The Open Collections website will be unavailable July 27 from 2100-2200 PST ahead of planned usability and performance enhancements on July 28. More information here.

Open Collections

UBC Publications

UBC Publications

UBC Publications

[Meeting minutes of the Senate of The University of British Columbia] 1996-02-14

Item Metadata

Download

Media
senmin-1.0390264.pdf
Metadata
JSON: senmin-1.0390264.json
JSON-LD: senmin-1.0390264-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): senmin-1.0390264-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: senmin-1.0390264-rdf.json
Turtle: senmin-1.0390264-turtle.txt
N-Triples: senmin-1.0390264-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: senmin-1.0390264-source.json
Full Text
senmin-1.0390264-fulltext.txt
Citation
senmin-1.0390264.ris

Full Text

 THE   UNIVERSITY    OF   BRITISH    COLUMBIA
Vancouver Senate Secretariat
Senate and Curriculum Services
Enrolment Services
2016-1874 East Mall
Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z1
www.senate.ubc.ca
VANCOUVER SENATE
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14, 1996
Attendance
Present: President D. W. Strangway (Chair), Vice-President D. R. Birch, Dr. D. R. Atkins, Mr. J. A.
Banfield, Dr. J. Barman, Dean C. S. Binkley, Dr. A. E. Boardman, Mr. J. Boritz, Mr. P. T. Brady, Dr. D. G.
A. Carter, Ms. L. Chui, Dr. T. S. Cook, Dr. M. G. R. Coope, Mr. D. Culhane, Ms. J. Dzerowicz, Dr. J. H.
V. Gilbert, Mr. E. B. Goehring, Dean M. A. Goldberg, Dr. J. Gosline, Dean J. R. Grace, Dr. S. E. Grace,
Mr. H. D. Gray, Dr. M. Isaacson, Dr. J. G. T. Kelsey, Dr. S. B. Knight, Ms. L. Lam, Mr. C. Lim, Dr. S. C.
Lindstrom, Mr. S. Lohachitranont, Dr. D. M. Lyster, Dr. D. J. MacDougall, Dr. M. MacEntee, Dean J. H.
McNeill, Dean A. Meisen, Dr. M. D. Morrison, Dr. R. J. Patrick, Mr. R. L. de Pfyffer, Dr. W. J. Phillips,
Mrs. M. Price, Professor M. Quayle, Dr. D. J. Randall, Professor R. S. Reid, Dr. H. B. Richer, Dr. R. A.
Shearer, Dean N. Sheehan, Mr. D. Shu, Dr. A. J. Sinclair, Dr. C. E. Slonecker, Dean C. L. Smith, Ms. C. A.
Soong, Ms. L. M. Sparrow, Dr. J. R. Thompson, Dr. S. Thorne, Dr. W. Uegama, Dr. J. Vanderstoep, Dr. R.
M. Will, Dr. D. Ll. Williams, Mr.
E. C. H. Woo, Dean E. H. K. Yen.
Regrets: Chancellor R. H. Lee, Mr. S. Arnold, Dr. A. P. Autor, Dr. S. Avramidis, Dr. J. D. Berger, Dr. D. M.
Brunette, Dr. D. H. Cohen, Mr. D. G. Geros, Mr. I. Gill, Rev. J. Hanrahan, Dean M. J. Hollenberg, Mr. D.
Khan, Professor V. J. Kirkness, Mr. A. Lau, Mr. T. Lau, Dr. M. Levine, Professor P. T. K. Lin, Mr. R. W.
Lowe, Dean M. P. Marchak, Dean B. C. McBride, Mr. W. B. McNulty, Mr. A. Pederson, Professor J. A.
Rice, Dean J. F. Richards, Dr. L. J. Stan, Mr. D. R. Verma, Dr. E. W. Whittaker, Dr. W. C. Wright Jr.
Minutes of the previous meeting
Mr. Woo l        That the minutes of the fifth regular meeting of
Mr. Lim J        Senate for the Session 1995-96, having been
circulated, be taken as read and adopted.
Carried.
Chair's remarks and related questions
HONORARY DEGREES
President Strangway announced that the following had accepted invitations to receive
honorary degrees at the 1996 Congregation ceremonies:
11322
 Vancouver Senate 11323
Minutes of February 14,1996
From the Board of Governors
Chun-Hak Ahn
Mario Bernardi
Rosemary Brown
Bertram Neville Brockhouse
Gordon Forward
Gurdev Singh Gill
Liou Jieh Jow
Robert H. Lee
John Hector McArthur
Norman Pace
Doris Shadbolt
Carol Shields
Richard B. Splane
Verna Huffman Splane
PRESIDENTIAL SEARCH COMMITTEE
President Strangway announced that Dr. Michael Isaacson and Dr. Graham Kelsey had
been elected by Senate to serve on a Presidential Search Committee.
From the Board of Governors
NOTIFICATION OF APPROVAL IN PRINCIPLE OF SENATE RECOMMENDATIONS
Subject, where applicable, to the proviso that none of the programs be implemented
without formal reference to the President; and that the Deans and Heads concerned with
new programs be asked to indicate the space requirements, if any, of such new programs.
i.      Merger of the Department of Chemical Engineering and the Department of Bio-
Resource Engineering into the Department of Chemical and Bio-Resource
Engineering, effective April 1, 1996. (pp.11278-81)
ii.      That the new name of the amalgamated units, Resource Management and
Environmental Studies and Westwater Research Centre, be Institute for
Resources and Environment (IRE), (pp.11281-2)
iii.      Establishment of the Brain and Spinal Cord Research Centre (pp.11306-8)
iv.      Curriculum proposals from: the Faculties of Agricultural Sciences, Applied
Science, Arts, Commerce and Buisiness Administration, Dentistry, Education,
Forestry, Graduate Studies, Medicine, Science, and the Schools of Human
Kinetics and Rehabilitation Sciences. (11275-8, 11286-93, 11300-5, 11311-21)
 Vancouver Senate 11324
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
Reports of Committees of Senate
ACADEMIC POLICY COMMITTEE
Fees for International Students
Dr. Williams, chair of the committee, presented the following report which had been
circulated:
Background
In 1987, the President established a Task Force on Liaison, Recruiting, and
Admissions. Among its recommendations, it proposed that UBC seek to increase its
enrolment of international students to between 4% and 6% of its undergraduates.
Only outstanding students were to be admitted and Vice President Birch proposed to
Senate a minimum academic standing equivalent to a 3.5 GPA.(Senate Minutes,
Feb.1988, pp 9226-29). The Senate Admissions Committee was instructed to monitor
these admission criteria, and indeed in Jan 1990, Dr Elder informed Senate that the
committee felt that a 3.5 GPA was too high, in that fewer international students had
been accepted in 1990 than in 1989.A motion was passed changing the 3.5 GPA to
"superior academic standing". This is the present Calendar statement. Dr Elder
further stated "the Admissions Officers are aware of the intention of Senate, which is
to admit only superior international students, and not to displace any Canadian
students." At that time the minimum GPA for most programs was between 2.5 and
2.7, and Dr Elder assured Senate that no international student would be admitted with
a GPA of less than 3.1. Subsequently the minimum GPA for international student
admission has been adjusted to 3.4 to reflect the general increase in admission GPA's
in many programs.
Although the global figure of 4% to 6% of international students appears in the
Strategic Plan, "Second to None", the Senate Academic Policy Committee presented
for Senate's approval only a three page Mission Statement at the meeting of May
1989. This Mission Statement includes "The University will enrich the
educational experience by enrolling students from many countries." This remains
University policy, as do the Senate motions welcoming international students of
superior academic standing provided they do not displace qualified Canadian students.
One may infer that the percentage figures were intended as a guide.
Current International Enrolments
There are currently 970 undergraduate students on visas, representing 3.9% of the
undergraduate population. Of these only 531 students (2.1%) pay the differential fee
set by the Board of Governors at 250% of tuition for a Canadian student. Of the
remaining students, 172 are exchange students whose numbers on average balance
those of UBC students on reciprocal exchange at other institutions. Each group pays
fees at the home institution. The other students for the most part pay regular fees
under a variety of special agreements, although 99 students pay no fees at all.
 Vancouver Senate 11325
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
Significant enrolments are 167 in Arts (2.2%), 136 in Applied Science (6.3%), 99 in
Science (2.1%), and 82 in Commerce (6.2%). The additional income generated by the
differential fee is estimated to be 1.8M$.
This year UBC received 663 qualified applications from international undergraduates.
659 were admitted and 462 of these registered. However, of these 317 were either
visiting or exchange students, leaving a net total of 145 new international students
who might be expected to stay more than one year.
At the graduate level, there are 1237 visa students representing 19% of the total
graduate enrolment. Programs with large enrolments are the Ph.D. with 701 (32%),
the M.Sc. with 160 (16%), the M.A. with 120 (12%), the M.A.Sc. with 84 (26%),
and the M.B.A. with 43 (17%). All the remaining programs together represent only
about 10% of the international graduate students. At present no differential fee exists
for graduate programs.
Market-Based Tuition for International Students
This proposal by the President has undergone several iterations. A version was first
presented to both the Senate Academic Policy Committee and the Senate Budget
Committee during the 1993-1994 Academic year. Both committees recommended that
a proposal be brought forward from a specific Faculty to enable the committees to
provide advice prior to proceeding with a Board policy (Senate minutes, May 1994, p.
10794). However no such proposal has been brought forward. The latest version of
the Tuition Fee Proposal has incorporated several modifications following discussions
with this committee and others. Nonetheless we record for Senate's information our
concerns, whether or not they are addressed by the policy.
Briefly, the policy seeks to establish market-based tuition fees for international
students enrolled in undergraduate programs, and also in professional programs and
professionally-oriented graduate programs. An implementation plan has been
developed to phase in these changes in a controlled fashion over three years.
Committee Comments
In principle, the committee supports the President's proposal to establish market-based
tuition fees for certain international students under some circumstances. Such a policy
may well have net long term benefits to the University as a whole. It may lead to a
better educational experience for domestic students and it may enhance UBC's
reputation abroad. Nonetheless the committee has a number of concerns regarding the
policy.
 Vancouver Senate 11326
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
The committee is concerned that, without other changes, raising the tuition fees will
lower the number of international students. Even with the current fee structure, the
University attracts very few at the undergraduate level. Any decrease in numbers might
leave some programs with no foreign students at all, which would be worse than the
status quo, from both an academic and a financial perspective.
The committee believes the international student bodyshould be diverse. It should not
be restricted to the offspring of wealthy families, nor to students from the more
prosperous nations. There is also some concern in the committee that programs of
social benefit to other countries may be at a fiscal disadvantage unless some special
arrangements can be made. The committee welcomes the proposal that a portion of
the fee revenue be used to provide awards to address these issues.
The committee believes the definition of a "professional" graduate program to be a
gray area. In this it supports the position of the Dean of Graduate Studies who
suggests that, while there are degrees that are clearly research degrees (and thus
exempt from this proposal), and others that are clearly professional, there are many
that combine elements of research and professional practice. Typically there is a thesis
or a major project, combined with courses, at least some of which are practical or
professional in nature.
Several professional graduate programs such as the M.B.A. and the Pharm.D. have
already moved towards "full-cost" fees for all students and it seems possible that this
ability serves to define "professional" ! The committee welcomes the involvement of
both the Dean of the budget Faculty and the Dean of the Faculty of Graduate Studies
in the identification of fee levels for different graduate degrees.
The committee believes that it is particularly appropriate to fill " surplus seats" in
programs that are currently below minimum efficient size. On the other hand, in
departments that are already at capacity, additional students could cause the
educational quality to decline, at least until such time that the new revenue becomes
available to restore the quality for all the students.
Current admissions policy requires that all international undergraduate applicants
have a GPA of 3.4 for all programs, although the present minima for domestic
applicants vary widely, from 2.5 to 3.39. The committee recommends that the Senate
Admissions Committee review this policy in the light of the twin principles, that
"superior academic standing is required for admission", and that no qualified
Canadian student be displaced.
The new policy enables "the admission of an additional cohort of undergraduate
students up to 10% of the current enrolment in any given program". This seems
 Vancouver Senate 11327
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
to imply that the existing enrolments have both filled their admission quotas and
include within these quotas approximately 5% of international students. We have seen
that the percentage of international students within the existing quotas varies widely
by faculty. In the documentation of Jan 10, 1996, we read "At maximum,
international students would then constitute the equivalent of 15% of the previous
enrolment quota." The committee believes that it is important to define these figures
so that there is no confusion which may affect their implementation. For example,
exchange students should not be included in these limits. Indeed, if there are programs
with "surplus seats", the committee believes the 15% figure should be regarded with
some flexibility.
The important principle is that no Canadian or B.C. student be displaced. This lies at
the heart of the problem in implementing this proposal, since it hinges on the
definition of the quota for such students. Is the quota 95% of the funded admissions
in each program with 5% reserved for international students, if they are of "clearly
superior academic standing" ? Admissions Officers will need clear operational
guidelines to ensure that no domestic students are disadvantaged. The Senate
Admissions Committee should include these guidelines within its review of
appropriate admissions GPA's for international students.
In the future, the University may set up programs to accept students into the third or
fourth year of our undergraduate programs, following two years at particular overseas
institutions with which we have special agreements. The approval of any such
program should specifically include consideration of whether such students would be
subject to the new fee structure and if they would fall under the 15% ceiling.
Certainly, the committee supports the position that professionally-oriented graduate
programs not be subject to the same quotas.
Conclusions
In conclusion, the committee supports the proposal for market-based tuition for
international students if these concerns are addressed. Flexibility is important and the
new policy should not be imposed unilaterally. Some faculties cannot, or may not wish
to, increase the number of international students for reasons of space or simply
because of the desire to maintain an optimum size or composition of class or program.
Some undergraduate programs may not be appropriate participants. Graduate
programs need to be carefully considered before imposing any differential fees.
Adopting an incremental approach has the advantage that scarce resources can be
targeted where they are likely to be the most effective. The committee welcomes the
latest implementation plan which phases in these proposals over a three year period,
thereby enabling the response to be monitored and appropriate modifications to be
made. We believe this initiative to have potential long term benefits to the University if
it is judiciously implemented.
 Vancouver Senate 11328
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
Dr. Williams That the report be received and that the
Dr. Boardman admissions concerns be referred to the Senate
Admissions Committee.
