SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

S...

1t.

efo

Dr K Strand

From

A R vpKinnon

fll'o

........................... Acting. .Pr.e.si.dent ..................................................

....... ....

........ Dean..oI..E.duc.ation... ......

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

Suble

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

sion....nd..S.tandings....-...................

.Date ................... Apr.il..3.O..,....1.96.9

Suggested Policy.

Extensive individual comments have come to the Dean's Office, Faculty

of Education since the report was distributed. Discussion took place at

the Faculty of Education meeting on Monday, April 28, 1969, on this

\\ item. The

two hour debate showed that most persons attending the

meeting had read the report and had discussed the various recommenda-

tions

with their colleagues. It is apparent that further delay in debate

this report with faculty is unwarranted.

Faculty recognized that the recommendations contained in the report do

not represent any ultimate solutions to the intensely complicated problem.

There is agreement that the recommendations will remove many of the

current irritations. Some matters, however, can only be resolved through

major changes in higher education, not only in British Columbia but

throughout Canada.

Faculty expressed the view that action should be taken soon by Senate and

that policies agreed upon there should be implemented immediately, even

if priorities have to be set for a major increase in counselling service and

Registrar's Office personnel. View was expressed that a problem. of con-

siderable magnitude did prevail for a small group of students and that the

University should be taking action to resolve these difficulties, if not on

policy decisions at least on humanitarian grounds.

General faculty agreement has been expressed on the principles embodied

the report. No substantial disagreement has been developed on any of

the major issues. What follows, accordingly, are suggestions for improving

the recommendations or implementing the policies:

It is felt that the Admissions Board should issue guidelines to

departments before seeking from them listings of course equiva-

].encies. (See page 17, items 6 and 9).

Faculty recommends that a student must complete the equivalent

of two years of his degree program at Simon Fraser University if

this University is to have any character of its own as a degree-

granting institution. This will mean that the maximum transfer

credit allowed will be 60 semester hours. An applicant seeking

çf

admission wwiitth

h transfer credit should be advised that courses he

transfers, together with those that he subsequently takes at the

University, must meet the general and specific requirements of

the Faculty and the Department in which he chooses to major

or honor.

The Faculty is concerned that there should be an extension of

university level learning opportunity that may not qualify under

the normal category of admissions. Three types of special entry

should be developed on an experimental basis:

Early admission

Early entry

Mature entry

Continuing evaluation of these students should occur and where

conditions warrant, additional degrees of freedom should be

permitted for entry.

•

It is suggested that applicants from other countries must submit

sufficient evidence of the equivalent of Senior Matriculation or

comparable levels of achievement before admission takes place.

The award of transfer credit should be at the discretion of the

Admissions Board but will normally be on the same basis as if

the applicant was seeking admission to a university in his home

area.

Given the trimester operation, faculty expressed the view that

these students should be given an opportunity to test themselves

on their ability to handle university work. The principle to be

followed is that a university experience should be available to

those persons who are capable of handling university work.

Accordingly, some discretion should be permitted for the

Admissions Board to grant admission on those occasions when

the full criteria are not met. However, a student who is requested

to withdraw for a second time at the University should be required

to withdraw permanently.

was the majority view of faculty that there should be no retro-

activity in the implementation of any new policies.

•

Since admissions and standings are matters which transcend

university policy it was the view of faculty that there was a need

for an external body that could provide reliable information on

-'p

.'rp

-3-

courses offered and equivalencies at other institutions. Some

doubt was expressed about the capacity of the Academic Board to

follow this coordinating role. It is suggested that the Academic

Board be asked for a statement clarifying its position on specific

recommendations made in the report.

The Faculty of Education is concerned that admissions and

standings policies should be the subject of continuing review

with frequent reports being made to Senate and Faculty. Policies

which might be established now should be regarded largely as

experimental while other alternatives are explored. It is. the

feeling of the Faculty that University problems of space or

budgets should not be used as the basis for decisions on

educational matters. In a situation where the University extends

itself to the community through radio, television and alternative

forms of teaching,(e. g. The Open University of Great Britain,

when the University moves from the accumulation of credits

as a basis for granting degrees, through to the examination of

persons only at the degree level), admissions and standings would

not represent the same problem which they now do at this

institution. It is the wish of the Faculty of Education that such

alternatives should be explored.

•,2

- -

ARM/ps

•,

SJMON FRASE1E UNIVERS'FY

•..

•

1 ',

•10

DrK.T.

Strand

From .

B. L.

Funt

Dean of Science

Subject ..........

.THE

Date.........

pr.1

?4.,

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

A meeting of the Heads of Departments in the Faculty of Science

and the Senators of the Faculty of Science was held on April 23rd to consider

the recommendations of the

Ellis

Report.

At the time of the meeting, the "Unsolicited Report of the

Senate Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Standing on the

Ellis

Report"

was available and in the hands of all members present. It was therefore

decided to consider the recommendations in the

Ellis

Report and the amendments

suggested simultaneously.

General Assessment

There was a full consensus that the

Ellis

Report was sound,

acceptable in principle, and that it should be adopted by the University. There

were definitive views that changes in detail were required, but these did not

detract from the overall importance and acceptability of the Report.

Detailed consideration indicated the following:

Retroactivity. There was full agreement that retroactivity could

not be implemented and should not be recommended.

Candidacy. There was agreement that a candidate for a degree at

Simon Fraser must have spent at least two years of his study at this University.

Therefore, recommendation 25-12 of the Undergraduate Admissions and Standing

Committee was endorsed unequivocally.

The Committee considered the various recommendations of the

Senate Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Standing on the Ellis Report.

These were found to be valuable amplifications and amendments which strengthened

rather than detracted from the

Ellis

Report.

However, there were several points on which our group did not

endorse the changes suggested by the Undergraduate Admissions and Standing

Committee. These were as follows:

Page26-1.221. Our Committee considered that the original

Ellis

recommendation was preferable, and believed that a C average and not individual

grades of C should be the governing consideration.

Page 33-31. Our group considered that A level credits should be

granted as recommended in the Ellis Report.

K. T. Strand

April 24, 1969

Two further points must be made. It was indicated that some interim

mechanism will be needed for recommendation 3 in the Ellis Report, and this

will have to be done internally in the University if not accomplished by the

Academic Board.

Furthermore, the Ellis Report does not mention the question of entry

into an Honors program. Thus, in reference to section 5, departments may not

bar students from entering into a regular program of studies on transfer from

an external institution. However, departments must maintain the right to

advise students whether they are eligible for entry into Honors programs. Such

advice and determination is within the framework of present departmental

prerogative. In the case of Honors programs, this should remain within the

department's competence.

With these minor changes, I am happy to report that our group considered

the Ellis Report eminently satisfactory, and we trust that it will be implemented

with minimum delay.

BLF/cj

SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

.D.r......K.T.. Strand.,

Acti.ng ... Eres.Lden.........................................................

