I-
SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
?
S732
MEMORANDUM
Mr. H.M. Evans,
Régltrai'ThhdSécrétary
...... of
Senate
Subject ?
.
RETORT pN
...
CQN.T.I.N.U.ING
-
PAPER S.72-125 UPDATED
From
?
B.G. Wilson,
Vice ésident Academic
Date....
?
21
January,
1.9.7.3
The complete report of the Director of the Division of
Ccntinuing Education, dated August
1972,
is forwarded, as required
by Senate Minutes of
6
November
1972.
The single asterisk on Page
5
of the original presentation was a typographical error.
B.G. Wilson
40
Me
I ?
I
S
A REPORT ON THE OPERATION OF
THE DIVISION OF CONTINUING EDUCATION,
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
For the period: January
1971 -
August
1972.
Prepared for:
* The Vice-President, Academic
* The Academic Planning Committee
by:
Dr. Milton McClaren,
Acting Director,
Division of Continuing Education.
- August
1972 -
S
0
.
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
SUBJECT
?
PAGE.
Section I:
?
Introduction and Terms
ofReference ................
Section II: ?
Review of Programs Offered
by the Division .............2 -
3
Section III: ?
Summer Session
1971 ......... .- 17
Section IV:
?
Fall Semester
1971 ..........18
Section V:
?
Evening Program, Spring
1971 ........................19 - 29
Section VI; ?
Summer Session
1972 .........30 - 38
Section VII: Evening Program, Fall
1972 ........................39 - 42
Section VIII: Other Programs ..............
L3
-
53
Section IX: ?
General Financial
Considerations ..............
5L
-
56
Section X:
?
Staffing of the Division....
?
57
0
?
continued! .......
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued! .....)
SUBJECT
?
PAGE
.
Section XI:
Relationships Between the
Division and Other Entities
in Simon Fraser University. .58 - 60
.
Section XII:
?
Relationships with Other
Provincial Institutions &
Impact Upon their Programs..61 - 63
Section XIII: Summary & Discussion of
Policy Development ...........6L - 71
Appendices
Table Index
* ?
* ?
*
S
?
TABLE INDEX
1 I .
II • r
LOYc'
?
PAGE
Table 1: Summer Session
1971
Summary
by Department & Faculty ..........5
Table 2: Summer Session
1971
Course
Enrolments
.......................7
Table
3:
Distribution of
1971
Summer
Session Students by Level ........11
Table 4: Distribution of Load Undertaken
by Summer Session
1971
Students
by Semester Hours ................13
Table 5: Financial Statement, Summer
Session
1971 .....................15 - 16
Table 6: Distribution of Evening
?
Students
by Year and Semester of first
registration ?
at ?
S.F.0............
21
•
Table
7:
Distribution of Evening
?
Students
byFaculty.......................
23
Table 8:
Load Distribution ?
in terms of
Semester Hours of Evening Classes
Spring ?
1972 ...................... 2+
Table
9:
Distribution of Evening
?
Students
by ?
Address ?
of ?
Residence ..........
26
Table 10: Evening Program 1972-1 Income &
Expenditures .....................28
Table 11: A Comparison of Course Offerings
by Faculty and Department, between
Summer Session 1971 and 1972 .....31 - 32
Table 12: Distribution of Summer Session-
only Program Students in 1972 by
Semester of first registration
atS.F.0 ........................34
S
cont/d ........
0 ?
TABLE INDEX (Continued!...)
CONTENTS ?
PAGE
Table 13: Distribution of Summer Session
Students in
1972
by faculty
....
.
35
Table 14: Distribution of Summer Session
only Program Students in
1972
by load taken in semester
hours...........................36
Table 15: Summary of Revenue & Expendi-
tures, Summer Session
1972 ......38
Table 16: Course Offerings, Evening
1972
Spring & Fall ...................
40
-
42
Table 17: Revenues & Expenditures,
"Chariots of the Gods"
.........
.
45
is ?
offerings
18: Continuing Education course
offerings - Summary by Faculty
and Department ..................69 -
71
APPENDICES INDEX
APPENDIX NUMBER
Summer Session
1971
Brochure ...............1
Course & Faculty List - Summer
Session
1971
?
........................... ?
2
Spring Semester
1972
(evening program)
Brochure...............................3
Course & Faculty List - Spring
Evening Program,
1972 ..................
SSummer Session
1972
Brochure ..............5
Course & Faculty List - Summer
Session
1972
...........................6
Fall Semester
1972
(evening program)
Brochure
...............................7
Course & Faculty List - Fall
Evening Program,
1972 ..................8
Survey - Evening Students, Spring
Semester, ?
1972 .........................9
.
ITEM
.
I. ?
INTRODUCTION AND TERMS OF REFERENCE
It is the purpose of this report to present a
factual summary of the operation of the
Division of Continuing Education at Simon Fraser
. ? University, from the time of establishment of
the Division in 1971, through until June, 1972.
The report presents factual and numerical data
wherever possible. Where data is lacking, or
is unobtainable, this is noted.
?
The report
should enable an objective review of the Division's
activities by the Academic Planning Committee.
It should, hopefully, provide data on which to base
development of new University policies, or revision
of existing policies.
.
0
-2-
S
II. REVIEW OF PROGRAMS OFFERED BY THE DIVISION
The Division of Continuing Education at Simon Fraser
University has attempted to operate within the context
of certain defined criteria. These have been:
(1) The Division will concentrate on the
offering of "credit'' programs,
particularly at the upper division
undergraduate level, to increase
opportunities for degree completion for
adult students.
(2)
The Division will
?
attempt to complement
educational ?
opportunities now available
through other
?
institutions.
•
(3)
The Division will
?
attempt ?
to procure
information on needed areas of program
development, ?
and will
?
conduct surveys
and pilot projects
?
to assess ?
these.
(k)
The Division will ?
attempt ?
to make ?
the
educational ?
resources of
?
the University
more available
?
to ?
the ?
total ?
provincial
community.
To-date,
the Division has offered
?
the following
pr ograms:
1.
July-August, ?
1971. ?
Summer Session.
(Brochure: ?
appendix ?
1 ?
,
?
Course ?
list and
faculty: ?
appendix ?
2 ?
.)
2.
Fall
?
Semester,
?
1971.
During this
?
semester ?
the Division offered
no ?
large programs, ?
preparing ?
instead ?
for
evening course offerings
?
in ?
Spring ?
1972.
This ?
lag-time was ?
specifically ?
requested
by a majority of University departments.
.
-3-
11, ?
2. ?
continued/.
The Division did sponsor an evening
M.A. program in conjunction with the
History Department, and also offered
a Reading & Study program aimed at the
business and professional community.
(See Section VIII)
?
In addition, one
credit course was offered in Vernon, B.C.
3.
?
Spring Semester,
1972. ?
Evening Program.
(See Brochure, appendix
3)
?
(
See Course
and Faculty list: Appendix
L .)
In addition the Division offered one
credit course in Vernon, B.C. and repeated
he Reading & Study Program.
?
(Section VIII)
1+. ?
Summer,
1972.
The Summer Session.
The Summer Session for
1972
has now been
enrolled and applications are closed.
(See Brochure : appendix 5
?
. See Course
and Faculty List, appendix 6 )
5. ?
Fall Semester,
1972. ?
Evening Program.
The Division has developed and advertised
its evening program for Fall,
1972.
(See Brochure, appendix 7 , and Course
and Faculty List, appendix 8 ). No
enrolment statistics are yet available,
but cost projections are included in this
report. ?
In addition, the Division is
offering a credit course in Vernon, B.C.
Other programs and activities of the Division are
reviewed in Section VIII of this report.
Each of these major credit programs will now be
discussed in turn.
.
.
I I I.
?
SUMMER SESSION,
1971.
(A) General Comments:
The Summer Session of
1971
was given first
priority by the Division, because of the
pressing need to service the requirements of former
graduates of the Professional Development
Program at Simon Fraser University. Since
the inception of that program, a large
number (in excess of 1,000) students had
graduated lacking completed Bachelor's degrees.
These students had been unable to return to
Simon Fraser University because the Summer
Semester did not articulate with the school
"year". The Summer session program in
1971
was developed primarily with the needs of
this group in mind. Because Faculty of
Education data indicated that the majority
of these students were seeking to complete the
B.A. degree, or at least a B.Ed. with an
academic emphasis in the Arts, the majority
of course offerings were in the Faculties of
Arts and Education, although several Science
courses were also offered. Table L is a
list of courses offered, by Department and
Faculty.
S
- ?
-5-
TABLE I
SUMMER SESSION COURSE, 1971: SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT
& FACULTY.
Faculty of Education:
Professional Development Centre:
?
7 courses
Educational Foundations Centre:
Behavioural Sciences Foundation:
?
2 courses
Social & Philosophical Fnds:
?
1 course**
Faculty Total:
10 courses.
Kinesiology:
1 ?
course*
Faculty of Arts:
English:
14
courses
Geography:
2 courses
History:
1
?
course
Modern Languages:
1
?
course
Faculty Total:
8
courses.
• ?
Faculty of Science:
Biology:
3
courses
Chemistry:
1
course*'
Physics:
1
course*
Mathematics:
I
course;
Faculty Total:
6
courses
University Total:
25
courses
Departments not offering courses
in Summer
Session
1971:
P.S. A.
Psychology
Economics & Commerce
Philosophy
Communication Studies.
**: Course subsequently cancelled because of low enrolment.
U
.
0
-6-
As can be seen from Table 1, the number of courses
offered was not large, especially when compared
to the number of courses in the total University
calendar. ?
In the Summer of 1971, however,
departments had only 45 days in which to identify
course offerings, in order that appropriate
advertising material could be sent to schools and
to former students with sufficient lead time to
allow application. All of the courses were upper
division, with the exception of Mathematics 190:
Mathematics for Teachers, which was subsequently
cancelled.
(B) ?
Students in Summer Session 1971
The Summer Session program in 1971 attracted 150
students, who generated 317 course enrolments.
Table 2 shows the distribution of these students
into courses.
.
11
-7-
.
?
TABLE 2.
SUMMER SESSION COURSE ENROLMENTS: SUMMER SESSION 1971.
Faculty of Education:
POC
461 (Section A) .................30
PDC
1
471 (Section A) .................20
PDC 1461 (Section B)*.................25
POC 1471 (Section B)*.................25
PDC 1481 (Section 4) .................
53
PDC 1481 (Section B) ..................18
PDC 1481 (Section C) .................8
Total PDC:
?
179
BSF 1425 ?
.............................13
BSF1426 .............................9
Total Faculty
of
Education ..........201
Faculty
of
Arts:
English 1407 .........................13
•
English 457 .........................12
English 1409 .........................20
English 1459
20
Geography 344 .......................7
Geography 1462 .......................6
History408
.........................9
Linguistics 1426 .....................7
Total Faculty
of
Arts ...............89
Faculty
of
Science:
Bi.Sc. 4214 ..........................17
Bi.Sc. 409 ..........................5
Total Faculty
of
Science ............22
Total Course Enrolments: ............317
* Offered in Kamloops, B. C.
S
Certain additional information is available about
this group of students.
?
Specifically, their
?
distribution by Faculty was:
Education ?
- ?
110
Arts ?
- ?
30
Science ?
-
?
10
In terms of academic goal, 57 listed the B.Ed.,
7 listed the B.Sc., and 69 listed the B.A. as
their goal. The remainder had no declared
academic goal. The sex distribution showed a
predominance of women, with 107 females vs.
43
men.
From the standpoint of the group which Summer Session
was intended to serve, Graph 1 is most interesting.
