Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6

S.7^101 

M1MORANDUM

0

MOTION 1: 

?

"That Senate approve the proposal, as set forth 

in S.75-103, that the Director of Admissions be 

authorized to grant retroactive credit for work 

completed at the British Columbia Institute of 

Technology, with the Director to identify those 

students who have completed on 

t

old programs' 

and referring them to the appropriate departments 

for individual assessment." 

MOTION 2: 

?

"That Senate approve the proposal, as set forth 

in S.75-103, authorizing the Director of Admissions 

to grant transfer credit for work completed at 

Canadian Institutes of Technology or Colleges of 

Applied Arts and Technology, with the policies 

for such transfer credit to be similar to those 

presently operational for BCIT except that credit 

will be assessed on an individual basis." 

10 .... 

SENATE 

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

SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

S

,7

05.10-3

MEMORANDUM

From

Senate Undergraduate 

I.

Admissions Board 

Subject

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

IT

RETROACTIVE CREDIT ... 

Date.'.'.'...

19th 

June 

?

1975

At its meeting of 22nd M.y, the Senate Under- 

graduate Admissions Board discussed the attached proposal that the 

Director of Admissions be authorized by the Senate Undergraduate 

Admissions Board to grant retroactive credit for work completed 

at the British Columbia Institute of Technology. In so doing, the 

Director will identify those students who have complete BCIT work 

on "old programs" and refer them to the appropriate departments 

for individual assessment. 

?

After some discUssion, the proposal 

was approved by the Board unanimously. 

Further, the Committee discussed the attached 

proposal that SUAB authorize the Director of Admissions to grant 

transfer credit for work completed at Canadian Institutes of 

Technology or Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology; and that 

•

the policies for such transfer credit shall be similar to those 

presently operational for BCIT except that credit will be assessed 

on an individual basis. 

?

In presenting this proposal, the Director 

of Admissions indicated that the problem had already been dealt 

with in the manner indicated in the very small number of cases where 

it had been necessary. 

?

It was his intent, 

in

presenting this 

proposal to the Board, to obtain Board approval and thus to regularize 

a situation which was likely to occur with increasing frequency in 

the future. ? 

After some discussion, this proposal was also accepted 

unanimously by the Board. 

These proposals are now transmitted to Senate 

for its information. 

?

I. Mugridge 

:ams 

SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

MMCADUM

SUM 66 

ALL MEMBERS 

SENATE UNDERGRADUATE ADMISSIONS BOARD 

TRANSFER ... CREDIT' 

-...

.

CANADIANINSTITUTES

S

OF TECHNOLOGY AND COLLEGES OF 

APPLIED 

ARTS "AND''TECHNOLOGY....... 

From ? 

ALAN C. McM1LLAN, SECRETARY 

SENATE UNDERGRADUATE .DMISS1ONSBOARD 

Date...........MAY-20............................................................ 

MOTION: I recommend that SUAB approve the following motion: 

"That SUAB authorize the Director of Admissions to grant 

transfer credit for work completed at a Canadian Institute 

of Technology or College of Applied Arts and Technology. 

That the policies of such transfer be similar to those 

presently operational for B.C.I.T. except that credit will 

be assessed on an indIvidual basis." 

RATIONALE: 

1.

Senate has approved the granting of transfer credit for 

B.C.I.T. and many programs at other Institutes of 

Technolog y 

and Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology 

and Colleges 

of Applied 

Arts and Technology are similar 

to ones t B.C.I.T. 

2.

The leadin 

g

Universities in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba 

and Ontario are all granting credit for work completed at 

the Institutes and CAAT's. 

SIMOIN ?

UN1VE1S11`Y

A 1-

Uhl

SU\b 6/

/L1, NEMIERS OF LiE SENATE

From ?

ALAN C. McN.LLLAN , SECRETARY

UNDERGRADUATE ADMISSIONS BOARI)

SENATE UNDERGRADUATE ADMISSIONS BOARD

Subct .C.1.T. - RETROACTIVE ciEDi'r

Date ?

