I
.
DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SENATE OF
SIMON
FRASER UNIVERSITY HELD
TUESDAY, MAY 6, 1969 IN THE FACULTY LOUNGE AT 7:30 P.M.
SPECIAL MEETING - THE ELLIS REPORT
OPEN SESSION
Present:
Strand, K. T.
Baird, D. A.
Boland, L. A.
Burstein, K. R.
D'Aoust, B.
Srivastava, L. N.
Haering, R. R.
Hutchinson, J. F.
Korbin, D.
Okuda, K.
Rieckhoff, K. R.
Sperling, G. B.
Stratton, S. T.
Sullivan, D.. H.
• :
Tuck, D. G.
•
Vidaver, W. E.
.
Walkley, J.
Wassermann, S.
Williams, W. E.
Wong, S.
Evans, H. M.
Kelsey, I. B.
Barboza, J.
Collins, E.
Absent:
0
Branca, A. E.
•
Cole, R. E.
Collins, N.
Conway, J.
Dampier, J. L.
Ellis, A. J.
•
Hamilton, W. N.
Harper, R.J.C.
Hean, A.F.C.
Koerner, 0.
Lachiari, A. H.
Lett, S.
MacKinnon, A. R.
McLean, C. H.
•
Perry, G. N.
Shrum, G. M.
Chairman
Secretary
Recording Secretary
- 2 -
S.M. 6/5/69
Dr. John F. Ellis was in attendance to speak to his Report.
The Chairman indicated to Senate that D. Meyers, the Associate
Registrar, had suffered a heart attack, and that he would be unable
to report for work for at least some
six
to seven months, at which
time it was expected that he would be able to return to work under
,a
reduced assignment. The Chairman indicated that he personally 'wished
to publicly express his concern, and his appreciation for everything
that Mr. Meyers has done in the past. K. Strand further announced
that D. Meakin, formerly of the Chemistry Department, was nominee for
the position of Associate Registrar, but that the transfer was not yet
completed. He introduced I. Kelsey as newly .
appointed Director of the
Secretariat Services division within the Office of the Registrar..
The Chairman reminded Senate of the procedures which would be
followed in considering the Ellis Report - as outlined in Paper S.217,
and that, in the interest of time, the Minutes would show for each
recommendation a formal motion of adoption moved by R. Haering and
seconded by J. Walkley.
.
(Note to Senate: For the special meetings of Senate held for discussion
of the.
Ellis.Report',
tape transcriptions have been made and are held in
the Secretary's office.)
J. Ellis
was requested to provide the opening statement. He noted
• . that there had been considerable comment concerning the Academic BOard
and indicated that the principle involved in his recommendation was to
use external validation as a means of making a number of the judgments
required. He spoke on the principle of accreditation, noted that the
Academic Board had been given authority to carry out certain accrediting
within the province, and discussed the
necessity
of generating a list of
college courses
I
that are,
taught at university level. Attention was drawn
to the items at the back Of his Report, pertaining, to the Academic Board
and its authority. Comments were made on the resource
'
s of' the Board, to
the development of' subject
sub-committees-in
a number of areas, and pro-
cédure's which might be developed, although the matter was not fully
clarified' at the present time. Membership on the Academic Board was out-
lined.
He referred to the matter ofstandards and'drew attention to the
'publication of the Academic Board dated February 1969. He also noted a
study undertaken on' transfers from Vancouver City College to the
University of British COlumbia. Further comments were made briefly on
the admission requirements of the other public universities within the
province. He drew attention to letters which had been received,.which
had been Issued by the Registrar of the University of British Càlumbia,
• 'Sand' also drew attention to statements approved by the University of
.Victoria concerning college transfer of credit and gradings.
He made reference to admission requirements for American students and
•
, commented that throughout the report he had attempted to generate a
principle of parallel treatment for parallel groups. He referred to,
attempts to make studies at B.C. colleges and B.C. senior matriculation
.
