a
DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED BY SENATE
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SENATE OF
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
HELD MONDAY, JUNE 9, 1969 IN THE FACULTY
LOUNGE AT 7:30 P.M.
•
OPEN SESSION
Present:
Strand, K. T.
Chairman
Barlow, J. S.
•
.
Brown, R. C.
• Burstein,. K. R.
•
Campbell, N. 4.
Carlson, R. L.
Claridge, R. W.
Cole, R. E.
•
D'Aoust, B. R.
•
.
•
Freinian, L.
.
Hutchinson, J. F.
•
.
.
.
Kenward,.J. K.
Korbin, D.
Lachlan, A. H.
.Lebowitz, N. A.
•
.
McDougall, A. H.
• .
.
Rieckhoff, K. E.
•
Sayre, J.
S
Srivastava, L. M.
•
.
Stone, A. L.
•
.
Stratton, S.
T.
Sullivan, D. .H.
Tuck, D. G.
•
•
•
.
Turnbull, A. L.
•
•
. Walkley, J.
•
Wassermann, S.
•
.
.
:Elifs,
J. F.
S
•
Evans, H. N.
Secretary
Kelsey, I. B.
•
••
.
Meakin, D.
Mackie, N.
•
• •
•
Day,
J.A.P.
•
Barboza,.J.)
•
S
•
Wright,
L.
)
Recording Secretaries
• •
.• Absent:.
.
. Baird, D.
A.
Caple, K. P.
•
,•
S
••
•
.
Collins, N.
Drache, S.
Funt, B. L.
•
S
.
Hamilton,
W. M.
Hean, A.F.C.
MacKinnon, A. R.
•
•
.
McLean, C. H.
•
Perry, G. N.
ko
- 2 -
S.M. 9/6/69
The Chairman called the meeting to order and outlined the
business before
.
Senate, to consider proposed revisions, additions
and alternative wordings to the
Ellis
Report on Admissions and
Standings. He informed Senate that the special committee appointed
to study certain parts of the
Ellis
Report had recommended that their
suggestions be taken in a certain order, as listed on the Agenda, and
that Senate would comply with this.
K. Burstein suggested that Paper S.240-12 be dealt with first, so
that Senate decisions could be implemented before fall enrolment. D.
Sullivan said that implementation was the last factor to be.considered
and spoke against the motion.
Moved by K. Burstein, seconded by A.
Lachlan.'
"That Paper S.240-12 be dealt with first."
MOTION FAILED
1. PAPER
S.240-2 - Motion H or Motion Li
J.
Ellis
introduced
•
Motion
H.
He said there had been a great
deal of discussion on this motion in committee and he was prepared
to withdraw his proposal in favor of Notion H.l. Senators heard
arguments that
H.i
was biased
against transfer students and gave
•
students already in Simon Fraser an advantage, as they would have less
adjustment to make and their grades would likely be better at first.
Another argument said that in practice the warning system brought
little overall advantage.
Moved by D. Korbin, seconded by
J.
Kenward,
"That Notion K be adopted."
MOTION FAILED
Moved by K. Burstein, seconded by D. Sullivan,
"That Motion
H.l
be adopted.."
MOTION CARRIED
Motion
H.l
represents a rewording of page 36 of the
Ellis
Report
- "Statement on Continuance, Withdrawal and Re-admission" as follows:-
"All students who enter the University are expected to
• .
maintain acceptable standards of scholarshipi
Specifically,
they are expected to maintain a 2.0 cumulative grade point
• .
average. A student who does not maintain the 2.0 cumulative
average will be considered to be performing less than satis-
. S S
factorily in his studies and will be asked to withdraw from
the University, if after a probationary period he is unable
to raise his cumulative grade point average to or above the
minimal requirement. in accordance with the following:
1. A student whose cumulative grade point average (on courses
- 3 -
S.M. 9/6/69
taken at Simon Fraser University) falls below 2.00
will be placed on academic probat4p for the next
semester. If, at the end of the probation semester,
the student has not raised his cumulative grade
point average to the minimum 2.00, he will be
required to withdraw. However, if a student on
academic probation obtains a semester grade point
average of 2.50 or higher, he shall be permitted
to continue on academic probation even if his
cumulative grade point average has not reached 2.00.