AY 20, 1975

The attached Senate Minutes of January 14 

)

1974 contain a motion 

to if or the (1uCStOfl oi retroactivity of E. C. 1.1. crcdi t to the Senate 

Undergraduate Admissions Board. Inview of the fact 

that moS L

departments 

are in 

the

finil stages of roconimonding a transfer credit agreement for 

B.C. I .T. work, it is necessary that we deal with the (j C:f;t.:LOfl of 

retroactivity. 

There is no doubt that there have been suvehil 

1))Or

clingc 

since the inception of B.C. I. T. however, these changes have occurred on 

differing dates over differing periods of time. As a result it is not 

feasible to establish one specific date for retroactivity. Accordingly, 

it is recommended that SUAB approve the following 

lilotLOn

"That the Director of Admissions be authorized by the Senate 

'

?

Undergraduate Admission Board to grant retroactive credit 

for work completed at the British Columbia Institute of 

Technology. In so doing, the .Director will identify those 

students who have completed B. C. I. .T. work on 'old programs' 

and refer them to 

the

appropriate departments for individual 

assesSiiiCflt" 

9 - ?

S.H.

14/1/74

D. Baird believed that the motion should not have been presented

to Senate without prior

bmission to the Senate Library Comniit:tee,

and noted that under the terms of reference of the Committee it was a

reference for which it makes a final decision, lie considered t:he

terms of reference awkward but that the motion was in order.

J. P. Daem was of the opinion that tlia condition

currcnt:lv in

effect while awaiting decisions on appeals were

scrimdrlat

.ory as they

assumed unproven guilt. K. Rleckhoff objected to the change proposed

lead

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

4. Senate Undergraduato Admissions Board

Transfer Credit for Work at the British Columbia

Inst it u tu of Tech

n oJ.o

Moved by B. Wilson, seconded by D. Birch,

in S.714-

grant transfer

.............ted at the

I I ?

British

Columbia

Institute of Technology.

J. Munro raised questions concerning the-desirability of awarding

transfer credit as is done for the colleges and sought: clarificaton.

The Chairman asked the Director of Admissions to describe the process

for transfer credit, and D. Meakin responded the standard process

would be that he wouid collect detailed course

scriptions and the

Inost'closely allied department would examine the-content and determine

what content would fit within the general guidelines ofbeing of a

be

the

Question was called, 

and

a vote taken. 

MOTION CARRIED

Moved by

J. P. Daem, seconded by A. hiollibaugh,

"That this new policy be retroactive for any

Students cincu the institution of I3CIT."

- 10 ?

S.M. 14/1/74

K. Rieckhoff spoke against the motion stating that

there

had been

too many changes in the past offerings, and a blanket change wasnap-

,propriate. S. Aronoff pointed out tlia credit would he. granted Only if

It is applicable.

Moved by R. Kissner, seconded by K. Rieckhoff,

"That the motion he referred to the Senate

Undergraduate Admissions Board for its con-

sideration."

T. Sterling was of the opinion' that the university should extend

itself to accommodate the few students who might

eligible for cransfr

ciedi t on a retroactive basis. K. llieckhoff cdunt'erod that there was no

data to substantiate the claim and if there were only a few students no

harm would be caused by delay. S. Aronoff directed attention to the

rationale which indicated the motion was an enabling process to permit

the Committee to evaluate courses as presented. K. R1.eckhoIf then stated

the motion on retroact:iViLY was out of order, but the Chairman ruled that

the rationale statement could apply equally as well in the prcent as in

the past and that the motion was in order. D. Neakin explained that the

intent was that transfer credit would be givcn to students who are admitted

the Univesity In the Fall 1974 and thereafter and retroactivity could

apply

for work taken prior to passage of the paper.

Question was called on the motion to refer, and a vote taken.

MOTION TO

REFER CARRIED

15 In favor

1•1 opposed

Academic P1anng Committee

Moved by

B. Wilson, seconded by K. Rieckhoff,

•

"That Senate approve, and recommend approval to the

Board of Governors, the followint recomncndatI0nS

the Academic Planning Committee, as set forth in

S.74-10:

The existing Political Science, Sociology and

Anthropology Department be divided into Separate

departments of Political Science, and Sociology/

AnthropologY, and that this action be effective

upon acceptance by the hoard of Governors;

The separate departments bring

foil-',ltd statements

objectives, final program propo1I5 and do-

ttIled

curricula for proposed

ion