DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SENATE OF SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY HELD
FRIDAY, MAY 9, 1969 IN THE FACULTY LOUNGE AT 9:55 A.M.
SPECIAL MEETING - THE ELLIS REPORT (CONTINUED)
OPEN SESSION
Present:
Strand, K. T.
Chairman
Baird, D. A.
Boland, L. A
Burstein, K. R.
Srivastava, L. M.
Haering,R. R.
Okuda, K.
Rieckhoff, K. E.
Stratton, S. T.
Sullivan, D. H.
Walkley, J.
Wassermann, S.
Williams, W. E.
Wong, S.
Evans, H. N.
Secretary
Barboza, J.
Recording Secretary
.
Collins, E.
Recording Secretary
Absent:
Branca, A. E.
Cole, R. E.
Collins, N.
Conway, J.
Dampier, J. L.
D'Aoust, B.
Ellis, A. J.
Hamilton,
W. M.
Harper, R.J.C.
Hean, A.F.C.
Hutchinson, J. F.
Koerner, 0.
Korbin, D.
Lachian, A. H.
Lett, S.
MacKinnon, A. R.
McLean, C. H.
Perry, G. N.
Shrum G. N.
Sperling, G. B.
Tuck, D. C.
Vidaver, W. E.
IS
- 2 -
S.M. 9/5/69
CONTINUATION OF CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ELLIS REPORT
8. Recommendation No. 6
Moved by R. Haering, seconded by J. Walkley,
"It is recommended that the Senate of Simon
Fraser University empower the Undergraduate
Admissions Board to seek from academic depart-
ments a listing of course equivalencies related
to lower division courses and programs offered
in the several institutions of higher learning
in
the province. (Part C)."
J. Ellis indicated that the intent of Recommendation 6 was to set
up the necessary conditions for the Registrar's Office to deal with the
students' transfer of,credit and that the purpose of approving .6 would
be to make possible the implementation of Recommendation 8.1. It
envisages preparation of a master list which would indicate for the
colleges and the university whether.a course carries course equivalent
credit, subject area credit, or unassigned credit - if credit at all.
W. Williams referred to the amendment proposed by the Senate
Committee on Undergraduate
'
Admissions and Standings since, in his view,
there was not enough distinction between credit and standing in
Recommendation 6. A clarification and expansion of terms and intent is
desirable.
D. Sullivan indicated that he agreed with the principle but not
with the language and felt that before the item was passed there need
be much more explicit terminology, as he was fearful that with the
.presentwording there could be considerable argument at a later date
over the intent.
L. Srivastava indicated that he supported the intent of the section
but believed that' the wording required modification.
Further discussion was undertaken with explanation by J. Ellis
and additional questioning.
Vote was then undertaken on Recommendation No. 6
MOTION FAILED
The Chairman indicated that Section 6 would be set aside for sub-
sequent' modification and, consideration.
9.
Recommendation No. 7
.
,
Moved by R. Haering, seconded by J. Walkley,
"It is recommended that the Senate of Simon
Fraser University empower the Registrar to
award transfer credit up to a maximum of 60
semester hours for university level courses
- 3 -
S.M. 9/5/69
so designated by the Academic Board or
analogous agencies. (Part C)."
J.
Ellis commented on the intent of No. 7 and
its relationship to
other sections of the report. He had envisaged that when a student
entered university there would be a number of preliminary steps taken
that were routine and that these would then move the student towards
his major department in terms of making certain that the student had
necessary prerequisite study for undertaking majors and the like. As
a part of the routine process the departments would have given con-
siderable direction to the Registrar through Recommendation No. 6 but
follow-up would be expected. No. 7 would empower the Registrar to award
transfer credit that the student carries with him on subjects which
have been seen as the equivalent of university level studies, to a
maximum of 60 semester hours, but that the awarding of such hours may
or may not mean a
'
shortening of the degree, with this then moving into
the departmental area of concern.
