- -' ?
- ?
:711 -7
T
9.
;•.
UjI''Fft. ?
, ?
fl (;
(:ANM)A ?
VSA ISI;
DEm.Au) ?
)i UR)t.O.iCAI. (NCES; 291-4475
November 5, 1976.
Dr. P. Jewett
Chairman
Academic Planning Committee
Dear Dr. Jewett:
I enclose herewith a copy of the review of those recommendations
of the Report on University Programs in Non-Metropolitan Areas that
have implications for the present and continuing academic and
administrative operation of this University, as requested by the
Academic Planning Committee.
Yours sincerely,
Bryan ?
Beirn
Reviewer
TI-I
• ?
-)
•'.
c
- • i-',
• ?
'.7.
TO: ?
The Senate Committee on Academic Planning
of Simon Fraser University
A REVIEW OF ASPECTS OF THE WINEGARD REPORT?
Or, more specifically:
1'•
:(.
A review of those suggestions in and recommendations of
the Report of the Commission on University Programs
in Non-Metropolitan Areas that have implications for the
present and continuing academic and administrative operation
of Simon Fraser University
BY:
?
Bryan P. Beirne
Professor of Pest Management
4 November, 1976
CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION ?
.
A. ?
CONDITIONS
1.
That the status of the new Institution be
defined ?
clearly
?
...................................
3
2.
That Simon Fraser University will not be
required to make advance commitments on
University College
?
programmes ?
.....................
4
3.
That Simon Fraser University can maintain
it
s
?
academic
?
standards ?
............................
6
4.
That Simon Fraser University can treat its
faculty ?
uniformly ?
.................................
8
5.
That continuing funding wiLibe assured
?
............
10
B. ?
CONSEQUENCES
1.
To the governing bodies and academic
committees ?
........................................12
2.
To the academic departments and
administrators
?
.....................................14
3.
To the off-campus programmes ......
14
4.
To the administrative services
?
....................15
5.
To the Library ?
.....................................16
C. ADVANTAGES TO
SIMON
FRASER
UNIVERSITY
BURNABY
18
D.
CONCLUSIONS
...........................................
19
APPENDTX
1: Some problems of a multi-campus
U
niversity .....................................21
APPENDIX
2: List of individuals who provided Information ...
?
22
1
INTRODUCTION
44
The charge is "to review those
r
ecommendations of the
Winegard
Commission Report which have implications for the present and continuing
operation, academic and administrative, of Simon Fraser University."
The reason Is to provide information to assist Simon Fraser University
begin
in deciding
as a
sep
whether
arately-funded
or not to
Division
accept the
of S.F.U.."
proposal "that the new
university
A problem in preparing a review of this kind is that conditions
and consequences that should be based on specified plans have to be
based on assumptions because the plans do not yet exist.
The following, summarized from recommendations and suggestions
in the Report, is taken as the basis for the review: [Note: numbers
In parenthesis refer to page and paragraph numbers in the Report].
- That a new multi-campus university be established to serve
non-metropolitan areas of British Columbia (12:4, 27:1, 13:3);
- That its academic status and standards will be high (7:4, 7:8)
and it will be active in research and scholarship (14:2) as well as In
teaching;
(.
- That one of its primary functions will be to prepare and deliver
courses and programmes for students who are out' of reach of university
campuses (7:6, 11:10, 14:1, 16:4, 24:4 to 25:4);
- That it will offer upper-level degree-completion programmes in
Arts, Science, and Education (13:2, 3), and eventually additional, more
specialized, programmes that may be in part professional (13:5, 26:3)
and require courses at all levels including graduate (9:5); and
- That it would start as a University College of S.F.U. (12:5,
27:2, 27:8) if S.F.U. will accept the responsibility.
Suggested alternatives to these basic recommendations, such a
new university from the start, the Open University system, or the system
recently proposed for Alberta, and their relative merits are not discussed
here because to do so would be outside the scope of this review as
charged. For the same reason, no specific recommendations are made In
this review.
A basic assumption is that S.F.U. will consider the proposal and
its implications in the light of the moral responsibility of the university
to do: all that it reasonably can to make quality education available to
all in British Columbia who want it. What S.F.U. would do in practice
could be influenced by two sets of controlling factors: -
Conditions, which are stipulations that S.F.U. may wish to make
to try to eliminate, reduce, or manage causes of potentially serious
r
2
(
harm to its standards, reputation, or operation that could operate If
the proposal is accepted unconditionally and whose continuing existence
thus could be reasons to reject the proposal; and
Consequences, which are unavoidable effects on the operations
of S.F.U. if the proposal is accepted and implemented after the
conditions have been met.
Finally, the courses of action open to S.F.U. are summarized
briefly.
( .
3
A. ?
CONDITIONS
Simon Fraser University may wish to negotiate with the British
Columbia Department of Education and the Universities Council of
British Columbia agreement on some or all of the following as conditions
for accepting the proposal. The purpose of the agreement would be to
remove or reduce causes of potentially avoidable consequences that could
be harmful to the interests of S.F.U.
A broad summary of the conditions is: to make the proposal
viable and acceptable, S.F.U. must have reasonably full responsibility
and authority for planning and setting up the University College and
developing it into a new University as appropriate.
1. That the Status of the new Institution be defined clearly
The Report recommends that a
by 1990 (12:4, 27:1) should begin as
of Simon Fraser University (12:5, 27
degree of autonomy (14:3). That is,
would become a multi-campus one that
or more universities.
new University to be established
a new Division or University College
:2) and should be given a considerable
S.F.U., now a single-campus university,
eventually would divide into two
(
?
?
The new University College/University should have a distinctive
name from the start, to serve as a constant reminder
to
all concerned
that the ultimate objective is the development and establishment of a
new University.
Simon Fraser University must guide and monitor the development
of the University College and of its constituent parts and alter their
status when it appears appropriate and feasible to do so; for example,
to terminate a centre or programme that is clearly not viable, and to
change the College into a University when it reaches the size - a head-count
of about 5,000 students - when it can operate at a viable economic level.
It therefore must have the authority to make the appropriate arrangements
and recommendations.
The responsibility for expenditures of University College funds
would rest with the S.F.U. Board of Governors (15:2), for approval
of its academic programme with the Simon Fraser University Senate (14:3),
and for general procedures, notably including those aimed at maintaining
academic standards, with the administrators of the S.F.U. regulations
(14:3). Such responsibilities could be accepted by S.F.U. only if
accompanied by the relevant authority. As the University College would be
part of S.F.U., It is difficult to see how it could have much more
Autonomy than has a Faculty or a Division of S.F.U.
14i
4
The positions of the University College administrators in the
Simon Fraser University hierarchy must be defined. Presumably the
Principal would be a Vice-President, the Associate Principal at
College
Headquarters a Dean, and each Associate Principal in charge of a centre
a (Departmental) Chairman.
The area of responsibility and authority of the proposed Advisory
Council for the University College (15:3, 27:7) in relation to S.F.U.
must be defined clearly, to remove in advance some sources of possible
conflict. Indeed, the need for the Advisory Council at the beginning
can be questioned. Perhaps what is really needed is two Advisory
Councils, a shadow Board of Governors and a shadow Senate, to be
established when the University College Is close to becoming a new
University. In this event those bodies should be constituted in accepted
ways and Include students and faculty.
r.
2. That Simon Fraser University will not be required to make
Advance
?
Cb1T
grammes
As the Report states, "it will be essential that some tithe
be taken to plan the academic programmes ... before each centre begins
operating" (24:1). Until this is done S.F.U. cannot and should not
commit itself to any particular programme, and S.F.U. could not make
plans before December 1976. The scope and size of the programmes will be
determined by a combination of the minimum faculty size needed to offer
a particular programme, the numbers and kinds of programmes needed, and
the student numbers taking them. The sequence in which programmes can
be established and developed will be influenced by the finances provided.
(a) The Faculty Size
The suggestion in the Report that each centre should have a
F.T.E. faculty of only 10 is unrealistic. If the faculty carry normal
teaching loads of which outreach courses would account for a substantial
part, the number of formal courses that 10 F.T.E. faculty could give
annually at a centre is more likely to be of the order of 25 or 30 than
the 40 suggested in the Report. This would mean an average of 6 or 7
courses in each semester of each of the two upper years. As the normal
full course-load of a full-time student is 5, the students' choice of
courses would be quite limited.
[Note: In this review the term "outreach course" means any course given
away from an established campus, or otherwise outside the traditional
classroom situation, whether independent or directed study, or modular,
correspondence, or remote group Instruction.]
Probably 20 F.T.E. faculty would be necessary to provide the two
upper years of a General Arts (B.A.) or of a General Science (B.Sc.) degree
programme with honours and majors and with reasonable educational variety
C
S
( ?
in
course selection. Four to 6 additional F.T.E. faculty could be needed
for each subject that is emphasized in the programme. To make academic
of
sense,
the 10
therefore,
suggested
a
in
centre
the Report.
may soon have
to
have about 40 faculty
instead
Whether to establish at: the outset four small centres or one
or two large ones is an example of the kind of major decision that
S.F.U. must have the authorit
y
to make if it is to be responsible for
establishing the University College and developing it into a
University.
There are others. For instance: whether or not to concentrate first on
developing the back-up facilities at Burnaby and the headquarters and one
centre - presumably the Nelson one because it is there already; when, and
indeed if, to set up a Headquarters at Vernon; whether to concentrate
first on developing the programmes at the centres and then the outreach
programmes, or vice versa; and whether to set up a University College
centre for the Upper Fraser Valley east of Abbotsford or to serve that
area direct from S.F.U. Burnaby.
(b) The Academic Programmes
The academic programmes of the University College could be of
three kinds: the basic B.A. and B.S. programmes given at all the centres;
a broad theme that would be distinctive to each centre; and programmes
in disciplines that relate to the theme of a centre and that it is
feasible to emphasize there.
One reason why programmes other than the basic ones should not
be defined in advance is that the surveys and analyses that are sufficiently
adequate to define the numbers and the present and future educational
demands of students and of their potential employers in different areas of
the Province apparently have not yet been made.
A unique opportunity exists to break with tradition, by giving
the centres constructive themes that relate to human needs and that are
interdisciplinary in relation to the conventional classification of
subjects. Examples of such themes are resource management, people
management, business management, health management, environmental analysis,
and communication studies. A question to be examined is which theme would
be best for which centre.
The Report points out that the needs and the procedures for
teaching the disciplines that might be emphasized should be reviewed
before decisions to set up programmes on them are made: in Education
(16:3, 27:9), Commerce (26:3, 29:1), Forestry (26:4, 28:11), and Nursing
(26:5, 28:12). The same stipulation should apply to a variety of other
possible subjects, especially semi-or para-professional ones, that
relate to themes of centres.
Serious practical obstacles to giving some programmes at the
University College may appear. For example, a typical programme in
• -. ? •
7'r
6
( ?
Education could require at least 20 specialists in aspects of the subject,
and may thus be beyond the resources of a given centre. It may in fact
?
.
be necessary to separate the responsibilities for offering B.Ed. completion
work from P.D.P. or certification work. An adequate programme in
Commerce would require 9 or 10 faculty; and it may be impossible to Bet
up a 5-or 6-faculty accounting programme because academically-qualified
accountants are virtually impossible to find.
(c) The Student Numbers
The population of the areas that would be served Indicates that
a rapid expansion of student enrollments at the University College to high
levels is a possibility. A faculty of 10 F.T.E. could handle 150 to
170 F.T.E. students effectively, as the normal faculty-to-student ratio
in Canada is 1 to 15 and the current S.F.U. ratio is 1 to 17 (1 to 12 is
regarded as the optimum). It seems probable that a centre would soon
have an F.T.E. student enrollment of several times 170.
A plan to meet that contingency must be agreed upon in advance:
either to expand the faculty numbers and the facilities to fit increased
enrollments, which would require commitments for appropriate funding;
or to limit student enrollments to fit the available faculty numbers
and facilities, which would require an acceptable basis for doing so.
( ? 3. That Simon Fraser University can maintain Its Academic Standards
A suspicion, or fear, exists at S.F.U. that a tie-in with the
University College could result in an actual or perceived lowering in
S.F.U. 's academic quality. Convincing safeguards are necessary to
remove this suspicion as a major obstacle to accepting the proposal.
The suspicion arises in part from statements in the Report: -
(a) Alleged role of S.F.U.
That Simon Fraser University should have a more limited teaching
role than it has and intends to have is suggested by these gratuitous
and misleadingly Incorrect statements in the Report: "S.F.U. has little
interest in further development of professional schools and has or
should have ambitions for a somewhat restricted role In graduate work
especially at the doctoral level" (10:7).
A possibility that, the tie-in with the University College would
be interpreted in any way by anybody as reinforcing that suggested role
may alone be sufficient grounds in the eyes of some for S.F.U. to reject
the proposal. Conditions that S.F.U. may wish to make, before it decides
on the proposal, are that bodies such as the British Columbia Department
of Education and the Universities Council of British Columbia should
-w
7
concur with the S.F.U. Senate's rejection of the general role suggested
by those statements in the Report, and that if S.F.U. accepts the
programme it can be responsible for setting up any professional or
graduate programmes needed at the University College.
(b) Possible status of the University College
Though the Report repeatedly refers to a University, the
descriptions of the suggested size, scope, faculty activities, and
costs could be interpreted as indicating what is really intended initially
is what might be termed a Provincial College: something at a rather
lower level than a University and perhaps resembling a small State
College
of the former California system.
A question that is of fundamental importance to the decision
that S.F.U. , is called upon to make is this: is it the intent of the
Government to establish a new University, with all that is implied of
that status, or a lower order of institution? In this review the
assumption is that a University is intended.
(c) Faculty recruitment standards
As University College faculty would be S.F.U. faculty they would
( ?
have to meet S.F.U. recruitment standards. To lower S.F.U. standards,
even temporarily and for its University College Division only - for
example, to accommodate any faculty of Notre Dame, University who may not
be fully academically qualified (11:8, 19:5, 27:10) - could be to the
long-term detriment of S.F.U.'s academic reputation. One condition, if
S.FU. accepts the general proposal, must be that it will not be expected
to lower its faculty recruitment and evaluation standards.
It has been suggested that the quality of University College
faculty might not be high because good candidates would be deterred
from applying by the small size, the poor research facilities, and the
possible heavy teaching duties, or that, if they were appointed, good
faculty would stay there only until they could find jobs at big
universities. The consequence would be a lowering of average faculty
standards at S.F.U.
These viewpoints may be discounted. It seems far more likely
that the combination of the current large reserves of available qualified
candidates (except in a very few subjects such as Accountancy), the
attraction of that rarity nowadays, a prospective new University, and
the challenge and opportunity of helping to develop it will attract
faculty of high quality that may well enhance S.F.U. standards.
(.
8
(d) Student admission and evaluation standards
The Report suggests that, in relation to an expected backlog of
students seeking admission, the University College must be extremely
flexible in giving credit for courses taken elsewhere and that special
concessions to such students may be necessary (11:3).
(•
(9
As University College students would be S.F.U. students they
would have to meet S.F.U. admission standards. As with faculty
recruitments, to lower those standards, even temporarily and for
its
University College Division only, could be unfair to S.F.U. Burnaby
students and might in the long-term be detrimental of S.F.U.'s academic
standards and reputation. Moreover, it would not be in accord with the
statements in the Report on the need to maintain traditional university
standards of academic excellence (7:4). One condition that S.F.U. must
make is that if It accepts the proposal it will not be expected to lower
its already flexible student admission standards. It may not be feasible,
for example, for S.F.U. to assure prospective students that all community
college courses will be acceptable (21:6, 22:1) until S.F.U. is satisfied
that they are of the requisite standards.
The comment in the Report on the need to maintain traditional
university standards of academic excellence at the University College
(7:4) is reinforced by the statements on the need for programmes to be of
a high standard and recognized by other universities, and that the
graduate should have no feeling of being second-class in any respect (7:8).
Nevertheless some fear exists that because of limited facilities at University
College centres academic standards there would be lower than at S.F.U.
Burnaby and that this could be to the detriment of S.F.U. standards.
This may be discounted for most subjects: student and faculty motivation
and energy can more than counteract any effects of poor facilities.
It seems that to attempt to ensure that uniform standards will
exist throughout a multi-campus university can be a time-consuming task
(see Appendix 1) that may well be a major obstacle to implementing the
multi-campus idea. A system in which faculty from S.F.U. Burnaby would
be Involved in evaluating courses given at the University College could
assist in maintaining satisfactory standards there. Quality control of
Independent Study or Directed Study outreach courses would be especially
important. Simon Fraser University must avoid becoming involved in a
proliferation of second-rate coLleges, programmes, or courses by doing
what it can to ensure that none of them is second-rate.
4. That Simon Fraser University can treat its faculty uniformly
The faculty of the University College would be faculty of S.F.U.
(14:1, 15:4). As such neither their working conditions nor the criteria
used in evaluating them for contract renewal, salary levels and increases,
promotion, tenure, or dismissal should differ from those of the faculty
r.
9
re
of S.F.U. Burnaby to extents that are inequitable to either group. There
are suggestions in the Report that if accepted could result in inequities.
One Implication Is that the teaching and related duties of
University College faculty (16:1, 16:4, 17:1 and 2) would be heavier
than the four courses or course equivalents normally required annually
of faculty at the coast universities. Such duties of the University
College faculty should be at or close to the norm, to reduce both direct
inequities and inequalities in the time available for University College
faculty to do the research that contributes to their academic advancement.
A reason suggested in the Report for their heavier teaching and
related workloads is that University College faculty would have
difficulties in doing research (17:2) and thus presumably would have
time available for increased other duties. This argument for heavier
non-research duties is not valid. While research that requires major or
complex equipment may not be possible at a University College centre for
some years, other kinds of research, especially kinds based In the
field, are feasible there. Moreover, University College faculty must
have adequate time for research to maintain their credibility and
employability as scholars. Indeed It would add to the scholarly credibility
if each centre had several senior, established scholars on its faculty
from the start.
As the argument for less research time is not valid, another
suggestion based on it is not valid: that University College faculty
should have more frequent study leaves than is usual (14:2). This
would give them an advantage over faculty at the coast universities
that could be considered unfair.
The Report points out that the certification of the Notre Dame
University Faculty Association could cause problems in integrating the
Nelson Centre - that is, what Is now N.D.U. - into the University
College (20:5) and thus Into S.F.U. Presumably S.F.U. would require
this matter to be resolved by the Government before it could accept
the proposal or, alternatively, may suggest a modification of the
proposal that would exclude N.D.U.
University College faculty must be treated as S.F.U. faculty,
even if to do so Is not in accord with suggestions in the Report, unless
S.F.U. decides on this alternative: to have two kinds of faculty in
terms 0.1 duties, and therefore of criteria for evaluation. One would
be the professors who would do both research and teaching and provide
committee and similar administrative services to the university. The
other, the lecturers, would not be expected to do much research and
instead would carry heavier teaching and related work loads than the
professors.
r
10
ro
That suggestion has its advocates. But before S.F.U. accepts
it, the implications must be weighed very carefully. For instance, the
effects on the academic stature of an institution that has many
"lecturers" and on the stature of institutions associated with it, the
influence on prospective applicants for faculty posts, and the likelihood
that "lecturers" will come to be regarded as a lower category than
"professors" and one to which scholarly unproductive professors may
be demoted.
5. That continuing funding will be assured
Adequate and continuing funding must be assured if the intent
is to set up a university system that will meet the needs of the
people of the non-metropolitan areas truly and not merely nominally.
If S.F.U. takes responsibility for the expenditures (15:2) it
presumably will use as a guideline this statement in the Report:
"No programme should be mounted without a sufficient commitment of -
financial
support" (8:1).
The rough cost estimates in the Report (17:2 to 19:1) are
widely regarded as unrealistically low. Some examples illustrate this:
- The library activities estimated at $5 million would actually
cost at least $9 million;
- The estimated $0.35 million annually for off-campus instruction
may be contrasted with the $2.5 million spent annually by the University
of Waterloo for about 150 audio-taped courses for about 2,500 students;
Costs of upper level undergraduate laboratory courses in Science
can be high: a 4-faculty programme in chemistry would cost nearly $0.6
million
to
start up and $0.32 million annually to operate;
- The estimated salary costs of $3.3 million for faculty of
four 10-faculty centres in year five could be the costs for one
50-faculty centre in year two or three;
- The Report does not estimate possible costs of future
expansion, though it is conceivable that these could resemble those
of S.F.U. over the past ten years, though the cost per F.T.E. student
could be higher because of the added costs of outreach programmes and
of staggered course times. It may be noted that the S.P.U. Kelowna
programmes in BioSciences and in Psychology have cost about $16,000
per F.T.E. student in the first year, about $8,000 in the second.
More realistic capital and operating costs cannot be estimated
until, first, decisions have been made on priorities in setting up the
Headquarters and the centres and on the sizes of each, on the kinds and
k•
11
scope of academic programmes, and on the nature of the delivery systems
?
S
for outreach programmes and courses, and, second, plans that can be
costed have been devised for each.
?
it may be noted that capital costs may
be higher than imagined because of the possible need to construct
facilities at some locations to house faculty, staff, and students.
While S.F.U. has the authority for expenditures it must be
empowered, if funds are inadequate to do everything that is desirable,
to determine priorities:
?
to select what and what not to do and when and
how, as described elsewhere in this review.
?
Nevertheless certain basic
conditions must he agreed upon in that S.F.U. must be satisfied, with
whatever safeguards are feasible, that:
?
funding for the University
College will be in addition to and not directly at the expense of
funding for existing universities; financial support must continue
despite any changes
in
the Government of British Columbia; adequate
funding will be provided during the establishment and developmental phases
when the costs of faculty and facilities may be very high in relation to
size of student enrollments; and expansion financing should be provided
as
needed.
It
is
important that S.F.U. must not suffer long-term diminished
administrative services or depleted resources as consequences of its
involvement with the University College.
?
For example, the S.F.U. Library
must not.divide its services between the two but must be adequately financed
to expand its services to cover both. ?
Similarly, S.F.U. Continuing Studies
should have an independent and reasonably protected budget to enable it
$
to maintain its Lower Mainland operation in competition for resources with
the University College.
The Report recommends that the University College be funded
separately from S.F.U. Burnaby (12:5, 13:5, 27:2). Advantages of this
would be that it would give the University College some sort of separate
identity from the start that would be a precursor to its eventual
separation; and that it would tend to protect S.F.U. Burnaby from being
a scapegoat for failures actually caused by inadequate Government funding
for the University College.
M
?
12
?
:
B. ?
CONSEQUENCES
Simon Fraser University accepts a major responsibility if it
accepts the proposal. It commits itself to doing all that it reasonably
?
1. ?
can to develop the University College and to foster its evolution into
the new University, or Universities, despite the consequent extra time,
trouble, and headaches, the possible spreading of services thinly,
and the inevitable criticisms for what goes wrong or is not apparently
done right.
The commitment means that officials in all segments of S.F.U.
Burnaby that operate at the University level or that serve the University
as a whole must become involved whether they like it or not. Their areas
of responsibility will extend beyond Burnaby to encompass the University
College.
• ?
There is a feeling at S.F.U. that individual faculty members?
however, should have a choice: they may become directly involved if
they want to do so; but they should be free to have nothing to do with
the arrangement if that is what they wish.
It does not follow that departments or faculty members who are
willing to become involved directly can do so: the University College
will have the final decision.
The committee, administrative, and other interactions between
the two campuses may be so complex that, to resolve immediate problems,
each campus may have to locate a senior "Ambassador" with powers of
decision on the other campus.
1. To the governing bodies and academic committees
As the University College would be part of S.F.U. its.
financial and academic plans would be subject to approval by the same
governing and other committees that deal with S.F.U. Burnaby. Because
of this, University College personnel must have adequate opportunities
to be represented on those committees. Changes in committee compositions
would be a consequence.
(a) The Board of Governors
The Report recommends that three on four persons from the
non-metropolitan areas be appointed to the S.F.U. Board of Governors
(15:2, 27:6), though the proposed Advisory Council for the University,
College (15:3, 27:7) makes the need for this questionable. Presumably
these Board members would replace existing appointees. If not,
difficulties could arise: an imbalance would be created between the
numbers of appointed members and the numbers of elected and ex-officio
13
fe
members and to rectify it would require changes in the Universities Act.
University College personnel must have opportunities equal to
S.F.U. Burnaby personnel to be elected as faculty, student, and staff
members of the Board. However, logistics may dictate that they could
attend only a few meetings, so that University College matters may have
to be limited to those meetings.
(b)
The Senate and its Committees
University College officials must be classified as S.F.U.
officials before University College faculty can fit the procedures for
election to Senate and for evaluation for renewal, promotion, salary
increase, tenure or dismissal. Presumably the University College would be
the equivalent of a Faculty of S.F.U. Burnaby, at least initially.
Faculty members and students of the University College would be also
eligible for election to Senate by, respectively, Joint Faculty and
the Student Association. These changes in the composition of the
Senate apparently can be accomplished without the necessity of changing
the Universities Act.
University College faculty and students should have the opportunity
to be represented appropriately on Senate committees or boards, especially
those such as Academic Planning (S.C.A.P.), Undergraduate Studies
. ?
(S.C.U.S.), Continuing Studies (S.C.C.S.), Undergraduate Admissions
(S.U.A.B.), and Appeal Board (S.A.B.) that could become heavily occupied
with University College affairs. Indeed, the extra work-loads may be
so large that some of these committees may have to set up sub-committees
to deal specifically with University College matters. However, University
College faculty and students will inevitably be partially disenfranchised
by logistics.
(c)
Other Committees
If University College has the status of a Faculty of S.F.U.
it must be appropriately represented on University committees that
affect It, such as the Tenure Committee (U.T.C.),Appointments Committee
(U.A.C.), and search committees for senior administrators.
Presumably S.F.U. Burnaby faculty would be represented on
University College Faculty-level committees, such as search committees
for Chairmen of centres; and it seems possible that S.F.U. Burnaby faculty
and staff will participate in University College search and appointment
committees for faculty and staff.
The chief consequences to S.F.U. Burnaby would be to involve,
for at least the lifetime of the College, the members of the various
committees in more work, trouble, and committee time than hitherto.
.
14
( ?
2. To the academic departments and administrators
The consequences to the academic departments would be chiefly
to the teaching programmes. Some experienced faculty may move from
Burnaby to the University College, especially if the need for some
senior scholars there is recognized. More probably,
willing faculty
may be seconded temporarily to the University College, as they are now
to Kelowna from the S.F.U. BioScience and Psychology departments,
especially during the developmental phases.
A distinct possibility exists that faculty of S.F.U. Burnaby
could be primarily responsible for setting up the outreach programmes
and courses because University College faculty may not have the time
and the experience and the facilities to do so at the beginning. This
could reduce course availability at Burnaby.
A department may have to make special teaching programme
arrangements or other concessions both to compensate seconded faculty
for the interruptions in their scholarly careers and to integrate its
course programme with theirs. And it could be involved in advising
the University College on such matters as course and programme planning,
faculty recruiting, student evaluations, laboratory building plans.
If S.F.U. accepts the proposal it becomes University policy to
I' ?
implement it, and departments are likely to be encouraged to participate
at least as much as they are now encouraged to give Continuing Studies
courses. The extent to which any one department may become directly
involved will range from extensively to not at all. A department whose
subject is not taught at the University College may not get involved,
even if it wants to. But it is difficult to see how some departments
could avoid becoming involved in the University College: in Faculties
such as Arts, Interdisciplinary Studies, and Education, and especially
departments whose subjects may be emphasized there. Not only could they
not avoid participation, they would find it difficult not to accept
direct responsibilities for ensuring that the University College
programmes in their subjects are developed properly. A possibly
contentious question that could face S.F.U. is what to do about academic
departments that may refuse to become involved. The best answer: nothing.
3. To the off-campus programmes
Two segments of S.F.U. Burnaby currently give off-campus programmes
In the Interior: -
(a) Continuing Studies Division
The Report stresses that a major responsibility of the University
College will be to develop and give extension degree credit programmes
I
EA
15
of Directed Studies to students out of reach of direct contact with
University centres or formal classroom courses (7:1, 8:3 & 4, 11:8,
12:5, 13:4, 16:1 & 4, 17:1, 2 & 6, 18:1, 25:1 & 4).
As the Continuing Studies activities of S.F.U. are currently
concentrated in the Lower Mainland, the immediate impact of the
University College may not be great. The two activities in the
Interior -
the new and still small correspondence programme and the operation at
Kelowna that now involves the equivalent of 4.5 faculty - presumably
either would be replaced by University College activities or the
University
College would contract with S.F.U. to continue them.
However, a fear exists that the real possibility that the
existence of the University College with its outreach programmes could
direct a substantial part of Continuing Studies resources and faculty
interest to the Interior from Lower Mainland programmes to the detriment
of the latter.
(b) Faculty of Education
The Report recommends that the University College have special
responsibilities for co-ordinating Continuing Education and outreach
programmes.
The S.F.U. Professional Development Programme could be affected.
Two of its three semesters are given by S.F.U. at Penticton, Kelowna,
Vernon, Kamloops, Salmon Arm, Prince George, and Chilliwack; one
specialization of the third semester otherwise given at S.F.U. is given
at Kamloops. If those programmes were taken over by the University College
the consequences would be severely damaging to the faculty without
introducing significant advantages. One of the current strengths of the
P.D.P. programme is the on-campus academic expertise that supports them
and which, as indicated earlier in this review, would be virtually,
impossible to set up at the University College. The S.F.U. Faculty of
Education feels strongly that it, not the University College, should
continue to direct the P.D.P. programmes in the Interior. Degree
completion work on the B.Ed. is a different matter, and theoretically
might be supplied in the Interior if the University College could import
the substantial resources necessary during the summers.
A recommendation in the Report could influence the nature of
future off-campus activities of the S.F.U. Faculty of Education: that
the universities and the Department of Education establish a Study
Committee to review certification requirements and existing programmes
(16:3, 27:9).
4. To the administrative services
The Registrar's Office and the Administrative Services divisions
I1
.',, ?
I
16
of S.F.U. would all be involved. How they would be involved can be
identified. How much each will be involved and for how long cannot
until the magnitude of the operation has been identified and until a
decision is made on when, or if, to set up a Headquarters at Vernon.
