SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
MEMORANDUM
To ....................SENATE
.......
.... ?
UrnO....O'NW'P.ADUAT1 ........
S
uijec...........................................
L
?
PROGRAMS
EXISTiNG
AND
PROGR1.
THE ASSESSMENT
.
' t
-
S.71-113, .....
OF
. .......
C 71_11'
?
Q 71-11'Th
JON WHEATLEY
From
.....................................................................................................
DEAN OF GRADUATE STUDIES
Date
.........EPTEMBER15,1971
MOTION: ?
"That the paper entitled 'The Introduction of
New Graduate Programs and the Assessment of
Existing Programs,' S.71-113b, be accepted."
SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
?
,S.7/-
//`3
MEMORANDUM
•SENATE
"THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW GRADIJATE
Subject
...................
?
PROGRAMS AND THE ASSESSMENT OF
EISTING
JON WHEATLEY
From..
?
.
DEAN OF GRADUATE STUDIES
Date
.........................
SEPTEMBER ?
'.......................................................
The paper entitled 'The Introduction of New Graduate Programs
and the Assessment of Existing Programs' was passed by the Executive
Committee of the Senate Graduate Studies Committee on August 2, 1971 and
the Senate Graduate Studies Committee on August 9, 1971 and again on
September 13, 1971.
MOTION: "That the paper entitled 'The Introduction of New
Graduate Programs and the Assessment of Existing
0
?
Programs' be accepted".
0
S-
7/
-
//3
a.4
INTRODUCTION TO THE PAPER ENTITLED?
'The Introduction of New Graduate Programs and?
the Assessment of Existing Programs'
The document under discussion is a controversial one as any
genuinely innovative document affecting all graduate work at the
University is bound to be. I give here the history of the paper and,
at the request of the Senate Graduate Studies Committee, I identify
and discuss some of its more controversial provisions.
When I was being interviewed before coming to Simon Fraser I
was frequently questioned about my attitude towards interdisciplinary
graduate work. It was plain that many faculty members felt that there
was presently inadequate provision for interdisciplinary graduate work
at Simon Fraser. As soon as I came, therefore, I began working on this
.
?
problem. On the basis of preliminary discussions with the Executive
Committee of the Senate Graduate Studies Committee, I drafted a document
and took it back to that Committee. The Committee, sitting in Committee
of the whole, discussed it in detail and I then rewrote the document in
the light of that discussion.
I took the rewritten document back to the Executive Committee of
the Senate Graduate Studies Committee for action on August 2, 1971 and
it was passed unanimously. I then took it to the Academic Planning
Committee who suggested a number of amendments. As the Academic Planning
Committee is not a Committee of Senate I took the point of view that they
could not amend the document but I undertook to take their suggested
amendments to the Senate Graduate Studies Committee.
.
?
The Senate Graduate Studies Committee discussed the paper on
August 9. It accepted all the amendments suggested by the Academic Planning
Committee but then itself amended the document so as to effectively reject
I
-2-
one suggested amendment. The amendment rejected was as follows: that
in the case of the establishment of any new degree program the Academic
Planning Committee was to be consulted.
At the August 9 meeting of the Senate Graduate Studies Committee
there was vigorous debate of the paper. Objections to it fell under two
headings: objections to principles in the paper and objections centering
round the fact that departments had not had enough time to discuss the
paper. To. meet the second point the following
procedure was adopted: there was a solid majority in favour of the
paper and it was therefore forwarded to Senate for approval; but the
Committee agreed to meet again before the next Senate meeting, so that
if, after fuller discussion with departments, the paper seemed un-
acceptable, it could be withdrawn from Senate.
The paper accordingly went to the Senate Agenda Committee. That
Committee rejected it on three grounds:
a)
It was said to be inconsistent with the Universities Act
b)
It was so written as to accommodate the form of the Faculty
of Education decided by Senate only in principle; the
objection being that until the changes in the Faculty of
Education had been approved in detail by Senate new Senate
documents should conform to the Senate regulations presently
in force
c) The President wanted to refer the document to the Academic
Planning Committee.
Point a) is a nice point in law but it seemed simpler to seek an
amendment to the document than to get ourselves into dubious legal waters.
b) could be accQiflrpodated with some simple housekeeping but again an
amendment was required. c) presumably was a further shot in the battle
as to whether Academic Planning should be consulted in all cases of the
MM
introduction of a new graduate degree program.
Because the document had been rejected by the Senate Agenda
Committee, the September 13 meeting of the Senate Graduate Studies
Committee was no longer one where the paper could simply be withdrawn
from, or left before, Senate. Accordingly there was full scale debate
of the paper both in Committee of the whole and, later, sitting in
ordinary session.
Amendments were offered and passed in three different categories.
