Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59

S.240 

To: ALL 1'1JMB.ERS OF ShNATF 

?

From: H. M. Evans 

Secretary of Senate 

and Registrar 

Subject: THE ELLIS REPORT 

?

Date: June 4, 1969 

In view of the changes in membership on Senate and the importance of the 

Ellis Report, a brief summary of the present situation may prove helpful. 

Attention is drawn to the procedures which were followed earlier under 

Paper S.217, a copy of which is provided herewith. 

1.

Senate has held two meetings on the 

Ellis

Report - May 6 and May 9. 

2.

At these meetings Senate, following the procedures of Paper S.217, 

approved the following recommendations of the Ellis Report, summarized 

on Pages 3 and 4 of that document: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 

16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22. 

(Copies of the 

Ellis

Report and of other pertinent, papers have been 

provided earlier to all members of Senate, including new members). 

3 Senate did not approve motions relating to Recommendations 6, 9, 12, 13, 

20 of the 

Ellis

Report (Discussion of Recommendation 23, in aäcordance 

with Paper S.217, will not be undertaken until disposition of all other 

recommendations is completed). 

4. Following the last meeting of Senate On the 

Ellis

Report, a small Working 

Group was convened to consider the recommendations not yet approved 

(excluding #23), namely 6, 9, 12, 13, 20. 

5.

Provided herewith are Papers arising from the meetings of the Working 

Group, as follows: 

S.240-1 - Letter from the Chairman of the Working Group to the 

Chairman of Senate. 

S.240-2 - Report of the Chairman of the Working Group. 

S.240-3 through S.240-12 inclusive - Papers arising from the 

activities of the Working Group. 

6.

Attention is drawn to the Agenda for the Special Meeting to be held Monday, 

June 

1969. Please note also Paper S.240-1, Page 2, Item 7 - Aside from 

small editorial changes, written amendments to a section or a subsection 

which are complete in themselves and consistent with recommendations already 

adopted would be required and may be submitted in advance to the Secretary 

of Senate or may be submitted on the floor. These would pertain only to 

sections coming under discussion. 

HME: j b 

?

, i

.

; '    c: I ? 

•/'

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

0Ill(:Ii OF TilE

URNAIIY 2, BRITISFI COLUMBIA

VICE-PRESI DENT, ACADEMIC.

f,IJ ?

7'C/cp/ionc 291-3111 Area code 601

3 June, 

1969.

Acting President K. Strand, 

Chairman of Senate. 

Dear Dr. Strand, 

At the last Special Meeting of Senate on the Ellis Report, 

a small working group was charged with identifying areas of disagreement 

in and finding possible alternatives for'those parts of the 'Ellis Report 

which the Senate had been unable to accept till then. Specifically these 

parts dealt with Recommendations 

6, 9,

12, 13 and 20 on P.3, 4. It was 

understood that new versions that may result from deliberations of the working 

group would be complete in themselves and would not be in. conflict with 

those Recommendations of the Ellis Report which had already been accepted. 

The working group consisted of: 

?

( • 

?

Senator K. Burstein 

Senator L. Boland 

Senator B. Sullivan' 

Senator S. Wong 

Dr. J.F. Ellis 

Mr. H. Evans 

Dr. D. Meakin and 

L. Srivastava, Chairman. 

1.

This group met three times, on May 16, 21 and 

.

26. The meeting 

of May 21 was cancelled since only one senator besides the chairman was 

present. 

2.

'At the Chairman's request, Dr. J.F. Ellis had subdivided 

Recommendation 12 which deals with Admissions and Transfer (Part E) 

into several subtopics. These appear as Supplementary Papers A-C. 

Recommendation 13 dealt with Part F which has now been reworded in. 

Supplementary Paper H. Recommendations 6 and dealing with functions of 

the Admissions Board are combined and presented as a new Recommendation in 

Supplementary Paper I. For, lack of time Recommendation 20 was not debated 

but a Notice of Motion covering that Recommendation appears in Paper J. 

?

:. ? 

"

?

I.... 

1V-3

'-/

-2-

3.

All SupplementaryPapers are accompanied by a Motion; some have 

Alternate and/or Additional Motions attached to them. 

4.

It will be clear from my Report that the working group achieved 

little unanimity on the Supplementary Papers. However, it must be 

emphasized that a lot of thought and debate has gone into these matters and 

that the papers as put forward are reasoned documents consistent with the spirit 

of the Ellis Report. They should not be taken as matters to be tabled or 

referred back to the working group. 

5.

I am indicating the possible order in which the Supplementary. 

Papers and Motions should be dealt with by the Senate. This order is 

recommended because certain consequences follow from adoption of one paper 

which are germane to the next: 

Paper H, B, C, C, .A, D,' E, F, I, J. 

6.

I would suggest that copies of the Ellis Report, Minutes 

.

'of the 

last two meetings and 

'

all papers appended here be passed to the Senators 

well in advance of the next meeting so that Senators are prepared to discuss 

these important matters with full knowledge of what has gone before and 

. ?

what is at hand. 

7.

I would further suggest that, aside from small editorial changes, 

written amendments to a section or subsection which are complete in themselves 

and consistent with Recommendations already adopted be required. These may 

be submitted to the Secretary of the Senate ahead of time or on the floor. 

Yours sincerely, 

( ?

(.

L.M. Srivastáva 

:md

L,l-.32

2 '.•• 

REPORT OE THE CHAIRMAN oF THE WORKING GROUP OF THE SENATE ON RECOMMENDATIONS 

12, 13, 6, 9, 200F 

THE

ELLIS REPORT 

Su pplementary Paper A (Recommendation 12) 

(Re. Special Admissions, Sec. 1.3, P. 29-31) 

A revised version of Sec. 1.3 is presented in Supplementary 

Paper A (Revised). An amendment to it is presented in Supplementary Paper 

A-i. Supplementary Paper A-2 departs from A and A-i in several ways. It 

would be better to vote on A-2, A-i and A (amended by substitution of A-i 

or not) in that order. 

Supplementary Paper B (Recommendation 12) 

(Re. Maximum Transferable Credit) 

The working group agrees with Supplementary Paper B. 

Supplementary Paper C (Recommendation 12) 

(Re. Credit Transfer for D. Grade) 

Two clear-cut alternatives are prescribed in Motio ns C and 

C-i. Other alternatives which allow all D's or limit the number. of 

transferable D's are possible, but the working group is not presenting 

them. 

