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

To......................................................... 

SENATE ? 

?

From . ? 

SENATE 

STUDIES .... 

COMMITTEE 

.... ....... 

ON

......................... 

UNDERGRADUATE 

PROPUS ED* C11AGE1NUNIVRS1TY 

EGU1.A1I

Subject • Revisions to Course Add/Drop Period 

•2.DüTftëC&iirseiégüTàtiôiis......... 

Background Information 

At the request of the Dean of Arts, on behalf of the Faculty of Arts, 

the above topics were placed on the agenda of the Senate Committee on 

Undergraduate Studies for November 2nd - having undergone extensive 

discussion within Arts throughout the past year. 

Formal motions were made (on each of the two topics separately) 

at SCUS to approve the recommendations but with motions then made to post- 

pone considerations until December 1st following receipt of responses and 

comments. Distribution of materials was made on November 3rd seeking 

information broadly from the university community. The memorandum of 

November 3rd and papers SCUS 

81-55A 

and 81-55 indicate the proposals at 

that time - to which responses were sought. 

Responses were received throughout November, but with some responses 

lacking by December 1st. SCUS then approved that consideration be post- 

S ?

poned until the meeting of December 

15th, 

awaiting further comments, but 

with full intent to address these items at that time. Paper SCUS 81-88 

dated December 11, 1981 is the paper placed before SCUS on December 15th, 

giving general background data, the earlier papers (Nov. 3rd) and the 

responses received as Appendices I through V inclusive. 

To focus discussion at SCUS two further papers were provided as work- 

sheets - SCUS 

81-93A 

Revisions to Course Add/Drop Period, and SCUS 81-93B 

Duplicate Course Regulations. Those documents provided a very brief 

summary of responses to the original proposals, and a suggestion of some 

further actions which might be taken to resolve these questions. At the 

meeting of SCUS additional amendments of various types were made, some 

with strong agreement, some with varying degrees of opposition or 

rejection. There was intensive discussion of notations for drops in 

extenuating circumstances. 

The motions which will follow indicate the final decisions at SCUS 

and the recommendations of that committee now to Senate. 

S

2/

The present proposals on' add/drop may be shown generally as follows: 

(not fully complete). 

Week ? 

1 ?

2 ?

3

?

5 ?

6 - 12 

free add/drop 

?

drop with WD recorded. ? 

no drops except under 

If extenuating drop 

?

extenuating circum- 

WE recorded. 

?

stances, with WE recorded. 

Change 

?

No notation 

?

Notations - and 

no change ? 

'reduction of free 

drops from end of 

week 

toend of week 51 

I--------------------------- 

It will be noted that the original proposals suggested changes to both 

add and drop regulations 'and to a system of notations on drops. The present 

proposal recommends no change in add regulations, some adjusted changes in 

drop regulations 'and some adjusted notations on dropped'courses. 

The second topic pertains to duplicate courses; there has-been some 

modification In language from the earlier proposal. The intent is to 

reduce .    the number of instances in which individuals extensively continue to 

repeat courses to try to raise averages. 

The,motlons, if approved,.will indicate the general intent of the 

regulations. The Registrar's Office will be -required to ensure that the 

language used in, final disposition and in calendar is clear and integrated 

with related regulations. 

Actions undertaken by the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies 

at Its meeting of December 15 

• give rise to 'the following motions. 

MOTION I 

"That Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board of 

Governors, as set fo'rth in S. 

81-3

(a)

that the present undergraduate regulations governing 

the'adding of courses be retained. 

(b)

(I) that the undergraduate period of free-dropping of 

a course be reduced from the end of the ninth 'week 

of classes to the 'end of the fifth week of classes 

(2)

that there be no notation on specific courses 

dropped in weeks 1, 2 and 3 

(3)

that there be a notation WD'on specifi:c courses 

dropped freely in weeks 

4

and

5.

('c) 

that a course drop be permitted after week 5 only in 

extenuating circumstances, (week's 6 through 12) and 

that there be a notation WE on specific courses 

dropped. If a course 'is dropped under extenuating 

circumstances' in week 4 or 

5

then the notation will, 

be WE rather than WD. These drops require the 

approval of the Instructor 'and the Chairman. 

3/

:

Note: 

?

?

The notations "WD" and "WE" Jo not affect the grade point 

average. 

A definition of "extenuating circumstances" has been 

proposed and additional work Is being undertaken to 

provide a number of examples to clarify further the intent. 

MOTION 2 

"That Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board of 

Governors, that the number of courses a student can duplicate 

in his/her degree program be limited to five; the limit of five 

duplications may be extended by the Faculty Dean. No course may 

be duplicated more than once except with permission of the 

Department. 

4..

4)41CC

0 ?

'a- ?

4).

'a- -

4) ?

1.1

II - ?

4) =

uoca

- o

ZaC-41

0.1

IJLI

- o

Cl'

44)

InC

a4..

-.0

4..)

.0 ?

•UD.0C

U>-

OCOI'

4..

0'-

0.0.

34)

•u ?

0 ?

4)-

)'L5.

-4)4->

CSLV

44.

4)- ?

_u3_ ?

- V -

0 .

C I

I. ?

5..

•-' ?

C ?

1.4 ?

•

L..C(a.

UC ?

COO

OEC

4).1.4414)

--.0)

0.00.4

CUl-

• ?

VU)

5C3

' ?

....-

>L314

S ?

