Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9

To ? 

SENATE 

?

From

B.

C. WILSON 

/3c)

VICE-PRESIDENT, ACADEMIC 

Subject

CURRICULUM AND CALENDAR CHANGES - 

?

Date NOVEMBER 

25,

1971

- FACULTY OF ARTS 

MOTION: ? 

1. "That Senate refer the broad issues set forth in 

Papers S.71-130, 130a, and related issues, to the 

Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies for its 

consideration and recommendations to Senate. 

2. That Senate now consider directly each of the 

current proposals from the Faculty of Arts sub- 

mitted by the Senate Committee on Undergraduate 

Studies." 

.'

SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

MEMORANDUM

To ? 

SENATE 

?

FromB. C. WILSON

Subject CURRICULUM AND CA 

?

DateNOVEMBER 25, 1971 

- FACULTY OF ARTS 

The Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies recently 

reviewed a large number of proposed curriculum and calendar 

changes proposed from the Faculty of Arts and encountered some 

difficulties. Attached is a report to me from the Chairman of 

the Committee raising a number of issues, and a further report 

from the Secretary requested by the Senate Agenda Committee. 

The Committee has made specific recommendations con- 

cerning the submission on Archaeology, Economics and Commerce, 

and the Department of Modern Languages. It has also transmitted 

to Senate for Senate's direct action the submissions of Philosophy, 

Psychology and PSA. The two attached reports identify a number of 

reasons for the actions taken by the Committee following its 

• ? 

considerations. It is to be noted that some of the issues raised 

apply to the submissions for which specific recommendations are 

made, and not only to those without specific recommendations. 

This was recognized by the Committee. 

The Committee was established during the current year to 

consider Undergraduate submissions and to coordinate these. Its 

first meeting was held in June. A number of issues which have 

been raised have been with the University for some time, but 

without being directly considered. As suggested by the Committee, 

principles and policies are unclear in a number of areas. It is 

my view that it would be inappropriate to expect immediate resolu- 

tion of each of the stated and related issues, and that due time 

is required for satisfactory resolution and coordination. 

Senate could deal with the specific recommendations, and 

not consider those items for which specific recommendations have 

not been made by SCUS pending such recommendations. It will be 

noted that the recommendations have been approved by the Faculty 

of Arts - the only procedure which would have pertained prior to 

the establishment of SCUS. Alternatively Senate could consider 

each of the submissions, utilizing such information as provided 

by SCUS. The Committee could then be given broad charge to con- 

sider all items already approved by Senate including any new 

approvals now made, or to further consider those new items about 

•

?

which Senate may have doubt at this time and which it may refer 

to the Committee. 

• ? 

-2 - 

It is my intention to ensure that there is resolution as 

rapidly as possible of a number of the issues raised, to clarify 

policies to ensure that similar difficulties will be unlikely to 

be encounted in submissions for future years. 

I recommend: 

1.

That Senate refer the broad issues set forth in Papers 

S.71-129, 129a, and related issues, to the Senate 

Committee on Undergraduate Studies for its consideration 

and recommendations to Senate. 

2.

That Senate now consider directly each of the current 

proposals from the Faculty of Arts submitted by the 

Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies. 

•

SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

MEMORANDUM

1

.........................Dr. B.C... 

. ?

From.... Dr 

.

. J. Chase, chairman 

..... AcademicVi:c..President 

Subject

........URRICULUN AND CALENDAR CHANGES 

- FACULTY OF ARTS 

?

-

Senate. Committee on Under graduate$.u.ies 

Dato..... 

November 

17th, 1 

.

971

?

.

I \

The Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies at its meeting on 

November 15th, 1971 considered recommended calendar revisions submitted 

by Departments in the Faculty of Arts and approved by the Faculty of 

Arts Curriculum Committee. In the course of its review, a series of 

issues were raised for which there are no corresponding University 

policies. In the absence of such policies, and given the time constraints 

confronting the Committee, the recommendations from the Departments of 

Philosophy, Psychology and Political Science, Sociology and Anthropology 

have been forwarded without action from the Committee to Senate for its 

consideration. While the Committee took specific action on the proposals 

submitted by the Departments of Archeology, Economics and Commerce and 

Modern Languages, the issues raised below should be considered applicable 

to these departments as well. ? 

