SIMON FRASER UNIVERSIT
MEMORANDUM
5M
D.P.
Robertson
...From ....
D
....... A...M ....... Unru................................................................
•Registrar
Department
Subiect ....
S.ena.te .... Pa.p.er-.67. .........................................................
...j
Date.....
N.o
...ribe.r3., ..... 19.6.7
to be considered at the next Senate meting.
I have recently received paper S-67 from Mr. Wong in which
a proposal is made to revise University awards and athletic awards.
Although I have no objection to the Senate considering this paper
as it is presented, I would very much wish to urge Senate not
to act on this paper until such time that the Senate Committee
on University Scholarships and Awards has time to submit a paper
in which some of the contentions contained in paper
S-67
are put
into their proper perspective.
Paper
S-67
contains a number of inaccurate statements and
in general is not founded on fact. A reference is drawn from
a report of the Committee on Scholarships, Awards, and Bursaries,
March 1,
1967,
in which the relative values of athletic awards
and University awards were given but are quoted out of context.
I should further like to inform Senate that because of
paper
S-67,
I feel it is necessary for the Senate Committee on
Scholarships, Awards, and Bursaries, to submit a more accurate
statement as to the state of affairs and this will be done in
the very near future. Hopefully this can be done before the
December meeting of Senate.
A.M. Unrau
Chairman
Senate Committee on
Scholarships, Awards, and
Bursaries
AM[J/sft
S
Chairman,
ena t e
SIMON
SR JN!VEflSfY
Paper S-79
r.
M
J----
,"
,#t1
A
ll
4/6
Simon Fraser
From..
Di'. A .M. Unra.
.........................................I
Department of Chemistry
Subject....
e
..'
.
ST
.
97,.
'
.
U
i . ..'
. 4
Y
Date..
November
28, 1967
Awards and Athletic Awards
I
The provision-of University and Athletic Awards at
Simon Fraser University is rather unique in a Canadian University
scene, in that at no other university is such a program in
existence. In a sense, this program is an experiment in order
to determine whether certain goals can be obtained in the fields
of athletics and extracurricular activities which fall under
University Awards. These goals may be briefly described as
follows.
1.
To determine whether financial support of athletics and
other university activities will result in students maintaining
their academic standing as well as attaining the necessary
excellence in athletics and other university activities.
2.
To assess if possible the contributions that these programs
will make to the university and the community at large.
The program of University Awards and Athletic Awards was
financed by assigning a budget of $50,000 per year, which was
to be divided equally between Athletic Awards and University Awards.
It may be envisioned that at least part of the sum, particularly
in the field of athletics, will eventually be phased out when
sufficient acceptable financial support is forthcoming from private
sources. Some success to this end has been evident in the case
of athletic awards, however, in the case of university awards,
very little, if any, private endowment is at the present time
available.
The programs falling under University Awards and Athletic
Awards have only been in operation for two years. It certainly
is much too early to arrive at meaningful evaluations at this
time. It would, of course, be necessary in order to arrive at
a valid evaluation, that the acadanic.success of students deriving
support from either of the two awards be measured in equitable
• fashion against the success of students who were not under such
• awards. It is expected that meaningful statistics can be attained
in the next few years. It is, therefore, highly undesirable at
this time to switch boats in midstream and digress in some nebulous
pursuit.
As indicated in my previous submission to Senate, Paper
s-67
S
contains a rather significant number of erroneous statements. In
order to highlight the inaccuracies, I shall take them as they
appear in the paper.
.
e/'t't4
S
-
2,-
5 4 ,'1/1/C7
Paragraph one, page one: Athletic Awards are not only
available to male athletes but are also available to female
athletes. Obviously it isn't likely that female applications
would be received in the field of university football. However,
it is very likely that applications would be received in swimming
and now, track and field. For the information of Senate and Senator
Wong I wish to remind that one of the largest athletic awards
which was made in the past was made to the well known swimmer,
Mary Stewart. It is now definitely foreseen that a female track
specialist will undoubtedly receive an athletic award and probably
receive one of the larger awards presently available.
In the last paragraph of page one, the same point is again
made in that athletic awards are only available to male athletes,
and this time it is only 100 male athletes participating in the
four varsity sports. This is indeed a very misleading statement.
