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
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52

top

S93-53

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

OFFICE OF THE VICE-PRESIDENT, ACADEMIC

MEMORANDUM

Re: Senate Committee on International

Date:

October 15, 1993

Students

The Senate Committee on Academic Planning received the report of the Senate

Committee on International Students (SCIS) in March 1993. The SCIS report

consists of a majority report and two minority reports, all of which are attached.

The SCIS report was distributed to Faculties, the Senate Committee on Enrollment

Management and Planning, the Senate Committee on University Budget, the

Senate Undergraduate Admissions Board and the Senate Committee on

International Activities for comment. SCAP discussed the report at its meetings of

July 7, October 6 and October 13.

The recommendations in the majority SCIS report (pages 9-10) were in two parts: a

SCAP recommends that Senate approve the following principles:

That the presence on campus of international students from the widest

possible spectrum of countries enriches campus life and contributes to

international understanding and friendship and should therefore be

encouraged.

That in order to attract international students of the highest calibre and

to make a meaningful contribution to economic development, a

scholarship program for international undergraduate students is

desirable, particularly for students from countries which have been

underrepresented at Simon Fraser University.

That in order for the University to fulfill its obligations to Canadian

society and the local community, the accessibility needs of domestic

students must be recognized as placing limitations on the number of

international students who can be accepted, and that the maximum

percentage of new international students admitted to the University

should be reduced from the present 7%.

Note: the current level of admissions of international undergraduate

students is 5.2%, the total number of international students is 5.7%,

and the ten-year average (83/84 to 92/93) for new admissions is 5.9%.

d) That tuition fees for international undergraduate students should

reflect the operating costs of the University and should be greater for

international students than for domestic students.

SCAP is still giving further consideration to the admission of international students

in limited enrollment programs.

, A

At,,00

SCAP 93 - 10

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

I is

To:

From:

Subject:

Date:

OFFICE OF THE VICE-PRESIDENT, ACADEMIC

MEMORANDUM

Members of the Senate Committee on Academic Planning

J.M.

Munro

Report of the Senate Committee on International Students

March, 1993

The report of the Senate Committee on International Students (SCIS) has been

transmitted to SCAP. It consists of a majority report and two minority reports, all of

which are attached. The terms of reference for SCIS indicated that the report and

recommendations should be submitted to the Senate Committee on Academic Planning

(for transmission to Senate).

I suggest that SCAP review the reports, and seek advice from those responsible for

implementing the recommendations prior to forwarding the report and

recommendations to Senate.

The following motion is proposed for consideration by SCAP:

• ?

Motion:

"That SCAP receive

the reports

from the Senate Committee

on International

Students, and forward them to the Faculties, to the Senate Committee on

Enrollment Management and Planning, and to the Senate Committee on

International Activities for consideration. These bodies should report back to

SCAP by mid-May, 1993."

OmLrb

Simon Fraser University

FACULTY OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

MEMORANDUM

Senate Committee on International Students

Enclosed for your information is a transmittal to SCAP which includes both the report

of the majority and two minority submissions prepared by members of the ad hoc

Senate Committee on International Students. As is indicated in the majority

document, the SCIS membership carefully and systematically investigated what

turned out to be a complex issue. Although agreement was reached on the facts that

were relevant, the Committee was unfortunately unable to reach consensus as

regards the policy recommendations that should follow from these facts. That being

the case, the Committee membership considers it appropriate that all three

documents, accompanied by whatever material SCAP considers relevant, eventually

reach Senate. We believe this is necessary if Senate is to have the opportunity to

consider all relevant aspects of the problem before reaching its conclusions. Should

SCAP and SCAR consider it appropriate, I am sure that the entire committee would be

prepared to attend that Senate debate. As chance would have if, proponents of all

three positions currently hold seats on Senate. However, having the entire Committee

on hand both as proponents and resource people might prove useful.

SJS/dl

^p

.

ltl

Report of the Senate Committee on International Students

Stanley Shapiro ?

Norman Reilly ?

Norman Swartz

Suzan Beattie

Nick Heath

February 12, 1993

MANDATE, MEMBERSHIP AND PROCEDURE

At its meeting on February 3, 1992, the Simon Fraser University Senate voted to establish

an "Ad Hoc" committee on international students. The terms of reference of the Senate

Committee on International Students (SCIS), as approved at that meeting, and the

subsequently selected membership was as follows.

Members

Conditions

Names

the Vice-President, Academic,

one International Student

the Registrar, or designate

Nick Heath

*For the purpose of the membership of the committee, it was intended that "faculty" be

interpreted as those entitled to vote in elections to Senate. This category includes Deans

and Associate Deans.

**Unfortunately

the pressure of other commitments necessitated Professor Dean's

withdrawal from active committee deliberation.

Terms of Reference

Assess the benefits and costs to the University and community of the University's

policy on the admission of international undergraduate students

ii)

Examine the underlying principles and goals regarding the admission of

international undergraduate students

iii)

Consult widely both inside and outside the University, and

iv)

submit a report with recommendations to SCAP (for transmission to Senate) by

December 31, 1992.

Subsequent to the Senate meeting on February 3, 1992, two additional items were referred

to the SCIS.

Consider the proposal "that Senate approve and recommend to the Board of

Governors to abolish the differential fees for international students as recommended

by U.B.C. Task Force Report".

. ?

vi) ?

Consider the proposal "to remove the entry quota for international students to the

Management and Systems Science program, as described in SUAB 232".

SCIS Report •

Page 2

MANDATE, MEMBERSHIP AND PROCEDURE (cont'd)

Since its initial meeting on April 6, 1992, the Committee has met 21 times, invited the

entire University community to respond to a questionnaire and sent a variety of outside

educators and politicians that same questionnaire. We have met with 16 individuals,

reviewed 44 responses to our questionnaire and a voluminous amount of literature, and

compiled 36 pages of Committee Minutes. (More detailed information on those contacted

appears in Appendix A.)

The representatives chosen by Senate engaged in what diplomats call "full and frank

discussions". Fortunately, the end result was consensus on a wide variety of issues.

Agreement was reached on the facts of the matter even though different policy

recommendations ensued. We now entrust the results of our deliberations to SCAP,

Senate and the University community.

The entire Committee wishes to put on record its debt of gratitude to Ms. Diane Lesack,

who served as its indispensable administrative officer from beginning to end of this

complex process.

II. BACKGROUND

This report deals only with issues relating to the admission of international

undergraduate

students. By "international students", we mean foreign nationals without the legal right to

reside permanently in Canada.

In the 1970's and early 1980's, the University had an open-door admission policy for all

students who met its requirements. Whether they were domestic or international students,

all qualified students were accepted and all paid the same fees. At that point, the level of

enrolments of international students in certain high demand programs was approaching

30%. In the early 1980's, the University experienced budget cuts followed by a period of

severe financial restraint. It was anticipated that the number of admissions to the

University in general would have to be limited. It was therefore considered appropriate for

the number of international students also to be limited - both at the University level and

within certain limited-enrolment programs. This was done in order to improve accessibility

for domestic students. The overall international student target set at that time was 7%, a

figure adopted in large part because it reflected then-current practice. Over the ensuing

period, the pressure on admissions has continued to grow. The number of qualified

Canadians refused admission has reached a point where a high school graduate

successfully seeking admission requires a B average. A college transfer student now

requires a B- average in order to be admitted.

The Committee concluded that the extensive literature that it reviewed on the subject of

international students was of only limited value. That literature either ignores the

possibility that international students might actually displace domestic students or explicitly

makes an assumption to the contrary. Neither of these positions is valid in our present

situation. Under existing circumstances, international students at SFU do displace

domestic ones.

SCIS

Report

Page 3

III. ALL STUDENTS ARE SUBSIDIZED

All undergraduate students at Simon Fraser University receive a substantial subsidy. The

sum paid in tuition and other fees represents only a fraction of the total cost of a student's

education. When the University had an open admission policy, the fees for domestic and

international students were the same. In recent years, international students have been

required to pay a higher fee. The current (92/93) tuition for a full-time one-year program is

$1,860 for domestic students and

$4,650

for international students. The tuition for

international students will rise to three times the rate for domestic students in 93/94.

Extent of Subsid y

to International Students

It is difficult to estimate the amount of this subsidy. One problem is the fact that the figure

depends on the particular perspective chosen. From the -University's point of view, the--

main considerations relate to its annual operating expenses. The tax-paying community's

viewpoint is one of broader interest which includes such things as the land and facilities in

which it has invested and for which it continues to carry a burden of debt.

A lower bound on the cost of providing a proper undergraduate education can be obtained

from the figures negotiated between the University and the Provincial Government in

relation to the recent Access Program. From those calculations, one arrives at a minimum

figure of approximately $9,000 (being the sum of the Government grant of $7,000 plus the

domestic fee rate of $1,860). One could look for guidance as well from the number of

school boards in B.C. which accept international students. It is worth noting that the

Vancouver School Board will be charging its international high school students $8,900 a

year in 1993/94 while in West Vancouver, the fee will be $12,000. Various public colleges

also accept international students and their fees are typically in the $6,000 range (see

Appendix B). International students admitted to SFU from most B.C. colleges usually

benefited from a reduction in fees when they entered this University.

These comparisons are relevant for two reasons. The first is that colleges in particular are

under specific directives from their Ministry not to use government funds to educate

international students. Therefore, the level of their fees reflects a serious and genuine effort

to estimate the true cost of educating students in those systems. The second is that it is

difficult to see how the University's costs could be anywhere near as low as those of the

colleges. The University provides facilities, in the form of a library, laboratories and

computers that are much more extensive than those available in the schools and colleges. It

must also hire and retain faculty of world class standing. These factors necessarily involve

greater cost. The University does itself a disservice by undervaluing what it has to offer

and the standards that it wishes to maintain.