Dr. Williams highlighted various aspects of the report, reiterating some of the committee's
concerns with regard to the possibility that raising the tuition fees will lower the number
of international students, which could have an adverse effect on the diversity of
international students applying for admission to UBC unless some special arrangements
can be made in the form of awards.
Dr. Williams drew attention to the important principle that no Canadian or B.C. student
be displaced. In the past, the standards for international students have been significantly
higher than the minimum for domestic students, so there was no question that those
applicants were academically superior. It was important to ensure that this distinction be
seen to be maintained. The committee wished to refer this particular issue to the Senate
Admissions Committee for further consideration, not just for those Faculties whose
admission standards are high, but also for those Faculties where the admission standards
are not so high, and in fact who have the ability to accommodate more students but are
perhaps prohibited from doing so by the requirement that international students have a
77% average.
Dr. Williams stated that it was not clear whether 95% of the enrolment quotas are for
domestic students and 5% for international students, provided they meet the standards of
being clearly superior, or, if there are not sufficient international students that meet that
criteria, whether the whole 100% applies to domestic
 Vancouver Senate 11329
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
students. Again, this was something the committee wished the Senate Admissions
Committee to clarify.
Referring to Graduate Studies, Dr. Williams stated that the committee had questioned the
definition of what constitutes a professional program. The Dean of Graduate Studies has
considered the situation and has come up with a number of categories, one of which being
professional programs. Dr. Williams stated that in a number of professional programs it is
quite clear that the programs are moving towards market-based fees for all students. The
committee welcomed the fact that any programs that are going to move towards market-
based tuition for international students will do so at the joint initiative of the Dean of the
Faculty and the Dean of Graduate Studies.
As stated in the report, Dr. Williams said that the committee supports the proposal for
market-based tuition fees for international students if the committee's concerns are
addressed. He stated that flexibility was important and that the new policy should not be
imposed unilaterally for reasons noted in the report.
In response to a query by Mr. Banfield concerning the amount of increased revenue, Dr.
Williams stated that the Budget Committee might be able to respond to that question but,
in his opinion, at the undergraduate level, it would be unlikely that any significant
increase in the university income would occur within the time span of a degree.
Dr. Grace asked if the committee had given any thought to the pressures and problems
that could be brought to bear on an individual professor who has one or more students
paying a market-based fee for their instructions.
 Vancouver Senate 11330
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
Dr. Williams stated that the committee had been concerned that international students
might request superior facilities to domestic students, but he felt that one should rely
upon the academic integrity of faculty in resisting undue influences with regard to grading
practices.
Dr. Grace commented that the University should not be taking this step without giving
thought to the possibility of problems in assigning marks and final grades which have
been experienced by academics at institutions in other countries where this policy is
already in place. She stated that it is a very serious concern for people teaching and
grading students and that it needs to be looked at.
In response to a further query by Dr. Grace concerning resources for the provision of
language training by the Department of English, Dr. Williams stated that he assumed that
the policies that currently exist for international students would be continued. He agreed
that there is a budgetary concern, particularly for Departments and Faculties acting as
service departments for the programs. He stated that if a professional Faculty brings in a
significant number of international students that require English courses, then clearly
there has to be some mechanism whereby resources are made available to compensate for
this additional work. He said that it was his understanding that this will be the case but
that it is a budgetary matter which the Senate Budget Committee should address.
Referring to the question of whether students paying differential fees have different
demands, Vice President Birch commented on the experience of
 Vancouver Senate 11331
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
universities in the United States, in each of which there are sharply differential fees for out
of state students as well as international students, stating that students there neither
expected nor experienced different treatment. He agreed that the issue raised was an
important one and should be given attention, but he did not feel that there was reason for
apprehension.
Commenting on Dr. Grace's question about resources, Vice President Birch explained that
the balance of the international student tuition fee revenue will be allocated 70% to the
Faculty enrolling the students and 30% will be allocated to the enhancement of support
services for all students. Within the allocations going to the Faculties there is the provision
and the expectation that if special services are required or special burdens put on another
Faculty, those services will be purchased and there will be an appropriate allocation of
funds.
In response to queries by Ms. Dzerowicz, it was confirmed that the report was to be
forwarded to the Senate Admissions Committee and that the committee would be
addressing the issue of clear operational guidelines for Admissions Officers. As far as the
problem of attracting international students at the undergraduate level is concerned, Vice
President Birch responded that among the initiatives being taken, the Faculty of
Commerce and Business Administration was in the process of concluding a memorandum
of understanding with an organization in Malaysia where they will be working very
specifically on a program which will involve two years there and two years here. One
which, in addition to the
 Vancouver Senate 11332
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
international student tuition rebate, there will be capital and other contributions to ensure
that the quality of experience for Canadian students is enhanced. Beyond those programs
where there is a specific strategy being evolved, the implementation plan calls for the
Registrar and Director of Student Services to work with the Deans and representatives of
the Faculties involved to develop a comprehensive plan. UBC is not currently actively
recruiting international students, although many institutions round the world do actively
recruit. Within the past few months a network of Canadian education offices has been
established throughout the Pacific rim countries, with the participation of Canadian
universities, and that will be one of the mechanisms that UBC will use. The University will
be looking to participate more actively in the presentation of educational opportunities at
UBC to potential students not only in the Pacific rim but elsewhere in the world. Vice
President Birch said that these issues will be addressed systematically, which was one of
the reasons for not moving to implement these fees in 1996/97.
In response to a query by Mr. Gray, Vice President Birch stated that the policy had
already been approved by the Board of Governors, but the Senate Admissions Committee
was being asked to look at those elements of the policy raised by the Senate Academic
Policy Committee. In response to a further query by Mr. Gray, Vice President Birch
explained that currently, within the quota of 1500 students admitted to the Faculty of
Arts, they are encouraged to ensure that something in the general order of 5% are
international students. The number of
 Vancouver Senate 11333
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
places protected for Canadian students, therefore, is 95% of that 1500. The policy will
allow Faculties to develop a proposal that would go beyond that, if they so wish. As
stated in the proposal, the policy will not diminish the number of places protected for
Canadian students.
Dr. Will stated that as the policy had been approved by the Board of Governors, Senate's
options were limited. He realized that it was necessary to say that the implementation of
this policy would not be at the expense of domestic students but felt that it would have
been better if the policy published in UBC Reports had said something more specific as to
the type of programs where this would be an easy achievement. He believed that there are
programs with an excess capacity which could be filled without affecting domestic
students. However, there had to be a mechanism to ensure that places for domestic
students will be protected. He said that if the grade point average for international
students were to go down to the level for domestic students, it does not guarantee that in
Faculties already at capacity there will not be displacement.
Mr. Banfield said that it was incumbent upon the University administration to explain the
policy properly and to correct any misconceptions the public might have about the policy
in order to maintain goodwill.
Mr. Lohachitranont pointed out that international students who are granted landed
immigrant status automatically become domestic students. Vice President Birch responded
that although this happens it is usually no more than five students a year and once landed
immigrant status is granted they are treated as Canadian
 Vancouver Senate 11334
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
students. He pointed out that, technically, a student cannot change their status from
within Canada.
Dr. Williams confirmed that the committee was asking Senate to receive the report with
all of its concerns so that when the policy is reviewed these issues will be a matter of
record, particularly the admissions policy and the way in which it is supposed to make
absolutely clear that only "superior" international students are admitted and that no
funded Canadian students will be displaced.
Ms. Chui drew Senate's attention to the fact that the reason given for the decreasing
enrolment in Science was that with decreasing laboratory space, the same numbers of
students cannot be accommodated. She said that she hoped that when increasing student
quotas, the University administration and Faculties will take into consideration the
availability of laboratories and classroom space and seats so that students do not have to
sit on staircases. Ms. Chui said that there are classes in first year Science that have
students sitting in the aisles.
Mr. Gray suggested that the Senate Admissions Committee comment more generally on
the report than on merely the specific issues mentioned. Dr. Williams saw no reason to
limit the input of the committee.
Ms. Dzerowicz expressed the hope that the Senate Admissions Committee would be in a
position to report back to Senate very shortly .
The motion was
put and carried.
 Vancouver Senate 11335
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
ADMISSIONS COMMITTEE
Enrolment quotas for 1996-97 (see Appendix A)
Dr. Will, chair of the committee, presented the report on enrolment quotas for 1996-7,
which had been circulated. He informed Senate that apart from minor changes to
enrolment quotas in Landscape Architecture, Commerce and Education, the quotas for
1996/97 remain unchanged.
Dr. Will l        That the enrolment quotas for 1996/97 be
Dean Goldberg J        approved.
Vice President Birch responded to a query concerning the reduction in the number of
admissions to first year Science over the past decade. He explained that the biggest single
factor was direct entry into engineering in that if engineering takes in more students
directly, the Faculty of Science still has to teach them in first year. If the Faculty of Science
continues to take in the same number of students but they do not to go into engineering
the following year, Science will have a bulge all the way through the four years of its
degree program. In order to prevent this, the targets for the two faculties were looked at
together.
The motion was
put and carried.
1
j
Broader Based Admission - Calendar Statement
The committee recommended that the following be added to the Admissions section of the
Calendar under "Undergraduate Admissions - General Policy on Admissions" as the
second paragraph of the section:
Academic criteria are the bases of admission for the majority of applicants offered
admission, but additional criteria may be used in some programs in the selection of a
limited number of qualified students. Programs to which admission may be based on
both academic and other criteria are identified in the respective Faculty and School
Calendar entries on admission.
 Vancouver Senate 11336
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
Dr. Will explained that prior to 1993 a University-wide set of criteria was used in
processing applications for admission from Grade 12. Due to increasing restrictions on
enrolment, the University moved away from a single set of criteria for admission and
established different admissions criteria for individual programs upon the
recommendations of the various Faculties and Schools. UBC now has seven programs that
admit directly from Grade 12. Dr. Will stated that the proposal before Senate was another
step in the devolution of admission policy, whereby a more appropriate set of criteria for
a particular program can be articulated. He stated that this broader-based policy was an
important step because it introduces into the admissions process subjective factors and
considerations that were not there before. Dr. Will suggested that while the proposal was
a big step in the sense mentioned, it was not a radical step in that some professional
programs, e.g. Rehabilitation Sciences and Landscape Architecture, which admit after one
or more years of post-secondary education, already apply criteria in addition to marks.
Dr. Will informed Senate that the proposal to introduce a broader-based admission policy
was in response to concerns that grade point averages were escalating and that it was
possible that UBC, as a result of the sole emphasis on grades, was not getting the best
students for particular programs. These concerns had been raised by Convocation
members and Lieutenant Governor appointees to Senate, on behalf of those both inside
and outside the University community, as well as by faculty and administrators directly
concerned with admissions. Concern
 Vancouver Senate 11337
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
had also been expressed by the high schools that the competition for grades was deflecting
students' time and interest from extracurricular activities and programs, both in the
schools and the larger community. It was disconcerting to the committee that the
competition for higher grades was resulting in some of the successful applicants being less
rounded, in that they were losing the opportunity to gain experience in other activities. It
was thought that some experience in extracurricular activities would probably be an
advantage to students applying for jobs at a future date.
Dr. Will assured Senate that the introduction of a broader-based admission policy was not
a trade-off of extracurricular activities for lower academic achievement. He explained that
the policy will only apply to those students whose grade point averages are well above the
minimum and who might otherwise be denied admission to a program because the grade
point average cut-off is much higher than the minimum. The number envisaged was a
maximum 15% of total applicants accepted in any year. Dr. Will emphasized that the
policy was intended to apply only to students who had excelled or distinguished
themselves in non-academic activities, and that students would be asked to provide such
information by completing a supplementary application form. A copy of a proposed
supplementary application form had been circulated at the meeting for information. Dr.
Will drew attention to a section of the form requesting information about any health or
personal problems experienced by the applicant. He explained that this
 Vancouver Senate 11338
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
section was being included in order that such matters can be taken into consideration
when processing applications. Hitherto, the only way in which the University has been
able to respond to an applicant's plea of extenuating circumstances is at time of appeal of
a denial of admission. He noted that the added workload and the difficulty of processing
applications in a more labour intensive way would be one of the main constraints in
getting acceptances out in time for students to take advantage of an offer of admission.
In recommending approval, Dr. Will stated that the proposal had been considered by a
subcommittee of the Senate Admissions Committee, including representatives from
schools and faculties affected by the proposal, and that a great deal of research had been
conducted prior to presenting the proposal to Senate.
Dr. Will l        That the Broader Based Admission Calendar
Mr. Banfield i        Statement be approved.
Dr. Isaacson suggested that it would be useful to list in the Calendar the Faculties that
have adopted this approach. Dr. Will said that he had already made this suggestion and
stated that it was important that such a list be updated each year.
In response to queries by Mr. Woo and Mr. Lim concerning the proposed letter and
attached application form, Dr. Will stated that each faculty could use its own format,
provided that the form includes a section requesting information on health
 Vancouver Senate 11339
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
and/or personal problems. These forms would, of course, be brought to Senate each year,
for information, to ensure that no inappropriate criteria are included.
Dr. Vanderstoep noted that the criteria would apply to approximately 15% of incoming
students in a particular program and asked if that number was flexible. Dr. Will
responded that the 15% was not part of the motion for approval, but that the
understanding was that the 15% limit would or should apply, at least until such time as
experience suggests it might prudently be changed.
The motion was
put and carried.
i
School of Rehabilitation Sciences
The committee recommended approval of the following changes to Calendar statements
(changes in italics):
Selection is based on completion of prerequisites, overall academic performance
(including academic standing defined below), written and verbal communication skills,
maturity and personal suitability.
...Because of the nature of the curricula, pursuit of the degrees offered by the School is
normally on a full-time basis. Students must complete the requirements for the B.Sc.
(O.T.) and B.Sc. (P.T.) degrees within six years of admission to the program.
Dr. Will noted that a proposed Calendar entry concerning a $300 deposit to be required
of all applicants for admission was a matter for relevant administrators and the Board of
Governors, not the Senate, although the requirement of a deposit or fee could have
academic implications.
 Vancouver Senate 11340
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
Dr. Will l        That the changes to Calendar statements
Dr. Shearer i       proposed by the School of Rehabilitation
Sciences be approved.
Carried.