First, amendments were passed to accommodate points a) and b) above
Second, an amendment was offered, based on a detailed
discussion with the Chairman of the Academic Planning Committee, to
provide that the
.
'Academic Planning Committee shall be consulted on all
cases where a new graduate degree program is to be offered. Third,
• ?
amendments were passed to meet those objections raised at the August 9
meeting of the Senate Graduate Studies Committee and later in written
submissions to me by interested groups. The paper passed
by a vote of 8 to 5 and is accordingly forwarded to Senate.
It is of course a pity that the paper could not come to Senate
backed by a unanimous vote. If I had thought that a unanimous vote
were possible I would have withdrawn the paper and rewritten it. However,
any paper dealing with such serious conflicts of principles defies
unanimous consent. I here outline the two main points of conflict of
principle involved:
1) There is a fundamental conflict of principle between the notions
of the power of freely associated groups of faculty members, the powers
of departments,and the power of the University. The provisions of this
paper involve two changes in the present power structure: a) Well
qualified groups of faculty members can offer interdisciplinary programs
(under careful control by University bodies as regards both the qualif i-
cations
of
of
the faculty members involved and the use of university
0 ?
resources) independent of departments b) Review, under specific
criteria, of all graduate programs, including departmental programs,
by University bodies is provided for. These two provisions have been
seen as an erosion of departmental power.
2) Graduate programs can be seen as either faculty-member-oriented
or program-oriented or, of course, both. Faculty-member-oriented programs
are graduate programs mounted on the basis of having well qualified
faculty members in the area in which a program is to mounted. Program-
oriented graduate programs involve principal emphasis on the program of
studies to be offered. Very large and very good universities could
conceivably give equal weighting to both programs and the qualifications
of faculty members ,although it is notable that for genuine research
•
?
degrees most universities do not. The provisions of this document are
that for professional graduate degrees (e.g. the M.B.A.), the program is
of greater importance,while for genuine research degrees it is the quality
of the faculty members who direct and man the program which must be
primary. Thus, under the provisions of this document, the review procedure
is primarily directed at the qualifications of the faculty involved.
There is an even more fundamental matter of principle underlying
both points above which I stated frequently in debates on this paper and
which received sufficiently wide acceptance to bear repeating here. In my
opinion, there is only one way to attain and maintain high standards of
graduate work: namely to have good faculty of integrity. Without this,
no proliferation of regulations will achieve high quality; with it, there
will be good graduate work if the regulations allow it. Thus the aim of
legislation must be to provide a) a way for good programs to operate
smoothly, and b) a not too cumbersome procedure for discovering which
programs are good. The paper has been written in the light of this
-5-
0 ?
principle.
There are three other points of contention within this paper
where no real matter of principle is involved. If the qualifications
of faculty members are paramount, how many highly qualified faculty
members must one have in a given area before it is proper to mount a
graduate degree program? The numbers used in the document are as
follows: two for a Master's degree, four for a doctoral degree. These
numbers seemed to the Committee to be right but any straight number
tends to look arbitrary.
Some concern was expressed in the Committee over what constitutes
a "new graduate program". This is a notion which defies definition but
is surely clear enough in particular cases. When a department is not
now authorized to give, say, a Ph.D., the offering of a Ph.D. in that
department constitutes a new program. And the same reasoning applies
to interdepartmental programs. Or to put the same thing in another way,
we now have a set of established graduate programs, and procedures are
set out in the paper for recording exactly what these are. All other
programs are new.
Concern was also expressed in the Committee over what constitutes
an area of specialization within a discipline, a concept which plays an
important part in the paper. If one asks an Academic what his area or
areas of specialization are he can usually give an answer: he works in
transformational grammar, in analytic philosophy, in number theory, on
Dryden or Yeats, in 17th Century History, in solid state physics, in
constitutional law, or in more than one of these areas. It is precisely
S
these sorts of statements the paper envisages. In the language of the
paper, "the description of an area of specialization may be broad or
narrow, depending on the qualifications of the faculty involved" and, for
departments, that "it is in general better to have a few fairly broadly
I
-6-
stated areas of specialization rather than a great many very narrowly
stated areas". This section of the paper needs only to be implemented
in a straight-forward way.
Whatever its vices, this paper has three real virtues:
a)
It allows for the introduction of new graduate programs
under careful but flexible control.
b)
It allows for the introduction of inter-departmental
programs by the same procedures used for the introduction
of departmental programs.
c)
It gives specific direction as to what criteria are to be used
for the review of existing programs or the introduction of
new ones.
Jon Wheatley
/ o im
.
is
• ?
THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW GRADUATE
?
