7
SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
S ?
-I(o__
MEMORANDUM
As amended at Senate, Qeceither 6, 1982
- •
?
From.......
Date......
]9..
Subject....... ?
Committee on
Enrolment Limitation
.
-Action taken by the
.
Senate Committee.On Academic
Planning at its meeting of September 22, 1982 and the Senate
Undergraduate Admission Board at its meeting of October 21,
1982 gives rise to the following motion.
MOTION
That Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board of
Governors the following recommendations concerning limitation
of enrolment.
A. General
1.
That any policies for limiting enrolment shall be based
primarily on academic achievement and potential.
2.
That any regulations involving University or department
enrolment limitations shall be conveyed to students as
early as possible. Since unforeseen circumstances may
require special actions to control enrolments, a statement
advising of this possibility shall be included in the
University calendar.
3.
That no action be taken on the specific recommendations
regarding overall University enrolment limitation until
a) there has been discussion with the other two
universities and other educational institutions;
b) the new UCBC grant allocation mechanism has been
established.
B. University Enrolment
1. That, until additional space is made available and until
the University's operating grant support reflects actual
increases in the costs of operating the University, the
undergraduate head count enrolment in the Fall semester
shall be limited to 11,000 students. The determination
of head count enrolment for this purpose shall exclude
enrolment in the Directed Independent Study Course program
and other programs funded through the Interior budget.
cont . . . Page 2
Page2
Senate
November 23, 1982
To implement this overall limitation, the following
specific limitation
,
measures shall be employed, in
he order indicated.
a)
econsideration
of
the international student quota
to ensure that
this
group of st.idens pears an
appropriate proportion of the reduction in total
enrolment and that there is consistency between
the standards applied to this group and other
adipission categories.
b)
The higi school grade point average require to
enter the University directly from B.C. high schools
continue at 2.50 for all students, but with modifi-
cation of the present review process for applicants
below this level.
c)
The regt1atiors governing the academic standing required
fr continuance as a student be made more stringent. The
changes should concentrate on reducing the period of time
in which students with deficient qAs may continue as
students and on removing the authority of the Senate
Appeals oar to re-admit students who are on Prequir
ed
• ?
to wthdraw
!I
or "permanent
w4hdrawa1"
tatis
except under
extenuating circumstances
I
(NOTE:- The Senate Undergraduate Admissions Board has
given consideration to this matter and it is expected that
specific recommendations will be brought forward to Senate
shortly. It is intended that action in this area be under-
taken as soon as possible because
of
academic standards,
without reference to the enrolment limitation processes.
Th.e recominenatiois at present are at SCUS).
) The ad,miasion of students under the mature student category
be adjusted with mpre stringent condiions for continuance.
(NOTE:- The Snate Urdergrauate Admissions Board has given
consideration tp this topic and it is expected that specific
recommendations will come forwrd from that body to Senate
shortly. The recommendations at present are at SCUS).
..
cont . . . Page 3
k
3
e!
nate
November 23, 1982
/
required
colleges
institutions.
institutions
is ) The cumulative grade point average normally
for admission of students transferring from
and universities be set at 2.25 for Canadian
The equivalent requirement for non-Canadian
shall be increased to 2.65.
f) Limitation of enrolmentbeyond the levels achieved
through a), b), c), and d), be accomplished by in-
creasing the required level of academic achievement
in some or all of the above areas.
2. That, since part-time students constitute an increasing
proportion of total undergraduate enrolment, a separate
study be made to assess the implications of this trend on
operating and capital costs and the character of the
University.
C. Departmental Enrolments
1. That enrolment limitations for individual departments be
considered when one of the following conditions prevails:
a)
enrolment growth exceeds the department's ability to
respond because of physical space constraints, the
inability of the University to allocate more operating
resources to the department, or the inability of the
department to attract sufficient qualified faculty;
b)
undergraduate enrolment in the department constitutes
an excessive proportion of the University's total
undergraduate enrolment;
c)
it is determined that the best interests of the
department and the University in maintaining academic
quality require that enrolment be limited.
2. That policies for limiting departmental enrolments be
uniform across the University, recognizing that unique
situations may require special attention.
3. That the policy for limiting departmental enrolments take
the following form:
a)
determination by the department, in conjunction with
the Faculty Dean, of the number of students which it
can accommodate in its honors, major, minor and other
programs.
b)
establishment of a minimum cumulative G.P.A. for accep-
tance into departmental programs. The cumulative G.P.A.
will be set at a level which is expected to enrol the
number of students determined in a);
c) to remain in a department's program, the student shall be
expected to maintain a cumulative G.P.A. at a level to
be determined at the time that the enrolment limitation
policy is established;
Page 4
Senate
November 23, 1982
d) students
but who wish
who are
to take
not
upper
accepted
division
into departmental
courses in the
programs
10
department, shall be governed by the cumulative G.P.A.
required at the time they wish to register in these
courses.
Approval by Senate and Board of Governors would be required
in each case.
FIV
Scheduling and Flexibility
That the recommendations of the Senate Committee on University
Budget in its report "Enrolment Growth: The Effect on Instructional
Facilities", relating to the feasibility of assigning courses to
individual rooms after the completion of in-person registration,
spreading of courses more evenly across the five-day week, more
effective scheduling of evening courses, and more efficient use
of large lecture theatres be considered for implementation
E. Future Review
That the Senate Committee on Academic Planning be given
responsibility for monitoring the impact of enrolment
limitation measures and recommending appropriate changes to
Senate for.its consideration.
RATIONALE
The report of the President's Committee on EnrolftientLimitatiön
is attached for information, and provides rationale for the
proposed motion. The report and its recommendations were considered
by the Senate Committee on Academic Planning and, in addiEioh,
section C of those recommendations, dealing with University
enrolment, has received consideration by the Senate Undergraduate
AdmiSsions Board, with specific recommendations from that
that Board
expected to come forward shortly to Senätë. The motion i-lOw
proposed for Senate consideration is based on the actione. of the
two Senate committees.
J. M. Munr.o
/d s
1]
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
S
MEMORANDUM
Mr. H. Evans
?
Senate Committee on Academic
To
..........................................................
.
From
..................................................
Secretary to Senate
?
Planning
November 19, 1982
Subiect
..................................................... .
?
Date
.....................................................