Faculty of Applied Science - Admission Broadening
The committee recommended approval of a proposal from the Faculty of Applied Science
for a broader-based admission policy. The following statement will be included in the
Calendar immediately after the "Admission from BC Grade 12 (or the equivalent)"
section of the Calendar:
In addition to high academic standards, the Faculty of Applied Science recognizes the
benefits of previous technical work and extra-curricular activities. Admissible
applicants from BC and Yukon Secondary Schools whose interim grades (and final
grades where available) fall below 85% will be sent a Supplementary Application
Form. The form requests information from the applicant in areas such as:
• Career objectives in the context of the present application to enter engineering
• Experiences related to athletic, cultural, family, community or other activities
requiring considerable personal initiative
• Science projects requiring design, construction and use of specialized equipment
and/or software
• Summer jobs in technical organizations or environments
• Technical courses completed
This information will be used by the Admissions Committee of the Faculty of Applied
Science in the selection of up to 15% of the students entering Engineering.
 Vancouver Senate 11341
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
Dr. Will l        That the proposal of the Faculty of Applied
Dean Meisen i        Science for a broader based admission policy
be approved.
Attention was drawn to the proposed letter and application form which had been
circulated for information at the meeting. Dean Meisen agreed to take into consideration
some of the suggestions made concerning those documents.
In response to a query by Mr. Boritz as to whether there was to be any consistency amon^
the faculties concerning the percentage of students to be admitted under the broader
based admission policy, Dr. Will stated that no set rule had been established because the
larger faculties might find it difficult to process as large a percentage as smaller faculties
in the required period of time.
The motion was
put and carried.
Faculty of Dentistry
The committee recommended approval of revisions to the Faculty of Dentistry Calendar
entry. Dr. Will stated that it was essentially a re-write and that there were no substantive
changes.
Dr. Will l        That the revised Calendar entry for the Faculty
Dean Yen i        of Dentistry be approved.
Carried.
 Vancouver Senate 11342
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
Faculty of Forestry
The committee recommended approval of a Calendar statement on admission to the
Wood Products Processing Major, which replaces the existing Wood Science and Industry
Major. Dr. Will stated that as Chemistry 11 and 12 will be required for admission to this
new program, the program will not go into effect until 1998, in order to give students
enough time to fulfil the requirements for admission.
Dr. Will l        That the proposed Calendar statement on
Dean Binkley i       admission to the Wood Products Processing
Major, effective 1998, be approved.
Carried.
AGENDA COMMITTEE
Election of faculty members at-large to Senate
Senate was informed that in response to a call for nominations for ten faculty members
at-large to serve on Senate, only nine were received.
The Agenda Committee recommended that a new election be held to fill the remaining
position.
Dr. Slonecker l        That a new election be held to fill the
Dean McNeill i        remaining position for a faculty member at-
large to serve on Senate.
Carried.
 Vancouver Senate 11343
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
BUDGET COMMITTEE
Dr. Isaacson, chair of the committee, presented the following report, which had been
circulated:
Introduction
The terms of reference of this study derive from recommendation 4 of the report,
'Centralization and decentralization', from the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on
University Organization ( we shall refer simply to the 'Second Report').
That the Senate Budget Committee be requested to study those centralized units
that enjoy full or partial monopoly status on the campus, particularly ancillary
units, and to bring recommendations to Senate and to the President not later than
the December 1995 meeting of Senate, on a mechanism to ensure that each such
unit defines its service in relation to the academic community's needs, provides that
service to a standard that meets or exceeds that in the competitive marketplace,
and justifies its operating costs and scale of charges in relation to the fair market
value found in the greater Vancouver area.
The instructions given to the Senate Budget Committee were taken to imply that
Senate was looking for guidelines; specific recommendations on individual units being
outside the scope of the report. In a sense, this report is concerned with fleshing out
the implementation details of the Second Report.
We draw attention to the following principle adopted in the Second Report.
In principle: There are good grounds for maintaining the centralized, campus-wide
provision of many services at UBC. It is essential, however, that the units
providing these services recognize the need, not only for cost minimization, but
also for responsiveness to departments and to other users of their services.
The first three recommendations of the Second Report are relevant and are repeated
for convenience:
Recommendation 1. That Senate request the President to ensure that the mandates
of all centralized service units explicitly recognize the twin needs of cost
minimization and responsiveness to academic departments and other users.
Although centralized service units are not directly engaged in teaching or research,
they do have a direct impact on the academic functioning of the university through the
service provided to academic units, and therefore they are a concern of Senate. Senate
was concerned that the pursuit of greater degrees of decentralization might lead to the
ancillary pursuing actions and purposes that were not entirely consistent with the
academic mission of the university, and the rich interaction with the university
community that had previously been common, could be an unanticipated casualty of
 Vancouver Senate 11344
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
the drive to efficiency and self reliance. There was also the significant concern that an
ancillary focused only on ' balancing the books' might experience no incentive to
moderate prices or improve services.
Recommendation 2. That Senate request the President to require all centralized
service units have a formal mechanism for regularly assessing their performance,
including the extent to which they are satisfying the legitimate needs of academic
departments, individual faculty members and students. In some cases this may be
achieved with an advisory committee, but other mechanisms may be appropriate in
other cases. Whatever the format, consultation with appropriate parts of the
academic community should be required. The nature of the mechanism and
changes in it should be reported to the Senate Budget Committee for review and
comment, and the substance of evaluations and responses to them should be
included in the unit's section of the annual Budget and Planning Narrative.
Recommendation 3. That Senate request the President to require periodic reviews
of all centralized units with a view not only to minimizing costs but also to
enhancing responsiveness with which services are provided to the academic
departments, individual faculty members and students, and that a copy of the
recommendations of each review together with the administrators' response to
them ...be sent to the Senate Budget Committee.
It is recognized that many centralized service units perform a variety of service and/or
regulatory functions. In particular, many units play a dual role of providing a service
as well as regulating various aspects of that service. It is important that these two roles
are clearly delineated in the unit's mandate, and in any mechanism relating to its
service definition.
Principles
We lay out some basic principles:
A. If a competitive market exists, setting prices for certain well defined services,
then users have a right to an explanation as to why a centralized campus unit
sets rates for similar services differently.
B. In the absence of such a competitive market, a mechanism should involve users
in reviewing rates and prices and the setting of service levels.
C. Mechanisms should not involve the micro-managing of the unit and its
professional staff.
D. Mechanisms should avoid encouraging an "us and them" attitude, and, in
particular, while encouraging a responsive attitude by suppliers of a service,
any mechanism must also educate the user as to the real cost of providing a
service and supply an incentive to eliminate unnecessary use.
E. Mechanisms should assist those to whom units report, typically Vice-
Presidents, and not result in an ambiguous reporting relationship.
 Vancouver Senate 11345
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
Conclusions and Recommendations
We have been asked to consider ".. those centralized units which enjoy full or partial
monopoly on the campus...". Such units inherit the weight of the three recommendations
of the Second Report above. Once fully implemented those recommendations will ensure
"..that (their) mandates explicitly recognize the twin needs of cost minimization and
responsiveness to academic departments and other users" (Recommendation 1). There will
have been required to have a formal "...mechanism for regularly assessing their
performance, including the extent to which they are satisfying the legitimate needs of
academic departments, individual faculty members and students...." (recommendation 2),
and the Senate Budget Committee will review these mechanisms. We have been asked to
single out some mechanism(s) as particularly appropriate for that subset of units enjoying
full or partial monopoly on campus. In thinking about possible mechanisms we have
identified none that would apply to all units and all come so close to being management
tools that they risk being in conflict with principles C and E above. We shall therefore not
be recommending any of them as a single mechanism for implementation. Enhancing the
responsiveness of units to their users could be a result of using several such techniques, but
there is no single recommended formula. We have listed some possible mechanisms in an
appendix as an assistance to those units struggling with the implementation of
recommendation 2. When the Senate Budget Committee undertakes its part of
recommendation 2 "... for review and comment...", it might well like to direct the
attention of the parties concerned to this list to encourage any perceived lack of
responsiveness.
Conclusion 1. That recommendations 1 and 2 of the Second Report provide a good
foundation for encouraging unit responsiveness to users and we find no difference in
kind between those mechanisms required for units with full or partial monopoly and
those for other centralized units.
We deliberately do not specify that particular units should employ specific mechanisms.
This would be to micro-manage the unit. We would much prefer unit heads to make this
choice. Responsiveness would be recognised in the way it was defined in the second report
as : " have sought an understanding of the needs of the academic community, is defining
its service in relation to those needs (responsiveness), is providing that service to a
standard which meets or exceeds that found in the competitive marketplace and that
operating costs and scales of charges have been justified in relation to the fair market
value found in the Greater Vancouver area (cost minimization)." How the unit chooses to
be responsive; user groups, representatives, information dissemination etc., we feel is not
crucial at this stage. Exactly what means they choose to justify their operating costs and
performance should reflect the nature of their business; we are interested in the result.
Recommendation 3 of the Second Report required periodic reviews of all centralized units
"..with a view not only to minimizing costs but also to enhancing responsiveness...".
Again the issue for us here is whether any special provision needs to made for the case of
units enjoying full or partial monopoly on campus. We feel that the periodic review is the
appropriate time to ask why such a full or partial monopoly should continue.
 Vancouver Senate 11346
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
Recommendation: That Senate request the President to include in the instructions for
cyclical or ad-hoc reviews of centralized service units with full or partial monopoly on
campus the following standing requests.
i.      The review will require each unit to provide detailed explanations of why an
activity or service needs to be provided by an on-campus supplier, why this
should be the unit in question and, in the case of a sole supplier, why that is so.
The subsequent report of the review committee will take particular care
addressing these explanations.
ii.      In the case of a centrally funded unit, the review will need to be satisfied that
resources to purchase their outputs are better not placed in the hands of the
users.
iii.      The review should identify any impediments to either the use of external
suppliers or privatization of the activities/services provided by the unit.
Appendix: A list of possible mechanisms to encourage responsiveness in centralized
campus units:
Giving resources to users
Placing resources in the hands of users avoids unnecessary consumption and allows
decisions on resource allocation to be made by those best able to make them. This has a
direct impact when alternate sources of supply are available and no common good derives
from joint supply arrangements. When a sole supplier exists, the user may have at least the
limited option of using more or less.
The redistribution of computer "dollars" on campus led to most Faculties purchasing their
own desk top computers and networks. They continue to support central computing
services by the extent to which faculty and students are provided with Access accounts or
purchase other computing services. This redistribution also gave them the choice to either
reduce the total amount spent on computing by choosing to absorb budget "cuts" more
heavily on that budget line than others or to reallocate more of the budget towards
computing.
Placing resources in the hands of users is an elegantly simple idea but its implementation is
fraught with difficulty. When alternate sources of supply are available but previously not
permitted, the former sole supplier may need time for the transition . The facilities, skills
and working conditions built up over many years, configured for a sole supplier may be
quite inappropriate when plunged into a world of direct competition. When alternate
suppliers are not available, pricing should be reviewed and may have to be regulated.
A particular problem can arise when the user has little ability to reduce its usage of a
service. In a time of shrinking budgets and rising prices the supplier of the service may feel
compelled to increase its rates while the user may have little or no capacity to reduce its
level of consumption. This can put the user in a worse situation than would have occurred
if the supplier had been a GPOF funded unit, while leaving the supplier, in the short term
at least, insulated from most of the budgetary and price impacts. In such cases review and
regulation is likely to be necessary. This should be done on a ad-hoc basis by the
responsible Vice-President.
 Vancouver Senate 11347
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
Service performance measures
Service performance measures can be both quantitative and qualitative. It is desirable
that they correspond to the measurement of an output that is intimately linked to the
mission or objectives of the unit involved. The difficulty of doing this often leads to
either the measurement of some positively correlated activity or of some intermediate
output. Such a measure could be linked to a target on an absolute scale, or could be
used to compare improvements over time, compare units within the same organization
or could compare with similar units in other institutions.
"The average processing time for requisitions reduced from 12 to 3-5 days from
F92/93 to F93/94" , is a quantitative measure of an intermediate output, closely
linked to the objectives of the unit, in this case Financial Services (Budget and
Planning Narrative 94/95 p.113). This measure has intrinsic interest as an absolute
number, as a comparison over time and also with other institutions. "The number
of carpool vans in operation" would be an output measure directly linked to goal
#4 for PASS, intended to "motivate to reduce the number of cars on campus"
(BPN 94/95, p.165).
Qualitative measures of performance can be obtained from customer surveys, focus
groups and user committees.
Service performance measures are easy to define and even easier to abuse. Once
defined, they seem to take on a life all of their own, and good sound management of a
unit can be abandoned in favour of simply improving the "score". Only in the
simplest of enterprises can such a measure(s) capture the complexity of the task. What
starts as a guide, signalling the importance that the University Community places on
some aspect of performance, soon becomes a constraint on good management, an
excuse by some to micro-manage and interfere with a unit and can distort the
direction of total improvement of a unit by focusing efforts too much on only one
aspect(s).
Performance measures also have other failings. When used for comparison, the
assumptions that go into the measure are seldom consistent between institutions or
even over time at the same institutions.
In the Budget and Planning Narratives of the last two years, units have been
encouraged to maintain and publish performance measures, measures of activity plus a
clear statement of objectives. During the preparation of the Fiscal 95196 budget all
ancillary units and many others were required to include such measures in their budget
submission and many have subsequently been reprinted in the Budget and Planning
Narrative for all to see. Despite their weaknesses, performance measures are essential
for managing a unit and can be a valuable tool to signal the units' responsiveness to
the users needs. The trick is to gain the advantages without allowing for the abuse.
Good managers are very aware of their costs and of their performance records. Well
intentioned, but often poorly informed outsiders, can however wreak havoc with the
best managed concern by employing performance measure myopia.
 Vancouver Senate 11348
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
Benchmarks
Benchmarks are typically quantitative standards of performance, often produced by
industry associations, are widely publicized, and attempt to reflect 'best practice'.
The comparison of the cost and staffing levels for the physical plant function at a
number of universities in table 2 of BPN 94/95 (p.118) is such an example, as also
is table 3 (p.118) which compares UBC custodial costs with downtown Vancouver
(typically contracted out operations).
Similar comments can be made concerning Benchmarks as were made for performance
measures. Industry standards have typically attempted to be careful about controlling
benchmark tests to enhance the level of reliability for comparison.
