Paper J- 2

oice

Oi .otion

That,wit

" the exception of notion F1,

there

be no attempt

to ip1eent the 11is recoindations by the Fall of 1969.

1) Senate has approved a recommendation al±o'an the Academic Hoard to

determine the transferability

course credit. Many of us voted on

issue witli the assurance that Departments, which, I think, we

areed

were most com

p etent to judge these matters, would be re-

resnntect in this decision process. Thus, we were assured that sue-

committees of the Academic Board, in each disci

line, would make these

• S

decisions, or at least recommend them to the Academic Board. Thus,

as presented to Senate, the Academic Board was a clearing house for

recommendations made by people in the disci

line of the courses involved.

The motion presented in Senate paper J-1 would seem to represent a

departure from the spirit and intent of the motion passed by Senate.

It asks that one person make these decisions or that a commumittee

nominated by him do this. No formal provision is made for obtaining,

expertise from the disciplines involved. Moreover, although this is

presented as an

interimTl

mechanism, we have no assurance that the

Academic Board will ever assume the duties Senate has requested it

as'ure The Boi has said

it ill ba into tle easibilitv Of it

I believe :Dean Sullivan noted at the last meeting that the Board has

not indicated that it will assume these responsibilities. Thus, this

int,er

4 r" procedure which involves one person making decisions which

vitally affect Departments has

chance of becoming a permanent

mechanism; one which is not in the snirit of the recommendation ap-

craved by Senate.

In addition, it would seem apnronriate that the Denartsents affected

• .by and interested in transfer credit have so:ie voice in determining

who ill assi

this

cie 1i

Ifihe "ajort 0

r eel

ti-at

one man .s

caable of mustering the information arid energy necessary to make

these hundreds of important decisions, than, at least, they should

have a voice in namin: this man. However, if interim procedures

are necessary, it would seem a much better strategy to get a fairly

large committee, such as the Academic Board sub-committees mentioned

before. Such committees allow a difference of o

pinion to be heard,

they allow the views of those outside of the University to he heard,

they allow an opportunity for feedback on various proposals,

and

they

minimize the probability of arbitrary

decisions . It does not seem

reasonable to ask Senate to set up a particular p rocedure, such as

naming one man or allowing one person to name a committee simply be-

cause this is the easiest and fastest way to get somethin done. There

are few things that can best be accomplished in the easiest and fastest

way. In any event, the duties assigned are the responsibility of Senate

and Senate should, at 1st, approve the nominees mentioned in paragraph

1 of paper J-2. It would certainly not seem inampropriate for Senate to

know whom it is assigned this tremendous responsibility before it approves

this procedure.

Paragrapb

of motion J-1 cals for writing in "fine print."

First, this man or committee proposedi in the motion is intended as

an interim substitute for the Academic Board. It supposedly. per-

forms those functions recommended by Senate for the Academic Board.

The writing in offine print" is not within the terms of reference

assigned to the Academic Board by Senate.

)

-.0-

Secondly, the writing in of "fine print," if it is necessary, should

he done 5y persons intimately acquainted with the trocessing of ad-

Missions applications.

Thirdly, whatever, tine print changes are, and regardless of who

makes them, these changes should he approved by Senate. They are

part of admissions rolicies • if they are added to the policies

recommended by Senate, and re q

uire Senates approval. It would

seem unnecessary to say that the addition of fine print to a

po:Licy can change completely both the meaning and the intent of

a policy. In an

event, it is the responsibility of Senate to

aPProve admissions policies whether they are in boldprint or

fine rrint.

Pourthly, aany of these recommendations passed oiUy alter we wore

told that many of the roints related to implementation would he dc-

dated later.

e have had some lengthy and intensive arguments about

matters relating to the implementation of these recommendations, and

have passed some o. these tolicies only after having been told that

decisions on the debated matters could be reached when implementation

- - , as discussed.

Row it would seem that im p

lementation is not going

to be discussed, if motion J-1 is passed.

Fifthl3

, it is difficult to understand what is meant by "fine print."

The

UIJC

admissions p

olicies and those of other Canadian universities

are contained in just a few pages of their calendars. The Ellis

recorrnmenaations seem to parallel the presentations in these calendars.

oat sorts o omissions are there that have to be filled in th fine

•

print? The"crisis" about dmissiors policies was generated by students

who com

lained about the absence of specifically stated rolicies, i.e.,

about the absence of fine

rint. Are we saying now that, alter all

our attem p

ts to remedy this deficiency, after setting- up a committee,

after meeting time after time, after passing all these recommendations,

that we still have not precisely specified our admissions policies and

that we are tired now and would like someone else to fill ther:i in?

If there is a need to fill in "fine print" after all our attempts, then

it would seers that either we do it or admit that we have failed.

Sixthly, the closing paragraph of motion J-1 is difficult to understand.

It states that

resent rolicies will continue if they are not replaced

by these recommendations, nrovid e d that t

h ere

is no conflict '-etween the

p resent

ly3licy

and

the intent or

rinci

les of theEllis recommendations.

ftiat ha

nens then if there is an Ellis recommendation which cannot he implemented

at the

resent time and the present policy conflicts rth it? Indeed, is there

not necessarily a conflict between aiLl of the present p

olicies and the E114

recommendations (unless they are identical as present policy)? Are we saying that

when there is a conflict we iill have no policy? Are

iTC

saying that when we

have a conflict the Ellis recommendationwill be in effect even if it cannot

he implemented?