IV.

RATIONALE FOR ADMITTING INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS

1. ?

Enriched

Academic Environment

The presence of international students ideally enriches campus life, brings new

perspectives to the classroom and gives domestic students some experience with

other cultures and viewpoints. In an era of increased globalization, this broadening

. of the educational experience is believed to benefit all students. This is the most

common and persuasive rationale for current policies concerning the admission of

international students both here and at other universities.

SCIS Report

RATIONALE FOR ADMITTING INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS

Page 4

Enriched Academic Environment (cont'd)

This justification is most persuasive in the presence of the following features:

The local community and the University would otherwise be relatively

homogeneous.

The international students are drawn from many and varied backgrounds

that are not already strongly represented in that local community and at the

University.

The international students are evenly distributed throughout the University's

programs.

Conversely, this argument becomes less persuasive to the extent that these features

are not present.

The inapplicability of these features to the SFU scene suggests a need for viewing

the traditional arguments for a relatively high international student intake with some

skepticism.

The local community is far from homogeneous.

ii)

Vancouver is one of the most cosmopolitan cities in the world.

iii)

Greater Vancouver has experienced a major influx of recent immigrants.

iv)

Approximately 80% of our current international students are from countries

of origin that already have a strong presence throughout the Lower

Mainland.

Students in Lower Mainland schools are already exposed daily in a small

classroom context to fellow students of a variety of creeds, colours and

places of origin.

vi) ?

Accepting students from countries already providing us with many recent

immigrants does not further internationalize SFU.

International students have a strong preference for a relatively small number of

programs and courses: Business, Economics, Psychology, Communications and

lower level courses in Computing, Linguistics and Mathematics. Despite the

enrolment limitations that have been in place in Business in recent years,

54%

of all

the degrees obtained by international students over the last five years have been in

combinations of Business and Economics. Twenty nine per cent of all

business/economics joint degrees over that period were obtained by international

students and 27% of all majors in Economics are currently international students.

It is sometimes argued that international students bring a "fresher view" of their

homeland than do recent immigrants. Do immigrants' attitudes change so quickly

and their understanding of their culture and the circumstances of their homeland

SCIS Report

Page

RATIONALE FOR ADMITTING INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS

Enriched Academic Environment (cont'd)

diminish that rapidly? After two or three years in the Canadian environment, can

they no longer be considered truly representative of their original culture? We find

this point of view exaggerated and doubt that it would be subscribed to by many

recent immigrants. However, even if one sees merit in the argument, it is of

dubious relevance to our current context. The vast majority of our international

students do not come directly from abroad. About 70% of our international

students come to SFU from local high schools and colleges. Many have been

studying here since grade 11. Only 10% of our international students come directly

from foreign high schools.

As recent immigrants enter the University, they bring with them an enriching

diversity of cultures. Indeed, active recruitment among recent immigrant groups

and visible minority groups could well bring a greater diversity of backgrounds to

our campus than exists in our current international student body. Such action

would clearly be consistent with national goals to create opportunities for minority

groups.

It is also relevant to remember that SFU has a very high enrolment of international

. students at the graduate level who, as teaching assistants, come face to face with

undergraduates in the classroom. This presents another very important forum for

exchange which is enhanced by the fact that the international student must interact

with every member of the class, that is, the "exposure" of domestic students to

international students is increased several-fold whenever the international student

assumes the role of instructor.

The Illusion of Altruism

The desire to help developing countries is strong among Canadians. It is seen as

socially responsible to give foreign aid on a number of levels, either independently

or as an instrument of Canadian Federal Government foreign policy. At the

national level, the Canadian Government supports many international educational

initiatives through CIDA.

We may thus choose to regard our international student subsidies as a form of

scholarship. If so, such scholarships are awarded at present without regard to

background or special achievement. The standards for the award of these subsidies

do not compare with those required of the winners of other forms of scholarships.

There is no particular component of excellence and no real effort to meet Third

World needs.

Existing admission and financial aid policies do not give preference to students

from developing countries. In fact, it seems more than likely that differential fees,

coupled with the absence of a program of international scholarships, make it more

difficult for students from Third World countries to come to SFU unless they

belong to local privileged classes. All things considered, we have failed miserably

if altruism was our objective.

FA IA

SCIS Report •

Page 6

RATIONALE FOR ADMITTING INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS (cont'd)

International Students as an Economic Bonus/Export Commodity

Some economic benefit is felt in the local community as a result of the expenditures

of international students. For the national economy, it could be argued that the

funds brought to Canada by foreigners and spent here are a form of international

trade. This point of view presents education as an environmentally clean export

commodity. However, it then makes no sense at all for the University to be selling

its own product at below cost. Instead, as is done in the B.C. colleges and school

system, SFU should be seeking at least a small margin of profit or financial benefit.

Such action would also be consistent with the tuition policies of those jurisdictions

and institutions at which most Canadian students studying abroad choose to enrol.

Existing SFU policy falls far short of cost recovery. Although the community

could conceivably benefit financially under our existing policies, the University

does not. That situation, however, can and should be corrected.

International Students in Support of Future Exports

It is frequently argued that enrolling international students has a beneficial long-term

effect on Canada's and British Columbia's exports. International students who

return to their home countries are expected to provide future business contacts and

serve as goodwill ambassadors resulting in favourable contracts and orders for

Canadian companies.

Despite the intuitive attraction of this argument, whether it is true remains to be

determined. The level of enrolment of international undergraduates in Canada has

been running close to 20,000 or more since at least the mid 1970's. One would

thus expect that it would be possible to detect confirming evidence of subsequent

benefits. An examination of recent trading patterns suggests that, if there are such

benefits in actual practice, they are small in magnitude and difficult to detect.

This inability to identify conclusively any significant long-run economic benefits

suggests that SFU must not accept international students on the basis of uncertain

expectations while excluding domestic students who, by their education

will

almost certainly make significant economic and social contributions to Canada.

Any action taken to justify international student enrolment on the basis of its future

foreign trade impact should be taken only in concert with Government initiatives

and with clear Government support. In particular, action on this account should be

pursued only in the presence of full and complete government funding earmarked

for this purpose separately from the University's regular budget..

International Students

on the Margin

It is sometimes argued in the literature that the admission of international students

entails little extra cost and does not displace domestic students because international

students are being admitted "on the margin". The idea here is that because the

Idl

SCIS Report

Page 7

RATIONALE FOR ADMITTING INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS

International Students on the Margin (cont'd)

facilities, faculty, support

staff

etc. are already "in place", there is little extra cost

and no displacement in admitting a few extra international students. There is a

major flaw in this argument as far as its applicability to SFU is concerned. If there

really were space "on the margin" for admitting a few extra students without

significant additional costs, we could just as well be admitting additional domestic

students. Since there is a plentiful supply of qualified domestic applicants being

turned away, a decision to give "marginal" seats to international students becomes a

decision not to give them to an equivalent number of domestic students. The notion

that there are currently at SFU low-cost marginal places available to anyone is, in

fact,adangerosfictii. ?

V. LIMITATIONS OF CURRENT POLICIES

Existing policy fails to address the following factors:

The existing international student target was established at a time when it was

generally believed their admission would not displace domestic students. Since

1988, the reality of admission at SFU has been that international students very

definitely displace domestic students.

Most international undergraduate students at SFU (over 70%) come from only three

jurisdictions: Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia. (The distribution at SFU is a

little different from the national and provincial distributions.) Despite our relatively

high (7%) international student registration (compared to a Canadian average of

3%), we have failed to internationalize the University. More precisely, no real

effort has yet been made to attract significant numbers of international students from

many different countries.

Most international undergraduate students now cluster in a limited number of

programs (Economics and Business Administration in particular). Such bunching

runs counter to the desire of exposing as many SFU students as possible to

students from other countries.

Recent immigration to the Lower Mainland has been not only from Hong Kong,

Singapore and Malaysia but from Taiwan, Korea, India, Pakistan, Philippines,

Japan, etc. as well. This suggests that there is now far greater diversity among the

University's students who are recent immigrants than among its international

students. Broadening the mix of countries significantly represented by international

students and reducing the number from any one jurisdiction seems necessary for

increased internationalization.

Most new international students have already been studying in Canada for a year or

more. Many compete directly with domestic students from the same high school or

. college for admission to SFU. Relatively insignificant grade differences result in

some domestic applicants being excluded in favour of international students who

may have achieved higher results in large part because they have previously studied

the same material in their home countries.

LIMITATIONS OF CURRENT POLICIES (cont'd)

SCIS Report

Page 8

6. Existing enrolment pressures are further aggravated by the fact that a large number

of international students enter from the colleges and are thus disproportionately

represented in upper division courses.

VI. THE CURRENT PROBLEM HIGHLIGHTED

The current situation does not reflect any actual policy on international students. Rather, it

is the end result of a series of ad hoc responses to particular pressures. Despite SFU's

significant proportion of international students, very little progress has been made in

actively internationalizing the student body. To this point, the University has been mainly

reactive in dealing with international student enrolments. This has led to a situation where

domestic students are being excluded for reasons that are highly questionable. The current

practice does not maximize the benefits from the presence of international students and the

University is now boxed in financially. The time has come for corrective action along the

lines outlined below.

