UBC Publications

UBC Publications

UBC Publications

UBC Reports Dec 5, 1968

Item Metadata


JSON: ubcreports-1.0117967.json
JSON-LD: ubcreports-1.0117967-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): ubcreports-1.0117967-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: ubcreports-1.0117967-rdf.json
Turtle: ubcreports-1.0117967-turtle.txt
N-Triples: ubcreports-1.0117967-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: ubcreports-1.0117967-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

X >~
< or
3 <
a xi
o -.
Appeal for Briefs
Made by
Senate Committee
The Senate Committee on Long-Range Objectives,
charged with formulation of policies governing the
growth and direction of UBC over the next ten years,
has appealed to the entire University community for
written briefs containing ideas for consideration.
Committee chairman Dr. Cyril Belshaw, has asked
for ideas on any topic which is important for the
future, including goals for the university, enrolment
and admissions policies and academic structure and
"Written briefs, preferably short and providing
such data as may be necessary, would be welcomed
on these and other topics," Dr. Belshaw said in a
letter. They should be sent to Dr. R.M. Clark, Office
of Academic Planning. The letter adds: "Fifteen
copies would be of considerable help to the
committee, but this is not mandatory."
Dr. Belshaw emphasized that the necessity for
clarity in material submitted to the committee is very
great since it will not be possible to interview all
those who submit briefs. "Briefs will have the
maximum impact on the committee if they can be
presented by January 1st," the letter adds.
A preliminary report, described in the article on
these pages, has already been presented to Senate.
The committee expects to draw up more precise
drafts to form the basis of a report to Senate in the
spring. This will be followed by a final report,
possibly complete in the summer of 1969.
Editor,   UBC   Reports
The long dammed-up reservoir of ideas about the
future of the University of B.C. has burst over the
University community like a flood.
Idle speculation about the future size of the
university, its physical development and the learning
environment on the Point Grey campus has been
replaced by a rising tide of ideas embodied in a series
of reports to the University Senate.
On Oct. 30 Senate heard the rumblings of the
approaching flood in the form of two reports: one
from the academic planner. Dr. Robert Clark, which
revealed that if the University continues its present
admission standards, enrolment will reach 34,000
students in 1973, and a second report from a new
Senate Committee on Academic Building Needs.
The latter report, signed by a committee chaired
by psychology department head Dr. Douglas Kenny,
said it is clear UBC needs $108 million for new
buildings in the next five years and warned that "It
may be inevitable that the academic excellence of the
university as a whole will be gradually lowered
because of the demands for a rapid increase in space,
number of faculty, research equipment and library
These reports have now been supplemented by a
preliminary study prepared by the Senate Committee
on Long-Range Objectives and a progress report from
the Senate Liaison Committee with the Board of
Governors on planning permanent buildings. The
reports were presented to Senate at its meeting on
Wednesday (Dec. 4).
At the core of both reports are statements which
embody the central issue for the future of the
university as each committee sees it. It is not odd that
each statement says much the same thing in different
Here is the way the Long-Range Objectives
Committee, chaired by Dr. Cyril Belshaw, puts it:
". . . what concerns us most is to provide a more
stimulating academic environment while at the same
time attempting to minimize the disadvantages of
that impersonalization which is widespread now on
the campus, and which normally increases as numbers
The Senate Liaison Committee with the Board of
Governors on planning permanent buildings, which is
chaired by Dr. Peter Oberlander, head of UBC's
planning school, puts the question a little more
succinctly:   "The   Senate   members  of  the   Liaison
Committee consider that there is nothing inevitable
about student enrolment and suggests that Senate
ought to address itself soon to the question of what is
our image of an optimum environment for learning?"
These two central statements provide the framework, as it were, on which each committee hangs its
ideas for examination.
The preliminary report of the Long-Range
Objectives Committee opens with a preamble
pointing out that there are urgent decisions to be
made on enrolment policies and priorities for capital
expenditure. The purpose in bringing forward a
preliminary report, the committee writes, is "to give
members of Senate an opportunity to comment on
the approach we as a committee are taking in our
efforts to prepare integrated general proposals for the
future of the University of British Columbia."
