. ?

Minutes of a meeting of the Senate of Simon Fraser University held on Monday,

October 6, 1997 at 7:00 pm in Room 3210 WMC

Open Session

Present:

Blaney, Jack, President

pro tern

and Chair

Barrow, Robin

Absent:

Bawa, Parveen

Baert, Jessica

Boland, Larry

Beattie, Suzan

Bowman, Marilyn

Berggren, J. Len

Chan, Albert

Blazenko, George

Cleveland, William

Coleman, Peter

------

Dunstervil-le,- Valerie-----

------------------------

-D'Auria, -

John- - ------- - - - ?

- ?

-- -

Emmott, Alan

Dobb, Ted

Etherington, Lois

Giffen, Ken

Gagan, David

Hassan, Nany

Gillies, Mary Ann

Howlett, Michael

Jones, Cohn

Mauser, Gary

Jones, John

McInnes, Dina

Kanevsky, Lannie

Naef, Barbara

Kirczenow, George

Nip, Harry

. ?

Lewis, Brian

Reed, Clyde

Marteniuk, Ron

Sanghera, Balwant

Mathewes, Rolf

Segal, Joseph

Morris, Joy

Warsh, Michael

Ogloff, James

Whitbread, Katherine

Osborne, Judith

Wickstrom, Norm

Overington, Jennifer

Parmar, Neelam

In attendance:

Percival, Paul

Alderson, Evan

Peters, Joseph (representing B. Clayman)

Blackman, Roger

Peterson, Louis

Pierce, John

Tam, Lawrence

Waterhouse, John

Winne, Phil

Wong, Tim

Wortis, Michael

Yagi, Ian

Yerbury, J. Cohn

Watt, Alison, Director, Secretariat Services

Grant, Bobbie, Recording Secretary

S.M.06/10/97

Page 2

Approval of the Agenda

The Agenda was approved as distributed.

Approval of the Minutes of the Open Session of July 7. 1997

The Minutes were approved as distributed.

Approval of the Minutes of the O

p en Session of September 15, 1997

The Minutes were approved as distributed.

Business Arising from the Minutes

There was no business arising frpir the Minutes.

Report of the Chair

There was

report from

, the Chair.

Reports of Committees

Senate Nominating Committee

i) ?

Paper S.97-62 - Elections

Senate was advised that no further nominations were received with respect

to Senate paper S.97-

Results of elections are as follows:

Senate Committee on Honorary Degrees (SCHD)

One Senator (at-large) to replace Jack Blaney, effective immediately, for no

specified term of office.

Candidates: A. Chan, G. Mauser, T. Wong

Elected:

Gary Mauser

Electoral Standing Committee (ESC)

One Senator (at-large) to replace Stan Shapiro, effective immediately, for no

specified term of office.

Elected by acclamation:

Albert Chan

Senate Committee on Academic Planning

1) ?

Paper S.97-63 - External Review - School of Engineering Science (For

Information)

John Jones, Senator and Director of the School of Engineering Science was in

attendance in prder to respond to questions.

Senate was advised that changes affecting degree completion time and

changes to increase

student

intake were already in progress, and other

S.M. 06/10/97 ?

Page 3

revisions will be incorporated into the School's forthcoming five-year

academic plan. SCAP was satisfied that the School was actively acting on

recommendations in the report.

In response to an inquiry about the high attrition rate, Senate was advised

that the high standards of a very selective admission process is an attraction

to students in itself and many students who leave Engineering Science do so

because they discover another discipline which they find more interesting.

The actual number leaving the School and leaving the University is very

small. ?

Concern was expressed that a significant number of students leave

because they can not maintain the required CPA of 3.0 and, considering the

extremely high standard of admission, opinion was expressed that this

implied that the demands on students in the program were too high in terms

- ?

of the number of-courses they are expected to take- each semester. It was noted

- -

that the mean credit hours taken by students in Engineering Science is almost

two times higher than the University average and the School was encouraged

to lower the workload on students. ?

It was pointed out that when a student's

average falls below the 3.0 threshold they are put on probation within the

program. This is not academic probation within the University and nothing

goes on the transcript. ?

An internal committee consults with the student to

address the problem and the student is given every opportunity to rectify the

before being asked to leave.

situation

Concerns were expressed about the response to the report from the School

which clearly indicated that they felt that the review had been an unfair

assessment. ?

Reference was made to the School's comments which implied

that the review committee may not have had complete or accurate

information and had provided a critique rather than a balanced evaluation. It

was suggested that such comments implied that there was a flaw in the way

in which review committees are structured or a flaw in the way in which the

review process works. Senate was assured that review teams were given very

specific instructions and information, much of which was based on the self-

study produced by the School/ Department. ?

In addition, the names of the

assessors are chosen from a list of names provided by the School/ Department.