- 3 -
S.M. 6/5/69
parallel, through equating twelve years of schooling to twelve years
of schooling. He noted that A level standards from Great Britain
should be treated, like senior matriculation courses in British Columbia.
He referred to the principle that where a student is granted admission
that credit should then be given for D grades on university level
transfer courses, as students obtaining D gradings at Simon Fraser
University received credit.
J. Ellis
continued and drew a distinction between policies and
rules on the premise that a policy is a guide for discretionary action
as distinct from a rule which is a specification of a required action.
He noted that no admissions' policy could be final, as conditions
change and programs change both here and elsewhere. He commented
briefly on the areas of responsibility, which were
.
suggested for the
various sections within the university, which would be concerned
directly with admissions and admissions policies.'.
The Chairman thanked Dr.
Ellis
for his comments and noted' 'that
individual Senators would now have opportunity to make statements or
general comments with a time limit 'of ten minutes for each of those
who wished
to speak.
D. Sullivan commended
J. Ellis
on his .energetic report, which had
been undertaken in a very short time He indicated reservations con-
• S
cerñing the Academic Board and the mechanisms which might pertain and
expressed' doubt that the material required could be provided within the
time suggested. He also expressed concern regarding possible new
admission requirements at the Universityof British Columbia and, the
effeät this might have. He further commented on problems which he
foresaw in. 'connëctión with gradings for transferability and the matter
of prerequisite standards. He noted that the University of British
Columbia set forth very clear statements in terms of acceptability of
courses from other provinces and the gradings required. D. Sullivan
expressed the hope that Senate would look at the items one at a time, but
especially to see which parts are interrelated in order that appropriate
synthesis would arise.
K.
Burstein indicated that he wished to ask certain questions and
directed an enquiry to Dr.
Ellis
concerning the Academic Board, wishing
to know whether or not it was the intent that the Academic Board would
tell Simon Fraser University which courses are accredited, and wished
to know what other universities in B.C. have an external accrediting
body. J.
Ellis stated
'
that he had suggested that the other two univer-
sities in the province do because they accept the programs that are
taught at university level by the various colleges. K. Burstein sug-
gested that it would be reasonable to have the other universities
endorse' the recommendations, and that the universities keep generally
in step in these regards.
.
.,
He referred to claims made by students and others of injustices
which had existed under prior policies and expressed the viewthat the
Report would not prevent individuals from making such claims, whether
or not true. Particular reference was made to an example earlier quoted
by J. Ellis concerning.a transfer of a student from the University of
British Columbia to Simon Fraser University. J.
Ellis
noted that the
- 4 -
S.M. 6/5/69
student had lost significant credit in the field of Fine Arts and
expressed the view that because Simon Fraser does not teach Fine Arts
was not good reason for not recognizing quality in such a field given
at another recognized institution.
D. Korbin indicated some disappointment in the report, stated that
it called for centralization of decision-making without asking to whom
the powers of decision-making are being given; expressed concern that
American students would require completion of 30 semester hours for
admission; noted that amongst the demands presented in the fall there
had been inclusion of ,
a .student-faculty parity admissions
,
board, and
an opening of files to the committee to ascertain injustices; and that
he believed the'report missed the concept of democratic decision making
within the institution or other agencies. He considered this omission
dangerous.
G. Sperling indicated that' he was still not clear as to the place,
responsibility and authority which the Academic Board might have, and
that he was not'
,
certain as to whether 'or not the Board would be asking
departments to change their courses in accordance with whát'is In the'
colleges or vice versa. He considere4 that the whole question of the
role of' the two-year colleges required further investigation, but com-
mended Dr. Ellis on the references he had made about the dangers of
overly strict prerequisites.
He also expressed concern on the effect of the streaming program
In highschools and its sociological effects. He was also concerned that,
although parallelism had been described by Dr. Ellis, that he did not
consider that
:a
requirement of 3.2 average from highschool graduates
was reasonable.