Depending on how Senate votes on this motion, changes may 

or may not be made in Supplementary Paper G. 

(•

Supplementary Paper D (Recommendation 12) 

(Re. Senior Matriculation and 'A' Levels) 

The working group accepted paper P as written, but requested 

that the amendments offered by the Senate Committee on Undergraduate 

Admissions and Standings (SCUAS) he included when submitted to Senate. 

Relevant parts of the SCUAS report, which have hot already 

been included elsewhere in revised versions by Dr. J. F. Ellis, are 

attached as paper D-1. 

Senate should vote on each item of D-1 and then on Motion D. 

Senate should be aware that amendments proposed in D-1, if passed, will 

alter the basic philosophy behind the 

Ellis

Report as outlined in Supple- 

mentary Paper D and partly IL 

Chairman's Report 

?

-2-

Supplementary Papj (Recommendation 12) 

(Re. P. 24-34, Admissions and Transfer) 

The working group accepted the paper as written 

Supplementary Paper F (Recommendation 12) 

(Re. G.P.A.s needed for Admission) 

The working group agreed in principle with the relative 

weighting (percentages or G.P.A.$) presented in paper F which favours B.C. 

students over others. 

it disagreed, however, on the actual percentages or G.P.A.. s. 

Two motions are, presented. Dr. Ellis' proposal (Motion F) advocates a more 

lenient admissions requirement than Professor Sullivan's 

.

?

proposal (Motion F-].). 

N.B. Whatever the percentages or G.P.A.s adopted by the Senate, they will be 

( ?

substituted at appropriate places in the Admissions and Transfer section 

(Part E P.23-34) of Ellis Report. 

Supplenientary Pa er C (Recommendation 12) 

(Re. Statement on Admissions and Transfer P. 24-34) 

Depending on how Senate has voted on Supplementary Mption C, 

the last sentence in paragraph 1 of the Note on Supplementary Paper G will 

either stand or be deleted. 

The Senate should vote on the Addendum to Supplementary 

Paper C (Motion G-1 by Professor D. Sullivan and Motion C-2 by Professor 

K. Burstein) and then on the Supplementary Paper C (Motion by Dr. J. F. 

Ellis) as amended or not. 

SuppleiTiontary Paper U (Recommendation 13) 

(Re. Statement on Continuance, Withdrawal and Readmission, P.36) 

Two statemohts (Supplementary Paper U and 1-1-1) are presented 

as revised versions of P.36 in the Ellis Report. 

Paper H-1 has the support of most members in the working 

group. 

If the Senate prefers the wording in paper 11-1, they should 

/ v-9---2

Chairman's Report ? 

-3-

vote against the Motion H and put forward a new motion upholding paper H-i. 

Senators should note that #6-9 in Supplementary Paper H are 

identical to 

114-7

in Supplementary Paper H-i except for small changes in 

(ADDITION: and may not repeat courses in which he has received a grade of 

C minus or better) and #5 (line 1 - Delete: bay; substitute: will). 

Supplementary Paper I (Recommendations 6 and 9) 

(Re. Role of Admissions Board in transfer credit and advanced standing, 

Part C) 

The working group came to no precise agreement on this matter. 

Three alternate motions (Papers I, I-i, and 1-2) are presented to the 

Senate. 

Sup plementary— 

p

aperJ (Recommendation 20) 

(Re. Implementation of Ellis Report) 

For lack of time the working group could not debate this 

motion.. it is presented to the Senate as an alternate to Recommendation 

20 in the Ellis Report. Other motions may be possible. 

(•

jq.-9_3

., 2;• c 

MOTION A. 

?

Proposed by Dr. J. F. Ellis 

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) 

(Re. Special Admissions, Sec. 1.3, P. 29-31) 

.t.

A

Supplementary 

Pa

per (Revised) 

Admissions and Standings - A Suggested Policy 

Rewording of Pages 29-31, Section 1.3 Special Admissions (Recommendation 12) 

1.3 Special Admissions 

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 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 thee 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 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 Admissions Board. Inquiries regarding admission 

under this category should be directed to the Registrar. 

1.32 Early Entry is designed for students who have completed 

Grade 11 on the Academic-Technical Program. Sections 

1.311 and 1.312 also apply to this category of admission. 

J. F. Ellis 

?

-2-

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 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 to the Registrar. 

/v-$3

A-i

ALTERNATE MOTION 

?

Proposed by Professor D. Sullivan 

Amendment to Supplementary Paper A (Revised) 

Rewording of Pages 29-31, Section 1.3, Special Admissions (Recommendation 12) 

1.332 ? 

Replace the second sentence which reads: "The Admissions 

Board must be satisfied that the applicant has sufficiently 

clear objectives in mind that he is likely to profit from 

university studies." 

• ? 

with:. "The Admissions Board must be satisfied that the 

applicant has adequate preparation for study toward a 

(• 

?

specified major or honors program or well-defined area." 

This section would now read: 

1.332 

?

Admission under this category is at the discretion of 

the Admissions Board. The Admissions Board must be 

satisfied that the applicant has adequate preparation for 

• ? 

study toward a specified major or honors program or 

well-defined area. The Admissions Board may, at its 

discretion require applicants to take appropriate tests. 

Inquiries regarding admission under this category should 

be directed to the Registrar. 

1 v-c'

A-2

AI; fERNA 

. I1 : MOTION ? 

Proposed by Professor K. Burstein 

Amendment to Supplementary Paper A (Revised) 

Rewording of Pages 29-31, Section 1.3 Special Admissions (Recommendation 12) 

1.3 Special Admissions 

The University is interested in extending university level 

educational opportunities to those who may not qualify Under normal 

categories of admission, providing always that the number of such 

persons admitted is subject to limitation in accordance with the 

availability of university resources. 

1.31 Unchanged 

1.311 Add: "Applicants are required to tike SACU tests." 

(This Section would now road: 

An applicant must have demonstrated his ability 

by exceptional academic records (average of 80% or 

better) and have shown mature i.ntelleètual development 

to such an extent that he would profit from admission 

to the university without first securing Grade 12 

standing. Applicants are required to take SACU tests. 

1.312 Admission to this category is at the discretion of the 

Admissions Board. Limitation of the number admitted to 

this category is at the discretion of the Senate and the 

Board of Governors. 