2.
A student who enters the University in the first or
second year of studies (Or who has less than 45 hours
of transfer credit) toward a degree and who does not
in his first term of study at this University receive
a 2.00 average or better will be placed on academic
warning. In his second or subsequent semesters at
this University, he will be treated as in paragraph 1.
3.
A student with a cumulátve grade point average of
1.00 or less for two consecutive semesters will be
required to withdraw permanently.
4.
A student on either academic warning, or academic
probation must carry a minimum semester course load
of 12 semester hours and may not repeat courses in
which he has received a grade of C minus or better.
5.
A student who is required to withdraw will be re-
admitted on academic probation after twelve months
have elapsed. Transfer credit for work undertaken
during the 'twelve month period will be allowed Only
if the student has received the express prior approval
of the Admissions Board for work he intends to undertake.
6.
A student who Is required to withdraw for a second time
will be required to withdraw permanently. No case of
permanent withdrawal will be reconsidered for a period
of five years.
7.
Under exceptional circumstances, the Admissions Board
may waive these conditions for individual cases."
2. PAPER S.240-4 - Notion B
• J. Ellis Introduced Motion B and said that this motion would
clarify the situation with regard to maximum transferable credit.
Moved by L. Srivastàva, seconded by K.
RIeckhoff,
4
"That Motion B be adopted."
MOTION CARRIED
- 4 -
S.M. 9/6/69
Under Notion B it is stipulated, "That Senate agree that the
maximum credit allowable to a student on transfer is 60 semester
hours." This results in changes on page 25 of the report with
deletion of sentences 2 and 3 - "In exceptional cases a student
may have undertaken upper level studies at another institution
that are within, and appropriate to the major field he chooses at
this unitersity. If the department
in
which the student proposes
to major so wishes, it may request the Dean
of
the faculty to
petition the Adniissions Board to consider granting up to 30 addi-
tional transfer hours of credit for courses taken elsewhere that
replace specific courses on the student's major program."
It results in a further change on page 34, item 3.4, line 4,
such that.3.4 reads as follows:
"An applicant from a foreigncountry who seeks admission
with 60 or more semester hours or its equivalent in
subjects acceptable fortransfer credit may be considered
for admission and transfer credit with the following
provisions: Maximum transfer .credit allowed will be 60
semester hours; studies must have been undertaken at a
fully accredited
institution
of
higher learning; the
studies presented for transfer credit must, be acceptable
toa leading university in his home area toward a program
similar to the one to which he seeks admission; and his
cumulative CPA must be 2.0 (C) or higher on transferable
courses."
3. PAPER S.240-5 - Motion C or Motion C.l
Introducing Notion C, J. Ellis said that the motion was aimed at
avoiding anomalies in grade averages that can arise from disallowing
D marks as credits. He said Motion C endeavoured to have transfer
students' D grades viewed in the same way as D grades of Simon Fraser
students are viewed.
Discussion on the floor made the point's that disallowing.D grades
from transfer students sets up double standards and transfer students
would be at a disadvantage against Simon Fraser students. Another
argument, opposing the motion, said that overall quality should not
be a criterion of granting credit as it is not the criterion by which
course grades are awarded. Another point made was that students are
unlikely to pursüé courses in which they have received low grades.
The Faculty of Arts Curriculum Committee opposes granting credit for
D's; the Faculty of Science supports it.
Moved by L.'-Srivastava, and seconded,
"That Motion C be adopted."
.