Subject

Date

Apri128.,

69.

the memorandum in which you postponed the date of the first

Senate hearing on the Ellis Report you asked that the Deans of Faculty prepare

comments for you by April 25.

The following steps have been taken to generate information

regarding the principles, and the mechanisms for revising our Admissions, Standings

and Transfer and other policies suggested in the Ellis Report:

(a)

Chairmen of all academic departments were asked to prepare written submissions

to me concerning any part of the Report they were concerned with.

(b)

Individual Faculty members were notified that they should if they wish respond

to the Report in writing to me.

(c)

The Curriculum Committee of the Faculty of Arts was asked to hold a special

meeting to discuss the Ellis Report.

(d)

I have asked Dr. L. Boland, Special Assistant to the Dean of Arts, to prepare

a set of draft amendments to section 13 in accordance with whatever consensus he

may find in this Faculty.

The information gathered through the above processes will not all be

available by April 25, but most of it should be available by the May 6 meeting.

I shall circulate that material to other Senators and send copies of it to you as

Chairman of Senate when it becomes available.

For the remainder of this report to you, I shall provide (a) copies

of written statements generated under item I above available at this time, and

(b) my own comments on the report, its structure, and the disposition of its parts.

While my own commentary is in part based upon discussion with other Faculty

members and Senators and incorporates in some cases their comments, it would be

unfair of me to present my position as solidly that of a consensus. I am sure

you realize that the magnitude of the Ellis Report, given its complexity in its

part-to-part inter-relationship, that it is extremely difficult to present any

unified view of it.

I should like to offer these priorities without prejudice to the

procedures Senate has established for point-by-point discussion of the Report.

The order of priority I offer is in terms of the significance to needed change

. . . ....

-2--

and reflects order from 'most needed now' to 'less needed

now'.

To begin with,

. 1 think there are parts of the Recommendations (Section I) of the Report which

should not be adopted unless they are done so in conjunction with other inter-

related Recommendations of the report:

(a) Items I, and 5 through 6 reflect a set of principles that with slight

amendment could be adopted to immediate benefit, even if the other sections in

the Report were not adopted immediately-

(b) Items 12 and 13 to my mind should be very carefully related, more so than

they now are, and should both be adopted or deferred until such time that they

represent a more intergrated mechanism.

(b) above; but, providing that certain modifications and clarifications of

items 2 through 4 are obtained, might improve the conditions of implementation

of (a) and (b) above.

(d)

Items 9, 10, II, 14, 15, 21, 22 are all related to the structure and

function of the Admissions Board and the Appeals Board. I see these as an

intergrated whole that should be dealt with as such, but after (a), (b) and

(e)

Items 20 and 23 concerning the effective date of any policies adopted from

the Ellis Report and retroactivity also represent a single'problem that should

be discussed as such.

(f)

Items 18 and 19 as well are significant, but not pressing; thus, they could

be deferred until some later date, but when dealt with should be dealt with in

conjunction of one another. Items 16 and 17 concerning a program of course

challenge are important but not of urgency at this particular time.

The first general remark that I wish to make about the El I is

Report concerns the accreditation process suggested in sections 2,

3, 4,

and

elsewhere throughout the report.

While the Academic Board may become the agency for accreditation

this province, it is not sufficiently clear at this time that it is.

If it

is to act as an accrediting body, I suggest the following conditions, among

others, ought to apply.

(a)

that before anybody takes on the difficult job of 'accrediting', the

related colleges and universities of this province would have to meet to work

out to their mutual satisfaction (i.e. generally, to the mutual satisfaction of

the departments involved in all institutions) the policies and procedures for

accredit ion.

(b)

that before any mechanism became workable more would have to be known on

the predictability of the success of students transferring from one institution

to another. At this time

is my understanding that only for VCC students is

there any reliable body of data available on transfer students. One important

point here is that before any college is accredited (or its programs, or its

courses) a certain minimum time period required during which accreditation is

tentative and during which theappropriate data on the institution may be

generated.

-3--.

For all anyone knows at this time, the Perry Commission Report

could result in a changed or redefined status for the Academic Board of British

Until

in fact for the whole structure of post-secondary education in B.C.

Until the Perry Commission Report is published and action taken on it, care

should be exercised in attempting to assign long term responsibilities to the

Academic Board.

As well, I detect a very real matter of principle concerning the

Academic Board and its function. The Ellis Report does not make altogether

clear whether or not the Academic Board should function as a clearing house for

information or an accrediting body with prescriptive and proscriptive power

over the universities and colleges. Until this is clarified it is doubtful

•

that most or all the departments in the Faculty of Arts will have the necessary

confidence in the Academic Board to "rely heavily upon" their advice or their

information. One should also consider the present structure of the Academic

Board in terms of the task that is proposed for it to undertake. Two general

representatives from this University are not sufficient to generate "ret iabte

data on 'individual courses' or in some cases, 'departmental programs'".

General advice on the status of libraries, quality of staff, and the like,

•

might be possible under the present composition of the Board. It is not

realistic to think that the present composition can generate detailed information

on courses, not certainly within the time limits suggested in the Report.

On page 12 the Report asks under item 2 that Senate "endorse in principle the

procedure for accrediting colleges". It is quite one thing to endorse the

principle that colleges should be accredited but quite another to say that the-

Academic Board should be or is, in its present state, the body to perform that

function. What in fact the Report is asking this University to do to endorse

not only the principle that accreditation should occur but that the Academic

Board should do it. Further, it is suggested that the Academic Board should be

asked to accredit courses, programs, and institutions without any knowledge on

our part of what' specific mechanisms iii terms of guidelines, operating procedures,

evaluation mechanisms, data generation systems, and the like, would be utilized.

Certainly there is little to gainsay endorsing a principle as such, butit is

quite another matter to endorse a 'practice' that is neither fully known, nor,

I suspect, even minimally worked out at this time.

Comments on part C. One bothersome locution that occurs frequently in this

section is the general statement that advice, information and the like should

be obtained, sought, or the like from the Academic Board and similar agencies.

It is important, I think, to know what these other agencies are.

On page 14 it is argued that "our departmental lower division

requirements typically exceed twelve semester hours but most colleges will not

likely offer more than twelve hours in a discipline." It is continually argued

the Report that because the colleges of this province are at this time

multi-purpose institutions they cannot (l suspect) afford to offer more than 12

hours in most disciplines. The force of numerous statements relating to this

• is to say that because the colleges cannot afford to offer more than 12 hours,

we should tailor our prerequisites to 12 hours or thereabouts in each area. If

that is the argument, it is not a forceful one as presented. We must assure

that our lower division programs in the various disciplines and sciences are

•

-4-

competently established. (In fact the majority of our lower division programs

•

require in excess of 12 credit hours for the student who plans to enter a major

or honors program.) Modification of some of our lower division prerequisites in

terms of the gross number of hours needed might be possible, but that is a

departmental, faculty, and Senate matter. To accept a principle or practice

based on the fiscal limitations of other institutions is not sound planning.