1. 32 Unchanged 

/

K. Burstein 

?

-2-

1.33 Mature Student Entry 

1.331 A candidate of mature age (25 years or older on September 1st) 

who has been a resident of B.C. for one year -  

may apply for 

admission as a mature student, if five years or more have elapsed 

since a previous attempt at post-secondary education. Such 

applicants will be required to take SACU tests or present 

passing grades, in the year prior to admission, in two subjects 

of the Department of Education Tests, one of which is required 

to be, in English. Possession of minimum requirements does 

not ensure selectiori. Each application will he considered 

on its merits and no transfer credit will be awarded. Students 

( ?

with a failed year at a post-secondary institution will be 

admitted on probation. 

1.332 The University reserves the right to limit general enrolment 

in accordance with available resources and staff, and it may 

from time to time specifically limit the enrolment of certain 

groups of students, namely students who do not meet the require- 

ments for regular entry, and to students who are not residents of 

the Province of British Columbia. 

._s' :...

MOTION B. 

?

Proposed by Dr. J. F. Ellis 

That Senate agree that the maximum credit allowable 

to a student on transfer is 60 semester hours. 

(Re. Maximum Transferrable Credit) 

a

B

Supplementary Paper B 

Admissions and Standings - A Suggested Policy 

Concern has been expressed over two portions of the suggested policy 

that make reference to the maximum number of transferrable hours. These are 

(a) P. 25, sentences 2 and 3 and (b) P.34, item 3.4. 

The intention of the entire report was that a maximum of 60 transfer 

hours should continue to be the norm. This can be seen in Recommendation 5.2, 

P. 16 which has already been apprOved by Senate. The intention of the two 

sentences on P.25 was to accommodate exceptional cases of students who had 

done work elsewhere which was identical. in content and quality to specific 

courses requried on one of our major or honoUrs programs. Of partiCular 

(

?

interest to the author of the report'was the encouragement of reciprocal 

arrangements between departments in B. C. universities similar to those found 

in some of our graduate programs. 

The author is prepared to withdraw the two sentenes for the following 

reasons. 

a)

A portion of the intent can ali-eady be .      achieved in that students 

can seek and obtain permission to undertake some part of their upper division 

work at another institution if they have good reasons for making the request. 

b)

The introduction of the "up to 

.

90 hour" possibility would create 

additional procedural and judgemental problems for the Admissions Board at a time 

when they will have more than enough to do. 

c) Very few 

students would be affected. 

(1 •

The concerns 

expressed over 3.4 

.

P. ? 

34 can be 

looked after by placing an 

additional clause following the colon on line 4. "Maximum transfer credit 

allowed will be 60 hours." 

ç2.' .   u - ? 

-

MOTION C. 

?

Proposed by Dr. J. F. Ellis 

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 understancing that a department may 

require a student to repeat without credit a course in 

which a student obtaihed a D and which is prerequisite 

to another course in the same discipline which the 

student wishes to undertake. 

(• 

(Re. Credit Transfer for D Grade) 

C

Supplementary Paper C (Revised) 

Admissions and Standings - A Suggested Policy 

Should students receive transfer credit for all passed courses or 

only for those in which they achieved C or better? (re. Recommendation 12) 

The point of view taken in the report is as follows: If a student's 

overall record is of sufficient quality to gain him admission, he should 

obtain transfer credit for all transferrable courses he has passed. 

This approach has been criticized in a number of papers that have 

been circulated which urge a continuation of the current practice of 

disallowing transfer credit for D's. However, the criticisms do not offer 

substantial arguments for not allowing credit for the D grade.               

(• 

The following points are offered to support th proposal to give 

creii.t for all passed courses. 

1.

The cumulative grade point or average is a better basis for 

predicting future success than an individual grade and has 

already been depressed by a D. (A poor 

,

grade must be counter- 

balanced by a good one.) If the denial of credit for D's is in- 

tended to safeguard standards a more effective means would be 

to increase the G.P.A. requirement for admission. 

2.

SF.U. permits its own students to credit D's. 

3.

Disallowing D's creates anomalies. Consider the following cases: 

A.A.A.D.D. = 2.8 G.P.A. = 9 scm. hours transfer credit 

B.B.B.B.D. = 2.6 G.P.A. = 12 sen hours transfer credit. 

C.C.C.C.C. = 2.0 G.P.A. = 15 scm. hours transfer credit 

4.

University of 

Victoria credits D's 

given adequate entering average. 

5.

U.B.C. ? 

credits 

D's, given adequate 

entering average and 

validation in subsequent course. 

/ fr?-2

J.

F. Ellis 

?

2-

6. Students tend to follow their strengths and, hence, are 

more likely to pursue studies in which they have succeeded 

than to continue in areas where they are experiencing. 

minimal success. 

However, there should be one exception to the general acceptance of 

D's for transfer credit. The exception centers about the question, - Does 

a D grade obtained in a prerequisite constitute adequate preparation 

for the subsequent course? 

At present certain departnients require an S.F.U. student to obtain 

,a

grade higher than D before proceeding to the next course in a given sequence.. 

Thus, transfer students should be subject to the same regulation. 

( • 

?

The intent of the foregoing could be achieved by adding the following 

sentence to Page 25, 1.2 NOTE. 

"Certain departments may require students to repeat 

prerequisite couisés in whcih they have received transfer 

credit for a D. The repeated course will show on the 

student's record but will not carry credit." 

(f ?

..

/v-7-3

c-i

ALTERNATE MOTION ? 

Proposed by Professor D. Sullivan 

C.

?

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 a grade point of C minus or better. 

(

/fr?'3"

L/. - 

MOTION D. ? 

Proposed by Dr. J. F. Ellis 

That Senate agree that transfer credit be awarded for 

transferrable 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. 

(• 

(Ref. Sections 2 and 3 in PART F) 

EIJ

pplementary Paper D 

Admissions and Standing - A Suggested Policy 

Should students receive transfer credit for Senior Matriculation 

(Grade 13) or equivalent studies? 

A number of objections have been raised about certain parts of 

Recommendation 12 that deal with the awarding of transfer credit for 

Senior Matriculation Studies (or equivalent) offered outside B.C. 

