SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
?
L
API 1M0
R /N
D UM
.
?
Members of Senate
?
From... Academic PlanningCommit.cc
Subject ........
Modification of Summer Semester
?
Date .......... August 27, 1970
?
.
On July 6, 1970, S.T. Stratton, Acting Dean of Education
placed before Senate a proposal relating' to modification of the summer
semester at Simon Fraser University. At its meeting of July 6, 1970,
Senate moved that the proposal be referred to the Academic Planning
Committee, and that the Academic Planning Committee report back to
Senate on its deliberations in accordance with previous instructions
within 30 days with recommendations and priorities based upon con-
sideration of all academic programs currently before the Academic
Planning Committee.
The Academic Planning Committee has considered the proposal
and submits the following report for your review. The report
is in
three parts. Part I contains the major conclusions and recommendations
of the Committee. Part II represents a critique of the proposal
placed before Senate. In addition, in order to adequately assess the
merits of the proposal, it was necessary for the Committee to make a
number of implicit assumptions explicit and, further, to identify and
comment upon the operational issues that would be raised by the
implementation of the proposal in the form proposed. Part III contains
an assessment of several alternative motions which were considered by
the Committee.
I
Part I
..
Recommendations
In evaluating the proposal, the Committee sought to judge it in the
context of the following criteria:
1.
is there an identifiable demand for the program?
2.
are we duplicating a service provided elsewhere?
3.
the nature and extent of a University commitment to the
proposed program.
4.
the merit of this proposal relative to other new program
proposals received by the Committee.
The program proposed could accommodate those regular students of
the University who attend to either accelerate their program or to catch
up; at the same time, it could also accommodate those with regular employment
outside the University seeking advanced degrees. There is obviously a
significant body of Professional Development Centre graduates who have not
completed their degree programs. Presumably, these individuals will at some
point desire to obtain their degrees. At this time, the aforementioned bloc
of Professional Development Centre graduates represent the only identifiable
demand for the proposed program; all other projections of sources of enroll-
ment are largely speculative.
The existence of an eight-week summer session at the University of
British Columbia is acknowledged. However, under current conditions it is
very difficult for graduates of the S.F.U. Professional Development Program
to complete their requirements for degrees from S.F.U. by taking U.B.C. summer
session courses. There are several reasons for this. First, on the recom-
mendation of the Faculty of Education, no S.F.U. credit is given for education
courses taken at U.B.C. Second, a student seeking to transfer credit from
.
I
. . .
2
-2-
another institution to S.F.U. must have the approval of his department and the
Senate Committee on Admissions and Standings. As a general policy, the
Committee has refused to grant S.F.U. credit for upper division work taken
at another institution. Thus, implementation of the proposed program would not
duplicate an existing program in terms of accommodating the needs of graduates
of the University's Professional Development Program.
It has been suggested that by establishing its own summer half-term
S.F.U. would provide an educational opportunity to many in the lower mainland
area who either are not attracted to the course offerings at U.B.C. or,
probably more important, find it inconvenient to travel the distance involved
to the U.B.C. campus. This may well be the case. On the other hand, the
result of implementation of this program may well be to shift the demand
preferences between the two institutions rather than enlarge the total pool
of enrollees. On this issue, we simply do not know what the result will be.
To date, this University has made little effort to elicit from or
respond to the needs of the broader community of which it is a part. The
Committee believes that at least a partial implementation of this proposed
program would represent a commendable step in this direction.
The implications for the University resulting from implementation of
this proposal are subsequently described. In brief, we strongly believe
that without a major commitment to this program on the part of most departments
of the University, it will not serve well many of those students who might opt
to enroll in it. That is to say, without broad departmental participation,
there is little chance of an enrollment sufficient to justify the implementation
of this program. Assuming departmental commitment to the program, we note in
the appendices to these recommendations the possible effects on the existing
trimester operation resulting from shifts in the semester teaching preferences
of faculty. Given the possibility of these effects, we suggest that Senate
give consideration to the extent to which the University's commitment to the
-3-
.
trimester operation ought to be continued. Finally, there are the problems of
administrative accommodation of the program and the financial implications
resulting therefrom. It is our belief that the program can be accommodated
within the existing administrative structure of the University, but that the
accommodation will require a time and money commitment of existing staff of
considerable magnitude.
In summary, our major findings are:
Li
1.
full or partial implementation of this proposal would be a com-
mendable step toward responding to the needs of the wider community
of which Simon Fraser University is a part.
2.
at the present time, there is no substantative evidence of demand
for a May/June summer half term. The case for a July/August summer
half term is largely based on the approximately 1,000 graduates of
the Professional Development Program who have not completed their
baccalaureate degrees. The demand from the non-University community
for a July/August summer half term is, at this time, speculative.
3.
without broad departmental participation, the opportunity to
accelerate or complete degree programs will be severely constrained;
concomitantly, there will be little chance of an enrollment sufficient
to justify the full implementation of this program.
4.
the Deans of Arts and Science have indicated that only limited
support exists in their faculties for implementation of this pro-
posal; specifically, three out of thirteen departments in the Faculty of
Arts and two out of four departments in the Faculty of Sc Lence.
On the basis of these findings and relative to the other new program
.. proposals received by the Committee, we are prepared to recommend the following:
. . .4
I
V
-4-
•
1.
that the Faculty of Education be authorized to implement a
minimum program of eight-week courses to run during the July/August
portion of the summer semester.
2.
that departments in the Arts and Science faculties willing to
participate in the program be authorized to do so. In each case,
the option Lo participate to be left to the department.
3.
that the recommendations retarding instructors for the half-term
courses originate with the department offering the course.
4.
that the average class size of those courses offered during the
summer half-term be 22 students with no class to be offered with less
than 14 students.
0 ?
5. that all direct charges of the program not be assessed against
the existing resources of the participating departments but instead
be assessed against the new program monies of the University.
6.
that the total number of course offerings reflect the financial
constraints on the program approved by the Board of Governors upon
recommendation of the Academic Planning Committee.
7.
that responsibility for developing the operating plan for
implementation of this proposed program be vested with the Vice-
President Academic who will seek the approvals of the Board of
Governors and the Senate for those items requiring their approval.
8.
that the operation of the program be reviewed annually by the
Academic Planning Committee and an evaluation report submitted to
Senate.
9.
that after five years of operation, Senate review the program
and agree to either its continuance or discontinuance.