.0 ?

-44>

4.)

-.0CC-

SCSC

S000C

C4L-V

L4)..4).

•

1.4)1.55

.3055

LCVS

40V4

C30.J

CVO.-

4--.0

•V.0C

3Q41-

1450

I.0

- 3

It-

• ? ..,.. ? -, •-• ?

S.J

1.1

I.)

_I .a•.c

Ill

o -

C

I-

<CVI 

DVI

-

ISi

I.)

_C.c

5..

CIV

CS)

-V

I-

5540

Li-I)

CIVI

ISi

1..0

0.0I

•

VIII

IS-

O.a

I-

OS'

EC

3

cc 4A

•

• ? C

VI ?

5.' ?

• C

VII1%0 ?

5.5CI)

VIOO

CIA

C ?

VII VI ?

5..

VIII

InC

D ?

OVI

OVIO

4.5

CC-

a.

o

CL

• ?

-

0

C.LOCS)VI 

?

('>VIIIIDVI

>01.-LI. 

000

- )

o>

- Li

?

m

?

?

?

-

4

4.5

>VIDVI 

01.5.1. 

0>0VIUI 

0.0 ? 

D

VI 0.0 V 0

Z

?

•SlI 

?

VI5.S1U

1.55 ?

D

II

VIW0.- 

0.

0

0 3

I. -

•

0 0 VI

0 0 Sit

n I..) C IS-

S ?

45IJIn5) ?

045 ?

I..)

VI 4-'.

VII)

DVI ? 

ID

-

IflVI   

Si..- 

Cu

??

-c

4-' ? 

<4)

U. .0 

E

'-

CD

??

>.0'.- 

VIEI-- ? 

0

Lf%OC 

)-

41

.055 

E

VC

3 ?? 

554.50-SIVIVIOC 

1.55*541

C ?

DOVIVI'.' 

5.35.4   

S.4VI ? 

0- ? 

-'-

U-VIEVI 

ED>

4-'-. 

b,'.- 

?

?

?

ZV000 

ODCVS) 

0.01.0 

VIC

D ?

I-C

14)55  

04.50) 

OVID 

VI . -,- ?

Li

Z

L4-'VIC 

•'O-CUIU 

-  OSUVIE 

. ?

.VI

.1.)    

0005.-S- 

D-CVIO 

U.

55 ?

0.. ?

0 0

>.DC.CD 

'CI- 

.l

1..- 

VI'4-4-ZU 

?

CL.

VI ?

5)>.--

(.3

U.

(.0E0 

C4-'L--

VIDOCIS-.0 

0L)

50>4-'

lnEOQVI 

04-501.4-'

D -COC 

5 -'S)O ?

?

?

'S-CS)UVI

5D'1.0

C-

4..0<

>. 4) C ?

.-'

>- ?

E a

-0555)1.

.CWVI

SiC5000

.-.--4)4)

L.OEL.0 

V

OS1> 

.

?

'4-.00'-55 

IDOZ 

?

II

o

>

I-

4'

I.

(.3

-a

55.5 

a.

3

IS.

o

-

-

I-

5.3

IS.-

SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY ?

scus

81-88 

MEMORANDUM

.

Senate Committee on 

To ? 

Undergraduate Stud ies 

?

From ? 

H.M. Evans, Secretary 

..

.

................... 

e•

Cóth 

?

Ité......................... 

e.

• ? 

Undergraduate Studies 

PRQPOSED' tHAWGES iN UN I VER 

liv

REGUtAT IONS 

Subct ? 

Revisions to Course Add/Drop Period 

?

Date ? 

December H, 1981 

2. .....ØlTäfê

COil ? 

RüTátTón.................................................................... 

At a recent meeting it was established that a meeting of SCUS 

would. be 

held on Tuesday, December 

15,

1981 and that the first topic 

on the agenda would be the PROPOSED CHANGES IN UNIVERSITY REGULATIONS 

pertaining to Course Add/Drop and Duplicate Courses. 

A.

?

?

Attached is a copy of a memorandum forwarded on November 

1981

to various bodies on behalf of SCUS, as determined by the meetingof 

SCUS held November 

1981--With decision to postpone consideration of 

two motions until December 1, following receipt of responses and comments, 

with responses to be received by the Secretary by November 

27.

The

specific motions are given on the first page of that memorandum and 

reference papers are attached thereto. 

As materi 

decision was then 

December 

15.

The

of this material. 

hereto and are as 

1. Appendix 

ls were not received by the original date specified 

made by SCUS to place this item on the agenda for 

lateness of responses has precluded earlier distribution 

The responses which have been received are attached 

follows: 

- • Proposed Changes in University Regulations - 

?

Dean, Faculty of Arts, November 

24, 1981

11. Appendix 11 ? 

- University Regulations, Drop/Add Period - 

Dean of Education 

1981-12-02

?

Ill. Appendix 

.

111 ? 

- Changes in Add/Drop Regulations and Duplicate 

Course Regulations - Dean Faculty of Inter- 

disciplinary Studies, November 

25, 1981

IV., Appendix ? 

IV ? 

-

i)

Simon Fraser Student Society, 

November, 

1981

ii)

Communication Students Union, 

November, 

1981

• ? 

iii) ? 