This graph shows the distribution of Summer Session
students by semester in which they first registered
at Simon Fraser. The two largest categories are
clearly apparent: Semester 65-3 and Summer Session
71•2. There was also a large group from Semester
.
?
663. Clearly, Summer session 1971 appealed to
two student groups: students who had been among
the earliest to register at Simon Fraser University
(arid who had likely been away for several semesters).
The second group was those totally new to Simon
Fraser University. This data suggests that
Summer Session in 1971 accomplished two objectives:
(a)
It provided a Continuing Education
opportunity for former students who
had been away from Simon Fraser
University for some time,
and,
(b)
It attracted new students to the
University.
C
•
r
fn
Ile
1%6-I
MC7-i
I97-2
I%7-3
19tc9-,
:i
S
:j
19104
a
197o-2
1927-2 ?
\\01
0
4
3r
11
S
It should be noted that in the Summer Session
of 1971,
regular Summer Semester students were
not allowed to register for Summer Session
courses. Thus, the Summer Session student
group was totally discrete from Summer Semester
students (with one known exception, Gordon C.
Detta
#70300-1815).
Table
3
shows the distribution of Summer Session
students in
1971,
by levels, ?
It should be noted
that the major classes in this distribution are
those at level
7
and up. This once again indicates
that Summer Session served students at that
advanced stage of their education. This would
. ?
be expected, given the fact that Summer Session
was designed to serve this group, and that course
offerings were almost exclusively in the upper
divisions.
.
?
TABLE 3.
.
- DISTRIBUTION OF
?
1971
?
SUMMER SESSION STUDENTS'
BY ?
LEVEL.
Level
Number Registered
1
17
_2
3
3
3
3
5
2
6 ?
I
1
7
39
- 8
39
9/9+
42
152
*Two students shown in this group, subsequently
dropped, reducing the total to 150. They were
included in these statistics, however.
- 12 -
.
.
In establishing Summer Session in 1971, we paid
cognizance to the intent expressed in Senate
minutes, that students not take more than 9
semester hours of work in Summer Session. We
adjusted this figure to 10 semester hours, in
order to allow combinations of two 5 semester
hour courses required of some students.
Students were permitted to exceed 10 hours only
with special permission, either from the
Dean of the Faculty, or myself as Director of
Continuing Education. The distribution of
students, in terms of load taken, is shown in
Table
0
- 13 -
TABLE k.
DISTRIBUTION OF LOAD UNDERTAKEN BY SUMMER SESSION
STUDENTS IN 1971, BY SEMESTER HOURS.
S
S
#
of hours
taken ?
(Total)
Number ?
in Category.
3
13
L
f
31
5
12
6
2
7
2
8
55
9
18
10
12
10+
5
N
?
= ?
150
= ?
6.87
hrs.
0
- 14 -
S
It should be noted that the modal class in this
distribution is 8 semester hours. This should
be expected, as combinations of two education
courses (4+4) would give this value. This is
also repeated in the size of the 4 semester hour
class, which is the second largest category in
the distribution. ?
In short, combinations of
1 or 2 4-semester hour courses were most popular.
(C) Financial Considerations: ?
Summer Session 1971.
Table 5 shows the tuition fee revenues produced
by Summer Session in 1971, as well as the revenues
produced by student activity fees, and field
work fees. Fees were assessed to Summer Session
students on the basis of the normal S.F.U.
tuition fee schedule, or $15/semester hour for
students taking less than 12 hours. Student
activity fees were modified with Board approval
• ?
from $11/semester to $5.50 for Summer Session
students, reflecting their shorter time in
attendance.
The stipends paid to faculty appointed to Summer
Session were based on a non-rank-weighted scale
of $175/actu
a
l contact hour per week, to a
maximum of $2,450 in cases of instructors
teaching more than 10 hours per week. (An
instructor teaching a 5-semester hour Summer
Session course would normally have 10 contact
hours per week during Summer Session.) Stipends
were based on recommendations made by Departmental
Chairmen, and were approved by the Director of
Continuing Education, Academic Vice-President,
and Board of Governors.
0
- 15 -
S
.
TABLE 5
FINANCIAL STATEMENT, SUMMER SESSION 1971
COURSE
ENROLMENT
FEE
REVENUE*
STIPEND
PAID
English 1407
13
$585)
$21450
English 1+57
12
$360)
English 1409
20
$900)
$21450
English 1+59
20
$600)$1500
Geography 3414
7
$315
$1050
Geography 462
6
$450
NONE
History 408
9
$675
$1750
Linguistics 1+26
7
$525
$1750
Bi.Sc. ?
1+24
17
$765
$1600**
Bi.Sc. ?
1
409
5
$226
$1750
8SF 1+25
13
$975
$1750
BSF
1
+26
9
$675
$1750
PDC 461
25
$1500) $300C
$2800**
POC
1
+71
25
$1500)
PDC 1+61
30
$1800
$11400
PDC 1+71
20
$1200
$11400
POC 1+81
53
$3180
$1400
PDC 1+81
18
$1080
$11400
PDC 1+81
8
$480
$1400
TOTALS
317
$17,790.00
$26,100.0(
('based on
?
'teaching
$15/semester team totals)
hour)
CONT/D........
- 16 -
TABLE,
5
continued!.
.
.
Student
Advertising:
Activity
Fees:
$616.00
Brochure:
$2510.16
Newspaper:
$ ?
716.26
Postage:
$
334.00
$3560.42
Field
Activity
Fees:
$1310.00
Miscellaneous:
$800.00
Total
Total
Revenue:
$19,716.00
Expenses: ?
$40,460.42
Net ?
Costs:
$10,744.32
Cost!
Student =
?
$71.63***
***: Not including office expenses and administrative
expenses in the Division of Continuing Education.
(i.e. Permanent staff and overhead)
0
- 17 -
S
It should be noted that TableS does not take consid-
eration of revenue possibly gained by the University
on the basis of full-time equivalent revenues.
?
It deals
only with actual fees paid vs. costs. Costs are based
only on costs directly and solely associated with
Summer Session, but do not include portions of the
"normal" operating expenses of tFt Division of Contin-
uing Education. On this basis, Summer Session costs
were $10,744.32 or $71.63/student enrolled.
Summer Session costs in 1971, that is $30,460.42 were
assessed against the budget of the Division of Contin-
uing Education. On the other hand, the revenues gained
($19,716.00) were sent into University General Revenues.
The budget modifications in operation during 1972
should provide a better indication of both revenues
and costs, in as much as revenues will accrue to the
Division's program budget.
• ?
(D) Summary
The Summer Session of
1971 attracted 150 students
to the University. ?
It can be assumed that many of
them would not otherwise have been able to attend.
The Session provided services mainly to students
completing upper division work. Major student
categories were found both in new students, and in
S.F.U. students whose first registration was 1965 or 1966.
The Session cost the University $71.63/student enrolled.
0
IV. ?
FALL SEMESTER, 1971
In the Fall semester of 1971, the Division of
Continuing Education did not operate an evening
program on campus.
?
It did adminstrate the offering
?
of a credit course (Biological Sciences 409-3)
in Vernon, and the operation of an evening course
in History, in conjunction with the development of
an evening M.A. program in History. These courses
are discussed in more detail elsewhere in this report
(SectionVi II
?
). ?
In accordance with our policy of
giving first priority to the development of credit
programs, the Division did not attempt to develop
a non-credit program similar to those at U.B.C. or
University of Victoria.
?
The Division did advertise
?
and provide some administrative support for the
Reading & Study Centre's program "Reading For Business
& The Professions" in the Fall of 1971.
?
Details
of this program are also provided in Section viii
of this report.
S
S
- 19 -
V. EVENING PROGRAM, SPRING 1972
(A) General Comments
In Semester 1972-1, the Division of Continuing
Education offered a program of evening courses,
on the S.F.U. campus. Courses were offered in
the Faculties of Arts, Science and Education.
The brochure advertising this program was
distributed in Semester 1971-3 (See appendix
3 ).
By the Fall of 1971, the Division had established
a mailing list of more than 3000 addresses, linked
to a computerized labelling system. The Division
was assisted in this by the Methods Study Depart-
ment of the Ancillary Services Unit, and by the
Computing Centre. The establishment of a
comprehensive mailing list and of a suitable mailing
system was a major problem facing the Division
during the Summer Session of 1971.
?
Basically, the
?
campus possessed a bewildering variety of mailing
lists, of various degrees
of
sophistication, and
in various states of revision in terms of how
up-dated the addresses were. The systems included
separate lists in the Faculty of Education, Arts
Centre, Economics and Commerce Department,
Registrar's Office, and Alumni Association.
?
Systems
ranged from hand-labelling, to addressograph,
(manual and machine) to computerized label print-out.
While we tried to avoid developing yet another list,
and attempted to use one or several of the existing
lists, this proved to be impossible.
?
Accordingly, ?
we have devised a computerized system which is:
S
(a) Up-to-date
(b) Flexible (it includes 9
i.e. schools,
in enquiries,
(c)
Fast
major categories,
business, phone-
general, etc.)
0
- 20 -
S
While we can generate a set of address labels with ease,
we still have no really good on-campus envelope stuffing
ard labelling facility. This omission is costly, because
it necessitates hiring from one to three part-time
employees for each major mailing, and also slows down
the mailing process.
?
I discuss the mailing problem here
?
because it is illustrative of the type of simple,
mechanical and logistic problem which must be solved in
establishing a new Division of Continuing Education.
A list of course offerings and faculty for the evening
program during semester
1972-1
is attached as appendix
L
Thirty-one courses were offered on campus, while two
courses were offered off-campus in Vancouver, and a
further course was offered in Vernon. Of the thirty-
one on-campus courses, three were graduate courses.
These statistics do not include evening graduate
courses in the M.B.A. program or in Educational
Adminstrat ion.
S
(B)
Enrolment
____________
and the Student Population.
The evening program attracted
288
students. Of these,
120
students registered only for evening classes
(41.5%).
The program was open both to "daytime" SFU students
as well as to students registering strictly for evening
courses. Table
6
and Graph
2
show the distribution of
students registering for evening classes, by year and
semester of first registration at S.F.U.
?
Note that this
?
distribution is entirely different from that for Summer
1971.
?
It contains a series of "peaks" corresponding to
Fall semesters of each year since
1965.
This distribution
is likely more representative of the fact that most
students first register in the Fall semester of any
given year. The exception to this is semester
72-1,
in which
48
evening students also first registered at
S.F.U. Of these -i8 students,
36
were registered only
for evening courses
(75%).
These
36
students represented
12.5%
of the total evening enrolment. This is a measure
of the ability of the evening program to attract students
who have had absolutely no previous contact with S.F.U.
as registered students.
0
- 21 -
.
?
TABLE 6
DISTRIBUTION OF EVENING STUDENTS
BY
YEAR AND SEMESTER
OF FIRST REGISTRATION AT S.F.U.
.
.
Year & Semester
Number ?
in Category
1965-3
27
66-1
66-2
1
66-3
30
67-1
6
67-2
1
67-3
24
68-1
5
68-2
0
68-3
33
69-1
12
69-2
5
69-3
29
70-1
8
70-2
70-3
24
71-1
7
71-2
5
71-3
16
72-1
48
01965-3
66-1
66-2
66-3
67-1
67-2
67-3
68-1
68-2
68-3
Ln ?
69-1
69-2
693
70-2
> 70-3
0
1•1
?
71-1
r ?
71-2
U) ?
-
rn
-4
72-1
C.)
-4
-1
0
C)
>
I
V)
-<rnrZ
— m
C) ;x
?
-4
z -
m
Z C.)O
D
c
>
?
