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

For Information

S.95-46

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

Office of the Vice-President, Academic

MEMORANDUM

TO:

Senate

FROM: ?

J.M. Munro

Vice-President, Academic

SUBJECT:

External Review ?

DATE: ?

August 11, 1995

Department of Philosophy

An external review was held of the Department of Philosophy in 1994. The

review committee visited SFU on March 15-16, 1994 and submitted its final report in

October, 1994.

The External Review Committee was composed of the following members:

Dr. Arm MacKenzie, Glendon College, York University (Chair)

Dr. Gerald Dworkin, University of Illinois at Chicago

Dr. Bernard Linsky, University of Alberta

Dr. Dennis Krebs, Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University.

The external review report and the Department's response were received by

SCAP at its meeting on July 12. The complete report of the committee and the

departmental response are available for consultation by Senators from Secretariat

External Review - Department of Philosophy

Executive Summary

The External Review Committee found no serious problems of a

strictly academic nature, and they applauded the general direction in which

the Department is moving. The reviewers report the Department has built a

fine undergraduate philosophy curriculum and, while continuing its deep

commitment to undergraduate teaching, it is now increasing its contributions

to the discipline and building its national and, international stature. The

reviewers noted that the Department has recently made four excellent junior

appointments; its research productivity is increasing; and it is developing

what promises to be a very good Ph.D. program. The general thrust of the

committee's first two recommendations is that the University support the

Department at this critical stage in its development.

The reviewers commented that the Department of Philosophy has

enjoyed a long period of good internal administration and excellent relations

with the central administration. The resulting collegiality, cohesiveness, and

deep commitment to the Department (and to the University) by Philosophy

faculty members provides an important human resource on which the

Department can draw. The more tangible resources (support staff positions,

physical space, computing and combined UBC-SFU library resources) are

quite adequate for the continued development of Philosophy at SFU. The

committee made two recommendations concerning personnel issues which

were referred to the Chair and the Dean.

Prepared by A. Watt and J.M. Munro

. ?

10 August, 1995

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

Office of the Vice-President, Academic

MEMORANDUM

To:

Members of the Senate Committee

Academic Planning

From:

Alison Watt

Subject:

External Review - Department of Philosophy

Date:

16 June, 1995

The External Review of the Department of Philosophy and the Department's response will

be on the agenda of the 12th July SCAP meeting. Dr. Tietz will attend the meeting.

The external review committee members were:

Dr. Ann MacKenzie, Glendon College, York University (Chair)

Dr. Gerald Dworkin, University of Illinois at Chicago

Dr. Bernard Linsky, University of Alberta

Dr. Dennis Krebs, Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University

Enclosures: 2

Report of the External Review Committee

Department of Philosophy

Simon Fraser University

SYNOPSIS

We find no serious problems of a strictly academic nature, and we applaud

• the general direction in \vhd1 the department is moving. It has built a fine

undergraduate philosophy curriculum and, while continuing its dccl) com-

mitment to undergraduate teadling, it is now increasing its contributions

to the discipline and building the national and international stature of the

SFU Philosophy Department. It has recently made four excellent junior ap-

pointments; its research productivity is increasing; and it is developing what

promises to be a very good PhD program. The general thrust of our first

two recommendations is that the University support the Department at this

critical stage in its development.

SFU Philosophy has enjoyed a long period of good internal administration

and excellent relations with the central administration. The resulting colle-

giality, cohesiveness, and deep commitment to the department (and to the

university) by philosophy faculty members provides an important human re-

source on which the department can draw. The more tangible resources (two

non-academic support positions, physical space, computing and combined

UBC-SFU library resources) are quit.e adequate for the continued develop-

ment of Philosophy at SPU. Our final recommendations concern the only two

problems we identified in the area of administration: that the University's

procedures failed to cope with a gender problen and that the Department

* see note on page 8

has failed to create structures facilitating communication with its students

and thus has lost the benefit of student input to decision-making.

ACADEMIC RECOMMENDATIONS:

(1)

that the department be allowed to replace one of its retiring faculty with

a high level tenure track appointment (at least at the Associate Professor

level);

(2)

that the Department be encouraged to develop innovative ways to in-

crease the TA fundin

for philosophy graduate students.

ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS:

(3)

that the University identify the reasons why its procedures failed to cope

adequately with the situation in philosophy, and take appropriate steps;*

(4)

that the Department work with its undergraduate majors to create stuc-

tures which facilitate communication;

1. ACADEMIC MATTERS

1.1 Assessment

We find no serious problems of a strictly academic nature, and we applaud

the general direction in which the department is moving. It has built a. fine

undergraduate philosophy curriculum and, while continuing its deep commit-

ment to undergraduate teaching, it. is now

increasing itscontributions to the

discipline and building the stature of the Department.. It has recently made

four excellent junior appointments; its research productivity is increasing,

and it is developing what promises to he a very good PhD program.

1.1.1 Faculty

The Full Professors are all active scholars making solid contributions to their

areas. The Associate Professors have greater research ability than their pub-

lication records indicate; they are, for the most part., active scholars who are

clearly qualified for graduate super\sion. The Assistant Professors are all

fine young philosophers who have contributed significantly to re-energizing

the department. In addition, the department makes excellent use of part-time

* see note on page 8

funds to hire foreign visitors who enrich the curriculum and the intellectual

life of the department.

The age profile of tenure track faculty members is reasonably good, given

the hiatus (1977-89) in hiring, with two members in their sixties, five in their

fifties, one in his forties, and four in their thirties. However, five faculty

members are scheduled to retire between 2002 and 2007, right at one of the

projected peak retirement periods for the humanities in North America.

1.1.2 Research

After a period of lower publication productivity than one might expect, there

has been an evident revitalization of research activity and publication. It is

clear that the department meribers have remained current with developments

in their fields and some of the recent publications seem to be the fruit of

extended years of work.

The department is best known internationally for organizing high profile

conferences on the foundations of Cognitive Science, the proceedings of which

are published in the Vancouver Studies in Cognition series, originally by UBC

Press. It is a reflection of the excellent quality of these conferences that the

publication of the series has been recently taken over by Oxford University

Press.

1.1.3 Curriculum and Teaching

The Department mounts a highly structured, rigorous undergraduate cur-

riculum in philosophy. It provides philosophy majors with solid foundations

in the discipline, good contact with current developments, and an excellent

preparation for graduate work. It contributes significantly to the Liberal

Arts education of all students taking philosophy courses, providing them

with logical and conceptual skills, and instilling in them high standards of

intellectual clarity and a broad humanistic outlook.

The graduate program has undergone a good deal of growth in recent

years. Good supervision (and the 'Moral Tutor" system) seems to be solving

the problern of high withdrawal rate of Philosophy MA students. We agree

with the (favourable) external reports on the new PhD program. Given that

SFU students will have access to the library resources at UBC and graduate

courses in some fields not frequently covered at SFU, we think that the

program will be quite successful.

1.2 Problems and Suggestions

Research activity. In support of the recent increased emphasis on research,

we offer the following suggestions. First, although members of the depart-

ment are conscientious and effective in raising grants to fund conferences,

they could be more vigorous in pursuit of grants to support their own in-

dividual (and group) research. Second, research presented at conferences

should be prepared for publication. Third, the research time of the non-

tenured faculty members must be carefully protected. Junior faculty should

not have heavy adm1nistrative responsibilities until their research is well es-

tablished. (The Chair and other senior members of faculty may need to

provide academic leadership here.)

Teaching and the curriculum. \Ve would like to comment on some

concerns expressed by faculty and by students, and mention one of our own.

Faculty members zze concerned about the possibility of needing to reduce

undergraduate course offerings to make room for more graduate courses. We

think they are addressing the matter in constructive ways. The modifications

being envisioned are. in our opinion, likely to strengthen the undergraduate

curriculum. Furthermore, we suspect that the department has more flexi-

bility than it realizes. The undergraduate philosophy major is very highly

structured; we think that the number of required courses could be reduced

with no damage to quality of the program; this would allow for judicious

rotation of advanced undergraduate, with graduate, courses. It is impera-

tive, however, that professors be given teading credit for mounting graduate

courses and for heavy supervisory responsibilities. This is essential both for

the quality of the graduate program and for facilitating the research activity

that comes \vith graduate teaching.