It is felt that the system is set up to ensure that the reviewers not only have

full information about the School/ Department before they begin their review

but they may represent a similar philosophy of the School /Department itself.

Senate was reminded that the School of Engineering Science is also subject to

external accreditation by a professional accreditation body and a number of

issues that were addressed by the review team were issues that they wanted to

flag because they might also be issues for the national accreditation body. As

an example of the type of error the School took exception to, J

Jones referred

to the recommendation from the review team to reduce the required number

of credit hours to 120. ?

This would have placed the School below the

minimum number of units required for accreditation and Senators were

directed to further details on page 5 of the School's response. It was pointed

S.M. 06/10/97

Page 4

out however that according to the information on page 5, SFU's program

could be reduced by 10% and still remain within the accreditation

requirements. Senate was advised that the School felt that requiring the

absolute minimum for accreditation was not in the best interest of the

students.

Opinion was expressed that since the report and its interpretation seem to be

contentious it might be appropriate to hold another review with a panel of

assessors selected by an outside Engineering School. It was pointed out that

while the review was critical, it served a good purpose in that it resulted in an

extensive planning document for the School which included a complete

restructuring of its undergraduate and graduate curriculum. It was felt that

the result of the review has been positive and it was not necessary for the

University to go through the expense and time of another review.

c) ?

Senate Committee on Academic Planning/Senate Committee on

Undergraduate Studies

i) ?

Paper S.97-64 - Undergraduate Regulation Change - Duplication of

Courses

Moved by D. Gagan, seconded by L. Boland

"that Senate approve, as set forth in S.97-64, the following

additional limit on the duplication of courses:

Normally, a course may not be duplicated if the original grade is

higher than C-".

Senate's attention was drawn to the revised wording of the motion which

reflected the recommendation of SCAR to amend the wording from a C grade

to a C- grade.

James Ogloff, Senator and current Chair of SCLJS, and Roger Blackman,

former Chair of SCUS, were in attendance in order to respond to questions.

Senate was advised that the change had been proposed as a result of a review

of the regulation by SCUS in which it was revealed that many course

duplications took place merely to boost GPA. SCUS felt this was a resource

issue but primarily an equity issue. SCUS felt however that the inclusion of

the word 'normally' as a default option would allow waiver of this regulation

in appropriate cases.

Concern was expressed that students had not been informed nor consulted

about the proposal and no student was present at the SCUS meeting which

approved the recommendation. It was pointed out that student

S.M.06/10/97

Page 5

. representatives were present at some of the meetings at which this matter

was discussed and students were present at the SCAP meeting when this item

was considered.

Senate was advised that students were strongly opposed to this proposed

change. They felt it was too restrictive and took away their academic freedom

and choice. They also felt the change would likely result in more students

dropping courses before final exams in order to save their GPA by being

eligible to re-take the course in the future. It was pointed out that this would

likely create more paper work for the administration and cost the University

more than the proposed change in policy could save.

It was pointed out that students having difficulty in courses had other options

- - - - such- as -withdrawal -under extenuating- circumstances- and aegrotat grades-.

Senate was advised that SCUS had considered both options and felt them to

be inappropriate alternatives to course duplication because retroactive

withdrawal essentially rewrites the transcript and aegrotat grades should only

be used in exceptional cases. According to figures from Analytical Studies, 1/3

of all students attempt at least one duplication. Based on this figure, it was

suggested that a significant number of students would likely appeal this

regulation resulting in a significant increase in costs and paperwork for the

University.

Reference was made to SCUS's concern about equity and opinion was

expressed that the creation of a regulation allowing waivers created an

inequity between students who were aware of the appeal process and those

who were not. It was also pointed out that the waiver procedure in itself was

inequitable due to inconsistencies in application between different

departments. It was noted that the Calendar is available to everyone and

students have a responsibility to familiarize themselves with policies and

regulations. Reference was made to SCUS's concern about the inequity of

students using course duplications to gain access and remain in limited

enrolment programs; it was suggested that it is unlikely that such students

would be able to stay in a program by upgrading a few courses. Furthermore,

some hold the view that limited enrolment programs were inequitable by

their definition. Opinion was expressed that the proposed policy

discriminates against better students since it allows a C- student who

occasionally gets a D to upgrade by course duplication but prevents an A-

student who occasionally gets a C to upgrade by the same procedure. In order

to eliminate inequities completely, it was suggested that course duplications

should be restricted all together but, since this was not the issue, it was

suggested that there ought to be a procedure in place whereby a student who

is taking a course as a duplicate is put at the end of the registration priority

system so it would not be possible for that student to take the place of a

student taking the course for the first time.

S.M.Q6/1O/97 ?