MOTION 'CARRIED
15 in favor
6 opposed
3 abstained
- 5 -
S.N. 9/6/69
0
Under Motion C It is stipulated, "That Senate agree that students
whose averages or cumulative grade points are sufficiently high to gain
them admission to the university should receive transfer credit forall
transferable courses that they have passed with the understanding that
a department may require a student to repeat without credit a course in
which a student obtained a D and which 'is prerequisite to another course
in the same discipline which the student wishes to undertake."
4. PAPER S.240-9 - Notion G or Gl or G.2
According to J. Ellis, Motion G was an attempt to make the note
under 1.2 on page 25 of the original report more explicit.
Moved by L. Srivastava, seconded by K. Rieckhoff,
"That Motion C be approved, i.e. That Senate
approve the revised wording of Section 1.2,
page 25, Admission with Transfer Credit Note
as set forth in Supplementary Paper C."
Substitute motion was made by D. Sullivan, with unidentified
seconder,
"That Motion G.l be adopted."
D. Sullivan said such adoption would be
in
line with the policy of
many North American universities and was necessary in view of the
"patently absurd" financing, situation of B.C. universities. He said
the answer may be
.
to impose a quotaon out-of-province students and
regretted that there were no exact figures available on the present
situation. There followed lengthy discussion. Senators considered
what exactly constitutes residence in British Columbia. This would
have to be defined by the University, they were told. Arguments
Stated that discrimination towards out-of-province applicants had already
been passed by Senate.
A. Stone said that there should be .a deletion from G.l of the
portion reading, "and to students who are not residents of the Province
of British Columbia." Arguments against this motion stated that the
passage was necessary in view of the financial pressure on Simon Fraser
University.
Amendment was moved by A. Stone, seconded by M. Campbell,
•
"That Motion G.l be amended br deletion of
• •
•
the final clause of the motion, 'and to
students who are not residents of the
Province of British Columbia."
AMENDMENT TO MOTION
G.l FAILED
Discussion followed on the main motion that G.l be adopted.
- 6 -
S.M. 9/6/69
0
Senators regretted that there was not more information on the
subject, so they could judge how various categories of students
made up the student population. Several Senators wished to have
more time for thought on the subject of restricting enrolment.
Question was called on Motion G.l and .a vote taken.
MOTION G.l FAILED
11 in favor
12 opposed
2 abstained
It was then moved by K. Burstein, with unidentified seconder,
"That Motion G.2 be adopted."
K. Burstein said he was in favor
of adoptiOn
of SACU tests so
the tests could be used as one of several criteria in assessing
candidates. He said this would be of particular advantage to mature
students and that the number of SACU testing stations overseas would
provide a service for foreign applicants.
Some Senators expressed distrust of using results of such tests
in assessments. J. Ellis was asked for further information and said
at present the tests were being used for information only and data
.
is being correlated and amassed so that universities may compare the
tests with students' performance. One Senator's comment was that
there may be a danger of bias, perhaps on the basis of class, in the
test, also that the philosophy Of Simon Fraser University was that
there should not be standardized criteria. The question of whether
the student would be required to pay the fee for taking the test was
also raised. K. Burstein said the test must become mandatory to be
eventually useful.
Question was called on the motion to adopt Motion G.2, and a
vote taken..
MOTION G.2 FAILED
5 in favor
16 opposed
3 abstained
On Motion C, J. Ellis said that the basic decision had already
been passed and the rewording of the note was aimed at making it more
explicit. The aim was tohave transfer students treated the same way as
Simon Fraser students.
K. Burstein suggested deletion of the sentence, "Although usually
this :calculation will be correct for a student who remains within his
field of study, it will probably not be true for a student who changes
his field." He said this passage was misleading to students.
- 7 -
S.M. 9/6/69
Amendment was moved by K. Burstein, seconded by K. Rieckhoff,
"That the sentence in Notion G commencing,
'Although usually this calculation will be
correct' be deleted."
Question was called on the amendment, and a vote taken.
AMENDMENT FAILED
5 in favor
14 opposed
Vote was then taken on Motion C.