Action taken at the September 22, 1982 meeting of the Senate
Committee on Academic Planning gave
rise
to the following
motion:
"That approval be given to the report of the President's
Committee on Enrolment Limitation and recommendation
for approval be made to Senate".
It should be noted that certain recommendations of the report
fall under the purview of other Senate Committees; in those
instances, the relevant recommendations are now under review
with reports expected from the other Senate Committees early
in 1983.
S
JSC/ gma
0
MEMORANDUM
4
.K...C...Pecer..sen ?
.
. . . President.
SEibjed. -President! &
-Committee on .Enrojment.
Limitation
From.
3.)LJufltO
.
.......
VicerF?re.sicienL, . Acadecitic
.
D
ais .......
ugust.3,..1982...........................
The President's Committee on Enrolment Limitation was established by you
in February,
191f
to examine matters relating to the possible limitation of
undergraduate enrolment at Simon Fraser University and to advise the President
on this issue. Members of the Committee included
J.
S. Chase, Director of
Analytical Studies and H. M. Evans, Registrar. I chaired the Committee.
The Committee dist r
ibuted its first report in une, 1981. That report
provided information on enrolment growth, the ability of the University to
accommodate increased enrolment, and various options for limiting enrolment.
No recommendations were set out in the first report -- the Committee wished to
stimulate discussion and obtain comments from the University community before
drafting specific recommendations.
A second report was released in December, 1981. That report provided some
additional information and contained a set Of draft recomendatiohs. An open
meeting to discuss the report was held and it and a number of written comments
gave the Committee new perspectives on the enrolment problem and the measures
available to solve it.
Over the last year, extensive comments on this matter have been received
from students, faculty and staff. While enrolment limitation is not an issue
on which campus opinion is unanimous, the Committee was impressed by the.
thoughtfulness of the responses it received and the concern expressed for the
well-being of the University. We wish to acknowledge the asistance of all
those who provided comments. It has not been possible, obviously, to
accommodate all the viewpoints within our recommendations.
I
cd
J.
M. Munro
/gma ?
'I
91W
cc
J.
Chase
/ H. Evans. ?
AUG 61982
JEGISTRAR'S 0JCE?
1IML DESK
J.
M. Munro, Chairman
J.
S. Chase
H. H. Evans
August, 1982
S
FINAL REPORT OF THE
?
PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE ON ENROLMENT LIMITATION
.
0
1. REC0MLMJ!T iONS
A. IntrooucUon
These recommendations
?
repiesent, in the view of the President's
.
Comittee on Enrolment Limitation, the best policies for the
University to adopt in the face of Increasing demand by students for
Its programs ano constant or decreasing financial and space
resources. We believe it is regrettable that the University must
consider limiting undergraduate enrolment and we recognize that any
measures proposed to effect such limitation would raise serious
concerns.
General
1.
That any policies for limiting enrolment shall be based
primarily on academic achievement and potential.
2.
That any regulations involving University or department
enrolment limitations shall be conveyed to students as early as
possible. Since unforeseen circUmstances may require special
actions to control enrolments, a statement advising of this
possibility shall be included in the University calendar.
3.
That no action be taken on the specific recommendations
regarding overall University enrolment limitation until
a)
there has been discussion with the other two
universities and other educational institutions;
b)
the new IJCBC grant allocation mechanism has been
established.
University Enrolment
1.
?
That, until additional space is made available and until the
University's operating grant support reflects actual increases
in the costs of operating the University, the undergraduate head
count enrolment in the Fall semester shall be limited to 11,000
students. The determination of head count enrolment for this
purpose shall exclude enrolment in the Directed independent
Study Course program and other programs funded throUgh the
Interior budget.
To implement this overall limitation, the following specific
limitation measures shall be employed, in the order indicated.
a) Reconsideration of the international stuoent quota to
ensure that this group of students bears an appropriate
proportion of the reduction in total enrolment and that
there is consistency between the standards applied to this
group and other aomission categories.
b)
The high school grace point average required to enter the
University directly from B.C. high schools continue at 2.50
for all students, but with modification of the present
review process for applicants below this level.
B.
C.
.
.
-.3-
c)
The regulations
g
overning the academic standing required
for continuance as a student should be maoe more
stringent. The changes should concentrate on reducing the
period of time in which students with deficient C.P.A.'s
may continue as students and on removing the authority of
the Senate Appeals board to re-admit students who are
"Required to Withdraw" or "Permanent Withdrawal" status.
d)
The admission of students under the mature student category
be conditional based on fulfillment of the following
conditions:
1) registration in and completion of at least 5 semester
hours in the first semester of enrolment;
ii) achievement of a C.P.A. of at least 2.C%J
in
the first
semester.
Students admitted uioer this admission category who do not
fulfill these conditions shall be placed on "Required to
Withdraw" status.
e)
The cumulative grade point average normally required for
admission of students transferring from colleges and
universities be increased to
2.2
for British Columbia
institutions. The equivalent requirement for
out-of-province institutions be increased to 2.6.
f)
Limitation of enrolment beyond the levels achieved through
a), b), c), d) and e) be accomplished by increasing the
required level of academic achievement in some or all of
the above areas.
2. That, since part-time students constitute an increasing
? -
proportion of total unoergraduate enrolment, a separate study be
?
made to assess the implications of this trend on operating and
?
-.
capital costs and the character of the University.
D. Departmental Enrolments
1. ?
That enrolment limitations for individual departments be
considered when one of the following conditions prevails:
a)' enrolment growth exceeds the department's ability to
respond because of physical space constraints, the
inability of the University to allocate more operating
resources to the department, or the inability of the
department to attract sufficient qualified faculty;
b)
undergraduate enrolment in the department constitutes an
excessive proportion of the University's total
undergraduate enrolment;
c)
it is determined that the best interests of the aepartment
and the University in maintaining academic quality require
that enrolment be limited.
2.
That policies for Uniting depaitnental inioJnnts be unhfcjim
across the Univezsit.y, recuanizing that unique situations may
require special attention.
3.