(The committee has also invited any member of
the University community to present ideas which
should be considered. See box on this page.)
In considering the prospect of an increase in
student enrolment from the present 20,232 to 34,371
by 1973, Dr. Belshaw's committee is looking at the
problem from two perspectives: the possibilities for
developing higher education facilities elsewhere, and
the possibilities for altering the existing situation at
UBC to create a more stimulating academic
Before surveying the possibilities for altering
UBC's existing structure, the Belshaw Committee
points out that the University "cannot look at the
problems solely in terms of the needs to be met on
this campus."
Significant restrictions on enrolment growth at
UBC will create greater need for expanding facilities
elsewhere and the committee suggests two courses of
action—additional regional colleges covering the first
two years of arts and science and expansion of other
existing universities.
As for UBC, the report continues, "some
limitation of the expansion of enrolment will
probably be required in the immediate future,
irrespective of the long-term policies we shall adopt."
Hopefully, the report adds, other institutions can
expand enough to absorb this difference.
The report then lists specific ideas for accommodating a growing student body, either by creating
off-campus    facilities   or   altering    UBC's   existing
Please turn to page four
Dr. F. Kenneth Hare, president of UBC, held a
news conference on Nov. 27 to make a public statement "about where we stand and where we hope to
go in the future. " What follows are excerpts from Dr.
Hare's statement and the question-and-answer period
which followed.
DR. KENNETH HARE: The first thing I'd like to
say, before I start presenting this statement, is that yesterday's meeting that I
had with the law students on the campus was
intended to be a private meeting. I can't complain
that it got reported in the Press because, fairly,
universities are squarely in the middle of things. But
I'm not aiming at a confrontation with the provincial
government. I am aiming at their collaboration, and
I've no reason to suppose that it won't be
The statement that I am about to present to you is
not aimed at embarrassing the government, but aimed
at making the people in British Columbia aware of
the situation in which this University finds itself, and
all the universities and particularly the students of the
province find themselves. The students are getting a
bad Press at the present time and there's another side
of the story beside the one that is being told.
Well, now, in view of the many reports circulating
about the University's enrolment policy, some of
which are highly inaccurate, I want to make a public
statement about where we stand and where we hope
to go in the future.
This University has taken no general position
concerning restriction of enrolment. There are certain
faculties (Law), schools (Architecture), that have
already decided to limit future admissions because
they must, but the large undergraduate faculties and
the Faculty of Graduate Studies are uncommitted.
Any general limitation of enrolment will have to be
recommended by the University's Senate and adopted
by the Board of Governors. Reports circulating that
this decision has been taken are untrue.
In considering this matter the University has to be
guided by the following considerations:
The first is, that since we are by far the largest
institution of higher education in the province, any
decision to restrict enrolment here affects every
potential student, and that's a matter that we have to
consider in the general provincial interest; we have to
take into account the needs of all the young people in
British Columbia who can profit from university
On the other hand, we do have to guarantee to the
students who are admitted to U.B.C. that they'll have
space to study, read, eat, attend lectures—we could
add to this list, like park their cars. This means that
we've got to be assured of enough capital to build the
space needed and at present we have no capital
resources at all for new building starts.
And thirdly, we've got to guarantee that our
faculty and our facilities are competitive with the
highest standards maintained elsewhere; that neither
the faculty nor the students have to work in
congested conditions or with inadequate tools.
2 / UBC Reports / December 5, 1968
Those, then, are the three things that bear on our
enrolment policy, and our present position is
desperate on all three counts. The best estimates we
have are that our enrolment if unchecked will rise
from 20,232, at the present time, to 34,371 in five
years' time. That's an increase of 70 per cent in five
years, equal to the increase between 1953 and 1967,
fourteen years.