The Differential Fee Dilemma

The root cause of our difficulties regarding international students is a financial one. If the

University had sufficient resources to be able to accommodate all qualified students, there

would be no problem. However, the realities are that both the Universit

and the 'public

purse" have limited resources. As a result, well qualified domestic students are being

denied access to SFU in increasing numbers. Even though differential fees have been

introduced, international students still pay less than the full cost of the education and

services they receive. More significantly, their admission further reduces accessibility

opportunities for domestic students. This unfortunate state of affairs requires us to review

our policies regarding international student admissions.

The introduction of differential fees has severely limited the University's flexibility in

dealing with the problem of the displacement of qualified domestic students by international

students. If the University were to reduce the number of international students, it should

be able to increase the number of domestic students by a corresponding amount. In fact,

the increase in the number of domestic students admitted could not be equal to the reduction

in the number of international students since domestic students

now

pay lower fees. If

prepared to accept a budget reduction, the University could proportionately increase the

number of domestic students accepted. The University, however, can not afford to follow

this course of action. The additional revenue from differential fees has been irretrievably

incorporated into the University's sorely constrained base budget. Phrased another way,

SFU is hooked on differential fees.

To simply replace 100 international students with 100 domestic students means a reduction

of approximately

$297,000

in revenue based on this year's figures and something in the

order of

$372,000

based on next year's tuition rates (assuming that the domestic rate

remains unchanged). In recognition of this dilemma, we feel that our recommendations

must be revenue neutral. Revenue neutrality and a reduction in the percentage of

international students would together mandate further increases in differential fees. We

have seen that both cost considerations and the level of tuitions charged at other B.C.

institutions suggest such increases are justified on other grounds.

SCIS Report?

Page 9

VII. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. ?

That the University adopt the following principles.

That the presence on campus of international students from the widest

possible spectrum of countries enriches campus life and contributes to

international understanding and friendship and should therefore be

encouraged.

That in order to attract international students of the highest calibre and to

make a meaningful contribution to economic development, a scholarship

program for international students is desirable.

That in order for the University to fulfill its obligations to Canadian society

and the local community, the access problems of domestic students must be

recognized as placing limitations on the number of international students

who can be accepted.

That the University adopt the following policies:

New

international undergraduate

admissions

should be lowered immediately

to 3% of total undergraduate admissions. (Such a policy would allow for

the acceptance of approximately 150 additional domestic students each year.

Because of different course enrolment patterns, a 3% admission rate for

international students could generate a steady state international student FTE

enrolment of approximately 4%. A 3% international student head count, in

contrast, would require reducing international student intake to

approximately 2.5% of all undergraduate admissions.) International

students in formal exchange programs would not be counted within the 3%

limit.

b) International undergraduate students who are already registered at SFU at

the time of introduction of this policy should be "grandparented" for a

period of three years in the sense that their tuition fees would not exceed

three times the domestic rate during that period.

Senate should recommend to the Board that tuition fees for international

undergraduate students be based on the following three criteria and that

future fee levels be governed by these same criteria.

International student tuition fees should reflect the operating costs of

the University.

ii)

After allowing for the additional domestic students who could be

accepted because of the reduction in international student admissions

to 3%, the impact on University finances should be essentially

is revenue neutral. (We estimate that in 1993/94, revenue neutrality

and a 3% international student target would necessitate an

international student tuition fee of between $10,000 and $11,000.)

SCIS Report

Page 10

RECOMMENDATIONS (cont'd)

International student fee increases are not to be primarily revenue

driven but rather accompanied by a corresponding decline in

international student enrolment.

A number of international entrance scholarships should be awarded each

year with a four-year term and value equal to the full international tuition

rate. The criteria for these awards would be based on high scholastic

achievement, program distribution and geographic distribution.

The number of international students admitted to any and all limited

enrolment programs should be restricted to 10% of total program enrolment.

Senate should hold the Administration accountable for honouring its

commitment to spend the current $400,000 from targeted differential

revenues raised from international students on financial and counselling

support for these students and on other efforts to truly internationalize

Simon Fraser University.

VIII. COMMENTARY

Given all the considerations presented earlier in this report, there seems little

justification for an SFU international student figure further in excess of the

Canadian average international student enrolment (of approximately 3%). Those

who would argue otherwise must do so in light of the specifics of the situation at

SFU at this time.

The University's present passive approach to the admission of international

students has led to a situation where the majority of these students are interested in a

small group of programs. We'now have a situation where there is great pressure on

many limited enrolment programs but only two of these programs (Business

Administration and Computing Science) have quotas within quotas. To maintain

reasonable accessibility to all its programs for domestic students, international

student enrolment limits of ten per cent in all majors with overall enrolment

limitations are also justified.

Domestic students are entitled to a reasonable opportunity for admission into high

demand programs. The programs in high demand are among those for which B.C.

graduation rates are far below the national average. They are also among the

programs that provide the skills needed in the Canadian economy in order to remain

competitive in the "new economic age".

During periods of minimal increases in the University's grant from the

Government, the move to higher differential fees is well nigh irreversible. Those

fees become part of the base budget and we have seen that any reduction would

create significant budget difficulties. While we recognize the University's current

reliance on international student fees, we wish to control the degree of its addiction.

Three per cent is a level at which a combination of higher fees (whether calculate

to reflect market prices or University costs) and reduced international stude

enrolment can be revenue neutral.

The introduction of a scholarship program has the following advantages:

It will demonstrate the University's commitment to true internationalization.

It will attract the best scholars and encourage enrolment from a far broader

range of countries.

It will facilitate an element of geographic distribution. The one

recommendation that was common to almost all those who made any

submission to the committee verbally or in writing was that the University

- ?

JyJQ coiirage oalr ggrpi rep e toirn the international_

student body.

d) It would make it possible to consider a broadening of the distribution of

international students across different programs by attempting to distribute

the scholarships over a variety of academic areas.

We suggest an initial target of ten scholarships per year covering full international

fees for the fee remission International Scholarship Fund. In order to limit the

impact of the cost of this scholarship program and perhaps eventually even extend

. ?

it, we urge the Administration to seek support from external agencies, foundations

and foreign governments.

Some members of the Committee would also advocate that the additional student

places made available through the introduction of the new international student

policy be used in an active program to encourage students from visible minorities

and native peoples to enrol in the University. We refer readers to the report

"Review of B.C. student assistance and barriers to post-secondary participation",

recently prepared for the Provincial Government, for further information on the

problems faced by minority, native and handicapped people. Other universities

have programs of active recruitment in these areas. However, it was beyond the

mandate of the Committee to make a specific recommendation in that regard.

6. The policies discussed above should be only a minor part of Simon Fraser

University's approach to international education. The time has come or perhaps--

more correctly--it has long since passed for SFU to take a farsighted proactive

approach to internationalization. The University should first strongly commit itself

to becoming an international learning and research centre and then act in a manner

consistent with such a goal. The efforts now being made to develop additional

opportunities for domestic students to live abroad, either as exchange or co-op

students, are especially important initiatives consistent with true internationalization.

The allocation of some of the differential fees now paid by international students to

facilitate domestic student participation in such a program strikes us as entirely

appropriate. Moreover, using differential funding to facilitate a work/study

program that would allow international students to work campus-wide would also

7. We urge both Senate and the SFU Board of Governors to adopt those of the new

policies being recommended which fall within their respective jurisdictions.

Informed action at both these levels will require increased familiarity with this

complex issue.

We trust that this report provides not only an appropriate set of policy

recommendations, but also a fact base for independent, informed consideration of

the issue. Hopefully, a majority of the membership of both senior institutions of

University governance will accept our arguments and adopt the policies being

starting point for a long-overdue examination of the international undergraduate's

role in the globalization of Simon Fraser University.

0 ?

APPENDICES

A. PERSONS PROVIDING INFORMATION//OPINIONS

A1-A3

B. INTERNATIONAL STUDENT TUITION FEES

(1)

Lower mainland school districts.

(2)

B.C. colleges. ?

(3)

Canadian universities. ?

(4)

Universities in U.S. and U.K.

B3-B4

C. SFU INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATE ENROLLMENT DATA

(1) By admission category.

(2) Headcount data.

(3) By credit hours taken.

C3-C4

(4) Comparison with UBC, U Vic.

(5)

By country of citizenship.

C6.-C7

D. SAMPLE BUDGET PROJECTIONS

E. International Students at Canadian Universities, 

1990/91 

I',

APPENDIX A - INFORMATION/OPINIONS PROVIDED TO THE SCIS

Al ?

The following attended meetings of the SCIS for the purpose of providing information on

international students.

Director, Office of International Cooperation

Principal, Columbia College

Randy Martin

Bill Melville

Coordinator, International Education

Principal, Centennial School

Kay Pearson

Sheila Rooney

Director, Centre for International Students

Principal, Burnaby North Secondary

Vern Loewen

John Crawford

Director, Financial Aid and Awards

Director, National & International Education

Rob Cameron

Ministry of Education, Victoria

Director, Undergraduate Program,

Val Cottingham

School of Computing Science

Manager, B.C. Centre for Int'l Education

Business Administration

Program,

Principal, Windermere Secondary School

Roger Ward

Jim Doerr

Dean of Community Programs and Services

Vice-President, Financial Services

Douglas College

Nick Rubidge

Director, International Education Branch

Ministry of Advanced Education, Victoria

Anne Shorthouse

Manager, International Education Program

Vancouver School Board

0 ?

Appendix A (cont'd)

Internal (SFU) Respondents to the SCIS Questionnaire on International Students (copy attached):

Faculty/Administrators:

Brian Aispach ?

John Borden

Department of Mathematics & Statistics

Biological Sciences

Katherine Heinrich ?