C-) --4
(1 - i
LO I
-
-rn m >0
(nZ
mu)
c
V)
mO
z — u)-rl
—m
111
Z-4
— mm
-4
v,
X z
-<-4 rn-i
rn
C.)
rn
X mn
?
—
--
C)
?
?
-I ¼0U) ?
rn
-i --I
;t' N3
rn
rn
s
- ?
7 l -.
-4
>0.
I ?
I
-
22 —
0 ?
0
o, ?
c
rt
CD ?
3
O
Lo
CD
0
?
—'
h.fl ?
—1
0
?
-<
— ?
F)
o
- 23 -
C
C
Table 7 shows the breakdown of evening students
by faculty:
TABLE 7.
DISTRIBUTION OF EVENING STUDENTS BY FACULTY.
Faculty of Arts ?
167
Faculty of Education ?
72
Faculty of Science ?
18
Faculty of General
Studies ?
3
Kinesiology ?
1
Unspecified ?
27
TOTAL
;.
?
288
C
- 2
?
-
S
?
TABLE
LOAD DISTRIBUTION IN TERMS OF SEMESTER HOURS
OFEVENING CLASSES: EVENING PROGRAM 72-1
C
No.
?
of hrs. ?
of
evEning classes
No. ?
of students
undertaking ?
load.
3
and ?
less
53
55
5
149
6
1
7
0
8
9
9
1
10 and over
6
Auditors
10
N ?
= ?
288
0
- 25 -
S
Table 7
?
demonstrates our need to develop appropriate
?
evening programs in Science and General Studies.
To-date, we have not sufficiently publicized our
Ganeral Studies program as having significant
advantages to part-time students (because of its
inherent flexibility). We must do more toemphasise
this fact. Twenty-three evening students were
registered with the status of "special student.
?
At
present our regulations prohibit students in this
category from applying their work toward a degree, and
they also prohibit a student with one undergraduate
degree from attempting a second. These clauses will
need a thorough review, if we find that a significant
number of evening students fall into "special student"
categories.
The load undertaken by evening students in terms of the
number of semester hours undertaken in evening classes,
is shown in Table 8 .
?
This table shows that the
majority of evening students
(51.7%)
took a total of
5
semester hours in the evening. Lesser, but significant
numbers undertook either a total of 3 semester hours
(18.14%) or
14
semester hours (19.1%). Only 20 students
•
?
took more than
5
semester hours. Although the
University has no statutory limits on the load which
may be undertaken by evening students, our literature
advised students not to undertake more than
5
semester
hours of evening work. The distribution of data in
Table 8 suggests that most students are taking
appropriate loads in the evening.
Data obtained from evening student address lists shows
(Table 9
?
) clearly the areas in the greater Vancouver
region from which most students come. The largest number,
(20.1%) came from North Burnaby, the area immediately
surrounding S.F.U. The next largest group came from
South Burnaby, and the Municipality of Burnaby contributed
a total of 102 evening students
(35
.
1
4 %)
.
?
The City of?
Vancouver proper, contributed another
514
students
(18.8%).
?
Significantly, Coquitlam, a Municipality
immediately bordering S.F.U. contributed only
27
students
(9.14%). This may be due to poorer road connections between
Coquitlam and the campus. The connection of the Como Lake
Road extension with the campus ring road might change this
statistic.
4
?
4
-
26 -
STABLE
9
DISTRIBUTION OF EVENING STUDENTS BY ADDRESS OF RESIDENCE
.
Area (Postal Zone)
Burnaby 1
Burnaby 2
Burnaby
3
Vancouver (unspecified)
Vancouver 3
Vancouver 5
Vancouver 6
Vancouver 8
Vancouver 9
Vancouver 10
Vancouver 12
Vancouver 15
New Westminster
Delta
Surrey/Whalley
Langley
Haney/Maple Ridge
Coqu it I am
Port Moody
North Vancouver
West Vancouver
Richmond
Mission
Number of students from that
area
35
58
9
22
3
2
6
9
5
13
8
21
5
27
8
16
10
2
- 27 -
.
As a follow up to the evening program in 1972-1,
we
surveyed evening students using a mailed questionnaire.
47
students (16.3%) responded to this questionnaire.
While this is not as large a percentage response as we
might wish, it does provide some data. For instance,
Question (E) asked, "Why did you choose evening classes?"
To that question, 62%
responded, "completing an S.F.U.
degree." 51% indicated that they were undertaking evening
studies For "self-interest." We also asked the students
What type of evening courses they would like in future
programs. While their responses were too diverse to
summarize easily, the two largest categories (most
frequently mentioned) were "Psychology" and "More lower
level courses." This latter comment amplifies feed-back
to the Division from both the S.F.U. Student Society,
and from telephone enquiries. 1+3% of the questionnaire
respondents thought that we should offer credit courses
off campus. 83% thought that we should offer credit
courses during a Summer Semester evening program.
This latter piece of information also reflected data from
• ?
both the Student Society, and from telephone enquiries.
Yet, it completely surprised us. We expected that an
evening program in the Summer would not be attractive,
because of holiday interruptions and general interference
With summer recreation. We should perhaps consider a trial
,evening Intersession program in May and June to test
this assumption, (in fact
62%
of the respondents expressed
Favour with an evening intersession program.) The
questionnaire, and a summary of student responses is
attached to this report as appendix 9.
In summary, the evening program attracted a significant
number of students, including both students taking only
evening classes and those mixing a day and evening program.
The evening program also attracted 36 new students to
S.F.U.
?
In addition, it served a number of former S.F.U.
students seeking degree completion. Considering the limited
nature of course offerings and the fact that this was
the first offering of such a program, these numbers are
quite respectable.
(C) Financial Information:
?
Evening Program
1972-1.
Table 10 presents a review of income and expenditures
for the evening program. The highest component on the cost
side of the ledger is clearly faculty overload stipends.
- 28 -
. ?
TABLE 10
EVENING PROGRAM 1972-1
INCOME & EXPENDITURES.
EXPENDITURES:
Stipend Costs (total) .....................$33,525.00
Advertising ............................... $1,351.62
Audio Visual ..............................$2,853.31
Printing ..................................$
?
825.62
Postage....................................$
?
364.28
?
TOTAL: ?
$38,919.83
INCOME:
Tuition Fees (based on $15.00/semester hour
S
of evening classwork) ..................$19,470.00
Student Activity Fees .....................$ 2,464.00
?
TOTAL REVENUE: ?
$21,934.00
Costs-Income ?
$38,919.83 - $21,934.00 = $16,985.83
Costs/student: $58.98/student.
0
- 29 -
In almost every case, instructors teaching evening courses
were paid "overload" stipends. The stipend scale was
identical to that paid in Summer Session (i.e. $175/actual
contact hour per week), with the exception that the max-
imum stipend was adjusted to $1925.00. Newspaper
advertising costs are also quite significant, and yet they
appear to be unavoidable if we want to attract a
sizeable enrolment. We have attempted to determine
how people heard about our evening program, by asking
callers that question. ?
It appears that newspaper and
radio announcements do have an affect, based on this
rather informal survey of persons making enquiries.
The costs per student of the Spring evening program
were calculated at $58.98 per student..
.
0
- 30 -
VI. SUMMER SESSION 1972
(A) General Comments
The Summer Session in 1972 had a number of
components which made it distinctive in character
from the Summer Session of 1971. Principal among
these was the fact that in the Summer of 1972,
regular S.F.U. Summer Semester students in the
Faculty of Education could elect Summer Session
courses as part of their overall Summer program.
This was done by introducing a May-June Intersession
within the Faculty of Education, with the result
that some Education courses ran for the regular
k month (May-August) Summer Semester, while others
ran for the Intersession (May-June) and others ran
for the Summer Session (July-August).
This applied only to Faculty of Education courses.
The results of this shift were several:
(1)
New Summer Semester and Summer Session
registration patterns and processes were
necessitated, and were developed;
(2)
Summer Session courses which might not attract
sufficient enrolments from strictly off-campus
students, became viable because of some influx
of Summer Semester/Session mixed program
students.
(3)
Some Summer Session courses experienced very
heavy demand, necessitating additional sections
and instructors' stipends.
As can be seen in Table 11 , the Summer program in
1972 represented an increase of slightly less than
100% above the 1971 Summer Session program, in terms
of numbers of course offerings. ?
Particularly signi-
ficant in this overall increase were the increased
numbers of courses offered in English, Education,
PSA, History and Archaeology.
C
i
?
S
-
31 -
. ?
A comparison of Summer Session programs in 1971 and in 1972
is shown in Table 11:
TAbIr 11
A COMPARISON OF COURSE OFFERINGS, BY FACULTY AND
DEPARTMENT, BETWEEN SUMMER SESSION 1971 AND 1972.
.
.
Faculty
1971
1972
Faculty of Arts:
English
English 407/457
English 404/454
English 409/
1
459
English 406/456
English 1458/461
English
?
1412/462
(14 courses)
(8 courses)
Geography
Geog.344
Geog.
?
322
Geog. ?
462
Geog. ?
468
(2 courses)
(2 ?
courses)
History
Hist. ?
408
Hist. ?
403
Hist. ?
428
Hist .423
(1 ?
course)
(3
?
courses)
P.S.A.
Nil
PSA 351
PSA 401
(2 courses)
D.M.L.
Ling. ?
426
Span. ?
102
(1
?
course)
(1 ?
course)
Archaeology
Nil
Arch. ?
273-3
Arch. ?
385-3
(2 courses)
Faculty of Education:
PDC 461 ?
(2 ?
sections)
PDC
?
461 ?
(1 ?
secth
PDC
?
471
?
(" ?
II ?
)
PDC 1471 ?
(3
PDC 481
?
(4 sections)
PDC
?
481 ?
(5
PDC ?
491 ?
(4
PDC 492
?
(4
Pnc ?
4q ?
(1
)n)
)
cont/d..
- 32 -
STABLE H (continued!....)
is
Faculty
1971
1972
Faculty of Science:
Biology
Bio.1409
Bio.
?
409
Bio. ?
42
Bio.
Bio. ?
326
Bio. ?
303
(2
courses)
(4
courses)
Chemistry
Chem. ?
601
Nil
Physics
Physics ?
331
Nil
Mathematics
Math
190
Math ?
106
Math
492
Math
495
(1 ?
course)
(3
?
courses)
Behavioural ?
Sciences
8SF
425
BSF 425
Foundations
6SF
426
8SF
426
(2
courses)
(2
courses)
Social ?
& ?
Philosophical
SPF
434
Nil
Foundations
TOTALS: ?
24
courses
?
45
courses
- 33 -
S
The brochure advertising the Summer Session Program
in
1972 is
attached to this Report as Appendix
5.
(()
Enrolments and Student Data
As has already been noted, the Summer Session in 1972
was open to students taking regular Summer Session
courses. This fact was immediately evident in the
enrolment statistics for Summer Session.
685
students
enrolled in Summer Session courses, taking a total of
3,995
semester hours of course work. Of these, 255
were taking courses only in the Summer Session. This
latter category are those on which the best comparisons
to Summer Session
1971
are based. ?
It is worthwhile
?
noting that the enrolment of Summer Session only
students in
1972
represents a significant increase
over
1972
figures
(150 vs.255,
an increase of
58.8%).
This figure is particularly significant when it is
noted that in the same period Summer Session enrolments
at U.B.C. declined by approximately 900 students.
Table
12
lists the distribution of students (Summer
5 ?
Session only), by semester of first registration at
Simon Fraser University.
?
This list reflects that
for
1971.
Again, the number of new, first-time
registrants is significant.
?
Seventy-eight students
?
first registered at S.F.U. for Summer Session in
1972.