In relation to needs of the University College, S.F.U. Burnaby
administrators would (a) train, (b) advise, and (c) provide services.
(a) Training
Senior administrators of S.F.U. Burnaby would train newly-
appointed University College administrators in procedures. Presumably
this would be done chiefly at Burnaby, though partly the Interior
Headquarters. It presumably would be concentrated In the first year or
two. The offices of the Bursar and Registrar and of Physical Plant would
be involved first, Personnel, and University Services soon thereafter.
The consequent reduction in services to S.F.U. Burnaby would be temporary,
and probably not noticable if additional staff are provided from University
College funds as they should be.
(b) Advice
Simon Fraser University administrators, and specialists in
computer, audio-visual, and other procedures, are likely to be required
( to advise the University College. The extent and scope of this cannot
be suggested at. this time,, except that it certainly will not be merely
nominal, it could be extensive, and it may be continuing.
(c)
Continuing Service
As University College students, faculty, and staff would be
S.F.U. students, faculty, and staff, all administrative departments of
S.F.U. that are concerned with regulations and records related to people
and standards would be responsible for the University. College, at least
during its existence as such. Additional staff probably would be needed
at Burnaby. The extent to which this may continue after the new University
is established can only be surmised. It seems possible, for example,
that S.F.U. may be required to continue to supply computer, audio-visual,
laboratory, special workshop, and science stores, as well as library,
services but perhaps not to continue to handle functions of the'Registrar
or the Bursar.
5. To the Library
If the proposal Is accepted, library facilities at and for the
University College would be developed and sustained primarily by the
S.F.U. Library. Consequences to S.F.U. Burnaby might be decreased
effectiveness in some ways but certainly increased efficiency in others.
(.
17
If the responsibilities of the various agencies involved are
(
?
not defined clearly in advance or if continuing funding is not adequate,
or both, the Library services could become so degraded and so overtaxed
that they would deteriorate in relation to needs of all users; and the
Library resources of S.F.U. Burnaby might be depleted through cannibalization
to meet University College needs.
However, these possible disadvantages could be offset by the
introduction of efficient new procedures. Existing cataloguing and
circulation systems, designed for needs of the Burnaby campus only and
becoming increasingly inadequate with age and with increasing usage,
could not also handle the requirements of the University College. New
catalogue support and circulation control systems, such as UThAS-CIRCS,
based on latest communications and computer techniques, are necessary if
S.F.U. is to provide adequate service to the Burnaby campus and
essential if resource sharing is to become a reality. In addition the
University budgetary and fiscal procedures must be upgraded and the
Library research collections expanded. All these improvements would be
of continuing benefit to S.F.U. Burnaby as they would raise the efficiency
and effectiveness of the Library services permanently to higher levels
than hitherto.
I
CV
C' çvrT
18
C. ADVANTACES TO SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY BURNABY
The University College would benefit from the arrangement much
more than S.F.U. Burnaby. It could develop much better academic courses
and programmes much sooner with S.F.U. 's assistance than alone.
The chief advantages to S.F.U. would be intangible ones:
- Simon Fraser University would demonstrate a positive and
outward-looking attitude in meeting its duty and responsibility to do
what it can to participate constructively in the development and improvement
of higher education in British Columbia and would avoid becoming
introspective and perhaps Impoverished.
- It would avoid criticism and blame for not meeting the
challenge.
- It would facilitate continuing cooperation of a kind not
hitherto conspicuous In this Province between different universities for
their mutual benefit.
- Faculty standards might
academics currently available for
- Simon Fraser University
expertise in disciplines that wou
the University College and S.F.U.
go up because of the high quality of
recruitment to University College posts.
departments could expand the scope of
Id be represented on the faculty of both
Burnaby.
- Simon Fraser University could become a recognized centre of
expertise in planning and organizing small Innovative campuses and in
techniques
for
delivering education to remote locations.
More tangible advantages would be in the higher levels of
effectiveness of
some
existing services such as library, computing,
and accounting.
While
improvements In them may not be possible with
S.F.U. Burnaby resources alone, they could be possible with University
College resources and would be to the long-term benefit of both.
?
S ?
19
D. ?
CONCLUSIONS
?
The Report recommends that S.F.U. accept or reject the proposal
?
.k
before the end of December, 1976 (13:3, 27:8). Simon Fraser University
has three alternatives: -
(a)
To accept the proposal unconditionally. Indications
received while this review was being prepared are that this would meet
with widespread opposition from a majority of the faculty of S.F.U.
(b)
To reject the proposal. A clearly valid reason would be
essential, as merely to excuse or to rationalize selfishly could be
academically indefensible and politically unwise.
(c)
To accept the proposal conditionally. That
is,
to agree
to accept it if reasonable and justifiable specified conditions are met,
with the implication that S.F.U. could not accept the proposal if they
are not met despite a moral responsibility to students and potential
students.
If the third (c) is considered to be the best of the three
alternatives, then the immediate task facing S.F.U. is to define what
of the conditions, such as those described above in their original or
?
( ?
modified form and/or different conditions, it regards as both reasonable
?
and justifiable and then negotiate agreement on them.
If S.F.U. decides to accept this proposal in principle it may
wish to state simply something that may be summarized like this:
Simon Fraser University will be prepared to take responsibility
for attempting to meet needs for University education for non-metropolitan
areas of British Columbia within the limits of the funds available and
provided that conditions are met that give S.F.U. the authority to
decide, in consultation with appropriate agencies, which needs to meet
and in what sequence, and where, to what extent, and how.
Then, if this is agreed, S.F.U. may take one (or in sequence
two or more) of the following routes after detailed evaluations of
various possibilities including comparisons of advantages of the single-
campus versus multi-campus systems: -
(1)
?
S.F.U. remains a multi-campus University indefinately.
(ii)
S.F.U. remains a multi-campus University after budding
off a new multi-campus University.
(iii)
S.F.U. reverts to its single-campus form after budding
off a new multi-campus University (which appears to be the intent of the
Winegard recommendations).
(iv)
S.F.U. reverts to its single-campus form after budding
off several new single-campus Universities (which reduces to a minimum
disadvantages of multi-campus systems).
4
S
(.
(0
WO
A compromise that S.F.U. may wish to consider is a modification
of (iv) that could shorten, reduce, or avoid many of the problems
discussed in this review.
It is that the new Institution would start as a University College
or Division of S.F.U. but would become a new single-campus University
as soon as its officers have sufficient training and experience to run
a University but irrespective of the numbers of faculty and students
there at the time; and the new University would then negotiate with
S.F.U. to obtain the academic and administrative assistance and the
special and administrative services that it needs and that it would have
had if it had remained as a University College until it remained University
size in terms of faculty and student numbers.
Additional new single-campus Universities could be set up in
the same fashion as needs dictate and finances permit.
This compromise would give autonomy early to regional
Institutions without reducing, theavailability of expert assistance and
cooperation from SF.U. It would reduce problems of a multi-campus
system. It would permit S.F.U. to avoid becoming involved where It is
unable or unwilling to do so. It would facilitate the new Universities
to involve Universities additional to S.F.U. in their activities and
development. In general, It would Increase flexibility in situations
where the ability to react to changing circumstances is essential.
21
Ire
?
APPENDIX 1: Some Problems of a multi-campus University
The following are extracts from a letter of 20 October, 1976
from the Dean of Science of the multi-campus University of the
West Indies:
"1 hardly know how to answer your query except perhaps to
say don't do it! I am not entirely sure what advantage is to be
gained
in the B.C. context by having a multi-campus organization
rather than separate Universities, but presumably that has already
been worked out. If there must be a multi-campus organization then the
most important thing is to avoid having too tight central control from
one campus and to keep cross campus administration to a minimum. It
is in
the very nature of academics that they want to
go their own
way and develop programmes which they believe are beat for their
situation; what is good for one campus is not necessarily good for
another. This is well demonstrated in Biology in our own University.
The type of course, and the emphasis placed in different parts of
the course, that is suited to the Jamaican context is not suited to the
Trinidadian context but our regulations say we must run common
courses and have common examinations. After a few stormy meetings
in the early days we now compromise and spend a lot of time finding
ways of
circumnavigating
the Council's regulation.'
"We are stuck with a situation in which many subjects are
taught on all three campuses and the paper work and travel needed
to co-ordinate teaching and examining is ludicrous. I suggest
therefore that if you are developing a multi-campus University that
each campus needs to have its own speciality and don't duplicate
teaching on different campuses if it can be avoided. If individual
Faculties (i.e. Science) are to be duplicated in different campuses
then try to give the academics as much freedom to develop their own
courses how they like. This may be easier in the Canadian system
than it is in ours.
"Central control of administration also creates trouble.
Mona is. our centre and the other campuses always believe we are
'stealing' the largest slice of the cake and keeping the others in
a state of subservience. Too tight centralisation also creates
unnecessary paper work and travel. I travelled
six
times to
Trinidad last academic year solely for the purposes of co-ordination
and I could have spent my time in more profitable occupations."
•L ?
•.
I
;'• :•
(S
S
S
22
APPENDIX 2: Sources of additional information (all
at S.F.U. unless otherwise indicated)
Dr. J. Blaney, Dean of Continuing Studies.
British Columbia Students' Federation, per Mr. Ross Powell,
Executive Member.
Dr. R. Brown, Dean of Interdisciplinary Studies.
Dr. T. W. Calvert, Department of Kinesiology; member of
Advisory Committee.
Chairmen of the Faculty of Arts, collectively.
Chairmen equivalents of the Faculty of Education, collectively.
Chairmen of the Faculty of Interdisciplinary Studies, collectively.
Chairmen of the Faculty of Science, collectively.
Dr. J. Chase, Director of AnalyticalStudies.
Dr. F. Cunningham, Department of Geography.
Department of Chemistry, per Dr. E. Wells, Chairman.
Department of Economics and Commerce, per Dr. B. Schoner, Chairman.
Department of Geography, per Dr. M. Roberts, Chairman.
Department of Psychology, per Dr. D. Krebs, Chairman.
Dr. L. M. Dill, Department of Biological Sciences.
Dr. M. E. Eliot-Hurst, Department of Geography.
Mr. H. Ellis, Registrar.
Dr. J. Ellis, Dean, Faculty of Education; member of
Advisory Committee.
Faculty Association, Notre Dame University, per Dr. V.J. Salvo.
Faculty Association, Simon Fraser University, per Dr. J. Farquhar.
Dr. L. Funt, Department of Chemistry.
Dr. R. Gehiback, Faculty of Education.
?
.4
?
p
?
,
.8
?
•
23
(•
Dr. I. Goodbody, Dean of Science, University of the West Indies.
Dr. R. Harrop, Department of Mathematics.
Dr. G. C. Hoyt, Department of Economics and Commerce.
Dr. C. Jones, Department of Chemistry.
Dr. Jean E. Koepke, Department of Psychology, S.F.U.
Kelowna Programme.
Ms. Donna Laws, Administrative Assistant, President's Office.
Dr. S. K. Lower, Department of Chemistry.
Mr. M. McClaren, Faculty of Education.
Dr. J. M. Munro, Acting Dean, Faculty of Arts.
Dr. K. Okuda, Department of Economics and Commerce; member of
Advisory Committee.
Dr. S. Roberts, Vice-President, University Services.
Mr. D. Ross, Bursar.
Dr. R.M.S. Sadleir, Department of Biological Sciences.
Ms. Linda Severy, student; member of Advisory Committee.
Dr. M. Smith, Department of Biological Sciences.
Mr. G. Suart, Vice-President, Administration.
Ms. Sharon Thomas, University Library; member of Advisory Committee.
The University Library, per Mr. T. Dobbs, Acting University Librarian,
and Ms. Sharon Thomas, Acquisitions Librarian.
Dr. N. Verbeek, Department of Biological Sciences, S.F.U.
Kelowna Programme.
Dr. J. Walkley, Department of Chemistry.
Dr. J. Webster, Dean of Science.
Dr. B. Wilson, Vice-President, Academic; member of
Advisory Committee.
Enclosure
^S/"
P k
Ae.
For your information, I am enclosing a copy of
Dr. Bryan P. Bejrne's review of aspects of the Winegard Report.
Dr. Beirne's review is currently being considered by
the Senate Committee on Academic Planning.
ic-
AC
?
Arj;r', ?
VA 1S6
L)Pn •1c Ni
?
I
4475
November 5, 1976.
Dr. P. Jewett
Chairman
Academic Planning Committee
Dear Dr. Jewett:
I enclose herewith a copy of the review of those recommendations
of the Report on University Programs in Non-Metropolitan Areas that
have implications for the present and continuing academic and
administrative operation of this University, as requested by the
Academic Planning Committee.
Yours sincerely,
Bry—
an-7.—Beirne
Reviewer
\ ..
TO: ?
The Senate Committee on Academic Planning
of Simon Fraser University
A REVIEW OF ASPECTS OF THE WINEGARD REPORT?
Or, more specifically:
A review of those suggestions in and recommendations of
the Report of the Commission on University Programs
in Non-Metropolitan Areas that have implications for the
present and continuing academic and administrative operation
of Simon Fraser University
BY: ?
Bryan P. Beirne
Professor of Pest Management
4 November, 1976
CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION
?
...............................................i
A. ?
CONDITIONS
1.
That the status of the new Institution be
defined clearly
?
...................................
3
2.
That Simon Fraser University will not be
required to make advance commitments on
University College programmes
?
.....................
4
3.
That Simon Fraser University can maintain
its academic standards
?
............................
6
4.
That Simon Fraser University can treat its
faculty uniformly ?
.................................
8
5.
That continuing funding willbe assured
............
10
B. ?
CONSEQUENCES
1.
To
the
governing bodies and academic
committees ?
........................................
12
2.
To
the
academic departments and
administrators
?
....................................
14
3.
To
the
off-campus
?
programmes ?
......................
14
4.
To
the
administrative services
....................
15
5.
To
the
Library ?
....................................
16
C. ADVANTAGES TO SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY BURNABY
?
18
D.
?
CONCLUSIONS
?
...........................................
19
APPENDIX 1: Some problems of a multi-campus
University
.....................................
21
APPENDIX 2: List of individuals who provided information ...
?
22
1
INTRODUCTION
The charge is "to review those recommendations of the Winegard
Commission Report which have implications for the present and continuing
operation, academic and administrative, of Simon Fraser University."
The reason is to provide information to assist Simon Fraser University
in deciding whether or not to accept the proposal "that the new university
begin as a separately-funded Division of S.F.U. ."
A problem in preparing a review of this kind is that conditions
and consequences that should be based on specified plans have to be
based on assumptions because the plans do not yet exist.
The following, summarized from recommendations and suggestions
in the Report, is taken as the basis for the review: [Note: numbers
in parenthesis refer to page and paragraph numbers in the Report].
- That a new multi-campus university be established to serve
non-metropolitan areas of British Columbia (12:4, 27:1, 13:3);
- That its academic status and standards will be high (7:4, 7:8)
and it will be active in research and scholarship (14:2) as well as in
teaching;
- That one of its primary functions will be to prepare and deliver
courses and programmes for students who are out of reach of university
campuses (7:6, 11:10, 14:1, 16:4, 24:4 to 25:4);
- That it will offer upper-level degree-completion programmes in
Arts, Science, and Education (13:2, 3), and eventually additional, more
specialized, programmes that may be in part professional (13:5, 26:3)
and require courses at all levels including graduate (9:5); and
- That it would start as a University College of S.F.U. (12:5,
27:2, 27:8) if S.F.U. will accept the responsibility.
Suggested alternatives to these basic recommendations, such a
new university from the start, the Open University system, or the system
recently proposed for Alberta, and their relative merits are not discussed
here because to do so would be outside the scope of this review as
charged. For the same reason, no specific recommendations are made in
this review.
A basic assumption is that S.F.U; will consider the proposal and
its implications in the light of the moral responsibility of the university
to do all that it reasonably can to make quality education available to
all in British Columbia who want it. What S.F.U. would do in practice
could be influtced by two sets of controlling factors: -
Conditions, which are stipulations that S.F.U. may wish to make
Lo
try to eliminate, reduce, or manage causes of potentially serious
2
harm to its standards, reputation, or operation that could operate if
the proposal is accepted unconditionally and whose continuing existence
thus could be reasons to reject the proposal; and
Consequences, which are unavoidable effects on the operations
of S.F.U. if the proposal is accepted and implemented after the
conditions have been met.
Finally, the courses of action open to S.F.U. are summarized
briefly.
3
A. ?
CONDITIONS
Simon Fraser University may wish to negotiate with the British
Columbia Department of Education and the Universities Council of
British Columbia agreement on some or all of the following as conditions
for accepting the proposal. The purpose of the agreement would be to
remove or reduce causes of potentially avoidable consequences that could
be harmful to the interests of S.F.U.
A broad summary of the conditions is: to make the proposal
viable and acceptable, S.F.U. must have reasonably full responsibility
and authority for planning and setting up the University College and
developing it into a new University as appropriate.
1. That the Status of the new Institution be defined clearly
The Report recommends that a new University to be established
by 1990 (12:4, 27:1) should begin as a new Division or University College
of Simon Fraser University (12:5, 27:2) and should be given a considerable
degree of autonomy (14:3). That is, S.F.U., now a single-campus university,
would become a multi-campus one that eventually would divide into two
or more universities.
The new University College/University should have a distinctive
name from the start, to serve as a constant reminder to all concerned
that the ultimate objective is the development and establishment of a
new University.
Simon Fraser University must guide and monitor the development
of the University College and of its constituent parts and alter their
status when it appears appropriate and feasible to do so; for example,
to terminate a centre or programme that is clearly not viable, and to
change the College into a University when it reaches the size - a head-count
of about 5,000 students - when it can operate at a viable economic level.
It therefore must have the authority to make the appropriate arrangements
and recommendations.
The responsibility for expenditures of University College funds
would rest with the S.F.U. Board of Governors (15:2), for approval
of its academic programme with the Simon Fraser University Senate (14:3),
and for general procedures, notably including those aimed at maintaining
academic standards, with the administrators of the S.F.U. regulations
(14:3). Such responsibilities could be accepted by S.F.U. only if
accompanied by the relevant authority. As the University College would be
part of S.F.U., it is difficult to see how it could have much more
autonomy thar',as a Faculty or a Division of S.F.U.
4
The positions of the University College administrators in the
Simon Fraser University hierarchy must be defined. Presumably the
Principal would be a Vice-President, the Associate Principal at College
Headquarters a Dean, and each Associate Principal in charge of a centre
a (Departmental) Chairman.
The area of responsibility and authority of the proposed Advisory
Council for the University College (15:3, 27:7) in relation to S.F.U.
must be defined clearly, to remove in advance some sources of possible
conflict. Indeed, the need for the Advisory Council at the beginning
can be questioned. Perhaps what is really needed is two Advisory
Councils, a shadow Board of Governors and a shadow Senate, to be
established when the University College is close to becoming a new
University. In this event those bodies should be constituted in accepted
ways and include students and faculty.
2. That Simon Fraser University will not be required to make?
advance commitments on University CoTIiprogrammes
As the Report states, "it will be essential that some time
be taken to plan the academic programmes ... before each centre begins
operating" (24:1). Until this is done S.F.U. cannot and should not
commit itself to any particular programme, and S.F.U. could not make
plans before December 1976. The scope and size of the programmes will be
determined by a combination of the minimum faculty size needed to offer
a particular programme, the numbers and kinds of programmes needed, and
the student numbers taking them. The sequence in which programmes can
be established and developed will be influenced by the finances provided.
(a) The Faculty Size
The suggestion in the Report that each centre should have a
F.T.E. faculty of only 10 is unrealistic. If the faculty carry normal
teaching loads of which outreach courses would account for a substantial
part, the number of formal courses that 10 F.T.E. faculty could give
annually at a centre is more likely to be of the order of 25 or 30 than
the 40 suggested in the Report. This would mean an average of 6 or 7
courses in each semester of each of the two upper years. As the normal
full course-load of a full-time student is 5, the students' choice of
courses would be quite limited.
[Note: In this review the term "outreach course" means any course given
away from an established campus, or otherwise outside the traditional
classroom situation, whether independent or directed study, or modular,
correspondence, or remote group instruction.]
Prob
i
y 20 F.T.E. faculty would be necessary to provide the two
upper years of a General Arts (B.A.) or of a General Science (B.Sc.) degree
programme with honours and majors and with reasonable educational variety
5
in course selection. Four to 6 additional F.T.E. faculty could be needed
for each subject that is emphasized in the programme. To make academic
sense, therefore, a centre may soon have to have about 40 faculty instead
of the 10 suggested in the Report.
Whether to establish at the outset four small centres or one
or two large ones is an example of the kind of major decision that
S.F.U. must have the authority to make if it is to be responsible for
establishing the University College and developing it into a University.
There are others. For instance: whether or not to concentrate first on
developing the back-up facilities at Burnaby and the Headquarters and one
centre - presumably the Nelson one because it is there already; when, and
indeed if, to set up a Headquarters at Vernon; whet
h
er to concentrate
first on developing the programmes at the centres and then the outreach
programmes, or vice versa; and whether to set up a University College
centre for the Upper Fraser Valley east of Abbotsford or to serve that
area direct from S.F.U. Burnaby.
(b) The Academic Programmes
The academic programmes of the University College could be of
three kinds: the basic B.A. and B.Sc. programmes given at all the centres;
a broad theme that would be distinctive to each centre; and programmes
in disciplines that relate to the theme of a centre and that it is
feasible to emphasize there.
One reason why programmes other than the basic ones should not
be defined in advance is that the surveys and analyses that are sufficiently
adequate to define the numbers and the present and future educational
demands of students and of their potential employers in different areas of
the Province apparently have not yet been made.
A unique opportunity exists to break with tradition, by giving
the centres constructive themes that relate to human needs and that are
interdisciplinary in relation to the conventional classification of
subjects. Examples of such themes are resource management, people
management, business management, health management, environmental analysis,
and communication studies. A question to be examined is which theme would
be best for which centre.
The Report points out that the needs and the procedures for
teaching the disciplines that might be emphasized should be reviewed
before decisions to set up programmes on them are made: in Education
(16:3, 27:9), Commerce (26:3, 29:1), Forestry (26:4, 28:11), and Nursing
(26:5, 28:12). The same stipulation should apply to a variety of other
possible subjects, especially semi-or para-professional ones, that
relate to the-:es of centres.
Serious practical obstacles to giving some programmes at the
University College may appear. For example, a typical programme in
6
Education could require at least 20 specialists in aspects of the subject,
and may thus be beyond the resources of a given centre. It may in fact
be necessary to separate the responsibilities for offering B.Ed. completion
work from P.D.P. or certification work. An adequate programme in
Commerce would require-9 or 10 faculty; and it may be impossible to set
up a 5-or 6-faculty accounting programme because academically-qualified
accountants are virtually impossible to find.
(c) The Student Numbers
The population of the areas that would be served indicates that
a rapid expansion of student enrollments at the University College to high
levels is a possibility. A faculty of 10 F.T.E. could handle 150 to
170 F.T.E. students effectively, as the normal faculty-to-student ratio
in Canada is 1 to 15 and the current S.F.U. ratio is 1 to 17 (1 to 12 is
regarded as the optimum). It seems probable that a centre would soon
have an F.T.E. student enrollment of several times 170.
A plan to meet that contingency must be agreed upon in advance:
either to expand the faculty numbers and the facilities to fit increased
enrollments, which would require commitments for appropriate funding;
or to limit student enrollments to fit the available faculty numbers
and facilities, which would require an acceptable basis for doing so.
3. That Simon Fraser University can maintain its Academic Standards
A suspicion, or fear, exists at S.F.U. that a tie-in with the
University College could result In an actual or perceived lowering in
S.F.U.'s academic quality. Convincing safeguards are necessary to
remove this suspicion as a major obstacle to accepting the proposal.
The suspicion arises in part from statements in the Report: -
(a) Alleged role of S.F.U.
That Simon Fraser University should have a more limited teaching
role than it has and intends to have is suggested by these gratuitous
and misleadingly incorrect statements in the Report: "S.F.U. has little
interest in further development of professional schools and has or
should have ambitions for a somewhat restricted role in graduate work
especially at the doctoral level" (10:7).
A possibility that the tie-in with the University College would
be interpreted in any way by anybody as reinforcing that suggested role
may alone be sufficient grounds in the eyes of some for S.F.U. to reject
the proposal Conditions that S.F.U. may wish to make, before it decides
on the prcposal, are that bodies such as the British Columbia Department
of Education and the Universities Council of British Columbia should
7
concur with the S.F.U. Senate's rejection of the general role suggested
by those statements in the Report, and that if S.F.U. accepts the
programme it can be responsible for setting up any professional or
graduate programmes needed at the University College.
(b)
Possible status of the University College
Though the Report repeatedly refers to a University, the
descriptions of the suggested size, scope, faculty activities, and
costs could be interpreted as indicating what is really intended initially
is what might be termed a Provincial College: something at a rather
lower level than a University and perhaps resembling a small State College
of the former California system.
A question that is of fundamental importance to the decision
that S.F.U. is called upon to make is this: is it the intent of the
Government to establish a new University, with all that is implied of
that status, or a lower order of institution? In this review the
assumption is that a University is intended.
(c)
Faculty recruitment standards
As University College faculty would be S.F.U. faculty they would
have to meet S.F.U. recruitment standards. To lower S.F.U. standards,
even temporarily and for its University College Division only - for
example, to accommodate any faculty of Notre Dame University who may not
be fully academically qualified (11:8, 19:5, 27:10) - could be to the
long-term detriment of S.F.U.'s academic reputation. One condition, if
S.F.U. accepts the general proposal, must be that it will not be expected
to lower its faculty recruitment and evaluation standards.
It has been suggested that the quality of University College
faculty might not be high because good candidates would be deterred
from applying by the small size, the poor research facilities, and the
possible heavy teaching duties, or that, if they were appointed, good
faculty would stay there only until they could find jobs at big
universities. The consequence would be a lowering of average faculty
standards at S.F.U.
These viewpoints may be discounted. It seems far more likely
that the combination of the current large reserves of available qualified
candidates (except in a very few subjects such as Accountancy), the
attraction of that rarity nowadays, a prospective new University, and
the challenge and opportunity of helping to develop it will attract
faculty of high quality that may well enhance S.F.U. standards.
8
(d) Student admission and evaluation standards
The Report suggests that, in relation to an expected backlog of
students seeking admission, the University College must be extremely
flexible in giving credit for courses taken elsewhere and that special
concessions to such students may be necessary (11:3).
As University College students would be S.F.U. students they
would have to meet S.F.U. admission standards. As with faculty
recruitments, to lower those standards, even temporarily and for its
University College Division only, could be unfair to S.F.U. Burnaby
students and might in the long-term be detrimental of S.F.U. 's academic
standards and reputation. Moreover, it would not be in accord with the
statements in the Report on the need to maintain traditional university
standards of academic excellence (7:4). One condition that S.F.U. must
make is that if it accepts the proposal it will not be expected to lower
its already flexible student admission standards. It may not be feasible,
for example, for S.F.U. to assure prospective students that all community
college courses will be acceptable (21:6, 22:1) until S.F.U. is satisfied
that they are of the requisite standards.
The comment in the Report on the need to maintain traditional
university standards of academic excellence at the University College
(7:4) is reinforced by the statements on the need for programmes to be of
a high standard and recognized by other universities, and that the
graduate should have no feeling of being second-class in any respect (7:8).
Nevertheless some fear exists that because of limited facilities at University
College centres academic standards there would be lower than at S.F.U.
Burnaby and that this could be to the detriment of S.F.U. standards.
This may be discounted for most subjects: student and faculty motivation
and energy can more than counteract any effects of poor facilities.
It seems that to attempt to ensure that uniform standards will
exist throughout a multi-campus university can be a time-consuming task
(see Appendix 1) that may well be a major obstacle to implementing the
multi-campus idea. A system in which faculty from S.F.U. Burnaby would
be involved in evaluating courses given at the University College could
assist in maintaining satisfactory standards there. Quality control of
Independent Study or Directed Study outreach courses would be especially
important. Simon Fraser University must avoid becoming involved in a
proliferation of second-rate colleges, programmes, or courses by doing
what it can to ensure that none of them is second-rate.
4. That Simon Fraser University can treat its faculty uniformi
The faculty of the University College would be faculty of S.F.U.
(14:1, 15:4)
?
As such neither their working conditions nor the criteria
used in evaluating them for contract renewal, salary levels and increases,
promotion, tenure, or dismissal should differ from those of the faculty
of S.F.U. Burnaby to extents that are inequitable to either group. There
are suggestions in the Report that if accepted could result In inequities.
One implication is that the teaching and related duties of
University College faculty (16:1, 16:4, 17:1 and 2) would be heavier
than the four courses or course equivalents normally required annually
of faculty at the coast universities. Such duties of the University
College faculty should be at or close to the norm, to reduce both direct
inequities and inequalities in the time available for University College
faculty to do the research that contributes to their academic advancement.
A reason suggested in the Report for their heavier teaching and
related workloads is that University College faculty would have
difficulties in doing research (17:2) and thus presumably would have
time available for increased other duties. This argument for heavier
non-research duties is not valid. While research that requires major or
complex equipment may not be possible at a University College centre for
some years, other kinds of research, especially kinds based in the
field, are feasible there. Moreover, University College faculty must
have adequate time for research to maintain their credibility and
employability as scholars. Indeed it would add to the scholarly credibility
if each centre had several senior, established scholars on its faculty
from the start.
As the argument for less research time is not valid, another
suggestion based on it is not valid: that University College faculty
should have more frequent study leaves than is usual (14:2). This
would give them an advantage over faculty at the coast universities
that could be considered unfair.
The Report points out that the certification of the Notre Dame
University Faculty Association could cause problems in integrating the
Nelson Centre - that is, what is now N.D.U. -'into the University
College (20:5) and thus into S.F.U. Presumably S.F.U. would require
this matter to be resolved by the Government before it could accept
the proposal or, alternatively, may suggest a modification of the
proposal that would exclude N.D.U.
