SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
S
F2-45-B
MEMORANDUM
SENATE ?
.
.........
RECOMMENDATIONS - GRADUATE STIPENDS;
Subioc,.
p
cM
1
?PAT
E
. ?
RAT. .4'W. PN
SCHOLARSHIPS
From
E
N4T
E
.ck
1
!
I
T
1
'..
.Q.
AWARDS AND BURSARIES
Date4P.9I14 .29.,.
.19 8 2 .................................
Recommendations of the Senate Committee on Scholarships, Awards and Bursaries
give rise to the following motion on graduate stipends:
MOTION : ?
That Senate approve, as set forth in S.82-43B, the
following with respect to graduate stipends:
1.
?
That the intent of the stipend is to allow students to devote
full time to the writing or completion of a thesis or its
equivalent.
2.
?
That stipends be administered with the following priorities:
a)
All Ph.D. students who are in the process of writing a
thesis or its equivalent and who have no other major
'scholarships, T.A. or R.A. support.
b)
All Masters students
who
are in the process of writing a
thesis or its equivalent, who have a CPA of 3.5 or greater
and who have no other major scholarship, T.A. or R.A. support.
c)
All Masters students
who
have a CPA of 3.2 or greater and
who have no other major scholarship, T.A. or R.A. support.
d)
Other cases may be considered by SCSAB.
3.
?
That no student normally receive a stipend unless it has been
requested by a Department one year in advance of meeting the
above requirements.
4. ?
That the amount of the stipend be established annually to provide
a reasonable level of support consistent with the intent of the
stipend.
Recommendations of the Senate Committee on Scholarships, Awards and Bursaries
give rise to the following motion on undergraduate fee rebates
:
and open scholarshi ps :
MOTION : ?
That Senate approve, as set forth in S.82-43B, the following
with respect 'to undergraduate fee rebates and open scholarships:
1.
That the current Fee-Rebate and Open Scholarships program be
terminated as of September 1983, or sooner where possible.
2.
That implementation of the following be initiated as of September
1983 or sooner where possible:
a)
That an entrance scholarship, the value of which is to be
determined, be given to one of the top five students In each
high school. Academic standing would be determined by academic
marks in grades 11 and 12. The term of the scholarships would
be three semesters.
b)
That the current Shrum entrance scholarships be retained as
a 9 semester scholarship and that the number of these scholar-
ships be increased.
c)
That in-program scholarships be allocated to a designated
number of top students after they have completed not less
than 45 hours at SFU. T 1 e terms of these scholarships would
be 60 hours, if a predefined level of scholarship is maintained.
The value, would be consistent with designation of the scholar-
ships as equally prestigious as the Shrum. Scholarships would
be by application and adjudicated.
d) All students receiving scholarships would be required to
carry at least 12 hours in each semester of the scholarship.
S
To:
Senate
S
?
From: H. Weinberg,
Chairman, S.C.S.A.B.
Date: April 29th 1982.
I. ?
Re: Recommendations of S.C.S.A.B.
At the November meeting of Senate S.C.S.A.B. was requested to
examine the Scholarships, Awards and Bursaries programme for the purpose
of determining if the programme was meeting the current needs and goals
of the senate. ?
The intent of this request was to ask S.C.S.A.B. to bring
?
forward suggested changes which might rationalise critical elements of the
current approach to the undergraduate scholarship and graduate stipend
programmes.
S
??
The mechanism chosen was to draw together the V.P. Academic,
the V.P. Administration and the Chairman of S.C.S.A.B. for the purpose
of an initial overview.
?
From these discussions suggestions were presented?
to the Deans of Faculties and to S.C.S.A.B. for their opinions.
The
result
of this process was the development of a discussion paper which was widely
circulated to the university community, including all members of senate.
Recipients of the discussion paper were invited to respond and those
responses were summarized by the Chairman of S.C.S.A.B.
?
S.C.S.A.Ih
received copies of all
responses in
addition to the summary and developed
a set of recommendations which are now forwarded to Senate for their
approval.
0
Graduate Stipends
1. That the intent of the stipend is to allow students to devote
full
time to the writing or completion of a thesis or its
equivalent.
2. That Stipends be administered with the following priorities:
a)
All Ph.D. students who are in the process of writing a thesis
or its equivalent and who have no other major scholarship,
T.A. or R.A. support.
b)
All Masters students who are in the process of writing a
thesis or its equivalent, who have a C.P.A. of 3.5 or
greater and who have no other major sc.iolarshlp, T.A. or
R.A. support.
c)
All Misters students who have a C.P.A. of 3.2 or greater
and who have no other major scholarship, T.A. or R.A.
support.
d)
Other cases may be considered by S.C.S.A.B.
3. That no student normally receive a Stipend unless it has
been requested by their Department 1 year in advance of
their meeting the above requirements.
4. That the amount of the Stipend be established annually to
provide a reasonable level, of support consistent with the
intent of the Stipend.
