Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9

S. 257(a) 

• ?

. ?

From.... INPLEMENTATION COITTEE 

;

..NJ) 

H. N. EVANS, SECRETARY 

Date. AUGUST 27, 1969 

It is recommended to Senate that change be made in the Ellis Report,. 

Sections 2,3 and 3.4 as follows:- 

"That the requirements of Sections 2.3 and 3.4 be changed 

from an average of 2.0 (60%) to an average of 2.4 (65%)." 

Note:,(i) Dr. Ellis expressed the opinion that the change did not violate 

the basic principle inherent in his report, and noted that the 

change in Section 3.4 as proposed in Paper 

S.257 

would require 

similar change in Section 2.3 and concurred that this he 

recommended. The change adds to the overall balance. 

(ii) It is to be understood that, if the above be approved, the 

overriding changes made by Senate to the averages proposed 

in the Ellis Report would be similarly applicable to the 

above. 

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY :

SUbICC,..Imm.ntationof Ellis Report

August .......

14733-PC

Attached are papers indicating the work done by the Ellis Report

•

Implementation Committee. Your attention is drawn to the memo from

Mr.. H. Evans in which the possibility is raised that section 3. 4 be

amended. This matter will come up before the next Senate meeting.

End.

NOTS ON THE PROGRESS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ELLIS REPORT

Vice-'President's Committee on Implementation consisting of:

Dr. L. Srivastava (Chairman), Dr. S. Stratton,

• ?

Dr. R. Brown, Dr. J. Webster, Mr.

Sayre,

Mr. H. Evans (Registrar), Dr. D. Meakin, (Director of Admissions).

Admission and Transfer Policies are being 'completely implemented

for admission to Fall semester, 1969, with the exception of those

•

-For these, previous policies will be used for the time being.

The policy on continuance, withdrawal and readmission will be used

• when records are reviewed at the end of Fall semester and

subsequently.

Interim transfer lists for B. C. Grade 13, Vancouver City College,

Capilano College and Selkirk College are substantially complete.

The lists for Okanagan and Malaspina College were delayed by the

late date at which calendar material was received, but are well

under way.

'In preparation of these lists, all courses offered in B. C.' colleges

• ?

were considered, 'ecept those that:

by colleges own admission were notuniversity level courses,

and

had declared vocational or technical orientation.

- Academic departments of Simon Fraser University cooperated in

designation of elective credit. Disciplinary Committees of the

Academic Board will be consulted if necessary before final lists

-are prepared.

Only 4-5 courses judged by the Implementation Committee to he

university level have not been accepted by the Departments.

Further negotiation onthese is going on and this matter will come

to Senate's attention if

negotiations

fail.

Published lists will be available to students and faculty by the

end

4. The B. C. residency requirement for the three categories

• ?

' ?

special. admissions was defined in the following way:

• ?

A Canadian citizen or landed immigrant who meets

- -

ONE

of the following conditions

• ?

.-a)as born in B. C.

•

has lived in B. C. for a period of five years at some

time; ?

• . ?

c) has lived in B. C. for the six months ithmediately

•

prior

to the proposed date of entry.

5• Decision was made that facilities were likely to be adequate to

handle admissions in the 60-65% range, so this category is

being admitted to Fall Semester, 1969.

•.

? ':

6. An experimental programme for determining the likely potential

of mature entries is being conducted 'er Fall and Spring

semesters with the cooperation of the Student Affairs Office.

It is

hoped that this will provile a solid basis, for admission of

mature students in the future.

• ?

? S ? •

August 4 1969

SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

Dr. L. Srivastava

A/President

Ellis ?

- University Transfer

Subject......P9r

Applications

1. The attention of the Implementation Committee was drawn to the Ellis Report,

Pages 33 and 34, Items 3.2 and 3.4, which read as follows:

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 C.P.A. of 2.4 from a

fully accredited institution of higher learning. In deter-

mining transfer credit the university will seek guidance from

a leading university in the home state. In addition, an

applicant must submit College Entrance Examination Board test

results.

3.4 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 with the following provisions:

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 C.P.A. must be 2.0 (C) or

higher on transferable courses.

2. Attention was also drawn to Supplementary Paper F '

(the summary of grade points

needed for admission). The substance of that paper is given below in a

• ?

slightly rearranged form (and showing one of the sets of percentages):

From Senior Matriculation and Regional

Colleges

60% or 2.0

From 'Public Universities

.60% or 2.0

From ................. H.NEvans

Registrar

Date ................. .August4,

1269,

............................

Non-B.C. Applicants with Senior Matriculation

From 'other Canadian Provinces with equivalent

of Senior Matriculation

From U.

S. with equivalent of Senipr

Matriclation ?

. .

* From other Universities ?

65% or 2.4

60% or 2.0

. . .2

-2-- 

.

I^a

It at 

..

Non-B. C. Applicants without Senior Matriculation 

From other Canadian Provinces with less 

than Senior Matriculation 

?

75%

From U.S. with less than Senior Matriculation 

?

75%

or 3.2 

-

?

Particular attention is drawn to the section marked. 

3.

For those from the United States there seemed potential conflict between 

Section 3.2 and Section 3.4 in that those with less than 60 semester hours 

= -of transferable credit would require 65%. (or 2.4), those with 60 semester 

hours of transferable credit (or more - which is not meaningful as a 

-niadmum of 60 semester hours can be transferred) would require 60% (or 

2.0). 