Professional Development Program Council of 

Representatives, 

November, 1981 

iv)

Archaeology Student Society - undated 

v)

Teaching Support Staff Union - 

November, 1981 

V. Appendix V ? 

- Add/Drop Regulations, Dean Faculty of 

Science, December 10, 1981 

2

B. ? 

The two main motions made on November 3, were separate motions 

placed before the body separately, with decision that there would be 

postponement of discussion, until December 15. Those motions will 

now be before SCUS, separately,, for discussion. 

1)

MOTION "That SCUS approve and recommend 

A

to Senate, as set 

forth in SCUS 81-55, the proposed regulations on 

adding and dropping of courses." 

This motion is open to debate, amendment añ.d any of the other usual 

actions that pertain during the debate. When this item has been 

disposed of the second item will be addressed. 

2)

'MOTION , 

"That SCUS approve and recommend approval to Senate' 

as set forth in SCUS 81-55, the proposed regulations 

on duplicate courses." 

This motion is open to debate, amendment, and any of the other 

normal actions that pertain during debate. 

Ends. 

SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

MEMORANDUM

DEANS OF FACULTIES, STUDENT SOCIETY 

PRESIDENT, CHAIRMEN OF UNDERGRADUATE 

?

H M EVANS SECRETARY 

To...... 

JACULT.Y..C.IJRRICULU14.COMM.I.Tr.EES...............

From

........SMA1E CiMI1iTYEE 0N UNERGRAUUATE

(Distribution as below) ? 

STUDIES 

PROPOSED CHANGES IN UNIVERSITY REGULAT ONS 

Subject ] 

.

-Rev  

?

to Course Add/Drop Perlo 

?

Date......... 

.... ....Duplicate Course Regu1atons 

Attention is drawn to the attached documents SCUS 81-55A which 

outlines briefly the substantive changes being proposed and SCUS 81-55 

which provides more detail on the regulations and some background information. 

These documents were submitted by the Dean of Arts to SCUS and were 

considered by that Committee at its meeting of November 2, 1981. The 

two main items were considered as separate items. 

SCUS action was as follows:- 

1.

MOTION - "That SCUS approve and recommend approval to Senate, 

as set forth in SCUS 81-55, the proposed regulations 

on adding and dropping of courses." 

MOTION - ? 

"That SCUS postpone consideration of this Motion 

until December 1 following receipt of responses and 

comments, with responses to be received by the 

Secretary by November 27." 

MOTION TO POSTPONE CONSIDERATION CARRIED 

2.

MOTION - "That SCUS approve and recommend approval to Senate, 

as set forth in SCUS 81-55, the proposed regulations 

on duplicate courses." 

MOTION - 

?

"That SCUS postpone consideration of this Motion 

until December 1 following receipt of responses and 

comments, with responses to be received by the 

-

?

Secretary by November 27." 

MOTION TO POSTPONE CONSIDERATION CARRIED 

This material is now being distributed for consideration and 

response or changes on each of the two items. It is the intention of 

SCUS to consider the responses and comments received from the various bodies - 

at the meeting of SCUS to be held December 1, 1981. 

Responses are to be sent to H.M. Evans, Secretary of SCUS, and are 

required not later than Friday, November 

27th 

to be organized and 

distributed in advance of the December 1 meeting. 

- Each Dean of Faculty is requested to consolidate and organize any 

responses from his Faculty in order that the Faculty position is clearly 

stated. Faculty Curriculum Committee responses, therefore, should be 

submitted 'through the Dean. ? 

'

-2-

?

November 

3,

1981

It is the intention of SCUS to submit any final recommendations it 

approves to Senate for approval at the January 1982 meeting for inclusion 

In the 

1982/83 

Undergraduate Calendar effective as from September 1982. 

Should you • have need for further information.piease contact me or 

N. Heath at phone local 4176. 

H.M. Evans 

Distribution as below 

For Action and Resoonse: 

R.C. Brown* - Dean of Arts 

G. Ivany - Dean of-Education 

T.W. Calvert 

?

Dean of Interdisciplinary Studies. 

J.F. Cochran - Dean of Science 

C.L. Hamilton - Chairman, Faculty of Arts Undergraduate Curriculum Committee 

K. Egan - Chairman, Faculty of Education Undergraduate Curriculum Committee 

N.M.G. Bhakthan - Chairman, Faculty of Interdisciplinary Studies Undergraduate 

Curriculum Committee 

A. Sherwood - Chairman, Faculty of Science Undergraduate Curriculum Committee 

J. Crawley - President, Student Society 

For Information or Resoonse: 

K.G. Pedersen -President 

J.M. Munro - Vice-President, Academic 

G.Suart - Vice-President, Administration 

J.P. Blaney - Vice-President, University Development andExtension and Dean of 

Continuing Studies 

J.M. Webster - Chairman, SCUS 

M. Cairns - Director, Academic Advice Centre 

B.P. Beirne - Dean of Graduate Studies 

SCUS 81-55A 

PROPOSED CHANGES IN UNIVERSITY REGULATIONS 

1.

Revisions to Course Add/Drop Period 

2.

Duplicate Course Regulations 

The substantive changes which are being proposed by the Faculty 

of Arts are listed below: 

1.

?

Course Add 

? .

?

.

Presently students may add courses for three weeks 

one

week freely, the next two only 

,

with permission of the instructor 

and the department Chairman. 

We propose to shorten the course add period by one week - 

.

?

with one week free add, one week with permission of the Instructor 

and the department Chairman. 