-

Issues Arising from Consideration of Calendar Revisions 

1. Course Numbering - there is a total absence of stated University 

policy relating to the differences between courses at the 100, 200, 

300 and 400 level. In the absence of policy, it is difficult if 

not impossible for any University body to rule on the merits of 

proposed numbering changes when there is no clear rationale offered 

for the changes proposed or when there are no criteria against 

which to evaluate a rationale when.offered. 

Several examples may suffice to demonstrate the nature of the 

problems involved: 

-2 - 

Discontinue 

Discontinue 

Discontinue 

Discontinue 

Discontinue 

Discontinue 

Discontinue 

Discontinue 

Discontinue 

Ec/Com 235-3 and 

Ec/Com 236-3 and 

Ec/Com 380-3 and 

Ec/Com 323-5 and 

Phil.

205-3 and 

Phil. 208-3 and 

Psych . *220 

?

and

Psych. *2

30

?

and

Psych.

*240 

?

and

renumber as 

renumber as 

renumber as 

renumber as 

renumber as 

renumber as 

renumber as 

renumber as 

renumber as 

Ec/Com 332-3 

Ec/Com 333-3 

Ec/Coni 280-3 

Ec/Com 223-5 

Phil. 341-3 

Phil. 344-3 

Psych. 302 

Psych. 303 

Psych. 304 

* The rationale offered by the Psychology Department is that 

there is no real difference in the level of these 200 level 

courses as compared with the level of the 300 level courses. 

2. Permission of Instructor - under the ma.il pre-registration system, 

the accornodation of the requirement of "permission of instructor" 

and/or "permission of the department" has been identified as a 

significant problem area. While a student who is currently on 

campus may seek approval of the instructor/department prior to the 

pre-registration procedure, this provision may cause some concern 

for students not on campus with potentially adverse results in 

enrollments in those particular courses. 

While some departments have taken steps to specify their course 

requirements with maximum clarity, others continue to rely heavily 

on the use of permission of instructor/department. 

For example: 

Philosophy 

150-3 at 

least 

?

1 ?

-

100 level course, or permission of instructor 

Philosophy 

203-3  

Philosophy 

100 or permission of instructor 

Philosophy 

210-3  

Philosophy 

110 or permission 

instructor 

Philosophy 

250-3  

Philosophy 

150 or permission of instructor 

-3-

For admission to its upper level seminars, the Department of Psychology 

proposes that a minimum of fifth level standing be required for 

admission and that in addition, admission to any upper level seminar 

require the permission of the instructor. 

While the Committee believes there is some merit in retaining 

"permission of the instructor" for directed readings and directed 

studies courses, it is not convinced of the necessity of its 

utilization in other circumstances, e.g., the cases cited above. 

3.

Permission to Waive Requirements - both in the current calendar and 

in the calendar revisions proposed, numerous course descriptions 

continue to provide for either fulfillment of course pre-requisites 

or "permission of the instructor." University policy is silent on 

the general question of whether the instructor alone shall have the 

right to waive pre-requisites for the particular course which he 

or she is teaching although in practice this right has been acknowledged. 

Furthermore, can an instructor waive coUrse pre-requisites only when 

"permission of instructor" is stipulated? 

4.

For. Approval? For Information? By Whom? To Whom? - under present 

operating procedures of the Registrar, a change in title, major 

change in course description, or change in credit hours requires a 

new course number and approval of Senate. The rationale for this 

approach is that information on courses is contained in the University's 

calendar; because the calendar is the official publication of the 

'University, significant changes thereto require approval of the 

University's Senate. 

The recommended calendar revisions for the 1972/73 year contain the 

following kinds of change': 

.

-4-

S..

a)

new course proposals 

b)

changes in course pre-requisites 

c)

major changes in course descriptions 

d)

changes in course title 

e)

changes in course credit hours 

f)

changes in the general requirements for majors or honors in 

individual departments 

g)

major changes in general.calendar statements 

Present procedures require that all of the above be submitted to the 

Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies for review and then to 

Senate for approval. Because all of the above changes now are given 

equal consideration, it is extremely difficult for Faculty or 

University bodies external to the department to determine what 

substantive changes are being proposed and to assess in any 

meaningful way the impact of those changes. 