However, in the opinion of the author of the report, an acceptance of 

the criticisms offered would perpetuate the present.unevennesses in 

our procedures which the suggested policy sought 

to

remove. To 

illustrate, the Admissions Committee suggests that we give no credit 

for Grade.13 Ontario but apparently agrees that First Year Junior 

College (Grade 13) in the United States should receive credit. Also, 

the Admissions Committee disagrees with the report's suggestion that 

Advanced (A) levels should receive credit despite the fact that 

(a) A British degree can be obtained in 3 years beyond A levels and 

,' • 

?

(b) there seems to be rather widespread agreement that A level work 

is at least the equivalent of first year university work. 

The issue is complicated by the fact that educational systems 

throughout the world operate quite differently from our own in B.C. 

which we tend to think of as the norm. For example, in the Prairie 

Provinces Grade 12 is frequently referred to as Senior Matriculation 

and a degree can be obtained in three additional years. However, a 

B.A. in Alberta does not require the depth of specialization that is 

required within a B.A. in B.C. Furthermore, the Alberta B.A. may soon 

require 4 years from Grade 12. Over the past four years, our treatment 

of Alberta Grade 12 credits has been highly variable ranging from 

full credit to no credit. 

The situation in Ontario. is also rather complicated. In the 

past, Grade 13 was a requirement for admission to an Ontario university. 

Depending on the type of degree he chose, a student would spend from 

3 to 4 years in study at the university. Now, some universities require 

Grade 13 and others (usually the newer ones) require Grade 12. 

/, F2

J. F. Ellis 

?

-2-

The report seeks to deal with the kinds of problems just 

mentioned by establishing principles rather than resorting to a 

series of ad hoc individual judgements about educational systems. 

The principles may not always apply perfectly to practice but they 

have the virtue of providing a consistent framework or pattern into 

which individual cases can be fitted. 

The first of these is that 12 years of education in B.C. is 

seen as the equivalent of 12 years taken elsewhere. Thus, Grade 12 

Alberta (no matter what it may be called) is the equivalent of 

Grade 12 B.C. Since we give no transfer credit to B.C. Grade 12 

students, we should not give transfer credit to Alberta Grade 12 

students. (see 2.11, page 31) 

The second principle is related to the first. The 13th year 

of schooling taken outside B.C. is the equivalent of the 13th year 

taken in B.C. Since we give transfer credit to B.C.. students we 

should given transfer credit to non B.C. students. (see 2.12, p.31 

( • 

?

and 3. 2, 

p.

33)

•

?

Third, the consideration of out of province students, wherever 

they may come from, should be parallel. Thus, since the norm for 

entry to Canadian universities is still Senior Matriculation and 

since the norm for completing a degree after admission is still 3 years, 

we should continue to require Senior Matriculation or the 13th year 

of schooling (whichever is the lesser) for admission. 

• The three principles above do not apply perfectly to students 

seeking admission from schools outside North Mierica. Nevertheless, 

they provide the Admissions Board with a framework for making decisions. 

• ? 

Furthermore, when these are coupled with the Operating Guidelines 

(Part A - 1, 2, 3, 4) and with common sense - the Admissions Board has 

a rational and consistent basis for deciding which applicants should 

be admitted. 

From: UNSOLICITED REPORT OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE 

ADMISSIONS AND STANDINGS 

Amendment to Page 31 - section 2 

2.1 The Committee recommended that paragraph 2.1 be amended to 

include 

"No advance credit for work done at the Senior 

Matriculation level will be awarded", and 

paragraphs 2.11 and 2.12 be deleted. 

Amendment to Page 33 

3.1 The Committee recommended that the last sentence in the 

paragraph be altered to read: 

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

( • 

?

or equivalents." 

Amendment to Page 34 

3.3 The Committee recommended that section 3.3 be amended to 

read as follows: 

"An applicant from a country other than those mentioned in 

3.1 and 3.2 must submit satisfactOry evidence of the 

equivalent of Senior Matriculation standing at acceptable 

levels of achievement. Transfer credit will not be granted 

for work done at the Senior Matriculation level, for 'A' 

Levels or equivalent." 

(Amended: aided - section underlined; deleted - The awarding 

of transfer credit is at the discretion of the Admissions 

Board but will normally be on the same .basis as if he were 

seeking admission to a leading university in his home area.) 

D-1

MOTION E. 

?

Proposed by Dr. J. F. Ellis 

That Senate agree with the intent of points 1 - S 

inclusive in Supplementary Paper E, bearing in mind 

the intent of the last sentence of Operating Guide- 

line 4, page 8. 

(

0 ?

(Re. P. 24-34, Admissions and Transfer) 

(•

/V-9-/

Supplementary Paper E 

Admissions and Standings - A Suggested Policy 

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, 1.212 

be admitted and awarded transfer credit on a 

?

1.221, 1.222 

similar basis to students from B.C. Regional 

?

1.23 

(• 

and Community Colleges. 

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 requirements 

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. 

1.241, 1.242 

1.211 

3

1.221, 1.241 

should be different from 

1.212, 1.222, 1.242 

2.1, 3.2 

2.4, 3.5 

5. Requirements for applicants from other universities 1.25, 2.3, 3.4 

should be similar. 

?

-Z

2'/ J 

MOTION F. ? 

Proposed by Dr. J. F. Ellis 

That Senate adopt the suggested grade points or 

averages needed for admission as set forth in 

Admissions and Standings - A Suggested Policy 

and as summarized in Supplementary Paper F. 

(Re. G.P.A.s needed for Admission) 

Supplementary Paper F 

Admissions and Standings - A Suggested Policy 

Grade Points or Averages Needed for Admission 

F

In retrospect it might have been preferable to prepare Part E of 

the report leaving blanks where averages or grade points were to be specified. 

Supplementary Paper E indicates the various kinds of parallelism that have 

been built into the Statement on Admissions and Transfer and these, I feel, 

should be retained. The precise figures given in the Statement can be 

viewed as relative rather than absolute. 

Members of Senate are aware, of course, of the many problems 

associated with setting admissions standards. Among other things, these 

reflect a philosophy of education, the availability of resources, the 

availability of space, the academic aspirations of the institution and 

the best "mix" of B.C. and non-B.C. students. 

ie

1.

Applicants from B.C. high schools. 

2.

Applicants from B.C. Senior Matriculation 

and B.C. Regional and Community Colleges. 

