of

academic status on admission. Based on our knowledge of the relationship between

academic standing on admission and subsequent performance in university, we should

expect

all

of these students to be lower than average. These results show that both SPF

and comparison students are performing exactly as we would expect.

spj921sesg1aehfeb14195

96(TUE) 16:23

UBC REGISTRAR'S OFF

TEL:604 822 5945

P. 002

HE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

20)6-1874

Of/ice c/the

RegistrarA/all

Fax:

R (6041822-3139

(604)

822-5945

V,wouver, IL C, Canada

I ?

J'67 IZJ

Date: ?

January 12,

1996

To: ?

Senate

From; ?

Senate Admissions Committee

Re:

Broader Based Admission Calendar Statement

The Senate Admissions committee recommends that the following be added to the

Admissions section of the Calendar

(p.39. 1995-96) under "(Jndergroduate

Admiss/on.s' - General Policy on Admissions"

as the second paragraph of the section.

"Academic Criteria' are the bases of admission for the majority of applicants

offered admission, but additional criteria may be used in some programs in

the selection of a limited number of qualified students. Programs to which

admission may be based on both academic and other criteria are identified in

the respective Faculty and School Calendar entries on admission."

u:.wctbbac..doc flcb)

301.

January23, 1996 12:13PM

PP!!J

I.o

•--. ?

cn: ?

Forestry 201

Forestry

using wisely the natural

resources associated vith md defived from forest lands: These resources include

'iood pmducts, water, forage

,soil and stream prnductivity, wildlife, recreation and

environmental qualit3F

The Faculty

of Forestry

offerc

four sear degree prog

ms leading to

:..B.&. Majorin For st

Resources Management

Major

B Sc

• B.S. (Forestry) ' ?

.•

Major in Wood Science and Industry

Forest Science

There is aiso a Diploma in Foresti-v (Advanced Sihicukurel.

Detailed information oi

graduate pioi-arns

ma y

be obtained from the FcuU-v of

Graduate Studlés section of the

Calendar...

......................................._

. ?

ecialized fields relating to forest sciences,

dences and wood-based industries, and conserva-

=tion and natural areas management. Educa-

thin the Faculty of Forestry

can

also serve as a

don forentry into other professions such as teach-

law. Some students will be interested in Forestry

as a broad education in an important natural

es field.

üse the standards foradmission to most Associations

fessionaJ Foresters involve experience and exami-

following graduation, and a group of core courses

rnay not be taken by all students, those students

.b the B.S.F. programs, but interes

ed in Professional

should design their study plans to satisfy the

eme n ts of the Province in which they plan to register.

Lte programs are provided through the Faculty of

id to enable students who already hold degrees to

ie advanced studies leading to careers in manage-

if, research, and education.

IF.—

in professional and applied scientific aspects of

restiy for students with a B.S.F. degree;

& - in scientific aspects of forestry and wood

nce for students with a BSc, B.Sc. (Agr.), BJLSC.,

or equivalents;

CAk - in Forest Engineering for graduates with a

iSc. degree or equivalent;

Piskelds concerned with the basic scientific or

pects of foresuy and forest products.

4ronment for Learning

Faculty

of Forestry is favourably situated for educa-

of men and women as foresters, wood scientists,

.tbusiness administrators and forest biologists. it

s the benefits of a large university with good library

xher facilities for study. The teaching staff of the

tyof Forestry is widely diversified. The Forest Engi-

ng Research Institute of Canada (FERIC), Pulp and

Research Institute of Canada (PAPR1CAN) and the

rn Laboratory of Forintek Canada Corp. located on

us cooperate in teaching and research in engineer-

id forest products. The forests of the University

wment lands, adjoining the campus, provide a read-

zesslble environment for field instruction and re-

The adjacent south campus area also has a con-

ized forest seedling nurser

, operated by the Fac-

r teaching, research and demonstration purposes.

irion to the lecture and laboratory classrooms the

Y of Forestry has two large teaching and research

the Malcolm Knapp Research Forest in Maple

comprising an area of 5,156 hectares of coastal

and the Alex Fraser Research Forest, near Williams

ornprising some 8,000 hectares of interior forests. s

lfield classes, special studies and professional exer-

re conducted by students at each of these forests, a

d the formal boundaries of the Faculty of Forestry

)vinceof&itish Columbia provides, within reason- a

svel access, one of the most diversified patterns of A

s ankgre in the world. Throughout the region

cst resources management and utiliza-

be observed by students on scheduled th

ps or during summer employment.

