SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
MEMORANDUM
S.006--57
To: Senate
?
From:
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
ACADEMIC PLANNING
Subject:
REGISTRATION PRIORITY
?
Date:
November 8, 1985
In 1982, Vice-President Academic Dr. J. Munro appointed a small ad-hoc
committee to consider the problems associated with the ability of the
University's current registration priority system (now based on credit
hours completed and time of receipt of preregistration form) to cope with
the increasing demand for specific course placements. A preliminary report
was prepared in June, 1982 and a final report, with recommendations, was
considered by the Senate Committee on Academic Planning at its meeting of
September 11, 1985. Both reports, as well as responses to them received
• ?
from Faculties, are attached for information.
At its
meeting, SCAP approved a set of five motions, as set out below,
designed to put into place a new registration priority system at SFU. These
were forwarded to SCUS for consideration prior to their transmission to
Senate. SCUS approved all motions except MOTION
#3
because of the
concern with the growing number of restrictions for entry into programs
and courses based on OPA criteria. MOTION 3 was subsequently returned to
SCAP at its Nov 6, 1955 meeting; however, a motion to reconsider was
defeated.
Therefore, action undertaken by the Senate Committee on Academic Planning
gives rise to the following set of motions for consideration of Senate.
MOTION I
THAT SENATE DELEGATE TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES THE RESPONSIBILITY TO APPROVE AND
REVIEW PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES INCORPORATING MOTIONS 2
THROUGH 5 WHICH FOLLOW INTO THE UNIVERSITY'S REGISTRATION
SYSTEM.
-2-
MOTION 2
THAT FACULTIES OFFERING COURSES WHERE STUDENT DEMAND EXCEEDS
COURSE ENROLMENT LIMITS BE ALLOWED TO RESERVE A SPECIFIED
NUMBER OF COURSE PLACES FOR PARTICULAR GROUPS OF STUDENTS,
SUCH AS MAJORS, COOP STUDENTS, ETC.
MOT ION3-
Mo +# on r
A sLed.
S. M ,
412-
15
THAT FACULTIES
OFFE?ITS
COURSES WHERE STUDENT DEMAND EXCEEDS
COURSE ENROLMENT III
?
BE ALLOWED TO SPECIFY GPA MINIMA FOR
ENTRY INTO THE CORSE.
MOTION 4
THAT PRIORITY ACCESS TO A RESERVED COURSE PLACE AS SET OUT IN
MOTION 2 BE DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF
A)
SEMESTER HOURS COMPLETED, AND TO A LESSER DEGREE
B)
LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE IN RECENT SEMESTERS.
MOTION 5
THAT IN THE CASE OF WD WITHDRAWALS FROM COURSES WHERE
STUDENT DEMAND EXCEEDS COURSE ENROLMENT LIMITS, STUDENTS LOSE
PRIORITY IN THAT COURSE FOR THE NEXT SEMESTER.
WJW/gg
C
tj
Sane
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
MEMORANDUM
To: Senate Corrirmttee or,
?
From:
'il.
Wattarriartiuk
Academi
c
Planning
?
Secretary
Subject:
Reqistrotion Priority Report ?
Date:
October 31, 115
In September 1985, sL:iF' dealt with the report of the al-hoc: Committee on
Registration Priority System (E;i::AF' 65-10
.
). Re::ornrnendations in the form
of five motions approved at SCAF' later went forward to SCUS and to Senate
(see attached transmittal memo frcan Sc.AF' to Senate).
n SCIJE;, all motions were approved
except
Motion #3:
"That Faculties
offering
courses where student demand
exceeds
course enrollment limits be allowed to specify GPA minima for.
entry into a course."
The attached memo frcrn W. R. Heath, Secretary to SCUS
indicates
why the
motion was defeated at SCUS.
Motion 03
is thus being brought back to SC:AP for reconsideration.
SIMON. FRASER UNIVERSITY
MEMORANDUM
/
To: Walter Wattamaniuk
?
From:
W. R. Heath
Secretary,
SCAF' ?
Secretary, SCLIS
?
I
Subject:
Registration Priority Report
?
Dote:
October 2 1, 1
?
5
4
In response to the referral from SCAP, SCUS recently discussed the proposal
for changes
changes to the University's registration priority system. In the end,
motions 1,
2,
4 arid 5 from SCAP were approved while motion 3 was not
sup pci rt cii.
Briefly, in recornrne.ndinq against the implementation of motion 3, SCUS was
concerned about the growing number of restrictions for entry to programs
and courses, largely based on some
sort
of GPA. In the extreme, students
rriight beai]rnitted to a program only to find that they were unable to gain
entry to courses required for that program. While there was no direct
motion or directive, the conc:erisus was that there is a need for the
consideration of 1 irniti nq entry to programs to that number of students who
can
be acc:omrriodated by University resources. Once admitted, those
students would have reascinabi e assurance that they would be able to obtain
the required courses. It seemed that the measures proposed were part of a
piece-meal approach to cope with the larger problem. It was the opinion of
SCUS that such consideration-S- were within the province of SCAR
0
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
scuis
MEMORANDUM
To: Senate Committee on
?