Now, this assumes continued growth of our sister
universities and of the regional colleges. The rate of
increase is about 2,500 students per annum now. It's
not in the statement, but let me point out that means
that we add half Simon Fraser to our enrolment every
year at the present time. And we have, let me repeat,
no capital at all to start building to accommodate
them. We shall do everything we can to increase the
efficient use of resources, but we think it's already
There is a Senate Committee on Longe-range
Objectives, under Professor Cyril Belshaw, which is
looking at the longer-term problems raised by these
figures; just for the record, let me say that at the
moment Senate Committees are very much for real,
they're working on problems that we shall have to
solve; they aren't places where you send things to be
Well, put in bald terms, we shall have nowhere to
put these students and not enough people to teach
them. Yet we suspect that the other universities and
colleges can't absorb them. The Minister recently
visited us and he listened with obvious sympathy to
our recital of these facts. I'm sure that he recognizes
that this is a province-wide issue, that no one campus
can settle alone. The University is ready to play its
part, and at present that's inevitably the biggest part,
but it can't do so without help.
Merely to catch up with our present lack of space,
we need to start at once buildings that will cost us
$25,000,000. We've got a committee, another one of
these hard-working committees, working on the order
in which these buildings will go up. And I promised
the Minister of Education to give him this list soon.
But beyond the need for $25 million, we need for the
five years 1969—74 over $60 million in new building
starts. If an immediate restriction of enrolment was
adopted, this last figure would, of course, be reduced
but it wouldn't be eliminated, because much of it
represents backlog and updating.
Well, that's the background to the problem of
restricted enrolment at UBC; why Senate committees
and the Alma Mater Society alike are debating the
need to slow down or stop further growth. There are
two factors involved: no one wants to see the present
congestion and the uncomfortable conditions under
which many of us work continued. And some people,
to quote from a recent AMS Committee Report feel
"that a student population of over 25,000 would be a
serious obstacle to our aspiration of developing a
community where greater student and faculty
participation and scholarship will be fundamental
objectives." To put it in a nutshell, there are some
people in all sectors of the University that think that
a university of 25,000 is too big anyway, quite apart
from the general question of how to accommodate
Well, that figure of 25,000 will be reached in
1970, if we keep our doors open as at present, but I
still repeat that no decision has yet been taken by the
Governors to restrict enrolment.
Now, anxiety has also been raised by allegations
that students from the regional colleges, such as
Vancouver City College, Selkirk College and so on,
are having difficulties getting transfers of credits, on
admission, to the provincial universities. Now, it's my
understanding, and you must remember that I'm new
here, that UBC has an open door to such transfers.
The Admissions Committee under Deputy President
Walter Gage, who is present, has a student
representative on it, and I propose to suggest to the.
Senate that student representation be increased. If
any remaining hindrances to free transfer between
provincially-supported institutions and UBC exist, I
wish to see them removed; remember that it isn't me
that removes them, it's the Senate, and the
Admissions Committee reports to the Senate.
We give priority to candidates from British
Columbia, but it goes without saying that otherwise
we consider only the candidate's academic record. If
we are offered comments on a candidate's politicaf
views we disregard them.
But I believe that higher education in British
Columbia has reached crisis point, and that we must
all act at once if present and future generations of
students are not to suffer irreparable loss of.
opportunity. So I ask the people of the province to
wake up to the situation we're in. It's easy to
condemn students who stage sit-ins and deliver
ultimata, but I urge taxpayers to look beyond the
minority, the tiny minority, to the plight of the huge *
majority. I suggest that they think of their own sons
and daughters who on a wet November day can't,
between lectures, find anywhere on the campus to sit
down and study. That's the reality of the enrolment
situation here.
Well, that's the formal statement, ladies and
gentlemen. I'm at your disposal if you'd like to raise
Q. Doctor, do you have some comment on
government priorities? I think that's probably
where the issue is, that the students have claimed that
government priorities have moved more towards dam
construction, things like that, and have argued that'
education should have a higher priority. Are you
arguing that?
