SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY, BURNABY, B.C., CANADA V5A 1S6
OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR; 291-3224
ADMISSIONS AND STANDINGS - A SUGGESTED POLICY?
(THE ELLIS REPORT)
The following is a brief summary of the processes followed in the
consideration by Senate of the report by Dr. John Ellis "Admissions and
Standings - A Brief Policy". It is provided to enable the reader to
relatively quickly understand the procedures and - by reading of the report
as amended by Senate - to get a quiák overview of a number of the decisions
made.
A full overview could be obtained only by reading of the minutes
of the Senate meetings (or of the verbatum transcripts which were prepared
for four of the special meetings).
Within the copies of the Ellis Report, as amended by Senate through
the early meetings )
changes will be identified in italics. In some instances
whole paragraphs may show in italics whereas much of the wording was contained
in the original report but it has not been possible to always adapt to
re-wording through italics only for the words changed.
Each of the recommendations made in the report are summarized in
the report under section 1 "Summary of Recommendations". In addition the
individual recommendations are shown in the directly pertinent sections of
the report. At both these places notations will appear in the margin to
the right to identify the Senate action of approval or rejection or amendment
or revision and the date or dates on which these occurred, together with an
indication of the page numbers of the Senate minutes pertaining to the action.
A reading of the material will indicate that a number of recommendations
were quickly approved; that a number of recommendations were stood-over for
further debate and underwent minor or major changes; that there was no decision
made on some of the recommendations.
Following the major discussion at Senate a committee was established
under the Acting Academic Vice-President to carry forward further developments,
decisions and actions. These will not be reflected in the report as amended
to the end of the major discussion by Senate.
S
____
fin
n
?
.2
-2-
. ?
1. Senate, at its meeting of November 20, 1968 commissioned the preparation
of a report on Admissions and Standings. A report was submitted to the
Acting President on March 25, 1969 and decisions were made as to the manner
whereby Senate would consider the report.
2.
The report was discussed at Special Meetings of Senate held on May 6, May 9,
June 9, June 16, 1969 and at a Special Meeting held July 14, 1969.
3.
The Procedure for Discussion was established under Paper S 217 dated
April 8, 1969. The order of discussion was to be.as
follows:
1, 1.1, 2, if 2 passes then 3, if 3 passes then 4, 5, if 5 passes
then 10, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, if 16 passes then 17,
18, 19, 20, 21, 22, if 1 - 22 have passed then 23. If any failed,
the debate resumes on failed items in above order with 23 last.
4.
At the May 6 meeting the following were approved without change:
1, 11, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10.
5.
At the May 9 meeting the following were approved without change: -
7, 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22.
The following were not approved and were therefore to be subject to
further debate:
6, 9, 12, 13, 20. 23 is always to be last discussed.
6.
For the Senate meeting of.June 9 further instructions and papers were
issued under Paper S 240, 240-1, 240-2 and other working papers
5 240-3 to S 240-12.
The discussion order was to be as follows:
S 240-10
?
Motion
H
re: Part F,
p.
?
36
H.l.
- 4
B
re:
Max. transferable credit
- 5
C
re: Credit transfer for D grade
C.1.
- 9
G re:
Admission with transfer credit
G.1., G.2.
3
A re: Special Admissions p. 29-31, Sec.12
A.l.,
A.2.
- 6
D
re:
Sec. 2, 3 of Part E
D.l.
- 7
E
re: Admissions and transfer
p.
24-34
- 8
F re: G.P.A.'s need for admission
F.1.
-11
I re:
Role of Admissions Bd in Transfer
1.1.,
1.2.
credit and advanced standing Part C
--12
J
re: Rec. 20
J.l.,
J.2.
J.l.
amendment
(Recommendations
6,
9 are in papers I,
?
1.1., ?
1.2.
12 is in A, A.l, A.2;
?
B; ?
C, ?
C.l; D, ?
D.l; ?
E;
F, ?
F.l; ?
G, ?
G.l, ?
G.2.
13
is in H, H.l.)
]
-3-
Within the report some changes were made by Senate of an editorial
nature and these have not been made directly in the various
.
copies of the
report but are as follows:.
i.
The Senate minutes of May 6, 1969, page 6, indicate, that
throughout the report where there is reference to "the leading
institution" this now to be read "a leading institution".
ii. The Senate minutes of May 6, 1969, page 8, indicate the
following:
"Dependent upon the results of certain motions a number
of changes, particularly those of an editorial nature1
could be required and would be made as necessary."
These have not been all directly made in the report but should
be applied as necessary with the 'full understanding of the
actions of Senate.
iii.
The Senate
,
minutes of May 9, 1969, page 11, indicate the
following':
"The Chairman indicated that he had earlier stated if the
principle was approved, a simple organizational and
procedural framework might be developed somewhat as
outlined, but that this was
v indicative and not binding."
The master. Senate files will contain for each meeting the pertinent
minutes, support papers and working papers. There will also be held in
master files at least 'one copy of the Ellis Report as amended up to and
including July 14, 1969 containing copies of the minutes and various working
papers.
In addition a number of copies of the report will be available in
various areas'of the office showing the amended report up to that date and with
this explanatory statement contained therein.
XZjr
E L L I S REPORT
As amended by Senate to July 14, 1969
0
As
1.ne
#
i4Let
ky
-i-.
r4 /fr( /?'c?
ADMISSIONS AND STANDINGS -
A SUGGESTED POLICY
Prepared for the Senate of
.
?
Simon Fraser University
by
John
F. Ellis
Simon Fraser
.
University
Burnaby, British Columbia.
.arch
1969
S
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
SBURNAY 2, BRITI3H
Tclzpho..: •9J3I11
Arm co& 601
March 25, 1969
Dr. Kenneth Strand
Acting President,
Simon Fraser University,
Burnaby 2, B. C.
Dear :Dr. Strand:
I take pleasure in enclosing the report on admissions and
standings commissioned by Senate at its meeting of November 20, 1968.
In accordance with Senate's wishes., I have had conversations
with numerous groups and individuals both on the campus and.throughout
the province. Noteworthy among these have been consultations with the
advisory committee established by Senate, members of every academic
department in this university, students and faculty at all regional colleges
and students on this campus. In all, I would. estimate that I have held
• ?
approximately two hundred hours of
conversations
related to the project plus
the necessary time for travel and making arrangements.
In preparing the report, I have resisted the temptation to present
an unnecessarily long document. 1 have also restricted my recommendations
to areas over which the university can exercise control. Thus, there are no
recommendations that involve changes in government legislation, that require
sharp increases in the level of financial support or that make necessary joint.
venture relationships with other institutions or agencies.
All
the recommendations
offered can be acted on by Senate. If they are implemented, the effect should
be helpful to the health and balance of the B. C. system of higher education, as
well as to the individual academic careers of student.
It is worth noting that the B. C. system is developing very rapidly.
New institutions are emerging at the same time that existing ones are
adapting to pressures of numbers and suggestions. for change. In addition,
there is no wide concensus on the relative roles of colleges and universities.
This is another way
of
saying that admission policies and the teaching
programs of the respective,
institutions
must be subject to continuous review.
Hopefully, the report provides a coherent and systematic basis from which
future changes can arise. This, coupled with adequate sources of data, (at
present largely lacking) should give Senate baselinesfor futuredecisions.
1
ii
Tho proposals contained in this report will, in essence, do
t[jo. following:
1. They will provide eqiitab1e and efficient bases for
recognizing and transferring credits for academic
work done in other institutions.
Z. They will define areas of rsponibility in the admissions
procesi and assign these to appropriate groups.
3.
They will maintain the cadernc integrity
01
the university
and at, the same Lime will meet the desire of the regional
and communit y
coieges for reasonable autonomy in
curriculum development.
4.
They will make possible a greater degree. of consistency
in considering the many types of applicants who desire
admission.
S. They will make eligible for admission a somewhat
broader spectrum of B. C. high school. graduates.
6. They will provide the additional supporting services
needed to implement and operate the admissions process.
7 They will provide Senate with
an
improved information
and conceptual basis for making decisions in the future.
It is my opinion that by adopting the proposed recommendations
Senate will have given the university a policy on admissions, credits and
standings that is enlightened, workable and educationally sound.
Yours very sincerely,
x-4.j
- ?
,John
/
F. Ellis,
-. Professor of Education.
JFE/lj
1AA
•
?
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
PROFESSIONAL FOUNDATIONS
?
BUBNABY 2,
BRITISH COLUMBIA
201JIiI Am *h 104
March 21st, 1969
Dr. K. T. Strand,
Chairman,
Senate,
Simon Fraser University.
Dear Dr. Strand-
The Senate Committee to advise Dr. John
F.
Ellis
on Admissions, and Tran8fer
Policy
has reviewed the report
prepared by Dr. Ellis. It is submitted to Senate with our
0
?
approval.
We unanimously endorse the spirit of the entire
document and with only minor reservations are in agrëemént
with the structure and intent of each
section.
Sincerely,
CLL (.
M
o
n
t Palmer
Advisory Committee
an
Admissions and Transfer Policy
in
0
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report represents a synthesis of ideas and points of
view derived from conversation, reading and
experience.
As such, I
do not claim exclusive authorship of the material presented but
acknowledge my debt to many contributors.
The patterning of ideas and the mode of presentation is, of
course, my responsibility. If good ideas have been imperfectly
presented, it is my fault.
Certain persons and groups have made particular contributions
and I would like to thank these for their help. Mr. Harold Kirchner,
Associate of the Educational Foundations Centre, has devoted countless
hours to gathering
information,
preparing reports and making arrangements.
The Social Science librarians, particularly Mrs. Sherrill Perry and
Mrs. Francis Nelson have provided numerous documents and materials.
The members of the Advisory Committee have give n:careful thought and
many suggestions that have greatly improved the quality of the report.
The principals and students of the various colleges extended gracious
hospitality and offered frank and helpful guidance. The Admissions
Committee and the Appeals Committee shared their experience with me
and commented insightfully on ideas I proposed. Many students including
the Ombudsman identified problem areas and offered opinions in a helpful
and constructive manner. The Registrars of the three public universities
gave freely of their time and experience. Many
other individuals and
groups offered thoughtful comments and ideas. Mrs. Leta Jones gave
generously of her secretarial skills often at awkward times and under
time pressure.
iv
?
J.F.E.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Letter ofTransmittal ......................................
Letter from Advisory Committee ...........................
iii
Acknowledgements ?
.........................................
iv
Tableof Contents ?
.........................................
v
SECTION ONE - Summary of Recommendation ...............
1
SECTION TWO
..............................................
6
Part A -
?
Statement of Operating Guidelines .............
7
Part B -
?
Regional and Conn-unity Colleges
and Accreditation
............................
9
Part C
?
- Transfer Credit and Advanced StandIng .........
13
Part D -
?
Areas
of
Responsibility
in
Adthissions,
Standings and Credits .........................
18
Part E
?
- Statement on Admissions and Transfer . . . . . .....
Part F - Statement on Continuance
s
Withdrawal
and Readmission
..............................
35
Part
?
Special Entry .................................
37
Part H
?
-
?
Course Challenges .............................
39
Part I
?
-
?
Support Services ..............................
42
Part J
?
- ?
Date of Irr.plerr.entation .........................
45
:PartK ?
- ?
Concluding Statement ............................
51
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................
52
APPENDICES ?
..............................................
54
L
SECTION ONE
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
S
0
2
SECTION ONE - SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
SECTION ONE draws together in one place the 23 recommendations
•nade in this report. Each recomrriendation is prefaced with the words "It is
recommended that the Senate of Simon Fraser University .........". Each
recommendation can be used as a Senate motion by attaching appropriate words.
After each recommendation reference is made to the portion of SECTION TWO
in which the recommendation with its supporting material can be found. (Part A,
B, C, etc.)
IT IS RECOMMENDED
THAT THE
SENATE OF SIMON FRASER. UNIVERSITY
1.
Endorse the Statement of Operating Guidelines. (Part
A) ?
approved 615169
p. 5, 6.
2.
Endorse in principle a procedure for accrediting colleges. (Part B)
approved
615169 p. 8,9.
3. Request the Academic Board to inform the university of those courses
approved
615169 p. 10, ii.
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. (Part B)
4. Agree to accept and act upon the information referred to in
?
approved 615169
p.
11,12.
recommendation 3 until or unless it can be shown to be in question.
(Part B)
5.
Agree with the principle that a student should be able to complete a
approved
615169 p.
12,13..
four year degree in approximately four academic years whether or not
he commences his studies at this university provided that: (Part C).
5.1 He maintains a satisfactory level of achievement in full programs
of university level studies.
5.2 He spends at least the last two years of his degree program at
the university.
•
.5. 3 He does not change his academic objectives.
5.4 He has made a reasonable effort to complete prerequisite lower
division work for his chosen program during his first two years
of study.
3
6.
Empower the Undergraduate Admissions
Board to
seek from
academic
approved
915169 p.2)
1epartments a listing of course equivalencies related
to lower division
916169
p.
15
see Motion
1.2.
courses and programs offered in the
several institutions of higher
learning in the
province.
(Part C)
7.
Empower the Registrar to award transfer
credit up to a maximum of 60
approved
915169 p. 2,3,4.
semester
hours for university level courses so designated
by the
Academic Board or
analagous agencies. (Part C)
8.
Request the Registrar to
designate all transfer credit under
these
approved
915169
p. 4,5,6.
headings: (Part C)
8.1 Simon Fraser University course equivalents.
8.2 Unassigned credit
in a subject area.
8. 3
-Una-eekgned-erethi-
General elective credit.
?
Revision
1417169 p. 6:
• ?
The sum of these three should equal the
t4o1 bora gvited by
the
transferring
institution for the student's transferrable courses.
).
Request
the Undergraduate Admissions Board to issue guidelines to
(not.approved
915169 p. 6,7)
departments in an effort to ensure that a student's program will not
916169
p.
15
See Motion
1.2.
become unnecessarily attentuated either by the requirement of
repetitive lower division courses or by the requirement of a number of
lower division hours significantly in excess of minimum department
requirements. (Part C)
10 Request the Undergraduate Admissions Board to inform Senate of
Approved
615169
p.13.
major and honours programs in which the principle agreed to in
recommendation 5 appears difficult to meet. (Part Q-
11. Endcrse the statement Areas of Responsibility in Admi8sions,
Approved
615169
p. 6,7,.
Standings and Credits. (Part D)
4
12. Adopt the proposed Statement. on Admissions and Transfer. (Part
E)(Not approved
Rvsions approved
to p. 25., 34 916169 p. 3,4,5, 7,8,9,
?
9/5/69 p. 7,8)
• ?
10, ii, 1:2, 13, 14.
13. Endorse the Statethent on Continuance, Withdrawal and Readmissión.
(Not
approved
Replacement
approved through Motion
H.I. 916169 p.2,3.
(PART F)
915169 p.8)
14. Request the Admissions Board to continue the practice of the Senate
(approved 915169
p.9.
Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Standings in reviewing
the cases of students with low records of achievement. (PartF)
15. Encourage the Admissions Board to foster the systematic development(approved
915169
P .
9,10.
of procedures for admitting and ensuring the academic success of
Special Entry Students. (Part G)
16. Approve in principle a program of course challenge. (part H)
?
approved 915169
p.10.
17. Instruct the Undergraduate Admissions Board .to develop with interestedapprOved
915169
P. 11.
depa±tments a program of course challenge and submit the program for
Senate approval before the end of 1969. (Part H)
1
.
8. Request the Acting President to make provision, as may.be
' possible,approved
915169
p. 11, 12.
for the academic planning and student advising services that are
presently lacking or deficient. (Part I)
19, Request the Acting President to undertake or cause
to be undertaken
approved
915169
p.12.
a study designed to bring about a better articulation of the various
university services that are related to admissions, standings and
credits. (Part I)
20. Agree that students enrolling for the first time at the University
in(Not
approved
915169 p. 12,13)
September 1969 be governed by new policies on Admissions, Credits
Revised
1616169
p. 8,9.
and Standings, providing that agreement is reached on all necessary
aspects of the policies by no later than May 15, 1969. It is understood
that all existing policies and procedures will remain in force unless
specifically amended or revoked until they are superceded by the new
policies and procedures. (Part J)
S
F -
L-1
21. Empower the present Undergraduate Admissions Committee to act
approved
915169
p.
13.
for the Admissions Board until the latter is constituted. (Part J)
22. Empower the present Appeals Group to act for the Appeals Board
approved
915169
p. 14.
until the latter is constituted. (Part J)
23. ?
Mak.e a speedy decision on the question of retroactivity.
(Part J)
Motions were made
1616169
but without
decision as meeting
adjouTned. See pages
9lO,ll. A
motion for
"no retroactivity"
failed.
0
.
6
SECTION TWO
PART A -
Statement of Operating Guidelines
PART B
?
-
Regional and Community Colleges and
Accreditation
PART C ?
-
Transfer Credit and Advanced Standing
PART D -
Areas of Responsibility in Admissions,
Standings and Credits
PART E
?
-
Statement on Admissions and Transfer
PART F
?
-
Statement on Continuance, Withdrawal
and Readmission
PART
G ?
-
Special Entry
PART H -
Course Challenges
PART I ?
-
Support Services
PART J
Date of Implementation
PART
K -
Concluding Statement
S
0
7
PART A
STATEMENT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES
S _
Explanation
It would seem useful to make explicit some of the principles,
beliefs or assumptions that have had and will continue to have an effect
on admissions procedures. Accordingly, a statement of operating
guidelines has been prepared for Senate's consideration. In a way,
this becomes a statement of intent and provides a general basis for making
more specific decisions For example, a statement like the one suggested
will help the Admissions Board make decisions about applicants whose
cases do not fall clearly under established policy.
It should be obvious that for each of the eight statements offered,
a contrasting one could be suggested. However, those that are presented
seem to be either implicit elements of already agreed policy or matters of
-
?
wide concensus that have never been publicly endorsed by Senate.
No argumentation is presented for any of the points. For some,
even a lengthy treatment would have been incomplete and inconclusive.
For others, one suspects, no case needs to be made.
It is recommended that the Senate of Simon Fraser University
1. Endorse the Statement of Operating Guidelines
?
approved 615169
P .
56.
STATEMENT OF OPERATING GUIDELINES
1.
The university should admit and retain students who have a reasonable
probability of succeeding in the courses and programs they choose.
2. The university should not exclude persons on the basis of race,
colour or creed.
p
3.
The university has a particular responsibility to qualified
applicants from the Province of British Columbia.
4.
The university should respect the programs offered by post-secondary
school institutions throughout the world. In determining the academic
acceptability of courses and programs offered elsewhere, the
university should rely heavily, on the judgement and advice of
accrediting boards and leading universities. An applicant from
outside this province should receive no more generous consideration
on admission, credit or standing than he would receive from the
leading
institutionin
his home area.
5.
The university has a particular responsibility in recognizing the
courses and programs of the other institutions within the British
Columbia system of higher education. In determining the academic
level of courses and programs the university should rely heavily upon
the advice of the Academic Board.
6.
Provision should exist for resolving differences of opinion in the
interpretation of university policies on admissions, standings and
credit.
7.
The admissions, standings and credits policies of the university
should be made public.
8.
The admissions, standings and credits policies of the university
should be brought under regular and systematic review.
PART B
REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND ACCREDITATION
Up to
1963
the organization of public higher education in British
Columbia was extremely simple. The University of British Columbia with an
affiliated two year college - Victoria College - made up the entire system of
higher education.
Since then two universities, four two-year colleges and a
technological institute have been added. The development of more institutions
is inevitable and necessary. By September
1969,
B. C. will probably have
three public universities, one private university, seven regional or community
colleges, three private junior colleges, one adult education center (Grade XIII),
several church oriented colleges offering some liberal arts work, an4 p-.haps
twenty .high schools offering Grade XIII.
Two obvious facts
relate
to the foregoing. First, the numbers of
students engaged in higher education is. growing rapidly, at least doubling
from 30, 000 to
60,
000 between,
1966
and 1976 with a
1969
total of about 40, 000.
The second fact is that the organization of the entire system and the articulation
among its components will become increasingly complex.
Obviously, then, the numbers of students seeking to transfer to
Simon Fraser from colleges will increase. The variety of institutions and
programs from which they will transfer will increase and the problems arising
from transferring credits will multiply.
There are at least four possible approaches to facilitating transfer of
students and their credits from colleges to universities.
10
One approach would be to develop and implement a province-wide
curriculum for at least the first two years of university. If all B. C. students
• ?
studying, say, Chemistry or English, were to use the, same textbooks and study
the same topics and if cross checks on instruction and achievement were made,
transfer of students and credits would be no problem at all. However, the price
paid for this advantage would be high. The autonomy of both the universities and
colleges would be diminished. It would be difficult to obtain agreement on a
common curriculum. The common curriculum, once established, could well
prove to be sterile and resistant to change.
A second alternative would be to have each college placed under the
I
sponsorship Of a university with the' college curriculum,-
.
staff and academic
procedures modeled after and overseen by the university. Such a system,
similar to the one used in Alberta, would make possible the easy transfer of
student credits from the college to the sponsoring university. 'However, since
transfer to a different university would not necessarily be facilitated, a student's
choice ,
of university might be influenced by administrative feasibility rather than
academic goal. A more serious disadvantage would be in denying colleges the
stimulus that comes from developing curriculum and educational procedures in
response to the needs of the local community and student body. Finally, this
second alternative endangers the key concept within which the colleges in B. C.
are developing: that each college is a multipurpose institution offering not only
university transfer programs, but terminal liberal arts and science programs
and vocational and technological programs.
A third method of facilitating transfer would be to improve what
we do at present. Each department in each university could offer advice and
assistance
1:0
the parallel department in each college. In turn, the university
departments would advise their registrars on the adequacy or appropriateness
for transfer of college courses. Many of our departments should be commended
for the ways they have helped the colleges. Regrettably, much of the goodwill
that could have resulted has been lost by what has been perceived by the colleges
as a condescending attitude on the part of university departments in judging
courses and programs. This, of course, is not to say that such condescension
exists: it is; merely to report that it is perceived to exist. It should be obvious
that as the number of colleges increases the individual judgements rendered by
university departments will increase. Ultimately, a situation could exist in
which, say twelve academic departments in each of three universities evaluate
independently the work of the parallel twelve departments in each of seven or
more colleges.
The final approach, and the one that is recommended, is to encourage
a province-wide system of accreditation. This device is widely used in the
United States, is developing in other parts of Canada and is already present
in embryonic form in British Columbia through the Academic Board. By
requesting and using the accrediting powers of the Academic Board the university
would save valuable faculty time and would probably get the job done better than
at present. Furthermore, the university and its departments would avoid a
hazard to relationships with the colleges since the assisting and assessing
functions would no longer be intertwined. The Academic Board, for its part,
could offer consistent, broadly based advice and judgment to the colleges on
general matters such as libraries, teaching resources, staff and facilities as
well as on specific courses and programs.
12
In brief, what is suggested is that Simon Fraser request the
Academic Board to assess the academic effectiveness of the colleges and to
recommend to the Senate the courses and programs that are of university level
and should carry transfer credit. Senate should agree to act on these
recommendations unless it can produce evidence that proves them in error.
It might be argued that this delegation of authority would leave the
university without control of its standards. The following points should allay
this anxiety. First, the university is represented by two faculty members on
the Academic Board and the majority of the Board are academics from other
universities who also, presumably, are concerned about standards. Second,
the university would still control its internal standards which would operate
as a check on decisions by the Academic Board. Third, similar accrediting
procedures elsewhere have not had an adverse effect on standards. Indeed,
the objective of being accredited has proven to be a powerful stimulus for
colleges to improve their programs and facilities.