This was
30.6%
of the Summer Session only enrolment
(compared to
35.3%
in
1971). ?
Of all students taking
Summer Session courses, Tablel3 shows that the majority
(71.0%)
were in the Faculty of Education, while students
in Arts accounted for
22.9%
and in Science for 5.5'.
These figures reflect the intent of the Summer Session
program, i.e. Teacher Continuing Education and the
preponderance of Education course offerings.
In the Summer Session of
1972
the same load restrictions
in operation in
1971
were applied. The semester hour
load data for Summer-Session-only students is
summarized in Table 1+ . ?
Once again, the modal classes
are four and eight semester hours, reflecting the
frequency of students enrol 1 in9 in Education courses
carrying 1+ semester hour credit valuations.
0
-
0
TABLE
12.
DISTRIBUTION OF SUMMER-SESSION--ONLY PROGRAM
STUDENTS IN
1972
BY SEMESTER OF FIRST
REGISTRATION AT SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY.
Semester ?
.
Number
66-3
39
66-1
6
66-2
1
66-3
27
67-1
67-2
2
67-3
2
68-1
7
68-2
14
68-3
17
69-1
6
69-2
3
69-3
7
70-1
14
70-2
0
70-3
6
71-1
0
71-2
12
71-3
?
.
0
72-1
1
72-2
78
251
0
- 35 -
C
TABLE 13.
DISTRIBUTION OF SUMMER SESSION STUDENTS
IN
1972
BY FACULTY.
Arts ?
- ?
157
Science ?
-
?
30
0
?
Educàt ion ??
-
487
Not listed ?
- ?
11
0
- 36 -
C
TABLE
DISTRIBUTION OF SUMMER-SESSION-ONLY PROGRAM
STUDENTS IN
1972
BY LOAD TAKEN IN SEMESTER HOURS.
Load (Sem..Hrs.) ?
Number taking this load
3 ?
18
78
.
?
5 ?
22
6 ?
7
7 ?
13
8 ?
81
9 ?
18
10 ?
17
10+ ?
1
Total ?
255
0
- 37 -
S
(C) Summer Session Costs & Revenues
The Summer Session costs and revenues are summarized
in Table 15 In this presentation only actual tuition
fee revenues have been shown, not possible revenues
accrued by full-time equivalent grants from the
provincial Financial Advisory Board.
?
The revenue
figures contain certain elements of error, which are
difficult to identify precisely at this time.
?
While
fairly small in relation to the total, these error
sources should be noted.
First, revenues have been calculated by assessing
tuition fees paid as $15.00/semester hour.
?
This is
an accurate figure for students taking less than 12
semester hours as a total load. Students taking more
than this load pay slightly less, on a per semester
hour basis. However, the difference is quite small.
The second source of error results from the fact that
tuition fee revenues actually only apply to defray
Continuing Education program costs in cases where
Continuing Education pays the stipend of Faculty
.
?
teaching the course, or has other costs. In some
cases (albeit quite rare), Summer Session courses
are being taught by Faculty as normal teaching loads.
In other cases, one person teaching a course is doing
so ona "regular assignment" basis, while a second or
third instructor is teaching on an "overload" basis.
The "costs" column shows only overload or special
stipends required, but the revenue column shows all
revenues to all courses. At the time of writing of
this report, a final budget statement for Summer
Session has not been received from the Bursar's Office,
hence precise figures cannot be provided on the revenue
side of Table 15. The figures shown should, however,
present a fairly accurate representation of actual
revenues. On this basis, the cost per student for
Summer Session only students was $2
1 4.07/student. This
latter figure represents a significant reduction over
1971 and can be attributed to the fact that Summer
Session only enrolments increased in 1972, and that
Summer Semester students could enrol in Summer Session
courses.
- 3 ?
-
S
?
TABLE 15
SUMMARY OF REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES:
SUMMER SESSION 1972
S
Revenues
Expenditures
-
Tuition ?
fees ?
(@ $15/sem.hr .)
Stipends: ?
Lecturers
$50,075.00
-
?
$60,015.00
:
?
T.A.'s
$
?
2,45.00
Other
$ ?
7,616.78
Student ?
Activity Fees
(Summer Session only)
- ?
$ ?
1,'+02.5O
Travel, ?
rentals, ?
etc.$
816.43
Field Activity Fees &
Special ?
Program
Special ?
Charges.
Costs
$ 8,807.00
-
?
$
?
2,205.00
TOTAL ?
$63,622.50
TOTAL
$69,760.21
Expenditures ?
- ?
Revenues =
?
$6,137.71
0
- 39 -
S
(VII) EVENING PROGRAM: FALL
1972
The evening program in
1972-3
has been advertised
in the Summer of
1972. ?
Table 16 lists the course
offerings for the program, and con-pares these to those
of Semester
1972-1. ?
It should be noted that this
Table does not include the M.B.A. program, or evening
graduate offerings in the Faculty of Education. Even
so, there is no great growth in course offerings
between semesters
1972-1
and
1972-3.
The most notable
area of expansion is in the field of Economics &
Commerce. Of all the departments in the University,
Economics & Commerce has made the greatest and most
regular commitment to Continuing Education in terms
of evening programs.
?
In Semester
1972-3
the courses
offered by this department will provide not only a
degree credit opportunity to students, but will also
• ?
satisfy the certificate requirements of the Institute
of Canadian Bankers.
?
It is anticipated, based on
I.C.B. projections, that between
200-300
new students
will enroll at Simon Fraser University to take
advantage of this opportunity.
At the time of writing this report, enrolment statistics
for evening courses were not available.
?
It is possible
to project the costs of the evening program, based on
known advertising and administrative costs to date,
plus overload stipends applied for.
?
On this basis,
costs for the evening semester program in semester
1972-3
will be
$33,523.00.
0
- 140 -
. ?
TABLE
16
COURSE OFFERINGS, EVENING
1972
SPRING & FALL.
.
S
Spring ?
1972-1
Fall ?
1972-3
Faculty of Arts:
Faculty of
?
Arts:
English
English
English ?
1415-3
English
1406-3
English
1465-2
English
1456-2
English
1416-3
English ?
1466-2
Economics & Commerce
Economics & Commerce
Economics
301-5
Economics
200-3
Economics
331-5
Economics
355-5
Commerce
387-3
Economics
304-3
Commerce
4883
Commerce ?
103-3
Economics
830_5*
Commerce
203-3
Economics
8655*
Commerce
223-5
Commerce
371-3
Commerce
393-3
Commerce 478-3
Geocraphy
Geography
Geography
31414
.3
Geography
325-3
Geography
1441-5
Geography
469-5
Geography
1462-5
Hist
o ry
History
432-5
History
458-5
History
842-5
History
1424-5
History
483-5
Cont/d .......
- ?
-
S
TABLE 16
?
(cont/d.... )
Spring ?
1972-1
Fall ?
1972-3
Political ?
Science, ?
Sociology
& Anthropology
PSA ?
311-5
PSA
352-5
PSA
401-5
PSA
373-5
PSA
351-5
PSA
465-5
Psychology
Psychology
Nil
Psych.460-5
Psych
450-5
Philosophy
Philosophy
Nil
Philosophy
300-3
Faculty of Science:
Biology
Biology
Biology ?
102- 1
4
Nil
Chemistry
Chemistry
Nil
Chemistry
002-2
Mathematics
Mathematics
Math
496-4
Mathematics
302-3
Math
495-4
Physics
Physics
Nil
Physics ?
197-3
cont/d.
- ?
-
0 ?
TABLE 16
?
(cont/d. .. )
.
Spring ?
1972-1
Fall
?
1972-3
Fa:ulty of Education:
Faculty of
?
Education:
Poc 461-4
PDC 461-4
PDC
471_4
(2 groups)
PDC
?
71-
1
4
?
(3
?
groups)
PDC
?
481-
1
4
(3
?
groups)
PDC
?
481-1+
General
?
Studies:
General ?
Studies:
8SF
?
1
+25-5
BSF 1+25-5
8SF
426-5
Gen.Studies ?
100-3
Off Campus:
Off Campus:
PDC 1+61-4
)
?
Hastings ?
Elem.
PDC 1+81-4
?
(Vernon)
Math.190
) ?
School, ?
Vancouver.
PDC 1+81-4
(Vernon)
TOTAL: ?
32
TOTAL: ?
33
* Graduate courses
0
-
43 -
S
VIII OTHER PROGRAMS:
(A) Reading & Study
Reading and Study at
S.F.U.
is under the
administrative jurisdiction of the Vice-
President, Development. The center at
S.F.U.
provides regular programs to all S.F.U. students.
The Reading & Study Center would like to be seen
as a total Community Service Operation. The
Division of Continuing Education views the
Reading & Study Service as an important
adjunct to its own operations. ?
In the Fall?
of 1971 and Spring of 1972 the Division
advertised programs offered by the Reading
& Study Center in "Effective Reading For Business
and The Professions." This course is regularly
taken by M.B.A. and pre-M.B.A. students at S.F.U.
but, it is also sought by the General Business
Community. ?
In general, these programs have
.
? attracted between 30 to 50 students, for each
6 week session.
?
In Semester 1972-1, for example
the Reading & Study program enrolled
314
students,
at a fee of $55.00/student (including text).
In the future, the Division of Continuing Education
has suggested that it work with the Reading & Study
Center to identify community needs in Reading &
Study skills, and in "English as a Second Language"
programs. Where such needs are encountered,
Continuing Education will refer these to Reading &
Study, and otherwise assist in Program Development
and Advertising. ?
It is not felt that at this time
Reading & Study should be transferred to the
direct administrative jurisdiction of Continuing
Education, although this relationship is common in
other Canadian Universities.
A note should be made at this point of requests
from the Federal Government to the Division of
Continuing Education to provide University services
for their personnel training programs.
?
In September
of 1972 the Division has arranged for personnel
from our Reading & Study Centre to operate a
"Report Writing" workshop for the Federal Public
S
?
Service Commission.
?
If this is successful, for
both parties, then we may expect further overtures
from the Federal Government. The Federal Government
is, of course, prepared to reimburse the University
for these services. We cannot assess the possible
future development in this field until we conduct
-
44 -
and review the pilot project in September.
After that time we will have a better opportunity
to consider our future involvement in this part of
the Continuing Education field.
(B) Non-Credit Programs:
The Division of Continuing Education at S.F.U.
in accordance with the guidelines stated at the
outset of this report, has really made no entry
into the Non-Credit Continuing Education field.
Other Divisions of Continuing Education in B.C.
and Canada generally offer extensive Non-Credit
Programs. U.B.C. , for example- derives a fair
portion of its 30,000+ student enrolment in
Continuing Education Courses, from the non-credit
program. ?
Basically, the non-credit field has
several identifiable components. These are:
(1) Diploma and Certificate Programs.
(i.e. The Early-Childhood or
Pre-School Education Programs)
. ?
(2) Short Courses & Workshops Related
To Business and Professional Groups.
(i.e. Continuing Legal Education)
(3) Avocational & General Interest Programs.
(i.e.
?
?
"Current Affairs" Courses, ?
Evening Lecture Series, etc.)
Many institutions have had great success with these
programs, and they allow the University to serve,
and to make contact with people who might otherwise
have no contact with Post-Secondary Institutions.
However, in the absence of complete programs for
Undergraduate Degree completion for Off-Campus and
Evening Students, first priority should probably
still be given to the development of credit carrying
Continuing Education programs.
?
It should be noted
that this need not be an absolute, "All-Or-Nothing"
dichotomy. Diploma and Certificate Programs are
increasingly being developed with credit courses
as components. This increases the "Portability"
of the certificate. The development of appropriate
certificate programs with credit components
(i.e. Education Minors) should be given first
S ?
priority in the development of Teacher Continuing
?