The undergraduates expressed the concern that two specific required

courses are being used as obstacles, preventing people from majoring or mi-

noring in philosophy. (The self- study report describes these as "gateway'

courses into advanced work.) We do not believe that adequate preparation

for higher division work in philosophy is a problem in the SFU undergrad-

uate philosophy program, and we think the discipline is not well served by

"gateway courses" or by "gatekeeping instructors". People enter philosophy

from different starting points and go into quite diverse areas (e.g. from music

into aesthetics, from history into philosophy of history, from women's studies

to political philosophy, etc.), and our view is that instructors of specifically

required courses should take pains to encourage students to continue study

of the discipline. Furthermore, since Philosophy is generally considered a

"demanding major" in most universities (and Simon Fraser is certainly no

exception), students tend to select. themselves, and "gate-keeping" is quite

unnecessary.

We are also rather surprised to find that the average (and median) grades

of Philosophy students are the lowest in the University. Given the high

quality of work achieved by Majors and Honours students in a demanding

program (a point made b

both of the visiting faculty members), one

\VOfl-

ders whether the marking by philosophy instructors conforms to the general

practice at SFU. If not. SFU philosophy students are being inappropriately

disadvantaged in competition for undergraduate scholarships and for admis-

sion t.o (and funding during) graduate work.

1.3 Academic Recommendations

We have two main academic recommendations:

(1) that the department be allowed to replace one of its retiring faculty

with a high level tenure track appointment (at least at the Associate Professor

level); and that the department he allowed to commence immiat.ely with

the appointment process, rnortgagng a retirement" if necessary.

We believe that the Department needs a high profile (but still youngish)

philosopher to add academic muscle and lustre as the department develops

its PhD programme. There are two important academic functions which such

an appointment could fill: each one. in our opinion, is sufficient to justify the

appointment. One is that the department would do well to choose an area

for special emphasis in attracting top students to its PhD program. (This

could be either building on an existing strength or enriching another area.)

The other is that the department may wish to revise its view of the role to

be played by its Chair, given the change in its self-conception; in which case

perhaps an external search for the next Chair would be appropriate.

A couple of further comments are in order here. First, the SF1_i Philosophy

Department is fertile soil for administrative seeding: the Department has

the potential to add Significantly to the prestige of the University, and the

Department has an impeccable track record on wise use of funds. Second,

. ?

although obviously one does not hire entirely on the basis of age, nonetheless,

the main imbalance in age profile of the department comes in the forties, there

being only one tenure track person in that category.

(2) that the Department be encouraged to develop innovative ways to

increase the funding for philosophy graduate students.

The basic idea here is that philosophy graduate students may well be

ideally qualified to serve as teaching assistants in courses mounted by other

departments. Here is one example: given philosophy's participation in cog-

nitive science. philosophy graduate students might make excellent TAs in

specific psychology courses; since Psychology at SFU does not have enough

of its own graduate students to fill all the TA positions it needs, everyone

would benefit from this kind of resource sharing..

2. ADMINISTRATION and RESOURCES

2.1 Assessment

2.1.1 Departmental administration

The department has benefited from a long period of good administration

leading to an enviab

e sense of collegiality, cohesiveness, commitment and

loyalty to the department by the faculty. Procedures are well established

and run smoothly. The department seems to be well represented within the

university and to work well \\ith

the central administration.

The transition to the new Chair of the department seems smooth.

The two non-academic positions, Departmental Assistant and Secretary,

are adequate to support the Department.

2.1.2 General Resources

The library has been dealt with by the PhD review, and we have no reason

to disagree with the PhD appraisers.

Computing resources are generally satisfactory, although the University

seems to be contemplating the imposition of a fee for modem access to the

main frame and thus to INTERNET. We think this is very unwise. Any

university which fails to adapt adequately to the increasin

importance of

INTERNET to the scientific and scholarly community will be placing its

own scholars at a serious competitive disadvantage.

The Philosophy Department's new physical space is excellent.

2.2 Problems

2.2.1 Gender climate

2.2.2 Communication

Undergraduates find communication with the department difficult and frus-

trating. The one formal mechanism in place - an undergraduate student

representative on the Department's Committee of the Whole - does not pro-

ide an adequate or effective channel of communication. According to several

students and staff members, less formal methods, for example through the

departmental assistant, also seem ineffective.

2.3 Recommendations

We have two recommendations about administrative matters:

(3)

that the University identify the reasons why its procures failed to

cope adequately with the situation in philosophy, and take whatever steps

are appropriate to avoid repetition.

(4)

that the Department work with its undergraduate majors to create

structures which facilitate communication; that among the options to be

considered are: (a) creation of an departmental undergraduate studies com-

mittee which contains at least one student member aid which reports directly

to the Committee of the \Vhole, (b) an undergraduate version of moral tutors

for majors and honours students. This will involve the department making

more precise the limits of the role of the administ•raive assistant as their

representative.