Accordingly, it is recommended that the Senate of Simon Fraser
University
2.
Endorse in principle a procedure for accrediting colleges,
approved 615169
P. 8,
9.
3.
Request the Academic Board tc inform the university of
approved 615169
P .
1011.
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.
4.
Agree to accept and act upon the information referred to in
approved 615169
p. 11,12.
recommendation 3 until or unless it can be shown to be in question.
13'
PART C
TRANSFER CREDIT AND ADVANCED STANDING
NOTE: ?
Senate, on
TM/)/
14
3 1969
p.
6
.
, -
changed "unassigned credit"
to "general elective credit" throughout the report in referring to
the third type
of
credit, as follows: (S 250 amended)
Z. That the respective Faculties determine the maximum total number
of
transferable "general elective credits" and maximum general elective
credits that may be granted in various areas
of
study.
For example: The Faculty
of
Arts may determine that the
total maximum general elective credits will be 15
of
which
no more than 6 can be in Fine Arts, 9 in Ancient Languages,
etc.
2.
That the respective Faculties specifically indicate those courses,
determined by the Academic Board to
be
of
university level, that
S
will be accepted as general elective credits.
3.
That the respective Faculties periodically review and at all times
make available to colleges, prospective students, etc., the list
mentioned in #2.
4.
That the term "general elective credit"
*be
substituted for
"unassigned credit" throughout the Ellis Report and its passed
amendments.
5.
That points 2
,
, 3, apply only to transfer students from British
Columbia but that the "spirit"
of
these points will be applied,
as fairly and quickly as possible, to transfer students from out
of
province.
to
13 a
S
??
Many of the misunderstandings connected with admissions
procedures can be traced to failures to distinguish between transfer
credit and advanced standing and to uncertain jurisdictions and practices
in the assigning of one, the other or both.
Transfer credit refers to the credit granted for work taken at
an institution of higher learning by virtue of which a student may achieve a
shortening of his degree program.
Advanced standing refers to the placement of a student in a
course or program appropriate to his level of preparation.
In the past, this university has tended to make these two
synonymous. As a consequence credit has been denied for work done in
disciplines not offered at Simon Fraser University (Greek, Fine Arts, etc.).
Credit has also been denied for courses in areas we teach if (1) they were
not identical or sufficiently similar or (2) they were not taught to a similar
level or (3) the students' performance was, judged too low, or some combination
of these. A further complicationh h.as.ben that decisions on awarding credit/
standing usually required departmental judgement. Often this has been
difficult to obtain and has not always been consistent either within the same
department or from department to department.
It would be helpful to make a clear distinction between transfer
credit and advanced standing. Decisions about the former should probably
be made ?
the Registrar's office. Decisions about the latter should be made
by departments in consultation with the student and with technical advice
from an admissions officer.
14
Decisions on awarding transfer credit should be based on
rather general criteria such as the quality of the transferring institution
and level and type of work presented for credit. Advice is available and
should be sought from the Academic Board and similar agencies.
Decisions on advanced standing should follow more precise
criteria but here too a somewhat more global view is recommended.
Studies in most disciplines are probably not as sequential as is often
believed. Minor gaps in knowledge are frequently not so serious as is
predicted. Furthermore, there is often a greater difference in the
handling of a given course by two instructors in the same institution, than
between two instructors in different institutions.
It is not being argued that pe requisite study should be
•
?
abandoned as a condition for entry into more advanced study. What is
being suggested is that.identicál treatment of identical topics may be less
important than quality performance in the same field.
A further source of misunderstanding should be noted.
Students tend to equate transferred semester hour credit with completion
of years of work. For example, 60 semester hours granted on transfer
seems to many students to imply completion of second year. They may
therefore balk at a departmental requirement for lower division work.
However, transfer credit, as noted earlier, should be viewed as a
shortening of a degree program. Accordingly, departmental requirements
for lower division work need not extend a degree program because
additional courses could be used as upper division electives. In fact,
this procedure may be the norm for college transfer students because our
departmental lower division requirements typically exceed twelve semester
El
15
hours but most colleges will not likely offer more than twelve hours in
a discipline. Care must be taken to avoid unnecessary or repetitive
T
lower division work before a transfer student commences a major. If
this cannot be avoided, it should be clearly stated that a student intending
to major in
tIXt?
should either enter the university as a freshman or expect
to take additional time to complete a degree at this university.
Further to this latter point, the university has an obligation
to inform students and colleges of its lower division requirements so
that students can plan their studies and so that colleges can offer
appropriate courses. These requirements should (1) be as few as possible,
(2) be stated in as general a way as possible (topics rather than course
numbers), (3) have demonstrable significanáe and (4) be set in full
1•
knowledge that the colleges are multipurpose institutions with
responsibilities in addition to university transfer programs. No regional
college can reasonably be expected to offer, say, thirty lower division
university transfer hours in subject 'Y".
Naturally, the awarding of transfer credit may not always
shorten a student's program at the university by the amount awarded.
A student who changes his field of study can expect to backtrack to pick
up basics in his new field. The amount of backtrack will depend on how
fz.r he has progressed in his initial program and on how well his previous
studies articulate with his new interests. Indeed, in certain of our
programs the awarding of, say, sixty hours of transfer credit might be
an empty gesture if the student were making a drastic shift of fields.
16
In general, however, transfer credit from accredited
institutions should be much more liberally allowed and standings more
generously granted than in the past. Academic
standards would not
likely suffer as
,
a result. The administration of the admissions procedures
would be simplified. Students would be happier. In addition, significant
economics would accrue both to the students and the university.
The objective in the entire question of transfer credit and
standing should be that, certainly in the case of a B. C. student, a four
year degree can be achieved in about four years whether or not a student
starts his program at this university. It is likely that this objective can
be achieved if the university and its department would adopt a 'reasonable
approach to awarding credit and standings and if the students plan their
programs with care.
It is recommended that the Senate of Simon Fraser University
5. Agree with the principle that a student should be able to complete
approved 615169
p.
Z2
_,
Z3.
a four year degree in approximately four academic years whether
or not he commences his studies at
this university provided that:
5.1 He maintains a satisfactory level of achievement
in full programs of university level studies.
5. 2 He spends at least the last two years of his degree
program at the university.
5. 3 He does not change his academic objectives.
5. 4 He has made a reasonable effort to complete pre
requisite lower division work for his chosen program
during his first two years of study.
•
?
6.
Empower the
Undergraduate
Admissions
Board
to seek from
Not approved
17
•
??
915/69 p. 2)
academic departments
a listing of course
equivalencies related
Q16169 p. lb
See Motion
1.2.
to lower division courses and programs offered in
the several
institutions of higher learning in the province.
7.
Empower the Registrar to award transfer credit up to a
maximum
approved
915169 p. 2,3,4.
of 60 semester hours for university level courses so designated
by the Academic Board or analagous agencies.
8.
Request the Registrar to designate all transfer credit under
these
approved
.9/5/69 p. 4,5,6.
headings:
?
Revised
1417169
p.6.
8. 1 Simon Fraser University course equivalents.
8. 2 Unassigned credit in a subject area.
8.3 Unac ?
d-eredtt-
General elective credit.
The sum of these three should equal the total hours granted by
the transferring institution for the student's transferrable
courses.
9.
Request the Undergraduate Admissions Board to issue, guidelines
(not approved
'915169 p. 6,7)
to departments
in an effort to ensure that a student's program will
916169 p. 15
See Motion
1.2.
not become unnecessarily attentuated either by the requirement
of repetitive lower division courses or by the requirement of a
number of lower division hours significantly in excess of
minimum department requirements.
10.
Request the Undergraduate Admissions Board to inform Senate
approved
615169
•
? p.13.
of major and honours programs
in which the principle agreed to.
in recommendation 5 appears difficult to meet.
17 a
•
?
NOTE:
?
Senate, on
May 9, 1969
and on June
9, 1969
did NOT approve
recommendations
6
and
9
of
Part C. - but on
May 9, 1969, p. 15,
did approve Motion
1.2.
(which referred to 1.1.) - as follows: -
ALTERNATE MOTION
?
Proposed by Professor K. Burstein
I-2
?
Approved
916169
p.
15.
Delete recommendations in Supplementarjj Paper I
The following seem cogent reasons for deleting these recommendations:
6.1
?
a. This is an administrative function which can moreeconomically be
handled by a secretary or other person in the Registrar's Office.
b.
This administrative function is within the terms of reference
given to the Registrar on page
21
of the Ellis Report.
c.
This administrative function is not within the terms
of
reference
of
the Admissions Board (see Ellis Report, page
20).
6.2
?
a. Recommndatrio0n8, already passed by Senate, assigns the
responsibility for designating transferrable courses/Aunder the
headings specified, i.e., equivalent, unassigned in course area,
unassigned credit, to the Registrar. This recommendation,
therefore, either removes or delegates this responsibility from
the Registrar.
b. Even
if
this delegation were admissible, it is not feasible.
Rather than place the responsibility with a more or less permanent
administrative position, this recommendation places the responsi-
bility with a committee whose membership is highly unstable in
that this committee seldom has the same consitution for two
consecutive meetirgdue to replacements, substitutions, absences
and resignations.
c.
Section.
6,
page 17
of
the Ellis Report implies that the Departments
will
determine course equivalencies. Section
6.2
implies, however,
that the Admissions Board will actually make the decision, acting
only upon the advice
of
the Department and the Academic Board.
d.
The recommendation contradicts the last paragraph
of
page 13
of
the Ellis Report in that the Report says that advanced standing should
be determined by the Department.
e.
The Ellis Report states that the Academic Board will determine which
courses are transferable. It has been repeatedly stated that depart-
mentà can maintain their own integrity by determining their own course
equivalencies. This recommendation 1) has the Academic Board entering
into the procedure for determining equivalencies, and
2)
asks that
Z7 b
departments accept a decision
of
the Admissions Board (now the
•
?
undergraduate admissions and standing committee)
even
it is in
disagreement with the Departmental recommendation.
f .
It is doubtful that a grOup with as mixed backgrounds, in terms
of disciplines, as this committee--or any mixed cornmiteee for that
matter--can generate as meaningful a decision with respect to
course equivalencies as a group consisting entirely of persons in
the discipline of the course being evaluated. This sort of
evaluation requires knowledge of texts used
-
,'content of the
particular area, etc. The persons most likely to have the
information necessary for proper evaluation are the,mémbers of
the Department concerned.
6.3 ?
a. Senate has already passed recommendation 10 which asked the
Admissions Board to report to Senate Departments which seem to
have difficulty in honoring recommendation 5. If Senate feels some
action is necessary, it can issue "guidelines' to departments.
This recommendation seems to authorize the Admissions Board (now
the undergraduate admissions and standings committee) to issue
guidelines to Departments without obtaining Senate's--or anyone
else's permission.
b. This, issuance of guidelines to Departments is outside of the terms
of reference of the Admissions Board, as approved by Senate and as
stated on page 20
of
the Ellis Report.
In sum, there woüZd seem to be nothing gained by inserting the
Admissions Board into an administrative procedure except to make the procedure
more complex. Moreover, all the duties assigned to this Board--which is now
the Senate Committee on Admissions' and Standings--have previously been assigned
other bodies 'or 'offices. In addition, the main responsibilities assigned to
this Board are outside of the terms of reference authorized by Senate. It-
would seem then that not only is there no need for the passage of these
recommendations, but'more important, the passage of these recommendations,
aside from tremendously complicating what should be a simple procedure, would
be out of order, since the Admissions Board does not have the power to perform
the duties assigned it in the recommendations.
V c
Supplementary Paper I
Admissions and Standings - A Suggested Policy
?
Not approved
Delete Recommendations
6
and 9 and replace with new item
6.
6.
Empower the Undergraduate Admissions Board to do the following:
6.Z To
seek from each academic department a list of all
courses taught in regional and community colleges. that
the department considers equivalent
3
though not
necessarily identical to courses taught by the
department...
6.2.
Based upon the advice received under
6.1
and upon
advice received from the Academic Board
.
, to provide
the Registrar with a listing of all courses 'taught
by each regional and community college, the listing
to be designated under the following four headings:
S. F. U. course, equivalent
.
, unassigned credit in a
subject area,, unassigned credit, no credit.
6.3 To
issue guidelines to departments in an effort to
ensure that a transfer student's program will not
become unnecessarily attenuated and that, so far
as possible, the spirit of Recommendation 5 be maintained.
[1
18
PART D
•
?
AREJ'S OF RESPONSIBILITY IN ADMISSIONS, STANDINGS
/ND CREDITS
Explanation
In a large and complex organizatiOn like a university there must be
a sensible division of labour clearly understood by its members. It follows,
that the tremendous amount of work involved in admissions, transfers and so
forth needs to be divided among various working groups, with each aware of
the others responsibilities and each doing its job properly within its assigned
sphere.
The Universities Act gives Senate responsibility for admissions
and standings. Obviously, this does not mean that a member of Senate is
• required to enter marks on transcripts. Senate has the power to delegate
and can make accountable those to whom it has delegated responsibilities.
In the past there has been a rather poor delineation of function in
the admissions,. standings and credits process. Senate has delegated certain
tasks but has failed to seelcan accounting. Other tasks have been undertaken
by various groups with little attempt at coordination and conflict has often
resulted. The clearest example Of this has been in the awarding Of transfer
credits. Academic departments, the Admissions Committee and the Registrar
have all been in on this act, sometimes with unfortunate consequences for
students.
0
AS
1-)
The statement which follows presents a workable division.
of labour. In essence, what is suggested is that Senate should establish
policy, the Admissions Board should direct policies and that the Registrar
should administer policy relating to admission and credit. The
Admissions Board should be accountable to Senate and theRegistrar to
the Board. In addition, provision should be made for dealing with real
or alleged injustices. Departments should play very little part in
admission or awarding transfer credit but should assume major
I
responsibility beyond that point.
It should be pointed out that this paper is not a detailed
listing of duties but a definition of broad areas of responsibility. No
policy can operate effectively without the kind of statement proposed.
'I.
It is recommended that the Senate of Simon Fraser University
11. Endorse the statement Areas of Responsibility in
approved 615169
p. 67,8.
Admissions, Standings and Credits.
AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY IN ADMISSIONS, STANDINGS
AND CREDITS
1 SENATE
1. 1
?
?
To establish policies governing admissions, standings and
credits and to bring these policies under regular and
systematic review.
1.2 To bring into being the committees and working groups that
are needed to administer and interpret Senate policies and
to grant the required authority and in particular
20
1. 21 to establish a Senate Undergraduate Admissions Board
to operate under the terms of reference given to it.
1. 22 to establish aSenate Undergraduate Appeals Board
to operate under the terms of reference given to it.
1.
3 To develop priorities on admissions in the event of scarce
resources and facilities.
1.4 To seek and act upon the advice of the Academic Board in
all matters relating to the academic standards, programs,
and Courses of post- secondary school institutions in the
Province of British Columbia.
2. SENATE
UNDERGRADUATE
ADMISSIONS BOARD.
2.1 To direct the admissions, standings
and credits procedures
of the university within Senate policy statements and
interpreting
,
these statements as may be required.
2.2 To report regularly and in any case no less than annually
to Senate on its work, proposing new or ammended policies
and procedures as may be needed.
2.
3 To inform students of appeal procedures including their
right to appeal directly to the Senate Undergraduate Appeals
Board those cases in which a ruling of the Admissions Board
is challenged.
3.
SENATE UNDERGRADUATE APPEALS BOARD
3.1 Acting within Senate policies on admissions, standings and
credits to make final rulings on all cases directed to it.
21
4. REGISTRAR
4.1 To administer the Senate policies on admissions,
credits and standings.
4.2 To refer to the Senate Undergraduate Admission Board
cases requiring an interpretation of Senate policies.
4. 3 To inform students of appeal procedures including their
right to appeal directly to the Senate Undergraduate
Admissions Board those cases in which a ruling of the
Registrar has been challenged.
4. 4 To inform the Admissions Board of areas in which new
policies are required or existing policies require
interpretation.
4. 5 To provide departments with the information necessary
to determine advanced standing.
4.6 To develop effective means of communication with students
and faculty within the university and with interested
individuals and groups outside the university.
5 ACADEMIC DEPARTMENTS
5.1 To develop clear statements on major and honors programs.
5.2 To assign appropriate standing to students with transfer
credit.
5.
3
To provide academic counsel to students intending to take
courses, programs or degrees in the department.
•
0
22
6 STUDENT
6. 1 To inform himself of the published regulations on
admissions, credits and standings.
6.2 To plan his program of studies in such a way that he will
most effectively secure his academic objective within the
offerings of the university.
41
23
PART E
STATEMENT ON ADMISSIONS AND TRANSFER
Explanation
The following rather lengthy statement specifies the conditions
under which various kinds of applicants can gain admission to the university.
This section is what many people would refer to as an admissions policy.
However, Senate should be aware that statements such as the
following can never be completely comprehensive. They are, in effect,
shorthand attempts to reflect the intentions of Senate as these apply to the
vast majority of applicants. There are always exceptional cases that must
be examined in the light of precedent and
statement
of intent. It is impossible
to imagine, let alone make specific provision for, every possible case.
The proposed statement on admissions and transfer is somewhat
more detailed and specific than similar statements at other universities.
This may be a good fault because it should provide a working basis for the
Admissions Board. In addition, it should give students a basis for answering
many of their own questions.
There may be some who will question the rather cumbersome
numbering system that is suggested. The intent of this is to provide these
who work with the statement with an efficient means of communications
recording decidions and reviewing procedures.
With the foregoing points in mind, it is recommended that the
Senate of Simon Fraser University
.
12. Adopt the proposed Statement on Admissions and Transfer.
(Not approved
915169
p.
7.
STATEMENT ON ADMISSIONS AND TRANSFER
(IVOTE:I "Senate agrees with the intent of points .1 - 5 inclusive
in Supplementary Paper 'E, bearing in mind the intent
of the last sentence of Operating Guideline
4
. ,
page 8."
24
fl
Revision added
916169
p.
11312.
It was noted that the followingppr-tnciples were involved
(Supplementary Paper B):
"The Statement on Admissions and Transfer (P24-34) attempts
to treat similar categories of applicants in similar ways.
Remarks made during Senate proceedings and in at least one
circulated,paper suggest that the attempts to create a
parallel structure were not fully appreciated. One minor
source
of
confusion results from attempts to equate grade
point averages and percentages (2.0
=
C
=
60%; 2.4 65%;
3.2
=
75%).
If Senate -can agree that certain groups of applicants
should be treated in similar ways 3 the precise grades for
admission and levels for admission can be determined later.
The following statements express the parallels embadied,in
the report (relevant cross references are provided).
Z. B.C. Students from Senior Matriculation should.
1.211, 1.212
beadmitted and awarded transfer credit on a
?
1.221, 1.222
similar basis to students from B.C. Regional
?
1.2.3
and Community Colleges. ?
1.241, 1.242
2. B.C. students from Senior Matriculation and ?
l2ll, 1,221
colleges who met university requirements for . ?
1.241
should
admission after Grade
12 should be treatd ?
be different
differently from S.M. and College students ?
from
1.212,
who did not meet university admission require- l222, 1.242
ments after completing Grade 12.
3.
Minimum educational level and entering average
2.1
.
, 3.2
for non.B.C. applicants should be similar.
4. Requirements for non B.C. applicants who do not 2.4, 3.5
meet the minimum educational level should be
similar.
5.
Requirements for applicants from other ?
1.24, 2.3
universities should be similar ?
3.4
3'
0
24
a
S
Revisions aproved
916169
p.
13, 1,4 to
be made.
(NOTE: II Under motion F.l Senate adopted grade points or-averages
needed for admission, with changes in the Ellis Report
• as required. (Part E
,
, pages
23- 34
inclusive are
affected
?
') The intent raises the averages set forth
in the Ellis Report by five percent, on the understanding
that
if
st
aff and facilities permit, the average five
percent lower may be applied.
F. l AS CHANGED READS AS FOLLOWS:
1. Applicants from B.C. High Schools ?
65%
(Note: The University may admit
applicants whose standing ranges
from
60%
to
65%,
if staff and
facilities permit.)
2.
Applicants from B.C. Senior. Matriculation
65%
or
2.4 .
GPA
and B.C. Regional and Community Colleges
(Note: The University may admit
applicants whose standing ranges from
60%
to
65%,
if
staff and facilities
permit.)
.
3.
Applicants from other Canadian provinces
with Senior Matriculation Standing
(Note: The University may admit
applicants whose standing ranges from
65%.to 70%,
if staff and facilities
permit.)
4. Applicants from the United States with
the equivalent of Senior Matriculation
(Note: The University may admit
applicants whose standing ranges from
65%
to
70%,
if staff and facilities
permit.)
5.
Applicants from other Canadian provinces
80%
with less than Senior Matriculation
standing.
(Note: The University may admit appli-
cants whose standing ranges from
75%
to
80%,
if staff and facilities permit.)
70%
or
2.8 GPA
70%
or
2.8 GPA
6.
Applicants from the United States with
3.5 GPA
less than Senior Matriculation standing.
(Note: The University may admit
applicants whose standing ranges from
75%
to
80%,
if staff and facilities
permit.)
7.
Applicants from other universities .(B.C.)
65%
or
2.4 GPA
(Note: The University may admit
applicants whose standing ranges from
60%
to
65%,
if staff and facilities
permit.)
24 17
1 APPLICANTS FROM BRITISH COLUMBIA
1. 1 Admission to First Year from B. C. High Schools
1.11 Graduation on the Academic-Technical Prcgram on
?
Revision
916169 p. l3l4.
any one of the specialties (Arts, Science, Technical)
65?o
with a minirriurn 6976 average in 3 subjects including
English 12 and 2 additional 12 level subjects chosen
from Science(s) 12, Mathematics 12 History 12,
Geography 12, Language(s) 12, English Literature 12.
Note:
,
A student intending to major in science should
desireably have passed Math 12 and at least one
12 level science
or
1. 12 Graduation on the University Entrance Program (prior
to 1967) with passing grades and a minimum 6056
average in English 40 and three acceptable majors.
Where more than three majors have
,
been completed,
the average will be based on the highest three. In the
case of a Science Major, the mark used will be the
avera g
e of the highest two
1
91" science marks.
or
1.13 Graduation on some combination of Academic-Technical
and University Entrance Programs. Cases will be
individually considered by the Admissions Board which
will endeavour to provide uniform and fair assessments.
25
"1.2 Adjnission with Transfer Credit
NOTE: The maximum transfer. credit that will be allowed is
60
semester Revision
916169
hours. An applicant seeking athnission with transfer credit is p. 457..
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 transferred 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. Individual departments may require students to repeat
prerequisite courses in which they have received transfer credit
for a D. The repeated course will show in the student's record
but will not carry credit.
Details of-faculty and departmental requirements can be found in
the calendar and further information can be obtained from the
academic department in question."