Information
A simple but crucial mechanism to enhance the responsiveness of any central unit,
ancillary or not, is encouraging them to provide clear information on their services. In
the case of sole suppliers, this should include a clear statement on what is only
available through them and what services can be obtained off campus, and whether
the off-campus supplier needs to be part of a list of approved vendors. A crucial part
of this need for information includes who to contact for service. We would suggest
that the provision of useful timely information is one of the most cost effective
mechanism to enhance responsiveness.
Training
Motivated and committed employees will be responsive to users as well as keeping
costs under control. Few mechanisms to enhance responsiveness are as efficacious as
providing ongoing opportunities for customer service training.
Advisory Boards, User Committees and Advisory Committees
Extensive use in made on campus of tools such as User Committees, Advisory Boards
and Focus Groups. The first two are usually permanent bodies with changing
memberships, the last is more likely to be transitory and allied to either a special event
or a special market segment. Advisory Boards are more likely to be used for policy
issues and often contain off campus representatives.
Properly used, these bodies are an effective channel of information to management
about the service expectations and performance of the unit as seen by users. They can
alert the unit to shifting tastes or priorities, identify weaknesses, test ideas and warn
users of changes to come. Their composition, reporting responsibilities and duties vary
greatly with the unit and the tasks required. We would recommend that units seriously
consider the use of these mechanisms to enhance their responsiveness to users.
 Vancouver Senate 11349
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
Advisory committees are especially popular on campus, either elected or appointed.
Scholarships, awards, Presidents Teaching and Learning Fund, Innovation Fund are
just a few of the many on campus that make, or advise on the making of, allocation
decisions concerning substantial single source supplies of a particular resource.
Representatives
Personalising the delivery of a service is often a real benefit. Otherwise a large
centralized campus unit can appear unapproachable and cold. The result is often
"unresponsiveness" by the unit. Responsiveness must also be active, not passive. Units
can only be truly responsive when they actively and regularly contact users and ask
questions:
"Are we providing you with what you need?"
"Is there some other service that could be better provided?"
"Have we been on time?"
The practice of having "our contact person in ", is certainly not a new mechanism,
but it remains a very powerful one. Without falling into the trap of either providing a
token contact person or forcing faculty representatives onto a unit unnaturally, we
would encourage service units to look seriously at this mechanism.
Deans as liaisons
A recent initiative has assigned Deans as liaisons between the academic community
and ancillaries or other units. We have collected no evidence on the effectiveness of
this initiative. We doubt this would function as the 'mechanism(s)' that Senate is
asking for, but applaud the initiative as an additional channel of information between
Faculties and service units.
Regulatory Panel or Board
An elected or appointed Board that meets together from time to time to hear
submissions about pricing and products. The CRTC readily comes to mind. We
believe that such mechanisms do little to engender the spirit of responsiveness and
typically violate principle D above.
Periodic reviews
Most units on campus are now required to undergo a periodic review. Review
committee members are typically appointed. Reviews can engage outside consultants if
appropriate.
 Vancouver Senate 11350
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
Five year Plans
Some units have developed long term plans, often to try and mitigate the myopia
induced by the annual funding cycle under which the University operates. Such plans
are valuable mechanisms for user groups to have input into the scale and nature of
services provided. These also serve to inform users. A cautionary observation is that
the development of such plans can take a wide variety of formats and level of detail
involving unnecessary work and a plethora of incomparable plans across campus.
Some university wide guidelines may be appropriate.
External Suppliers
The use of External suppliers for individual jobs or tasks during overload or peak
times, or for activities requiring special skills, or needed on an ad hoc basis, is already
common on campus. Many skills and functions are so critical to the support of the
principal teaching and research mission of the University that maintaining a capability
on campus is necessary, but many are not. Many of these skills and functions can be
provided on campus at competitive rates, and many cannot. The expenditure of public
money requires permanent vigilance that the best value is being obtained and the
removal of unnecessary barriers to obtaining the required service at the best price.
The contracting out of a significant part of a central service ( privatization) is always a
consideration. This is more often successful when the outputs of the service can be
measured unambiguously so that the performance of competing units can be fairly
compared. It is also important to be able to define the service carefully so that
contracts can be written that do not suffer from unintended consequences. In cases
where "responsiveness" means obtaining a well defined level of service or product at a
price, the use of an external supplier may be suitable. The "responsiveness" necessary
for a supplier and user to develop a long term relationship of trust and mutual
understanding to problem solve a joint issue of importance to the campus community
is less likely a candidate for an external supplier. Many service units also perform
regulatory functions as well, and it is often important to separate these out from just
the delivery of the service.
Elimination of services on Campus
Relying entirely on the off campus provision of a service may be an option.
Dr. Isaacson spoke briefly to the report, summarizing the views of the committee as
outlined in the document.
Dr. Isaacson i        That the report be accepted.
Dr. Atkins '
Carried.
 Vancouver Senate 11351
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
Dr. Will asked if the Budget Committee had advised the President on full cost tuition for
international students. Dr. Isaacson responded that the committee had considered earlier
versions of the proposal some months ago and had made comments on that. However,
the committee only received a copy of the actual version that went to the Board of
Governors shortly before it was submitted to the Board, so the committee was unable to
discuss the proposal until after it had been approved. The committee provided comments
only at that stage, and took the view that it would be useful to consider specific proposals
that would be coming forward in the near future.
COMMITTEE ON STUDENT AWARDS (SEE APPENDIX B)
In presenting the report, Dr. Cook, chair of the committee, noted that there was an
increase in the number of donors supplying money for Education Abroad Programs. Dr.
Cook drew attention to the most notable of three such scholarships being presented for
approval, that being the Westcoast Energy awards totalling $12,000.
Dr. Cook l        That the awards (listed in Appendix 'B') be
Professor Reid i       accepted and forwarded to the Board of
Governors for approval and that letters of
thanks be sent to the donors.
Carried.
Dr. Cook asked Senate to join her in congratulating student senator Ms. Lica Chui on
winning the Sherwood Lett Scholarship, and also on becoming a Wesbrook Scholar which
is the first time ever that there has been a Sherwood Lett winner and a Wesbrook Scholar
as a fellow senator. Members of Senate joined Dr. Cook in a round of applause.
 Vancouver Senate 11352
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
AD HOC COMMITTEE TO REVIEW TEACHING EVALUATION
Dr. Gosline, co-chair of the committee, presented the following report, which had been
circulated:
The Senate established an Ad Hoc Committee on Teaching Evaluation in 1990, and
this committee reported to Senate in the Fall of 1991 with a series of
recommendations for improving the process of teaching evaluation at UBC (attached
as Appendix A). One of the recommendations of that report was "that during the term
of the Senate of 1993-96 there be established an ad hoc committee to review the
progress made following these recommendations". Accordingly, the current committee
was established in the Fall of 1994, and we have conducted a review of procedures
and policies related to teaching evaluation at UBC. To obtain information on teaching
evaluation we conducted a survey of all teaching units at UBC. Questionnaires were
sent to the Deans of all Faculties and to the Heads of individual teaching units, and
the results of this survey provide the primary basis for this report. In addition, the
committee interviewed members of the university community to obtain additional
information where appropriate.
We found that all teaching units in the University carry out teaching evaluations and
that significant improvements in evaluation procedures have occurred since Senate
accepted the recommendations of the 1991 report. There are, however, areas relating
to specific policies outlined in these recommendations where the committee feels that
additional changes are needed to continue improvements in teaching evaluation.
Accordingly, we provide a series of recommendations to Senate that we believe will
further improve the teaching evaluation process, and through this will create an
academic environment in which the quality of teaching will improve.
The underlying issue in a discussion of teaching and learning at UBC is the values that
are held by the members of the University Community. UBC has a clearly established
policy that teaching and research are given equal status and importance. But if the
University's value system at all levels is such that teaching is given lower priority than
other activities, such as research, then no amount of effort to improve teaching will
ultimately be successful. It is a perception of some that good research drives
promotion and tenure, whereas poor teaching is used to deny them. It is clearly crucial
for the leaders of the academic community to ensure that this is not the case. The
recommendations of the 1991 committee do not call upon the Deans and Heads of
teaching units to take the initiative or show leadership in improving teaching, but
rather they urge them to follow prescribed procedures for its evaluation. However, it
is clear from our survey that there have been recent initiatives, both within and outside
the university, that have raised the level of consciousness throughout the University
community about the importance of good teaching, and several of these are worthy of
mention.
Some six years ago, it was decided by the Committee of Deans that the former Master
Teaching Awards should be revived as University Teaching Prizes. These prizes, worth
$5000 each and distributed proportionately among the faculties, have
 Vancouver Senate 11353
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
been awarded every year since 1991. The prize winners are then honoured publicly by
the University, in Faculty meetings and at the Spring Congregation ceremonies before
the students they have recently taught. This public recognition encourages students
and faculty to take seriously the University's commitment to improving teaching, and
to cooperate in achieving that aim.
The TIPS (Teaching Improvement Project Systems) and TAG (Teaching and Academic
Growth) programs, instituted by the Faculty of Medicine and the Centre for Faculty
Development and Instructional Services to enhance teaching skills, have provided
extremely effective workshops and other programs for faculty and teaching assistants
at UBC.
The Teaching and Learning Enhancement Fund was set up in 1991 by the Board of
Governors, and receives its income each year from a percentage of the increases paid
in tuition fees. It is mostly dedicated to funding special projects. In addition to TAG
programs, it supports instructional projects such as Introduction of Problem-based
Learning in UBC Health Sciences Faculties and Schools (Health Sciences) and the
Ethnographic Field School in Collaboration with the Stoldo Nation (Arts). The fund is
administered by the Vice President Academic and Provost with the help of an advisory
committee whose members are all University Teaching Prize winners.
In addition to these large-scale initiatives, individual teaching units have been
innovative in encouraging good teaching. One question that was included in our
survey asked, "What other measures, if any, have you taken to improve teaching in
your unit?" The committee received a broad range of answers to this question,
although many units did not indicate any particular innovations. We were impressed
by the enthusiasm of some department heads in their response and in their apparent
commitment to excellence in teaching. It appears that leadership at the level of
individual teaching units likely varies widely, and that those units with good leaders
are making significant advances to ensure that teaching is given the value and
importance that it deserves. The list in Appendix B is a summary of the kind of
answers that we received to this question. We include it because the committee wishes
to commend the high quality of leadership shown in a number of our teaching units,
and because we hope that this list will provide inspiration to others.
One important theme that arises from this list is that many departmental leaders feel
that good teaching should be rewarded, and the program of Faculty Teaching Awards
plays an important role for the university as a whole. However, rewards at the
department level, either in the form of prizes or in officially recognizing the
importance of teaching quality in the assignment of annual merit increases, can play
an equally important role.
Recommendation 1:
That Heads of teaching units, or their representatives, read all teaching evaluation
materials and that this material, in addition to other information on teaching and
other scholarly activities, be used in assessing annual merit increases for faculty.
 Vancouver Senate 11354
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
I.     TEACHING EVALUATION PROCEDURES
Our survey indicated that all teaching units are evaluating all their courses, and they
all state that they are complying with the procedures recommended in the 1991 report.
We have not, however, verified these assertions. The teaching evaluation processes
endorsed by Senate requires that the instructor assign a student to collect the
questionnaires, provide enough time for students to fill out the forms and then leave
the room. Also, the instructors is not allowed see the evaluation results before the
grading of exams is complete. Although our survey indicates general compliance with
these procedures, the student Senators on our committee were concerned that these
procedures are not followed in all classes. We believe that students will be more
comfortable completing their evaluations if these procedures are followed fully.
There is a large variation in the nature of the questionnaires used in different faculties
and in individual teaching units. The variation is not, of itself, a problem, as different
departments and faculties face widely different educational goals and activities.
However, it may prove valuable for more uniformity to be introduced in the future.
For example, when all faculties publish a statistical summary of teaching evaluation
results (as we recommend in this report), then it will be essential that all teaching units
in a faculty employ a common set of questions to form the basis of this statistical
summary. Similarly, it is essential that all teaching units in a faculty employ the same
rating scale, again so that statistical summaries are intelligible by users. This level of
uniformity is currently in place in most faculties, and relatively modest adjustments
are required in only a few teaching units to achieve these goals. The only major
exception this to is the Faculty of Medicine, where there is large variation in teaching
evaluation forms from department to department. Also, the committee felt that a
clearly defined area for written comments is a stimulus for students to provide
additional concerns or praise, and a well-designed form, with a professional
appearance, is likely to be taken more seriously by the students.
There are three major functions for the evaluation questionnaire: (1) To obtain
summary information on overall teaching effectiveness that can be used to recognize
excellence or to identify problems in the teaching performance of individual
instructors. (2) To obtain information of a more detailed nature on teaching
procedures that may help instructors to improve their teaching activities. (3) To obtain
information on the quality, merit or relevance of the course material and its
relationship to the curriculum. The questionnaires in some faculties are very brief and
attempt only to obtain summary information on overall teaching performance. Other
questionnaires have many questions, directed at all of the functions listed above. For
example, the Faculty of Science form has 6 questions, all directed at overall teaching
effectiveness, and all are used in the statistical summary published by the Science
Undergraduate Society. Most departments in the Faculty of Arts use a questionnaire
with more than 20 questions that cover detailed assessment of teaching method and
the evaluation of course content, as well as summary information on overall teaching
effectiveness. The committee feels that in most instances there should be a balanced
range of questions directed at all three
 Vancouver Senate 11355
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
functions. In addition, it is important to inform students which questions will form the
basis of statistical summaries of overall teaching effectiveness. Appendix C provides a
list of the kinds of question that are useful for forming the statistical summaries of
overall effectiveness. They are provided as examples; it is not essential that all be
included in the questionnaires of every faculty.
In general, the rating scales used in questionnaires are quite uniform within faculties,
but between faculties we found systems ranging from 4-point to 7-point scales, with
the 5-point scale being the most common. The committee does not see any inherent
problem in having different scales, but greater uniformity might be desirable. For
example, the use of an odd-number scale, which allows students to make a neutral
response as well as positive or negative responses, might provide a useful standard for
use across the campus. Certainly, the uniform use of a 5-point or a 7-point scale
would make statistical summaries more comparable across campus, but the committee
feels that rigid uniformity might inhibit important difference between the teaching
activities in different faculties.
The large degree of variation in teaching evaluation questionnaires in the Faculty of
Medicine reflects the enormous range of teaching activities undertaken in this faculty.
We therefore, do not regard this variation as a problem that requires a major solution.