From:
W. R. Heath, Secretary
Undergraduate Studies
?
SCUS
Subject:
Registration Priority System
?
Date:
October 10, 1985
The attached report from the committee established by SCAP to investigate and recommend
changes to the Universitys registration priority system was reviewed and accepted by SCAP
at its meeting of September II, 1985. The five resulting motions that were a
pp roved were
forwarded to SCAR, but it was the decision of SCAR that SCUS should consider the motions
before their transmission to the Senate. This decision arose not out of disagreement
with
the motions but rather on procedural grounds. The motions, if approved by Senate, would
give specific responsibility for the registration priority system to SCU5, and accordingly
SCUS should have the opportunity to review and respond to the motions.
Should the proposal receive the appropriate approvals, the Office of the Registrar would
prepare for SCUS a detailed plan for implementation that would be incorporated into the
•
registration process currently under development. Projected implementation would be the
Fall Semester 1986.
10
SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
MEMORANDUM
'To ?
Seflat.
?
From
.
.
ecome....cؕrpjc
......
P
.l.n.nin.g....................................
Subject ......
.RG1S.TJEkII0...R.IQR.TT
....'(SJ.M........
?
Date .......
.
Ocip.bej.1Q,..l95.........................
In 1982, Vice-President Academic Dr. J. Munro appointed a small ad-hoc
committee to consider the problems associated with the ability of the
University's current registration priority system (now based on credit hours
completed and time of receipt of preregistration form) to cope with the
increasing demand for specific course placements. A preliminary report was
prepared in June, 1982 and a final report, with recommendations, was
considered by the Senate Committee on Academic Planning at its meeting of
September 11, 1985. Both reports, as well as responses to them received from
Faculties, are attached for the information of Senate.
Action undertaken by the Senate Committee on Academic Planning gives rise to
the following set of motions for consideration of Senate.
MOTION 1
THAT SENATE DELEGATE TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES THE
RESPONSIBILITY TO APPROVE AND REVIEW PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES
INCORPORATING MOTIONS 2 THROUGH 5 WHICH FOLLOW INTO THE UNIVERSITY'S
REGISTRATION SYSTEM.
MOTION 2
THAT FACULTIES OFFERING COURSES WHERE STUDENT DEMAND EXCEEDS COURSE
ENROLMENT LIMITS BE ALLOWED TO RESERVE A SPECIFIED NUMBER OF COURSE PLACES
FOR PARTICULAR GROUPS OF STUDENTS, SUCH AS MAJORS, COOP STUDENTS, ETC.
MOTION 3
THAT FACULTIES OFFERING COURSES WHERE STUDENT DEMAND EXCEEDS COURSE
ENROLMENT LIMITS BE ALLOWED TO SPECIFY GPA MINIMA FOR ENTRY INTO THE
COURSE.
MOTION 4
THAT PRIORITY ACCESS TO A RESERVED COURSE PLACE AS SET OUT IN MOTION 2 BE
DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF
A)
SEMESTER HOURS COMPLETED, AND TO A LESSER DEGREE
B)
LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE IN RECENT SEMESTERS.
MOTION 5
?
S
THAT IN THE CASE OF WI) WITHDRAWALS FROM COURSES WHERE STUDENT DEMAND
EXCEEDS COURSE ENROL1NT LIMITS STUDENTS LOSE PRIORITY IN THAT COURSE FOR
THE NEXT SEMESTER.
O
illi
c4ryT ?
p
1.
,4..
t
?
çç'
_L
?
fl?J ;TTV
SCAP
S-lO
MEMORANDUM
To:
senate C
onImAttee on
?
From:
W. Wattatmniuk
•
, £ecretar
Academic Planning
?
Senate Committee on Academic PLnni
Subject:
Report of the Ad-hoc
?
Date:
September 5, 19E
Committee
on the Registration
Priority System
The Report of the Curnrriittee on the Reqitration Priority System was received by SCAF and
tabled for information at the April 3, 105 meeting. At that time, SCAF requested that Dr.
E:her, y ood,
who chaired the Committee, review the responses to the report, consult with the
Registrar, and advise SCAP on a plan of action.
I attached for your information:
(a)
the report of the Committee
(b)
responses received limit Deans
Dr. Sherwood will be in attendance on Wednesday to address SCAR on this issue.
Ip
SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
?
MEMORANDUM
S
enate
coç.p
Sub1ect
REPORT OF THE AD-HOC COMMITTEE ON THE?
REGISTRATION PRIORITY SYSTEM
From ...
.....
.
arlarlU.
.............................
...
.....................................
Date...i4
1
SL
MI.
.19.8.5
...............................
At Dr. Ivany'S request, I am attaching a copy of the final report of the
Ad-Hoc Committee on Registration Priorities (chaired by Dr. Alden Sherwood
from Chemistry).