University College faculty must be treated as S.F.U. faculty,
even if to do so is not in accord with suggestions in the Report, unless
S.F.U. decides on this alternative: to have two kinds of faculty in
terms of duties, and therefore of criteria for evaluation. One would
be the professors who would do both research and teaching and provide
committee and similar administrative services to the university. The
other, the lecturers, would not be expected to do much research and
instead would carry heavier teaching and related work loads than the
professors.
10
That suggestion has its advocates. But before S.F.U. accepts
it, the implications must be weighed very carefully. For instance, the
effects on the academic stature of an institution that has many
"lecturers" and on the stature of institutions associated with it, the
influence on prospective applicants for faculty posts, and the likelihood
that "lecturers" will come to be regarded as a lower category than
"professors" and one to which scholarly unproductive professors may
be demoted.
5. That continuing funding will be assured
Adequate and continuing funding must be assured if the intent
is to set up a university system that will meet the needs of the
people of the non-metropolitan areas truly and not merely nominally.
If S.F.U. takes responsibility for the expenditures (15:2) it
presumably will use as a guideline this statement in the Report:
"No programme should be mounted without a sufficient commitment of
financial support" (8:1).
The rough cost estimates in the Report (17:2 to 19:1) are
widely regarded as unrealistically low. Some examples illustrate this:
- The library activities estimated at $5 million would actually
cost at least $9 million;
- The estimated $0.35 million annually for off-campus instruction
may be contrasted with the $2.5 million spent annually by the University
of Waterloo for about 150 audio-taped courses for about 2,500 students;
- Costs of upper level undergraduate laboratory courses in Science
can be high: a 4-faculty programme in chemistry would cost nearly $0.6
million to start up and $0.32 million annually to operate;
- The estimated salary costs of $3.3 million for faculty of
four 10-faculty centres in year five could be the costs for one
50-faculty centre in year two or three;
- The Report does not estimate possible costs of future
expansion, though it is conceivable that these could resemble those
of S.F.U. over the past ten years, though the cost per F.T.E. student
could be higher because of the added costs of outreach programmes and
of staggered course times. It may be noted that the S.F.U. Kelowna
programmes in BioSciences and in Psychology have cost about $16,000
per F.T.E. student in the first year, about $8,000 in the second.
More
realistic capital and operating costs cannot be estimated
until, first, decisions have been made on priorities in setting up the
Headquarters and the centres and on the sizes of each, on the kinds and
11
scope of academic programmes, and on the nature of the delivery systems
for outreach programmes and courses, and, second, plans that can be
costed have been devised for each. It may be noted that capital costs may
be higher than imagined because of the possible need to construct
?
-
facilities at some locations to house faculty, staff, and students.
While S.F.U. has the authority for expenditures it must be
empowered, if funds are inadequate to do everything that is desirable,
to determine priorities: to select what and what not to do and when and
how, as described elsewhere in this review. Nevertheless certain basic
conditions must be agreed upon in that S.F.U. must be satisfied, with
whatever safeguards are feasible, that: funding for the University
College will be in addition to and not directly at the expense of
funding for existing universities; financial support must continue
despite any changes in the Government of British Columbia; adequate
funding will be provided during the establishment and developmental phases
when the costs of faculty and facilities may be very high in relation to
size of student enrollments; and expansion financing should be provided as
needed.
It is important that S.F.U. must not suffer long-term diminished
administrative services or depleted resources as consequences of its
involvement with the University College. For example, the S.F.U. Library
must not divide its services between the two but must be adequately financed
to expand its services to cover both. Similarly, S.F.U. Continuing Studies
should have an independent and reasonably protected budget to enable it
to maintain its Lower Mainland operation in competition for resources with
the University College.
The Report recommends that the University College be funded
separately from S.F.U. Burnaby (12:5, 13:5, 27:2). Advantages of this
would be that it would give the University College some sort of separate
identity from the start that would be a precursor to its eventual
separation; and that it would tend to protect S.F.U. Burnaby from being
a scapegoat for failures actually caused by inadequate Government funding
for the University College.
12
B. ?
CONSEQUENCES
Simon Fraser University accepts a major responsibility if it
accepts the proposal. It commits itself to doing all that it reasonably
can to develop the University College and to foster its evolution into
the new University, or Universities, despite the consequent extra time,
trouble, and headaches, the possible spreading of services thinly,
and the inevitable criticisms for what goes wrong or is not apparently
done right.
The commitment means that officials in all segments of S.F.U.
Burnaby that operate at the University level or that serve the University
as a whole must become involved whether they like it or not. Their areas
of responsibility will extend beyond Burnaby to encompass the University
College.
There is a feeling at S.F.U. that individual faculty members
however, should have a choice: they may become directly involved if
they want to do so; but they should be free to have nothing to do with
the arrangement if that is what they wish.
It does not follow that departments or faculty members who are
willing to become involved directly can do so: the University College
will have the final decision.
The committee, administrative, and other interactions between
the two campuses may be so complex that, to resolve immediate problems,
each campus may have to locate a senior "Ambassador" with powers of
decision on the other campus.
1. To the governing bodies and academic committees
As the University College would be part of S.F.U. its
financial and academic plans would be subject to approval by the same
governing and other committees that deal with S.F.U. Burnaby. Because
of this, University College personnel must have adequate opportunities
to be represented on those committees. Changes in committee compositions
would be a consequence.
(a) The Board of Governors
The Report recommends that three on four persons from the
non-metropolitan areas be appointed to the S.F.U. Board of Governors
(15:2, 27:6), though the proposed Advisory Council for the University
College (15:3.. 27:7) makes the need for this questionable. Presumably
these Board .mbers would replace existing appointees. If not,
diffjcu1ts could arise: an imbalance would be created between the
numbers of appointed members and the numbers of elected and ex-officio
13
members and to rectify it would require changes in the Universities Act.
University College personnel must have opportunities equal to
S.F.U. Burflaby personnel to be elected as faculty, student, and staff
members of the Board. However, logistics may dictate that they could
attend only a few meetings, so that University College matters may have
to be limited to those meetings.
(b)
The Senate and its Committees
University College officials must be classified as S.F.U.
officials before University College faculty can fit the procedures for
election to Senate and for evaluation for renewal, promotion, salary
increase, tenure or dismissal. Presumably the University College would be
the equivalent of a Faculty of S.F.U. Burnaby, at least initially.
Faculty members and students of the University College would be also
eligible for election to Senate by, respectively, Joint Faculty and
the Student Association. These changes in the composition of the
Senate apparently can be accomplished without the necessity of changing
the Universities Act.
University College faculty and students should have the opportunity
to be represented appropriately on Senate committees or boards, especially
those such as Academic Planning (S.C.A.P.), Undergraduate Studies
(S.C.U.S.), Continuing Studies (S.C.C.S.), Undergraduate Admissions
(S.U.A.B.), and Appeal Board (S.A.B.) that could become heavily occupied
with University College affairs. Indeed, the extra work-loads may be
so large that some of these committees may have to set up sub-committees
to deal specifically with University College matters. However, University
College faculty and students will inevitably be partially disenfranchised
by logistics.
(c) Other Committees
If University College has the status of a Faculty of S.F.U.
it must be appropriately represented on University committees that
affect it, such as the Tenure Committee (U.T.C.), Appointments Committee
(U.A.C.), and search committees for senior administrators.
Presumably S.F.U. Burnaby faculty would be represented on
University College Faculty-level committees, such as search committees
for Chairmen of centres; and it seems possible that S.F.U. Burnaby faculty
and staff will participate in University College search and appointment
committees for faculty and staff.
The clief consequences to S.F.U. Burnaby would be to involve,
for at least he lifetime of the College, the members of the various
committees in more work, trouble, and committee time than hitherto.
14
2.
To the academic departments and administrators
The consequences to the academic departments would be chiefly
to the teaching programmes. Some experienced faculty may move from
Burnaby to the University College, especially if the need for some
senior scholars there is recognized. More probably, willing faculty
may be seconded temporarily to the University College, as they are now
to Kelowna from the S.F.U. BioScience and Psychology departments,
especially during the developmental phases.
A distinct possibility exists that faculty of S.F.U. Burnaby
could be primarily responsible for setting up the outreach programmes
and courses because University College faculty may not have the time
and the experience and the facilities to do so at the beginning. This
could reduce course availability at Burnaby.
A department may have to make special teaching programme
arrangements or other concessions both to compensate seconded faculty
for the interruptions in their scholarly careers and to integrate its
course programme with theirs. And it could be involved in advising
the University College on such matters as course and programme planning,
faculty recruiting, student evaluations, laboratory building plans.
If S.F.U. accepts the proposal it becomes University policy to
implement it, and departments are likely to be encouraged to participate
at least as much as they are now encouraged to give Continuing Studies
courses. The extent to which any one department may become directly
involved will range from extensively to not at all. A department whose
subject is not taught at the University College may not get involved,
even if it wants to. But it Is difficult to see how some departments
could avoid becoming involved In the University College: In Faculties
such as Arts, Interdisciplinary Studies, and Education, and especially
departments whose subjects may be emphasized there. Not only could they
not avoid participation, they would find it difficult not to accept
direct responsibilities for ensuring that the University College
programmes in their subjects are developed properly. A possibly
contentious question that could face S.F.U. is what to do about academic
departments that may refuse to become involved. The best answer: nothing.
3.
To the off-campus programmes
Two segments of S.F.U. Burnaby currently give off-campus programmes
in the Interior: -
(a) Continuing Studies Division
The Kport stresses that a major responsibility of the University
College will be to develop and give extension degree credit programmes
15
of Directed Studies to students Out of reach of direct contact with
University centres or formal classroom courses (7:1, 8:3 & 4, 11:8,
12:5, 13:4, 16:1 & 4, 17:1, 2 & 6, 18:1, 25:1 & 4).
As the Continuing Studies activities of S.F.U. are currently
concentrated in the Lower Mainland, the immediate impact of the
University College may not be great. The two activities in the Interior -
the new and still small correspondence programme and the operation at
Kelowna that now involves the equivalent of 4.5 faculty - presumably
either would be replaced by University College activities or the University
College would contract with S.F.U. to continue them.
However, a fear exists that the real possibility that the
existence of the University College with its outreach programmes could
direct a substantial part of Continuing Studies resources and faculty
interest to the Interior from Lower Mainland programmes to the detriment
of the latter.
(b) Faculty of Education
The Report recommends that the University College have special
responsibilities
for co-ordinating Continuing Education and outreach
programmes.
The S.F.U. Professional Development Programme could be affected.
Two of its three semesters are given by S.F.U. at Penticton, Kelowna,
Vernon, Kamloops, Salmon Arm, Prince George, and Chilliwack; one
specialization of the third semester otherwise given at S.F.U. is given
at Kamloops. If those programmes were taken over by the University College
the consequences would be severely damaging to the faculty without
introducing significant advantages. One of the current strengths of the
P.D.P. programme is the on-campus academic expertise that supports them
and which, as indicated earlier in this review, would be virtually
impossible to set up at the University College. The S.F.U. Faculty of
Education feels strongly that it, not the University College, should
continue to direct the P.D.P. programmes in the Interior. Degree
completion work on the B.Ed. is a different matter, and theoretically
might be supplied in the Interior if the University College could import
the substantial resources necessary during the summers.
A recommendation in the Report could influence the nature of
future off-campus activities of the S.F.U. Faculty of Education: that
the universities and the Department of Education establish a Study
Committee to review certification requirements and existing programmes
(16:3, 27:9).
4. To the adnrnistratjve services
The Registrar's Office and the Administrative Services divisions
16
of S.F.U. would all be involved. How they would be involved can be
identified. How much each will be involved and for how long cannot
until the magnitude of the operation has been identified and until a
decision is made on when, or if, to set up a Headquarters at Vernon.
In relation to needs of the University College, S.F.U. Burnaby
administrators would (a) train, (b) advise, and (c) provide services.
(a)
Training
Senior administrators of S.F.U. Burnaby would train newly-
appointed University College administrators in procedures. Presumably
this would be done chiefly at Burnaby, though partly the Interior
Headquarters. It presumably would be concentrated in the first year or
two. The offices of the Bursar and Registrar and of Physical Plant would
be involved first, Personnel, and University Services soon thereafter.
The consequent reduction in services to S.F.U. Burnaby would be temporary,
and probably not noticable if additional staff are provided from University
College funds as they should be.
(b)
Advice
Simon Fraser University administrators, and specialists in
computer, audio-visual, and other procedures, are likely to be required
to advise the University College. The extent and scope of this cannot
be suggested at this time, except that it certainly will not be merely
nominal, it could be extensive, and it may be continuing.
(c)
Continuing Service
As University College students, faculty, and staff would be
S.F.U. students, faculty, and staff, all administrative departments of
S.F.U. that are concerned with regulations and records related to people
and standards would be responsible for the University College, at least
during its existence as such. Additional staff probably would be needed
at Burnaby. The extent to which this may continue after the new University
is established can only be surmised. It seems possible, for example,
that S.F.U. may be required to continue to supply computer, audio-visual,
laboratory, special workshop, and science stores, as well as library,
services but perhaps not to continue to handle functions of the Registrar
or the Bursar.
5. To the Library
If the proposal Is accepted, library facilities at and for the
University Col
1 ge would be developed and sustained primarily by the
S.F.U. Libra-y. Consequences to S.F.U. Burnaby might be decreased
Lffectiveness in some ways but certainly increased efficiency in others.
17
If the responsibilities of the various agencies involved are
not defined clearly in advance or if continuing funding is not adequate,
or both, the Library services could become so degraded and so overtaxed
that they would deteriorate in relation to needs of all users; and the
Library resources of S.F.U. Burnaby might be depleted through cannibalizatic
to meet University College needs.
However, these possible disadvantages could be offset by the
introduction of efficient new procedures. Existing cataloguing and
circulation systems, designed for needs of the Burnaby campus only and
becoming increasingly inadequate with age and with increasing usage,
could not also handle the requirements of the University College. New
catalogue support and circulation control systems, such as UTLAS-CIRCS,
based on latest communications and computer techniques, are necessary if
S.F.U. is to provide adequate service to the Burnaby campus and
essential if resource sharing is to become a reality. In addition the
University budgetary and fiscal procedures must be upgraded and the
Library research collections expanded. All these improvements would be
of continuing benefit to S.F.U. Burnaby as they would raise the efficiency
and effectiveness of the Library services permanently to higher levels
than hitherto.
18
C. ADVANTAGES TO SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY BURNABY
The University College would benefit from the arrangement much
more than S.F.U. Burnaby. It could develop much better academic courses
and programmes much sooner with S.F.U. 's assistance than alone.
The chief advantages to S.F.U. would be intangible ones:
- Simon Fraser University would demonstrate a positive and
outward-looking attitude in meeting its duty and responsibility to do
what It can to participate constructively in the development and improvement
of higher education in British Columbia and would avoid becoming
introspective and perhaps impoverished.
- It would avoid criticism and blame for not meeting the
challenge.
- It would facilitate continuing cooperation of a kind not
hitherto conspicuous in this Province between different universities for
their mutual benefit.
- Faculty standards might go up because of the high quality of
academics currently available for recruitment to University College posts.
- Simon Fraser University departments could expand the scope of
expertise in disciplines that would be represented on the faculty of both
the University College and S.F.U. Burnaby.
- Simon Fraser University could become a recognized centre of
expertise in planning and organizing small innovative campuses and in
techniques for delivering education to remote locations.
More tangible advantages would be in the higher levels of
effectiveness of some existing services such as library, computing,
and accounting. While improvements in them may not be possible with
S.F.U. Burnaby resources alone, they could be possible with University
College resources and would be to the long-term benefit of both.
19
D. ?
CONCLUSIONS
The Report recommends that S.F.U. accept or reject the proposal
before the end of December, 1976 (13:3, 27:8). Simon Fraser University
has three alternatives: -
(a)
To accept the proposal unconditionally. Indications
received while this review was being prepared are that this would meet
with widespread opposition from a majority of the faculty of S.F.U.
(b)
To reject the proposal. A clearly valid reason would be
essential, as merely to excuse or to rationalize selfishly could be
academically indefensible and politically unwise.
(c)
To accept the proposal conditionally. That is, to agree
to accept It If reasonable and justifiable specified conditions are met,
with the implication that S.F.U. could not accept the proposal if they
are not met despite a moral responsibility to students and potential
students.
If the third (c) is considered to be the best of the three
alternatives, then the immediate task facing S.F.U. is to define
of the conditions, such as those described above in their original or
modified form and/or different conditions, it regards as both reasonable
and justifiable and then negotiate agreement on them.
If S.F.U. decides to accept this proposal in principle It may
wish to state simply something that may be summarized like this:
Simon Fraser University will be prepared to take responsibility
for attempting to meet needs for University education for non-metropolitan
areas of British Columbia within the limits of the funds available and
provided that conditions are met that give S.F.U. the authority to
decide, in consultation with appropriate agencies, which needs to meet
and in what sequence, and where, to what extent, and how.
Then, if this is agreed, S.F.U. may take one (or In sequence
two or more) of the following routes after detailed evaluations of
various possibilities Including comparisons of advantages of the single-
campus versus multi-campus systems: -
(i)
S.F.U. remains a multi-campus University indefinately.
(ii)
S.F.U. remains a multi-campus University after budding
off a new multi-campus University.
(iii)
S.F.U. reverts to Its single-campus form after budding
off a new mult -campus University (which appears to he the intent of the
Winegard recummnendatlons).
(iv)
S.F.U. reverts to Its single-campus form after budding
off several new single-campus Universities (which reduces to a minimum
disadvantages of multi-campus systems).
20
A compromise that S.F.U. may wish to consider is a modification
of (iv) that could shorten, reduce, or avoid many of the problems
discussed in this review.
It is that the new Institution would start as a University College
or Division of S.F.U. but would become a new single-campus University
as soon as its officers have sufficient training and experience to run
a University but irrespective of the numbers of faculty and students
there at the time; and the new University would then negotiate with
S.F.U. to obtain the academic and administrative assistance and the
special and administrative services that it needs and tha i ould have
had if it had remained as a University College until it -e 'nad University
size in terms of faculty and student numbers.
Additional new single-campus Universities could be set up in
the same fashion as needs dictate and finances permit.
This compromise would give autonomy early to regional
Institutions without reducing the availability of expert assistance and
cooperation from S.F.U. It would reduce problems of a multi-campus
system. It would permit S.F.U. to avoid becoming involved where it is
unable or unwilling to do so. It would facilitate the new Universities
to involve Universities additional to S.F.U. in their activities and
development. In general, it would increase flexibility in situations
where the ability to react to changing circumstances is essential.
21
APPENDIX 1: Some Problems of a multi-campus University
The following are extracts from a letter of 20 October, 1976
from the Dean of Science of the multi-campus University of the
West Indies:
"I hardly know how to answer your query except perhaps to
say don't do it! I am not entirely sure what advantage is to be
gained in the B.C. context by having a multi-campus organization
rather than separate Universities, but presumably that has already
been worked out. If there must be a multi-campus organization then the
most important thing Is to avoid having too tight central control from
one campus and to keep cross campus administration to a minimum. It
is in the very nature of academics that they want to go their own
way and develop programmes which they believe are best for their
situation; what is good for one campus Is not necessarily good for
another. This is well demonstrated in Biology in our own University.
The type of course, and the emphasis placed in different parts of
the course, that is suited to the Jamaican context is not suited to the
Trinidadian context but our regulations say we must run common
courses and have common examinations. After a few stormy meetings
in the early days we now compromise and spend a lot of time finding
ways of circumnavigating the Council's regulation.
"We are stuck with a situation in which many subjects are
taught on all three campuses and the paper work and travel needed
to co-ordinate teaching and examining Is ludicrous. I suggest
therefore that if you are developing a multi-campus University that
each campus needs to have its own speciality and don't duplicate
teaching on different campuses if it can be avoided. If individual
Faculties (i.e. Science) are to be duplicated in different campuses
then try to give the academics as much freedom to develop their own
courses how they like. This may be easier In the Canadian system
than it is in ours.
"Central control of administration also creates trouble.
Mona is our centre and the other campuses always believe we are
'stealing' the largest slice of the cake and keeping the others in
a state of subservience. Too tight centralisation also creates
unnecessary paper work and travel. I travelled six times to
Trinidad last academic year solely for the purposes of co-ordination
and I could have spent my time in more profitable occupations."
APPENDIX 2: Sources of additional information (all
at S.F.U. unless otherwise indicated)
Dr. J. Blaney, Dean of Continuing Studies.
British Columbia Students' Federation, per Mr. Ross Powell,
Executive Member.
Dr. R. Brown, Dean of Interdisciplinary Studies.
Dr. T. W. Calvert, Department of Kinesiology; member of
Advisory Committee.
Chairmen of the Faculty of Arts, collectively.
Chairmen equivalents of the Faculty of Education, collectively.
Chairmen of the Faculty of Interdisciplinary Studies, collectively.
Chairmen of the Faculty of Science, collectively.
Dr. J. Chase, Director of Analytical Studies.
Dr. F. Cunningham, Department of Geography.
Department of Chemistry, per Dr. E. Wells, Chairman.
Department of Economics and Commerce, per Dr. B. Schoner, Chairman.
Department of Geography, per Dr. M. Roberts, Chairman.
Department of Psychology, per Dr. D. Krebs, Chairman.
Dr. L. M. Dill, Department of Biological Sciences.
Dr. M. E. Eliot-Hurst, Department of Geography.
Mr. H. Ellis, Registrar.
Dr. J. Ellis, Dean, Faculty of Education; member of
Advisory Committee.
Faculty Association, Notre Dame University, per Dr. V.J. Salvo.
Faculty Association, Simon Fraser University, per Dr. J. Farquhar.
Dr. L. Funt, Deartment of Chemistry.
r. R. Gehlback, Faculty of Education.
22
23
Dr. I. Goodbody, Dean of Science, University of the West Indies.
Dr. R. Harrop, Department of Mathematics.
Dr. G. C. Hoyt, Department of Economics and Commerce.
Dr. C. Jones, Department of Chemistry.
Dr. Jean E. Koepke, Department of Psychology, S.F.U.
Kelowna Programme.
Ms. Donna Laws, Administrative Assistant, President's Office.
Dr. S. K. Lower, Department of Chemistry.
Mr. M. McClaren, Faculty of Education.
Dr. 3. M. Munro, Acting Dean, Faculty of Arts.
Dr. K. Okuda, Department of Economics and Commerce; member of
Advisory Committee.
Dr. S. Roberts, Vice-President, University Services.
Mr. D. Ross, Bursar.
Dr. R.M.S. Sadleir, Department of Biological Sciences.
Ms. Linda Severy, student; member of Advisory Committee.
Dr. M. Smith, Department of Biological Sciences.
Mr. G. Suart, Vice-President, Administration.
Ms. Sharon Thomas, University Library; member of Advisory Committee.
The University Library, per Mr. T. Dobbs, Acting University Librarian,
and Ms. Sharon Thomas, Acquisitions Librarian.
Dr. N. Verbeek, Department of Biological Sciences, S.F.U.
Kelowna Programme.
Dr. J. Walkley, Department of Chemistry.
Dr. J. Webster, Dean of Science.
Dr. B. Wilson, Vice-President, Academic; member of
Advisory Committee.
P
?
SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
MEMORANDUM
All Members of Faculty
To
Subject. ?
Review of the Winegard Ro
Pauline 3 ew ett
From
..............................................................................................................
President
Date ?
November 12, 1976
.
For your information, I am enclosing a copy of
Dr. Bryan P. Beirne's review of aspects of the Winegard Report.
Dr.
Beirne!s
review is currently being considered by
the Senate Committee on Academic Planning.
Enclosure
?
Pk Ae.
V
9
'BC ?
A;rA ?
V5A lSb
L).Pfl MtNT
?
B)
LX, cA
.
- .;. ?
. ?
I
447'
November 5, 1976.
Dr. P. Jewett
Chairman
Academic Planning Committee
Dear Dr. Jewett:
I enclose herewith a copy of the review of those recommendations
of the Report on University Programs in Non-Metropolitan Areas that
have implications for the present and continuing academic and
administrative operation of this University, as requested by the
Academic Planning Committee.
Yours sincerely,
Bry
rn
Reviewer
\
?
:'
TO:
?
The Senate Committee on Academic Planning
of Simon Fraser University
A REVIEW OF ASPECTS OF THE WINEGARD REPORT?
Or, more specifically:
A review of those suggestions in and recommendations of
the Report of the Commission on University Programs
in Non-Metropolitan Areas that have implications for the
present and continuing academic and administrative operation
of Simon Fraser University
BY: ?
Bryan P. Beirne
Professor of Pest Management
4 November, 1976
CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION
?
...............................................i
A. ?
CONDITIONS
1.
That the status of the new Institution be
defined clearly
?
...................................
3
2.
That Simon Fraser University will not be
required to make advance commitments on
University College programmes
?
.....................
4
3.
That Simon Fraser University can maintain
its academic standards
?
............................
6
4.
That Simon Fraser University can treat its
faculty uniformly ?
.................................
8
5.
That continuing funding wilibe assured ............10
B. ?
CONSEQUENCES
I. To the
governing bodies and academic
committees ?
........................................
12
2.
To the
academic departments and
administrators....................................
14
3.
To the
off-campus ?
programmes
?
......................
14
4.
To the
administrative services
....................
15
5.
To the
Library ?
....................................
16
C. ?
ADVANTAGES
TO SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY BURNABY
18
D. ?
CONCLUSIONS ?
...........................................19
APPENDIX 1: Some problems of a multi-campus
University .....................................21
APPENDIX 2: List of individuals who provided information ...
?
22
1
INTRODUCTION
The charge is "to review those recommendations of the Winegard
Commission Report which have implications for the present and continuing
operation, academic and administrative, of Simon Fraser University."
The reason is to provide information to assist Simon Fraser University
in deciding whether or not to accept the proposal "that the new university
begin as a separately-funded Division of S.F.U..
A problem in preparing a review of this kind is that conditions
and consequences that should be based on specified plans have to be
based on assumptions because the plans do not yet exist.
The following, summarized from recommendations and suggestions
in the Report, is taken as the basis for the review: [Note: numbers
in parenthesis refer to page and paragraph numbers in the Report].
- That a new multi-campus university be established to serve
non-metropolitan areas of British Columbia (12:4, 27:1, 13:3);
- That its academic status and standards will be high (7:4, 7:8)
and it will be active in research and scholarship (14:2) as well as in
teaching;
- That one of its primary functions will be to prepare and deliver
courses and programmes for students who are out of reach of university
campuses (7:6, 11:10, 14:1, 16:4, 24:4 to 25:4);
- That it will offer upper-level degree-completion programmes in
Arts, Science, and Education (13:2, 3), and eventually additional, more
specialized, programmes that may be in part professional (13:5, 26:3)
and require courses at all levels including graduate (9:5); and
- That it would start as a University College of S.F.U. (12:5,
27:2, 27:8) if S.F.U. will accept the responsibility.
Suggested alternatives
new university from the start,
recently proposed for Alberta,
here because to do so would be
charged. For the same reason,
this review.
to these basic recommendations, such a
the Open University system, or the system
and their relative merits are not discussed
outside the scope of this review as
no specific recommendations are made in
A basic assumption is that S.F.U. will consider the proposal and
its implications in the light of the moral responsibility of the university
to do all that it reasonably can to make quality education available to
all in British Columbia who want it. What S.F.U. would do in practice
could be influuced by two sets of controlling factors: -
Conditions, which are stipulations that S.F.U. may wish to make
Lo try
to eliminate, reduce, or manage causes of potentially serious
2
harm to its standards, reputation, or operation that could operate if
the proposal is accepted unconditionally and whose continuing existence
thus could be reasons to reject the proposal; and
Consequences, which are unavoidable effects on the operations
of S.F.U. if the proposal is accepted and implemented after the
conditions have been met.
Finally, the courses of action open to S.F.U. are summarized
briefly.
3
A. ?
CONDITIONS
Simon Fraser University may wish to negotiate with the British
Columbia Department of Education and the Universities Council of
British Columbia agreement on some or all of the following as conditions
for accepting the proposal. The purpose of the agreement would be to
remove or reduce causes of potentially avoidable consequences that could
be harmful to the interests of S.F.U.
A broad summary of the conditions is: to make the proposal
viable and acceptable, S.F.U. must have reasonably full responsibility
and authority for planning and setting up the University College and
developing it into a new University as appropriate.
1. That the Status of the new Institution be defined clear
The Report recommends that a new University to be established
by 1990 (12:4, 27:1) should begin as a new Division or University College
of Simon Fraser University (12:5, 27:2) and should be given a considerable
degree of autonomy (14:3). That
is, S.F.U.,
now a single-campus university,
would become a multi-campus one that eventually would divide into two
or more universities.
The new University College/University should have a distinctive
name from the start, to serve as a constant reminder to all concerned
that the ultimate objective is the development and establishment of a
new University.
Simon Fraser University must guide and monitor the development
of the University College and of its constituent parts and alter their
status when it appears appropriate and feasible to do so; for example,
to terminate a centre or programme that is clearly not viable, and to
change the College into a University when it reaches the size - a head-count
of about 5,000 students - when It can operate at a viable economic level.
It therefore must have the authority to make the appropriate arrangements
and recommendations.
The responsibility for expenditures of University College funds
would rest with the S.F.U. Board of Governors (15:2), for approval
of its academic programme with the Simon Fraser University Senate (14:3),
and for general procedures, notably including those aimed at maintaining
academic standards, with the administrators of the S.F.U. regulations
(14:3). Such responsibilities could be accepted by S.F.U. only if
accompanied by the relevant authority. As the University College would be
part of S.F.U., it is difficult to see how it could have much more
autonomy than ',as a Faculty or a Division of S.F.U.
4
The positions of the University College administrators in the
Simon Fraser University hierarchy must be defined. Presumably the
Principal would be a Vice-President, the Associate Principal at College
Headquarters a Dean, and each Associate Principal in charge of a centre
a (Departmental) Chairman.
The area of responsibility and authority of the proposed Advisory
Council for the University College (15:3, 27:7) in relation to S.F.U.
must be defined clearly, to remove in advance some sources of possible
conflict. Indeed, the need for the Advisory Council at the beginning
can be questioned. Perhaps what is really needed is two Advisory
Councils, a shadow Board of Governors and a shadow Senate, to be
established when the University College is close to becoming a new
University. In this event those bodies should be constituted in accepted
ways and include students and faculty.