External Review Committee

Ann MacKenzie

Glendon College, York University

Gerald Dworkin,

University of Illinois at Chicago

Bernard Lin sky,

University of Alberta

Dennis Krebs,

Simon Fraser University

Note: from Dr. J.M. Munro, Vice-President, Academic

Section 2.2.1 entitled Gender climate" has been removed from the report

because it provides information which obliquely but clearly identifies two

individuals. The content of these comments relate to 1) a dispute about

gender-neutral language about which the Chair has developed an interim

working resolution, and 2) a concern about attitudes and treatment of

students which is qualified by a parenthetical comment by the external review

committee in which it states: "The extent to which this is gender-related was

not clear to us." Thus, this observation may not be gender-related.

Both of these comments were made on the basis of concerns expressed by

individuals to the review committee. The review committee was not

required, under its terms of reference, to seek clarification from the

individuals about whom the complaints were made. The Chair and the Dean

both are aware of the comments and will address them in a manner

consistent with normal personnel matters and in accordance with the

external review guidelines.

• ?

Response to the Report of the External Review

John Tietz, Chair: Department of Philosophy

The 7 page report of the External Review Committee contains four specific

recommendations but it also makes a number of specific statements about

the Department and I begin by addressing some of these. In what follows, it

should be remembered that the Review Committee strongly praises the

Department and its program saying: "it has built a fine undergraduate

philosophy curriculum and, while continuing its deep commitment to

undergraduate teaching, it is now increasing its contributions to the

discipline and building the national and international stature of the

[Department]." Our recent addition of a Ph.D program stands as part of this

contribution. In addition, the review says that the Department "has enjoyed

a long period of good internal administration and excellent relations with

the central administration. The resulting collegiality, cohesiveness, and

deep commitment to the Department (and to the University) by Philosophy

faculty members provides an important human resource on which the

Department can draw." My response reflects discussions with students and

faculty.

Individual Remarks

1. On

4, the reviewers make three specific suggestions concerning the

research activities of the Department: The first encourages more vigorous

effort at bringing grant money into the Department. Although philosophy

departments have traditionally found it more difficult to find external

funding than departments with more "empirical" aspects to their

programs, we agree with this suggestion and have created a research

funding committee to pursue and coordinate grant applications. We

anticipate more vigorous effort in that sector in the current application

period. Second, the reviewers encourage the presentation of research at

conferences. We have been fairly active at conferences in the past and will

continue to encourage efforts in that area. Third, concerning the research

•

activities of new, untenured appointments, the reviewers recommend that

we avoid onerous administrative responsibilities on junior department

members. We have undertaken to do that, but with only eight tenured

members (two of whom retire in one year) it is difficult to run the

Department without asking for help from our four recent appointments. As

Chair, I have limited their roles to that of supporting committee members

(except in the case of the visiting speakers committee).

2. On

4, the report says: "the undergraduate Philosophy major is very

highly structured; we think that the number of required courses could be

reduced with no damage to the quality of the program." The required

courses for the Philosophy major are listed on

116 of the 95/96 Calendar:

100, 120, 203, 210, one of 150/151 (for a total of 16 lower-level hours in

philosophy), and 30 more hours of upper-level Philosophy courses including

301 and four courses from three different area lists. We are bound to point

out, first, that our lower-level requirements are actually fewer than those of

• ?

most other departments in the Faculty of Arts, many of which require 18-21

hours of lower-level work for majors in their subject. Second, our upper-

level requirements are based on the minimums mandated by the Faculty of

Arts and include more choice than many other departments. The reviewers

seem not to have compared our requirements with those of other

departments in the Faculty. In 1993 and early 1994, we completed a

curriculum review, involving meetings with students, in which we

discussed our departmental requirements at length in the light of the

uneven preparation exhibited by many students entering our upper-level

courses, and a dramatic increase in the number of transfer students from

the regional colleges. There was no suggestion during that internal review

from students or faculty that our requirements were too stringent. We

therefore disagree with the reviewers about the requirements in our

undergraduate program.

While the professionally oriented interests of the Department have

produced an impressive list of excellent students, many of whom have gone

on to top graduate programs elsewhere, and several of whom have gone on

to successful and even lustrous careers in the discipline, we fully recognize

•

that a significant proportion of our upper-levels students are in fact majors

from other departments and we enthusiastically encourage

interdisciplinary interests. Students not majoring in the Department must

meet only the prerequisites for specific courses, not the general

requirements for a BA. in Philosophy.