Admission with Transfer Credit
ote: The maximum transfer credit that will be allowed is
64
c7de7ted 916169
Vy
?
p.4.
semester hours. In exceptional cases a student
?
have
ui.taken upper level studies at another in,4t.ution that
are w
\un and appropriate totthe major eld he chooses
at th
ersity. If the departin"in which the student
proposes to ma'
'kso.
wishes, it
?
request the Dean of the
Faculty. to petitio '
\he Admiss s Board to consider granting
up to 30 additional tran f hours of credit for courses taken
elsewhere that replace/peci c courses on the student's
Replaced 916169
p.7.
major program. An pplicant see ng admission with transfer
credit is advi,I that the courses
-
he
?
together
with those e subsequently takes' at
?
must meet
the gen7l and specific requiremen
culty and the
deptinent in which he chooses to major or honor. '\he applicant
should not assume that he
will complete his degree
withs.<,
number
of semester hours equal to
the difference' between total
required for the degree and 'transferred hours. Although us
25 a
calculation will be correct fora student who re
ma
?
within his iof study, it will probab
ot be true
for a student who changes
?
eld.
:aine
dails^
fromtheand departmental requ ents can be
academic department in question.
Added 916169
P . 4
3
5.
Students whose
averages
or cumulative
grade
points are sufficiently
high to gain them admission to the university
,
should receive transfer
credit for all transferable courses that they
have
passed with the
understanding that a department
may
require
'astudent
to repeat without
credit a course in which a student obtained a D
and
which is pre-
requisite to another course in. the
same
discipline which the student
wishes to undertake.
40
26
1. 21 From Grade XIII
1. 211 An applicant who met university admission
Revision
9/6/69
p. 13, 14.
requirements to First Year after completion of
Grade 12 may be admitted.
However, an applicant who presents three or more
Grade XIII courses with an average less
than..640465%
will not be admitted. Transfer credit will be
awarded for all passed courses if the average on all
courses is 607
6
or better. No transfer credit will be
awarded if the average on all courses undertaken is
less than 60%.
1. 212 An applicant who did not meet university admission
requirements for First Year may be admitted and
awarded transfer credit on all passed subjects.
Revision
916169
p;
13,114
providing that he presents a full program (5 subjects)
and the average mark is not less than
60%-.
65%.
Note: Maximum transfer credit from Grade XIII
is 30 semester hours.
No credit will be granted for Grade XIII courses
taken subsequent to admission to the university.
1. 22 From 'Public, Regional and Community Colleges
1. 221 An applicant who met university admission requirements
for First Year after completion of Grade XII may be
admitted. However, an applicant who presents 3 or
more courses equal to 9 or more semester hours with
65%
an average of less
than4
e%-(-G-)
will not be admitted.
Revision
916169 .
P. 13,14..
Transfer credit will be awarded for all
acceptable passed courses if the average
on all courses is 60% (C) or better. No
transfer credit will be awarded if the average
on all courses undertaken is less than 601
6
(C).
1. 222 An applicant who did not meet university
admission requirements for First Year may
he admitted and awarded transfer credit for
all university transfer subjects passed
providing that he presents at least a full year
of transferrable work (30 semester hours)
taken at the College and providing that hi
; s
cumulative grade point or average is not less
than 2--0-4G) or O%
65%. ?
Revision
916169
p. l3l4.
1. 23 An applicant who presents a combination of Grade XIII
and College work will be considered by the Admissions
Board under the conditions outlined in 1. 21 and 1. 22.
1. 24 From Private Junioi- Colleges
1. 241 An applicant who met university admissiOn.
requirements for First Year &fter completion*
of Grade XII may be admitted. However, the
granting of admission and the awarding of transfer
credit will not be routine and in no case will be
more liberal than the conditions applying under 1. 221.
28
Acting upon advice from the Academic Board
I s ?
the university may award transfer credit for
all, part or none of the student's program.
1.242 An applicant who did not meet university
admission requirements for First. Year at the
completion of Grade XII will be considered by
the Admissions Board. In general, the conditions
operative under 1. 222 and 1. 241 will apply.
1. 25 From Other B. C. Universities.
1. 251 An applicant in good standing at the transferring
?
university may be admitted if his average or
cumulative grade point is not less than -O-(-4
2.4 (65%)
or equivalent. Courses acknowledged for credit
on the student's program at the transferring
institution will be accepted for transfer credit
to a maximum of 60 hours.
1. 252 Applicants who have been required to withdraw
from the transferring institution or whose
status, if they were attending this university,
would be "On Probation' or 'On Warning" will
normally not be admitted.
1. 26 From the British Columbia Institute of Techno1cgy.
A graduate of B. C. I. T. who desires
to
continue his
studies in his area of specialization is advised that
as yet no formal transfer mechanism has been
29
*
established. Nevertheless, the university is
interested in receiving inquiries from interested
students.
Inquiries should be direct1 tc the Rcistrar,
F
?
.jr
University, Burnaby
2,, B. C.
1.27 Applicants holding special qualificaticns or certificates
(eg. C. A., C. G. A.) will be considered for transfer
credit on
an individual basis by
the Admissions Bqard.
1.3
Special Admissions
(Revised through Motion
A 916169 p. 89)
The university is interested in extending university level learning
opportunities to citizens of this province who may not qualify under
the normal categories
of
adinission.providing always that the number
of
such persons admitted is subject to limitation in accordance with
the availability
of
university resources.. At present the university
offers three types
of
special entry - Early Admission, Early Entry
and Mature Entry.
1.31
Early Admission 'is designed for students on the Academic-
Technical Program who are recommended by their schoOls
following their Grade
12
Easter examinations.
1. 311
An applicant must have demonstrated his ability by
exceptional academic records (average
of
80%
or better) and have shown mature intellectual
development to such an extent that
c
he would profit
from admission to the university without first
securing Grade
12
standing.
1.312
Admission under this category is at the discretion
of
the- Admission Board
s
. Inquiries regarding
admission under this category should be directed
to the Registrar.
L.32
Ely Entry-is designed for students who have completed
Grade 11 on the Academic-Technical Program. Sections
1.311
and
1.312
also apply totthis category
of
admission.
1.33
Mature StztEhtrj
l..3li
A person who is twenty-five years
of
age
or more
or would reach that age during his first semester
.
?
in attendance
if
he were admitted to the university,
and who is not eligible for admission under another
category may apply for
.
admission.
I-'
) ?
':
•
?
1.332
Admission under this category is at the discretion
of the Admissions Board. The Admissions Board must
be satisfied that the applicant has sufficiently
clear objectives in mind 'that he is likely to profit
from university studies. The Admissions Board may,
at its discretion require applicants to take
appropriate tests. Inquiries regarding admission,
under this category should be directed toithe
Registrar.
29 a
. ?
3 Special Admissions
he university is interested in extending uhiversity 1ev
Year g opportunities to citiëns of this province ho may
not qualil under the normal categories of mission. At
present the uni rsity offers two type of special entry -
I
• ?
Early Admission/En y and Mat e Entry.
1. 31 Early Admission/Ent
• ?
1. 311 Early A ?
ission is esigned for students on
I
the cademic- Technical
rogram who are
recommended by
their school following their
Grade 12 Easter 'examinations.
Revised through
Wion
9!!69
A
p. 8,9.
14
1. 312 Early Entry is designed for students
w
have
N ?
.
?
--
?
-
?
---
?
-
at s discretion, require applicants to t
?
31
appropri c tests and, in any cas , has the
responsibility ?
advisin n applicant whosé-.
S
?
future success is
?
ubt. Inquiries regarding
admissio nder this
catea v should be
dr€ctcd to the Registrar.
2. APPLICANTS FROM OTHER CANADIAN
PROVINCES
'
?
Revisi o Note
9161694
4
?
10
Note: The attention of applicants is directed to the note following
- --.-- ?
-
the heading
1. 2
Senate agrees that-transfer credit be awarded for -transferable Revision added
courses taken in G±ade 13 or equivalent. Grade 13 or equivalent
9/6/69 p. 10.
will
be taken to mean Grade. 13 in B.C.., Regional and Community
Colleges in B.C.
3 •
Grade 13 in Ontario
3
New Brunswick and Prince
Edward Island, first- year of Junior Colleges in the United
States 3
Advanced levels or equivalent.
2.1 An applicant must have full Senior Matricu' ticn standing
or its equivalent to be considered for ari-ission. The
Revision 916169
- ?
p. 13,14.
average standing in Senior Matriculation subjects should
?
?
be at least 451-
70%.
?
-
2.11 An applicant from Alberta, Saskatchewan, :Manitoba,
Nova Scotia, Quebec or Newfoundland where Grade 12
is Senior Matriculation will not be awarded transfer
credit for Senior Matriculation studies.
2.12 An applicant granted admission from Ontario, New
Brunswick or Prince Edward Island will normally be
awarded credit for Senior Matriculation or equivalent
studies.
\/
32
• ?
2. 2 An applicant who has attended a college of Applied Arts
and Technology, a Junior College or other similar
institution will be considered for admission and transfer
credit on the same basis as if he were transferring to a
leading university in his own province.
2. 3 An applicant who desires to transfer from another Canadian
University may be considered for admissions and transfer
credit on the same basis as a student applying from another
B. C. University. (see 1.24).
2. 4 A student who has completed Grade XII but does not have
Senior Matriculation or equivalent standing and who has
demonstrated a high level of academic performance may
be considered for admission by the Admissions Board. To
• be considered, such a student shculd have an average of at
least .
7-5-%
. 1 .
80%. ?
Revision 916169
p.
13, 14.
3. APPLICANTS FROM OTHER COUNTRIES
Note: The attention of applicants is directed to the note following
the heading 1. 2.
English is the language of instruction and communication
at the university. Accordingly, an applicant whose native
language is not English must demonstrate that his command
of English is sufficient to meet the demands of classroom
instruction and written assignments. Details of how this
requirement may be met can be obtained from the Registrar.
33
As for applicants from other C.nadian Provinces, the
minimurn qualification under which an applicant may be
considered for admission is Senior Matriculation or its
equivalent.
3.1 An applicant from England, the West Indies, East and
West Africa or Hong Kong must submit the General
Certificate of Education or University of Hong Kong
Matriculaticn showing passes in five (5) subjects of which
at least three (3) must be at Advanced Level. Credits on
the School Certificate or subsidiary passes on the Higher
School Certificate are accepted as ordinary passes on
the General Certificate of Education and Principal or
Main as Advanced Level passes on the General Certificate
of Education. Transfer credit will normally be granted
for A Levels or equivalent.
3.2 An applicant from the United States is required to have
thirty semester hours (or 45 quarter hours) in subjects
acceptable for transfer credit with a cumulative G. P. A.
ofZ-.-4-from? °
a fully accredited institution of higher
learning. In determining transfer credit the university
will seek guidance from a leading university in the home
Revisions
9/e/e9
state. In addition, an applicant must submit College
?
P 13314.
Entrance Examination Board test results.
34
3. 3 An applicant from a country other than those mentioned in
3. 1 and 3. 2 must submit satisfactory evidence of the equiv.ent
of Senior Matriculation standing at acceptable levels of
S ?
achievement The awarding of transfer credit is at the
p
discrn of the Adrrissions Board
?
normally be on
'dIP*'c
the same basis as ii he were seeking admission to a leading
university in his home area.
3.4 ?
from a föign country who seeks admission with ________--
Go
or more semester hours or its equivalent in subjects acceptable
for transfer credit may be considered for admission and transfer ?
Revised
credit with the following , provisions: Maximum transfer credit ?
916169
p.
4.
allowed will be
60
semester hours; studies must have been under-
taken at a
fully
accredited institution of higher learning; the
studies presented for transfer credit must be acceptable to a
leading university in his home area toward a program similar to
the one to which he seeks admission'- and his cumulative GPA must
be 2.0 (C) or higher on transferable courses."
4 An applicant f
?
rom a.
foreign
orein country wh
?
o seeks amiss
d
?
n with
h
60
?
more semester hours or its equivalent in
?
je
.
3? 916169
acce p
tabiIre.. ?
transfer_credit
may be cons ered for admission
J
4",
?
and tra
As! credi
ith the folio
win
-
rovisions Studies must
have been undertaken at a
?
1 ccredited institution of higher .1
?
learning; the studies pre ented for ansfer credit must be
acceptable to a ic ing university in his h .e area toward
pro
?
ar to the one to which he seeks ad
?
sion, and
his c ulative C P A must be 2 0 (C) or higher on tran
'
err
abie
urses
3 5 A student who does not have the equivalent of Senior
Matriculation standing but who has demonstrated a high level
of academic performance may be considered for adrnissionRevisi:
9/6/69
by the Admissions Board To be considered foranission
under this section a student from the United State,s.
Alb i1d have
.,:..
?
' ?
•
completed high school with a
b
P A of-.2 on a program that
would
- ?
give him admission to a
__
leading universit
y
in his home state.
ri
PART F
STATEMENT ON CONTINUANCE, WITHDRAWAL AND READMISSION
Explanation
Students with poor records of academic achievement should be
considered regularly by the Admissions Board. In some cases the mere
fact
of drawing attention to his poor record will be sufficient to encourage a
student to achieve at a higher level. In other cases, a consistently poor
pattern of achievement is confirmed and a student can be advised accordingly.
The procedures that have been employed over several past semesters
by the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Standings have in
essence done the following: they have encouraged students with poor records
. • to improve their performance; they have avoided the peremptory removal from
the university of students whose performance suddenly slumps; they have
caused students with consistently poor records to reconsider their goals by
asking them to withdraw from the university for a period of one year.
The following points make explicit the practice of the Senate
Corrmittee on Undergraduate Admissions and Standings in this matter and are
in fact largely drawn from the minutes of that group held December 28, 1967.
It is recommended that the Senate of Simon Fraser University
(Not approved
915169
p.
8)
Replaced
9/6/69
p.
2,3.
13.
Endorse the Statement on Continuance, Withdrawal and Readmission.
14. Request the Admissions Board to continue the practice of the
Approved
915169 p. 9.
Senate Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Standings
in reviewing the cases of students with low records of achievement.
.
36
STATEMENT ON CONTINUANCE, WITHDRAWAL
AND READMISSION
(Replacement of original page 36 through approval of Motion H.Z. 916169
)
p. 2)3.)
"All students who enter the
•
University are expected to maintain
acceptable standards of scholarship. Specifically they are
expected to maintain a-2.0 cumulative grade point average. A
student who does not maintain the 2.0 cumulative average will be
considered to be performing less than satisfactorily in his
studies 'and will' be asked to withdraw from the university, if
after a probationary period he is unable to raise his cumulative grade
point average to or above the minimal requirement in accordance
with' the following:
Z. A student whose cumulative grade point average (on courses
taken at Simon Fraser University) falls below-.2.00
will' be placed on academic probation for the next semester tf,
?
1lc
entAo'l
1M
rr0
?
£'-,'the student has not raised his cumulative grade point
average to the minimum 2.00
hk
e will be required to
withcfraw. However, if a student on academic probation
obtains a semester grade point average of 2.50 or higher)
he shall be permitted to continue on academic probation
even if his cumulative grade point average has not reached
2.00.
2.
A student who enters the University in the first or
second year of studies (or who has less' than 45 hours
of transfer credit) towardS a degree and who does not
in his first term of study at this University receive a
2. 00 average or better will be placed on'academic warning.
In his second or subsequent semesters at this University',
he will be treated as in paragraph Z.
3.
' A student with a cumulative grade point averageof
1.00 or less for two consecutive semesters will be
required to withdraw permanently.
4.
A student on either academic warning or academic probation
must carry'a minimum semester course load of 12.seme'ster
hours and may not repeat courses in which he' has received
a grade of C minus or better.
5." A student who is required :to withdrcv., will be readmitted
on 'academic probation 'after twelve months have elapsed.
Transfer credit for work undertaken during the twelve
month period will be allowed'only if the student has
received the express prior approval of the'Admissions
Board for work he intends to 'undertake.
6. A student who' is required to withdraw for a second time will
be required 'to withdraw permanently. No case of permanent
withdrawal will be reconsidered for a period
of
five years.
7.' Under exceptional circumstances, the Admissions Board may
waive 'these conditions for individual cases.
See Rec.13 Not approved 915169
p.
8 ?
Replaced 91619 p. 2,3th.rough:JvfötionH.l.
3.6 a
.
?
TEMENT ON CONTINULNCE, WITHDRJWAL ND READMISSION
I
fl
.
A student whose semester grade point average falls betwee
1. 00 and Z. 00 may be placed on academic warning.
Z.
?
?
tudent whose semester grade point average falls tween ?
0.00 nd 0.99 may be placed on academic Probati
3.
A studen on academic warning whose semeste grade point
average fal between 1. 00 and 2. 00 may be laced on academic
probation.
4.
A student on aca mic warning whos - semester grade point
average falls betwee 0. 00 and 0.
?
may be required to
withdraw from the univ sity.
5.
A studenton academic pro ion whose semester grade point
average falls between 0.
?
an 2. 00 may be required to
withdraw from the uni ersity.
6.
'A student on eithe academic warni or academic probation
must carry a m imum semester cour load of 12 semester
hours.
7.
A student ho isrequired to withdraw may b readmitted on
acade ic probation after twelve months have el sed. Transfer
crc it for work undertaken. during the twelve month eriod will
e allowed only if the student has received the expres ?
nor ?
approval for work he intends to undertake.
8.
A student who is required to withdraw for a second time wil be
required to withdraw permanently. Normally, no case of per nent
withdrawal will be reconsidered for a period of five years.
SPECIAL ENTRY
At present the university has two types of special entry; early
admission/entry which is intended for academically talented students who
have not completed high school; and ma
'
ture entry which is intended for
persons twenty-five years or older whose high school programs were not
completed for various reasons. These categories of, admission were,
established when the university opened and received considerable public
approval.
The early admission/entry category has never involved very
many students. Of the relatively few students who are able to qualify,
most seem content to complete high school graduation before applying for
admission.
1
?
?
Mature student entry has involved many more students and,
potentially, could include a very large number. Latterly, however, the
numbers of applicants granted admission has declined because, apparently,
the published requirement that the applicant should show "some evidence
of his ability to engage in academic studies ........ ..has been applied with
increasing rigor.
The two "inds of special entry include students who frequently
experience particular problems in making the transition to campus life.
It would seem that the university has additional responsibilities to these
students beyond granting admission and providing instruction. Indeed,
considerable effort has been made by the Dean of Student Affairs to make
available the kinds of support and assistance needed. However, she has
many other responsibilities and would be the firt to agree that the university
should have done more.
38
10
1
?
?
Nevertheless, even the incomplete data we have strongly suggest
that special entry etudents have, as a group, achieved relatively better than
normal entry students. In addition, their presence on campus appears to be
welcomed by both students and faculty.
Accordingly, it would seem appropriate to continue the two
categories of special entry and, in the case of mature entry, grant admission
on a more liberal basis than in the recent past.
However, the Admissions Board should take steps to improve
procedures for admitting and assisting special entry students. First, the
Board should collect evidence about initial status and subsequent achievement.
This kind of data could, in a relatively short time, start to provide useful
guidance both to the applicant and the Admissions Board. Second, the Board
lie
?
should develop procedures, possibly involving the Dean of Student Affairs,
for helping special entry students make the needed adjustments to university
life.
New categories of special entry should not be added until the
necessary procedures have been developed and refined. It is mistaken
kindness to
admit to the university persons about whom we cannot make
an optimistic predictiOn of success.
It is recommended that the Senate of Simon Fraser University
15. Encourage the Admissions Board to foster the systerratic
approved 91516c
p.10.
development of procedures for admitting and ensuring the
academic success of Special Entry students.
1
PJRTH
COURSE
CH;
LLENGES
It is common or universities to acknowledge with transfer credit
formal academic work done at other institutions. It is less common for
universities to grant credit to students who have engaged in less formal
university level learning experiences.
Opportunities for informal and self initiated learning have increased
rapidly in recent years and it is likely that they will increase even more
rapidly in the years to come. Books, radio, television, discussion groups
and university extension programs already provide a rich educational resource.
Automated and semi-automated learning systems, closed circuit television and
other procedures will s Oon be added to existing opportunities for learning.
As a consequence, it is likely hát increasing numbers of students
will come to the university with a portion of their degree program complete
but with no adequate way of demonstrating their achievements and no way of
receiving recognition for an adequate demonstration.
At present, several of our departments grant advanced placement
but they have no formal means of granting credit. It is suggested that
procedures be developed for awarding course credit to a student who can
demonstrate adequate levels of proficiency in a course area without taking the
course.
This would seem to be a worthwhile thing to do for at least three
reasons. It acknowledges the fact that learning resources exist in society in
addition to professors and universities. It recognizes that people have individual
styles and rates of learning. It permits an accelerated rate of progress toward
a degree for those to whom this is important or useful.
40
There would be obvious difficult" 3s and hazards involved in
implementing a course challenge system. Adequate assessment procedures
would have to be found or devised. Care would have to be taken to avoid
confusing education with mere credit gathering. Administrative procedures
would have to be developed to assure Equitable treatment for students and a
manageable wor1 load for departments. Guidelines would have to be developed
so that the quality of degrees could be maintained and potential abuses avoided.
In addition, some subject areas would lend themselves more
readily than others to the proposed approach and some departments might
find it easier than others to develop appropriate procedures. It may prove to
be impossible with certain subject matter. It may be inappropriate to certain
ins.ructional procedures and programs; It may be totally distasteful to certain
departments.
Nevertheless, those departments wishing to develop course challenge
procedures for some of their lower division courses should not be prevented
from doing so provided that their procedures are educationally sound.
If the principle of course challenge commends itself to Senate a
simple organizational and procedural framework might be dcv sloped somewhat
as follows.
a)
Initially, the program should be for a one year trial period
subject to. Senate review.
b)
The program
s
should
,
be coordinated and supervised by the Senate
Undergraduate Admission Board who would develop guidelines for
participating departments and would issue, through the Registrar's
office, instructions to students.
ENCI
4
41
c)
Probably no department should offer more than 2 lower
division courses for challenge and no student should be
permitted to challenge more than S courses. (15 semester hours).
d)
Departments would specify courses and assessing mechanisms to
the Dean of their faculty who would forward these to the
Admission Board for review and final approval.
e)
Students would be informed of courses available for challenge
and those wishing to could apply to challenge a course stating
their reasons for believing they would be successful.
f)
The outcome of the challenge would be reported to the
U
?
appropriate Dean and forwarded to the Admission Board. A
L•
?
?
successful challenge should probably be a C+ or better and the
grade should be recorded on the student's transcript. An
unsuccessful challenge need not be recorded. A student would
be permitted no further challenge after a total of two
unsuccessful ones.
It is recommended that the Senate of Simon Fraser University
16.
Approve in principle a program of course challenge.
17.
Instruct the Undergraduate Ldmissions Board to develop
with interested Departments a program of course challenge
approved
915169
p.
10.
and submit the program for Senate approval before the end
approved
915169
p.
ii.
of 1969.
0
4.
PART I
SUPPORT SERVICES
The service areas supporting and contributing to the'university
admissions process are seriously understaffed. The effects of this are easily
observable. Delays Occur in processing applications. Simple statistical
information is not readily available. Interpretations of data and descriptions
of student achievement are almost totally lacking. Even enrolment projections,
such as there are, are of questionable validity and lack the necessary
refinements to facilitate adequate planning. Routine information about courses
and programs is often difficult for students to obtain.
There are additional more subtle consequences of staff shortage.
Delays cause anxiety and irritation. Failure to obtain answers to seemingly
I• simple questions can be annoying. Unending line ups of insistent questioners
create a feeling of harassment in those who provide answers. The most casual
observer
can
'
easily detect the tensions frequently present on both sides of the
counter in the Registrar's office.
The foregoing is no criticism of the longsiffering members of the
Registrar's staff. Indeed, they have performed amazingly effectively given
the difficulties under which they work. Space is cramped and inefficient.