2. That Simon Fraser University will not be required to make?
advance comm{Ements on University Collegi5rammes
As the Report states, "it will be essential that some time
be taken to plan the academic programmes ... before each centre begins
operating" (24:1). Until this is done S.F.U. cannot and should not
commit Itself to any particular programme, and S.F.U. could not make
plans before December 1976. The scope and size of the programmes will be
determined by a combination of the minimum faculty size needed to offer
a particular programme, the numbers and kinds of programmes needed, and
the student numbers taking them. The sequence in which programmes can
be established and developed will be influenced by the finances provided.
(a) The Faculty Size
The suggestion in the Report that each centre should have a
F.T.E. faculty of only 10 is unrealistic. If the faculty carry normal
teaching loads of which outreach courses would account for a substantial
part, the number of formal courses that 10 F.T.E. faculty could give
annually at a centre Is more likely to be of the order of 25 or 30 than
the 40 suggested in the Report. This would mean an average of 6 or 7
courses in each semester of each of the two upper years. As the normal
full course-load of a full-time student is 5, the students' choice of
courses would be quite limited.
[Note: In this review the term "outreach course" means any course given
away from an established campus, or otherwise outside the traditional
classroom situation, whether independent or directed study, or modular,
correspondence, or remote group instruction.]
Prob
i
y 20 F.T.E. faculty would be necessary to provide the two
upper yearc of a General Arts (B.A.) or of a General Science (B.Sc.) degree
programme with honours and majors and with reasonable educational variety
5
in course selection. Four to 6 additional F.T.E. faculty could be needed
for each subject that is emphasized in the programme. To make academic
sense, therefore, a centre may soon have to have about 40 faculty instead
of the 10 suggested in the Report.
Whether to establish at the outset four small centres or one
or two large ones is an example of the kind of major decision that
S.F.U. must have the authority to make if it is to be responsible for
establishing the University College and developing it into a University.
There are others. For instance: whether or not to concentrate first on
developing the back-up facilities at Burnaby and the Headquarters and one
centre - presumably the Nelson one because it is there already; when, and
indeed if, to set up a Headquarters at Vernon; whet
her
to concentrate
first on developing the programmes at the centres and then the outreach
programmes, or vice versa; and whether to set up a University College
centre for the Upper Fraser Valley east of Abbotsford or to serve that
area direct from S.F.U. Burnaby.
(b) The Academic Programmes
The academic programmes of the University College could be of
three kinds: the basic B.A. and B.Sc. programmes given at all the centres;
a broad theme that would be distinctive to each centre; and programmes
in disciplines that relate to the theme of a centre and that it is
feasible to emphasize there.
One reason why programmes other than the basic ones should not
be defined in advance is that the surveys and analyses that are sufficiently
adequate to define the numbers and the present and future educational
demands of students and of their potential employers in different areas of
the Province apparently have not yet been made.
A unique opportunity exists to break with tradition, by giving
the centres constructive themes that relate to human needs and that are
interdisciplinary in relation to the conventional classification of
subjects. Examples of such themes are resource management, people
management, business management, health management, environmental analysis,
and communication studies. A question to be examined is which theme would
be best for which centre.
The Report points out that the needs and the procedures for
teaching the disciplines that might be emphasized should be reviewed
before decisions to set up programmes on them are made: in Education
(16:3, 27:9), Commerce (26:3, 29:1), Forestry (26:4, 28:11), and Nursing
(26:5, 28:12). The same stipulation should apply to a variety of other
possible subjects, especially semi-or para-professional ones, that
relate to the-es of centres.
Serious practical obstacles to giving some programmes at the
University College may appear. For example, a typical programme in
6
Education could require at least 20 specialists in aspects of the subject,
and may thus be beyond the resources of a given centre. It may in fact
be necessary to separate the responsibilities for offering B.Ed. completion
work from P.D.P. or certification work. An adequate programme in
Commerce would require or 10 faculty; and it may be impossible to set
up a 5-or 6-faculty accounting programme because academically-qualified
accountants are virtually impossible to find.
(c) The Student Numbers
The population of the areas that would be served indicates that
a rapid expansion of student enrollments at the University College to high
levels is a possibility. A faculty of 10 F.T.E. could handle 150 to
170 F.T.E. students effectively, as the normal faculty-to-student ratio
in Canada is 1 to 15 and the current S.F.U. ratio is 1 to 17 (1 to 12 is
regarded as the optimum). It seems probable that a centre would soon
have an F.T.E. student enrollment of several times 170.
A plan to meet that contingency must be agreed upon in advance:
either to expand the faculty numbers and the facilities to fit increased
enrollments, which would require commitments for appropriate funding;
or to limit student enrollments to fit the available faculty numbers
and facilities, which would require an acceptable basis for doing so.
3. That Simon Fraser University can maintain its Academic Standards
A suspicion, or fear, exists at S.F.U. that a tie-in with the
University College could result in an actual or perceived lowering in
S.F.U.'s academic quality. Convincing safeguards are necessary to
remove this suspicion as a major obstacle to accepting the proposal.
The suspicion arises in part from statements in the Report: -
(a) Alleged role of S.F.U.
That Simon Fraser University should have a more limited teaching
role than it has and intends to have is suggested by these gratuitous
and misleadingly incorrect statements in the Report: "S.F.U. has little
interest in further development of professional schools and has or
should have ambitions for a somewhat restricted role in graduate work
especially at the doctoral level" (10:7).
A possibility that the tie-in with the University College would
be interpreted in any way by anybody as reinforcing that suggested role
may alone be sufficient grounds in the eyes of some for S.F.U. to reject
the proposal Conditions that S.F.U. may wish to make, before it decides
on the proposal, are that bodies such as the British Columbia Department
of Education and the Universities Council of British Columbia should
7
concur with the S.F.U. Senate's rejection of the general role suggested
by those statements in the Report, and that if S.F.U. accepts the
programme it can be responsible for setting up any professional or
graduate programmes needed at the University College.
(b)
Possible status of the University College
Though the Report repeatedly refers to a University, the
descriptions of the suggested size, scope, faculty activities, and
costs could be interpreted as indicating what is really intended initially
is what might be termed a Provincial College: something at a rather
lower level than a University and perhaps resembling a small State College
of the former California system.
A question that Is of fundamental importance to the decision
that S.F.U. is called upon to make is this: is it the intent of the
Government to establish a new University, with all that Is implied of
that status, or a lower order of institution? In this review the
assumption is that a University is intended.
(c)
Faculty recruitment standards
As University College faculty would be S.F.U. faculty they would
have to meet S.F.U. recruitment standards. To lower S.F.U. standards,
even temporarily and for its University College Division only - for
example, to accommodate any faculty of Notre Dame University who may not
be fully academically qualified (11:8, 19:5, 27:10) - could be to the
long-term detriment of S.F.U.
'5
academic reputation. One condition, if
S.F.U. accepts the general proposal, must be that it will not be expected
to lower its faculty recruitment and evaluation standards.
It has been suggested that the quality of University College
faculty might not be high because good candidates would be deterred
from applying by the small size, the poor research facilities, and the
possible heavy teaching duties, or that, if they were appointed, good
faculty would stay there only until they could find jobs at big
universities. The consequence would be a lowering of average faculty
standards at S.F.U.
These viewpoints may be discounted. It seems far more likely
that the combination of the current large reserves of available qualified
candidates (except in a very few subjects such as Accountancy), the
attraction of that rarity nowadays, a prospective new University, and
the challenge and opportunity of helping to develop it will attract
faculty of high quality that may well enhance S.F.U. standards.
8
(d) Student admission and evaluation standards
The Report suggests that, in relation to an expected backlog of
students seeking admission, the University College must be extremely
flexible in giving credit for courses taken elsewhere and that special
concessions to such students may be necessary (11:3).
As University College students would be S.F.U. students they
would have to meet S.F.U. admission standards. As with faculty
recruitments, to lower those standards, even temporarily and for its
University College Division only, could be unfair to S.F.U. Burnaby
students and might in the long-term be detrimental of S.F.U.'s academic
standards and reputation. Moreover, it would not be in accord with the
statements in the Report on the need to maintain traditional university
standards of academic excellence (7:4). One condition that S.F.U. must
make is that if it accepts the proposal it will not be expected to lower
its already flexible student admission standards. It may not be feasible,
for example, for S.F.U. to assure prospective students that all community
college courses will be acceptable (21:6, 22:1) until S.F.U. is satisfied
that they are of the requisite standards.
The comment in the Report on the need to maintain traditional
university standards of academic excellence at the University College
(7:4) is reinforced by the statements on the need for programmes to be of
a high standard and recognized by other universities, and that the
graduate should have no feeling of being second-class in any respect (7:8).
Nevertheless some fear exists that because of limited facilities at University
College centres academic standards there would be lower than at S.F.U.
Burnaby and that this could be to the detriment of S.F.U. standards.
This may be discounted for most subjects: student and faculty motivation
and energy can more than counteract any effects of poor facilities.
It seems that to attempt to ensure that uniform standards will
exist throughout a multi-campus university can be a time-consuming task
(see Appendix 1) that may well be a major obstacle to implementing the
multi-campus idea. A system in which faculty from S.F.U. Burnaby would
be involved in evaluating courses given at the University College could
assist in maintaining satisfactory standards there. Quality control of
Independent Study or Directed Study outreach courses would be especially
important. Simon Fraser University must avoid becoming involved in a
proliferation of second-rate colleges, programmes, or courses by doing
what it can to ensure that none of them is second-rate.
4. That Simon Fraser University can treat its faculty uniformly
The faculty of the University College would be faculty of S.F.U.
(14:1, 15:4)
?
As such neither their working conditions nor the criteria
used in evaluating them for contract renewal, salary levels and increases,
promotion, tenure, or dismissal should differ from those of the faculty
9
of S.F.U. Burnaby to extents that are inequitable to either group. There
are suggestions in the Report that if accepted could result in inequities.
One implication is that the teaching and related duties of
University College faculty (16:1, 16:4, 17:1 and 2) would be heavier
than the four courses or course equivalents normally required annually
of faculty at the coast universities. Such duties of the University
College faculty should be at or close to the norm, to reduce both direct
inequities and inequalities in the time available for University College
faculty to do the research that contributes to their academic advancement.
A reason suggested in the Report for their heavier teaching and
related workloads is that University College faculty would have
difficulties in doing research (17:2) and thus presumably would have
time available for increased other duties. This argument for heavier
non-research duties is not valid. While research that requires major or
complex equipment may not be possible at a University College centre for
some years, other kinds of research, especially kinds based in the
field, are feasible there. Moreover, University College faculty must
have adequate time for research to maintain their credibility and
employability as scholars. Indeed it would add to the scholarly credibility
if each centre had several senior, established scholars on its faculty
from the start.
As the argument for less research time is not valid, another
suggestion based on it is not valid: that University College faculty
should have more frequent study leaves than is usual (14:2). This
would give them an advantage over faculty at the coast universities
that could be considered unfair.
The Report points out that the certification of the Notre Dame
University Faculty Association could cause problems in integrating the
Nelson Centre - that is, what is now N.D.U. - into the University
College (20:5) and thus into S.F.U. Presumably S.F.U. would require
this matter to be resolved by the Government before it could accept
the proposal or, alternatively, may suggest a modification of the
proposal that would exclude N.D.U.
University College faculty must be treated as S.F.U. faculty,
even if to do so is not in accord with suggestions in the Report, unless
S.F.U. decides on this alternative: to have two kinds of faculty in
terms of duties, and therefore of criteria for evaluation. One would
be the professors who would do both research and teaching and provide
committee and similar administrative services to the university. The
other, the lecturers, would not be expected to do much research and
instead would carry heavier teaching and related work loads than the
professors.
10
That suggestion has its advocates. But before S.F.U. accepts
it, the implications must be weighed very carefully. For instance, the
effects on the academic stature of an institution that has many
"lecturers" and on the stature of institutions associated with it, the
influence on prospective applicants for faculty posts, and the likelihood
that "lecturers" will come to be regarded as a lower category than
"professors" and one to which scholarly unproductive professors may
be demoted.
5. That continuing funding will be assured
Adequate and continuing funding must be assured if the intent
is to set up a university system that will meet the needs of the
people of the non-metropolitan areas truly and not merely nominally.
If S.F.U. takes responsibility for the expenditures (15:2) it
presumably will use as a guideline this statement in the Report:
"No programme should be mounted without a sufficient commitment of
financial support" (8:1).
The rough cost estimates in the Report (17:2 to 19:1) are
widely regarded as unrealistically low. Some examples illustrate this:
- The library activities estimated at $5 million would actually
cost at least $9 million;
- The estimated $0.35 million annually for off-campus instruction
may be contrasted with the $2.5 million spent annually by the University
of Waterloo for about 150 audio-taped courses for about 2,500 students;
- Costs of upper level undergraduate laboratory courses in Science
can be high: a 4-faculty programme in chemistry would cost nearly $0.6
million to start up and $0.32 million annually to operate;
- The estimated salary costs of $3.3 million for faculty of
four 10-faculty centres in year five could be the costs for one
50-faculty centre in year two or three;
- The Report does not estimate possible costs of future
expansion, though it is conceivable that these could resemble those
of S.F.U. over the past ten years, though the cost per F.T.E. student
could be higher because of the added costs of outreach programmes and
of staggered course times. It may be noted that the S.F.U. Kelowna'
programmes in BioSciences and in Psychology have cost about $16,000
per F.T.E. student in the first year, about $8,000 in the second.
More realistic capital and operating costs cannot be estimated
until, first, decisions have been made on priorities in setting up the
Headquarters and the centres and on the sizes of each, on the kinds and
11
scope of academic programmes, and on the nature of the delivery systems
for outreach programmes and courses, and, second, plans that can be
costed have been devised for each. It may be noted that capital costs may
be higher than imagined because of the possible need to construct
facilities at some locations to house faculty, staff, and students.
While S.F.U. has the authority for expenxlitures it must be
empowered, if funds are inadequate to do everything that is desirable,
to determine priorities: to select what and what not to do and when and
how, as described elsewhere in this review. Nevertheless certain basic
conditions must be agreed upon in that S.F.U. must be satisfied, with
whatever safeguards are feasible, that: funding for the University
College will be in addition to and not directly at the expense of
funding for existing universities; financial support must continue
despite any changes in the Government of British Columbia; adequate
funding will be provided during the establishment and developmental phases
when the costs of faculty and facilities may be very high in relation to
size of student enrollments; and expansion financing should be provided as
needed.
It is important that S.F.U. must not suffer long-term diminished
administrative services or depleted resources as consequences of its
involvement with the University College. For example, the S.F.U. Library
must not divide its services between the two but must be adequately financed
to expand its services to cover both. Similarly, S.F.U. Continuing Studies
should have an independent and reasonably protected budget to enable it
to maintain its Lower Mainland operation in competition for resources with
the University College.
The Report recommends that the University College be funded
separately from S.F.U. Burnaby (12:5, 13:5, 27:2). Advantages of this
would be that it would give the University College some sort of separate
identity from the start that would be a precursor to its eventual
separation; and that it would tend to protect S.F.U. Burnaby from being
a scapegoat for failures actually caused by inadequate Government funding
for the University College.
12
B.
?
CONSEQUENCES
Simon Fraser University accepts a major responsibility if it
accepts the proposal. It commits itself to doing all that it reasonably
can to develop the University College and to foster its evolution into
the new University, or Universities, despite the consequent extra time,
trouble, and headaches, the possible spreading of services thinly,
and the inevitable criticisms for what goes wrong or is not apparently
done right.
The commitment means that officials in all segments of S.F.U.
Burnaby that operate at the University level or that serve the University
as a whole must become involved whether they like it or not. Their areas
of responsibility will extend beyond Burnaby to encompass the University
College.
There is a feeling at S.F.U. that individual faculty members
however, should have a choice: they may become directly involved if
they want to do so; but they should be free to have nothing to do with
the arrangement if that is what they wish.
It does not follow that departments or faculty members who are
willing to become involved directly can do so: the University College
will have the final decision.
The committee, administrative, and other interactions between
the two campuses may be so complex that, to resolve immediate problems,
each campus may have to locate a senior "Ambassador" with powers of
decision on the other campus.
1. To the governing bodies and academic committees
As the University College would be part of S.F.U. its
financial and academic plans would be subject to approval by the same
governing and other committees that deal with S.F.U. Burnaby. Because
of this, University College personnel must have adequate opportunities
to be represented on those committees. Changes in committee compositions
would be a consequence.
(a) The Board of Governors
The Report recommends that three on four persons from the
non-metropolitan areas be appointed to the S.F.U. Board of Governors
(15:2, 27:6), though the proposed Advisory Council for the University
College (15:3. 27:7) makes the need for this questionable. Presumably
these Board
?
mbers would replace existing appointees. If not,
difficu1t
4
,s could arise: an imbalance would be created between the
numbers of appointed members and the numbers of elected and ex-officio
13
members and to rectify it would require changes in the Universities Act.
University College personnel must have opportunities equal to
S.F.U. Burnaby personnel to be elected as faculty, student, and staff
members of the Board. However, logistics may dictate that they could
attend only a few meetings, so that University College matters may have
to be limited to those meetings.
(b)
The Senate and its Committees
University College officials must be classified as S.F.U.
officials before University College faculty can fit the procedures for
election to Senate and for evaluation for renewal, promotion, salary
increase, tenure or dismissal. Presumably the University College would be
the equivalent of a Faculty of S.F.U. Burnaby, at least Initially.
Faculty members and students of the University College would be also
eligible for election to Senate by, respectively, Joint Faculty and
the Student Association. These changes in the composition of the
Senate apparently can be accomplished without the necessity of changing
the Universities Act.
University College faculty and students should have the opportunity
to be represented appropriately on Senate committees or boards, especially
those such as Academic Planning (S.C.A.P.), Undergraduate Studies
(S.C.U.S.), Continuing Studies (S.C.C.S.), Undergraduate Admissions
(S.U.A.B.), and Appeal Board (S.A.B.) that could become heavily occupied
with University College affairs. Indeed, the extra work-loads may be
so large that some of these committees may have to set up sub-committees
to deal specifically with University College matters. However, University
College faculty and students will inevitably be partially disenfranchised
by logistics.
(c) Other Committees
If University College has the status of a Faculty of S.F.U.
it must be appropriately represented on University committees that
affect it, such as the Tenure Committee (U.T.C.), Appointments Committee
(U.A.C.), and search committees for senior administrators.
Presumably S.F.U. Burnaby faculty would be represented on
University College Faculty-level committees, such as search committees
for Chairmen of centres; and it seems possible that S.F.U. Burnaby faculty
and staff will participate in University College search and appointment
committees for faculty and staff.
The c-Ief consequences to S.F.U. Burnaby would be to involve,
for at least he lifetime of the College, the members of the various
committees in more work, trouble, and committee time than hitherto.
14
2.
To the academic departments and administrators
The consequences to the academic departments would be chiefly
to the teaching programmes. Some experienced faculty may move from
Burnaby to the University College, especially if the need for some
senior scholars there is recognized. More probably, willing faculty
may be seconded temporarily to the University College, as they are now
to Kelowna from the S.F.U. BioScience and Psychology departments,
especially during the developmental phases.
A distinct possibility exists that faculty of S.F.U. Burnaby
could be primarily responsible for setting up the outreach programmes
and courses because University College faculty may not have the time
and the experience and the facilities to do so at the beginning. This
could reduce course availability at Burnaby.
A department may have to make special teaching programme
arrangements or other concessions both to compensate seconded faculty
for the interruptions in their scholarly careers and to integrate its
course programme with theirs. And it could be involved in advising
the University College on such matters as course and programme planning,
faculty recruiting, student evaluations, laboratory building plans.
If S.F.U. accepts the proposal it becomes University policy to
implement it, and departments are likely to be encouraged to participate
at least as much as they are now encouraged to give Continuing Studies
courses. The extent to which any one department may become directly
involved will range from extensively to not at all. A department whose
subject is not taught at the University College may not get involved,
even if it wants to. But it is difficult to see how some departments
could avoid becoming involved in the University College: in Faculties
such as Arts, Interdisciplinary Studies, and Education, and especially
departments whose subjects may be emphasized there. Not only could they
not avoid participation, they would find it difficult not to accept
direct responsibilities for ensuring that the University College
programmes in their subjects are developed properly. A possibly
contentious question that could face S.F.U. is what to do about academic
departments that may refuse to become involved. The best answer: nothing.
3.
To the off-campus programmes
Two segments of S.F.U. Burnaby currently give off-campus programmes
in the Interior: -
(a) Continuing Studies Division
The K.port stresses that a major responsibility of the University
College will be to develop and give extension degree credit programmes
15
of Directed Studies to students out of reach of direct contact with
University centres or formal classroom courses (7:1, 8:3 & 4, 11:8,
12:5, 13:4, 16:1 & 4, 17:1, 2 & 6, 18:1, 25:1 & 4).
As the Continuing Studies activities of S.F.U. are currently
concentrated in the Lower Mainland, the immediate impact of the
University College may not be great. The two activities in the Interior -
the new and still small correspondence programme and the operation at
Kelowna that now involves the equivalent of 4.5 faculty - presumably
either would be replaced by University College activities or the University
College would contract with S.F.U. to continue them.
However, a fear exists that the real possibility that the
existence of the University College with its outreach programmes could
direct a substantial part of Continuing Studies resources and faculty
interest to the Interior from Lower Mainland programmes to the detriment
of the latter.
(b) Faculty of Education
The Report recommends that the University College have special
responsibilities for co-ordinating Continuing Education and outreach
programmes.
The S.F.U. Professional Development Programme could be affected.
Two of its three semesters are given by S.F.U. at Penticton, Kelowna,
Vernon, Kamloops, Salmon Arm, Prince George, and Chilliwack; one
specialization of the third semester otherwise given at S.F.U. is given
at Kamloops. If those programmes were taken over by the University College
the consequences would be severely damaging to the faculty without
introducing significant advantages. One of the current strengths of the
P.D.P. programme is the on-campus academic expertise that supports them
and which, as indicated earlier in this review, would be virtually
impossible to set up at the University College. The S.F.U. Faculty of
Education feels strongly that it, not the University College, should
continue to direct the P.D.P. programmes in the Interior. Degree
completion work on the B.Ed. is a different matter, and theoretically
might be supplied in the Interior if the University College could import
the substantial resources necessary during the summers.
A recommendation in the Report could influence the nature of
future off-campus activities of the S.F.U. Faculty of Education: that
the universities and the Department of Education establish a Study
Committee to review certification requirements and existing programmes
(16:3, 27:9).
4. To the adnrnistrative services
The Registrar's Office and the Administrative Services divisions
16
of S.F.U. would all be involved. How they would be involved can be
identified. How much each will be involved and for how long cannot
until the magnitude of the operation has been identified and until a
decision is made on when, or if, to set up a Headquarters at Vernon.
In relation to needs of the University College, S.F.U. Burnaby
administrators would (a) train, (b) advise, and (c) provide services.
(a)
Training
Senior administrators of S.F.U. Burnaby would train newly-
appointed University College administrators in procedures. Presumably
this would be done chiefly at Burnaby, though partly the Interior
Headquarters. It presumably would be concentrated in the first year or
two. The offices of the Bursar and Registrar and of Physical Plant would
be Involved first, Personnel, and University Services soon thereafter.
The consequent reduction in services to S.F.U. Burnaby would be temporary,
and probably not noticable if additional staff are provided from University
College funds as they should be.
(b)
Advice
Simon Fraser University administrators, and specialists in
computer, audio-visual, and other procedures, are likely to be required
to advise the University College. The extent and scope of this cannot
be suggested at this time, except that it certainly will not be merely
nominal, it could be extensive, and it may be continuing.
(c)
Continuing Service
As University College students, faculty, and staff would be
S.F.U. students, faculty, and staff, all administrative departments of
S.F.U. that are concerned with regulations and records related to people
and standards would be responsible for the University College, at least
during its existence as such. Additional staff probably would be needed
at Burnaby. The extent to which this may continue after the new University
is established can only be surmised. It seems possible, for example,
that S.F.U. may be required to continue to supply computer, audio-visual,
laboratory, special workshop, and science stores, as well as library,
services but perhaps not to continue to handle functions of the Registrar
or the Bursar.
5. To the Library
If the proposal is accepted, library facilities at and for the
University Col
1r
ge would be developed and sustained primarily by the
S.F.U. Librn r
y. Consequences to S.F.U. Burnaby might be decreased
effectiveness in some ways but certainly Increased elf i.ciency in others.
17
If the responsibilities of the various agencies involved are
not defined clearly in advance or if continuing funding is not adequate,
or both, the Library services could become so degraded and so overtaxed
that they would deteriorate in relation to needs of all users; and the
Library resources of S.F.U. Burnaby might be depleted through cannibalizatic
to meet University College needs.
However, these possible disadvantages could be offset by the
introduction of efficient new procedures. Existing cataloguing and
circulation systems, designed for needs of the Burnaby campus only and
becoming increasingly inadequate with age and with increasing usage,
could not also handle the requirements of the University College. New
catalogue support and circulation control systems, such as UThAS-CIRCS,
based on latest communications and computer techniques, are necessary if
S.F.U. is to provide adequate service to the Burnaby campus and
essential if resource sharing is to become a reality. In addition the
University budgetary and fiscal procedures must be upgraded and the
Library research collections expanded. All these improvements would be
of continuing benefit to S.F.U. Burnaby as they would raise the efficiency
and effectiveness of the Library services permanently to higher levels
than hitherto.
18
C. ADVANTAGES TO SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY BURNABY
The University College would benefit from the arrangement much
more than S.F.U. Burnaby. It could develop much better academic courses
and programmes much sooner with S.F.U.'s assistance than alone.
The chief advantages to S.F.U. would be intangible ones:
- Simon Fraser University would demonstrate a positive and
outward-looking attitude in meeting its duty and responsibility to do
what it can to participate constructively in the development and improvement
of higher education in British Columbia and would avoid becoming
introspective and perhaps impoverished.
- It would avoid criticism and blame for not meeting the
challenge.
- It would facilitate continuing cooperation of a kind not
hitherto conspicuous in this Province between different universities for
their mutual benefit.
- Faculty standards might go up because of the high quality of
academics currently available for recruitment to University College posts.
- Simon Fraser University departments could expand the scope of
expertise in disciplines that would be represented on the faculty of both
the University College and S.F.U. Burnaby.
- Simon Fraser University could become a recognized centre of
expertise in planning and organizing small innovative campuses and in
techniques for delivering education to remote locations.
More tangible advantages would be in the higher levels of
effectiveness of some existing services such as library, computing,
and accounting. While improvements in them may not be possible with
S.F.U. Burnaby resources alone, they could be possible with University
College resources and would be to the long-term benefit of both.
19
D. ?
CONCLUSIONS
The Report recommends that S.F.U. accept or reject the proposal
before the end of December, 1976 (13:3, 27:8). Simon Fraser University
has three alternatives: -
(a)
To accept the proposal unconditionally. Indications
received while this review was being prepared are that this would meet
with widespread opposition from a majority of the faculty of S.F.U.
(b)
To reject the proposal. A clearly valid reason would be
essential, as merely to excuse or to rationalize selfishly could be
academically indefensible and politically unwise.
(c)
To accept the proposal conditionally. That is, to agree
to accept it if reasonable and justifiable specified conditions are met,
with the implication that S.F.U. could not accept the proposal if they
are not met despite a moral responsibility to students and potential
students.
If the third (c) is considered to be the best of the three
alternatives, then the immediate task facing S.F.U. is to define
wt.r&èi2
of the conditions, such as those described above in their original or
modified form and/or different conditions, it regards as both reasonable
and justifiable and then negotiate agreement on them.
If S.F.U. decides to accept this proposal in principle it may
wish to state simply something that may be summarized like this:
Simon Fraser' University will be prepared to take responsibility
for attempting to meet needs for University education for non-metropolitan
areas of British Columbia within the limits of the funds available and
provided that conditions are met that give S.F.U. the authority to
decide, in consultation with appropriate agencies, which needs to meet
and in what sequence, and where, to what extent, and how.
Then, if this is agreed, S.F.U. may take one (or in sequence
two or more) of the following routes after detailed evaluations of
various possibilities including comparisons of advantages of the single-
campus versus multi-campus systems: -
(i)
S.F.U. remains a multi-campus University indefinately.
(ii)
S.F.U. remains a multi-campus University after budding
off a new multi-campus University.
(iii)
S.F.U. reverts to its single-campus form after budding
off a new mult campus University (which appears to be the intent of the
Winegard recummendations).
(iv)
S.F.U. reverts to Its single-campus form after budding
off several new single-campus Universities (which reduces to a minimum
disadvantages of multi-campus systems).
20
A compromise that S.F.U. may wish to consider is a modification
of (iv) that could shorten, reduce, or avoid many of the problems
discussed in this review.
It is that the new Institution would start as a University College
or Division of S.F.U. but would become a new single-campus University
as soon as its officers have sufficient training and experience to run
a University but irrespective of the numbers of faculty and students
there at the time; and the new University would then negotiate with
S.F.U. to obtain the academic and administrative assistance and the
special and administrative services that it needs andtha I ould have
had if it had remained as a University College until it
?
University
size in terms of faculty and student numbers.
Additional new single-campus Universities could be set up in
the same fashion as needs dictate andfinances permit.
This compromise would give autonomy early to regional
Institutions without reducing the availability of expert assistance and
cooperation from S.F.U. It would reduce problems of a multi-campus
system. It would permit S.F.U. to avoid becoming involved where it is
unable or unwilling to do so. It would facilitate the new Universities
to involve Universities additional to S.F.U. in their activities and
development. In general, it would increase flexibility in situations
where the ability to react to changing circumstances is essential.