Considering the fact that the Faculty of Medicine is currently shifting its curriculum to
a problem-based learning system, there will likely be many changes in teaching
evaluation procedures required to assess this transition. We anticipate, therefore, that
departments will be adjusting their questionnaires in the near future, and we feel that
the faculty as a whole will have a good opportunity to achieve an acceptable level of
uniformity.
Recommendation 2:
That each Faculty ensure that there is a level of uniformity in the evaluation
questionnaires used by individual teaching units to allow the Faculty to make
available statistical summary data on overall teaching effectiveness in individual
courses.
II.      CRITERIA FOR 'LESS THAN SATISFACTORY' TEACHING
PERFORMANCE
Recommendation 1 from the 1991 report requires that "Deans, Directors and
Department Heads take some action in response to results which show less than
satisfactory teaching performance, that a report of such action be submitted annually
to the Vice President (Academic) in the case of Deans and to the Dean in the case of
Directors and Heads, and that the Vice President (Academic) provide annually to
Senate a summary of these reports". The recent report to senate by the Vice President
Academic (Nov. 15, 1995) indicates that these procedures are in place and
functioning, and the committee are impressed by the extent and breadth of
information reported to Senate. However, to specifically address the issue of "less than
satisfactory teaching", it is essential that faculties and departments have a way
 Vancouver Senate 11356
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
of assessing what constitutes less than satisfactory teaching performance. Our
inquiries indicate that all faculties collect information on faculty with less than
satisfactory teaching performance, but the committee is concerned that some teaching
units do not have established criteria for assessing unsatisfactory performance.
The methods used to determine less than satisfactory teaching vary somewhat from
faculty to faculty. Most of the faculties and departments who stated they had set
criteria for determining less than satisfactory teaching performance did so in one of
two ways based on information from student evaluations. The first was to look at the
qualitative comments given by students on the evaluation forms. If there were enough
poor comments, then the Head of the Department or the Faculty would have a
discussion with the teacher (professor, lecturer, or TA). The second method was to set
a certain numerical rating as the threshold. For example, many unit heads said that if
a teacher rated less than a 3 on a 5 point scale, a discussion with the teacher would
take place. Furthermore, different faculties had different threshold ratings, and
different consequences for a low rating. For example, some faculties said that teachers
who rated poorly were referred to a professional development course, while other
faculties stated that a teacher who scored poorly simply was not hired back. Some
faculties considered peer evaluation in addition to student comments, but the use of
peer evaluation was most frequently employed only after a problem was identified
from student evaluations.
Some faculties stated that they had no criteria for determining less than satisfactory
teaching performance. Indeed, one faculty stated that they did not need any criteria
because they had never faced a teacher with unsatisfactory performance. This
committee feels that this line of reasoning is unacceptable. If a faculty or department
fails to establish criteria for determining unsatisfactory teaching, how is one to know
when a teacher is performing poorly? For example, in a few faculties, in addition to
having a rating threshold, the ratings were presented in such a way that teachers know
how they scored in relation to everyone else in their faculty. Thus, department heads
not only have discussions with those who score below the rating threshold, but also
with those who score in the bottom quartile of the faculty. This is a good example of a
situation where leadership and innovation can play a key role. Faculties and
departments must take it on themselves to develop procedures that will allow them to
maintain high standards of teaching quality.
Recommendations 3 6c 4:
That each Faculty and Department establish clear, written criteria which will be
used to assess unsatisfactory teaching performance. These criteria are to be made
known to anyone who is working in a teaching capacity.
That each unit Head be responsible for ensuring that the criteria are set high
enough to motivate teachers to work hard to improve the effectiveness of their
teaching.
 Vancouver Senate 11357
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
III.      POLICY ON THE RELEASE OF STUDENT EVALUATION RESULTS
Recommendation 9 from the 1991 report states, "That Deans, Directors and
Department Heads give serious consideration to making statistical summary results of
the evaluations in their units available for inspection by students and by other
members of the University community who have a legitimate interest in them". Our
survey, however, indicates that this recommendation is not followed in many of the
teaching units at UBC. There are some exceptions, but in most cases where evaluation
results are available, their circulation is relatively restricted, and hence largely unused
by students.
At present the only teaching unit that makes student evaluation results widely
available is the Faculty of Science. The Science Undergraduate Society has published
its guide to good teaching in the Faculty of Science. In the last few years, with the
cooperation of the Faculty of Science which provides the statistical data from the
Science course evaluations, the Society has published The Review, containing the name
and evaluation data of the majority of instructors who have taught courses. This year,
under the title of the official newspaper of the Society, The 432. a special number has
appeared with the statistical analysis expanded to include all courses, and the
distribution of the evaluation grades in each course. Copies of the publication have
been sent to all the Faculty's students in Canada during the summer. The publication
is funded by the Science Undergraduate Society, which believes that Senate's approval
for making teaching evaluation results public means that they should be published.
Most other teaching units do not release student evaluation results, and one unit told
us that they felt they were prohibited from releasing student evaluation results by the
recently passed "Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act", an act that
might impose restrictions on the distribution of personal information about an
individual and may, therefore, limit the release of student evaluation information.
Before considering the implications of this act in detail, it is essential that we establish
if there are valid reasons for the public release of student evaluation results in the first
place.
We received several opinions from student senators and from the Dean of Science on
the rationale for the release of teaching evaluation results, and all provided reasons
that fall into two general categories: (1) that this information will help students select
courses, and (2) that the public release of this information will encourage faculty to
teach better. If this information is made available prior to the registration process,
then it will assist students in selecting electives and in choosing an instructor for a
multi-section course, and the committee regard this as a valid use of the evaluation
information. This likely applies to a large number of classes in Arts and in Science, but
certainly not to all classes, particularly in professional programs where options are
limited. For all courses, however, the publication of evaluation results will very likely
serve as a stimulus for faculty to maintain high standards of teaching. The publication
of evaluation results will make
 Vancouver Senate 11358
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
faculty openly accountable to those who are paying for courses. It will allow faculty to
compare their performance with others, and it makes the evaluation process more
credible in the eyes of the students. In light of these considerations, the committee was
unanimous in the opinion that statistical summaries of student evaluations of teaching
should be made widely available to all students, and that these summaries should
include individual course, section and instructor information.
If student evaluation results are to be released, then the procedures for release of this
information must comply with the "Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy
Act". The committee sought assistance in this matter from Assoc. Vice President
McClean, and the following is a summary of current opinion. The key part of this act
which relates to the issue at hand deals with the collection and use of Personal
Information. According to the act, personal information is defined as (amongst other
things), "anyone else's opinion about the individual". Since student evaluations are
formed from student's opinions about the teaching of an individual instructor or
professor, the act seems to include these results as personal information, and the
collection and use of this information is therefore subject to the provisions of the act.
Personal information may be collected if "that information relates to and is necessary
for an operating program of the public body" (sect. 26.c). Since the reappointment,
tenure and promotion procedure requires the evaluation of an instructor's teaching by
members of the instructor's teaching unit and by members of the University
Administration, and this process requires student evaluation information (according to
the agreement between the Faculty Association and the University), it is certainly
acceptable for this information to be collected. However, the question about the use of
this information for reasons not specified in the agreement between the Faculty
Association and the University becomes more complex.
It is likely that the use of personal information from student evaluations for the
publication of statistical summaries of evaluation results in the format currently used
by the Faculty of Science is acceptable under the act; it is, however, possible that it is
not. Until the Information and Privacy Commissioner makes a decision on a case
arising from a complaint, we will not know if full publication is legal under the act.
The act states that personal information can be used if it "is necessary for the
performing of statutory duties of, or for operating a legally authorized program of, the
public bodythat uses or discloses the information" (sect. 34.b). Thus, the publication
of statistical summaries of teaching evaluation data for the purposes discussed above
should be appropriate under the act. Alternately, "a public body may use personal
information if the individual the information is about has identified the information
and has consented, in the prescribed manner, to the use" (sect. 32.b.). Thus, the
collection of a consent form from faculty would allow teaching units to release this
information for use by students. Clearly, policies and procedures for ensuring
adherence with the act will have to be carefully drafted and applied uniformly across
the University. The committee felt that this was beyond the level of expertise available
to us, and we regard the development of procedures for maintaining compliance with
the act as an administrative responsibility of the University.
 Vancouver Senate 11359
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
If we accept that all teaching units should release a statistical summary of teaching
evaluation data, then this information must be released in a manner and at a time that
will facilitate its use by students. The information could be distributed on a University
wide scale by the Alma Mater Soc. or the Registrar. Alternately, it may be expedient
for this information to be distributed on a smaller scale, perhaps by each Faculty, and
the involvement of the student organizations, as in the case of the Science
Undergraduate Society, would be desirable. Distribution by Faculty is likely to be
more efficient, as students in Arts, for example, will not likely be interested in teaching
evaluation results in Dentistry. Whichever organization actually publishes these data,
it is essential that the manner of their publication reflect the privileged status of this
personal information under the act.
There are, however, valid reasons for limiting the distribution of this information in
some cases, and there may be problems is some specialized courses. First, we must
acknowledge that many, indeed most, instructors and professors start their careers
with little or no training in teaching methods, and that some are given large classes for
their first teaching assignment. It would, therefore, not be surprising if new faculty
received evaluation results that were low during the first years of their teaching careers
when they are learning to teach "on the job". Teaching evaluations will certainly assist
new instructors in this learning process, but the adverse impact of full publication of
negative evaluation results might do more harm to the morale of a new teacher than
would be lost by the students if they do not have access to evaluation results. We
therefore feel that heads of teaching units should have the option of not publishing
evaluation results during the first two years for first-time teachers.
Next, it is essential that evaluation results represent a significant fraction of the
student population of a class if it is to be published. The decision as to what
constitutes a significant fraction is somewhat arbitrary, and the committee suggest that
one third of a class could be taken as the minimum sample. Obviously, it is the
responsibility of the instructor to ensure that time is made available in class, and it is
likely that samples well in excess of one third of the class could be collected. Where
evaluation results are based on samples that are less than the minimum, the Dean
could withhold results from publication and indicate that the sample size was too
small. The Dean or Department Head must, in such cases, direct the instructor to alter
procedures to ensure the collection of an adequate sample.
Finally, in courses at the upper level and in graduate or professional programs it is not
uncommon for a large number of individual instructors to contribute to the teaching
in a single term, and the publication of detailed statistics for each instructor in such
courses may be an unnecessary burden. In this case the use of evaluation instruments
specifically tailored to the multi-instructor course, such as those employed in the
Department of Anatomy and others in the Faculty of Medicine, with a single, global
evaluation for each instructor, may provide an acceptable alternative to more detailed
statistical summaries. Clearly, the quality of the evaluation questionnaire plays a
dominant role in establishing the value of evaluation results, and a major concern is
that statistical summaries provide useful information.
 Vancouver Senate 11360
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
Recommendations 5 6c 6:
That each Faculty adopt policies which ensure that a statistical summary of
appropriately collected teaching evaluation results be made available in a public
form, in accordance with the principles of the "Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act", and at a time that allows students to make use of these
results in the selection of courses and course sections.
That the President establish a committee to develop policies and procedures that
can be applied uniformly across the University to ensure that the practices
associated with the student evaluation of teaching meet the specific requirements of
the "Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1993 ". IV.
IV.     PEER EVALUATION
The objective of recommendation 5a from the 1991 report was to ensure that "Peer
evaluation is appropriately and systematically used". The responses to our survey
indicate that, in general, peer evaluation is used extensively in the procedures
associated with faculty reappointment, tenure and promotion, and that some units
employ peer evaluation in cases where the results of student evaluations indicate the
possibility that an individual is showing "less than satisfactory teaching performance".
Thus, peer evaluation appears to be used systematically to establish if faculty meet
some minimum criteria for career advancement and also to assist in problem cases, but
there does not appear to be any systematic use of peer evaluation for encouraging and
assisting in the development of teaching skills for faculty in general. The committee
feels that there are additional, important roles for peer evaluation which would help to
create a climate in which teaching quality will improve.
In many parts of the University, faculty are hired in their first teaching position with
very limited experience in teaching and usually with no formal training in teaching
methods. All, however, have been exposed to the teaching methods of teachers,
university professors and mentors over the course of their educational career, and in
the past this kind of preparation has been largely sufficient, as there are many
excellent teachers at UBC who have not had any formal training. Today, however, the
educational and informational atmosphere at universities and in society in general is
changing at an enormous pace. Our current students have been immersed in a TV-
dominated society, and increasingly they will learn through interactions with machines
(i.e. computers) as well as with teachers. These changes will have important impacts
on the attitudes of our students and the ways that they respond to the methods
employed by faculty to transmit information and, more importantly, to develop
critical thinking skills. The committee feels it is likely that many (most) faculty are
unaware of methods and technologies that can be employed to improve their teaching,
and we feel that programs involving peer evaluation could play an important role in
helping all faculty to improve the quality of their teaching.
 Vancouver Senate 11361
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
The educational community has long appreciated the value of peer evaluation in
teacher training, and there are now well developed programs in which peer evaluation
can be used at the university level. It is well beyond the expertise and the mandate of
this committee to design or recommend any specific program for the use of peer
evaluation in teaching development, but one program we discussed, "Collegial
Support for Professional Improvement: The Stanford Collegial Evaluation Program"
provided the following statement which, we believe, clearly indicates the nature and
philosophy of such programs. We hope this statement will encourage readers to accept
the possibility that peer evaluation programs can play a significant role in improving
teaching quality at UBC.
The purpose of collegial evaluation is to improve instruction, not to gather
evidence of improper performance for disciplinary action. Teachers collect
information about their performance from collegial observations, student
questionnaires and self- assessment. Based on this information, they analyze the
strengths and weaknesses in their teaching and prepare a plan for improvement.
One of the key ingredients to the effective use of peer evaluation to improve teaching
is the interaction of faculty in a cooperative manner to share information and
methods. A problem that we foresee in the application of peer evaluation-based
methods is that few, if any, faculty in the majority of our teaching units have any
specific skill or training in teaching methods. Faculty at UBC will, therefore, require
guidance from professional staff, and, as discussed below, the committee believes that
the Centre for Faculty Development and Instructional Services, which already exists
on our campus, is the ideal source for this guidance.
Recommendation 7:
That each Faculty develop policies and procedures that ensure access for their
Professors, Instructors and Teaching Assistants to peer-based teaching
development programs.