L.J. Evenden

Department of Mathematics & Statistics

Department of Geography

Sheila Delany ?

Doreen Godwin

Department of English ?

Cooperative Education ?

- - -

T.N. Bell

Daniel McDonald

Department of Chemistry ?

Faculty of Business Administration

P. Stigger

Department of History

Allan J. Davison

Faculty of Applied Sciences

. ?

Dean Tjosvold

Faculty of Business Administration

Karlene Faith

School of Criminology

Gloria Sampson

Faculty of Education

Janet Beggs

Department of Psychology

L.J. Albright

Biological Sciences

Kirk E. Vandezande

Faculty of Business Administration

Mathematics/Computing Science

Caroline Knowles

Department of Sociology and Anthropology

Nora McGregor

Biological Sciences

Richard M. Coe

Department of English

Susan Stevenson

School of Engineering Science

Cathy Nesmith

Department of Geography

Bob Anderson

Department of Communication

D.J. Huntley

Department of Physics

Students:

Gabriel G. Goh

Anderson (7)

The International Club

Alicia Kon

Simon Fraser Student Society

Appendix A (cont'd)

3 ?

External Respondents to the SCIS Questionnaire on International Students:

Richard W. Johnston

President, Malaspina College

Valerie Nielsen

Acting Dean of Administrative and Student Services

Vancouver Community College

Nola Dibski

Manager of International Education

Okanagan College

Art Hamilton

Executive Director, International Education

Camosun College

Jim Killeen

Principal, John Oliver Secondary

Selwyn Lewis

Science Department Head

Vancouver Technical Secondary

Shirley Wong

International Student Counsellor

Aldergrove Secondary

Helen Vanee

for Burnaby Secondary School Administrators

Lorraine Belisle

Director, Institution & Student Services

Canadian Bureau for International Education

Anne M. Stewart

Langley District Parent Advisory Council

B.K. Gogoi

Consul & Head of Chancery

Consulate General of India

Jeremy Dalton, M.L.A.

West Vancouver-Capilano

APPENDIX B INTERNATIONAL STUDENT TUITION FEES

(1) LOWER MAINLAND SCHOOL DISTRICTS

I lei,

40,01

9,500

(2) UNIVERSITY TRANSFER TUITION FEES AT B.C. COLLEGES

(from BCCIE "Update of International Fees" - November, 1992)

Current

1993-94 (anticipated)

5,670

East Kootenay Community College

4,800

5,200

Fraser Valley College

5,600

Northern Lights College

5,500

Northwest Comunity College

Vancouver Community College

7,200

APPENDIX 

t3

?

CANADIAN 

B ?

(cor,t'd) 

UNIVERSITIES 

?

- ?

INTERNATIONAL 

STUDENT TUITION 

FEES              

62

1992/93 TUITION 

FEES FOR

TABLE 2

FULL-TIME UNDERGRADUATE

REPRESENTATIVE

CANADIAN

STUDENTS

UNIVRsm

Arts-Undergraduates

$3,221

of SaskatchewanRegina

University of Manitoba

UniversityUniversityof

Guelph

Toronto

$1,895$1,894$1,894$1,894$1,893$1,894$1,893

University of Waterloo

University of Montreal

University of New Brunswick

$2,280

SOURCE: Tuition and Living Accomodation Costs at Canadian Universities: Statistics Canada 81-219

WJW/Nov 20, 1992

APPENDIX 8

(cont'd)

INTERNATIONAL STUDENT TUITION FEES

comprehensive

doctoral universities

u/g ?

Data from survey Feb 93

92-93 $US

93-94 SUS

SCAN

The American University

U of California, Berkeley

Virginia Polytechnic & SU

54%

Data from ECIS Directory

Case Western Reserve U

Harvard & Radcliffe Colleges

Rennselaer Poltechnic U

Rochester Inst of Tech

International

at comprehensive doctoral

universities

fvo

College of William & Mary ?

Worcester Polytech Inst

University College, London

Loughborough U of Technol

The following does not offer doctoral programs but is close

Source:1992 European Council of International Schools

Directory

Currency conversion: 1 $US = 1.28 sCAN.

I £ sterling

= 1.87 SCAN

2/23/93

APPENDIX C - SFU ENROLMENT DATA

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

(1)

UNDERGRADUATE INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS

BY BASIS OF ADMISSION CATEGORY

FALL 1992

Basis of Admission

Number

Percent

B.C. College Transfer

15.5%

B.C. University Transfer

Non B.C. University Transfer

4.0%

Non B.C. College Transfer

2.0%

Non B.C. Tech Transfer

0.2%

APPENDIX C - SFU ENROLMENT DATA 

/

?

(2) HEAD COUNT 

INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATE STUDEWT REGISTRATIONS AT

SFU

C2

712

4,814

4.594

4.4%

627

2,814

213

4,724

1,472

721

423

5,465

122

5.4%

317 . ... ?

4,352

2,379

93-2

APPENDIX C - SFU ENROLMENT DATA

(3) BY CREDIT HOURS TAKEN

(I)104

00C) N.

CR ?

C)C)0

U) W- ?

U)•

L-1

P. ?

C) ?

P. P. -

U) C)

P. (0 0 'U N.

P. (0 U) - -

U) (0 U)

- - ?

- ?

C) ?

to U 0C)C)000

U) P.

U, U) U,

CC ?

- IC) ?

U, co .- CU-

P. 0 ?

C) ?

C) C)

II)

C) - ?

C) ? -

U,(0C)U,C) U)P.0CSJC)0P40C 0 CC

U)P.U,C)

- C) U)

P. -

P. ?

0 N

. 'CC ?

P. 0 P4

C) ?

U) U) ?

- ?

C) C) (0

C) ?

U) U) 0) 0 0 ?

U) .- U) .- N- ?

C) 0 C) (C)

P. 0 (0 t

. U) ?

)P4C)N0

.-C)--C) 0C)-(0C)

U,(CU,

0C)

P.C)C)

0 ?

co ?

C)P.0-P.

_r-.-

PJC)C)C'J v 0U,0

0 ?

P4 P %

P4 C) P4

(0 0) U) 0

C) .-

C,C-U)C) .-U,J(DC)C).(C 'C)..P.

OP. N- P4U)C) C) 000 C)0

OP. CUP. vP4P4P40 (00 U)(C N v 0

C)v

C) P

. ?

U) P.

U) CI) 0 ?

P. ?

C) CC (0 0 - — CU

P..-

(OP.

ID lo lo lo 0P.-.U)U)0P.C) U,P.C)U,

C) 0)C)(00

.-U,U, U)

C) (0 C) 0 0 0 C) 0 U) II) C) (0 P4

0 (0 '

C) 0 C) 0

C) ?

U) 0 U) CC

P. P.

(O0'U)

C)C)00) ?

U) ?

U).

U) U) C) C)

P. (0 co - P.

C) U)

P. .-

U) P. P.

C) P.N. P. C) ' C)

U)?

P..- U,

-. ?

0 P3

U)-O) -

.- • 'UU)

C(JU)(0U)

.- 0

U ?

0 0

W0U,(0C)C)P.C)CCU,

P.C)C)

U) C) C)

C-. N. P. N.

U C)

- 0)

N. P. N

P. ?

C) ?

-il-I

APPENDIX C — SFU ENROLMENT DATA

(3)

BY CREDIT HOURS TAKEN cont'd

APPENDIX C - SFU ENROLMENT 

DATA 

4) ? 

COMPARISON WITH 

UBC, 

UVIC 

'.

.• '. ;• .•, it it .'

N. ?

C0 N. U.' ,.), NJ - I.

P- c-.a ,i.'

, a

C-i O

N.?

- ?

U.'

N. ?

i' i

- 0

I-0-

N. CD

_-)

1-)

N. ?

1.0 at) - sO '0 U.' F.' N.J

NJ NJ N--i 0.' CD F) N.' F)

N. P

. 0.' F) (.0 F) Na 0)

a-.

0.' ?

0.'

02ØCO0

ICO2(-

0 I-

4052.50

U.)

NJ N.'w

U' '0

N. co

- NJ F) ?

U) .0 P.

N. co

lail ia

ia ?

JapanGermanyTaiwanHong

United 

Indonesia

India

MalaysiaKong(PRC)Kingdom

States 

444

161

2547

31

32

1917

251142

32

1019

249

151

28121277151910 

23

1210

14

16

17

Norway

7

6

ThailandKenyaPortugalMacau

250

1936

10605

1

1

0

0

1

2

2

Israel

2

2

1

2

1

1

APPENDIX C - SFU ENROLMENT DATA 

(5) BY COUNrRY OF CITIZENSHIP 

?

Co

International Students In Undergraduate

Programs at SFU

By Country of Citizenship, Fall Semester Only?

2.1% 

2.1% 

2.0% 

APPENDIX C - SFU ENROLMENT DATA 

(5) BY COUNTRY OF CITIZENSHIP (cont'd) 

?

Appendix 1

International Students in Undergraduate Programs at

SFU ?

By Country of Citizenship, Fall Semester Only

COUNTRY    

i

lau

1.2i.

jr'

08.8%

_0.0% 99.5% 

- ?

0 ?

99.5%

0 -

14,323 14,551 15,299 15,239

Note: In Fail 1986, there were GGO undergraduate visa students. Breakdown by country of citizenship Is not available for Fall

1956. Estimates are provided above.

SOURCE: SSC6400

[]

APPENDIX D - SAMPLE BUDGET PROJECTIONS 

?

Dl

sas ? 