)AJ'J' 1 1
A l'roDosal to Nodif
the Summer Semc'.st:er
Summary of the Proposal
The summary set forth below is based upon the motion placed before
Senate at its meeting of July 6, 1970 by S. T. Stratton, icting Dean of
Education and the proposal
of July
18, 1970 submitted by Professor John
F. Ellis for consideration by the Univcrity's Academic Planning Committee:
To incorporate within the existing summer semester, two two-month
periods of study within either of which a student can complete
Senate-approved courses for full credit providing that the hours
of instruction and other requirements of the courses so offered
are equivalent to those in effect in the normal four-month semester;
such a program to commence with the 1971 summer semester.
Stated Rationale for the Proposal
1.
to
enable students who do not need or wish to undertake a full
semester of studies to complete courses in eight weeks.
2. to
enable students who are unable to attend the University for
a full
summer semester (school and college teachers and other groups)
to undertake courses in eight weeks.
3.
to
enable departments to broaden course offerings without
adding
faculty.
Critique of the Stated Rationale
If the
decision of the University's Senate is that eight-week
courses can be offered with no diminishment in the academic quality of such
courses, a very compelling reason for offering such courses is to enable
students who are unable to attend the University for a full summer semester
...2
-2 -
an opportunity to do so fo a shorter period. Approximately 800 students
without degrees have graduated from the Professional Development Program and
entered into teaching positions. Because the primary and secondary school
year in B.C. overlaps the University's summer semester, the only alternative
for those teachers who wish to complete their degrees at S.F.U. is to take
a leave of absence or resign their positions. The implementation of a July-
August summer session at S.F.U. would provide a more viable alternative to
these individuals. In so stating, we recognize that the existence of the
summer session at U.B.C. enables those graduates without degrees of the S.F.U.
Professional Development Program, to corplete their degree programs.
The S.F.U. Faculty of Science has recently become interested in
developing channels of communication between science teachers and the
University. While travelling lectures and workshops can certainly improve
the knowledge which teachers have of the science faculty at this University,
• ?
a summer session designed to allow teachers to take science courses would
greatly foster this process of communication. In addition, many science
teachers who have taken course after course at the U.B.C. summer session
may welcome the opportunity to attend S.F.U. and to sample course offerings here.
Furthermore, the option to enroll in an eight-week as opposed to
a sixteen-week session may well encourage greater participation in the
academic program of the University by the adult community in the lower main-
land area.
The enrollment in the University of British Columbia summer
session has been 5,664, 5,627 and 5,141 in 1968, 1969 and 1970 respectively.
In each of
those years, approximately half of the students have been those
with regular employment outside the University while the other half has
consisted of regular students of the University working primarily towards a
B.A.,
B.S. or
B.Ed. degree. The experience of the University of Michigan
with a
program very similar to that proposed for S.F.U. is that students
enrolled in
the first of the two summer half terms are drawn from those
present in
the preceding fall and spring terms who attend to either ac-
celerate their program or to catch up; on the other hand, the students in
the second of the two summer half terms are predominantly those with
regular employment outside the University who are seeking advanced degrees.
If the introduction of two summer half terms generates a
significant increase in enrollment, one benefit will be to reduce the overall
operating cost per student - a benefit of no small importance to S.F.U.,
when its current overall operating cost: per student is compared with that of
the Universities of British Columbia and Victoria.
As proposed, departmental course offerings would be increased to
the extent that S.F.U. faculty opt to earn, during one of the two summer
hf terms, the stipend associated with teaching during their research semester,
and visiting faculty-can be employed to teach the courses to be offered.
However, one of the rationales for the establishment of the research semester
was that faculty needed a period for "mental refurbishing" in which, free from
teaching and other administrative obligations, they could think, write and
do research. If this rationale continues to have validity, then the proposed
modification permitting faculty to maintain a full time teaching load for
twelve months of the year would appear to have some serious drawbacks. At
the same time, however, it is well known that many faculty are currently
undertaking various kinds of non-research assignments, including teaching,
during their research semesters. In the absence of a historical posture in
which research semesters have been used solely for this purpose, the serious
drawbacks referred to above are somewhat mitigated. Furthermore, resolution
of the issue of whether faculty need a four-month research semester as op-
posed to some other alternative could also modify our aforementioned objections.
The adoption of an honorarium approach may shift the teaching
preference patterns of faculty to one involving the fall-spring semesters
with the result that departments may be faced with too many faculty desiring
to
teach in the fall and spring semesters and an insufficient number in the
sixteen-week courses of the summer semester. Assuming that as a matter of
policy, the University desires to maintain the sixteen-week session, steps
will have to be taken to ensure that adoption of this proposal does not
lead either to increasing the number of courses with small enrollments or
to the di9continuance of the sixteen-week summer course offerings.
While the proposed modification would provide for a broadening of
the University's course offerings, it is questionable whether in all cases
this is desirable. Of the University's current undergraduate course offerings,
307 have enrollments of less than 10 students. To extend University offerings
without at the same time establishing minimum enrollment requirements cannot
be
justified. Furthermore, the broadening of the University's course of-
ferings could take the form of duplication of the same courses in the eight-
- Il -
and sixteen-week sessions. From either the viewpoint of students who desire
to maximize the course offering options or from the perspective of resource
allocation, such duplication cannot be justified.
While broadening of course offerings has considerable merit, it
rejects the alternative possibility of reducing the total number of faculty
while leaving unchanged or reducing the total number of course offerings.
Obviously, any successful effort to constrain the number of courses
with low enrollment will result in unused faculty effort. Given this
situation, one alternative is to create new courses expected to generate
greater student interest than those phased out; the other alternative is to
reduce the total number of faculty required to mount the academic program
of the University. Both alternatives are viable and, therefore, worthy of
consideration.
Implications of the Stated Proposal
In
order to prthvide the basis for a thorough appraisal of the
merits of the proposal, it was necessary for us to examine the effect of the
proposal on various facets of the University's operation. Our attempt has
been to identify the nature of the issue and
in
the absence of recommendations
on these
items from the authors of the motion and proposal respectively, to
provide our own for Senate's consideration. The implications have been sub-
divided into three categories: academic, cost, administrative.
Academic Implications
1. Distribution-of-Faculty-Teaching-Effort
A stated rationale for the proposal is to enable departments
to increase course offerings with no increase in faculty. This
is to
be achieved, in part, by having faculty who teach in the
fall and spring semesters undertake for a stipend the offering of
courses during the two summer semesters. Several
issues arise in
0 • .
5
-5..
S
this regard. First, should limits be imposed on the frequency with which
faculty can teach under the stipend arrangement in the summer half terms?
The need for mental refurbishing and opportunity for research argue strongly
for limits on the frequency of teaching under the stipend arrangement in the
summer half-terms. Our recommendation is that faculty either be permitted
to teach for stipend in one but not both of the two half-terms in any calendar
year or not more than two of the four eight-week sessions in a two year period.