21
APPENDIX 1: Some Problems of a multi-campus University
The following are extracts from a letter of 20 October, 1976
from the Dean of Science of the multi-campus University of the
West Indies:
"I hardly know how to answer your query except perhaps to
say don't do it! I am not entirely sure what advantage is to be
gained in the B.C. context by having a multi-campus organization
rather than separate Universities, but presumably that has already
been worked out. If there must be a multi-campus organization then the
most important thing is to avoid having too tight central control from
one campus and to keep cross campus administration to a minimum. It
is in the very nature of academics that they want to go their own
way and develop programmes which they believe are best for their
situation; what is good for one campus is not necessarily good for
another. This is well demonstrated in Biology in our own University.
The type of course, and the emphasis placed in different parts of
the course, that is suited to the Jamaican context is not suited to the
Trinidadian context but our regulations say we must run common
courses and have common examinations. After a few stormy meetings
in the early days we now compromise and spend a lot of time finding
ways of circumnavigating the Council's regulation.
"We are stuck with a situation In which many subjects are
taught on all three campuses and the paper work and travel needed
to co-ordinate teaching and examining is ludicrous. I suggest
therefore that if you are developing a multi-campus University that
each campus needs to have its own speciality and don't duplicate
teaching on different campuses if it can be avoided. If individual
Faculties (i.e. Science) are to be duplicated in different campuses
then try to give the academics as much freedom to develop their own
courses how they like. This may be easier in the Canadian system
than it is in ours.
"Central control of administration also creates trouble.
Mona is our centre and the other campuses always believe we are
'stealing' the largest slice of the cake and keeping the others in
a state of subservience. Too tight centralisation also creates
unnecessary paper work and travel. I travelled six times to
Trinidad last academic year solely for the purposes of co-ordination
and I could have spent my time in more profitable occupations."
APPENDIX 2: Sources of additional information (all
at S.F.U. unless otherwise indicated)
Dr. J. Blaney, Dean of Continuing Studies.
British Columbia Students' Federation, per Mr. Ross Powell,
Executive Member.
Dr. R. Brown, Dean of Interdisciplinary Studies.
Dr. T. W. Calvert, Department of Kinesiology; member of
Advisory Committee.
Chairmen of the Faculty of Arts, collectively.
Chairmen equivalents of the Faculty of Education, collectively.
Chairmen of the Faculty of Interdisciplinary Studies, collectively.
Chairmen of the Faculty of Science, collectively.
Dr. J. Chase, Director of Analytical Studies.
Dr. F. Cunningham, Department of Geography.
Department of Chemistry, per Dr. E. Wells, Chairman.
Department of Economics and Commerce, per Dr. B. Schoner, Chairman.
Department of Geography, per Dr. M. Roberts, Chairman.
Department of Psychology, per Dr. D. Krebs, Chairman.
Dr. L. M. Dill, Department of Biological Sciences.
Dr. M. E. Eliot-Hurst, Department of Geography.
Mr. H. Ellis, Registrar.
Dr. J. Ellis, Dean, Faculty of Education; member of
Advisory Committee.
Faculty Association, Notre Dame University, per Dr. V.J. Salvo.
Faculty Association, Simon Fraser University, per Dr. J. Farquhar.
Dr. L. Funt, Deartment of Chemistry.
r. R. Gehiback, Faculty of Education.
22
23
Dr. I. Goodbody, Dean of Science, University of the West Indies.
Dr. R. Harrop, Department of Mathematics.
Dr. G. C. Hoyt, Department of Economics and Commerce.
Dr. C. Jones, Department of Chemistry.
Dr. Jean E. Koepke, Department of Psychology, S.F.U.
Kelowna Programme.
Ms. Donna Laws, Administrative Assistant, President's Office.
Dr. S. K. Lower, Department of Chemistry.
Mr. N. McClaren, Faculty of Education.
Dr. J. M. Munro, Acting Dean, Faculty of Arts.
Dr. K. Okuda, Department of Economics and Commerce; member of
Advisory Committee.
Dr. S. Roberts, Vice-President, University Services.
Mr. D. Ross, Bursar.
Dr. R.M.S. Sadleir, Department of Biological Sciences.
Ms. Linda Severy, student; member of Advisory Committee.
Dr. M. Smith, Department of Biological Sciences.
Mr. G. Suart, Vice-President, Administration.
Ms. Sharon Thomas, University Library; member of Advisory Committee.
The University Library, per Mr. T. Dobbs, Acting University Librarian,
and Ms. Sharon Thomas, Acquisitions Librarian.
Dr. N. Verbeek, Department of Biological Sciences, S.F.U.
Kelowna Programme.
Dr. J. Walkley, Department of Chemistry.
Dr. J. Webster, Dean of Science.
Dr. B. Wilson, Vice-President, Academic; member of
Advisory Committee.
'.( ?
J
.
REPORT OF THE
COMMISSION ON UNIVERSITY PROGRAMS IN?
NON-METROPOLITAN AREAS
1^1
COMMISSION ON
UNIVERSITY PROGRAMS IN
NO
N-METROPOLITAN AREAS
S
COMMISSIONER:?
O. WILLIAM C. WNEGARO
September 2, 1976
The Honourable Patrick L. McGeer
Minister of Education
Department of Education
Parliament Buildings
Victoria, British Columbia
V8V lX4
• ?
Dear Mr. Minister:
It is a pleasure to submit to you the report
of the "Commission on University Programs in Non-
Metropolitan Areas."
Yours sincerely,
W.C. Winegarct"
Commissioner
WCW/hk
c
S
500. 1105
WEST
BROADWAY?
VANCOUVER. B.C. V5Z IKI
?
(604) 072.0245
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letter of Transmittal
Table of Contents
1.
INTRODUCTION ?
................
1
2.
PERCEIVED ?
NEEDS
?
......................................
2
3.
SUMMARY OF THE EXPRESSED PROBLEM ......................
6
4.
CONCEPTS INVOLVED IN SEEKING A SOLUTION ..............
7
5. POSSIBLE ?
SOLUTIONS ?
....................................
8
6.
SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE OPERATING AGENCY .....
11
7.
THE ?
MAIN ?
PROPOSAL ?
.....................................
12
8.
ROUGH ?
COSTS ?
..........................................
17
. 9. THE ?
KOOTENAYS ?
........................................
19
10.
BRITISH COLUMBIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ..............
20
11.
COMMUNITY ?
COLLEGES ?
..............................
21
12.
ARTICULATION ?
.........................................
22
13.
LIBRARY ?
.................................................
23
14.
DIRECTED STUDY AND MEDIA SUPPORT ?
.....................
24
15.
PROFESSIONAL PROGRAMS AND CONTINUING EDUCATION ........
26
16.
RECOMMENDATIONS ?
.......................................
.27
17. MOMENTS ?
TO ?
REMEMBER ?
..................................
30
APPENDIX A - A SERIES OF PROPOSALS
?
...................
31
APPENDIX B - COMPOSITION AND ROLE OF ADVISORY PANEL
41
APPENDIX C - SCHEDULE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
?
.............
43
APPENDIX D - LIST OF INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS
WHO SUBMITTED BRIEFS WHICH WERE ACCEPTED
BY ?
THE ?
COMMISSION ?
.......................
45
3
0 ?
1. INTRODUCTION
The Commission was established by the Honourable Patrick
L. McGeer, Minister of Education, on May 5, 1976 to "advise
the Minister on all matters related to the delivery of academic
and professional programs outside of the Vancouver and Victoria
metropolitan areas, and academic transfer programs and their
articulation". As quickly as possible the Commission prepared
"A Series of Proposals" in order to focus the discussion with
interested groups and individuals. Since the information con-
tained in the document is important for a full understanding
of the report of the Commission, it is included as Appendix A.
The document was distributed widely on May 17th, after being
viewed by the members of the Advisory Panel (see Appendix B
for the role and composition of the Panel and the staff of the
Commission).
During the early days of the Commission several interviews
were held with groups from the universities, colleges, the
British Columbia Institute of Technology, the Provincial Edu-
cational Media Centre, Professor McTaggart Cowan of the Poet.-
Secondary Coordinating Committee, the Universities Council of
British Columbia, the British Columbia Medical Centre, and the
• ?
Joint Board of Teacher Education. These interviews were held
to ensure that the Commission had a reasonable grasp of the
post-secondary educational system in British Columbia and the
role played by each part of the system.
For persons not familiar with post-secondary education in
British Columbia, it is useful at this point to review in gen-
eral terms the major elements of the system. The main components
are the community colleges, the British Columbia Institute of
Technology and the universities.
The 14 community colleges offer programs in vocational and
technical fields plus two years of "academic transfer" work.
The academic programs are the equivalent of the first two years
of the general Arts and Science programs of the
,
universities.
Since the courses provided by the community colleges are de-
signed and taught by the faculty of the colleges,there can be
an articulation problem with any or all of the universities.
Credit is given by
the
universities on a course-by-course basis
and sometimes a course given by a college is not considered the
exact equivalent of a university course. A special committee
has been established to resolve these articulation disputes.
The Provincial Post-Secondary Coordinating Committee also at-
tempts to maintain good communication between the colleges and
the universities in various subject areas.
.
?
?
The British Columbia Institute of Technology does not grant
degrees but offers diploma programs in Business and Applied Arts
-2-
•
?
ized
and
S
technical
ciences. Many
nature
of
and
these
are
programs
not available
are of
in
a
the
highly
community
special-
grams
involved
colleges.
contain
in
The
the
courses
British
ar
ticulation
which
Columbia
can
process
be
I
nstitute
usebecause
?
of
many
T
echnology
of its
is
pro-
d for credit at the
universities
The
uni
versities offer degree programs in all of the
major
tinuing
tion,
disciplines
the
education
univ
at
ersities
the
programs.
und
ergraduate
Conduct research
and
g
raduate
and carry
levels.
on large
In addi-
con-
The geography and the extremes in
p
opulation density
of
r
British
system.
ecognize
Columbia
In
that
s
earching
by
present
1979
for
some
special
a
839,000
solution
p
roblems
people
the
Cofor
will
mmission
the
be
educational
living
had to
on
will
the Mainland
be living
to
on
the
Vancouver
north and
Island
east
to
of
the
Hope.
north
A further
and west
108,000
of
ing
from
Population.
Nanajmo.
s
econdary
i
these
nstruction
This
academic
areas
Yet,
will
in
make
of
programs,
the
account
the
an
nonannual
35,000
-metropolitan
for
under
migration
students
roughly
2,500
40%
areas..
now
or
to
6-7%,
of
the
enroled
the
coast
Many
are
P
rovincial
in
students
to
receiv-
post-
Prinàe
thus
and
Cariboo
with
ters
that
tions
obtain
160,000
account
the
exist
of
in
Geoan
areas
the
metropolitan
parrge-North
education
in
resp
rest
ticipation
for
which
the
ectively.
12.5%
of
ThompsCariboo
have
the
but
areas
of
in
on-Okanagan
despite
P
p
rovince.
the
rojected
academic
The
region
having
Provincial
Thompsothis
6.0%.
Two
a
P1979
and
os
rate
there
n-Okanagan
t-secondary
major
Population
Populations
Prince
two
are
Population
to
striking
Georgthree
region
education
and
of
e-North
the
335,000
times
will
clus-varia-
Beginning June 14th, public meetings were held across the
P
rovince. The dates, places and names of staff and panel mem-
bers in attendance are given in Appendix C. Also listed is
program
a
i.e.
and
perceived
ing
the
high
types
the
approximate
a
proportion
few
by
Commof
need
face-to-face
courses
ission
educational
of
number
of
the
by
attempted
the
community
c
orrespondence
of
ins
people
service
people
tructional
to
in
for
which
elicit
in
attendance
degree
at
or
methods.
would
tendance.
i
a
nformation
complete
-completion
be'
joined
In
a
At
cceptable,
most
Science
on
in
each
the
work
the
places
hear-
discussion to produce a lively and informed debate.
2. PERCEIVED NEEDS
Without
a
ttempting to place the items in order of
priority
or in order of
pr
esentation to the Commission, it is useful to
.
-3-
or
list
stated
the many
in the
things
briefs.
that were said during the public hearings
"We want a new university in this city."
"We want a new multi-campus university for the non-metro-
politan areas."
"Notre Dame University
'
should be Continued."
"Some programs should be continued on the Notre Dame site."
"Notre Dame should be the first of many sites for the new
multi-campus university for the
non-metropolitan
areas."
"When you live a hundred miles from any major urban centre
as we do, a new campus at one or more places will not help.
contact."
Courses must be available by methods other than face-to-face
"If the people in Vancouver can have face-to-face instruc-
tion so can we. It is time we got something for our taxes."
"The
un
iversities of the coast could provide all the
courses that are necessary but we need a credit bank agency to
straighten out the confusion."
"The
un
iversities at the coast have done a poor job up to
now - why suppose that they will do any better in the future."
"Whatever you do, don't count on the three coastal univer-
sities cooperating in any effective way."
"An extension of one of the coastal
universities
would be
acceptable. We don't need a new university."
"Don't change the community colleges, they are doing a
good job and they respond to community needs."
"The community colleges could
?
courses and one or more could becoi
?
"The college base and faculty
?
Vision of upper year courses under
existing university as long as the
now."
teach 3rd and
4th
year
ne a university-if necessary."
could be used for the pro-
the auspices of a new or
college remains as it is
"The colleges could do a better job than at present on 1st
They
and 2nd
are
year
poorly
academic
funded."
transfer courses if they had more money.
is
"Why would anyone want to provide 3rd and 4th year courses
and
and
technical
programs when
subjects?"the
real need is support for 1st and 2nd year
-4-
10 ?
"We don't necessarily need more university work in this
area, we need B.C.I.T.
?
B.C.I.T. should be funded to develop
and provide modular courses for use outside the Lower Mainland
in conjunction with the colleges."
"We need small university centres in the major communities
of the North and the Interior with some resident faculty and
identifiable campus sites. Each of these centres could provide
outreach programs to the
surrounding
community."
"We have been very pleased with the on-site services pro-
vided by Simon Fraser University here in Kelowna."
"Nothing will work without effective use of local need-
identification committees to advise on programs."
"Since mediated courses will probably be necessary don't
?
forget the resources of the Provincial Educational Media Centre."
"Whatever is done, the degree must be credible - even if
that means an affiliation with a coastal university."
"Whatever is established it should be headquartered in the
Interior."
.
?
"There is no equality of educational opportunity in Brit-
ish Columbia now and there will not be until the coast releases
its stranglehold."
"We need to know how much is being spent to service the
non-metropolitan areas - any program must be'separately funded
and managed."
"Along with 3rd and 4th year courses we need more effec-
tive counselling."
"The colleges are very traditional and unles they get out
and provide 1st and 2nd year courses in an "outreach program"
what is the point of having the 3rd and 4th years available?"
"Articulation between the universities and the colleges
is a major problem."
"Articulation between the universities and the colleges
is not a major problem."
"Articulation between the universities themselves is far
more of a problem than articulation between the universities
and colleges. We need appeal boards with authority to force
universities to accept credits."
"Form one university for British Columbia and thus take
care of the transfer of credits problem."
7
-5-
S
"
Uni
versities should allow or be forced to allow
block
legés."
transfer of 1st and 2nd year programs from the
Community
col-
"We need more courses
av
ailable but even more
importantly
we
other
need
institutions
the
uni
versities to accept the credits gained from
"
S
tudents at Notre Dame University need some
gu
arantees
about transfer of credits."
"Many mature, part-time
s
tudents register for courses when-
ever
aren't
and
portable."
wherever they can only to find that the credits earned
"Our group (teachers) has not been well served in the area.
We have often
r
equested courses that
apparently
cannot be given."
"The
un
i
versities have done a reasonably good job of re-
sponding to requests over the years."
"The
un
iversities are helpful but there is no
l
ong-range
year
p
lanning;
after."
we don't know what will be offered next year or the
I
s it necessary to stick to the usual time frame in the
in
shorter
delivery
mind."periods
?
of courses?
while
Surely
others
some
could
could
be
given
be
co
with
ncentrated
shift workers
into
"The libraries of the colleges are not
a
dequate
.
for 1st
and 2nd year programs let alone 3rd and 4th year."
"We don't need large libraries to begin a
sig
nificant pro-
a
gram
period
in the
of years."
non
-metropolitan areas.
R
esources Could come over
"Is anybody in the Province
coo
rdinating the
development
of
uni versitiesmodular
and/or
? " ?
media intensive courses in the
*
colleges and
"We need
degre
e-completion programs in Arts, Science
and
Education as a minimum starting point."
"Nurses working in the Interior should be able to complete
the B.S.N. program without moving to Vancouver or Victoria."
"There is a need to offer Post-basic training courses for
nurses in the Interior."
"Couldn't the
uni
versities provide
degr
ee_complj
0
op-
and
por
tunities
Interior
in
Centres?"
Commerce and Business in some major
Northern
S
Do
-6-
/
. "There is only one university that can provide
of
needed
British
by our
C
olumbia.
profession
We want
(forestry)
and need
and
their
that is
help."
the
the courses
University
"It is all very well to talk of degree-completion
programs
but we also need Continuing education courses for enrichment."
The Commission heard many other
c
omments, of a general na-
ture and some specific to various fields of study. However,
briefs
major
the paraphrased
concerns
and informal
and
examples
proposed
discussions
given
S
olutions
above
A list
will
offered
of
suffice
the
in
briefs
to
the
show
submitted
the
submitted
to and accepted by the Commission is included in Appendix D.
.
SUMMARY OF THE EXPRESSED PROBLEM
There is no question that the residents of the
non-metro-
to
complete
politan
tional
move
oto
areas
p
degrees
portunity.
Greater
feel
in
Vdeprived
Arts,
ancouver
As a minimum
Science
in
or
terms
Victoria.
and
they
of
Education
want
P
ost
The
the
-secondary
expressed
Without
Opportunity
having
educa-
demand
to
is appreciable but it is not clear how extensive it will be on
.
?
a
C
ontinuing basis after the back-log has been cleared. There
programs
coastal
is some
university
evidence
were available
that
would
students
in
not
their
transfer
who
home
now
community.
to
intend
these
to
ins
The
attend
titutions
number
a
if
Of students in this category has not been accurately assessed.
There is also an expressed need for programs in several pro-
and
fessional
Forestry.
areas, most notably in Education, Nursing,
Commerce
It would be Unwise to underestimate the' feeling of the
non-
without
tion.
Simon
hinterland's
are
metropolitan
are
tied
only
Fraser
considerable
to
available
smaller
University
contribution
r
esidents
at
c
ommunities
s
acrifice.
the
of
Kelowna
to
coast
the
the
P
rovince
program
despite
and
A
P
rovince's
Survey
cannot
that
Supports
the
of
moveto
wealth.
sign
most
S
tudents
ificance
this
oppor
the
Some
in
conten-
tunities
coast
the
of
people
the
Much
f
rustration centres around the real and perceived
Problems of credit transfer between the existing universities
many
courses
P
and
o
rtability
between
students
av
ailable
and
the
to
the
colleges
complete
in
u
smaller
n p
lanned,
a
and
degree.
centres
the
ad
uni
hoc
versities
frustrate
nature of
the
Lack
the
desires
of
upper-year
credit
of
.
?
?
of
Solution
campuses
In the
was
in
more
g
enerally
the
densely
major
seen
co
Populated
mmunities.
as being
areas
the
The
creationof
of
desire
the Province
for
a
an
series
aca-
the
-p.
-7-
.
?
demic physical presence to serve full and part-time Students
was widely expressed in these centres. In the less densely
populated parts of the Province there was little faith that
the creation of such facilities would solve the problem unless
these campuses were. to provide a vigorous media-based outreach
program. In many of the remoter areas it was stated that if
it was necessary to go to a campus to obtain instruction then
the campus would be most conveniently located in Vancouver.
4. CONCEPTS INVOLVED. IN SEEKING A SOLUTION
The Commission is in agreement with the brief from the
University of British Columbia which states that any proposal
to remedy the current situation must satisfy three basic tests:
?
tI]• ?
It must substantially increase the opportunities for
people resident in the interior to complete a degree
program.
?
2. ?
It must be consistent with the maintenance of tradi-
tional university standards of academic excellence.
.
?
3. ?
It must achieve the first two goals with reasonable
economic efficiency."
To satisfy test 1 it is necessary to have inter-mural
instruction in more than one centre of the non-metropolitan
areas in order to reach a large population. In addition, it
becomes necessary to consider "outreach programs" and "directed
study programs" to reach persons who cannot attend courses
given on such a campus.
As stated in the brief from the Arts and Science Division
and the Faculty Association of the College of New Caledonia,
"the provision of programs must be systematic and committed.
What is needed is a range of complete programs .locally avail-
able in the Interior, not a few more courses in a few more
locations. Students must be able to complete all.aspects of
their programs locally, and the facilities and personnel that
such programs will require must be available. There must be
grams
a financial as well
.
as a philosophical commitment to such pro-
Test
2
is satisfied by ensuring that the programs offered
are of a high standard and recognized by other universities as
such. The graduate of the program must be able to proceed to
graduate and professional school and to: the other career oppor-
tunities available to graduates of the existing universities.
More importantly the graduate should have no feeling of being
second-class in any respect.
10
-8-
Test 3 can be met most readily by.using the resources of
the existing universities. Reasonable economic efficiency is
balanced, of course, by how well any agency, new or old, re-
sponds to the real problems. No program should be mounted
Without a sufficient commitment of financial support.
Although it is not essential to have resident faculty in
the non-metropolitan areas to satisfy tests 1 and 2 above, it
is the Opinion of the Commission that the people in non-metro-
politan British Columbia would be satisfied with nothing less.
It follows then that some version of the campus model is nec-
essary but one in which the costs are not excessive.
5. POSSIBLE, SOLUTIONS
The concepts developed in the previous section lead to the
conclusion that an outreach program with campus sites where
Population density makes them feasible would meet many-of the
needs of the people of the non-metropolitan areas. it follows
that the campus Sites, or University Centres should be placed
first in the major population clusters of the
P
rovince. The
• ?
Centres should operate in cooperation with, but administratively
independent of, local community colleges and should have some
fixed and some mobile units.
Assuming that three or four sites are possible and desir-
able
the upper
the question
year
deg
arises
ree-completion
as to how
programs
to organize
offered
and administer
as an out-
reach program and on the sites.
The Three Universities Cooperate (1)
This model has the advantage of making available the re-
sources of all the existing universities. Two disadvantages
are administrative complexity and the unanswered question of
which institution would be awarding the degree. The University
with
of British
University
Columbia
X and
proposal
that the
assumes
students
that
of
Centre
this Centre
A
IS
would
associated
take all or most of their Courses from X. While this would re-
duce the portability of credit problems for new students it
does little to solve the problems of a mobile student or a stu-
dent resident in Centre A but with partial credits from Univer-
sity Y. More importantly, the proposal also does little to
ensure the development of the modular or
me
dia-intensive courses
which will be necessary to service the remoter areas of the
Province, areas in which over fifty percent of the non-metro-
politan population live.
.
-9-
Another important drawback is that such Centres fail to
meet one of
.
-the essential criteria for acceptance demanded by
the people of the non-metropolitan areas, that of budgetary
autonomy.
It is essential to have all budgetary matters for programs
offered in the new Centres (including the associated activities)
separate from the submissions of the existing universities.
Were this not the case, non-metropolitan residents would be
suspicious that trade-offs between a university's main campus
activity and off-campus activity were being made in periods of
fiscal stringency. The budget for the "new operation" must be
separate and clearly identified as such by the Universities
Council of British Columbia .Only in this way will the amount
of money available for non-metropolitan programing be readily
identifiable.
New University (2)
The advantages of starting a new multi-campus university
are clear. Many people in the North and the Interior would be
delighted and it is an administratively simple solution. The
disadvantages are equally clear. The degree would have to gain
credibility at the same time as the institution was acting as
a credit bank to clear up the back-log of credits held by
various people from different institutions. Another problem
would be the increased lead time necessary to establish a to-
tally new institution.
Furthermore, the large cost of establishing
,
a full-fledged
university at this time could prove unfortunate for the post-
secondary system of British Columbia. Public funds are limited
and major expansion should be avoided until the predicted drop
in enrolment during the 1980's is tested by time.
A new university is not going to be content to offer only
upper year programs; it will want to offer all levels in several
programs including graduate work.
An Existing University (3)
Although all three universities must be involved in any
proposal which rejects a new university in the immediate future,
it does not follow that all three should be equally involved.
One university could carry the major administrative and teach-
ing responsibility. Such an arrangement would-be administra-
tively simpler than model 1 and the degree credibility issue of
model 2 is largely overcome. It is probably quicker to let one
university get on with the main part of the job than to attempt
the solutions of models 1 or 2. Additionally, it is relatively
easy to form a new university at the appropriate time if the
- 10 -
University Centres are operated as part of one universIty.
The disadvantages of this model are that it may be seen
as being an import from the coast and the possibility that the
organizing university might have difficulty in persuading the
other institutions to provide those offerings that it is not
in a position to supply itself.
It is clear that the resources of all the universities
will be required to offer the range of academic programs needed
outside Vancouver and Victoria. it does not follow, however,
that all universities must be equally involved.
If one university is to' be chosen to carry out the task
it is necessary to look at the role and function of the three
coastal universities in order to make the decision.
The University of British Columbia is the major profes-
sional, graduate and research institution of the Province; in
these areas it is a national and international resource.. it
must carry a heavy responsibility for extension work in all
parts of the Province in the professional
d
isciplines. As well,
it must assume a major responsibility for continuing education
and evening credit programs in the Vancouver area. The Commis-
sion feels very strongly that the role of the University of
. ?
British Columbia as outlined above is the correct one and that
the people of British Columbia and indeed of Canada would be
ill-served by any proposal that diluted this role. It is
difficult to believe that the University of British Columbia
can expand its existing degree programing for the non-metropol-
itan areas without detracting from its major responsibilities
as outlined above.
The University of Victoria wishes to be, and should be, a
highly residential undergraduate Arts and Science university
with a few professional programs and limited graduate work. . It
has the opportunity to stay relatively small and promote quality
in its restricted programs. It has been carrying much of the
load for continuing education on VancOuver Island and on some
parts of the Mainland coast and could continue to do so without
being detracted from its main role. The Province needs aüni-
versity of the type envisaged for the University of Victoria.
Simon Fraser University originated as an Arts and Science
institution with an emphasis on tutorial teaching and in recent
years it has developed interdisciplinary programs at both the
undergraduate and graduate level. The University has little
interest in further development of professional schools and has
or should have ambitions for a somewhat restrjcted role in
graduate work especially at the doctoral lev1.•
In the past few years the University has been moving out
to various parts of the Province with its programs, for example
13
- 11 -
in Kelowna, and has been aggressive in terms of service to the
communities outside the Lower Mainland. Another
point
about
Simon Fraser University should be borne in mind. It is on the
semester system and faculty are used to the concentration and
division of material required for such an operation.
6. SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE OPERATING AGENCY
Regardless of which model is chosen, the new agency will
inherit certain special tasks, problems and responsibilities.
Some of these are listed below.
1.
It must be extremely flexible in granting credit for
courses taken elsewhere to help clear up the back-log of
credit problems. This applies mostly in the Arts and Edu-
cation areas. Special concessions to these "back-log"
students will be necessary if the agency is to serve its
function well.
2.
There must be a headquarters site Outside Victoria or the
Lower Mainland.
3.
There must be a special advisory committee to the agency
J/
consisting of people who live and work outside of Vancouver)
and Victoria.
4.
There must be a recognition that the new agency is an in-
terim step towards the establishment of a university for
the non-metropolitan areas.
5.
It is essential that the new agency cooperates with exist-
ing post-secondary educational institutions to provide as
wide a range of programs as possible with the funds avail-
able.
6.
The new agency should agree to employ as many of the fac-
ulty and staff of Notre Dame University as it reasonably
can.
7.
It must ensure that the students enrolled at Notre Dame
during the 1975-76 academic year are given full credit for
their work and are allowed to finish their programs on the
Nelson site.
8.
The agency must agree to actively pursue the development
of upper level directed study courses and act as a coor-
•
?
dinator for the Province in this matter. In this task it
will be necessary-for the agency to work cooperatively
with the Provincial Educational Media Centre.
.
.
IV
r
12 -
S
9. It must also agree to cooperate with the community col-
leges in every region of the Province to establish need-
identification committees in each locality.
10.
the
tional
It is
opportunity
hoped
services
that
to
to
any
plan
the
agency
non
Sound
-metropolitan
involved
programs
in
that
areas
Providing
respond
will
educa-
take
to
ary
app
should
the
ropriate
programs
needs
be given
of
for
with
the
to
the
people.
courses
providing
new operation.
The
or sections
more
Commission
general
Serious
of courses
feels
interd
consstrongly
given
isciplin-
j
deratjo
at
that the usual pattern
,
of courses and timings may not be
week
various
c
oncentrated
times of the
periods.
day or night or in three or four
11.
The agency will have a
responsibility
to promote the idea
that degree programs are available Outside Vancouver and
Victoria
college and
by
the
taking
upper
the
years
first
through
two years
the agency.
through
.
a community
7. THE MAIN PROPOSAL
•
versity
The
be
long-term
established
r
ecommendation
_^
^
serveth
^
enis
o_^
n-
that
_metropolita
a
m
ulti-campus
__
uni-
British
accommodate
Columbia.
the likely
T e unive—rsit
increase in
?
student
11
be needed
numbers
Ey
during
199-
0
the
to
last decade of this century.
The new universi
ty
Division of Simon Fra
University charged witi
l
tlie res
p onsi-
e outreach degree credit pro-
gram. To help accomplish the outreach objective, the
should establish four smal
l
university
Centres )n Prince Geor9eKao
Centres at Prince George, Kamloops and Kelçwna are recom-
mended because these communities have populations large enough
to warrant such facilities. The Nelson Centre is recommended
for reasons which are discussed at some length in the section
of the report dealing with the Kootenays.
Vernon was chosen as the
headquarters
site for a variety
of
side
reasons.
the metropolitan
it i
s
desirable
areas of
to
Vancouver
locate the
and
he
Victoria
adquarters
but
out-in
a community that does not have one of the four University
Centres. This avoids the implicationthat one of the Centres
is a more important entity than the other three. Vernon satis-
fies these two criteria and has the
a
dditional advantage of
5
?
being located at the centre of the
Thomp
son-Okanagan region,
15
r ?
-
-
13 -
S ?
the largest population cluster Outside the metropolitan areas.