That the policy for limiting departmental enrolments take the
following form:
a) determination by the department, in conjunction with the
Faculty Dean, of the number of students which it can
accommodate in its honors, major, minor and other programs.
b)
establishment of a minimum cumulative C.P.A. for acceptance
into departmental programs. ihe cumulative C.P.A. will
,
be
set at a level which is expecteo to enrol the number of.
students determined in a);
c)
to remain in a department's program, the student shall be
expected to maintain a cumulative C.P.A. at a level to be
determined at the time that the enrolment limitation policy
is established;
d)
students who are not accepted into departmental programs
but who wish to take upper division courses in the
department, shall be governed by the cumulative C.P.A.
required at the time they wish to register in these courses.
Approval by Senate and Boaro of Governors would be required in
each case.
E.
Scheduling and Flexibility
That the recommendations of the Senate Committee on University Budget
in its report "Enrolment Growth: The Effect on Instructional
Facilities", relating to the feasibility of assigning courses to
individual rooms after the completion of in-person registration,
spreading of courses more evenly across the five-day week, more
effective scheduling of evening courses, and more efficient use of
large lecture theatres be consiaered for implementation.
F.
Future Review
That the Senate Committee on Academic Planning be given
responsibility for monitoring the impact of enrolment limitation
measures and recommending appropriate changes to Senate for its
consideration.
II. CHARGE TO THE COMMITTEE
In his memorandum of February 10, 1981, Dr. K. C. Pedersen, President
of Simon Fraser University, provided the Presidential Committee on
Enrolment Limitation (PCEL) with the following membership and terms of
reference:
MEMBERSHIP:
?
J.
M. Munro, Vice-President, Academic (Chairman)
J.
S. Chase, Director, Analytical Studies
H. H. Evans, Registrar
.
.
TERMS OF REFERENCE:
To advise the President concerning the following matters relating to
limiting undergraduate enrolment at Simon Fraser University:
1.
the classroom and other physical limitations on continued growth
in undergraduate enrolment;
2.
In consultation with the Senate Committee on University Budget,
to review the opportunities for extending the use of campus
space over the week in Fall and Spring semesters; -
3.
the opportunities for a more accommodating enrolment
distribution throughout the full acaoemic year (i.e., increased
enrolment in the Summer semester in association with decreases
in the other two semesters);
4.
the possibilities of increasing the use of off-campus space;
5.
the problems of enrolment increases in particular departments
and programs;
6.
the difficulties associated with enrolment limitations as they
relate to particular groups of students (e.g. high school
stuoents, college transfers, part-time stuoent, on and
off-campus students, international students, senior citizens,
etc.);
7.
the financial consequences of limiting enrolment;
8.
analysis of possible measures to limit enrolment:
a)
increases in admission standards;
b)
tightening of academic standard regulations for existing
students;
c)
program-specific limitation measures;
d)
new program quotas.
The Committee has chosen not to structure its report or
recommendations according to these terms of reference. Nevertheless, we
believe that all of them have been addressed in this report.
III. SUMMARY OF CURRENT ENROLMENT SITUATION
Simon Fraser University has been, and continues to be, one of the
most rapidly growing universities in Canada. From 1974/75 through
1981/82, undergraauate headcount onrolment increased 66 percent to 12,629
while undergraduate full-time equivalent enrolment increased by 34 percent
to
8,376;
average per annum increases over the seven-year period were 7•4
and 4.30 respectively. Over the same period, graduate headcount enrolment
•
?
increased
54
percent to
1,243,
while graduate full-time equivalent
enrolment Increased by 40 percent to
937.
S
Equally as dramatic as the overall enrolment Increases have been the
changes in admission categories, attendance patterns, and program
preferences.
Undergraduate students admitted to S.F.U. can be classified Into tour
broad categories, as shown below:
Percent Distribution of New Students
Admitted in Years Specified
?
0
1974/75.
1979/80
1980/81
1981/82
•
S
a)
B.C. Grade XII
929
25.4
1,196
30.5
1,082
23.2
1,161
25.4
b)
mature
403
11.0
634
16.2
764
16.4
673
14.7
0
transfer
1,044
28.5
1,017
26.0
1,324
28.5
1
1
372
30.0
d)
other 1
12287
35.1
1
1
070
273
1,483
31.9
1,367
29.9
TOTAL ?
30663 100.0 3,917 100.0 4,653 100.0 4,573 100.0
l
lrciudes those admitted on the basis of special status Grade XIII and
additional work, foreign equivalent of Grade XII, out of province Grade
XII, early admission, special entry, visitors, and P.D.P.
•
?
Between 1974/75 and 1979/80, little change occurred in the numbers of
students admitted as transfer students; the B.C. Grade XII and mature
student categories showed significant increases while the 'other' category
showed a decline about equal to the increases in the B.C. Grade XII
category. Between 1979/80 and 1981/82, the substantial rise in the number
of new admissions resulted primarily from increases in the 'transfer' and
'other' categories and to a lesser degree in the mature student category;
only those admitted on the basis of B.C. Grade XII showed a decline.
The shifts in attendance patterns have been even more significant.
Percentaoe of Total Underoraduate Enrolment
1974/75 ?
1981/82
a)
undergraduate
full-time ?
71 ?
49
b)
undergraduate
part-time ?
29 ?
51
c)
day-time
1 ?
90 ?
84
d)
evening only
?
10 ?
16
1
lncludes those enrolled in day-time only and a combination
of day-time and evening courses.
• -
?
seven-year
While
period
full-time
(from
undergraduate
5,394 to 6,148),
enrolment
the increase
continued
in
to
part-time
rise over the
?
S
undergraduate student enrolment was much more rapid (from 2,189 to 6,480).
-7-
The use of an 'evening only' Category clearly uncerstates a major
shift from day-time to evening attendarxe. in addition to those students
S
??
enrolling as 'evening only', there are many students enrolled in a
?
combination of day-time aria evening courses,
in the
Fall 1981 semester,
for example, 48 percent of undergraduate students were enrolled in
day-time course offerings only, 33 percent in a combination of day-time
and evening. course offerings, and 19 percent in an evening only program.
A third major change in attendance patterns is reflected in the
distribution of students attending on-campus versus off-campus. As a
result of initiatives in the interior of the province, SFU/Downtown, and
the DISC program, F.T.E. off-campus enrolments now constitute 9 percent of
the University's F.T.E. undergraduate Fall semester enrolment.
Finally, international student enrolments (those admitted to Canada
on the basis of a student visa, visitor's visa, or diplomatic visa) as a
proportion of all semester total undergraduate headcount enrolment have
risen steadily from 4.8 percent of the total in the fall semester 1974,
to
9.6 percent in the Fall semester 1980, and 10.9 percent in the Fail
semester 1981.