Members may recall that the Ad-Hoc Committee was appointed in 1982 by the
Vice-President, Academic, Dr. Munro, to look at the problems associated with
the ability of the present priority system to cope with the increasing
competition amongst students for specific course placements. The Ad-Hoc
Committee prepared a preliminary report which SCAP discussed on July 7, 1982
(SCAP 82-18).
The final report is being presented to SCAP for information and general
discussion regarding the recommendations within. Based on the feedback, a
specific set of proposals may be presented for action and debate at a later
meeting. Dr. Sherwood will be available to answer questions.
WW/em
Att
.
ri-in
U1'IIVLIt -1 I
MEMORANDUM
S
'
?
From..... ?
A.G.
Sherwood
Y.9c.,.Asa4si.
?
.c. ?
.............
Subject .t ?
cai
?
rtio
?
Priorities
?
Date............
File: Corres4000. D.66
The Ad-Hoc Committee on the Registration Priority System was appointed In
March 1982. It was given the task of examining the registration priority system
and with bringing forward recommendations on the matter. Original members of the
committee were A.C. Sherwood (Chairman), D. Foth, Ted McNabb and H. Evans. T.
McNabb, the student rep., left campus and no replacement was available so the
work was completed by the remainder of the committee.
In response to some pressing problems
)
a preliminary report was made in
June of 1982. I have enclosed a copy for your convenience.
Since that time, the committee has grappled with the problem of producing a
priority system compatible with a registration system which was yet to be
created. Rather than awaiting completion of the planning of the new registration
system, we have chosen to make some assumptions about desirable features of the
system and to devise a priority system to fit. We have had extensive consulta-
tions with people in the registrar's office and Harvey Nagel and David Sznithers
have been most helpful.
Enclosed, then, is our report.
(j(2
77b1
?
'rv(
/ A.G. Sherwood
AGS : pw
Enclosures
Dr. J.M. lluriro
To
.........................................................
Vice- President, Acdeniic
Ad-Hoc Committee on Registration
Suboci....
...
..................................................
Priority System
i). A C.
?
h
rwc,od ?
C ?
i rmn of
It
or ?
...................................
A-HCPPS (! )
I 8 ) .
98
?.
..
The committee has completed an initial consideration of problems associated with the
registration priority system and offers the following analysis by way of an Interim
report.
Registration priority rating is now based essentially on the number of credit hours of
coursework which each student has completed in his degree program. It Is calculated and
selection
printed on
of
the
courses
preregistration
is made.
form before the student receives
it, i.e.,
before the
Although It would be possible to use another formula for the calculation of registration
time
priority,
of
pr
the
eregistration.
formula must
This
be based
information
on information
does not
already
include
in
grades
the permanent
obtained
record
in the
at
semester
the
preceeding the one for which the student is registering, nor does it include any infor-
mation about the course selection indicated on the preregistration form. This rather
severe limitation is imposed by the computer facility used for the registration process.
With these limitations, no significant improvement in the method of calulating regis-
tration priority is possible.
We
trat
therefore
io n
p r iori
recommend
t
y system
that
within
no effort
the context
be exof
p
ended
the present
in attempting
computer
to
system,
improve
but
the
that
regis-the
-onimittee
1
2 r
ovement in
work
computer
to developpp1es
facilities
for
w
i
ll
asystem
take place.
based on the assumption that an
Ihe above is a long-term project. There are, however, some problems which require
resolution before the next preregistration procedure begins this summer.
Extended Studies Diploma Students, notably
in
Computing and Business Administration,
have, in the past, been given the highest priority rating. The departments involved
have argued that top priority should be given to their own honours, majors and minor
students. The committee feels that priority rating should continue to reflect the
decrease of flexibility available to students as they near completion of their programs.
In principle, then, priority should be determined by the number of semester hours
required to complete the program. This information is not, however, available in the
permanent record and so, since ESD students most
commonly
require 30 semester hours of
coursework for the program, the committee makes the following recommendation:
pri
We
or
recommend
i
tyrti
that
9
of?
FSD
and
stud
that
ent's
t
h o
who
setl
have
o
haveco;npedm
completed 15 semester
?
than
hours
15 semester
or
f ewer be
hours
aiven
be?
a
g i
ven a
firio
If a department feels that its
?
honours, majors and minor students will be severely
?
disadvantaged by such a principle, serious consideration should be given-to limiting
the admission of ESD students in that area
?
The university should not admit students?
to programs unless there is rca sonable probability that the necessary courses will be
i1a,le during the time normally required for
completion of
the program.
'
?
41
- ?
w"Dr.
'iii. Munro
?
-
)une 18, 1982
Page 2
Second Undergraduate Program Students should be assigned priority on a similar basis.
Since programs for these students commonly involve 60 semester hours of credit,
We recommend that candidates in second or further undergraduate programs be given
priority ratings asToTTows:-
Semester Hours Completed
?
Priority
0-15
4
16 -30
?
3
31-45
2
46-60
1
Students in CO-OP Programs have occasionally had difficulty gaining admission to
specific courses which are required In preparation for practica. Although CO-OP
students have reduced flexibility because of the necessity of scheduling practica
in their programs, the assignment of higher priority rating does not seem to be a
sensible solution to the problem. All CO-OP students do not rqjç all courses
that they request. The department involved should have the opportunity to meet the
needs of its CO-OP students without disrupting the programs of its other students.