DR. HARE:     I   believe   that  government  priorities
reflect public opinion. And I do not *
think that public opinion in this province is alert to
the acute congestion and the under-provision that is
made in the universities and colleges for higher
education. I believe that if public opinion was awake*
to this, that government attitudes would change. The
government is made up of political people who are in
touch with their electorate, and I do not believe that
the public realizes the situation that we're in. That's^
the reason why I'm here today. ^
Q.      Do you hope to enlist the aid of the students,
themselves, Doctor? DR. HARE:     The thing that I  would  most of all
hope from the students is that they
i        would   recognize   that   I   have   a   problem   on   my
~* shoulders   where   I   do   need   their  co-operation.   It
doesn't help me when they, in fact, get into conflict
with the university authorities, the police. It helps me
a great deal when they are aware of this and spread
the news. The best thing that the students can do in
all the universities is just to spread the news, because
I'm convinced that in a democracy, once the situation
is clear to everybody, it will solve itself.
Q. Dr. Hare, you said you weren't aiming at a
confrontation with the provincial government,
rather a collaboration. Do you really expect
collaboration from them after the statement made by
Education Minister Brothers yesterday in Victoria,
that the provincial government had done its bit as far
as UBC is concerned, and that there was no crisis here
on the Point Grey campus?
DR. HARE:     The Minister of Education was quoted
in the Province as saying that the
provincial government had honoured its pledges.
What I'm suggesting is that we need new pledges, on a
much larger scale.
Q.      What exactly did Mr. Brothers say? You said he
gave you a sympathetic hearing, but obviously
you   had   no  commitments  or   you   wouldn't  have
needed to have called this conference today?
DR. HARE:     I called this conference today because
my hand was forced.
Q.       By whom?
DR. HARE:     By the University community. There
are so many people in this University
at the present moment, among the student body and
among the faculty, who are alarmed and concerned
about this, that if I had not chosen to speak up I
would have been concealing from the people of
British Columbia the state of tension that exists here.
My hand was forced by events. If I had been
President of a less turbulent community I might have
kept my mouth shut for another month or two. The
Minister has only had two weeks to consider the
picture that we gave to him and I am not critical of
Mr. Brothers. He hasn't had time to react.
0. Dr. Hare, do I understand you to say that the
question of limiting enrolment is only an
economic question, that you're not concerned as the
AMS is with an optimum number?
DR. HARE:     No, I think it's two things. Certainly a
university can get too big. There is no
absolute figure attached to this. There is an art to
university government, university affairs, at which
we're pretty primitive. There is a Senate committee
under Cyril Belshaw which is looking at this
particular question now. It may be that there is an
upper limit to size. I personally don't believe there is.
This is a personal opinion, not committing anybody
in the University. A university is too big when it has
ceased to function properly, but there is no absolute
number attached to this as far as I'm concerned.
Now, what the Belshaw Committee will report to
the University Senate I can't say, but I expect them
to weigh this attitude pretty carefully.
Q. Would you urge the Provincial Government to
re-examine its policies of having local school
boards develop regional college programs?
DR. HARE:     This   is   a   matter  for  the   Provincial
Government. I will only say that the
good health and the wide dissemination of the
regional colleges are essential to the health of the
universities; they are just as much part of the
provincial system of post-secondary education as the
universities and they're entitled to the full support of
the universities, which we are very glad to offer. I
have, in fact, been to several of the centres where
such colleges are being organized at the present time.
I was very struck by the enthusiasm, but also by their
acute problems in the same field, capital problems,
that we have. But I think that the question of how
this is done is a matter for the Provincial
Government, and one I know very well they must be
Q. Dr. Hare, have you got any specific proposals
that you're going to put to the students for
involving themselves in a money-raising campaign?
DR. HARE: In due course, I think, yes. I would
look for the support of the AMS
Council in this. I think their objectives are the same
as mine, the same as the Senate's. I see the student
body as the ideal body to carry the message.