IV. CAPACITY
The extent to which Simon Fraser University can accommodate more
students is affected by a number of variables. The Senate Committee on
•
University
University
in
Budget
order
examined
to assess
the
the
course
extent
scheduling
to which
operation
additional
at
undergraduate
Simon Fraser
students can be accommodated within existing on-campus instructional
facilities. In its report, "Enrolment Growth: The Effect on Instructional
Facilities", 5UB concluded that a conservative estimate of the increase
in undergraduate full-time equivalent students which could realistically
be accommodated within current instructional facilities was 24 percent.
Using SCUB's base semester of 1980-3, this represents an increase of 1,505
undergraduate F.T.E. on-campus students, and would allow an on-campus
undergraduate F.T.E. population of 7,774 per semester.
It should be noted that the Senate Committee on University Budget did
not specifically address the adequacy of undergraduate laboratory space,
or take into consideration the instructional implications of graduate
student enrolment. Analysis by the Office of Analytical Studies indicates
that non-laboratory space constraints were potentially more severe than
those for laboratory space. Given this relative ranking of space
pressures, it was decided to limit the analysis to the former.
At the graduate level, the demands on instructional space are quite
different from those at the undergraduate level. Many departments utilize
their own space for graduate courses, rather than space scheduled by the
Registrar'.s Office. In addition, there is generally more scheduling
flexibility at the graduate than at the undergraduate level. In making
these generalizations, this Committee acknowledges that in some
S
?
?
departments graduate instruction does require the use of centralized
?
instructional facilities. However, our mandate was to study the
limitation of undergraduate enrolment.
The 24 percent potential increase In undeigraduate enrolment
projected by SCUB involved the following assumptions:
1.
Funds would be available to departments to offer new and/or
additional sections of existing courses;
2.
Students would seek to enrol in courses offered by departments
in which there are not enrolment constraints.
Since enrolment growth has not been evenly distributed across the
University, enrolment pressures and attendance problems have been
experienced by some, but not all, departments. The heavy demand for
courses in such departments as Business Administration, Criminology,
Economics, Computing Science and Mathematics suggests that a uniform
spread of course enrolments across the University is not likely to result
from additional enrolment increases. Whether students unable to enrol in
high-demand courses and programs will remain at S.F.U. or will transfer
elsewhere is not known.
Instructional space limitations are only one of a number of potential
constraints which can affect the University's capacity to accommodate
increasing numbers of students. Others include:
a)
operating budget levels;
b)
instructionalstaffing levels;
c)
instructional staff office requirements;
d)
student services - academic aovice, medical services,
recreational services, study space, cafeterias, Registrar's
Office, and others;
e)
parking facilities.
The three with the greatest potential impact are a), b), and c).
As rough approximations only, the Committee estimates that a 2
percent increase
in
F.T.E. undergraduate on-campus enrolment would require
an 18 percent increase in the instructional budget and a 12 percent
increase in the remainder of the University's budget. In 1982/83 dollars,
this amounts to 11.3 million. This dollar increase makes no allowance for
either improvements in or expansion of current academic programs. The
magnitude of this real dollar increase considered in the context of
current rates of inflation and provincial operating grants of the past
several years should convey both the magnitude and severity of the
problems facing this University as enrolment increases.
The projected increase in student numbers presumes some increase in
classroom utilization resulting from the offering of more courses and
sections of courses. This, in time, would require additional
instructional staff and staff offices.
Although building projects proposed by the University Space Committee
would add more offices, the present shortage is expected to increase. The
degree to which the problem worsens will depend on enrolment and operating
grant support; the latter is the most critical. Pressures on
instructional office space will be minimized if operating grant support is
insufficient to provide for increases in instructional staff and will be
exacerbated if the reverse is true. At the same time, without increases
in operating grants sufficient to increase numbers of instructional staff,
increases in student numbers will be limited by the absence of additional
courses and sections of courses.
.
-9-
The service areas identified above are all affected by enrolment
Increases. The severity of the pressures in these areas will be a
,S ?
function of the maiituoe of the annual enrolment increases and the time
frame within which they occur. Large increases in a limited time frame
will impose significant pressures on each of these areas while the
converse would, given adequate funding, enable the University to make
adequate provision for services.
V.
ENROLMENT PROJECTIONS
In its first report in June, 1981, the President's Committee on
Enrolment Limitation presented information on enrolment projections over
the 1981-1990 period. Using various growth rate assumptions, F.T.E.
undergraduate enrolment was projected for each year over this ten year
period. These showed, for example,-that the 24 percent increase suggested
in the Senate Committee on University Budget report might be reached as
soon as 1984 or as late as the early 1990's. in that report, the
President's Committee on Enrolment Limitation shied away from setting a
lower target, believing that too many uncertainties existed to make early
curtailment of unaergraduate enrolment a wise recommendation.
• The uncertainties persist, but all known facts suggest that the grant
and space requirements which support the 24 percent potential enrolment
increase will not be realized. Grants to support increased capacity in
academic programs and higher levels of support services will not, it
appears, be available. Neither will badly-needed classroom and office
. ?
space. Accordingly, the President's Committee on Enrolment Limitation
sees no alternative but to recorrinend an early limit on enrolment
increases. We recommend:
1I-IAT1 UNTIL ADDITIONAL SPACE IS MADE AVAILABLE AND UNTIL
THE UNIVERSITY'S OPERATING GRANT SUPPORT
REFLECTS
ACTUAL
INCREASES IN THE COSTS
OF
OPERATING THE UNIVERSITY, THE
UNDERGRADUATE HEADCOUNT ENROLIENT IN THE
FALL
SEMESTER
SHALL BE LIMITED TO
iiUOU
STUDENTS, 1HE DETERMINATION
OF HEADCOUNT ENROLMENT FOR THIS PURPOSE SHALL EXCLUDE
ENROLMENTS IN THE DIRECTED INDEPENDENT STUDY
COURSE
PROGRAM AND OTHER PROGRAMS FUNDED THROUGH THE INTERIOR
BUDGET.
The undergraduate headcount enrolment in
1981-3
was 10,100, about
9,250 of which was on-campus.
VI.