D. Sullivan commented on his reéervations on the process' described.
He envisaged that the university would get information from the Academic
Board,.and generate'a list of courses by submitting them to the depart-
ments for a statement of which courses are equivalent and which 'ones
have acceptable area credit. He was concerned,however, over the matter
of the residual credits beyond the specific equivalents and the accept-
able area requirements that departments might-accept, and that it was
•
up to the Faculty of Arts, or other Faculties, to identify those courses
which might be acceptable towards the particular degree beyond those
In the specific and area fields. In particular, the Faculties of the
university would have to say how much of the unassigned credit is to
be applied, to each of the degrees. He considered that there should be
deferment on Items 6, 7, .8 and 9 until the mechanisms could be spelled
out.
L.
Bôland expressed concern that through the provision of Recom-
mendation No. 4 It was necessary: to review Items 8.2 and '8.3 carefully
as otherwise the university in effect could be giving a British Columbia
degree rather than a Simon Fraser University degree.
R. Haering indicated that he
wished
to speak in favor. of Recom-
mendation No. 7and against the arguments raised by D. Sullivan as he
believed that procedures suggested might be somewhat better but not
greatly better than the procedures which have previously existed. He
was
,
of the Opinion, that appropriate use of Recommendation 4 would
provide the protection being sought.
L. Srivastava spoke in. favor of Item .7 and did not believe it
would create the difficulties suggested by D. Sullivan. Further con-
sideration might be necessary under Item 8 and 9.
K.
Okuda saw no difficulty with Item 7, but was concerned about
.
the transfer of credit from institutions outside the Province of
British Columbia. He did not believe that D. Sullivan's suggestions
could be applied in terms of outside transfer courses without encounter-
ing significant difficulties.
4 -
S.N. 9/5/69
.W. Williams Indicated general agreement with D. 'Sullivan, al-
though he,concurred with K. Okuda that it would not be appropriate
to invoke Faculties and a number of other agencies directly in a
number of these decisions. He was convinced that it was necessary
to more precisely word the section dealing with unassigned credit.
S. Stratton believed that Section 7 should be approved, par-
ticularly In principle, and that if it was necessary to add something
further along, that thiscould be adequately done.
J. Ellis noted that it had been necessary to make recommendations
without knowledge as to what an independent Faculty might do in an
Area Of unassigned credit. He drew attention to page 25 and its
conjunction with Recommendation 10 on page 17, as follows:
"An applicant seeking admission with transfer credit is
advised that the courses he transfers, together with those
he subsequently takes at the university, must meet the.
general And specific requirements. of the faculty and the
department in which he chOoses to major or honor." - "The
applicant should not assume that he will complete his degree
with
.
a number of semester hours equal to the difference
between total hours required for the degree and transferred
hours."
. .
He presumed that departments and faculties would be more definitive
in the statements that they would make concerning transfer credit.
Vote was undertaken on Recommendation No. 7.
NOTION CARRIED
10 in favor
1 opposed
1 abstained
10. Recommendation No. 8
Moved by R. Haering, seconded by J. Walkley,
"It,
Uni'
all
8.1
8.2
8.3
is recommended to the Senate of
rersity to request the Registrar
transfer credit under these hea
Simon Fraser University course
Unassigned credit In a subject
Unassigned credit.
Simon Fraser
to designate
iings: (Part C)
equivalents.
area.
The sum of these three should be equal to total
hours granted by the transferring Institution
for the student's transferable courses."
J. Ellis indicated that Section 8 is assigned to provide a
mechanism in which the Registrar would examine the transferable
courses and categorize them into three groups. He noted that the
- 5 -
S.M. 9/5/69
Undergraduate Admissions Board was concerned about the wording of the
last sentence in Recommendation 8, that the Advisory Committee had
spent an hour trying to word that particular sentence and
,
that none
were happy when the item was completed, but that there had been agree-
ment upon the intent. He further noted that it has been accepted by
the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Standings which
had proposed an amendment on the intent that, for example 37 transfer-
able hours equals 37 Simon Fraser University hours. He considered
that the amendment of the Undergraduate Admissions Committee also
embodied certain difficulties in wording. Nevertheless, there had
been overall agreement on Intent.
•
W. Williams enquired as to whether the reference to the principles
of transferable credit pertained only to B.C. institutions or to other
agencies. J. Ellis indicated that the intent was also to pertain to
other areas, and drew attention to the references which had been made
to analogous agencies elsewhere. He referred to pages 13 and 14 of the
report.