Training periods for new personnel have been either lacking or too short. There
have been five registrars since the university opened. Regulations have
frequently been either lacking or ambiguously framed. Departments have often
been slow to respond to requests for information or have changed their internal
orking rules without informing anyone else. A few students have been needlessly
awkward or unpleasant. Some have even withheld information or have given
misleading
i
nterpretations of complicated cases.
43
It is worth noting that the Registrar's office is responsible for many
tasks unrelated or tangential to the admissions and records functions. The
Registrar or one of his staff is secretary to a large number of committees and
groups including Senate. Arranging meetings, preparing and circulating agenda,
attenthng meetings, recording and circulating minutes *11 involve a tremendous
workload. In addition, during the past six months the Registrar has supervised
the conduct of no less than forty elections and referenda.
Many of the foregoing problems can be corrected relatively easily.
What will be less easy to improve is the quality of working relationships between
students and the office staff. No policy can work unless people want to make it
work. Attitudes cannot be legislated.
A serious deficiency in the university is the apparent lack
Of
data
for evaluating existing programs and procedures and for planning changes.
The University of British Columbia has a full time Academic Planner and a
member of the counselling office both of whom generate substantial amounts
of extremely useful information. In contrast, Simon Fraser University has
not had an Academic Planner for about two years and such information as we
have has been prepared by the already very busy Dean of Student Affairs and
Registrar.
A further element to be considered is that other groups or individuals
are offering valuable services which have greater Or lesser degrees of overlap
with the admissions and standings process. The Dean of Student Affairs, the
Counselling Service, the Health Service and the Reading and Study Centre all
engage from time to time in aspects of admissions and standings work. In
addition, most academic departments offer advice and information on their
44
academic programs although the quality and availability of this service seems
to be variable. However, the relationship of these various groups or
individuals and the services they provide do not appear to be particularly well
' articulated with the Registrar's Office.
Precise recommendations on the substance of the preceding
paragraphs are beyond the terms of reference of this report. Despite this,
it would be foolish to recommend policies on admissions, standings and
credits without giving some thought to their workability.
Accordingly, it is recommended that the Senate of Simon Fraser
University
18.
Request the Acting President to make provision, as may
approved 915169
p. ll i2.
W
?
be possible, for the academic planning and student advising
services that are presently lacking or deficient
19.
Request the Acting President to undertake or
,
cause to be
a
pp
roved 915169
p.12.
undertaken a study designed to bring about a better
articulation of the various university services that are
related to admissions, standings and credits.
PART J
4';
.
DATE FOR IMPLEMENTING NEW POLICY
Senate will have to make two major decisions in connection with
the implementation of this report. To what group of new applicants should
it apply? Should the terms of the report be applied retroactively in whole
or in part for some or all previously registered students?
Most would agree that new policy and procedures should be applied
as early as possible. This could mean that students entering the university
for the first time in September 1969 would enter under the newly adopted
policy. , However, after Senate has adopted new policy, a great many things
must be done to make it operational. Lists, of transferrable courses will
have to be prepared along with lists of Simon Fraser University equivalencies.
New committees will have to be constituted. Duties will have to be reaésigned.
Working staff will have to be trained. And so on. It is suggested that Senate
must adopt new policy by the end of April 1969 in order to have it apply to
students entering the university in September 1969.
The.question of retroactive application of new policy to students
already registered is a much more difficult issue. There are three major
possibilities:
a)
New policies should not, be applied retroactively.
b)
New policies should be applied retroactively to all
students whc petition for review.
c)
New policies should be applied retroactively to all students
who petition for review and who can demonstrate that a
review, if successful, could shorten their degree program.
46
Te the three choices mentioned could be added a number of
variants. New policy might apply only to students entering subsequent to
December 1968 or August 1968. New policy, might apply only to students who
I
transferred to this university from other B. C. institutions. New policy
I ?
might apply only to students with less than 60 semester hours of accumulated
credit.
The first of the three majbr possibilities would be-legally correct.
A student who entered under earlier regulations; in effect, accepted a
contract. The university set 'certain
conditions
for entry and transfer'
credit which the student accepted. For its part, the university- provided
facilities and programs of study and tacitly agreed not to extend the student's
program beyond those requirements in effect at the time of admission.
However, this choice would lead to some rather understandable
dissatisfaction. Assume, for example, the case
of
two students from a
regional college who completed identical programs with identical standings
in April 1969. One student entered the university In May 1969, the other
delayed entry until September. It is
,
distinctly possible that the second
student would be more liberally treated in transfer credit than the first.
Senate must decide if it can answer a request for review of transcripts
with 'You can't backdate progress".
The second alternative would seem, an the surface, to be
attractive. A student who now found himself entitled to additional credits
could ive these appear in his Sin-on Fraser
rec.'rJ.
47
However, for many such students, a review which yielded
additional transfer credit would have no material effect on the remainder of
their program for any of a variety of reasons. For example, -a student might
have already taken all the lower division work permitted on his degree. Or
he might have repeated a course disallowed for transfer credit and, hence,
could not expect double credit.
In addition, the clerical and faculty work load involved in
reassessing many thcusands of sets of docurrents would be excessive and
might take several semesters to complete. This would be a very high price
to pay for what in many cases would merely be the consolidation of two
documents into one. Furthermore, the very length of such a review would
likely jeopardize the programs of other students whose program would be
materially affected by a review of their credentials.
The third choice may well be more workable and fair than the
second. The number of cases to he reviewed would be sharply reduced. The
student who stands to benefit tangibly from review would receive more speedy
attention.
However, before making a decision on the issue, Senate should
be fully aware of the problems involved in choosing, say, alternative c above.
In the first place, the decision would result in a. tremendous
workload, beyond the present resources of the Registrar's staff and probably
beyond the time available for present or proposed committees. It is
impossible to obtain a good estimate of the number of cases that would have
to be reviewed. It might be in the order of three thousand. An estimate of
committee time that would be needed is equally difficult to make because some
43
• ?
cases
would be simple and others complex. A conservative figure. would
be five hundred hours plus consultations with departments and substantial
provisions for clerical and administrative support. There are obvious fiscal
and personnel implications to the foregoing.
A second problem is that a retroactive application of new policy
would become much more than a matte of admissions or transfer. It would
interact with faculty requirements, departmental requirements and graduation
requirements. It would undoubtedly involve in.riany cases some matters
clearly within a department's jurisdiction and other considerations clearly
within the purview of the Admissions Board. It would clearly be impossible
to maintain complete consistency of treatment given the variables - COUr8eS
taken elsewhere, levels of performance, transferring institutions, courses
taen here, number of accumulated hours, major programs, faculty
requirements, etc. Whether students and faculty could live with the
inevitable unevenness is a matter of judgement. There might be those who
would believe that half a loaf is better than none. There could be others who
would say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Goodwill and
mutual understanding would be required from everyone involved.
A third problem that could arise would be that attempts. to apply
policy retroa.cti'iely would occur at the same time that the new policy was
becoming understood sufficiently well to be applied to new applicants. This
would place a great strain on newly developing procedures and understandings
and could prejudice their future usefulness.
44
A fourth problem would be the availability of a set of minimum
conditions prior to commencing any review. A listing of transferrable
courses would have to be provided by the Academic Board. A listing of
Simon Fraser University course equivalencies would have to be prepared
by each department. Procedures and routines for handling reviews would
have to be developed. Rulings wou.d have to be made on a number of
questions such as: Do duplicaecourses count twice? Can a student request
review under the most favourable conditions of both
old and
new policy?
Should consideration be given to a case in which a review, even if successful,
would not shorten the student's program?
Three suggestions are offered if Senate considers applying new
• policy retroactively. First, it would probably be possible to identify
categories of cases and arrange these in order of complexity and frequency.
It would then be possible to corriplete the greatest number of reviews in the
least amount of time. Second,. Senate would probably be unwise to order
the review of any but the simplest of cases until the new policy is fully
operational. Third, Senate should probably seek a recommendation on
this matter from the Undergraduate Admissions Committee and the Appeals
Group.
No specific recommendation is offered on the matter of
retroactivity because this clearly goes beyond the terms under which this
report was commissioned.
In connection with implementation of new policy, it is
recommended that the Senate of Simon Fraser University
50
Recommendation 20
SSenate, on May 5, 1969 did not approve this recommendation,
but on June 16, 1969 approved Motion J. 1 -. as follows: -
"That Senate charge the Academic Vice-President or a committee (s)
nominated by him with implementation of the Ellis Report as
speedily as possible. In so dOing, the Academic Vice-President
or the committee(s) be asked:
Z. ?
that until such iime as the academic Board performs
its function (as delineated in Part B and covered
in Recommendations 2, 3, 4), to prepare on the advice
of
the liaison committees in the .discip lines where
appropriate a list of courses offered by Junior and
Regional Colleges inB.C. and to decide which of them
are University level courses;
2.a) to obtain from academic departments and faculties an
indication of those University level courses which
they consider SFU course equivalent, unassignd credit
in a subject area, and unassigned credit;
b)
to obtain from academic departments and faculties an
indication of those University level courses which
they do not consider acceptable for course equivalent,
unassigned credit in a subject area, and unassigned.
Is ?
credit.
c)
to obtain an explanation from academic departments and
faculties for their decisions in respect to those
University level courses\considered not acceptable.
d)
to make all information received in accordance with
items 2(a) - 2(c) available to Senate.
3.
to ensure that all necessary fine print is written for
each section or subsection in Part E (Admissions and
Transfer);
4.
to implement the Report in stages ifnecessary, as each
part becomes complete under #3 and adequate personnel is
available in the Registrar's Office to ensure its
implementation.
Until such time as a particular section is ready for implementation,
Senate instruct the Registrar to process applications for admission
under the present regulations, provided in so doing there is no
obvious conflict with the intent and principles of the Ellis Report."
50
a
• Agree that students enrolling for the first time
at ?
(Not approved
9/5/69 p. b2, 43)
Uni rsity in September 1969 be governed b new policies
Revised
1616169
on Admissi a, Credits and Staridin , providing that ?
P .
8, 9.
agreement is reac.
?
on all cessary aspects of the
policies by no
?
1969. It
.
Is understood
that all existin olicies and proce ?
es will remain in
force u ss specifically amended or revOk until they
e superceded by the new policies and procedures.
.21. Empower the present Undergraduate Admissions Committee
Approved
915169 p. 13.
to act for the Admission Board until the latter is
constituted.
22.
Empower the present Appeals Group to act for the Ayals
Ap pr oved
97560 p. L4.
Board until the latter is constituted.
23.
Make a speedy decision on the question of retroactivity.
Motions'were
made
1616169
but
without decision as
meeting adjourned.
See p.
9., 10
.
, ii.
A motion 'for "no
retroactivity"
failed.
0
PART K
CONCLUDING STATEMENT
Senate should give some thought to the actions necessary
to make any new admissions policies operative. In the long run, of
course, the Admissions Board will direct the application of policies.
However, there may be a time lapse between the adoption
of
policy
and the constituting of the needed committee. A number of actions
could and should be undertaken in the interim.
Dependent upon the outcome of Senate's decisions
on
admissions, standings and credits policy a minimum list of actions
might include the following:
1.
Development of terms of reference for the Senate
Undergraduate Admissions Board -and the Senate
Undergraduate Appeals Board and the subsequent
selection of members.
2.
Communication with the Academic Board on the
matter of information Senate will need.
3.
Cornrrunication with colleges
And
.choAe..on matters
of
changed policy.
51
0
E
.
52
BIBLIOGRAPHY
• ?
Astryx, Rule by Registrar: The Times Educational Supplement,
May 1965, Ip.
Anderson, A. C., Emerging Common Problems in the World of
Universities, interiiatjonalResearch Education, 1: 3-20, 1965.
Bi-ir, G. E., Survival of the Disadvantaged, New York State Education,
1965,
4p.
AdministrativeBulletin
for Secondary Schools, British Columbia,?
Department of Education, Victoria, 1967, 65p.
Chant, S. N. F., Co1g_Transfers, the Academic Board, Vancouver,
B. C., 1968, 8p.
College Management
1
The Admissions Story, Educational Digest,
32: 45-48, March 1967.
Conway, C. B., A Forecast of Potential Community College
Enrolments
in B.C.,
197€,
Victoria, Division of Tests and Standards,
Department of Education, June 1967, Sip.
Dennison, J. D. and Jones G., A Statement of the Characteristics and
Subsequent Performance of Vancouver City College Students
who Transferred to the University of British Columbia in
September 1967, Vancouver, University of British Columbia
and Vancouver City College, December 17, 1968, lip.
Fahrbach, C. G., Organization and-
.
Management, The Registrar During
the 1970's, College and University, 41: 444-446, 1966.
Goard, J. R., M. Gladney, and J. A. 'Klock, Nine Critical Questions
About Selective Admissions, Per&onnel and Guidance Journal,
45: 640- 647, 1967
Knowles, D. W., A Survey of the Literature:
: Relating to Problems of
Admission with Particular Reference to the University of
Alberta, Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 11: 3-16, 1965.
Lamontagne, L., Admissions to University in Canada, Canadian
Universities and Colleges, 1969, 3p.
5,3
Lamontagne, I., SACU
and Curricula Changes, Bulletin
of Service
for Admission to College and University, 1968,
3p.
Lamontagne, L., The Validity of SACU Tests, Buibtin of Service
for Admission to College and University, 1968, 4p.
Lewis, G. I., Problems in the Admission of Community College Transfer
Students, College and University, 1968, Zp.
Lockwood, G. and Supple, B., Admissions Policies and Procedures
in the United States, University Quarterly, 2730: 415-437, 1967.
Oliver, R. A. C., University Entrance Requirements; Whence and
Whither? University Quarterly, 20: 307-316, 1966..
Smading, D.. G., College Admissions, NEA Journal ,. 55: 40-44, 1966.
The Academic Board for Higher Education in British Columbia,
College
University
Articulation, Vancouver, The Board, 1969,
Slp.
The Academic Board for Higher Education in. British Columbia, A.Guide
to Post Secondary Education in British Columbia, Vancouver,
The Board, 1967, 26p.
. ?
The Academic Board for Higher Education in British Columbia, College
Standards, Vancouver, The BOard,
1966, 39p.
The Academic Board for Higher Education in British Columbia,
The
Role
of District and Regional Colleges in the British Columbia
System of Higher Education, Vancouver, The Board, 1965,
28p.
The Alumni Association of the University of British
.
Columbia, Report
of the Alumni Committee on
University Government, Vancouver,
The
Association, 1967, 48p.
Wing, C. W., Student Selection,, The Educational
Environment,
Daedalus: Sum: 6
;
3Z- 641, 1965.
a
0
*
?
APPENDIX A
•
?
EXTRACT FROM SENATE MINUTES
(NOVEMBER 20, 1968)
MOTION: THAT SENATE ORDER
.
A COMPLETE REVIEW OF
UNDERGRADUATE ADMISSIONS AND STANDINGS POLICIES, TO
BE ORGANIZED AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the Senate name one member of faculty who will be
charged with the development of a
definitive,
and comprehensive
admissions and standings policy in consultation with an advisory
committee consisting of three Faculty members appointed by
Senate and three students determined by the Student Society.
2. (a) The above named individual shall be released from all
Other duties for a. period of three months.
(b)
Regular consultation with the above named advisory
committee, as well as consultation with interested parties,
both inside and outside the University.
(c)
The draft policies when developed be submitted to the
Consultation Committee for discussion, and subsequent
to that be forwarded to the President for consideration
and final approval by Senate.
3. That these approved policies in respect of Admissions and
Standings be made public."
Main ?
. ?
.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED
16 in favour
1 abstained.
n
N
55
- ?
S
?
APPENDIX B
Universities Act, 1963,
C. 52, s.1.
Division (3) -
Academic Board
76. There shall be an Academic Board composed of two members
appointed by the Senate of each University and three members
appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. The Academic
Board shall elect its own Chairman. 1963, c. 52,
si
76.
77. The members of the Academic Board shall hold office for three
years and are eligible for reappointment. 1963, c. 52,. s. 77.
78. The members of the Academic Board shall receive no remuneration
for serving on the Board, but may be paid. reasonable travelling and
living expenses incurred by them in the course of their duties.
1963, c.52, s.78.
79. The Academic Board may appoint such officers and staff as may
be from time to time required. 1963, c. 52, s. 79.
80. The expenses incurred by the Academic Board shall be borne by the
Universities in proportion to their respective enrolments..
1963, c.52, s.80.
81. The Academic Board has power
(a)
to provide for the regulation and conduct of its meetings and
proceedings, including the determination of the quorum
necessary for the transaction of business;
(b)
to collect, examine, and provide information relating
to
academic standards, and to advise the appropriate authorities
on orderly academic development of Universities established
under this Act and of colleges established under the Public
SchOols Act by keeping in review the academic standards of
each; and;
(c)
without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to report on
any matters respecting academic standards and development
in
higher education as may be from time to time required by
the Minister of Education. 1963, c. 52, s. 81.
82. The Academic Board shall annually report on its affairs to the
Minister of Education, in such form as he may from time to time
require. 1963, c.
52,
s. 82.
0
.
MINUTES
May 6, 1969
May 9, 1969
June 9, 1969
0
?
June 16, 1969
DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE
S
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SENATE
OF
SIMON
FRASER UNIVERSITY HELD
TUESDAY, MAY 6, 1969 IN THE FACULTY LOUNGE AT 7:30 P.M.
SPECIAL MEETING - THE ELLIS REPORT
0
OPEN SESSION
Present:
?
Strand, K. T.
Baird, D. A.
• ?
Boland, L. A.
Burstein, K. R.
D'Aoust, B.
• ? Srivastava, L. N.
Haerfttg, R. R.
• ? Hutchinson, J. F.
Korbin, D.
Okuda, K.
Rieckhoff, K. R.
Sperling, G. B.
Stratton, S. T.
Sullivan, D. H.
Tuck, D. G.
Vidaver, W. E.
Walkley, J.
Wassermann, S.
Williams, W. E.
Wong, S.
Evans, H. N.
Kelsey, I. B.
Barboza, J.
Collins, E.
Absent:
?
Branca, A. E.
Cole, R. E.
• ?
Collins, N.
Conway, J.
• ? Dampier, J. L.
Ellis, A. J.
•
?
Hamilton, W. N.
Harper, R.J.C.
}Iean, A.F.C.
Koerner, 0.
Lachlan, A. H.
Lett, S.
NàcKinnon, A. R.
McLean, C. H.
Perry, C. N.
•
?
• ?
Shrum, G. N.
Chairman
Secretary
Recording Secretary
- 2 -
?
S.M. 6/5/69
• ?
Dr. John F. Ellié was in attendance to speak to his Report.
The Chairman indicated to Senate that D. Meyers, the Associate
Registrar, had suffered a heart attack, and that he would be unable
to report for work for at least some
six
to seven months, at which.
time it was expected that he would be able to return to work under a
reduced assignment. The Chairman indicated, that he personally wished
to publicly express his concern and his appreciation for everything
that Mr. Meyers has done in the past. K. Strand further announced
that D. Meakin, formerly of the Chemistry Department, was nominee for
the pOsition of Associate Registrar, but that the transfer was not yet
completed. He introduced I. Kelsey as newly appointed Director of the
Secretariat Services division within the Office Of the Registrar.
The Chairman reminded Senate of the procedures which would be
followed in considering the Ellis Report - as outlined in Paper S.217,
and'. that, in the. interest of' time, the Minutes would show for each
recommendation a formal motion Of adoption moved by R. Haering and
seconded by J. Walkley
(Note to Senate:
.
For the special meetings of Senate held for discussion
of the Ellis Report, tape transcriptions have been made and are held in
the Secretary's office.)
J. Ellis-was requested to provide the opening statement. He noted
that there had been considerable comment concerning the
. Academlc Board
and indicated that the principle involved in his recommendation was to
use external validation As a means of making a number of the judgments
required. He.spoke on the principle of accreditation, noted that the
Academic Board had been given authority to carry out certain .accrediting
within the province, and discussed the necessity of generating a list of
college courses that are taught at university level. Attention was drawn
to the items at the back of his ,Report, pertaining to the Academic Board
and its authority. Comments were 'made on the resources of the Board
,
, to
the development of subject sub-committees in a number of, areas, and pro-
cedures which might be developed,, although the matter was not.fully
clarified at the present time. Membership on the Academic Board was out-
lined.
He referred to the matter of standards and drew attention to the
publication of the Academic Board dated February 1969. He also noted. a
study undertaken on transfers from Vanc'ouver City College to the
University of British Columbia. Further comments were made briefly on
the admission requirements of the other public universities 'within the
province. He drew attention to letters which had been received,.which
had been issued by the Registrar of the University of British Columbia,
and also drew attention to statements approved by the University of
Victoria concerning college transfer of credit and .gradings.
He made reference to admission requirements for American students and
commented that throughout the report he had attempted to generate a
principle of parallel treatment for parallel groups. He referred to
attempts 'to make studies at B.C. colleges and B.C. senior matriculation
I-2
- 3 - ? S.M. 6/5/69
Sparallel, through equatiiLg twelve years of schooling to twelve years
of schooling. He noted that A level standards from Great Britain
should be treated like senior matriculation courses in British Columbia.
He referred to the principle that where a student is granted admission
that credit should then be given for D grades on university level
transfer courses, as students obtaining 0 gradings at Simon Fraser
University received credit.
J.
Ellis continued and drew a distinction between policies and
rules on the premise that a policy is a guide for discretionary action
as distinct from a rule which is a specification of a required action.
He noted that no admissions policy could be final, as conditions
change and programs change both here and elsewhere. He commented
briefly on the areas of responsibility, which were suggested for the
various sections within the university, which would be concerned
directly with admissions and admissions policies.
The Chairman thanked Dr. Ellis for his comments and noted that
individual Senators would now have opportunity to make statements or
general comments with a time limit of ten minutes for each of those
who wished to speak.
D. Sullivan commended J. Ellis on his energetic report, which had
been undertaken in a very short time. He indicated reservations con-
• ?
cerning the Academic Board and the mechanisms which might pertain and
expressed' doubt that the material required could be provided within the
time suggested. He also expressed concern regarding possible new
admission requirements at the University of British Columbia and the
effect this might have. He further commented on problems which he
foresaw in connection with gradings for transferability and the matter
of prerequisite standards. He noted that the University of British
Columbia set forth very clear statements in terms of acceptability of
courses from other provinces and the gradings required. D. Sullivan
expressed the hope that Senate would look at the items one at a time, but
especially to see which parts are interrelated in orderthat appropriate
synthesis would arise.
K.
Burstein indicated that he wished to ask certain questions and
directed an enquiry to Dr. Ellis concerning the Academic Board, wishing
to know whether or not It was the intent that the Academic Board would
tell Simon Fraser University which courses are accredited, and wished
to know what other universities in B.C. have an external accrediting
body. J..
Ellis
stated that he had suggested that the other two univer-
àities in the province do because they accept the programs that are
taught at university level by the various colleges. K. Burstein sug-
gested that it would be reasonable to have the other universities
endorse the recommendations, and that the universities keep generally
in step In these regards.
He referred to claims made by students and others of injustices
which had existed under prior policies and expressed the view that the
Report would not prevent individuals from making such claims, whether
or not true. Particular reference was made to an example earlier quoted
by J. Ellis concerning a transfer of a student from the University of
British Columbia to Simán Fraser University. J. Ellis noted that the
I-.j
- 4 -
?