MOTION G. CARRIED
The passage of Motion C causes rewording of the Ellis Report,
page 25, item 1.2- Admission with Transfer Credit, as follows:
"1.2 Admission with Transfer Credit
Note: The maximum transfer credit that will be allowed
is 60 semester hours. An applicant seeking
admission with transfer credit is advised that the
courses he transfers, together with those he sub-
sequently 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.
Although usually this calculation will be correct
for a student.who remains within his field of study,
It will probably not be true for a student who
changes his field. Individual departments may
require students to
repeat'prerequisite courses in
which they have received transfer credit for a D.
The repeated course will show in the student's
record but will not carry credit.
Details of faculty and departmental requirements
can be found in the calendar and further information
can be obtained from the academic department in
question."
5. PAPER S.240-3 - Motion A Or A.l or.A.2
Moved by K. Burstein, with unidentified seconder,
"That Motion A.2 be approved."
K. Burstein spoke in support of Motion A.2, stressing the importance
of criteria to identify mature students. Another Senator stated that
- 8 -
S.M. 9/6169
criteria as outlined by K. Burstein would not be helpful to mature
students. K. Rieckhoff supported the proposal in A.2 because, he
claimed, there had to be some means of evaluating mature students.
K. Strand interjected that there would be two votes taken on
Paper A.2, the first dealing with Special Admissions, the second
dealing with Mature Student Entry.
Question was called on A.2 (1.3) Special Admissions, and a
vote taken.
MOTION A.2 (1.3) FAILED
Question was called on A.2 (1.33) Mature Student Entry, and a
vote taken.
MOTION A.2 (1.33)
FAILED
D. Sullivan then spoke in suppOrt of A.l and said that the only
way of assessing a mature student is by interview and discussion so that
the board may decide how his aims relate to his achievements. Discussion
showed that Senators felt it was unfair to ask a mature student appli-
cant for a statement of overall aims, as regular students were not
•
called upon to decide on enrolment what their final study program,
would be. Another view stated was that the mature student was part of
the category where it was accepted that an applicant would not have
had adequate preparation for study.
Moved by D. Sullivan, and seconded,
"That Al be adopted."
MOTION A.l FAILED
Moved by L. Srivastava, with unidentified seconder,
"That Senate approve the rewording of 1.3,
pages 29-31, under Recommendation 12,
Part E as given in the paper entitled
'Supplementary Paper A' (Revised)."
MOTION A CARRIED
This motion results in the rewording of the Ellis Report, pages
29-31, Section 1.3, Special Admissions, as follows:
"1.3 Special Admissions
The university is interested in extending university level
learning opportunities to citizens of this province who may
not qualify under the normal categories of admission pro-
viding always that the number of such persons admitted is
- 9 -
S.M. 9/6/69
subject to limitation in accordance with the availability
of university resources. At present the university offers
three types of special entry - Early Admission, Early
Entry and Mature Entry.
1.31 Early Admission is designed for students on the
Academic-Technical Program who are recommended by
their schools following their Grade 12 Easter
examinations.
1.311 Anapplicant must have demonstrated his
ability by exceptional academic records.
(average of 80% or better) and have shown
mature intellectual development to such an
extent that he would profit from admission
to the university without first securing
Grade 12 standing.
1.312 Admissiàn under this category is at the dis-
cretion of the Admissions Board. Inquiries
regarding admission under this category
•
should be directed to the Registrar.
1.32 Early Entry Is designed for students who have com-
pleted Grade 11 on the Academic-Technical Program.
Sections 1.311 and 1.312 also apply to this category
of admission.
1.33 Mature Student Entry
1.331 A person who Is twenty-five years of age or
more or would reach that age during his .first
semester in attendance if he were admitted to
the university, and who is not eligible for
admission under another category may apply for
admission.