A related issue is whether or not a faculty member should be
permitted to undertake a teaching load equi
v
alent to the expected
teaching load during a sixteen-week semester during one of the
summer half-terms in lieu of teaching during one of the regular
sixteen-week sessions thereby fulfilling his two out of three
1
.
semester calendar year teaching obligation to the University. Two
factors militate against this proposal. First, no broadening of
the range of departmental course offerings would be achieved. Con-
versely, a broadening of departmental course offerings could only
be achieved by adding faculty with a consequent upward increase
in the cost of mounting the academic program. Second, faculty
would fulfill their teaching commitments to the University in
six months rather than the eight now required under the existing
system
with a consequent further disruption in the committee
structure on which much of the administration of the University is
-
?
based.
For these reasons, our recommendation is that faculty not
be permitted to utilize one of the two summer half-terms in lieu
of one of the regular sixteen-week semesters in-'fulfilling their
• . ?
- University teaching obligations.
A final issue is whether or not a faculty member should be permitted
to teach o"er the two iimmer hlf_term c
z q
coure load equivalent to th
a
t .'hich
he would be expected to teach during a regular sixteen-week semester. Our
recommendation is that no such
q hiftir
g be permitted unless the replacement
in the fall or spring semester is of visiting status. We believe that requests
for permanent faculty on the basis of need determined during the summer semester
should not be considered
...6
MM
2. Departmental Participation in Modified Summer Semester Program
The adoption 'of two suniiuer half-terms will not facilitate
student efforts to either accelerate their programs, do make-up
work or complete degrees unless there is a broad range of course
offerings across the University community. This suggests that the
participation of many departments is desirable if the aforementioned
objectives are to be achieved. At the same time, we recognize that:
a.
the time-tabling of entry into an 8-week participation
program will be very awkward.
b.
the motion placed before Senate made participation optional
C.
study may indicate that a certain minimum of departments
and courses could satisfy the majority of student needs.
d. departments that might say "no" at the moment if not
forced to participate may well say "yes" at a later date if it
becomes ndvantageous to them to do so.
For these reasons, we-are not prepared to recommend that all
departments be required to participate in the program. At the same
time, however, we are of the opinion that without broad departmental
participation, opportunity for students to fulfill any of the ob-
jectives set forth at the beginning of this section or for the
University to anticipate n
ny significant increase in enrollment are
severely constrained.
•
?
In
Pddition to the issue of departmental participation, efforts
will
have to be made to insure that mutually compatible courses
are placed in
the same summer half-terms, e.g., it will be of
little avail to spread the courses required by public school teachers
over both summer half-terms if it is only possible for teachers to
enroll in
the second of the half-terms.
•
?
. ?
3. Teaching of Courses
Our recommendation reflects that contained in the Ellis pro-
. ?
posal to
the Academic Planning Committee, i.e., courses may be
taught
by either regular faculty
on
research semester or by
visiting faculty.
. . . 7
-7-
S
4. ?
Equivalency of Course Requirements
?
in
-
the
-
Eight-Week
Sessions
To Those in t:he Regular Semesters.
To the maximum extent possible, we believe that contact hours
and all other requirements of courses offered in either of the two
eight-week sessions ought
?
to be equivalent to those in effect in
the normal four-month semester.
?
If such is the case, we recommend
that separate Senate approval,
?
for offering the course during the
summer semester not be required.
?
If on the other hand, a course
to be offered during one of the summer sessions will deviate signi-
ficantly from the form in which it is offered during the fall or
spring semesters,
?
then we recommend that separate Senate approval
be required.
?
Furthermore, ?
any special course designed to take par-
ticular advantage of the summer half-term should also require
Senate approval.
Cost Implication
1.
?
Faculty-Stipends-for-Eight-Week-Summer-Session-Courses
Honoraria can be paid on the basis of rank, course,
?
credit
hour or
contact hour.
?
Our belief
is
that payment ought to relate
to the amount of contact with students and the level of experience
of the individual teaching the course.
?
On this basis, neither course
nor credit hour meets the above criteria.
?
Our recommendation,
therefore, ?
is
as follows:
Rank
?
Honoraria/contact hour
Professor
Associate Professor
Assistant Professor
Instructor
Furthermore, we recommend that honoraria be paid only for those
courses in
which formal instruction is offered on a regular basis,
and that persons who are hired to teach summer session courses
. . . 8
-8-
. ?
not holding university appointments, e.g., teachers and school
superintendents, be paid at one of the two lower levels of honoraria.
Last, we recommend that as regards visiting Professors, teaching in
the summer half-terms, they be entitled to one return air fare
toward their moving expenses.
2. Student Fees
We donot believe that there is room in the summer half-terms
for substantial deviation from the fee schedule per credit hour
established for the regular Uiversity semesters. Our rationale
is simply that a course now offered in the regular sixteen-week
semester which is converted to an eight-week course will be es-
sentially the same course and therefore ought to reflect the fee
structure which applies to that course during the normal semester
operation. Our recommendation, therefore, is that fees per credit
hour in the summer half-terms reflect those now in existence during
the regular semesters.
3.
Direct Cost Implications
The direct cost implications resulting from implementation of
the proposal will vary depending on the way in which it is im-
plemented. Assuming that the two summer half terms are
additive to the regular sixteen-week summer semester, introduction
of the modified summer semester can be expected, at least initially,
to result in an increase in the total cost of operating the aca-
demic program. This will occur because with the same number of
faculty as under the existing trimester operation, stipends will
have to be paid to S.F.U. and visiting faculty to teach during the
proposed two summer half-terms. Alternatively, if the two
summer half - terms
?
are in lieu of the regular sixteen-week
summer semester, additional costs will be incurred only to the
extent that stipends are paid for the offering of courses which
are in addition to those normally offered during the summer sixteen-
week period. The same cost analysis applies also to the third
option, namely that two summer half-terms be added to the regular
sixteen-week semester and that the total offering of courses
spread over the three periods be equivalent to those currently
offered during the sixteen-week summer semester.
-
?
--
in
nuM, in the ehor
t;
MUM
Ehu
r p
uill. be
add ii: i.one 1 direct
. ?
Cwt.s clr;;
( )c
j
lit cd wich the jntiidue ion oS' two sunrncr ha 1,1-terms
with their use coh1eincnt of co;cs where Lhcy arc added to the
full
CO
element
of
courses offered under the ex
i
sting sixteen-
week summer sernes toe. under e0her of the other two opt: on:
icreased direct costs
costs will be a function of the extent to which
acidS Lionel courses above those normally provided during the
existing summer semester are offered.