Education Programs at S.F.U.
- 45 -
TABLE
17.
REVENUES & EXPENDITURES: "CHARIOTS OF THE GODS"
PILOT PROJECT - JUNE
1972
.
REVENUES:
EXPENDITURES:
Admission
Fees: ?
$ ?
526.00
Film ?
Rental:
$1,158.00
618.00
Salaries:
857.00
$82.00
116.00
$24.214
$19.19
Total ?
$2,117.00
$49.87
$ ?
175.30
$1,333.30
Advertising:
$ ?
108.96
AV Services:
$ ?
8.00
Misc.
$ ?
43.29
Total
$1,493.55
Revenue ?
-
Expenditures: ?
$623.45
0
-
46 -
The Division of Continuing Education at S.F.U.
did conduct one pilot project in the "General
Interest" field in the Spring of 1972.
?
Following ?
the wave of public interest in the C.B.C. Television
presentation of the speculative film"Chariots of
the Gods ", we arranged to co-sponsor, with the
Vancouver Planetarium an evening film showing
and panel discussion of the film. Unfortunately,
we were able to locate panelists (pro & con) only
for one evening, while we could rent the firm for
three nights. On this basis, we proceeded with a
panel discussion, which was video-recorded, on
the last night only. ?
Public response was over-
whelming. The two largest lecture theatres on
campus were completely filled on all evenings,
and we had to arrange an extra showing to accorno-
date people who were turned away. Table 17
summarizes the costs vs revenue for this operation.
It should be noted that the overall operation made
a net profit.
A valid question may be raised as to the proprietry
of the University's involvement with the avocational
or "General Interest" Continuing Educational field.
S ?
The Chariots of the Gods was chosen as a pilot
project in this field for several reasons:
(1)
There was a high degree of public
interest in the film, but little
exploration of the content of the
film;
(2)
The costs of the project could be
accurately forecast;
(3)
Both the Planetarium and the C.B.C.
T.V. Network had been deluged with
requests for further showings and/or
information about the film.
It was regrettable that we could not staff the panel
discussion on each of the three evenings that the
film was shown, but we were able to video-tape
the panel discussion and show it on the regular
S.F.U. Cable 10 T.V. series.
?
In addition, we have
made the video-tape available to Cable T.V. outlets
throughout B.C.
In the final analysis, S.F.U. will have to develop
a policy which covers general areas of reponsibility
S
in the Non-Credit Field, and suitable support
policies covering appointments, stipends, etc.
?
This
is discussed in Section XIII.
-
47 -
C
In July 1972, the Division of Continuing Education
conducted a questionnaire survey of all faculty
and staff at S.F.U. in an effort to identify their
interest in non-credit course offerings, as well
as potential "talent" among faculty and staff.
A number of our faculty and staff have taught
non-credit courses at U.B.C.
?
If S.F.U. dve1ops
a limited non-credit program, it will help to
know exactly what internal resources are available
to support such a program.
In the final analysis, a decision in regard to
non-credit programs cannot be made until the
University decides:
(a)
Whether or not it will enter
the non-credit field;
(b)
What type of non-credit programs)
it will offer.
. ?
(c) Who will have responsibility for
various types of non-credit activities.
(C) Evening Graduate Study.
At this time S.F.U. offers several degree
programs at the Masters Degree level in the
evening time period. These are:
M.A. ?
(History & Economics)
M.B.A. (Economics & Commerce)
M.A. (Education):
?
Educational Administration
Educational Practice.
M.Sc. (Education): Chemical Education.
The Division of Continuing Education does not
directly administer or financially support the
majority of these programs. We do distribute
informational brochures regarding them, and we
regularly receive requests for information about
these programs. The M.A. program in History
is more directly supported by the Division, in
that overload stipends have been paid to
instructors in that program.
0
- ?
-
[I:
The need for ensuing Graduate Programs is
probably greatest in Economics & Commerce and in
Education. ?
In both of these vocational fields,
the Masters Degree carries both status and
increased renumeration.
The elements of an evening Masters Degree Program
which seems to most determine success in terms
of attracting applicants are:
(1)
A clear program, with a definite
entry and exit point, and definite
steps.
(2)
A coherent or unifying theme,
(School Administration for Practicing
Administrators.
(3) A definite relationship to a vocational
field.
.
?
(Li)
A
strong sense of group identity among
the enrolled students, combined with
close contact with their instructors.
It is likely that the University will be able to
attract Graduate Students to evening graduate programs
in ?
ther areas. For example, both Computing
Science and Criminology lend themselves to the
development of evening graduate programs.
?
In
addition, many Instructors in regional colleges
would welcome development of a Graduate or Certificate
Program which would strengthen their knowledge of
educational theory and practice. At this time,
student demand is high for both the M.B.A. and the
M.A. (Ed. ) Programs.
The role of the Division of Continuing Education
in these Graduate offerings has to date been mini-
mal. The Division does attempt to survey the public
need for Graduate work, and to advise departments.
In addition, we distribute information about these
programs to prospective students. The role of the
Division should probably be mainly one of advice
and information distribution, with a secondary
co-ordinating role in case of possible redundancy
• ?
or needless competition. The development of
appropriate new part-time Graduate Study opportunities
should be given #2 position in the priorities For Cont.
Ed1t ion, immediately following a development of compre-
hensive Undergraduate Program.
-
49 -
0 ?
(0) Off Campus Course Offerings
The Division of Continuing Education has attempted
to assess the needs for off-campus Continuing
Education, and the logistic and administrative
complexities associated with such operations.
To date, we have focused on programs designed mainly
for teachers. Certain summary statements can be made
about the general situation vis a vis opportunities
for upper post-secondary education outside of
the Lower Mainland and South Vancouver Island.
(1)
Both U.B.C. and U.Vic. offer off-
campus undergraduate credit courses.
These are almost exclusively Education
courses, and they are offered in
no particular sequence in any region.
(2)
The Interior Regional Colleges will be
graduating increasing numbers of
Mature Students on academic progrms.
These people will not be able to attend
University in the Lower Mainland because
of family and business commitments,
. ?
and will not be able to complete a
Degree Program in their present locations.
(3)
U.B.C. offers a limited number of
correspondence courses in a limited
number of departments, mainly Arts and
Education.
() ?
E.T.V. on a credit course basis is
non-existent in B.C.
(5) The "Residence" requirements of U.B.C.
prohibit interior students from obtaining
degrees unless they spend one Academic
year in residence. ?
In addition, most
U.B.C. faculties and programs prohibit or
discourage part-time study.
Thus, the student in interior centers such as
Kamloops, Vernon, Kelowna, Prince George, etc.
finds himself virtually deprived of access to
university resources in any meaningful way.
Since the establishment of the Division of
Continuing Education at S.F.U. we have offered
• ?
nine courses in the B. C. interior, 6 in Kamloops,
and three in Vernon. The Kamloops courses have all
been offered during the Summer Session period,
2 in 1971 and
4
in 1972. ?
They have also all related
to the emphasis program in Environmental Education
within the Faculty of Education at S.F.U. , and to
- 50 -
interest of School District #2+ (Kamloops) in
this field. The two programs attracted 86 students,
from all over B.C. with one exception, all were
teachers or student teachers.
?
In
1972
enrolment in
this program was limited, and applicants had to
be turned away. Already, we have indications that
the demand for this program will be very large in
1973.
In Vernon, during the Fall of
1971
and the Spring
of
1972,
we offered courses in response to specific
requests from the School District in Vernon.
Unlike Kamloops, the course offerings have not
formed part of a program nor have they related to
any special area of emphasis.
In the case of both course offerings in Vernon,
students attempting to complete U.B.C. degree programs
have been blocked from obtaining transfer credit
to U.B.C. for S.F.U. course work. We now appear to
Ia'e ameliorated this situation through negotiations
with U.B.C. , but the previous record of problems
has discouraged students from applying for
further courses.
. ?
Both Vernon and Kamloops are "Emphasis" School
Districts for the Professional Development Program.
Hence, they have been logical places in which to
conduct pilot studies of off-campus course offerings.
On the basis of our experience in Kamloops and Vernon
we can make the following statements:
(1)
It is possible to offer S.F.U. credit
courses in interior locations, without
extraordinary logistical or admin-
istrative difficulties, but close
co-operation is necessary fromeither
the local school board or regional
college or both.
(2)
Faculty in the regional colleges can be
found toteach S.F.U. Upper Division courses,
provided that their credentials are
acceptable to the S.F.U. department
(i.e.) ?
Bi.Sc.
409
in Vernon, in Fall,
1971
was taught by Dr. Peter Elliott of
Okanagan Regional College.
(i.e.) Bi.Sc.
409
in Kamloops, Summer
• ?
1972,
was taught by Mr. R. D. Williams
and Mr. K. Taylor, both of Cariboo
Regional College.
S
.
- 51 -
In both these cases the College Faculty taught
by consent of the college concerned, and were
appointed by Biological Sciences at S.F.U. on the
basis of Curriculum Vitae, etc., for this
particular assignment. ?
It is my opinion that this
relationship is highly appropriate and desirable
as a means of extending our resources, and as a
means of developing closer relations with regional
colleges. From a pragmatic viewpoint, it is much
less costly to use locally available regional
college faculty, where possible, than to transport
our own faculty to remote locations. Of course,
academic standards must be preserved. They can be
safeguarded by present procedures which require that
lecturers in Continuing Education appointments
be vetted by the department concerned. Of late,
regional colleges have been able to recruit many
faculty of high quality, including many with
Ph.D. Degrees.
In all cases where the University extends ts
resources into a remote location, certain guiding
principles are suggested:
(a)
The University should collaborate
with the local regional college and/or
school board.
(b)
The University should not "scatter"
or disperse its limited resources
across the province.
?
It should instead
focus on certain centers of population
and offer programs as opposed to isolated
course offerings.
(c) The University should co-operate with the
other Universities in planning and, if
possible, in offering off-campus course
offerings.
(d)
The University should promote the
development of correspondence courses,
and should capitalize upon the possible
development of a Provincial ETV
Corporation. ?
(See also Section X It ).
S
.
- 52 -
Two other concerns should be discussed regarding
off-campus course offerings. These are:
(a) .
Off-campus Graduate Study, and
(b) A Downtown Centre.
During exploratory discussions in the Central
Interior in February of 1971, I encountered
frequent interest in the possibilities of an
off-campus Graduate Program, particularly in Education.
At that time the Director of Adult Education in
Kelowna found more than 20 teachers in the Kelowna-
Westbank-Rutland area who were definitely interested
in such a possibility. ?
In addition, we received
letters of inquiry from several teachers. At
present, many teachers in the Okanagan commute to
Spokane, Washington for Graduate Study. U.B.C. has
made no move to respond to their needs.
?
It is
?
still my opinion that one of the newly-developed
M.A.(Education) Programs, either Adminstration or
Classroom Practice could well be located in the
Central Interior, at either Vernon, Kelowna, or
Kamloops, and produce a very tangible effect.
The problem lies in the ability of the small
Faculty of Education at S.F.U. to meet their
commitments on campus, and also serve this demand.
Nonetheless, I am convinced that the demand is
there if we can rise to meet it.
On the question of a
u
DOwntown center"for Continuing
Education, the Division surveyed Downtown central
area businesses in the Spring of 1972, on their
interest in such a"Downtown'offering
of
courses,
either during lunch (as per the 'Lunch-Hour University
Program in Winnipeg.") or in the evening.
?
The?
response varied, according to the type
of
business,
but many did support the notion of a Downtown center.