3. On

5, the report claims that the grades of Philosophy students "are the

lowest in the university," and that our upper-level students are

"inappropriately disadvantaged" in scholarship competition and graduate

school applications. Neither of these claims is true. Our upper-level grades

are virtually the same as those in some other departments (Economics and

History for example). Our lower-level grades

are

slightly lower than some

other Arts departments but not lower than some others: we average about

35-40% A's and B's. Furthermore, some other departments require our

lower-level courses for their own students and they have not complained

about our grading practices. Indeed, in our view, some other departments

•

are clearly too lenient in their grading practices: we believe that the 'C'

grade denotes average performance where some other departments take 'C-

plus' and even 'B-minus' to designate the average.

There are several reasons why grades in any university's philosophy

courses might be lower than in other departments: the difficulty of the

material and the stress on original sources even in many introductory

courses, a higher proportion of written work than is required in some other

departments, the demand for original thought and close reasoning of a

kind not experienced in other disciplines at this level, and the fact that

philosophy is not taught as a subject in the secondary schools. Virtually all

university students take their first philosophy course at that level and the

unfamiliarity of the subject and its demands would undoubtedly continue to

cause problems for some students even if we graded more leniently. We

should also point out that in a study of performances on admissions tests

for graduate school, philosophy majors achieve the highest level of above

average scores in the verbal component of the GRE and only mathematics

. ?

majors achieve higher above average scores for the LSAT and GMAT. Our

own experience indicates that our majors have done well in graduate

•

applications. The demanding nature of the subject clearly attracts some of

the best students and, given the success rate of our own students, it does

not appear that our own are "inappropriately disadvantaged" in their

postgraduate careers. Finally, we have not experienced a consistent pattern

of complaints about grading practices in the Department.

4. The reviewers also stress the need to give teaching credit for graduate

instruction. This has long been a point of debate in the Faculty of Arts. A

small graduate program such as ours cannot be expected to meet the same

criteria for course enrollments or thesis supervision used to measure work

loads in large departments. We have recently undertaken to assign modest

amounts of teaching/supervisory credit at the graduate level where, in

previous years, these activities were performed over and above

undergraduate teaching assignments which, until recently, formed the

entire basis for the instructional work load in our Department. We also

recommend that one hour of teaching credit be given as release time for

• ?

those who chair the Graduate and Undergraduate Program Committees

since these individuals put a great deal of time and energy into these duties.

Specific Recommendations.

The reviewers make four specific recommendations, the first two academic

and the second two administrative:

1. "That the Department be allowed to replace one of its retiring faculty with

a high-level tenure track appointment.... "

The Department has recently

requested replacements for two of its faculty retiring on September 1, 1996.

We have asked that one of these positions be at the Assistant Professor level

and that the other be at Associate/Assistant rank. The review continues on

to suggest that the next Department Chair be recruited externally as one of

these replacement positions. The University does not currently support

external searches for departmental chairs unless it can be shown that

there are extenuating circumstances precluding current Department

• ?

members from taking the position. Although there are potential candidates

for Chair among current faculty, the pool is very small. If we could find the

right Associate Professor-level appointment, one who would be interested in

departmental administration at some point, the future administration of

the Department would be more secure.

The review also stresses the importance of future recruitment at the level of

Associate Professor with respect to the graduate program of the

Department: the right appointment at that level would enhance the

Department's reputation and help it attract more and better applicants to

its program. The Department has also undertaken to find women

candidates for our two replacement positions. Although we believe that all

candidates, regardless of gender, must meet the same criteria established

by the needs of the curriculum and our research program, we should also

do everything we can to encourage outstanding female candidates in

applying for these positions, should they be authorized.

• ?

In anticipation of future replacements for our two imminent retirements,

we have also decided to focus on two main areas in order to enhance our

research interests and to strengthen our graduate program. The reviewers

recommend strengthening central research areas in order to attract top

students to its graduate program. The areas of ethics and political/social

philosophy, and the philosophy of mind and language have been singled

out: these are areas in which all four of our most recent appointments have

been made and in which we would like to continue development. An

interest in the history of modern philosophy (since Descartes) would also be

a qualification for candidates in both of these areas.