Aside from the shove reasons for seriously cuestioning theropooaIs

in parer J-1 for imr1e:nentin' Ihelljs recommendations at the rresenI

rne, there seem to be good reasons for not attempting to implement

the ma,jorty of these recommenda-bons

.or

the F a a l l l l of

1969

at all.

First, we approved the de1egation of the responsibility for decison ibout

the trsnsferabjlj- of credit to

external bod

with the understandin

-r that

we would receive, when implementation was discussed, an indication of whether

and how the Academic Board would make these decisions. We ahre had none of

this information. To imnlement this would be to implement the uniooie-i.

Some of us have asked that, if the Academic Doard agrees to make these

sdeeccondaisionsry

, aTnd

eprief stehe

nbasub-tivecs

omin mthe

ittedies

sccions

1jno-

ist ng

are

dec

ide

tra

p osfetr -

credit for specific courses, then it would seem reasonable to ask that

the other colleges and uni\

ersitjes sending re

resentatjres. to these

sub-committees and making decisions about the transferability of Courses

be asked to bind themselves to these decisions.

by should SFU

bind itself to a decision made by a committee in which it has one of many

votes, if no other college or university represented on the committee

is bound b

the decision? Thy would any of the colleges and universities

not agree to be hound by the decisions which we are willing to bind ourselves

to? In any event, we were told that we would have a chance to imow and to

discuss the exact procedures by which the policy we were passing wasgoing

to be implemented. Jhat we are being asked to do imow is to implement

without IQioiiing what we a re implementing.

Seco:d?

It ha

s been repeatedly stated that one of the main reasons for

some of the recominendations presented to Senate is that sonic Departments

seem t

ontinually change their minds about the transfer credit associated

with some of their courses. We have also been told that this indecisiveness

is c

pounc

ause

lec

w chairman and heads sometimes come in and again change

these recommendations. Further we have been told that, because of these

frequently changed decisions with respect to transfer credit, students attenirting

to transfer are civen what turns out to be misinformation about the transferability

tha

, as

cour

a re

the

ecom

take

enda

Inde

tions

ed,

pathe

ssheed

adlstudeines

ntin s wthe

oulned

knor

nnr

sely

what courses they could take andget trasfer credit for.

Itseems

p aradoxical

hen that motion J-1 suggests immediate implementadjon,

The students currently applying here have been counseled to enrol in courses

and

t t

his

enr

p ro

sugge

com

tha

cour

t w

ignor

based

upon

the fa

ent

t t

rans

y ha

fer

regul

bee

tions.

counseled and have enrolled in good, faith and that we say to them, "forget what

we told :ou;

iTC

are going to change all that even thou

h you have no'.r cornletedy

all your course work, even though you have already applied to us on tile basis of what

re told you and even though registration is onlya matter of weeks away.

In addition it tells students, "you cannot even really have any faith in what

your counselor is telling you now, or in what the ruliis we now put out say

out

becawusite

tsheomy

arme

orsime

plru1iy ans

n iwnthiercih m

erobadure

bla y

d the

dif

ent

ic Board will soon come

seems obvious that, when a mechani3l

1 11

is evolved for determining the transfer-

abiliti- of courses, the junior and col

re.ional

-es will have to be iri.ormed

of the final decisions on this matter some time before they go into effect so

that students

may

be counseled to enrol in courses iich are transferable. To

simp

implement without such lead tine for counselors at

other

institutions

would penalize

all students counseled on the basis of previous trense.r credit

rulings.

oe arrangement should also be made for havin those studnets who

enrolled in courses on the basis of rrevious transfer rulings get credit for

these courses if it is to their benefit.

In any event, simply invoking new transfer

p olicies without

erarr.ing

w:uld

seem to breed the 'rery sane sort of chaos that both the egistrar and hr.

llis seen to have objected to. horeover, this would be worse, since we

would bo invoking

interim set which we are s

p ecifically sarng will

be --enlaced when

the

Academic Doa::d. assunes its function.

by September? I

every course was

ird, and rerhap

or any other notion

unless Ire said that

how could

t would be

trans f era

we rossibly im p lement this

impossible to implement

ale, I

don?t

know of any

University in Canada or the United States which accepts, uncritically,

every course taken at a junior or a reional college as a transfer course

It therefore seems obvious that we cannot acce

t all courses for transfer

credit. It seems e

q ually obvious that the task of judging individual courses

is a time-consuming one. If one checks with persons who, in their work

in a :ie

istrar ? s office, do this kind of work, one finds that this sort of

decision involves comparing calendars, checking with Departments about texts,

tests, labs, etc., checking on what other universities in the area do, etc.

could anyone do an intelligent end competent job with the hundreds and hundreds

of courses which would be offered for transfer in years or months, let alone

In sum, it would seem im

ossible for any one man or any committee, regardless

of inc dedication or enthusiasm or competence o f

the persons involved, to

carefullir

thru all the courses which have to be assessed with resrect to

trans.er of crecacn time to start processing arnications for iall acnisson.

At the vcrT least, if Senate is going to am-,rove an attemat to assess the

transferability of hundreds of ours es with a matter of days, it should have

full lmowleclge of tile rrocedure which is going to be used, and it should a prove

the decisions reached.