Over the longer term, cost savings
wi
ll be achieved on] y if
the acadenc program under
the
proposed mcdi ications of the
summer semester can be. mounted with less
facul
ty
than that required
to offer the existing Lhrcc-senos Ler programs. The sov:i.ngs over
the long term will thus he a function of growth in studenL en-
rollment, faculty
ex
pansion and
1ev
repi ac ement of exist ing faculty
At ?
S. F. U, ,
?
faculty attrition
has consistently been around
57 per
year.
"lets,
?
if ?
this ?
average
is maintained,
?
the opportunity
to
hold or
significantly reduce
total
?
direct
?
costs
appears ?
slight.
4.
?
led :i reeL Cost Impi ications
Imnpleinentatiort of the pro
p
osal would pose a number of issues to
be resolved in the following administrative areas of the University
admissions, registration, course scheduling, e:nmination scheduling,
fees, residences, bookstore, health services, traffic and parking,
and the issuance and recall of library cards. In addition, sub-
stantial changes
will
be required in academic and administrative
policies, procedures, records, computer programs and schedules.
The format of a number of forms will require changes, while the
frequency and complexit
y
of the reports will increase considerably,
'e.g.,
class lists, transcripts,
enrolment: statistics, etc..
It is extremely difficult to put a price tag on these areas.
The costs involved reflect primarily the time of exist i.i'ig staff
required to resolve the problems associated with implementation of
. ?
. ?
.
- i() -
taL11ing
ic':;cri
h
Ij
U e: dun u; one of the two c .ht-week SeSSiOnS
?
?
Wiero a facuLty ni
?
her c ooses t:o tc:Jc]
I
in beth summer La) Jtcrra:;
fu lieu of one of the reuJ.ur scinestci's , we recommend thai: t:hc
normal accrual. Lo-war
d
so bUa t
ica I J. cave appiy
11.
Facul Ly Fringe Benef
I
!:s
)3cca use the s t: ipend for services
rendered
during the
,
summer
ha If I: erms is above and beyond the salary paid to faculty for fill.-
Eli iment: of !Awi-r normal Univer5; I ty obi igat ions , it is Our recoin-
mendat ion that no Univc.rs it:y benefits a ccompany
the
sI i
pend payment:
Deduct ions for social insurance and iiaco;nc tax will he made in
accordance with established University policy.
tTherc a faculty iiiembr:r ChooseS 1:o
tC.3Ch
in
bOth
SUmfliiicO
La if -
terms in lieu of one of the regular semesters • we recommend
that.
the normal fringe benefits apply.
12.
Other
Implementation of the proposal. wou].d require consideration hE
the following:
A. Fees
1.
2.
3.
a.
1).
C.
B. fles nd coca
C. ?
llooi:si:ore
D. OtJier Areas
C
•
In the fol Jowint section, several a] t:Crnats\'C
1
)ropo
fin
are den-
cr.bed and An advantages and d
i.sadvnin a gcn ol each are idcii
Li
fled . Tiefone
procending to the neat section, it is appropriate
at
thi
s
point to high-
Jight:
t:iie major ndvnnLnpesnnd
disadvanlagcn which have emerged
fro
")
our
aria lys Is of this proposal.
ANnnVyies
1, one bi en students who no not need or wish to und ert:a be a fuJl
semester of studies to complete credit courn cs in ci ght: weeks
2.
provides an opportunity for those with regular employment out-
side the University to seek advanced degrees
3.
increases
the number of
options open to faculty relative to
use of their
t
ime during their research semen Let without: imposing
any constraints on their scheduling of research and teaching
semesters
• increases student: flexibility to schedule course work around empi oy!ncnt
opportunities.
5,
offers the opportunity of either broadening the number of course
offerings or reducing the total number of faculty required,
6. presumably,
those
students currently enrolled in the regular
summer semester will be retained; combined with those stodents
now able to attend because of the addition of two eight-week
sessions, the overall effect ought to be one of significantly
increased summer enrollment.
6,
possible phasing out of the sixteen-week summer semester.
DisadvanLees
1. possible phasing
out of the si>;
?
c-week steamer semester.
2. ?
without adequate
controls,
could
lead
to significant
?
increase
in the number of cow:
sos with
small enrollments.
3.
?
involves
?
a major
restructuring
of
the
University's
?
academic
program in the absence
of cupirical
evidence
rela t ing to
?
the
effec
t
?
on enrollment.
4, costs are likely to he
significant involving both faculty
honoraria and the development and conversion costs involving
•
Iv(:ri Ly
cuurnc o.fiin;
?
p olicj,us, procedures, records, iorin;
PLC,
-
,•
?
depaum p of s \TjJ ] 1)\;' to SMW C
t:ic]Ly and
C0ur;C
off
ui.'I
1V(
times a year r; Lh
c:r
than th
6,
?
dup] ic;Lc::;
an
existing program nt L]s Uiiivorsit:y of J;:i Lisb
Cc
1. uni ;i
?
j. c1 h :;
?
o far Wen a Ii
Cs
to a cccasnnsidn
I Cs
a 1. 1 s Ludan
An wish to ;ipjs].y.
0
4
Part III
Alternative Motions
The proposed summer semester modification would lead to the es-
tablishment of two summer half-terms in addition to the regular summer
semester. In addition, there were several other ait:ernative. modifications
of the summer semester which were considered. They included the following:
.•
1.
two si.immer half-terms only
2.
one 16-week summer semester and one summer half-term only
3.
one summer half-term only
The proposed mode of operation and the advantages and disadvantages of each
are identified below:
1. To Summer Half-Terms Only
A.
Mode _of_Operation
A two summer half-term teaching load would be the equi-
valent of one full-time teaching load in either the fall or
spring semesters. Stipends to he paid to visiting faculty
teaching one or the other of the summer half-terms and to
permanent faculty who had taught in the fall and spring scmetOs
or who taught in the spring semester and was scheduled to teah
in the fail semester.
B.
Advantes
1. would enable students who do not need or wish to under-
take a full semester of studies to complete courses in eight
weeks.
0
Part III
Alternative _Motions
The proposed summer semester modification would lead to the es-
tablishment of two summer half-terms in addition to the regular summer
semester. In addition, there were several other al.t:ernative. modifications
of the summer semester which were considered. They included the following:
.,,
1.
two simmer half-terms only
2.
one 16-week summer semester and one summer half-term only
3.
one summer half-term only'
The proposed mode of operation and the advantages and disadvantages of each
are identified below:
1. Two Summer Half-Terms Only
A. Mode of Operation
A two summer half-term teaching load would be the equi-
valent of one full-time teaching load in either the fall or
spring semesters. Stipends to he paid to visiting faculty
teaching one or the other of the summer half-terms and to
permanent faculty who had taught in the fall and spring semests
or who taught in the spring semester and was scheduled to teah
in the fall semester.