R. Haering indicated that he was a member of the Academic Board,
that he envisaged the Board, becoming an accrediting agency in the sense
that it would determine what courses at the colleges of the Province of
British Columbia are of university level., that it would be expected that
the university would recognize these courses
*
, but that departmental res-
ponsibility would not be impinged upon, as the department would select
the specific area (of the three referred to in the report) under which
credit for a given course would be assigned. He noted that the manner
in which the Board would propose to implement its accrediting in subjects
would be through the use of subject committees.
He envisaged no. major difficulty in the matter of prerequisite
aspects, as the Undergraduate Admissions Board would be expected to
inform Senate of the major and honors programs through which recognition
would be given, and that there was further provision for review where
difficulties are identified. He concurred that timing could present
problems, but believed that these could be overcome through an appro-
priate interim step.
K. Rieckhoff believed the report presented a self-consistent frame-
work, but that there were some minor points on which he would take
exception. He noted that the burden, of maintaining standards would
fall squarely-on all faculty, and was concerned that some departments
might not employ appropriate steps to retain adequate standards.
- 5 -
S.M. 6/5/69
D. Tuck referred to prerequisites, but indicated that at.a meeting
of the universities and regional colleges through the Chemistry Sub-
Committee there was a surprising degree of agreement. He felt no hesi-
tation relying upon the Academic Board, particularly through the sub-
committees, in terms of identification as to courses which could be
acceptable. However, he was also concerned with timing, and wondered
if the report might have some impact in this regard.
W. Williams believed that the report would grant admission to stu-
dents currently not eligible, and was not satisfied that this was a
- correct approach unless there was reasonable indication that students
could indeed proceed successfully through to graduation. From this
standpoint he was concerned about the impact on overall standards.
S. Wongindicated
that he proposed
to speak briefly, as he had had
a number of discussions with Dr. Ellis. He was in support of utilization
of the Academic Board as an accrediting agency, because he believed that
faculty and departments had shown inability or unwillingness to act in
this area.
B. D'Aoust believed that the report was excellent if one accepted
the present system, but would have preferred to have seen a much bolder
approach to the total question of admission and what happens .to students
throughout the university process. He expressed the view that the report
•
continued towork on certain aspects of passing and failing, whereas he
believed a much' greater emphasis must be given to the process and success
of teaching, rather
'
-than to failure of students. He was of the opinion
that the report tend to perpetuate the present system rather than to
strike out boldly in new directions.
.L. Boland thought that there had been insufficient discussion con-
cerning the need of the policy and the specific purposes the policy
should fulfill and was of the opinion that much greater study should have
been given to the articulation of a philosophy of education for the
university before the report was undertaken.
As no other Senator indicated desire to make comments, attention was
turned to the Individual recommendations.
CONSIDERATION OF INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ELLIS REPORT (IN THE
ORDER OUTLINED IN PAPER S.217)
1. Recommendation No. 1
Moved by R. HaerIng, seconded by J. Walkley,
"It is recommended that the Senate of Simon
Fraser University endorses the statement of
operating guidelines (Part A)."
R. Haering.supported the recommendation and believed that the policy
proposed would allow the university to admit and retain students who have
a reasonable probability of succeeding in the courses and programs they
choose.
-
.
6
-
S.M. 6/5/69
G. Sperling indicated that he believed the report gave too much
authority to the Academic Board. Question was raised as to whether
the AUCC provided for "accrediting" and, J. Ellis responded that in
the sense the term "accrediting" is used in his report that body did
not carry out the function.
S
i Wong referred to Page 8, item 4, pertaining to "the leading
institution" and J. Ellis indicated that throughout the report this
should read
Ita
leading Institution."
D. Tuck referred to Page 8, items 6,. 7 and 8, which seemed to
call for implementation. J. Ellis indicated that it was proposed that
Senate would have responsibility to bring policies under systematic
review, and that this would have impact on item 8; that the Registrar's
Office would be expected to develop means of effective communication
for students and faculty within the university and with interested
individuals and grOups,outside.the university,.ánd that this would
have impact on item 7; and that Item 6 would fall under some of the
Committee recommendations.