V.     PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS AT UBC
Department after department, faculty after faculty, pointed to TAG (acronym for
Teaching & Academic Growth) workshops as a useful means, for many the most
useful means, for improving the quality of teaching at UBC. One faculty which
formerly ran its own workshops for new faculty and graduate teaching assistants told
us that, given TAG services, it no longer needs to do so. Heads of units reported that
they have encouraged new faculty and/or new teaching assistants to take advantage of
TAG training, others that they direct faculty whose course evaluation scores are less
than satisfactory to make use of TAG assistance. We were also told that many faculty
and graduate students attend TAG sessions of their own volition, in order to learn
new instructional skills and become better teachers. Part of their encouragement to do
so is undoubtedly TAG workshops and seminars being free of charge to UBC faculty
and graduate students.
 Vancouver Senate 11362
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
The comments that we received concerning TAG services were so extensive and so
uniformly complementary as to persuade us that TAG has become an indispensable
component of academic life at UBC. Yet the Centre for Faculty Development and
Instructional Services, which is responsible for TAG workshops and related activities,
remains peripheral to the university, supported by one-time appropriations as opposed
to receiving operating funding. Beginning in 1987 under the auspices of the UBC
Faculty Association, this initiative to improve the quality of teaching and learning later
received matching funds from the President's Office and then from a variety of
university sources. Today a considerable proportion of funding for TAG comes
through the Centre's few staff scrambling for specialized grants pinpointed toward
particular purposes.
If UBC is serious in its commitment to teaching, to ensuring the highest possible
quality of instruction across the campus, then it becomes essential that the Centre for
Faculty Development and Instructional Services be recognized as integral to the
university's mandate. For this to occur, TAG must be a line item in that budget. In a
time of economic stringency when the function of the university is increasingly under
scrutiny, it becomes even more imperative that UBC affirm, and be seen to affirm, its
commitment to teaching as well as to research excellence.
With adequate funding assured, the Centre will be able to dispense with its secondary
emphasis on fund raising and so take on some additional activities that our survey of
units across the campus argue are essential, or desirable, to UBC's function as a
teaching institution. Two of these additional activities are an expanded mentoring
program for first-time teachers and ongoing peer-based, or collegial, teaching
evaluation.
Recommendations 8 6c 9:
That Senate recommend to the President and Board of Governors that the Centre
for Faculty Development and Instructional Services receive regular operating
funding as a line item in the UBC budget.
That Senate encourage the Centre for Faculty Development and Instructional
Services, when adequate funding is assured, to examine the feasibility of expanding
its mentoring program for first-time teachers and developing a program of ongoing
peer-based teaching evaluation.
VI.     THE FUTURE
The improvement of quality and effectiveness in teaching at UBC must be a
continuous, ongoing process, and the recommendations of this report represent a
series of incremental procedures that we hope will assist in this process. It is essential,
however, that Senate remain attentive to issues of teaching evaluation and of teaching
quality in general. Therefore, we recommend:
 Vancouver Senate 11363
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
Recommendation 10:
That during the term of the Senate of 1996-1999 there be established an ad hoc
committee to review the progress made by the University in the areas of teaching
evaluation procedures and in the enhancement of teaching quality and effectiveness
at UBC.
SUMMARY LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That Heads of teaching units, or their representatives, read all teaching
evaluation materials and that this material, in addition to other information on
teaching and other scholarly activities, be used in assessing annual merit
increases for faculty.
2. That each Faculty ensure that there is a level of uniformity in the evaluation
questionnaires used by individual teaching units to allow the Faculty to make
available statistical summary data on overall teaching effectiveness in individual
courses.
3. That each Faculty and Department need to establish clear, written criteria
which will be used to assess unsatisfactory teaching performance. These criteria
are to be made known to anyone who is working in a teaching capacity.
4. That each unit head must be responsible for ensuring that the criteria are set
high enough to motivate teachers to work hard to improve the effectiveness of
their teaching.
5. That each Faculty adopt policies which ensure that a statistical summary of
appropriately collected teaching evaluation results be made available in a public
form, in accordance with the principles of the "Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act", and at a time that allows students to make use of
these results in the selection of courses and course sections.
6. That the President establish a committee to develop policies and procedures
that can be applied uniformly across the University to ensure that the practices
associated with the student evaluation of teaching meet the specific
requirements of the "Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act,
1993".
7. That each Faculty develop policies and procedures that ensure access for their
Professors, Instructors and Teaching Assistants to peer-based teaching
development programs.
8. That Senate recommend to the President and Board of Governors that the
Centre for Faculty Development and Instructional Services receive regular
operating funding as a line item in the UBC budget.
 Vancouver Senate 11364
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
9. That Senate encourage the Centre for Faculty Development and Instructional
Services, when adequate funding is assured, to examine the feasibility of
expanding its mentoring program for first-time teachers and developing a
program of ongoing peer-based teaching evaluation.
10. That during the term of the Senate of 1996-1999 there be established an ad hoc
committee to review the progress made by the University in the areas of
teaching evaluation procedures and in the enhancement of teaching quality and
effectiveness at UBC.
Appendix A - Recommendations of the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Teaching
Evaluation, 1990/91
1. That Deans, Directors and Department Heads take some action in response to
results which show less than satisfactory teaching performance, that a report of
such action be submitted annually to the Vice President (Academic) in the case of
Deans and to the Dean in the case of Directors and Heads, and that the Vice
President (Academic) provide annually to Senate a summary of these reports.
2. That instructors whose evaluation results are less than satisfactory be strongly
urged to avail themselves of services such as those available (or being developed)
through the Faculty Development Program.
3. That Deans, Directors and Department Heads actively consider differentiated
staffing so as to allow different kinds of teaching strength to be appropriately used.
4. That the collected policies and instruments now in the possession of the Committee
be made available for perusal by Deans, Directors, Department Heads and
interested members of the University community.
5. That Deans, Directors, Department Heads and members of relevant committees
review the procedures and instruments for the evaluation of teaching in their units
and, where necessary, obtain expert help in their revision so as to ensure that:
a. Peer evaluation is appropriately and systematically used,
b. Procedures for obtaining student evaluations are fairly managed and safe
from intervention by the instructor who is being evaluated,
c. Adequate time is allowed for students to complete evaluations,
d. Results are not given to instructors until after they have submitted final
marks for the course or courses in which they are being evaluated,
e. Instruments are of evident high quality and respectful of students' right to
know why they are being asked to evaluate,
f. Instruments include a question designed to assess the instructor's overall
performance and include open-ended space for comment.
6. That Senate cause the following statement to be inserted in the General Academic
Regulations Section of the Calendar (p.24, col.2 of the 1991-92 Calendar): The
 Vancouver Senate 11365
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
University recognizes the importance of high quality teaching for the academic
preparation of its students and accordingly requires that instructors be annually
evaluated by procedures which include provision for assessments by students.
7. That the instruments used to obtain student evaluations carry a copy of this
statement and indicate clearly what the results of the evaluation are used for.
8. That Senate reaffirm its requirement for an annual evaluation of teaching, less
because the pattern of results may change in one year, than because each year's
students should have the opportunity to express their views.
9. That Deans, Directors and Department Heads give serious consideration to
making statistical summary results of the evaluations in their units available for
inspection by students and by other members of the University community who
have a legitimate interest in them.
10.That all units give serious consideration to establishing committees whose
function is to monitor the processes whereby teaching is evaluated and whose
membership includes student representation.
11. That our report be circulated to Faculties, Schools, Departments and the AMS
Students' Council, and that a copy be lodged in the Library.
12. That action based on these recommendations begin in January, 1992.
13.That during the term of the Senate of 1993-96 there be established an ad hoc
committee to review the progress made following these recommendations.
14.That Senate discharge the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Teaching Evaluation
(1990).
Appendix B - INNOVATIVE PROCEDURES AND TECHNIQUES FOR
THE IMPROVEMENT OF TEACHING.
Heads of teaching units were asked in question 10 what further measures they had
taken to improve teaching. The innovations were too many to list in their entirety, but
some of the most interesting are mentioned below in the hope that the special
techniques or procedures they have evolved to address specific problems may provide
inspiration to others. The list is undoubtedly not exhaustive, nor is it intended to
reveal any ranking of excellence.
Certain departments seem to be more imaginative than the rest in striving to improve
teaching and address problems in their disciplines, and what seem to be the best
departments have shown enthusiasm in their replies to this question. Notable for
imaginative and effective procedures are Computer Science. Geography. Germanic
Studies. Anatomy and Audiology & Speech Sciences. As is to be expected,
 Vancouver Senate 11366
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
Psychology and the Faculty of Education take a professional interest in improving
their own teaching and the evaluation of teaching. Other departments will be
mentioned in the presentation of initiatives that follow.
Teaching Prizes: Special teaching prizes, some of them lighthearted, are given in
certain departments. Geography assists the Geography Student Association in the
running of a "Professor of the Year" competition and is about to start a scheme to
recognize outstanding TAs. Human Kinetics gives an Outstanding Teacher award
annually. Psychiatry gives awards for outstanding teaching during the annual faculty
dinner. Computer Science awards five T-shirts a term, with "Incredible Instructor"
and "Terrific TA" on them to the best in the department, and also gives "Honourable
Mention" certificates. The "Robert Knox Teaching Award" was founded by members
of the Psychology Department in 1988 to commemorate a colleague.
Teaching Prize Winners: The Faculty of Education and the Departments of Germanic
Studies and Psychology have teaching prize-winners present their techniques to their
colleagues in seminars of colloquia.
Seminars, Colloquia and Workshops: The English Department holds occasional
colloquia on pedagogical questions. Rehabilitation Sciences holds a monthly teaching
seminar. Political Science has had a series of Bag Lunches on Teaching (BLOT).
Germanic Studies organized a series of language-teaching seminars and workshops for
teachers of all the language departments during 1994/95. The department has been
active in promoting the setting up and using of computers for language learning in the
language laboratory.
Geography has organized its own workshop for creating an inclusive climate in class,
and has produced TAs good enough to be employed by TAG. Creative Writing holds
workshops for neglected creative forms. Members of the Faculty of Dentistry attend
the annual Association of Canadian Faculties of Dentistry's Summer Teaching
Institute, and hold faculty development retreats and workshops on curriculum,
teaching methodologies and evaluation techniques. Family Practice has sponsored two
one-day presentation skills workshops in arms-length conjunction with a
pharmaceutical firm.
A very popular "Meet the Teachers" event is held by Computer Science twice a term.
Students in all CPSC courses provide constructive suggestions for the improvement of
teaching, and the meeting is begun by reading the last meeting's suggestions and
discussing the actions taken by the department. Attendance is from 50 to 75 students,
some 12 faculty members and the head.
Teaching Development Committees: The following departments have developed these
or similar committees: Agriculture. Applied Science. Commerce, and, of course,
Education.
 Vancouver Senate 11367
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
Exit Surveys: These surveys of graduates or graduating students are being conducted
by Geography and Audiology and Speech Sciences with a view to improving teaching.
Team Teaching: The departments of History. Chemical Engineering and Anatomy are
using team teaching. History sees it as a stimulus to creative teaching. Chemical
Engineering does not comment further. Anatomy comments that there are never any
problems because there a tradition that all faculty involved in a course attend all the
lectures irrespective of who is lecturing.
Merit Awards: All departments and faculties take teaching into account when
considering promotions and tenure. The following departments declare that they also
take it into account in calculating annual merit awards: Philosophy. Psychology.
Electrical Engineering. Physics and Audiology and Speech Sciences.
Problem-Based Learning: The faculties of Pharmaceutical Sciences. Dentistry and
Medicine are actively considering changes to their teaching system based on problem-
based learning.
Rotation of Lecture Assignments: In order to prevent boredom and staleness in
teaching, Chemistry rotates lecture assignments where possible every 4 to 6 years.
Botany has a 5 year plan, taking into account faculty preferences.
Computer-assisted Instructional Material: The department of Germanic Studies has
been active in promoting among all the language departments the setting up and using
of computers in the Language Laboratories. Audiology and Speech Sciences has
funded a computer- based speech analysis laboratory and other audiological
equipment. Ophthalmology provides lectures on multi-media for teaching
improvement.
Improvement of Unpopular courses: A complaint comes from Botany that certain
courses may be consistently unpopular, regardless of the teacher. "Classes have strong
reputations for being almost hostile 'on principle' ". Computer Science, also faced
with this problem, supplies an answer: "Some of our required courses for majors had
developed the (self-fulfilling) reputation of not getting high teaching evaluations
among both students and faculty. After having exceptionally popular instructors teach
these courses a few times, we have found more instructors not teaching these courses
are getting good teaching evaluations." The change, Computer Science, feels, is due
partly to a change in expectations, and partly to changes in the teaching and design of
the course.
Appendix C - SUGGESTED QUESTIONS FOR USE IN ESTABLISHING
OVERALL TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS.
1. I would recommend this instructor to other students.
2. The instructor taught the material in a clear and understandable way.
 Vancouver Senate 11368
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
3. The instructor taught the material in an interesting manner.
4. The instructor taught the course effectively.
5. The instructor was available outside of the classroom.
6. The instructor stimulated students to think.
7. The instructor responded to students questions and feedback considerately.
8. The instructor treated the students with respect.
9. The instructor demonstrated a comprehensive knowledge of the subject.
10.The instructor was interested in teaching.
Dr. Gosline reminded Senate that the committee was established to review the policies
and procedures associated with teaching evaluation at UBC, and in particular to evaluate
changes in these policies and procedures that have arisen since a previous Senate Ad Hoc
committee brought forward a series of recommendations which were adopted in 1991.
Before presenting the recommendations, Dr. Gosline recapitulated the committee's
activities in evaluating how those recommendations had been implemented by the various
teaching units on campus.
Recommendation 1
Dr. Gosline l        That Heads of teaching units, or their
Dr. Coope i        representatives, read all teaching evaluation
materials and that this material, in addition to
other information on teaching and other
scholarly activities, be used in assessing annual
merit increases for faculty.
Dr. Isaacson expressed concern that department heads be required to read all teaching
evaluations. Dr. Gosline responded that this was a reasonable concern, although, in
response to a questionnaire, many department heads had indicated that they do read all
the teaching evaluations for their department. He pointed out that the recommendation
did state "...or their representatives...".
 Vancouver Senate 11369
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
Dr. Will anticipated that problems could arise in a case where there was a negative
decision on reappointment or tenure if all members of a committee had not had access to
the same information as the department head. Dr. Gosline responded that it was not the
intention that others would not have access to this information.