I
dergraduate Fee Rebate and Open Scholarships
1.
That the current Fee-Rebate and Open Scholarship program be
terminated as of September 1983, or sooner where possible.
2.
That implementation of the following be initiated as of
September 1983 or sooner where possible.
a)
That an entrance scholarship, the value of which is to be
determined,be given to one of the top 5 students In each
high school. Academic standing would be determined by
academic marks in grades 11 and 12. The terms of the
scholarship would be 3 semesters.
b)
That the current Shrum entrance scholarship he retainrd
as a 9 semester scholarship and that the number
of
t1ie;e
scholarships be increased.
c)
That in-programme scholarships be allocated to a
designated number of top students after they have
completed not less than 45 hours
at
S.F.U. The term of
these scholarships would be 60 hours, if a predefined
level of scholarship is maintained. The value would be
consistent with designation of the scholar:;hip as
equally prestigious as the Shrums.
?
Scholarships would
be by application and adjudicated.
d)
All students receiving scholarships would be required to
carry at least 12 hours in each semester of the
scholarship.
L
II. ?
A Summarization of Responses to the DLcussion Paper?
Circulated by Dr. H. Weinberg
Source
?
Definition of Scholarshp
?
Undergrad . Cen.
S
Arts ?
No consensus but uneasy
about present use of CPA
English ?
Does not support weighted
CPA
Science
More funds for
undergraduate
scholarships
K. Rickoff
Geography ?
Eliminate fee rebate
and apply funds to
entrance and open
scholarships.
Education ?
Scholarships only
for top students
Attract as many
good students as
possible. Should be
a scholarship to
each high school
for top student
Increase emphasis
on admissions
scholarships. Limit
rebate scholarships
and Introduce some
low value scholarships
($750) with 4 semester
commitments.
Top priority is to
attract good students.
Second priority is to
provide continued
incentives. Should
support students from
smaller centers if
underrepresented, and
also underrepresented
students from lower
socio-economic strata.
Distribute
scholarships as
widely as possible.
Arts Grad.
Committee Chairman
Ili story
V.P. Ext. Affairs
?
Scholarships should
not be for the purpose
of need. High
scholarship is the
primary objective
Director of Student
Services
Crad. hi ;Iish Comm.
Source ?
Part-Time
Arts ?
Retain access by
part-time students
English
Science
Arts Grad. Comm.
History
V.P.Ext.Aff. and
Scholarships only
Dir. Analy. Stud,
for 12
hours
or
more do not emphasize
part-time
Dir.Stud.Services
Do not emphasize
part-time
K. Reickoff
Favor full-time
students and
younger students
over older students
Geography
Education
Engl. Grad.Comxn.
r
60 hour Scholarship
Supports 30-60 hour
scholarships
Establish 60 hour
scholarship as per
option //l
Suggests 60 hour or
long term commitments.
Supports 60 hour
scholarship but $700
rather than $1,000
0
Source
?
Departmental
Scholarship
Arts
English ?
set aside sums for
scholarships in
particular
Science
Arts
.
Grad.. Comm.
History
DirAnaly.Stud.
Dir. Student Services
K. Reickoff
Geography
Education
Engl.
Grad. Comm.
Prestigious
Entrance
Retain Shrum
in present form,
0
Source
Stipend
•
qualifications
Arts
English
Science
Arts Grad.Couun.
Raise minimum CPA
subject to
individual
departmental
priorities. No
stipend for major
award and full time
TA or RA holders.
Priorities
determined by Dpt.
if funds are not
sufficient, subject
to approval by
S.C.S.A.B.
History
Retain present
terms of reference.
Stipends should be
available to all
students.
V.P.
Ext.Affairs
and Dir.Analytic
S ?
Studies.
Dir. Student Services
K. Rieckoff
Establish
priorities as
described by Dean
of Graduate Studies
No stipends for
students with full
time RA.
Geography
Retain current
function which is
to support students
in the process of
writing a thesis.
Do not favor Ph.Ds
but increase CPA.
Education
Engl. Grad. Comm.
Stipend values
Do not peg stipend
amount to TA or HA
salaries.
Do
not tie stipeud
amounts to RA or TA
salaries.
0
ia
SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
MEMORANDUM
To......
.D•i
?
. l
h. ?
.............................
?
From......
Dpa
?
piJ .c .yc)qJ.p.gy
..................
?
Dean of Arts
Subject. .
?
.
.
CP.ul.iJ?9
?
Date ......
prI
.
i23, 198.
The Faculty of Arts Curriculum Committee met to consider your proposals
concerning undergraduate scholarships on April 22, 1982. There was a lengthy
discussion of the Issues and options, but no clear
COflCCflSUB
as Lo a
favoured
position.