All of the 5,000 students presently enrolled at Simon Fraser
University are potentially eligible-for athletic awards. The fact
that only a small fraction of the 5,000 students will receive
athletic awards should be obvious in so far as that only the best
athletes who can maintain the minimum academic requirements will
eventually receive an award. Similarly, 5,000 students are
potentially eligible to receive university awards. It goes without
saying that only a very small fraction of these students would be
eligible since they do not have the necessary qualifications to,
in fact, obtain a university award. Much fewer than 100 students
on campus would eventually be recipients of university awards for
this reason. The inequality which Senator Wong wishes to bring
out simply is not there, and if there were any inequality at all,
we should be considering fewer students for university awards and
possibly more students for athletic awards because generally speaking
more students will participate, or will have participated, in some
athletics at the high school or university level. In this connection
the following should be pointed out. At the present time a rather
rigorous screening program has been instituted by the Department of
Athletics in which thousands of potential applicants are screened
before any serious consideration is given with respect to the granting
of athletic awards. For example, over
2,000
students will be
screened in the field of football;
1
,5 00
students will be screened
for basketball; approximately
500
students will be screened for
swimming; and about the same number will be screened for track and
field. This does not exclude recognized experts in fields other than
those mentioned.
Point two, page two: Senator Wong again makes the e
statement that women athletes are not eligible for either
awards or university awards. It is true that women athle
not necessarily eligible for university awards,.but they
eligible for athletic awards; and as indicated earlier, o
largest athletic awards was made to a woman athlete. It
and certainly hoped that a larger proportion of awards wi
to female athletes who have the necessary academic and at
athletic endeavors can
n the very near future.
rroneous
athletic
tes are
are indeed
ne of the
is anticipated
11 be made
hietic
.ds become
be recognized
It
-. -
-.
or course,
also hoped that as fun
number of i
s system
- 3 -
SM
All/ X
A 7
is simply not sensible nor feasible at this time to, in a sense
take limited financial resources and build a vast athletic network
•
which would, however, be mediocre. A similar situation would arise
in the case of university awards.
Point three, page two: It is quite true that students
participating in sports clubs would undoubtedly not meet the
requirements for the receipt of an athletic award. There is
nothing, however, to prevent such students from participating
in varsity sports and depending on their prowess in such sports,
they could in fact be eligible and also receive an athletic award.
Point four: There is no basic difference in criteria used
in evaluating students' contributions or potential with respect
to athletic and university awards. The amounts which are quoted
in point four for university awards and athletic awards are quoted
out of context. The fact that recipients of university awards
received an average award of $121 has no bearing on whether or not,
in the event that additional funds had been available, a larger
average award would have been made. The writer fails to mention
that since the institution of university awards, the amount allocated
for each semester has never been entirely used, and a considerable
amount has been turned into bursaries. This was due to the fact
that the applicants did not have the high qualifications deemed
necessary for a full university award. The mere fact that a newspaper
reporter writes a column in the student newspaper, which the readers
cannot understand, does not entitle such a reporter to a full amount;
namely, $219 per semester. The figures of $204 per athletic award
and $121 per university award do bear out one very important point
and that is that generally speaking the applicants for athletic
awards more often than not met the full requirements for receiving
such an award, and consequently, larger awards were made. At the
present time, it is extremely unlikely that increasing-the university
awards fund would result in larger university awards made to the
successfulapplicants. As indicated earlier, even with the moderate
sums available a considerable amount of this money is in fact turned
back into university bursaries.
Point five: It is quite true that holders of athletic awards
are-expected to participate in the particular athletic endeavor in
which they received the award. Funds simply are not available to
encourage the week end golfer or the weekend skier. It is true
that students entering university for the first time may receive a
university award based on the contribution that they made during
their last year in high school, regardless of whether or not the
student participates in a similar endeavor while at the university.
There is, however, nothing to prevent this same student from receiving
a further university award on the basis of contributions made while
•
actively attending the university. It is difficult to know whether
•
point five is a criticism or a statement of fact.
Under Senator Wong's paragraph pertaining to methods of
selection, on page three a point is made that high school students
should be eligible to receive awards for their contribution
.
to their high school and/or community life when they first
apply for admission to Simon Fraser University. This is
in fact already enforced as is the practice that a student
while at the university is eligible to receive an award for
his contribution in the current semester at the commencement
of the next semester that he attends. Further on page three,
a statement is made to the effect that Senator Wongs proposals
for revision' will in fact enable many more students to compete
for university awards. This is simply not true since all of the
students who are presently enrolled at Simon Fraser University
are potentially eligible for either athletic awards or university
awards', and the proposed change would have no influence on this
whatsoever.