Course Drop 

Presently students can drop courses freely for nine weeks, 

with an extended drop period for extenuating circumstances until 

the end of the twelfth week. We propose to shorten the drop 

period to five weeks. Courses may only be dropped between the end 

Of the fifth and the twelfth week under extenuating circumstances. 

We. also propose that all drops made between the second 

and .the fifth weeks will be notated on the transcript except 

for those made under extenuating circumstances. 

...2 

SCUS 81-55

SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

MEMORANDUM

.l1T... .

tl.. . 4

. .. .

,. ?

sct.ary................ 

?

From.

................

Pean.Lx

............................

• PROPOSED CHANCES IN UNIVERSITY 

?

Date

..........

Qci.Qbr.2f,..9$1

......................

REGULATIONS: 

1.

Revisions to Course Add/Drop Period 

2. Duplicate Course Regulations 

During the past year there has been considerable discussion in the Faculty 

concerning revisions to the University regulations governing the dropping 

of courses. 

I drafted a proposal for discussion which received approval from Department 

Chairmen and the Faculty of Arts Curriculum Committee, and which was taken to 

the Faculty of Arts general meeting. Asa result of discussion with faculty 

at that meeting, the paper has been revised and once again has received approval 

from the Chairmen, who have taken it to their departments for discussion. 

It has been circulatcdto the Faculty of Arts Curriculum Committee for comment 

or discussion. I urn now, forwarding it to you from the Faculty. 

Would you please place it on the agenda of the next SCUS meeting, as I am 

anxious to have these changes reflected in the next University calendar. 

RCB/lm ? 

R. C. Brown 

Attachs. 

October 19, 1981 

• ? 

PROPOSED CHANGES IN UNIVERSITY. REGULATIONS 

1.

Revisions to Course Add/Drop Period 

2.

Duplicate Course Regulations 

1. ? 

Add/Drop. Changes to be made 

During 1st week of classes - 

NORMAL COURSE CHANGE PERIOD. 

Courses may be added with permission of the department. 

Courses may be dropped without notation. 

A. student may not withdraw from Course Challenge without 

substitution of a regular course enrolment. Durinq the 

first week of classes, he/she may change registration in 

Course Challenge from one course to another, or to regular 

enrolment in the course. ? 

•

During 2nd week of classes - 

EXTENDED COURSE CHANGE PERIOD. 

Courses may be added only with special permission of the 

. ?

chairman and instructor concerned. 

Courses may be dropped without notation. 

No courses may be added after this time. 

During the 3rd, 4th and 5th weeks of classes - 

COURSE DROP PERIOD. 

Courses dropped within this period will be recorded with 

a "WD" entry on the student's transcript. The "WD" is not 

a grade and will not affect the student's grade point average. 

After the 5th week of classes, courses may be dropped (without notation) 

only under extenuating circumstances. No courses will be dropped after 

the 12th week of classes. 

Week ? 

1

?

2 ?

3 ?

1 ?

5 ?

•

?

6-12 

free add/drop ? 

drop with "WD" recorded 

?

•

?

no drop, except under 

• ? 

• ? 

(except under extenuating 

?

extenuating 

circumstances) 

?

•

?

circumstances 

-2-

2.

?

DuDlicate Courses 

At present there are no restrictions on duplicate 

courses. We propose to limit the number of courses a student 

can duplicate to five, with the further restriction that no 

course may be duplicated more than once. 

is

.

-2-

2. ? 

Duplicate Courses 

Under 6.3 Grade Point Average ( 

p

. 73) the wording be amended to 

include the statement - 

"Students are permitted no more than five course 

duplications during their undergraduate program, 

and an individual course may be repeated only 

once." 

.

SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

Rri"

••

MEMORANDUM

.r.4r. ............... ...................

Proposed Changes in 

Subj

. . . ?

c.r

From .......

obert ..Brow

Dean 

p.iU.y.........t

Date. .. ....

.Q ? 

.'P)?x. .?. .,.. 

19.Q1

1.

Revisions to Course Add/Drop Period. 

2.

Duplicate Course Regulations. 

S.C.U.S. 81-55A. 

The Faculty of Arts Curriculum Committee discussed the 

Proposed Changes to the Course/Add Period regulations at its 

meeting

of November 19, 1981. The Committee strongly endorsed 

the hrLnges in the Add/Drop Period. There was some discussion 

regarding the reasons for inclusion of the 'W' on the transcript. 

There 

was also some discussion about M. Cairn's proposal to 

notate

drops with a 'W' in Extenuating Circumstances. However, 

the Committee did not support this proposed change. They did 

ask for a definition of Extenuating Circumstances which 

L. Resnick said he would provide, and which is attached. 

D.L.L.L. expressed concern about the shortening of the course 

add

period, because of the difficulty of placement for 

Language

courses. The Dean suggested that it would be possible 

t.o

accommodate such special situations through approval by the 

Regi 

trar. The Psychology Department requested an amendment 

the Duplicate Course regulation to read: 

Students are permitted no more than five course 

duplications during their undergraduate programs., 

and an individual course may be repeated only 

once except with permission of the Department. 

This motion passed unanimously. 

I have only received one submission from a faculty member 

who did not support the drop date, a memo from a student, the

English union speaking against the changes, and a request for

Information from the SFSS. The Chairmen are strongly

supportive 

or the proposals. ?

--Ii

R.C. 

Ic

Brown 

9C44^ 

DEFINITION OF ? 

EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES 

Unusual circumstances beyond the student's control which 

make it impossible for the course work to be completed. 

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

f1pe

MEMORANDUM

To....Hary.Jvan8...Se.crtary.......................... 

From.. J.... W... George. .Ivany....................   

I ...

s,cus

.................................................

Dean of. .Educat ion........................... 

Subjoct. U

v.maity.. Regulations;. 

Drop/Add. Per  

Date. ..

.1981-12-02 .................................... 

With regard to the proposed changes, I have consulted with 

each of the Program Directors in the Faculty of Education. 

For the most part we are supportive of the changes. It is 

felt that the current regulation is too long leading to some- 

thing than less than optional programming. Further, the 

proposed regulation does allow for a reasonable time period 

for legitimate changes to occur following appropriate con- 

sultation and advice. 

Within the Undergraduate Program Committee, however, some 

concern was voiced regarding the lack of defense of the 

underlying principle of the proposal within the documentation. 

Some of the concern would be alleviated If it could be assured 

that students would be provided feedback on performance with- 

in the proposed five week period. 

JWC I : nb 

DEC 3—

1981 ?

T.RAR'5 OFFICE 

,

ICE

rIML DFvK 

SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

oL'

77H

MEMORANDUM

To .......

.Mr. ....vans, Secretary ..Senate 

......

.

From ....

Dr.

. .:w...Calvert7 Dean . 

Co mmittee on I.Jndergraduate ? 

Faculty o. 

. . . .!".... 

tudie.. 

4AJ

Subject..

Q

?

?

.. .

APPtPRQP. ?

.........

Date....

N9.Yb.....2.. . .... 

AND DUPLICATE COURSE REGULATIONS 

These regulations were considered by the Faculty of 

Interdisciplinary 

Studies Undergraduate Curriculum Committee 

at its 

meeting on Tuesday, November 24. 

?

The following comments 

apply: 

1.

The Committee was unanimously in favour of the 

proposed change in the date for adding courses. 

2.

The Committee was unanimously in favour of the 

proposed changes in the dates for dropping courses. 

3.

By a vote of four to two the Committee voted not 

to have a designation 'W I ? 

(or some such notation) 

placed on the student's transcript if he dropped 

a course. ? 

(In this connection it should be noted 

that the Committee would probably favour such 

designations if the transcript were used for internal                               

.

purposes such as advising and were not circulated 

outside the university. 

?

There was also concern 

that the same notation,if it were to be applied, 

should apply both before and after the fifth week). 

4.

The Committee unanimously agreed with the proposed 

changes in regulations for duplicate courses. however, 

it was felt that some waiver mechanism must be avail.- 

able for these regulations and itis suggested that 

the rule against taking a course for credit more than 

twice might be waived by the department which offers 

the course whereas the rule against having a total 

of more than five duplicate courses on the record 

ought to be waived by.söme other body. (eg. the Dean 

of the Faculty, the Academic Advice Centre, the major 

department). 

TW C / p gm 

C. C.

N.M.G. Bhakthan 

SIMON FRASER

Tr'

SJUDENT SOCIETYC

iv,

ASSOCIATION des ETUDIANTS

de SIMON FRASER

18 Nov. 1981 

DROP-DATE REVISION: 

Position of the Simon Fraser Student Society 

The Simon Fraser Student Society urges the members of 

Senate not to adopt the proposed rev isionof the course drop. 

policy. It will not accomplish the good things given as a 

rationale, and it will be detrimental to the quality of 

education now.obtainable at Simon Fraser University. This 

position paper should discredit the arguments for the change, 

and reiterates the Student Society's reasons for opposing 

alterations of the nine-week policy, as is. Finally, we 

object strongly to tactics used by the Dean of Arts in 

bringing

this proposal .to Senate. 

?

..

?

.

Ar q umenta for the Revision 

1.

It has been argued that transcripts of SFU graduates 

will be accorded more respect, at other institutions if the 

drop-date is shortened. In fact, the academic reputation 

of the university will not be materially affected by tinkering 

with mechanisms. There are third-rate colleqe,s which remain 

unredeemed by more coercive regulations than anyone here is 

likely to invent, while many of the world's great university's 

are far more flexible and accomodating thanSFU. If SF11 is 

to increase its academic standing, it will only be through 

encouraging the perogatives, of faculty and students alike, 

to do outstanding work here. Graduate committees at other 

universities do riot assess applicants from SFU on any basis' 

except an assessment of their colleagues at SF11: that has 

nothing to "do with whether a student has been in your seminar 

once or twice,.but only with whether the student can be 

expected to 'have learned the subject there.' 

2.

Proponents of the, revision argue that the ability to 

pay tuition twice. gives an academic advantage to wealthier 

students. This is a 'logical' conclusion with no factual 

information to warrant it. No one has ever correlated students' 

repetition of courses with their financial means. Wealthier 

students, as we know, already have academic advantages in 

the quality of their preparatory schooling, their home and 

social support. ' Unlike working class students they have more 

time for school 

,

, and are less likely' to overload themselves 

with courses in the hopes of returning to the work force sooner. 

/...2 

simon fraser university

burnaby 2, b.c. telephone 291-3181

unlversité simon fraser

burnaby 2, c.-b.

téléfon 291-3181 ?

' ?

18 Nov. 

?

/..