Implications of 3% International student admission limit with revenue neutrality

addti domestic total revenue

revenue per student ?

percent of total enrol

$138,720 $5,155,674 ?

ercent of total enrol

$336,600 $5,198,500 ?

percent of total enrol ?

$540,600 $5,217,500 ?

ercent of total enrol

$744,600 $5,236,500 ?

percent of total enrol ?

addt'l domestic total revenue int'l students' ?

percent of total enrol ?

$848,742 $5,373,286 ?

percent of total enrol

3.50%

New international tuition fee for 30 sam hrs

Domestic fee constant - $2040 per annum or $68 per sem hr.

Grandparented intl fee - domestic fee x 3

No change in student population - 15,000 approx. headcount or 368,782 course hrs (91 - 92 actual)

92/93 international student pop. - 815 avg. headcount

Avg. annual intake 1987 - 1993 - 4900 approx.

Ind student intake reduced to 3% of total intake i.e. 147/year

Assumes 3% intake gives 3.5% course load stock at end of Yr 4

Assumes 95% of international students pay differential fee

Assumes 5% of international students pay domestic fee reciprocity: diplomatic etc.

International student scholarship gives free tuition to 40 students @ 30 sem hrs each

Other financial aid and services (CIS) remain

2/17/93

APPENDIX E 

International Students at Canadian Universities..1990/91

SRJ

St. Mary's 

264

Brock 

182

9,563     

1.9% 

Saskatchewan 

140

17,800 

0.8% 

Source: StatsCan

.0

S)^

0 ?

Boland.Lauprecht Minority SCIS report to Senate

The Senate Committee on International Students was asked to examine the

University's policies regarding the admission of so-called 'visa' students and

regarding differential tuition fees for those students. The minority which endorses

this report disagree with the Committee's recommendations. Although we agree

with the majority's view that the current policies are 'reactive' rather than

purposefully constructed, we think the majority's recommendations perpetuate the

reactive nature of the existing policies.

The question which prompted the creation of this Committee was whether there

should be limits on the number of non-resident students allowed to major

programmes for which Senate has approved enrollment limitations and if so, at what

level. While recognizing that nobody could ever give a reasoned argument for why

the overall admissions should be limited to a specific level (e.g., 6.5%) or why a

programme's admissions be limited to a specific level, we think more effort should be

given to providing reasons for admitting international students in the first place.

Moreover, such reasons must form the basis for specific policies regarding admission

levels and differential tuition fees. In effect, we do not feel that the Committee has

adequately completed its assigned tasks.

The main question to ask is whether there should be a limit on the number of

students admitted to our undergraduate programme who are not permanent

residents of Canada. Our current limit is set at a number equal to 7% of the current

number of all undergraduate students. While it is important to consider whether

this is an appropriate limit, it is more important to first ask, 'appropriate for what?'.

If we wish to avoid continuing the reactive nature of the University's policies, this

important question needs to be answered before attempting to answer the questions

put to the Committee by Senate.

Needless to say, during the deliberations of the Committee, the opinions of guests

and respondents covered a full spectrum for each question we asked.

Virtually

everyone agreed that the University should admit visa' students.

Given the

widespread agreement, little consideration was focused on the general rationales for

the enrollment of non-resident students. The minority thinks the reasons

considered fall into three rough categories:

Boland- Lau precht Minority SCIS Report

page 2 of 6

(1)

Medium-run

cross-cultural benefits for domestic students. While it might be

difficult to measure these benefits, many 'students and faculty feel the

presence of students from other cultures increase the education possibilities

for domestic students. Different ways of viewing things we take for granted

add to our educational experience.

(2)

Long-run

economic benefits for B.C. that might result from business contacts

and other networking generated by 'visa' students who return to their home

countries after graduation. The rationale presumes that a sufficient number

of students will return to their home countries and achieve positions of

influence in government or business.

(3)

Short-run

financial benefits or costs of changing the level of differential fees.

Since 'visa' students will be paying tuition fees that are at least three times

what a domestic student pays, there is an obvious financial benefit to the

University's budget with each 'visa' student admitted. These benefits must

not be overestimated since even at triple the rate 'there is still a 40% subsidy.

Each rationale puts limits on any changes that the Senate may choose to implement.

Some examples:

(a)

If we think that medium-run cross-cultural benefits have a high priority,

then there would not seem to be any way of avoiding the importance of

placing limitations on the number of students in limited-enrollment

programmes. Specifically, if all 'visa' students chose to enroll in one

programme, then the cross-cultural benefits would be enjoyed only by the

students and faculty in a single programme. From a University wide

perspective such limited benefits might not seem sufficient to overcome the

fact that enrollment space is limited.

(b)

If we think the short-run financial benefits of increased tuition fees are

desirable, then we need to recognize that they promote an elitism of sorts,

namely, only those that can pay high fees will apply and this 'would be only

minimally offset by scholarships. Moreover, the cross-cultural benefits will

be limited to those provided by the very few countries that have sufficiently

high per-capita wealth to be able to afford the elevated fees. If we think it is

desirable to reduce the fees to avoid the elitism, then it still must be

recognized that the Board of Governors' current policy yields a significant

Boland-Lauprecht Minority SCIS Report

page 3 of 6

revenue which in these times of budget restraint could necessitate a

significant increase in tuition fees or a significant reduction in our ability to

service the domestic students currently enrolled.

could be that by inviting 'visa' students on the basis of uncertain and possibly

questionable benefits we are excluding domestic students that might by their

education make a more certain contribution to Canada. We think that any

long-run economic benefits would have to be explicitly financed by ear-

marked Provincial or Federal funds - perhaps by providing scholarships.

The Comthitthé' thajorit réôthends a significant rèductiö in the number of

'visa' students allowed to enroll in the University. While a reduction in the 7% limit

might be desirable on some grounds (for example, it might make limits unnecessary

in enrollment-restricted programmes such as Business Administration's which

currently allows a maximum of 10% 'visa' students), it would likely lead to a

situation that would be contrary to a promotion of the medium-run cross-cultural

benefits as noted above. Specifically, reducing the limit on the 'visa' student

enrollment to 2% still might result in the entire 2% enrolling in one programme such

as Business Administration's and thereby failing to allow all parts of the University

to share in the desired cultural benefits derived from the presence of the 'visa'

students.

The Committee examined data about the country of permanent residence for the

'visa' students who currently attend SFU. As the data show, the major sources are

three countries, all in Southeast Asia. This fact seems to compromise the medium-

run benefits. If the medium-run cross-cultural benefits have a high priority, then

the University must seek ways to attract undergraduate students from other regions

such as Africa and South America. One relevant policy used by other universities is

to limit the number of students from any particular country. While this policy might

involve administrative complications, such a policy might be the only way to reduce

the visa-student limit in a

manner

that preserves at least one aspect of the medium-

run benefits. ?

The problem of differential tuition fees

We think the presence of students from different cultures is important for the

domestic students in our classes even though it is difficult to quantify the

Boland-Lauprecht Minority SCIS Report

page

4 of 6

importance. Given the shortage of space for all students, domestic and 'visa', there

must be a limit on the number of 'visa' students admitted to the University. The

space shortage alone is a sufficient reason for the admission-limitation policy. What

has never been adequately explained is why the University imposed differential fees

in the first place.'

If there were no differential, the matter of reducing the limitation would be simple -

there would be no short-run effect on the University's budget. Putting the problem

in blunt terms, the University is addicted to the revenue obtained from the

differential fees. The majority's recommended policy, which would increase the

differential fees from $4000 to $9,000, may aggravate rather than elevate the

pressure on space access for domestic students. In effect, for each 'visa' student

admitted instead of a domestic student, the University's revenue will be greater by

$9,000. An increase of 110 'visa' students nets the University one million dollars

more. This is an incentive to increase the limit rather than reduce it. We think the

University needs to be cured of this addiction. Differential fees must be eliminated.

Obviously, the idea that differential fees be eliminated will be viewed as outrageous.

Nevertheless, if we fail to eliminate differential fees and instead increase them, we

will be led to the following problems.

Let us say that the University imposes the Committee's recommended differential

fee of $9,000 (which means that a 'visa' student would have to pay $11,000 per year).

(1) ?

Consider what parents might say when their child is denied access to

the

University while 'visa' students are admitted. It would seem reasonable for a

parent to say, 'I will pay the additional $9,000 if you admit my child rather

1 Despite what some members of the Committee think, for technical reasons one could never accurately calculate

the cost of educating one undergraduate student. The technical reason is called the 'allocation problem' and it

arises anytime a company produces more than one good to sell [see Arthur Thomas, 'The FASB and the allocation

problem', Journal of Accountancy, Nov. 1975]. In the case of a university, the products are not only

undergraduate degrees, but graduate degrees, contributions to research and development, teacher education and

certifications, etc.

In some cases, it might be thought that we are competing in a market for 'visa' students and thus should charge a

market price which indirectly will reflect true costs. Unfortunately, this presumes not only a market with a

homogeneous product (e.g. a high school diploma is the same as a university degree) but also that the other

participants in the market can calculate the costs. As economists might say, it presumes also that the market is in

equilibum. If there is no reason for why the market has reached an equilibrium, the going market price has little

meaning - that is, it is an unreliable basis for calculating costs or prices.

Boland- Lau precht Minority SCIS Report

page 5 of 6

than a visa student'. A tax-paying parent is not going to be satisfied by being

told that 'visa' students pay more. One more 'visa' students means one less

• domestic student no matter how much extra 'visa' students pay. Unlike

community colleges that can rent a trailer and hire part-time teachers

without having to worry about quality, paying a higher university tuition does

not provide more space in any university which has no excess-capacity.