At the same time, U.B.C. also became interested in
a Downtown location. Hence, we agreed to
participate with U.B.C. on a study of the availability,
suitability, and location and costs of Downtown
rental space. The results of this study located at
least 5 locations which were available for rent,
were centrally located, required little structural
modification, and were otherwise suitable.
?
In ?
June, the Presidents of S.F.U. and U.B.C. received
separate reports from their respective Directors.
0
-
53 -
These reports recommended that U.B.C. and S.F.U.
co-operate on a trial rental of a Downtown center.
The criteria suggested were:
(a) short-term lease;
(b)minimal structural modification;
(c)
most reasonable possible rental;
(d) central urban location;
(e)
design for flexible, multi-purpose use.
To date, no decision has been made by the Presidents
on this matter.
?
In the Fall of
1972 S.F.U. will
have to rent space to house approximately
125
students in the Institute of Canadian Bankers
Program. ?
In past years it has been possible to
?
rent this space from the Vancouver School Board,
specifically, at Dawson Elementary School.
?
In
the Spring of
1972
Dawson School was phased out,
and is no longer available for rental; other
urban core schools are not readily available.
Hence, we may have to abandon downtown operations
in the Fall of
1972.
In the long run, whether or not S.F.U. should
operate a centre in Downtown area depends on the
. ? weight of costs vs advantages. No doubt, a
downtown location would be more convenient for many
groups of people, (i.e. apartment dwellers in the
West End). ?
It would also provide the University
?
with a "Visibility" or "Presence' in the city
proper which it does not now have. ?
Certainly, in
its initial phases such a project should be regarded
solely as a "Pilot" to test the viability of this
idea.
is
- 54 -
S
IX. ?
GENERAL FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
The Division of Continuing Education was initially
established with a budgetary structure equivalent
:o that of any other entity in the University.
At the outset, the Division was provided with funds
to establish the Division (e.g. office expenses and
equipment:) and to hire some permanent employees.
?
In
addition, funds were available to establish and
operate the Summer Session in 1971. The cost/revenue
analysis of Summer Session in
1971
has previously
been presented. ?
It should be noted, however, that
the "revenues" from Summer Session actually went
into the general revenues of the University, as do
those for all other programs and departments.
?
In
the Fall of
1971
and Spring of
1972,
Continuing
Education was similarly funded, while revenues
Eimilarly accrued to general revenues.
At the start of the
1972-73
fiscal year, the new
. ?
budget for the Division was established in a manner
unique to Simon Fraser University operations.
?
The
budget was separated into an "Operations" account
and a "Programs" account. The Operations account
covered regular employee salaries, office expenses,
and all normal operating expenses. The Programs
budget related to direct costs of Continuing Education
programs. The two accounts, however, are different in
another significant way.
The Programs account is a "cash flow" account; that is,
revenues from Continuing Education programs are
returned to that account at regular intervals throughout
the fiscal year. Thus, the instructions from the
President in regard to that account are that it should
not show
a
deficit of more than $50,000 (the amount of
tie original budget for programs) at the end of the
1972-73
fiscal year. However, that $50,000 deficit
may be produced after a cash flow of more than $100 -
$150,000, depending upon revenues versus costs.
The 1972
Summer Session program is the first program
to operate under the new budgetary provisions. While
this type of cash flow budgeting is very interesting
in terms of its potential, it does entail certain
demands:
-
55 -
1. The Director of Continuing Education must
have very accurate and up-to-date information
on course enrolments vs. costs for each course.
2. The Director must be able to cancel unprofitable
courses, or must at least balance profits and
losses across the program.
To date, certain definite problems have emerged:
(1)
It is difficult to get accurate and meaningful
enrolment statistics, particularly for
evening courses;
(2)
It is difficult to cancel courses, especially
where faculty, space, and other resources have
been committed.
(3)
Departments insist on adding "hidden" or
. ? "overlooked" costs to courses which have been
approved on an earlier cost statement;
(4)
Low upper enrolment limits in some departments
virtually eliminate break-even as a possibility.
(5)
Some departments with high enrolment courses
resent having "their" revenues subsidize other
departments with lower enrolments.
(6) Some departments and faculties seem to regard
Continuing Education as simply an easy way to
get money, and they attempt to charge everything
from lightbulb replacement to secretarial shoe-
wear to Continuing Education courses.
On the positive side of the ledger, the SFU pre-registration
system gives better estimations of enrolments, in time
For appropriate decision-making, than do the present
systems at either U.B.C. or University of Victoria.
Furthermore, this type of budget forces us to identify
clearly the costs and revenues from Continuing Education
programs.
4
S
0
- 56 -
At a conceptual level, it can be argued that this
type of budget structure clearly places Continuing
Education in an "appendage'' position, as an added,
or extra, University function. ?
This is a problem
which will have to be carefully assessed as we
acquire experience with this type of budget.
Although the
1972-73
fiscal year has been in
operation for only one semester, it appears that the
general level of funding for Continuing Education
($125,000) is adequate: ?
It does not allow extensive
research., development, or pilot study operations.
A more accurate review will be possible at the fiscal
year end in
1973.
S
0
- 57 -
S
X. ?
STAFFING OF THE DIVISION
As of July
1972,
the full-time staff of the Division
was three persons:
'
?
The Acting Director
* The Assistant to the Director
* One Senior Secretary.
The Assistant to the Director is responsible for
program development and general administrative support.
The Senior Secretary at this time carries all
secretarial duties, reception duties, student counselling,
direction of temporary staff, purchasing and financial
administration. ?
In early
1972
a reclassification was
requested for the Senior Secretary to become a
Departmental Assistant, and for a steno
?
to be added.
. ?
To date, neither the request for reclassification, nor
addition have been met. The result of this has been
twofold:
(a)
General loss of clerical efficiency,
and,
(b)
Increasing use of overload and part-
time assistance.
This condition is serious, given both the magnitude
and complexity of the Division's operations.
?
Staffing
needs represent a first priority problem in the
operation of the Division.
As Director, I have also recommended the establishment
of a University Committee on Continuing Education, as
a co-ordinating and advisory body to assist the
Director. The membership of this Committee would consist of one
representative from each department and program in
the University. Such a structure should provide
regularized channels of communication between the
departments and the Division.
0
-
58 -
XI. ?
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE DIVISION AND OTHER
?
NTITIES IN SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY.
The principle entities with which the Division must
regularly interact within Simon Fraser University
are:
(A)
Departments, programs and faculties;
and,
(B)
The Registrar's Office.
In addition, the Division regularly calls upon
assistance from Reading & Study, Counselling, Student
Housing, the Information Office, Athletics & Recreation
Departments, the Student Society, and the Arts Centre.
For the purpose of this report, I shall concentrate on
relationships between the Division and the Registrar's
Office, and between the Division and faculties and
departments.
0 ?
(A) The Registrar's Office
In general, the staff of the Registrar's Office
and the Division of Continuing Education have
worked closely since the establishment of the
Division. Several new procedures have been
established, in particular to cope with Summer
Session, off-campus, and evening registrants.
By and large, these procedures have been developed
and implemented with a minimum of difficulty. To-
date, our biggest problem is still that of inter-
University communication. As a result of this
problem, prospective students are sometimes
mislead, misdirected, or generally given the
impression that the "left hand doesn't know what
the right hand is doing."
?
It is lily impression
?
that this problem can be countered by taking
several steps:
I. Establishment of a staff-training program for
all University "front-desk" personnel, i.e.
those who regularly deal with the public, to
determine that they all have at least a minimal
knowledge of University procedures, personnel,
. and structures, as well as programs. Often a
students first contact will determine whether
or not he gets off to a good start in applying
for admission, registering, etc.
- 59 -
(A) ?
continued!
?
.
2.
There should be a regular meeting of all
senior University administrators; academic
and administrative. ?
Only in this way can
we avoid the continual information flow
problem which we seem to have.
3.
Senate minutes should be distributed to
all senior University administrators.
Only in this way can we be up to date on
revisions in academic policy.
These steps could go far to remove some of the
fumbling and ineptitude which now results simply
because of a lack of information.
(B)
?
Relationships with University departments
and faculties.
. ?
The Division of Continuing Education serves as
a catalytic and support agency, as well as a co-
ordinator for Continuing Education programs.
Some departments make a rigid separation between
a "Continuing Education" course and a "Regular"
course. They appear to feel that the so-called
Continuing Education courses are simply an extra,
and are in no sense a commitment upon the
department. Other departments, by contrast,
exhibit a high degree of commitment to Continuing
Education programs, and provide very tangible
support, without extra and itemized charges to
the Division. This range of attitudes more than
likely exists because of a lack of a clear,
University-wide policy statement on Continuing
Education, and because of the practice of
"overload" stipending. As long as Continuing
Education courses are normally mounted on an
"overload" basis, then departments are justified
in viewing Continuing Education courses and
programs as an adjunct. Even within the context
of overload stipend payment, certain steps can
reduce this attitude toward Continuing Education
as an auxiliary function.
?
These steps are:
• ? (a) ?
Better communication between departments
and the Division. ?
(Establishment of a
University Continuing Education Committee).
.1
(B)
?
Continued!.
(b)
Origination of Continuing Education
appointments in departments, with routing
through Deans of faculties.
(c)
More assistance to departments in terms
of defining and developing appropriate
Continuing Education courses and programs.
While these steps can assist the departments to
operate positively in the Continuing Education
field, they are no substitute for a clear
University statement of policy on Continuing
Education in terms of the pantheon of university
functions.
It should also be noted that in recent months
some of our difficulties in relations with
•
?
departments have been caused simply because of
understaffing in the Division.
?
This has already
been discussed, so it need not be repeated here.
I
.
- 61 -
XII RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER PROVINCIAL INSTITUTIONS
ND IMPACT UPON THEIR PROGRAMS.
(A) U.B.C. and U. Vic.
The three universities in B.C. are represented on
a In -University Committee on Continuing Education.
This committee meets approximately quarterly and
consists of the 3 directors and one other
representative from each university. The committee
is really an information-sharing and advisory body,
rather than a policy-making body.
Since the establishment of the Division of Continuing
Education at S.F.U. the committee has met
frequently, and has convened a meeting of
representatives from the regional colleges to
discuss Provincial Continuing Education needs.
The Division at S.F.U. has actively co-operated with
both the Center for Continuing Education at U.B.C.
and with the Summer Session Division at U.B.C. in
the sharing of information on costs, operations, and
policies. ?
This co-operation has been mutually
beneficial. ?
S.F.U.
has gained from the experience
of U.B.C. in a number of fields, while U.B.C. has
begun a revision of several of its policies as
a result of comparisons with
S.F.U.
practice,
(e.g.The recent U.B.C. senate report on "Part-time
Study", as well as a review of the funding of
Continuing Education at U.B.C. ) As mentioned
elsewhere U.B.C. and
S.F.U.
have co-operated in the
exploration of a possible downtown center.
Additionally, the two institutions now share
information on off-campus course offerings, in
advance of actual offering, so that plans can be
made accordingly. To date, we have not collaborated
on a course offering, but this can be anticipated
in the near future. ?
In general, communication ?
between the two divisions at the two universities
in the lower mainland is excellent, and to slightly
lesser extent, the same can be said vis . vis U.Vic.
This spirit of co-operation should be extended and
fostered. The major barrier to more meaningful
Inter-University co-operation on Continuing Education
still remains as Upper Division Transfer Credit
barriers between the Universities. ?
This problem is
now being studied by the three directors of
Continuing Education and by
.
other administrators
at the threeuniversities.
El
-
62 -
0 ?
(B) B.C.I.T.