.2

If most course repeaters are, in fact, ' working and mature 

students attempting to maximize their education, the drop 

date revision will cut atoneof SFU's most important 

constituencies. 

3.

Proponents say the shorter period will allow 

deapartments with heavy drop-out rates to hire fewer 

teaching assistants. We understand 

that this

financial 

incentive mav 

.

be

the main reason for considering the change, 

especially, as it would affect Business Administration, 

Mathematics, and Computing Science. Yet it is clear that 

no alternative means 

.

for supporting graduate work in 

these areas is being considered--quite the contrary, funds 

for graduate stipends jd scholarships have been frozen 

for years, and have been irresponsibly juggled in these last 

months. Attempts to cut costs in this way will discourage 

prospective graduates from applying here, will increase 

Izutorial sizes where they are already unacceptably 

large, 

bing on difficulties with the Teaching Assistants' 

n ?

union, 

d generally slow the development of graduate programs in 

precisely the departments which are central to SFU.'s continuing 

growth. ? 

. ?

.

4. It .    

can be argued that the drop-date adds to the 

overenroilment problem in certain courses and departments, 

. ?

where overenroliment is a problem. The Student Society has 

already distributed a substantial brief to the President's 

Committee on Enrolmen't Limitation which questions whether 

overenroilment is a long-term problem requiring sweeping 

policy changes, or is a temporary distortion of enrollment 

patterns. The precedent and the impact of this drop-date 

revision will remain for' students in other departments and 

in future •years when the 'emergency in a few departments have 

been forgotten. Senate has already passed enrollment- 

limiting measures in Business and Computing which, whatever 

their (largely unreckoned) long-term implications, will 

handle the emergency. There is no reason to set up obstacles 

to students all over the University in order to deal with 

a local situation.. . 

?

. ?

.

?

. '. 

5.

I)oCs a 'lax' policy on course-drop contribute to 

'grade inflation'? The answer is that there is no grade 

inflation. Pàbles provided by the Registrar's Office, 

showing the historical distribution Of grades awarded, prove 

that between 1973 and 1979 there were percentage decreases 

in the number of 'A' and 'B' 'grades and percentage increases 

in 'C', '1)', and 'F' grades in every Faculty of the University, 

/. . .3 

IS Nov. ? 

..

?

: /... .3 

Arguments Against the Revision 

1.

The drop-date change is being proposed along with 

too many other policy changes which are meant to address the 

same concerns. Students 

.

-are facing a tuition increase, 

enrollment limiting mechanisms, redefinition and cutbacks 

of graduate student support, a 'streamlining' of curricuim 

planning that cuts Faöulty decisions off from an academic 

and

financial

overview, and that cuts student representatives 

out of the process.. Like the drop-date revision, these 

changes are proposed and implemented piecemeal, with no 

good sense of their individual and cumulative affects, on 

students or on the University as a whole. It is clearly time 

to develope an overall strategy for maintaining the education 

function, of the University, rather than trying out half a 

dozen unpredictable 'bright ideas' at the expense of students. 

2.

We consider the '.wd' component of the proposal as 

an expendable felicity which the Dean of Arts expects to 

'compromise away' in return for a shorter time period. No 

other university in the Province, and few anywhere, care to 

record every tentative course enrollment: because a withdrawal 

is always a 'failure'., if only to have enough time, students 

would be penalized for testing their interests or abilities 

in the wide range of courses SFU offers. The 'wd' proposal 

would exchange the diverse and comOpolitan potential that 

is traditional in university education education for bureaucratic 

cataloging of students" trials and errors. 

3.

The proposal forgets the simple fact that students 

who have completed a number. of weeks of coursework, even if 

the course is not completed, are better educated for it. A 

student who subsequently does complete the. course has a 

;C)l1der.basis in the subject by dint of having spent more 

hours studying it: there is 

.nothing

tricky or ethically 

questionablé.in this. Educationis' not a game. to be played 

with a stopwatch, and its function is not to eliminate people 

through arbitrary regulations. Rathei, the main function 

of the University instruction is to provide an open and 

accountable public access to knowledge: this was the motive 

for instituting the nine-week period in the first place, and 

it remains valid.. 

A Note on the Process 

We hope to have demonstrated here that the changes proposed 

are not 'something that has to be done' and that no vote of 

thanks is due to their puthor, Dean Brown, for pursuing the 

onerous task so vigorously. In fact, Dean Brown has managed 

to discredit the entire process by which such proposals come 

to Senate, attempting to substitute private agreements for 

open deliberation, and using every tactic from manipulation. 

agendas to last-minute modification of his plan in order 

to shorcul the route from his desk to the policy, manual. He 

has been consistently rude and evasive with students who have 

met,

with him, individually and in 'meetings. 

/. . .

18 Nov. ? 

/. . .

4

Dean Brown justifies this on grounds that the 'concensus' 

of faculty members supports his proposal. This mandate 

explains his self-delegated revision of the three-week plan 

to its latest, gimmick-ridden manifestation, as well as 

his attempt to railroad it directly to Senate withou 

review in the Arts Faculty. Dean Brown has done a disservice 

to those members of the campus community who; are actually 

concerned about academic integrity and the quality of 

education, using them to justify an expedient: and short-sighted 

policy and personal campaign. We hope faculty members and 

students alike will recognize his methods and his proposals 

as similar travesties of the principles he claims for them. 

-Student Forum 

18 November 1981 

NOTES 

1. ? 