S.M. 6/5/69
student had lost significant credit In the field of Fine Arts and
expressed the view that because Simon Fraser does not teach Fine Arts
was not good reason for not recognizing quality in such a field given
at another recognized institution.
D. Korbin indicated some disappointment in the report, stated that
It called for centralization of decision-making without asking to whom
the powers of decision-making are being given; expressed concern that
American students would require 'completion of 30 semester hours for
admission; noted that amongst the demands presented in the fall there
had been inclusion of
.
a. student-faculty parity admissions board, and
an opening of files to the committee to ascertain injustices; and that
he believed the report missed the concept of democratic decision making
within the institution or other agencies. He considered this omission
dangerous.
G. Sperling indicated that he was still not clear as to the
.
place,
responsibility, and authority, which, the Academic Board might have, and
that he was not certain as to whether or not the Board would be asking
departments to change their courses in accordance with what is in the
colleges or vice versa.. He considered that the.whole question of the
role of the two-year colleges required further investigation, but.com-
mended Dr. Ellis on the references he had made about the dangers of
Overly strict prerequisites.
He also expressed concern on the effect of the streaming program
in highschoo1s and its sociological. effects... He was also concerned that,
although parallelism had been desëribed by Dr. Ellis, that he did not
consider that a requirement of 3.2 average from highschool graduates
was reasonable.
R. Haering indicated that he was a member of the Academic Board,
that he envisaged the Board becoming an accrediting agency in the sense
that It would determine what courses at the colleges, of the Province of
British Columbia are of university level, that it would be expected that
the university would recognize these courses, but that departmental res-
ponsibility would not be impinged upon, as the department would select
the specific area (of the three referred to in the report.) under which
credit for a given course would be assigned. He noted that the manner
in which the Board would propose to implement its accrediting in subjects
would be through the use of subject committees.
He envisaged no major.difficulty In the matter of prerequisite
aspects, as the Undergraduate Admissions Board would be expected to
inform Senate of the major and honors programs through which recognition
would be given, and that there was further provision for review where
difficulties are identified. He concurred that timing could present
problems, but believed that these could be overcome through an appro-
priate interim step.
K. Rieckhoff believed the report presented a self-consistent frame-
work, but that there were some minor points on which he would take
exception. He noted that the burden of maintaining standards would
fall squarely .
on all faculty, and was concerned that some departments
might not employ appropriate steps to retain adequate standards.
- 5 -
?
S.M. 6/5/69
D. Tuck referred to prerequisites, but indicated that at a meeting
of the universities and regional colleges through the Chemistry Sub-
Committee there was a surprising degree of agreement. He felt no hesi-
tation relying upon the Academic Board, particularly through the sub-
committees, in terms of identification as to courses which could be
acceptable. However, he was also concerned with timing, and wondered
if the report might have some impact in this' regard.
W. Williams believed that the report would grant admission to stu-
dents currently not eligible, and was not satisfied that this was a
correct approach unless there was reasonable indication that students
could indeed proceed successfully through to graduation. From this
standpoint he was concerned about the impact on overall standards.
S. Wong'indicated that he proposed to speak briefly, as he had had
a number of discussions with Dr. Ellis. He was in support of utilization
Of the Academic Board as an accrediting agency, because he believed that
faculty and
'
departments had shown inability or unwillingness
to act in
this area.
B. D'Aoust believed that the report was excellent if one accepted
the present system, but would have preferred to have seen a much bolder
approach to the total question of admission and what happens 'to students
throughout the university process. He expressed the view that
,
the report
• ?
continued to work on certain aspects of'passing and failing, whereas ,he
believed a much'greater emphasis must be given to the process and success
of teaching, rather than to failure of students. He was of the opinion
that the report tends to perpetuate the present system rather than to
strike out boldly in new directions.
L. Boland thought that,there had been insufficient discussion con-
cerning the need of the policy and the specific purposes the policy
should fulfill and was of the opinion that much greater study should have
been given to the articulation of a philosophy of education for the
university before the report was undertaken.
As no other Senator indicated desire to make comments, attention was
turned to the individual recommendations.
CONSIDERATION OF
'
INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ELLIS REPORT (IN THE
ORDER OUTLINED IN PAPER S.217)
1. Recommendation No. 1
Moved by R. Haering, seconded by J. Walkley,
"It is recommended that the Senate of Simon
Fraser University endorses the statement of
• •
?
operating guidelines (Part A)."
R. Haering.supported the recommendation and believed that the policy
proposed would allow the university to admit and retain students who have
a reasonable probability of succeeding in the courses and programs they
choose.
I-s-
- 6 - ? S.M.
6/5/69
C.
Sperling indicated that he believed the report gave too much
authority to the Academic Board. Question was raised as to whether
the AUCC provided for "accrediting" and
J. Ellis
responded that in
the sense the term "accrediting" is used in his report that body did
not carry out the function.
S. Wong referred to Page 8, item 4, pertaining to "the leading
institution" and J. Ellis indicated that throughout the report this
should read "a leading institution."
D.
Tuck referred to Page 8, items 6, 7 and 8, which seemed to
call for implementation. J.
Ellis
indicated that it was proposed that
Senate would have responsibility to bring policies under systematic
review, and that this would have impact on item 8; that the Registrar's
Office would be expected to develop means of effective communication
for students and faculty within theuniversity and with interested
individuals and groups outside the university, and that this would.
have impact on item 7; and that item 6 would fall under some of the
Committee recommendations.
D. Sullivan indicated that the first recommendation covered a
part with many sub-parts, and that he reserved judgment on item 4 of
the section. J.
Ellis
provided further comments on this matter.
• ?
Vote was undertaken on Recommendation No. 1.
MOTION CARRIED
14 in favor
3 opposed
1 abstained
2. Recommendation No. 11
Moved by K. Haering, seconded by J. Walkley,
"It is recommended that the Senate of Simon
Fraser University endorse the statement area
of responsibility and admissions, standings and
credits. .(Part D)."
Ja
Ellis
indicated that this was a complex and difficult section,
of the report. The Intent of the section is to see Senate in the over-
riding position of making policy and overviewing its committees, making
them responsible with policy being kept under regular review. The
Undergraduate Admissions Board is expected to take the policies, make
them operate in terms of writing more specific rules as they may be needed,
and as these accumulate into new policy or suggestions for the creation of
new policies, to bring these back to Senate, with a. procedure for regular
reporting. The Registrar's Office would be expected to implement the
• ?
policies under the direction of the Admissions Board.
• K. Rieckhoff referred to the "unsolicited report of the Senate Commit-
tee on Undergraduate Admissions and Standings on the Ellis Report" and that
the Committee's recommendation on item 5.4, page 21 be utilized. J. Ellis
suggested that the recommendation is already covered in the report through
I-'
- 7 -
?
S.M. 6/5/69
other recommendations, with particular reference to recommendation 6
on page 17, and recommendation 3 on page 12.
D. Tuck approved the necessity for both an Admissions Board and
an Appeals Board, and J. Ellis indicated that it was certainly his
hope that over time. the number of appeals would significantly decrease,
but that during the period of implementation an Appeals Board could be
needed.
W. Williams supported the suggestion made by K. Rieckhoff with
reference to the suggestions'niade by the Senate Committee on Undergraduate
Admissions and Standings, and was of the opinion that although the items
might be covered in other sections of the report, there could be an
advantage in repeating certain specific items.
K.
Burstein expressed concern at what had been an Interim Appeals
Committee was now proposed as a continuing Appeals Board. He enquired
as to. the body which would be responsible for reviewing such Items as
academic probation and required to withdraw. . J. Ellis drew attention
to the recommendation 14 on page 4.
L.
Boland emphasized the necessity of indicating to students the
basis on which rejections on admission or transfer are made, and noted
that-although-explanatory and further directives might be developed
through the Undergraduate AdmissiOns Board, that such directives should
come before Senate on final analysis for approval. He noted further that
at the, present time the whole role of the Appeals Committee and the
potential role of the Appeals Board was not clear.
D. Sullivan again noted that there was interrelationship across' many
sections and concurred that whenever necessary there should be duplicated
statements of overlap responsibility. From this standpoint he believed
that action on this section should be deferred..
D. Sullivan continued with specific reference to page 20, item 1.4,
and indicated that
he
did, not believe that there was clarity in terms of
the role of Senate itself, the role of departments, and the role of the
Academic Board'
-
with the result that he envisaged difficulties arising.
He suggested that. the Academic Board should send recommendations through
a mechanism of consultation with departments, as may be authorized by
Senate, and that the Registrar then be notified of courses which are
acceptable for area credit toward the various
.
degrees. Specifically,
instructions could then be given to the Registrar by Senate as to how it
isto be used. Ultimately, approval of ,courses for transfer must go
through the Senate..
R. Haering supported the section and agreed that over time as
policies become more definitive, there could be 'a diminishing need for
an appeal mechanism. He had no objection to duplication of statements,
but did not believe that all of these need be finalized before 'approval
of the current documentation.
Question
,
was raised concerning, the possibility of adding clarifying
clauses and statements at a later time if, items were passed at this time,
and it was agreed that at some future meetings there could be motions
'-.7
- 8 -
?
S.M. 6/5/69
providing amendments asrequired. Further clarification was requested
and the Chairman Indicated that dependent upon the results of certain
motions, a number of changes - particularly those of an editorial nature
- could be required and would be made as necessary.
R. HaerIng offered clarification, pointing out that if a recommenda-
tion did not pass, it would be held over for a later meeting, with oppor-
tunity for provision of amendments in writing before such meeting. He
further noted that at this point a number of items were being dealt with
as a first iteration, and that if there was agreement with the item as a
first iteration, the item should pass, with the understanding that any
necessary editorial changes resulting from later votes, and any statements
required for greater clarity could be made.
The Chairman noted that each Senator would be expected to consider
whether In totality he feels that comments weighed pro and con are such
that a section should be opened up for substantive debate and item by
item change, or whether in totality he would be:prepared to accept it as
It stands.
Vote on Recommendation 11 was then undertaken.
NOTION CARRIED
11 in favor
5 opposed
3 abstained
3. Recommendation No. 2
Moved by R. Haering, seconded by J. Walkley,
"It is recommended that the Senate of Simon
Fraser University endorse in principle a
procedure for accrediting colleges. (Part
J. Ellis Indicated that he had commented at some length in his
general remarks on the procedure envisaged. G. Sperling still considered
that the procedure was vague and wished to know what would be likley
.
to
occur if the Academic Board indicated a course should be accredited but
a department of the university indicated that it should not. The Chair-
man suggested that the Academic Board would examine all courses, offered
in all the colleges In British Columbia, and would provide a listing Of
those courses that were of university level, but would make no reference
as to the specific equivalenc.ies offered by a given university. The
listing of courses would be presented to the departments, which would
indicate those deemed equivalent, those in an area not directly equivalent
and so forth. The Chairman further noted as there is provision in upper
level semesters for a student to include certain lower level courses in
• ?
fulfilment of requirements, that some considerable flexibility existed.
It was noted that as discrepancies become wider and wider there would of
course be greater and greater' difficulty. G. Sperling referred to the
four-year principle under which a student would normally be expected to
get a degree in fouryears, and the Chairman indicated that there were
certain restrictions and that there would not necessarily be direct
transference of full years to match full years.
9 - ?
S.M. 6/5/69
J. Hutchinson indicated that his reservations would be removed if
he were certain that the Academic Board would arrive at its initial
listing through the processes suggested by Dr. Ellis by adequate utili-
zation of the subject sub-committees He requested that the letter
from the Academic Board be read in this connection, and this was done.
W. Williams noted that in effect the Board had indicated willingness
to carry out a feasibility study, but that there was not assurance that
the proposed procedure could come to fruition. W. Williams was further
concerned lest the Academic Board indicate not only courses of the
university level, but that it indicate that such and such a course at
the college is the equivalent of a course at Simon Fraser University.
J. Ellis indicated that the procedure proposed did not follow that form,
but that the Academic Board would be expected to identify those courses
considered being offered at a university level, and that such courses
should normally carry transfer credit. The specific decision as to
whether or not direct course equivalency would be given would be one
referred to the departments, allowing for decision as direct equivalents,
• ?
subjeèt area equivalents and unassigned credit. He further noted that
one of the difficultieshad been the lack of willingness of the university
to accept courses from the colleges with the result that little substantive
information was available. The new procedures were expected to provide
that a feedback was available. The new procedures were expected to
provide a feedback mechanism which could be of value both to the university
• ?
and the colleges.
.K. Burstein was concerned with page 12, item 4, and noted that it
was proposed to agree to accept and act upon the information provided by
the Academic Board unless it can be shown to be in question, and felt
that this was not a sufficiently clear-cut procedure. He was of the
opinion that if Simon Fraser signed onto these principles, the other
universities should do so. He also was concerned with the matter of
accreditation and recognition of courses from other jurisdictions.
J. Ellis indicated that in the United States there are accrediting
agencies and that appropriate data can be obtained, but there was further
provision for utilization of the principle of utilizing evaluations from
a leading university in the particular region. K. Burstein felt that if
the Admissions Board was being charged with utilization of this type of
data and making decisions on accrediting, it could do similarly for B.C.
colleges.
W. Williams again indicated his reservations on the capability of the
Academic Board at the present time to adequately carry out the functions
proposed.
L. Boland noted that earlier J. Ellis had referred to the possibility
of transferring course work in Fine Arts, and commented that the fact
credit transfer might be refused might arise from decision that this
university did not deem it to be an appropriate university level study.
• Vote was then under taken on Recommendation No. 2.
• ?
•
?
• ?
MOTION CARRIED
• ?
12 in favor
2 opposed
2 abstained
1-ff
- 10 -
?
S.N. 6/5/69
4. RecommendatiOn No. 3
Moved by R. Haering, seconded by J. Walkley,
"It is recommended that the Senate of Simon
Fraser University request the Academic Board
to inform the university 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. (Part B)."
K. Rieckhoff referred
to
previous discussion which had included
aspects which would pertain to item 3. He had been of the opinion that
the Academic.Board would indicate university level courses and also the
type of credit which would be allocated, but he now understood that the
Board would provide a general statement as to level, but that it would
not make specific recommendations regarding Simon Fraser courses., direct
Or indirect equivalent, 'and wished to know
.
whether he was correct In.
that interpretation, to which an affirmative answer was given.. J. Ellis
referred to Recommendation No. 6.
G. Sperling enquired as to how the subject committees, to which
reference had been made, were selected, as to
.
the frequency of meetings
• ,
?
and as to whether or not it was Intended that they would meet more..
frequently. D. Tuck responded, noting that a number of the disciplines
had held meetings and that much of the preliminary work had been set in
motion through a meeting convened at the Academic Board held in December.
He noted that the Chemistry group had met again recently.
L.
'Boland expressed the view that if the Academic Board identified
courses such as Fine Arts, as being at the university 'level, it would
still not resolve the problem as to what action Simon Fraser University
'should take concerning the course.,
P. Sullivan commented on the question which had been raised 'by K.
Rieckhoff. and the response thereto, as he had believed It had
, been the
intent to have the Academic Board Indicate subject equivalents, etc.
Under 'certain conditions he believed this would be a logical thing for
the subject committees to participate in. However, as currently
expressed, he felt that the.proposedprocedure would not dO a great
deal more than make information more accessible and better disbursed
within the public, since the matter of Simon Fraser course ,equivalents
would still be a departmental prerogative. He commented that under
Recommendation 8 - unassigned credit in a subject area - that this
matter was a faculty responsibility, and that the faculty would have
to determine whether or not It approves' transfer credit, for example
in
,
Fine Arts
,
, toward the Arts degree. He was still not cleat as to
who would make the decision and felt that difficulties could arise.
J. Ellis referred to the protective mechanisms as outlined under
transfer credit on page 25, noting that a student seeking admission with
transfer credit is advised that he must 'meet the,general and specific
requirements of the faculty and departments in which he chooses to major.
/-
IQ
- 11 -
? S.M. 6/5/69
K. Burstein believed the issue unclear, as it was understood that
the Board would assess courses as being college level transferable
courses and that under the report all transferable courses would be
transferred in total, with the amount of credit to be divided among
three categories. J. Ellis noted that this was correct, but that the
items could not be read without looking at the totality of the report,
and that in some instances, particularly where a student changes fields,
some of the transfer credit would not apply to the particular degree
being sought.
Further questionwas raised by K. Burstein concerning courses such
as Fine Arts, Italian, with enquiry as to the sub-committee that might
give consideration to these. J. Ellis indicated that one of the premises
of the report was that a student's experience with an Institution of
higher learning is more than the sum total of the number of courses that
he had, and that if the student had attended a
repUtable,institution
and
does university level work, presumably he should have some recognition
for that. He was of the opinion that because some areas of human know-
ledge, generally recognized as being reputable at a university level, are
not taught at this
'
institution,' did not seem to be sufficient reason for
failure to recognize the worthwhile experience undertaken elsewhere
insofar as the granting of credit is concerned.
J.
Hutchinson considered that the item in its present form should be
• ?
defeated, as it could lead to blanket accreditation of virtually every
existing course in every academic transfer program from the regional
colleges in the province.
Vote was then undertaken on Recommendation No. 3.
NOTION CARRIED
10 in favor
5 opposed
2 abstained
K.
Burstein requested that his negative vote be recorded.
5. Recommendation No. 4
Moved by R. Haering, seconded by J. Walkley,
"It is recommended that the Senate of Simon
Fraser University agree to accept and act upon
the information referred to in Recommendation 4
until or unless it can be shown to be in question.."
L.
Boland suggested that the item not be passed, as it provides
for only two options, namely acceptance or rejection. He was of the
opinion that there should be provision fOr an intermediate position
of acceptance with limitations.
D. Sullivan suggested that it was desirable that further considera-
tion be given the mechanisms, particularly of those pertaining to un-
assigned credit and equivalencies. He also felt it desirable to wait
until the Academic Board indicates that it has completed its feasibility
I-//
- 12 -
?
S.M. 6/5/69
study. He was in agreement in principle but was concerned about the
methods.
Vote was then undertaken on Recommendation No. 4.
MOTION CARRIED
9 in favor
6 opposed
1 abstained
6. Recommendation No. 5
Moved by R. Haering, seconded by J. Walkley,
"It is recommended that the Senate of Simon
Fraser University agree with the principle
that a student should be able to complete a
four-year degree in approximately four
academic years, whether or not he commences
his studies at this university, provided
that: (Part C)
5.1 he maintains a satisfactory level of achievement ?
in full programs of university level studies.
5.2 he spends at least the last two years of his
degree program at the university.
5.3 he does not change his academic objectives.
5.4 he has made a reasonable effort to complete
prerequisites of lower division work for his
chosen program during his first two years of
study."
J., Ellis spoke briefly and noted that much of the material had
been covered in earlier comments. If a, student starts to major, for
example, in Fine Arts, but does 'two years in that study and then trans-
fers to Simon Fraser University for a B.A. In English, he obviously
could not satisfy condition No. 5.3, as his academic objectives have
changed. Similarly, he has to meet the requirements, general and
specific, of both department and faculty. The principle Is one of
completing a four-year degree in approximately four years, subject
to the conditions noted.
S. •Wassermann noted that an individual is expected to undertake
the last
,
two 'years of his work here, but that on page 25 there is
provision for an exceptional case. J. Ellis noted that a number of
individuals had raised questions on this item, and that indeed page 25
was to provide for very unusual cases.
•
?
?
, K. Rieckhoff noted that he was in general agreement with these
suggestions, but that he saw certain practical difficulties in applica-
tion, and that in a number of cases it would not be possible for an
individual to finish his degree in four years if certain items are
lacking that are specifically required by department or faculty.
'-Ia
- 13 -
?
S.M. 6/5/69
D. Sullivan was concerned at the lack of specific means for making
it clear to a student where the responsibility lies as to how the non-
direct equivalent credits would apply. He was hopeful that more clari-
fication would arise. J. Ellis suggested that Recommendation 10 might
take care of a number of these matters, with the understanding it
would be necessary to make widely known the fact that a student intend-
ing to major in certain subject fields might be expected to enroll as a
freshman in the university If there are obvious difficulties of transfer
credit in the particular discipline.
Vote was then under taken on Recommendation No. 5.
MOTION CARRIED
9 in favor
2 abst.ined
7. Recommendation No. 10
Moved by R. Haering, seconded by J. Walkley,
"It Is recommended that the Senate of Simon
Fraser University request the Undergraduate
Admissions Board to inform Senate of major
and honors programs in which the principle
agreed
to in recommendation 5 appears diffi-
cult to meet. (Part C)."
MOTION CARRIED
13 in favor
AflTn1TRNMr1r
It was suggested that another special meeting be held. It was moved
by S. Wong,. seconded by C. Sperling that the meeting adjourn.
MOTION CARRIED
7 in favor
6 opposed
1 abstained
The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
H. M. Evans
Secretary
0
DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SENATE OF SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY HELD
?
FRIDAY, MAY 9, 1969 IN THE FACULTY LOUNGE AT 9:55 A.M.
SPECIAL MEETING - THE ELLIS REPORT (CONTINUED)
• ?
OPEN SESSION
Present: ?
Strand, K. T.
?
Chairman
Baird, D. A.
Boland,.L. A.
Burstein, K. R.
Srivastava, L. M.
Haering, R. R.
Okuda, K.
Rieckhoff, K. E.
Stratton, S. T.
Sullivan, D. H.
Walkley., J.
Wassermann, S.
Williams, W. E.
Wong, S.
Evans, H. N. ?
Secretary
Barboza,J. ?
Recording Secretary
Collins,. E. ?
Recording Secretary
?
Absent: ? Branca, A. E.
Cole, R. E.
Collins, M..
Conway, J.
Dampier, J. L.
B.
Ellis, A. J.
Hamilton, W. N.
• ?
S
?
Harper, R.J.C.
?
• ?
Mean, A.F.C.
• ?
Hutchinson, J. F.
• ?
Koerner, 0.
Korbin, D.
•
?
Lachlan, A. H.
?
•
?
•
?
•Lett, S.
• ?
MacKinnon, A; R.
• ?
McLean, C. H.
Perry,
G. N.
?
•
?
S
?
S
?
• ?
Shrum, G. N.
• S ?
• ? Sperling, G. B.
Tuck, D. G.
Vidaver, W. E.
?
. ?
5
i.-I
- 2 -
?
S.M. 9/5/69
CONTINUATION OF CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ELLIS REPORT
8. Recommendation No. 6
Moved by R. Haering, seconded by J. Walkley,
"It is recommended that the Senate of Simon
Fraser University empower the Undergraduate
Admissions Board to seek from academic depart-
ments a listing of course equivalencies related
to lower division courses and programs offered
in the several institutions of higher learning
in. the province. (Part C)."
J. Ellis indicated that the intent of Recommendation 6 was to set
up the necessary conditions for the Registrar's Office to deal with the
students' transfer of credit and that the purpose of approving 6 would
be to make 'possible the implementation of Recommendation 8.1. It
envisages preparation of a master list which would indicate for the
colleges and the university whether a course carries course equivalent
credit, subject area credit, or unassigned credit - if credit at all.
• ?
W. Williams referred to the amendment proposed by the Senate
•
?
Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Standings since, in his' view,
•
?
,there was not enough distinction between credit and standing in
Recommendation 6. A clarification and expansion of terms and intent is
desirable.
D. Sullivan indicated that he agreed with the principle but not
with the language and felt ,that before the item was passed there need
be much more explicit terminology, as he was fearful that with the
present wording there could be considerable argument at a later date
over the intent.
L. Srivastava indicated that he supported the intent of the section
but believed that the wording required modification.