Our relationships with B.C. I.T. would be more
meaningful if our Transfer Credit Provisions
for B.C. 1.1. students were more flexible and
liberal. We do not grant transfer credit to many
relevent B.C. LI. courses and programs, and we
grant only partial transfer to others.
?
I have?
studied this problem, particularly as it applies
to commercial programs and have arranged meetings
between representatives of B.C. 1.1., our Department
of Economics and Commerce, and the Director of
Admissions at S.F.U.
A policy proposal is now in the final stages of
preparation for submission to Senate.
?
If this?
proposal is adopted it should significantly
liberalize our relationships with B.C. 1.1., and
should allow us to have access to a potentially
large number of former B.C. LT. graduates. An
added facet of this discussion is the possibility of
collaboration with B.C. 1.1. in the use of laboratory
and physical facilities. ?
I would suggest that such
collaboration can be developed, but will develop
faster if we revise our Academic Transfer Policies
• ?
with respect to B. C. 1.1.
(C) Regional Colleges & School District
Adult Education Proqrams.
The Division of Continuing Education at S.F.U. has
attempted to establish communications with Adult
Education Divisions at all regional colleges in
B.C. ?
To date, our closest working relations have
been with Cariboo College, Okanagan College, and
Douglas College. We have worked with each of
these institutions in program development and course
offerings. We have regular communications with the
college of New Caledonia (Prince George), Malaspina
College (Narimo), Vancouver City College, and
Camosun College (Victoria). We do not have any
contact with Selkirk College.
?
The Division of ?
Continuing Education has participated actively in
meetings of the Lower Mainland Directors of
Adult Education
,
?
The fact that S.F.U. now
has a Continuing Education program is well established
with these people, and they receive current information
on all our activities. ?
In exchange, we receive copies
of all publications produced by these agencies.
This relationship is most useful in an information
sharing sense. Our relationships are best constructed
on a functional rather than purely public relations
-
63 -
basis, If we can collaborate with the colleges to
offer courses and programs we will develop a firmer
and more permanent relationship with them, than
through strictly information sharing.
?
The
development of this relationship will become more
important as the regional colleges assume an ever
more central role in post-secondary education in
B.C. ?
Continuing Education can and should be a
major force in this development.
.
0
-
61+ -
(ill. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT.
A report of this type can reveal the activities of a
division over a period of time. However, it is useful
only as a basis for a review of extant policy, and as a
means of answering certain questions.
?
In this concluding
section I will attempt to ask some of the questions which
I feel are relevent, and to outline some areas of needed
policy development.
The first, and most central question is, "Should Simon
Eraser University have a Continuing Education Program?"
It is possible to consider this question on the basis of
several factors:
(A)
Costs: The present report outlines
direct operating costs and also outlines
the type of budgetary and fiscal arrange-
ments now in operation for Continuing
Education. ?
It does not provide comparisons
between, for example, per student costs of
Continuing Education vs any other university
program, simply because those data are not
available to the Division. ?
That comparison
can be made however.
(B) Academic Merits: This is a difficult factor
to consider. ?
It can be argued that a
contemporary university must offer continuing
education ?
as a part of its program, because
of current demand.
Part of the problem of considering academic merits of
Continuing Education arisesfrom the great diversity of
definitions of what "Continuing Education" is. ?
In many
senses Continuing Education was better described by the
old term "University Extension" because extension of.
University resources is precisely the task undertaken by
most University Continuing Education Programs.
Continuing Education or University Extension is closely
linked to university policies on part-time study, off-
campus study, mature-entrance and admission, and residence.
There are now a number of North American studies which
suggest that there is no difference between the Academic
performance of part-time and full-time students, or between
"Mature" entrants and "Normal" entrants (our own recent
study included). On an absolute academic standards basis,
there is little or no evidence to suggest an erosion of
• ?
standards in evening programs, correspondence study, or
summer sessional work. At a conceptual level, given the
rapidly changing state of human knowledge, it does seem
- 65 -
necessary for universities to be accessible to learners
on a life-long basis, and in fact to encourage life-long
learning as an educational style.
(C) Enrolment and Recruitment
One of the arguments often used to support
Continuing Education, and in fact almost any
new university program, is that it will attract
new students, resulting in an enrolment increase.
At a time of static or declining enrolments,
this type of argument cannot be neglected.
The statistics presented in this report show the
numbers of students enrolling in Continuing
Education Programs.
?
They also differentiate
between students totally new to S.F.U. , and
former or presently-registered S.F.U. students.
The most significant figures are those
representing totally new students, because these
figures are a measure of the "drawing power" of
the various programs. Data which is noit presented
here is that which would allow a comparison
between Continuing Education and other day-time,
on-campus new programs or existing programs. ?
It
would appear that Continuing Education Programs
S ?
(particularly the Summer Session Programs)
have the ability to attract new students to
the university.
I.t should be noted that to some extent
Continuing Education Programs are like traffic
routes: they induce enrolment. ?
That is,
It may be difficult to predict enrolment before
the fact of program existence. To date, S.F.U.
'5
program (summarized in Table 18 ) has offered
mainly upper division course work. Accordingly,
it can only draw from a pool of people who
already have some previous post-secondary
education, usually two years of it, in fact.
This pool is bound to be smaller than that of
people in the general population who might be
interested in Continuing Education, especially
starting at the lower levels.
(0) Provision of a Needed Service
It is easy to demonstrate that while U.B.C. and
U. VIC have Continuing Education Programs, that
opportunities for part-time study and evening or
off-campus degree completion are severely limited
S
at both places, in particular U.B.C.
?
U.B.C. is
now reviewing its policies on part-time study,
and the newly elected Chancellor, Nathan Nernetz,
has indicated an interest in the 'Open University"
concept, including more extensive use of the
media. The fact remains that S.F.U. can become
a leader in this field in B.C. if:
(A)
It commits resources to this;
(B)
It develops appropriate supportive policies;
(C)
It makes known its present policies
RE: Mature entrance, general studies,
Part-time study, etc.
Otherwise, S.F.U. essentially adopts a role similar
to that of U.B.C., a minimal Continuing Education
Program, providing only limited student opportunities.
It is my contention that such an operation is not
necessary in B.C., given the existence of U.B.C.
but that a full-scale, or effective Continuing
Education Operation is needed, and would be well
received.
?
The decision rests with us.
The second question is,"If S.F.U. elects to develop
(or to continue) its Continuing Education Program, what
options are open to it, and in what order should these
options be pursued?" The answer to that question has
been suggested in previous reports to A.P.C. The
options are:
(A) Undergraduate
Graduate
?
U ?
Degree Completion
?
part-time on
d
(C) As for A&B, but off-campus, at campus.
(D)
selected centers. (i.e. a focused
operation)
(E)
Non-credit, vocationally oriented programs.
(F)
Non-credit, public interest programs.
I would suggest that the above listing also represents
the priority which ought to be assigned to each option.
In particular, "A" through "0" of the above should be
pursued to the fullest extent possible.
The third question is, if S.F.U. elects to enter the
Continuing Education field in a major way, then what
policy decisions must be made, what new policies must
be designed, and what old policies must be reviewed?
As I see it, the following are the major policy areas
which must be considered:
(A)
What is the nature of the University 'Day"?
(Should it be effectively extended to 10:00 P.M.
or 10:30, 4 nights/week?)
(B)
To what extent should "Overload" stipends be
paid? This question relates directly to the
policies considered under (A) above.
?
It
• ?
would appear at this time that policy AC-17
on the appointment of lecturers in Continuing
Education also needs some mechanical revision.
- 67 -
• ?
Additionally, the present stipend scale
should probably be simplified and moved towards
a "flat rate" condition.
?
(i.e. $1500/course.)
The moot point in both (A) & (B) is whether or not a
Continuing Education Program can be developed in any
meaningful sense on an "Overload" or "Added Function"
basis. Table 18 reveals the range of courses offered
to date. ?
While this is wider than that at U.B.C. in
some ways, it is still only a small fraction of the
total University curriculum, and only a small fraction
of the total University Faculty have been involved in
teaching courses in Continuing Education Programs.
(C)
To what extent should the university offer
lower division courses in its evening programs?
We receive a large number of requests for lower
division work, which we now usually refer to
regional colleges. Many students complain
that the regional colleges really aren't
serving their needs, or simply, that they
would prefer to come to a university.
(D)
Our present admissions policies are very liberal,
probably the most liberal of any of the B.C.
universities. Unfortunately, many people do not
know about our policies on mature entrance or
part-time study. ?
(We have purposefully not
advertised the mature entrant provisions for
the past
3_4
years).
-Our audit policy demands that an auditor be a
?
regularly admitted (and admissable student).
?
This is more restrictive than that at U.B.C.
-Our "Special Student" regulations discriminate
against and discourage students who already
have undergraduate degrees, who want further
education, but do not want graduate study. The
rationale for these regulations should be
reviewed.
-Our transfer credit policy with regard to B.C. I.T.
should be reviewed and 1 iberal ized where
possible.
-Our General Studies degree option offers great
flexibility to evening, part-time, and off-
campus students. ?
Unfortunately, it also is
virtually unknown off-campus.
(E)
What is the future of Summer Semester,
Summer Session, and Intersession?
There are indications that summer session
• ?
programs will be far more attractive if they
are thematically focused, and if they are
done in a "Total Immersion" format, as opposed
to the conventionally time-tabled summer
session operations. To attract teachers, we
are going to have to consider these questions,
particularly given the general state of incentives
to further continuing education for teachers
in B.C.
We have indications from our survey of evening
students in Spring 1972, that an evening program
in a summer intersession might well be
attractive.
At this time, it appears that the "mix" of summer
semester and summer session students increased the
viability of both offerings, in particular of summer
session.
(F)
In what areas should we develop centers for
off-campus programs (assuming that it is
accepted that we should not attempt to
scatter our resources across B. C. )?
With what other institutions should we co-operate
in such off-campus extension? (In particular,
this question applies to co-operation with
U.B.C. and U. Vic. Co-operation with the
regional colleges is inevitable.)
To what extent can we employ the faculty of
regional colleges to extend our programs?
(G)
Can we develop a faculty fellowship policy which
promotes R & D. work by faculty in the field
of university extension? To what extent can
we recognize the contribution of faculty to
Continuing Education Program Development in
normal merit considerations?
This is not an exhaustive list of the questions which
must be resolved, but it is a listing of those which
appear to be of most central concern at the time of
this review. This report has not attempted to develop
a systematic set of recommendations. This can and should
be done after the Academic Planning Committee has had an
opportunity to discuss this review with the
- Director and
among themselves. ?
It will then bepossible to identify the
general direction in which we wish to move, and the areas
in which clear policy proposals and recommendations must
be developed.
Signed:
1
- - — -
_ff ?
.
V
M. McClaren
A/Di rector,
August 10, 1972
C
C
c';J
LA
LA
LA
LA
• ?
• ?
i
-
r-
LA (\
c\ (
?
(
rrL(\
I ?
I
co -zrc
(N
CO
Oh
I
?
•
tr o
- ?
-
?
-
LA
LA LA
c
(N
LA
e(\ e
rfl
c1 —
r(\
CO
CO
(N
1
.0
I ?
I
'.0
I
?
IQQ C
1
4
r- o
i-. a)
m --
> >
>-
(N
(\ LA
>
C
0)
G'
—
-
0
0
0
LA -t .-
(N (N MM -T -.T
0
L L
0
L.
0
LA N.110
-Zr
Li
0)
'JrflcEEEEEEE
0)01
E E
?
E ?
E
00
UU)U)
C
0000000000
0)0)
•---
(/)V)(f)
Li
W(.)L)L)L)WJ
0 0
T11
C
1 4 C
1 4 04
0
I ?