MEASURES TO LIMIT ENROLMENT
The President's Committee on'Enrolment Limitation considered a
variety of measures designed to limit enrolment in its first and second
reports. Additional measures were suggested in various responses to those
reports.
A major problem in controlling enrolment growth at Simon Fraser
University is that undergraduate students are admitted to the University
without specification of program. (The only major exception is the
Professional Development Program of the Faculty of Education, where
students must be admitted to both the University and the Program). Once
enrolled, students can enrol for up to sixty semester credit hours before
declaring a major in a particular program. between aomission and the
sixty credit hour point, students are free to explore across a wide
variety of disciplinary areas. Declaration of a major is based on student
choice -- subject to completion of departmental and university
requirements and, recently, to achievement of a high enough cumulative
C.P.A. for
admission to some programs.
Therefore, limitations on enrolment can most effectively be applied
either at the time of admission to the University or at the time a student
is being considered for formal admission to a major, minor, honors, or
other program.
Enrolment pressures are not limited to upper division courses nor do
they depend on the number of students applying to specialize in a
particular program. A department's lower division course offerings may be
affected by enrolment pressures both from potential majors as well as from
students wishing or required to enrol in the course but with significant
inLerest in another discipline.
If all enrolment limitations were imposed at the time of admission to
Simon Fraser University, the University would benefit from the opportunity
to develop and implement a more rational academic planning and resource
allocation process. Some attention must, however, be paid to two
factors: newly aomitted students will not distribute themselves evenly
across all departments and not all departments are equally able to
accommodate an increased number of students. The problem of
department-level enrolment limitations is addressed in the next section of
the report.
Whatever the scope of enrolment limitations, a criterion for applying
the limitation is needed. The position of the President's Committee on
Enrolment Limitation is that any policy for limiting enrolment should use
academic quality as its main criterion. Accordingly, we recommend:
THAT ANY
POLICIES FOR
LIMITING ENROLMENT SHALL BE
BASED PRIMARILY ON ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT AND POTENTIAL.
The Committee is also concerned, however, that policies can be
applied with administrative efficiency, are easy to understand, and are
relatively consistent with those of the other two B.C. universities and
other eaucation institutions. We also believe it important that students
be informed of enrolment limitations as early as possible. Accordingly,
we recommend:
THAT ANY REGULATIONS INVOLVING UNIVERSITY OR DEPARTMENT
ENROLMENT LIMITATIONS SHALL BE CONVEYED TO STUDENTS AS
EARLY AS POSSIBLE. SINCE UI'fORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES MAY
REQUIRE SPECIAL ACTIONS 10 CONTROL ENROLMENTS, A
STATEMENT ADVISING OF This POSSIBILITY SHALL BE INCLUDED
IN THE UNIVERSITY CALENDAR.
THAT NO ACTION BE TAKEN ON THE SPECIFIC REC(11ENDATIONS
REGARDING OVERALL UNIVERSITY ENROLMENT LIMITATION UNTIL
THERE HAS BEEN DISCUSSION WITH THE OTHER TWO UNIVERSITIES
AND OTHER
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS.
-11-
Possible actions to limit enrolment at the University level to meet
the 11,000 student target Include the following:
1.
?
Preferential admission for full-time students and/or limitations
on the number of part-time students;
2. Preferential admission by geographical residence
a)
British Columbia
b)
Canada
c)
other, e.g. by country
3. ?
Admission category quotas
a)
grade XII
b)
transfer
c)
mature
d)
other
4. Higher admission requirements for various admission categories.
5. ?
Admission examinations in at least Mathematics and English.
6. Higher standing required for continuation as a student.
We will address each of these alternatives in turn.
1.
The number of part-time students has increased significantly since
the early years of the University. In 1969, the ratio between
undergraduate full-time equivalent enrolment and undergraduate
headcount enrolment was 0.96.
In
1981-3, the ratio stood
at 0.69.
While full-time and part-time students have both increased in the
intervening period, the rate of growth of part-time students has far
outstripped that of full-time students. ihe budgetary implications
of the increasing numbers of part-time stucients affect many areas of
the University -- admissions, registration, parking, food services,
academic advice, counselling, the academic departments, etc.
In
addition, many have questioned whether the trend toward increasing
numbers of part-time students, carrying as it does the image of a
commuter university, is compatible with aspirations to be identified
with a university characterized by strong research and graduate
program components. The Committee, while lacking sufficient
information to make a specific recommendation, believes that the
issues involved are worthy of a further and separate study.
Accordingly, we recommend:
THAT, SINCE
PART-TIME_ STUDENTS CONSTITUTE AN
INCREASING
PROPORTION OF TOTAL UNDERGRADUATE
ENROLfLNT,
A SEPARATE
STUDY BE MADE TO ASSESS
THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS TREND ON
OPERATING AND CAPITAL COSTS AND THE CHARACTER OF THE
UNIVERSITY.
2.
Quotas established according to geographical residence of.Canàdians
run counter to the expressed intent of both federal and provincial
governments to minimize barriers to inter-provincial mobility. Simon
Fraser University must continue to accept and encourage students to
attend from across Canada. In the
there is
no ouldance from national
University has recently adopted a
international students.
case of international stuoents,
or provincial policy, and the
policy to control the enrolment of
O
The
Committee recommends:
1HAT THE INTERNATIONAL STUDENT QUOTA
BE
RECONSIDERED TO
ENSURE THAT THIS GROUP OF STUDENTS BEARS AN APPROPRIATE
PROPORTION OF THE REDUCTION IN TOTAL ENROLIIENT AND THAT
THERE IS
CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE STANDARDS APPLIED TO
This GROUP
AND
OTHER
ADMISSION CATEGORIES.
3. ?
Quotas according to admission category are possible, but the
Committee finds little rationale for such an approach and foresees
significant difficulties in their administration. Moreover,
enactment of such an approach seems premature without more
information than presently available on the academic success of
different categories of students.
1.
?
Differentiated admission requirements for admission categories
already exist and the Committee supports their continuance, in fact,
we believe that this is the most effective ano fair method of
implementing our enrolment limitation recommenoation. We are
proposing changes in admission criteria for two important student
groups.
Presently, Simon Fraser University grants clear admission to high
school graduates with a 2.50 average on selected Grade 12 courses.
Students with averages between 2.00 and
2.49
are given special review
by the Senate Undergraduate Admissions Board. The review resulted in
the admission of few students, and many of these have done poorly.