Results of the Advisory Poll on the Three-week Drop 

date (March, 1981) . ? 

. ?

.

The Dean of the Faculty of Arts has proposed that the 

University reduce the normal period for dropping a course 

from the present nine (9), weeks to three. (3) weeks.. 

Which of the following alternatives do you prefer? 

1. Retain the exisiting nine-week drop period. 

?

897 votes. 

2. Reduce the drop period to three weeks. 

(Total voter turnout was.1004). 

2. Tables showing 'Historical Distribution of (rades 

Awarded are available on request from the SFSS Resource 

Office, 291-3181. 

Also available is documentation of difficulties in 

dealing with thc Dean, including the formal letter of 

protest to Dr. Pederson from the Arts Faculty Student 

Unions, 30 Jan. 1981. 

94 vote'.;. 

SFSS/edb 

Cupe 2396 

• f9 ?

// 7

•

?

?

Communication Students Union, 

...

SFU. 

23 November 1981 

Mr H. EVANS, 

Secretary, Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies. 

? .

Dear Mr Evans, 

This is to let you know that at a meeting of the Communication 

Students Union on 18 November 1981, the following motion was carried 

unanimously: ? 

. ?

. ?

. ?

.

"That this meeting supports the position of the Simon Fraser Student 

Society in regard to the three—week. drop date".. 

In other words, our union firmly supports retaining the existing drop date period. 

Yours sincerely, • ? 

.

Ma 1 

kianne Van Loon 

?

. . ? 

.

?

. .

Sretar 

y

•• 

?

. • 

Gene Beuthien 

cc: Dale Martelli 

D. Fleming, SCUS 

Student Senators Caucus 

Peak 

WV1E

NOV 20 1981

?

• ' ASSOCIATION des ETUDIANTS

SIMON FRASER,

?

de SIMON FRASER

STUDENT SOCIETY

eiV('2

19 November 1981 

Harry Evans 

Secretary. 

SCUS 

Dear Harry Evans, 

The Council of Representatives for PDP (equivleñt to the 

Student Unions of other departments) have asked me to 

communicate with you the results of. a discussion they 

had on the revised drop-date proposals. 

These proposals would affect PDP-Education students 

only in their 404 term on-campus (Summer) . As you are 

probably aware, they spend most of the year practice- 

teaching in schools,. Hence, the decision to drop a 

course during the summer is a fairly serious one: however, 

none of the 15 representatives present could.see any 

reason to.. support a 'reduction of the drop-period.. 

A formal motion 'to oppose the proposal was .adopted 

unanimous ly. ? 

.

Yours on behalf of the 

PDP Council of Representatives, 

REGISTRAR'S OFFICE 

?

MAIL DESK 

Simon fraser university

I .

burnaby 2, b.c.

telephone '291-3181

université Simon fraser

burnaby 2. c.-b.

téléfon 291-3181

- - -- - - -- - ? - 

1-Isrry Fins, 

c/c Adrn:i.nist,rstion Du.tldin.

)ear 

Mr. Ivsns, 

Th Archneo1oY 

Student Society, in a enera1 rneein held on

November

25,

has unsmOUs]-Y 

p

sred a resolution 

OPPO5ifl

the

cline to the current

course 

drop/add stucture which have been

propoed by. 

?

e

])ean, 

NOV 3 ) .1981

ItEU1STLLR'5

OFFICE

MAIL DESK

(v)

rip

TEACHING SUPPORT STAFF UNION

30th Nov., 1981. 

Submission to the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies 

re.

Proposed changes in university regulations on course adding and 

dropping and duplicating. 

TSSU wishes to respond to the Faculty of Arts' proposal re. tht' 

course adding and dropping and duplicating in two ways. First, we 

shall make comments regarding specific implications of the proposal 

for teaching support staff and their working conditions. Second, 

we shall comment on the more general implications of this proposal 

for the undergraduate body as a whole. 

TSSU fears that the university would commit fewer instruct ion;il 

resources 

this proposal were adopted. In an interview with the 

president 

in

Augut TSSU representatives were informed-by Pederson 

that there would be fiscal considerations. in reducing the drop date. 

This would mean fewer teaching support4hired and larger classes, 

based On an expectation that so many students would drop out by the 

second and fifth weeks. For.example, a tutorial may start off with 

25 students on more on the assumption that by the second or fifth 

weeks, so many students have dropped out that the tutorial size will 

drop to a ' reasOflal)le ' 17 or 18. There are several comments to he 

made here. 

First, TSSU does not support the faculty of arts' proposal in 

(AUCE LOCAL 6) Room 9223 CC e1: 29I-47

Simon Fraser University—Burnaby, B.C.

.1.....

TEACHING SUPPORT STAFF UNION

-2-

general, a point that Is elaborated later on. Second, if it were 

a

o1,siipport• 

dopted TSSU 

staff 

would 

and

be adamantly 

the increasing 

against 

of

the

class 

reduction 

sizes. As 

in

a

the

reminder 

hiring 

TSSU wishes to point out that in Article Xlii, part F in the collective 

agreement, ft 

.

is stated "(t)o the extent feasible the University 

will conclude appointments well in advance of their starting dates." 

The tardy hiring of support staff as. a result of an early drop date 

whereby administrators were watching enrolment figures in the first 

few weeks before finalising hiring, could he a violation of the contract. 