1.332 Admission under this category is at the dis-
cretion of the Admissions Board, The Admis-
sionsBoard must be satisfied that the
applicant has sufficiently clear Objectives
in mind that he is likely to
from
university studies. The AdmissiónsBoard may,
at its discretion require applicants to take
appropriate tests. Inquiries regarding
admission under this category should be
directed to the Registrar.
6. PAPER S.240-6 - Motion D or D.l
Introducing Motion D, J. Ellis said some definition had been
necessary because of the uneveness in the educational system of Canada.
10 -
S.M. 9/6/69
Discussion ensued on D.1. Several Senators voiced concern over
varying standards of acceptance of non-university courses as first-
year university work. Examples concerned physics, where Ontario
Grade XIII was judged to be equivalent to B.C. Grade XII
.
, and
British GCE "A" Levels, which were said to be good equivalents of
first year university work. Replying to a question on how leading
universities in other provinces act, H. Evans said that leading
universities had stiffer requirements than those of newer institu-
tions. Leading
universities
in B.C. accepted Grade XIII from B.C.
high schools and colleges for transfer credit. Leading Ontario
universities had varying policies regarding Ontario Grade XIII
students.
It was pointed out to Senate that within B.C., standards of Grade
XIII work varied, and blanket acceptance of B.C. Grade XIII by the
University would remove incentive to upgrade the courses in that
grade. J. Ellis Said the centralized Department of Education examina-
tions
-
gave a measure of control.
It was moved and seconded,
"That Motion D.l (2.1) be adopted."
•
MOTION D.l (2.1)
.
FAILED
In discussion on D.1 (3.1), Senator Sayre commented that some
countries at present under the GCE system were trying to get away
from it and asked permission to make an amendment to the. original
report. On a point of order, K. Burstein said this action would not
be consistent with the rules laid down for the meeting. J. Sayre
withdrew his request.
It was moved and seconded,
"That D.l (3.1) be adopted."
MOTION D.l (3.1)
FAILED
On D.l (3.3), H. Evans stressed that this was a guideline only
and that the term "senior matriculation" was a very broad term.
It was moved and seconded,
"That Notion D be adopted, i.e., 'That Senate
agree that transfEr credit,be awarded for
transferable courses taken in Grade 13 or
equivalent. Grade 13 or equivalent will be
taken to mean Grade 13 in B.C.,. Regional and
)
Community Colleges in B.C., Grade 13 in
Ontario, New Brunswick and Prince Edward
Island, first year of Junior Colleges in the
/
United States, Advanced levels or equivalent.'"
MOTION D. CARRIED /•
-
11 -
S.M. 9/6/69
I
7. PAPER S.240-7 - Motion E
Presenting Motion E, J. Ellis said the intention was to draw-
Senate's attention to the transfer students who can be treated in
the same way as students already at Simon Fraser University. The
aim was to lay down ground rules on grade points for various
categories of students.
Moved by D. Sullivan, and seconded,
"That Notion E be adopted, i.e. 'That Senate
agree with the intent of points 1 - 5 inclusive
in Supplementary Paper E, bearing in mind the
intent of the last sentence of Operating Guide-
line 4, page 8."
MOTION E CARRIED
It was noted that the following principles were involved
(Supplementary Paper E):
"The Statement on Admissions and Transfer (P24-34) attempts
to treat similar categories of applicants in similar ways.
Remarks made during Senate proceedings and in at least one
circulated paper suggest
that the attempts to create a
parallel structure were not fully appreciated. One minor
source of confusion results from attempts to equate grade
point averages and percentages (2.0 = C = 60%; 2.4 = 65%;
3.2= 75%).
If Senate can agree that certain groups of applicants
should be treated in similar ways, the precise grades for
admission and levels for admission can be determined later.
The following statements expresà the parallels embodied in
the report (relevant cross references are provided).
1. B.C. Students from .Senior Matriculation should 1.211,
be admitted and awarded transfer credit on a
1.2213,
similar basis to students from B.C. Regional
1.23
and Community Colleges.