(2) Consider what 'visa' students might say after paying the extra $9,000. 'Visa'

students will surely think that it is reasonable to expect that they be given

guaranteed access in limited enrollment programmes. If they are not given

guaranteed access, they are likely to feel cheated. They will pay 5 times more

•----•-but get nothing more forit._ ?

- ?

- -

If it is recognized (as suggested above) that the primary rationale for admitting 'visa'

students is to improve the education of domestic students, then it does not make any

sense to charge the 'visa' students more. Certainly, the cost of any reduction in the

number of 'visa' students ought not be born by 'visa' students. It would make more

sense to reduce the number of 'visa' students to 2 or 3 percent and recapture the lost

. revenue by increasing the tuition for all 14,000 students. For example, at the

forthcoming differential rate (three times the domestic tuition), a one percent

reduction (from the current 7% limit) would lead to a $40 increase in domestic

tuition per year. That's all. The domestic tuition would increase from $2040 per

year to $2080 per year. If continued for three more years, the yearly tuition would

be increased to $2200 and the visa-student limit would have been reduced to 3% -

which is a limit that most other Canadian universities seem willing to tolerate.

The extent to which the admission of 'visa' students is considered a desirable long-

run benefit, we think that either the B.C. or the Federal Government should be

obligated to

explicitly

finance such benefits. If they did finance such benefits, then

the tuition fees would not have to be increased.

The minority's alternative recommendations

We all agree on some basic facts that we have learned during the meetings of this

Committee. First, almost 70% of 'visa' students come to SFU from lower mainland

high schools or colleges. Second, almost all come from three Southeast Asian

countries. But most important, we learned that the imposition of differential fees

has made it difficult to straightforwardly deal with the questions raised by Senate.

^T

Boland- Lau precht Minority SCIS Report ?

page 6 of 6

We think it is important for the University to cure its addiction to differential fees so

that the question of admission limitations can be based on academic reasons rather

than financial considerations. Thus we recommend that:

(1)

Differential fees be eliminated - slowly, if necessary.

(2)

Tuition fees be slowly increased to recover any lost revenue not funded by the

provincial or federal governments.

If the University is unwilling to give up its addiction to differential fees and is

unwilling to deal with the fact that most 'visa' students come from one region and

most have been living in the Vancouver area, then we recommend the

status quo.

That is, there should be no changes in differential fees and no changes in the 7%

limit on 'visa' admissions. The only possible exception is that the current 10%

limitation imposed on Business Administration and Computing Science be extended

to all programmes which limit their errol1ment.

Given that almost 70% of 'visa' students come to SFU from lower mainland high

schools or colleges and almost all come from just three Southeast Asian countries,

we think the cross-cultural benefits of admitting 'visa' students in this manner are

severely limited. We thus recommend that:

(3)

In admitting 'visa' students, preference should be given to off-shore students.

(4)

For 'visa' students whose permanent residence is in the same region, their

admission be limited to a maximum of one percent (140 students) - where

regions can be defined as Europe, Africa, Central America, South America,

United States, Southeast Asia, Middle East, India-Pakistan, Mainland China, etc.

Signed (12 Feb 1993)

Lawrence '3o(aiuI

9-(arro Lauprecllt

Minority SCIS Report - S. Wade

Summary

The compilation of a report on the status of International Students at S.F.U. was

a long and arduous one. Much of the published data we consulted was inconclusive.

Yet, a report has come forth. While I disagree with some of the contentions and

assumptions which underlie the Committee's report, my Minority submission'differs

from the Committee's report only in two fundamental ways. First of all I recommend a

5% target for International Undergraduate admission, not the 3% target suggested by

the committee. Secondly, I also recommend that the stricture of Revenue Neutrality be

removed and that the majority reports recommendation of $10,000 be to charged all

international students.

The result of this would be that S.F.U. would enroll an additional 300

International Students (assuming that the Undergraduate Headcount remains at

15;000): Since revenue neutrality is attained at 3%, the University would have an -

extra $3 million at its disposal (300 x a minimum of $10,200.00) than the majority

report recommends. Monies so generated should be placed in a special "Educational

Expansion Fund" which should go towards meeting the increased teaching demand

which these students create. It seems only fitting that these funds be allocated to the

departments or faculties on the basis of the number of International Undergraduates

taking courses in their respective units.

If one accepts that each section taught by a sessional Instructor costs $6,000.00

per year, the $3 million could be used to create an additional 500 sections. This is a

significant increase in teaching capacity in times of very great budgetary uncertainty.

This Fund would allow the University to add extra sections of popular courses, to

continue funding existing courses, and allow for expansion of course offerings in a

climate otherwise very hostile to growth and curriculum renewal.

This proposal, if accepted, would allow for the enhancement of the curriculum

for both domestic and International Students, while also creating a few more places for

Canadian students than currently exists (although, admittedly, this proposal does not

go as far as the Committee's recommendations in this regard). The result of this plan

is that an interesting compromise is reached between preserving the demographics of

the Undergraduate Student population which now exists, opening up accessibility to

Canadians, and enabling the University to satisfy more of the teaching needs of its

Student population.

Introduction ?

When looking at the issue of International Students at.S.F.U., .1 first began

by looking at our current policy, and then determined if there was a problem with

that policy. Currently regulations call for a maximum of 7% International

Students in the University, a limit in some programs of 10% International

Students, and since 1984, the charging of Differential fees to International

Students. These three "pillars" of the existing policy are in place and are

achieving what they were designed to do. The question arises as-to whether the

status quo is a desirable situation or one which requires amendment.

One of the biggest questions regarding the current policy is whether it is

working, in other words, are International Undergraduates coming to S.FU. and

mingling with domestic Undergraduates and enriching their educational

experience. The committee seemed to feel that the current policy was not

working, charging that most of the University's International Students come from

one area (three places in the Far East {Hong Kong, Singapore, and Malaysia}),

and that they came from ethnic groups which were already well represented both

among the body politic of our Student population and amongst our recent group

of landed immigrants. Furthermore, they concluded that these Foreign students

tend to "cluster" together in social groups composed of students from similar

locales and cultural backgrounds. Since all the people asked to appear before

the committee tended to be administrators, officials, and other non-students, their

competency to judge the true effect of foreign students , or the actual degree of

social interaction between foreign and domestic students is highly questionable.

From their vantage point they were able to discern a less than complete picture

since their contact with, and opportunity to observe, foreign students outside of

the classroom is either very limited or non-existent.

Even within a group of students who come from a geographically

contiguous area, ethnically similar, and influenced by a similar host culture, more

diversity can occur than the average Canadian might think. Some people in

Singapore (studying here on Singapore passports) were originally born in

Indonesia, but moved to Singapore in the last twenty years to escape from the

violence meted out at the hands of the locals. We tend to attract ethnic Malays

(Malaysian Muslims) from Malaysia, and a few people of Subcontinental

extraction (who live in Malaysia and Singapore [these people being descended

from Tamil stock, as opposed to the residents from the Punjab and Sihnd who

make up the bulk of our Indo-Canadian population]). None of these sub-groups

are well represented among our recent immigrant groups. Some of our students

from Hong Kong are not ethnically Chinese. Even assuming on the face of things

that a substantial number of our International students are ethnically Chinese and

that we have a rather large indigenous population of Canadian born Chinese and

Chinese immigrants (despite what the committee said, this is what was really

meant when their report referred to our recent immigrant groups as contrasted

with the vast majority of our foreign students), unless people take the time to

inquire after a group of students they might causally see assembled in a corridor,

at a table in the cafeteria, or in a tutorial, how can they tell if these students are

born in Canada (in some cases being second or third generation), or if these

The Committee was not careful enough to differentiate between the

minute but significant differences that occur between our ethnically Chinese

International students (and the many subvariations which can occur even within

people coming from the same jurisdiction), and our indigenous population.

Anecdotal evidence, and popular "student culture" suggests that considerably

more interaction exists between International Students and domestic students

than the committee reports. A substantial number of student clubs have a very

diverse membership base which incorporates a substantial number of cross-

fertilization between the domestic and International populations. Organizations

such as Campus Crusade for Christ, Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, The

Muslim Club, The International Club, the S.F.U. Commonwealth Club, The

Malaysian and Singapore Student Association, The Chinese Student Association

and AIESEC have a very diverse- membership, and thus provide opportunities for

cross-cultural contact. Furthermore, the type of interaction and education which

goes on at this level, besides developing social and socialization skills, also

provides students with a taste of what they will be facing in the truly global

society which is emerging.

This interaction gives students a rare insight into other cultures, other

political systems and other ways of dealing with problems, despite the fact that

some of these regions have provided a fair number of recent immigrants (Hong

• ?

Kong most particularly); there is a value in having people who are "fresh"

(students intending to return to their place of origin). One of the most

fundamental ways in which an International student from, say Hong Kong, differs

from a landed immigrant from Hong Kong ,say, is by the fact that this Inter-

national student is intending to return to Hong Kong. He or she is preparing for

that eventuality, by keeping up on the news from "home", by looking at the

employment prospects in the colony, and by trying to make friends and network

contacts with school mates returning to Hong Kong. This student's primary focus

is on Hong Kong, his or her heart lies in Asia, as they prepare to return.

Conversely, a landed immigrant looks forward to the new challenges of his or her

new homeland, they look for jobs here in Canada, and they focus on the

Canadian or Vancouver scene. Their heart lies in North America.