Most members were sympathetic to the issue of attempting to reward real
scholarship, but they were uneasy about the existing measurements of it. There
was also some disquiet expressed about the disenfranchisement of part-time and
mature students entailed in option one. In short, our representatives were
very uneasy about the Issue. They recognized the arguments for both options
but were divided as to which way to go.
'L>
?
S
RCB/md
?
R. C. Brown
/
/ ?
0
?
SiMON FRASER
MEMORANDUM
UNIVERSITY
'Q.
q.rrnan
Ste Committee on
?
...
?
..
?
.
?
.
?
................................
..
Bursaries
Subject
...... .
P?1?J.UTh.
GRADUATE STIPENDS AT SFU
From.....
Date...
.ipr.u.2a,..1.9a2...........................
Dear Hal:
I am writing to comment on your scholarship discussion
paper of March
20,
1982. This paper was very useful and well
written, and as far as
I am
concerned, brought out very clearly
the
problems
associated with our present scholarships.
1) Undergraduate:
?
I am in favour of channelling more
funds into entrance scholarships. I would like to
see Shrum scholarships retained as our no. 1
prestige award. Perhaps the present number per year
?
S
could be maintained, but the amount increased to
approximately
$1,500 per semester. However, in addition
to the Shrum scholarships, I would like to see new
scholarships
Set
up as per your option #1, i.e. two
scholarships - an entrance scholarship and a scholarship
after GO
.
hours. I also like the terms of reference
which you have proposed to govern the award of the 60
hour scholarship.
2)
Graduate: I would prefer to see the graduate stipend
money channelled into competitive entrance scholarships.
The model I would recommend is the SFU Open Graduate
a
?
Dr. H. Weinberg
?
Page 2
Scholarship, although it is my view that a
recommendation from the Chairman of the Department
should be mandatory for these entrance scholarships
as well as the Open Graduate Scholarship. The reason
for that is to make sure that the best candidates
available to a Department are being put Forward.
JFC/mgj
cc: Chairman
Faculty of Science
cc: L.K. Peterson
Chairman, High School Liaison Committee
.
SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
MEMORANDUM
?
.
To......
Director
Financial Aid
Subject.
qi:•aqi•t• .Ji9a.P.lp.8.
?
Ap
pill
From.....
?
Chairman
Faculty of Arts
txa4tja.te.
Date......
4
p
.
5
1
22, 1982 ?
..
This memorandum summarizes the views of Arts Department Graduate Program
Committee Chairmen on the discussion paper, prepared by Hal Weinberg,. on
Graduate Scholarships and Stipends.
I. It is unanimously agreed that graduate stipends should be continued. They
are viewed as satisfying an important need of graduate students--that of
having a semester free of T.A./R.A. commitments to pursue their degree
requirements (typically, to finish writing a thesis/essay/project report).
2.
While SCSAB budgets may be insufficient to provide graduate stipends to all
currently eligible students as well as to fund the graduate scholarship
programs, the stipend component of the budget should be protected as far as
is reasonably possible. At least there should be no significant shift of
resources from stipends to scholarships.
3.
Chairmen should be asked each summer to identify students eligible for
stipends in their departments for the following three semesters. Eligibility
conditions would be similar to those in force now; required course work and
minimum of two semesters completed; in good standing; minimum 3.2 CGPA in
graduate programs; full-time (not "on leave"); not holding a major award
concurrently. Two of these conditions could be adjusted. Raising of the
minimum CGPA might help limit demand in an acceptable way, i.e. based on
academic performance. However, individual department priorities (see #5
below) might be a better point at which to deal with the demand problem.
Second, a "major award" could be defined in minimum dollar terms so as to
include full T.A. and R.A.ships as well as SSHItC/NSERC/MRC scholarships, but
to exclude partial teaching assistantships.
4.
Chairmen's lists of eligible students would be submitted to SCSAB, which
would use these data, in light of known budgetary information, as a basis for
determining: (i) the value of the Master's and Ph.D. level stipends, and
(ii) the allocation of stipends to departments. The first decision would
reflect SCSAB'S judgment as to how thinly to slice the pie. The size of the
stipends could be varied a little to respond to demands, resources, and T.A.
pay scales. It is not recommended that graduate stipend values be equated to,
or pegged to, T.A. stipend values.
is
The second decisfomi--departmental allocations--should reflect SCSAB'S
Judgment regarding
the
distribution of maximum demand. That is, SCSAB should
allocate funds as a percentage of maximum demand, the percentage value being
- ?
. fixed across departments at a level determined by the available budget and
Ize of stipend.
k21 982
A! 5 /
o •i
Vern C. Loewen
S ?
April 22, 1982
Page
5.
