As I indicated in the Special Meeting of 16 June,
I am concerned over the ambiguity and apparent hollowness of the
term "unassigned credit"--the third of three classifications of
transfer credit in the Ellis Report.
Under present circumstances, it simply is not clear
how unassigned credit will be determined and whether or not it
will count towards a student's degree.
May I quote from the 1968-69 Calendar:
"A minimum of 40 hours of the 120 hours
required in the general degree program
will be 'electives'.
?
These electives
may be any course in the University,
•
?
subject to the group requirements of
the Faculty."
It is the spirit of this position that I wish to
extend to transfer credit and offer the following motion to
that effect:
1.
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 tot1 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 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.
Li-3
•-/
Mr. Evans
?
-2-
June 19/69
4.
That the Registrar, upon the admittance of a
transfer student, designate on the student's SFU
transcript those general elective credit courses
transferred, followed by at least one of the
following letters:
(A) to indicate that the Faculty of
Arts accepts this course as general
elective credit.
(5) to indicate that the Faculty of
Science accepts this course as general
elective credit.
(E) to indicate that the Faculty of
Education accepts this course as
general elective credit.
5. That the term "general elective credit' be substituted
for "unassigned credit" throughout the Ellis Report and
its passed amendments.
6.
That points 2, 3, 4 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.
Ar q uments "Pro":
Prospective students and those who transfer to SFU
are entitled to know if and where all the work they take prior
to entry can be used towards a degree.
The procedure outlined above will give the regional
colleges greater guidance in their academic course offerings.
Regional colleges are, quite understandably, hesitant to offer
imaginative courses, interdisciplinary courses, or courses not
taught at SFU that may or may not be transferable to SFU.Know-
ledge of what courses are eligible to general elective credit
will be very helpful to them.
Ambiguities, such as "unassigned credit", cause
confusion and frustration and cause administrative difficulty
in interpretation.
.
...3
Mr. Evans
June 19/69
Arguments "Con":
Students who, after transfer, change Faculties may
lose some of their previously assigned general elective credit.
The bookkeeping prodedure to keep track of such changes would
be somewhat more complex than present practices.
?
/
JES:nic ?
J. E. Sayre
.
S
.
S.N. 14/7/69
-6-
D.
Unassigned Credit - Paper S.250, J.Sayre
J.Sayre indicated that the paper was an attempt to clarify the meaning of
"Unassigned Credit" as used in the Ellis Report. He indicated further
that he wished to withdraw Item
4
on Page 2, and renumber Item 5 as 4, and
Item
6
as 5, with reference in Item 6 then being to points 2 and 3.
Moved by J.Sayre, seconded by D.Sullivan,
"that Senate adopt Paper S.250 as modified."
It was suggested that Section 2 be altered so that courses will be accepted
as general elective credits in the three Faculties, and M.Cainpbell proposed
amendment to delete the last two lines in Section 1
9
all of Section 2 and
the other parts of the paper where reference is made to Section 2, but
these changes were not adopted.
Vote on the main motion was undertaken.
MOTION CARRIED
E.
Academic _Planning
_-Payer S.215, S.215a, S.215b, S.215c
Moved by K.Rie.ckhoff, seconded by S.Wassermann,
"that Senate adopt Paper S.215 in principle."
D.Sullivan enquired as to how the paper could be adopted in principle as
apart from practice and made reference to the Paper S.215b which had been
submitted from the Faculty of Arts as a preliminary paper. He indicated
that the Faculty of Arts was of the opinion that more data was needed and
review required.
Moved by M.Lebowitz, seconded by D.Sullivan,
"that Senate adjourn."
MOTION FAILED
4
in favour
8 opposed
K.Rieckhoff indicated that when the paper was first presented to Senate it
had been argued that it should be placed before the Faculties,and that if
the Faculty of Arts had not had sufficient discussion on the paper this was
deplorable. He was of the opinion that departments or Faculty want final
say on interdisciplinary problems and that this would not resolve the
problems, but that Senate could attempt to do this by hearing proposals
and agreeing to institution of programs.
M.Lebowitz requested that discussion on the paper be ruled out of order as
, ?
the original conditions that comments be received from the Faculties had
notbeen met, and noted the preliminary report of the Faculty of Art. The
'*
•J
&j_