One consistent point of the Committee was that 75% of our International

Students come from three jurisdictions. Yet should it be surprising that 75% of

our International Student's come from three? The University has never done

much to actively promote itself abroad. In effect it has left its International

recruitment up to market forces. Given our location on the Pacific basin, our

historical and current immigration patterns and our past and present link with the

countries of the Commonwealth it is hardly surprising that, our population of

International Students has its current demographic profile. The Committee

should not claim that at S.F.U. our attempts at Internationalization have failed

(which is the actual message of their report), and use this as a basis for ?

radically overhauling the status quo. A proper policy of Internationalization has

t-1I

yet to be tried at S.F.U. Something which has not been tried cannot be said to

3 ?

have failed.

One further error with the present policy, and the committee's critique of

it, arises from S.F.U.'s geographic location and relative newness. Due to

immigration patterns and geography, students, say from the Caribbean, are far

more likely to congregate in the Metro Toronto area. The Eastern regions of

Canada are of a far closer proximity to students from Africa and Europe. The

relative newness and the relative obscurity of S.F.U. on the world's stage (so far

as potential Undergraduates in Kenya or Liechtenstein are concerned) means

that these students are far less likely to apply to come to S.F.U. The Quebec

factor makes it far more likely that Francophone students (Students from the

French Community) will choose to study there.

Our differential fee structure (set to go to three times) almost ensures that

students from third world countries cannot afford to come here (even assuming

that they "discover" S.F.U.). Students in Europe tend to be given "grants" to

study at domestic Universities by their governments. To expect a student to

forego his or her state grant (since, with very few exceptions, these grants are

only valid in the student's home country), to move to a strange place (incurring all

the latent costs associated with this enterprise), to pay high differential fees, and

to register in a University which is basically unknown to them (due to the

institution's failure to adequately promote itself abroad), flies in the face of

reason. These factors make it unlikely that in the context of our present laissez

faire policy, S.F.U. could attract International students from other regions of the

world.

Rather than reducing the University's International student allocation by

some 57% because of unhappiness with the mix of students it currently attracts,

it makes far more sense to attempt to develop a policy of recruiting students from

far more diverse regions of the world, and for finding ways of promoting S.F.U.

abroad. This coupled with a scholarship fund for third world students and with

enhanced International services on campus would be a far more prudent course

to pursue. The University should promote itself abroad by printing and sending'

posters and information brochures to Canadian High Commissions, Consulates,

Embassies and Legations abroad.

Furthermore I would recommend that S.F.U. identify a couple of target

areas

(Africa,

The Near East, Central America), and work to promote itself in

these places. Possible approaches would involve Organizations such as Rotary

and the International contacts which individual faculty members and Units within

the University (such as the Latin American Studies program and field school, or

our Chinese field school) might have. International Academic conferences, such

as the recent Festival Hong Kong (held at S.F.U. in the fall of '92), also provide

an opportunity for S.F.U. to promote itself to academics, administrators, and

officials from other jurisdictions (I cite the above as an example, but hopefully the

University would decide to hold or attend forums held to celebrate areas such as

Latin America or Africa, areas where we are not currently well represented). If

we built upon these contacts, we might well attract students from some of these

L^^

regions (assuming that these were regions where we were not already well

4 ?

represented by International students currently).

BENEFITS

The Committee was less willing to examine the intangible benefits which

International students bring to campus and to Canada, preferring instead to look

at such dubious statistics as the balance of trade between the Dominion of

Canada and the Crown Colony of Hong Kong. Besides being a waste of effort,

the conclusions reached by the Committee on this issue could and should be

challenged. Firstly, the trade statistics which were examined (and the statistics

cited took the other two locales who supply the bulk of our International Students

into account), only cover "visible trade". Invisible exports such as financial

services, shipping, insurance, and foreign investment are not covered. Since

Asia's primary export to North America (besides populations) is investment, it is

not surprising that there would appear-to- be a substantial trade deficit-anddcapital

outflow in favor of the Far East as compared to North America.

Secondly, the numbers cited were for the entire Dominion, yet much of

British Columbia's trade (after the United States) is now with the Asia Pacific

region. Hence the published statistics are quite possibly an inaccurate projection

of what the balance and scale of trade between British Columbia and the Far

East. However, since the Committee's primary rejection to the argument that

International Undergraduates represented a potential future economic benefit for

• ?

the province or the country rested on these statistics, one can only conclude that

the conclusions reached are either erroneous, less than objective, or were not

properly backed up with relevant empirical evidence. Suffice to say that over the

past twenty years (the benchmark used by the Committee in their deliberations),

there has been a noted rise in offshore Asian investment in North America

(British Columbia and the West Coast of North America particularly). How much

of this is due to S.F.U. Alumni is open to question. However one cannot question

that there is a greater awareness of Canada in these regions nor can one easily

dispute that familiarity often leads to greater commercial contact between

different peoples (it is a historical fact of trade and geography).

Our International Student Alumni are our ambassadors in their respective

homelands. Those who have a favorable impression of Canada will in all

probability view Canadian projects more favorably than those who know less

about the country.

Whether this leads to greater investment is uncertain, but it

seems far more reasonable to assume that having International undergraduates

has been a far more positive influence on Canada's (or rather British Columbia's)

long run economic development than the committee's contention to the contrary.

Our Alumni identify with their old school (something not touched on by the

Committee, but something which might help indicate a link between S.F.U. and

enhanced economic benefits). Our Alumni Association chapters in these

countries are quite strong and their events are always very well attended.

One further benefit provided by the presence of International

Undergraduates is the wealth of guest speakers and opportunities for foreign

q^

employment, investment and cultural education which they bring with them. By

having people who are "going back", so to speak, we are afforded a wider range

of speakers and publications from these countries; speakers and publications

which give lectures and information on the politics, culture, customs and

conditions in these regions, lectures geared for domestic, not foreign

consumption. This affords S.F.U. Faculty, staff and Students a rare opportunity

to garner a glimpse into these countries and into what makes them tick.. When

one considers the growing economic and political importance of these places, the

value of this exposure for our students is quite obvious. These contacts, at

present, are not utilized to the extent that they could be. Since these have a

large number of their own citizens here at S.F.U., they are far more willing to

"service" them or to come to the University to give talks or hold events in

conjunction with the University than they might be if they had a far smaller

presence on campus. We could and should use these contacts as the basis for

giving our students, domestic and International alike, access to foreign

employment, travel, cultural, exchange and educational opportunities. These

often overlooked current and potential benefits afforded to us by our current

situation did not figure in the committee's report.

The International Undergraduates who are presently at S.F.U. afford

S.F.U. Students and Faculty a snap shot into the educational standards andthe

results of other systems of training, education and social organization. In some

cases our landed immigrants, depending on when they left their respective

countries, do not have the same capacity to provide this type of information.

Again when one considers the growing importance of the regions from which

most of our students come from, this data can be useful. While having

International undergraduates here allows us to gain a better understanding of

their host countries' cultures, we, while we have these students here, also are

able to influence or change their perceptions of Canada and North America. The

value of this contact for the future cannot be underestimated. Clearly there are

values to having International undergraduates here at S.F.U., values which do

not always show up in the balance of trade statistics for Hong Kong and Canada.

COSTS

Up to this point this submission has been little more than an defence of the

status quo, however it is over the issue of access that one finds oneself

convinced that a change must take place in our current Policy towards

International undergraduates. Firstly, the access problem is a system wide

problem, and is not limited to this University. Even if we eliminated all places for

International undergraduates we would still be turning away qualified Canadian

students (to keep this in perspective, next year we are set to admit some 4,600

under- graduates into this University, even at steady state, only a maximumof

210 of these would be International students (in practice usually we do not

exceed or meet our quota [the last couple of semesters when for the first time we

came close notwithstanding])). If one argues, as I have throughout-the

committee deliberations and throughout this document, that International

undergraduates are worth having and that they do have a positive effect upon the

campus environment and the educational experiences of us all, then the cost of

.

.

Ll^

the displacement which these students create is one worth incurring since the

greater good is served.

If the campus wishes to be "Internationalized", then it must be willing to

endure a wee bit of displacement for the laudable purposes it wishes to fulfill.

Still, in the context of our access problem, something must be done. The solution

is to mitigate this displacement, or perceived displacement to the greatest extent

possible without tinkering with the current "mix" among our student populations

which has served us so well for so long (the 18-24 age group, Mid-career,

"mature", International, and Senior Citizens). One means of achieving this end

is to lower the International student target, whilst one other option is to combine

the first solution with a different funding mechanism which will allow International

Undergraduates to study at S.F.U. while also creating some slots and course

offerings for Canadians.

Access and displacement are problems at S.F.U., but the problems with

displacement and access in the case of International students are particularly

acute because of the fact that our International Undergraduates tend to

gravitate towards some of our most popular programs, programs which cannot

even accommodate all the domestic students who wish to pursue them. There

are, of course, places within the University which have excess capacity, and

which for reasons of Tenure and Institutional structure cannot be downsized ; a

natural conclusion would be to redouble our efforts to channel more of our

• ?

students, but especially some of our International students, into these programs.

In effect, what the University has is more a problem with resource allocation

between faculties and units within the University, as opposed to a wholesale

overcrowding problem (although in some units such a statement would be

extremely hard to believe on the face of it). In effect, if our International

students could be induced to study Physics, say, this displacement (if one

• ?

wishes to call it that), would either go unnoticed or it would be mitigated

somewhat.