5,7/
ij3
PROGRAMS AND THE ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PROGRAMS
Description of document
This document lays out regulations for the introduction of
new graduate programs, new specializations within existing programs,
new programs offered by a sub-group within a Department, new inter-
disciplinary programs whether within departments or between departments,
and the assessment of existing programs. As a consequence it substitutes
for and goes beyond EGS. 41, sent to Senate for information on January 26,
1970. In designing the new document it has been borne in mind that
EGS. 41 has never been used, presumably because its provisions are so
cumbersome that it is less trouble to circumvent it than to follow it.
Preamble
•
?
Traditionally, new graduate programs at universities have just
been allowed to grow, usually round a few eminent men. Lately there has
been a move towards regulating the introduction of graduate programs with
considerable assessment procedures for proposed programs. It seems desir-
ab1eo strike a compromise between unfettered introduction of graduate
programs, though this has clear advantages in favour of spontaneity,
and heavily fettered introduction with elaborate assessment procedures
designed to protect standards. In this document, the attempt has been
made to keep the whole area of graduate programs flexible with the
continued possibility of the introduction and elimination of programs as
staff and need vary.
The establishment of new interdisciplinary graduate degree
programs between departments or graduate programs offered by a sub-group
within a department should follow the same guidelines (given below) as
the establishment of a graduate program within a department. The only
difference, indeed, is that a substitute structure must be found for the
departmental committees
committees which now handle graduate programs and graduate
40 ?
students.
There are in general two sorts of graduate degrees offered at
universities and, though there is a good deal of blending between them,
an operational distinction can be drawn. The sorts of programs are as
follows:
a) Research degree. The research degree involves a prescribed
course of study usually requiring a competence across a fairly broad field
but also requiring an area of intensive investigation peculiar to the
student. The programs are rarely directed to some specific end. At the
master's level they are associated with original research and at the
doctoral level require original research. There is usually no specified
entrance or graduation date and the student progresses through the program
largely at his own speed.
0 ?
b) Professional degree. The professional degree involves a
prescribed course of study, usually with few options for the student, not
necessarily culminating in a thesis. The programs are customarily directed
to some specific end which need not necessarily be closely associated with
original research. The degree is invariably at the master's level and
is seen as a terminal degree. Such programs usually take students in
groups with a specified date for entry and graduation. An example of such
a program in existence is the M.B.A.; a proposed proram is that in
Pest
010
gy.
It is clear that appropriate mechanisms for introducing these
two types of programs will differ somewhat; with the research degree
it is of central importance that there are faculty members competent to
direct research in
the required area; research
facilities, where
required, must be
committed in advance. ?
With the professional degree
the program is of central importance and must be specified in advance;
the staffing for the courses to be offered must be committed in advance.
-3-
I Authorization for new graduate programs and new areas of specializa-
tion within authorized programs
The authorization of new graduate programs covers new programs
within existing departments and programs offered between existing
departments.
All new graduate programs require the approval of Senate.
Senate shall, in general, act on such matters only on the basis of a
recommendation from the Senate Graduate Studies Committee. The investi-
gating component of the Senate Graduate Studies Committee shall be its
Executive Committee who shall consult with the Academic Planning Committee
and other appropriate bodies in the University before making its
recommendation. Any member of faculty, or groups of members of faculty,
may submit proposals for new graduate programs under the specifications
of III or IV below.
0 ?
The Executive Committee of the Senate Graduate Studies Committee
shall have the power to authorize new areas of specialization within an
existing program and shall report such authorization to Senate for
information. Any member of faculty, or groups of members of faculty, may
submit proposals for new areas of specialization within an existing
program.
Any application for a new master's or doctoral degree program
shall have the approval of the Faculty Committee or Committees concerned
before being submitted to the Executive Committee of the Senate Graduate
Studies Committee. At the earliest possible time, preferably before
submission to the Faculty Committee or Committees, a copy of the
application shall be sent to the Dean of Graduate Studies for information.
S
In assessing proposed graduate programs or proposed new areas of
specialization, the Executive Committee of the Senate Graduate Studies
-4-
Committee will, in all cases, follow such procedures as it thinks
necessary for a proper assessment. In cases where it is clear that
a new program or a new area of specialization is justified, it will
endeavour to act quickly, especially in interdisciplinary areas where
there will be only a few students. However, on occasions when the
case is not clear, the Committee has the power to strike an independ-
ent committee to report back to it, to require outside assessment or
to require any other reports or assessment it thinks necessary. The
criteria to be used are given in III and IV below.
II The peculiarities of interdepartmental programs or programs offered
by a sub-group within a department.