W. Williams commented upon the variations that can arise from
area to area, and J. Ellis indicated that problems did exist but that
reference to the recognition given by a leading institution in the
area could help to overcome some of these difficulties.
L. Bolañd indicated that the procedures were still not clear and
S .
that the Registrar had now been empowered to grant up to 60 semester
hours without clarity of procedures.
R. Haering suggested that 'at 'this stage commitment was being made
only to one specIfic transferring agency, the Academic Board of
British Columbia. He was of the opinion that the other references
were perhaps' purposely vagUe so that some control might be maintained.
From this standpoint the prime intent, since most students were from
British Columbia agencies, was to establish specific recommendations
concerning transfers within the province.
K. Okuda was of the opinion that there was re-argument of
Recommendations 6 and 9 instead of Recommendation 8, and that he was
of the belief that Item 8 presented merely a mechanism.
D. Sullivan 'disagreed that Item 8 represented a mechanism only
and commented that the last sentence of Item 8 represented a principle.
He did not consider it possible, for the Registrar's Office to write
across the world for data and that appropriate mechanisms would be
necessary to seek advice within the university on a number of items.
J. Walkley considered that the important words are 'student's
transferable
and' that it was his assumption that if a
,
course
is acceptable, the
,
hours carried by the course would be transferable.
.
S. Wong indicated that in the Advisory Committee there had been
considerable discussion on this point and that the Intention was to
ensure some mechanism of calculating the amount of credits which
would be given at Simon Fraser University, basically to ensure that
it would neither be given too much nor too little.
6 -
S.M. 9/5/69
K. Burstein believed that these items had to be spelled out
in
greater detail.
J.
Ellis indicated that in view of the items currently passed
reference primarily was to the use of the Academic Board within
the province as an accrediting agency, but that over a long term he
expected use of the principle of reference to a leading university
in a given locality to provide data on the basis of which appropriate
decisions could be made.
Vote was then undertaken on Recommendation No. 8.
MOTION CARRIED
6 in favor
5 opposed
1 abstained
11. Recommendation No. 9
Moved by R. Haering, seconded by J. Walkley,
"It. is recommeüded that the Senate of 'Simon
Fraser University request the 'Undergraduate
Admissions Board to issue guidelines to
departments in an effort to ensure that' a
student's program will not become unneces-
sarily attenuated either by the requirement
of repetitive lower division courses or by
the requirement of anumber of lower division
hours significantly in excess of minimum
department requirements. (Part C)."
J.Ellis suggested that there was some confusion in the understand-
ing of the intent of Recommendation 6 and Recommendation 9. It was
intendedthat Recommendation 6'spe'cify certain courses as SF1.1 course
equivalents and that in large measure this decision would rest with
individual departments.. Recommendation 9, however, assumes that certain
earlier events have transpired including the admission of a student
with a certain number of transfer hours, including perhaps a number of
unassigned hours. He was of the opinion that the Admissions Board
should issue guidelines within the
'
spIrit of page 15 and that the middle
paragraph on page 15 represents a direction to departments to examine
the unassigned credits in the area that the student has, to determine
whether these might offer. alternatives of the same kind to particular
topics that are seen' as necessary lower division prerequisites for the
student. In those cases where transfers were difficult No. 10 would'
become operative and students could be informed of overall difficulties.
K.
Okuda was concerned with the suggestion that the Undergraduate
Admissions Board issues guidelines and did not consider that these
could be beyond the general guidelines contained in the report in the
sections already passed. To suggest more specific guidelines could
lead to the Undergraduate Admissions Board admonishing individual
departments for treating a particular student badly. Be considered
that Item 9 should be defeated but that Item 10 could be the' method
- 7 -
S.M. 9/5/69
whereby Senate would be informed as, to areas where major difficulties
arise consistently such that further consideration could be given to
seek appropriate solution.
W. Williams was of the opinion that it would be illogical and
inconsistent to have defeated Recommendation 6 but to then pass
Recommendation 9. He did not consider that there was sufficient dis-
tinction between credit and standing.
D. Sullivan spoke against. Recommendation 9 and rejected the point
of view expressed by J. Ellis concerning Item 4 on page 15 Of the
report, as he considered it the responsibility of the university to
set its own programs and not toassume responsibility because of
inability of other institutions to offer programs which dovetail.