Each department would submit to the Faculty Graduate Studies Committee (or
SCSAB) a statement of priorities that would be applied if its allocation
were insufficient to meet demand. The Faculty Graduate Studies Committee
(or SCSAB) would then approve (or disapprove) the statement of priorities
as academically acceptable (or unacceptable). This would avoid students in
any department receiving manifestly unfair treatment. It also allows
departments to cut their cloth according to their particular needs. Some
departments may wish to allocate stipends strictly according to academic
performance (e.g. CGPA); others may wish to take into account partial
teaching assistantships; yet others may wish to take financial need into
consideration. Any such arrangement should be permitted providing that it
is declared in writing in advance, and is approved as academically acceptable
(and perhaps also as administratively feasible) by an appropriate body
(e.g. Faculty Graduate Studies Committee, SCSAB).
6.
One suggestion that had consensus but not unanimous support Is that some
percentage of the departmental allocation be identified as general purpose
funds. These funds could be: (a) treated as stipend money, or (b) diverted
to accommodate what the department sees as a more pressing graduate student
need. These funds would play a role similar to that of the General Research
Grant received from NSERC, which is now passed on to departments to do with
as they see fit (within bounds). Reasonable restrictions could be placed
on use of general purpose funds.
In summary, the virtues of the procedures suggested above are as follows:
(i)
Departments are required to make annual stipend demand forecasts
based on university-wide minimum eligibility criteria;
(ii)
This is the best information base, together with knowledge of the
scholarship/stipend budget, on
which to determine stipend size and
departmental allocations.
(iii)
Allocating lump sums to departments on a fixed percentage basis
is admittedly arbitrary. But this process does allow departments
to make the final decisions on stipend awards, and It is depart-
ments that are best situated to make such decisions.
a
?
?
'I
R. Blackman
RB/md
c.c. Arts Department Graduate Program Committee Chairmen
S ?
Hal Weinberg, Chairman, SCSAB
Bryan Beirne, Dean of Graduate Studies
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
?
MEMORANDUM
Dean H.
VOWfl
?
J. Zaslove
To
.................................................................
Subject.....
.
II
.
t
U
. ?
p•3 ?
.
Date. ..
April
22,
1J82
Weinberg report
3ome
o h n( ,
rv,)tions on the current probi em:
1. 1 do
not
su p
port a weighted C.P.A. that would distribute scholarships
according to a forinui.n that compensates for variation in departmental
C.P.A.'. ?
If a C.P.A. is used it should be used uniformly. since there
in no evidence that links high C.P.A.'n to "lowered stnndsrd" and
low
1'. A. 'a to"higher s tan dArds".
In
othrr words while grade in-
1 ntion may
.
create Fewer scholnrhipn in the present system a
weighted system vould only distribute money more
p
roportionately, but
w
ould (lot curb perceived inflation. In other words, again, do not
use
the scholarship system to correct this perceived abuse.
P. more long term support upon entrance would reward high school ner-
formartce, but would not be
an
incentive, except as the student
work.
, to maintain high standing. There Ia no reason to assume that
a stucierit with an average high school recoFdi can't excell
in
university.
I would therefore recommend that if the entrance ncholor3bips are
incre.-sed a portion of the total fund be set snide to encourage
thoe students who do extremely well
in
the intermediate range
of 30 - bC) hours. One benefit of earning a scholarship is that a
student in freed of
?
financial worries and could concentrate more
on
studies.
!any
students "bloom" at university after having been
bored :
,
nd stupified by the high school system.
3. If the C.P.A. method discriminates against certain departments can
a certain nuni be not
aside
to be used soleLy for departmental
schOlnrshi p
3?
I would like to see our department and the hnmanjtjp
rogram ,et achol a rnhi pa designatedbg parti culnr disciplines.
Scholarships of this kind,
in
my experience, tend ,identify really
eXCel
ion L students, some olwhom may have "erratic" C.i!. A. 's.
I//iV:
1
a.
SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
MEMORANDUM
wen
Vern Loe
To
.......................................................
Financial
Aid , Dept. of Finance
Subject .......
Cr
inds
From
?
C.R.
Day, Chairman,
di
It ' ?
11111V
ttuo
History Department
Date...
April 21/82
At our Department meeting of December 3rd, we discussed the issue
Of stipends vs. scholarships, and In the i'Inutes of the meeting,
enclosed, (see /16.) the Department was uiiaiiLmous in emphasizing
the importance of stipends as essential to our graduate progrnnune
in the History Department.
We are calling this to your attention because we understand that
the issue of budget for student stipends wil.1 be discussed in the
Senate in the near future.
We would appreciate if if you would call to the attention of the
Senate the History Department's decision.
O
C. R. Day
Chairman
Graduate Studies Committee
CRD:ja
ci.
v :'
" ?
c:-
.1
/ ?
2) It wa nioved and sendd
- that
Music
Dramas
ti i story
of
40-
Verd
?