1.241,
1.212
1.222
1.242
2. B.C. 'students from Senior Matriculation and
Colleges who met university requirements for
admission after Grade 12 should be treated
differently from S.M. and College students
who did not meet university admission require-
ments after completing Grade 12.
1.211, 1,221
1,241 should
be different
from 1.212,
1,222, 1,242
3. Minimum educational level and enteringaverage 2.1, 3.2
for non B.C. applicants should be similar.
4. Requirements for non B.C. applicants who do not
2.4, 3.5
meet the minimum educational level should be
similar.
- 12 -
S.M. 9/6/76
5. Requirements for applicants from other
1.24, 2.3
universities should be similar
3.4"
8. PAPER S.240-8 - Motion F or F.l
J. Ellis said the adoption of Motion F would reflect existing
policy. This was a difficult area and involved awkward judgments.
The intention had been simply to provide a structure which could be
modified to meet conditions.
Speaking to F.1,D. Sullivan said this alternative raised the
percentages in each category by 5%. He said other B.C. universities
were using 65% as a standard and lowering this percentage to 60% if
they had the capacity. He said he felt it was important that Simon
Fraser University standards should not be below those of other B.C.
universities. British Columbia, he said, had not faced its educá-
tional. responsibilities, with the result that higher education is.
not available to those who wish to have it.
Lengthy debate followed. Senate heard views expressed that the
adoption of Motion F would reinforce the public impression that Simon
Fraser was a"second-rate university" and that taking the lower stan-
dard would make it more difficult to attract good students. Several
Senators expressed a wish that this subject could be dealt with, at a
future date, when more information was available on the University's
. . resource position. Senate was informed by K. Strand that deferring
the issue would hinder assessment of applications already being re-
ceived. He was asked to rule F.l out of order on the grounds that
there was insufficient information available. The Chairman did not
accept this.
It was argued that it did not follow that raising the percentage
would result in admitting better students. The point .was made that
there is an escape clause in FA and that
.
F.l met the present pressure
on the University. A Senator voiced the opinion that adoption Of F
would devalue the Simon. Fraser degrees.
D.'Korbin, who asked to have his comments noted in the minutes,
said Senate should be talking in educational terms and not in terms
of financial pressure confronting phe University. He asked if the
University could show more effectively that it was facing a financial-
political problem by adopting a quota system instead of raising
standards, which would give the impression that the problem was educa-
tional.
He said adoption of higher standards would give the University a
class bias, as it would penalize students from less well financed
schools and give an advantage to students from the richer Coast
schools. He said the higher standards would mean that students from
the United States would have to be brilliant, which would indicate
that "the only good draft dodger is a brillian draft dodger."
- 13 -
S.M. 9/6/76
A. Stone suggested that Paper F showed a balance, whereas F.l
was not balanced, and requested that D. Sullivan, who had prepared
F.l, accept the same kind of note as was provided on Item 1, - with
appropriate percentage adjustment as applying also to Items 2, 3, 4,
5, 6,7. D. Sullivan concurred and the change was incorporated.
Argument was made that F.l put the emphasis on the standard of
the student at admission 1
rather than at graduation. Imagination
could be used to more effectively employ the University's finances -
the tutorial system could be dropped to release more money and the
space problems could-be solved by using existing accommodation out-
side present University hours.
Speaking for F.1, the opinion was given that students who had
higher rates of success elsewhere would be more likely to be success-
fül at Simon Fraser and would therefore improve the quality of the
University's output.
It was moved and seconded,
"That Motion F be adopted."
• .
MOTION F FAILED
11
in favor
•
.
.
.
14 opposed
•
On Motion F.l, with adjustments, the points were raised that if
different faculties adopted different standards of admission, the
implicit philosophy of the University would be changed. It was sug-
gested that F.l betabled for further thought,. and a supporting
argument was that adapting it at the meeting would be arbitrary..
Moved by M.' Lebowitz, seconded by D. Korbin,
"That F..1 be postponed until such time as
Senate has sufficient information on which
to act on limiting enrolment."