Itwas further observed that "from other Universities" an average of 60% 

(or 2.0) only was required. Question was raised as to whether this per- 

tained to all non-B.C. jurisdictions with the exception of the United 

States, or whether for the United States for those with more than the 

..minimum 

.

of 30 semester hours 

who

caine from universities, the ruling of 

60% would be applied. This further raised the question of the distinction 

as between"University" and "College", and it was noted that the title 

was not necessarily an indication of either quality or type of institution. 

The general requirement that applicants from outside B.C. have an 

• ?

average

5% higher than that required of B.C. applicants was noted, as was 

the fact that this was not being applied in the case of those "from other 

iUniversities".

During processing of applications for admission, a number of anoma 

'

lies and 

inequitabilities appeared because of these items. 

Dr. Ellis was invited to attend the Implementation Committee meeting 

• ? 

dealing with these problems. The Implementation Committee recommends that 

Section 3.4 be changed from an average of 2.0 (60%) to an average of 254 

Dr.

Ellis 

expressed the

opinion that the change did not violate the basic 

principles inherent in his report. 

In

view 

the nature of the change, it was recognized that the matter 

.-.--wbuld require submission to Senate for consideration. 

NQTE ? 

• ?

•:

Briefly, the proposed change would establish for non-B.C. applicants with 

the equivalent of Senior 

,

k latriculation 

or higher standing a requirement of 

an average 5% higher than that required of B.C. applicants, would remove 

.

present

anomaly in the case of United States applicants with 60 semester 

hours versus those with-59 or less hoursdf transferable work, and would 

remove a difficulty 

of attempting

to distinguish between "University" 

.

and

• ."Coliege" as the title of an

institution frequently is not infàrmative. 

fJofe- ?

f7a

• ?

All mmbcrs of Senate 

?

From ... 

...Q.,

Crawford 

ychQ.lO.gy         

.

5uhoct

. ?

Date

Attached you will find a copy of a complaint that I have made about 

the

procedures being used by the Implementation Committee. I hope 

that it will be of interest. 

COins 

SiMON FASE UNVE1IL

STY

To ? 

.P.r.L.M'. StrivastiYaP.Shairman? 

Imp lemon at n Committee 

Subcci 

Committee ? 

-

From

D&O .....

August25 (199................................................................... 

14733-pc

On Wednesday afternoon I appeared before the Implementation Committee 

courses 

to explain 

from 

why. 

Vancouver 

the Department 

City College 

had decided 

should 

to

not

recommend 

be given 

that 

trahsfer 

two

q

Psychology 

of credit. I 

am writing to object to the procedures that are used by the Committee in evalu- 

at.ug courses for transfer of credit. As I see it these procedures involve 

1.

The assumption by the Committee that junior college courses are of 

University level and should therefore be given transfer credit-unless 

a department can prove otherwise. 

2.

The provision of very little information through regular university 

channels which can be used to evaluate courses. 

The result. of these procedures is that a course is very unlikely to be classified 

as

course 

non

s ?

raisfcrabic 

.

?

unless 

. ?

the

. ?

college 

.

?

.

?

says 

.

?

that it is 

..

?

.

not

.

?

a university level 

.

I do not object to a superior university committee 

ov

er-ruling a 

decision of a department. However, when any decision is made it should be made 

on the basis of. the presentation of adequate evidence and argument. I do not 

believe that the present procedures that are used by the Iinplementatjon Committee 

ensure that it's decisions will be made on the basis of evidence and arguments. 

I believe that in order to ensure that valid decisionsare made the 

IMPleme.-iitation Committee should obtain evidence through official University 

channels on the following: 

The qualifications of th 

2.j The orientation and academic tenor of the course. 

The Content of the course. 

4. The instructional facilities available, ie. librry and/or laboratory 

?

?

facilities. 

?

.

?

.

The place of the course in the curriculum of the college, i.e. was at 

designed primarily for transferor diploma students? 

6 The kinds of students normally registered in the course, i.e. the 

• ? 

.

?

proportion of diploma and transfer students 

?

.

There 

ability 

are

of

other 

a junior 

criteria 

*c

ollege 

that 

course, 

might possibly 

but I think 

be used 

that 

.

in

evidénce 

evaluatinon 

these 

g

the transfer— 

should? 

?

be reqiired by the Committee 

?

.

—2-- 

-.5

?

*Ong

I hac considerable sympathy for the problems of junior colleges. 

before the "admissions crisis" I had 

pOifltd

out to the Registrar and Dean 

inhibiting 

that the policy 

the

growth 

then

in

of

effect 

the junior 

not only 

colleges 

d

iscriminated 

and was therefore 

against students 

not in the 

but

best 

was

interest of higher education in British Columbia. However, in typical Simon 

Fraser fashion, we seem to have moved from one extreme to another. There are 

several reasaj-is why accepting junior college courses at face value is not 

beneficial to students, the universities or the colleges themselves. 

1. It may undercut the justifications of the junior CO11ecs for budgets 

by

adequate. 

cohvincing the government that their prsent facilities and staff are 

• 2. It may 

'encourage the government to devert funds away from the universities 

and the present colleges into the building of. new colleges before facilities 

.-are 

adequate in the present system'. 

3.

It mar lower the 

standards

of the programs at the universities. 

4.

It does not.encourage competition between 

colleges 

for improvements in 

3 ?

their programs. ? 

:

?

• ?

However the adoption of good procedures by the 

Imp.lementatjon 

Committee could 

ensure that the decisions that are made are in the best interests of higher 

,uC1ioa in 

?

C.

• ?

- ?

•

?

•