3.

Applicants from other Canadian provinces with 

Senior Matriculation standing. 

4.

Applicants from the United States with the 

equivalent of Senior Matriculation 

S. Applicants from other Canadian provinces with 

less than Senior Matriculation standing. 

6. Applicants from the United States with less 

than Senior Matriculation standing. 

The Report Suggests 

60%

60% or 2.0 

65%

?

2.4 ? 

(65%) 

75%

?

3.2 ? 

(75%) 

7. Applicants from other universities 

?

60% ? 

2.0

F-]. 

ALTERNATE MOTION 

?

Proposed by Professor D. Sullivan 

Amendment to Supplementary Paper F 

Admission Standards 

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 and B.C. 

65% Or 2.4 GPA 

Regional and Community Colleges 

3.

Applicants from other Canadian provinces with 

(s

?

?

70% (2.8) 

Senior Matriculation standing 

4. Applicants from the United States with the 

(70%) 

?

2.8 GPA 

equivalent of Senior Matriculation 

S. Applicants from other Can'adian provinces with 

80%

less than Senior Matriculation standing 

6. Applicants from the United States with less 

3.5 GPA 

than Senior Matriculation standing 

7 Applicants from other universities 

?

65% or 2.4 GPA 

fr

/O

-J

S2'' ?

.

MOTION G. 

?

Proposed by Dr. J. F. Ellis 

That Senate approve the revised wording of 

Section 1.2, P. 25, Admission with Transfer Credit 

Note ? 

as set forth in Supplementary Paper C. 

(Re. Note on Admission with Transfer Credit) 

I &' -//---/

C

pplementary Paper G 

Admissions and Standings - A Suggested Policy 

Rewording of page 25 - 1.2 Admission with Transfer Credit Note 

1.2 Admission with Transfer Credit 

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 

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 honour. 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. 

c-i

ADDITIONAL MOTION 

?

Proposed by Professor D. Sullivan 

Addendum to Supplementary Paper G 

That at appropriate places in the Ellis Report and specifically 

on the top of page 24 and in section 

1.3, 

Special Admissions, on page 29, 

the following statement appears: 

"The University reserves the right to limit general 

enrolment in accordance with available resources and 

staff, and it may from time to time specifically 

limit the enrolment of certain groups of students, 

namely students who do not meet the requirements for 

regular entry, and to students who are not residents 

of the Province of British Columbia." 

k'//-J

G-2

ADDITIONAL MOTION 

?

Proposed by Professor K. Burstein 

To be inserted on top of P. 24, immediately following 

STATEMENT ON

ADMISSIONS AND

TRANSFER. 

All candidates for admission are required to present transcripts 

of all previous course work and to take the SAW tests administered 

each year in every Province and at Overseas Test Stations. Students 

from outside of Canada are required to present appropriate certi- 

ficates, e.g., C.G.E., Hong 'Kong Matriculation Certificate, 

High School Graduation, etc. 

?

(A detailed listing of appropriate 

listings is available in either the UBC or McGill Calendars.) 

v-1/---/

MOTION H. 

?

Proposed by Dr. J. F. Ellis 

That Senate approve the rewording of "Statement 

on Continuance, Withdrawal and Readmission", as 

set forth in Supplementary Paper H. 

(Re. Part F, P. 36) 

(.

Iv-

'-1

IF

Supplementary Paper H 

eo ? 

Admissions and Standings - A Suggested Policy 

Rewording of Page 36 - "Statement on Continuance, Withdrawal and Readmission" 

Minor Changes in 1 - 8, new #9 

1.

A student 

whose semester grade point average 

falls 

between 1.00 and 

2.00 will 

be placed on academic warning. 

2.

A student 

whose semester grade point average 

falls between 0;00 and 

0.99 will 

be placed on academic probation. 

3.

A student 

on academic warning whose semester 

grade 

point average 

falls between 1.00 and 2.00 will be placed on 

academic probation. 

4.

A student 

on academic warning whosO semester 

grade 

point average 

falls between'0.000 and 0.99 will be required to withdraw from the 

university. 

S.

?

A student on academic probation whose semester grade point average 

falls between 0.00 and 2.00 will be required to withdraw from the 

university. 

6.

A.

student on either academic warning or academic probation must 

carry a minimum semester course load of 12 semester hours. 

7.

A student who is required to withdraw may 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. 

8.

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. 

9.

Under exceptional circumstances, the Admissions Board may waive 

these conditions for individual cases. 

(•

H-i

ALTERNATE MOTION 

?

Proposed by Professor D. Sullivan and Dr. K. Burstein 

and the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and 

Standings. 

Amendment to Supplementary Paper H 

Rewording of page 36 - "Statement on Continuance, Withdrawal and Readmission" 

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: 

(10

1.

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. If, at the end of the 

probation semester, the student has not raised his cumulative grade 

point average totheininimum 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. 

V—/ 

-J

S. A student who is required to withdraw 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. 

2-/'c) //

MOTION I. 

?

Proposed by Dr. J. F. Ellis 

That Senate approve the rewording of Re- 

commendation 6 and 9 under new Recommendation 

6 as set forth in Supplementary Paper L 

(Re. Role of Admissions BOard in transfer credit and advanced 

(

?

standing, Part C) 

/ fr..-/3.-J

Supplementary Paper I 

Admissions and Standings - A Suggested Policy 

Delete Recommendations 6 and 9 and replace with' new item 6. 

6. ? 

Empower the Undergraduate Admissions Board to do 

the following: 

6.1 To seek from each academic department a 

list of all courses taught in regidnal and 

community colleges that the department 

considers equivalent, 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 equiva- 

lent, unassigned credit in a subject area, un- 

assigned 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 

I

be maintained. 

v-/3--2

I-1

ALTERNATE MOTION 

?

Proposed by Professor D. Sullivan 

Amendment to Supplementary Paper I 

Addendum to 6.1 as follows: 

"and from each Faculty, courses or patterns of 

courses they will consider for unassigned credit 

towards the Bachelor's degree." 

6.1 would now read as follows: 

To seek from each academic department a 

list of all courses taught in regional and 

community colleges that the departmnet 

considers equivalent, though not necessarily 

identical to courses taught by the department, 

• ? 

and from each Faculty, courses or patterns of 

courses they will consider for unassigned 

• ? 

credit towards the Bachelor's degree. 