Admission

B.S.F. and B.Sc. (Forestry)

The Faculty of Forestr

will accept applications from

students with varying educational preparation:

directly from secondary graduation;

following completion of university-level work at UBC

after the completion of a two-year Forestry, Wood

Products or Engineering diploma program at a recog-

nized college or institute of technology; or

from an approved one- or two-year. Forestry transfer

program at a B.C. College.

Achievement of the minimum academic requirements

outlined in this section of the

Calendar

and in theAdmis-

lions section does not guarantee admission to these

programs. Should the number of applicants to first-year

orestry exceed the number of available spaces, the ad-

Mission of applicants from other post-secondary institu-

ions will be determined competitively on the basis of

dmission average. The majority of applicants from sec-

ndary school will also be admitted on the basis ofadmis-

ion average, calculated as the average of four specified

rade 12 subjects (see the Admissions section of the

Wen r).

lowever, approximately ten applicants from secondary

chool who meet minimum academic requirements, but

rho do not meet the requisite competitive average for

dmission, will be selected for admission by the Admis-

ions Committee of the Faculty of Forestr

on the basis of

ditional information provided on a Supplementary

pplication Form. Such applicants may also be inter-

ev'ed.

All

applicants who do not meet the admission-

rerage cutoff for early admission will be sent a 'copy of

is form, with an invitation to submit it for possible

)nsideration by the Admission Committee, Submission

optional. The Admission Committee will consider all

) plicants

who submitaSupplementaryAppi icat ion Form

Students entering from secondary school must have met

the general University entrance requirement (see Gen-

eral Information section of the

Calendar);

including

Mathematics 12, two of Biology 11, Chemistry 11, Physics

(all

three are strongly recommended), and one of

Chemistry 12 or Physics 12, Students entering the Wood

Science and Industry major must have Physics 12.

Students who enter the B.S.F. or B.Sc.(Forestiy) pro-

grains following the completion of at least 30 credits of

work at UBC, or its equivalent at another post-secondary

institution, must have attained an overall average of at

least 60% in all credits attempted. Students entering with

less than 30 credits of uni

ersitylevel work must also meet

the secondary school requirements outlined above.

On entry into the Faculty of Forestr

, students must select

one of four majorprograms: Forest Resources Manage-

ment, Forest Operations, Wood Science and industry, or,

Forest Science. To be eligible for second year of Forest

Resources Management or Forest Operations, students

must have completed 30 credits or more of university-

level work, including six credits of first-

year

English;

Mathematics 100 and 101 (or 140 and 141 for the Forest

Management major); Biology 120 and one of: Biology 110

or 115 or Biology 12 with a grade of 80% or better; and

either Physics (100 and 101 or 101 and 102) or Chemistry

(103 or 110 or 121 and 122), or an equivalent. If either

Chemistry or Physics has not been taken at the Grade 12

level, it must be the subject included in the above-stated

requirements. Moreover, it is recommended

that

stu-

dents include both Chemistry and Physics in. their First-

Year program. Tobeeligible for second

year

of the Forest

Science major, students must have completed six credits

of first-year English; Biology 120 and one of: Biology 110

or 115 or Biology 12 with a grade of 80% or better;

Mathematics lOOand 101 (orl40andl4l);andChemistry

(103 or 110cr 121 and 122). To be eligible for second year

2 . ?

-. - ?

- ?

- ? - ?

.L. ?

> -

0 ?

-o-.

C) ? — ? - ? . -

C)-

2-5

O2.EC)

EE5<92 ?

CIj

C) ?