Dr. Kelsey noted that in the Faculty of Education, students have two kinds of evaluation,
one being numerical answers to question and the other is a separate sheet on which
students are invited to write comments that will be seen only by the instructor. He
thought that, for this reason, Senate could not approve a motion that says heads should
read all teaching materials. Dr. Kelsey proposed the following amendment.
IN AMENDMENT:
Dr. Kelsey l        That Heads of teaching units, or their
Dean Goldberg i        delegates, use the results of teaching
evaluations in addition to other information on
teaching and other scholarly activities in
assessing annual merit increases for faculty.
Carried.
In response to a query by Mr. Boritz as to why the recommendation did not say anything
about using the results of teaching evaluation for the purposes of promotion and tenure,
Dr. Gosline stated that teaching evaluation is already well established in the conditions of
appointment of all faculty as being an essential agreement in determining reappointment,
tenure and promotion. He explained that the committee was trying to focus on an
additional use of teaching evaluation in recommending that it be used in assessing merit
increases.
The motion, as
amended, was put
and carried.
 Vancouver Senate 11370
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
Recommendation 2
Dr. Gosline l        That each Faculty ensure that there is a level of
]Vjr_ sfou J        uniformity in the evaluation questionnaires
used by individual teaching units to allow the
Faculty to make available statistical summary
data on overall teaching effectiveness in
individual courses.
Dean Meisen said that the Faculty of Applied Science, which consists of three different
units, Nursing, Architecture and Engineering, would have some difficulty with a uniform
questionnaire as the mode of teaching is quite different in each unit. Dr. Gosline
confirmed that it was not the intention that there be absolute uniformity in such cases.
The motion was
put and carried.
Recommendations 3 and 4
Dr. Gosline agreed to minor changes in wording to recommendation 4.
Dr. Gosline l        That each Faculty and Department need to
Mr. Brady i        establish clear, written criteria which will be
used to assess unsatisfactory teaching
performance. These criteria are to be made
known to anyone who is working in a teaching
capacity.
That each unit head must be responsible for
ensuring that the standards are set high enough
to ensure effective teaching.
In response to a query by Mr. Boritz, Dr. Gosline confirmed that recommendation 3 also
applies to graduate teaching assistants.
The motion was
put and carried.
 Vancouver Senate
Minutes of February 14,1996
11371
Reports of Committees of Senate
Recommendations S and 6
Dr. Gosline
Mr. Woo
That each Faculty adopt policies which ensure
that a statistical summary of appropriately
collected teaching evaluation results be made
available in a public form, in accordance with
the principles of the "Freedom of Information
and Protection of Privacy Act", and at a time
that allows students to make use of these
results in the selection of courses and course
sections.
That the President establish a committee to
develop policies and procedures that can be
applied uniformly across the University to
ensure that the practices associated with the
student evaluation of teaching meet the specific
requirements of the "Freedom of Information
and Protection of Privacy Act, 1993 ".
In response to a query by Dr. Isaacson concerning recommendation 5, Dr. Gosline
confirmed that it was intended that each faculty ensure that statistical summaries of
teaching evaluation data are made available prior to the registration process in order to
assist students in the selection of courses.
Dr. Will drew attention to the committee's suggestion that a minimum of one third of a
class would constitute an adequate sample of evaluation results, stating that there should
also be an indication of the number registered in the class so that students are aware of
the number of responses received. Dr. Will commented that evaluations are of little
assistance to first year students in that many courses are filled by the time they are
allowed to register. Dr. Will also pointed out that visiting lecturers usually teach for one
year only, and that, in some cases, the name of the instructor teaching the course is not
known at the time the Registration Guide is published.
 Vancouver Senate 113 72
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
Dr. Gosline responded that assisting students in their course selections was only one of
the uses that the committee identified. He stated that another reason for making this
information available is simply to be open about the quality of teaching evaluation
assessments of individuals and to make the teachers at UBC responsible publicly to the
students. He thought that the inadequacies pointed out by Dr. Will should not detract
from the utility of releasing this information.
Dr. Shearer pointed out that recommendation 5 instructs faculties to make available
statistical summaries of teaching evaluation results and that recommendation 6
recommends that a committee be established to see if it is in order to do this. He
suggested that only the Commissioner of Protection of Privacy would be in a position to
do this.
Dr. Shearer l        That recommendation 6 be tabled.
Mr. Gray J
Carried.
Speaking to recommendation 5, Dean Sheehan stated that in addition to the limitations
imposed by Telereg, some programs do not permit students to select their own courses
and course sections. Also, those students who must take a package of courses cannot
make use of evaluation results for the purpose of selecting courses. For these reasons
Dean Sheehan thought the proposal was misleading to students.
IN AMENDMENT:
Dean Sheehan i        That recommendation 5 be amended by
Dr. Isaacson i        deleting the words "...and at a time that
allows students to make use of these results in
the selection of courses and course sections."
 Vancouver Senate 11373
Minutes of February 14,1996
Reports of Committees of Senate
Mr. Brady spoke against the amendment, stating that the whole purpose of having
students fill out evaluations is that they can use them to select courses. He agreed that
perhaps not all students will be able to take advantage of these evaluations but he saw no
point in having students complete evaluations if they are not to be made available in time
to allow students to use them before they select their courses.
Mr. Woo also spoke against the amendment. Although he agreed that in first year, and in
cases of block timetables, students' choices are limited, he still thought that having the
evaluations available for the selection of courses would be very useful for many students.
Ms. Chui also thought that there was no purpose in having evaluations if they are not
available on a timely basis. Ms. Chui said that evaluations could be sent out to students
by the undergraduate societies. She stressed the importance, however, of receiving the
information promptly, stating that there is no point in sending out this information in the
summer.
Dean Binkley stated that evaluations are available to Forestry students in the summer but,
due to lack of resources, he did not think that the Faculty would be able to mail them to
students so they can have them when using Telereg.
Dr. Will pointed out that Arts and Science students would need evaluations from both
Faculties as they take courses in both faculties.
Dean Smith informed Senate that the Faculty of Law makes course evaluations available
in the Library, which she assumed filled the requirements of the recommendation. It
appeared that the timing was the only issue.
 Vancouver Senate
Minutes of February 14,1996
11374
Reports of Committees of Senate
Ms. Chui said that the Alma Mater Society is willing to publish evaluations if faculties
will make them available.
Dean Binkley said that the AMS wished to publish only a short summary of evaluations
which he felt could be misleading, and he had therefore been unable to release evaluations
for publication by the AMS.
Ms. Chui responded that the AMS was willing to work with the faculties and that it was
up to the faculties to decide what is appropriate to use.
Mr. Lohachitranont stated that the important issue was not whether evaluations are
mailed out or whether they are made available in the Library or a faculty. The important
point was that they be made available in time for students to make use of them.
The amendment
was lost.
The motion was
put and carried.
Motion to extend the meeting
Mr. Woo
Mr. Lim
That the time limit be extended.
Carried.
Recommendations 7, 8 and 9
Dr. Gosline
Mr. Lim:
That each Faculty develop policies and
procedures that ensure access for their
Professors, Instructors and Teaching Assistants
to peer-based teaching development programs.
 Vancouver Senate
Minutes of February 14,1996
11375
Reports of Committees of Senate
That Senate recommend to the President and
Board of Governors that the Centre for
Faculty Development and Instructional
Services receive regular operating funding as a
line item in the
UBC budget.
That Senate encourage the Centre for Faculty
Development and Instructional Services, when
adequate funding is assured, to examine the
feasibility of expanding its mentoring program
for first-time teachers and developing a
program of ongoing peer-based teaching
evaluation.
Dr. Gosline re-stated some of the issues outlined in the report. He said that an important
aspect of peer evaluation that has not yet pervaded the various teaching units is the notion
that it should be used broadly to encourage all faculty to teach better, whether or not they
are already teaching very well.
The motion was
put and carried.
Recommendation 10
Dr. Gosline
Mr. Banfield
That during the term of the Senate of 1996-
1999 there be established an ad hoc committee
to review the progress made by the University
in the areas of teaching evaluation procedures
and in the enhancement of teaching quality
and effectiveness at UB C.
In response to a query by Mr. Woo, Dr. Gosline stated that his perception of what had
been the focus of evaluation processes had not directed itself to the types of examinations
or evaluation procedures that are applied to students. He thought that it was an
interesting issue and one that could be directed to the next ad hoc committee.
 Vancouver Senate 11376
Minutes of February 14,1996
Faculty of Graduate Studies
Dr. Gilbert informed Senate that for those involved in problem based learning in the
Faculty of Medicine, since this is such a new exercise, the evaluation of the teaching
format is being given high priority.
Dr. Will suggested that the means by which faculty evaluate students is in a different
category and is not within the jurisdiction of a committee concerned with the evaluation
of teaching.
The motion was
put and carried.
On behalf of Senate, the chair expressed thanks and appreciation for the work done by
the committee.
Faculty of Graduate Studies
WITHDRAWAL FOR NON-ACADEMIC REASONS
Dean Grace spoke briefly to the following proposed Calendar statement on withdrawal
for non-academic reasons which had been circulated:
The Faculty of Graduate Studies reserves the right to require a student to withdraw
from a program of study if the Faculty, in consultation with the department, considers
the student to be unsuited to proceed with the study or practice of his or her discipline
or field of study. This withdrawal would not prevent the student from immediately
applying for entry into a different program of study.
It was explained in the material circulated that Senate regulations can require a student to
withdraw from the University for non-academic reasons but that the process is
cumbersome. The new regulation permits withdrawal of a student for non-academic
 Vancouver Senate 11377
Minutes of February 14,1996
Faculty of Graduate Studies
reasons (e.g., criminal activity etc.), a decision that can be appealed to the Senate
Committee on Appeals. The decision would normally be made by the Dean, upon
recommendation by the department, unit or program. A student required to withdraw for
academic reasons cannot re-enter UBC until one year has elapsed. This should not apply
to students required to withdraw for non-academic reasons.
Dean Grace l        The Faculty of Graduate Studies reserves the
Dr. Randall i       right to require a student to withdraw from a
program of study if the Faculty, in consultation
with the department, considers the student to
be unsuited to proceed with the study or
practice of his or her discipline or field of
study. This withdrawal would not prevent the
student from immediately applying for entry
into a different program of study.
Dr. MacDougall stated that the wording "unsuited to proceed" was too vague in that it
did not provide any objective criteria for making an evaluation and ran the risk of
subjective decision making. Dr. MacDougall also drew attention to the statement in the
material circulated that a decision can be appealed to the Senate Committee on Appeals
stating that it was not clear whether this referred to the Senate Committee on Appeals on
Academic Standing or the Senate Committee on Student Discipline. If the intention was
that a student could appeal to the Senate Committee on Appeals on Academic Standing,
Dr. MacDougall did not think this was appropriate as the committee is designed to deal
with academic matters.
Mr. Gray also expressed concern, stating that the appeal procedures are ambiguous and
the reasons for suspension unclear.
 Vancouver Senate 11378
Minutes of February 14,1996
Report on Community Plan
Dean Grace responded that the wording was virtually identical to the wording already in
the Calendar for several other faculties.
Mr. Woo suggested that the Senate Academic Policy Committee should consider the
appropriateness of the wording of the proposed statement.
Mr. Woo l        That the proposal be referred to the Senate
Mr. Gray i       Academic Policy Committee.
Lost.
The motion was then
put and carried.
Report on Community Plan
Dr. Quayle presented the following report for information.
I am reporting to you again as a member of the Official Community Plan Planning
Advisory Committee, a Greater Vancouver Regional District Committee that has been
formed to advise the political board of the Regional District on the preparation of an
Official Community Plan (OCP) for UBC. I last reported to Senate's November
meeting.
I want to address briefly our internal UBC process and then, the external community
process.
Internal UBC Process
An early January letter from Dr. Birch in his capacity as Chair of the President's
Advisory Committee on Space Allocation (PACSA) specifically invited the university
community to provide written input to this committee. PACSA has received
submissions from the following groups: The Animal Care Centre, Department of
Animal Science, Department of Botany, Botanical Gardens, Discovery Park
Corporation, Faculty of Forestry Department of Housing and Conferences, Paprican,
Department of Plant Science and Triumf. In general, those concerned and vocal to
PACSA and to the January 15 public open house held on campus have "academic real
estate" on the south campus. The groups have presented their current situation, their
ideal vision for the future and, in the spirit of cooperation, have generated some
alternative strategies for their futures. This process has thereby instigated a positive
discussion between Dr. Birch and the three
 Vancouver Senate 11379
Minutes of February 14,1996
Report on Community Plan
major faculties involved (Agricultural Sciences, Forestry and Science) about future
academic planning. These UBC decisions are important to the overall planning
process. To the extent there are academic implications to these discussions, Senate will
no doubt be involved in the process.
The campus community, itself, has also been active within its scholarly realm. The
Greening the Campus initiative coordinated by the Sustainable Development Research
Institute has generated a considerable array of documents from classes studying issues
around the Official Community Plan. For example, geography classes have undertaken
Environmental Impact Assessments and have made recommendations about enacting
environmental bylaws covering campus activities. Other topics include Waste Water
Management strategies, sociological case studies of Hampton Place, and a debate on
the cost of further land development — natural environment development or
conservation?. There is a lengthy list of completed and in-process projects which,
including the presentations of campus units to PACSA, have been conveyed to the
GVRD's consultant team to provide better knowledge about the campus we are
planning. This comes from a belief that good planning and design comes from
"knowing the territory". It is partly our responsibility, as the campus community, to
ensure that the best information reaches the planning team.
It is important to say that the process is still open — PACSA can and should receive
input until the ink has dried on the final draft plan. Student input would especially be
valued at this time.
External Process
Since November, the Planning Advisory Committee, PAC, which includes
representatives from the campus and the surrounding community of interests, has met
several times. Planning principles which direct the preparation of the land use plans
have been tentatively agreed upon — in other words they are still on the table for
revision as necessary. These principles guide the preparation of the land use
alternatives. We are currently in the process of debating these alternatives, as well as
the implementation process for the plan. These wickets are indeed stickier than the
general planning principles.
The tenor of the January 15 public Open House reviewing progress to date
emphasized the polarized positions in the community. Community people are
concerned about too much development at UBC as it might impact their lives — traffic
is a particularly contentious issue. As a result, the City of Vancouver has appointed a
UBC Transportation Task Force to give recommendations on traffic problems
surrounding UBC. It is interesting that the community has difficulty recognizing (a)
the inherent value of UBC as a neighbour with all our diverse, high quality, public
community services and amenities and (b) the fact that as part of the Vancouver
Regional District, a community at UBC is obliged to accommodate some of the
region's growth. We hope to do it carefully and well to improve our community.