(•

k- /I-.?

(• 

(• 

1-2

ALTERNATE MOTION 

?

Proposed by Professor K. Burstein 

Delete recommendations in Supplementary Paper I 

The following seem cogent reasons for deleting these recommendations: 

6.1 a. this is an administrative 'function which can more economically 

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 onpage 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. Recommendation 8, already passed by Senate, assigns the 

responsibility, for designating transferrable courses under 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, constitution for two 

consecutive meetings due 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- 

ments 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 

departments accept a decision of the Admissions Board (now the 

undergraduate admissions and standings committee) even it is in 

disagreement with the Departmental recommendation. 

K. Burstein ? 

-2-

f. It is doubtful that a group with as mixed backgrounds, in terms 

of disciplines, as this committee--or any mixed committee 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 members 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 S. 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 anhone 

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 would 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. 

(•

./3-J

S ?

NOTICE OF MOTION 

?

Proposed by Professor K. Burstein 

That there be no attempt to implement the Ellis 

recommendations by Fall of 1969 and that the 

Registrar be instructed to process applications 

for admission according to the present regulations. 

(•

(Re. Recommendation 20 on Implementation of Ellis Report) 

(• 

V/'-/

Paper J-1 

( ?

NOTICE OF MOTION 

(Re Recommendation 20) 

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 a list of courses 

offered by Junior and Regional Colleges in B.C. and to 

decide which of them are .University level courses; 

2.

to

seek from academic departments and faculties an 

indication 

-

of those University level courses which they 

consider S.F.U. course equivalent, unassigned credit in 

a subject area, and unassigned credit; 

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 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. 

.....-."

Ii--A

C-- ?

-a-v± 2- (c)

IA.

# P

O._

-z; ?

2---_ p i ?

Ja,_(

II. ?

•/. -

•

2- ?

ei'

I% ?

w-th the exception of liotion F-i, there be no aten't

to i

1eent the 21lis

reo: ?

dations by the Fall of 1969.

/ v-.-/dY---5

)

. ?

ri.''

Jci:.i

I.. ?

. ?

*'.•

. ?

'-'''>

.., .

4

into ? 

nn

-,

?

..

?

. ? , ? 

or ? 

t

to 2:,:aL, ?

::,:..•.i

nas ,

G

onriAl ho

so

urses

1\roi'ie.

M, motion rresenQQ in bonato Mur J-1 'Old SCCflt tO

'35SC:(i by

s

arson

o farArj provision is :rIo for obtainin

e:'ctise fro'r

t: r io

ci:L: r

:cis..ir:33 i:.o1'c..

MOMIMI , MhOugh

'rscnte(1 as an KnQrW mzwhaniom, we 1;.'IC1 no fl..CO that

0

will "0.)

into Ke

Ma

? ity 02 M. 

ean

.i...

that

.,_

., ?

I-, . ?

.1.. .

1- '- ?

1_ . ..._' ?

,1.,I.,

"

ter

m"

rooedire

jnvciva

s zoo )r5Cr1 Winj decipionn

isnotin .1... spirit .._' thu r 3:':

3 that Lie ::;eau:nts r'

p_: .ne'eeLcI in trr. i

7

q thin cruill.

2e11 that O"..

non

to ?

o:'.;:.c

of m

usterinj the is .'cn'a*.'.:. r..'.f

MOMW

i:.essa1'J

ttese ?

.ns.rec.s o_ :.;iporor::

3:1C1

;r'p i

.3.L3tcs

ich

aLL

. ..

a Mf ur anne

oDinicn 30

they

allow

the

\rj3,5

tr1C . .11 oUsid, O ths

.nniversity lo be

I-0'r

an orsor

for

is:,t

no!

on ',r'a'j.Du:;

pro"03ais, nn! they 

1 .

' ?

-.1.................................I ......................,.

o

.• ?

')d.L ?

:..

.::

ozint

13 the easiest and 1o':;:)7M 50

e,1Lns. ?

s'o

..'.i

ba

any ovcn:, tLo

a:;:..s.

ars ILe

:'o:353.i...;' 3..

31nr.to ?

o3i:., ?

.. 1

Ve nonincuZ ...3.1.5LC

'or W.

it Y302 c...::'Or

.. :s•.; scc.s VaYWOMINs n' 5.'ato to

o

vn3

: ?

:r::'.r -,::

of rmlion

f—i onis fr' .o:LtT35

3113

..............................................................I 35

3 motion in

ail::_s:.:.J.:.': 1:35:0105 fir

I.. ?

I: ?

............... -

:c ?

rral.

4

,

,

•

-

L, ?

it ?

c1ficuLt ? 

•0 ? 

YC

.....      

er ? 

co:iba±nod. ia just a fc 

?

ra:;es 

ho-

tilaZ. !ave to be fllle. ii with finc

ono3:bec:. by5.UIOLCC

4. ..........................4.:

the cloo:5.:: .......ara:::a

:c:':)ni..):L1ty or .o c

bhi ro1d bc to i:1pieent te

-' s hLave:i t::,.t, :2

fo:: -oci...ic co';oo,

ti:o o5e:' collccj ai

it ?

WO'

L,1

o:t tc t:rnfUr .3:od4 1.

J. -.

;o :.: ? o::1c::.atj:.,.t :'.

S S.,5_._fl

, .

3 ?

)

j ?

-- '

._j •_ ?

. ?

-'c'. ?

c. . '

.d LO US on toe; t):3i:;Df

I ! - ? 

CWZISAZ^ 

to

canal. 

in

)(L

1

MmA

m

Own

:

SQ;

^n^Ar ' 

L.,

'.CJ

,.•.

.4-.

•.,..

•--'_.

.-.

.4 -

.Jc. ?

C...L2 •.,.'..., ?

s

c

j ZZOW 

notion 

by ! 

?

.1'L ?

L cull

? 'e

th a t ev1r ocu::.:: ?

.._o

.-..

-•,.

..... ?

;&-:ui

unior coa a

-:L:r

0710on

s y VIV

ividual

o

r7inz Onu. 12 Onn -o c:.-oaoau. ?

a-o:.uo ?

Win i

in n - 

?

•.u.'Th offAce, in this k.b:.::

.-.u:ck, ua .LLbc that tui_-: S

crt

vus

•' ?