I, of course, being of an older generation, am
opposed to the technique of confrontation, of
making oneself beastly. I believe in persuasion. I
think the majority of the students on the campus feel
the same way. I hope that the students will
refrain—not only here, I'm not talking about UBC
students, I'm talking about the whole younger
generation—from making my job more difficult, but
I'm not attempting to censor their activities.
One thing I do hope to do later in the winter, is to
get down to discussing with the AMS Council, which
is the proper body to discuss things with on this
campus, ways and means of getting this kind of
support from the students. But I haven't done it yet;
there's just so many hours to a day.
Q. This wouldn't be a red herring, Dr. Hare, to
sidetrack student energies away from sit-ins
etcetera, to save the University?
DR. HARE: Well, there is a school among the
students who believe that you cannot
save the University, in society as it's presently
constituted, and that the University that we're
running is the wrong kind of University anyway. If
they feel this I can't do anything about it because I'm
committed to the opposite point of view that the
University is a positive and valuable force in the
society, and that if society needs changing, it can
change itself. This is the liberal position, and I
wouldn't be holding this job if I weren't in this
position. So, it isn't a question of sidetracking
energies. I do feel, however, that the student image in
the province, indeed across the whole continent, is a
bad one at the moment because it has been
over-simplified. The one thing that strikes me about
the modern student, and I shall be accused of being
patronizing about this, and I couldn't feel less
patronizing, is how deadly serious he is. It doesn't
make any difference whether we're talking about the
people sitting-in on top of SFU or the great mass of
the students who walk up and down our Mall, going
to lectures, and then go home at night.
Q. Dr. Hare, do you think that the University
would be in this situation right now if we had
some form of province-wide commission to coordinate the financing and planning of all post-
secondary education?
DR. HARE: That's structure, and I'm in favour of
proper structure. But no structure will
work unless the electorate is awake. If the people of
the province understand the needs of the universities
and of their own children, because we're talking
about their own children, then almost any structure
will work. If the people of the province don't want a
proper university system, then no amount of good
structure will do a damn thing.
Because this is a question of personal obligation—it
always is, at every level. The so-called teaching
problem in the university is entirely a question of
how the professor sees his student, the student sees
his professor. You cannot change that by altering
structures. And in the same way you can't change the
basic financial situation by changing structures.
But there are enabling ones, and what this
Province seems to me to need urgently is a proper
way—a proper and effective way—of planning the
future. I know from conversations with the Deputy
Minister, who is running an inquiry into this at the
present moment, that he feels the same way. I
shouldn't take his words away from him, but I believe
that he and the Government generally is searching for
a better way of doing this. All jurisdictions have to
come to it because universities are just about the
biggest business there is.
DR. HARE: Well, that's a matter for the people to
decide also, but at the moment we are
in a situation where we want it both ways. We want
open access, but we haven't made provision for it.
Now I personally want open access. My view is that
the world of the future is one where open access to
higher education is going not so much to be a right, as
a social necessity. Now it's a right too, in my personal
estimation, but that's a political question and it
doesn't enter into my judgment on this. My judgment
is that it's a social necessity. For one thing the logic
of our particular society is to destroy jobs,
particularly at the lower end of the age scale. It is to
increase leisure. Now, if you do this, and you don't
fill the vacuum, you have created a situation where,
who could blame the age group concerned for feeling
pretty bloody-minded.
Now what is happening in the world today is much
more complicated than that. It's true that we simply
must look at the alternatives. If you don't let the
students into university what are you going to do
with them? Are they going to take jobs? If so, what
jobs? The point is that this is an inescapable
conclusion, there's nothing else for them to do. Not
in the mass. Especially if the society gets to the
position where the talented members of that
generation can find nothing good to do, they'll find
something else to do, and it won't be good.
Volume 14, No. 9—December 5,
1968. Authorized as second class
mail by the Post Office Department, Ottawa, and for payment of
postage in cash. Postage paid at
Vancouver B.C. Published by the
University of British Columbia and
distributed free. J.A. Banham, Editor; Barbara Clag-
horn. Production Supervisor. Letters to the Editor
should be addressed to the Information Office, UBC,
Vancouver 8, B.C.