Furthermore, a substantial site is available in Vernon should
it become the main campus of the University established in 1990.
The Division should offer upper level degree-completion
grams).
programs in Arts, Science and Education (see section on pro-
The
r
es p
onsibilities outlined in this proposal and in the
section entitled "Special
Responsibilities"
may not be accepta-
ble to Simon Fraser University. The University has every right
to refuse the assignment. it is recommended that Simon Fraser
University be given to December 1976 to accept or reject the
proposal. Should the proposal be rejected, it is recommended
that a new university be established immediately despite the
deg
disadvantages.
ree-completion
The
programs
people of
and
the
would
non-metropolitan
not be adverse
areas
to the
want
establishment of a new multi-campus university with the same
functions and responsibilities as detailed for the proposed
Division of Simon Fraser University.
The University College of Simon Fraser University
The University College of Simon Fraser University should
provide very restricted programs in Science, a more extensive
program in Arts to allow for some
sp
ecialization, and the appro-
priate program in Education. The programs should be available
by directed study methods as well as intermurally.
It is hoped that each Centre would be prepared to develop
a special emphasis in its academic programs if it appears appro-
priate.
be
?
funded
The University College
Of
Simon Fraser Uni^versity should
__ by
the Universities Council Ot British Columbia s^-_p-
arately
separate
from
funding
the
is
main
necessary
campus of
for
Simon
several
Fraser
reasons.
UniversiFirst,
ty
. The
the
people of the non-metropolitan areas will insist on knowing
how much is allocated by the Universities Council of British
Columbia. Second, the Universities Council of
-
British Columbia
will want a guarantee that the funds allocated for this special
purpose are in fact spent for the purpose. Third, Simon Fraser
University must be protected from any possible charge that the
University has diverted funds from this program to programs on
the main campus and vice versa.
.
14
- 14 -
Since the University College is a Division of Simon Fraser
University, the faculty will be hired as regular Simon Fraser
University faculty but their primary responsibility will be to
promote the outreach program and to teach and research at the
Centres. If the faculty appointments are made to the Division
in this way, it will facilitate the formation of the new univer-
sity. All faculty will know that they are part of a new signif-
icant venture.
The academic viability of the Centres depends upon the
faculty being active in research and scholarship. Such a situa-
tion is hard to achieve unless professors are able to interact
with colleagues in their own and other disciplines. Arrangements
must be made and a budget provided for professors to spend time
on a large campus or research institution more often than the
normal research sabbatical program would allow. it will be
essential for the research capabilities of the new Division
that the faculty members have access to the resources of the
main campus on a regular basis. The faculty strength proposed
at each Centre is 10 full-time equivalents although all 10 need
not be resident at the Centre. As outlined in the section on
costs, 10 faculty members can provide the recommended level of
programing for each Centre.
Administration
Although the new unit will be part of Simon Fraser Univer-
many
sity
ways
it Phould
it should
be given
be treated
a considerable
as an affiliated
degree of
college
autonomy.
but
In
subject to the regulations of the Senate and the University.)
At the headquarters site in Vernon there should be a
Principal, a Registrar, an Associate Principal for outreach
programing, the directed study team plus the necessary support
staff. At each Centre, in addition to the faculty, it is
expected that there will be a senior faculty member who would
act as an Associate Principal; a
Registrar-Coordinator;
two or
three professional librarians; several library assistants; an
audio-visual technician and the necessary clerical and main-
tenance staff.
As stated earlier in the report, it is anticipated that
the budget for the new Division of Simon Frasi University will
come to the Universities Council of British Columbia as a sep-
arate item. It would be presented by the Principal after con-
sultation with the Advisory Council (see below). Naturally,
the Principal will have to consult with the senior administra-
tion of Simon Fraser University because the main campus will
S
is
/2
r: ?
--
- 15 -
be
be
accounted
providing
for
library
in the
and
budget.
other
S
upporting services which must
After the budget is approved by the
Universities
Council
of British Columbia the normal administrative procedures for
public accountability by Simon Fraser University should apply.
In the final analysis it is the Board of Govenors of Simon
persons
cause
Fraser
for the
of
University
from
e
the
x p
enditures
above
the
non
that
fact
-metropolitan
on
must
it
operations
is
accept
recommended
arts
the
and
of
financial
capital
that
British
three
p
rojects.
re
Columbia
s
or
ponsibilit
four
Be-
?
y
?
',J
x
c
jpntedto the Board of Simon
^ 11
Fraser University. Such
move would give the people who
?
a
live outside of Vancouver and
Victoria
sidered
some assurance
at
that their
all
interests
times.
were being con-
?
Yj
J\
In addition to a change in the composition of the Board
of
the
Govenors
Minister
of
of
Simon
Education
Fraser
establish
University,
an Advisory
it is
r
Council
ecommended
for
that
metropolitan
5
nould consist
areas
or
8
of
to
British
10
people
Columbia
who live
The
and
Council
work in
would
the non-
advise the Principal both on program needs andfinancjal
requirements,
UniversitY-
Relationship
2f_
With
Yic
tor
The
ia
University of British Columbia and The
If this proposal is accepted it is
a
nticipated
.
that most
of the teaching in the Arts, Science and Education fields will
be done by Simon Fraser University because the faculty at the
Centres will be Simon Fraser University professors. However,
it would be unfortunate if the resources of the other univer-
sities were not used in the program. For example, it is hoped
that the University of Victoria would continue its outreach
university
Simon
ment
work
Simon
for
on
Fraser
Fraser
Vancouver
the
in
services
University
University
the proposal,
Island
being
is
on
and
the
a
it
provided
on
contract
does
coordinating
the
not
Mainland
by
ar
and
the
rangement.
indeed
new
and'a
coast
DIVISiOn
dministerinq
cannot
,
Although
with pay-
be
of
the only university that provides teaching.
Many of the
p
rofessional programs can only be given by the
the
University
"
I
ndependent
of British
Study
Columbia.
Program of
In
the
addition,
Centre for
the
Continuing
resources of
Education" of the University of British Columbia can, on a
contract basis, provide many courses for the outreach partof
the proposal. There is no need to duplicate 'icrk that has
already been done. Simon Fraser University should always bear
in mind that it coordinates as well as develops programs. it
is hoped that the new college would actively seek and use the
1.
- 16 -
courses already prepared at the University of British Columbia
as well as those prepared in other jurisdictions. In this way
a much greater variety of courses could be made immediately
available to the people who cannot attend the courses offered
at the Centres. There are some sections of the Province which
can only be served by directed study courses and courses given
by "parachuting professors".
Special arrangements will be necessary in the Education
field. At the present time there are several thousand teachers
in the Province who do not yet possess a degree but who would
like to "complete" their training if this was possibl2. The
majority of these teachers hold their credits at either the
University of British Columbia or the University of Victoria
as these two institutions predate Simon Fraser University in
the teacher training field. The Simon Fraser University pro-
gram is of a very different nature than the programs of the
other two and as such would not be of any aid to some teachers.
In order to ensure that the needs of these teachers are met,
Simon Fraser University will have to contract with both the
University of Victoria and the University of British Columbia
for the orderly provision of the necessary courses.
A final word concerning Education is in order. The Com-
mission and others who made their views known on this subject
are of the opinion that it is time for the Department of Educa-
tion and the universities to have another look at the certifi-
cation process as well as the existing programs in Education.
It is therefore recommended that the universities and the
Department of Education establish a study committee to review
certification requirements and existing programs. If neces-
sary, the committee should develop new programs specifically
designed to train teachers for and in the non-metropolitan
areas.
Directed Study (Outreach)
Although it has been stressed several times in the report
that directed study is a major responsibility of the new
Division, the present section has been added to emphasize the
point. Outreach programs from the Centres wilihave to be
delivered to surrounding communities. In addition, an éxten-
sive outreach program will have to be mounted by the head-
quarters staff of the Division using the resources of the main
campus of Simon Fraser University and the other universities.
If courses are not available in directed study format, they
will have to be developed. A core of upper level courses
should be available and the resident faculty of the Centres,
• ?
or those members assigned to the Division ona temporary basis,
should be prepared to work on such projects. The technical-
production of the material is a specialized task and the pro-
duction team of the Provincial Educational Media Centre should
be used once the faculty and administration of the new Division
I,
- 17 -
•
?
have decided on the format, i.e. simple correspondence, corres-
pondence plus audio tapes, audio plus slides on video tape, or
a full-fledged television production. All of the techniques
should be supplemented by face-to-face contact whenever possible.
Such contact could be provided by the faculty of the four Cen-
tres or by qualified community college faculty in those areas
of the Province in which there is no University Centre.
8. ROUGH COSTS
Operating Costs of Centres
For purposes of calculation, it is assumed that in year
five the four Centres will be operating at the recommended lev-
el of service, i.e. 40 semester courses per year. (It is not
necessary to assume that the offerings will be equal in each
location but only that the total be 160 semester courses per
year.) Un
'
de'r this assumption each Centre would require the
full-time equivalent of 10 faculty members assuming that on
average each faculty member would give no more than four semes-
ter courses per year. This is a reasonable load because of the
difficulty of conducting research away from the main campus,
and the heavy responsibilities carried in terms of counselling,
community involvement and the development of directed study
courses.
Faculty salaries are usually about 40% of the total uni-
versity budget but at the Centres it is probably more realis-
tic to assume a lower percentage such as 30. The total oper-
ating costs in year five would be 40 x $25,000 = $1,000,000 x
100/30 = $3,330,000 (approximately). Naturally the cost would
be lower in the build-up years.
Added to the operating costs but placed in a special cat-
egory is library material. It is estimated that approximately
150,000 volumes will be necessary in addition to the resources
that already exist at the Nelson Centre. A reasonable estimate
for this material is $1,000,000 per year for five years. (See
the section on Library.)
Operating Costs of Headquarters
The costs of administering the Division and the costs of
the directed study development team are estimated at $350,000
per year.
As outlined in the section on Directed Study, a team of
people is necessary for need identification, design, script
writing and production coordination of the media assisted
.
- 18 -
.
?
programs (including correspondence). The team may not do the
actual production but it will have to evaluate programs, estab-
lish contracts, etc.
The cost of program development, delivery, evaluation,
acquisition and production could run anywhere from $300,000
to several million dollars per year. An additional $750,000
per year is included in the headquarters budget for these
purposes. Some of the funds could of course be transferred to
the Centres to cover their costs for delivery and evaluation.
The Commission believes that the total headquarters budget of
$1.3. million should provide a good level of outreach program
development and delivery.
Capital Costs
The capital costs for the Nelson Centre would-be about
$2.5 million which includes taking over the existing mortgages
and relocating the library.
Each of the three Centres would have 1 classroom for 100
students, 3 small seminar rooms, 1 laboratory for science, 1
humanities/social sciences laboratory, a lounge area, a recep-
tion area to include the main office and registration function,
.
?
a small library and 20 offices for faculty and staff. The
space required is approximately 22,000 net assignable square
feet at an estimated cost of $85 per net assignable square foot
including furniture and equipment. In addition, a few mobile
units will be required. The estimated cost for each Centre is
$2.0 million. The total cost of $6.0 million for the three
Centres plus $2.5 million for Nelson could be spread over five
years.
Although in this section on capital costs it is implied
that the University Centre facilities will be separate from
the facilities of the community colleges, it may be advan-
tageous in some localities to consider combining certain
facilities (such as library) into a joint operation.
No capital allowance has been estimated for the headquar-
ters facility. It is assumed that initially less than 3,000
square feet will be required and that this could be rented
until such times as decisions are made concerning how much
program planning and development is done at the headquarters
or the Centres. The cost of rental is included in the oper-
ating cost for headquarters.
Combined Costs
To give some idea of the total costs involved in the pro-
posal it is useful to take year five as a typical year.
ca.)
- 19 -
Centre Costs
Headquarters
Special Library
Capital
Total Yearly Cost
$3.3
Million
$1.1
Million
$1.0
Million
$1.7
Million
$7.1
Million
?
(1976 Dollars)
.
9.
THE KOOTENAYS
The Commission is aware that there is a strong feeling in
Nelson that Notre Dame University should have been allowed to
continue as a four year degree granting institution. Such a
feeling is to be expected, especially in a spirited, civic-
minded city such as Nelson. Despite all the points made by the
people of Nelson, the Commission is convinced that the chances
of a full-fledged university remaining viable both academically
and financially without a large population base is very small.
The small city university is a story from the early part of
this century and will not be repeated in the 70's. Although
the Commission cannot accept the argument for the continuation
of Notre Dame University, it does accept the point of view that
upper level
degree-completion
programs should be available in
the Kootenays.
The site of a University Centre for the Kootenays would be
Castlegar or Cranbrook if it were not for the history of Nelson.
A Centre in Castlegar, for example, would be consistent with
the rest of the Commission's
r
ecommendations because the Centre
would operate in association with the local community college
in the same way that the Centres in Prince George, Kamloops and
Kelowna are expected to operate. However, facilities do exist
in Nelson and they can be used effectively as one of the Univer-
sity Centres of the new Division of Simon Fraser University.
The Centre at Nelson is expected to be about the same.sjze as
the other Centres, i.e. about 10 F.T.E. faculty. Should a
decision be taken to specialize in Education programs on the
Nelson site two or three more faculty would be required.
Assuming that the Nelson site is used for upper year
courses in Arts, Science .and Education by the new Division of
Simon Fraser University and that first and second year programs
are given by Selkirk College at Nelson, it will be possible to
complete degree programs in Nelson.
It is recommended that as many as possible of the faculty
and staff of Notre Dame University be given appointments by
'"'S
-. 20 -
Selkirk College and/or by the new agency created. This does
not mean that faculty employment in Nelson should be guaran-
teed; it may be advantageous for faculty to move to other
sites operated by the agency or to the main campus of Simon
Fraser University.
It
IS
recommended that faculty and staff nearing retire-
ment age be given the option to retire without loss of pension
income. It is further recommended that should there be mem-
bers of faculty and staff who are not re-deployed or retired
completion
at
they
Notre
should
Dame
of
be
their
University
given
programs
generous
in
on
1975-76
settlements.
the Nelson
should
site.
be
Students
guaranteed
enrolled
the
A Centre at Nelson which is part of a major outreach pro-
gram by the new Division of Simon Fraser University can, acting
in concert with the community colleges of the Kootenays, bring
many educational opportunities to the area.
The Commission is very much aware of the briefs presented
by C.AU.T. and the Confederation of Faculty Associations of
British Columbia. Indeed the latter brief was of considerable
help In formulating the main proposal. However, their sugges-
tion that the Nelson campus be independent is difficult for
• the Commission to accept and is not recommended. It is a
second-best solution and is not in keeping with the post-
secondary educational system envisaged for British Columbia.
It has been brought to the attention of the Commission
that the integration of the Nelson Centre into the main pro-
posal may cause problems because of the certification of the
faculty association at Notre Dame University. The problem is
recognized and the last thing the Commission would recommend
is the forced hiring of any faculty member by a university
whether the faculty member came from Notre Dame University or
the University of British Columbia. Despite the problems, the
Commission is convinced that Nelson should have a centre like
the rest and that a way can be found to achieve this end.
10. BRITISH COLUMBIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
It is clear that the British Columbia Institute of Tech-
nology knows its role and is pursuing it vigorously. The Com-
mission urges B.C.I.T. to continue along its present path with
one extension; an extension that B.C.I.T. is prepared to accept
if proper funding is -provided. In many parts of the Province
• the Commission heard comments that the priority need was for
more B.C.I.T. type programs. it was suggested that most col-
leges haven't the facilities or the funds to provide the
- 21 -
sophisticated technical
B.C.I.T. should become
lying regions using the
operations.
courses offered by B.C.I.T. and that
more involved in taking courses to out-
community colleges as the base for
is
.
It is therefore recommended that B.C.I.T. provide such
courses by face-to--face contact and in modular forms at the
request of the various community colleges. B.C.I.T. should
receive designated funding from the Department of Education
further
for the
recommended
development
that
and
B.C.I.T.
delivery
take
of such
on the
courses.
coordinating
It is ,
role for the development of modular or directed study courses
in the technical areas in conjunction with the colleges. In
the development of media courses, B.C.I.T. should use the pro-
duction facilities of the Provincial Educational Media Centre
in the same way that Simon Fraser University will use them
for upper level academic courses.
B.C.I.T. is the flagship of the technical education sys-
tem and a very important part of the post-secondary education
system of British Columbia.
11. COMMUNITY COLLEGES,
During the public hearings the Commission' was informed
that although the colleges offered first and second year uni-
versity programs on their campus sites, such programs were
not readily available in the more remote areas of the Province.
This situation should be corrected by the colleges.
For the upper level courses, a recommendation has been
made that a new Division of Simon Fraser University coordinate
and develop outreach programs for the Province using the re-
sources of all three provincial universities. In a similar
vein it is recommended that a separately funded unit of the
colleges be established to provide 'a core of first and second
yr courses. Such a unit will be necessary and its exact
form should be developed by consultation between the Department
of Education andthe principals of the colleges. The media-
assisted courses should be purchased, developed, and used by
all the
no
n-metropolitan colleges in their directed study pro-
grams. As with the new Division of Simon Fraser University,
the production of the courses, when necessary, should be done
at the Provincial Educational Media Centre.
Still dealing with the colleges, but on a different mat-
ter, it is imperative that the courses provided by the colleges
. on site or by media should be the base for the upper level
courses provided by the universities. Students in every part
of the Province must be assured that the community college
&
- 22 -
courses plus the upper level courses offered by the new Divi-
sion of Simon Fraser University provide a complete degree pro-
gram. There is aystem for post-secondary education in
British Columbia and the Commission urges all parts of the
system to make it work.
12.
ARTICULATION
The articulation process is seen as functioning well or
poorly depending upon the person to whom one speaks. There
seems little doubt that it functions smoothly when the disci-
pline committees meet and report regularly to the Provincial
Post-Secondary Coordinating Committee. The fact remains, how-
ever, that some committees meet infrequently and some college.
members have difficulty in attending. The Commission proposes
no real change in method of operation of the Provincial Post-
Secondary Coordinating Committee but does have several recom-
mendations.
It is recommended that the subject committees (1 person
from each college department and 1 from each university depart-
ment) meet three times a year with the expenses bciid
from the Provincial Post-Secondary Coordinating Committee budg-
et. The university members of the discipline committees should
work closely together to ensure that students are treated gen-
erously with regard to credit portability between the three
universities as well as between the colleges and the univer-
sities. In addition, it is recommended that the Post-Secondary
Coordinating Committee be reduced in size to 11 members to
include the Chairman (presently Professor McTaggart Cowan)
the Associate Deputy Minister (Post-Secondary),
,
i faculty
member from each university appointed by the president of
each university, 5 college faculty members appointed by the
college principals, and 1 faculty member from F3.C.I.T. appointed
by the principal of B.C.I.T. Also recommended is the appoint-
ment of a full-time administrative officer to support the
Chairman.
It is anticipated that the Provincial Post-Secondary
Coordinating Committee will make recommendations to the uni-
versities and the colleges only on disputes that have not been
settled by the discipline committees. The Commission rejects
the advice that legislation embodying compulsion be introduced
to resolve articulation disputes. In the Commission's opinion
it would be both unwise and improper to underm
i
-
ne the autonomy
of the institutions in this way. The Commission concurs with
the Chairman of the Coordinating Committee that in the long
run, discussion and good-will will resolve the issues in dis-
pute. Only in the case of long standing intransigence by an
as
- 23 -
. ?
institution should compulsion be considered.
Finally, the Commission recommends that the Provincial
by
Post-Secondary
the Universities
Coordinating
Council
Committee
of British
report
Columbia.
to and
The
be
Univer-fu
nd
ed
sities Council of British Columbia needs to be informed about
these matters on a continuing basis in order to fulfill its
mandate. The Department of Education will be informed through
the participation of the Associate Deputy Minister, Post-
Secondary.
13. LIBRARY
Much of the success of this new venture will depend upon
the availability of library materials. Each University Centre
should hold about 50,000 volumes and take no longer than five
years to build up to that strength. Since Nelson already has
sufficient resources, it will only be necessary to consider the
other three Centres.
If we assume that all of the Centres
begin
together (some-
cost
thing
then
of
150,000
that
$30
is
each.
volumes
not necessary
The
will
total
be
but
of
needed
$4.5
is useful
million
at a
for
processing
spread
costing
over
and
purposes)
five
volume
years gives an annual library materials cost of $900,000.
In addition to the acquisiticn of materials, the libraries
of the Centres will face the additional problems of developing
a rapid delivery system and a communication network. The com-
munication problem is solved relatively easily by the installa-
tion of Telex connecting the Centre libraries with the libraries
of Simon Fraser University, the University of British Columbia
and the University of Victoria. The rapid delivery of materials
on
including
an ad hoc
inter-library
basis using
loans
various
will
forms
probably
of transportation.
have to be handled
A
and
delivery
tional
although
Media
system
they
Centre
similar
are
is
difficult
envisaged.
to that
to
used
estimate
There
by the
are
with
Pro\'incial
costs
any
involved
accuracy,
Educa-
and
an estimate
inter-library
of $100,000
loans seems
per year
appropriate.
for the cost for Telex, delivery
ID
^p
RVS
The establishment of
the Centres will bring to the fore
be
Columbia.
opment
Columbia.
once
reference
given
again
of
a
of
Although
a
high
the
Provincial
the
lack
priority
Commission,
it
of any
is
Union
in
not
Provincial
the
Catalogue
it
specifically
library
is recommended
Union
development
in
machine
within
Catalogue
that
readable
the
of
the
terms
in
British
develBritish
form
of
-
?
f
16
-
24 -
A final caution about library development is necessary to
ensure the success of the venture. Acknowledging that all of
•
??
a
the
problem
Centres
in
should
library
not
development.
be started at
it will
once,
be
there
essential
will still
that
be?
some time be taken to plan the academic programs and thus the
library resources before each Centre begins operating. The
main library of Simon Fraser University will fulfill the acqui-
sition and cataloguing role under this proposal; it will have
to move quickly to supply the service required but cannot do
so until it knows what is needed and where. In this regard,
Simon Fraser University's main library may have to consider
procedures which will guarantee a rapid and flexible response
to the needs generated by the Centres and the outreach program
of the new Division. The Division, on its part, may need a
special librarian to coordinate its operation with the library
of Simon Fraser University and other libraries in the Province.
14. DIRECTED STUDY AND MEDIA SUPPORT
The Centres
•
?
?
The Centres should be equipped with the traditional media?
support services. The responsibility for the operation and
maintenance of these classroom services should lie with the
library administration and the acquisition of media materials
should be part of the acquisition program of the library.
There should be no attempt to become involved in media pro-
duction at the Centres except for the usual slide preparation,
etc. More extensive requirements can be met by whatever con-
tracting arrangements the headquarters makes with the main
campus of Simon Fraser University or the Provincial Educatiohal
Media • Centre.
The capital costs at each Centre should not exceed $50,000
and the operating costs, exclusive of personnel should be in
the order of $6,000 annually. The staffing would be minimal
and can probably be met by one audio-visual technician attached
to the library staff. The costs of acquisition are included in
the library budget and the other costs are included in the
appropriate estimates given in the section on Rough Costs.
Outrtah
The goal is to create and deliver a wide range of learn
-
ing materials and opportunities to a diverse audience through
• ?
many access points. The learning materials may include books,
pamphlets, study guides, audio tapes, video tapes, kits and
television programs. The access points may be homes, public
I
-
25 -
and institutional libraries, radio, cable television, resource
centres and television networks. The range of possibilities
is great, as can be the cost. To place the subject in per-
spective, it is useful to look at outreach under two separate
headings - Delivery and Communications, and Creation and Pro-
duction.
Delivery and Communications
Assuming that one has something to deliver, the cost of
delivery can be relatively small. Books and printed material
can be sent by mail or by commercial carriers using all forms
of transportation. The same is true for audio tapes and video
tapes. Once the tapes are prepared the requirement at the
student end is for a playback system located in an accessible
place. The place may even be in the home if one keeps in mind
the fact that television can he used as a "distributor" of even
non-television originated materials. Cable television and/or
an educational channel can broadcast tapes relatively inexpen-
sively.
As far as communication is concerned, it can be achieved
by telephone, telex, mail and by face-to-face contact with
local tutors. The delivery and communications system can
. ?
range in cost from mail charges to several thousand dollars
per hour for live television distributed throughout the Province.
Preparation and evaluation costs are not included in this sec-
tion.
Creation and Production
As stated earlier in the report, the creation and produc-
tion of a directed study course requires a special team. The
faculty member must decide what to include but a support team
is important for instructional design, script writing (even for
a correspondence course) and production
coordination.
The team
must be capable of working in a range of media formats includ-
ing print, graphics and television. It is not intended that
production facilities be established where existing facilities
can be used, for example those of the Provincial Educational
Media Centre. However, the team may have to encourage the
development of some facilities at an appropriate place if such
services are not readily available. The Provincial Educational
Media Centre may have to increase its production capabilities
in some areas if it is to meet the demands made of it. The
creation of courses cannot be farmed out; the team is necessary.
The production part of the operation is another matter and con-
tracting is an appropriate mechanism.
The costs for the creation and production of learning
materials range from the rather minimal for rewriting to the
4"
?
1
-
26 -
.
moderate for audio
classroom lectures
productions.
cassette preparation and video taping of
to over $50,000 for full scale television
.
.
An estimate of creation, production and delivery costs is
included in the headquarters costs for the new Division of
Simon Fraser University.
15. PROFESSIONAL PROGRAMS AND CONTINUING EDUCATION
Throughout the hearings and in the briefs presented to
the Commission many references were made to the need for pro-
fessional programs. In particular, concern was expressed
about Nursing, Commerce (especially in accounting) , and For-
estry.
Forestry programs can be supplied only by the University
of British Columbia and it is recommended that the University
ofBritish Columbia and the Association of Professional For-
esters jointly assess the
need
for Forestry courses in various
parts of the Province. Unless otherwise requested there
appears to be no need for Simon Fraser University to be invol
-
ved.
There is no question about the demand outside of Vancouver
and Victoria for degree-completion courses and post-basic
courses in Nursing. Since Nursing is offered by the University
of British Columbia and the University of Victoria it is recom-
mended that the two universities cooperate in the delivery of
the necessary programs to the non-metropolitan areas. Simon
Fraser University can provide some of the Arts and Science
courses needed for the training of nurses but the major load
must be borne by the other two universities.
Commerce is offered by Simon Fraser University and it is
recommended that part of the mandate of the new Division should
be to identify the needs and provide the required services.
On the continuing education front, the Commission has no
recommendations to make since this matter is before the commit-
tee chaired by Dr. R.L. Fans of the Department of Education.
Doubtless the large programs now offered by the universities
will be necessary in one form or another. The University of
British Columbia carries a very heavy load in this area and in
many subjects it is the only resource available.-
Dr. Fans was with this Commission at all of the public
hearings and he knows of the concerns expressed by various
groups for special services.
.
is
.
- 27 -
16. RECOMMENDATIONS
1.
It is recommended that a multi-campus university be estab-
lished by 1990 to serve the non-metrpolitan areas of
British Columbia. (page 12)
2.
It is recommended that the new university begin as a sep-
arately funded Division of Simon Fraser University charged
with the responsibility to provide a comprehensive out-
reach degree-credit program. (page 12)
3.
It is recommended that the Division be headquartered in
Vernon and have four small University Centres in Prince
George, Kamloops, Kelowna and Nelson. (page 12)
4.
It is recommended that the Division offer upper level
degree-completion programs in Arts, Science:and Education.
(page 13)
5.
It is recommended that the new University College of Simon
Fraser University be funded by the Universities Council of
British Columbia separately from the main campus of Simon
Fraser University. (page 13)
6.
It is recommended that three or four persons from the non-
metropolitan areas of British Columbia be appointed to the
Board of Govenors of Simon Fraser University. (page
15)
7.
It is recommended that the Minister of Education establish
an Advisory Council for the University College of Simon
Fraser University. (page 15)
8.
It is recommended that Simon Fraser University be given to
the end of December 1976 to accept or reject the proposal.
Should the proposal be rejected it is recommended that a
new university be started in 1977. (page 13)
9.
It is recommended that the Department of Education and the
universities establish a study committee to review certifi-
cation requirements and existing programs and if necessary
develop new programs specifically designed to train teachers
for the non-metropolitan areas of the Province. (page 16)
10.
It is recommended that as many as possible of the faculty
and staff of Notre Dame University be given appointments
by Selkirk College and/or by the new agency created.
(page 19)
11.
It is recommended that the faculty and staff of Notre Dame.
University who are nearing retirement age be given the
option to retire without: loss of pension income. (page 20)
3D
:i
-
28 -
12.
It is recommended that members of faculty and staff who
are not re-deployed or retired be given generous settle-
ments. ?
(page 20)
13.
It is recommended that the students enrolled at Notre
Dame University during the 1975-76 academic year be
guaranteed the completion of their programs on the Nelson
site. ?
(page 20)
14.
It is recommended that the Biitish Columbia Instituteof
Technology provide their specialized technical courses
in outreach modular forms and/or intermurally at the
request of the community colleges.
?
(page 21)
15.
It is recommended that the British Columbia Institute of
Technology assume the coordinating role for the develop-
ment of directed study courses in the technical areas in
conjunction with the colleges.
?
(page 21)
16.
It is recommended that a separately funded unit of the
community colleges be established to provide a core of
media-assisted first and second year academic courses.
(page 21)
17.
It is recommended that the Provincial Post-Secondary Coor-
.
dinating Committee be reduced in size to 11 members.
(page
22)
18.
It is recommended that a full-time administrative appoint-
ment be made to assist the Chairman of the Provincial Post-
Secondary Coordinating Committee.
?
(page
22)
19.
It is recommended that the subject committees of the
Post-Secondary Coordinating Committee meet three times
each year with the expenses being paid by the Post-Secon-
dary Coordinating Committee.
?
(page 22)
20.
It is recommended that the Provincial Post-Secondary Coor-
dinating Committee report to and be funded by the Univer-
sities Council of British Columbia.
?
(page 23)
•
?
21.
It is recommended that a Provincial Union Catalogue.in
machine readable form be given a high priority in the
library development of British Columbia.