Ic
Rottiatit.
and Wager
i e Nail
he
oil;,
w i
t
tht.(
I sin
rawn
in
the
; and
operas
that
and
?
in
tile
Mus
course
j
t'
and
dese
Opera
r i pti
become
on for
"Au
History
Exami
32
mat
Europe;i
ion of' the
U
Nat
rolitica
i ona Ii
I
sm
Content and Historical Cotit ext of' the Works
of
Verdi and
Ca ii'
I ed
It
was moved and seconded
- that Iii story 458-3 Pro hl e ms In Latin Amen ean UejonaJ
Hi story he changed to a300 .1 eve I course w i th a new course
t
itle and description, and that the normal content of
?
Twctt
History
t i e t h
450
-
Ceti
be
tury
taught
La t in
at
America".
the300 eve I as "
In
troduction to
?
'4
and
After
informat,
brotwht
d
I
I
on
scusionback
to
i
t,
the
was
next
agreed
department
that the
meet.
m
otion
1mg
be
with
withdrawn
more
J
(I.
(IL
I
mrni t tee
lit
, port
U.
student-,
Pay outlined
and two
prob
not
I
i
ems
o,ìs were
a r is i
presented
n in Fund
by
imu
the
programs
Comm i t
for
tee.
graduittic
I )
It wits me'ej and second'j that. the H I story Department Support the
tol tow in ?
POSjt oil
s:
- tiLt
Sttt
of the
It
j e,it
,eera
t
:'-'
n
he
?
S
?
F;
present
'
I
Im
dt
a
'a
have
v
to
ailabilIty
studetuf
terms
coii I
ol'
?
Oted
ci
tipeud
m'cfien't'
eotut'se
the
he
st
1
n,i
,,,I
Ifl
lend
?
I.
i
t't'fllent
to
the
at
it
I
I
gi'adu;,te
I
particularly
.,
ocat
iLI:iI
ion
-
(a)
that
st
to
the
tidemits
keep
?
pace
• and
wit
ril
Ii
ion
111e
increase
inr cea
Me
the
ill
st
time
ipemmd
nunihe,'
bmh!et
of
gradwite
(b)
to tecogn I
ze tIme i
?
?
rease in
t
ile cost of Ii vi :ii.
Not i oil car
l
.
ted
Un:,tm i inous ly
(2) It was moved and seconded:
- that tile H is tory I
1
epar tnmefl t recommends that
it
niechatui sin be
St
estahi
i
ponds
I shed
per
to
fiscal
assess
year,
the
and
pro jec ted demand for
g
raduate student
- that the gr
the l"aeul
ty
aduate
of the
students
U
istory Department
of'
the II I story
jointly
I
) epartrne,it
convey these
and
the
Concerns
Vi ce-Pres
to
I
the
demi
following
t Ac.mdem
coimi
Ic
t.t ecs,'pez
. 'so,mn
&
I ,
SCSAR
and
Motion
Ci1'L'jccf
a bs t emit I
Oil
The meet I ng ;mdj otirued at 1:00 p.
SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
MEMORANDUM
STo .......
Th..Ua1.Weinbrg
........................
?
From ........ .Ja..
.?.Yc9.c?gy...............
Sub
jed
....................................................
?
Date .........
1.982.
.0.4..22............................
Hal,
Enclosed is a memo from John Chase which outlines much of
yesterday's discussion.
I find John's proposition attractive,
j
ust so long as there is
some means to assist students with real need. An S.F.U. scholar-
ship for every B.C. High School, or for every high school we can,
starting with those in Greater Vancouver, should certainly tell
those interested that S.F.U. wants and will serve top students.
An alternative to the above would be John Cochran's proposal that
. ?
each department have a prestigious scholarship, awarded on the
basis of a department-managed examination.
In time, I hope we can
do
both.
Jac
JB/lm
Enclosure
cc. John Chase
Al McMillan
Bill' Stewart
0
SiMON . FRASER UNIVERSITY
MEMORANDUM
To .....
.Dr. Jac ?
Blaney
?
I
k
From. John S. Chase, Director ... ..... .. . ...........
41
Vice-President
?
Office of Analytidal Studies
Subject....
Sclolarships
?
Date.. April 20, 1982
Last week, you asked if I
.
would put together some notes
regarding possible objectives for an undergraduate scholarship
program. Your request arose in the context of re-consideration by
SCSAB of undergraduate scholarships and graduate stipend allocations
at SFU, and the possibility of the high school liaison committee
proposing changes which would facilitate the enrolment at SFU of
greater numbers of 13.C.'s top scholastic students.
Set forth below are a set of first principles around which a
program of scholarship support might be based:
1.
Funds to facilitate access to S.F.U. should be provided
by the federal and provincial government student aid
programs (financial needs assessment required).
2.
University
student awards
operating
(no assessment
funds should
of student's
be used primarily
financial
for
?
is
position involved).
3.
Student award monies should have as their primary
objective the rewarding and stimulation of academic
achievement.
4.
Student award monies, should be:
a)
used to attract as many scholastically top B.C.
students to the University as possible.
b)
made as prestigious as possible.