One way to facilitate this would be to require International Students who

transfer to S.F.U. with the equivalent of an Associate Degree (usually 60 credit

hours or more), be admitted by Faculty (with the Faculties of Business

Administration and Education requiring the equivalent of a minor in some other

discipline and a few qualifying courses to be completed at S.F.U. as the criteria

for admission to their Faculties). Conversely, if this regulation was thought to be

too onerous, or potentially in violation of Human Rights legislation, then this

policy could be adopted for all transfer students who transfer with the equivalent

of an Associate Degree (so long as it remains possible to change Faculties fairly

easily). This would mean that, because of the head start which many of our

International students have in the realm of quantitative skills and because of the

difficulty which some of them have with courses which involve a high degree of

English competency, that they would be induced to study courses which qualify

for admission into the Faculty of Science.

0From Science some of these students could either switch faculties, or

they could take a minor in their chosen Science subject, and take their degree in

business. Since some of the prerequisites for Business and Science are similar,

7 ?

pairing the two together is not as ludicrous as first meets the eye. For those

students who do not get to "the promised land", they would still, for the most

part, graduate as Science students (either with a minor in Economics, or in. some

other Business related discipline).

One thing the Business Faculty could consider doing, is implementing

certificate programs for students who take courses or pursue programs within the

Faculty without completing a degree (Certificates in Commercial Studies).

Typically these would either be completed by students studying in other units of

the University (Communications or Geography, say), or by students who tried to

gain admission to the Faculty, but were denied admission (those in the "paradise

denied" category). This would solve some of our overcrowding problems, while

also working towards making the displacement problems somewhat less

onerous. One further way of solving the problem of overcrowding in popular

programs is to establish a 10% limit on International students for any limited

enrollment program (as the committee suggested). This would again control the

number of International students enrolled in programs which have limited space

even for our domestic students.

CONCLUSION

If the intention of having foreign undergraduates here is to have them

come into contact with our domestic students and enrich their educational

experience, the Committee's recommendations will do just the opposite. Fewer

International undergraduates will be on campus, they will all tend to "cluster" in

the Faculty of Business Administration, in the Departments of Communications,

Computing Science and Economics, and they will, especially with these higher

fees, be more inclined to bury their noses in their books. Furthermore, the dearth

of like cultured people to provide a "peer support group" will, in light of the above

two factors coming into operation, mean that these students will be even more

inclined to "cluster" together socially, retreating into a parochial ghetto. One

further problem I have with the Committee's report is its assumption of a steady

state Undergraduate population; in light of the University's budget crisis and the

potential effect it will have on the sessional teaching budget (and we must

remember that a considerable amount of teaching is done in this University by

sessionals [admittedly not as much as in years past, but still a significant

amount]) it is quite possible that the University may decide to downsize.

If the revenue brought in by fewer International undergraduates (3% in

the case of the Committee's recommendation), matches the amount brought in

by more (6% + in this case), it does not necessarily follow that the University will

make up for the International Students it eliminates by accepting domestic

students. The policy of the University in the past few years has been to only

accept additional students which we received government funding for. Since we

have a few students wandering the corridors still left over from the Access

program (students we were not fully funded for since our G.P.A. target was

inaccurate), it is conceivable that the University could very well say that since we

have a budget crisis and because in past years we took students whom we were

not fully funded for, that these student places would become redundant. The

feepaying, Non-Income tax paying, unenfranchised, International Students. The

political fallout from such a scenario could be substantially less than if Canadian

positions were axed because our budget crisis was so acute that it would not

allow us to hire enough sessionals to educate S.F.U. Students. These reductions

in students could represent S.F.U.'s contribution to downsizing.

Since our University is full, and our teaching resources stretched to the

point that we have to hire outside sessional teachers to teach our courses, it is

highly unlikely that the University would seek to add places in the next few years,

especially if these places were of a more highly subsidized nature than those

they were replacing. Short of having faculty teach more, increasing the

differential fees to pay for additional teaching resources, having a pot of money

fall from the sky, or raising domestic tuition levels to politically unacceptable

levèIs, it is highly unlikely that the committee's solution to the problem at hand will

create the number of spaces for Canadian students they would have us believe.

• A better solution must be found , one which balances the desirability of having a

healthy number of International Undergraduates here, off against the necessity of

providing access for Canadians. A solution must also be found which does more

than provide revenue neutrality for the University, a solution must be found which

will allow the University to tackle its budgetary problems, so that it can continue

to provide the level of service which it currently provides to the Undergraduate

•

students of the University. It is with the desirability to maximize the advantage to

the University that I propose the recommendations which follow.

RECOMMENDATIONS

-A limit of 5% International Students.

-A move towards something approaching cost recovery, by charging either

$10,200.00 ($340.00 per credit hour) or $8,000.00 ($266.67 per credit hour)

for a full year of study (keeping in mind that McGill, who charge the highest fees

for International Students in the Country, only charge something over $7,000.00

). I will stay with the Committee's recommended fee of $10,200.00, but if it is

found that the University cannot "sell" all its slots at $10,200.00, then I would

advise coming down to $8,000.00. The difference between the two fee

schedules being $600,000.00 or 100 course sections

-The establishment of a special "Educational Expansion Fund" to handle this

tuition revenue, and to ensure that this money is used for expanding the course

offerings and for creating new courses or sections of courses. This will work to

ensure that the money goes towards offsetting the spaces which these students

take up, while also helping to create some new spaces for Canadian students,

thereby offsetting or mitigating the displacement ( or supposed displacement)

which these International students are said to create. A formula would be

•

derived to distribute the money whereby the units within the university (Faculty's

and Departments) which have the greatest number of International students

would receive the greatest payouts from this fund. The expressed aim of this

fund is "Educational Expansion", and the money would.go. for just these

purposes.

-A Scholarship fund shall.be established for 10 Foreign Students; per year (a.

scholars from Commonwealth countries, preferably ones in which we are not

currently well represented by International Students.

-Grandparenting provisions for all International Students currently

registered in,,

the University as of 93-2. This provision shall' have' a statute of limitations.

running for five years, at which time, unless a student can, prove just cause in

their specific case, it will run out.

-Those students currently being "grandparented", will still be eligible for the Open

Scholarship, for bursaries or any other type of financial award and/or assistance

they are either currently receiving or are currently eligible forI would also

recommend that the University continue to remit some of the differential revenue

back into financial aid for International students..

-1 would also suggest that the Centre for International Students continue in,

operation, but I would suggest the following changes to the centre to bring it more

into focus with the International role I wish the Centre and the School to embrace.,

The Centre for International Students (currently headed;by Kay

Pearson),

be merged with the International relations and Exchanges side of things. This

would work to "package" all of our International services into one, and it would

work to facilitate better communications between the two sides of our

International operation.

The Centre for International Students be given a larger space in the. new

Student Services Building, commensurate with its expanded. role

The centre will be in charge of all international activities (in co-ordination

with SCIA), and will handle foreign inquires regarding S.F.U. and its courses, of

study.

The centre will develop (in conjunction with the Subcommittee of SCIA

charged with overseeing exchanges), exchange agreements with other

Universities, both in Canada and abroad.

The centre will keep in close contact with campus clubs which

have an

International focus (the Singapore and Malaysian Student Society, the S.F.U.

Commonwealth Club, the International Club), and will provide some space (such

as mail boxes or bulletin boards) for the exchange of information about activities,,

campus events and speakers.

The centre will be a nerve centre for International job postings, research

10 ?

opportunities, and other such services, both for International students and

Domestic Students.

The Centre will serve as both S.F.U.'s face on the world and the world's.

entree to S.F.U.. People such as consular officials who come to campus to give

talks on conditions in their countries or about employment opportunities, would.

go through the centre, as would any other International groups wishing to

establish a presence on campus. It is hoped that the Centre would establish a

healthy dialogue with sister institutions of higher learning and scholarly research

around the world, with the intention that eventually when S.F.U. Faculty or

Students wished to embark upon an International activity, that they would look

to the centre as the first step in their attempt at "internationalization". To facilitate

this, I would suggest that the Centre no longer report to Student Services, and

ultimately-to the V.P.-Administration, but rather, that the Centre should report to

Dr. Jack Blaney, V.P. for Harbour Centre , and Director of External Relations.

Conversely, The Centre could report to Dr. Judith Osborne, Associate Academic

V.P., who would become, in effect, Associate V.P. for Students.

That the Centre be given a mandate to try to interest our International

alumni in the provision of Scholarships for International Students. Also, any

attempts at fundraising abroad would also be co-ordinated through the centre

(assuming that it falls under Dr. Blaney's realm of responsibility).

That the Centre be given the responsibility for promoting and

administering our International Student policy (in all areas save for admission of

Students, receipt of applications or judging document accreditation).

The centre will expand its social service and orientation role.

The Centre will endeavor to expand its counselling services for

International Students. One option is to use "peer counselling" (incorporating

both Canadian and International students into this process), or to have the

Centre act as a referral service for Students who are sent there by their

respective departments.

In time it is hoped that the Centre would become the place which ?

Departments would contact if they had queries regarding International Students.

The Centre would continue to be funded in the same manner that is

currently funded. Any operations transferred to its responsibility would have a

concomitant transfer of operating funds from the unit which formerly operated the

service.

-The above formula and recommendations are contingent upon SCAP, Senate

and the Board of Governors ratifying the above as a package.

Senate is asked to pass this package with the rider that should the Board seek to

amend this proposal by adjusting the admission figures by more than 1% either

way, that Senate's endorsement is revoked, and this piece.-Of 1egislation wouJd

cease to be of any legitimacy.

It is hoped that the above recommendations and the report hasserved to.

illuminate some points in this very complex and divisive issue. 1

, hope1hat my,

report completes the picture of this issue, and that those who read:itstiaIl.findit

useful.

Respectfully submitted

Shawn M. Wade, Student Member

of the University Senate.