D. Sullivan indicated that the first 'recommendation covered a
part with many sub-parts, and that he reserved judgment on item 4 of
the section., J.
Ellis
provided further comments on this matter.
Vote was undertaken on Recommendation No. 1.
NOTION CARRIED
14 in favor
3 opposed
1 abstained
2. Recommendation No. 11
Moved by R. Haering, seconded by J.. Walkley,
"It is recommended that the Senate of Simon
Fraser University endorse the statement areas
of responsibility and admissions, standings and
credits. . (PártD)."
J Ellis Indicated that.-this was a complex and difficult section
of the report. The intent of the section is to see Senate in the over-
riding position of making policy and overviewing its committees, making
them responsible with policy being kept under regular
,
review.' The
•
Undergraduate Admissions Board is expected to take the policies, make
• them operate in terms of writing more specific rules as, théy.may be needed,
and as these accumulate into new policy 'or suggestions for the creation of
• new 'policies, to bring these back to Senate,. with a procedure for regular
reporting. The Registrar's Office would be expected to implement the
policies under the direction of the Admissions Board.
K. 'Rieckhoff referred to the "unsolicited report of the Senate Commit-
tee on Undergraduate Admissions and Standings. on the Ellis Report" and' that
the Committee's recommendation on item 5.4, page 21 be utilized. J. Ellis
suggested that the recommendation Is already covered in the report through
- 7 -
S.M. 6/5/69
other recommendations, with particular reference to recommendation 6
on page 17, and recommendation 3 on page 12.
D. Tuck approved the necessity for both an Admissions Board and
an Appeals Board, and J. Ellis indicated that it was certainly his
hope that over time the number of appeals would significantly decrease,
but that during the period of implementation an Appeals Board could be
needed.
W. Williams supported the suggestion made by K. Rieckhoff with
reference to the suggestions made by the Senate Committee on Undergraduate
Admissions and Standings, and was of the opinion that although the items
might be covered in other sections of the report, there could be an
advantage in repeating certain specific items.
K.
Burstein expressed concern at what had been an Interim Appeals
Committee was now proposed as a continuing Appeals Board. He enquired
as to.the body which would be responsible for reviewing such items as
academic probation and. required to withdraw. J. Ellis drew attention
to the recommendation 14 on page 4.
L.
Boland emphasized the necessity of indicating to students the
basis on which rejections on admission or transfer are made, and noted
that although explanatory and further, directives might be developed
through the Undergraduate Admissions'Board, that such directives should
come before Senate on final analysis for approval. He noted further that
at the present time the whole role of the Appeals Committee and the
potential role of the Appeals Board was not clear.
D. Sullivan again noted that there was interrelationship across many
sections and concurred that whenever necessary there should be duplicated
statements of overlap responsibility. From this standpoint he believed
that action on this section should be deferred.
D. Sullivan continued with specific reference to page
,
20, item 1.4,
and indicated that he did not believe that there was clarity in terms of
the role of Senate itself, the role of departments, and the role of the
Academic Board
.
-,
with the result that he envisaged difficulties arising.
He suggested .that the Academic Board should send recommendations through
a mechanism of consultation with departments, as may be authorized by
Senate, and that the Registrar then be notified of courses which are
acceptable for area credit toward the various degrees. Specifically,
instructions could then be given to the Registrar by Senate as to how it
is to be used. Ultimately, approval of courses for transfer must go
through the Senate.
R. Haering supported the section and agreed that over time as
policies become more definitive, there could be a diminishing need for
an appeal mechanism. He had no objection to duplication of statements,
but did not believe that all of these need be finalized 'before approval
of the current documentation.
Question was raised concerning the possibility of adding clarifying
clauses and statements at a later time if items were passed at this time,
and it was agreed that at some future meetings there could be motions
is
- 8 -
S.M. 6/5/69
providing amendments as required. Further clarification was requested
and the Chairman indicated that dependent upon the results of certain
motions, a number of changes - particularly those of an editorial nature
- could be required and would be made as necessary.