Department X at S.F.U. competently requires 18 hours of prerequisites and specifies

them in the Calendar then the responsibility is for College Y with students in

Subject x is (a)

(a)

to offer the courses that will allow a student after .2 years to enter here

having fulfilled the lower division requirements or

(b)

to in

the student at the onset of his study that College Y simply does

not offer a program whereby students may transfer to S.F.U. Department X having

fulfilled all the prerequisites.

That some of S.F.U.'s departments have loo many prerequisites is

an argument that maybe tested internally. In general, that S.F.U. should reduce

the number of prerequisites simply because other institutions cannot afford to

put them on is not a question of academic quantity or quality, but of social

utility. That regional college students or anyone else interested should be

clearly and specifically informed what they must do in order to transfer with the

greatest number of units to their credit for work at a regional college, and

complete their programs in the minimum time necessary in terms of what they have

taken, is undeniable. The communication of such information has not been adequate

•

both here and at the regional colleges.

light of all the above, I am a bit concerned about Recommendation

5.4

on page 16 which says that a student (in effect) should be able to complete

a degree program in four academic years provided that he has made a "reasonable

effort to complete prerequisite lower division work for his chosen program during

his first two years of study." If prerequisites are courses necessary for further

study in a discipline, then it seems to me a student has either completed them or

not completed them, and should be treated accordingly. On the other hand, if

departments have courses they call prerequisites that are not, then they should

rename them in such a way to indicate that they are courses that would-be helpful

but that are not necessary.

Comments on Part B, on page 20, point 1.4. In terms of the substance of earlier

remarks on the Academic Board, this item should be taken in conjunction with the

sections that deal directly with the Academic Board, in that it is a recommendation

that dovetails into the acceptance or non-acceptance of the Academic Board as an

accrediting agency.

S• ......5

Comments on_part. Statement of Admissions and Transfer, page 24. It seems to

me that it is imperative for Senate to discuss (in light of present exigencies at

•

other universities in this Province and the monetary situation with respect to

higher education) the minimal averages for entry to S.F.U. I suggest that

discussion should fall on whether or not our minimal requirements should be raised

to 65%.

On page 25 the statement appears "the Dean of the faculty is to petition the

Admissions Board to consider granting up to 30 additional transfer hours of

credit for courses taken elsewhere that replace specific courses on the student's

major program." I consider that a departmental function and not a Dean's

prerogative. If this principle is to be accepted, and I see -no specific argument

for favoring it, then it should be the responsibility of the department to which

the student transfers -- in the case suggested, at a very advanced stage in the

major or honors program.

Another principle involved in this section is what the minimum

course grade transferable with credit and standing for a given course should be.

I suggest that no course bearing a grade of less than C should be transferable.

This is a very common practice in institutions where transfer is frequent.

Section 2. [Applicants from Elsewhere.]

One notes that the principle of

equivalency in terms of minimum entry requirements is not consistent. On the

one hand the Report stresses where if a student is eligible to enter a university

his home area, then we should consider that eligibility equivalent here.

•

should like to point out (as has the Faculty of Arts Curriculum Committee) that

Section 3.2, page 33, entry requirements for students from the United States

is significantly different here than it would be there in very reputable

institutions. For instance, to enter the University of California, a reputable

institution, no student is required to have had 40 semester hours or 45 quarter

hours of work at another institution. It seems to me that we must argue in

accordance with the principle that a student from California eligible to enter

the University of California, or similar reputable institutions there, would also

be eligible to enter S.F.U. These remarks of principle apply in other cases

throughout this section.

Continuance, Withdrawal and Re-admission, page 36. Considerable feeling has been

expressed from time to time in this University that a semester to semester

continuance mechanism is not adequate. I hope to forward toyou more detailed

information on this subject prior to the Senate meeting of May 6. I would at this

point like to remark that I think a major amendment to this section is in order.

It might be along the lines of the following: "A student whose cumulative GPA

Is below 2.0 after 3 semesters attendance at S.F.U. would be required to withdraw

for at least one calendar year."

-6--

Comments on Part J: [Implementation]

The term refers to the whole of the Ellis

Report. Senate should deal very carefully with two questions concerning the

timing of implementation:

(a)

that it should first discuss, modify, and implement those matters which can

be handled internally and

(b)

that it should then consider the implementation of mechanisms, principles and

'responsibilities that interrelate with other institutions.

Certainly the matter of the Academic Board should be deferred until

such time that Senate has more information. For the Academic Board to perform the

functions suggested in this Report between now and September or between now and

the time that students entering in September would have to be notified is, I

think, very unrealistic. To modify our mechanisms within the time period prescribed,

I suspect, would lead to another situation of mis-information or inadequate

Information to the frustration 'of many in this institution and outside it.

answer to the question of retroactive application of whatever is

adopted by Senate: that question must be dealt with in terms of the rules of

retroactivity which Senate has already passed

Senate should take aposition in

principle on retroactivity with respect to all modifications of rules or regulations

and the applicability of new or modified programs. Senate should, I think, take

its calendar as "contractual" in at least one sense of that word. The principle

should be that a student who enters under a given calendar should realize that in

order to complete his program he will be held responsible for the matter of that

calendar. That is a difficult principle to implement and it is especially

frustrating in our circumstances.

f)()

DHS:eg

SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

Sullivan

Dean D. H.

K. Okuda, Deputy Head

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

.From ........................................................................ 1.'.....................................

Faculty of Arts

Department of Economics & Commerce

Ellis

Report

April

211.,

1969

Subjed....................................................................................................................D...a.

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

A Department Meeting

was

held on Tuesday, April 22 to discuss the.

Ellis

Report. The following points were raised by members of

our Department:

Item

1.251,

The concensus of the faculty present was that courses passed

with a D grade should not be given transfer credit.

2. Caurse Challenges, Part H

There was agreement with the principle of course challenges.

The following suggestions were made concerning implementation:

Those who wish to challenge a course should take the

final examination for the course. Faculty are reluctant

•

prepare a separate examination for those wanting to

challenge.

No credit be given for courses successfuly challenged.

Course challenge would then be considered a means of

moving into advanced work more rapidly.

Academic warning and probation,

The conditions are such that students permitted to continue

their studies can reasonably expect to attain the 2.0 G.P.A.

required for graduation.

K. Okuda

KO/an

CURRICULUM COMMITTEE OF THE FACULTY OF ARTS SUBMISSION

ON THE ADMISSIONS AND STANDINGS REPORT

The Faculty of Arts Curriculum Committee is concerned about

several areas of the Ellis report on Admissions and Standings. It has,

therefore, recommendations which would remedy shortcomings of the report.