- maximum publicity
- dollar amounts sufficiently large to be
perceived as being prestigious
c)
commit-ted to winners of scholarships for 60 semester
credit hours. In other words, the commitment once
made is good even if the student's scholastic
performance is not maintained at a high level.
d)
used only to support those students who are prepared
to make a substantial academic commitment to the
University, i.e. enrol for 12 or more credit hours
per semester.
?
Is
-2-
e)
used to increase the University's visubility and
commitment to academic excellence throughout the province,
e.g. providing scholarships to the top or one of the five
top students in each high school in the province.
f)
used to encourage students to complete their.undergraduatc
program at S.F.U.,
i.e.
by offering scholarships for the
last 60 hours of a student's program similar to the entrance
on
es for a specified number of students who have completed
60 semester credit hours.
The advantages of the approach proposed are:
First, it shifts the emphasis of the student award program
from in-programme scholarship to entrance scholarship.
Second, it eliminates the open-ondedness of our present
student award program to one that has definite financial
boundaries.
Third, it increases our visability and our emphasis on
academic excellence throughout the province.
Fourth, it not only provides the winners with assured
• ?
financial support for 60 hours but also offer an incentive
for continued academic excellence through the offering of
similar scholarships for the last 60 hours of their program.
The approach does represent a significant departure from that
which presently exists. Specifically, the .resent commitment to
in-programme scholarships would be abandoned, and part-time students
would be denied access to the scholarships proposed. These actions,
however, - a move toward elitism and away from egalitarianism - are
not in the S.F.U. tradition!
What are your reactions?
J SC/gina
S
L
SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
MEMORANDUM
To...
Director, Financial Aid
Subject
....................................................
From........A.S
?
.
0
lor
?
iet• Pqryices
Date.....
.
3rd
pril •98..
While I do not
wish to
catment on the section of Hal's
discussion paper relating to graduate stipends, I would like
to make camants regarding the section on undergraduate
Scholarships.
I am very much in favor of a significant admissions
scholarship program, based on the
ShrLmi scholarships
which
ccinnit funding to students for nine seisters. This program
continues to bring us sane of our very best students. While
our
first
secondary
year or two
scholarship
of the students
programs
attendance
could be limited
we need to
to
the
continue these prestigious outstanding scholarships as they
currently exist.
The first option for discussion
which.
Hal suggests would
reduce the impact of the Shrum scholarships. The second option
makes better sense. I have never been an advocate of scholar-
ships for part-time students, and I am not convinced that the
fee rebate scholarships do much in the way of attracting new
students (although they must be useful in attracting transfer
students and keeping
saii
students who might otherwise transfer.)
We should focus our scholarship support rather than spreading
it out and reducing its impact.
Finally, we might realize maximm.nn benefit from the savings
realized by defining a set, limited number of fee rebate
scholarships by adding a few
Shruin
scholarships and using the
rest of the money for scne less substantial scholarships (for
example, $750 per semester x 4 saiiesters.)
W.A. Stewart
W1\S:el
C • C.
V'
Dr. H. Weinberg
SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
?
MEMORANDUM
1
?
..... V.C. loewen, Secretary
?
From
?
K.F. lfleckhoff
Financial
c.::x: ...............................
Aid Office
?
...............................
Department
Ph
of
of ?
ysi.cs
1)tscusstonape...
................
................................
Subject
?
............J
.
o
?
..•m
.e ?
Date
.... ..............
?
. 2 5,19..
Following are my observations reqard.tnq
the
var i.ou;
options presented In the Discuss l.or, Paper on liriderq rd(IIIat.
C
Scholarships and Graduate Stipends at SF().
a) Undergraduate Scholarships
I consider the top prior it jes of this scholarship
proaram to be two purposes of etiaI importance.
.1) To attract students of' hi(Ili schol .islic
ability and potent i.,il: to SFII.
ii.) To provide an incen t Eve to SFU si. tideji t s
?
to aim for real Izal ion of their full
• ?
scholarly ootenttal by insuring that:
• ?
top students are at least part i.il ly
ii
•
?
protected from flnaci al
?
concrns.
e
?
Thus
they are enabled to channel their energies
more fully Into their studies.
I should he prepa-red to support any opt Ion that
recoqri izes these two alms to approximately equal
degrees.
Further in the hierarchy of priorities I believe the
undergraduate scholarship program should favour
1) full-time students over part-lime students
and young students over older students
because of the greater and longer returns
to society from its investment for young
students ohtaininq their degrees at a
rapid rate as compared with older students
who have already a productive niche . In soc i ely.
ii)
students from areas of
P.C.
that are at pre.siit
underrepresented in the student population com-
p
ared with those from the major popi.ul .iilori
centers;
iii)
talented students from social, strata tinder-
represented at present compared with those from
socio-economically advantaged st rata.
'41/)
V. C. LoeWen
?
-2 -
?
March
25,
1982
(1) )
?