•:.:.I-

Apnriments about tc:-:,

O

!:ate....t.-ct EnA :-o.''t.::at

.ouic ?

.:c Dar.uo .

or wontDo,

e

y-

a

ll On COU0

01

IS

Id

.0 OT

:ue to a;•o:-t ';coi: y ?

for ?

To: ALL MEMBERS OF SENATE 

Subject: SPECIAL MEETING - THE ELLIS 

REPORT 

From: H. M. Evans 

Secretary of Senate 

and Registrar 

Date . 

: June 12, 1969 

A special meeting of Senate has been called for Monday, June 16, 1969, to be 

held in Cafeteria #1 (Faculty Lounge), commencing at 7:30 p.m. - to consider 

further the Ellis Report in accordance with the Agenda below. 

/

AGENDA 

1)

,

Consideration of the Ellis Report - Recommendations 

not yet approved - Paper S.240-12 J, J-1. 

NOTE: Discussion will, be undertaken in the following 

order:- 

Paper S.240-12 J, J-1 - Implementation of 

the Ellis Report. 

Recommendation 23 - only if all other 

recommendations are resolved. 

H. M. Evans? 

Secretary of Senate. 

NOTE 

Cbpies of the Ellis Report and all pertinent papers have been distributed 

earlier with the exception that Paper J-'l was distributed at the Senate Meeting 

on Monday, June 9, 1969. 

Additional copies of Paper S.240-12 J and J-1 are provided herewith. 

Written motions or amendments on the abbve two topics may be submitted in 

advance to the Secretary or may be submitted on the floor. 

Vi.P/. 

2.J/C)

-/2

NOTICE OF MOTION 

?

Proposed by Professor K. Burstein 

That there be no attempt to implement the Ellis 

recommendations by Fall of 1969 and that the 

Registrar be instructed to process applications 

for admission according to thQ present regulations. 

S.. .

(Re. Recommendation 20 on Implementation of Ellis Report) 

Paper J-1 

NOTICE OF MOTION 

(Re Recommendation 20) 

That Senate charge theAcaclemic 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 a list of courses 

offered by Junior and Regional Colleges in B.C. and to 

- ?

decide which of them are University level courses; 

2. to 

seek from academic departments and faculties an 

indication of those University level courses which they 

consider S.F.U. course equivalent unassigned credit in 

a subject area, and unassigned credit; 

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 1J3 and adequate personnel is 

available in 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. 

72-c-

That, with the exception of notion F-I, there be no

at'

e-..Ip'u

to ip1enent the F11i3 recommendations by the Fall of

1969.

)

..,

. ?

1) Senate has approved a recommendation allowing the Academic Board to 

determine the 

transferability 

of course credit. Many of u- voted on 

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

all arecd were most competent to judge these matters, would he re- 

presented in this decision process. Thus, we were assured that sub- 

oir tees of the Academic Boar, 

in

each dlsrLrll'Ie, o iJdmake these 

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

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

recommendations made 5y people in the discipline of the courses involved. 

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

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

It asks that one 

p erson make these decisions or that a consncittee 

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

expertise from the disciplines involved. Moreover, although this is 

p

resented as an "interim" mechanism, we have no assurance that the 

Academic Board will ever assume the duties Senate has reauested it 

assume. The Board has said it will look into the feasibility of it. 

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

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

"interim" procedure inich involves one person making decisions which 

vitally affect Departments has a 

pod

chance of becoming a permanent 

mechanism; one Thich is not in the spirit of the recommendation an- 

proved by Senate. 

In addition, it would seem appropriate that the Departments affected 

by and interested in transfer credit have some voice in determining 

who will assign this credit. If the majority feel theA one man is 

capablC of mustering the information and energy necessary to make 

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

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

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

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

before. Such committees allow a difference of opinion to be heard, 

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

they allow an opportunity for feedback on various pro 

posals, and they 

minimize the probability of arbitrarydecisions. It does not seem 

reasonable to ask Senate to set up a particular procedure, such as 

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

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

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

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

and Senate should, at least, approve the nominees mentioned in paragraph 

1 of pa 

p

er J-2. It would certainly not seem inappropriate for Senate to 

i_ — .ow whom it is assigned this tremendous responsibility before it approves 

this procedure. 

Paragrath 

of motion J-i cats for writing in "fine print." 

First, this maxi or committee proposed in the motion is intended as 

an interim substitute for the Academic Board. it sup 

p

osedlr, mer- 

forr.is those functions recommended by Senate for the Academic Board. 

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

assigned to the Academic Board by Senate. 

V-2-( 

-2-

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

be done by persons intimately acquainted with the processing of ad- 

missions applications. 

Thirdly, whatever, fine print changes are, end regardless. of who 

males them, these changes should be approved by Senate. rrhe are 

part of admissions policies, if they are added to the policies 

recommended by Senate, and re 

q

uire Senates approval. It would 

seem unnecessary to saythat the addition of fine print to a 

policy can change completely both the meaning and the intent of 

a policy. In any event, it is the responsibility of Senate to 

approve admissions policies whether they ae in bold rrint or 

fine print. 

Fourthly, many of these recommendations passed onty: after we were 

told that, many oI' the 

p

oints related to imlementation would be de- 

bated later. i!e have had some lenCthy and intensive arguments about 

matters relating to the Implementation of these recommendations, and 

have passed some of these roilcies only after having been told that 

decisions on the debated matters could be reached when implementation 

was discussed, 

?

Now it would seem that im 

p

lementation is not going 

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

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

The UDC admissions policies and those 

of other Canadian universities 

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

recoimmendations seem to parallel the resentations in these calendars.                             

•

"hat sorts o omissions are there that have to be filled in with fine 

p

rint? The"crisis" about admissions policies was generated by students 

who com 

plained about the absence of specifically stlated policies, i.e., 

about the absence of fine 

p rint. Are we saying now that, after all 

our attempts to remedy this deficiency, after setting up a committee, 

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

that we still have not mrecisely specified our admissions policies and 

that we are tired now and would like someone else to fill them in? 