Third, if class sizes were increased a process of a s el 

-

f-fulfil....ing 

prophecy takes place. . Students, finding themselves in overcrowded 

classes will voluntarily .drop that course. So, a relit ively high 

drop rate could he maintained, not because students abuse the system, 

are unsure of what they want to do etc., but because they are 

disappointed with the quality of insruction and only poor quality 

instruction is possible in. overcrbwded tutorials. 

More pressure would be placed on teaching support staff to 

lfl(Ilcate to students their level of performance so that students 

would kno.w whether or not to stay in a course. Otherwise., since 

most mid-term examinations do not occur until the sixth or seventh 

weeks and results for these are not ready until the seventh eighth 

or ninth weeks, many students, particularly in the humanities and 

social, sciences,' would he left without adequate.-means by 

,,

which to 

evaLuate their performance and consequently determine whether or not 

(AUCE LOCAL 6) Room 9223 CC Tel: 291-4735 

Simon Fraser University, Burnaby 

B.C. - 

.

rlrQQWT

TFACHING SUPPORT STAFF UNIO1

-3-.

to remain in a course. 

A reduction in the number of teaching support staff hired 

and an increase in class size could constitute a technological change 

and again we refer you to the collective agreement, Article XXII 

'Technological Change'. This clause states clearly the notification 

and consultation procedures that must be followed 

the event of 

a technological change.' 

TSSU is also concerned with the general implications of this 

proposal, 'some of which have been alluded to. Overall, the nature 

of this proposal is punitive for the following reasons. 

• ? 

1) .n the first week very little happens in a course that gives 

a student means by which to evaluate the course. Usually, there 

are no tutorials held in the first week, so students who want to 

decide by the end of the second week whether or not to stay in 

a course, effectively have only one week's exposure to that course 

by which to decide. 

2)

If students can drop a course without special permission between 

the third and fifth weeks there should not be a W-D recorded on 

a student's transcript. Whatever reason a W-D is obtained, such 

a mark on a transciptis regarded in a negative light. These un- 

warranted W-D's would create unnecessary problems for students 

further down the line in job applications or further educational 

pursuits.. 

3)

The whole burden of an inferior course is placed on a student. 

(AUcE LOCAL 6) Room 

9223 CC 'Tel: 291-4735

Sin Fraser University, Burnaby. B.C.

ITACJHNG

SUPPORT

STAFF UNION

-4-

if a student experiences continual ineffective instruction or an 

unreasonable mid-term exam the student cannot opt out of the course 

with Impunity. 

Students should be able to repeat courses in order to obtain 

extra depth in a particular field of study. By allowing students 

this right. SFU would be increasing the quality of student that 

graduates from its campus. 

TSSU believes that SFU, like other pot-secondary institutions, 

should.facilitate. the obtaining of a general education not create 

barriers to this porpose. Students should be treated as adults 

who

their 

are

needs 

capable 

or not 

of deciding 

and as much 

for

time 

themselves 

as is necessary 

wherf courses 

should 

are

be

meetingprovided 

?

for making these decisions without any penalty attached for late 

adding and/or dropping or repeating. Therefore, TSSU does not 

support the present proposal of the faculty of arts as such a pro- 

posal denies, In part, the right of students to determine their own 

eduatton at their own pace. 

Signed, 

Anne Burger, 

President. 

(AUK LOCAL 6) Room 9223CC Tel: 291-4735

Sinn Fraser University, Burnab

B.C.

/mgj 

a...

SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

MEMORANDUM

To ? 

Mr. H. Evans 

Secretary to SCUS 

Faculty of Science 

Sub j ect. 

ADD/DR 

.

OP

.

REGULATION. 

?

.Date..... .ecember 10 1981 

Dear Harry: 

Enclosed please find a report from the Faculty of Science 

Undergraduate Curriculum Committee on the proposals on drop/add 

regulations. ? 

As far as I am concerned, this report represents 

the official position of the Faculty of Science. 

cc: Chairmen, Faculty of Science 

cc: A.G. Sherwood, Chairman, Faculty UCCC 

SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY ?

MEMORANDUM

Dr. J.F. Cochran, Dean 

To.......................................................... 

FcuIty of Science 

ADD/DROP PROPOSAL 

Subect............................................................... 

A.G. Sherwood 

From................................................... 

Chairman, Faculty 

UGCC 

December 10, 1981 

Date.......................................................... 

The reaction of the Faculty Undergraduate Curriculum Committee to 

the proposal for changes in Drop/Add Regulations and Course 

DupI.ication are as follows: 

1.

The first week should be free drop/add, i.e. and 

extension of the registration period. 

2.

No mention of course 

adds 

after this date should be 

made in the Calendar. If departments wish to have 

students admitted after the first week, this will be 

initiated by the instructor 

and

the Chairman of the 

department. 

3. Weeks 2 and 3 should be a free drop period, i.e. 

courses may he dropped with no designation. 

6.

?

During weeks 4 and 5, withdrawal will require the 

signature of the faculty member and will result in a 

WD

notation. 

5. During weeks 6-12, withdrawal will be possible only 

under extenuating circumstances, will- require 

permission of the instructor and the department 

Chairman and will result in the notation 

WDE

on the 

transcript. 

6.

The reduction in the numbers of duplications allowed is 

favoured. 

7. The duplication of a course more than once should be 

only with the permission of the instructor and the 

department Chairman. 

1

U.

/mgj 

?

A

.G. Shrd 