?
(page 23)
22.
It is recommended that the University of British Columbia
and the Association of Professional Foresters jointly
assess the need for Forestry courses in various parts of
the Province.
?
(page 26)
. ?
23.
It is recommended that the University of British Columbia
and the University of Victoria cooperate in the delivery
of degree-completion programs in Nursing to the non-metro-
politan areas.
?
(page 26)
31
- 29 -
is
and
It is recommended that the new agency identify the needs
merce
and provide
for the
service
non-metropolitan
for degree
areas.
work in
(page
Business26)
.
and Com-
.
0
4
A1,
-
30 -
. ?
17. MOMENTS TO REMEMBER
The look of determination on. the face of the young woman
who told us that she had driven 15,000 miles last winter for
a degree credit course.
The standing ovation given by over 1,000 people to the
United Church minister in Nelson who asked the Commission to
inform the Honourable P. McGeer that the people of Neson
believed in resurrection and that Notre Dame was not dead.
The smile on the
•
face of the man who read to the Commis-
sion several quotes about the educational needs of the people
of the non-metropolitan areas from a book by Professor Patrick
McGeer.
The barely suppressed look of frustration on the face of
the woman from Alert Bay as she talked of the need to bring
education to the people and not vice versa.
33
UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA JOINT SENATE/AP OF GOVERNORS CO'tITTEE ON
TIlE WIN ECARD COflhISS ION REPORT
I.
THE UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA
From page 10 of the Winegard Report, one may draw some false impressions
of tLe University of Victoria. These must be clarified and corrected.
A.
The University of Victoria is not a "highly residentil" university,
whatever that may mean. Fully 55% of its students come from outside
the Victoria metropolitan area; yet, because of Government funding
policies, it can offer residence accommodation to a mere 11% of Its
full-time student body (a ratio that places it 23rd among 30
representative Canadian universities).
B.
Though long respected for the quality of Its undergraduate teaching,
it has a broad range of excellent gr4duate programs, an outstanding
library, a deep commitment to academic research, and a number of
professional faculties and schools.
C.
It views itself as serving the entire Provinceof British Columbia.
In many of its programs (Education, in particular), it has been
attracting students for decades from every region of the province;
it has never seen its role as.a university for
on
Island.
Moreover, it has been very active in extra-mural-credit teaching:
in 1974/75 artd 1975/76 it offered an average of
.
26 classes of
selected, advanced undergraduate course work outside the Victoria
region -- almost a third of the total effort envisioned in the
Winegard proposal.
II.. THE WINECARD PROPOSAL
Though motivated by admirable concern for the needs of students in the
British Columbia Interior, the Winegard proposal has a number of serious
Inadequacies and dangerous pitfalls. It is, in short, an expensive way
of providing a mediocre education for a mere handful-
.
of students.
A. Academic faults:
1.
By diffusing resources among four mini-campuses and a separate
adthinistrative centre, the proposal would result in, token library
and laboratory facilties, hopelessly inadequate for advanced
undergraduate study.
2.
By providing only ten faculty members for each campus, the
schemecould offer no variety or specialized study within any
one academic discipline. One assumes that the great majority of
advanced undergraduate students in the interior will need accc
to complex university degree p
ro
grams:
what
is offered is a
meagre academic smorgasbord.
By pursuing the mini-campus concept, the proposal would fail
to create the academic and cultural ambience that is vital to
ii
2
• any true university community. Faculty and students alike
would be deprived of scholarly discourse with colleagues
in their own disciplines. The additional problems of
geographical isolation would enforce a spirit of academic
stagnation. This would be a grave disservice to the university
students of the B.C.' interior.
B. Financial faults:
I. The report identifies an annual operating cost of $7.1 million --
no trivial figure. Yet
even this substantial amount seems to be
a naive and irresponsible underestimate of the cost needed to
set up, four separate campuses, each with its'own library,
laboratories-local administration and faculty, plus a discrete
administrative centre in
Vernon.' Much of the $7.1 million
would soon be swallowed up with the cost of coordinating this
vast
and scattered operation.
2. Even if
the $7.1 million
estimáte'should
be accurate, there is
grave concern that the proposal would divert urgently needed funds
from the present system of' provincial universities and colleges.
One of the most wasteful aspects of the proposal is. its failure
to use the existing resources of the regional college system.
3.
In attempting
?
meet the needs of the minority of students who
will be satisfied with a diluted and generaldegree_completj0
scheme, the proposal ignores the financial problems of the
majority who will continue to seek serious degree programs in
the major public universities. It must be realized that a large
number of students in B.C. will always be 'required to attend
'a
university beyond commuting range of their homes.
C. Administrative
and political faults:
1.
The proposal is a bureaucratic wonderland.. One could hardly
imagine a more cumbersome and tortuous niodel
.
than that of four
tiny faculty units, each reporting separately through a remote
'Rninistrtive centre to the sub-unit of a distant univercity,
itself subject to the nebulous control of a Universities Council.
This will lead to creative academic Innovation?
2.
Theneed perceived by Dr. .Winegrd is not so much academic as
it . is
demographic and political: there is a pressure to create
an institution for advanced higher education in the interior that
is not tied to an existing and remote metropolitan university.
Yet the interim solution advbcated is a link with Simon Fraser
University -- an apron-string proposal that contradicts this
political imperative. Moreover, the interim solution would create
a brand new political problem by grant.in one of the cstabiish'(l
public un:ivers ii ics a province-wide teri,torial influence to
which
it has no historic claim. This prospective realignment is
unwarranted and unjustified.
III. POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES
A.
On purely academic and fiscal arguments, the wisest action would
be to-provide differential bursaries to enable qualified students
in the interior to have fair and equal access to the special
i.:ed
advanced programs at the established universities of their choi.
(The magnitude of Winegard financing could provide 2,000 bursaries
of $3,500 each! Of course, any equitable scheme of finania1 aid
would need to be
scaledto
meet geographical differences.) At the
same time, the public universities would have to be encouraged
to develop and extend their "outreach" activities for academic
enrichment
and degree completion, in cooperation with the regional
colleges, either by individual initiative or by consortium. However,
if the political premise of the Winegard Report is valid, this
logical alternative may well be unacceptable.
B.
If the Minister of Education, through the Universities Council, is
truly determined to make available substantial new funding for
higher eduaction, these funds could be consolidated to create, in
one Interior community, a new, small, degree-granting college with
some academic validity and coherence. Its on-campus offerings should
be strictly limited o a narrow range of basic disciplines, mainly
at the third- and fourth-year level. It must be autonomous, so as
to be able to identify and respond to regional concerns; its degrees
would soon win whatever acceptance they deserve. It might well
attract a number of students from metropolitan areas at the coast.
The new college would surely em
p
hasize outreach and extension
activities, using the existing resources of the regional college
system. It might assume the role of a "degzebank," if that concept
is desirable; it might even become a course coordinating agency like
the British Council for National Academic Awards.. Undoubtedly, it
would wish to explore new technological methods of extending Its
services
tooutlying communities. Its entire personality and academic
style, would be free to develop without the stultifying control of a
paternal authority.
This second alternative would reduce substantially the
academic weaknesses of the Wiregard system. Financially, it woui
eliminate many of the wasteful and redundant costs of running four
campuses and a discrete administrative centre. Unlike the Winegard
model, it would develop and exploit the strengths of the regional
colleges, without creating a new and divisive layer of higher education
in British Columbia. However, the citizens of British Columbia must
not be deceived into thinking that the costs would be trivial; and any
new expenditures must not be allowed to preempt the urgent priority
needs of the major public universities and existing regional colleges.
If there is indeed a political imperative, it must be met with a
realistic and honest academic response.
For the Senate ?
For the Board of Governors
J.L. Climenhaga ?
A.M. Hail
C. Rippon ?
M.D. Phillips
P.L. Smith ?
L.
Ryan
November 15, 1976
UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA JOINT SENATE/!
?
OF GOVERNORS CO1IflEE ON
THE WINECARDCO4LSS
ION
REPORT
THE UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA
From page 10 of the Winegard Report, one may draw some, false.imprcssions
of tLe
University of Victoria.
These must be clarified and corrected.
A.
The
University of Victoria
is not a "highly residential" university,
whatever that may mean. Fully
55%
of its students come from outside
the Victoria
metropolitan area; yet, because of Government funding
policies, it
can offer residence accommodation to a mere 11% of its
full-time student body (a ratio that places it 23rd among 30
representative Canadian universities).
B.
Though long respected for the quality of
its undergraduate teaching,
it has a broad
range of excellent graduate programs, an outstanding
library, a deep commitment to academic research, and a number of
professional faculties and schools.
C.
It views itself
as serving the entire Province of British Columbia.
In many of its programs (Education, in
'
particular), it has been
attracting students for decades from every region of the province;
it has never
seen its role as a university for Vancouver Island.
Moreover, it has beeri very active in extra-mural credit teaching:
in
1974/75 azt1 1975/76 it offered an average of 26 classes of
selected, advanced undergraduate course work outside the Victoria
region -- almost a third of the total effort envisioned in the
Winegard proposal.
II.. THE WINECARD PROPOSAL
Though motivated
by admirable concern : for the needs of students in the
British Columbia interior, the Winegard proposal has a number of serious
inadequacies and dangerous pitfalls. It is, in short, an expensive way,
of providing a mediocre education for a mere handful-of students.
A. Academic faults:
1.
By
diffusing resources among four mini-campuses and a separate
adulinistrative centre, the proposal would result in token library
and laboratory facilties, hopelessly inadequate for advanced
undergraduate study.
I.
2.
By providing
only ten faculty members for each campus, the
scheme could offer no variety or specialized study within any
one academic discipline. One assumes that the great majority of
advanced undergraduate students in the interior will need accc;
to complex universy de
,,
ree p
ro
grams: what is offered is a
meagre academic smorgasbord.
By pursuing the mini-campus concept, the proposal
would fail.
to create the academic and
cultural
ambience that is vital to
I'.
2
any true university community. Faculty and students alike
would be deprived of scholarly discourse with colleagues
(
?
in
their own disciplines. The additional problems of
geographical isolation would enforce a spirit of academic
stagnation. This would be a grave disservice to the university
students of the B.C. interior.
0
B. Financial faults:
1.
The report identifies an annual operating cost of $7.1 million --
no
trivial figure. Yet even this substantial amount seems to be
a naive and irresponsible underestimate of the cost needed to
set up four separate campuses, each with its own library,
laboratories, local administration and faculty, plus a discrete
administrative centre in
Vernon. Much of the $7.1 million
would soon be swallowed up with the cost of coordinating this
vast and scattered operation.
2.
Even if the $7.1 million estimate should be accurate, there is
grave concern that the proposal would divert urgently needed funds
from the present system of provincial universities and colleges.
One of the most wasteful aspects of the proposal is its failure
to use
the
existing resources of the regional college system.
3. In
attempting
A
meet the needs of the minority of students who
will be satisfied with a diluted and general degree-completion
scheme, the
.
proposal ignores the financial problems of the
majority who will continue to seek serious degree programs in
the major public universities. It must be realized that a large
number of students in B.C. will always be required to attend a
university beyond commuting range of their homes.
C. Administrative and political faults:
I. The proposal is a bureaucratic wonderland. One could, hardly
imagine a more cumbersome and tortuous model than that of four
tiny faculty units, each reporting separately through a remote
administrative centre to the sub-unit of a distant univcrcit.y,
itself
subject to the nebulous control of a Universities Council.
This will lead to creative academic innovation?
2. The need perceived by Dr. .Winegcird is not so much academic as
it is demographic and political: there is a pressure to create
an institution for advanced higher education in the interior that
is not tied to an existing and remote metropolitan university.
Yet the interim solution advocated is a link with Simon Fraser
University -- an apron-string proposal that contradicts this
political imperative. Moreover, the interim solution would create
a brand new political problem by granting one of thetab1ished
public universities a province-wide teritorial influence' to which
it has no historic claim. This prospective r
' cal±gnment is
unwarranted and unjustified.
C
3
POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES
A.
On purely academic and fiscal arguments, the wisest action would
be to provide differential bursaries to enable qualified students
in
the interior to have fair and equal access to the speciall:eI
advanced programs at the established universities of their choice..
(The magnitude of Winegard financing could provide 2,000 bursaries
of $3,500 each! Of course, any equitable scheme of finanial aid
would need to be
scaledto
meet geographical differences.) At the
same time, the public universities would have to be encouraged
to develop and extend their "outreach" activities for academic
enrichment and degree completion, in cooperation with :theregional
colleges, either by individual initiative or by consortium. However,
if the political premise of the Winegard Report is valid, this
logical alternative may well be unacceptable.
B.
If the
Minister
of Education, through the
Universities
Council, is
truly
determined to make available substantial new funding for
higher eduaction, these funds could be consolidated to create, in
one Interior community, a new, small, degree-granting college with
some academic validity and coherence. Its on-campus offerings should
be strictly limited
?
a narrow range of basic disciplines, mainly
at the third- and fourth-year level. It must be autonomous, so as
to be able to identify and respond to regional concerns; its degrees
would soon win whatever acceptance they deserve. It might well
attract a number of students from metropolitan areas at the coast.
The new college would surely emphasize outreach and extension
activities, using the existing resources of the regional college
system. It might assume the role of a "degme bank," if that concept
is desirable; it might even become a course coordinating agency like
the British Council for National Academic Awards. Undoubtedly, it
would wish to explore new technological methods of extending its
services
to outlying communities. Its entire personality and academic
style would be free to develop without the stultifying control of a
paternal authority.
This second alternative would reduce substantially the
academic weaknesses of the Wir.egrd system. Financially, it would
eliminate many of the wasteful and redundant costs of running four
campuses and a discrete administrative centre. Unlike the Winegard
model, it would develop and exploit the strengths of the regional
colleges, without creating a new and divisive layer of higher education
in British Columbia. However, the citizens of British Columbia must
not be deceived into thinking that the costs would be trivial; and any
new expenditures must not be allowed to preempt the urgent priority
needs of the major public universities and existing regional colleges.
If there is indeed a poli.cal imperative, it must be met with a
realistic and honest academic response.
For the Senate
?
For the Board of Governors
J.L.
Climenhaga ?
A.M. hail
C. Rippon ?
M.D. Phillips
P.L. Smith ?
L.
Ryan
November 15, 1976
Ill.
UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA JOINT SENATE/BOAR
?
OF GOVERNORS
C=HIT
COt1EE
TEE
ON
THE WINECARD COMMISSION
REPORT
I. THE U
N
IVERSITY OF VICTORIA
From page 10 of the Winegard Report, one may draw some false impressions
of tLe University of Victoria. These must be clarified and corrected.
A.
The University of Victoria is not a "highly residential" university,
whatever that may mean. Fully 55% of its students come from outside
the Victoria metropolitan area; yet, because of Government funding
policies, it can offer residence accommodation to a mere 11% of its
full-time student body (a ratio that places it 23rd among 30
representative Canadian universities).
? -
?
-
B.
Though long respected for the quality of its undergraduate teaching,
• ?
it has a broad range of excellent graduate programs, an outstanding
library, a deep commitment to academic research, and a number of
professional faculties and schools.
C.
It views itself as serving the entire Province of British Columbia.
In many of its programs (Education, in particular), it has been
attracting students for decades from every region.of the province;
- it has never seen its role as a. university for Vancouver Island.
Moreover, it has been very activein extra-mural credit teaching:
in 1974175 artt 1975/76 it offered an average of 26 classes of
selected, advanced undergraduate course work outside the Victoria
region -- almost a third of the total, effort envisioned in the
Winegard proposal.
THE-
WINECARD PROPOSAL
Though motivated by admirable-concern.-for the needs of students in the
British Columbia Interior, the Winegard proposal has a number Of serious
Inadequacies and dangerous pitfalls. It is, in short, an expensive way
of providing a mediocre education for a mere handful ofstudents.
A. Academia faults:
1.
By diffusing resources among four mini-campuses and a separate
adthinistrative centre, the proposal would result in token library
and laboratory facilties, hopelessly inadequate for advanced
undergraduate study.
II..
2.
By providing only ten faculty members for each campus, the
scheme could offer no variety or specialized study within any
one academic discipline. One assumes that the great majority of
Advanced undergraduate students in the interior will need acce
to complex univer
s
ity degree p
ro
grams: what is offered is a
meagre academic smorgasbord.
By pursuing the mini-campus concept, the proposal
would fail.
to create the academic and cultural ambience that is vital to
2
any true university community. Faculty and students alike
would be deprived of scholarly discourse with colleagues
( ?
in
their own disciplines. The additional problems
of
geographical
isolation would enforce a spirit of academic
stagnation. This would be a grave disservice to the university
students of the B.C. interior.
4.
B. Financial faults:
1. The report identifies an annual operating cost of $7.1 million --
no trivial figure. Yet even this substantial, amount seems to be
a naive and irresponsible underestimate of the cost needed to
set up
four separate campuses, each with its own library,
laboratories, local administration and faculty, plus a discrete
administrative centre in Vernon. Much of the $7.1 million
would soon be swallowed up with the cost of coordinating this
vast
and scattered operation.
2. Even if
the $7.1 million estimate should be accurate, there is
grave
concern that the proposal would divert urgently needed funds
from the present system of provincial universities and colleges.
One 'of the most wasteful aspects of the proposal is its failure
( ?
to use the existing resources of the regional college system.
3. In attempting
ti meet the needs of the minority of students who
will be satisfied with a diluted and general
degree_completion
scheme, the proposal ignores the financial problems of the
majority who will continue to seek serious 'degree programs in
the major public universities. It must be realized that a large
number of students in B.C. will always be required to attend a
university beyond commuting range of their homes.
C. Administrative and
p olitical faults:
1.
The proposal is a bureaucratic wonderland. One could hardly
imagine a more cumbersome and tortuous model than that of four
tiny faculty units, each reporting separately through a remote
administrative centre to the sub-unit of a distant university,
itself
subject to the nebulous control of a Universities Council.
This will lead to creative academic Innovation?
2.
The need perceived by Dr. Winegard is not so much academic as
it is
demographic and political: there is a pressure to create
an institution for advanced higher education in the interior that
is not tied to an existing and remote metropolitan university.
Yet the interim solution advocated is a link with Simon Fraser
University -- an apron-string proposal that contradicts this
political imperative. Moreover, the interim solution would create
a brand new political problem by granting one of thetab1jsh0J
public universities a province-wide teritorial influence to which
it has no historic claim. This prospective realignment is
unwarranted and unjustified.
For the Senate
J.L. Climenhaga
C. lUçon
P.L. Smith
For the hoard of Governors
A.M. }LdL
M.D. i1iii1.ips
L.
Ryan
(
POSSIILEA!.TERNATIVES
A. On purely academic and fiscal arguments, the wisest action would
be to provide differential bursaries to enable qualified stud.cits
in the interior to have fair and equal, access to the special i.zed
advanced programs at the established universities of their choice.
(The magnitude of Winegard financing could provide 2,000 bursaries
of $3,500 each! Of course, any equitable scheme of finan_ial aid
would need to be scaledto meet geographical differences.) At the
same time, the public universities would have to be encouraged
to develop and extend their "outreach" activities for academic
enrichment and degree completion, in cooperation with 'the regional
colleges, either by individual initiative or by consortium. However,
if the political premise of the Winegard Report is valid, this
logical alternative may well be unacceptable.
B.
If the Minister of Education, through the Universities Council, is
truly determined to make available substantial new funding for
higher eduaction, these funds could be consolidated to create, in
one Interior community, a new, small, degree-granting college with
sonie'academ.ic validity and coherence. Its on-campus offerings should
be strictly limited*co a narrow range of basic disciplines, mainly
at the third- and fourth-year level. It must be autonomous, so as
to be able to identify and respond to regional concerns; its degrees
would soon win whatever acceptance they deserve. It might well
attract a number of students from metropolitan areas at the coast.
The new college would surely emphasize outreach and extension
activities, using the existing resources of the regional college
system. It might assume the role of a "degreebank," if that concept
is desirable; it might even become a course coordinating agency like
the British Council for National Academic Awards. Undoubtedly, it
• ?
would wish to explore new technological methods of extending its
services to outlying communities. Its entire personality and academic
• ?
style would be free to develop without the stultifying control of a
paternal authority.
This second alternative would reduce substantially the
academic weaknesses of the Wlregard system. Financially, it would
eliminate many of the wasteful and redundant costs of running four
campuses and a discrete administrative centre. Unlike the Winegard
model, it would develop and exploit the strengths of the regional
colleges, without creating a new and divisive layer of higher education
in British Columbia. However, the citizens of British Columbia must
not be deceived into thinking that the costs would be trivial; and any
new expeñdjtures must not be allowed to preempt the urgent priority
needs of the major public universities and existing regional colleges.
If there is indeed a poli,cal imperative, it must be met with a
realistic and honest academic response.
November 15, 1976
UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA JOT NT SENATEjQAFW OF GOVERNORS COMMITTEE ON
THE VINECARD COMMISSION REPORT
I. THE UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA
From page 10 of the Winegard Report, one may draw some, false impression,.;
of the
University of Victoria.
These must be clarified and corrected.
A.
The University of Victoria is not a "highly residential" university,
whatever that may mean. Fully 55% of its students come from outside.
the Victoria metropolitan area; yet, .because of Government funding
policies, it
can offer residence accommodation to a mere 11% of its
full-time student body (a ratio that places it 23rd among 30
representative
Canadian universities).
B.
Though long respected for the quality of
,
its undergraduate teaching,
it has a broad
range of excellent graduate programs, an outstanding
library,
a deep commitment to academic research, and a number of
professional faculties and schools.
C.
It views itself
as serving the entire' Province of British Columbia.
In many of its programs (Education', in particular), it has been
attracting students for decades from every region.of the province;
it has never
seen its role as a university for Vancouver Island.
Moreover, it has been very activein extra-mural credit teaching:
in
1974/75 aiftl 1975/76 it offered an average of 26 classes of
selected, advanced undergraduate course work outside the Victoria
region -- almost a third of the total effort envisioned in the
Winegard proposal.
II.. THE WINECARD PROPOSAL
Though
uiotivated.by
admirable concern for the needs of students in the
British Columbia interior, the Winegard proposal has a number of, serious
'inadequacies and dangerous pitfalls. It is, in short
,
, an expensive way
of providing a mediocre education for a mere handful:of students.
A. 'Academic faults.:
?
.
1.
By diffusing resources among four mini-campuses and a separate
administrative
centre, the proposal would result in token library
and laboratory facilties, hopelessly inadequate for advanced
undergraduate study.
2.
By providing only ten faculty members for each campus, the
scheme could offer no variety or specialized study within any
one academic discipline. One assumes that the great majority of
advanced undergraduate students in the interior
will
need accc
to complex university decree programs:
what is
offered is a
meagre academic smorgasbord.
By pursuing the mini-campus concept, the proposal would fail.
to create the academic and cultural ambience that is vital. to
I•.ii,' ?
•,Ii
2
• any true university community. Faculty and students alike
would be deprived of scholarly discourse with colleagues
in their own disciplines. The additional problems of
geographical isolation would enforce a spirit of academic
stagnation. This would be a grave disservice to the university
students of the B.C. interior.
V
B. Financial faults:
1.
The report identifies an annual operating cost of $7.1 million --
no trivial figure.
Yet even this substantial amount seems to be
a naive and irresponsible underestimate of the cost needed to
set
up four.separate campuses, each with its own library,
laboratories, local administration and faculty, plus a discrete
administrative centre in Vernon. Much of the $7.1 million
would soon be swallowed up with the cost of coordinating this
vast
and scattered operation.
2. Even.
[f the $7.1 million estimate should be accurate, there is
grave concern that the proposal would divert urgently needed funds
from the present system of provincial universities and colleges.
(
--
?
?
One of the most wasteful aspects of the proposal is its failure
?
to use the existing resources of the regional college system.
3. In
attempting ?
meet the needs of the minority of students who
will be satisfied with a diluted and general.degree_coinp1etjo
scheme, the proposal ignores the financial problems of the
majority who will continue to seek serious degree program in
the major public universities. It must be realized that a large
number of students in B.C. will always be required to attend a
university beyond commuting range of their homes.
C. Administrative and political faults:
1.
The proposal is a bureaucratic wonderland. One could hardly
imagine a more cumbersome and tortuous model than that of four
tiny faculty units, each reporting separately through a remote
administrative
centre
to the sub-unit of a ditar.t univercity,
itself subject to the nebulous control of a Universities Council.
This will lead to creative
academic innovation?
2.
The need perceived by Dr.Winegard is not so much academic as
it is
demographic and political: there is a pressure to create
an institution for advanced higher education in the interior that
is not tied to an existing and remote metropolitan university.
Yet the interim solution advocated is a link with Simon Fraser
University -- an apron-string proposal that contradicts this
political imperative. Moreover, the interim solution would create
a brand new political problem by granting one of thetab1ishc.d
public universities a province-wide teritorial influence to which
it has no historic claim. This prospective realignment is
unwarranted and unjustified.
I
(
(
j
in. POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES
A.
On purely academic and fiscal arguments, the wisest action
would
be to provide differential bursaries to enable qualified students
in
the interior to have fair and equal access to the special
i:ecI
advanced programs at the established universities of their choi.
(The magnitude of Winegard financing could provide 2,000 bursaries
of $3,500 each! Of course, any equitable scheme of finan.ial aid
would need to be scaled,to meet geographical differences.) At the
same time, the public universities would have to be encouraged
to develop and extend their "outreach" activities for academic
enrichment and•degreecompietion, in cooperation with the regional
colleges, either by individual initiative or by consortium. However,
if the political premise of the Winegard Report is valid, this
logical alternative may well be unacceptable.
B.
If the Minister of Education, through the Universities Council, is
truly determined to
make available substantial new'funding for
higher eduaction, these funds could be consolidated to create, in
one Interior community, a new, small, degree-granting college with
some academic validity and coherence.. Its on-campus offerings should
be strictly limited
'
%
'
:o a narrow range of basic disciplines, mainly
at the third- and fourth-year level. It must be autonomous, so as
to be able to identify and respond to regional concerns;-its degrees
would soon win whatever acceptance they deserve. It might well
attract a number of students from metropolitan areas at the coast.
The new college would surely emphasize outreach 'and extension
activities, using the existing resources of the regional college
system. It might assume the role of a "degree bank," if that concept
is desirable; it might even become a course coordinating agency like
the British Council for National Academic Awards. Undoubtedly, it
would wish to explore new technological, methods of extending its
services to outlying communities. Its entire personality and academic
style would be free to develop without the stultifying control of a
paternal authority.
This second alternative would reduce substantially the
academic weaknesses of the Winegard system. Financially, it. would
eliminate many of the wasteful and redundant costs of running four
campuses and a discrete administrative centre. Unlike the Winegard
model, it would develop and exploit the strengths of the regional
colleges, without creating a new and divisive layer of higher education
In British Columbia. However, the citizens of British Columbia'must
not be deceived into thinking that the costs would be trivial; and any
new expenditures must not be allowed to preempt the urgent priority
needs of the major public universities and existing regional colleges.
If there is indeed a political imperative, it must be met with a
realistic and honest academic response.
For
the
Senate
?
For the Board of_Cbvernor
J.L. Climenhaga
?
A.M. flail
C.
Rippon ?
M.D. Phillips
P.L. Smith ?
L. Ryan
a
November 15, 1976
UNIVERSITY
OF VICTORIA JOflIT SENA
El
OARD OF GOVERNORS CO?1ITTEE ON
TIlE WINEGARD co^MISSION REPORT
THE UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA
From page 10 of
the
Winegard.RePprt, one may draw some false impressions
of tLe University of Victoria. These must be clarified and corrected.
The University of Victoria is not a "highly
,
residentiil" university,
whatever that may mean. Fully 552 of its students come from outside
the Victoria metropolitan area; yet, because of Government funding
policies, it can offer residence accommodation to a mere 11% of its
full-time student body
.
(a ratio that places it 23rd among 30
representative Canadian universities).
B.
Though long respected for the quality of
,
its undergraduate teaching,
• ?
it has a broad range of excellent graduate programs, an outstanding
• library, a deep commitment to academic research, and a number of
professional faculties and schools.
C.
It views itself as serving the entire Province of British Columbia.
In many of its programs (Education, in particular), it has-been
attracting students for decades from every region.of the province;
• it has never seen its role as a university for VancoUver Island.
Moreover, it has beert very active in extra-mural' credit teaching:
in 1974/75 arrd 1975/76 it offered an average of 26 classes of
selected, advanced undergraduate course work outside the Victoria
region -- almost a third of the total effort envisioned in the
Winegard proposal.
II.
THE
WINECARD PROPOSAL
Though motivated by admirable concern for the needs of students in
the
British Columbia interior, the Winegard proposal has a number of, serious
inadequacies and dangerous pitfalls. It is, in short, an expensive way
of providing a mediocre education for a mere handful of students.
A. Academic faults:
1.
By diffusing resources among four mini-campuses and a separate
adniinistrative centre, the proposal would' result in token library
and laboratory facilties, hopelessly inadequate for advanced
undergraduate study.
1.
2.
By prOviding only ten faculty members for each campus, the
scheme could offer
no
variety or specialized study within any
one academic discipline.
Ond assumes
that the
great
majority of
advanced undergraduate students in
the interior will need ;iccc:;
to complex
university decree jgrams:
what is offered is a
meagre academic smorgasbord.
By pursuing the mini-campus concept, the proposal would fail.
to create the academic and cultural ambience that is vital, to
2
• any true university community. Faculty and students alike
?
would be deprived of scholarly discourse with colleagues
( ?
in
their own disciplines. The additional problems of
geographical isolation would enforce a spirit of academic
stagnation. This would be a grave disservice to the university
students of the B.C. interior.
V
B. Financial faults:
I. The report identifies an
annual, operating cost of $7.1 million --
no trivial figure. Yet even
this Substantial, amount seems to be
a naive
and irresponsible underestimate of the cost needed to
set up four separate campuses, each with its'own library,
laboratories, local administration and faculty, plus a discrete
administrative centre
in
Vernon. Much of the $7.1 million
wàuld soon be swallowed up with the cost of coordinating this
vast and scattered operation.
2.