The reviewers also encourage a re-evaluation of the role of the Chair. In

accordance with the suggestions of the reviewers, there have been several

important changes in the role of the Chair beginning with the incumbency

of its current occupant in May of 1995: the Chairs of the Graduate and

Undergraduate Studies Committees have been given more autonomy.

These two committees are presently encouraged to periodically review their

. ?

programs and to suggest enhancements to the Department. The

Undergraduate Studies Committee also now includes the undergraduate

. ?

student representative. Both the graduate and undergraduate student

representatives attend Department meetings. Department meetings are

now run more formally with advanced distribution of the agenda and better

organization of materials for discussion.

The second recommendation (

. 6) concerns opening up further options

for graduate student support, such as teaching assistantships in other

departments in which graduate students in the Philosophy

Departmentmight prove to be suitable. This is currently being pursued. We

are also looking into the inclusion of some form of graduate student support

in connection with individual and group faculty research grants currently

in preparation.

The third recommendation (

. 7) concerns some problems with

personnel. The Department Chair, the Dean of Arts, and the Academic

•

Vice President have taken note of the deleted section and recommendation

3: "that the University identify the reasons why its procedures failed to cope

adequately with the situation in Philosophy, and take whatever steps are

appropriate to avoid repetition." Under its new Chair, the Department has

discussed issues of departmental responsibility connected with complaints

made against members of the Department with a view to procedural

fairness. The note appended to the review by the Academic Vice President,

Dr. Munro, states: "the Chair and the Dean both are aware of the

comments and will address them in a manner consistent with normal

personnel matters and in accordance with the external review guidelines."

This process is underway and our responses to the other recommendations

reflect the desire of the Department in fostering openness, where it is

appropriate, and to continuing discussions with students concerning its

curriculum. It should also be mentioned that the current Department

Chair had not assumed office when the incidents indirectly referred to in

the review took place. He has emphasized the importance of an untroubled

future for the Department and has undertaken to improve avenues of

• ?

communication and to clarify the routes and procedures of complaint

should personnel difficulties occur.

It is also of concern to the faculty, students, and staff of the Department that

the procedures by which complaints were initiated with the Review

Committee are faulty and that a careful review should be undertaken by the

academic vice president of the role of future review committees concerning

complaints and criticisms of departments and individuals.

4. The fourth recommendation on

7 suggests improvements in avenues of

communication between students and the Department. I have mentioned

that the undergraduate representative to the Department has been included

on the Undergraduate Studies Committee (that was recommended in the

review report). The Chair of this committee has convened meetings with

students about the future development of the curriculum and to discuss

with them any problems with the curriculum. It should be pointed out,

however, that we are not able to respond affirmatively to every request that

may emerge. Our small department is hard pressed to mount its existing

•

program and whatever we can do by way of additional special interest or

experimental courses will be limited. There must also be discussion about

whether proposed new courses, or other modifications to the curriculum,

are consistent with the research and teaching interests of the faculty and

with our conception of the nature of our program.

We have also undertaken to involve faculty more actively in the process of

advising students about their careers, appropriate continuing courses,

graduate programs, and in general encouraging them to consult us more

frequently. There is enthusiasm in the Department for the idea of

undergraduate moral tutors and some such system will be instituted in the

near future. The role of the Departmental Assistant in student advice, as in

other departments, involves monitoring course requirements, the specific

programs of students, and departmental and university requirements for

their degrees. The Assistant should also help students to find the best

faculty member to counsel them about their careers and their courses. In

general, the role of the Assistant should be to carry out the instructions of

the Chair with respect to departmental policy in accordance with the job

description of the position.

We hope to reinstitute our undergraduate philosophy club (an active

Departmental institution in the 1970's that evolved into the current visiting

speakers program) in order to encourage more contact between faculty and

students. The graduate students already have a colloquium that meets once

a week for the purpose of presenting and discussing their own work.

Finally, we are gratified that the reviewers thought highly of the SFU

Philosophy Department. As they say about the undergraduate program:

"the Department ... provides philosophy majors with solid foundations in

the discipline, good contact with current developments, and an excellent

preparation for graduate work. It contributes significantly to the Liberal

Arts education of all students taking Philosophy courses providing them

with logical and conceptual skills, and instilling in them high standards of

intellectual clarity and a broad humanistic outlook." The reviewers also

agree with the favorable external review of the new Ph.D program and with

the direction of its development. It is a pleasure to consider suggested

improvements in the light of their good opinion.