B.
Advges
1. would enable students who do not need or wish to under-
take a full semester of studies to complete courses in eight
weeks.
0
-2-
40 ?
2. would enable students who are unable to attend the
University for a full summer semester to complete courses
in an eight-week period.
3.
would retain the existing trimester operation.
4.
presumably, those students currently enrolled in the
regular summer semester would be retained; combined with
those students now able to attend because of an eight-
week sesssion, the overall effect ought to he one of sig-
nificantly increased summer enrollment.
5, would provide departments with the option of offering
courses under either a sixteen- or eight-week arrangement.
6.
would not constrain faculty flexibility relative to
teaching/research semesters.
7.
in the absence of any substantative data on which to
base enrollment projections or faculty and student pre-
ferences, it is a more prudent approach than to proceed
with the development of one sixteen- and two eight-week
sessions.
C.
1.
departments would have to schedule courses and faculty
four times a year rather than the present three.
2.
would require the development, modification and revision
of many University policies, procedures, records and machine
programs.
3.
cost of implementation
3. One Summer Half-Term Only
A.
Mode
All courses to be on a stipend basis.
B.
Advantages
1. would provide for greater continuity in the committee
structure of the University, because all faculty would be
required to teach during the fall and spring semesters.
40
0
S
-
.
?
2. would require fewer faculty to mount the academic
program and thus provide for a lower overall operating
cost.
3. would reduce the faculty and course scheduling problems
faced by departments relative to those arising under the
trimester operation.
&. would enable students who do not need or wish to
undertake a full semester of studies to complete courses in
eight weeks.
5.
would enable students who are unable to attend the
University for a full summer semester to complete courses
in an eight-week period.
C.
1.
would mean less than full time use of the University
facilities.
2. would constrain faculty flexibility in terms of research
semesters since all would have to teach during the fall
and spring semesters.
3.
would presumably have an adverse effect on summer
semester enrollments. Since faculty will be required to
teach in both the fall and spring semesters, the number
of course offerings will be dependent: upon the number of
permanent faculty desiring to earn the additional stipend
and visiting faculty who are attracted for the same reason.
Under these conditions, it is not likely that the number
of courses offered will be equivalent to those now offered
under the existing summer semester. With curtailment
of course offerings, overall enrollment is also likely to
be curtailed.
4.
student flexibility to either accelerate their program
or to schedule
COU1SC
work around employment opportunities
would be severely constrained
0
ME
.
?
5. would mean elimination of the third regular semester
under the trimester operation.
6.
would require conversion of all courses to he taught
in the summer half-term to an eight-week basis.
7.
could well force the elimination of some course
offerings during the summer semester because of an in-
a-bility to convert them from sixteen- to eight-week courses.
8.
would require the development, modification and revision
of many University policies, procedures, records and
machine programs.
L r
-S
C--
Computing Science Program - Faculty of Science
The following is the result of a study of a proposed
introduction of serious computer science work into the under-
graduate program of the University. tt is envisaged that
graduate work would start later.
As a starting point the recent (March
1968) proposals
of the A.C.M.
1
were used, together with the older recommendations
of the C.U.P.M.
2
It should be noted that the former document
supercedes earlier ACM proposals and takes into account the
CUPM document.
The next few pages show the ACM proposals in diagramatic
form and
the proposed action in respect of these proposals.
I . Curriculum 68.
Recommendations
for Academic Programs
in
Computer Science. A report of the ACM Curriculum CommIttee on
Computer Science.
?
-
Communications
,
of the Association for Computing Machinery,
111
(1968)
51-196.
2. Recommendations on the Undergraduate Mathematics Program for
Work in Computing. Committee on the Undergraduate Program in
Mathematics, Mar,
196k.
S
EQUIVALENCE OF CUPM COURSES AND PRESENT
?
Pi
MATHEMATICS DEPARTNT COURSES
The following table is an assessment in general terms
of the equivalence of the CUPI
v
I courses quoted in the ACM
Curriculum with present Mathematics Department courses. The
CUPM courses are given in the
publicatIon:. A
General Curriculum
in
Mathematics
for Colleges. A Report to The liathematical
Association of America. Committee on the Undergraduate Program
in Mathematics,
1965.
Naturally the equivalence is not exact.
Note: I2, Mk are best considered as a unit.
40
tuft Cu)uu,
tCutuuISI
S of fin
ruu)uosu 0
uPDt ftiuuADuJAIt
ruOGIiAU
A.CM
N
•
j-
A ?
.twl,t.11't
?
en ?
AifrancrcI
?
Con.ui,,Irt 5(.nnr • Co.aS
jr.•,tqubfl
I'retC(UiMtC
,tructure of courses
EJII
?
__j
1 ! -116 L
11-
i • s'.l
l
'
i ,%I.l S i
?
llI r,Il'u.l 0 u'il'I I, ,I,Al,,IAII I'I,(p,.I,AM
",
?
fr
?
•,
1471' ?
"\ ? (
?
M4
I
I
M.,nw".''fal
I
*.'..,s.,
It
43)
•
"V. ?
I. ?
J
i'J
?
j £
[
Ini"'IV
m
Nc'
CV
J ?
-/
Cfl"lJ
:06 )
..
Th
rn
/...'...'...'
/
?
\
'
?
?
\
\
\
1."
;: ?
?
" ?
.../
•."'
\
—1
N
ys.,:OC ?
;_
\\ /1
C.,".'.'I,'
0, 'Wi a Ion ?
4 C'
I i
/
/
I
II(
?
' ?
S*l(h'1tJ
6 ?
?
I
.
\\
I ?
?".'o'y
?
h ?
—
\I U
?
)J
\\\
i ?
2.
?
\
\ ?
f'
\ '.—'-------------
(
?
-"S
Th
\
\
\\
_
\
Do'.
i. ?
lulls
4-C'
I
Co.'s,,",'
COnII'I.CI'O" ?
4
Sb_i.. cf"
I?
14 ?
Sole.'.,
4.o
L.
I\'
?
/
I
I
?
?
I
I
'# I.
Com,,uIal,,1.lY ?
./
S
?
LL
?
__1
S,,' .
'. C.'''.'
I ?
,rul.I 411 in
?