?
-'
We therefore suggest the following procedure:-
We recommend that students not be given higher priority rating by virtue of involve-
ment in a CO-OP Drocra
ram. A department with a limited enrollment course which is
essential to some CO-OP students should re_yister these students in the course on an
overload basis.
Careful assignment of class capacity will be required to ensure the degree of flexi-
bility necessary to accommodate these overloads, but these procedures should meet the
needs of CO-OP students without needlessly disrupting the registration priority. system.
If these recommendations are accepted, they can be incorporated into the 82-3 pre-
registration procedures and the committee can proceed with the task of developing the
principles mentioned In the first recommendation.
X
Ar_-_Derwof
W
o
AGS:pd
c.c. - H. Evans, Registrar
0
November 7, 1984
REPORT OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON }EGISTRATION PRIORITIES
•
The Committee has examined the role of the registration priority system
in the registration process and has prepared a recommendation of a
registration priority system compatible with a new computer-based
registration system.
1. THE PRESENT SYSTEM
The resources of the University are limited, to the extent that all
students cannot have access to every section of every course. The
registration process must therefore include a system by which
conflicting demands are assigned priority.
In the present registration system, a priority is assigned to each
pre-registering undergraduate student on the basis of the number of
credit hours of coursework completed.
The pre-registration period is divided into two intervals. Forms
received during the first interval of about 2 weeks duration are
manually ordered according to priority and those with equal priority
are ordered according to date of receipt of the approved form. These
-. forms are processed by computer in order and students are thereby
assigned to classes. .
?
0
During the second interval, which constitutes the remainder of the
pre-reg period, forms received each day are ordered according to
priority and are processed each day.
Assigned priority is involved in in-person registration as well since
admission to the registration hail is in order of priority. Late
registration is conducted on a first come-first serve basis.
A significant fraction of students registered in a particular course
are dropped from the initial class list mainly because they do not pay
their fees. This process provides openings which must be filled as
early as possible. Thus, not only must the initial preparation of
class lists be complete before the beginning of classes, but the
preparation and delivery of invoices must be complete as well.
Preparation of adjusted invoices is necessary when withdrawals, course
changes or late registrations take place.
The whole process presently requires some eight weeks. This lengthy
period consumes an inordinately large number of man hours of time, and
is based on questionable criteria for determining access to class
places.
For departments, the only management of enrolment possible is a limit
/. .2
• ?
on the total number of students who enrol in a course. The 'mix' of
these students by major, faculty etc. cannot be controlled. In
addition, where other enrolment restrictions exist (such as business
and Computing CUMGPA minimums) they cannot be enforced by the system.
2. THE PROPOSED REGISTRATION PRIORITY SYSTEM
The acquisition, by the registrar, of improved computer facilities will
allow the development of a registration system which will proceed with
greater speed, less manual labor, greater accuracy and will provide the
opportunity for the use of a more effective priority system.
Although the new registration system has yet to be developed, it is
necessary to anticipate some of its essential teatureS in order to
devise a compatible priority system.
Desirable teatures are:
- The registration system should allow departments to specify a
number of reserved course places for its major students, Co-op
students, etc.
- It should allow a department to specify GPA minima for any of
these reservations.
Such specifications might take the following form:-
ASTR 123-4
TOTAL PLACES 120
GROUP
PLACES
RESERVATION
NUMBER
GPA MIN
NO WD
1 RS
30
CHEM
25
0
0
COOP
05
0
X
2 RS
30
BICH
10
0
0
ENSC
10
0
0
OPEN
10
3.0
0
3 E
30
EVON
20
0
0
OPEN
10
0
0
4
DT
30
DT
ON
20
0
0
OPEN
10
0
0
.
/..3
In the above example, the effect has been to reserve 25 places in- grôi.rp
'
.1 of course ASTR 123-4 for Chemistry majors and minors and 5 places for
Co-op students. ?
In Group 2, 10 places have been reserved for
Biochemistry majors, 10 places for Engineering students and the
remaining 10 places open to any student with a GPA ot 3.0 or better.
In group 3 which is conducted in the evening, 20 places are reserved
for evening-only students arid the remaining 10 are open. In group 4,
given downtown, 20 places are reserved for downtown-only students and
10 places are open. In a similar way, some DISC course places may be
reserved for DISC-only students.
The final column indicates that Co-op students who have previously
withdrawn from this course have no priority tor this course and must
register for it on a course-add basis. Other places have no such
limitation. This matter is discussed later.
A department may be authorized to specify that enrollment in a certain
number of its courses will he by department approval only. This could
apply to FPA courses where auditions are required or to Special Topics
courses where formal approval processes are required.
A student eligible for a place in any reserved group of a particular
course will have access determined by his Registration Priority Rating
ie. students will be assigned to places in order of their RPR until the
reserved places have been filled.
The committee considered many factors which might have determined
priority rating.