Academic Board:

1. The Curriculum Committee wishes to record itself as in favour in

principle of the Academic Board provided it operates in conjunction

with and accepts the advice of properly constituted separate sub-

committees for each discipline. These subcommittees should be

composed of representatives from the given department from each

University and College in the province.

2. The Committee farther feels that although courses may be accepted

for transfer credit, only an individual department of a given

University can determine standing and prerequisites for its program

or programs.

The above requirements should be made part of the terms of reference

of the Academic Board.

Transfer Credit and Advanced Standing:

The Committee favours acceptance of transfer credit for courses

at the University level although not taught at Simon Fraser. The

type of credit, however, (see page 17: 8)

can be determined only

by the department of the student's major.

Statement on Admissions and Transfer:

Although recognizing that the university would treat transfer

students differently than its own, the committee cannot wider any

circumstances sanction the transferring of credits in courses

With a grade below a C.

The Committee has considerable reservations about the fact that

the standards for entrance of students from U.S. high schools are

more rigid than from any other area in the world. It would like

to see the principle enunciated throughout the report that students

from outside B.C. and foreign students be accepted into Simon Fraser

the same way in which they would be accepted into a leading

institution from their own area. (see page 33: 3.2

and page

31: 3.3)

Further, the high requirements for one nationality appear to contradict

the spirit of number 2

of the Statement of Operating Guidelines on page

seven: 'he university should not exclude persons on the basis of

race, colour or creed. The committee does, of course, recognize that

he university has a particular responsibility to qualified applicants from

the Province of British Colwfoia.

' (page

8: 3)

page 2

It is the opinion of the Committee that for procedures on Admissions

and Transfer to work the permanent Senate Committee in charge of

Admissions and Standings must have tight control over the administration

of the policies of Senate. They must have auditing and post-auditing

procedures and privileges and be allowed instant access to any student

• record.

Statement on Continuance, Withdrawal and Readmission:

1. The Committee recommends that statements 1 through

on page 36 be

amended to substitute the word

ttj11?t

for"may."

Course Challenge:

The Committee wishes to point out, whatever the final number of hours

student is allowed to challenge, that a distinction ought to be made

between courses in which the final product is the crucial factor

irrespective of the manner in which the product is achieved and courses

which the process of participation is crucial. As a general

principle only courses in which participation is not an important

factor should be allowed to be challenged.

The Committee would like to amend the section on Course Challenges by

adding the following on page 41:

g) There will be a fee of ($10 or $15) for each course challenge

in order to cover administrative costs of such a program.

Such a fee would have the, additional benefit of discouraging students

from challenging a course unless they really felt they had a good

chance of challenging it successfully.

Retroactivity:

I. The Committee endorses the principle of full retroactivity and recommends

that procedures to allow it be implemented. One possible method is

to release the Admissions Board (or Undergraduate Admissions Committee)

from all or part of their teaching duties for the time necessary in

order to clear up this massive injustice. Because general policies

would need to be worked out first and because of the amount of advance

time necessary to work out teaching duties, such a release of Faculty

time probably could not take place before the

69- .

semester.

L.]

SiMOI F1ASER UiIVERSfIY

J. McN;u1ty

From

D.McPhie

Assistant tothe Dean of Arts

AssistantRegistrar, Records

Suhc...............................................................................................

Date...... ..... ...

... ...23rd

1.9

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

As requested, I am enclosing an extract from the Minutes of the

Senate Cormnittee on Undergraduate Admissions and Standings' meeting

of December 30th, 1968, outlining the guideline used in determining

the academic status of each student registered for the 1968 Fall

Semester with grade point a verage of less than 2.00.

If further clarification is required, I would suggest you contact

the Chairman of the Senate Committee on

Undergraduate

Admissions and

Standings directly.

D. McPhie.

End.

)McP:bc

cc: H. N. Evans

1INUTES OF MEETING OF SENATE C01ITTEE ON

UNDERGRADUATE ADMISSIONS

AND STANDLNGS FIELD ON DECEMBER

30, 1968,

10:30

A.M. IN THE

BOARD

ROOM, LIBRARY

--------

p resent:

D. A. Meyers

Acting Chairman and Secretary.

Day

McPhie

D. Meakin

W. Williams

L. Wilson

The examination results for the 1968 Fall Semester were considered

and the table shown below was used as a guide line in determining

the academic status of each student with a Grade Point Avciage of

less than 2.00.

Comment in

Academic

Precedige s t er

Semester

Status

None

0.99 - C.P.A. - 2.00

None

0.00 - C.P.A. - 1.00

Probation

* * * *

0.99 - C.P.A. - 2.00

Probation

* * * *

0.00 - C.P.A. - 0.99

Withdraw

Probation

0.00 - C.P.A. - 2.00

Withdraw

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

Dean

Arts

Frcm.. J

Hutchinson, Acting Chairman,

Department of History,

Subject

........................28th, 1969.

The Department of History agrees in general, with the spirit

of the Ellis Report and with the principles

embodied in it. In a

meeting of 20th March 1969 the Department adopted a policy of transfer

credit and standing which embodies the same principles and spirit.

(see, for information, enclosure (1): Report of the Undergraduate

of the Undergraduate Studies COmmittee which was approved by the

Department of History).

There are, however, some specific questions the department would

like to raise about the report.

While the Department may agree with the principle of

accrediting powers resting with the Academic Board

concerning overall academic effectiveness and programs

in general, it would be concerned about credit granted

for specific course equivalents without close consultation

with the departments concerned. The Department finds

recommendation B-3 (page 12) somewhat ambiguous in this

respect.

With respect to the statement on Admissions and Transfer

(pp.24-34) the Department recommends that transfer credit

only be awardedin all cases of transfer

for courses in

which a

or better has-been obtained.

The Department strongly endorses the statement and

recommendation on Special Entry students, particularly

with respect to mature students.

Under Part J, the question of retroactivity, the Department

of History recommends the adoption of alternative (c) (p.45).

RLK; wf

End. 1

Oiico c

Dcn

APR25

Fa':uy df Aris

(from Undergraduate Studies Committee Minutes - March 12, 1969.)

The Committee decided to recommend to the Department a new

policy on Grade 13 transfers and to review the entire transfer

situation. The Chairman suggested the acceptance of the general

principle that credit be granted for all courses successfully passed

in post-secondary work within B. C., with course equivalents being

granted where applicable and unallocated credit in History where no

course eq,iivalents existed. This principle is at present applied

to all junior colleges in the privince, with the exception of

Okanagan which is treated as Grade 13 since it uses the Grade 13

syllabus. This principle had not been applied to Grade 13 before

July........

The Committee acknowledged that the Department had always had

reservations regarding Grade 13 based on a concern for the quality

of the instruction at that level. The committee, however, unanimously

agreed that the student does Grade 13 work in good faith and that he

should not be penalized by a refusal to accept his work once corn-

p1eted that he should be given the benefit of the doubt and granted

full credit and standing. He could, of course, he advised to do

additional work in History as electives. The committee therefore

recommends:

That transfer students from Grade 13 be

given full credit and standing by the

Department for work in

History successfully

completed in Grade 13.