 Vancouver Senate 11380
Minutes of February 14,1996
Other business
In terms of the debate about the land use alternatives, many members of PAC, myself
included, are very concerned about both the time line to allow for good planning and,
perhaps more importantly, the lack of information that has been presented to date
that provides a background rationale for the land use alternatives. At our next meeting
on February 21st, we are looking forward to more information being provided.
This is an extremely difficult process on a very tight time-line. The best I can say to
you is that those of us involved from UBC are trying our best to represent the interests
of the UBC community, now and in the future. There are as many opinions about this
planning issue as there are people in this room. Our task is to develop a framework
for the plan that is flexible enough to respond to what the future holds, yet firm
enough to ensure a responsible use of our land resource.
I still remain optimistic about the potential of our campus to be a more complete and
therefore better community. The question is one of balance. I urge all of you to
participate in the process, as you are able. More workshops will be held in March for
feedback on the draft plan. Make your own voice heard.
Other business
POLITICAL SCIENCE GRADUATE ADMISSIONS
In response to a question by Ms. Dzerowicz, the Dean of Graduate Studies reported that
the Department of Political Science had been engaged in a very active way since last
October. He stated that three working groups had met and that all three had submitted
reports. Two of the reports led to serious recommendations which have been adopted,
with minor modifications. A third report is being debated in the department at the
moment. Dean Grace also reported that the Faculty of Graduate Studies Graduate
Council had recently passed a matrix of expected and desirable features in graduate
programs, and that the Faculty of Arts would be debating some motions about procedures
dealing with complaints. Dean Grace informed Senate that the first report being produced
by the acting head of the department was due in February.
 Vancouver Senate 11381
Minutes of February 14,1996
Adjournment
SENATE MEMBERSHIP
Mr. Lim referred to the low number of nominations received for students and faculty
members at-large to serve on Senate. He stated that there was obviously a problem and
suggested that Senate should promote what it does and the significant contributions it
makes to the University community.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
Next meeting
The next regular meeting of Senate will be held on Wednesday, March 20, 1996.
 Vancouver Senate
Minutes of February 14,1996
11382
Appendix A - Enrolment Quotas for 1996-97
Appendix A - Enrolment Quotas for 1996-97
Faculties
1987-88
1988-89
1989-90
1990-91
1991-92
1992-93
1993-94
1994-95
1995-96
1996-97
Arts
1" Year
1st Yr Synala Prg
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1450
1450
10
1500*
10
1500
10
2nd Year
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
3,d & 4th year
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
350*
350
Agricultural Science
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
150
125
125
125
125
Landscape Arch.
1st Year
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
25*
25
17*
2nd Year
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
23+**
Applied Science
1M Year
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
2nd Year
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
513**
513**
513**
513**
513**
Architecture
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
Audiology & Speech Sc.
20
25
25
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
Commerce & Bus.Admin.
Year 2
390
390
395
395
395
395
360
360
360
375*1
Year 3
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
100
100
100
85 *!
Dentistry
DMD
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
B.D.Sc. ('92 New Prog)
-
-
-
-
-
10
10
10
10
10
Education
B.Ed (Sec.)
120
165
220
330
355
355
355
355
355***
355***/*
B.Ed (Sec - career prep)
-
-
-
-
-
20+***
-
B.Ed (Elem. 12mth)
125
225
290
414
336
350)
216
216
216***
216***
B.Ed. (Elem 2yr)
-
-
-
-
-
)
144
108
108***
114***/*
B.Ed. (Elem.) NITEP
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
Family & Nutritional Sc.
Dietetics - Year 1
Dietetics - Year 2
Dietetics - Year 3
Home Ec. - Year 1
Home Ec. - Year 2
Home Ec. - Year 3
n/a
n/a
n/a
36
36
36
36
50
(25)
(25)
10*
25+
5+
25
20+
10+
10
25
5
25
20
10
Forestry
BSF 1* Year
B.Sc. (Nat.Res.Cons) Yrl
B.Sc. (Forestry) - Wood
Products Processing - Yrl
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
65
20
65
20
65
20
65
20
20+
65
20
20
Human Kinetics
1M Year
n/a
n/a
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
2nd Year
n/a
n/a
60
60
60
60
60
45
45
45
3'd Year
n/a
n/a
45
45
45
45
45
60
60
60
Law
240
240
240
240
240
240
180
180
180
180
Library Archival &
Information Studies
45
60
57
62
70
70
70
70
70
70
Medicine
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Music
1" Year
56
67
62
60
56
250
Global
Enrolment
250
Global
Enrolment
250
Global
Enrolment
250
Global
Enrolment
250
Global
Enrolment
2»d & 3,d year
n/a
33
32
44
30
4th Year
-
-
-
-
-
Nursing
80
80
160
160
160
160
160
160
80*
80
Pharm Sc. Year 1
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140**
Rehabilitation Medicine
O.T.
24
30
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
P.T.
26
30
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
Science
1st year
1400
1400
1312
1312
1312
1200
1100
1100
1100
1100
2nd year
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
250
250
250
250
3rd year
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
150
150
150
150
Social Work
Post B.A. 1" year
35
35
35
30
Post B.A. 2nd year
35
35
55
50
-
-
-
-
-
-
B.S.W.
30
30
12
30
85
75
75
65
40*
40
^Denotes changes
* ^Denotes total 2nd year enrolment including new admissions.
* * * Final numbers dependent on Teacher Education Expansion Funding
+New
1 Commerce may be adjusted to 360 for year 1 and 100 for year 2.
 Vancouver Senate 11383
Minutes of February 14,1996
Appendix B
Appendix B
AWARDS RECOMMENDED TO SENATE
Marion McCarroll AMES Memorial Prize in Music - A $300 prize is offered in memory of
Marion McCarroll Ames to an undergraduate student majoring in piano. The prize is
made on the recommendation of the School of Music. (Available 1995/96 Winter Session.)
AURORA Society Geoffrey Lane Nanson Scholarship - A $1, 000 scholarship is offered
by The Aurora Society in honour of Dr. Geoffrey Lane Nanson to a graduate student
whose research work focuses on issues concerning women with chemical dependency or
alcoholism. The award is made on the recommendation of the Faculty of Graduate
Studies. (Available 1995/96 Winter Session.)
CANADIAN Folk Society William and Mary Black Memorial Bursary - A bursary of
$240 has been endowed by the Canadian Folk Society, Vancouver Branch, in memory of
Dr. William Black and his sister Mary Black. The award is offered to a student in any year
and faculty. ( Available 1995/96 Winter Session.)
Carol COATES Literary Prize - A $300 prize has been endowed through the bequest of
Carol Coates and supplemented by her daughter, Mrs. Sylvia Piatt. The award is offered
to a student in English literature on the recommendation of the Department of English,
and in case of a graduate student, in consultation with the Faculty of Graduate Studies. (
$225 Available 1995/96 Winter Session.)
Patricia DYER Memorial Award in Education - A $500 award has been endowed in
memory of Patricia Dyer by her family, friends, and colleagues. The award is offered to a
graduate student in Educational Studies who demonstrates enthusiasm for ideas and
commitment to their practical application. Specifically the student is committed to
building a sense of community and to ensuring equity in educational settings. The award
is made on the recommendation of the Department of Educational Studies in consultation
with the Faculty of Graduate Studies. (Available 1996/97 Winter Session.)
FINE Arts Dental Laboratories Ltd. Bursary - Two bursaries of $500 each are offered by
Fine Arts Dental Laboratories Ltd. for students in the Faculty of Dentistry. One award
each is offered to a student entering the first year and the second year of the D. M. D.
program. (Available 1995/96 Winter Session.)
FINE Arts Dental Laboratories Ltd. Prize in Prosthodontics - Two prize of $500 each are
offered by Fine Arts Dental Laboratories Ltd. for students in dentistry demonstrating
proficiency in the field of removable and fixed prosthodontics. One award each is offered
to a student in the third year and the fourth year, and is made on the recommendation of
the Faculty of Dentistry. (Available 1995/96 Winter Session.)
FLETCHER Challenge Canada Limited Scholarship - Scholarships totalling $30,000 have
been endowed by Fletcher Challenge Canada Limited. The awards are offered to
undergraduate students from Fletcher Challenge operating communities and surrounding
areas. Preference will be given to students from communities outside the lower mainland.
The awards are made on the recommendation of the Office of Awards and Financial Aid.
(Available 1996/97 Winter Session.)
 Vancouver Senate 11384
Minutes of February 14,1996
Appendix B
FLETCHER Challenge Canada Limited Fellowship - Fellowships totalling $30,000 have
been endowed by Fletcher Challenge Canada Limited. The awards are offered to students
from Fletcher Challenge operating communities and surrounding areas. Preference will be
given to students from communities outside the lower mainland. The awards are made on
the recommendation of the Faculty of Graduate Studies. ($15,000 Available 1996/97
Winter Session.)
Dennis HARRIS Memorial Prize in Psychiatry - A $300 prize is offered by Dr. Victoria
Harris in memory of her father, Dr. Dennis Harris. It is awarded to a fourth year medical
student who excels in psychiatry and is made on the recommendation of the Department
of Psychiatry. (Available 1995/96 Winter Session.)
J. D. HETHERINGTON Memorial Bursary - Bursaries to a total of $1,500 have been
endowed by his family in memory of J. D. (Jack) Hetherington (B.A.Sc '45), in recognition
of his integrity, leadership, and trust in young people. The award is offered to an
undergraduate student in Applied Science or Forestry. (Available 1996/97 Winter Session.)
Margaret HO Scholarship in Medicine.- Scholarships to a total of $1, 800 have been
endowed by Margaret Ho for students in Medicine. The award is made on the
recommendation of the Faculty of Medicine. (Available 1995/96 Winter Session.)
Cynthia J. HORNER Memorial Prize - A $500 prize has been endowed by her family in
memory of Dr. Cynthia Horner, psychiatrist (M.D., UBC '89). The award is offered to an
undergraduate medical student who excels in psychiatry and is made on the
recommendation of the Department of Psychiatry. ($375 Available 1995/96 Winter
Session.)
Hilda Ellen Silver KARST Memorial Bursary -. A $300 bursary has been endowed by
family and friends in memory of Hilda Ellen Silver Karst and is offered to a student in
Education. (Available 1995/96 Winter Session.)
KIEVELL Bursary - Bursaries to a total of $14, 500 have been made available through the
Vancouver Foundation by the late Myrtle Lorena Kievell in memory of her parents James
Wesley and Margaret Gardiner Kievell and brother William Elder Kievell. The award is
offered to female students entering third or fourth year Medicine. (Available 1996/97
Winter Session.)
Harold KRIVEL Prize in Paediatrics - A $300 prize has been endowed by the family of Dr.
Harold Krivel in his honour. The award is offered to a student in third year medicine who
excels in paediatrics. The award is made on the recommendation of the Faculty of
Medicine. ($150 Available 1995/96 Winter Session, $300 Available 1996/97 Winter
Session.)
MASUNO Travel Award - A $2,400 award endowed by Toshiaki Masuno is offered in
alternate years to an undergraduate student in the Landscape Architecture Program to
assist with the study of garden design in Japan. The award is made on the
recommendation of the School of Landscape Architecture to a student in garden design
with an interest in Japanese gardens. (Available 1995/96 Winter Session.)
 Vancouver Senate 11385
Minutes of February 14,1996
Appendix B
MCQUID/Pacific International Securities Inc. Bursary - Bursaries to a total of $1,000 are
offered by the McQuid family and Pacific International Securities Inc. The award is made
to students in fourth year Occupational or Physical Therapy in the School of
Rehabilitation Sciences. (Available 1995/96 Winter Session.)
MCRAE Holmes & King Prize in International Taxation - One or two prizes to a total of
$750 are offered by the law firm of McRae Holmes & King for high achievement in Law
410 (International Taxation). The award is made on the recommendation of the Faculty
of Law. (Available 1995/96 Winter Session.)
James and Mildred OLDFIELD OSU-UBC Student Exchange Scholarship - A $500
scholarship is offered by Dr. J.E. Oldfield, an alumnus of UBC and professor emeritus of
Oregon State University. The award is offered to an undergraduate student in the College
of Agricultural Sciences from Oregon State University who is attending UBC on the
Education Abroad program. The award is made on the recommendation of the Faculty of
Agricultural Sciences in consultation with the Study Abroad Program Coordinators at
Oregon State University. (Available 1995/96 Winter Session.)
RIX Bursary in Medicine - Bursaries to a total of $600 have been endowed by Dr. Donald
B. Rix and family. The award is offered to medical students who have completed first year
of the Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) Program. (Available 1996/97 Winter Session.)
James ROSE Prize in Landscape Architecture - A $300 prize is offered by the James Rose
Centre for Landscape Architectural Research and Design to a student in the M.L.A. or
B.L.A. program who best applies the skills of landscape architecture to private garden
design. The prize is made on the recommendation of the Faculty of Agricultural Sciences
and in the case of graduate student in consultation with the Faculty of Graduate Studies.
(Available 1995/96 Winter Session.)
ROYAL Canadian Legion - Shalom Branch 178 - Stanley Fisher Memorial Bursary - A
bursary of $500 is offered by the Royal Canadian Legion, Shalom Branch 178, in memory
of Stanley Fisher. The bursary is awarded to an undergraduate student in any program of
study. (Available 1995/96 Winter Session.)
WESTCOAST Energy Inc. Education Abroad Language Scholarship - Awards to a total of
$12,000 have been endowed by Westcoast Energy Inc. The awards are offered to third
year undergraduate students studying modern languages, with preference given to Asian
languages, particularly Chinese, Japanese and Korean. Each award is valued between
$3,000 and $5,000 and is made on the recommendation of the Education Abroad
Advisory Committee in consultation with the Director, Office of Awards and Financial
Aid. (Available 1996/97 Winter Session.)
Stella Chuk Quon WONG Scholarship in Law - Scholarships to a total of $1,800 have
been endowed by Stella Chuk Quon Wong for students in Law. The award is made on the
recommendation of the Faculty of Law. (Available 1996/97 Winter Session.)

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/cdm.senmin.1-0390264/manifest

Comment

Related Items