S. Stratton suggested that Recommendation 9 is one priiiari1y for
improving communication through the Admissions Board distributing in-
formation and suggesting guidelines.
K. Burstein considered that the issuance of guidelines
to depart-
ments, especially with respect to program requirements End' course
structure, could have very serious consequences. Such guidane should
come from Seüate and should not be delegated to another body. He did
not consider that the other body would have competence to carry out
•
the proposal adequately.
J. Walkley believed the proposal appropriate because of. the diffi-
•
'
culty in obtaining data from departments and felt that Item 10
provided a further appropriate feature.
J. Ellis concurred that there should .be no attempt to adjust the
university's academic line to the
ètringeücies
placed upon regional
colleges but believed that 'guidelines could be well issued under the
suggestions made on page 15. He drew attention to the paper circulated
earlier by D. Sullivan and believed that it reflected the spirit intended
in' Recommendation 9. The intent was not to indicate compulsory action.
but to solicit information to facilitate the overall process. Récom-
mendation 1
,
0 would be utilized where necessary to inform a college that
d
the particular kin of work undertaken in certain areas' would not
represent an acceptable start upon a major program for a student con-
templating transfer to S1ñdn Fraser University.
Vote was then undertaken on Recommendation No. 9..
MOTION FAILED
4 in favor
7 opposed
1 abstained
It
was
noted that this item would be set aside for further con-
sideration and amendments at a later meeting.
12. Recommendation No. 12
Moved by R. Haering, seconded by J. WElkley,
- 8 -
S.M. 9/5/69
"It is recommended that the Senate of Simon
Fraser University adopt the proposed Statement
on Admissions and Transfer. (Part E)."
J. Ellis noted that Recommendation 12 was a long and complicated
recommendation. He considered that the recommendation represented a
series of rules growing out of a number of the policies earlier con-
sidered, rather than policies within themselves. He noted that the
principle of parallelism had been used througout the section and
commented on a number of the elements of parallelism.
He considered that retention of parallel treatment of parallel
groups was a particularly important element in the report.
The Chairman indicated that he would undertake a straw vote and
that if there was indication the section would not pass, individuals
could speak before the actual vote is put.. The straw vote suggested
the section would.not pass.
.
.
Discussion was: ündertakén as to the possibility of considering
the sub-sections item by item, but in view of the earlier procedures
adopted, it was agreed that this would not be an appropriate time to
follow that procedure.
•
Vote on Recommendation 12 was then undertaken.
MOTION FAILED
1 in favor
9 opposed
2 abstained
It was noted that Recommendation 12 would be set aside for consider-
àtion and possible amendments at a later meeting.
13. Recommendation No. 13
Moved by R. Haering, seconded by J. Walkley,
"It is recommended that the Senate .
of Simon
Fraser University endorse the Statement on
Continuance, Withdrawal and Re-admission.
(Part F)."
J. Ellis noted that the committee had a great deal of difficulty
with the partièular section for a number of technical reasons and
that the recommendations put forward represented currently existing
policy. He noted further that Recommendation 13 interacts closely
with the considerations of Recommendation 12 and suggested that
Recommendation 13 be deferred.
Vote was undertaken on Recommendation 13.
MOTION FAILED
11 opposed
1 abstained
- 9 -
S.M. 9/5/69
The Recommendation will be considered at a later meeting.
14. Recommendation No. 14
Moved by R. Haering, seconded by J. Walkley,
"It is recommended that the Senate of Simon
Fraser University request the Admissions
Board to continue the practice of the Senate
Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and
Standings in reviewing the cases of students
with low records of achievement. (Part F)."
J.
Ellis: indicate4 that the present Admissions Committee had
carried out this particular task with considerable conscientiousness
and that a similar
review
in future was desirable.
S. Wong suggested, that the committee might also consider the
records of students'with high academic standing.
K. Burstein concurred that review of records was necessary but
believed that a more efficient procedure was required to remove the
current awkwardness.
D. Sullivan enquired as to whether the intent was to have the same
.
process as at present continue and J. Ellis indicated that the intent
was that records be examined without stipulating the specific method.
W. Williams considered it necessary to have examination of a
number of individual cases and did not believe that a computer could
carry out the operation adequately.