?
S
1.
Course credits completed
This was regarded as the single factor which most seriously
influences the degree of flexibility that a student enjoys in
selecting his courses. A student in his .final year of study may
have no flexibility at all. If access to a particular course is
denied, he may require another semester of study in order to take
the one course to complete his program.
2. G.P.A.
If course places are limited, more successful students should have
first access. It is recognized that there may be temporary problems
which should not be allowed to permanently handicap a student in
gaining access to courses so it is suggested that the G.P.A. be
averaged over those semesters immediately preceeding the semester
for which registration is taking place and which includes at least
30 semester hours of credit.
"
?
.
/..4
3.
Course load
It might be argued that a larger course load decreases flexibility
and therefore should confer a higher priority rating. Many students
. ?
work part time and this is also a factor which decreases
flexibility, so, course load is not recommended as a factor
which
should determine priority rating.
4.
Students on AP or AW
These students are in enough difficulty without imposing penalties
beyond those already imposed by virtue of their GPA.
5.
Student has previously withdrawn from a course
It is the recommendation of the committee that, except in the case
of WE withdrawals, the student should lose all priority for that
course, i.e., the department may chose to deny the student access to
the course until all other requests for the course have been
processed. This loss of priority should last for one semester.
This might seem a harsh penalty but it seems reasonable to allow
every student equal opportunity to attempt the course and to make
the decision whether or not to withdraw.
Upon completion of a degree program, a student starts a new degree
or diploma program with none of these penalties carried over.
6.
The student is repeating the course
It .
should not be assumed that students repeat courses flippantly.
An unsatisfactory grade obtained in a first attempt would have the
effect of reducing priority rating through the GPA so no additional
penalty is necessary.
It seems, then, that a satisfactory registration priority system can be
based upon two factors: -the number of semester hours completed and the
level of performance in. recent semesters.
FOR EACH STUDENT
REGISTRATION PRIORITY is a number in the range Ii to 160 calculated
as follows:
REGISTRATION PRIORITY = TOTAL HOURS + (REGISTRATION GPA X 10)
Definitions
TOTAL HOURS
?
for Multiple degree students
= HOURS PASSED + 60 + CURRENT HOURS to a
maximum of 120
/..5
for Diploma students
= HOURS PASSED + 90 + CURRENT HOURS to a
maximum of 105
for PDP only students
= HOURS PASSED + 75 + CURRENT HOURS to a
maximum of 105
?
0
for all other students
= HOURS PASSED + CURRENT HOURS to a maximum of
120
The factors 60, 90, and 75 have been included
in
the formulas in the case of the Multiple
Degree, Diploma, and PDP only cases in order
to take into account the smaller number of
credit hours required for the completion of
these programs.
CURRENT HOURS ?
= The total hours in which a student is
currently registered, excluding audit and
challenge courses.
HOURS PASSED ?
= Total credit hours earned plus transferred
hours towards the current goals, excluding
duplicates and audit but including
successfully challenged courses.
REGISTRATION-GPA ?
= The CPA based on the last 30 SFU
hours attempted (including duplicates)
or
If less than 30 SFU hours but more than 9
hours attempted, then the CUM-GPA on the
transcript
or
If less than 9 SFU hours attempted, then the
ADMISS ION-GPA
ADMISSION-CPA ?
= For each admission category, the GPA as
defined in the admission regulations to
illustrate the effect of the system
S
I.
.6
r
in
-.
B
• 'Examples
STUDENT A
In final
?
semester,
?
total hours
= ?
120
CPA
=
?
2.5
•
Registration
priority =
?
120
+ ?
2.5(10)
=
?
145
STUDENT B
Total hours
= 80
CPA
= ?
4.0
Registration
priority = 80
+
4.0(10)
120
STUDENT C
Total hours
= 100
CPA
=
?
2.5
Registration
priority
= 125
'I
C.-,
14-10
SIMON
FRASER
STUDENT SOCIETY
Rotunda,
TC-321
29-3181
To: Dr. JWG Ivany ?
From: Sheila Monroe
Vice President, Academic
?
President
Subject: Registration Priorities
?
Date: 85.3.15
. . . . .
S • S • • • • • • S • • S •SS•• • . •.• • . . . .. . . . . S • • • • • • •.• •
•SS.•i.• IS......
S
The Student Society has received the draft proposal for
changes in the current registration priorities system. There were
several recommendations which concern us, including:
1.
The use of a weighted GPA factor;
2.
The loss of priority due to prior withdrawal from a course;
and
3.
Departmental reservations for courses.
?
S
The following comments have, been discussed with and ratified
by Student Forum.
1. Weighted GPA:
The Registration Priorities Committee assumes that 'GPA is
capable of making fine discriminations between students in
different programs and year's of study. At SFtJ, evaluation is an
inexact science. It is doubtful that differences of, for example,
a half a grade point are either valid or reliable criterion for
indicating the academic differences between students in the same
department and year. To believe that GPA can accurately
differentiate between students across the University is naive.
We cannot agree with the Committee that GPA is more
important in assigning registration priority than other factors.