That Grade 13 History 101 he treated as the

equivalent of History 101 and three unallocated

hours in history.

That Grade 13 History 102 be treated as the

equivalent of History 242 and 282.

That the Registrar be requested to pull the

records of all students who had been granted

credit for Grade 13 History since July and

change the credit and equivalence granted

to conform with the new regulations.........

The committee then reviewed the policy regarding B.C. Junior

Colleges. It concluded that the present position with respect to

Vancouver City College and Selkirk was acceptable, (in that all

courses were granted credit and standing) It noted that the

•

Department in its meeting of July 25th had decided that transfer

students from Okanagan Regional College would be treated as Grade 13

students and thus would come under the new recommendations regarding

those students.

The Committee reviewed the recommendation made by the Acting

Chairman of the Department, in consultation with the Chairman of the

USC, regarding transfer credit from Capilano College and decided to

send these to the Department with the recommendation:

That the department approve the recommendation that

Capilano College History 30 be considered the equivalent

of SFU History 121 and that Capilano College History 31

be considered the equivalent of SFU History 222.

The Chaicman then raised the question of transfer students from

colleges and universities from outside B.C. He had recently been asked

by the Chairman of the Department to suggest recommendations, to be

forwarded to the Registrar, regarding credit to be granted to a student

applying for transfer from a California College. He had suggested

granting credit for all courses successfully completed and granting

equivalents where applicable. He would like a general statement to

cover such cases. Members raised the problem of granting credit for

work completed in colleges about which nothing was known. Others pointed

out that refusing to grant credit because the quality of the education

involved was unknown might he unfair to the student. The committee de-

cided to give the benefit of the doubt to the student and to recommend

that, as with Grade 13 students, the student be given the chance to

Semonstrate his ability to meet the standards demanded by the department.

students can be advised to do additional work in History as a means

of better preparing themselves for upper-level work. The committee

agreed to make the following recommendation:

That the department will ordinarily recommend that

full credit and standing be granted for work in

history successfully completed at other colleges and

universities.

UNSOLICiTED

REPORT _OF

THE SENATE CODaTTEE ON

UNDERGRADUATE

ADMISSIONS AND STANDINGS ON ThE ELLIS REPORT

The Senate Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Standings

has considered the Ellis Report: in detail. In general, the

Committee agrees with the principles embodied in it. In a

number of specific cases, however, the Committee feels that its

recommendations will be unworkable -- indeed, equally as ambig-

uous as current regulations. Following the extract from the

original minutes of Senate that tra definitive and comprehensive

admissions and standings policy be developed, the Committee

would like to propose the following amendments with a view to

tightening areas of interpretation within the current document.

Page 17 - 7

The Committee noted that as a general principle this

statement is in contradiction with item 3.4 on page

34. See Committee recommendation below

on item 3.4.

Page 17 - 8

The Committee recommended that the last sentence in

section 8 should be changed, as it is ambiguous in

the report. The following amendment is proposed:

"That for each course which is considered transfer-

rable the credit assigned in total will equal that

assigned by the original institution."

Page 17 - 6 and 9

The Committee is concerned as to whether sections 6

and 9 are explicit enough in terms of credit and

standings. It is suggested that section 6 should be

reworded to relate specifically to credit and section

9 specifically to standing. In addition, the Committee

felt that the Admissions Board should issue guidelines

to departments before seeking from them listings of

course equivalencies.

Page 21 - 5.4

C)ifce oi

•

t;o Dccn

APiI 2 2

The Committee suggested that the following section be

added to item 5 - Academic Departments, on page 21.

"To provide a listing of course equivalencies based

upon guidelines from the Admissions Board related to

lower division courses and programs offered in the

several institutions of higher learning in the

province."

-2-

Page 25 - 1.2

The Committee recommended that the second and third

sentences should be deleted and this statement should

read as follows:

"The maximum transfer credit: that will be allo

ed is

60 semester hours. An applicant seeking admission

with transfer credit is advised that the courses he

transfers, together with those he subsequently takes

at the university, must meet the general and specific

requirements of the faculty and the department in

which he chooses to major or honor. The applicant

should not assume that he will complete his degree with

a number of semester hours equal to the difference

between total hours required for the degree and trans-

ferred hours. Although usually this calculation will

be correct for a student who remains within his field

of study, it will probably not be true for a student

who changes his field."

Reason: The Committee believes that a student must

complete two years of his degree program at Simon

Fraser University if Simon Fraser University is to

have any character of its own as a degree-granting

institution.

Page 26 - 1.221 The Committee recommended that the following be added

to section 1.2

.immediately following the amended para-

graph above.

"The transfer credit regulations as•wrfttenpermit

•

advance credit to he awarded for courses in which a

grade below a 'C' was obtained. The Coirunittee recomincnded

•

that transfer credit only be awarded for courses in

which a 'C' or better has been obtained. This statement

refers to all subsequent sections."

Reason: This has been done to maintain standards.

Page 27 - 1.24

The CRmmittee suggested that the first sentence be

amended to read as follows:

"An applicant who met University admission requirements

for first year under paragraph 1.11, page 24, after

completion of Grade XII may be admitted."

Page 28 - 1.252

The Committee recommended that the word "normally"

be deleted and that reference be made to section 1.32,

page 30, re Mature Students.

.-j-

Page 28 - 1.26

Action should be taken immediately to establish

transfer credit policies from B.C.I.T.

Page 29 - 1.3

The

Committee recommended that this section be amended

to read as follows:

"The University is interested in extending university-

level learning opportunities to residents of this

province who may not qualify under the normal categories

of admission. At present the University offers three

types of special entry -- Early Admission, Earl

Eitry,

and Nature Entry."

(Amended: two - three, Early Admission/Entry to Early

Admission, Early EnLxy.)

Page 30 - 1.32

The Committee recommended that 1.321 should be amended

to read:

"A person who is at least 25 years of age, or will reach

that ac,

, e

his first semester of attendance, and

wishes to continue his formal education, may apply for

admission."

(Amended: at least - approximately; addition of "or will

reach that age during his first semester of attendance;

•

deleted "for personal reasons to complete university

entrance requirements and who, after working for a number

of years.)

Page 31 - 1.32

The Committee recommended that a sub-paragraph numbered

1.323, be added to read as follows:

"Admission may be granted under this category to

aplicants who were previously not in good standing at

a post-secondary institution, providing at least five

years

have elapsed since the earlier attempt. No transfer

credit

will be granted

in such

cases."

Page 31 - Section 2

2.1

The

Committee recommended that paragraph 2.1 be amended

•

• to

include

•

"No advance credit for word done at the Senior Matricula-

tion level will be awarded",

and paragraphs 2.11 and 2.12 be deleted.