We believe that, evaluation of proposed curricular changes would be 

enhanced by clarifying: 

a)

which curriculum changes require approval and by whom, and 

b)

which curriculum changes can be submitted for information only 

and to whom 

The Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies is prepared to take up 

immediately each of the above issues and prepare recommendations for 

consideration by Senate. However, given deadlines for submission, 

approval and publication of calendar materials, there is insufficient 

time to both resolve the aforementioned issues and review in any 

meaningful way the submissions from the Faculty of Arts (it is.unclerstood 

that submissions from the Faculties of Science and Education will, be 

forthcoming). Under these conditions, the Senate Committee on Undergraduate 

Studies agreed to request that the recommendations from the Faculty of 

Arts be submitted to Senate and to further request that they be 

accompanied by a copy of this letter to you. 

SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

,5.7/00/300.

MEMORANDUM

To ?

From SECRETARY 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES 

Subject

_C

Date

NOVEMBER 25. 1971 

- DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY 

- DEPARTMENT OF PSA 

The Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies gave 

consideration to the submissions of the Department of Philosophy 

and of Psychology and noted that a number of issues raised to 

a limited degree in the discussions on the proposals from 

Archaeology, Economics and Commerce, and the Department of 

Modern Languages continued in these proposals, some were inten- 

sified and additional ones were observed. 

Lengthy discussion was held to determine the most 

appropriate action to be taken. This discussion included: 

1.

Some consideration of earlier actions as taken by Senate, e.g. 

. ?

the numbering of courses, and lack of clear policy, as debated 

recently on Kinesiology, with approval of the submission then 

made; Philosophy 207-3 - Selected Topics which was approved by 

Senate some considerable time ago, but the concern of some of 

the members in providing selected topics at that level, now 

brought to attention by the renumbering system in Philosophy; 

the frequency of use of "permission of instructor," as exem- 

plified in the Psychology submission as a requirement for 

admission to any upper level seminar, but already approved by 

Senate and appearing in the calendar as it does for many courses. 

2.

Some discussion of the matter of items which clearly must be 

placed before Senate and some which might not, but without 

clear delineation - resulting in large volume of materials 

difficult to follow, under time constraints, lacking clear 

policy. 

3.

The difficulty of identifying what clearly is policy, what might 

be policy because of precedent actions, or what might have been 

single action without policy implication. 

4.

A consideration of the terms of reference of the Committee, of 

which body appropriately would undertake to clarify a number of 

the issues raised, and desirability of clear charge from Senate 

to undertake study. 

5.

A concern that holding the material in attempt to consider and 

resolve all possible policy issues would constitute significant 

change in practices without reasonable notification of policies 

which might be applied - a change of rules in mid-flow. 

6.

The standard operating procedures of the Committee, as announced 

to the University, that if substantive changes were made or pro- 

. posed by the Committee the item would be referred back to the 

initiating body for its acceptance of the changes, or for further 

modifications, but with the proviso that if the initiating body 

desired the original submission to go forward to Senate this 

would be done, with the Committee presenting its position with 

the submission and the initiating body adding to its submission 

any further data it desired. (The lack of clarity on policies 

would inhibit clear-cut statements.) 

7.

The lack of members in attendance from the Faculty of Arts to 

respond to questions of concern to the Committee,, and the im- 

possibility of scheduling a special meeting to provide for this 

prior to consideration of the material by the Senate Agenda 

Committee for presentation to the December meeting of Senate, 

as generally desired. 

•

?

?

Following consideration of the above and other factors, 

the Committee agreed that all of the submissions received from 

the Faculty of Arts be sent forward to Senate for its consideration, 

with the Chairman of the Committee to write to the Vice-President, 

Academic identifying a number of the issues, notably those arising 

from lack of clear policies, and identifying the willingness of 

the Committee to take up the issues to make recommendations thereon 

to Senate. It was understood that resolution of a number of the 

issues would take considerable time, but that it was desirable that 

they be initiated quickly for resolution hopefully in time that 

similar issues would not arise in consideration of items for the 

1973-74 calendar. 

It was requested that copy of the communication from the 

Chairman to the Vice-President, Academic accompany the bulk sub- 

mission of the Faculty of Arts proposals to Senate. 

(This explanation is provided at the request of the Senate Agenda 

Committee.) 

is