Accordingly, we recommend:
THAT
THE HIGH SCHOOL
GRADE POINT AVERAGE REQUIRED TO
ENTER THE UNIVERSITY DIRECTLY FROM HIGH SCHOOL SHALL
CONTINUE AT 2.50 FOR ALL STUDENTS, BUT WITH MODIFICATION
OF THE PRESENT REVIEW PROCESS FOR APPLICANTS BELOW THIS
LEVEL.
The largest group of new students at Simon Fraser University in
recent years has consisted of students transferring from other
post-seconoary institutions, particularly from B.C. community
colleges. The C.P.A. currently required for admission of these
students is 2.00. Because this is much lower than the C.P.A. (2.50)
required for admission directly from high school, it could be
increased in order to facilitate the limitation of headcount
enrolment at 11,000. Thus the Committee recommends:
THAT THE CUMULATIVE GRADE POINT AVERAGE NORMALLY
REQUIRED FOR ADMISSION OF STUDENTS TRANSFERRING
FROM COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES SHALL BE INCREASED
To 2.25 FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA INSTITUTIONS. 1HE
EQUIVALENT REQUIREMENT FOR OUT-OF-PROVINCE INSTITUTIONS
SHALL BE INCREASED TO
2.65.
-13-
Mature students (age 23 ano over) are admitted to the University
•
?
without review of their prior academic work. Available evidence
suggests that students in this admission category tend to perform at
a lower level than those in comparable categories. While the
Committee believes that Simon Fraser University should continue to be
accessible to persons whose previous academic credentials would not
have met the requirements for admission under other categories, we
believe it unreasonable to protect the mature student category from
any impact in the event overall enrolment must be limited. It seems
to the Committee that Imposition of a more stringent requirement for
academic performance by mature students in the semester immediately
following initial registration represents the most appropriate
contribution that this group can make to limiting enrolment.
Accordingly, the Committee recommends:
THAT THE ADMISSION OF STUDENTS UNDER THE MATURE STUDENT
CATEGORY SHALL BE CONDITIONAL BASED ON FULFILLMENT OF
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
I)
REGISTRATION IN AND COMPLETION OF AT LEAST
5 SEMESTER HOURS IN THE
FIRST
SEMESTER OF ENROLMENT;
II)
ACHIEVEMENT OF A
G.P.A. OF Al LEAST
2.00
IN THE
FIRST SEMESTER.
STUDENTS ADMITTED UNDER THIS ADMISSIONS CATEGORY WHO
DO NOT FULFILL THESE CONDITIONS SHALL BE PLACED ON
. ?
"REQUIRED TO WITHDRAW" STATUS.
5.
Examinations for university entrance would be desirable and it is
regrettable that the goverrnent discontinued their use several years
ago. irrespective of their desirability, the Committee cannot, at
this time, recommend the introduction of entrance examinations. It
would be both impractical and expensive for any one B.C. university
to undertake the development and administration of entrance
examinations.
6.
In 1979 the regulations governing the academic standing required in
order to continue as a student were modified. One effect of these
changes has been to permit students with very poor academic records
to remain in the University for extended periods of time. We believe
that the current academic standing regulations should be changed with
•
a view towards correcting this situation. We are also concerned that
the exercise of the Senate Appeals Board's power to re-admit students
who are on the "required to withdraw" and "permanent withdrawal"
status is inappropriate in a period when the University is forced to
limit enrolment and seeking to do this according to policies "based
primarily on academic achievçment and potential".
The Committee accordingly recommends:
THE REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE ACADEMIC STANDING REQUIRED
. ?
FOR CONTINUANCE AS
A STUDENT
SHOULD BE
MADE t'lJRE
STRINGENT.
THE CHANGES SHOULD CONCENTRATE ON REDUCING THE PERIOD OF
- ?
TIME IN WHICH STUDENTS WITH DEFICIENT G.P.A. 'S MAY CONTINUE
AS STUDENTS AND ON REMOVING THE AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE
APPEALS BOARD TO RE-ADMIT STUDENTS WHO ARE ON "REQUIRED TO
WITHDRAW" OR "PERMANENT WITHDRAWAL" STATUS.
Viii. ANALYSIS
or DEPARTMENTAL EMOLMENT
Because most undergraouat.e instructional space is centrally
controlled, instructional space is usually not a direct constraint on
departmental enrolment growth. Rather, the possible constraints are more
subjective and Involve such issues as the quality of the program, the
anticipated demand for graduates of the program, the relative proportion
of
the University's enrolment which should be in a particular program, the
availability of qualified instructional staff and desirable rates of
enrolment growth.
?
-
Tables 2 and 3 display the annual rates of growth and the
proportionate distribution of undergraduate full-time equivalent
enrolments by department since
1975/76.
Of particular note are the
variability in growth rates in different years and the changes in relative
enrolment by department over this period. The two areas with the largest
enrolment in 1975/76 (Education and English), had 29 percent of the
University's enrolment in that year; by 1981/82 their share was only 17
percent.
Five departments whose undergraduate full-time equivalent enrolments
represent significant proportiPns of the University total have shown rapid
rates of growth. These are Business Administration, Criminology,
Computing Science, Economics, and Mathematics.
Rapid growth poses a number of challenges for both the department
involved and for the University. It generates substantial demands for
additions to faculty and other instructional staff, support staff,
laboratory equipment and facilities, library materials, and computing
services. Since student interest in particular disciplines is similar
across many universities, competition for well-qualified faculty is
intense. The inabililty to attract qualified regular faculty
in
sufficient numbers frequently results in course overcrowding and the use
of large numbers of sessional staff. Taken together, these factors can,
over time, result in a lowering of the quality of programs which are
experiencing rapid enrolment growth.
From an institutional perspective, there is a further concern with
the rapid growth of a particular department. Student preferences for
particular programs are not static. They tend to shift over time in
response to economic conditions, job market opportunities and social
trends. A review of departmental enrolment growth at Simon Fraser
University over the whole period since
1965
would provide further evidence
of changing enrolment preferences. If institutional resources were easily
re-allocated, the University would have far fewer difficulties
in
responding to student program demand. Because re-allocation is not easily
achieved, particularly in times
of
high inflation and tight operating and
capital budgets, the prudent course of' action is to ensure a reasonable
allocation of resources across all of the University's programs. Student
demand and the encouragement of proven or potential instructional and
research excellence in particular departments should influence the
distribution of University resources but not to the extent of creating
future resource imbalances between departments.