''IC' ''t' ji,' Co'.',.,,l.' Sr'.'"'
e C,'u's•
A ?
,r.l,C,f1d.' A,i,..',,.,l C,'.""
)'u.. I. 1r&
.
rCcIuis'Ic suucturt (if courhok
1 -4'
S
T'"!
Scc.
1
r'71
• ?
\.
0
?
p.."
r.ZFi
. -
?
f• f',
,,mru
C) ?
VT ?
SC,c
SaW11V
N PC C5
ew-r ?
oç
INT.
cir
I, ?
2
:
.Jvatfl .
- ?
d
_j
:
IPJ?'
'(I
?
V
I1
7,
FACULTY REQUIREMENTS ETC.
In order
to
implement the suggested programs with normal
trimester operation
and
with enrollments
as
specified
for
courses offered in the Fall Semester and appro:zimately
one-half
enrollment in Summer Semester, it will be necessary to have about
8
members of faculty.,
5
one-semester teaching assistants, 1
programmer, 1 key punch operator, and a clerk
tist.
We have
at present 2 members of faculty and about
3
one-semester
teaching assistants engaged in the
program
and some
programmer
help. The justification for these figures is as follows:
Course
Units
Times/Yr.
Enrollment
Lectures* Fac.Tut.* T.A.Tut.
i.l&Sj
1o6
3
3
150
9
15
205
3
90
9
9
401
4
2
45
6
k02
4
1.1-
45
6
•
1
[03
k
1-
45
6
k
1-
30
6
3
11,05
4
V--
45
6
11o6
11.5
•
407
3
lj.
30
)••.
3
1
1 .0
8
3
k
61
3)
241
•
Total
faculty load
?
94 1 - ?
hrs.
•
12
faculty
Total
T.A. ?
load
24 hours
5
T.A. ?
s
These
are
faculty or
T.A. weekly
semester
contact hours
pci'
year.
.
?
[ACM Course Bi)
106-3
Introduction to Computin
Introduction to the concepts of algorithm and flowchart.
Their relation to the structure of a computer. Use of a
high
level programming language for elementary problem solving.
(3-1-0)
Note: This course follows in rough outlines the ideas covered
in Dl. It replaces our course Mathematics 105-2. The high
level language used will probably at the present time be
FØRTRAN though PL I may be introduced at some later stage.
Items 8 and 10 in Dl will receive less detailed attention
than is
suggested. 1-lore
attention
will be paid to flowcharting
and problem analysis.
0
Oj
[ACM Course B2
I'
205-3 Computers and Programming
Internal
structure of a computer system and machine-
oriented programming. Theory of selected programming techniques.
Introduction to theorem of advanced software and advanced
hardware.
?
(3-1-0)
Prerequisite - i.athematics 106-3.
Note: This course follows in general outline course 132 with
additional emphasis on the use of assembler language. The
danger that the last part of the 132 course could be handwaving
is to be avoided.
0
V
?
10
V ?
MM
Course
B33 -
Comments on ACM Course B7
?
Introduction to Discrete Structui'e.
?
There is perhaps no need to introduce this course at the
• ?
moment, but it, or something like it, may be found to be
V
essential later, dependent on the mathematical background of
?
V
the students we get. There are many topics of interest and
of importance here for science students and for some arts
V ?
students. in particular this relates to the graph theory work.
V ?
It will be noticed that the course Inc luç3.s eotaput.er
n.pp I
V ?
of the topics covered and not just their theory.
The omission of the course will mean that we will have to
introduce any of the topics that should have been covered there
when they are needed in later courses. This is not a particularly
satisfactory position but is perhaps sensible at the moment if
University expansion is limited.
V ?
Some of the theoretical work of
B3
is covered in the nevr
Pure 1-laths I course.
Ile would naturally consider mounting the course on request
if special funds were provided.
11
IACM
Course 134]
Comments on ACM Course I• Numerical Calculus.
A good course for people going no further in computing
science but one which for budgetary reasons we would possibly
have to leave out at present. Material in it. could be omitted
or covered in
18/9.
(Numerical Analysis 1,11).
.
LA
12
KI
?
[ACM Course Ii)
401-4
Data Structures
Concepts of data.
?
Theory and applications of several
data organizations.
?
Storage systems and structures.
(4-i-C)
Prerequisite
?
Mathematics
2053.
Note: This course follows essentially Course Ii of the AM
•
curriculum.
?
It has been upgraded to a 4 credit course so
that the graph theory part of the omitted course, B, could
be included.
?
This could appropriatel
y
be done in part
,
4 of
the syllabus.
?
The course content is stated to be more than
could be normally given in a one-semester course.
?
This is
another reason for upgrading to 4 units.
?
In this course, as
in many others of the proposed 400 level courses, the eventual
content will to some extent have to be determined by experience.
The AM statement that: the instructor should carefully scict
material which gives the student a broad introduction to the
subject but which fits together pedagogically
?
seems
• ?
significant since there is a real danger that the course could
develop into being a catalogue type collection of facts:
?
If,
however, this danger is borne in mind, the course could form
and should form an essential introduction to later work.
S
?
[ACM Course 12 (see also is)]
402-4 Programming Langais
SystemaL.ic approach to the study of programming
languages.
?
Introduction to assembler and translatin
g
systems.
(4-i-a)
Prerequisite - Mathematics 205-.
?
It is desirable,?
though not essential, that Mathematics 401-4 be taken prior to
or concurrent with Mathematics 402-4.
Note: This course essentially follows 12, but has part of
15 added into it. ?
It is not considered appropriate at this ?
stage to recommend the introduction on a full course of
compiler construction. The other courses being suggested
are considered to be more important in the first instance.
It may well happen that in the future this course is split
along the lines suggested by ACM. ?
We feel, however, that?
this would best be done in the light of experience gained here
and not done immediately. ?
The co-requisite kOi-k has been
added partly because of the complete omission of B3, but more
because it is felt that, a detailed knowledge of data structures,
while not essential for a full
study
of programming languages,
is nevertheless a help. It becomes
particularly desirable
if we go far into the compiler construction aspect of the
course.
?
The course is essentially an extension of the
software aspects of the course 205-3.
is
?
[ACM Course I) (see also 16)]
403-4 Computer Organization and Elementary Switching, Theory
Hardware organization of computer systems. Logical
design and elements of digital computer systems.
?
Theoretical
foundations and mathematical techniques concerned with the
design of logical circuits.
?
(4-i-O)
Prerequisite - Mathematics 2053.
Note: In the same way as 402--4
part of
205-),
the present cour
hardware part of that course.
combination of I) with parts of
this time to give 16 in full.
is an extension of the soft.--are
se is an extension of the
It is considered as a
16. ?