I ?
I ?
I
LA LA LA
in
LALfl'.'.0
(/)
C
0)
fl
I ?
LA
I
C
moo
i ?
(N
i ?
(N
\
i
V) r-_
I ?
A
I ?
?
I ?
C
I
L
-
CN'.0
(N CO
- ?
- ?
-
LA
I
LA
(N
0)
1 -
> > >
—
E
E
0)
-
00
?
0)
- ?
0)
.
?
.-
-1-
0)
.
?
-
.-
0)
.
4--
4—
C)
0
0)01
0
.
0
(1)
L
?
L
0
(1)
L-.
?
0
U)
e
L(
?
C)
-
Cl)
CCCC
0
a)
?
Q)
----•-
V) V)
Li Li LU LU
Z
C)
C)
I I I
Q 0
E
(U
C14 C 14
L
01
C'J'.0
II
o
'o \-O
L
—
..
(4\ C4
t.fLr\c'rt.K
I ?
I ?
I ?
I LA
It
LA
I
CY\LALA
I
?
I ?
I
(N
II
(N
C
0) CJ
N.
LA
.-
I
?
—
'.0
I
0
.-
—
?
e
—
CO
r
N.
?
CO
COO
- MCC)
I
'.0
LA
-Zr
-Zr
c ?
'10
-
(N
?
---t
—
. 1-
_:r CO
LA
I ?
LA
i
LA
C —
..Zr -
CO
1. ?
L
- LA C)
a)
>
•
ccEEcc
0)0)0)
..
oo
--
LU
0101
OOEEOO
000
(fl
U)
CC
000000
Q)0J)
V)V)V)
Li LU
LU Li C-) C-) LU LU
C) C) C)
1 I
0- Q Q
C
o
(1$
'I)
U'\
N-O
II
U'%
(I)
0)
CflLA
CO
LA
I
U)
0)
0)'-
.-....
C
I ?
I
0
C
U) N.
m cY)
.-
(N
II
L
L
N. 0'
0)
r
>..
0)
0)
00
E
-zr-Zr
'.-
. ?
.
E
0)01
0
00
0)0)
4J
(1)
0
(I)
WW
CC
0
C)
0)0)
C)
.—
I
Z
0
LAb
uha)
>
-
'AbE
>1L
(U
..0
U)
EQ)
00
a
L
>
OE
L
Q
—
0
c
01
0)
00
0
'1)
(1)
00..
C
OL)
(1)
U-
(U
c
I- ?
LU
LU
C)
I
0-.
•
I-
CL
C
LL
LAt
>-
=
(J
U-
>-
co
>-
I
I
CC
(I) ?
U) ?
00 z
LU LU
U-
•
?
m
z 0
.-
Li
(I)
0
C-)
0
I.
-
L)
C)
U.i
z
I
z
.
-
0
C-)
.
C)
w
P
I-
C z
0
L)
LLJ
-J
co
.
U)
U)
U)
I
0)
LA Ln
0)
0)
0)
N-.
C
UI
C
C
C
C14
• -
r\
00
I
• -
• -
U
C ?
i
'.O
Ir%
0
L
L
L
Q) r4
-
?
-
C)
(1)
(I)
(1)
C)
1'
0
>,--
•
'-I-
4-
4-
0
0
LU
J
-F-
-
•
4-
4-
4-
-
00
—
C)
C)
0
E
U)
>->_
•—
(3)
>.
t/)U)
.0
0
0
0
C
C
(0
Q
0..
z
L)
0..
Z
0
C
U)
U)
c
U)
0)
0)
cr,
m
Q ?
-
U)
C
C
II
liii
0)
0•).- ?
.0)
0)
.—
o-'O -.. -zt
U 4-'
c'\
U) rsJ
L.
L
N- CO
I
0
( 1 4 0 (N
—
•- (U M U
i ?
I
-
(1)
(1)
('.1 ?
\
('.4
zf c't\ c
L
L L D 13)
'.0 (N U\
L (T\
4-
4--
0
13)
Ci) ?
) LU L '-
0
13)
4-
4-
-.
'4-
4- 0.
E
0
0
c -c
•
0 0 0 0
'-i--
'-i-. (3 .0 C
E
0 0
C
U) (I) U) U)
0
0
?
I ?
4-
.0 c c
Q
Q
LL
CD
• ?
• ?
• ?
•
0--C4-'
4.)4.i4.J
U)
o
Q0--U)
(0(0(0
U)
CO
CO co co
Z
E
U)
U)
U)
CD
0)
0)
0)
L
C
C
C
0)
Qr-
L
L
CC\
U)
U)
LI
13)
13)
13)
I
I
a)
(3)
0.
r',
C4
4-
4.
14..
4-.
4-
14-
IJ\
I ?
-
0
C)(N
•
C
-
• -
0)C '
0
0
C)
C'
—
L
L
\
?
LrI
(L
a
0
0
0
.rc
•
9-
4-
c
•0
0
4-
4-
13)
0C
U)
0
0
>
CQ)
•
w
.-L
•-
0
0
(0(0
CO
z
C
(I)
If)
U)
o
a)
0)
0)
c
I
C
C
C
III
I
—
U)
•—
•—
- ?
0\ -zt
—
I
L
L
L
'.0
C) C) (N
C)
rn
0
(1)
a
13)
(1)
(N
(N
'.0
U)
U)
N -
'4-
9-
. ?
•
?
.
U
—
O
'4-
'-4-
4-
•
000
L -
C)
0
0
a)
U)
U) U)
E
U)
-
13)
C
•
13)
>-
4-'
E
0
0
Q
.-
•---•-
.0
C
(U
E
z
z
-1
CO CO CO
(J
0-
U)
IL;
C-,
U)
Q)
LU
CD
—
CD
L)
U)
>-
a)
U)
a)
C
U-
0
>.L
a)
C
0
CD
C)
>-
4 -OI
0
0.
.—
.._J
L
4-)
—0
0
0
>-
?
>-
4-'
U)
CD
DL
0
U)
13)
C
I-
?
a)
U)
U
E
00.
.0
0
CD
L
J ?
0
•-
•—
13)
(0
0
—
.0
(1)
—
E
U)
IL
>-
•-
U
L)
?
0
13)
>-
U)
..0
L
0
•-
.0
CD
0.
0..
U- CO
C..)
0..
a-'
L
ru-Zr
EOM
0) 0
..-
N.
I
O C/)
co
L I .-
0 • -
-
C
-
CO.)
--
00
D LI)
a)
(DOD
OCO
D •
- C.)
-o
LIJ4-'
-0-0
-C (U
<C
L
-
LI)
C!)
ZO)
00)
L
-a C
0
4-IC
C])
<C >
?
?
• ?
a)
CD.
•
LI)
>-
?
c L-
?
00 ?
0C.— 4-I
C4- L/)
(U-
C-
a)-
>a)a)
0) 0 .0
C 4-'
0(0
..E 0 L
?
?
4-) ?
Q)
0 ?
ul
..
L cfl
DJ I
-0--
o U N-
C 0'
4)
4..).— C
O 0.-
C
4-1 C
0CC
0
0Lna)
L
a)>
00
0 C
_a
tOO
L/) 4J
U) (0 0)
C 4.' (0
>-
I-
LU
LL-
C)
?
C..)
<C
LI)
E ?
0 (U ?
0'-
?
0)?
00
9- L-
4- CL
0
L
Q)
CJ)(U
LE
0
U
Cl)
-J
<C
I-
0
I-
a:
w
U-
Li
0
U-
C/)
a:
=
0
U)
-J
<C
C)
I-
>-
Cl)
a:
LU
>
U-\ C--4
I LI) ?
0) ?
I C--
?
00
I
a) . - D
04-'4-'
C (0 (1)
'1)00
4-'-- D C
L00
a)
-
-I
S
CD
uJ
z
p. -
0
L)
'CL-0
1i
(I)LI)
-- a_ a
Ln
LI)
U)
L3
0)
0-
0)
0)
cn
C
C
C
0
C
rrN
0
Lt\
I
L
L—
L
Cc'J
s---
a)
aja)
a)
® r-
o r-CO
4-
4- co
'-i--
c-'
>
4 ?
J
-
.-
4-
'4-.
4-.
(1) -Zr
LLJ
0
OQ)
C)
L)L)L)
a)
CL..
CDDCD
0
Qtn
0
Q) (n
CL
a. a.
Z
Z -
Z
Cu
C
. - - -
-.LflLf)Lfl(n-
o
O00OOQ
L) C!) C.!) C!) C!)
U)
LI)
U)
0)
0)
LI)
--\-Zr--
C
C
o-.- .- .._- -..- '-
•-
Lfl
LC\
V)C'J
L
I ?
I
L
-
-- - - -
C'4 r(\
C])
If\ %10
C])
1-0
\
\1D N- CO 0 0' 0
4-
CN ('4
9-
Z
C]) .--
..j
_1
-
-Zr -zt -Zr -Zr
4-
- ?
-
'4-
E
C)
0
E
C..) C..-) C..) C.)
L) L)
1i. ?
.j.
CD CD CD CD CD CD
0
V) (l)
0
(I)
G_
a. a. a_ a.
a.
Cu ci)
E
---' —
ro
0Cl)
LI)
L
(]QQ.
0)
L!)C.!)(L
U)
Cl)
o
0_I
0)
L
C14C14r)
C
C
CL
--
Lr)Lr',
L
II
L
Cr'
.--.-
C])
1J0
(1)
<C
C C'
'.D N-CO
L).
('4 C 14
'4-
4-
-T -
'4-
Z
co
C)
C)
Q)
.-
L)L)L)
>
ODD
0
(1W)
0
w
a. Cl-
a.
Cu co
V)U)IJ)
CL 0.0.
c
(D .!)C.!)
LI)
O
0)
--
CNC'Jc(\
C
LI)
.-
S .-----
U)
CI) —
I
I ?
I
L
Q) N.
- -
-Zr
Lt\'.O
a)
<C
Cl) 0'
\C' N.
CO
m
CN c l i
4-
-.
.zt-Zr-Zr
-Zr
-Zr-zt
9-
L
C)
()
L)L)L)
L
LLL-
E
ODD
a.
V)V)
0
E
CL CL
cu cu
z
C')
z
0
I-
L)
LI)
LI)
a)
Cl
C
LU
?
..-4)
Q
fu
.-
E
Li ?
C(1)
4-'
4-'
>-(U
0 ?
OE
C)
-0)
>- ?
u)Q
DO
I.- ?
LI).—
.
C
(U
_J
?
a) a)
J
L
(Ua.
) ?
4.->
.
•
E
(1)
U.
c .- ?
o
a.
Cl)
E
C
<C
?
LCD
-
-
0
(1)
LL- ?
a.
CD
()
CD
0 ?
Revised Motion - Distributed at
Meeting ?
Paper S.73-25
BACFELOTR OF GENERAL STUDIES DEGREE.
MOTION:
"That Senate approve the
'
recommendation that,
in
addition to the sixty hours of transfer and/or course
challenge credit which students may currently count
towards the Bachelor of General Studies Degree, a further
thirty hours of transfer credit for work taken in the
last sixty hours may be credited towards that degree
provided:
1.
that such transfer credits are obtained from
either (or both) the University of British Columbia
or the University of Victoria;
2.
that the forty-five upper division credit hours
required for the degree are taken at one or more of
Simon Fraser University, the University of British
Columbia or the University of Victoria; and
• ?
3.
that at least thirty hours of the last sixty used
0 ?
for the degree are undertaken at
Simon
Fraser UnIversIty.