We believe other important factors are: the relevance of a course
to a student's course of study; the length of time until
graduation, priority would have distinctly negative consequences.
Students should be encouraged, through their undergraduate
career, to explore disciplines and topics new to them. This
involves a risk of a reduced GPA. It is unreasonable to expect
stduents to explore other disciplines and to gain a wider
Registration Priorities 85.3.15
. . .
2
is
-2 -
education if the risks they take include increased
getting the courses they require for graduation. We
factor alone should rule out the use of a weighted
determining registration priorities.
difficulty in
?
believe this ?
GPS factor in
2. Withdrawal
3ered about is the
who have withdrawn from a
they register again for that
recognition to the reasons
These include any or all of
The second area that we are con
Committee's suggestion that students
course lose priority registration if
course. The report does not give any
that may lead a student to withdraw.
the following factors:
*the quality of instruction may turn out to be inadequate.;
*the course may differ in content or difficulty from the
calendar description;
*the student may have received incorrect advice from faculty
or Academic Advice as to the suitability of the course.
Our discussions with students indicate that the above stated
reasons are present in a significant number of withdrawals. In
• ?
addition, a student may discover that she/he has taken on too
many courses, orthat his/her ability level is not adequate for
the course. We think that under these circumstances, the student
has shown good judgement and should not be penalized.
While there will always be cases where a student drops
.a
course for insubstantial reasons, there is no way to seperate
these cases from those which arise because of the circumstances
outlined above.
Departmental Reservations:
The Student Society agrees with the principle of having
seats available for students in the department, but we are
concerned that this may reduce the range of courses open .to,
students outside their major discipline.
Summary
The use of GPA in registration priorities is unwarrented.
Such a use of GPA is unfair and would have unintended and
Registration
p riorities 85.3.15
.
. . . 3
-3-
a
?
?
undesireable consequences. If you are planning to recommend
adoption of this report by Senate, we would ask that you notify
us as to which committees will consider the report.
With thanks for your consideration.
-*-
cc: Dr. Sherwood, Chemistry
V. Finberg, SFSS
SM/eclb
Cupe 2396
.
Registration Priorities 85.3.15
LIN
SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
?
MEMORANDUM
Dr ...WG 1. j .
yy
?
..........
Vi c%ePx
g si
dent,.
1cadeinic.........
3ubod.... R I$AIQ . P.RIQRITXES
..........
From ......
Thauas . 3.. .Ca1ex t
Dean,
Faculty..of..L.D..S.....................
Date ...... March .25.,..1985 ........................
The Report of the ad-hoc Committee on Registration
Priorities has been circulated to our departments and was
discussed at our DAC on Tuesday, March 19. Although most
departments and programs felt that the proposals were appropriate
and useful, there was strong dissent from Computing Science. The
views of Computing Science are set out in the attached memos from
Nick Cercone and Rob Cameron.
There is no question that the problems in Computing Science
are more acute than in any other unit of this Faculty. Thus I
take their position very seriously. However, the solution may be
for Computing to develop a totally closed admission system
parallel to that operating in Engineering Science.
p
p
?
End:
TWC/rj
cc:
?
?
D.A. George
R. Health
D. Srnithers
SLrn.on rrc-ser t1ni.vcrsitj
Memorandum.
To:
T.W. Calvert. Dean
?
I From:
Nick Cercone, Chairman
Faculty of Interdisciplinary Studies
I ?
Computing Science lenure committee
Subject:
Registration Priorities
?
I
Date:
.12 March 1985
1 have read the Ad-Hoc Committee on the Registration Priority System Report dated 7 November
1981 and find it difficult to believe that "the Deans believe that the proposal will offer significant
advantages,...". Perhaps even more incredible is the fact that Elma Krbavac and I discussed the old
registration priority system at length on several occasions with the Registrar (H. Evans) and Prof.
Sherwood in the past and have articulated concerns which are still not reflected in the 7 November
1984 document. Needless to say Computing Science does riot support this proposal at all
It appears to Computing Science that the (perhaps unknown) implementation constraints have once
again preceeded the solution of the problem. For example, it seems to us that priority should really be
given on the basis of how to maximise student flexibility by assuring that "bottleneck" courses are
available to them at appropriate times and not strictly based on "course credits completed". Also, Co-op
students are given no credits forwork semesters (as it should be), nonetheless in a priority system
which rewards "course creditscompleted", it seems inconsistent to ignore the work semesters which
have no course credit attached as though they did not play a part in the student's education and may in
fact force the student to sacrifice certain courses relative to his immediate student peer group who
have amassed more credits without the work semester(s).
I have asked the Director of Undergraduate programs in Computing Science to give me his thoughts
on the proposal and attach them for your consideration. I agree with his observations completely as do a
number of other Computing Science faculty and support staff (the "firing line") who deal with students
continually.
ask, in addition to your considering the attached comments, that before any such priority scheme
be sanctioned that the University solicit the opinion of the various acdernlc advisors and the opinion of
iis
the Academic Advice officers who should be able to provide aOiit'iinaI insight into many special
problems our present system engenders. Finally, I ask again that SFU give real consideration to a o
ncle
a
year registration system with minor alterations allowed during semester breaks. I believe this will
Registration Priorities
?