Page 33 - 3.1

•

The Committee recommended that the last sentence in the

•

paragraph be altered to read:

"Transfer credits will not be granted for 'A' Levels

equivalents."

•

Page 34 - 3.3

The Committee recommended that section 3.3 be amended

to read as follows:

"An applicant from a countr

other than those mentioned

in 3.1

and 3.2 must submit satisfactory evidence of the

equivalent of Senior Matriculation standing at accept-.

able levels of achievement. Transfer credit will not

be granted for work done at the Senior Matriculation

1evel for'A' Levels or equiva1ent.

(Amended: added - section underlined; deleted - The

awarding of transfer credit is at the discretion of

the Admissions Board but will normally be on the same

basis as if he were seeking admission to a leading

university in his home area.)

Page 34 - 3.4

The Committee recommended that section 3.4 be amended

to read as follows:

"An applicant from a foreign country who seeks

admission with

to 60 semester hours or its equivalent

in subjects acceptable for transfer credit may be con-

sidered for admission and transfer credit with the

following provisions: studies must have been undertaken

at a

fully accredited institution of higher learning;

the studies presented for transfer credit must be accept-

•

able to a leading university in his home area toward a

program similar to the one to which he seeks admission;

•

and his cumulative G.P.A. must be 2.00 (C) or higher

transferrable courses."

(Amended: added - up to; deleted - or more (following 60

semester hours)).

Page 36 - 6

The Committee recommended that paragraph 6 be amended as

follows:

"A student on either academic warning or academic probation

must carry a minimum semester course load of 12 semester

hours and may not repeat courses in which he has

obtained a 'C' or better."

(Amended: added - and may not repeat courses in which he ha

obtained a 'C or better.)

Page 36 -

The Committee recommended that paragraph 7 be amended as

follows:

"A student who is required towithdraw may be re-admitted

academic probation after twelve months have elapsed.

No transfer credit will be awarded for work undertaken

during the absence from Simon Fraser University."

(Amended: added - second sentence; deleted - Transfer

credit for work undertaken during the twelve-month period'

will be allowed only if the student has received the

- express prior approval for work he intends to undertake.)

.-:-

Page 36 - 8

The Colrffnittee suggested that paragraph 8 be altered

to read as follows:

"A student who is requieto withdraw for a second

time will be required to withdraw pe manentIv. No case

permanent withdrawal will be reconsidered for a period

five years."

(Amended: the word "normally" deleted from the second

sentence.)

Page 37- Special Entry The Committee recommended that the first sentence be

amended as follows:

"At present the University has three types of special

entry: early admission, early entry which are intended

for academically talented students who have not completed

high school; and mature entry which is intended for

persons 25 years or older whose high school programs were

not completed for various reasons."

The Committee also recommended that for clarity the

Early Admission .nd Early Entry categories be shown

separately and not as Early Admission/Entry as this is

confusing.

THE COETTEE URGES STRONGLY THAT THERE SHOULD

BE NO RETROACTIVITY

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ANY

NEW POLICIES.....

SIMON FRASF UNWERSTY

r , rurr\c . -

•To

From

DnofArt

Dep tment of Englisi-.

Subject

EU.S Re.port.

il 22 1.9.6.9

14733-PC

Instead of offering an extended series of observations

on the Ellis Report, I should like to concentrate on proposal 3.

Simon Fraser University does not need the Academic Board to inform

it "of those courses and programs offered by colleges in this province

that can be considered equivalent in terms of content, levels and

requirements to courses and programs typically found in the first

two years at university"

(p.

2). Simon Fraser University must make

its own determination of these matters and it must do so on the advice

of its own individual departments. A "province-wide system of

accreditation"

(p.

11) by an Academic Board is no substitute for

careful assessment by individual departments of the programs of parallel

departments; a "province-wide system of accreditation" is liable

only to undermine the individuality of university departmental programs.

It can do so, first, by arbitrarily declaring a "likeness" where

none in fact exists and thereby making it impossible for university

•

departmental instruction to proceed at an advanced level from a

relatively common educational experience in the specific discipline

that one can assume and build upon. It can, alternatively, do so

by enforcing a mindless identity in parallel course outlines that

would blatantly aim at uniformity; this would produce the very

sterility and resistance to change that the report elsewhere indicates

it wishes to avoid

(p.

10). The Academic Board should be at best

a clearing-house for information, not a province-wide accreditin

body. Two "faculty members" from other departments of this university

or "academics" from other universities are no substitutes for

our own departmental members in determining appropriate equivalents

for our individual departmental programs (p. 12). Only a specific

department of a specific university can aptly say what kind of

training its majors need; to argue otherwise is to reduce

experimentation, innovation, and the possibility of distinctive

•

individuality that attracted many of us to this university in the

first instance and not to another. Therefore, I would recommend

that we "improve what we do at present" (p. 11) and that we do not

cede our

O7fl

responsibilities to an allegedly more efficient group

( p

. 11). There is some "valuable faculty time" (p. 11) that is..too

valuable to be surrendered.

• r '•

!.'t

•..)

- ._•

E. F.

Harden.

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

Acting Ilea

@To .............. ^^.O.f ....... ID ....... U

........ S:!4l.i.yan ....... D.e.an .....................................

From ................. 4, .. P

qVK ......

• .............

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

Pp..t9fCeography.

Date............

....

5Apr,969

It has not proved possible to elicit detailed comments on the

Ellis Report from many department faculty, much less to construe collective

opinions on the various recommendations and implications.

Essentially,

the

few

views collected express general satisfaction

with the principles and approach embodied in the report: considerations-of

interpretations, department autonomy and such are important but should-not

unduly hinder a rapid consensus to implement the major recommendations.

C;: J

9ç

•_•,)_

;'}:ccui

0f Jts

•

RBSr

•

•.•

.•

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

From ................................

Durstein

Subject

Date

. Ap'i1 •

This is in

response to your request for comments on the Ellis eport.

First of all, the Ellis -. committee was set up primarily to formulate a more

comprehensive and definitive set of admissions policies then we presently have.

The dissatisfaction of the students stemmed from the lack of a complete and

detailed specification of the policies underlying some of the decisions of

the Registrar and the Senate Committee.

The

Ellis committee was charged with

remedring this, and, until such time as these more detailed policies were

forthco.-ning, an interim appeals committee was foimied. A secondary aim of

Senate in setting up the Ellis Committee was to obtain recommendations on

policies which a

peared to need revision.

ather than present Senate with a detailed and complete set of adrissions

policies, the Ellis Report containes recommendations on policies which are

even more vague than those which caused the admissions

tcrisis.0

Thus, my

first disarointmnt with the Ellis Report is that it is subject to the very

complaints which generated it..