Any interdepartmental program, or one offered by a sub-group
within a department, shall have a Program Committee with the powers of
is
a Departmental Graduate Studies Committee and the authority to set
formal requirements for the interdepartmental degree or sub-depart-
mental degree. In the case of an interdepartmental degree, the Program
Committee shall consist of at least one faculty member from each
department concerned and one other faculty member from one of the
departments concerned. In the case of a degree offered by a sub-group
within a department, the Program Committee shall consist of at least
three faculty members from the department concerned. Membership in the
Program Committee shall be determined by the department or departments
concerned. All faculty on the Program Committee except, if desired,
one member shall be qualified as required for the establishment of
a new research graduate program or a new professional degree program
as given in III and IV below. Any program offered by a sub-group within
is
a department shall have the approval of the department concerned.
III
-
Criteria
Criteria of assessment for new research graduate programs or new areas
. ?
of specialization within such programs
New research degree programs or areas of specialization within
existing programs can be proposed by any faculty member or group of
faculty members, whether within an existing department or not. The
description of an area of specialization may be broad or narrow,
depending on the qualifications of the faculty members involved. Thus
the wording of the description of an area of specialization is up to
individual faculty members or groups of faculty members and it is under
the submitted wording that the application or review investigation
will take place. The various reviewing bodies have no power to change
the wording of a stated area of specialization though they could
suggest changes in wording. With departmental areas of specialization
at least, it is in general better to have a few fairly broadly stated
is
areas of specialization rather than a great many very narrowly stated
areas.
The general criteria the Committee will use in making the
assessment of a new program or a new area of specialization are the
following. New research graduate programs will be approved only within
specified areas of specialization. A new application is required
whenever a new specialization is added. For a new master's program or
area of specialization at the master's level, at least two faculty
members shall have a Doctorate or significant publication in the area
concerned or a closely related area; for a new doctoral program or
area of specialization at the doctoral level, four faculty members shall
be so qualified. An exception can be made to this rule for one
• ?
faculty member if an outside assessor with significant publications
in the area states that the faculty member meets the intention behind
these formal requirements in a less formal way. Any new equipment,
-
?
.
library acquisitions
acquisitions or other charges on the University for the new program
shall be stated and sources of funds for these charges given. In the
case of library acquisitions there shall be an independent report from
the Library. If the program is interdepartmental or sub-departmental,
the membership in the Program Committee shall be specified and the
qualifications of its members given (see II above).
IV Criteria of assessment for new professional graduate programs (masters
level ony)
New professional degree programs can be offered by a department
or sub-group within a department or in an interdepartmental area. There
shall be a program specified; the faculty to teach and direct the
program shall be specified and their qualifications .for teaching in
the program given, any extra facilities required shall be committed.
• ?
The chair(men) of the department(s) concerned or the dean(s) of faculty
concerned shall give their written commitment that faculty in their
department(s) or faculty(ies) will be available to teach the courses
required. If new faculty members are required there must be written com-
mitment from a faculty dean or faculty deans that funds will be made
- ?
available for hiring such faculty. The composition of the Program
Committee shall be specified and the chairman named, who will act as
Director of the program. Where students are to be taken in groups,
a statement as to the anticipated enrolment shall be given. Entrance
requirements shall be specified.
V Review of existing graduate programs
The Executive Committee of the Senate Graduate Studies
Committee can at any time require justification for an existing graduate
program with its areas of specialization by the criteria for the introduc-
tion of new graduate programs or new areas of specialization. It
shall do this for all existing graduate programs at least once every
ten years. Findings of this investigation, with recommendations for
action (if
(if any), shall be reported to Senate through the Senate Graduate
Studies Committee. The interest of students in existing programs shall
at all times be protected.
VI Announcement of Programs
Any new graduate program authorized by Senate may be announced
in the graduate calendar either under- the departmental offering,
where appropriate, or under a new section to be titled 'Interdepart-
mental Graduate Degrees.' The usual information about entrance and
degree requirements should be given.
VII Implementation
These rules come into force as soon as they are passed by
Senate. The Executive Committee will then request from departments the
programs with areas of specialization in which they are qualified under
these regulations to direct graduate work for the degrees they now
offer. Detailed justification for these programs and areas of
specialization will not be required at that time but the names of
faculty members whose qualifications justify an offered specialization will
be requested. These programs and areas of specialization will then
form the authorized programs at Simon Fraser to be reviewed and augmented
or decreased under the provisions of these regulations.
VIII Special Provision for Faculty of Education, if required
If at any time Senate passes a resolution taking the Faculty
of Education a faculty without departments, the following paragraph
shall be inserted at the end of Article II:
The Faculty of Education, which has no departments, will
offer graduate degrees by forming Program Committees in discrete areas
of specialization under the provisions of this and the next two sections.
-8 -
Membership in such Program Committees shall be set by the Faculty of
Education. Areas of specialization which involve a parent discipline
in another faculty shall always contain at least one faculty member
from the parent discipline.
C
0