MOTION TO POSTPONE
F.l FAILED
8 in favor
12 opposed
On Motion F.l the view was voiced that this motion's intent was
to limit enrolment and it preempted the right of the Board of Governors
to make that decision.
Moved by D. Sullivan, and seconded,
"That Motion F.1 be adopted, with appropriate
changes, i.e. with the note of Item 1 incor-
porated in Items 2 -.7 inclusive."
MOTION F.l AS CHANGED
CARRIED
13 in favor
10 opposed
- 14 -
S.M. 9/6/69
Voters requesting their votes be recorded as opposed to this
motion were Senators Campbell, Claridge, D'Aoust, Freiman, Kenward,
Korbin, Lachlan, Lebowitz and McDougall.
Under this motion Senate adopted grade points or averages
needed for admission, with changes in the Ellis Report as required.
(Part E, pages 23 - 34 inclusive are affected.) The intent raises
the averages set forth in the
Ellis
Report by five percent, on the
understanding that if staff and facilities permit, the average five
percent lower may be applied.
F.l aschanged reads as follows:
1.
Applicants from B.C. High Schools
65%
(Note: The University may admit applicants
whose standing ranges from 60% to 65%,, if
staff and facilities, permit.)
2. Applicants from B.C. Senior
MatriculatiOn
65% or 24
and B.C. Regional and Community Colleges
GPA
(Note: The University may admit applicants
whose standing,ranges from 60% to 65%, If
staff and facilities permit.)
3.
Applicants from other Canadian provinces
70% or 2.8
•
with Senior Matriculation Standing
GPA
(Note: The University may admit applicants
whose standing ranges from 65% to 70%, if
staff and facilities permit.)
4.
Applicants from.the United States with
70% or 2.8
the equivalent of Senior Matriculation
GPA
(Note: The University may admit applicants
whose standing ranges from 65% to 70%, if
staff and facilities permit.)
5.
Applicants from other Canadian provinces
80%
with less than Senior Matriculation
standing. .
(Note: The University may admit applicants
whose standing ranges from 75%.to 80%, if
staff and facilities permit.)
6.
Applicants from the United States with less 3.5 GPA
than Senior Matriculation standing.
(Note: The 'University may admit applicants
whose standing ranges from 75% to 80%, if
staff and facilities permit.)
7.
Applicants from other universities (B.C.)
65% or 2.4
•
(Note: The University may admit applicants
GPA
whose standing ranges from 60% to 65%, if
staff and facilities permit.)
- 15 -
S.M. 9/6/69
0
8. PAPER S.240-11 - Motion I or 1.1 or 1.2
Introducing Motion I, J. Ellis said this was an attempt to
have a list of courses in regional and community colleges compiled,
so that the Registrar's Office may process applications for such
courses to be credited in a more routine fashion.
On Addendum 1.1, D. Sullivan said this intended to encompass
courses taught in regional and community colleges but not at Simon
Fraser University.
Responding to a question, J. Ellis said the final responsibility
for making decisions regarding courses on such a list would be
Senate's.
H. Evans said the. subject was giving rise to many problems at
present, as departments sometimes had trouble making decisions and
would reconsider their rulings several times.
Arguments against the proposed system were that the trouble in
making decisions was at departmental levels and the proposed changes
in I did not solve this.
K. Burstein said 1.2 would avoid vacillation.
Moved by L Burstein, seconded by D. Sullivan,
"Tthat Motion 1.2 be adopted."
MOTION '1.2 CARRIED
14 in favor.
5 opposed•
6 abstained
Thismotlon deleted the items proposed in Supplementary Papers
I and 1.1, which were not approved.
Moved by K. Burstein, seconded by M. Lebowitz,
"That the meeting adjourn."
MOTION CARRIED
18 in favor
6 opposed
The meeting adjourned at 1:30 a.m.
•
H. M. Evans
Secretary,