From the Committee's perspective, it is both rapid enrolment growth
and the proportion of the University's total enrolment identified with
particular departments which should serve to flag the possible need to
consider enrolment limitations in that particular program.
.
-1 -
TABLE 2
DEPARTMENTAL FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT IHJERGRRDUATE ENROLMENTS?
P.N4UAL GOTH RATES IN PERCENTAGES
Department
?
1975/76 1976/77 1977/78 1978/79 1979/80 1980/81 1981182
Archaeology
3
- 7
-11
-13
-11
8
15
Business Admin.
13
19
9
18
13
33
1
Economics
11
19
18
15
4
-10
4
English
24
1
-U
-10
- 8
4
3
Geography
1
0
- 8
-15
3
- 3
1
History
6
- 4
-12
3
- 1
1
- 5
Lang., Lit., Ling.
12
2
5
-
1
-11
21
4
Philosophy
1
-
9
2
-12
18
33
27
Political Science
14
8
39
-28
- 4
22
- 3
Psychology
11
6
- 3
7
- 3
- 6
4
0
:2:
2
:'
-
:2
Blo-Science
15
12
-11
- 7
-11
-13
-13
Chemistry
6
22
4
- 3
-
6
- 1
Mathematics
15
23
6
12
6
13
31
Physics
8
8
2
II
2 ?
.
-
4
13
Communication
18
9
-16
22
14
22
47
Computing Science
44
20
8
27
21
29
18
Criminology
-
53
22
11
18
- 9
4
Centre for the Arts
-
-
240
- 5
9
35
43
Kinesiology
38
2
2
10
8
15
2
UNIVERSITY
15
5
- 1
2
- 1
7
5
NOTE:
?
These are year to
year
S
percentage
changes in
annualized
undergraduate
full-time
equivalent course
enrollees by department.
TABLE
DEPAR1.NTAL
FULL-TlPE
E(
S
J1VALENT
UMJER(RPDUATE
EtDL1ENTS:
Fi0FVRT10NS
OF
UNIVERSITY
TOTALS
Department
1975/76
1976/77
1977/78
1978/79 ?
1979/80
1980/81
1981/t.
Archaeology
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Business Admin.
6
7
8
9
11
13
13
Economics
5
6
7
8
8
7
7
English
9
9
8
7
6
6
6
Geography
6
5
5
4
4
4
History
5
5
4
4
4
4
3
Lang., Lit., Ling.
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Philosophy
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
Political Science
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
Psychology
7
7
7
8
7
6
6
Soc/AnthropolOgy
5
5
3
4
4
3
3
Education
20
17
16
15
12
11
1].
Bio-Science
5
6
5
5
4
3
3
Chemistry
3
3
3
3
3
3
Mathematics
4
5
6
6
6
7
Physics
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Communication
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
Computing Science
2
2
3
3
4
5
5
Criminology
2
3
4
4
5
5
4
Centre for the Arts
-
1
2
2
2
2
3
Kinesiology
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
Others
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
UNIVERSITY
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
NOTE: These are based on annualized undergraduate full-time equivalent course enrolees
by department.
0
-17-
Accordingly, the
Co1rfT1ttee
recommends:
1HAT ENROLMENT LIMITATIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL DEPARTMENTS
BE CONSIDERED WHEN
ONE
OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS
PREVA1L
A)
ENROLMENT GROWTH EXCEEDS THE I)EPARTMENT'S
ABILITY TO RESPOND BECAUSE OF PHYSICAL SPACE
CONSTRAINTS THE INABILITY OF THE IkUVERSITY
TO ALLOCATE MORE OPERATING RESOURCES TO THE
?
-
DEPARTMENT, OR THE INABILITY OF THE DEPARTMENT
TO ATTRACT SUFFICIENT QUALIFIED FACULTY;
B)
UNDERGRADUATE ENROLMENT IN THE DEPARTMENT
CONSTITUTES AN EXCESSIVE PROPORTION OF THE
UNIVERSITY'S TOTAL UNDERGRADUATE ENROLMENT
C)
11 IS DETERMINED THAT THE BEST INTEREST OF THE
DEPARTMENT AND THE UNIVERSITY IN MAINTAINING
ACADEMIC QUALITY REQUIRE THAT ENROLMENT BE
LIMITED.
Experience has already been obtained with enrolment limitation
measures in the Departments of business Administration and Computing
Science. While we are not yet sure of the effects of these measures,
preliminary indications are that they will achieve the desired results.
.
?
Because of this, and because these procedures conform to the Committee's
fundamental principle that the policies for limiting enrolment be based
primarily on academic achievement and potential, we recommend:
THAT
THE POLICY FOR LIMITING DEPARTMENT ENROLI'ENTS
TAKE THE
FOLLOWING FORM:
A)
DETERMINATION
BY
THE DEPARTMENT, IN CONJUNCTION
WITH THE FACULTY DEAN, OF
THE
NUMBER OF STUDENTS
WHICH IT CAN
ACCCflODATE
IN ITS HONORS, MAJOR,
MINOR, AND OTHER PROGRAMS;
B)
ESTABLISHME NT
OF A MINII'Ul CUMULATIVE
G.P.A.
FOR
ACCEPTANCE INTO DEPARTMENT PROGRAMS. 1HE
CUMULATIVE
G.P.A.
WILL BE SET AT A LEVEL WHICH
IS EXPECTED TO ENROL THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS
IN
A);
C)
TO REMAIN IN A DEPARTMENT'S PROGRAMS, THE STUDENT
SHALL BE EXPECTED TO MAINTAIN A CUMULATIVE
G.P.A.
AT A LEVEL TO BE DETERMINED
AT THE TIME THAT THE
ENROLMENT
LIM11ATIOt
POLICY IS ESTABLISHED.
D)
STUDENTS WHO ARE NOT ACCEPTED INTO DEPARTMENTAL
PROGRAMS BUT WHO WISH TO TAKE UPPER DIVISION
. ?
COURSES IN THE DEPARTMENT, SHALL BE GOVERNED BY
THE
CUJIJLATIVE
G.P.A.
REWIRED AT THE
TIME OF
REGISTRATION.