Further discussion was undertaken with explanation by J. Ellis
and additional questioning.
Vote was then undertaken on Recommendation No. 6.
MOTION FAILED
The Chairman indicated that Section 6 would be set aside for sub-
sequent modification and consideration.
.9. Recommendation No. 7
•
?
' ?
' ?
Moved by R. Haering, seconded by J. Walkley,
"It is recommended that the Senate of Simon
Fraser University empower the Registrar to
award transfer credit up to a maximum of 60
semester hours for university level courses
2#2#
- 3 - ?
S.M. 9/5/69
so designated by the Academic Board or
analogous agencies. (Part C)."
J.
Ellis commented on the intent of No.; 7 and its relationship to
other sections of the report. He had envisaged that when a student
entered university there would be a number of preliminary steps taken
that were routine and that these would then move the student towards
his major department in terms of making certain that the student had
necessary prerequisite study for undertaking majors and the like. As
a part of the routine process the departments would have given con-
siderable direction to the Registrar through Recommendation No. 6 but
follow-up would be expected. No. 7 would empower the Registrar to award
transfer credit that the student carries with him on subjects which
have been seen as the equivalent of university level studies, to a
maximum, of 60 semester.hours, but that the awarding of such hours may
or may not mean a shortening of the degree, with this then moving into.
the departmental area of concern.
• .
?
?
D.
Sullivan commented on his reservations on the process described.
?
He envisaged that the university would get information from the Academic
Board, and generate a list of courses by submitting them to the depart-
ments for a statement of which courses are equivalent and which ones
have acceptable area credit. He was concerned,however,over the matter
of the residual credits beyond the specific equivalents and the accept-
able area requirements. that departments might accept, and that it was
.
?
?
up to the Faculty of Arts, or other Faculties, to identify those courses
?
which might be acceptable towards the particular degree beyoüd those
in the specific and area fields. In particular, the Faculties of the
university would have to say how much of the unassigned credit is to
be applied to each of the degrees. He considered that there should be
deferment on Items 6,
7,;
8
and 9 until the mechanisms could be spelled
out.
L.
Roland expressed concern that through the provision of Recom-
mendation No.4 it was necessary to review Items 8.2 and 8.3 carefully
as otherwise the university in effect could be giving a British Columbia
degree rather than a Simon Fraser University degree.
R. Haering indicated that he wished to speak in favor of Recom-
mendation No. 7 and against the arguments raised by D. Sullivan as he
believed that prOcedures suggested might be somewhat better but not
greatly better than the procedures which have previously existed. He
was of the opinion, that appropriate use of Recommendation 4 would
provide the protection being sought.
L. Srivastava spoke in favor of Item 7 and 'did not believe it
would create the difficulties suggested by D. Sullivan. Further con-
sideration might be necessary under Item 8 and'9.
K.
Okuda saw no difficulty with Item 7, but was concerned about
the transfer of credit'from Institutions outside the Province of
British Columbia. He did not believe that D. Sullivan's suggestions
could be applied in terms of outside transfer courses without encounter-
ing significant difficulties.
- 4 -
?
S.M. 9/5/69
W. Williams indicated general agreement with D. Sullivan, al-
though he concurred with K. Okuda that it would not be appropriate
to invoke Faculties and a number of other agencies directly in a
number of these decisions. He was convinced that it was necessary
to more precisely word the section dealing with unassigned credit.
S. Stratton believed that Section 7 should be approved, par-
ticularly in principle, and that if it was necessary to add something
further along, that thiscould be adequately done.
J. Ellis noted that it' had been necessary tomake recommendations
without knowledge as to what an independent Faculty might do In an
area of unassigned credit. He drew attention to page 25 and its
conjunction with Recommendation 10 on page 17, as follows:
"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 transferred
hours."
He presumed 'that departments and faculties would be more definitive
in the statements that they would make concerning transfer credit.
Vote was undertaken on Recommendation No. 7.
MOTION CARRIED
• ?
,
?
10 in favor
1 opposed
1 abstained
10. Recommendation No. 8
Moved by R. Haering, seconded by J. Walkley,
"It is recommended to the Senate of Simon Fraser
University to request the Registrar' to designate
all transfer credit under these headings: (Part C)
8.1 Simon Fraser University course equivalents.
• • ?
, •
?
8.2 Unassigned credit in a subject area.
8.3 Unassigned credit.
• ?
' ?
The sum of these three should be equal to total
hours granted by the transferring institution
• ?
•
?
for the student's transferable courses."
J. Ellis indicated that Section 8 is assigned to provide a
• mechanism in which the Registrar would examine the transferable'
• courses and categorize them Into three groups. He noted
,
that the
- 5 -
?
S.M. 9/5/69
0 ?
Undergraduate Admissions Board was concerned about the wording of the
last sentence in Recommendation 8, that the Advisory Committee had
spent an hour trying to word that particular sentence and that none
were happy when the item was completed, but that there had been agree-
ment upon the Intent. He further noted that It has been accepted by
the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Standings which
had proposed an amendment on the intent that, for example 37 transfer-
able hours equals 37 Simon Fraser University hours. He considered
that the amendment of the Undergraduate Admissions Committee also
embodied certain difficulties In wording. Nevertheless, there had
been overall agreement on intent.
W. Williams enquired as to whether the reference to the principles
of transferable credit pertained only to B.C. Institutions or to other
agencies. J. Ellis indicated that the Intent was also to pertain to
other areas and drew attention to the references which had been made
to analogous agencies elsewhere. He referred to pages 13 and 14 of the
report.
W. Williams commented upon the variations that can arise from
area to area, and J. Ellis indicated that problems did exist but that
reference to the recognition given by a leading Institution in the
area could help to overcome some of these difficulties.
L. Boland indicated that the procedures were still-not clear and
. ?
that the Registrar had now been empowered to grant up to 60 semester
hours without clarity of procedures.
R. Haering suggested that at this stage commitment was being made
only to one specific transferring agency, the Academic Board of
British Columbia. He was of the opinion that the other references
were perhaps purposely vague so that some control might be maintained.
From this standpoint the prime intent, since most students were from
British Columbia agencies, was to establish specific recommendations
concerning transfers within the province.
K. Okuda was of the opinion that there was re-argument of
Recommendations 6 and 9 instead of Recommendation 8, and that he was
of the belief that Item 8 presented merely a mechanism.
D. Sullivan disagreed that Item 8 represented a mechanism only
and commented that the last sentence of Item 8 represented a principle.
He did not consider it possible for the Registrar's Office to write
across the world for data and that appropriate mechanisms would be
necessary to seek advice within the university on a number of Items.
J. Walk.tey considered that the important words are 'student's
transferable courses' and that it was his assumption that If a course
is acceptable, the hours carried by the course would be transferable.
.
?
?
S. Wong indicated, that in the Advisory Committee there had been
considerable discussion on this point and that the intention was to
ensure some mechanism of calculating the amount of credits' which
would be given at Simon Fraser University, basically to ensure that
it would neither be given too much nor too little.
- 6 -
?
S.M. 9/5/69
K. Burstein believed that these items had to be spelled out in
greater detail.
J. Ellis indicated that in view of the items currently passed
reference primarily was to the use of the Academic Board within
the province as an accrediting agency, but that over a long term he
expected use of the principle of reference to a leading university
in a given locality to provide data on the basis of which appropriate
decisions could be made.
Vote was then undertaken on Recommendation No. 8.
MOTION CARRIED
6 in favor
5 opposed
1 abstained
11. Recommendation No. 9
Moved by R. Haering, seconded by J. Walkley,
• ?
"It is recommended that the Senate of Simon
Fraser University request the Undergraduate
• ?
Admissions Board to issue guidelines to
•
?
departments in an effort to ensure that a
student's program will not become unneces-
sarily attenuated either by the requirement
of repetitive lower division courses or by
the requirement of a number of lower division
hours significantly in excess of minimum
department requirements. (Part C)."
J.
Ellis suggested that there was some confusion in the understand-
ing of the Intent of Recommendation 6 and Recommendation 9. It was
intended that Recommendation 6 specify certain courses as SFU course
equivalents and that in large measure this decision would rest with
individual departments. Recommendation 9, however, assumes that certain
earlier events have transpired including the admission of a student
with a certain number of transfer hours, including perhaps a number of
unassigned hours. He was of the opinion that the Admissions Board
should Issue guidelines.within the spirit of page 15. and that the middle
paragraph on page 15 represents a direction to departments to examine
the unassigned credits in the area that the student has, to determine
whether these might offer alternatives of the same kind to particular
topics thatare seen as necessary lower division prerequisites for the
student. In those cases where transfers were difficult No. 10 would
become operative and students could be informed of overall difficulties.
K.
Okuda was concerned with the suggestion that the Undergraduate
• ?
Admissions Board issues guidelines and did not consider that these
could be beyond the general guidelines contained in the report in the
sections already passed. To suggest more specific guidelines could
lead to the Undergraduate Admissions Board admonishing individual
departments for treating a particular student badly. He considered
that Item 9 should be defeated but that Item 10 could be the method
2i
- 7 -
?
S.M. 9/5/69
whereby Senate would be informed as to areas where major difficulties
arise consistently such that further consideration could be given to
seek appropriate solution.
W. Williams was of the opinion that it would be illogical and
inconsistent to have defeated Recommendation 6 but to then pass
Recommendation 9. He did not consider that there was sufficient dis-
tinction between credit and standing.
D. Sullivan spoke against Recommendation 9 and rejected the point
of view expressed by J. Ellis concerning Item 4 on page 15 of the
report, as he considered it the responsibility of the university to
set its own programs and not to assume responsibility because of
Inability of other Institutions to offer programs which dovetail.
S. Stratton suggested that Recommendation 9 is one primarily for
improving communication through the Admissions Board distributing in-
formation and suggesting guidelines.,
K. Burstein considered that the issuance Of guidelines to depart-
inents, especially with respect to program
reqUIreinentè
and course
structure, could have very serious consequences Such guidance should
come from Senate and should not be delegated to áñother' body. He did
not consider that the other body would have competence to carry out
the proposal adequately..
J. Walkley believed the proposal appropriate because of the diffi-
cülty
In obtaining
data from departments and felt that Item 10
provided a further appropriate feature.
J. Ellis concurred that there should be no attempt to adjust the
university's academic line to the stringencies placed upon regional
colleges but believed that guidelines could be well issued under the
suggestions made on page 15 He drew attention to the paper circulated
earlier by D. Sullivan and believed that it reflected the spirit intended
in 'Recommendation 9.. The intent was not to indicatecompulsory action
but to solicit information to facilitate the overall process. Recom-
mendation 10 would be utilized where necessary to inform a college that
the particular kind of work undertaken in certain areas' would not
represent an acceptable start upon a major program for a student con-
templating transfer to Simon Fraser University.
Vote was then undertaken on Recommendation No. 9.
MOTION FAILED
4 in favor
7 opposed
1 abstained
It was noted that this item would be set aside for further con-
sideration 'and amendments at a later meeting.
12. Recommendation No. 12
Moved by R. Haering, seconded by J. Walkley,
-8-
?
S.M. 9/5/69
"It is recommended that the Senate of Simon
Fraser University adopt the proposed Statement
on Admissions and Transfer. (Part E)."
J. Ellis
noted that Recommendation 12 was a long and complicated
recommendation. He considered that the recommendation represented a
series
of rules growing out of a number of the policies earlier con-
sidered, rather than policies within themselves. He noted that the
principle of parallelism had been used througout the section and
commented on a number of the elements of parallelism.
He considered that retention of parallel treatment of parallel
groups was a particularly important element in the report.
The Chairman indicated that he would undertake a straw vote and
that if there was
indicatiOn
the section would not pass, individuals
could speak before the actual vote is put. The straw vote suggested
the section would not pass.
• Discussion was undertaken as to the possibility of considering
the sub-sections item by item, but in view of the earlier procedures
adopted, it was agreed that this would not be an appropriate time to
follow that procedure.
• ?
Vote on Recommendation 12 was then undertaken.
MOTION
FAILED
1 in favor
9 opposed
2 abstained
It was noted that Recommendation 12 would be set aside for consider-
ation and possible amendments at a later meeting.
13. Recommendation No. 13
Moved by R. Haering,.seconded by
J.
Walkley,
"It is recommended that the Senate of Simon
Fraser University endorse the Statement on
Continuance, Withdrawal and Re-admission.
(Part F)."
J. Ellis
noted that the committee had a great deal of difficulty
with the particular section for a number of technical reasons and
that the recommendations put forward represented currently existing
policy. ,
He noted further that Recommendation 13 interacts closely
with the considerations of Recommendation 12 and suggested that
Recommendation 13 be deferred.
Vote was undertaken on Recommendation 13.
NOTION FAILED
11 opposed
1 abstained
- 9 -
?
S.M. 9/5/69
The Recommendation will be considered at a later meeting.
14. Recommendation No. 14
Moved b3 R. Haering, seconded by J. Walkley,
"It is recommended that the Senate of Simon
Fraèer University request the Admissions
Board to continue the practice of the Senate
Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and
Standings in reviewing
the cases of students
with low records of achievement. (Part F)."
J.
Ellis indicated that the present Admissions Committee had
carried out this particular task with considerable conscientiousness
and that a similar review in future was. desirable.
S. Wong suggested, that the committee might also consider the
records of students with high academic standing.
K.
Burstein concurred that review of 'records was necessary but
believed that a more efficient procedure was required to remove the
current awkwardneSs.
D. Sullivan enquired as to whether the intent was to have the same
. ?
' ?
process as at present continued and J. Ellis' indicated that the intent
was that records be examined without stipulating the specific method.
W. Williams considered it necessary to have examination of a
number of individual cases and did not believe that a computer could
carry out the operation adequately.
K. Rieckhoff believed that the comments made indicated there was
lack of clarity and that there should be clarification, or the
section defeated.
Vote was undertaken on Recommendation 14.
MOTION CARRIED
8 in favor
3 opposed
1 abstained
15. Recommendation No. 15
Moved by R. Raering, seconded by J. Walkley,
"It is recommended that the Senate of Simon
Fraser University encourage the Admissions
Board to foster the systematic development
.
?
of procedures for admitting and ensuring the
academic success of Special Entry Students.
(Part G)."
2-
- 10 -
?
S.M. 9/5/69
J Ellis spoke to the item and indicated that he could concur
with the suggestion of the Undergraduate Admissions Board that the
sub-division of the three categories of special early admissions,
early entry and. mature entry is probably preferable to the continua-
tion of the rather awkward expressions which have been used. The
intent is to palce the responsibility for the very important groups
clearly in somñe's hands. The recommendation is to examine more
clearly what is involved, to develop procedutes for admitting groups
and making certain that there are procedures available to support
groups that may need additional assistance.
Vote was undertaken on Recommendation 15.
MOTION CARRIED
10 in favor
1 abstained
16. Recommendation No. 16
Moved by R. Haering, seconded by J. Walkley,
"It is recommended that the Senate of Simon
Fraser University approve in principle a program
of course challenge. (Part ."
J. Ellis iñdicatéd that the intent of Recommendation 16 is to
recognize a particular fact of social living today and that it is
not intended to force the practice suggested upon individual depart-.
ments but that In some areas of study departments would be prepared
to recognize that certain students come with knowledge already avail-
able to them.
D. Sullivan supported the principle strongly but noted that it
would be necessary that appropriate procedures be developed.
W. Williams supported the, principle but, wondered if there was
implicit a suggestion' of retroactivity. J. Ellis Indicated that the
intent of No. 16 is to gain an approval of the suggestion and that
Recommendation 17 will provide ,f or development of procedures. He
concurred that.it was necessary to draw safeguards and that these
should be developed clearly and specifically.
S. Wassermann enquired as to why the course 'challenge should be
limited 'to 5 courses and J. Ellis indicated that this was simply
indicative of what the nature of a system of course challenge might
be.
Vote was undertaken on Recommendation 16.
MOTION CARRIED
13 in favor
The Chairman wished the minutes to show that the vote was
unanimous.
- 11 -
?
S.M. 9/5/69
17. Recommendation No. 17
Moved by R. Haering, seconded by J. Walkley,
"It is recommended that the Senate of Simon
Fraser University instruct the Undergraduate
Admissions Board to develop with interested
departments a program of course challenge
and submit the program for Senate approval
before the end of 1969. (Part H)."
D. Sullivan enquired as to whether or not the date was realistic.
The Chairman suggested that the item could be defeated and the date
changed-or, alternatively, that the' date could be left and that if it
is later found impossible to meet the date, report would be made to
Senate.
L. Boland was not satisfied that the Undergraduate Admissions
Board should be asked to undertake the job but considered that it
might be given to another committee.
Enquiry was-made as to whether or not the passing of Recommenda-
tion 17 would automatically include the specific proposals generated
in. Part H of the report. The Chairman indicated that he had earlier
stated that if the principle was approved, a simple organizational
. ?
. . and procedural framework might be developed somewhat as outlined, but
that this was indicative and not binding.
K. Burstein concurred with L. Boland that the Admissions Board
might not be the appropriate body and believed that Senate itself
should give consideration to the item. S. Wong suggested that the
Senate Committee might coordinate the study.
W. Williams was of the opinion that the Admissions Board would
be an appropriate body to undertake action.
R. Haering expressed the view that it might be appropriate to
have
.
a committee undertaking the work.
L.
Srivastava suggested that the Admissions Board would be the
appropriate body.
Vote was undertaken on Recommendation 17.
MOTION CARRIED
9 in favor
5 opposed
18. Recommendation No. 18
Moved by R. Haering, seconded by J. Walkley,
"It is recommended that the Senate of Simon
Fraser University request the Acting President
2.-Il
- 12 -. ?
S.M. 9/5/69
to make provision, as may be possible, for the
academic planning and student advising services
that are presently lacking or deficient. (Part
I)."
• J. Ellis indicated that Recommendations 18 and 19 go together
and constitute a request to the President to examine the area of
student advising and the additional area of provision of information
upon which Senate can do adequate planning.
Vote was undertaken on Recommendation 18.
NOTION CARRIED
11 in favor
1 abstained
19.
Recommendation No. 19
Moved by R. Haering, seconded by J. Walkley,
"It is recommended that the Senate of Simon
Fraser University request the Acting President
to undertake or cause to be undertaken a study
designed to bring about a better articulation
of the various university services that are
related to admissions, standings and credits.
• ?
(Part I)."
Vote was undertaken on Recommendation 19.
MOTION CARRIED
11 in favor
1 abstained
20.
Recommendation No. 20
Moved by R. Haering, seconded by J. Walkley,
"It is recommended that the Senate of Simon
Fraser University. agree that students enrolling
for the first time at the University in
September 1969 be governed by new policies on
Admissions, Credits and Standings, providing
that agreement is reached on all necessary
aspects of the policies by no later than May
15,. 1969. It
is.
understood that all existing
policies and procedures will remain in force
unless specifically amended or revoked until
they are superseded by the new policies and
• ?
procedures. (Part J)."
J. Ellis described the rationale behind the dates suggested but
noted that there had been some delay in the matter coming before Senate
•
?
and that Recommendations 12 and 13 had not yet been approved and that
there were other areas now requiring clarification.
- 13 -
?
S.M. 9/5/69
The Chairman enquired as to the number of Senators who would be
in a position to reconvene after luncheon, but response indicated
there would be difficulty in developing a quorum.
K.
Rieckhoff considered it almost impossible to follow the sug-
gested timing and believed that implementation for September might be
difficult if not impossible.
D. Sullivan considered the statement too broad and did not
believe that it could be accomplished by September.
L.
Srivastava suggested a change in procedure and that there ap-
peared to be no great difficulties in Recommendations 21 and 22.
,
He
suggested that consideration be given to Items 21,22 and possible
• 23 and that a small' working group composed of Professor Ellis and
• other interested members of Senate be charged to re-examine the sections
which have not passed and to come back with revised versions on' such
items.
The Chairman 'indicated agreement with the proposal but noted that
Item 23 would not be considered until'all other items had passed.
S. Wong believed that every effort
.
should be made to consider
implementation for September 1969 and that the date of May 15 might be
changed to May 31.
K.
Burstein expressed concern similar to those of Professor
Rieckhoff and was not satisfied that there was great urgency, particu-
larly if items would be passed too hurriedly.
S. Wong enquired as to whether or not it was the Chairman's inten-
tion
'
to reconvene Senate during the current terms of, membership of a,
number of persons, and the Chairman indicated that this was the intent.
Vote was undertaken on Recommendation 20.
MOTION' FAILED
6 in favor
6 opposed
21; Recommendation No. 21
Moved by R. Haering, seconded by J. Walkley,
"It it recommended that the, Senate of Simon
Fraser University empower the present Under-
graduate Admissions Committee to act for the
Admissions Board until the latter is consti-
tuted. (Part 3)."
MOTION CARRIED
9 in favor
2 abstained
- 14 - ?
S.M. 9/5/69
22. Recommendation No. 22
Moved by R. Haéring, seconded by J. Walkley,
t
ilt is recommended that the Senate of Simon
Fraser University empower the present Appeals
Group to act for the Appeals Board until the
latter is constituted. Part 3)."
MOTION CARRIED
8 in favor
3 abstained
• ?
The Chairman indicated that, within the present rules, it would
be necessary for Senate to reconvene at a later stage to consider,
in the following order, Items 6, 9, 12, 13, 20 and 23. He referred
to the.suggestion of L. Srivastava concerning a working group and
requested that persons who have specific written amendments, in
addition to those that have already been suggested, be sent to him
promptly.
He
asked for an indication as to the persons who would
be willing to meet as a Working Committee. He then indicated that
he proposed to meet, following the present session, with L. Boland,
K. Burstein, S. Stratton, L. Srivastava, D. Sullivan and J. Walkley.
• ?
The meeting was recessed at 12:35 p.m. to be reconvened at the
•
?
call of the Chair.
H. N. Evans
Secretary
[]
Ll
.
DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SENATE OF SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY ?
HELD MONDAY, JUNE 9, 1969 IN THE FACULTY LOUNGE AT 7:30 P.M.
OPEN SESSION
?
Present;
?
Strand, K. T. ?
Chairman
Barlow, J. S.
Brown, R. C.
Burstein, K. R.
Campbell, M. J.
Carlson, R. L.
Claridge, R.
W.
Cole, R. E.
D'Aoust, B. R.
Freiman, L.
Hutchinson, J. F.
Kenward, J. K.
Korbin, D.
Lachlan, A. H.
Lebowitz,
N. A.
McDougall, A. H.
• ?
Rieckhoff, K. E.
• ? Sayre, J.
Srivastava, L. M.
Stone, A. L.
Stratton, S. T.
Sullivan, D. H.
Tuck, D. G.
Turnbull, A. L.
•
?
•
?
• ?
Walkley, J.
?
• ?
..
Wassermann, S.
Ellis, J. F.
Evans, H. N.
? Secretary
Kelsey, I. B.
Meakin, D.
Mackie, M.
Day, J.A.P.
Wright,
Barboza,
L.J.)
?
)
.
Recording Secretaries
?
Absent:. ?
..
?
Baird, D. A.
Caple, K. P.
Collins, M.
Drache, S.
.Funt, B. L.
Hamilton, W. M.
Hean, A.F.C.
MacKinnon, A. R.
McLean, C. H.
Perry, G. N.
31
- 2 -
?
