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:

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

- 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 ,

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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."

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