Aside. from this, ho-:ever, I believe that there are two major causes of concern

with respect to the recommendations made in the recort. First, I am greatly

disap

ointed that, at a time when UnC is raising its admissions standards,

would, if we adooted the Ellis recommendations, effectually

lowering

our

admissions stano.arcs, particularly witn respect to transfer students. Indeed,

I could never cast m

vote for uncritically acceptin 60 hours of transfer

credit from wuor and regional colleges unless U'!c and UiC, pa.rtcularly the

latter, also signed on to this request. hnile I have never favored saying in

ste p

with ' T

our sister Universities,

my reason has been that I opposed planned

mediocrity. That is, I would endorse admissions policies which ware higher

than those of U30 or

W!ic.

I could, never endorse policies which

are lower

than other BC Universities because they would essentially remove us from

competition as the leading university in BC. These recommendations wi].l re-

sult in buildin,

the

junior and reional

colleges at our

e-:nense. They,

essence, make us a

two

year college. Once we endorse the principle ot a

year degree in 4 years, regardless of where one ta1zes his initial 2 years,

the implementation of this principle, as stated quite explicitly

the re-

port, would require that we change our requisite courses

the first two

years

so that transfer students would not be held up.

nile some seem to say that

this does not stop specific Departments from flunking out students in advanced

courses who

have not taken what were

formerly

prere

uisite courses, there are

fairly obvious consequences of thisweeding out process.. ihiie this weeding

out would work if all Departments practiced it, there are Departments, particularly

in Arts, which recent documents show have a very low flunk-out rate. These re-

cent documents also show that those denartments which have a very

high

mean CPA

attract large numbers of students. Thus,even if some Departments

did

attempt

aintain their "

integrity"

the end result would be that we would be nourishing

-2--

the very illness that we are presently attempting to curb.

eIn addition, the notion that the first two years in junior or reional colleges

is equivalent to our first years is almost index ensiole. iiinere is no possiole

comparis ion between the junior colleges and this

university

rJth respect to

educational level of faculty, physical racilities, libraries, f'inancial assets, etc.

If there were anything verging upon an equivalence, the majority of universities

uuld accept the transfer of 60 credits as proposed in the This report.. To allow

this transfer of 60 credits would also be comp].ctel'

unrair to our own students

and miht possibly undermine our own program. hh;r should an:.

r one enrol in

first two years when they can simply o to any of a number of junior colleges and

receive the same credit as someone who took his first two years at SI[J?

I agree with the princirle that taking two

ears of training at a junior or regional

college should enable the student

continue toward a University degree in two more

years. In point of fact., thouh, it does not. The proner solution, however, would

seem to he to build up the quality of education in the junior and regional ecileges

rather than ask SFU to make an ideal situation real by awarding a degree arter four

years regardless of where the training was taken.

I would also like to object. to the Academic oardasscssing the transferability

of credit to S?IJ. This 3ord seems to consist of two mem/bers of each of the

three

universities and three political appointees. Aside from the fact that it

is doubtful that the academic

Toard has the

p'it' r

sic?

l facilities,

the staff or

the recources----or the

competence--to make such an assessment, why should the

Departments

in this

University accept.

decisions about transfer credit from a body which has

twice as many academies from other universities as from 31U and also has three

ersons who are not academics, but political

apoointees?

ny should FU ask outsiders

to set our admissions standards? hhat other University does this?

In sum, I o

rose the accel:tance of these

recommendations. I feel aulto certain that

they would result in a tremendous loss of reputation for this university; they, in

way, accomplish what ti-icy were intended to do, i.e., preclude student.

rotests aociut

arbitrary

decisions

they are more subject to interpretation than th

resent admissions

Policies;

they will

under:nine those Departments which attempt to maintain standards;

and they will build up those departments that succor:b to the temptation to adhere to

the princitle of a

year degree in

years, by dropping

standards.

.-.r-$

•'

c,.

S1MON FRASER

Atrfl!r,m,.-, r

...,. ,.,

From ,.R,BursteLn,.

i.1

SU1jCCI Ellis. Report

Dale

,._

This is in response to your request for comments on the Ellis Report.

First of all, the Ellis "committee" was set up primarily to formulate a more com-

prehensive and definitive set of admissions policies than we presently have. The

dissatisfaction of the student,stemjiied from the lack of a complete and detailed

specification of the policies underlying some of the decisions of the Registrar and

the Senate Committee. The Ellis committee was charged with remedying this, and,

until such time as these more detailed policies were forthcoming, an interim appeals

committee was formed. A secondary aim of Senate in setting up the Ellis Committee

was to obtain recommendations on policies which appeared to need revision.

Rather than present Senate with a detailed and complete set of admissions policies,

the Ellis Report contains recommendations on policies which are even more vague than

those which caused the admissions "crisis". Thus, my first disappointment with the

Ellis Report is that it is subject to the very complaints which generated it.

Aside from this, however, I believe that there are two major causes of concern with

respect to the recommendations made in the report. First, I am greatly disappointed

that, at a time when UBC is raising its admissions standards, we would, if we adopted

the Ellis recommendations, effectually be lowering our admissions standards, particu-

larly with respect to transfer students. Indeed, I could never cast my vote for

uncritically accepting 60 hours of transfer credit from junior and regional colleges

unless U. Vic. and UBC, particularly the latter, also signed on to this recommendation,

While I have never favored staying in step with "our sister Universities," toy reason

has been that I opposed planned mediocrity. That

is,

I oppose the notion that we

have to stay in step in the sense that we cannot be better than our sisterUniversities.

However, I would vigorously oppose any policy which took us out of step in the sense

of generating standards which were lower than our sister Universities. I could never

endorse or accept policies which were lower than other BC Universities because they

would essentially remove us from competition as the leading university in B. C.

These recommendations will result in building up the junior and regional colleges at

our expense. They,

essence, make us a two year college. Once we endorse the

principle of a 4 year degree in 4 years, regardless of where one takes his initial

2 years, the implementation of this principle, as stated quite explicitly in the re-

port, would require changes in our requisite courses in the first two years so that

transfer students would not be held up. While some seem to feel that this does

not stop specific Departments from flunking Out students in advanced courses who have

not taken what were formerly prerequisite courses, there are fairly obvious consequences

of this "weeding out" process. While this weeding out might work if all Departments

practiced it, there are Departments, particularly in Arts, which recent documents

show have a very low flunk-out rates. These ddcuments clearly show that those de-

partments which have a very high mean CPA attract large numbers of students. Thus,

even if some Departments did attempt to maintain their "integrity" by maintaining

standards, the end result would be that we would be. nourishing the very illness that

we are presently interested-in curbing.

In addition, the notion that the first two years in junior or regional colleges is

equivalent to our first years is almost indefensible. There is no possible comparison

between the junior colleges and this University with respect to educational level of

faculty, physical facilities, libraries, financial assets, etc. If there were anything

verging upon an equivalence, the majority of universities would accept the transfer of

60 credits as proposed in the Ellis

report. To allow this transfer of 60 credits would

•

also be completely unfair to our own students and might possibly undermine our own

program. Why should anyone enrol in SFU'S first two years when they can simply go to

any of a number of junior colleges and receive the same credit as someone who took his

first two years at SFU?