K. Rleckhoff
believed,
that the Comments made indicated there was
lack of clarity and that there should be clarification, or the
section defeated.
Vote was Undertaken on Recommendation 14.
MOTION CARRIED
8 in favor
3 opposed
1 abstained
15. Recommendation No. 15
Moved by R. Raering, seconded by J. Walkley,
"It is recommended that the Senate of Simon
Fraser University encourage the Admissions
Board to foster the systematic development
.
of procedures for admitting and ensuring the
academic success of Special Entry Students.
(Part G)."
- 10 -
S.M. 9/5/69
J. Ellis spoke to the item and indicated that he could concur
with the suggestion of the Undergraduate Admissions Board that the
sub-division of the three categories of special early admissions,
early entry and mature entry is probably, preferable to the continua-
tion of the rather awkward expressions which have been used. The
intent is to place the responsibility for the very important groups
clearly in someone's hands. The recommendation is to examine more
clearly what is involved, to develop procedures for admitting groups
and making certain that there are procedures available to support
groups that may need additional assistance.
Vote was undertaken on Recommendation 15.
MOTION CARRIED
10 in favor
1 abstained
16. Recommendation No. 16
Moved by R. Haering, seconded by J. Walkley,
it is recommended that the Senate of Simon
Fraser University approve in. principle a program
of course challenge. (Part H)."
J. Ellis indicated that the intent of Recommendation 16 is to
recognize a particular fact Of social living today and that it is
not intended to force the practice suggested upon individual depart-
ments but that in some areas of study departments would be prepared
to recognize that certain students come with knowledge already avail-
able to them.
D. Sullivan supported the principle strongly but noted that it
would be necessary that appropriate procedures be developed.
W. Williams supported the principle but wondered if there was
implicit a suggestion of retroactivity. J. Ellis indicated that the
intent of No. 16 is to gain an approval of the suggestion and that
Recommendation 17 will provide for development of procedures. He
concurred that it was necessary to draw safegurds and that these
should be developed clearly and specifically.
S. Wassermanñ enquired as to why the course challenge should be
limited to 5 courses and J. Ellis indicated that this was simply
indicative of what the nature of a system of course challenge might
be.
Vote was Undertaken on Recommendation 16.
MOTION CARRIED
Din favor
The Chairman wished the minutes to show that the vote was
unanimous.
- 11 -
S.M.
9/5/69
17.
Recommendation No. 17
Moved by R. Haeriñg, seconded by J. Walkley,
"It is recommended that the Senate of Simon
Fraser University instruct the Undergraduate
Admissions Board
to
develop with interested
departments a program of course challenge
and submit the program for Senate approval
before the end of 1969. (Part H)."
D.
Sullivan-enquired
I
as to whether or not the date was realistic.
The Chairman suggested that the item could be defeated and. the date
changed or, alternatively, that the date could be left and that if it
is later found impossible to meet the date, report
.
would be made to
Senate.
L. Boland was not satisfied that the Undergraduate AdmissiOns
Board should be asked to undertake the job but considered that it
might be given to another committee.
Enquiry was made as to whether or not the passing of Recommenda-
tion 17 would automatically include the specific proposals generated
in Part H of the report The Chairman indicated that he had earlier
stated that if the principle was approved, a simple organizational
•
and procedural framework might be developed somewhat as outlined, but
that this was indicativeand not binding.
K Burstein concurred with L Boland that the Admissions Board
might
: not be the-appropriate body and believed that Senate itself
should give consideration to the item. S. Wong suggested that the
Senate Committee might.coordinate the study.
W. Williams was of the opinion that the Admissions Board would
be an appropriate body to undertake action.
R. Haering expressed the view that it might be appropriate to
have a committee undertaking the work.
L. Srivástava suggested that the AdmissiOns Board would be the
appropriate body.
Vote was undertaken on Recommendation 17.
MOTION CARRIED
9 in favor
5 opposed
18.
Recommendation No. 18
.
Moved by R. Haering, seconded by J. Walkley,
"It is recommended that the Senate of Simon
Fraser University request the Acting President
12 -
S.M. 9/5/69
to make provision, as may be possible, for the
academic planning and student advising services
that are presently lacking
or deficient. (Part
I)."