It is not proposed at
0
'S
?
[ACM Course 14]
15
4O4 . 4 S
y stems ProRrammin
Software organization of computer systems.
?
Multi-
programming and multiprocessing systems.
?
A particular system
is shown for central study.
?
(4-1-0)
Prerequisite - Mathematics 401-
. 4 and 402-4.
?
It is?
recommended that 'a student take Mathematics 403-
4 prior to or
concurrent
with
this course.
Note: This course is intended as being essentially based on
5 ?
Course 14 of the ACM proposals.
?
This means that with 401,
402 and 403 it forms the main "computer science" part of the
computer science
option. ?
The
problems which arrive in
multi-accessing, multiprogramming and multiprocessing are
emphasized in the course which should be a serious one.
?
It
will be noticed that in the ACM description it states that:
tiere is considerably more material listed than can normally
be covered in one semester so that careful selection of topics
should be made or the course extended to two semesters.
?
This
is the justification for making the course 4 credit rather
than
3.
S
?
[ACM Course
153
Comments on ACM Course 15
?
Compiler Construction
It is proposed that this course be omitted in the
first instance, primarily for budget reasons.
?
It is
suggested that part of the course be included with 12 and
this has been taken into account in the description of
02-4
and
the comments on that course.
1'?
[ACM Course IC']
Comments on ACM
Course
16 Switching Theory
This course has certain aspects which might be more
appropriate to
study. in
physics. ?
Whether it coulu iDe
offered will to some extent depend on the qualifications of
persons recruited into the computer science section of he
Department. ?
At this stage we feel that it would be best if
part of the course were taken into 13
and
the, remainder omitted.
We would still retain the flexibility to introduce the
remainder of the course if it were found necessary or
desirable at a later stage.
?
These facts have been taken
into- account in the description of and' comneats on
0
18
I*
?
[ACM
17
(se.e also
A7)J
4
05-
4
Sequential Machines
Theory of finite automata and sequential machines with
extension to an introduction to the study of recursive
(computable) functions.
?
(k-i-o)
Prerequisite ?
Mathematics 10€-3 and at least one of
Mathematics 2312 or
2323.
Not:
?
This course
has
been upgraded to a
24
unit
course for a
specific reason. The Mathematics Department has
an active
• ?
group in mathematical logic and it would be appropriate both
from the computer science and the mathematical logic points
of view if advantage was taken of that fact.
?
Accordingly
the elementary part of the graduate course
A7,
namely the
introduction
Of
the subject of computability using Turing,
machines
and similar methods has been added to Course 17.
The .compi.ete course (0524) is essentially of pure mathematics
type and could draw as its audience pure mathematicians with
an interest in logic as well as persons whose primary interest
is in
computer science.
40
19
(ACM COurse 18]
Numerical Anal.-Isis I
Theoretical and practical study of numerical methods
appropriate for high speed digital computer solution of a
variety of mathematical problems.
?
This study will include
ones taken from the following general areas:
?
solution of?
linear equations, interpolation and approximation theory,
ordinary differential equations.
?
(3-i..o)
Prerequisite ?
Mathematics 106-,3,. 214-,3 and 232-.
Note: This course and
107_)
correspond to Courses 18 and 19
respectively. of the ACM curriculum.
?
They also correspond to
Courses 6 and
7
respectively of the CUPM curriculum.
Detailed prerequisite requirements and course content may need
some modification as implications of the intermeshing of the
courses with the methods and differential equations courses
become apparent. ?
At present it would, however, seem that
the courses could be essentially independent as far as duplicate
credit is concerned and rather in fact they are complementary
to each other.
.,
[ACM Course 19]
407-3 Numerical Analysis II
Similar to Numerical Analysis I with particular
reference to topics arising in the study of linear algebra
and of ordinary and partial differential equations.
(3-1-0)
Prerequisite - Mathematics 1063, 411-4 and at least.
one of 406-5 or 12-4.
Note: See Note on 406-.
20
is
L
?
•.•'
[Not in ACM Recommendation)
1
408-3
Operations Resea
Mathematical theory of optimzatiOfl methods used in
operations research.
?
Illustrative examples.
?
D-1-0)
Prerequisites
?
Mathematics 102-3, 106-3, 213-3,
and 232-3.
Note: Prerequisites to this course will probably be varied
with the implementation of changes in the statistics courses.
The course is intended to cover mathematical aspects of
operations research.
?
It is realized that there is an
operations research course within the Economics Department.
On the other hand as is the case with statistics, there is
work here which should be dealt with by mathematicians.
?
It.
would be intended that the course, as with other computer
• science courses, would make use of the computer.
?
I see no
reason why the course should be
'
5 units as.. is the case
with the economics course.
?
If it were to be a 5-unit course
it would be quite out of line with the other COUrSCS offered
by the Mathematics Department.
21
I ..
.
?
••. ?
. ?
••'.
?
.•
?
::
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
40 ?
Dr. . c!as.e
.
?
From ?
Dr. B. L. Punt
ac!r
?
I
?
Dean of Science
Subject
?
Date........................
.... 1970
Dr. Jewell's comments are very well taken and, indeed,.reservations he
has were shared by many members of the Faculty of Science. It was for
this reason that the Faculty indicated in the strongest possible terms
that we must first seek a senior computing scientist and then have him
responsible for the academic staffing and the detailed curriculum
preparation of the Computing Science Program.
Last year and even this year, there has been a great deal of pressure
on me, as Dean, to institute a program in a piece-meal fashion. I have
continued to resist this and know that I have the formal backing of the
Faculty on this matter. My intention is to mount a good and well delineated
program in Computing Science.
Nevertheless, one cannot frame a proposal for a new program without desig-
nating, at least in general perspective, the type of program which is
envisaged. A considerable amount of work was done by the Mathematics
.
?
Department in preparing the Computing Science outlines and these are based
upon the recommendations of the Curriculum Committee of the major computing
science organizations in the United States. At the time of the preparation
of our academic outline, we were describing essentially the undergraduate
curriculum program recommended and utilized in the majority of North American
universities. I have no doubt that shifts and trends in such a program are
continually under way and Mr. Jewell's comments are certainly persuasive.
I see the development of the Computing Science Program in the following sequence:
1.
Approval of the program by the University and a commitment
over a number of years sufficient to fund a first-rate program.
2.
The recruitnent of a first-rate individual who can head the
program within the Department of Mathematics.
3.
4\
S s'.j
(
7' .
••
0 /
A detailed desi
g
nation of the curriculum and its approval by
Faculty and the hiring of suitable academic staff.