Even if the $7.1 million estimate'shou].d be accurate, there is
grave concern that the proposal would divert urgently needed funds
from the present system of provincial universities and colleges.
One of the most wasteful aspects of the proposal is its failure
(• ?
to
use the existing resources of the regional college system.
3. In
attempting ti meet the needs of the minority of students who
will be satisfied with a diluted and general degree-completion
scheme, the proposal ignores the financial problems of the
majority who will continue to seek serious degree programs in
the major public
universities.
It must be realized that a large
number of students in B.C. will always be required to attend a
university beyond commuting range of their homes.
C. Administrative and political faults:
1. The proposal
±8
a bureaucratic wonderland. One could hardly
imagine a more cumbersome and tortuous model than that of four
tiny faculty units, each reporting separately through a remote
administrative centre to the sub-unit of adistr.t univerc±ty,
itself
subject to the nebulous control of a
Universities Council.
This will
lead to creative academic innovation?
2.
The need perceived by Dr. Winegard is not so much academic as
it is
demographic and political: there is a pressure to create
an institution for advanced higher education in the interior that
is not tied to an existing and remote metropolitan university.
Yet the interim solution advocated is a link with Simon Fraser
University -- an apron-string proposal that contradicts this
political imperative. Moreover
)
the Interim solution would create
a brand new political problem by granting one of the etab1ishec1
public universities a province-wide teritorial influence to which
it has no historic claim. This prospective rcalignment is
unwarranted and unjustified.
C
(\
UI. PC)SSI}LE ALTERNATIVES
A.
On purely academic and fiscal arguments, the wisest action would
be to provide differential bursaries to enable qualified studtut.;
in
the interior to have fair and equal access to the specia' i.:wI
advanced programs at the established universities of their choic.
(The magnitude of Winegard financing could provide 2,000 bursaries
of $3,500 each! Of course, any equitable scheme of finanial
aid
would need to be scaled,to meet geographical differences.) At the
same time, the public universities would have to be encouraged
to develop and extend their "outreach" activities for academic
enrichment and degree completion, in cooperation with the regional
colleges, either by individual initiative or by consortium. However,
if the political premise of the Winegard Report is valid, this
logical alternative may well be unacceptable.
B.
If the Minister of Education, through
the Universities Council, is
truly determined to
make available substantial new funding for
higher eduaction,
these funds could be consolidated, to create, in
one Interior community, a new, small, degree-granting college with
some'acadeniic validity and coherence.. Its on-campus offerings should
be strictly limited.o a narrow range of basic disciplines, mainly
at the third- and fourth-year level. It must be autonomous, so as
to be able to identify and respond to regional concerns; its degrees
would soon win whatever acceptance they deserve.' It might well
• attract a number of students from metropolitan areas at the coast.
The new college would surely emphasize outreach and extension
activities, using the existing resources of the regional college
• system. It might assume the role of a "dege bank," if that concept
is desirable; it might even become a course coordinating agency like
the British Council for National Academic Awards. Undoubtedly, it
would wish to 'explore new technological methods of extending its
services
to outlying communities. Its entire personality and academic
style would be free to develop without the stultifying control of a
paternal authority.
This second
alternative
would reduce substantially the
academic weaknesses of the Winegard system.
Financially, it would
eliminate many of the wasteful and redundant costs of running four
campuses and a discrete administrative centre. Unlike the Winegard
model, it would develop and exploit the strengths of the regional
colleges, without creating a
new
and divisive layer of higher education
in
British Columbia. However, the citizens of British Columbia must
not be deceived into thinking that the costs would be trivial; and any
new expenditures must not be allowed to preempt the urgent priority
needs of the major public universities and 'existing regional colleges.
If there is indeed a polical imperative, it
mUSt
be met with a
realistic and honest academic response.
For the Stnate
?
For the
flo;ird
of Governors
J.L. Climenhaga ?
A.M. }kI1
C. Rippon ?
M.D. iIifl.lips
P.L.
Smith ?
L.
Ryan
November 15,
1
9
76
UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA JOINT SENATE/BOARD OF GOVERNORS COtIUEE ON
TUE WINECARDCO1LSS
ION
REPORT
I. THE UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA
From page 10 of the Winegard Report, one may draw some, false impression.
,;
of tLa
University of Victoria.
These must be clarified and corrected.
A.
The
University of Victoria
is not a "highly residential" university,
whatever that may mean. Fully 55% of its students come from outside
the Victoria metropolitan area; yet, because of Government funding
policies, it
can offer residence accommodation to a mere 11% of its
full-time student body (a ratio-that places it 23rd among 30
representative Canadian universities).
B.
Though long respected for the quality of
Its undergraduate teaching,
it has a broad range of excellent graduate programs, an outstanding
library, a deep commitment to academic research, and a number of
professional faculties and schools.
C.
It views itself as serving the entire' Province of British Columbia.
An many of its programs (Education, in particular), it has
. been
attracting
students for decades from every region.of the province;
it has never seen its role as a university for Vancouver Island.
'Moreover, it has beeri very active in extra-mural credit teaching:
in
1974/75 art'd 1975/76 it'offered an average of 26 classes of
selected, advanced undergraduate.courSe work outside the Victoria
region -- almost a third of the total, effort envisioned in the
Winegard proposal.
II.. THE WINECARD PROPOSAL
Though motivated by admirable concern, for the needs of students in the
British
Columbia interior, the Winegard proposal has a number of
,
serious
'inadequacies and dangerous pitfalls. It is, in short, an expensive way
of providing
a mediocre education for a mere handful-
.
of students.
A. Academic faults:
1.
By diffusing resources among four mini-campuses and a separate
administrative
centre, the proposal would result in token library
and laboratory facilties, hopelessly inadequate for advanced
undergraduate study.
2.
By providing only ten faculty members for each campus, the
scheme could
'
offer no variety or specialized study within any
one academic discipline. One assumes that the great majority of
advanced undergraduate students in the interior will need nccc':
to complex university degree programs: what is offered is a
meagre academic smorgasbord.
By pursuing the mini-campus conccpt, the proposal would fail.
to create the academic and cultural ambience that is vital.
10
2
• any true university community. Faculty and students alike
?
would be deprived of scholarly discourse with colleagues
( ?
in
their own disciplines. The additional problems
of
geographical
isolation would enforce a spirit of academic
stagnation. This would be a grave disservice to the university
students of the B.C. interior.
4.
B. Financial faults:
I.
The report identifies an annual operating cost of $7.1 million --
no trivial figure. Yet even this substantial amount seems to be
a naive and irresponsible underestimate of the cost needed to
set up four separate campuses, each with its own
library,
laboratories,
local administration and faculty, plus a discrete
• administrative centre in Vernon. Much, of the $7.1 million
would soon be swallowed up with the cost of coordinating this
vast and scattered operation.
2.
Even if the $7.1 million estimate should be accurate, there is
grave concern that the proposal would divert urgently needed funds
from the present system of provincial universities and colleges.
(
-. ?
One of the most wasteful aspects of the proposal is its failure
to use
the existing resources of the regional college system.
3. In attempting
t
i
meet the needs of the minority of students who
will be satisfied with a diluted and general
degree-completion
scheme, the proposal ignores the financial problems of the
majority who will continue to seek serious degree programs in
the major public universities. It must be realized that a large
number of students in B.C. will always be required to attend a
university beyond commuting range of their homes.
C. Administrative and political faults:
I. The proposal is a bureaucratic wonderland. One could hardly
imagine a more cumbersome and tortuous model than that of four
tiny faculty units, each reporting separately through a remote
aiminlstrative
centre
to the sub-unit of a distant university,
itself
subject to the nebulbus control of a Universities Council.
This will lead to creative academic innovation?
2. The need perceived by Dr. Winegzird is not so much academic as
it is
demographic and political: there is a pressure to create
On institution for advanced higher education in the interior that
is not tied to an existing and remote metropolitan university.
Yet the interim solution advocated is a link with Simon Fraser
University -- an apron-string proposal that contradicts this
political imperative. Moreover, the interim solution would create
a brand new political problem by granting one of thetablishccI
public universities a province-wide teritorial influence to
which
it has no historic claim. This prospective calignment is
unwarranted and unjustified.
(
(
P)SSIL.LE ALTERNATIVES
A.
On purely academic and fiscal arguments, the wisest action would
be to provide differential bursaries to enable qualified students
in
the interior to have fair and equal access to the Special i:ed
advanced programs at the established universities of their choi.
(The magnitude of Winegard financing could provide 2,000 bursaries
of $3,500 each Of course, any equitable scheme of finan_jal aid
would need to be scaledto meet geographical differences.) At the
same time, the public universities would have to be encouraged
to develop and extend their "outreach" activities for academic
enrichment and degree completion, in cooperation with the regional
colleges, either by individual initiative or by consortium. However,
if the political premise of the Winegard Report is valid, this
logical alternative may well be unacceptable.
B.
ftheMinister of Education, through the Universities Council,
is
truly determined to make available substantial new funding for
higher eduaction, these funds could be consolidated to create, in
•
?
one Interior community, a new, small, degree-granting college with
some academic validity and coherence. Its on-campus offerings should
be strictly limited 'co a narrow range of basic disciplines, mainly
at the third- and fourth-year level. It must be autonomous, so as
to be able to identify and respond to regional concerns; its degrees
would soon win whatever acceptance they deserve. It might well
• attract a number of students from metropolitan areas at the coast.
The new college would surely emphasize outreach and extension
activities, using the existing resources of the regional college
system. It might assume the role of a "degree bank," if that concept
is desirable; it might even become a course coordinating agency like
the British
Council for National Academic Awards. Undoubtedly, it
would wish to explore new technological methods of extending its
services to outlying communities. Its entire personality and academic
style would be free to develop without the stultifying control of a
paternal authority.
This second alternative would reduce substantially the
academic weaknesses of the W!negrd system. Financially, it would
eliminate
many of the wasteful and redundant costs of running four
campuses and a discrete administrative centre. Unlike the Winegard
model, it would develop and exploit the strengths of the regional
colleges, without creating a new and divisive layer of higher education
in British Columbia. However, the citizens of British Columbia
mUSt
not be deceived into thinking that the costs would be trivial; and any
new expenditures must not be allowed to preempt the urgent priority
needs of the major public universities and existing regional colleges.
If there is indeed a polideal imperative, it must be met with a
realistic and honest academic response.
For the Senate
?
For the flcnird of Governors
J.L. Clirnenhaga
?
A. M.
}kiil
C. Rippon ?
M.D. Phillips
P.L. Smith ?
L. Ryan
November 15, 1976
UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA JOINT SENATE/ RD
OF GOVERNORS COtITrEE ON
TIlE WINECARD COMMISSION REPORT
I. THE UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA
From page 10 of the Winegard Report, one may draw some false impressions
of
tLe
University of Victoria.
These must be clarified and corrected.
A.
The
University
of Victoria is not a "highly residential" university,
whatever that may mean. Fully 55% of its students come from outside
the Victoria metropolitan area; yet, because of Government funding
policies, it
can offer residence accommodation to a mere 11% of its
full-time student body (a ratio that places it 23rd among 30
representative
Canadian universities).
B.
Though long respected for the quality of its undergraduate teaching,
it has
a broad range of excellent graduate programs, an outstanding
library, a
deep commitmentto academic research, and a number of
professional faculties and schools.
C.
It views
Itself as serving-the entire Province of British Columbia.
In many of its programs (Education, in particular), it has been
attracting students for decades from every region of the province;
it has never
seen Its role as a university for Vancouver Island.
Moreover, it has been very active in extra-mural credit teaching:
in 1974/75 art'd 1975176 it offered an average of 26 classes of
selected, advanced undergraduate course work outside the Victoria
region ?
almost a third of the total effort envisioned in the
Winegard proposal.
II.. THE WINECARD PROPOSAL
Though motivated by admirable concern for the needs of students in the
British Columbia interior, the Winegard proposal has a number of serious
Inadequacies
and dangerous pitfalls. It is, in short, an expensive way
of providing a mediocre education for a mere handful of students.
A. 'Academic faults:
1.
By diffusing
resources among four mini-campuses and a separate
administrative
centre, the proposal would result in token library
and laboratory facilties, hopelessly inadequate for advanced
undergraduate study.
2.
By providing only ten faculty members for each campus, the
scheme could offer no variety or' specialized study within any
one academic discipline. One assumes that the great majority of
advanced undergraduate students in the interior will need nccc;
to complex university zre
e ?
grams: what is offered is a
meagre academic smorgasbord.
By pursuing the mini-campus concept, the proposal would fail
to create the academic and cultural ambience that is vital to
2
• any true university community. Faculty and students alike
would be deprived of scholarly discourse with colleagues
in their own disciplines. The additional problems of
C.
?
geographical isolation would enforce a spirit of academic
stagnation. This would be a grave disservice to the university
students of the B.C. interior.
B. Financial faults:
1. The report identifies an annual operating cost of $7.1 million --
no trivial figure. Yet even this substantial amount seems to be
a naive and irresponsible underestimate of the cost needed to
set up. four separate campuses, each with its own library,
laboratories, local administration and faculty, plus a discrete
administrative centre in Vernon.' Much of the $7.1 million
would 'soon be swallowed up with the cost of coordinating this
vast and scattered operation.
• ?
2. Even if the $7.1 million estimate.'should be accurate, there is
grave concern that the proposal would divert urgently needed funds
• ?
from the present system of provincial. universities and colleges.
• ?
One of the most wasteful aspects of the proposal is its failure
to use the existing resources of the regional college system.
3.
In attempting ) meet the needs of the minority of students who
will be satisfied with.a diluted and genéra1degreecomp1etjo
scheme, the proposal ignores the financial problems of the
majority who will continue to seek serious degree programs in
the major public universities. It must be realized that a large
number of students in B.C. will always be required to attend a
university beyond commuting range of their homes.
C. Administrative and political faults:
1.
The proposal is a bureaucratic wonderland. One could hardly
imagine a more cumbersome and tortuous model than that of four
tiny faculty' units, each reporting separately through a remote
administrative centre to the sub-unit of a distant univcrcy,
itself subject to the nebulous control of a Universities Council.
This will lead to creative academic innovation?
2.
The need perceived by Dr.•Winegard is not so much academic as
it is demographic and political: there is a pressure to create
an institution for, advanced higher education in the interior that
is not tied to an existing and remote metropolitan university.
Yet the interim solution advocated is a link with Simon Fraser
University -- an apron-string proposal that contradicts this
political imperative. Moreover, the interim solution woul,d create
a brand new political problem by grant in Onc of the tabl'ish.(1
public universities a province-wide ter:itorial influence to
which
• ?
it has no historic claim. This prospective tcalignment is
• ?
un'arranted and unjustified.
(
j.. lass
;LE
AI.TER!ATLVES
A.
On purely academic and fiscal arguments, the wisest action would
be to provide differential bursaries to enable qualified stud,u;
in the interior to have fair and equal access to the sptciali:ecI
advanced programs at the established universities of their choie..
(The magnitude of Winegard financing could provide 2,000 bursaries
of $3,500 each! Of course, any equitable scheme of finan..ial aid
would need to be
.to
scaled
meet geographical differences.) At the
same time, the public universities would have to be encouraged
to develop and extend their "outreach" activities for academic
enrichment and degree completion, in cooperation with the regional
colleges, either by individual initiative or by consortium. However,
if the political premise of the Winegard Report is valid, this
logical alternative may well be unacceptable.
B.
If the Minister of Education, through the
Universities
Council, is
truly determined to make available substantial new funding for
higher eduaction,. these funds could be consolidated to create, in
• one Interior community, a new, small, degree-granting college with
someacademic validity and coherence.. Its on-campus offerings should
be strictly limited co a narrow range of basic disciplines, mainly
at the third-
'
and fourth-year level. It must be autonomous, so as
to be able to identify and respond to regional concerns; its degrees
would soon win whatever acceptance they deserve.' It might well
attract a number of students from metropolitan areas at the coast.
The new college would surely emphasize outreach and extension
• activities, using the existing resources of the regional college
• system. It might assume the role of a"degtnebank," if that concept
is desirable; it might even become a course coordinating agency like
the British Council for National Academic Awards. Undoubtedly, it
would wish to explore new technological methods of extending its
services to outlying communities. Its entire personality and academic
style would be free to develop without the stultifying control of a
paternal authority.
This second alternative would reduce,substantially the
academic weaknesses cf the Wiregerd system. Financially, it would
eliminate many of the wasteful and redundant costs of running four
campuses and a discrete administrative centre. •Unlike the Winegard
model,. it would develop and exploit the strengths of the regional
colleges, without creating a new and divisive layer of higher education
in British Columbia. However, the citizens of British Columbia must
not be deceived into thinking that the costs would be trivial; and any
new expenditures must not be allowed to preempt the urgent priority
needs of the majorpublic univers:i.ties and existing regional col1.ges.
If there' is indeed a political imperative, it must be met with a
realistic and honest academic response.
For the Senate
?
For
the icnird of Governors
J L. Climenhaga ?
A.M. }LJ.1
C. Rippon ?
H. 1). Phillips
P.L. Smith ?
L. Ryan
November
15,
19i6
V
UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA JOINT SENATE/BOARD OF GOVERNORS CONNITTEE ON
Tilt VINECARD COMMISSION
REPORT
I. THE UNIVERSITY
OF VICTORIA
From page 10 of the Winegard Report, one may draw some false impressions
of tLe
University of Victoria.
These must be clarified and corrected.
A.
The
University of Victoria
is not a "highly 'residentiil" university,
whatever that may mean. Fully 55% of its students come from outside
the Victoria metropolitan area; yet, because of Government funding
policies, it
can offer residence accommodation to a mere 11% of its
full-time student body (a ratio that places it 23rd among 30
representative Canadian universities).
B.
Though long respected for the quality of
,
its undergraduate teaching,
it has
a broad range of excellent graduate programs, an outstanding
library, a deep commitment to academic research, and a number of
professional faculties and schools.
C.
It views itself as serving the entire Province of British Columbia.
In many of Its programs (Education:, in particular), it has been
attracting students for decades from every region of the province;
it has never
seen its role as a university for Vancouver Island.
Moreover, it has been very active in extra-mural credit teaching:
in
1974/75 arttl 1975/76 it offered an average of 26 classes of
selected, advanced undergraduate course work outside the Victoria
region -- almost a third of the total effort envisioned in the
Winégard proposal.
II. THE WIHECARD PROPOSAL
Though motivated by admirable concern for the needs of students in the
British Columbia interior, the Winegard proposal has a number of serious
Inadequacies and dangerous pitfalls. It is, in short, an expensive way
of providing a mediocre education for a mere handful of students.
A. Academic faults:
1.
By diffusing resources among four mini-campuses and a separate
adthiñistrative
centre, the proposal would result in token library
and laboratory facilties, hopelessly inadequate for advanced
undergraduate study.
2.
By providing only ten faculty members for each campus, the
scheme could offer no variety or specialized study 'within any
one academic discipline. One assumes that the great majority of
advanced undergraduate students in the interior will need 1ccc;
to.cómplCx universityreegrams: what is offered is a
meagre academic smorgasbord.
By pursuing the mini-campus concept, the proposal
would fail
to create the academic and cultural ambience that is vital to
2
• any true university community. Faculty and students alike
would be deprived of scholarly discourse with colleagues
in
their own disciplines. The additional problems of
geographical isolation
would enforce a spirit of academic
stagnation. This would be a grave disservice to the university
students of the B.C. Interior.
B. Financial faults:
I. The report identifies an annual operating cost of $7.1 million --
no trivial figure. Yet even this Substantial amount seems to be
a naive
and irresponsible underestimate of the cost needed to
set up
.
four separate campuses, each with its own library,
laboratories,, local administration and faculty, plus a discrete
administrative centre
in
Vernon. Much of the $7.1 million
would soon be swallowed up with the cost of coordinating this
vast and scattered operation,
2. Even if
the $7.1 million estimate should be accurate, there is
grave
concern .that the proposal would
diverturgent].y
needed funds
from the present system of provincial universities and colleges.
One of
the most wasteful aspects of the proposal is its failure
(• ?
. ?
to
use the existing resources of the regional college system.
3.
In attempting
?
meet the needs of the minority of students who
will be satisfied with a diluted and general
degree-completion
scheme, the proposal ignores the financial problems of the
majority who will continue to seek serious
'
'degree programs in
the major public
universities.
It must be realized that a large
number of students in B.C. will always be required to attend a
university beyond commuting range of their homes.
C. Administrative and political faults:
1.
The proposal is a bureaucratic wonderland. One could hardly
imagine
a more cumbersome and tortuous model than that of four
tiny faculty units, each reporting separately through a remote
administrative
centre
to the sub-unit of a distant universIty,
itself subject to the nebulous control of a Universities Council.
This will lead to creative academic innovation?
2.
The need perceived by Dr. Winegrd is not so much academic as
it is demographic and political: there is a pressure to create
an institution, for advanced higher education in the interior that
is not tied to an existing and remote metropolitan university.
Yetthe interim solution advocated is a link with Simon Fraser
University --
an
apron-string proposal that contradicts this
political imperative. Moreover, the interim solution would create
a brand new political problem by grant in one of the tabiishcd
public universities a province-wide teritorial influence to which
it has no historic claim. This prospective icalignni6nt is
Unwarranted and unjustified.
C
(.
U. POSSE ILE ALTERNATIVES
A.
On purely academic and fiscal arguments, the wisest action would
be toprovide d
:
ifferential bursaries to enable qualified students,
in the interior to have fair and equal access to the spucial i:ed
advanced programs at the established universities of their choic..
(The magnitude of Winegard financing could provide 2,000 bursaries
of $3,500 each: Of course, any equitable scheme of finan..ja1
diti
would need to be scaled.to meet geographical differences.) At the
same time, the public universities would have; to be encouraged
to develop and extend their "outreach" activities for academic
enrichment and degree completion, in cooperation with the regional
colleges, either by individual initiative or by consortium. However,
if the political premise of the Winegard Report is valid, this
logical alternative may well be unacceptable.
B.
If the Minister of Education, through the Universities' Council, is
truly determined to make available substantial new funding for
higher eduaction, these funds could be consolidated to create, in
one .Interior community, anew, small,
degree-granting
college with
soineacademic validity and coherence. Its on-campus offerings should
be strictly' limited'co a narrow range of basic disciplines, mainly
at the third- and fourth-year level. It must be autonomous, so as
to be able to identify and respond to regional concerns; its degrees
would soon win whatever acceptance they deserve. It might well
attract a number of students from metropolitan areas at the coast.
The new college would surely emphasize outreach and extension
activities, using the existing resources of ,the regional college
system. It might assume the role of a "'degree bank," if that concept
is desirable; it might even become course coordinating agency like
the British Council for National Academic Awards. Undoubtedly, it
would wish to explore new technological methods of extending its
services
to outlying communities.
Its entire
personality and academic
style would be free to develop without the stultifying control of a
paternal authority.
This second alternative would reduce substantially the
'academic weaknesses of the Winegrd system. Financially, it would
eliminate many of the wasteful and
redundant costs of running four
campuses and a discrete administrative centre. Unlike the Winegard
model, it would develop and exploit the strengths of the regional
colleges, without creating a new and divisive layer of higher education
in
British Columbia. However, the citizens Of British Columbia must
not be deceived into thinking that the costs would be trivial; and any
new expenditures must not be allowed to preempt the urgent priority
needs of the major public universfties and e:isting regional colleges.
If there'is indeed
a polidcal imperative, it must be met with a
realistic and honest academic response.
For the Senate
?
For the 1:c>:i'rd of Covernor
J.L. Clirnenhaga ?
A.M. }Li.l.l
C. Rippori
?
M.D. Phillips
P.L. Smith ?
L. Ryan
November 15, 1976
UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA JOINT SENAIL
.
QAP OFGOVERNORS CO1ITTEE ON
THE WINECAI(D
COMMISS ION
REPORT
I.
THE UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA
From page 10 of the Winegard Report, one may draw some false impressions
of
tLe
University of
Victoria. These must be clarified and corrected.
A.
The
University of Victoria is
not a "highly residential" university,
whatever that may mean.
Fully 55% of its
students come from outside
the Victoria metropolitan area; yet, because of Government funding
policies, it can offer residence accommodation to a mere 11% of its
full-time
student body
(a
ratio that places it 23rd among 30
representative Canadian universities).
B.
Though long respected for the quality of its undergraduate teaching,
it has
a
broad range of excellent graduate programs, an outstanding
library,
a
deep commitment to academic research, and a number of
professional faculties and schools.
C.
It views itself as serving the entire Province of British Columbia.
In
many of its programs (Education, in particular), it has been
attracting students for decades from every region of the province;
it has never seen its role as a university for Vancouver Island.
Moreover, It
has been very active in extra-mural credit teaching:
in 1974/75 art'd 1975/76 it offered an average of 26 classes of
selected, advanced undergraduate course work outside the Victoria
region -- almost a third of the total effort
envisioned in the
Winegard proposal.
II. THE WINECARD PROPOSAL
Though motivated by
admirable concern for the needs of students in the
British Columbia interior,
the Winegard proposal has a number of serious
inadequacies and dangerous pitfalls. It is, in short, an expensive way
of providing a
mediocre education for a mere handfulof students.
A. Academic faults:
1.
By
diffusing resources among four mini-campuses and a separate
administrative centre, the proposal would result in token library
and laboratory facilties, hopelessly inadequate for advanced
undergraduate study.
2.
By providing only ten faculty members for each campus, the
scheme could offer no variety or specialized study within any
one academic discipline. One assumes that the great majority of
advanced undergraduate students in the interior will need acce;
to complex university degree prams: what is offered is a
meagre academic smorgasbord.
By pursuing the mini-campus concept, the proposal would fail.
to create the academic and cultural ambience that is vital to
I
2
any true university community. Faculty. and students alike
would be deprived of scholarly discourse with colleagues
in their own disciplines. The additional problems of
geographical isolation would enforce a spirit of academic
stagnation. This would be a grave disservice to the university
students of the B.C. interior.
B. Financial faults:
1.
The report identifies an annual operating cost of $7.1 million --
no trivial figure. Yet even this substantial amount seems to be
a naive and irresponsible underestimate of the cost needed to
set up
.
four separate campuses, each with its own library,
laboratories, local administration and faculty, plus a discrete
administrative centre in Vernon. Much of the $7.1 million
would soon be swallowed up with the cost Of coordinating this
vast and scattered operation.
2. Even
if the $7.1 million estimate should be accurate, there is
grave concern that the proposal would divert urgently needed funds
from the present system of provincial universities and colleges.
One of the most wasteful aspects of the proposal is its failure
to use the existing resources of the regional college system.
3.
In attempting t
'
meet the needs of the minority of students who
will be satisfied with a diluted and general.degreecompletjo
scheme, the proposal ignores the financial problems of the
majority who will continue to seek serious degree programs in
the major public universities. It must be realized that a large
number of students in B.C. will always be required to attend a
university beyond commuting range of their homes.
C. Administrative and political faults:
1.
The proposal is a bureaucratic wonderland. One could hardly
imagine a more cumbersome and tortuous model than that of four
tiny faculty units, each reporting separately through a remote
administrative centre to the sub-unit of a distant university,
itself subject to the nebulous control of a Universities Council.
This will lead to creative academic innovation?
2.
The need perceived by Dr. Winegard is not so much academic as
it is demographic and political: there is a pressure to create
an institution for advanced higher. education in the interior that
is not tied to an existing and remote metropolitan university.
Yet the interim solution advocated is a link with Simon Fraser
University
.
—
an apron-string proposal that contradicts this
political imperative. Moreover, the interim solution
would
create
a brand new political problem by granting one of thetablishcI
public universities a province-wide teritorial influence to which
it has no historic claim. This prospective realignment is
unwarranted and unjustified.
I
4
11
C
(
(1. 13sS'r1LE ALTERNATIVES
A.
On purely academic and fiscal arguments, the wisest action wouI,d
be to provide differential bursaries to enable qualified studtru.
in the interior to have fair and equal access to the special i;:e1
advanced programs at the established universities of their ci..
(The magnitude of Winegard financing could provide 2,000 bursaries
of $3,500 each! Of course, any equitable scheme of finanial aid
would need to be scaledto meet geographical differences.) At the
same time, the public universities would have to be encouraged
to develop and extend their "outreach" activities for academic
enrichment and degree completion, in cooperation with the regional
colleges, either by individual initiative
or
by consortium. However,
if the political premise of the Winegard Report is valid, this
logical alternative may well be unacceptable.
B.
If the
Minister
of Education, through the Universities Council, Is
truly determined to make available substantial new funding for
higher eduaction, these funds could be consolidated to create, in
•
?
one Interior community, a new, small, degree-granting college with
someacademic validity and coherence. Its on-campus offerings should
be strictly limited co a narrow range of basic disciplines, mainly
at the
third-
'
and-fourth-year level. It must be autonomous, so as
to be able to identify and respond to regional concerns; its degrees
would soon win whatever acceptance they deserve. It might well
• attract a number of students from metropolitan areas at' the coast.
The new college would surely emphasize outreach 'and extension
activities, using the existing resources of the regional college
system. It might assume the role of a "degiebank," if that concept
is desirable; it might even become a course coordinating agency like
the British Council for National Academic Awards. Undoubtedly, it
would wish to 'explore new technological methods of extending its
services- to outlying communities. Its entire personality and academic
style would be free to develop without the stultifying control of a
paternal authority.
This
second alternative would reduce substantially the
academic weaknesses of the Wiregard system. Financially, it would
eliminate many of the wasteful and redundant costs of running four
campuses and a discrete administrative centre. Unlike the Winegard
model, it would develop and exploit the strengths of the regional
colleges, without creating a new and divisive layer of higher education
in
British Columbia. However, the citizens of British Columbia must
not be deceived into thinking that the costs would be trivial; and any
new expenditures must not be allowed to preempt the urgent priority
needs of the major public universities and existing regional colleges.
If there'is indeed a poli.cal imperative, it must be met with a
realistic, and honest academic response.
For
the
Senate ?
For the board of
Covernor
J.L. Climenhaga ?
A.M. }LiJ.l
C. Rippon ?
M.D. Phillips
P.L.
Smith ?
L. Ryan
November 15, 19J6