2
•
opportunities
force better planning
for timely
on the
graduation.
part of Departments
At least it should
and administrators
eliminate costly,
and significantly
inefficient use
enchance
of faculty
student
and
stall who try, sometimes patiently, to deal with registration problems three times a year.
%
,
a -
Nick Cercone. Chairman
cc Elma Krbavac, DA Computing Science
Rob Cameron, Lou Hafer, Art Listman - Program Directors, Computing Science
Ip
p
(1
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
Memorandum
-
.
7
To: Nick Cercone
Principal, School of Computing
Re: Proposed Registration Priority
System
From: Rob Cameron
Vice-Principal for Undergrads
Date: March 17, 1985
I have read the November 7, 1984 report of the Ad Hoc Committee on
Registration Priorities, and while it is a good discussion of certain
aspects of the problem, it completely misses some issues tha't I think are
well worth considering.
The goal of any registration priority system is to provide a fair mechanism
for registering students in courses for which there are more attempted
registrations than available spaces. Perhaps the greatest need for an
effective registration priority system is in the registration of students
for upper level CMPT courses, where attempted registrations (including
alternates) frequently outnumber available spaces by more than three to one.
By contrast, the registration priority system is absolutely irrelevant to
the large number of courses in other programs where available space exceeds
the number of attempted registrations. Therefore, a primary requirement for
a registration priority system is that it meet the needs of registration for
upper level CMPT courses. If a proposed system can so meet those needs,
then it is likely to also be the basis for an effective system for other
high-demand courses.
Currently, CMFT manages to provide a measure of fairness in registration for
upper division CMPT courses through a set of manually enforced measures.
The basic scheme is to allow each student with a CGPA above 2.6 to pre
register for a maximum of 3 CMPT curses. Students with a lower CCPA are
permitted maximum of 2 CMPT courses. This meshes pretty well with the
requirements for a major in CMPT: students need a total of 30 upper division
CMPT credits for their degree, which averages to 7.5 credits or 2.5 courses
per semester. Furthermore, students who can show that they need one
additional course in order to graduate at the end of a given semester are
typically given permission to pre-register in 4 CMPT courses for that
semester. Finally, during the first week of classes, students are allowed
to register in courses which are not full on a first-come, first-served
basis. As shall be described below, these measures are not completely fair,
but are reasonable given the nature of the current registration system.
Unfortunately, substantial manual labor is involved in providing a measure
of fairness in upper level CMPT registrations. Currently, the Departmental
Assistant must enforce the limit of 2 or 3 CMPT pre-registrations per
student; this involves individually initialling over 3000 attempted
pre-registrations per term. Whenever a student appeals for additional pre-
registrations the decision is made by a faculty member, namely, the Director
of the Undergraduate program. During the first week of classes, the
.t
p
Departmental Assistant is again busy, this time regis
t
ering students in
courses where spaces are available (often because registrations are
cancelled due to inadequate grades).
With the implementation of a new registration system including a new system
for
registration
priority, we would hope that the need for manual measures
for ensuring registration fairness would be unnecessary. Unfortunately,
and for several reasons, this would not be the case with the system proposed
in the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Registration Priority.
How Priorities are Used
The first issue which the above-named report fails to address is how
priorities are or should be used in the registration process. Given a
priority ranking of students, there are various different ways of using that
priority ranking in registering students. First of all, a one-pass
registration system, such as the current one, does the complete registration
of each student in turn in order of priority. Another alternative,
however, is a multi-pass system which would iterate through the priority
list several times, assigning one course at a time to students. Hybrid
schemes could also be devised, e.g., a single-pass scheme for going through
the priority classes and a multi-pass scheme within a priority class.
By failing to address the problem, the report seems to imply that the new
registration system should continue with the one-pass registration scheme.
Unfortunately, no matter how sophisticated the scheme for assigning
priorites is, a one-pass registration scheme leads to results which are
patently unfair. In a high-enrollment program like Computing Science, many
high priority students would like to take four and even five Computing
courses. If allowed to do so, most upper level Computing courses would be
over-subscribed at pre-registration time by a factor of at least 3 (3
attempted registrations/alternates for every available spot). Using the one-
pass registration system, this would result in an elite of high priority
students (not necessarily all Computing Majors) having all the Computing
courses they want (typically four or five each), while lower priority
Computing Majors would have no Computing courses at all. The only reason
this does not happen currently is because of the manual pre-re gist ration
process described above.
Inadequacy of the Reserved Spaces .Schem
e
One of the apparent steps forward in the registration priority system
proposed by the Ad Hoc Committee is the concept of reserved spaces for the
majors of a given department. .However, this scheme really misses the point,
because substantial over-subscription to courses is not caused by students
outside of the department, but by majors and intended majors within the
department. This latter point is the major issue that should be addressed
by a registration priority scheme, but is totally ignored by the report of
the Ad Hoc Committee.