A decision as to whether the program should or should not re-
main within the Department of Mathematics will be made within
the first several years after the full implementation of the
program.
/
?
.—.-.
B. L. Punt
c.c. T.R. Jewell
SI1_3N FRASEP UNIVERErY
fODJ
S
............ ?
..9. ?
From
Academic Planner ?
Director -
CoM^)uting Centre
I have reviewed the material you have provided me on the proposed
academic program in the Computer Sciences
and
I have the following
corents to make:
The curriculum as proposed is strongly flavoured by Mathematics
which I suppose is to be expected in consideration of the origin of
the proposal. I feel that in view of the need to train in computer
techniques students who are majoring in other disciplines, particularly
the sciences, these courses are adequate. In this sense I would regard
them in the same light as the serv
i
ce • courses in Mathematics which are
offered to
other departments.
With respect to these course offerings
providing the basis of a major in Computer Science they would probably
be adequate if all we are interested in producing are students whose
aim is to go onto graduate school to continue their study in Computer
Sciences, or who plan to seek specialized emrloyment in industry. In
the latter case they would he confronted with a limited number of
op
p
ortunities primarily with the computer manufacturers in a sales
support role or, possibly, in a research environment. In Canada the
opportunities are extremely limited since .there are relatively few
positions in sales support which require individuals with a purely
mathematical or theoretical training in the Computer Sciences, and only
two manufacturers of computer equipment to my Irnowledge operate research
facilities in Canada. They could find emplo)rnIent as programmers in
many branches of industry, but they are best equipped to enter into a
scientifically or academically oriented progran'.ming field whereas the
demand at the present time is primarily for programmers who are trained
to
handle business applications. .
In this respect the technical schools
appear to be doing a good job in B.C. so they are capable of filling
the
need for this type of programmer. Also with
the more frequent intro-
duction of high level, user oriented languages the need for business
programmers as we 1cnoc
r
them today is becoming less, and less critical.
The demand is slowly but surelyshifting for individuals who are
trained as systems specialists, both. in
computer ap p lication areas
and
with respect to computer operations. With the exception of the
introductory courses and those concerned with system programming and
operations research this.particular program does not address itself
to this need.
1
40
:i
Comutcr Scienceirain - page 2
?
Q
The trend is towards the introduction of large scale computer systems
which will eventually replace the nccd for the smaller, in-house
systcms
Characteristic of the industry today. This trend will be sustaincd
primarily by economic pressures, but also by t
h
e need to have access to
systems cal)able of storing and processing large amounts of information.
Once our business institutions can be assured of an cxccptable level of-
reliability and security in using a shared computer facility the choice
of usin
g
in-house facilities or a computer utility service to satisfy
data processing and information needs will be a relatively easy
one
since it is an established fact that the utility service is capable of
providing a cheaper and more complete service.
The computer utility creates the need for individuals trained in the
management and operation of the hardware and software associated with
large complex facilities. In order to service its customers effectively
O
it
I
L
must
systems
have
design
in its
in
employ
a broad
individuals
spectrum of
who
application
are trained
areas.
in the
A
techniques
great
deal of emphasis will be placed upon communication theory and information
'ecwe
of
the need to i.ntcrFace effectively the human with
the ?
h.tt ?
ilkt
i v.i
dttt I
?
t
r
i nd ill t h:;o :ll':l
?
wi..1 J repi ace the
programmer because the development of higher level languages will
establish a common means of direct communication between man arid machine
thus eliminating the need for the prograinner as the intermediary. The
problems which will arise will be associated with establishing a satis-
factory interface. The Programmer, i.e. the person who writes and tests
code, will not cease to exist altogether, but he will gradually disappear
as an employee of the user and now be confined to working for the computer
• ?
utility or the manufacturer of hardware and/or software. He will be the
person who is concerned with the development of user oriented languages
and therefore must be well trained'in the more theoret.cal aspects
of
the computer sciences. If I appear to be contradicting
,
myself here
?
I
am not really, because the need for this type of individual will be
• ?
almost insignificant com
p
ared to the demand for graduates who can operate
and nrntge the system hardware and software and who can design the
• ?
systems which will make use of those resources. I would think that the
•
?
Computer Science programs which already exist in Canadian Universities
• today are more than adequate to sup
ply
the demand for the 'programmer'
of the future, but they will fall far short of meeting the demand for
the systems specialists if present curricula continue unchanged.
I have confined my comments up to this point to the type of under-
graduate training
which I
feel is necessary. However, I believe there
is a far greater need in the computer industry today, one which will
unquestionably increase in the future, for individuals having had
intensive training
in
systems management. Such a program which would
not be concerned exclusively with the computer, would necessarily be
•.••
Computer Science '
?
'aii ?
page S.
?
0
heavily computer oriented as is consistent with the emphasis being
placed upon computer technology in the business world. I visualize
a program
w i
t
h objectives closely paralleling those of most ?BA
offerings which accept individuals with undergraduate training in a
Varict of disciplines and give them specialized training in mariagcmcnt
even
tecimiqucs.
.
,-
segment
iie
of
evolution
our society
of
has
the
and
computer
will continua
utility
to
which
create
will
the
impact
need
for individuals
who are both trained comnutcr scientists and comrctcnt
uuic.crs . I am not aware of any institution which has consciously
(levelonod a graduate program to meet
this
demand. Most of our business
leaders today recognize the importance of computer tecJrnology to the
general well being of their respective Industries, and they also
recognize the lack of competent management of computer facilities and
appi
in 1:110
ic.;t
.11
t:i.ons
,
0:1
.
of
?
Comnutcr
ftc majority
m:tu.emcnt
or :im IIv:i
have
duals
had
holding
little
rcspons
or no
11)]
formal
c pos:i.tions
training
in either managcjnent or computer technology, primarily because at the
time they were progTessing into positions of responsibility no such
training was available. The deficiencies lie mainly in the area of
management skills and it is the lack of same that you will find at the
heart of most problems encountered by organizations implementing
computer applications.
In suimary, I would suggest that serious thought be
g
iven to develop-
•
?
ing a satisfactory undergraduate service program in the Computer Sciences
and a graduate program In ComDuter Administration. I am convinced from
iTIrnoledge of the industry, and I am sure that further investigation
would bear this out, that the degree of support forthcoming from industry
• ?
and government for the graduate program would be substantial. I also
think that Simon Fraser which has made no serious commitment to the
com
p
uter sciences at this point, is in a unique position to embark upon
• ?
this kind of program and therefore make a significant contribution to
whatever role the computer is to assume ultimately in our society.
/