(;r rId
ii ..it. e
St 1. pen
(
I
s
T
stronql.y Support the comments
of
both the
Dean of
Cradilitte Studies
anti
the student members of SCSAR
except
for the hit
icr's
recommendation 2) which
would
TA - hlp.
tie the amount of the stipend to that
of ?
7
A
furl her comment. Is
necessary:
?
Besides students
On major
schol..trsh Ips, sititlents able to hold
resea
rch
-assist ' ant. ships wh
i
ch
allow
them to devot
e
l t
11110 t
o
t
livsis research
while
fully
Supported
should
luv
tlEsqua.l. i.E
led
From receIvinq the stipend.
This
woiul.d
affect
mainly
students
in areas such as
my
OWfl ,
where supervi sors
have
ample sources
of
support for uraduale students.
?
To
qive such
student ?
St
[ p
ends
merely means qiv
iiq research
support
to
the suriervisor in
such cases.
?
This
?
ear Iv never
was the
Intent
of the Stipend.
?
I
?
we I remember that
in
fact
one of its aims was to
equal i i.e somewhat,
the qraduate student
support
bet
weori the
various disciplines.
A [low
i.nq
these funds to qo to Faculties and
Depart -
ment.s
would divert
at
least some of them from their
real purpose: ?
The sup p
ort of
q
raduate students
enqaced in research (as distinct from qraduate
students
in
qeneral,
and st1ne - visor
's research
in
a r I. I cu I a r )
Please see that my comments are brouqht to the attention
of the
members of
SCSAU.
- ?
'2 ?
•I
K.F. llleckhoff^^4^
KF P
/
dy
SIMON F.RASER UNIVERSITY
MFMnRANnIIM
To .....................
Dr.
....
Hal
Weinb.........................................................
Chairman, S.C.S.A.B.
....Dept...of...Psycholoz .......... . ............................ ....
......
Sub j ect
....
.
Scholarships...0 ... Stipends
.........................
From. ?
.
E.J. 1!ickiu
thainiun
Dept. of* Geography
Date ?
April 6,
1982
Dear Hal:
I would like to nuke known my feelings iboiit the ;choLtrhjp and
stipend program at S.F.U.
?
.
First, I believe that the fee-rebate schcme should be elirnitaLect
and the funds applied to entrance and open ;choiarhip;. These should be
advertised and publicised in the Province's choo1.s.
Second, I would like to see some recogni:tion of need in awarding gtiduate
stipends. For example, NSERC and SSI-IRC scholarship holders should he in-
eligible. Perhaps departments should be given none say in inciki.ng Lhe
awards. Certainly in my own Department they ort.eri do not ervc th.i.n
signed purpose.
purpose.
-
..,..
E.J. Hickin ? . ?
.
EJH/mgb
SD
Arm
2 ?
. ?
.
,P
SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
MEMORANDUM
To
.......... .
Br>'.
?
Pc...pf
rachte ?
.
From..
4ike
•
Steig, ?
niian,......................
.............
.S;udie
. ?
.ril
. . .
?
duatç ?
PTh,.
?
cent.
Subject ...
RO
.
V.S
. 9fl
..S.tpc1..Ip.l..cy
?
.Date...Ap....
.
198.
..
The English Department Graduate Program Committee has met and discussed
Dr. Weinberg's discussion paper regarding Graduate Stipends. We are
unanimous in our feeling that the first option, of using funds previously
earmarked for stipends to "recruit superior graduate students," would be
damaging to our graduate programs. Though it is difficult to know just
what 1)r. Weinberg is really proposing, given the list of eight options
Wide "
the main one, it would seem that the main intent is to take money
which benefits a large number of graduate students and consolidate it for
the benefit of a very few- -each department (or faculty) having a quite
I imi ted nwber of entrance scholarships to disburse. One thing that should
he kept in mind is that we are less able to judge the abilities of applicants
from outside than we are those of our own students, and such a huge shift of
funds from present students to entering students seems disproportionate and
unfair in thatlight. Further, administering any of the proposals under
Option I would be complicated and time-consuming. It also strikes us as
strange that, now that the University has a full-time Resources person
(Dr. W. Kiassen), who can be directed to spend part of his time attempting
to raise funds for scholarships, that such a large investment in scholarships
of funds presently used for stipends is being considered. Has Dr. Weinberg's
committee even considered this new factor as having some possible relevance
to the entire situation?
The second option, which attaches certain conditions to the present stipend
program, is far preferable, although
112
is unclear- -does "after two semesters"
mean a minimum of two semesters, or does this eliminate the requirement that
coursework be completed? Certainly, our students have made best use of the
stipend when they were ready to begin writing their theses or revising and
expanding their extended essays--and indeed, there is no doubt that without the
stipend many of them would have been delayed in the completion of this aspect
of the degree requirements.