R. Haering offered clarification, pointing out that if a recommenda-
tion did not pass, it would be held over for a later meeting, with oppor-
tunity for provision of amendments in writing before such meeting. He
further noted that at this point a number of items were being dealt with
as a first iteration, and that if there was agreement with the item as a
first iteration, the item should pass, with the understanding that any
necessary editorial changes resulting from later votes, and any statements
required for greater clarity could be made.
The Chairman noted that each Senator would be expected to consider
whether in totality he feels that comments weighed pro and con are such
that a section should be opened up for substantive debate and item by
item change, or whether in totality he would be;prepared to accept, it as
it stands. .
Vote on Recommendation 11 was then undertaken.'
MOTION CARRIED
Ii in favor
•
5 opposed
3 abstained
3. Recommendation No. 2
Moved byR. Haering, seconded by J. Walkley,
"It is recommended that the Senate of Simon
Fraser University endorse in principle ,
a'
procedure for accrediting colleges. (Part
J. Ellis indicated that he had commented at some length in his
general remarks on the procedure envisaged. G. Sperling still considered
that 'the procedure was vague and wished to ktww what would be iikley to
occur if the Academic Board indicated a'course should be accredited but
a department of the university indicated that it should not. The Chair-
man suggested" that the Academic Board would examine, all courses offered
in all the colleges in British Columbia, and would provide a listing of
those courses that were of university level,
,
but would make no reference
as to the specific equivalencies offered by a given university.. The
listing of courses would be presented to the departments, which would
indicate those deemed equivalent, those in an area not directly equivalent
and so forth. The Chairman further noted as there is provision in upper
level semesters for a student to include certain lower level' courses in
.
fulfilment of requirements, that some considerable flexibility existed.
It was noted that as discrepancies become wider and wider there would of
course be greater and greater difficulty. G. Sperling referred to the
four-year principle under which a student would normally be expected to
get a degree in four years, and the Chairman indicated that there were
certain restrictions and that there would not necessarily be direct
transference of full years to match full years.
9 -
S.M. 6/5/69
J.
Hutchinson indicated that his reservations would be removed if
he were certain that the Academic Board would arrive at its initial
listing through the processes suggested by Dr. Ellis by adequate utili-
zation of the subject sub-committees. He requested that the letter
from the Academic Board be read in this connection, and this was done.
W. Williams noted that in effect the Board had Indicated willingness
to carry out a feasibility study, but that there was not assurance that
the proposed procedure could come to fruition. W. Williams was further
concerned lest the Academic Board indicate not only courses of the
university level, but that it indicate that such and such a course at
the college is the equivalent of 'a course at Simon Fraser University.
J. Ellis indicated that the procedure proposed did not follow that form,
but that the Academic Board would be expected to identify those courses
considered being offered at a university level, and that such courses
should normally carry transfer credit. The specific decision as to
whether or not direct course equivalency would be given would be one
referred to the departments, allowing for decision as direct. equivalents,
•
subject area equivalents and unassigned credit. He further noted that
• one of the difficulties had been the lack of willingness of the university
•
toaccept courses from the colleges with the result that little substantive
in
was available. The new procedures
,
vere expected to provide
that 'a feedback was available. The new procedures were expected to
provide a feedback mechanism which could be of value both to the university
and the colleges.
K.
Burstein was concerned with page 12, item 4, and noted that it
was proposed to agree to accept and act upon the information provided by
the Academic Board unless it can be shown to be in question, and felt
that this was not a sufficiently clear-cut procedure. He was of the
opinion that if Simon Fraser signed onto these principles, the other
universities should do so. He also was concerned with the matter of
•
accreditation and recognition of courses from other jurisdictions.
J. Ellis indicated that in the United States there are accrediting
agencies and that appropriate data can be obtained, but there was further
provision for utilization of the principle of utilizing evaluations frOm
a leading university in the particular region. K. Burstein felt that, if
the, Admissions Board was being charged with utilization of this type of
data and making decisions on accrediting, it could do similarly for B.C.
colleges.