Q. Dr. Hare, in 1963 we had a "Back Mac"
campaign something similar to, perhaps, what
you're considering now, to also educate the public on
the importance of higher education. There are some
people who might argue that the most effective way
of educating them in this line would be to restrict
enrolment so that their sons and daughters would be
unable to attend university and then they would
realize the impact of the things.
Q.       Dr.   Hare, would  you like to see a University
Board of Regents setting admission and
financing policies?
DR. HARE: As I said, this is structure.I'm on
record in a recent book as saying that
my own view is that there should be legislatively
backed—that is to say, statutory—mechanisms for
looking after university systems. There are any
number of different ways of doing this. If there is a
determination to make the structures work they will
work. So I'm not committed to a regent system
firmly. On balance, I like it, but not if it's coupled
with the wrong kind of regent structure, as it is in
Q.       In view of the bad Press that you say students
are getting these days, what reaction do you
expect from the public when this story is given?
DR. HARE: I don't know, but what's the alternative? Probably a hostile reaction
because in fact it's an extremely difficult story, but I
am compelled to tell it because it's the truth, and
there seems to me to be no point in hiding behind
the—it may be that this is a moment where
tactically and politically the University should remain
silent. I don't agree. I think that the other side of the
story has to be told: that there is a reality behind the
smokescreen of noise. And a grim reality.
Q.        Dr.  Hare, do you  feel  that there's any area in
the community, perhaps in the private sector,
that should be contributing a higher percentage of the
funds that a university needs to function? Or is the
$60 million all public funds?
DR. HARE: Most university people think that the
more diverse their sources the better.
That is to say, to get all one's money from one basket
is a mistake. It puts you too much in the debt of a
single source. My own view is that if the public, if
society is willing to contribute to a fund-raising
campaign, all well and good. But we only recently ran
such a campaign and I don't believe that it would be
proper for us to run one again so quickly on the heels
of the other. Furthermore, universities aren't the only
people who have a claim on the public purse like
this—on the private purse like this—other people do,
and one has to be public-spirited about it.
I really don't much care where the money comes
from, I'm only concerned to indicate the scale of the
provision that will have to be made by one source or
another if we are to accommodate students who are
not just imaginary, who are on their way now. I'm
simply trying to put objective facts before the people
of this Province.
Q.       Dr. Hare, one point, I haven't been able to find
it, you mention the possibilities of better
utilizing the facilities you now have although you said
that you thought you were doing it pretty well.
DR. HARE: Bottom of the first page of my
statement, but it's in there somewhere.
Q.       Right. I'm wondering, are such considerations
as  a   full   evening   program  or a  full  or  even
Continued at top of next page
UBC Reports / December 5, 1968 / 3 half-Saturday   being considered, or have they been
ruled out for ever?
DR. HARE: Most certainly they've not been ruled
out for ever. This committee to which
I refer here has all such measures before it. Only
recently the Senate, for example, heard a proposal
that the present summer session, which is a short one,
be lengthened to thirteen weeks and put on the same
basis as the others. There is a reason why universities
don't always gain, and nobody gains, from going
full-time in that sort of fashion, filling in the summer
for the undergraduate program, and that is that the
student body is allergic to it. The summer session, or
the summer quarter, in universities that run this
system is under-populated. Notably in the University
of California, where President Hitch told me recently
that his biggest economic problem was the fall-off in
enrolment in the summer quarter. Of course, there
have been considerable differences between quarters
at SFU too.
In any case, if you increase the amount of teaching
time at a university you increase the operating cost.
It's not simple. You may save a little capital, but you
run up the operating cost, and if you think of this in
terms of the interest on investment it isn't obvious
that you're saving any money.
Q.      But   surely   you   are   going  to   increase  your
operating cost after you spend the capital to
accommodate more students?
DR. HARE:     Oh  yes.  Certainly you are. Certainly
these are things that ought to be
considered. I personally have a strong feeling for the
evening college because I've recently been head of a
very successful evening college, which was a standard
university college in every respect, except that it
started up at 5 o'clock in the evening.