To predict the ni.uthcr and give the names of graduate students qualifying for
and needing stipends from September through August is something that can and
must be done if the stipend program is not to get into the mess it did this year.
This, however, raises the question of priorities. Dr. l3eirne's attempt to sketch
some possible priorities is a step in the right direction, but we wish to make
some comments. First of all, favoring Ph.D. students (who are, after all, eligible
for twice as many TAships- -at a higher rate of pay—as M.A. student) would
discriminate against those departments, such as our own, where there is a small
Ph.D. program and quite a large N.A. program. Secondly, the distinction between M.A.
students who write theses and those who write extended essays would be, for the
English Department, extremely unfair; for our students often spend nearly as
much time revising and expanding their essays as they do writing a thesis. And
.
12
- ?
-2-
.
?
giving preference for stipends to the thesis-writers would artificially
encourage the choice of our thesis option--something quite contrary to the
department's policy of considering the two kinds of degree to be of
equivalent value and to require equivalent work.
A simpler, if not perfect, way to deal with possible shortfalls of stipend
funds would be to raise the minimum CPA from 3.2 to 3.S for the year in which such
a shortfall is going to occur. There is a certain unfairness in such a policy,
but at least it would reward merit rather than the nature of the particular
graduate program, as in Dr. Bei.rne's suggestions.
In conclusion, I want to reiterate that the choice of option 1, using stipend
funds for recruiting superior graduate students, would be a disaster for the
English Department and, I suspect, many other departments. It would, effectively,
cut the total ainoi..mt of support for most of our M.A. students by something
approaching 20% (since we allow only four TAshi.ps), in favor of a sni1l group
of new students of whose ability we could not always he certain. And
it
would
be an arbitrary change of policy, one which seems to be being considercd without
any regard for-other potential sources of scholarship funds.
Mike Steig
c.c. VDr. H. Weinberg
Mr. V. Loewen, Director, Financial Aid
tS::m
is
SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Js
MEMORANDUM
To
................
Senate Comittee on Scholarships,
.
?
ivr.r.te
...............
Subject ........
SE'.
E
J'
I
P.
S
.................................
"
Bob Anderson, Chairman
?
r
From
......
&raduate tuth L
y
s Comnil ttee............
Department of Communication
20 April 1982
Date
..................................................
The Graduate Studies Committee of this department has reviewed
the SCSAE3 discussion paper relating to graduate student stipends.
The committee is of the unanimous view that:
I. the original objective of enabling students to devote a
full semester to research "without having to be concerned
about finances" be preserved;
2.
stipend money not be allocated for scholarship-type
disbursements through departments, but if ranking
stipend applicants is necessary this function should be
performed by departments;
3.
the stipend budget be set at a realistic figure with
allowance made for fluctuating demand;
4.
major award holders, teaching assistants and research
assistants, and others with significant employment be
considered ineligible for the stipend;
5.
the value of a stipend be equivalent to the value of
a full TAship.
;, ?
S
Bob Anderson
/kmg
.
'I
SIMON FRASER IJINIVEI{sJ'['y
?
MEMORANDUM
To ..........
J
aapTuiniayl
................................
.From
PhI] Winno
Subject.... ?
çlou Paper
?
Sa%ariipS , lt
11
4
?
-
We ...........April
I have just a few comments, First, I think that scholarships a1wys
should be awards for high scholarship. Second, I believe that monies
ought to be distributed as widely as possible under the constraint
that the first principle is met.
At the undergraduate level, I would propose a slight variance of
Weinberg's first option (pp. 9-11). In particular, I would argue.
that all students who have the highest GPA (or other indicator of
quality for entering students) be awarded a scholarshi
-
p of $700 for
the 60 credit hours. I base my figure on the assumption that a
student taking 15 credit hours would pay $330 in tuition and approximately
$250 for books ($50 per 3-credit Course). This would fund approximately
three students for every two that Weinberg'; $1000 figure would fund.
At the graduate level, I am in favour of We iuiberg' s option that mon les
• for the stipend be distributed to Departments (or In our case, Faculty)
for distribution to their highest quality studtiit. Each Department or
Faculty1could be used in any of the ways Indicated by Weinberg on pages
21-22, except that I do not believe theme monies should
be
applied
to
moving expenses for entering graduate students or facilitating the
publication of the r.hesls. I am particularly in favour of reserving
a portion of this allocated money to fund emergency needs related to
thesis completion (e.g., travel, duplication of materials, and so on;
Weinberg's point 6). I am not in favour of providing scholarships in
the form of a stipend for graduate students of less than
top
quality.
I would suggest that a reserve of money he created at the University
level which graduate students could use as a source of emergency loans
when those were needed. Finally, I am particularly in favour of Weinberg's
point number 2 for graduate students, namely, guaranteeing long term
support for entering students as
.
a means for attracting top notch
applications.
Thanks for the chance to respond.
PHIL WINNE
PW:ss
?
r
. ?
. . .
- -------.--