W Williams again indicated his reservations on the capability of the
Academic Board at the present time to adequately carry out the functions
proposed.
L.
Boland noted that earlier J. Ellis had referred to the
,
possibility
of transferring course work in Fine Arts, and commented that the fact
credit transfer mightbe refused might arise from decision that this
university did not deem it to. be an appropriate university level study.
• "
Vote was then undertaken on-Recommendation No. 2.
NOTION CARRIED
12 in favor
2 opposed
2 abstained
- 10 -
S.N. 6/5/69
4. Recommendation No. 3
Moved by R. Haering, seconded by J. Walkley,
"It is recommended that the Senate of Simon
Fraser University request the Academic Board
to inform the university of those courses
and programs offered by colleges in this province
that can be considered equivalent in terms of
content, levels and requirements to courses and
programs typically found in the first two years
at university. (Part B)."
K. Rieckhoff referred to previous discussion which had included
aspects which would pertain to item 3. He had been of the opinion that
the Academic Board would-.indicate university level courses and also the
type of credit which would be allocated, but he now understood that the
Board would provide a general statement as to level, but that it would
not make specific recommendations iegarding Simon Fraser courses, direct
or indirect equivalent, and wished to know whether he was correct in
that interpretation, to which an affirmative answer was given. J. Ellis
referred to Recommendation No. 6.
.
.
G. Sperling enquired as to how the subject committees, to which
reference had. been made, were selected, as to the frequency of meetings
and as to whether or not it was intended that they would meet more
frequently. D. Tuck responded, noting that a number of the disciplines
had held meetings and that much of the preliminary work had been set in
motion through a meeting convened at the Academic Board held in December.
He noted that the Chemistry group had met again recently.
L. Boland expressed the view that if the Academic.Board identified
courses such as Fine Arts as being at the university level, it would
still not resolve the problem as to what action Simon Fraser University
should take concerning the course.
D. Sullivan commented on the question which had been raised by K.
Rleckhoff. and the response thereto, as he had believed it had been the
• Intent to have the Academic Board indicate subject equivalents, etc.
• Under certain conditions he believed this would be a logical thing for
the subject committees to participate In. However, as currently
expressed, he felt that the proposed-procedure would not do a great
deal more than make information more accessible and better disbursed
within the public, since the matter of Simon Fraser course equivalents
would still be a departmental prerogative. He commented that under
Recommendation 8 - unassigned credit in a subject area - that this
matter was a faculty responsibility, and that the faculty would have
to determine whether or not it approves transfer credit, for example
in Fine Arts, toward the Arts degree. He was still not clear as to
who would make the decision and felt that difficulties could arise.
J. Ellis referred to the protective mechanisms as outlined under
transfer credit on page 25, noting that a student seeking admission with
transfer credit is advised that he must meet the general and specific
requirements of the faculty and departments in which he chooses to major.
S.M. 6/5/69
K. Burstein believed the issue unclear, as it was understood that
the Board would assess courses as being college level transferable
courses and that under the report all transferable courses would be
transferred in total, with the amount of credit to be divided among
three categories. J. Ellis .
noted that this was correct, but that the
items could not be read without looking at the totality of the report,
and that in some instances, particularly where a student changes fields,
some of the transfer credit would not apply to the particular degree
being sought.
Further question-was raised by K. Burstein concerning courses such
as Fine Arts, Italian, with enquiry as to the sub-committee that might
give consideration to these. J. Ellis indicated that one of the premises
of the report was that a student's experience with an institution of
higher learning is more than the sum total of the number of courses that
he had, and that if the student had attended a reputable institution and
does university level work, presumably he should have some recognition
for that. He was, of the
.
opinion that because some areas of human know-
ledge, generally recognized as being reputable at a university level, are
not taught at this institution, did not seem to be sufficient reason for
failure to recognize the worthwhile experience undertaken elsewhere
Insofar as the granting of credit is concerned.
J.