S.M. 9/6/69
The Chairman called the meeting to order and outlined the
business before Senate, to consider proposed revisions, additions
and alternative wordings to the Ellis Report on Admissions and
Standings. He informed Senate that the special committee appointed
to study certain parts of the Ellis Report had recommended that their
suggestions be taken in a certain order, as listed on the Agenda, and
that Senate would comply with this.
K. Burstein suggested that Paper S.240-12 be dealt with first, so
that Senate decisions could be implemented before fall enrolment. D.
Sullivan said that implementation was the last factor to be considered
and Spoke against the motion.
Moved by K. Burstein, seconded by A. Lachlan,
"That Paper S.240-12 be dealt with first."
MOTION FAILED
1. PAPER S.240-2 - Notion H or Motion H.l
•
?
J. Ellis introduced Motion H. He said there had been a great
deal of discussion on this motion in committee and he was prepared
to withdraw his proposal in favor of Motion H.1. Senators heard
arguments that,H.l was biased against transfer students and gave
students already in Simon Fraser an advantage,
'
as they would have less
adjustment-to make and their grades would likely be better at first.
Another argument said that in practice the warning system brought
little overall advantage.
?
.
Moved by D. Kor bin, seconded by 3. Kenward,
"That Notion H be adopted."
NOTION FAILED
Moved by-K., Burstein, seconded by D. Sullivan,
"That Motion H.l be adopted."
MOTION CARRIED
Motion H.]. represents a rewording of page 36 of the Ellis Report
- "Statement on Continuance, Withdrawal and Re-admission" as follows:-
"All students, who enter ' the.
,
University are expected .'to'
'
maintain acceptable standards of scholarshipi
?
Specifically,
they are expected to maintain a 2.0 cumulative grade
,
point
average. A student who does not maintain the 2.0 cumulative
average will be considered to be performing less than satis-
factorily in his studies and will be asked to withdraw from
the University, if after a probationary period' he is Unable
to raise his cumulative grade point average
to
or above the
minimal requirement in accordance with the following:
1. A student whose cumulative grade point average (on courses
3-2.
- 3 -
?
S.M. 9/6/69
taken at Simon Fraser University) falls below 2.00
will be placed on academic probation for the next
semester. If, at the end of the probation semester,
the student has not raised his cumulative grade
point average to the minimum 2.00, he will be
required to withdraw. However, if a student on
academic probation obtains a semester grade point
average of 2.50 or higher, he shall be permitted
to continue on academic probation even if his
cumulative grade point average has not reached 2.00.
2.
A student who enters the University in the first or
second year of studies (or who has less than 45 hours
of transfer credit) toward a degree and who does not
in his first term of study at this University receive
a 2.00 average or better will be placed on academic
warning. In his second or subsequent semesters at
this University, he will be treated as in paragraph 1.
3.
A student with a cumulative grade point average of
1.00 or less for two consecutive semesters will be
required to withdraw permanently.
4.
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 received, a grade of C minus or better.
5.
A student who is required to withdraw will be re-
admitted on academic probation after twelve months
have elapsed. Transfer credit for work undertaken
during the twelve month period will be allowed only
if the student has received the express prior approval
of the Admissions Board for work he intends to undertake.
6. A Student who is required to withdraw for a second time
will be required to withdraw permanently. No case of
permanent withdrawal' will be reconsidered for a period
of five years.
7.
Under' exceptional circumstances, the Admissions Board
may waive these conditions for individual cases."
2. PAPER S.240-4 - Notion B,
J. Ellis introduced Notion B and said that this motion would
clarify the situation with regard tomaximum transferable credit.
Moved by L. Srivastava, seconded by K. Rieckhoff,
"That MotiOn B be adopted."
MOTION CARRIED
3.J
- 4 - ?
S.M. 9/6/69
• Under Motion B
It is
stipulated, "That Senate agree that the
maximum credit allowable to a student on transfer is 60 semester
hours." This results In changes on page 25 of the report with
deletion of sentences 2 and 3 - "In exceptional caseS a student
may have undertaken upper level studies at another institution
that are within, and appropriate to the major field he chooses at
this unikersity. If the department in which the student proposes
to major so wishes, it may.request the Dean of the faculty to
petition the Admissions Board to consider granting up to 30 addi-
tional transfer hours of credit for courses taken elsewhere that
replace specific courses on the student's major program."
It results In a further change on page 34, Item 3.4, line 4,
such that 3.4 reads as follows:
"An applicant from a foreign country who seeks admission
with 60 or more semester hours or its equivalent In
subjects acceptable for transfer credit may be considered
for admission and transfer credit
.
iith, the following
provisions: Maimum transfer credit allowed will be 60.
semester hours; studies must have been undertaken at a
fully accredited institution of higher learning; the
studies presented for transfer credit must be acceptable
to a leading university in. his home area toward a program
•
?
similar to the one to which he seeks admission;, and his
cumulative GPA must be 2.0 (C) or higher on transferable
courses
3. PAPER S.240-5 - Motion C or Motion C.l
Introducing Notion C, J. Ellis said that the motion' was aimed at
avoiding anomalies in grade averages that can arise from disallowing
D marks as credits. He said Motion C endeavoured to have transfer
students' D grades viewed in the same way as D grades of Simon Fraser
students are viewed.
Discussion on the floor made the points that disallowing D. grades
from transfer students sets up double standards and' transfer students
would be at a disadvantage against Simon Fraser students. Another
argument, opposing the-motion, said that overall quality should not
be a criterion of granting credit as It is not the criterion by which
course grades are awarded. Another point made was that students are
unlikely to pursue courses in which they have received low grades.
The Faculty of Arts Curriculum Committee opposes granting credit for
D's; the Faculty Of Science supports it.
Moved by L.-Srivastava, and seconded,
?
"That Motion C be adopted."
MOTION CARRIED
15 in favor
6 opposed
3 abstained
1'
5 -
?
S.M. 9/6/69
Under Motion C it is stipulated, "That Senate agree that students
whose averages or cumulative grade points are sufficiently high to gain
them admission to the university should receive transfer credit for all
transferable courses that they have passed with the understanding that
a department may require a student to repeat without credit a course in
which a student obtained a D and which is prerequisite to another course
in the same discipline which the student wishes to undertake."
4. PAPER . S. 240-9 - Motion C
or
G.l
or G.2
According to J. Ellis, Motion C was an attempt to make the note
under 1.2 on page 25 of the original.report more explicit.
Moved by
L.
Srivastava, seconded by K.
Rieckhoff,,
"That Motion C be approved, i.e. That Senate
•
?
approve the revised wording of Section 1.2,
page 25, Admission with Transfer Credit Note
as set forth in Supplementary Paper C."
Substitute motion was made by D. Sullivan, with unidentified
seconder,
•
?
"That Notion G.l be adopted."
D. Sullivan said such adoption would be in line with the policy of
many North 'American universities and was necessary in view of the
"patently absurd" financing situation of B.C. universities. He said
the answer may be to Impose a quota
,
on out-of-prOvince students and
regretted that there were no exact figures available on the present
• , situation. There followed lengthy discussion. Senators considered
what exactly constitutes residence in British Columbia. This would
have to be defined by the University, they.were told. Arguments
stated that discrimination towards out-of-province applicants had already
been passed by Senate.
A. Stone said that there should be a deletion from G.1 of the
portion reading, "and to students who are not residents ofthe"Province
of British Columbia.." Arguments against, this motion stated that .the
passage was necessary in view of the financial pressure on Simon Fraser
University.
Amendment was moved by A. Stone, seconded by N. Campbell,
"That Motion C.1 be amended by deletion of
the final clause of the motion, 'and to
students who are not residents of the
Province of British Columbia."
. ?
.
?
AMENDMENT TO NOTION
G.1'FAILED
Discussion followed on the main motion that
G.l
be adopted.
- 6 - ?
S.M. 9/6/69
Senators regretted that there was not more information on the
subject, so they could judge how various categories of students
made up the student population. Several Senators wished to have
more time for thought on the subject of restricting enrolment.
Question was called on Motion G.1 and a vote taken.
MOTION G.l FAILED
11 in favor
12 opposed,
2 abstained
It was then moved by K. Burstein, with unidentified seconder,
)
"That Motion G.2 be adopted."
K. Burstein said he was in favor of adoption of SACU tests so
the tests could be used as one of several criteria in assessing
candidates. He said this would be of particular advantage to mature
students and that the number of SACU testing stations overseas would
provide a service for foreign applicants.
Some Senators expressed distrust of using results of such tests
in-assessments.' J. Ellis was asked for further information and said
at present the tests were being used for information only and data
. ?
is.
being correlated and àmasàed, so that universities may compare the
tests with students !
performance.. One Senator's comment was that
there may be a danger of bias, perhaps on the basis of class, in the
test, also that the philosophy of Simon Fraser University was that
there should not be standardized criteria. The question of whether
the student would be required to pay the fee for taking the test was
also raised. K. Burstein said the test must become mandatory to be
• ?
eventually useful.
Question was called on the motion to adopt Motion G.2, and a
vote taken..
MOTION G..2 FAILED
5 in favor
16 opposed,
3 abstained
On Motion C, J. Ellis said that the basic decision had already
been passed and the rewording of the note was aimed at making it more
explicit. The aim was tohàve transfer students 'treated the same way as
Simon Fraser students.
K. Burstein suggested deletion of the sentence, "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." He said this passage was misleading to students.
3-.'
- 7 - ?
S.M. 9/6/69
Amendment was moved by K. Burstein, seconded by K. Rieckhoff,
"That the sentence in Motion C commencing,
'Although usually this calculation will be
correct' be deleted."
Question was called on the amendment, and a vote taken.
AMENDMENT FAILED
5 in favor
14 opposed
Vote was then taken on Motion C.
MOTION C. CARRIED
The passage of Motion G causes rewording of the Ellis Report,
page 25, item 1.2.- Admission with Txansfer Credit, as follows:
"1.2 Admission with Transfer Credit
4
Note: The maximum transfer credit that will be, allowed
is 60 semester hours. An applicant seeking
admission with transfer credit is advised that the
courses he transfers, together with those he
'
sub-
sequently 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 transferred 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. Individual departments may
require students to repeat prerequisite courses in
which they have received transfer credit for
,
a D.
The repeated course will show in the student's
record but will not carry credit.
Details of faculty and departmental requirements
can be found, in the calendar and further information
can be obtained from the academic department in
question."
.5. PAPER S.240-3 - Motion A or A.l or A.2
Moved by K. Burstein, with unidentified seconder,
is ?
"That Motion A.2 be approved."
K. Burstein spoke in suppàrt of Motion A.2 1
stressing the importance
of criteria to identify mature students. Another Senator stated that
3--,
- 8 - ? S.M. 9/6/69
criteria as outlined by K. Burstein would not be helpful to mature
students. K. Rieckhoff supported the proposal in A.2 because, he
claimed, there had to be some means of evaluating mature students.
K.
Strand interjected that there would be two votes taken on
Paper A.2, the first dealing with Special Admissions, the second
dealing with Mature Student Entry.
Question was called on A.2 (1.3) Special Admissions, and a
vote taken.
MOTION A.2 (1.3) FAILED
Question was called on A.2 (1.33) Mature Student Entry, and a
vote taken.
MOTION A.2 (1.33)
FAILED.
D. Sullivan then, spoke In support of A.1 and said that the only
way of assessing a mature student is by interview, and discussion so that
the board may decide how his aims relate to his achievements Discussion
showed that Senators felt it was unfair to ask a mature student appli-
cant fora statement of overall alms, as regular students were not
• ?
called upon to decide on enrolment what their final study program
would be. Another view stated was that the mature student was part of
• ? the category where it was accepted that an applicant would not have
had adequate preparation for study.
Moved by D. Sullivan, and seconded,
"That A.l be adopted."
MOTION A.l FAILED
Moved by L. Srivastava, with unidentified seconder,
"That Senate approve the rewording of 1.3,
pages 29-31, under Recommendation 12,
Part E as given in the paper entitled
'Supplementary Paper A' (Revised)."
MOTION A CARRIED
This motion results in the rewording of the Ellis Report, pages
29-31, Section 1.3, Special Admissions, as follows:
"1.3 Special Admissions
S ?
The university is interested in extending university level
learning opportunities to citizens of this province who may
not qualify under the normal categories of admission pro-
viding always that the number of such persons admitted is
3-..',
- 9 -
?
SM. 9/6/69
Ssubject to limitation in accordance with the availability
of university resources. At present the university offers
three types of special entry - Early Admission, Early
Entry and Mature Entry.
1.31 Early Admission is designed for students on the
Academic-Technical Program who are recommended by
their schools following their Grade 12 Easter
exam1natjons,
1.311 An applicant must have demonstrated his
• ?
ability by exceptional academic records
(average of 80% or better) and have shown
mature intellectual development to such an
extent that he would profit from admission
to the university without first securing
Grade 12 standing.
• ?
' ?
1.312 Admission under this category is at the dis-
cretion of the Admissions Board. Inquiries
regarding admission under this category
should be directed to 'the Registrar.
co
m-
1.32 Early Entry is designed,for students' who have
pleted Grade 11 on
thè.,Acadeniic-Technical
Program.
Sections 1.311 and 1.312 also apply to this category
of admission.
1.33 Mature Student' Entry
1.331 A person who is twenty '-five-years of. age or
more or would reach that age during his first
semester in attendance if he were admitted to
the university, and who is
,
not eligible for
admission under another category may apply for
admission.
1.332 Admission under this category Is at, the dis-
cretion of the Admissions Board. The Admis-
sioñs Board must be satisfied that the
applicant has sufficiently clear objectives
in mind that he is likely' to profit from
university studies.. The AdmissiOns Board may,
at-its discretion require áppliáants to take
appropriate tests. Inquiries regarding
admission under this category should be
directed to the Registrar.
6. PAPER S.240-6 - Notion D or D.l
Introducing Notion D, J. Ellis said some definition had been ?
necessary because of the uneveness in the educational system of Canada.
3-i
- 10 -
?
S.M. 9/6/69
Discussion ensued on D.J. Several Senators voiced concern over
varying standards of acceptance of non-university courses as first-
year university work. Examples concerned physics, where Ontario
Grade XIII was judged to be equivalent to B.C. Grade XII, and
British GCE "A" Levels, which were said to be good equivalents of
first year university work. Replying to a question on how leading
universities in other provinces act, H. Evans said that leading
universities had stiffer requirements than those of newer institu-
tions. Leading universities in B.C. accepted Grade XIII from B.C.
high schools and colleges for transfer credit. Leading Ontario
universities had varying policies regarding Ontario Grade XIII
students.
It was pointed out to Senate that within B.C., standards of Grade
XIII work varied, and blanket acceptance of B.C. Grade XIII by the
University would remove Incentive to upgrade the courses in that
grade. J. Ellis said the centralized Department of Education examina-
tions gave a measure of control.
It was moved and seconded,
"That Motion-D.1 (2.1) be adopted."
MOTION D.1 (2.1)
. ?
FAILED
In discussion on D.l (3.1), Senator Sayre commented that some
countries at present under the GCE system were trying to get away
from it and asked permission to make an amendment to the original
report. On a point of order, K. Burstein said this action would not
be consistent with the rules laid down for the meeting. J. Sayre
withdrew his request.
It was moved and seconded,
"That D.1 (3.1) be adopted."
MOTION D.l (3.1)
FAILED
On D.1 (3.3
.
), H. Evans stressed that this was a guideline only
and that the term "senior matriculation" was a very broad term.
It was moved and seconded,
"That Motion D be adopted, i.e.,, 'That Sénáte
agree that transfer credit be awarded for
transferable courses taken in Grade 13 or
equivalent. Grade 13 or equivalent will be
taken to mean Grade 13 in B.C., Regional and
?
.
Community Colleges in B.C., Grade 13 in
Ontario, New Brunswick and Prince Edward
Island, first year of Junior Colleges in, the
United States, Advanced levels or equivalent."
MOTION D. CARRIED
?
3
/ o
- 11 -
?
S.H. 9/6/69
.
.
7. PAPER S.2407 - Notion E
Presenting Notion E, J. Ellis said the intention was to draw
Senate's attention to the transfer students who can be treated in
the same way as students already at Simon Fraser University. The
aim was to lay down ground rules on grade points for various
categories of students.
Moved by D. Sullivan, and seconded,
"That Notion E be adopted, i.e. 'That Senate
agree with the intent of points 1 - 5 inclusive
in Supplementary Paper E, bearing in mind the
intent of the last sentence of Operating Guide-
line 4,
•
page 8."
NOTION
E CARRIED
• It was noted that the following principles were involved
(Supplementary Paper E):
"The Statement on Admissions and Transfer (P24-34) attempts
to treat similar categories of applicants in similar ways.
Remarks made during Senate proceedings and in at least one
circulated paper suggest that the attempts to create a
parallel structure were not fully appreciated. One minor
source of confusion results from attempts to equate grade
point averages and percentages (2.0 = C = 60%; 2.4 = 65%;
3.2 = 75%).
If Senate can agree that certain groups of applicants
should be treated in similar ways, the precise grades for
admission and levels for admission can be determined later.
The following statements express the parallels embodied In
the report (relevant cross references are provided).
1. ?
B.C. Students from Senior Matriculation should
?
1.211,
be admitted and awarded transfer credit on a
?
1.221,
similar basis to students from B.C. Regional
?
1.23
and Community Colleges.
?
. ?
1.241,
1.212
1.222
1.242
.
2.
B.C. students from Senior Matriculation and
Colleges who met university requirements for
admission after
Grade 12 should be treated
differently from S.M. and College students
who did not meet university admission require-
ments after completing Grade 12.
3. Minimum educational level and entering average
for non B.C. applicants should be similar.
4. Requirements for non B.C. applicants who do not
meet the minimum educational level should be
similar.
1.211, 1,221
1,241 should
be different
from 1.212,
1,222, 1,242
2.1, 3.2
2.4, 3.5
- 12 -
?
S.M. 9/6/76
5. Requirements for applicants from other
?
1.24, 2.3
universities should be similar
?
3.4"
8. PAPER S.240-8 - Motion F or F.l
J. Ellis said the adoption of Motion F would reflect existing
policy. This was a difficult area and involved awkward judgments.
The intention had been simply to provide a structure which could be
modified to meet conditloüs.
Speaking to F.1,
,
D. Sullivan
.
said this alternative raised the
percentages in each category by 5%. He said other B.C. universities
were using 65% as a standard and lowering this percentage to 60% if
they had the capacity. He. said he felt it was important that Simon
Fraser University standards should not be below those of other B.C.
universities. British Columbia, he said, had not faced its educa-
tional. responsibilities, with the result that higher education is
not available to those who wish to have it.
Lengthy debate followed.
•
Senate heard views expressed that the
adoption of Motion F would reinforce the public impression that Simon
Fraser was a "second-rate university" and that taking the lower stan-
dard would make it more difficult to attract good students. Several
Senators expressed a wish that this subject could be dealt with at a
future date, when more information was available on the University's
. resource position. Senate was informed by K. Strand that deferring
the issue would hinder-asses sment of applications already being re-
ceived. He was asked to rule FA out of order on the grounds that
there was insufficient information available. The Chairman did not
accept this.
It was argued that it did not
,
follow that raising the percentage
would result in admitting better students. The point was made that
there Is an escape clause in F.1 and that F.l met the present pressure
on the University. A Senator voiced' the opinion that adoption of F
would devalue the Simon Fraser degrees.
D. Korbin, who asked to have his comments noted in the minutes,
said Senate should be talking in educational terms and not in terms
of 'financial pressure confronting the University. He asked if the
University could show more effectively that it was facing a financial-
political problem by adopting a quota system instead of raising
standards, which would give the impression that the problem was educa-
tional.
He said adoption of higher standards would give the University a
class bias, as it would penalize students from less well financed
schools and give an advantage to students from the richer Coast
schools. He said the higher standards would mean that students from
the United States would have to be brilliant, which would indicate
that "the only good draft' dodger is a brillian draft dodger."
3-12
- 13 -
?
S.M. 9/6/76
A. Stone suggested that Pa
p
er F showed a balance, whereas F.1
was not balanced, and requested that D. Sullivan, who had prepared
F.l, accept the same kind of note as was provided on Item 1, - with
appropriate percentage adjustment as applying also to Items 2, 3
9
49
5, 6,7. D. Sullivan concurred and the change was incorporated.
Argument was made that F.1 put the emphasis on the standard of
the student at admission, rather than at graduation. Imagination
could be used to more effectively employ the University's finances -
the tutorial
system
could be dropped to release more money and the
space. problems could be. solved by using existing accommodation out-
side present University hours.
Speaking for
F.l,
the opinion, was given that students who had
higher rates of success elsewhere would be more likely to be success-
ful at Simon Fraser and would therefore improve the quality of the
University's output.
It was moved and' seconded,
"That Motion F be adopted."
•
?
MOTION F FAILED
• ?
11. in favor
• ?
14 opposed
On Motion F.l, with adjustments, the points were raised that if
different faculties adopted different standards of admission, the
implicit philosophy of the University would be changed. It was sug-
gested that F.l be tabled for further thought, and a supporting
argument was that 'adopting it at the meeting would be arbitrary.
Moved by M. Lebowitz, seconded by D. Korbin,
"That F
.
..l be postponed until such time as
Senate has sufficient information on which
to act on limiting enrolment."
MOTION TO POSTPONE
F.l FAILED
8 in favor
12 opposed
On Mbtjon Fl the view was voiced that this motion's intent was
to limit enrolment and 'it preempted the right of the Board of Govêrnórs
to make that decision.
Moved by D. Sullivan, and seconded,
"That Motion F.l be adopted, with appropriate
• ?
changes, i.e. with the note of Item 1 incor-
porated in Items 2 - 7 inclusive."
MOTION F.l AS CHANGED'
CARRIED
13 in favor
10 opposed
- 14 -
?
S.M. 9/6/69
Voters requesting their votes be recorded as opposed to this
motion were Senators Campbell, Claridge, D'Aoust, Freiman, Kenward,
Korbin, Lachlan, Lebowitz and McDougall.
Under this motion Senate adopted grade points, or. averages
needed for admission, with changes in the Ellis Report as required.
(Part E, pages 23 - 34 inclusive are affected.) The intent raises
the averages set forth In the Ellis Report by five percent, on the
understanding that if staff and facilities permit, the average five
percent lower may be applied.
F.1 as changed reads as follows:
1. Applicants from B.C. High Schools
?
65%
(Note: The University may admit applicants
whose standing ranges from 60% to 65%, If
staff and facilities permit.)
2.
Appllcantà from B.C. Senior Matriculation
?
65% or 24
and B.C. Regional and Community Colleges
?
GPA
(Note: The University may admit applicants
whose standing ranges from 607. to 65%, if
staff and facilities permit.)
3.
Applicants from other Canadian provinces
?
70% or 2.8
.
? with Senior Matriculation Standing
?
GPA
(Note: The University may admit applicants
whose standing ranges from 65% to 70%, if
staff and facilities permit.)
4.
Applicants from the United States with
?
70% or 2.8
the equivalent of Senior
,
Matriculation ?
GPA
(Note: The University may admit applicants
whose standing ranges from 65% to 70%, if
staff and facilities permit.)
5.
Applicants from other Canadian provinces
?
80%
with less than Senior Matriculation
standing.
(Note: The University may admit appliôants
whose standing ranges from 75% to 80%, if
staff and facilities permit.)
'
6. Applicants from the United States with less 3.5 CPA
than Senior 'Matriculation standing.
(Note: The University may admit applicants
whose standing ranges from 75% to 80%, if
'staff and facilities permit.)
7. Applicants from other universities (B.C.)
?