I agree with the principle that taking two years of training at a junior or regional

college should enable the student to continue toward a University degree in two more

years. In point of fact, though, it does not. The proper solution, however, would

seem to be to build up the quality of education in the junior and regional colleges

rather than to ask SFU to actualize an ideal by awarding a degree after four years

regardless of where the training was taken.

I am also quite distressed at the recommendation that the Academic Board assess the

transferability of credit to SFU. Aside from the fact that it is doubtful that the

Academic Board has the physical facilities, the financial resources, the staff, the

willingness-- and the competence--to make such decisions, and aside from the fact,

much more important, that the duties proposed for this body in the Ellis Report would.

seem to he completely outside of the terms of reference of this body, (see Appendix B

of the Report), what other noteworthy institute in all of North America has an external

• body assessing the transferability of specific courses? How could anyone seriously

suggest that four unpaid faculty from three different Universities and three unpaid

political appointees either have the time or competence to carefully examine calendars,

reading lists, course outlines, texts, etc., which must be done to adequately assess

the transferability of course credit?

In sum, I oppose the acceptance of these recommendations. I feel quite certain that

they would result in a tremendous loss of reputation for this university; they, in no

way, accomplish what they were intended to do, i.e., preclude student protests about

arbitrary decisions; they are more subject to interpretation than the present admissions

polities; they will undermine those Departments which attempt to maintain standards;

and they will build up those departments that succomb to the temptation to adhere to

the principle of a 4 year degree in 4 years, by dropping standards.

To digress a bit, I am more and more concerned with the manner in which this University

conducts its business. The overall philosophy of the University is epitomized in

Senate: it is to push through the recommendations of committees made up of persons with

little, if any, experience in the matters they deliberate. The majority of committee

recommendations come out of an information vacuum. Intelligent people know when they

are ignorant on specific issues and seek whatever information is available and necessary

for coming to an intelligent decision. Intelligent and responsible people do not push

for the adoption of a committee report because a committee has "worked hard on it" or

because "we have to trust the people we elected". The recommendations of committees

should be judged on their merits and not on the basis of how hard people worked on them.

•

It is riot much of a jump back to the Ellis

report. Here Senate seems to have told one

man, whose field is not admissions, to take four months and revise admissions policies.

What is more astounding than Senate's charge to Ellis is

that

Ellis

accepted this

charge. How could anyone witb any notion of the magnitude of the problems of admissions

attempt to single-handedly completely revise admission policies in four months. How

- .. .

)

could anyone present these recommendations to Senate without first presenting theni, in

their final form, to persons intimately acquainted with the, problems encountered in

•

admissions. Itwould seem to me that, minimally, these final reconurandations should have

been thoroughly discussed with each Department Chairman, with the Associate and Assistant

Registrars of this University, with those people in the Registrar's Offices at UBC and

U. Vic. who are most familiar with admissions and with, at least, a sampling of similar

people from Registrar's offices at other Canadian Universities.

I think it is high time that people in this University realized that there are literally

hundreds of Universities on this continent; that they each face more or less the same

problems; that many of them solved decades ago some of the so-called problems that seem

to stymie us; that information on how these problems were solved is available for the

asking; and that the cost of a postage stamp or telephone call is small when compared

to the cost in manpower hours of establishing committees well-intended, but bumbling,

inexperienced faculty members who, after years of trial and error, will eventually--if

the University still is functioning--come up with a routine solution which has been in

practice at scores of universities for decades. This University had a golden opportunity

to set up more or less ideal procedures with respect to every aspect of its functioning.

It could have surveyed every university to find out what aspects of its functioning it

was quite happy with and wha.t aspects it was dissatisfied with. It could have taken the

best from each University and benefited from man's unique ability to benefit from the

trial and error behavior of other men, past and present. Instead, it soughi, and sadly

still seeks, to exist in isolation, to ignore information, not thousands of miles away,

but in our own library; in short: to destroy itself. It might be enlightening to those

on Senate who righteously--and ignorantly--cry "We have the ball; let's move with it"

to observe what happens to a blindfolded parson who runs with a ball.

•

Moreover, a goodly number of Senate Committees are unnecessary. Many are established

simply to end discussion on matters which either should never have been brought to Senate

or should have been disposed of in different and routine ways. A large number of committee

reports are "received" by Senate and then thrown in the wastebasket. It might be self-

instructive if Senate were to ask itself whenever it established a committee what action

would be taken when the committee reported. A good example is the recent report of the

Grading and Examination Practices Committee. Nothing was done about the previous committees

report and, I suspect, nothing will be done when this committee is again established as

called for by Senate. Moreover, the kinds of data collected by the last committee and

to be collected.by the to-be-established committee might just as well be collected by a

secretary. Indeed a computer could provide the data.

There. has been a lot of talk about what is wrong with Senate. The answer is obvious,

but unacceptable to most faculty. What is wrong with Senate is what is wrong with the

University. Senate is a representative body (as is, in a sense, every committee in the

University). In order for ary body to function, it must have persons experienced enough

and with information enough to intelligently tackle the problems it faces. With respect

to Senate, experience with Universities and University administration is essential.

Persons experienced in such matters are typically given tenure. How many of the members

of Senate held a tenured position before coming here; indeed, how many of the members of

Senate held a full-time faculty position prior to coming here. The same questions can

be asked of the University as a whole. The CAUT Réport,note.d that it was difficult to

specify the dimensional basis of the use of the term "senior person" at this University.

How could anyone expect a University which has, perhaps, a handful of experienced academics

to function efficiently? How could anyone expect a committee system to work in this

university? These Committees are, in essence, little Senates and can be expected to be

no more and no less efficient than Senate. To attribute the inefficiency of Senate to the

use of a particular set of parliamentary rules is analogous to attributing a poor rendition

of a play to the play and not to the players. Senate would, under any set of rules which

•

permitted exchanges and discussion, still he Senate. What is necessary to make Senate

a functioning body is to change the players. Some criterion related to experience has

to be invoked, be it, age, or years in an academic institution, or whatever. There is no

procedure, however cute, which will change novice players into proficient ones.

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

ift

............. Dr ........ K

......... S

tx-

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

.'.- .,

../'

From

Associate Att:'}ad

ear ppt

ten

',,.,'

,-•

Date ..................

April ....

.22........

This is in

reply to your request for comments from

Senators: I am in complete a

reement with the Ellis Report

"Admissions and Standings, a suggested policy". I hope

that Senate will approve all of it. The few reservations

that I had on first reading the Report were dispelled by my

conversation with Dr. Ellis.

I very much regret that I shall be away for the month

of May and thus will not be present when Senate begins its

consideration of the Report.

AHL/sp