Page 6

Reference was made to SCUS's concern about courses being duplicated merely

environment,

to boost GPA.

appeared

Opinion was

to be

expressed

in contradiction

that this statement,

to a University's

in an academic

goal of

teaching and transferring knowledge to students. It was felt that the proposed

change would dissuade students from increasing

their

knowledge and skills

rather than encouraging

them

to do better and gain a better understanding.

In response to an inquiry

about

regional comparisons with respect to course

duplication procedures, Senate was advised that SCUS had canvassed,

ough the Registrar's Office, a number of upjv?rsities across Ca

ada and

ther

e appeared to be ri

consistency in the

way

dplictes are handled.

Inquiry was made

as t whether

not

in f

ormation

was

available with

respect to what fraction

student

retaking

course act

mprove

their

grade, the reasons for retaking courses, success rates and so fqrth. Senate was

advised that although

this info

r mat i

was

not a

vai

abl

the

present time,

SCUS did have detailed information ava

labl

e which

cou

he provided to

Senate.

Moved by D. Ggan,

secQ p

by P. Percival

"that this matter be referred

ha ck

to the Senate Committee on

Undergraduate Studies for reconsideration. Reconsideration

will

include

the arguments presented by Senate and, if a motion

comes hack to Senate, additional

documentation

will

provided and

e concerns

raised by Senate will he addressed

more directly"

It was suggested that if

the motion to refer is approved, SCUS also be directed

to identify high enrolment courses in which a student repeating a course

act

y displaces someone as opposed to courses which have

plenty

of space.

Suggestion was also

a d e

h at

SCUS consider the possibility of simply

decreasing

the

number of duplications allowed from five to two.

The wisdom of referral was questioned since SCUS already had had

considerable discussion based on the extensive information available to them

related to many of the issues raised by Senate. It was pointed out,

however, that Senate was unaware of the information and the intent of the

motion to

refer

was to ensure that some of the information was provided to

Senate.

Question was called, and a vote taken. ?

MOTION TO REFER CARRIED

ii) ?

Paper S.97-65 - Undergraduate Curriculum Revisions - Mathematics

and Statistics

S.M.06/10/97

Page 7

Moved by D. Gagan, seconded by C. Jones

"that Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board of

Governors, as set forth in S.97-65, the following changes in the

Department of Mathematics and Statistics:

1) Proposed B.Sc. Major and Honors Degree in Statistics

ii) Proposed B.A. Major and Honors Degree in Statistics

iii)

Proposed Minor in Statistics through the Arts and Science

Faculties"

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

Senate received information that SCUS, acting under delegated authority,

approved the following changes: i) change in- prerequisite -for STAT 403;-ii-)

title change for STAT 330 and 350; iii) change in number, description, and

prerequisite for STAT 440

iii) Paper S.97-66 - Undergraduate Curriculum Revision - Chemistry (For

Information)

Senate was advised that in accordance with the new rules for curriculum

revision, request has been received, under the signature of five Senators, that

revision,

changes in Senate paper S.97-66 be provided in more detail and be brought

forward for consideration at the next meeting of Senate. The item was

therefore removed from the agenda and will be brought forward to the next

meeting.

iv)

Paper S.97-67 - Revisions - B.Sc. Program at the University College of the

Fraser Valley (For Information)

Senate received information that SCUS, acting under delegated authority,

approved the following revisions to the B.Sc. Minors program offered at the

University College of the Fraser Valley: new courses CHEM 231, 323, 411, 422,

451,455.

Senate Committee on Academic Planning/Senate Graduate Studies ?

Committee

Paper S.97-68 - Cohort Option for the Masters Degree under Special?

Arrangements

Moved by D. Gagan, seconded by J

Peters

"that Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board of

Governors, as set forth in S.97-68, a cohort option for the Masters

Degree under Special Arrangements"

S.M. 06/10/0

Page 8

Evan Aldersonwas in attendance hi order to respond to questions.

Senate was advised that the intent

the proposal was to introduce masters

level work to targeted audiences without having to design a permanent

program which may not be warranted by the nature of the specific needs of

the targeted group.

It was pointed out that nothing prevents an indivIdual or a targeted group

front individually doing such a ptogram thtough the existing special

arrangements procedures and inquiry was made as to why a cohort program

of this kind was necessary; It va stressed that th tie of the existing pedal

arrangements procedure for a group of people resulted in significant

resource issues, whereas the intent of having the cohott format is to acquire

xternal funding

Senate

program

was provided with details of a sampl

which is being explored with interest being expressed by the Faculties of Arts,

Business Administration and Applied Sciences, and interest with respect to

external funding expresed by the Vaflcbtivëi oüftdatioh.