It is therefore strongly recommended that the present system
by which athletic awards and university awards are made should not
be changed but should in fact be allowed to develop and hopefully
to a point where athletic awards as such would become self sufficient,
and the same, although less likely, could, be hoped for in the case
of university awards. In order to make both athletic awards and
university awards meaningful, the students who apply for such
awards should meet the necessary qualifications set forth by the
President's Committees on athletic and university awards and that
if anything, the qualifications should be examined periodically and
increased if necessary. It.is further felt that only after an
additional two years will it be possible to attain some evaluation
of the programs. Only after an elapse of three to four years would
meaningful statistics be available.
Respectfully submitted
A.M. Unrau
Chairman
Senate Committee on Scholarships
Awards and Bursaries
::i:"
•
/c 7
Paper S -61
October 25, 1967
A Proposal to revise University Awards and Athletic Awards
by Stan Wong
At present the University makes two types of awards to students who
make contributions to university or community life and at the same
time maintain a pass average. The University Awards are given to
those students who make substantial contributions to university
or community life in all areas other than athletics. The student
Is required to have a pass average. The Athletic Awards are given
to those students who excel in university or high school athletics
and also maintain a pass average. These Athletic Awards are only
available to male athletes particpating in university football,
swimming, basketball, and now track and field.
These two types of awards are financed from the University's own
.
treasury. The Board of Governors annually budget $50,000 for these
awards; $25,000 for Athletic Awards and $25,000 for University Awards.
The President's Advisory Committee on University Awards, chaired by
Dr. Tom Mallinson, and the President's Advisory Committee on Athletic
Awards, chaired by Dr. Glen Kirchner, are responsible for establishing
regulations governing the awards, although the Senate Committee on
Scholarships, Awards, and Bursaries, chaired by Dr. A. Unrau,
is
required to
review and approve all regulations.
Proposal:
that the present University Awards and Athletic Awards
be scrapped and replaced by one type of award, hereforth
designated as University Awards*.
Each
award* can be
designated as to what area the student has made his
contribution, e.g. University Award*__Athletics, Univer-
sity Award*__Newspaper.
Reasons:
1. The present Athletic Awards are available to only
about 100 male athletes in four varsity sports while
University Awards are available to the other 5,000 stu-
dents. The inequality here is that 100 students are
1
&04a
U
-2-
as
7
S-67
competing for $25,000 while 5,000 compete for
$25,000.
2.
Students participating in women athletics are not
eligible for either Athletic Awards or University Awards.
3.
Students particpatlng in sports clubs are also not
eligible for either award.
4.
The criteria used in evaluating a student's contri-
bution appear to be quite different. For example, in
Fall 1966, 53 students received Athletic Awards of an
average of $204 while 49 students received University
Awards of an average of $121. (Reference: Report of
the Committee on Scholarships, Awards, and Bursaries
dated March 1, 1967) Part of the difference in the
number of awards made can be attributed to the fact
.
that many students participating in non-athletic acti-
vities do not apply while almost all athletes are en-
couraged to apply by their coaches.
5.
All recipients of Athletic Awards are rnoror less
required to participate as a condition for receiving
an award while those receiving University Awards are
encouraged but not required to continue to particpate.
Financing:
The new
Awards*
can be financed from the existing
$50,000 budgeted for the present University Awards
and Athletic Awards.
Method of Selection:
-
1.
The Senate Committee on Scholarships, Awards, etc.
with-the assistance of the two President's advisory
committees draw up a plan for implementation.
2.
These new regulations should include the following
suggestion:
-,
1
44
-3-
S-67
A High school student Is eligible to receive an
Award* for his contribution to high school and/or
community life when he first apply for admission to
University.
A student at university is eligible to receive an
Award for his contribution in the current semester
at the commencement of the next semester he attends.
The University should continue to accept, and award privately-financed
athletic scholarships.
Although this proposal for revision will not affect the eligibility
of those presently receiving or have received awards, it will enable
many more students to compete for University Awards*.
It is
my feeling that the University should recognize, encourage, and
support all types of student extra-curricular activity which will
be beneficial to the university community or the community at large and
to the education of the student.
Stan Wong/October 25, 1967
Reference: Report of the Committee on Scho
.
1arships Awards, and Bursaries
dated March 1, 1967
Copies of the Proposal: 1. Dr. Tom Mallinson, Chairman, President's
Advisory
Committee on University Awards
2.
Dr. Glen Kirchner, Chairman, President's Advisory
Committee on Athletic Awards
3.
Dr. A Unrau, Chairman, Senate Committee on
Scholarships, Awards, and Bursaries