Hutchinson .
considered that the item in its present form should be
•
,
defeated, as it could lead to blanket accreditation of virtually every
existing course in every academic transfer program from the regional
colleges in the province.
Vote was then undertaken on Recommendation No. 3.
MOTION CARRIED
10 in favor
5 opposed
2 abstained
K.
Burstein requested that his negative vote be recorded.
5. Recommendation No. 4
Moved by R. Haering, seconded by J. Waikley,
"It is recommended that the Senate of Simon
Fraser University agree to 'accept and act upon
the information referred to in Recommendation 4
until or unless it can be shown to be in question."
L.
Boland suggested that the item not be passed, as it provides
for only two options, namely acceptance or rejection. He was of the
opinion that there should be provision for an intermediate position
• '
of acceptance with limitations.
D. Sullivan suggested that it was desirable that further considera-
tion be given' the mechanism particularly of those pertaining to un-
assigned credit and equivalencies. He also felt it desirable to. wait
until the Academic Board indicates that it has completed its feasibility
12 -
S.M. 6/5/69
study. He was in agreement in principle but was concerned about the
methods.
Vote was then undertaken on Recommendation No. 4.
MOTION CARRIED
9 in favor
6 opposed
1 abstained
6. Recommendation No. 5
Moved by R. Haering, seconded by J. Walkley,
"It is recommended that the Senate of Simon
Fraser University agree with the principle
that a student should be able to complete a
four-year degree in approximately four
'academic years, whether or not he commences
his studies at this university, provided.
that: (Part C)'
5.1 he maintains a satisfactory level of achievement
in full programs of university level studies.
• '
5.2 he spends at least the last two years of his
degree program at the university.
5.3 he does not change his academic objectives.
5.4 he has made a reasonable effort to complete.
prerequisites of lower division
'
work for his
chosen.program during his first two years of
study."
J. Ellis spoke briefly and noted that much of the material had
been covered In earlier comments. If a student starts to major, for
example, in Fine Arts,' but does two years in that study and then trans-
fers to Simon Fraser University for a B.A. in English, he obviously
could not satisfy condition No. 5.3, as his academic objectives have
changed. Similarly, he has to meet the requirements, 'general and
specific, of both department and faculty. The principle is one of
completing a four-year degree in approximately four years, subject
to the conditions noted.
S. .Wassermann 'noted that an individual is expected to undertake
the 'last two years of his work here, but that on page 25 there is
provision for an exceptional case. J. Ellis noted that 'a, number of
individuals had raised questions on this item, and that indeed page 25
was to provide for very unusual cases.
•
'
K. RieckhOff noted that he was in general agreement with these
suggestions, but that he saw certain practical difficulties in applica-
tion, and that in a number of cases It would not be possible for an
indlvidual,to finish his degree In four years if certain items are
lacking that are specifically required by department or faculty.
- 13-
S.M. 6/5/69
D. Sullivan was concerned at the lack of specific means for making
it clear to a student where the responsibility lies as to how the non-
direct equivalent credits would apply. He was hopeful that more clari-
fication would arise. J. Ellis suggested that Recommendation 10 might
take care of a number of these matters, with the understanding it
would be necessary to make widely known the fact that a student intend-
ing to major in certain subject fields might be expected to enroll as a
freshman in the university if there are obvious difficulties of transfer
credit in the particular discipline.
Vote was then under taken on Recommendation No. 5.
NOTION CARRIED
9 in favor
2 abstained
7. Recommendation No. 10
Moved by R. Haering, seconded by J. Walkley,
"It is recommended that the Senate; of Simon
Fraser University request the Undergraduate
Admissions Board to Inform Senate of major
and honors programs in which the principle
agreed to in recommendation 5 appears diff I-
cult to meet. (Part C)."
MOTION CARRIED
13 In favor
An TA1mMMMm
It was suggested that another special meeting be held. It was moved
by S. Wong,. seconded by G. Sperling that the meeting adjourn.
MOTION CARRIED
7 in favor
6 opposed
1 abstained
The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
H. M. Evans
Secretary