If there is a need to fill in "fine print" after all our attem 

p

ts then 

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

Sixthly, the closing paragra 

p

h of motion J-1 is difficult to understand 

It states that present 

p olicies will continue if they are not replaced 

by these recommendations, urôvided th at there is no conflict between the 

present 

nolici,r and the intent or 

p

rincirles of the Ellis recc.mmenda.iono 

ihat happens then if there is an Ellis recommendation which cannot he implemented 

at the rresent time and the present policy conflict with it? Indeed, is there 

not necessarily a conflict between all of the present 

p

olicies and the Ellis 

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

when there is a conflict we will have no rolicy? Are we saying that when we 

have a conflict the:.Ellis recommendation will be in effect even if it cannot 

be implemented? 

...

good 

for

1969

rih

this information. To implement this would be to implement the unknown.

Some of us

have

asked that, if the Academic hoard agrees to make these

decisions, and if the sub-committees consisting of members of all post-

the other colleges and universities sending rePresentatires to these

sub-committees and mak:Lng decisions about the transferability of Courses

not

bind 

be

decision?bound 

by

?

the

made

decisions

y

university

would 

colleges 

and

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

without

discu33 

being 

know

seem to continually change their minds about the transfer credit associated

aradoxical then that motion J-1 suagosts immediate imrlementa,tjon.

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

and have enrolled and comrleted courses based upon rresent transfer regulations.

What this pronosal suggests is that're ignore the fact thai they have been

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

we told you and even though registration is only a matter of I-reeks alra:T.

In addition it tells students

rou cannot even really have any faith in what

• ?

your counselor is tellinv you now, or in what the rulings we now put out say

because they are simply an interim procedure and the academic Board will soon come

out with some more rulings itiich will probably be different."

It Seems

0bvjou3

nL, when a mechanism is evolved for determining the transfer-

V-2.-

4 -

ability of courses, the junior ao.d regional 

coIleh:es

will have to be informed 

of the final decisions on this matter some t—ime before theT go into effect so 

that students mayhe cbunseled to enrol in courses which 

are

transferable. 

To

simp l: 

y

implement without such lead time for counselors at other institutions 

.rould 

p

enalize all stud ? 

ents ? 

co unseled on ? 

basis 

asis 01' ? 

nreous 

\ri

transfer credit 

rulings. Some arrangement should also be made for having those studnets who 

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

these courses if it is to their benefit. 

In any event, 

Si,-,1-31y 

invoi:ing new transfer 

p

ollcaes without warning would 

seem to breed the very sane sort of chaos that both the Degistrar and Hr. 

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

woul ho invoking an interim set which we are specifically saying will 

he replaced then the Academic Board assures its function. 

and perhaps most imOrt ant, how could we p ossihly implement this 

or any other notion by September? It would he im 

possible 

to implement 

unless we said that every course was transferable. I don't mow of any 

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

every course taken at a junior or a regional college as a transfer course, 

It therefore seems obvious that we cannot acce 

p t all courses for transfer 

credit. It seems equally obvious that the task of judging individual courses 

is a time-consum1ng one. If one checks with persons who in their work 

in a Beg 

i

strar's office, do this kind of work, one finds that this sort of 

decision involves comparing calendars, checking with Departments about texts, 

tests, labs, etc., c:ec1ing: on what other universities in the area do, etc. 

• ? 

How could anyone do 

an

intelligent and competent job with the hundreds and hundreds 

o f courses which would be offered for transfer in 

.

years or months, let alone 

days? 

In sn's, it would seen imnossible for any one man or any committee, regardless 

of the dedication or enthusiasm or co:r'oetence of the persons involved, to 

carefully go thru all the courses which have to be assessed with res 

p ect to 

transfer of creditin time to start. rrocessing ap 

plications 

for ..all adnission. 

At the very least, if Senate is going to apurove an attempt to assess the 

transferability of hundreds of courses with a matter of days, it should have 

full imoerledge of the rrocedure which is going ? 

he used, end ii should a. prove 

the decisions reached. 

•. 

To:

?

ALL MEMBERS OF SENATE 

?

From: H. N. Evans 

Secretary of Senate 

and Registrar 

Subject: 

?

NOTICE OF MEETING 

?

Date: July 9, 1969. 

A Special Meeting of Senate has been called for 

Monday, July 14, 1969, at 7:30 p.m. in Cafeteria 

frl

(Faculty Lounge) to consider items listed in the 

attached Agenda. 

HNE/IBK 

.

v,./ 

SENATE OF SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

AGENDA

•

?

Monday) July 14, 1969 

• ? 

at 7:30 p.m. in Cafeteria # 1 (Faculty Lounge) 

AGENDA FOR THE 

OPEN SESSION

1. ? 

Approval of Agenda. 

2. ? 

Selected Unfinished Business from the Meeting of July 7, 1969. 

Note: ? 

At the Senate meeting of July 7, 1969, it was moved by 

D. Sullivan, seconded by J. Walkley: ? 

"that the meeting 

adjourn and that Senate meet again in one week, at which 

time the strictly academic matters listed in the July 7, 

1969, Senate Agenda be considered." 

?

The Senate Agenda 

Committee met at the close of the meeting and recommended 

the following items be considered in the order listed. 

A.

?

Senate Committee on Graduate Studies - Reorganization of 

Graduate Studies - Paper S.245 and S.245(a). ? 

- For action. 

B.

?

Department of Modern Languages - Calendar changes - Paper S.247. 

C. ? 

Graduate Courses in Chemistry - Paper S.249. 

D. ? 

Unassigned Credit - Paper S.250, J. ? 

Sayre. 

E. ? 

Paper S.215. 

Note: ? 

At the meeting of April 8, 1969, Paper S.215, Academic 

Planning (K. Strand) was dealt with as follows:- "that 

Paper S.215 be referred to the three faculties for 

comment and then sent to Senate with comments for the 

June 2 meeting of Senate." 

i)

?

Reports on Paper S.215- a) Arts, b) Education, c) Science - 

Paper S.215 

?

(a). 

F.

?

Faculty of Science - Program Priorities, Paper S.229; Computing 

Science - Paper S.229(a), Biochemistry - Paper S.229(b). 

C. ? 

Gradings for Withdrawing Students - Paper S.230, S.230(a) 

• ? 

K. ? 

Burstein. 

• ? 

H. ? 

Starting Time of Senate Meetings - Paper S.230, S.230(b), 

K. ? 

Burstein. 

?

•

H. M. Evans 

•

?

Secretary. 

July ? 

9,

?

1969.-      

• ? 

•

?

•

?

--: ? 

• ? 

:

?

•