J. Ellis
indicated
that
Rècónmandations
18 and 19 go together
and constitute a request to the President to examine the area of
student advising and the additional area of provision of information
upon which Senate can do adequate planning.
Vote was undertaken on Recommendation 18.
NOTION CARRIED
11 in favor
1 abstained
19. Recommendation No. 19
Moved by R. Haering, seconded by J. Walkley,
"It is recommended that the Senate of Simon
Fraser. University request the Acting
.
ctiug President
to undertake or cause to be undertaken a study
designed to bring about abetter articulation
•
of the various university services that are
related to admissions, 'standings and credits
(Part I)."
Vote was undertaken on Recommendation 19.
MOTION CARRIED
11 in favor
1 abstained
20. RecOmmendation No. 20
Moved by R Haering, seconded by J. Walkley,
"It is recommended that the Senate of Simon
Fraser University agree that students enrolling
for the first time at the University in
September 1969 be governed by new policies on
Admissions, Credits and Standings, providing
that agreement is reached on all necessary
aspects of the policies by no later than,May
15, 1969. It is understood that all existing
policies and procedures will remain in force
unless specifically amended or revoked, until
they are superseded by the new policies and
procedures. (Part 3)."
J. Ellis described the rationale behind the dates suggested but
noted that there had been some delay in the matter coming before Senate
and that Recommendations 12 and 13 had not yet been approved and that
there were other areas now requiring clarification.
- 13 -
S.M. 915/69
The Chairman enquired as to the number of Senators who would be
in a position to reconvene after luncheon, but response indicated
there would be difficulty in developing a quorum.
K.
Rieckhoff considered it almost impossible to follow the sug-
gested timing and believed that implementation for September might be
difficult if not impossible.
D. Sullivan considered the statement too broad and did not
believe
that It could be accomplished by September.
L.
Srivastava suggested a change in procedure and that there ap-
peared to be no great difficulties in Recommendations 21 and 22.
He
suggested that consideration be given to Items 21, 22 and possible
23 and that a small working group composed of Professor Ellis and
other interested members of Senate be charged to re-examine the sections
which have not passed and to come back with revised versions on such
items.'
The Chairman indicated agreement with the proposal but noted that
Item 23 would not be considered until all other items had passed..
S. Wong believed that every effort should be made to consider
implementation for September 1969 and that the date of May 15 might be
•
•
changed to May 31.
K.
BursteiP expressed concern similar to those of Professor
Rieèkhoff and was not satisfied that there-was great urgency, particu-
larly if items would be passed too hurriedly.
S. Wong enquired as to whether or not it was the Chairman's inten-
tion to recànvene Senate. during
the current terms of membership of a
number of persons, 'and the Chairman indicated that this was the intent.
Vote was undertaken on Recommendation 20.
MOTION FAILED
6 in favor
6 opposed
21. Recommendation No. 21
Moved by R. Haering, seconded by J. Walkley,
"It it recommended that the Senate of Simon
Fraser University empower the present Under-
graduate Admissions Committee to act for the
Admissions Board until the latter Is consti-
tuted. (Part J)."
MOTION CARRIED
9 iii favor
2 abstained
- 14 -
S.M. 9/5/69
22. Recommendation No. 22
Moved by R. Haering, seconded by J. Walkley,
t
ilt is recommended that the Senate of Simon
Fraser University empower the present Appeals
Group to act for the Appeals Board until the
latter is constituted. Part J)."
MOTION CARRIED
8 in favor
3 abstained
The Chairman indicated that, within the present rules, it would
be necessary for Senate to reconvene at a.later stage to consider,
in
the following order, Items 6, 9, 12, 13, 20 and 23. He referred
to the suggestion of L. Srlvastáva concerning a working group and
requested that persons who have specific written ainendnients, in
addition to those that have already been suggested, be sent to him
promptly. He asked for an indication as to the persons who would
be willing to meet as a Working
Conunittee.
He then indicated that
he proposed to meet, following the present session, with L. Boland,
K. Burstein, S. Stratton, L. Srivastava, D. Sullivan and J. Walkley.
The meeting was recessed at 12:35 p.m. to be reconvened at the
call of the Chair.
.
H. M. Evans
Secretary
L -'