65% or 2.4
. ?
(Note: The University may admit applicants
?
GPA
whose standing ranges from 60% to 65%, if
staff and facilities permit.)
- 15 - ?
S.M. 9/6/69
8. PAPER S.240-11 - Motion I or 1.1 or 1.2
Introducing Motion I, J. Ellis said this was an attempt to
have a list of courses in regional and community colleges compiled,
so that the Registrar's Office way process applications for such
courses to be credited in a more routine fashion.
On Addendum 1.1, D. Sullivan said this intended to encompass
courses taught in regional and community colleges but not at Simon
Fraser University.
Responding to a question, J. Ellis Said the final responsibility
for making decisions regarding courses on such a list would be
Senate's.
H. Evans said the subject was giving rise to many problems at
present, as departments sometimes
had
trouble making decisions and
would reconsider their rulings several times.
Arguments against the proposed system were that the trouble in
making decisions was at departmental levels and the proposed changes
in
I did not solve this.
K. Burstein said 1.2 would avoid vacillation.
Moved by K. Burstein, seconded by D. Sullivan,
"Tthat Motion 1.2 be adopted."
MOTION 1.2 CARRIED
14 in favor
5 opposed
6 abstained
This motion deleted the items proposed in Supplementary Papers
I and 1.1, which were not approved.
Moved by K. Burstèln, seconded by N. Lebowitz,
"That the meeting adjourn."
MOTION CARRIED
18 in favor
6 opposed
The meeting adjourned at 1:30 a.m.
.
?
H. M. Evans
Secretary.
J-/4
DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SENATE OF SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
?
HELD MONDAY, JUNE 16, 1969 IN THE FACULTY LOUNGE AT 7:30 P.M.
.
Present:
Strand, K. T.
Baird, D. A.
Barlow, J. S.
Brown, R. C.
Burstein, K. R.
Campbell, M. J.
Carlson, R. L.
Claridge,R. W.
Cole, R. E.
D'Aoust, B. R.
Drache, S.
Freiman, L.
Hutchinson, J. F.
Kenward, J. K.
Korbia, D.
Lachlan, A.
Lèbowitz, M. A.
Rleckhoff, K. E.
Sayre, J.
Srivastava, L. M.
Stone, A. L.
Sullivan, D. H.
Walkley, J.
Evans, H. M.
Kelsey, I. B.
Mackie,. M.
Meakin, D.
Barboza, J. ).
Wright, L. E.)
Chairman
Secretary
Recording Secretaries
Absent: ?
Caple, K. P.
Collins, M.
Funt, B. L.
Hathilton, W. N.
Heañ, A.F.C.
MacKinnon, A. R.
McDougall, A. H.
McLean, C. H.
Perry, C. N.
Stratton, S. T.
Tuck, .D. G.
Turnbull, A. L.
Wassermann, S.
.
'7,.'.,
-2 -
The Chairman called the meeting to
and Amendment to J-1 were distributed.
would be taken in the following ordEr:
if 1-2 failed, Paper J-1 and the amendm
the floor.
S.M. 16/6/69
order. Copies of Motion J-2
The Chairman said motions
Paper J; if J failed, Paper J.-2;
ant to J-1 brought forward from
Dr. Strand
introduced
Mrs. Drache to Senate. He noted that al-
thought Dr. Stone had been present at the previous meeting, he had not
been introduced, and the Chair wished to introduce Dr. Stone.
Moved by K. Rieckhoff, seconded by L. Srivastava,
"That Senator Stone be seated."
MOTION CARRIED
PAPER S.240-12 - Referring to Recommendation 20 of the Ellis Report
Notion J
?
.
Introducing Motion J, K. Burstein said his concern was that Senate
could. be
in the position of passing policies and delegating implementa-
tion with the result that the policies could be radically changed by
the implementing body. This matter required a great deal of discussion
and immediate implementation would be unfair to students.
The Chairman stopped discussion here to discover which SenEtors
wished to speak for or against the motion. At this point, A. Lachlan
asked how the Registrar, H. Evans, felt about approval of J-l.
H. Evans said that his personal view was approval or rejection of
J-1 would give rise to problems. Generally, implementation of the Ellis
Report - given understanding that it could not be expected to work per-
fectly in every case - would give rise to a lesser set of problems than
those encountered without implementation.
Opposing the motion not to implement the Report by the Fall of
1969, a Senator made the point that "fine print" on detailed aspects
could not be made in advance and that it would have to be evolved on
the basis of practical experience. He said that the Academic Board
would provide recommendations, not instructions. Departments were
merely being asked to provide more detailed views on what courses they
choose to accept.
Miss Mackie was asked for views on the feasibility of implementa-
tion of the Ellis recommendations for the September semester. She
said she felt it was not possible to implement the entire Ellis Report
for the fall semester.
The argument was put forward that a cornerstone of the Ellis
Report was that the Academic Board should be the rediting
.
agency on
extra-University courses and it was not possible for that body to
commence this function in time for the fall semester, 1969.
- 3 -
?
S.M. 16/6/69
On the subject of how fall semester applications should be handled
without approval of the Ellis Report recommendations being implemented
for that time, the suggestion was made that departments could
provide
the accreditation lists and where the departments lack competence in a
subject, UBC could be approached for advice. The further point was
made that If this system worked as an interim measure, then there was
no reason why it should not be used as the permanent system, obviating
the need to obtain the services of the Academic Board.
A Senator, speaking in favor of Motion J-1, said it was imperative
that students at
present
entering colleges should know which of the
courses they were contemplating would be acceptable for transfer credit.
The interim procedures of J-1 could guide admissions for the fall
semester.
K. Burstein interposed that Motion J was not intended to preclude
communication between' colleges and the University with regard to trans-
fer credit. Senator Burstein closed debate on Motion J by asking how
Senate proposed to implement the Report if Motion J failed.
Moved by K. Burstein, seconded by K. Rieckhoff,
"That Motion J be adopted."
MOTION FAILED
•
3
in favor
17 opposed
Moved by K. Burstein, seconded byK. Rieckhoff,
"That Motion J-2 be adopted."
MOTION FAILED ?
8 in favor
18 opposed
Speaking for Motion J-1, L. Srivastava said the main merit of
this motion was that it set up criteria to be used as a framework
until the Academic Board commenced its proposed function. It was not
the intention of the Ellis Report that there should be any hastiness
about implementation of its recommendations.
L. Srivastava said that he would accept the amendment to J-1 sub-
mitted from the floor. The amendment was accepted also by the
seconder to the main motion, J. Walkley. These amendments were in-
corporated in J-1 for discussion.
A request by J. Hutchinson for permission to place another amend-
ment before Senate was refused by the Chair.
•
?
?
Replying to a question, L. Srivastava said the University would
only be required to give credit for courses submitted by applicants
4-3
- 4 -
?
S.M. 16/6/69
if that course had been designated acceptable by the Academic Board
or the interim body carrying out the intended function of the Board.
In subsequent discussion, J-1 was criticized on the grounds
that it had been indicated that departments had not always cooperated
over accreditation with the Registrar's office and this motion did not
put pressure on them to do so in future. This problem could be solved
if departments were made responsible for their decisions to
Senate.
J. Hutchinson proposed an amendment to J-l.
Moved by J. Hutchinson, seconded by J. Sayre,
"That J-1, Part If
be amended to read: 'that
until such time as the Academic Board performs
its function (as delineated in Part Band
covered In Recommendations
2, 3, 4), to prepare
on advice of the liaison committees in the
disciplines where appropriate a list of courses
offered by Junior and Regional Colleges in
British Columbia and to decide which of them
are UiUversity level courses."
A Senator expressed the wish that if the accreditation system
could be achieved without the Academic Board's involvement, this
should be done.
L. Srivastava asked for this amendment to be changed to read,
"to prepare a list of courses In consultation with the liaisoü com-
mittees," rather than "onthe advice of the liaison committees."
J. Hutchinson rejected this alteration on the grounds that he did not
have faith
in
the strength of the word "consultation."
Questioners asked J. Hutchinson how binding the advice of the
liaison committees was intended to be under his amendment. He
answered that his intent was that decisions would be made at liaison
committee levels, and therefore the advice would be binding.
The principle of putting such power, in the hands of the liaison
committees was criticized on the grounds that decisions would be made
by majority vote. Agreeing with this, a Senator made the point that
the Senate representation on the liaison committees is a minor factor.
Oft a point of information, J. Hutchinson stated that the liaison
committees consisted.of representatives from the universities and the
junior colleges. He did not feel that voting would be influenced by
institutional politics.
The argument was heard that Simon Fraser University may have
difficulty getting information from the liaison conimittees during
summer, due to its trimester system.
?
- 5 -
?
S.M. 16/6/69
Speaking against adoption of the amendment, a Senator argued
that it could delay implementation of critical policies by not
giving criteria to students entering the University in the coming
fall semester.
Discussion ensued on the possibility of advice, by definition,
being binding and J. Hutchinson said that he used the word in the
sense of "advise and consent."
Moved by M. Lebowitz, seconded by D. Sullivan,
"That the amendment moved by J. Rutchinson
be amended by adding the word 'binding' in
front of the word 'advice."
A Senator said the proposed amendmeüts depended on the existence
of liaison committees for each discipline.
J. Hutchinson said rejection of his amendment would amount to
rejection of much of the Ellis Report. He also made the point that
the Academic Board on any specific day may not contain a representa-
tive from the discipline affected.
Question was called on the amendment to the amendment, and a
vote taken.
AMENDMENT TO THE
AMENDMENT FAILED
8 in favor
13 opposed
.Question was called on the Hutchinson amendment, and a vote
taken.
AMENDMENT CARRIED
15 in favor
8 opposed
1 abstained
The Chairman said that the main motion J-l
.
, with the earlier
incorporated changes and with the .amendment just approved, would be
considered. Replying to a question from the Chair, M. Lebowitz said
the intent of the motion was that if difficulties arise in the
proposed system, then the matter will be
.
brought before Senate.
Discussion followed on the term "unassigned credit." Senate
agreed generally that this was amisleading term.
Moved by J. Sayre, secoidèd by K. Burstein,
. ?
"That J-1 amendment, 2(b), be amended by
deletion of the words 'and unassigned credit."
J. Sayre said he was asking that a list be received that clearly
states where unassigned credit is not given. The students should know
this. ?
.
9-S
- 6 -
?
S.M. 16/6/69
H. Evans said that when a student submits documentation it is not
necessarily clear what area he will eventually be studying
in.
At
present different faculties treat outside courses in different ways
and it seemed unfair that a student should lose credit by changing
departments.
K. Burstein asked if the movers of the motion to delete
"unassigned credit" would consent to the-word "electives"
in
the place
of "unassigned credit." J. Sayre consented, but the Chairman refused
permission for the substitution.
A suggestion from the floor was that the problem could be solved
by a "final degree check" between three and six months before gradua-
tion, when the major objective of the student was clear. The Registrar
would implement this by sending the student a form, setting out the
remaining requirements for the degree.
Opinions were expressed that the amendment failed to accomplish
anything.
Asked to summarize and clarify the intent of'the amendment, J..
Sayre said the motion was to delete the words "unassigned credit" and
replace these words with "and electives."
Moved by J. Sayre, seconded by K. Burstein,
"That J-1 amendment be amended to read '2(b) To
obtain from academic departments and faculties
an Indication of those University level courses
they do not consider acceptable fOr course
equivalent, unassigned credit in a subject area,
and electives."
Asked whether the original motion, J-1, referred to unassigned
credit In a subject area or unassigned credit, the Chairman explained
that the original motion applied to the latter.
B. D'Aoust addressed the chair on a point of order. He said
that an amendment of wording and intent had been accepted by the
Chairman. He added that Senate was unprepared for such a thing and
it should not have been accepted. J. Walkley asked that the amendment
be tabled.
The Chairman said it was perhaps true that he should have ruled
the amendment out of order, but he would not do so.
B. D'Aoust challenged the ruling. J. Campbell seconded the
challenge.
Question was called to support the ruling of the Chair, and a
vote taken.
MOTION FAILED
AMENDMENT OUT OF
ORDER
9-'
-.7 -
?
S.M. 16/6/69
SJ. Sayre gave notice that he intended to bring the amendment
before Senate at the following meeting.
K. Burstein moved that Section 1 of J-1, as amended by Senate,
should be further amended to end "from the discipline and departments
Involved."
J. Hutchinson requested the Chair to rule
K.
Bürstein's motion
out of order on the grounds that the departments were already repre-
sented in the disciplines. The Chairman granted the request and K.
Burstein's motion was ruled out of order.
S. Drache suggested another amendment to J-1 on the grounds that
Senate.was doing the work of the Academic Vice-President.
Moved by S. Drache, seconded by K. Burstein,.
"That J-1 be amended to read, 'That Senate
charge the Academic Vice-President Or a
committee(s) nominated by him with imple-
mentatiOn of the Ellis Report as speedily
as possible. Until such time as a.particular
section is ready for Implementation, Senate
instruct the Registrar to process applications
for admission under the present regulations,
provided
in
so doing there is no obvious
conflict with the intent and principles of
the Ellis Report."
M. Lebowitz asked for this motion to
be
ruled out of order on the
grounds that it contradicted the unamended motion and support of the
amendment could be indicated by voting against the motion. The
Chairman agreed and S. Drache's motion was ruled out of order.
On a point of information, K. Burstein asked that the procedures
would be to determine transfer credit. Replying, L. Srivastava said
that there would be consultation with the disciplinary committees and
faculty.
A. Stone asked to amend J-1 so that the last paragraph would read,
"Until such time as a.particular section is ready for Implementation,
Senate instruct the Registrar to process applications for admission
under the present regulations." He said his suggestion was conditional
on the meeting not being adjourned until the matter was handled.
The Chairman ruled A. Stone's suggestion out of order.
Moved by L. Freiman, seconded by J. Sayre,
"That the previous question be put."
MOTION CARRIED
15 in favor
6 opposed
1 abstained
"-7
- 8 -
?
S.M. 16/6/69
Question was called on Motion J-1 as amended, and a vote taken.
MOTION CARRIED
18 in favor
favor
3 opposed
1 abstained
K. Burstein asked that his opposing vote be recorded.
These motions resulted in the following as related to Recommenda-
tion 20 of the Report:-
"That Senate charge the Academic Vice-President or a.
committee(s) nominated by him with implementation of
the Ellis Report as speedily as possible. In so doing,
the Academic Vice-President or the committee(s) be
asked:
1. that until such time as the academic
BOard
performs
its function (as delineated in Part B and covered
in Recommendations 2, 3, 4), to prepare on the advice
of the liaison committees in the disciplines where
appropriate a list of courses offered by Junior and
Regional Colleges in B.C. and to decide which of them
are University level courses;
2.a) to obtain from academic departments and faculties an
indication of those University level courses which
they consider SFU course equivalent, unassigned credit
in a subject area, and unassigned credit;
b)
to obtain from academic departments and faculties an
indication of those University level courses which
they do not consider acceptable for course equivalent,
unassigned credit in a subject area, and unassigned
credit.
c)
to obtain an explanation from academic departments
and faculties for their decisions in respect
to
those
University level courses considered not acceptable.
d)
to make all information received in accordance with
items 2(a) - 2(c) available to Senate.
3.
to ensure that all necessary fine print is written for
each section or subsection in Part E (Admissions and
Transfer);
4.
To implement the Report in stages if necessary, as each
part becomes complete under #3 and adequate personnel
. ?
is available in the Registrar's Office to ensure its
implementation.
Until such time as a particular section is ready for implem-
tation, Senate instruct the Registrar to process applications
- 9 -
?
S.M. 16/6/69
for admission under the present regulations, provided
in so doing there Is no obvious conflict with the
intent and principles of the Ellis Report."
RECOMMENDATION 23
Senate then passed to Recommendation 23 of the Ellis Report,
"That Senate make a speedy decision on the question of retroactivity."
The Chairman said a motion of "no retroactivity" should be debated
and if this failed Senate could pass to discussion of what degree of
retroactivity was favored.
Moved by D.
Sullivan,
seconded by K. Burstein,
"That there be no retroactivity and that the
implementation of any section of the motion
just passed apply only at the time of intro-
duction with, no retroactivity whatsoever."
B. D'Aoust suggested that Senate go into committee of the whole
and all members state their views, the discussion to end with the
Chairman
After considerable discussion about a point of order on this
matter, it was moved by B. D'Aoust, seconded by J. Kenward,
"That Senate go into committee Of the whole,
debate this issue and end the debate with the
Chairman's remarks."
D. Sullivan asked the Chair to rule this motion out of order
as there was already a motion on the floor. The Chair ruled that
the D'Aoust motion was in order.
Question was called on the D'Aoust motion, and a vote taken.
MOTION FAILED
7 in favor
10 opposed
It was then stated by the Chairman that discussion would follow
on the main motion of no retroactivity and that Senators wishing to
speak for or against should so indicate.
D. Korbin asked that Senate hear the Registrar's opinion on the
recommendation first. The Chairman agreed to this.
Moved by J. Sayre, seconded by L. Stivastava,
"That each speaker on the motion observe a
time limit of two minutes."
MOTION CARRIED
- 10 - ?
S.M. 16/6/69
is
??
H. Evans said the intent of the motion (that new policies should
not be applied retroactively) was that there would be no retroactivity
where a student had already been admitted. However, if an application
was processed before the effective date of implementation but the
student had not yet entered the University, such cases would be con-
sidered. Implementation would be effective from the intake date, not
the application date. Replying to questions, H. Evans said the motion
under debate was the implementation of a) on Page 45 of the Ellis
Report and that, as he understood it, the motion was that implementa-
tion should run from a particular term and cover all the intake for
that term.
Agreeing with the motion, a Senator said that retroactivity would
not be feasible and would create more problems than it would rectify.
In reply to a Senator who asked if adoption of c) on Page 45 of
the Ellis Report ("New policies should be applied retroactively to all
students who petition for review and who can demoüstrate that a review,
if successful, could shorten their degree program") would be an admini-
strative problem, H. Evans said that the recommendation in c) would be
desirable if machinery could be. set up for implementing it. It was a
most difficult problem, as a student who intended to apply for admission
to Simon Fraser University could have been advised to take a particular
course under the pre-Ellis system and could find on admission that the
advice had been incorrect under the Ellis Report.recommendations.
A Senator made the point that the situation could arise where a
student was dismissed from the University, while the recommendation d)
in the Ellis Report did not put a student in jeopardy.
M. Campbell gave notice that he intended to move adoption of c)
after the debate on D. Sullivan's "no retroactivity" motion.
Several Senators voiced views that adoption of retroactivity was
dangerous; one said it may set a precedent that would result in depart-
ments giving credit in one instance and not in another.
Disagreeing, another Senator said that just because retroactivity
would be difficult to implement, that did not mean that it should not
be attempted.
Senate heard the argument that if retroactivity were applied to
credits, it could also apply to degrees.
Speaking against the motion, a Senator said that if it could be
argued that students already admitted to the University knew where
they stood, there could have been no point in undertaking the Ellis
Report. Recommendation c) of the Ellis Report did not hurt any
students and would help many. Agreeing with this viewpoint, another
Senator said it was a principle in law that where a law was changed,
S ?
the new terms were applied to those who would benefit from them but
not those penalized by them.
- 11 -
?
S.M. 16/6/69
.
??
One Senator said that the question should beexámlned in the light
of how it will directly affect the University - adoption of any policy
could result in another sit-in. The problem should be presented to
the students to gain their opinions.
Question was called on the "no retroactivity" motion, and a vote
taken.
MOTION FAILED
11 in favor
11 opposed
0 abstained
J.
Sayre asked to move that Senate consider c) on Page 45 of the
Ellis Report. The Chairman said that the question of retroactivity
turned on implementation and it would be premature to act on implementa-
tion at the meeting. He allowed
J.
Sayre's motion, however.
On a point of order, R. Brown said that M. Campbell had already ?
given notice of motion. M. Campbell then moved that the meeting adjourn.
Moved by M. Campbell, seconded by
J.
Walkley,
"That the meeting adjourn."
• D. Korbin said the Chair had erred by not recognizing the notice
of motion given earlier by M. Campbell and which had now been reduced
to a move to adjourn. The.Chair agreed with this view and disallowed
M. Campbell's motion to adjourn.
Moved by M. Campbell, seconded by J. Kenward,
"That c) on Page 45 of the
Ellis
Report: 'New
policies should be applied retroactively to
all students who petition for review.and who
can demonstrate that ,a review, if successful,
could shorten their degree program' be adopted."
On a point of order,
D.
Sullivan asked to make a procedural motion,
but the Chair refused to recognize this.
Moved by K. Rieckhoff, seconded by K. Burstein,
"That the meeting now adjourn."
MOTION TO
ADJOURN
CARRIED
12 in favor
7 opposed
The meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m.
H. M. Evans
Secretary
v-I,
SUPPORT PAPERS, NOTICES, ETC.
Not complete, but overview.
n
.
0
To :
ALL :'jS C1 SNiE
?
^'rc.:
?
1!. ?
. ?
vms
Sccit:y o
?
t...
c.l(
Subject:
sici:. ?
ET:NG
c
i ? ?
D: A
p
ril 33,
SENAT: TiLS)AY, MAY 6, 1)69
You
o
scheth:lec
to
?
co:
will
ucscLy,
icer
recell
for
th
My
'riiy,
thEt
Ellis
,
?
the
April
Re?ort
Speciel
e
7:
in
i3
O
?
accordance
p
19,
.:u.
ws
in
??
of
with
S.
?
the
1i
.hich
ed
oocedurs
?
aclty
is
ws
:e
or:irlly
e
Ie1-.
a,rov
by Sent on April 8, 1969 -
Paper S.217.
A C E
N B
A
?
1. Consiie:aio of th
Ellis ?
oncer Proccures
?
outlited in ?oer S.217 es
?
ovc.i
by
Serzz
April 8, 1969 (pe?er; were istri:ec
?
rliar).
H. M. Evns
Secretary.
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
(
• ?
. A11..Memb..e.r.s. ... o.f..S.e.nate....................................
?
From
Chairman
... of-Senate
?
.
Subject.
Po S tpP
fl
.exne
d
t...Q
f
Friday,....p.rii....h
?
Date .................................... April
16 ...... 19.6.9 ................... ............ ....
Senate Meeting ?
.
?
14733-11C
After discussions with the author of the report on Admissions and
Standings, and with a number of members of Senate, I have come to the
&
conclusion that the time between actual receipt of the report by interested
persons and the Senate meeting scheduled for April .18th is insufficient
for internal communication over certain substantive portions of the Ellis
report and, furthermore, is insufficient to enable an appreciation of the
inter-relations of certain portions of the report to develop.
As Chairman of Senate I have decided to postpone the meeting of
April 18th and
I
am re-scheduling the meeting for Tuesday, May 6th.
One reason for this conclusion is that Dr. Ellis scheduled hours when
be would be available to discuss the report and virtually no Senators have
(S '
?
taken this opportunity to discuss the' report with him. I feel that the extra
time for consultation on the report is necessary in that the report does
offer substantive changes toward admission, transfer and standing policies
and our relationships with other institutions.
I would like to encourage all members of Departments and Faculties
to give
the most serious consideration they possibly can to this docürrient.
I have requested that the Deans of the Faculties submit to me, in
writing, their responses to the report by Friday, April 25th. I would also
'like to ask you, as individual Senators, to submit to me, in writing,
comments you might have relative to the report by Friday, April 25th.
K. Strand
?
.
:dk
co