APPROVAL BY SENATE
AND BOARD OF (VERNORS WOULD BE
REQUIRED IN EACH CASE.
Wherever possible, all registration-related procedures should be
Standard across the University. ihis certainly applies to enrolment
limitation proceoures; both administrative efficiency and ease of
understanding for students support this view. Therefore, the Committee
recommends:
THAT POLICIES FOR LIMITING DEPARTMENT ENROLMENTS
BE UNIFOfi ACROSS THE UNIVERSITY, RECOGNIZING
THAT UNIQUE SITUATIONS MAY REQUIRE SPECIAL ATTENTION.
IX. SCHEDULING OF CLASSROOMS
In its first report, the President's Committee on Enrolment
Limitation gave extensive consideration to establishing an enrolment limit
that was well beyond current enrolment by means of measures to increase
the utilization of the University's classroom space. While our final
conclusion--largely because of government funding shortfalls--is that
these measures would not permit such a large increase in enrolment, we
believe that they will be valuable in their own right. In fact, in order
to add any more headcount undergraduate students to the University, (and
to permit the growth of graduate student enrolment to continue), increased
utilization of classroom space will be necessary. Accordingly, the
Committee recommends:
THAT THE RECOYENDAT1ONS OF THE SENATE COfr?IITTEE
ON UNIVERSITY I9JDGET IN ITS REPORT "ENROLMENT GROrrH:
THE EFFECT ON INSTRUCTIONAL FACILITIES", RELATING TO
THE FEASIBILITY OF ASSIGNING COURSES TO INDIVIDUAL coczis
AFTER THE COMPLETION OF IN-PERSON REGISTRATION, SPREADING
COURSES MORE EVENLY ACROSS THE
FIVE-DAY
WEEK, MORE
EFFECTIVE SCHEDULING OF EVENING COURSES, AND MORE
EFFICIENT USE OF LARGE LECTURE THEATRES BE CONSIDERED
FOR IMPLEMENTATION.
X. OTHER SPACE MEASURES
Two other measures to increase the utilization or supply of classroom
space were considered by the Committee. Neither was included in our
recommendation, for the reasons indicated.
1.
Increased use of the Summer semester. While this could increase the
utilization of classroom space, it is not clear what the University
could do to shift enrolment to the Summer semester. We doubt that
such measures as lower tuition fees in the summer would have much
impact, and there do not appar to be any other measures available,
at least none that would not involve a deterioration of program
quality in the other two semesters.
2.
Increased use of off-campus space. Again, this is an expensive
solution to campus shortages of classroom space. Moreover,
off-campus programs tend to generate additional enrolment and perhaps
-
?
use up all the additional classroom capacity they create. Off-campus
space is expensive and it should be used to support specific program
needs, not as a solution to general space shortages.
_19-
XI THE FINANCIAL (flNSEOJENcES OF LIMITING EOLP2N1
Some have suggested that the University is unwise to even consider
limitation of enrolment, when over 90 percent of our funding is received
via the enrolment-driven formula used by Universities Council. However,
UCBC is presently reviewing the funding formula, and substantial changes
are possible.
Moreover, it should be recognized that the total grant made by the
government to Universities Council is not based on enrolment in the
provincial university system. In recent years, the total grant has not,
in real terms, increased at the same rate as enrolment. Thus, the effect
of enrolment at Simon Fraser University on our operating grant will
apparently depend on how our enrolment changes with respect to enrolments
at the University of British Columbia and the University of Victoria. If
one or both of them took measures to limit enrolment, we might not
experience any grant reduction as a consequence of our limiting
enrolment. We would, of course, experience a reduction in fee revenues
below the level that would otherwise have been attained.
It is necessary to move cautiously in view of possible adverse
budgetary impact and the continuing need for the British Columbia
university system to plan ana act in a co-ordinated way, if possible.
Therefore, the Committee recommends:
THAT NO ACTION BE TAKEN ON THE
SPECIFIC
RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING OVERALL UNIVERSITY ENROLMENT LIMITATIONS UNTIL:
A)
THERE HAS BEEN DISCUSSION WITH THE OTHER TWO
UNIVERSITIES AND OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS;
B)
THE NEW UCBC GRANT ALLOCATION MECHANISM HAS
BEEN ESTABLISHED.
XII CONCLUSIONS
One of the persons who commented on the Committee's first report
wrote as follows:
"The issue throughout is money, and money is controlled ultimately by
the Provincial Government. 1 would respectfully suggest, therefore,
that without a political solution to a political problem, the
Committee is wasting its time".
The diagnosis is valid; the prescription is not. While the
?
University should seek a "political solution", it cannot wait for one.
The Committee believes that it isIlfortunate that limited enrolments
are being forced on this University because of inadequate funding. We are
.
?
aware that some in the university community believe that Simon Fraser
University should, by choice, remain at its present size in order to
preserve the various advantages of a smaller university. However, that
view is not shared by all. We do not share it ourselves--there are needs
in British Columbia for new program opportunities for our residents, and
for a generally higher level of participation in university education.
,M
--
MOM
We regret having to recorrrneflci steps that will make it difficult, ano
in some cases, impossible, to meet those needs.
in other words, there is a difference between choice and necessity.
The necessity to limit enrolment will mean that many students who had
planned to attenduniversity will be unable to. This concerns us, but the
University should not permit the quality of education it provides to be
downgraded by an influx of students that strain its resources. That is
the situation we are facing--We believe the University must take steps to
avoid it.
?
-
The Committee recognizes that its assessment may be incorrect.
Student enrolment increases could dry up, program requirements could be
changed, grant funding and space could be increased--almost anything Is
possible, and the University must be flexible in terms of Its ability to
respond to changed conditions. As new information becomes available,
particularly information on the effects of our recommendations, If and
when implemented, responsibility for analyzing it and considering
modifications to whatever enrolment measures are in place must rest
somewhere. These modifications might be in the direction of relaxing the
limitation measures or of increasing them. Accordingly, the Committee
recommends:
1HAT THE SENATE COti1TTEE ON
ACADEMIC PLANNING BE
GIVEN
RESPONSIBILITY FOR MONITORING THE IMPACT OF
ENROLMENT
LIMITATION MEASURES AND RECO1END1NG
APPROPRIATE CHANGES TO SENATE FOR ITS CONSIDERATION.
0