It was stressed that the thhdrt främéi

. Otk ptoirides an oppoftunilty to Platt

responsive programming which will be carefully vetted for resources by the

Dean of Graduate Studies and carefully vetted academically by the Senate

Graduate Studies Committee Reference was made to the statement that the

program should include as much as possible regularly offered SFU courses,

and inquiry was made 69 to what will be done whh oUrse requfred for the

program do hot ëxit. Explanation was provided that special arrangement

numbers will be Used in order to design any highly specialized special topics

courses that are needed, and that there wasno intent to introduce new

Calendar courses without full Senate approval. Concern was expressed abut

quality and whether or not the proposal would result in the creation of a

whole range of special topic programs that have not gone through the normal

academic approval procedures. Senate's attention was drawn to page two of

the documentation where it explicitly stated that the admission criteria,

degree requirements, ähd any other special conditions fot a proposed cohort

program must be approved by the SGSC and may not be below the minimum

admission and degree requirements of regular graduate programs It was felt

that the SGSC which

made

tip of all graduate chairs from across the

University is a good point of delegation for this kind of issue.

Question was called, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

ii)

Paper S.97-69 - Graduate Curriculum Revisions - Engineering Science

(For Informatioh) ?

S.M.06/10/97

Page 9

. Senate received information that the SGSC, acting under delegated authority,

approved the following revisions: i) New course - ENSC 858; ii) Description

changes - ENSC 852, 861, 887; iii) Change in requirements for the M.Eng.

Program; Change in requirements for Ph.D. Qualifying Examination.

iii)

Paper S.97-70 - Graduate Curriculum Revisions - History (For

Information)

Senate received information that the SGSC, acting under delegated authority,

approved the following revisions: i) Deletion of HIST 800, 811, 812, 813; ii)

New courses - HIST 893, 894, 895, 896, 870, 871; Change of title - HIST 826, 886,

and 887.

-- -

- - - - - -- iv-)---- Paper-S.97-71---Graduate CurriculumRevisions-PoliticalScience (For

Information)

Senate received information that the SGSC, acting under delegated authority,

approved the following revisions: new courses - POL 837, 894.

Paper S.97-72 - Graduate Curriculum Revisions - Psychology (For

Information)

Senate received information that the SGSC, acting under delegated authority,

approved a prerequisite change to PSYC 886.

vi)

Paper S.97-73 - Graduate Curriculum Revisions - Sociology and

Anthropology (for Information)

Senate received information that the SGSC, acting under delegated authority,

approved a change in Calendar statement re registration in SA 840 and 841.

vii)

Paper S.97-74 - Graduate Curriculum Revisions - Biological Sciences

(For Information)

Senate received information that the SGSC, acting under delegated authority,

approved the deletion of BISC 808, 810, 811, 814, and 861.

viii)

Paper S.97-75 - Graduate Curriculum Revisions - Mathematics and

Statistics (For Information)

Senate received information that the SGSC, acting under delegated authority,

approved a change to the elective courses for the M.Sc. Program.

e) ?

Senate Committee on Academic Planning/Senate Graduate Studies ?

sCommittee /Senate Undergraduate Studies Committee

S.M.06/10/97

Page 10

Moved by D. Gagan, seconded by A. Chan

I a

"that Senate approve, as set forth in S.97-76, the proposed

revised Terms of Reference of the following committees:

Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies

ii) Senate Graduate Studies Committee

iii) Senate Committee on Academic Planning"

Senate was advised that the proposed changes arise out of alterations made

approximately one year ago in the Senate procedures dealing with curriculum

matters and bring the terms of reference of all three committees into

conformity with the revised procedures.

Question was called,, and a vote taken.

MOTION CARRIED

Other Business

Opinion was expressed that policies such as the harassment policy and the

policy on research ethics have an impact on academic programs and, since

academic programs were the responsibility of Senate, concern was expressed

that such policies were being implemented without Senate's approval.

Specific reference was made to recent changes in the research ethics policy and

inquiry was made as to why these revisions had not been brought forward to

Senate for consideration/ approval prior to implementation. Senate was

advised that the inquiry would be referred to SCAR for consideration.

Concern was expressed about the design of the room in which meetings of

Senate were held. It was felt that the amphitheatre format made it difficult to

make eye contact and inquiry was made as to whether or not it was possible to

go back to the previous arrangement (such as that used when Senate met in

Klaus Rieckhoff Hall) whereby Senators sat around a table and were able to

face each other. In response to an inquiry from the Chair as to the preference

of Senate, there appeared to be a majority opinion that the previous

arrangement/ room was a better arrangement. It was pointed out however

that one of the reasons Senate had been moved from Strand Hall was because

the size of Senate had outgrown Klaus Rieckhoff Hall. The Chair advised

that this item would be taken under the advisement by SCAR.

Information

The next regularly scheduled meeting of Senate will take place on Monday,

November 3, 1997.

The Open Session adjourned at 8:15 pm and the Assembly moved directly into

Closed Session.

Alison Watt

Director, Secretariat Services