Q. Would you suggest that here, then?
DR. HARE:     Oh I have, I've already suggested it. I
would love to see it in Vancouver. I'd
love to have a hand in organizing it.
Q.      Do you think it's going to happen on campus
DR. HARE:     Well, I don't know whether it would
happen on campus. Other people,
notably Vancouver City College, have a stake in this
and so does the local authority. I'm only saying that
personally I think this should happen in a place like
Vancouver, and it would take a lot of the heat off the
other regular full-time universities were it to happen.
Q. Could it not happen on campus where you
have—just continue from 5:30 right through
'till 9:30 and then on Saturday as well. It would
increase operating costs, but you wouldn't need to—
DR. HARE:     Yes,  but  there's an excellent reason
why you should put such a college
downtown. It is the time wasted in commuting. If a
person is working until 5 p.m. and he then has to take
a half-hour trip and a half-hour back in the evening,
he's   lost   an   hour   out   of  an   extremely   precious
investment in time, whereas, if you're right on the
spot, and all the successful colleges of this kind are
right in the downtown area, if you can do this, then
the fellow can walk straight from his office to his
college and be immersed in academic affairs in no
time. So, I would sooner see this happen anywhere in
a downtown area.
Q.      You don't think it would be beneficial for the
full-time students at UBC to be faced with an
extra four hours where lectures could be scheduled in
the evening?
DR. HARE:     Well, it might be, if this is one of the
things that I'm sure the Belshaw
Committee has looked at, and is looking at still. I
don't know what the students would think about it.
As a matter of fact this place absolutely hums in the
evening. Any idea that people go home at 6 o'clock in
the evening, well, it just isn't true.
Q. How about Saturday?
DR. HARE:     Well,   Saturday's  a  different  matter.
There's still a considerable population
here, but I would agree that the population goes
down very heavily after 12 o'clock.
Q. Dr. Hare, five years ago the regional colleges
were proposed in a report that was produced at
this University, that was supposed to plan our higher
education system at least 'till 1971. Well it's now
1968 and we appear to be in a state of considerable
chaos, in the whole system. What has gone wrong?
DR. HARE:     Under-investment.
Continued from page one
structure to create a diversified system of academic
The report poses these questions about facilities
located apart from the present 1000-acre campus:
1. Should we create a self-contained satellite
campus, organized into college units of about 1,000
students, which might in time enrol 10,000 students?
Two possible locations are the University Endowment
Lands or a site in the Fraser Valley.
2. Should an off-campus institute or organization
for individual studies be established by UBC, or in
co-operation with other universities? It would provide
the equivalent of first and second year work in arts
and some of the work in other faculties. Such a
facility would maintain a file of tutors available in
most parts of the province and provide correspondence, television and radio courses.
3. Should an evening college be established which
would enable working people to obtain degrees in
arts, commerce and education?
4. Should UBC develop a four-year experimental
college by further elaborating the existing Arts I and
II programs? The report suggests there is no need for
this development to take place on the campus, but
points out that it would need its own faculty and
Turning to the possibilities for the existing
campus, the report says UBC's size offers the
advantage that large numbers tend to make it easier
to provide a variety of academic opportunities to
meet a diversity of learning needs.
Here are some of the possibilities being considered
by the Belshaw committee:
— Reduction in the number of lecture hours per
week for most courses to make time available for
individual study and small discussion groups.
—Development of an undergraduate residential
college system evolving by stages from present and
future residences.
—Development of a learning resources centre,
staffed by skilled personnel, to produce films, tapes,
models and program units of instruction.
— Redesigning of existing buildings to provide new
methods of instruction and for individual and group
All these suggestions, the committee report says,
are being looked at "within the framework of a
philosophy of university education which recognizes
that there is a primary obligation to students as
persons, a responsibility to the various disciplines and
one to society."