The Inadequacy of "Course Credits Comple
ted
" as a Basis for Priority
A
.
major flaw in the report of the Ad Hoc Committee is that it continues to
regard course credits completed "as the single factor which most seriously
influences the degree of flexibility that a student enjoys in selecting his
.
courses". While it may be true that average flexibility in course selection
weakly correlates with the course credits completed, it is completely
ridiculous to say the number of course credits completed is a "factor"
influencing flexibility. Flexibility, rather, depends on the specific
number of options available to the student for completing his degree, or
progressing towards that completion in a timely manner. For example, many
students complete all their specific course requirements well before they
have complete their general degree requirement of 120 credits; these
students have tremendous flexibility in the courses needed to complete their
requirements. On the other hand, students part way through a program often
have no flexibility in certain decisions; they must take specified courses
to proceed further because of prerequisite requirements.
A Rational Basis for Registration Priorii
The one valuable insight in the Ad Hoc Committee's report is that
flexibility in the timely completion of remaining course requirements is a
fair basis for assigning registration priorities. A student who needs a
given course to proceed should have priority over a student who has other
available options. The key to applying this notion, however, is that
the registration priority for a given student depends on the individual
course of concern and the importance of that course to the student's degree
program.
I should mention two other factors that should be considered in developing a
fair basis for registration priority. First of all, a student who once
attempts registration in a given course could be given a substantially
higher priority for his second attempt, even though the importance of the
course to his program remains unchanged or even diminishes. Secondly,
priority consideration should be given to students who declare in advance an
interest in taking specific courses as part of their elective requirements.
For example, upon entrance to the University a student might declare his
intention to major in English, for example, but also to take a given CMPT
course as part of his program; this student should eventually be given
priority for that CMPT course even though it may not actually be required
for the English degree.
Specific Requirements in CMPT
There are two specific groups of students whom we wish to give low priority
for registration in upper division CMPT courses. The first is CMPT students
who have already completed their upper division CMPT requirements.
Substantial numbers of these students want to take further CMPT courses to
fulfill their general elective credit and some even continue to take CMPT
courses well after completing the requirements for a degree in CMPT. These
students currently have a very high registration priority and would continue
to do so under the scheme proposed by the Ad Hoc Committee. Secondly,
low priority should also be given to intended majors in Computing who have
completed 60 credit hours but do not have the requisite CGPA of 2.6 for
declaring as C1FT majors. A recent count put the number of such students at
111.
Co nclu
d ing
Remarks
p
.
.
.
.4
?
I have only had the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Registration
Priorities a short time, and so I have not had time to consider the problem
seriously in all its aspects. Nevertheless, based on the above analysis, I
urge that the School vigorously oppose the adoption of the Ad Hoc
Committee's report as the basis for a new registration priority system.
p
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
?
El
I
MEMORANDUM
TO: ?
Dr. J.W.G. Ivany ?
FROM: ?
G. C. Hoyt, Dean
V.P. Academics ?
Business Administration
SUBJECT: ?
DATE: April 24th, 1985
I am sending this memo to you, with my approval, for possible inclusion in the
papers of a forthcoming Deans' meeting.
GCH:ms
El
Tb
LiLJ'
£ J •'
To
?
Ct.,
In
S
bIMOIN FHA5ER UNIVERSITY
• ?
MEMORANDUM
• ?
G. Calvin Hoyt, Dean
?
H. Rogow, Undergraduate i'ro-
•
?
IO...Fa.it.y..of..Bus1ne.ss..AdThi1tt1.
?
From..
R.
?
Dkreatori..A ....................
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE
.......XEM
Undergraduate
Based on discussion
Program
with
Coordinator
our Undergraduate
I make the
Curriculum
following
Committee
recommendations:
and our
1.
The present pre-registration priority system (based exclusively on
hours completed) is so bad that any movement away from it--includ-
ing this one--is an improvement.
2.
We therefore express moderate enthusiasm for the report's substi-
tuting for "hours only" the following formula:
HOURS
+ (G.P.A.
X 10)
-a- Our enthusiasm is only moderate because we don't think the
formula gOes far enough.
e.g. 100
60
40
We would
HOURS
+
hours and 2.0 G.P.A. = 120 points
?
3.0 ?
= 90
?
4.0
?
= 80
prefer a formula giving greater weight to G.P.A.:
(G.P.A. X 20)
(which would produce 140, 120, and 120 respectively above).
-b- We are also unhappy about the 60-point bonus for second-degree
students and indignant about the 90-point bonus for diploma
students.
3.
Despite "2." above, we strongly favour the report as a whole,
provided it does:
"allow departments to specify a number of reserved course places
for its major students, Co-op students, etc." (
p
. 2), and
"allow a department to specify GPA minima for any of these
reservations" (
p
. 2), and
"authorize a department to specify that enrollment in a certain
number of its courses will be by departmental approval only."(p.4)
Such authority would be useful to us in controlling student
'
quality and quantity flexibly.
4. The report does not address the problem of the excessive length
of the pre-registration period.