The progress report received by Senate on
Wednesday from its representatives on the Liaison
Committee with the Board of Governors on planning
4 / UBC Reports / December 5, 1968
permanent buildings stems directly from the Oct. 30
report by the Kenny committee on academic building
needs. It also complements the preliminary report
from Dr. Belshaw's Committee on Long-Range
The Senate Liaison Committee, chaired by
planning head Dr. Peter Oberlander, raises four issues
for consideration by the Kenny committee, which is
now deliberating priorities for future buildings, and a
new committee considering future enrolment.
Dr. Oberlander's report also reopens the issue of
the contentious Campus Master Plan, prepared for the
University by a firm of American planners, and which
met with a mixed reception when it was unveiled in
The responsibility for assigning priorities for new
academic buildings ought to be seen within the
context of the Campus Master Plan, which the report
says "has been neither accepted nor approved by
The Committee quotes two Board of Governors'
minutes and then gives as its opinion that since the
plan "apparently has never formally or technically
been adopted, it has no firm administrative or legal
Despite this, the report continues, it is clear the
document itself acts as a guide to individual site
selection and decisions regarding building placement.
From this first point follows the second point in
the Oberlander report, namely, that plans for
expansion of the campus and new buildings should
consider creation of optimum learning environments.
This is an issue, the report says, which deserves
considerable discussion and thorough examination of
the choices which the university could make
regarding its size, scope and resulting quality of
Within this context, the report adds, there are at
least three broad policy alternatives which could
create quite different environments for learning:
—An open door policy leading to the predicted
34,000 students by 1973.
—A selective policy under which UBC would
concentrate on graduate and professional education.
This role could limit enrolment to from 15,000 to
20,000 in five years.
—A revolving door policy under which UBC would
be highly selective on academic grounds to attract an
academic elite across the broad spectrum of academic
disciplines. This might lead to a half-way enrolment
policy involving 25,000 students by 1975.
The Oberlander report then echoes some of the
points raised by the Belshaw report by describing the
different environments for learning which might arise
from various combinations of the following choices
and elements:
—A single, compact campus vs. a central campus
with satellite colleges.
—Centralized vs. decentralized support and research services such as the Library and computer
—A walking campus vs. rapid transit or the present
car campus.
—Three semesters vs. two semesters as an aspect of
style of learning.
—Staggering lecture-seminar and laboratory
periods to avoid peak loads on supporting facilities
such as food services.
—A shift from departmental education to interdepartmental and multidisciplinary teaching and
The third point raised by the committee concerns
the manner in which planning and policy decisions
are made and implemented. It discovered a wide
range of different channels and techniques for
decision-making about buildings, but was not able to
find "a clearly-perceived framework or system of
decision-making which would implement an established planning and building policy for UBC."
It seems essential, the report continues, that
Senate, together with the Board of Governors and the
administration, agree on a clearly articulated
structure of decision-making so that individual
decisions for campus projects can be made within the
context of established policies and agreed-upon
The fourth issue raised in the Oberlander report is
that of improved staff services and research to
undertake an in-depth study of the concept of
creating an optimum environment for learning on the
UBC campus.
The report recommends establishment of two task
forces, one to investigate the style-and-environment-
for-learning idea, the other to clarify how planning
and building policy decisions are actually made and
The first task force, the report suggests, could be
made up of a small, select group of UBC scholars and
senior students, who would carry out their study in
the summer of 1969.
The report asks that both task forces have
appropriate staff support and both should report
back to Senate in the fall of 1969. <
And finally, the report suggests that a system of
decision-making on behalf of campus planning ought
to involve three ideas:
1. Campus   planning   must   be   continuous   and        »
continuing and should not be subject to once-and-
for-all rigid master plans.
2. Academic priorities and concepts of optimum
learning environments ought to shape the decision-       ^
making process.
3. Senate ought to be deeply involved on a
continuing basis with the campus planning process.
"It is essential," the report says, "that we move from        ^
campus plan to 'campus planning' and make that a       A
well-understood, continuing and responsive process of
the University administration."


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



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"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items